Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-12-1988 Council Packet
r 7 7 l 1 7 Z III PUBLIC ATTENDANCE ft(�l (' I�1`, CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2. ,, - R i 1 A. 4.' ILI 6. %.�..i �1 C i �' J L�� �GI 4 •. �G t j n � . - � • > ,ti, — � �� l o � �� s tip•,, � k- 2. 3 . � � � 'fir • �„ � ,� A ; ���i /l� . �► 7. C I It w- f l �' 'r1A L t71- U % Hiy' 1L 9. 0. ��y� PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2. S1S1 t,�"t icr 3. 4 r / � Cry L;. 0 r w• r- 6. Ar#J 1910 w_ FlpewRD 7. 0 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1988, 7:99 P.M. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet w } h_ may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. C Wit ROLL CALL l r G i r� j 1. CONSENT AGENDA* w 2. Presentation to the Family of Brad Van Nest APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of November 28, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Maureen Bellows Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT "APPLICANTS" Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolution copies. * 4. #1330 Fullerton Properties, 880 Townline Road - Final plat Approval - Resolution 4A. Approval of Road Name Request 5. #1334 Sidney Rebers, Highway 12 6 Brown Road North - Subdivision 6. #1337 Robert Paige, 3493 Crystal Place - variance 7. #1346 Einar Hagberg, 740 North Arm Drive - Variance 8. #1349 Loren i Joyce Born, 1420/1432 Shoreline Drive A. Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution B. Vacation of Easement - Resolution 9. #1359 Loren & Joyce Born, 1429/1432 Shoreline Drive - Variances 10. #1351 Alfred Harrison, 1419 Shoreline Drive 11. #1352 Charles Schoen, 2430/2460 North Shore Drive - Lot Line Rearrangement 12. #1354 Merkow/Charlton, 2349/2380 Abingdon Way - Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution 13. #1355 Kenneth Wessels, 1245 Woodhill Avenue - Conditional Use Permit 14. #1358 Feig/Johnson, 627/629 North Ferndale Road MAYOR'S REPORT 15. Orono/Long Lake Discussions CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. County Road 51 17. Driveway Permit - 490 Old Long lake Road 18. 1910 Shadywood Road - Access/Signage 19. Headwaters Control Structure Policy - Grays Bay Dam 20. Liquor License - On -Sale 22. Recycling Program - Award of Contract 23. 1989 Fee Ordinance and Summary for Publication 24. 1989 Salary Resolution 25. Highway 12 - Proposed Safety Improvement -K26. 1989 Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Renewals AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1988, 7:99 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued • 27. :police Facilities Lease Agreement * 28. DARE Program * 29. 1989 Legislative Program * 39. Investment/Depository Program * 31. Animal Control - Barking Dogs/Hours * 32. Salary Review - Jeanne A. Mabusth and Dorothy Hallin * 32. Salary Adjustment - Officers Johnson and Morowczynski • 33. Request Stop Sign at 15 and 19 - Resolution • 34. End of Year Transfers and Loan Payments * 35. 1988 Budget Adjustments * 36. City of Orono - Hookup Deferral * 37. Administrator's Information Westonka Beautification 1989 Budget Publication 1989 Calendar Police Department Personnel - Part Time County Road 116 Highwood Storm Sewer Administrator's Goal Setting CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (38*) BILLS (39*) ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 28, 1988 ) ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Planning Consultant Shardlow, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bernhardson requested the removal of Consent Item #6; Councilmember Goetten requested removal of items #21 and #26; Councilmember Peterson requested that item #24 be removed. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items #6, #21, #24 and #26, which were removed and discussed in the order they appear on the agenda. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the Canvassing Board Meeting of November 9, 1988. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1988 Regular Council Meeting. PARR COMMISSION COMMENTS* The Park Survey was presented to the Council for their review. LARZ MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Ms. Jo Ellen Burr was present as a representative of the LMCD. She offered congratulations to the re-elected Mayor and Councilmembers. Mayor Grabek congratulated Ms. Burr on being elected Chairperson of the LMCD. Ms. Burr reported that drafting of the LMCD Comprehensive Pla►i was proceeding. There have been many meetings in this regard involving the DNR, the Corp of Engineers, the Watershed Districts and Hennepin Parks. There will also be LMCD meetings involving shoreland regulations. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth is representing Orono at those meetings. The LMCD is attempting to write uniform shoreland regulations over which the LMCD would have jurisdiction. She commented that Orono was a forerunner in conserving the 75' setback. MINUTES or REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVOWER 28,1998 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED Eurasian Milfoil continues to be a problem and the LMCD is in need of funding to help address the situation. She said that it is a very serious threat to Lake Minnetonka, especially in its low state. The LMCD had received a copy of the operating policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding the dam level. She said that the LMCD will support continuing the same agreement that currently stands pertaining to the release of water. Mayor Grabek asked when Lake Minnetonka was last at such a low level. Ms. Burr said that it was this low back in the 1960's. She anticipated that due to the low level, there would be an increase in the requests for dredging. The LMCD has little jurisdiction for legislating dredging, and they are trying to change that. The LMCD is making quarterly reports to the Met Council and received a positive review from them. Mayor Grabek inquired about snowmobiling rules. Ms. Burr replied that the LMCD is trying to '+ake the existing snowmobiling rules more simple to interpret. The LMCD is also trying to address any conflicts that may exist between snowmcbiling and cross-country skiing. Ms. Burr further reported that the sewer project involving County Road 51 took a bit longer than anticipated. She said that the Navarre Business Owners have expressed concern over the closing of County Road 19 in the Spring. She said that she would report further in that regard at a later date. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S RRPORT: #1296 PETE1tSON/8T00O1A 1895 SOADYNOOD ROAD VARIANcs Mr. Tillotson and Mr. Peterson were present for this matter. As explained by City Adminisitrator Bernhardson, the original application involved a request to install a dock on property with no principal structure. It was later determined that Mr. Tillotson's dock was located on the Peterson/Stodola property. Mr. Stodola and Mr. Peterson were now proposing to do a lot line rearrangement with Mr. Tillotson and share his dock. The process of the lot line rearrangement would allow the City to place conditions on the property and the use of the dock. Staff is recommending that this application be referred flack to the Planning Commission for their review so that the lot line rearrangement could proceed. No MINUTES or REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING MOVEMBER 28,1988 TONING riLE f1296-PETERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth clarified that an accessory structure could not be placed on property that had no principal structure. However, the lot line rearrangement would place the accessory structure with the Tillotson residence. Orono code does not distinguish between an accessory structure dock as being shared or singly owned. The LMCD Code would have allowed an accessory dock with no principal structure, in this case, because it was created prior to 1978. There may be a question as to whether the intent of the code is met with this application. City Attorney Barrett provided the interpretation of Orono's codes as they would relate to this application. He stated that the code talks about a "private dock" as an accessory structure. However, there is no definition regarding a private dock. The code would clearly prevent commercial use of such a dock, but does not address the situation in this case. It was Councilmember Nettles belief that boat title had to be in the name of the property owner to prevent private docks from becoming private marinas. Mabusth stated that it would be the LMCD's codes that would address the issue of boat ownership. The LMCD would approve this application. Ms. Hurr interjected that it would be possible to have two boats without the need to prove ownership. However, ownership of all boats must be provided for any dock with more than two boats, unless a multiple dock license were issued. Ms. Hurr added that the LMCD has been allowing dock sharing to occur due to the low level of Lake Minnetonka. Mabusth commented that in this application, the dock was in a very limited lagoon with no riparian access. Maintenance dredging will need to be done to allow boat access. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicants had attempted to address the issues raised by the Council in the first review. Staff has presented alternatives of action. She said that the proposal also resolves the concern of Mr. Gustafson's many uncombined tracts. The applicants have stated that they will acquire the remaining tracts and Parcel 0003 and combine them. Councilmember Goetten observed that this application was proposing a new concept. In the 10 years in which she had been involved with the City she had not seen such a case. She could not understand ►iw the City could consider approving such a proposal. Mai ) s•t, stated that the City was being asked to consider this ui:si-dl solution in exchange for the remaining tracts being ca:-r-'ned and belonging to one owner. with the subdivision, the City would be able to better control the parcel. Goetten voiced her fear of precedent setting for other substandard lots in Orono. Mabusth felt that this application was unique and that it would be unusual for another lakeshore property owner to give up boat slips in order to allow owners of undersized lots to share a dock. Goetten disagreed, citing MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 26,1908 BONING FILE #1296-PBTERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED financial benefits as an attraction. Mr. Tillotson explained that his interest in this arrangement would be the boat traffic keeping the lagoon open, as well as the financial support he would receive for dredging. He further stated that the Peter son/Stodola property was currently an eyesore. He would like to see a cleared, grassy area, rather than the brush that now exists. City Administrator Bernhardson pointed out the fact that Mr. Peterson and Mr. Stodola could have just applied for a lot line rearrangement, which the City probably would have approved so that Mr. Tillotson's dock would actually be on his property. According to the LMCD regulations, if only two boats we--e docked at Mr. Tillotson's dock, the question would never arise as to who owned the boats. Councilmember Goetten asked whe Gustafson property would make the replied that even the additional regard. In order to build, the precedent -setting variances. they Acquiring the additional property buildable. Mabusth ?and would not help in that City would have to grant Mabusth reiterated the fact that the City Council had not reviewed any applications such as this in the past. Goetten believed that approval of this application would spawn more applications of a similar nature in the future. Counc+ lmember Callahan concurred with Goetten, but thought it best to refer this matter back to "rlanning Commission for their review. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to refer Application 01296 back to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 01321 TON RAISLET 950 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IIN&L SUDDIVISION-RE80LOTION #2544 MIN TOM OF DEVELOM'S AGRsiN�MT Mr. Tom Haislet, Bill Fenholdt and Tony Leung were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson clarified that the Developer's Agreement had not been completed. However, the Resolution indicates that the Final Resolution is contingent upon the execution of the Developer's Agreement by the School District and City of Orono. All issues involved within the Developer's Agreement have been mutually agreed upon, only execution of the document is remaining to be done. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution 02544, contingent upon the execution of the Developer's Agreement. Motion, Ayes-5, 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MELTING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1321-HAISLET CONTINUED Nays-0, Motion passed. i1329 THOMAS MCNELLIS 355 NOODHILL ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION f254Sf It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, variance for property Nays-0, Motion passed. Councilmember Nettles, seconded by to adopt Resolution #2545, granting a at 355 woodhill Road. Motion, Ayes-5, #1334 SIDNEY REDERS 715 NORTH DROVE ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Sidney Rebers, Mr. Stephen Pf laum, and Mr. Robert Kost were present for this matter. Mr. John Shardlow was 31so present as a Planning Consultant for the City of Orono. As explained by City Administrator Sernhardson, Mr. Rebers was seeking approval of a conditional use permit and preliminary subdivision for a planned residential development (PRD). He reminded the Council that the rezoning application for this property had been presented and approved on October 10, 1988. One of the main issues that was discussed during the review process was the access road being a looped road rather than a cul de sac. The Planning Commission recommended a looped road and that the access be moved farther north to the crest of the hill on North Brown Road. Woodland preservation was another issue that was addressed. There will be specifications within the covenants as well as the Subdivider's Agreement. The present proposal is to restrict the removal of any tree over 2" in diameter within the side and real yard setbacks. Approval of the final subdivision would be contingent upon municipal sewer being available to the property. The applicant would be assessed for the sewer to his property and would also share in the cost of upgrading Brown Road at the time that would occur. The City anticipates that M.S.A. funds would be available for the major portion of Brown Road upgrade. Issues yet to be addressed would be the frontage road and possible alignment of North Brown Road. These issues would be brought forth following the development of the residential area. The southern portion of Mr. Rebers' property is not being developed at this time. There is specific property designated as an ourlot that would be utilized as a frontage road. Mr. Shardlow gave a brief synopsis of this application and how it related to the Highway 12 Corridor Study and Amended Comprehensive Plan for Orono. The Rebers' rezoninq request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The key issues, Mr. Shardlow felt, were those Mr. Tim Adams set forth in 5 MINUTES OF RRGULRR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1968 ZONING FILM 11334-REDERS CONTINUED a letter to the City. Mr. Adams is concerned about sanitary sewer, from where it will come, and who will be financially responsible for it. The frontage road and upgrade of Brown Road are other concerns. The Council had previously reviewed a set of special minimum requirements for any applicatioT, for rezoning on the Highway 12 Corridor area. Due to the specia-1 constraints and opportunities available for that area, the City had precared a set of requirements that were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All of the established requirements relate directly to the issues raised by Mr. Adams. Mr. Shardlow explained that any rezoning application within the Highway 12 Corridor would require the a;vlicant to demonstrate that sanitary sewer is available and that the developer will be responsible for the cost. No feasibility study has been done in that regar6 for the Rebers' application, gut two options are available and the developer will be financially responsible. The frontage road in elation to the plan, occupies land which is outside the limits of the subdivision. There was a small portion of the property, to the west end, where a portion of the land contained in the plat will be required to allow enough space to clear the back of the wear property. Mr. Rebers has agreed to put the land in an outlot and to enter into a development agreement which will specifically address the use of the outlot and tie it in with the Comprehensive Plan. The Rebers application must also adhere to the necessary transportation improvements outlined in the Comprehensive plans before it can proceed. Improvements to Brown Road remain a concern and were discussed during the entire review process. Brown Road is an M.S.A. (Municipal State Aid) street. Should the City deem Brown Road to be a priority, funding -wise, monies are available for improvements. Mr. Shardlow commented that it was the belief of the City Engineer that Orono funded improvements to M.S.A. roads entirely with M.S.A. funds. Mr. Stephen Pflaum provided an overview of the restrictions the Planning Commission recommended. He explained that the subdivision request was the second part of a two-part process. He gave a brief synopsis of what had taken place prior to the review and request for approval currently before the Council. The issues Mr. Rebers was asked to address by the Planning Commission were as follows: Woodland Preservation. The property is heavily wooded and tree preservation was cited as being a reason for sewered one acre lots versus two acre lots with septic. Tree preservation was also used to support the request for a PRD. The Planning Commission recommended that no tree removal occur within the 50' to 70' perimeter of the entire residential area. This area will be designated as a private trail system. The trail system will 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1968 ZONING FILE 01334-REDERS CONTINUED extend to the middle of the parcel so that the rear of each lot will have a wooded area owned by the homeowner's association. In addition, tree preservation will be mandatory on each lot. The building pad of each lot would be defined by the 50' front and rear setbacks and 30' side setbacks. Within those setback areas, tree removal will be limited to trees under 2" in diameter, with the exception of the proposed driveway area, where any size tree may be removed. The homeowner may remove any dead and/or diseased trees. As a final measure to preserve trees, within the established building pad, only 80% may be hardcover, including the driveway. These restrictions should provide for and maintain heavily wooded lots. Private Road. Initially there was discussion involving the possibility of connecting the private road with Pine Ridge. That idea was discarded. There will be a looped road that will be free-standing. Access w '1 be on North Brown Road and due to recommendations by the Planning Commission, was mo•ied to the crest of the hill. This was to maximize sight distance and increase safety. The City v.ngineer recommended that the access be placed south of the hill and stated that sight distance from that point would not be a problem. The developer has indicated that it matters not where the access is placed. Sewer and Water. The developer understands that a plat cannot be recorded until there is an acceptable, signed contract producing water and sewer to the Lite. The availability of water will depend upon the City's negotiations for sewer. The site would take private wells if that is the direction in which the City would prefer. There are tv access points for sewer. One would be immediately across the reet, near the Long Lake State Bank, and the other is from the existing Long Lake/Orono interceptor. In either case, any agreement to produce sewer and water, or just sewer, would require the developer to bear the cost. If the City were to choose a route for the sewer that would connect Ringers Wood, that would be a separate issue between Mr. Ringer and Mr. Otten. Brown Road. Mr. Reber's is willing to bear his share of upgrading Brown Road, if the City should decide to do so. There is already the requirement for Mr. Rebers to dedicate -43' along the easterly portion of Brown Road for right-of-way. City Consultant Shardlow clarified the issue of the access. Be stated that originally it was proposed at a point close to the present proposal, within the southern third of the property. City Staff performed a site Examination and then recommended relocating the access point 50' south to improve sight distance. The Planning Commission then recommended that access be moved north, to the crest of the hill, where they felt sight 4istance was best. Mayor Grabek asked Ms. Mabusth to indicate where her residence was in relation to the proposed access. Mabusth 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMSER 28,1988 :OWING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINU10 complied. Mr. George Johnson questioned whether placing the access on the crest of the hill would not present safety problems in the winter? Mabusth agreed. Mr. Bob Beach asked what circumstances might exist that would cause the adjacent property owners to pay for improvements to Brown Road? City Administrator Bernhardson clarified that the City generally paid for improvements to M.S.A. roads entirely with M.S.A. funds and does not assess the benefit to any abutting property owners. The City, however, is looking to review that because there are currently a number of M.S.A. roads that are in need of upgrade within the next 10 to 15 years. The assessement to property owners would be a small portion of tl,e upgrade and would be determined at the time the work was done. Upgzades to non-M.S.A. roads are totally assessed to abutting property owners. Mr. Rebers would have an equal financial share of upgrading Brown Road. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to plans to upgrade Brown Road North in 1992 and whether development of the Rebers' property would hasten development? Bernhardson replied that originally North Brown Road was scheduled for upgrade in 1994. The Rebers' development would not be solely responsible for revising the upgrade date. There is a proposed safety improvement for Highway 12 tentatively scheduled to occur in 1991. It may be appropriate to upgrade North Brown Road at that time. Mr. Dick Fordyce asked whether North Brown Road in the near future would be upgraded due to the Rebers' development? Bernhardson responded that North Brown Road would be upgraded regardless of whether the Rebers project proceeded or not. Mr. Fordyce felt that the Rebers' fair share would be the total amount of the project. Mr. Tim Adams asked for the definition of "upgrade Bernhardson explained that the Brown Road would have to meet the M.S.A. standards. City Engineer Cook further explained that if the road were built as a rural section, with ditches, it would have to have a 40' with a 24' blacktop surface and 8' shoulders. If it is done as a rural section, there would be more disruption. If it were done as an urban section with curbs and gutters, the road would need to be 32' wide, rather than 401. However, if the road were only 32' there could be no parking along the side of the road. A 36' road would allow for parking along one side. Mayor Grabek asked for the current width of Brown Road. Cook said the road was approximately 221- 241. In order to comply with M.S.A. standards for a rural section, however, ditches would have to dug. In addition to the 40' top, 16' would be necessary for the ditches. By the time the project were completed, it would probably be 60' wide. Brown Road would need to be brought up to M.S.A. standards regardless of Lhe Rebers' project. Public Works Director Gerhardson commented that Cie r'rystal day Road, going by the School and south from Hiqhwiy 12 to County 8 gIMUTas or woui 1R oaollo COUMCYL MMMIMG MOVWUM 28,1968 Z01IM T= -y 3'Jit --1MN W,- C0r-T1)W= Road 84, would be a typical exytmla!'-_a- svutil__ section of a M.S.A. road. Mr. Armand Brachman asked who would have the final say as to whether Brown Road would be improved? He suggested that a poll of Brown Road residents would indicate that they would not wish to have the road upgraded. He also asked about a proposal to place a cul de sac at the end of North Brown Road and redirecting traffic along a frontage road south of Mr. Rebers' property. He again asked who would make a final decision to do that and felt that there were other alternatives that may not require Brown Road to be upgraded at all. Bernhardson said the it would be the City Council's decision and should assessing be necessary, a public hearing would be held. The issue of a cu l de sac would also involve the City of Long Lake because a portion of Brown Road does fall within Long Lake. Mayor Grabek asked what factors were used to determine whether a road needed upgrading? Public Works Director Gerhardson replied that the type of traffic, condition of the road and development in the area would all be factors. Mr. Brachman observed that whether Hig;''way 12 was directed north or stayed where it currently is, Brow,. Road would be cut off. In his opinion, Brown Road, really di -is not serve as an arterial road. Unfortunately it is used as a shortcut by many people. He would rather minimize the amount of traffic, not enhance it. Mayor Grabek sympathized with Mr. Brachman, but stated that everyone living in Orono would like to see traffic on their street minimized. He added that he would not be in favor of upgrading Brown Road unless it was necessary. George Johnson asked whether there were any plans to straighten Brown Road so .'_t would align with Virginia Avenue? City Administrator Bernhardson explained that option was raised by MN DOT. It could be doodt on the southerly property without impact to the present subdivision. Mr. Johnson said it would have impact on a co 1 -acting area in a commercial area. Bernhardson clarified that what MN DOT was proposing for 1991 was providing turn lanes on Highway 12 between North Brown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. Tin Adams wanted more information about the intersection and the 'rontage road. He wanted to see the proposal as to an access onto Highway 12. Shardlow said that the Comprehensive Plan merely statan that a frontage road will be provided. Rebers has proposed a location that would serve those parcels from the rear that fronted on Highway 12. There are other alternatives. Until development progresses. there really is no need to know where the fjontage road will be, only that there will be one. City Eng ed the various proposins on the sketch. 9 MINtrM OF xXGOLAR ORONO COUNCIL ~MEETING NOVEMHZR 28,1988 ZONING FILZ +1334-REHERS CONTINUED Armand Brachman asked if the rezonir- was done to accommodate 1 acre lots or an average density 1 acre lots. Shardlow responded that it was 1 acre lots. The provided the opportunity to meet the overall density with the i.,corporation of the open space. If it were not for the large open space, the development would have been limited to 1 acre lots. Mr. Brachman pointed out that when the subdivision was initially presented the possibility of two acre lots was mentioned to buffer the northerly property line. The current proposal indicates that the smallest lots are along that line. He commented that people moving to Orono were trying to escape the higher density look. He asked Mr. Rebers if he would consider converting the 6 1 acre lots into 3 2 acre lots. If that were not possible, Mr. Brachman wanted screening provided, in the form of additional vegetation planted. He asked that any evergreens that needed removal for the road, be relocated along the northerly line to create an additional visual barrier. Mr. Pf laum said that if it were feasible and the planting location could be accessed without disturbing existing trees, that would be an acceptable solution. With regard to the 2 acre lots, Mr. Pflaum relieved that combining the lots would change the ratios for the entire development. It would also change the construction costs and utility costs. The current proposal represents a series of refinements in response to the City's requests to come up with a comprehensive plan that provided the maximum buffering all the way around. Mr. Dennis Platteter clarified that the north part of the Rebers property that abuts his land has only brush. There are only large, mature trees on 2 of the 6 lots. He said that he came to Orono because of the 1-acre minimum lot size. He believed that the PRD would change the characteristics of Orono tremendously. He referred to this kind of development a_s, high density, not rural residential. Mr. Platteter was also concerried`' about the potential increase in traffic on North Brown Road if it is upgraded and widened. He stated that the Planning Cr,mission initiall;- discussed placing rural fencing between his property and Rebers'. A 4' wire fence was suggested. Mr. Platteter felt that due to the high density development taking place, that "rural" fencing was not appropriate. He believed this development would set a precedent for additional 1-acre subdivisions all the way to County Road 6. He believed that was the wrong direction for Orono. Mr. Platteter wanted to know what the developer intended to do about potential trespassing on his property. He also questioned the fact that the lake was mentioned by the Planning Commission as an amenity to this development. He pointed out the fact that only George Johnson's property, in addition to his own, had lake access. Mr. Pflaam did not recall mentioning the lake as a selling point for the Rebers' property. with regard to t:ie fence, he MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE i1334-REBERS CONTINUED said that the Planning Commission had suggested a perimeter fence to run along the boundary of the property. However, property owners to the west indicated that they did not want the fence. This would mean ",:he fence would run east to west along the northern boundary and could easily be walked around. Also, the Planning Commission decided that approving a barrier would set a precedent for future subdivisions. He said the Mr. Rebers was neutral as long as it would have no negative impact on their development. Mr. Platteter said that he received no prior information concerning the proposed fens-e plan and was not provided with any visual proposals at the r,>.ating. He said he asked for a non- penetratable barrier. Plantings and natural vegetation would provide such a barrier. Councilmember Goetten said that the City in the past when reviewing subdivisions had always tried to work with severely affected property owners. She felt that Mr. Rebers' agents could work with the Platteters to reach an acceptable compromise. Mr. Pf laum said that as long as they could access the area where the barrier was needed he felt that something could be worked out. He did not want to create a logging road for that purpose. Mr. Platteter expressed his frustration in the misrepresentation that the area in question was heavily wooded. He reiterated the fact that it was primarily brush. Goetten concurred with Mr. Platteter. Mr. Pflaum stated that conceptually he haQ no problem. George Johnson commented that the 1-acre lots represented more of a precedent -setting factor than the barrier requested by Mr. Platteter. He asked Whether he and Platteters could join properties and request a 1-acre subdivision. He said that Swansons could also subdivide as could many other property owners. Pflaum explained that the Comprehensive Plan was amended and the property was rezoned to permit sewer and water. In addition, the MUSA line was amended. He said that any other subdivision of this kind would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The MUSA line would also need further amending and the applicant's plan amendment would need approval from the Metropolitan Council. He said that the Rebers subdivision was done in a way to address the characteristics of the site. George Johnson asked whether the sewer would go down Brown Road if it were upgraded? Specifically he wondered if it would run to existing one acre lots? He anticipated that would happen because there are areas such as Country Club that are currently having problems. City Engineer Cook stated that if there were some severe prob!,.�ms the City would have to look at some options. However, it was not the City's intent at this time to take sever beyond where it exists. Mr. Johnson felt that issue would be 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZGNING FILE /1334-REBERS CONTINUED looked at before plans were made to upgrade Brown Road. Councilmember Callahan pointed out the fact that the ;upgrading of Brown Road was included in a proposal to upgrade all of the M.S.A. roads within Orono. He said the Rebers subdivision and the issue of sewer have nothing to do with upgrading Brown Road. Mr. Johnson asked Callahan as to his opinion regarding the proposed subdivision. Callahan replied that he thought the plan to be a good one, and had no objections to the 6 lots along the northern boundary. Mr. Brachman believed that the initial proposal called for 1 acre lots at a minimum. However, there are now lots proposed to be 3 /4's of an acre. It bothered him that the plan had varied. He compared the density to Ferndale North, and added that he did not move to Orono to look at that. Mayor Grabek said that the lots could be 1 acre but it would eliminate the buffer. Mr. Duncanson suggested that since there seemed to be enough public dissatisfaction with the development, that perhaps the application should be returned to the Planning Commission.. Mayor Grabek stated that he understcod the residents' unhappiness. He said that there was always dissatisfaction of neighbors with improvements. He assured the neighbors that he and the Council were doing their best to pzoperly develop the land within Orono. He said there were two sides to this issue. Mrs. Duncanson stated that the majority of the citizens of Orono were against the 1 acre zoning. She did not understand how the Council could claim to represent the citizens of Orono. The question arose as to whether Mr. Rebers intended to reside within the subdivision and whether he was ever a citizen of Orono. Mr. Beach stated that this proposal was changing the zoning of the City that attracted everyone to Orono. It will alleviate the country flavor of Orono. Mayor Grabek explained that changes had been occurring over the last 2-1/2 years with the Highway 12 Corridor study. It was felt that this type of zoning would provide a suitable buffer to the commercial atmosphere of Highway 12. HP further added that there were 9 public hearings involving this matter. Mr. Fordyce reiterated previously expressed feelings that the Council was not representing the citizens as a whole, but merely one individual. Councilmember Goetten stated that the Mayor had asked for the public to express their concerns. The Council had not yet expressed their concerns or asked their questions. She added that the rezoning had already occurred, but that did not mean that other concerns could not be addressed. Mr. Platteter said that even though there were objections to the rezoning, it searched ahead. He asked why the access road could not be located off of the proposed frontage road? 12 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMM...2texe AA ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED George Johnson asked how many times the plan had been revised. He said that there was an overlay to the presentation sketches that he had not seen. Mr. Pflaum said that the overlay depicted relocation of the access per the request of one of the residents of Brown Road. Tim Adams said that the current proposal was a good plan and was in the spirit of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. The problem is that items such as the frontage rood, buffer lots and intersection have not been specified, and the buffer lots in the rear disappeared. He felt that was the primary frustration being expressed by the neighbors. He did not like the aspect of the plan being approyed without those items being specified. Councilmember Callahan stated that he did not see what problem there could be with the frontage road. Mr. Adams said that it relates to the access required by the increased usage of Brown Road from the Rebers' development. The question was raised as to whether Mr. Rebers would be building the homes in this development and whether there were specific standards as to the quality and price of the homes? Mr. Pflaum replied that the homes would range from $250,000.00 and up. The lots will sell from $75,000.00 and up. Mr. Rebers intends to build as many homes himself as possible. He may associate with one or two additional builders that would build in accordance to his standards. The conditions of building are past of the development agreement and will set forth the required building specifications. There will further be an architectural control committee that will require that the houses be compatible with each other. Councilmember Goetten felt that Highway 12 was a major determining factor in finalizing the subdivision. Drainage was a concern of Goetten's. City Engineer Cook said that most of the drainage ran to the southeast corner. The developer has been asked to provide for ponding in than area. No final designs have been submitted, only preliminary. The develcpment agreement addresses the requirements by the City for drainage. Goetten then asked where access to the site would be during construction? Mr. Pflaum said that decision was ultimately up to the City. The developer preferred to impact the site as little as possible, by perhaps entering by way of the proposed permanent road. Goetten believed that using Highway 12 would alleviate undue wear and tear on Brown Road. Pflaum said if it were feasible, they would be willing to access off of Highway 12. The question of proposed pillars or entrance gates was next asked by Goetten. Pflaum replied that issue would be part of the packa,e that the Planning Commission ultimately reviewed. They are proposing entrance monuments to identify the subdivision, but no lights or gates. Goetten inquired as to whether the restrictions and conditions set forth by the Council would be included in the development agreement. Pflaum answered affirmatively, and added that the 13 - - --KIIi0?ES-al�7t�GUY.I�I�K'�7R81Mr- Z�- E'fI19G PCwF.MBBR Z8.,19__i8 ZONING FILE #1334-AEDW CONTINUED agreement will ultimately need to be drafted, reviewed and approved by City Staff and. the Planning Commission. Many of the restrictions will be included in the individual deeds to each lot. Lastly, Goetten wanted to see the developer work with the Platteters in solving their concerns about trespassing. Councilmember Nettles asked if there would be a need to upgrade Brown Road based on traffic count alone? City Engineer Cook said there would be an increase of 200 to 250 trips maximum on Brown Road as a result of this development. Car traffic does very little damage to the structural strength of the road. Currently there are 1700 trips on the south end of Brown and 1100 on the north end. Cook said that amount of traffic was low and would have little impact, even with the increased traffic from the new development. Mayor Grabek asked how construction vehicles would affect Brown Road? Cook said that would have the largest impact and that alternatives should be examined or an agreement be made with the developer to repair any damage to Brown Road caused by the construction. Nettles questioned whether the concentration of lots on the north property line were in keeping with the rural atmosphere of Orono. He would prefer to see a reduction in the number of houses in that area to 3 or 4, rather than 6. He felt that planting mature evergreens in that area should also be required whether or not the number of lots is reduced. Councilmember Peterson explained that she was absent from the Council meeting when the rezoning was approved. She indicated that she would not have voted for the rezoning and she would not vote in favor of the subdivision. She concurred with Nettles and Goetten in that the Platteters concerns should be addressed. She too believed that at one time the plan called for 2 acre lot sizes along the northern boundary. Peterson asked about the proposed multi -family unit. Councilmember Callahan clarified that the concept of the multi -family unit was shown when the entire parcel, commercial and residential was being discussed. Peterson expressed her belief that Orono should keep its rural atmosphere and the Rebers development did not support that concept. Councilmember Callahan said he was not opposed to any of the compromises discussed for the northern section of the development. He felt that Mr. Rebers h x<' tried to work with the City over the last 2 years and the pres, n* proposal was already a compromise. He believed that screening along the northern property line was reasonable. The issues involving Brown Road, sewer and Highway 12 would exist without this development. All in all, he was conceptually in favor of the proposal. Mayor Grabek mentioned the fact that Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth was also a resident on North Brown Road. Mr. Shardlow presented this matter to avoid any potential for 14 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONIDG FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED biased opinions on behalf r f the City. He asked Ms. Mabusth to present her suggestion fo: location of the access. Mabusth believed that placing the access on the crest of the hill would have a serious impact on her residence, due to the higher elevations on the western side. The City Engineer and City Staff had evaluated the potential of placing the access in a more southerly location. A determination was made that there would be adequate sighting distance in that location. Mabusth further explained that the hill became very icy and treacherous in the winter and placing the access at the crest of the hill would worsen that condition. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the subdivision, together with a conditional use permit for a PRD, for action at the December 12, 1988, Council Meeting. He asked that appropriate language be included in the resolution that would allow an alternative access to the property for construction purposes. If no alternative is feasible, then it should be stipulated that the developer be financially responsible for repairs to North Brown Road for damage caused by the construction. The resolution must also include provisions for a buffer area along the north property line. Further, language be included to move the access south, if it does not conflict with engineering recommendations. Mrs. Duncanson inquired as to whether they would have any input as to the final location of the access off of Brown Road. Mayor Grabek answered affirmatively. Councilmember Nettles asked whether Mayor Grabek would consider amending his motion to include revising the development to allow for no more than 3 lots on the north side, as opposed to 6. Mayor Grabek replied that he had not all of the information as to how such a revision would impact the development. Goetten stated that monetary considerations could not be a factor in determining the outcome of this development. She concurred that at this point there was not enough information to make such a decision. Mayor Grabek pointed out the fact this approval was only preliminary and such issues could be further examined. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the conditional use permit would be incorporated in the resolution. City Administrator Bernhardson confirmed that it would. Nettles asked if the Mayor would amend his motion to ask the developer to supply the City with information and alternatives regarding the north property line. Mayor Grabek agreed that information was necessary in providing the City with the best overall plan, but did not amend his motion. Councilmember Goetten asked that staff begin taking an indepth view as to how this development will impact Highway 12, Brown Road and the proposed frontage road. Motion, Ayes-4, Peterson -Nay, Motion passed. 15 MINUTES OF RMULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 #1356 GERALD MCLOOATNEY 1055 NEST FZRNDhLE ROAD VARIANCES RNSOLUTION #2546* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution 02546, approving the renewal variance application of Gerald T. McCourtney. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. SOWING AMEKD ff PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Mayor Grabek requested that this item be tabled until the December 12, 1988 meeting, to allow time to more thoroughly review this matter. Mayor Grabek inquired as to the possibility of visual graphics being supplied to better depict the proposal. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ZWINEER'8 REPORT SEAL COAT PAYMENT #1* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve payment #1 to Allied Blacktop in the amount of $17,025.99 for sealcoating City streets in 1988. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: ORONO/LOW LAZZ DISCUSSIONS* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the information and set December 5, 1998, as the date for the next meeting of the two Councils. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: DRIVOMY PEOWT-490 OLD LONG LAKE 70AD It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this item per the property owner's request. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 1969 LMISIATIVE PROGRAM City Administrator Bernhardson explained that in the past the City has had a legislative policy that has attempted to highlight major areas of concern that the Council may wish to promote to the 1989 Legislature. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to table this item. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 16 MINUTES OF REGULRR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING WOVEMBER 28,1988 COUNTY ROAD 51 City Administrator Bernhardson mentioned that this was mainly an information item in that no date had been established for meeting with Hennepin County. Bernhardson said that he was hopeful that more information would be available by the December 12, 1988, Council Meeting, and there could then be a meeting with the concerned residents in January. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to accept the information regarding County Road 51. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. LIQUOR LICENSE REKMULLS/OPP SALE* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the license reneweal for a 1989 Off Sale liquor license for Navarre Liquor. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 200 HOLLANDER ROAD SET ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING DATN* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to set a public hearing for January 9, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers to consider the special assessment roll of the 1988-2 hazardous buildings. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 1989 HEALTH INSURANCE* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to set the 1989 standard contribution rate for health insurance for the eligible non LELS Orono City employees at $191.00 per month while the contribution rates for Orono LELS employees is to be negotiated at a later date. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY SELL TO ADJACENT PROPERTY- RESOLUTION #2547* DRAINAGE i CONSERVATION- RESOLUTION i2548* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, xeconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution 12547, releasing tax forfeit parcel for private sale to adjacent owners; and to adopt Resolution #2548, requesting conveyance of parcel for public use by the City of Orono. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE -STREET DEPARTMENT* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to purchase two hydraulic sanders from MacQueen Equipment Company for an amount of $2,249.00 each. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. 1989 CALRKDAR Councilmember Goetten questioned why a date fora November, 1989 Planning Commission meeting had not been indicated? Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that a meeting was scheduled for 17 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOoVEMBER 28,1998 1989 CALENDAR CONTINUED November 20, 1989. Goetten also asked that two joint meetings with the Council and Planning Commission be scheduled in 1989. Mayor -Jrabek directed staff to determine two appropriate dates for joint informational meetings. UNCOLLECTED NSF CHNCLS-RESOLUTION ;2549* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2549, declaring certain N.S.F. checks uncollectable and removing them from the City accounts effective November 30, 1988. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CONTRACT RENEWAL -POLICE (LONG LAKE, SPRING PARE AND MINNV1WXA BEACH)* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the individual contracts with Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park, and Long Lake for police service for 1989. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CONTRACT RXERNAL-FIRE CONTRACTS (LONG LANE, MAPLE PLAIN AND WAYZATA) Councilmember Peterson questioned why the City of Mound was not included. City Administrator Bernhardson replied that renewal had previously been approved on October 10, 1988. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the individual contracts with Long Lake, Maple Plain, and Wayzata for fire protection for 1989. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACTS ( —AG LASE, SPRING PARR AND MINNETONEA BEACH)* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the individual contracts with Long Lake, Spring Park, and Minnetonka Beach for animal control for 1989. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION Councilmember Goetten questioned the need to purchase snow removal equipment for the sidewalks along County Road 15. Public Works Director Gerhardson clarified that the City would need to purchase an attachment for equipment the City already has. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Ccunc_+ lmember Nettles, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: County Road 15; MWCC Interceptor; Recycling Program; Highway 12; Minnetrista/Hennepin County Park Reserve Lawsuit and Crystal Bay Road. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. 18 MINUTES OF RNGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 LICZ8E8* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the following license: Solicitors License: MN Public Interest Research Group C/O Kenneth Webb 2512 Delaware Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414 Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. EzeCuTIVE S=SSION - 9:45 P.M. Mayor Grabek requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9:52 P.M. It Has moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:52 p.m. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. HnCity erkJames R. Grabek, Mayor EV w FA To: Mayor Grabek i Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Adiftnsa f Date: December 8, 1988 Subject: #1330 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 880 Townline Road Final Plat Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits - A - Proposed Resolution B - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #2528 C - Copy of Final Plat Drawing Discussion - The developer has completed requirements for final plat approval for this 7-lot subdivision in the 5-acre zone. Two items to note: 1. The proposal includes an island at the road entrance. While this is acceptable for a private road, the island would have to be removed if the City ever was to take over maintenance of the road. Language to this effect will be placed in the private road covenants. City Engineer Glenn Cook notes that the road on each side of the island should be 18' paved width. The developer has widened the road outlot at the entrance to accommodate this extra total width. 2. The developer proposes a single permanent subdivision sign monument, to be placed on the island. He will present an artist's rendering of the sign at the meeting Monday night. Staff Roca ooiendation - Staff recommends final plat approval per the attached resolution. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , to approve the seven lot residential plat of Painters woods for Fullerton Properties Inc. at 880 Townline Road per the attached resolution. Ayes , nays A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF PAINTERS MOODS FILE NO. 1330 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the lags of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by Fullerton Properties Inc., the subdivider; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 1988, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2528 granting preliminary approval for a plat at 880 Townline Road; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat contains seven lots, each exceeding the 5.0 acre minimum lot acre requirement. Lots 2 through 6 require a variance because they do not front on a public roadway. Lots 2, 4, and 5 require a variance to the 300' lot width requirement as measured at the rear of the 100' front yard abutting the cul-de-sac; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all other standards of the RR-lA zoning district, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of further variances; and WHEREAS, all seven proposed lots are exempt from soil testing for septic systems by virtue of their lot sizes exceeding 5.0 acres. However, each lot has been preliminarily reviewed and is fully expected to contair suitable sites for primary and alternate drainfields to serve the single family residences; and WHEREAS, 33' of right-of-way has been dedicated on the plat for the existing Townline Road; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the Flatting regulations of the City, including: Page 1 of 3 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 2528. 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for the public road known as Townline Road. 3. Creation of a new private road shown on the plat as Outlot A to be known henceforth as Creekwood Trail. 4. Concurrent with the creation of this private road, the subdivider has dedicated to the City a road and utilities easement granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said outlot; the subdivider has created a non-exclusive ingress/egress drainage and utility easements over said outlot in favor of all abutting and/or benefitting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants wherein each of the abutting and/or benefitting lot owners covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and Fay the cost of maintenance for said private road. 5. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainag'►ways described therein and shown on the plat as drainage easements. 6. Execution of a Subdivider's Agreement providing for installation of certain improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. 7. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee of $700.00. 8. Payment t the City of final plat administrative fee and fee for the legal review and filing of the plat easements and covenants in the amount of $3u0.00. NOW, TNEREFORE HE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Painters Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance is hereby granted for Lots 2 through 6 which do not frint on a public roadway which is required. 2. A variance is hereby granted to the 300' lot width standard for Lots 2, 4, and 5. 3. All seven lots shall access to the private road. Page 2 of 3 4. Private driveway crom s of the Painters Creek drainageway shall be allowed for each of Tots 3 and 4, subject to any permit approval that may be required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 5. A private road shall be constructed to City Private Road Requirements per the conditions of the Devele-er's Agreement executed between the City and the developer. As of tLe date of this resolution, engineering plans for the road have been approved by the City subject to conditions of the Developer'm Agreement, and construction of the private road has commenced. Priva,.e road construction must be completed by November 16, 1989. 6. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Same executed by the developer. 7. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approved by the City. B. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before June 12, 1969 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the documents as noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision. review. Dated this 12th day of December 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Zrabek, Mayor VAgt--1.9t-3 ___ 1�9' City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2528 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELININARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 880 TOWNLINE ROAD APPLICATION NO. 1330 WHEREAS, Fullerton Properties, Inc. on August 24, 1988 filed a formal subdivision application with the City of Orono for approval of a seven lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: The Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 30, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th principal meridian (Hennepin County, Minnesota) (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 September 19, 1988, and October 17, 1988, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on October 24, 1988, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Fullerton Properties, Inc., noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-lA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 5 acres lot area of which a minimum of 2 acres must be contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 40.1 acres, of which 30'.4 acres is considered dry buildable. 3. The proposed plat contains 7 lots each exceeding the 5 acre minimum lot area requirement. 4. The proposed Lots Z, 3, 4, 5, and 6 require a variance because they do not have frontage on a public roadway. 5. All 7 lots are proposed to front on and access to a private road. Lots 2, 4, and 5 require a variance because they do not contain the required 300' lot width as measured at the 100' front setback line. 6. The private road intended to serve she plat shall be constructed subject to the conditions of a Developer's Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Standards for this road are as follows: Page 1 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2528 Right-of-way minimum width: 50' Minimum paved width: 28' (Urban Section) Base: 8" Class 5 100% ciushed Surface: 3" 2341 bituminous surface Cul-de-sac: 50' min. right-of-way radius, 40' paved radius min. In areas where a rural section may be used for short distances, a 3' travel shoulder shall be provided in addition to the 28' paved width. 7. It is intended that the private road be privat, owned and maintained. The City will require that the develc _xecute the Standard Road & Utility Easement over the private r and shall execute the Standard Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration for Maintenance cf Same. 8. The wetland occuring within the boundaries of Lots 2, and 3 shall be subject to a Conservation & Flowage Easement to be granted by the developer. A drainage easement for Painters Creek shall be dedicated on the plat. 9. Right-of-way of 33' shall 1 dedicated on the plat for Townline Road. 10. All 7 Lots have been demonstrated to contain suitable sites for construction of single family residences and the soil types within each lot have been preliminarily investigated and are found to contain numerous potentially feasible drainfield sites to serve the proposed single family residences. Each lot exceeds 5 acres and therefore the lots have not been required to complete formal soil testing fcr drainfield sites during the subdivision process. 11. Single family residences can be constructed on Lots 1 thru 7 without the need for further variances. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Fullerton Properties, Inc., at 880 Town line Road per the survey attached as Exhibit A hereto, by Coffin and Gronberq Inc. dated 8/16/88, revised 9/14/88, revised 10/12/88, subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance will be granted for Lots 2 thru 6 which da not front on a public roadway as required. 2. A variance will be granted to the 300' lot width standards for Lots 2, 4 and 5. 3. All 7 lots shall access to the private road. Page 2 of 5 City Of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2528 4. The private road shall be constructed to City private road requirements, subject to a Developer's Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Private road construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road have been formally approved by the City and the Developer's Agreement has been executed. 5. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the developer. 6. The Standard Road & Utility Easement and Private Road Maintenance Covenants shall be filed with the plat. 7. The "island" within the private roadway near the entrance to Townline Road does not meet public road standards. If at some future date this private road becomes a public road, the City reserves the right to have this island removed. 8. Private driveway crossings of the Painters Creek drainageway shall be allowed for each of Lots 3 and 4, subject to any permit approval the may be required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 9. A Conservation & Flowage Easement document shall be executed for the wetlands occuring on Lots 2 and 3, and this easement shall be shown on the plat drawing as a drainage easement. A 50' drainage easement centered on the center line of Painters Creek shall similarly be dedicated on the plat drawings. 10. Standard Drainage & Utility Easements shall be shown on the plat along lot lines. 11. Payment of standard Park Fees of $100.00 for each of Lots 1 thru 7; Total = $700.00. 12. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approved by the City. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200' scale. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin & Gronberg Inc. attached as Exhibit A hereto. Page 3 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2528 b) Dedication of "Drainage & Utility Easements" 10' wide alonq all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. c) Dedication of a Drainage Easement 50' in width, centered along the center of Painter Creek. d) Designation and dedication of the wetlands in Lots 2 and 3 as Drainage Easements on the plat. e) Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Townline Road. 2. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easements: Blank area requiring description may be filled out as follows "Over the Drainage Easements as shown on the plat of Painter's Woods". d) Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for construction of the private road. e) Signed and executed Road & Utilities Easement over the private road outlot. f) Signed and executed "Declaratijn of Private Road Easement and Declaration for Maintenance of Same". g) Revised "Application for Private Road Name" containing additional name choices. 3. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $1,000.00. a) Park dedication fee per current-chedule: 7 new residential lots at 5 acre density = $100.00 per lot Total = $700.00 b) Final plat fee - $150.00. c) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Page 4 of 5 City of OR,ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2528 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 24th day of October, 1988. ATTEST: �I 0 Loty M allin, City Cierk Page 5 of 5 Pt'AINTERS WOODS I it I I r. ue tJ7 I Q I c I I Iw ..r. I G r.• I 1 �1 t 1 aF�:u+n+o�rt DMVE $ s r I+ I I � � �J 21 I w J I 1 I I I — Z 1 li= � I i � �. j To: Mayor Grabex & Orono Council Members !` City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: December 8, 1988 Subject: #1330 Fullerton Properties - Road Name Request List of Exhibits A - Road Name Request Form B - Map Discussion - The applicants originally proposed the road names Painters Trail, Painters Drive, and Painters Circle, all of which were rejected by staff because there are a number of "Painter" street names just three miles to the southwest in Minnetrista. Applicant has revised his request to the name "Creekwood Trail", which does not appear to conflict with any street names in surrounding communities. Both the Public Works Director and Police Chief have OK'd the name Creekwood Trail. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the street name Creekwood Trail for the private road serving the plat of Painters Woods. Proposed !lotion - Moved by , seconded by to approve the road name Creekwood Trail for the plat of Painters Woods. Ayes , nays • CITY OF ORONO Control No. A. The Subject of this request is: I I L L5 u �/ L5 V I X an existing private roadway. Wr I I a proposed public roadway which is to be condition of pending subdivision approval "E B. Owner(s) of the subdivision ��/,/e�e5`o�t% �`',Qof�r°r1 Tiffs, T�✓'L C. The above owner(s) hereby request that this Roadway be known by the following name: Choice No. 1 ��Ec-Y—WC IL Choice No. 21-- Choice No. 3 i 2 (List three choices in order of preferen7e. The City Council will approve a name provided no conflict exists with existing names or naming policy. If all names have a conflict, you will be asked to make new choices. The approved name will be used for all mailing address and official identification purposes.) D. The above owner s) herebv request the Citv of Orono to install the following standard street and traffic signs and said owner(s) hereby agree to reimburse the City for all costs of said installation. (Such signing may be required as part of a separate Developer's Agreement and/or subdivision request.) standard city street name sign(s) - number required X standard "STOP" sign(s) - number required l The above cwner(s) do hereby acknowledge the (future) existence of said public road, and that the City of Orono has no obligation to maintain or service said roadway until that roadway has been approved by the City of Orono as meeting all public road standards specifically the completion of the paving. Signature(s) of owne (s): Date /10 11 �z ZL Date Date Date f� 1 "1 h !I KYM MEDINA ........... a I •�. I S � LAKE •�. ` �- jj� RSSTA I `� .,. r O^ r I i i G WAYZATA IN BEACH A\ � I ••�.% 2' NG dk It 100/ •� _ / '�•\ :/.� �• .BAY •�•.._.�.�.�.�'� �f� of Orono, Minnesota ti �► *L Y p m u�o R•ra C. .w .S SOC... C_�, ; To: *"_syor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator s;•: P"�.ti' +�` Date: Decem-er 9, 1988 Subject: 41334 Sidney Rebers, 715 North Brown Road - Preliminary Subdivision/Conditional Use Permit For PRD - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Engineer's Report Dated Exhibit B - Sketch by City Engineer of East West Access Road Reber's Property Exhibit C - Revised Preliminary Plar Border) Discussion - s 12/8/88 of one of t:,e Options for Locaticn thru Commercial Corridor of (25 Lots - 5 Lots Along North Please review Exhibit A, the Engineer confirms the most southern access at a safe sighting distance at 420' (satisfies a 45 mile per hour speed zone - '30 mile per hour exists). Cook also advises against a temporary construction access off of Highway 12 because of the higher elevations and trees within the front/outlot portion of the property abutting Highway 12. The existing bank serves as a sound buffer to the residences to the north. (It should be noted that the contractor who unappropriately took fill from the Rebers site will be submitting an after - the -fact variance application.) To cut a 30' wide access corridor through that bank would have a negative impact on the future residential subdivision and on the surrounding rural residential neighbors to the north, east and west. Traffic path for construction vehicles for the construction of the road and the early residential construction stages (2 year period) will be via Highway 12. No construction vehicles will bn allowed to travel north to Sixth Avenue North. Appropriate signage will be required to direct the construction traffic and will be installed prior to any construction. The developer will be expected to enforce the traffic control plan agreed to by both the developez and the City. Several neighbors questioned the feasibility of an east/west frontage road based on the existing contours. Upon inspection of the property, Cook has provided one example of a east/west corridor that would still provide adequate area for the development of the front outlot abutting Highway 12. The applicant has submitt3d a revised plan showing a reduction from six to five lots along the north boundary adjacent to the Platteter's property. The three lots adjacent to the Platteter residence have been increased in depth ranging by an additional 10 to 30'. This will not change the actual 100' building line nor construction. (50' open space lot and 50' rear setback line) but this is considerably greater than the 50' required setback in a 2 acre zone and a 30' rear yard setback in a one acre zone. The total number of lots remains the same with the adjustment made to the southerly lots. Zcning File #1334 December 9, 1988 Page 2 of 2 The applicant continues to meet w;11-h the mo-.t affected neighbors on the north and east side of the properties. Meetings have been scheduled this week -end to discuss the use of lar.ryscaLe buffering with the two adjacent proFerty owners. Please note that the issue of additional land- scape buffering has not been listed as one .,f the conditions to be cited in the suture Subdivider's Agreement but is noted c., the plan subject to change from the week -end meetings. Some of the other pertinent issues addressed within the staff resolution are a�� iollows: 1. The final plat will not be filled by the City until an agreement has been reached between both City and applicant/developer for t:le extension of san=_tary sewer to the property. 2. The posting of a bond for at least a specific period to cover any damages sustained by Brown Road from the construction traffic with an option to extend based on building schedule and level of development. 3. 25 future residential lots to share in the future upgrading of ;grown Road. Developer to define who will be responsible for those payments in the Subdivider's Agreement. 4. The City Engineer_ has confirmed that Outlot D (portion of east/west road) has been found to be an acceptable location for a future expension of an east/west road to the west. The resolution also has a disclaimer that provides for the possible need to install the future east/west road through applicant's property prior to the development of that property. 5. A Storm Water Management Plan to be approved by both the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The retention Fond in the southeast corner of the commercial corridor will be required as a result of this residential subdivision. Required Council Action - To formally adopt the staff resolution subject to any additions or amendments deemed necessary by Council as a result of continuing discussion with both applicant and neighbors. This application was submitted on August 27, 1988. Since that time this plan has been reviewed for zoning or sub -discussion at three Planning Commission and three Cc ncil meetings including this meeting. r.r A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION AND PER MUNICIPAL ZONING, CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) GRANTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRD OF 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS APPLICATION NO. 1334 WHEREAS, Sidney Rebers filed a formal subdivision application and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development with the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") on August 26, 1988 for the purpose of platting 25 residential units, an open space outlot and private road outlots of the property legally described as follows: See Exhibit A, attached to this resolution (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on September 19, 1988 and October 17, 1988 at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on November 28, 1988, the Orono City Council (hereinafter "Council") considered this subdivision application and conditional use permit and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on December 12, 1988, the Council again considered this subdivision application and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for the applicant noting the following findings of fact: 1. On May 23, 1988, the Council formally adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2, also referred t.o as the Highway 12 Corridor Study (hereinafter referred to as Comprehensiv-- Dlan Amendment."). The p_,.pe=ty was located within a section of th«, :.orridor defined as Area 4, and was recommended for the following changes: A) To continue to use the north portion of the property for single family residential use. B) That the owner could submit a plan of 1 and 2 acre mixed densities as an alternative in providing a graduated development buffer to abutting rural residential 2 acre development. Page 1 of 11 C) The property was proposed at 1-acre residential inits as sewer and water was planned for the area. D) The property would be served by either a cul-de-sac or loop (circular) road with no connection to the west if a frontage road is to be installed within commercial corridor. E) Maximum allowed density would be subject to availability of municipal services, buffering to rural residential, etc. 2. On October 10, 1988, the Council adopted Resolution #2525 approving the rezoning of the property from RR-lB to R-lA based on the following findings: A) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment included this property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Cistrict approving the extension of sewer service to the area. The amendment also provided another alternative to the residential development of the property other than the existing rural residential 2 acre minimum iot size. B) The property is immediately adjacent to a commercial corridor along Highway 12 and the proposed 1 acre zoning would provide an excellent buffer or transition to the surrounding rural residential development. C) The current code requires rezoning to R-lA in order to allow the 1 acre densities recommended in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. D) The rezoning will allow single family residential development. The R-lA zoning district will allow only detached single family residential development. E) In a preliminary resort, the City Engineer confirmed that sanitary sewer can be provided to the property. Sewer will be provided either through Long Lake by the Joint Powers Agreement or by constructing a new interceptor within the Highway 12 Corridor. The expense of which is to be borne by the property owner. F) The j.x,t:osel division satisfies all of the special minimum requiremei,ts for rezoning under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment of the Highway 12 Corridor currently under consideration by the Coincil. Page 2 of 11 3. The pro; _sty is located within the R-lA zoning district. 4. Application No. 1334 proposes the creation of 25 residential units to be used for construction of 25 single family dwellings according to the preliminary plat of a street and lot layout plan, attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. 5. The application also inciu.les a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development pursuant to Section 10.32 of the Orono Zoning Code. 6. The 25 unit proposal conforms to all of the zoning and plating standards for an R-lA PRD development, i:.:ludinr-: A) Net dry density (exclusive of road ri( of -way): Required = 1 unit per 1 acre Proposed = 1 unit per 1.18 acres B) Proposed Setbacks: (required for PRD with R-lA standards) Front Street Setback = 35' Rear Setback = 30' Side Setback = 10' Applicant Proposes: Front Street Setback = 50' Rear Setback = 50' Side Setback = 30' C) All provisions of the subdivision regulations have been followed under the PRD format as follows: i. Outlots define the commercial corridors not considered under this current subdivision plan. ii. The plat road will be designated as a separate outlot, as will the open space areas surrounding the residential lots (road outlots = 3 acres in area; private olen space area = 6.69 acres). iii. A separate outlot will define the portion of the future east/west road access loca�ed within the southern portion of the property (commercial corridor;. Page 3 if 11 iv. Each residential unit will be defined as a lot on the final plat survey (average lot size of each unit = 38,000 s.f.). V. The actual building pad defined by the required setbacks of each lot cannot be shown on the final plat, but are shown on the preliminary plan also referred to as the final development plan, attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. vi. The applicant has creates? a no -grading zone/woodlands protection area within the private open space out2ot and the setback areas defined within each building lot. No future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2 inches or greater in diameter. No grading is allowed within the protected areas. vii. Each building pad (defined by the setbacks for each lot) is limited to 80% hardcover improvements. Such improvements will include the access road through the portion of the property located within the front street setback area. viii. In a preliminary report, the City Engineer Glenn Cook has confirmed that there is adequate sewer capacity either through Long Lake by the Joint Powers Agreement or by constructing a new interceptor along the highway 12 Corridor. ix. Applicant is required to submit a Storm Water Management Plan. Site drainage will conform to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's standards and the City's Flood Plain Management requirements. The applicant has filed a permit application with the M.C.v..D. The applicant will be required to install a detention pond within the southeast corner o`- the property (located within the commercial corridor). X. All lots to be served by a private loop road with a single, deviled ingress/egress access at Brown Road. No additional curb cuts will be approved for this property. xi. The proposed preliminary plat attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, confirms to all requirements of the v Subdivision Code, Chapter 11. Page 4 of 11 7. The applicant has proposed a PRD plan for development of the property based on one or more of the findings noted by professional representatives of the applicant: A) The topographical and physical characteristics of the property suggest a need for special design considerations - viriations in topography range from 1,044 feet at its highest point to 994 feet at its lowest, resulting in over 50 feet of grade separation. B) The existence and location of mature maple and other deciduous trees (densely populated forest of maple trees to the west portion of the property and to the east young to mature nursery stock of evergreen trees and other deciduous trees). C) Need of providing an open space buffer to rural residential lot lines of surrounding properties. especially to the north and west. 8. The City Engineer, Glenn Cook, has submitted a report dated December 7, 1988 noting the following issues: A) The access road for the plat shall be located approximately 800 feet from the north boundary line of the property. The private road access will have a minimum sight;ng distance of 420 feet to the north meeting a 45 mile per hour sighting standard. North Brown Road is pasted at a 30 mile per hour speed. B) The temporary construction road is not feasible based on the steep topographies that run along the east/west boundaries of Highway 12. In addition a road cut would require the major removal of existing trees. C) Upon a site inspection of the existing contours within the commercial corridor, the east/west road appears most feasible and will provide applicant with adequate area for future development within the commercial corridor. The proposed outlot for future road extension shall remain as proposed on the preliminary plans. The Engineer has provided an example of one option for the layout of the access road. 9. Neighborhood residents are justly concerned about increased traffic in and through their neighborhood. The intent of the Council is to accommodate any new traffic flow in the safest manner possible with the least adverse affect on the immediate neighorhood and on the public generally. Page 5 of 11 10. Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 (Page 52 - Recommended Alternatives) specifically addresses road improvement or upgrading as follows: "Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the existing intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed. Configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of development." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat of Meyers Woods as presented by Sidney Rebers per plat Jrawings by Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc., dated December 12, 1988, and attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, grants a conditional use Germit for a Planned Residential Development of 25 single family detached dwellings, and further grants a variance to the standard that would require all lots have frontage on a public road with the creation of a private road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, the final plat must be filed with either the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles office, sanitary sewer and road base installed and approved by the City, and if required improvements set forth in the Subdivider's Agreement are not completed, the developer must post a Letter of Credit (150% of cost of remaining improvements) with the City, and posting of the appropriate bond with the City to insure that any damage sustained by Brown Road is to be repaired by applicant. 2. Required Improvements: A) Private road to be constructed per standards set forth in Section 11.33, Subdivisions 4 and 5 for roads serving lots in excess of 7 units. B) All engineeri:ig plans for sewer extension/installation and road plans must be approved by the City prior to any construction. 3. The final preliminary subdivision design and layout shall be similar to that shown on Exhibit B, attached to this resolution, with exact lot layout and internal street alignment to be determined by consultation with City staff and the applicant during development of the final plat drawings. Page 6 of 11 4. The City will require that both the applicant and the City enter into a Subdivider's Agreement that would define the special. conditions and convenants underlying the approval of this R-lA PRD subdivision and to insure that the directives of the City are upheld by the applicant, individual contractors and future owners of these properties. The Subdivider's Agreement shall deal with the following issues set forth by the City throughout this review: A) A listing of all required improvements and the posting of a Letter of Credit to cover all outstanding improvements not completed by final plat approval. B) The posting of a bond with the City to insure that all damage to Brown Poad sustained during the construction period of road and early building stages for residential construction. Provision should be made for the right of the City to extend the duratio of the bond coverage beyond the two year deadline depending upon the building schedule for the development. Appropriate signage approved by the City shall be installed prior to construction defining the approved access corridor for all construction vehicles that will enter or exit the property. Access is approved only from U.S. Highway 12. No traffic shall be directed to Sixth Avenue North (County Road 6). The applicant shall be held responsible for the enforcement of the approved traffic pattern. C) Per Resolution #2;25 that approved the rezoning of the property, contingent on seh_r service being approved for the property and concurrent with the granting of sewer service the applicant agreed to enter into an agreement with the City to pay without appeal for City authorized sewer extension and service. Applicant may choose to enter into a separate agreement or to use the Subdivider's Agreement to cover this directive of the City. Prior to final p jat approval, an agreement shall be executed satisfactory t(. the City for the installation of sanitary sewer to the property. D) The cost (not covered by MSA funds) ft.�- the future upgrading of Brown Road shall be equally assessed against all users of Brown Road. This would include the 25 lots within Meyers Wood plat. Applicant is to define who will be responsible for the palyment of these future costs. Page 7 of 11 E) Clarify that Outlot D (portion of future east/west road) is to be fully platted and developed at the time of future develop- ment of the commerical corridor. The access road will be fully installed at the time of either the applicant's development of the commercial corridor or as a result of any other condition that may require the installation of the road prior to applicant's development of the commercial corridor. F) Both the private covenants and the Subdivider's Agreement should include the following restrictions: 1) No grading and woodlands preservation area. No removal of trees in excess of 2" or greater in diameter (only trees that are dead cr because of hazardous condition require trimming or removal) and no grading in the protected areas without approval from the appropriate authority. The Subdivider's Agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlot. 2) All building pads defined by the setback areas within each lot shall be limited to 80% hardcover improvements, This shall also include the portion of the access driv%, that enters through the front yard setback zone. G) Entrance monuments to be defined and plans approved by the Planning Commission and Council as a part of the finz;l subdivision approval. Entrance monuments in excess of the height wili require variance approval. also. H) The enforcement of the conditions/covenants of the Subdivider's Agreement shall be a method satisfactory to the City. (The City does not feel it appropriate that the landspace buffering agreed to by the applicant be included in the Subdivider's Agreement, but that the City encourages the applicant to install appropriate evergreen buffers along the north boundary where feasible and on the east side of Brown Road where the egress road may create problems for resident to the east.) Page 8 of 11 5. Final plat submittals - The final plat submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Applicant is further advised that the Planning Commission will review the final development plan (Exhibit B of this Resolution) and the Subdivider's Agreement as an information item only prior to Council granting final approval of the plat. Applicant is further advised that the Planning Commission meets on the third Monday of each month and to check with the Orono staff regarding the official calander of meetings for 1989. A) Surveyor to submit copy of final approved preliminary plat by locating open space outlots, road outlots, and lots with defined building pads. This final approved preliminary plan will be attached as Exhibit B of this resolution. B) Record plat drawings in the form of two mylar copies: one copy reduced to 1"=2001. Drawing to incude: a) lot lines as approved on final preliminary plan referred to in Item A above; and b) dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along all perimeter property lines (open space outlot), 5' each side of internal lot lines (along the sides and rear of each lot), and 10' along the front street lot line of each pad. C) Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for a road shown as Brown Road North. D) Designate retention pond in southeast corner of property located within commercial corridor as drainage easements and provide drainage easements for any newly directed drainageway along lot lines and provide a minimum of 15' of width for any newly designated drainageway to retention pond. E) The following areas should be defined as outlots on the plat: the open space area, plat road, portion of future east/west access road, and areas of commercial corridor not included as part of this current review. or Page 9 of 11 F) Legal Documents required: 1. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interests indicated therein shall sign the plat and all of the documents affected by such interest. 2. The applicant must provide copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 3. Executed road and utility easements over the plat road outlot and portion of the future east/west outlot. 4. Execution of a drainage easement over the drainage area that drains to the retention pond in southeast corner in addition to the drainageways shown on plat as drainage easements. 5. Private road and maintenance covenants. A copy has been enclosed that is a standard covenant for the City. Applicant may wish to combine the covenants within the private covenants for the plat. The City also must receive a fully executed copy of the final approved private covenants to be filed by the City at the time of final plat approval. 6. Complete road name request form - road name must be approved prior to final plat approval and is a separate action by the Council. 7. Fxecuted Subdivider's Agreement by both the City and applicant to contain conditions as set forth in Item 4 of the conditions of approval listed on Pages 7 5 8 of this resolution. (Please note all easement and covenant forms have been sent directly with a copy of this resolution to both applicant and applicant's attorney.) G) Fees to be paid: Total Due $10,300.00 1. Park dedication fee per current schedule: $400.00 for each one acre density lot. Total fee of $10,000.00. 2. Final plat fee of $150.00. 3. Filing fee for plat and associated documents of $150.00. P, ge 10 of 11 Applicant shall pay for all of the City's legal fees and actual recording fees incurred in the filing of the final plat with Hennepin County in excess of the original payment of $150.00. 6. Landscape islands at main entrance and cul-de-saced areas within road are approved for a privately maintained road and do not meet current City standards for public roadways. The applicant is hereby advised that preliminary approval of this conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development and preliminary subdivision shall expire one year from the date of Council approval (December 12, 1989). If for some reazon the final plat is not filed by the deadline date specified above, it will be necessary for the applicant to file a renewal subdivision application at half the cost of the original application fee. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 12th day of December, 1988. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns. Sidney Rebers, Applicant Page 11 of 11 Resolution No. EXHIBIT A Unplatted 34 118 23 COM.AT THE NW COR OF E 1/2 OF NW 1/4 'LINE OF STATE HWY NO 12 TH S 69 DEG FT IH N 2 DEG 41 MIN 23 SEC E A DIS 37 SEC E A DIS OF 200 FT TH S 2 DEG .FT TH S 87 DEG 18 MIN 37 SEC E A DIS W A DIS OF 231 71/100 FT TO THE NLY LINE TO THE E LINE OF E 1/2 OF NW COR THOF TH W TO BEG EX ROAD TH S ALONG THE W LINE THOF TO THE NLY 18 MIN 37 SEC E A DIS OF 149 05/100 OF 334 52/100 FT TH S 87 DEG 18 MIN 41 MIN 23 SEC 14 A DIS OF 188 93/100 OF 200 FT TH S 2 DEG 41 MIN 23 SEC LINE OF HWY TH ELY ALONG SAID HWY 1/4 TH N ALONG SAID E LINE TO THE NE Property Identification Number: 34-118-23 21 0001 • 1 Bonestroo MEM Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects December 8, 1988 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Otto , BoneW00, PE, Keith A. Gordon. PE. Thomas W Peterson. PE. Darnel J Edgertc n. Robert W Rosene. PE. Richard W. Foster, PE. Michael C. Lynch, PE. Mark A Seep, PE. Joseph C. Anderlik, PE. Donald C. BurgardL PE. James R. Maland, PE. Philip J. Caswell. PE. Bradford A Lemberg, PF. Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. Kenneth P Anderson, PE. Mark D Wallis. PE Richard E. Turner. PE. Mark A. Hanson. PE. Keith A. Bachmann, P.E. Charles A Erickson James C Olson, PE. Ted K. Field. PE. Mark R. Rolfs, PE. Leo M. Pawelsky Glenn R Cook. PE. Michael T Raubmann, PE. Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. Harlan M Olson Thomas E. Noyes, PE. Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. Thomas E. Angus. PE. Susan M. Ebenin, CPA. Robert G SchunKht, PE. David O. Loskota, PE. Howard A. Sanford, PE. Marvin L. Sorvala, PE. Re: File No. 139-1334 Meyers Woods Dear Jeanne, We reviewed the Meyers Woods project in the field on Friday, December 2, 1988 with the developer and City Staff. The three items that were reviewed were the location of the access off Brown Road, the location of a temporary con- struction access road, and the east -west road through the outlet. The property access can be located as shown on the enclosed drawing. The proposed location provides for a 45 MPH speed limit design. The sight dis- tance for the proposed entrance is 420 feet. The current speed limit on the street is � MPH and we do not expect that to be increased. The construction access road should be on Brown Road from T.H. 12 to the pro- posed street entrance. We looked at other options for coming off T.H. 12, but could not find an acceptable alternative. The removal of trees and general disruption of the property would be required for any other option. If Brown Road is to be used, the developer's agreement should provide for proper sign- ing and repair of the road if damage occurs. The developer should be required to provide a bond to guarantee the repair work. The location of an east -west road through the southerly portion of the subdi- vision ca- be provided for. We have shown the possible options but there are au unli -d cumber of other choices. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, RONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li 2335 West Hignway 36 9 St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 • A PETITION TO PROTECT BROWN ROAD NORTH We, the undersigned, are Orono residents livino adjacent to and/or using Brown Read North (hereafter referred to as Brawn Road). We have purchased and/or- built our homes in reliance on "rural" 2 acre Zoning and the designation of Brawn Read as a rural "collector" street in Orono's ConrDrehensive Plan. The City Council has recently ammended this Plan: has rezoned 30 acres adjacent to Brawn Road to 1 acre density: and has given preliminary approval to a Planned Residential Development (PRD) that Could significantly alter Brawn Road and the immediate neighborh000d. We oDoose any "upgrading" of Brown Read for the Durpose of accomo- datirio this development. We understand that "upgrading" under MSA standards could r-equire changes in elevation, additional right of way, widening _,f pavement, and/or curb, gutter, and storm sewer. If this is sa, we Would request that Brawn Road be "declassified" as an MSA at reet . We are concerned that the City's awn engineer has indicated that construction traffic for- the proposed development could cause S.,Ubstantial damage to Brown Road. Therefore, we ask the City Council to consider the following before approving this PRD: 1. A SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE SliBDIVISION FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD PLANNED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY lc. This would reduce the subdivision traffic accessing off Brown Road and could be used by construction traffic accessing directly off Hgwy 12. 2. NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ON BROWN ROAD NORTH. The developer has indicated a willingness to work with the city on a construction access off Highway 12. The City should require this in the Developrnent Contract, along with Drovisions to provide immediate cleanup and/or repair of any "unintended" construction damage to Brawn Road. 3. FINAL ENGINEERING AND AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER AND LONG LAKE ON THE LOCATION, THE TIMING, AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAr The specifics of this Frontage Road should be a matter ��f Public Policy, and not left to "private" negotiations with the Developer and Long Lake. How can a City Council aDDrove a rezoning for CE5 homes without agreement on the Frontage Road that was an integral part of the Study justifying the rezoning? We believe resolution of this frontage road is as imoortant to *he neiphb-�rhoc-d as resolution of sewer service is to the LeVe l c user. 4. ACRE LOTS ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PRD AS SPECIFIED IN THE HGWY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMMENDMENT. The concept Of "buffering" existing_ property _owners from increases In density From rezoning was a fundamental principal of the Cc-mo Plan Amendrnent. We do not feel that E one acre lots with a verimeter buffer strip is an aLlDrODriate substitute for 3 two acme lots. narne A PETITION TO PROTErT BROWN ROAD NORTH address Cj- ------------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- A PETITION TO PROTECT BROWN ROAD NORTH address narne A PETITION TO PROTECT BROWN ROAD NORTH address -- ----- - -2yy--�1---4 �__------- -J Z------------ ------------- ---G------------------------ --- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- A PE'rIT[ON TO PROTECT BROWN AOF' %7RTH name address 2-1 ____ ___ _____� � r-_______ -,, - - ----------- --- -- �-_----------- z.!!- -- ----------------- -------- --------------- --- ���--- -------------- y--------------- -------------------------.---- To: Mayor Grabey : Orono Council Men;'crs City Admini�.,�rator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator r,,_ •t, December 2, 1988 Subject: #1337 Robert Paige, 3493 Crvstal Place - Variance - Resolution Application - Request for variances to construct detached garage .tearer street than front line of house; and 5' `rom side lot line. Zoning District - LR-'..:' List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action of il/22/88 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 11/21/88 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Exhibit D - Prot -zed Resolution Discussion The applicant wishes to remove his existing garage and replace it with a larger garage. Both the existing and proposed garage are nearer the side street (Navarre Avenue) than the line of the existing house. In addition, applicant wishes to place the r,ew garage 5' from the side lot line instead of Lne 10' required side setback. TH-, was recommended for approval by the Planning Ccmm'ssion based on obj Lons from the neighbors, and because the existing -*-arage is only m side lot line. Please review the memo xhibits c` November 14, 1988. The current proposal. is a :major .revision of the aYplicant's original. proposal, which would have placed a new detached garage on the corner of the intersection. Planning Commission, at their November 21, 19°9 meeti:�, voted 6-0 to approve the proposed garage in i*s revised location, subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum side yard setback (south lot line) shall be 2. Mind- street setback (west lot line foundation of garage) ,,,,all be The Planning Commission felt that the hardships justifying this request included location of the existing drivewa,, the width of ti— propesed garage, and applican`'s desire to maintain the circular nature of the driveway past the northwest corner of the new garage. In addition, if the garage is moved further bac,: on the lot, it would eliminate a number of matare trees t?%at applicant .vi_3hes to save. Staff Recommendation - the attached Staff recommend-, appr- va 1 0: the -r,~.riance request, F?I resolution. ZONING FILE NO. 1337 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11-22-88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Robert Paige COPIES TO: 3493 Crystal Place Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 11-21-88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Minimum side yard setback (south lot line): 5' 2. Minimum street setback (west lot line to foundation of gar --Age): 3 0 ' Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council December 12, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission m.Lnutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVE14BER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED with that information. Once the residents have the guardrail information, it would be their responsibility to contact the City. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1337 ROBERT PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCES SECOND REVIEW Mr. Paige was present for this second review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. Mr. Paige had previously received direction from the Planning Commission to revise the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Paige was now planning on replacing the existing garage structure with a larger garage and would require a 5' side yard setback variance. Gaffron explained that if the garage is moved back, as Mr. Paige agreed to do, then there would not '-Je a need for a variance to the 30' street setback requirement for garage doors facing the street. Planning Commission member Hanson asked how Mr. Paige would access the proposed garage. Mr. Paige responded that he would access off of Navarre Avenue. Planning Commission member asked how far .from Navarre Avenue the new garage would be located. Mr. Paige indicated that it would be 301. It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application, provided that the garage be located at least 30' from the west lot line and 5' from the south lot line. Mr. Paige inquired as to whether the 30' was from the foundation or roof? Gaffron c;larif4-ed that it would be from the foundation and that the overhang could be a maximum of 1-1/2 feet. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1346 BIN" HAGBERG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. Hagberg was present for this matter. As explained by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council. The Council was concerned about the discovery of a sewer line that would be located 5from the proposed storage garage. Public Works Director Gerhardson had indicated that the line would just be used for flushing downstream systems -zo the 5' setback would be sufficient. Mr. Hagberg had provided a list of items that required storage. Gaffron considered that to be a hardship Mr. Hagbei-I's present garage is located in such a way that adding to it would nr' be practical. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: November 14, 1988 Subject: #1337 Robert Paige, 3493 Crystal Place - Variance - Second Review .Application - Request for setback variances to construct detached garage. Zoning District - LR-IC List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Proposal and Staff Scale Sketch E::hibit B - Letter's From Applicant and Neighboring Property Owner Exhibit C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/6/88 Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 10/3/88 Exhibit E - Memo & Exhibits of 9/29/88 Discussion - At the Planning Commission's October 3rd meeting, the applicant wa- advised to consider a revised garage location and submit a new proposal. The applicant has reviewed his situation, and is now proposing a new garage location. The revised proposal merely replaces the existing garage with a larger garage. The new garage will be no closer to the side street (Navarre Avenue) than the existing garage. The proposed gar_ a. -, .: i 11 be 5' f rom the south side lot line, requiring a variance, but is still. approximately 1.7' further from the lot line than the existing garage. The 1' proposed overhang will leave the drip line within applicant's property. The neighboring affected property owner, Lupe Gomez, has submitted a letter of non -objection to the proposal. Variances needed to accomplish the current project are as follows: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Garage located nearer the street lot line than the principal building. 2. Section 11.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Minimum side yard setback: 10' Proposed: 5' 3. Section 10.03, Sul 'ivi sion 13 - Garage doors facing street arm less than the required s0' setback. Zoning File #1387 November 14, 198E Page 2 of 2 Applicant states in his letter of request that the garage will be placed at least 30' from his west lot line. Although his sketch shows something different, if he meets that 30' setback, the third variance is not required. Applicant suggests that the hardships for the 5' side setback variance are due to the location of the existing driveway, the width of the proposed new garage, and his wish to maintain the circular nature of the driveway past the northwest corner of the new garage. GLven the location of the existing house, the variance to allow the garage to be nearer Navarre A-enue than the existing house is reasonable, since moving the garage behinc, the extended west line of the house would leave him with more driveway hardcover and very little back yard. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the revised proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. New garage shall be located at least 30' from the west lot line of the property. 2. New garage shall be located at least 5' from the south side lot line of the property. . N � firut� O-S 10 #N-j e&s rq,L 3o/ r y� 5Gr �f Y/ 4or /6 J�v 1�0 s /VEUJ S 27-4 f � CA�t�oce- vRQr #AK ' ge�,6sr �E ,reA,e�r R,cvc L-x gMe. Lar 9 -r ' a y / j c • ' S /IJFr¢s;L�O (A/0 is 3 3 OFcr IWo&7 — -- --- Fr k r — CRYSTAL PLACE Gr PeC VS!O't`� /Gv./Z :vrfaSure-1 it , I 20.7 I I O I I I d i'r.p rn a n11 I _ I n 1� Uj i I M h I z v I I Ui Qr+ j e I• I �O � 1H.4 FQ - 1.4 F_.�L 8► C) �� ?�� LL. J_ I Jjr certify that this i s a true and correct 7,epresen -- ve y of :he es of Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Navarre Heights, and ali existl,ny buildings, a. red location of a proposed garage thereon. It does not pur:);.,rt :o show any 1cruvements or encroachments. Oct. 26, 1988 Robert Paige 3493 Crystal Place Wayzata, MN 55391 Mr. Mike Gaffron: City of Orono After talking to you on the phone Wed. Oct. 12, 1988 I am planning to build a new garage approximately 28 feet wide by 30 feet long, although the exact size I am not sure about. The lay out for the new building will be the same as the existing building, the overhead doors will be facing Navaare Ave. to the west. The walk through door will face north toward the house. The new building will be 30 feet or more from my west lot line. The variance which I will need will be to build 5 feet from my south lot line. This will enable me to keep my circular driveway intact. After excavation and erection of the new garage I may still have space for a flower garden such as the existing one. My existing garage is 3.3 feet from my south lot line. The new garage if the variance is approved will be 5 feet from my south lot line and will be approximately 30 feet from my neighbors nearest building. Mr. L. �z, my closest neighbor has no objections to my plans provided a varianct .; approved. Thank You Sincerely Robert Paige DATE: Oct. 14, 1988 TO, Robert Paige FROM: Lupe Gomez SUBJECT: Building Site I Lupe Gomez have no objections concerning Mr. ?aige building a new garage according to the requested variance in building codes. Signed Date O ZONING FILE NO. 1337 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/6/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Robert Paige COPIES TO: 3493 Crystal Place Wayzata, MN 5539_ TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 10/3/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission expressed a reluctance to recommend approval of variances for the proposed garage location near the corner. review of the application was tabled to allow applicant to consider a revised garage location and submit a new proposal. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your options. A revised site plan proposal should be submitted no later than Tuesday, October 11, 4:30 p.m., for inclusion on the October 17th Planning Commission agenda. The next following Planning Commission meeting is November 21st, hence if you wish to start construction this fall, try to prepare for the October 17th meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent ucon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 174k.-h meeting is 4:30 p.m. October llth or November 14th for the r'. .-mber 21st meeting. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within 90 days or the City will consider the application as formall, withdrawn. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after -eview and approval by the Plcumin5 Commission. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1988 WING FILE #1336-OBBRHAUSER CONTINUED re in favor of having only one structure on the lot. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed, It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Jo"ason, to table application #1336. Motion. Ayes-6, Nays=O, Motion passed. 61337 ROBERT PAIGE ` 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the property in question was located at the corner of Crystal Place and Navarre Avenue. Mr. Paige is seeking a setback variance to construct a detached garage in his front yard. The garage would be located 5' from the street lot line of Crystal Place and 10' from the street lot line of Navarre Avenue. Chairman Kelley asked about the designation of the front of the house. Gaffron stated that because the applicant was using Crystal Place as his address, that si3e of the house would be considered the front. Gaffron stated that there is a question as to whether the codes require the detached garage to be located behind the existing front line of the house parallel to the side street. Chairman zeiley asked whether there were any neighbor- whc were present to express heir opinions of this applic. on. There were none. Kelley asked Gaffron if any corresponden,-a had been received from neighboring properties. Gaffron stated he had not received any comments from Mr. Paige's nei^hbars. Mr. Paige stated that he felt embarrassed about propos such a plan if 30' setback was required. He was not aware -hat fact. He sated that had he known that, he would not rn,,e made such a proposal. Mr. Paige stated that he was "stymied". Chairrin Kelley asked Mr. Paige if he would ' : "a to come back witl: a revised plan. Mr. Paige stated that h% ild not afford another 150.00 fee. Kelley told him it woulo .t be necessary to pay any additional fees. Mr. Paige said he would like some: advi-e as to where a feasible location for the garage would De. Planning Commission member Hanson suggested building the new garage in the location of the old garage. Mr. Paige stated that he could not afford to build in that location because of the excavation required. Planning Commission member Brown stated that he did not see where there voula be a need for a qreat 3a MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZONING FILE #1337-PAIGE CONTINUED amount of excavation to place the garage in the old garage site. Planning Commission member Cohen concurred with Brown. Ranson stated that anything that projects toward Crystal Place, beyond the average front yard setback, will not be approved. Mr. Pa= e stated that he did not want to remove any trees from property. Hanson reiterated his opinion that the south;:- t corner of the property was the best location for the garage. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.` It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by P lanning Commission member Hanson, to table application U 337. Motion, Ayes=6, *lays=0, Motion passed. #1338 DUANE & CONNIE SCHIBILLA 3235 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:52 P.M - 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certiiica.-.e of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were requesting hardcover and accessory structure area variances to construct a new garage tc, the rear of their property. Access to the garage would be through a driveway that serves approximately 8 houses and is along the railroad right-of-way. The proposed cation of the Schibilla garage would conform to the locations of neighboring garages. The Schibi. i las had a garage that was destroyed in tre July, 1987 "Super Storm". The old structure has been removed. The proposed a-i-age would have tw,- stories of 6 ,; s.f. each. Chairman RellF- ;ked what the actual size of the .garage would be. Mrs. Sch.i:_ _a replied it would be 24' by 26'. If the size c,f the gara- ? were reduced to 500 s.f. per story, which would not require a variance, the total area we: ld be 20' by 25' or 22' by 221. Gaffron asked t} applicants about the feasibility of putting a half basPm,.,nt under the g,�rage whi, would al e_7w for the large size of the upper f lcor i cut down the floor area below. Mr. Jorn Nelson, the contractor to the SchibIlla's, stated that their house only has half a baseL.ant, so the applicants were in need of storage space. Gaffron added that from a hardcover standpoint, there was not really any reasonable hardcover tr.,,- could be removed. The applicant: was asked wheti.er �,e intended to retain the gLa-�el parking area. vr. Schlbilla rer iied txiat the irking area w,.s not really needed. It wcu J d ju..- t ne a question of whether his guests parked on crass or gra .-e_. Planning ':ommission member as ed if the -e as any altern.it= .e parking 1s ,t To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 29, 1988 Subject: V 7 Robert Paige, 3493 Crystal Place - Vaiianee - Public Hearing Application .est for setback variances to construct detached garage in front Zoning District - "R-IC, Single Family, 1/2 Acre, Sewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners Joist Exhibit D - Survey With Applicant's Sketch With Driveway E:-nibit E - Applicant's Letter of Request and Hai i_p Statement Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations b� Staff Exhibit G - Survey With Normally Allowed Setbacks Pertinent Code Section* 1. Section 10.03, Subdi,%i.Lsicn 9 (D) - No detached garage ^:- ^`'-!r accessory bui_ding shall be located nearer the front or st_:ee4 :)t line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have front. ge on a l ak,, . . 2. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Minimum front yE-d setback-30', minimum si le Turd setback ad jacen;: to street-15'. 3. Section 10.03, Subdue,A FIion 14 - Yards and spaces. A) Reduction prohibited. No yard or other open space shag 1 be reduced in area or dimensions so as tr -nake suc yard or other open space less than the minimum req°i • i by the zc;nl:. ? chapter and i" the existing yard or other open space as ex.'sti,z:- is less than the minimuy required, it shall not be fu7 ;.tier reduced. Zoning File #1337 September 29, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Pertinent Facts - 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage near the corner of Navarre Avenue and Crystal Place. The garage is proposed to be 5' from the Crystal Place lot line and 10' from the Navarre Avenue lot line. Please refer to Exhibit G, which is a diagram showing where a detached garage could legally be allowed on this property. 2. The applicant has an existing detached garage at the south end of the lot. Applicant is suggesting that he would incur unusual expenses in excavating and removing existing amenities such as sidewalks, a flower garden, dog kennel, and retaining wall in order to place the new garage in that location. Applican' also claims the location of major trees existing on the property, and notes that a garage of the size proposed would result in removal of trees if located anywhere other than the proposed site. 3. Staff did suggest that the applicant consider attaching a garage, since he could probably do so without the need for setback variances. He notes that the cost of an attached garage would be prohibitive and would reduce his lawn area near the house. 4. Note that this property is within the 500-1,000' hardcover zone where 35% hardcover is allowed. Staff has done a hardcover review of the property, finding that if the existing garage is not removed in conjunction with new garage construction, the hardcover will be right at the 35% allowed percentage. There appears to be more driveway gravel on this lot than is normally needed for adequate service. 5. In considering the applicant's request, note that there are no houses to the north of Crystal Place since this is railroad right-of-way. HoweveL, also note that there are no garayes situated in frunt yards along all of Crystal Place. An additional item reviewed by staff is that Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 requires that no fences or structures or plantings more than 3' high on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as Follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two lIntersecting streets, thence 30' along one curb line, thence diagnally 30' from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning." Zoning File #1337 September 29, 1988 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit G notes the location of curb lines for Crystal Place and Navarre Avenue and the triangular space that is allowed no obstructions. It appears that the proposed garage would not not cause a visibility problem For this intersection. 6. City records do not indicate whether the sewer connection was made on the sewer stub on Lot 9 at Crystal Place or on Lot 10 at Crystal Place. Applicant should verify that the sewer connection used the easterly stub, since if the westerly stub was used, the garage would appear to be over that private sewer line, making future repairs problematic. Discussion - Given the tenor of contemporary zoning codes for the LR-lC district, approval of a garage in the proposed location would be quite unusual, unless this was a lakeshore lot, in which case it would be quite normal. In a case such as this, Planning Commission must carefully weigh the hardships noted by the applicant against the potential visual effect such a structure will have on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It would be unusual for, the Planning Commission to consider the "extremely high costs of site grading" as a legitimate hardship, although applicant certainly may feel that the grading and potential need to remove existing amenities is not reasonable. Also, Planning Commission must consider whether placement of a garage in the proposed location would decrease the light, air, and open space in the neighborhood. Certainly what now appears to be a large park -like lawn area will be visually affected by a garage structure. It is not clear to staff whether applicant definitely proposes to remove the existing garage if the proposed garage is constructed. If that garage is removed, does that help justify the new proposed garage location? Finally, please consider whether the statements of hardship shown by the applicant are hardships created by the property owner rather than hardships inherent with the property. Consider whether a new gara(-e located say 5' from the south lot line in place of the existing garage, would be more appropriate. Zoning File #1337 September 29, 1988 Page 4 of 4 Staff Recommendation - If the Planning Commission feels that applicant's stated hardships and reasons for the requested variances are justified, staff would request that Planning Commission carefully specify those reasons and hardships. In staff's opinion, approval of this proposal without specific and unique findings of hardship to the property will result in setting an unusual precedent. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 i ($50.00 per each additional varian Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 _-;r,:,:1r nc_ rrc -:r_.�:r.:�w yr � �VL. (no change from original application) •:-;t6 After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) =' ---- ----------------- - V 1 LL:7 Ad V. UV PROPERTY LOCATION �ie 5 �4 ? rig iV.�Site Address 7- L � C'� % 9/r �•nr i` ///� %� 1, ova :iva :t;i Property Identification Number (P . I . D .) 1-7- //-7 -cZ3 - - /.3oo 1— Please check one - Property —Y. abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ___- _______ ,/____ q__ _q_ APPLICANT -------------------------------Phone (home) 7 %1 " /3� /--------- Name �BEIRT' JAMJGS Phone (work) 9?s-.33el axr -Address ----CILLSTi¢L-- ge-6- --City_ l/��T/¢----Zlp-- J�c�7l ---- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address: Phone (work) City: Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I'(do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels -of land. - PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY ^ Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other .(specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail:_ S,5z-- 5hte-T VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover - Setback Variances (_� Front Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: ,'5_ /.Z77,4C,iJE1yj 4L062T_ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: SCE T/¢-11C-0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRLD 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). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administr--tor, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature % Date 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 verificatioryTf this request. Owner's Signature 11411e_ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building s Zoning Office of this change prier to the meeting. 17 rb 16 y �, w• � .�'� r/ � •, �•. ,, .`1\ C, �' Qom'/ 15 / 14 �r it �) b IN\`61A�fF • f� �'LJ i �� `- � 1• � y•. / ,' 9 r� �o.•/ , ,y� q. - 14 15 i � •, � / % 1•�y 6ti'� ,titi� l!►"�•I�t1) lay)w l ✓ .11'� `` \'�►G� ra 00 eki / /„ ��\ � • I ► fib' " ;� / \�� 4 N1 I`3 v�' 2,v 1 � :•1 L� 1 B • i i �� 5 1tir ,\ , � ' ' 1 / �9�J' \ '1 •r •may r (II�I) `'i' 1` � y ' �i) i , y.• r 8 ^•�, . � y.'l�p" b0 � �J t1111 i •f `� ` � r,4• ,•••�' �. 1. � ., .I v .• � `.. 7 n j •. y� at a1'.� 'G; ' 4C 1 t ' 2O l J�+1) 21 9 2 4YL/� is 1 n7 �O ,t `t • .�.12 S• is • cai ;•t t•` I "'ri 'b�l , �' i•. •rr •'1`\C� (il 1 �'� 1 V 1 ` �� 17\��'1 1` ,�• t f� 1O / , gr 28 7 e 1 e 1 • e 4 3 `z til G 3, ^r 9r11 d1 -171 7 ♦ • a -I _I v2✓1 1 • + �* ; ,f = .�� 1 (c9%/ 'A �, , 1) 2tl 1 . • 24 11 12 13 1� I ! 6 17 16 119 20 LI •, ' ;L 14•, • 0(/VF 1�`4` q v 1 I Id IS 120 121 i2 3 /411 1 I • p 18� it �`F ' �DY IVINGSTON ` � t• i• +�'� • 17i Ig r� �```4i 1\,) I((431 2 1 �- ,♦' li 'i2' It 'I l0. \9 8 7 e s y a l• ?i y .�rKf,� :,;h 10 '2° v ,, • 7 s I I - t y`� 4 a- TIS 18 1 17, ►• 1o0( 23. 2 127E • ,<<. 3- ; 17 1• 1• 20 21 122 23.124 Q t e, (I} d, 1 •_ 1 .. I �B.3 \3 �L • , 1,y71 ����!� IP�� (s%1 1;li.1�111 (.1 ✓ fl Afi ,' 'ice Loth r \ 5 AV eon 01 is 11! I�.} ••, ,�, e a 3 z► \- t 0rk a/,� ¢ ♦ 3 , 2, •1 44 13 12 11 10 �• hj ; ` r,A'` u 1 Y 22 ;5 1• 17 16 1• 20 21 ` 22 19 to hAl �lL�M1I (113) �Il,� � .. — � - _ err s --• ---- ; _ i iit , _ _ ——ttics-aii--No---•15-----PL-AT Y, 11 - •-� I r c tlute WILEY'5 NAvAFiHE A00 for vocatloq _ 13r rJ d port of 01.v• Avg a It"' crsollon of 1. 3 • ��� 4�• ►� � LOT 24 age ,k 137016C <• �rw c i:uunry Survcyor plot trk • 43 ,, '.. � ,, s �8 •, • 14 • RUN DATE 08/20/68 HATCH 008 38 17-117-23 43 0008 PROP ADDR 03465 CRYSTAL PL OWNER NAME STEPHANIE A KROEGER TAXPAYER STEPHANIE A KROEGER NAME/ADOR 3465 CRYSTAL PL WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-11'-23 43 0011 PROP ADDR 03485 CRYSTAL PL OWNER NAME CHERYL K GOULET TAXPAYER CHERYL GOULET NAME/ADDR 3485 CRYSTAL PLACE NAVARRE MH 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0017 PROP ADDR 03460 LIVINGSTON AVE OWNER NAXE KENRIC N LINDLAN TAXPAYER R SCHAAD A B L SCHAAD NAME/ADDR 2974 OAKLAWN LA MOUND MN 55364 38 17-117-23 43 0042 PROP ADDR 03508 LIVINGSTON AVE u " ME MARK A SPALDING ETAL MARK A SPALDING �ODR 3508 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN SS391 38 17-117-23 43 0129 PROP ADDR 02237 SHAOYWOOD RD OWNER NAME D L SCHJDER A S M SCHUDER TAXPAYER DANIEL L A SUSAN M SCHUD�R NAME/ADDR 2237 SHADYWOOD ROAD WAYZATA MN SS391 38 17-117-23 43 0144 PROP ADDR OIE29 SHADYWOOD RD 044ER NAME J A Y PIEPER TAXPAYER SUSAN A TODD PIEPER NAME,/ADDR 2229 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MH 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 43 000) 03473 CRYSTAL PL 6 V LATOURELLE A K M OLAFSON KAREN M OLOFSON 3473 CRYSTAL PL WAYZATA MH 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0012 03493 CRYSTAL PL R J PAIGE A E A PAIGE ROBERT J PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PL WAYZATA MN SS391 38 17-117-23 43 0026 03525 CRYSTAL PL STATE LAND DEPT GEORGE J A NOLA A EDWARDS 3533 CRYSTAL PLACE WAYZATA MINN SS391 38 17-117-23 43 0127 02259 SHADYWOOO RD MARGARET J BJORK MICHAEL A CHRISTINA SLHAFER 3220 CHICAGO AVE MPLS MN 55407 38 17-117-23 43 0139 03488 LIVINGSTON AVE L A 6 GOMEZ LUPE A GAIL GOMEZ 3488 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 008 00016 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 22 38 17-117-23 43 0010 03477 CRYSTAL PL HANCY B HATFIELD DEAN HILGERS A ROD EARLYWINE 425 ELM ST S WACONIA MN SS387 38 17-117-23 43 0016 03472 LIVINGSTON AVE C T VERSAILLES ET AL CHESTER A MELODY VERSAILLES 3472 LiVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0041 03520 LIVINGSTON AVE GENEVIEVE H EBERT GENEVIEVE E EBERT 3520 LIVINGSTON AV WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0128 02245 SHADYWOOO RD D A E WEISS DONALD H WEISS 2245 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0140 03505 CRYSTAL PL JCHN C ROSHOLT JOHN C RUSHOLT 1600 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MPLS MN 55402 7-6 -5C'�� .RYSTAL PLACE 5�•� 20. 0 i � I VM G' W �1 r C , v N, \- 3 t 4 'L O ^ i Y � � R Gi4Fc�.1� i b skts0 �J • - !r • tIfy that tMIS 1s a true dnd correct representat!�_-n -. Vey 0r :h= �f L 0 t s 9 and 10, Block 2, Navarre reIjhts, and 3ii e..1: 1,,, bulldl,1^,s, ocation of a proposed garage thereon. It does nc: p—jr r: .o shcv and ements cr encr;achnents. 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST A variance application is being applied for to build a 30 foot x 28 foot garage. This building will have the same roof pitch and 3 inch steel siding with white trim matching the house. Landscape timbers and decorative rock will border the garage on three (3) sides, matching the decor of the house. II. HARDSHIP AND DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL. PROPERTY CONDITIONS The sole purpose of variance is to build a larger garage. The location of my present garage prevents me from building at that location be- cause I am only three (3) feet from my south lot line. Mature evergreen trees prevent me from building further to the east. I also have a circular driveway that prevents me from building to the west and north. The garage at its present location is elevated approximately 3 feet above a flower garden which z don't want to lose. Considering excavation costs, loss of the flower garden, and loss of the circular driveway, it would be too costly and very impractical for me to build at this location. The proposed placement for the new 30 foot x 28 foot garage will be in the northwest corner of Lot 010. The north side of the garage (back side) would be 5 feet from the east -west lot line and be 18 foot 4 inches from the bituminous surface of Crystal Place. The west side of the garage (left side) would be 10 feet from the north -south lot line and would be 20 feet 6 inches from the bituminous surface of Navarre Avenue. The northwest corner of Lot #10 is the most practical and economical site on which to build the new garage, as it does not obstruct the view from the douse, needs no excavation, and does not require clearing trees. Robert J. Paige 3493 Crystal Place Wayzata MN 55391 Pisidence 471-9329 Work 935-3381 - ext 136 g/nw` '-let Crr.�►Sirrt. �i.o you z -� . C -/"o 6;</577tf Ca. H44tTo 3Dx2.,f 7� Gary-C�� Z ZrLB 3 9 6.0, L,-sCAetS 4���n� L/ X 3 O l ZO �r vcT,NA-y—�,PVE2 /N Fief of (,ae . 2S X 27 //,,N'�,�s , l x?O o -114�. X, La-&. 23 ytm = z8, L6`-S L/O .s r , ��=may M c� ` o _ CRYSTAL _ - --PLACE L /Oo.Gb Nev...e r✓e .�i /00./� /►'1CaSuK� �e. o w Z w 9-. I Ar, �r'1fy that this is a true and corre, representation or :L. vey of the Of Lots 9 and 10, Block 2\ Navarre Heights• and all eA131.11)y buildings, location of a proposed garage thereon. It does not pur:cr� -o sho.a ary vt^+ents or encroachments. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D), AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (F! FILE NO. 1337 WHEREAS, Robert Paige (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3493 Crystal Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit the construction of a detached garage located nearer the front lot line than the principal building, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) to allow the garage to be constructed 5' from the side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. Tnis application was reviewed as Zoning File #1337. 2. The property is located in the LR-17 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 21, 1988, and recommended approval of the requested variances based upon the following findings: A) The proposed garage will replace an existing garage which is located 3.3' from the side lot line, hence a greater setback than now exists will be obtained. B) The side setback variance is justified based on the location of the existing driveway and applicant's desire to not move that driveway and disrupt additional lawn area. C) Placement of the garage behind the extended west line of the house in order to avoid a variance would necessitate the removal of a number of mat*ire trees and would eliminate the current rear yard area enjoyed by applicant. Page 1 of 4 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, re; orts by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the propcsed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other 3anger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to al Deviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) tc 1,ermit the detached garage to be located nearer the west lot line than the extended front line of the existing house, and grants a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (F) to allow a side yard setback for the detached garage of 5', subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum street setback from the garage doors to the lot line abutting Navarre Lane shall be 30'. 2. Authorit=es granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval_, or this variance will expire on that date (December 12, 1989). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution an-1 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 12th day of December, 1986. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Rallin, City Clerk Property Owner(s) James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 3 of 4 fr TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Aist. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: December 5, 1988 Subject: #1346 Einar Hagberg, 740 North Arm Drive - Variance - Second Review - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit r) - Memo & Exhibits of 11/17/88 Exhibit - Notice of Planning Commission Action Dated 11/22/e8 Exhibit - Proposed Resolution Indicating Revised Planning Commission Findings of Hardship Exhibit G - List of Applicant's Items to be Stored Discussion - This item was referred back to the Planning Commission at your October 24, 1988 meeting, for additional consideration of what hardships are involved. The Planning Commission at their November 21st meeting revised their approval recommendation to include a requirement for removal of almost 700 s.f. of existing hardcover, including the 101 s.f.. shed near the boat house, and 593 s.f. of rock and plastic between the house and the shoreline. The Planning Commission also made the following findings regarding hardships for this property: 1. Property/house contains little existing storage area. The request for additional storage space is reasonable. Applicant has a number of bulky items which need to be stored inside. 2. Additions to the existing attached garage are net feas-ble: a. Addition to west end of garage would encroach withi: of south lot line. b. Entryway layout and topography prohibit a reasonable garage addition north of the existing garage. The Planning Commission recommendation for approval passed by a vote of 6-0. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the attached proposed resolution. which contains the following additional conditions: 1. Detached garage shall be allowed in the location proposed, to be r located 5' from the existing sewer clean out line. 2. The applicant shall grant a utility easement for the existing sewer lines (legal description, etc. to be provided by the City). A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1346 WHEREAS, Einar Hagberg (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 740 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 362, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a detached storage garage which will increase the hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1346. 2. ;he property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 17, 1988 and November 21, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) A significant percentage of the existing hardcover in the 0- 75' zone and a small percentage of the hardcover in the 75-250' zone is due to an existing gravel driveway providing access from the higher rear of the property to the lower lakeshore, and from which the City derives some benefit by its existence due to the ability of the City to use that driveway for maintaining the existing sewer line, hence the area of that gravel driveway should be excluded from both numerator and dencminator of the hardcover calculation, thereby reducing the hardcover percentages on the property. Page 1 of 5 B) The applicant has agreed to remove 694 s.f. of existing hardcover on the property, which will result in removals of hardcover in excess of the square footages to be added, resulting in an overall hardcover decrease on the property. In addition, the areas of hardcover to be removed are much closer to the lakeshore then the proposed garage structure. C) The existing house and property contain little existing storage area. The request for additional storage space is reasonable. Applicant has a number of bulky items which must be stored. D) The Planning Commission finds that additions to the existing attached garage are not feasable because: 1. An addition to the west end of the garage would encroach within 1' of the south lot line. 2. The entryway layout and topography prohibit a reasonable addition north of the existing garage. 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. 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 a?.leviate 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 mooning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a detached storage garage which will increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1. The storage garage shall be placed in a location at least 5' from the existing sewer line near the north line of the property. 2. Hardcover on the property shall be limited to the following in the 0-75' zone: (Area of zone = 11,100 s.f.) Boat House 533 s.f. Deck 96 s.f. Patio 192 s.f. Walks 248 s.f. 1,069 s.f. or 9.6% Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall be limited to the following: (Area of zone = 21,700 s.f.) House 1,659 s.f. Concrete Walks 567 s.f. Retaining Walls 103 s.f. Decks 636 s.f. Bituminous Driveway 1,428 s.f. Rock & Plastic 786 s.f. Portion of Detached Storage Garage 480 s.f. TOTAL 5,659 s.f or 26.1% (1,956 s.f. gravel driveway has been omitted from these calculations per the Planning Commissior recommendation) Hardcover in the 250-500' z Y call be limited as follows: (Area = of zone=3,000 s.f.) Bituminous Driveway 900 s.f. Portion of Proposed Garage 96 s.f. TOTAL 996 s.f. or 33.2% 3. The property owner shall remove 593 s.f. of plastic from rock bed areas in the 75-250' zone, and shall remove the 101 s.f. shed structure from the 0-75' zone, prior to issuance of a building permit for the new detached garage. Page 3 of 5 No 4. The property owner is advised that no additional hardcover will be allowed on the property, and that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. 5. The property owner is advised that the existing boat house structure near the lakeshore on the property is considered a non- conforming structure and is subject to the ordinances pertaining to such structures. 6. The applicant shall grant a utility easement for the existing sewer lines, legal description etc. to be provided by the City. 7. Authorities granted with this -resolution run with the property not with the ap-licants, 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 (December 12, 1989). 8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of 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 12th day of December, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Propercy owner(s) Page 3 of 4 ZONING FILE NO. 1346 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11-22-88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Einar Hagberg COPIES TO: 740 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 11-21-88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: CONDITIONS: 1. Removal of 101 s.f. shed near lake. 2. Removal of 593 s.f. rock/plastic. FINDINGS OF HARDSHIP: 1. Property/house contains little existing storage area. Request for additional storage space is reasonable. 2. Additions to the existing attached garage are not feasible because: a. Addition to west end of garage would encroach within 1' of south lot line. b. Entryway layout and topography prohibit a reasonable garage addition north of existing garage. Staff will recommend the following additional conditions of approval to the City Council: 1. Detached garage be allowed as proposed, to be located 5' from the existing sewer cleanout line. 2. Applicant to grant utility easement for the existing sewer lines (legal description, etc. to be provided be City). Applicant's next schedu�ed meeting is confirmed as: City Council December 12, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. r LIST OF ITE11,.5 TO EE STORED IN PROPOSED STORAGE GARAGE PM PLEASE N07 : WE HAVE A FLAT R00^ED HOUSE AND HAVE NO STORAGE ROOM OR ATTIC SPACE AT ALL 1- TORO SNOW BLOWER 112611- 31x 5-6 x 6'-0 HIGH 1- LAWN SWEEPER - FGLDED 39 x 32 1- GRASS CATCH -;;A. 26 x 40 1- UTILITY TRACTOR 65 x 12-8 1- Garden hoc Trailor 35x 72 1- GOLF CART 417" x 9'-3 1- LARSON BOAT do TRAILOR 6'-6" x 19'-0 5'-6" HIGH 1 - TORO MOWER 24" x 58-6" 1- MASTER CUT MOWER 24n x 6'-0 1- Wards Mower FrR HILLSIDE 19" x 20" 1- SIMPLICITY RID NG WVER # 4108 38" x 5' -611 1- JARI SICKLE MOWER 32" xh l -hll 1- 6HP MOTOR SPADER 1- 2 BURNER GAS GRILL 1- 2 WOODEN LOUNGE CHAIRS Q EECK ) L- WOODEN DECK CHAIR 1- WOODEN SETEE 1- 5' TABLE & 6 cHA iRss EINAR HAG °..ERG MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 24,1988 ZONING FILE #1339-LEE CONTINUED Bernhardson stated that removal of the steps would riot be necessary. The issue is how the 4' is used, whether planters are installed or the timbers would be extended and covered over. Callahan concurred that some of the underlying structure should remain, but believed that the bank should be restored to its original state as much as possible. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve this application provided that the City Engineer's "opti.on 2" be followed. Mayor Grabek reiterated his belief that the bank should be restored to its original state. He added that there had to be some safeguard instilled so that persons would stop constructing whatever they please within the 0-75' zone. Councilmember Goetten suggested that the city may need to improve its efforts of Informing residents of Orono what is required. Motion, Ayes=4, Mayor Grabek, Nay, Motion passed. #1345 JOHN 4017 NORTH VARIANCE RESOLUTION THEOBALD SHORE DRIVE #2530 Mr. Theobald was not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Theobald agreed with the City's recommendation for one garage not to exceed 1,000 s.f. and to keept the level of hardcover the same. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2530, approving the requested variances. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1346 EINAR HAGBERG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION Mr. Hagberg was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Hagberg -jas seeking approval to construct a detached storage garage on ais property. The proposed structure would increase hardcover in the 75-250' and 250-500' zones to 35.6% and 33.2% respectively. However, there is a gravel road used for City access to sewer lines that was included in the hardcover calculations for both the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. Due to this unusual circumstance, and the fact that exclusion of this road would decrease hardcover percentages, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application with no hardcover removal. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Caffron 10 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 24,1988 ZONING FILE #1346-HAGBERG CONTINUED explained that since the Planning Commission's review, staff discovered that an additional sewer line existed along the north line of the property. Mr. Hagberg believed that he had signed something back in the early 1970's pertaining to the road. However, nothing has ever been recorded on Mr. Hagberg's chain of title. Mr. Hagberg's proposed garage would be 5' from the sewer line, where normally 10' is required. Even though the easement is not of record, the City would still like to maintain 10' on either side of the sewer line so that repairs to the line could occur without disturbing Mr. Hagberg's garage. City Administrator Bernhardson asked Public Works Director Gerhardson as to the depth of the sewer line. Gerhardson replied that he had not checked the "as builts" but he recollected the line to be very shallow. He believed that he could get by with a total of 15', 5' and 101. Mr. Hagberg presented pictures showing his lot and indicated where he wanted to place his storage garage. Mayor Grabek suggested allowing Mr. Hagberg to build his garage where he originally proposed, with only a 5' setback to the sewer line. Councilmember Callahan asked why Mr. Hagberg needed the extra storage facility. Mr. Hagberg stated that he required the extra storage space. Mayor Grabek concurred with Callahan's question and asked what was the hardship for placing another garage on a 3/4 acre lot? Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission did not address that point. Mr. Hagberg explained that he had four lawnmowers that needed to be stored. He had torn down an old shed that was used for that purpose. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron suggested the possibility of removing hardcover to compensate for the additional storage garage. He asked Mr. Hagberg if he would be willing to remove the plastic underlying his landscaping. Mr. Hagberg answered affirmatively. Mayor Grabek suggested that the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Callahan concurred. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to refer this matter bac:: to the Planning Commission to answer the question of hardship for such a large facility, and investigate other alternatives. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grabek had no report for this meeting. 11 4�7 L TO: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: November 17, 1988 Subject: #1346 Einar Hagberg, 740 North Arm Drive - Variance - Referral From Council For Further Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Council Action Dated 10/26/88 Exhibit B - Survey Showing Proposed Hardcover Removals Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 10/20/88 Discussion - The City Council reviewed this application at their October 24th meeting, and voted 5 to 0 to refer this item back to Planning Commisison for further consideration. Specifically, the Council asks Planning Commission to determine whether a hardship exists and ask applicant to consider alternatives to the additional accessory structure on the property. Note that Council indicated they would likely allow the proposed garage to be 5' from the sewer line (see staff memo of 10/26). Staff met with the applicant on 11/16/88 to discuss hardships and alterratives. Applicant notes that he is willing to remove the 10' x 10' tin shed near the boat house, since the shed is falling apart. He also is willing to remove the plastic from the two areas shaded on the attached survey. In discussing the potential for expanding the existing garage the applicant noted that the existing attached garage is only 2' from the side lot line and extending it to create more storage space would involve an extreme side setback variance. Also, it is apparert that expansion of the existing garage further northward would be relatively expensive and would eliminate his main entranceway to the house. There does not seem to be any logical way to expand the existing garage. Applicant notes he would prefer not to reduce the 24'x 24' dimension of the proposed garage. His existing garage is not very big and contains little storage space. Applicant noted he would provide for you a list of the items he needs to store, which may provide the basis for a finding of hardship. Note that with the proposed hardcover removals, final hardcover will be decreased from 18.6% to 17.7% in the 0-75' zone. An error was found in staffs 75-250' original hardcover calculations. Existing 75-250' hardcover is 31.5%. Applicant proposes to remove 593 square feet of plastic, resulting in final 75-250' hardcover of 6235 square feet or 28.7%. Staff Recoa ndation - Planning Commission is requested to determine whether a hardship has been shown that justifies the proposed hardcover variance. If so, a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, accompanied by a list of the hardships. AFPLICATIOH NO. 1346 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION P.O. Box 6f Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of N,ntice: 10/26/88 TO: Einar Hagberg COPIES: 740 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ------------------------------------.------------------------ DATE OF MEETING: 10/24/88 VO'_E: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION: To refer back to Planning Commission to consider whether a hardship exists, also to consider alternatives to this additional accessory structure on the property. Council expressed that they would likely allow the proposed garage to be 5' from the sewer line. This item will be scheduled for further review by the Planning Commission at their next meeting (Monlay, November 21, 1988; 7:00 p.m.). Mike Gaffron will meet with you prior to that meeting to discuss various alternative proposals you might present to the Planning Commission. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Octobe: 20, 1.988 Subject: #1346 Einar Hagberg, 740 North Arm Drive - Variance - Resolution Application - Hardcover variance to construct a detached storage garage. Zoning District - LR-lB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Drawing on Survey Indicating Sewer Line Location & Proposed Garage Location Revision Exhibit B - Planning Commission Nction Notice of 10/20/88 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibit of 10/13/88 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of October 13, 1988. The applicant proposes to construct a detached storage garage of 576 s.f. floor area near the northwest corner of his property. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is 2,070 s.f. or 18.6% with no charge proposed. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 7,148 s.f. or 32.9% which would be increased by 480 s.f. or up to 35.6%. In the 250-500' zone existing hardcover is 900 s.f. or 30% and will increase to 996 s.f. or 33.2%. In reviewing this, Planning Commission felt that the gravel driveway above the municipal sewer line, which provides access should the City need to maintain that line, is not a fully gravelled surface and is not driven on extensively, but serves a public purpose, so that it should be excluded from both sides of the hardcover calculation. While this may be an unusual approach, making those calculations results in 0-75' hardcover of 11.58 and 75-250' hardcover of 29.5%, before the new garage is included. Planning (-cmmission did not feel that it was necessary to remove any existing hardcover on the property to accommodate this hardcover increase. the Planning Commission, at their October 17th meeting, recommended on a 5-0 vote to approve the subject garage addition without any hardcover removals. Sewer Location Issue - Since the Planning Commission review, staff has discovered that an additional sewer line exists along the north line of the property near the storage garage. This line apparently serves no houses, but is used as a system flushing paint. Because that pipe is only 5' from the proposed garage, and the standard easement for sewer purposes would be 10' either side of the pipe, it is appropriate to require that them property owner .relocate that proposed garage to be at least. 10' from the sewer line. This should cause no apparent problems for the property owner. zoning File #1346 October 20, 1988 Page 2 of 2 This also brings up the questions of whether sewer easements have been granted on this property since they did not show up on the survey. The City Attorney has been requested to verify whether a sewer easement was ever granted for this property, and if not (which would not be unusual for this 1973 sewer project for which permanent easements were only sporadically obtained) this might be an appropriate time to ask the property owner to grant such an easement. The City would take care of all of the paper work and create an appropriate legal description. Staff Recommendation - Based on the Planning Commission recommendation, staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variance for the storage garage subject to the conditions: 1. Storage garage shall be moved approximately 5' further south to maintain a 10' setback from the existing sewer line near the north line of the property. 2. The property owner is advisee that the existing boat house and shed within the 0-75' setback zone are considered non -conforming structures per the current zoning code, and are subject to the pertinent codes governing such structures. 3. If it is determined by the City Attorney that a permanent easement for the existing sewer lines has never been granted, the property owner shall grant such an easement, the paperwork and legal description to be provided by the City. A resolution for approval besed cn the above conditions is attached for Council. review. - lefFerrZ C fir•- Svc L� e F �►'t-C . s -------------------- -- Poo a F/tJ At, -75s I sO' 1�.c . APru'p-- 6 A4L IS .�Olb. -- 3 r, 0 ` ZONING FILE NO. 1346 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 615 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/20/88 ------------------------------------•---------------------- TO: Einar Hagberg COPIES TO: 740 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ---------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 10/17/88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval for the garage without requiring concurrent removals of hardcover, finding that the gravel driveway leading to the lake is hardcover that benefits the City by providing a maintenance access for the municipal sewer, hence should not be included in the hardcover calculations. This decreases the percentages of hardcover to 11.5% in the 0-75' zone, and to 29.5% in the 75-250' zone (or 31.8% when the proposed garage is included). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 24, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. E/N411Q- - P& ,A& e 714*F "";, �"` o ,�-r-r P � 7-(D To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 13, 1988 Subject: #1346 Einar Hagberg, 740 North Arm Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Application - Hardcover variance to construct a detached storage garage. Zoning District - LR-lB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Staff Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicant is proposing to construct a storage garage near the west end of the property. This garage, of 576 s.f. and one story; is intended merely for storage of lawn equirment, boat, etc. and is not intended to have an apron or a driveway ltjading to it. 2. Existing hardcover on the prop( in the 0-75' zone is 18.6%. Existing hardcover in the 75-25L one is 32.9%. These figures include a graveled driveway area thai:, while being only partially graveled, provides access to the la)e from the high part of the property, and also provides access for maintenance of. the City sewer lines which are directly below it. The proposed garage is partially in the 250-500' zone. In the 75-250' zone, the proposed garage adds 480 s.f. of hardccver, which increases that to 35.6%. In the 250 -500' zone, hardcover would increase from 30% to 33.2%. Hardcover Survey Existinq Proposed 0-75' 2,070 s.f. (18.6%) No Change 75-250' 7,148 s.f. (32.9%) 7,724 s.f. (35.6%) 250-500' 900 s.f. (30%) 996 s.f. (33.2%) 3. There are a few areas of landscape rock over plastic sheeting on the property, which are potentially hardcover areas that could be made non -hardcover as a trade-off for the additional hard surface with the garage. These areas occur between the house and the lakeshore stairway. 4. Note that the existing boat house was constructed in 1960 and is considered as a non -conforming structure, as is the small shed next to it. Zoning File #1346 October 13, 1988 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - The applicant notes that this storage garage is intended for storage of his lawn care equipment and other miscellaneous items for which he has no other storage room. Although the gravel driveway leading to the lake is only partially graveled, and is only driven on perhaps half a dozen times a year, it is still technically considered hardcover for this review. Staff has not discussed specific hardcover removals with the owner, however, it appears there is enough rock over plastic on the property that removals of the plastic could equal the additional hardcover proposed with the garage, hence there is potential for a result of no increase in hardcover on the property. The garage is located lower than the road, and some drainage is directed toward it. For many years the applicant has had a tile line which outlets next to the gravel drive, perhaps 100' back from the lakeshore. Although the garage is intended to be over this tile line, there would appear to be no great concern with possible future clogging of that line and if it did clog, water would naturally flow around the back side of the garage and generally follow the property line on down. Staff Recomm ndation - Given that this garage meets the required 10' side and rear setbacks for a lakeshore lot, staff would recommend approval subject to the condition that as much hardcover be removed as �_s being added with the new garage, by removing plastic from below 576 s.f. of the existing rock beds. l CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application)=; 'VVV After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) --------------- .- PROPERTY LOCATION rttt_; i - ,`t; fut _ i irA VV!'• wv': riv'i i is Site Address 7 `I y'- : Yct ,L'ti�-.� �' .��+�►ticL c. -' 1f! L1• Property Identification Number (P . I . D . Xf� -// -- i 41-1 CO r E Please check one - Property abstract or __�L torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ---------------------------- -------- APPLICANT Phone (home) Name �'"''"'`' �i'`(- Phone (work) ,` � Address: . C1 C �"..v*/��c �- G_<t City: Zl --------------------------------------------/------------------- -'--------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address: Phone (work) City: Zip: bAi-e Property Acquired 4„rc,., Li • 0 Sri (month/year) I •49impO. (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District /J Present Use of Property / 4 ;L-WA, Residential Other (specify) ---------------------------- a — o struct ----------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction cost 2- fL < 2-4STcca L / j^,i, ,�d • .�. Describe request in detail : •-Y �� f-'`z.,C��cr►� LQ.L --- --------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other - HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Count Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). O<o — Il% —;Z2) ! 13 0004n, 3. �—>ta'ammmpe�c, 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. w4f5e rtificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. .,,,, ]Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature _ Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. A 1 Applicant's Signature Date ~� OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by Ci staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verification of this request. owner's SignatureDate --------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals int - 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 makes arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 09/20/88 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST GAGE 10 BATCH 005 38 06-117-23 32 0002 PROP ADDR 00405 NORTH ARM OR OWNER NAME LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC TAXPAYER LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTK.A INC NAME/ADDR 855 RED OAK LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0005 PROP ADDR 00710 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME JERRY D OLSON ETAL TAXPAYER JERRY 0 OLSON NAME/ADDR 710 NO ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0008 PROP ADDR 00760 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME WALFRID LARSON ETAL TAXPAYER WILLIAM SCHMITT NAME/ADDR 750 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0003 00700 NORTH ARM DR GREGORY M HARTY GREGORY M HARTY 700 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0006 00740 NORTH ARM OR E G E HAGBERG ETAL E G HAGBERG 740 NO ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0009 00770 NORTH ARM OR LARRY W JOEL ET AL LARRY W JUEL 770 NORTH ARM RO MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0004 00720 NORTH ARM DR MIKE R REJSA MIKE R REJSA 720 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MH 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0007 00750 NORTH ARM DR WILLIAM L SCHMITT W L SCHMITT 750 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 a -w 1-4 TOTAL BATCH 005 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND 'TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE OH THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TU THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE U)BY4s-1 4c r. 1 /-/,4-W-�CoVer z A&ZV 1p%^3 Or /3 V (o 7? yo NvAr* ,e1vF -- ,��� ► /00 &IsT7N G ; u s€ It?-V. x s /J. t/ /o / PATIO /z ,K /( Z- vi �-t. �cS19- to x3.S 3S' x/L L/a !�rv�- D►�� vim" ��� IZ � �S �'vo -No C44ANG1-61 P4AbAose R-C�'At 21�700 ,to�� �n E11s nw G 2 Y, o x Z t. 5 572Co. 12 S` 4. (pNL,WA"r-s l.,j X3�C0 /0 X/Y �Dg zq Z �(40 ZD r1 3 L rF-� L 8 4crr.wAcu /O1x.S' S cP2 ,SX� �' ►3 ID3 �s zorve-L �p2 r U x q G J asp 'Dive q.2�5 "7r_ tom- je;�.. S-n c 2 X � ,S x 90 -7 zo C� X yo 3eoo fwasti> ; Ygo s�, Po�rroa of 5-76- s � . GAZ � Sza z sn -SCFO t)ftsr? N �:.0 �, 1 - r To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members Citv Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: November 15, 1988 Subject: #1349 Lauren & Joyce Born, 1420 Shoreline Drive - A) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, Class I - Public Hearing - 7:00 p.m. B) Vacation of Portions of a Drainage & Utility Easement within Lot 2, Block '_, Dragonfly Hill - Public Hearing - 7:10 p.m. Pertinent Sections of the Code - Section 10.12 - Vacation of public utilities and drainage easements. Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Lot standards for the LR-lA zoning district. Section 11.03, Definition 65 (C) - Subdivision required because both resulting lots will not meet the requirements of the zoning chapter of the City Code. Halper will be under the required 2 acres. The Halper property (unsewered) Parcel A: Existing = 2.09 acres (91,040 s.f.) Required = 2 acres .09 acres = wet (3,920 s.f.) 2 acres = dry (87,120 s.f.) Proposed = 1.97 acres (85,813.2 s.f.) .09 acres dry 1.88 acres dry (82,059 s.f.) The Born property (sewered) Parcels B & C: Existing = .186 acres (8,135 s.f.) Required = 2 acres (87,120 s.f.) Proposed = .3 acres (13,196 s.f.) Zoning File #1349 November 15, 1988 Page 2 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Zinal Survey - Lot 2, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill Exhibit E - Prelimirary Survey - Lot 2, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill - Tcpographic Plus Area Confirmation Exhibit F - Subdivi--ion of Lot Line Rearrangement - Metes & Bounds Lescripric,ns A. Subdivision Application - The proposed division involves the separation or division of a 37.03' wide corridor from the southern portion of Lot 2, Block 1, defined as Parcel B on the survey, Exhibit F, to be combined with the Born homestead property defined as Parcel C on that same survey. The application also involves the vacation of a 10' wide drainage and utility easement platted along the southern lot line of said Lot 2 in the Dragonfly Hill plat. In exchange for the vacation of the drainage and utility easements, the City will ask that the Halpers and Borns execute drainage and utility easements 5' on either side of the new division line. The subject properties are located within the LR-lA zoning district, lakeshore residential district, requiring 2 acres in area. The Halper property is unsewered and currently meets the 2 acre standard. The Born property is severely substandard containing merely a .186 acres in area but is sewered. Prior to filing the subdivision application with the City, Gaffron confirmed for the applicants that the 37' wide corridor would never serve Lot 2 for future septic expansion or a future well site because of the severe 22'+ grade change (review Exhibit E). The new division line will also not require any setback variance for existing structures. The only caution that staff would offer the applicant is that the existing privacy fence that runs along the current division line, if replaced by applicant, would require a variance because of its location within the 75' setback area. The division will greatly improve the severely substandard property of Mr. Born, Parcel C. It should be noted for the record that the subdivision and vacation application are separate from Mr. Born's variance request scheduled for immediate review after the public hearings. Zoning File #1349 November 15, 1988 Page 3 of 4 Staff Recommendation - To approve the subdivision for a lot line rearrangement for Lauren Born and David Halper and an area variance for Lot 2, Block 1 as a result of this realignment based on the following findings: 1. The 37' wide corridor cannot be used for a new well location or for septic expansion because of the 22'+ variation in grade from the higher elevations of the Halper property used for current residential development. 2. Proposed division line corresponds with natural physical/topographic boundaries. 3. The subdivision does not involve the creation of new building sites, but merely involves the rearrangement of a shared boundary. 4. The rural property, defined as Parcel A on the survey, has a new primary septic system and additional area for septic expansion in the future. 5. All existing structures on Parcel A meet the required setbacks from the proposed division line. This approval would be subject to Mr. Born filing for legal combination of Parcel B with Parcel C. For members who cannot approve a division that involves the reduction in area of a rural property that would require an area variance, staff would recommend that you refer to Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 for the necessary findings for denial. B. Vacation Application - If the proposed division is appro•,ed, the existing 10' wide drainage and utility easement along the southern lot line of Lot 2, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill (review Exhibi ;) must be vacated and the city will ask in return for the granting of a drainage and utility easement on either side of the new division line. The existing drainage and utility easements would intersect the newly defined building envelope of combined Parcel B 6 no C. Mr. Halper and Mr. Born have agreed to execute drainage and utility easements upon approval of the subdivision. Zoning File #1349 November 15, 1988 Page 4 of 4 Staff Recommendation - If the proposed lot line rearraigement is approved, staff would recommend the vacation of the drainage easements as noted above, subject to the condition that both applicants execute 5' wide drainage and utility easements along the proposed division line. Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - Zoning File #1349 December 8, 1988 Members noted that the division does result in a decrease, in area for a rural lot that is unsewered but noted that this was not a division that created a new building site. The Halper property is already developed. Staff has confirmed that the existing septic system and future alternate test site is preserved. The existing structures on the Halper property meet all required side setbacks from the proposed division line. The benefits to the Born property, parcel to the south, is obvious. Planning Commission adopted the approval recommendation of staff which also included approval of the reduction in area of Lot 2, Block 1, based on the findings noted above. The enclosed resolution for the subdivision approval has been drafted per the Planning Commissicn recommendation. The vacation portion of the application is a separate action for the Council. Staff has drafted the appropriate resolution for approval of the vacation of the drainage and utility easement located along the south siee of Lot 2, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill. The need to vacate the existing easement is obvious, as it Intersects the newly defined building envelope of the Born property. Both Halper and Born will ledicate drainage and utility easements along the new lot line. Please review the enclosed resolution for action by the Council. A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF A DEDICATED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE PLAT OF DRAGONFLY HILL SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 23 IN THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNES(YrA FILE NO. 1349 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 1988, Lau -'en Born and David Halper filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement originally dedicated within the plat of Dragonfly Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: That part of existing drainage and utility easement being 10' in width and also being the 5outhe- 4-Hrly 10' of Tot 2, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill lying Westerly of the No) asterly 10' of said Lot 2• and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice a public hearing. was held before the Planning Commission on November 21, 1988 regarding said vacation and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planningl Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the Counci _: of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keepino with the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the - ition of Lauren Born a.nd David Halper is hereby granted, and that the 1,vrtion of the drainage and utility eas-ment legally described above is hereby vacated. The granting of the petition of vacation is subject to the condition that upor: vacation, applicants shal, dedicate via quit claim deed to the City drainage and utility easemen'�s 5' on either side of new division line between their properties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 12, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE RRARRANGENENT FOR LAUREN BORN AND DAVID RALPER FILE NO. 1349 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corroration organized and Existing under the 'Laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted sub- division regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has cons_. dered the application for a subdivision by Lauren Born and David Halper (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: See Exhibit A, attached to this resolution (hereinafter "the r roperty") ; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby ap1roves the metes and bounds division of a lot line rearrangement for Lauren Born and David Halper as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Philip A. Nelson, dated August 18, 1988 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: i. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel C, as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above, must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Dsrcel B as described in that same survey. 2. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on cr before June 12, 1989 together with a ceztified original copy of this Resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has nct been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Pag ? 1 of 2 Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of December, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 )f 2 Exhibit A The southeasterly 37.03 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, DRAGONFLY HILL, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A strip of land in Government Lot 1, Section 11, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, said strip of land having a uniform width of 60.00 feet and bounded on the east by the shore of Lake Minnetonka and on the west by the shore of Mud or Round Lake (so-called). The northerly line of which scid 60.00 foot strip of land is described as followse Beginning at a point 585-84 feet southeasterly measured along a line which bears South 10 degrees East froca the meander corner of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 1; thence North 67 degrees 48 minutes East a distance of 14.3 feet more or less to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence South 67 degrees 48 minutes West a distance of 207.27 feet more or less to the shore of Mud or Round Lake (so-called). The southerly boundary line of said 60.00 foot strip being A line parallel with and 60.00 feet southerly from and measured at a right angle to the northerly line above described land. Excepting rrom said above described strip the public highway crossing said tract all according to the United States government survey thereof. 09 �X i CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ----------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION _ LE ! -C. Site Address ! �� �-� � '��-^�J� �,- -�—� 1 _.,VVVV Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) - ' - ��--� "_� •ark;n „ - f L?L VV r: Please check one - Property '% abstract or torrens? _ -----�L••L 1'V Attach legal description to application. _ 'f _�� '-v G1 ra:\ ------r--------------------r------r--------r-------------------���---�►---1�.• . �.• L' APPLICANT Phone ( home) L! ? --} - _ I !L �L'=• st•L'1 11L'1 L'L:• Name - - Phone (work) Address: - city:Zi p;- ----------------r----------------------------------------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone home) ' 7 1 I S� Name -� .� - ' ; _ ' ' Phone (work) Address: ' ` City: 1�. ", Zip: •7 (attach list if more than one --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels ! Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) Residential; no. of units Other (specify) 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: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buillable Land residential Other (specify) MINDWx 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 3501 _. (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 formal plat. 3. Title opinion. - 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ FEW Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II G III) $150.00 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 application and further agrees to _pay all additional- -fees-established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature '� �:.' i ^) �� Date Owner's Signature / Date /0' S�I' r Applicant must have a 1 submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting,, Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building a Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r4 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY OF ORONO ) I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #1349, was mailed to the attached list of property owners . In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of November, 1988. Jam' Bosma R'1N DATE 09/20/88 BATCH 004 38 11-117-23 22 0004 PROP ADOR 01440 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME JAMES P RIVERS FTAL TAXPAYER JAMES P RIVERS t4AME/ADDR 1444 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN SS391 38 11-117-23 22 0010 PROP AODR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CWt1ER NAME J P A M A RIVERS TAXPAYER JAMES P 1 MARY A RIVERS NAME/ADOR 1444 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 PPOP ADDR OWtiER HATE TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 004 00006 NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTi OWNERS LIST 38 il-117-23 22 0005 31442 SHORELINE OR JAMES P RIVERS ETAL JAMES P RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0011 01432 SHORELINE OR LAUREN E BORN ET AL LAUREN E BORN 1432 SHUkr-LtHE OR WAYZATA HN 55391 In i NN�t �crnLLIQ••.� REPORT N0. PI435401 PAGE 9 38 11-117-23 22 0006 01444 SHORELINE OR J P A M A RIVERS JAMES P A MARY A RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0012 01420 SHORELINE OR D 1 B HALPER DAVID W HALPER 1420 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 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 PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATEq BYim , NaBic9acnnotcrt%dfm%no�9rp k!✓o ins Iolwerer%s a/trefien • 9io.51 itsot/. ,1o(tirQoN� Wesao eu+nr�iies fheH/h nntso/n DAwrt N i W I,- y td �m E Ian�1 s � -07 fee% I f" i ofp�nrphn✓sr Gm .1.- o Q !(G.VD. /9Z9 bag • 15 el (n Easter/�yy nyhf el•wu�yy A „✓a hneorN.C.S.A•H• no Plat 51A. Per Q" Q 470Ij I Y no. 4847657 � r norten�e� itit 2' , �Nennrii rarnls/ on f/•e Souhi1 ' Q . Lef4, lineefQerLo%4,and Me. ►. h : l =Nor/_�'x s-�: •- - :�; _. � .. .. _ .. w 145.00 W .�; , t :.Z n W a tV CZ h ---_ .•_�,`.�• •�f���'' � .14377 1t gip. -s ��nr! � •- W - o 3 ��► �t� -�i y r.ti ti o� Q w, ±d�,."r 'mow*�; rice"=_i•�;1:=.i�ryl•.��e��: .� �::;.s�...caY.' • .. 1• - - M »• M Line paro!!d MA and 3� Atef i�esflt/ly f ear Eotferlr righf-ol-way /,lm of h.C.S.A.H. Ne. 1j, Olaf Sl, Px. A/o. 4io13.48 . \� N ,N v �Ay o \ Nt O J OUT LOT B \ 2 _ Z� as n xi11 ,r' �t \ ~�� lie, t t _ h , lsl ��hirohiy ��MN/ We E9 .�:y Loge/ • _'��+�t' � ' •. � � "r ���' A"�. -v,+ •H""''y'pp"` . E�i'!!'"' ,- .. r .�._..rt - •n r �..rr. l - :.'+:•" � �Y: - . +.. . 41 - � ►• sue.. •w�..•.J�.�"'--- - - . � . - .. .. ..ram-.►...,_-=�i�.-. . _ - .._ .:. - .. - a i 20 'f#. _ R=?5r fL ` RrM0.S2 � =LI 62 _L•f4 HENNEPIN �.zrs.f, a.a•arsz' R�rxu.o� — _ UC T T 4a. jz r Y AT`E� AID _ - Nra'tras•w NG AY- NO. 15 To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: November 16, 1988 ject: #1350 .Lauren & Joyce Born, 1420 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing If the Planning Commission chooses to deny application #1349, advise the applicant to request the tabling of the variance application until Council makes a final determination on the proposed lot line rearrangement. Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Lakeshore setback regulations. Required = 75' Existing Garage = 16' Existing House = 45' Proposed Addition = 17' Original Variance = 59' or 78.6% Proposed Variance = 58' or 77% Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Side setback variance re irad for proposed addition. Required = 30' Existing = 45' (12' to original division line) Proposed = 24.8' Variance = 5.2' or 17% Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance 0-75' setback area. Prior to Subdivision: 0-75' Setback Area 5,490 9.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existinq _ 2,561 47% After Subdivision: 0-75' Setback Area = 9,267 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing 2,563 s.f. or 27% �/ Proposed 1,973 s.f. or 21% 2on.ng File #1350 November 16, 1988 Page 2 of 5 Review of Hardcover Facts - 75-250' Setback Area Prior to Subdivision: 75-250' Setback Area = 2,645 s.f. Allowed = 661 s.f. or 25% Existing = 958 s.f. or 36% After Subdivision: 75-250' Setback Area = 3,929 s.f. Allowed = 982.3 s.f. or 25% Existing = 958 s.f. or 24% Proposed = 565 s.f. or 14% Please review Exhibit D for more detail on hardcover facts. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Hardcover Sheet Exhibit E - Sketch/Floor Plan Existing House Exhibit F - Sketch/Floor Plan Proposed Addition (1st Floor) Exhibit G - Floor Plan Exhibit F - Lakeside Elevation Exhibit I - Street Elevation E.:nibit J - Survey Exhibit K - Staff Sketch Locating 75' setback Line Review of Application - The applicants propose the removal of concrete drives, patic, and walkways and a single car garage (22.6'xl6.4') in order to construct a 26'x38' addition to the north of the existing residence (29.3'x24.2'). The proposed addition consists of a single story 2-car garage at ,he street side with a 2-level addition to the lakeside providing additional expansion room for the limited living area on the existing first floor and additional bedroom area -n the second floor. Although the addition has been aligned with the lakeside of the existing house, setback 45' from the 929.4 (ordinary high water mark) elevation, the curvature of the shoreline, places -I.- northwest corner of the proposed addition only 17' from the 929.4 elevation. Zoning File #1350 November 16, 1988 Page 3 of 5 The addition will also require a sidn setback variance from the new division line from the north. The existing house on the south side is approximately 21' from thn south lot line and the existing lakeshore garage is approximately 3.6' from the lot line. If the applicants are asked to meet the 30• setback at the northe,.st corner of the proposed addition, 20'8" wou.,.d not provide adequate ;. ' dth for a garage to function for two stall use. At an earlier meeting with the applicants, staff asked the Borns if the addition could be moved closer to thc street as there appeared to be adequate depth. The City would be more comfor*a'^' a approving a street setback variance by reducing the severe lakeshore . -ack proposed at 17' at the northwest corner of the addition. The appliGanL., advised that this would not be a problem for the placement of the garage, but L•?cause their desire to expand the living area of the limited first floor, it was imperative that they align the addition with the existing lake side of the house. The survey has located the existing house on the south side in order to determine if there would be a vis,.al impact on the lakeshore views. The v or.sed addition will not encroach any closer into the lakeshore views of the resident to the south. The Halper property was not included because of the higher 241+ elevations. The Halpers will receive no visual impact from the proposed addition on the orn property. The City has received no negative comments from the ne.ghbors notified for this review. Note the applicants' survey does not designa+ ilkway from the garage to the existing front door ste^-�. The crusher adscaping around the front steps has an url •rliner and would be considered a!q hardcover. Review Exhibit A, note thi : specific area is out. of the 75' setback area. The 75-250' setback area p- I•tod at 14% total hardcover would allow an Increase for the 60 s.f. c shed landscape area and a walkway not to -sceed a 4' width for a dial o` +*I' at 00 s.f. 'rl-;z 75-250' hardcover facts should be adjusted to incl c -'ne additiona_ total of 140 s.f. of hardcover. zoning File #1350 November 16, �998 Page 4 of 5 Staff Recommendation - To approve the setback and hardcover variances sought by Lauren and Joyce Born for the proposes, addition to the existing residence at 1420 Shoreline Drive, based - i the following findings and hardships: 1. The applicants have demonstrated good fait by acquiring additional area adjacent to their property in order to enlarge their sever.ly limited homestead. 2. in reviewing the hardcover facts, the applicants have reduced hardcover within the 0-75' and 75-250' setback zones with the proposed improvement of thn property. 0-75' Reduction = 6% 75-250' Reduction = 10% 3Th.- major addition to the existing structure will provide no vib -il impact for the surrounding residential properties because of the location of the residence structure to the south and the higher elevations of the property to the north. 4. The removal of major concrete areas on the property and replacing it with grass will provide greater absorptive surface for the run-off received from the north property and the property to the south ,.ith excessive hardcover. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants must obtain a permit from tho County Highway Department for the crest - of the new curb cut. 2. A :-dcover sched, jed for removal must be removed prior to the final pection or the new (2onstruction by the Ororo Building Inspector. 3. Applicants are placed en notice hat if the existing privacy fence is to be removed as , result of this -onstruction that the relocaticn of the existing fence or any proposal to install a new fence wi L require City approval for fence sect,ons located within, the 75' setback area. Zoning File #1350 November 16, 1988 Page 5 of 5 4. Options available to Planning Commission regarding a side setback variance: OR OR A) Setback to be maintained as proposed at 24.81. B) Setback to be realigned at a 261, or 271, side setback to meet required 30' setback. C) Setback to meet required 30' setback. 5. Options on lakeshore setback f,)r new construction: A) Lakeshore setback to be maintained as proposed at 171. B) Lakeshore setback to be a minimum of ? ' from the 929.4 elevation, and to grant appropriate street setback for new construction. Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - Zoning File #1350 December 5, 1588 The Planning Commission questioned the applicant regarding the proposed addition in relation to the need for lakeshore and side setback variances. The Planning Commission noted that we have no confirmation as to the final upgrading of County Road 15 and rather than create a future safety hazard by moving the structure closer to the road, the Planning Commission would prefer recommending approval of the lakeshore setback variance as proposed based on the hardship of the curva-ur_e of the shoreline. As for the side setback needed to provide the applicant with adequate width for the two -stall garage, Planning Commission accepted the fact that the lot line could still be rearranged but declined to take further dry land area from the northern rural lot that remains unsewered. The proposed division line represents a nature topographic boundary between the two properties. The existing house is small with no additional storage area. The proposed two -car garage and addition will provide much needed living area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2418" setback for the addition. The over-riding, positive aspect of the entire application has been the major decrease of hardcover within the 0-75' and 75-250' setback area. In the 0-75' we see a reduction of 6% hardcover, and in the 75-250' setback area there is a reduction of 6%. As the staff memo noted above, there would be an increase of 140 s.f. or 4% of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area to cover a 4' wide path from the garage to the front entrance door and the crushed rock landscaping with an underliner. Vs enclosed resolution has been drafted based on the Planning Commission's recommendatio-i of approval of the variances as proposed by the applicant. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B), AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1350 WHEREAS, Lauren and Joyce Born (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1420 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A attached, (hereinafter "the property"); anc WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to the Municipal Zoning Code to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence requiring a side setback variance at a 2418" setback where 30' is required [Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B)), a lakeshore setback variance at 17' where a 75' setback is required [Section 10.22, Subdivision 11, and a hardcover variance for new construction within the 0- 75' setback area resulting in 1,973 s.f. or 21% of hardcover where 2,563 s.f. or 27% hardcover exists and where none is allowed (Section. 10.22, Subdivision 21. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was re�7iewed as Zoning File #1350. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres of area. 3. The property consists of 13,196 s.f. or .3 acres. 4. The ')rono Planning Commission reviewed the variance application on November 21, 1988, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The applicants have acquired additional area adjacent to their property in order to enlarge their severely limited property. Page 1 of 4 B) In reviewing the hardcover facts, the applicants have reduced hardcover within the 0-75' and 75-250' setback zones with the proposed improvement on the property: 0-75' Reduction of 6% 75-250' Reduction of 6% C) The major addition to the existing structure will provide no visual impact for the surrounding residential property because of the location of the residential structure to the south and the higher elevations of the property to the north. D) The removal of major concretes areas on the property and replacing it with grass will provide a greater absorptive surface for the run-off received from the north property and the property to the south with excessive hardcover. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendationE of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are pecul-ar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code anO ^omprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, O_IRDER AND CONEITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) granting a 512" or 17% side setback variance; per Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 grants a lakeshore setback variance of 58' or 77%; and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 grants a hardcover variance within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area of 1,973 s.f. or 21% for a proposed addition to the existir.-T structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants must obtain a permit from the County Highway Department for the creation of a new curb cut. Page 2 of 4 2. All hardcover scheduled for removal must be removed prior to the final inspection by the Orono Inspection Department for the new construction. 3. Applicants are placed on notice that if the existing privacy fence is to be removed as a result of this construction, that the relocation of the existing fence or any proposal to install a new fence will require City approval for fence sections located within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area. 4. Authorities granted by this variance 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 (December 12, 1989). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th da- of December, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 Exhibit A The southeasterly 37.03 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, DRAGONFLY HILL, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A strip of land in Government Lot 1, Section 11, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, said strip of land having a uniform width of 60.00 feet and bounded on the Past by the shore of Lake Minnetonka and on the west by the shore of Mud or Round Lake (so-called). The northerly line of which said 60.00 foot st.rip of land is described as follovs: Beginning at a point 585-84 feet southeasterly measured along a line which bears South 10 degrees East from the meander corner of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 1; thence North 67 degrees 48 minutes East a distance of 14.3 feet more or less to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence South 67 degrees 48 minutes West a distance of 207.27 feet more or less to the shore of Mud or Round Lake (so-called). The southerly boundary line of said 60.00 foot strip being A line parallel with and 60.00 feet southerly from and measured at a right angle to the northerly line above described land. Excepting from said above described strip the public highway crossing said tract all according to the United States government survey thereof. �35 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional varianc IL Renewal Variance Fee $75. 00 (no change from original applicatio After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address / 3 '4. Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) �3 tii-l�ht�ns� Please check one - Property V/- abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to applicaticn if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone ( home) `i 1 .3 ,3 Name _CZ,y,�Q-�-w Phone (work) Address: 1,43 Lz, City : _ Zip:55 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) do( �notalso own the adjacent parcels of land- _----_ ------------------- -_�- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property �e_:.�.�_.,��n� Residential Ot %specify) ------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: )1,&� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Other Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical �difficulty re ulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual pro;er-t;-conditions prevetin compliance -;ith Zoning Code Requirements: 5�� ;n�70 ",LM&_dn+ 1,5VYAs1- 4,ov A --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348- 71). tampe , 1^gal 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. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list Gf 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 tiiat your variance application is not complete if the above infcrmation has no` been included. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ Date -----------------------------------------------------•---------------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant here'-,y agrees to provide all informa' 'on required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay a.Ll fees and/ol- unusual expenses incurred in review of 'Chis application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature u4l--Ify` Date �e.a�i-/%' �1 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, corsuitants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for Furncses of investiga- tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature -Lj'�L� 6,� Date -------------------------------- I ---------------------------- ------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 da}s before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicancs trust 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 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Gam. RtRI DATE 09/ 20/88 BATCH 004 38 11-117-23 22 0004 PROP AOOR O1440 SHORELINE OR OWI4,R NAME JAMES P RIVERS ETAL TAXPAYER JAMES P RIVERS NAME/ADDR 1444 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0010 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS IANASSIGNE3 OWNER NAME J P A M A RIVERS TAXPAYER JAMES P A MARY A RIVERS NAME/AODP 1444 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWTIER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH NAME/ADDR 004 00006 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 11-10-23 22 0005 01442 SHORELINE DR JAMES P RIVERS ETAL JAMES P RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0011 01432 SHORELINE DR LAUREN E BORN ET AL LAUREN E BORN 1432 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 9 38 11-117-23 22 0006 01444 SHORELINE OR J P A M A RIVERS JAMES P A MARY A RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 L2 0012 01420 SHORELINE OR D A B HALPER DAVID W HALPER 1420 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 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 PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATED BY k C so w w22 .�� 84 .. .._. � � •-:�e-: �` :ems . so •' • fib. `-_ OOAfi� . ti.:.. 143 4 S - ' LANE Nio° ^ ISl.': +, G5 ••� id 28 Hit O NN a G .:•,�. ��Zi O• N 1aT e - -- � � •• . - � � Asa. 010 a a PefILl !� • ^�,i `� a I � � - '� *'�a•N,'�Y 'ems -tr :-_.:_ I v �%; � .,' •' _ :: ,,,tit:-,,,,,�' - 04L HARDCOVER CALCU WORKSHEET Set. :•k Zone; (circle one) 0-75' '15-250' 250-500' 500-1000, Existing ardcover in Zone a. Hcuse x • s.f. length width x • s.f. x _— s . f . • s.f. x • s.f. C. Drivowa ,Cprf�C s s.f. x • s.f. i. Sidewalk x s.f. X • 9.f. x s.f. e, ratiw/ x s.f. Deck x s.f. f. 'ands .rs x s.f. areas underlain i_ x by Mastic sheeting x _ _ _ s.f. x s.f. f. Other x • s.f. x s.f. _ x e.f. TOTAL EXISTING NARDCO!'ER IN NE • e.f. (1) Existing Hardcover • Total Existing Hardcover x 100 Lot Area within Zone • s.f. x 100 t s.f. Additional Hardcover to be added in zones Item Length _ x Width TOTAL s. x • s. x a. x a. r TOTAL S.F. TO BE ADDED (Z ; Existing Hardcover to be Removed, if anyc Item Length x Width • TOTAL 9.1 — . r_,; . Aft x _ x TOTAL S.F. TO BE REMOVED 8/z (3) Final hardcover Proposal: (Line (1) + Line (2) -Line (3)) • ' s.t. (4) Existing To be Added To be Removed Final Proposed Hardcover i • r Line (4) x 100 s'f•�' x 100 !.�'" S \ Line (1) ••f• it � 1-- , �- ,' j� -�- �- (• -_`• - j', ( F� q � F N 0` h D• A� r 0,4 E A l_ Co� o pia t-rto T Me 0 ma-S 4-iw2.. s►1mawt-1 .-m c�rZ orn-c-��.io EMI 'i r A Lb' Q � Q Q � W i 1 z e r � vi i � ..- mow �- �► 1� E - -- Sl D-F. %� 9 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: December 5, 1988 Subject: 11351 Alfred Harrison/Jensen Homes, 1410 Shoreline Dr - Easement Vacation - Resolution Application - Vacation of a portion of a Conservation and Flowage Easement that is no longer needed. Zoning District - LR-lA List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 11/22/88 Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 11/9/88 Exhibit C - Resolution Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of November 9, 1988. The applicants are requesting vacation of a portion of. a Conservation and Flowage Easement that is no longer necessary due to grading changes on the property. The drainage easement in question was originally created in 1982, prior to the re -grading of the pond. In 1985, conditional use permits were granted that allowed the pond to be re -built. The pond was subsequently re -graded, however the easement was never changed to reflect the new boundaries of the pond. The current application makes that revision, and was initiated due to the location of a new tennis court being more than 26' from the actual wetland, but less than 26' from the edge of the historic easement. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of a vacation of a portion of Conservation and Flowage Easements (drainage easement) per the attached resolution. av ZONING FILE NO. 1351 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11-22-88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Alfred Harrison COPIES TC: Jensen Homes Inc. 6941 Beach Road 445 East Lake Street Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Wayzata, MN 55391 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Vacation of Portion of Conservation & Flowage Easement DATE OF !MEETING: 11-21-88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Comoaission recommends the following: Approval as submitted NO'i'ES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council December 12, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. r To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 71ron: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date. November. 9, 1988 Subject: #1351 Jensen Homes, Inc./Alfred & Ingrid Harrison, 1410 Shoreline Drive - Vacation of Conservation and Flowage Easement - Public Hear4_i,g Application - Vacation of a portion of a Conservation and Flowage Easement that is no longer needed. Zoning District - LR-lA List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Resolution #1844 & Phase I Plan From 1985 Approval Pertinent Facts - 1. During staff review of applicants' proposed tennis court, it became apparent that the tennis court was to be located less than 26' from the existing Conservation and Flowage Easement for a pre-existing pond on the property. However, it was further determined that as a result of the pond regrading approved in 1985, the existing easements and boundaries no longer were applicable. 2. Staff approved the permit for the tennis court only upon receipt of the formal application for the vacation of the unnecessary portion of the Conservation and Flowage Easement for the pond area. The setback from the tennis court to the newly proposed pond easement greatly exceeds the 26' minimum requirement. 3. The applicants' surveyor has provided legal descriptions for the portion of the drainage easement to be vacated and for the portion of the drainage easement to remain. Discussion - Please review the Phase I grading plan t, as approved in Resolution #1844, in 1985. The regrading resulted creation of a generally rectangular pond with a uniform slope uphill tc, terrace, where the tennis court is now located. Note that the pre-existing drainage easement had been created in 1382, prior to the regrading of the pond. Since the pond was completed, the drainage easement has never been revised, hence this is an appropriate time to make the adjustment. Zoning File #1351 November 9, 1988 Page 2 of 2 Note for the record that staff has calculated hardcover on the property and the houses, driveways, tennis court and pool in various phases of construction, all meet the requirements of the hardcover ordinance. Staff Recommerdation - Staff recommends approval of vacation of the portion of the existing Conservation and Flowage Easement, finding that subsequent land alterations after the granting of the initial Conservation and Flowage Easement have revised the pond d:-mensions and eliminated the need for the portion of the Conservation and Flowage Easement proposed to be iacated. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL ----------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /,/ic LAND USE APPLICATION --------------- --� Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? 7'7- ,r %rr arti i.•4 1 , V1 i�iviry (for Conditional Use Applications only) � ;1 rfL� gr r-'I.i ,.. ' V V.• V Please attach legal description to application if not included L'1 rE, :p:.-. on required survey. nnn _ ------------------------------------------------------------- --. APPLICANT Phone (home) ,� •� ///J .1 r'J�l'J VVVV' Name h .,� ,,.�/ Phone (work) y7s -OS y'd Address yyS f-4t1 e• City ----------------------------------------------------- - ---- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name /,��"(� 10 �.►++:. ��,.Phone�.�cG' / f �f ,. « -- Address 691/ Ate. & 76-- City �',✓„� �,�,.,�/ Zip F5-3yy Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After -the -Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation ✓ 50: Easement Vaca-- t o _ asem ion With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning S100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Z.nAng District Present Use of Property Residential Oth ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Desc The request in detail: 1Taak,-19- en---inw.3 (-"F:- DNS -- -� N�q2.,,` REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners Lis,: of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ^he applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has 7iot been included. ------------------------------------------------------------------- lartification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. "loning Officials Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/he- knowledge. _ Applicant's signature Date ,� /O .i3 -jp OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature X QJ-�"'Date _ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the 21anning Commission Meeting. Flanning 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. 'f an applicant is F unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. G 02-117-23 33 0003 Albert Hanser 1685 Fox Street Wayzata,MN 55391 02-117-i3 33 0002 George Capp 1465 Fox Street aayzata, MN 55391 lMF's 1N S'S�yo 3 Certified Properties Owners List zoning File 4927 02-117-23 33 0001 Richard Perkins 1485 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 II - Ii-)- z3 COIZ 1420 Shoreline, Drive t%ayzata, MN 55391 EyHIP,IT 62 (1?-2-3 33 o0/1 Edward Hamm 408 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102 m 2) JCL,. COFFIN'&"GRONBINC.. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING AND LANL VLANNINI, 482•A TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE. MINN. 35358 473 4141 LEGAL DESCRIPTION for Jensen Homes, Inc. in Lot 1, Block 1, CR.AGONFLY HILL 10-10-88 Part of Drainage Easement to be Vacated That part of the most southerly drainage easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill, which lies west of a line drawn south perpendicular to the North line of Government Lot 1. Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, from a point on said North line distant 139.00 feet west, as measured along said North line, from the Hennepin County monL:.nient at the meander corner on the South line of Government Lct 4, and the North line of Government Lot 1, in said Section 11. Drainage Easement to Remain That part of the most southerly drainage easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill, which lies east of a line drawn south perpendicular to the North line of Government Let 1, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, from a point on said North line distant 139.00 feet west, as measured along said North line, from the Hennepin County monument at the meander corner on the South line of Governement Lot 4, and the North line of Government Lot 1, in said Se-_tion 11. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1844 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PELNIT PER MU►VICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #8s2 WHEREAS, William Gregory and Stanley Gregory (herein ter "the applicants") are zhe owners of the property located at 1410 -Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and le3a3.l escri ed as Lot 1, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit to permi.: the installation of a decorative pond per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO:,VED by the City Counci 1 of Orono, FINDINGS 1. .his application was reviewed as Zoning File #852. 2. The property is located in the LR- lA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The applicants original conditional use permit application involved both the installation of a decorative pond and the major alteration of a designated wetlands to create a wildlife pond. 4. The applicants have asked to separate the City's review of the decorative and wildlife ponds in order to expedite the resolution of the decorative pond project requiring less review time and allow the installation of :he pond in early fall. The wildlife pond project is more complex requiring additional review time. 5. The decorative pond (801x801) will be constructed within a low area of approximately 3/4 of an acre in area that functions as a seasonal retention area for a localized watershed of appro- ximately 2 to 3 acres. 6. In 1982, the City approved a subdivision of the property that conditioned approval on obtaining a conservation and flowage easement over the 3/4 acre flat ret2 on area. Paqe i of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1844 7. Since 19d2, the relocation of an access drive and grading along the County drainage ditch has modified the drainage pattern within the watershed. The area no longer functions as an inter- mittent wetland. The existing vegetation is not classified as wetland vegetation. 8. The pond will increase the retention of run-off (below 931.5 elevation of about .14 acre feet). 9. The pond will be aerated with a fountain to reduce algae growth an maintain good water quality. 10. The desired water level of the pond will be maintained by an on -site well. 11. The open water area of the decorative pond will serve as a much needed sediment trap for the 3 acre watershed that drains directly into Lake Minnetonka. 12. The interium plan providing for the installation of the decorative pond this fall will have no detrimental effects on the overall project. 13. The current proposal for the decorative pond could be ap- proved as an independant project and its long term success does not hinge or depend on the alteration of the upper wetland. 14. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff, comments of the applicants and applicants' consultants and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safetv and welfare of the community. 15. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of ,a decorative pond will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of th, City. Page 2 of 4 City ®f OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ... 1844 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the installation of a decorative pond, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a land alteration permit by the City to permit the installation of the c.ond, the City must approve final grading and landscape plans for banks and edge of pond, temporary channel to southern culvert and upland slopes within watershed. 2. City will not allow construction of channel to north until final plans for wildlife pond alteration are approved. 3. The City will not approve the use of chemical agents in the control of algae and aquatic vegetation within the decorative pond. The City will not permit the use of fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides within 30 feet from the edge of the decorative pond. 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned owners have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of them- selves, their 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 9th day of Septpmber, 1985. ATTHST: D6rothy M allin, City Clerk Ma C. Butler, Mayor Frahm, AA t ng Mayor 0"IiI (1) Property O n rr-- Page 3 of 4 FLOWAGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT 48176970 AND WAIVER OF DAMAGrs T}iIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this �_ day of and Stanley 19 , by and between William D. Gregory II, H Greg and w f and David J. Duff and Anne B. Du. us an -,and wife, heirs, assigns, successors (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor (s) ) and the City of Orono, its suc- cessors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee). WITNESSETIJ, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor(s) agree to limit and preclude the use, improvement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: The drainage easements as shown on the plat of Dragonfly Hill, on file with the Hennepin County Recorder as follows: 1. Grantor(s) hereby covenant and agree(s): A. N—) structures shall be constructed, erected, or L,accd upon, above, or beneat'i the Land including without limitation, fence:., fireplaces, steps, docks, piers, hardcover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improvement inconsistent with the natural state of the Land. B. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destru;,cd, cut or removed from the Land exc,=pt as authorized by written consent of Grantee. C. No c.i-th, loam, peat, gravel, soil or as y other natural Material or'substance sh:.:l be roved or removed from the Land and there shall be no dredging or excavation of am nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. D. No soil, sand, (7ravel or other substance or matetrial as landfill shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land and no waste, trash or garbage shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land. E. No use shall be made of the Land except uses, if any, which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would tend to change the drainaar, floor: control, water conservation. erosion control, "oil conservation, fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Land or the water situated thereon. p(7r.►►ttee ma, eltLur ul+on tho Lat►tl ft►r tht• purlsont:r► of in'sj,t.•ct.iott ant( onforct-mcnt oC car. covOnattts coittitinc(l hcrcitt nnJ .o .A -cause to be removed from the Lan l without any liability :►ri, rtructur- uses, materials, substances, or ut:natural matter inconsi:stnnt with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. 2. C.-antor(s) hereby grant# uift, quit claim and convey to Grantee, a perpetual flowage easement and right and privilege to trespass with water over and up)n any or all of the Land. 3. Grantor(s) herein do hereby remiss, release, acquit and forever discharge, forever, the Grantee and any and all of its officers and employees of and from any and call claims, demands or causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever which may arise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or trespass with water within terms of these agreements. In addition to any othcr'remedy the Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) do not intend that interest in the above land by virtue except as hereinabove set forth. the public should have any of this indenture or otherwise, The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: that certain mortgage dated January 22, 1973 and filed February 7. 1973 as Document No. 3998984 which was assigned on June 1, 1982 to F 6 M Marquette National hank. All provisions hereof shall rut: to and bind the heirs, successors, assigns of the respective parties heret STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Stanley ) s s . COUNTY OF HENNE?IN ) Dava d V. the land and shall extend atives, grantees or r "1 A ry i .I-- on this 30 d:iy of Notary Public wi hin and for said County and St e, personally appeared William D. Gregory II, and Stanle * B. Ll eUory, husband and wife known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they a cu d said instrument as their own free act and deed. L/9otary�u LAEnGf�' JM \ , Q%.J IIAMSFr COUNTY rRANSFrl, FiN i cIZcD .1144 1984 ' LNNfhW..l)UHTV e CONSENT The undersigned hereby consents to the Flowage and Conser- vation Easement and waiver of Damages to which said Consent is attached. It is the .:nderstanding of the undersigned that the Flowage and Conservation Easement and Waiver of Damages lies only Ripon the wetlands as shown on the recorded plat of Dragonfly Hill, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. F & M Marquette National Bank f' 001�/ Duncan G. Barr, its Assistant Vice President R. P. Monge, its vice Presi STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this lath clay of October , 1983, before me, a notary public within and for said County and State, personallyappeared Duncan G. Barr, anri E. P. Mon(Te, assistant %•ice president and vice president respectively of F & ,M Marquette National Dana;, a G.S. uurpuiaLiun, W;IU aCkliuwivutlud L1:iS %luew+ivnt can huiialf of !;aid corporation. Notary Public This Instrument Was Dra f teal '+}• : Wright, West & Diessner 600 Midwest Plaza Buildinr 801 Nicol'.ct Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 5402 u , _..►... _ .- 4856970 Np FEE REQUIRED 41. � Q15L o STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this -3C day of C te-t vkbt,' , 1963 , before me, a Votary Public within and for said county anc State, personally appeared David J. Duff and Anne B. Duff, husband and wife, known to me to be the persons describo-1 in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed said instrument as their own free act and deed. LAROW BERG R-7 ........... ~o~ � - 0"01 This instrument was drafted hy: Wright, rest 5 Diessncr 320 Manitoba Avenue Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNUSED PORTION OF A DEDICATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 1410 SHORELINE DRIVE IN THE CITY OF ORONO, NINNESOTA FILE NO. 1351 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1988, Jensen Homes, Inc., on behalf of Alfred and Ingrid Harrison, filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of drainage easements originally dedicated within the plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: That part of the most southerly drainage easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Dragonfly Hill, which lies west of a line drawn south perpendicular to the North line of Government Lot 1, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, from a point on said North line distant 139.00 feet west, as measured along said north line, from the Hennepin County monument at the Meander corner on the South line of Government Lot 4, and the North line of Government Lot 1, in said Section 11; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 21, 1988 regarding said vacation and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the portion of dedicated drainage easement described above. 3. The portion of dedicated drainage easement as it exists serves no public purpose. 4. The portion of dedicated drainage easement no longer is considered as a wetland area due to re -grading aprroved in 1985 of the pre- existing pond area, which re -grading revised the boundaries of that pond. Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the petition of Jensen Homes, Inc., on behalf of Alfred and Ingrid Harrison, is hereby granted, and that the portion of dedicated drainage easement legally described above is hereby vacated. This approval is to be construed as concurrent vacation of a similarly described portion of the Flowage and Conservation Easement filed with the County as Document No. 4856970 on January 6, 1984. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 12, i988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: December 8, 1988 Subject: #1352 Charles Schoen/Sheldon Jacobs, 2430 & 2640 North Shore Dr - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution Application - Transfer of 1.39 acre parcel from Schoen to Jacobs. Zoning District - RR-lB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 11/22/88 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 11/9/88 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of November 9, 1988. The proposed division is for the purpose of allowing Jacobs to purchase a portion of the Schoen property which is contiguous with Jacobs' dry land, but is not contiguous to Schoen. The new lot line leaves Schoen with 17 dry contiguous acres total and increases Jacobs' dry buildable to approximately 14.5 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their November 21, 1988 meeting and recommended on a vote of 6 to 0 to approve the proposed subdivision. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement per the attached resolution. W A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AT 2430 AND 2640 NORTH SHORE DRIVE FILE NO. 1352 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted sub- division regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a sullivisi.on by Charles Schoen and Sheldon Jacobs (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: Tract A, Registered Land Survey #1467 and Lot 1, Block 1, Kathleen's French Lake, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes a..1 bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds division of a lot line rearrangement for Charles Schoen and Sheldon Jacobs as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Theadore D. Kemna, dated September 29, 1988 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel B, as described in the Certificate of Survey r?ferenced above, must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel A as described in that same survey. 2. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before June 12, 1989 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. Page l of 2 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has not been f i led by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of December, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 ZONING FILE NO. 1352 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-735", Date of Notice: 11/22/88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Charles Schoen COPIES TO: Sheldon Jacobs 2430 North Shore Drive % Irwin L. Jacobs Wayzata, MN 55391 1700 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Theodore D . Ke,.nna Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10550 Wayzata Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55343 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 11/21/88 VOTE: ': For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval: subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Your subdivision for a lot line rearrangement will be presented for final approval by Council upon receipt of the following: 1. Provide a Certificate of Survey per survey dated 9/29/88 by Theodore Kemna of Schoell and Madson, Inc. (revised version which indicates Parcels A, B, and C1. Provide signature lines for all property owners with an interest in the subject properties (spouse, etc. - signature lines must be signed), the Mayor, City Clerk, and date of final aYprova 1. 2. Provide two copies of survey 1"=200' for City records. 3. The property owner Jacobs must complete combination forms at the City offices upon final approval of the subdivision (Parcel A to be combined with Parcel B). All final submittals must be submitted to this office 10 days before the meeting at which Council will grant final subdivision approval. The Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of the m^nth. RequIar meetings are re -scheduled if they conflict with a national holiday. T"e Council has scheduled only one meeting for the month of December and that meeting is scheduled for December 12th. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernharason From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: -vember 9, 1988 Subject: #1352 Charles Schoen/Sheldon Jacobs, 2430 & 2640 North Shore D- - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Application - Transfer of 1.39 acre parcel from Schoen to Jacobs. Zoning District - RR-1B List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Plat Map With Staff's Notations Exhibit E - Topographic Survey With Staff's Notations Exhibit F - Survey With Proposed Division Exhibit G - Copy of Wetland Air Photo Pertinent Facts - 1. Schoen owns Lot 1 of Kathleen's French Lake Addition, which contairs a major wetland, that separates the dry buildable land into two distinct areas. 2. Jacobs proposes to purchase the dry land portion that is not contiguous with the Schoen residence. The portion to be transferred to Jacobs _s 1.39 acres in area, 98% of which is dry land. 3. This leaves Schoen with approximately 17 acres of contiguous dry buildable .including his residence parcel, and increases Jacobs' dry buildable to approximately 14.5 acres. Discussion - This is a logical lot line rearrangement, to place dry 1 7 that is contiguous with the Jacobs' property under Jacobs' contro . Both properties remain well in excess of the minimum zoning requirements. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement. ZONING FILE NO. 1352 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 65 Crystal. Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11/22/88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Charles Schoer. COPIES TO: Sheldon Jacobs 2430 North Shore Drive % Irwin L. Jacobs Wayzata, MN 55391 1700 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Theodore D. Kemna Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10550 Wayzata Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55343 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 11/21/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval: subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Your subdivision for a lot line rearrangement will be presented for final approval by Council upon receipt of the following: 1. Provide a Certificate of Survey per survey dated 9/29/88 by Theodore Kemna of Schoell and Madson, Inc. (revised version which indicates Parcels A, B, and C). Provide signature lines for all property owners with an interest in the subject properties (spouse, etc. - signature lines must be signed), the Mayor, City Clerk, and date of final approval. 2. Provide two copies of survey 1"=200' for City records. 3. The property owner Jacobs must complete combination forms at the City offices upon final approval of the subdivision (Parcel A to be combined with Parcel B). All final submittals must be submitted to this office 10 days before the meeting at which Council will grant final subdivision approval. The Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Regular meetings are re -scheduled if they conflict with a national holiday. The Council has scheduled only one meeting for the month of December and that meeting is scheduled for December 12th. MJ; r CITY OF O O - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address �LlY c. •V a V�.� L/ILVII !L _VV. VV Property Identification Number ( P . I . D .) 1)/ l/ % /--3 - ¢% - V 0 O 5 Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? .c, vA t1t�/'- - .aw v Attach legal description to application. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone ( home ) Name i'ha!_ /� �l'-// D e/%_ -_ Phone (work) Address:, o �77o1-e ��`_ City: ixyzy? T2' Zip: S'f3 - -- ----------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Pho• ome) Name P..liene (work) Address: City: _ Zip: (attach list if more than one) ------------------------------------------------------------- -------- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels / Development Size Acres Dry Land n C v r Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels - Present Use (check) Residential; no. of units y / other ( specify ) ✓9&'�7�1 Present Zoning Districtl/TZ � ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ 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 - Tottal 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 formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. D:velopers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $150.00 k 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 application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature ,in.y�/�/�� ��_ Date Owner's Signature T �/ / v Dates Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all. scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. F R E C H L . 12S! i -NTH ' ; 5s, 'i5-1 / �' _ _ .. - - w .'• "' !� MEMORIAL, s'i _ pop A R K = . f;r BRECKENRIDGE �.:�.—.::2.� _—it (n , ?��`: " r71.9t : t �^ •� .L � �::.� yt ,,t . � ? � '�. � Doer to � 17 •/s/•07 jZ .. a<'d 4ORI'yr� ' f o Vol d' N'sSJS . a;�ixi • tKr•Yt ,. � s - � t .. � � p •i e • u rp �,sl 1 \ ` IL Cl) g OIL }•. �r'tr�?r'� _ '�ji;.<,+L•.2'Ik .!' `�='.+r,-N i� J� Z foo- 31 all .ii• '' !-__ r �'Z It yy� w f- �•�� l {.1••�• r.I4 ,.�.�-y •�.•/ . I y fin) r •` i _ '////� a '/ ` - - f ``• • / 1 � „ (!1 r+ (s) - . F 1 0 1. 'it6RTf�-B�OL1—S1+6Rf \ •' hk, �� • +• ..r'+• '� • -�� .. _ ass RUN DATE 11/09/8a HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 BATCH 001 38 09-117-13 13 0004 38 09-117-23 13 0007 38 09-117-23 14 0001 PROP ADDR 01150 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S 01200 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S 01100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S OWNER HAME R K DITMORE i L L DITMORE T A K CHAKERIAN R J GUMNIT L F H GRAHAM TAY.PAYE4 R K i L l DITMORE THOMAS P A KATHRYN CHAKERIAN ROBERT GUMNIT/FRAt'CES GRAHAM NAMEIADDR 1150 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S 1200 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55301 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 14 0002 38 09-117-23 14 0004 38 09-117-23 41 0002 PROP ADDR 02640 NORTH SHORE DR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 02515 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME IRWIN L JACOBS H R JOHNSTON JR ET AL JOSEPH H JESTER i WIFE TAXPAYER IRWIN L JACOBS H R JOHNSTON JR JOSEPH H JESTER NAME/ADDR 1700 SHORELINE OR 935 WILLOW DR S 2515 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 41 0003 38 09-117-23 41 0004 38 09-117-23 41 0005 PROP ADDR 02545 NORTH SHORE OR 02565 NORTH SHORE DR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME GAMBLE DEVEL CO J i T MARTINEAU C J SCHOEN i B M SCHOEN TAXPAYER ED J CALLAHAN JR JEFFREY L A TONI A MARTINEAU CHARLES J SCHOEN NAME/AODR 3400 CITY CENTER 2565 NORTH SHORE DR 2430 NORTH SHORE DR MPLS MH 55402 WAYZATA HN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 41 0006 38 09-117-23 41 0007 38 09-117-23 41 0008 PROP ADDR 02440 NORTH SHORE OR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME C N1 B SCHOEN C J SCHOEN i B M SCHOEN C A B SCHOEN TAXPAYER CHARLES J SCHOEN CHARLES J SCHOEN CHARLES J SCHOEN NAME/ADDR 2440 NORTH SHORE DRIVE 2430 NORTH SHORE OR 2430 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0001 38 09-117-23 42 0002 38 09-117-23 42 0003 PROP ADOR 02655 NORTH SHORE OR 02605 NORTH SHORE DR 02625 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME R i o LACY C A M PIHL KIRTLAND C WOODHOUSE ET AL TAXPAYER ROLLIN t SHARON LACY "HARLES R PIHL KIRTLAND C WOOOHOUSE NAME/ADDR 2655 NORTH SHORE OR 605 NORTH SHORE DR C/O TRAMMELL CROW CO WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 8400 NORMANDLALE LAKE BLVD BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 09-117-23 42 0007 38 09-117-23 44 0001 38 09-117-23 44 0002 PROP ADDR 02485 NORTH SHORE DR 02465 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME CLIFF F TRAFF JR H V BURNETT ETAL DUANE A LUKE ETAL TAXPAYER CLIFF F TRAFF JR C STEVEN WILSON DUANE A LUKE NAME/ADDR 18500 MAPLE RIDGE RD 2485 NORTH SHORE OR 2465 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 N RUN DATE 11/09/88 BATCH 001 38 09-117-23 44 0003 PROP ADDR 02425 WiRTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME DOROTHY C LEVY TAXPAYER DOROTHY C LEVY NAM# /ADDR 2425 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 44 0007 PROP ADDR 02425 SCOTCH PINE LA OWNER NAME H A C HILL TAXPAYER H DOUGLAS A CHERYL HILL NAME/ADDR 2425 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA MH 55391 38 10-117-23 23 0004 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME NED INC CT AL TAXPAYER NED INC NAME/ADDR 1212 E WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 32 0011 PROP ADDR 01290 FRENCH CREEK DR OWNER NAME K F A J S TEMPERO TAXPAYER KENNETH F TEMPERO NAME/ADDR 1290 FRENCH CREEK DR WAYZATA MH 55391 38 10-117-23 33 0001 PROP ADDR 02385 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME WM L TENNEY ETAL TAXPAYER TRUST REAL ESTATE NAME/AODR NW NATL BANK 7TH A MARQ MPLS MN 55480 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 09-117-23 44 0004 02455 SCOTCH PINE LA SAMUEL 5 MARFIELD A WIFE SAMUEL S MARFIELO 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 23 0001 01205 FRENCH CREEK OR M A D BLODGETT MICHAEL W A DIANE S BLODGETT P 0 BOX y37 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 10-117-23 32 0009 01380 FRENCH CREEK DR NED INC NED INC 1212 E WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 32 0012 01260 FRENCH CREEK DR CHAUMIERES OF MINO4ETO14KA INC CHAUMIERES OF MINNETOtlKA INC PO BOX 788 EXCELSIOR MN SS331 TOTAL BATCH 001 00031 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 38 09-117-23 44 0006 02435 SCOTCH PINE LA L A C WHALEN LAWRENCE J WHALEN 2435 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 23 0002 01209 FRENCH CREEK DR NED INC EDWARD A SHERRY A DAYTON 1209 FRENCH CREEK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 32 0010 01370 FRENCH CREEK OR J SOUTER A L A KRAUSE JOHN SOUTER A LAUREL KRAUSE 1370 FRENCH CREEK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 32 0013 01250 FRENCH CREEK DR J 8 YEAKEL A N A YEAKEL JEFFERSON A NANCY YEAKEL 1250 FRENCH CREEK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 tr,. 8f .a ZJ cz MEMORIAL q6� all S. h i PARK M MORIAL •` S Ci w• � Y PARK �a.s.�.s � ,�•u,. a01 K� • �� I dal '*. r � ``'M0.1311 A0 ,� .� N 1� l a•' vv T •—-` ; = r� M`'►, •t F PANG � ! _ � '(Lvd' � may,, • i } . `� \ tom; { '• `+i QA- l Nrsw L4-r L N� . ri f' mow. s .t i•1 1t ¢t 1 .I !.� .It ,.,• t ri' is .J®rl,1,, xiv Ir FR OV 0.r-4' , ' : _ ( DRY let _ ... ;:► ,, , ••�;,. wry ., 00 ' /j4 44 2 • 1' l -. ' _Mbl lip All v• I��r � w NIr '• f � 1' i -�1. t. � � i ` � i.• �•�•�',��� � '., � � �. ''.,� � �..���`ic•, •;;ifs• Mo ti '� • i1• � J+� �•� ♦ fir. r� �' ' � +t � � �• . TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Membe-s City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning administrator DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: #1354 Merkow/Charlton, 2340 & 2380 Abingdon Way - Metes & Bounds Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Resolution APPLICATION: Revise lot line between two properties. ZONING DISTRICT: RR-1B, Single Family, Rural Residential - 2 Acres LIST OF EXHIBITS: A. Proposed Resolution B. Notice of Planning Commission Action dated 11/22/88 C. Memo and Exhibits of 11/9/88 DISCUSSION: Please review the memo and exhibits of November 9, 1988. The applicants are proposing to shift the lot line between their two properties. Each lot will remain in excess of 2.08 aces in area. The division will allow expansion of the Merkow front yard as well as allow their driveway to be located further west. No existing or future drainfield sites are affected by this rearrangement. Planning Commission, at their 11/21/88 meeting, recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. Note that a vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements is scheduled for the January Planning Commission meeting. The applicants have granted new drainage and utility easements 5' either side of the new division line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the metes and bounds subdivision fo Merkow and Charlton at 2340 and 2380 Abingdon way per the attache, resolution. �Vff A. RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND AObWDS SUBDIVISION OF A Id?T LINK REARRANGEMENT AT 2340 & 2380 ABINGDON WAY FILE NO. 1354 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by Robert and Margaret Merkow and John and Phyllis Charlton (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Abingdon Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds division of a lot line rearrangement for Robert and Margaret Merkow and John and Phyllis Charlton as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., dated October 10, 1988 and attached to this resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel A, as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above, must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel b as described in that same survey. Likewise, the owner of Parcel D shall apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel C. 2. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before June 12, 1989 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. Page 1 of 2 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of December, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 ZONING FILE NO. 1354 CITY OF ORONO NOTTC& OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11/22/88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Robert & Margaret Merkow COPIES TO: John & Phyllis Charlton 2340 Abingdon Way 2180 Abingdon Way Long Lake, MN 55356 --ng Lake, 'AN 55356 Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. P.O. Box 432 Long Lake, MN 55356 ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangk-ment --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 11/21/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval: Subject to conditions noted below N:.�TES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Your subdivision for a lot line rearrangement will be presented for final approval by City Council upon receipt of the following: 1. Provide a Certificate of Survey per survey dated 10/18/88 by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. Oii try drawing, label the four parcels in question as Parcels A, B, C, and D, per the attached diagram. Provide distinct legal descriptions for each parcel, in addition to the proposed new legal descriptions. Provide signature lines for all property owners with an interest in the subject properties (spouse, etc. - signature lines must be signed), the Mayor, City Clerk, and date of final approval. 2. Provide an executed Drainage and Utility Easement 5' either side of the new lot line (standard format attached). / 3. Provide two copies of survey 1"=200' for City records. 4. The property owners must complete combination forms at the City offices up n final approval of this subdivision (Parcel A to be combined with Parcel B, Parcel C tc be combined with Parcel D). All final submittals must be submitted to this office 10 days before the meeting at which Council will grant final subdivision approval. The Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Pegular meetings are re -scheduled if they conflict with a national holiday. The Council has scheduled only one meeting for the month of December and that meeting is scheauled for December 12th. V To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: November 9, 1988 Subject: #1354 Robert & Margaret Merkow/John & Phyliss Charlton, 2340 & 2380 Abingdon Way - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Application - Revise lot line between two properties. Zoning District - RR-1B List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survsy Pertinent Facts - 1. Each existing lot exceeds 2.v acres in area. The proposed realignment of the lot line will result in a slight increase (.02 acre) in the property at 2380, and an equivalent decrease in the property at 2340. 2. The reasons for the proposed rearrangement include expansion of the Merkow front yard, as well as allowing their driveway to be located further west. 3. Existing and future drainfield sites are not affected by this rearrangement. Discussion - This is a simple lot line rearrangement, and would appear to be reasonable and of b•�nefit to both property owners. Staff finds no problems with the proposed realignment. Note that the new line will not line up with the existing drainage and utility easements. It is the applicants' intent to grant new drainage and utility easements over the new line, and as of this writing, applicants' surveyor notes that it is their intent to proceed with a vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement. The surveyor also notes that there are apparently no existing utilities that would be affected by this moue. Since tt.e issue of easement vacation was not brought up until after the subdivision application was filed and notice published, the vacation will be the subject of a subsequent application, for review at your next meeting. Staff Recoa■iendation - Staff recommends approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement, subject to granting of new drainage and utility easements over the new dividing line, with the intent that the existing easements will eventually be vacated. 41�'1 3 S'f =4�- i 3 J y ry OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION AP �TION --------------------------- --- -.,a„®-----=°i"=----- .ROPERTY LOCATION Z SS356 /Site Address "..A Y , "IV& LAk'F 517356- 0.3117 L3 23 00/t Property Identification Number (P . I. D .) 0 3 i l7 Z 3 2 3 0012 Please check one - Property abstract or >�, torrens? L 1 "V�- uJli l•tIL: Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT RObI°!"f' L /V,�1'kOGcJ /y114K6A�iT MEe-eOhome) 47k _ --- S - ----- Name JOHA) R CHAICI-TON'OftYLL/S M-CHA _j33-� done (work) 5,q6-I&c,A4 ZW�� A13INGU� Y za/Vrr G.1g4G- s5 3S,6 Address: 23g0 A611t, UON �(/ City: 40IV6- G�9,�C� Zip: S �3 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: (attach list if more than one) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size S./`1 Acres Dry Land p, p` Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) X Residential; no. of units 2 Other (specify) 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: Z Eristing Units 0 New Units 2- Total Units Proposed Gross Density: 2 Units per 5.so Acres Minimum Lot. Size: 8 7,/1 O Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) X Residential other (specify) y }iYp..ZJ MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR LETF,,PI2ELIMINARY APPLICAttbN 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 343-3271). 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 formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants. etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $150.00 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 application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature �� /I 1 I/�''Q.�.V4^�-- Date fU12,41 owner's Signature �� �� , ( _!W1It'�) to Applicant must hav011 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 preset at all scheduled review meetinqs of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable elel o attend a scheduled meeting, p Gz!se 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. 51;Z.e� 4?9.71 . 6.12 Q t .4"Z2 A5 f ° (�Tom. 140 a l t �iUI 60 210 O 40 06 �n 6 L: 3e p5 58 zw �. 4 !Wow oo 3O 0 �i 38�3.40 S�0 0.86 �0 c� 2 It'.,t. i 801 w (8) t16 0? r (4) pE'ti !�6 L Sop '' 1lep G N7k R-I:o 00 �0 p7 6Y _ J 9`00YG� oo Y� Z 0 %71.� � i 9 . d ' O l'15.GG c: 46 '75V S FO L:t j, 0 �� � .,e r+ �` M, � �� d�KM e`39e e 1 2, o � 'mac v� �-•• �-_•s.�� 190 qp 0 i G tI tt' a:�9a 9o.A0 i -157 08 30* r oti N OS. o r :� �3•, S .v � • ..F ,9 , 1 _.�`.. s _I �40 .,.-... _,._.86/.Fit•._,•_• i. : 706.i5 1 • •• :. e11M• Y" i _.•L. *) e` • I .. ' �-► • L" I�,:l' -t � b.:1.'�I., '.f� ^:f�.�� 1{ � L'• •1 � )1 1- •J .I , y. T �11.i �S: .t.�'. r� {t .ti 1 :i _ ii _ � • i ry'' T . Y y 1{ 37, 53 yBq�.f6 0, E ;Pr s 9. s 365 1 n a , RUN DATE 10/21/88 BATCH 001 38 03-117-23 23 0004 PROP ADDR 02300 LONGVIEW CIR 0WNER NAME D A C SCOTT TAXPAYER DONALD J SCOTT NAME/ADDR 2300 LONGV�EW CIRCLE LONG LAKE MH 55356 38 03-117.23 23 0007 PROP ADDR 02285 ABINGDON WAY OWNER NAME M R WOZNIAK A J E WOZNIAK TAXPAYER MICHAEL R WOZNIAK NAME/ADDR 2285 ABINGDON WAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 23 0011 PROP ADDR 02340 ABINGDON WAY OWNER NAME EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC TAXPAYER EIDEN CONSTRLXKTION INC NAME/ADDR 2290 ABI' ,DON WAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 23 0014 PROP ADOR 00400 WILLOW DR S OWNER NAME ARTHUt A EDITH NELSON TAXPAYER ARTHUR A EDITH NELSON NAME/ADDR 400 WILLOW DR S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 14 0003 PROP ADOR 00405 WILLOW OR S OWNER NAME CHARLES JUDD RINGER A WIFE TAXPAYER CHARLES J RINGER NAME/ADDR 405 WILLOW OR S LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 23 0005 02350 LONGVIEW CIR L L FLOYD A C K FLOYD LESTER L FLOYD 2350 LONGVIEW CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 23 0009 02240 ABINGDON WAY D W LARSON A L A RYDELL DAVID LARSON A LISA RYDELL 4510 RIDGEVIEW OR EAGAN MN 55123 38 03-117-23 23 0012 02380 ABINGDON WAY J R CHARLTON A H M rmARLTON JOHN R A PHYLLIS M LHARLTON 2380 ABINGDON WAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 14 0001 00038 ADDRESS L)NASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA 38 04-117-23 14 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA R C HESSBURG SP AST AT}N GL BOX 38 CENTENNIAL OFFICE BLG ST '3AUL MN 55155 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 03-117-23 23 0006 02355 ABINGDON WAY D A D LEWIS D A 0 LEWIS 2355 ABINGDON WAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 23 0010 02290 ABINGDON WAY KENDALL A MIX ET AL ANTHONY EIDEN 2290 ABINGDON WAY LONG LAKE tYN 55356 38 03-117-23 23 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KENDALL A MIX ET AL WILLOW PROPERTIES INC 1421 E WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 04-117-23 14 0002 00305 WILLOW DR 3 D R CARPENTIER/C M CARPENTIER DANIEL R CARPENTIER ' _ -7 305 .ALLOW DR SO LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 001 00014 To: Planning Commission ChairMan Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: November 15, 1988 Subject: #1355 Kenneth J. Wessels, 1245 Woodhill Avenue - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lB Pertinent Ordinance - Section 30.20, Subdivision 3 (M) - Antenna Structure - One independant antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna thereto, subordinate to in servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto, that is not attached to another structure, provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65' and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Addendum Exhibit E - Specification Sheets Exhibit F - Site Plan Review of Application - Mr. Wessels proposes the installation of an independant antenna structure to the northeast of his residence structure currently under construction. Per the enclosed spec sheets, review Exhibit F, the tower will be supported from a concrete base stub requiring no guy wires. The actual antenna structure is supported from this base on a triangular structure measuring 20" on all sides. The antenna structure itself will be controlled mechanically so when it is not in use it will be lowered to the tree level 30' to 351. The tower will extend no higher than 60' when in transmitting mode. The antenna structure will not exceed the allowed 65' in height (review Exhibit F). The setbacks from the lot lines of the property well exceed the required 60' distance, ranging from a 165' to 370'. The antenna structure will not interfere with any power poles. Mr. Wessels has centrally located the antenna structure on the property. The existing trees around the house will provide additional screening for the adjacent property owners. The fact that guying will not be required for the structure will also minimize the visual impact of the antenna. Wessels advises that this is merely a hobby and is not related to the operation of his business. The use of the antenna can be considered an accessory use and can not be installed until the principal structure has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy. It should be noted that the installation of the antenna structure will require a building permit from the City of Orono. Zoning File #1355 November 15, 1988 Page 2 of 3 In approximately 1985-86, the FCC ruled that local authorities could not discriminate between satellite dishes and antenna installations. The City issues building permits for satellite dishes considered accessory structures. Local authorities may regulate to insure the safety and welfare of the public. It appears that the standards set forth in our zoning code would deal with matters of public safety. It also assures that a business use could not be made as it is a conditional use under the residential zoning, considered accessory to the principal use. The structure meets the required setbacks for a 60' antenna. Does the Planning Commission feel that there are other considerations dealing with public safety that have not yet been addressed? Existing trees and the placement adjacent to the house will provide screening for the single antenna structure. Are there other conditions that should be considered regarding the visual impact of the tower on the neighborhood? Staff has asked the applicant to confirm that the private covenants of this subdivision allow such a structure. Mr. Wessels has confirmed that the covenants would not prohibit the antenna structure. Staff Recommendation - To approve a conditional use permit application for Kenneth J. Wessels for the property located at 1245 Woodhi l l Avenue, that would permit the installation of a free standing, 60' high antenna for a private/hobby use based on the following findings: 1. Proposed antenna structure meets the required setback from all property lines. 2. The visual impact of the antenna structure is lessened by the adjacent house etructurc- and existing mature trees. 3. The anren:,a structure, while not in use, will be lowered to the tree levels, thereby lessening the impact upon the adjacent residential properties. 4. A licensed engineer has certified structural soundness per specifications for installation of the free-standing antenna. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued for the installation of the antenna structure upon the City's issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the principal residence. 2. Per specification sheets submitted with application, the City will ask that anti -climb sections be installed to prevent other persons from entering the property and climbing the 60' structure. 3. Applicant is advised that when planning for the utilities to serve the residence, the utilities be installed away from the proposed antenna site. Zoning File #1355 November 15, 1988 Page 3 of 3 4. The 2ity would recommend that the applicant provide for regular inspections of the antenna structure to insure that it remains in a safe condition. Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - Zoning File #1355 December 5, 1988 The neighbors in attendance were concerned with the visual impact and interference with radio, telephones and television. One neighbor in attendance remembered past experiences with a former neighbor who operated a major radio transmitter under the guise of a hobby operation. The City has yet to receive a complaint on the hobby use of Mr. Anderson (east side of Forest Lake) who received a conditional use permit in 1986 for use of radio transmitter with independent antenna structure at 58' in height. As with the Anderson application, staff would recommend that letters be sent to all neighbors within 350' of the antenna structure with the names and telephone numbers of both Mr. Wessels and an agent of the F.C.C. as appropriate contact persons if neighbors experience problems with interference. One neighbor reported that in the case of the previous resident who operated the radio transmitter, the F.C.C. was ineffe„tive and was never able to get the individual to make the necessary alterations or repairs to his transmitter/receiver. Staff can confirm that at least on two occasions, the neighbors met with Council and complained of severe interference problems. The neighbor and transmitter left the Orono Orchard Road neighborhood sometime in late 1983. Another neighbor in attendance advised the Planning Commission that he had contacted the immediate neighbors of Mr. Wessels current residence and reported that not only were they unaware that Mr. Wessels had a radio antenna on the property but that they never experienced any interference problems. The Planning Commission added the following condition to the staffs approval recommendation: 5. The current conditional use permit shall be in effect for a 6 month period commencing from the date of the final inspection of the antenna installation by the Orono Inspection Staff and upon satisfaction that all reported interference problems experienced by the neighboring property owners have been alleviated, that the City shall automatically issue a permanent conditional use permit for the operation of a radio transmitter/receiver with independent antenna structure at a maximum height of 60'. The enclosed staff resolution has been drafted per both the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISIONS 3 (M) FILE #1355 WHEREAS, Kenneth J. Wessels (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property at 1245 Woodhill Avenue located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Woodhill Ridge, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "property"), and WHEREAS, the applicant has made ap 1 ication to the City of Orono per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivisions 3 (M) to permit the installation of an independent radio and antenna structure at a maximum height of 60' to be located 165' to 370' from all interior lot lines. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1355. 2. The property is located in the RR-lB, Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres in area. 3. The property is approximately 2+ acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 21, 1988, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit per Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M), based upon the following findings: A) The location of the proposed antenna structure at 60' well exceeds the required setback from all property lines with setbacks ranging from 165' to 370'. B) The visual impact of the antenna structure is lessened by the adjacent house structure and existing mature trees. C) The antenna structure, while not in use, will be lowered to the tree levels, thereby lessening the impact upon the adjacent residential propert'es. D) A licensed engineer has certified structural soundness per specifications for installation of the free standing antenna. Page 1 of 4 5. The City c-ouncil finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the antenna structure at 60' in height will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivisions 3 (M) to allow the installation of a free standing antenna at a maximum height of 601, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued for the sole amature use of the applicant while he owns the property. 2. The antenna structure must be dismantled and substructure/footings to be filled when the applicant no longer resides and/or owns the property. 3. Upon the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the principal residence currently under construction, the applicant must obtain a building permit for the installation of the antenna structure. 4. The applicant is advised that when planning for the utilities to the residence currently under construction, that the utilities be installed away from the proposed antenna site. 5. Per specification sheet submitted with permit application, the City shall ask that the anti -climb sections be installed to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the property and climbing the 60' structure. Page 2 of 4 6. The applicant is hereby advised that this conditional use permit shall be in effect for a six (6) month period commencing at the date of the final inspection for the antenna structure by the Orono Inspection Department and upon satisfaction that all reported interference problems experienced by the neighboring property owners ha,•ie been alleviated that the City shall automatically issue a permanent conditional use permit for the operation of a radio transmitter/receiver with independent antenna structure, and that Council further directs staff to send a written notice to all neighbors within 350' of said antenna structure or the effective date of this conditional use permit with appropriate names of people to contact in cases of interference. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the croperty not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit for the installation of an antenna structure within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (December 12, 1989). 8. Viula*ion of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9. The undersigned owner 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 12th day of December, 1986. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 CITY O" ORONO ------------- PROPERTY LOCA Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Property _ x_ abstract or torrens7 (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description aplication _.f not. included on required survey. APPLICANT ------------------------ -------Phone-(home)---__39�-iGf�,____ _� ------ Name Phone (work) Address City--s - Zip �37L&8 ------------------------------------ --------------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone City Zip Address — Date Property Acquired,v c 11' (month/year I toiccT (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PKES - CONDITIONAL OSE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After -the -Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated we floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or L re Grading, seawall, retaining walls within of Lakeshore PRD/rID scheJule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 $250.00 ! $1004.00 Other - Commercial Site Pla. Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning Appeals see fee sc-i,c>du le PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property St��tw_ I-PwvL- Residential 0 her (specify) _ _ ------------------------------------------------------------- ._------ ------ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: G.� S.ay✓.4�.�/C� 5 , Xu C��� . U _------------------------------------------------------------------------ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the name on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). �A/0) 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ..----------------------------------------------•---------------------------- The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is omplete. Zoning Off'_cials Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all f.Pes and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature /Y`Z/L Date cLi OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry I,e property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission membe ,d Council members for purposes of investigation and verificatio.. 4his request. L�,__ Owner's signatureA��"' Date ^�Y CApplicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plarning Commission Meetings are held un the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Pla. ling Commission and Council. ;f an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building t Zoning Office of *-his change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 09/07/88 HENNE°IN COUNTY PRIPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 P►OPE..TY OWNERS LIST PAGE 3 BATCH 002 38 02-1!7-23 12 Ou01 PROP Al -;A 00200 WOODHILL RD OWNED ?=-ME WOOOHILL COUNTRY CLUB TAXPA LR WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB NAME/ADDR 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN SS391 38 02-117-23 21 0010 PROP ►DOR 00180 ORONO ORCHARD RD 5 C*0410 NAME JOSEPH M R%KE ETAL TAXPAYER JOSEPH M ROKKE 14AME/AO(`R 180 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA IN SS391 38 02-117-23 24 0302 PROP ADDR 00320 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNER NAME B A P JAFFRA` TAXPAYER BENJAMIN S JAFFRAY NAhf/ADDR 320 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MH 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0008 PROP ADDR 01250 WOOOHILL AVE OWNLR NAME 0 D A C J DIETZ TAXPAYER DENNIS D DIETZ NAME/ADDR 1314 MARQUETTE AVE UNIT 703 MPLS MN 55403 38 02-117-23 24 0012 PROP ADOR 01245 WOODHILL AVE OWNER NAME MSM ASSOCIATES T►tPATER MSM ASSOCIATES NAME/ADOR 315 E LAKE ST WAYZATA MN SS391 38 02-117-23 21 0007 01230 WOODHILL AVE M G FOX i M 5 FOX MARK G FOX 1230 WOODHILL AVE S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 22 0005 00265 ORONO OPCHARC R1 S VILLAGE OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 02-117-23 24 0003 00280 ORONO ORCHARD RD S VICTORIA H RAICHE VICTORIA H RAICHE 280 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYi ATA MN 55391 38 02.117-23 24 0009 01260 WOODHILL AVE MSM ASSOCIATES MSM ASSOCIATES 31= E LAKE ST WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 002 00013 38 02-117-23 21 0009 00190 ORONO ORCHARD RD S JANE MC CLAREN JANE MC CLAREN 190 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAY.'_ATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0901 0 6 WOODHILL AVE D4V1D J LTNOSTROM DAVID J LINDSTROM 1315 WOODHILL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0004 00320 ORONO ORCHARD RD S B A P JAFFRAY BENJAMIN S JAFFRAY 320 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN .i391 38 02-117-23 24 0011 01Z55 WOODHILL AVE LUCY C MITCHELL LUC: C MITCHELL 174L rl WILLOW OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 IN WE 0"7/m HEW :-'.1 UPAHTY PROPERTY INFORMAMA. 'YSTEM 4E?ORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 4 OAhm M I CERTIV THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE At:_ REPRr5' OF INFORY.TION AS IT APJEARS THIS DATE C RECORDS OF THE COUNTY icPARTMENT OF Pl,0PE 1 TAXATION T"F BEST OF MY n AND BELIEF DATE�BY / to Is. a . ..•�s A' o �� o`o. 2 .o .M /.toor,�l\ •v ,,,orb At,� 0 1 = 2-73.3 Ir K�I- at- gyp 9 y Ile. 19 100.14. roe• as ,`. 216.43 09 .4 Al M8.00, W - ` sN - 'QC 69. ., qi. 4 •0 a as ,j bti ' N68 SBE NO04W ` r y b• a 47 O M f C Ln a ti°"t•: 48 o _ 4771, x++ A C y J a 4 4 4 :' C3� � ems,, � �'l �• .�- Z 1• 4IjD; (� � o go ,1 y 33 Y � :S •I - 4 � � I i of �ot�2 ^�� C r rs�z 301 _ R 2 I bt P �y� ✓'� P5� szi a9 r`r, C •, .A �" • 4 T •� 340 -' %zr✓ad shy s ,Ny — j-d'- /c}- Cr ou /J e-s l v>t 4-� A.EI.N ei — /—&W £2- .✓u 7— %?J C-A-A 4 Ss A Ii%i /N f�s7EvLtT. I i G✓/vc� �" �.v, �f�-�/y 1-47 VII //G/�t,L> 7� UW.v fit. 5 ice- �i�/i Lfc�P_! Lv.✓ � TirL� r,✓ /�/� 6,r/Lau.v`i-� /T G✓/liL. /�G'' •� �� �iTi�1��•=s?� /i iy u i i u /sGA 4" C:�/ ,/�J G7/ j O �/� SiZC �— S /7i' L>%N C� / %L%� �/� �. /S /4r N [7 ¢ ?,,e4,t✓Cr1,V- /b'�X ati un/ SHEET 3-1765 August 1, 1980 (Replaces 0-1508 ) J'UNARCO-ROHN"� MAST ASSEMBLY 9X - STANDARD // HBX - HEAVY DUTY // HOBX - EXTRA HEAVY DUTY TOWERS 1. Two U-bolt assemblies with "L" brackets ire supplied for installing the mast. These 'L" brackets are bolted through the slotted holes on the rotor and top plate with the short legs of the "L" bracket toward the outside of the tower. See Drawing C-750429. • 2. Run the U-bolt through the open side of the formed "V" clamp and into the "L" bracket placing the 5/16" nuts and washers on the U-bolt loosely. 3. To install the mast, place one end of it through the upper 11-bolt assembly end plate and slide it down into the lower U-bolt assembly. Then tighten the U-bolt assembly to hold the mast. 4. Adjustments to make the mast vertical may be made by moving the "L" brackets in the slotted holes. The HBX - Heavy Duty and HDBX - Extra Heavy Duty Towers are furnished with a mast clamp installed on the top plate made from a pipe floor flange, whi-h is provided with three bolts to be used as set screws to secure the mast. The box of hardware consists of one U-bolt assembly as described above and it can be installed on the lower plate as is instructed above, if required. ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS 3REAKING DOWN BUNOLE 1. If your tower includes the 3' mast and/or three 4' base stubs, remove them. Remove the package of nuts, bolts, and washers. 2. Lay the bundle on its side and remove the tower sections. Start with the innermost section of the package (the smallest section) and remove by pulling out with Quick, firm ;erKs. It is not necessary nor desirable to pry toe termer sections out wlth tools as damage may result. 3. Inspect all tower sections on delivery to make sure there are no loose or broken rivets caused by transport mis- har:lPng. If a rivet is broken or loose, it should be replaced by a snug -fitting machine bolt and nut, securely tightened. TOWER After you have Chosen the desired type of base for your tower (concrete base with 3XB concrete base stubs, BXHC hinged concrete base, 9XCA cylinder base which hinges over and requires no _oncrete) and it is prooerly installed per base instructions, boll. the base section (the largest section) to the base. Proceed with the erection as follows: 1. The legs on each higher section slide inside the previous one and should be positioned on the rivet stop in the previous leg. (This rivet stop is to prevent the tower section being installed from slipping through the previous section and is not for the purpose Qf aligning the assembly hole- (Spec,al Note: The 3X8 section does not have a rivet stop in it, so extreme caution should be used when installing the BX7 section into the BX8 section.) Proceed by bolting together ea" section with the proper size bolts. 2. To erect the tower, section by section vertically, you should use in EFBX erection fixture for raising and locating the section being installed into the previous section. (Note: Do not use an erection fixture to lift more thar the weight of one tower section at a time.) By using BXHC or BXCA base the tower can be assembled on the ground and hinged up using extreme caution. When hinging up, watch for power lines, trees, etc. 3. Loose, missing or faulty rivets should be replaced with a similar sue nut and bolt which can be obtained at any local hardware store. NOTE: 3/8" bolts are to be used an BXi, 02 and the top of BX3 sections. 9/16" bolts are used on the bottom of the BX3 and all sections from BX4 through BX8 (BX8 is the largest section). One set of cross braces on one face of the tep section is purposely left off to ,'low easy &cress to the rotor plate for installing tt-- mast and rotor. (Note: Only one person should be on the tower at one time.) NOTES ON INSTALLING ROTATORS Most all makes of rotators can be installed on the rotor plate inside the top tower section of the BX standard towers. There is a short piece of tubing furnished with each tower that can be used as a thrust bearing (for 1-1/4" mast) with 'he mast clamp irstalled on the top plate as is described under the heading of Mast Assembiv. Up not install rotators on the HDBX too place. For the HBX - Heavy Duty and HDBX - Extra Heavy Duty Towers, when a rotator is used a 4" piece of tubing or pipe with an I.D. larger than the 0.0. of the mast can be installed in the pipe flange clamp and used as a bearing sleeve for the most to turn in. �• FOR INSTALLING THE ROTATOR ITSELF, FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED BELOW: Save �nline model rotators mount directly to the rotor plate. (The lower housing of -tor is not used when this !s Jone.) The necessary holes for mountinq most rotors are pre -punched in the plate no the bolts funs shed :o bolt the rower nousinq to the upper housing (4-1/4" x 1" bolts) are to be insertod f oottom of the plate upward and �-tu th. " .t is desirable to place 3/8' nuts to act as spacers between the „ -ter plate and the rottttr. SHEET D-1766 (Replaces 0-1343) August 1, 1980 .I These nuts will prevent the terminals of the rotator and the rotor wir- from shorting on the rotor plate. An 8" piece of tubing is furnished with each tower. It can be installed into the clam ("Y" clamp and "L" shaped brackets furnished for offset rotor installation only) for the offset type rotors. It is necessary to reverse the clamp assembiy (to face outside of the tower), opposite that of installing a standard mast tv the rotor plate. Some rotators can be mounted directly to the "L" shaped bracket as shown or to the 8' mast as previously described. Also, some rotators mount beneath the rotor plate (as pictured). It will be necessary to increase the 1/4• holes in the rotor plate to 3/8" holes to use the 3/8" bolts furnished with these rotators. See pictorial views of typical rotor in- stallations: 1 n44 CROWN ROTOR CROWN ROTOR In ail cases be careful during it :allation. CDR "BIELL' ROTOR EX SERIES TOWER ALLIANCE ROTOR Mr -GAIN 400 ROTOR The EX Series Tower is made up from a basic package of one BXiA section and one BX2 section. To make an EX3, EX4, or EX5 tower, straight sections in the 8X1 (BXSI) and BX2 (8XS2) dimensions are interposed between the standard sections. The part number indicates the number of B' sections within that particular package. (Example: EX2 is two 8' sections of tower or 16' and an EX4 is four 8' sections of tower or ;21.) There is also furnished with eat- '.X tower, one 8' x 1-1/4" mast pole and one base plate with three drive rods to be driven through the holes provided. m.,oroximately 4" of the drive rods should be left above the top of the plate. These rods prevent the base of the tower fm, shifting sideways only. Also furnished is one EXHi adjustable house bracket. Do not attempt to climb tower unti house bracket has been installed. Not more than 16' (two sections) of tower should be extended above the house bracket without necess*tating guying. Should it be desired to put this installation on a roof top, the EXR1 roof mount is available. This bracket 1s formed to a peaked or hip roof; however, by straightening out the flanges of the bracket, it can be placed on a flat roof. After the roof mount is set, the standard base plate of the EX Series (EX81) is bolted to the hinged part of the roof mount. The tower is then assembled as in other normal installations. For roof installations, the tower should be guyed at least each 16' (no guy wire furnished). This is a protection to the roof, as well as the tower. When assemblying the tower, two legs should be started and the third leg slid into place with the aid of a screw driver as the two sections are of the same dimensions. One cross brace on the BX1A top section is purposely left off to give easy access to the rotor plate for installing the mast or rotor. (Note: Only one person should be on the tower at one time.) For mast and rotAOor instructions. follow instructions for 8X Tcwer. IMPORTANT NOTE: The following procedure should be observed on all bolts used to join sections. Insert bolt through hoe provided rovided in tower sections, place star washer and then run nut up securely. This method results in maximum strength. NOTES FOR BX AND EX SERIES TOWER . . . Do not install towers near power lines. All towers should be installed out of falling distance of pore. lines since every electrical and telephone wire should be considered dangerous. Unarco-Rohn recommei anti -climb sections on all towers to prevent unauthorized persons from climbing towers. All antenna Instal laticns must be grouned per local or national codes. All towers should be installed by experienced and trained personnel. All types of antenna installations Should be thoroughly int.pected by Qualified personnel at least twice a year and relmarted with hazard and warning i&t*)S to insure safety and proper performance. �Y - V . , Via;• 'i ey. 3 Sir .v rt .filed •�: i eeV ee4 .a. er�rrm in.r.7 `,� . aior w awl. s/-i ..r S,rcr— Aft. #A-.e AW— M7rrw -AS yrr.r 4 .f0 -M fir meow, rje rlr0 /r.RIJ AV -Y " Srrr�/i. Af-j tr ry AMC o s m . M.s jb~. AIM AA-4 �tFfFRFxY SKnw Ad,SX-! Srcr. Ab. / : Li.a A& C- ZVOLf. S"rA*W 1"wWd: 2-cAb.C-7JVAJU. Ta. R,.rr, A—A.-'r, 0,44ff G,.• . : LAW. A& C- ZVWLM fsww. rf / ,✓.c~ A-r Jr--w Aw ,r~wr a ,. r Akw : aac Cr�r�q B.11 <%•vri�rrnwv .yr jsenvr� Srernw AOL 6 Qr1KM 4AW.Ar~ : 0. A*. A 7.fVaar Torre SWrta. r'won°rPWr: O-aA L 0- VV V. TerAc ar1.rr AorA : Ors. Ab B- xOaz- 7Yi.er :ewa nW.AP": O-a MW. A• VoOor. At�awi Qnrw.w law: SoCrw Ab. 09-7 A4 du-0 i Loc•' wNJwYf Su A.s A6 C` jfiV?! .�. JJr-Jwru rJnlpr ry A. W ...It w/sr.+l.sr flt{ !O ! O 1 t = ..ram - �x-r�►l _. _ �,lrvii-- O :01 Y iJID7 rCW/ 1 , \yam/ Tr. iiGA< Lac ✓o, vT T i r r< G£ {y1 -ra— i. ;\;/ I sa nvaaa sar. env sir. ew .ficro,vr /_l Sac T�+�'7 3-♦ ,ucra.vJ 7 y � � Srcno,vs I-S Sacr/ws /-S scr,a,.t t i f crovj,f f EL svw riavJ aW T),~a Sf-c r/ants S[cravl 78 Sr S-f Sacrio.vl f-7 .Slc-r oN LEC ✓O—r Zoc,4rroN A4 _ s Bo now BorraJ/ K K Tom t r 7.- t • / Oarror lsl 3 l / Bono../ 7iv dtr s - Oa rrpy J 3t/ Abr!, FOa JrI. , "crwl a- ✓i—J,— Ottt ll.TlO• O{Tt tT V ltlOu• RO H N. Y.gYscrY.w. Tltlt B/i SER/ES TONER (afECT/O.v3 1 T.vQOK;N 9i 10{ O.l�IFO N Trt .lMt•TT OI OOW IT It Mt TO {t Iu{ tID. MTnOOYf Gull �«lTtw COMtIwTO N� YMell OII IY Il{T -750430 /onrA' .vxrJ -r— I X 1 i - --- COUNOAT/ON NOTES• I L C6lFlE0 P vl , 100S. / M/N !/L r -rrRE,va ry 2 .4SIM.4 6/S 6RAOE POOFfORMEO RE &ARl 1 - - — - 1 x 3 AL[ fOR,VJ A/Uf/9E.PEMOrf49 /:t'XJM R tp. CONGPE/E 9EfOA'E P[ACIVG COA/ 4649 N / ` BACrIcI!( 1l 4f FOUn'Oq!IONS OESIGNtO FOR ZOOO - - - - `y PJf SO/Z. 1 1 1 , S �!/S RECO.r/MFNOEO !NAlA �Y000 � dY lNE flflfl — — "— --- - " --- U.fER f'OR .vOIO/NG ANC,vo.4 BOL rr 1 A/ /i-ld, o POPER WA/.i /YN/[ E CONC /S dEI,vG AV44eEO ik 6 Ad'1W, 6WC1W6 ISRECOA/MENOEO EOK cr. -- /E1/PEPA/U.PEf fNP/Nt.9GEcd"A49" 1 x.X "gas /6 X3 j BO[ qT FE(✓O yc-SA4 hJ AW iW.1, Scc-rl"SAS•OF6 Br -SAL o ANO 9 BOGlS .PEQ.� FOR -4ArA•OR etxr��A'Fpo-rFEIA.fRr/ / PIP BX - SgC �.f£� f 3r yRu6 SECTIONS 7 ,f q ,l n/.tr IbLr PRO✓. � 2 v/AE�sx [•Q.e1-SECS 7ry8 / YarE Arr .va ax S,*4 i ' dx L vC WA' "AVr 41 ♦3= yGYrJ'-J6fr/ON.f -e/NRL16 �j j iJFFINAAr/4rAMAS-(roF/Oew vos ras) RS #r 9 NUTS .?Epl1 PE.4 BOL r TaP jd0rrorr :R 6w6 .s/n ;it /rF[DED /r'iRE s:9dR/C ' 4 r 10.4Nt h+UK 6t71I-JEC.73/MRU6 --3-ClfARANGf /rP.f /x i0.4NlNO.P BO[!-_fE!'J' 7&& 4fr TN/c'K PAD FOUNDAT/ON V-C *0 At A/ R D w x CU YDJ i a4c - 4 /S� /l 9/ 1 3 ►20" PPr) 4"O" J 6 /=9 c3 9 X70" PP/j #to- 4*0 1!O ! 4 _S /B /S /0J.1 "_ j- d80- j- X10 PP/j 4!0' ♦fs 20 0 PP/J 4'0- I=9 2I 34 j-/X30' PP/I I=0' S°3 - =9 1!7 4/ :SEi-S.IN,PUo ' �,, I ,rsvi✓fo �/.s•J %✓a •:,rrivs i �, / sus Pc �4'r�!1[�LPcrf��:•�E�1-_s� lt• !J r, 1 vooto v�r .v r NO?,f lf/dcfo /r�.y� ao'J * .r /G O Y - — Unarco-Rohn- ----- D..... �r FOUNQAr/ON f ANCHOR 80.-rOETA/LS — w+rw4r. D.• ��tilrr— G2 p 1� C-7600 9 9 ,,4' , 7brfl .rr/J-- T TT'T-wTT f Foaaavriav A67Es .OLD fa&AAF Amir Ar WWilO 14" ♦ I JV WCarC.n'C IS WCO.UdAf..VarO ft1P TL'a/PEl4771XT 0 S*-CW.riN•E CUV7AXe M7 J A-05 i1'OC tJ ,,V j YAP fwrrav ar c. c s ! N[cAlO Nvrt--AXC.,C J " Cc l eran cL (Tr/ ) Fovvaor/av Pwn S!c r 40 r o . AAA LimaA S 44, PI" 4:0- ' Jo 14 c I*t' 1!41' 4f0' 4.1 /=c' e 1s=F- 1=/oj LOG!' NiiSNEQ r- I LEG - -t+/ enc7AVT jWa-'A,1.EQ*' % s Blab. twr .uaw•v/ Aar Wrr4w .r sicrovs ; 4 s, r. v�GcrC• .W, r .%w ~J, J%J4, Jf",, rJr.r., PEJn:raE�r J?:'QO rwowN) Aae jor.'" a, S,"CnaVS 7 Av.) 9 pJivC .Hall nw © I erJ7 / BxJJ, l�,ircrna:r. - r �' .. a .'• .'•e. � :. •. l Covc:rErE .sasE srye a' 70xiZe LE.: J < •''°^: A?rrOA/ ' py i [K Z.�LP LEA; ALL n7Nl.': Anr aN 1 '. P' '•� -- Cis 7Oa<.7 4.6 - Unarc -Rohn FOYNOAT/ON ., a ComcorTE QasE S7c/Os - - - AW 4CO •f - S- i! _ o.o r•�..w w.r.,.:.w:i C..:p ------ +•.•..iwsw. or i.r.rw.r --- Gz,�i` Sty err C7dO.?e4 _ AGe aNiirr yc r.Ov r...v......j r.s.y.w �-aAr- .rtrrwxr r- 7DO fCATE roa tar w NAC{I a O—rrro r Sil�av I .f1 l O.fov a rx1� 47 Y;['o .Y1 .Y 1M SlGr.ON. -,FO7W AATE -SJZ^f !$- "CrAW 4v rarer JfAsx iAi.r Aw .&.:r—, {( IJ awl Tv /[Or! ~ Srv.w//f inrr.o m Tv �r! Fw S[cron Ear 3 a wr -SJ r w rOMlt MAST - O / O ,T ,—&j.fmr A Ile WP 4Zypf <T N.f ''!J .1 - "IYAI.W .49XWAt (Wi- TOA I-2.IrE Ir/ry Cc. - 4irc.[nr AIPMC RArr AVIW C44W AMfAM o RATE AV" oF< /Y.ry/ a17IAV 124W Ab 7E Sa Cr..LW / 4i A A-.S':G�Nv. T.:✓!'q MfA•/ o4rr ..wr a-. J wW.WG[Y Kilo A.'rr Fec,. w I a 3 .s . AM' V4MriaV /A"S ~C ♦W-%CNV av WL A.tLTMus+ lirA$.c O✓l. v .rsrlrwv r AAAWL r✓ LYKGrLr p YICf IITIOw I r.il_I •T f [YI[IffY R O H N. B X SFR/FS TowER (SECT/ON /I Twl. ff• wf N Tw[ MOtI. TT N fOMf IT wl NT TO f[ Ilti M. f[I.O.uC[■ iW�.O. W • •f0 YY fwuul Of 1.11.f1 fltw001 OY[ w w Cuw..f 1. .W4! �+' -.taL BASE rliS.SE.I/6L _l' /VO;I .fECl/ON.�—BX-C.13 — SECr/ON 4 — Bx CAS n/n pPOirApE SEcr/O/v S — BA- US SEC7'10N6 -- Ar-!46 ' .rvc (le P/PEs[EEre) I JYfri0A9 -(B1' cB3J r-!r�-, 9 •tE�'O /IFR SEC'riCyyf -(Bx-tp>�J � l.� .7� cOA�cEr! �rE .h'�riONt -/dG- -cast — T I -1 n itvlR �QP 'OOLr I _j'u�c r[o77Eorro[�s.veE.oa!?rioEO/NsuP9�aQr,vvc[ES _ �.iP '..t Pc..'P.7sE Oi LEYEL/A4i rME TOM'ER. �:rY/fFNR! /Z'iQ/N itJCK /VAJNER 1'/Nrf.�N.II - Exrl.PN.IL rQOrN lOt'.P /n�rvr..9 BF/irElN c-rl/NOE.P pae.«cxEi arty/ awaw a n ...•. -IS BILL OF MATERIAL wis NO. I VAMLIU CM NNr /OrrE.P LEG (2-/6 r3 (G. BOL rS BEgv FOR FN-f /fN/NG /r PivE /O BASF ,fEll/ON L E G% uf- W. I � � /I:�i4FS[fEYEIOBEBO![/EOGW/NSYDEOF / B.RfE ,f-FCr/ON LEGS' L Bx SF ♦ iV rrAC.VMENr rot'E SbP/V,tr O.I.cC'.t'Fi' 6fX-CB/ �/ r 9 i k .lfY/sEo �srE�ricr mor I / / -- 400E /rEAI NO. //rN .-Aorx lI rr I-/ 1E 4 _ rY BQ[r (S BOL rf®,� R/ fFO ANrS/"j lfN6ry /tr7 r •uurr�•. ••n •w Locvrrovs) — t � ROHNAu,•wt�M11MC111��Mi _ CYl /NDZ-,9 r ���iiii B.9SE/NJTsdCLAT/QN /�. 1 �1o0EL BX lLYYE.PJ'ECT.t vsd AS, pti —. _ _ � / � 1 \ 1 T t '�'�0•ut.•. <4wa�. t1t��cq w •MMa M w~.I t �M 1M. wtww. w. w.�sa. c..r•a.r L� J 40. oE0 �G-r7-L •" "� "77 C 7SGW0 BILL OF MATERIAL ivzvj, AowE.P U•CN.1wNEL '"N sagr it/OE al�/rJiOE !/-Cr��YNNEL '�.9X uc. b. .+w vwr. ;.o, do n:�xw►ur � 7 Br s 2'04Rr 00r-Pl f C"A'VAZ Z 2 /r -iV % .✓AAA AV*" i ♦ BX-.i // Lem C•7(O 4 s i .rwamvr✓ i�oa •0" 7&W -94 loK 2lOOfI++ d�6acT -- i6 LFJGCr C.ANP Ore' N,OtNEiPf .JY/PHC/EO fO.P QCf 6ilLrj All ALiAFO d�! �' yp}I.;AFtE/!a BaCr'BMn` IJ LEI L4X- fM IWZINT ASSeM'&ZY he /a ,-As C-7-0946�t -» r -LV aalrrr --AIh STEP — -------------- 1• � aaasra.a.-arva�aaaaas:sa] - � - e � 1 , . 1 , , i Pt wN i 1 , � l � 1 , L�__ ------- �1 JIEP 'c 6vF H7SiT,ew _ SECT 3 ---� JLEEi2 AufiTNN__ � r - — ADZ SFL7 L .SL e c Yt ftlSiTh?Y _ �- RAP SECT/ OL - 4 BILL OF MATERIAL (*9er PLATF0.z4/) 7OwC,e LAC r:,n �.:�i r.]'r ro. u:. wlr,.H lu. P1VQT AO. wo-BX (N22PK fiA7rOP//,' H9S TJJE FCY[O:Y/NC ctw"jw_Eyr, 1 I 4wmr AM f % CN-3.T ft #;,xw / C 770137 BILL OF MATERIAL (STEP E%TSA'eW74 &) Inr ulw+. r�sr �o. I,�xw rrun A, " STEP ,C/TS APE .91 r4.W E' FLb? f2'.K STEPS Or del n0 Yr-S.C( ISTFP .PJl poll .SECr/) -AT TvF �O[C JN;<iG .27L �vlvTS: wrc. (r ".�R �iKEi9A' )71wiFK. (SEE S/[[ RFS{07f41w `_ uQOW AV B r .8a AW AUCN(NE SCec*? FO.0 STEP A'/TS AT P.CNT) f IILICIIt) A08 Avr 1 PAN CN- 377 _ 1 ' \ s/Qf rEM� C I, U S7c P r , ■..r wow.+ �wr M Unarco-Rohn G WRK P[ATFOR.V FOR BX ToiYE-R Ab.rt' T..r.. w.... [yrN � war.r.�r— ��aas-ir.• rr� •� �-, _ E- s-� � C- 770?38 TYP/fAL %GYE�P rIN.4L YS/S 7o- wrP DES/GN DATA : MOOEL 9i'- 9¢ Gl/mw Rurxs&,er ZO P1F ,4,v7EivN.4 LOAD — 6 SD. FT 4r 3,cr ABOVE TOWEQ7bP--/.v.U.VE NOTE: ANTENN.QJ DEIiELOP/�vC A Go�PCE TN'/JT/NC ANTENN,I wr. = Mz" ,NOA✓EAvT OL'E M WIVV .MUST .WT BE "A'V OW L.N-- wr. = a. sex/FT• T,v/J 7DW6,e, /4NTENN,4-f SNOfWe SF .ZIcWI=49 Tb T,G'OJE .�G4v/NG' -� A/4X/,tI(/M ,�oio.N LE�C7f/ � 11-CC7-/0N NO. g 7 6 S ¢ 3 Z / ?r, /J4N«r, CE FROM 7V.- ) G/. 7 .� 7 /C/,7 46. 0 ;SO.0 J-B. 3 90.7 27 0 /5.,9 7. 7 dW cSFC7--0N (ZAT) /7R7 /.75RS AX..S i /0,?7 /o%/ W.0 �.v.o ov AN7E.v.v,4 f'L/NE <!it! 5.75' JU ,%3 s; S..3 S-3 S.3 /1744 T07i4L WioVO ON l-CT/ON (,-!!) llfd'Z 107.0 /SS,3 !44.0 0 /06.4 I23.4 SAW..4,e <<es) /Z/,S. 9 1030.7 6 r..:? 7 709..4 56.E 6 !W.8 329.18 2Z74 /MOMENT (FT-407..) 37, 770 1, 9, 7'70 .704. Z/, S31, ::BI4 /.SSGt� /0 (aX� 67/Z7 3410 /69b F,4C� Wory <fr. ?.ZB4 /.&V /.A8/ //gw .79f .7W 979 ! 7Z? /..S6h /. , B / /96 /. oZf 6tS'6 . CBB LE c LOAD (LBs 1 /4,' 160 /6, 240 /3, VO //, /?3 I gim Ccm 44(3'0 -2w SECT/ON %i1E/C.4' - <zotr) e2 7.S 64 S9 IB 13 22 . C734L JiYE/CVr e45X.) 47C -7 ?0 3/2 /3 77G Z44 /.r9, f !,7(r /04 77 *1�-C o N�'.w 0�1-4- ✓rllz r-) /9, 260 /61370 '! 2S0 "-Iry 4-11" 1?460 cS.yi'A.e cLv� F, oIG6 <!dt) B/S o'9/ S77 I- T JV 1'u 7 1—/ - —AIV coc c� . 90W 1,883 . B•O .. ; 9 -W -?J . c67 Sty *LO.oD E•oCN SPACE ao'-)® Cf/ �9/ t 337 1B7 Ia/ IO % /6G /29 U LEG LO.ov x F,acr Q .S-NlrAQ avr FACE = . (7 ' Smeww s.+Coa avd ;� E ?.�o.ao E.4cv eu►.oct= - • I 2Aco.: ' �'EfE ►s Tb L�irtt , ✓0..� �Q72�<b! .v[-ow.ad[t' LO.4a5 ale' ME',tIAW5 �. A 7S0�a0 MovEL B•Y TO wsR flL L O w4BLE i`'>N7z-Nv,4 LOADS � W/ND P- rsimer = 10 PJt (70 %MP,V) NOAo,/,v44 /5'E.Gf�T� FT. COMB/NATION OF %owE,e ,SECT/O.vS �rALOG No. A.QEA T,Pvsr, 24 BX -/-2-3 BX 24 6 /20 Bx-1-3-4 HBX 24 /1 24C BX- 3 -4-5 fHOBX 24 20 4GX 32 6X-/-2-3-4 BX 32 6 /10 BX - Z-3 - 9 S //BX 32 /2 Z40 BX-3-4-5-6 f/OBX 32 /B .360 40 BX 40 6 /20 BX-I-3-4-5-6 f/9X 40 /0 IOIO BX-3-4-5 -G-7 / OBX 40 /8 3Go 48 ex- /-2-3 -4-.5- Ic BX 49 6 /10 BX-1-3-4-,5-6- 7 ASW 46 /O 26V BX-3-4-S-G-7-B i/DBX 48 /B 160 S6 BX -1-.�-4-5- 6-7-9 NBX S6 /O ZOO BX 64 6 /10 1t TH/s L o,40 C,44' 8E AT ,4 ,vr- 3 FT. .vBov£ ; "d- 14,0E x OF TWW 7awE.0 /.v .oDo/r&w Tv 7-W ;v/NQ PPS S.tulE .K 7/NG av TNd TWssEX . No -r : AN rc v v I TI', s ,S,vOUL1) 4E z movrro 7b TaOJE' NAri-vG 4 M.4xi,uf/AI OoO� �E>v�7.v of iG'f'T. Q�rc. Ab. ,4- 76000/ L l r � %am .r ►dw tr.w IdMW 6b.. ...Nd I- .... 1.... U W" --d l+w.r L-w1 ....i :_ j PARTS LIST P-285 (Replaces P-283) B X T 0 W E R September 1, 1977 TOWER MODEL 24 40 BX � . � 56 oe0� ��!! iisM=N�ii� iN24 UM IN IMEM INININNIMIN NIMINNIN 0 NOTE: Be sure you select type of base and ORDER SEPARATELY for BX, HBX, and HDBX Towers. For EX Tower your base is included, unless you desire Roof Hount which must be ordered separately. CAUTION ..... AX hardware is not interchangeable with BX hardware. w /%aosy- BX /U%i/ER OEs/CN Xs5z1, IPT/OHS %wE,P /LiATER/AL cSPEC/,'/CAT/OHS LEGS : 4STV A- 446' 6;Fwq-- C STEEL Cv1.v/,N6M y/ELD Polvr - 4,SOX Ps/) (GAL liiON/sTED ACCOaO/ w 7D 14,5Tiy /4- S1•S) B.PACE.S: COLD rCOLLEO C -1017 cSTEEL (w1.v/.-/!/.w v/zzo Po/Nr- (20iz,oiv v/zED Acroep/HC 7-O AS70- 4-:;ZS) Z.r,:7 SPL/CE- SOLT,S cS/`%E CPADE S STEEL .PivErs .?O/7 - T4 AL<aY Tow-cR /LIEti/BER ALLOWABLE DENS/GiV ST.PES.SES : NOT£ : B.ELOsv "P.- BEE.t/ /NGPEASEO or 33-L % ~ T.(r ,;VIMO LOAD CaVO/T/ON 0 LE�s 1 CO,NPQESs/a v� CST.eESS !/AQ/ES ACCOR,01, ' To SLENDEQNESS P.4T�0� BEA•P/NC /16, O00 Psi .04, 000 Psi .,PACES : CQMPQESS/GW'� �ST?ESS I�AQ/ES i4CCO eP1W TG SLENDEPNESS .P.4Tip�© BEA.e/NG /OO, BGi�PS/© SaEA.e Al, 3,� Psi O BOL'S SNEA,Z 1 �, .BOO Pf/ (T/.%QE.oOs EYC1!/OED F,eO W SiS/E.I C .OLA W%O �P/BETS : SHEAR �A, /IO PS/ 4OO PJ/ 3.12. / of A. I S. I " ,5 -Ec/F/CAT/ON Fi].Q THE OEsic v cf c'o40- FOawED STEEL ST.PUGTl�XAL ,f'IE,NGQS, i9:8 EDiT/dV. ® %% l..s. C �iQNU.4L OF SSTEEL CONST.PUCT/ON, 7�E0/T/O�/, �i J..S. B'Q /•�B6 ® P.qa. 4. 5..� OF A.I. S.I. cSPEG/F/CAT/OHS, �96G7 LC0/r/Di✓• ©A. I S•C. V,4,ov"i. ac STE'FL Co,osT.rvcrio v, 7'—" /r/av, Pc. S. L4. O PAR• 4 S. Q OF �4. I. S. I. sPEGF/G4TjONS, /9� EO.� T/ON. �%LL�,�I/NUM CO vST�PUCT/ON .�'L4NU.QL, �� cSPEG�F/GT/GLVS Fo.� ALMA//Nvf/ Srrvc rv,PEs "/967 Eon r�oN. TOWER S444PE F/i�CTORS : rvo�v�ov4.: /NEMeE,Qs �LEcs, B,PACEJ, �ANf.M/Jf/O.V Li�vEs) SNAOE FACTd� 40 Foe F44T ELEMENTS .67 ,tee cruvotic,a ELEA/E.vTJ TO/VE,t SECT/Oiy : SHAPE FACTOI : /. SD T NES TvE vvoTf.^TEO .�.Qt;r o < 0,9E.P5 , vC /W .4- ."J-000 , SHEET D-1513 (New Sheet) UNARCO-ROHN Anril 1, 1979 INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS BX SELF-SUPPORTING CYLINDER 9ASES 1. Assemble the base as shown on Drawing C750409. 2. Piace the cylinder in the area the tower is to occupy. (Note: Be sure to position the bay;e so that the tower can be hinge.' in The direction where there are no obstructions.) `dark off a circle approximately 2 to 3 inches larger than the cylinder. 3. Dig a hole 4 feet deep (deep enough to ccmpletely bury the cylinder below ground level). 4. Drop the cylinder in the hole and with it as vertical as possible throw the soil back into the cylinder and around it, tamp!ng it solid after every 6 to 8 inches of fill. (Note: 9e sure cylinder is flush or below the ground surface. See Drawing C750409.) 5. When the cylinder is approximately one-half full of dirt, attach the base tower section to the pipe sleeves of the base as shown on Drawing C750409. This is necessary to avoid distortion of the cylinder as you continue to fill and tamp the soil In the base. 6. Continue to fill and tamp the soil into the cylinder to within 6 inches of the top. 7. Plumb the tower section by placing a level on the outside of each leg adjusting to the plumb position by loosening and re-alioning the BXC81 angle support brackets until the tower is dumb. (Note? The brackets must be extremely tight when the tower section is plumb.) 8. Remove the top 1/2" x 3-1/2" bolts Dn the pivot side of the tower that holds the pipe sleeves to the yokes. Then remove both bolts on the side opposite the pivot direction. The section can now be hinged to the ground. 9. Assemble the rest of the tower as per BX tower instructions. Hinge the tower up and when vertical put the 1/2" x 3-1/2" bolts back through the yokes and pipe sleeves. Then tighten all base bolts securely. 10. Complete filling the cylinder with dirt and tamp firmly. 11. After installation is completed, the base should be rechecked in about 30 days to be sure that the hardware remains tight and it should be rechecked every six months. 12. Towers installed in sand or gravel should be guyed or bracketed. NOTES ..... Do not install towers near power Ines. All towers should be installed out of falling distance of power lines since every electrical and telephone wire should be considered dangerous. Unarco-Rohn recommends anti -climb sections on all towers to prevent unauthorized persons from climbing towers. All antenna installations must be grounded per local or natlonal codes. All towers should be installed by experienced and trained personnel. All types of antenna installations should be thoroughly inspected by qualified personnel at least twice a year and remarked with hazard and warning labels to if, - sure safety and proper performance. f..1 wow 'L: Lmi ime L� Law land km A Lwo L...A L A- Lj, WO M V= MODEL BX TowcA, Sc CT/ON PROPERT/Es r r XNd- lr & SECT/ON PROPERTIES Ow /ERTiCW EL WWCNTS src� t 6 J7n A A, ! IA -r.Ind rr AV. AV. AV. AV. AV. AV. AV. APA AK AVM AY. AK* 1w.. BX-1 .041 1/742 ZOM4 .7fOO 90/.34 .1fJ4 /rfr A:37 .64y10 o2�c 3eb o7,�ic c7s V -2 .048 X /407 Z.1/4.5' .1206 lo/ff J114 . /yrr /69B . 7,u2 Ots6 _&W , g9s'1 .7/2 BX- 3 .060 /• 1Acf/ I.3f44 .11/0 Lo191 . jvAV . 106g . 2128 .7133¢so 7SI BX 4 .Odts A1fy. 1..f441 7.0412 10476 Z613 .2111 .32Y6 XF// .;w" 4f4B .44r AS JPV BX-S ./olgs /XIM Z.X6/ /./B/0 10704 .2y67 .1,)a:r .4Lfl .dAa 4,-3 j171 I7J BX -6 . /OOB i 3410 1. fW/ i 31/4 x aril -Uii ..Bar .4407 .AV6O .O&M .4-W -M6 P44 9X-7 ./;SO /JNC J"" 647a4 6/1AG 3;LV 239/ SA" .df11 .1106 .4-s3 , Sur .Sf7K 7B/O ZOir BX-d .//sB /.s100 .149/6 ,163.f4 2 /4Ab .41Vy 37f4 . W4j . y7:Y /S-AJ 7./37 SEC row F PERT/ES 4� ToGVEe .ou.. AV.2 AV. AK AK AV. /M /K` AK -/ .4w ESJ &W .f.9f Par xv Z ro 't r/ 11 - fi7f AN My zAO 3w 6 o- /I Q3 .0AC 13 X Ca lo(,V O..A2 B.a rca AIO ZZ-0 4.rw sy/ C At 18 41 -W? 7K-0 .43� &00 4.7r itf7 gor-S/-Ms, /Rl3 /6.Lf //.6Z S.Js //70 76SV /es.r 7.BG Aer 5 sr-4 -7 1.3u 2Zer /Am /.c/i 1.31 /Z.c4 64 /.c/S AKA; Z(V AOI.71 .7orMls /ce..7 ZeZ4 /a04 A(Zo 7s- BI iCB13 1Z41 23.71 /6.42 7.r/ /S 4e DAVC. AG. B' 7fo01y MO DEL BX TOWER Oc S/G'N DATA A,r"scriO AA'EwJ ----- --- WAIV LOAD rEK Stcr cAU YEA!T/CAL Ll6S DU:ONaC.f TOTiR[s --- 47 Bit'.? PREJJU.CE a- - -- - >Q - T fa A7ut Esre.sEo AI11�fip TeT.at EXPOSED Ton/4 ToT,4L --- - - li/JTr (EN�,TN� /'fA!iw Atu Ir/OTN EXrosEo A.rE.r E�cPOJFo Exrosfo zJ'A'CTN /f4CEI /Y.tU SfC7aW b Rff /.S'AjV 10 o dV. fT. j X (/FACII ff t (/ ACLU .✓ZC4 -- . ! 7J 9c / /S 1. -W 7s 173.. 4 .120 4. 91" -Ago 7'o fi o St.? /.71 9c /./f 1.iB 2l Ma.f -9f --997 saror SOG 7.CS AW./ A" -1 SY 5.. A$r J0. f A 18 A07. 7 tv-4 [ff fG A33 l.cG .75- "90 /y 3Rf 5.77f J-7.0 dIGG /�LfS J[t S 1./1 fi A4/ I.SZ /.os 1,f,Cc /.SJ 4.Gf c.97s 4;f.B /V ..G /3R•f SX G Iif fG /.41 1.fB Olaf ZN4; I.oi Xq0 7.>'Zt7 75.0 //J..f' lia.2 ! 1. Jf 91G As'f 1 3./0 Aar voltI 11/ � 39 B�4i do.9 A?A3 14C/.7 S I ff 9c A77 1 3. s4 Aar -UMC 7.45- I-f? B. w &V AuoAv,* [e- Lo ans or {/f ACT/L'AL Lib SSiAmari S [/CE .QLjO/✓AM[E dJL7s T icr aF LEi, 7x"iAr LfG .SSE :18 Diq. /N �iI/.Ac/Tl' 4W. 1 7 .DON sd/O ` Ts 7i10 1 03f /O, IF/0 //So 14 9JV /B• 3 i0 3 K 3 ALLaIYAELE CowP.eEss/vt �OALif I/iITAC.�[ Lacs Digca�wc Bp.�s L• ..v. T• /.Y. [, 7� F• R!/ F, PJ/ SEc7: .�lEw !/[EcI Al.a .4LLowwsLi LEy LpAO/ Ltt. SJQo Lo AV. A1rJ4 To M. Co 70 * � F4 R!/ F4 R!/ �'u .ficr. A r4 AV.t A�Lo/s;.vLf QZ•ACE Lq,tO tst! jw-/ -1 1(_J 4I-4 JIx t !(i al KS Rjj MI K Kl j/O .$W - JM .waf . 4JJ 4fc ".f At !ai Jag Jfi lo7 .4AV J; AejW 3�s7O ./637 .A27 7/•7 /i,2JV 21"0 .Os4 //70 J4(AV �+(�(� ./fly .AAW xsjo 71�p- A•1t -A4/ -V/c Al At .A07 .AN- .Am/ . /3f .TR! dM_o W-f 7! f /S,s4v .�s,s�n /13fo /S, JV A;AA2 nrso /7,/MO A;40 .OS4 .a�r,� ."7s' //Io ioC-o - JgAb J{aw ux /0,AW /100 6f0 Jt{ /ro . Nf/ 14 G4o . //Js I!ro ,.,)YIO Kf!b .IIo7 NAAo .w..41 07.I /,t,Sf0 /lj,W /.2f 1/ib 7 jFB-1 Kf Ali .451 sif 1Ri J40 1✓ Afo rr, U/ 1/, AAO .IJ14 . wi /7" d{.if0 JA" V./f ./.%f .Alf f T AIVO /3,4W /{JW /7, M ,j AM . //1f . UZs AOa10 //so it" A"aA"4dLf Za. as 4r D/AG'O.v i C"4V.-CT V Vj AW, CA ,OH, AV ,w. �EG EwtQ EKG• .fi ,ii t� 3 ris A77S . O/f= r a .0.i9 .,VZV .oh71 AM 3.fa QLO .O/V .017E 5w fA) .Odf OW- O/97 .0/07 .0,V/ .049/ /OX &W .W010 ByU oAr .a/S7 .,Vf/ ,W Bib DOW.AK• S-WOOISQ/ To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: December 5, 1988 Subject: #1358 Tim Johnson/Ted Feig, 627 - 629 North Ferndale Rd - Renewal of Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution Application - Revise lot line between two properties to reflect actual use pattern. This application was approved in 1987 but was never filed. The current review is essentially a procedural matter, since City Code requires that if the subdivision approval expires, the approval process must be started over. Zoning District - RR-lB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 11/22/88 Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 11/17/88 Exhibit D - Proposed Resolution Discussion - Please review the memo of November 17, 1988. This is simply a renewal of a lot line rearrangement granted in 1987. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. ZONING FILE NO. 1358 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11-22-88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Timothy Johnson COPIES TO: Ted Feig 627 North Ferndale Road 629 North Ferndale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF MEETING: Subdivision (Renewal) -------------- --------------------------------------------- DATZ OF MEETING: 11-21-88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval a:, submitted NOTES AND SPRC?.AL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council December 12, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Cummission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: November 17, 1988 Subject: #1358 Tim Johnson/Ted Feig, 627-629 North Ferndale Road - Renewal of Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Application - Revise lot line between two properties to reflect actual use pattern. This application was approved in 1987 but was never filed. The current review is essentially a procedural matter, since City code requires that if the subdivision approval expires, the approval process must be started over. Zoning District - RR-lB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Resolution #2232, Approved 7/:7/87 Exhibit F - Council Minutes of 7/27/87 Discussion - Applicants originally proposed to revise the lot line between their two properties. This was approved by the Council in 1987 and was not a controversial application. Both properties remain at the two acre lot area standard. In conjunction with the lot line rearrangement, the applicants were granted a vacation of the old drainage easements along the interior lot line in exchange for new easements either side of the new lot line. The easement vacation resolution was similarly approved July 27, 1987 and does not have an expiration date, hence does not need to be renewed. Vote that the previous approval expiration was possibly a mis -communication between applicants and staff. The documents that applicants were supposed to execute and return to the City were never returnt:d. They claimed they never received them. Our application file contains only copies of the packet sent to each applicant, not the originals, hence we do not know for sure what happened. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the renewal of the metes and bounds lot line rearrangement for Tim Johnson and Ted Feig at 627-629 North Ferndale Rudd, finding that both properties will benefit from the proposed lot line rearrangement. �135� t CITY OF ORONO - SDBDIDISION APPLICATION ---------------- PROPERTY LOCATION L,a I L'! 41fN i vi ivy � y Site Address Z77 - (�9 /to47if �;Z2 bA1'e- ^ :IAnnn '""'� . 7t, .r`i .VV + Property Identification Number (P . I . D .) 3G� --1(g - Z3 ( &OO L 3 �. _ .: , L irv. L Please check one - Property abstract or torrens7 rt Lip fit% I-� �au��vi.vvi i,Va iav Attach legal description to application. aA Vd.L ---------------------------------- (home)�17------ Phone q Name �.�� Q ��57 C' 1 Phone (work) �✓ Address_ --�r'/J_`1------ZlP------39 -- -city: - ONN= (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name �I Y�TN'`1 L J D NHS o Phone (work) L Address: 61,7-7 Zip: �3! (at i ich list if more than one) ----------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels te:s:id�ena.1i no. of units OOf y ) Present Zoning District �/e.•- 1 D ----------------------------------------------- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites)CAOX�4,t Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: 2 _ Existing Units �— New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Units per T Acres Minimam Lot Size: _ Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) Residpialnt �-�qpe cif Y ) 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 formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date ------------------------------------------------------------------------- rim Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) \�250.00 150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I s II Subdivi ion)R�`4 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non -rest 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 application and further agrees to pay all additional. -fees established by ordinance. ,; 1 (."wNatc Appl cartt's Signaturex 'ner's Signature Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building i Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .If � I to s � Ill I i Del I f1 /A3r ftell *..y.UM• L�4 DOKS GREEN / NQ E �i 1 � jai r i AST , d 03 41, u ^� - 'sY�q etop'fo ss a e' \ ., �• 3790 i l�JO of • 2 ��ti 1 �1 Airof --- — — kty :.1 ♦090�� - l f r wrti :,s V I I. (30 o \ —' O• r41.0 ailL ;r+, 4000 ~ `O 02) N 4059 �.� 411S - - - e (`� r 4Z25 i 1146 ¢. es 410b t ` Ott fI ro 4130 4Z/S I 4135 (� •M , 20 t :o FASTOp JIM telt-, 1 (1+l VIEW l s — — RUN DATE OS/20/66 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY 0WNERS LIST PAGE 1 BATCH 001 38 36-118-23 11 0002 38 36-118-23 11 0003 38 36-118-23 11 0004 PROP ADDR 00665 FERNOALE RD N 00605 FERNDALE RD H O:AIfR NAME D N LOVE A T M LOVE JAY JACKLEY HAZEL P BOIJEN TA+PATER DOttALD N A TERI M LOVE JAY JACKLEY HAZEL P BOWEFI >.AME ADDR 21647 RAMBLA VISTA 665 NORTH FERNDALE RD 605 FERNDALE RD N MALIBU CA 90265 WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO F4l 55391 38 3t-118-23 11 0007 38 36-118-23 11 0009 38 36-118-23 11 C010 PROP ADDR 00565 FERNDALE RD N 00635 FERNDALE RD N 00645 FERNDALE RD N D601ER NAflE DA/1IEL D DANIELSON ETAL G A A LAWSON RICHARD E STRAND ETAL TAXPAYER DANIEL D DA141ELSON GEORGE L LAWSON RICHARD E A JOAN M STRAND NAME/ADUQ 58S NORTH FERNDALE RD 635 NORTH FERtDALE 645 140 FERNDALE RD !� WAYZATA Mh 55391 OROFIO HN 55391 0RON0 ml SS391 38 36-118-23 11 0011 38 36-118-23 11 0013 38 36-118-23 11 0014.:T,_._ POW ADOR 00645 FERNDALE RD N 00765 FERNDALE RD N 1i' -ham OWNER NAME RICHARD E STRAND ETAL P A A PARKER ' S V A R SHANEDLING TAXPAYER RICHARD E A JOAN M STRAND PAUL L ARKER STANLEY V SHANEDLING I/AME/ADDR 64S N FERNDALE RD 785 N F NDALE WO 765 NO FERNDALE RD 11RON0 MN 55391 ORONO MN\ 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0015 38 36-118-23 11 0016 38 36-118-23 11 0017 PLOP ADDR 00775 FERNDALE PO N 00715 FERNDALE RD N . j 0►a7ER NAME E 1�.1 KA JR HELEN C WOOD RICHARD J LYMAN TAXPAYER EKVI A71H1 JR HELEN T, WOOD RICHARD J LYMAN i NAME/ADDR 7i40 ER OR 8213A 775 NO F€RNOALE RD 715 NO FERNDALE RD EDIT MN 5424 WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 .Z► 38 36-116-23 11 0016 38 36-118-23 11 0019 38 36-118-23 11 0020 PROP ADDR 01?1fR NAME ALLEGRA W PARKER HELEN C WO00 STEVEN J DAYTC4 TA.PArfR ALLEGRA W PARKER HELEN C WOOD STEVEN J MELANOER-DAYTON NArtt.AUOR 765 N FERNDALE RD 77S N FERNDALE RD 795 N FERNDALE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO FRT S5391 WAYZATA MH 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0021 38 36-118-23 11 0023 38 36-118-23 11 0024 PpOP ADDR 00625 FERNOALF. RD N 00629 FERNDALE RD N 00627 FERNDALE RD N OLA1t0 NAME TAxPAVER FRANCISCUS 6 BASTIAENS FRANCISCUS 6 BASTIAENS T J FEI6 THE E 0 FEIG \f T D JOH14SON A 8 D JOHNSON / TTMOTHY D JOHNSON HAMEIIADDR 625 NORTH FERNDALE RD 629 F FERNDALE 627 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA 55391 ORONO hN 55391 u PUN DATE OS/20/86 BATCH 061 38 36-118-23 11 0025 PROP ADM OMIER NAME WILLIAM G FIELDING ET AL TAXPAYER TIMOTHY D A BOWIE JOHNSON NAME,'ADOR 627 N FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MH 55391 38 34-118-23 14 0002 PROP ADOR 00575 FERNDALE RD N O1 Nt R NAME G A J Nr<R S TAXPAYER GARY L i ,JUDITH t; VARS NAME/ADOR 575 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MH 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0006 PROP ADOR OOS19 FERNDALE RD N OWNER NAME EDNARD M i MARLYS A COHEN TAXPAYER EDWARD M 9 MARLYS A COHEN NAME/AOOR Sig N FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN LOUNTY PRWERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 36-118-23 IY 0002 00725 FER,'DALE RD N R A R MACLEOD RONALD C I EOD 725 N FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 38 36-116-23 14 0001 00575 FERNDALE RD N G i J VARS GARY L i JUDITH G VARS 575 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MI 55•391 38 36-118-23 14 0003 38 36-118-23 14 0007 00555 FERNDALE RD N 00517 FErI DALE RD N T A M KOCH H G JOHNSON ETAL THOMAS A MARGARET KOCH H GLENDON JOHNSON 555 FERNDALE ROAD N 517 NO FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MI 55391 WAYZATA M1 SS391 38-118-23 14 0009 0058 FERtD ALE RD N OAHI LNQ DANIELSUN 'ETAL DANIEL O,,OANIELSON TOTAL BATON 001 00026 r 585 NORT FERNOALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RFPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE d REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT A.^PEARS THIS DATE ON TH& RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, T E REST OF MY KNOWLEDGE .040 BELIEFoor ��OAT e` _ _ Y _ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2232 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR TED Q. FEIG AND TIMOTHY D. JOHNSON FILE NO. 1150 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by Ted Q. Feig and Timothy D. Johnson (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Laurent Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"), and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the City for metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Citv Concil of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds division of a lot line rearrangement for Ted Q. Feig and Timothy D. Johnson as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Egan Field and Nowak, Inc. dated October 2nd, 1985 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel A as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel B as described in that same survey. 2. Likewise, the owner of Parcel C sh; 11 apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel D. 3. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's office on or before January 27, 1988 together with a certified original copy cf this resolution. V Pag � 1 of 2 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2232 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 27th day rof July, 1987. AT TIj ST: DcTrothy Hallin, City Clerk - Jam - R. Grabec, Mayor Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 27, 1987 #1148 ST. EDWARDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2231 approving a conditonal use permit for a day care/pre-school instruction class use at St. Edwards Episcopal Church. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 11150 1170 TED Q. FEIG i TIMOTHY D. JOHNSON 629 NORTH FERNDALE ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTIONS #2232 a #2233 Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the requests: #1150 Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to relocate lot line between the two properties to conform to the existing use/maintenance patterns. #1170 Vacation of existing drainage and utility easement along old lot line (in exchange for similar easement along new lot line.) It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Sime, to adopt Resolution ##2232 approving a Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement and; adopt Resolution ##2233 approving Vacating an Unused Portion of a Dedicated Drainage and Utility Easement at 627 and 629 North Ferndale Road for Ted Q. Feig and Timothy D. Johnson. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #1153 RICHARD ERICRSON/JULIE CORTY* 1295 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCE FINAL RESOLUTION #2215 It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table Final Approval of Resolution #2215 until the August 10, 1987 Council meeting per staff recommendation. Motion, Dyes 5, Nays 0. #1155/#1156 LLOYD DRAPER* 3955 WIMB STREET/1929 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCES RESOLUTION It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table Applications 01155 and #1156 until the August 10, 1987 Council meeting per applicant's request. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR TIMOTHY D. JOHNSON AND TED Q. FEIG FILE NO. 1358 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted sub- division regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by Ted Q. Feig and Timothy D. Johnson (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Laurent Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property") WHEREAS, the subdivider.- completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds suba_�ision for division and combination purposes; and WHEREAS, approval for this lot line rearrangement was originally granted by the City C-uncil on July 27, 1987 per Resolution No. 2232. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds division of a lot 14.ne rearrangement for Ted Q. Feig and Timothy D. Johnson as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Egan Field and h iak, Inc., dated October 2, 1985 and attached to this resolution as Exhib_t A, subject to the following condition: 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel A, as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above, must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel B as described in that same survey. 2. Likewise, the owner of Parcel C shall apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel D. 3. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin Count} Recorder's Office on or before June 12, 1989 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. Page 1 of 2 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of December, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Paqe 2 of 2 12788.1 S L TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Orono/Long Lake Discussions ISSUE - Presentation of information to Council regarding progress since the December 5, 1988 meeting. INTRODUCTION - Following the meeting of December 5th between the Orono and Long Lake Councils, which focused on the sewer plant property, Mr. Vande Vegte and myself have attempted to communicate on the phone to hopefully meet the week of December 12th. (Mr. Vande Vegte has been involved in a six day court trial on the fatal accident on Highway 12 at the curve from earlier this year.) At the December 5th meeting staff was directed to prepare a comparison of the property being in Orono versus the property being in Long Lake. A draft of this will be presented for your review prior any finalization for consideration. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council accept the information regardnng the Orono/Long Lake discussions. Ayes Nays V 113088.2 /6 TO: Mayor and City Council "�� "- I_• FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato`\1 DATE: November 30, 1988 SUBJECT: County Road 51 - Parking Attachments: A. County Road 51 Memo Dated 9/20/88 B. County Road 51 Memo Dated 10/13/88 C. County Road 51 Memo Dated 10/26/88 D. County Road 51 Memo Dated 11/13/88 E. Hennepin County Letter RE: County Road 51 Dated 11/28/88 F. Diagram of County 51 G. City of Orono Letter Dated 1/29/86 ISSUES 1. Presentation to Council. of alternative packages that are agreeable to Hennepin County. 2. Determination as to what alternatives the Council desires for further consideration. INTRODUCTION - As indicated in Attachment D Attachment E r?presents Hennepin County's summary of three different packages for different approaches on handling the parking on County Road 51. DISCUSSION - The primary objectives in dealing with this problems are: 1. Safety 2. Parking needs for public access 3. Property owner trespass The three alternative packagea as noted in Attachment D are summarized as follows: Alternative 1. - Eliminate parking totaling on County Road 51 and find an alternative place for the parking. The parking for Zone 1 as outlined in the 1983 Task Force Report were a total of 139. The present number of spots at North Arm are: - Current North Armn Access 64 vehicle trailer (+ 17 singles for cars/vans/pickups) - County 51 parking 28 (not all within 1500 feet of access) Alternative 2. widening Shoulder - This alterna0 ve would widen the shoulder to the appropriate 10 foot width, which is 1 approximately three feet wider than presently exists and would involve the double stripping of a fog line for a safety zone between where people park and where traveled traffic is supposed to go. The County has indicated a willingness to del inate the parking spots to get the parking vehicles to "crowd" the curb leaving space between the parking vehicles and the "fog lines" (white stripes on the side). Alternative 3. - This would entail the removal of selected park—'ang slots (approximately 6). Two options with this regarding the parking are to either replace it with a parking area on the north or to delete the 6 spaces as a consideration. Additional considerations that should be looked at regarding the issues are as follows: 1. Speed Limit - Change in the speed zone as noted before the speeds on either sides of this area are at 30 MPH west and 40 MPH east and this is a 35 MPH zone. Once the construction with Metro Waste Control is done, we would request a speed study to see if this could be lowered. The risk in this however is they may raise it further as it is based on the average traveled speed drivers go. Theoretically it could raise the limit rather than lower it. 2. Access Dock - In order to address the trespass problem ttFie City could on its winter access install a dock to allow those people who are parking on County Road 51 to use a dock rather than traspass on the residents. In addition to placing the dock there it may be appropriate to notify people of the location. Mr. Singer has raised the question as to whether prior to 1983 parking was prohibited on County Road 51. In researching the records it is our understanding that it had not been restricted pr; , to that. The following items were considered, but not chosen for consideration these include as follows: Pedistrian Crossing Lanes - At present the County does not feel they would be beneficial as the limited cross pedestrial traffic fromt he north is limited it would generally be ignored by both pedistrians and drivers. - Flashins Pedestrian Signals - While initially effective these loose their effectiveness to most drivers in the area and begin to blend into the background. - No Passing Lane - A request was made regarding extending these based on site distances when they are parking. The County looked at these but does not think that would have an appreciable effect on safety. 2 - Turn -Around - The feasibility of a turn -around near the Crystal Bay Service was looked at, but not deemed feasible at this point. A requirement is state law is 1000 feet either direction - This would require removal of a number of small scrub trees east of Tonkawa Road. - Narrowing Driving Lanes - Currently the issue is looked at regarding the driving lanes as to whether they could be narrowed to; a) slow down traffic and b) not have to encroach towards the lake side any greater. It was determined that these are presently at the minimum standard for the County. - Realign Center Line - This was looked to swing it further to the north, but the County did not feel it was an appropriate solution based on current road structure. The possibility that a couple of the packages could be looked at, one for the short term and another for the long term with options 2 and 3 being shorter term solutions and option 1 being perhaps a longer term solution. The 1 - 4 widening of the shoulder may be a further encroachment of hardcover into the 0-75' lakeshore to the extent it is already not driven on gravel. This may require an amendment to Metro Waste Control's conditional use permit. Attached please find Mr. Singer's correspondence with DNR. ALTERNATIVES 1. Council directs staff on developing a desired alternative and/or variations. 2. Establish public meeting for January 23. 1^.99. 3. Eliminate undesired alternatives. 4. Develop a short term and long term strategy. 5. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the Council establish 1/23/89 as a date for consideration of alternatives having given staff direction as to a desired alternative. At this time the minor widening and curbing or the elimination of up to 6 slots without replacement would improve the safety as a long term solution Attachment H may lend some guidance for eventual eleimination. cc: David Singer, 3520 North Shore Drive, Wayzata Dennis Haason, Hennepin County 3 i TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate 1Y DATE: September 20, 1988 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Parking/Parking County Road 51 Attachment A - Singer Letter Dated 8/31/88 B - Northshore News Dated 5/23,/85 C - Northshore News Dated 7/5/b5 D - Northshore News Dated 7/18/b5 E - Northshore News Dated 8/21/85 F - Council Minutes Dated 8/26/85 G - Lake Minnetonka Use Dated 9/20/85 H - Council Minutes Dated 9/23/85 I - Lake Minnetonka Use Dated 10/10/85 J - Lake Minnetonka Use Dated 10/23/85 K - City of Orono Dated 11/20/85 L - Orono Resolution #1915 M - Excerpt 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task Force N - Excerpt Lake Access Parking Study 11/30/82 0 - LMCD Letter Dated 9/26/85 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 action if any the City wants to take in relating safety improvements to the "quota requirements" for parking slots in Orono as yet forth in 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task force report. INTRODUCTION - 1985 and 1986 the Department of Natural Resources through the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was looking for commitment of the recommended 700 parking spots around Lake Minnetonka for public access. As established in the 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task force report. For Orono this meant 169 :,lots of which 60 (those in the landing) are "committed". As noted in attachment N, the City of Orono had indicated that they had more then the required number of slots but were not in the position or choose not to commit those slots. In 1985 the issue of access was raised but the City tock no further action on committing additional slots apart from those that were in the current access. The issue on safety improvements was also raised although further action was not undertaken at that time apart from monitoring. Attachment A, a letter from Mr. Singer outlines suggestions to improve the saftey. DISCUSSION - 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 is 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 tl-e City could find substitute slots numbers to replace those. As noted in Mr. Singer's letter, the City has posted no 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 solution because of limitations on sheds in the lakeshore. The City has generally approved small sheds in this aresfor storage of equipment of the type noted by Mr. Singer in his letter upon application for a variance for specifically that reason. ALTERNATIVES Issues #1 - Safety 1. Request posting the entire street no parking. 2. Widen the shoulder (this may have some relationship to the MWCC project for 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 intermittently spaced among exxsting ones to improve line of sight. 4. Take no action. 5. Table. 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 a l l 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 preliminary solution be taken to the County to discuss what they consider to be feasible and that following that this would be presented to the neighbors. Presently the City staff would recommend: a. That the shoulder should be widen approximatley 3' with a berm curb in conjunction with the MWCC project. This shoulder would encroach further into the existing lakeshore 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 options 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 612/544-0110 IN ASSOCIATION WITH PETERSON b SINGER 250 North Star East 608 2nd Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55402 DAVID A. SINGER, LTD. LAW OFFICES August 31, 1988 ./Mr. Mark Bernhardson City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota I; � U =� L ANS31 2/, �U IC6; \ 16 Mr. James Grabek Mayor of Orono and Members of the City Co. City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Ctystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Mr. Eugene Strommen 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 5548' 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 5`101 To Whom It May Concern: �l I am writing to call your attention to a matter of great concern to me as a home owner on County Road 51 near the North ,Arm public boat landing. The issue involves the inability o' residents along County Road 51 to oat safely cross the highway during times when parking at the public launch is inadequate. It also involves the safe use of the roadway for loggers, 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 six 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 h;ghway is used for bumper to bumper parking. The problem is particularly acute because boaters frequently drive vans or pickups which are particularly difficult to see over, or around. An additional factor exacerbating the risk is the narrow width of the roadway and shoulder; which literally necessitates a pedestriar stepping into the roadway in order to determine if there is traffic coming. Even then, along the curve 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 suggest that the issue in this instance cannot be postulated as a balancing fo the competing Interests of privata property owners with the public. The issue is pure and simple, one of safety,vis-a-vis convenience. A si-nificant part of my professional life is involved in automobile accident litigation. From my professional experiences, and work accident reconstructior, 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 t': 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 7400 parking Spaces for boat launch users must look to some other solution than dangerous off street parking spaces. Page Three August 31, 1988 1 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 myseif. I would also like to comment upon my own views with regard to the possible solutions. Ideally, parking should be prohibited on both sides of Cou::ty 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 Tonkawa 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 reviewed 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 public 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 5L This only superficially addresses the issue. Certainly, it Y--ould 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 vi.;ion 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 where 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 lets between the North Arm channel and Tonkawa Road, thi5i wot, Id result in the loss of only six parking spots assuming the recommends d 50' lengths per spot Page Four August 31, 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. Ar 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 are 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 not raise the suggestion of _",ainating parking along the south side of County Road 51 because of the problem of boaters trespassing upon private lake access and priva`e dockage to 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 : - dumped by trespassing boaters at the conclusion of their boating d, 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. In the event this matter is raised a:, an issue for public discussion in the future, I would appreciate being notified of that so I may attend. Very truly yours, David A. Singer DAS/jmb Enclosures cc: County Road 51 Home Owners l. r,AL Aff. ' ML M.Y r l � � r S�S , +.7T4.r• i r IT i—JL �� ♦ •rR' ..w 3, of 1. Shows view from driveway at 3520 North Shore Drive looking across County Road 51 towards lake 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 Drive,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. 1 � TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: May 23, 1985 c� SUBJECT: North Shore Drive Petition - No Parking At the last Council meeting property owners from North Shore Drive handed 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 similar 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 not allow much visible distance for vehicles and pedestrians to see each other when people are crossing the road from the south to the north side. At present we have no significant history of accidents, however we understand there have been near misses on occasion. - Tres kassin - There seems to be a problem in the practice /qff persons when the public access is full to put their boat in at the access to drive up park in the area that the no parking is being requested and proceed to cross V private property and utiIitize private docks to board the boat. - Disturbing the Peace - Apparently boaters particularly those who have parked along there tend to be rather raucous in their return and wrapping up their activities and generally saucing a problem in the neighborhood. On these following two items there has not been any significant reports or problems identified by the, police department in this area. While these last two probYems may be alleviated by eliminating parking along that stretch these items may be able to be addressed in anotherr-manr and working with the police department and the patrol o icer in the area. r The concern on the Cit s side, should there be No Parking posted, are the allotment of & lots along the lake for vehicular and trailer parking and since hese are counted in the DNB's allocation to eliminate these slots would 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 togetner to attempt to alleviate the trespassing and disturbance of the peace problems. c) Staff will explore the concerns regarding pedestrian traffic crossing and see if there are solutions that are practical 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 nave any further questions please feel free to contact me. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardsov) 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 spots in accordance with the Lake Minnetonka Task Force recommendations. Currently Minnesota DNR is attempting to get long term commitments from the various on street parking sites which previously have not been "committed". In speaking with the people at DNR that are handling this matter it has been requested that they 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 utilizing the spots on North Shore Drive together with observing any trespassing or other public safety problems related with that parking. Additionally we have asked residents to inform us of persons who are trespassing and to take license plate numbers of those individuals. We anticipate continuing this problem identification bysurveying 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 been verified, however it is a question of the magnitude and frequency as to determine the extent of any public safety problems. Should you have any further questions on either issue please feel free to contact me. n LAKE ,,MI-NNETON._KA CONSERVATION DISTRICT .�1C�% 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 61?1473 7033 F'AANK MtXA. EXECUTIVE DIRECTCR BOARD MEMBERS TO: MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES Robert Tipton Brown. Chairman Greenwood DATE: July 2, 1985 ;+oberl P Rascop. vice Chairman S lorl .000 JcElten Hurr. Secretary SUBJ: Public Access Parking for Lake Minnetonka Orono jon E am. Treasurer Mound EC_&,'j G Bauman T:3 E Boynton Bay DGn,ib E The LMCD, in response to the Lake Minnetonka Task Force recommen- 11 •nnetonka Beach dations, has adopted the attached standards for identifying the c •,nk de moncirisiahAU■ M Anne Vtsla car -trailer parking spaces needed to reach the p g p goal of 700 R,cna•a Garwood reliable car -trailer spaces set f or Lake Minnetonka under the Deephaven %udrey Gisvold current state access program. Wayzata Fton k raemer Spring Park The Task Force, after considerable discussion, particularly with ROben K. Pillsbury Minnetonka representatives of the MDNR about over -flow car -trailer spaces Rooeri E. Slocum actually used today vs. the need for long-term space meeting cer- Woodland ±,cna•d J Soderberg tain basic requirements, determined that the MDNR standard of one vc,Wei ,,r; H Weisser car -trailer space per 20 acres of water (700 for the Lake) was E.ce,siot reasonable for Lake Minnetonka In additio it d t d th t e ermine a those spaces already meeting these standards could be supplemented by other near -by parking that also meet these standards when set_ aside specifically for the use of the boating public. The District has developed these standards which the MDNR has ac- cepted for the use of the lakeshore municipalities who wish to participate in the program by designating long-term car -trailer parking spaces on a seasonal basis near existing public launching facilities. These spaces may not be restricted by a permit process. These spaces, when accepted under the standards, will be applied toward the 700 spaces required and will be used to help determine the need for development of further public access on the Lake. The District has been charged with the responsibility to monitor the program. Thank you for your consideration. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated Sincerfly _� CONSERVATION DISTRICT RZ+�r� Ti p4 on Brown Ghyyi rind Att. +� A UAKE•MINN ET.OKKA;CONSERVATION DISTRICT PARKING STANDARDS LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES The Lake Minnetonka Task 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 -dopted 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, either off-street or on -street, must be identified by clear, permanent -type signage at the access point. 4. All off-street spaces must be out on a plan on f:.1e with the LMCD. The plan shall clearly indicate_ each car -trailer space and adequate in- gress, egress and maneuvering space. 5. All spaces must be available on an unrestricted, first -come -first -served basis, as a minimum from 5 p.m. 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 traffic lane and to provide a safe route to the access point. 6.3 Regularly -spaced permanent signage stating "transient car -trailer parking only." 6-25-85 II TO: Mayor and City Council �J�FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City AdmiristratoL 1 DATE: July 18, 1985 SUBJECT: North Shore Drive Parking Status As you are aware the City together with the r^sidents 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 sand/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 as accidents or near accidents. As you are aware we will be bringing the issue of commitment to LMCD parking spots back to you on August 2 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 comments plea feel free to contact me. To: Mayor Butler, Orono Council Members cUVt1L1L AhETM From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: August 21, 1985 Subject: North Shore Drive CITY OF (MM Long -Term Public Access Commitment BACXGROUND At the City Council meeting of May 13th, 1985, the residents along North Shore Drive, between the North Arm Bridge and Tonkawa, presented a petition requesting that no parking signs be posted along County Road 51. This is a follow-up to a petition and request in 1982 to prohibit parking of boat tra' 1_er vehicles. In July, the City received a letter iron the L.MCD requesting that the communities work towards getting long-term commit- ments for the parking spots that were designated in Lake Minnetonka Task Force` recommendations. while the LMCD regulations do call for all spots to be within 1500 feet, which would be about the aid -way point between Tonkawa and Baldur Park, they may at least on interim bases be interested in spots beyond that 1500 feet. ISSUES A. whether Orono wants to promote the 5-year offsite parking commit- ment requested by the LMCC. This will be in light of the City•s previcus 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, particularly Dan Regan, 34:0 North Shore Drive. During some of the week -ends in Jute, reserve officers were in the area together with patrol officers noting conditions during Saturdays and Sundays. Additionally we r stel that incidents of a non -emergency nature be recorded together with license Plates of offending parties regarding trespassing. If there are 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 initial ly i Je, tified as being significant, ti ve- passing on private docks together w th the attended liability for the privates owners and the -crimes of opportunity* that are occuring because of that seemed most significantly. Additionally there was some disturbance of the peace, particularly of boaters returning after partying on the Lake. North Shore Drive August 21, 1985 Page 2 It is felt that these can be addressed in other manners short of posting no -parking. As far as pedestrian bike safety along the way, the potential for problems does exist. Prohibitting parking may not necessarily reswdy those and to the extent that the cars parked along North Shore Drive tend to 'narrow" North Shore Drive may tend to slow the driver and may actually improve the situation. The concern of the neighbors in part io that they have seen the problem increase over the last 3 to 5 years in part due to closings or limitations of other accesses on the lake together with an expected in- crease in boating in future years. This is in part based on an expected increase in use by off -lake residence as treas such as Orono's rural ai as develop. This may also be aggrevated if a significant nu%ber of aon- residence boat owners who currently dock at private docks a.ona 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 signage is posted - both on the road side of the propwrties and the lake side of the docks. 2. The City work with the County to attempt the following$ - utilization of asphalt curbing to prevent parking off the asphalt damaging the people's grass - stripping he to allow for pedestrian/bike path on 1&kesid* of County Road 51 - the designated gap (6 to 10 feet) every 150 to 200 toot to improve pedistrian safety crossing - if needed, appropriate signage be put up to direct pereows back to the public access 3. T:.ot the residents and the City work together to smiter the situation and develop meap.s and .nformation by "hick the owners can work with the police to limit law violations as relates to •_hej r property. North Shoe Drive August 21, 1985 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 eliniate the probletrs identified, however, this may be an option to explore. B. That the City adopt a resolution that the County stake a 5-year commitment 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 probl ms arise necessitating tthlt the parking be reduced or eliminated. It is addi- tional rec-).:.,,,,ded that the spots beyond 1500 feet on Borth Shore Drive continue to have parking as thej+ may provide parking for people uai ng the public access in the early and late winter. !Cathleen Wallace, the regional coordinator for DYR, will be present should you have any questions regarding access on west and south sides of the lake. Should you have further que )ns or comments, please feel free to contact me. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 26, 1985. PAGE o 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 02 per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). MAYOR'S REPORT CABLE TV REPORT Mayor Butler had no report at this time. 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 rei,iewal 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 ADMINIST:.ATOR'S REPORT: NORTH SHORE DRIVE City Administrator Bernhardson recalled that at the Mayl3th 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 skated 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 P)lice 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 of the homeowner st uld anyone be hurt on their property even though the property is posted no trespassing. Reyan stated that in his opinion, the only one that would possi.bly be adversely affected by `he posting no parking signs would be other Orono residents. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that by posting no jarring east of North Arm it may just push the cars to park further down County Rd.51 togetherwith adversely affecting the off -lake Orono residents from using the lake. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNC L MEETING HELD AUGUST 25, 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 perking of. 1 per 20 acres, they recommended there be 700 car trailer parking spaces on the lake. Wallace stated that per LMCD there are presentiy1172 unreliable parking spaces, and 185 free reliable parking spaces within 1500 feet of a public access. Kathleen Waliare stated that earlier this season they wrote to the Hennepin County Sheriff informing him of the addit.'_onal funds available for enfcrcement and to date have not received a response. Wallace also stated that they will be actively pursuing, through the Attorney General's office, that Hennepin County to increase the prosecution o7 violation on the lake. Wallace stated that they will lose some overflow parking because ef the re -alignment of County Rd. 15 a 51 in Spring P-rk. 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 councilmembei 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 br.jught this , ,tter up was the request to put in a 13undromat in one of :he _ldingsin Navarre. Bernhardson stated that there are currently ]9 sewer units to be assessed to that property which weula root the laundr-)mat ._owners $25, 500 in connection charges only. City Administrator BernharCs"-, . r-v:.wed his report and recommendations regarding the policy for assessinq sewer units. �]'/� TO: mayor and C i ty Cou"C i l ecUNcfj MfENG IpRoM: Mirk nornh-irdsan, City Admillistratoolb SEP23 J385 DATE: September 20, 1985 C17Y OF p rjNo EC SUBJT: Lake Minnetonka Use and Access INTRODUCTION - In 1983 the T33k Force looking at lake useage Issued a report which called for specific recommendations regarding particularly public access and use on the lake. Earlier this year the Department 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 discus3ion may eventually help shape the Council's policy direction on the lake useage issue. GENERAL CONCERNS - The following represent the major concerns and issues under each that seem appropriate for this discussion. A. "Inappropriate use"/noating safety on the lake 1. Regulation a. Authority to regulate b. Enforcement 2. Offending users e. Total boating activity 1. Users by method of access a. Lakeshore property b. Commercial marinas C. Public access 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 Docembec of 1984 which does give data relating to some of these issues. (Bxamples of some of these distributions are indicated on attachment 2). n.: R PENDING ACTIONS - In addition to the i3sue of secruing the North Arm landing there are some other issues that are presently occuring on the lake which require review of thi? Council's policy direction. These pending actions include, but are not limited to: - Additional public access (Neighboring community concerns) Siting Procurements - Securing long term off site parking - More restrictive boating while intoxicated legislation - (Legislature/LMCD) - Regulation of boats at private docks - LMCD - Municipalities - Review of prosecutatorial efforts - Proposed funding for increasing boating enforcement PRINCIPAL AGENCIES INVOLVED - The following are the agencies involved with a brieirl►scing of the issues in which they become involved(together w th the person that will probably be present Monday night to rc -asent their agency.) Deeartmont of Natural Resources - (F-%thleen Wallace/Karen Loechler) - - - Enforcement - Public access Acquisition Goai establishment/700 public access slots - Public waters Lake Minnetonka Conservation District - (JoEllen Hurt) - Regulation of lake use - Lend agency in Task Force implementation - Selected regulation of lake shot@/marina access users - Enforcement of selected licensing and regulation Henneein CounX Sheriff's Office Water Patrol - (Inspector Mike Post le/Larry Peterson). - Enforcement of proper boating regulations on lake - Fundiri - Complaint-3/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 122t represented) - Hennepin County Public bccess Operation/acquisition Related county road parking - Suburban Hennepin County Park Reserve District Public property acquisition/operation IN CONCLUSION - It is hoped that this discussion wi 11 result in the Council clarifying the issues and then at subsequent meeting address the policy direction with which they wart to undertake addressing the specific issues. -:I 3 MINUTES OP Till: RP.GU AR ORONO COUNCIL. t+.V TtNG 11FL1 !;EPTFMHKR 11, 19R5 PAGr 4 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: I.ARL' MINNVMNKA ACCESS/NORT11 SHORR DRivF. PARKING City Administrator Bernhardson invited the following quest speakers: Kathiern Wallace, Commissioners Administrator for the DNR; Jok:llcn Hurr, Orono's LMCD Representative, Inspecto- Vike Post -le and Lt. Larry Peterson, Hennepin County Sheriff 's Of f ice /Water Patrol: and Senator Gen 71scn. City Administratcr Pernhardson stated that the primary issues are boating safety on the lake and overall boating activity and also the concerns regirdinq the North Arm public access. Pernhardson noted the DNR report containing usage statistics for the summer of 1984. Kathleen Wallace presented some charts-.iowinq statistics relatinq to existinq lake use on Lake Minnetonka. She stated that in most cases the private access users and non - access users ( lakeshore residents) lominated the free public access users, in addition, "cruisers" on thn lake dominated the other types of use such as fishing, 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 sum.ler, 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 1200 - 2200 ( this is taken from a high use date), with a slight 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 on Like Minnetonka is probably ten times higher than on any other lake. Kathleen w-illace 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 f ree. Staff was directed to research that question. JoE l len Hurr• stated that the LMCD writes the ordinances that the Sheriff's Dept. enforces and that local departments are al ro able to enforce these ordinances such as bridge jumpers. MINUTES UP TIIY RNGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING IINLD SY.PTP.M14ER 23, 1985 PAGI: 5 IJ►RP. MINNETONKA ACCESS/NORTII SHORE DRIVE. PARKING continued City Admin►,,trator Nernhardson noted that practicality deters tho local dopartmonts frog+ any r:.. jor enforcement. Regarding the nuntLor of tree accesses, JoEllen Hurr stated that the LMCD does not govern any requirement% that these must be provided, but arr, simply just an accounting mechanism. LMCD MOAT DOCK ORDINANCE JoEllen Hurr reported that the LMCD is proposing an ordinance that states ar owner must prove ownership for the keeping of more than 2 boats at their dock. As far as :,he knows, there is no permit required ;ust the prcof of ownership and registration. JoEllen Hurr c;u(-st:oned the fact that there in no free access on Lake Independ-nce, you must access through Baker Park. Kathleen Wallace stated that the policy is that no additional charge is required tc use the lake access. JoEllen Hurr reporrc? that the LMCD will be establishing their own Pw1 law which should Ne in force by next summer. City Administratnr Pernnardson introduced Inspector Mike Postle and Lt. Larry Peterson of the Hennepin County Sheriff's effic^ and also wished to express thanks to Inspector Postle for his assistance in getting Officer Bob Fischer into our c:ommunity for a temporary period. Inspector Postle sated that their concerns relate to the enforcement issues on Lake Minnetonka particularly to provide a water p�.trol on the lake. He stated that the hater Patrol is comprised of rzvular deputy sheriff's which are backed up by regular volunteers (special deputy's) of approximately 3^-40 members. Inspector Postle stated that BW1 is a dtffi'ult area to enforce however they are concentrating thriref`_,rts in this area mainly becaus- it is directly linked to thy. accidents occuring. He noted that at this time, it a persorrefuses to take the implied consent there is nothing they can do about it. He stated that they are suqgesting a misdemeanor charge upon refusal. He also noted that they are pursuing the use of personal floatation devices especially after dark. Regarding manpower, Inspector Postle stated that two people were added in the middle of the summer and wit?• that added help, he feels they are adequately staffed. He noted that their overall equipment is some of the finest in the nation. Inspector Postle explained the types of volunteer vroups and their functions. tie also explained the types of equipment they have. MINUTES Or THE RRGULAR ORONO COUNCIL NFETING I1FLD SEPTP.MDBR 23, 1985 PAGE 6 I.AKR MINNETONKA ACCESS/NORT11 SHURE DRIVE PARKING continued City Administrator Dernhardson introduced Senatot Gen Olson at VhIs time. Senator Olson spoke on the Boating while Intoxicated legislation results and future process. City Attorney Blatz explained the background of the BWI bill. Senator Olson stated that the DNR has been is charge of siting public accesses since 1947 and discovered Lake iiinnetonka in 1979. She reported on the implementation of the task force and their recommendations and progress since within the past three years. She noted that there were several areas in which the parking is inadequate or diminishing, and due to this there is going to be pressure to provide more accesses. She stated that her feelings were that with good planning and a coordinated effort involving the local governments the publics interests' would be served better. She stated that she plans to put considerable attention to this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that staff will report back in November with some policy recommendations. I NTMI14 CON PRNSATI OII STUDY City Administrator Bernhardson submitted the Interim Compensation Study for 1985 and recommends that the package be adopted in total. Council -member Adams stated he was in total agreement to the approach taken. It was moved by Frahm, seconded by Adams, to accept the 1985 Interim Compensation Study Plan. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. The findings of the Interim Compensation st .dy result in the following salary adjustments retroactive to January 1, 1985: John Gerhardson, Public works Coord.'.nator - from: $35,533 to $37,500 Tom Kuehn, Finance Diractor/Treasurer -from $33,402 to $34,666 Winton Burmaste:, Asst. Police Chief - from $30,925 to $33,100 Gary Cheswick, Police Sergeant - from $29,544 to $32,600 t Jack Brinkhaus, Street Foreman -from $28,290 to S29,500 TO: Mayor and City Councilf FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato�lt 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, 1935, 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 DN1c, the total number of persons using public access did not amount to more than 359 at any one time and was often down in the 100-200 range. The substantial number of users came from the marir.as, although weekend use by abutting lakeshcre access owners was up considerably both in numbers and percentages on the weekends as opposed to during the week. - Flow Problem to Public Access - The apparent problem in public accesses :s 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 taking 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. - Total Lake Usage - The attendent question then is if the flow through the ramps either public or private is increased f does that significantly affect the total number of users that are on thc• lake. - Safety and Enforcement - Accidents and injuries on the lake are not necessarily a _unction of the absolute volume on the lake, with perhaps a higher correlation to abuses such use as alcohol. Juribdiction - It was very apparent, coupled with information learned after that meeting that there is a question of jurisdiction as 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. -Acc<<as Siting - Presently the number of existing access sites apart from marina docked boats and lakeshore access docked boats are as follows: - Free Sites - 9 sites around the lake with 180 parking spots committed (another art "uncommitted" within 1590 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 they 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 DAR nor any other public agency has to make them available free of charge. - Metro Council Access Siting - As you are aware the Governor's Executive Committee has now involved the Metro Council in the siting of public facilities on the lake. ISSUES The following represent the major issues as they exist: - Access sites - Numbers using lake - Flow through accesses TOTAL USAGE - - Lake Access Users - Commercial Marina Users - Off lake residents of lake communities - Other access users SAFETY/ENFORCEMENT SOURCE - Funding - Expenditure - Sites - Enforcement - State - County - Private/Users Given the fact that most of the services provided ace presently from either State or County funding there is a good chance that persons apart from the users are boa ring the major portion of those expanses. 2 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. -1 w b.) Tnat the City not commit those reserved slots with L.MCD until such time as there is a demonstrated `. need for additionally committed parking contigeat on ..�1 other community's commitments and appropriate geographic distribution of access. 2. Public Access - That the City in conjunction with "Y the MetropolitT an Council aed other lake communities work to assist in the public accea siting to the eztent that additional sites for boating distribution purposes ate appropriate for both distribution and parking. Additionally it is recommended that the Council -; encourage adequate parking spots be obtained neat the Mound site. 3. Look for Additional Ramp Plow Spots a.) Private access b.) Evaluate current camp use and parking at those sites 4. BOATING WAILt.INTOXICATED - Mork and encourage WICO �a and Legislature t. pass appropriate legislation, at least tot "r Lake Minnetonka, to make it a managable situation. l`�`• S. Jurisdiction - In accordance with enabling legislation for LMCD have Orono enter into a contract to enforce the applicable ordinances that it desires to enforce with the L`1CD. 6. Funding - Encourage that the following funding hf 1 done: ;r a.) Lake Minnetonka sticker That everyone utilizing tie lake be required to pay a �' $20-325 a year sticker fee and that persons not haviNg 3 , r R7 %0�--- ' : s� such be appropriately fined. Monies from this would go to tuna enforcement on the like together with attendent cleanup of sites used. b.) Public access fees Explore the charge of a fee for utilization of at least parking in these public access sites and any comitted sites nearby at a reasonable rate, to defray the cost of operation and cle-- n of those accesses. It is hoped that such a fee c with published publication of private marinas . r utilization of existing rasp slots could be acco� shed. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. A TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administratol DATt: October 23, 1985 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Uya: and Access NIEETING C C T w 3 23)5 CITY OF ORONO Attached yo,i will find a memo regarding the summary of our 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. DNR had evaluated a number of sites around the like focusing principally on the south and west and it was their .ietermination that this was the best site and had gore tc the Covernor's Executive Council meeting on October 2nd intending to get authority to go ahead and procure. The authority howeve•: was not granted because the Executive Co wi 1 felt that it was appropriate to involve the Metro Council the siting of such regional facilities. As you will note the attachment the Council has laid out the process by whir, :hey wi 11 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 me•-�ing Tuesday, October :2, 1985, to discuss directions and means of input of the lake communities to thi3 process. It was indicated that L.M.C.U. will develop issues and areas to look at for surface water management on the lake, however they felt it was 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 communicating with out L.M.C.D. renre.-entative regarding this natter. One of the thrusts that L.M.C.D. is undertaking is a more active role in securing t!� • ; led slots felt by DWR in an effort to forestall even f..-essure for additional accesses around the lake. Mayor Jilt be present at our November 12th meetinq to discuss tr, rue, as will Joel'len Hurt and possibly Senator Gen Olyon. Additionally attached is a recent article from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune regarding ►ike Minnetonka access as seen by OUR, tn(lether with a list of sites tho 04R has been exploring roi -)ossible access. RLC`]MMEND ATION It :s rd..ommended that CounciI discuss any 1 initial direction that they want the City to undertake in relationship to this prior to the November 12th meeting. This recommended action would be to become actively involved in input to the Metro Council process regarding lard use considerations for public access. (This may be similar to some of the considerations and performance standards that the City has for commercial marinas.) Additionally it is requested that if you have any further thoughts or considerations regarding the matter that they be relayed to ua prior to the November 12th meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - It was moved by , seconded by , that the City Council direct rtaff to become actively involy=fin the land use issues, considerations and identification of public access siting for the Metropolitan Council process at this point and that the balance of the issu.-� be tabled until November 12, 1985, meeting. Ayes , Nays CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Cryetal Bay, Minnesota 55=eMnnicipW Of ew On 0" :.nth Shore of Lake Mimwton ka 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 y,.ur letter of October 30, 1985, regarding the Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka. Sincerely, Mark He td3 n Ci'-.y Administre BUILDING d IONIsA; - 471-7 35 7 • ADMIN"ITRA110N A FINANCE - 171-1731 • PUR-JC %ORKS - 473.7359 VUQ-SMING 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 un9er its statutDry autho-ity? The City of Orono interests and involvement stem] from the fact it has 33% of Lake Minnetonka as are-. and 40% of the total shoreline within it's boundaries. AO itionally it has 6 commercial marinas, one of the most ac'_ively used public accesses togethei. ith having both Big Island and Deering isle. A, which present unique service problems within its risdiction. 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 comm'tment to preserve and protect the public safety both on an' near the lake. Orono has utilizied its statuto,_y authority as have most m-lnicipalities to guvern land use and public safety as it relates to residential property, commercial marinas, joint docks and other usages on the lake. I: conjunction with LMCD, Orono has worked to make the lake 3 cleaner and safer natural recreational resoerce for 11 lake users including Orono residents both on and off the lake; anti nonresident users of the lake through marinas, persons fishing from shore; free public access users; and park users, al'. of which constitute forms of F . is access. 2. DE yo city's-ritical interests in managing Lake Mi aka and relate land uses within your jurisdiction. As noted in the prior response the City's critical interests are working to improve the lak�?'s quality together with the safety for all users o" `.he lakE . 3. Please identify/desctibe land us, and public service (e.g., road maintenance, law enforcement, issues which are affected by lake access and lake use within y-ur jurisdiction. In addition to land ub onsidEraticns to protect both the quaff ity and access on " lake, Orono's attendant concerns regard parking; pedeF an and biker safety; trespassing; vandalism; a:_cidents; tires and law enforcement related issues both on the lake and at the shoreline,--pecially o ana weir access sites (not only in Orono but in Minnetonk: Beach and Spring Park, to whom Orono provides police ser-ices). Although Orono has a limited ability ter capahility for un-lake enfor^er-nt, Orcno is becoming more 1 involved to better coordinate its efforts with other agencies. With its limited on lake c,-pacity 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 ponsess 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 lake 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 issue are Council's overall public safety concerns on both the land and the lake. There has been significant neighborhood concern regarding commitment of the parking spots because of thL� attendant problems with off -site parking related to the a.:cess includi ,Q trespassing and vandalism. As a part of t!-is concern is the extent to which an inczeased utilization cF the lake may escalate existing problems. 6. Please suggest proposals fc: public participation procedures as well as intergovernmertal planning and negotiations procedures to resolve lake management issues. It is hopel the Task Force in t::e development of the preliminary recciamendations 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 attendant land use could well be tt^e marina licensing and zoning for the various communities around the lake. (Please retpr to enclosure B for a topical outline of land use issues.) 7. Please comment and submit any suggestions on the remaining steps of the C(,uncil's review procedure. I; is proposed that as the adhoc report is developed that LMCD and the Cities individ i ly be al lowed to respond to a draft report in a Greeting in she Lake Minnetonka ar-a. 2 CITY OF ORONO SUMMARY OF PROGRESS 1985 DARE 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 Carnet - 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 if the Veteran's Camp because of the existance of hazardous buildings among other public safety, health and welfare concerns. The City does support acquistion of the property for park purposes. Additionally Orono has indicated to the present owner of Deering Island it's rjoal 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 tb-�.-oad as a two lane route. No further action has presently ,-•yen taken. 8. Trail - No formal action taken. 9. Consideration of conversion of commercial marinas to public access - No existing marinas have request a change in use. 10. Improved fishing access - No fo.mal action. 1 SUMMARY OF THE LAKE MINNETONIGI 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 1 Recommendation: North Arm/Hendrickson Access - Add maker d dock; add signs showing the location of off -site par , and proviae toilets, trash containers. public phones, and adequate landscaping. In addition, any or all of the following 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 acquisition 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. 1, 2 Recommendation: TQ long-term written parking e7re.;ments for existing sites within these zones cannot be secure . then additional access for small boats with associated parking should be considered to meet reliable parking goals for the zones. j 1 Recommendation --Shore Facilities: Noerenber Bridge - Improve l.aadscaping. Benches, trash containers, and toirets should be provided. 2 Recommendation --Shore Facilities: Molly's Corner/Browns b - Secure _parking _ and "eMstruct a ow's Bay. Benches, trash containers. and toilet sno provided. 5. 3 Recommendation: Additional fishing craft and small r access should be soukt. �p 1. 3 Recommendation: Acquisition of Deering Island and the :nd Veterans Ca22 for V ores. rhe State should obtain full and c ear title to the Camp and t e HCPRD should develop and manage the site in conjunction with the Arthur Allen Wildlife Sanctuary as a regional park. *To address the distriLution of accesses for fishing craft and small recrea- tion jets, the Task Force arrived at a system whereby the lake was divided into t1.ve naior zones. See attached map. ,r 1,2,3 Recommendation: When County R2ZLILetween Wayzata and Navarre needs improvement, it should be designed and managed as a two-lane scenic parkway Prespxxincyical vistas of this�ue 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 allow 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 implemented to improve a access. C� 1, 3 Raeos—endation: Implementing. agencies and Orono should cooperate in tonitoring any future land use chan as at existin _42Mercial access s es and should consider pub is access use prior to any r zAn not -access use. 1.2.3 Recommendation: When managing access sites and when considering new lakes development, particular attention should be given to the goal of improving access for fishing _raft 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 Cit`- of ORON-O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1915 A RESOLUTION REGARDING PARKING SLOTS FOR ZONE 1 AS DETERMINED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S TASK FORCE WHEREAS, the City o: Orono contains 40% of the shoreline' on Lake Minnetonka, and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is an extreme'_v valuable natural and recreational resource, and - WHEREAS, the City o: Orono has cone to great ler.cths to not only preserve c;:t also improve Lake Minnetonka for the public health, safety an! welfare _or all lake users and Iakeshc:e owners, ane WrERrAS, a .'ask Force on Lake Minnetonka :ecc==ended among other items that 700 za:ki, sects near free mublic accesses, of the existing 1 ,1 72 be co..:.,.ited to be :e' iab' a s- _ccs !Or such use, and - WEEZRMAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservaticr. District has 4e4£_C,peC c::te::2 an,. :s seeki-- Oc_:::.tary cC:...�:t.�ent C= these 5-z^ts► a-.= WEERMAS, the Met_cno1_ta.. Cc;:ac_,'s Task Force on t::e _esue is enco•:ra:_ _ co ._t-..ant t-cse 70n an! the Minnesota Depart=ent c! Nat_:a1 Re sources ., has murchased z:o^erty on the Lake for add:toaa'_ :Fee access, and _ rr rR..ASt c ..-., he st_e_v Of coate:s on t:^.e -aKe -s --Ke w-za_red by ac..___ona: n_=be:s C_ oca_s cn the lake die to inc:eased access, amc WE REAS, :Cne the on'v tcne in w=_-i there is an existing tree _ c--- access C: c-o ^ee= c �-�ent of .:C 79 additional spots to react. :29 :a_:ab_e spots in -:-e cone, a.c^ WEERrAS, =a: K_nc c==s-te o= the to=1_.. access On the Street Can cause certain _utlic safe '. n=erns, an! `'►E_REAS, the tenant °or .- -= ow - e :a:'r, _ - e fit.^.,: ickson access -s - - - _ :.- , - _ .. .. to o _a o =-me5 =e_ sense-. 4 Cit`- of ORO_'NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL N0. 2.92.5 NOW, TBEREPORE BE 1T RESOLVED, that the City Counci l of the City of Orono will work towards the developme....t o: up to 79 additional parking spots in Zone 1 on land owned by either the. Ci•y or the County p:ovided that: a.) No accesses in addition to those t:-at existed on Oanua:y 1► 1984 be placed on the lake an:: that D.N.R. sign a written ag:eement with that they will not place any accesses on the lake. b.) Fund:nc :or total develczce::- c : t:•e sates cowe !:O= sources outside the City and that develcp =ent be only to the extent of available outside funding and c.) To tie extent feasible that development be p.ased to meet demand and d.) That anv development o: c::-street parking be cone in a Wanner that Provides for a -eve_ of sc:een.inc_ and co�patabi_i�v wit. :esiden=_-al Heir .co=hoods, and RESOLVED, -::C_ the _v Co_ : , of _ne City o: Orono st:onc iv u:ces the Lake *__nnetcrka .... se:vat �= -t- - "' ion _s _:c_ to i. --se a lee on n1'_ bc:- - seas c: t=.e lake to pav for the CcSts- cr raw e:::c:ceme.t, -a::_z ► access : e=xt___ 2r_ laiCe 2.^.ii:li5 2ti0^., 2 :.. ?VR-_7:R BE RESOLVED, that as parkin- is develcpec off-street that ., a. :cp:_ate steps :e taken to __=_t cn-stlee` ark:�y _ _7e `��• .. _.-__v c_ _he access to li=it _he- safety c,a=a:=s and nuisances a=sociated wit.. the access. _ Adopte? by the C_tv C^ of the _ = ^-o no mimnesota at a :e;_meeting_a: , he-= ;,z._a:v _c__. c „- / ":a: V M.Zvc: J 5 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING SPACES AT PUILIC 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 19 216 295 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 cY ZONE ON -SITE VS. OFF -SITE ZONE ON -SITE OFF -SITE 1 36: 64: 2 11 .v 89"We 3 0: 100'. 4 62 94% 5 0l 1001% 11 ve 890.1 Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 3 S DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON -STREET VS. OFF-STREET ZONE ON-S TREET 1 64Z 2 89: 0: 4 32: 5 1UC 67: OFF-STRE-c T * _' 36,0 11: 100lvo 68: 01W. s off-street parkin gy includes both in -site and other parking lots within 1,500 feet from launch ramps. Source: Set item 20 of Bibliography Peoort of tie Lake M`nne:onka M Lake Acccss Parking Study November 30, 1982 NORTH ARM LANDING - Hennepin County owned/operated Location: on County Road 51 just east of County Road 19, Oronu 10x20 Spaces 1Ox45 Spaces ....��:,.., boat on Vehicle Vehicle w/Trailer Total On -Site Parking 10 64 74 OFF -SITE PARKING eastward 0 r. 44 westward --North Shore Drive 6 u O subtotal this zone 0 6 •4 3Ln o running total within 500 ft 10 70 F0 ++ eastward -North Shore Drive 8 1 w westward -North Shore Drive 16 0 o subtotal this zone 0 24 running total within 1000 ft 10 94 104 eastward -North Shore Drive 10 -Daldur Park Road 5 westward -North Shore Drive 16 -Maple Place 4 w southward-Shadywood Road 4+ 0 0 -Fagerness Pt Rd (actually used) 4+ a (additional spaces available but 12+ .,.1 rarely used) _ subtotal this zone 0 55 running total within 1500 ft 10 149 159 eastward-Vorth Shore Drive 10 ++ _&,'Wur Park Road 10 westward-No.:th Shore Drive 3 a -Maple Place 4 c � :ubt.)tal this gone 0 27 running total within 2000 ft 10 176 186 eastward -(none in use beyond 2000 ft) 0 Aj westward -North Shore Drive 6 -North Arm Drive 5 01 0o`o ,n 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 0 14 1 c running total within 3000 ft 10 201 211 f • "rl total spaces available for vehicles with trailers 201 provided on -site provided on -street 137 12 69; I -...c LI Q � � N3a-ro ARM IL SPRIMG 710!C , TboA �. 4ND 1NCsF. rAQk+N6 hI cv &TVALLY W OU E go REST LAKE Accortpo-* To OQWW 'POLICE 1 ricitrN Adm L4.- vG 74 e.-safe : 67 nn -sih a t TOTAL. SPAtEsit Trz '-r-CAte FT MIE7 F 1�11 'G 1 U, X :�= , IS�tS��J� SO) 2 �o J �"�• LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT L N10) 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473.7033 FRANK MIXA, EXEC 'TIVE DIRECT(,R TO: MEHBER MUNICIPALITIES BOARD MEMBERS Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman Greenwood DATE: Sr::ptember 26, 1985 Robert P Rascoa, Vice Charrn.an Shorewood JoEllen Hum Secretary SUBJ: Moni .or Report of Public AccEss Parking on Lake Minnetonka Orono Jon Elam. Treasurer Mound Edward G Bauman Tonke'lay On July 2, 1985 the District forwarded to you standards to aseist Donald E. Boynton those municipalities wishing t� provide P g P long-term reliable car - Minnetonka Beach Frank de Monchaux trailer parking at or near public accesses on Late Minnetonka. Minnetnsta Richard J Garwood In addition to developing standards for the reliable parking the Deephaven District was also made responsible for monitoring anti reporting Auyrey Gisvold Wayzata progress toward those goals on a continuing basis. ,.ate following Ron Kraemer is a report for the period 1983-1985. P P The Task Force Report was P Spring Park Robert K Pillsbury dated May 31, 1983. Minnatonka Robert E Slocum Woodland Richard J Soderberg Victoria Zone Public Accesses Carl H Weisser Exc nlsior Zone 1 North Arm Sub Total No. of Reliable Additions/ No. -f P-liable C-T Spaces 1983 Deletions C-T Spaces 1985 60 -0- <0 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 Sub Total Zone 4 Spring Park Bay Phclps Bay Sub Total Zone 5 ;?alsted Bay Cooks Ba Sub Tote - TUT.. rOR LAKE -0- -0-W _ -0- -J- -0- 79 -0- 79 -0- -0- -0- 79 -0- 79 -0- - ,- -0- 50 50 — --0- 50 50 18_`. -0- 233 Task For::e summary tables and maps are attazhe. Thank you for your coop,rat iony) LAKE MjllON hA )uNSERVATION DISTRI(."I lrl R( 4,T n , Chairman c/enc. LM Task Fo-,e Alexavider, Gardebring, Dayton Carlson, Markell, Wallace, Wheeler Aria State Legislators State Executive Council County cosssissioners Klossror, Ault. Latvaaho TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING SPACES AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES BY ZONE TASK FORCE GOAL FOR RELIABLE** EXISTING PARKINC SPACES .TIENTIFIED ACRES PARKING IN IN VICINITY* OF ACCESS SITES OF VICINITY* OF ------------------------------------- ZONE WATER ACCESS SITES RELIABLE** UNRELIABLE** TOTAL 1 2,780 139 60 109 169 2 2,380 144 46 363 409 3 3,100 155 0 80 80 4 2,520 126 79 216 295 5 2,720 136 0 219 219 14,000 700 185 987 1,172 * In Vicinity means within 1,500 feet from the access site. ** Reliable car -trailer parking space 's one that, is publicly owned or guaranteed by lorg i 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 iFF-SITE 1+6T 64% 2 ilk 89% 0% 100� 4 6% 94% 5 0% 100% 11% 89% Source: See item 20 of Biblioyrapt,, TABLE 3 % DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TRA�'FR PARKING BY ZONE ON -STREET VS. Or, -STREET ZONE ON -STREET 1 64% 2 897, 3 C% G s2 5 ;0% 07% OFF -S'" ..`7T*t* 36;� 11% 100% 68`i; Og off-street narking ,ncludes both cn-site and other parKiirg 1r�s w4t`-ir 1,500 feet from launch 9s. Source: See item 20 of , oy achy Report of the Lwke Minnetonka Task P'2rc, June 1983 LAKE ZONES MAP 2 N 0 Muws ry 10'.48 I TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato1 DATE: October 13, 1988 SUBJECT: County Road 51 Attachment: A. City of Orono Letter Dated 10/5/88 ISSUE - Presentation of information regarding progress of County Road 51. -NTRODUCTION - At the Council's September 26, 1988 Council meeting the issue regarding County Road 51 was reviewed. Attachment A was transmitted to Vern Genzlinger, the Associate Administrator of Hennepin County. In a phone conversation with Mr. Genzlinger the week of October 10th he indicated that he would be referring this work to Patrick Murphy and that Mr. Murphy would be getting in contact with me. They are initially exploring alternatives that would not require reconstruction together with ones that could be on in conjunction with Metropolitan Waste Control Commission work. A meeting with Hennepin County staff has been set for Tuesday, October 25, 1988. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept information. 2. Request further action. 3. Table for futher discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information T with staff continuing to pursue the matter with the County. PROPOSED MOTION - "loved by _, seconded by , that the Council accept the information from staff regarding County Road 51. Ayes Nays I Singer, 3520 North Snore urine, wayzaca CITYof ORaNO Post Offiw Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal OL'fcaa On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 5, 1988 Mr. Vern Genzlinger Associate County Administrator Hennepin County Center A-2307 Minneapolis, MN 55487 Re: County 51 Parking and Striping Dear Vern, As you are probably aware County 51 has for a long period of time been of concern to neighborhood residents as it relates to the parking and safety on the south side of the road. This issue has been reviewed by the City of Orono in the past, as noted in the attached memorandum. It has again been requested to be ,-ddressed by Mr. David Singer, 3520 North Shore Drive, whose letter is enclosed in that memo. The Orono City Council at its September 28, 1988 meeting requested that staff discuss with Hennepin County the possible solutions to alleviate some of the saf,aty concerns that have been raised. The City, at the County's earliest convenience would like to sit down and review the issue. Possible options to address which include, but are not limited to the f,)llowing: 1.) Widening of the road up to 3 feet. 2.) Uouble striping between the parking and the "fog line". 3.) Removal of up to 6 parKing spaces to improve sight line distance. 4.) Installation of pedestrian marked crosswalks. 5.) Extension of "No Parking" to account for sight lines when there is parking on the south. In addition to the safety issues are is the general issue of public access parking and the to par'cing w_'th Hennepin C,ounty's North arm access. k"/ BUILDING A ZUNIMI - 4%3•'357 • ADMINISTR.%noN 8 FIN ANCE - +'}.-;Sg • PUBLIC �nRKS - 173-7339 ASSESSING Mr. Vern Genzlinger October 5, 1988 Page 2 Your cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated. The timeliness of a review is even more appropriate given the construction currently being done along County 51 by the Metro Waste Cor`.rol Commission. Sincerely, cu � Cu .. Ma k E. Be rdso City Administrator MEB/dh cc: David Singer 102688 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: October 26, 1988 SUBJECT: County Road 51/Safety Attachments: A. David Singer Letter Dated 10/21/88 B. LMCD Letter Dated C. DNR Letter Dated ISSUE - Presentation of information regarding progress on County Road 51. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's September 26, 1988 Council meeting the issue of safety of County Road 51 was discussed. Since that time the Countv has indicated their willingness to work with the City. Staff met with Dennis Hanson of Hennepin County Transporation to review alternatives on October 25, 1988. Subsequent to that September meeting the City has received a letter from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District expressing their opinion on the matter together with DNR indicating that safety of parking is the primary issue (however they still feel that there need to be a select number of spots around the lake and it is up to the Cities and other agencies to insure that they are provided.) DISCUSSION - At our meeting with Mr. Dennis Hanson of Hennepin County on October 25, 1988, the City laid out the following items for exploration: - Crosswalks - Pedestrian safety zone - Car spacing - Restriping of the road - Expanded shoulder - Curbing - Flashing pedestrian lights - Narrow drive lanes - Speed limit change - Lengthening No Passing lane - Access dock The County is exploring these and will bring back recommended alternatives and options that they may see as feasible on that stretch of the road. It was hoped that they wi 1 1 be back to us by this time for further communication at this meeting, but it is not anticipated that we will see those until the week of 11/14. The City, when the alternatives are developed, will send a moist of those alternatives to all the residents along County Road 51 to appear at the discussion of this item. David A. Singer, Ltd. Lew Offices David A. Singer Suite 430 West Parkdale Plaza -� 1880 S. Highway 100 St. Pararkk,. MN 56418�'�__ y ( i 544-0110 October 14, 1988 �� 1 Re: County Road 51 Parking Dear Neighbor: i' OCT z U In Assoe�4W Peterson & Singer 250 North Star East 608 2nd Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN SW2 I am enclosing copies of all pertinent documents that have been generated to date, regarding the parking issue. Some of you received some of these papers earlier. However, I had only randomly selected a few households based on the number of available copies I had made at the time. That was done on short notice, when I realized how quickly the City had placed the matter on the Council Agenda. Let me explain how I came to act on this matter by myself. I first called Mr. Bernhardson in late summer to inquire about whether there was any history of this issue coming before the Council or the City staff. He was kind enough to put together a rather bulky packet of materials that had accumulated from pre- vious governmental activity on the matter. That was the first that I knew of a. petition that was filed by many of you in 1985. After reviewing the materials provided me, I was at a loss to understand why nothing further was done; whether through a failure of City's elected or staff officials, and/or the County's elected or staff officials. Given the governmental political sensitivities towards lakeshore issues, I did not presume the fault was with any particular official, group of officials, or a specific governmental entity. That is why I have addressed my letters expressing concern to everyone who is in a position of potential power. In any event, Mr. Bernhardson expressed a niune interest and willingness to reopen and reconsider the issue.. and was partic- ularly receptive to do so on an accelerated time table, while the road is being torn apart for sewer construction. With this background, let me state that my letters to govern- mental officials are intended to only express my point of view, which may differ in perspective from your own. I do not purport to know the right answers or to serve as a group spokesman. My only intent.. is to raise some thought provoking suggestions for anyone interested and willing to listen and hopefully, in a position to respond and act. I felt the urgency of having the issue promptly raised and con- sidered regardless of whether there is a neigh,_orhood consensus of the bes': or preferable solution, or what that consensus might be. In that regard, I personally think the best solution should come from persons with expertise in traffic safety, vis a vie private citizens, elected officials, or other government employees with areas of expertise that arP elsewhere. Please be assured that I do not however, feel. your input or assistance is unwelcome or would not be helpful. Time con- straints made any sort of organizational effort impractical. My purpose in sending you these materials is primarily to keep you informe6 of what is going on since I am in the best position to do so. Since the City obviously did not endeavor to notify me of the petition that was filed in 1985, I want to make sure that everyone who is affected by any action that is taken at least has the opportunity to know of what is taking place and can make a conscious choice whether to offer suggestions, input or otherwise remain non-involved. If you have any questions or to catch me at work or leave obviously have something to meetings, I would certainly me to consider, if you are personally attending. ery truly yours, avid A. Singer DAS:nr suggestions, for me, it is easiest me a message at work. Since I will say for myself in any future public welcome any thoughts you may have for unable or otherwise not desirous of JOHN E. DERUS PHONE C HAI1tJAA N � t v1=-=c0 348 - 306 6 tir` ,V Asa BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE50TA 55487 - 0240 0 CT 1 1 1988 October 3, 1988 Mr. David A. Singer David A. Singer, Ltd. Suite 220 Marsh ,tun 11900 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Mr.Singer: I would like to thank you for your letter expressing concern for the traffic situation in the area of the North Arm Boat Launch facility. I share your concern for the safety of those who frequent this area. I have directed Hennepin County staff to review the alternatives outlined in your letter; and to meet with representatives of the City of Orono. I have asked Vern Genzlinger, Hennepin County Engineer, to place this item on the Public Service Committee agenda as soon as staff has made a thorough investigation. I have also asked him to inform you of that meeting date so that you can be in attendance if you wish. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ohn E. Derus hai rrlan With this background, let me state that my letters to govern- mental officials are intended to only express my point of view, which may differ in perspective from your own. I do not purport to know the right answers or to serve as a group spokesman. My only intent is to raise some thought provoking suggestions for anyone interested and willing to listen and hopefully, in a position to respond and act. I felt the urgency of having the issue promptly raised and con- sidered regardless of whether there is a neighborhood consensus of the best or preferable solution, or what that consensus might be. In that regard, I personally t:.ink the best solution should come from persons with expertise in traffic safety, vis a vie private citizens, elected officials, or other government employees with areas of expertise that are elsewhere. Please be assured that I do not however, feel your input or assistance is unwelcome or would not be helpful. Time con- straints made any sort of organizational effort impractical. My purpose in sending you these materials is primarily to keep you informed of what is going on since I am in the best position to do so. Since the City obviously did not endeavor to notify me of the petition that was filed it 1985, I want to make sure that everyone who is affected by any action that is taken at least has the opportunity to know of what is taking place and can make a conscious choice whether to offer suggestions, input or otherwise remain non-involved. If you have any questions or to catch me at work or leave obviously have something to meetings, I would certainly me to consider, if you are personally attending. ery truly yours, avid A. Singer DAS:nr suggestions, for me, it is easiest me a message at work. Since I will say for myself in any future public welcome any thoughts you may have for unable or otherwise not desirous of JOHN E. DERUS PHONE yr� �c� 346-3066 C HAIl1tAN Y`W �G� BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240 OCT 1 1 1988 October 3, 1988 Mr. David A. Singer David A. Singer, Ltd. Suite 220 Marsh Run 11900 ►•Iarzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Mr.Singer: I would like to thank you for your letter expressing concern for the traffic situation in the area of the North Arm Boat Launch f ility. I share your concern for the safety of those who frequent this area. I have directed Hennepin County staff to review the alternatives outlined in your letter, and to meet with representatives of the City of Orono. I have asked Vern Genzlinger, Hennepin County Engineer, to place this item on the Public Service Committee agenda as soon as staff has made a thorough investigation. I have also asked him to inform you of that meeting date so that you can be in attendance if you wish. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ohn E. Derus hairiar, 11192 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat\,/ F R �,\ DATE: November 13, 1988 SUBJECT: County Road 51 ISSUE — Updating Council regarding information on County Road 51. INTRODUCTION — Presently the staff has teen in contact with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation but has not met to review the alternatives that they consider acceptable on that road. Once this has been determined staff will make a recommendation as to when this should be placed on the agenda and the affected property owners notified. At the present time it is not anticipated that this will be able to be considered for an initial review by the Council at its December 12, 1988 meeting and then discuss with the neighborhood at the Council meeting in January 1989. ALTER IATIVES — 1. Accept the information. 2. Direct staff t) bring back an initial package to the December 12, 1988 meeting for review before presentation to the neighbors. 3. Direct staff to notify neighbors for consideration either January 9th or January 23rd meeting as deemed appropriate. 4. Taole until the nec: meeting for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION — It is recommended that the Council accept the information ^from staff and dire^t staff that if the County's package is prepared that it be presentea to Council initially at dhe December 12th meeting for eventual presentation and iscussion with the neighborhood during a January 1989 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION — Moved by '4, seconded by tha�t�re\Counc i 1 accept the information regarding County o a d 5 discussion a.-�2, 1983. Ayes _ Nays DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Ave. South HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-846 935-3381 November 28, 1988 Mr. Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: CSAH 51 Parking North Arm Boat Launch Site Dear Mark: �5 l '}�Y e-ljT C� A- 4 r, U; Enclosed is a report entitled "Parking on CSAH 51 In Conjunction With the North Arm Boat Lt-incn Facility". This report outlines the parking options or. CSAH 51 from the County's perspective. Although the three options discussed in the report appear to be workable from the County's viewpoint, it is recommended that Option Number 2 be pursued. This option retains and improves the parking provisions on the south side of CSAH 51. Recommended is a full 10 foot wide curbed parking lane within the current parking limitatio,is along the south side of CSAH 51. We will be most happy to meet with you and your staff to further discuss and resolve this issue. Sin ely, MW Dennis L. Hansen, P.E. County Traffic Engineer OLH•gk Enclosure cc: Patrick B. Murphy Vern T. Genzlinger HENNEPIN COUNTY ar equal opporfurnty employe+ Parking on CSAH 51 In Conjunction With the North Arm Boat Launch Facility Currently, the Lake Minnetonka North Arm boat launch facility contains 64 double parking stalls designated for vehicleltrailer combinations, and 17 single parking stalls designated for cars/vans/pickups. Vehicle/trailer combination plus general parking is also permitted on the south side of CSAH 51 from CSAH 135 westerly approximately 1400 feet. This area serves as launch site spill -over parking. Assuming 50 feet for a vehicle/trailer combination parking space, this provides approximately 28 stalls on CSAH 51. Residents living on CSAH 51 have raised issues of safety as it pertains to the designated parking zone. The homes are located o:, the north side of CSAH 51 but the property extends across CSAH 51 for lake access rights. The residents point out two safety issues. The first is the inability of residents to cross CSAH 51 safely during times when vehicles are parked along the roadway. This is dlie to obstructed lines of vision between pedestris , attempting to cross the roadway and the approaching motorist3. The second issue involves safe use of the roadway for joggers, walkers and bicyclists. During the three year period of 1965-87, records indicate that only one accident occurred on CSAH 51 between the intersection of CSAH 19 and CSAH 135. This mishap oc,:urrsd at the boat launch facility driveway and was totally unrelatec to parked vehicles. The following options have been developed for consideration. 0 lion Number 1. Eliminate all parking along CSAH 51. This option would provide maximum safety and convenience for the residents and joggers/walkers/bicyclists. However, it would probably mandate the reestablishment of an equivalent number of parking stalls for boat launching purposes elsewhere Option NuR:er 2. Retain and improve the parking provisions on the south side of CSAH 51. thin the cu.,rent parking limits on CSAH 51, this option would include widening of the shoulder to provide a uniform paved parking stall width of 10 feet. A bituminous curb would be placed on the outer edge of the shoulder to encourage full width use for parking (in the absence of a cu.b drivers sometimes hesitate to Nark close to the shoulder edge). The existing shoulder varies in width from six to nine feet, depending on location; therefore, the proposed shoulder would be one to four feet wider than the existing shoulder. It does not appear that this relatively minor shoulder widening would present a hardship to the properties involved The shoulder widening could be accomplished in conjunction with the roadway restoration necessitated by the MWCC project currently underway on CSAH 51. Option Number 3. Same as Option Number 2, except provide pedestrian safety gaps ark�n ane and augment t e ost arkin b cons ruc Ong a shor parking ane on the ncr h side of CSAH 51. series of no parking spaces 50 feet in length would be provided for pedestrian crossings at select locations along the south side of CSAH 51, ten foot wide. approximatelv 200 foot long, curbed parking lane would be constructed on the north side of CSAH 51. The location would be east of Baldur Park Road This frontage is void of driveways and grail boxes so a parking lane would not interfere with those facilities. During development of the options other features were explored. Under Options 2 and 3, moving the marked centerline of CSAH 51 northerly about two feet was considered. This would have the effect of reducing the necessary widening on the south side of the roadway for the establishment of a full width (10') parking lane. This feature did not appear practical, however, because of the narrowness of the existing north shoulder, and the adequate space on the south side of CSAH to provide the desired parking lane width. le pedestrians and bicycle movements are quite frequent along CSAH 51, ou3ignatinn by signing of a bike/ped lane in combination with the parking lane would not meet county criteria. If the City is interested in establishment of a designated hike/ped lane such facility should be detached from the roadway. Joggers, pedestrians and bicyclists will certainly use CSAH 51; however, unless certain criteria are met, such as a detached facility, the roadway under the parking conditions cannot be designated as a ped/bike lane. Designating the segment of CSAH 51 between CSAH 19 and CSAH 135 as no passing was considered. However, our studies failed to uncover a need for such a restriction. Accident records, as indicated earlier, showed only one accident during the past three years and that mishap was unrelated to passing. Observations of this roadway segment did not unveil any visible hazards involved in making the passing maneuver. Lowering of the existing 35 MPH speed limit has also been suggested as a safety measure. Since the roadway is currently closed for sewer construction the feasibility and effectiveness of a speed reduction is difficult to ascertain. We suggest that this question, if it is to be pursued, would be better addressed after the rnadway is again open to traffic. Although all three options would appear to be workable from the County's standpoint, for the following reasons it is recommended that Option Number 2 be pursued. 1) Option Nu,—..Oer 2 provides a "status quo" as to the location of the parking lane, y(:t provides for safety in the establishment of a parking lane of adequate! width. 2) Option Nu.1ber 1, while probably providing the safest situation, leaves some unanswered questions. The major question revolves around the availability of property within reasonable distance that could be developed into a parking facility. Also, if such site is located, its purchase and development places a financial burden on the responsible agenc}. 3) Option Number 3, while expanding upon the safety features of Option Number 2 by establishing pedestrian crossing spaces in the parking lane, adds the feature of a short Narking lane on the north side of CSAH 51. This short parking lane incurs additional cost and may not be fully acceptable to the commurfity. The County is committed to the development and implementation of a parking plan that will, hopefully, meet with the acceptance of all those involved. we will work closely with the City and residents toward this end. 11/28, 88 2CSAM51 CIT' �7 , a;,t � Post Offiee Bes 66 Crymal bay On the forth Shore of Lake Minneson.._ January 29, 1996 Mr. Patrick Scully, Chairman Metro_oolitan Council Task Force on Lake 2!innetcnka Metro Council 7th and Robert Streets St. Pau'_ MN 51C1 Dear K--. ScUlly, ;,ttachen please find a ccpv o. the Resolution cutlininc orono's cont:neent co==itrient for up to 779 pz_:K_ig spots which gives the balance of pre -:aced pa:kine needed :n Zone 1, as ori54_zally outlined in the 19EB 'Lake Yinnetcnka Task =o:ce relDcrt. As indicated _t is an--.._zated that the slcts wcul-. come th.ouch the de-:e1 n_mer.t c- parcels _:at are bcth c---site and - off -street L.__«_.. 1500 rant c- t':_ access t:at are c-.:rent-- owned by the C-4tv c`- Orono. - -`lase note tce colt-n= e n - w= --= _= -S Lo==-=men t _s even. Shoul.. vo. nave any :__tie: _questions c_ en_s, _ lease -eel free to c:- me. _ncerelt• City M-,xa, lake *''nnetonka Ccnservaticn oistr:ct Jack *lair-= Metro Counc-- Jc___e:, =-r-, Cronc CoL-_-- N IU=1%rGt zONING-1137ir t "N.i,_-I T -OR ASSM%G `I City- of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 192.5 A RESOLUTION REGARDING PARKING SLOTS FOR ZONE 1 AS DETERMINED BY ME'-'ROPOLITAN COUNCIL' S TASK. FOR; E WBEREAS, the City of Orono contains 40% of the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka, and WEEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is an extremely valuable natural and recreational resource, and WEEREAS, the Citv of Orono has cone to great lengths to not only ?reserve b;:t also im?rove Lake Minnetonka for the public health, safety aril Welfare for all lake users and :akesbo:e owners, and WEEREIS, a Task Force on Lake Minnetonka reco=ended among other items that 700 parkin: spats near free public accesses, of the existing 1,2. be c;..—...i:ec to be :e::atIe soots for such use, and WMEP.EIS, the Lake Minnetonka Cons ervatic:i ::strict has developed criteria an,-2 is seekin= vo_=..:a-v co.r...i: gemt of these spots, are - WEERr2S, =he *.et:^pc:-t Cc;:ac:1's Task - rce c:^ t 4ssje is ei: ou a: � -tme=t t;.. Se 700 si cts, aid W 94o'&S, the Minnesota Deta:tment cf Natural, ResQ=r=es has purchased _:o^er-y on the :,ake for additonal tree �cblic access, -ad WEXREAS, the safety of boaters or. the lake is likely *=paired by additional r._=bers of boats cn the lake due to =ncre:sod a-cess, a.-:d WE ,REAS, :cne :, the or,:y :one in wwich there is an ezist:n; free p::=:-- access 'n Creno -teedin;-c=_4tme-t cf = to 79 additional spots to reach :39 re:ia:,:e spots ::: the zone, an! WEEREAS, narking c!!site c! the r•:=--- access cn the street can cause certain put-:ic safety cz=zezzs, a_-ld WIEREAS, tht d*=and `_ar over!_ow ra:Y.i-a !cr ne 5endrickson access :s _-m_ted to S :0 8 limes ?e: season. 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1°=5 NOW, THEREFORE BE =T RESOLVED, that the C-ty Counc- l of the City o: Orono will work towards the development of up to 79 additional parking spots in Zone I on land owned by either the. City oz the County provided that: a.) No accesses in addition to those that existed on January 1, 19B+ be placed on the lake and t:Aat sign a written agreement with L.M.C.D. that they will not place any accesses on the lake. b.) ?unding :or total develevnent c_ the sites c0we from sources outs -de the City and that devel0=ment be only to the extent of ava-lab:e outside !Funding ana c.) To the extent :eas-ble t::at development be phased to meet demand and d.) That anv develc te:.•:: of off-street narklag be done _a a Wanner that pro. a _eve: of screening and =patab___ty wit_ re- ia,.t:a'_ ne:::0c=boo!s, anr: FzR_�.R SE RESOLVED, --*.-,at the C:=V Ca_::c_l 0` the C-tv of O:ono st:znc:v :aces the Lake D.:rnet-nkz Ccnse:vat-on Dist: _.. _-=ast a see o:: all boat-^c users c= tae 'rake to pay `^= the costs c: law l-=c:certe-:, __ez _= , access cpe=at_-_ ar_ laic! adw:nistratio , an! ?==R BE ?J:SOLVED, that as = asking -s develcptd c=:-street that a::=c==:.ate steps be taken to __r:_t on -street c. ty c` tat access to 1 t the _:b_-c safety _ sr k-ag -n the r _ .:._= ..cess :.;._ _ ws:ar'_s and n=isances associated Witt the access. :.dc_^tea by the C-ty Co=:.c-= Of the C:tr c= Ozonc' X-l=nescta at a :e=u ar meet-n= ht:d Zar::azvIN lo_: -� \ram w\ A:t�T: v David A. Siapr Salts 480 Weat Parkdale Plaaa 1660 S. Highway 100 St. Loala Park. MN 5"16 ($Is) "4.0110 David A. Since Law Offices November 29, 1988 Eugene Strommen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 John Derus Chairman Board of Hennepin County Commissioners A-2400 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0240 Mark Bernhardson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Gentlemen: With UIW Bast So. r saws I am enclosing copies of an interchange of correspondence between myself and a representative of the Department of Natural Resources. The enclosed letter is intended to clarify things I stated in my earlier letters that may have been misconstrued. Very truly yours, ,4'' David A. Singerr DAS/dt Enclosure �n(�ST�AATE OF U V H LS S `J 7rZ% DEPARTMENT OF PHONENO. 296-3572 Metro Region - 1200 Warner Road, St. October 17, 1988 NATURAL RESOURCES Administration Paul, Minnesota 55106 FILE NO. David A. Singer, Ltd. Suite 220 Marsh Run 11900 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, HN 55343 Dear, Mr. Singer: Thank you for your letter of September 27, 1988, with its well -reasoned discussion of parking issues along County Road 51 near the North Arm access. It is apparent from your letter that you are quite well informed not only on the parking issue but on the related issue of public access to Lake Minnetonka. I'm certain that you are also aware that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) does not manage the North Arm access nor are we involved in determining the safety of parking along County Road 51. Both of these matters are managed under the authority of Hennepin County. It was a pleasure to note in your letter that you supported car -trailer parking for public access to Lake Minnetonka. You mentioned that to meet the goal of 700 car -trailer parking spaces for lake access alterna- tives other than on -street parking should be sought. As a point of clarification, you may wish to know that the Department has always supported on -site, off-street parking for public accesses. Lake Minnetonka is the only lake where we recognize on -street parking for public access. This position was adopted by the 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task Force. The Task Force, however, did note that on -site, off-street parking was preferable to on -street parking. The DNR will continue to pursue the acquisition and development of water accesses with on -site parking. While I doubt that the DNR will be involved in the discussion of safety issues related to parking along County Road 51, if we can be of assis- tance on other matters, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Administrator AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER David A. Sinker, Ltd. Law Offices David A. Stager Suits 480 west October 31, 1988 Parkdalc Plasa 1660 S. highway 100 St. Iouls Park, MN 55416 (612) E4"110 Ms. Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Administrator State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 Dear Ms. Wallace: Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1988. In AseoUatlon with Peterson • Singer 2SO North Star East 608 Jnd Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55402 As you can undoubtedly tell from my previous letter, it is my personal view that a major deficiency of the 1983 Task Force study and resulting report was its failure to adequately address the traffic safety a:;pects of permitting on -street parking along County Road 51. The major thrust of my effort is to get the City of Orono and Hennepin County to more closely analyze that issue with people with expertise in the area of traffic safety. You stated in your letter that Lake Minnetonka is the only lake where the Department of Natural Resources recognizes on -street parking for public access. However, since you also state that you do not have direct jurisdiction or involvement over the North Arm access or a determination of the safety for parking along County Road 51; I think it would be helpful if you would provide some written confirmation that the Department of Natural Resources takes no position whether parking along County Road 51 should be eliminated, or otherwise restrict--d or reduced. I can then confine my efforts to the agencies who are directly involved with a sc,lution to this problem, namely the City of Orono and Hennepin County. From the materials that I have reviewed, and the information I have obtained about the history of this issue, it was my impression, perhaps mistaken, that the local governmental agencies involved in this issue felt some pressure from your agency and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to overlook or compromise the safety aspect of permitting parking along County Road 51. My purpose in including you in the correspondence was to inform you of my efforts and hopefully obtain a confirmation that I need not pursue the issue directly with the highest appointment or elected officials from the State of Minnesota. Ms. Kathleen A. Wallace Page Two October 31, 1988 I have followed with interest the efforts of various governmental agencies to reach some resolution of the size and scope of park facilities at a new sight in Minnetrista. It would be helpful to know whether the Departm:,,r feels that the development of a boat launch at that sight or any other new sights that are contemplated, will alleviate the need for parking spaces for boat trailers in excess of the number of off-street spaces that can be accommodated at the North Arm launch so that the parking situation on County Road 51 could be used as a temporary rather than a permanent accommodation to boaters. if that question is also beyond your jurisdiction, I'd appreciate knowing that. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Da d A. Singer DAS/jmb tHHSTATE OF EESOVZZ� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. 296-3572 Metro Region Administration FILE NO 1200 Warner Road, St.Paul, Minnesota 55106 November 15, 1988 David A. Singer, Ltd. Suite 220 Marsh Run 11900 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Singer: I would like to respond to several points that you raised in your letter of October 31, 1988. First, in regard to your question about the Department's position on car -trailer parking on County Road 51. The Department does support on -road car -trailer parking for Lake Minnetonka at this time because there is such a serious shortage of off -road on -site parking spaces. We do, however, believe that the question of safety should be addressed by the appropriate professionals under whose jurisdiction the roadway falls. Second, your implication that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pressured the local governmental agencies "to overlook or compromise the safety aspect of permitting parking along County Road 51." This statement is wrong --and offensive. While the Department does believe that there is inadequate access for the public to Lake Minnetonka, we have never, nor will we ever, pressure anyone to compromise safety standards. Whether or not to have on -road parking is a decision which is left entirely up to the local unit of government. Third, your question regarding whether or nct an access in the proposed Lake Minnetonka Regional Park will alleviate the ►)eed for on -street parking. There is currently a minimal need for 700 car -trailer parking spaces for Lake Minnetonka. Today there are less than 200. With an additional access in Minnetrista we still will not have even half the minimal need. It would be unwise to anticipate any decrease in the need for on -street parking until 700 on -site off -road spaces have been designated. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Administrator 139/kaw AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER David A. Singer, Ltda Law Offices David A. Singer Suite 480 west Parkdale Plaza 1660 S. Highway 100 November 29, 1988 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (ti 12) 844-0110 Ms. Kathleen A. Wallace Regional Administrator Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 5510r; Dear Ms. Wallace: In Association With Peterson tk Singer 280 North Star East 608 Jnd Avc. So. Minneapolis, MN ISW9 The pressure I referred to in my letter referred to the subtleties of your agency's reliance upon the task force report to encourage local communities to find 700 parking sites (that do not exist) in order to avoid the ultimate means of identifying parking sites, namely, through condemnation of private property. Your first letter to me is an example of such subtle pressure. I cannot say of my own first-hand knowledge there has been any direct pressure of a more objectionable nature from your agency, or anyone else. The task force report was the result of the diligent efforts of a good number of public minded citizens with well meaning intentions. However, it is clear that the public discussion should focus on the broader question of whether the goal of 700 parking sites is realistic or practical, in view of the present overbalance of privately owned land around the lake. It is obvious to anyone who examines a map of the Lake Minnetonka area that the only practical way to achieve the goals set forth in the task force report is if State, County, or local government entities choose to embark upon a program of converting Private property to public ownership, through voluntary sales or the power of condemnation. As we all know from the Minnetrista situation, that creates a distinct set of problems beyond those MV neighborhood are experiencing. Those problems include whether state, county or local kovernment have the funds available to embark upon such a program, and/or are willing to forego the tax benefits resulting from the private ownership of 4 Ms. Kathleen Wallace November 29, 1JS8- Page 2 highly valued lake shore property; let alone objections from directly affected citizens. Thus, there are obviously practical limits to achieving the worthwhile goal of expanded public access to Lake Minnetonka. In view of that, I find it offensive that public officials instead continue to expect some citizen; who have privately owned property on Lake Minnetonka to bear the burden, through imposition of unnecessary and avoidable risks on their personal. safety, the safety of their families, and their guests, who have just as much right to a safe access and enjoyment of the lake as any other citizen. In that vein, your continued reference to the goal of 700 parking spaces, with regard to the County Road 51 problem, is not well received or appreciated. We all know that the zoning laws of the City of Orono would prohibit any private enterprise from using the north arm boat launch for a commercial venture, if it was necessary to rely upon off street parking on County Road 51. That prohibition would be, in part, founded on interests of public safety. This would be true, regardless of how beneficial to the community the commercial venture may be. I query why suct a prohibition is any less appropriate because the site is used for a public purpose, however worthwhile that purpose may also be. I have represented to the Orono city manager that I recognize the political realities that parking will not likely be eliminated on County Road 51. I sense at least. some of my neighbors have also resigned themselves to that eventuality. That does not make it right. I can only hope that the traffic safety officials from the County and the City are free from the political pressures of compromising what they truly believe to be the best solution to this problem, from a pure public safety standpoint. I can then only hope that City and County officials are in a position to implement whatever may be necessary to effect a solution, even if that, results in a regression from the goal of identi*ying 700 parking sites around the lake. M-. Kathleen Wallace November 29, 1988 Page 3 I hope this letter clarifies that I did not mean to suggest you, or anyone from your agency, had done anything in a morally or legally improper manner with regard to "pressuring" other governmental officials. Very truly yours, David A Singer DAS/dt cc: Mark Bernhardson County Road 51 Residents John Deres Eugene Strommen L_ 1 . To: From: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhar.dson, Public Works Director November«', 1988 Subject: Curb Cut Request - 490 Old Long Lake Road Mr. Larry Wiken is currently in the process of constructing a home at 490 Old Long Lake Road. The above address is in the Herrick Circle subdivision and is Lot 3, Block 1, Summit Station. Mr. Wiken is requesting a driveway curb cut on to Long Lake Road. The current ordinance allows one curb cut per lot. I have advised Mr. Wiken that the information in out files indicates that all lots on Herrick Circle will access to/fr -m Herrick Circle. Mr. Wiken states that traffic flow as he has proposed will improve regarding safety concerns. It is my opinion that there is room on the property to construct a turn -around, therefore allowing forward motion entering/existing Herrick Circle/Old Long Lake Road. RECOMMENDATION - To deny access to/from Oid Long Lake Road from residence at 490 Old Long Lake Road and to direct Mr. Wi-ken to construct access to Herrick Circle. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , to deny access to/from Old Long Lake Road from residence at 490 Old Long Lake Road and to direct Mr. Wiken to construct access to Herrick Circle. Ayes , nays _ _ TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS FRCM: MARK E. BERNHARDSON, CITY ADMINISTRATO 4 Forwarded recommending denial. This was platted as a PRD and so that setbacks were taken into account in the commons area between lots, there is an additional issue if Council desires to approve which is the owners right to cross the commons area with a driveway. cc: Mr. L.F. Wiken October 13, 1988 Mr. John Gerhardson Public Works Director City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: The purpose or this letter is to request your approval for direct access from our lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Summit Station) to Long Lake Road. The attached Surveyor's Certificate drawings show how we propose to cut the access. We believe that access from the property onto Old Long Lake road would not cause any additional traffic or safety risk. To the contrary, the out as we propose would facilitate the entry to the street in a forward motion. Please contact me at my home, 476-0326, or office, 476-2002 Best PAards, F. 'ken Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building i Zoning Administrator. entered into the record the following memo concerning S%inmit Station PRD (Herrick Circle) dated August 16, 1977, which states: Completion of the replatting of Herrick Circle, to be known as Summit Station, will require the following: 1. Council action to extend the May 1, 1977, dead- line of Resolution 1726, to allow the following steps. Final plats are now on file with the City and the sewer is in operation. The City Engineer will supply a letter of final acceptance. 2. Planning Commission review of the proposed homeowner's agreement and open space easements over Outlots 1 s 2. Outlot 2 also should have an underlying access easement to the City as the proposed drive will be the only access to the six lots. 3. Planning Commission public hearing (scheduled for September 19, 1977) to be held concurrently on the land use plan amendment, rezoning and street vacation. 4. Council action, in order: a) Resolution amending the land use plan within the framework of the comprehensive guide plan. W Ordinancc rezoning from RR-lB to R-lA c) Resolution vacating Herrick Circle Street d) Resolution approving the Summit Station plat REGULAR f4E1rTING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 UIVMIT STATION PRD (Herrick Circle) 1152 Page 4 S. Staff collection of park fee and reimbursements, before signatures on the plat drawings. 6. Applicant recording of the plat. Council fleeting - August 22, 1977 Extended deadline date 90 days, to November 22, 1977. Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 1977 Reviewed proposal. Recommended approval of land use plan amendment, rezoning ordinance, plat vacation and final plat drawing. Recommended approval of same. Staff - September 20, 1977 Discussion with Bruce flalkerson, City Attorney. Plat approval should await receipt of easement documents and title opinion. Council should review the petition for plat vacation. (Continued) S os ti �`fi5� '` •`�_� r1 ► ^rdo ~` a m tt r1� hti r"i�.l o so a \ 44 � � I �'`��, f �'� �f R \ �+/g� oL 04300 E yr 22 2.61 310 _36p�.._ 765 ST AT ION '• MIT SUM �* � • 2 y r�-CO 70 0_9 �1 all °�' /3 ► 41-400 c� .1 CITY GR ORONO S�r�ye�or�s G'ert�f�cate SURVEY FOR: John Laurent DESCRIBED AS: Lut 3, Block 1, SIMIT STATION, city of 1lrona, Ilennehin onutty, t;itutesota :ntd reserving easements of record. 29. N r O�E �6 sue•. w.y S�eP� 93_5 I • y 4j. O f o \ x . t• O190 ,t, 40 ►ROP01.E0 EIEVATIuNS Tlq 44 F~dotl•n . 93 4 awe" lbor • 91 • metorrynt flow Awes S•.w Sw.tc• iM•.. 1swlat [I•.otleno Drfuse" 0bectlenc +.. • Oenwec Offset 91660 85.0 _ N CAI[: t leek • 30 feet 97_3 tw6o0 GD /v l i eEi+crwnARlc � �sw... ,► Et.,,. .A lu.> o r' MIN !ETlACx REOIREMENi9 frMr — N•we SIN most — Gore" Of" [ br••, sort"? wt to" mm% eb• a tww..N owww.• A .• Joe e0 : /�IEDLUND . .., .M: "..wt_ � Nor , _ ..� l--------Lead•...,..r.. me of no M•N N W•.«•. eaow: 00ft— p EiVno rwqso UND Sw► ryYp �..,r. om a.. ,t. a en ,•-. ��Et..... i�wirr 113088. 3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator y DATE: November 30, 1983 SUBJECT: 1910 Shadywood Road Attachment: A. Letter From David Bie, 1910 Shadywood Undated Received 11/10/88 B. Vicinity Map - Coffee Bridge ISSUES 1. Determination as to what action, if any, Council desires regarding current "No Parking" signs on access to the homes at 19: `hrough 1940 Shadywood Road. 2. Determination of process and advisibility of having current acces taken over as a private road for those residents. INTRODUCTION - The current access that serves this and the properties across the street on the east side of the Coffee Bridge were at one time County 19. when the new bridge was put in these were left as accesses to the properties but were retained County right of way with the neighbors apparently left to maintain the gravel road as their access. Because of the attractiveness of fishing at thr: end of these roads "No Parking" signs were posted on both of them by the County to discourage parking by people who would want to fish. Subsequent to this, more parking was made available and the southwest area of the Coffee Bridge is now where numerous people who f ish in area do now park. Recently Mr. Bie had several people to his house and a number of them were given tickets for parking on the street. In the past when people had a large number of persons coming to their house they generally would call the Police Department and apprise them of the situation and there was not a problem. After Mr. Bie had disc,issed this with Chief Kilbo took remedial action on the tickets of which he had been apprised. Mr. Bie however, feels that this is -)ngoing situation that he would like to resolve. To date non- :he other neighbors has been contacted by the City on this maL._I. DISCUSSION/POLICY ALTERNATIVES - 1. Signage - The following represent various directions that could be undertaken for signage: - Leave as is - Eliminate the "No Parking" in front of his place (but would have to indicate where No Parking starts and stops for the other pr,:perties) - Change to a prohibition as far as what hours No Parking was allowed such as 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. or put a time limit such as 2 hours on the signs. - Make the road a private road and place No Trespassing signs on the road. Currently the County would be the one in charge of any posting and the City would have to direct a request for signage change to them. Issue 2. - Private Road. Currently the road functions as a private road with no homeowners association to maintain it. If the owners were to actually take this over as a private road then they could dictate the signage. The issue of enforceability of other than trespassing on private road however, is somewhat restrictive. An additional consideration is whether cr not the County would allow a private road on an easement over their existing public right of way or as an alternate if they would be willing to give up that portion of the right of way with perhaps some easement language back to preserve their future rights and concerns regarding the bridge and its maintenance. Other areas in the City that have such accesses are a follows: North Shore Dirve - South side - east and west of the boat launch (Hendrickson Bridge) Shadywood Road - South of the bridge ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Issue 1. Si na e -T. Request sign revision 2. Table pending resolution of the private road 3. Choose to take no action 2. Issue 2. Private Road - 1. Discuss further with the County as to what options they deem advisable 2. Give the County and property owner issues to be addressed by any privatization with discussions between the two parties. 3. Table for further discussion 4. Take no action RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table d-is ussioT n at this point pending further discussion with the County and the neighbors. Once the County's and neighbor's position on a private road access is determined (or) that be fully discussed. If the private road issue can not be resolved then we would look to do a signage alteration that would meet the concerns of the neighbors without inappropriate enforcement. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council table until the reactions from the County and the neighbors has been received. Ayes , Nays cc: David Bie, 1910 Shadywood Road Loren Gasterland, 5715 Garfield Ave S, Mpls (1920 Shadywood) Resident, 1920 Shadywood Road Richard H. Reiss, 1930 Shadywood Road Fay F. Dawson, 1940 Shadywood Road 0./ Dear yr. Bernhardson, We live at 1910 Shadywood Road. Our driveway is very short and when we have alot of company, our company has *.o park on the service road adjacent to our garage. This service road is posted with no parking signs designed to prohibit the fisher- men from parking there, in the summer time. The only problem is that our guests are getting tagged for parking on the service road. We have lived here 23 years and we have never had any problems until lately. November 1, 1988 my wife had a baby shower for a friend and 4 cars received tickets. I find this interest in the service road rather unusual since neither Orono or Hennepin County bothers to plow the snow or do any other maintenance on the road. I feel it is quite obvious that a tax paying resident is having company, especially when the cars are parked in their drive- way as well as the service road. The police point to the signs as their justification for the tickets and have suggested that the signs be changed to resident parking only signs or that the no parking signs be removed altogether. We understand the concerns of the police regarding fisherman parking but can't understand why they are harassing the residents guests. I would like to get information from the city about, 1. How to remove the no parking signs. 2. How to get the service road deeded back to the property owners. At our address the county has over 100' of right asway when all they need is 66'. Since they don't maintain all of what they have, they should give back what they do't need. incer )�, Ae- B ie 1910 Shadywood Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 r r M'NNEToNK -- KE O , N. //2 SEC. hr , T.117, R. 23 J,.. QECEIVED : ace amw 24 ' 1 I / ooa — sFevfc-E Roap 4jeEA W•WN- JO SPRING PARK— I7 11 AUD. =i r1 t•� ! 61400 , 113088.4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator��A DATE: November 30, 1988 SUBJECT: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Operations Policy Attachment: A. MCWD Letter Dated 11/17/88 B. City of Orono Memo RE: MCWD Operations Policy Dated 8/2/88 ISSUES - Determination of input Council desires regarding the Operations Policy of the headwaters control structure at Grays Bay. INTRODUCTION - Every three years the MCWD is required to have their policy reviewed and commented upon. As noted on Attachment A they would like comments on this by December 21, 1988 for consideration prior to eventual adoption of a policy by March 1989. As you may recall Attachment B summar : zes work done on the City's behalf by Mr. Arthur Finkelstein. DISCUSSION/POLICY ALTERNATIVES - As you will note on Attachment B Mr. Finkelstein discussed his concerns regarding the policy which fall into two catagories. 1. Policy Operations - Mr. Finkelstein, having reviewed the po M y, felt the operation policy for the most part was a good one, however he requested consideration of a higher winter storage level because of the concerns of the low water. Obviously the downside is that should there be a heavy w:.nter snowfall and large run-off in the spring or heavy spring rains that this would cause early spring problems for all the lakeshore owners until such point as enough could be let out. This is also a concern of the downstream property owners. Related to this, Mr. Finkelstein would also like to see a stro.:ger public information element as far as the policy and impacts of the lake level. 2. Policy Monitoring - An original concern of Mr. Finkelstein was the adhearance to the policy. His comfort level regarding this was raised by his disucccsion with MCWD. It may be appropriate however, that another body such as the LMCD serve as a monitoring agent outside of MCWD for lake level regulation. This would be a natural "Watch Dog" function for LMCD. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Discuss direction on these and perhaps other concerns the Council may have regarding this policy. 2. Agree to send a letter as to the City's concerns regarding the policy. 3. Table for further discussion requesting an extension of t`-Q comment period from MCWD. RECOMMENDATION - With the two recommendations outlined above it is aec-)mmended that the City send a letter to that effect to MCWD. This decision is based in part on the amount of work Orono had done in the past on the development of the current policy and that most of. the City's concerns relate to drought rather than policy operation. This is in line with LMCD policy on the issue. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , the Orono Council directs staff to outline in a letter to MCWD its comments on the Headwaters Control Structure Operations Policy: a.) If greater winter storage is feasible; b.) Public education element to better apprise the public of the policy and lake level fluctuation further that they request LMCD to serve as an ongoing monitor agent of the policy operations. Ayes ,, Nays cc: MCWD Art Finkelstein, 1740 Shadywood Road, Wayzata JoEllen Hurr, Orono Representative to LMCD A%kANA C9 i FED MINNEHAHA CREEK LAKE MINNET"NRA WATERSHED DISTRICT ��U LP.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 M oTA RIVER BOARD OF MANAGER& Camille D Andre. Res. • Albert L Lehman • John E. Thomas % James R. Spensley • Richard R Miller • Robert 0. Enckso^ • C Woodrow Lm,e MEMO^ANDUM TO: All Municipalities Within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District FROM: Board of Managers RE: Request for Renewal of Existing Management Policy and Operating Procedures for Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure DATE: November 17, 1988 Under Section IV.2 of the "Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and Operating Procedures" for the period March 1, 1986 to March 1, 1989, the Board of Managers is hereby notifying each municipality within the watershed that the Board intends to request the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to renew the existing management policy for the Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure without modification for the three-year period commencing March 1, 1989. The Board desires to receive comments from any municipality which wishes to comment or suggest modifications in the present: management policy. Comments should be received prior to December 23, 1988. The request to the Department of Natural Resources for renewal will be made on December 30, 1988. If you wish further information, please contact the District engineer, E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 - Telephone 473-4224, or the District's attorney, Popham, Hain, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd., 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 - Telephone 333-4800. A copy of the present management policy is attarled to this memorandum. � �EHAHq I i N t E l' i. E rr It I: �: i (. r LAKE MIN NETdNR► P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H Cochran Pres • Alberi L Lehman •John E. Thomas Michael R Carroll -Camille D Andre •James B McWethy +James R Spensley -.-._. --=-s��--••- — ----�.m--nrsz^:_c_-__.. _�z_— �w'z=-r.•--_'--='1=�--- ._..._.c_-- —err—:---.—'-ss-.. HEADWATERS CONTROL STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES MARCH 1. 1986 - MARCH 1, 1989 INTRODUCTION The Headwaters Control Structure at Gray's Bay is the outlet of Lake Minnetonka tc Minnehaha Creek. It is an adjustable structure that controls Lake Minnetonka levels and discharge to Minnehaha Creek. The structure was constructed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 1979. Lake levels and discharge have been controlled at this location since 1897 when a fixed crest structure was constructed to maintain as nearly as practicable the lake level at a height of 928.635 NGVD, 1929 datum. This structure was a wooden weir which was subsequently repaired in 1932 and again in 1944. Survey data of record in the 1960's and 1970's show the actual crest elevation of the repaired weir varied in height along its length. Tnis uneven crest elevation was apparently due to ice pressures and/or frost heaving. The survey data also show the lowest point on the weir crest was at an approximate elevation of 928.6 NGVD, 1929 datum. In 1979, when the Headwaters Control Structure became operational, the fixed wooden weir was also reconstructed. The new weir is constructed of galvanized steel sheet piling material, dt the same loc:,'on, with an even crest at elevation 930.0 NGVD, 1929 datum. As a result of a 1975 joint petition from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conducted an Ordinary High Water investigation of Lake Minnetonka. After conducting necessary field work and analyzing physical and historical data and records, the DNR issued its report in January, 1976. After holding public meetings the Commissioner of Natural Resources concluded the Ordinary High Water level on Lake Minnetonka is at elevation 929.4 NGVD, 1929 datum. 1 of 11 SECTION I. MANAGEMENT POLICY It is the policy of the District to operate the Headwater Control Structure to reduce flooding both on Minnehaha Creek and Lake Minnetonka. This is accomplished by controlling the discharge from Lake Minnetonka to Minnehaha Creek after ice -out (approximately April 15) until approximately mid -June. As a result, water is temporarily stored on the lace. After approximately mid -June water stored on Lake Minnetonka is released, to the greatest extent possible, at a controlled uniform rate during the summer and fall. Such controlled discharges continue until adequate storage capacity is provided on the lake for a normal spring snowmelt. After the open water season discharges to the creek are prevented, whenever possible, to reduce ice constricticns in the creek channel. SECTION II. MANAGEMENT GOALS Numerous considerations must be taken into account when discharging water through the Headwaters Control Structure. The Board of Manager- realize that sound judgement based upon operational experience is an essential p,rt of the operating plan to insure intelligent use of the water available to Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek. It is therefore the intent, of the Board of Managers to use discretion when operating the structure. The Management Goals are: 1 To reduce downstream flooding by controlling the discharge to Minnehaha Creek to a rate not exceeding the maximum carrying capacity of the creek whenever the Lake Minnetonka water level is within the physical limits of control. 2. To reduce flooding on the lake by stabilizing lake levels between the elevation of the low point on the previous fixed weir and the Ordinary High Water level (OHW). 3. To reduce flooding, on the lake and downstream, by temporarily increasing discharge rates to accommodate predictable and large volumes of runoff into Lake Minnetonka prior to the time such runoff occurs. 4. To provide dis,:-arges, during and/or following dry periods, comparable to discharges that occurred historically under similar lake level conditions such that the ,etri.nental effects of creek flow stagnation are not aggravated as a result of operating procedures. 5. To enhance recreation, wildlife and aquatic life survival, and aesthetics, when feasible and consistent with the Management Policy, by augmentation of creek flow beyond the time discharges from Lake Minnetonka have historically ceased. 2of11 6. o improve or maintain conditions on the lake and the creek, over those which existed prior to corstruction of the Headwaters Control Structure. SECTION III. OPERATING PROCEDURES The Headwaters Control Structure is operated in accordance with this section to accomplish the 'Management Goals in SECTION II. The operating procedure requires discharges to occur within the limitations of established discharge zones described as a function of the Lake Minnetonka level. The ranges of discharge defined by these zones are necessary realizing the numerous considerations which must be taken into account during operation of the structure. The discharge zones are based upon sound hydrologic principles and are designed to achieve, to the greatest extent pr,sible, the Management Goals identified =n SECTION II. The attached exhibit shows the discharge zones and their corresponding allowable discharge rates. The lowest heavy line across the base of the graph at elevation 928.6 represents the minimum lake level elevation at which discharge can occur. This is similar to ;he effect of the previous fixed weir which had an approximate 'ow point elevdtion of 928.6. When the lake level is above this elevation, a discharg =111 occur subject to the conditions outlined in this section. The disc a :.ones are defined by minimu,, required and/or maximum allowable discharge •,ites over a specific time period and lake level range. These zones are described in SECTION III.A below. Between lake level elevations 928.E and 930.0 discharge to Minnehaha Creek will vary. In general, discharge rates will increase as the lake level increases. However, this is not a direct or linear relationship. The discharge is dependent not only upon lake level elevation, but the time of year, climatic conditions, the variable carrying capacity of the creek and other considerations. The heavy horizontal line at elevation 930.0 represents a lake level above which high water will be reduced to the maximum pract le extent. Lake levels and discharge cannot he controlled by the structure at lake level elevations above 91.0. Under these circumstances, resulting discharge to Minnehaha Creek is comparable to that which occurred under similar conditions with the previous fixes weir. During the winter months, which are not shown on the attached exhibit, no discharge is allowed to the extent feasible and consistant with the MANAGEMENT POLICY. Stop logs a,•e installed during the late fall, prior to ice -in when the lake level elevation is near 928.6. The uischarge control gates are then lifted out of the water to prevent ice damage. If the lake level rises after that time, additional stop logs are installed as necesz�a-; to prevent overflow discharges. The stop logs are removed in the spring as soon as ice condition, allow and the discharge control gates are again made operational. 3 of 11 A. Discharge SettinQs and Adiustments The discharge settings and adjustments between lake level elevations 928.6 and 930.0 are described as zones of control in the following paragraphs. Zone 1 - Maximum Creek Carrying Capacity To effectively respond to high lake lE els, rapidly increasing lake levels and/or changing creek conditions the maximum allowable discharge rate is required whenever the lake level is within the elevation range of 929.6 to 930.0. The maximum allowable discharge rate will vary. It is defined to be that rate of discharge when combined with direct runoff and other inflows to the creek downstream, that will achieve but not exceed the carrying capacity of the creek. The carrying capacity of the creek is considered to be the maximum flow that can occur without substantial overbank flow. The maximum allowable discharge rate will be maintained as necessary until the lake level has receded below elevation 929.6. Zone 2 - No Discharge to Maximum Creek -Carrying Caoacity Discharges ranging from zero to the maximum allowable discharge rate are required in this zone. When the lake level is below 929.1, the maximum discharge shall be no higher than 30 cubic feet per second. As the lake level approaches elevation 929.6, up to the maximum allowable discharge can occur. In an extreme case, when high lake levels and subsequent unrestricted discharge and flooding are predictable due to spring snowmelt, the maximum allowable discharge rate will occur at lake levels below elevation 929.1 to reduce imminent high water conditions. This discharge will occur only when it can be documented with reasonable accuracy that the water content of the snow pack in the upper watershed could exceed avai:able storage capacity on the iake. Maximum allowable discharge rates other than thuse specified herein may occur only after Minnesota DNR has authorized such action. Zone 3 - 150 CFS to Maximum Creek Carrying Capacity In the late summer and fall, 150 cfs up to *he maximum allowable discharge rate is required when the lake level is in Zone 3. This will increase the capacity to reduce an excessively high fall lake level and provide adequate storage :apacity for spring snowmelt. 4 of 11 Zone 4 - 150 CFS Maximum A discharge rate ranging from approximately 20 cfs up to a maximum of 150 cfs is required provided the carrying capacity of Minnehaha Creek is not exceeded whenever the lake level is in this zone. From May 15 through July 15, discharge will vary from a minimum of approximaely 20 cfs to a maximum of 100 cfs if the lake level is at or below the CHW (929.4) and will range up to a maximum of 150 cfs if the lake level is above the ONW. From July 15 through November 30, a hydrologic computation will periodically be performed to determine what uniform rate of discharge will be necessary to accommodate the desired fall lake level of 928.6 based upon normal weather conditions. Discharge will be periodically adjusted to accommodate actual weather conditions encountered. Therefore, discharge during this period will, to the greatest extent weather conditions allow, occur at uniform rates between approximately 20 cfs and 150 cfs. This zone is considered to be desirable for operation of the structure. when operation is governed by this zone, optimum conditions exist for achieving the Manaement Goals identified in SECTION II. Zone 5 •• Base Flow Discharge Base flow discharge is requiredf whenever the lake level elevation is within this zone. The purpose of base flow discharge is to reduce the detrimental effects of creek flow stagnation during dry ptriods. The base flow discharge zone is designed to assure that a volume of water will be discharged that is approximately equal to the volume discharged by the previous fixed weir considering similar low lake levels. The previous fixed crest weir discharged water at a rate of 12 cfs when the lake level eievation was .2t approximately 929.06. Therefore, when lake levels are within this zone, base flow discharges will occur subject to the condition below: 1. To the extent that discharge measurement accuracy allows, base flow discharges will occur at a rate of approximately 12 cfs. It is expected that during most open water seasons the lake level will exceed the limits of this zone. Under these conditions, discharges will equal or exceed the specified base flow discharge rate. 5 of 11 Zone 6 - No Discharge Whenever the lake level elevation is telow 929.6, which was the lowest elevation on the previous fixed weir crest, no discharge is allowed during tie open water season. Zone 7 - Unrestricted Discharge Whenever the lake level exceeds elevation 930.0, which is the cr-,st elevation of the reconstructed fixed weir, unrestricted discharge will occur. Resulting discharge will be comparable to that which would have occurred over the previous fixed weir. When the lake level recedes to elevation 930.0 or below, discharge will again be limited to the carrying capacity of the creek. B. Data Collection and Discharge Adjustment Procedures Field data shall be collected and discharge adjustments aL the Headwaters Control Structure shall be performed in accordance with this section to implement the policy identified in SECTION I. MANAGEMENT POLICY. B.1 Need for Voluntary Creek Water Level Data From Downstream MuniCiDalities The Managers believe that fur the first years of operation, frequent reports of actual creek water elevations in each of the municipalities should be forwarded to the Managers. This creek water elevation data will allow the Managers to properly adjust the control structure to achieve the MANAGEMENT GOALS. Because conditions can vary between reaches of the creek, the Managers request each of the five creekside municipalities to regularly record creek water elevations on a weekly schedule, at the following critical reaches, and report the readings to the District Engineer. City Location Minnetonka I-494 culverts C.S.A.H. No. 5 Hopkins C.S.A.H. No. 73 (upstream and down- stream sides) St. Louis Park W. 37th Street Excelsior Boulevard Edina Millpond at Browndale W. 56th Street 6of11 City Minneapolis Park Board Frequency Friday, Monday and Wednesday Wednesday Reporting I-ocation Upton Avenue Logan Avenue (upstream sije) Chicago Avenue Cedar Avenue Longfellow Pond April 1 - June 1 June 1 to end of flow Each city is requested to report weekly the elevations recorded during the preceding reporting week (Friday, Monday and Wednesday) by telephone on each Wednesday by 2:00 PM to the District Engineer, E.A. Hickok and Associates, 473-4,�24. Each city is requested to promptly confirm elevations recorded in writing on forms supplied by the District Engineer. 8.2 Lake and Creek Data Collected by the District Engineer The District Engineer shall collect the following data: Data Flows into Lake Minnetonka from Painter, SiX Mile, Gleason and Long Lake Creeks Lake Minnetonka Level Minnehaha Creek flows at all critical reaches identified in SECTION II.B. 1 (based on rating curves). In addition, the District Engineer shall develop rating curves at three (3) locations along Minnehaha Creek, one (1) of which shall be for the Browndale Avenue Dam. Frequency Monthly (n;inirnum) during open water season. Weekly (minimum) during open water season. As specified in SECTION II.B.1 (Other data is collected as part of the District's long term hydrologic data program.) 7 of 11 3.7 High 'Water Conditions on Minnehaha Creek When high water conditions are reported or predicted on Minnehaha Creek, the Engineer for the District shall promptly investigate the reported or predicted high water conditior; and determine whether adjustment can be made in the discharge through the control structure that would reduce the high water condition. If adjustments can be made that are consistent with the MANAGEMENT POLICY, the Engineer shall promptly make such adjustments as are appropr;ate to reduce downstream high water conditions as soon as possible. (Paragraph B.7 adopted September, 1980.) B.8 Operational Responsibility The District may enter into a contract with another governmental agency to provide operating personnel. Employees of the contracting agency will handle minor maintenance and repairs when required and will make regular trips to the site as directed by the District's Engineer. The control structure shall be operated by the District in accordance with the limitations set forth in the Headwaters Control Structure Management Pclicy and Operating Procedures, and Minnesota DNR Permit No. 76-6240. B.9 Monthly Summary of Data During the open water season the District's Engineer shall prepare a monthly summary of all data received and analyzed by his office, including adjustments made in the discharge rate during the prior month. This summary shall be distributed to the Managers, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the creekside and lakeside municipalities, the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin and Carver Counties and shall be available to interested pErsons. SECTION IV. TERMS OF AND AMENDMENTS TO THE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES 1. Term This document defines the Management Policy and Operating Procedures for the Headwaters Control Structure at Gray's Bay for the period March 1, 1986 and thereafter. Any amendments to this document shall be made pursuant to SECTION IV.2 below. 2. Review of Management Policy and Operating Procedures On or hefore January 1, 1989, the District shall submit to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources any amendments to the existing Management Policy and operating Procedures deemed necessary by the District for the three (3) year period commencing March 1, 1989. Thirty 9 of 11 (30) days prior to any submittal to the Department, tie District shall provide the municipalities within the watershed, a copy of the proposed amendments such that sufficient opportunity to submit comments to the Department is allowed. Within sixty (60) days, the Department shall advise the District in writing of the acceptance, rejection, modification or additions to the proposal. Any public hearing that may be held on proposed amendments to the Management Policy ana Operating Procedures shall be governed by Mirnesota Statutes 105.44. If a hearing is held, the existing operational procedures shall remain in full force and effect until a final administrative decision is reached. Following the final administrative hearing decision, or if no hearing is held, the amendments, if any, shall be incorporated into the foregoing Management Policy and Operating Procedures for the following three (3) year term commencing March 1, 1986 and be distributed to affected municipalities and agencies. This review procedure shall bp repeated every three (3) years. 10 of 11 931.: 931.( O z IJiI 930.0 J a Y z O H Z 929.R z 2 929.0 HEADWATERS CONTROL STRUCTURE DISCHARGE ZONES AND ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE RATES MARCH I, 1986 — MARCH I, 1989 Ir I Z -7 UNFESTRICTED DI E i ZONE-- I MAX MUM CR&K CAP ITY I } ZO -4 ZONE-3 -( ~ 20 C MIN. 150 C S MIN. N Q 150 C S MAX. TO � Ax N I 8 CREEK CAPACITY Z w ZO -5 N C) BA 3E FLOW PPROX.1 CFS 9285 ftmmL=m I LurjL-6 Ng EXSCHARfE I I 1 MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT NOV ® LOWEST ELEVATION ON OLD GRAY'S BAY DAM - 928 6 (3 OR-)INARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (O-H W) - 929 4 Q TOP OF SPILLWAY - 9310.0 ® RECORD HIGH WATER -930.5 ® PROJECTED REGIONAL FLOOD - 931.5 NOTE APPROX ICE-OUIT DATE-APRIL 15 E D 3D 8 4 8 8 . 6 "Zggvjr,*,� TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrate l� DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Operations Policy Attachments: A. Art Finkelstein Letter Dated 6/27/2S B. Lake Minnetonka Lake Level Memo Dated 4/1/88 ISSUE - Presentation of information to Council based on research done by Mr. Finkelstein in relationship to the control structure operation policy by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. INTRODUCTION - At. the Counci l's April 11, 1988 meeting they addressed the issues raised by Mr. Finkelstein by requesting that he do research with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding its operation policy and provide feedback to the Council. D_IS_C_U_S_SIO_N_ - As noted in Attachment A Mr. Finkelstein has had an opportunity to review the operating policy with Jim Mahady of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. At the end of Mr. Finkelstein's report he raises three issues which he would like to see addressed. They are as follows: Public Information Headwaters Management Policy renewal Orono representative on the MCWD 1. Public Information - As you are aware the Council does ------ ----------- receive copies of the graph related to the lake levels on a monthly basis from MCWD and recently those have been published in the Weekly News. It may be appropriate that MCWD provide these also to the Pioneer/Laker. A related question as noted by Mr. Finkelstein to this is that the graph is not a linear graph in that the time periods on the horizontal axis are not equal time periods and he has shown in his graph how that changes the perception of the graph's progress. 2. Headwaters Management Policy - It is appropriate that the City of Orono have input on the management review policy when it comes for renewal in March of 1989. It is my understanding that this will transmitted to each of '.ne cities in the watershed district substantially in advance so that each city can have its input. Specifically as for the suggestion of a higher lake level over winter that issue may be difficult to preAct on the cycle of dry periods, but will be a suggestion that can be to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Orono Representative - In the initial memo 1 incorrecting I stated that there no lake representatives. In the fall of 1987 two individuals from the lake were appointed as representatives, however, neither of these are Orono people. To the extent the Council would like either an Orono representative or an LMCD representative on the MCWD the City should continue to submit its support of such individuals when there are vacancies on the MCWD. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Request further information. 3. Table for further action. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the report trom Mr. Finkelstein and bring the issue back to the Council when it receives information regarding the Waters Management Policy in advance of the March 1989 renewal date. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , the Council accepts the report from Mr. Finkelstein and instructs staff to bring the issue back to the Council when it receives information regarding the Waters Management Policy in advance of the March 1989 renewal date. Ayes Nays CC: Art Finkelstein Jim Mahady Manager Spensley, MCWD Arthur B. Finkelstein 1740 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 July 27, 1988 Mark Bernhar0son, City Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lake Minnetonka Water Levels At an early April meeting of the council, you were kind enough to allow me to query MCWD on policy and procedures regarding Lake Minnetonka water level maintenance. On April 15th the MCWD Engineering Representative, James Mahady, forwarded t(d me a copy of the Management Policy and Operating Procedures. On June 3rd I met with Mr. Mahady to discuss some questions I had on the procedures and my concerns about practices regarding the Gray's Bay Dam. Specifically, my concern was on the regulation of Lake Minnetonka water level, per existing policy and the possible deviation from this policy. The increase in water levels after the July 23, 1987 rainfall and the rapid outflow of the water suggested that there was discharge at the dam between the storm and first ice. Specifically my concern was not so much on the policy but my suspicions that the policy was not being followed. The increase in water levels after the July 23, 1987 rainfall and the rapid outflow of water thereafter suggested to me that there had been discharge at the dam even though levels indicated otherwise. After my meeting with Mr. Mahady, I felt more comfortable that policy has been followed and that the water level in Lake Minnetonka is more a factor of the V drought than any possible discharge to Minnehaha Creek Periodically the MCWD via the District Engineer senAs to the various municipalities new data on lake levels that are graphed. A copy is enclosed. Two things should be noted: 1) The date axis (x axis) is non linear. This tends to distort the data a bit. 2) On the 5th of January, 1988 the zero elevation for the lake gauge was adjusted down 0.22 feet. This effects the graph in that comparison of data is made more difficult since the baseline has shifted without a correction made to all data. I am enclosing a graph that I developed using the same data readjusted to 1987 gauge sittings (the preferred way would be to readjust 1987 to 1988 gauge settings). I hope to complete the graph with the latest data, and I wi'.1 send a copy to you when completed. in reviewing the data two dates immediately jump out, 14-16 July and 24-26 August 1987. The rate of lake level reduction during these periods exceed any other period; .03 feet/day and .035 feet/day respectively. The itffect of lake level change is minimal compared to the overall; but, it is curious t:,a these two dates occur before the Aquatennial and State Fair, curious be:ause there were rumors :hat the dam was opened during these times to allow water to ::low over the Falls. It should be noted that there has been a rumor in the Orono area that the dam was opened just prior to a visit by a Japanese delegation in the spring of this year. I tend to discount these rumors as just that and to explain away the increased rate during the beforementioned periods as caused by natural phenomena. I am interested though in looking at the new data just to satisfy myself that these coincidences are just that. I would suggest the following for the future. 1. Keep the public aware of lake levels and causes of increases and decreases. The tremendous evaporative effect especially on hot, windy days really is not understood by the average citizen. Whac is also not generally realized is the affect a reduction in the aquifer and a generally dry watershed has in reducing the rainfall affect to the lake level. In dry periods rain has less affect on the lake level then in wet periods when, the watershed is approaching saturation and the aquifer is high. Ir wet periods, 1" of rain might increase lake level up to 3" to 4". In dry periods, 1" of rain might increase the level only 1". 2. Review the Headwat—s Management Policy. It is up for renewal Mare 9. Now is the time to get Orono input into L policy. I would suggest that some provisions be made to keep the lake level higher over winter than 928.6' NGVP to compensate for forecasted cyclical dry periods. 3. Have an Orono representative on the MCWD. LAKE MINNETONKA Water Level: 198 i -1988 930.00 929.80 929.60 929.40 929.20 929.00 928.80 928.50 928.40 928.20 928.00 927.80 927.60 927.40 927.20 927.00 09-Jan-87 13-Apr-87 01-Jul-87 31-Jul-87 31-Aug-87 16-00-67 35-JJlt-d8 GE-Arr-88 PATE MC1iD later Elev.tions - Lake Minnetonka Date Elevation Flow Date Elevation Flow Date Elevation Flow Date Elevation Flow 09-Jan-87 928.38 0.00 21-Jan-87 928.37 0.00 30-Jan-87 929.38 0.00 054tb-87 928.40 0.00 18-Feb-87 928.33 0. W 26-Feb-87 M.34 0.00 06-f1ar-87 428.35 0.00 13-Aar-87 M.34 0.00 26-Mar-87 M.37 0.00 06-Apr-67 928.29 0.00 13-Apr-87 928.25 0.00 21-Apr-B' 928.20 0.00 27-Apr-87 928.22 0.00 04-flay-87 928.22 0.00 12-May-91 928.23 0.00 21-Iay-87 927.94 0.00 26-Mart/ 927.93 0.00 03-Jun-67 927.89 0.00 15-Jun-M •927.68 0.00 23-J6-i-67 977.67 0,00 01-Jul-87 92'.55 0.00 06-Jul-87 927.48 0.00 14-Jul-67 927.43 0.00 16-Ju1-67 927.37 0.00 21-Jul-87 92'.71 0.00 22-Ju1-67 971.71 0.00 24-Ju1-87 M.62 0.00 77-Jul-07 e28.75 0.00 28-Jul-67 928.-3 0.00 30-Ju1-67 928.79 0.00 31-Jul-87 9'Q Al 0.00 03 Au; f 1.00 06-Auq-97 O.00 10-Aug-67 Y-- 0.00 11-Auq-87 928.77 0.00 11-ILq47 9M 3 0.00 18-A wV 928.83 0.00 19-Au07 928.79 0.00 24-4uq-87 93.72 0.00 26-L+g-97 928.63 0.00 31-Auq 928.63 0.00 01-Sep -67 a29.64 0.00 08-Sep-87 929.52 0.00 14-Sep-87 928.48 0.00 18-Sep-67 928.53 0.00 21-Sep-87 928.47 0.00. 25-Sep-87 928.44 0.00 28-Sep-87 9-J.42 0.00 05-Oct-87 928.32 0.00 I!-Oct-67 928.13 0.,)0 16-8ct-87 928.16 u.00 20-Oct-67 928.15 0.00 26-Oct-87 928.12 0.00 02-11ov-97 M.06 0.00 09-1bv-87 93.04 0.00 16-Nov-87 M.04 0.00 26-1bv-67 "1 .00 0.00 01-Dec-87 928.10 0.00 07-Dec-87 928.08 0.00 14-0ec-87 TN.08 0.00 05-Jan-68 9:7.86 0.00 19-Jan-88 9Z7.88 0.00 034tb-68 927.96 0.00 17-Feb-88 727.94 0.00 25-feb•uo 927.96 0.00 07-Mar-88 927.96 0.00 15-Mar-88 928.00 0.j0 24-Mar-68 929.06 0.00 30-Mar-88 928.08 0.00 04-Apr-88 928.14 0.00 06-Apr-88 929.16 0.00 11-Apr-88 928.14 0.00 13-49r-88 928.16 0.00 18-Apr-88 928.20 0.00 z3 - 3a Fill 13 20 - 24 . Zo - 27 - _ Z'� - f - A' - M.q � t - u - J w `.Q 6� u JA 3� - 7 - ?� Idw �* - A• 1 4 - �•�t A - 9 - �3 - _ 3q - - 4 - u - �u. t. oc v 4188. Q err ��+�� To; FPU,;: mayor and city Council Mark Sernhardson, city Administratot�� DATE: April 1, 198R _:• : ��' •;p� _ :`` SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka .Lake Level Attachment: A. Art Finkelstein Let_er Dated 3/15/88 B. Lake Minnetonka Lake Level Report 7�ated 3/17/88 ISSUE 1. Determin-ation of COL;ncil response to Attachment A. SNTRODUCTION - On March l6th the City received a letter from Art Finkelstein, 1720 Shadywood Road, regarding his concerns on the lake level. The Council has for a long time monitt ?I the lake level and it has been Council direction to work to have a "cross representation" between the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Minnehaha Creek Water�.:�ed District Board, who regulate the lake level via Grays dam. DISCUSSION - The lzke 'evel of Lake Minnetonka is a function of contributions made to it in various forms together with various means by which water leaves the lake. The following repre. ent the major. items: CONTRIBUTIONS Rainfa317snowfall UndeL,aroun,' pumninq - Amount rinoff From precipitation in the watershed WITHDRAWT - Evapore ( unction of `,mper.aturez/humidity and wi - Outflows vN _L - Aquifer/lake ? - Pumping out of rays Bay dam action lake As notee by t ,* th he lake level has varied markedly over the las.. yt as been r.o ou~_f low over the dam, the principal the lake level has been the lack of precipitai- w.th evaporation together with an unkr n. aquifer/ Ke r:: ;,hich may drain out a portion of fa4penden: � C.. 11 der,-.. on amount of water in the a, ifer.) Balancing of LaKe tend Creek Usage - '"he Minnehaha Creek watershed 6Istr1ct, whose Board^ is mostly of people downstream from the Grays bay dam, has the means afforded it to try and balance the nee -is of both t!, lake pe:)ple and creek people as to how much water t`iere iF, in the creek. T^iS is both an issue of high water for '.:ake and creek people when there is an ovs,_ aburilance of prec:i�itation and a lower level when there has seen a lack et I precipitation. Recalibration of Benchmark at Grays Bav - During 198r it was de- ter:ninecj that the calibration of height at the Grays Bay dam was 2/10ths of a foot off, this has been recalibrated and is reflected in the change 2/10ths of a foot lowering in the height of the marks. 'I sere has been no change however in the ordinary high water mark and so that would mean that the lake will be' raiseu 2/10th- -,f a foot higher now before the outlet takes effect. Control of the Lake Level - While the lake '-vel is principally a natural phenomenon composed of precipitation, the amount of runoff that is nc�. absorbed, the evapor-tion, the aquifer lake interface etc. the outlet at the dam is the one variable that .is human control. This is under the governance of the Minnehaha (..2ek Watershed District and as sur.h this interface would be the most appropriate through which to work. Impact the City of Orono_ Task Force May Have on Lake Level Issues tihi le the City could Ippoint a Task Force related to the lake levels, it may be most appropria`e that this be worked through at the Watershed District level. Current_ Lake Levels - Curre^c lake levels are a result of s<�me rather dry times the last two years. These dry times are small in comparison to the 130's whe:, the lake was out as much as IRci feet in certain areas and certain parts were patted anc: farmed. The cirrent levels however are some of the lowest in last 10 t D 15 years. ALTERNATIV - The following represent alternatives the Council car- -�-� 1. Tak n,) action on the matter, thanking Mr. Finkelstein for his concern and directing him to the *Minnehaha Cree% Watershed District. 2. Have the I-ouncil ,end a letter to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District concerning the problem and recommend that they under _ake a study of the issue. 3. Appc. ntment of a commit ee locally to deal with the issue. 4. Tal le f-)r :her consideration. RECOMM7NOATIG;; - I'.: is recommended that the Cr icil for.,,ar Finkelstein's :.e`er to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dis• t anu to the Lake Vinnetonka Conservation District Co also oLrer the Ci ty's and t:r. ;*nkel st , i n's ass istance ( i f he is agr, -?3blo) to determine iL tip -r.e are anv other actions that c;..r- be unkierta'r.en in rec•+rc to the la cc: Mr. Art Fini:c:lstain f- 6 r-ca 1 March 15, 1988 Mayor James Grabek City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek, For the past two years I have watched with interest the "ups and downs" of the Lake Minnetonka water level. Local news- paper articles have addressed this issue with ccziments on water evaporation, the Grays BAy Dam, Minnehaha Creek, lack of or excessive precipitation etc.. As an interested party who lives on Crystal Bay my concern has been aimed primarily on how long should I make my dock or ho;! many spare props should I have or whether or not to expect my basement to flood. To say the least the information that is available about what is or is not the proper lake level or whether or not the dam should be open or closed has been con- fusing at best and misleading at worst. I would like to volunteer as a committee of one to gather information to dispel this confusion and to provide the council with a report summarizing the salient facts on this issue. My reason for approaching you is to receive the approval of the council since I believe I am more apt to get information from the appropriate agencies with that approval. Respectfully ycurs, Arthur B. Finke'.stein 1740 Shadywood Road W iyzata, MN 55391 MIEM0 TO: Board of Managers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District FR0F1: Eugene A. Hickok and Associates DATE: March 17, 1988 RE: Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation Summary for February 1988. Lake levels in Lake Minnetonka have stabilized at approximately 928 in February as illustrated by the attached graph and lake elevations. There has not been any discharge from Lake Minnetonka to Minnehaha Creek si.;ce November 17, 1986. Creek flog at the Browndale Ave. da.;, in Edina is no` measured during the wl ntce months. The 30 year average precipitation for February- at the National Weather Service station in Maple Plain is 0.78 inches. The actual precipitaiton recorded in Wayzata for February was 0.19 inches. A summary of precipitation follows. PRECIPI TION SUMIXARY Actual Year Averaae Maple Plain February -- 0.78 Minneapolis -St. Paul Intern'l Airport February 0.30 0.85 Wayzata February 0.19 -- 930.00 929.80 929.60 029.40 929.20 929.00 928.00 928.60 928.40 928.20 928.00 927.80 927.60 927.40 927.20 527.GO LAKL MiN NE VONKA Woter Levels I5o-7-1988 NOHW(929.4) RUNOUT ELEVATION(928.6 CS-Jar.-87 21-h1ay-E7 I 31 -Jul-87 21-Sep-87 DATE Date Elevaticn F:ca Date Elevation Flow Date Elevation Flcm 09-Ja:1-87 929.38 0.00 21-Jan-87 929.37 0.00 30-Jam-67 929.39 0.00 05-Feb-67 528.40 0.00 18-Feb-67 92?.T5 0.00 26-Feb-C7 973.34 0.00 06-Mar-67 KJ.35 0.00 13-Mar-97 928.34 0.00 26-Mar-87 929.37 0.00 06-Apr-87 928.28 0.00 IS-fir-27 920.25 0.00 21-kr-67 9223.20 0.0 27-Apr-67 920.22 0.00 04-Ufa,-67 528.22 0.00 12-May-87 529.23 0.00 21-Czy-87 9127.9.1 0.00 29-May-91 927.93 0.00 03-Jun-P.7 927.89 0.00 I5-Jun-87 91.68 0.00 23-Jun-87 ,27.67 0.00 01-Jule 777.55 -01, 06-Jul-87 927.48 0.00 14-Jul-87 927.43 0.00 16-Jul-67 527.37 0.00 21-Jul-67 927.71 0.00 22-Jul-6'7 927.71 0.00 24-Jul-57 928.62 0.00 27-Jul-17 9n.75 0.00 28-Jul-87 928.73 0.00 SG-Jul-0 929.79 0.00 31-Jul-t7 Mel 0.00 03 -Aug-,37 928. 81 0. 00 06-Aug-E, 929.78 0.00 104ir,-r 928.79 0.00 -C,-, 928.77 0.00 17-kq-9T 928.85 0.00 184ag-r 928.83 0.00 194,ug-6y 729.79 0.00 24AC I-A7 423.72 0.00 16-Au.•-9: vi-.S.65 0.00 31-Au;-E7 3.65 0.00 01-5tr-.. - 7.t4 0.00 08-Sep-87 928.52 0.00 14-Sep-87 928.48 0.00 18-Sep-e7 929.53 0.00 21-Sep-67 928.47 0.00 25-Srp-67 428.44 0.00 28-Sep-87 929.42 0.00 05-Oct-67 928.32 0.00 12-Oct-87 928.13 v.00 16-Oct-97 928.16 0.00 20-Oct-87 928.15 0.00 26-Okt-87 928.12 0.00 02-Nov-67 923.06 0.00 09-1ar-87 93.04 0.00 16-t1ziv-87 928.04 0.00 24-MoN-87 MOO 0. ^0 01-Dec-97 "Z .10 0.00 07-Dec-e7 9"M.09 0.00 14-DK-67 928.08 0.00 * 05-Jan-88 92:.86 0.00 19-Jan-88 M88 0.00 03-Feb-88 927.°S 0.00 05-Jon-88 Date Elevation Flow 17-Feb-68 927.94 0.0 25-Feb-88 917.96 0.00 07-Mar-BB 927.96 0.00 15"ar-88 928.00 0.00 •'rGTE: The zero el on fur the lake gauge was adjusted down 0.22 feet this adju-,t-_ ,. as efi2ttive Jan. 1,19H G. 113088.6 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City DATE: December 6, 1988 Administrat *� SUBJECT: Liquor License Renewal - On -Sale Attachment: A. Liquor License Renewal Memo Dated 10/26/88 B. License Application - On -Sale License ISSUE 1. Determination of whether Council desires to issue the license. 2. Determination of any conditions appropriate to the license. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's November 14, 1988 meeting Attachment A was presented to indicate certain concerns related to the On -Sale license renewal and potential conditions related thereto. Subequert to that staff has discussed this issue further with the license applicant. The applicant discussed the issues raised by Attachment A with staff on November 16, 1988. A review of the two items are attached below. DISCUSSION - Of the two incidents cited the license applicant: has the following responses: January 24, 1988 - 1:25 Closing - As a result of the police officer's actions in w'iich no citation was issued, the bar had drinks on the table 5 minutes after the time the drinks were supposed to he removed (20 minutes after closing), as required by City ordinance. Additionally t was noted in the police report that the bartender had indicated that she had been trying to have persons leave, but to no avail. The arplicant correctly points out also that the patrons did not have to actually have left the bar until 30 minutes after closing according to the ordinance and that emp 1 oyeas can stay on the premises if they are engaged in lawful employee activities not involving liquor. While it can he speculated that had the officer not come that there would have been drinks substantially after the time alloted there is no way of determining this. March 9, 1988 - Attachment .k contains a report of an incident involving an alleged bartender having carried a bar glass out of the licensed establishment. The licensee has shown documentation indicating the employee was terminated in November 1 % and the report provided no direct ev id,_�ice that she r represented herself as a bartender, only that �f ie driver had said her 1 passenger was a bartender at the licensee. It is however illegal to remove glassware from a licensed establishment regardless of whether it is a bartender or patron doing that. While the passenger was picked up with glassware similar to the licensees glassware, there is no direct evidence that it was carried out from the linensed premises. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Issuance of a conditional license. 2. Issuance of a license without conditions. 3. Table for a special meeting in December as the license must be renewed by January 1, 1989. 4. Choose not to renew the license. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the license be issued w ti bout s— pnc f c conditions but a letter be sent to the owner indicating that the City will continue the police patrol and that he is on notice that should bartenders not have the ability to have customers out by the appropriate time or drinks off the table that they should immediately call the police and the police will assist. Additionally if it becomes a problem he should move up his last call time and drinks off the table to a time that is shorter than the requirements in the law to ensure compliance. The licensee feels that the letter is not ne 3ed as he is aware of the monitoring as the means to avoid an after hours violation. The Council has the prerogrative to review the license at aiy time during the license period without it being a conditional license. Should offenses be noted that the City may well review those even prior to adjudication of any citations issued on the matter. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council issue a license w=th staff directed to send the appropriate letter to the license holder as outlined above. Ayes Nays cc: Jimmies Lounge, 3380 Shoreline Drive, Navarre 102688 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardscn, City Administrato'n , DATE: October 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Liquor License Renewals Attachments: A. City of Orono Letter to Navarre Liquor Dated 10/24/88 B. City of. Orono Letter to Jimmies Lounge Dated 10/24/88 C. Mel Kilbo Memo Dated 11/4/88 Re: Navarre Liquor D. Mel Kilbo Memo Dated 11/4/88 Re: Jimmies Lounge E. Mel Kilbo Mamo Dated 6/15/88 Re: Jimmies Lounge F. Excerpt Orono Council Minutes Dated 12/14/87 G. Memo to Mayor & Council Dated 12/11/87 Re: 1988 Liquor License H. Chapter 4 - Beer, Wine and Liquor Licensing and Regulation ISSUE 1. Notificiation to Council of upcoming liquor licnense renewals. 2. Provide opportunity to discuss possible on -sale conditional license. INTRODUCTION - The two liquor licenses within the City are up for renewal by January 1, 1989. While there have been no problems over the past year with the off -sale operation, the on -sale operation has presented problems as outlined in Attachment C. DISCUSSION - The City has been concerned about violations that relate Lo the on -sale business have occurred but had delayed bringing this matter to the Council beczause: A. An expectation that the business was going to be sold. B. It may be more appropriate to take action as a condition of license renewal than as a penalty during the term of the license. The incidents that occurred were not charged. The Officer intervened between the 20 minute "no more consumption" and "30 minutes must be closed" in the first incident. The second incident was not directly traced to Jimmies and that individual is no longer employed. Charges vare filed against the driver but not the passenger who worked at Jimmies. It was felt they? was insufficient evidence to charge the owner. lxr, v u. 9 "he Council could impose a fine on the on -sale owner following the appropriate public hearing for up to $2,000.00 or 60 days. As an alternative the following conditions for the license for 1989 could be imposed given the past concerns: - "That the applicant is placed on notice that further potential violations will result in a revocation hearing without necessarily awaiting adjudication in which these past issues will be reviewed." ALTERNATIVES - 1. Table until the December 12, 1988 meeting. 2. Comment on direction regarding the violations. -1. Express an opinion on making no conditions or taking no action regarding these violations. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council comment on any conditions that they may feel appropriate for the license and that they indicate those to the license holder in advance of the actual approval of the license. cc: Mr. Steve Corl, Navarre Liquor Mr. Jimmie Holtz, Jimmies Lounge Mel Kilbo, Police Chief Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk CITY c -ri'Pi,.t� wt Et�r tt Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minn On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 24, 1988 Navarre Liquor Mr. Steven Corl 3421 Shoreline Drive Navarre, MN 55392 Re: 1989 Off Sale Liquor License Dear Mr. Corl, Enclosed are the 'materials needed to file your 1989 Off Sale Liquor license. Please return them with a Cartificate of Insurance and Bond. The requested licensing items must be como_leted and returned to the City office for processing no later that November 13, 1988. The fee for your Off Sale License is $150.00 and must be received with your licensing application materials. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 473J35rely, ny Rhin City Clerk_ cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator L,Ivin Rilbo, Police Chief Enclosures: Notice r�f Da -a Privacy & Release Form Notice - Tax Clearance Form - PS 9068-04 New Intoxicating Liquor Application Instruction Sheet Application for Of: Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Parts I & II (2 sets of each) Proof of Worker's Comaensation Insurance Coverage Form Return Envelooe BUILDING A ZONING — 473735'• 0 ADMCIISTRAMN & F114 Al-CL - 1-3--153 • PUBLIC WORKS — 473-7 35 9 ASSESSING CITY i nT .Post office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Min On the North Snore of Lake Minnetonka Octorer 24, 1988 j1r. Jimmie Holtz ` Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive Navarre, MN 55392 Re: 1989 Liquor License Application Dear Mr. Holtz, Please complete the enclosed forms for your 1988 Liquor Licensa and return them with the Certificate of Insurance, Bond and your check in the amount of $2,100.00. The requested licensing items must be returned to the City office for processing no later than November 10, 1988. The balance of the license fee ($2, 100.00) must be paid before issuance of the 1989 license. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 473- 7358. Si erely, 17 Dorothy Ta lin City Cle cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator 6-Melvin Kilbo, Police Chief Enclosures: Noti.ce of Data Privacy S Pelease Form Notice - Tax Clearance New Intoxicating Liquor Application Inst-uction Sheet Application for On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Parts 1 S II (2 sets of each) Proof of Wcrkers' Compensation _,41c nce Coverage Form Return Envelone r BUILDING A ZONING - 473.7357 • ADM[NISTR.%TIW S FiNANCE - 473•-358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 4'3.'359 4SSESSING ►h CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnatonka December 18, 1987 Mr. Jimmie Holtz Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive Navarre, MN 55392 Subject: 1988 On -Sale Liquor License Dear Mr. Holtz, • Per Orono Council actions of Decmmber 14, 1987 your 1988 liquor license will be issued conditioned upon applicant's acceptance of the following conditions. a.) That there are no same or similar violations ajudicated following approval of the license on December 14, 1987. b.) That the Police department will be conducting more fre_luent monitoring of the property to determine compliance with all applicable ordinance. Such monitor shall not be construed by the licensee as harassment or any violation of rights or privileges. The City retains its absolute right to revoke or suspend the license or take any. other action it deems appropri! `3 regarding violation of these conditions or an, iolation of applicable ordinance irrespective of violations of the i •.ve listed conditions. incerel , 1 Mar E. a rdson City Admini for MEB/dh cc: Chief Mel Kilbo City Attorney, Kathleen Blatz BUILDING • ZONING - 473.1357 • ADMINISTRATION t FINANCE - 413.7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ASSESSING �Muae�j—' Q- INTEROFFICE MEMC DATE: November 4, 1988 TO: Mark Bernhardscn, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Poiice RE: Liquor license renewal - Nav-_ -- Liquor We h jve checked our records anal find no problem with Navarre Liquor. I therefore recommend issuance of a liquor license, Off Sale, for Mr. Steven Corl: owner of Navarre Ligvor. INTEROFrICE MEMO DATE: November 4, 1988 TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police RE: Liquor License - Jii-mies Lounge Prior to issuing a liquor license to Jimmies Lounge, I would like the Council to please note that Mr. Jimmie Holtz apr:Pa_ad in court in flovember, 1987 for a liquor violation wbl.ch happened in. August, 1987. He was found guilty f` �d $75, and appeared before the Council on 12/14/87. He was given a conditional license, putting the owrer on notice due to the after hours violation and told the police department would more closely monito:- the cneration. Please note in my memo datea 6/15/88, that there was further violation in ...an., 1988 of an after hors violation. Also please n-te that in March, 1988, our office made a DWI arrest. T,t p3ssen4er in t'-,-s vehicle, a Candyre Berg, had just gotten off woi from Jimmies Lounge, ar.d it was fE .,::nd that she also "led the prel_ nary bre-th test. we also found in her possession a glass ecr:taining what we believed to be an alcoholi: be-erage. At a minimum, it was a violation for her to be parrying a contain, from the Lounge. I would request. the _Cit- r�2view t'l.is DATE: June 15, 1988 IE- TO: Mark Bernhardson, City AdministratorAW_t�MMT FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Jimmies, Inc. On 8/6/87, Jimmie, Inc. was charged under section 4.08 subd. 1 for consuming after hours, subd. 2 for removal of containers from the premises, subd. 3 for being open after normal closing hours. On 8/31/87, it was referred for formal complaint. On 10/27/87 he pled not guilty. On 11/24,"87 in front of Judge Adzik, Jimmie Holtz pled guilty and was found guilty, fined $300.00 with $225 stayed with a stay of 365 days, no same or similar violations. In effect, he paid only a $ 75 fine. On 1/24/88, Officer Kurt Erickson observed, at 1:25 a.m., a number of people still in Jimmies. All the lights were turned on low, the TV's were still on, about 8 to 10 people at the bar still had drinks. The female bartender stated "I've been try- ing to close'. The officer questioned the validity of tier re- mark in that the lights w,�re still low and the TV's still on. The people did leave because of the officer's arrival. This is a violation of section 4.08 subd. 3, closinc hours. Orono stat- utes states that they are to close at 1:00 a.m.. On 3/24/88, Officer Engiish of our Department made an arrest at Co. Road 15 and Kings Road in Spring Park of a fe77ale. She was asked where she was coming from at 12:10 a.m. She stated she had just picked up her friend, Kandis Berg, at Jimmies Bar. The driver was arrested for DWI. Kandis Berg, the passenger and em- ployee of Jimmies, was asked to blow into a portable breath test- ing device to see if she could drive the vehicle. She blew a fail on the device. In checking the right hand passaiiger side of the vehicle, a clear glass was found beneath the front edge of the front seat, on the floor, with an odor consistent with that of an alcoholic beverace. The driver indicated that' the glass in the vehicle was the one that Kandis Berg had been drink- ing from and she believed that Ms. Berg had brought it with her from Jimmies when she picked her up and that she had had no alco- hol in the vehicle before. It is believed that b-andis Berg, the bartender, removed a container from Jinunies in violation of sec- tion 4.08 subd. 2, removal of a container from the premises. I suggest that this matter be brought to the Council's attention for possible license action against Jimmies. h7A(l M.ZNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECE14BER 14, 1987 { 1988 FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO. 44, SECOND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson explained the proposed adjustment of fees as they reflect the costs of performing the services. He noted a change to the summary ordinance regarding mechanical permit fees. It was moved by Counci lmember. Sime, seconded by Mayor Grabek, that the City CoL;—",1 adopt the 1988 Fee Schedule as submitted and adopt Summary Ordinance Nu. 44, Second Series for publication. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 12 RELATING TO FILLL MATERIALS ORDINANCE NO. 45, SECOND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson explained the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment that would regulate the type of fill that is permitted to be used in the community. This amendment: will be coordinanted within the City's zoning chapter within the next two months. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Ordinance Amendment No. 45, Second Series to Chapter 12 relating to the quality of fill that can be used in the community without appropriate permits. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1988 LICENSE APPROVAL - ON AND OFF SALE LIQUOR/SET UP/CLUB/ CN AND OFF SALE NON -INTOXICATING LIQUOR City Administrator Bernhardson explained the following issues: 1. Approval of the renewal of four licenses for which there has been no demonstrated problems with the ongoing license: 2. Setting public hearing for new license application for Navarre Auto. 3. Review of license and possible approval of license for Jimmie's Lounge noting a pending after hours violation against an employee of Jimmie's Lounge. Staff recommends a conditional approval of this license putting the owner on notice because of the after hours violation and noting that licensee will 4 be monitored more closely from a patrol and surveillance standpoint. i- 9 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBE-7, 14, 1987 1988 LICENSE. APPROVAL CONTINUED Jimmie G. Holtz, owner of Jimmie's Lounge, wds present for this matter. He explained that the after hours violation was made against his will by an employee and he has since fired that employee. It was moved by Mayor Gr.abek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, that the Council undertake the following items: 1. Approval of licenses for those estab'ishments listed in attachments to memo dated December 11, 1987. 2. That Council establish a public hearing for January 11, 1988 for a non -intoxicating malt liquor license for Navarre Auto. 3. That the liquor license for Jimmie's Lounge be approved on the conditions outlined in memo dated December 11, 1987. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT - LONG LAKE Councilmember Peterson requested clarification regarding the difference between the Long Lake, Spring Park, and Minntonka Beach animal control contracts. Police Chief Kilbo stated it was basically the same contract agreement on a different form. City Administrator Bernhardson noted that Long Lake is contracting an on -call service only. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the Animal Control Contract for the City of Long Lake as presented. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1988 INSUR.kNCE RENEWALS* It was moved `)y Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to award the City of Orono 1988 insurances to the League of Minnescta Cities Insurance Trust, United Fire 6 Casualty, western National, and the St. Paul Companies, effective January 1, 1988, as proposed. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1988 POLICE SEI'VICES CONTRACTS* It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, that the Council approve individual contracts with Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park, and Long Lake for police services for 1988. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 13 1TAC!{�1t�7C,"r' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 14, 1987 I) . 4r 1988 FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO. 44, SECOND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson explained the proposed adjustment of fees as they reflect the costs of performing the services. He noted a change to the summary ordinance regarding mechanical permit fees. It was moved by Counci lmember Sime, seconded by Mayor Grabek, that the City Council adopt the 1988 Fee Schedule as submitted and adopt Summary Ordinance No. 44, Second Series for publication. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 12 RELATING TO FILL MATERIALS ORDINANCE NO. 45, SECOND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson explained the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment that would regulate the type of fill that is permitted to be used in the community. This amendment will be coordinanted within the City's zoning chapter within the next two months. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Coetten, to adopt Ordinance Amendment No. 45, Second Series to Chapter 12 relating to the quality of fill that can be used in the community without appropriate permits. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1988 LICENSE APPROVAL - ON AND OFF SALE LIQUOR/SET UP/CLUB/ ON AND OFF SALE NON -INTOXICATING LIQUOR City Administrator Bernhardson explained the following issues: 1. Approval of the renewal of four licenses for which there has been no demonstrated problems :with the ongoing license: 2. Setting public hearing for new license application for Navarre Auto. 3. Review of license and possible approval of license for Jimmie's Lounge noting a pending after hours violation against an employee of Jimmie's Lounge. Staff recommends a conditional approval of this license putting the owner on notice because of the after hours violation and noting that licensee will 4 be monitored more closely from a patrol and surveillance standpoint. 1` 12987.4 i TO$ Mayor and City Council j� FROM: Mark nernhardson, City AdministratorT'� OATS. December 11, 087 SUBJECT: 19A8 Liquor Licence - lion -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Approvals Attachments A. Off-Salm Liquor - Navarre Liquors Inc. D. Set -Up Permit - Spring !Till Center C. Set -Up Permit/On-Sale 6 off -Sale Non- Intox!cating Liquor - ITnvarro% Lanni n. Club - Wayzata Country Club C. off-''3le tlon-Intoxit-sting Malt Liquor - 4avarre Auto - Now License r. on -Sale Liquor - ,i1mmie'm Loungft t,. Orono rol ice TCR R7n04294 n3teod 8/6/87 H. Ordinance 4.02, 4.06 and 4.16 TSS_UG - 1.�Approval of the renewal of all licenses for which there has been no demonstrated problems with the ongoing license (A - D). 2. Setting public hearing for a new license application (Z). 3. Review of license and nossibin approval with condition of licenses where there have be-n possible infractions of state law and this license ordinance. (F) INTRODUCTION - Norm3lly at the end of each year the City routinely adup'�s liquor licences that h.d been in force for the previous year and for which there have been no problens. The bulk of the applications fall into this catagory. There are however at this years end a request for an ,citlitional non -intoxicating off -sale license at the revamped Navarre Auto Service, In addition there is an after closing eh*arge •3gainrt .ii!nnie's T.oungr, which resulted in a guilty ilea on 11/24/97 by Jimmie'' r.ounge for which the lounge was fined 5300 of which $2-r wa^ .ti•. :o'ir!r, of tie% ;)1^a wa: rc^_eivc•l by t'1e City On 12/10/87. ntscussrnn - Issue! 2. !!ew Licenrer - \r nl,t•••i in A-t.lchment r Navarre Auto has r..queste 1 an malt liquor for the ungradr l T+- ►: er.. "., n- i:a.ln :• r—l•tir-r .,t Kuhl i• hearing r•n a T_tnue 1. !"eonrlin-t "irl_t• Irrn - \^ n• • I in .\"tlrt'--rit R thy ritN' ht prom-!r%jtn,l ..,1 1 1►i1n i- iaiit'! an eml,1 lv,.,• of rie'^ 1.r11ngI, do:I -It •,r-•'itrr(-0 ll:•• u, l^'1'. Ar nete-1 in tie r.•rort, t'• .11 • if-, 1 • ", it • ; inrll : Illu.l l:z were• .•een in the ezt]hl l-hT-n► it 7:its .1-M. h.lVin41 1^t c►nr' IN( t" four ranipie r)vo. 4jho-n tI,.. 11 f ir..r l•,tin-1 ,r-t-1•.... I the• ltiremiser. the'r"` were still alcoholic bev�,ra(les sitting on tables. It was indicated however, that those wern left over from closing time and had just not been cleaned up, indicating no consumption was going on. The applicable section in Attachment It is Section 4.16. Under tho ordinance Section 4.06 the City may issue the renewal license with conditions on it. ALTERNATIVES A. Issue 5nd 3 - Licensing Alternatives - For issues 1 and 3 the Council has relationship to the licenses. 1. Approve as presented; 2. Approve subject to conditions; 3. Reject. e. Meetinn Actions --------------- 1. Approval as presented; 2. Approval as amended,- 3. Table any and all applications to either a soecial meeting or to the regular meeting January 11. 1988. The act of tabl ing any -)f these 1 icense appl icat ions past January 1, 1998 would necessitate the individuals cease liquor sales until such time as the Council did consider the application.) 4. Issuance of a conditional license followed by a public hearing of the violation at an appropriate time in 118R. Issue 2. Public ttearino Actic•n 1. Set date. 2. Table actiun RECOMMENDATION - Issue 1. 1t is recommended that Council renew for 1998 all licenses where tl.erc ate no rlemonstrltr`d problon4. Issue 2. It is r r!eommended that the Cour.c i t schedule a pub t i c heocing for it_ January 11, 1948 Counci 1 r.e^tino for concirinration of the applion for Navarre Auto. Issue 3. it is recomrentictl that the l icen:;e fcr Lounge he app!ov-d (•,r 119q on a-umditi,3n that no san- or similar violations are ajut(icatr'ri rnl lowing LNi-- c-nditinnal zpprrv.il. '"his is th- first closing hour:; violation that ha^ he-n prosecutori on the pr^-misco, sincn 1981. or wh-thr,r thin violation was there or not the Cnunci l tlwiy� or,r' 'l.ivr% t'tr t•i,I)or►unit,• un•Ier #-ctir+n 4.12 ruh-l 4(h) trf su.nr•n(' or rr•vo►— a 1 it:r•nn, rerl.lrtilr•;r7 ref unv prior violation ...tr• reco-+nrrnlat.i-n iw thi^ point for i •!-uant:e! i • in ! ittht of t'tr• fact that thrr^ i:• rtn pe"iftt thll. •he- 1 r wi,n• tw.9rm r•f 1-hi, viol.tti -n t>,•rurrirnj nr whethf•r t!tt wi•- 31.• onqoinq practice of l iron ►'te -•It l i!'.hmtlmt. PROPOSED MOTION - ;coved by _ , second,!d by __, that the Counci 1 undertake the following i gems: A. Approval of licenses for those ,!stab1ishments listed in Attachments A through D. 3. That the Council k-stablish a public hearing for January 11, 1988 for a non -intoxicating malt liquor license at Navarre Auto, C. That the liquor licenze for Jimmie'n Lounge be approved on the conditions outlined above. Ayes Nays _ . Title CHAPTER 4 BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSING AND REGULATION 04 Section 4.01 Definitions . . �Licenses 64 4.02 Applications and Under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration. . . 66 4.03 Renewal of Licenses . . . . . . . . . 70 4.04 Delinquent Taxes and Charges. . . . . . . . 70 4.05 Limitation on Ownership . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.06 Conditional Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.07 Premises Licensed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.08 Unlawful Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.09 Conduct on Licensed Premises. . . . . . . . 71 4.10 Sale by Employee. * . . . . . . 71 4.11 Li ense Condition and UnlawfulAct. . . . . 71 4.12 License Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.13 Financial Responsibility of Licensees . . . 72 4.1,, Insurance Certificate Requirements. . . . . 72 4.15 Proof of Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.16-4.1.9 Reserved 4.20 Beer License Required . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.21 Temporary Beer License. . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.22 Beer License Restrictions and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.23 Hours and Days of Beer Sales. . . . . . . . 75 4.24 Unlawful Acts (Beer). . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.25-4.29 Reserved 4.30 Liquor License Required . . . . . . . . 77 4.31 Liquor License Restrictions and Regulations . . . .. . . . . . . . 77 4.32 Hours and Days of Liquor Sales. . . . . . . 79 4.33 Sunday Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.34 Unlawful Acts (Liquor). . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.35-4.39 Reserved 4.40 On -Sale Wine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.41 Hours and Days of Sales by On -Sale Wine Licensees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.42 Unlawful Acts (Wine 1. . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.43-4.49 Reserved 4,50 Additional Club Licensee Restrictions and Regulations, and Unlawful Acts. 84 4.51-4.59 Reserved OPONO cc i (4-1-84) f Title` CHAPTER 4 BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR LICENSING AND REGULATION bg Section 4.01 Definitions . . �Licenses 64 4.02 Applications and Under This Chapter - Procedure and Administration. . . 66 4.03 Renewal of Licenses . . . . . . . . . 70 4.04 Delinquent Taxes and�Charges. . . . . . . . 70 4.05 Limitation on Ownership . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.06 Conditional Licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.07 Premises Licensed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.08 Unlawful Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.09 Conduct on Licensed Premises. . . . . . . . 71 4.10 Sale by Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.11 License Condition and Unlawful Act. . . . . 71 4.12 Licens- Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.13 Financial Responsibility of Licensees . . . 72 4.14 Insurance Certificate Requirements. . . . . 72 4.15 Prco2 of Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.16-4.19 Reserved 4.20 Beer License Required . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.21 Temporary Beer License. . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.22 Beer License Restrictions and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.23 Hours and Days of Beer Sales. . . . . . . . 75 4.24 Unlawful Acts (Beer). . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.25-4.29 Reserved 4.30 Liquor License Required . . . . . . . . 77 4.31 Liquor License Restrictions and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.32 flours and Days of Liquor Sales. . . . . . . 79 4.33 Sunday Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.34 Unlawful Acts (Liquor). . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.35-4.39 Reserved 4.40 On -Sale Wine. . . . . . . 81 4.41 Hours and Days of Sales by On -Sale Wine Licensees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.42 Unlawful Acts (Wine). . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.43-4.49 Reserved 4.50 Additional Club Licensee Restrictions and Regulations, and Unlawful Acts. 84 4.51-4.59 Reserved ORONO CC 1 4-1-84) Title Section 4.60 Consumption and Display . . . . . . . . . . 4.61 Consumption and Display - One Day License . 4.62-4.69 Reserved 4.70 Municipal Liquor Store. . . . . . . . . . . 4.71-4.79 Reserved 4.80 Nudity or Obscenity Prohibited. . . . . . . 4.81-4.98 Reserved 4.99 Violation a Misdemeanor . . . . . . . . . . ORONO �C ' Page 87 86 87 88 89 1-_-�4 5 4.50 SEC. 4.50. ADDITIONAL CLUB LICENSEE RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS, AND UNLAWFUL ACTS. Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Club" means a "fraternal club" which serves only members and their guests and which uses any profits derived from liquor sales principally for sponsoring activities beneficial to the community and not for the profit of any indiviaual anA which has been in existence for fifteen years or more, or to a congres- sionally chartered veterans organization which has been in exis- tence for ten years. Such club, either of which, in order to be eligible, musk be incorporated to come within this definition.. B. "Member" means any person in good standing according to rules and regulaticns of the licensed club, wherever located, having evidence of current membership upon his person. C. "Guest" means a person not a -ember of the club licensee but present on the club licensed premises in the company c?f a host member. D. "Host member" means a member who is entertaining a guest who is in the member's company at all times such guest is on the licensed premises. Subd. 2. Unlawful Acts. The following are in addition to ail other unlawful acts set forth in this Chapter relating to sales and purchases of beer or liquor, as the case may be: A. It is unlawful for a club licensee to sell liquor or beer to any person not a member of the licensed club. B. Tt is unlawful for any club licen. to serve beer or liquor to any non-member of the licensed club unless such non-member is a guest. C. It is unlawful for any person who is not a member of the licensed club to purchase liquor or beer from the club. D. It is unlawful for any club licensee to hinder or prevent a police officer from determining compliance with this Section and Chapter, and all other laws. E. It is unlawful for any person to refuse, upon request of a licensee or police officer, to provide information as to whether he or she is a member, guest or host member, or to give false, fraudulent or misleading information in response to such requP t. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 4.51 through 4.59, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 94 (4-'-34' 5 4.60 SEC. 4.60. CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY. Subd. 1. Definition. For purposes of this Section, the term "bottle club" is a "club" as defined in this Chapter, or an unincorporated society which, except for its lack of incorporation, otherwise meets the requirements of a club, and which is not otherwise licensed for the sale of liquor, either on -sale or off - sale or both. Subd. 2. Consumption and Display License Required. Ir- is unlawful for any bottle club or for any business establishment to allow the consumption or display of- liquor or the serving of any liquid for the purpose of mixing liquor without a license therefor from the Ci.:y, but a bottle club as herein defined and licensed may permit its members to bring and keep a personal supply of liquor in lockers assigned to such members. Subd. 3. Consumption and Display Restrictions and Regulations. A. Every bottle, container or other receptacle containing liquor stored by a member of a bottle club shall have attached to it a label signed by the member of the club, shall be kept in a locker designated to the use of such member, and no other liquor shall be on bottle club premises. B. It is unlawful for any club member under nineteen (19) years of age to be assigned a locker for the storage of liquor or to consume or display liquor on any premises under control by such club. C. It is unlawful to consume or allow consumption or display of liquor in any bottle club or business establishment between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 8:00 o'clock A.M., nor between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 3:00 o'clock P.M. on Memorial Day; nor between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 8:00 o'clock P.M. on any primary, special, or general election day held in the City. D. No license shall be issued to anv bottle club when a member of the board, management, executive committee, or other similar body chosen by its members, or when a business establishment or the owner thereof holds a Federal retail liquor dealer's special tax stamp for the sale of liquor. E. Liquor sold, served or displayed in violation of this Section shall be subject to seizure for purposes of evidence. Subd. 4. State Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person or business establishment, directly or indirectly, or upon any pretense or by any device, to allow the consumption or display of liquor or the serving of any liquid for the purpose of mixing of liquor without first having obtained a permit therefor from the State of Minnesota. ORONO CC 85 i3-1-3i, 5 4.61 SEC. 4.61. CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY - ONE DAY LICENSE. Subd. 1. License Required. Any non --profit organization desiring to serve liquids for the purpose of mixing with liquor and permitting the consumption and display of liquor in con iunction with a social activity sponsored by it, shall first obtain a i1cense therefor from the City. It is unlawful for any such organization to fail to obtain such license. Sobd. 2. Term. The term of such license shall be one day only. Subd. 3. Limitation on Number. No more than ten licenses shall be issued in any calendar year. Subd. 4. License Fee. The fee for such one -day license is $25.00. Subd. 5. Approval. In addition to Council approval, such license must be approved 5y the Commissioner of Public Safety. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1--34 (Sections 4.62 through 4.69, inclu!,ive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 96 4-_ �.; 10 Title Page CHAPTER 4 INTOXICATING AND NON -INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSING AND REGULATION Section 4.01 Definitions 64 4.02 Original Licensing Procedure 67 4.03 Renewal of Licenses 71 4.04 Delinquent Taxes and Charges 71 4.05 Limitation on Ownetship 71 4.06 Conditional Licenses 71 4.07 Premises Licensed 72 4.08-4.11 Reserved 4.12 License Fees 72 4.13 Financial Responsibil.�_y of Licensees 72 4.14 Insurance Certificate Requirements 73 4.15 Proof of Age 73 4.16 Prohibited Acts By A Licensee (General) 74 4.17 Ceneral Prohibitions 76 Non -Intoxicating ;Malt Liquor Intoxicating Liquor Intoxicating and ;Ion -Intoxicating Malt Liquor 4.18-4.19 Reserved 4.20 Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License 77 Required 4.21 Temporary Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor 77 License 4."2 Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License 78 Restrictions and Regulatiors 4.23 Hours and Days of Non -Intoxicating Malt 79 Liquor Sales 4.24 Unlawful Acts (Non -Intoxicating Malt 79 Liquor) 4.25-4.29 Reserved 4.�'0 Liquor License Required 80 4.31 Liquor License Restrictions and Regulations 80 General Provisions On -Sale Liquor and Wine Off -Sale Liquor and Wine 4.32 Hours and Days of Liquor Saes 83 4.33 Sunday Sales 83 4.34 Unlawful Acts (Liquor) 83 4.35-4.39 Reserved 4.40 On Sale 4r:ne 84 4.41 hours and Da;•s of Sales by On -Sale Wire 85 Licensees 4.42 Unlawful Acts (Wine) 85 4.43-4.49 Reserved i 4.50 Additional Club Licensee Restrictions and Regulations, and Unlawful Acts 4.51-4.59 Reserved 4.60 Consumption and Display 4.61 One Day Liquor License .62-4.69 Reserved 4.70 Municipal Liquor Store. Deleted s.71-4.79 Reserved 4.80 Nudity or Obscenity -Prohibited 4.81-4.98 Reserved 4.99 Violation a Misdemeanor F. 88 89 90 91-88 92-89 I: ORDINANCE NUMBER 32, SECOND SERIES CaAPTER 4 INTOXICATING AND NON —INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSING AND REGULATION SECTION 4.01. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, unless otherwise stated in specific sections, the following words and terms shall have the meanings stated: 1. "Applicant" means any person making an application for a license under this Chapter. 2. "Application" means a form with blanks or spaces thereon, to be filled in and completed by the applicant as his request for a license, furnished by the City and uniformly required. 3. "Club" means any corporation 'uly organized under the laws of this State for civic, fraternal, social, or business purposes or for intellectual improvement or for the promotion of sports, or a congressionally chartered veterans organization, which shall have more than fifty members, and shall, for more than a year, ha%e owned, hired, or leased a building or space in a building of such extent and character as may be suitable and adequate f -)r the reasonable and comfortable accommodation of its members, an(] whose affairs and management are conducted by a Board of Directors, Executive Committee, or other similar body chosen by the members at a meeting held for that purpose, none of whose members, officers, agents, or employees are paid directly or indirectly any compensa;:ion by way of profit for the distribution or sale of beverages to the members of the club, or to its guests, beyond the amount of such reasonable salary or wages as may be fixed and voted each year by the members or other governing body. Such club or congressionally chartered veterans organization must be incorporated and must have been in existence for at least three years. 4. "Financial Interest" includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management or profits of a retail liquor establishment but does not include bonafide loans, bonafide rental agreements, bonafide open accounts or other obligations held with or without security arising out of the ordinary in the regular course of business of selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such a business or 13% or less interest of any other corporation holding a license. 5. "Fraternal Club" means a club which serves only members and their guests and which uses any profits derived from liquor sales principally for sponsoring activities beneficial to the community and not for the profit of any individual. ORONO CC 6y 6. "Gambling Devices" means a contrivance which for a consideration affords the player an opportunity to obtain something of value, other than free plays, automatically from the machine or otherwise, the award of which is determined principally by chance. 7. "Hotel" and "Motel" mean and include any establishment having a resident proprietor or manager, where, in consideration of payment therefor, food and lodging are regularly furnished to transients, and which contains not less than ten guest rooms with bedding and other suitable and necessary furnishings in each room, and which is provided with a suitable lobby, desk and office for the registration of its guests at the main entrance and on the ground floor, which employs an adequate staff to provide suitable and usual service, and which maintains under the same management and control as the rest of the establishment and has an integral part thereof a dining room with appropriate facilities for seating not less than thirty guests at one time, where the general public is, in consideration; of payment therefor, served with meals at tables. B. "Intoxicating Liquor" and "Liquor" mean ethyl alcohol and distilled, fermented, spirituous, vinous (wine) and malt beverages containing in excess of 3.2 percent of alcohol by weight. 9. "License" means a document, issued by the City, to an applicant permitting him to carry on and transact the business stated therein. 13. "License Fee" means the money paid to the City pursuant to an application and prior to issuance of a license to transact and carry on the business stated therein. 11. "Licensee" means an applicant who, pursuant to his approved applicaticn, a valid, current, unexpired license, which has neither been revoked nor suspended, from the City for carrying on the business st,.ted therein. 12. "Manufacturer" means every person who, by any process of manufacture, fermenting, brewing, distilling, refining, rectifying, blending, or by the combination of different materials, prepares or p.oduces liquors, wine or non -intoxicating malt liquor for sale. 13. "Off -sale" means the retail sale in original packages for consumption off or away from t,^e premises where sold. 14. "Cn-sale" means the retail sale by the glass or by the drink, for consumption on the premises where sold only. 15. "Package" and "Original package" mean any container or receptacle holding liquor, wine or non -intoxicating malt liquor, which container or receptacle is corked, capped or sealed by a manufacturer or wholesaler. ORONO CC 65 16. "Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor" means any malt liquor containing not less than one half of one percent alcohol by volume nor more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight and is a fermented malt beverage for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes 1985 Section 340.44 to 340.56. 17. "Restaurant" means any establishment, other than a hotel, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, having appropriate facilities for the serving of meals, and where, in consideration of payment therefor, mealf- are regularly served at tables to the general public, which employs an adequate staff to provide the usual and suitable service to its guests, and which shall have seating facilities for seating not less than thirty guests at one time. 18. "Sale", "Sell" and "Sold" mean all barters and all manners or means of furnishing non -intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor to persons, including such furnishing in violation or evasion of law. 19. "State Established Legal Drinking age" for purposes of this ordinance the state established legal age for consumption of both intoxicating and non -intoxicating malt liquor is 21 years of age provided however that persons born on/or before September 1, 1967 are also legally able to consume liquor. 20. "Wholesaler" means any prrson engaged in the business of selling liquor, wine or nor -intoxicating malt liquor to retail dealers. 21. "Wine" means Hine r..- ,deeding 14 percent alcohol by volume. n SEC. 4.02. ORIGINAL LICENSING PROCEDURE. Subd. 1. Application. All applications shall be made at the office of the City Clerk upon forms prescribed by the proper Department of the State of Minnesota together with such additional information as the Council may desire. If not so prescribed, then upon forms furnished by the City. Information required may vary with the type of business organization making application. All questions asked or information required shall be answered fully and completely by the applicant. Subd. 2. False Statements and Omissions. It is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement, or any willful omission to state any information called for on such application form shall, upon discovery of such falsehood, work an automatic refusal of license, or if already issued, shall render any license issued pursuant thereto void and of no effect to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part thereof. Subd. 3. Application and Investigation Fee. At the time of the initial application, applicants for licenses required by this Chapter of the City Code shall pay to the City the fees as provided for in the current City fee ordinance duly adopted by the Council, pursuant_ to City Code Section 1.05, which fee shall be considered an application and investigation fee, not refundable to applicant. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in the ownership or control of a partnership or corporation or because of an enlargement, alteration, or extension of premises previously licensed, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee. Subd. 4. Action. A. Investigation. All applications for a license shall be referred to the Chief of Police and to such other City departments as the Council shall deem necessary, for verification and investigation of the facts set forth i the application. The Chief of Police shall cause to be made such investigation of the information as shall be necessary and shall make a written recommendation and report to the Council which shall incl:,de a list of all violations of Federal or State law or municipal regulations by the applicant. ORONO CC M B. Bearing. Upon receipt of the written report and recommendation by the Chief of Police and within thirty days there- after, the City Clerk ,gall publish a notice of hearing at least ten days prior to the ..ate set for hearing. The hearing notice shall set forth the day, time and place of hearing, the name of the applicant, the place where the business is to be conducted, and such other information as the Council may direct. At such hearing, all persons desiring to be heard shall have such opportunity, and the Council may thereafter grant or deny the license. If the license is granted, the Council may withhold its issuance until the applicant has qualified in all respects for the license. If the premises to be license(? are not complete c the time that the hearing is conducted, the Council may grant '.c.. license but shall withhold its issuance until the premises have been completed in accordance with the representations made by the applicant. Ti_e license fee shall be due as of the date the license is granted. If a license has been granted but its issuance has been withheld pending completion of the premises to be licensed, and if the licensee does not proceed with reasonable dispatch to ready the premises, the Council may rescind the action granting the license. Such action shall not be taken, however, without giving the licensee at least ten days notice of the time and place of a hearing on the proposed rescission. C. Granting. The Council may approve any applica- tion for the period of the remainder of the then current license year or for the entire ensuing license year. All applications in -:lading proposed license periods must be consistent with this Chapter. Prior to consideration of any app`Iication for a license, the applicant shall pay one-half of the license fee, and the inves- tigation fee. Upon rejection of any application for a license, or upon withdrawal of an application before approval of the issuance by the Council, the license fee shall be refunded to the applicant. Failure to pay any portion of a fee whFn due shall be cause for revocation. The City Cleric shall, within ten days after the issuance of any license under this Section, submit to the proper Department of the State of Minnesota the full name and address of each person granted a license, the trade name, the effective license date, and the date of expiration of the license. He shall also submit to the proper Department of the State of Minnesota any change of address, transfer, cancellation, or revocation of any license by the Council during the license period. D. Issuing. If an application is approved, the City Clerk shall forthwith issue a license pursuant thereto in the form prescribed by the City or the proper Department of the State of Minnesota, as the case may be, and upon payment of the second nalf of the license fee. All licenses shall be on a calendar year basis unless otherwise specified herein. For licenses issued and ORONO CC which are to become effective other than on the first day of the licensed year, the fee to be paid with the application shall be a pro rata share of the annual license fee. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and on the premises therein described. E. License Refund in Certain Cases. In the event that, during the license year, the licensed premises shall be destroyed or so damaged by fire, or otherwise, that the licensee shall cease to carry on the licensed business, or in case the business of the licensee shall cease by reason of his illness or death, or if it shall become unlawful for the licensee to carry on the licensed business under his• license, except when such license is revoked, the City shall, upon the happening of any such event, refund to the licensee, or to his estate, such part of the license fee paid by him as corresponds to the time such license had yet to run. In the event of death of the licensee, his personal represen- tativ- is hereby authorized to continue operation of said business for not more than ninety days after the death of such licensee. F. Transfer. A license shall be transferable between persons upon consent of the Council and payment of the investigation fee. No license shall be transferable to a different location without prior consent of the Council and payment of the fee for a duplicate license. It is unlawful to make any transfer in violation of. this Subparagraph. G. Refusal and Termination. The Council may, in its sole discretion and for any reasonable cause, refuse to grant any application. No license shall be granted to a person of questionable mcral character or business reputation. Licenses shall terminate only by expiration or revocation. H. Revocation or Suspension. The Council may, in its sole discretion and for any reasonable cause, revoke, or sus- pend for a period not to exceed sixty days, any license granted under the provisions of this Chapter. The Council shall revoke the license upon conviction of any licensee or agent or employee of a licensee for violating any law relating to the sale or possession of non -intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor upon premises of the licensee, or if such revocation is mandatory by Statute. If it shall be made to appear at the hearing thereon that such violation was not willful, the Council may order suspension; provided, that revocation shall be ordered upon the third such violation or offense. No suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the Council, a committee of the Council, or a hearing examiner, as may be determined by the Council in action calling the hearing. Such hearing shall be called by the Council upon written notice to the licensee serve,' in person or by certified mail not less than fifteen nor more than thirty days prior to the hearing date, stating the time, place and purpose thereof. As additional restrictions or regulations on licensees under this Chapter, and in addition to grounds for revocation or suspension stated in the City ORONO CC m Code or Statute, the following shall also be grounds for such action: (1) that the licensee suffered or permitted illegal acts upon licensed premises unrelated to the sale of non -intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor; (2) that the licensee had knowledge of such illegal acts upon licensed premises, but failed to report the same to police; (3) that the licensee failed or refused to cooperate fully with police in investigating such alleged illegal acts upon licensed premises; or, (4) that the activities of the licensee created a serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare. I. Corporate Applicants and Licensees. A corporate applicant, at the time of application, shall furnish the City with a list of all persons that have an interest in such corporation and the extent of such interest. The list shall name all shareholders and show t.ie number of shares held by each, either individually or beneficially for others. It is the duty of each corporate licensee to notify the City Clerk of any change in legal ownership, or beneficial interest in such corporation or in such shares. Anv change in the ownership or beneficial interest in the shares entitled to be voted at a meeting of the shareholders of a corporate licensee, which results in the change of voting control of the corporation by the persons owning t"e shares therein, shall be deemed equivalent to a transfer of the license issued to the corporati^n, and any such license shall be revoked thirty days after any uch change in ownership or beneficial interest of shares unless the Council has been notified of the change in writing and has approved it by appropriate action. The Council, or any officer of the City designated by it, may at any reasonable time examine the stock transfer records and minute books of any corporate licensee in order to verify and identify the shareholders, and the Counc..l or its designated officer may examine the bu-iness records of any other licensee to the extent necessary to disclose the interest which persons other than the licensee have in the licensed business. The Council may revoke any license issued upon its determination that a change of ownership of shares in a corporate lic-nsee or any change of ownership of any interest in the business of -iy other licensee has actually resulted in the change of control of the licensed business so as materially to affect the integrity and character of its management and its operation, but no such action shall be taken until after a hearing by the Council on notice to the licensee. Subd. 5. Duplicate Licenses. Duplicates of all original licenses under this Chapter may be issued by the City Clerk without action by the Council, upor licensee's affidavit that the original has been lost, and upon payment of a fee of $2.00 for issuance of the duplicate. All duplicate licenses shall be clearly marked DUPLICATE. Subd. 6. Posting. All licensees shall conspicuously post their licenses in their places of business. ORONO CC 70 Subd. 7. Resident Manager or Agent. Before an on -sale license is issued under this Chapter to an individual who is a non- resident of the City, to more than one individual whether or not they are residents of the City, or to a corporation, partnership, or association, the applicant or applicants shall appoint in writing a natural person who is a resident of the City as its manager or agent. Such resident manager or agent shall, by the terms of his written consent, (1) take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises, and, (2) serve as agent for service of notices and other process relating to the license. Such manager or agent must be a person who, by reason of age, character, reputation, and other attributes, could qualify individually as a licensee. If such manager or agent ceases to be a resident of the City or ceases to act in such capacity for the licensee without appointment of a successor, the license issued pursuant to such appointment shall be subject to revocation or suspension. Subd. S. Persons Disqualified. In addition to any other provision of law, no person shall qualify for a license under this Chapter who has been convicted within five years of the license application of violating any law relating to the manufacture, sale or distribution of non -intoxicating malt liquor, liquor or wine, or whose license therefor has been revoked within such period of time period or convicted of Lgambling within the five years of the license application. Nor shall any person qualify who has not attained the State established legal drinking age or who is not a citizen of the United States. SEC. 4.03. RENEWAL OF LICENSES. Application for renewal of all licenses under this Chapter shall be made at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of expiration of the license, and shall contain such information as is required by the City. This time requirement may be waived by the Council for good and sufficient cause. Persons for renewal of application are subject to all the requirements of Section 4.02 except for Subd. 4 B Public Hearing which is an optional requirement to be established at the discretion fo the City Council. SEC. 4.04. DELINQUENT TAXES AND CHARGES. No license under this Chapter shall be granted for operation on any premises upon wiAch taxes, assessments, or installments thereof are due and owing, or other financial claims of the City, County or State exist. SEC. 4.05. LIMITATION ON OWNERSHIP. No person shall be granted more than one license under this Section except that a person who is a holder of an on -sale liquor license may also be the holder of an cff-sale liquor license, provided that the location of the on -sale operation is separate from the off -sale location. In such cases each location shall have a separate entrance onto a public street, sidewalk or mall area. SEC. 4.06. CONDITIIU.'AL LICENSES. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the con-rary, the Council may, upon a finding of the necessity therefor, place such special conditions and 71 restrictions, in addition to those stated in tnis Chapter, upon any license it deems reasonable and justified. SEC. 4.07. PREMISES LICENSED. Unless expressly stated therein, a license issued under the provisions of this Chapter shall be valid only in the compact and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license, and all transactions relating to a sale under such license must take place within such building or structure. The premise shall have an exclusive entrance from or exit to the exterior of the building at which the licensed premise is located. Entrances from or exits to a public concourse or public louby meet this requirement. Subd. I. All premises licensed under this Chapter shall at all times be open to inspection by any police officer or other individuals with enforcement powers to determine whether or not this Chapter .:id all other laws are being observed. Consent to such inspect'on by the licensee shall be a condition of each license granted. Police officers or other individuals with enforcement powers shall not need a search warrant for such inspections. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for any licensee, or agent or employee of a 1i,•ensee, to hinder or prevent a police officer or other individuals with enforcement powers from making such inspection. SEC. 4.12. LICENSE FEES. All licenses provided for in this Chapter, shall be issued only upon payment in full of license fees fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. SEC. 4.13. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEES. Subd. 1. Proof. No non-intoAicating malt liquor, wine or liquor license shall be issued or reviewed unless and until the applicant has provided proof of financial responsibility imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.450, by filing a certificate that there is in effect an irsurance policy or pool providing minimum coverages of (1) $109,3130.00 because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence, and $300,000.00 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, and in the amount of $10,000.0ri because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence, and (2) $100,000.00 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence, and, subject to the limit for one person, $300,000.00 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence. An annual aggregrate policy limit for dramshop liability of not less than $300,000.00 per policy year may be included in the policy provisions. 7 2 Subd. 2. Exception. This Section does not apply to on - sale non -intoxicating malt liquor licensees with sales of non - intoxicating malt liquor of less than $10,900.00 for the preceding year, nor to off -sale non -intoxicating malt liquor licensees with sales of non -intoxicating malt liquor of less than $20,000.00 for the preceding year, nor does it apply to holders of temporary wine licenses issued under 4.61. An affidavit of the licensee shall be required to establish the exemption under this Subdivision. Subd. 3. Documents Submitted to Commissioner. A11 proofs of financial responsibility and exemption affidavits f led with the City under this Section shall be submitted by the City to the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety. SEC. 4.14. INSURANCE CERTIFICA:'E REQUIREMENTS. Whenever an insurance certificate is required by this Chapter the applicant shall file with the City Clerk a certificate of insurance showing (1) that the limits are at least as high as required, (2) that coverage is effective for at least the license term approved, and (3) that such insurance will not be cancelled or terminated without thirty days' written notice s e r v e I upon the City Clerk. Cancellation or termination of such coverage shall be grounds for license revocation. SEC. 4.15. PROOF OF AGE. For the purposes of consuming, purchasing or possessing non -intoxicating malt liquor., wine or liquor, age may only be established by a valid driver's license or a current Minnesota identification card issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1985, Section 171.07. In the case of a foreign national, a valid passport may be used as an alternative to 'Che foregoing methods of identification. 3 SEC: 1 ._, PROHIBITED ACTS BY A LICENSEE (GENERAL). Subd. 1. Consumption. It is unlawful for any person to consume on an on -sale license premise, or any licensee to permit consumption of, non -intoxicating malt liquor, wine, or liquor on licensed premises more than twenty (2J) minutes after the hour when a sale thereof can legally be made. Subd. 2. Removal of Containers. It is unlawful for any on -sale licensee to permit any glass, bottle or other container, containing non -intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor in any quantity, to remain upon any table, bar, stool or other place where customers are served, more than twenty (20) minutes after the hour when a sale thereof can legally be made. Subd. 3. Closing. It is unlawful for any person, other than an on -sale licensee's bona fide employee actually engaged in the performance of his duties, to be on premises licensed under this Chapter more than thirty (30) minutes after the legal time for C making licensed sales. Provided, however, that this Subdivision shall not apply to licensees, employees of licensees and patroris on licensed premises for the sole purpose of preparing, serving or consuming food or beverages other than non -intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor. Subd. 4. Conduct on Licensed Premises. Except as herein provided, every licensee under this Chapter shall be responsible for the conduct of his place of business and shall maintain conditions of sobriety and order therein. Subd. 5. Sale by Employee. Any sale of non - intoxicating malt liquor, wine or liquor in or from any premises licensed under this Chapter by any employee authorized to make such sale in or from such place is the act of the employer as well as of the person actually making the sale; and every such employer is liable for all of the penalties provided by law for such sale equally with the person actually making the sale. Subd. 6. Manufactures or Wholesalers T:iterest in Retail Establishments. No manufacturer or wholesaler shall either directly or indirectly own or control or have a financial interest in any retail business. Subd. 7. No liquor in licensed restaurants. No person shall consume or carry any intoxicating or non -intoxicating liquor to or into any restaurant with the purpose of consumption therein. A. Illegal to permit mixing. No person shall mix or sell for the purpose of mixing any non -intoxicating malt liugor, soft drink, wine, liquor or beverage in a food estabiish:aent unless licensed as a hottle riub. Subd. S. Display. It is prohibited that any alcohol be displayed to the public in any manner in an on or off -sale licensed operation during the hours in which consumption is not per:n,_ted. 74 Subd. 9. Prohibition of License Issuance. No employee or public official of the City of Orono may be a holder of any license issued under this Section. This does not, however, prevent the issuance of a license to a club of which any of the aforementioned are members or on the board of directors. Subd. 10. Financial Indebtedness. No person shall be financially indebted to any person not otherwise qualified for the license. Subd. 11. Zoning Ordinance Requirements. Not withstanding any Section in this ordinance to the contrary, all premises that are licensed must be located in zoning districts in which they are permitted and must be in compliance with those zoning codes. "5 SEC. 4.17. General Prohibitions for purposes of this section, it is unlawful to: NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Subd. 1. Person other than the parent or legal guar in to procure non -intoxicating malt liquor for any person below the State established legal drinking age. Subd. 2. Person under the State established legal drinking age to consume non -intoxicating malt liquor unless in the company of his parent or guardian. Subd. 3. Persor, under the State established legal drinking age to have in his possession any non -intoxicating malt 1 iquor with intent to consume the same at a place other than the household of his parent or guardian. Possession of such non - intoxicating malt liquor at a _place other than the household of his parent or guardian shall be prima facia evidence of intent to consume the same at a place other than the household of his parent or gauadian. Subd. 4. Licensee or his employee to sell or serve non - intoxicating malt iiquor to any person under the State established legal drinking age, to consume non -intoxicating malt liquor on the licensed premise, or to permit any person under the state established legal drinking age to loiter or to remain in the room where on -sale non -intoxicating malt liquor is being sold or serve' unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian. Subd. 5. Person under the State established legal drinking age to purzhase or otherwise procure non -intoxicating malt liquor, or induce another party, not his parent or guardian, to procure non -intoxicating malt liquor fcr him. INTOXICATING LIQUOR Subd. 6. Person under the State established legal drinking age to consume intoxicating liquor. Subd. 7. Person under the State established legal drinking age to have intoxicating liquor in his possession. Subd. 8. Person under the State established legal drinking age to enter licensed premise for the purpose of purchasing or procuring intoxicating liquor. Subd. 9. Person under the State established legal drinking age to be in or upon licensed intoxicating liquor premises except a restaurant, hotel or motel, and then only if accompanied by at least one of his parents or his guardian; and it is unlawful for the licensee ti permit such person to remain upon licensed premises. Sub<'. 10. Licensee to sell or serve intoxicating liquor 76 to any person under the State established legal drinking age. Subd. 11. Person to furnish, purchase or procure intoxicating liquor for a person under the State established legal drinking age. Subd. 12. Person under the State established legal drinking age to purchase or otherwise procure intoxicating liquor, or induce another to purchase intoxicating liquor for him. Subd. 13. On -Sale Licensee to sell wine except in conjunction with the sale of food. INTOXICATING AND NON -INTOXICATING LIQUOR Subd. 14. A person under the State established legal drinking age to misrepresent his age for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating or non -intoxicating malt liquor. Subd. 15. Person to knowingly induce another to make an illegal sale or purchase of intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt liquor. Subd. 16. Licensee to sell intoxicating liquor or non - intoxicating malt liquor on any day, or during any hour, when sales of liquor are not permitted by law. Subd. 17. Person to purchase intoxicating liquor or non - intoxicating malt liquor on any day, or during any hours, when sales of liquor are not permitted by law. Subd. 18. Licensee to sell or serve intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt liquor to any person who is obviously intoxica`ed. NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR SEC. 4.20. NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR. LICENSE REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any person to sell, or keep or offer for sale, any non -intoxicating malt liquor without a license therefor from the City. This Section shall not apply to sales by manufacturers to wholesalers or to sales by wholesalers to persons holding off - sale non -intoxicating malt liquor licenses from the City. SEC. 4.21. TEMPORARY NON -INTOXICATING 14ALT LIQUOR LICENSE. Subd. 1. Applicant. A club or charitable, religious, or non-profit organization, duly incorporated as a non-profit or religious corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and the City, shall qualify for a temporary on -sale non -intoxicating malt liquor license, for serving non -intoxicating malt liquor. Licenses may be issued for serving, in addition to other premises, on end off school grounds, and in and out of school buildings. ORONO CC 77 SEC. 4.23. HOURS AND DAYS OF NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR SALES. No sale of non -intoxicating malt liquor shall be made between the hours of 1:00 o'ClocK A.M. and 8:00 o'clock A.M. on any weekday, Monday through Saturday, inclusive. Nor shall any sale be made on any Sunday between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 12:00 o'clock noon. SEC. 4.24. UNLAWFUL ACTS (NCH -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR) . For the purpose of this Section, refer to Section 4.16 and 4.17. ORONO CC 79 INTOXICATING LIQUOR SEC. 4.30. LIQUOR LICENSE REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any person to sell, or keep or offer for sale, any liquor without a license therefor from the City. This Section shall not apply (1) to possession or handling for sale or otherwise of sacramental wine or any representative of any religious order or for use in connec- tion with a legitimate religious ceremony, (2) to such potable liquors as are prescribed by licensed physicians and dentists for therapeutic purposes, (3) to industrial alcohol and its compounds not prepared or used for beverage purposes, (4) to wine in the possession of a person duly licensed under this Chapter as an on - sale wine licensee, or (5) to sales by manufacturers to wholesalers duly licensed as such by the State of Minnesota and to sales by wholesalers to persons holding on -sale licenses from the City. SEC. 4.31. LIQUOR LICENSE RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS. GENERAL PROVISIONS Subd. 1. Prior to issuance of any on -sale or off -sale license the applicant shall file with the City Clerk a bond with a corporate surety, cash, or United States government bonds in the sum of $5,000.00. Subd. 2. No license shall be granted to a wholesaler or manufacturer of liquor, or to anyone holding a financial interest in such manufacture or wholesaling. Subd. 3. No license shall be effective u,icil a permit shall be issued to a licensee under the laws of the United States, if such permit be required under such laws or the State of Minnesota. Subd. 4. No gambling or gambling device shall be permitted on any licensed premises, except such as are licensed under the City Code. Subd. 5. No licensee shall sell, offer for sale, or keep for sale, liquor in any original package which has been refilled or partly refilled. Subd. 6. No licensee shall display liquor to the public during hours when the sale of liquor is prohibited. Subd. 7. No more than one license shall be held by any person, except as provided in Section '4.05. For the purpose of this Subdivision, any person owning a beneficial interest of five percent, or more, of any licensed establishment shall be considered a licensee. ORONO CC ME Subd. 8. The Council may issue the number of licenses authorized by statute or restrict such number from time to time as it may, in its discretion, deem proper. Subd. 9. The business records of the licensee, including Federal and State tax returns, shall be available for inspection by the Council, or other duly authorized representative of the City, at all reasonable times. Subd. 10. Any proposed enlargement, alteration or extension of premise shall be reported to the City Clerk at or before the time application is made for a building permit. Subd. 11. Every license shall be granted subject to the provisions of the Chapter and all other applicable provisions of the City Code and other laws relating to the operation of the licensed business. ON -SALE LIQCOR AND WINE Subd. 12. No person under the age of eighteen (18) ye-.-s shall be employed upon premises, or in any rooms cor.."ituting the same, except that persons under the age of eighteen years may be employed as musicians or to perform the duties of a busboy or dishwashing services in places defined as a restaurant, hotel or motel. Subd. 13. On -sale licenses shall be granted only to hotels, motels, restaurants and bona fide clubs. Subd. 14. No on -sale license shall be granted for a restaurant or hotel which does not have a total market value, including land, building and equipment of at least $200,000.00, nor shall a Sunday sale license be granted for a restaurant or hotel which does not have a total market value, including land, building and equipment of at least $500,000.09, as appraised by the City Assessor, except that the Council may grant a license where the total market value is less than the required value on the condition that the establishment be improved within five years to the required market value, not including an increase in value caused by the original granting of the liquor license. Subd. 15. No license renewal application shall be considered by the Council until the applicant has filed with the City Clerk a statement made by a certified public accountant, setting forth the total gross sales and the total food sales of the restaurant for the twelve-month period immediately preceding the date for filing renewal applications. Subd. 16. No on -sale restaurants or hotels unless they ai Business District. se shall be granted to sated in a B-1 Commercial OPONO CC 81 Subd. 17. No sale of liquor shall be made to or in guest rooms of hotels, unless the rules of such hotels provide for service of food in guest rooms, and unless the sale accompanies and is incident to the regular service of meals to guests therein. OFF -SALE LIQUOR AND WINE Subd. 18. An off -sale licensee may provide samples of wine, liqueurs, and cordialE which the licensee currently has in stock and is offered to the general public without obtaining an additional license providing that the wine, liqueur, and cordial samples are dispensed at no charge and consumed on a licensed premise during the permitted hours of off -sale in a quantity less than 50 milliliters of wine per variety per customer, and 25 milliliters of liqueur or cordial per variety per customer. Subd. 19. No off -sale licensee, his agent or employee shall deliver any intoxicating liquor to or at any place or premises without obtaining a receipt therefor, signed by the person receiving such liquor and bearing the time, date and place of delivery. Such receipts shall be kept in the files of the licensee for a period of one year and such files and receipts shall be available for inspection by the license examiner or designated employee at all hours during which the licensed premises is open for business. Subd. 20. No off -sale establishment may be located within 500 feet of an institution of public education whose primary purpose is education of individuals in grades kindergarten through 12th grade. Subd. 21. No off -sale establishment may be located closer than 1/2 mile from the off -sale premise licensed in the City of Orono with a maximum of two off -sale licer s issued in the City. 8 SEC. 4.32. HOURS AND DAYS OF LIQUOR SALES. Subd. 1. On -sale. No on -sale of liquor shall be made between 1:00 o'clock A.M. on Sunday, nor until 8:00 o'clock A.M. on Monday, nor after 8:00 o'clock P.M. on December 24. No on - sale of liquor shall be made between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 8:00 o'clock A.M. on any weekday or Saturday. Subd. 2. Off -sale. No off -sale of liquor shall be made before 8:00 o'clock A.M. or after 8:00 o'clock P.M. of any day, except Friday and Saturday on which days may be made until 10:00 o'clock P.M. No off -sale shall be made on New Year's Day, January 1; Independence Day, July 4; Thanksgiving Day; or Christmas Day, December 25; but on the evenings preceding such days, if the sale of liquor is not otherwise prohibited on such evenings, off -sales may be made until 10:00 o'clock P.M. SEC. 4.33. SUNDAY SALES. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, a Sunday on -sale license may be issued to hotels, motels and restaurants, as herein defined, which have on -sale liquor licenses, to serve liquor between the hours of 10:00 o'clock A.M. and 12:00 o'clock midnight on Sundays in conjunction, with the serving of food, provided that the licensee establishment is in conformance with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. SEC. 4.34. UNLAWFUL ACTS (LIQUOR). For the purpose of this Section, refer to Section 4.16 and 4.17. (Sections 4.35 through 4.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 93 SEC. 4.40. ON -SALE WINE. Subd. 1. On -Sale Wine License Required. It is unlawful for any person to sell, or keep or offer for sale, any wine without a license therefor from the City. This Section shall not apply (1) to possession or handling for sale or otherwise of sacramental wine or any representative of any religious order or for use in connec- tion with a legitimate religious ceremony, (2) to sales by manufac- turers to wholesalers duly licensed as such by the State of Minnesota, (3) to sales by wholesalers to persons holding on -sale or off -sale liquor licenses from the City, or (4) to sales by wholesalers to persons holding on -sale wine licenses from the City. Subd. 2. On -Sale Wine License Restrictions and Regulations. A. Prior to issuance of any on -sale wine license, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk a bond with a corporate surety, cash, or United States government bonds in the sum o- .3,000.09. B. No license shall be granted to a wholesaler or manufacturer of wine, or to anyone holding a financial interest in such manufacture or wholesaling. C. No license shall be effective until a permit shall be issued to a licensee under the laws of the United States, if such permit be required under such laws or the Sate of Minnesota. L). No gambling or gambling device shall be permitted on any licensed premises, except such as are licensed under the City Code. E. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years shall be employed upon premises, or in any rooms constituting the same, except that persons under the age of eighteen years may be employed as musicians or to perform the duties of a busboy or dishwashing services in places defined as a restaurant. Persons under eighteen years of age may be employed as waiters or waitresses in places defined as a restaurant, hotel or motel to serve food in rooms in which only wine is sold on -sale, provided they shall not be permitted to serve or sell wine. F. No licensee shall display wine to the public on days or during hours when the sale of wine is prohibited. G. No more than one license shall be held by any person. For the purpose of this Subparagraph, any person owning a beneficial interest of five percent, or more, of any licensed establishment shall be considered a licensee. ORONO CC 84 H. On -sale wine licenses shall be granted only to restaurants as defined in this Chapter. Provided, however, for purposes of this Section, such restaurant shall have appropriate facilities for seating not less than twenty-five guests at one time. I. Every license shall be granted subject to the provisions of this Chapter and all other applicable provisions of the City Code and other laws relating to the operation of the licensed business. SEC. 4.41. HOURS AND DAYS OF SALES BY ON -SALE WINE LICENSEES. No sale of wine shall be made between 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 12:00 o'clock noon on Sunday, nor between 12:00 o'clock midnight and until 8:00 o'clock A.M. on Monday, between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 8:00 o'clock A.M. on any weekday, including Saturday; nor between the hours of 8:00 o'clock P.M. on December 24 and 1:00 o'clock A.M. on December 25. SEC. 4.42. UNLAWFUL ACTS (WINE). For the purpose of this Section, refer to Section 4.10' and 4.17. (Sections 4.43 through 4.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 81; BOTTLE AND CLUB LICENSES SEC. 4.50. ADDITIONAL CLUB LICENSEE RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS, AND UNLAWFUL ACTS. Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Member" means any person in good standing according to r:-les and regulations of the licensed club, wherever located, having evidence of current membership upon his person. B. "Guest" means a person not a member of the club licensee but present on the club licensed premises in the cc,i:pany of a host member. C. "Host member" means a member who is entertaining a guest who is in the member's company at all times such guest is on the licensed premises. D. Definition. For purposes of this Section, the term "bottle club" is a "club" as defined in this Chapter, or an unincorporated society which; except for its lack of incorporation, otherwise meets the requirements of a club, and which is not otherwise licensed for the sale of liquor, either on -sale or off - sale or both. Subd. 2. Unlawful Acts. The following are in addition to all other unlawful acts set forth in this Chapter relating to sales and purchases of non -intoxicating malt liquor or liquor, as the case may be: A. It is unlawful for a club licensee to sell liquor or non -intoxicating malt liquor to any person not a member of the licensed club. B. It is unlawful for any club licensee to serve ncn-intoxicating malt liquor or liquor to any non-member of the licensed club unless such non-member is a guest. C. It is unlawful for any person who is not a member of the licensed club to purchase l.iqucr or non - intoxicating malt liquor from the club. D. It is unlawful for any club licensee to hinder or prevent a police officer from determining compliance with this Section and Chapter, and all other laws. E. It is unlawful for any person to refuse, upon request of a licensee or police officer, to ?rovide information as to whether he or she is a member, guest or host member, or to give false, fraudulent or misleading information in response to such request. M. (Sections 4.51 through 4.59, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 87 W SEC. 4.60. CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY. Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any bottle club or for any business establishment to allow the consumption or display of liquor or the serving of any liquid for the purpose of mixing iiqucir without a license therefor from the City, but a bottle club as he,.ein defined and licensed ma;, permit its members to L.ring end keep a personal supply of liquor in lockers assigned to such membera. Subd. 2. Restrictions and Regulations. A. aver; oottle, container or other receptacle containing liquor stor.:d by a member of a bottle club shall have attached to it a label signed by the member of the club, shall he kept in a locker designated to the use of such member, and no other liquor shall be on bottle club premises. B. It is unlawful for any club member under the State established legal drinking age to be assigned a locker for the storage of liquor or to consum, e or display liquor on any premises under control by such club. C. It is unlawful to consume or allow consumption or display of liquor in any bottle club or business establishment between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. on Sunday, nor until 8:00 o'clock A.M. on Monday, nor after 8:00 o'clock P.M. on December 24. No on -sale of liquor shall be made between the hours of 1:00 o'clock A.M. and 8:00 o'clock A.M. on any weekday or Saturday. D. No license shall be issued to any bottle club when a member of the board, management, executive committee, or other similar body chosen by its m,,mbers, or when a business establishment or the owner holds a Federal retail liquor dealer's special tax stamp for the sale of liquor. E. Liquor sold, served or displayed in violation of this Ordinance shall be subject to seizure for purposes of evidence. Subd. 3. State Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person or business establishment, directly or indirectly, or upon any pretense or devi-e, to allow the consumption or display of liquor or the serving of any liquid for the purpose of mixing of liquor without first having obtained 4 permit therefor from the State of Minnesota. ORONO CC W 88 Rec Cat Bv- CITY OF OROt;O APPLICATION FOR OFF SALE INTOXICATING AND ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE PART 1 - General Information Directions: This form must be filled out in duplicate with typewriter or by printing in ink. If the application is by a natural person, by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer, thereof; if by a partnership, by one of the partners; if by an unincor- porated association, by the.manager or manaa4ng officer thereof 1. Name of applicant (name of individual, partnership, corporation or association): TIMMIE GROVER HOLTZ JIvomIE' S INC. 2. Business Name JI.1LNIE'5 LOUNGE Business Address3380 SHORELINE DR. Phone 471-7666 NAVARRE MN. 55392 IF BUSINESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER A DESIGNATION, NAME OR STYLE OTHER THAN FULL INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE APPLICANT, ATTACH 2 COPIES OF THE TRADE: NAME CERTIFICATE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 333, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OFFT_C: 3. Type of Applicant: Natural Person (Individual) Partnership X Corporation Association Other 4.(a) if the applicant is a natural person (individual), state full name, residence and business -.'dress and telephone numbers. True NameJimmie Residence Address 5233 SARTL$TT BLVD. Phone4Z3. 62 Business Address3380 SHORELINE DR, NAVARRE MN. Phone 471-7666 (b) The full name, residence address and telephone number of the a--ent ` in cj.arge of the individual owners premises at such time as e owner is absent. Tr.�e Name NO NB Part 1 - General Information loci Sale intoxicats.nyl 4.(b) continued Phone Residence Address (c) The full name, residence address and telephone number of the assist- ant manager. 5. (a) Assistant Manager Phone Residence Address - (A Part 11 - Personal History form must be filled out and attached for each of the individuals in 4a, 4b, and 4c.) If the applicant is a partnership, state full names, residence and business addresses, telephone numbers, and in}erest cf each member of the partnership. Full Name Residence Business Full Name Residence Business Full Name Residence Business Address Full Name interest e e -- Interest a Interest a Interest__ Residence Phone Phone Business (b) The managing partr,er ill. b : FX Phone Name Address full name, residence address and telephone number of the assist- (c) The manager and any other indi.',4/al with management respons bilitie ant ful of the partnership's pre:ni es 0 licensed: Phcne Full Name -- — - -- Residence Addres3 On Sale and Part 1 - General Information (Off Sale Intoxicating) 5.(c) continued Full Name Phone Residence Address Full Name Phone (A Part 11 - Personal History form must be filled out and at- tached for each of the individuals in 5a, 5b, and 5c.) If the application is for a partnership; attach two copies of the Partner- ship Agreement and two copies of the Certificate of Trade Name under pro- visions of Chapter 333, Minnesota Statutes, certified by the Clerk of Dis- trict Court. 6.(a) If the applicant is a corporation.or association, give the name of corporation or association, metropolitan address and phone number, and home office address and phone number. State of Incorporation Name JIMMIS' INC. _ or Association MN. STERN. YINE,LIFSON & STRAUSS,P. A. SUIT 200 Metropolitan Address 5401 L. (street) City) (State) Zip Metropolitan Phone 2- 4- c (area code and number) (b) The full names, residences and telephone numbers of all officers of said corporation or association. President JIMMIS GROPER HOL T? Phon2,�,+ area code and NC Residence Address 5233 HARTLBTT BLVD. MN. 33364 street (City) State) Zip) Vice President cnuQ Phone (area co a an No. Residence Address SAM Fstreet City) tate Z P Secretary SAM$_ Phone (area code and o.) Residence Address SAME Street) City (State ZiP Treasurer Phone (area Coda and No.) Residence Address SAMi treet)(City) tate(zip) -3- On Sale and Part 1 - General Information (Off Sale Intoxication) 6.(c) The full names, residence addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who singly or together :with their spouse and his or her par- ents, brothers, sisters or children, who own or control any interest in said corporaticn or association. Full Name 4149 Nr C Interest Residence Address Phone (street) (City) (State) (zip) (area code & No. Full Name No A) 6 Interest Residence Address Phone (street) (City) (State) (zip) area code & No. Full Name /u D AJ 7=_ Interest Residence Address Phone (street) (City) (State) (zip) (area code & No. Full Name ^f 0 nl L. Interest r Residence Phone lstreet) (City) (State) (zip) area code & No. (d) The full name, residence addresses and telephone numbers of the mana- ger, and any other individual with management responsibilities. Full Name /(% .i /� 4E Residence Address (street) (City) (State) (zip) Phone area code & No. Full Name /-,/ p A/ & Phone (area code & No. Residence Address (street) (City) (State) (zip) Full Name %J O Aj Phone (area code & No. Residence Address (street) (City) (State) (zip) (A Part II - Personal History form must be filled out and attached for individuals listed in 6b, 6c, and 6d.) ATTACH: 1. Two copies of the Certificate of Incorporation 2. Three copies of the Articles of Incorporation or Association Ag--- reement. 3. Three copies of the Hy -Laws to the application. 4. Foriegn Corporations shall attach two Certificate of Authorit", as described in M.S.A. Chapter 303. 5. Three copies of the Lease Agreement. 7. Do you hold an interest of ten percent or more in any other liquor establishment in the State of Minnesota? Yes ---No �If yes, give name of establishment and location. lJ 11 ad1C . .0 Part'l General Information (Off Sale Intoxicating) 7. (continued) Name of Establishment Ijc. Address of Establishment 3380 SHORELIv S o (street) (City) (State) zip) S. List warehouse locations in which you store liquor off the licensed premesis, both in Orono and any other municipality. 1;0vF 9. State the exact legal description to be licensed. (Applicant must also submit a plot plan showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access, parking facilities or the closest point on a lot occupied by a public school.) P.I.D.# 17-117-23-44-0100 10. How are the premises zoned under the Orono zoning ordinance? "mmercial- - 11. State full names, residences, and business addresses and telephone numbers of the owner or owners of the building wherein the licensed br:�iness will be located, if the owner is other than the applicant. Full Name GLASS IT PARTNERS Phcne559-o635 Residence Address 14600 28TH AVE. N. PLYMOUTH, MN. 55441 street) (City) (State) (zip code) Business Address Full Name Phone _ Residence Address (street) (City) (Sate) (zip code) Business Address 12. Where the building is owned by other than applicant, state in summary the conditions of lease arrangement, such as term of lease, monthly rental, renewal privileges, etc. PLEASE SEE LEASE ON IME -9- Part 1 General Information (Off Sale Intoxicating) 13. If the building is owned by the individual applicant, partnership, corporation or association, state: (a) Date Purchased 4t4- (b)Name and address of person purchased from (c)Purchase price Amount of down payment (d)Who currently holds the mortgage - Name and Address (e)Amount of cont=act for deed_ (f)Who currently holds contract for deed - Name and Address (g)Term of mortgage (h)Term of contract for deed (i)Rate of interest on mortgage (j)Rate of interest on contract for deed (k)State the monthly payment at which the mortgage and/or contract for deed is b-ing liquidated (1)Are the payments on the mortgage and/or contract for deed up to date? 14. (a)State the total cost of assets acquired to start this business including the business premesis, if purchased, fixtures, furniture, equipment, merchandise for resale, cash for working capital, prepaic insurance and any other assets. (If acquired from predecessor, at- tach purchase agreement.) ,/ /V / 'Part 1 - General Infcrma,ion (Off Sale Intoxicating) 14. (b)Of the above cost of assets acquired, state the amount that is provided by the perscn(s) investing in this business. (Attach supporting proof of the source of such money. 15. Give full names, addresses, telephone numbers of all persons, other than the applicant, who have any financial interest in the business buildings, premises, fixtures, furniture, or stock in trade. State the nature of the interest, anount thereof, and the terms for payme or other reimbursement. (This shall include, but not be limited tc any lessees, lessors, mortgagors, lendors, lien holders, trustees, trustors, and persons who have cosigned notes or otherwise loaned, pledged, or extended security for an indebtedness of the applicant. Full Name �L/ Phone _ T— Address Nature of Interest, etc. Full Name Phone Address Nature of Interest, etc. _ Full Name Phone Address Nature of Interest, etc. Full Name AZ' / Address Phone Nature of Interest, etc. r CA.1. 1 - VCl 1 C'L al 11 L L lJ l i& k a 1. L lJ 11 kVLL J a L l:l l.VX1Ca(,1aUf IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR PREMISES EITHER PLANNED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR UNDERGOING SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SET OF PRELIMINARY PLANS SHOWING THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PREMISES TO BE LICENSED. IF THE PLANS OR DESIGN ARE ON FILE WITH THE OR0140 BUILD- ING AND ZONING DIVISION, NO ADDITIONAL PLANS NEED BE FILED WITH THIS APP- LICATION. 16. State the floor number, general area, and rooms where intoxicating ]iauor is to be sold and stored. (Applicant shall attach a floor plan showing dimensions indicating and identifying all other rooms and other areas where intoxicating liquor is to be sold and stored.) �'IDD AN D B�t�e m �A)"r 17. What permits required by the Federal government have been applied for or issued and what is the nature of the permit? 18. What permits or licenses required by the State of Minnesota have been applied for or issued for the premises? In what name were these ap- plied for or issued and what is the nature of the permit or license? t'?'j�aNes%De�A�T�r►Q,�JTat'/�QJaauE SA�zS �.�D GISPTA`�C�l�n'tcT S+%s7.a� 1►�t�uNuo?� i CTV0 Z C ouTa0i_ Z)1 V1S10 J Rera�le�s2pe�rri ��ca r�o.�C�4 D f�c�.Un�zPi ✓ Co u �T y %�e�L�-h J�Q/� % /,.i c z ,ems e �� S.�/es /I21V X1Gc U o /2 ,LIC N 7a, 1 sw M By oti 19. Have the necessary applications for City licenses (such as cigarettes, beverage or vending chines) for this establishment been prepared for submission? Yes � No 20. Are any real estate taxes, personal property taxes, special assessment or other financial claims of the Citv of Qr_ono delinquent or unpaid for the premises to be licenses?K;la�VIf "YES", give details. t?n 1JoT CLV ,,-J 2c-Le /a1A.) Cr-- 21. Is the premises located within 500 ft. of anv public school? (This distance is as measured in a straight line from the parcel or lot upon which the business to be licensed is located to the nearest point of the parcel or lot upon w ch the public school is located.) Yes No -8- On Sale and Ra'rt 1 - General Information (Off Sale Intoxicating) 22. Names, residence addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers of three persons, residents of Hennepin County, of good moral charac- ter, not related to the applicant or financially interested in t::e premises or business, who may be referred to as the applicants charac- ter. Full Name PAUL C. CARLSON Phone 471-9137 (area code & No. Residence Address 2735 SHADTWOOD RD. ORONO MS. (street) (Cite) (State) (zip) Business Address 1303 CENTRAL AV. N. S. NPLS• phone 789-8885 (street) (City). (State) (area code & No. Full Name CHARLES P. CARROLL Phone 474-6263 (area code & No. Residence Address 233 LAKBVIBW AV. TOnka b&T mn. (street) (City) (State) (zip) Business Address 430 1ST. AVB. X. XPLS. MN. Phone 338-8777 (street) (City) (State) (area code & No. Full Name LBONARD.7. LAMBERT Phone 474-4242 Business (area co q Nc. Re 33aQPPPCXddress 314 A. 3RD. ST. MPLS. MN. 333- 0409 (street) (Cite) (State) (Zip) R3I1)BNCS B u s 2X_444?P(Xd d r e s s 240 SUNRICB AV. TONKA BAY )IN. phone 474-4242 (street) (Cite) (State) (area code & No. ANY FALSIFICATION OF ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION. A Financial Statement of net worth and a short autobiography must accompany this application for all persons who are required to complete a Part 11 Per- sonal Information form. (Exception - Manager and Assistant Manager provided these individuals are not partners or officers of corporation.) Subscri d and sworn to befo me a Nota,��. Public this_AL-!22:_day of D 9 tary signature) DOROTHY W NALLIN f' NOTARY ►U8LX,`4=0j@M)M HENNEPIN COUNTY 1y �n �w 6iN ic. ature plic.ant) b �® Commiss on Expires On CITY OF ORONO IN, SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE AND OFF -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE PART 11 -Personal Information Directions: This fora must be filled out in duplicate with tvpewriter or by printing in ink by the sole own..:, by each partner, by eac:. officer, or director, by each manager, proprietor or other per son with management responsibilities for the premises, by eac: person who by combined ownership or control has an interest i a corporation or association in excess of 5%. Date 11-9-88 JIMMI E GROVER HOLTZ TRUE NAME: (first) (full middle) (maiden name) (last) 3233 BARTLETT BLVD. ADDRESS: JIMMIES INC. BUSINESS NAME: BU 3380 SHORELI`TE DR. S ADDRESS: MOUND, MN. �treet, City, State NAVARRE, M.N. (Street, Cite, State 2- NUMBS: 471-7666 PHONE NUMBr: ST.PAUL, MN. RAMSEY MN. 2-10-34 PLACE OF BIRTH: (City, County, State) DATE CF BIRTH:(mo.,dav, S 116 " 155 BROWN HAZEL HEIGHT: WEIGHT: COLOR OF HAIR: COLOR OF EYES: U.S. CITIZEN? Yes X Naturalized? Yes 7f yes, give date and place: No RE MARITAL STATUS: Married Single Divorced X If married, true name, place and date of birth, and residence address of spousE TRUE NAME: (first) full middle) (maiden name) (last) PLACE OF BIRTH: City, County, State) DATE OF BIRTH: mo., aav, RESIDENCE ADDRESS: (Street, City, State If you have ever used or been known by a name or names other than the true naic given above, list such name(s) and information concerning dates and places usec-. On Sale and Pe'rsonal information - Part 11(Off Sale intoxicating) Are you a registered voter? Yes X No If yes, where are you registered? MOUND PRECINCT 41 Is your spouse a registered voter? Yes No If yes, where is spouse registered? 1. Address(es) at which you have lived during proceeding 10 years. (Begin with present or last address and work back.) NO. AND STREET CITY & STATE DATES 52331 PARTLETT BLVD._ MOUND.- MN 10-1-80 TZLL PASSTzVT 332Q CRYSTAL SAY RD. ORONO, MN 5-1-78 TO 10-1-80 2. Address(es) at which your spouse has lived during preceeding 10 years. (Begin with the pre -`:it or last address and work back.) NO. AND STREET. CITY & STATE DATES 3. Kind, name and location of every business o.- occupation you have been en- gaged in during preceding ten years. (Begin with present or last occupa- tion and work back.) BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION STREET ADDRESS CITY,STATE DATES JIMMIE'S INC. 3380 SHORELINE DR. NAVARRE, MN. 10-1-76 4. Kind, name and location of every business or occupation your spouse has been engaged in during preceding ten years. (Begin with the present or last occupation and work back.) BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION STREET ADDRESS C1-"'f,STATE DATES 4. (continued) 5. Names and addresses of your employers and partners, if any, for the precee ing ten years. (Begin with present or last one first and work back) NAMES: EMPLOYERS OR PARTNERS STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE DATES 6. Names and addresses of your spouse's employers and partners, if any, for t: prec.eeding ten years. (Begin with present or last one first and work back NAMES: EMPLOYERS OR PARTNERS STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE DATES 7. Have you, your spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of either of you, ever been convicted of any felony, crime or violation of any ordinance, other than traffic? Yes No X If yes, give information as to the time, place and offense for which convictions were had. 8. Have you, your spouse, or a parent, brother, sister or child of either of you, ever been engaged as an employee or in oo_erating a saloon, hotel, restaurant, cage, tavern or other business of a similar nature. Yes No__ X If yes, give information as to the time, place and length o—i t E 9. Have you been in military service? Yes X No if yes, was discharge(s ever other than honorable? Yes No ��opies of discharge papers may be required.) 10. Names, residence addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers of each person who is engaged in Minnesota in the business o`_ selling, manu- facturing or distributing intoxicating liquor and who is nearer of kin to you or your spouse than second cousin, whether of the whole or half blood, computed by the rules of civil law, or who is a brother-in-law or sister- in-law of you or your spouse. Full Name Relationship Residence Address— — —PhJ „_ On Sale and Personal Information - Part 11(Off Sale Intoxicating) lo. (continued) Business Address 1. Phone Full Name Relationship Residence Address Phone Business Address Full Name Residence Address Business Address Phone Relationship Phone Phone 11. Are you a manufacturer or wholesaler of intoxicating liquor or interested directly or indirectly in the ownership or operation of any such business? Yes No X 12. Are you directly or indirectly interested in other establishments in the City of Orono to which a license of the same kind has been issued? (Refer to City Code, Section 4.01, Subdivision 4 for definition or "interest".) Yes No X If yes, list names, addresses and interest. 13. Are you the spouse of a Gerson who would be ineligible for a license? Yes No X 14. What is the amount of investment that you will have in the business, build- ing, premises, fixtures, furniture, stock in trade, etc.? State the source of such money. (You must be prepared to furnish proof of the source of such money.) 15. Have you had any interest in any previous intoxicating was revoked; suspended or not renewed? Yes No X in detail. liquor license that If yes, explain 16. Have you ever individually, or with others, made application for an intoxi- cating liquor license and had such application denied? Yes No X If yes, state circumstances. 1-. List the names, residences, and business addressed of three residents or Hennepin County, of good moral character, not related to the applicant or financially interested in the premises or business, whc may be referred to as the applicant's character. -4- Personal Information - Part li(Oft Sale Intoxicating) 17. (continued) 2735 SHADY100D RD. ORONO MN. Name FAUL C. CARLSCv Residence Address Business Address 1505 CENTRAL AV.N S. MPLS. Phone 789-3885 235 LAKEVIE:d AVE, TONKA BAY MN. Name CHARLES P. CARROLL Residence Address Business Address 430 15T.AV. N. MPLS. Phon _ 7 77 240 SUNRMSE AV. TONKA BAY, MN. Name LEONARD F. LAMBERT Residence Address Business Address 514 N. 3RD ST. MPLS MN Phone333-0409 ANY FALSIFICATION OF ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION. A Financial Statement of net worth and a short autobiography must accompany this application for all persons who are requried to complete a Part 11 Per- sonal Information form. (Exception - Manager, Assistant Manager, Food Manager and Beverage Manager, provided these individuals are not partners, officers of corporation or do not hold an interest in excess of five percent.) X - --fs' ature of plicant) Subsc ibed and sworp to before me 4 N.0a9y�; Publi on this da o Notary Signature) Commission Expires On OOIIOTW IL NALUN M WAM PL000 MM dGIVA HENNEPIN COUNTY My M"rW-310" *XPWW 2540 -5- 12988.1HD To: From: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director December 9, 1988 Subject: Recycling Bid Award Attachment A - Recycling P' Memo dated 10/13/88 (memo only) On December 9, 1988, the City received and opened bids for curbside recycling pick-up for 1989. The bids are as follows: Polka Dot Recycling, Buffalo, Minnesota Curbside Pick-up - Twice Monthly Annual Cost Monthly Cost $19,410 1,617.00 Refuse Location - Twice Monthly Annual Cost Monthly Cost $2.',297 2,274.75 Waste Management, Blaine, Minnesota Curbside Pick-up - Twice Monthly Annual Cost Monthly Cost $37,226.64 3,102.22 Refuse Location - Twice Monthly No Bid. Annual Cost Per Resident 7.38 Annual Cost Per Resident 10.38 Annual Cost Per Resident 14.16 The service provided by Polka Dot is as follows: Monthly Cost Per Resident .61 Monthly Cost Per Resident .86 Monthly Cost Per Resident 1.18 Glass - clear, brown, green - remove heavy foil and rinse Corrugated Cardboard - tied into 3 fcot square bundle Bi-Metal Cans Aluminum CP^ Tin Cans - flattened Aluminum Foil and Trays Newspaper - bagged or tiec (No junk mail, magaTines, or phone books) Auto i Truck Batteries - must be clean with caps on Motor Oil - must be in container with cap (container will be returned for reuse) Recycling Bid Award December 9, 1988 Pdge 2 of 3 The service provided by Waste Management is as follows: Glass - remove steel caps and steel neck rings - rinse Aluminum & Bi-Metal Cans - rinse (glass, tin cans, aluminum cans in one container) News;aper - bagged or tied Waste Management currently provides service to Columbia Heights, P.obbinsdale and Ramsey as well as the metro area. Polka Dot Recycling currently provides service to Buffalo, Corcoran, Maple Plain, Medina and Long Lake. In addition to the recycling program costs are recycling containers. Containers are available locally with a cost range of approximately $5.00 to $8.50, dependent on quantity and size. Some containers will be available at the December 12, 1988 Council meeting. Recommendation - To award the curbside recycling bid to Polka Lot Recyclers for a total annual cost of $19,410.00. It is also recommended that the City bill the residents an annual charge of $9.00 to cover cost of curbside pick-up, container cost and administrative charge. Proposed Motion: Moved by , seconded by , to award th recycling cid to Polka Dot Recycling for a total annual cost of $19,41 for curbside pick-up twice monthly. Ayes , Nays __ /S r1388.4 Tv: mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato v"Z) DATE: October 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Recycling Proposal Attachments: A. Recycling Proposals Dated 10/4/88 B. Recycling Proforma -,Polka Dot & Super Cycle ISSUE 1. Determination as to whether the Council wants to undertake "curbside recycling". 2. Development of process to implement. 3. Determination of funding for recycling. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's October 10, 1988 Council meeting the. reviewed the initial information on the recycling proposals and costs. Base(, on this it was tabled to the October 24th meetinq for a further presentation of costs. nTcrTTccTnrt - 1. Curbside Recycling - Council reviewed the cost for "-irbside" recyclir*I together with the costs from the vendors to pick p at the norms_ garbage location, which in many cases is not curbs Should the Cit✓ go with Super Cycle now this would presently be the same cost -ut as i-: requires more service, a higher cost in the future once introduced a the normal garbage pickup place, the City will find it difficult to mo v it back to curbside. On the other hand with Minnetonka Beach receivin• that at the garbage pickup location now other people in Orono will be familiar with the level of service and cost that hey are gettinc ( Minnetonka Beach cost 1.00 per month per household) . Additionally, it should be note `gat although the efforts of west Hennepin drop-off sites have been excellent that the City will not be able to reach its goals for recycling without curbside or a substantial on -going educational effort. If the City does not meet the goal, it would risk having the County take over the program and putting in a program of their choice at costs that they would determine. 2. Process for Implementation - The following are issues that need to be address in the process: F.--::ycling Proposal October 13, 1988 Pane 2 of 3 A. The City of Oronc_;rr P'.i%t Hcnnenin Recycling - The City could undertake tl,e pr.oce :,f recycling on its owc, but would necessarily ne?d to go cut for bids on its own. The concern at this point is however, that because of the total cost to the City of recycl ng or not regardless of whether the Cite staved with recycling Commission. The proposal would have to be bi. as it exceF�ds +-he parameters for bidding. The initial reaction is that the "^''-" is questionable as to being a legal bid. Should `he City desire . i on its own and bid its own service, it would not however loose tb 3rop-off sites that currently exist but wou'_d any educational programs th-t would be a joint effort of the commission. The cost of this for 1989 is estimated to be $7,275.0 , nr!t cost may only be $3,500.00. It is not anticipated that the City's contractors cost would be any different ill' the City went on its own, belt the administrative responsibility wou:,1 be Mourne by staff. B. Once or Twice a Mr th - The proposals have it at twice a mont pickup and this is That most o` the suburban areas are doing. C. Start Date and Educatic,i - It is anticipated that once a start date is establisheA, brochures be prepared to be drooped off with containers. D. Container De1i:ery - The cost of actual delivery is included in th container cost and would not be an additional c•-- . F. Number of Containe-rs - while any nur•, containers can b delivered to the residents tyn=-ally the ban areas have bee deliverinc between t.�o a:,d tt:ree, one for glass, one for metals and on for papers. Often t oAoer is!-.,.:e is h, ndled using gr:.cery bags for th communities teat ha,ic only delivered two. In the next =ew months, it i expect.-�d chat there w '%^ a divided c-)llLainer coming on the market fo a similar cost. !. Funding - Attachment a gut s the cost r mee-ing the minimu r _cyc1 ino noe 1s. These f _ do not include the cost of W- st Hennepin recycling. IQ this shoulH item, inclusion of these costs can be mad from undes.J, e in 1988 to be re_mbursed by charges in futuca year_uld c•harga the resident the cost i;is ..service ..,i b:' t F ., Cher for the full cos, cr a portion of ,a .%n additional al terngtive may be to charge it `.yh the heulu s contract :. AC 'Ee..14'PIVES - "C,.:rbsis Issues: 1. Under �.ak,-; 2. Continue with dc..p-off sites Only; 3. Curbs' -de only; 4. P:icee of normal garbage pick-up. Recycling Proposal October 13, 1988 Page 3 of 3 B. Process o Implement: 1. Entity to operate: a) West Hennepin b) City of Orono 2. Once or Twice a Month: a) Continue with the proposed twice per month pick-up b) Seek pti-es for once a month 3. Start Date: a) January, 1989 b) March, 1989 c) Other 4, Cc;.tainer Acquisition: a) 1 container b) 2 containers c) Delay until divided container on maiket C. Budgeting: 1. 1988 budget reserve 2. 1989 budget reserve 3. Charge on utility/septic a) Different price if urban/clustered b) Same price for all resiuEits 4. Assess waste hauleis RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City undertake curbside recyclinc in areas of the community and that this :,)e done curbside in order tc forestall future it increases. It is add 11, recommended that the City target January as a start date for start .d that the City undertake it through West Hennepin Recycling Commissioc. this pu.Lnt leaving its options open for independently proceeding later. The staff recommends delay on container sele•tion for a month. It is further recommen('_,,jd that an ac*ua]. bidding process be under- taken. It is recommended that this be funded from 3n annual a charge on the City's utility or septic billings of abuut $8.40/y:ar. PROPOSED MOTION - Mo ed by , -!z,:onded by __, that the C-)until direct staf` `o undertake through the _ Wes- 19nnepin Recycling Commission curbside !cycling commencing on or ab; Janu3ty, 1989 with the operation's c:�sts 110 be handled on a charge ba.. and the initial container and deli:,-r;, charges to be funded out of the 1988 budget reserve to r reimbursed t this charge. Ayes _, Nays __ !r: John Gerhardson, Publics Works Director Carolyn Smith, West Hennepin Recycling 12888.2 C:!� TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator, DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Fee Ordinance Attachments: A. Proposed 1989 Fee Ordinance B. Proposed Summary Ordinance C. Building Fees Memo Dated 11/21/88 ISSUE 1. Adoption of fee ordinance for 1989 including selected changes. 2. Adoption of summary ordinance for publication. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Council adopts a fee ordinance for the coming year. The changes between 1988 and 1989 are noted in the summary ordinance. DISCUSSION - Several of the changes reflect increases in areas which have remained constant for a number of years. The fees attempt to reflect the time and materials )lved. The change in the building permit tee schedule, as d?cussed in Attachment C, is a significant change but brings Orono's fees in line with over 3/4's of the Cities surveyed. The increases for the contract cities will be reflected in their contract renewal. The ordinance becomes effective upon publication. ALTERNATIVES 1. hdopt Ordinance and Summary as presented. 2. Amer:d and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Le-ive the 1988 rates in force for 1989 by amending the current ordinance extending them to 1989. RECOMMENDATION - Tt is recommended that the Council adopt Attachment A as the fees for 1989 and Attachment B as the Summary for publication. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ seconded by , that the ono City counci 1 adopt Ordinance No. , Second Se is �s th 989 Fee Schedule repealing Ordinance Numbers 44. and r, of the Second Series and adopt Attachment B as the Sum, Ordinance for publication. Ayes Nays Copy Charges Page Administration . . . . . . . .20 Accident Reports . . . . . . .23 Building Plan Copies . . . . .20 Copy Microfiche File - PD. . .23 Copy Service - Police Dept . .23 Reprint Oversized Documents on Microfilm. . . . . . .20 Tape Recording Duplication . .20 Connection Charges Sanitary Sewer . . . . . . . .12 Municipal Water. . . . . . . .14 DocAsents Special Assessment Searches. .20 Toning Dept Documents. . . . .19 R._altors Listing Info. . . . .20 False Alarm User fee . . . . . .22 :o;f Course Rates. . . . . . . .25 Inspections Sp-c:ial Inspection Charges . .17 Contractual Inspe ' in Serv. .18 Licenses and Miscellaneous After -the -fact Fees. . . . . . 4 Amusement Devices. . . . . . .22 Animal ImpourA Fees. . . . . .21 Beer, Wine & Liquor License. .21 Commercial Marina License. . .18 Cigarette License. . . . . . .19 Dog License . . . . . . . . . . 20 Dance (Public) License . . . .22 Gambling/Raffle License. . . .19 DIR]VTORY FOR 198.-, FEE SCIiEDULE Licenses and Miscellaneous Page Garbage Haulers License. .18 Home occupation License. . . .19 Joint Use Doak License . . . .18 Kennel License . . . . . . . .20 Septic Installers License. . .18 Solicitation License . . . . .19 Temp Trailer/Bu:lding Lic. . .19 Maps For Sale. . . . . . . . . .19 Public Works Supplies & Services Driveway Culverts. . . . . . .26 Dr'veway/Curb Cut Permits. . .26 Permits After -the -fact -Fees. . . . . . 4 Annual Service Charge (Septic)14 Building Permit Fees . . . . . 9 Burning Permit Fee . . . . . .17 Cert. of Oct-upacy. . . . . . . 9 Demolition Permit Fee. . . . . 9 Docks Commerc is 1 . . . . . . . . . 9 Residential. . . . . . . . . 9 Fire Protection. . . . . . . .17 Firearms Permit Fee. . . . . .22 Fireworks Permit Fee . . . . .22 Grading, Excavating, Filling .15 Large Assembly Permits . . . .22 Mechanical Permit Fees . . . .10 Move/Lift Building Permit Fee.16 Municipal Hookup (Sewer/Water)ll On -Site Systems (Septic) . . .14 Outhouse Construction. . . . .14 Parades & Special Events . . .22 Plumbing Permit. . . . . . . . 9 Permits (Cont.) Page Retaining Walls. . . . . . . . 9 Sprinkler System - Commer . .11 Trapping Permit (limited). . .22 Well Permit Fee. . . . . . . .15 Water Meter Fees . . . . . . .11 Services Fingerprinting (Police). . . .23 Water Turn -On Charge . . . . .24 Water Turn -Off Charge. . . . .24 Signs Street Signs (Public Works). .26 Temporary & Permanent. . . . .15 Temp. "No Parking" (P.D.). . .23 Temp. "No Parking" (P.W.). . .26 Utility Rate Charges . . . . . .24 Zoning Applications After -the -fact Fees. . . . . . 4 Amendments . . . . . . . . . . 3 Appeals to Planning Comm . . . 4 Commercial Site Plan . . . . . 2 Conditional Use Permit Fees. . 1 Industrial Revenue Bond Appl . 4 Park Dedication Fees . . . . . 6 Rezoning Application Fee . . . 3 Rip -Rap Application Fee. . . . 4 Special Improvements Appl. . . 3 Subdivision Application Fee. 2 Surcharge for Staff Expense. 4 Vacation Application Fee . . . 3 Variance Application Fee . . . 1 ORDINANCE NO. _, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1989 FEE SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 44 SECOND SERIES, 40, SECOND SERIES AND 56 SECOND SERIES The City Counci 1 of the City of Orono ordains: Section 1. Ordin_ance Repealed. Ordinance No. 44 Second Series, 49 Second Series and 56 Second Series are hereby repealed. The City Council of Orono per Section 1.05 of the Municipal Code hereby ordains the fallowing Fees effective during the calendar year 1989: SECTION 1. Fees. ZONING APPLICATIONS All fees are application fees and are non-refundable after staff work has begun on the application. Application Type Applicable Fee Code Section VARIANCE $150.00 (Flexible applications involving more than one variance will require an additional $50.00 payment per each variance) RENEWAL VARIANCE $ 75.00 (No change from original application) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Ors charge per project) ►residential Accessory USE (Animals, etc.) $100.00 Institutional Use (School, Church, etc.) $150.00 Duplex Credit (per building) $150.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 10.06, Subd 3(D) 10.06, Subd 3(D) 10.09, Subd 3 1 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Applicable Application Type Fee Code Section CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Continued (One Charge per Project) 10.09, Subd 3 Land Alteration: $200.00 + permit Grading, filling, etc. (over 100 cubic yards) Sea walls, retaining walls within 0-75' lakeshore PRD Application with Subdivision Subdivision Fee plus $30.00 per dwelling unit PRD Application without Subdivision $ --5.03 per dwelling unit (minimum $150.00) PID Applications $150.00 per acre (minimum �350.00) Renewal Conditional Use Permit 1/2 Current Few (no change from orioinal application) Conditional Use Permit with Variance After -the -Fact Fees COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION Sketch Plan (Class I, II, & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivisions) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) $ 50.00 for each variance Double Application Fee Resolution 1306 $200.00 L Consultant Fee $150.00 11.10, Subd 7(A) $250.00 11.10, Subd 10 (A) (B) $300.00 +$20/lot 11.10,Subd 10(C) ($360/3 lots; $380/4 lots) Final Plat Review (Class III) $150.00 +Special Legal/Engineering Charges 11.10, Subd 17(A)(9) Filing Fees: a) Plat only $ 75.00 11.10, Subd 17(A)(11) b) Plat + Easements & Covenants $150.00 Renewal Subdivision Application 1/2 of current fee 2 10 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Application Type PUBLIC PROPERTY VACATION EASEMENT VACATIONS WITH SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS EASEMENT VACATIONS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ZONING AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REZONING REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Applicable Fee Code Section $ 50.00 per Section 10.11 benefitting property ($250.00 minimum per application) $ 50.00 Section 10.11 $150.00 Section 10.11 $250.00 Section 10.11 $250.00 Section 10.11 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENTS Section 11.12, Subd 4 Non-refundable charges for City Engineer's review of applications and design drawing, including construction inspection fees. If improvements are proposed as part of a Subdivision, Review Charges are payable with Preliminary Plat application. Proposed Private Roads Proposed Public Roads Request for City to accept existing private road Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension Proposed Watc-main Extension Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) On -Site System - Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $600.00 plus 500/lineal foot $900.00 plus 500/lineal foot $900.00 $250.00 plus $5.00 per stub $250.00 plus $5.00 per stub $200.00 $ 30.00 per new lot proposed for on -site 3 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT. Application Type RIP -RAP Staff Review (normal rip -rap) Unusual Rip -Rap: a) New installation b) Repair existing APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION (of Administrative decision) Applicable Fee Code Section No Charge $100.00 + CUP review Staff permit = $100.00 $100.00 10.06, Subd 3(D) INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: $250,000.00 Application Fee: 0.1% of project valuation ($250.00 minimum) plus $5,000.00 deposit for legal/ administrative expenses SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION FEES Section 10.11 Per Fee Schedule setforth below: Professional Time $ 25.00/hour Clerical Time $ 15.00/hour Legal/Engineering Consultants Actual Billed Cost Mileage,'Copies/Postage/Etc. Actual Cost AFTER -THE -FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306) (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional. use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, rip -rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, all building permits and all general permits.) 4 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Whenever any work, use or division of land for which a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the application process. Because of the extra administrative costs involved in the special investigation, the minimum application fee for after - the -fact applications shall be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after -the -fact application fee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of !and, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actior.s against the applicant for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. AfteL-the-fact Investigation Fee Amount: Equal to and in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount) Res. 1306 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) PARK DEDICATION FEES I Section 11.62, Subd 1 Cash contributions in lieu of land for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, storm water holding aree.s and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. I. Residential Development - Cash contributions dedicated shall be according to the following table: 1. Single Family P.esidential A B C-1 Single Single Existing Lot S7ze (Acres/Dwelling Unit) Existing New Residence 5 20 or m,.re 2.00 to 4.99 $ 50 $100 $0 1.00 r .99 150 200 0 .99 350 400 0 . j to .49 390 440 0 .25 to .32 430 480 0 .16 to .24 470 520 0 .15 to less 510 560 0 550 600 0 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT. PARK DEDICATION FEES I Section 11.62, Subd 1 Cash contributions lieu of land for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, storm water holding areas and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. I. Residential Development - Cash contributions dedicated shall be according to the following table: 1. Single Family Residential A B C-1 Single Single Existing Lot Size (Acres/Dwelling UniL) Existing New Residence 5.00 or more 2.00 to 4.99 $ 50 $100 $0 1.00 to 1.99 150 200 0 .50 to .99 350 400 0 .33 to .49 390 440 0 .25 to .32 430 480 0 .16 to .24 470 520 0 .15 t less 510 560 0 550 600 0 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT. Wnenever any work, use or division of land for which a formal application is r quired has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City apptaval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the -)plicaticn process. Because of the extra administrative costs •nvolved it t' -ipecial investigation, the minimum application fee for after- -he -fact appli .ons shell be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, 4hether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after -the -fact application fee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or div' 'on of land, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right c .e City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant r commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After -the -fact Investigation Fee Amount: Equal to and in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount) Res. 1306 11 in ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) PARK DEDICATION FEES I Section 11.62, Subd 1 2. Duplex, Multiple Residential Dwelling Unit D?nsity (The greater of proposed density or zoned permitted density) D E C-2 Duplex Mult. Existing (Dwelling Units Per Acre) Per Bldg Per Unit Residences .20 or less $ 250 $150 $0 .5a to .21 500 300 0 1.99 to .51 1000 606 0 2.99 to i.01 1100 660 0 3,99 to 2.01 1200 720 0 4.09 to 3.a3 1300 780 0 6,90 to 4.61 1400 840 0 6 01 or more 1500 900 0 Key A Single Family Residence, Existing Vacant Lot: Fee to be paid with building permit for new residence on previously platted property or: iF -•acint land is subdivided, fee to be paid with subdivision for the c; e e%%sting" residential lot. B Single Family Residence, New Lot: Fee to be paid with subdivision for .F..r-j "new" residential lot. C 1 and 2 :xisting residential- No fee is required for existing principal residential units. D Duplex Residential: Fee to be paid with building permit or with subdivision, whichever cccurs first, for each duplex building (duplex is defined as two attached single family residential units). Should an existing single family residence be converted to duplex, the fee shall be one half of the schedule amoun': due with the building permit. E Multifamily Residential: Fee to be paid with building permit or with subdivision, whichever occurs first, for each residential unit in a multifamily (three or more units) building. 7 80NIN" APPLICATIONS (CONT.) PAPK DEDICATION FFES 1 SE tion 11.62, Subd 1 I7. Commercial or Industris1 Deve` .j::%,ent - Cash intributions dedicated shall by at the r.ce of $500.00 per acra of gross land area, to be paid with building :ermit for principal structure or at the time of su,>division, whichever occur fi. :t. 0 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES Peewit Type BUILDING PERMIT Minimum Fee Normal Fee plan Review Fee: Commercial Residential Building Valuation Standard CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHOUT BUILDING PERMIT (.change in use) Applicable Fee Code Section (Ord. 216) $ 30.00 (per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) (per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Scnedule) 65% of Building Permit Fee (per Current I.C.B.O. Building Standards/Building Valuation Data) $ 30.00 RETAINING WALLS (in excess of 42" also S 30.00 minimum multiple tiered walls that exceed 42" (per 1985 UBC Standard Schedule) and not located in lakeshore protected area) DOCKS - RESIDENTIAL DOCKS - COMMERCIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT Principal Structure Accessory Structure PLUMBING PERMIT Mail -in postage & handling charge $ 30.00 Per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule (Ord. 216) $ 50.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 minimum per project $ 5.00/fixture $ 3.00/fixture reset $ 1.50 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT. Permit Type MECHANICAL PERMIT minimum Fee for any Mechanical Permit Mail -in postage & handling charge Applicable Fee Code Section $ 30.00 per project $ 1.50 Residential, Single Family & Duplex by unit Type -furnace or boiler with flue $ 15.00 each :snit -wood stove with flue $ 15.00 each unit -wood combination or add -on unit $ 15.00 each unit -fireplace with flue $ 15.00 each unit -central air conditioning $ 15.00 each unit -exhaust fans (bath, kitchen, attic, etc.) $ 15.00 per project -solar space heating equipment $ 15.00 each system -solar water heaters $ 15.00 each unit -repairs and replacement of the above same as above -fire sprinklE_ systems $ 15.00 per project -fuel storage $ 15.00 permanent or temporary -gas line inspection high/low pressure $ 15.00 Commercial, Industrial and Multi -Family Residential by Unit Type -residential type equipment $ 15.00 per unit -furnace, boilers, unit heaters, and $ 15.00 per 50,000 btuh output makeup air units -central air conditioning $ 15.00 per tcn AC -exhaust fans $ 15.00 per project -refrigerati.n $ 15.00 per compressor -fixed equipment with steam, hydraulic $ 15.00 per 8 connections or compressed air system -kitchen exhaust vents $ 15.00 -fuel storage $ 15.00 permanent or temporary 10 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT. Permit Type SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - COMMERCIAL Applicable Fee Code Section -fire sprinkler systems $ 2.00 per head/first 50 heads - .30 per head after initial 50 Plan Review 1/2 permit fee Surcharge based on valuation -kitchen fire extinquishing system $ 30.00 per oystem MUNICIPAL CONNECTION PERMIT 'together with area connection charges) Sewer $ 30.00 'slater $ 30.00 5/8" meter including sales tax $111.30 3/4" meter including sales tax $146.28 1" meter including sales tax $216.24 larger meter quote basis Mail -in postage & handling charge S 1.50 (sewer and water permits only) 11 ALL SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assosscd or if improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge maybe in addition any assessment.) By District - Project 1963 ST-lA, LS-IA or ST1-B, LSI-B 1964 LS-lA or LS-1B 1965 LS-1 1965 LS-IA 1967 [.S-1 1969 LS-1 Shore Hills 1969 LS-2 Chevy Chase 1970 LS-1 Saga Hill 1971 LS-1 Dunwoody 1973-1 1980-1 Minnetonka Bluffs West Ferndale/County Road 15 Orono Lane County Road 15 Marinas 1980-2 North Shore Drive/Scotch Pine Lane 1981-1 North Shore Drive/Highwood 1982-1A Navarre Utilities 1982-1B Navarre Utilitie. Northern Avenue 1985-1 Crystal Bay 1983-1 Highway 12 Orono -Long Lake -Medina Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges *Credit to Fund $225.00 t $394.38 per acre + 28.68 per F.F. $225.00 + $29.22 per F.F. an the to $225.00 + $43.03 per F.E. $225.00 + $31.41 per F.F. $187.65 per unit + $18.74 per F.F. $225.00 + $9,296.74 per unit $6,660.31 per unit $22s.00 + $3,561.94 per unit + 21.88 per F.F. $225.00 + $3,244.24 per unit + 19.93 per F.F. $6,290.54 per unit + $29.83 per F.F. $8,039.52 per unit $23,499.39 per unit $15,054.30 per unit $6,267.23 per unit $22,157.87 per unit $9,616.4 per unit $2,049.05 per unit + $840.95 trunk area $225.00 + $2,213.02 per acre + 165.98 trunk unit $9,720.13 per unit $912.87 per unit 1) 073-3753-000-00 3) 044-3753-000-00 5) 024-3753-000-00 2) 043-3753-000-00 4) 045-3753-000-00 Office Use Only *Credit to Fund 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 225.00=1 acre/unit=3 4 2 ALL SANITARY SERER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if ar improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of cue City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge maybe in addition to any assessment.) By District - Project An additional fee is charged for properties benefitting from 1984 forcemain and lift station =7 upgrade, as follows (see map for affected areas): 1. Existing Properties/Increase 2. New Bldgs Replacing Existing Bldgs 3. New Residential W/Existing Initital i6 Charge By Pass Previously Previously Paid Paid Previously Previously Paid Paid Previously Previously Paid Paid 4. New Residential Without Stub $225.00(1) $165.98(3) i7 Office Use Only Forcemain *Credit to Fund $370.68 5 If usage 5 increases from existing $370.68 $1,073.31 5 $1,073.31(5) 1, 3 & 5 5. Freshwater Biological $225.00(1) $165.98(3) $500/unit on(5) 1, 3 & 5 connection (already assessed $2,000/ac) The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that affected project area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges *Credit to Fund 1) 973-3753-000-00 3) 044-3753-000-00 2) 043-3753-969-00 4) 045-3753-000-00 5) 024-3753-000-00 13 i ALL MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the ity. If an improvement is required, the connection charge maybe in addition to any assessment) By District - Project Office Use Only *Credit to Fund 1967 LW-1 Highway 12/Crystal Bay Road 1969 LW-2 Chevy Chase 1970 LW-i Navarre Residential 1970 LW-1 Navarre Commerical 1982-1A Navarro ON -SITE SYSTEMS Design Review Fees Subdivision Site Evaluation Report Review Residential System Permit: Replace drainfield or replace 1/more tank Replace drainfietd & replace 1/more tank New Residential System Non-ResidenLial System Permit: New or Total replacement Partial replacement $3,284.90 per unit + $24.36 per F.F. $3,255.38 per unit $1,626.71 per unit + $16.27 per E.F. $2,440.07 per unit + $24.40 per F.F. $1,733.36 per unit (Ord. 210) Included with permit fees $ 30.00/per new lot $ 30.00 $ 50.00 $ 75.00 + $15.00 per each inspection over 3 $100.00 + $20.00 per each inspection over 4 $ 60.00 + $20.00 per each inspection over 2 ,�,ithouse Construction (New or _eplacement- Permit Fee & Plan Review Based Big Island Only) on Valuation of Project Annual Service Charge Water Connection Charges *Credit to Fund (per UBC 1985 Standard Schedule) $ 20.00/system/year plus An additional full fee for late penalty plus 8% interest for unpaid charges certified Section 12.30, Subd 8(C) 1) 072-3753-000-00 2) 044-3753-000-00 14 1 1 1 1 2 i CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT. Permit Type WELL PERMITS -Installation of New/Replacement Well (covers abandonment of old well) -Well Abandonment (not concurrent with installation of new/replacement well) GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING Applicable Fee Code Section $ 30.00 $ 30.00 (Ord. 221) - 1-100 cubic yards (max. 10 loads) $ 60.00 (staff permit) (+engineering fee if necessary) - 101-999 cubic yards $ 50.00 + Conditional Use Permit + $25.00 per each inspection over 1st - 1,000+ cubic yards $100.00 + Conditional Use Permit + $25.00 per each inspection over 1st NOTE: -ubic yards or more requires a Conditional Use Permit unless appr, Dart of building permit. SIGNS Temporary $ 30.00 Permanent (Per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) 15 COMSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT.) Applicable Permit Type Fee Code Section BUILDING MOVING OR LIFTING (Ord. 227) Fees for this activity are in addition to required n�-ilding or demolition permits. Fees and any necessary surcharges are required to pd.- -os;Ls of building code inspections, public works inspections of streets and reasonable police escort service on oversize movements. -Lifting accessory buildings $ 30.00 (no move across lot lines) -Lifting principal buildings $ 75.00 + engineering fee if necessary (no move across lot lines) (include pre -lift inspection fee) -Moving accessory building within normal No moving permit required highway clearance (max. 8' wide/max. 13'-6" high/max. 45' long) -Moving accessory building over any lot $100.00 line, onto or off any lot within Orono (includes oversize loads up to 12' wide and/or 15' high). -Moving principal buildings over any lot $150.00 line, onto or off any lot within Orono; includes any move on or over any City street even if not originating or term- inating in Orono (includs all over- size loads exceeding 12' wide and/or 15' high). -Pre-move code inspection, principal buildings: a) Building within Orono to be relocated $ 50.00 within Orono b) Building outside Orono to be moved $150.00 into Orono (max. radius 25 miles) 1' CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT.) Permit Type SPECIAL INSPECTION CHARGES Site Inspection without permit (when called by owner) Inspection surcharge for work or application on Big Island or Deering Island Reinspection fee after failure to comply with Building or 'Zoning Code Correction Nutice - 3rd trip Inspections outside business hours FIRE PROTECTION Fire Prevention Inspection Fire Code Permits Commercial Fire Alarm Plan Review Fee BURNING PERMITS Up to 5 times per year For Each Reinspection More than 5 times per year (for all organizations and individuals regardless of tax status) Applicable Fee Code Section $ 30.00 $ 30.00 peg trip + boat rental if transportation is not provided by owner $ 30.00 per trip + 30.00 per hour after 1st hour $ 30.00 per hour (min. 2 hours, min. $50.00) (Ord. 223) No Charge $ 30.00 each Per UBC Schedule 65% of permit fee No Charge $20.00 $100.00 17 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT. Permit Type CONTRACTUAL INSPECTION SERVICE Monthly Retainer Fee (Includes clerical time) Inspection Charge Plan Review Charge Clerical Fee (only charged if clerical use is excessive) LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Zoning Department Administered COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE Application Fee (initial) Renewal Application & Inspection Fee (annual) plus: -each slip on water -each dry slip inside or in racks -each boat unit on land -late fee JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE Application Fee (initial) Renewal Application Fee Plus each slip Late Fee SEPTIC INSTALLERS i.ICENSE - Annual GARBAGE HAULER LICENSE - flat rate per hauler transfer fee Fee Per Contract Applicable Code Section. $ 25.00 per month $ 15.00 per inspection SBC/UBC Schedule $ 15.00 per hour $300.00 + slip & boat fees $200.00 + slip & boat fees $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 $ 20.00 $ 2.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 15.00/truck $ 30.00 18 J LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT. Permit Type HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE PUBLIC DUMP LICENSE 'TEMPORARY TRAILERS & BUILDINGS LICENSE Z_o_ning Department Administered ZONING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS Comprehensive Guide Plan (1980) Municipal Code Book - Complete (Ch. 1-12 w/revisions) Municipal Code Book - Portions Ch 1 thru 9 (Book 1) a/revisions Ch 10 thru 12 (Book 2) w/revisions Ch 10 only (Zoning Code) w/revisions Ch 11 only (Subdiv. Code) w/revisions Other Individual Chapters Black Binder On -Site Design Manual City Maps Building & Planning Publications General Administrative Licenses Applicable Fee Code Section $ 30.00 (Annual fee) None Permitted $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 60.00 w/black binder $ 50.00 loose $ 35.00 loose $ 35.00 loose $ 25.00 loose $ 15.00 loose $ .25 /page $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 2.00 each As Posted - Prices subject �o change Cigarette Sales License - per quarter $ 5.00 5.24 Gambling & Raffle License $ 10.00 5.23 Solicitation License $ 20.00 5.30 Up to 10 Solicitors - $1.00 each Aditional solicitor in Orono 19 LICENSES & MISCELLANEIOUS CHARGES WONT. Permit Type Generai Administrative Documents Listing Information Assessment Search Copy Service (for public City records only) -first copy -additional copies Individual copies of Ordinances (1 copy) Reprint of Oversized Documents that have been microf i lcr.ed Building Plan Copies and/or Tape Recording Duplication Doqs & Kennels DOG LICENSES Biannual License (issued in odd years) Annual License (issued in even years only) KENNEL LICENSES Commercial Application & Inspection Fee (Annual) Residential Application & Inspection Fee (Annual) NOTE: Dogs kept in residential kennels must Residential kennel fee is in addition Fee $ 5.00 $ 10.00/parcel Applicable Code Section $ 1.00 $ .25 each No Charge $ 2.50 each/ Minimum Charge $10.00 Cost of Copying, Messenger Service & Min. Clerical Fee of $5.00 (entire amount to be paid upon request) 9.12 $ 15.00 $ 7.50 5. 36 $150.00 $ 25.00 be individually licensed. to dog license fees. 20 LICENSES i MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT. Applicable Permit Type F`e ;ode Section DOGS AT LARGE - RELEASE FEE First Offense $ 20.00 Second Offense $ 30.00 Third Offense $ 40.00 (All fees, plus kennel charge, payable to kennel) ANIMALS AT LARGE (Other than dogs) First Offense Second Offense Third Offense Trace i Catch Animal Trailer Charge CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMAL Police Department Administered 4.12 9.13 $ 20.00 $ 35.00 $ 50.00 $ 20.00/hour $ 20.00 plus .25 mile (total distance) Actual Cost BEER, WINE i LIQUOR LICENSES Initial Investigation On-Sale/Off-Sale Liquor$500.00 per License Collected at Application In state investigation Actual cost up to $10,000 Out state investigation -actual cost Initial Investigation-Beer/Wine Off -Sale Liquor License Bond Requirement On -Sale Liquor License On -Sale Wine License 1.2 Beet Off -Sale (Annuc '_ ) 1.2 Beer On -Sale (Annual; Setups (Annual) Club Liquor License (weekday) (Sunday) Temporary Set-up Permit lone day) Temporary Beer Permit (one day) $150.00/person Res. 1306 $150.00 4.30 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 4.10 $750.00 4.40 $ 25.00 4.20 $ 75.00 4.20 $100.00 4.60 $160.00 4.50 $200.00 4.50 $ 25.00/each 4.61 $ 15.00/each 4.21 LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.) Application Type Police Department Administered AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSES Per Establishment (Annual) Per Machine Fee PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE (Annual) (Individual Permit) LARGE ASSEMBLY PERMIT FIREWORKS PERMIT FIREARMS DISCHARGE PERMIT OCCASIONAL (limited use) Annual (Club Only) LIMITED TRAPPING :'ERMIT PERMIT FOR PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS FALSE ALARM USER FEES First 3 false alarms/calendar year (1-3 total) Next 7 false alarms/calendar year (4-10 total) Next 5 false alarms/calendar year (11-15 total) Each additional false alarm over 15/ calendar year Applicable Fee Code Section 5.20 $100.00 plus machine fee $ 25.00 each $100.00 5.21 $ 10.00 5.21 $ 50.00 5.25 $ 3L . 00 ).10 $ 10.00 9.10 $ 25.00 $ 10.00 9.11 Ord. 232 Ord. 243 $ 25.00 6.08 N- Charge $ 50.00 each call $100.00 each call .5150.00 each call M A LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT. Application Type Police Department Administered FINGERPRINTING SERVICE COPY SERVICE - Police Records Firs* Two Copies Additional Copies COPY OF ACCIDENT REPORTS COPY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE RECORD COPY FROM MICROFICHE FILE First Two Copies Additional Copies "NO PARKING ORDER OF POLICE" PAPER SIGNS (no lathe included) Applicable Fee Code Section $ 10.00/application (Citizenship No Charge) $ 3.00 $ 0.25 each $ 3.00 each $ 3.00 each $ 5.00 $ .25 each $ 0.25 each 23 f PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Utility Service Rates - Effective beginning Third Quarter 1986 MUNICIPAL SEWER RATE by unit: 1st $ 51.15 per quarter 2nd $ 48.25 per quarter by flow: $ 2.90 per quarter per $1.90/1000 gallons Area #1 Area #2 * Area #3 MUNICIPAL WATER RATES Navarre Long Lake Wayzata Billing 6 Ready to Serve Chg $12.80/qtr $6.70/qtr $5.35/qtr Water Usage Rate $ 1.17/1000 gal $2.75/1000 gal $1.40/1000 gal Unconnected Property Chg $12.80/qtr -0- -0- (ready to serve/hydrant chg) Pulk sale to Minnetonka Beach for Lafayette Ridge Area - Area #1 Rate $12.80/qtr billing charge plus $1.17/1000 gallon tr.tal flow at border meter. Penalty for late payment of sewer/water bills - 15% after 45 days from billing date. Interest at 8% on unpaid water/sewer bills certified. Water Turn -On Water Turn -Off $15.00 $15.00 Water System Repair/Replacement if damage caused by property owner: Labor - Current Hourly Rate Parts - At Cost RECYCLING CHARGE $ *Effective second quarter of 1988 24 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT. GOLF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 1989 Season Fee Mc:►day thru Friday (excluding Holidays) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon 1st Nine Holes $ 5.00 2nd Nine Holes $ 3.00 After 12 Noon and Weekend Rates 1st Nine Holes $ 5.50 2nd Nine Holes $ 3.00 League Rates Monday thru Friday $ 5.00 Senior Citizen (Over 60 years old) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon - Weekdays lst Nine Holes $ 3.50 2nd Nine Holes $ 3.00 Weekends - lst Nine Holes $ 5.25 2nd Nine Holes $ 3.00 Season Ticket (Senior Citizens Only) $90.00 Golf Cart Rental Motorized 1st Nine Holes $ 7.00 2nd Nine Holes $ 6.50 Pull Carts - Per Round $ .75 Golf Clubs - Per Round $ 2.00 Concessions As Posted 25 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.) PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLIES 6 SERVICES Fee Street or Traffic Signs $ 75.00/std. sign !sale includes installation) Driveway Culverts On Quote Basis (sale only, not installed) Water Meter Sales (See Building Permit Section) Temporary No Parking Signs (with lathe) $ 1.00 each Driveway/Curb-Cut Permits Individual Driveways $ 30.00/permit New Street Intersections (See zoninq _ion - special improvement fees) SECTION 2. This ordinance establishing 1989 fee schedule shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer Newspaper and sha _ e offeetive the week of January 2, 1989. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this day of 1989. ---- ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor 26 4,-rRQ-�, ex,r -�13 ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance Number , Second Series," and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1989 FEE SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 44 SECOND SERIES, 49 SECOND SERIES AND 49 SECOND SERIES. The following is the official ummary of Ordinance Number , Second Series approved by t,. City Council of the City of Orono on December 12, 1988. The following sections have changes, additions and/or deletions: ZONING APPLICATIONS 1988 1989 Conditional Use Permit w/variance new $ 50.00 each variance Commercial Site Plan $150.00 $200.00+consultant fee Renewal Subdivision Application new 1./2 of current fee CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES BUILDING PERMIT Normal Fee per 1982 UBC/SBC per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule Standard Schedule Plan Review Fee: Commercial per 1982 UBC/SBC per 1985 UBC/SBC Residential Standard Schedule Standard Schedule 65% of Building 65% of Building Valuation Data Valuation Data Retaining Walls (in excess of 42" also 30.00 min same multiple tiered walls that exceed 42" and not located in lakeshore protected area) Docks - Commercial new Per 1985 UBC/SBC standard schedule DEMOLITION PERMIT Principal Structure 30.00 50.00 Accessory Structure 25.00 30.00 MECHANICAL PERMITS 15.00 per 15.00 per 50,000 -furnace, boiler, unit heaters, and 30,000 btuh output makeup air units output MUNICIPAL CONNECTION PERMIT (together with area connection charges) 5/8" meter including sales tax 95.00 111.30 3/4" meter including sales tax 130.00 148.40 1" meter including sales tax - 216.24 ALL CONNECTION CHARGES (IF NOT PREVIOUSLY ASSESED) BY DISTRICT - PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES Permit Type ALL SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed) ALL MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed) GRADING,EXCAVATION, FILLING 1-100 cubic yards (max. 10 loads) BUILDING MOVING OR LIFTING -Lifting principal buildings (no move across lot lines) (include pre -lift inspection fee) SPECIAL INSPECTION CHARGES Inspection surcharge for work or application on Big Island or Deering Island 1988 1989 Various Various reflecting cost of investment Various Various reflecting cost of investment 50.00 60.00 (staff (staff permit) permit) 75.00 75.00 plus engineering fee if necessary 30.00+ 30.00 per trip + boat rental if transportation is not provided by owner CONTRACTUAL INSPECTION SERVICE Monthly Retainer Fee (Includes 25.00 per clerical time) month Clerical Fee (only charged if clerical none use is excessive) HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE 20.00 Zoning Department Administered ZONING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS Municipal Code Book - Complete (Ch. 1-12 w/revisions) 75.00 w/binder Municipal Code Book - Portions Ch 1 thru 9 (Book 1) w/revisions new Ch 10 thru 12 (Book 2) w/revisions new Ch 10 only (Zoning Code) w/revisions 25.00 Ch 11 only (Subdiv. Code) w/revisions 15.00 Other Individual Chapters Police Department Administered COPY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE RECORD new same 1.5.00 per hour 30.00 (annual fee) 60.00 w/black binder 35.00 loose 35.00 loose 25.00 loose 15.00 loose .25 /page .00 e3 . 1988 1989 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMMNT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES GOLF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 1988 Season Monday thru Friday (excluding Holidays) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon lst Nine Holes 5.00 5.25 2nd Nine Holes 3.00 3.00 After 12 Noon and Weekend Rates 1st Nine Holes 5.50 5.75 2nd Nine Holes 3.00 3.25 League Rates Monday thru Friday 5.00 5.25 Senior Citizen (Over 60 years old) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon - Weekdays lst Nine Holes 3.50 3.75 2nd Nine Holes 3.00 3.00 Season Ticket (Senior Citizens Only) 90.00 100.00 Golf Cart Rental Motorized lst Nine Holes 7.00 10.00 2nd Nine Holes 6.50 8.00 Pull Carts - Per Round .75 1.00 A printed copy of the 1989 Fee Schedule Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours. This ordinance becomes effective the week of January 2, 1989. Adopted by the City Counci 1 of the City of Oronc on this 12th day of December, 1988, by a vote of ayes and nays. James R. Grabek, Maycr ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleo To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: November 21, 1988 Subject: Request to Amend Building & Zoning Line Items Within Proposed 1989 Fee Schedule List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Comparison of 1982/1985 UBC Fee Schedule Exhibit B - Sections of Uniform Building Code - 1982/1985 Exhibit C - List of Cities that have Adopted 1985 UBC Fee Schedule Staff strongly recommends that the City adopt the 1985 Uniform Building Code Fee Schedule to be consistant with the surrounding cities that already have adopted the 1985 schedule. Note the cities of Mound and Wayzata have already adopted the 1985 schedule and as of January 1, 1989, Excelsior will adopt the 1985 schedule. Please review to the enclosed exhibits. Staff has also re -arranged the Park Fee schedule so that it is more easily readable and especially in light of our proposed code changes that will encourage more PRD development within the City. The contract cities are also recommended for an increase in charges, changing the minimum $10.00 inspection fee for a single inspection peg day and now charging $15.00 per inspection. The City must cover increased costs in light of the increased insurance charges, salary increases, etc. Staff will meet wi`h each of the City Clerks (Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach) about the peni'ing increase providing their Councils adequate time to sample the field to .tee if they can do any better. Staff knows of no other inspection service that would provide anything cheaper than what we provide to the two contract cites ($25.00 per inspection is the minimum charge for contractual inspection coverage). Note the new fees will not be effective until January 1, 1989. Comparison of 1982/1985 Uniform Building Code Fee Schedule 1982 $150,000 est. valuation Permit $ 558.00 Plan Review 279.00 TOTAL $ 837.00 1985 - $150,000 est. valuation Permit $ 814.50 Plan Review 407.25 TOTAL $1.221.75 1982 - $500,000 est. valuation Permit $ 1,433.00 Plan Review 716.50 TOTAL $ 2,149.50 1985 $500,000 est. valuation Permit $ 2,039.50 Plan Review 1,019.75 • TOTAL $ 3,059.25 DIFFERENCE $384.75 DIFFERENCE $909.75 307, 3-A UNIFORM BUILDING CODE hazard will result from occupancy of any building or portion thereof before the same is completed, he may issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the use of a portion or portions of a budding or structure pnor to the completion of the entire building or structure. (e) Posting. The Certificate of Occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place ou the premises and shall not be removed except by the building official. (f) Revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a Certificate of Occupancy issued under the provisions of this code whenever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied. or when it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. TABLE NO.3-A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE S 1.00 to S500.00 $501.00 to S2.000.00 S2.001.00 to S25.000.00 S25,001.00 to S50,t100.00 S50.001.00 to S 100.000.00 S100.001.00 and up S10.00 S 10.00 for the first S500.00 plus S 1.50 for each additional S 100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 2.000.00 S32.50 for the 9rst S2.000.00 plus $6.00 for each addi- tional S1.000.00 or fraction therec(, to and including, S25,000.00 S170.50 for the first S25.000.00 plus S4.50 for each additional S1.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and ircludrrg S50.000 00 S283.00 for the first S50.000.00 plus S3.00 for each additional S1.000.00 or fraction (hereof, to and including S100.000.00 $433.00 for the first S100.000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional S1.000.00 or fraction themot Other --Inspections and Fees: I Inspections outside of normal business hours ............. S 15 00 per hour (minimum charge —two hours) 2. Retnspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 3051g) .. ...... .................................S15.00 each 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ... .. ....... ... _ .......................... S 15.00 per hour (nmtmum charge —tine -half hour) a. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans . . .. ....................... S 15.00 per hour i minimum charge—ine-ha:f hour) 40 307, 3•A UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (d) Temporary Certificate. If the building official finds that no suhstantial hazard will result from occupancy of any hooding or portion thercui before he ( same is completed, he may issue a temporary Certificate .)t Occupancy ror the use of a portion or portions of a building or st.vcture pnor to the cornpietion tit the 1 - - entire building or structure. i (e) Posting. The Certificate of Occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall not be removed except by the building official (f) Revo"lion. The building official may, in wnung, suspend or revoke a k Certificate of Occupancy issued under the provisions of this code whenever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied. or when it is determined that the building or stricture or portion thereat is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code, TABLE NO.3•A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VAWATION FEE S1.00 to S500.00 S 15.00 S501.00 to S2,000.00 S 15.00 for the first S500.00 plus S2.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including S2.000.00 $2.001.00 to S25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2.000.00 plus $9.00 for each Addi- tional 51.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 525,001.00 to 550,000.00 f232.00 for the first f25.000.00 plus 56. SO for each additional S1.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including S50.000.00 S50,001.00 to 11100,000.00 $414.50 for the first S50.0W.00 plus S4.50 for each additional SI.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100.000.00 Sloo,o01.00 to $500,000.00 S639.50 for the first S100,000.00 plus 53.50 for each additional $ 1.000.00 or fraction thereof f500.001.00 to S2039.50 for the first S500,000.00 plus S3 00 for each SI.000.(100.00 additional $1.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including f 1.000.000.00. S 1,000.00t .90 and uo S3539.50 for the first 11.000.000.00 Pius S2.00 for each additional S 1.000.00 or fraction thereof Other luspectfom and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours .... $30.00 per hour' (minimum charge --two hours) 2. Retnspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) ... .. ...... _ _ $30.00 per hour' 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ..... ......... S30 00 pit hour' t minimum charge one-half hour j 4 Additional plan review required by changes. additions or revisions to approved plans ...... S30 00 per hour' I (minimum charge— <mw-half hour) IIII �Or the total hourly coo to the jurisdiction. whichever is the greatest This cog shall include supervision. overhead. equipment. hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. is V 1988 EDMON TABLE NO.3-A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES 3-A TOTAL VALUATION FE[ _ $1.00 to S500.00 S 15 00 S501.00 to S2.000.00 S 15.00 for the first S500.00 plus S2.00 for each additionall S100.00 or fraction thereof. to and including S2.000 00 S2.001.00 to S25.000.00 S45.00 for the first S2.000.00 plus S9.00 for each add( tional SI.000.00 ur fraction thereof. to and including S25.000.00 S25,001.00 to S50.000.00 S252.00 for the first S25.000.00 plus S6.50 for each addi- tional S1.000.00 or fraction thereof. to and including S50,000.00 S50.001.00 to S 100.000.00 S414 50 for the first S50.000 00 plus S4 50 for each addi- tional S1.000.00 or fraction thereof. to and including_ S100.000 00 $100.001.00 to S500,000.00 S639.50 for the first S100.000.00 plus S3.50 for each additional S 1 .000 00 or fraction thereof S500.001.00 to S2039 50 for the first S500.000.00 plus S3.00 for each, S1.000.000.00 S1.000.00 or fraction thereof. to and including S I.000.000.00. S1.000,001.00 and up S3539.50 for the first S1.000.000.00 plus 52.C'J for each additional S 1.000 00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: I Inspections outside of normal business hours S30.00 per hour' (minimum charge —two hours i 2. Reinspecrion fees assessed under pv ..sions of Section 305(g)...... . ................ S30 00 per hour' 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ...... .. . S30.00 per hour' i (minimum charge —one-half hour) 4 Additional plan review required by changes. additions or revisions to approved plans S30 00 per hour• ( minimum charge --one-half hour 'Ur the total hourly cost to the )unscixtion, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision. overhead. equipment. hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved 19 I- .. ■ ■ I■ ■�■ i� �■a ■ ■ - - - t. ... . • - - I■�■mEl■ ■ ■ li"l[.mgl omonmi■1■P-1■1 so .:.•>awihpolr 10IU ..W i■1 I■1� in. n� " all ■■ — N:::s■1■111:'.i■I■ '1■111'.00011001 it IN ' • ■:ii■n■I■111 I■ Elmo ■■ICE ■■I - ._ L�', . I■II ��'.1■I■:::e min mom :■I■Ill�il■�• I ■I■ :W!!■11�ir1■I■1111■ EN IS 111: 1■I■11-Fj" Pl�i ►� . ■1 ■ . , .. ,� x.'�■I■11� - - II■!Po=l■H'.::i■11� "'�'■1■11"1911 :i ■111 11t Mal -41 ■IP MEIN In Mer-0.1221111"sm =IN •••••• I■il;�u■I��■1■0"02=111111:111 _ ... ... ■o =1111 owl !.Ni ■ i c. { /.e0l, To: From: Date: Subject: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director December 6, 1988 Safety Improvements Highway 12 - Brown Road North to Old Crystal Bay Road 12688.1HD Recently we were advised that MnDot was proposing safety improvements on Highway 12 from Brown Road North to Old Crystal Bay Road. These safety improvements are scheduled for construction in 1991. On September 19th, City staff met with MnDot representatives to discuss the safety improvements. At that time the proposed improvement was the placement of a center lane for right and left turn movements. We stated that we would review the proposed improvement and meet with them again at a time designated by them. On December 5th, City staff met with MnDot to review the most recent proposed for the safety improvements. The proposal now shows some curb cut removal, on the north side, channeling traffic for right and left turn lanes at Willow and Highway 12 and raised medians in designated areas throughout the project as well as a realignment of Brown Road North intersection. If the above changes were to take place, they desire to acquire 35'-40' of additional right-of-way, all on the north side of the highway. We advised them that because of the change in zoning along the Highway 12 Corridor in Orono there would probably be frontage roads constructed to relieve traffic on Highway 12. They indicated that that may make a difference as to whether they would have to acquire as much additional right-of-way and that funds may be available to assist in the cost of the frontage roads. Attached for review is a reduced copy of the proposed plan for the safety improvements. City staff is in the process of review but would appreciate Council's input on this matter. Key issues include: * Curb cut reductions * Limitation of left turns * Design for signal * Right-of-way * Brown Road alignment To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratod! Forwarded for Council review. The staff will transmit an initial resl;onse to MnDot following the January 9, 1989 Council meeting. Proposed Motion: Moved by , seconded by that the Council accept the information presented. Ayes , nays 12 8 8 8. 3 CEi; 1 �n:c► TO: Mayor and City Council +��°. •� FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator; /� '�`" DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Compensation Resolution Attachment: A. Proposed 1989 Compensation Resolution B. 1989 Compensation Schedule C. CSO Memo Dated 12/7/88 ISSUE - 1. Adoption of a resolution for 1989 compensation. 2. Adoption of the 1989 appendix to e Compensation Program. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Cont. adopts a resolution for compensation for the following year. DISCUSSION - The compensation schedule in Attachment B reflects the budget 3% increase. For those at or below the schedule or within 10% of the scheduled amount the increase in their compensation is 3%. (Certain pcsitions are not at the tap of their group schedule because of the market component per the compensation plan. This will be reviewed during the year and if adjustments a-e appropriate they will be brought to the Council in conjuncti with the persons performance review.) For those more than 10% above the schedule the total compensation represents a 3% increase but it is split between a base increase and a lump sum. (Thi3 concept of the split is what is being done for both 1988 and 1989 for unionized public works in other cities.) The intent is to eventually reduce the disparity. The other means to reduce is that when new people are hired in these jobs, it is at the rates in the compensation schedule. The CSO position is not on the compensation program because of the job being less than 20 hours. If it was, it would be 85% of Step I Level I. Now that the part time patrol officer position is more than 20 hours this position should be on the schedule effective l/l/89. The increases are effective following adoption of a resolution and contingent on the person having had a review which indicates they had been performing at an adequate level in accordance with the compensation plan. Compensation for the patrol officers is handled through negotiations which have not commenced for 1989. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the schedule and resolution. 2. Amend the schedule and resolution any adopt. i 3. Adopt the portion of the resolution and schedule adopting the 3% increase and table discussion of the balance. 4. Table for further discussion and information. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the 1989 Compensation Schedule be adopted as an addendum to the City's compensation plan and that the attached resolution be adopted to implement that for 1989. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Orono Council adopt Attachment B as the 1989 Compensation Schedule to be an appendix to the City's compensation plan and that Attachment B be adopted as the 1989 Compensation Resoluticn. Ayes , Nays 12888.5 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 1989 BE IT RESOLEVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that initial salaries and wages for City employees be established as follows, effective January 1, 1989: NAME POSITION 1988 SALARY 1989 SALARY Mark Bernhardson City Administrator $53,146.00 (5/1/89 Review) Dorothy Hallin City Clerk 27,851.00 $28,683.00 Melvin Kilbo Police Chief 45,760.00 47,133.00 Gary C':•Lswick Police Lieutenant 36,878.00 37,974.00 John Goaznardson Public Works Director 42,539.00 43,790.00 Jack Brinkhaus Street/Utility Foreman 32,861.09 33,848.00 Thomas Kuehn Treas/Finance Director 42,813.00 44,104.00 Jeanne Mabusth Zoning Administrator 37,806.00 38,940.00 Michael Gaffron Asst. Zoning Administrator 31,554.00 32,500.00 Thomas Jacobs Building Inspector 31,554.00 32,500.00 Ronald Steffenn agen Golf Course Supt. 27,892.00 28,729.00 Theresa Naab Depty City Clerk/Admin Sec 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr Sue Bobzine Police Secretary 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr James Gregory Street Dept. HEO 13.355/Hr 13.49/Hr A.) Steve Hansen Street Dept. LEO 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) John Sass Street Dept. LEO 11.990/Hr 12.il/Hr B.) Dale Skreen Street Dept. LEO 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) Wayne Quast Utility Mechanic 12.674/Hr 12.93/Hr C.) Barry Rathbun Utility Mechanic 10.28/Hr 10.593/Hr Randy O'Brien Utility Mechanic 10.08/Hr 10.300/Hr Charlotte Knutson Depty Treas/Account Clerk 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr Robin Mikelson Finance Accounting Clerk 10.858/Hr 11.182/Hr Lyle Oman Field Inspector 12.720 13.101/Hr Carol Hansing Asst. Police Secretary 8.648/Hr 8.909/Hr Laurie Scheffler. Recorder 8.19/Hr 9.378/Hr Jamie Bosma Copy & File Clerk I 7.679/Hr 7.906/Hr James Morrow Police Officer, P.T. 7.00/Hr 9.24/Hr Kevin Walsh Community Service Officer 5.10/Hr 5.75/Hr Foot Notes: A.), B.) and C.) In addition a lump sum based or rs scheduled and worked will be paid quarterly (March ne 15, September 15 and Oecember 15) A.) $.27/Hour B.) .24/Hour C.) .1.3/Hour v BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that mileage for City use of private cars on City business be reimbursed at $.24 per mile. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held December 12, 1988. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 21188.6 CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN EXPECTED PERFORMANCE LEVELS 1989 LEVEL STEP STEP STEP STEP I II III IV 1 7.846 8.307 8.769 9.23 2 8.296 8.784 9.272 9.76 3 8.832 9.351 9.871 10.39 4 9.378 9.927 10.479 11.03 5 10.005 10.593 11.182 11.77 6 10.872 11.511 12.151 12.79 7 11.722 12.411 13.101 13.79 8 12.623 13.365 14.108 14.85 9 13.617 14.418 15.219 16.02 10 14.884 15.759 16.635 17.51 I1 17.043 18.045 19.048 20.05 12 20.026 21.204 22.382 23.56 13 23.724 25.119 26.515 27.91 M 21188.6 CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN EXPECTED PERFORMANCE LEVELS PART TIME REGULAR POSITIONS 1989 LEVEL STEP STEP STEP STEP I II III IV Clerical I 2 7.466 7.996 8.345 3.784 (L2/SII) Police Secy 4 7.971 8.440 8.999 9.378 (L4/SI) U INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: Mark Bernhardson FROM: Mel Kilbo RE: Salary Adjustment - Kevin Walsh Kevin Walsh came to our department in 1986 as an intern, then joined our reserve force. In May of 1988, he became our second community service officer. Kevin became our primary C.S.O. as of 8/l/88 when Rick Denneson left our employ to become an officer with the West Hennepin Public Safety. Kevin has performed in an outstanding manner and has put in many hours on his own time to assist the CSO program. I request he be given a raise from his rate of $5.10 hourly to $5.75 per hour, effective immediately, with a review in May, 1988. This will be the first raise he has been given. 0 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director �. DATE: December 12, 1988 SUBJECT: Insurance Renewals 1989 COUNCIL MEETING Ct C 12 1988 CITY OF Oanpq ISSUE Adoption of award recommendations for renewal of insurance coverages effective January 1, 1989. DISCUSSION Attached is a comparative tabulation, by type, of the 1988 and 1989 insurance premiums, and the 1989 budget amounts. The total of all lines, except worker's compensation, is $ 78,214 for 1988; vs $82,200 budgeted for 1989. The worker's compensation for 1988 is $51,253; vs $63,530 budgeted for 1989. The difference ($12,277)between 'Che worker's compensation premium for 1988 ($51,253) and the 1989 budget of $6?,530 is due to discounts applied in 1988 but amounts unknown in 1989. If the gross premiums, before discounts, are compared, 1988 is $67,034 vs 1989 budget of $63,530. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the 1989 insurance policies be awarded as presented on the attached proposal. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , to award the City of Orono 1989 insurances to the League oT Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, United Fire & Casualty and Western National, effective January 1, 1989, as proposed. Ayes Nays _ 121288.3A POLICY AWARDED TO Worker Compensation LMCIT Multi Peril Package, LMCIT Including Property Vehicle Liability Inland Marine Errots & Omissions General Liability Crime Business Interruption Inverse Condemnation Total Multi Peril Package Public Employees Bond U F & C Monies & Securities U F & C Boiler Western Nat'l Computers St. Paul Co. Umbrella LMCIT Liquor Liability for Trans Continental Golf Course Agent of Record Apple Valley Agency Grand Totals (A) Not available at this date (B) Estimated premium (C) Gross fee including commissions (D) Net fee after commissions ACTUAL PREMIUMS 1988 ACTUAL RENEWAL PREMIUMS 1989 INSURANCE PREMIUMS BUDGET 1989 $ 51,253 $ (A)- - $ 63,530 5,652 5,434 6,530 7,446 7,019 9,870 2,170 2,099 4,048 3,785 24,701 26,947 33,050 41 41 1,858 1,611 -0- 674 -0- 45,916 47,610 49,450 1,031 1,172 1,380 109 107 220 170 168 190 505 (A) - - 510 23,172 (A) - - 25,600 1,811 (8)11800 2,000 5,500 (C)6,000 (D) 2,850 $ 129,467 $ 56,857 $145,730 ------------------------- ------------------------- 12888.E V ,6 W TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk ,. DATE: December 8, 198;3 SUBJECT: 1989 Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Renewals Attachment: A. Navarre Auto E'ort, Inc. License Renewal App ! i r•a'Ci on The City has sent out 1989 Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor license renewals to Navarre Auto Port, Lakeview Golf and Orono Golf Course. The two golf courses have On -Sale licneses and they will submit their applications after the first of the year and before they open for business in the Spring. Navarre Auto Port, Inc. (O'Sullivan's) has an Off -Sale license and their application for renewal is attached for your review. TO: Mayor and City Council �1''� FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratot After a review of the applicant by the police there have been no reported problems. Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the City Council approves the license renewal for a 1989 Off -Sale Non- Intoxicanting Malt Liquor Iicense for Navarre Auto Port, Inc. Ayes , Nays Nc JNt1—MpN /e'. I.'1. STATE OF MINNESOTA Combination Application for Retailer's 04646W (Ott -sale) Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License To tile___ �.� i rY or d Ro Al0 '' •- "' ' N.— M Ikrvin. —horur 1--,) trnrl LIII... I County of_�PrN 1, _ TD ran0 M • D '.$u t.t iV4X' _ — ./ -- of the eity;willage, or town o/_�RR4- county of Nt Nn/csPi/t/ I.State of Allunesoin, hereby make application for a Retnller's (On -sale) (Off -sale) Noe Int W4%httfh ' dfnit Liquor License to sell such dfalt Uquor under and pursuant to an ordinance (resolution) passed lr'619y, •+ village council, county board o _ T! • ' 0 aril Chapter 340, .Minnesota Statutes 1945, as amended, providing for licensing and refits N41 fh1, rate of non -intoxicating malt liquor. NT During the past Jive years, my residence has been as follows: 2ev S DR[nlo L•nNE /IlAycc 6Rait' . /11 ✓ ss3t+9 �� I was born '?� 3 ";i,_ t-irl ..1 Avd.5 _ .tar•` D., y..r Cut vllles. Jl1N 1,�—L'e �e�ll Wropk T.v. at,•. er Ceunry I an a (nailtni (naturalised) citizen of the United Stale. I am aearrierl. My (wife's) (hushand's) name and address is _ N 14 t_LICIA /IJ I am proprietor. NA dA a tqy_ AA— - r o R T C_ . Firm was Incorporated -SEPT 1787 _1. the date of _l " Corporation is authorised to do bit -sinew in •Minnesota. License is for �`(Z U JNftO'{.Jr�p RQ _Greet) (highway) located as follows: The license trill be in connection with C.gllL a'. gNe a Gle*C fleI S-I'M DIM sb-% QeN. a.l...a4 Most. Club which has been in operation-J O U-9h. T. The establishment is lornted on the l 1 SIC T �... The business premises are owned by- G,IQW I r� b- Sr. I't N 's .J td.v M . C^ 'Suva I a•.s.1/ The taxes on the property are Pont delinquent. I am n/OT .ingaged in the Wall sale of intoxicating liquor. I have N 0 T- —had an application for license rejected as follows: I have never been convicted of a felony nor of violating any National or shale liquor law or local ordinance relating to the n/anufaeture, sale or transportation, or poutasien for sale or transportation of intoxicating liquor. Gambling or gambling devises will not be permitted on the licensed premises. I am the owner of the leasehold, furrilture, Jlxtures, and equipment in the premises for which the liesnss 14 applied, except A/ t I- C — _-------_— _ _-- I have no intention or agreement to treader the license to another person 1 submit the following names of persons, lneladlag a bank, for reforenee, with whom I base bad bedseleli� as follows: -. KC l l-'f 1. a= 1. S v[ nJ KC L I- r _9111"Y - 4/ it ---IS _ IJABS_ )A� )rt.p,6( IF AeRiC W Ice TuCA I dt'A —intend to engage in the "to of Intoxicating liquor and will have a lrederal Occupational Tu Rteelpt In accordance with the ordinance governing this lirense. My Federal Tax Stamp Receipt is 1 will comply strictly with the provisions of the ordinance relating to the le of "it drink& for `mixing'' purposes will and serve patrons in fa full view of the public. 1 agree to wails my Constitutional Rights against search and matters and will freely permit peace offleera b Iaepart my premises and scree to the forfeiture of my license If found to have violated the proviaicne of the ordinance lrssolutisel providing for the granting of this Ileena:. 1 reh solemnly *weer that the f..ot{ in(( statements are true and correct lc the beat of my knowledge pad tbst I agree Co. with all the provlebns c: 41A .dinetwe under whir! :hb license to granted. &.bw awora M n me thla—. day t 1p��'' ---- `]yil�tV+, r� f `+`^'SDI Lrr Nays. K= b.Iwo .aY ewb.w .s aw Aft— d r. oMr gr*e. eMV ib ....-r ..eel ..I .w.•..... .w vla eeke it..rl.l..s �e ew a..e see male W w.srbYs..t as e.bwwbb .er ft. aaM IY W*mM •.. �».e. taw IMs .M e./�. .40l WnOTNr M. MAtLO Iestewe eVN114 NENNEf`IN COUNIy co mly y .�..w„ .•se.e esasa 12788.3 TO: mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator,C� DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Police Facilities Lease Agreement - Orono/Long Lake Attachments: A. Orono/Long Lake Police Fa.. —ities Lease Agreement Dated 1/l/83 ISSUE - Apprising Council of the currant status of the lease. INTRODUCTION - Last summer Chief Kilbo had approa_ned the City of Long Lake regarding the renewal of the lease for the police building, which expires December 31, 1988. As noted in paragraph 7, to the extent that the agreement is not cancelled or renegotiated by the parties it goes on a month to month basis indefinitely. The Chief has continued to pursue the issue of the expectations of the City of Long Lake in regard to the facility and has specifically asked them that they, at a minimum, insert a six month cancellation notice even if the Ci+*ies continue on a month to month basis. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Negotitate an entire new lease. 2. Request minor amendment regarding notice cancellation. 3. Seek a new facility. 4. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table tnis item until January pending the outcome of discussion between the Chief and the City of Long Lake on this item. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , the Council tables this item until January pending the out(7ome of discussion between the Chief and the City of :ong Lake on this matter. Ayes Nays Ll.A'jL THIS LI'ASE, grade and entered into this First day of .lanu,jrY___-_, 1983 , by and between the City of Long lake, a municipal cornoration under the laws of 1.1irrrresota (hereinafter called lessor) ind the City of Orono, also a municipal corporation under the laws of 11inn(—'eta (hereinafter called tenant), IJITIILSSLTII, THAT: Lessor does hereby 1-ise to tenant the leased premises, being that area located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as: The South 99 feet of the East 165 feet of that part of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 1113 North, Ranae 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying North of a line drawn West and parallel with the South line of said Southeast quarter -of said Northeast quarter frorr a point on the East line of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast quarter distant 292.01 feet North from the Sr theast cirner of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast 'er. except the East 33 feet thereof, Hennepin Iy, Minnesota. The said leased premises are com❑ronly known as 445 Willow Drive, Long Lake, Minnesota and include therewith that certain one and one half story frame structure 32 feet by 60 feet constructed as an.office/storage and shop area. The leased premises specifically do not include the 24 foot by 24 foot detached double garage located behind and to the west of the leased premises. The lease term shall commence on the first day of January, 1983 and shall terminate midnight, December 31, 1988 unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. 1. Reservation. Lessor hereby reserves the u,,re cted right of ingress any' egress over and across any and all driveways and parking areas located on the leased premises during the term of this lease. 2. Base Rent_. The tenant shall pay as "base rent" for the demised th prenises, wiout any set-off or deduction therefrom, the sum of $685.66 per month payable on the first day of each and every calendar month during the term hereof. If lessor shall at any time or tines accept said base rent after it shall become due and payable, such acceptance shall not excuse delay upon subsequent occassio-s. or unconstitute, or be construed as, a waiver of any or all of lessor's rights hereunder. 3. gperating Costs. Tenant shall for the entire term of this lease. and without any set off or deduction therefrom, pay all costs of operating the leased premises including real estate taxes, if any, public and private utilities, liability/fire and extended coverage insurance premiums attributible to the leased premises, assessnwnt,,, security, janitor;al and cleaning service, salaries, roaflv% and other personnel costs. maintenance costs (to include all costs of maintaining and/or repairing the leased premises whether ordinary or extrac�rainary which services (car costs therefrom were ordered by tenant. Tenant shall promptly pay to the lessor, upon request ar. amount equal t-) any cost incurred by the lessor in repairing or maintaining Lhe leased premises where such repairs or maintenance were made necessary due to the negligence of, or misuse by, the tenant, its agents, employees, or invitees and which have not been effected by tenant within 60 days after the need for the same has arisen. Tenant shall replace all building materials with the same quality as that broken in the event that repairs become necessary. 4. Casualty Damage. If the building on the leased premises is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty either party shall have the right to terminate this lease provided that writt,n notice thereof is given to the other party within 90 days after such damage or destruction. If only a portion of the Leased premises is damaged by fire, or other casualty, and this lease is not thereby termina�ed, the lesson shall, at its expense, restore the leased premises to as near the condition which existed immedi- ately prior to such damage or destruction as is reasonably possible. Any rent shall equitably abate during such period of time as the leased premises are untenantable. It is understood and agreed that tenant's property in the leased premises is there at tenant's sole risk and that tenant shall secure its own insurance on such property and its lease hold improvements in addition to fire and extended coverage insurance for the leased premises. Lessor shall be named as a loss payee on the fire and extended coverage policy attributable to the leased premises. 5. Possession and Occupancy of Premises. Tenant may take possession and occupancy of the leased premises prior to January 1, 1983, for the purpose of effecting leaschold improvements, moving in and beginning operations therefrom. Tenant shall have no responsibility to pay base rent to lessor during any period of possession and occupancy prior to January 1, 1983, although tenant shall be responsible for all op2ratinq costs as of the actual date of possession and occupancy. Ten:.nt warrants tFat the leased premises shall be used for the sole purpose of officing and housing the Orono Police Department and conducting any and all police fire and general public safety activities reasonably incident and necessary in connection with the Orono Police Department. 6. Lessor's Hesppnsj bili_y fo_r Certain Costs. Notwithstandinq, any of the above, essor warrants tnat prior to January 1, 1983, it will at its sole expense marce certain improvements of the leased premises to include felling and removal of trees and other visual obstructions located next to Willow Drive and the construction of additional parking area on the east side of the building of the leased premises and a driveway cn the north side of the building which will intersect, with the driveway and parking area on the south and west sides of the building. All said parking and driveway areas shall be graded and covered with red gravel of sufficient grade and size to handle normal automobile traffic and maintenance vehicle traffic. It shall be the responsibility of lessor to maintain dli parking areas and driveways at its expense in a proper nd timely fashion including all snow plowing and removal. 7. Holdinq Over. Should tenant continue to occupy the leased premises, or any part thereof, after the expiration or termination of the lease term, whether with or against the consent of lessor, such tenancy shall be from month to month. 8. Default. It tenant shall Default in the payment of any installment of rent, or i-n the nMervance or performance of any of tenant's other covenants, agreements or obligations hereunder, in any such event, lessor, without process, may re-enter immediately into the leased premises and reriove all persons and property there)rom, and at its option, annul and cancel this lease as to tenant, and have, regain, and re -possess and enjoy the leased premises and anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, and tenant hereby expressly waives the service of any notice in writinq of intention to re-enter as aforesaid, and also all right or restoration to possession of the leased premises after re-enter or after judgment for possession thereof. In case of any srich termination, tenant will indemnify lessor against all loss of rents and other damages which it may incur by reason of such termination during the residue of the lease term,'and also against all attorneys fees and expenses incurred in enforcing the terms of this lease. No remedy herein or elsewhere in this lease or otherwise conferred upon or reserved shall be considered exclusive of any other remedy but shall be cunuwlative and in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. 9. Leasehold Improvements. It is unditrstood and agreed that tenant intends to make certain leasehold improvements to the leased premises. All such leasehold improvements shall he at the sole expense of the tenant and lessor reserves the right to approve any leasehold improvements proposed by tenant during the term hereof. Lessor- may not arbitrarily deny the right to construct leasehold improvements consistent with tenant's intended use of the premises. 10. Assignment and Subletting. Tenant shall not have the right to assign or sublet all or any part of the leased premises without lessd.'s prior written consent. 11. Lessor's Right to Enter Premises. Lessor, or its authorized agents or attorney, may at any reasonable time ent,�r the leased premises to inspect, make repairs, improvements and/or changes in the leased premises or other premises in the building or adjacent premises as lessor may deem proper, and there shall be no decrease of rent or liability on the part of lessor by reason of inconvenience or annoyance. 12. Inde►nnity_. Lessor shall not be liable to tenant or those claiming through, under or against tenant, for injury, death, or property damage occurring in, on or about `he leased prenises and tenant shall indemnify lessor and hold it harm.ess from any claim or damage arising out of any injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises unless the same shall have been caused by the act or omission of lessor's agents, employees, or invitees. Without limiting the foregoing, tenant agrees to procure and maintain a policy or policies of liability insurance at its own cost and expense, insuring lessor and tenant from all claims, demands or actions for injury or death arising out of any single incident of not less than $1,000,000.00 end for property damage in an anrount of not less than $100,000.00. Tenant shall not be liable to lessor or those claiming through, under or against lessor for injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises and arising out of the act or omission of any of lessor's agents, employees or invitees. Lessor shall indemnify tenant and hold it hannlE;s from any claim or darrige arisine out of any such injury, death or property damage. 13. Lessee to Surrender Premises in Good Condition_. Upor the expiration or termination of the lease term, tenant shall, atitsexpense remove tenant's goods and effects and those of all persons claiming under tenant; quit and deliver up the leased premises to lessor, peacably and quietly, in as vood order and condition as the same were on the date the lease term corrrenced or were thereafter placed in by lessor, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 111 WIV,'ESS 1111EREOf, the pantie, leave signed and executed this agreement the day and year first above written. city of Long Lake i By: _ 4 Its Mayor 1 is �l t c, er cT— ci t� By: By: Its ity Clerk a 12888.4 0:?9 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator+ DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: DARE Program (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Attachment: A. Report of D.A.R.E. Progress Dated 12/06/88 B. New York Times Article Dated 11/20/88 ISSUE - Acceptance ^_f information regarding the police department's use of the DARE program in the Orono Middle School. INTRODUCTION - As you may recall Officer James Cornick attended the DARE Program's two week course in Illinois, as have officers from Mound and Minnetrista. Attachment A is his initial outline of the program (some of the information you have seen previously) including sample lesson plans. The program will have the officer in the classroom giving a 17 session class. It will be for 5th grade classes at the school. It is expected that the program will start in the early part of 1989. Provision of these classes to Orono students it the Westonka District will be by Mound and Minnetrista Police Departments. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Discuss. 3. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the Council accept the information presented making any comments they desire regarding the program. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by the Orono Council accepts the information regarding the proposed DARE program in the Orono Schools. Ayes Nays _ cc: Hel Kilbo, Police Chief Officer James Cornick ORONO CHIEF KILBO 12/06/88 REPORT OF D.A.R.E. PROGRESS IN ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL CONTENTS..... D.A.R.E...............BACKGROUND INFORMATION D.A.R.E. .............LESSONS THAT ARE TAUGHT BY OFFICER D.A.R.E...............SAMPLE LESSON # FOUR "RESISTING PRESSURE TO USE DRUGS" D.A.R.E...............SAMPLE LESSON # NINE "MEDIA INFLUENCES ON DRUG USE" D.A.R.E...............NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS ON D.A.R.F.. ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL...... BREAKDOWN OF FIFTH GRADE CLASSES ADDITIONAL COSTS OF PROGRAM .................CATALOGS,ART WORK, VIDEOS, ETC. D.A.R.E...................APPROXIMATE HOURS & PREP TIME 0.A.R.E. DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION Program Background In January 1983, Chief Daryl F. Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) approached Dr. Harry Handler, Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified school District (LAUSD), expressing concern about drug problems facing society. As a result of this meeting, a task force comprised of LAPD and LAUSD personnel was appointed to develop a drug abuse prevention program for elementary school children. During the development of the curriculum, numerous drug abuse education programs were examined. Task force members agreed that a prevention program was best suited for the targeted age group. - Existing prevention models which emphasized an understanding of peer pressure, self -management skills (decision -making, values clarification, and problem -solving), positive lifestyles, and alternatives to drug use appeared to be experiencing the highest degree of success... As a result of this study, a cooperate LAPD/LAUSD drug abuse prevention program called "D.A.R.E." (Drug Abuse Resistance 1ducation) was developed for presentation to fifth and sixth grade students.f D.A.R.E. curriculum focuses on peer resistance training, self-concept improvement, and Valued judgments about respect for the law and personal safety. In September 1983, the D.A.R.E. pilot program was introduced in selected Los Angeles City Schools by ten LAPD officers. Before entering the classroom, the officers participated in 80 hours of training, including curriculum on teaching technique, elementary school operation, preparation of visual aids, officer -school relations, communications skills, and chiid development. Since its inception, Los Angeles D.A.R.E. has grown to 53 officers who reach students in more than 300 elementary schools in the city. Teachers, school administrators, parents, and students report positive results directly attributable to D.A.R.E instruction. The program is so �uccesstul that it has become a model for police agencies throughout the country. Iv D.A.R.E. in Illinois D.A.R.E. in Illinois is an adaptation of the Los Pngeles model. Together, the Illinois State Police (ISP), State Board of Education, Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse, local educators, and police officials layea the groundwork for an Illinois pilot program that began in January 1987. Statewide expansion is scheduled for the 1987-1988 school year. The pilot project, administered by ISP, is aimed at 8,600 fifth and sixth grade students in 46 school districts statewide. These students will learn about the many subtle pressures that lead to experimentation with drugs and ways to say "no" to drugs. D.A.R.E. also focuses on self-esteem, interpersonal communication skills, decision -making, and positive alternatives to drug abuse behavior. Of the more than 70 police officers who applied to teach D.A.R.E., 30 were selected (17 from ISP, 13 from local police departments). Selection was based on psychological screening, oral interview, service record, and completion of a two -week training course. Each school its the pilot is visited once a week for 17 weeks by an assigned instructor. Lessons last 45 to 60 minutes and involve students in a variety of exercises, both written and oral. The instructor spends the entire day at the school. Aside from D.A.R.E. instruction, officers present short talks on basic safety issues in grades kindergarten through fourth, meet with teachers, and interact with students at lunch and recess. Proposed long-term goals of D.A.R.E. include: is reduction in the supply of controlled substances as a result of i reduced demand; +_more positive identification with police officers; -improved decision -making in all life situations; and an overall reduction in criminality. v D.A.R.E. offers an innovative approach to substance abuse prevention that has been both well -received and easily adapted. An expansion of I SEARCH (Illinois State Enforcement Agencies to Recover Children), ISP's program for missing and exploited children, this drug resistance program effectively addresses yet another form of child exploitation -- victimization through substance abuse. PROJECT D.A.R.E. OFFICER TAUGHT SESSIONS SESSION ONE: Practices for Personal Safety SESSION TWO: Drug Use and Misuse SESSION THREE: Consequences SESSION FOUR: Resisting Pressure to Use Drugs SESSION FIVE: Resistarce Techniques - Ways to Say No + SESSION SIX: Building Self -Esteem SESSION SEVEN: Assertiveness: A Response Style SESSION EIGHT: Managing Stress Without Taking Drugs * + SESSION NINE: Media Influences on Drug Use * + SESSION TEN: Decision Making and Risk Taking SESSION ELEVEN: Alternatives to Drug Abuse '' + SESSION TWELVE: Role -Modeling * SESSION THIRTEEN: Forming a Support System + SESSION FOURTEEN: Ways to Deal With Pressures From Gangs SESSION FIFTEEN: Project D A.R.E. Summary + SESSION SIXTEEN: Taking A Stand SESSION SEVENTEEN: D.A.R.E. Culmination * Suggested Extended Activities for the Teacher + Homework xi PROJECT D.A.R.E. SESSION FOUR RESISTING PRESSURES TO USE DRUGS Concept: Keeping in mind the consequences of drug use can help you say no to drug offers and resist peev pressure. Purpose: To make students aware of the kinds of peer pressure they may face to take drugs and to help students learn to say no to such offers by thinking of the consequences of drug use. Objective: Students will be able to resist the pressure of a drug offer. Materials: Worksheets: "Saying No to Friendly Pressure" and "Saying No to Teasing Pressure" (Workbook: Pages 8 and 9). Procedures: 1. Introduce the words pressure" and "peer pressure" by writing the words on the chalkboard and asking the class what the words mean. Point out that pressure is a force or influence that acts on a person to do something. The four major ,sources of influence or pressure are: Personal (own wants, beliefs, goals, likes, and dislikes) Family (beliefs and expectations of family members) tiPeer (thoughts an� expectations of friends who are the same age as the erson) V Media (mass media communications -- television, radio, et--.) 2. Point out to students that (peer pressure is a force or --influence that acts on a person to du something by people who }are the same age. Write this definition on the chalkboard %and ask students to add it to their D.A.R.E. word list. Point out further that peer pressure is especially powerful among young people and can affect the way they think, dress, and act. Write on the chalkboard and explain the kinds of pressure put on young people by their peers to use drugs. As you explain each kind, call on a group leader to assist you in demonstrating it through role playing. •r�f_r_ienndl�,ressu�re: A simple offer made in a friendly way -- "Wouldyou ou like to try some?" Teasing Pressure: A strong pressure in which people 'tease to get someone to try a drug -- "Come on, don`t be a chicken. Try it." 4-a Heavy pressure: The strongest pressure used to influ-nce a person to o something -- "Come on, you better drink some, or I'm not going to be your friend." Indirect (tempting) pressure: A pressure to use drugs �r~� �►° without —a —direct offer —"Bill is inviting you to a party, and lots of kids will be smoking and drinking there." 3. Summarize '-'- discussion on the kinds of oressure by using discussic, )ns, such as: Which is ;rye easiest kind of pressure to resist? • Which kind is the strongest' Where is indirect (tempting) pressure used most often? 4. Assign students to complete the worksheets "Saying No to Friendly Pressure" and "Saying No to Teasing Pressure." Emphasize that considering the consequences of using or choosing not to use a drug can help one say no to friendly and teasing pressure. Example: thanks. I don't want my dad to sr-ll alcohol on my reath. Instruct students to complete the assignment as hcrre ork and to keep the work in their notebook. 5. Announce to students that during the next leszon they will have an opportunity to act out situations involving friendly and teasing pressure and to learn ways to respond to various kinds of pressure. GROUP: CLASS: SAYING NO TO FRIENDLY PRESSURE. Directions: Read the cartoon and think of a way to say no to the offer. Write your idea in the empty bubble. 04 COME ON -AND LET'S DRINK 1 f SOME BEER! % /- 1� (Workbook: Page 8) Im 4-c GROUP: CLASS: SAYING NO TO TEASING PPESSURE Directions: Read the cartoon and think of a way to say no to the offer. Write your idea in the empty bubble. DON'T BE A CHICKEN. IT'S ONLY A JOIWT! (Workbook: Page 9) 4-d PROJECT D.A.R.E. SE i'J�,N NINE MFDiA IkiFIULNCES ON DRUG USE Concept: The us,? ): alcohol and drugs is otten er:ouraged by the advertising media. Purpose: To help students develop U e understanding and skills needed to analyze and resist media influences to a-,e 4i iol and drugs. Objective: Students wi;l be able to recognize -inalyze influencing factors in medi! presentations about al,uhu; and drugs. Materials: Collage or ,n�ividlllal clippings from magazines or news,,dpers on alcohol or other drug products that illustrate various advertising techniques. Worksheets: Drugs and th- Media" (Wnrkboo�. Page 17) and "Advertisinn .echniqurs" (Workbook: Page 18). Procedures: 1. Introduce tht- ter-!: "redia" by writing the word on the chalkboard any• ;asking the students tc tell what they think it means. Then de!ine it as any means of communication that reak-hes or influences large numt_�rs .,' people: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and billboards. Write this defirition on the chalkboard and instruct students to add it to the•r D.A.R.E. word list. 2. Psk the students to tell some ways that the media influence wl-,t t►— think and to suggest specific examples, suci; as the way they dre:_ (designer jeans), the ki ,.1 music like, and the hrand of br- kfast food they r. hoo,- . 3. Di, variety of advertisi-,g techniques used by the me(:, -es, — people to use their products. ask, "owiy do YOU f h MK tf erti sers wool .e people tc, believe that everybody a smoking cigarettes and that many adult smokers woulu to quit but can't?" Say, "The people you ,• e erinl•r- be-, in television commercials are acting; they ,ly drinking beer. Thpy are using one of the techniques which we will be discussing next." students to refs- to the information she or i0 Aiiiq techniques it the,- D.A.R.E notebooks and tell ' •,!9nts :.,hat they %.01 be .sing this infctiution in the ;e .oil. Discuss the fallowing advertising techniques and encourage students to suggest examples of commercials they recall that repre,ent each technique. 9- d i 3. Snob appeal e. Symbols b. Amazing new ingredient f. Sex appeal Comparison with similar g. Band wagon -- eieryuody technique d. Perscnal testimony h. Having furl i. Being healthy 5. Point out that advertisers are nc° always honest in the messages they use to get people to uuy their product. Ask, "Do you think people who drink a certain product actually have more fun playing at the beach than if they did not drink it?" Point out that by using settinos in which people are having fun, advertisers are able to suggest the idea that the viewer will have more fun it he or she also tries the product. 6. Direct students to work in their assigned groups for the next activity. Expla'n that each group will be responsible for creating an anti -alcohol or anti -drug commercial using one kind of advertising approach. Allow time for students to write and practise their commercials. 'hen call on each group to present its anti -alcohol or anti -drug message. Instruct class members to discuss the differences between their anti -alcohol or anti -drug messages and those presented by the media. 7. Summarize the lesson by asking questions similar to the `ollowing: What are some forms of communication that influe:.- large numbers of people? What are some common advertising approaches used -i.o sell r oducts? What are some ways that the media use to try to focus on the feelings of the consumer rather th&.i on the prcduct itself: 8. Assign students ,) complete the homework assignment sheet "Drugs and the Medi " and add it to their D.A.R.E. notebook. Suggested Ex ended A-tiv" ies for the Teacher 1. Ask tints to make posters illustrating anti-al,--ohol or anti ..g messages. Request students to collect ads to make collages -b DRUGS AND THE MEDIA Directions: Choose one of the following to study: a. A commercial about alcohol or a drug product on TV. b. A magazine ad about alcohol or a drug product. Answer the following questions about your advertisement: 1. What product is the ad selling? 2. What technique is used in this ad? (Some .,is may use more than one.) Bandwagon Comparison Personal testimony Sex appeal Having fun Other (explain) 3. What is the ad trying to make you think (with words and pictures)? 4. What information about alcohol or the drug product is not given in the ad? (Workbook: PagE '7) ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES Here are a number of ways that people are pressured by advertisers to use their products. BANDWAGON APPROACH Everybody drinks it. SEX APPEAL Beautiful people. Think About It SNOB APPEAL Only rich and famous people use it. HAVING FUN Enjoy it. PERSONAL TESTIMONY AC WO BEEF Try i t , ycli' l l like it. COMPARISON (. Z+# 8te, '1 Lea A" Mid t.s+a GRFaT! C•] Light beer is better than regular beer. 1. How is each technique influencing or pressuring people to ,se the product? 2. What is not being told about the product? (Workbook: Page 18) TM Stala Jeumal-R99111trkr Sprirl sow, Illinois Thxs+day. January 7, 1W Page 11 Hugs and tears as students at Jefferson say goodbye to DARE's Officer Thompson h% Uvn!lg Pohorski Arthur Hickman, a ,lath -grader at Jefferum Elementary_ School, sov+ Prrnda Thompson has kept Nor" from using drugs. Thompson. an officer In the sprinalteld Police Department. spent the past 17 weeks at Jeffer son as part of the DARE (Drug Ahtmo ResMance Education) Pro - prom, sponsored by the Spring- field Poke Department In coop. rrolion with the city school d tit riot The program Includes class- room srsslom drsigned In discour- aar drug and alcohol ahuse by building srll+aeem and self-con- fldpMr said Hickman "Three boys. thov tried to W me to take drugs. When R" ramp to this schnnl 1 was shout In lake them that night. After (Thompson) talked to me and our class, I realized I had bet- ter things to do 1 told them, No " Timnthv Harris said Thomp- son s effotn had a similar effect on him 11 it warn I for her. I might he on drugs right now,' Harris said I knew '%1s tine kid 1 think hill hoot gal on fire hecouse he did pot Ho was ohoul 17. They at itrsl r • mr smoking ptA, but not quite." The DARE propnm is based on a concept developed In Los Ange- Irs is 1111113 It was adopted for use Ir Illltvttis by the the State Police, tM stow Miard of Fducatli", the Department of Alrohollsm and t,, Mlanr• Abbe, gad total aAuew Inn and pMUv nfflcials fttrnsive evolaalino of the ar/atnal prngraiw ood of Pik" Pro, grams in Its Illinois whno" indl- coled the prografe makes sfu/enh more willing In ay ' -no' to drugs. The program also fosters friendships ww"m the ofsdrnh and Ihr poller offlcrn who c"- Mitt the cowry %o there we-V a 1 1 of hue and from at Jeffensnfi tin wednesrlay as the dudenfs to tn- p.tpgrson g AhrrM In ay good- • "1 was crying when she was about to leave because she was a like a sister to me,'- Hickman said At " groduallon" ceremonies Wednesday, the approximately 2SO sixth grader In the program were tentative ,fit they received congratualatory handshakes from school and police officials. Rut when they received heir c-runentes of achievement from Thompson, many hugged her en- thusiastically, sometimes fear- fullv Tears flowed more freely after the ceremonies, and many stu- denbt were too emotional In speak. Othrrs galhered around to got Thompson', phone number. Thomason encouraged the stu- dents to call her any time "I'm going to call her any chance I get," Hickman said "I'm going to call her, ton." sold Gloria Hollis, 'gust to talk, %bout Ihings." Said Hickman, "She's about the only one that cares that 1 know. The other ones don't have time for me" Thompsnn sold , to level of the students' emotion surprised her 1 didn't realize the kids were sn attached You rr always In such a hurry." she sold " I know a bunch of them really liked me, but i 1us1 can't get over the reaction that they've had " Gesturing toward a student, Tanyls Harden, Thompson said "Thal little girl, the, Ind kind of a 'oughts, and 1 really was surprised to Pee tears In her eyes That's neat" Thompson spent ram to four dogs a week of Jefferson Each sixth grade claw of tM school, a fifth and sixth grade center, had a DARE class one hour a week The red of (he thin, Thempann worked with the students on an Informal basis. "You're on the playground with them. ,nu "to lunch with them Many a day I've arived fool to Oconlintredonpage 12 Hugs ■ from page I 1 them In tho food line They really thought that wait something. lust roaming the hall-,, If I pass, they'give me five.' We have a special little handshake that they learned I've been there when the Mils come in I'm there when they leave. You lake a few minutes with them and they really dig that " Thompson Bald she coached a vnl- Ipvhall team at Jefferson, a team that did pretty well "for having a rotten coach." The students even gave her a nickname. "Thls one kid came up to me one day and sald'Hey, O.T' I %nld'O T "'Yeah, Officer Thompson' I thouRM thnl was funny " Thompson said she Is glad the pro- gram helped students develnp good relallonships with a memher of the police department The DARE program operated In three city schools during the first sec master and will move to five others for the second. Thompson will con- tinue with the program The other officer who participated during the first semester, Commander Jim CI marossa, w,.s recently promoted una will be replaced Springfield Pnilce Chief Mike wnl- ton said the department will cnnllnue Io support the prrgtrnm Walton said he hopes to bring the total number of DARE offlrer to fnur by next fall The Jeffersor students %aid they were prop..: - the certificates they received from the program Many plan to have them framed Arthur Hickman said he plans to Ito one step farther *Um going to put mine in a picture home, and every time 1 see (Thomp- tom). I'm going to show her. Even If she's old. I know I'm sill) going to remember, 'coolie deep down In my keort, she was the only one that I iro"on Inge 6 Monday, January 11. 1986 The State Journal Register Springfield. Illinois She won their hearts AN AWFUL LOT o► parents in ing in the honris of mnst nt the 2So Springfield ouphl to he saving ''I want to meet Brenda Thompson " For Brenda accomplished what most of us could only hope to get done — she won the hearts and. hopefully. the minds of doz. ens of sixth graders at Jefferson Elementary School Brenda, a city police officer, spent three or four days a week for the In -;I 17 weeks at the school conducting a program known as DARE, an acronym for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. By holding a one -hour class once a week for each sixth grade group, working with Individual students on an Informal bnsls, Joining In th playground, them and e lunch perlodl a vollevball team at the school, she was able to get the youngsters to believe in her. to (rust In her, and, most Importantly, to love be,. So much so that when she com- pleted her work Inst week In prep- arnllnn for moving to another schonl, her departure brought hulls and tears and an empty feel - the activities on the cepted the r having lunch with InRly. Above ven serving them trusting young sally, and coaching would be the sixth Rraders whose lives she touched Will her effort to rnmhat drugs do anv good after she's gone' u'e think sn, because Brenda was nbie to give these kids something thev desperately wanted and needed — a sense that thev are worth something. Ihnt somehodv cares about them, that there s someone whom thev ran trust and turn to WHEN SHE LEFT, Brenda gave the youngsters her phone number and encouraged them to call her any time. Knowing well what that could mean, she ac- esponsibility will - all, she let those people know she re for them long after she walked out the doors of the school. We hope mary of those sixth gradem' parents will make on ef- fort to meet Brenda Thompson, and we hope that youngsters and parents at many other schools will have the chance In meei her. and benefit from her unique qual- Itirs ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL # OF FIFTH GRADERS .......................140 TOTAL # OF FIFTH GRADE CLASSES.................5 THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM CALLS FOR SEVENTEEN SESSIONS, TAUGHT BY THE D.A.R.E. INSTRUCTOR. THE NORMAL DAYS RECOMMENDED TO TEACH ARE TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, AND THURSDAY. CLASSES ARE DESIGNED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY 40 to 45 MINUTES. ADDITIONAL COSTS OF PROGRAM D.A.R.E. WORKBOOK ......................... $1.20..... X140 NEEDED (THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE REDUCED IF WE COMBINE OUR ORDER WITH MOUND/ST. BONI) ART WORK, POSTERS, PAINT, ETC...............$100.00 VIDEOS......................................$25.00 (ILLINOIS ST. POLICE WILL PROVIDE US COPIES IF WE SEND THEM BLANK TAPES) APPROXIMATE HOURS AND PREP TIME 5 CLASSES X 17 SESSIONS = 85 TOTAL CLASSROOM HOURS PREP TIME................:20/30 HOURS OVERTIME POSSIBLE..........20/30 HOURS TO DATE CHIEF I HAVE CONTACTED MR. GILBERT, PRINCIPAL OF ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND INTRODUCED HIM TO THE PROGRAM. HE IS GOING TO PRESENT IT TO HIS STAFF/FACULTY AND GET BACK TO ME WITH TPEAS AND POSSIBLE PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION OF D.A.R.E. NKS ,- J ORN K THE NEW YORK TIMES. SUNVAI', NOYi.MRF.R 20. /sAA ' ossr Pifer oa. lzrrl �aff IOpa. •r] as � b It. crass ar"a`es •ay pwrrrw.<raatrA The Region $7 MW im in Federal Aid If It's a War on Drugs, New York Wonders, Where's the Artillery? Rv pA V iQ (. ANAE RffMV AF I' pyiat rnr Ihtw.lth a drug bill in tti.- hnal dny• of thrr e<%tin Last m•irir1' man nImbcr% M C ongress mih,iged in lu<tv seH congralula ten r,IA i! a powerful tNnw against 01 -gal psrrmirs Prrs.dem Rearan signing the I.giNalinr; r rdai d►clared that .1In the rhea enl% Mu, of ihrs Prestdrory, we give a row s our,dsn!•htekl mnarra tr<dfrcers Rut in hew 5ruk -:talc the U-1111ng M/.ft Ir rwr PI in, aal win a most serious drug prop t+f,v �a is wed kave examinrd the new . If—. M U.^ law are loss sanguine w I M• m-r law W. s I ed"Al pins.' ulnr % I" sick red e.,,.h lirnahv to, deyft rrfairA mar Mrs of F."K nohrrrs m for mnrdens cmm mined ni oidrred by d-ug ktrigpma Ihal I'n; harly w make slrrrls later arty rime aria r car of the Ararh pmait v is rim Iltlrly to Mo• drug mMr�l.o s and hit men wed/ atreath• .,:.P. r, rye 1..hal rick m tow rnurse of dash hu%i piss Ile -bile Iermmg the prmrspin useful. Ru d,41* U ,atham U11111l Stales Attorney for N1c `;.,,krrp rlrsuirt of New York. sail fit aier0a to be kept in pel %per-' a ( appal pun niftee et. be said. Is Iron much raagg•raled aft/ we rrlrh dr r tried Ili low xl<n pros ut— Irrr cr it conallies of up w Staam fin drug peiswa•uv the lines. Mr (_hart .."d. are web— to the eaten) thsr rho ta' -A-, It,, rang. of Ilrnalnrs But low hill recpiires +fir aim' s,sndard of proof fir In, Ip as far a rrim:nal r—iriron. i MrrSi•_ rhminal ing lie original rationale for r ,oil Irnahr.c shah are ucuaily imprisod iprdcr M; drmandmg %Iandard%nf prml kaii —d Ir—I n enmal putrco ofi—all r r-.e e.rr as ctdueuslr Ana hzmg the new bill L Rios. r. him. much mini., it might pin :ido fin It— whir ii ti—imurd A imal Of 31 f billion in this fiscal Year and ne same e mpiam in 1496. (Mit"lc Made 'y 156a mil- .pn evadaMr Immru'atell me Of culls behove Now Ynrk-s sh: law en forrement will amount to .o, 1 million for next year that epnnhul Rr:r is hardl like)\ in transform a state rrimuial just ire evstem that now dpvole%$28, millmn to fight - Ingthedrugt:ade In last, some state officials r worried that the bill could actually Iptipardire some (iwlnlOTrement efforts. Partials Gri%et of the State Division of Criminal Justice Sere lees said that the Federal drug hill in I gave New York 8I1 million, none% that was Ono fully distributed to orw programs until this vear "There are going to have to fir• someharcide"%wirts,' she said, if the nc- bill provudrs only f7 1 m llirm " Hcrause of Cot grpas s war an drugs." she said. we might have to close down some programs That would he the irony of the whole thing Widespread ComplaiMs The state law -enforcement people are not Vine In their disappointment Ullliam S Ses- ns. Director of the Federal Bureau of In- vestigattnn. said this month that the hill gave his spoory only $IS million of the additinnai SM million if had requested He warned that the limited resources will hamper the fight against Internatirnaldimg rings New York State officials Involved in drug treatment are more guarded 1- hrio opinion of file new law "Everyone %h....pv atxwil the aneminn to drugs, but vou hay. to +an and ser what happens -.laid Dennis U'hale, of the I)iv I%ton OF Substance Abuse Scrcuces lhr slab now spends $1759 million On neal ment and education. of which the Federal (.r.vrrnmrnl pays S2x.2 million An unnfhrual analysis of Ihr new bull eslimalr% that it will add Sri million White that amouni appears mmkst. It marks I— riwepival hreaklh;nul %aid r C�. la Qac UjFt a V. 77 ti y `\ 1 J.......... A ' ` r r i1 1'nrnRwearrir•• [b..a ai fraanwr. Police officers traching Hrnokhvn schoolchildren about the dangers of drugs. Under the new Federal drug bill, more money will go for e.lucatiori and treatment. Paul Samuels of the Legal Action Center, a nonprofit group specializing in Issues of sub- stance abuse. First. he said. the bill requires that 55 percent of Frdrral drug motley Ito for treatment and education. leaving 15 percent for law enforcement, In the past, more than 70 percent of the Federal mono, has gone for enforcement and tnrder mlerdinmn Second. the bill for the first lime allows the use of Federal funds in build drug treatment cen. ters For lack of space. many New Yin it CIIy addict%rtriw must waif minth%lor treatment Still, the new Federal emphasis on treat- ment will rid begin to have an% effect without larger Federal appropriatinn. lhesr are supposed In hp pr.-,A,.' tat a •,npplrmental appropriaimns bill that will go before Con- gress next vear, when. it crow appears, cut- ting the Federal deficit will have prrorify New fork officials also lemplam that the provision for budding the treatment centers ircluires the state to match Federal funds; that could be a problem given New Pork's enormous new hudgef deficit. In anv case, the future of drug treatment in New fork and elsewhere may depend as much on scientific research a% on money to expand the programs. New Sork now treats about 47.000 addicts About 30.000 are heroin us(rs who receive methadone. a drug that blorks heroin craving. on an outpatient bass But heroin abuse appears relalnriv slahle Crack and other forms of cocaine are the more virulent problem. vet no pharmaceuti- cal treatment exists to block the craving for cocaine; crack addicts must be treated with psychotherapv Such treatment, often in a residential setting. I% complicated and expen- sivrand is also less effective against cocaine use than methadone IS against heroin. Scientists are working to develop a drug to bloc!, cocaine cravings, and the ..ew bill pro- vides S30 million for research Thus the bills ultimate benefit for New fork could dense more from the money it sprinkles on re- search laboratories around the country than from the concentrated stream that flows to- ward Alhanv k3 rl..rrvwar] A web ar%aaaro bw,r] niili 4 rrrarw a 4..q L AAa:)ranep PC as nwDrta. S A N ! 063 uaaw;y tic_ M sarsr17 si A.e a u w lI A,an�er Imdatl apinl�lsv is uI b qpl ass,, In aeig our aeovr wtn.vra oasis 1P, irv:aarax tie o wioo t a6wrc: iatariao Pawns K ptalaaw oar ainaw taw w naeq wra.a saws taa%.ew .aped as tap: Wniwdao aw s-W Abaiov i u wew.a, M f bwAre IaapiR Wq ! 6unwuaw ilaM buns aaq 6wnp i w rya,d ado .. avl (41 v� t 11308, f C TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator* DATE: November 30, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Legislative Program Attachments: A. 1989 Legislative Program Memo Dated 11/17/88 ISSUE - 1. Discussion of 1989 Legislative Program. 2. Pdoption of a Legislative Program. INTRODUCTION - At the the Council's 'Last meeting they requested that this issue be tabled and it is currently being presented for further consideration. Distritut:ion of this policy will be by letter to the State Legislators together with a letter to the Congressman and two Senators. In addition this will provide guidance for the City for any lobbying efforts during 1989 Legislative session. PROPJSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adupte the 1.989 Legislative Program. Ayes Nays 111888.6 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Admi.nistrat GATE: November 17, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Legislative Program Attachments: A. Draft 198. ►.egislative Program ISSUE — Determination as to whether the Council wants to adopt a 1989 Legislative Program as proposed or amended. INTRODUCTION_ — For the last three years the City has adopted a legislative program of items they consider key related to other governmental bodies. As in the 1988 program the appropriate policies are zro,,3s referenced to the League of Minnesota Cities and Association of Metropolitan Municipal itie. policy's on the same subject. (These policy documents are available to you with the AMM's rolicy document having been transmitted to you in Ocotober 1588.) DISCUSSION — The basic c.ianges from the 1988 program are in the following areas: A r%M TT 7M%IQ State 44 — Property Tax System 16 — Levy Limits #7 — Truth in Taxation #13 — Ground Water/Surface Water Mgt. County #1 — 800 MHZ Trunking RFA30N Poor system made worse by 1988 Legislature 1988 Legislative change 1988 Legislative addition 1988 Weather provided impetus New technology (5 yrs old) being explored County U1 — Ceurl'-v Computer Being installed A� -.!a Dispatch ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt. 2. A.c,!n.1 and aaopt. 3. Table for further discus -ion. 4. Choose not to adopt a program for 1989. RECOMMENDATION — After discussing any relevant issues the Council is concerned with, it is recommended the policy be *dopted for 1989. PROPOSED MOTION — Moved by ieconded by that the Council adopt the 1989 Legislative Program. Ayes Nays _ t1rim or G'DVEW"- FEDERAL ISSUE POLICY/COMMERM k�ISY CV CiK)ND 1"9 WaSIATIVE POLICIES STATUS Draft 11/02/68 Adopted Update -ZAGUE POLICY Federal Deficit t!ndertake appropraite measures No sionificant No policy ough spending reductions progress if needed, tax increases _nat do not negatively impact the economy in order to bring the budget deficit under control. It is anticipated that deficit control will strengthen the economy for the 1990's and reducing the impact of an impending recession 2. Interr 4tionil trade deficit/balance Develop i mplement a Monthly balance No policy ct payments strategy t, educe the trade deficit without of payments resorting to protectionist generally lower - still trade legislation in a concern order to improve the U.S. econo.ny AMK POLICY No policy No policy Draft CITY Q'CF40M Adoote3 Update . 198 3 LEGISIATIVE POLICIIS LrlE L CF Wv1MN = : A T E ISSUE POLICY/c,"M TS SRAIM LEAGUE POLICY AMM POLICY ENVIRONMENT - LAND USE .. Lake Minnetonka Adequate access exists S the Hennepin Parks No policy No policy Access City is opposed to additional 6 Mlnnetrista access working cn compijmise park development in Zone 5 C.'; may participate in Lawsuit pending 1. lit ':ser fees Appropriate use stickers,' fees to pay lake use costs Solia Waste Promote appropriate recycling 10/24/88 Council to limit use of land, -ills directs under- taking of curb- side recycling i. Ar..exation Change law back to requir.nq both municipalities to concur in change in Metropolitan area.; LUEET-2 Supports IV -I Recommends *Effective plarr,_nq Counties continue *Alternatives to -0^dfill financial support "Comp/Incentat.Lv,�a 4+ and surtax plans Communities/Inda—k....11s assume *Clean-up hazardous responsibilities wastes for abatement/ 'Condemnation awards/ recycling when a polluted land city does not meet 'Suvport to implement the goals with the Federal Superfuad municipality :ommunity right to keeping authority know protiisions to regulate *Deal with potential collection. Also antitrust supports several of League's policies LUEET-5 In part II-N Requests recammends review of r-view of 1985 law 1985 law and at a change permitting minimum give a veto property owner power to the affected initiated `sties annexation. At a minimrun the affected cities should have a veto over the process or restored to pre 1985 statu LEVr— (T 'aNERR4ENT STATE ISSUE 1. Proper y tax system S. .,.,cal Govirnment Aid% 5 11711 * s Iruth in taxation �T rable W rti. 9. Tax Inc z r CITY CP C RONO 198 LE131 AT:'/E Prmir,= POI..I y/ cOMM RM Revamp system AmNud formula so the •'needs" funded are not driven by past expenditures Eliminate Mngify to make feasibly Not le:. ' tial employees - binding u itian dirve upward p,-f results of other errpl_.yek with no omp worth Wntrol ..-i "essentials" Preserve currant a ._,nrity t •r developmer- STATUS 10/10/88 Council adopts resolution for Legislature on Property ax System plus participation in coalition study City forTm la wed progr`-m st*v- tted reports 4i n B Draft Adoo*ed Upda�e LEACUE POLICY ANM POLICE' RS-1 No pose*ion. ID/D3 Undertake pending coalition work study - phase- D-4 restore home- stead credit ?S-2 I-C Continue Ckxmutment *Continuation of prrgram to local government *Increase in lime with increaseing inflation finding on fair/equitable 'Have LGA take into account basis. Legislature: deC ea:>eS III State/Federal explore creative means to r`-,%I"nues address unique local FS-3 Eliminate levy limits problems FS-4 Nodify several IA- Eliminate levy liruts specific IG- Improve to make workable GLP-? Ch eye interest arbitration to take into acct. or eliminate arbitration - plus allow le ,y base adjust- ment DS-1 Vo furhter change in current legislation that diminish cities abl' �y IG - Improve to mike woixable. Adjustments for carp worth be outside levy limit *hot prohibit contracting *No changes until current deadline 12/31/91 lapse III-B-4 71iminate developme?t 14mitations/ metro area leave rest as IS. 10. T G—it Prcymty [IST � otQI3 1989 tvr_rcranvF XLCI6 'hw I titatime elv3ld Pal' tRvr "Eavr ytere" of all ¢pal mete m 's Draft Adooted Update IF11(ffi R1LSQ MM RLiCT HS-13 All to<evmaK ID/D-1 Sam a T& q es mllWl c dvs pa)' amt of a, fin b ecreere U. C Ftyulatlm Flr a{ptyp[Sat< t to Clty Pt Iblted Ib policy Yl tim 1n feediM 7/88 11 blio Dmnut Po4, Wm polldw [o loml 1988 Legislature nouired m policy lgriediCU-- If Stan mi., st8nvseim of pollclas ed3P d told haimlmy Ear to State Cluw ahel Pff14r Quay anaa. 11. GnWi� e! Dtwvde L10RSw W MM Ma[c MaegeaPt laal ®suflw demlop 4.ti EKaglfah iP4�:w qt. piss ln®,uve, Eor lPml gn�rtan+nt IlMY8p�1SLW i3s1lSIGL 5� 1W. iltyvay fVldiM 1%it. nvyaay larvsalcum TUreCatle -IYe of sales tea m imtor Mlcl� plm a avdcle main tea b maA Wyly !m t.�. � •um Pages -0ereyp atlr fetlyq aa'dmum m PrMb !Pr needed 41meD Mule tie City mold ppogebly Oo a area K{ettl�e )rL. m tund� alould ct¢ Htleut apprgcia4 tepltel and O{eetlma/�mintellep letro ! - D1vo•m me of fieoal dyp� tP fed IYtm Hiyry pml N-H D�muragaJ [egslatuve pvovids fvdLV to loml gwt. for N�uvee Plan in Hetro area nqt. Uh£1'-3 SURn MVEI V-B Similar tD Igpym amtmtim to and mPottw e transportat�.m meutvZluel a�mmit m lad[ In V_I1 C rc of gh M li tMunpolitm Hlyarey Ntl Ss aavNimlt a mm, Meeage tea 1 I -3 Sagorte V-F Sita to Le reallgmmK of Igab heeed V{ a. Sete/Cry m fmoumal ciao- agility to dec ify ifimtim - c{pmee am and tvnigetll {egi u{ [mMerlm HtJnut elnuld alder agxppriate fvtllrq a.) Ally e^igiPall, m n[uaa o g.l Have edllcvmal aileaw artevds MSa ltmiu fIYFI. Q CNFAa4Nf 52AM SS�Tc !vm/cD STA:VS l:. lnfeeeccuc�ue Fletl tiwan aaplaorent mete of iaf[ae4v. a bemN`q sole difficult to .i ally aeaese baoeoee of '.b aflt" Ptfnc W .y m V,ex[vatvm of mill last' a Ida 1L is to Gatl a tePlaoerent as an optiaa Draft Adonted Update IFA(SIE IOISCY AYI R)ISCY N� Poltc]' No Polk]' fEYfS. DP fl' 2URY l5� I4.RTiL]SetII 1. a00 PHf ltmxtfp RMta (»awnlas[lm ]. Solid Wet 1. ught Pall n it Ian pAMS 1. Pelf` A�ulaium IEtD 1. ncu[a a IItD Wp faavl Uty of m I teq[ated ®mI . ayetm for all l l pouf. afuus N l ams ltfv "pe ty' alp� o[ mttart RY platnenos w adhere 1pa G...rua peal L alntG slQrted lino PWly fL�ama PuvGPl1Y out of avers. mm�a:lus/wapetuas diiacit [t..Iim Cea stl tnarlG cm tl� tla 4sasal Canty prpatty fax Eesa [.last amulalum w laMs uaf an t.efer l.la as w011c uf lam or t..p-a w a etpiwtltlaaR wtllc erd Pavltalls ]!m r � etfa tlt� gw�tnifp pyy m Ns lab In mflmcaa+ vtN mnicipLLlus NK wwwum CmG4aa drvmlapi of v oaplatr•iatM P,t. Pi . Draft Adooted Update _ am C y L aelectim WA V- (are Pauo Ptellm [votes. app � audfotlty. lasts of danfwn S d Ma avpw LaYaq P -kim. dtswnaed WA WA WA WA 12888.7 ✓ TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator PROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director-,�.- DATB: December 9, 1988 SDBJBCT: Revised Draft Statement of Investment Policy Attachments: A. City of Orono Investment Policy Draft, Revised December 12, 1988 B. Auditor's Letter C. Finance Director Memo Dated 10/4/88 D. Resolution No. 2105 Regarding Crediting Investment Interest Earned by Fund E. Resolution No. 2089 Designating City Officials Authorized to Initiate wire Transfers of City Funds F. Proposed Resolution Authorizing the City Treasurer to Designate Depositories DISCUSSION - The draft investment policy was submitted to the Auditors f r review. The recommended changes were discussed with the Auditors and are incorporated as underlines on pages 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the policy. The revised investment policy and resolution for authorizing the City Treasurer to designate depositories are presented for approval and adoption. TO Mayor and City Council - lROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator,,,�� Forwarded recommending approval and adoption. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by to adopt the City of Orono Investment Policy as revised December 12, 1988 and to adopt Resolution t Authorizing the City Treasurer to Designate Depositories of the City Funds. Ayes , Nays CITY OF ORORO Investment Policy DRAFT October 16, 1988 Revised December 12, 1988 CITY OF ORONO INVESTMENT POLICY DRAFT I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this investment policy is to establish: -the City's investment objectives -investment reporting practices to management and the Council -investment instruments that are appropriate for the City -criteria for selection of banks and dealers -requirements regarding maturities and diversification -investment principles of risk, prudence and ethics and -responsibilities for the investment function II. SCOPE The investment policy applies to the City of Orono's funds as accounted for in the City's annual report and include: - the general fund - the special revenue funds - the debt service funds - the capital projects funds - the enterprise funds Unless specified by City Council action, investments of City monies will be pooled and invested in the Pooled Investment Trust Fund with the resultant investment income accruing to the benefit of the various City funds as provided in Resolution No. 2105. III. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES A. The primary objectives of the City's investment program are: 1. To preserve principal each investment transaction shall seek first to insure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. 2. To remain sufficiently liquid to meet expenditure requirements. It is essential that cash is available when needed, therefore the City's investment goal is to maximize yield while matching maturity dates with expenditure need• including the provision of a cushion for possible unforeseen needs. 3. To diversify the investment portfolio by individual financial institution, government agency or by corporation in the case of commercial paper to reduce the exposure to risk of loss. 4. As custodians of the public trust all participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly and avoid any transaction that might impair the credibility of the City. IV. Reporting The investment reporting function shall include requirements for: budgetary reporting, interim/internal reporting, and annual reporting. A. Budgetary Reporting. As part of the annual budget, interest income shall be estimated for all budgeted funds based on a cash flow forecast. B. Interim/Internal Reporting. The Finance Department shall maintain the investment portfolio on the LOGIS Financial Investment Management System on a monthly basis and provide to management or the Council at any time. Management shall be provided investment portfolios monthly. C. Annual Reporting. The Tteasarer shall prepare a written fiscal year report on the investment program and investment activity. This report shall include a summary of the investment activity and rate of return for the fiscal year then ended and a comparison to the budgeted amounts. V. Instruments Cities in Minnesota are all restricted to the same permissible investments under Minnesota Statutes 475.66. These instruments are summarized with pertinent information as follows: A. DIRECT U.S. GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS (treasury bills, notes, bonds and certificates of indebtedness). B. FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES (not directly gc..7.nteed by the U.S. government such as Federal Home Loan Banks, Fed ral National Mortgage Association, Federal Land Banks, etc) C. REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS (Repo's) - Repo transactions are restricted to: (1) A primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities who reports to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or (2) National or state bank in the U.S, which is a member of the Federal Reserve system and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000. (3) A securities broker -dealer having its primary executive office in Minnesota and licensed pursuant to Chapter BOA, or an affiliate of it, registered by the SEC and maintaining a combined capital and surplus of $40,000,000 or more, exclusive of subordinated debt. (4) The City shall receive a confirmation/safekeeping receipt with a complete description of the collateral on the repo. D. MONEY MARKET FUNDS shall consist solely of instruments in which Minnesota municipalities are permitted to temporarily invest monies pursuant to Minnesota Statues and shall be consistent with the City's objective of preservation of principal. E. BANKERS' ACCEPTANCES of U.S. banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. Bankers acceptances should be restricted to the top 40 banks in the U.S. (as measured bydeposits) and 1st Banks of Minneapolis or St. Paul and Norwest Bank Minneapolis. (Bankers acceptances should not be purchased from the above banks if news leads to concerns over the financial condition of the bank.) The broker, dealer or bank shall verify that the bankers acceptance is eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. F. COMMERCIAL PAPER OF HIGHEST QUALITY issued by U.S. corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries when the paper matures in 270 days or less. Highest quality shall mean that two of the three rating agencies (Standard 6 Poors, Moodys and Fitch) rate the paper of the highest quality (Al, P1 and F1 respectively). Commercial paper based upon a letter of credit should be restricted to the same banks listed in E. above. CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, interest bearing checking and 4 savings accounts, and money market savings accounts secured by F.D.I.C. or F.S.L.I.C. insurance. Amounts in excess of $100,000 (maximum insured) shall be secured by collateral as required by Minnesota Statutes. See excerpt from Minnesota Cities Handbook, page 423, included.When an institution pledges collateral it shall provide to the city treasurer confirmation of the collateral pledged within 3 working days and shall deposit said collateral at an independent bank. VI. Banks and Dealers Investment procedures include controlling the level of bank balances and selecting depository institutions. At the beginning of each year, the City Council approves depositiories and investment firms. A. Banks and Savings Banks shall be restricted to those having a minimum capital and surplus of $10,000,000 and an asset to net worth ratio minimum of 3.0% except for the main checking accounts at the First National Bank of the Lakes, Navarre. B. Investment firms shall be restricted to those regulated by the SEC and having a minimum capital of $10,000,000. C. A current annual statement shall be kept on file for each bank, broker or dealer with whom business is done. D. Only brokers and dealers of government securities that report directly to the New York Federal Reserve Bank shall be utilized. E. Receipts are required from any depository holding securities for the City within 3 days of receipt by •he depository. VII. Maturities and Diversification This investment policy addresses both short-term funds and long-term funds. A. Short-term investments are made in securities which will mature very close to the date on which the 5 monies are expected to be needed to pay for recurring operations. B. Long-term investments are made for debt service requirements and from excess monies available from the various other funds as permitted from time to time; and an opportunity to extend maturities and achieve higher yields may exist. Maturities should not be extended beyond five years and the Treasurer may sell the longer term securities if it is advantageous in his/her opinion to do so. It is the policy of the City to diversify its investment portfolio. Investments shall be diversified to eliminate the risk of loss resulting from the overconcentration of assets in a specific maturity, a specific issuer or a specific class of maturities. The maximums to be generally adhered to are 20% for a specific maturity; 40% for a specific assurer, bank, or dealer; and 35% for a specific class (instrument) of maturities. VIll. Risks, Prudence and Ethics The City recognizes that investment risks can result from issuer defaults or market price changes. The Minnesota Statutes governing permissible investments and the diversification guidelines are designed to control risk to some degree. The Treasurer is expected to display prudence in the selection of securities, as a way to minimize default risk. In the event of a default by a specific issuer, the Treasurer shall review, and if appropriate, proceed to liquidate securities having comparable credit risks. The treasurer in exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes provided that reasonable action is taken to control adverse developments. Any officer or employee involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activitiy that could conflict, or gives the appearance of a conflict, with proper execution of the investment program or impair the ability to make impartial investment decisions. IX. Delegation of Authorit The City Council hereby delegates the management of the 6 investment program to t`ie city treasurer. In his absence, the deputy treasurer or the city administrator shall exercise the same authority. The treasurer shall also have full authority as stated in Resolution No. 2889 to initiate necessary wire transfers or interbank transfers as may be necessary to accomplish the investment objectives as stated herein. The treasurer shall croov_ide the Council with a detailed list of electronic wire transfers at the next available Council meeting. The treasurer shall furthe- be authorized to designate depositories on behalf of the City Council as provided in Resolution No. at times other than the beginning of the year and will provide to the Council the identity of each new depository and the investment purchased from each new depository at the next available Council meeting. 7 E3 December 9, 1988 To the City Council City of Orono Crystal Bay, :Minnesota Subject: Review of Investment Ialicy PANNELL KERR FORSTER Canmed Pubt, Accountants 410 Ptak National Bank Bldg 505n Wayzem BoutaVtad Minna wlo. MN 55416 Talapnwla (612) 545-0421 I have reviewed various drafts of the City's investment policy. Suggestions that I made concerning controls, legal compliance, efficiencies, flexibility and practicalities have been included in the latest dreft which I have reviewed dated December 12, 1988 (advance dated). I believe the investment policy document is excellent. I also believe the document should be re-evaluated periodically as the application of such a policy sad changes in circumstances will inevitably bring new concerns or improvements to light. It should also be understood, that no policy will give absolute assurance as to the security of the City's investments. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Malloy, CPA Partner -in -Charge M1: ca TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator lROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director DATE: October 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Draft Statement of Investment Policy Attachments: A. City of Orono Investment Policy Draft B. Resolution No. 2195 Regarding Crediting Investment Interest Earned by Fund C. Resolution No. 2889 Designating City Officials Authorized to Initiate Wire Transfers of City Funds D. Proposed Resolution Authorizing the City Treasurer to Designate Depositories DISCUSSION - The draft investment policy is presented herewith for discussion and review by the City Council and Administrator. It is written to establish objectives, reporting requirements, permissable investment vehicles, selection of banks and dealers, maturity and diversification guidelines, level of risk, prudence and ethics, and responsibilities for the investment function. As this is a first draft I would request comments from you and the Council as to the completeness or additional requirements needed to finalize the investment policy. I would expect to incorporate any changes, additions or deletions needed for presentation at the next available Council meeting. TO: Mayor and City Council ►EOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded as as information item recommending review and discussion and/or written comments. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , to accept the draft Statement of Investment Policy for the pup rose of review. Ayes _, Nays _ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2105 A RESOLUTION TO AMEND :dZ BASIS OF CREDITING INVESTMENT INTEREST EARNED BY FUND WHEREAS, the Orono City Council did establish by Resolution t1464 adopted on Febraury 28, 1983 the Pooled Investment Trust Fund for the purpose of inve-ting idle monies of the various City funds, and WHEREAS, the interest earned on the invested monies has been credited based on the ending monthly cash balances of those funds having positive cash balances, and WHEREAS, the City has been using a computerized financial investment management system for the past year but has found the current oasis of crediting :nterest income requires recording that interest in the next following month-s financial records, and WHEREAS, it is advantageous that the interest be recorded in the month in which it is earned. NOW, THT IXFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that effective January 1, 1987 the interest earned on invested monies of the City shall be credited based on the beginning monthly cash balance of those funds having positive cash balances. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regualr meeting held December 8, 1986. Mary C. Witler, Mayor ATTEST: I ( _ r DoeO2 O� Bailin, city clar 112086.5 City of ORONO i s. Wk RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY NO. 2089 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE USE OF, AND DESIGNATING THE OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO INITIATE HIRE TRANSFER OF CITY FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the use of wire transfer of City funds for transactions related to the investment (purchase, sale, collection of interest) of the City's funds; and for the payment of the various bonded debt issues of the City. 2. The City does hereby autnorize the City Treasurer, Deputy City Treasurer, or the City Administrator to initiate such wire transfers as needed for the transactions related to investment of the City's funds or for the payment of the City's debt. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held November 24, 1986. Mary C. t er, Mayor ATT4T: /borfothy M. T llin, ey C e A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TREASURER TO DESIGNATE DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FONDS WHEREAS, the City of Orono Investment Policy has stated guidelines for selecting depositories and investment firma; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes do authorize the City Council to delegate the responsibility of designating depositories of public funds to the City Treasurer or Chief Financial Officer; and WHEREAS, the investing of City fund+ does, on occasion, occur prior to the formal adoption of the institution as an approved depository. ROW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to act cn the City's behalf to designate additional depositories of City funds upon concurrence of the City Administrator or Acting Administrator and within the guidelines of the City of Orono Investment Policy. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held on December 12, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City ClexX 12788.2 � TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat X'1� DATR: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT. Animal Control/Barking Dogs/Hours Attachment: A. Orono Police Department Memo Dated 11/29/88/ Barking Dog Ordinance B. Excerpt From Ordinance 9.12 - Animal Control ISSUE - Presentation of information regarding the City's regulations regarding barking dogs. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's November 14, 1988 Council meetmeet nTcting Mayor Barbara Peterson asked a question regarding the City's barking dog ordinance as related to hours. Attachment B indicates in Subdivision 11, Item t4, that barking is an ongoing issue and not restricted to hours. Attachment A outlines the policy the department has regarding barking dog complaints. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any desired changes. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information regarding the curcen: policy and that the City continue its policy for barking dog enforcement. It should be mentioned that dogs tend to bark more during the daytime as they are up and around and that people are often moving around. In the middle of the night when most people are sleeping - so are the dogs and that the lack of movement limits the amount of barking. On the other hand barking is generally more of a problem at night because most people are asleep. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council accept the information on the City's barking -Tog ordinance. Ayes Nays INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: 11/29/88 TO: chief Kilbo FROM: Sue RE: Barking Dog ordinance In checking Orono ordinance 9.12, Subd. 11, (4), the Ordinance states is is unlawful for the owner of any dog to "fail to keep his dog from barking, howling or whining, or from emitting loud or unusual noise," etc. In this ordinance, it does not specify any times of the day or night. It simply indicates it is unlawful for this action to occur. Therefore, I do not believe another ordinance is needed to specify daylight hours in addition to nighttime hours. As you know, regardless of the time of day, if this Department receives a complaint of a dog barking, we do take action, asking the owner to keep the dog from excessive barking, and to my knowledge, we have not had a great number of complaints in this regard. when we have received complaints over the years, we have taken appropriate action and I am not aware of anyone complaining of repeated offenses. S 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 Citworn y the dogl, or mly (2) ownor to a keep aodogr which a is all dangerousb(licensed 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 barkin owlin or whining, or from emitt ng ou or unusua no se, or (5) fa to prevents og a era ng n or upon pu c 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 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, TREATYHOUSING. 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 200 (4-1-84) 12588.2 ,1;1 OF.11;'9, ki;URG TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator wy.p DATE: December 5, 1988 SUBJECT: Salary Review - Jeanne A. Mabusth - Dorothy M. Hallin Attachment: A. City of Orono 1988 Compensation Attachment B Dated 3/22/88 ISSUE - Approval of salary adjustments following performance reviews. INTRODUCTION - A review of the compensation program for 1989 indicated that these two individuals had the appropriate performance reviews required for compensation adjustments but had not had those adjustments made. RECOMMENDATION - Based on the performance reviews, I would like to recommend the following compensation adjustments: Effective Person Current/Proposed Rate Date Jeanne A. Mabusth $17.72 / $18.176 9/15/88 Dorothy M. Hallin $12.875 / $13.39 9/14/98 PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , the Orono City Council approves the compensation adjustment for Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator to $18.176 per hour effective 9/15/88 and Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk to $13.39 per hour effective 9/14/88. Ayes _, Nays 21188.6 CITY OP OR011D 1989 Creole: 9 TION IMPLORIRATIOM PLAN EXPECTED IF St AWUSTNENT RBCONOIENDED F PERPOSSiaNCE 1980 ESTIMATED DIPPEMENCE CHANCE ANNUAL/AFTER TITLE IBYdgated E[at TORRENT 19BO MAXIIUN MARBET VALUE NI%ED Maximum \CURRENT EVALUATION y x Finance Director 28.65 22.87 17.789 20.593 97.6 26.583 .06/14) Pollee Chief 20.946 22.87 26.96 22.61 95.6 20.957 A 1.65 • 22.990 4 %111/02) City Clerk 12.675 11d9 13.78 -- 96.1 13.39 109/16) 0uild/toning Adaln 11.72 19.47 16.599 18.176 97.5 16.176 (99/15) heat Brolly Adain 16.579 15.55 16.79 15.17 97.5 15.17 1(07/911 Senior Bldg Inspector 16.579 15.55 16.70 15.17 96.1 15.17 %JW01) Building Inspector 11.95 13.39 11.266 -- 89.2 12.051/12.72 (09/01) Retto 9.98 to 8/15/87 "at. Plname Director 9.656 11.63 N/A -- 86.6 16.287/10.65$ �A1/g6/01) Mputy Clerk/Secretary 10.28 16.71 9.857 16.33 16.33/16.71 517/91) Polly .rcSecretary Ig.2B 19.71 9.857 16.33 10.33/19.71 •L97/91) ar. Accounting Clerk 14.29 19.71 9.657 1s.33 11.33/19.71 y97/01) OecOsder - K(1656) 7.89 9.639 N/A -- 61 8.19/0.675 107/09)r$ Pollm Cletical-PT(136d) 7.B59 9.193 N/A -- 66.3 1.193/6.640 1404/12) Clerical - "lisle) 4.592 6.532 N/A -- 77 1.25/7.619 1(97/011 Number of personnel adjusted 16 Total personnel strength 69 T �aA INTEROFFICE MEMO - DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: Mark Bernhardson - Tom Kuehn FROM: Mel Kilbo RE: Salary Adjustment Officers Brad Johnson and James Morowczynski will complete eight (8) years on the Department. According to union contract, they are scheduled for second step in longevity. I request that adjustment be made. TO: Mayor and City Council K FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato�j Forwarded recommending approval as of January 1, 1989. 1259t. n To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: December 5, 1988 Subject: Petition Request Stop Sign - County Roads 15 and 19 Attachments - 1. Petition Unattached but Available for Review 2. Draft Resolution During the reconstruction of County Road 15, major design change took place at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. In particular, eastbound traffic turning south onto County Road 19 can do so without reducing speed because of the gradual curve design. The only traffic control device is a "Yield" sign. The reason for the concern is that Super Value has a curb cut just south of the turn lane. There is concern by the customers and the manager of the Super Value that by not having the southbound County Road 19 traffic stop, there is a great potential for serious accidents. I have discussed this with Hennepin County Department of Transportation and it is their opinion that with a semiphore controled intersection, you cannot have a posted stop sign. Hennepin County has suggested that the curb cut in question be closed. The manager of the Super Value has stated that closing the access would be a hardship on his business. Therefore, a petition has been submitted by customers of the Super Value and the Navarre Bank requesting that the yield sign at the right turn lane for southbound to County Road 19 from eastbound County Road 15 be changed to a stop sign. As a matter of procedure, Hennepin County prefers a resolution adopted by the Orono Council requesting this change. Therefore, I have drafted a resolution for Council approval. Alternatives - 1. Table 2. Accept petition, take no act+.on. 3. Request installation of stop sign. Recommendation - To approve Resolution # requesting Hennepin County to install a stop sign at the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. Proposed Motion: Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve Resolution A requesting Hennepin County to install a stop sign at the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of County Roads 19 and 15. Ayes Nays To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members ``II JJ,,���y From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato�� i Forwarded recommending approval. I'hI A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A STOP SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OP COUNTY ROADS 15 AND 19 WHEREAS, The City of Orono is a municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, during the reconstruction of County Road 15 in the summer of 1986, a right turn lane was constructed at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19; and WHEREAS, the newly constructed right turn lane to southbound County Road 19 does not require southbound traffic to stop; and WHEREAS, the Super Value super market has an existing drive approach at the south end of the right turn lane; and WHEREAS, the drive approach is within the 100--150' standard required distance from an intersection; and WHEREAS, the newly constructed right turn lane which does not require a stop for southbound traffic does not allow for safe entrance/exit from the Super Value parking lot. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono Council does hereby request Hennepin County to install a stop sign at the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. Adopted by the City Council_ of the City of Orono at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of December, 1988. Tames R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk L.J TO: Mayor and City Council 0,11 FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: 1988 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Attachment: A. Finance Director's Memo Dated 12/5/88 ISSUE Approval of end of the year transfers between funds. INTRODUCTION At the end of each year the Council is requested to formally transfer monies between funds. These transfers fall into two catagories; a.) Budgeted Transfers - Items designated in that years budget when originally approved. These require formal fund transfer to implement. b.) Fund Obligations - Loans and payments from one fund to another to reimburse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt 2. Table for further information. While not mandatory it is helpful to transfer prior to the end of the year, but in either case would be effective December 31, 1988. Recommend approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the interfund operating transfers, loan payments and special assessments payments on City property be approved as proposed, effective December 31, 1988. Ayes _, Nays 2 12486.9(37) r TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director wllzw - uATR: December 5, 1988 SUBJECT: 1988 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments At the end of each year it is necessary to transfer monies between certain funds for the purpose of providing support as budgeted or for repayment of outstanding loans, as scheduled. The necessary transactions for 1988 are listed below. FUNDS FROM TO AMOUNT PURPOSE General Imp 6 Equip Outlay 46,250.00 Annual operating transfer for capital equipment, new and replacement as budgeted General Bldg Cap Project 20,000.00 Annual operating transfer for buildings replacement as budgeted Sewer Operating 1966-76 Improvement 16,120.00 Bond Debt Service Water Operating Sewer Operating $ 3,665.00 Repayment of Metro Waste Control debt credits, 45 of 6 - balance o/s 12/31/88 $15,704 Budgeted loan payment ( p r inc $2, 443, i n t $1,222) for water tower refurbishing - payment 47 of 10 - balance o/s 12/31/88 $9,772 General 1985 Imp Bond $ 6,760.00 Budgeted payment, 3rd Debt Service installment of 15 for special assessments for sanitary sewer on City owned property in Crystal Bay (princ $3,080, int $3,680). Balance o/s 12/31/89 $36,949 It is requested that the foregoing transfers, loan and special y assessment payments be approved effective December 31, 1988. 12688.1 TO: Mayo[ and City Council-- FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra to� DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1988 Budget Attachments: A. Finance Director's Memo Forwarded recommending approval those budget amendments represent previous Council approvals in 1988 or carryovers from 1987. PROPOSED MOTION - ?loved by , seconded by , to approve as presented the adjustments to she 1988 General Fund department budgets for comparable worth, other salary and retirement benefits, for special consulting projects, and for the initial payment transfer for the County Road 15 Lcoject. Such adjustments are funded by monies budgeted in 1988 in the General Fund and from use of fund balance and result in an increase in the total 1988 budget of $30,000, bringing the total to 52,491,070. Further to approve adjustments for the Park Fund, Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund and the Building Outlay Fund as presented with the increases to be financed by use of available revenues or fund balances as required. Ayes _, Nays TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director-71Nj- DATE: December 5, 1988 SUBJECT: Adjustme:� to 1988 Adopted Budgets GENERAL FUND om e� nsation When the 1988 budget was adopted provision was made in the General Fund Special Projects/Contingency Department to appropriate $25,000 for salary and retirement benefit adjustments in accordance with the adopted 1988 compensation plan. I have prepared a listing of needed amendments ;.ncluding the City Administrator postion annual adjustment in May. ADOPTED REQUESTED AMENDED DEPARTMENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BUDGET Administration $136,110 $ 5,669 $141,770 Finance 117,030 4,270 132,420 Building 6 Zoning 215,550 8,700 224,259 Spec Proj/Comp Worth 25,000 (18,630) 6,370 Net Change $�— Special Projects/Contingencies A reallocation of budgeted amounts is requested within the General Fund Special Projects/Consulting reflecting no increase in total, as follows: - Increase for zoning ordinance amendments to implement Comprehensive Plan on Highway 12 $50599 - authorized May 12, 1988. - Increase for participation in property tax reform study :599 - authorised October 10, 1980. - Increase for financial analysis $8,509 - authorized 1987 - Decrease for unused amounte for redevelopment project ($5,090) Decrease for unused amounts for Strom sewer manangement ($9,500) In 1988 the City has participated in a cost sharing with Hennepin County for projects on County Road iS and Navarre street 2 lighting. Within the City capital budget amounts were estimated for funding of the projects from special assessments, municipal state aid construction revenue and general revenues. As the FIR Fund has provided initial funding for the street/storm sewer project a resolution establishing a repayment schedule from the General Fund portion will be presented when the specific amounts are known. At this time it is requested that Council approve an initial payment transfer of $30,000 from the General Fund to the PIR Fund (principal of $22,800 and interist (at 7%) of $7,200). This amendment to the 1988 General Fund budget will increase the Special Projects/Contingency Department appropriation for transfers out and will increase the revenue source (use of) Fund Balance by $30,000 thus bringing the total General Fund appropriations and revenues to $2,491,070. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The Special Revenue Funds requiring budget adjustments are the Park Fund, the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund, and the Building Outlay Fund. Budget amendments are as follows: ADOPTED REQUESTED AMENDED PARR FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT BUDGET AUTHORIZED Hackberry Park Well $-0- $12,100 512,100 11/99/87 Livingston Tower Park Sculpture -0- 2,000 2,000 10/26/87 Summit Park Beach Parking Lot -0- 2,900 2,900 09/28/88 TOTALS IMP i EQUIP OUTLAY FUND Capital Outlay 1988 Budget Copy Machine Microfiche Reader/Printer Snow Plows (from 1987 budget) BUILDING OUTLAY FUND $--V- $IT, 00S $i7 9" .... ....... ....... $45,900 $ -0- $45,900 88 Budget -0- 10,000 10,000 08/22/88 -0- 2,929 2,920 2/88 porch -0- 16,720 16,720 5, 000 75,540 ....... ....... ....... Space Study, Boarman c Assoc. $-0- $10,250 $10,250 68/24/87 .... ....... ....... Funding for the adjustments to the Special Revenue Funds is from 'the following: Park Fund Hackberry Park and Summit Park from park dedication revenues and fund balance as required. Livingston Tower Park $1,000 from Northwest Tonka Lions 3 donation, balance from park dedication fees fund balance. Ime_6_Eg2ipp OutlaY_Fund Copy machine and microfiche readerJpcintec to replace obsolete or unservicable equipment finance from fund balance or revenues as required. Snow plows funded from unspent 1987 budget amount. Building Ou tily Fund Space study financed from fund balance. The amount s own represents the unspent balance from the original amount approved in 1987 of $28,888. 12788.]HD , To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator - From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: December 7, 1988 Subject: City Facilities - Sewer Hook-up Deferral In August 1987, Council authorized deferral of City facilities to be connected to the sanitary sewer. The reason for the deferral was because the City is in the process of a facility study. The deferral was grantc,; to December 31, 1988. As per ordinance requirements, the City is paying the quarterly service charge. The facility study is not complete at this date and it is difficult to say when the study will be complete. Recommendation - To defer the connection of the three City buildings until the facility study is complete and to continue paying the quarterly service charge. Proposed Motion: Moved by , seconded by _, to defer the connection of the three City buildings to the sanitary sewer until the facility study is _ complete and to continue paying the quarterly sewer service charge. Ayes Nays _. TO: Mayor and City ..ouncil FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra'_or0 Forwarded recommending approval. 12788.4 J TO: Mayor and City Council 11 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato¢�p DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information WESTONKA BEAUTIFICATION - The group formed under the auspices of the Weston a Chamber of Commerce has continued to work on development of a beautification plan to be available for work done by private owners following the upgrade of County Road 15. At present the group is solicitating landscape design bids for such a project. It is our understanding at this point that they will probably be coming forward to each of the cities to contribute for the actual development of a plan in the next few months. It is anticipated that this will be in the range of approximately $1,000 for the City of Orono. The intent is that once the pinr is developed and adopted that this would provide direction I,, persons who desire beautification projects along County Road 15. There is no expectation of a request that the City fund any of the improvements. John Gerhardson has been serving as the City's representative to this group. 1989 BUDGET PUBLICATION - Attached please find the publication that was placed in t e paper for the City's 1989 Budget. 1989 CALENDAR - Attached please find the 1989 calendar which includes two dates, one in February and one in July, for joint meetings with the Planning Commission. This will also be transmitted to the Planning Commission. POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SOLICITATION FOR CANDIDATES - Presently the Police Department has been utilizing Mike Carlson on a part time capacity to assist the clerical police department staff. The City is presently seeking applicants for a part time position to replace Mike, starting after the first of the year. In addition given the fact that the City's part time officer James Morrow may be selected for a full time position in another department, the City would like to have applicants on file for consideration for the part time position should Mr. Morrow leave and will be solicitating applications for that position also. COUNTY ROAD 116 - City staff was invited to a meeting in Medina w t County Transportation on Monday, November 28, 1988. At that meeting it was indicated that Hennepin County • 11 be designating a route for 116 from its present terminus Mighway 55 down through Medina to County Road 6. Previously say recall they were looking to go all the way to Highway 12 and were requesting Orono's permission to so do. Such a route designation would bring the route only 300 feet into Orono and the only approval authority Orono would have, as staff presently understands it, would be for the project upgrade last 390 feet from the border to County Road 6. The County remains open should the City desire to include the section of Willow between Highway 12 and County Road 6 as an addition to the route designation. This item will be presented formally for Council consideration in the latter part of January or February of 1989. Presently the construction of the road is slated for 1998. HIGHWOOD STORM SEWER - The staff had originally desired to have this Ttem considered at this meeting, however felt it best to wait until the January 9, 1989 meeting at which point it is hoped that this will be brought to a close. ADMINISTRATOR'S GOAL SETTING - See attachment. -lf�Jl(r}o 0.1nLNX H.. 25. S[coM SON[ oryrw[L NumDO Sa. S[caM S.W. ,ftaIn MMOO.x. SNMe Si dwn.rc. NOOM Ia. S.cvN SON. TM IdNMrla N - I.rglr O. N Sat". O'. Uarollry M. Pamn. UIY L[rX Ift,jim, O TM WK N RMNr Nw. ]S IMI cast Or ... 0 .I.., ...T HNAIXT inner:&lone el th1rip In: oilyl.[ee P[Oadlntolu[..Yciei..n.u0It. y spa I[ P.ell.nve in [c[nmaee. .11n IXlnn. Kristi Heyda M cmPbn c1tY euep.tl tb ewll.b date OUQpK uY N -- [.&ante a ; III- tit, sand.. lua.I.d . Ills a a.e .euin, cer.ul e.r [e e. Otl eoumll .PPtn " tea. bingo are 0et1et9 24, vu. vnr! IW space. At least Dambi v the great outdoors and I: had the good sense to take eras in a barn. So now 1 ,me the heartless war ant offensive was putting n the windows as I suspect - my have been key points of Elides, plastic's not a bad way for an old, drafty house vintenime. So now we're the waiting game. We're for colder weather and hop- plastic-on-whalow strategy k. If not, the kids may soon ale boaeldey hugs in their J Mtmeal. Then perhaps my and 1 won't be the only 1 anti-boaelder bug crusaders Mae. by Judy Soukup tment men -aged pass,ngees a ride home frm0 school M of the family's drivers ,"tint , the 1,11 car in the IN. hen Ahe five-foot two-inch in the family climbed behind .1. she found the size of the increased her sense of . m it, road. Why, she could nlnM any snowdrift, oampon ny load. No one challenged mi,, On die road, and. In fact, ar's appearance deteriorated tLu and bumps and bruises. nvers gave it wider and wider n a family vehicle. and it car- wh"e crew - parents, kids. joys - to Grandma'a and La's for Thsnksgivmg; it was nth sleeping bags and camp- y and four bicycles, oM with seat on the back, fur lone Ads at ltssca Slate Park. 11 tried . whole Cub Scout Den ny Nature Center and 10 the AM when thr scout w•ndu 'ad, for delivery. its CIA's old to removed snot the back leas ounce} ewenm eove.xnex}w ruxae IY11 Isss nvuo[e Moan ."M rain ns [I, a. LlLlxlu a.. ".a." 99,311 Mogo uruwvLXM/I[xuL Rcv[xuv f t11 11 9n RO[ML a$4.52, 212,14, Lean CXLRO[L I.. sr.RVlt L9 &SIT,, faa. u5 nx11 AIID roRrn}L 55r 11a f5r 511 s PlcuL L1its' .[xn Db1f5 11f.L11 X I1C[LLAM[Del R[V[XVL aS5, 1N a1[,Is1 I7.4" 11 111 .I[tatax[cUslxc[ TMAL .lvcxvo 3,11111,710 nr.... Tu... O[xgm RX9xT n.AL¢ ears, .,.am aXD NIGXMNYL Its, M, a.I al.aL aaeeu*lose a 29 a. . /11T mutts XI/eW..MtOYE TM.L urexuw... /Mtl/ IOgrltltMnl Or .tv.--- Ovt. lI,.... T...a mxn "..IN .Oulu L! taut[ 01/t.T1110 \.a.t1[et IM - IIIa1 OtM[.aL O./taT1t0 \YXLInt alT - N I.r L gDulr OY\Yt \O .'se' o MIP rKYO,rq pCbuO. ceWT OI [p[cllN[IbmN M IumWUO w c.w" O Gry its GryI.... lial mnMd M w ".'0 ..n.D/s"N All I. on MMMIMde :.." IM OW. Iv M Fall MOlaNw Mat, SY ORDER OF THE GTT CWNdI rM DOOM M. wFat Gry (awak NCawNOh}ML ONOvw Nw.ae OM DK. 5, HISfl OADINMKE M. SECOND SENEB AM WINANCE Aw slosiG 111E O w MMNIOPAL 1IOpE SECTION 9.12. 3UWjVI. ENJN A. ADOPTED APnll 1. IaM AND EMTI. TIED APPLICATION Tlr. CLY ('nand a o at, vdalle M RAW AI: SECTION 9, 1E. StWNM A. M OMatle010 IM As Ismx Wool 0.12. Slraaa.lal A JAI. AssMINn. ".cOus. enaR N Is.1es sr ON C.Y Ad w 19111.074 164.739 &MC I.ni'm 454.29E 4, 14.04 919014 1.122.714 .64.14E f6.61, t.f.n9 .11.f4a LICL Duel by Io.ra IOD 1.f11.144 1.125.61E a a fur. 014.19If, �1)i4E M.Da Iwau lam N 1 1119.Iu' I1u1 IO atcosm l Or [a.... ai Ms. - rtu9CIM0 /M.eo Mu '"Mall We91 ass MMi1 Y1as I MASS) 0 17,046 mrsrtt IS. LM am. .atrt TD IaMD no, wu"i1.29'.426 11.102.6n ... I .... ......... O" im a am u '�XMt (r rYXD sea.... OrLtaTdO [Mt.il Ot ..Ott I O.... eir[wrzs 0 PRERoev.eCIATON, Me or coin mvreo gODIn casom arntnxC Ixc..c xox-Or... TIxG IMcox. fLarex[n all no.l. uMsr into" orturuc .A.[ru. a r'.Arsae }uoreu ra mVTI a.r IxcOXe mos[I MIMOTaa OF TM. SCHOOL W.A. OF OMMOIMMn.CIMT 40MOOL ONT.K'T M. ns HELD OM OCtOMA 24. IMS rN •ta,la nwrnP nr rN St. vo.0 a Or- ngoNlOxX tilvX OMxnr No 21e.r r.N Ln Mvyry Ocrnbr 2. ISM 1. Dwa Mc.w•n I."Ava" IM Irr La« 1 Xmt..' .en M..a" wr.n 1. XnN c'. t . I.. Utai M0TpM y a." Gap r .IT Om a.- ,M canon pupa ay.N As 1. 'MVse..s IM �dM of .M J[.oar 10 ,.M..WO .ra0aW Jan.. n. atlat Mrya avW. A. Pat.-. Maq M ATTEST DMMM 4. NaMI. Gry CINX JIIWI.4 D M IA.O DN PNXNO Nut. 28. taw rorA� aOOIfEa lnf t000rt a l"t.. u.1 .2A solo Veg1 1OranT e000LT 1193.211141 $3931211111 saii 8114.u. 6131,M1 146.99E I,m 314.1M 2.7%J.@" "am $T9."@ Jiagtt 519.11E -AI&M Mass n.9u n.Mi 4a.m 351111 a.sM M•4111 M'111 SM" Mass 112.111 Ia.EMI 144.494 "INS t 11.f 1s 9113.m EI2.4M• 5144.1911 a 51.9119 ga ^ p w N rW IN M1a Olrl eI'w.Drl.ar. xral 9..Wad rO.IXn ry rN [I.m aoad try Ina ears nI..IK n ow M-0M .MWram rAW IvM BoasMvv p I. Sala. at n av nalfa Nlr t s' v . K IM so.ewaanly l mOAW IAS rAS Non wtWwMes'.MV XIv IM1 M KNN M 1.M INI mart/ on v av «m..ad ar ra m.: raa.nm r- IM BNry YLK ar.MxrM d Y N.Yf wIN Inw ^r.10 dean b[V Saorta.ax.pas aW,, a W Nwlwve.rs. IN ao. IaN IC1a IM b/ 4 vMXn rYY le M IOpDes V a DIY .Cabo to M Iw/r Nap UPONL. MOTION IO DDn ..'as ..turbo Oy L. i.Ip. at Es"ea.cIN IOMraxa Ilm Na.R.l. XM w.ab gW rSaW._ I.[Illw. opal nle� vXaXw N IN 9Na � Year wwWA .rs nr.&...KoitXraneX,m la ems.. caOwXn o- Mu.wr Iti me IKaw..raaar.a IocY T M DN..W vtr.N. afLl.v W ua &uaXr.awNsis�rP.ro Nw p".aN, Wa ...[rase.& ao.a•4as•a y0 a dawn a.atl Mw X'. enM..P.aww 1989 ORONO CITY MEETING SCHEDULE January 1989 S M T W T F S i t 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 018 19 20 21 22 = 24 25 26 27 28 - 29 30 31 May 1989 S M T W T F S 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 4 25 26 27 28 30 -9ci.ao�Bewcn September 1989 S M T W T F S 3 © 6 7 1 8 2 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 February 1989 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 116 17 18 19 � 22 23 24 25 L 26 8 June 1989 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 Q ®7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 October 1989 S M z W T F S 1 2 �j 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 •E• KEY Q 7:00 P.M. Council Meeting 2nd 6 4 Monday 0 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission 3rd Monday O (May through October 1st Monday as an alternate date) ® Park Commission Ist Tuesday X Official Holiday QJoint Council and Planning Commission Meeting March 1989 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 68 B 9 10 11 12 U 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 July 1989 S M T W T F S 2 3 9 5 12 6 13 1 7 8 14 15 16 16 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 V9 30 31 November L1989 S M T W T F S 5 6& 1 8 2 9 3 4 x 11 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 XX 25 26 28 29 30 April 1989 S M T W T F S 1 2 3® 5 6 7 8 9 If all 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 M 25 26 27 28 29 30 August 1989 S M T W T F S 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 December 1989 S M T W T F S 3 4® 6 7 1 8 2 9 10 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 X 26 27 28 29 30 ma 86SfIC DB 4/29/88 5/91/m CTfy R O D 5/31/88 6/M/M 1/39/88 8/M/88 eD 9/15/88 Peviae for '89 fatl Swttil 9/M/88 19/31/88 11/30/89 crr 9. B�ND8011 CITS AOMDr[b'r9A]O9 l MT 19M - M ARIL 1999 197 M - 1997 Ca U Strntagic Plming Sbnrt twr. mjsetivs 'M STD - 1998 9nK Tau Dbjattiva 'B9 STD - im 9 rt deu cbja iw A9991 QDAf. A® DAM $A50S 1. OaMMDfY D6VQaPI89fl xi,b y 12 '87 59D A. C prelbuive Plan Ammwbmt 92 (5m) 8a 1. back frm Mat Cru it 5/15/m aarauim to 5/13 granted to t O Coach follmiN 9/8/88 meetirg M: Urban land data 5/12/0 approved by Matzo Cc n it Metro Comcil F1.. 1 plan approval 6/15/88 Final Council approval 5/23/88 faeim �ts - Draft 6/15/88 - Phoning Cmissim 7/l/88 r idaratim - Caacil rrmid ation 8/10/88 Cmtrected with Sbardlow 5/23/88 Draft from Sberdlaw m Cawncil to {C - 6/P/88 7/6/88 wrk session m draft 8/1/88 to ba h wrk amiss sca lad 8/17/88 Pwblic Hearin, - P.C. rec® atim to mai il. Mticipate Caumil 19/19 19/19/88reviewad by Co it - Anticipate 11/28tabled - To presDt again 1/9 Mpotiatiom m utilities 9 ivad ltr from Madlm re: more (faq feke-Msdiu( sewer/negotiatiau 6/24/88 eopovaW wiN latter 7/21/M to Madim 1oe1 ram. 6aapl OB,BCf1Y6 1—Q]lSM1Tf DBVHIMR@fI cunt. -um a. Corridor selection Study rd Hoc Task Force 'a9 sm Qtr 1Pheee 1 Rvarre a ela r u Sm • 99 sm If/1/88 m Hoc Teak force - 1st meetioq 5/19/88 5/19/88 meeting held 7/18/88 w tiog held 8/18/88 mating brw - Rp to contact f!6)ot 9/19/88 meeting held - 1wOot Dist. 5 pramant PE: owrim 14gr in OSCMt corridor 18/17 Higr w 12 meting of Ryon - prep for r ting mitlo Trampertation C do iorer 11/16/88 Hwting xiN HnDOT Corm»ism held mticipate 1/0 meting with C®i.i./ Tank rocs in vicinity fr3 cwueitaots 3/25/88 rewaaated ggtetion - pl.ing To f der —iced frm J. St odlw r,9 in9 cmt M - Legal do muter plan deveIo t for area. Initiate C /objective 18/1/88 7/11/88 proposal adopted Setting proreae 18/98 ee /Uckgrowd wrk being done co¢lete Rater Plan Study 7/89 Datermlre strategy to iwle nt 8/" Careid Mk fo®tion 6/15/88 2/88 Bpimt hooray outline Solicite iM /proposals pracma raqufrad to aataolim if Decide to do 9/l/88 3/1/88 rxeived outlire for amtablie t of Ms. Staff reviewing for rant .87 3']O city l5 DmeIo r 'a m Deteneire deiced 5/38/88 lawn of lighting w 2/23/88 local acrngenying C it meeting iaprov�nca 2/22/88 Coaril mrid lighting 5/23/88 Council rygrwm lighting piron " plan 5/38/U Cw tual approval 12/14/87 fimrcial revision pcor 2/22/88 3/28/88 tabled w 5/23/88 5/23/88 approved fi.ing '$9 STD Special asus nt hearing 1/" Comlete oorecruction 12/l/M 1b caw r 4/15/88 LLl cam a gutter paving a lights co¢leted. Spring '89 h 1l of aide 1a and restoration � mr. � a3r.',vefi ro,.s peum 1—�MYt}f OCVRQIIOR wR. '87 M �ty Toe Utim Plan wafiro mpiul impravrmt V"s 8/11/m meting miarad mviaed draft -88 m progrr. Prim to 89 budWt na mim bridge reptant 8/l/88 Prapral included in revised draft Progtr oPital bodge[. a�t for furdim ¢eda m be developed/mbaitced. '89 S'10 Cmtinued arolysis Publie/Pri"m 8/89 Bvaluate Cry 116 1/l/88 3/17/88 received mgoeat ft. lbdvx 4/25/88 Comcil B1e not u support eemlutim 11/28/m - cty~b revised 116 to atop at Cry 6 ranter Glue 12. Cty milling w go balance. Optiore to Q0000 Council 2/89 187 M Stores Tatar Mega Plm 'M STO ' 89 m Cur' - oirecim seal program envier adviaory/Poliry bodies 7/88 4/11/89 Prevented u C il. To be -98 Fro [ole/Nepeoreibilitir revxe by Ptaroing Carimim 'B9 9A Bevies 6 mvim r roceecary 11/88 Anticipate Vll/88 diarwaim ritb auff/advisory/poliry body Gcueril/m [ape. proreea for developrnt [evier Tabled to 9/s/99 ®etim 6 em utim waking tomrda P®r'Miuled for 11/88 r[vice 6 reeulu mimted Rb " M l a<Mdele to include 2 datev Surpriar' P[oreas 2/6/89 iebn. evming) ant 1/29/89 (Sat. ®mieg) Wunm effe ties control m 12/u rcinr 2. ONreOl0lfkL PBpTR.Tlw -97 m Btuhba say Coeplea route aasoae®nt 2/88 Anticipate reeds a t '8t 9A copleciom 2/88 •y 91t1 2/22/88 Iofotrotim prrrtad Ptojat feribility� 5/a so,itted oe t for fevaibility eavir Nevisad Paasibiliy l8/m update mat Pemibillty study approved 6/13/88 Mticipato to 11/28 vesting - Changed to 1/9/89 oateroire aaer�et arm 8/B8 intent Financing option Ip/8B 8/tl/BB meting - Owacil [ iv 4tReire l2/88 Caridet developMt rratorim 2/89 •� �i A16A 1. f)NlfReff..Yln P�.Tm rnnt. so:vd rwce 9ro9 t 89 sm if APgwiate - [nrtvate projt:t - etajsct bid 1/89 - a+edsre Projeet 4/N - :.a Il Project 1B/89 assess recycling efforts m goal 6/88 Assess o . ataans to ort goals 6/88 imludim loml m tim Cubside BecycliM 10/88 e iw te9u1ati. n .idi, 3/m solid seete Be . otWia mllectim 9/89 if neOW City N :anjisn-rise with d He in set '89 gmi dz tly eWlorim meta o_ selected mrbside pick W - 8/39/88 staff hr rout with Prmcia: r• ntrremrs PreeenC it dil 1p/lp 1B/]V88 Cvucil dizacts iaitiatim � mIL Am m,LTfVi 3—uGY11sATiawL ON6fM®1! 1989 Caar:il Goal Setting CaaaMa Clem 19B9 Brdgat Promo 1989 lagislatlm Progrm ram Buildim 1. SO a G VCOY -87 sm 4 Iiltim study 'n m 'a> M faq aalala Yinmm:ial Policy 19 m Golf Qal[m Meal Control Aaavaaa,t Boats of 0aview oms Bma 7/88 9/11/88 Bating raid - -89 revieime 9/88 Appromd 9/12/88 4/88 4/II/BS initial noting bald. Anticipate .l.im m 5/9/88 5/19/38 Bond .1r,k i Capital budget Adoptim B/80 Budgat Adoptim 9/26/88 7/11/88 1989 Budget msaage/ rAridelim to C it sudgat meeting aet for 9/20/88 Bdget adoptim/mili ram m ♦g/10/88 10/10/88 Mill ram adopted 19/24/88 Budget adopmd Cm Iete 12/88 10/88 Rived A policies At 11/28 mtiw tabled m 12/12 Staff 11/m Cdan:il - Cmider Yormta 2/89 B artam if desired 3/89 lb plamim Cooissim for review 5/18/88 Piam 11 CB ietim 6/m Site criteria m C it 9/26/88 Crimria/3rd site adoptxl 1e/19/88 Mticipated m 1/9/89 mxtim IV1aaK m [a®eldeciar 7/88 Daft poliry m Comcil 7/88 Z/22/88 Ildtial draft mpiml ddiec dlatweaf 16/19/m Initial investalt guidelinm presmtad. 4o it/14 for fiml nevi.. CBangad to 12/12 m 1/9 depandiN m Audimr raapomaa Council adoptim 8/Be Gamlopmmt of bainma 3/87 straw, Bvalmm pragrm 9/88 eaterdad mrvioe m 1nq Iaka/Spring Perk/Mi.tmka Bmcb-1988 Pmnwad all 3 for 1989 S. 1 eEShci 6. MaP lw mac am v2crlvs 011St$ B� �aati� explore Petfo� B/88 Forwl plan to 2/88 Inventive as addwifia Focal Plan v aijuq[m�ts to rr a tion Plan pteaentad 2/22/88 1/25/88 Plan adopted 4/12/88 co q •urN repott .4 itted to State -.ty Illfo[pltiwl/ Wyor'a Articlee (ayo:ne a letter evaluation of ry tee 8/88 wayots'a Article foteat to mnti. to 8/88 for rert evaluation 8/22/98 SutvittlN review to C it 8/22/08 Cou.a directs ntin. of syat. LIST^ OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF December 12, 1988 There.are no licenses. C •6.lTY OF OR ONO P A Y R 0 L L R E C J� Lem be e Y-T-D • - - - - - - - - - - - EMPL-NO NAME DIV CROSS CROSS EXP/ALLOY FIT SIT _ - CALLAHAN— EJ-11 - 2900. 01 - 241.67 -• - COETTEN I 11 2900.04 E41.67 CRABEK I 11 3600.00 300.00 _ N so 11--1208_35- 2/t.67 --- ---- - PETERSON BA 11 2900.04 241.67 ---- COUNT- -------GRAND --- -- -- - 1,266.69 .s PAID 00005 TOTAL 60005 TOTAL '---TOTAL-FICA-LAX-GROSS- --------•00 -- EMPLOYERS FICA CONTRIOUTION A CROUP HEALTH B PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD--- ' D • MEDICAL CENTER PLAN ----- _ E • PRUDENTIAL F • COORD. HEALTH CARE C • MINNESOTA HMO M w TRANS-AMERICA OCC. 1 a BANKERS LIFE-- - - I a MUTUAL SERVICES K w MUTUAL OF OMAHA L a EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT M a AETNA N a NICDLLET EITEL -0 • LEAGUE OF CITIES P a METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN ---� -- 0 a WARE _ I a HEALTH CARE MAINT ACCT. M1551N0 HOSP CODE FOR SOME EMPL'S CITY OF"j ORONO rr,,���� /(I P A Y R EMPL-NO NAME DIV GROSS GR0SS E%P/ALLOW z _ACKERMANN AJ 13 _195.25_.. 0.00_ ANDERSON BL 31 36500.84 1515.69 '• ANDERSON PM 13 97.50 0.00 ANDERSON NFI3 9R.50 __0.00 BERG VJ 13"---170.00_ 0.00 BERNMARDSO ME 12 48016.84 2044.08 ° --- BOBZIEN___ SA 31 21081.33 _856.80 _ BOSMA JL 12 1165R.19 469.10 ' BOYLAN SO 93 3673.92 0.00 DRINKHAUB JF 42 35465.32 1722.09 BUTLER MC 13 165.00 0.00 CARLSON MB 35 946.09 49.49 _ CAAIRUTHERS_C _13 _. 203.50 _0.00 _ C14ESWICK GB 31 34015.49 1418.00 CORNICK JL 31 32522.02 1214.58 DESCHLE_R___NJ 13 182.50 0.00 DICKEY N] 13 181.50 0.00 EISINGER RD 13 100.00 0.00 _ EKEBERG _.._ EJ 13 175.00 0.00 _ -- ENGLISH II IN 31 33636.26 1255.37 - ERICKSON BE 13 160.00 0.00 ERICKSON D]_93 1354.57 0.00 _ - ERICKSON KR 71 33770.83 1316.16 FARR PS 33 2621.00 0.00 FERRIL EL 13 182.50 0.00 FISCHENICH DT 31 31284.31 1269.88 FRITZLER JM 31 35726.22 1318.16 SAFFRON MP 33 28460.26 1213.60 GARCIA B 13 91.50 0.00 BASH MF 13 200.75 0.00 GERHARDSON JR 42 39246.86 1636.08 GREGORY JD 4P 27617.23 1274.73 HALLIN DM 12 24706.02 1030.01 HANSEN SC 42 24181.57 1031.14 HANSING CJ 31 11659.97 557.79 HILLSTROM LM 13 54.00 0.00 ROFFMAN RM 13 191.50 0.00 JACOBS TJ 33 28460.25 1213.60 (.• JOHNSON BP 31 33807.48 1341.53 JOHNSON JM 13 176.50 0.00 JOHNSON M1 13 199.75 0.00 KILBO MH 31 42186.79 1760.00 _ KNUTSON CA 15 17647.01 856.80 `• KUEHN TM IB 39031,81 1646.64 LAUER DA 13 147.50 0.00 LINDSTRO_M__DJ 93 291.14 0.00 _ MABUSTH 3A 32 34021.25 1418.24 MADDEN RM 13 92.50 0.00 MARQUARDT BJ 93 89.26 0.00 MEYER MA 35 283.05 0.00 MIKELSON RA 15 20785. 72 868.64 Ty OF ORONO P A Y It0 L L R E 0 _eC _ejc7 be,�CO4r7 .___—_Y-T-D 0--.._____ _ - _ _ EMPL-NO NAME DIV GROSS GROSS EXP/ALLOY FIT SIT CALIANAN—EJ-ItL- 2900.04--241 67 --- -- - OOETTEN J It 2900.04 241.67 GRASEK J 11 3600.00 300.00 -- PETERSON BA I1 2900.04 241.47 --- -- COUNT - — CWAND —- PAID 00005 TOTAL 0000E TOTAL -- TOTAL--FICA-TAX-GROSS-m--- ----- --•00 EMPLOYERS FICA CONTRIBUTION A • CROUP HEALTH B a PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN --------C-�-BLUE-CROSS/BLU"HIELD------ _ D • MEDICAL CENTER PLAN E a PRUDENTIAL F = COORD. HEALTH CARE G a MINNESOTA HMO H m TRANS-AMERICA OCC. I a BANKERS LIFE J m MUTUAL SERVICES K • MUTUAL OF OMAHA -----------L-�SMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT M a AETNA N a NICOLLET EITEL - - -- ---- O�-LEAGUE OF CITIES P a METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN G m SHARE -- --- S + HEALTH CARE MAIN? ACCT.- MISSING HOSP CODE FOR SOME EMPL'S _ CITY OF ORONO P A T R L_ Y_T_D E NO NAME DIV GROSS GROSS EXP/ALLOW rj MILLS- JR__. WN. 93 2247.75 _ �00 � MORAN MF 31 77145.17 3.65 140.65 ,e MOROWCZYNB J 31 34701.43 1373.04 'e MORROW J8 31 9892.25 515-90_____ NAAB TL 12 116753.33 S56.G0 NICHOLLS E 13 172.50 0.00 OAS DO 93 961.89- _ 0.00 __ QBRIEN RL 92 8517.50 972.50 .^i� OLS04 BJ 13 175.00 0.00 '.2 OMAN LE 33 23499.66 1017.60 -' PALMER PS 31 505.00 0.00 PEASLEY C 13 182.50 0.00 PETERSON_ RY 93_ ____ 0.00___. 0.00 _ _ _ - c POUELL L 13 90.00 0.00 '- OUAST WA 92 27122.86 1162.84 RATHBUN BJ 92 9036.63 887.16 _ RAUSCHENDO D 13 172.50 0.00 ROSS JA 93 982.00 0.00 SASS JJ 42 24357.99 1040.13_ -- _ SCHAUSS CR31 2521,4.30 1154.97 -- SCHEFFLER LK 12 5649.32 557.74 - SKREEN DS 42 24193.08 1048.75_ . _ STEFFENHAG RE 93 25734.69 1072.90 STEVENS BG 93 3405.00 0.00 STUBBS C 13 85.00 0.00 STUBBS L 13 92.50 0.00 THOMTON MR 31 26296.68 1231.53 TOMCHECK LF 31 296'7.53 1172.21 TOMCZYK MW 31 34818.39 1378.01 TOWARD H 13 92.50 0.00 TURNHAM K 13 172.50 0.00 WALSH KL 35 1323.45 193.00 COUNT GRAND 47,318.06 ! -- PAID 00049 TOTAL 00087 TOTAL l" TOTAL FICA TAX GROSS 21,411.66 EMPLOYERS FI CI A • GROUP HEALTH J • PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN 4T C • BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD D • MEDICAL CENTER PLAN lift -PRUDENTIAL F . COORD. HEALTH CARE G a MINNESOTA HMO N a TRANS-AMERICA OCC - r aAuvrec .:c CITY OF H A N D Y R I T' - ANDERSON BL_0.03Z�98�96 IM9. 9B __ CORNICK JL 0031 31307.44 1242.62 'ln ENCLISH III IN 0031 32380.89 1129.82 c ERICKSON KR 0031 32452.67 1054,53 FISCHENICH DT 0071 29994.43 1780.90 FRITZLER JM 0031 34408.06 1449.98 '6 JONNSON BP 0031 324.65_951422, 4__ - MORAN MF 0031 35741.52 1380.90 " 9CHAUSS CR 0031 24059.33 1104.75 TNOMTON MR 0031 27067.15 451.94 - TOMCHECK LF 0031 28445.]2 1242.82 ^1n 0031 33440.38 1442 34 MOROWCZYNSKI JN = COUNT GRAND :l 00012 TOTAL 16,183.10 ai LI I/N CITY OF MGM CHECK RE51STER IE-12-se FADE I CHECK MO -_DATE _ __AMOUNT._ WEMDO_R I_T_EM_DESCRIPTION ACCIMIT M. IM. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE 347610 12/51/N 2.24 AT&T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 72-1320-511-11 1. _ ]/7LLL--IllAUN _ • N AT&T INFO MtFII TELEPHONE T3-43Ni49-1E S-If 347614 IV$?/N 133.4a ALL STAN ELECTRIC (MINT MIN fault 6i312,211-I9 NTOLO It/2Ltt. t 374.11 347030 It/OT/N 1/.43 AT & T IWO SYOrEN NIA PROCESSING Ot-424""-M 3I7838 Wulff 10 A3 ALA t SNF03Tfl[M__--_ DATA PROCESSING 2/-171h0fh11 317030 It/t7AS t9.13 AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING 01-/340-6i11-/E - 317030 It/O7/N 32.50 AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING 01-1310-I21-31 _ 347g0 tL071N IO.A AT A T IMO Y TEM _ DATA PROCESSING Ot-I31hIT/=1M - 317032 M/07/N 10.43 AT A r Info 51STLN DATA PROCESSING Ot-1]I}N0-I! - ISO.AE 317031 18/47/04 4.30 AT A T GO INI TELEPHONE 01-1320-031-1E 317031 I8/07/48 8.61 AT A T CHIN TELEPHONE 01-1]!0-IEl-]1 •..'ONE - .o... 317051 t!/Ol/N It,ON.11 SAY & NSLSN INC STREET MINT MAT 01-1233-811-12 - 17, 0N.10 . -. • T MINT MT 01-113YN1-10 --Ulf 8,511.2E . •'� .... to 347133 1!/51/N 1.02 COMM-REV SALES TAX SALES TAX NOV 01-3E00-000-00 ILjl[N- 11 RR COMM-REV SALES TAX SALES TAX NOV Tl-/21]-NhGO _Y71i3 311133 12/01/40 2.20 COMM-REV SALES TAX SALES TAX NOW TI-2221-000-00 t0.00 31TIIt ItgTLN 17112 DOPY_DUP_Pt INC _ COPIES 01-MIS-INS-01 _ 174.72 . 347143 ]t/$1/N 140 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC _ 01-1122-03/-12 _ 347143 1!/01/42 2.70 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC 0t-1IN-0L1-t 317113 12/51A0 8.70 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC 01-I152-1tl-31 347143 — will" _ 3,41 DOMMERCIAL LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC 01-/152-124-31 — 317143 tt/01/44 12.44 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC 01-1122-121-31 317143 I4/07/68 3.60 COMMERCIAL LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC 01-4122-174-M 317113_ la/51LN__ 6. G LIFE INS LIFE INS DEC __ 01-/128-l11-12 311143 Iw*WSS .l• __COMMERCIAL COMMEIICIAI. L6S INS LIFE INS DEC 71412bF1-11 347143 18/07/04 I.N COMMERCIAL LIFE IN LIFE INS ]EC 73-I1N-SAI-f It" CITY OF 0R0110 MM REGISTER IQ-IS-M f20i ! - °Saw YT'6_ AwlrT iND00! IT[N3[DCRIlIIOD ACCOUNT W IW • F.O. 0 N[[SAG[ 71T113 IVO/W .t0 COINOCIAL LIFE IM LIFE INS DEC 7/M151-510-f7 Ta 00 . .... CIA N•••• 7111[1 tVOT/M 772.60 CTS UNIFORM CLOTHIw 01-1l11-11f-71 ITS. at - •N-CR2 IITIM 1V07/{t_—. •.2]t<1.0 ROLF_L[NILIItOM D[CJ[EVUE SI,4:Ij T-0Rt-t/ 1.E71.tt •••-CNS _ -N••Y 71llY 1!/tY/M sole"." FIRST TRUST CO INC Ww0 W2 1-1-89 15-461"OS-00 _ —_71T12!_ 12tlT/Y ]1.7R{ai1 FIRST TRUST CO _IRS— INi W[ 1-1-Rf IS-Iiit-fOR-t0 84,700.00 • _a 317272 14/67/Y 77.46 G A R SERVICES CLOTHING 01-4221-121-3I 34T2T2 1t611 6-& R SERVICES CLOTHING_ 01-1221-215-12 - _ 3I12T2 _I1VA7/00 f"T/Y 9I.t7 G A R SERVICES CLOTHING 70-1221-011-11 311272 It"I'M 76.11 0 A R SERVICES CLOTHING -_. 347272 _----2JNTLY f! f! C A SERVICES CLOTHING ThIMI-S10-17 7/0.T7 .•.-CIIS - 1.7275 1!/0T/W 406.17 YOUF WALTH INC wr iw me 11"I{I-111-71 •"^ ^[C 01-/151-196-01 3472TS I.T27S IS/ 12/07/W NI -Ia SNOW wRLTN INC WY IN$ 011C tt- 121-tmFzl I.1215 12/07/44 TO." Yw1F HEALTH INC wY IW 04C 01-I15I-IThm I.TRTS IV YN INC HOW Iw DEC TI-116I-{0h17 1, tl{.!0 . ...-eR2 147153 18/071" 2./77.50 NEw CTT Fix Div JAIL CHANCES OCT tt-I] oot-10 •o-CNt owN 341764 12/67/64 1.791.30 Iwlw CTT "=I" OFT RADIO R[NTAL Dl-I]]hltf-71 {.T1l.10 147305 I207/N 2[f.TO I 9"" TN[AS FOSTAE{ 01-1701-Nh17 M.TS N i]7t tVtl/M ICY R[TN1MT�fOM ICY It/1h11 /!S DI-1110-D7h10 _ _ __JLDI S2.S7 . ....on IRS& CITT OF MONO CMECM REGISTER id-It-u PAGE 7 _. Dock NS._YTE AMOUNT VEMO_M ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOOMT W. 1MY. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE _ - lAT3A3 1Rq]/Y 11. Af rn1_fACOtt MEETING 1-1350-IT1-33 _ " 307363 It/07/441 11.87 VON JACOBS MILEAGE 01N301-17I-33 ' 30T303 ILq/00 53. ft TOM JACOBS MILEAGE 81N301-i70-33 lS 1E • _ p1�M w�-CNE .. U• 3 ILt7/N 00.00 MANY SEARING EQUIP PARTS 73-49711-569-/8 00.16 ..10731E I2/02/40 — ]_31 NEAYENTS_DItUG 0F_FIC[_SUP�LI_Ef 01 Nt10-q/-IL 3A?AS IL/0?/O 9.16 MEAYENTS, DRUG OPPICE !U'PLIO 01-I210-ItT-31 31710E It/07/00 I0.43 NIAVENYS DRUG ORRICE SUPPLIES 01N810-201-02 _ oo� ��0-Ctf 3AT3f7 IS/tT/p 31.30 NUENN-THORAS MILEAGE NOR 01N311-609-15 347197 ILO?/Y 11.74 MUEHN-THOMAS MILtYE MOY 0IN301-170-M 71T7LT_ UEHM-THOMAS_ MILEAGE NOY '17N7tl-50-ft 60.05 74T101 111407/6a Tt. t1 NUOTOM ELECTRONICS EQUIP PARTS 01-I232-ItT-31 1NNP DPP-CNS 307001 1L07/00 53.35 THE LAITY PUBLIGNIMG 6IN3Y-039-I9 31?044 IS/07/00 a. go THE LOANS PUBLISH BUDGET 01-43111-t09-15 3474Q1_12/t7Lb __ _ Y.41 TMES.AKp PUBLISHING -- 01-0300-174-33 347000 ILO?/Y /4.34 THE LYIY PUBLISH BUDGET 79-1302-5/9-01 347404 14/07/01 83.00 THE LARGE PUBLISH BUDGET 73NM"69-f! _ 3120Y 1L02/Y _- 14 31 1N[ LANY PUBLISH -BUDGET TAN30F500-13 SQ.tt 147435 11/07/18 96.01 LOOTS - SUITE 300 MILLING LARLLS 01-3340-000-94 30?13B 1LST/SS NR 11 LOCO - SUITE. 390 LOGIS AORIM_jjCT 01N358-669-15 3474A IB/07/6B 117.17 LOGIS - SUITE 304 L09I3 ADMIN OCT 01-4358-189-31 30?4-C It/47/BO 200.4T LOGS - SUITE 360 LOCIS ADMIN OCT 01-4352-170-33 347435 _ _It/17/S8 30 L0618 - SUITE 300 DATA PROC OCT 01-0355-001_15 34?415 18/07/88 __384 636.01 LOCIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC OCT 41-4355-129-31 347035 IS/07/08 3R0.Gt LOCIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC OCT 01-015S-174-77 307430 I1/07/68 24.91 LDOTS - SUITE 300 LOCIS ADMIN. OCT 72-435E-S49-51 l.?.35 IS/17/08 97.12 LOCIS - SUITE _ 100 DATA PROC OCT 79-435S-5/1-11 3.7.3E 18/17/68 147.410 L0913 - SUITE 300 LOGIS ADMIN CRT T3--43St-SN-1t -. 347435 I9,07,88 040.44 _ LOCIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC OCT T7-17S5-SN-1E 9.485.06 ...... 110-YB ION CITY OF ORION!, mm REGISTER /E-IE-EE PAGE . _ ._-ptCE.-Np- eAT[ AwO1WT ITEM ffmrpTIN ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 F.O. 0 MESSAGE a.+u• 64.43 347430 1S/O7/N 47.01 LONG LN FORD TRACTOR ENIF FARTS 01-.07E-249-4E EGUIF RENTAL EIM771-E4/-1E .N.f7 • — __-ES::�f ....CKS 3171E6 1S/SVSO MANSTH-JEANNE LAMINAR Ol =1 l7F33 oo.. w.-Clff - 347401 O/07/N 1E6.60 MID CTE HEALTH CARE HDEF INS DEC 61-1151-639-12 347467 U/U/N 74.40 NED CTO HEALTH CARE HOSF INS DEC tlM1E1-ON-15 -_ 1174f2 +Ris/RA 7R.1A___NED CTR HEALTH .CARE __ _ HOOF _INS DEC 3.7467 1vO7/N _ 76.40 NED CTR HEALTH CARE HDEF INS DEC Ot-11E1-1E7-01 347467 10/A/N 100.11 NED CTR HEALTH CARE HOEF INS DEC 61-4IE1-129-31 347447 1R/671M 171.61 CTR HEALTH-CARE HOOP INS DEC 61-II5I-1TP33 347.61 tvaT/N M.N _MID NED CTR HEALTH _ CARE HDEF _ _ INS DEC Ot-11E1-EI9-12 1.ON.11 NHN _IRLOT/N _. _ _.--I�NOdO. M[TEOJM�TLI�'G TROD MO CHARMS NN !1-ONf-!!S-!0 1,ON.0 347409 WOW" 1215.49 MIDWEST AYMALT OTEOET MIN MT 01-41I3YE11-10 _ 1N 17 . ...... ...-CND 311410 1a/O7/N 01.07 MIHNEGAOCO UTILITIES 0I-4321-109-71 347118 18/07/N 420. 97 RINNONSCO UTILITIES 711-I324-511-/1 .- 3474" I2/07/N 7.64 MM ORMEFIT NN LIFE IN 11-.1 Et-ISf-71 ...... ...-CEO 347196 tt/07/44, 57. DO M CELLULAR TVA TELEPHONE 01-.7ED-101-31 OT.OD . ...... ... 31TSN 10/.OvN _ _..►JD MH.ruE_G RAFETV _NIMr.�LE{ EOVJl 11-.].PISS-71 19e8 CITY 0► M0110 INS" RMTSTM 10-1t PASS 5 ._ GrCK. M-44TE-_- -AMOUNT VFM_pOR ITEM OEegllTlM ACCOUNT M. 1". 9 P.O. 0 MESSAGE ' 76.90 NON NP-CY Llf]I ttgVSS.__ _.._�11 10TORMA ISG MINT AUTO 72-/3/1-5/9-91 347M 12/07/00 011.51 MOTOROLA INC MINT AUTO 73-4341-S69-92 _ 137.5E . _ NON ...-CEO _3475". Lv07/88 _ I3.L NAVARRE HARDWARE _ MINT SUPPLIES O1-/E31-499-17 3175.E 12/07/88 31.25 NAVARRE HARDUARE EQUIP PARTS 01-IEIE-IH-31 - 347SU IV07/09 23.98 NAVARRE HARDUARE EQUIP PARTS 01-1232-111-33 - 317308. 18/07/88 15-12 NAVARRE HARDWARE _ EQUIP PARTS 01=1123E-249,611 3479" 18107/AB 1.19 NAVARRE HARDWARE EQUIP PARTS 72-1232-519-91 30721e IL07/88 O.SA NAVARRE HARDWARE UTIL SYS MAINT 72-1231-S19-91 IMVARRE MAROUARE MAINT EQUIP 72-1312-519-91 [. 3/751e It/0T/44 3.19 NAVARRE HARDWARE ML SYS MINT 73-U]O-S49-70 103.10 3.7560 __-1L17/M _�01_01 NSP _ _ _ _ _ UTILITIES _ _01=OEhH9-17 1.758E 18/07/00 190.9E 11Y UTILITIES 01-/31/-129-31 - 3.7562 tt/OVte 9.?5 NY UTILITIES 01-1391-175-31 347SU ._12/IiLM SAL00 W UTILITIR 01-1324-249-U 147SU ILO?/U 19.00 w UTILITIES 01-4324-290-61 347562 IVO7/Y t.349.36 NY UTILITIES 72-4321-549-91 - 3475A2 11*71�e__ 617.16 Nr urulrlu_ 73-43e4-569-92 347548 IVS7/M 46:11 NM UTILITIES 71-13214-596-91 2,7H .I I 3.TYE JV9VM_ _---_Lltt.. l POPHAM MAIN-4 ASSOC LEGAL RETAINER OCT_ 01-4341_400-16 3/16M 12/07/M T. US. 01 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC ---PROSECUTIONS OCT 01-430E-900-16 3476Y lVoU0e 931.91 POPHAM NAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT OCT 01-4303-090-16 3176M a/N/Y AIS A] POPHAM MAIK.J ASSOC_ _LEYL_COMSULT OCT 01_1303-840-7I 3116111 11/07/M 101.73 POPHAM MIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT OCT 84-4399-411-00 3.702E 12/07/49 836.53 POPHAM MIX A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT OCT 21-1399-111-00 347#88 17/14 _ �3t_O3 POPHAM MIK_0 ASSOC_ LECAL CONSULT OCT E1-/399-4tS-$* 3114M 9v97/M 940.72 POPHAM MAIN 1 ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT OCT 24 1399-152-00 U7429 IVIT/M 97.61 POPHAM MAIK S ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT OCT 91-4399-457-00 317"41 -_Jf[tVM AT -to POPHAM HAIK3 4890C _ _ LEGA"ONSULTOCT ti-43.3-132-00 11.Me.30 . 34?003 the?/M 20.41 PRUDENTIAL LIP[ INS DEC 41- lSE-/59-15 317603- J2tlL'M_. t1.39 ►lUODE7IAL jjEFJ_NE DEC e1-119a-las-31 311613 IVST/M 37.87 PRM2NTIAL LIPS INS DEC E1-1158-199-31 _ 147643 q/OVM 2.74 PRUDENTIAL UK INS DEC 01M194-17h23 .. 34411_�Y17l19_ 0dl PRUDENTIAL LIM INS DEC 0I-11SS-9/9-42 -. IS" CITY N NON CHEM [NSISTN 1[-1[-84 PKE { —- !NEN NN uT[_. MOAT_ VNON ITEM Ni1CNIPTIN NCCOUNT NO_INV. 0 P.O. 0 NESSSSE -[n ir3rnir�l�Lii?:'^y i'p r>�iCSF-:ICSFi 1} 3.70N IVOLM ONS CANDY S TOBACCO CONCESSION[ 7�008-S11-94 N1{li IV07/N 117[[.35 NOLLINE OIL CO GASOLINE 01-1160-000-00 !.TSO.35 ...-CAD 34T6at If(17L1[ —7J.LLJ� N-NO. INC SIMI! MINT MT 01-4237-24f-I[ 3At[.M 34T710 IVS7/N 144.00 OI3IE PETNO-CNEII CLNIM .ww. 3.7T41 11/17/N 3".SO STSEICIENS 345.35 NTtSI 1uSY/Ny7 71 SUNDIAL 1LN-xitt"[ IMI-IiMA SQV Ol-13N-1S1-17 - 3.1751 IVS7/N SN.SS SUNDIAL 1LN [[NICK JANITORIAL SNY 61-.341-IN9-31 {N AS 347115 - 1[/11(N N 16 US -NEST COMMUN TELEPNON 3.7E15 I2/67/04 AN. 1• US NEST COMMUI TELEPNON 3.7015 11/17/08 14.69 US NEST COMMUN TELEPMON 31711E IE/S7/N 171 {{ US NEST COMMUN TELEPNON 3.1115 11/S7/N AN. IA u/ NEST 20MMUN TELEPNON 147415 IV17/N {T.N US PEST COMMUN TELEPMON 347211 --Alto "A A1.1{ US PEST COMMON - �ELEPNON 341115 I[/17/N 41.94 US NEST COMMUN TELEPNON 347315 11/07/041 0.61 US NEST COMMUN TELEPMON 147115 iV.17/N _J}Jl_—US NEST COMMUN _ TELEPNON 3.7115 11/6T/N N./{ US PEST COMMUN TELEPMON 347115 IV07/N 511.116 US NEST COMMON TELEPNON 147115 11/ET/Y 1K N U1_WEST-COMMUN OOVNTIS TF.N . 3.11.E .2107,11 1, Me.N BAYBATA-CITY OF NO MV Fiat /1-1311-133-31& 10Y DITT OF a11011010 CMM REGISTER it-le-fB FAN T __ytt[Jp�yT{ MNW1T VENOR_ I_T_KN oiaCRIFTIY ACCOUNT NO. INV. F F.O. 0 MS I,1K0.N • , ', __]!}Ol[ 1Lt1/Y S U WL INNS [L[CT[lC UTILITl[0 01-qN-tH-1t 8.40 _J•rN• •N-CRR . 30Tf01 it/0//N TO.of INMES MARKET L [SNAP RKNTAL O1-0331-94O-Y TO to • 3OHN ta/07/01, as. of NIVNSTOWA MNTNKN NKIINNIIIF 61-300-1E0-31 - Y as • 30/103 IR/OWSS ti.!• NTRKE NW TMKS t1-103e-tes-a1 - - 30"" 1t/0T/N 14.052. 11 IIffm U"W CONTROL DEC SERVICE[ 73-1282-060-00 3410N ILf1iN n.of TIFF TlE KOUIF FLATS 01-0232-12O-31 - ' 341TN It/ol/N 39.N CLANLIWI IMC FERSYAL KWIF •1-Ia[I-1 [0-31 ^ 34HOT I81O71 SO 7.64 STATE TA[ANM[11 BOONS O1-/246 I17 33 _ l50 '- 3111N 19/47 as I.610.33 US ENTNFOISEs ANO 01-1[i 1t/-31 1JN.H • l411 FWD 01 TOT[____ -SEVERAL FIND - SN.GO FWD 24 TOTAL FERN IMPROVE REVOLVING F • oT.s! FWD IS TOTAL 1/N IWIROV[N[11T FWO u-3!K S0 FWp IS TOTM I/N 11r NYp A/t MO _ - 0.3N.06 FWD 18 TOTAL "TER M4ATINS FWD - 16.873.58 FWD T3 TOTAL SEWR OPLIIATIY FUIW - Nt Of FWD T• TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FO _ - IN.NR.23 TOTAL LEMUMIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM WSW" PADS I ___ _&CCOOTIM. REPORT VIDEO N It" CITY A "ONO IBAINR M REPORTS IN UPDATE MECRI►TIOM 0 FIMAMIAL REPORTS BARBAEP OF uPOATES • RSNBAMY FILE o tCMDSLEE WN DATE ONNO MIMO Of RECORD• PAYROLL A A[PORT DATE 966000 LEVEL 1 fQ S0RIFIT ACCRUAL LEVEL l — _ • _�ETIYITY R[FDST • ACTIVITY REPORTS LEVEL S 0 CMOR MEISTER D ACMEDVLEC RVN DATE too?" LEVEL • O TRIAL DAI.A11C[ O REPORT DATE 12111O0 LEVEL • • R[VENRIE STATEMENT 0 PAYROLL ►ISTIM DAT[S 0000.0 LEVEL 1 S EPERATIM STATEMENT • •00000 LEVEL-2 E14 SS�[T I19�NSREETt f S CLEIM-CYRR-IICMTM • OOONO _ 0 a CITY FILE C►TION 0 ON000 TRIAL I'M CHART OF ACCOIRITS u BASSINET RECORDS CREATED f �i•� r— a fir' - -� � if ,_r.._._ �...� � r� arM� r �T tip` MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CONKISSiON MEETING FOVEMBER 21, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 M. The Orono Planning Commission wort o+ 'Ile above date with the followinq members present: Chairwwn rel.tey; Planning Commission members Bellows, Cohen, Hanson, crown and Moos. The followin. represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public h_orks Director Gerhardson, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Scheff Ier. !'ouncil Representative, Alan Nettles, attended, and Councilmember Goetten was also pressent. COPSE" AGr'.UA It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Ranson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays-0, Motion passed. i1349 LAUREN i JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMP.NT PUBLIC BEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.M. T''_ 1,fidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. T`,e applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that it was far more efficient to address the drainage and utility easements together with the lot line rearrangement. Chairman Kelley summarised 't the purpose of the three Born applications was to acqui• _ land and add on to their existing home. Mahusth askew e Born's would proceed with lot lino rearrargement shoul.. .ne Planning Commission recommend de.. 1 of their variance request? Mr. Born replied that they wou-.f not be able to obtain the adja,,ant property if the varian •+ not approved. Mr. Born provided a survey snowing the they were acquiring and n-_ vor they were removing. M stated that the curvature ci -cne Lakeshore created the necae_.ty ;'— an additic•�-1 17' setback from the Lakeshore. The existing f ont line of t.. souse ' • 45'. Kelley inquired as to ry w.3 any concern that the lot line reerrangemen. c Andard lot. The Helper pr�rar.y would be reduced dry. Planning Commission ?ember Hanson inquired ,.< .,is located within the 1.88 acre. Assistant rlan :na, c !or. oq Administrator Gaffron raa;onded .'ay soii yr.•dom<r.ant throutibout that entire a_ R- r, that wool. aa•re any effects on the septic an a is a t,Imary and alternate septic site location on the Helper oper-y. There wer. no cements from the public regarding this rAtter and the public hearinq was closed. was moved �y Planning Commission amber Fanson, seconded MINUTES OP TES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE 41349 - BORN CONTI.01D by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes-S, Brown, Na- based on the creation of the substandard lot. Motion passed. i1349 LAUREN 4 JOYCE BORN 142f f1432 SRORELINE DRIVE VACATION OP EASEMENTS PUBLIC BEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7s25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. it was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Planrinq Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes-5, Brown, Nay, based on the creation of the substandard lot. Motion passed. 91350 LAURIE 4 JOYCE BORN 1420/1.432 SBORELIME DRI^R VARIANCES PUBLIC BEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Adm' 'at Mabusth indicated on a sketch where the new driveway wt. a installed and what the Horns were proposing to remove. She. :d that th- crushed rock landscape area with plastic underlit.iug could remain as there was no excessive hardcover within the 75'-250' setback area. She asked the Planning Commission for their input as to the 17' setback from the 929.4 elevation and the 24.8' ;..de setback from the newly created lot line. Planning Commission member Hanson expressed his concerns regarding the 17' lakeshore setback. He suggested that the Borne roe ign the addition to gain a flirt it setback. Mabusth asked fc iinimum setback figure to give � Borne some direction. Zoning Administrator Mabusth a..,.ed the Planning Commission as to whether it was appropriate to grant the Borne the •:'.de setback variane. at the tine a lot line rearrangement is under consideration by the City? Chairman Kelley suggested gerrymandering the lot line. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE /1350-BORN CONTINUED Planning Commission ,ember Bellows inquired as to the square footage of the existing ..ous,. Mr. Born replied that it was 709 s.f. total. Bellows observed t,�at because of this application being unique, there would be little or no possibility of precedent setting. Kelley concurred. Bellows went on to say that she would not see a problem with approving the side setback, but in terms of the 17' setback, she agreed with Hanson. She suggested pushing the addition back another 81. Mr. Born stated that moving the addition 8' more from the lake would create a problem because of the need to expand existing rooms on the first floor. To move the addition 8 feet would prohibit the desired expansion. Mabusth pointed out the fact that moving the house forward would create the need for a street setback variance. The house is only 53' from the roadway. Kelley stated that he would rather have the house adhere to the street setback, than the lakeshore setback because of the safety factor as no one knows the future expansion plans of the County. Bellows agreed with Kelley, adding that she would withdraw her objections to the lakeshore setback vari-ace and noted for the record the major reduction of hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Pianning Commission member Moos, to recommend approval of this application. The hardships involved in this matter are the small lot, maintaining the 50' setback from County Road 150 and the curvature of the lakeshore. Kelley commended the Horns for acquiring additional property and working with the hardcover on the property. Planning Commission member Brown stated that he objected to the side yard setback variance due to the fact that the subdivision was new. Kelley stated that the lot line could be gerrymandered to address that concern. Mabusth interjected that filing the division at the County may cause problems when dealing with a metes and hounds division. Kelley said that the proposed 24' was an improvement over the existing 12' from the house to the lot line. Hanson stated that the Borne had done everything possible, with the exception of buying the entire neighboring parcel, to work with the City and add on to his house. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. 6135i CHARLRS SCHOEN 2430/2460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LIME REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Cer iicate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE t1352-SCBOEN CONTINUED explained that Mr. Jacobs was purchasing 1.39 acres of land, of which 98% is dry. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=6, Nay=O, Motion passed. #1354 ROBERT MERKON i JOHN CHARLTON 2340/2380 ABINGDON NAY SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:08 P.M. - 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the purpose of the lot line rearrangement was to expand the Merkow's frctit yard and allow their driveway to be located further west. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to approve this application, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays-0, Motion passed. t1351 ALFRED NARRISON 1410 SHORELINE DRIVE VACATION OF EASEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. - 8:27 P.N. Mr. Harrison was not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were requesting to vacate a portion of a drainage easement that was no longer needed due to pond reconstruction in 1985. The drainage easement was granted in 1982, based upon a pre-existing pond. Since that time, regradin, of the pond occurred, and the drainage easement is no long< -- necessary. Chairman Kelley asked when the Harrison's would be moving into the house? Gaffron replied that he knew of no specific date, but work oh the house had been going on for the last 6 months. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearinq was closed. 4 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE i1351-HARRISON CONTINUED It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Moti n, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1357 O. LARRY LEE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF GARDEN LANE AND HIGHVIBM LANE PUBLIC HEARING Zoning APministrator Mabusth explained that Mr. Krautkremer was unable to attend the meeting. There were concerned parties present and Mabusth briefly explained the location of the alley. Mr. Rost was asked by the City to vacate the alley, because the City only wanted a 501, rather than a 60' right-of-way. She further informed them that there would be a meeting, Tuesday, November 22, at 7:00 p.m. that would specifically deal with this subdivision. There would b: no action taken at that meeting, it would be a question and answer session. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to table this item. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=%O, Motion nassed. #1358 TBD PEIG 4 TIM JOHNSON 627/629 NORTH FERNDALE ROAD RHMBNAL OF SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved a renewal and revision of the subdivision o". a lot line rearrangement approved originally in 1987, but which was never filed . The parties revised the lot line so as to better conform with the existing driveway and backyard areas. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1302 CITY OF ORORO CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THIRD REVIEN City Engines Cook indirated that following a meetino of the City and Crystal Bay Road residents, there were still areas of iiaagreement. He reported that there were two options for MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMER 21, 1988 EONING PILE {1302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED repairing the bank; option 1 would involve replacing only damaged areas where the bank slid. This would be done by building a retaining wall and backfilling from the wall to the top of the road. The only way that sloping could be achieved would be to place fabric or other material to keep the soil from eroding away. The property owners would have to be involved with this option by taking responsibility for the repairs to the bank. The City would install posts and sheathing and backf ill with sand. Minimal excavation of the road would be done, along with patching the edge of the road. Chairman Kelley asked why the City could not pay for the fill needed for the bank? Cook said that was another option, but the City may not wish to do so. Planning Commission member Bellows asked how much of the property in question was owned by the City? Public Works Director Gerhardson replied that the City's prescriptive easement would only be over the actual road and gravel ditch area. Cook added that there was additional language that stated the City owned the road to whatever point was necessary to maintain drainage. Option 2 would allow for a portion of retaining wall to be exposed and would be located approximately 3 feet into the private property lines. In the other areas, there would be bushes and other vegetation, so a wall would be installed as in optioc. 1, but would only exist for the purpose of retaining the bank. However, there are cracks in the road which could allow water to seep in and cause the bank to shift. Chairman Kelley asked Engineer Cook as to which option would be best? Cook responded that either option would sufficiently remedy the problem. Kelley then asked which option the resia-nts of Crystal Bay Road would prefer? Mr. Schlbilla expressed the desire of the residents to proceed with option 2. Mr. Bill Wolfe stated that he had no problem with option 2, and commended Public Works Director Gerhardson and City Engineer Cook for their efforts. He added that the residents had just reviewed option 2 that evening. They wanted time to discuss and receive input from a landscape architect to achieve the most aesthetically pleasing effect as possible. Chairman Kelley inquired as to when the City would begin work. Gerhardson replied it would be in the Spring. Planning Commission member Bellows expressed her concern over the residents who chose not to replace the fill. Mr. Lee Erger explained that he owned the property where the most wall exposure would be; he would have difficulty attaining a 2�1 slope. He MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTING SOVEMSRR 21, 1988 ZONING PILE i1302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED proposed to leave the wall exposed and plant vegetation on the other side to provide screening. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that there should not be any controversy with this matter. The simple fact is that the City has a duty to repair a dangerous situation. She further stated that since the City did not own the property beyond the road and proposed retaining walls, and the City did not cause the problem but was attempting to correct it, that the property owners, individually, should be responsible for restoration of their property. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether there would be a 1:1 slope on Mr. Erger's property. City Engineer Cook confirmed that, and added that the only way to do that would be to put fabric or some type of wal-. Kelley asked how much wall would be exposed if there was a 3:1 slope? Cook replied 5' to 61. Kelley asked what supported the bank before it was washed away? Cook answered that natural vegetation held it. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the workability of a 2:1 slope: Cook said that would work and would reduce the wall by a couple of feet. Ms. Connie Schibilla stated that despite the several meetings with City, she had nothing on paper indicating what exactly was being proposed. Chairman Kelley stated that he would have no problem recommending the 2:1 slope. Planning Commission member Cohen concurred. Bellows stated that easements necessary for construction of the wall was a technical issue that still needed to be addressed. She said that the Planning Commission should set a guideline as to how much wall can be exposed. The Planning Commission concurred that 5' maximum would be allowed. Mr. Erger then asked how much of a shoulder world be required from the road so that a guardrail would not be necessary. The residents concurred that they did not want a guardrail. Kelley asked what was needed to make the area safe? Cook said that there was no set guideline, but in a normal situation, a guardrail would be required. Anything over 30" would require a guardrail. Cohen explained to the residents the City's problem with liability should someone fall over the edge. Rich Anderson interjected that that was the controversey. Bellows said it was a matter of a guardrail or keeping the drop-off below 30". She said that legally the City could install a guardrail into the pavement because of the drop-off currently being more than 30". Cohen concurred. Mr. Erger suggested placing the posts 1' or 2' off of the shoulder to that they could prevent anything from going off of the edge. The Planning Commission as a whole agreed that would not meet the City's safety standards. Mr. Wolfe asked how the City could place a guardrail on MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MERTING NOVEKBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE 01302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED private property without due compensation? Chairman Kelley advised the residents that they would have to deal with the City Council and City Attorney on those issues. Mr. Schupp said that he did not see how the City could interfere with his access to the lake. Kelley reiterated his position that the Planning Commission could not resolve that issue. He added that as far as the City's health, safety and welfare was concerned, the Planning Commission would recommend installation of a guardrail. The issue of any compensation to the property owners would have to be addressed by the City. Mr. Schupp asked what the height requirement was for a guardrail. Kelley informed him the.t any drop of 30" required a guardrail. Kelley reiterated his suggestion of taking the guardrail issue to the City Council, because the Planning Commission did not have the authority to resolve that issue. Planning Commission member Hanson interjected that for 18 months this public road has existed in an unsafe state. Kelley continued to say that the Planning Commission can only act on the City Ordinances. The residents were asking for a variance to the ordinance requiring a railing for a 5' drop. Kelley avowed himself to be a volunteer to his community and said that he could not consciously allow that kind of a drop-off without a guardrail. Mr. Erger said that he would not object to the "curb" going up if it was located at the very edge of the lot line, or even extending 3' or 4' if the City could determine how much slope would be involved. Kelley suggested that the City could protect itself and take more private property and have more road on the other side. Mr. Wolfe reiterated his desire to consult with a landscape architect. Mr. Erger asked if the City would allow the bank to be 1:1? City Engineer Cook said that it could be 1:1, but that may be very costly. A better solution may be to keep the bank at 30" or less. Mr. Schupp asked if proceeding with option 1 would alleviate the need for a guardrail? City Engineer Cook said that may or may not be the case. Rich Anderson suggested putting the hank back as it was so that a guardrail would not be necessary. 'elley and Cohen explained that it would be the property owner's financial obligation if they proceeded in that manner. Rich Anderson wanted the City to finance the project. Kelley again suggested taking these various proposals to the City Council. Mr. Erger asked about having 2' of shoulder from the blacktop to the guardrail and screening the guardrail from the front with plantings. Bellows and Kelley pointed out the fact that snow plows may destroy the shrubs. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Comission member Cohen, to table this matter. Kelley suggested that the property owners keep the City apprised of how they would like to proceed. Mr. Greg Long asked for a definition of guardrail. Kelley said that the City would provide the residents MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE 11302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED with that information. Once the residents have the guardrail information, it would be their responsibility to contact the City. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays-0, Motion passed. 41337 ROBERT PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCES SECOND REVIEW Mr. Paige was present for this second review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. Mr. Paige had previously received direction from the Planning Commission to revise the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Paige was now planning on replacing the existing garage structure with a larger garage and would require a 5' side yard setback variance. Gaffron explained that if the garage is moved back, as Mr. Paige agreed to do, then there would not be a need for a variance to the 30' street setback requirement for garage doors facing the street. Planning Commission member Hanson asked how Mr. Paige would access the proposed garage. Mr. Paige responded that he would access off of Navarre Avenue. Planning Commission member asked how far from Navarre Avenue the new garage would be located. Mr. Paige indicated that it would be 301. It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application, provided that the garage be located at least 30' from the west lot line and 5' from the south lot line. Mr. Paige inquired as to whether the 30' was from the foundation or roof? Gaffron clarified that it would be from the foundation and that the overhang could be a maximum of 1-1/2 feet. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1346 HIM" HAGBERG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. Hagberg was present for this matter. As explained by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council. The Council was co- erned about the discovery of a sewer line that would be .�cated 5' from the proposed storage garage. Public Works Director Gerhardson had indicated that the line would just be used for flushing downstream systems so the 5' setback would be sufficient. Mr. Hagberg had provided a list of items that required storage. Gaffron suggested that the lack of storage and the need for storage might be construed as a hardshio. Mr. Bagberg's present garage is located in such a way that adding to it would not be practical due to the topography of his land. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE i1346-RAGBERG CONTINUED Chairman Kelley asked if hardships were required, in light of the fact that Mr. Hagberg was reducing the hardcover? Gaffron explained that the Council was concerned about the lack of a hardship. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the amount of hardcover. Gaffron replied that without removals, there would be an increase in the 75' to 250' zone, as well as a slight increase in the 250' to 500' zone. Mr. Hagberg had indicated that he would remove a tin shed that is 101 s.f and remove 120 s.f. and 473 s.f. of rockbeds and plastic. Hardcover within the 0-75' zone would reduce from 18.6% to 17.7%. There would also be a significant reduction in hardcover within the 75- 250' zone. Kelley inquired as to the need to indicate hardships when hardcover is being reduced. Gaffron reiterated that the Planning Commission had not provided any recommendation to the Council that hardcover be reduced. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application based upon the removal of hardcover as indicated. The hardships in this application are the lack of storage, and the topography of Mr. Hagberg's lot. In addition, Mr. Hagberg will reduce the amount of hardcover on his property. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed. i1353 JOHN L. FIRBELKORN 2730 SHADYNOOD ROAD AFTER -THE -PACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:3�, P.M. - 8:05 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Fiebelkorn were present, as was Mr. Larry Berg, an Attcrney for the Fiebelkorns. In addition, Pat Anderson, a Landscape Architect, and Ken Adolph, an Engineer with Schoell Medson, Inc., were present. Mr. Berg began by admitting that there were serious problems involved with this application, but assured the Planning Commission that the Fiebelkorns did not intentionally disregard Orono's ordinances. He said that the Fiebelkorns were new lakeshore homeowners and unaware of the required setbacks. A vinyl pool kit was purchased and installed ?rimarily by Mr. Fiebelkorn. The pool was installed without permits and entirely withing the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. They are now requesting after -the -fact variances to allow it tc emain. Mr. Berg stated that a plan had been developed that he beliel,ed would solve pre-existing drainage problems and reduce hardcover. M,. Berg explained that a portion of the Fiebelkorn's property was dredged, creating a lagoon. Planning Commission member Bellows asked when this dredging occurred. Mr. Berg replied that it occurred in the 1950's. It was his belief that this land al�eration was the hardship in this case. He reported that a neighboring property owner had a boathouse on the shoreline that was more obtrusive than the Fiebelkorn's pool. Mr. 10 MINUTES OP TER PLANNING CONNIBSION MEETING NOVElBRR 21, 1988 ZONING FILE i1353-PIBBRLEORN CORTINNBO Berg stated that the Fiebelkorns had spent $30,000.00 on the pool alone and would be willing to do whatever it would take so the pool could remain. Planning Commission member Hanson asked Mr. Fiebelkorn who he hived to install the pool. Mr. Fiebelkorn explained that h,. subcontracted for the installation of the pool. Bellows asked at what point the landscape architect was hired. Mr. Anderson replied that it was after the pool had been installed. Mr. Fiebelkorn stated that a co-worker had sold him the pool kit and had hired someone unknown to Mr. Fiebelkorn to dig the hole. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed that in his opinion it was inconceivable that the Fiebelkorns were unaware of the need fox a permit to install the pool. Mrs. Fiebelkorn commented that they thought a concrete pool would require a permit, but the type of pool they had purchased would not. Mr. Berg reiterated the fact that a plan had been devised that would maybe allow the City to take a more positive look at the pool oecause of the existing problems it would alleviate. Chairman Kelley interjected that the pool itself -vas the only concern of the Planning Commission. Mr. Berg expressed his understanding of how the City viewed certain accessory structures and that lakeshore averaging was often used. Mr. Berg asked that he be given the opportunity to explain the proposal developed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adolph before the Planning Commission determined that the pool be removed. Planning Commission membor Bellows voiced her opinion that there was nothing that could be done to justify the major excavating and the gross violation of the hardcover and setback requirements. She added that the dredging that was done in the 1950's did not constitute a hardship for the Fiebelkorns. She felt that it was the Fiebelkorns' responsibility to investigate the City's ordinances and ru .es pertaining to building. Cohen concurred that he would not be able to justify allowing such a structure to remain in the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission member Hanson informed Mr. Berg that the Planning Commission was an adv.-nry body. It would be much more effective to present their proposals to the City Council. Kelley concurred with Hanson's suggestion. Mr. Berg was persistent in asking that the Planning Commission hear their presentation. Kelley conceded, but asked that the presentation be brief. Mr. Adolph explained that the Fiebelkorns would remove hardcover from the driveway and patio areas. The pool would be used as a detention basin for the runoff. An absorp:4nn system would be installed to handle the drainage. The pool would be large enough to handle the 100 year storm capacity. The runoff would be filtered so that only clean water would run into the soil and Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Anderson explained that landscaping would be used to aesthetically enhance the area 11 MINUTES OF TEE PLANNING COMMISSION M M71NG NOVEMBER 21, 1988 BONING FILE i1353-FIRSELEORN CONTINUED surrounding the pool. There would be a need for a small retaining wall on the lakeside edge of the pool patio. The retaining wall would also be utilized for the plantings Mr. Anderson showed pictures of the pool from the lagoon to indicate that the pool was invisible from that point. Vegetation would also be used to screen the pool from view in those areas where it would be easily seen. Mrs. Fiebelkorn added that there was a possibility that 3/10ths of an acre be acquired from a neighbor. By so do.ng, it would alleviate the problem concerning the pool equipment storage shed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission member Hanson asked when the Fiebelkorns moved to Orono. Mrs. Fiebelkorn replied they had moved to Orono in 1985. Hanson explained the need to preserve the watershed of Lake Minnetonka. Mrs. Fiebelkorn commented that their lack of knowledge has been very embarrassing. She said that the neighbors had been asking about the outcome of the situation. Mr. Fiebelkorn stated that he was just attempting to improve his property. It was moved by Planning Commission member Bellows, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend denial of this application because of the lack of hardship. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. 81355 FXANETB J. MESSELS 1245 NOODRILL AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC BEARING 8:10 Y.M. - 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Planning Commission member Bellows asked why the point was made about the antenna being unre -ed to the operation of Mr. Wessels' business. Zoning Adminis for Mabusth answered that distinction was made because commerc— transmitting cannot occur from residential property. She added that the-9 had been a previous problem with a rents of an adjacent property who used his radio for business pur, i. Orono citizen transmitting from his property. Mr. Wessels ormed Bellows that amateur radio operation was a hobby of his. He would only transmit for a couple of hours on a weekend morning, as well as late in the evening and very early in the morning on weekdays. He assured the Planning Commission that the use would be entirely recreational, not commercial. Planning Commission member Brown asked for clarification 12 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE i1355-WESSELS COMTIMORD regarding the problems of the previous radio operator. Mabusth explained that this person operated a security business from his home. Be caused major interference with the neighbor's televisions, radios and telephones. Chairman Kelley observed that the same interference problems could occur wi-' Mr. Wessels. Mabusth stated that in such cases, the FCC Shoup'- ..o contacted. In addition, after a previous similar applicat Enn, the City Council required that the name and number of the contact agency be given to the same parties that were notified about the conditional use permit application. The FCC, not the City, would handle complaints pertaining to interference. Bellows asked whether the conditional use permit could be revoked after a period of time if complaints of interference are received? Mabusth replied that such restrictions were possible, but in light of Federal regulations, the City could not restrict a resident from operating a radio transmitter and receiver. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether the problem of interference would actually be within the receiver, not t,:e transmitter? Mr. Wessels confirmed that if his equipment 's correctly set up, that would be the case. He added that there would be a pos�.ibility of problems due to a receiver, and stated that the FCC could confirm that. Any problems that may occur with a receiver could be rectifieJ easily. Mr. Wessels informed the Planning Commission that he transmitted from his previous home at the Lake of the Isles. That area was very congested, but in the eight years he resided there, he h,.d no interference problems. Planning Commission member Bellows asked whether it was Mr. Wessels intention to raise and lower `he antenna? Mr. Wessels explained that the location of the antenna would be in a heavtl y wooded area on his property. Be said he could erect a free standing antenna that would require guy wires. Tht proposed tower could be either at a fixed heigb- right above the tree line, r have a raising/lowering capabil:cy. M.— Wessels referred to a nationwide FCC regulation, PRD1, .hat states that the City could not stop an amateur radio operator from erecting a tower. Mr. Dick Maiche, a neighboring property owner, inquired as to the proposed locatiot it the tower? toning Administrator Mabusth replied that the structure would have to meet the height limitations and meet the required setback froe :he boundary lines. Mr. Wessels stated that he would be wi.11:!:g to locate the tower anywhere on the lot. Mr. Raiche stated tnat he did not went to see the structure from his propert}. Mr. Raicha further commented that he had talked with Lake of t�% Isle n-ighbors of Mr. Wessels, most of whom did nil know Mr. Wessels had a tower. 13 MINUTNS OF THE PLaWING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 BONING FILM 01355-WESSELS CONTINUE&, Ms. Marsha Rokke, 180 Orono Orchard Road, informed the Planning Commission of the circumstances involving Mr. Peterson's radio operation. She said that it became quite a safety factor when another resident in the area could not use her phone to call for a medical emergency. She said that the neighbors had registered their complaints with the FCC. However, the FCC dealt with Mr. Paterson directly, rather than keeping the residents apprised of their actions. Chairman Kelley suggested reviewing the conditional use trmit after 6 months. Kelley also asked if Mr. Wessels had _rotection for the tower that would prohibit children from climbing the tower. Mabusth reported that the City was recommending "anti -climb" sections be installed for that purpose. was moved by Planning Commission m-° ber Cohen, seconded bl .ning Commission member Hanson, to r ammend approval of thi., tem subject to a review 6 months from the date the Certiricate of Occupancy is issued, and Mr. Wessels providing the City with phone numbers so he can be accessible if necessary. In addition, the City must be s: ' isfied that the tower will. not be a safety hazard. The structure must be placed in the wooded area within 10' of the location indicated in the application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. 11356 GMRALD T. MCCOORTMMY 1055 NEST FMRNDALM ROAD MMNEMAL VARXANCZS PUMLIC HEARING* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning. Commissi. merher Hanson, to recommend approval of application i1356, rsnwwal of valances, for Gerald T. McCourtney. Motion, Ayes=6, NaysmO, Motion passed. APPROVA. OF 1989 SCMMDULN OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS I_ was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planni.g Commission -ember Bellows, to approve the 1099 Schedule of Planning c ii*nton Meetings. Motion, Ayes-6, 9lmys-0, Motion passed. FLAMMIMG COMMISSION APPROVAL OF OCTODMR 17, 1980 MINUTES* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded h, Planning Commissio&. �rmber Hanson, to appr the Minutes of the October 17, 1988 Ptynning Commission Meet .,q. Motion, Ayes-6, :7*ys-0, Motion passed. CAMCZWATION OF DNCEMONR 19, 1988 FUMING COM1r%S1OM I01XTINO* It was moved by Chairman Ka v, secm.Led by nlanni Commission nember Hanson, to car: the Planning s. ission Mee'.ing scheduled for 7ecember 19, 1988. Notion, Ayes-•.. Nays-O, Motion passed 14 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commission member, Maureen Bellows, would represent the Planning Commission at the December 12, 1988 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The November 21, 1.988, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 1S I 0_6A_1,%ft_k B U L L m �ociolio not E,�T�t_;N municipalities �3o,sr� November 28, 1988 TO: AMM Member Cities FROh9: AMM Staff RE: BOARD OF DIRECTORS VACANCIES AND OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS 1. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR BOARD VACANCIES: There are two vacancies on the Board effective January 1989 due to the decision of Councilmember Leslie Turner of Edina to leave city office and Hank Sinda leaving his position as New Brighton City Manager. The p.-rsons selected to fill the vacancies will serve '.he balance of the terms which end May 310 1989 and will be eligible for re-election at that point in time. The AMM Board of Directors is responsible for the overall manaEement and administration of the AMM staff and yearly work program. The AMM Board meets the first Thursday night of each month commencing at 7:00 P.M. WRITTEN NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE BY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 213T. IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED IF NOMINATIONS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY A BRIEF RESUME TO HELP FACILITATE THE BOARD DELIBERATION. 2. LEGISLATIVE CONTACT SYSTEM Tne Legislative Contact System initiated by the AMM last year, iN enthusiastically off and running. The Contact System is de3igned to increase our effectiveness as a lobbying force on key issues through involvement of city officials. This year, the Legislative :o(dinating committee of the AMA has made an early start on establishing the Contact System for the upcoming legislative session. Energetic Legislative Contacts ;:ive already been designated for each member city. An early start :s allowing for Getter preparation. -1- itN1 urxvW%dy avWltn 9", '*1 paid tTwv mwM 56101 ffi?:') 277:09V An initial set of breakfast meetings has been slated for the Legislative Contacts: Wednesday, December loth. at the Holiday Inn in Brooklyn Center for the northern cities; Thursday, December 15th. at the Holiday Inn East in St. Paul for the eastern cities; and Friday, December 16th. at the Hopkins House in Hopkins for the southern cities. The purpose of the breakfast meetings is to introduce the Legislative Contacts to what the Contact System can do for their cities and to brief them on AMM priority issues for the next session. A "how-to" manual is being prepared by the AMM. The manual will contain such features as: How a Bill Becomes a Law, Terms used in the Legislative Process, Lobbying Tips, Making Your Legislator Aware of your City's Needs, and AMM Priority Policy Briefings. It is hoped that the manual will be valuable to both the novices and veterans in the legislative field. The manuals will be distributed at the breakfast meetings. Tentative plans are being set to meet with city officials and metropolitan legislators in January. This is a great opportunity to build relationships with the legislators as well as inform them as to the AMM positions and rationale on upcoming key issues. Interest in metro caucusing is encouraging and we expect a high turnout. We are grateful for the support and responsiveness of the Legislative Contacts and are working hard to promote a unified lobbying force. 3. COMPUTER MODELING rie extraordinary effort of cooperation among the various city groups to develop some consensus on property tax issues for the 1'48) legislative session is progressing on schedule. The charter of the Coordinating Committee on P-operty Tax Issues is to upgrade the existing ccmputer model to first determine the effects of 1990 law, and then develop two proposals for change, one of which includes a homestead credit similar to the current law. The first task is basically complete with the effects of the 1990 law fairly well documentei. A detailed description of the primary impact will be put together for AMM members in the near future. However, the most interesting fact developed is that based on the way transition aid .s calculated as a replacement for homestead credit in concert with the new property valuing system, the states property tax relief declines by $65 million between 1989 and 1990. This state savings is a net E55 million -2- when LGA increases are added back into the equation. Bas-d on this and an increase for normal growth, the task force has chosen $120 million as a target for relief in developing the two proposals. At this time the Coordinating Committee is in the process of shaping the contents of each proposal and has had one meeting to discuss them in very general terms. The first proposal draft included a reinstated Homestead Credit, Agricultural Credit, continuation of the 1990 LGA, grandfathering disparity aid, new C/I and non homestead credits to reduce these net tax rates, and reduced tax rates for higher valued homes. The second proposal retained the transition aid system (replacement for homestead credit), adds an agricultural credit to offset the e:'fects on farms of the 1989 to 1990 tax relief decrease, retained LGA, added Welfare takeover for counties, changed the disparity aid to tax base equalization with additional dollars, and reduced tax rates for mid to high value homes. A third proposal may be considered which makes drastic changes to the 1990 law. All of the elements in these proposals are on the table for further discussion and refinement. Each will require detailed analysis, both technically and philosophically. As the process continues and we get closer to determining the actual contents and costs, we will communicate further with the membership. P.S. THE BOARD AND STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WISH EACH OF YOU A JOYOUS HOLIDAY SEASON AND A PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR! DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This Bulletin has been mailed to Mayors, Managers/Administrators and Delegates. Please distribute to otter officials in your city as you deem appropriate. Thank you. r� STATE OF MINNES, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRI JUDO[ ROLAND C. AMUNDSON HCNNCPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNCAPOLI3, MINNESOTA 55487 16121 340•7695 Chief Melvin Kilbo Orono Police Department 445 Willow Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Chief Kilbo: December 6, 1988 Just a quick note to send warmest season's greetings this holiday season. I also wanted to thank you and officers Dan Fischenich and Jim Morrow for the excellent job they did last June at the party there on Casco Circle. Perhaps I was remiss in not earlier telling you that they were very helpful and are extraordinarily good representatives of the Orono Police Department. My thanks and greetings to them as �- well. Indeed to your entire staff wishes for a joyous holiday and happy 1989. Warmest best wishes. Very truly yours, Roland C. Amundson Judge of District Court RCA: tw ccs: Hon. James Grabek, Mayor Mark Bernhardson, City Manager a I MRS. GOODRICH LOWRY 1070 W. FERNDALE RD. WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 58391 ,1 ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT MESS KEY CONTROL NUMBER COCA) E I C 1/ ,. (�-0 /1-1 �� / I CONT AGENCY NCIC (DENT. ICAG) x OATE/TIME REPORT MADE /c- /- Ei M N 10 1 2 1 7 L NOR DATE REPORTED IRPD) F-21—Tf —DIV I TIME RPD (TRP) /1 a�� LOCATION GRID NOR (LGN) DAY: S M T W T F S PLACE COMMITTED (PLC) b 70 Z �* L NBR HRD SQUAD OR BADGE III ISBN) TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME AAR. (TAR) TIME CLR. (TCL) f D L NOR SN UO(C ^ UCS rFFICERASSIGNED ASSISTED OY. / F 51/ M R D C odes P — Phone R — Radio A — Alarm 1 — In Pert V — VI{Uel M — Mail T — Other OFFENSE Lf OR INITIAL COMPL INT ❑ OTHER PRINCIPAL: COMPLAINT ❑ OFFENDER ❑ VICTIM ❑ D.O.B. y- zz- /z BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE OTHER REPORTS INCLUDED 1�-f Impound ❑ Prop Inventory ❑ Implied Consent L/ Accident Report ❑Teyt ❑ Influence Report ❑ Photos ❑ REPORTING PERSON❑OFFENDERL]VICTIM❑ D.O.B. BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE / SEE CASE FILE ROLL CALL Warn & Release Dept. Assist Message Deliver Treated & Transported Advised Citation Issued Detail Completed G.U.A. COPY TO —-- — ------ CO ATTN� ❑ CITY ATTNY ❑ COURT ❑ ❑ OTHER DISPOSI (ION Unfounded % lea►e arrest Ref other agency Inactive Other -- -- OFFICEH4, ��, --- SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE - - _—_— — -- .-----_-.- Adi" iiiiCfraHVP NO to Among the holiday greeting cards received, there are always a few holiday letters. In rather cryptic form the family banished to Toledo, Bismark or Hartford stays in touch by sending a holiday letter. The recipient learns about the major, and some minor, events in the lives of the family members sending the letter. From job changes to trips taken, from school graduations to the loss of a pet, from braces coming or going to embarrassing moments; it is family news and it keeps the reader informed. I thought I might borrow the holiday letter approach and share with you some of what is happening with the school family. • A year ago we were very crowded and all of the projections indicated we would continue to grow. After prolonged negotiations and some legal activities we were able to buy back the lease on the Maple Plain School site It was opened this fall for kindergarten and first grade students as the Orono Primary school. What a delight to have classroom space and rooms available for special subjects. • Did I mention that we burned the mortgage. The bonds on all of the buildings and facilities are paid. We may well be the only school district in the metropolitan area that can make that boast. • We are reviewing the curriculum thanks to a new format that will help us to better coordinate the K-12 program of stud,es and examine our strengths and weaknesses. • The staff development program is off and running providing growth opportunities for faculty members. Speakers Harry Wong and Guy Doud addressed the entire faculty on student self esteem and the human elements in teaching. They were well received. • The Orono Education Fund provided scho!arship dollars to forty four graduating seniors. The scholarships are based on merit and the average value was $500. Cont. on page 3 ORONO SCHOOL BOARD David MCKown, Chairman 479-1692 Don Anderson. Vice Chairman 479-1810 Lucie Taylor. Treasurer 473-1189 Kitty Crosby. Clerk 478-6037 Jim Franklin, Director 479-213C John Maresh. Director 475-3197 Orono Band Invitational The High School Bands from Buffalo, Chaska and Orono will entertain each other at Orono's Holiday Band Invitational in the H.S. Auditorium on Monday, December 5 at 7:00 pm. Kathy Haves and Meg Vogt are ir- charge of refreshments after the program. The public is Invited to attend this free event. Band Holiday Concert Thursday, December 8, at 7:30 pm the H.S. hand and Jazz organizations will present their Holiday Concert. Marches, overtures and Christmas music - ill be featured. The Jazz Ensemble and Stage Band will feature many individual soloists. The concert will close with eight seniors each directing a favorite Christmas carol, accompanying an audience sing -along. There is an admission charge of $2.00 for adults and S1.00 for students. What a wonderful way to begin a festive season. Band and Choir Entertain Seniors On Tuesday, December 20, Orono H.S Band and Choir members will again entertain the Tamarack Club at their annual Christmas party. This long-standing tradition is lust one of the many wavy the Orono Music Department extends their talents to a supportive community. Guidance At A Glance Test Dates SAT: January 28, 1989 Registration Deadline: December 23, 1988 ACT: February 11, 1989 Registration Deadline: January 13, 1989 Financial Aid Meeting On December 5, 1988, there will be a Financial Aid meeting for the parents of seniors. Gary Ness, Financial Aid Officer of Normandale Community College, will be the speaker to guide you through the process for financial aid forms and the family financial statement. Although the meeting is planned for parents of seniors, eleventh grade parents are also welcome. The Family Financial Statement (FFS) and Financial Aid Form (FAF) forms are now available in the guidance office. They may be picked up at anv time, however, they are not to be mailed until after January 1, 1989. These forms request information from your 1988 1040 federal tax returns. Students should carefully check college catalogs to determine which of the two forms their college prefers. Gi aduation Requirements To receive a diploma from Orono High School, a student must take into consideration the following information: 1. Credit is granted on a semester basis. A half unit of credit is granted for successful completion of a semester's work and hill unit credit indicates successful completion of a year -ling course. Not all courses carry full credit, however, and a student should check very carefully that minimum graduation requirements are being met. It is the student's responsibility to meet these requirements. 2. A minimum of five (5) credit courses must be taken during each of the four years of high school. Only those credits earned in grades 9-12 can be applied toward meeting graduation requirements. 3. Twenty (20) total units are required for graduation from Orono High School and must include: Grade Level 4 units of English 9-10-11-12 3 units of Social Studies 9-10-12 2 units of P.E./Health 9-10 1 unit of Science 9 1 unit of Mathematics 9 9 units of Elective Courses 9-10-11-12 20 total units. 4. All students planning to earn credit outside of high school in summer school, night school, by correspondence, etc., must have the approval of their counselor before registering. This is limited to one credit per year. Seniors: Watch for college application deadlines. The deadlines come earlier every vear If vour deadline falls during the Christmas holidays your application should be in the guidance office by December 14, so there is time to get it processed. Cont. next column 2 Now is the time students should be looking for scholarships. Many opportunities are posted on the guidance office bulletin board. There is also a file of all scholarship applications we receive. Time and effort is necessary to find and apply for those scholarships for which you qualify. The ninth grade Differential Aptitude Test results have been received and returncd to the students. If parents have any q! tions cal the guidance office. ..-h....-I-.+++++++.++++-' -+- Emergency School Closing School closing due to severe weather or other emergency reasons will be announced over WCCO (830 AM) radio. In case of serious weather problems or other unavoidable situations when students must be dismissed early, high school, primary and elementary students will be dismissed first, and middle school students last. Please be certain that provisions are made for your children if and when it should become necessary to send them home early. Harriet Tourangeau Volunteer Harriet Tourangeau Honored Channel 11 honored our own Harriet Tourangeau on the November 9th, 5 pm newscast, for her countless hours of volunteering in our elementary and middle school over the past 12 years. She has touched the lives of hundreds of students in Orono through helping them with their school work, correcting thousands of papers, assisting in the library plus manv other countless tasks. Channel 11 and Orono Schools salute Harriet for her dedication to the students of Orono. Chapter I Program Application and Special education Application State Department of Education Program applications are board approved and are public documents. These documents are kept on file in the Special Education office for the Orono School District. Chapter I is a Federally -funded program in Schumann Elementary and Orono Primary School. Children that need extra help in reading, and/or math receive help in addition to their regular classroom work. Special Education serves students with handicaps ages birth-21. All handicapped students with educational needs are served throughout the Orono Schools in a variety of programs. All disabilities are addressed with specific programs in the following areas: • Early Childhood:Special Education • Speech -Language Disabilities • Hearing and/or Vision Impaired • Educable and Trainable Mentally Handicapped • Learning Disabilities • Physically Handicapped • Emotional -Behaviori? Disabilities Contact Karen Orcutt, Director of Special Education at 473-7313, if you have quc itions regarding these programs. Administrative Notes Cont. from page 1 • We changed the school ;lay schedules and a good deal of controversy resulted. Thankfully a hardworking task force is sorting through the issue and collecting opinions from faculty and community. They will be making a recommendation to the Board in December or January. • Enrollment continues to grow and classroom space and care facilities for Intermediate/Middle School students are under study. • This summer and fall were filled with many projects: patching the Middle School roof, re -doing the track, resurfacing the tennis courts, repairing and upgrading the interior of the Middle School. • Most parents attended teacher conferences. Parental support is a key to student success and it really shows at conference time. • The awards, successes, and distinctions earned by students are too numerous to mention. All of our efforts in attending to facilities, curriculum, staff development or anything else is done on behalf of our students. They're great! And as with most holidav letters you have an invitation to come visit. We would love to see vou. And if you have any questions, give me a call (473-7313). In the meantime, every best wish for a satisfying and joy filled holiday. Dr. Thomas B. Mich Superintendent Back row, Ms. Kueppers, Rick Schmidt, Guthrie Linct- Chris Bizzano, Becky Berg, Kristy Stark. Ft. row, Marcus ston, Tim Henningson, Tammi Johnson, Tressy Dillman. Middle School Soccer Tournament Orono Middle School held its annual soccer tournament this fall. 12 teams played a round robin tournament. 1st place - Ms. Kueppers' homeroom 2nd place - Mr. Pregl's homeroom 3rd place - Ms. Jones' homeroom 4th place - Mr. Lindgren's homeroom The top 4 teams played in a championship round to determine the winner. Since sportsmanship is a big part of the tournament, a trophy is awarded to the team that shows the best sportmanship. Ms. Kucppers' homeroom was the winner in this catagory. Each homeroom that participates chooses one student who has shown good sportsmanship to earn art intramural sportsmanship pate`: Those students earning the patch were: Ann Carpentier Russ Wildman Matt Roderick Keith Segner Peter Brambilla Matt Scherer Ben Heitke Mike Jerde Kerry Jenniges Scott Emmack Shannon Marquardt Julie Maas eminder: Annual Hockey Booc,ter Breakfast January 29,1989 H.S. Cafeteria 8:00 am - 1:00 pm 3 - Individual places are as follows: Cross Country at Intermediate and Middle School On Wednesday, October 26th, the Intermediate School held a cross country race in %veather that was cool and cloudy. 36 rur hers completed the course along with Principal Mr. Ron Gilbert and teacher Mr. Richard Stewart. A close race for 1st place in both the 5th grade boys and girls races found excellent runners „inning lst and 2nd. Ribbons were awarded to all participants. 4th Grade Girls 1. Katie Volkart 2. Molly Peschel 3. Dorothy Nue tzel 4th Grade Boys 1. Colin Shaughnessy 2. Eric Larson 3. Darren Lenzen 5th Grade Girls 1. Betsy Falde 2. Meghan Cosgrove 3. Renee Kullberg 5th Grade Bovs 1. George Jukish 2. Ben Morris 3. Matt Krueger Back ro", Rerwe Kullivrg, Darren Lenzen, Matt Krueger. Middle m%,, Enc Larson, Ben Morris, Molly Peschel, Meghan Cosgmye. Ft. row, G(x)rge Jukish, Katie Volkart, Betsy Falde, Colin Shaughnessy Not picutred. Dorothy Nuetzel +++++++++++++.+.++++++++ Congratulations to the participant, in this ve.:rs % iddie School Cross Country Intramural Race. The weather was cold and windy and wet' '1. t, homerooms have won the following 1st place George lohn%on 2nd place Sue wuerpers 3rd place Ray Pregi 4th place On Jacooson 6th Grade Girls 7th Grade Girls 1. Cindy Breen 1. Ameanne Claire 2. Michelle Eisinger 2. Heather Nelson 3. Khara Nordgren 3. Shelly Carlson 8th Grade Girls 7th Grade Girls 1.Courtnev Cassem 1. Ameanne Claire 2. Becky Berg 2. Heather Nelson 3. lodi Nikko 3. Shelly Carlson 7th Grade Bovs Sth Grade Boys 1. Ryan Kullbcrg 1. Dan Peschel 2. Dustin Nadeau 2. Colin Rhame 3. Rvan Olson 3. Chris Bizzano Back row, Becky Berg, Colin Rhame, Michelle Eisinger, Heather Nelson, Ben Pagel. Middle, Dustin NaAcau. Front row, Dan Peschel, Courtney Cassem, Ameanne Claire, Rvan Kullberg, Cindy P een, Erick Whiffs Ti,%-o Orono Students in Minnesota Bov Choir Two Onmo students have rvivntl• auditioned and been selected to sing in the intematbonall famous Minnesota Boy Chem. ram::. MCMahill, grade ;, son of larrnr- and Man, MCMahill, and Tom Kelley, grade in, soon of ►ohn end Shell• McAlpin an- part of the 40 member ctxnr The chotr consists of bovs tram ages E to 14. The Boy Choir prrforrns trequenth %ith the Minnesota Orchestra, the St. T'aul Chamber Or;hestra, and mo%t recentiv fox a testival 4 in Vienna, Austna "The Way Things Work" Activity Calendar During the month of November the students in Mrs. Shoop's art class (Mrs. Aldrich's third graders) were District Activities introduced to Calderott winner David Macaulay, author 12/1 All District Piano Recital HS Aud........... 5:00 and illustrator. 12/12 Board Meeting, MS Vocal Music Room ...... 7:00 The students talked and thought about inventions and 12/22 Winter Break b.gins how they work. After some initial sketches, they and their Elementary Activities parents put together some new and wonderful inventions. 12/1 Cheepskate PTA Family Fun Night ......... 6:00 After bringing them back to school more drawings were 12/5 SE Open House .......................... 6:30 dorie and a book was made for a permanent record of the 12/12 Primary School Open House ...............6:30 exciting activity. 12/20 Primary & Elem. Dec. B.D. Party On November 18 Mr. Macaulay was at the Bookcase i.•i In!ermediate/Middle School Activities Wayzata where he autographed his new bo;,k i he Way 12/5 IS PAC meeting .......................... 7:15 Things Work". The shident's inventions were on display for 12/6 IS/MS Band Concert, Aud................. 7:30 a week at the Bookcase. 12/7 IS/ MS Band Assembly..++..-I-++-I-+++-f.++++..++.-I-+ 12/13 IS/ Choir Concert, MS Gym .. ........ 7:30 12/14 ISMS Choir Assembly 12/21 IS Reward Day 1988-89 Fellowship Participant High School Activities Pat Shoop 12/1 Girls Basketball - Break ....................7:30 Mrs. Pat Shoop, Elementary art teacher, has been selected Gymnastics - Brooklyn Center ............. 7:30 as one of 28 Art and C\lusic educators in the state of 1?/2 Boys Basketball at Farmington ............. 7:30 Minnesota to participate in the Minnesota Department of 12/3 Wrestling at Delano ......................10:00 Education Professional Development Plan Fellowship 12/5 Band Invitational, Aud.................... 7:00 Program for 1988-89. The fellowship participants will place Financial Aid meeting, Choir Room........ .7:00 emphasis on teaching objectives and the importance of arts 12/6 Wrestling - Farmington at MS ..............7:30 education in their schools. Girls Basketball atMinnehaha .............7:30++-I-++-f-+-I-....-I-++++++++++++ Boys Basketball - Centennial ...............7:30 Hockey - St. Cloud Cathedral .............. 7:30 12/8 Band Concert, Aud ....................... 7:30 Enrollmen` Options Programs 12/9 Girls Basketball - Farmington .............. 7:30 In recent years the Minnesota legislature has moved to Gymnastics - Centennial .................. 7:30 provide students and parents with a wide variety of Hockey - Winona .........................7:30 options to enhance their educational opportunity 'The 12/12 Hockey r` Centennial .....................7:30 following options are now available: Gymnastics -Delano ......................6:30 1. Postsecondary Enrollment Options 12/13 Girls Basketball at Mahtomedi ............. 7:30 2. High School Graduation Incentives Bovs Basketball at Mound ................. 7:30 3. Area Learning Centers 12/15 Choir Concert. Aud. ......................7:30 4. Minor Parents, Pregnant Minor Option 12/16 Gymnastics at Blake ...................... 7:30 5. K-12 Enrollment Options Girls Basketball at C- ..inial ..............7:30 Anyone desiring more information may call either the Boys Basketball - St. .nthony ..............7:30 High School Counselors (473-5472) or the District Office Wrestling - Brooklyn Center at MS ..........7:30 (473-7313). Hockev at Minnehaha .....................7:00 .} .} .1..}..... .... + + + + + + + + + + + + 12/20 Girls Basketball - St. Bernards ..............7:30 fknys Basketball at Break ...................7.00 Continuing Education Guidelines Wrestling - St Anthony at MS ..............7:30 Continuing Education Guidelines have been written to Hockey - St Agnes ....................... 7:30 t2/ 27 Girls k Bovs Basketball at Brooklyn Center meet new stall rc'gulahons. A packet of the new materials Tournev may be picked up in any of the Orono school offices by 12/29 1lo kew at Red Wing those teachers needing these materials for reluvnsure The 12/30 GvmirvAshcs - Tournev 100 meetings of the Orono Continuing Education Committee for the %choxil year 19W 1989 are as folk►ws. Dt twr 7, ! 9M 7•G� March 19H9 M3 Slav , 19tt9 Marvel &ingart.5ccrctan• 5 Continuing Education ComrTuttiN, Administration of Me,.'Acation to Students in School in order to have your child receive medication di ring school hours, we will n<_ed to have a WRITTEN order by a licensed physician, and WRITTEN permission frw.i the parent giving us authorization to give the child medication. The medication to be administered must be brought to school in a container appropriately labeled by the pharmacy or physician. The bottle that you receive from the pharmacy containing the medication is ad,quate. M ication must be brought into the nurse's office. This policy does not apply to over the counter medication, aspirin or Tylenol. If you need to send this type of medication to school with your child, bring it in the original container and tell us when the child should have ;t and the reason why he/she needs to take. it. Any medication brought in an unidentified container will not be administered. You may use the form below if your child needs to take medication while in school. Have the physictar fill out the upper part of the form. The parent fills in the lower part. If you choose not to use this form the same information needs to be written by t: 1, doctor and the parent on a form of your choice. Any questions please call JoAnn Ree, Orono Schad Nurse, 473-5472 ext. 227. Independent School District 278 Long Lake, Minnesota AUTHORIZATION FOR GIVING ML.JICATION IN SCHOOLS Name of Student Birthdate Address _ Telephone Number Parent or Guardian's Name School Room TO BE FILLED IN BY PHYSICIAN Diagnosis of child's illness: —_ Type, dosage, purpr se of drug Physician's signature Telephone number 1. I request medication he given at school as prescribed by a physician. 2. I release the school personnel from liabili!y in the event any reaction results from the medication. Signature of parent or guardian Date. Note: Medication to be supplied in original prescription bottle labeled - one for home, one for school. —•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•— —Child Care The Ridgedale YMCA in cooperation with the Orono Schcxd District's child care program has made revisions in the program and given it a new name. The child care program is now called YMCA Kid's Country. The changes include adding morning care for kindergarten and extended hours for after school care. Another new addition to YMCA Kid's Country program is ,.Lpiitting the after school care into two sections. The first session runs from 2:10 to 4:15, and the second session runs from 4:15 to 6..00, This change is designed for parents who need a more flexible program. To participate in the drop -in, school release, or the AM kindergarten, or the regular program your child must be pre- mVsrered- For morn information repedtng registration and fees call San at 544-7708, or the program site at 47s-1:25. Ask for the medication to be divided in two bottles each 5 NEWSLETTER ADNOWST ATtOM ORICI 095 OLD CRYSTAL MAY ROAD 0*0Pr" LOMG LAKE tllMN[SOT• 993-S city Of Orono \ p.0. Box 66 0r,.-atal Bay MN 55323 A PAID AAAA TA 9 Sfiringsted pubh"'hed by SPRINGSTED Incorporated Public Finance Advisors Series 1988 December I After falling to the year's low of 7.33% on I Jovernber 3, the Bond Buyer Index ('9131" rose each of the next three weeks to 7.58% on November 23. This was still below the year's high of 7.97% on May 19. Springsted's chart of Minnesota average rates for general obli- g,:tion "A" rated bonds fLr the week ending Novembe- 18 showed: I -year: 5.80%; 5-years: 6.20, 10-years: 6.65%; 15-years: 7.10%, and 20-years: 7.35%. The spread between 10-year "A" bonds was only .05% less for "Aua" and .20% more for "Boo" bonds. The current nutional and international erpre!sions of concern for the budget de' .it would seem to mostly account for Interest Rates the upward pressure on TRENDS rates. the current 30- t01 ----"— day visible supply of new offerings is well T — MYWTAXDMwrr below the year's high of e -- r --�„ < - ----- $ 4.4 6 billion, so t oci t is not the problem. It will L., take more than this b �_ vFD� type c.f ;pressure though cr a ft to motivate meaningful Adebt reduction steps. Our perception is that -- ----- - -- it won't happen until 74VYVARAMRATE tAXFXEWT the pain is much more ' — - - severe. Everyone seems to agree some- ` M A N J thin needs to be done �yerr r. r�� � s o � o r-eer r � r � � s o M o g , and quickly, "but not to favorite program." Until a general spirit of concession is ignited by the flames of near catastrophe, the debt will continue to be what iq talked about after the weather. It is difficult to see that a clear debt reduc- tion mandate was given by the voters at the 'Jivernber 8th election. On the other hand, th.ey really were not asked for one. Minnesota County arxl City Debt Limits The 1988 Minnesota State tax laws contained numerous surprises, not all pleasant. Cities and counties discovered their net debt capacity was reduced to approximately one -eighth its former level. Prior to September 15, 1988, the net debt limit for cities and counties was equul to 7-1/3% of their assessed valuation. However, Laws of Minnesota 1988, Chapter 719, Article V, Sectiun 84 eliminated the term "assessed valuation" and substituted "gross tax capacity." While tax capacity figures for 1989 are just now becoming available, most have been around 12.5% of the former assessed valuation. Debt of cities for special assessment, tax increment, and revenue supported projects is generally exempt from the debt limit. However, tax supported debt for buildings, parks and other nonrevenue producing projects is subject to the limit, us ore equipment certificates of indebtedn^ss. An additional problem with the equipment certificutes is the reverse refererxtvrn possibility. Previously, the referendum Qb ECM sa+wo Pry suM too 2S t NorM Mirrors sk" iwr t SW !1M Elm b - a ANS Sort W OW flux M.xwiaa Sbt01214 + k+awypaa wow* 4&—A Iw Eac GPM* MMoor 0 Ills" am 717 237 3M 41101 7W 4M process was applicable only when the certificates exceeded 1`Xo of "assessed valuation." Since the limit is now 1% of "gross tax capacity," nearly all certificate issues will be subject to a referendum. Most county debt, including county capital improvement bonds authorized this year by Minnesota Statutes, Section 373.40, also are subject to the more restrictive debt limit. This dramatic reduction appears to be the result of inadvertent oversight by the Legislature, so there is reasonable expectation it will be remedied. We suggest You contact the members of your legislative delegation before the 1989 Session stunts, to alert them to the problem, and urge remedial action early in the session to restore the debt limits to previous levels. School districts are not affected by this problem since their debt limit is based on "market valuation." Recent Developments The SEC, finally stirred into action by the Washington Public Power Supply System ("WPPSS") debacle, has announced it shall demand more rigid disclosure standards. Thus far though, ;t is largely keeping to itself precisely what it has in mind. Its announced generalities so for have littl,. supporting detail. It does appear certain greater responsibility, and probably liability, will be placed upon everyone connected with a state or local government bond issue to make full disclosure. This will make preparation of the Official Statement an even more critical part of any issue. The technical correction tax biil has at lonj last been passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Generally, the bill did small further damage to tax -exempts. In fact, in some instances there was withdrawal from previous more stringent restrictions. For example, the use of single family mortgage bonds was extended for one year, through December 31, 1989. Bond Approvals On November 8th, voters throughout the country were presented with a record $15.6 billion of proposed bond issues. This exceeded the previous $9.1 billion record set in 1968 by 65%. Apparently, the additional Ic�al debt did not greatly alarn ")e voters because they approved 91 % of the proposals. A Closing Personal Note This is the last Letter I shall edit. On the 15th of this month I will end my daily association with Springsted, an association which has extended over 35 years. Since January I of this year, when Bob Pulscher took the reins as CEO, I have been in the process of withdrawal. It was when I began to realize that more people on the staff were addressing me as "Mister" instead of Ossie that I recognized it was appropriate for me to make way for younger people. I shall always hava a deep sense of satisfaction whenever I go throughout Minnesota and see projects of which Springsted was privileged tc be a part. Most of all, I remember the hundreds of pleasant associations which I have had with the people with whom I have had the opportunity to work. Each of us at Springsted is constantly enriched by interaction with you whom we serve. You are truly Ouality! To each of you, I give my deepest thanks for a great and fun experience! 4 �, �- ��_ � �" t In 2t"+�a.��ti�a MINUTES OF THE 1988 CANVASSING BOARD MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1988 ATTENDANCE 5:87 P.M. The Orono Council met as the 1988 Canvassing Board on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Nettles and Peterson. Councilmembers Goetten and Callahan were absent. The following represented City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson and Public Works Gerhardson. 1988 CITY ELECTION RESULTS It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to certify the results of the November 8, 1988 City election as follows: Mayor - two year term, James Grabek receiving 1,378 votes. Councilmembers - four year terms, Barbara Peterson receiving 2,639 votes and Edward J. Callahan, Jr. receiving 2,300 votes and Councilmember - two year term, Alan Nettles receiving 2,124 votes. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1988 COUNCIL MEETING As both the Mayor and Acting Mayor were not expected to be present at the 'in mber 14, 1988 Council meeting, Mayor r: -k moved and Councilmember Nettles �- rded the appointment of Councilmember �erson as Acting Mayor for the November 14, 1988 Council meeting. Ayes 3, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT 5:15 P.M. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Nettles to adjourn the 1988 Canvassing Board meeting at 5:15 P.M. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. Jame R. Grabe , Mayor ~� AT'f T: thy allfn, City Clerk 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 28, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Planning Consultant Shardlow, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bernhardson requested the removal of Consent Item #6; Councilmember Goetten requested removal of items #21 and #26; Councilmember Peterson requested that item #24 be removed. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items #6, #21, #24 and #26, which were removed and discussed in the order they appear on the agenda. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. APPRROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the Canvassing Board Meeting of November 9, 1988. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1988 Regular Council Meeting. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS* The Park Survey was presented to the Council for their review. LAKB MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Ms. Jo Ellen Hurr was present as a representative of the LMCD. She offered congratulations -o the re-elected Mayor and Councilmembers. Mayor Grabek congratulated Ms. Hurr on being elected Chairperson of the LMCD. Ms. Hurr reported that drafting of the LMCD C -,inprehensive Plan was proceeding. There have been many meetings in this regard involving the DNR, the Corp of Engineers, the Watershed Districts and Hennepin Parks. There will also be LMCD meetings involving shoreland regulations. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth is representing Orono at those meetings. The LMCD is attempting to write uniform shoreland regulations over which the LMCD would have jurisdiction. She commented that Orono was a forerunner in conserving the 75' setback. 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVE14BER 28,1988 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED Eurasian Milfoil continues to be a problem and the LMCD is in need of funding to help address the situation. She said that it is a very serious threat to Lake Minnetonka, especially in its low state. The LMCD had received a copy of the operating policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding the dam level. She said that the LMCD will support continuing the same agreement that currently stands pertaining to the elease of water. Mayor Grabek asked when Lake Minnetonka was i&st at such a low level. Ms. Hurr said that it was this low back in the 1960's. She anticipated that due to the low level, there would be an increase in the requests for dredging. The LMCD has little jurisdiction for legislating dredging, and they are trying to change that. The LMCD is making quarterly reports to the Met Council and received a positive review from them. Mayor Grabek inquired about snowmobiling rules. Ms. Hurr replied that the LMCD is trying to make the existing snowmobiling rules more simple to interpret. The LMCD is also trying to address any conflicts that may exist between snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Ms. Hurr further reported that the sewer project involving County Road 51 took a bit longer than anticipated. She said that the Navarre Business Owners have expressed concern over the closing of County Road 19 in the Spring. She said that she would report further in that regard at a later date. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1296 PETERSON/STODOLA 1895 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Tillotson and Mr. Peterson were present for this matter. As explained by City Adminisitrator Bernhardson, the original application involved a request to install a dock on property with no principal structure. It was later determined that Mr. Tillotson's dock was located on the Peterson/Stodola property. Mr. Stodola and Mr. Peterson were now proposing to do a lot line rearrangement with Mr. Tillotson and share his dock. The process of the lot line rearrangement would allow the City to place conditions on the property and the use of the dock. Staff is recommending that this application be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review so that the lot line rearrangement could proceed. MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1296-PETERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth clarified that an accessory structure could not be placed on property that had no principal structure. However, the lot line rearrangement would place the accessory structure with the Tillotson residence. Orono code does not distinguish between an accessory structure dock as being shared or singly owned. The LMCD Code would have allowed an accessory dock with no principal structure, in this case, because it was created prior to 1978. There may be a question as to whether the intent of the code .is met with this application. City Attorney Barrett provided the interpretation of Orono's codes as they would relate to this application. He stated that the code talks about a "private dock" as an accessory structure. However, there is no definition regarding a private dock. The code would clearly prevent commercial use of such a dock, but does not address the situation in this case. It was Councilmember Fettles belief that boat title had to be in the name of the property owner to prevent private docks from becoming private marinas. Mabusth stated that it would be the LMCD's codes that would address the issue of boat ownership. The LMCD would approve this application. Ms. Hurr interjected that it would be possible to have two boats without the need to prove ownership. Hcwever, ownership of all boats must be provided for any dock with more than two boats, unless a multiple dock license were issued. Ms. Hurr added that the LMCD has been allowing dock sharing to occur due to the low level of Lake Minnetonka. Mabusth commented that in this application, the dock was in a very limited lagoon with no riparian access. Maintenance dredging will need to be done to allow boat access. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicants had attempted to address the issues raised by the Council in the first review. Staff has presented alternatives of action. She said that the proposal also resolves the concern of Mr. Gustafson's many uncombined tracts. The applicants have stated that they will acquire the remaining tracts and Parcel 0003 and combine them. Counci lmember Goetten observed that this application was proposing a new concept. In the 10 years in which she had been involved with the City she had not seen such a case. She could not understand how the City could consider approving such a proposal. Mabusth stated that the City was being asked to consider this unusual solution in exchange for the remaininq tracts being combined and belonging to one owner. With the subdivision, the City would be able to better control the parcP1. Goetten voiced her fear of precedent setting for other substandard lots in Orono. Mabusth felt that this application was unique and that it would be unusual for another lakeshore property owner to give up boat slips in order to allow owners of undersized lots to share a dock. Goetten disagreed, ritinq 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1296-PETERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED financial benefits as an attraction. Mr. Tillotson explained that his interest in this arrangement would be the boat traffic keeping the lagoon open, as well as the financial support he would receive for dredging. He further stated that the Peter son/Stodola property was currently an eyesore. He would like to see a cleared, grassy area, rather than the brush that now exists. City Administrator Bernhardson pointed out the fact that Mr. Peterson and Mr. Stodola could have just applied for a lot line rearrangement, which the City probably would have approved so that Mr. Tillotson's dock would actually be on his property. According to the LMCD regulations, if only two boats were docked at Mr. Tillotson's dock, the question would never arise as to who owned the boats. Councilmember Goetten asked whether acquiring the additional Gustafson property would make the property buildable. Mabusth replied that even the additional land would not help in that regard. In order to build, the City would have to grant precedent -setting variances. Mabusth reiterated the fact that the City Council had not reviewed any applications such as this in the past. Goetten believed that approval of this application would spawn more applications of a similar nature in the future. Councilmember Callahan concurred with Goetten, but thought it best to refer this matter back to Planning Commission for their review. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to refer Application #1296 back to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1321 TOM HAISLET 950 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #2544 EXECUTION OF DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT Mr. Tom Haislet, Bill F'enholdt and Tony Leung were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson clarified that the Developer's Agreement had not been completed. However, the Resolution indicates that the Final Resolution is contingent upon the execution of the Developer's Agreement by the School District and City of Oronc All issues involved within the Developer's Agreement have been mutually agreed upon, only execution of the document is remaining to be done. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution 02544, contingent upon the execution of the Developer's Agreement. Motion, Ayes=5, MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVE14BER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1321-HAISLET CONTINUED Nays=O, Motion passed. #1329 THOMAS MCNELLIS 355 WOODHILL ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2545* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, variance for property Nays=O, Motion passed. Councilmember Nettles, seconded by to adopt Resolution #2545, granting a at 355 Woodhill Road. Motion, P_yes=5, #1334 SIDNEY RBBERS 715 NORTH BROWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Sidney Re bers, Mr. Stephen Pf laum, and Mr. Robert Kost were present for this matter. Mr. John Shardlow was also present as a Planning Consultant for the City of Orono. As explained by City Administrator Bernhardson, Mr. Rebers was seeking approval of a conditional use permit and preliminary subdivision for a plans.-d residential development (PRD). He reminded the Council that the rezoning application for this property had been presen'.:ed and approved on October 10, 1988. One of the main issues that was discussed during the review process was the access road being a looped road .rather than a cul de sac. The Planning Commission recommended a looped road and that the access be moved farther north to the crest of the hill on North Brown Road. Woodland preservation was another issue that was addressed. There will be specifications within the covenants as well as the Subdivider's Agreement. The present proposal is to restrict the removal of any tree over 2" in diameter within the side and rear yard setbacks. Approval of the final subdivision would be contingent upon municipal sewer being available to the property. The applicant would be assessed for the sewer to his property and would also share in the cost of upgrading Brown Road at the time that would occur. The City anticipates that M.S.A. funds would be available for the major portion of Brown Road upgrade. Issues yet to be addressed would be the frontage road and possible alignment of North Browr Road. These issues would be brought forth following the development of thy? residential area. The southern portion of Mr. Rebers' property is not being developed at this time. There is specific property designated as an outlot that would be utilized as a frontage road. Mr.. Shardlow gave a brief synopsis of this application and how it related to the Highway 12 Corridor Study and Amended Comprehensive Plan for Orono. The Rebers' rezoning request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The key issues, Mr. Shardlow felt, were those Mr. Tim Adams set forth in 5 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL 14EPTING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBV3RS CONTINUED a letter to the City. Mr. Adams is concerned about sanitary sewer, from where it will come, and who will be financially responsible for it. The frontage road and upgrade of Brown Road are other concerns. The Council had previously reviewed a set of special minimum requirements for any application for rezoning on the Highway 12 Corridor area. Due to the special constraints and opportunities available for that area, the City had prepared a set of requirements that were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All of the established requirements relate directly to the issues raised by Mr. Adams. Mr. Shardlow explained that any rezoning application within the Highway 12 Corridor would require the applicant to demonstrate that sanitary sewer is available and that the developer will be responsible for the cost. No feasibility study has been done in that regard for the Rebers' application, tu* two options are available and the developer will be financially responsible. The frontage road in relation to the plan, occupies land which is outside the limits of the subdivision. There was a small portion of the property, to the west end, where a portion of the land contained in the plat will be required to allow enough space to clear the hack of the Wear property. Mr. Rebers has agreed to put the land in an outlot and to enter into a development agreement which will specifically address the use of the outlot and tie it in with the Comprehensive Plan. The Rebers application must also adhere to the necessary transportation improvements outlined in the Comprehensive Plans before it can proceed. Improvements to Brown Road remain a concern and were discussed during the entire review process. Brown Road is an M.S.A. (Municipal State Aid) street. Should the City deem Brown Road to be a priority, funding -wise, monies are available for improvements. Mr. Shardlow commented that it was the belief of the City Engineer that Orono funded improvements to M.S.A. roads entirely with M.S.A. funds. Mr. Stephen Pflaum provided an overview of the restrictions the Planning Commission recommended. He explained that the subdivision request was the second part of a two-part process. He gave a brief synopsis of what had taken place prior to the review and request for approval currently before the Council. The issues Mr. Rebers was asked tc address by the Planning Commission were as follows: Woodland Preservation. The property is heavily wooded and tree preservation was cited as being a reason for sewered one acre lots versus two acre lots with septic. Tree preservation was also used to support the request for a PRD. The Planning Commission recommended that no tree removal occur within the 50' to 70' perimeter of the entire residential area. This area will be desiqnated as a private trail system. The tram system will 6 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED extend to the middle of the parcel so that the rear of each lot will have a wooded area owned by the homeowner's association. In addi,ion, tree preservation will be mandatory on each lot. The building pad of each lot would be defined by the 50' front and rear setbacks and 30' side setbacks. Within those setback areas, tree removal will be limited to trees under 2" in diameter, with the exception of the proposed driveway area, where any size tree may be removed. The homeowner may remove any dead and/or diseased trees. As a final measure to preserve trees, within the established building pad, only 80% may be hardcover, including the driveway. These restrictions should provide for and maintain heavily wooded lots. Private Road. Initially there was discussion involving the possibility of connecting the private road with Pine Ridge. That idea was discarded. There will be a looped road that will be free-standing. Access will be on North Brown Road and due to recommendations by the Planning Commission, was moved to the crest of the hill. This was to maximize sight distance and increase safety. The City Engineer recommended that the access be placed south of the hill and stated that sight distance from that point would not be a problem. The developer has indicated that it matters not where the access is placed. Sewer and Water. The developer understands that a plat cannot be recorded until there is an acceptable, signed contract producing water and sewer to the site. The availability of water will depend upon the City's negotiations for sewer. The site would take private wells if that is the direction in which the City would prefer. There are two access points for sewer. One would be immediately across the street, near the Long Lake State Bank, and the other is from the existing Long Lake/Orono interceptor.. In either case, any agreement to produce sewer and water, or just sewer, would require the developer to bear the cost. If the City were to choose a route for the sewer that would connect Ringers Wood, that would be a separate issue between Mr. Ringer and Mr. Otten. Brown Road. Mr. Reber's is willing to bear his share of upgrading Brown Road, if the City should decide to do so. There is already the requirement for Mr. Rebers to dedicate 33' alone the easterly portion of Brown Road for right-of-way. City Consultant Shardlow clarified the issue of the access. He stated that originally it was proposed at a point close to the present proposal, dithin the southern third of the property. City Staff performed a site examination and then recommended relocating the access point 50' south to improve sight distance. The Planning Commission then recommended that access be moved north, to the crest of the hill, where they felt sight distance was best. Mayor Grabek askea Ms. Mabusth to indicate where her residence was in relation to the proposed access. Mabusth MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334--REBERS CONTINUED complied. Mr. George Johnson questioned whether placing the access on the crest of the hill would not present safety problems in the winter? Mabusth agreed. Mr. Bob Beach asked what circumstances might exist that would cause the adjacent property owners to pay for improvements to Brown Road? City Administrator Bernhardson clarified that the City generally paid for improvements to M.S.A. roads entirely with M.S.A. funds and does not assess the benefit to any abutting property owners. The City, however, is looking to review that because there are currently a number of M.S.A. roads that are in need of upgrade within the next 10 to 15 years. The assessement to property owners would be a small portion of the upgrade and would be determined at the time the work was done. Upgrades to non-M.S.A. roads are totally assessed :-o abutting property owners. Mr. Rebers would have an equal financial share of upgrading Brown Road. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to plans to upgrade Brown Road North in 1992 and whether development of the Rebers' property would hasten development? Bernhardson replied that originally North Brown Road was scheduled for upgrade in 1994. The Rebers' development would not be solely responsible for revising the upgrade date. There is a proposed safety improvement for Highway 12 tentatively scheduled to occur in 1991. It may be appropriate to upgrade North Brown Road at that time. Mr. Dick Fordyce asked whether North Brown Road in the near future would be upgraded due to the Rebers' development? Bernhardson responded that North Brown Road world be upgraded regardless of whether the Rebers project proceeded or not. Mr. Fordyce felt that the Rebers' fair share would be the total amount of the project. Mr. Tim Adams asked for the definition of "upgrade". Bernhardson explained that the Brown Road would have to meet the M.S.A. standards. City Engineer Cook further explained that if the road were built as a rural section, with ditches, it would have to have a 40' with a 24' blacktop surface and 8' shoulders. If it is done as a rural section, there would be more disruption. If it were done as an urban section with curbs and gutters, the road would need to be 32' wide, rather than 40'. However, if the road were only 32' there could be no parking along the side of the road. A 36' road would allow for parking along one side. Mayor Grabek asked for the current width of Brown Road. Cook said the road was approximately 221- 24'. In order to comply with M.S.A. standards for a rural section, however, ditches would have to dug. In addition to the 40' top, 16' would be necessary for the ditches. By the time the project were completed, it would probably be 60' wide. Brown Road would need to be brought up to M.S.A. standards regardless of the Rebers' project. Public Works Director Gerhardson commented that Old Crystal Bay Road, going by the School and south from Highway 12 to County MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL 14BETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED Road 84, would be a typical example of a rural section of a M.S.A. road. Mr. Armand Brachman asked who would have the final say as to whether. Brown Road would be improved? He suggested that a poll of Brown Road residents would indicate that they would not wish to have the road upgraded. He also asked about a proposal to place a cul de sac at the end of North Brown Road and redirecting traffic along a frontage road south of Mr. Rebers' property. He again asked who would make a final decision to do that and felt that there were other alternatives that may not require Brown. Road to be upgraded at all. Bernhardson said the it would be the City Council's decision and should assessing be necessary, a public hearing would be held. The issue of a cul de sac would also involve the City of Long Lake because a portion of Brown Road does fall within Long Lake. Mavor Grabek asked what factors were used to determine whether a road needed upgrading? Public works Director Gerhardson replied that the type of traffic, condition of the road and development in the area would all be factors. Mr. Brachman observed that wt.:.ther Highway 12 was directed north or stayed where it currently is, Brown Road would be cut off. In his opinion, Brown Road, really does not serve as an arterial road. Unfortunately it is used as a shortcut by many people. He would rather minimize the amount of traffic, not enhance it. Mayor Grabek sympathized with Mr. Brachman, but stated that everyone living in Orono would like to see traffic on their street minimized. He added that he would not be in favor of upgrading Brown Road unless it was necessary. George Johnson asked whether there were any plans to straighten Brown Road so it would align with Virginia Avenue? City Administrator Bernhardson explained that option was raised by MN DOT. It could be done on the southerly property without impact to the present subdivision. Mr. Johnson said it would have impact on a collecting area in a commercial area. B nhardson clarified that what MN DOT was proposing for 1991 was providing turn lanes on highway 12 between North Brown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. Tim Adams wanted more information about the intersection and the frontage road. He wanted to see the proposal as to an access onto Highway 12. Shardlow said that the Comprehensive Plan merely states that a frontage road will be provided. Rebers has proposed a location that would serve those parcels from the rear that fronted on Highway 12. There are uther alternatives. Until development progresses, there really is no need to know where the frontage road will be, only that there wi l l be one. City Engineer Cook showed the various proposals on the sketch. 9 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVFJ4BER 28,19138 ZONING FILE ;1334-REBERS CONTINUED Armand Brachman asked if the rezoning was done to accommodate 1 acre lots or an average density of 1 acre lots. Shardlow responded that it was 1 acre lots. The PRD provided the opportunity co meet the overall density with the incorporation of the open space. If it were not for the large open space, the development would have been limited to 1 acre lots. Mr. Brachma �ointed out Lhat when the Subdivision was initially presented t possibility of two acre lots was mentioned to buffer the northerly property line. The current proposal indicates that the smallest lots are along that line. He commented that people moving to Orono were trying to escape the higher density look. He asked Mr. Rebers if he would consider converting the 6 1 acre lots into 3 2 acre lots. If that were not possible, Mr. Brachman wanted screening provided, in the form of additional vegetation planted. He asked that any evergzeens that needed removal for the road, be relocated along the northerly line to create an additional visual barrier. Mr. Pf laum said that if it were feasible and the planting location could be accessed without disturbing existing trees, that would be an acceptable solution. With regard to the 2 acre lots, Mr. Pf laum believed that combining the lots would change the ratios for the entire development. It would also change the construction costs and utility costs. The current proposal represents a series of refinements in response to the City's requests to come up with a comprehensive plan that provided the maximum buffering all the way around. Mr. Dennis Platteter clarified that the north part of the Rebers property that abuts his land has only brush. There are only large, nature trees on 2 of the 6 lots. He said that he came to Orono because of the 2-acre minimum lot size. He believed that the PRD would change the characteristics of Orono tremendously. He referred to this kind of deve lepmer.t as high density, not rural residential. Mr. Platteter was also concerned about the potential increase in traffic or, North Brown Road if it is upgraded and widened. He stated that tr- Planning Commission initially discussed placing rural fencing between his property and Rebers'. A 4' wire fence was suggested. Mr. Platteter felt that due to the high density development taking place, that "rural" fencing was not appropriate. He believed this development would set a precedent for additir—al 1-acre subdivisions all the way to County Road 6. He belieweu that was the wrong direction for Orono. Mr. Platteter wanted to xnow what the developer intended to do about potential trespassing on his property. He also questioned the fact that the lake was mentioned by the Planning Commission as an amenity to this development. He pointed out the fact that only George Johnson's property, in addition to his own, had lake access. Mr. Pf laum did not recall mentioning the lake as a se l 1 .ng paint for the Rebers' property. with regard to the fence, he 10 !MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED said that the Planning Commission had suggested a perimeter fence to run along the boundary of the property. However, property owners to the west ind.icdted that they did not want the fence. This would mean the fence would run east to west along the northern boundary and could easily be walked around. Also, the Planning Commission decided that approving a barrier would set a precedent for future subdivisions. He said the Mr. Rebers was neutral as long as it would have no negative impact on their development. Mr. Platteter said that he received no prior information concerning the proposed fence plan and was not provided with any visual proposals at the meeting. He said he asked for a non- penetratable barrier. Plantings and natural vegetation would provide such a barrier. Councilmember Goetten said that the City in the past when reviewing subdivisions had always tried to work with severely affected property owners. She felt that Mr. Rebers' agents could work with the Platteters to reach an acceptable compromise. Mr. Pflaum said that as long as they could access the area where the barrier was needed he felt that something could be worked out. He did not want to create a logging road for that purpose. Mr. Platteter expressed his frustration in the misrepresentation that the area in question was heavily wooded. He reiterated the fact that it was primarily brush. Goetten concurred with Mr. Platteter. Mr. Pflaum stated that conceptually he had no problem. George Johnson commented that the 1-acre lots represented more of a precedent -setting factor than the barrier requested by Mr. Platteter. He asked whether he and Platteters could join properties and request a 1-acre subdivision. He said that Swansons could also subdivide as could many other property owners. Pflaum explained that the Comprehensive Plan was amended and the property was rezoned to permit sewer and water. In addition, the MUSA line was amended. He said that any other subdivision of this kind would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The MUSA line would also need further amending and the applicant's plan amendment would need approval from the Metropolitan Council. He said that the Rebers subdivision was done in a way to address the characteristics of the site. George Johnson asked whether the sewer would go down Brown Road if it were upgraded? Specifically he wondered if it would run to existing one acre lots? He anticipated that would happen because there are areas such as Country Club that are currently having problems. City Engineer Cook stated that if there were some severe problems the City would have to look at some options. However, it was not the City's intent at this time to take sewer beyond where it exists. Mr. Johnson felt that issue would he 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBRRS CONTINUED looked at before plans were made to upgrade Brown Road. Councilmember Callahan pointed out the fact that the upgrading of Brown Road was included in a proposal to upgrade all of the M.S.A. roads within Orono. He said the Rebers subdivision and the issue of sewer have nothing to do with upgrading Brown Road. Mr. Johnson asked Callahan as to his opinion regarding the proposed subdivision. Callahan replied that he thought the plan to be a good one, and had no objections to the 6 lozs along the northern boundary. Mr. Brachman believed that the initial proposal called for 1 acre lots at a minimum. However, there are now lots proposed to be 3/4's of an acre. It bothered him that the plan had varied. He compared the density to Ferndale North, and added that he did not move to Orono to look at that. Mayor Grabek said that the lots could be 1 acre but it would eliminate the buffer. Mr. Duncanson suggested that since there seemed to be enough public dissatisfaction with the development, that perhaps the application should be returned the Planning Commission. Mayor Grabek stated that he underst :he residents' unhappiness. He said that there was always .atisfaction of neighbors with improvements. He assured the neighbors that he and the Council were doing their best to properly develop the land within Orono. He said there were two sides to this issue. Mrs. Duncanson stated that the majority of the citizens of Orono were against the 1 acre zoning. She did not understand how the Council could claim to represent the citizens of Orono. The question arose as to whether Mr. Rebers intended to reside within the subdivision and whether he was even a citizen of Orono. Mr. Beach stated that th4s proposal was changing the zoning of the City that attract , everyone to Orono. It will alleviate the country flavor or Orono. Mayor Grabek explained that charges had been occurring over the last 2-1/2 years with the Highway 12 Corridor study. It was felt that this type of zoning would provide a suitable buffer to the commercial atmosphere of Highway 12. He further added that there were 9 public hearings involving this matter. Mr. Fordyce reiterated previously expressed feelings that the Council was not representing the citizens as a whole, but merely one individual. Councilmember Goetten stated that the Mayor had asked for the public to express their concerns. The Council had not yet expressed their concerns or asked their questions. She added that the rezoning had already occurred, but that did not mean that other concerns could not be addressed. Mr. Platteter said ti.at even though there were objections to the rezoning, it marched ahead. He asked why the access road could not be locate(' off of the proposed frontage road? I2 MINUTSS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED George Johnson asked how many times the plan had been revised. He said that there was an overlay to the presentation sketches that he had not seen. Mr. Pflaum said that the overlay depicted relocation of the access per the request of one of the residents of Brown Road. Tim Adams said that the current proposal was a good plan and was in the spirit of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. The problem is that items such as the frontage road, buffer lots and intersection have not been specified, and the buffer lots in the rear disappeared. He felt that was the primary frustration being expressed by the neighbors. He did not like the aspect of the plan being approved without those items being specified. Councilmember Callahan stated that he did not see what problem there cou'.d be with the frontage road. Mr. Adams said *hat it relates to the access required by the increased usage of Brown Road frOL, the Rebers' development. The question was raised as to whether Mr. Rebers would be building the homes in this development and whether there were specific standards as to the quality and price of the homes? Mr. Pflaum replied that the homes would range from $250,000.00 and up. The lots will sell from $75,000.00 and up. Mr. Rebers intends to build as many homes himself as possible. He may associate with one or two additional builders that would build in accordance to his standards. The conditions of building are part of the development agreement and will set forth the required building specifications. There will further be an architectural control committee that will require that the houses be compatible with each other. Councilmember Goetten felt that Highway 12 was a major determining factor in finalizing the subdivision. Drainage was a concern of Goetten's. City Engineer Cook said that most of the drainage ran to the southeast corner. The developer has been asked to provide for ponding in that area. No final designs have been submitted, only preliminary. The development agreement addresses the requirements by the City for drainage. Goetten then asked where access to the site would be during construction? Mr. Pflaum said that deciEion was ultimately up to the City. The developer preferred to impact the site as little as possible, by perhaps entering by way of the proposed permanent road. Goetten believed that using Highway 12 would alleviate undue wear and tear on Brown Road. Pflaum said if it were feasible, they would be wil ling to access off of Highway 12. The question of proposed pillars or entrance gates was naxt asked by Goetten. Pflaum replied that issue would be part of the package that the Planning Commission ultimately reviewed. They are proposing entrance monuments to identify the subdivision, but no lights or gates. Goetten inquired as to whether the restrictions and conditions sat forth by the Council would be included in the development agreement. Pflaum answered affirmatively, and added that the 1� MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 ZONING PILE #1334-RESERS CONTINUED agreement will ultimately need to be drafted, reviewed and approved by City Staff and the Planning Commission. Many of the restrictions will be included in the individual deeds to each lot. Lastly, Goetten wanted to see the developer work with the Platteters in solving their concerns about trespassing. Councilmember Nettles asked if there would be a need to upgrade Brown Road based on traffic count alone:' city Engineer Cook said there would be an increase of 200 to 250 trips maximum on Brown Road as a result of this development. Car traffic does very little damage to the structural strength of the road. Currently there are 1700 trips on the south end of Brown and 1100 on the north end. Cook said that amount of traffic was low and would have little impact, even with the increased traffic from the new development. Mayor Grabek asked how construction vehicles would affect Brown Road? Cook said that would have the largest impact and that alternatives should be examined or an agreement be made with the developer to repair any damage to Brown Road caused by the construction. Nettles questioned whether the concentration of lots on the north Property line were in keeping with the rural atmosphere of Orono. He would prefer to see a reduction in the number of houses in that area to 3 or 4, rather than 6. He felt that planting mature evergreens in that area should also be required whether or not the number of lots is reduced. Councilmember Peterson explained that she was absent from the Council meeting when the rezoning was approved. She indicated that she would not have voted for the rezoning and she would not vote in favor of the subdivision. She concurred with Nettles and Goetten in that the Platteters concerns should be addressed. She too believed that at one time the plan called for 2 acre lot sizes along the northern boundary. Peterson asked about the proposed multi -family unit. Councilmember Callahan clarified that the concept of the multi -family unit was shown when the entire parcel, commercial and residential was being discussed. Peterson expressed her belief that Orono should keep its rural atmosphere and the Rebers development did not support that concept. Councilmember Callahan said he was not opposed to any of the compromises discussed for the northern section of the development. He felt that Mr. Rebers had tried to work with the City over the last 2 years and the present proposal was already a compromise. He believed that screening along the northern property line was reasonable. The issues involving Brown Road, sewer and Highway 12 would exist without this development. All in all, he was conceptually in f vor of the proposal. Mayor Grabek mentioned + sct that Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth was als,, u resident on North► Brown Road. Mr. Shardlow presented this matter to avoid any potential for 14 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVE14BER 28,1988 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED biased opinions on behalf of the City. He asked Ms. Mabusth to present her suggestion for location of the access. Mabusth believed that placing the access on the crest of the hill would have a serious impact on her residence, due to the higher elevations on the western side. The City Engineer and City Staff had evaluated the potential of placing the access in a more southerly location. A determination was made that there would be adequate sighting distance in that location. Mabusth further explained that the hill became very icy and treacherous in the winter and placing the access at the crest of the hill would worsen that condition. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the subdivision, together with a conditional use permit for a PRD, for action at the December 12, 1988, Council Meeting. He asked that appropriate language be included in the resolution that would allow an alternative access to the property for construction purposes. If no alternative is feasible, then it should be stipulated that the developer be financially responsible for repairs to North Brown Road for damage caused by the construction. The resolution must also include provisions for a buffer area along the north property line. Further, language be included to move the access south, if it does not conflict with engineering recommendations. Mrs. Duncanson inquired as to whether they would have any input as to the final location of the access off of Brown Road. Mayor Grabek answered affirmatively. Councilmember Nettles asked whether Mayor Grabek would consider amending his motion to include revising the development to allow for no more than 3 lots on the north side, as opposed to 6. Mayor Grabek replied that he had not all of the information as to how such a revision would impact the development. Goetten stated that monetary considerations could not be a factor in determining the outcome of this development. She concurred that at this point there was not enough information to make such a decision. Mayor Grabek pointed out the fact this approval was only preliminary and such is •ies could be further examined. Councilmember Peterson asked M _her the conditional use permit would be incorporated in the resolution. City Administrator Bernhardson confirmed that it would. Nettles asked if the Mayor would amend his motion to ask the developer to supply the City with information and alternatives regarding the north property line. Mayor Grabek agreed that information was necessary in providing the City with the best overall plan, but did not amend his motion. Councilmember Goetten asked that staff begin taking an indepth view as to how this development will impact Highway 12, Brown Road and the proposed frontage road. Motion, Ayes-4, Peterson -Nay, Motion passed. 15 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 #1356 GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2546* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2546, approving the renewal variance application of Gerald T. McCourtney. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. ZONING AMENDMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Mayor Grabek requested that this item be tabled until the December 12, 1988 meeting, to allow time to more thoroughly review this matter. Mayor Grabek inquired as to the possibility of visual graphics being supplied to better depict the proposal. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT SEAL COAT PAYMENT #1* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve payment M1 to Allied Blacktop in the amount of $17,025.99 for sealcoating City streets in 1988. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: ORONO/LONG LAKE DISCUSSXONS* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the information and set December 5, 1988, as the date ::or the rcxt meeting of the two Councils. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S 32PORT: DRIVEWAY PERMIT-490 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this item per the property owner's request. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1989 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM City Administrator Bernhardson explained that in the past the City has had a legislative policy that has attempted to highlight major areas of concern that the Council may wish to promote to the 1989 Legislature. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to table this item. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. 16 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 COUNTY ROAD 51 City Administrator Bernhardson mentioned that this was mainly an information item in that no date had been established for meeting with Hennepin County. Bernhardson said that he was hopeful that more information would be available by the December 12, 1988, Council Meeting, and there could then be a meeting with the concerned residents in January. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to accept the information regarding County Road 51. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS/OFF SALE* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the license reneweal for a 1989 Off Sale liquor license for Navarre Liquor. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 200 HOLLANDER POAD SET ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING DATE* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to set a public hearing for January 9, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers to consider the special assessment roll o: the 1988-2 hazardous buildings. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1989 HEALTH INSURANCE* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to set the 1989 standard contribution rate for health insurance for the eligible non LELS Orono City employees at $191.00 per month while the contribution rates for Orono LELS employees is to be negotiated at a later date. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY SELL TO ADJACENT PROPERTY- RESOLUTION #2547* DRAINAGE i CONSERVATION- RESOLUTION #2548* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #:�547, releasing tax forfeit parcel for private sale to adjacent owners; and to adopt Resolution #2548, requesting conveyance of parcel for public use by the City of Orono. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE -STREET DEPARTMENT* It. was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to purchase two hydraulic sanders from MacQueen Equipment Company for an amount of $2,249.00 each. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1989 CALENDAR Councilmember Goetten questioned why a date fora November, 1989 Planning Commission meeting had not been indicated? Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that a meetinq was scheduled for 17 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 1989 CALENDAR CONTINUED November 20, 1989. Goetten also asked that two joint meetings with the Council and Planning Commission be scheduled in 1989. Mayor Grabek directed staff to determine two appropriate dates for joint informational meetings. UNCOLLECTED NSF CHECKS -RESOLUTION #2549* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2549, declaring certain. N.S.F. checks uncollectable and removing them from the City accounts effective November 30, 1988. Motion, Ayes=S, Nays=0, Motion passed. CONTRACT RENEWAL —POLICE CONTRACT (LONG LAKE, SPRING PARK AND MINNETONKA BEACH)* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the individual contracts with Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park, and Long Lake for police service for 1989. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. CONTRACT RENEWAL —FIRS CONTRACTS (LONG LAKE, MAPLE PLAIN AND WAYZATA) Councilmember Peterson questioned why the City of Mound was not included. City Administrator Bernhardson replied that renewal had previously been approved on October 10, 1988. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the individual contracts with Long Lake, Maple Plain, and Wayzata for fire protection for 1989. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ANIMAL. CONTROL CONTRACTS (LONG LAKE, SPRING PARK AND MINNETONKA BEACH)* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the individual contracts with Long Lake, Spring Park, and Minnetonka Beach for animal control for 1989. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ADMINISTRA'.s'OR'S INFORMATION Councilmember Goetten questioned the need to purchase snow removal equipment for the sidewalks along County Road 15. Public Works Director Gerhardson clarified that the City would need to purchase an attachment for equipment the City already has. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: County Road 15; MWCC Interceptor; Recycling Program; Highway 12; Minnetrista/Hennepin County Park Reserve Lawsuit and Crystal Bay Road, Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. 18 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 28,1988 LICENSES* It was :roved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the following license: Sclicitors License: MN Public Interest Research Group C/O Kenneth Webb 2512 Delaware Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414 Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmembet Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to apprcve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:45 P.M. Mayor Grabek requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9:52 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:52 p.m. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. AT ST: rothy Halli:,, City Clerk Jam s R. Gra e , Mayor 19 v _„ter CITY OF ORONO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) n 2. 3. �[k% j �v � k 73G �c°�('Ey CK Gl2 5 a.C o 6 , NEe- T-61'jl cc '7'y'S� 8. 3. 4 .ve 5. 7. ` �� , t— *.' 0 ., r S PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2. ,tti 5. A ti (tip � 7. 8. 9. .0. .1. ,2. .3. .4. 5. 6. 7. e. 0. AGENDA 33 CDU'1CZ:. :4E3TI:IG 3ET ?03 :403DAY, 'IDMABE3 23. 13.33. 7:00 P.M. ( �) Aster isK items are :unsidared to be routine its;ns to ''ja :nactad upon jy one :notion by the City Council under the Consent !-.en* on the a3enda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding eacn of the Igenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL i CONSENT AGENDA'S Uf J APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. 1?8jS Canvassing Board Meeting of November 9, 1988 • 3. Regular Meeting of November 14, 1988 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS * 4. Park Survey LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - JoEllen Hurr Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) LOVING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT "APPLICANTS" Immediately after the C uncil has reviewed your appli,2ation please sign the three ( 3 ) original resolution copies. 5. #1296 Peterson/Stodola, 1395 Shadywood Road - Variance " 6. #1321 Tom Haislet, 950 Old Crystal Bay Road A.) Final Subdivision - Resolution B.) Execution of Developer's Agreement • 7. 11329 Thomas McNellis, 355 Wocdhill Road - Variance 8. #1334 Sidney Rebers, 715 North Brown Road - Conditional Use Permit/ Preliminary Subdivision y. 41356 'Jerald McCourtney, 1055 lest Ferndale Road - Variancas 10. Zoning Amendment - Planned Development ENGINEER'S REPORT + 11. Seal Coat P3ynent 1 1 MATOR'S REPORT • 12. ')ronu/:.ong :.aka Discussions CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 13. Driveway Permit - 490 )1d Long Lake Road 14. 1989 Legislative Program 15. County Road 51 e16. Liquor License Renewal/)ff Sale 017. 200 Hollander Road - 3et Assessment Public Hearing Date •18. 1939 Health Insurance 619, Tay F�)rfait Property - Sell to Adj3csnt Property Resolution - Drainage S Conservation Resolution ^0. Faaia;hen: P,jr^,iase - Striet Department AGENDA FOR COOINCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY. NOVEMBER 28, 1988, 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued •21. 1989 Calendar *22. Uncollected NSF Checks - Resolution e23. Contract Renewal - Police Contract (Long Lake, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach) 024. Contract Renewal - Fire Contracts (Long Lake, Maple Plain and Wayzata; •25. Animal Control Contracts (Long Lake, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach) 026. Administrator's Information County Road 15 MWCC Interceptor Recycling Program Highway 12 Minnetrista/Hennepin County Park Reserve Lawsuit Crystal Bay Rcad CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (27•) BILLS (28') ADJOURNMENT � s)UNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE 1988 CANVASSING BOARD MEETING HELD r� ? �1G` NOVEMBER 9, 1988 ATTENDANCE 5:07 P.M. The Orono Council met as the 1988 Canvassing Board on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Nettles and Peterson. Councilmembers Goetten and Callahan were absent. The following represented City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson and Public Works Gerhardson. 1988 CITY ELECTION RESULTS It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to certify the resu' s of the November 8, 1983 City election as follows: Mayor - two year term, James Grabek receiving 1,378 votes. Councilmembers - four year terms, Barbara Peterson receiving 2,639 votes and Edward J. Callahan, Jr, receiving 2,300 votes and Councilmember - two year term, Alan Nettles receiving 2,124 votes. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. APVOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1988 COUNCIL MEETING As both t e Mayor and Acting Mayor were not expected to be present at the November 14, 1988 Council meeting, Mayor Grabek moved and Councilmember Nettles seconded the appointment of Councilmember Peterson as Acting Mayor for the November 14, 1988 Council meeting. Ayes 3, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT 5:15 P.M. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Nettles to adjourn the 1988 Canvassing Bo-3rd meeting at 5:15 P.M. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. iallin, City Clerk 1 COUNCIL MEETING . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Nettles and Goetten; Councilmember Callahan and Mayor Grabek were absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Attorney Barrett and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSL"NT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember. Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the October 10, 1988 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the October 24, 1988 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. PARR COMMISSION COMMENTS PARR SURVEY Public Works Director Gerhardson reported that a more economical method of performing the Park Survey had been found. By revising the method of mailing, the cost would decrease fron, $2,000.00 to $2,500.00, to an amount between $1,500.00 and $1,800.00. The one page survey would be printed with a retu-in address and bulk mail stamp so it would be mailed out it a first class envelope, but ret.cned as bulk mail. The survey would ask a variety of questions, many of which would pertain to the bike/hike trail. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to whether the Park Commission would tabulate the results themselves and whether they would be funding the survey? Gerhardson replied that the Park Commission would tabulate the surveys. The survey is not an allowable expenditure for the use of the park dedication fees; the project would be funded by the City's General Fund. Councilmember Goetten expressed her wish to see the survey and Acting Mayor Peterson and Councilmember Nettles concurred. City Administrator Bernhardson commented that the LMCD's brochure on Eurasian Milfcil would be mailed aionq with the Park 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 PARR SURVEY CONTINUED Commission survey and would not add to the mailing cost. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to table this item until the Council had the opportunity to review the Park Commission survey. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative, Edward Cohen, was not present and there were no Planning Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the Public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1218 ESTATE OF RUTH SMITH 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2536* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2536, approving the Final Subdivision for Ruth Smith. Motion, Aves=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1123 JON W. PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCE DENIAL RESOLUTION #2537* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2537, denying the variance requested by Jon W. Papas. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1329 THOMAS MCNELLIS 355 WOODHILL ROAD VARIANCE Mr. McNellis and Mr. Arthur Dickey, Mr. McNellis's Architect, were present for this meeting. A brief review of Mr. McNellis's application was provided by City Administrator Bernhardson. In order for Mr. McNellis to construct his proposed new residence, he would need approval for a front setback variance and wetland setback variance. The proposed residence would encroach 4' into the 26' wetland setback. The easement line was determined by using the 964 contour line. The actual edge of the wetlands is actually 36' from the building envelope. Mr. McNellis's deck would be 3 2 ' from the edge of the wetlands, but only 22' from the edge = the easement. Bernhardson further reported that he had met with Mr. Dicke}, and Mr. McNellis and the possibility of a lot line rearrangement was discussed. If Mr. McNellis could obtain a L MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ZONING FILE #1329-MCNELLIS CONTINUED small portion of land from the neighboring property, he would not require the front setuack variance. Acting Mayor Peterson asked Mr. McNellis how he felt about the lot line rearrangement. Mr. McNellis stated that if it was the only solution to the problem, he would not object. He went on to say that placing the house in anv other way within the building envelope would greatly affect the drainage and consequently the wetlands. He said that only 9% of the lot was buildable. The proposed location for the house would have the least impact on the mature stand of sugar maples on the property. Mr. McNellis explained how the house would "notch into" the hill on the property. By turning the house, he would not be able to take advantage of a flat location that would aid in moving drainage water into the wet lz nds. The present proposal would allow for maximum preservation of the natural resources on the lot. Acting Mayor Peterson inquired as to Mr. McNellis's knowledge of the buildability of the lot at the time it was purchased. Mr. McNellis stated that the covenants and restrictions were quite lengthy. He added that Orono was one of the few cities that required 26' from the easement line of the wetland. He was not aware of that requirement at the time he purchased the lot. Assistant Planning and Zoninq Administrator Gaffron explained that, in his opinion, the easement line was determined arbitrarily. He added that no two topographical maps are identical and it was possible that the map used to determine the wetland easemen- had varying alignments from other maps on file for this subdivision. Acting Mayor Peterson asked Mr. McNellis to define his hardship for the variances. Mr. McNellis explained that they included topography, the drainage easement and the particular location of a culvert on the property. When the building envelope was determined, the culvert had not been discovered. Peterson felt that it was difficult to approve a variance for a piece of property that was recently platted. She added that it was t,.e front yard setback variance that was the problem, not the encroa�.hment into the wetlands. Peterson asked if there was anything that could be done with the desiqn of the house to alleviate the need for the front yard setback variance. Mr. Dickey exaiaine,? t^3•_ the house :vould fit withir the buil.` envelope if it wer turned. However, turning it would ores negative impact upon the wetlands. Ccuncilmember Goes__-.. expressed her priority to be preservation of the wetlands, as opposed to concern for the front setback. Assistant Plannina and Zoninq Administrator Gaffron showed the various surveys and where the wetland easement was on each. Gaffron added that when a wetland boundary line was determined with an easement line, that line. would be used for measuring to 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ZONING FILE #1329-MCNELLIS CONTINUED avoid discrepancies. Councilmember Nettles asked whether there would technically be any impact to the wetlands due to the height of the cantilevered deck? Gaffron answered that in his opinion, Mr. McNellis's proposal would have little, if any, impact on the wetlands. Councilmember Nettles brought forth the issue of the lot line rearrangement. Mr. McNellis explained the ramifications of proceeding in that manner, and added it would cause enough of a delay that he would be unable to build until Spring. City Administrator Bernhardson suggested that the Council grant the variance for the wetland encroachment and indicate whether a lot line rearrangement would be an acceptable remedy. Gaffron suggested that approval be given for the application and the issuance of the building permit be contingent upon the filing of the subdivision application for the lot line rearrangement. This would allow Mr. r-cNellis to begin work immediately. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the wetland variance and require the applicant to file and follow through with a lot line rearrangement application in lieu of the front setback variance. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1339 DAVID LEE 2695 CASCO POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2538 Mr. Lee and Mr. James Robin, Mr. Lee's Landscape Architect, were present for this meeting. City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief synopsis of the history of this application. It was determined at the last Council Meeting that Mr. Lee be required to remove certain timbers and fill so there will be some natural slope returned to the bank. Mr. Robin believed that it would be best to keep all of the timbers and plant vegetation that would eventually screen the wall from view. He said that he could not guarantee the same kind of stability and screening by following t`ie City staff's recommendations. He asked that the Council reconsider their decision to follow the City Engineer's recommendations and try to reach another compromise. Acting Mayor Peterson stated that she would be inclined to stay with the City Engineer's recommendations. Councilmember Nettles concurred, and added that he actually was leaning more toward total restcration of the bank. However, since the project was already completed, he felt that the City Engineer's recommendations were a compromise. He said that any deviation from that recommendation would be an even greater straying from 4 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ZONING FILE #1339-DAVID LEE CONTINUED the City's ordinances pertaining to the lakeshore. He did not want to send the wrong message to the citizens of Orono. Councilmember Goetten reiterated her concerns of informing the Public of those ordinances. She added that she had to rely on the information provided from the City Engineer in trying to make the best of a bad situation. Mr. Lee explained that he had received numerous phone calls following an article that appeared in the Wayzata paper. He went on to say that his neighbors were most supportive of him improving his property. Mr. Lee also reiterated Mr. Robin's arguments for keeping the timbers in place. Acting Mayor Peterson asked whether the completion date of April 30, 1989 was realistic? Mr. Robin and Mr. Lee felt it was not, due to the frost. Peterson suggested June 30, 1989. Mr. Lee agreed. Mr. Robin advised Mr. Lee to remove the timbers and do the grading and fill work and immediately establish some kind of ground cover for the bank. It was moved by Counci lmembr r Nettles, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #1339, approving the conditional use permit, and amending the completion date to June 30, 1989. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1347 MICHAEL HALLEY HOMES, INC. 2715 PENCE LANE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2539 Mr. Bob Martinson, a representative for Michael Halley Homes, and Mr. and Mrs. Dean Terry were present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the original proposal had been revised to address the concerns of Mr. Dailey and Mr. Skifter. The gaLeway would now be located approximately 14' from the west lot line and 20' from the north lot line. The 10' setback variance to the north lot line would still be required. A 12' by 1 2' backup apron has been included to alleviate traffic turning around in neighboring driveways. If the gate were moved back another 10' to 12' there would be no need for a variance. Mr. Martinsor. reiterated Bernhardson's explanation of the revised proposal. He said that in response to the emergency vehicle access issue, there are three ways to access the electronically controlled gates: (1) Accivation from within the houses on the property; (2) Activation from the front by entering in a code, which will be given to both the Police and Fire Departments; and ( 3 ) a large mechanical pin could be pulled to manually open the gates should there be a power failure. These methods of access have been discussed and approved with the Police and Fire Departments. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ZONING FILE 41347-MICHAEL HALLEY HOMES CONTINUED Councilmember Goetten asked for the hardship in this case. Mrs. Terry and Mr. Martinson explained why they felt there was a need to keep trespassers out. The main issue was the loss of privacy. Goetten stated that there has been a lot of difficulty establishing appropriate guidelines for fences. She felt this was mainly due to the fact that citizens of Orono did not want the fenced -in, confined atmosphere. She questioned whether the City staff needed to take a comprehensive look at the issue of fencing. City Administrator Bernhardson acknowledged Goetten's concerns and said that he would be happy to proceed accordingly. Acting Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Martinson if the gate could be moved back so that a variance would not be required? Mr. Martinson replied that he preferred to crowd the front property line as much as possible. There would be a possibility of trespassers going around the gate should it be moved back. Further, the Terry's property line is very defined and it would be better, from a security standpoint, to place the gateway where the property begins. Councilmember Nettles expressed his opinion to be that the gateway was a convenience for the applicant, but not much else. He did not believe that there would be enough trespassing traffic to warrant the need for such security measures. He did not feel there was an adequate hardship for the variance for the gate. Acting Mayor Peterson reiterated Councilmember Goetten's suggestion of looking at the fencing issue as a whole. She said that she would be inclined to approve this application, especially in light of the fact that she had approved similar applications in the past. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2539. approving the 10' setback variance and height variance for Michael Halley Homes. Motion, Ayes=2, Nettles, Nay, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: There was no Mayor's report for this meeting. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the liquor licenses for Jimmies Lounge and Navarre Liquor were coming up for renewal January 1, 1989. There have been concerns with the on - sale operation. However, there have not been any charged violations. Staff is recommending that the license holder be put on more .stringent notice and if there were direct violations for which cha-ges were issued, the matter would be brought before the Council. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL -CONTINUED Councilmember Goetten asked for clarification as to whether the Council could review any violations at the time of license renewal or if it had to be reviewed immediately. Bernhardson stated that there was no time limit established. City Attorney Barrett confirmed Bernhardson's statement. Councilmember Nettles inquired as to the costs involved for any additional monitoring that was necessary by the Police Department? Bernhardson replied that in actual patrol time, there were no additional costs. The Officers had been advised to be P�,pecially attentive to potential violations. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was an information item and that it would be brought back to either the Council meeting on the 28th of November or the 12th of December. COUNTY ROAD 51 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that he had expected to receive additional information, but it had not arrived. This item was basically for the purpose of updating the Council as to the current standing with the County. Councilmember Goetten asked why this issue of safety was dropped several. years ago? Bernhardson responded that the DNR and County were looking at parking in those areas and because of the possibility of the additional land being condemned, the City dropped it. When this issue was raised in 1985, it was the trespassing issue that was the major concern, not pedestrian safety, on which the City continued to work. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION City Administrator Bernhardson stated that he was bringing this matter before the Council with the recommendation that a two-day suspension be given to Officer Larry Tomcheck. In addition, another day of suspension would be held in abeyance, pending no further violations before April 1, 1989. This recommendation resulted from two separate incidents wherein Officer Tomcheck exhibited behavior that was unprofessional and potentially hazardous. Bernhardson stated that in a case where an employee union did not exist, the next step, should the Council recommend suspension, would be to appeal to the Council for a hearing if the employee chose such an appeal. However, Mr. Tomcheck is a member of the Police Union so the appeal would go through the grievance process and an arbitrator. Acting Mayor Peterson stated that in her opinion, Mr. Tomcheck is now performing his work properly. She mentioned the fact that Mr. Tomcheck was asked to take two days off for an evaluation. Bernhardson explained that Tomcheck did receive sick pay for those two days. She felt that holding the day of suspension in abeyance for the past 10 months was more severe than two days of suspension with no pay. In her opinion, it 7 MINUTES OF THB ORONO COUNCIL METING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -CONTINUED caused Mr. Tomcheck to question every move he made, everyday. Peterson observed that Mr. Tomcheck paid for the evaluation himself and asked if there were any problems discovered with the evaluation. Bernhardson said that in light of the two incidences occurring back-to-back, the purpose of the observation period was to assure them that there would not be a continuing pattern. Peterson then asked whether Mr. Tomcheck had received any oral or written reprimands. Bernhardson replied that to the best of his knowledge there had not been any written reprimand, and could not recall any oral reprimands being given. It was moved by Acting Mayor Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to take no further action on this matter at this time. Peterson felt that the 10 month waiting period was a sufficient penalty. Bernhardson explained that the 1 day suspension held in abeyance pending any further violations was the only factor. That would have been the same whether the two- day suspension was assesed now or back in March. Bernhardson stated that the violations were very serious and felt that the recommended discipline was appropriate. He did not feel that the time delay in assessing the discipline had a significant negative effect upon Officer Tomcheck. Councilmember Goetten stated that there was no question that Mr. Tomcheck's violations were serious. She reiterated Peterson's concerns about the time delay in determining the disciplinary actions to be taken. She felt that praise and discipline should be given immediately following the action. She observed that all of the information she had heard or read concerning Officer Tomcheck had been exemplary. Bernhardson agreed with Goetten that discipline should be assessed quickly and felt that under the circumstances and the need to evaluate all of the factors involved, this matter had proceeded in a timely manner. He added that he would be flexible in dealing with the deadline for the extra one day of suspension. He suggested that February 1, 1989, may be more appropriate than April 1, 1989. Councilmember Nettles made reference to the actual written City and Police Department Policies pertaining to employee behavior. He said that he was not clear on what the policy was for off -duty display of fire arms for police officers. Bernhardson replied that Officer Tomcheck was mainly in violation of the City's rules. Bernhardson stated that Tomcheck exhibited negligence in the performance of duty, as well as offensive conduct toward the public and took actions that were detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. Bernhardson further explained that Officer Tomcheck was involved in a situation that could have been explosive, and had been asked not to participate, but continued to do so. His actions consequently required additional police response, and because of the nature of the situation, those officers were also endangered. Nettles observed 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CONTINUED that the off -duty possession of fire arms is not prohibited. There was also no cross-reference made as to the uEe of intoxicants. Bernhardson explained that he was not solely using one or the other of those particular rules. He was relating the entire incident to various rules concerning misconduct. He further explained that Officer Tomcheck acted in an "on -duty" capacity even though he was off -duty. He caused such a problem by doing so, that had he not been carrying his service revolver, discipline would still have been forthcoming. Councilmember Goetten concurred with Nettles in that she could not ascertain exactly what rules Officer Tomcheck had violated. Bernhardson reiterated the potential danger Officer Tomcheck placed not only himself, but the Officers called to assist him. His conduct was very inappropriate. If each of the violations occurred separately, they would not have been as much of a concern, however, put together, they constituted a very serious situation. The question on Acting Mayor Peterson's Motion was called. Motion, Ayes=1, Goetten, Nettles, Nay. Councilmember Nettles interpreted the situation as he understood it to be. He concluded that what actually needed to be done was to provide a written reprimand for Officer Tomcheck's file so that the City would be on record as not condoning his actions. Councilmember Goetten concurred with Nettles. She felt that the City should perform some kind of reprimand, but the two- day suspension seemed too severe. Acting Mayor Peterson asked about the length of time the written reprimand would remain in Officer Tomcheck's file. City Administrator Bernhardson responded that the Council could determine a time limit. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to issue a written reprimand to be placed in Officer Tomcheck's file, outlining the violations of the Police Department regulations, as well as the City Rules, and explain why Officer's Tomcheck's activities were undesireable to the City. In addition, the written reprimand would remain in his file permanently. Motion, Ayes=2, Peterson, Nay, Motion passed. APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR FOR 1988 It was recommended by City Administrator Bernhardson to appoint the audit firm of Pannell Kerr Forster, to perform the required audits of the 1988 fiscal year records. Councilmember Goetten inquired about receipt of the Certificate of Achievemfnt. Bernhardson said he had not heard anything, but it takes 4 to 6 months to receive it. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to appoint the audit firm of Pannell Kerr Forster to perform the required audits for the 1988 fiscal year at an estimated cost of $14,000, plus direct expenses. Motion, 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF N017EMBER 14, 1988 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR CONTINUED Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. HAZARDOUS BUILDING PROCEEDINGS 4545 WATERTOWN ROAD RESOLUTION i2540 Mr. Tim Miller, the manager of the subject property, was present on Mr. Earl Freeman's behalf. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the list of items set forth in the Resolution would need to be addressed before occupancy could resume. The City Attorney would file this matter with the court. The Court would set a schedule as to when the building must be repaired. If the owner fails to meet that schedule the building would be torn down. Mr. Miller asked whether he would need to have all of the items listed repaired? He cited, as an exa:-iple, that the rooms are too small. He asked how he could remedy that item. Bernhardson recommended that Mr. Miller meet with Building Inspector Jacobs. He said that Mr. Jacobs could identify those items, if any that would not require repair prior to the Court Order being rescinded. Councilmember Nettles inquired as to whether the ~wilding would need to be enlarged before it would meet Orono's standards, or whether it could be "grand fathered"? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that would need further review. Councilmember Goetten as;,ed what time frame the owner would be given before the matter was `led with the court? Bernhardson replied that Mr. Miller would have approximately 10 days to determine which items needed to be addressed. Howevt?r, if it appears as though the building cannot be repaired, the City would proceed with the court after that time period. It was moved by Courci lmember Nettles, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, that they adopt Resolution #2540, initiating Hazardous Building Proceedings at 4545 Watertown Road. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ANENDNENT DOG LICENSE ORDINANCE #58, 2ND SERIES City Administrator Bernnardson explained that the City was proposing to modify the language pertaining to rabies certificates. The modification would specify that rabies certificates must be valid for the period of the dog license. Acting Mayor Peterson asked why the hours pertaining to barking dogs were 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. She observed that there were citizens in the community that worked varicus shifts and may be sleeping during those hours. Bernhardson replied that 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 DOG LICENSE ORDINANCE -CONTINUED he would loo': into that issue further. It was moved by Acting Mayor Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Ordinance #58, Second Series, amending Section 9.12 Subdivision 4 of the municipal code. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. DRIVEWAY PER14IT-490 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD It was recommended by City Administrator Bernhardson that this item be tabled. The City has had difficulty in getting the owner to respond. It was moved ing Mayor Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Nettle _j table this item. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN'S FOUNDATION RESOLUTION #2541* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2541, declaring November 25, 1988, as Senior Citizen's Day and encourage Westonka Senior Citizens to establish the Foundation for the financial security of the organization. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. DANGEROUS WEAPONS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE #59, 2ND SERIES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to adopt Ordinance #59, Second Ser =s, as an amendment to Ordinance Number 9.16 together with adopting Attachment B as a summary of that ordinance for publ:--ation. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. RESIGNATION OFFICER MICHAEL KIR`7YCZUK RESOLUTION #2543* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to accept Officer Kirnyczuk's resignation effective October 3, 1988, and to adopt Resolution #2543, Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. SALARY ADJ*JSTX9" OFFICER CHARLES SCHAUSS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by q Mayor Peterson, to approve a step raise for Officer Cf. Schauss, to $12.129, effective 10/26/88. Motion, Ayes=3, Na Motion passed. FLASHING WARNING LIGHTS WILLOW i HIGHWAY 12 RESOLUTION #2542* 1t was movsx0 h)v Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterso,-., c) auopt Resolution #2542, for the maintenance agreement for the f lashing warr ' ng lights at Willow Drive and 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1988 FLASHING LIGHTS CONTINUED Highway 12. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Crystal Bay Road; Wiodhill Road; County Road 15; Orono/Minnetonka Beach Interceptor Progress; 1950 Shoreline Drive; Big Island Vets Camp; Cross Walk Petit ion/Cty-MTC Response; Sculpture Unveiling - Livingston Tower Park; and Goal Setting Status. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: There was no report from the City Attorney, however, City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Peterson, to approve the following license: Septic System Installer: Machtemes Construction P. 0. Box 275 Waconia, MN 55387 Residential Kennel: Josh and Pam Uran 2705 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Act3 ng Mayor Peterson, to _ pprove payment of the All Fu- s Account Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:00 P.M. City Attorney Barrett requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9:14 P.M. It was moved by Acting Mayor Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:14 p.m. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=O, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Ha in, City C Ark James R. Grabek, Mayor 12 41 EL i1�1L ill r ttuq 1988 ORONO PARK AND RECREATION RESIDENT SURVEY (�1�����[j A. In order to carefullly plan for the recrea+ � _ � �anlfto citizens, we ask for the following persona. infa� ,.,tion. Household Size/Age Ages 6-12 _ 13-19 20-55 _ _ 55 and Over Street Address B. The following is alist of existing Park and Recreation sites in the City of Orono, please indicate the approximate number of times that members of your household have visited these facilities. Orono Parks !!umber of Yearly Visits Casco Circle Park -• at the end of Casco Faint Road _ Livingston Tower Park - Blaine & Livingston _ Navarre Playround Lyric & Shadywood Road Robert& Lee Antonie Playground Corral & Fagerness Point Rcad Highwood Nature Trails - across from Highwood Roau on North Shore Drive Bederwood Park - Stubbs Bay Road adjacent to Luce Line Trail Hackber.ry Park - Willow Drive just north of Watertown Road Crystal Bay Playground - Directly behind the City Administration Bldg _ Summit Park Swimming Beach - on East Long Lake Road Lydiard Swimming Beach - on Carmens Bay off Kelly Av, Casco Swimming Beach - between 2871 t 2879 Casco Point Road Sandy Beach Swimming Beach - on North Arm gay off Maple Ave. C. Recreation Facility Importance Using the numbers 3,2,1, please indicate the level `. importance to the members of your household for the followir-,.� facilities, (3 represents the le :1 of greatest importance) ennis Courts Baseball/Softball Diamonds Ice Rinks - General Hockey Rinks Preschool Play Apparatus Play Apparatus - Older Picnic A.tas Basketball Courts Volleyball/Badmint),- Co._t: Football/Soccer Lua Swimming Beachs Swimming Pools Cross Country Ski '_.tails Snowmoblie Trails Nature/Wildlife Areas Cros, Country Bike/Hike Trails Fishing Piers Motorized Bike Trails Hcrse Riding Trails Golf Course Horeshoe Courts Sliding s Other "obogganing J rr!a Other D. Park Suacestion Improvements Please indicate any changes, additions ): Lmprovements you or other household rt-2mbers would like .ee in the Orono Parks. If you have any yues— ons :lease -all Joh i, ,!rhardson, Public Wcrks Directoi at 473-7357. :lEase return within 2 weeks. CITY OF ORONO r.o. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 I IIIII,I, I I II II 111 I 1 11I II 1 16 111 11111 II 111 II 1111 l l f II 1 � V 1;0 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Memioers Administrator Fernharascn, f OF ONUOU From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator 0 a Date: November 22, 1988 Subject: 41.296 Merritt J. Peterson & Nick --, dola, 1395 Shadywcod Rd - After -the -Fact Variances - Third Review by Council List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Site Plan Defining Building Envelope Exhibit 3 - Appplicants' Proposal Exhibit C - L.M.C.D. Code Section 2.0-L, Subdivision 3 ,'ection 2.02, Subdivisions 2 & 3 Exhibit D - Council Minutes of 8/22/88 Exhibit E - Sketch of Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement Exhibit F - Staff Memo of 6/17/88 Exhibit G - Staff Memo of 8/17/98 Status of Application - At the Council meeting of August 22, 1983, the applicants requested a taLling of all action on the variance application. The applicants requested additional time to discuss all available options of use of the property with the adjacent owner and the current owner of the remaining parcels within Registered Land Survey 1216, Mr. Gustafson. S " ce that time the applicants have staked the building envelope that now i .-ides Parcel 0003, refer to Exhibit A. The lot could never be developea without the need for the approval of multiple variances. The magnitude of the variance .eeded for new construction would establish a negative precedent li with other similar requests. Staff concurred upon inspection of ,.te and review f the actual land area, that it would not be feasible t�. ..-.velope Parcel 0003 with Tracts G & F as a buildable lot. Review of Applicants' Amnded Proposal - (Refer to Exhibit B) The subject of the memo wttild suggest that the applicants propose maintaining a boat dock at the b roperty located at 1895 Shadywooa Road. In reality, the applicants, upon completion of a lot line re _rrangement with Mr. Tillotson, -rcpose the installation of a sharad dock on the property at 1875 Shau; mod Road now owned by Glen Tillotson. The dock would be limited to ` slips, two slips for Mr. Tillctnon'v use and two slips fcr applicants' .,ole use. The applicants will purchar• 1 remaining ' 2' a "-' o043 !r.^m Gus`2zscn an.ci le combine as 1/ ane unit. They propose no other improvement of the unde,!t__ ,JVed land but will use Ti l lotson's exist ng drive and I arking area. zoning File #1296 November 23, 1988 Page 2 of: 4 In the first Fart of the applicants' memo, they review the concerns expressed by the City during the variance review: 1. Security problem for dock without principal structure. 2. Need for a new curb cut to serve proposed dock area on a stretch of road that is heavily trafficked and with limited sight distance. 3. The need to install new hardcover within the lakeshore protected area. 4. The unknown or planned use for the remaining tracts of RLS #1216. 5. Negative precedent by allowing a secondary accessory structure to be built on property that does not have an existing primary structure. 6. Placement of dock by Glen Tillotson on property owned by Peterson and Stodola. Applicants' Response to the Concerns - Response to Item 1 - they note that the shared dock security problems will be minimized as the resident, Glen Tillotson, will have a veste• interest in policing of the dock area. Response to Item 2 - the applicants propose no new curb cuts, but will share the driveway access via Mr. Tillotson's existing drive and no expansion is proposed. Response to Item 3 - no additional expansion of the existing driveway is proposed, therefore no additional hardcover is anticipated with the shared use. Response to Item 4 - tt. applicants propose purchasing all of the remaining tracts currently owned by Mr. Gustofson within RL.S 12:6 including Parcel 0003 and legally combining them as one unit. Response to Item 5 a secondary or accessory structure - the residential dock will now be placed on a property t can now receive credit of Mr. Ti 1 lotson's principal str re. zc,n;.r.g F pia 41290- �Icvemcer 23, 1988 ?ace 3 Cf -1 Staff has enclosed sections of the L.M.C.D. code, review Exhibit C (Section 2.02, SubdIvisions .: 3). AS aL�l'_�an�i :ote6 in L.^.e c'ariic� review, the L.M.C.D. woui�i have Lermitted an accesscr_; structure cn this property since it was cre?t?d prior to 1978. If the tracts .sere created after 1978, a principal residence would have been required. In Section 2.01, Subdivision 3, Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas of the L.M.C.D. code, suggests that a principal residence is not required, merely a legal dock use area to be shared by both owners. The applicants also noted to staff that the likelihood of a lakeshore homestead owner agreeing to share a single dock with an adjacent, undeveloped, riparian tract would be -vary rare, especially if that owner agreed to limit his dock use to two slips. Response to Item 6 - the applicants note that the lot line rearrangement will eleviate the violation of the setbacks of Mr. Tillotson's dock as the proposed shared dock will be located solely on Mr. Tillotson's property. Staff's Comments on Current Proposal - Clearly the L.M.C.D. code does not require a principal residence for accessory dock structures for lots created prior to 1978. The shared dock now located solely on Mr. Tillotson's property would technically receive credit of the principal structure from the Tillotson residence. The Orono code does not distinguish between an accessory dock used as a single or shared dock. Staff would also add that this may not meet the true intent of the ordinance. If the Council concurs with the current proposal of the applicants, the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement will provide the City with the necessary authority to place restrictive controls on the future uses of the shared dock and the ur.buildable properties to be combined as one unit. Staff would also agree with the applicants that the likelihood of a homestead, iakeshore lot owner giving up ,lirs in a shared dock situation with an undeveloped, adjacent parcel would b -, T.ost unusual. Council may wish to seek the opinion of the City Attor:-.ey regarding credit of the Tillotson principal structure for the accessory shared dock in consideration of the pertinen*. sections of the Orono .onina Code. a Zoning File #t1296 November 23, 1988 Page 4 of 4 It Should also be repeated for the record that based on Ben Whitney's memo of July 19, 1988 that the granting of a building permit for an accessory structure on a lot that does not sustain a principal residence would not be in violation of Minnesota Statutes 462.357 ("use" variance). Please review Exhibits F & G the staff memos that provide the details and background on the present applicant. Review specifically the sections in the staff memo, Exhibit F, that deals with the background on riparian tracts created by the City in recent times. Options of Action Available to Council - A) To deny the current request of the applicants and to direct staff to amend the original denial resolution presented for Council action to include the : emoval of the existing dock on Tracts F & G, and to further deny the proposal that would allow the applicants to achieve creeit for the principal residence on Tillotson's property that would provide them riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. OR B) To approve the current proposal of the applicants based on the findings noted above and to direct the Applicants to file the appropriate lot line rearrangement with Mr. Tillotson, and to further advise the applicants that the City will adopt the following restrictive conditions in conjunction with the approval of pending subdivision. 1. Shared dock to be limited to foul slips, two slips to be assigned to Mr. Tillotson and two slips assigned to the applicants. Tracts B, C, D, F, and G, of RLS 1216 and Parcel 0003 are to be combined. 3. A11 future improvements of the combined properties of the applicants must be reviewed subject and approved by the City of Orono. The City Attorney should advise whether a resolution denying the buildabilty of combined Tracts B through G of RLS 1216 and Parcel 0003 is also required. T': Jesnne a Yabusth Building anc --oning Adminst_azo_ City Of Orono ;7_3m: Mer_itL Pet3_scn arc R_:k Stocola Date: October 23, 1988 Regardinc VARIANCE REQUEST TO PACE A EOA.T DOCK ON PRCPERTY AT 1895 SHADY'A000 ROAD Concerns expressed by zoning administrator and City council 1. Security problems with unattended boats 2. Access coniestion caused by an additional driveway access onto Co road 19 3. Hard cover addition to accomodate vehicles on property 4. Multiple pieces of unbuildable property now owned by Ewald Gustafson that may create additional issues of dock and boat accesses in the future 5. Precedent of allowing a secondary structure to be built on property that does not hava an existing primary structure 6. Illegal placement of dock by Glenn Tillotson on property owned by Peterson and Stodla Proposal by Peterson, Stodola,and Tillotson to satisfy Orono City Concerns: 1. Share driveway access to property with Glenn Tillotson 2. Create no additional hard cover on property 3. Combine all property presently owned by Ewald Gustafson with property owned by Peterson and Stodola into a single deeded unit 4. Deed property -.'--fined as item #A on registered land survey to Glenn Tillotson to provi,; him legal access to the lake 5. Pursuant to the approval of the city of Orono and effected land owners, build a single common dock to be shares by Tillotson, Peterson, and Stodola, while adhering to LMCD ruies A. With the shared dock security problems will be as the resident Glenn Tillotson will have a vested l,:terest in policing of t~e dock area The above proposal is contingent upon the full approval of the City Of Jrono and interested property owners, Peterson,Stodola, and Tillotson MI o LZ_� s:ructures are not expanded. .he authorized docY use area, in -::e Case Of s_-es 50 feet in widen or -ess in ex:.szenc2 on February 2, 197/0, may be expanded to a side $At:`dC!C14.,ni_tdt'_, n of f ,vim °met, D' 7'/:dP_ j that such secoacK in no way impairs access _o neigh- boring docks. c) Measurement - Authorized dock use areas shall be mea- sured from the point which forms the shoreline when. the Lake is at elevation 929.4, National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929. d) Temporary dock extensions. During periods when the Lake level falls below 929.4 feet and when so declared by resolu- tion of the Board, the Executive Director may issue permits for temporary dock extensions beyond the authorized dock use area subject to the following limitations: 1) Need for the temporary dock extension must be demonstrated by the applicant. 2) The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal type dock. No extensions may be on pile driven or permanent yearround docks. 3) The extension shall meet all requirements of this Code other than the length iimitation described in this section. 4) The extension shall, only be permitted during the time the water level is below elevat -n 929.4 feet and, at any given time, shall be _ermitted only to the extent of the equivalent dockage and comparable depth existing at a Lake elevation of 929.4 feet. 5) The extension, together with the original dock, shall not be used to provide storage space for a greater number of watercraft than are authorized under this Code or for a greater number of watercraft than are licensed if a license for the dock is required under this Code. 1f Subd. 3. Common Use oc Adjacent Cock Use Areas. Two or more adjoining site owners may by mutual agreement adjust these side setback requirements or may use their combined authorized dock use areas for a single common deck or mooring a ea for tht respect_ve non-commercial private uses, but in any event, mu' observe these side setback requirements at the outer site lines of the combined sites involved in such a joint use. A dock or ..;der - is - mcoring area" unless such dock or moor_na area is ccnsz:ructed or maintained for the storac= of File or more restricted watercraft. Section 2.02. Shoreline Reauirements. Subd. 1. General Rule. Pio ne•.i docks or moor:nc areas s:,ali be constructed or established which provide s.acerfor or are used for moor`.ng or docking a greater number of restricted watercraft than one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978, unless authorized to do so by special density license pursuant to Section 2.05. For sites with contin- uous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when measurements deter- mining the number cf restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up to and including one-half (1/2) shall be disregarded, and frac- tions over one-half (1./2) shall be counted as one additional restricted watercraft. Subd. 2. Special Rule for Sites in Existence on August 30, 1978. Unless a greater number is authorized by the provi- sions of Subd. 1 above, up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at any dock or mooring facility which is located on a site (as defined in Section 1.02) which was in existence on August 30, 1978. V/Subd. 3. Special Rule for Sites Established After August 30, 1978. Unless a greater number is authorized by the provi- sions of Subd. 1 above, up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at any dock or mooring area facility which is located on a site (as defined in Section 1.02) established after August 30, 1978, Provided theL2 is a rc idence on the site and the I&Qj and docking rights are owned solely by --the residents of that site. Subd. 4. Additional Watercraft Allowance for Watercraft Owned by Residents. Three or four restricted watercraft may be kept at docks or moorings described in Subdivisions 2 and 3 above if all restricted wat-rcraft are owned by and registered to the residents of the site. Section 2.03. Multiple Docks, Mooring Areas, Laur.chinQ_ Ramps and Docks in Excess of 100 Feet in Length. Subd. 1. License Required. No person may locate, con- struct, install or maintain a dock of mior-! than 100 feet in length or a multipie riock )r mooring area or a c.mmer_ial dock or a launching ramp on the shoreline of the Lake, or i. the waters of the Lake unless licensed by the Board to do so. Subd. 2. Application for License. Application for a .�r.c? .. hi..__ .,•_ ^a'e ... `...:ec•.._. •? D._=ct._. - 19 - MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988 ZONING FILE #1291-IVERSON CONTINUED 'Ar- It was -moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to amend the present Resolution #2475 to indicate'39.4% hardcover was approved, provided that applicant offset any future increase in hardcover by removal of the same percentage. Approval is also contingent upon applicant providing a revised survey to show _the---I%---hardcauez-_lncrease. Motion, Ayes-5, N7296'aKRRWTT =on passed. # J. PETERSON/RICK STODOLA \ /1895 SHADYWOOD ROAD / VARIANCE -DENIAL - - �OLUTION _ _n addition to Mr. Ewald Gustafson and Mr. and Mrs. Tillotson were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this matter had been considered and conceptually denied at the July 11, 1988 Council Meeting. This application involved the maintenance of a dock on a substandard lot. An issue had been raised as to whether the granting of an accessory use variance when there was no primary use constituted a use variance. The City Attorney researched this issue and concluded that it is not a use variance which the City would not be allowed to grant, however a variance would be needed to allow dockage, be it a seawall or a regular dock. Subsequent to the last meeting, a letter was sent to Mr. Gustafson, one of the owners who sold the property to Mr. Peterson and Mr. Stodola. There are still issues which need to be -addressed, one of them being an easement granted to Mr. Tillutson across part of the parcel. Other itemu of concern are that sometime in the past there was a 32' x 32' corner of the property that was sold to Mr. Tillotson, as well as questions regarding instructions to potential buyers as to the possible riparian rights on the lot. City Administrator L.:.nhardson noted t23t the present Resolution for Denial only addressed the buildability of the lot. Due to the fact that the proponents have not shown a hardship for using the property for boat dockage, that language would need to be added should the Council choose to deny the accessory use. Zoning Administrato- Mabusth stated that the applicant had conversed with Mr. Gustafs-- and that they would request tabling this matter until they h__ further opportunity to meet with all concerned parties. After such meeting, the applicants would appear again before the Council to present their proposal. It was moved 'uy Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this matter. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed. Planning C; re;iission -".air nan :�ellev Orono Planning Commission Members Citl Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: June 17, 1988 Subject: 41296 Merritt J. Peterscn and Rick Stodola 1895 Shadywood Road - After -the -Fact Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District - 1,R-lC Total Area = 5,500 s.f. (approximate building envelope - thin strip of land running south to Coffee bridge not included) - average wilth in the area is approximately 251. Application Illegal dock constructed in May of this year without building permits. The dock shall not be used by applicant until this matter is resolved, review Exhibit D. - No principal structure exists on the property - applicant advised to file for a lot area variance to determine buildability and if not what reasonable use can be made of the property. Pertinent Ordinances To determine the variance for lot area, Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) Required = 21,780 s,f. Existing _ 5,500 s.f. variance = 16,280 s.f. or 75% To con:>truct a residence on this property would require an average lakesl.ore setback variance (Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), an excessive lakeshore setback variance (Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), and even more excessive hardcover variances (Section 10.22, Subu. =.sion 2 (3). Pertinent Ordinances Related to the Illegal Dock/Accessory Struc:tuce Constructed on Property Without a Principal Residence Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) Time of construction - No accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Section 10.25, Subdivision 5 (A) Accessory uses - Any accesso-_y use as regulated in the RR-lA district, any private docks subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storaya densi_s:y regulations. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List 5xhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Viulation Letter to Applicants Exhibit E - Tillotsen Survey (1875 Shadywood Road) hI - 14at _r� of Curr�r.t-wr.crsr,_ Exhibit G - Wetlands Map Exhibit H - RLS-1216 Tracts F & G (0013 & 0014) :on,: June 17, 1998 Page 2 5 Exhibit I - RLS-1216 Tracts B, C, D & E (0009, 0010, 0011, a 0f' Exhibit J - Legal Decript=^n of RLS-1216 Exhibit L - Plans of Lets Discusses ?.n Lot Area Table History of the Properties seven parcels within R.LS-1216 have been under the ownership oL and 2wald H. Gustafson for many years. It is staffs understandinc ._,it Miriam Gustafson is a member of the original Coffee family that owner: the majority of the properties within the area. In fact, prior to their recen, move to Excelsior, the Gustafsons lived across the street at 1890 Shadywrcd Road. Staff remembers meeting with Mr. Gustafson a few years back to discuss what potential the property had in its present configuation. Phis would mean consideration of all seven lots combined as one unit. It should be noted that these lots were never legally combined, but remained single separate lots of record. It was staff's recommendation to file for the lot area variance as it appeared that parcel 0003 would have the greatest lot depth but without the necessary updated survey lucating the present water line and co•.nty right-of-way it was difficult to give direction. At that time staff had no knowledge that Mr. Tillotsen's residence and driveway intersected the subject pArcei, review Exhibit E. In fact, Mr. Tillotsen's dock is located on Tract F, the same tract that applicants have installed dock. Review Exhibit I. The applicants have advised that it is their understanding that Mr. Gustafson has some kind of arrangement with Mr. Tillotsen to sell the encroached parcel to him at some time in the future. Without the "0003" property, the property is clearly not a buildable lot, review staff sketch Exhibit H. There isnobuilding envelope and if the lot was deemed buildable, it would require the grantinq of multiple, excessive variances to all lakeshore ordinances. It is clearly not the intent or wishes of the present applicants to apply for the lot area variance. The recent county road acquisitions have placed even more restrictions on the building envelope. Planning Commission members will note the stakes of the additi-nal right -:.`-way it relation to the subject property. Staff has advised the applicant that in order to make any decision on an accessory structure or use of the property that the ouildability of the lot must be resolved by the City. Please review the table listed below of recent lot area variances dealing with ! :!,.Fshore properties similar to this one. -n a _ -l_ Paae 3 of 6 lest ration on Building Lakesnore,- Existing Approved, Prcter-^ arts Enveloce Non.-%akesnore Structurts Denied LaBresh - 5,300 s.f. Narrow lot dept.,, Lakesnore Cabin (haz bldg) Denied Appl, 4999 LR-lC excessive lakeshore assssLed _`or sewer 6-23-86 :1,790 s.f. and wetland setbacks, and water but not required with county road right- connected. Total of -way increased next replacement. to bridge. Pemberton - 11,130 s.f. Narrow lot depth, Lakeshore Existing residence Approved Appi, 4'1?3 -'- " -5' la.,e_nor• setback hooxed tc sewer. 21,780 s.f. on both east: and west. Total replacement. required Heintz 8,300 s.f. Narrow lot depth with :.akesncre Undeveloped. Not Denied LR-1B total of 100'- multiple, assessed for sewer 3-16-78 43,560 s.f. excessive variances required Never assessed as required for residence. buildable lot based on market valuation. Subject 5,500 s.f. Narrow depth of Lakeshore Undeveloped. Not Property LR-1C building envelope - assessed for sewer 21,780 s.f. multiple variances required and water. Never required to construct residence - assessed as hoiidable major portions of property lot based or, m:rKet consist of wetlands. valuation. In addition, staff has reviewed the assessed market valuations for all seven rarcels, they have been listed for your consideration relow: Parcel 188 '3", '86 185 '84 '83 '82 'V,1 '80 179 178 0003 600.00 600.00 60C.00 600.00 600.00 550.00 5 0 0 . ' C 44C.)C 360.00 330.00 300.Or' 0009 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.03 100.00 110.00 100.00 60.00 40.00 30.0' 50.00 0010 100.00 100.00 100.00 lu0.00 100.00 10.00 50.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 30.00 0011 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 30.00 40.00 30.00 50.00 0012 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 30.00 50.00 a 40.00 0013 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 110.00 ic0.00 60.00 4C.00 30.CO 50.L;0 0014 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 270.00 250.00 140.00 i00.00 80.00 la.0C The parcels have never been assessed as buildable lots. Parcel 0OC3 has been assessed for lateral sewer and a water unit, but the subject parcels have never been assessed for sewer or water (0013 ! d 0014). Staff Recommendation To recommend denial of the lot area variance ap;lication of Merritt Peterson and Rick S' Ddola based on try following finr` -:as: 1. There is only approximate' ,500 s.f. of i within the defined building envelope with an aver,_c approximate c th of 100'. 2. There is not adequate area to build a house and meet the 75' setback requirement, the front, -ear and side yard setbacks and hardcover requla -)ns. 3. The prorert s never been assessed for sewer or water. 4. The property valued for tax ::urposes in the rast at a reduced amount to reflect the fact that these are substandard lots and not appropriate for residential const.action. 5. ThF r s subject to flooding and is in the natural drainauewav to the for the su-rounding watershed. There is no way to build on the arty withoit diverting the surface water run. -off in a manner contrary to the normal run-off pattern and onto the adiacent street. An.y constructir n would be sub,iect :o period_.: floodino. 6. The i_cperty is suastandaz size and rats _ grill tc c=her lots it the area upon which develor'nen.t has already been. completed. 7. The granting of a lot arez •ar_anc® for these properties would result in additional: Zoning 'File il-796 June li, 19b6 Page 4 of 6 a. Traffic congestion b. Surface water drainage problems C. Surface water pollution problems for Lake Minnetonka d. Congestion in the area e. Dimunition in value to the surrounding pro_,erties f. Parking problems in the area 8. The al,plicant has failed to demonstrate any hardships to warrant the granting of a variance whit-'- granting of variances s ould be adverse to the health, safety am ,21fare of the citizens of the City of Orono. 9. The grant ng of the requestac7 variances would be adverse to tt Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code of the City. Once again, the lot area request for buildability was never the intent or purpose of the applicants. It was clearly the procedure to go through so that a reasonable use of the property can be decided when the property is formally deem--d unbuildable. The accessory dock is located on a limited use charnel and surrounded by large wetland/swamp areas. The only safe parking irea avaiable is the driveway on the parcel referred to as O003 whey � Mr. Tillotsen's driveway has been constructed. The parkins on the county r::.ght-of-way would not be allowed and the City would not encourage a curb cl.t within this section of roadway. Staff can recall other applications that dealt with the creation of lots for exclusive riparian use. Briefly to review: In 1985 the Marina Committee was kept busy working on the 10' by 21, - riparian lots along the narrows to the south end of the City. In this case, the riparian tracts were created _gars before for the purpose of keeping the adjacent residence lot off the main lake and away from the narrow channel area by rroviding a protected harbor for the docking :if boats. when the covenants expired, some of the owners sold off the lots to other members of the public who did not n`cessar, ' y reside in the Ci:.y of Orono. These docks have existed for years and ne recent variance and Conditional Use Permit applications were , means of setting up guidelines for the cae of the severely 3 ' Tited dock areas. In recent years, in the Sturjbs Bay area, staff can recall a subdivision (Balgaard/Horton) where the owner of a riparian tract-epArated from his homes-nead lot 1 the county road was all.-3wed to d?v4de off a 200' strip to provide riparian acct is for this next door neighbor, Mr. Balgaard. The only structLres allow-3 on the,?,, lots were the accessory dock. The approval was `aced on the fact that Mr. Balgaard was immediately adjacent to the propel . on the vppo,.te side of the roadway. in the subdivision that created three residenci Al lots of the o:d Stut.bs Pay Marina property, the City approved substan. _.rd lots with less than tr.e r,�!qui �d 2 acres in arAa in adciticn to i .:parian tract. The riparian outlot was limited to the future owners_-p of someone within a 1000' radian of the subject property. It just so haVpens *hat the neighbor across the Zoning File #1296 June 17, 1988 Page 5 of 6 street from tl,e outlot purchased it and continues to own the property now. Once again, the background and reason behind this subdivision s the owner was giving up a commercial marina and the City granted certain variances for residential use with the rezoning so that there be no serious challenge of a taking. There have been subdivisions in the past, specifically the Greentrees and the Pink Palace Subdivisions where riparian tracts were crec ted for the exclusive use of adjacent lot because of extensive lineal feet of shoreline that easily satisfied the required lot width of the specific zoning district. The RS district (island diEtricts) the ordinances of the r' _, allow for accessory docks withou.. principal stA.*uctures. ThiE could be a reas:,nable use in consideration of the uniquenes-1 of island properties and the J.ntent cf the City to minimize development. In the Heintz application nc above where the City denied Mr. Heintz the lot area variance for buil ,ing. Heintz was told he couldn't c:-)nstruct an accessory dock and that the property was merely limited to picnic, tenting, possible fire place for picnicking and that a boat could be pulled up on the side of t�-- shoreline, but not uermar—ntly stored on the property. The new members of the Planning Comm_ssion should be advised that the CiL:y does not allow an accessory dock to be conscructer' on a lot being developed ut,til a Certificate of OccLfa' , 1 is issued fo- the new residence. The reason for this is that someone is at home to supervise and _r.rotect the dock property. Docks, b `s and boat equipment are always being burglarized. As with all aL sory structures/uses, it is the resident_ of the principal--ructure th,: is them to watch out for their personal property. Prior 'o approving any use of these parr-ts, Mr. Gustaf -tor should be asked as to r,.3w he is planning to dispca^ o! t1le other tracts within this RLS. The atp licants advised that Mr. Till of..,- h, poken for Ot , but what of Y, 101 1.1 and 12. Review your wetlands map. .Av are all 1_•p'ed within a wetlandR area, except for 0003 and Tract G. •j:raLc 6009 through 0014 should be ley::lly combined as one parcel, depending upon the -esolve of this possibly for future acquisi 1 ^n by Mr. Tillotsen. Issues fcr consideration 1. Does tae physical. character of the area t., any beacin4 on y r consideration - limited cnannel area, -lock screene,' by natural vegetatior. Tillotsen has a doc' i Tract F, the !,.tme as applicants', is r shared dock more appropriate: 2. The City has approved the creation and use of r riau trac 'rhe -� future o•.,+ners Ave within a rear-nable policinv radius of the deck ar The apple. ants live -her citi•.:... W"w does ti Planning Commission f .el on this issua? It is rtant on 1 11,- 2d channel area when- the dock is shielded by natural vegetati,,n and shin scope of neighbor V Tillotsen? How permanent? ,oning File 41296 .une 17, 1988 Page 6 of 6 Alternatives for Planning Commission Action If you approve the request of the applicant and allow the existing dock to remain, staff wcu'd suggest the following conditions: 1. The current owner of Tracts 9, 10, 11 and 12 must transfer all interest to applicants and applicants must legally combine all six parcels. 2. Mr, Gustafson must also provide legal access to the dock area via 0003. 3. Dock limited to two slips only - it should be added that this property has a Grandfather status, per LMCD codes and the dock would be allowed without the principal structure. 4. No parking shall be allowed on the county roan. 5. No other structures can be installed on the property. 6. No defined parking area with gravel or blacktop can be installed on the I roperty. If denied, the following conditions should be considered: 1. Immediate removal of the dock. 2. Applicant can use the subject property for picnic purposes, mooring of a boat on the shoreline, but not kept there permanently. 3. Access to the site must be via parcel 003. Gustafson, the current owner, must provide access easement for applicants. How ^foes Planning Commission wish to address the fact that Mr. Tillotsen's dock is also located on Tract F. What plans does Mr. Gustafson have for Tracts 8, C, D and E? Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recoms►endation July 7, 1988 Additional Exhibits Exhibit M - Planning Commission Action Notice The applicants were encouraged to submit additional information in support of their request (review Exhibit M) but have failed to do so. The Gustafsons, the owners of RLS 1.216 and Parcel 0003, have failed to contact the City throughout the review although they were sent a copy of the staff memo prior to the Planning Commission meeting and a copy of the Planning Commission Action Notice after the meeting. Mr. Tillotsen called staff Prior to the meeting to advise that he would like to purchase the portion of Parcel 0003 that his house and driveway encroach as that was all he could afford. when asked to comment on the fact that his dock was on Tract F, Mr. Ti 1 lotsen advised that the Gustofscns had always allowed him to locate his dock at that location to facilitate navigation through the channel to the main lake. Zoning File #1296 - Addn Comments to June 17, 1988 Memo Page 7 of 7 Staff would add to the factual findings presented for this review: RLS 1216 was filed on Mal, 8, 1967. The half acre lot standard was established for this area and subdivision regulations were also established for the City (this Is a,_rroximately the time that the Minnetonka Highlands Plat was being reviewed LZ the City). Staff has reviewed the 1-67 Council minutes and can find no record of this division being approved by the City. It would be of interest to ask the Gustofsons, the original purpose of RLS 1216. Planninq Commission Recommendation - Planning Commission recommended denial of the lot area application of Rick Stodola and Merritt Peterson for Tracts F & G of RLS 1216 based on the findings cited by staff on Page 3 of this memo and further advised the applicants that an accessory dock was not an acceptable accessory use for this property and noted the following findings: 1. The lack of a principal structure and the heavy natural screening that shields the dock area from l,ablic view, makes policing and protection of the dock on the private property difficult if not impossibie. 2. An adjacent neighbor already has a cock located on the same property. 3. The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking that would meet the required setback of 75' from the main laze (channel area). Parking is also not allowed along this section of County Road. 4. Approval of the use of an accessory structure, such as a dock, without a principal structure would establish a negative precedent in dealing with similar requests in lots of similar size. Options of Action Available to Councii - 1 . To table pending further review by City Attorney regarding th-t following issues. a) Question of taking? (Property was never assessed for sewer or water. Market valuation of property suggested unbuildability.) b) Ability of City to question the Gustafsons regarding their plans for the rembining tracts within RLS 1216 and the claim by applicants that Gustafsons have a gentlemen's agreement with Tillotson for the sale of rortions of Parcel 0003. c) Other issues Council may deem important for this review. 3. To deny and to direct staff to draft the appropriate denial resolution for Presentation at the Council meeting of July 25, 1988. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: August 17, 1988 Subject: #1296 Merritt J. Peterson & Rick Stodola, 1895 Shadywood Rd - After -the -Fact Variances - Denial Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Ben Whitney's Memo Dated 7/19/88 Exhibit B - Letter to Gustafsons Dated 8/17/88 Exhibit C - Denial Resolution At the July 11, 1988 meeting of the Council, Council conceptually denied the lot area application of the applicants and directed staff to draft the appropriate denial resolution. That resolution has been prepared for your formal review and action. Prior to acting on the applicants' specific request for the maintenance of an accessory residential dock on the property, the City Attorney was asked to provide an opinion regarding the legal issue as to whether the city would be granting a "use variance" if the dock use was approved. Ben Whitney has prepared a memo responding to the legal issues raised by the Council (Exhibit A). Briefly, the memo advises that a variance that would allow an accessory use without a principal use is not a use variance since the dock use is an approved or permitted accessory use within the residential district, and is similar to the types of variances granted to standards set forth in the zoning code for certain uses such as the lot area variance that you dealt with earlier with this application. You will be asked to address not only the issue of the dock use but any future reasonable use of this unbuildable property. Please review the original staff memo that cited all the issues raised throughout the review in addition to the Planning Commission comments and recommendation. Upon resolve of the dock issue, direct staff to amend the enclosed res-)lution to to reflect the final action of the Council. A registered letter has been sent to the Gustafsons advising them of the final dispensation of thij application at your next meeLing. It also asks them to attend and if they were unable to attend, to schedule a meeting with staff so that we may resolve the many issues surrounding their remaining properties within RLS #1216 and the lot referred to as Exception or 0003 in the staff memos. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson : �'D 2 31 : 3 From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: November 22, 1988 V 1 Subject: #1321 Tom Haislet, 950 Old Crystal Bay Road - A) Final Subdivision - Resolution B) Execution of Developer's Agreement The applicant has fulfilled all conditions of preliminary subdivision approval as set forth in enclosed resolution #2513. Staff recommends approval of the final plat, Orono School Expansion, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the enclosed resolution. The Orono staff and City Attorney have reviewed the proposed Developer's Agreement and find that it satisfies all of the issues raised at the time of preliminary subdivision approval. The City Attorney has reviewed this agreement with the attorney representing the School District, Tony Leung. It is staff's understanding that the School District has also concurred with the conditions of the agreement. Staff recommends approval of the Developer's Agreement and further recommends that the Council direct the Mayor and Clerk to execute that agreement. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF ORONO SCHOOL EXPANSION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of lan,- within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a plat by Tom Haislet, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-lB rural residential zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence or another allowed use within the residential zoning district to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution #2513. 2. Creation of a new private road shown on the plat as Outlot A. 3. Concurrent with the creation of this private road, the Subdivider has dedicated to the City a Road and Utilities Easement granting to the City temporary access, improvement and utility easements over said Outlot. 4. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $150.00. 5. Payment to the City for the final plat application fee in the amount of S150.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the Flat of Orono School Expansion, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 2 1. A11 persons with an interest in the Flat (hereafter "Developers"), together with the City of Orono shall execute a Developer's Agreement that defines the guidelines for the future use of this property by the developers, and further restricts the City from requiring certain site improvements for a specified period of time if the developers fulfill all 1:ertinent conditions of this agreement, and upon the recommendation of the Orono staff and City Attorney confirming that this agreement does satisfactorily protect the City's interest in this matter further directs the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Developer's Agreement on behalf of the City of Orono. 2. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Titles Office on or before May 28, 1989 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the covenants and easements noted above. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 28th day of November, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 City of ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NO. 2513 ORONO A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CLASS III SUBDIVISION APPLICATION OP"'"'"""' TOM HAISLET = j uLx adv, vv APPLICATION NO. 1321 vi �Cir a.rv. v% WHEREAS, Tom Hais let (hereinafter "applicant xepxss_enAg Albin F. Thies, the owner of the property, on July 22, 1988 Tlled.'a':J"611A,ss Z il_.. after1V1 - III subdivision application with the City of Orono (here inr,"tie . 1:L City") for approval of a four -lot plat of property legally described a`s: Lot 1, Block 1, Crystal Crest, Crystal Crest, according to the County, Minnesota lying eastly of "property") ; and and that part_ of Lot 2, Block 1, recorded plat thereof, Hennepin the west 642' thereof, (hereinafter WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearings on August 15, 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, at their regular meeting held on October 10, 1988, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the applicant, 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 consists of 51.39 acres. Lot 1, Block 1 consists of 10.69 acres of dry contiguous land; Lot 2, Block 1 consists of L5.07 acres of dry contiguous land; Lot 1, Block 2, consists of 12.03 acres of dry contiguous land; Lot 2, Block 2 consists of 12.08 acres of dry contiguous land. Paye 1 of 3 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL_ NO. 3. All access to the four proposed lots stall be via the approved Outlot A. No additional curb cuts will be allowed off of Old Crystal Bay Road or County Road 6. Additional curb cuts will be considered if property is to be further developed. 4. A single family residence can be constructed at some time in the future on all four lots without the need for further variances. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Tom Haislet per plat drawings by Phillip A. Nelson, Reqistererd Land Surveyor, dated 7/10/88 and further grants a variance to the standard that would require that all lots have frontage on a public road with the creation of the private road outlot, subject to the followng conditions: Final Plat Submittals The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly schedul,d Co,incil meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. This preliminary approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval (October 10, 1989)- 1. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: A) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey. B; Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side cf internal property lines. 2. OTHER DOCUMENTS required: A) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein stall sign the plat and all other documents affected by sv.ch interest. Page 2 of 3 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2513 B) The applicant must provide certified copies of all rec:ordec easements currently affecting the property. C) Owner to grant an underlying Road & Utility Easement (. Outlot A to the City of Orono - the separates ag -eement hetwe=, the City and Orono School District shall specify the limits 01 this easement. D) Execution of an agreement between the City and the Oronc School District that would cover the issues defined in the staff memo dated 10/7/88 to the Orono Council - Application #k1321. 3. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Du 5300.00,��� A) Final plat fee - $150.00. B) Filing fee for plat and associated documents $150.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this loth day of 0-'ctober, 1988. ATTEST: � 22 thy(M- Hallin, City Clerk JameA R. Grabek, Mayor Page 3 z ' COUNCIL MEETING,l NOV 2 TO: Mayor Grabek �iI, Or r Orono Council Memhers ORO" Citv Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: November 21, 1988 SUBJECT: #1329 Thomas McNellis, 355 woodhill Road - Variance - Resolution - Consent Agenda Attached is a formal resolution reflecting the conditional approval granted for a variance to the wetland setback requirement, in cor uncticn with a�j ro,ial For issuance of the building permit only after a completed lot line rearrangement application is received. Mot'on: By_ , Seconded by , to approve resolution granting a variance for property at 355 Woodhill Road. Ayes, _Nays. M A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 FILE #1329 WHEREAS, Thomas McNellis (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 355 Woodhill Road within the City of (`rDno (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 1 Woodhill Ridge, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance tj Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a cantilevered deck which would encroach 4' into the required 26' setback from a wetland easement, and fir a front yard setback variance to allow a 37' front yard setback where a 50' setback is normally required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Oro^o, FINDINGS 1. This application was Leviewed as 7-oning File #1329. 2. The property is located in trip RR-lB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this applic _on on October 17, 1988, and recommended on a vote of 4 to 3 to deny the proposed variances based upon finding no adequate hardships to justi�y granting of the variances. 4. The application was reviewed by the City Council on November 14, '?88, at which time the applicant agreed to proceed with a lot line rearrangement with the property to the Past, thereby eliminating the necessity of the proposed front yard setback variance. 5. On November 14, 1988, the City Council voted 3 to 0 to grant approval of the proposed 4' cantilevered encroachment into the 26' wetland easement setback, finding that the actual wetland boundary in this specific case is not coincident with the easement line, and the actual setback from the proposed deck to this boundary of the wetland is approximately 32', which meets the intent of the wetland ordinance. Page 1 of 4 Furthermore, the Counci 1 voted in the same motion to a 1 low staf f to issue a building permit to app licant prior to comp letion of the lot line rearrangement subdivision, but only after the proper applicaricn, submittals, and fees, for that application have been submitted. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports i.y City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the propos-2d variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. 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 demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a cantilevered deck that will encroach 4' into the 26' wetland easement setback zone, subject tn the following conditions: 1. No front yard setback variance is granted, however, the applicant will be allowed to construct the residence at his proposed location subject to completion of a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement, for the purpose of acquiring additional land so that the new lot line will allow for the required 50' front setback. 2. AE;plicant will be issued a building permit only after the complete subdivision application and fees have been submitted to the City. 3. App licsnt shall ir.s'311 -ind maintain aphropriare erosion control measures as may be requir-,J by the City insLector, during the construction period. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicatioc for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 20, 1989). Page 2 of 4 S. Violation of or non-compliance with any of tine terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a vioiation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any au'-hority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees 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 November, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Jaires R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owners Page 7 of 4 llldiyo, l COUNCIL 1WFFTWj TO: Mayor and vity Council i RUM: ;9ar�t E. 3ar.�narison. Zi ty .ad.a.ais;:r3tor1;. ' 19?8 ,;A"-7: ilovsmoJ )r ..) , -;n 5 MY OF ORn" 6� Conditional Use Permit/Preliminary Subdivision .1tt3c::a!nt3: a. :i~, of )rono Ravi3a ty :;.hn 3::ar.:: ^31.3d B. City of irono Review Datei 9i15/36 C. City of Orono Memo Dated 10/17/88 - 715 'forth Brown Road Rezoning D. Robert Mitchell Letter 11/22/88 With Exhibits E. Preliminary Plans INTRODUCTION - The attached application is for the subdivision of the prooerty at 715 Aor*'i Brown Road together with the Conditional Use Permit in order to allow far the P1annod Residential District (PRD) designation which allows for the ooen space as provided for in the subdivision. As you may recall this prooerty was 3rantel the zoning req•jest ^ontingent Soon sere^ service by the City Council on October 10. 1988. ,DISCUSSIU)N --The subdivision was reviewed and approved as amended by the Planning Commission on October 17. 1983. The only signifi.ant reenmmend,tion from the proposal teat FIaanin& CommissiDn amended was the location :)f the ac-,ess to the property. (As you will note the proponent had in response to the Planning Commission made the road in the subdivision a loop road.) The access 5,, b+ing moved further north is lire^tly in front )f the property )f 3cott anj Jeanne Maaustn. 13 t.1e3a property owners hava a concern with that location and desirt a -jrther south location and in order to avoid a 2onflict of .nterest the planning review of this matter is being handled for the City by John Shardlow. He outlines in Attachment 8 the review of the ori3:nal proposal and attachment A representing a review of the results of the Planning :commission act:gin. The issue of sewer being finalized would be an aopropriata- condinion to be met prior to find. subdivision appr)� ai witn an agreement regarding the subdivision share of North Brown Road or„ -ruction. _ . Approve as recommenial ,)y tad _3r:ni :d Commas:o :. -. ;1g Sever _-d ..14_1zei -:ona. 3u:: 1131. .. Dtvel,oper1s sgrdement addres.3ing goy .h Brown •oed joir i RECOMMENDATIIN - It is reoommended that the subdivision be approved as pr?sented with a change in the location of the acoass resolution for approval at the December 12, 1988 Council meeting. a_so kaap3 1on3truct.,?n traffic on 3rown Road tog3r,her 4i`n the event4al passander traffic further to the south. The applicant does not care which location is selected. Final plat approval should be conditionded on sewer and a developer's 33ree-,ien t on 'forth Sr.-)wn !)sd '_nanc.ng. PROPOSED MOTIJI - Moved by , seconded by , direct staff to prepare a Resolution grant —in togetner with a conditional use permit for PRD located at 715 North Brown Road for action December 12, 1988 meeting. Ayes , Nays that the Council g the subdivision for the property at the CounciI's 2 CITY OF ORONO _ ^� PRESENTER Peter Jarvis, T In Kost, BRW, Inc. ITEM Request for Rezoning from RR-1B to R-1A, Preliminary Plat Approval of a Subdi-,rision Consisting of 25 Single Family Lots and Related Outlots, and Approval of a Conditional life Permit for a PRD, for the 32.6 acre Rebers Property, Located in the *Iorthwest Quadrant of T.!:. 12 and Brown Road. BACKGROUND This request for rezoning has been the subject of considerable review and discussion over the course of this late summer and early fall. Although the basic concept for the use of this pruperty remains the same, some design modifications have occurred through the review process. All of the basic planning issues surrounding this appl-,acion were reviewed in the planning report that was prepared for tiie Planning Commission's September 19 meeting. That report has been attached for your reference. This report focuses on the design modifications that have been made by the applicants in response to concerns and directives expressed by the Planning Cum -mission. These modifications relate primarily to the location of the access point on Brown Road and the design of the internal street system. We ave, also been asked to respond to some concerns contained in a letter that has been circulated by former City Councilmember, Tim Adams. $SIMMABL OF DESIGN MDDIFICATIOIiS 1. Access Onto Brown Road The access point on Brown I3ad has been roved many times during the planning process. Whe the applicants presented their initial design, this acces was shown in approximately the