Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-11-1985 Council Packet
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985. PAGE 1 ATTENDANCE 7:00 PM The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Butler, Councilmembers Frahm, Tim Adams, and Lynn Adams. Councilmember Grabek was absent. City Attorney Radio and City Engineer Cook were also present. Building 6 Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and Recorder Sutton represented the City staff. Planning Commission Chairman Callahan was also present. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, with all staff reports concerning these items to be attached to an original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). APPROVAL OF MTNUTES* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the regular Council minutes of February 25, 1985, as submitted. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). APPEARANCE HELEN SRARET FLOWERS BY HELEN Helen and Ken Skaret were present. Helen Skaret explained that she owns the f lower shop in Spring Park and is opposed to the solitors license issued by the City to a peddler that sells flowers on the street corners. Skaret felt that the City shouldn't want peddlers cluttering the streets selling their products. Skaret stated that the peddler puts up cardboard signs which clutter the streets. Mayor Butler explained that the solicitor went through the City's normal procedure in applying for the solicitor's license. Butler noted that at the time thn solicitor applied he did not state the location where he would be selling his flowers. Butler stated that the solicitor is allowed a piece of the free enterprise system too. Butler stated that if the solicitor is using signage, that he should be required to acquire a temporary sign permit. Councilmember 1'. Adams stated that the time limit on the license should be shortened. Councilmember Frahm suggested raising the fee charged for the solicitors application. Mayor Butler asked staff to ask other cities how much they charge for solicitor's licenses and what the time limit is on the licenses. Butler stated that Council would discuss this issue further on March 25, 1985, after the additional information is received from staff. Butler directed staff to draft a letter to Helen Skaret informing her that the Council will be discussing the issue aqain on March 25, 1985. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1g85. PAGE 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Jo Ellen Hurr was not present therefore there was no LMCD report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Chairman Callahan was present but had no comments at this point in the meeting. PUBLT.0 COMMENTS Phil Miller of 2435 Countryside Drive was present. Phil Miller noted that he lives in one of the six homes on Countryside Drive. Miller stated that the developer of Countryside Manor has an agreement with the association to install entryway monuments. Miller informed Council that the monuments were supposed to be installed two years ago. Miller asked the Council if the City has any documents that require the developer to install the monuments. Miller stated that he wants the monuments installed because the developer has a temporary easement over his property to instil ll the monuments and he cannot finish his landscaping until the monuments are installed. Miller asked the City to restrict any bui lding permits from the second addition of the development until the developer installs the entryway monuments. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the conditions of the documents that the City has on file do not i,iclude the requirement that the entryway monuments be installed. Mabusth explained that the developer came into the City with plans to install 8' high entryway monuments and staff advised the developer to advise staff of the location for signs because they may pose a traffic safety hazard. Mabusth stated that staff has not heard back from the developer. City Attorney Radio stated that if the improvements were not bonded or included in the documents of the City, that the City cannot require the developer to install the monuments. Radio asked staf f to contact the developer just to make sure there is not a misunderstanding. Radio noted that if the developer agreed to installing the monuments in the privat? covenants, then the homeowners association would have more control over the developer then the City would. Council directed staff to contact Richard Conryto determine if he was or was not waiting for approval of the City. 1884 RICHARD ELLER 2655 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE Richard Eller was not present. Neighbors D.C. Messer of 2673 Pheasant Road and E.J. Stanke of 2660 Pheasant Road wire present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth presented Council with a letter written by Richard E:ller's attorney who is requesting that the application be tabled until the next Council meeting of March 25, 1985, when the Ellers could be present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCII 11, 1985. PAGE #884 RICHARD ELLER Mayor Butler stated *hat as a result of the attorney's request, she suggested tabling the application until March 25, 1985 when the attorney and/or applicant can be present. Edward Stanke of 2660 Pheasant Road stated that the applicant has been using every means possible to delay the application and by the time the City resolves the issue the lake will be open and the boat back into the water. Stanke asked for immediate action on the application since this has been going on since September. Stanke stated that an ordinance isn't any good if the City isn't going to enforce that ordinance. Stanke stated that Eller has kept his boat therefor two years and none of the neighbors like it. Stanke explained that he has had his home for sale and that the location of the boat has scared off potential buyers. Stanke noted that the snow has melted off and Eller is able to move the boat but Eller refuses. Mayor Butler explained that the proper procedure has been followed and that Eller has responded to the letters of staff by applying for the variance. Butler noted that sometimes the process is a little slower than everyone would like, but that Eller is allowed due process just like anyone else. Butler stated that the item will be tabled and staff will notify Eller that action will be taken at the March 25, 1985, Council meeting regardless of whether applicant and/or attorney is present. City Attorney Radio noted for the record that Eller has submitted a letter stating that he will not park the boat on his property next year. Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to table the Eller variance application until March 25, 1985, at which time the City will take action on the variance whether or not the attorney and/or applicant is present. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (1). Councilmember L. Adams voted nay. Adams felt that normally when someone is in violation of a City ordinance, that person should be issued a citation first. Adams stated that Eller should be applying for an after -the -fact variance and the issue promptly resolved. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explainer? that the normal procedure for violators is for staff to write a letter notifying the resident of that violation and wait for the resident's response. Mabusth stated then the City writes a second letter threatening the issuance of a citation if the resident hasn't responded. Mabusth noted that if a resident still hasn't responded, a citation is then issued. Mabusth explained that Eller responded at the second stage by applying for the variance claiming that the topography of his property will not allow the storage of the boat elsewhere on his property. Mabusth noted that Eller claims that moving the twat will harm the boat which was confirmed by a marina, owncy, and the City Engineer. [MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCII, MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985. PAGE 4 #884 RICHARD ELLER Councilmember L. Ac,3n s felt that the City is too flexible on after -the -fart applications. Adams stated that usually after -the -fact. applications are automatically approved. Planning Commission Chairman Callahan felt that the enforcement of the ordinances should be dealth with in a prompt rationale way and agreed with Councilmember L. Adams that after -the -fact applications are usually approved because the Planning Commission's hands are usually tied. Councilmember Frahm stated that one reason that the after- the-fact.applications are approved is usually undoing what has already been done is more harmful to the environment than to leave alone what has been done. City Attorney Radio suggested that staff write a letter to Eller and his attorney extending an invitation to listen to the tape of the meeting since more discussion did take place. #888 CATHARINE CRAM 3760 WATERTOWN ROAD METES i BOUNDS SUBDIVISION FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION 11732 Catharine Cram was not present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that Cram will not be able to attend the meeting and asked Council to go ahead and take action on her application. Mabusth noted that Mrs. Cram is dividing off a 9 acre parcel of land and is donating it to the University of Minnesota. Mabusth explained that during the review at the Planning Commission, the question -..,as raised as to if the City acquired a quit claim deed would it automatically separate the two parcels. Mabusth stated that after discussions with Hennepin County and the Assessor, that the quit claim deeding to the City would not automatically create two separate lots and that the property would have a single property identification number. Mabusth also asked Council to waive the additional right-of-way involved with Parcel B and address that at the time Parcel B is subdivided. Mabusth noted that the lack of services will limit the University from anything but residential use of the property. Mayor Butler stated that Mrs. Cram notified her and wants to donate to the City the old school building. Butler. suggested that the Park Commission take a look at the property for park purposes. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve Resolution01732, A Resolution approving a metes and bounds subdivision creating two parcels for Catharine Cram. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE ORGdO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985. PAGE 5 ! 891 JOHN MILLER 1105 TONIUNA ROAD VARIANCE i CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION #1733 John Miller was present along with architect, D. Pertinen, from Planning and Design. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Miller proposes to remove the existing home which is located 40' from the lakeshore and build a new home 60' from the lakeshore. Gaffron noted that the plan will improve the existing drainage problem and decrease the hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. Gaffron noted that the hardcovei will increase within the 75-250' zone. Gaffron stated that the applicant was required to apply for a conditional use permit because of the excessive grading to be done within the 0-75' of the lakeshore. City Engineer Cook stated that his only change to the proposal was made so that the water would not flow down the steps in order to prevent erosion. Mayor Butler noted that extra caution must be taken during construction and during the grading so that as little as possible enters the lake. Butler suggested using the mesh that the highway department uses to prevent erosion into the lake. Councilmember L. Adams suggested grading and sodding the same day so that the bare land is not left overnight. Councilmember Frahm felt that any hardcover left in the 0-75' setback zone will be deducted from the hardcover allowed in the 75-250' zone. Councilmember L. Adams moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to approve Resolution #1733, A Resolution Approving a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a new home and excessive grading subject to staff amending the resolution to specify the erosion control measures that should be taken during the grading and construction of the home. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Councilmember Frahm stated that a grading plan should be submitted locating the proposed improvements of the retaining wall. #892 THOMAS MORTENSON 1971 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1734 Thomas Mortenson was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mortenson plans to construction an addition to his existing home and a garage. Gaffron stated that the existing garage will be razed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985. PAGI: 6 #892 MORTENSON Thomas Mortenson stated that he wi 11 be removi no a f lat stone walkway to reduce some of the hardcover. Mortenson noted that the existing garage extends into the street right of way. Mortenson stated that Planning Commission asked him to cut his proposal back to only allow 30 percent hardcover and he has done so. Councilmember Frahm felt that the proposal included too much hardcover allowed for the property. Mayor Butler noted that the applicant has been subjected to two 75' setbacks. Councilmember T. Adams stated that the applicant should have to use the special decking treatment so that the City will not have to consider the deck hardcover, thereby reducirg the overall hardcover on the property. Councilmember L. Adams moved, Mayor Butler seconded, to approve Resolution #1734, A Resolution Approving a Variance to Thomas Mortenso- to allow the construction of an addition and a garage limiting the hardcover to 30 percent. Niot ion, Ayes ( 2) , Nays ( 2) . Councilmembers Frahm and T. Adams voted nay. Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve Resolution #1734. A Resolution Approving A Variance to Thomas Mortenson to allow the construction of an addition and garage limiting the hardcover to 27 percent subject to staff adding language to the resolution concerning the special decking treatment. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (1). Councilmember Frahm vote nay. Frahm felt that this was too much hardcover to allow within the 0-250' setback zone. #893 SUNMERFIELD FARMS 3800 WAYZATA BLVD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1735 Glenn Nellist and Lowell Schaper were present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicants are seeking an amendment to the original resolution that approved the operation of the store. Mabusth stated that they are seeking approval of two additional uses of the store: mini -bakery and delicatesEen use. Mabusth stated that during the review by the Planning Commission, applicants also expressed their desire to have one picnic table in the def ined sales area tf�, be used by hikers and bikers that sometimes stop into the store and have no place to consume the prodicts they have purchased. Mabusth stated that the intent of the picnic table is not to have employees serve customers, but to have the customer purchase the item from the retail counter. Mabusth stated that the proposal does not appear to be an inte':sif icat ion of the existing use. MINUTES •C,? THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING IIEI t) MARCH 11 , 1985. PAGE 7 #893 SUIN,�!.,_ 'lhLD Glenn Nellist stated that frozen dough will be used and the FARMS (COM4T.: store will not be a full fledged bakery that bakes from scratch. Nellist stated that the delicatessen use will be sometime later because of Hennepin County's requirements and it w; take longer for them to comply. Mayor cutler felt that the proposed use was not an intensification b-t merely a trade off between other things that are sold. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve Resolution #1735, a Resolution approving an amendment to the original resolution allowing them to use a mini -bakery and delicatessen for preparing of party trays, subject to staff underlining the word "served" in the resolution in order to clarify that the store is not to be used as a restaurant. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). RESOLUTION #1736 RESOLUTION #1737 TAX FORFEIT LOTS Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the firstresolution is to release tax forfeit lands for sale to adjacent owners. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve Resolution ##1736, A Resolution releasing tax forfeited lands for sale to adjacent land owners. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the second resolution is a resolution releasing lands for public sale. Council felt that they would rather keep the property for park purposes. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember 1.. Adams seconded, to appr,-)vP Resolution #1737, and directing staff to revise such resol,icion to note that the City will retain the lands for public park purposes. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). STATUS MEMO REGARDING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 10.55 Zoning Administrator Mahusth explained that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has contacted the City asking the City to adopt their ordinances regarcing specific setbacks for different lakes in Orono. Mabusth noted t_iat the DNR has not contacted Orono's surroundinq cities that share some of those same lakes, but still expects the City to adopt their ordinances. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to direct staff to draft a letter outlining the City's wetlands and f loodplain ordinances along with copies of the code to be sent to the DNR. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985 PAGE. 8 MAINTENANCE OF MUNICIPAL CODE Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that Roger Jenson will sell the 25 disks to the City for a price of $38.50. Mabusth noted that Jensen gave her a price for the word processing fee which would be $100 for approximately 10 ordinances. Mabusth stated that the annual review cost for updating 10 ordinances would be$1,000.00,and thi=comprehensive review would also include the incorporation .3f the state statutes that would apply to the municipal code. Councilmember L. Adams suggested buying the disks just to have on hand in case the City ever needs them. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to direct --taff to purchase the 25 disks at the price of $38.50. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Council felt that the new City Administrator should decide whether to contract with the Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. since the revisions of the code would not begin until April, 1985. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT ORDINANCE Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to direct staff to draft a letter to be sent to the district prior to the March 28th deadline advising of the City's position and support of the ordinance amendments. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). VACATION OF MANOR CIRCLE Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that her memo concerning the vacation of Manor Circle was for information only and that an official public hearing would be held later. CA3LE TV REPORT Mayo.- Butler noted that a committee meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 12, 1985. TRANSPORTATION REPORT Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson stated that a variance for County Road 15 has been submitted to the Minnesota State Aid Va.iance Committee, but that they will not hold heariligs until they receive about 20 variances. SHARDLOW LETTER Mayor Butler asked staff to extend an invitation to John Shardlow to attend the Council meeting of April 8, 1985, to discuss the possibility of his employment with the City as a consultant. JOINT COUNCIL i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE Mayor Butler suggested that the Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting be held on March 25, 1985, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. an,? after 7:00 p.m. the regular Counci 1 meeting_ will begin. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MFETING HELD MARCH 11, 1985. PAGE 9 REFUND OF WATERMETER PEE-LARSON PLUMBING* REFUND - UTILITY BILL OVERPAYMENT* EQUIPMENT PURCHASE QUICK COUPLER STREET DEPARTMENT* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the refund of $130 to Larson Plumbing for a water meter. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the refund of an overpayment on a utility bill in the amountof $49.34 to Dorothy Grannes. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the purchase of one quick coupler attachment from Minneapolis Equipment Company for an amount not to exceed $3,712 for the street department. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). CARPET REPLACEMENT ORONO GOLF CLUBHOUSE* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to award the bid to west Tonka Interiors for an amount not to exceed $1,322.60 for carpet replacement within the Orono Golf Clubhouse. SIGNATURE PAGE 1985 POLICE CONTRACT* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconder:, to approve the signature page of the 1985 police contract. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). MONTH1..Y SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS i BP -LANCES - JAN . 8 5 * Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the monthly summary of receipts, disbursements, and balances for January, 1985, prepared by Finance Director Kuehn. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). MONTHLY LIQUOR STORE SALES REPORT FEB. 1985* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the monthly liquor store sales report for February, 1985, prepared by Finance Director Kuehn. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). ADDRIIDUM / 1- CRYSTAL BAY SEWER PROJECT SPBCS* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve addendum 11 to the Crystal day Sewer Project Specifications which requires a submersible type lift station. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). MINUTES OF T1JF ORONO COUNCIL, M1:1•TING HF:I,U MARCH 11, 1985. PAGE 11) SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE - CDBG* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the date set for the public hearing concerning Community Development Block Grand Funds to be held March 25, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). LONG LAKE SEWER PLANT PROPERTY* Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to accept the letter written by Zoning Administrator Mabusth to the City of Long Lake concerning the Long Lake Sewer Plant Property. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). 1950 SHORELINE DRIVE REVIEW OF SEWER UNITS Nancy Rosenthal of 640 Tonkawa Road was present since she was interested =n the property located at 1950 Shoreline Drive. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the property located at 1950 Shoreline Drive has 4 rental units and that Council should decide hcw sewer units from the Crystal Bay Sewer Project will be allocated to the property. Gaffron noted that the 4 units is a non -conforming use within that LR-lA zoning district. City Attorney Radio stated that the City could assess 4 sewer units to the property and then refund them later if the owner decides against the 4 units. Mayor Butler stated that if the City assessed the property with 4 sewer units that the owner would assume that his 4 units are a conforming use and that the City likes the idea of the 4 units on the property. Butler states: that the property at 1950 will nat meet the guidelines for lower income as the Crystal Bay area has and that the City will not share in any assessment for this property and the property will be 1001 assessed. Councilmember Frahm suggested allocating 4 sewer units to the property if the owner will not agree to sign off on a document that says he will get rici of 2 of the units. Frahm stated if the owner will sign of f on a document agreeing to get rid of 2 of the units, then the City will allocate only 2 units. Frahm stated that under the agreement to allow him only 2 units, the City should require prompt removal of the 2 units. Mayor Butler reinforced the fact that if the owner wants 2 units, then he must remove the other 2 units I omptly. Butler suggested giving the owner the choice betwee., 4 units and 2 units. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HELD MARCH 11, 1995. PAGE 11 DISCUSSION OF COYSTAL BAY SEWER ASSESSMENT HEARING Mayor Butler suggested starting the regular Council meeting at 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. on April 22, 1985, and then have the Crystal Bay Assessment Hearing schedule at 8:00 in the Art Center. LI CEP.%RS * BILLS! ADJOURNMENT 11:09 PM ATTE T: borkthy M.r Counci.lmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, to approve the following licenses: Harold, John, Steven Panuska - Firearm Use Permit Easy Race V - Special Event Permit Dog House - Cor;,!,nercial Kennel License Widmer Bros. - Septic System Installer Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconded, that the All Funds Accounts and Liquor Store Accounts be paid. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). The regular Council. meeting adjourned at 11:09 p.m. H / / /`JW71<-C llin, City Clerk 4rC . ler, Mayoi Tom Frahm, Acting Mayor AGENDA FOR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985, 7:00 P.M. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will he held Ripon request. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINOTES C'0041L ?MEW *2. Regular Meeting of February 25, 1985 -I"le- jW 1 1985 3. Appearance Helen Skaret - Flowers by Helen PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS CITY OF (*ONO LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Chairman Edwaid Callahan PUBLIC COMMENTS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #884 Richard Eller, 2655 Shadywood Road - Variance 5. #888 Catharine A. Cram, 3760 Watertown Road - Metes & Bounds - Class I Subdivision - Final Subdivision - Resolution 6. #891 J.D. Miller, 1105 Tonkawa Road - Variance & Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 7. #892 Thomas Mortenson, 1971 Fagerness Point Road - Variance - Resolution 8. #893 Summerficld Farms, 3800 Wayzata Blvd. - Conditional Use Permi Resolution 9. Release For Private Sale Tax Forfeit Lots - Resolution 10. Status memo on proposed amendment of Ordinance 10.55 of the zoning ordinance providing for limitations on the use of lands surrounding specific lakes within the City. 11. Maintenance of Municipal Code - Update letter from Roger Jensen 12. Amendment of Hennepin County Park Reserve District Ordinance - Staff Comments 13. Vacation of Manor Circle - March 25, 1985 8:00 p.m. - Memo CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT MAYOR'S REPORT CABLE TV REPORT TRANSPORTATION REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. Dahlgren, Shardlow Letter 15. Set Date For Joint Council -Planning Commission Meeting *16. Refund of Watermeter Fee - Larson Plumbing *17. Refund - Utility Bill Overpayment *18. Equipment Purchase - Quick Coupler - Street Department *19. Carpet Replacement Orono Golf Course Clubhouse *20. Signature Page, 1985 Police Contract AGENDA FOR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING SST FOR MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985, 7:00 P.M. *21. January 1985 Monthly Summary of. Receipts, Disbursements & Balances *22. Monthly Liquor Store Sales Rf-port - January 1985 *23. Monthly Liquor Store Sales R=port - February 1985 *24. Addendum $1 Crystal Bay Sewer Project Specification *25. Set Publ' Hearing Date CDBG CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTERS AND MEMOS *26 Long Lake Sewer Plant Property CITY ATTORNEY IS REPORT 27. Review of Sewer Units - 1950 Shoreline Drive LICENSES (28*) BILLS (29*) ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE A'TENDANCE 7:00 PM The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Frahm, Council - members Lynn Adams and Jim Grabek. Councilmember Tim Adams and Mayor Buller v.vre absent. The following WWUL IfItOR6 represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Adminis- `rrA t trator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, *t1 11985 Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Deputy Clerk Lattin, and Recorder Sutton. Police Chief Kilbo arrived at 7:11 p.m. and Finance Director Kuehn arrived at 8:05 C11V OF CRONO p.m. City Attorney Radio was also present. City Engineer Cook was absent. CONSENT AGENDA* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, with all staff reports concerning these items to be attached to an original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES* LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Acting Mayor seconded, to meeting held (0). Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams approve the minutes of the regular Council February 11, 1985. Moticn, Ayes (3), Nays Jo Ellen Hurr was present. Hurr discussed with the Council the LMCD's decision on Chaska Marina. Hurr noted that the Supreme Court's directives of 1981 for Chaska Marina is what the LMCD is abiding by. Hurr stated that Chaska Marina turred their docks a different way. Hurr noted that Chaska Marina is not responding to the LMCD's demands regarding the setbacks on the west side. Acting Mayor Frahm asked Hurr to check into the matter as tr, why Chaska Marina is not responding. Hurr noted that the LMCD is still working on the DWI bill for boaters on the lake. Hurr noted that last year 20 speeding tickets were issued on the lake. Hurr noted that the LMCD will be purchasing a new DWI detector breathalyser which will be located at the Water Patrol station and the offender will be driven back to the Water Patrol to take the test. Acting Mayor Frahm suggested that the LMCD investigate into this further because of the burden of escorting someone all the way back to the Water Patrol station. Frahm noted that the portable breathalyzer that the LMCD is currently using is better than their new proposal. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII. MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE 2 Hurr noted that she did speak to the concerned Mound resident about the density of the development or Pelican Point and explained that the LMCD has no jurisdiction over the land. Hurr stated that the proposal for. Pelican Point is on a 16 acre parcel with 96 proposed units. Fiurr did note that the LMCD standards would apply to the dockage proposed in the develop►o-ent. Hurr stated that the LMCD has not received an application from the developers yet. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Councilmember L. Adams noted that he attended the Planning Co,.,nission meeting of February 19, 1985, and that the Commission asked him to set up a joint meeting with the Council. Council discussed various dates and decided that the joint meeting will be held March 25, 1985, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and then at 7:00 p.m. the regular Council meeting will commence. Council gave staff an alternate date of Saturday, March 23, 1985, if the March 25th date will not accommodate everyone. Councilmember L. Adams stated that a motion was made at the last Planning Commission meeting to have Gloria McDonald removed from the Commission and the Commission was concerned with her excessive absenteeism. Adams noted that the motion died for lack of a second. Adams stated that. the Planning Commission was opposed to the Council's two-year term rule limiting Planning Commis- sion member's terms and asked that Council address this new rule. Councilmember L. Adams moved, Councilmember Grabek seconded, to have staff schedule a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission for March 25, 1985 from 6-7 p.m. and an alternate date of Saturday, March 23, 1985, if the previous date won't accommodate everyone. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Herman Renner of 3180 North Shore Drive was present to point out the problems he and surrounding neighbors are having with North Shore Drive Marina. Renner noted that the director of the LMCD, Frank Mixa, will not respond to his complaints. Renner stated that the dockage at North Shore Drive Marina is the problem connecting with the docks of the reside►its. Renner also noted that the deicing pump is so strong that it creates a wake and it has deiced beyond the fence line to the residents surrounding North Shore Drive Marina. Renner noted that the pump is destroying the fishing around the area and also ice skating for the residents. Renner asked who approved the permanent docking for North Shore Drive Maria. Renner stated that the docks should not allow to intersect with residential docks. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OI+ONO COUNCIL, MEETING HELD HEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE 3 Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that North Shore Drive Marina was not subjected to the current zoning because of the court case which allowed North Shore Drive Marina to go by the old zoning code. Jo Ellen Hurr noted that the LMCD did send an inspector out to the site and that inspector noted that the dockage conforms to the LMCD requirements. Hurr noted that another inspector from the LMCD will be sent out to investigate into the deicing pumper to see if it meets the requirements since the pumper isn't suppose to cause a wake. Hurr noted that the LMCD is no longer allowing permanent docks. Hurr noted that Orono has approved extensive permanent docking for North Shore Drive Marina. Herman Renner stated that the City should allow the residents in this area to shift their docks around or the City will be involved in a lawsuit. Renner noted that the docking cannot follow the lot lines in this neighborhood. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Howard Johnson of 1635 Concordia Street asked Council for more direction regarding his proposal on Concordia Street. Johnson noted that he has dealt with the hardcover issue by proposing holding ponds that will hold a 6" rain. Johnson noted he is proposing five docks in a cluster. Johnson stated that Orono's code states that the City likes PUD's because it doesn't destroy the natural amenities. Johnson noted that his proposal is with one car garages in hopes to attract the quiet person. Johnson stated that in the future re hopes to put a tennis court on the property. Acting Mayor Frahm informed Johnson that the property in question will only allow two riparian lots and no multiple do^ks. Frahm stated that the City has never allowed attached dwellings near the lake except those neighborhoods that were next to a commercial area. Councilmember L. Adams felt that Johnson has a good proposal and an innovative way to use his four and a half acres. Adams noted he would be in favor of five lots with two of ose five being riparian rights. Adams stated tr- ohnson would have to assign those riparian right: - • only two of the lots. Adams felt that Johnson hau .:ompromised a great deal from his first proposal. Councilmember Grabek asked Johnson if this is what he would like to see happen to the lake. Grabek felt that JchnFon was not following the intent of the zoning code. MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL, MEETING NSLD FE13RLARY 25, 1985. YAGF 4 #853 DO[ nLINT TOM BERL i GARY BA.RR 3535/354'_. VY PLACE i 3034 CASCO POINT RD SUBDIVISION There was no one present to represent the applicants. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that this applicac-)-, is a result of the vacation of Maple Avenue. Councilmember L. Adams moved, Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to approve the plat of a lot line rearrangement known as Casco Cove finding all lots meet the standards of the LR-1C zoning district and that all existing structures meet the required setbacks for the district, with approval subject to the condition that the plat be amended to reflect the City's ownership of that portion of Ivy Lane referred to on the preliminary plat as "to be dedicated as road". Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #872 BRECKENRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP 1200 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #1729* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolution #1729, A Resolution Approving the Plat of BRECKENRIDGE. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #880 STEVEN RUCH 4625 WEST BRANCH ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR REFUND OF APPLICATION FEE Steven Ruce was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that at the last Council meeting, Steven Ruce's application was placed on Consent Agenda* and was approved but the request for the refund of the application fee was never addressed. Steven Ruce noted that since his application has Luch a minimal "commercial" use with no retail sales activity on the property, he asked Council for a refund of the conditional use permit fee of $100. Ruce noted that this was also the Planning Commission's recommendation. Acting Mayor Frahm noted that the conditional use permit is protection for the City in order for the City to control the level of commercial use on the property. Frahm noted that a 10 x 25' greenhouse could very easily become a more intense commercial greenhouse with a future owner. City Attorney Radio stated that the fee is to pay for staff time spent in reviewing the application and also for the filing of the resolution in the chain of title. i-JNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING LiELD FEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE 5 #880 STEVEN RUCE Councilmember L. Adams agreed with Ruce and the Planning Commission in regards to the low level of commercial use for the property. Adams stated that Ruce could have come into the City hall and asked for a building permit and received a building permit without getting a conditional use, but he was honest and mentioned a low level of commercial use for the property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the zoning code doesn't address the "degree" of commerciality. Mabusth explained that to be asked for a refund of the fee is rather after -the -fact. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to refund the $100 conditional use application fee to Steven Ruce but still have the conditional use on file and filed in the chain of title in order to protect the City against further commerciality on the property based on the low level of commercial use intended for the property. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #886 RICHARD RAGATZ 1945 CONCORDIA STREET VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1730* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded: to adopt Resolution #1730, A Resolution Granting a Variance '_o permit construction of a 770 sf deck structure of which 404 sf is to be located within the 0-75' setback zone. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). PLANNING FOR MAINTENANCE OF MUNICIPAL CODE 'Zoning Administrator Mabusth recommended that the City contract with the Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc. for one year who would provide for the first annual revision and update of the municipal code. Mabusth stated that the other option is to buy the discs and have the City's own clerical staff update the code. Mabusth noted that the Municipal Codifiers would be able to incorporate the State Statutes into the municipal code whereas the City clerical staff would not be able to without a great deal of time spent on the project.. Mabusth noted that the City already has adop-ed 10 ordinances since the recodification of the code. Councilmember Grabek asked if the Codifiers could give the City an evaluation throughout the year fo get some idea of the cost of such a service. Police Chief Kilbo noted that the three of chose ten ordinances were the ones the Codifiers left out in the first place. Kilbo noted that those first three ordinances that were left out should be 'ree ones from tte Codifiers. MINUTES OF THE: IiEGULAR O11ON0 COUNCIL. MEETING IIELD FFBItUA12Y 25, 1985. PAGE 6 Councilmember L. Adams suggested purchasing the discs from the Codifiers just to have around the City if they are only a couple of dollars. Adams noted that the City may want to use them eventually but should purchase them while they have the chance. Acting Mayor Frahm suggested getting an estimate on such a service that would update the municipal code. Frahm asked staff to use the 10 ordinances that the City has already adopted to get an estimate. Frahm noted that the Council shouldn't take any action until the City receives an estimate for the yearly service. SEPTIC SYSTEM BILLING BIG ISLAND Assistant 'Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained to the Council that this was the first year that Big Island would be billed the annual $20 fee for the septic system inspection program. Gaffron noted that this was for Council's information since they may be getting telephone _-lls from Big Island residents regarding the billing. Council felt that Big Island residents should be billed just like other Orono residents for the septic system program, and staff should proceed with the billing per the existing code. CITY ENGIOEER'S REPORT City Engineer Cook was not present. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Butler was not present and Acting Mayor Frahm had no comments. BID AWARD 1985 MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT• Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to accept the balance of the bids as presented for the calendar year of 1985 and to further reject the bid from H.V. Johnston C-Ivert Company since they included terms that were intradictory to the City's specifications. Motion, ayes (3), Nays (0). SALARY ADJUSTMENT TERI NAAB* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the salary adjustment of 58 salary increase or from $7.28/hr to $7.65/hr effective March 5, 1985, for Teri Naab. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). LIQUOR STORE OPERATING RESULTS THREE MONTHS END-.D 12-31-84* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to accept the liquor store op.irating results prepared by Finance Director Kuehn for three months ended December 31, 1984. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE REGULAR O11ON0 COUNCIL, MEETING LiELD FEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE 7 RESOLUTION #1731 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WILLOW DRIVE OVERLAY PROJECT* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolution #1731, a Resolution setting a speed limit of 30 mph along Willow Drive from Fox Street to Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge and indemnifying the MN Department of Transportation from any claims as a result of setting such speed limit. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). POLICE AUCTION ABANDONED VEHICLES* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the public auction on March 23, 1985 at 10 a.m. at Martin's 66 Station in Navarre for abandoned, seized, or unclaimed vehicles as listed in Police Chief Kilbo's memo. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). RESOLUTION WINE SALES IN GROCERY STORES Deputy Clerk Lattin explained that the resolution drafted is to prohibit grocery stores from selling wine and such resolution would be sent to the legislature. Lattin noted that 25% of the profits from the municipal liquor store are from wine sales and if grocery stores would start to sell wine it would have a detrimental affect on the liquor store. Lattin stated that historically some of the liquor store profits have been used to fund general fund expenditures. Lattin stated that the Police Chief will answer as to the affects on the health, safety and welfare such a resolution would have. Police Chief Kilbo explained that the grocery stores are already selling 3.2 beer and the selling of wine probably wouldn't have a dramatic affect on the selling of liquor to minors. Kilbo stated that the problem becomes a policing one in that it is hard to police the hours that grocery stores can sell such liquors. Councilmember Grabek felt that the City should not spend extra time fighting a piece of legislation that may be passed anyway. Grabek also noted that once the liquor store dips below the profit level it probably should be closed. The concensus of the Council was to not adopt the resolution prohibiting the sale of wine in grocery stores. SALARY AND BENEFIT REVIEW OF CITY EMPLOYEES Public Works Coordinator Gerhard son presented Council witr a tabulation -3f the proposed increases and benefits for City employees. Gerhardson noted that Mr. Cy Smythe is rewriting the personnel policy. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL. MLETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE 8 SALARY S BENEFIT It was reccinmended that the increases noted on the REVIEW FOR EMPLOYEES tabluation sheet be retroactive back to January 1, 1985. City Attorney Radio asked staff to explain the longevity plan. Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson stated that the longevity plan is based on the number of years an employee has been with the City as follows: after 4 years with the City an increase of 3% in salary to the base rate after 8 years with the City an increase of 5% in salary to the base rate after 12 years with the City an increase of 7% in salary to the base rate after 16 years with the City an increase of 9% in salary to the base rate Gerhardson noted that the above longevity plan went into effect January 1, 1984 for the police department. Councilmember L. Adams stated that he is interested in fairness to those who are entitled. Adams felt that he was not ready to vote on such a matter because he just received the tabulations. Adams asked staff for the history of raises for employees for the past 5-10 years. Councilmember Grabek asked for the impact such increases would have on the overall city budget. Grabek also asked for a comparison with other cities in regard to salary and benefits. Police Chief Kilbo stated that the sergeant who has been with the City for 16 years is only $39 above the top patrolman's salary. Kilbo noted that the same is true for the assistant police chief. Kilbo noted that both positions are non -union positions. Kilbo stated it would be more worthwhile for the sergeant and asst. police chief to resign their position and become patrol officers again. Kilbo recommended Council look at these two positions. Acting Mayor Frahm stated that the Council should assure the employees that whatever decision the Council makes would be retroactive back to January 1, 1985. Councilmember L. Adams moved, Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to assure staff that whatever action is taken regarding salaries and benefits would be retroactive back to January 1, 1985. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). MINUTES OF TILE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII, MEETING MELD FPBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE 9 Councilmember Grabek directed that staff submit the information received tonight, and the financial information regarding the impact on the budget to Cy Smythe and for him to present something by March 25, 1985, directing Smythe to make an analysis, comparison with other cities, and help formulate policy for next five years including establishing a step program. Grabek asked that the financial. information regarding the impact on the 1.985 budget also be submitted to Council. Police Chief Kilbo asked Council to direct Public Works Coordinator to draft a memo summarizing the Council's action for the employees. Council so directed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION - 1290 SPRUCE PLACE City Attorney Radio explained that the Council recently adopted a resolution declaring the residence at i290 Spruce Place a hazardous building. Radio noted that unlike other hazardous building actions, the land owner put in an answer contesting the matter. Radio stateo that the property then went into tax forfeiture to the state. Radio stated that the land owner had a chance to redeem, and did not do so as of January 7, 1985, therefore the state now owns the land. Radio stated that the Council must decide two issues: what to do with the hazardous building and what to do with the property. Radio felt that the City could obtain permission from the state to raze the building, but that the state will not pay for it. Radio stated that the state wants to release the land for sale which would allow the City to recoup its costs for part of the razing through the sale of the property to the general public or to buy it back from the state with an adjustment in the price. Radio stated that the City could also purchase the land for park purposes. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the two adjacent property owners are interested in purchasing the property. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, directed staff to ask for bids on the razing of the hazardous building and acquire purchase pricss from the DNR. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). Councilmember L. Adams suggested that the Park Commission take a look at this property. Adams also suggested offering the property to the adjacent property owners. MINUTES OF TILE R1 ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1985. PAGE10 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT PERSONNEL MATTERS City Attorney Radio suggested that thi item be discussed in executive session. LICENSES* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the following licenses: Multiple Sclerosis - raffle license Irwin Jacobs - kennel license Duane Anderson - kennel license John Lanier - kennel license Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). BILLS* Acting Mayor Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, that the All Funds Accounts and the Liquor Store Accounts be paid. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). ADJOURNMENT 9:30 PM Acting Mayor Franm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to adjourn the regular Council meeting at 9:30 p.m. and enter into executive session. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Thomas Frahm, Acting Mayor WUUITt,#,L MtETING �t11 i°3� To: Orono Council Members From: Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector C1iV ()F OR ONO Date: March 8, 1985 Subject: Solicitors License - Discount Plowers On January 24, 1985 Alan Penke app'ied for a so!icitors license to sell cut flowers within the City of Orono. After receiving his application it was turned over to the Orono Police Department for the required background chec%. This was completed and approved by the Police Department. Ci•-N Ltaff recommended approval of the license finding the applicant ratified all preformance standards of Orono Municipal Code Section 5.30. 41If,,r,,, /y.rl,/„ ftr rr„e/.. I/r'„n .lid--- F-w4Re CITY OF r ` j , , I ��_I 4i/ .%4/!r I.i cen!iu No. 0 a662 � APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION-�520`00 fce -1 Date Peccivccl I -' --- I' Date Expi res .3 - o? - .5 CITY OF ORONO 1335 BROWN ROAD SOUTH BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 .j Organizatipp: 1 d w c,r Address: l' 1 4 I _ V Representative: C� (, " f ," 1, c Address: _ �)j•; u1,6 Phone 12 ?i (p - S -11 9 Phone " I", /t,4 Check One: business Solicitation �, Contribution Solicitation Number of. Peoplc Solicitatiog within the City e Provide list of names of Solicitors on back of this application. Type of Product to be solicited C of i is cd rcr PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM APPROVAL DATE. POLICE CHIEF SHALL HAVE FIVE (5) BUSINESS DAYS IN WHICH TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION PURSUANT TO ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE. SECTION 5.30 SUBD 5(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON SOLICITORS Subd. 3. Prohibited Solicitation Practices. A. It is unlawful for any solicitor to engage in solicitation for any unlawful business or organizational purpose or activity. B. It is unlawful for any solicitor to practice harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation. C. It isunlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sicn with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" or "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the cwnei, leasee, or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation without a license as herein provided. ----------------------------------------------- I --------------------------- The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional r:t rements the City staff may have. Signature of Applicant: ) _,� Date: 02 FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends the following: _ Approval of application Deni 1' f a plication Signature of City Official:��' I t� [_- cite A / V Sionaturc� of 11nlico (-i,,, 1i!i// . /-� i- Datr•: NAMES OF SOLICITORS 1 Name- � o,�,es, Name Address: Address: u'J Phone: s; e, Phone: License No. i(O -C,.20 License No. 1 : S ,gyp -5 -.2/0 r 3 Name: Address: Phone: _ License No. Name: Address Phone: _ License No. Name: _ Address: Phone: _ License No. Name: Address: Phone: License No. Name: Address: Phone: _ License No. Name: Address: Phone: License No. Name: Address: Phone: _ License No. Name: _ Address: Phone: License No. (If additional names, please attach list) § 5.30 SEC. 5.30. SOLICITORS. Subd. 1. Purpose. This Section is not intended to in any way hinder, delay or interfere with legitimate business or organizational activities. The Council finds, however, that soli- citors have used public streets and their direct contact with residents of the City for the illegitimate solicitation practices of harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or unlawful activities. This Section is intended to ferret out and control: (1) businesses and organizations using solicitation as a means of concealing unlawful activities; and, (2) businesses and organizations which, trough its activities be lawful or even com- mendable, use such illegitimate practices in solicitation; and, (3) individual natural persons who, though they represent lawful busi- nesses and organizations, use such illegitimate solicitation practices; and, (4) businesses, though legitimate, which c.i.,se, or are likely to cause, a traffic hazard or other inconvenience or danger to persons or property. The Council further finds that a large number of the residents of the City are employed as their livelihood =- means of support by manufacturing plants and other businesses on shifts rotating between night and day, and to disturb them during their sleeping hours for the purpose of solicitation is a source of nuisance or even harassment and should be subject to control. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as jsed in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Solicitor" means any person making the solicitation, including such common terms as "peddler", "transient merchant" and "canvasser". B. "Solicitee" means the person solicited. C. "Goods" means any tangible thing of value, but not including money, things in action or intangible personal property other than merchandise certificates or coupons as herein described. The term includes such chattels as are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in the modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not severable therefrom. The term also includes merchandise certificates or coupons, issued by a retail seller, not redeemable in cash and to be used in their face amount in lieu of cash, in exchange for goods or services sold by such seller. kind. D. "Services" means work, labor, or services of any E. "Established place" means real estate in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month -to -month or term -certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days. The term includes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. ORONO CC 119 (4-1-84) § 5.30 F. "Business solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business of soli- citor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee persorally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the business firm or organization he represents, and the iden- tity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor; or, (3) an attempted solicitation of a newspaper subscription in which the solicitor is a minor child engaged in both the t;.. ivery and sale of the news- paper; or, (4) an attempted solicit,, ., . _)n for the sale of products of a farm or garden occupied or cultivated by the solicitor, when facts of such occupancy or cultivation are proven by the solicitor. G. "Contribution solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor to obtain money from a solicitee for any cause or purpose, when either the solicitor or person acting for him con- tacts the solicitee by telephone or in person other than at the established place of meeting, business, service, or activity of the organization represented by tc.e solicitor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the organization he repre- sents, and the identity of the services performed or offered by the organization, or, (2) an attempted solicitation, in which the soli- citee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor or the organization represented by him. Subd. 3. Prohibited Solicitation Practices. A. It is unlawful for any solicitor to engage in solicitation for any unlawful business or organizational purpose or activity. B. It is unlawful for any solicitor to practi^e harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation. C. It is unlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sign with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" cr "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the owner, lessee, or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation without a license as herein provided. ORONO CC 120 (4-1-84) § 5.30 Subd. 4. Application. Applications for licensing or registration shall contain the name and address of the solicitor, the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought and such other information as may reasonably be required by the Council as a condition to registration or licensing or to permit investigation into the applicant's background and past solicitation practices. Subd. 5. Investigation, Approval or Disapproval. A. All applications for licensing or registration shall be immediately referred to the Chief of Police, and by him or other person acting in his stead, investigated as to the truth thereof, and as to any other `_actor which may result in a hazard or danger to persons or property. The Chi-f of Police shall have five (5) business days within which to investigate and make a recommendation thereon. B. If he finds no past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, and if he finds that to grant the application is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the appl?cant. Th(: City Clerk shall issue a license, upon payment of the fee they!for, to the approved applicant for business solicitation, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a contribution solicitor. C. If the Chief of Police finds a past history of the applicant indicting violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, or if he finds that to grant the applica- tion is likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend denial of the license or registration. In all matters of recommended denial the applicant shall be forth- with advised thereof, and the application shall be referred to the Council and considered by it at its next regular or special meeting occurring -.ire than ten (10) days thereafter. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at SLIch meeting. Subd. 6. Duration of Contribution Solicitation Registration. Registration of contribution solicitation shall expire sixty (60) days after registration is approved. Soiirce: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 5.31 through 5.34, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) Olt MN) CC 121 (4-1.-84) // �u�LIL INtETIMG To: Mayor Butler MAR 111935 Orono Council Members Q OF CROW From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Nf Date: March 5, 1985 Subject: #884 Richard & Patrice Eller, 2655 Shadywood Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-1B Application - Variances to Section 10.60, Subdivision 13 a) Boat greater than 20 feet in length stored on residence lot. b) Boat stored in side/street yard less than 10' from side property line. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Applicants Formal Request Exhibit E - Staff Survey Exhibit F - Survey Exhibit G - Eller's Letter of 2/8/85 Exhibit H - Petition of Pheasant Lawn Neighbors Exhibit I - Messer's Letter of 2/4/85 Mr. Eller seeks variances to the residential exterior storage section of the code. He requests a variance to the size standard because he claims that at least two of his immediate neighbors have boats over 20 feet in length stored in their yards. (Note areas designated as 2 & 7 on staff survey - Exhibit E.) In addition, he calls attention to the "numerous boats stored on private property throughout the City of Orono". The applicants consider staff's ac- tions highly discriminatory in singling them out for actions deemed appropriate, natural and completely acceptable on other neighbors' lots and in other neighborhoods throughout the City. A second variance to the exterior storage section is sought by applicant claiming there is no other area on the property to store the boat because of the sloping topography. The boat is stored less than 35' from Pleasant Road and possibly less then 10' from the side property line - survey does not confirm setbacks. The ordinance allows a boat of less than 20 feet in length stored in a rear yard 10 feet from property lines. Council agreed that a boat in excess of 20 feet can be stored on a lakeshore lot if it is adquately screened or stored in a building --- and if neighbors have no sight problems. Per Section 10.02 Item 79 - Yard, Rear. -- On a lakeshore lot, the rear yard shall be the yard which fronts on the street lying between the streetline of the lot and the required rear yard setback line. A boat less than 20 feet in length could be stored in the rear yard. Our applicant has 2 street yards - rear/street and side/street yards. The applicant's boat is stored in what effectively is the extended front yard areas of the Pheasant Lawn neighbo.-hood along Pheasant Road. The boat is stored less than 35 feet from the street in the side/street yard. A boat less then 20 feet could be stored in the location in conformance with the code. If you review the staff exterior boat storage survey of the sur- rounding area, note that only one other Pheasant Lawn resident stores an oversized boat on their property (Area 1). The boat is stored 10 to 15 feet off Pheasant F.oad screened by a small shrub. The remaining residents of Pheasant Lawn store their boats off site. The boat stored in Area 2 is located in the front/street side yard. The boat stored in Area 7 is located in a lakeshore/front yard. My windshield survey reveals a total of eight oversized boats stored in the Pheasant Lawn, Shore Hills and Narrows area of the City. This is the first variance application to the exterior storage section of the code to be reviewed by the City. Mr. Eller claims his rear yard cannot be considered because of the topography. There is no feasible site on the property to store a boat of this size in addition to meeting the screening requirements. Eller claims he cannot move the boat and cradle at this time of year. I have asked Jim Dunn of Chaska Marina to confirm El ler's claim. Dunn is aware of the Eller boat because of the newspaper article and con- firms that the boat could sustain severe damage to the hull because of the age of the wooden cradle, age of boat, type of boat construction and time of year. At the two Planning Commission meetings reviewing their applica- tion, the neighbors have been very vocal in opposing the boats' storage location. They have found a nearby neighbor who has agreed to allow storage of the Eller boat until the spring. Eller is grateful but he claims that moving the boat at this time of year is unthinkable. The neighbors fail to communicate directly with Eller - once again, the City has stepped in as mediator. Eller confirms in writing that he does not plan to store the boat on his property in the future (see Exhibit G). Staff offered the following approving recommendation to the Planning Commission: To allow a boat in excess of 20 feet to be temporarily stored at its present location 10'+/- from side/west lot line and 20'+/- from side/street lot line until April 15, 1985 and that in the event the subject boat is not moved by the specified deadline date, a citation will be issued to the owner. Applicant has agreed in writing to store the subject boat off site in the future but in the event a future owner wishes to store a boat in excess of 20' on the property that he/she be forewarned that there may not be a suitable site on the property for winter boat storage and to contact the Orono staff for current setback standards and screeninq requirements. Approval of the variance application is based on the following hardships and findings: 1. Sloping topography of the lot. 2. The lot is subject to street setbacks on 2 sides and Lake- shore setback from lagoon/main lake. 3. The boat and cradle in its present state could sustain severe damage if moved in mid -winter. 4. Applicant has agreed to store boat off site in future. Planning Commission made the following denial recommendation: To recommend denial of the variance for Richard Eller to permit the storage of an oversized boat on his residential property and further recommends that Council expedite the prompt moving of the :.oat in order to enforce the existing ordinance, with such denial based on the following findings: 1. Planning Commission doesn't see the validity of the hardships claimed by Eller because there is adequate area on the lot in a less obnoxious location to store the oversized boat. 2. Planning Commission doesn't find any hardship in moving the boat that is currently sitting on a trailer which has wheels. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (J). I have reviewed the informal statements made by Dunn to staff concerning the moving of the boat during the winter months with the City Engineer. He confirms that the calking of an older boat is extremely sensitive to cold and to move the boat over rough terrain creates significant deflections great enough to cause cracking in the old calking. If a boat and cradle are old they can indeed sustain damage. Council Action: To direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial for the temporary storage of a boat in excess of 20 feet on a residential property located at 2655 Shadywvod Road to be presented for Council's action at their meeting of March 25th. CITY OF ORONO !o v •pO fi. �. %L VARIANCE APPLICATION Application Fee $100.00 After -the -Fact Fee $200.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION ,_ �` S.i.te Address S cao �,+ao0 i� 4 r I Property Identification Number (P.I.D. Please check one -- Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLI CANT i Name W,tACL,O �.L..�.LQ— Phone _ 1 i•Ll a Mailing Address Z(o 5 S' SµPan A 000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER Name zn�m2 _ Phor Mailing Address 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: _,--A3!C, a-rsAC t&!,0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Hardcover Front Side Rear) 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. /r 2. Certif ied Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes ( # 10 ) pre- addressed to each of the names on the above l:.st with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Plat Mar). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------•------------------------------------------ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicart hereby agrees to provide all information require- or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agreestopayallfeesand/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the be of his/he-knowledge. Applicant's signatu OWNERS SIGNATURE Date JZI 1-1 1 L4 The owner -iereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. lQRUN DATE 12/11/84 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM REPORT 110. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE BATCH 002 38 21-117-23 22 0008 ;8 21-117-23 23 0005 38 21-117-23 23 n009 PROP ADDR 02530 OLD BEACH RD 02655 PHEASANT RD 02673 PHEAL: of iiil G::NER NAME SCOTT S POWELL MIN M EIDE DALLAS C MES;;tR ETA' - TAXPAYER SCOTT S POWELL DAVID A ANNE MARIE COOKSON DALLAS C MESSER NAME/ADDR 2530 OLD BEACH RD 2655 PHEASANT RD 2673 PYEASAr1T RD WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 553.5: ss 38 21-117-23 23 0021 30 .^1-117-,3 23 0022 38 21-117-23 23 002 PRCP ADDR 02670 PHEASANT RD 02660 PHEASANT RD 02655 SHAGiWGJO RD O:T:ER NAME RAYHOND E JOHNSON ED:IARJ J STAIIKE ETA[ RICHAPO 0 EPICKSON A WIF", TAXPAYER RAYMOND E JOH►ISON EDUARD J STANKE RICH.%)10 A PATRICE F�LFG NAME/ADDR 2670 PHEASANT RD 2660 PHEASANT im 2655, !�':AO( WOOD RC- -EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELJIOR MN 55331 ORUl:0 NN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0050 30 21-117-23 24 0046 38 21-117-23 2-4 00S2 PROP ADDR 02685 SHADYW000 RD 02600 SHA0fWG3D RD 02670 MAPLERIDGE LA OWNER NAME PAUL T WROOEL ETAL VCRNON E i-.UA ETAL P i A LITTLE IV TAXPAYER PAUL T WROBEL VERNON E TUY.UA PHILIP IV A AMANDA S LITTLE NAME/ADDR 2685 SHADYWOOD RD 2680 SHADYROOU RD 2670 MAPLE RIDGE LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MII 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0053 PROP ADDR 02675 SHADIWOOD RD Ol.'NER NAME RICHARD H BREUSTEDT ETAL TAXPAYER RICHARD H BREUSTEDT TOTAL BATCH 002 00010 NAME/ADDR 2675 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR Ml E5331 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 PR( ERTY TAXATION, 10 THE BEST OF Mt KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. /� DATE BY Lo BEA C �5 sf � j��4y •�' • V 25 24 22 23 �p .• Q ; tj =jDd Np .� �SIlS r \ •a pQ� r \\ �Jlf ' .:� �M� 18 CO Qi s `f I ,•� 17 •)e + �titi 22 .y•��/ 15 rl '',•�u RD Q16 6 IL 7 'are \ `(.� 18 \ 'ME s,n'•'' L� wa_64a 19 \ • CIS) 9 lu h I�) 6 / `s� ;fs a =art �f Q �. o— W-•-F G AP S No500 !N ` See retort• vie 9 December 21, 1984 City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Ray, MN 55323 Members of the Planning Commission: Ile wish to request a variance to the Orono Municipal Code, Section 10.60: Subd. 13, pertaining to the storage of boats on private property. We are informed that we are in violation of the Code as to the placement of the boat on the property and as to its' size. As To Placement: Because of the slope of the property, the boat is in the only p ace possible to put it. We would be happy to move it anywhere else on the property, unfortunately ther3 simply is no other spot for it. ( See * on survey) . As To Size: There are numerous boats stored on private property throughout the City of Orono that are over 20 feet. In fact, this is true of two of my imriediate neighbors. We feel it would be highly discriminatory to single us out for something that is routinely ignored. We thank you for your consideration of this matter. rSincerely, .- Dick and Patrice Eller attachments .WALTERS- ;PORT.. _� G�RN.�gR .� 0.I SU80. -NO. 344 . ra`. '�•` "`" •�� : ` R.ly o ^� Y J ,r N0. 99 S (� �S i .ti i • " O Y , + �o r v " _ au , Z 310 a D - - r-•.+•_ NE „ — C , I — N //2 SEC. 2/ , / .1/7, H.13 TONKA SAY-97 2G 7� :,111 1 'fl 111 :ul _ W Y v9 r -9 14 1 '.\ '• Q� - _ xa •1 ` .L r • • ;ScB �1t��f •.1 111 ♦♦ CD -� � `.. 1 - xt k♦a�' .! � Ito )—u- cof to stl �� x '� fir) f 1.. f \ a,..•. •'M. q ��w /►n r Ir q -� x \ w 1 1Y•-�;1lM. 1 (•q •^Y S.,y �•1 �• ` •CS .�i�f 7' _•� ,an �� ,Q rc P _ moo'. •,, r • \. '""' •-•-•-•-•-•-' - - - - - - - - - - _ 't` •se. ) �s ` •\ � -- � � y'f � �) • <� bl .i.AC n � - ._ I I - -� �"/ - t. r ••y sn .. ,' �-�: ��� , { a a• ' y4 ''+sM l \ �je 4nr r1 0 x1. t1' 1 ++1,(O 1 f', _ o " /, too — . .. v' �..; ♦ 1 t t�• a I I 1 •, �T � 4 JV I I A I 1. — — 9� 24 / �o \ 13 14 f4.Il.. Ibi Mt.,U ill F— kL ' I / ; •� \ ek C. 7� O p _' R CO r ►v , )S3. =: eC_J ce: tify t t�:e above is s.... of t:�_ t part of Lots 22 and 23 lyinf r, - -,•,-• of 2•i:ne r..^.ning p�sallel to s_.- , ?:re of Lots 22 and 23 fro a point 1;6 .` `' �CQ%t > >O:T. !:::LY of north er st cc••ner of Lot 22 •.c:,s:-c3 alonj- i.w.'LY line of Lot 22, of t: at p rt r r 22 o-rNpsC&7ts JPov Mt,) Lots 22 and 23 1yinF north of a li::e r i::; fr�-3 a point in the SELY line of mot , 27 feet SI:LY fro.: the .:n•t e:.. cor.:er thereof to a point in he !::rLY Lot 23, distr: t 31 feet NELY fro . -he s---`h .est corner taerof of Lots 22a.n �� ;�'-"'' to an easement of ten feet ala:it s.c=•• line of above described property for :cam' � lake; heasant La�Yn Addition., Hennepin Co..:i:Y, .•i:i::esota. - ::s surveyed by me, !:ay 89 1905 e Nniber.li960 Ti� to A. Johnson Registered Land SurveY°r- �A 6 A� February 8, 1985 Ms. Jean Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: While I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Messer and his associates to arrange a more "suitable" place for me to store my boat, I must decline for a number of reasons: 1. The prohibitive costs that I would incur in attempting to move the boat at this time. 2. The fact that the trailer is frozen into the ground, makes it impossible to move until Spring. 3. I have been advised that to move a large wooden boat at this time of year could cause severe damage. I do not plan to store the boat on my property in the future. Sincerely, J r /y Richard and Patrice Eller 2655 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PETITION TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Orono We the undersigned owners of property in the Pheasant Lawn area hereby petition the City Council requesting that no variance or waiver be granted in our neighborhood which would allow storage of boats exceeding 20 feet in length. We feel that those individuals who can afford large boats can also afford to properly store them and need not depreci<<te their neighbors property values. Your favorable consideration of our request will be appreciated. JANUARY 4, 1985 NAME I Y ADDRESS << J / PETITION NAME ADDRESS t;=;u T IP6/LL A 4 42 —2— ", J -( -4e . L I V a C 75- FYI,?-45AhZ Ed. 'k ka 41 x 25 j 'peasant :'oad xr�,]sior, Y4nnesota 55331 :eLrua:y 4, 1955 Planning Con:,ission City of Orono P. I/. Box 6 Crystal Eay, Minnesota 55323 Attention Commissioners: Pers;.ant to your request at the meeting ne1c � anua:'; 21. 1�°5, I am happy :o renort t:,a*. I have located space for the E'ller coat. ;sir, Vrs. iavid Cookson, 2655 P easai:t .%oad, :.as appro•:ed storaze on their property in the rear of their home until sorin,; ret:oval. fhe movin_- of the coat to t:.is location will eliminate Xr. Mers violation of -::e Cityordinance and saa: `. , the .heas&n', .:oad Petition siL.ers that requested that a variance not ce grar:.ed. Tha nr. you for your consideration. Ver; truly yours. Cr% B. C. "Tex" ;lesser DCA/ a r. -11 N To: Mayor Butler LU�re�.l� ON Orono Council Members V From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator PAR 111935 Date: March 5, 1985 Q! V OF ORONO Subject: #888 Catharine A. Cram, 3760 Watertown Road - Subdivision Zoning District - RR -IA - 5 acre minimum Area - 80.2 Acres (exclusive of roadways) Application - Subdivision - Metes and Bounds - Lot Division Parcel A Total Area = 10.03 acres (exclusive of roadway but inclusive of wet area) Parcel B Total Area = 73.5 acres (exclusive of roadway) Mrs. Cram has applied for a division of her homestead creating one new residential unit of ten acres. The City does not require septic testing for lots in excess of five acres in area. There is approximately 3/4 to 1 acre of wetlands in the northeast corner of the property. The City will ask for a Flowage & Conservation Easement over that portion of the wetlands located within Parcel A. A 50' wide corridor has been created providing access to the new lot via Stubbs Bay Road. Note that sections of the Cram property run to the center and at points over the entire designated rights -of -way of Stubbs Bay and Watertown Roads. Since we are dealing with a metes and bounds division, the City would ask for dedication of right-of-way via a quit claim deed. The question arose during the Planning Commis- sion review if the City would be creating a separate par •nl of 20+/- acres on the south side of Watertown Road by asking for quit claim deeds over the entire 66' of Watertown right-of-way. Staff reviewed the question with both Rolf Ericson and Dennis Hill of Hennepin County. Both agreed that the City's resolution controls the numl-er of parcels created in the metes and bounds division. The City may ask for the quit claim deed deeding the complete 66 feet of right-of-way for Watertown and not create the additional 20+ acre lot on the south side of Watertown. Mrs. Cram has met with staff and has been advised of these findings. Planning Commission asked the City to reconsider the request for right-of-way dedications via quit claim deeds in subdivisions that create one parcel of 5+ acres. A future division of this property would require a formal plat - the additional right-of-way can be dedicated to the public use at that time. Mark Gronberg, surveyor for Mrs. Cram, advised that the metes and bounds descriptions for this specific quit claim deed would be 4 to 5 pages long. The City must ask for the quit claim deed of right-of-way for that portion of Parcel A involved in Stubbs Bay Road right-of-way. Parcel A will not be involved in a future subdivision of the property. The resolution approving the division has been drafted excluding the request for right-of-way involved in Parcel B. Staff will amend the resolution pending Council's final decision on this matter. Staff will require the customary Conservation & Flowage Easement over the wetlands area within the newly created lot. The City must ask for this now since this parcel can never be subject to division again based on the 9+/- acres of dry lands (10 acres required for lot split). The City must address the issue of the two residences on Parcel B. The second residence cannot be designated as a guest house because it is a rental unit and so should be recognized as a non -conforming use and subject to all pertinent ordinances. The second residence shall become a conforming use at the time of a future subdivision of the property. Planning Commission Recommendation To approve the metes and bounds subdivision of the property located at 3760 Watertown Road for Catharine Cram creating one new residential unit finding all standards of the RR-lA Zoning District have been satsified. Approval of the subdivision is subject to the following conditions: 1. Conservation and Flowage Easement over wetlands in Parcel A. 2. Payment of Park fee for Parcel A of $100.00. 3. Second residence on Parcel B is a non -conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. 4. Based on current RR-lA Zoning standards, Parcel A meets the rural standards for one residential unit. The enclosed resolution has been drafted to incorporate the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the Planning Commission's recommendation. 2 f Date Rec'd /-it5'-e By 7-4 - Fee Rec' d� CITY OF ORONO t �� SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM U U ----------------------------- --CRY-OF-oRo Q --------------- APPLICANT Name QAt�Agti Telephone Mailing Address S760 VAfe-rt1-0uwNRcL. ,AfA 1c_2�:" iry_/�/y S 35q PROPERTY Name (3AAA2iNC- A. er2Aft Telephone Q7 n - 9,,_-Gr_ OWNER Mailing Address ZAme- as abode (Attach list if more than. one) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Street Address 3760 9Afc-rtfoWN %�d . Property Identification No. (P.I .D. ) 31 - Ito - 23 3 ieao x- Complete Legal Description to be attached to application -------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Acrt.s Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check) Residential; no. of units Other (specify) Present Zoning District NiT / A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: a, Existing Units New Units S Total Units Proposed Gross Density i Units per j_ Acres ac-IL- s Minimum Lot Size: S S Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) ✓ Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WV 1' ) MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLE"ll: PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Application Completed 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owner's list of owners within 350' (this list can be obtained from the Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names cn the above list with no return address. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION 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 acceptable form of security. Certification by Zcning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & II1) $150.00 ✓ Preliminary Review (Class I• & II Subdivisions) $250.00 Preliminary Review $300.00 plus (Class III and all non-residential) 20.00/lot Final Plat Review (Class III) S150.00* *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Applicant has read the above and 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ageat.'s Signature v Date Owner's Signature ` g ure Date ,•f�- Applicant must havr all su ittals into City offices 25 d s -ire the Planning Commission 1•1cct i ng. Planni ray Commission Meetings are usually held on the third Monday of cucJ, mono,. RUN DATE 12/20/64 HENNEPIN COUNT( PROPERTY I.1fORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWIIERS LIST PAGE 11 BATCH 005 38 32-118-23 23 0005 PROP ADOR 00460 ORCHARD PARK RD OWNER NAIIE ROBERT J RODEN ET AL TAXPAYER ROBERT J RODEN NAME/ADDR 460 ORCHARD PARK ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 32-118-23 24 PJ04 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME LISLE VICKERMAN JP ET AL TAXPAYER RICHARD SCHMIDT IIAME/ADDR 3980 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0001 PROP ADOR 03940 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAME ROBERT TAYLOR ETAL TAXPAYER ROBERT TAYLOR NAME/ADDR 3940 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 33 0001 PROP AODP. 03925 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAME LOREN BUTTERFIELD TAXPAYER LOREN BUTTERFIELD IIAME/ADDR PT 2 BOX 43 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 34 0002 PROP ADOR 00095 STUBBS BAY RD N (MIER .,IAME NORMAN E WALKER ETAL TAXPAYER NORMAN E WALKER NAME/ADDR 1649 COLLEGE SOUTH BEND IN 46628 38 32-118-23 23 0006 STEPHEN D TOWLE STEPHEN 0 TOWLE 13511 AVISTA OR TAMPA FLA 33624 38 32-110-23 31 0001 00385 STUBBS DAY RD N PAMELA F GREGORY PAMELA BUTTERFIELD C/O HOLLYDROOK A CO 510 BAKER BLDG MPLS t1N 55402 38 32-118-23 32 0002 03980 WATEP'01RI RD STEPHL'N DAVIS TOWLE STEPHEN 0 TOWLE RT 2 BOX 40 MAPLE PLAIN MH 55359 38 32-118-23 33 0002 03785 WATERTOWN RD JAMES F BROOKS JAMES F BROOKS 3785 WATERTOWI ROAD ORONO MN 55359 38 32-118-23 34 0003 00075 STUBBS BAY RD N SORINA RASttUSSEN SORINA RASMUSSEN 75 STUBBS BAY RD N MAPLE PLAIN MH 55359 38 32-118-23 24 0003 00485 STUBBS BAY RD N STEVE WALDRON STEVE WALDPOH 435 NORTH STUBBS DAY RD LOtIG LAKE MN 55356 n 41 38 32-118-23 31 0002 # 8 E 3 03760 WATERTOWN RD CATHARINE A CRAM CATHARINE CRAM 3760 WATEPTDI^I RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0004 0311 5 WATERTOWN RD P A C OGLAIID PAUL A CYNTHIA OGLAND 3955 WATERTC:RI RO MAPLE PLAIN MH 55359 38 32-118-23 34 0001 CATHARINE CRAM CATHARINE CRAM 3760 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MIN 55359 38 32-118-23 34 0004 00065 STUBBS BAY RD N E A J SPOWN III EDWAPO C A JUDY H BPOWN III 65 N STUBBS BAY RD MAPLE PLAIN M?4 55359 38 32-118-23 34 0007 38 32-118-23 34 0008 38 32-118-23 34 0009 PROP ADOR 03685 WATERTOWN RD 03725 WATERTMIN RD 03743 WATEPIOW1 RD OWNER NAME THOMAS JOHN MAXWELL ARLT.E 0 THORPE G F PUTTERFIEIU ETAL TAXPAYER THOMAS JOHN MAXWELL ARLIE THOPPE GEO F ^l1TTEPFIELD NAME/ADOR 3685 WATERTOWN ROAD P.TE 2 BOX 48 3745 WATFQTOW14 PO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55358 MAPLE PLAIN 191 55359 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 RUN DATE 12/20:54 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATI0N SYSTEM REPORT HO. PI435401 BATCH 005 PROPERTY 01.?IERS LIST PAGE ill 38 32-1!8-23 34 0010 38 32-116-23 42 0001 38 32-116-23 42 0002 PROP AODR 03765 WATEPTCWN RD 00400 STUDDS DAY RD N 00350 STUDDS BAY RD N CW::ER NAME DAVID M KENNEDY ETAL MARGARET M STUDDS AlV'RT W DRAVES JP A WIFE TAXPAYER WARREN F GILBERTSON MARGARET M STUDDS ALBERT W DRAVES JP NAIIE/ADDR 3765 WATERTOWN RD 400 N STUBBS BAY ROAD 350 N STUBBS BAY RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 L014G LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MH 55356 38 32-118-23 42 0003 38 32-118-23 42 0004 38 32-118-23 43 0002 PPOP ADDR 00200 STUDDS BAY RD N 00220 STUBBS DAY RD N 03520 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NUIE WELCON Q PETERSON A WIFE CHERRY STUBBS G A D YOUlIG TAXPAYER WELCON Q A ELEANOR PETERSON CIIRISTOPHER BOLLIS GREGORY YCUNG NAME/ADDR 200 N STUBBS BAY RD 220 STUBBS BAY RD 3520 WATERTOWII RD RT 2 BOX 442 LONG LAME 1114 55356 LONG LAKE MU 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 [ (g 0 wl 38 32-118-23 43 0003 38 32-118-23 43 0004 38 32-118-25 43 0006 U PROP ADDR 03580 WATERTOWN RD 03565 WATERTOWN RD L OWNER NAME MICHAEL G FILORANOT ETAL CHERRY C STUBBS DORALINE M DU1UI IAXPAfER SHIRLEY FILBRAIIDT CHERRY STUBBS DORALIHE M DUNN NAME/ADDR 3580 WATERTOW14 RD 2920 FOX ST 3565 WATERT017I ROAD CITY 0 F 0 R 0 N 0 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN (' 55356 LONG LAKE M11 55356 i 38 32-118-23 43 0012 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME G A E MA--KINNON TAXPAYER GEORGE A ELIZABETH MACKINNON TOTAL BATCH 005 00028 DAME/ADDR 5329 US COURT HOUSE WASHINGTON D C 20001 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPPESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESEIITATI0H OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE171EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRO�EERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEOGE AND BELIEF. r f � DATE 9Y 1 '� 32 . C \ ORONO —38 S. //2 SEC. M, T. /18, R. 23 G3ErA'1E" GEeE1 air an ar ll r �...' 8(4 i- �.� ngE6Et1ED { ! S✓� a are s g _ 1 i ' I W i (il L.0 (Ai "Mrs 0 ... IN CID _ I � r� Qk - u rP f ` ' • `� • A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS CLASS ' SUBDIVISIO' FOR CATHARINE A. CRAM FILE 888 WHEREAS, the City of Orono i !- a mun' •ipa 1 corporation organized and e>:i! ting und(r the laws _,f the State of Minnesota; ai.d WHEREAS, the City Council cf the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and saip .'-.•.-lopment of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the '',*y Council has considered the pi,iication for a s rdivis3, by Catharine A. Cram, (hereinaftr:- "the subdivider") of a pr perty legally described on the Certificate of Survey by mark S. Gronberg dated December 27, 19e4 a•d attached to this resolution; and WHEREAS, the clibdivids-r l:as cump'.eted all rt-iu. rements *-c ciie City for a tes an-j h' •^Gr- Class I subdivision, including: 1. nedication t: the City of a Flowage c!d Conservaticr. Ease, e- .t 1. viding for ' imitations on the use of wetlands lcc, --d wii;iin Parcel A as shown on the Certificate of Surtvey by Mark S. Gronberg dated December 27, 19Z04 and attached to this ref.)lution. 2. Dedication by quit c1?im f ed of right -of. -way for pul c road, -tubbs p^y Road. 3. Payir• nt ti� the -ity -` a Park Dedicatior Fer- _ . -he amuunt o`. $100.00. NOW, THEREFORE E I- xpII�OLV ED ts.. tr.�= C. ty Counci 1 c.. ;ie City of Oror.o heret : proves the m(,tes o.^d bounds division for Catharine A. Cram ac..orAing to the '.egal descriptions shown on the Certi r . sate of Survc. , `%y Mark S. Gronberg, dated Jecember 27, 1984 = a attached to rl,:b i esoiution subject to the following conditio: A, as described he Certi`icatp cf Survey attachrd to i reso on, .s the rural st _riards for one res:,ic— 1 is it i ed on v., a current RR-lA zoning. City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. The second residence located in i --cei 1, as described on the Certificate of Survey attached to this resolution, is a non -conforming use and subject to all pertinent ordinances of the Municipal Code. 3. This resolution, the attached Certificate of Survey and the above referenced deeds shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before September 11, 1985. The approval granted by this resolution Shall expire if the filing has not been completed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council on this llth day of March, 1985. ATTEST: ')orothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Ma TO: Council )BAR 11 1°�5 FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administ6tt)* ORONO DATE: March 5, 1985 SUBJECT: #891 John Miller/Pertinen Planning & Design, 1105 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lB - 1 acre Application - Requesting Hardcover and Setback Variances to Construct a new home. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Hardcover Cal-ulations Exbibit E - Conditional Use Permit Application Exhibit F - Survey 6 Site Plan & Grading, Drainage, and Landscaping Plan. This is a 1 .0 acre lot with an existing house located mostly within the 0-75' setback area. Applicant proposes to remove this structure and build a new home which would encroach a relatively minimal amount or: the 0-75' setback. Flease see Exhibit D, the hardcover calculations. .ardcover in the 0-75' zone would decrease from 11 percent to 6 percent total. Hardco -r in the 75-250' zone would increase from 16 percent to 22 percent. The existing house is located 40' from the lakeshore. At the nearest point, the new house would be located 60' from the shoreline, with the bulk of the house behind the 75' mark. Note on the site plan the locations of exist ing trees just east of the proposed garage area, which applicant would have to remove in order to place this house fully meeting the 75' setback. Applicant also notes that topography influences the possible feasible 'souse locations. G that the house to the south is 55' from the shoreline, and a proposed house to the north (building permit application filed) will be at 75' from the shoreline, and given the shape of the shoreline at this site, it appears that average r cback will not be a factor at this site. A 10' x 15' concrete bloc' building exists near the lakeshore. Plans show it as remaining in ace. This building is considered a legal :con -conforming structure and subject to the pertinent ordinances. This structure, and the associated stairway snows on the site plan, plus the proposed new house, would total 6% hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. #891 Miller Page 2 Note also that some grading in the 0-75' zone will be needed as a result of the demolition and construction. Planning Commission recommended that the applicant be required to apply for a conditional use permit for the extensive work that would appear to be necessary as part of this project. Applicant has filed for the conditional use permit and has paid the appropriate fee. The grading plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for his review. Note that grade changes are proposed up to within 10' of the shoreline. Obviously, some type of erosion barriers will be necessary. Planning commission recommended approval of this variance, finding that the decrease in hardcover in the 0-75' zone was a positive step and noting that t'�e topography and tree locations are hardships to the property. P1-n• 3 Commission also noted that since the total allowable har. - on the property would be 7,731 square feet and the proposal :_,ding the boat house and steps uses up about 7,500 square feet of this, applicant sl.oul.i be placed on notice that future hardcover requests would likely be subject to tradeoffs of existing hardcover. A resolution of approval has been partially drafted and is attached. Since I anticipate you will want :o include certain items of ''ity Engineer's comments as findings and conditions, the resolu in is in a draft. form only and a final form can be resuhmitten for your March 25, 1985, meeting. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APTLICA fKN Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional project) After -the -Fact Fames (Additional $50.00 payment per each project) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ll0 S" LO Hl<,A WA �,QC)A10 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 117 2 :3 l3 000�L Please check one --.Is the property abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. � d�eti'4' F------------- 2 ---------------------------------------------- Name 2L►JAuNtive C)CSIS WIiJC- Phone _ -l%zo Mailing Address `il/ w a ei,5 A o�o� S y y� Z -------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER Name ,�. �%'/LL OIL- Phone 51 `( - ! `I Zs - Mailing Address 41 rZ((-, Ck- 1'4-1ALl _rV0 LEcI 4da 5 43Z Date Property Acquirec rr le. 11 (month/yearrj^ [ fir r�171'f7 ^. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of lan �{�11L;`�jl��_':�� Il V�I ------------------------------------------------------ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zonirg District CITY OF ORONO Present Use of Property <ii sidentia Other (specify) ----------------------------------------------------------- - .y DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $J� � Describe rpquest in detail: VAKIA�jW EiIL t*_k(�SlCoizE 7r��1Cl� ------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width _� Hardcover 4-AKE-s1aF- Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other -.l ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ( OVER HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: EXIST �lA<<lK.IL. wILAOC UJ OL1 Lr3 Yt A , 6 j .,:, PfL STD C_ Q U ' w, co ,TI ti: G IlJ 7rt4E CF '�_tvtxl!%t,. "LG - r-cks it r <:,j f tnu ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditi:Ins preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: Tr+ - LJXIS-, • CsT---ALE #14-7A'�Jfti .' UJA"- I- i4e Q114iAr* f s 4CArt-r 11/rrNit: THE aCA • -Nuv,L w+mac. Re QW'n-E E:xc.,0r%uaTiti,e 4 & A(Lt.D,A (. ter-• n.t An- . -------------------------------------------------•-------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1�>, J r.AJ Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (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. A. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. may: Plat Map. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- 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 reviewof this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of i /h/e%r know ge Applicant's signature % DateZ/— �Sr OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, a Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this rAuest. Owner's signature nm Date /- z/- ta S --------- ----- -------F -------------------------------------- -- 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. PLRI DATE 01/11/Pri IIFIRIFPIit COLRITY M70PfRTY imot-!!AtTntt 5!�ttM PEPOPT tin. PI435401 PROPERTY (Y.INEPS tilt PAU 6 CATCH f•02 38 08-117-23 13 0002 PPnP ADDR 01075 TOtR'AWA PO OWIIER NAME JEPOHE W DTEITZ ETAL TAYPAYER J[PUttE W OIEITZ NAME/ADDR 1075 TOfW AWA PO LOI+G LAKE tA! 55356 39 OA-117-23 :1 0009 PROP ADDR 01120 TOIR(AWA Pn WIER NAME J A A PEtInT TAYPAYEP JOIIN G A A'^Ir L PFIQIT NAME/ADDR I1.^0 TOW AWA Pn OPnt10 tilt 55356 3� 08-117-23 13 0016 PPOP ADDR 01145 TOttl'AWA Pn O'RtER NAME EvPE t T P SCIIhIO TAWrAVER GFOOrE A A!RI DIETZ NAttf./ADDR I145 TOtIMAWA PD LOIIG tA1,F ttt1 55356 PPnP ADDR Ot31ER NAME TAYPAYER TOTAL EATCH 002 00009 IIAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 13 0oo3 01085 TOIMAWA Pn ►LORENCE L CAPLSON VIKIN!: CHt MIC 1L CO 838 PAYER PLUG MPL9 MI 55402 38 08-117-23 13 0010 MAPVIN BnPMAN FTAt. MAPVIN POPMAll 11400 NIDWESt PLAZA MPLS MI! 55402 38 00-117-23 13 0017 01185 TOINAWA RD E J HILL ETAL EIMEP J HILL PT 1 PDX 451 LONG LAKE 1%1 55356 36 08-117-23 13 0004 01105 TOfW AWA PC JOIIII 0 MII.IER I WIFE JON11 O MILLER 5009 U11IVEPSITY AVE 11 E MPLS M11 55421 36 08-117-23 13 0011 01060 TOIIYAWA PO IIARVIN SOPMAN ETAL MAPVIN BOPMA11 1800 MIDWEST PLAZA MPLS MN 55402 38 08-117-23 13 0020 01070 TOIIKAWA RD THOIIAS I PATPICIA RYAtl 711OMAS A PATPICIA RYAN 1060 IOlIKAHA RD LO11G LAME MH 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS PEPPESEIITED ARE AN ACCLIPATE Alin TRUE PEl`RESENTATIO/I OF TNrOPt1ATION AS IT APPE PS THIS DATE ON THE RfLOPOS OF THE HEIRJFPIN CMPITY DEPARTMENT OF P%0 ERTY TAYATI011, TO THE BEST OF MY K►IOWL[DGE A1t0 BELIE► / -T 1 DATE �JLJJ( DY �C �,' I� LAKESHORE SETBACK ZONE 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Directions: A. Existing lot area in zone Z 3 7 Ssf ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET B. Existinq hardcover 111 sf 3c,1 12 s f '�0 -SP o_ sf sf sf sf sf C. Existing hard(.OVe'r percoliLage I MIA) x 1001 n „ 1). Proposed hdrdCOver ill ZUne E. Proposed hardcover lic rcentage j(D?A) x 1001 F. Allowed hardcover percentage sf !�% 0 g ♦ sf __ VL % 25 sf sf 9/0. 30 f. 4. 35 A. Existing Lot Area in Zon- - includes the total square footage of dry buildable land within the spec if ied zol.,_ . B. Existing Hardcover in 'Lone - includes the square: footage of existing roofs, decks, sidewalks, driveways (gravel or paved) and other rain -impervious surfaces within the specified zone. C. Existing Hardcover Percentage - divide the number. in B by the number in A and multiply by 100. D. Proposed }hardcover in Zone - includes the existing 11Jrd(70vt,r lulus all proposed additional hardcover. - E. Proposed Hardcover- Percentages - divide the number in D by the number in A and multiply by 100. F. Allowed Hardcover Percentages - it the percentages in 'column E for any setback zone exceed the allowed percentages in column F, you should contact. the Zonitiq Department at 473-7357 to discuss the possibilities of obtaining a variance. Generally, if a C0114urrent removal of existing hardcover matches the additional harth-over pr(pot;cd, resulting in no net increase of hardcover in a specified zone, a variance may not be necessary. A),-aw*�7' _ f j i CI I Y i)F r)�,. z . CITY OF ORONO GENERAI. LAND USE. APPLICATION ------------------ --------------------------•------------------------------ PROPERTY LOCATI O- , Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Is the property li abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ----------------------------------------------------------•----------------- APPLICANT Name �I� ti/ A& Phone Mailing Address /f - g (,rr� ------------------- - OWNER ----------------- Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) do no also own the adjacent parcels of land. ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES - CONDITIONAI, USE PERMITS $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldq $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use C$200.00 f) Land Alteration (grading, filling) PRD/PID - see fee schedule Other Applications $250.00 Vacation _ $250.00 Rezoning - $200.00 Appeals Other - see fec schedule n L9(0L§UVL i FEB 2 710 � L,i I T () "li:iy PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST �- Describe request it) detail: f ;��. ;5�<<�' C�/�".`�r'��✓ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application* Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list fr .11 Hennepin County Department of Finaoce A-603 Government Center 348-3271 ) 3 . Stamped, legal si zed envelopes (#10 ) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with return address. 4. Certificate o _VC, y. 5. Construction plans, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remc-mber that your application is nut complete if the above information has not been _i.cluded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required c. �yuested by the Zoning Administrater, agrees to pay al l fee-, and/or unusual expe:,ses incurred in review of this applica oh, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the bes�o�,,/hid/ r ks�wledge. . Applicant's signature� �t.� �Z 1 L , Date z_2 S� OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furtht•r authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants agents; commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification cif this request. Owner's signature Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days befoie the Planning Commis-,jon Merting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third h;Onday of Each "Ionth. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 - FILE. 1891 WHEREAS, John D. Miller (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner- of the property J.ocated at 1105 Tonkawa Road within the City or Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as fol:ows: The northwesterly 200 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdiv`_sion Number 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part ly' ng Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel to and 160 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles, from the Northwesterly line of said Lot 7, according to the recorded plat thereof. (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22 Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, to allow construction of a new home located partially within the 0-75foot lakeshore setback zone, thereby requesting a 60 foot lakeshore setback where a 75 foot setback is normally required, and requesting a total of 730 square feet of hardcover (or 6%) in the 0-75 foot setback zone where 0% hardcover is normally allowed; and requesting a conditional use permit as required in Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, for related site grading within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci 1 of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file 0891. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Fan,`' Lakeshore Residential zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 19, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit, subjec to City Engineer's review and approval of the grading and drainage plans, based on the following firdings: a) The existing home is setback 40 feet from the lakeshore. Applicant proposes to remove this tome and construct anew horse setback 60 feet from the lakeshore. b) The home and boathouse currently ?xisting on the property comprise 11% hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. The proposed new home, boathouse, and steps wc•uld reduce the n-75' hardcover to 6%. c) The existing steep topography and the locations of existing trees limit other sites for house placement. d) The proposed house is 4 walkout which will require the removal of f ill and major regrading of the lakeshore banks located within 75 feet of the lakeshore. (4-7) City Engineer's comments 8. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planninq Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed land alteration and variances on the health, safety., and welfare of the community. 9. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but are necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; are 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. 10. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to alter the lakeshore bank as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and is in keeping with the intent and objectives 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions I and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and grants a conditional use permit as requires: in Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, to permit the construction of a new home to be located 60 feet from the lakeshore, allowing 730 square feet of hardcover (or 6%) in the 0-75 foot lakeshore setback zone, and permitting excavation and regrading of the lakeshore 1 ar.ks within 75 feet of the lakeshore subject to the following conditions: 1. Staked hay bales and a fabric silt fence must be used for erosion control during construction and until vegetation is established. 2. The boat house located on the lakeshore of the property is considered a non -conforming structure and is subject to all pertinent ordinances. 3. The applicant is placed on notice that the proposes, improvements increase the hardcover onthis property to very near the allowable limit of 25%, and is hereby advised that future improvements resulting in additional hardcover will likely be approved only with the concurrent removal of equal amounts of existing hardcover. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the owner; but are permissive only and must be exercises by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Counc:1 approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 11, 1986). 5. Violation of or noncompliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violatior of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this llth day of March, 1985. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk (1) Property Owner (2) Property Owner (3) Property Owner Ma-k C. Butler, Mayor STATI' OF M1 NNESOTA ) Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ y , 1985 before me a Notary Publiday of c within and for said county, personally appeared known to r)c to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument., and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUII,IC MY C014MISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )£s. COUNTY OF HENNEPI14 ) 01) this day cf , 1.985, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared nknown to me to be the persos )_ describes] in anti_ who _ executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 0 ADDENDUM TO t891 TO: Council FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: March 11, 1985 SUBJECT: #891 John Miller/Pertinen Planning & Design - 1105 Tonkawa Road - Resolution Attached is the City Engineer's review and comments on the grading plan, recommending approval with minor revisions. Staff recommends approval per the attached revised resolution. Exhibit Exhin4't G - Engineers Comments and Sketch Exhi)' L H - Rev::sed Resolution Via ,Rom, 4Kd_ 44 &_4"aaaA4, Yow. 2335 V 7..-A .tl.rt..., 36 — St. P.J. M..nr.f. 55113 /"-- 612-636•*600 March 8, 1985 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5532.1 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Our File No. 139 891 Miller Dear Mike.: ij rib, �l1vi'l� i t ij I /n,., ., M...•mnY. P l AuArn M Rwrer. P / /nwPA ( . ed' P L "Ildfo•d . 1 r.t.,,. P L Rn Ar.d f l.•nr•. P 1 Ll..wl ( ( M.,.n. P l (.Arne N c..A. P l A-e,,A 4 Gwdne. P f Toll e . f Ao.r.. P f A. lord M / our'. P f AnArn G srArnrAl. P f. Mn,w L S.w.o/N. P f LM,wA1 C Ioq#.b, P f Jrrr, A Ao+.•dw, P f AWA A Nd..on, P f 1rd A lwW P f A/rAorl 1 R�orw.ren I• l RoArrr A .Pfeff"k.. P f L1M.,d U Lalad. P f- CAu;r/ A r1KA n Lro H rrrrbA. //srNn N (%14.e We have reviewed the proposed grading on the Miller property and would recom- mend approval subject to minor revisions as shown on the attached plan. The storm water runoff within the yellow drainage area boundary will be di- rected to the southeast corner. The spillway from the yard area (above Elev. 109) to the Lake (Elev. 100) should be graded to minimize erosion problems af- ter completion of the project. The building area draining to the lake down the spillway area will be in- creased by 1500 sq. ft. and the yard area will remain approximately the same. The lake should be protected during construction with a silt fence and hay bales placed near,the shoreline. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:sas Encl. 6471c City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 - FILE #891 WHEREAS, John D. Miller (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1105 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The northwesterly 200 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision Number 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part lying Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel to and 160 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles, from the Northwesterly line of said Lot 7, according to the recorded plat thereof. (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22 Subdivisions l and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, to allow construction of a new home located partially within the 0-75 foot lakeshore setback zone, thereby requesting a 60 foot lakeshore setback where a 75 foot setback is normally required, and requesting a total of 730 square feet of hardcover (or 6%) in the 0-75 foot setback zone where 0% hardcover is normally allowed; and requesting a conditional use permit as required in Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, for related site grading within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file #891. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page I of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 19, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit, subject to City Engineer's review and approval of the grading and drainage plans, based on the following findings: a) The existing dome is setback 40 feet from the lakeshore. Applicant proposes to remove this home and construct a new home setback 60 feet from the lakeshore. b) The home and boathouse currently existing on the property comprise 11% hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. The proposed new home, boathouse, and steps would reduce the 0-75' hardcover to 6%. c) The existing steep topography and the locations of existing trees limit other sites for house placement. d) The proposed house is a walkout which will require the removal of fill and major regrading of the lakeshore banks located within 75 feet of the lakeshore. 4. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading and drainage plan and has recommended approval with minor changes which will tend to decrease the rate of runoff and increase infiltration in the lakeshore yard area. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed land alteration and variances on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 6. 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 affecttraffic 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 are necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; are necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to alter the la,eshore bank as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and =s in keeping with the intent and objectives 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and grants a conditional use permit as required in Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, to permit the construction of a new home to be located 60 feet from the lakeshore, allowing 730 square feet of hardcover (or 6%) in the 0-75 foot lakeshore setback zone, and permitting excavation and regrading of the lakeshore banks within 75 feet of the lakeshore subject to the following conditions: 1. Staked hay bales and a fabric silt fence must be used for erosion control during construction and until vegetation is established. 2. All grading within the lakeshore yard area shall conform to the proposed grading plan as amended by the City Engineer. 3. The boat house located on the lakeshore of the property is considered a non -conforming structure and is subject to all pertinent ordinances. 4. The applicant is placed on notice that the proposed improvements increase the hardcover on this property to very near the allowable limit of 25%, and is hereby advised that future improvements resulting in additional hardcover will likely be approved only with the concurrent removal of equal amounts of existing hardcover. Paqe 3 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercises by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 11, 1986). 6. Violation of or noncompliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned 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 resolutior. in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this llth day of March, 1985. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor (1) Property Owner (2) Property Owner (3) Property Owner 0A II -JAL MiETING TO: Counci 1 MAR 111935 FROM: Michael P. Gaff ron, Assistant Zoning Administr-tor DATE: March 5, 1985 SUBJECT: 12 Thomas Mortenson, 1971 Fagerness Point Road - .*:iance - Resolution Zoning District = LR-IC = 1/2 acre Application = Setback and Fardcover Variance Request to Construct a Hcuse Addition and Attached Garage List of Fxhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations (original proposal) Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations 75-25n' (revised per Planning Commission recommendation) Exhibit G - Landscape/grading/drainage plan Applicant originally requested a variance to increase hardcover in the 75-250' zone from 17.2% to 32.1%. He would be slightly decreasing hardcover in the west_ 0-75' zone from 13.2% to 12.6%. Note that from the east half of the property, drainage flows across Fagerness Point Road and over 40' of lawn area to the lake. While the proposal increases hardcover, it does create a better situation for parking and backing out from the property. The existing garage partially on right-of-way will be removed and replac d with an attached garage 24' back from the property line. Our setback standard for qarages opening toward streets is 30' from the right-of-way; in this case a variance of 6' seems a reasonable alternative to the existing situation. Planning Commission recommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances, limiting the hardcover in the 75-25''' zone to 30% rather than 32.11 proposed, subject to approval cf the landscape and grading plans by the City Engineer. (As of this writing, a copy of the plan is en route to engineer). Presuming no problems with the landscape plan, staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Note that landscape plans show an excess of 42 s.f. hardcover or 0.8% over the 30% limit, which can probably be made up by reducing the driveway a bit. Note that the 5% hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone is consistent with a similar recently -approved hardcover variance on lakeshore property. (Jeff Ulku, Baldur Park road, allowed 30% hardcover where 14% was existing in the 75-250' zone). CITY 01" ORONO l ,fir /1o8a3 >q �jG.o VARIANCE APPLICATION- Application Fee $100. 00 519M c4eposq t After -the -Fact Fee $200.00 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1971 Fagerr.ess rc;nt Road Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 1---117--2? 14 0007 Please check one -- Is the property x abstract or torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. -------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPI,ICANT Name 1'homas C. Kcrtensor Phone Mailing Address 10?1 smerness Point Road 471-7720 / 011-4152 Mavzata, Minnesota 55301 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNF.R Name D`o,-as C. hortensor. Mailing Address Phone 471-?'720 / 011-4152 1971 Faae rness Point Road 4ayzata. hinnesota 55191 Date Property Acquired 9/75 (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) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPT'ION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 75,000 Describe request in detail: -'ardcever arl frcnt set tack vatia,Ice which will enatle me to build an attached two car aaraae with an addition to the existinv house above. Ae new aaraie is to reclace the unattached aaraae which isgurrently_fALur_ feet over on the road right of way and two feet over on my neighbor's lot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width x Hardcover Setback Variances (_� Front Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulatic,is: It is ins ossible for nee to build a new Parage attached or unattached without Rettinr frort se .act and har cover variances. y decrease in the size of the new Rarare and addition ,lust increase the driveway hardcover. ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- DF.SCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: ';ti. 1jated in the miliie of the lot which makes it irDoss4 Lble to meet the existine cones witnout variances. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603Government 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. Plat Map. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agreestopayallfeesand/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and corre-t to the best off., hls/her knowledge. Applicant's signaturc- jt4r �►Z'4�L� 1� Data x OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission member£, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of� tt request. Owner's signature /-� `1 Date S YA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Ccmmission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mondav of each month. RUN DATE O1/18,'85 BATCH 104 38 18-117-23 14 0005 rmP ADOR 01981 FAGERNESS POINT RD C'.'iLP NAME LRLING T FALK ETAL TAXPAYER G ROBERT J01114SCII NAME/AUDR 1981 FAGERNESS POINT RO ORONO MN 55391 3B 18-117-23 14 0008 F'ROP ADDR 01973 FAGERNESS POINT RD 0W 1ER NAME A R SACKSTROM ETAL TAXPAYER A R BACKSTROM NAME/ADDR 1973 FAGEPNESS PT RD WAYZATA M14 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 004 00006 NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOPMATION STSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 18-117-23 14 0006 01975 FAGERNESS POINT RD JOHN K PURDY ETAL JOHN K PURDY 1975 FAGERNESS PT RD OROiiO MN 55391 38 18-117-23 14 0009 01965 FAGERNESS POINT RD G L EKLOF t C F LEE GARY EKLOF / CATHY LEE 1965 FAGERNESS PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI43S401 PAGE 7 38 18-117-23 14 0007 01971 FAGERNESS POINT RD T t P NORTENSON THOMAS HOPTE14SON 1971 FAGEPNESiS PT RD WAYZATA TSfi SS391 38 18-117-23 14 0010 01955 FAGERNESS POINT RD AKE E R0N!MVIST AKE E R0101KVIST 4404 W ARM RD SPRING PARK MN 55384 I CERTIFY THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION Of !NFCRMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. 10 Ht BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. BY % I ) n r�� Whom Ir 1 z 0"S; / 1 75 '+ 3 1 f, �h4V i'io➢nsed ` , . H � e �` / ' is •. r , C�i� •ri •+AA'IfOrF/ '•� � A ° -7S TJt ea S62S ! ) i/ J r� be / Irmo+td lrr: r r.�•C WA io • ^^ _ Ave e Ni(rrt f 71 ' IJ 76 fi..: J. I .r r,w,, yAwjlf • ?1a •' I� • \ J GAR(. 7. / t • s) IAOPe'(p E<< 1. .. A .. f h.. n 'r ,n an, r ur..•c r rr i,tr :cr.• .�, ,r, '.'o)' of t 1•' CK • r Jn fa i. •, .,f ,.,.� F.. ha,tern.•t: iit• I,-.r., • te,r, of .a ....: � i f any, r ho►er r , and t he- F ' �+p� ce••i ,nr•�• .>,11 e•x:r:t trot t.+ul l,)tnga, . putp�'t t on t c sahr•w ar.•. ,t• h. of n f,r•�f<t^.••i ,t,lri, • nn. i r dnot= no r :rt �r,�,••,....,-..,. ,. �r Scale• t tr_n - If I.•rt DAt e' Nove-mtwe ;• A , 1 41E-0 r; 1 rnn ma ker OF`F iilN R GR0NPF'kG •• ; N • • Mark Grp rf•. �r7 kr•rt �. 1r755 Enu:n••er- rtnc2 L•+nu Sur �e•�,.•c 1.-n,l Lel:. . M.r,ne•en•.a ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET LAKESHORE A. Existing 13. Existinq Existing hardcover hardcover D. proposed E. Proposed F. Allowed SETBACK lot area hardcover hardcover hardcover percentage percentage LONE in zone in zone ((B=A) x 1001 in zone ((D'A) x 1001 percentage 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Directions: y,�-�U sf _-� 3 sf _ � 7, Z r. Sf 2 . 25 sf sf sf sf sf sf �0 30 A. Existing Lot Area in Zone - includes the total square footage of dry buildable land within the specified zone. B. Existing Hardcover in Zone - includes the square footage o' existing roofs, decks, sidewalks, driveways (gravel or paved) and other rain -impervious surfaces witnin the specified zone. C. Existing Hardcover Percentage - divide the number in B by the number in A and multiply by 100. D. Proposed Hardcover in Zone - includes the existing hardcover plus all proposed additional har. ' -over . L. Pro ied Hardcover Percentages - divide the number in D by the number in A and multiply by 100. F. Allowed Hardcover Percentages - if the percentages in column E for any setback zone exceed the allowed percentages in column F, you should contact the Zoning Department at 473-7357 to discuss the possibilities of obtaining a variance. Generally, if a concurrent removal of existing hardcover matches the additional hardcover proposed, resulting in no net increase of hardcover in a specified zone, a variance may not be necessary. 67)(,Y. tc REVISED HARDCOVER CALCUALATIONS (by staff) PROPOSED House 778 sf Driveway 385 sf Total = 1527 sf = 30.8 % Deck 144 sf. Steps 6 Wall 220 sf* *includes sidewalk, steps, and tops of all timber walls Total hardcover allowed 75-250' = .25 x 4950 = 1238 sf Proposed allowable hardcover = 30% = 1485 sf. 1527-1485 = 42 sf over City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(b) - FILE 1892 WHEREAS, Thomas 0. Mortenson (hereinafter "the applicant") is cwner of the property located at 1971 Fagerness Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described a:; follows: Lot 6, Fagerness, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision. 2 to allow the construction of an addition to his existing house which will increase the hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone to 30% where only 25% hardcover is allowed, and a variance to Section10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to locate the structure 24' from the rear lot line where a 30' setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file s892. 2. The property is located in the I.R-1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 19, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variances as amended, allowing a maximum of 30% hardcover in the 75-250' zone rather than the 32.1% originally proposed, based upon the following findings: a) The existing house is located partly within the 0-75' setback zone and partly within the 75-250' zone. b) The proposed removal of an existing sidewalk will decrease hardcover in Lhe 0-75' zone from 13.2% to 12.6%. c) The proposal will result in the removal of the existing non -conforming detached garage which is Located partially on the neighborinq property and partially on City right-of-way. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. d) Relocating the garage entrance to a point 24 feet from the street right-of-way will result in a safer access for the garage. e) The topography of the lot makes the relocation of the garage feasible only with alterations in grade on the east side of the house. f ) The property is severely limited by the existing lot size and the existence of lakeshore subject to the pertinent regulations on two sides of the property. 4. The applicant has revised his original Droposal in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation of a maximum allowance of 30% hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone, and has provided suitable landscape and drainage plans for the project. 5. 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. 6. 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 sutstantial 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. CONCLU.;IONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow the construction of an addition and attached garage with driveway, ewalks and retaining walls which will increase the hardcover ,485 square feet or 30% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.2. Subdivision 6(B) to allow a street setback of 24' instead of the 30' setback normally required, subject to the following conditions: City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1. The existing garage must be razed and final gradi- o .ind lawn restoration (seeding or sodding) of the garage site :, ,,st be completed prior to final inspection of the addition. 2. The total improvement of the property is limited to 1 , 485 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone, or a 247 square feet hardcover variance; and limited to the existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone of 711 square feet subject to the removal of 30 square feet of existing flagstone sidewalk, resulting in a net increase of hardcover in the 0-75' zone of 0.6%. 3. The owner of the property is hereby advised that the City will not approve any future improvements that result in additional hardcover and that if such improvements are proposed that they be counter balanced with the removal of existing hardcover. 4. The planter boxes created by the retaining walls must be underlain only by permeable materials to ensure that they do not become hardcover. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with tt_ property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for uuiiu;,.., permit within one year of the date of Council arprovaI, or this variance will expire on that date (march ll, 1986). 6. Violation of or non -romp] iance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any author .ty granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. 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 City Counci 1 of the City of Orono on this llth day of March, 1985. ATTEST: Dorot'iy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Cutler, Mayor (1) F r olo.- r t y ow n, � r pull �u�j► ���1 M tEDNG To: Mayor Butler, 14AR 11 1995 Orono Council Members C;Ai OF Uko_yN From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: March 5, 1985 Subject: #893 Summerfield Farms, 3800 Wayzata Blvd. - Amendment of Original Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 1646 - Item 1 (B) of Conclusions, Order and Conditions Zoning District - RR-lB Pertinent Sections of Zoning Ordinance Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (H): ___ incidential alterations which do not extend or intensify the non -conforming use." Applicant seeks amendment of following section of permit: b) retail sale of normal grocery items including food stuffs, bakery goods, dairy products, package fish or poultry, candy, tobacco, sundries, cooking or cleaning supplies, paper products, pet food or bird seed, etc. Food shall not be cooked on the premises or otherwise prepared or served for immediate consumption either on the premises or in the form of take-out restaurant or delicatessen service. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit A - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Addendum to Application Exhibit F - Resolution 1646 The Summerfield Farms market has been in operation for approximately seven months and Messers Schaper and Nellist have had time to evaluate their complete operation. It is their opinion that in order to succeed in this venture and to, hopefully, make profits, that the original scope of the retail operation be amended to include a mini bake center and delicatessen like operation that would involve the preparation of party trays. They advise that it is not their intent to encourage consumption of foods on the premises. The mini bake center will occupy 100 to 150 square feet of existing retail space. The preparation area for the delicatessen will probably be located in the area designated as Work Area 1 - the kit,;hen of the former residential unit. The delicatessen operation will require a license from the Hennepin County Community Health Department. The building staff sees no problem with the inst, 1 lation of the oven - all standards of the Uniform Building and Fire Cove will apply. r l% The pertinent question for this review is will these added uses in the retail operation be considered an intensification of a non- conforming use. Staff can report that we have had no problem with this operation. The applicants have never violated a condition of their permit. At various inspections of the site and upon personal visits to the store, staff has never noted parking problems or a lack of suitable parking area. The current operation does not appear to be an intense use of the physical plant. Both new uses will not result in expansion of the retail area. As a result the parking needs and requirements remain constant. There are no major permanent structural alterations invol- ved with the new uses. The changes deal only with the retail use - elimininating or cutting down in one phase of retail and replacing it with another retail use. The proposed new uses appear consistent with the original intent and plan for the Summerfield Farms Market. Planning Commission Recommendations To recommend approv,t of the conditional use permit application of Glenn Nellist and Lo%. 11 Schaper to permit a mini bake, limited delicatessen operation and one picnic table placed within designated outdoor sales area on east side at the Summerfield Farms Market at 3800 Wayzata Blvd. based on the following findings: 1. The new uses will not involve permanent structural changes or additions to existing structure. 2. The new uses will not involve expansion of the retail area. 3. The new uses will not encourage customers to consume food on the premises as with a restaurant use. 4. The new uses are consistent with the original intent and scope of the market as set forth in Resolution 1646. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All equipment installed to su;?rnrt the mini bake operation is subject to the standards of the " form Building Code and Fire Code. 2. The applicants must apply for a license from the Hennepin County Community Health Department for the delicatessen use. 3. one picnic table allowed within designated outdoor sales area on east side of market structure. All foods consumed at informal picnic site are to be purchased at retail from within market. 4. FooAs shall not be served for immediate consumption either on the premises or in the form of take-out restaurant. The enclosed resolution has been drafted to reflect the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission's approving recomendation. 2 #893 CITY OF ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address .3 ��� LcJQti?��4Y'A t�lQ� �604 1,KK4 Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) Q?/- //Q - 3 3 4/000----� Please check one - Is the property abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Name /,XGO �KH- S Phone �/T� - 2 Zo'j Mailing Address J$oo "qagg-A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER Nan - Yjs x I YV/(F GarV&r Phone Mailing Address //4/ C-0_4- S% V/raer X. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) do not also own the adjacent parcels of land. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS $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, filling) PRD/PID - see fee schedule Other Applications $250.00 Vacation $250.00 Rezoning $200.00 Appeals Othex - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: &y,y".f. 1^/ L°2gpjrjc"G, Li_S/� PGoof_� -TO AL.GB w -Pme A Te co-j OF C c Ara / j /-'coos O AJ Tf:4- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271 ) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10 ) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plans, if applicable. 6. Plat Map. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - ----------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agreestopayallfeesand/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date L- ?_8- Ss OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. RUN DATE 03. 23/84 BATCH 003 38 29-118-23 32 0006 PROP ADDR C::::ER t:;dlE HENN COU..TY PK, RESERVE DIST TAXPAYER HENN COU14TY PK RESERVE DIST NAME/ADDR 38 29-118-23 34 0006 PROP ACUR 03660 SIXTH AVE 11 C73:=.R NAME PARK GUN CLUB INC TAXPAYER? PARK GUN CLUB NAME/AOOR C/O RUDY GESCHWIN"J 4939 VERA CRUZ AVE MPLS t1N 55429 38 32-118-23 21 0003 PROP ADOR 0::NER NAME S A CIRSPINSKI ETAL TAXPAYE7 CLIFFORD L OTTEN NAME/ADDR 2265 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE M.4 55356 38 32-118-23 24 0004 F.IOP ADCR C::NER NAME LISLE VICKI'RMAN JR ET AL TAXPAYEC RICHARD SCIIIICT NAME/ADDR 3980 WATERTCI:N RD 11APLE PLAIN MN 55359 HEWIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IUFORMATION SYSTEt' PROPERTY 0::NIPS LIST 38 29-118-23 33 0001 03960 SIXTH AVE N F J THONPSON ETAL GLENN CUNNINGS 3960 6711 AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 29-118-23 14 0000 03740 WAYZATA BLVD S A CIRSPINSKI ETAL CLIFFORD L OTTEN 2265 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 32-118-?3 22 0002 03025 SIXTH AVE N FRED HOLASEK JR ETAL FRED HOLASEK JR 3025 6TH AVE M LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 003 00010 REPORT N0, PI43S401 Pt GE 7 :8 29-118-23 33 0008 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY BU7LINGTON NORTHERN Rt 38 29-118-23 34 0009 03900 ::AYZ ATA BLVD MAGO.IA V CIRSPI14SKI JOHN L KELLER TRUSTEE 10050 MAPLE TREE RD SANTEE CA 90071 38 32-118-23 22 0003 03825 SIXTH AVE N FRED HOLASEK JR ETAL FRED I)OLASEK JR 3825 6TH AVE 11 LCNG LAKE Y.V 55356 I MAR 2 7 1984 CITY OF ORON:. '-.] I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE ACID TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IHF07MATIO?I AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARIHENT 0' PRO RTV TAXA710N, TO THE BEST OF -if KNONLECCE AVO BELIEF. 1I DATfc_ � BY IT 3 , -''" .tom �-4_8:c. MIF LD Fr -es (, k e Ues } PO r I nGe is t�Fa m j� rQ La tit -�, W`h wes+f' F �nF?iah d�' Sapp mac' �.• i t,4k,•r.),j eLA`r c'o�w'tf I-- - Ll F9 @ 0 V Ep FEB - 51966 i CITY OF 0RONO C ,g,:r,r,a ic. A 'a 00�-c*iL 0 Z 7 3 pp Jean 1st. iCa.' . �I'. ' Z„. n drninistrator Ci t> . f Orono ar Jean. are requesting a friodification to the conditit,: 1 permit ted to us can June 11. l;84. We wouid like last sentence '-aragraph 1. ► pecle 4 to be either removed or modified to xe .ok�., the baking of or. preparation of curtain foods on the premises for retail =_-le. The following is a brie] explanation of our intentions and rational. A". r a. few short months in business as Summerfield Farms. it has become obvious tt. ' ,dditional retail refinements are necessary tc., 'e this a. -)iable and profitable business. The first department to be improved is our baked moods product line. The in=_.tallatic,, nd operation of a mini -bake center would allow u= to offer fresh baked breads, rolls, buns and croissants to our customersat a lower price than presently. In addition we WOW 1d be able to make this product line profitable. The mini -bake center would require approximately 100.150 sq. fit. of what is presently authorized retail space in the porch area. It would not require any addition to or Idification of the building other than the electrical connection of equipment. Necessary equipment would be one electric convection oven (38W x 44D), proof box (28 x 31 x 72), rack, small work table and display counter. All doughs will be purchased pre -mixed, frozen, ready for baking. I second phase of our business improvement is the prepa.ra.tion of party trays of sliced meats, cheeses. fruits and vegetables. These would be prephred for pick up by the customer or delivered. Again we reges.t that the last sentence of paragraph 1 b page 4 be removed or modified to a' ' -t.-) the preparation of foods on the premises. It is not the intent of either project to encourage tt,e consumption of food while on the pr. -.es or to operate .a. restaurant. We don't think that ei!her project will have a negaktive impact on the cit>•. Although traffic and park' .3 will be increased to some extent it is difficult to imagine it increasing to tt .-,int of exceeding present capacity. Needless to sa• we 4, '1 comply with all city, county and state codes and standards and wi,l acquire all necessary licenses. and permits before proceediriu wit, -ither project. In =_urrunar> what we are requesting is the removal or modific -' on the last sentence paragraph 1. b. page 4 of the present conditional use permit to allow preparation of food on the preri- Thank >•ou Glenn Nei Iis.t, Lowell Schaper ` Jtitd. Lo, 1 705 Jean St S 3 ZFII. 1 dmini.trator Ci t> -,f Orono Dear Jean, We are requesting a modification to the conditi- 1 permit granted to us on June 11, 1984. We would like last sentence of paragraph I . f• page 4 to be e i ther removed or mGdi f i ed to allot., the baking of or preparation of curtain +ood-- on the premises for retail sale. The follcwiing is a brief explanation of our intentions and rational. A�'. r a few short months in business as Summerfield Farm= it has become obvious th ' .additional retail refinement=_ are necessary to i 'e this a viable and profitable business_. The first department to be improved is our baked goods product line. The instal latico, nd operation of a mini —bake center would allow us to offer fresh baked breads, rolls, buns and croissants to r)ur customers at a lower price than presentl>. In addition we would be able to make this product line profitable. The mini —bake center would require approximately 100-150 sq. ft. of what is presently authorized retail space in the porch area. It would not require any addition to or �iification of the building other than the electrical connection of equipment. Necessary equipment would be one electric convection oven (38W x 44D), proof box (28 x 31 x 72). rack, small work table and display counter. All doughs will be purchased pre -mixed, frozen, ready for baking. lh, second phase of our business improvement is the preparation of party trays of sliced meats, cheeses. fruits. and vegetables. These would be prepared for pick up by the cu=torner or delivered. Again we regest that the last sentence of paragraph 1 b page 4 be removed or modified to a'' - the preparation of foods on the premises. It is not the intent of either project to encourage the consumption of food while on the pr. es or to operate at restaurant. We don ' t think that e i 1 !per project w i l l have a negative impact on the city. Although traffic and park -) will be increased to some extent it is difficult to imagine it increasing to th. .13int of exceeding present capacity. Needles.=_to say we t. 'I comply with all city, county and state ccides and standards and will acquire all necessary licenses and permits before proceeding witl� •ither project. In Summar:: vitiat we are requesting is the removal or mode f i c . ' on the last sentence paragraph 1. b. page 4 of the present conditional use permit to allow preparation of food on the prer;_ . Thank, you Glenn ldel l i =t. Lr_,wel 1 Schaper ram'°f City Of ORO O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1646 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOWELL SCRAPER AND GLENN NELLIST hUTHORIZING CONTINUED NON -CONFORMING USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 3800 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - FILE #826 WHEREAS, Lowell Schaper and Glenn Nellist (hereinafter the applicants) have an interest in a property owned by Vicki Wisegarver (hereinafter owner) located at 3800 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Those parts of Lots 11, 12, and 13, "MINNETONKA GARDEN ACRES", according to the recorded plat thereof, lying southerly of the centerline of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 6 Plat 5, as deliniated in Book 70, Page 3844152 of Hennepin Co:,.nty records. Also the north 1/2 of adjoining old County Road No. 6 now vacated (hereinafter the property) ; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Section (10.03) Subdivisic '5A-J) and per Orono Resolution #1377, 18(c) of the conditions of ap, val to permit changes in the non -conforming, commercial use of the residential property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Findings 1. The application was reviewed as zoning file no. 826. 2. The property is located in the RR-1B, Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. On March 22, 1982, Council approved Resolution #1377 establishing standards and limits on the commercial use of the residential zoned property. 4. In filing application #876, the applicants requested modifications in the approved use levels and alterations both external and internal of the existing structure as follows: a) Removal of the defined residential apartment, said area to be used only for storage and employee rest room, employees lunch room and office. a City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1646 b) Relocate west access to a more central location on west wall and removal of existing office area to allow better flow and circulation within the store. The 188 sf of office area will not be used as commercial sales area but shall serve only as open circulation area. c) The exterior alterations involve construction of a second story lof t area, new roof , removal of canopy on south side of existing structure, privacy fencing around outdoor sales area and 3 1/2' split rail fence along the boundaries of the property. Applicants propose no commercial use of the loft as the loft will be used for display and decorative purposes. No public access to loft will be allowed. 5. Council has approved applicants request to remove the residential unit within the existing structure finding no intensification or extension of the commercial use of the residential property based on the following findings: a) The area occupied by the residential unit shall be used solely for storage, lunch room/employee lounge and new office. The approximate 450 sf of the residence apartment may never be used for commercial sales area. b) The structure has not contained a residence since late 1970's. c) The City Inspector has never issued a certificate of occupancy for the rehabilitated apartment. d) The previous lessee and current applicants note the following drawbacks in renting such a unit to an employee or owner: (1) The existing apartment is too small and cannot provide adequate living area. (2) A responsible agent of the store would never want to live there. (3) Since the applicants all own their own homestead farms, they could not claim the apartment legally as their residence. (4) A single renter may not wish to be subjected to the possible dangers of breakins and the associated responsibilities. City of OR,ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1646 Council approved applicants request to relocate access and remove existing offit-e finding no intensification or extension of the commercial use of the residential property based on the following findings: a) -n relocating the western entrance, the old access will be closed off providing a more centralized entrance to sales area. b) The 188 sf of existing office will be removed and relocated in a section of the old-.rtment. The newly vacated area will provide better cii ation and better flow to sales areas. The 188 sf will not be used for commercial sales but serve as more formal, directional entrance area to the store. 7. Council approved applicants request to modify exterior structure to barn motiff with loft area and erect outdoor fencing finding no intensification or extension of the commercial use of the residential property based on the following findings: a) The proposed barn like structure is more associated and consistent with residential use. b) The removal of the canopy area along south side of building as part of proposed reconstruction will completely eliminate potential use as outdoor sales area. No outdoor sales can take place within the area beginning at front line of building running -to road right of way. c) The privacy fence along the 20' x 25' outdoor sales area will better define the outdoor commercial sales area. 8. Application #826 does not involve any changes in the commercial, non -conforming use of the residential property nor does the application propose an intensification of the existing commercial us -a. 9. The major structure changes proposed for the existing structure will not intensify the commercial use but will rather create a structure more associated with accessory residential uses. 10. The City has received no negative comments from the surrounding property owners notified during the review of application #826. 3 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1646 The City never received complaints on the commercial use of the property as operated by the previous lessee under the standards of operation setforth in Resolution #1377. .12. The City.Council has considered this application including the finding and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, and comments by the applicant and other interested persons and the effect of the continued commercial use of the residential property as proposed on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 13. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the continued commercial use of the residential property as proposed will not be detriment-il to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and the location and proposed use of the residential property will be in keeping with the intent and objectvies of the zoning code and comprehensive plan of the City. Conclusions, Order and Conditions Based on the above findings, the Orono City Council i)ereby grants a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdiv i5 (a) through (j)) and Orono Resolution #1377 to Lowell Schaper, Glenn Nellist, and Vicki Wisegarver to permit the continued commercial use of the property located at 3800 Wayzata Boulevard as proposed by the applicants subject to the following conditions: 1. Per Resolution 11377, the commercial use authorized by this conditional use permit shall consist of, and be limited to, the following: a) Retail but not wholesale sale of farm produce, nuts, fruits, vegetables, bedding plants, christmas trees, flowers and simlar items grown on or off this property. b) Retail sale of normal grocery items including food stuffs, bakery goods, dairy products, package meats, fish or poultry, candy, tobacco, sundries, cooking or cleaning supplies, paper products, pet food or bird seed, etc. Food shall not be cooked on the premises or otherwise prepared or served for immediate consumption either on the premises or in the form of take-out restaurant or delicatessen service. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 1646 c) Retail off -sales of 3.2 beer subject to separate consideration of licensing provisions and requirements. d) Retail accessory sale of miscellaneous items including small crafts, pottery, food or cook books, garden supplies or small quantities of firewood provided such sales are accessory to the grocery of produce business. e) Commercial sales and storage shall be confined within the main building and 500 sf yard area designated as outdoor sales area. f) Outdoor sales of produce, plants, garden supplies or seasonal items such as pumpkins, (:hristmas trees, etc shall be permitted provided such activities are confined to an area of approximately 500 square feet located east of the main building as indicated on Exhibit A. Outdoor display or sales may not occur in the parking lot nor in the area referred to as "porch" area of the main bui Laing nor in the front yard setback area nor in any highway right-of-way. g) Exterior storage of commercial stock, fixtures or supplies shall not be permitted except within the designated outdoor sales area. h) The existing detached garage may continue to be used for inside commercial storage. i ) Commercial signage for the entire property shall be limited to approximately 200 square feet including any temporary or portable signs. This would not involve traffic directional signs. j) Produce may be grown on -site for sale on the premises. k) The maximum number of reqular employees on the premises at any one time shall not exceed 4. 1) The commerci.at/retail business may be open to the public 7 days a week; the hours of operation shall be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. 5 4.. ' 1 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1646 m) At least 15 parking stalls, each at least 9' x 20' in size, shall be available at all times to support the approved level of commercial use. Designated parking stalls must be maintained so as not to interfere with required building exit doors, service doors or required space for delivery trucks and/or trash containers. 2. Prior to reopening the business to the public, the applicants or their contractors shall obtain all required permits to correct any code violations on the property specified by the Building Official. 3. The applicants and owner are hereby notified that the City Council will not consider any future building construction, additions or expansion for commercial uses because to do so would extend or intensify the non -conforming use contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Commmunity Management Plan. This provision does not preclude normal building maintenance, repair or incidental alterations necessary to continue the non- conforming use within the existing structures as permitted by the terms of this resolution and Orono Resolution #1377. 4. The applicants and owner agree that they have no vested property rights to continue commercial use of the premises except in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this resolution and Orono Resolution #1377, and that the City may impose additional conditions as may be needed in the future in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare,. -Applicant further agree to waive any rights to object to such other conditions if after a complete and full hearing the City Council determines that such condition is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 5. The conditional use permit shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council and upon agreement and signature by the owner Vicki Wisegarver and by the intended leasees, the applicants, Lowell Schaper and Glenn Nellist. This permit shall be automatically void if not signed by both owner and applicants prior to August 7, 1984. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI;_ NO. 1646 6. Thisnon-conforming conditional use permit shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property owners, applicants and their heirs and assigns, except as follows: a) This permit shall be automatically void for any violation of or non-compliance with the terms and conditions of Resolution 11377 and as amended in the terms and conditions stated herein. b) This permit shall be automatically transferrable to a new or different leasee/operator provided the property ownership remains unchanged. c) This permit shall be reviewed and must be transferred by the City Council upon change in ownership to any party other than the Keller Trust, Vicki wisegarver, or Glenn Nellist and Lowell Schaper. d) This permit for non -conforming use shall be automatically void upon discontinuance of commercial use for a period of twelve months (Sec. 10.03 Subdiv 5 e), upon destruction by f ire, f lood or other calamity ( Sec 10.03 Subdiv 5 d) , or upon change to a conforming residential use (Sec 10.03 Subdiv 5 c) . 7. This permit shall not serve to grant any property right other than as specifically provided and conditioned herein. 8. Any violation of or non-compliance with the terms of this permit or Resolution #1377 is and shall constitute a violation of the Orono Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9. The undersigned have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council at a regular meeting held June 11, 1984. ATTEST: Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk t� LtnC_' Mary C. Sutler, Mayor �J 7 i ( I City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1646 i riuperLy owner (3) Property Owner (4) Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this C day of U.1984, before me a Notary Public -w rhiTn and for said County, personally appeared L� /1__L-CZi -se ► known to me to be the persons descri ed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CA 'NOTARY PUB C '� CIP.JY J. HEUr-1 key 1v:1K CCUNTY n r rmtiten e,t "'� ; 12, P;? MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 8 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOWELL SCHAPER AND GLENN NELLIST APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 1646 ALLOWING NEW RETAIL USES WITHIN EXISTING RETAIL AREA OF MARKET FILE 893 WHEREAS, Lowell Schaper and Glenn Nellist (hereinafter the applicants) have an interest in a property owned by Vicki Wisegarver (hereinafter owner) located at 3800 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Those parts of Lots 11, 12, and 13, "MINNETONKA GARDEN ACRES", according to the recorded plat thereof, lyinn southerly of the centerline of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 6 Plat 5, as deliniated in Book 70, Page 3844152 of Hennepin County records. Also the north 1/2 of adjoining old County Road No. 6 now vacated (herein- after the property); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (H) and to amend Resolution 1646 Item 1 (B) of the Concl.ussicr.s, Order and Conditions section of that resolution to permit a mini bake, limited delicatessen service and one picnic table to be placed within 20'x25' designated outdoor sales area at the east side of market. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. The application was reviewed as Zoning File No. 893. 2. The property is located in the RR-lB, Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The applicants have applied for a Conditional Use Permit to permit a mini bake, providing for on -site baking of prepared doughs, within the existing retail area of the market, a limited delicatessen service providing delivery or pick-up service of tray foods prepared in kitchen and sold within retail are of market and one picnic table placed within designated outdoor sales area at east side of market to serve retail customers. Page 1 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. i June 11, 1989. Council approved Resolution 1646 granting a Conditional Use Permit to the applic,X,.Ls, sec- tions of that resolution sec forth 1�.mitdtions on the retail uses of the market, a large non -conforming use, the appli- cants seek amendment of the fol ' owing section of that resolution: I'-em 1 (B) of tl.e Conclusions, Order and Conditions: b) Retail sale of normal grocery items including food stuffs, bakery goods, dairy products, package meats, fish or poultry, candy, tobacco, sundries, cooking or cleaning supplies, paper products, pet food or bird seed, etc. Food shall not be cooked on the premises or otherwise prepared or served for immediate consumption either on the premises or in the form of take-out restaurant or delicatessen service. 5. The applicants also seek confirmation per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (H) -Iincidential alterations which do not extend or intensify the non -conforming use" that the uses proposed above will not intensify or extend the current market operation. 6. On February 19► 1985, the Orono Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the applicants based on one or more of the following findings: A. The"new uses will not involve permanent structural changes or additions to existing structure. B. The new uses will not involve expansion of the retail area. C. The new uses will not encourage customers tc consume food on the premises as with a restaurant use. D. The new uses appear consistent with the original intent and scope of the market as set forth in Resolution 1646. E. The applicants have not violated a condition of Resolution 1646. F. At the current level of operation, there is adequate parking area. The new uses will not create additional parking demands. Page 2 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. G. The new uses will result in the elimination or cutting down in one phase of retail and replacement with a new retail use. H. The City has never received a complaint from resi- dents on the operation of the market by the applicants. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, cor.,ments by the aplicant and the effect of the additional retail uses in the overall operation of the market as proposed cn the health, safety and welfare of the community. 8. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the addition of the new retail uses as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and the lc -ation and proposed use of the residential 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 the above f indir he Orono City Council hereby chants a Conditional Use � t per Section 10.03 Subdivision 5 (H) and Orono Resolutions . '7 and 1646 to Lowell Schaper and Glean Nellist to permit the addition of new retail. uses as specified above at the Summerfield Farms market located at 3800 Wayzata Boulevard subject to the following conditions: 1. All equipment installed to support the mini bake operation is subject to the standards of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. 2. :prior to installing the delicatessen use, the applicants must obtain a license from the Hennepin County Community Health Department for the food preparation operation. 3. All foods consumed at informal outdoor picnic area rm,;,c,, be purchased at retail from within market. 4. Foods shall not be served for immediate consumption either on the premises or in the form of take-out restaurant. poor. I • City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI I NO. 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned owner and parties with an interest in the property have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council on this llth day of March, 1985. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor (1) Property Owner VU�►�rIJI wltIETIN6 y PAR 111985 To: Mayor Butler Of ORONO Orono Council Members From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: March 6, 1965 Subject: Release of Tax Forfeit Lots For Private & Public Sale a) Resolution - releasing tax forfeit lands for private sale to adjacent owners. b) Resolution - releasing tax forfeit lands for public sale. Staff has reviewed the enclosed classifira'ion of non -con- servation - tax forfeit lands. Staff find:: r;one of the parcels suitable for public use (roads, drainage, parks, etc). Staff has drafted the appropriate resolutions releasing the eight proper- ties for private and public sales. Resolution A - recognizes the immediate limitations of the parcels and recommends combination with adjacent properties. Resolution B - is more specific and suggests that the five individual parcels should he ombined :s one building site. Hennepin County will more than likely hax problem with this specific wording but it's worth an attempt. List 67;)-tic page 7 ADDRESS/f ORMLR OWNER OR0110 No Address State Land Department 525 Tonkawa Road State Land Department No Address State Land Department No Address State Land Department No Address State Land Department No Address State Land Department No Address William T. Craig 3905 North Shore Drive Dale F. Bergquis6- P1D b ✓ 06-117-23 41 0058 06-117-23 41 0067 06-117-23 41 0068 06. 117-23 41 0069 06-117-23 41 0070 06-117-23 41 0071 08-117-23 33 0022 17-117-23 22 0005 TOTAL BLDG VALUE MARKET VALUE S 2,000 $ 3,000 9,400 3,700 3,700 3,400 1,700 5,500 100 • I r�� .' . Id '0 c Ch._� �I ^ �yt tiI G'� c a1r(jj K .7 „ •i : �M f I ��� .e `J J . IN c: .s o � .. .,` Cl Roo, is �OI` N 'r ,I '!• s limeSmdTWO� , 12• . \� �+1 �� l A it tl Ytl cc IAJ CL (K tii j' I r°� to t /„ • i ��� /. . �, r .y „ . � _-. � I •� gq. ' ` � ^ ? bed ",. "°A J 0 S�' t� S t' <i � I r•f f gJ _ oil I F I t •� o •1_ •Y - � _ M � tJ I N f � •1 �, I .:1 , h \:J. N - p •a I •1 �� I he's n v 1 3als •• °j i SI 1p � • rt IZ I - (� I , I .�.., ou .� f ti • ' 7 500O ZZ fZ-LIT-1.T 1S3 ..... ...�•tt71 •• .. f�!lSL'iL21.... ��t.1f.t I �., -4b►Q VMVAN01- -A&MO -37Tr ►� 3 tc; 5 oc ofin ev gal uj !s . 05 161T Vs 3f)N3AV $loft lb - o '• fhP �� .1• Z a on e - rs I Ip w •l �1` �' 4 • �.o � w u � ✓ v _"' a- y c � • .'', • � ao' 1 �` '. s Q � a s�.ft e • �. C_7li cr n Y1 . e r Mf N Q KI r o t0 „ 1 1 1. �i,r� • (l/ �` i,•j nl y _ / , -► '� •+y� f cot 2 �- Sf 3AV • '+ 1: ,: \ �,,,. ^R '• .• O .71 n •~ Iw f�.r O J� Vnr-. �•% •� • '•r 4i r'. •o o ff 7= M ,•� � c, h.,; - .•i � •t as • i1)' . � M• ? �P� r y` .►` t707 r ,1 : e l —, r. •� $• .', S \ft•y 1 Nr r�fo e b d • , ' 7 �� • dw b ! S o )f f` :�" _� ,nll eta/„•ry W ✓ S�� / r a .A / ,♦• Off Mimi MIMIMIMIMIM.' JL2 Was- \ a� .A� �P 8500 [b FF-LTT-90 Ll AIM ... StiG22.... 45�Tiy.t j 4 �£ { Q{1� . 14 �19+a1► +MF+-Ek7i — f }� .f ��} v H �ti �•� sit ,• `. in to — X lqc � 3nN3Av � � i� irri� : • ot. � �- �� s,• 'fnC �� �'� 2 Sb : j ° :� �I'= ••1t > NN E1 r J O �^ , N n ♦ n ^ w !�' (S" R jr �. S .!`'► Ise Z m• � cs OfO1iol a �1 0 40�`rr = le cr ✓ of r,dr � fr Kr — � Z •• u � ' � i 3Av N30wl off ISO Vr� •' u��' a . `� r• �T i J V• �� 4 ►- •(. �1: sr— mi^-.`i ��4wa L� t11' .� ~�:,, !•'�. �., s�q�1/? % M, n Wn• s i.W Irl —of 10 r1 . L% � • om TLOO OL00 P' • 6900 8900 L900 11, City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ; )3&' TAX FORFEITED LANDS RELEASED FOR PRIVATE SALE TO ADJACENT OWNERS WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands fcr compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of out- standing special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, hereby approves the classification of each of the following parcels of land as non -conservation land, and furthermore, approves the public sale of each parcel of lend as listed below to adjacent property owners. All parcels remain subject to all applicable zoning ordinance provisions, including those regulations providing for minimum lot area and minimum lot width. Substandard parcels may be useable only in combination with other adjoining parcel(s). Release of these lands by the City Council is subject to the condition that all outstanding special assessments shall be paid in full to the City upon return to private ownership. Any amount not recovered at the time of sale shall be subject to reassessment by the City. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. PARCELS RELEASED FOR SALE District Plat Parcel P.I.D. Levy Outstanding Amount 38 42620 4260 06-117-23 41 0067 6345 $5,689.05 38 42620 4300 06-117-23 41 0068 6345 $1,879.76 38 42620 4350 06-117-23 41 0069 6345 $1,879.76 38 42620 4400 06-117-23 41 0070 6345 $1,879.76 38 42620 4450 06-il7-23 41 0071 6345 $1,769.97 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the llth day of March, 1985, by a vote of ayes and naves. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor fe city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CI Y COUNCIL NO. TAX FORFEITED LANDS RELEASED FOR PUBLIC SALE WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners have classified said lands as non -conservation land and have authorized the sale of each such parcel of land subject to review and release by the City; and WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of out- standing special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, herety approves the classificaticn of each of the following parcels of land as nor, -conservation land, and furthermore, approves the public sale of each parcel of land as listed below. Release of these lands by the City Council does not constitute an assurance that each parcel is or will be approved as a building site. All parcels remain subject to all applicable zoning ordinance provisions, including those reaulationF providing for minimum lot area and minimum lot width. Sub- standard parcels may be useable only in combination with the other adjoining contiguous parcels listed below. Release of these lands by the City Council is subject to the condition that all outstanding special assessments shall be paid in full to the City upon return to private ownership. Any amount not recovered at the time of sale shall be subject to reassessment by the City. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. PARCELS RELEASED FOR SALE District Plat Parcel P.I.D. Levy Outstanding Amount 38 42620 3600 06-117-23 41 0058 6345 $2,881.12 38 42180 2600 08-117-23 33 0022 5382 $ 390.00 38 41317 3800 17-117-23 22 0005 5383 $ 60.26 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a reg:,lar meeting held the llth day of March, 1985, by a vote of ayes and naves. ATTEST: Dozothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor // d (oube IA hod IA To: Mayor Butler Orono Council Members MAR 1 1985 Orono Planning Commission Members From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Gi _ `r OF ORONO Date: March 7, 1985 Subject: Proposed Amendment of Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management Ordinance List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Classification List Exhibit B - Model Ordinance Exhibit C - Amendment of M.S. 105.485 - Adopted 1973 Exhibit D - Support Information on Classification Criteria A) Status of Review A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 19th to review an ordinance amendment proposed by the DNR, agency authorized by state law in 1973 to establish standards and criteria for municipal shoreland development. Shorelands include land within 1000 feet of a lake or 300 feet from a river or stream. The purpose of the preliminary review hearing was to review the amendment and discuss the impact on the current code in addition to making any necessary amendments to current 10.55 code. The Planning Commission felt the impact of the proposed ordinance changes and potential conflict with another govermental agency having concurrent jurisdiction over all shoreland within the City so important an issue that the matter be best addressed at a joint meeting of both bodies. The Planning Commission questioned the authority of the DNR to impose these additional regulations and the added expenses passed on to our residents in dealing with yet another bureaucracy. B) Discussion and Background on Proposed Amendment (Exhibit B) The City is required by State Law to adopt an ordinance to assure wise development and use of the shorelands of certain protected waters within the City that have been given a shoreland management classifi- cation. These protected waters of the City have been classified by the Commissioner of Natural Resources as follows: A) Natural Environment Lakes 1. French Lake Marsh 2. Lydiard 3. Dickey 4. Classen B) Recreational Development Lakes 1. Mooney 2. Tanager 3. Long C) General Development Lakes 1. Minnetonka 2. Forest D) General Development Streams 1. Long Lake Creek Staff reviewed the classification data used to determine these designations last year and concurred with the DNR findings. Review the classification list (Exhibit A) and the information sheets (Exhibit D) that review the various standards, measurements and criteria used to determine the classification of each of the above lakes. Our City was given a one year deadline to complete the necessary ordinance amendment. The DNR will expect the City to complete the ordinance review sometime this year. I have been advised that I can apply for an extension if necessary. For our City, the process will involve the amendment of Section 10.55 to include a shoreland overlay district that would govern future development of all land within 1000 feet of the lakes specified above and within 300 feet of rivers and streams. In the process of amending Section 10.55, staff suggests a review of the existing wetlands and flood plain sections to determine if them are omissions or a need to clarify or expand. Staff recommends altering Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Develop- ment Restricted; Prohibition, to delete the 26 feet setback from flood plain elevation. A flood plain and wetlands area are two different entities. Flood plains can be grassed lawns, brush and treed areas - they do not serve to filter run-off as a wetlands. If there are wetlands within a f lood plain then the wetlands setback of 26 feet will apply. Review Exhibits A & B, the classification list and the suggested model ordinance (specifically Page 6) - Staff notes the following: 1. Residence on R.D. Lakes - Mooney, Tanager and Long which meet current 75' structure setback would become non -conforming. 2. Structures and septic systems on NE lakes - French Lake, Lydiard, Dickey and Classc,, - which meet the current 75 feet setback would become non -conforming. 3. Orono is more retrictive in required lot sizes. 4. Our setbacks from County roads in urban areas are less retrictive. 5. May have to review our hardcover standards with DNR's 30% maximum. 6. DNR must review all variances to shoreland regulations; all plats that are inconsistent with shoreland regulations must be submitted to DNR 10 days before Public Hearing at Planning Commission; copies of all plats involving shorelands must be sent to DNR; all PRDs and PUDs with altered zoning standards (greater density credits) must be approved by DNR. I have talked with the DNR representative concerning tht- .l :-esponse of the City to the new regulations. happily, I haves .;een advised that there is a great deal of room for compromise. If the DNR finds our Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code contain adequate shore - land regulations and guidelines, we may be able to get by with merely establishing the shoreland overlay district where the state regula- tions are more restrictive that Orono's. Staff shall draft a limited amendment for Planning Commission and Council's review. If the draft meets with Council's approval, I will send it on to the DNR for their comments. 7CTP,Ai, iLAS::?C:;,ti:ION DATA IDENTIFICATION LOCATION BASIN CHARACTERISTICS • SHURE SOILSb WETLAND I.D. $ T I.^. ISECTIONS A;.EA MILLS VF.G. TDI Minnetonka 27-133P 117N 23tJ 118N various Mooney 27-134P 118N 22;23 30;25 Forest 27-139P 117N 23 7 French Lake *•:srsh 27-140P 117 23 3,4,9,10 Tanager 27-141P 117 23 10.11 Lydiard 27-159P 118 23 25,26 Long 27-160P 118 23 26,27, 34,35 Dickeys 27-161W 118 23 27 -lassen 27-162P 118 23 28,29, 32,33 Long Lakc reek 14,310 91 L 118 2.0 L 127 2.5 L 187 3.8 4 74 1.0 L 33 1.2 L 320 3. L 26 .9 L 117 2.2 5 * ;cater body bordered by ai: least one oth r local unit of government; data ** All rivers and strcams its the municipality having a total drainage area c are assigned a shoreland class-ificati:)n of General Development. IDZNTI"ICATION ..F:ZATION DATA C:1rY OF ORONO BASIN CKARACT"ERISTICS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CLASSIFICATION IN-M MATIC:I LAC �`�.r. I I.D. a LOCATION T 1, SECTZONS Ar"-A ' SOILS SHORT M1LLS Vc:G. hE:TLAND 'TYPE DEPTH i-i o rc� -t" r H .H. ~ '7 nM �� c c :t y :� n N K fEnn a H a H yh o ei Q� E7 xl H v r x rob: yry Z s H �+ o ,_ v 9 H rn; P1 XJ v 12 G t�vtn : r z O H -, in ro rEnH n; F3 N 0 z H n ro O� V: Cn H \ !— rtnyv ;n 0 7 Gi r r ►3 b� _ M to ^. — �hz c -_ 7 K i Minnetonka 27-133P 117N 118N 23W various 14,310 91 L 91 I GD Mooney 27-134P 118N 22;23 30;25 118 2.3 L 9 25 0 i 12.5' 1 r,= Forest 27-139P 117% 23 7 127 2.5 L 41 67 0 26.8 50.a ._ French Lakc `:3r 3: 27-140P 117 23 3,4,9,10 187 3.8 4 4 6 :; 1.6 49.2 \� Tanager 27-141P 117 23 10.11 74 1.0 L 5 12 0 1 marina 12.0 74.0 RC Lydiard 27-159P 118 23 25,26 33 1.2 L 52 4 0 ( 3.3 49.3 h3 Long 27-160P 118 23 26,27, 34,35 320 3.88 L 33 30 0 4 7.7 27,5 RD Dickeys 27-161W 1J.8 23 27 26 .9 L 25 13 0 14.4 26.9 Classen 27-162P 118 23 28,29, 32,33 117 2.� 5 7 0 3.2 53.2 tiE Long Lace Creek cc Walc^r bo-y bordered by at least 04te other local unit of ovcrnmenti d-tta iv,f 9 g _t is for entire water body. *• t11 rivers and strc;:ms it, t::: ieipality having a total drainage area of grater than two (2) cquaro mi a:c a shareland c .ficatian of General Development. S G::DINAh FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SHORELAND AREAS OF THE i CI7Y OF I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A) Statutory Authorization: This ordinance is aaupteki pursuant ;,ne authorizati:,+ cnntaineo in the Laws of Minnesota 1973, Cnapter 379, and in furticrance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chap—i-s 105,115,116 and 462. B) Policy: The uncontrolled use of shorelands of t.ne city of affects the public health, safety anu general welfare not contributing to pollution of public waters, but also b., impai,_ t locil tax ase. T` ,refore, it is in the best interests of tr - u!i heath, safety ai.0 .,<211rare to provide for the wise ::evelopment shorelands of -bl,c waters. The Legislature 'if Minnesota has delegated res onsibility to the municipalities of lne state to regulate the s.)';divisi0 use anu development of the sn;,: elanas of public waters ..nd thus preserve and ennance the quality of surface water., preserve the economic and natu:•al environmental values of snorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of ,raters and :'elated land resources. Tnis responsii)i,ity is nereoy recognizea jj the City of C) Definitions: For the purpose of this ordinance, certain ter,as or words isel herein shall ve interpreted as folltvis: 'Ine word "snail" indatur „ not permissive. Ali distartcu, :nl,ss . nerwrsc spy ,fled shall ue measured horizontally. 'Boathouse" means a structure iseo solely for tit 'orgy- -t uoats or boating eq,.+ T --ent . I tie" means that 1 ine iaeasureo across znr wi lot at t,,P are the princir,11 .cr•ucture is place: i% ce with y,;c:,,k provisions. "Clear -cutting" means the removal of an er,cire stanu of trees. "Conditional Use" means a use of srrore,an(Is will j,-rraltteo %itnin zoning district unly k�un allowec by the ci' i Nearing, if rertzin conoitiuns drE met wnicn the incompat ity of the conditi,inai ase + AILS of the d1Str-iCL. "')t:verninq Body" means the city :Gancii t .n,, 1. .,•w ""ardse means t we: t% in question f-& retionaDle �e unur the Lonuit, al' ,a.•j Dy the offrc,G. Er s; t'iio piight the lanaowner i, due • 1 circumstances unique to nis property, not eated by the i owner; ,:I the variarnce, if granted. will not al, the essential character of the ,aLaiity. Ecunomic ;Or;: _ ;dons alone shall nut constitute a hardship ` a reasona04-- u;e for the property axists unjer terms )f the official cuntr.,ls. E ►' "Lot' means a parcel of lano designatea by metes and uounas description, registered lanu survey, auditors plut, or other accepted ' means and separated from other parcels.or portions by said description for the purpose of sdl�, ;ease, o- separation thereof. For the purposes of these regulations, a lot sha'' be considered to be an individual building site whicn shall be occ.pik-d by no more than one principal structure equipped with sanitary facilities. "Nonconforming Use" means any use of land estaci'.shed before the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the use restrictions of a particular zoning district. This snoulo not ue confused with substandard aimensions of a confor►ainy - "Ordinary High Wai Mark" neans a marK aelineating the hignest water level which has been maintu.ned for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the lanascape. The orainary Ilign water tnarK is rnmmonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. "Planned Unit Development" means a type of aevelopment wnicn may incorporate a variety of land uses planneu atld ueveluped as a unit. The Planned Unit nvelopment is distinquisnea frum the trauitional subdivision proce;, of aevelopment in tnat zoning stanuards such as density, heignt limits, and minimum lot sizes may ue altered by negotiation and agreement between the ueveloper, t,►e municipality ano the Coinmissiooer of Natural Resources. "Cluster ;aevelopment" is considerer, Lo be a type ur P I:inneo Unit Development and is subject to the same review criteria. Planning Agency" means the planning commission or piatlnirig ucpertaient as createo by the governoring body. ''Pr cted Waters*" means any -raters ur )Late as aef ilie�, In Min�,,-:pta Statutu. 1980, `Z:- ^5.. jbdivi� i.;n 14. However, no lake, pond or f.owage r,' n ti... acres in size anu Iu river - or stream having a total d► rea less than two squa► rules shall be regulateo for the s of tnese regulations. "Setback" means the minimum horizontal ,istance between a structure or sanitary facility anc the orainary sign :,3ter oiarK Or- uet err, a structure or sanitary facility and a roan, well, nignway, property iiw,. * "Public Waters" has been cnangeu to V rote..te. %uter". All regulations and requirements remain the ialar-, only the name nas been ct,inged. 3 "Shoreland" means land located within the following distances from protecte.! waters: (i) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water marK of a lake, pond, or flowage; and (ii) 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain on such rivers or streams, whichever is greater. The practical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory l'mits where sucn limits are designated by natural drainage divides at lesser distances, as s•lown on the official zoning map of the City. "Structure" means any building (including mobile homes) or appurtenance `_hereto, except aerial or underground utility lines sucn as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph or gas lines, including towers, poles, and other supporting appurtenances. "Subdivision" means improved or unimproved land or lands which are divided for the purpose of ready sale or lease, or divided successively within a five year period for the purpose of sale or lease, into three or more lots cr parcels of less than five acres each, contiguous in area and which are under common ownership or control. "Substandard Use" means any use of shoreldnds existing prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance wnicn is permitted witnin the applicable zoning district uut does not meet the minimum lot area and length or water frontage, structure setbacks, or other dimensional standards of the ordinance. "Variance" means any modification or variation of official controls where it is determined that, oecause of narasr:ps, strict enforcement of the official controls is impractical. il. DESIGNATION OF TYPES OF LAND USE A) Snorelano Management Classification: In order to guide the wise development and utilization of shorelanus of protected waters for the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics, economic values and the general health, safety and welfare, certain protected waters in the City nave been given a snoreland management classification. These protecteo waters of toe City nave peen classified 3y the Commissioner of Natural Resourr-s as folluws: Natural Environment Lakes ONR I.U. a 1. 2. (Li_, here and on 3. Official toning Map) Recreational Development lakes DNR I.D. # 1. 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) r General Development Lakes DNR I.G. 1. 2. (Li;t here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) Natural Environment Streams Legal Description 1. 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) Recreational Development Streams Legal Description 1. 2. (List here and on 3. Official Zoning Map) General Development Streams Legal Description 1. 2. (List 'ere and on 3. Official Zoning Map) B) Shoreland Overlay District: The snorelands of tr►,- City of , are here - aesignatea as o Snorelana Overlay District. The purpose -Nf the S,,ortlano Overlay District is to provide for the wise uL.:ization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and natural character of these protected waters of the City. 1. Permitted Uses. All permitted ises allowed and regulated by the applicable zoning district underlying this shorelana overlay district as indicated on the official zoning map of the City. 2. Conditional I�SPs. a) All conditional uses and applicable attacnea conditions allowed and regulated bj the applicable zoning district underlying this shoreland overlay district as indicated on the official zoning ,nap of the City and os required ov Section IV of this Ordinance. b) Boathouses 3. Substandard Uses. Any uses of shorelands in existence prior to the date of enactment of this ordinance which are permitted within the applicable zoning aistrict, but do not meet the minimum lot area, setbacks or ot,:-!r dimensional requirwnents of this ordinance are subst,►dara uses. Substandard uses, including substandard sanitary facilities, shall be allowed to continue. However, any structural alteration or addition to a substandard use which will increase the substandard dimensions snail nut oe allowed. 5 4. Prohibited Uses. Any uses which are not Permitted or Conditional Uses as regulated by the applicable zoning district underlying this shoreland overlay district as indicated on the official zoning map of the City. III. ZONING PROVISIONS A) The following standards shall apply to all shorelands of the protected waters listed in Section II of this Oruinance within the City. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning district as shown on the official zoning map are more restrictive than those set forth herein, then the more restrictive stardards shall apply: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT WATERS 1) Unsewered Areas: Lot Area (sq. ft.) Water frontage and lot width at building line (ft) Structure setback fro^ Ordinary High Water Mark (ft) Structure setback from roads and highways (ft) Structure height limitation (ft) Maximum lot area covered by impervious surface (A) Sewage system setback from Ordinary High Water Mark (ft) RECREATIONAL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT WATERS. WATERS 80,000 40,000 20,000 200 15u 100 200 100 75 -----SO Federal, State or County----------- -----20 Municipal or Private --------------- -------------------- 35--------------------- 30 303G 150 75 50 2) Sewered Areas: All provisions for unsewerea areas shad apply to scwered areas except fir the following, which small supersede the provisions applied to unsewered areas: Lot Area (sq. ft.) waterfrunt lots 40,000 20,000 15,000 other lots 20,000 15,000 10,000 Water frontage and lot width at building line (ft) Structure setback from Ordinary High Water Mark (it) 50 15 5u B) Substandard Lots: 1. Lots or record in the office of the County Register of Deeds (or Registrar of Titles) prior to (date of enactment of ordinance) which do not meet the requirements of Section III, (A) may be allowed as building sites provided: (a; Such use is permitted in the zoning district. (b) The lot is in separate ownersnip from abutting lands, and (c) All other sanitary and dimensional requirements or tnis shoreland ordinance are complied witn insofar as practical. 2. The minimum size and length of water frontage for suastandard lots of record snail be: (Municipality has option of setting mini,riurm buildaole size for suostandard lots of record.) C) Roads and Parking Areas: Roads and parking areas shall be located to retaru tn1 runoff of surface waters and nutrients in accordance witn the following criteria. 1. Where feasible and practical, all roads and parkins areas snail meet the setback requirements established for structures in Section III (A) of tnis Ordinance. 2. In no instance shall these impervious surfaces oe placed les: than 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 3. Natural vegetation or nth --fir natural materials shall oe used to screen parking areas when viewed from the water. D) Elevation of Lowest Floor: 1. Structures shall oe placed at an elevation consistent witn the City's flood plain management controls. 2. In areas not regulated by f l 000 plain ri,an ageinefi L controls tine elevation to wnich the lowest floor, incija ing L)asements, shall oe placed shall be determined as follows: a) For IaKes, ponds, and flowages jy (a) an evalation of available flood information and consistent witn Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota or (o) placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the nighest Knowr water level. In those instances where sufficient data on known high water levels are not available, the ordinary nigh water :!,,ark shall be used. b) For rivers and streams, oy an evaluation ,j: available fluud information and consistent with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Arras of Minnesota. E) _'Aceptions to Structure Setback Requirements 1. Setback requirements from the ordinary high water mark shill not apply to boathouses, piers, and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be controlled by applicable state and local regulations. Boathouses may be allowed as a conaitional use provided they are not used for habitation and oo not contain sanitary facilities. 2. On undevelopea shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential structure may be set bdCK the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water mark or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the shorelana overlay uistrict are compliea with. IV. SHORIELANO ALTERATIONS A) The removal of natural vegetation snall be restricted to prevent erosion into protected waters, to consume nutrients if, the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. Removal of natural vegetation in the shoreland overlay district shall be suuject to tht following provisions. I. Selective removal of natural vegetation is allowea, pr-oviueo that sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars, dwellings and other structures when viewed from the water. 2. Clear cutting of natural vegetation is pronioitea. 3. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is co►npleteu to re'aro surface runoff and soil erosion. 4. The provisions of this section shall rot apply to permitted uses which normally require the removal of li,,tural vegetation. B) Grading and filling in shorelano areas j alteration of the natural tupography where the slope of t, -no is towara a protected water or a watercourse leading to a protected water must be authorized by a permit. The permit may ue granted subject to the conditions that: 1. The smallest amo►:nt of bare ground is exposes for as s►►ort a time as feasiole. 2. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used ano permanent ground Cover, such as sod, is estaulishea. 3. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed. 4. Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering stanuaros. c• C) Excavations on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a protected water shall require a permit from the Zoning Administrator before construction is begun. Such permit may be obtained only after the Commissioner of Natural Resources nas issued a permit to work in the beds of protected waters. D) Any work which will change or diminish the course, current or cross-section of a protected water or wetland shall be approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, and sucn approval shall be construed to mean the issuance by the Commissioner of Natural Resour,es of a permit under the procedures of Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.42 and othe related statutes. V. SEWAGE TREATMENT Any premises intended for human occupancy snall ue provided wit.n an adequate method of sewage treatment to be maintainea in accordance witri acceptable practices. A) Public or municipal collection and treatment facilities snail be usea where available and wnere feasible. B1 The standaras of the Minnesota Pollution Cuntrol Agency (,*•1PCA), "Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Stanoaros and appendices", (b MCAR 9 4.8040) are hereby adopted by reference ano maKe a part of this ordinance. C) Permit. No person, firm, or corporation shall install, alter, repair, or extend any indiviaual sewage treatment system witnout first obtainirg a permit therefor from the Zoning Auministrator for the City. 1. Application for permits shall be made in writing upon printed blanks or forms furnisned by the Zuning Administrator and snall be signed by the applicant. 2. Each application for a permit shall incluaE: a correct legal description of the property on whicn the proposed installation, alteration, repair or extension is to LaKe olace; a plan of the site of reasonable scale and accuracy snowing the location of any proposea or ex4stinq uuildings, water supply, property lines, and underground or cverheaa utility lines; a ,:omplete plan of the sewage treatment system snowing tree location, size and design of all ports of the system to oe installed, altereo, repaired, or extended; the name of the person, firm, or corporation who is to install toe system; any further information as required by the Zoning Auministrator. D) Compliance. All individual sewage treatment systems witnrn the shoreland overlay district shall be designed, installed, aria maintained in accordance witn the MPCA standards listed in Section V (B) of this ordinance. E) Inspection. Any installation, alteration, repair or extension of an individual sewage treatment system shall be inspected to ensure compliance by the Zoning Administrator or a qualified inspector following completion of the work but prior to covering of the system. All existing sewage treatment systems inconsistent with the standards referenced in Section V (B) of this Ordinance snali be brought into conformance or discontinued within five (5) years from the date of enactment of this ordinance. Any nonconforming sanitary facility found to be a public nuisance shall be brought into conformity or discontinued within 30 days after receiving written notice from the 7,)ning Administrator. VI. WATER SUPPLY Public or private supplies of water for domestic purposes snail conform to Minnesota Department oi* Health standards for water quality. A) Public or municipal water supplies shall be used where availaile and where feasible. B) Permit. No person, firm, or corporation shall install, alter, repair or extend any private well without first ootaining a permit therefor from the Zoning Administrator for tree City. Application for permits snail be made in writing upon printed blanks or forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and snall be signed by the applicant. 2. Each application for a permit shall include: a correct legal description of the property on which the pruposed installation, alteration, repair or extension is to take place; a plan of the site of reasonable scale and accuracy snowing the location of any proposed or existing buildings, sewage treatment facilities, property lines; a complete plan of the water supply system showing the location, size and design of all parts of the system to oe installed, altered, ,paired, or extended; the name of the person, firm, or corporation who is to install the system; any further information as required by the Zunir.g Ao►ninistrator. C) Private wells snail be located in a ►nanner to ue free frum fiooding and the top shall be so constructed and locateu as to or above all possible sources of pullution. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be flood -proofed. D) No private well shall be located closer than tnree (3) feet to the outside basement wall of a dwelling. The outside easement footing shall be continuous across the opening of the well alcove. No well shall be located closer than fiftenn (15) feet to a property line. E) Private wells shall be located in accordance with the standards of the Minnesota Health Department stm-odaros MHO 217 "Location of Wells", !c)(1). 10 VII. SUBDIVISIONS A) No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil anc rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. B) Copies of all plats within the snoreland overlay district shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of final approval by the City. C) Planned Unit Development (PUD). Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to this ordinance for PUD's provided preliminary plans are approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to their approval by the City, ana further provided: 1. Central sewage facilities snail be installed which meet applicable stanaaras of the Minnesota Pollution Cuntrol Agency or the PUD is connected to a municipal sanitary sewer. 2. Open space is preserved through the use of restrictive oeea covenants, public dedications, or other n►etnoas. 3. The following factors are carefully evaluateu to ensure the increased density of nevelopment is consistent with t►►e resource limitations of the nritecteo water: a) suitability of the site for the proposeu use; b physical and aesthetic impact or increasea density; c) level of current development; d) amoont ano ownership of undeveloped shoreland; e) levels .end types of water surface use and public accesses; f) possible effects on over-all public use. 4. Any commercia:, recreational, community, or religious tacility allowed as part of the planned unit development shall conform to all applicable feaeral and state regulations including, but nut limited to the following: d) licensing provisions or procedures; b) waste disposal regulations; c) water supply regulations; d) building coatis; e) safety regulations; f) regulations concerning the appropriation ano use of Protected Waters as defines in Minnesota Stat;ltes 1974, Chapter 105; and g) applicable regulations of the Minnesc�a Environmental Quality BCdrd. 5. The final plan for a planned unit development shall not be modified, amended, repealed, or otherwise altered unlc approved in writing by the developer, the municipalit,, and the Commissioner. 6. There are centralized shoreline recreation facilities such as beaches, docks and boat launching facilities. VIII.NOTTFTCATION PWCEDURES A) A copy of the notice of a public hearing to consider a variance to the provisions of the Snorelanu Overlay District or a conditional use in the Shoreland Overlay District shall be sent to the Commissiuner nf Natural Resources such that the notice is received by the Commissioner at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings. B) A copy of all amendments to this ordindnce and final decisions granting variances or conditional u,!s within tne,Snoreland Overlay District shall be sent to the Comm'.�sioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of the amendment or final action. 12 C AN ACT S.F. No. 225 Chapter No. 379 relating to water resources; providing for the regulation of shoreland use and development in municipalities; prescribing the powers and duties of municipalities and state agencies in relation thereto; amending Minnesota Statutes 1971, Sections 105.485, Subdivisions 2 and 3, and by adding subdivisiu,:�s- and 462.357, Subdivision 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1971, Section 105.485, Subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. (DEFINITIONS.) For the purposes of this section the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: (a) "Shoreland" means land located within the following distances from the ordinary high water elevation of public waters: (1) Land within 1,000 feet from the normal high watermark of a lake, pond, or flowage; and (2) land within 300 feet of a river or stredm or the landward side of flood plain delineated by ordinance on such a river or stream, whichever is greater. (b) "Unincorporated area" means the area outside a city, village, or borough. (c) "Municipality" means a city, village, or borough. Sec. 2 Minnesota Statutes 1971, Section 105.485, Subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subd. 3. (COMMISSIONER'S DUTIES.) Before April 1, 1974, the commissioner of natural resources shall promulgate, in the manner provided in chapter 15, model standards and criteria, other than a model ordinance, for the subdivision, use, and development of shoreland in municipalities, which standards and criteria shall include but not be limited to those listed below in regard to unincorporated areas. Before July 1, 1970, the commissioner of natural resources shall promulgate, in the manner provided in chapter 15, model standards and criteria for the subdivision, use, and development of shoreland in unincorporated areas, including but not limited to the following: (a) The area of a iot and length of water frontage suitable for a building site; (b) the placement of structures in relation to shorelines and roads; (c) the placement and construction of sanitary and waste disposal facilities; (d) designation of types of land uses; (e) changes in bottom contours of adjacent p-iblic waters; (f) preservation of natural shorelands through the restriction c.f land uses; (g) variances from the minimum standards and criteria; and (h) a model ordinance. The followin3 agencies shall provide such information and advice as may be necessary to the preparation of the rules and regulations, or amendments thereto: The stale departments of agriculture, economic development, and health; the state planning agency; the pollution contr•)l agency; the state soil and water conservation commission; and the Minnesota historical society. In addition to other requirements of chapter 15, the model standards and ordinance promulgated pursuant to this section, or amendments thereto, shall not be filed with the secretary of state unless approved by the executive officer of the state board of health and the director of the pollution control agency. Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1971, Section 105.485, is amended by adding subdivisions to read: Subd. 6. before April 1, 1974, each municipality having shoreland within its corporate limits shall sut to the commissioner, for his review, any ordinances, rules, or regulations affecting the use and development of its shorelands. The commissioner shall review the ordinances, rules, or regulations and determine whether they are in substantial compliance_ with municipal shoreland management- standards .end criteria promulgated pursuant to slibilivision 3. In making his review ;he coi*imi ,•r eiso r a.f cunsi„er any feature unique tot ee munici al sFore-fand in question, i- ncFud ng—but not 1 -to the iharactenstics o1 the waters which may t�- affected by development, storm sewer facilities, a. 'ary and waste dia facilities in existence at the time of the commissioner's review. If the comm,......,er determines that the ordinances, rules, or re ulations of a municipality do not substantially com ply with the state sta_ndards'a_nri criteria for municipal shoreland management, he shall so notifythe municipality and shalt indicate to th,. municipality the changes which are necessary to brink tie cEs, rules, o_r regulation; into substantial compliance with state standards and criteria. Within of., a er receiving this notice from tho commissioner, the munici algy_shall make the chances n. - ry_to bringthe or finances, rules, or l c ylations into subs tan tiaompliance with state standards and cr te_i a. li a municipality h is no oidinanc.e, rule, or regulation affecting ,the use and development of shorele+A on April 1: 197�. hall adoP_t such_an ordinance, rule, or regulation complying with state standards and criteria for municipal sFuireland management, before July 1, 1975. li-_(a) a municipality has no or&n_ancn, rule, or regulation atfecting die use and c vet!pnent of s_tiureland on April i,_��Yd, —and�aiTs t'o`r+ifopt such an ordinance by 7-uly 1 ' �75, or iT (ilj the c�orate boundaries ofthe municipality are expanded to include shu,WIJI1LA not prey„ sly included within the municipal boundaries -ind the municipality fails to adopt such an ordinance within nne year after including the shorelands within its municipal boundaries, or if (c) the commissioner determines that a municipal shoreland manageiient ordinance does not substantially comply with the state standards and criteria for municipal shoreland management and that the municipality has failed' to make the necessary changes _within one year after receiving notice of noncom pliance-, the_ commissioner may adopt an ordinance, rules, or regulations for the municipality in the following mariner. The commissioner shall hold at least one _public hearing on the proposed ordinance, rules, or regulations in the manner provided in section 462.357, after giving notice as provided in section 462.357. The ordinance, rules, or regulations are effective for the municipality on the date and in accordance with such roc ulations relating to compliance as the commissioner shall prescribe. The ordinance shall bE enforced as provided in section 462.362. The ep nalties provided in section 462.362 apply to violations of the ordinance, rules, or regulations adopted for the municipality by the commissioner. The costs incurred by the commissioner in adopting the ordinances, rules, or regulations for the municipality shall by paid by the muni.S ality and collected from the municipality in the same manner as such costs are paid by a county and collected from a county pursuant to subdivision 5; and any tax levied to pay the costs shall be levied in excess of any ;imitation as to rate or amount, but shall not cause the amount of other taxes which are subject to any limitation to ;)e reduced in any amount whatsoever. Subd. 7. Municipal planning and land use controls for land other tfran shoreland in the vicinity of shoreland shall be, to the maximum extent practical, compatible with planning and land use controls for shoreland adopted pursuant to subdivision 6. Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1971, Section 462.,35 , Subdivision 1, is amended to read: 462.357 (PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; ZONING.) Subdivision 1. (AUTHORITY FOR ZONING.) For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals r'd ger.eml welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shoreland. its defined in sec?ion 105.485, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedr,. -s regulating such uses. The regulations may ' ide the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape and area. The regulations sh, oe , niform for each class or kind of buildings, structures or land and for each class or kind of use throughout sr i district, but the regulations in one district may 61fer from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the Zoning Ordinance and shall consist of tex: and maps. A city, village, or borough may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two mile- of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations,- provide-' irrat where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a line equidistart between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city, village, or borough may thereafter enforce such nations in the area to the same extent as if such property were sit -sated within its corporate limits, a lie county or town board adopts a cornprehensive zoning . i;ion which includes the area. Sec. 5. No. :n9 in this act shall bz construed to nroht`)rt_a m_unnc.oal-ty fronf d00pc1f.g and enforcing ordinances, rules,_or re ulatioons affecting the use and developm,. + of'shoreland w�_are more restnctrwe than the state standards and criteria. — Sec. 6. This act is effective July 1, 19i3. so i t;t i l 1 t o f the shorn' and areas for future development. Many areas around i tl luw 1• kcs have soils that are unsuitable for building; sites or soil ..sorp- tion sewage treatment systems. Often times, shallow lake, with gently sloping shoreland area, have the brotindw'ater level very near the ground surface. The statcwid, shorelaiid i;ur..lg1cmei1L standards preclude construction of soil absorption unit•i are,is where the groundwater level i11 I)v lesa than folir (4) feet from tho bottom of the propo.ied system. They also stipulate that the lowest floor of tiny buildi:. Call:,L'IictVil is M.orulanti .1c:v.: cu16t he at !vast three `3) feet abut_ the hi- war..1. l::ei . Akaiz, Cu 1a I.lcl ... l ^: s canr.;.t: by ivisv:i "u I 1 %. upoli . }:a ra. cr is L it 'An individual holy if :-rater. They must also corisitler the ti:;.ters in a state, regional, .:;niClty and iiiunicij-.tt--in: :Jr slur .:Ind is g;rcark:: 1i1 areas where po1)U1:.LlOi1 pl'<tiKtli'C.+ ilr. ..:k ur '.incru im.)rovvil highways ilal.e f-ime-rly isolated areas more accessible. 1nJivilu.11 municipr.l, cuttaty and :'cgional public water needs must lie considerc:l is determi►ring a sl.orcl:vid ::11u:1 c::+_iit .lassificatiui . Careful resource '"aii jv;:Itt::L plan:; iniurC :=t.:!d1' t't.t:i0"liC growth it. stri 'th iticrea,.ed rc4reatialial ,I :ar1d, ►1iilr it -c•.ource deteriora. tr1. The clii:4sific ' ion system, thcr•.-forv. !watt to -•arefully structured. It has to take i nto a.: Hill* the i'i: = ; i ::.t t +;►:U1 i I i ty o F a 1,01 is water to assimilate . ►. runs,:d tie•:eloprnen: an-1 :1�i . : t .:.).i t•: :i:count for the intensity of existing firer nett^rns a-,! 1,'r1 to Consider the resource in . reg;i tial .onte V_dd t _a S2 -Vrc2 The t)r im:: 't ,l;1ti resourco for the cla<si: icat ion was the L tkesliore Jevelop- inrnt Study, condo,_ the Department of Geography, Unit• :-si.ty of Minnesota. stutly r s an irtvc•ntr.:+y of th^ physical and culviral ' .o,teristics of most :ne9ot:►', lakes Ki!h Jc:crlopmt'ut In•t on! i !i . Tht' %ttily inclo,! d all lakes a•'res or I'arger which were not completely within publicly owned lance nr the se• +•n . ourty inotropolitan area. The basic data unit was the government lot (le-s than 40-acre parcel adjoining a lake). Re•ords of the Division of haters and the Division of Fish and Wildlife sot>}l_ied technical and hiologic::l inform•:tion to supplement the Lakeshore Study. These records contained such data as water levels, locations of spawning beds. lake hottom contours, nedian lake depths, hater quality, fish counts and loco tions of control strorct,rres :':her sours_-s consulted for additional infoi7:1;ttion included the .'1•trop,lita11 1.-Av Inver.'roly prvliared by the Division of Fish and 1;'il:ll ife. 1I.S. C,�ol-: ,.-al Survey topo.gr:rphic mars, :rir photos, U.S. Forest Service %laps, Iron ruiq;- Rusourc.s and 11chahilitation Commi,;sioa land ownership naps and Depart,., ;:t f H i ph-xay.: general ounty h i ;;h;+ay maps. Field surti•e . were in those :asos informnition was on a late or stroa.. •.ithin DNR or :.)ther agenzy files. "r'itical Values Critical ",:-Jtvff" ;;glues for the clas.ification cr.•eria were determined by statistical 'u:alysis. Some of the criteria did not lend iselves to statis- i.:al ;:n;lly.,i ;u,:h as soils inFiri.;ation or ecological type. They rcy.:ired ubjective c... il,ration. Devnlopmertt J,.,nsit` cutoff:- were determined by a frequency distribution which t:d, in >r.ler, th• - a:errgc development density values for lakes. This list was -n,n plotted ano ,h_ frequency curve arialv-zeJ for natural breaks. By comparing z%a:.e breaks t,itL �-xisting development patterns, the following limits for the three lake cl;tsses were determined: -DER%i L CITNWT W'NS 1 1�_ CLA.CCIFICAT1t1N pe-1 nuCCi Natural Environment less than Rt_-creai ioual Nvelopment 3 - 25 Ce:teral !1-° -r;nprnent I;reater than 2S Crowding poteliti.11 cutoff values were determined in a similar manner. The rc;ultant values are as follows: CLASSIFICATION Natural Environment Recreational De:elopmsnt CROWDING POTENTIAL (-tctc� of akttct IN,% ,nUe u6 sho•ae) less than bO (high) bO - 25 (medium) ;;re.ltcr th.rn flow) -a, not u.,..-i• in ti:c determir)u.tion of lake LL'A.,. it was u:;e,!-concurrently with Gil(: ctJ.3r Crl_eria and given priority only in ca -e i of a low development density.) Lake I) th anti !:er)! 3 ?':11 Cl.1.;S osv'i to i.,)latc 1'!kc` unsui"able for ShorelanJ dcvclopmont. •.-.0 e:Uleg,1:21 A,issc�, 1'.l:itCrnlll-i;0ughflslt and p001' ,'.'JCeiopment Character - is t i,-. i . TheS�_ e--ologi-al Classes os•,:111d ll.l1'C sorm: or all of the following ;l:arartaristi.:: :-hailownos;, conditions, Heal•• aquatic vcgvtative growth, low dissolved oxygen l:r 1= , and shallow .fro+.lndwater table. Lake depth less thl ill I.-, feet and e:plogi ::11 :lass cif liinterki i l-Rou,hfi sh or Bul lhead- ?'.tnfis,, were u.iod to detcr;fln•: `,aural Environner:t fakes. rho idea 1:; to vstahi is;h stri:t development standards to discourage devel- f)lmei.t in arcos whvrc =it,% lw)ter,tial problems :.tiist. Nie to the +h:L11ow nature of theso i.lkrs. r,:rertior.:ri iliportunities rmy he ,ome%hat limited. 'ftlewe lakes are often more suited for wa!erfowl :lnd game pruduction t'ian for recreational uses. Emerrent vegetation :an often limit surface recrea- tional r1sc, such as boating or swimming. Ilcavy use by large mutors on shallow lakes ma: also .:ause unnecessary -�tirri;rg of hottom sedimcnts which earn recycle 0•ge of nutrient, hick into the lake `ystem. M rl Soils and Vegetation data for the shoreland :areas were also used in lake class determination. Soils are closely related to natural vegetation and topograpilic conditions. This information was applied subjectively when the four preceetding criteria alone (lid not determine a category for a particular lake. Soil types are an important indication of lakeshore quality and suita- 1)iIity for development. 'Their occurrence often dictates the placement of iiuildings and soil absorption sewage treatment systems. 'These physical char- :icteristics w,.-rr considered in the ir.ocess in the follo,,ing r:;►nner: `:I: llct, Ciay nl- No Trees or Flat S'I•ruhs RU or A) ilecidiou:; or Abderate Co:iiferous Trees to Steep These detvrminations ,+ere hlsed (anon engineering capabilities of the soil t%Z)es and land slope,,. Ilere again, thi.: att_ript wa.; made to limit development in Irnsuitahle areas. RESULTS Or' THE CL11SSIFICATIO'1 kppruxi!a,rtely 10,2rr0 lake basins and approxim►tcly ':�,i)i)0 miles of rivers and streams in the state were classified under the -horcland management program. Almost 9,700 of these basins were classified for the county program and over added in the p�rnii ipal progr.rm. 5incr. the amount of information avail- rr! r;rs not constant for ill Wdies of cater, the i la4si ficat. iorr process had to ht: adjusted to allow for a subjective determination in some cases. County Lakes Every lake basin in unincorporated areas between 25-150 acres was classified as Natural Environment, unless development was detected. The detailed amount of data available for large lakes was not available for smaller Lakes. By nature of their size, these lakes are highly susceptible to overcrowding. Therefore, the decision was ja:ide to initially cl.issify tiic:m in a restrictive category. When .levvlopment existed on these lakes finforr..ation obtained from county h1ghwaN- m:ip-'s . they .,ore classi fied as Rev re:it ionaI PeveIopment . For lakes error 15:, :acres in size, 0-.- dat.► processing technique has used to i►'. •11: 71i)propriate class. fable I indicates the relative ;:eight as':ig;ucd to each criterion in the classification prore.;s. Fora la:•:e to be classified as a Natural Environment hike, it had to meet a:l of the values of column 1: very little development and high c ro►:,ling pute►ttial (ender 60 acres of water w+u•face per mile of shore line). Since these lakes are highly suscep- tible to overcrowding and since they ar undevelopca or lightly developed at present, they were afforded a greater degree of protection under the shoreland �gula. ions. lake wai also classified Nature! I:rty irrsnz,.nt i.f its physical character- ►,�r� :.,;tducive to developmental prohicros. Lak,:s with all of the values olunn ' are probably more suitable for watcrfo%l us game :tanagement purposes ',::: for l:ekehone development :►nd were classified accordingiy. if a l al.c had betw- un i and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline it was placed in the Recreational Development class (rul►umt 3). here development density was the weigh'-.', factor. A lake that is developed to a density greater than three .,we:ilings per mile was not classified as %atural Environment since., \:: ral runment starnlards might conflict with the existing development. Areas that Table I. Classif,,cation l.r-iteria RANK OF CRITERIA NATURAL i !_NVIRONMENT I;URCATIONAL V1 ill LOR"IFVT ! (d kJPZli UCVELOPMENT 6 under two under, three betwet•n i under three t)rre• between N and Det-clopment dwellings dwellings and 25 dwellinls dwellings 25 dwellings Density per mile per mile dwellings her milt• her mile of per mile of per mile of shoreline shoreline shoreline less than between 60 greater than Crowding 60 acres and 225 acres 225 acres of' Potcntial of water of, water per water per area per mill• mile male winterkill- NOT wintorkill- NOT winterkill- Ecological roughfish or roughfish or roughfish or Classification bullhead- bullhead- !,ullhead- panfish panfish pan fish under 15 over 15 o%-cr 15 Lake Depth feet deep feet deep feet deep few trees sand or loam sank' or loam Shore Soil shrub vege- soil,decitlious <oil, decidious 6 Vegetation tation, clay or coniferous .ir coniferous or wet soil, veg-., moderate keg., moderate flat slopes to steep slopes to steep slopes t. ll lakes a. partially within an Others (under 150 acres) incorporated area b. "i'rout Streams and b. Risers and Streams Wild Rivers r require added protection on these lake:; may be regulated by land use zoning controls applied to the specific area. A lake with less thin three (3) dwellings her mile of s:,oreline was also classified as Recreational Dove 1opment if it was suitable for dcvelopment (column 4); sufficient depth to :urpport game fish (over 15) feet deep and not -k winterkill-roughfish or bullhead-p:infish lake), sand or loam soil (clay in soiliv iastances) and :oniferous or decidiot,s fcrc.,t :inter. General Uevelohrrcra standarl., nrovidv or ,:te 1.:Ist restrictivc land use controls :Intl :ire intended for highly devolohe,!, railt ruse Lakes which have average dcvelopm-�nt densities r, ater than ?S J::el l ir,l;+ per mile were designated as General hvvelopment (column 5). Lakes which are dctieloped to this level usuallly do not have rareh remaining land for development. Thus, the ahpl icatior< of raorc re:<t r is t i . e zoning cor.t ro .: cut:: ; ,!o little to cracay lake deterioration. In some cases, hot.ever, lakes uhich are not hig:.!}• ,lo e!oped were classified :is General Development i.f the lake is physically capable of absorbing substantial future development (column 6) . The r:Iust important criteriu,r, was a lov. roweling potential. This factor indicates that the lake prubabiy is not ;usceptiblc to overcrowding. lakes such its liinitibigoshish, Leech, Mille Lacs, and lied arc ^samples which meet this criterion. They do not htio eery high average deveiop- c .t do:.4it ivs 'iL 11l'1: :'n! , and, lo'. nat-ire of t!xii- sl:v :i id shape are capable of .AIppurting great,:r deveIol►.mc,it Jcn•:itie,; than would !,c affordod under a Recreational ',••ti-:!opmrrit classification. Seven (7) lakes were unilassifiahlc Jar to spc631 development or environmental problems. These lakes were termed Critical and designated for further study before a final s;t of development standards was applied. A cursory review showed that mo-t of these lake; had long standing water quality problems. Tl;c lakes were 'W"Ally ,hallow, and occasion-0 winterkills cause fish imnagement problems. They I ere wally highly developed. Since the shoreland management program is limited th us, of land use controls, little can be accomplished in terms of redevel- opment or remedial actions. Proximityto Municipalities Most county lakes bordering upon a municipality were classified as General Development. This decision was based upon the assumption that shoreland was needed for urban ►:scs, as well as recreational uses and the fact that the county do,-,s not have )urisdict ion over nainicipal ::re:is i,. :►�,�1;: ir.�; land use controls. Municipal Lakes Lake basins lying within or bordering on municipalities were classify^d in the same :canner as those basins cla:;sifi^1 in the county p;.ase of the shoreland MAriagement program. For many of these lakes, a classification had already been assigned under the county shoreland mana-cment program. These classifications were retained in order to maintain continuity. For the lakes that were found to he within one or several municipalities, data were collected on existing development, crowding; potential and the ather criteria used to help classify the lakes in the county program. These data •.:-re then analy_c,: using the same technique as summ-trued in Table I. Rivers and Streams •fhe state does a,)t yet have a complete stream inventory. Most rivers and sl:reams %:ere placed in the General Development category to be reasonable in r .:nulating :t sound :iml wnrkable progra-�. :streams cor.t inually regenerate them- selves, so they do not pose as critical a problem of water quality as do lakes. The exceptions to our stream classification were wild and scenic waterways and designated trout streams. These exceptions are not unreasonable, since these rr.:,ns h.r•e been recognised by governmental agencies as waters worthy of pres- 1 ervation and since casements along these streams are usually purchased. Preliminary Distribution The percentages of lakes under the county probrram, by lake class were: N.,rutal Environment - 85.; Recreational Development - 12%; and General Develop- -tent - 39.. 'nce Natural Environment category infiated because the small lakes ,•:_i� s.imm:tril}• placed in this category. If lakes under 150 acres are excluded, 'i-.e percentages are: \ataral Environment - .18%; Recreational Develupment and General Pv- lopmer.t - 10". 'rite p•:rccn.ages of lakes added under '}:r i-aunicip.il A-.orel::ra program, by lake class were: Natural Environment - 57 %; Recreational De-.— lup�ent - >`_ : ulid General Development A tabulation of the result,; of tit--- preliminary classification, by cou.tty ui;l mtuticipal phn;es of the shoreland management progran, is shotrr in the appendix. P. APPLICATION TO SHORELAND MANAGEMUIT ,-w of P-eliminary Classification The Fhorrlattd manngc"nt program is in;cnde-1 to be It locally a --'ministered Mid program. the public haters cla;>ification, along with the statewide -,:andards, se., the basic framework for loc.,i admini �tration. Dtie to certain tide limitations, the classification had to he completed in a short period of time. The Division could not possibly gather the amount of information needed to classify all lake basins, especially small lakes, consistent with local land Usti management programs. For these reasons the classification by the Division tended to he preliminary. Fach county and muni:ipality shot.ld review its i FETING l MUNICiPA. ORDINANCE CODIFIERS. INC. �s2: � fTf w1 (Mwwilw w[v�f20N who OwO�NwNCI COOM KwT.pN l[C(U �IYLL[ r�..�rq � 1^1 , �" —'I Fow MINN[fotw oOv[wNMI NT • �� 1 � . ; � • CITY OF 01,*1,01 �0_ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne: VAR 111935 �i o�Phu �0 7400 Tyndale Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 Area Code 612 869-2403 March 6, 1985 By phone you requested that we supplement our letter of February 11 as to Code revision. Your Code is on 25 floppy discs. Our price for 25 "blank" discs is $38.16. As stated in our letter, if you wish to have them, you are welcome to them for that price. Simply have someone arrange to pick them up and we will bill you later. We would appreciate a decision as to this at your earliest convenience. As also stated in our letter, our revision charges are based on time and expense. Our time charges are $25.00 per hour for word processing, $50.00 for codifier, and $85.00 for attorney. A revision at this time would likely entail: two hours of review by attorney and tDdifier; a three hour conference with City staff, attorney d codifier; three hours of drafting by codi- fier; and, five to seven hours of word processing. All this depends in large part, of course, on the number and extent of changes requested by staff. You mentioned simply having us prepare replacement pages to insert the ten amending ordinances you have adopted. While we do not have a copy of more than one of these ordinances, and there is no way we can accurately determine what is involved, it they are one or two pages (as is No. 9) in length, the total cost could be $100.00 or even less. You then inquired as to "omitted items" implying that we were responsible. We are well aware of firms that engage in so-called "codification" by simply putting together and reformatting old legislation. We neither represented, nor did the staff members with whom we had continuing contact anticipate, that ours would Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth .-2- March 6, 1q8) be *hat kind of superficial service. Any responsible person, without any particular training or experience, could have performed that kind of a job. Yours is a comprehensive recodifi- cation which cannot and should not be undert ::en without scruti- nizing every provision to test whether or not it should be included. Many provisions of your former Code did not pass the test or were changed in light of current law or circumstances, and mar.% were added to fill existing gaps in your legislation. During the course of the project the drafts were checked by the City staff and, in some cases, portions were redrafted. At the conferences the drafts were considered and, in some cases, recon- sidered at later conferences. Many decisions were made to add, exclude, or change provisions. While we could be wrong, we sense that we are being held responsible for omitting provisions from the new Code simply because they were in the old Code. More seriously, if this is the case, it reveals a bas4c lack of under- standing of what a recodification should accomp_.ish. This is not to say that we could not, or did not, make errors for we are only human. However, there is a vast difference between what is deliberately excluded and what is negligently omitted. We will certainly make no charge for our time reinserting provi- sions that should have, according to the records, been included. If you will prepare a list of those items together with a brief note as to anything in your records that reveals that they were to be included, we will also check our records. Please let us hear from you as to what, if anything, we can do for you. Very truly yours, MUNIC,CIPAL_ ORDINANCE CODIFIERS, INC. Rodger E. Jensen, Counsel REJ/ag c: Tom Radio, City Attornev PARK RESERVES BAKER CARVER CROW 14ASSAN ELM CREEK HYLAND LAKE I KF REBECCA MURPH Y HANRE HAN REGIONAL PARKS SRYANTLAKE CL FA.RY LAKE CLIFTONE FRENCH COON RAPIDS DAM EAGLELAKE F ICH LAKE JAMES W WILKIE LAKE SARAH SPRING LAKE SPECIAL USE AREAS ARTHURE ALLEN WILDLIFE SANCTUARY BAKER PARK GOLF COURSE CLEARY LAKE GOLF COURSE HYLAND HILLS SKI AREA NOERENBERG MEMORIAL PARE( WAWATASSO ISL ANU WILD GOOSE CHASE ISLAND TRAIL CORRIDORS NORTH HE NNE PIN -HAIL Hennepin County Park Reserve District 38M County Road 24 IS Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 • Telephone 612-473.4693 I Mr. Walter R. Benson, City Adminis C)x 66 Crystal Bay, 141J 55323 Dear 1•ir. Benson: February 20, 1985 r_ 1 I J yi I The Hennepin County Park Reserve District is in the process of revising our Ordinance which specifies necessary rules and regulations providing for the safe a,id orderly public use of District areas and facilities. As et representative of a public agency that nas a relationship with the District, we invite your review and comment on these ordinances. A copy of the draft is enclused. The District's Board of Commissioners feel a revision of the Ordinance is needed at this ti,il for the following reasons: To update sectiolis that have becone outdated; . To make sone rules less restrictive; therefore, encouraging more use of the District =reas and facilities; . To allow for and establish guidelines for new park uses; and To reorganize the document making it easier for staff use. COMIMISSIONERS Although this document will be available to the public, a DAVID LATVMNO positively oriented supplei,wntal publication will be developed CHAIR requesting visitor c) idli i ince with basic park rules. GOLDEN VALLEY W�CECLIAMHAIR TON The District Board of Conx,iissioners have scheduled a public ST LODIS PARS hearing soliciting comment on the Ordinance Thursday, 14arch 14, JUDITV5 ANDERSON � 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at P1y:1olJ41;, -Aty Hall, Conference R000, 3400 BLOOMINGTON Plymouth Road. Written :o:Nwnt will be accepted through Aarcn ►A TRN:IAS R MINNEAPOtPOI i`.i ' 28tlT and will be included as part of the official public hearing SHIRLEYA MNIH[ record. If you have any questions, please contact Vern MAPLE PLAIN Hartenburg, Superintendent, at 473-4693, ext. 131. Thank you. WILLIAM I HOLBROOK MINNF AW - IS SCOTIL NEIMAN MINNFAPOI iS VERN J HARTENSUNG SUPERINIENUEN' 6 SECRETARY TO THE W,AIV Enclosure Sincerely David Latvaaho, Chairman Hennepin County Park Reserve District Vern liartenburg, Superintendent and Secretary to the Beard HE!JIJ:.PI;+ COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT ORD I NA!JCE Proposed Revision Draft 2/7/85 Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3800 County Road 24 Maple Plain, MN 55359 phone: 473-4693 Vern HartenDurq, Superintendent draft 2/7/85 HEJiJEP I.. COUJTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT ORDINANCE Table of Contents CHAPTEk I PURPOSE/AUTHORITY/DEFIIIITIO�JS Section 1 - Purpose page 5 Section Z - Authority page 5 Section 3 - Definitions pages 5-7 CHAPTER II REGUTA TION OF GENERAL PUBLIC USE 3-(.tion 1 - Park Ho-jrs paje 7 Section 2 - Permits pages 7-8 Section 3 Use Fee - Failure to Pay page 3 CHAPTER III REGUL�.TJ�l OF GENERAL CONDUCT - PERSONAL BEHAVIOR Section I - Drug and Alcohcl use page 8 Section 2 - Gambling page R Section 3 - Public 'luis.ince/Personal 11phavior pages 3-9 Section 4 - Property of Others page Section 5 - Littering page :) Section 5 - Possession/Use of Firearms/ page 9 Dangerous weapons/Fireworks Section 7 - Interference with Employee Performance of Duty page .3 CHAPTER IV REGULATI ,!S PERTAI!JI'JG TO GENERAL PARKLAND OPERATION Section 1 - C&„nercial Jse/Solicitation/ Advertising/Photography page lJ Section 2 - "ets in Parks Pdye 1' - 2 - draft 2/7/85 Section 9 - Cross-country Skiing page 16 Section 1n - Other Winter Activities page 16 Section 11 - Other Activities page 17 CHAPTER VII REGULATION OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES, TRAFFIC AND PARKIiIS Section 1 -Motorized Recreation Vehicles page 17 Section 2 - Vehicle Operation page 17 Section 3 - Parking Vehicles page 17 Section 4 - 4aintenance of Personal Vehicles page 13 CHAPTER VIII ENFORMIENT Section 1 - Park Ranger Authority page Section 2 - Fines and Penalties page 18 Section 3 - Additional Rules 5 Regulations page 18 Section 4 - Impoundment of Pets page 18 Section 5 - Permit Revocation page 13 Section 0 - Employee Performance of Duty page 18 CHAPTER IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 1 - Conflict page 19 Section 2 - Enactment page 19 Section 3 - Captions and dealings page 19 Section 4 - Severability page 19 Section 5 - Amendr►ents page 2U CHAPTER X EFFECTIVE DATE page 2`) SU3JECT INDEX page 21-22 - 4 - CHAPTER V CHAPTER VI Section 3 - noise/A:mpJ ficition of Sound pages 1J-11 Section 4 - Fires pages 11-12 Section 5 - :Aviation page 12 Section 6 - Assembly: Meetings, Speeches, Oe•ionstrations, Religious Services, Parades page 12 Section 7 - ai.iusement Contraptions ;gage 12 Section 8 - Engine -powered ;lodels and Toys page 12 Section 9 - Unla.iful Occupancy page 12 PROTECTION OF PROPERTY, STRUCTURES AAA !NATURAL RESOURCES Section 1 - Disturbance of 'latural Features page 12 Section 2 - Disturhance of ,Iildlife oage 13 Section 3 - Discharge of Weapon/Firear, .is page 13 Section 4 - Destruction/0efacement of Park Property/Signs page 13 Section 5 - Release of Harmful or Foreign Substances page 13 REGULATION OF RECREATION ACTIVITY Section 1 - Camping pages 13-14 Section 2 - Picnicking page 14 Section 3 - Swimming page 14 Section 4 - Boating pages 14-15 Section 5 - Fishing page 15 Section 6 - Horseback Riding page 15 Section 7 - Bicycling pages 15-16 Section 9 - Snowmobi1iny page 15 - 3 - draft 2/7/85 Section 9 - Cross-country Skiing page 16 Section 10 - Other Winter Activities page 16 Section 11 - Other Activities page 11 CHAPTER VII REGULATION OF MOTORIZEO VEHICLES, TRAFFIC AND PARKIi13 Section l - Aotorized Recreation Vehicles page 17 Section 2 - Vehicle Operation page 17 Section 3 - Parking YPhirlPs page 17 Section 4 - '4aintenance of Personal Vehicles page 13 CHAPTER VIII ENFORCMENT Section 1 - Park Ranger Authority page 13 Se:tion 2 - Fines and Penalties page 18 Section 3 - Additional Rules 5 Regulations page 18 Section 4 - Impoundment of Pets page 18 Section 5 - Pe m.it Revocation page 13 Sectior. 6 - Employee Performance of Duty page 18 CHAPTER IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 1 - Conflict page 19 Section 2 - Enactment page 19 Section 3 - Captions and Healings page 19 Section 4 - Severability page 19 Section 5 - Amendr)ents page 12u CHAPTER X EFFECTIVE DATE page 20 SU3JECT INDEX page 21-2? - 4 - draft 2/7/35 g. "Park Ranger" means those District eo ployees vested with the legal authority to enforce laws and ordinances. *CHA►JGE* h. "Division Manager" !neans the person designated with the responsibility for the operation and management of a particular park. i. "Employee" means any full or part -tine regulur or temporary worker in the employ of the District. *,JEW* j. "Person" or "persons" means individuals, firms, corporations, societies or any group or (lathering whatsoever. k. "Permit" means the written permission teat must be obtained from the District to carry out certain activities *;JEW* L. "Iaturdl resources" means all flora and fauna within the Park Reserve District and the physical factors upon which they depend; including air, water, soil and ninerals. m. "Wildlife" means any living creature, not human, wild by nature, including )ut not limited to m;immals, 'oiris, fis'i, amphibians, insects, reptiles, crustaceans and mollusks. *CHA!IGE* n. "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by '.which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a roadway, except devices ,moved �)y human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. o. "Motorized recreation vehicle" means any self-propelled, off the road or all -terrain vehicle including, but not limited to, snowmobile, mini -bile, amphibious vehicle, motorc,cle, go-cart, trail hike, dune buggy or all -terrain cycle. *CHANGE* p. "Weapon" means any device including, ')ut not li,iited to, firearms, bows, slings and spring guns from which a shot or a projectile of any type is discharged or propelled by me -ins of an explosive, gas, cwnpressed air, elastic or other means. q. "Controlled substance" means any drug, substance or iinediate precursor in schedules 1 through 5 of Minnesota Statutes Section 152.02. r. "Pollutant" means any substance; solid, liljid or gas, •whicn cou1-.1 cause contamination of air, land or water so as to create or Cause a nuisance or render unclean or noxious or unpure so as to be actually or potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or .relfire, or tha' of wildlife or vegetation. *C►'A`JGE* s. "Wine" means a vinous beverage contair.'no not more than 14 percent alcohol by volume. *'JEW* MM draft 2/1/R9; HENIEPI1 COU.ITY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT ORDINANCE CHAPTER I PURPOSE/AUTHORITY/DEFI;4ITIO'1S Section 1 - Purpose *CilA.13E* The District deers it reasonable, necessary and desirable to provi:le an ordinance specifying rules and regulations in order to provi•1c: for the safe and peaceful public use of District areas and facilities; for the educational and recreational benefit and enjoyment of the public; for the protection and preservation of the property, facilities and natural resources of the District; and for the safety and general welfare of the public. Section 2 - Authority *'JEW* The Hennepin County Park Reserve District 9oard, under 'linnesota Statutes, Chapter 398, in performing its primary duty of the acquisition, devel op,lent and mai nten,ince of large parks, wildlife sanctuaries, forest and other reservations and providing the means for public access to historic sites, lakes, rivers, strealas and other natural pnennmena is granted full power and authority to acquire and establish parks and to operate, maintain, protect and improve a park system and conduct a recreational projra^1. As an aid to the accomplishment of this duty, the Board is granted the authority to enact ordinances and to Jeclare that the violation toereof shall be a penal offense. Section 3 - Definitions a. "Park Reserve District" or "District" means the Hennepin County Park Reserve District, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 398. b. "Board" means members of the Board of Connissioners of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. c. d. e. f. "Superintendent" nears the person appointed by the 30ard to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District. "Park" means any land or water area and all facilities t'ereon, under the jurisdiction, control or ownership of the District. ".area" or "areas" -leans a specified olace within a park. *,IE',1* "Property" means any land, watere District. - 5 - cilities or possessions of tree * ILI'* draft g. ?ark Ranger" means those District coployees vested with the legal authority to enforce laws and ordinances. *CHANGE* h. "Division ;tanager" -aeans the person designated ,pith the responsibility for the operation and management of a particular park. i. "Employee" means any full or part -tine regular or temporary .vorker in the employ of the District. *'JE'W* j. "Person" or "persons" means individuals, finis, corporations, societies or any group or gathering whatsoever. k. "Permit" means the written permission teat must be obtained from ttie District to carry out certain activities *?JEW* L. ";Jatural resources" means all flora and fauna within the Park Reserve District and the physical factors upon which they depend; including air, water, soil and minerals. m. "Wildlife" means any living creature, not human, wild by nature, including 5ut not limited to mammals, birJs, fisI, amphibians, insects, reptiles, crustaceans and mollusks. *CHANGE* n. "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which a-y person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a roadway, except devices moved �)y human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. o. "Motorized recreation vehicle" means any self-propelled, off the road or all -terrain vehicle including, but not limited to, snowmobile, mini -bike, aophibious vehicle, motorcycle, go-cart, trail bike, dune buggy or all -terrain cycle. *CHANGE* p. "Weapon" means any device including, but not limited to, firearms, bows, slings and spring guns from which a shot or a projectile of any type is discharged or propelled by means of an explosive, gas, compressed air, elastic or other means. q. "Controlled substance" means any drug, substance or iinediate precursor in schedules 1 through 5 of Minnesota Statutes Section 152.02. r. "Pollutant" means any substance; solid, lilaid or gas, .4hicn coul.i cause contaminatiun of air, land or water so as to create or cause a nuisance or render unclean or noxious or unpure so as to be actually or potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public he,ilth, safety or ielfi:-e, or that of wildlife or vegetation. *CHA!JGE* S. "Wine" means a vinous beverage containing not more than 14 percent alcohol by volume. *'JE'W* - 5 - draft 2/7/35 t. "Pet" means any animal that is tamed and domesticated and kept as a companion. u. %10 Level" is the noise level expressed in dBA, which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved Dy District officials. *!JEW* v. %50 Level" is the noise level expressed :n dBA, which is exceeded 50 percent of the tine for a one hour period, as measured by test procedures approved by District officials. *'JEW* w. "Amusement contraptions" means any contrivance, device, gadget, machine or structure designed to test the skill or strength of the user or to provide the user with any sort of ride, lift, swing or fail experience including, but not limited to, ball -throwing contest device, pinball type devices, aniiial ride devices, dunk tank, ball and hammer devices, trampoline devices and the like. *.JEW* CHAPTER II REGULATION OF PUBLIC USE Section 1 - Park Hours *CHA;JGE* * a. Parks shall be open to the public daily at hours established by the Board. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain in a park at any other time without a use permit except when the park area or facility is otherwise designated by the Board or the park area or facility is being used as part of an authorized District program.. b. The Superintendent or designee is authorized to close any park or portion thereof at any time for the protection of park property or for the public health, safety or welfare. Section 2 - Permits *CHA'JGE* a. Permits shall be required for the exclusive or special use of all or portions of park areas, buildings or trails or for the use of park areas and facilities when they are otherwise close(! to the public. - 7 - draft 2/7/85 b. Pe units shall be required for an entertainment, tournament, exhibition or any other special use which can reasonably be expected to have fifty (50) or ,pore persons involved or potentially have a detrioental effect on park property or other park users. c. It shall be unlawful for a person to violate any provision of a permit. Section 3 - Use Fee - Failure to Pay It shall be unlawful for any person to use, without payment, any facility or area for which a permit is required, or user fee charged, unless the payment is waived by permit. CHAPTER III REGULATIO14 OF GENERAL CONDUCT - PERSONAL BEHAVIOR Section 1 - Drug and Alcohol Use It shall be unlawful for any pt.,on to: a. Use, possess or sell any controlled substance in violation of State Statutes; b. Serve, possess or consume any dlcoholic beverage, except beer and wine, within a park except at areas designated by the 3oard or authorized by permit (designated areds include picnic areas, picnic pavilions, campgrounds, Baker Golf Clubmhouse/Chalet, Hyland dills Ski Area Chalet, and cross-couitry ski trails - in season); *CHANGE* c. Consume or display any alcoholic beverage at sites where the District or its agent is a licensed vendor of alcoholic beverages, unless purcha.ied at that site; *tJE"4* d. Bring beer into a park in kegs, barrels or other bulk tap quantities. Section 2 - Gambling It shall be unlawful for any person to gamble r' -irticipate in any game of chance for a consideration of items of value. Section 3 - Public !Iuisance/Personal Safety It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Engage in fighting or exhibit threatening, violent, disorderly or indecent behaviors; b. lake unreasonable coarse utterance, gesture or display; - 8 - draft )/7/85 c. Address abusive language to any person present; d. Other.vise create a hazardous or physically offensive condition to any person present; or e. Engage in any course of conduct or participate in any activity in any park after he or she is advised by a Park Ranger or other Park employee or agent having authority to regulate or manage the area, that such conduct or participation is unreasonably and unnecessarily hazardous to the personal safety of said person or another person; or impairs or limits the lawful use and enjoyment of the facility or area by other persons. *'IEd* Section 4 - Property of Others It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Intentionally disturb, harass or interfere with a park visitor's property; or b. Leave or store personal property in undesignated areas on District prope.cy without a pe nnit. *; I E'W Section 5 - Littering It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit, scatter, drop or abandon in a park bottles, cans, broken glass, hot coals, ashes, sewage, waste or other material, except in receptacles provided for such purposes. Section 6 - Possession and Use of Firearms/Dangerous Weapons/Fireworks It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Have in his/her possession within the District, fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged across, in, or into any portion of the District any gun or firearm, spear, bore and arrow, crossbow, sling shot, air or gas weapon, or any other dangerous .veapon or projectile, except for ;purposes designated by the 3oard in areas and at times designated by the 3oard; or *CHANGE* b. Set off or attempt to set off or ignite any firecracker, fireworks, smoke bombs, rockets, black powder guns or other pyrotechnics :vithout authorization from the Board. 'CHANGE* Section 7 - Interference with Employee Performance of Duty *'IEW* It shall be unlawful for any person to impersonate any employee of the District or interfere with, harass or hinder any employee in the discharge of his/pier duties. draft 2/7/85 CHAPTER IV - REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO GENERAL PARKLA'JD OPERATION Section 1 - Commercial Use/Solicitation/Advertising/Photography *CHANGE* It shall i)e unlawful for any person to: a. Solicit, sell or otherwise peddle any goods, wares, merchandise, services, liquids or edibles in a park except by authorized concession or written permission granted by the Board; b. Operate a still, motion picture, video or other canera for commercial purposes in a park without a permit; or c. Expose, distribute or place any sign, advertisenent, notice, poster or display in a park without authorization from the Division 'tanager. Section 2 - Pets in Parks It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Permit a pet, except guide dogs to assist i blind person, to enter or be in a park ?xcept in areas that inay be designated by the Board (designated areas include campgrounds, parking lots, pet exercise and training areas, trails other than nature center interpretive trails or cross-country ski trails in season); *CHA;JGE* b. Bring a pet into an authorized area of a park unless caged or kept on a leash not more than 5 feet in length, unless in a pet exercise or training area designated by the Board; c. Per,.iit a pet under his/her control to disturb, harass or interfere with any park visitor, a park visitor's property or park enployee; d. Tether any animal to a tree, plant, building or park equip,nent; or e. Lead or control a pet while on rollerskates, bicycle or any other means except, while on foot, unless authorized by special permit.*:JE1e,* f. Have custody or control of any dog or domestic pet in a park without possessing an appropriate device for cleaning up pet feces and disposing of the feces in a sanitary man,ier. *QE * g. Operate a -log sled except or �,no%imobile trails. *,JEW* Section 3 - 'Juise/Amplification of Sound *1JEW* It shall be unl.j:lful for any person to: a. Install, use or operate within the park a loudspeaker or so�jn-d amplifying equip tent in a fixed or movable position or i,ounted upon any sound truck for the purposes of giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, lectures or transoitting music to any persons or assemblages of persons in or upon any place witnin the park without authorization 5y perTmit; - 10 - drift 2/7/35 b. Use or operate or periait the use or operation Of any radio, tape player, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the production or reproduction of sound in such a nanner as to be disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility; c. Willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise .ihich disturbs the peace or quiet within any park or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable park visitor of nonnal sensitivity, except for special programs at dates and times as authorized by penait; d. Operate or cause to be operated any source of noise in such a nanner as to create a noise level exceeding the limit as established herein when measured at or within the District's property line, except as authorized by the Board. DAY NIGHT am- ' . pm T pm- am PARK USE AREA Ll0 L50 L10 L50 Campgrounds, .nature Centers, Natural Areas 65 50 55 50 Active Recreation Use Areas 70 65 70 65 Special Use Facilities as Designated by the Board 30 75 110 75 The standards which shall be considered in detennining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists shall include, Out not be limited to, the following: (1) level of the noise; (2) the intensity of the noise; (3) whether the nature of the noise is isual or unusual; (4) the level and intensity of the background noise, if any; (5) the type of area witnin which the noise emanates; (u) the intensity of human ase of the area during the time at which the noise emanates; (7) the time of the day or night the noise occurs; (8) the duration of the noise; and (9) whether tie noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. Section 4 - Fires It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Start a fire in a park, except in a designated area, and then only in fire rings, porta:,l e stoves or gri i l s, except. by per,.ii t ; draft 2/7/85 b. Leave a fire un,, I ed or fail to fully extinguish a fire; or c. Scatter or leave unattended lighted matches, ashes, burning tobacco, paper or other com^jstibie material. Section 5 - Aviation It shall oe unlawful to use District property for a starting or landing field for aircraft, hot air balloons, parachutes, hang gliders or other flying apparatus without a permit. Section 5 - Assembly: leetings, Speeches, Oe7ionstrations, ^eligious Services, Parades It s'iall be unlawful for dny person to conduct pu')lic meetings, assemblies, worship services, entertainment, parades or demonstrations within a park without a peri•iit. Section 7 - Amusement Contraptions *NE.,* It shall be unlawful to bring in, set up, construct, manage or operate any amusement or entertainment contraption, device or •gadget without a permit. Section 8 - Engine -powered 1lodels and Toys *NEN* It shall be unlawful for any person tc start, fly or use any fuel-po••+ered model aircraft, model boat or rocket or like powered toy or model without a periai t. Section 9 - Unlawful Occupancy *'IE * It shall be unlawful for any person to enter in any way any building, installation, ,r area that !nay be under construction or locked or closed to public use; or to enter or be upon any building, installation or area after the postei closing time or before the posted opening time, or contrary to posted notice in any park. CHAPTE^ Y PROTECTION OF PROPERTY, STRUCTURES A -ID IATURAL RESOURCES Section 1 - Disturbance of Natural Features It snall he unlawful fir any person to: a. Intentionally remove, alter, injure or destroy any tree, other plant, rock, soil or mineral without a permit; b. Dig trenches, holes or other excavations in a park without a permit; or C. Intro.:uce any plant, animal or other alent ,4itnin a park 4itmout d Derr i t. - 12 - draft 2/7/35 Section 2 - Disturbance of 'Al;ilife It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. hill, trap, hunt, pursue or in any manner disturb or cause to be disturbed, any species of wildlife, except as permitted by the 3o3rd in designated areas; b. Remove any ani-ial, living or dead, from a park ,vitnout a permit and any animal so removed or taken contrary to tie previsions of this Ordinance or lays of vie State of iinnesota, shall ue considered contraband and subject to seizure and contiscition; or c. Release or a5andon any animal witoin a park .without a permit. Section 3 - Discharge of weapons/Firearms See Chapter III Section 6 Section 4 - Destruction/Defacement of Park Property/Signs It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Intentionally deface, vandalize or othe raise cause destru--Lion to park property; or b. Intentionally Jeface, destroy, cover, dana)e or re,,ove any placard, notice or sign, or parts thereof, whether permanent or temporary, posted or exh'bited by the District. *'JEW* Section 5 - Release of Hdrmful or Foreign Substance It shall he unlawful for any person to: a. Place any del)ris or other pollutant in or upon any Distri:; lands or any body of cater in or a.Jjacent to a park, or .jny tributary, strea;l, storm sewer or Jrain flowing into such oiaters; or b. Discharge waste water ur any other wastUs in .i Nark, except int) designated containers, drains or dumping stations. CHAPTER VI REGULATI01 OF RCCREATION ACTNITY Section 1 - Canping It shall t)e unlawful for any person to; a. Camp in a park except in areas provided and desig—cited f,-r that purpose; b. Cann, wit'lout a remit 'rnm the - 13 - riraft 7/7/!�ti c. Dccupy camp sits in a park contrary to a per:.iit or otherwise viol,itl envisions of a permit; -!e any vehicle within a campground du: )osted curfew hours, . in emergencies; or e. ., , overnight in i park if under 18 years of age unless accompanies by parent or legal 3uardidn, possessing written permission from a parent or legal guardidn. *C11A.1GE* Section 2 - Picnicking It shall be unlau+ful fir any person to: *:4Ew* a. Assume exclusive use of a reservation picnic site without a -)ermit; b. Use a portion of a reservationn picnic area without a permit f the area is reserved by permitted group; c. Conduct picnic activity at reservation picnic sites contrary to a permit, or othe noise violate provisions of a permit; or 0. Set up temporary shelters; tents, tarps, canopies and nther suc' devices without authorization by permit. Section 3 - S.+irriing It snall be unlawful for any person to: a. ',lade or swim within a park except at beaches designated for such use and only at such times when an authorizeu lifeguard is on duty unless otherwise explicitly signed and oesignated by the Board; *C14A4GE* b. Waoe, s•vim or use any beach in a park without proper attire; c. Take glass bottles or glass containers of any kind into designated beach areas; or d. Use within a designated swimming oeach area, any innertube, life raft or other inflatable or Suoyant object or flotation device intended to support a person, except handicapped persons are pen►itted to use a 'J. S. Coast Guard approved life jacket or vest when properly attached. *C!IA;IGE* Section 4 - Boating It shall he unl,j-dful for any person to: a. Launch or land any watercraft upon any daters �iitnin a park except at designated location and tii-)es; o. leave any iaterL-aft unattended exceot in designated areas; C. an; .Odt(,rLrdit in a deli Jnatel swirtning area or other r p1l died ,r, draft 2/7/35 d. Operate a watercraft in a park in violation of linnPsota Statutes, Chapter 361, "t;aters & Watercraft Safety"; e. To.q a person on ,rater skis, surf board, knee board, inner tube or jet ski in a designated swimming area, boat launching area or other authorized area or enter a designated swimi-iing area on sucn device; or f. Operate any watercraft in violation of rules and regulations limiting boat motor type or horsepoeier size. Section 5 - Fishing It shall be unlioful for any person to: a. Fish in a park in violation of any provision of 'linnesota Statutes, Chapter 101; b. Fish in , prohibited area; or c. Leave any structure, shelter or ice house upon a frozen body of .rater in a park after 11:00 p.m., except in such areas and at such times as may be designated by the Board. *CHANuE* Section 6 - Horseback Ri'ing It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. 'tide, leaf or allow a horse within a park except ill designated areas or trails at designated hours; b. Ride a horse in a reckless manner so as to create a nuisance or to endanger the safety or property of any park visitor; c. Tether a horse to a tree, other plant, building or park equipi:lent; or d. Allow a horse to graze or browse. Section 7 - 3icycling It shall he unlawful for any person to: a. Operate a bicycle, except on bike trails and roadways and except as close to the right hand side of bike trail or roadway as conditions p-rmit; b. Operate a mountain bike or similar cycle except on 5ike trails and roadways as permitted in Section 7 except at areas and times authorized by the 3oard; *`IE'W* c. Operate a bicycle in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169, "Hiejhvray Traffic Violation", draft 2/7/85 d. R'..(Je or )perate a bicycle except in a prurient and careful nanner and at speed faster than is reasonable and safe witn regard to the safety of the operator and other persons in the immediate area; or *IfE''k1* e. Park a bicycle at any District beach except at a bicycle rack if sucn rack is provided. Section 3 - Snowmobiling It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Operate a snowmobile in a park except on designated trails and tnen only on the right hand site of the trail; *CHA'JGE* b. Operate a snowmobile in a park contrary to rules and regulations issued oy the Board; c. Operate a snowmobile in a park in excess of posted speed limits when present or at a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under current conditions, or in a carelsss, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; d. 1perate a snowmobile in violation of 'linnesota Statutes, Section 84.81-34.90, "Snowmobile Laws" and Chapter Five: Natural Resources 51-59 "Snowmobile Pules and Regulations" (all rules and regil'-tions therein pertaining to "public land and water" shall apply or trict property); or e. Tow another person or thing except through the use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile, except in emergencies. Section 9 - Cross-country Skiing *'1E'.1* It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. 'Toss-covritry ski in any park except on Designated trails at designated times %ghen weather conditions permit; b. Conduct a race or meet on District cross-country ski trails wit'ro.it a special permit; or c. Cross-country ski in a park in violation of 'linnesota St -+Lutes, 1983 Supplement, Section 35 - Cross-country Ski License. Section 10 - Other Minter Activities It shall be unlawful for any person to ice skate, sled, coast, snowshoe or ski in a park except at designated times and places. - 15 - draft 2/7/35 Section 11 - Other Special Activity Use *NE',,:* It shall be unlawful for any persc' to participate in or conduct any activity, except those uses for which � 1).;rk area or fac'11ity has been planned or promoted by the District, without a permit. CHAPTER VII REGULATIO11 OF 7-19TORIZED VEHICLES, TRAFFIC MD PAR<I.1G Section 1 - 'lotorized Recreation Vehicles It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a ,notori_ed recreation vehicle within a park except in such areas and at times as Jesignated by the 3oard. Section 2 - Vehicle Operation It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Operate a vehicle at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour or posted speed limits; U. Operate any vehicle except in designated locations; c. Operate a vehicle within a park in violation of posted regulations, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169, county or iwnicipal traffic codes, or orders or directions of traffic officers or park employees authorizer' to direct traffic; d. Operate a vehicle in a careless or reckless manner; e. Operate a vehicle which emits excessive or unusual noise, noxious fumes, dense s;aoke or other pollutants; or f Fail to yield right of way to pedestrians and other trail users. *`lEd* Sectior 3 - Parking Vehicles It shall be unlawful to: a. Park or leave a vehicle standing except in a designated area and then only in a manner so as not to restrict normal traffic flow; b. Leave a ve;iicle standing after posted closing hours without a valid camping permit or, other per -lit; c. Park in a space designated for ha'ldicapped parking only except .iito handicapped vehicle license or permit; *%E!;* d. Park or leave a vehicle without a 5oat trailer in a parking space designated for vehicles with boat trailers; *'IE'A* e. Park a vehicle .iith a nat trailer except in fiesignateJ boat -trailer parking are.is. - 17 - draft 2/7/35 Section 11 - Adintenance of Personal 'le'iicles It shall be unlawful for any person to wash, palish, grease, change oil or perfonii other oaintenance on any vehicle on District property except in energencies. CHAPTER VIII EWORCE`4ENT Section 1 - Park Ranger Authority u. Park Rangers shall, in connection Frith their Duties i:iposed by la:./, diligently enforce the provisions of this Ordinance and nay issue citations, arrest, arrest with warrdnt dnd eject from parks persons acting in violation of this Ordinance. b. Park Rangers shall have the authority to �r+Le, confiscate anJ impound any substance, plant, animal, vehicle or other article which upon proba5le cause they find to be used or possessed in violation of this Ordinance. Section 2 - Fines and Penalties A person guilty of violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than $70U.0^ together Nita taxable costs, or by imprisonment for a period not to exce-,d 90 days or both. *CHANGE* Section 3 - Additional Rules and Regulations The Board s:Mll have the right to issue rules and regulations relative to these Ordinances. Section 4 - Impoundment of Pets The Oistrict shall have the authority to impound pets found in violation of this Ordinance and shall collect an impoundment fee plus the per diem fee. Section 5 - Permit Revocation The District shall have the authority to revo'e for good cause any permit. Any pe niit or reservation may be revoked upon violation by the pe mitee of any ordinance, rule or regulation of the District. Section 5 - Employee Performance of Uuty Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent employees or aients of tine District from perfon:rrng their assigned duties. draft 2/7/35 CHAPTER IX '1ISCELLMEOUS Section 1 - Conflict Exisd n9 District Ordinance and any rules and regulations in conflict wit'i this Ordinance, or any parts thereof, are hereby repealed. *,,IIEW* Section 2 - Enactment This Ordinance shall Ue in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and pu!)lication by the Hennepin County Park Reserve District hoard of Commissioners. *:JEW* Section 3 - Captions and Headings The captions and headings used herein are for convenience of reference only and do not define or limit the contents of each paragraph. *NE14* Section 4 - Severability The provisions of this Ordinance shall be aeemed to be severa5l and tine invalidity or unenforceability of any provisions shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the other provisions hereof. *CHANGE* Section 5 - Amendments This Ordinance inay be amended from time to tide by the District and such amendment may be shown by either marking the section amended, attaching the amendment to this Ordinance, reprinting the 7rdinance pu;)lication or filling in the below schedule of infonation. *'qE'a* Date Chapter Section Title or Description draft 2/7/35 CHAPTER X EFFECTIVE GATE Passed and approved the day of , 1985 HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT Acting Through its Board of Commissioners by David atvaaho, Chairman and Vern Harten5urg, Superintendent *NEW* For further information or questions regarding this Ordinance contact: Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3300 County Road 24 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 Phone: 473-4593 - 20 - SUBJECT IVOEX *:1EW* All terrain vehicle, 6 Firecracker, 2, 9 Abandon, 9, 13 Fir?worKs, 2, 9 Amuse,ment Contraptions, 3, 12 Fishing, 3, 15 Advertising, 2, 10 Flotation device, 14 Life raft. 14 Garbling, 2, 3 Alco;iol , 2, 5, 3 Guide dogs, 10 Amplifier, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17 Guns, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13 Arrest, 13 Handicapped parking, 17 Beach hours, 14 hang gliders, 12 Seer, 3 Horseback riding, 3, 15 Bicycling, 3, 15 Hot air balloons, 12 Boat 'rotor, 15 Hunt, 13 Boating, 3, 14 Ice nouse, 15 3ow and arrow, 9 Ice slate, 16 Camping, 3, 13, 17 Innertune, 14 Canopies, 14 Kejs, 9 Citations, 13 Leash, 10 Collectiun of natural objects, 12 Life jacket, 14 Cross-country skiing, 4, 16 Littering, 2, 9 Demonstrations, 3, 12 Loudspeaker, 10 Disturbance of wildlife, 3, 13 Mini -bike, 6 Dog sled, 10 Model aircraft, 12 Dogs, 2, 4, 10, 13 "Iodel boat, 12 Drug ind alcohol use, 2, 6, a 'lotorcycle, 5 Drunkeness, 8 Mountain bike, 15 Dumping, 13 Aoi se, 3, 7, 3, 1), 11, 17 Fighting, 3 Fines, 4, 13 Firearms, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13 Index, page 2 Temporary shelters, 14 Parades, 3, 12 Park Ranger, 4, 6, 9, 18 Park hours, 2, 7 Parking, 4, 10, 17 Penalties, 4, 13 Permits, 2, 7, 3 Pets, 2, 4, 10, 18 Photography, 2, 10 Pollutant, 6, 13 Poster, 10 Radio, 11 Religious ervices, 3, 12 Sell, 8, 10 Signs, 3, 13 Sled, 16 Snowmobi 1 i gig, 3, 16 Solicit, 10 Speed limits, 16, 17 Swimming, 3, 14, 15 Tarps, 14 Television, 11 Tens, 14, Trap, 13 Vandalize, 13 'Tastes, 13 Wildlife, 3, 5, 6, 13 Wine, 6, d Worship services, 3, 12 - 22 - f dTING 1�n�t 1 To: Mayor Butler 11935 Orono Council Members From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: March 6, 1985 Subject: Procedurial. Vacation of Manor Circle - March 25, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Plat of Countryside Manor 2nd Addition Exhibit B - Dedication Language on Plat Mylar Exhibit C - Letter From Husnik Dated 3/3/85 Exhibit D - Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat Exhibit E - Resolution Approving Final Plat - Page 1 The County has advised our attorney's office that Manor Circle is legally considered a public road because of the dedica- tion language on the plat mylar (see Exhibit B ). They refused to accept the private road classification in spite of the direc- tion in the final resolution (see Exhibit E) and the road and utility easements executed by the developer. The County has advised that the City must first vacate t e road and at that point they will accept the road and utility easements for filing. The filing of the plat was not held up and was completed on December 18, 1984 even though there were irreqularilties in the executed Private Road Easement and the Road & Utilities Easement. (see Exhibit C). The County has advised that in the future when we have a plat that has both public and private roads that the private roads be designated on the plat as an outlot. I have enclosed the resolution that approved the preliminary plat of Countryside Manor 2nd Addition. You will note that the checked areas note the legal status of Manor Circle and how it should have been designated on the final plat - the surveyor was also sent a copy at preliminary approval. A public hearing for the vacation of Manor Circle has been scheduled for March 25, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. Mt/ 6Z D T Eos t — — - OUTLOT A i ti. � ti3 �J v ti v �of n O0� gip♦ �� . �� COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE r - ,54 jr t a a )UT L O T A u 404b,mew carArAvew- Z09.0/ — ♦I / m t t�i87 _ �. v —�— — J — . _ A,.c —. _ _._. — -- — — _ — —. ) 1 I po &,EGr,T;.R.:�o` ij, * C I a �� ° �• 14 5��t5� i n I .. I.e OUTLOT A J�G� -- -- - -- ----! E. tiH a — Zit �i- �% �. , O! — — ZSa7� � �•- /-—Z43.zt � 1 OUTLOT A - iwo`tih »� Z� ,a �: o-'� ' R v V y I 5 ? .65 COUNTRYSI �- ��_n��.�,�3� DE �, �. DRIVE ti+� �e NS s� 5 = ', ^ -� /ss ., \�q'+ ,Y Illili� �. iiS +i., iZs34 -- h °°� •� d =S•��f $a9^S/'4O'Ll . c�•^ �e k •°. 1 - 1� OUTL0T A c• v� 3 4 �� : - --iisda- 16 r Sit e E: r Y:. .—_. ,• ;,t,'� -. -- KNOWIALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Dicon, a Minnesota Limit edjPartnetship, fg :owner and The Federal !and Bank of Saint Paul, a Federal Corporation, mortgagee of the! followirig, descr bed property situated in the.:County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to wit: IOatl"ot A, COUNTRYSIDE MANOR, according to the recorded pla`irthereof,,Hennep n.C6unty`, Minnesota. nI(t� I't Havecaused the same to be surveyed and platted as COUNTRYSIOE',�1j�1NOR.2ND ADDITIOd do hereby donate and dedicate ko the public for public use forever the circle, the dr.1ve and the utiland draina2t_.LLLLMents as shown ion the plat. c In witness whereof said Dicon, a Minnesota Limited Partnershtp,as caused these pr lkents to be signed by its general officer this day of , 19 And' The Fedp,,r ,Land-Bank`of Saint Paul, a Federal Cjorporation, has caused these +nts to be signed Dy its-�rbper—o�-cers_}his day of f I 19 cosy _. SIGNED: i DICON Min= my r t e a I ner ettc� T*t *do I it sank of Saint Paul . •. — M yf:My ..._ ••! 1 t s' } ` �! s �ie a s 2TR �3 '11��ii.. w �. sTAT 0 •t TA ME SO r i'fit'. ':. �S +y't, �C.Ms ! < ` • f ;t '^f O $i,A lac.. ' .a" i.S' „t'..r' °� + . . �' �t1 • . I t 2NI she grc and ST CO The by POPHAM, F"'iAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN 6 DOTY, 4344 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TCLE►NONC AND IELCCO•IC- 612-333-4600 WAYNE G. •OPMAM CLIr►ORO M. GREENE JOMN C. CMILOS ROGER W. sCMNOMRICM D. WILLIAM KAUrMAN DOUGLAS O. SEATON DENVER KAUr MAN MICMAEL 0. PRCCMAN TMOMAS C. SANNCR DAVID S. DOTY TMOMAS C. OAOUILA SRUCE 0. McPMCETERS ROSERT A. MINIS. LARRY O. CSPEL DART O. SLACK►ORD ROLFE A. WOODEN JANIE S. MATERON SCOTT C. RICHTER G. MARC WNITCMEAO TMOMAS J. BARNETT GREGOR♦ L. WILMES SRUCE D. WILLIS JAMES A. PAYNIC CLIPASCTM A. TMOM►SON FREDERICK S. RICHARD& DAVID A. JONES TIMOTHY W KUCK O. ROSCRT JOHNSON Lee E. SMEE.V KEITM J. MALLELANO GARY R. MACOMSCT+ LESLIE GILLETTE TNO04AS C. MICLCNMAUSCN ROSERT S. DUNK MICMAEL T. MILAN STEVEN 1. LOWENTMAL MUGM V.'LUNRCTT, ID ROSERT M. LYNN KATHLEEN A. SLATP r REDERICK C. BROWN ROSERT C. MOILANEN MICMAEL D. CHRISTENSON TMOMAS R. SERO STEVEN G. MCIKENs J. MICMAEL SCHWARTZ SRUCE D. MALKERSON TMOMAS r. NELSON LARATC M. OSSORNE JAMES R. STICILEN TMOMAS J. RADIO JAMES S. LOCKHART DAVID L. MASMMALL Or COUNSEL ALLEN W. MINOCRAKER KATMLCEN M. MARTIN rRCO L. MORRISON January 3, 1985 Mr. Richard Conry Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc. 21350 Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Countryside Manor Second Addition Dear Mr. Conry: j L`� lJ'_5 LI 11 l I - 1 I.J►T� p 1'p,) J CITY OF ORONO POGO rCTRO-LCWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTELNTM STREET DENVER, COLORADO 60202 TCLC►NONc AND ""Cop-to 303-sot-Pella SUITE 4102-2000 L STREET, N W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20030 TCtC►.0"C A.0 Tc.cco►IcR 202-007-S-54 This office represents the City of Orono. The City has forwarded to ins your mylar plat for the Countryside Manor 2nd Addition and the supporting documents. I have reviewed all documents and find that all but two may be sent for recording. At this point, I cannot accept the Declaration of Private Road Easement as signed by you for Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc. I also cannot accept the permanent road and utililty easement over Manor Circle as signed in the same manner. As of December 18, 1984, the fee owner for Outlot A, Countryside Manor (the underlying legal description) is in the name of Di Con, a Minnesota Limited Partnership. We must have the fee owner sign the Declaration of Private Road Easement and the Road and Utility Easement. it appears from the other accompanying documents to the plat that Ms. Loretta B. Fritz is a General partner of Di Con and therefore should be the person to sign the Declaration and the Road and Utility Easement. January 3, 1985 Page I have riot held up the recording of the plat of countryside Manor 2nd Addition because of the papers. I understand there is a need to record the plat -)efore the end of 1984 for tax reasons. Therefore, I Live forwarded the plat, the City's resolution approving the plat, the temporary Road and Utility Easement and the Flowage and Conservation Easement to the County for recording as of December 18, 1984. I am asking that you get in touch with me at your earliest convenience so that we may have ti►� declaration ►nd the permanent Road and Utility Easement executed by the i- -opriate person so that those documents may also uecome of record. If you have any questions concerning this, please contact me. Very,.? truly yours, Nat -icy EHusnik Regal Assistant NEH/jf cc: Jeanne Mabusth Tom Radio 4949f A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF COUNTRYSIDE MANOR SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, on February 21, 1984, Lake Minnetonka Homes incorporated filed aformal subdivision application with the City for approval of a five lot residential plat of property legally described as Outlot A, Countryside Manor (hereafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462. 358 et. seq. and Chapters 10 and 11 of the Municipal Code of Orono, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 19, 1994, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1981, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Lake Minnetonka Homes, Incorporated noting the following findings of facts: 1. The property is located within the RR-lB Rural Residential 7,oninq District requiring a minimum of two acres of dry contigious land within each newly created lot. 2. The property consists of 74.39 acres; the -, lot plat or second stage development of Countryside Mar,nr consists of 10.78 acres. 3. The second stage plat of Countryside Manor has beer, designers to provide 50 feet of right of way for a private road that will provide access for future development of the northeast portions of Outlot A, Countryside Manor. 4. a developer has provided the City with conceptual pla►,d of total development of the entire 93 acre parcel providing each lot with access from interior plat roads. S. The lot lines of the five lots depicted in the current second stage plat of Countryside Manor do not conflict with the conceptual plans presented merely as information for this review. The City has only asked the developer to submit conceptual plans of total development to assure that access to all lots can be provided by interior plat roads. h. All five lots of the second stage plat of Countryside Mang will access via the plat roads. -7. Countryside Road will continue to be maintained by benefitting land owners ur►til the City assumes respor►sibi:ity for the maintenance of the dedicated road. R. All lots have been found capable of supporting a pr imary and alternate septic drainfield site. 9. The City will assure the public use and safety in the temporary cul de sac prot ions of the road not included in the dedicated ruadway by requiring an underlying road and utility easement. 10. The proposed second stage plat of Countryside Manor has met all required standards for rural residential development. All lot standards of the RR-18 Zoning District have been satisfied. 11 . Outlot A of the sr-cond stage plat of Countryside Manor is not platted as part of this scheme but is intended for future development. The conceptual plans of total development presented during the review of subdivision application No. 816 has been reviewed only as far as it relates to the current 5 lot plat. If this outlot is to be developed in the future, such development must meet all Zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements at that time. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that t _d upon, either one or more of the f indings noted above, the City Counc_ _ of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat of Lake Minnetonka Homes, Incorporated per survey dated revised May 8, 1984, by Demars - Gabriel Land Surveyors, inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. The newly created lots will achive access from Countryside Drive and the 5B' wide road outlot that intersects Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2. �2. Countryside Road shall be the only public road within the plat of Countryside Manor. All other roads within the plat shall be private and designated as outlots. 3. All septic test areas must be fenced off prior to road construction. Erosion control barriers will be main- tained throughout the construction period until all bare soil surfaces have been covered or revegetated. 4. Applicant must enter into a Developer's Agreement and post acceptable security to the City if the following improvements are not completed prior to final plat Approval: a) road bed and paving in and ,approved by the City per pian-o dated, revised May 18, 1982 and per Glenn Cook letter of March 12, 198,,. The curve radius at 19 + 00 must be lengthened to at least 275 to meet City design standards. Applicant should provide additional road plans for newly designated private road to be approved by City prior to construction. b) construction of water control device and pond 4 retention pond per plans dated, revised, May 10, 1982 c) seeding to begin at the edge of shoulder of road, beginning at the back of the top of the enside slope for a minimum of 25 feet. Sod must be placed in all areas requiring erosion control. This should be deterimind by the City during construction The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator three weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondafs of the month: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two myl3r copies :end one copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawinn to include: a) lot lines platted per preliminary surveydated, revised May 8, 1984 b) drainage easements to be shown and dedicated on the plat over retention pond (per grading and drainage plans Pond 4) c) dedication of drainage and utility easements !0' wide• along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property 'Lines d) dedication on the plat of extended public road ✓ e) designated north -south road as ouliot on plat 2. Legal documents required a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interests indicated thec!in shall sign the plat, easements And All other documents affe:-ted 5y such interest b) Signed and executed "flowage and conservation easement" over the "drainage easements as shown on the plat of plat name" c) Extend original Temporary Road Maintenance Agreement to include 5 new 'Lots d) Complete enclosed Developer's Agreement to include all improvements not completed prior to final plat approval e) Signed and executed road and utilities easement to cover the area of the cul de sac not included in dedicated right of way. A legal description of that area must be created for that document f) Complete road name request for private road. Council must approve road name prior to final plat approval 3. Fees to be paid - Total due S1,325.00 a) payment for park fee per current schedule: 5 lots a $200.00 = $1,000.00 b) legal review and filing fee at $75.00 c) final plat application fee at 5101— 00 d) payment for street sign: 1. 1 stop sign @ $ 75.00 2. 1 street sign @ 75.00 150.09 Adopted by the City Council Attest: �iie'r �-1�; �'t i om ; Z`it y (�': e r k - - • -- - - - - City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1710 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF COUNTRYSIDE MANOR 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporatiu,, 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 plat by La' a Minnetonka dome, Incorperated; A Minnesota Corporation, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-113 zoning district findincs that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, Outict A is not platted as part of this scheme but is intended for future development. The lots as shown in this second stage of the Countryside plat have been designated so as to assure future lots within Outlot A access by inte:-ior plat roads. WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, i:cluding: 1. Dedication of drainage and u'_ility easements. 2. Creation of a new private road shown on the plat and to be known henceforth as Ma:ior Circle. 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 permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said private road; the Subdivider has created non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easements over said private road in favor of all abutting and/or benefiting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants wherein each of the abutting and/or benefiting lot owners covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and pay the cost of maintenance for said private road. Pa9v 1 of 3 Lut'" t,il lil!�Ei1N6 TO: Mayor Butler WR 111985 Orono Councilmembers & 4,1 OF ORONO FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: March 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Staff review of proposed amendments of Hennepin County Park Reserve Ordinance The Orono staff has reviewed the ordinance revisions proposed by the Park District. We found no conflicts with current municipal ordinances and recommend that a letter be sent to the district prior to the March 28th deadline advising of the City's position and support of the ordinance amendments. writ -• ;A fi!_ATING Consulting_ Planners One Groveland Terrace Minneapolis Minnesota 55403 Dahigr en. Shardlow. and Uban / Incorporated 27 February 1985 Mayor Mary Butler and City Council Members CITY OF ORONO 1335 Brown Road South Orono, Minnesota 55323 RE: Proposal to Provide Professional Planning Services, Highway 12 Corridor Study, On -going Consultant Services Honorable Mayor and Council Members: ]MAIFTY W1 - 1 01y1 LP:, No I wc--- very pleased to learn from Jean Mabu9th that you were interested in receiving a proposal from our firm to serve as planning consultants to the Cit; of Orono. As you will understand in a moment, this was good news from a number of different perspectives. First of all, from my brief (though intensive) involvement with the City, on the Maple Plain Interceptor issue, I developed a deep respect for the strong and sustained commitment which Orono has made to planning over the years. It would be a pleasure to assist you in developing and implementing strategies for dealing with the challenges which face your community in the years to come. Secondly, we have also made some significant changes in our firm since we last worked together, and we are now in a much better position to provide planning assistance 'to additional communities. You will note the name change on our letterhead. In addition to the corporate reorganization which the new name represents, we have expanded our office space, automated our office operations and added some really top notch new personnel. A formal announcement of these changes is in the printing process and you will be receiving that official notification within the month. Of all of the changes which we have made over the course of the past several months, none please us more than the new people who have come to work with us. Wally Case has joined us as a senior landscape architect. Wally most recently owned his own consulting firm, prior to that time he worked with widely respected landscape architect Don Aippel. Together they completed numerous high quality design projects, throughout the Upper Midwest, for nearly ten years. In addition to Wally, we have added a very talented and experienced Senior Planner named Elizabeth Morrison. Elizabeth came to our fire from a similar private consulting position in a firm in Newport Beach, Mayor Mary Butler and Council Members City of Orono Page 2 California. In that capacity she gained project management level experience with planning and design projects ranging in size from 100 acres to over 5-000 acres, including residential, high-rise corporate centers, regional shopping centers, and business and industrial parks, in Texas, Arizona, Mexico, and overseas. In addition to adding key personnel to strengthen our capabilities in the areas where we have always practiced, we are also expanding our services to add real estate market research to the list. Our market research staff will work in association with Barbara Lukerman, Senior Fellow at the Hubert 11. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Barbara was previously a partner with Howard Uahlgren at Midwest Planning and Research and we are very excited about the opportunity to collaborate with Barbara again. We have always felt that we had a fine, experienced staff. With the addition of our new personnel, new equipment, office space, and services, we believe that we are the most capable and experienced planning firm in the State of Minnesota. Anyway, we are very happy to respond to your request for a proposal. When I spoke with Jean, she indicated that the City was intere4ted in receiving a proposal from us to undertake a study of the Highway 12 corridor. In order to do that, I think that we --hould get together to discus; the scope of that study and to identify the City's objectives in undertaking it. I would be happy to attend either a regular Council meeting, or a workshop, at no expense to the City, to do so. Jean also mentioned that she could see some value in establishing an on --going consulting relationship with our firm. WP currently serve as consultants to Roseville, Burnsville, Mendota Heights, Falcon Heights, and Monticello. In the cases of Roseville and Mendota Heights our firm is actually retained, in accordance with an annual contract. We essentially ser,•e as the planning departments in those two communities. In the other communities we have a relationship which is more flexible, and more in line with what I would recommend in the case of Orono. In each case, we simply have a contract to provide planning services on an as needed basis. These contracts have attached to them a standard rate sheet for our firm. Theses agreements state that we will be available to assist the subject city, as needed, and that we are to be compensated for our time plus materials, in accordance with the attached rate sheet. These agreements also state that we will only undertake work which has been requested by the city and that we will supply written estimates for any specific tasks or services, at any time. Both parties are free to terminate the agreement at any time, subject only to payment for authorized work which was completed prior to the date of termination. Mayor Mary Butler and Council Members City of Orono Page 3 I have included a few copies of our old company brochure. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is now outdated. However, it does present useful background information and until we complete our new one, it is all we have. In closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your request. On the Highway 12 matter, I recognize that a significant part of what you want from us is assistance in formulating the study, designing the process, etc. After we have had a chance to discuss it informally, I will return to you with a formal proposal, with cost estimates. Regarding the potential for on —going consulting services, I would be happy to prepai� a draft agreement for discussion at the same meeting. Thank you for co.:I-acting us and I look forward to meeting with you in the near future. Sincerely yours, L• John,, Shardlow, AICY Vi e.President/Director of Planning TO: Council 1�AR 111°85 FROM: Pats Sutton, City Recorder �� y poi E����40 DATE: March 5, ).985 SUBJECT: Joint meeting between Council and Planning Commission At the February 25, 1985, meeting you asked staff to give the Planning Commission a choice between two dates (Saturday, March 23 or Monday, March 25) for the joint meeting. I telephoned each Planu-'ng Commission member and asked which date they would prefer. The results are as follows: Chairman Callahan = either date is fine George Rovegno = either date is fine Charles Kelley = either date is fine Gloria McDonald = either date is fine J. Diann Goetten = either date is fine Bill Sime = will be out of town both dates Paul Taylor = will be out of town on March 25 but will be able to attend on Sat. March 23 if the meeting doesn't run too ling as he is leaving on vacation the next day. Jeanne Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator, noted that she will not be able to attend on Monday, March 25, 1985, but will be able to attend on Saturday, March 23, 1985. Council should advise staff which date to schedule the joint meeting and list the items that will be discussed at the joint meeting so that an agenda can be typed up. MAR To: Orono Council Members r` From: Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector Date: March 6, 1.985 Subject: Larson Plumbing - Refund On February 22, 1985 Larson Plumbing purchased a water meter and remote for 2295 Longview Circle to install in the water supply. This property has a private water Supply and does rot re luire a meter. Larson Plumbing has returned the meter and remote (3/6/85) to our office and would like a refund of the monies payed. The amount payed for the meter and remote was $130.00 GENERAL PERMIT CITY OF ORONO P.O.BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MINNESOTA 55323 (612) 473-7357 p l'Nlj CITY PERMIT NO. + Date " 17'9 Owner ,Tj •� .Cf-r�i Address .-!2r99 S- Z 1i71b 01e -4 Contractor --,-/—`�_ + .� h;L. l_ t .:�1 t //� Address _ 3 o g5 City Lictr:see No. - 411t, /qr -7� State License No. REMARKS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS PERMIT TYPE AND FEE: © NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ REPAIR Inside Plumbing (#fixturesa) Fee S Water Well Water Meter (Size5-2M Fee S Mechanical Equipment Meter # it A / /7� () , Remote y r� / S?S�nT/<; �• Moving /Lifting Buildings Municipal Water Connection Fee S ❑ Copper n Municipal Sewer Connection Fee S ❑ PVC ❑ Cast ❑ NIWCC SAC Charge Fee S nd Alteration (Excavation, Grading, Filling, etc.) Ire Sprinkler System (Fire) her: On Site Septic System Fee 5 After -the -fact Investigation ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of this Urnited permit, Including acceptance of as special Information• tetras, eonditions or requlrernenL written above. The undersigned understands and ages under penalty of law that " penult is strictly Wnited is scope to the work, activity or bmptswement specified; that " penult don net Rout MY authority to do week or activities requiring separate parmIt sWprovds; and that this penult does not Rant wtheatty to violate any provision of say City ordluauw or atala law, rude at regulation. AN work shall be done In strict aampa"c@ with as ply ordtrsanesa, building codes MUor balth department regulations, and aball be wtbjset to rspeettlaw. approval at rejection by the city. VMS& NOR se @Need. the undersigned agree@ to correct any work found to be In violation of the conditions of Ibis penmiL Signature of Applicant i TOTAL State Surcharge: Total Amount Paid to City Fee S Fee S _ Fee S i Fee S Fee S Fee S Fee S Fee S Fee S A 00 Fee This permit is not valid until the proper fee is paid and i it is approved by an authorized City Official. 3 Signat re of City O ficial Memo "85-1"' r 4j7 ;1 fi_ FETING MAR 111985 TO: City Council is � tt FROM: Thomas Kuehn, vknance Director DATE: March 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Refund Utility Bill Overpayment - Grannes The fourth quarter 1984 sewer utility bill for 4496 North Shore Drive has been overpaid. This came about because first the bill was paid by the owner Dorothy Grannes and second when she later sold the house monies were escrowed for the same sewer utility bi 1 1 and a check was sent to the City. Because Mrs. Grannes no longer owns the house we cannot leave a credit balance to be offset by future charges but must refund the credit to Mrs. Grannes. It is recommended that a refund of $49.34 be approved for Mrs. Dorothy Grannes for the overpayment of the 1984 fourth quarter sewer utility bill. 1"AR To: Orono Council Members tu" lra: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator Date: March 5, 1985 Subject: Equipment Purchase - Quick Coupler - Street Department In 1985 the street department budgeted for one Quick Coupler Attachment for the front end loader. The Quick Coupler will allow for changing from the bucket to a snow plow in the event of a break down of other snow removal equipment. In have receiv_.: quotes from two companies for the juick Coupler attachment as follows: Case Power 6 Equipment Co. $3,898.00 (add 31 if ordered after March 1) 90.00 S3,988.00 Minneapolis Equipment Co. $3,712.00 Therefore it is my recommendation to purchase one Quick Coupler Attachment from Minneapolis Equipment Company for an amount not to exceed $ 3, 712.00. MAR .11985 To: Orono Council Members Vroa: John R. Gerhardsoci, Public Wotx Coordinator ORINO W.tte: March 7, 1985 iect: '"arpet Replacement Or^-io Golf Course Clubhouse The carpet in the Orono t.,ilf Course Clubhouse is now more t.an ten years old and is in need of replacement. I have received two formal quotes from two companies as fo7lcws: Minnetonka Interior. �.i,766.19 West Tonka Interiors $1,322.60 Therefore, _t is my recommend.tion to .►ward this bid to West Tonka Inter`•-rs for an amount not to excer9 $1,322.60. ,"r ?NTEROFFICE MEMO 85-029 � b DATE: March 7, 1985 TO: h, ,)r Butler, Orono City Council 141-AR FROM: Chief of Police Melvin Kilbo SUSJnCT: Signature Page, 1985 Police Contract ` Cl � As you recall, the 1985 police contract was settled on February 11, IQ85 with both Ur,ion and City signing off on Page 17. As you may recall, there were only tour peges of change from the 185 contract. As a result, Page 20 of the 185 contract, which is a signature page for appendix items, was overlooked by Mr. Cy Smythe and myself. Upon review with Mr. Tom Radio, he suggested that the pars be brought to Council attention for signing, and after the signing, we will send if to the Law Enforcement Labor Services for signing. if there are any questions, please check with Tom Radio at the Council meeting. APPENDIX B (continued) B-IV SEVERANCE PAY Each FMPLOYEE with three (3) years or more of service with the EMPLOYOR will receive, upon honorable termination of employment, one-third (1/3) of the EMPLOYEE'S accumulated s i ck leave as severance pay. Signed this date of FOR THE CITY OF ORONO: FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.: n APPENDIX B (continued) B-IV SEVERANCE PAY Each EMPLOYEE with three (3) years or more of service with the EMPLOYER will receive, upon honorable termination of employment, one-third (1/3) of the EMPLOYEE'S accumulated sick leave as severance pay. FOR THE CITY OF ORONO: FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.: 67 -20- Memo 485-15 �l _ATING j�fiR 111Q85 TO: City Council FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director DATE: March 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Janaury, 1985 Monthly Summary of Receipts, Disbursements and Balances The attached report reflects the ca,h activity for all funds of the City for the month of January, 1985. The report summarizes by fund the beginning cash balance, receipts, transfers from other funds, investments sold, disbursements, transfers to other funds, investments purchased, and ending cash balance. The total of all funds for each column is compared to the previous year for the respective month. The comparison of the totals is only for the purpose of showing the cash and investments for all funds froin year to year. C I Tl( DF OW01A) `.Zi!VM OF RWBIVTS, !)ISethiIMITS AND FWAWS Fm '". msmi (w .YAN3A" 1985 Bndi ng Be [nvastanm t C; Czs-n9- Traa.<fe[s InvestmMts Transfers InvestmentsInwatrnt - Balance paceipts sold Disbursements out Purchased Eialance BelAdiw FUW) Wlance - _ General S $2,115,020 5149,261 $ S S 192,825 S S $2,071,456 $ Federal Revenue sharing 30,486 8,756 4,358 34,884 Parks II1,!i6 3,116 - - 114,252 Cartninity Developnert Block :;cent r•,quiiment Outlay 155,981 j,.65 !, 40 155,709 Funding Capital Outlay ,1,223 1,126 - - 51,349 Municipal State Aid Construction (,i,455 1,788 4,933 61,216 G.o. State Aid Road Borvi 1,498 39,024 - - 13,522 Permarxmt Improvement Revelling 92,758 4,933 !3,500 d),291 Special Assess 1966-1976 1,942,799 27,513 t v,N78 759,425 Speelel Assess 1980 334,619 8,146 - - 342,764 Special Assess 1982 184,097 19,704 - - 194, 11 Liquor Operating 11,757 29,796 38,514 23,629 water operating 13,416 293 10,687 2,932 Sewer Operating 159,330 48,6216 18,556 169,4" Golf Course Operating 224,098 1,616 5,115 19,999 Pooled Invest.T*nt Trust Fund 4,335,122 (4,335,122) 27,099 - '7,5'>°, ` 115,122 _ 1,179.363 (4,066,053) 3,980,030 v7Tu,s $4,335,122 ........ . S 81,354 .......... 8363,562 S - ........ ........ $1,525,455 .......... S 746,129 S - - .......... o.�.... $L,170,)63 .......... d 53,699 �......... S3,98i:430 IMALS t.As'T YPAR $4,175,663 .......... 1 67,876 .......... $203,027 $ - - ........ ........ $1,551,312 .......... S 636,862 S - - .. _....,. ........ $1,135,179 .......... 5 50,175 I ..... ..._ $3,759,529 .......... Memo #85-13 page 1 of 2 11,� C;?-- Ila TO: City Council 1In� FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director Lorraine McGowan, Liquor Store Manager DATE: March 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Monthly Liquor Store Sales Report - January 1985 Attached is the monthly report for the January liquor store sales for 1983, 1984 and 1985. Sales for the major categories of liquor, wine, and beer are shown. Each category is divided by the number of sales to arrive at an average sale price. The total monthly sales includes the mix and miscellaneous sales as well as liquor, beer, and wine sales. The total gross sales is divided by the total customer count for the month to show an average gross sale per customer. The increase in sales from January 1983 to January 1984 was $931 or 3.5%. However, from 1984 to 1985 the sales for January has dropped from 527,650 to $24,684, a decrease of 52,966 or 10.7%. All sales categories are down sharply from last year as follows: liquor down $829 (8.2%), wine down $538 (7.6%), and beer down $1,567 (15.8%). The January 1985 customer count has also dropped 496 (1.4%) from last year, down from 3,496 to 3,000. We began issuing these monthly reports with the idea that they would be generally accurate using a five year average percentage for the current year's gross profit, expense, and net profit figures. However we have seen these percentages grow less and less accurate as the profits have decreased. Therefore beginning with this report' we are discontinuing the practice of projecting these figures as a comparison of the actual to the, estimated amounts has shown a wide disparity. Memo #85-13 page 2 of 2 ri MONTHLY LIQUOR STORE OPERATING REPORT JANUARY Liquor Sales Sales Count Avg Sale P. ice Wine Sales Sales Count Avg Sale Price Beer Sales Sales Count Avg Sale Price Total Gross Sales Total Customer Count Avg Sale Per Customer 19R3 1984 1985 $ 9,865 $10,112 $ 9,283 1,293 1,336 1,251 $ 7.63 $ 7.57 $ 7.42 $ 6,656 $ 7,073 $ 6,535 1,244 1,337 1,300 $ 5.35 $ 5.29 $ 5.02 $ 9,539 $ 9,893 $ 8,326 2,110 2,127 1,737 $ 4.52 $ 4.66 $ 4.79 $26,719 $27,650 $24,684 3,317 3,496 3,000 $ 8.06 $ 7.91 $ 8.22 Memo #85-14 page 1 of 2 h ° L 1. -tTIN6 VAR 1 i��5 TO: City Council FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director Lorraine McGowan, Liquor Store Manager DATE: March 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Monthly Liquor Store Sales Report - February 1985 Attached is the monthly report for the February liquor store sale, for 1983, 1984 and 1985. Sales for the major categories of liquor, wine, and beer are shown. Each category is divided by the number of sales to arrive at an average sale price. The total monthly sales include: the mix and miscellaneous sales as well as liquor, beer, and wine sales. The total gross sales is divided by the total customer count for the month to show an average gross sale per customer.. As in January, the February 1985 sales have dropped sharply from 1984, going from $$26,904 in 1984 to $23,373 in 1985, a decrease of $3,531 or 13.' %. Sales for 1985 are down from 1984 for each category as follows: liquor down $984 (10.1 t), wine down $266 (3.8%), and beer down $2, 132 (22.6%). The customer count for February 1985 is also down 613 (17.6%) form 1984, from 3,489 to 2,876. The average sale price in February 1985 did compare favarably with February 1984, and did increase from $7.22 to $8.12. Memo 085-14 page 2 of 2 MONTHLY LIQUOR STORE OPERATING REPORT 1983 1984 1985 FEBRUARY Liquor Sales $ 8,914 $ 9,789 S 8,805 Sales Count 1,201 i,294 1,169 Avg Sale Price 7.42 $ 7.57 $ 7.53 Wine Sales S 6,163 $ 7,083 $ 6,817 Sales Count 1,156 1,409 1,2--)7 Avg Sale Price $ 5.33 $ 5.03 S 5.42 Beer Sales $ 7,749 $ 9,436 $ 7,304 Sales Count 1,828 2,097 1,625 Avg Sale Price $ 4.23 a 4.5O $ 4.49 Total Gross Sales $23,319 $26,904 $23,373 Total Customer Count 3,154 3,489 2,876 Avg Sale Per Customer $ 7.39 $ 7.72 $ 8.12 ft To: Orono Council Members From: John H. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator Date: March 7, 1985 Subject: Addendum #1 Crystal Bay Sewer Project Specification Attached for approval is addendum 41 for the Crystal Bay Sewer Project specification, requiring a submersible type lift station. We recommend approval of the addendum. 1}_;11Z 11 123-5 ADDENDUM NO. I SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CRYSTAL BAY PROJEC'i AO. 13918 ORONO, MINNESOTA March 6, 1985 ADDENDUM NO. 1 CONTRACTOR TOTAL BASE BID OPENING TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.S.T. OPENING DATE: Friday, March 15, 1985 The following modifications are hereby made to the project specifications: Section 35,100. SUBMERSIBLE PUMP LIFT STATION: All bidc:crs shall base their bid for Pr art III - Lift Station on submersible pumps manufactures? by Flygt. This is not to preclude the bidding of pumps of other manufacturers', but to allow the City selection of pumping equipment based on quality, performance, and cobt. Pumps of other manufacturers may be bid as "Alternate Equipment" in the space provided below and attaching this to the bid form. ALTERNATE EQUIPMENT BIDS 3. 4. 0-6399c Item Manufacturer Add or Deduct From Ease Bid BONF.STROO, ROSENF., ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2335 WEST TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55113 Plan Holders for Orono, MN Crystal Bay Sewer to 3/6/85. Bid Fri. 3/15/85 10:30 A.M. City of Orono ARI Contracting,Kaz Betley Arcon Construction Co. 1335 Brown Rd. So. Star Route, Boo 61C 903 E1st Forest Orono, MN 55323 Merrifield, MN 56465 Mora, Mn. 55051 Barbsrossa 6 Sons, Inc. 11000 93rd Ave. North Osseo, 4N. 55369 Richard Knutson, Inc. 2W Travelers Trail Burnsville, Mn. 55337 S. J. Louis Construction Co. 1005 SE 16th Street St. Cloud, Mn. 56302 Rice Lake Contracting Rte. 2, Box 227 Hinkley, MN 55037 hurthdale Construction 14450 Northdale Boulevard Rogers, MN 55374 Bonine Excavating 12636 Main Street Rogers, MN. 55374 Lametti 6 Sons, Inc. 16028 Forcer B1vJ. Box 375 Hugo, Mn. 55038 Nodland Associate►, 20 S.W. kith Street, Osseo, MN. 55369 Waldor Pump 6 Equipment 9700 Humboldt Ave. So. Minneapolis, Mn. 55431 L 6 G Rehbein, Inc. 6805 20th Ave. So. Centerville, MN 5'0038 Orfei 6 Sons Constr►ectiuu iieWatering P.O. Box !6358 902 Hwy. 55 St. Paul, MN 55116-0358 Medina, MN 55340 Encon Utilities, Inc. 1530 E. .;Iiff Road Burnsville, Mn. 55337 Latour Construction Rte. 1, Box 76 Maple Lake, MN. 55358 North Star Waterworks 670 Hamel Road Hassel, Minnesota 55340 Progressive Contractors 8736 Zachary Ln. Osseo, MN 5536Q Channel Construction Route 2, Box 53 Isle, MN 56342 .STING AR 1 i? To: Orono Council Members Fr-�M: Jonn i-,. Gerhardso . Public Works Coordinator Date: March 7, 1985 Subje-t: Public Hearing Date Year XI Community Developmert Block Grant. Program In order that we may receive Community Development Block Grant Funds it is necessary to conduct a Public Hearing for citizen inp. Therefore, it is my recommendation to conduct the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m., March 25, 1985. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF ORONO Year XI (1985) Urban Hennepin County CDBt; Program Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Orono, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are sponsoring a public hearing on March 25, 1985, at 7:88 p.m., at the Orono Council Chambers to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban County housing and community development needs and to provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the -Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives/1985 and the City of Orono's pruposed use of its Year XI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant planning allocation of $27,894. The City of Orono is proposing to fund the following activities with Year XI Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting July 1, 1985. (Activity) (Budget) Crystal Ba• Sewer System Program $27,894 For additional information .n proposed activities, level of funding and program objectives, ^ontact the City of Orono, 1335 Brown Road South, (Telephone) 473-'358. The public hearing is being he.d in z. ,ord with the Urban Hennepin County.Joint Cooperation Agreement pursuant to M.S., 471.59. /S/ Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk Publish in the ..aker and Pioneer newspaper the week of March 11, 1985 CITY of ORONO P..1 Ofn(e B.. 66•Cry.11 B.y. Minn•ml• SSI'49• Muniripsl Offirn s On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka A h �ETINA March 1, 1985 14AR i i �sas The Honorable Mayor Kunze and Councilmembers L City of Long Lake 1964 Park Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mayor Kunze and Council: This letter will attempt to review the Orono Council directive of February 11, 1985, concerning the future development of approximately 25 acres (P.I.D.'s 35-118-23-32-0006 and 35-118-23- 33-0001) owned by the City of Long Lake within the corporate limits of the City of Orono. Council directed that the future residential development or use of the subject property must meet all standards of Orono's current code. If developed at existing RR-lB rural residential standards, one new residential unit requires two acres of dry contiguous land. Council has agreed that the property should be developed with sewer in consideration of the marginal soils, wetland areas, and approximately six plus acres of sewer pond lands. Ordinance 10.55, Subdivision 15, A enclosed for your information provides for a wetlands credit of protected lands if located within a sewered area. The total land area to be credited for residential development would be 24.69 acres instead of only the 13+ acres of dry lands as follows: I, RR-1B zoning requires 1 unit per 2 acres Subject property without sewer . 6 units per 13t dry acres Subject property with serer - 12 units per 24.69+ wet/dry acres In ILIII\(.a ro\IM. 471 7Iy1 • UIMI\I\ I k IIln♦ a III 1%(1 411.11. • r1 SIX-0011 4'1'11•1 A W"V Mayor Runze and Councilmembers Page 2 March 1, 1985 As for other density credits noted at the meeting, a Planned Residential Development (PRD) would allow the inclusion of plat road right-of-way areas against the density credit. Once again, the total 24.69 acres would be credited in a PRO as opposed to the formal plat that may be allowed only 11 units or lots. In a formal plat the area of the plat roadways may drop the total area to be credited for development to less than 24 acres, and the formal plat may be limited to 11 lots as follows: 1 unit per 2 acres (exclusive of road right-of-way 11 units per 23 acres (total area exclusive of road right-of-way) I have enclosed a copy of the RR-1B zoning district that lists the approved uses for the property. Please call if you have any questions on the issues discussed above. Council further advised that the City would be interested in buying the property from the City of Long Lake and that a sale pi.6e be detrrmined. If this is agreeable with the City of Long Lake, please contact my office so that I may schedule the matter before the Orono Council when a sale price has been established. Sincerely. NO.r Ct . ".1., aid,. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building a Zoning Administrator Ps Enclosures --Minutes of Orono Council meeting February 11, 1985 Orono Municipal Code Section 10.28 (RR-lB district) Orono Municipal Code Section 10.20 (R-lA district) Orono Municipal Code Section 10.32 (PRO) Orono Municipal Code Section 10.55 (minimum lot size) pc: Orono Council JAAR 111985 To: Tom Radio �: • s ,!r (�}(?� From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: February 25, 1985 Subject: Crystal Bay Sewer Project - Unit Determination For Various Properties As we discussed by phone, the 0.3 acre lot known as 1950 Shoreline Drive contains 4 rental units, i.e. 2 individual cabins (full year occupancy) and a house used ass duplex. All 4 units discharge their sewage into a total of 2 holding tanks (see attached site plan) for regular removal to be disposed of elsewhere. The 4 units have existed for many years and are recognized (not formally) as a legal, non -conforming use in the LR-lA Zoning District. However, the property is less than 200' from a S-2 Commercial Zone hence a duplex on the property would be allowed under the conditional use provisions of the zoning code. A number of questions arise regarding how the City should treat this property in determining the number of sewer units to be charged: 1. Does serving this property with sewer constitute intensification of the non -conforming use, or does it merely "improve the livability thereof"? 2. It is likely that some type of "shared" septic system always served the cabins, rather than individual septic systems. Would this fact have any bearing on the number of units that can be assessed? 3. Can or will the Council expect the City to share in the cost of sewering a legal, non -conforming use such as this or the transmission repair shop next door, or for the commercial marina across the highway? 4. From a zoning standpoint, our long-term "goal" for the property at 1950 Shoreline is one single-family residence or at most a 2-unit duplex. Is the City bound to permanently allow the 4 rental units to remain if 4 sewer units are charged? Would the City lose the ability to make this property conforming by charging 4 units? At some future date, presuming the non -conforming use continues uninterrupted, would we be forced to allow, for instance, a single 4-plex to replace the existing 4 units? 5. Is there some method of abatement or refund that could be instituted, presuming that 9 units would be rharged now and at some future date 1 or more units would be removed? Would this be a realistic or reasonable incentive for the property owner to bring the property into a conforming status? The property at 1950 Shoreline is currently for sale, and in discussing it with the realtor, it is being sold as "income property", presumably will have an absentee owner as is presently the case. I have briefly discussed the non -conforming status of the property and the status of the sewer project with the realtor, but have not discussed with the owner (living in Chicago) the City's position on number of units to be charged, mainly because the City's position is still unclear. This needs to be resolved before the assessment hearing and hopefully can be discussed at the March 11 Council meeting. In a related matter, I am sending information to Don Sluhm of the MWCC in order to get a determination of the number of SAC units which would be charged for the Art Center, Tonka Transmission, and Sailor's World in order to help us in determining the number of sewer units to charge. cc: Glen Cook, City Engineer John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator 1; 4 Y I1 I r�' a i, a u a F II Ili MN Co. RD. � ,;,pt+� ;1L h1tETN10 C� MAR 111985 LIS4 OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPRUAL - 10 FOR MEETING OF March 11, 1985 Harold, John and Steven Panuska - Firearm Use Permit Easy Race V - Sponsored by Wayzata Bank and Trust and Minnetonka State Bank - Special Event Dog House - Commercial Kennel License Widmer, Inc. - Spetic System Installer L1,PLICLi'1�N.. FOR F R1 6AHM ust:- 11tH1n i_i' CITY OF ORONO DATE:�:J ADDRESS: .J/'y ._ CL'.lile';� �,•:,. ,mot i� --�i.5 �:� DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: TYPE OF PERMIT DESIRED: ANNUAL �-' 15-DAY_ DATE STARTING• DATE ENDING' PURPOSE: I agree that this permit doesn't allow the hunting of game birds or yave animals in the city of Orono and agree to abide by all applicable fed- eral, state and local laws. E AID: DATE: -2f I_ CHECK: " CASH: HEMAHKS_ SIONA�RE OF APPLICANT RECOMMENDEDQ\ YES: NO: Ale fl PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR APPROVED: YES: NO: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR APPLICATION PARADES and SPECIAL EVENTS CITY of ORONO, MINNESOTA 55323 Date: March 1 19 85 Application Number Name Easy Race V - Sponsored by Wayzata Bank 6 Trust and Minnetonka State Bank Address 900 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Location of Parade or Event Easy Race V is a one half marathon (foot race) from Excelsior. See attached letter for route through Orono. Name of Persons and/or Organizations Handling the Event David Boies, Sr. Vice Pres,' nt, Wayzata Bank 8 Trust Company Phone Date of Event .April 28 , 19 85 Hours of Event 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. aDDrox. Reason or Purpose Fund raiser for Lake Minnetonka area community organizations Insurance Coverage General liability Arount $500,000 Policy will be applied for. Copy of binder for last year's Company St. Paul Companies policy is attached. Copy of Insurance Certificates to be Submitted with this Application. I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding Parades and Special Events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the Parade or Special Event approvedbthe g anting of this permit. Fee: $25.00 Signature of Applicant Fee Paid: Date: Check Cash Initials Office Use Only: XZWMMLNuru: Yes no_ - Public Safety Director Approved: Yes_ No Clerk -Administrator Remarks: INSURANCE BINDER Rlmki N< 1111r, 13IND( II Iti A TEMPO MI INSU I I n NCL CONTRACTSUBJECT • a • • D) DD CONDITIONS SIIUPoN ON TI4L REVERSE SID('. OF iHIS FORM ut ap:, apt)nls+i)i AGE NErCOMPANY St._ Paul Insurance Company '.YZATA' INSURANCE AGENCY Ellecnre m 4-29-84 .19 ps East Lake Street Expires 12Al am 4-30-R4 .19 b'.. , zeta, Minnesota ».1yi This binder Is issued to extend coverage In the above named company per expiring policy 4 rdME AND MAWNG ADDR(' ' INSURED Description of Operatlon/Yehrcles/Property, Northstar Ban. •,?oration, Wayzata Bank E Trust Co., i, minnetonka Bank General Liability Coverage for 900 E. Wayzata Blvd. Easy Race Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Type and Location of Property Cover p/Pails /harms Arm M hervMw Died. oi m P R O P E R T y Typo of Insurance Coverage/Forms Umib of Listal' Eaebttmanwo L Scheduled Form ©Domprehensive Form Bodily Injury i S A Premises/Operations property I Products/Completed Operations Damage $ S L Contractual Bedll injury 4 I Other (specify below) Property Damage 500, 000 T Med. Pay i °E' i e^ In Personal Injury $ Y Personal injury v..�< A DB DC A Limits of LGW Bodily Injury LEach erson) iTComprehensive U]L,ab,,.III Non di ned Hired Deductible E Bodily Injury (Each Accident) $0Collision DeductibleMMedical Properly Damage i0 Payments i BUninsured MotoristI No Fault (specify). Bodily Injury 4 Property Damage LOmer (specify). Combined 3 E DWORRERS' COMPENSATION — S atutmy Limits (specify states below) nEMPLOVERS" LIABILITY — Limit $ NAME AND ADDRESS OFLJAAo GIG(f ID LOSS Fri ❑IDDI iMuto LOANNU op fir: Tfl � ___ 4-26-84 -- --___ -- I`S.natuie al Avllipnred an eoe0lMne Data January 24, 1985 Mr. Richard Benson, Manager Village of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 F: 2 5 E..: CITY OF ORONG Dear Dick: Believe it or not, it's time to talk about our annual excursion over your roadways in a group of 600 of so thinly clad male and female athletes. The Wayzata to Excelsior half marathon is scheduled for April 28, 1985. We will start in Wayzata at 9:00 A.M. and use the same route as last year's. As you recall, that this enters Orono on West Ferndale and crosses County C� Road 15 someplace between West Ferndale and Orono Orchard. The course goes �. up Orono Orchard, turns at Fox Street, takes Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay J- Road and takes old Crystal Bay Road to Crystal Bay. It then takes 51 to County Road 19, takes County Road 19 to Morthv tew, goes through the westerly part of Minnetonka Beach and comes back to County Road 15. It crosses 15 at Old Beach Road, takes Old Beach Road to I' and takes 19 across the Narrows bridge to Excelsior. Please send me the permit application required by your ordinances; I will complete and return it immediately upon receipt. Your help in arranging this event with the Orono Cc--ncil and the North Shore Police Department is greatly appreciated. I will look forward to working with Mel Kilbo as race date approaches. One lase note. In past years, the race raised substantial funds for the Save the Lake Fund, the South Shore Crime Prevention Fund, and the Orono Police Benevolent Fund. This year we are looking forward to contributing to the Orono Crime Prevention Fund. I think the race has become an important lake area event. I know your community shares this feeling. Yours very truly, David B. Boies Senior Vice President a Trust Officer cc: Chief Mel Kilbo OBB/ j km EASY PLACE 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD WAYZATA MNNESOTA 55391 612 473.8855 ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT M CONTROL YVM[fR10CA) COW AGENCY NCI C IO[NT. ICAGI OGTE/IIME RE✓GPI MADE E C 7/ .� WTTV 51 M N 0 2 7 / DAY: S M T W LNfR �(�DDA��TTAAA REPORTED IRPOI �I-TTIIMJEJrE.100 I)T,R.11 �� �LCCATIO�N.00ffj.'I�O HE R ILONI O/ "�'—'—'/��+���+/`—'—'-'—Y�// 'LACE COMMITTED O'LCI 4 NRD Coe.. L NER M O fDUAD OR EADOEYIONI TIME Af,61TA{I iM6 ARM ITARI TIME CM.ITCLI I m ❑ 0 r� / 3 / / � / / / R—"INS. A- AI.- L.7! O'PICER ASSIGNED A, D{V 1= INU ION OC Utf V-VMutl P., Ca 4 110111LA / IIP R� I / 1 1 1 1 1 1/ iE- O,Mr III COMPLAINT 190EEEND[R p VICTIM OTHER REPORT{ INCLUDED '-,.L-e O P..o N,..m.rY OIIwPIIr C..., O A.Xm.II A.. OT.E. O MII.A.M R.I.. O ream. O REPORTINO IERSONOOE'END[ R OVILTIMO D.GA, aUNN ESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE C �%:CCE C � HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE SEE CASE FILE ROLLCALL WATT & RNSSw Bpt. Min Memafe Deliver [ Z tad & Teantpo,tad - - Advised Oltotion Iwpad Detail Completed G.O.A. — V-aP _g-s 9 /o COPY TD ---- CO ATTNI O CITY ATTNY O COURT 11 CNIEf ❑ OTHfR DISPOSITION Unfounded CleMPd by auen RPI. otEe. OWMV IrleLt•.e Other Off ICER'S SWfRVISORS SIGNATURE pal m , 'I LJ: i • �J] '�1 S 1-Y 4_' r J' I Pis �: 9 J.� 1_ TJ 35 J J 1' 0 b- <:•.Y:7 Jn 32 K ..4 [!' • 13 L JC I Jw 33 K ...." •T 0• TL 1v J... 33 73 0%. % LC SS D,k2s7V tC 11 D_E'R Si. RY '01 9>.vt •J 12 OU.:,T 4L ;I R;YCR]F? 1_ /I S AS JJ 42 SELLNER :L 7' SLLST4D _0 ;3 1 42 049-,_8 1405.53 S f35.25 5"..7 32sn,�y as,,44 5721, J2 1134 43 'i46,76 13:..4 r27.36 127.36 1 9 0':7.57 '421.55 n461.'6 11 Se .'.� .964.56 1,.4.•4 576".'.S 1;66,44 4N,:3 64,'•, 4.73,•9 459,12 5430, 3 54I, 11, 4144,19 '62034 116201C 2920:5 441, 9 113,-3 '+s6r,52 5S3..4 4642."u ?23.56 -. 1 cr74.)5 4315.14 o -S1,56 'G61,'+4 5434,54 692.24 .'3 eS/4.•5 T%44.r2 `0.•0 :1'952 i 61076 1221.54 5217.12 '.5+.52 5`)34.24 1?24954 552,:' 1 Ve, 26, o •�6.51 +T34. 4715.•6 1, 340:3 -n Li7S .76 995.41 7 "] 4411.51 ..S.SJ 691 ,IL Rtd= 1AAR 111985 r,.a L^�l 1. �:: 7,•Y G17b5 iA 15'7 Er=/➢L L�11 5 •'. Tn JS 97 4% 7.:'.d 519.15 S1.r F:•.-e, _: at 477e.15 Si.i T.�., FC 12 ?.94.1J 444.6U T.r..-7" tow 31 6241.12 1937.^4 3).A19.95 4 .4 4 T U':L'5➢ LT-L T09=6 F.Z. 1.1 - ''6275.7- �MOL9T_0.S fT:4 u: 3yr n a iuT is 7:=:1: •1_sLTM ally E • PitU7E NT; 4L T A➢yA[ LIT- J r 46TJ N a NUT'_➢L :v 'MAi. L - L42L 11,.'1S TT r a :LT l4 N • NIC"LLC1 tIT_L * L.A GU: 3e C : 7 : 3 2 NLZLT^ :➢^C 4=:2'T e:C'. MiSSINe NC5r C^'1E fJA SJNC EPL1f /'TT ,o / = c T 7 NI4RCN d4NQ. ( T.7 . . . _ . . . . MPL•'.J i.rr. l:V CO 1SS ')RJSI TvF/ALLOY F 6o:Av5 T 11 667,;G 221*'IC U U'LC= '4C F^AYr it 66" 22^.'^ G OJb:K J 11 66'.'� 12U.�� C IUST G�'i0 1,155.JU T011L '." S T.T,L TOTAL r:CA T.=% 340a5 • ,jr rMCLIVERS CICA C A • uPJU° HEALTH R + PwTSIC:AMAS MEALTM PLAY C • SLUE :?]SMILU' SM:EL] 0 • •TO;CiL C:`ITEi •LY? E = PRUIVNT:AL F = COdrO, AEALTM CARE y = r;Y 4E S7'A ii� w T^A%S—AnFR;CA ^CC, = RAO.KEFS LIFE J = MtNAL �E4V::Ci K • WiTUAL aF IMAnA L • EPOLOTE4FS •EY:F:T Y a A:TN] R • NIC"LLET r"EL • LEAGU: M C:TI.S I • MEALTH CARE MWIT ACCT, Al"IKG NCSP C^DE FOR SORE r11PL•S .\ w.. fta, �, w 1161 10e r CHECK Yil. aI TE' rHN �ff •1��L �f"•�� X6/ •w:•1�1fn'.'9C•/Y. ` COCCN ..WNT I"YO i .ter t'Vi{'. �11�i} + nuts T,1 Y j :"aF i i[N OES [0.1v7 ?r+, I,J�S�. yT�i sl/ 6y ... `41.2_�..si y _�' a �e`r + T'f lh of-ze-es Pu[ 1 Oa• LCCOYNI 11 .1. r r, . r M • NC/F .:•Da /Ot!.S - 11.10 ST OE0.M f [IS ., - CON NSCMOOLS L -+ 11-L 136 1=1 7ter- eA MCIF13 03/Ot/e5 e^ 1 11.50 Sr 0• NN Eaus %: �\' CaF!S�CLI____o1-Lsse tay-{j': .._'__. 1• • WPM 3W,I/N 10.10 0.606.9 !Cott COOPISCNOOLS /4-6356-510-p wLNOLL _ 1 - •__0.LYLL • K?271 --OstclleS — __-- - - - YTILITtEs -1101[ • N/F/l /C6 1VIALS 0.CACT Ncrwrr .. S131111181__. _ i _ NULL i r Fec a3nya5 e,L7 .•laj�x gL• — ---- '00 riot-- — - _-----. at_65F1-s 29-11 __ -. w..uu _ ••• 11+.60 FY49 11 TOTAL SENC0.6L OW •.126.12 IONO H TSILL L:000w CLA-'!%6 •Y10 I1.3C •YN0 76 T1TJL WiLr CWiSE CT'V6TIYO r0 1063.•F ?.-Tot �lI r : nr :: .. • . a � .'lI fi''2 � s.. - ',aa s 'k��3'i'A � • ' • r�r 1915 111, OF OAQAU COCCK ACOr STCN °1-' 03-11-15 PA•C 1 f ��`^-Ltl[tS 4n_ n. rF 111euxi ____OCM3" ITS, OESCAIPTION 4CCONMf_ 01J�J_"l / F•0TKEij,4, fyi__� 2• O]M.7/ti f3.43 ACAO•N211S.3jtA INC Orr SUPPLIES 01-4210 071-12 ulOn0e ul]00A-__'lllrlss _t0.11 ACOO•.EINNEOOTA I MC_OfL SUPPLIES.__ JPOICb JS/:lips 151.12 ACPO•NINNESOTA INC Orf EUPPIIES 69_1a OS-t210-0a9•If ( J/CO E4 U1/.IIFS AOAO••INN?SOTA INC ]f! iUPPL lIs O1-4210 ISh31 ; xA 13/n1/NS _ J 01.S2 _.)01.00 _- _ ACAO-"T"!3014_INC OFF SUPPLIES -- M-4L1047h 31 _ - 01000A 01/lips$ 62.00 ACAO-MINNESOTA INC Off SUPPLIES 0/0006 J3/07/tl 42.00• 4C110-MINNCSOT4 INC OFF 3UPPLEES 01-4210-174-31! 01-4210-174.34 1 e70O06-._cs/G2/D___.-..__44.00_. _.._ ACAO•NEMNE SOTA INC_.._ ..OFF SIPPLlfS 1•L__ U1p00A :!/V/15 81.39 asq vTMNE SOfA INC OFF '.'JPPLIR 31-4210-249-)4 ]t.4i10-2a9-a2 SN.59 ;C ;f ".-. _-1170010.. _.03 /]Lif _. ._. 23.10__ AT&T INTO SISTER -._ NAr •I8C LtO Eo O1'4342-12L-51 '• zt.53s] . - -.,•f OrrCI4 W171ps 411.19 ALL )•LN ".LECtxIC N%I -ISC !OO;P 01.2'40430-OG . _020014 J3/CF/01 1.491.4 ALL STA( %LCCTAIC MIT L:NES IS 7)-a )f a-Sbh0i E B .. JPIC19 :11:rl4S 2S.IF A••AICt% 't Nl4 MIT 9L0G/14C[ I1-4343-S1S-9; 25.5? . r •..... ...•CKS O'OC39 .1/.I raS 47.44 !AIL I AN]!A.OY 45. t Ef •Sf 3CP !1•ad SS•i4h{2 1 tS.Aa u•••• •••. CKS .IJ .31 Jr1S 44.•3 P•YEiTa09 •SSE%- A" 5.6 E1.4t'4-2:0-N JIJ 114 .t/ 144s 142.40 M1YEJ-a01 4011W As" ENO tONsbl1 '"SUIT ^•1-41!S-17M3S CrOC14 CIOC14 .1 •V.Is SOl)N! At% ENO C 21.4)Cf•SS LCG . /]:It .3/'7 r.S ?"s 4I,°S 014cilt0) 4•YEi •f 02 10i'v! A9N C410 CONSOLI msat 2)-4) ;•SSi•p] 42a, •S L ...... ••.•ENE cr]S9/ .1/jIls 91.SS CIPTTIL C;T1 0lst K1N: MAIM r1d812-SIS-90 i 9I.1S ...•.. •...CIS 0)]ll[ 11/1F111 41.52 CO W:N PUJLIS-IN4 POTG/POOL 01-45U-249-42 - �i. 43.12 • ':1 •...•• .... CKS ' JIJI{l .1/'I .1S 1f°•1S 111 JU4 'f INC VF SUPgiI? a•4210•AS.M OWIR .V'7r•5 1.14 cl-T nup .4 INC VF .WPLIC3 11.4210.O0.14 00142 .31WIS 45.14 C2" ]U• - TNC ]Pr SUPPLIES 71-4210•469•1S L v. ' •'I +r t. l -R :I?"R.IAA „ <•, .. f t 4r %. . + J"�tl 9 •: nA Irv! N!� 19•Us CITY OF OPIUM CAECA REGISTER �•4 03.11-SS PACE 2 J, ' REIK NP. U.•�( YENp 9j_- II Ors+ A PT ON AS COUNT No. INV. 9 P 0. P RESSAGE \' BFQ,R 03/p2/t5 fU,O T. EDDY OUP aG INC - SUPPL ([S IOFFFF 3ff_LU!f12E•i_ 0f-afl0-15h]3 + ----- �=♦3�1�-f1 _ 0/O1V '1/V/•5 1171.5Y T1-J4 COPY SUP aA INC )ff SUPPLIES ,\ • p/0142 .1/ll/i5 29.15 ESPT 7w 1A INC Jff SUPPLIES 01•4I10-249-42 •JFF 01t_t _ _-. ;l/lf //!!S1 -_ a JP�En P +11 INC SUPPLIES -iL2211W0-TS1iYF9901 -- - -"-I•' 070142 _3/S2 ____ 2; CY/ - OWPyx2 OFF SUPPLIES— _- 7112 --- "----- -- '.\ •• 07C142 .2 CO -I PUP PA IRE OFf SUPPLIES ?3_010-5641-92 a OTO,�r .•/.0 55 - _-7FO2O4 _ :3/111a5 • IFU 227 .11 '?,is ' 32922+ .WII.7 \ 0/122- .1/11I1•5 na. �S -uss s7oE DEvirRADE BECA PlLicr- ?.29• CAST SIDE BEVERAGE 03T ACT T1-491E-513-90 .... Cgs t .'. -rPGr RCY SCUP 354 ANT -13C ECUt' 01.4542-129Q1• -- ---�- - •l, 15T 4+r yYA-ST PA'JL +1'0i Our a[•AIS 5/-4e10-911-:. •+•. :: _ 1ST NIT GANR-ST PAUL IN? ]VE 4t11e5 11.4e20.911-70 "- 25.:3 137 44P RINK-ST PAUL AGCAT fir. 411185 31-4e33-911-03 2L .... Cgs a• 21.11 f-TTILO- + RANK -Cf CA FUELSIME4 :/-t12]•1th 31 21.11 nrJ+50 .V:fry 1!2 .:? :^NCNC i5a T3 ^0 r0T? fprLS 5f •t22:•N9-42 t02.i• 1/ 'Its 1?.•e 314v3Ei-+ • '+Dt-/PT[IACC"S; 12-42R-Nh91 1t. •t 1/'ft-5 9s.)3 ; a [ 9E-.-C:- •:a i:'IG VP ^I-4P91-149. ?/V7f2 41 f,-7 .'7 . N t SC••: Gi 3T ANT GUAPL:r$ "-4275-24 - Of02't .1/'71-5 a1. 10 '+ 4 A SE-•Itr. 41TI-03 17-C: "1-U41-J99-1' p207T2 .•/'f ,-5 fS .IV 0 C • SE-.fC•'S - NRTIILOGIGND3 01-UU-ISb :. 0202f2 :]/.1193 29.39 G S 1 SEAAICEi 4EaAIN1 A9P Tt-4221-SIM9. Or0222 .111L/05 4.56 3 S 9 sc-.Wft UTIL SYS PST SUP TZ-4214•S49-91 +.rM l/'f/•L 2.11. 5 S K sE-,ICU -Nf IPLOi/4AC2 71-4143•549-91 Cf-z?a $I"f lfl 53.12 G 4 A SE-.ICri lCAA1NG aP► 73-422,-1E9-92 uta .1/.f"I 5.99 6 N L tP.I CEi VT[l SIs AT SUP 11-42l4-Se9. 92 C NI72 .T/'f n5 400 6 G K SIT r: C2! NNTIALDSIGRCS FS-4343-5E9-92 M 112 .9/:l I-s 13.4E i 9 K SC-r1C1; NSARING AN 74-4291.590-93 ••-Cgs 19l5 CITT Of uAm CKCR RCGISiER - 01-11-95 PAGE 3 2 9J.'l_ Y.NOOa j[1_8_0:3GR1P it OM ICfy�MFi_YO. IRY, R F.J._ r ME'aF RQ 286.35 c; L _.._ 3/:I"S_ GROUP HEALTH _._HEALTH. IRS_ _a1-4151 126-31 - , -- '1 0102/7 Ol/01/Gs 154.11__._ LWC_ GROUP HEALTH 14C HEALTH 01 YIN 129-31- !i�� 070I/S. 260.7/ I.1.76 GROUP M[AVM INN HEALTH INS IRS O/-N51-/29-31 A310719f �If.?191 _J3.20--GROIIf. HEALTH .___ AEALTtl. 1 tl1_ UTAZ15 UIJI/S .SA:/IRS 106.91 14C GAJUP HEALTH HE4LTn 111 74-4151-Yra-93 74-YI51-590.93 C10I1S 3/17/!S 106.'. 7- 14C 61-P SCALTN M HLKTn IA7 74-4151-390-91 x_ALTN_.At _ihN5/-Sv0-v3 ___________.____'I ?39G59?.HCALLN.1i/4_...___ .•` 91027/ 67.15 H'0 '•R •:µTN C4G_ar NCALTN INS at-4151-069-15 :. .. -_ 01021t. .3/Cues. _ _ 67.ts H"J :•+ -:,Lr� : ..:ALrr TRs 71-4i N.12G-13 9/0277 .5/:r165 113.-3 RJO CT! ..:ALTN CAR, ";ALTN _ INS- OF027r .W171"S 177.15 4:0 ^R P-µTN CAR- HEALTH INS :1-4151-24"2 '•. ._3r02/1 31/)r 115 44.71 .-1 CIN .:ALTN CARE HGLt. IRf r2.4111-S49-71 "C711 .5/17/-5 6A.'2 P+0 :TR u._.Lr- CIA( ..rAtT. 111 71-4151-569-92 ...... - .... Cgs • .. 011291 A/'7/1S 39S.'0 Mi V•r CTT ;HIEIi Pt 4C CONf /SON:a: C1.4 1lhlly-N Svf. ? . • R- :/03':3 1/7.ls zoo.` NTH! ell ;IN Div JAIL :NGTS 11-4356-360-16 WWII 337.:f 1/1•.6 . 11 I/y5 44.+s 44.11 31r.55 t5.44 1/7115 32.19 47..3 3/-r/15 91.14 9r.44 . YrNN -TV -IE4:Fr OPT J.I. :HG__ 'MISTAr' 90TP4Y J:C93)-F1+ J AI55:-TpH 41HHS11 PAPER CO -pp;9rP1S/Aca 5S C :Vi/;LN )Eli V:LEPAC u1-a Sse-vo-u a-4132.149.4r rl-43ss-nhn C1-47l1-1Th31 •.«CRf STGt! SUPPL;(5 It-4130-515.9p . . ....CO q• 0 1 oian?, Yvones v•f.sQ RuaN•TlaNte rar2L-NuuBE m.asn-a9-1s ^+ ... u. ...-CKI - THE LANER POTS/PURL ------ O1-a)22-OtIF)7- — QB?Qa0♦ 03/07PS ---17. 14B "I /QWa 07/07/IS 14.46 THE LARCH FFTB/9UBL 01•43it-1tT-I1 • •.__AlIIlAa cvet ns f7•?e • • uNL rr. ------- rsi a/I.ue L Ol.0 tt- as. a-- - - -- - ---- ---- -__ ' M43? JS/OFIRS esS.ae C-TT OF 016 LINE 3FIC RS(T OI-13R-tt1-N • ' •....• ...-CBS • - oraw .11mm 41.41 LINO LS F340 IAACTON -NU:. /RTS/A: C•SS CI-4231449-42 - 43.47 • 91J4ee 5/`1145 1.+t'.'S 411N r:I °4=i 9EE4 9URC. 71-1415-51s-I: ^IFaea '/7/r•) 31.4.`- "INN NIT SLL_3 ROT A_T ?1.a11e•SIy-2E -�- • 1a9).as 'I^t 13 .!/'tISO 1.t5?.t5 r-'Tp) WAS•: CSNTAJL SIC LNGaS -'.Ci :I. Ht7-toy-I! 1 aet.N1 . •....• •...CRS • 'IC4-, .?I'/I.S 193.13 .:NN!N.CI UTILITIES !?049„ 11 Ir.5 1-1.15 .T':4'4ASCI UTILITIES '.afn.f iv-SI iralN. 'f/"I /.! 429.S1 47ME93SC7 UTILI TICS /2-4324-519-91 II 1185 4?i..'7 -•NN!Gts•.I IMAGE NJCRU• OAS I3-2)10-700-C: • ...... .• :MS ' I/Oa9) aW/PBS • A -N N'NEFTT ASIN NCALTN INS O1.41 51-1ie-31 "•'•• •• •CRS '1/O)E9 .1/:I 11> Sa.aR .!NN'S)TA Sid 4.a3 :',T:NG /iWl ':1.a522.720.11 ' Ural 26 .1/.'/ITS 11.Ie NIN4CS9TA SUB NEWS FR:NT!NSIFUBL CL-4+22-i49-42 - • 0/a.SE• Al'.111$ 2?.-$ N:N4'S31A SUB NEWS "INT!NS/PURL 41-4322-405-00 TINS CITY OF OROFO CNECR REGISTER �f.�'_ 07-i1-H • ►aQ S • , n. T[ NL niN• R 1 020)SL�_17/CCEB7___-_31..0 L941L_4+T0_w-!4t?__IGUI!L►_j L/Ijj SS�_-- 71-42 /7M 7 • 07CS43 03I0F n3 7N.N NAVARRE AJTO RCPRIR "BY AUTO a � � -�-�- l P 103.48 4 L"tl .u-CKS- • 1 N tiw___01II54A__C1/01/JL__._ N4941RE P3RONSRE._ SL00[URUS_PNI SUP 51-a231-]9917 OTOSit d3//03 156.06 4491RRE MUOYtlRC - �- CWV/►TSIiQEtt-01-a2 fi-i19.31 -'------------ IM49 OS/If/ti 14.44 N4r6RRE NaRONRRE EQUIP/PTS/RCCFSS 01-4232-174-11 ;N _➢ms1L... _.41/011Ai--- .. _R7.74.___ NAVARRO MACAW _ _.. E•1IP/PISIRCCES3._ 01-4211-249642__, 1- 370S40 :3191,115 1.62 N394RRE "4•Owt.c Iw!P/PTSIRCCCSS )1-aI12-290.61 ' IM34b 3/C7/6, 1.19 NI94I.0 .:404411 IOYI•IPTSIACCESS 72-1r12.549.91 _35344_ jrrm __ 5.15 NIY4R._ r.PONaRC sw:PIPTSIICCESS 71-4212-$69.91 0705a11 )3/]f/R9 31.53 N494R.0 N:NOVIRE eLOe/W0S PRY SUP 74.4231.590.93 • • _.. $16.13 • • - :..... .. ..._cis � • vo559?Qm ,31,ue2 U`.-3 ASP :1-4324-119-n "11.7/15 196.P4 _ ASP UTIL:TIE3 UTILITIES 01-43N-129-11 v 010519 OIR559 J/,TIt9 i111.76 VS. UTILITIES 01-4324-24M42 • 37O5Sv J/JnS 11.94 r3- U'LLITIC3 Ot-4524-14t.91 ]70519 3/111-5 va9.sa Nil U•ItITIES 72-4324•S49-91- Ifesso v_[f•5 6v2.IS NilS.P UrnITTz• n-U24-seo-92 • 1rC339 .3/.Ins s9PS pP uri L]rL•; r4-4524-svO-03 aEI)f: .SI'FIPS 66.11 4•?TUESf"iM ^ILL -"t :'P]VC '1-4320•)19-12 '• U703FI _31 r/65 13.11 h,TTN"CSTERw @!LL TELLP.6NE C1-4120-119.12 u/OS/C 15/IF/t3 66.35 4+4T14ESTERN BILL T Ll'"ONE CI-47f0-059-14 _ • ^.7tlS F' .Wrlf! 121.11 %I•14NEST441, BILL TOLE-404C 71.4320-129-7t "rC3fE .7/Y/95 4S.39 N1RtNBEBT-4N BILL TILEPN04C CI-4120-174-3J ;r0571 S/ III! 69,+1 S•ATP A 31:1N 91LL Iil_P•9NC C1-41H-AS-]t _ ,%JJ/r .11'114$ eS.52 N•RT14CiT_RN BILL ":L EP"ONE CI-4123-249-41 • ,1057o _J/�r1!s 13.re •r arr.csr;tw B'LL +-LEPF)NE 72-4327•S49.91 JrOsre _v.f IP3 1v. )1 r^RTr BEerxw BILL TCLeer04E 79-4320-Se9-92 • ✓osrr, S/-71P5 7o.71 N1RI+WEST:44 BILL frWWINr f4-4320.990-93 • 1/us/C .W1,95 IJS.sI 419T6BES%iw BILL 40r [PrIs:44 r4-4323-590-91 s, •t . v . �'- O/OS I4 :3/un) 97.H •TIC: n'S is MN )ff SUPPLIE: 01-4110-319-12 4 .3111,15 17.'9 SFFI:C P-41 if 44 )FF SUPPLIES 01-4210-174.73 `r03f• .3/:P11S 121.,: ^FF:C_ I- ) 1s M :YNE• CCRIUL• 01-43^.6-129-31 - M • ...•.• - ..-Cgs _.__ vmee _s/_r/es.. 1.61 aca LI910R IT ME ]FF ;Unl:cs _ _,__ 71.azto-sts•v0 _ • , .. Tt 03-/1-Q PAGE. CHECK RCGISTTR�.-'6 .•1 115..4t14 Md0 LI WOR STORE 3UPIL[C! ))11--442217D1.- SS1I SS--/•00 i tl. f 'RQAQ L20VAK_ST PLOT/GtO}ZNi n - - Y1 X•s �• i u)as6s , 01/01/6s __ '.+t avM uaJaR sr04E .__STORE Posrac[ z,-4311-fli36 •1 � 46.35 •L� OiLsv-_ A3[9i/11-- -_-USA _ __ pJ4 xnlj0 -a/24 212 - - .�•. •11h� 31nf •I .1/'1/R5 --mal 1.37 P:R4 PER �/J1 To OI-4141-340-13 •1 •'I 0r a59/ 3.ZS PERK PER& 2/11 To 2/24 01-4M_059-14 �••II`__}TOf al___e}/:(/�S .S/J/RS - --"-pER6 ICKL 201, TO 211, 31-4141-369-11 --Ot-4141-099.11 o2osw _ ____.-.__OTt_'!_..__.__Peq Osn2/Sf R.Ij vSn U1) To 2/24- .S •�_'L Ir 0/07N -!/'7/ss 1.219.92 P!R4 PU6 2111 TO 2/24 01-4141-111-31 'J/A/s S._. 1G.1Q_- P[RS _ --- - - PEN6 2/11 TO 2/24 01-4141-115-31 - -01•al - --- - - --_ _.-.01034/_ ._ 710svr _ _._. :1/'b.i _ _ SC1.47 -EPA °C4a 2H1 TO 2/i4 al-121.1,- Or059f ISII/115 4r5.•9 P-•4 .[%, Mt TO 1124 Ot-4141-126-31 410v1_ .3/•r/55 ,s1.16 Di R4 OER4 2"1 TJ 2124 C1-4141-114-33. _. 0/a69/ .1/J/9S 25f•RT -- DCH4 - PCRA 2111 TO 2124-- 01-4141-249P42 .. '3Ta59? :S/'1115 1R.':3 PEP. PER. 2/11 To 2124 ^1-4141-290-61 07059F .S/ 711S t•.:3. D: PL PEA 2/it To 2/24 C1-41at-291.61 :rosy? .1/ 11.5 +•.'3 PER. P[R: 2111 TO 2/24 11-4141.191-61 1 1r:5.f :1/ 1155 DERA PTRA 2111 T^ 2/24 1,-uN-f15-93 1,1 :•U 2/I, TO 7/R ri-4•:1-Sahel Tr03 yf Wrl45 '14.44 PER. P:RA 2/I1 TO 2124 /S-4141•S69-92 or059f 0/.1151 4S.S8 PCga PC\I 2/1, 15 2024 R-4141-S9o-93 3•I39.S5 ..... •.•... 1r0632 v5s 114 •'R PAPER c4L4!4514 :9U:PIPTS/4CC's3 :1-4232.249-4? .5/ - 1r0619 1/1/1rs +..: "thii Oc:P 65:R $f aurc 447 -1-/341-219-42 [)V912 .3/17/Ss - PT qf3 a[i.P OOOR IT 4UTC 4Nf 1!d laf-S69-R C!; 1106J1 +C W: I-TS ICI 4lC M: 4L TM PL 414LT4 : ',-lyi-•120-0' EP0621 .W?", .51 VIRS tS2.13 PYi3'c TART H!4Lt- PL ••L404 I'S [t-t151-J39-12 ' 924621 _11.1115 151.41 DNTSMANI STILTS PL ME4LT4 '9: "•41!1•'49-11 P0621 :S/1r15S 154..? D4TSICI&vS M.ALTM PL MCaITM INS :1-N 51•i11•!i 9a62, .1/11•5 11.51 t.T.ICIA43 HEILTN PL 4L4LTM'%T ^1-Nil-126. 3/ '/06f1 •1/tr rls •f•.45 P9Ti::ptl: H?PLTP PL -ii LI- TR" -,-:lSt•129-fi /�621 111. 11 •+TJ [CN4i MNLM -L 4f4LT4 4-tl it -i R•N Or36i1 .S/.f/R5 .1/'//+3 551.40 P4rS:CI•NS HEALTH PL 4EALTH 'NS •I-atfl•Ah42 , J706H '. I/:II•! I41.43 PHTS1:IAk5 M_41 TN OL MT4LT- IN, ^1-4151-290-61 3rn621 .3/-r ISS fr•.51 P-TSI:'4NI H:W* PL ••!LLT.1 INS rt•N St-fiS-90 _ '106?, 65.16 -"$1514%; WILTS PL E4LfH '41 71-4151-S49-91 J/0621 .'/'114% 5/'1155 114.11 wT51 ^24:.I HE-LIS PL M^4Lf4 INS 13-4111-569-91 - 5'?rl.SS o?Cs22 11/'112! 2c5.53 P:NR SUPPLY :as WF /VNt TER: 31-4540-129-31 =' 1%S CC Eiy�1�O�P�♦OIjI MO CNLCR RESISTER }. Pi ems` R DESCRIP , .• _ ro nab "3_____ __0•_1 ITT_ OOVEL_lOSLDL_ 01•4 062/ 070OFM 10.10 OITWT 06uCsPOSTAGE {V-05110! -- - - + 0/06ji 07///eS fOdO PIn!r 006!f ►pfTU[ Ol-a 32f-069-17 �;."• ' __._0206L n./rn/Ra -- - -_ _—1CJa___►J]NLT 20sLL_ ►y TS,f[ O=L 174-13 07062/ L3/0105 1I.Ra PiTN!T BOWES Fos 1461 al=uit:2at..z i 54. Sp • _—_07a629____'31ulls5.__.___._221.20._ ----- ►OSTSCIOTEI.__ POSTISL _____.__3l a721e12l-J1________ • u •••• - — — • '/O615 of 1•,7/2S 26.SO 11 cc I S104 su; Sir ,6u:P/PTs/ACCEs 71-4212-129-31 r J7 Oef f.. .:7/]!/RS V.JO_._ Pi ECI.I OM BUS STS „T Off ISU I, 11-4340-039-12 1I a a3S :S/-r/•S 2S.'0 n42:f St ON 9U3 Sri PST 3ff EQUIP 11-4340-360-I5 - V .1/'7/-T nS,:^ P.;CSs!M, 1Ui STS "IT ±F, !QU!1 11-4540-129.3t >. "N'is '/0651Pl!Ct%llh MUS ;TS 41.1 )fF .QUIP !t-af40•Va-]f 04!V114% MJi STS MNT 3FF icu:. 71-4540.249.42 07063f Allp"s I1.2S .1CCir ION rub STS ,NT 0,f EQUIP 72-4540-549-91 • 070613 :1/:7/SS 13.15 P4,c.stO9 %US STS -Vi )ff IN:- j5.4540-569-92 451.13 .• :MS 11-C63j SV.'//4S ):.'n P1LTC, 41-93MSN aSIR SY)RS/PIO:COCLs !1-4240-129.31 • •.•u• ....CMs of96S° .1/.I/SS j.SC 4 ^ :,OE6f I,:c,Ti.NS I,, SUPPLIII 11-4210-129-S1 ._ 2.50 .. f ±r 06s1 J/:+/17 15'.12 5:-4; t•6 ;r •I* SU, :1.4233-249-a2 • a 31.•2 o.... _. -- • -..t !/0.6P• .S/'//RT S-.:3 ST L MIS 'R M•O C11 ITn[1 CSISULT 51-4316-129•st 1".'. . ..Y ^.l V; .1/://•S 11s. d n-y i•tri.-CA 4UN3 I-%, .UPPLV- .1.1211-/21.11 • 313. 3 • - • ...... • �STi ' v'lal/6 .3/^.7/ls 1,124.12 T!,MFE Dist IS BEER PURCP it-4615-515-IC .. • ,. is pppI/ 3 ,PW + to ` 19q CI TT Oi Him ^ lT CMCCN N[i1STER , 03-11-83 PAGE 6 .+.-' ! tTEP OESCAIPTTON ACCOUNT NO. INV. I P.O. P MESSAGE � 19.10- axaPE our,c "�" - Nor NET 416_sn-90 _n-4 � • •u •.• •u.CR$ N • OTGT T9 J310 -T�--_—.iA �e.]a r66CT OILCO e�Ol3NE - AP • �' amm J3/OTAS 1r3.46 INACf OIL CO UTILITIES 7Ma3xMS90-97 . n ..... ....Cgs • 070521 MOMS 10.36 SILL46E CNEIARST .— EWiP/PIS/AC C[53 Of"232-14h42- 10.36 • A - ..••C 33 •u u, Mais .3 /.i �f @___._ _ U.:I Y1914!40 LSTES 'NC CSNP/SCNCr,Le - ]1-e 356.2A9-et _ _. U19033 I3/Cr/85 _-_ @.la WAAN141 LITU IIVE COMP/SCMWLS rZ-1336-349-91 C10433 AMrHS 1N.10 4A4I46 LIVES INC C]11P/3CNCOL3 i1-a 11e-Sev-v2 • .. u•. ...-Ui 4 ;/g341 .3/'r/.% 2.2.•4 ..TEA P4034Cti C3 -9U:-IPTSIACCtS3 R-4t V-3 N•01 • 2•2.34 • 4 .0 u . •••.C[b • a ./^,aA ,W11i3 11,13 . ..••- NE14 rL"C-A!C UIILITSES :1-4324-240-42 11.13 • a u•u, •••-CN< ' - :Iu 9:: .!I'f nS !`.^: -'R:•] i•IPM:CS )Pr SUPPLt[• ^,1-4217-I)4-11 4 A' .I! • JM9'.t Wltm 63.30 OICNEA SU>NLI E9UIPATItACCEii CI.4232-t40.42 C169'1 .1/.I nS tS.!' IICNGN SU1OLI :31J."PTSIACC-Is 12-Lx 12-f40. ry :/14'1 ,•/"/nS lO.A7 ] ^.Nit SU'.LT EOI:=/PT31ACC°SS )S-Lz 1x-S69.a2 • q, • A O/]o a .3I'1141 41.f3 L34314 P423OCT5 AT NNT SLAPL:'.S =I-6733-1494r - 41.13 • 1 -Il-.3 .1lli••1 21,.9 •.N.;• Lt44ER•14 PIT RLOSION-1 '.1 .4141-709-11 25. 1 /C9-4 W...3 4t4Et3L CLrC C1 44T PISC EOUIN Ot. N42-39h1) .3I:/Af 211. •3 • ;.,, • MCMI I""! I,2 SA, .`t .p AP4I IL! L,IN:.ItT CI-43r9.320./1 [awi, 1Cr211 If Fla, L Rf^.'C NMP44T 74t UIR4[LLA L1192LITI C1.43TT-129-31 NWwI • KI211 .f/'I rlS 124. 0 NUNMI T6t U•NACLLA 1.2:9ILITY Ct•417T.290.6-1 NAWAL I r 1983 CITY OF OKW7 oa Tr ' _ „u,,, CHECK RiftSTLN 52.10 eUN►Nr INS UIGNCLLS _--J21.]e +•18►llC ____DSOn2LLA 3,461.10 . 1777,p000q•••SS.�- 07-11-45. PASSUK MMMN • N2 'hP/•S _.. szS.CZ .__ nunrN]_tN3----___-U-9A:LL{_Lt.e LITT 1 4sn o v- 1 -- MS , Kr242 L5/07/4S E.lr3.A NURNIT INS UFf RLLLA LISPILIff 1 4377 KS wI" KRft 31311e5 NUn►Sr INS UVONCLL4 LI.OILf Tr 5-9 FI 4•FI-S49-'I NWYLL .I 22f2 M 011 11..]P_ INS.__ V'011i LLS LIa OILtTL__ 22 4llr-569-.91 MCFzSz .L`S/72191 _. nrF111 _�IIU7Nr 191.'J _ Fufvef INS _-' uFeNeut uae.Lln _.n-{5ro_sev-v= -- _MAW N.wu •, '. Kr263 175.19 ST T{•_q is CORI r0 FICA lilt TO OP•4142-OS9-tl- IUI�ILt. Kr211 Af:rA5 :S/0I/f5 S.19 $T INCLS SS CORI FO 7124 FICA 2111 TC 212E i1-4142-040-17 Nfw4L w Kr2►S_ ___. ... JWp _ . AT TICSS SS CAT FO _ FICA 2/11 10 2q4 -.:ea O1-Nai-JShN _ xerils s1;ve! ls! 2.1!____ leidz $r nus 53 cs9r ro znl Ti z124 a-alaz-Jev.if-` -AWAL_.jQ •fwNl KIzSS .11'rISS 11.49 LT WAS 75 C1VT F7 F.CA z/11 •^ 212, L1-414E.09161r {NVSL iZI _.K/297. S/.r111 ._ SS ' ST T9L4S SS C?VT FO FICA 2111 • ?121 ]1-N 42-IIS-11• •_ 94w SL_ Krl•S .WrIll 111.5t 7I TSr.S :S CONT FO F.CI 2111 1C 21z4 _ St-4442-1F4-31 KfwfL MCIVS .11)1/1S 34.44 Sr MAS SS C"T FU F:Ca till IC 1124 O/-142.249-42 FSwaL „I Kr131 .f/'I ISS 29.91 ST TSr4S IS CINT F7 FICA alit TO 2124 01-4442-290-41 VSNUrL Kiz•S 1/ 1•N3 94.15 it f•'41 :S CYIT FO -:Ca i111 TO 2124 it-N t2•SIS-9J PaN'S4L _ K/2-5 •/:F•U SS.Ss ST T••4S SS C)'lf F7 F.CA 2111 TO 2124 FZ-4142-549-91 41FPL I K/le! .31J19S ISE..S S. T+r43 :S w)ST rJ :.9 Till IO 2114 75-4142-549.92 •4VWL_ Kfztl Wr/SS /5.11 S: Ti'43 IS COVE FO FIC4 2/II TO 2114 2M4142-S90-93 +.w4L 1.429.46 . ,1 K•z'a .11 115; 1'S ,S: , P-:LLf S L:0 P'JNCM I1-4 .10-Sif-9L •aMlal K22 4 .31:119! 5.11. '• P••'LL•'S L10 JTSL lt-aSll-SiS-V' •{WAL , 1 Krz 4 i/Y115 W.'{ :) Pr W_i 4:4• aUKCM rl-WI-S1S-9. •4MS4L Kr2,4 -S/'r IPS It.44• i) P-:LWS 414- OISC 11-4415-515-9. I1•wrL ' ...... ....CO M .Ua,+1 U21 fit IL PY:P 1L FUNS I 242. zS -U40YP 21 TIT-LWIL 1 $Ti,11 2;0 C'VS 9 FUVO 31 TOTLL l 0 ST 4:L •C 50931 0 S F F .. !E .'4 FUll {I f)TIL %s Ppl• TI+F{ONL PCr'UND f I ♦. N4.•5 •Ur7 11 IOT4L L:f VJa 9PIN4T:Nf FUV7 .'S•. S 12 LL •:i54 OF!•4•:10 ' .. 1.:•5.12 'UYO OT TOT NY7 11 TOfq 0Fina 94, i%.F OFL•a•:\f FU'/7 1. ir. aF FVYq F{ fNll 11F ])J>L rrC•tT I'O iC .11.41.•2 !IT{L Planning Commission PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MhETING DATE 3- // -gr PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1. IL2. 3. 4 2 - 5. 6. F/ZT/ E^/ SS %s 7,f¢sFR,✓ h A / 7, ,L JS ,o 9 44,111E-J /T ✓G 't E- 9 9 z �B8 9, a �n r r 92. D. ,w 4y 1. Sq 3. r rv, A o 'A _ JAI, .4. .5. i6. L7. l8. 19. 10. I nfo r in forx ]E +,e, M S camn cli I (A " low fJ�I MR ) 1935Y LCITY (li 1: February 25, 1985 TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Public Officials SUBJECT: Public Hearing Report on the Draft Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan Enclosed is a copy of the hearing report prepared by the Metropolitan Council's staff on the Council"s proposed Solid Waste Mana eI t Devel- opment Guide/Policy Plan. The report responds to ora and written comments submitted for the public hearing on the document, and makes recommendations for changes in the guide. The hearing report recommends a change in one of the guide's key poli- cies. The change would give governmental units a greater opportunity to implement source separation through voluntary participation before mandatory participation is imposed. Mandatory participation will be triggered if the voluntary approach isn't effective. The report also recommends other changes to clarify statements of fact and policy in the guide. However, the report does not recommend changes in the guide's basic policy approach, overall schedule, abatement objectives or planning requirements. The guide would retain policies to: - Ban the landfilling of compostable yard waste (leaves and grass clippings), recyclables (such as newspapers, cans and glass) and combustible solid waste after 1990; - Require the opening of up to three new landfills intended to accept only processed residuals; - Require the public sector to ensure development of a regional systp� of waste processing and recycling services; and - Establish region -wide programs for public education and participa- tion and for developing markets for recovered materials and energy. The report and final adoption of the plan will be considered according to the following schedule: March 5, 2 p.m. Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee March 6, 4 p.m. Environmental Resources Committee March 14. 4 p.m. Metropolitan Council We encourage you to review the hearing report and offer your com- ments. if you'd like to submit written comments on the report, they will be considered along with the report itself at the meetings men- tioned above. Jf you'd like to make oral comments, you may do so at the March 5 and 6 meetings. Questions about the meeting schedule or hearing report can be directed to Paul Smith at 291-6408. Copies of the hearing comments, a summary of the oral testimony and all written comments, can be obtained from the Council's Communications Department at 291-6464. Sincerely, Sandra S. Gardebring Chair SSG:sje METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 DATE: February 25, 1985 TO: Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee FROM: Parks and Environmental Planning (Paul Smith) V5 SUBJECT: Adoption of Solid Waste Mana ement Develo nt Guide/Policy Plan and Final Statement o ndings and one usions INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council on Jan. 28, 1986, held a public hearing on the draft Solid Waste Management Development Guide/folic Plan, and written comments werewerereceive on the ocwneRt t5rougFie6-T Seventy-two parties pro- vided testimony for the hearing record. This memorandum serves as a final statement of findings and conclusions regarding the hearing and makes recom- mendations on final adoption of the guide. Transmitted with the memorandum are: 1) the hearing report that responds to the issues raised and makes recom- mendations for changes to the guide, and 2) the hearing record containing a summary of the verbal testimony at the hearing and the written comments received. AUTHORITY Minn. Stat. 473.149, as amended, requires the Council to prepare and adopt as part of its Metro olitan Develo ment Guide, a long-range policy plan for solid waste management n the etropo tan Area. The Waste Management Act of 1980, as amended, requires that the Council amend its plan, by Jan. 1, 1985, to include an abatement plan and a landfill development schedule. The abatement plan must include specific and quantifiable objectives for abating to the great- est feasible and prudent extent the need for and practice of land disposal of mixed municipal waste through the year 2000. The abatement plan must include standards and procedures to determine whether counties or cities have imple- mented the plan. The landfill development schedule must specify the number and capacity of landfill sites from a metropolitan inventory to be acquired by the metropolitan counties. The schedule must be based on the reduced estimate of capacity as determined by the abatement plap. MAJOR ISSUES AND RESPONSES The hearing report recommends clarification and expansion of the text of the guide in response to many of the hearing comments. Two changes in policy word- ing are recommended, but overall there are no substantive changes to the guide. It is recommended that the guide's basic policy structure, abatement objec- tives, most time schedules and planning requirements remain unchanged. Although the hearing raised a number of issues, considerable public support has been expressed for the guide's new direction and aggressive approach. The pub- lic, on the whole, wants a change in the waste management system and is suppor- tive of alternatives to landfills. Moreover, the public appears to want govern- ment to continue to take an aggressive role in ..ante management. One important policy area recommended for change is the proposal to implement region -wide mandatory source separation after 1987. Considerable response was received regarding the proposal. Cities and counties, in particular, felt 'he proposal is premature and that a voluntary approach should be tried first. Con- cern focused primarily on financing, enforcement and market issues. In response, the hearing report recommends that as an intermediate step perfor- mance be assessed on a voluntary participation basis. Mandatory participation could be triggered as a second step if voluntary efforts are not working. Modest changes are recommended for the landfill development schedule. Clarifi- cation is given in response to questions about how private proposals can substi- tute for the schedule's allocations and to clarify what alternatives would be available if all of a county's inventory sites proved to be unpermittable. Economic concerns were also key issues. Some respondents said the guide should allow for more competition and place less responsibility on the public sector. Concern was expressed, in particular, that waste designation would have monopo- listic effects on waste management services. Also, a number of respondents said there should be more in the way of cost incentives for waste generators to recycle and reduce waste. The hearing report responds to these issues and no major changes are recommended to the guide. Organized collection, incentives and other issues will require further analysis as the guide is implemented which may lead to recommendations for future legislative change. Thes= issues do not affect adoption of the guide and its policy structure at this time. Finally, there were several comments regarding the proposal to have the coun- ties implement a hazardous substances separation program. Concern was expressed that the program is premature and requires further analysib. It is recommended, therefore, that the date for having the program in place be moved from 1988 to 1990 and that the implementing responsibility be left open until further work on the subject has been completed by the Waste Management Board (WMB) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). FINDINGS 1. The Waste Management Act of 1980, as amended, requires that the Council adopt a land disposal abatement element as part of its solid waste policy plan. The Act requires that the Council include specific and quantifiable objectives for abating to the maximum feasible and prudent extent the need for land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste and of specific components of the waste stream. The plan must include reduced estimates of added solid waste disposal capacity needed, measurable objectives for local abate- ment standards for measuring implementation of the plan. The Act further requires that the Council determine the number of sites and the capacity of sites to be acquired within each metropolitan county, together with a sched- ule of disposal capacity to be developed within each county. 2. In order to inform its judgment respecting its solid waste development guide/policy plan, the Council held a public hearing on a draft of the plan on Jan. 28, 1985. 3. Feasible and prudent alternatives to the practice of landfilling mixed municipal solid waste exist, but have not been implemented. 3 4. Governmental entities and private persons generally support the proposed shift away from the practice of land disposal of unprocessed mixed munici- pal solid waste toward the practice of limiting land disposal to processed residuals. S. Governmental entities and private persons support the implementation of vol- untary source separation of recyclable materials, as a way of decreasing dependence upon landfiiling. 6. The public generally supports a more aggressive effort by regional and local government to ensure that the shift away from landfilling can occur. CONCLUSIONS 1. The guide's basic policy structure, aaatement objectives, most time sched- ules and planning requirements should remain unchanged. 2. An intermediate step should be used to assess source separation on a volun- tary participation basis. Mandatory participation should be triggered as a second step if voluntary efforts are not working. 3. The date for having a household hazardous waste separation program should be changed to 1990 and the implementing responsibility should be left unde- fined until further work is com,leted by the WMR and MPCA. 4. Other changes should be made to provide clarification and expansion to the text of the guide as the hearing report recommends. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the Solid Waste Mana amen[ Develo tent Guide/Policy Ptan (Publication No. 12-84- 6 incorporat ng the changes nd recommeed by the hearing report. 2. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the final statement of findings and conclusions, dated Feb. 25, 1985. JL1828-PHENV2 02.25.85 PUBLIC HEARING REPORT ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE/POLICY PLAN Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359 March 1985 Publication No. 12-85-0b3 CONTENTS Page OVERVIEW Purpose........................................................... Authority to Take Proposed Action ................................. Fulfillment of Substantive and Procedural Requirements of Law..... ISSUES, RESPONSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction...................................................... Major Policy Issues Raised Format and Scope of the Guide ................................ 1 Roles and Responsibilities for Implementation ................ 3 Source Separation and Waste Reduction Objectives ............. 4 Mandatory Source Separation .................................. 10 Flexibility .................................................. 13 Exemption to Unprocessed Waste Policy ........................ 16 Waste Facility Siting Criteria and Environmental Protection.. 17 Interpretation of Landfill Development Program/Schedule...... 19 Issues Concerning Specific Subject Areas Performance Standards ........................................ 20 Economic Incentives and Maintaining Competition .............. 22 SystemCosts ................................................. Organized Collection ......................................... 23 25 Management of Household and Exempt Hazardous Waste........... 26 Ash Disposal ................................................. 27 Landfill Siting Policy ..................................... . 28 Composting ................................................... Inter -county Subregional Approach ............................ 28 31 Financing Local Programs ..................................... 31 Container Deposits ........................................... 33 Public Education and Awareness ............................... 34 Market Development ........................................... 35 Compensation and Mitigation .................................. 37 Issues Concerning Technical Clarification Data and Other Research Needs ................................ 38 Definitions................................................... 42 OVERVIEW PURPOSE This hearing report has been prepared in response to verbal and written testi- mony presented on the Metropolitan Council's December 1984 draft Solid Waste Management Develo ment Guide/Policy Plan. A public hearing was held on the guide on Jan. 98 and written comments were received until Feb. 12, 1985. The hearing report discusses the testimony presented with regard to the guide, summarizes the pertinent issues raised and contains responses to com- ments and recommendations for changes to the guide. The hearing report is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Procedure for Ado tin or Amendin Metro olitan Council Re tonal Plans adopted by the punt on ec. z. op es o the hear ng recor a summary of the verbal testimony presented at the public hearing and all written testimony received, can be obtained by contacting the Council s communications Department at 291-6464. AUTHORITY TO TAKE THE PROPOSED ACTION Minn. Stat. 473.149, as amended, requires the Council to prepare and adopt as part of its Metropolitan Develo ment Guide, a long-range policy plan for solid waste managemen n f expo an rea. The Waste Management Act of 1980, as amended, requires that the Council amend its plan, by Jan. 1, 1985, to include an abatement plan and a landfill development schedule. The abatement plan must include specific and quantifiable objectives for abating, to the greatest feasible and prudent extent, the need for and practice of land dis- posal of mixed municipal waste through the year 2000. The abatement plan must include standards and procedures to determine whether counties or cities have implemented the plan. The landfill development schedule must specify the num- ber and capacity of landfill sites from a metropolitan inventory to be acquired by the metropolitan counties. The schedule must be based on the reduced esti- mate of capacity as determined by the abatement plan. DEGREE TO WHICH THE COUNCIL HAS FULFILLED SUBSTANTIVE AND PROECEOURAL REQUIRE- MENTS OF LAW The solid waste guide responds to the Waste Management Act directive. It replaces the solid waste management guide the Council adopted in 1979 and amended in 1981. The new guide is intended to serve as a basis for developing a regional system for dealing with solid waste that emphasizes recovery of resources and minimizes the land disposal of solid waste. The guide substan- tially conforms to the requirements of the law for waste facility schedules, plans, objectives and standards. In preparing the guide, the council consid- ered the comments and information provided by representatives of counties, cities and towns, citizens, representatives of private groups and organizations and private waste industry officials. The guide was prepared in accordance with the Council's procedures for adopting regional plans. ISSUES. RESPONSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION This section of the hearing report summarizes and responds to the testimony and written comments subs' red for the hearing record. A summary of comments is provided. Where there were a number of respondents regarding a particular issue, the general sources are cited, for example, cities and counties; where there were only a few respondents, the specific source is usually identified. A response follows which highlights the issues raised in comments and discusses their merits. Where appropriate, recommendations follow for Council action. Where revision to guide policies is recommended, the exact wording of changes in policies is given; where changes to the text are appropriate, the general concept amendment is outlined. MAJOR POLICY ISSUES RAISED Format and Scope of the Guide Summary of Comments Washington County recommends placement of all goals, policies and objectives in Part 3 of the guide in order to provide implementing agencies a single point of reference. The Waste Management Board encourages discussion of the waste management relationship between the Metropolitan Area and outstate counties. Sauers 6 Assoc. view the plan as deficient without sections on litigation, remedial action and hazardous waste. The Metalcasters of Minnesota and R. Hlavka state that the guide should include more discussion of the unique handling and recovery problems of special mate- rials such as appliances, furniture and demolition/instruction debris. Washington County. comments relate to tires and demolition waste. The City of Plymouth and the Waste Management Board recommend that tires be given higher priority. Responses The Waste Management Act requires that this guide differ from previous Council guides for solid waste management by settinti specific abatement objectives for local governments. Thus, Part 4 is a new element to the guide, setting forth objectives for solid waste management and defining a development program to attain these targets. The Cou,uil's expectations and standards for review of public and private efforts to implement the development program are contained in Part 5 and in the Appendix. Part 3 states overall Council policy regarding the means for appropriate solid waste management within the region. Some changes to the policies in this section of the guide are recommended in response to the issues of Flexibility and Mandatory Source Separation which will help to clarify the interaction between Parts 3-5 of the guide. This guide is the first solid waste management plan to be completed in accord- ance with the requirements of Minnesota's Waste Management Act. Thus it is the first to wrestle with a determination of the degree to which alternatives to landfilling municipal waste are feasible and prudent. While programs under- taken in the Metropolitan Area are not necessarily directly transferrable to outstate areas, the guide is nevertheless precedent setting. Moreover, under provisions of the federal Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, this guide is deemed to be the Metropolitan Area portion of the State Solid Waste Plan. It is likely that activities required by the guide will be of benefit to outstate planning for solid waste management, for example in demonstrating uses and mar- ketability of compost, securing stronger markets in the upper midwest for recy- clables, and by demonstrating the viability of other waste processing methods. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is currently drafting rules for development of outstate solid waste plans. The agency is also preparing rules which will be applicable throughout the state, setting more stringent standards for land disposal of waste, requiring landfill operators to demonstrate their financial ability to properly care for facilities, and establishing require- ments for post -closure monitoring and care of facilities. The Waste Management Board and the Council have parallel roles in review of waste designation plans. The.Council is the responsible agency for the Metropolitan Area, while the Board is responsible for outstate areas. Recognition of the consequences of past waste management practices underlies the Waste Management Act's mandate to curtail the practice of landfilling to an absolute minimum. Part 2 of the guide discusses the history of waste manage- ment in the region and identifies the imp! cations of continuation of current practices. Responsibility for hazardous waste planning and for undertaking remedial investigations are solely the prerogatives of the Waste Management Board and the MPCA, respectively. Part 1 points out that the proposed guide differs from earlier Council plans by placing less emphasis on management of special wastes. This is in keeping with the 1980 Waste Management Act's focus on programs for abatement of mixed municipal solid waste and subsequent amendments to the act. Initially, land- fill siting requirements included county selection of facilities for disposal of demolition wastes. The counties effectively argued before the 1983 legis- lature that the existing system of small demolition fills was sufficient, and the requirement for new sites was repealed. Siting criteria in the guide can be used for review of special waste landfills. The legislature has delegated responsibility for developing programs for tires to the MPCA and the Department of Energy and Economic Development. County master plans and waste composition studies may identify additional needs for special waste management which could lead to subsequent guide amendments. Recommendations Additional text should be included in Part 1 identifying this guide as the Metropolitan Area porti•n of the State Solid Waste Plan and recognizing the Waste Management Board's role in review of outstate waste designation plans and ordinances. Roles and Responsibilities for Implementation Summary of Comments Ramsey and Washington Counties note that several tables in Part 4 are unclear regarding agencies' responsibilities for waste reduction, source separation, market development and communications. Clarification of a lead agency, as well as complementary roles, is sought. The first sentence of policy 4 reads: The public sector is responsible for developing a regional system of waste processing and recycling services. The Waste Management Board recommends distinction between responsibilities for guidance, planning and implementation. The City of Edina comments regarding preferenep for the private sector in implementing the new solid waste system. Others state the plan should give more attention to the private sector. The National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA) points out that currently practically all collection and disposal is handled through the private sector. C. S. Thomson comments that government should only intrude when absolutely necessary as a coordinating body. D. Hinz states if the marketplace is left alone, the solid waste system may take more time to develop, but it will be less costly in the long term. Scott County recommends rewording Policy 4 to make its intent clearer. Identification of final authority for siting and for approval of waste designa- tions is a comment of R. Hvalka. Ramsey County requests the counties be given authority to review local solid waste management plans. The county feels such authority would help ensure that local plans are consistent with county plans. Scott county notes that the guide lacks a mechanism to effecuate action by municipalities. The Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry states the guide requires business and industry to implement programs without having a voice in their development, noting that business has no representation or. the Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee. Responses The tables in Part 4 dealing with roles and responsibilitie: seek to identify all parties who have definable obligations and the type of role appropriate to them. Additional text can help to distinyuish those with coordinating or imple- menting responsibilities. ' The planning and guidance roles of the state, Council and ocal governments are well defined. While it falls to the public sector to ensure that a comprehen- sive waste management system is developed, implementat o�Fs preferable through the coordinated initiative of both the public and private sectors. The public sector must ensure that programs and facilities are developed in both a timely and comprehensive basis and must initiate such actions where private proposals are not forthcoming or are in doubt. Waste facility sites are subject to local, county, Council and 4rCA rtviev ;nd approval. Elements of some projects are subject to action by other age:�cmes such as MnOOT, DNR or the Corps of Engineers. Landfill sites developed frz; the Metropolitan Inventory are selected by a county site selection authority and can be exempted from some local controls. Plans and ordinances for waste design.0 on within the Metropolitan Area are subject to Council review. The authority to approve local plans is granted to the Council wider the Metro- politan Land Planning Act. The Council cannot delegate this authority to the counties. However, local plan; must be made available for review are cdmment prior to adoption and the counties can review and comment on such olan;. The Council does not have the authority to require all local units of government to develop a solid waste management section in their comprehensive plans, but the guide encourages cities and towns to include such an element in their plans, that the element be prepared in consultation with the counties, and that it be consistent with the counties' master plans. Legislative change would be needed to bring cities and towns under a mandatory solid waste planning process. The makeup of the advisory committee is specified under Minn. Stat. 473. The law requires the committee to be comprised of one-third citizen representa- tives, one-third city and county representatives and one-third representatives from private waste management firms. Appointments are made in each of the three categories every year by the Council. A number of the current members are in private business and have business backgrounds. Recommendations The text in Part 4 of the guide should be expanded to incorporate recognition of the counties' role in completing research on waste composition and volumes of generation as a means of identifying additional opportunities for waste reduction and recycling. The Council too has a broader research role in t:.ete areas. Both the Council and counties can be instrumental in provision of technical assistance. This section of the guide should clearly delineate the Council as having the lead role in efforts targeted at market development in the Metropolitan Area, with the Department of Energy and Economic Development in the lead at . state level. The guide already identifies the Council as taking primary responsibility for a solid waste communications program. The text should be expanded to clarify the expectation that the counties will under- take a growing responsibility for coordination of these efforts over time. The first sentence in Policy 4 should be amended as follows: The public sector is responsible for Aeve4ep4ng ensurin develo ment of a regional system of waste processing and recycling sery ces. Source Separation and Waste Reduction Objectives Summary of Comments Many interested parties present testimony that addresses the objectives estab- lished for source separation or waste reduction. Each person offers a slightly different perspective, presents specific supporting arguments and suggests or implies different changes to the guide. The three basic suggestions are: a) lower the objectives, b) raise the objectives, or c) improve the development program through a specific change. Those parties suggesting directly or implying indirectly that the source separ- ation objectives should be lowered or the deadlines delayed include: Hennepin County, Hennepin County's Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWMAC), Beermann Services, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM), Dakota County, Metalcasters of Minnesota, Northern States Power Co. (NSP), Anoka County, Carver County, Bloomington, Dakota Legislative Committee, Eden Prairie, Burnsville, M. Thurston, Minneapolis, and R. Hlavka. The most frequently cited reason for this suggestion is --source separation should not be maximized if centralized processing facilities can achieve equivalent recovery rates at the same or lower costs. The following parties suggest that the source separation objectives in the draft guide create unnecessary competition for waste supply such that energy recovery facilities are jeopardized: Anoka County, Carver County, Bloomington, Dakota County Dakota County Legislative Committee, Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Burnsville, Hennepin County's SWMAC and NSP. NSWMA raises the issue of "clean" recyclables from source separation out -competing the "dirty" materials recovered from mechanical separation. The next most frequently cited supporting argument is --the added costs of separate collection make the Council's proposed objectives unattainable. The problem of added cost is mentioned by AMA, Dakota County, Metalcasters of Minnesota and NSP. Henne- pin County's SWMAC also states that the waste reduction objectives (primarily mulching and backyard composting of yard waste) are too high. Hennepin County states that a "set -out" rate or an "efficiency" factor should be added into the source separation calculations to account for the fact that every partici- pant does not set out 100 percent of their recyclables. A number of different concerns about recyclables and compost markets are raised by a wide variety of people. Questions are presented about: a) capacity of markets to handle the increased volumes, b) the potential drop in price caused by a glut of materials, and c) the high risk of investments due to past price swings in certain commodities. These market related issues are mentioned by Washingtnn County, Minneapolis, AMA, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, and Hennepin County's SWMAC. Some of these and several other parties (AIM, Metalcasters of Minnesota, NSWMA, and Ramsey County) imply that development of increased market demand or even market contracts should occur before new collection programs are developed. (See further discussion under the issue of Market Development.) Other more specific comments imply the source separation objectives are too high or the time too short to achieve them. 'ton states that storage of recyclables and/or yard waste will be diffit. cause health problems. R. Hlavka, Hennepin County and its Advisory CL. 'ee comment on the unproven nature of some of the source separation programs including apartment recycling, commercial recycling, and separate yard waste collection. Others present testimony stating or implying that the source separation objec- tives are set at the right levels or too low including Dakota County, Dayton, MPCA, Minnesota Soft Drink Association (MSDA), Pioneer Paper Stock Co. Inc., Recycling Unlimited, St. Paul, Preserve Green Acres, C. Sommers, and Earth Protector. Dakota County states that in the case of commercial source separa- tion, the objectives may be too low because of the amount of readily recover- able and marketable corrugated and high-grade office paper. MPCA presents data supporting an increase in the source separation objectives. Part of the MPCA's justification, supported by Champion International and Recycling UnlimiteA. is that the cost savings will be greater If source separation is maximized VWMA states that studies show that recycling is compatible with energy recovery it the 20 percent waste reduction and source separation levels. Several parties express concern over the map showing proposed recycling ser• vices (Figure 4-1) for the region. The Izaak Walton League, Eden Prairie and Plymouth state that the population density threshold used to determine levels of service is arbitrary and that the boundaries for curbside collection service should be determined by the actual areas of development within municipalities. Carver County staff comment on the same map in relation to the use of the Council's development framework designations of "rural centers" as the basis for determining where drop-off centers should be located. Other comments about source separation cover a wide variety of recommenda- tions. R. Olyphant states that jobs for the handicapped can be a complimentary objective for source separation. Carver County suggests that the effects of change on citizens should be minimized. NSWMA and Minnetonka support the state- ments in the guide recommending that the Council and the counties build on the existing recycling system as much as possible before looking to create new pro- grams and facilities. NSWMA also states that recyclables collectors should be allowed to decide where to market their materials. The North American Water Office states some of the elements of the guide relating to source separation need to be more fully developed into working plans rather than mere positior, statements. AMA and Edina perceive the guide as forcing cities into operations that were previously the domain of private companies (see "Roles and Responsi- bilities for Implementation" for further discussion). Metalcasters of Minnesota also state that the plan is aimed primarily at the residential waste generators and more careful consideration should be given to the source separation constraints of businesses. Responses The central issue concerns the degree of compatibility between source separa- tion and centralized mixed waste processing facilities. The hearing testimony suggests two basic options concerning land disposal abatement categories: retain the outline of the waste reduction/recovery development schedule as provided in the draft guide (that is, using the categories of waste reduction, source separation, and centralized processing) or change the outline to the following categories: waste reduction, materials recovery and energy recovery. The second option would address the counties' recommendations that they be given more flexibility to determine how the identified materials would be recovered thus allowing the counties to decide whether to maximize source separation or mixed waste processing. The secondary issue concerns the levels of abatement projected for waste reduc- tion and source separation. Obviously, there are three choices: lower the objectives, keep them the same as included in the draft guide, or increase the objectives. ' The policy and system design issue of compatibility between low -technology and high-technology strategies is very significant. The Council should address the issue fully within the guide and not avoid it by passing it on to the coun- ties. The debate will and should continue in any case, but clear direction from the Council at this time is necessary for implementation to begin on schedule. Decisions such as the appropriate mix of strategies for the solid waste manage- ment system should be based on clear objectives and criteria. Implied within the guide are the following primary objectives: 1) greatly improve environ- mental and health protection, 2) maximize abatement, and )) optimize cost-effec- tiveness of the system as a whole. Other secondary objectives that should be discussed within the final guide are: 4) maintain competitive market forces as much as possible while still accomplishing the primary objectives, 5) internal- ize the costs that have been heretofore borne only indirectly by the waste gen- erators (for example, landfill clean-up and other contingency actions), 6) increase employment opportunities, 7) build upon existing waste and resource collection and recovery svztems, and 8) develop programs that can eventually lead to very long-term M: to reduction. Retaining the proposed development schedule will best accomplish these objec- tives. The Council"s reasoning in terms of the primary objectives is discussed below. The ability of source separation to better address the secondary objectives is largely self-evident. Source separatiur. anjoys the advantage of being able to produce high quality materials for sale as feedstock in a variety manufacturinq pricesses. Separa- tion from mixed waste, especially mechanical, generally produces materials of lower quality with fewer grade varieties. For example, source separation can produce two grades of steel cans: "tin" food cans and "bi-metal" steel/aluminum soft drink cans which may receive greater prices. Mechanical separation alone, using magnetic separators, produces only one grade of ferrous containing mixed cans. RDF and RDF/co-composting facilities are likely to recover more materials th, mass -burn plants. Mass -burn energy recovery facilities are designed with o minimal front-end processing and separation. Ferrous metals are typically only types of materials recovered and often after combustion which reduces t..- quality of the scrap product. The issue of market capacity for recyclables is a legitimate concern that must be addressed simultaneously with the development of collection/processing pro- grams that will generate new supply. The Council fully recognizes the need for more information about the capacity of current markets to attempt to answer this question. Each recyclable material must be examined as a specific commodity to adequately discuss recovery potentials and compatibility with combustion alternatives. Pay^r can be recycled as a raw material in manufacturing or recovered through mt..ed waste combustion or composting. Franklin Associates (Waste Pa er: The Future of A Resource 1980-2000 for the Solid waste Council of the aper n us- ry; December s—f—afe-75T there is some potential for removal of recycl- able paper from the waste stream to have a minor impact on the economics of an energy -recovery facility, since paper represents a large portion of the com- bustible waste stream and is above average in heat cc,:fent. The potential is more significant when the facility has been,intentionally or inadvertently oversized relative to the size of the waste stream. Recycling, however, can be accomnedated by bringing extra waste to the energy plant. Preliminary data from Hennepin County (Pope -Reid Associates, waste composition analysis) indi- cate that newspaper accounts for about seven percent of the waste stream as disposed in landfills, corrugated cardboard about 11 percent, office/computer paper about four percent and magazines/other paper about 11 percent. The Hennepin County data indicate that each grade has a current recovery rate in the county of 40 percent, 44 percent, 74 percent and 23 percent, respectively, when compared to the total amounts generated. Therefore, while additional recovery is certainly possible, a great deal of source separation of paper is already in place. Glass may complicate combustion of mixed solid waste and can be recovered through either source separation or front end mechanical separation. NSP states that they are considering adding glass processing equipment to the Ramsey/Washington ROF facility to recover this material for sale to fiberglass insulation manufacturers. This mechanical sorting and cleaning equipment would produce color -mixed glass. No such fiberglass manufacturing plant exists in Minnesota at this time. Preliminary data from Hennepin County (Pope -Reid Associates, waste composition analysis) indicate t container glass accounts for about four percent of the mixed waste stream as Disposed in the region's landfills and that about 19 percent of the total glass containers generated are currently recovered through source separation. Source separation of glass produces color -sorted glass with a minimal amount of contaminants such as metal and plastic. Currently, the only market in the region for recyclable glass is Anchor-Hoching (formerly Midland Glass) in Shakopee. Source separation of glass is an existing, proven system. There is a great deal of opportunity for expansion of recovery of this material. The markets are much less certain for color -mixed glass produced from mechanical separation. Aluminum is the most valuable of the more common materials in solid waste. NSP states that they are also considering adding an aluminum recovery component to the Ramsey/Washington ROF facility. Source separation of aluminum, especially used beverage cans, has experienced a dramatic growth in the past five years. The industry claims a 50 to 60 percent recovery rate of aluminum cans in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Preliminary data from Hennepin County (Pope - Reid Associates) confirms this showing that total aluminum scrap (both cans and other forms) is less than one percent of the waste stream as disposed in land- fills and that 60 percent of the cans are recovered. The main reason for this is the success of the buy-back or redemption centers that pay cash to the public and recycling programs for aluminum cans. The markets for source separated aluminum are generally very strong and probably would be the same markets for mechanically separated aluminum. Aluminum recovery is possible from the mixed waste stream at centralized processing facilities but it is uncertain that enough materials will be present to warrant installation of mechanical sorting equipment. Ferrous is the most commonly recovered material from energy recovery facili- ties. It can be easily sorted mechanically using magnetic separators and is generally sold as'a one type of lower -grade scrap. Ferrous recovery through source separation is one of the oldest recycling industries, recovering a large variety of grades of scrap metal. There is a very competitive scrap industry in the Twin Cities area with the vast majority of supply caning from large industrial and construction generators. Hennepin County's preliminary data indicate that total ferrous scrap (mostly from residential and commercial sources that may dispose of small quantities of ferrous containers as mixed waste) accounts for five percent of the waste stream landfilled. Hennepin roughly estimates a current recovery rate of 39 percent for these specific types of ferrous materials. The ferrous markets for either collection/ processing methods, source separation or mixed waste processing, are generally the same industries. Because of the declining role of the nation's steel indus- try in the world market, there is little optimism about increasing domestic demand. Ferrous materials may need to be deleted from the list of materials identified for recovery by source separation (Table 1-5, page 42) at some time in the future. Plastics are currently not identified for recovery in the draft guide because of lack of viable markets for the majority of plastic types. The polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles are being bought, but this is a very specific type of plastic not representative of all plastic. Some plastics as a part of the mixed waste received by energy recovery facilities has raised concern about effects on specific pollutant emissions. There is no conclusive evidence either way on this issue, but all current evidence indicates that under proper design and operating conditions, the concentrations of air emissions are within acceptable health risk limits. If polyvinyl chloride or other plastics are determineo to be the critical material causing these limits to be exceeded, they could be added to the list of materials coded for identification and recovery by source separation and separate disposal. Yard waste can either be recovered by composting or combustion. Until mixed waste composting facilities or RDF/co-composting facilities are operational, source separation of yard waste will be the only method of securing supplies for composting. There are numerous source separation programs in the region that compost yard waste that have been developed over the past decades. Hennepin County's preliminary data indicate that about nine percent of the waste disposed at landfills is yard waste and that the county currently recovers about 16 percent of the total generated. The energy value of yard waste has a very wide range depending on the exact moisture content and the specific type of material. The primary market for yard waste compost is the residential sector. Additional users include commercial businesses and govern- ment. The future for source separation of yard waste in not entirely certain and the Council and counties should remain somewhat flexible to adjust to the changing circumstances of compost processing facilities, compost markets and energy recovery facility supply needs. The nature of source separation, in part, assures that flexibility. Special wastes and other materials must also be considered in terms of source separation objectives. These include tires, tree wastes, household hazardous wastes, and demolition debris (see additional discussion under Household Hazardous Waste and Format of Guide). More information will soon be available about tires as a result of studies authorized by 1984 legislation. Tree waste is generally handled as a separate waste stream and therefore does not )ose any special compatibility problem etween source separation and energy recovery. Wood waste and tires may be aL, a to be processed for burning at energy recovery facilities If intermediate shredding or chipping equipment is used. If so, these special wastes could be used to supplement the supply of mixed waste to energy recovery facilities. A detailed technical analysis entitled The Integration of Energv and Material Recover in Essex Count Solid Waste Mana ement Plan was completed for Essex ounty, ew ersey un ed by a grant from the New Jersey Office of Recycling. The study involved a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of exten- sive source separatinn on the design, operation and maintenance of a mass burning energy recovery facility. The results showed that benefits would be expected including: o Reduction in required facility capacity with attendant savings in facility construction and operation costs were realized. o Ash tonnage and disposal costs were reduced. o Facility emissions were reduced. 10 o Fuel value of the waste (BTU per pound) was increased. o Facility disposal fee (dollar per ton) was reduced. Looking at the potential for a recyclables processing facility to handle source separated materials, the study concluded that capital costs for, such a facility are approximately an order of magnitude less on a tonnage basis than mass burn- ing facilities. In addition, the labor intensiveness of recycling implies economic and job development benefits related to a major expansion of recycling. Several of the parties suggest increasing the source separation objectives and cite higher recovery rates experienced in other parts of the country or the need to de-emphasize combustion. The Council developed the objectives for the lower technology strategies based on the criteria stated above as well on the existing recycling system within the region. Higher participation and recovery is expected in certain communities within the region, but the averages must be based on the demographic characteristics of region as a whole. The guide does imply the need for developing relatively new systems such as separate collec- tion from apartments, commercial waste generators and curbside collection of yard waste. Better estimates of the effectiveness of these types of programs will be available as they are implemented. Fine tuning of the waste reduction and source separation objectives is anticipated and can take place through future amendments to the guide and through the counties' master plans. In summary, the Council believes that source separation can be optimized, given the constraints of existing and future market capacities, while simultaneously developing successful energy recovery and mixed waste composting systems. Con- tinued analysis will be necessary to determine the exact list of materials that should be identified fqr recovery by source separation in the Future as these centralized processing facilities come or line. Modifications are anticipated and will be made as necessary, but implementation of source separation programs should begin as soon as possible recognizing this stategy's inherent flexibil- ity to change the list of materials collected. Recommendations The Council should retain the original categories and objectives within the waste reduction/recovery development sc dule that require the counties to ;mplement, or at least oversee, waste reduction and source sepa a*.ion programs. No revision to the guide is recommended. Mandatory Source Separation Summary of Comments Most of the parties commenting on this issue, especially several of the coun- ties (Carver, Dakota, Hennepin and Scott), recommend that the absolute require- ment that counties and cities adopt mandatory source separation ordinances be at least modified to allow local governments to implement use approach at their discretion. That is, they recommend changing the mandatory requirement to allow counties the option if voluntary efforts fail to achieve adequate participation. it Washington County suggests that mandatory participation ordinances will only be more effective than voluntary incentives only if the ordinances are enforced. Washington County does not recommend region -wide mandatory participation, but suggests that where implemented it should be strongly enforced contrary to the implication in the draft guide. Several cities are more emphatic about their opposition to the concept of man- datory source separation under any conditions including Bloomington, Burns- ville, Eden Prairie, Municipal Caucus, Minnetonka, and Shakopee. Most of these municipalities suggest that alternative incentives would be more effective. The haulers, and most of the county and local governments testifying, recommend moving away from the mandatory requirement due to the increased cost of enforce- ment. Several of these same parties recommend using fee incentives instead of the mandatory approach. MPCA and St. Paul recommended using fee incentives, but not necessarily to replace mandatory source separation. Also, many parties recommend using improved publicity as an alternative. The haulers suggest that the high cost to the generator and/or the mandatory source separation require- ment will result in illegal dumping causing new health and nuisance problems. The Citizens League, Edina, the League of Women Voters (Council of Metropolitan Area Leagues - CMAL) and the North American Water Office are in favor of using positive incentives but do not explicitly oppose mandatory source separation ordinances. Environmental groups (North American Water Office, Sierra Club), the League of Women Voters (both the stato organization and CMAL), Preserve Green Acres, Scandia Recycling, Minnesota Waste Management Board and M. Thurston support the mandatory requirement in the guide as drafted. Dayton and Plymouth recommend that all municipalities be required to develop source separation programs. Dayton suggests that these services should be implemented by the counties if the local units fail to comply, stating that the watershed district management system could be used as a model. That is, Dayton and Plymouth recommend mandatory provision of service rather than mandatory generator participation. The AMi states the implied county override authority over cities and townships for source separation ordinances should be removed. The Metalcasters of Minnesota suggest tnat exemptions to any mandatory source separation requirement be provided by the Council to allow for special cir- cumstances. Responses The issue is --to what extent should mandatory source separation be relied upon in the guide. The four alternatives are. a) keep the mandatory source separa- tion requirement as contained in the draft 'guide; b) emphasize alternative, voluntary incentives first including improved public education/promotion and fee incentives before resorting to mandatory source separation; c) require the provision of service by municipalities; and d) delete any requirement for mandatory participation or mandatory provision of service. The metropolitan counties state that new legislation may be needed to clarify their authority to adopt mandatory source separation ordinances. The Council has already fully recognized in the draft guide the nerd for conven- ient service and alternative incentives to preceed mandatory source separation requirements. The source separation objectives established within Table 4-I will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet without the most convenient level of service, that is, curbside collection. The draft guide calls for over 90 12 percent of the region's households to be served by 1988. Given that curbside collection of recyclables is now available to 45 percent of the region's house- holds, this appears to be a reasonable goal. Mandating the provision of ser- vice seems unnecessary at this time given the recent and rapid growth in curbside programs. Much more work needs to be done, however, on increasing participation. The draft guide discusses the three types of incentives available to increase participation: mandatory ordinances, publicity and financial incentives. There is precedent and merit to the argument of using voluntary approaches first. Experiences elsewhere indicate that if implemented thoroughly and continuosly, public education campaigns can achieve the necessary levels of participation. The influence of fee incentives is less certain but certainly can't hurt. These types of rebates, penalties and changes to mixed waste collection charges should be researched further, possibly within the organizea collection study conducted by the Council or by others, funded through county surcharge collec- tions or the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Fund grant and loan program. It is possible to allow flexibility in the method of attaining the Council's objectives for source separation if clear performance standards, such as mini- mum recovery rates and levels of participation, are established. However, man- datory source separation should be retained as a requirement if alternative incentives fail to achieve adequate participation necessary to reach source separation objectives established in Part 4 of the guide (Table 4-1). Efforts to develop voluntary approaches should be maximized immediately, beginning this year. Concerning AMA's comment about county override for source separation, the draft guide does imply the counties are ultimately responsible for attainment of the abatement objectives. This will require close communication and coordination with their cities and townships. Cooperation of all local units of government is necessary. If, however, cities or townships fail to take on these new responsibilities, the counties should be expected to provide the development of services and incentives for the waste generators. The issue of cost of enforcement was in part caused by the lack of understand- ing of the methods of enforcement. Further discussion in the guide of how man- datory programs actually work would help in this regard. Because the costs of enforcement are so dependent on the type of mixed waste and recyclables collec- tion systems, it is nea,•ly impossible and possibly meaningless to predict in the regional guide. Again, this is an area where further research into exist- ing or pilot programs can help provide the answers to the questions raised within the public hearing process. The Metalcasters of Minnesota present a reasonable suggestion --to allow exemp- tions to any mandatory separation requirement. The Council recognizes that special circumstances may warrant exceptions to the basic policies, but does not believe the guide should attempt to anticipate every condition. The metro- politan counties should more fully examine this issue of exemptions to any source separation program. Continued waste generation and composition analysis (see additional discussion under Data) will assist the Council and the counties in determining the degree to whicF-Uese exemptions are necessary. 13 Recommendations The Council should retain the basic position in the draft guide in favor of man- datory source separation, but should modify this somewhat to first develop vol- untary approaches if these can meet the same objectives. The final guide should contain a revised source separation policy such that mandatory partici- pation ordinances will be required to be adopted by counties, cities and town- ships if they fail to achieve the objectives by voluntary incentives. The Council should support the counties" request for legislation clarifying their authority to pass mandatory source separation ordinances. Policy three, page 32, should be changed to read: 3.-Metr9pe44ton-Area-generaters-of-mwe4e4pa4-se44dwaese-are-rege4red Further discussion about the need for and Council's commitment to research concerning: a) the methods and effects of fee incentives, and b) the costs of enforcing mandatory source separation ordinances, is warranted in the guide within Part 4. The final guide should list and discuss the various options for enforcing man- datory source separation ordinances and should also indicate that enforcement may be necessary to achieve maximum participation in the discussion of implemen- tation in Part 5. Flexibility Summary of Comments About half of the respondents question the feasibility of achieving the overall Council objective that by 1990 all municipal solid waste be processed before land disposal. However, many of the same speakers and others indicate it is absolutely necessary to have an aggressive timetable to ensure that significant progress is made toward the objective. MPCA indicates the objectives for waste reduction and source separation could be slightly higher, but should not be lowered. The counties want the Council to clarify the degree of latitude they have to select a mix of programs and technologies, expressing a need to tailor these abatement options to their jurisdictions. Many respondents ask for clarification about the Council's preference (nei, archy) of waste management alternatives. Some of the counties indicate the Council should deemphasize the low -technology methods (waste reduction and source separation) because materials recovery can be achieved by processing facilities. Earth Protector, League of Women Voters, Recycling Unlimited, Champion international and others suggest the Council place stronger emphasis 14 upon waste reduction, source separation and developing technologies over com- posting, incineration and landfilling to ensure that the combination of was Le reduction, source separation and processing programs would achieve the most effective resource conservation and economic balance and to lessen environ- mental risk. Hennepin County and NSWMA question the rationale for the preference of ROF facilities over mass burn, whereas Earth Protector and Bloomington question whether the proposed technologies are proven. Responses There are sufficient lead times to develop processing facilities. Preparation of environmental assessments or envi-onmental impact statements and facility construction takes approximately two to four years time, leaving one to two years for counties to locate sites and markets. Therefore, counties must develop, select and negotiate contracts with vendors for processing facilities within the next two years to meet the 1990 deadline. Although this is a short time frame, many of these efforts are well along and there is no compelling reason to extend the deadline beyond 1990. The counties have considerable flexibility in fashioning the types of abatement programs to meet the objectives in Table 4-1. The plan does not dictate the terms or parameters of the programs and in no way hinders the tailoring of those programs to the needs of the local government unit. It only requires the counties to meet the waste reduction, source separation and processing objec- tives which are based on what the Council has determined to be both feasible and prudent. Experiences in other metropolitan areas indicate the program objectives are reasonable and achievable within the time frame provided. The program objectives are necessary to ensure the development of a comprehensive, integrated waste management system because over -reliance on any one program or approach would not be best for the region over the long term. Not only are source separation programs and processing facilities compatible with each other, but there are cost and other advantages to ensuring that waste reduction and source separation program objectives are met. Advantages include better quality recycled products, a wider range of materials recovered and reduction in need to oversize processing facilities to handle seasonal peaks in waste generated (yard waste). Comments that the region could achieve higher levels of waste reduction and source separation are based upon limited experiences documented for isolated, typically suburban communities. It is uncertain whether such levels could be achieved for an entire metropolitan area, espe- cially since the Council is unsure of the levels of participation by multi- family housing units and businesses in these programs. (See Source Separation and Waste Reduction Objectives for discussion of participation rates.) The hierarchy of waste management alternatives is found in Part 2 and has been updated to incorporate an element on residuals abatement. The hierarchy is also implicit in the waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule in Table 4-1. The development schedule goes beyond merely stating the hierarchy by identifying levels of abatement expected to be achieved by each program. The table was developed by first determining what percentage of the waste stream could be reduced, then source separated; and finally, processed by composting or incineration. 15 Advantages of waste combustion include efficient mass and volume reductions. Moreover, as the MPCA has recently noted, a well designed and operated combus- tion facility can be quite effective in breaking down toxic and hazardous chemicals. The environmental impacts of incineration are, in comparison to landfills, more controllable. Once groundwater contamination begins from a landfill, it is virtually impossible to completely stop, whereas incinerators can be turned on and off and the potential problems that crop up have more straightforward engineering solutions. Nevertheless, there are some concerns with emissions of non -criteria pollutants and, in particular, whether there is a need for additional controls for acid gases. Currently, most incinerators must meet stringent particulate limits, but not stringent acid gas limits; but there appears to be a growing trend nationwide toward requiring acid qas con- trol. In Minnesota the MPCA generally has not required scrubbers for acid gas control on existing or new facilities; however, the agency has incorporated special permit language that could require scrubbers on the facility after it Is in operation. The preference for RDF over mass -burn systems is that RDF facilities may permit the region to obtain an overall higher abatement level because of the capacity to integrate this waste processing technology with materials recovery and composting programs. Front-end processing allows for separation of potentially hazardous materials and some recylables and potentially for reduction in emissions of air pollutants because the resulting product has a lower moisture content, less non-combustible materials, is more homogenous and burns more efficiently. The use of existing boilers to accommodate ROF increases the region's flexibility for waste management for the long term. It maximizes use of existing capital investments; reduces expenditures for construction of new, possibly unnecessary boilers and commits the region to incinerate only that fraction of the waste that is not readily recovered or used through other processes. Both mass -burn and RDF incineration technologies are considered proven technol- ogies. They are in operation and have been in operation for many years, both in the U.S. and Europe; although the mass -burn technology has a longer operat- ing history. Composting, too, is a proven technology having been a more common practice in Europe and in developing countries. The purpose of the co -compost demonstration facilities is not so much to demonstrate the technology, but to produce a compost product for marketing purposes in this region. The abatement level set for co -composting is included within the objective for centralized processing in Table 4-1. Tables 4-8 and 4-9 should be used as guides in appor- tioning the fraction of mixed waste to be managed by combustion and co -compost- ing facilities. Recommendations The overall abatement objectives for waste reduction, source separation and cen- tralized processing are contained in Table 4-1. The text of Part 4 should be expanded to reflect the requirement that these objectives must be met and to clarify that Tables 4-8 and 4-9 should be used as guides for meeting the broader centralized processing objective. In addition, the fractions of mixed waste to be managed by combustion and co-compostino should be adjusted to indicate the amount of waste from RDF facilities that can be composted. 16 Exemptions to Unprocessed Waste Polic Summary of Comments Many of the metropolitan counties, the Metropolitan inter -County Association and the NSWMA cite the need for exemptions or waivers from Policy 2 which prohibits the land disposal of processible mixed municipal solid waste after 1990. The comments note the likelihcod of downtime at processing facilities and the prospect that disastrous weather or other emergencies could incapaci- tate facilities. The excess cost of providing complete redundancy at process- ing facilities, if exemptions are not provided for, is a concern of several counties. Dakota County comments that some materials are technically processible but it is uneconomic to do so and that some rural communities may not be within economical hauling distances to processing facilities. In expressing support for the policy, the City of Dayton recommends that fur- ther investigation be undertaken to seek uses for ash and other residual materials with the objective of further abating the need for land disposal. Responses Disastrous events could create the need for short-term landfilling of mixed waste In order to provide for proper sanitation. Provisions to deal with such justifiable exemptions can be built in as state legislation, certificate of need standards and county master plans are developed to implement the policy. In other circumstances, exemptions to Policy 2 are less supportable. Large- scale processing facilities are expected to incorporate sufficient redundancy to satisfy their market demand and contractual requirements without penalty. In some circumstances it is appropriate for facility design to incorporate limited capacity for waste storage. Cooperative arrangements between counties or between facility operators may also enable transfer of waste for processing. Representatives of the waste industry have noted that the existing system copes with periods of extreme precipitation or high winds through delay in collec- tion, use of collection vehicles for temporary storage and occasionally through transfer of waste to alternative landfills. Policy 2 is ni.ected at mixed municipal solid waste, generated and collected in the aggregate. Special wastes, such as demolition debris and other materials collected and disposed of as separate waste streams, would generally be exempted. On the other hand, opportunities�to process or recover materials should not be foregone solely on the basis of cost. The Waste Management Act clearly directs that a decision as to whether a waste management technique is feasible and prudent should not be based on economics alone (see Policy 1). While it is widely recognized that the existing system of landfilling does not internalize all attendant costs, alternatives such as recycling and resource recovery have often been expected to be profitable or at least to break even. The guide recognizes the need for economic controls, but also supports actions which may increase public costs if significant abatement results. For example, recycling of a particular material may be costly in and of itself, but may be warranted in a balanced recycling program for a broader variety of materials. 17 Just as transfer facilities are now used to economize in shipping urban refuse to outlying rural areas, the reverse may be appropriate in the future to col- lect rural refuse for delivery to processing facilities. It is noteworthy that rural communities desirous. of protecting agricultural areas from potential development as landfills have been among the strongest supporters of taking all possible steps toward waste abatement. The solid waste decision model illustrated in Part 2 recognizes the need to con- sider opportunities for residuals abatement. The guide's support for develop- ment of composting facilities in one example of potential residuals abatement techniques. Work being undertaken to explore alternative uses for sludge ash may be applicable to other processing residues. This is an area requiring con- siderable investigation which may well yield the basis for subsequent amend- ments to the guide. Recommendations The text in Part 3 should be expanded to recognize the potential need to land- fill mixed municipal solid waste as a result of disastrous events. It is also recommended that the definition of processible waste be amended to the effect that waste materials that cannot be source separated or reclaimed because of emergency situations will not be considered processible waste. Waste Facility Siting Criteria and Environmental Protection Summary of Comments The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, Bloomington, Greenfield and Hennepin County indicate a need to develop criteria for siting of transfer stations and resource recovery facilities. The NSWMA and Metalcasters of Minnesota note siting of resource recovery facili- ties will be difficult. NSWMA further states that participation of local citizen groups in the selection process is counter -productive. St. Paul points out the difficulty in locating sites for yard waste composting. The NSWMA objects to overstating problems with landfills to justify minimizing dependence upon them. It questions the charges that existing sites will have long-term adverse environmental consequences and the statement that even well. designed landfills would allow some leachate to escape. Hlavka says that liners merely retard migration of leachate and that no system of liners and leachate collection system isrfailsafe. The Sierra Club and Izaak Walton League raise concerns about the development schedules' allocation of landfill capacity to Anoka and Washington Counties because of the questionable environmental suitability for disposal facilities in these areas. Responses The Appendix contains criteria that will be used by the Council for review of permits for all waste facilities (landfills, transfer stations, processing facilities, etc.). The permit review criteria cover a wide range of concerns, but the Council's review is not intended to replace lr-al responsibilities for 1?, selection, evaluation and approval of sites for waste facilities. Although the Waste Management Act provides that local disapprovals or restrictions on opera- tion of Metropolitan Inventory sites and county established waste processing facilities can be overridden by a county with the Council's approval, the law does not preclude local reviews and and establishment of reasonable local conditions on disposal facilities. In all other cases, local approvals must be secured in order to site and develop waste facilities. Siting criteria are generally much more specific than the review criteria in the guide. Moreover, siting criteria will vary depending upon the type of facility under considera- tion and the needs of the county and local community. The guide recognizes such siting difficulties and this is a major reason for the immediate priority given to public education and participation. NSWMA's charge that public participation is counter -productive is unfounded. The suggestion by NSWMA that grass roots acting groups only form in opposition to sites overlooks the potential of these groups to support and help develop regional and state policies for land disposal abatement. This guide is a good example of how an active public involvement program has developed a strong regional concensus for dramatic change in the regional solid waste system. The Council has not overstated the problems with landfills because 11 landfill sites have caused or have been implicated as sources of off -site groundwater contamination. Five of these facilities have affected or may threaten water supply wells including municipal wells. In addition, eight sites are either listed or pending listing as state or federal superfund sites. The Council's rejection of reliance on a new genereration of landfills alone for mixed waste disposal is based on concern for the immediate and long term land use and social impacts of such a course (see discussion in Part 2 of the guide) and on its recognition that liners and leachate collection systems are not failsafe. Regardless of quality control some leachate will eventually pass through a clay liner over time. Synthetic liners can be si,sceptible to perfora- tion and have not been in use long enough tc determine their, effective "warranty." To be considered eligible for inclusion in the Metropolitan Inventory all poten- tial landfill sites had to be found intrinsically suitable by the MPCA. This meant the sites could reasonably be expected to qualify for permits from the MPCA based on information available at the time of review. The Council's eval- uation of the intrinsically suitable sites for inclusion within the inventory was based on many factors, environmental suitability being one. The Council did not rank the sites according to their environmental suitability; they were either found acceptable or unacceptable for inclusion in the inventory. The landfill development schedule allocates new capacity on the basis of where capacity would be needed in the future, patterns of waste generation and future Patterns of waste reduction and resource recovery. All the inventory sites were considered to be of equal eligibility when the Council allocated future disposal capacity. the EISs on these sites will be used to evaluate and ulti- mately rank their acc.otability for development by the site selection authority. For the Council now to rank sites within a county would go beyond the limitations of exis,ing information and beyond its siting authority under the WMA by precluding the final site selection process by the counties. Recommendation No revision is to the guide is .ecomnended 19 Interpretation of the Landfill Development Program/Schedule Summary of Comments Comments from a variety of sources, counties, indivio..-epresentatives of the waste industry, questioi whether sufficient landti-apacity has been allocated. The bases for comment include difficulty in attaining abatement tar- gets according to the schedule, errors in data on existing capacity and genera- tion rates, need to landfill waste during facility downtimes or for unmarket- able materials. Comments from Greenfield and the Northwest Hennepin County League of Municipali- ties support a stringent capacity limitation as a means to expedite development of alternatives. Concern that available processes will not enable sufficient time for develop- ment of capacity allocated to Anoka County is the focus of comments by Waste Management Inc. The company recommends that the plan include provisions to allow short-term expansions to fill the "capacity gap'. Private proposals for landfill development should not be approved as substitutes for sites identified in the Metropolitan Inventory. Noting the economic need to guarantee operation for definite periods of time, the company is concerned about permit and certifi- cate of need standards and about Council authority to adjust the capacity allocations annually. Scott County takes the position that certificate of need requirements should only apply to publicly owned landfills. Washington and Anoka counties ask how capacity allocations will be adjusted if the EIS process finds sites in the Metropolitan Inventory to be unsuitat't. Responses The Waste Management Act restricts the Council from identifying need for land- fill capacity over that remaining after maximum feasible and prudent abatement efforts. The law mandates that the impetus be maintai, 1 to reach the regional abatement objectives and prevents an easy fallback to andfills. Subsequent amendments to the guide can lower the amount of capacity allocated and can shift the allocations to a limited degree based on progress innachieving the abatement objectives, but the total allocation cannot be increased. The landfill development schedule identifies the amount and general area where new capacity will be needed. The allocations are intended for disposal of residuals from waste processing facilities and were influenced by the expected locations of processing facilities and by availability of existing capacity. The assumptions used to estimate the amount of residual materials requiring disposal are conservative (See Part 4`. It may be possible to lower the allo- cations in the future if programs for residuals abatement are successful (see discussion under Exemptions to Unprocessed Waste Policy). The Council received final results of an aerial survey of existing landfills in Feb. 1985. which indicate that facilities in the to„thern portion of the region have less remaining capacity than is indicx?-!,. draft guide. The study shows that 1,481 acre-feet additional capacity should be added to the 1�ndfill development schedule allocations for Hennepin and Washington Counties, 'here 20 will be a need for an additional 987 acre-feet in Hennepin County and for 494 acre It in Washington County. In addition, the timing of development in Wash. _un County is accelerated from 1995 to 1993. (There is further discus- sion of the survey results under Data.) In some cases it may be possible to satisfy the capacity needs without develop- ment of sites from the Metropolitan Inventory. However it is important to ensure that any proposals for new sites, expansions or other substitutions will not introduce capacity in areas where it is not needed. Council development of standards for certificate of need will provide further clarification of how such proposals will be reviewed. The Council can expedite but cannot circumvent processes for certificate of need, environmental review and permitting in order to shorten site development time in the northern part of the region. There are alternatives available if a short-term "capacity gap" occurs although they may be burdensome. Scott County's suggestion that certificate of need apply only to public facili- ties would require legislative change. Such a course would severely undermine the utility of the certificate of need process to limit regional capacity. Environmental impact statements must be prepared as an aide to county site selection from the Metropolitan Inventory. Both the Council and the MPCA must use the EISs as the basis for identifying wi.at conditions would have to be met for sites to be permitted. This information 1s provided to assist the coun- ties' site selection authorities. The Waste Management Act does not provide a mechanism for a new siting process or for repla_ement in the event that all sites within a county prove to be unpermittablc and there have been no private proposals in reasonable proximity which could substi,ute for the allocation. Recommendations Table 4-13 should be revised, changing the capacity allocation for Hennepin County fray. 2,245 acre-feet to 3,232 acre feet, changing the allocation for Washington County from 2,000 acre feet to 2,494 acre-feet and identifying 1993 as the proposed opening date in Washington County. (See Page 42.) ISSUES CONCERNING SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS Performance Standards Summary of Comments Dakota and Scott Counties want a clearer idea of how the Council will determine whether adequate progress towards abatement has been made by the counties and when contingencies would be implemented due to a lack of progre;,. The counties believe performance sta dards are one mechanism that would provide needed guidance. Hvalka asked if "adequate" progress was the sa... Atantial" progress, and expressed concern that there were no provisions �. ays caused by factors Out of the counties' and cities' control. The Northwest Hennepin League of Municipalities calls for progress standards and sanctions for a lack of progress. The League specifically asked for pro- visions that would make th" Council liable if progress did not occur. 21 The Metropolitan Inter -County Association feels the county annual report requirements contained in Part 5 of the guide are excessive, and nntes that the time frame for submitting the plans has been shortened by one month even though the amount of information requested has increased. Responses The numerical abatement objectives set forth in the CoL,cil's waste reduction and resource recovery development schedule reflect the feasible and prudent levels of abatement required under the WMA, and as such are the levels the counties, cities and townships are expected to achieve. In essence, the objectives are the ultimate standards against which county and local progress will be evaluated. . Council recognizes that despite the best efforts, there may be occasions when the abatement objectives cannot be met. Pa-t 5 includes factors that will be used to determine whether a county has made adequate (or substantial) effort and progress toward meeting the objectives. If adequate progress has not been made, sanctions, in the form of legislative changes, may be recommended by the Council and considered by the state legislature. The Council must report annually to the Legislative Commission on Waste Manage- ment on abatement progress and recommend reassignment of authority if needed, to facilitate progress. In this sense the legislature ultimately decides whether a lack Of progress should result in an "enforcement" action, that is, a change in the WMA and reassignment of responsibility. White it is not the Council's intent to fault reasonable efforts which have fallen somewhat short of the objectives, the Council will support and initiate legislative change when necessary. Policy 3 is a good example --the Council is supportive of voluntary source separation programs but believes a mandatory approach should be required if voluntary efforts prove inadequate by 1988. The Council's 1985 legislative proposal for increased funding for abatement pro- grams and projects, its support of funding for househild hazardous waste studies, and its posi*:ion on local financing are also indicative of legislative action which can significantly contribute to progress on abatement. Few of the annual report requirements are new; the counties are currently col- lecting much of the requested data because of Council, MPCA, and legislative requirements already in place. In fact, the new plan streamlines and clarifies many of the requirements that were in the 1981 plan. Most of the added report requirements involve documenting the counties' new programs, plar d facili- ties. They are needed if the Council is to have an adequate dat .e on which to make its conclusions regarding progress on abatement. There is merit to the counties requests for change in the submittal date for annual reports. State statute requires that revised county solid waste master plans be submitted for Council review within nine months after adoption of this guide (by mid -Dec. 1985). All information required for the annual reports must also be included in the revised master plans. On that basis, a separate annual report over the coming year would be unnecessary. In future years, submittal of annual reports by October would be of greater benefit to the Council in satisfying the requirement to report annually to the legislature on progress in abatement efforts. Recommendations That the text of Part 5 be revised to note that in making its determination the Council will consider whether the counties and local governments have adequate authority, financial resources and technical capabilities and whether these resources have been applied `o a substantial effort to meet the objectives. That the text of Part 5 be revised to recognize that amendea county master plans will constitute the counties annual reports for 1985 and thereafter annual reports must be submit -ad by Oct. 1, beainning in 1986. Economic incentives and M ning Cnmpetition Summary of Comments The Citizens' League says the plan is insensitive to economic issues and enables monopolies through the use of waste flow designation. The League rec- ommends repeal of designation authority and adoption of strict environmental standards for all waste facilities and surcharge increases to lessen the market advantaqe of existing landfills. R. Pecar also encourages dramatic increases in surcharges to reduce the need for designation. The NSWMA indicates that the prohibition on disposal of unprocessed waste makes designation unnecessary. The "forth American Water Office recommends that the plan discuss financial incentives such as tax breaks, fees and fee avoidance structures. Responses The League's concern for cost containment versus unrestrained pays through has merit. Criteria are contained within the guide appendix for the review of designation plans and ordinances, supply and processing contracts and for the economic effects of facility proposals and their impact on competitive operation. The Legislature has continuously reinforced the authority for waste designaticn in amendments to the Waste Management Act since 1980. Repeal would require radical legislative change. Contracts with municipalities under an organized collection system, full or partial subsidies of facility tipping fees and other economic incentives are cited in the guide zs means of mitigating the effect of designation. The NSWM,� correctly recognizes that action requiring all waste to be processed before landfilling also mitigates the degree of flow control needed. However, this is a future option available only after processing facilities have been built and does not address the need for flow control in the present setting where facilities would otherwise have to compete with landfills. Contracts with haulers cannot provide a reliable long-term assurance of waste supply. For most of the region, individual generators retain collection service at their discretion, and haulers, as the suppliers of a transportation service, have no ironclad assurance that their business will be retained fry month to month or year to year. While designation forecloses significant competition between points for disposal, it is unclear that this differs radically from the existing system. Although haulers have some choice of landfill to select from, more than EO percent of the available disposal capacity in the region is under the control of one firm. The League overlooks the fact that the process for selection of vendors for facility construction and operation is highly competitive and cost conscious. Moreover, designation may be supportive or have little effect on the nature of competition for hauling services. Significant economic incentives or drastic surcharge increases would require legislative change, and it is doubtful that these choices alone would spur region -wide development of processing facilities. Despite dramatic increases in energy costs, there has not been a massive shift to solar energy or the use of public transportation. Similarly, high surcharges may induce some increase in abatement activity, but could also encourage illegal dumping, exportation of waste from the region and a situation in which most generators would be forced to absorb higher costs without a significant voice in decisions to develop alternatives. Nonetheless, designation is a powerful tool, one which should be used judiciously. Critical review of designation proposals is required to ensure that all statutory criteria are met and that, as appropriate, the Council exercise its authority to set conditions on its approval of designation ordinances. Recommendations No revision to the guide is recommended. System Costs Summary of Cimments NSWMA, Bloominqton and Hennepin County indicate that the estimated system capital costs shown in Part 4 appear too low. NSWMA says that the estimated costs of new landfills are too high. Bloomington, NSWMA and MCM said that increases in waste disposal charges were not modest nor would generators be willing to pay that amount to reduce the need for landfills. NSWMA emphasizes the need to internalize all the costs of any waste management system. Minnetonka suggests that costs of the existing disposal system should be pre- sented for program comparison with the proposed system and the Council of Metropolitan Area Leagues questioned the impact of the capital investment on other regional investments. Responses No evidence was presented to indicate that the capital costs of the proposed waste management system were grossly or substantively inaccurate. In fact, based on the recent negotiations between NSP and Ramsey and Washington Coun- ties, total capital costs could be much less than indicated. These counties say that an additional $22 per year is needed from households to pay for their 24 processing facility. This is in line with the Council's estimate that house- hold costs would increase by about 33 percent or from $20 to $47 per year on the average, and within the range most households are willing t^ pay to reduce the need for landfills based upon a 1984 regional survey. The costs to bus- inesses for refuse collection is proportionally greater because the tipping fee is a larger fraction of the total bill. The increases in costs to businesses will reflect the effect of internalizing the costs of waste management and provides a strong incentive to reduce, recycle or recover energy or materials. This is consistent with NSWMA's statement about the need to internalize all the costs of the waste management system. One can estimate existing system costs for disposal of mixed municipal solid waste by multiplying the waste generated in the region (2 million tons) by the cost to dispose of it at landfills (S12 per ton) which equals approximately $24 million annually. The $12 tipping fee used above does not internalize all of the costs associated with the existing disposal system. External costs or subsidies of the existing landfill system include groundwater contamination at 11 of 13 landfills; reduced, replaced or relocated capacity of municipal wells; possible replacement of private water supplies with installation of public water supply systems; property devaluation; untreated leachate discharges to rivers and lakes; and clean up costs borne by the public sector. As an example, if one assumes the average cost of remedial actions and property devaluations at landfills amounts to E3 million as to the Lake Jane landfill situation, then external costs associated with the 11 landfills amounts to about S33 million. If one assumes that the S33 million should be paid for by tipping fees at landfills over the next five years, the surcharge per ton of refuse would amount to about $4.60 per ton or $15.20 per cubic yard (S33 mil- lion divided by 7.4 million tons of refuse). It should be noted that the above costs reflect the costs to "contain" an envi- ronmental problem and do not compensate for damages to or loss of natural resources. The purpose of the example is to show the magnitude of the external costs or subsidies the present disposal system enjoys. The indication that new landfills would cost $10 million instead of the $20 million as noted in Table 4-15 is questionable. It is difficult to make cost comparisons about a landfill that services Metro Toronto without knowing whether it has the same environmental controls a new landfill in Minnesota would require. Table 4-15 identifies the costs for a waste management system that essentially could process all of the region- waste. The cost figures for these facilities are estimates taken from recent county and Founcil reports. The facility cost, were used to Jeri l estimated increases in annual household refuse collection costs. The Council concurs with the NSWMA that the fraction of the annual household cost for disposal is low because of surcharge on disposal fees begun Jan 1, 1985. Most of the capital costs associated with the waste management system will borne by the counties and essentially be paid for through user fees. Cur- rently, the Council has authority to band for $15 million for environmenta, analyses and acquisition of land for landfills and is seeking legislation to expand the scope of uses for that money. Because regional bonding for the waste management system is not significant, the costs of the proposed system should not adversely affect other regional investments. However, the total regional debt that is incurred could affect other investments by counties. ?5 Recommendations The text of Part 4 should be changed to reflect the impact of the surcharge on household refuse collect',.on bills and the increase in costs for the new waste management system. Additional text should be added to this section discussing the direct and indirect costs of the existing disposal system. Organized Collection Summary of Comments The comments of the NSWMA, AMM, Eden Prairie, Fridley, Plymouth and Dakota County on organized collection focus on its meaning, efficiency, impacts on competition in the refuse collection industry and its potential as an alterna- tive to mandatory source separation. Several comments view Council policy in support of organized collection to be premature prior to completion of the Council's study of organized collection. The Izaak Walton League, Hennepin County and its advisory committee indicate a strong need to complete the study because of the barriers the existing collec- tion system poses to developing abatement alternatives. Responses As mandated by state legislation, the Council has begun a study to investigate the need for organized collection which will be completed in mid-1985. Organ- ized collection does not necessarily mean provision of the service by municipal or public crews, but rather the provision of service in one area by one col- lector (public or private) to assure contiguity. National studies, in general, indicate that contract collection is less expensive than municipal collection or private collection (private collection meaning arrangements between haulers and individual waste generators). The existing illection system inhibits recycling efforts because there are no economic incentives for the collector to provide such a service nor incentive to the generator to recycle. The open hauling system widespread in the Metropolitan Area may also have inhibited development of resource recovery facilities because-ollectors cannot guarantee delivery of waste to a facility if waste generators can change haulers at any time. Organized collection and contracts between c,)llectors and the municipal- ity could mean an increase in the scope of services provided by the collector to the generator such as incentives for recycling. It could also mean less reliance on designation as a means to develop resource recovery facilities. Based on the evidence presented in the national studies and knowledge of the existing system, the policy encouraging organized collection is not premature. The need to maintain competition in the refuse collection industry is an impor- tant issue to the entire region. The specific methods and procedures used to implement organized collection and maintain a diverse competitive industry will be addressed in the study. (See Economic Incentives and Maintaining Competi- tion for discussion of competition in provision of refuse collection services.) Recommendation No revisions to the guide are recommended. NO Management of Household and Exempt Hazardous Waste Summary of Comments Scott County recommends deletion of Policy 6. The Metropolitan inter -County Association notes concerns about county liability for household hazardous waste collection programs and questions whether other agencies may be more appropriate implementors. MPCA cites concerns over clarification of liabilities, costs, and questions what methods will be used for disposal. Dakota County notes that programs tailored for management of small volumes of hazardous waste will be dependent of the success of MPCA's proposed pilot collection program. The WMB, the Hennepin County Advisory Committee and Hlavka advise that further evaluation is necessary regarding collection and disposal services before mandating a program. R. Pecar, chair of the WHO Household Hazardous Waste Task Force, notes that the guide is technically sound with the exception of premature policy for household hazardous waste management. The City of Plymouth points to the wide variety of materials and irregularity in their generation, concluding that Policy 6, as presented in the guide, is the most unrealistic element of of the Council's waste management plan. Responses The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was amended in 1984, setting stringent requirements for proper management of small amounts of commercial and industrial hazardous waste which ha,,e traditionally been exempt. Programs to ensure that these wastes are no longer disposed in the mixed solid waste stream are the responsibilities of the WMB, MPCA and the metropolitan counties. There is no apparent dispute over the objective to develop programs for sound management and disposal of household and exempt hazardous wastes. The concerns noted for clarification of liability, cost of programs, need for better information on the types and volumes of materials and identification of suitable disposal methods are well founded and are indicative of the need for the MPCA's proposed pilot collection program, for public education and additional study as recommended by the WMB's task force. While the overall objective separating household hazardous wastes from the mixed waste stream is an appropriate policy statement, a mandatory requirement for county programs is premature at this time. Waste oil and vehicle batteries are a notable exception where existing recycling services are available at present. Recommendations The Council should support the recommendations of the WMB Household Hazardous Waste Task Force for public education and for additional assessment of proper disposal practices. The Council should support the MPCA's legislative request for funding a pilot program for collection of household hazardous waste. 21 Additional text should be added to Part 3 referencing the HMB and MPCA programs. Policy 6 should be deleted as written and new language adopted as follows: 4es4deai443-and."mmeccial--generaior4, of-smal.L amounts-ofJwaaWous su6ctaacac skoul �separaLe�hese-mateaials�irim-Lha wemaln44g�a6te. Ihomeiropollta-Gou"4es-6hoW4 psevd9e-."" U" and manogeme" &wr Jces_-fortheae .mater4a4s-9y-49N. Pro rams to rovide information and mana ement services for small quantit es of hazardous wastes shoed be availabl a to the region s household and commercial waste generators by 99 . The text in Part 4 should be be amended to include waste oil and vehicle batteries as identified recoverable materials. Ash Disposal Summary of Comments Hlavka and Sauers bel,eve that incinerator ash is a hazardous waste and they question the Council's presumption that residuals could be managed safely. The City of Dayton and Hlavka urge the Council to evaluate alternative uses for ash other than burial. Responses Comparisons of leachate characteristics of bottom ash, fly ash and mixed ash with solid waste indicate that ash leaches significantly fewer contaminants. It is, for example, virtually devoid of volatile organics; levels of other con- taminants are generally lower than in solid waste leachate. Metals concentra- tions are the notable exception but have low environmental mobility. Rapid leaching/bench scale tests using the EPA's extraction procedure consist- ently show solid waste, bottom ash, and combined bottom and fly ash to produce extract classified as non -hazardous when compared with test criterion. Fly ash alone consistently produced extracts which tested as hazardous due to elevated levels of lead and cadmium. Data available comparing the ash from OF and mass burn facilities showed no distinguishable differences. Column lysimeter tests also showed more metals and salts leached from waste -to - energy facility fly ash alone than from solid waste or from bottom and fly ash combined. Column lysimeter tests also showed higher salt and metal levels leached per pound of solid waste than per pound of ash. Total dissolved solids leached from bottom ash and from combined ash was approximately 50 percent lower than from raw solid waste. Comparison of leachates collected from sanitary landfills and ash fills also showed that solid waste Produces higher salt and metal concentrations than equal weights of ash. The ash is more alkaline than solid waste which helps to stabilize the metals conte,it. Heavy metals have extremely low solubilities in an alkaline environment. Regarding residuals abatement, see response under Exemptions to Unprocessed Waste Policy. 28 Recommendations No revision to the guide is recommended. Landfill Siting Policy Summary of Comments Comments from Preserve Green Acres and from the Cities of Dayton and Greenfield indicate that landfill sites should not be developed in productive agricultural areas. Washington County notes the need for clarification of the process to resolve conflict with regional recreation open space policies regarding the candidate landfill site in Lake Elmo. Responses The reviews completed to -date on candidate sites in the Metropolitan Inventory indicate that all, to a greater or lesser degree, pose the potential for land use conflict. Better documentation of this and other issues should result from completion of EISs in counties identified as needing to implement sites and will be of assistance in site selection decisions. Additional requirements may apply to some agricultural land and some regional recreation open space. The taking of covenanted agricultural preserves requires a demonstration to the Environmental Quality Board that the action is necessary to achieve a public purpose and that feasible and prudent alternatives are not available or that the action will not have detrimental effects on preservation of agriculture. If such a demonstration cannot be made, the action can be delayed for up to one year. Development of alternative uses on lands acquired with regional funding for recreation open space similarly requires that a demonstration be made that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the action. To some extent the requirements of the Waste Management Act override other local and regional protections for agricultural and recreation open space lands. Recommendations No revisions to the guide are recommended. Composting (Note: This issue focuses primarily on the lower -technology forms of composting. For further discussion of high-technology composting or co - composting, see "Flexibility") Summary of Issues Many parties comment on the issue of marketing compost. Hennepin County, Dayton, R. Hlavka, and Ramsey County state that there is a lack of adequate markets for compost implying that the objectives in the guide for source separation of yard waste and co-compostino are too high. Dayton, R. Hlavka, and Beermann Services state that part of Ehe reason for the lack of markets is that many programs produce an unsuitable product with refuse contaminants. Eden Prairie states that large amounts of unused compost will reduce the enthusiasm and commitment of residents. MPCA suggests that compost markets exist, that the problem is lack of supply of the suitable product. C. S. Thomson states that roadways and mines can be used as markets for compost. 29 Other comments about composting cover a variety of issues. Hlavka states that composting could cause negative health impacts. Hlavka also questions how anything else could be as convenient as once -Der -week separate collection of yard waste. Thomson states that the way to address yard waste is eliminate any pickup of compostab Te materials with the other mixed wastes. St. Paul points out the lack of suitable land for leaf composting sites. Eden Prairie raises concerns about the acceptability and practicality of backyard composting. MPCA presented con. .nts indicating that backyard composting and yard waste mulching should not be considered a waste reduction strategy and that because of this the objectives for waste reduction are too high. Several of the counties questioned the objectives for cc -composting given that the guide also calls for a demonstration phase of the technology"s development. Hlavka stated that the recent study conducted by E 6 A for the MWCC indicated that co -composting has only limited application for the region. Response The critical issue is -- do adequate markets exist for compost? Composting as an alternative to land disposal is feasible only if there are enough users of the final product. The Council's assessment, similar to MPCA's, is that enough potential users exist but active market developmert activities will be required to educate them and produce suitable quality compost. In general, past marketing programs have been passive in nature relying on jive -away" strategies with mostly indirect contact with users. Yard waste and xed waste composting will become more feasible with the onset of the University of Minnesota's market research project and with other coordinated efforts such as the oroposed Governor's executive order on composting. This executive order will require state agencies to give a preference for waste - derived compost if it can meet appropriate standards. It is hoped that the lead of the state in this manner will help local government make use of compost as well. Nonetheless, the government sector is considered as a secondary market. Primary markets will likely be horticultural businesses. Once the primary market is identified and reasonable commitments to purchase are secured, adequate processing equipment, such as screens, must be installed to remove refuse contaminants such as plastics, glass and metals. The degree of screening and grinding of cured compost will depend on the users sn^rifications; the more processing, the higher the value of the compost. He. risks must be managed when composting as with any waste handling oper, .on. Adequate monitoring of pathogens and environmental indicators (such as temperature and carbon dioxide) shos.ld be part of any mixed waste composting facility. Simple controls for backyard compost piles can prevent most problems: a) do not use table scraps, b) do not use feces of any kind, and c) keep the pile well aerated or cover it adequately. The level of convenience for separate yard waste collection was purposely set very high. The Council agrees that it will be very difficult to achieve more convenient services than once -a -week, curbside pickup. This should help to ensure high participation in both backyard composting/mulching and source separation efforts. The Council is attempting to accomplish what Mr. Thomson suggests by eliminating the land disposal of unprocessed waste including yard waste. 70 The Council recognizes the severe problem of lack of land for neighborhood - scale composting operations. One potential solution is to develop larger multi - county, centralized processing facilities for yard waste with more mechanization such as shredders. This strategy implies that collection and transport will be a municipal or county function, even if operated by private companies. The costs must be examined carefully, but analysis should be based on actual demonstration experience and not feasibility "paper" studies. The need for this type of equipment again supports the Council's legislative proposals for financing abatene..t programs. A second potential solution is for cities to use vacant land in less developed areas. It is recognized that siting is difficult for any type of facility, including leaf composting sites, b-it open land does exist that could be utilized for this purpose even it is a temporary use only. Backyard composting and yard waste mulching are categorized as waste reduction strategies in the draft guide. Waste reduction is currently defined on page 90 as "The process of reducing the.. amount of solid waste generated. It includes product reuse, increased product life, reduced material use in product design, and decreased consumption of products." To help clarify this issue, the following new definition of waste reduction should replace the old version: Waste reduction (or source reduction) includes any activity or decision by wat'-e generators that prevents solid waste from being discarded regardless if the material is subsequently recovered. It includes mulching/backyard composting of yard waste, product reuse, increased product life, reduced material use in product design, and decreased consumption of products. One of the most important reasons that waste reduction enjoys its preferred status is because of avoided costs of collection (whether mixed waste or separated), transport, processing and disposal. Mulching and backyard composting accomplish this cost -saving objective and should be defined as waste reduction to help emphasize that this strategy should be maximized before source separation and separate collection. The Council has called for a co -composting demonstration facility to be developed by the counties. This is not intended as a means of developing the technology. The systems for co -composting are readily available. The intent of such a demonstration is more to educate potential users and government officials through first hand experience. The study conducted by E 6 A Environmental Consultants for the MWCC did not conclude that co -composting has only limited application for the region. The conclusion after interviewing several potential users was that horticultural markets will probably be more important thap agricultural markets. Also, the space constraints at the Metro Plant was noted as a potential barrier to implementation of a mixed solid waste processing facility at that site. Recommendations No substantive changes to the guide are recommended. The definition of waste reduction should be modified to more clearly indicate the types of activiti.. included, especially mulching/backyard composting of yard waste. Compost market development should receive a high priority within the Council's upc6ming market development program. The Council should renew its efforts to ensure passage of the legislative proposals dealing with financing of abatement programs and dealing with prohibition of land disposal of unprocessed waste. 31 Inter -County Subregional Approach Summary of Comments Hennepin County stresses that success of a subregional approach is dependent on the outcome of current negotiations with other counties and vendors. In sup- porting the Subregional concept, Hennepin County's Advisory Committee notes this is a highly appropriate role for the counties as implementing and local solid waste planning agencies. Bloomington indicates the approach should be required if it provides greater advantages in efficiency or cost control for local communities. Scott County suggests that it is premature to identify subregional areas and this section of the guide should be.deleted. Responses The Subregional approach proposed in Policy 5 will be further refined and interpreted through the county master planning process and by the use of other implementation mechanisms including waste flow designations and county waste districts. Subregional service areas will form naturally around integrated systems of projects and facility service areas and by jurisdictional agreement and contracts. Additional information cannot be developed on the subregional approach until the counties are farther along in their planning process. Spe- cific projects, service areas, cost agreements, funding mechanisms and inter - jurisdictional agreements must be shown in their master plans. The Subregional service areas as proposed were recommended on the basis of recent inter -county planning efforts, waste generation concentrations and patterns of movement in the region and the market development opportunities that have been apparent in the region in recent years. Essentially, the onus will be on the counties to meet the requirements of the policy or demonstrate why the subregional service areas recommended are not feasible. local jurisdictions will play a signifi- cant role in the implementation and enforcement of subregional service areas. Mechanisms such as croinances and organized collection systems can be used by local jurisdictions to help implement the subregional approach. Recommendations No revisions to the guide are recommended. Financing_ Local Programs Summary of Comments Several of the local governments and the AIM state that the local levy limits would make implementation of new programs difficult if not impossible. Plymouth lists the three options available to the state: a) exempt expenses of local governments for waste reduction and recovery programs from the levy limit restrictions (supported by Eden Prairie), b) remove the levy limits altogether (Plymouth's preference), or c) provide full and ongoing state financing for the desired programs. Eden Prairie suggests that cities will need grant and loan assistance for at least a part of the costs. 32 MPCA suggests several alternative financing mechanisms including encouraging haulers to bill directly for the added services provided. MPCA also sur .ts increasing the cost recovery rebate from the metropolitan landfill abatement fund from 50 cents per household to $8 and earmarking the money primarily for operating costs, citing the past failures when funding capital costs only. MPCA suggests looking at New Jersey's tonnage grant programs as a model for financing metropolitan area programs. The NSWMA states that past grant and loan programs have not always been success- ful in achieving long-term results and that the a large number of grant applicants is not an adequate measure of a program's success. Pioneer Papsr Stock states that the grant and loan money should be used for recycling and not burning. Metalcasters of Minnesota suggests changing the legislation authorizing the Minnesota Waste Management Board's demonstration grant/loan program to allow for private companies to apply directly. Dakota County requests that sll types of financial and technical assistance be listed in the guide. rCl suggests that tax incentives be used to promote recycling. eserve Green Acres supports the Council's legislative proposal for financing abatement programs and projects. Hlavka states that the guide should make clear how a city's bond debt assessed for solid waste facilities would be reduced if reduction/recovery programs were developed. Responses The Council must fully examine this critical issue of how to finance total pro- grams. It is likely that both the technical assistance and grant/loan programs authorized by the 1984 legislative session will focus, at least in part, on these questions. , The proposal for exempting waste reduction/recover/ Programs from a municipal- ity's levy limit is worth further consideration fn iu!ore legislation. Full and ongoing state financing is unlikely and undes >able because of the lack of incentives for cost control. The existing provision in the Waste Management Act for reducing a city's regional bond debt assessment for solid waste facili- ties needs further development before workable guidelines can be developed. The need for tax incentives to promote recycling should be examined further before new legislation is proposed. r�isting tax incentive programs shopld be promoted as much as possible and v, their effectiveness should be monitored. There are several options for local units of government to stru:ture a program to be self-financing including: o Establish a revolving account to credit abatement programs with land disposal savings, possibly by establishing separate accounts for mixed waste collection and land disposal. 33 o Bill directly for new services through utility bills or a new abatement program bill. o Allow or require the waste hauler to charge a service fee; These revenues could either be used by the hauler or paid to the municipality. o Establish a pre -paid bag/tag system whereby mixed waste collection and abatement programs are financed by residents buying specially marked bags or tags at a pi.ce that includes the services. The Council is well advised by the NSMIIA and MPCA to examine past grant and loan programs before embarking on a new one. long-term and short-term objectives must be identified for the new program to be successful. However, it is premature at this time to say that all of the Council -administrated grant/loan funds should go for operating costs as implied by MPCA. MPCA incorrectly implies that the Waste Management Act restricts household rebate cost recovery expenses to operating costs. The guidelines for the Council's grant/loan program will be developed over the next few months and adopted as a separate document. The suggestions of all parties testifying can best be accomodated through successful passage of the Courril's legislative proposals. Recommendations No revision to the guide is recommended. However, as the Council begins to develop priorities and guidelines for the grant and loan program, these comments should be considered and these parties should be re -contacted to invite their specific suggestions. The Council should renew its efforts to gain legislative support for the abatement program/projects financing proposals. Container Deposits Summary of Comments The League of Women Voters and CMAL suggest that the container aeposits stra- tegy is a relatively simple incentive to increase the amount of source separa- tion. MPCA states that more discussion of this strategy should be included in the guide. The Minnesota Soft Drink Association (MSDA) states that an existing system of recycling centers has been developed and that the soft drink industry has made substantial investment in its system. MSDA states that there is currently a high racovery rate of beverage containers and that new mandatory container deposit system would negativr`y impact the existing voluntary collection systems. Responses The issue is whethrr or not the Council should take any s Ific position on container deposits in the guide. Legislative action wou' required for implementation. The draft guide discusses container deposits as a financial incentive to Increase participation in source separation on page 49. The concluding sen- tence of the second paragraph states: "The r -• 41 and metropolitan-ounti" should recommend that the Minnesota Legislat act a state-wide container deposit program." 3u The Council is required by law to allocate landfill capacity only to the extent that it is needed after projected implementation of waste reduction and recovery programs. These projections must to based on the assumption that land disposal abatement programs will be implemented to the maximum feasible and prudent extent. The Council considers beverage container deposits both tech- nically and economically feasible as well as prudent. MSDA has submitted valuable testimony on the issue. It may be true that deposits could result in a loss of revenue to curbside recycling programs to the extent that it is derived from deposit containers. However, the vast majority of recyclables collected from multi -material curbside programs is comprised of newspapers and non -deposit containers. Elsewhere, curbside pro- grams can and do exist side -by -side with deposit programs. Additional revenues may be required from materials sales or government support to maintain the same bottom line if deposits are enacted by the State. The argument presented by MSDA concerning impacts on existing systems is based on the assumption that the deposit legislation would not provide for use of the existing recycling facilities and programs. In fact, the latest legislative proposal introduced in the 1984 session included such a provision for existing recycling facilities to be authorized as the deposit redemption location. It is recognized that if new systems are developed in place of those exist:na, detrimental impacts may occur. Recommendations No revision to the guide is recoi,unended. Public Education and Awareness Summary of Comments most people commenting on this issue are in support of the public education and awareness element )f the ouide as written. Parties that commented on the importance of public education are: AMM, Carver Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWMAC), Dayton, Fridley, Hennepin County"s SWMAC, Burnsville, Minnesota Soft Drink Association, Minnesota Waste Management Board, NS'14MA, Plymouth, Preserve Green Acres, C. Sommers, Citizens League, Izaak Walton League, League of Women Voters (state and CMAL), and Scandia Recycling. Many of the parties state that the key to participation by residents is pi-blic education. Dayton and MPCA suggests that a greater emphasis needs to placed on education in the scnools. Several parties comment on the process proposed in the guide for developing a solid waste communications program. Washington County suggests that the Council should clarify its commitmmnt to take the lean on public education 'see "Roles and Responsibilities for implementation" for further discussion and response to these comments.) Hennepin County"s SWMAC suggest that a more specific timeline should be proposed for this effort so that the effects on source separation programs can be better predicted. AMM and Dayton suggest including cities on the communications technical advisory committee, League of Women Voters and Minnesota Waste Management Board suggest including environmental groups, and MACI suggests including industry representatives. Bloomington states that the Council was underestimating the cos' of this public education effort. Certain parties stated that research and development into new collpcticn and marketing metho►: hould he a part of the overall public education effcrl' !see "Data and Other zesear;:h 'VePds" fer further discussion 35 and response concerning monitoring of oraoing and experimental programs/ projects). League of Women Voters and MPCA suggest that there is a need to subsidize public education. Scott County was opposed to the centralized public education program proposed in the guide. They advocated a change so that a regional body would only screen publicity materials for consistency and provide assistance to the local units actually implementing any education tools. Response The support indicated in the hearing for the proposed solid waste communica- tions program suggests the Council should place a significant emphasis on its development over the next two _years. The draft guide contains a basic outline for the development of centrally coordinated public education program. The specific priorities, deadlines and funding for this program will be developed over the next few months after the adoption of the guide. At this time, it is anticipated that many affected parties would be consulted and invited to assist with the program including schools and environmental groups. The Council's Abatement Assistance Team is already in the process of working with the metro- politan counties and a large number of cities that have or are developina recycling or composting programs. Scott County"s comments indicate that the intent of the Council's public educa- tion program may have been misunderstood. The emphasis of the effort is on coordination of ongoing activities. The draft guide does not intend to imply that the Council should implement any education tools that are now provided by other groups or agencies. If necessary, the guide suggests regional implementa- tion of appropriate educational tools, such as public service announcements on broadcast media, if these are found to be important to the success of existing and developing programs. Recommendations No sut;tantive revision to the guide is recommended. "Environmental/Citizen Groups" should be added to Table 4-11 on page 60 indicating that their rc'^s and responsibilities should be to assist with the development and ',mplementa- tion of the public education program. As the Council begins to develop priorities and budgets for its public edura- tion program, these public hearing comments should be considered and these parties should be re -contacted to invite their specific suggestions. Market Development Summary of Issues Most of the parties commenting on this issue were in support of the market development program as written in the guide. Parties that indicate basic support or comment on the importance of market development are: Hennepin County, Preserve Green Acres, Scandia Recycling, AMM, and League of Womer Voters - CMAL. Hennepin County's SWMAC and Minnesota Waste Management Board suggest that Toro effort be put into a detailed market development work plan before beginn�no any imple-mentation activities. The Waste Management Board specifically suggests �6 that. more study is needed about which market development mechanisms are most effective and what is government's most suitable role. The Waste Management Board suggests that the market development effort should hP studied and prioritized on a state-wide level. Hennepin County's S14MAC states that a specific timeline for this effort should be included in the guide. Several parties make specifi, suggestions for improvement. Bloomington and Eden Prairie suggest that the Council is underestimating the amount of staff and budget resources this effort will take and Eden Prairie said that three years is an inadequate amount of time. Dakota County suggests that the Council also take the lead in encouraging cooperative marketing. Fridley and Scandia Recycling state that market development activities should include efforts to increase the recyclability of packaging. Metalcasters of Minnesota recommend that the special needs of commercial and industrial businesses be considered when developing the market development program. MPCA recommends that MNCA an the Department of Administration be added to the list of agencies involved wit') market development. MACI suggests a greater role for businesses in developing any future program priorities. Hennepin County recommends that large energy markets be excluded from the Council"s efforts as this is already being done by the counties. Scott County opposes the concept of centralized coordination of market develop- ment in favor of a greater variety of smaller efforts and suggests deleting policy number eight on page 33. Responses The central issue is not that something needs to be done about developing markets: The key question raised is h"lat should be done. The draft guide outlines a basic process framework for t,-klina this issue. Again, like the public education program, the emphasis is .n coordination of existing market development activities and bringing together 'he appropriate agencies and private parties to develop a more detailed wo, plan. It does not propose an_v new market development ',�chniques other than coordination effort. Similar to the public education effort, the specific priorities, deadlines and funding for the market development program will be developed over the next few months after the adoption of the quide. Many affected parties will be con- sulted and invited to assist with the program, especially the industries that are users of recylable materials. During this process, specific strategies will be considered such as a cooperative marketing system, packaging reduction and recycling ideas, and more individualized efforts for commercial/industrial waste generators. Scott County may have misunderstood the intent of the draft guide. Individual market development efforts can and will continue. However, with a centralized coordinating mechanism, individual agencies and local units of government will at least have the opportunity to become aware of other efforts. Centralized coordination does not mean centralized operations. Recommendations No substantive revision to the guide is recommended. MPLA and Department of Administration should be added to TE a 4-10 indicating that theirro'es and responsibilities should be to assist with the development and implementation cf the market development program. More specific recommendations for roles and responsibilities should be developed and published as a separate document along with an overall market development work plan. 37 As the Council begins to develop priorities and budgets for its market develop- ment nrogram, these public hearing comments should be considered and these parties should be re -contacted to invite their specific sijgoestions. Compensation/Mitigation Summary of Comments The NSWMA expresses concern about passages in the text that presume decreases in property values around landfills without adequate documentation. The Cities of Ramsey -nsville are disappointed that mitigation and compen- sation for the impacts isposal facilities upon host communities are not adequately addressed in he plan. Responses Landfills can and do adversely impact the values of adjacent property. Assessed values of residential property about the Lake Jane landfill were decreased by approximately $1 million as a direct consequence of contamination of groundwater affecting private water supplies. The Federal Housing Authority refuses to guarantee mortgage loans to purchase a home in Andover that is located near another landfill. A few landfill operators have purchased vacant and occupied adjacent properties because of the landfills" impacts. The WMA as amended in 1984, addressed many of Ramsey's concerns including com- pensation for the development moratorium on candidate landfill sites and the 15 cent surcharge authority granted to host communities. In addition, the commu- nity is not precluded from negotiating mitigation of other impacts before it issues conditional use permits. Existing federal and state law also addresses issues concerning responsibility for releases of substances from disposal facilities. The long-term economic implications of facilities are more difficult to address. Certainly, the existing landfill will affect adjacent development and future development on the site itself. However, it is difficult to quantify the loss of tax revenue from future development. Furthermore, additional reme- dies or compensation' for this type of impact are more appropriately addressed through legislation. Recommendations No revision to the guide is necessary. ISSUES CONCERNING TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION Data and Other Research Needs Summary of Comments Most of the counties (Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington) and Bloomington suggest that the guide should provide a more clear, indication of the sources of data and technical informatio,. Hennepin County specifically inquires about whether or not special waste streams (such as trees, tires, water treatment sludges) are included in the generation estimates in the guide. These counties and MICA request that the confidence of the different data be discussed in guide including means to improve the reliability of the estimates, (for example, waste generation and landfill receiving rates). Ramsey County recommends that existing recovery rates and participation data from the region should be the bdSiS for source separation projections rather than national data. For example, Ramsey County suggests using the average recovery rate of a0 pounds per participating household per month for curbside recycling programs in the area rather than using factors of waste composition and participation. Hennepin County and Plymouth suggest that assumptions shovid also he stated more clearly. MICA and Dakota recommend uniform waste sampling and reporting methods be developed and MICA further recommerds that scales be required at all landfills in tie Guide. Anoka, Dakota and Ramsey Counties and Plymouth suggest that calculatirns be shown in the guide concerning the reduction/recovery and landfill development schedules. Ramsey and Washington Counties and MICA suggest that further documentation and discussion of the existing solid waste management system is warranted. Washington County states that the utility of the counties" phase one waste stream an 'ysis reports is overstated in the guide. Dakota County suggests that the C,!5ugcil supoott funding of continued waste stream analysis. R. Hlavka suggests that the :.ounci: provide for variations ind possible long-term shifts in waste characteristics. Responses The hearing testimony raises legitimate concerns about the need for improving the quality of data used for solid waste management planning. While the best available information is used for the development of the ouide, the Council recognizes the limitations of certain assumptions and data bases. The process of improving these data is ongoing and will continue indefinitely. The Council recognizes its obligation to coordinate the development of a con- sist-nt and uniform data management program for solid waste management. Such a system will require the full cooperation of the metropolitan, counties and will also involve the other local units of government as well as private companies. The purpose of this data management program ;ill be to improve monitoring efficiency and accuracy concerning rates of landfill usage and abatement program effectiveness. The various factors that potentially could be measured and analyzed include: Landfill Fillina Rates: o Receiving rates as reported by operators (cubic yards and tons through the gate) o Remaining capacity determined by surveys or aerial photographs (acre- feet) Waste Reduction/Recovery Proaram Effectiveness: o Recovery rates for recycling, composting and energy recovery programs and facilities (tons received less tons landfilled) o Participation in source separation programs (percent of the house- holds served who participate) o Participation in waste reduction programs (percent of population employing specific waste reduction methods) Waste Generation and Composition Analysis o Waste generation rates (pounds per capita and pounds per employee) o Composition by waste generator type (tons generated by residential; cormiercial and industrial generators) o Composition by material (percent of total waste stream by material) ost and Revenues of Proorams and Facilities o Revenue and capital, operating and maintenance costs of all types of abatement programs•and facilities The counties accomplished one of the initial steps in this process by complet- ing their reports as required by the 1984 legislature entitled "Phase I Waste Stream Analyses - Preliminary Reports". While only a start, these reports represent valuable analyses by county staff addressing the quality of waste generation and composition data currently used for solid waste planning both at the regional level by the Council and at the county level. Each county made recommendations specific to their individual needs and regional recommendations common to all seven counties concerning the necessary steps to improve this specific type of data. The final guide can more fully recognize the limita- tions of the existing information but the actual process of planning, developing, financing and implementing a data management program will take a much longer period of time. Nonetheless, the Council should act promptly to formally respond to the Counties recommendations, possibly through the publication of a separate technical document which more thoro.•ghly addresses all of the factors listed above and commits the Council to a course of action. The Council supports the counties" recommendation for requiring scales at all landfills. Legislation is one method of clarifying the counties concern about the extent of their authority in this regard. Specific schedules and methods of implementation will have to be worked out by each county that hosts operat- ing mixed waste landfills. When implementing any such requirement, the Council and counties should continue to consider that the specific fee schedules will be determined by landfill operators based on the type of waste and type of vehicle used to transport the waste. The Council recently contracted to have the remaining capacities of the eight operating sanitary landfills calculated using aerial photography. The flyovers were completed in November, 1984. This represents the first time that the region"s landfill system capacity has been measured using consistent and uni- form methodology for all landfills. This method of measuring regional landfill capacity may need to he repeated periodically depending on available alternatives. The suggestions for further information about sources of data, ions used and methods of calculation are Nell received. This type of clarification can help make the guide a more useful document. 40 Other continuous research needs include ongoing tracking of existing or planned programs/projects around the world and monitoring the development of experi- mental technologies. Recommendations The text in Part Four of the guide should be expanded to discuss the need for and purpose of a comprehensive data management system. This new discussion should further clarify the limitations of waste generation data, waste composition data, projected reduction/recovery rates, and system ecencmics. The role and responsibility of the Council is to provide necessary planning, coordination and technical assistance to assure successful development of this new program element. The metropolitan counties should assist the Council with the planning and development of the information management system and be responsible for collecting certain types of data. The specific details and plans for this data management program should be reserved for a separate tech- nical publication by the Council to be developed with the assistance of the counties and others. This publication should at least discuss how the Council"s grant and loan program could be used to help collect pertinent performance data. The text in Part 4 of the guide should also discuss the need for continuing research in & number of other critical areas such as monitoring progress of programs/projects in other parts of the country and monitoring developments of experimental technologies. These additional topics should be developed more fully in the same technical publication that covers the data management system. New Table 2-2, shown on the next page, should replace the old table on nage 17 in the draft guide. The remaining capacity column is derived from the recent aerial photographs of each landfill. Additional analyses of the landfill permitted capacities, remaining capacities and estimated use rates are needed to further improve the accuracy of the projected closure dates. The revised estimate of the total remaining capacity for the region, 11,909 acre-feet, is one of the key factors used to calculate the additional capacity needed as shown within the landfill development schedule in the draft guide (Table 4-13, page 66). This represents a 1,481.acre-feet (a.f.) decrease of remaining regional capacity (15,100 a.f. original estimate for Jan. 1984 less 1,710 a.f. used for 1984 less the revised estimate from flyovers of 11,909 a.f.equals 1,481 a.f. decrease) and results in a corresponding increase in the future capacity needed. The revised estimate of the total capacity needed, shown in rew Table 4-13, is 8,726 acre-feet. The allocation of the increased capacity needs between the three counties is done on,the same basis as the orqinal allocation (see "Interpretation of the landfill Development Program/Schedule" for further discussion). The text of the guide should be expanded where appropriate to include sources of information andassumptions used. Further description of the method of calculation should be included in Part Four so that the reader can more easily follow the process used. 41 (New) Table 2-2 SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM - TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1 Sanitary Landfill Anoka County Anoka Municipal Dakota County Burnsville Oakhue Freeway Pine Bend Hennepin County Flying Cloud Woodlake Scott County Louisville Metropolitan Area Totals Permitted Capacity 2,259 Remaining Capacity Estimated as of Jan. 1985 1984 Use Rate Approximate (acre-feet) 3 (acre-feet) Closure Date 686 420 December 1985 8,121 2,553 80 Mid-1990s 482 199 50 1987 1,962 140 50 1986 9,963 6,724 440 Mid-1990s 3,109 177 440 1985 2,350 862 70 Mid-1990s 2,296 568 160 Mid-1990s 30,542 11,909 1,710 1991-1993 1. Based on information from MPCA, landfill ooerators, metropolitan counties ar.d Metropolitan Council. 2. Includes expansions approved since 1980 for Burnsville, Pine Bend, WoodlaKe and Louisville. 3. Based on information from aerial photographs (taken Nov., 1984) resulting in revised remaining capacity estimates for all landfills. 0 SE1657-PHENV2 02.25.85 42 (New) Table 4-13 LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Number of Capacity Proposed Sites for of Site Opening Countv Development (Acre-feet) Date Anoka One 3,000 1987 Carver None Dakota None Hennepin One 3,232 1991 Ramsey None Scott None Washington One 2,494 19Q3 Regional Total Three 8,726 nPf initinnc Summary of Comments Several respondents comments on inconsistencies in the use of terms and definitions. Anoka County, Metropolitan Inter -County Association, Waste Management Board, Metalcasters of Minnesota (MCM), National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA) and R. Hlavka point out inconsistency and ask for clarification of such terms at "mixed municipal solid wastes," "processed waste," "hazardous wastes," "septage," "waste management facility," "solid waste" and "recyclables." Hlavka asks if the term "consistent" used in several places in the guide meant "identical". He states that "solid waste" should exclude materials from old landfills. MCM states that the word "readily" in the definition of "recy- clable" should be clarified and that "industrial process waste" in the defini- tion of "municipal solid waste" should also to defined. MCM also asks what the difference is between "commercial" and "industrial" waste and between "busi- ness" and industry." Response Definitions for such terms as "mixed municipal solid wastes" and "waste management facility" are based on state statutory definitions. The definition for "solid waste" is based on the MPCA solid waste regulation No. 1. The definitions for waste types are intended to be as clear as possible, but is not intended to be an all-inclusive listing of the waste components that could possibly occur within the terms. Unusual or uncommon wastes that are not listed may have to be considered on a case -by -case basis. "Septage" is defined in MPCA rule WPC 40 (6MCAR 4.8040) as those solids and liquids which are removed during periodic mintenance of a septic tank. This definition can be added to the guide. Additional information on the character- istics of septage is available from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 43 The term "consistent" is used in the plan to indicate when there is a need to support the Council"s policies, plans, and objectives; it does not necessarily mean "identical." The terms for "commercial" and "industrial" wastes are pruvided in the definitions. Table 4-5 list those materials that are considered "readily" recylclable. The table will be revised periodically to include or exclude materials teased on marketability. The definition of "hazardous waste" contained in the draft guide is not entirely consistent with state statutes and should be revised. Recommendations for change in the Definitions of "processible waste" and "waste reeduction" are contained elsewhere in this hearing report. Recommendations The definition of hazardous waste should be revised for consistency with state statutes. A definition of septage should be added consistent with MPCA rules. APPENDIX (New) Table 4-1 WASTE REDUCTION/RESOURCE RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE (The Percentage of Total Solid Waste Generated by County Managed by Waste Reduction/Source Separation Programs and Centralized Processing Facilities) 1991- 1996- 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 ')KA COUNTY Waste Reducti(-- 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 Source Separa, 2 4 6 9 12 15 15 15 Centralized Prc:.r:sing 2 2 2 4-37 19-77 80 80 80 County Total 5 8 10 T6-49 35-93 100 100 100 CARVER COUNTY Waste Reduction 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 Source Separation 2 4 6 8 11 13 13 13 Centralizer Prncessing 0 0 0 0 0-32 82 82 82 County Total — 6 8 -IT TT--47 -TW -M --M0 DAKOTA COUNTY Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 Source Separation 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 Centralized Processing 2 2 2 4-30 14-7n 80 80 80 Countv Total 5 8 10 15-4 29-85 -TO -0 100 100 HENNEPIN COUNTY Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 Source Separation 2 4 6 9 13 16 16 16 Centralized Processing L. -3--- 2 2 2-11 11-65 80 80 80 County Total RAMSEY COUNTY Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 Source Separation 3 6 9 11 15 19 19 19 Centralized Processing 1 1 5 5-62 67-77 77 77 77 County Total 5 9 16 T8-75 85-93 -Too- 100 100 c rr)TT rf%J 1&iT V Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Source Separation 2 4 6 8 11 14 14 14 Centralized Processing 18 18 18 18 18-27 83 83 83 County Total -TF -9- -M 28 TF TT -TW -T - IN WASHINGTON COUNTY Waste Reduction 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 Source Separation 2 4 6 8 12 16 16 16 Centralized Processing 19 19 19-25 25-59 67-71 79 79 79 County Totai 22 2.5 27-33 36-70 83-87 100 -100 00 METROPOLITAN AREA (Percent of Regional Total) Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 .i 4 4 4 Source Separation 2 4 6 9 13 16 16 16 Centralized Processinq 2 2 4 25 5i 80 80 80 Regional Total _ 5- -a- TM - - -T- Uu- -Tn- _71M County Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total (tonnages in 1,000s) Metropolitan Area (Percent of Re Tonal Tota (New) Table 4-7 PERCENT RECOVERY BY COUNTY BY YEAR FOR CENTRALIZED PROCESSING FACILITIES 1991 1996- 1985 1986 i987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2 2 2 4-37 19-77 80 80 80 0 0 0 0 0-32 82 82 82 2 2 2 4-30 14-70 80 80 80 2 2 2 2-11 11-65 80 80 80 1 1 1 5-62 67-77 77 77 77 13 18 18 18 18-27 83 83 83 19 19 19-25 25-59 67-71 79 79 79 44 48 81 608 1,445 1,681 8,669 9,089 2 2 4 29 69 80 80 80 Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington Total (Tonnages in 1,000s) Percent of Region (New) Table 4-9 GUIDELINES FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE TO BE PROCESSED BY CO -COMPOSTING FACILITIES BY COUNTY BY YEAR 1991- 1996- 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2 2 2 4-22 4-22 24 24 24 0 0 0 0 0-7 24 24 24 2 2 2 4-20 4-20 24 24 24 0 0 0 0-1 1-15 24 24 24 0 0 0 1-12 12-22 22 22 22 0 0 0 0 0-2 11 11 11 0 0 0 1-9 7-11 11 11 11 7 7 7 164 355 0.4 0.4 0.4 8 17 0 490 2,601 2,727 23 23 23 (New) Table 4-8 GUIDELINES FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE TO BE PROCESSED BY COMBUSTION FACILITIES BY COUNTY BY YEAR 1991- 1905 County 1985 1986 1987 1988 1969 1990 1995 2000 Anoka 0 0 0 0-15 15-50 56 36 56 Carver 0 0 0 0 0-25 58 58 58 Dakota 0 0 0 0-10 10-50 56 56 56 Heni . 2 2 2 2-10 10-50 56 56 56 Ramsey 1 1 1-5 5-50 55 55 55 55 Scott 18 18 18 18 18-25 72 72 72 Washingtor 19 19 19-25 25-50 60 68 68 68 Total 40 40 73 444 1,091 1,191 6 6,362 (Tonnag. in 100Gt, Percent of Region 2 2 4 21 52 57 57 57 PARK RESERVES FAKER CARVER CROW HASSAN ELM CREEK HYLAND LAKE LAKE RFEIECCA MURPHY HANREHAN REGIONAL PARKS BRYANTLAKE CLEARY7 KE CLIFTON E FRENCH COON RAPIDS DAM EAGLE LAKE FISH LAKE JAMES W WILKIE LAKE SARAH SPRING LAKE SPECIAL USE AREAS ARTHUR E ALLEN WILULU E SANCTUARY BAKER PARK GOLF COURSE CLEARY LAKE GOLF COURSE HYLAND HILLS SKI AREA NOERENBERG MEMORIAL PARK WAWAIASSO ISLAND WILD GOOSE CHASE ISLAND TRAIL CORRIDORS NORTH HENNE PIN IAA-1. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DAVID LATVAAHO CHAn. GOLDEN VALLEY WILLIAM H BOYNTON VICE CHAIR ST LOUIS PARK JUDITH S. ANDE14SON BLOOMINGTON PATRICIA D BAKER MINNEAPOLIS SHIRLEY A SONINE MAPLE PLAIN WILLIAM I HOL91100R MINNEAPOLIS SCOTTL NEIMAN MINNEAPOLIS VERN J HARTENSUIIG SUPERINTENDENT A SECRETARY i0 THE BOARD Hennepin County Park Reserve District 3800 County Road 24 • Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 • Telephone 612.473-4693 February 21, 1985: �, FEB 2 5 1985 I To: Noerenberg Park Citizen's Advisory Committee From: Marty Jessen-7' Subject: Concept Plans for Development of the Garden Portion of Noerenbero Park Date: February 21, 1985 At the last meeting of the Committee on January 31st we reviewed the enclosed map with the Committee, as they related to the potential uevelopment of the garden portion of the Noerenberg Memorial County Park. There are four nlaps enclosed and they are as follows: 1 Analysis This map shows the location of significant site features that should be considered as planning for the garden takes place, as well as other areas that are constraints to development. Examples include prominent points with qood views or wet areas. 2. Potential Uses This map shows possible facilities needed in the location of the visitor road. 3. Concept One locations for some of the major garden development plan including center, parking lot, and entrance This map shows one possible development scher^atic for the garden area. It shows the arrival, entry road, and parking lot in their approximate current location. It indicates that visitors would enter thru the vi,itor center to the formal garden area and then transiti to the manicured estate grounds and ultimately to a more wild and natural area. Noerenber•g Park Citizen's Advisory Committee Page 2 4. Concept Two This plans shows the entry at its current location but then following on a long estate drive to parking over near the channel. The visitor then walks back from the parking 1W t!.:augh the more wild area of the estate ana then goes through the visitor center to the formal gardens and looks beyond it to the manicured estate grounds nearest the lake. The Committee reviewed these plans in some detail at the meeting on January 31st, Subsequently, I reviewed them with Dick Gray and he asked that we send them to eaih of you so that you could study them in detail. WP are currently working on a narrative for the pl ,, to develop a few more specific ideas for the coircep- enclosed. I will be reviewing both of these with D first week of March when he returns to the Metrc;r has scheduled the next meeting of the Committee 14th aatat��.m. at the Gr_ax reshwater 6io o plan to send you —a-dd—itionaF inf rmation pr prior t that you will have an opportunity to study it meets. If you have any questio, about these maps, o information of any typr please call mE at Thank You. .....tempting ans ,.y i n the yea. Dick s day , Ka rcFit itute. We eet ni g, so ne Committee ,dditional Hennepin County Park Reserve District February 22, 1985 For Your Information Attached is a letter from Glenn Ray with his ideas for the Noerenberg gardens ... for your study. Marty Jessen Phone 473- 4693 3800 County Road 24, ti'taple Plain, MN 55359 A G E N D A Regular Meeting, 1.30 p.m., Wednesday, February 27, 1985 TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL 4901 Manit:-i Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Minutes - January 23, 1985 4. Treasurer's Report A. Monthly Financi: ' . 2port B. Bills 5. Committee Reports A. WATER STRUCTURES 6 ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (1) Committee Report (a) 1985 Dock Licenses (b) Future Public Hearings (c) Deicing Permits (d) Deicing Program (e) Boyce/Arnott Order (f) Upper Watershed Project: Report (g) Sieff Permanent Dock (h) Causeway (i) Wartman Development Dock (2) Action Items (a) 1985 Dock Licenses (b) 1985 Deicing Permits (c) Boyce/Arnott Order Enforcement (3) Other • B. LAKE USE COMMITTEE (11 Committee Report (a) Ultralight Public Hearing Report (b) Special Event Stipulations Review (c) Liquor Sales on the Lake (d) Birchview Ice Fishing Contest Review (e) Boat Size Review (f) DWI Legislation (g) Water Patrol Report (h) Other (2) Action Items (a) Biichview Inspection/Refund (3) Other C. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment 2-22-85 UC k UIL CITY OF 0R ' LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING TONKA BAY VILLAGE HAIL January 23, 1985 The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District CALL TO was called to order by Chairman Brown at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, ORDER January 23, 1985 at the Tonka Bay Village Hall. Members present: Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Robert Brown (Green- wood), Robert Pillsbury (Minnetonka), Donald Boynton (Minnetonka Beach), Frank de Monchaux* (Minnetrista), Jon Elam (Mound), JoEllen ATTENDANCE Hurr (Orono), Robert Rascop (Shorewood), Ron Kraemer (Spring Park), Ed Bauman (Tonka Bay), Audrey Gisvold (Wayzata), and Robert Slocum (Woodland). Communities represented: Twelve [12). *Arrived late. Elam Moved, Rascop Seconded that the minutes of the December 5, 1984 meeting be approved. Motion, Ayes 1111, Nays [0). Bauman Moved, Hurr Seconded that the Treasurer's Report be approved and the bills paid. Motion, Ayes [11), Nays [0]. WATER STRUCTURES 6 ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Rascop reported that the committee reviewed 1985 dock license and DM.1 renewals and made recommendations for approval; future public hearings were discussed. The deicing program was reviewed, including the filing of Complaints against six violators, the Burkhalter application was held, and an application for a permanent dock will be required for the new Sieff location. Elam Moved, Hurr Seconded that the committee report be accepted. Motion, Ayes [11), Nays [0). Bauman Moved, Gisvold Seconded that the following 1985 dock license renewal applications be approved, subject to village response: Al 6 Alma's Supper Club, Inc. Baycliffe Property Owners Association Bayview Apartments Lyle Berman Boat and Motor Mart of Excelsior, Inc. Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc. Chimo Association Cochranes' Boatyard, Inc. Crane Island Association Crystal Bay Service MINUTES TREASURER'S REPORT 1985 DOCK LILENSES LMCD Board Minutes January 23, 1985 Page 2 Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Inc. Dennis Boats Driftwood Shores Association Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc. Foxhill Homeowners Association Gayle's Marina Corp. Grandview Point Association Celia J. Haley The Harborage Herzog Acres Association James J. Hill's Ironhorse Inn Howard's Point Marina, Inc. Adeline D. Johnston Hary T. Kreslins Libbs Bay Boat Club Loring Acres Beach Association, Inc. Mai Tai Restaurants, Inc. Martin 6 Son Boat Rental Meadowbrook Boat Club, Inc. Methodist Lakeside Assembly Grounds Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Wayzata) Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Orono) Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments Minnetonka Portable Dredging Minnetonka Power Squadron Navarre Cove Homeowners Association Richard Neslund North Shore Drive Marina Pizza on the lake Ridgewood Cove Property Owners Associations Rockvem Boat Yards, Inc. Sailors Wotld Sandy Beach Place Seahorse Condomissium Association SeLon Village Association Shorewood Yacht Club Smithtown Bay Association, Inc. Stonewings on the Lake City of Tonka Bay Tonka Bay Marina 6 Yacht Club, Inc. Upper Lake Minnetonka Yac;it Club City of Wayzata Wayzata Yacht Club 1985 DOCK LICENSES (cont) LMCD Board Minutes January 23, 1985 Page 3 Roger J. Wikner Willow Woods Corp. Windward Marine, Inc. Woodend Shores Beach Association Motion, Ayes [11), Nays [0). Slocum Moved, Gisvold Seconded that the following 1985 District Mooring Area permit applications be approved: City of Deephaven Minnetonka Yacht Club City of Excelsior Sailors World Methodist Lakeside Assembly Wayzata Yacht Club Motion, Ayes [11), Nays 10). LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Pillsbury reported that the committee reviewed and recommended approval of an application by the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce for its Chilly Open, outdoor events on Saturday, February 16, with snow golf on Wayzata Bay at the depot area, volley ball on Excelsior Bay at the Mai Tai, and softball and bowling on Spring Park Bay at The Mist. The committee was advised of the Birchview ice fishing renewal permit, previewed the ultralight public hearing, reviewed the county Lake maintenance project and recommended approval, and held -over the Special Event stipulations review. The Water Patrol reported that 31 persons, 24 snowmobiles, and 11 vehicles have gone through the ice so far this winter. The Rescue Unit is testing the use of Sterns buoyant drysuits to help facilitate the rescue of persons in the icy water; the cost of a suit is $300. Nine mooring buoys which were left in the Lake have been removed or placed under the ice; no mooring buoys are left in the Lake; one boat lift was reported as being 50 feet or more off shore near Arcola. Success of the buoy removal program was attributed to early news releases on the matter. The Water Patrol reported tF,. difficulty in obtaining felony vs. misdemeanor prosecutions on break-ins and vandalism on the ice. The Patrol also provided a copy of proposed DWI legislation, which is supported by the DNR and the Sheriff's association. Consideration of the need to authorize Danger -Open -Water fencing to supplement Thin -Ice signs by the Sheriff was continued for further clarification from the Sheriff's department. The committee discussed the need for a moratorium for determining boat size regulations on the Lake, and forwarded the matter to the Board for further discussion. 1985 DOCK LICENSES (cont) 1985 DMA PERMITS WATER PATROL REPORT LMCD Board Minutes January 23, 1985 Page 4 Rascop Moved, Kraemer Seconded that the committee report be ac- cepted. Motion, Ayes [11), Nays (0). Hurr Moved, Slocum Seconded that the Special Event Permit applica- WAYZATA tion by the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce be approved with stipula- CHAMBER tions. Motion, Ayes (11], Nays (0). PERMIT Pillsbary Moved, Hurr Seconded that the 1985 county Lake maintenance COUNTY program be approved subject to review of the buoy maintenance MAINTENANCE and inspection program. Motion, Ayes [11), liays [0]. PROGRAM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Brown reported that the committee reviewed the annual dinner arrangements and recommended that the District DINNER absorb one-half the cost of a Board member's dinner. After dis- COST, cussion of the qualifications of a Water Patrol Special Deputy AWARDS for the annual award, the committee recommended that the award be given to several members with over seven years service. The committee recormended that the District continue the Save the Lake fund drive for 1985. The committee reviewed a letter from the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department regarding the obtaining of statistical information on Water Patrol citations. Police Chief Young indicated that the cost by the county to set up the computer to reflect Lake area citations would be approximately $1,300. The committee recommended Board approval of the development of this statistical information of citation costs, with the stipulation that needed data is provided. The committee accepted a letter from the City of Minnetonka relative to council discussion January 28 on the Causeway matter. After discussion of the benefit of the 640 Memorv_writer, the com- mittee recommended Board approval of the ivpg-Lading to a 640 at an estimated test of $560. Final 1984 reports are in process, 1984 closing in the black. In other business the committee: 1. discussed the value of newspaper publicity on the fall buoy removal prograc, including pictures of the activity, to help implement the program; 2. reviewed deicing violations; LMCD Board Minutes January 23, 1985 Page 5 3. determined to explore the need for a public hearing on a mora- torium on boat size; 4. determined to continue its meetings at the Park Bench; 5. was advised of a shutdown of the office for a couple of days during furnace replacement; 6. reviewed th.. need for amending the LMCD Code to provide for fencing and -igning of dangerous open water areas, including channels, by the Sheriff; 7. reviewed the computer course attended by staff, and recommended COURSE reimbursement of expense, estimated at less than $100; and COST 8. was advised of the county's interest in food and liquor licenses for charter boats on the Lake. Bauman Moved, Pillsbury Seconded that the committee report be accepted. Motion, Ayes (12], Nays (0]. Rascop Moved, Boynton Seconded that the District continue the S/L Save the Lake fund drive for 1985. Motion, Ayes (12], Nays (O]. 1985 Brown Moved, Rascop Seconded that the development of statistical CITATION information of citation costs, with the stipulation that deeded DATA data is provided, be approved at a cost of approximately $1,300. COST Motion, Ayes (12], Nays (O]. Rascop Moved, Hurr Seconded t;dt the Memorywriter be upgraded MEMORY - to a 640, at an estimated cost of $560. Motion, Ayes (12], WRITER Nays (0]. CODE OTHER BUSINESS: Elam Moved, Garwood Seconded that the proposed AMENDMENTS: Code amendment prohibiting liquor sales on the water be referred LIQUOR to committee. Motion, Ayes (12], Nays (0]. SALES, Elam Moved, Hurr Seconded that, regarding the proposed Code amend- ment to limit the size of boats on the Lake, the reading be ac- BOAT cepted, further readings be waived, and the Ordinance (No. 71) SIZE, be adopted. Motion, Ayes (9], Nays (3), Boynton, de Monchaux, and Garwood voting Nay. Hurr Moved, de Monchaux Seconded that the matter of licensing COMMERCIAL commercial uses of the Lake be referred to committee for research USE STUDY, and further study. Motion, Ayes (12], Nays (0). and LMCD Board Minutes January 23, 1985 Page 6 Rascop Moved, Bauman Seconded that, regarding the proposed Code CODE amendment relating to signs and barriers by the Sheriff around (cont) open water or thin ice, the reading be accepted, further readings THIN -ICE be waived, and the Ordinance (No. 72) be adopted. Motion, Ayes BARRIERS [12), Nays [0). Chairman Brown welcomed Frank de Monchaux, new Director from the City of Minnetrista. ADJOURNMENT: Rascop Moved, Elam Seconded at 9:03 p.m. that the ADJOURNED meeting be adjourned. Motion, Ayes [12), Nays [O). Submitted by: Approved by: JoEllen L. Hurr, Secretary Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman 1 FEti 2 b 19dLL� '.i 1�l ill]]� ( CITY OF ORONO III, league of minnesota cities February 20, 1965 I\FOR.w.ATIONAL MEMNG - GOVERNOR i'::n?T%c'S PRO?ER:: Place: Embassy Suites Harel (formerly r;,,e Granada it,yfii.?/, : ,r:: ar.o ,ia.:Rsi,^. Streets, Downtown St. Paul Time: 1:30-4:00 PM, Friday, Mar. 8, 1985 City officials are invited to atrnd ar. informational meeting an -ne Governor's proposals for reform of the system of financing local governments. The program will consist of a presentation of the proposals by John Haynes of the scare Finance Deparrmenr, wirh a response by a pane: of city officials, There will also b•- an opportunity for questions from other city officials attending the meering. Governor Perpich's proposals are inreaded increase srab:iiry and local accountability for property taxes and to reduce incentives fzr property tax increases. The proposals would irvo%.ve several charges: The state woul-` assume full responsia' lity for funding the schools' basic fouadarian formula. Schocls would no longer b.- required to make t,:e 23.5 mill levy that is currently required. The money for this additionai star.: funding of schools would come from the fur.ns currently used to pay the homestead credit. The homestead credir would in turn b,, funded locally, from a property rax levy spread over rho, iccal r.axin4 dierrict. :his levy would in ef:eer replace the current 23.5 mill sch-.:.: levy. Any differencµs berween rh•: amcunr formerly received from homestead reinburser�,enr and the new amount received by state assumption of the additional school foundation funding would be covered by adjusring the schools' categorical aids up or down. Local government aid would not be affecred by these proposals, except possibly in a few instances where the school categorical aias were ncr sufficient ri balance rhp required recuction:.. The intended result is that the total amount of stare funding ficwin4 into a particular district would remain the same. Also, the ner froperry tax levy paid by the property owner would be unchanged. The difference would be that the property tax would be more direcrly and exclusively used to pay for local government services. The local levy limit would therefor be eliminated, leaving each city free to establish its own preferred service level and the corresponding property tax levy needed to support those services. Both the full amount of any property tax increases and the amount needed to fund any increased homestead credits resulting from properly tax increases would be paid entirely be local taxpayers. A3 a^lvf-r-s,ty avenue east, st. paul, mnnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227 5600 i_t•rt•,t•11• L�•I It•t hl•nlu•Ih February 26, 1985 Iha%% 1 1'ndLul.11 � • , iN I.IIF111 Ms. Alberta Strom 2000 First Bank Place Wes, Minneapolis City Clerk ! `� City of Orono ( C11-Y Or UiWiw I Minnesota 55402 Box 66 Telephone612.333.0543 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Clayton LeFevere RE: Hennepin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee Herbert P Lefler J Dennis O Brien John E Drawt Dear Ms. Strom: David J Kennedy Jonn8 Dean The Hennepin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (HCSWAC) Glenn E Purdue Richard J Schieffer is a Committee appointed by the Hennepin County Board to ad - Charles L LeFevere vise the Board on the preparation of its Solid Waste Master Herbert P Lefler III Plan. The Committee is composed of one-third City representa- Jeff►ey J Strand MaryJ Blorkrund tives, one-third indu! try representatives, and one-third citi- JohnG Kressel zen representatives. A list of Committee members is enclosed. Dayle Nolan Cindy L Lavorato Michael Nash The first function of the Committee was to respond to the pro - Luke R Komarek posed Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Development Guide/ Brian F Rice Lorraine S Clugg Policy Plan. A copy of the Committee response is enclosed. James J Thomson. Jr ales%+ Strommen The Committee meets regularly at 4:30 p.m. o,i the 2nd and 4th Mary C Niels(n Wednesday of the month at the Ridgedale County Library in Minnetonka. A copy of the work schedule for the next several months is enclosed. You are invited to pass this information along to your City Council and to urge them to call either myself or any Commit- tee member if they have any comments on the work of the Com- mittee. In particular, if there are topics, problems or in- formation which they think is important and which are not in- cluded in our schedule of work, we would like to know about it at an early date so that we can give those matters consid- eration. I will be forwarding additional information to you as the Com- mittee's work progresses and encourage you to give me a call if you have any comments on our work. Sincerely ou s, Richard J. Schief Chairman Hennepin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee RJS/rat Enclosures Phyllis Jessen City Rep. 5189 Emerald Drive Mound, MN 55364 L Thomas Anderson City Rep. 2,52 Cty. Rd. #24 Hamel, MN 55340 *,,-Richard Schieffer City Rep. 3590 Independence Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 *,-Robert M. Sharlin City Rep. Bloomington City Hall 2215 W. Old Shakopee Rd. Bloomington, MN 55431 ✓Oiarles S. Th(xn�7on City Rep. 130 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 J/ Marilynn Corcoran City Rep. 13931 Vinewood Lane Dayton, MN 55327 ; /Doris J . Cornet City Rep. 5560 Woodland Trail Loretto, MN 55357 Robert T. Derus City Rep. 2942 Ardmore Avenue Maple Plain, MN 55359 HLNNEPIN COLZ 'Y SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Phone: 472-4519 Home Phone: 478-6500 Work 221-9700 Home Phone: 333-0543 Work 479-3112 Home Phone: 887-9636 Work Phone: 474-4693 Home - Phone: 427-5717 Home Phone: 498-8192 Home Prone: 420-2268 Hock- Ray Stockman Phone: 377-8310 Work C City Rep. 4216 Poplar Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Georgia Ray DeCoster Phone: 475-1918 Home Ind. Rep. Total Energy Systems of Florida, Inc. 1735 Troy Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 * A. William Johnson Phone: 941-5771 Hole Ind. Rep. 941-5957 Work BFI 9033 Preserve Blvd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 * Lluck Kutter Phone: 866-6603 Home Ind. Rep. 869-5876 Work Mpls, RefuT,e, Inc. 721-7451 Work 4649 Bloomington Avenue So. Mpls, MN 55407 David Klatke, Jr. Phone: 425-7844 Work Ind. Rep. Hilcer Transfer, Inc. 8550 Zachary Lane Osseo, t'N 55369 Mike Pauling Phone: 941-7225 '-,ork Ind. Rep. 941-4688 Work PFS (Preferable Fuel Systems, Inc. 10805 Northmark Drive Eder Prairie, D71 55344 Hilmer Hartman Phone: 421-1446 Home MWMJIC 17501 Dayton River P.oad Dayton, MN 5532/ Mary Heitzig Phone: 561-8631 Home MWMAC 3618 - 69th Avenue North Btooklyn Center, KN 55429 B. Reed ...one: 476-1931 home Rep. r cry Avenue So. MN 55391 John Burk 1 urri Phone: Citizen Rep. 6823 Woodland Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Roz Shovlin Phone: 544-4861 Home Citizen Rep. 1845 Hampshire Lare Golden Valley, MN 5542j Don E. Ostenson Phone: 377-1283 Home Citizen Rep. 633-2301 X 662 Work 124 North Cedar Lake Road Mpls, MN 55405 Clarence C. Oster Phone: 884-5120 Home Citizen Rep. 4113 Overlook Circle Bloomington, MN 55437 C Richard L. Zilka, Jr. Phone: 831-8695 tiome Citizen Rep. 4516 Southmore Drive Blooriiington. MN 55437 Carol K. Johnson Phone: 825-3322 Home 4925 Fremont Avenue So. Mills, MN 55409 Richard J. Hlavka Phone: 926-0336 Home Citizen Rep. 645-3601 work 3272 Blackstone Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 John Whitman Phone: 473-7988 Home Citizen Rep. 227-6500 Work 2700 Brockton Iane Plymouth, MN 55447 NO Barbara B. Kelley Phone: r MWMAC 10920 Glen Wilding Lane Bloomington, MN 55431 Louise Kuderling Phone: 893-9822 Home MWMAC 4001 Heritage Hills Dr. i205 Mpls, MN 55437 Luther D. Nelson Phone: 348-•4046 Work 7130 Park View Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Rick Person Phone: 546-3490 Home WIAC 292-6122 Work 7030 West 24th Street St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Laura Oatman Phone: MWMAC 717 Delaware Street Southeast CMpls, MN 55440 Kim N. Boyce Phone: 521-0036 Home MdMAC 373-9700 Work 3838 Sheridan Ave. N. Mpls, MN 55412 Josephine D. Nunn Phone: 421-1547 Home Metro Mem. 401 Elm Creek Road Champlin, MN 55316 Paul Smith Phone: 291-6408 Work Environmental Planner Metro Staff 300 Metro Sq. Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 Ron Dehn Phone: 477-5753 Home Citizen Rep. 6010 Terrace Circle Rockford, MN 55373 Margaret Fuller Citizen Rep. 308 Gramercy Avenue No. Mpls, MN 55405 Edward Grabowski Citizen Rep. 3023 N.E. Grand Street Mpls, MN 55418 * Susan E. Covnick Citizen Rep. 4708 Lakeview Drive Edina, MN 55424 * John Wright Citizen Rep. 10148 - 103rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 Alvin T. Balgaard Citizen Rep. 3560 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 John Leadholm 5725 2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55419 * indicate executive committee members MSB:dlr DeceTber 10, 1984 Phone: 374-4322 Home Phone: 789-2877 Home Phone: 920-0340 Home 348-6603 work Phone: 424-5483 Home Phone: 473-5031 Hone Phone: 864-6/.Ly Home Comments on Regional Policy Plan by the CHennepin County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee 7be general consensus of the HCSWMAC submits the following cormients. A five-year time frame for prohibiting all processible wastes from landfills should be adopted as a goal for the TCMA. Individual waste processing prograr,us should have separate time frames depending on realistic probability of success. Program, time frames should be evaluated as programs develop for the following items: siting, construction, and operation of waste -to -energy facilities; marketing of recycled waste paper, glass, metals, and compost; public education regarding source separation; other public education activities; organized collection; enforcement of mandatory source :eparation ordinances; and the ability to achieve substantial citizen participation. CBs Par -by-Part Review gf Camnents. Part 1: Introduction and Summary: - No =mtient Part 2: Background: - Metropolitan Council should indicate the sources of specific figures and detail the assumptions. 7his information should be presented in a consolidated fashion. Part 3: Regional Strategy for Waste Management - No corrr;ent IP6• ••I • H• 'll'I /• I • •I O\ - 7be Metropolitan Council should remain an overview and planning agency; implementation should be left to the counties and municipalities. Policies for Solid Waste Management.; - Policy No. 1: \ The Uffnittee agrees that waste reduction and resource recovery are prudent alternatives to land disposal. However, reaching the development goals within the next five years will require considerable arsd concerted efforts by all effected agencies and the general public. the success of waste reduction and resource recovery programs depends on educational programs which change long-established human behavior patterns, and complete compliance by all individuals will take longer than a few years. Source separation made mandatory by county or pity ordinance will be impossible to enforce unless public a. —ance of the concept is converted into unfailing, daily actioi: the part of the vast majority of individual members of the public. Behavior modifi- cation through education is the key, with ordinance enforcement as a remedy for the few who do not comply. - Policy No. 2: The committee feels that prohibiting processible waste from land disposal by 1990 is possible only if strong commitments to program development occurs prior to 1990. The target year of 1990 is to a great extent, dependent on solid waste energy recovery and co -composting programs. Several of the facilities needed to meet the development schedule objectives are still in the concept stage. The planning, siting, environmental reviews, construction and shake -dawn of these additional facilities will extend beyond 1990 unless these procedures are streamlined and improved. - Policy No. 3: The Metropolitan Council's Legislative proposal to require mandatory source separation by counties and cities after 1988 should not be forwarded until confirmed markets are established and public education programs have been proven effective. Confirmed markets for the vast amounts of materials collected have not been established. The contracts for the sale of recyclables should be in -place prior to mandatory source separation. Furthermore committee members expressed concern that contracts for the amounts of recyclables expected will not be obtainable because market prices are too volatile. - Policy No. 4 and 5 This committee agrees that a regional system of waste processing and recycling services should be a planning responsibility of the public sector. This committee further agrees the metropolitan counties should work together on sub -regional service areas. t3 Although a regional system of waste processing and recycling service:- w:ll require regional planning, the implementation and operation of the systesri should be handled by counties and cities. - Policy No. 6: The coTdttee agrees that small amounts of hazardous substances generated by residential and commercial sources is a problem which needs to be addressed. However, Metropolitan Council should define the collection and management services along with their associated costs before establishing a development tine schedule. - Policy No. 7: The committee agrees with this policy. We wish to note, the success of coordinated public education and participation programs will determine the ability of waste reduction and resource recovery programs to reach abatement goals. - Po) icy No. 8: The committee feels that a region -wide, centrally -coordinated resource recovery market development plan should be prepared before a program is established. - Policy No. 9: The committee supports the concept of organized collection. The committee holds further commi nt until the organized collection study is complete. - Policy No. 10: The ca,—. dttee concurs with this policy. - Policy No. 11 : The committee agrees that operating capacity for land disposal should not exceed the amount specified in the land disposal development schedule. Future landfill needs may be greater than expected if all abatement programs are not in place by 1990. However, if abatement objectives are not achieved there will be a need to plan for additional landfill space. Part 4: System Plan: Dy%,PILunent p �n��_p�a,,te ReductiDD_ArxIFe:��us�Res�Y'�ry� - 4% waste reduction from mulching/backyard composting seems high. - Market contracts should be in place before facilities and progralr; are implemented. - Waste -to -energy facilities should be established before major paper recycling efforts are undertaken to assure C sufficient combustion to maintain satisfactory BTU levels at the facilities. After this paper recycling efforts can be phased in . - The implementation of mandatory source separation by commercial generators is not practical in many situati,:�.^.s where there is limited space for additional collection containers. - Me organized collection study being prepared should consider the maintenance of the existing solid waste collection industry under organized collection. Fri O 0 DJM F• • • 1 1 •. - Landfill capacity must be kept at a minimum to conserve land resources and to maintain pressure on everyone to implement all programs in the shortest time fra.- possitle. Landfill space needs must be constantly re-evaluated to insure that Mjnjj= future needs are a,.ailable. 'ILA•!1O 1 • •• .0 • - 5345 million for total implementatior. costs of the regional System seems low. - Costs foc implementing residential, anti particularly commercial scurre separation proara.:,, a.e going to be expensive and may require government funding assistance to haulers, in the short run. In the long run, individual responsibility for the cost of waste disposal can only enhance the success of waste reduction and source separation, and the entire Regional Program. MSB:dlr CSolid Waste Management Advisory Committee Meeting Topes (February 13, 1985) Estimated # of Meetings epics Presenters 1 - Committee Organization: * Elect Chair * Meeting Format * Review Plan for Future Meetings, Discussion, Comments, and Approval * Determine method of Ccaunittee input into the Master Plan * Meeting Frequency Current Solid Waste Management System: * Solid Waste Quantities * Collection * Disposal 1 - 2 - Current Solid Waste Management System: * Solid Waste Master Plan Overview * Solid Waste Master Plan General Outline - Waste -to -Energy: * Description of Technologies: Mass Burn and R.D.F. * Current Hennepin waste -to -Energy Plans and Progress * Air Pollution aspects of Waste -to - Energy Facilities * Transfer Stations * Estimated Costs * Siting of waste -to -Energy and Transfer Station Facilities 4 - 6 - Recycling/Source Separation: * Recycling Methods & Recycling Study Curbside Collection Drop -Off Center Centers Redemption Centers Other Methods Recycling/Source Separation Scenarios - Impacts & Costs * Composting Backyard Canpnsting Centralized Composting & Co-cor•,post i ng - ( }a r d Waste & Mixed Municipr.l Waste) County Staff County Staff County Staff and Staff of Iienningson, Durham and Richardson (HDR) (County's Waste -to - Energy Consultant) Pope -Reid and Jerry Powell (County's Recycling Consultants) Bill Nunn Pope -Reid & E & A Environmental (County's Recycling Consultants) * City Recycling Programs Curbside Collection - St. Louis Park Others as Reggjested - Richfield & Minneapolis * Private Recycling Companies . Recycling Unlimited . Other 1-2 - Other Environmental Perspectives: 1 - Other Metropolitan County Plans and Programs: * Ramsey County Activities, Programs and Plans 1 - Public Education for Solid Waste Waste Management: 1 - Solid Waste Management Finding Sources and Methods: 1 - Landfill Siting in Hennepin County: * Site Selection Process * Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Status: 3 - 6 - Establish HCS;NIW recammndations on: * Polices * Objectives * Programs * Funding * Public Education * County and City roles in Solid Waste Management Activitio s * Other 1 - 2 -- Review and Ca:Tmient on Solid Waste Master Plan * Outlines * Draft Report * Final Report Mayor and/or City Staff Joan Nelson, President Recycling Unlimited Darby Nelson, Representative MN State Legislature Environmental Group Representatives Ramsey County Staff Representative from a Public Relations Firm County Staff and County waste -to - Energy Financial Consultant Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council Staff K-T, :dlr HCSWMAC Meeting Topics (2/14/85) mETROQOLITAn WAlTE cOnTROL commlri ion lw.� m iff Jean Bergal 222-8423 MWCC Chair Endorses Recommendations March 7, 1985 In Just -Released Management Study The chair of the Metropolitan waste Control Comnission (MWCC) today ' outlined a series of stets he will urge the commission to take to=ontinue improvements begun in recent months in its internal structure and eperatior.s'. Peter Meintsna, who was nailed commission chair last summer, made the statement in response to a just -released manaoement study cf the MUCC by Touch: Ross b Co. The report makes 75 recommendations' in 19 areas related to agency organization, management and operations, but does not rank the issues in order of importance. "While we'll be responding to all the recommendations, there are five major priority areas where we're going to move most quickly," Meintsma said. "These are chances in our organizational structure, improved communications with the communities we serve, improved long-range planning, evaluation of our rate structure, and implementation of a data processing system for the commission." The M'.JCC hired i.he consulting firm to conduct the study in resperse to a recommendation in a 1983 report on the agency. Known informally as the ";oland Report," it was done by a commission established by Gov. Perpich and chaired by former Metropolitan Council Chair John Boland. more 350 METRO )TNi1N T/TREEV /Ou�RE dIDG. /AWT KVA Mn 55101 612 its-W) "This study confirms that we do an excellent job of operating one of the largest and most effective wastewater treatment plants in the country, and it recognizes the improvements we've made in recent months," Meintsma said. "At the same time, it points out areas where change is needed --and in many cases, where it already has begun." "There was enthusiastic support for the study among commission members, our staff and the communities we se,ve," Meintsma said. "I have no doubt we'll build on the report's recommenuations to make a good agency stronger and I'm also confident the report's findings will help build wide community support for the changes we're making." The work of the consulting firm in conducting the study was directed by an 11-member special task force chaired by Judith Fletcher, an MWCC member. Other members included Boland and Vern Peterson, executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. A complete implementation plan for dealing with the report's recommendations will be presented to the MWCC at its March 19 meeting. But at a workshop for commissioners held today to discuss the report, Meintsma outlined the following actions in the five priority areas. The actions include those already under way and those planned for the future. The areas are: Organizational structure. The report recommends a reor, ation at the commission aimed at correcting problems, including fragmentation and a lack of focus in some areas. Meintsma said some important changes already hatie been made, including hiring of a chief administrator and deputy administrator. An internal auditor will be hired by April 1 and an internal audit committee will begin operation May 1. A review of the MWCC's organizational structure already is under way, he said, and it's expected a reorganization will be complete by July 1. more Communications with Communities Served. The report recommends that the commission's relationships with the 102 communities that use its services by improved, and Meintsma said the process already is under way. Some action --- being planned include sending a newsletter- from the MWCC chair to the communities, and setting up a mechanism for regular meetings with groups of communities, Meintsma aid. ""oth these actions will provide a forur^ for us to answer questions communities may have --and give us valuable feedback about what we're doing," he said. Alriady, Meintsma said, he and other commission members have increased their contacts with community officials. Data Processing. The report says the commission's current data processing systems are inadequate and recommends a series of changes. Meintsma said the commission is in the process of converting to a fully automated management information system. A decision will be made by May 1, he said, whether to hire a permanement systems analyst to supervise the change, or to contract out the work. The overall change to a new system could take three years, but "will greatly enhance our effectiveness and efficiency," he said. Long -Range Planning_ Traditionally, much of the MWCC's planning has been focused on capital projects and a one- to two-year time period. The report recommends that more long-range work be done and coordination with the planning of the Metropolitan Council be improved. A decision on where in the agency the long-range planning function will be carried out will be made --and the new process will begin --by July 1, Meintsma said. Rate Structure. The report recommends that a comprehensive study of the way in which rates for MWCC service are currently set be undertaken to resolve structural problems, reduce the complexity and broaden the involvement and understanding of communities. Meintsma said such a study will be done and wi'l involve communities closely in the process. A new rate structure should be in place by Jan. 1, 1987, he said. more "These actions, which I'll be asking the commissioners to support, will take us a considerable way toward resolving some of the major issues in the report," Meintsma said. "Certainly, there's a lot of work to be done and we're excited about doing the job. At the same time, I hope people don't overlook the qood things we're already doing." He cited as an example the awards the MWCC received this week at the ninth annual Energy Saver's Award of Excellence Competition sponsored by the state Department of Energy and Economic Development. The commission was recognized for a $4 million energy savings at the metro treatment plant in 1984. 30 r j-- 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (612) 291 -6359 I r%. REVIEWJ� L rA ' f f f 1 ►ir�si,:.���� •CJ�>. CITY JE 9 'J A 5 ) A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community Leaders CRYSTAL d e r i 5 32 3 For mare information on items in this publication, call the Communications Department at 297-6464. Feb. 15. 1985 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Jan. 28-Feb. 15) Minorities —The Council voted to create a 25-member minorir� issues advisory committee to advise the Council on the impacl of Its plans and policies on racial minority com- munities in the region. Major tasks will include Identifying barriers to minority participation in regional decision -making and dentifvino resources and information minority com- munities need to take advantage of regional services. The application process for members will begin in March with appointments expected in April. Parks —The Metropolitan Council authorized a S992,000 development grant for Boom Island, located in Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park in downtown Minneapolis Plans call for development of roads and parking facilities, p i:nic and play areas, construction of shoreline fishing facilities, a boat launch and a riverside promenade with arbors and benches. The Council amended its development grant contract with Anoka County for Bunker Hills Regional Park, adding S1 .2 million to build z swimming pond. The Council asked the county to brief the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Com mission on the completed design ct the swimming pond prior to construction. The action clings the new grant total to approximately S2 million. The Council also approved a boundary expansion at South Washington l,ounty Regional Park that adds 215 acres to the park's current 300 acres. Air Quality —To solve a longstanding problem of carbon monoxide air pollution at the intersection of University and Snelling Avs. in St. Paul, the Council amended its air quality control plan for transportation that would change signal timing at the intersection by the end of 1987. The Council also called for a parking ban one block in each direction from the intersection by the end of 1989. The city ut St. Paul is responsible for making the changes. Solid Waste —The Council adopted an amended "scoping" document, outlining areas to be considered in an environ- mental impact statement on the Ramsey,fWashingtcn County wasle•toi-:rgy project in Newport. The changes, stemming from written comments received from a public meeting last mDnth, address air quality impacts from the combustion of refuse -derived fuel and limitations on the disposal of ash. Aging —The Council adopted a plan outlining how services for older people in Scott County should be organized, provided and funded. The Council is federally funded and designated as an "area agency on aging" with responsibility to plan and coordinate services for older people in the seven - county Metropolitan Area. Plans have been adopted for all but Washington and Carver Counties. Work has begun on a plan for Carver County Transportation —The Council said an upgrading of the Bloomington intersection of Hwy. 77 (Cedar Av ► and Killebrew Dr. to a highway interchange, which includes construction of ramps, is consistent with Council transportation plans and policies. Sewers —The Council said there was no need to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed 150,000 square -foot office facility on a 30-acre site in Oakdale just east of Interstate Hwy. 694 and Hwy. 5. The Council informed Oakdale, however, that a comprehensive plan amendment and potentially an EIS would be required prior to consideration of subsequent phases of this development. The Council also said any deicision to provide sewer service to the site in no way commits the Council to providing service to the larger industrial park development. Research —The Council ;ecided to update and computer- ze regional land use data, making its work in forecasting land use more `lexible and efficient. The two-year project is estimated to cost S79,000. Salaries —The Council approved a 1985 pay plan that raised the pay ranges of supervisory employees four percent and called for a study of their salary ranges. It also approved a pay for -performance plan for all employees. NEW APPOINTMENTS Council Member Charles Wiger was named as the Council's Ralson to the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. PUBLIC HEARINGS. PUBLIC MEETINGS Health —The Metropolitan Council and its Health Planning Board set a joint public hearing for Wednesday. Feb. 27, at 5 p.m. in the Council Chambers to obtain comment on their application for renewal of their federally awarded designation as a regional Health Systems Agency. Comment is also solicited on the board's 1985 annual implementation plan. The plan calls for action in four priority areas implementing a price - competitive health care system, reshaping the long-term care system, maintaining or improving health status, and establish- ing training techniques for employing people with severe handicaps. For a free copy cf the plan, or the beard's 1995 work plan and budget, which proposes to spend S905,000, call the Com- munications Department at 291 -6464. If you wish to speak at the hearing, or for more information, call Debbie Conley, health board, at 291.6352 Long -Term Care —The Council will hoid a public hearing at o.m., Thursday. March 7, to )btain comment on its recom tndations to reshape the region's long-term care system. To obtain a free copy of the Council draft report, Reshaping Long Term Care in the Twin C.ties Metropolitan Area. P.ecommendations for Change no 14-85-023, call the Cornmunications Departmert at 291-6464 If you wish to speak at the hearing, cal, Lucy Thompsor. Planrmg Assistance, at 291.6521 If you have questions about the report, call Ana Stern, Housing, at 291 -6601 . COUNCIL REVISES SCHEDULE ON SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN The Metropoistan Council has changed the date :t will act on its proposed solid waste policy plan from Feb. 28 to March 14 The change will allow more time for the Council to review comments submitted for the Jan 28 public hearing held on the plan. Hearing testimony totaled about 500 pages of oral and written comments. The Council staff has prepared a hearing report summarizing the comments and recommend- ing changes to the proposed plan. Action on the report and plan is rescheduled as follows Feb. 26 Waste Management Advisory Committee March 6 Environmental Resources Committee March 14 Metropolitan Council Copies of the hearing report, pub. no. 12.85 033, a. be mailed to people who have requested it and to local govern mental units. If you have any questions about the schedule or the report, call Paul Smith, solid waste program, at 291 6408. For a free copy of the report or proposed plan, call the Commun,cut.^•,s Department at 291 6464, 'HEALTH VOTE' BEGINS MARCH 1 Twin Cages residents will be bombarded in March and part of April with an intense information campaign on how to contain skyrocketing health care costs. It's called "Health Vote," a neutral, non -partisan effort conducted primarily through the media. It will include over 200 community meetings and three put lic forums leading ip to a vote April 10, A ballot s -ith 14 questions will be delivered to approximately 700,000 area hoiseholds through the Minneapolis Star and Trihr,ne and the St Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch. The campaign is managed b,. the Health Futures Institute and locally co -sponsored by the Metropolitan Council and its Health Planning Board, the Minnesota Coalition on Health Care Costs and the Minnesota hapter of the American Society of Public Administrators. 4ational sponsors are the Public Agenda Foundation and the Domestic Policy Assuciation. Community forums will be held as follows: March 13, Medical Ethics, 7.9 p.m., First Unitarian Society. 900 Mt. Curse Av., Minneapolis, March 20, Long -Term Care, 7.9 p.m., Landmark Center, St. Paul; and April8, Competition in Health Care, 3:20.5:3n a.m., I•d by Sen. Dave Durenberger, Norhern States Power Co., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis. JOHN BORCHERI NAMED REGIONAL C; I IZEN OF THE YEAR The Metropili• Council named John Borchert, regents' Professor of geog Thy at the University of Minnesota, as "Regional Citizen of the Year" last month at its State of the P,eg,on event Borchert was honored as a citizen who has maae an outstanding contribution to 'he region as a whole. He is : pioneering researcher, has influenced hundreds of students v contunue to have an impact -n the region and beyond and 'a , sidered an articulate spokesperson for a metropolitan viewpoint. CUNCIL REQUESTS PROPOSALS FOR COMPARABLE :. _)PTH STUDY, PUTTING SLUDGE ASH IN 5T. PAUL - Metropolitan Council is requesting proposals for two separns<,orojects. One is for a contras to conduct a comparable worth pay equity study of all Council job classes. Proposals mutt be received by Feb. 27 Address questions to or get RFV Iron Liz Newberry, 291 6575. The other project is for a con- tract to prepare an environmental assessment worksheet on piacir,,g about 300.000 cubic yards of sewage sludge ash on the old Pig's Eye landfill site in St. Paul. Proposals must be received by Feb 25 Address questions or get RFP from Jack Frost, 291-6519 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED FOR ST PAUL APPOINTMENT TO MWCC The Minnesota Secretary of State's Office and the Metro - poi tan Courc l are acce�oting apple —'Bons from persons ,rterested .n representing District A. whief. is St Paul minus Highland Park, on the Men npol,tan Waste Control Commis- s,o- iMWCC' The position j, open due to the res;,nation of Patrick Roedler. The new appointee will fill out the term, which ends Jan 1, 1987 The nine -member MWCC plans and operates the region's _ewage collection and treatment system, Foran application form and more information, call Sandi Lindstrom at 291 6391. Apphcations are due at the Secretary of State's Office by Feb. 26. A Council appointments committee will hear statements from the candidates Monday, March 4, at 7 p.m, in the Council Chambers. The Council will make the appointment on March 14 NEW PUBLICATION Consumer's Guroe to Hearth Plans, Twin Cities 'detro. politan Area. Jan. 1985. The guide tells how to be a wise buyer of health insurance —what kind of coverage to Icok for, how to choose a plan and wnat types of coverage are available. No 18 84.133, 32 po : S1 MINNESOTA ENERGY CONFERENCE The Eleventh Annual Minnesota Energy Conference will be held at the Radisson South Hotel, 7800 Normandale Blvd (Hwys. 494 and 100) in Minneapolis, March 6 and 1. The con. ference is designed to help commercial, industr al and inst,tu- teonal energy users achieve greater efficiency grid economy On March 5 the conference offers a ch.orce two pre- conference, daylong tours of power plants and energy-savirr buildings n Minnesota. Each tour costs S25. Prepaid registration for the conference and exhibi:s is S= Registration at the door is S45 Luncheon tickets are S15 fr. advance and S17 at the door. For more information, call Wayne Kaplan, conference planner, at 330-6670. COMING MEETINGS (Feb. 25-March 8) (Meetings are tentative To verify, call 297 6464 r Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Morday. Feb. 25, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metr000litan Systems Committee. Monday, Feo. 25, 4 p.m., Conference Room A. Regional Transit Board, Monday, Feb. 25, 4 p.m Conferr cce Room E Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee, Tuesday. February 26. 2 c m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Health Planning Board, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 4 pm., Council Chambers. Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, Feb 27, 4 p m , Conference Room E. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Thursday, Feb 28. 1 Y . m , Councii ChamP rs Metropolitan Council, i hursday. Feb 28. 4 o m., Council Chambers Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, March 4, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Regional Transit Board, Monday, March 4, 4 30 p.m., Council Chambers Aggregate Resources Advisory Committee, Tuesday, March 5, 3 30 p.m , Conference Room E. Technical Advisory Committee (cf the Transportation Advisory Board), Wednesday, March 6, 9 a.m., Council Chambers Environmental Resources Cmmnri Wednesday, March 6, 4 p.m., Conference Room E Chair's Advisory Committee, Weanesday, Marcn 6, 7 30 p m.. Couneii Chambers Metropolitan Hrver Corridors Study Committee, Thursday, March 7, 12 30 p.rn , Conference Room E Metropolitan and Comrnunrty Development Committee, Thursday. March 7, 1 30 p m , Council Chambers Management Committee, Thursday, .March 7, 3 p.m-, Coup,_,: Chambers Aviation Policy Pla„ Task Fora, Friday, Marts 8 9 a m , Council Chambers C;Wt;L., ' � I d. a s - 5 ►0 February 22, 1985 \ WEEK OF FEB. 25 - MA^''H 1 NOTE: This publication contain; a one -week list of meetings and agenda items for the Metropolitan Council, its standing committees and advisory committees, as well as similar information for the Regional Transit Board. It is mailed every Friday to a contict person in the region's local governments and to the Twin Cities media. Meetings and agendas occasionally must be changed. For this reason,, anyone Planning to attend niectings should verify the information in advance. Call 291-6464 to do so. Media should continue to call Ken Reddick, 291- 6422, or Lynna Williams, 291-65i1, for more information. Metropolitan Parks and O2un Space Commission - Monday, Feb. 25 4 p.m., Conference Room E. The commission will hear briefings on developments at Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and the 1985 LAWCON/LCMR local park grant program. It will review the boundary amendment and grant requests for Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park, and hear a legislative update. Metropolitan Systems Committee - Monday, Feb. 25, 4 p.m., Conference Room A. The committee will discuss and act on the State Planning Agency report on the Metropolitan Airports Commission. It will continue discussion of potential transit improvements, including light rail transit, in the University Av., Southwest ana Hiawatha corridors. Regional Transit Board - Monday, Feb. 25, 4:30 p.m., Council Chambers. The board is scheduled to act on a staff report on transit improvements in University Av., Southwest, and Hiawatha Av. corric,irs. Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee --Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2 P.m., Cour 1 Chambers. The committee will review the hearing report on the dratt so i waste management guide/policy plan. 1985 Legislative Seminar on Recycling - Wednesday, Feb. 27, 7 - 9 p.m., tate Office Building, Room 200. Council Chair Sandra Gardebring will join other officials in speaking at the conference, sponsored by Minnesota Business dnd Industry Recycling Program (BIRP). Joint Public f'e3rino of Health Planning Board and the Metropolitan Council - Wednesday, Feb. 27, p.m`_.,___ff_ouncil Chambers, n>T a board and Council wi hear public discussion of the board's 1985-86 budget and work program and the 1985 Annual Implementation Plan. Regional Transit Board Policy Committee - Wednesday, Feb. 27, 5 p.m., RTB Board Room. The committee will continue discussion if the Metro Mobility evaluation and he I-394 bus service ana facilities plan. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee - Thursday, Feb- 28. 1:30 p�un��am_5er`s. Cr�bRfr�f �ee wr consider amenrments to the Metro HRA's grievance procedures. It will also begin to develop recommendations for an environmental scanning report to the Council. Management Committee - Thursday, Feb. 28, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. The committee will discuss the personnel report and an Anoka County planning grant request. Metropolitan Council - Thursday, Feb. 28, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. The Council will consider the fallowing committee reports: Metropolitan and Community Development report: adoption of Citizens Participation_ Plan for the Metropolitan Council; federal 1122 review of Abbott -Northwestern Hospital's bid to purchase a magnetic resonance imager; applications for the MHFA multi -family market rate rental program; City of St. Mary's Point comprehensive plan review; and the Metropolitan Council's mission statement. Metropolitan Systems Committee report: recreation open space capital improvement program for fiscal year 1986-87; the motor sports facility study. Management Committee report: Anoka County planning grant request. Environmental Kesources Committee report. Chair's report: Appointment to the Developmental Disabilities Advisory Committee. The Council will also hear a presentation on Health Vote. Health Vote Kick -Off - I-rivay, March 1: 10 a.m., Radisson Metrodome. Council air_�3ndra Gardebring will participate in a press cumference on Health Vote, an intense six -week informa.ion campaign aimed to helping area residents learn ways to control soaring health care costs. - -ci a s on March 1, 1985 : 1a�y4 5 )� WEEK OF MARCH 4 - 8 V f�r�OjtONO NOTE: This publication contains a one -week list of meetings and agenda items for the Metropolitan Council, its standing committees and advisory committees; as well as similar information for the Regional Transit Board. It is mailed every Friday to a contact person in the region's local governments and to the Twin Cities media. Meetings and agendas occasionally must be changed. For this reason, anyone planning to attend meetings should verify the information in advance. Call 291-6464 to do so. Media shculd continue to call Ken Reddick, 291- 6422, or Lynna Williams, 291-6511, for more information. Metropolitan Systems Committee - Monday, March 4, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. The committee will consider the capital improvement program amendment and a grant request for the Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park. It will also discuss the Regional Transit Board's and the Transportation Advisory Board's recommendations on light rail transit. The committee will also review staff conclusions and recommendations on the subject. Regional Transit Board - Monday, March 4, 4:30 p.m., Council Chambers. The boar w appoint a public information officer and hear a Metropolitan Council chargeback presentation. The board will also hear a science museum presentation and an update on the status of federal funding. Public Meeting to Hear Candidates for the Metropolit n Waste Control Commission, District A - Monday, March 4, 7 p.m., Council Chambers. Canterbury Downs Racing Facility Tour - Tuesday, March 5, Bus leaves at 10 a.m. Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee - Tuesday, March 5, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. the committee will act on the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. Aggregate Resources Committee - Tuesday, March 5, 3:30 p.m., Conference Room,, E. The committee will consider the potential regional and local impacts of aggregate protection and will discuss legislative charge no. 1 on sufficiency of data --preliminary findings. Council A000intments Committee - Tuesday, March 5, 4 p.m. !or conclusion of Canterbury tour), Conference Room A. Transportation Technical Advisory Committee - Wednesday, March 6, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. The committee will hear a legislative update and the Regional Transit Board and Council staff positions on light rail transit. The committee will also hear a request for a letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency asking for support of the state air quality implementation plan. Environmental Resources Committee - Wednesday, March 5, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. The committee will consider changes in the Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. Action is expected. Chair's Advisory Committee - Wednesday, March 6, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. The committee will discuss the Council's legislative program. Governor's Taxicab Commission - Thursday, March 7, 8 a.m., Council Chambers. The commission will hear committee reports. Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee - Thursday, March 7, 12:30 p.m., Conference Room E. The committee will revieN the draft analysis of management performance and hear a report on funding and alternatives. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee - Thursday, March 7, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. The committee will consider tl;e Hugo comprehensive plan. Public Hearing on Report from the Council's Long -Term Care Task Force - Thursday, March 7, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Aviation Task Force - Friday, March 8, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. The task force will discuss policy plan updates on aircraft noise abatement, the Crystal Airport report and preliminary aviation systems planning forecasts. Art Town Meeting - Friday, March 8, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. The Council will hear public reaction to its proposed art plan and funding pri--ritie, for fiscal years 1986 and 1987. TM► M It 1 a_ I'M �UNEMPlOYED... J �Kn 1 "'�,F 4v A'IAWiM4 y `� :-► INDICATOK' INTRODUCTION This is the second edition of "THE LAGGING INDICATOR', a publication of the Unemployment Committee of the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. The purpose of this bimonthly publication is to provide community -based organizations and human service agen%ies with information which will help them better serve the unemployed and underemployed in the area and to keep these groups informed of employment issues which are being addressed by local organizations. In the last issue we requested readers to share with us information or concerns regarding programs, services. . or issues involving unemployment. The response was extremely limited. To make this a viable effort in communicating information among service providers in the area we do need your help. We will make every `fort to include any appropriate formation in this newsletter .rich is helpful to the unemployed and underemployed. Please send this information to "A LAGGING INDICATOR' at the address listed below ,,1 "the lagging indicat or " UNEMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Two problems the Unemployment Committee will be addressing in the coming months are: 1), to obtain a better assessment of the resources available to the unemployed and underemployed in the West Hennepin area; and 2), to try and obtain a better understanding of the problem of hidden unemployment in the area. Special emphasis will be made to obtain data on discouraged workers, the underemployed; and the self-employed who earn less than the poverty level. wait hannapin human tervicat planning board �•••• 4100 varnon avenue south, it. loult park, minnatota SS416 910—SSSS To develc, a date base for this needs assessment, the Committee will survey programc_ which serve the unemployed as well es participants in food distribution, energy assistance. and emergency service programs. If you should have any suggestions for obtaining this information please let us know. Your assistance and cooperation would be greatly appreciated. We will be more then willing to share all of the findings with HEATING PROBLEMS To date this has been a relatively mild fall/winter and may have lulled us with the arnee that a typical Minnesota winter will not come. But, it always does and with it the worry about utility bills. This is especially true for those on a limited income who may be unemployed or underemployed. Utility payments, especially for electricity and heat (gas, oil, propane, wood, etc,) should receive high priority in household budgets during the winter, mopths. Once behind on utility paymenta, it is very difficult to catch up. If it is possible, a household should try to get on a "budget plan" or maintain the payments if already on such a plan. Generally, partial payments must be approved by the utility company to be considered in governing decisions on shut -offs The ,'following are resources and information which may be used in addressing heating problems. 44% . ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM This is a program available to low -4 and moderate income fami_ies to provide assistance in making home' hosting payments between October let and May 31st. It is available to home owners and renters who pay their Neat:ny billt3. to I-71te1-8 whose heating costs are included in the rent and to renters in subsidized housing who pay their own heating_ bills. Due to a recent change in policy, households in subsidized housing who have their heat included in the rent are not eligible. Appointment& to make application for assistance MUST be made in advance. The number to call in the West Hennepin area is 929-2474. There are a number of satellite offices at which applications will be taken. Home visits can be scheduled for homebound residents. OTHER ENERGY ASSISTANCE RESOURCES The following resources are listed as possible supplemental or back-up assistance programs where the energy assistance program may not be applicable. Application should first be made to the energy assistance program as these programs will always refer back if this has not been done. These are listed in the order they should be contacted. HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE 348-4952 - For families with children who have exhausted all other resources. If the situation is a heating emergency please have the family stress this in their contacts with this office. SALVATION ARMY HEATSHARE PROGRAM 721-1668 - For families who have exhausted all other resources and experienced an emergency in the family which has substantially reduced the family income such as illness, death, unemployment or fire. This program places primary emphasis on serving the elderly and the handicapped.f�i V e � • e a THE COLD WEATHER RULE This • rule, established by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is to protect certain residential ,. customers againnt CIO HUT - Off NOTICE? wintertime shut -offs. It is in effect between October 15th and April 15th. Households who want to become eligible for such protection (called "Inability To Pay" or ITP status) will have to meet several conditions: a) they must have been reasonably --urrent in your payments on October 15th; b) they must meet certain income guidelines; c) they must be willing to enter into a reasonable payment schedule with the utility; and d) if they are facing disconnection, they must return a completed "Inablility To Pay" form to the utility within 10 days of receiving a notice of Proposed Disconnection. This rule can only be used with R_e_gulatedUt_ilitie_s_. In our service area, utilities in this category are Minnegasco and NSP. If a household is facing a disconnection from a regulated utility, they should file for "Inability To Pay" status immediately. Even if the household does not think it is eligible, this should be done as it will provide an extra week or two for finding other possible assistance. (See Heating Assistance) The following information should be received with a disconnection notice: a notice of the customers rights; a list of agencies who provide energy assistance; a form for claiming inability to pay (ITP). or a partial payment schedule, remember it does not wipe out or reduce the debt, it only delays payment. Try to pay off as much as possible each month as the billings will continue. With Minnesota winters these bills can add up quickly. UNREGULATED UTILITIES Unregulated utilities such as municipal utilities, cooperatives, and small independent vendors such as oil companies are not regulated by the PUC. If you are a customer of an unregulated utility and you are havino trouble paying your bill, don't delay: contact the utility right away to see if you can work out a payment arrangement. Do so immediately if you get a shut-off notice. If these efforts do not solve the pry -blew, get copies of the utility's written policy on the type of problem you have. If you neeo help after that you may want to call your attorney or if you do not have an attorney call the Legal Service Office, (332-1441). 70B SERVICE The Job Service is a labor exchange agency with a prime mission of finding jobs for workers and workers for jobs. This is a Minnesota State agency, financed by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act paid by employers. There are no eligibility requ.rements for applicants except that they be job ready. There is NO FEE charged to applicants or employers. A--word_-of-c_a_u_tio_n_-if a person seeks relief under the Cold Weather Rule Applicant rasidence does not preclude service at any Job Service Office. For applicant convenience though, each office has a service area. The Job Service Office at: 6121 Baker Road, Suite 111 Minnetonka, MN. 55345 341-7163 serves Hennepin County west of Minneapolis and south of Plymouth and Carver and Scott Counties. YMENT SER.ICE The Job Service Office at: 5600 West Broadway Ave. Crystal, MN 341-7168 serves the balance of suburban Hennepin County north of Highway 12 in Plymouth and west of Minneapolis. During the past year, this operation filled approximately 4,500 jobs. These included jobs from entry level to professional. They use Job Bank, a computer listing of available jobs in the local area, Metro area, throughout Minnesota and other states. Listings are updated daily. Other Available Services from the Job Service: Vocational Counseling -A process to aid applicants in evaluating interests and aptitudes and establishing vocational goals. Testing -Skill tests to measure proficiency in typing, shorthand and spelling. Aptitude tests measure latent abilities to perform a variety of jobs. Federal Bonding Program -Provide a financial bond for employment when needed by an individual not bondable through normal means. If th household st.il faces a crisis . '7"i dS:t1::LdnCe iron the abuve agencies, call the Energy Assistance Program, y29--1474. It will Lry tB find another referral resources. Emergency Health and Dental Care -Provide a voucher to authorize emergency care at selected clinics for eligible individuals. Targeted Jobs Tax Credit -Authorize a tax credit to employers hiring low-income persons. Food Stamp and General Assistance - Recipients must register with this office for specialized assistance in finding employment. Failure to comply places continued eligibility in jeopardy. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE The Unemployment Insurance Office is located in the Minnetonka Job Service Office. Their telephone number is 341-7512. A weekly benefit is paid to individuals involuntarily unemployed. Eligibility to file a claim is a minimum of 15 weeks of employment cat s94 each week) during the past 52 weeks. The individual must be able and available to work. Specific questions on the program can be answered during a visit to the office. If you are in doubt regarding your eligibility be sure to apply. You may be eligible and only the Unemployment Insurance Office can answer for sure. 1�M 1JGN'�� �nw Kt►r `,if1t MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD! 7 I Fa OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 27 HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Ca:2 F p The regular meeting of the School Board of Independent Schoo held on Monday, February 11, 1985. Present: Dave McKown James Franklin James Seiter Don Anderson William Levering William Fenholt Kitty Crosby Reuben Palm UPON MOTION by Reuben Palm, seconded by Jim Franklin, the minutes of the January 28, 1985 regular meeting were approved as presented. Bill Fenholt reported on the Comparable Worth Seminar, sponsored by MSBA, which was held on February 4 and 5, 1985. Mr. Fenholt stated that this is an exten- sive undertaking and as the District progresses in this area he will keep the Board informed. The principals' statements regarding homework over vacation periods were discussed briefly. The consensus of the Board was that this was an isolated incident and that the judgment of the teacher/administration should be exer- cised in this area. Jim Seiter stated that Orono's Gifted and Talented Program would be reviewed by the State Department of Education on Wednesday, February 13 between 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Mr. Seiter invited interested Board members to attend their exit conference at 2:30 p.m. Hubie Rosch, chairman of the elemen*ary report card committee, was present and provided the Board with a progress report. A survey, from which the committee received good response, has been completed by parents and teachers. The com- mittee will now use this information in developing a draft of the proposed report card. The goal of the committee is to submit the final report card to the Board for approval in May. Dr. Jack Zimmer and Dr. Gary Mohrenweiser, EMS/McGraw-Hill, were present for questions/answers regarding the extensive study which was done for the District. As a result of their study, EMS made fifteen recommendations to the District which were the focal point of th,� Board's discussion. These recommendations are covered on pages YI-11 through VI-14 of the report. Copies are available in the District Office for perusal. Administration will review this report with the principals and will report back to the Board with their recommendations at a later date. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the call for bids on middle school remodeling and insulating the west wall of the high school was approved. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the District will contri- bute one half of twenty days' salary plus $500 for use in physics instruction in recognition of Gary Severtson's selection as a participant in the 'ISF Career Development Program this summer. Administration will check further on the language of the Master Contract with regard to this expenditure. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Bill Levering, approval was granted for David Green to finish the school year at Wayzata High School. Jim Seiter informed the Board that Wayzata is interested in some type of agreement which would address the mobility of students between districts. The consensus of the Board was that administration should investigate the options and report back to the Board. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Kitty Crosby, Eileen Hauff's resigna- tion was accepted. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, Ellen Olson's request to retire at the end of the 1984-85 school year was approved. The Board requested that a letter of thanks be sent to Miss Olson for her years of dedicated service to the Orono School District. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Jim Franklin, the call for bids on a tractor purchase for 1985-86 was approved. After the specifications are deve- loped, Bill Fenholt will provide copies for approval by 2 or 3 Board members. UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Jim Franklin, Carol Senn was hired as high school computer lab assistant. UPON MOTION by Reuben Palm, seconded by Bill Levering, the bills as covered by vouchers 047231 through 047313 and 046422 through 046521 (checks 045951 through 046421 are computer checks) were approved as presented. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Dave McKown, Chairman l� _L AD Kathe ine P. Crosby, -Clerk 2 {!, i,i- I,'.!':I.:F iC :i'.1. (.G;:'.;F.��.'i 7!'. . [, ' Saturday 3- 9-85 Monday 3-18-85 Saturday 3-23-85 Wednesday 3-27-85 3-1-85 473-7033 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE March 1985 Water Structures 6 Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., J. J. Hill's Ironhcrse Inn, Wayzata Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata Executive Committee 7:30 a.m., Park Bench Eatery, Spring Park Regular Meeting, Board of Directors 7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) � gll Tq S '! Minnesota State Horticultural Society 161 ALDEL+MAh I a ia7q cOLwELL A' E .,7 PAUL N NN `,51^8 TELEPHONE i6121 373 1031 G�T4HA, t, February 20, 1985 Marty Jessen Hennepin County Park Reserve 3800 fbunty Road 24 .Baple Plain, TV 55359 Dear Ma--ty Jessen: I regret my frequent absences from your Noerenberg garden meetings. But, I have reviewed the recent general directions which seems to have attracted the oommitteeTs imagination, i.e. the establishment of an estate garden more or less along the lines of Eddie PhelpTs work. Of course, I whole heartedly approve of this direction. It has seemed the obvious, correct direction from the very start. What should be avoided in the design and its rendering is that the garden be made to fit low cost, suburban, trendy 3.984 landscape conditions with that commercial landscape look that is so common in our newer communities. The gardens should not be given over to roadways for cars and acreagI_. for park,_n,;. Serenity, elegance, permanence, spaciousness, timelessness, privacy, wealth..... these are nouns that matter. Access through Minnetonka estate gardens was by foot, not bf auto or bus. Parking facilities must not become the primary pulse beat of the design but must be kept subdued, modest in size, invisible from view. You must not let this special piece of property be transformed into a stereotype county park system facility. The people of the Noerenberg garden era in this lake community could afford elegance and good taste (not claiming that they were always well expressed) in landscape artistry. It should be *he challenge of the committee to seek out and secure that design which best immortalizes and makes public the beautiful estate gardens which once accompanied that style of living. Anything short of this accomplishment would become another opportunity wasted. GHR : mr Sincerely, `'Glenn H. Ray 7 &ecutive Secretary THE MINNESOTA HOATICULTURIST - OFFICIAL •USLICATION CONCEPT n,/O : MODI H E� D ESTAYE� Pb lHt Vltl-fOR Ji �'g DY CAR, T-He GAWNV�7 � R���at ED ;, ✓ �ntRY RG�D. I �t-1E ;NTE IS TD L*1�EgS Ar+v^ 4n,z==. n. SEN6E OF AAWVD.L. AMA PaRKI^16, v�5-'DR Ex. E+.iEr THE SITE AS AN INTE-RLOP--P , W,,LAIN6 TNRIDUCiH THE- WILD CIARDEN� RUK—iING THE MDRE FORKAL .:GFIAND EM rY loll ja �' �''tt:,=ii�bl� iD�riKi;J}..` t,•'�'•, :: `''�.r.sY' :-. %�, � �'... ~.\ ` .; •.,,_,_,�'.^ ___� J ti:• .__..------ tuwFK t,�t_�ctD�s- -_ t►" � 1�iariicuREp•...�-�.��. •:w.r-�uxic asa,�Ys ar `•"�•. bR0UND5 - _ 4gii :^F'�N Pi, wI•.•if wCS, ..- � r'• i� l : � � .. Af -J, PJND*, MrTlRWV1. '. • �, - '- NOER__N ERGMEMONAL - - `COUNTY-_in5K I : , • �N f i i ' tile• yY i '!.. l .,� wyy i.. / —.:fl.��,.A�.. rMPNiG(}RED • �rr.�vrn - "--' •►:i• ��•�.�. •grRcr ro► rwrr IaROUNDS Wiz,• •':.:r��;,.!'?y' :' �.� • <'• � f • OtI++�E'S .a► u1dY''Q,GwtNs 'oR - �t CONCEPT ONE: INTENSITY ZONES ZONe6- ar MVE ILOPMa< ACr ro SEu uo� THE- C&, rER of THE fhZ7E WHIC 4 OFFERS THE U`'ER A DE1-6hlrUL- VPRIETY GF ExPEgIEtiat, IN A rUN 1 ,T--N -NGE FORMOLIT`{ BELOMF- LE%f INJ'eLN--e DT THE LAKE 9WIRY -VMK wrtN '5L49.1 - 3 i �Z,—WlBERG MEMORIAL CCWTV PARK j awn•• r Le4CHO 04 MfMAAL MOOR CaX4" FO 56, "Tw RW MJWEN NEZCW omoKniN I net ON-Y Lift C'F.A MT AOit1A1 ARK N)ATLF-r, -tWGTU.W . I AP4L.* -ft4rtvep 4,4 -PPAKIMO --XCP,A.C-g . 04—cf- w fter ;��r 14ow , I -Ty, OHIW fmtxTtoA— oq~� 4& m, X ,tom P. I'M VI" R?-IAeLfl WWI CoUrTY FO 51 OPV.M { -XJHHY CMM UHCSI'%rPy M&W PONT vw--, Mayor Mary Butler City of Orono Orono 11n Dew- Mayor But ! er, Thir. ls in referenc:e to the cite ardinance cloverninq the staring of boat.., tr of lers., dock's., etc. sin res.ider•+., %I iota Secause of the physical problems: of many of the lots rin i_ry=:tbl Bay Ru., (i.e., narrow lots, closely spaced houses., inaccessable rear yards, a road along the lak:eshore, etc.) it is almost irnpossible for the residents: to comply with the ordinance as it is now written As one drives along other Iakeshore areas of Orono, it becomes evident that rrieny other pe iple. have the same problem The lake is the basis for a great deal of recreational activity all year, consequently, a great deal of equipment ( boats, snowmobiles, dc(+s, etc is accurnulated bu the residents. Iri vieW of tlir s,, I urge the city to an'lend the ordinance so that it more closely sddresc.es• the needs and limitions of the crtiZens of Orono, and ,pecrficallu the problems: of Crustal Bay Rd. residents, Respectfully, i1ayor" i 1-,ry but let- Ci tyCity of OroralClronci!ln 2 5 10 [rear Mayor Butler; OF Ora)N'-} This is iri reference to the city ordinance governing the storing pf boat:, trailers, docks, etc. on residential lots Because of the physical problerns of marry of the lots can Crystal Bay Rd., ii e., narrom lots:, closely sparred houses, inacces.,eble rear yards. a road ?+long the leikeshore, etc ) it is almost impossible for'ne resident:: to cornpiy the ordlnrince. me it !: r;row mritten As one drip -es mono other F6S of Gr'4t'IC�, It beccinj,?,z. evident thbt '''r6r''!j other ?:eople have the sai*ne proulerri. Thre lake irst{1F Nm.is for a great deal of recreational activity all year, consequently, e great real of equipment (I boats, snowrnobi lei:, docks., etc:,) is accumulated by the residents In vlevy of this. I urge the city to amend the ordinance sc: trrat It rnore closely_ addres�ns the need-.. arid of the citizens of Orono, and specifically the problems of Crystal Day Rd resident,. c;e�per t r r.�l rr!, 11ayor Mary Butler City of Orono Orono 11n. Dear Mayor Butler; I, 26 U I CITY OF 0R0.1 This is in reference to the city ordinance governing the storing of boats, trailers, docks, etc. on residential lots. Beca(rs:e of the physical problems of many of the lots on Crystal Byy Rd , 0.e ; marrow lots, r lonely spaced houses, inaccessable rear yards, a road along the lal�les.hore, etc: ) it is almost impossil'le for- the res.ident., tc, comply with the ordinance as it is now written. As one drives along other Lakeshore area:: of "mono. it becomes F��ident that many other people have the same problem. 1 roe lake is the basis for a cheat deal of recreational activity all yebr; consequently, a great deal of equrprnFnt ( boats, snowmobiles, docks, etc..) is accumulated by the residents. In view of this:, I urge the city to amend the ordinance so that it snore closely addresses: the needs: and limitions of the citizens of Orono, and specifically the problers. of Crystal Bay Rd residents. Respectfully, i � l 1-16yor Horkl But ier City of Orono Orono Mn. De+5r 11 15yor Butler, c@ (ROW FFEB 2 6 LL,+ (Y ()F Or{ONO ' J This is in reference to the city ordinance governing the storing cif goats, trai lu,-s:, clocks, etc:. on residential lots. Because of the physical problerr;s of many of the lots on Crustal bay Rd., (i.e.; narrow lots., c loselu spaced houses, inaccessable rear qerds, e ro9d alone the lakes:hore, etc.) it is almost impossible for the residents to comply with the ordinance as it is now written As one drives along other lakeshore areas of Orono, it becomes evident that many other people have the same problem. The lake is: the basis: for a great deal of recreational activity fill 1,e5r, consequently, a great deal of equipment ( boat.,, sno!-,rrnobiles., docks. etc ) is accumulated by the residents Ir vie,k of this, I urge the city to an+eno the ordinance so that 0.. more closely addrec =:es the needs: ar•rd ! -01ons f-f the citizens of Orono and specifically the problems. of Crystal bey R!f residents. Respectfullu, �1� c @a���r�� Mayor Mary Butler City of Orono FB 2 7 1985 Orono Mn. ' CITY OF ORONO Dear Mayor But ter; This is in reference to the city ordinance governing the storing of boats, trailers, dock:, etc. on residential lots. Because of the physical problen-,s of many of the lots on Crystal Bay Rd., (i.e.- narrow lots, closely ..paced Houses, inacc:es,*$able rear yards, a road along the lakeshore, etc..) it is almost impassible for the residents: to comply with the ordinance as it is now written. As one drives along other lakeshore areas of Orono, it becomes evident that many other people have the some problem. The lake is the basis: for a great deal of recreationbl activity all year, consequently, a great deal of equipment ( boats, snowmobiles, docks, etc) is accumulated by the residents. In view of t.h)s, I urge. the city to amend the ordinance so that it more closely addresses the needs and litmtions. of the citizens of Orono, and specifically the problems of Crystal Pay Rd. residents. f ul I!., . •nl �, L c_/ Mayor Mary Butler City of Orono Orono r;:. Dear Mayor But I er.. N ILI�C�CSC�D�i�r,�;1 lN1 FEB 28ff 1TY _0 ORON_!i► This is in reference to the city ordi1'1ancF governing the storing of boats, trailers, docks, etc. on residential lotc:. Because of the physical problerri� of r►iariY Of the lots on Crystal Bay Rd., (i.e.; r._rrow lots, closely ;paced houses, inaccessable rear ,yards, a road along the lakeshore, etc. ) it is almost Irnpossible for the residents to cornply with the ordinance as it is now written. As one drives along other lakeshOre areas of Orono, it becomes evident that many other- people ha,Ve the same problem. The lake is the basis for a great deal of recreational activltg all 4ear, consequently, a great deal of equipment ( boats, snowmobiles, docks etc is accumulated by the residents In view of this, I urge the city to an•rerid the ordinance sa that it more closely addresses the needs and litnitions of the citizen: of Orono, and specifically the problems of Crystal Baer Rd residents. Respectfully, rl L. ✓ /'�,�L!% � �� T �f .�C. i1F�•� '`%G�'rV, t- ;�,�e�1�ir � �.:. /l. 105, or 'SIT,'' � I''.� .� .� �_/:^•.� C!, . February 23, 1981 To the Residents of Crystal Hay Road, The petition distributed by Mr. Carl and Mr. Siakel points out that "a great deal of equiptment (boats, snowmobiles, docks, etc.) is accumulated by (a few) residents" and is Inieed stored in front yards. But, to amend the ordinance is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND 1tAY PROVE TO 13E 11IG1iLY DETniMENTA1. TO OUR C01iMUNITY. You already know that the city ordinance, as it is, does allow for variances where residents have an ACTUAL Ii OIDSHIP. History has proven that the city is not blindly and strictly enforcing this storage ordinance. They normally only get involved upon a specific complaint. Where there are .1nacco3sable back yards, I am in agreement with the general intent of this petition BUT, LET'S NOT OPEN THE FLOOD GATES. Let's all con- •ulnue to work toward a clean neighborhood ---- f0li EVERYONE. If a resident has an A.CCESSABLE back yard; HE SHOULD USE IT. Even now a few people dump "items" in their front yards for all to look at even though they have accessahle back yards. Sheer inconvenience should not be an excuse for anyone to encourage the decay of our neighborhoods appearance. In any case, should a Herron with an inaccessable back yard be allowed the uncontrolled storage of as much miscellaneous "stuff" in his FRUNT yard as he may want? As this can potentially get out of hand, WE MUST HAVE CONTROLS. Our present ordinance .foes serve that purpose while still considering true hard- ship cases. If you still feel that you want our cur- rent protections weakened, ...EASF„ Af LEAST, AMEND 'PHIS PETITION BEFORE YOU Milli, IT. Reflect your honest concern for our neighborhoods appearance by adding a footnote stating that "IF A PERSON HAS AN ACCE5SABLE HACK YARD, HE SHOULD) USE IT"1 Si "ceretMrs, r Je r/ ,,�� ,, w es or 1 33 Cq star })ay Rd. i18yrr lir,ry Butler - i Gil•' of Orono �Ss D � �� \'. Orono Pin FB 2 81985 Debr I.15yor But I er; CITY OF O�s��►!:, This is in reference to the city ordinance governing the storing of boats, trailers, docks, etc on residential lots. Because of the physical problems of marry of the lots on Crystal Bay Rd.. (i.e.; narrow lots, closely spaced houses, inacc.es.sable rear yards, a read along the lekeshere, etc...) it is almost impossible for the residents to Comply `nrith the Ordinance gs it is now written. As one drives along other Lakeshore area:. of Orono, it bec.ornes evident that many other aeople have the sarne problem. Tile lake is the basis for a great deal of recreational actwity all year, consequently, a great deal of equipment ( boats, snowmobiles, docks, etc ) is accumulated by the residents. In view of this, I urge the city to amend the ordinance so that it more closely addresses the needs and linlitions of the citi2ens. cif Orono, and specifically the problems of Crystal Bay. Rd. residents. Re pec,+full,;, Mayor Mary Butler FEB 2 A 1985 City of Orono Orono Mn. CITY OF ORONO J Guar Mayor Butler: Th;,. rs iri referer.^e to the city ordinance goverrorig t:re torinq of boats, trailers, .locks, e'c or., residential lots Eecause of the physical problems cof mer-y of tr,p !cite 1011 Crys,.ai Bay Ra , (i.e., norrow lots, closely speced houses, m6ue:,sabie rear yards, a -ood aionq the Lakeshore, etc.) it is: alrno:A impossible for the residents to cor►lply with the ordinance as it is now written. As one drives along other lakeshore areas of Orono, it becomes evident tr,nt rn-trry other people have the some problem. The lake ?r. the hot fcir ,orPtit deml cif rerrWi[Inn, activity al year, r_onsequent;y, o►eat deal, of equiprr•rent ; boats. snowmobiles, docks, etc.) is c.._umulated b-}'.I*re residents. In view of this, I urge the city to amend the oroinerce c.o that rt n-,ore closely address:r- tr►e need;,- and limitions of 'he citizen, Or -nu, and specifically the problems of Crystal Bay Pd. residents. Re�:cer:tf:,l I�r, 0 I�ayor Vert; Butler City of Orono Orono 11n. Deor- Mayor Butler, MAR r � Clfy ov oil i i"- ; This is in reference to the city ordinance governing the storing of boots, trailers, docks, etc. on residential lots. Because of thu-hysical problems of many of the lots on Crystal Bay Rd , 0.e.,- narrow lots, closely spaced houses, inaccessable rear yards, a road ala. g the lel:eshore, etc.) it is almost unpossible for the resiuents to comply with the ordinance as it is now written. As one drives along other I,,+keshore areas of Orono, it becomes evident that many other people have the some problem ThP lake is the basis for a great deal of recreational activity all year, consequently, a great deal of equipment ( boots, snowmobiles, docks, etc.) is accumulated by the residents. In view of this, I urge the city to amend the ordinari4e so that it more closely addresses the needs and limitions of the citizens of Orono, end specifically tn,problems of Crystal Bay Rd residents Respectful iy, M �AL DAY FA .A. Mayer McIry but t?r City of fironc, Orono Vin. Dear Hayor Butler; This is in reference to the city ordinance governing the storing of beats, trailers, docks, etc. on residential lots. Because of the physical probleivis of many of the lots on Crystal Bay Rd., 0 e.; narrow lots, closely spaced houses, inaccessible rear yards, a road along the lakes.hore, etc.? it is almost impossible for the resident.. to comply with the urdinance as it is now written. c. one drives along other lakeshore areas of Orono, it becomes evident that many other people have the some problem. The lake is the basis: for a great deal of recreational activity all year. consequently, a great deal of equipment { boats, snowmobiles, docks., etc:.' is accumulated by the residents. In view Hof this, ! lane the ON to amend the ordinance so that it more closely addresses the needs and lirnitions: of the citizens of Orono, and specifically the problems of Crystal Bay Rd. residents. Respectfully, MR -^�''' ORF ONCil� % INTEROi FILE MEMO 85-030 DATE: March 7, 1985 TO: Manor Butler and Orono City Council Mayor Kunze and Long Lake City Council Mayor Rockvam and Spring Park City Council Mayor Boswinkel and Minnetonka Beach City Council FROM: Chief Melvin Kilbo SUBJECT: Insurance Replacement ,if Squad Car *s you may recall, the 1985 budget for Orono Police Department as set in the capital outlay portion for three (3) squads as replacement vehicles, at a total net cost of $25,700. On rebruery 1, 1985, Officer Gregg Griffiths was involved in accident in which squad 142 (a 1984 squad not scheduled icement) was totally destroyed. I was able to 1985 Hennepin County squad car repla^ement cor. ct .p?acement for #142. Therefore, your 1985 budget will show jLal Tapital outlay for fou. (4) squad cars instead of the three originally budgeted. The fourth squad car, at a total pur-tiase pi -ice of $10,884 is covered by insurance for a total of , .886, and will be credited against the $10,884. leaving a balance of $998, and will be added to the capital outlay for 1985. In addition, we are attempting to retrieve the $100 deducti,1 from the other party involved in the accident at this time. This 110tification is made to all of you in accordance s Contract Provision #17 on Page 15 of contract that statee 8 nor, dgeted capital expenditure requires notificatiu:, and approval 1rou, all cities participating in the contract. .As you can , th only increase we are referring to is $998 as the net loss of thc accident of Feb. 1, 1985. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 514ORN STATEMENT IN PROOF OF LOSS (Automobile) Poll(t NC'. -iL^S C If. No, Policy Coverage at Time of Loss__ Compa^v Cfilm %o. —� Date Issued (� 8t� Agenl uXL r 1 d �.At— T.Isat�i/'fl� � Date Expires e A ency Iho----- H� - -- - 01 — _. By you, policy of ,nsv,orcw lesc•.bod obewo• ya. rnsaad_ — - __-� - - (MEREINAFTER CALLED THE f4SURED: AGnil L SS OF OR CAMAGE TO THE A;ITOMOBILE DES:RiBED At FOLLOW_ 0[[Cw -TICN Ct ALTO+'�aIL[ TIME AND ORIGIN TITLE AMC INTEREST OTHER INSURANCE USE THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE SU OROGATION T Ville or Do:;--T %00006 ta•LL ••AtA[ T ► •e_c• s•A,t •a,..•sI MOC[s. .I •I %[•. C:[ ,O[N•,t C•y,Cw v,. •. r-•--- �cn.p-- A less co..sed I Tt•�—Z��w+tbcevns,d ar M -do, of_s"llbassin., I& bcut the he.- of : p r. Ike 1.11 onc.'at • ch e, e► fello. 1S;e' .here Or a-uA--t- �llliflii. ev TM ,ns.,td was •-e at t o.re' of .he ev'omo!•le a• ,tt , mw of •tie less a• do, -ago end no e•ho, pa'se- had on, •'te'est thot*sn, by ►ati.eon, 1*c*e, co-d.t.o-ol so't, mortgage, of other encvmbtence o, a•a+e... SO. *•cep•: At Ike I," of Ih,s less, oh*-* as ne *,he, nsv.*nee a, ►e•d evtomob,4 eo.*„no the same po,,'s •.coot At she t.me of tills lose. Ike sold avtomcb•le .as being used lo•___,AA'1 I•,c•ii;:i. a.s .sas e• c_...,sTicT_ _••o c+ and .as •a, bang ,,bed -a cony possongo•s fa• tempo-so',o- o, lento! o, leased o, 100 on, ,ilege, pu'pcse a.copf• of t11t p,optny deact.bod. +b ec•val loss a•d damage scste.ned. one the amount clo'rned unde• Ih.► Polley a.* as ft!,e.t' C•s• C—.[ O.C:C :Css •uG vNT O[CJC'r§►,[ •••^uw• C:alu[C ._— - Poe, _ __ �• _ lot T .. I e a e . 1 c • --q�8` %s 98 roe— To Inc *.Itm of the pay nert mode a' ed.e-ced vnde• 'h•s pat-c,, 'he +novted 4,tkv ossyns, I,o-s'rs end awls a•*, •o 'he �r►u•erct ce,_'Ony 0'1 ,.else• clam% o, '-Islas•% •ha, ',t to► ego,ns• a" pOlson. 1 o• co•to•st on I.oble fe, ,hp lots of do-*$* to If,* +•ope,•T fc• ,.h.ch po,mt I 'a mods, a ac.eneed. He else he,oby ov•f o•,vos the Insu'enee company Ia eve any such th„d pony .e h., norm The .nsv,*d h*,eby .e•,em► the, na ,• test he let-- a .on at ..11 be p•er e, setslamom a eompeam,so made or egro*d vPo- . Ih env 0..d pe,•, No me, be heb�e - do.-oo . 'a IM .-some .Ail twspac, ,o the cle,m berg mod* ho-e... The ►o-d loss a. de -ago d,d no' a.g -e'e bT e'y Oct. ba gn e• p•ocu•t or my 'a., port me. on the Pall of *"yens he..ng '"Itrtst n the p,opony insv,ed•a, ,n Ih* sa•d pol,c, of v101co,-a ,n co-a**vo-co of a, _.1 P•ec,.ct dcne a, %.Ifo,*d bT we va end the, no p•coa•ty se.od NO% ,- env mon-*, been co -cooled It .o o■p'ess'► .-da•s'Oed end opoed the, the Ivrn,sh.ng I Mrs blahs o, he p,s,co,a,,or ct p•oct by o •tt•eunra••.e olth* ebo.♦-awone• cope-v ,s ne, o .*,.a. of ff"t of ,Is rights. Seto of! ,`�1� ♦� ��,(�,Ai1aLS'C�I CO.-ev of�_._---- �.� _ ._ /� _.---- - ---- A (�• ca'�� 4-1 dw+ern to ►er-. — "us -. -1 do, of ��� J _ __ _+_--, t• PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION N h*•eby 4o,•e'e1, ..the, aed O^d • r -e ed 'e ro• o' ,+ cI' o. I:. .... -- Ta- __ .- - _...---'--- •--- _ --._ ------ - - __ -- ---.-.._--_Tilt ovw o1 S - - Te TM slow, of j ... •morn* CIO -*d Undo' Pef.ay i -•u f•s_•es Atd's,ss g+ __ —Inpv'eneo CoNweny, Is . tat A-• ass . -Is fa-.t• Is. r w. f t l► •- .. -• a r --01 $f*f: PAL / vr0 t>•Ac T CE S.A(rria" root Ida DID slot at oft- - Auoosr .o..s-atr -A- ooif C' As 90 10-01-44, •AOC 33 of. 11 ratc( •AOICCrip• --- -- --- - -- - -- - 196a 19A5 1965 Iles loel 1:t1 i9014 1 OCar MGA COU%CIL ACTUAL ACTUAL A;,o0Oa O5-)I-A4 A C I U A REG7_ST w_C9-4w') AOGFT%. aS/S IIOrn :A;WAANC : 3; i 1 I a77r ----_--- LI-- --*- I,Su^•--------• WT, -- ---------------------------- ,-------- ------•--»7-.----- -- ------- ----- - ----`--••••------- a'7� Ir•.0 a .CL a------ ---------------------------------------• -------.. -------- ----------;-.-----..- ----:--- lit---.--...-------------- .---- ... . - --------------•----- lI--- ...---------.-.-- -------------------------------•--•------------------------------- --•-•------ ----•--------.._--, ----------•--- c-- --- -----.--------------------- lac: I I 8w 04E`t'-ASON- 539 6$a ?$1 1aA. t57 1 ---------------------------------------- 1r,: I 1400 1 AOC I asel ••� ttlav:l•w:l�A._- cAAiiG ..• ASa _ ......---- 5JA -' !15 - -- -•-------. 1a ---- 1C] i -- ----- - e5" I ------------•--•---------------------- 1)0 eS: 2 a3A1 !t:A.-rr�as �iSi S- - -. . -. - -' at- -----•- - - - - -- - -- ---•--•_i•----•--- -----•-------------- all3 1:::•.S:'S A 1a.;S-.-.-...... LS-------�!1 - - ---' 1I---------P------- v: -- -1)_-i ----131) :•--'•ICC-I--•..-'- -- ----- ..•. - --- ------ falT.)�►- --- 14. 6 ---------- - � , I -------.....---- : .-----.-..--_----•--------.------ -- -I 15S. !0- 155- as[� -- ----- • ;1.------ ►S --• - - ---- ----------`-1,.:_...---------•------------------------------------ aSaC ,rs_-= f..4- trv? 11)i aS0 1S ---'''j.:...-I�16-;----16t)a -. -1e``-:---- ---- -- - •).s. -UT--J1:9Z ...w:i.'mef - 11.'6? ••. IS116----_?:7 i6---• •.1,. f% _.-7a-5�--•--"17):•, ??F-0 1 - MCIC i------------------- 156_ )T.:s _;-Ia• .1 •. ...--•------------ 1:) 71)i --- --- -- ----•- 1 �5 --- - 3'. - .-.--._--.--.--- +115 I a?t5 - - -- r115 -------.-- --------•-- .... ... 10T--C..,T'. N'L�; •J '1._••. 9,So ...---3i- 1O15r .J - S- )15^ - -- "--• alb ------' !159' -'---'_-----'- 7)99 I599---•--------------- -- - - - - -- a 'Su -- -------- •�`. : -• -- 71 --- - - -- .-. - .--: .- --- ►-- - 1-•_ ..:----- ---- 1--- av ---- _ ... .............:.........:-..------:-------_------------ ft'T:L-aM_.vr- Tni. _'v ;.,r .....516-) a16 • 50a1)S-•- 6a315S----1.611F •S.a.e1 :_.6,.SOS'•: 6&,t;ep.: .W919•�--•-•------•-- - -- ^1 .--- v(--L F_•0 CIO 11 :-)L'C: -33 — MINUTES OF THE. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 1 ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM The Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members p-esent: Chairman Callahan, Kelley, Rovegno, Sime, and newly appointed member Paul Taylor. Planning Commission member Goetten arrived at 8:41 p.m. llanning Commission member McDonald was absent. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth and Recorder Sutton represented the City staff. Council Representative Lynn Adams was also present. 1888 CATHARINE CRAM 3760 WATERTOWN RD METES 6 BOUNDS SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 7:43 PM Catharine Cram was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth note-, the affidavit of publication and certificate of mail &r.g. Neighbor Loren Butterfield of 3925 Watertown Road was present from the audience for this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this is a division of the applicant's homestead creating one new residential unit of 10acres. Mabusth noted that the second residence cannot be designated as a guest house because it is a rental unit and so should be recognized as a non -conforming use and subject to all pertinent ordinances. Loren Butterfield stated that this is the type of subdivision he likes to see in this neighborhood. Chairman Callahan closed the pubii.c hearing at 7:43 p.m. after the neighbor's comments were heard. Rovegno noted that the net 9 acre lot will not. be subdividable in the future because it is in a 5 acre zoning district and would need 10 acres to be subdividable. Rovegno noted that if the City requires a quit claim deed over the right-of-way, th, City would essentially be creating a new lot with another tax statement. Rovegno asked if Mrs. Cram would want this new lot. Catharine Cram stated that she only wants the one lot subdivided. Rovegno noted the City's options in that the City can acquire the quit claim deed but recognize that this lot is one lot and not separated by the quit claim deed. Rovegno noted the other option is to waive the quit claim deeding for any right of way for the City. ZoringAdministrator Mabusth statedthattheassessor should have input on this application as to whether Mrs. Cram should consider a special lot combination. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 2 #888 CRAM (CONT) Chairman Callahan asked why the City is requesting a quit claim deed from a portion of the property that is not even involved with this subdivision. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that it has been a standard policy of the City to acquire right-of-way ar.d since we are dealing with a metes and bounds divi lion, the City asks for a quit claim deed. Kelley felt that it was unfair for the City to divide the lot for firs. Cram if she doesn't want that extra lot. Sime noted that no future subdivision of Parcel A would be permitted. Ravegno moved, Kelley seconded, to recommend approval :,f a metes and bounds subdivision of the property located a" 3760 Watertown Road for Catharine Cram creating one new residential unit finding all standards for the RR-11 zoning district have been satisfied with such approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Conservation and flowage easement over wetlands in Parcel A. 2. Payment of Park fee for Parcel A of $100. 3. Second residence on Parcel E is a non -conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. 4. Resolution of the right-of-way issue be resolved between applicant, staff, city attorney, and assessor. 5. No future subdivision of Parcel A based on current zoning standards. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FE-BRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 3 #889 EUGENE NELSON BIG ISLAND RECORD LOT #16 & 22 LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:56 - 8:16 PM Eugene Nelson was not present. J.T. Smedberg was present to represent his interest in the subject property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mabusth noted that this application is to formally divide a strip of lakeshore on Big Island for tax purposes. Mabusth stated that this subdivision is serving to tie up some loose ends created in 1970 when the registered land was divided without City approval. J.T. Smedberg stated that Orono made this proposal a few years ago to Eugene Nelson and Nelson never responded. Smedberg noted that the property at that time was owned by three different persons. Smedberg noted that the RS Zoning District was created for seasonal use and were grouped together according to family ownership. Smedberg stated that Nelson's sister owned some of the property and then he bought the property from Eugene Nelson. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Sime felt that he could not act on the application tonight because of the misunderstandings between applicant, new owner, and staff. Sime moved, Taylor seconded, to table Nelson's lot line rearrangement application in order to allow time for staf f to work with new owner and applicant. Motion, Ayes ( 5) , Nays (0). Planning Commission asked staff t concerning the RS Zoning District on intent of such ordinaice along with ownership by right-of-way (roads) on o submit a report Big Island and the the separation of Big Island. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN/NETLANDS MANAGEMENT SECTION OF CODE PUBLIC HEARING 9:50 - 9:58 PM Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the affidavit of publication. Mabusth explained the the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has setforth different setback standards for specific lakes and a drainageway within the City. Rovegno asked staff to find where it requires the City to adopt the DNR's regulations. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 4 #884 RICHARD ELLER 2655 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE Planning Commission felt they could not act on this amendment to the code tonight and needed further information. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve the ordinance amendment tonight but to merely make comments for Council and staff to consider. Mabusth noted the formal ordinance will be drafted later this year. Chairman Callahan moved, Rovegno seconded, to table the flood plain and wetlands amendment to the code until the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to investigate into this amendment further. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Richard Eller was not present. D.C. Messer of 2673 Pheasant Road and E.J. Stanke of 2660 Pheasant Road were present from the audience for this application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the application has been rescheduled before the Planning Commission because the neighbors have failed to communicate and resolve the issue. Mabusth stated that she checked with Chaska Marina to verify the claim that Eller made regarding the moving of the boat and the damage it would sustain if moved at this point, and Chaska Marina confirmed that there would be damage to the boat if moved. Sime felt that in light of the fact that over 30 people had signed a petition requesting that Orono enforce this City ordinance, he felt compelled to follow their wishes. Sime strongly felt that the City must enforce the ordinances or change them when citizens complain. Sime also noted that since the neighbors could not resolve the issue, that the boat should be removed and the ordinance enforced. D.C. Messer of 2673 Pheasant Road stated that he himself arranged to have Eller p- -k his boat in Cookston's yard, but Eller has refused saying that the boat is frozen to the ground. Messer noted that the boat is on a trailer. Messer noted that Stanke has had his home for sale and that several buyers have been scared of f because of the eyesore of Eller Is boat. E.J. Stanke of 2660 Pheasant Road stated that this whole thing started when he called City Hall and asked what happens if someone is in violation of the ordinances. Stanke ex-)lained that he was told that if someone is found to be in violation of the ordinances that a letter is written giving the person a deadline and then a second letter is written and *hen a citation is issued if the person still has not complied with the City's order. Stanke stated that the first letter was written back in November and now it is February and the boat is still not moved. Stanke asked that the City enforce MINUTES OF Th"" ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 5 #884 RICHARD ELLER their own ordinances. Stanke felt that if the City isn't going enforce the ordinances then the City shouldn't have adopted ',,hose ordinances. Stanke explained that Eller does not ha ie any hardship because other oversized boats in the neighborhood are stored at commercial marinas or elsewhere. #891 J.D. MILLER 1105 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 - 9:03 PM Rovegno noted that the City owes it to its own citizens to enforce the ordinances upon complaint or request and the citizens are a r-itled to such enforcement promptly. Sime moved, Kelley seconded, to recommend denial of the variance for Richard Eller to permit the storage of an oversized boat on his residential property and further recommends that Council expedite the prompt moving of the boat in order to enforce the existing ordinance, with such denial based on the following findings: 1. Planning Commission doesn't see the validity of the hardships claimed by Eller because there is adequate area on the lot in a less obnoxious location to store the oversized boat. 2. Planning Commission doesn't find any hardship in moving the boat that is currently sitting on a trailer which has wheels. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). Planning Commission member Goetten arrived at 8:40. J.D. Miller was present along with Donald Pertinen and L.J. Millerl, designers/architects. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Tnere was no one present from the audience for this application. Donald Pertinen explained that the existing foundation, which is almost entirely into the 0-75' setback zone, would be removed and are proposing to remove this structure and build a new home which would encroach a relatively minimal amount on the 0-75' setback zone. Pertinen explained that hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone would decrease from 11 percent to 4 percent and hardcover in the 75-250' zone would increase from 16 percent to 22 percent. Pertinen noted that this proposal would improve the drainage on the site considerably. Sime asked what the plans were for the boat house. Donald Pertinen stated that the applicant's intent was to keep the boat house and replace part of the retaining wall that holds up the boat house. J.D. Miller stated that he would like to keep the boat hcuse if it is stable enough. Kelly noted that the proposed hardcover is a little too MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 6 #891 J.D. MILLER Donald-Pertinen noted that most of the hardcover is the Criveway down to the proposed garage. Pertinent stated that it is better to have a little more hardcover to allow turnaround on the property. Pertinen explained that some extensive grading will have to be done to improve the drainage on the property. Goetter. asked for the approximate square footage of the boat house. Goetten noted that the plan is a little ambitious. J.D. Mille: stated the boat house is approximately 150 square feet. Miller stated that some trees wi 11 have to be removed but he plans to replant. Kelley asked if the proposal included a walkway down to the lakeshore. J.D. Miller noted that there is an existing concrete walkway which needs repairing and he plans to replace it with a wooden walkway. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that staff will need a landscape plan and grading plan for t;-ie engineer to review. Mabusth noted that a conditional use permit fee should be paid since extensive grading will be done to the site. Kelley moved, Sime seconded, moved to recommend approval of the hardcover and setback variances to construct a new home and garage for J.D. Miller subject to the following findings: 1. Existing foundation is within the 0-75' setback zone of the lakeshore and is improving the site by moving the proposed home back away from the lakeshore. 2. Existing trees and topography prevent any other location of the proposed home. 3. Applicant is improving the drainage on the site with the proposed swale. 4. Applicant is reducing the hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone from 11 percent to 4 percent. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to submit grading and landscaping -Mn for staff and engineer review prior to scheduling application for Council review. 2. Boat house is a non -conforming structure and subject to all pertinent ordinances. 3. Applicant is placed on notice that future variances regarding future hardcover on the property may not 1,e approved. Man or , Ayes ( 6 ) , Nays ( 0) . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MI'ETING HEW FEI3RUAkY 19, l 98!) PAGE 7 #892 THOMAS MORTENSON 1971 FAGERNESS POINT RD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:04 - 9:23 PM Thomas Mortenson was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present from the audience for this application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mortenson seeks a setback and hardcover variance to construct a house addition and attached garage. Mabusth noted that the proposed plan creates a safer atmosphere in that with the attached garage there will be adequate turnaround provided on the property. Thomas Mortenson noted that there will be a slight decrease in hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 1.1.2 percent to 12.6 percent. Mortenson stated that the existing garage is 2' on the neighbors property and 4' in the street right of way. Mortenson stated that he plans to remove the flatstone walkway and replace it with the house addition. Sime noted that the removal of the existing garage is an eyesore and a traffic hazard, and it would be an asset to the neighborhood when removed. Goetten noted that the increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone from 17.2 percent to 32.1 percent is a big request. Goetten asked if the applicant could scale the proposal down any. Goetten did note that the applicant has been subjected to a 75' setback on both sides of his property because of the lakeshore. Thomas Mortenson noted that his proposal is consistent with the neighborhood. Mortenson noted that any reduction in the proposal adds more hardcover to the driveway. Kelley asked if any trees would be removed and asked about landscaping and the retaining walls. Kelley asked what materials the steps would be made of. Thomas Mortenson stated that two trees will be removed. Mortenson noted that the sloping topography may require retaining walls if the topugraphy doesn't allow sodding. Goetten asked for a recalculation of hardcover in that the applicant mould come up with ways to construct steps and maybe deck without hardcover. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the City needs to review a grading and landscaping plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 8 #392 MORTENSON Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the setback and ;�:'nNT) hardcover variance request to construct a house addition and attached garage based on the following findings: 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone will decrease slightly from 13.2 percent to 12.6 percent. 2. Topography of land prevents applicant from constructing elsewhere on the property. 3. Existing garage is on neighbors property and street right of way and proposal creates a safer entrance to property. 4. The property is unique in that is it subjected to two 75' setback zones. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone is limited to 30 percent. 2. Drainage and grading plans must be submitted for staff and engineer review prior to scheduling application for Council review. 3. Landscape plans (including retaining walls, if needed) must also be submitted. 4. Proper removal of existing garage and filling of hcle and sodding of area. 5. Future hardcover on this property may not be approved by Council. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). 1893 SUMMERFIELD FARMS 3800 WAYZATA BLVD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC BEARING 9:24 - 9:45 PM Glenn Nellist and Lowell Schaper were present representing Summeriield Farms. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Cliff Otten was present from the audience for this application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Summerfield Farms market wishes to add a mini -bake and delicatessen operation (preparing party trays) within the existing retail area of the store. Mabusth noted that the delicatessen operati^n will require a license from the Hennepin County Community Health Department. Mabusth noted that the installation of the oven is no problem as long as they abide by the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if they felt that the uses proposed were an intensification of a non -conforming use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 9 #893 SUMMERFIELD FARMS Rovegno felt that it was not an intensification of a non- conforminq use as long as the store did not become a full fledged bakery that delivers to other stores. Rovegno feIt the minimal use of the bakery to bake croissants and other bakery goods would be fine. Glenn Nellist noted the difference between the bakeries and their store was that they will net be baking from scratch (flour, dough, etc). Chairman Callahan asked about the delicatessen and how the City would control the store from becoming a catering business or restaurant. Callahan explained that the City must be concerned with the future use of this building too. Glenn Nellist assured the Planning Commission that he had no interest in becoming a restaurant. Nellist stated that one picnic table might be placed in front of the restaurant to allow local bikers to sit down on a table rather than the ground. Cliff Otten stated that anything that would help the business should be considered. Otten stated that there are no problems with the business as long as it stays in business; it is when the store is not in business that it becomes a problem. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that by placing the picnic table on the site, the store would be encouraging the customers to eat on the site. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to recommend approval cf the conditional use permit application of Glenn Nellist and Lowell Schaper to permit a mini bake and delicatessen operation at the Summerfield Farms Market at 3800 Wayzata Blvd based on the following findings: 1. The new uses will not involve permanent structural changes or additions to existing structure. 2. The new uses will not involve expansion of the retail area. 3. The new uses wi 11 not encourage customers to consume food on the premises as with a restaurant use. 4. The new uses appear consistent with the original intent and scope of the market as set forth in Resolution #1646. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All equipment installed to support the mini bake operation is subject to the standards of the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1985 PAGE 10 i893 SUMMERFIELD FARMS 2. The applicants must apply for a license from the Hennepin County Community Health Department for the delicatessen use. 3. Applicants allowed only one picnic table to be placed within outdoor sales area on east side of structure. 4. Food items must be purchased at the counter before consumption of the Product and carried to picnic table by the customer. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION Sime felt that the Council should reconsider their limitation placed on a Planning Commission members in that it only allows members to serve two terms. Sime also asked that staff Prepare an extra copy of. the Coui,cil agenda packet for the Planning Commission representatives that attend the Council meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Goetten moved, Sime seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 21, 1985. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETING 3-11-85 Chairman Callahan volunteered to attend the Council meeting on March 11, 1985. ADJOURNMENT 10:19 PM The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:19 p.m. ,:,? -..) 5-- yj-, � li'e't w,06W a-e� .047- Ile lite- westonka area chamber of commerce OFFICERS 5600 Lynwood boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 • 472.6780 A`, "i Piesidrnt t lrrt Dianr Theis Executive Vice -President: Chic Remlen �\ Treasurrr Donna Qulglev Serrrtary Roger Finnrs DIRECTORS: Past Vies Ted Kornecke John Bulger �IcChamber Waves Pal Meisel Daum PallPil% Carol Vitsrh Dan ReLian MARCH 1985 gave Simonson Grurgr slevent General Membership Meeting — March 20th Minnetonka Mist — 6:30 p.m (Evening Meeting) "COMMERCIAL CRIME99 Presented by: Police Chiefs Mel Kilbo, Orono; i._en Harrell, Mour..tl; Tim Thompson, St. Bonifacius-Minnetrista Bring your questions about bad checks, shoplifting, employee theft, etc. Please make reservations by noon on the 19th at the chamber office. 472-6780 President's Letter: We're on a roll! The Chilly Open was a marked success from one end of the lake to the other. Bowling at Fletcher's, golf on Wayzata Bay, soft- ball on Excelsior Bay. Our Westonka group, led by Ted Koenecke, with tremendous support from Alan Bell at Fletcher's, came away bursting with ideas for 1986. The Midwinter Ball was a ball! Members and friends o' the Chamber contributed over $3,000 worth of merchandise, decorations and services. Diane Theis and her committee deserve thank- you's from each of us for their great job. Chic has listed all of those folks who helped us make this Ball the best so far. Please thank them — better yet, patronize their businesses if you can. Next up is Clean Sweep on April 27. Mark your calendars — this is fun for your whole family! Stephen R. Wood, President Make a special note on Your calendar because we are hosting a joint meeting of our area Chambers on Tuesday. May 21 , at the La- fayette. Minneapolis Police Chief Tony Bouza will be our guest speaker! 1985 Mid -Winter Ball Contributors: DONORS: Flowers by Helen, Anthony's Floral. Sky High Art, Hardee's, Theta Industrial Pro- ducts, SOS Printing, Al & Alma's, Country Kit- chen. Minnesota Federal, Dan Regan C.P.A., Reed and Pond Attorneys, Schwert-Reed Insur- ance. Town & Country Foods, Mary Jane Burger, Contel, Jean Haefele, Lafayette Club. David Maass, Paul Mielke Custom Framing, Minne- tonka Mist E Bottle Basket, Navarre Ceramics, Terry Redlin, Downstairs Nail Designers Sue Schmidt, Donna Carl, Daphne Fletcher, Pam Cherba, The Wooden Bird, Balloons of Medina, Dow -Sat of Minnesota, Klein Sales -Video One, Meisel Hardware, Tim E Tom's. Tonk-A-Phone, Westonka Animal Hospital, Mound Medical Clinic, State Bank of Mound. Peggy Dubey Signs, Dave Hallowell, West Tonka Interiors. Our apologies to Peggy Dubey and Downstairs Nail Designs for omitting them from the evening's official program A special thank you to everyone Involved for making this year's ball such a huge success! COMMITTEE: Chair - Diane Theis, Mound Medical Clinic-, Co -Chair - Gerry Smith, SOS Printing, Program and Prizes Pat Meisel, Meisel Hardware; Decorations - Carol Pitsch. West Tonka Interiors. Finance Donna Quigley, State Bank of Mound; Master of Ceremonies Steve Wood. Lafayette Club. Publicity Ruby Steckel, Sailor. Cher Remlen CHIC'N SCRATCHES: There's a new iaracter in town Chamber merchants from Navarre, Spring Park and Mound Lynette McCullough. Ly- nettes; Helen Daum, Navarre Ceramics; Sandy Bothern, McDonald's; Clara Paz, Dueber's V 6 S; Gus Knott. Town 6 Country Foods; Dave Klein, Video One; John Royer. Ben Franklin, have been working to put together our finest new joint promotion. The two goals of this promotion were: first. to in- troduce a product that would promote our Westonka area and. second. to create a greater awareness of our retailers. The new product will be a Westonka T-shirt featuring this new character and lots more! We will be introducing the T-shirt at the 6:30 p.m.. March 20, General Membership meeting. Dates for the promotion are April 9 - April 27. The high point of the pro- motion will be a drawing for a VCR on April 27 at the Clean Sweep breakfast. The promotion will be introduced in the Westonka Community Services bulletin and as an insert in the April 9 Laker. There are 28 spaces available in this promotion. The cost for par ticipation is $78.00, Rick Anderson, The Laker. will be contacting Chamber members in the next few weeks, or you rnaV call the Chamber off is e 474-6780. bV March 12 * tic have lots of new faces in tilt, con-tmunity please make an effort to make them welcome! Gloria and Rick Plaistad - new owners of the Navarre Dairy Queen Greg Carlson - new owner of Mueller's Phar- niacv Laura Williams - new reporter at the Sailor John Raikowski - new managing editor at the Sailor C. Scott Massie - new associate at Koenig. Robin. Johnson and Wood Dave Midbro - new manager at 7 11 The doctors at the new Shoreline Medical Clinic Dr. Willis Duryea, Dr. William Schmidt, Dr. Richard Schissel. Dr. Marshy Alexander, Dr. Theodore Palm, Dr. A. Hakim, Dr. Robert Barricks, Dr. Mitchell Pincus * Speaking of new - how about new locations and new businesses: Theta Industrial/Meisel Hardware are now located in Netka's Building Owners - Paul and Pat Meisel Bednar's Bench is opening in Thetas old head- quarters (4832 Bartlett Blvd. behind Shear Elegance and State Farm Insurance) on March 3 - Owners Joe and Laura Bednar Video Update has taken the old Frosty Boy spot in the Meiina Bay Center - owner Mike Malaske William A. Bull and Sons has taken the loca- tion in John Zuccaro's building (4636 Shoreline Drive) that West Arm Repair had owner William Bull * How about this new! Jon and Julie Scherven had a new baby boy in January! Congra1ulat1uns' * A big huy and special thank you to Mike Mueller and Merle Stone for their many con tributions over the years as Westonka business people! Hope your retirements are happy and fruitful! * Donnie's on the Lake's monthly column in the Laker is a wonderful form of creative advertis ing it's fun to read and gets the message across! NEW MEMBERS: VIDEO UPDATE CITY OF SPRING PARK SUNNYBROOK STABLES SPEC -TECH BEDNAR'S BENCH DUEBER'S V 6 S LANSING HAIR DESIGN C011INCIL REPORTS: GG `?ENTAL AFFAIRS - Senator Gen Olso,. -i;ranged for Lani Kawamura. Gover- nor Perpit_n s policy advisor on education. to be the guest speaker at this month's meeting on March 7. Ms. Kawamura will fill us in on the Governors proposed legislation. Everyone is welcome. but reservations are a must. Call Lafayette by the 6th - 471-8493. RETAIL - Please dispose of your Chamber Pot evergreens promptly and properly as the winter draws to a close. Watch the April newsletter about the May planting program. Community Awareness and Development - Please note that Operation: Clean Sweep will be held this year on the morning of April 27th. George Stevens (Stevens Market) will again host breakfast in front of his store. Mary Pauly (tiaidee's) will be this year's chairperson. Please contact her with help and suggestions •472- 1119. Lou Geib has joined the Chamber staff in a part• time chemical capacity. Let's welcome her. See "There's a New Character in Town" arti- cle. r StAll\AR •3 \lydne%dai. \larch 2(hh R 7 A. lit. 9 A.M. "SLrAelinR Stralrgir% fur the Small Bu%inr%," (im Fidt 1\ n trtr, o w n Adwm,ng Hall tit Frnic nommcc. Jun Fi%h. wall prc,i•ni r niulutudr id marketing ,trategic, which hrsc pnnoi ,tnsc„Sul throughout his cararer He', earned the right its ,p•r1 .on ihi, ,uhlect atilt forty year, at Ger -sl Mill,. wflerc hie retired a, Senior Vkr President tie Corporate C'om muni. rhon,. r, r : on%ulunl a uh ha, attain firm. Ad -Venture% in wasrata and mint rdtirrah a, dean of the Master tit Ru%ir%% Conununit.mon, pnogran At the College tit St Tho.na% SEMINAR 14 "%hays Happening in the Nedneada%. April 171h Banking Industry" 7 A.M.. 9 A.M. Itarn from a panel of "sour John Berg friendly hanker%'. rwrything Kou 411119 wanted to knim atiout what I% currently happening in the bank Ing industry. oral how it effect, l you and your tsusmc%. John rj Berg. Presueent. w:iy?ata Bank & Trust. Rick Bliss. President. First National Bank of wayrau. and Cliff Jacohstm. Senior Vwc President. Norwest MctrdWkst wdl answer your g11t5tlons on such whdects as deregulator. hustness conditions forecasting. and qualifying for sinall husiness and consumer loans Rick Rli%, ( IN JacoAson ����N����t_�����.�•�-----mat•------0----------or.t_— t�t��t�iNN�N SMALL BU. -INESS SEMINARS REGISTRATION FORM Chamber member tln.hulr, K'r,ionkA Chamtirr memher,) Prraon, t or Full Series air 4 Seminars S:500 Pcrstns l or Seminar • I No Chart _ Persons for Seminar •: at SI0.00 Persons our Seminar • 1 a1 SOW _ Ptnans for Seminar 14 41 SKM Name ._ Firm _ .. _--- _ Add4c„ Ph. prat Perums for Full Series of 4 Stmwrs at S1500 Perms for Seminar 11 No Charge --__ Persons lot Seminar •: at SOJ00 persons !or Scmuar 11 at USX -- Persons fair Seminar 14 of SL500 Please return this form with pmy=M eackwd Ida: GREATER WAYZATA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 411: Lao I.Ate Sorer( �d\I�IsI Mtnnexxa tSi�l CALENDAR March 5 - Mound Retail Council, 7:30 a.m., Chamber Office 7 - Governmental Affairs Council, Education; Guest Speaker: 471-8493 7:30 a.m., Lafayette Club. Topic: Lani Kawamura. Reservations: 12 - Board of Directors Meeting, 7:30 a.m., Twin Birch. 20 - General Membership Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Minnetonka Mist. Topic: Commercial Crime; Guest Panel - Police Chiefs Kilbo, Thompson and Harrell. Reservations: 472-6780 2 - Mound Retail Council, 7:30 a.m., Chamber office. April 4 - Governmental Affairs Councii, ':30 a.m., Laia;ette Club. 9 - Joint Retail Promotion begins 9 - Board of Directors Meeting 17 - General Membershp Meeting 27 - Operation Clean Sweep and Joint Retail Council drawing 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Mound, MN 55364 Permit 022 westonka area chamber of commerce City c, Grono P.G. j~OX 66 Cry: tr:l b:-yr W(If ki,;y 1 �'q' t hc Working Together Working Together Woking Together Working Togeteser o 19ti ry 23. 5 owl FEB 2 6 low`I �'F1 �� I _.I , ,� j 'r�r / ; '�': , ' _ ,;, %/ , •;j , r 'TY OF 0 R 0 N 0 r., /y� , 1.L' , To the Residents of Crystal. Bay Road /i� r r. The petition distributed by Mr. Carl and Mr. Siakel points out that "a great deal of egttiptm.nt (boats, snowmobiles, docks, etc.) is accumulated by (a few) residents" and is indeed stored in frun# Yards. But, to amend the ordinance is TOTALLY UNNECE;SSAIIY AND MAY PROVE TO PE HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR CO!'%IUI;ITY. You already know that the city ordinance, a5 it is, does allow for variances where residents have an ACTUAL HARDSHIP. History has proven that the city is not blindly and strictly enforcing this storage ordinance. They normally only get involved upon a specific complaint. Where there are-Inaccessable back yards, I am in agreement with the general inte,it of this petition BUT, LET'S NOT OPEN THE FLOOD GA TkS . Let's all con- tinue to work toward a clean neighborhood----FL)h EVERYONE. If a resident has an ACCESSABLE back yard; HE SHOULD USE IT. Eve,t now it few people dump "items" in their front yards for all to look at even thoufh they have accessable back yards. Sheer inconvenience should not be an excuse for anyone to encourage the decay of our neight-,orhnods appearance. In any case, should a per4on with an inaccessable back yard be allowed the uncontrolled storage of as much miscellaneous "stuff" in his FRONT yard as he may want? As this can potentially get out: of hand, WE MUST 11AVE CONTROLS. Our present ordinance does serve that purpose while still considering true hard- ship ca"es. If you still fee. that you want our cur- rent protections weakened, PLLA13E, AT 1-FAST, AMYND THIS PETITION BEFO:IE 1'Oh 'I.1IL IT. Heflect your honest concern for our neighborhoods appearance by adding a footnote stating; that "If A PFRSON HAS AN ACCESSAKLE 11--%CK YARD, 11E SHOULD USL IT1,1 Si cere�'y1�y �r?4;-r �1ir✓�, r�, Je1Pr W ea 33/ Crystal Bay Rd. '4 3' z' IZ:FIw(�iNLk �GII1T i Lk -'TA -r ►T1 A IZ . wA L-J_ ''►1a 7' �F� f�v��rTiphi ��, •s'�4 ► � 3—Wr..,TP' LiY�{t;JIA VrEiAi}{aT'� � �'.'t`� ,• rr , � , � �' FFRO®R VI 'TIT•t-u,v-Ck. k-Gykp ST V!- 4JITH £K t l: aErEI, TkLD <121SET2S (o" YRLT)IS 15 , v! v� � W mGT,-� \,\ �q<,< r� • 1C i 1 v 1 3- Rv RP "WAA V►A Ot U ty , x r 1 Vi s' 7 • ---, n � N� I ' I � I 2 1-�1647- VI dy 0 % X\ \K7:--Z— op 0 1. A SURVEY FOR: John Miller 7z VIC441 Ajv0WAqg DESCRIPTION: The Northwesterly 200 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision Number 217, —A Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part lying Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel to and 160 feet Southeasterly, measured at right o angles, from the Northwesterly, line of said Lot 7, according to the re- corded plat thereof. We hereby cerlity that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the ly)u ies of the land above described and of the ficalion of all buildings. If any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any from or on said land. Dated this 22nd day of June, 1978. EGAN. F I FLO & NON INC. Surveyors NOTE: Topography Shown hereon was based on an assumed water elt by lion of __ Lake Minnetonka of 100.00. Elevation of Lake Minnetonka on June 22, 1978 Minnesota Registration No. OSa was 930.38 according to Hennepin County Highway Department. lzit Z_ 1: I March 11.) 1"S IrrIST YTEGP (,RAPE To [/IMIN IN IT'S NATVFII6 4i'TC WrrN TNC AVY IT1oN or GRo4ND d vam Ti PReVEMT bRuDIuN \ \\ �{ I • ' �r { / +\ \ \ / / • it T Y D �• \� i — --` /fir i�ir'". Irr OV r ��j -eRADINGi •LINAGE SITE PLAN $� : Ire. #fop, a too a,F. .L6 (hr1.MB►. - trME tgpr(.1`�`i .y.� y .1.4 (4%vo--mills &I or j / I�r7 pUIL71Nb ?fio0 � \ - JITUMMOLIS ifiiJC �y� Lk-F- FLBJ, Ico.O 6xrllr4e C4NTOO — rYl6"k I I,Iq�� Proryer-P 4+TnwC o 6xIe�rIN& TP" • -",(1 Wfq-V ,-N FFm ►. �UPy�E'! 7! wp•I,FIg1A !NOW .INC- vt. JUNE Illb Tr T it t� Ao4r- \ / Pen &—A., by i - 5 +• A6rorat Le (Ant m r°+,tes) Abe at( [-Olaf Ache Fnt tatuef {, o 1 \ • O.� / & AA mCme.4 S' / ' \\1 � �\ �.:t: A6eve bade o•� M/s� T nd.ekt. with - -I ' / J \ •(�, C°.ye Jive-Sps Ire r �ItXtYf1N AtuRw�pw46a� 'sroln 4tM' 4-,# at.ree the a.+f d p- Tie.e ° 1 VV / Font Gvb d R..;t to Eya°t avml rreGe ap Si f�at.roar LL- tleAetrrted „ re "D t o III AHPN��T III F— �I )14215&--a1 �j I�' � 1e�`.t - '+ • "���i r�irur'taswm��sw . ,IitIN HjtEejRAIX TC RE MFI EtJ ✓•.. ��\ °�1. i-i•a }" � ��y� I ir.aw� ow.�w•'ne�.wr I14 Iis NA.ru"N MAT: Wltu r � ° i ° _ \ (J /•`//• C,r Q / 7 9 At VM,•N of 1, FMVU4r i%c-,iotU TYp1G� FL.AAIf1AW pE77V.jclel I Ilr�tlglltClJ�PEaSFRl.6�. I.t v.:Ap LANDSCAPE PLAN AG Aeu naeA. _ /7 OI:XI*r IHG -wtaE4 N TRi6a ppDWN ARC AV-ST4 of OW, MAp,e. AnN a"'&-evIA VVWFo<•c.0 TRc Fis/ �iHtW 15b Eu� lo'vl>-•,yo+vlA 0 N°• %oTPNILAL NAML -.--_ LoMMON IILMP. I itoi i� s FEB 27199i �. Jut4irmu4 UozlzaglAU4 W6bbiD•I .SUN IQtR WEAKER .. 16" 64 b W y. PINU4 MU4o Mu4Nub PIN: _MU61° sj, PI GtA PaNdLN9 GLAUCf. � aPRNL6._ Cot!`°.A'+o tt•LUO � `�$A/JS c2� � IGEA �bltiy A hpfwLE 11°R WP•! 4-5 p,s Pi � q . AGER P6ATAN°IDISS MAPLE y¢IMS.H KIM& 3 r' .%reh l l,lq$5' L f1gAtNVv'teHucyLWNILA I*WtV RP 1I (�4N MPR'eHAtI:S V owl ha,1 1.-6Yy1MA(tltA Nl1MMt Flak I MUNey U? T(Vtumv WUL) ��