HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1978 Council Minutes � � CITY Oi C`RO?�O
i=,c�ular "icctinc� o� the Orono Co�ncil , 7 : 00 P.M.
I�arch 16 , 1978
1'he Orono Council met on the above date with the
following r.�embers present: Acting Playor �4assengale,
Councilmer�ers Butler, Paurus , and Fesek. I�bsent:
Mayor Van Nest. Also present: Citv Administrator
Benson, Assistant Building & 7oning Aclministrator
Olson, City Attorney P�Ialkerson, and City Engineer
Olson.
Butler raoved, Paurus seconded, that the Piinutes MINUTES
of the Regular r7eeting of February 23, 1978, be
approved. I'7otion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Police Chief r7el Kilbo introduced P�r. Bruce L.
Anderson to the City Council corunenting that '
Pdr. Anderson was our newest addition to the Orono-
Long Lake-Piaple Plain-P2innetonka Beach Police
Departr.�ent.
Dick Benson, City Administrator, adr,iinistered the OATH OF OFFICE
Oath of Office to PZr. Bruce L. Anderson, Orono Bruce L. Anderson
Police Officer.
Mr. Lee Tomlinson, Park Commission Chairr,ian,
introduced P�Zrs. Barbara Peterson, 2170 P4inneton}:a
Avenue, stating that PZrs. Peterson has been
reconmended by the Park Commission to fill the
current vacancy.
Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to appoint Mrs. APPOINTPiENT
Barbara Peterson to the Orono Park Commission. Barbara Peterson
riotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
No comi:lents from the Lake Minnetonka ConSexvation Lt4CD REPORT
District.
No corunents from the Planning Cor.u�ission. PLANNINr CONLMISSION
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to table until the BOUrIDARY CHANGES
next meeting the request of Louis Oberhauser, ti�7ayzata Country Club
representing the taayzata Country Club, for
proposed boundary line changes. PZotion, Aves (4) -
Nays (0) .
� :�;��LAR I:���:`TT,vG OP :i3E OROI�O COu'r�CT�, '�'iRCH 16 , 1978 P�ge 2
T;r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- LUCE LINE TRAIL PLAN
trator, entered into the record the following letters
oncerning the Luce Line Trail:
Letter fror;i the Departr.�ent of Natural Resources
dated February 8 , 1978, states :
"In response to your letter of February 1, 1978,
please understand the Luce Line Trail Draft P�lanage-
ment Plan continues to respect Orono' s concern about
access points within its City limits. The nlan lists
(page 59) the �ti'akefield-Conry Rest Area at t9illow
Drive, mile 14. 2. The only access listed near or in
Orono is near Hennepin County 110 , 83 and 19. This
given enough flexibility to find a willing seller in
the general vicinity of the Luce Line Trail and one
of these county roads to create the Independence
Access . This is verified again on the listings on
page 81 and page 82. Perhaps map nur:tber 1 on page �
43 may be misleading. This will be corrected on
the final plan map sequence to more clearly show
a rest area.
You r.lay note that the record will be held open for
30 days after the public information rieeting of
January 23, or until February 21. Hopefully,
this will give your park board tirie to corunent.
�ae would like also to speak with �ou and the Council
about the Orono Orchard Road Bridge. We are in the
process of updating the cost of a bridge proposal -
or alternative wa�s of crossing Orono Orchard Road
with the Luce Line Trail. Perhaps you can advise
when this would be mutually convenient for the Orono
Council to find time on their planning agenda to
discuss this iter.t.. "
Otto A. Christensen, Trail Planner
Letter from Dick Benson, City Administrator to Otto
Christensen dated February l, 1978, states:
"In response to your notice on a public hearing to
be held January 23, 1978 concerning the Luce Line
Trail P�anager�ent Plan, the City Council has the
�ollowing comments to r.make:
Because of the public hearing being held the same
day as our Council r.ieeting, we could not respond
irunediately. The Council has referred t,:iis plan
to the Park Commission for their review and response.
The City is concerned with the planned public access
at taillow Drive and would rather have it located
at the Luce Line Trial where it intersects at our
proposed ring route crossing. ��7e will be available
to meet with you at your convenience. (Continued)
" REG"JLAR P4EETING OF THE OR0210 COUNCIL, ?�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 3
ZJe are also officially requesting the option to hold LUCE LINE TRAIL PLAN
open the public hearing for further conments fror.l (Continued)
ur Park Cor;lmission. "
Lti'alter R. Benson
Letter from �aalter R. Benson, City Administrator,
to P4r. Otto Christensen, dated February 21, 1978,
states:
"This letter is to confirm your a�pearance on tne
Council agenda rSarch 16, 1978 to discuss your letter
of February 8 , 1978, concerning the Luce Line Trail;
and also the conceptual approval of plans for
��illow Drive and the DNR rest area.
Enclosed are copies of Council minutes concerning
th� Luce Line Trail rest area. " '
Walter R. Benson
P4inutes of the Orono Council meeting held rsay 9 ,
1977, state: ,
"T4r. James Bloemendal, r4r. Lann_y Searmore and Pir. Otto
Christensen,Department of Natural Resources representa-
�:ives, presented a film on DIJR trials and discussed
leases , easements, and land acquisition as they
relate to present and future trial programs.
Mayor Van Nest stated that the citizens are still
concerned with trail supervision and regulations
and the lack of policing. rsr. Bloemendal cor.unented
that the State has determined to re_qulate and
police the trail and the local conservation officer,
Mr. Jim Granger, should be notified of any problems.
P4ayor Van I•7est asked if there were any plans to
expand existing trails or parking areas and asked
the DNR officals to keep the City inforr.led to allow
sufficient review tir►e.
P�lr. Seamore, who is now Regional Admiriistrator for
the Di1R, cor.unented that he was with the Division
of Waters for some tir.►e and complimented the
Council on their stand with marinas in attempting
to environmentally protect Lake P4innetonka. "
Minutes of the Orono Council meeting held June 13,
1977, state:
"Otto Christensen,Luce Line Trail Plann�r,
discussed with the City Council a preliminary
design for an 18-acre rest area located at Willow
Drive and the DPdR Trail. The area will be designed
to acconmodate users of the trail as a rest area
and horse, ski, and bicycle trails. lsr. Christensen
(Continued)
' ' RE�;�ULAP, ,,LETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, i1ARCH 16 , 1978 Page 4
stated that the area will not be used for camping, LUCE LINE TRAIL PLANS
parking, or any over night uses . A fence �•J�11 be (Continued)
�onstructed on three sides with proper signing
listing permitted uses of the area. .
Mr. Charles Ringer, 405 tiaillow Drive South, stated
that he and a number of neighbors feel that this
proposed rest area will be a favorable addition to
the area.
P4ayor Van rlest asked if there were any other
cor.unents from the audience--there were none.
A'Iayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to give
conceptual approval of the DNR plans for a rest
area on Willow Drive and the Luce Line Trail.
i4otion, Ayes (4) - I•lays (0) . "
_ Council r2eeting - March 16 , 1978 '
i�r. Otto Christensen, representing the Departr.tent
of Natural Resources , showed a conceptual design
for a rest area between 6�illow Drive and the Luce
Line Trail.
Dick Benson, City Adrlinistrator, cor,unented that the
Park Cor.uaission has recommended a rest area at the
proposed ring route and the Luce Line Trail.
D�r. Christensen also nresented pictures of a proposed -
bridge at the Orono Orchard Road and the Luce Line
Trail.
Acting Mayor Walter P'lassengale asked Mr. Christensen
if it were possible to delay this action to allow
our City- Engineer and the Park Corunission to
review this proposed s�ructure.
Mr. Christensen agreed to this cor.unenting that
his department would like to hear fror.► us as soon
as the Park Comriission has complete�i their review.
Acting Mayor PZassengale moved, Butler seconded, to
refer the Luce Line Trail Bridge plans to the City
Engineer and the Park Commission for their review.
P�otion, Aves (4) - rlays (0) .
P�r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- NAVARRE DRIVE-IN TIiEATRE
trator, entered into the recor� the following 1978 License
information concerning the Navarre Drive-In Theatre' s
1978 license application, dated February 15 , 1978 ,
which states :
'�The 1978 license application has been received for
your review. (Continued)
� � r�,�U?.AR '.��ETIT�(� O� iriE ORGTJO COU?�CIL, '1.��tCi? 16 , 19 7 8 Pag� 5
'ihe 1977 license was approved with conditions on NAVARRE DRIVE-IN THEATRE
March 28, 1977. Complaints ensued after the theatre (Continued)
�pening causing a special public hearing to he
held May 24 , 1977 and thereafter, a special Council ,
meeting held tlay 26 , 1977 where Resolution #�790 ���as
adopted. An additional public hearing was held on
June 13, 1977, when Resolution #790 �aas extended.
A third public hearing was held October 24 , 1977
at the close of the season.
Throughout these meetings many of the same complaints
were heard regarding control of patrons and control
of access. At the last meeting, the theatre
owners indicated a possible change in land use to
a residential development. No specific action was
directed at that time due to the possibility of
the theatre not reonening.
Since last fall, the City staff has had no further�
contact from the property owners regarding any change
in the land use. The theatre license application
would tend to indicate that the other plans have
been set aside.
If the theatre is _to be relicensed, the lists of
previous requirer.►ents speak for themselves. The
one physical requirement that has never been met
is that of fencing the perir:leter for control both
during the shows and when the area is closed.
Documents in the record show that the Citv has
been requesting a fence since at least 1970.
The Council may wish to hold a public hearing, to
issue the license for a temporary tir.ie to thereafter
review the operation, or to withhold issuance until
any -required conditions riight be accomplished. "
�ierlo fron Poli ce Chie� .*iel Kil�o to Dick Benson,
City Administrator, dated Februarv 16, 1978 , states:
"If the Plavarre Drive-In Theatre is to be relicensed,
the previous conditions set out in Resolution #790
should be continued.
We had problems with access into the area from
Northern Avenue and parking problems along Northern
Avenue. The manager.ient was cooperative and it is
certainly apparent that uniformed personnel and
field men are needed to control patrons.
The problem still existing, therefore, is fencing.
The mini-bike probler.l during the day hours and
unauthorized entry (which caused parking and other
problems) can only be controlled by an adequate fence. "
(Continued)
RF;��LAR i2EETING OF m�E ORONO COUNCIL, PiARCH 16 , 1978 Page 6
' Council Meeting - :�.arch 16 , 1978 NAVARRE DRIVE-IN THEATRE
Mr. Braverman, representing the Navarre Drive-In (Continued)
Theatre, commented that he is still negotiating
�ther uses for this property, but we are not
prepared to change uses of this area at this time. �
[4e will plant some shrubs and trees, provide
security contract, charge admission on a per person
basis and enter into another theatre season if
other uses for the property are not found. We will
also review fencing needs if the uses of the property
does not chanqe.
Council_meriber Paurus : Lack of fencing is still
our concern. We stated before that fencing should
be installed if you operate another season.
PSr. Braverman: Cost is prohibitive. P7e feel
proper security will suffice. We hope we can work
out our problems without fencing.
Acting.tiayor Pdassengale: Council does not want
to interfere with your planning, at this time, but
we feel we have to be concerned with public safety
when considering vour license for 1978. Another
season is upon us.
Councilmember Paurus: I feel we should not wait
too long. A year has gone by; a fence should be
installed.
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to table the 1978
license application for the Navarre Drive-In
Theatre until the next meeting for Northwest Cinema
to reply. P4otion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
rir. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adriinis- SUBDIVISION
trator, discussed with the City Council that he had Big Island
been inforned by Mr. Cliff French, Superintendent
of the Hennepin County Park Reserve, that the Park
Reserve was negotiating with Mr. Gridley to purchase
this piece of property in question on Big Island,
for the Park Reserve District. No applicant was
present. �
Acting P�ayor P�assengale moved, Pesek seconded, to
defer this matter until later in the evening.
Motion„Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
i4r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- WALTER' S PORT
trator, inforr,ied the City Council that on February 23, #245
1978,a letter was received from the Iior,leowners
Association' s attorney which is still not satisfactory
proof of control for �9alter' s Port, according to our
City Attorney.
(Continued)
, R�GUlLAR T�'iEETING OF THE ORONO COU�]CIL, PSARCH 16 , 1978 Page 7
The City Council discussed lack of ac�reement ariong ���ALTER' S PORT
Association mer.lbers. The City Council advised - (Continued)
hose present that individual applications for riprap
.�ill be accepted. The Council instructed the City ,
Attorney to advise the Association Attorney that
proof of Association control must be positive and
nust be available for the next Council meeting on
I�Iarch 16, 1978.
Staff - February 27, 1978
Received riprap applications from Ellis , Crist
and DeGregory. Forwarded same to City Engineer
for review.
Mr. Bruce rlalkerson, City Attornev, reviewed his
letter to P4r. Dale W. Sheldon as requested by the
City Council dated I�ar.ch 10, 1978 , which states: .
"At the February 28, 1978 Council meeting of the
City of Orono, the City Council reviewed your
mer.ioranda of February 17 and February 23, 1978, in
regard to the clarification regarding certain
covenants.
It was my opinion at that time that based unon
your nemoranda, I did not see any clear statement
`rom you that you believe that the homeowners '
sssociation could stop one or more propertv owners
from altering the shoreline on the lagoon if the
property owner did not first have the prior
approval of the homeowners' association.
I noted to the City Council and those present
that I had asked at a prior Council meeting for a
title opinion which addressed itself specifically
to. that question, a copy of all covenants and
hor:leowners ' association agreements, or any other
agreer►ent which r,iight affect the right of a
property owner to alter his property where it
meets the lagoon and a clear survey showing where
the lagoon and other outlots are located as set
forth in the restrictive covenants and horieowners '
association agreements so that the City �vould have •
a better understanding of what the rights of all
the parties are. I stated that previously the
City Council decided that the burden was on the
homeowners ' association to prove that there were
no individual rights to riprap on the lagoon. At
that meeting, I caas directed to send a letter to
you to restate again what my prior request was to
afford you an opportunity to respond by the next
Council meeting which is Thursday, March 16, 1978.
If you plan to respond, I would appreciate receiving
the r.iaterials from you no later than t9ednesday
afternoon, P�arch 15, 1978. "
(Continued)
� ' ?�.��LAP, ?�SEET??�G OF iHE ORONO COUPICIL, ^�RCH 15 , 1978 Page 8
I•ir. 2lalkerson also stated that he s��oke to Joan tvALTER' S PORT
Maclin, representing Mr. DeGregory, and inforr�`d (Continued)
er �ahat the City required.
I received the following letter from her dated
March 15, 1978, which states : .
Mr. Bruce Malkerson
Popham, Ha1k, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, Ltd.
Attorneys at Law
Suite 4344
IDS Tower
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Pending application of P1essrs.
deGregory, Crist and Ellis for
Orono City-Council approval of
certain repairs to the seawall �
surrounding Outlot 3, Walters Port.
Dear Mr. Malkerson:
This office represents Mr. Robert deGregory,
owner in fee simple of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Walters Port, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Mr. deGregory, together with his neighbors Mr. Crist and Mr. Ellis, has applied
to the City Council of Orono for a permit to make certain repairs to the seawall
which surrounds Outlot 3, Walters Port, a man-made lagoon used principally by
the eight landowners in Walters Port as a docking area for boats and for access
by boat to Lake Minnetonka. The pending applications, briefly stated, seek a
permit for the use of riprap by each individual applicant in the repair of that
portion of the aforesaid seawall which is coextensive with the lagoon frontage
owned by each applicant respectively. In other words, the repairs which these
three applicants propose to make will not affect the lagoon frontages of other
neigf�boring owners who are not parties to the pending applications.
It has come to rr�y attention that these
applications have been opposed by some of the other owners of lots within Walters
Port. I understand that two fundamental defects in the applications have been
urged by these opponents; namely, that the applicants lack a sufficient property
right to make the proposed improvements as individuals and that the proposed
plans will detrimentally affect the lagoon and its use by others. This latter
objection appears, insofar as it has been expressed, to relate to the engineering
detail of the proposed plans. As I do not have any expertise in such matters,
I do not propose here to address that objection. However, I am certain that the
(Continued)
� RE�ULAR P2EETING OF THE ORONO COUP7CIL, PSARCH 16, 1978 Page 9
jti'AL1ER' S PORT
(Continued)
applicants haYe ar will proVide the Council with sufficient data and advice
from their engineers to enable the Council to �etermine whether the proposed
plans would detrimentally affect the health, safety or welfare of the public,
it being the Council 's primary duty to protect these public, rather than private,
interests.
Hov;ever, with regard to the assertion of
the opponents that the applicants lack the necessary property right to rrake the
proposed improvements as individuals, I feel that my client's position should
be stated for the benefit of the Council . Before cor�enting on the substantive
issues thus raised, I should note that it is my understanding that the Council
has placed the burden of establishing this objection upon the opponents. That
is, I assume that unless the opponents affirmatively demonstrate that the
necessary property rights are absent, the Council will treat the individuals
as the proper applicants and proceed to act upon the merits of the pending
applications. �
As the Council is aware, all of the property
in Walters Port is subject to a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated
February 6, 1961 . To my knowledge, the validity and binding effect of these
covenants have never been questioned and I have advised my client that these
are enforceable restrictions with which his use of his property must comply.
However, to simply state that these are enforceable covenants does not answer
the question before the Council . The covenants themselves must be scrutinized
to determine their meaning and intent, far it would be a serious mistake for the
Council to adopt a conclusory interpretation urged by individuals, none of whom
were parties to the original declaration.
Paragraph 10 of the covenants gives each
lot owner in Walters Port a non-exclusive easement in and over Outlot 3 and 4
for use as a boat harbor. The paragraph contains certain restrictions on the
use of the harbor and on construction of boat docks, but it does not address the
, question of maintenance of the easement area. Paragraph 8, however, states as
follows:
The owners of each and every lot in said subdivision are by their
ownership made members of the Walters-Port Improvement and t�ain-
tenance Association. The members of this association shall be
financially responsible for the maintenance, preservation and
improvement of the boat harbor and channel to the lake located on
Outlot 3 and 4 of said subdivision. The members of this association
shall also be financially responsible for the maintenance, preser-
vation and improvement of the road located on Outlot 1 , of said
subdivision after said road has been surfaced by William R. k'alters.
Each association member shall have a vote in any matters pertaining
(Continued)
REGULAR P�ETING OF `^HE OROIdO COUNCIL, NiARCH 16, 1978 Page 10
tvALTER' S PORT
(Continued)
to Outlots 1 , 3 and 4 in the proportion hereinaf�er set forth.
Further any r��aintenance or improvement exrenses autharized by
said association will be borne by the individual m�mbers thereof
in the proportion hereinafter set forth. [scnedule of proporLions
omitted]
It should first be noted that it is the
members of the association (i .e: individual lot owners) and not the association
���which have the financial responsibility for maintenance of the lagoon,
under the literal reading of the quoted provision. Moreover, no where in the
covenants is the association given the power to levy assessments against its
members for maintenance expenses or for any other purpose. However, notwith-
standing the imprecision of this language, it can be fairly concluded that the
association may approve certain maintenance expenses to be paid by the members
in the proportions provided by paragraph 8. Though the covenants also do not
provide for the procedure by wnich association actions are to be taken, again
presumably a simple majority vote would bind the members of the association.
It is evi�ent that a rather liberal reading
of the covenants is necessary just to conclude that the association has the right
to approve maintenance expenses and assess them against the members. Obviously
it would strain credibility to conclude that the association has the right to
make repairs or improvements to the exclusion of the individual property owners.
There simply is no language anywhere in the covenants to suggest that such rights
of the association were intended to be exclusive. The only conclusion which
can be drawn, and even it is generous in its treatment of the association, is
that the association and the individual owners have concurrent non-exclusive
rights to make repairs and improvements. -
It is important also to recognize that the
covenants are addressed solely to rr�aintenance, preservation and improvement of
Outlots 1 , 3 and 4. Thus, repairs which are done on the property of an individual ,
though they may relate to the lagoon or road, are not subject to the covenants.
' Indeed, as to such repairs the individual lot owner's rights would be exclusive
as the association is given no right at all to approve expenses relating to
maintenance of an individual 's property.
It is obvious that these covenants are
somewhat ambiguous and that the intent of the draftsman does not always clearly
emerge from the language used. However, the ambiguities and gaps cannot be
resolved or filled by supposing what a careful draftsman would have said or
what a current draftsman would desire to say. Indeed, the rule of construction
is well established:
Covenants and agreements restricting tFie free use of property
are strictly construed against limitations upon such use. Such
restrictions will not be aided or extended by implication or
enlarged by construction to affect lands not specifically described,
(Continued)
' ' RT�'GULAR 27EETIIJG OF THF ORONO CC'_iNCIL, P�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 11
or to grant rights to persons in whose favor it is r�ot clearly
shown such restrictions are to apply. Doubt will be resolved
in favor of the unrestricted use of pro�erty, so that where the
languase of a restrictive coverant is capable of two constructions,
tne one that limits, rather than the one which extends it, should
be adopted, and that construction should be embraced which least
restricts the free use of land. 20 Am. Jr. 2d, Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions, �187.
This rule is announced and follovred in
two major f�;innesota cases involving eouitable enforcement of restrictive covenants.
Rose v. Kenneseth Israel Congreaation 228 t�inn. 240, 36 N.W. 2d 791 (]949) and
t�fission Covenant Church v. Nelson 253 Minn. 230, 9l N.W. 2d 440 (1958). In the
. latter case, the Court says, "in determining this question we must keep in mind
a rule frequently enunciated in this state to the effect that inasmuch as the law
leans in favor of the unrestricted use of property a strained construction will
not be adopted in favor of restrictions. " Nission, supra, at 233. See also
Dun. Dig. (3rd Ed. ) �2393. �
It does not aid the restrictions or the
interpretation of them that they rr�ay be viewed as a benefit to the affected
properties,
The rule that a restriction upon the use of land renders the
title unrr�arketable applies without reference to the beneficial
purpose of the restriction. It is no defense to show by the opinion
of experts that the value of the property is not diminished by the
restrictions. 77 Am. Jur. 2d. Vendor and Purchaser, §210.
And in Patton on Titles (First Ed. ) �348, the author states:
Theoretically, at least, all these clauses [restrictive covenants]
are fetters on the freedom of sale of real estate as an article
of commerce; those imposing conditions are further affected by � -
. the equitable objection to the penalties and forfeitures which
may result. They are therefore strictly construed, and any
doubts are resolved against them.
There being nothing before the Council
which even tends to establish that the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for
Walters Port deprives the individual lot owners of the right to maintain and
improve their property including the lagoon frontages, the Council should proceed
to act on the merits of the pending applications. It is not the responsibility
of the Council to resolve private disputes between property owners; indeed the
Council would prohably be remiss if it attempted to do so. The Council properly
placed the burden upon the opponents to establish that the rights norrrally
incidental to property ownership are negated by the covenants. If this burden
(Continued)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, 2�IARCH 16 , 1978 Page 12
WALTER' S PORT
(Continued)
is not met, the Council 's responsibilities with respect to resolution of this
issue are fulfilled and there should be no further obstacle to Council action
on the applications. �
I appreciate the opportunity to express
rr�y client's position on this matter and thank you for bringing this to the
attention of the Council . I hope you will feel free to call me if.there are
questions concerning the matters herein discussed.
Very truly yours,
MOORE, COSTELLO & HART
By C,�L`�-�•%"`
n C. Macl�n
Mr. Bruce Malkerson continued by stating: I
have checked to determine ownership of thelisted
in question and Environmental Flanning is
as torrense title owner.
iirs. �ailliam Reese, 2711 Kelly Avenue: I would like
to see plans. How will this plan affect my property?
I would like time to review this plan.
Mr. Bruce P�alkerson: The plans were filed in a
timely manner and have been available for review.
Dick Benson, City Administrator, entered into the _
record the following letter to Mr. Reese dated
March 9, 1978, which states:
��Regarding our conversation the other day as discussed, I will
briefly bring you up to date as to the status of the ��alter' s
Port matter.
1. Originally the request to dredge, install sheeting, and to
riprap was applied for by application by the Homeowners
Association.
2. As you know, the City Council has requested documents to
determine the authority of the Homeowners Association.
3. To date, material requested to deterrmine authority of the
Association is incomplete.
. 4.. The plans as approved shows sheeting of east wall and riprap
of north wall.
(Continued)
� RFGULAR ]�4EFTI?�IG OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, I•7ARCH 16, 1978 Page 13
WAL1^ER' S PORT
(Continued)
5. All conditions tied to t}�is appLication have been docurmen�ed
and subu�itted to Ifir. I�ar�r-;ann and to 1•1r. Fllis in senarate
pacxets sone time ago and have been discussed, as all pre-vious
minutes indicate,many tir:�es at Council meetings. Many of
the conditions requested by the City Council have not been
met by the Association.
6. The west wall is not to be disturbed but to remain in its
ratural sLate.
7. The City Council has acted to allow the individual proper�y
owners to apply for separate applications, if they so chose,
and to waive any iees, and if the Association wishes to
challenge this action, they nust present to the City Council
legal evidence why the City should not allow individuals to
act on their own. � '
Bill, this r.�atter has bounced back and forth so Tany tir�es that
it has becor.te evident that the City should not become involved
with a dispute between property owners that should be resolved
by the homeowners. Staff have tried their best to work with all
the property owners but it appears to me that until all conditions
]�ave been net, and the prooerty owners can agree .to a plan, the
City can only table this matter until such time as further �
infornation is available, which is the present status on this
rlatter. '
ti9e have had Mr. Ellis, i�ir. Crist, A4r. DeGregozy apply for a riprap
permit. This• will be on our P�arch 16 , 1978 Council agenda.
If there are any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-7357.
• Sincerely,
alt��///
. Benson
City dr,iinistrator
P�ir. Ellis : We will accept engineer' s recorunendations.
Pesek moved, Butler seconded, to approve the granting
of the permit to P�essers . Ellis , Crist and DeGregory
for riprap subject to the following:
1. The plans are feasible.
2. The riprap is to be in accordance with tne City
standards and specifications and subject to the
engineer' s approval.
3. The permit is contingent upon approval of other
agencies. (Continued)
� RE�liLAR P2EETING OF THE ORO?�10 COU�JCIL, P�ARCH 16 , 1978 Page 14
4 . That although an opportunity was given during «ALTER' S PORT
several Council r;�eetings for the Hor,leowners ' (Continued)
Association to submit a l�gal opinion, with
copies of the I3or,�eowners ' Fssociation Agreerlent .
restric�ive covenants and map to support their
argur�ent that the individual �roperty owners
had no property right to riprap, the Homeowners '
Association failed to provide such a legal opinion.
5. Although not required, the applicants submitted
a legal opinion which stated that the applicant
had a legal right to proceed.
Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0) . Councilmember Paurus
abstained.
Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- RYArdWOOD SUBDIVISION
trator, inforried the City Council the . following ' 1060 Tonkawa Road
information concerning the subdivision for Thomas #170
Ryan, 1060 Tonkawa Road, that with the receipt of Thomas Ryan
a $2, 000 park dedication fee on February 28, 1978,
the requirements of Resolution ;837 have been
cor!mpleted. I recor,unend that the Council adopt a
final resolution of approval as attached to clear
the title on this property.
�3Ltler moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION �882
n882, A Resolution Reaffirming Plat Approval Of Ryanwood
Ryanwood, 1060 Tonkawa Road. P4otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adr,linis- SUBDIVISION - REZONING
trator, entered into the record the following concern- 2060 Wayzata Boulevard
ing the subdivision request of Sidney Rebers for #308
2060 Wayzata Boulevard, and rezoning, dated Rebers & L9ear
February 23, 1978, which states :
"Mr. Rebers was present. Council reviewed the
request and the Planning Cor.unission recommendations.
Council concurred with the Planning Conmission
recor,unendations and adopted preliminary approval
resolution with ar.lendments to clarify language.
Staff was directed to review public hearing notice
to ensure inclusion of Wear property in rezoning.
Staff - February 27, 1978
Rezoning public hearing notice did not include
Wear property. Staff recommends calling a public
hearing for April 13 , 1978 to include all affected
properties.
Council Meeting - P�arch 16 , 1978 (Continued)
' �FGULAR .'1rFTING OF �HE ORONO COUNCIL, Pi.�RCH 16 , 1978 Page li�
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution R�SOLUTION rt883
�883, A Resolution Approving The Preliminary Plat 2060 Wayzata Boulevard
3nd Rezoning Request Of Sidney Rebers , ?_060 [•7ayzata (Continued)
IIoulevard. r4otion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . .
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to hold a public PUBLIC HEARING DATE
hearing Thursday, April l3, 1978 at 7 : 00 P.rs. Rezoning
regarding the rezoning at 2060 and 2160 ��7ayzata 2060-2160 �aayzata Blvd.
Boulevard. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- SUBDIVISION
trator, entered into the record the following concern- 1125 Spring Hill Road
ing a subdivision for Conley Brooks (Peter Fox) #325
1125 Spring Hill Road, dated October 13, 1977 , which Conley Brooks
states :
Mr. Brooks is submitting another proposal to
subdivide one of the parcels (Tract A) into '
two parcels (A-1 and A-2) . This is a resubdivision
of the original subdivision of the entire tract which
was approved by Council on August 17, 1977. I am
' enclosing a copy of the resolution of a�proval (not
certified) of the previous division which was done
without the requirements of a final plat (r.lylars and
hardshells) . The previous subdivision should be
recorded with the County.
Our current ordinance excludes the requirer.ient of
a final plat, mylar and hardshells, as a simple
division if a division results in only two parcels
exceeding five acres. This proposal meets this
condition; however, it is the second division of
the original parcel so the proposal does not meet
this second condition. The Council can determine _
whether a .final plat will be required for this -
proposal. If the Council determines a final plat
will be necessary, the standard two step procedure
must be followed (preliminary plat approval and
final plat approval) .
Since a final plat was not required with the previous
proposal, there is no evidence of easements , one
of the conditions listed in the resolution adopted
by Council on August 22 , 1977. The previous
approval was also given subject to a $500 park
dedication fee. This proposal would require only
one more $250 park dedication fee with the addition
of only one more building site.
I would like to call to your attention the location
of the property line as proposed on this lot split.
It appears to be dividing some of the existing access
road. The City Engineer and Attorney might give us
sor,ie direction on this issue to eliminate any possible
future problems with easements and access.
(Continued)
, �
REGli.i,'�.R i;�:�`�?':G Ot "1HF ORONO COUi3CIL, ?:.'�RCH 16 , 1978 Pag� 16
G9e should also consider the description of tne low SUBDI�IISION
' and for conservation easements. 1125 Spring Hill Road
(Continued)
While investigating the site , I sa�: a structure �
on the oroposed Lot A-1. '�'he location or this
structure is not indicated on the plat. "
I have forward�d copies of this proncsal along
with requests for corunents to the City AcL�inis-
trator, City Engineer, City Attorney, City Public
Works Director, County Public ��7orks Deoartl-lent,
and Watershed District. �
A public hearing has been scheduled for r7over�ber 7,
1977 at 8 : 15 P.I�1.
Public Hearing - November 7 , 1977
r2r. Herfurth presented preliminary plat proposal. �
The Zoning Adr,�inistrator presented copies of reports
from Hennepin County Transportation Engineer and
City Engineer.
After reviewing City Engineer' s report, Planning
Commission inforried r1r. Herfurth that some revisions
and additional data would be necessary before
recorunendation. Comr,tission requested location
�f existing barn of Lot A-1, legal description of
designated wetlands area for conservation easement
purposes and any drainage easements recommended
by the City Engineer. Also suggested resolving
possible access problems with change of location
of lot line on easements as required for access
overlapping common boundary line between two
individual parcels. -
The Planning Commission tabled application until
necessary material is submitted.
Staff - November 14 , 1977
Letter to Greg Frank, City Engineer, requesting
review and recomr:�endation for drainage purposes
for determination of all necessary drainage
easements.
Planning Commission D4eeting - Novemher 21, 1977
Mr. Brooks and PZr. Herfurth were present. Planning
Cor�u*�ission discussed flowage and conservation
easement designation and access to lake and riparian
rights.
(Continued)
� ' Rr�ULAR MFE1IiIG GF TH� ORONO COUNCIL, I�'iARCIi 16 , 1978 Page 17
Planning Cor:��ission r�com.��ended apnroval of Sli�DIVISION
prelir�inary plat subject to the f_ollo;aing conditions : 1125 Spring Hill Road
(Continued)
l. Approval of drainage plans and c7raina.�e and ,
utility easer�ents by City Engineer.
2. Approval of flowage and conservation easement
over wetlands .
3. Suggest applic�nt reserve the riqht to locate
a 6 ft. access to the lake. Upon determining
location, designate walkway as outlot.
4. Title opinion addressed to the City and a�proved
by tne Ci ty AtLo?-ney.
5. Park dedication fee.
6. Additional 10 ft. right-of-way c�edication along
County Road tt6 to Hennepin County.
7. Permanent private easements on access roads as
required.
Council Pleeting - P7over.iber 28 , 1977 �
Approved preliminary plat subject to easements , etc. ,
as approved by Planning Co_runission.
Staff - 14arch 3, 1978 for Council PZeeting - P�arch 16 , 1978
The attached resolution including e�hibits A & B are
submitted for your review and approval. The original
parcel was split by Resolution #818 dated August 22 ,
1977. Mr. Brooks then returned with a second
division which received prelir.iinary approval on
Noveriber 28, 1977. Conditions for both divisions
have now been completed thereby allowing the Council
to r.iake final approval.
The original division �aas never recorded although
it could have been. Though it is irregular, .I do
recommend approving the two divisions at one time
because all the legal documents have been assembled.
Butler r_Zoved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION #884
#884, A Resolution Approving A Subdivision For Conley Brooks
Conley Brooks. I�otion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . 1125 Spring Hill Road
1�2r: Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Aclr.►inis- VARIANCE
trator, entered into the record the following 4460 North Shore Drive _
inforrlation concerning a lot area and width variance #349
request of Paul Berglund, 4460 North Shore Drive, Paul Berglund
dated February 3, 1978 , which states:
The above applicant is requesting approval of
several variances at the above address. The pro-
perty is located in a LR-1B zoning district. The
lot and setback requirements in this zone are as
follows: (Continued)
REGuLAR PZEETIt7G OF THE ORONO COU:�JCIL, P1I�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 18
VARI?�2JCE
1, Area - 43, 560 sq. ft. 4460 North Shore Drive
� �aidth - 140 ft.
3. Street setback - 35 ft. (Continued)
4 . Side seLback - 10 ft. �
�, I,akeshore setbac}c - 75 ft.
The lot is currently occupied by a riobile home and
two garages. The property is currently non-�onforriing.
l. Existing mobile home - 10 ft. from street _
2. Garage A - 14 ft. from shoreline
3. Garage B - 15 ft. from shoreline and 7 f_t. from
side lot line.
The subject lot does not rleet requirer�ents . Lot
dimensions :
1. Lot area - a�proxir�ate ly 14 , B 0 0 sq. f t.
2. Lot width - 40 ft.
New residence would meet setback requirements.
�9e should address the issues of non-conformity
currently existing.
l. Rer.►oval of r_iobile hor.►e
2, r4oving or removal of garages A & B
Although the lot is substandard, the �roperty is
sewered and assessed for sewer. No additional
adjacent land is available for expansion as
residences occupy properties on either side.
Planning Commission t2eeting - February 27, 1978
. Mr. Richard J_ Williar,ls, representing the applicant,
was present. P4r. & P�irs. Jabbour, representing the
Frederick Abrahamsons, 4455 North Shore Drive, _
interested neighbors, were also present.
The Zoning Adr.tinistrator presented the proposal as
subr.iitted. He suggested removal of the r►ohile
hor.ie and two non-conforming garages if proposal
were to be approved.
The Planning Corunission recoz-Lmended a�proval of
all variances subject to the following conditions:
l. Rer�oving existing non-conforming rlobile hor�e
fror.i site before construction of new dwelling
is started (mobile home only 10 ' from street)
2 , Razing of two existinc� non-conforriing garages
before construction of new dewlling is started -
demolition permits required (hardcover within 75'
of lakeshore)
3. Removal of all existing slabs (hardcover) before �Continued)
construction is started.
� REGULI�R �iEF'I'I'�:G OF 1YF GRONO COUNCIL, IL�RCH 16 , 1978 P�c�e 19
Justifications: VARIANCE
4a60 '7orth Shore Drive
. ':o additional land available (Continued)
� , roperty is sewered and assessed ,
3 . ;=oposed location of new dwelling r.leets all
, etback requirernents
Staff - i-2arch 6 , 1978 for Council Pseeting March 16 , 1978
. The sewer assessments included one unit charge
($1, 270. 00) front footage (59. 2 ft. + 59 . 2 ft. _ $923. 52)
and one connection charge ($225. 00) . The lots are
separate parcels. I recorunend that approval be
subject to three Planning Comr:iission recommendations
plus lot coribination for tax purposes and County
approval of the driveway location, all prior to
issuance of any building permit.
Council i�Z�eting - March 16, 1978 •
Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to approve the
variance request of Paul Berglund, 4460 North
Shore Drive, per the Planning Cor,ir,lission recom-
r.�endations of February 27, 1978 , adding a fourth
condition: combination of front and back lots.
P�Iotion, Ayes (4) - TJays (0) .
.�Ir. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adriinis- VARIANCE
trator, entered into the record the following 3765 Togo Road
inforr►ation concerning a variance request of #353
Don Phenicie, 3765 Togo Road, dated February 2 , 1978 Don Phenicie
which states:
Applicant is requesting a permit for an addition
_ to e�cisting dwelling. Before a permit can be
issued, several variances would rec�uire Planning
Cor.u:lission and Council approval. Exhibit A
This property is located in a LR-1C Zoning District.
The lot and setback requirements in this district
are as follows:
l. Lot area - 21, 780 sq. ft. •
2. Lot width - 100 ft.
3. Street setback - 30 ft.
4. Rear setback - 30 ft.
5. Side setback - 10 ft.
Exhibit B indicates location of subject property
on plat map section. Exhi.bit C (survey) indicates
lot dirlensions and location of existing dwelling.
The following non-conforminc� conditions exist: (Continued)
� REGUL?�R ?•�EETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, ?'IARCH 16 , 1978 Page 2�
l. Lot area - 10 , 124 sq. ft. VARI�ICES
� . Lot width - 79 . 5 ft. 3765 Toc,o Road
(Continued)
Exhibit D shows Proposed addition. This addition �
would extend beyond the required setbacks. ProPosed
setbacks :
1. Rear setback - 22. 7 f_t.
2. Side setback - 9 . 4 ft.
Variances rec�uired if proposal is approved:
l. Lot area - 10 ,124 sq. ft. �
2. Lot width - 20. 5 ft.
3. Rear setback - 7. 5 ft.
4. Side setback - 0. 67 ft. (8")
Both the sewer lateral and sewer unit chare�es have
been assessed to this lot. No additional adjacent �
land is available for expansion as residences
occupy the lots on either side.
Planning Commission P4eeting - February 27, 1978
PZr. Phenicie was present as was one interested
neighbor, I�Zr. r2aki.
Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. Inquired
why addition to the east could not be moved 8" to
the west to eliminate an 8" variance from the side
lot line setback requirement.
Mr. Phenicie explained that moving the addition 8"
to the west would reduce the proposed 8' house
-addition and restrict reasonable use.
After reviewing the proposed plan, r'ir. Maki, the
neighbor, had no objections.
The Planning Commission recomr.lended approval of
the following variances:
l. Lot area - 10 , 124 sq. ft.
2. Lot width - 20. 5 ft.
3. Rear setback - 7. 5 ft.
4. Side setback - 8 in.
Justifications:
1. No other land available
2. Existing house location is not parallel to
side lot line resulting in gradual reduction
of side setback
3. Property is sewered
(Continued)
` � ..:��.T."--.R :��L`_I'.G Or `='Nt� ORO'd0 COU;vCIL, ?:�.?CH 16 , 19�8 Fag� 21
Council Pieeting - Plarch 16 , 1978 VARIANCES
3765 Togo Road
�utler rloved, Pesek seconded, to approve the (Continued)
var_iances rec�uested hy Don Phenicie, 3765 Togo .
Road, per the Planning Commission recor,unendations
of February 27, 1978. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
l�r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- VARIANLE
trator, entered into the record the following 809 Brown Road North
inforr�ation concerning a variance request of #357
Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North, dated Dennis Platteter
February 3 , 1978 , which states:
r2r. Platteter has submitted an ��plicat�on �or
a variance to construct a stable which would not
conforrt to the setback requirements of 150 ft.
(Exhibit A) .
I have checked the file and found no record of
a conditional use pernit approved for the proposed '
anirnal unit use; therefore, the conditional use
permit for horses on the propert� must also be
addressed. ��Te might also� address the maximum
number of animal units , as the nroposed barn would
be 1, 980 sq. ft. in area.
Exhibit B (survey of property) indicates proposed
location of stable. The required setback for a
stable is 150 ft. from lot lines. This application
would reguire approval of two setback variances
as the location as proposed would be 130 ft. from
the south property line and 90 ft. from the corner
of the Lawrence property. Respective 20 ' and 60 '
varian�es would be necessary. Exhibit B also
indicates property dimensions. The area is
slightly under seven acres.
Exhibit C - land contour and vegetation.
Exhibit D - floor plan of proposed stable (seven
stalls and two other bays) .
Our ordinance requires one acre of pasture over
and above the minimum lot area requirement for
each animal unit.
The lot area requirement in this zoning district
is two acres. Since this parcel consists of
almost seven acres, five animal units couln be
considered for approval of the conditional use
permit. If we approve the conditional use permit
for r,►ore than five animal units , we should
address it as a separate variance along with the
conditional use permit.
(Continued)
�
� Rr�'�ULAR PIFETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, T�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 22
i�1e should also address security measures to VARIArIC�
protect the trees and foilage on the neighboring 809 Brown Road ?lorth
roperties. t-Je received numerous conplaints (Continued)
rom r4rs. Lawrence in the past. Horses owned
by the previous owner had damaged most of the �
Lawrence trees within reach of the horses.
I ar.l enclosi?zg copies of several of the inspection
reports and letters regarding these previous
comnlaints. Also enclosed are several police
reports and photos.
Planning Commission PSeeting - February 27, 1978
The Platteters were present.
The Planning Col�ission reviewed the proposal.
They addressed the proposed setback of 90 ft. from
the Lawrence property. A4r. Platteter explained
that the �opography of the land soraev:hat dictated
this location to elininate the possibility of
waste runoff directly into Dickey' s Lake. He
also requested a five foot extension in the
proposed length of the stable from the projected
55 ft. to 60 ft. - the barn components cor.ie in •
modulars of four feet.
The Planning Commission expressed extreme concern
For security for protection against property
dar�age on neighbor' s property.
The Platteters ensured the Commission that
proper fencing would be erected to provide for
that protection.
The Planning Commission also addressed the variance
of two animal units over and above the perriitted
number of five horses.
The Planning Corunission recommended approval of
the variances necessary for the stable size and
location and approval of the conditional use
permit, for five horses only (no variance for
seven horses) conditioned on compulsory review
for rene�val of permit if complaints of violation
are registered.
Staff - t�arch 6, 1978 for Council r4eeting Pdarch 16 , 1978
The Planning Corunission recorunended approval of
this variance and conditional use permit conditioned
only upon review if complaints are received. Because
of r:1y personal experiences with this property, I would
like to suggest the following additional conditions :
(Continued)
� � R�GliL:�R 21EETIPJG OF ^HE ORO?10 COliNCIL, i•�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 23
l. �ne erection of �encing acceptable to the VARIANCE
�oning Administrator, to protect neighboring 809 Brown Road North
�roperties prior to issuance of a building (Continued)
permit. .
2. ^hat the entire property be used for rasturaae,
or the pasturage rotated, so as not to confine
the animals to a small area, especially not
;-_he area to the front of the lot.
3. 'ihat the property be kept clean of r�anure
buildup, particularly at spring melt.
4. That the horses be properly_ fed and cared for
at all times.
5. That the Council consider regulations on the
use of electric fencing within the City.
Council P�ieeting - March 16, 1978
Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to aporove the request
of Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North, for a ' '
variance and conditional use perrlit per the Planning
Cor�rnission recor.unendations of P�iarch 6 , 1978, subject
to: elir.:linating condition ;5 and adding, "ground- ,
water runoff pollution will determine review of the
conditional use perrzit at a later date" . P�Iotion, �
Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . !
i
�
ir. 1�lan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adrminis- VARIANCE �
trator, entered into the record the following 1565 Orchard Beach Place ;
inforr,lation concerning variance requests of #345 '
Arthur Heintz, 1565 Orchard Beach Place, dated Arthur Heintz
February 23 , 1978 , which states:
Nir. Heintz was present to ask for consideration of
the variance to r.lake the lot more salable. He �
noted that it had never been hor.lesteaded, but had �
been a cabin and in continuous ownership by the
same fanily for 50 years. The Council reviewed
the extreme nature of the variances required and
the Planning Corunission recommendation of denial.
r4r. Hopper of 1530 Orchard Beach Place (across the
street) was present to speak against the variance
saying the lot was snall and had a drainage problem;
also that the existing garage was a hazard to
neighborhood children.
Council tabled r.tatter for staff to review tax and
assessrlent status.
Staff - February 27, 1978
This property is Plat 43120 , Parcel 5325 , originally
olatted as the "coru;�ons" of Saga fiill Revised. The
property is non-hor:iesteaded and contains a garage
in poor condition. The 1977 ta�; record market
value is $6 ,900 land, $80 buildings; total $6 , 980.
Taxes due 1978 are $262. 60 (general tax) and
$91. 42 (assessr,ient #�5382) ; total $354. 02.
(Continued)
' :��'=ULIjR :'>;>>t`iI?JG O: '1':;E OitO'v0 CO��!?�CTL� ?'9:,RCH 16 � 1978 -',3c =
The 1977 ta�: � are delinquent. Assessment #5382 �TARIANCE
is 1970 Saga �iill Se��E_r for 100 ft. of lateral 1565 Or_char �ch Place
nly (orignial $780} , There is one sewer stub, (Continued)
��ut was never any se�,�er tinit charge which would ,
have been approximately $1, 200 . The Iot is low,
ta}:ing drainage from tl�e street and all surrounding
property. It slopes toward the lake.
Council P9eeting - PSarch 16 , 1978
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTIOi�� ��
n885 , A Resolution Denying Lot Area, ��7idth, Take- Art1_zur Heint�
shore Setback, Front And Rear Yard And Hardcover 1565 Orchard ch Place
Variances For Property Known As Plat 43120,
Parcel 5325, Arthur Heintz , 1565 Orchard Beach Place.
Motion, Ayes (4) - IvTays (0) .
P�Zr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adr.linis- CO�IDITIONAL U� � 'r'ERMIT -
trator, entered into Lhe record the following 2420 Dunwoody ':v�nue
inforriation concerning a conditional use permit #340
for Calvary Memorial Church for 2420 Dunwoody Calvary Memori��l Church
Avenue, dated February 23, 1978 , which states :
Council reviewed the application and the Planning
Comr,tission recor.unendations. It was understood .
that the proposed use is to be a parochial school
aith essentially the same functions and schedule
as the existing public school. The only additions
would be normal church functions. A proposed
chapel addition was indicated for future expansion,
although this was not part of the current request.
The r.iajor concerns were sufficient parking and
proper access with no on-street parking to be
allowed. Representatives from the church indicated
that the nuriber of students and form of transportation
has not been determined and that the school would
nost likely not open until the 1979-80 school year.
Council indicated ap�roval; tabled application until
Pdarch 16 , 1978 meeting for staff to prepare a
formal resolution of approval.
Council T'Ieeting - March 16, 1978
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION #886
rt886 , A Resolution Approving A Conditional Use Permit 2420 Dunwoody Avenue
For Calvary Memorial Church, for 2420 Dunwoodv Avenue. Calvary r2emorial C1-iurch
Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . +
REGULAR PIEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, PZARCH 16 , 1978 Page 25
N,r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- JOINT USE DOCK
trator, entered into the record the following Kelly Avenue Holding Co.
nforriation concerning a joint use dock apnlication
for 1978 of the Felly Avenue Holding Cor-�pany, da�ed
February 2, 1978, which states :
Application for multiple ciock license for 1978 for
mooring of six boats was received. This is f_or the
purpose of providing dock space for each of the
six dwelling units in the three duplexes on the
Kelly Avenue Holding Cor�pany property.
Exhibit B (sketch) - notes indicate 400 ' shoreline.
Exhibit C (survey) - diiner.sions noted on survey line
adjacent to shoreline appear to confirm the 400 '
shoreline.
This property is zoned LR-1B (1 acre) . P4inir.lum " .
lot width and shoreline requirement is 140 ' .
From the zoning standpoint, only two docks would
be permitted.
Sorie of the other agencies are currently consinering
regulating docks by a shoreline footage factor. If
we should adopt this policy, the number of perrnitted
slips would vary accordingly.
Planning Conunission P4eeting - February 27, 1978
Mr. Lindsay, representing the developer, was present.
The Zoning Administrator explained the proposal
as submitted. He expressed concern over the shore-
line site plan indicating six indivic�ual docks. _
He felt this plan could provide mooring of 12 boats ,
on only 400 ft. of shoreline. The shoreline and
lot width requirement in this one acre zoning
district is 140 ft. The total length of shoreline
on the subject property lacks 2d it. fror.l the
requirement as regulated by our current policy.
The Planning Comr.lission recommended approval of three
docks for the mooring of six boats. One boat for
each of the six dwelling units in the three duplexes
on the parcel. Each of the three docks would be
lirlited to a width of 5 ' 6" and a length of 25 ft.
The Planning Commission did not stipulate the
distance between the docks on specific location
of the three docks.
(Continued)
' R:,c;liJ��?? ?'�rTI?vG OF `i'HE OROTJO COU�7CIL, P�i7�RCH 16 , 197$ Page 26
Council 2ieeting - 29arch 16 , 1978 JOINT DOCK USE
Y.elly Avenue Holding Co.
�iscussion followed with the applicant as to the (Continued)
type of structures , number of boats, as outlined
in the Planning Corunission ininutes.
Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to instruct staff to
subr:iit a resolution for the next Council r.�eeting to
include:
l. Planning Com�ission requirements
2. Details of what is being approved
3. Chain of title
4. Other agencies approval
S. No property rights by this action
Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adr.tinis-
trator, entered into the record the following
information concerning the subdivision request of
William Bartig, 605 Stubbs Bay Road, dated February 23,
1978 , which state:
The Council reviewed this application with Mr.
Schneider including the latest proposal to combine
the west parcel with the Bollum property to the
south. Council conceptually approved sar.le, subject
to the Planning Commission recor.unendations. Staff
is to return with a resolution of final approval
when all items are completed including a title
opinion on both parcels, a signed easement
document, and payrlent of a $500 park dedication fee.
Council P�eeting - March- 16, 1978
Butler moved, Acting 2•iayor Massengale seconded, to RESOLUTION #887
adopt Resolution #887, A Resolution Approving A William Bartig
Subdivision For 4�illiam Bartig, 605 Stubbs Bay Road, 605 Stubbs Bay Road
subject to $500 park dedication fee being paid.
Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
P�Zr. Alan Olson, Assistant Builc?ing � �onirig Adminis- DIVISION
trator, entered into the record the following 2600 Casco Point Road
inforr�ation concerning a subdivision rec�uest of �346
Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, dated January 4 , Paul Kaster
1978 , which states :
Attached is a copy of the proposed division of
Parcel 3000 of �ainship' s Division located at 2600
Casco Point Road.
This district is zoned LR-1C (1/2 acre - 100 ' lot
width. The area is sewered. (Continued)
� � REGULAR P2EETING OF TFiE ORONO COU?]CIL, "uRCH 16 , 1978 Page 27
Proposal (Preliminarv plat approval) : DIVISION
2600 Casco Point Road
t. Two Iots each exceeding 1/2 acre area (Continued)
2. Only one lakeshore lot (Lot 2) with approximately ,
150 ' shoreline
3. Proposed house locations to meet setback require-
ments
4 . Provide access easenent ior Lot 2 (alonc� north
lot line of Lot 1)
5. Provide utility easement for Lot 2 (along north
lot line of Lot 1)
Issues to consider:
l. Park dedication fee ($1, 000 per lot)
2. Drainage easements (alter or follow existing
drainage routes)
3. Assessments
4. Utilizing existing unimproved right-of-way for'
access and utilities
5. Title opinion
A public hearing will be scheduled for 7 : 30 P.M.
February 6, 1978.
Copies of the proposal along with requests for
comr�ents forwarded to the following: -
City Attorney, City Engineer, City Administrator,
City Public Works Director, Finance Director,
P4innehaha Creek Watershed District, and the
Departr.►ent of Natural Resources.
Staff - January 30, 1978
Refer to suggestions in letter fror,i DNR dated
January 23, 1978 regarding access to the lots.
Public Hearing - February 6 , 1978
Public hearing for consideration of preliminary
plat approval cvas opened as scheduled.
r'Ir. Kaster was present. Also present were the
following interested parties :
Stephen B. Woodrich - 2590 Casco Point Road
,7ames L. Tobin - 2585 Dunwoody Avenue
2�ir. D. K. Waterous, owner of property at
2648 Casco Point Road
The Corunission acknowledged receipt of copies of
letters outlining suggestions and recort.-nendations
from the DNR and City Engineer. (Continued)
� RrGULAR IIEETI?�G OF `i'HE ORONO COUPdCIL, P1yRCH 16 , 1978 Page 2g
The letter from �he DNR suggested a preference of DIVISION
�ccess and utilities be located along the north 2600 Casco Point Road
ines rather than in the unimproved public right-of- (Continued)
way along the south lot line. •
The letter from the City Engineer suggested the
applicant submit the following:
1. Certified survey of property specifically
locating Casco Point Road right-of-way as
traveled.
2. Indicate access driveway and utility easement
for Lot B on proposed plat (along north lot
line of A) .
3. Driveway plans (existing and proposed elevations -
fill required and driveway cross section) .
4 . Sanitary sewer detail - (elevation of existing
riunicipal sewer line and proposed individual
- connections and grades of sewer lines for each �
lot) .
5. Indicate surface drainage easements on property
including culverts if necessary under proposed
driveway. Drainage easement to be approved by
City Engineer.
6. Submit an erosion control plan prior to
construction on either lot. Erosion could be
controlled with mulch, tertporary straw bale,
dikes or other techniques to prevent sediment
runoff, (erosion control method to be approved
by City Engineer) .
The Zoning Administrator suggested the applicant
prepare revised nreliminary plans and submit them
for review by Planning Commission at next meeting.
Also suggested the following conditions be resolved
prior to submitting final plat for approval so
resolution of approval could be final without any
unresolved conditions:
l. Park dedication fee of $2, 000 ($1, 000 per lot) .
2. Current title opinion addressed to the City
approved by City Attorney.
3. Payment of additional assessments :
a. One water unit of $580
b. Two sewer units (one for each residence
to be paid when respective building permits
are issued) .
Planning Commission after reviewing proposal tabled
the issue until revised plans are subrlitted for
consideration.
Planning Commission - February 27, 1978
Paul I:aster was present. The Zoning Administrator
presented the revised plans which included the data
as requested by the City Engineer, Jim Olson, who was
also in attendance. (Continued)
� ' ,.��U�.yR ?S��'i I�:G O� `.i„riF ORONO CGliNCI?�, :�1:?CH 16 , 1972 Page 29
ihe Planning Coru;�ission reviewed the revisions DIVISION
and additional information and as},ed Jim Olson, City 2600 Casco Point Road
�gineer, if the material was satisfactory, r1r. Jim (Continued)
�lson was satisfied except for the width of the
util.ity and driveway easement along the north lot
line of the westerly lot. He felt the easer�ent
should be 15 ft. wide rather than the 10 ft, as
indicated on the plan to provide adequate width
for grade of supporting bank along edge of driveway.
Mr. I:aster was somewhat reluctant in providing a
wider easer�ent for fear that many of the larger
trees growing within the 15 ft. easer.lent might
be destroyed. He did, however, agree to a 15 ft.
easement if necessary.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions : All of these conditions and any others�
added by Council must be met before resolution
of approval of final plat can be adopted and
certified.
l. Conditions requiring certification of City
Attorney: ,
a. Current title opinion addressed to the City
b. Legals for all easements �
i
�. Conditions requiring certification of City i
Engineer and City Public �aorks Director: �
a. Location and description of driveway and '
utility easer.tents �
b. Location and description of drainage
easements
c. Certified survey of property locating
Casco Poi�t Road as traveled
• d. Proposed driveway plans
e. Proposed sanitary sewer detail
f. Proposed drainage plans (design and culverts)
g. Proposed erosion control plan
3. Conditions requiring certification of City staff:
a. Payment of park dedication fee of $2, 000 ($1, 000
per lot) - Zoning Administrator
b. Payrient of one additional water unit of $580 -
Finance Director
c. Z'wo sewer unit charges of $225 (one $225 unit
charge for each parcel to be payed when build-
ing perrtits are issued fo� respective lots) -
Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector.
Staff - PZarch l, 1978
•4r. I;aster was in to see me. He as}ced if Council
would consider approving a reduction in the width of
the driveway easement from 15 ft. to 12 ft. (Continued)
� RE'GULAR 21EETZNG OF THE ORONO COUP7CIL, I�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 30
He is concerned �bout the possibility of loosing SUBD�VI�IO�I
nany larger trees now growing just beyond the 12 ft. 2600 Casco Poi.nt Road
ine. I suggested he present several photos to (Continued)
�ouncil when his proposal comes up for their ,
consideration.
Staff - P�;ar�h 6, 1978 to Counc�_1 I.arch 16 , 1978
I recoru;�end approval of this preliminary sub-
division according to the attached resolution.
Council I�leeting - P-4arch 16 , 1978
Discussion followed with Mr. Kaster present to �
discuss his proposed driveway.
Paurus rloved, Butler seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION r888
#888 , A Resolution I�proving The Prelir�inary Plat 2600 Casco Point Road
Of Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, subject to • Paul Kaster
restating condition #4 : To have driveway construction
plan subrnitted for approval, r4otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
A1r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- SUBDIVISION
trator, entered into the record the following 2700 Sixth Avenue North
infornation concerning a subdivision request of #354
Roger Fazendin, 2700 Sixth Avenue Pdorth, dated Roger Fazendin
February 2 , 1978, which states :
Proposal - Subdivide 20. 89 acre parcel into two
parcels - Exhibit #1
Lot 1 - 1. Total area - 15. 88 acres
2. Dry land exceeds 10 acres
3, j9etlands designated on plat
. 4. Conservation easement not indicated
5. No drainage easements indicated
6. 40' County Road #6 right-of-way indicated
as easer►ent
Lot 2 - l. Total area - 5. 01 acres
2. Dry land exceeds five acres
3. No wetlands
4. No conservation easement necessary
5. No drainage easements indicated
6. 40 ' County Road #6 right-of-way indicated
as easement
Property is located in district zoned RR-1B. Psinimum
zoning requirements in this district:
(Continued)
' R�r:��_�.:R :i;�E'iING OF iH� 0::0'_��O CO�.�iCIL, riARi,H 16 , 1978 �'nge 31
1. 87, 120 sq. ft. area SUBDIVISION
2 . 200 ft. lot width 2700 Sixth Avenue North
. Setbacks : (Continued)
a. Front 50 ft. �
b. Rear 50 ft.
c. Side 30 ft.
d. Marsh 26 ft.
e. Stable from any lot line - 150 ft.
Applicant was informed of the above requirements.
He was also informed of the following requirements :
l. Indicate and describe drainage easements
2. Description of flowage and conservation easement
3. Current title opinion addressed to the City for
City Attorney approval
4. Conservation easement areas and roads to be
excluded in calculating buildable area
5. Preliminary plat lacking spaces for signatures
of County officials (tax clerks, surveyors,
registrar of titles and recorder)
6. Approval of other agencies
7. Public hearing
8. Park dedication fee of $500 ($250 per lot)
9. Resolution of approval (signed and certified)
Copies of the proposed division have been forwarded
�long with requests for comments to the following:
Hennepin County Public �9orks Department
Department of Natural Resources
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Hennepin Soils Conservation Department
City Administrator
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Public Works Department
Public hearing has been scheduled for February 27, 1978
at 7: 45 P.M.
Since both lots resulting frori this proposal would
exceed five acres, we could process the application
through the simplified procedures (one Planning
Comrtission and one Council meeting - no mylars
or hardshells would be necessary. ) �
Public Hearing - February 27, 1978
Public hearing was opened. The Zoning Administrator
presented the proposal.
Dan Fazendin was present.
(Continued)
� `REGULAR MEETING OF THE OROi�O COUNCIL, PURCH 16 , . 1978 Page 32
The Zoning Administrator also introduced the SUBDIVISION
following newer exhibits which were received by 2700 Sixth Avenue iJorth
�aff more recently: (Continued)
1. Exhibit A - -Hennepin County Soils Cons�rvation
District report
2. Exhibit B - Hennepin County Public Works Depart-
ment report regarding subject oroposal
After closing the public hearing, the Planning
Cor,unission recomr,iended apnroval of the simple
suhdivision subject to the following conditions :
These conditions and any others added by Council
must be met before resolution of approval of
final plat can be adopted and certified.
l. Conditions requiring certif_ication of City
Attorney:
a. Current title opinion addressed to City " _
b. Legal on all easements and dedications
c. Legal on conservation and flowage easer.►ent
over wetlands
2 . Conditions requiring certification of City Engineer:
a. Location and descriptions of drainage and
access easements �
b. Location and descriptions of conservation
and flowage easements
c. Perc tests and design septic system plans
� indicating suitable locations for primary
and alternate drainfields on each lot
3. Conditions requiring certification of City staff:
a. Revised certified survey indicating the
follo��ing: 1) additional 10 ft. easement I
along County Road #6 , 2) move comrion lot line
between Lots 1 & 2 further west to compensate
• for 50 ft. County Road easement area deducted
from total area of Lot 2. If Lot 2 lacks
the five acre area requirement, the proposed
subdivision would not qualify as a simple
subdivision_
b. Payment of park dedication fee of $500 ($250
per lot)
c. Revised plat indicating 40' X 150 ' are�
located at southwest coiner of the original
parcel for future acquisition by the Hennepin
County Vo-Tech for access to their property
d. Perc tests and septic system plans indicating
suitable location of primary and alternate
drain fields for each lot
4. Conditions requiring certification of Hennepin
County Public Works Departrlent:
a. Revised plat indicating additional 10 ft.
easement along County Road ,�6 and protected
40 ft. and 150 ft, area for future access (Continued) (
�
(
�
. j
� ,
,
?F,GuLAR �SF,�TING OF THE OROrJO COUlvCIL, r'LARCH 16 , 1978 Page 33
SUBDIVISION
to Hennepin County Vo-Tech property 2700 Sixth Avenue North
b, Access locations (Continued)
Staff - ISarch 6 , 1978 for Council - P7arch 16 , 1978 .
I r�commend approval of the prelirninary sub-
division according to the attacized resolution.
Council Pdeeting - March 16 , 1978
Mr. Dan Fazendin co�mented that we are concerned
with County Road ;-6 , j,7e have sold the proPerty -
one five-acre parcel and one 15-acre parcel.
Bruce 1�4alkerson: You sold before you a�plied for a division?
Dan Fazendin: Yes.
P�r. Niles challenged the additional ten-foot ' _
easement required along County Road #6. Fie
reviewed Hennepin County' s letter which requests
a 50' road easement but does not insist upon it.
Acting r4ayor Massengale: The County and City
have to request adequate right-of-wayif it feels
it is necessary for future easements. We have to
be consistent with policies.
PeseY moved, Paurus seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION �889
2700 Sixth Avenue North
�889, A Resolution Approving The Preliminary Sub- Ro er Fazendin
divisiQn Of Roger Fazendin, 2700 Sixth Avenue North, g
subject to �pplicant meeting required minimum lot
size or to rea�ly for a subdivision. r�otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
I�sr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- SUBDIVISION
trator, entered into the record the following 2885 Sixth Avenue North
information concerning a subdivision request of #356
Karl Gardner, 2885 Sixth Avenue North, dated Karl Gardner
February 3, 1978 , which states :
Exhibit A - application for subdivision of 10-plus
acre parcel into four lots. Each lot exceeds the
miniriu.r,i two-acre area requirement in the RR-1B
zoning district. Each lot also meets the r.linimum
200' lot width requirement. Access to Lot 1 of
Bloc}c 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2 would be directed
tovaard Jamestown Road (nrivate road to Liberty
Acres Plat) _
Exhibit B - Indicates location of subject property
on plat map. (Continued)
` � �=?EGliLAR ';rETI_TvG OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, 2i71RCH 16 , 1978 Page 34
rxhibit C - Proposed subdivision - four lots SUBDIVISION
(Lot l, Block l, Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 2 and 2885 Sixth Avenue ?7orth
�rivate road providing access to Liberty Acres (Continued)
Plat which was approved by Council December 13,
1976 (Rr�solution #733) . Records will indicate
that the County Public �v'orks Departr�ent recorunended
and approved this location as access to the Liberty
Acres Plat. I have not been able to find any
docurlentations on easenents or association
agreements which probably should have been approved
before releasing Resolution #733 (Exhibit D)
which approved the Liberty Acres Plat. The
resolution lists the conditions , but we do not
have any docur.ients confirming that these conditions
were fulfilled. We will have to address this
issue of access at this time. �ti'e might consider
sorie type of association agreement which would
include all parcels of Liberty Acres and Lot l,
Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 of the Karl Gardner �
Plat providing the City Attorney agrees with the
suggestion.
Copies of the proposal along with requests for
comments have been forwarded to:
Hennepin County Public Works Department
P4innehaha Creek Watershed District
City Adr�inistrator
City Attorney ,
City Engineer
City Public Works Director
Schedules for meetings of Planning Commission
and Council have been changed; hereafter, the
Planning Commission will meet the second and
fourth Pdondays of each rionth. Therefore, the
public hearing relating to this issue has been
scheduled for February 27, 1978 at 8 : 00 P.M.
The following issues should be addressed so all
conditions will be resolved before a resolution
of approval is drafted:
l. D��inage and utility easements - locations
and descriptions (approved by City Attorney
and City Engineer)
2. Access to County Road #6 (approved by Hennepin
County Public Works Department)
3. Private road - association agreerlent and under-
lying easement to City (location and description
anproved by Citv Attorney and Engineer)
4. Current title opinion addressed to the City
(approved by City Attorney)
5. Paynent of park dedication fee of $1, 000 -
four lots at $250 per lot)
6. Easement description and agreement for cor.unon
access from County Road �6 to Lots 2 & 3,
Illock 2
(Continued)
' �:t:Gi;;_,?-.R '::r`:I?:'i O_ _'�il� ORO'v0 CO?)IvI;IL, ri'=RC"t? �� , 1978 P,�g�' 35
Public Hearing - February ?_7, 1978 SUBDIVISION
2885 Sixth Avenue North
sblic hearing was opened. The Zoning Ac�-ninis- (Continued)
rrator presented the proposal to the Planning ,
Cornmission.
Karl Gardner was present. Also present: P�2r. &
Mrs. Greg Rusch, 3065 Jarnestown Road, and his
father, P�r. Rusch.
The Zoning Anriinistrator also introduced the
following newer exh?bits which w�re received
by staff more recently:
l. Exhibit E - Certified survey indicating
location of existing windmill in reference
to proposed lot line.
2 . Exhibit F - Copy of permanent non-exclusive
easement for ingress and egress of Liberty " .
Acres Subdivision (Jamestown Road) .
3. Exhibit G - Hennepin County Public L9orks
report regarding subject proposal
4. Exhibit H - City Engineer' s corunents on
proposal
During the hearing, the Ruschs stated their concern
about the use and responsibility of the private
-oad (Jamestown Road) . The Chairwoman informed
the parties that the parties involved were _
responsible for resolving the private issues.
We were only involved in the plat itself with
assurance that all parcels had access to the
streets. Private matters would have to be
resolved by the private parties themselves.
The City would, however, require a copy of the
agreement whereby all property owners along
Jariestown Road had access and responsibility to
the private road.
The Planning Commission recor,unended approval of
the preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions. All these conditions and any others
added by Council would have to be certified
completed before a resolution of approval of the
final plat could be adopted and certified.
l. Conditions requiring certification by City
Attorney:
a. Current title opinion addressed to City
b. Legals for all easements
c. Association bylaws and agreer:lents
d. Private road with legal on underlying
easement
(Continued)
� J�GULAR 2�1EETING OF THE OROP�O COUNCIL, P7ARCH 16, 1978 Page 36
2 . Co?iditions rcc�uiring certification of City SUBDIVISZON
Engineer and Public �^7orks Director: 2885 Sixth Avenue ?vorth
a. Location and description of dri��eway and (Continued)
utility easements �
b. Location and description of drain�ge and
utility easer�ents
c. Accesses to properties
d. Perc tests and designed septic syster�
plans indicating primary and alternate
drain fields for each respective parcel
3. Conditions requiring certification of City staff :
a. Perc tests and designed septic system plans
indicating primary and alternate drain field
for each respective lot (septic system
inspection)
b. Payment of park dedication fee of $1, 000
($250 per lot) - Zoning Adr,iinistrator
4. Conditions requiring certification of County
Public Works:
a. Location of access roads to County Road #6
b. Additional 10 ft. easer�ent along County
Road #6
The Planning Co < < ission also recorulended approval
of the following setback variances resulting from
location of existing structure in reference to lot
lines as proposed in subdivision.
1. Side yard setback variance for location of
existing windmill on Lot 3 - 16. 8 ft. variance
2. Side yard setback variance for location of
existing milk barn on Lot 2 - 2 ft. variance
Staff - P'tarch 6, 1978 for Council Dsarch 16, 1978
I recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision
according to the attached resolution. Note the
inclusion of a homeowners ' agreement to resolve
the access, ownership and rlaintenance responsibilities
of Jamestown Road. This riay be difficult f_or the
Gardners to consumate at this tir.te, but I do
recommend that the City require it for clarification
of responsibility.
Council P4eeting - March 16 , 1978
Mr. F:arl Gardner discussed his proposal cor,�unenting
that he has an agreer.tent that the proposed road
will be maintained as a private street.
(Continued)
, � RF•GL=LAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, PS�RCH 16 , 19 7 8 Page 3�
"�cting r:ayor Nassengale moved, Paurus seconded, to RESOLUTION �890
adopt Resolution �890 , A Resolution A�proving The 2885 Sixth Avenue North
Preli�~�inary Plat Of ��arl Gardner, 2885 Sixth Avenue (Continued)
�orth, subject to staff and applicant clarifying
item n7) Tne applicant shall execute and deliver a .
Homeowners ' Association agreement, articles of
incorporation and/or bylaws and a road and utilities
easer�ent providing for the access, use and maintenance
of the private road outlot. P�iotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Mr, Alan Olson, Assistant Building & 7oning Adminis- 1978 r1ARINA LICENSES
trator, informed the City Council that he sent a
letter to r4r. Paul Fahlin, Mr. �ohn Palmer, and
Mr. Gayle Wittig regarding their marina licenses
for 1978 , dated February 28, 1978, which states:
"This letter is a reminder that the City has not
yet received your 1978 marina license application.
The iorm was sent to you on Decemi�er 15 , 1977 and
should have been returned by January 15, 1978. '
If you have any questions concerning the completion
of the application, please contact me as soon as
possible. "
t4r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- LAKESHORE SETBACKS
trator, presented the City Council with a mer;lo
concerning lakeshore setbacks , dated March 3, 1978
which states :
"The shoreline of Lake Minnetonka (and to a lesser
extent the other lakes in Orono) is extremely
irregular. This fact makes it extremely difficult
to generalize as to conditions arising from any
given shoreline regulation.
Existing regulations regarding setbacks appear
to have been established for a number of reasons:
l. Erosion and sedimentation control - removing
construction from the waters edge and retaining
natural vegetation for shoreline protection.
2. Natural storm water filtration - restricting
hardcover from locations of direct runoff.
3. Preserving a "natural shoreline" appearance
as viewed from the lake - ie: trees , natural
vegetation, limiting artificial intrusions.
4. Flood control - restricting construction in
flood prone areas or areas subject to erosion
by flood waters.
5. Preserving views of the lake - lirniting artificial
intrusions between each home a�d the open water.
(Continued)
` R't,GUL11R ?�.EETING OF TY�F ORO?JO COL�JCIL, :��RCH 16 , 1978 Page 38
Of the above iterns, the first four can be LAK�S��ORE St�TBACKS
regulated bv establishrnent of fixed setback (Continued)
�ta�ices . lAn av�rage distance setback affects
vr addresses only the last item. ,
The Council should address lakeshore setback
regulations frort several directions :
1 . Adjust front yard, lot line and other
definitions consistent with current policy
and the latest Supreme Court rulings .
2 . Include r�asons f_or specific setback regulations .
3. Include newly established flood elevations as ;
a separate regulation besides horizontal !
distance. �
4 . Consicier amending or liniting the average � �
distance setback regulation. On 1/2 acre �
and one acre (140 ft. ) lots, and even two �
acre lots, neighbors will always be able to �
see each other' s homes from some point. Is
this objectionable? [�That part of one' s horle
or lot should retain the view? What is a
reasonable line of sight to the lake and what
is a reasonable angle of vision? �Jhere
should setbacks be r:ieasured to? How should
tl7ese distances be measured around inlets
or points or curved and irregular shorelines?
Should there be a lir_iit? ie: perha�s use
the average distance between 75 ft, and 150 ft.
only. "
10: 20 P.P�. - The applicant still was not present SUBDIVISION
concerning iteri �6 on the ac�enda - Durwell Vetter, Big Island
Big Island preliminary subdivision.
Paurus moved, Butler seconded, to table this rtatter
until the applicant requests to be heard. P2otion,
Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
A4r. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adr.iinis- FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
trator, presented the City Council with a r�emo
concerning Flood Insurance Study, dated March 7,
1978, which states: �
"Orono involvement in this study began in 1973 �
when the State Legislature required local
participation in the federal flood insurance prograr►_
^'he DidR notified Orono of required participation
nd the Council, on P'Iarch 11, 1974, adopted
Resolution #534, Application For Flood Insurance ,
and tt535, Adopting Land Use And Control 2�seasure
In Flood Plain Areas. HUD authorized interior
insurance sales within Orono efiective April 23, 1974 .
(Continued)
' R"r,��liLAR 22EETING OF TI�E ORONO COUNCIL, P'��RCH 16 , 1978 Page 39
Orono received the first flood plain naps August 16 , FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
1974 . The detailed studies were cormr�enced ,7une 27, (Continued)
975 . r.aps were revised as of March 18, 1975,
tipril 8, 1975, Auaust of 1975 , and October 25, ,
1975. The City Engineer approved the October 25,
1975 version, then request�d r�ore information
after Planning Corlriission and Council review.
Barr Engineering began the local I�UD study on
Nover.tber 4 , 1976 and completed their study on
January 4, 1977. Council since has reviewed the
r�aps and suggested several ch�nges or clarifications .
Corlplete floodway and flood boundary maps were
sent to the City on tlarch 8 , 1977 and the Prelimir.ary
Review Draft on June 14, 1977 (draft not in City files) .
On SePter.iber 26, 1977, a final coordination meeting
was held with the Council, HUD, Barr and D�dR. At
that tir�e, the City was advised of a 90-dav appeal
period for the study. This appeal period began �
on November 18, 1977 and expired on February 18 , 1978.
The office staff first received a copy of the .
Prelirninary Review Draft on February 21, 1978.
On February 28, 1978, Jim Olson and myself inet
with PSahedi Jiwani of the Hennepin Soil and
�9ater Conservation District to review this draf_t.
He had no adverse coriments on the detailed study
;reas, but did indicate concern with those areas
not studied in detail: ie : Long Lake, Long Lake
Creek, and certain other lakes and creeks.
On March 6, 1978, I spoke with Larry Dahlen of
Barr Engineering regarding the next step. He
says that the final draft study should be cor►pleted -
in a month or tcvo and will become official six
months from the end of the appeal period (or until
August 18, 1978) to enact flood plain regulatory
ordinances or "HUD will do so and change the City
therefore" .
The DNR has made suggestions for our ordinance
revisions (December 7 , 1977 ) and Jim Olson, -
Bruce rsalkerson and myself will review all our
options for your early consideration. " �
Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- VARIANCE - ZONING
trator, entered into the record the following 820 Brown Road North
information concerning variance , zoning, and #358
shoreline requirement for Tim Adams (Farm at Long Tim Adams
Lake) - 820 Brown Road North, dated February 21, 1978,
which states:
(Continued)
� �r�.l.�T,.i,-�. _'ii����_�����. r)t �i�J:}. �:�t_)'.'�� �1lJl.i''v�TL� ?:�jU�t1 16 � 11 i�i ��-'C�;� ".•�
This application is in relation to the preliminary VARIAP�CE - ZO?VING
subdivision proposal of the Fnrn at Long Lake (TM317) . 820 Brown Road North
he Planning Cor.unission reco�rnended approval of (Continued)
che preliminary on December 5 , 1977, subject to ,
several conditions . One of these conditions was
that all lakeshore lots have 200 f_t. of snoreline.
At the following Council meeting, PZr. Adarns
requested the shoreline lots be approved as sub-
mitted. The Council instructed the applicant file
a fornal variance application for review a�zd
reco�r7er.dation by the Planning Co�:�mission.
Since we are all familiar with the original plat
and application, I feel we could waive the
custoriary work session review and act on the issue.
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Reduced copy of preliminary plat •
indicating location of variance
request
Planning Comr.iission - February 27, 1973
The Zoning Adr,linistrator introduced the variance
proposal. Tim Adams , the developer was present.
The Planning Cor.u�ission reviewed the variance
application. After sor,►e discussion, the Zoning
Adninistrator inforried the Planning Commission
that the developer was also requesting approval
of the preliminary final plat, copies of which
were submitted at 4 : 15 P.D2. on February 23, 1978,
(10 copies only) and enclosed in their agenda
packets. Although staff lacked the time to
prepare the necessary reports , Mr. Adams felt he
might be able to explain any questions the Comr�ission
might raise regarding the plat.
The request for the variance from the 100 ft. lake-
shore frontage requirertent raised riany questions .
There was an indication of sorme skepticisn ar,iong
the Cor.unission members. Several motions were rtade,
but no decision was reached, Some of the r►er._tbers
felt a decision on length of lakeshore frontage
was raade at the original public hearing on Decertber 5 ,
1977. At that time, the Planning Commission recom-
mended approval of the preliminary plat subject to 15
conditions, one of which was that all lakeshore lots
meet the minimum 200 ft. lakeshore requirement.
The condition included altering lot lines in a
manner to provide lakeshore for only two lots .
After further discussion, the Planning Commission
recor.uTiended approval of the variance conditioned on
the following stipulation: (Continued)
' �NF (;i�I_:R .'t �`i''?�:G OF :ijE G���J:��� C�)i�:�JCTL� .��'RCH 16 , 19i8 P:a� 41
The City Attorney review the issue and conclude VARIANCE - ZONING
that the projected conservation easernent would, 820 Brown Ro�3d North
n fact, prohibit la}ceshore use of Lot 6 and (Continued)
restrict it fror.i any riparian rights. ,
The Commission continued with the review and
discussi_on regarding consideration of the final
plat aspresented.
After a total discussion period exceeding two
hours , the Commission f_inally tahled the i�sue
of final plat approval for further review. 'I'hey
request�d some adc�itional data fron the develoPer
so the proper review could be made bef_ore a
recor.u;�endation was for�aarded to Counci l.
The Pl<<nning Commission was concerned about
resolv�ng the following issues before reaching
any decision: , �
l. Certification of on-site sewage disposal �
s,.stem on all lots.
2 . Size all drainage structures with detailed
' plans and drainage calculations.
3. Indication and legal description of flowage
and conservation easements over wetlands .
�
4. D:.>terr.lination of extent of use perrlitted on ,
private 10 ft. lake access easerlents along
lot lines of Lots 7 & 16. (Easer.lents not
indicated on plat and no evidence of legal
description and agreement relating to these
easements have been subrlitted for Planning
Commission review) .
S. Potential expansion of use of said lakeshore
access easements.
6. Boat docks - (location - size - nuriber of slips
and boats - setbacks and use rights) .
7. Lack of association bylaws and agreements.
The Planning Cor.unission instructed the developer to
provide data and docur•.�entation for review by the
City Attorney, Engineer and staff so reports
relative to the sensitive issues could be prepared
for review by the Planning Commission before any
action is taken. They also requested copies of
the association bylaws and agreer:lents,
(Continued)
,
' �REGliL'.R . _ I��TI'.:G Or :.,�, rR0':0 COi;I�CIL, ]L;:��:^H '6 , 19;3 p:�cJ� G�
Staff - P4arch 2 , 1978 VARIANCE - ZONING
820 Brown Road North
.velop�r is reapplyinc� for approval of the final (Continu�d)
t�lat. This item was reviewed by the Planning
Cor�unission a� their meeting of February 27, 1978
without enough inforr�ation. The final plat approval
was requested by Tim Adams along with the shoreline
variance request (Iten �358) . ihe final Plat
approval should actually be listed under Itert #317
which was the original number given for this
proposed plat. The variance request ('�358) resulted
from Council' s direction to developer to return to
the Planning Cor.unission with a separate rec�uest
for the subject variance.
Developer submitted the following additional
material today:
1 . Exhibit L - Copy of Engineer' s, Greg Frank, '
comments on proposed subdivision.
2. Exhibit M - Revised plat - It does not indicate
conservation and flowage easement - pasture
easement or pedestrian easements .
3. Exhibit N - Aerial view with plat overlay -
This indicates approximate location and sizes
of wetlands, pasture, view and pedestrian
easements.
4. Exhibit O - Copy of title opinion.
5. Exhibit P - Copy of letter to City Attorney.
6. Exhibit Q - Copy of prospective purchase agree-
ment with attached rider. Developer has requested
• we keep the purchase agreement confidential. I
will not be forwarding a copy of this to you.
The one copy submitted b_y the developer is in
the file for your review at my office. (I am,
however, forwarding one section from the rider.
This is Section #II, which deals with soil
conditions and provisions for soil tests. This
gives us a little more insurance in relation
to soil conditions and septic syster_ts. )
7. Exhibit R - Copl� of Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions Restrictions and Easements.
I ar._1 enclosing the above data along with the
progressive staff report for reference. Check
conditions listed on staff report as requested
by the Planning Coru:lission (December 5 , 1977) and
Council (Decenber 12 , 1977) . The enclosed new
material (all exhibits) may explain and satisfy
these conditions. (Continued)
. �
- - -� - -
. � "
� _ _ i`.1 ._. ,'i�.__ �'Ilv'� 0� �':iE -:��v0 CO�:':CIL, �`_''.'-�.,,;: 15 , _� � p�ae 43
I will be forwarding this material on to the VARIANCF - ZONI?�G
City Attorney and Engineer and ask for cor.unents 820 Brown Road North
elating to the conditions which have not as yet (Continued)
�een met.
I �aill be requesting some direction and clari�ication
on the questionable issues such as pedestrian ease-
�ents, extent of use of easements , overla�ping
�easer�ents , riparian rights , dock use and location,
and provisions for cnanging easement use or rights .
StafL - �ia�ch 10, 1�78
Planning Cor-�r�li.ssion members Gloria rlcDonald and
Jo�llen Hurr and staff rnembers Hank PZuhich and
Alan Olson met with Tim Adams to resolve questionable
issues which were addressed at the last Planning
Coi:lmission r,z�eting.
The most recently subriitted data was reviewed.
This included:
l. City Engineer Jim Olson' s report dated P4arch 8 ,
1978
2. Developer' s Engineer, Bruce Kelly' s, report
dated March 3, 1978
3. Developer' s purchase agreement and riders
� 1 . Declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions,
and easements
5. Developer' s attorney, Steven Pflaum' s letter
to Bruce Psal'xerson dated rsarch 7, 1978
The questions raised by the City Engineer were
discussed. There appeared to be an agreement
that r�ost of these were technical issues which
-could best be resolved by the City Engineer.
Steve Pflaum' s letter was also discussed. The ''
Planning Comr►ission members were somewhat
concerned whether these were conclusions agreed i
upon and approved by the City Attorney. Alan �
Olson stated that the City Attorney had approved I
and assured the members that he would obtain a
report to this effect before the Planning Cor►mission
meeting scheduled for r�arch 13, 1978.
I
��e pedestrian access was left unresolved, i
i
Planning Commission - March 13, 1978 i
Tin Adams ��as present.
�
The Zoning Administrator introduced the latest !
laterial submitted by the developer. �
(Continued) ,
1
�
� nEGli",AR P4EETING OF THE ORONO COUr1CIL, MARCH 16, 1978 Page 44
Jim Olson, City Engineer, added his comments with VARII'�7CE - ZONING
reference to his report. A brief su-�mary of his 820 Bro�an Road P7orth
�cerns were as follows :
(Continued)
l. Private road - saiety and erosion
2 . Distinct.ion bet�•.een conservation and pasture
easernents - ��:�teT�ti�]_ly na�arcious �o runoff
3. Assurance of adequate on -site septic syster:ls
on all lots - possible conflict with City' s
position of no r.lunicipal sewering of this area
After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Cortmission
agreed that many of the issues would have been
resolved before approving the preliminary plat
had they not felt rushed into a decision just
before Christrias holidays.
The Planning Commission tabled the proposal because many
of the ir,lportant issues were unresolved for lack
of data.
The Planning Co:nmission instrticter? t.�e Zontnr, i
Acir,linist�-ato,� �o rec�uest of the City Adr,tinistrator !
that this proposaZ be added to the agenda for M
the Council meeting scheduled for P�4arch 16 , 1978, i
The Commission felt the urgency would require �
�rie direction from the City Attorney and City �
�uncil. They requested some direction on the
following issues:
i
1. Private road - width, surface, grade and
drainage requirements
2. Conservation and pasture easements - determination
of boundaries and use
3. On=site septic systems - necessity of soil
. borings and locating primary and alternate drain
fields
4. Pr,ivate access easer,ient between Lots 19 & 21
as alternate access for Lots 20 & 22 from
private road, Outlot C - should this easement
be indicated on plat or in title.
5. Pedestrian easement on Lot 7 to shoreline of
Long Lake - extent and limits of use - possible
conflict with City' s policy of restriction of
riparian rights for properties not located on
shoreline
6 . Report from City Attorney confirriing agreement
with interpretations in letter from developer' s
attorney, Steven .Pflaur,i, dated March 7, 1978
7. Fence on wetlands - is variance necessary
^hairwoman McDonald suggested that one mertber of Lhe
Lanning Commission attend the next Council rmeeting to
represent the position of the Commission. (Continued)
' Rf;GvI.:�R ?`i,�'i I'::� OF �HE Oi:O?v0 COti?JCIL, i'L'�RCH 16 , 1978 Page 45
`Phe Planning Cor.lmission informed Tim Adams that VARIANCE - ZONING
after obtaining direction on these issues fror.i 820 Brown Road North
.he Council, the Co�;�mission would review the (Continued)
proposal again conditioned on developer providing .
the following additional rlaterial :
1. Location of all existing structures in r2ference
to proposed lot lines so variances can be
addressed
2. Private road detail (approved by City Engineer)
3. Should private access easement between Lots 19 &
21 be indicated on pZat or in title (approval
of City Attorney)
4. Location of proposed fences on wetlands if
variances are necessary
P4er10 frorl Nank Muhich, Zoning Administrator, to Dick
Benson, City �dl�inist?-ator, dated AZarch la, 1978
states : '
The Planning Corunission reviewed the above final
plat at their regular r.ieeting of P'Iarch 13, 1978.
The matter was tabled because many of the question-
able issues require policy decisions which are not
governed by ordinance.
I am attaching a copy of the resur►e of Planning
Corunission discussion and action on this proposal
during the meeting. In the resur.te are listed the
issues for which the Planning Commission is request-
ing some legal and Council direction.
The Corunission feels that answers to these questions
are urgent before fozwarding a recommendation to
Council. The Planning Commission is requesting
we add this item to the Council agenda of Diarch 16 ,
1�978 so they can have this direction before the
next Planning Comr.iission meeting.
At least one Coru�ission member will be present
at the Council rieeting representing the Planning
Commission.
Council Meeting - l�7arch 16 , 1978
Mr. Jim Olson, City Engineer, reviewed his concerns
as submitted in his rePort, which were:
l. Private road - safety and erosion
2. Distinction between conservation and pasture
easements - potentially hazardous to runoff
3. Assurance of adec�uate on-site systems on all
lots - possible conflict with City' s position
of no municipal sewering of this area .
(Continued)
� -„�;;i:���_;R ^.r�TING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, NARCH 16 , 1978 Page 46
:-Sr. Tim Adams was present to discuss his propos�d plat VARIANCE - ZGTvING
coirunenting that he would abide by Orono' s requirerlents 820 Brown Road T:orth
�r a road, but he is concerned with other require- (Continued)
,nents set down by the Planning Corunission.
Acting t9ayor Massengale reviewed the seven issues
at hand. After much discussion, the City Council
cornmented on Items #5 & #7. Item #5 - *10 contact to
the water, possibly twenLy-five feet from water.
Item #7 - Protective device for wetlands. Variance
is required. Review water runoff problems. IZr. .
Olson was -requested to return this item to the
Planning Co�unission for their recoln�rtendation.
Mr. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Adminis- LONGVIEW ADDRESS
trator, presented a letter to the City Council from
Donald J. Scott, dated March 16 , 1978 , which states :
"It was suggested to us by the postr.laster of Long "
Lake that we be assigned a house nurlber and Longview
as an address instead of our present address of
240 South Wil�ow Drive.
We think this would be less confusing as we are
living on a cul de sac off Willow Drive.
Thank you for your consideration. "
nd of letter
Fesek moved, Acting D4ayor Massengale seconded, to
approve the address change fror,l 240 South [aillow
Drive to Longview. P4otion, Ayes (4) - P1ays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Adrtinistrator, inforrned the Citv ORONO-LONG LAKE
Council that he and r2ayor Van Nest discussed � INTERCEPTOR - Map #1
Bernie Fiarrington' s letter concerning the Orono-
Long Lake interceptor at great length. We agreed
to request Council action to amend Map #1, Urban-
Rural Service area to include Chevy Chase, Ferndale
Green, and the Wayzata Country Club clubhouse, and
to request the City Engineer to review Mr. Harrington' s
references to the interceptor hydraulics.
Dick Benson presented to the City Council a letter
f rom Bernard J. Harrington, PSetropolitan Waste
Control Commission, dated ?�tarch 1, 1978 .
Letter - Pages 47-49
Acting Mayor P�Iassengale moved, Pau�us seconded,
to amend Map #l, Urban-Rural Service area to
include Chevy Chase, Ferndale Green, and the
Wayzata Country Club clubhouse. P7otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) . (Continued)
. -. -. - -. .
_ - ;. _ - ,
• ' ' Page ?�7
/�
��:� .
�-�-_�
, � `-�� ` ��"arch 1 , 1978
`���`���='�J-�
\ ��� (
, ` j ��1r. 6rad Van tJest, i�iayor
� - � Ci ty of O��ono
� 3295 CariTan Road
Excelsior, ��7�d 55331
Dear ��layor Van "dest:
This letter is in resF�onse �o your letter of February 6, 1978 and
our meei,i ng of �ebruary 2, 1978.
The Corunission has revietiti�ed the proposed interim 1990 1�1USA as shown
on your t�"ap 1 , "Urban - Rural Service Area" submitted with your letter
of February 6, 1978. Your plan has excluded the UJayzata Country Club
and the Chevy-Chase Development, however, accordina to our knowledge
these areas are already being provided sanitary se�•�er service throuqh
the City of Wayzata. t�tith the inclusion of these two areas, the
Corunission has no objection to having the interim 1990 MUSA boundary
established as shown on said map. The Corrvnission uses the term interim
1990 MUSA boundary since the exact location of the line will not be
established until aiter your Conprehensive Plan/Sewer Plan are prepared
in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Please refer
to our letter of March 22, 1977 regarding the information needed to
update your preliminary comprehensive sewer plan to the current require-
ments of a con�renensive plan. �_ -
I� If it is your intention to have this prelir�inary comprehensive sewer
plan reviewed and approved as an amendment to your original Comprehensive
II'� • Sewer Plan (approved on November 7, 1973), please submit an adopted
revised olan which reoresents the City's current planning.
You asked the question during our meeting as to w�hat parameters were
used in the design of the lift station and forcemain. The design of
the lift stations and forcemains are based on the following:
Current Design - 20 Year Life
Orono Sta�ion (one pump and one standby pump)
2400 apm peak or 1 .07 mad average
101 feet of total dynamic head
18" Forcemain velocity = 3 feet per second
20" Forcemain velocity = 4 feet per second
' Population Equivalent served by Lift Station
� 8500 Orono
� 600 Minnetonka Beach
500 Orono - Local Lift Station
,
350 f^cTROlOJR%c SLDG. i
%i N 6 R.^;:_R7 i�R�ET/ �
�:;,,��r�u:mn�,;oi ;
a;2 222�.423 ;
I
` � I
, � .
� � ' Page 48
� r.
;�,r. �rad `,an ';�st, '�yur
Ci�y of Orono
t��rch 1 , 1978
Pace T�ro
Long Lake Station (one pump and one standby pump)
1600 gpm peak or .65 mgd average
99 feet of total dynamic head
16" rorce�r�ain velocity = 2.6 feet per second
20" Forcerr,ain velocity = 4 feet per second
ropulation Equivalent served by Lift Station
950 Orono
400 hiedi na-t�iorni nasi de
4250 Long Lake J
. The desiyn of the pumps include consirierations for a ?_0-year life base
on current flows and population projections. l�le have used engineering
practices and ooerating experience to size the punps at 100 horsepoti•�er
and to pump against approximately 100 feet of total dynamic head. l�Je
know from experience that pumps in excess of 100 horsepawer and heads
greater than 100 feet involve costly operation and maintenance.
The forcemains are directly related to the pump sizing and are designed
to minimize head loss and still provide adequate scouring velocity at
the design flows. The total dynamic head of approximately 100 feet in
tne forceTain system is higher than average. The Cor�nission owns and
operates 59 lift stations in which one-third of the facilities have
heads of 50 feet or less, one-third have heads between 50 and 90 feet
and the remaining third are considered high head lift stations with
heads greater than 90 feet.
.
_In the design of the lift stations, space has been allocated for the
addition of a third pump. If it becomes necessary to install a third
' pump in the future to provide a two-pump system with one pump as standby
the capacity of the Orono Station will be increased to 2800 gpm (about
a 17 percent increase) and the Long Lake Station will be increased to
1900 gpm (about a l9 percent increase).
The 16, 18 and 20-inch forcemain system as proposed for the Orono-Long
Lake Interceptor represent a higher head than normal pumping situation,
but are considered to provide the nost cost effective arrangement for
the design needs.
Enclosed is a map delineating the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor Service
' Area as defined by the Metropolitan Council in the approval of tne
Preliminary Engineering Report.
r
a . ,
Page 49
iSr. �rad 1'�n �;est, ,''ayor LET�l"'ERS - INTt�:RCEPTOR
City of Orono (Continued)
i�'a rch 1 , 1978
Page Three
If you have any questions regarding this r�atter, please call .
l'ery truly yours,
. �=�, � ��..� �
Berrard J. ,arrington
Director Engineering
,
BJN:CRP:DSB:WPM:bdw
Enclosure
cc: M. K. Dorton, ��ietropol i tan Counci 1
Doug Hall , MPCA
R. J. Dougherty, MI�dCC
Acting P•4ayor A'iassengale moved, Butler seconded, ROBERT L. SEARLES
to approve the letter to Representative Robert L. January 16 , 1978
Searles from Pdayor Van Nest dated Januarv 16 , 1978
and to enter it into the record, �iotion, Ayes (4) - �
Pdays (0) .- _
Letter - Pages 50-51 -
Paurus moved, Pesek seconded, to approVe the BERNARD J. HARRIr7GTON
letter to Bernard Harrington, dated tZarch 7, 1978 , March 7, 1978
and to enter it into the record. I�iotion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
Letter - Pages 52-54
Paurus moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the BARBARA LUCKERP�9ANN
letter to Barbara Lukermann, dated March 7, 1978, March 7, 1978 �
and to enter it into the record. rlotion, Ayes (4) - ,
Nays (0) . �
�
Letter - Pages 55 & 56
i
. I
t
�
�
i
, Tr1:;`.�.—,c �': -:,c,7
' � _ Page 50
_ �•�
:l��ti� :- � ��/�����``?�T C' f �
- =t--� �:� �1������ �
- . _- Pc�st Office Box 66•Cr�•stal �ay, `.S;nnesota ;�3?=•.'.'�r.ic;,;al O`ices
_- J' r ,'_' .
_ ; `
=s�.����- _ � On t%e .�'ur�h Si�ore of L�ke .'F'ir�ne:rr��a
_- .�.=__`
.'������.
January 16 , 1978
Representative Ronert L. Searles -
575 North Ferndale Road
S•7ayzata, 24innesota 55391 � �
- - �
Subject: PSetropolitan Council �
Dear I3ob: �
�
In an atter.ipt to keep you up to date on our dealings with the
2�5etropolitan Council and the t�:aste Control Commission, I am
enclosing a copy of a memo setting down the history of our
dealings on the Orono-Long Lake interceptor, the Orono Compre-
hensive Sewer Plan, and the Systems Statement from �he Metropolitan '
Council�.
The issue at hand is whether or not the City can successfully
negotiate with the Metropolitan Council to define where the
21.U.S.A_ iine shall pass through its own area. We have attempLed
_ -in good faith for many months and just cannot seem to reach an
- agreement by negotiation. - _
I think the most distressing thing to me is that on March 11, 1977,
- we did reach an agreement that was satisfactory to the. City and
that after that date, the proposed Systems Statement and the
review of our .Compreher.sive Sewer Plan were amended in accordance �
with this agreement_ On June 16, from an objection frorn Mr_ Dougherty ,
of the h'aste Control Commission, all of this was changed, including (
the staff inember that we had been working with for the past nine �
r.�on'ths. Since that tir.le, we just have not gotten �ny cooperation �
or any information as to what is going on and why_ Our Systems
Sta�ement was surnmarily issued on June 23, not in accordance with
our negotiations, the review of our Comprehensive Sewer Plan was
modified in September to a position that the City could never
agree to, and even the design of the �Orono-Long Lake interceptor
shows a designated sewer service area that prevents the N.U. S .A. line
from being adjusted to be consistent with the City' s Co;npreher.sive
Planning.
' � T'dQr' �.l
. -_ _=s=%,`-�`-��:e no��rt L. Se,=�rles
,. ::ruar}• 16 , ?978
:',�c e 2
I 1-,ope that th` 1;_-tropolit�n Council will bring f�his issue to a
he�yd soon by taking some action in this - - _ �er. `�his would allaw
the City to state its case before them, �_ _ if �:e Icse, �o �;-_};�
whatever �ppropriate action we ;nay find possible_
I still f,�el �hat nea��Liations be�_��:��en the City
nnd t}-�e 1���_rc�o1 i�_�n
CoUncil is ex�re,�;ely important and hope that so,;,ebody will be �ble
�o resolve this inconsistency without the r.�ed for a lengthy and
exp�nsive review procedures at a higher 1 - -=1.
If I can be of any further assistance in this �at�er, please feel
iree to con�act n� at your e�rliest cor.v��nience.
YoaFs truly, - �
� .
Br- - Van 2�est
rono I�ayor
Enclosure
'Tci�.�hcae 4�: .—:�7
, , � . Page 52
. � . ��. � -_�_ -�-.,�� � y ,� i �'-��t 1 :����
i ��_�.� !� :�� ��;1 ��_.���.�� ��
V j uc: �'.,.'e . _): E: r.'_ -, _, T'�+}', ,..,Dc�;!F: ,,`ii`_., , `,ur�:r;�;3) Q�r:i:5
� . � '
�iit fl;e .'\�-i%; ��';GrE Gj J,=',P �iir,n�'cr1�a
. ��_ :ti;�L� .
I:arch 7 , 1978
I;r. rernard J. I,arrington
;;e�ro�oli�an T�:�s�e Control Co�:�ission
350 I•,etro Square � Building _ :� .
7th & Robert StreeLs
St. -��ul, 25inneso�a SS101
Dear :-,r. narringcon:
This leLter is in response to your letter of PSarch l, 1978_
�9e have ins�tructed our City Engineer �o nake �he nodifications
to tSap 1 , "Urban-Rural Service Area" of the Orono Cor�pre�ensive
- Sewer Plan dated �pril 1977 to incluae �he Cbew Chase Sub-
division, �ne Ferndale Green Subdivision, and ��e Z•:ayza�a Country
Club clubhouse wiLhin the urban service area of the City of Orono.
Z7e are pleased that the t9aste Control Cor�ission will concur with this
21USA line within the City of Orono as it is consistent with the Orono
Co�nprehensive Land IIse Pl_an and the Orono Co;.�prehensive Sewer Plan
wric=. is presently i�eiore you zor review and approval. As soon as the
r�a�. : �s been anencied and adopted by ��e City Council, we- �ill submit
• ` � it for your review.
There seems to be sor.�e misunderstanding as to the p.resent status of
the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan that taas originally subr.�itted in
October of 1976 and �-nended in April of 1977. The amenned Comprehensive
Sewer Plan for the CiLy of Orono was Lransraitted to the :�as�e ConLrol
Comnission, the 2•�etropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency in April o� 1977_ This anended plan was subnitted in
response to the co,:u:�ents of vour le��er o� 1Sarch 22, 1977 and the
agree�en� reac�ed with the T•;as�e Con�rol Co„u-nission s�af f at our
r�eeti�g of �=�arch 11, 1977 ��ith �he PCA and �ne P'eLropoliLan Council
s�aff_ This ar.�ended Co;?�prehensive Se�oer P1_an mee�s �ne reauire�en�s
for our Conprehensive Sewer Plan and has been beiore you for your
review and approval for the past ten months_ The Ci�y of Orono is at
a con�le�e stcndstill in t�e process of res�ating its Co;nprehensive
Plan under Lhe requi renen�s of ��e ?'�nca�ory Land P1 ar,ning Ac� unti 1
?:
s�ch �i�e as our Cor��prenGnsive Se�.�er Plan is aoop�ed by �ne aste
Control Co,:anission and Lhe Iocation of �he ?�SUSA line wi�hin Orono is
agreed to, the size of �he Orono in�erceP�or service area has been
oeiermined, and iina�ly, an anenci�--�ent �o ihe Orono Systems Sta�ement
i�v �hz '"etrol olitan Council_
� �
� � perQE' 73
.�i. . , '. __"G �1 . ,..-, _-_; . _�C'i7
:;:� : ::) � � 1 �'7$ I
i��- :�' 2 �
'��iG' O1'G7�0 CGUriCll i��IS �}-iat �rTl i"iO�i�t;S 1S 3 Sliii1Cl��Ii� �i'iGll1l� Of
ti�-�e ior �i�e t•:asi�e Con�.iol Co:�-�ission to rcvicw a Co;�>>rehr_-nsive �lan
iha� nzs nrcn sui�mitted for approval , particularlv in light of the
fact tna� �he plan orioinally sub;�itt�d in Octobcr of 1976 and for
th� ncxt iive-non�h period, tne City r,�ooti�atcd with tne T;etropoli �an .
Council s�aff and �re f•;as�e Con�i-ol Co�:���ission s�aff to reach a iinal �
�orFr-r��nt on �}�is pl�n in 1'arcn of 1�77; tn� n)_an ::�as ti-��:n �����nd��d I
in �pril c�f 1977, and a favorable revi�w by tne P;etroi�oli�an Counci 1 �
staff ��:as draf�ed and s�bmitted to t�� Physicial ��velop���ent Co;�-r�it��ee
in June of 1977. It ti�as at this nceting that �he T•:as�e Control �
Co:����ission objected io c�anaing the 1hi'SA line wi�nin Grono, �.anich '
resul��d in t�,e review b-ing tablFd �nd no ac�ion h�s ta'r,r_=n place �
since that ti,:�e. �ine Ci�y respectiully reauc�s�s, �nat ��e �•:as�e
Control Cor�u-�ission continue Lhe revie�•� process and grant us an approval �
witnin �he very near future. � , (
During our r�ee-ting of FebrLary 2 , 1978, it beca�:�e clear �o us �nat �_ne �
�
Orono inLerceptor h�;d additional capaciLy b�yoJ�d �ha� wnich �•�as shown j
in �he Orono Co,:�prehensive Sewer Plan and in Addenduri �3 of tne
Engineering Report. T�is was confirned -co us wit� a co�r�-nitment that
we would be told what �_hat capacity t�Jas and �ahat area within the City
of Orono it was �o ser �e. The in�or,nation contained in your letter
�f L'arch 1, 1978, sho��s the average flo:,�s only for the liit stations
�ahich do re�lect in=or;+ation fror.i our Comprehensive Sewer Plan and
Addenduin �3 to the Fngineering Report_ You have indicated that there �
is approaimately an additional seventeen percent increase in the
capacity of -the interceptor in the event a third pump were to be installed
at the lift station.
T:e have subr_�i�ted �his inforr,�at3on to our City Fngi�eer for review and ,
. recor.unendation i�ut it appears to me -that you have not responded �.o
our basic question of "is there any additional hydraulic capacity designed
into the force nain of the Orono interceptor?" If there is additional
capacity beyond the bresent lift station even with �he addition of
a third pur�p, the Citv would like �o know wha�t t�at additional capacity
is and how you have .arrived at the service area wiLhin the Ci�y of
Orono -that it is to serve. In looking at the se�ver service area map
provioed �1ith your letter of P�iarch l, it becomes apparent that the
Orono intercep�or is designed to serve all of Orono, including that
por�ion which is consioered in the rural service area. Either you .
have d?sioned �he iorce riain to serve rural Orono or �he sewer service
area r„�p is incorrecLly arawn inc�uding rural Orono, whic� is not Lo
be �aithin the se��er service area_ The Ci�y of Orono nust have answers .
to these auestions before it can support the consLruction of the Orono i
intercepLor. The City feels it is enti-tled �o this inforr-�a�ion and i
it has repea�edly as}.ed ��ese qu�stions �Vnich have not been adec�ua-�ely �
ans::ered. � .
� �
� �
�
i
� ,
� �
' ' Page 54
. ._ . =, � :,.,� c J . .. ._ _-� .-,,, ��;.
;;,�; ch 7 , 1�78 _
��::e 3
ihe CiLy �•�ould like to remind you �ha� i�he reason t;-�,�t the Grono
in�erceptor r:as �pr�rov�c� initially �;as �o ��_move �:�� ��iflu�nt fro,n
the �ZOTlO S�''�':cC�' �l'E'at�i�i�7]t DZaT�i�� J�IOt �O llr�a7l1'LL' iflE� GI�L1rC� Cl �y. S11lCC�
tne initial design of the interc���tor, it becomes ev�n rnore iT�porLant
to cl� ify tne �ewer service area b�cause of the decline in Lhe
proj�� �d uo�ulat�on of Grono and the ai��;arent conflicL b�'_::��-�n �i�e
se�::e7� servic� �rea nnd ti�e i�li`�A line «i�nin �ne CiLy of Oro�-,o.
The ,ity respectiully r�quests tnat tne ans�,ers to these au�s�ions
I
be s��bmitt�d at �ne earliest Lossible date so tnat our City Lnginecr �
i
c�_n review this ?nfor;,�a�ion prior �o Lhe 1;��ropoliLan Council' s iinal ;
apnrov�l of �'r,e Oror,o-Long La?:e in�e��cc�ptor nl�ns and s�.eciiica�ions .
1•:e ;.aould be pleased Lo �:�eet wiLh you �o discuss� t:_his 1-,aL��r, if
necessary, a� your convenience. .
Tnank you for your cooperaLion in this r�at�er.
�' rs truly, .
(
-.'� (��l � �
Brad . n r7esfi
- Orono ::�yor
cc: Renresentative Robert L. Searles
John Boland, Meiropolitan Council , I
Jim Daley, iSeLropolitan Council
Bob Piazanec, r;etropolitan Council Staff . � I
_ �:�rl Burandt, Ne�ropolitan Council Staff I
� ' - uglas H�11, Pollution Control Agency - �
. • : to Bonestroo, City Engineer �
; :.� Olson, City Engineer
- Bruce rsa-lkerson, City Attorney - -
�
- : I
- �
i
:�
ir;�.;t,i.:i! <.:,s�i
' �/ --�� Pa9e 55
` / f �_/ _i�jJl``1�r �.'� t��i;��.'��.,�`�� '•,��
� - - �
1��•s' C.`,,:e .-�a G� Cr��'a; r;.}, ,.,,-.. ��a . ,. __. �;�niti;.al 0;:,,�s
_.. _,�
��. • f, ,,, . , c! � , ,.• _.,
- - CJr� „c :��, :r, r�;c o� 1 c:r' :,;rr.r,_ ,c .::a
. :js - .
�_ � �
�}�`•��1_(J
�-�------
I�arch 7, 1978
7's . �ar'c,ara L. GuL��;;ann
iir-LLnOli�an ?�:as�e Con�rol Co�oT�i ��ion
350 iSetro Souare Bui ldin_g - � - _ .
7th & Robert StreeLs
St. Paul, T;innesota 55101
Dear I.s. Zuke?r:;ann =
Thank you for your leLter of Februarv 27, 1978 providing us infoTznation
pertaining to �he request of Ric'.-�ard Neslund. `�'he in�ormation contained
in your letter will be subr�itted �o the Ci�v Council of Orono at i�s
next �e2ting for -their discussion �nd action_
I would like to take Lizis oppor�uni�y �o point out to you that the
Orono Coraprehensive Plan adopted in 1974 shows this area, for good
reason, to be in the two acre zone of the rural service area -within
the City of Orono_ lnere are i�aceouate roaas servicing that general
area and we oo not have �he nec�ssary fire and police pro�ection
services to allow zor any denser cevelopment in tl�is general area_
2Soreover, these lands in that general area are enviroru-ien�ally sensi�ive
- wi� steep slopes and r�arshes and any sort of dense c3evelopment would
be adverse to them in the quality of the surface water runoff_ It is
also our understanding that Aighway tl2 is proposed to be extended
throuah this general area and it aoes no� rr�ake 000d sense �o have a
dense cevelopment in this area �hat would require �he Q15i"llD�10i) of
all of these people because of the ex�ension of a S�ate highway_
This problem with �he Ileslund property ae�ons�ra�es vividly the point
the Ci�y of Orono has nade �o �he Z�:as-te Control CoTu-riission many t?lres
in �ne past concerning tne seti�:er service area of �he O�-ono in�ercepior.
The sewer service area of the Orono in�ercep�or, as sno�yn on a recent
r�ap provided by Nr. fiarrinoton of your ofiice, is �o�alll� inconsisient
with �he Orono Conprehensive Land Use Plan and the Orono Comprehensive
Sewer Plan in that the sewer area enco�passes all of rural Orono, which
is no� to receive sewer service for at lezs� ine next �wen�y ye�rs.
� � Page 56
;.- , _-.. _ .�: . _ ?_ . ". _ .�= - .-.-::,n
..�.rcn 7, 15 ;8 .
?ao�� 2
'1r;e �Uij�CSe �Ol' i-h� �iG=�O 1lij:LTCt�i��Or `•�%5 viiainally t0 ��'OV�'_ �Jl�'-
[3f i IUC'I1� �IGill �J;F_' �1 Ol�)O SC�•:d��L' �rc�aLil;=riL T�lar�t , �-�n ic�h `•':?_s pol luting
L�;:e I;ir,n�ton}.a _ 'Ti�e d�s;gn of tr,� ir,iercco�or �.�rnt far bcyond �ne
original intent and aci�ually, w;s in�en��d �o force urranization of
all of �ne CiL}' ��n�.ch 1+'O�]�d �,ave a iar oln���r polluLing i.�p�ct �-o
I a;:e I�inn�_�o;:�:a �h�n t�,e ori��inal pu?"pcse Tor �n� inic-rccp�or in Lhe
f1iSi n1dC(�� `''ri� �1Ly 1��5 ��'�7l li7',d'I�IG LO CC-��ZlTil7ln \;�ia� L.r)� Ul�li`l�i(,'
�esian c.3i acity of �'r,e force ,�ain is �nd 'now ;r�uch of �he Ci�y of
Grono it is in�c-nc_�d to scrve. tv'` rave �s;:ed these �uestions rr,any
ti;�.es apd, as yet, �,ae have no� receiv�d a saLis�acfiory an=���:er, in,
fact, it •,:cs onlv �nis past �:��ic ��at �::e r?cei��d a T;�p s�o-�aing i:;e
sc�ver service ar�a of �i�e -Orono in�ercep�or �s nrrs--ntiv �:�sicn�d.
. -
3he CiLy of Orono has al��.ays supported �he original in�ent ior �ne
Orono interceptor but cannot support tne present desian of tne
intercep�or if the s��-:er service area is to incluoe a?1 0� rural Orono_
I rave �ai:en �ne liber�y Lo a��acn Lo ��is lezter some ciocw-nentaLion
concerning the long nistory of �ne O�onc-_Long T a}:e in�ercepLor and
the r;any ?nconsistencies in its design_ The City of Orono would like
to cooperate with the t•:aste Control Co,r�nission to reach an agreeable
co���promise ihat would allow the cons�ruction of the Orono intercep�or
at �he earliest pessible date_ Sve believe �.hat tnis can be accoT�olished
and are willing Lo work �coward tnat end_
I will be out of the CiLy until 2•�arch 22, but would be very pleased
to meet with you any time after that� at vour convenience_ P.epresentative
Robert L. Searles has meet wi�h John Boland recently to discuss �his
problem and I �hink �hat we could reach an agreeable solution so tnat
the Orono- in�ercep�or could be cons�rucLed in a manner Lhat would be
consistent with the City of Orono` s comprehensive planning_
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly '�
�
. �_ ��
Brad Van 2vest _
Orono Piayor
cc. Representa�ive Rober� L_ Searles
OL�o Bonestroo, Ci�y Engineer
Bruce PSalkerson, CiLy At�orney
EnclCsures
� 'riEGU�AR TZEETI:IG OF TFiE ORONO COUNCIL, ASARCH 16 , 1978 Page 57
Dick Benson, City Administrator, iniorraed the LETTERS
City Council that the City is in receipt of a (Continued)
�tter from the P2etropolitan Council , Robert
.,azanec, dated P�arch 8 , 1978 , attached.
Letter - Pages 58-61
Dick Benson' s response to Robert Plazanec, dated ROBERT MAZAr1EC
March 13, 1978 is attached. March 13 , 1978
Letter - Page 62
Mr. Benson also info nned tne City Council that
Mr. Robert r�azanec, Senior Planner of the
Metropolitan Council, called on March 14 , 1978
at 9 : 30 A. M, and agreed to delay until March 30,
1978 his report to the Physical Development
Cor,unittee and also to extend the public hearing
deadliile to March 30 to allow the City to respond • _
to Mr. John Boland.
Dick Benson, City Adr.�inistrator, presented to the 73-1 CLAI►�i
City Council a memo fror.l John Gerhardson, Public Earl Pike
Works Coordinator, concerning the 73-1 clairl of 830 Windjammer Lane
Earl Pike, 830 Windjammer Lane, dated February 23 ,
1978, which states :
�n November of 1977, the Orono City Council
authorized payment to Mr. Earl Pike, 830 Windjar�uner
Lane, in the amount of $575. 00 for restoration to
his property from the 73-1 sewer construction
project.
After reviewing Mr. Pike' s claim with the Orono
City Attorney, Bruck P7alkerson, it was discovered
that D4r. Pike had not signed the necessary easement
grants to the City of Orono. It was agreed by
the staff that the easement grants should be
signed by Mr. Pike before payment was made for
the restoration.
On December 22 , 1977, all necessary forr.is were sent
to Mr. Pike along with instructions. On February 13,
1978, I contacted r1r. Pike and asked him why he
had not returned the documents. Mr. Pike stated
that the City of Orono had not paid hir.l for the
easement and he would not sign anything until he
had received the amount agreed upon at the time i
of construction. �
After checking with the Finance Director, it was
determined that P4r. Pike had received $600. 00 for i
the easer.�ent on January 14 , 1975 and that the !
check had been cashed. On February 14, 1978 , I
informed P�ir. Pike that it must have been an over- (Continuen)
� Page 58
������ � ��� � �� i;.l.� �
� =' � �y 1 ��' �- � f
;y :r- ..
�� \� � � �
;`� l��V ' �� �_- �-- �__ _ .
�� � _��,j � I � �[r� A,Y; t.:��
� f•
�) �� � �� J ��, ' � .i
��t -:j:=:-.._,'�- r s �� �I E �'__ .�_��'�:-':.'� .•,�3
� -
�- -
:�. .:
��
t• �
!�� �1 .. -. .- ..- -..._. ...�� _� _, . � �.�_M
�'✓I!v C1Tl�
300 Metro Square Building� 7th Street and Robcrt Street, Saint Paul, �vlin�e�ota �5101 Area 612, 291-Fk'�9
?,`arch 8, 1978
Mavor Brad �'an 2�est
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66 ' _
Crystal Bay, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Van Nest :
This letter will pull together the information you have requested of several
people here at the Council. It addresses the questions you raised in your letters
to me, John Boland, and Rarl Burandt dated February 6, 16 and 17.
In regard first to the revised Metropolitan Urban Service Area map you included
with your letters, Council staff estimates that the proposal would add about 600
acres of land in Orono to the existing area of service. The area on the map is
adequate in size and location for p?.anr.ed urban det�elop�-�ent to 1990, insofar as
staff is concerned.
This opinion rests on several major assumptions, however. It assumes that the map
establishes the proposed 1990 area of service and that local services will be
staged within it by fivE-year increnents. It also asusmes that other aspects �
_ _ of the City's comprehensive plan prepared pursuant to the �ietropolitan I�and Plan-
ning Act will be consistent with Council policy and plans. Three of the more " - ;
' important plan aspects are policies and implenentation measures for maintaining
the rural character of the rural service area, an ordinance governing on-site ,
sewers, and plan compatibility with adjacent local governments. Another assump-
tion is that other IIunicipalities in the sane sector as Orono will propose com-
prehensive plans so that the cu�nul.ative amount of urban and rural service areas
will be in scale with forecast growth for the sector as a whole. Preliminary
indications from other municipalities in the sector, plus consideration of
Orono's proposed 1990 MUSA, indicate this probably will not be a problem. It
is impossible to say with absolute certainty at this time k�hether all of these
assumptions are correct because adequate info «,ation from comprehensive plans
will not be available until local governrents have fulfilled the terms of the
Land Planning Act.
In regard to sewers, the 1990 sewer flow estir�ate recently sent to Orono was
calculated as folloks. A sewered population of 6900 people in 1990 �enerating
83 gallons per person per day was assu�,ied. This results in .57 million gallons
� �
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Deve]opment of the '3'.�•in Citi�-s Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County O Carver County O Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsep County O Scott County O VVashington County
�� i'J `'i, '`n ( �
� � �� t �
.� .�: �_ G � L5 Page 59
• ' ` ':-1,or F'rad �'an '��st � �
„�::i-, 8, 1978 `°�_ _ , � __ _._.
_ ��c�� i�,�o . . � - -=t�
,lE i� f t1�"1 �''� y'.�s�.+�t'4`.f
pe.r da�• oi do-�st�c s�w�r flow. Orono's ind�.�striallflow in 1976 of .O1 miliion
�allons per ca} ;:as acccd to the estir.ated I°90. do-,estic tlew ior the total .58
million €allons per c.a}�.
This is an opti�aistic esti�nate of the maxirnum flow from Orono tl-sat could be
accozr�modated by tl;e r��etropolitan sewer system in 1990. If the City produces less
flow, then it will have unused reserve capacity available. If the City exceeds the
1990 flow, then there ray be a problem acco,�modating the e�cess flow i.n the
metro sew�r system, �nd the Blue Lake Treatment Plant m,ay need upgrading sooner
than planned. In effect, the 1°90 se�aer fl ow estirnate represents the maxir.,um
flow that the ruetro s�_c:er s�•stem will be able to acco,-rcnodate from Orono in 1°90.
A lesser flow is acceptable from a sewer planning standpoint, but a greater flow
could be a problem wnich should be discussed with Council and 4�'aste Control
Cor-��nission staff as 2arly in your pl:nnir.g process as pcssible.
The plans and specifications for the Orono portions of rne Orono-Long Lake In-
terceptor are discussed in a letter dated PSarch 1 , from Bernie Harrington of the
j,'aste Control CoIIuz�ission. It answers your questions about design capacities and
service areas.
As you know, one of the purpeses of the Land Planning Act is to establish local
� staged growth plans to 1990 consistent with regional needs, plans, and policies.
Yet for economic and engineering reasons and to meet federal and state funding
criteria, many metro facilities are designed for useful lives beyond 1990. Although
the immediate task is to stage comprehensive plans to 1990, at some point it will
be necessary to plan for local growth beyond then. Pl�nning beyond 1990 is not
required by the Land Planning Act, but it is permissable.
The Council and k'aste Control Cormission assume sewer flows after 1990 will come
from beyond Orono's 1990 sewer area but within the area shown on the map accom-
panying Mr. Harrington's letter. Areas of service and rates of usage depend on
local determir.ations such as land use densities, local service timing and staging,
and other similar factors established through local comprehensive plans. The
' factors which determine sewer flows and service areas are established by each
city as discretionary development controls. Thus, the metro sewer system is
planned using assumptions about ultimate design flows and service areas, but its
usage can be modified, staged, and controlled by local plans. Interceptor
designs do not necessarily relate to treatment plant capacity, nor do they
necessarily take into account other matters which affect actual available capacity.
Metro systems statement sewer capacities should serve as the basic building block
for local determinations, not interceptor design capacities. The Land Planning
Act requires you to state the City's policies on matters contained in Orono's
system statement so that the Council can evaluate the abilit3� of the metro
systems to provide the de�ired service and the effects of Orono's plans on others.
Turning to travel forecasts, the attached figure shows the generalized process
Council staff followed. The process uses a very complicated computer model which
I cannot even attempt to eaplain here. �'hen you need to get into the details of
the r�odel, please contact Steve Alderson (291-6337) of the transportation staff
with your questior.s.
What the model does in essence is convert demographic forecast data into a number
of trips generated, ��d the trips are then assigned to the Council's planned 1990
� l � � _ . J f � � j � ' . _ � ,. Page'_ 60
. � --- �� f � -
"��or Erad �'an ?�Est �a•� `"� F -- �
• ' -• _ - ' _�;j , . � - � �
"- rch 8, 1978
. . `_ Three � • - - - _ '_ - T
� �__j,�� �.,� a�,`�..� . �, - _
tra*�sit and high�:ay network. This enables the Council an� -�-�ther_s_to_ estimate the:
use of each system el��,�ent and to anticipate future bottlenecys and needed improve-
r.;ents. Te do this, the Counci.l ras diviced the '•'etrepolitan Area into traffic
assignment zones (T:AZ) . Orono has five as sho�,an on tne enclesed ,;ap.
There are five especially important demogrzphic variables used in the process:
total households, total population, total e�ployment, retail emplo��ent , and service,
financial, insurance, and real estate employ:uent. More than any other variables
they dictate the gross magnitude of trips which are produced or attracted by a
TAZ. Changes in any of these five variables will measurably affect trip ��.aking
characteristics of a zone, whereas Iarge variatior.s in other demographic �ariables
will have only a roargir.al effect. Tl�us, when the Council revised its forecasts
of total housenolds, population, and emploj-r.ient last December, three of the
five critical variables were chan�ed and resulted in the revised traific fore-
casts for your system state�ent.
The attached copies of computer printouts show the demographic variables used to
make the traffic estimate sent in Orono's original system statement. They are
broken down by TAZ, and a decoding sheet is also included. Except for revised
figures for total households, population, and employment the variables are the
same for the updated 1990 traffic estimate of 44,000 person trips per day which
you recently received. The 44,000 figure assumes the forecasts of total households,
population, and employment enclosed with the December 28, 1977 letter, i.e. , the
most current forecasts. At the present time Council transportation staff are re-
evaluating all the" original assumptions in light of the new forecasts to determine
if other variables should also be changed. If after reviewing this information
you feel the City can provide more accurate data, please contact Steve i�mediately
so it can be considered.
In conclusion, this information should allow us to clear the books on several
items currently pending between the City and the Metropolitan Council. First,
I recoT.mend that the Council review the Waste Control Commission's plans and speci-
�ications for the Orono-Long Take Interceptor as soon as possible. �+'e would like
. to present a report to the Physical Development Committee on March 23. We
would mail it to you and the Co�ittee on March 17. Second, I reco�nend the City
amend the interim comprehensive sewer plan previously submitted for Waste Control
Commission review to include the revised 1990 urban service area �ap which you
just sent us. Shortly thereafter the interim CSP review can be completed. I
emphasize interim CSP because the immediate objective is to plan service for the
three to five year period following construction of the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor,
leaving finalization of plans for the period to 1990 for the comprehensive plan
Orono is preparing pursuant to the Land Planning Act. Third, if the City wants to
request a hearing on its ?ietropolitan system state�ent, you should file a request
according to the Planning Act by March 23. Since the Planning Act provides no
mechanism for extending the local system statement review period, it is irnperative
for the City to make its decision by then. I believe that all the important infor-
mation on sewer flows, traffic generation, and growth forecasts has already been
sent to Orono and included in the system statement. If, however, there is a
need to amend �etro s��stem plans as a result of tne above Council revieks, appro-
priate system plan amendments will be proposed.
, . - �;=.�c,r Erad t'an ..est Page 61
;':,r. t� 8, 1978
I'r,�, � Four
Though l.engthy, this ]etter should resol��e a lot of ouestions and "et us r�otiing
a�ain. I appreciate the ti�e vou and the othcr Orc�o of�icials have ep�nt on
these �:.atters. If these past efforts are any indication, I am confident ��e can
continue to work togeth er in the best interests of both Orono and the region.
Very truly }°ours,
p f�� ;� � �i�� � �
�
� �
►1,yQ �e`� �I�f 3 RObEIt C. i`13Zan2C
Senior Planner
R���:;g V1►L�G� a: c�����a
� -:i, �.'�i;�( Y . ..:.J
,
P�_ge 62
� j- -��� - � ., t,-��- --, ��,-,-;� �
� . t �J_'� ;� ,`� ��';� ��:�..�'};�'d��l `�
- (
� _ � Fnct O;fice P�x fb•Crestal Ea�•, �.r:��•�.�,;� :�=�:;`�,•'.;u�ici*,a] O.`'-.�s
! - '
t
� = On tire .'�'u;th Shore of L�zke �linnc>tor_�a
�i r
�`; �i��)���;'
l
:S�rch 13 , 19�78
;;r. Rob`rt C. ?•Sa�anec �
ISetrGpolitan Council ' -
300 1•Set?-o Square Building
7Lh & Ro�`rt St-r�ets
St. Faul, YinnesoTa 55101
Dear ?;r. r;azanec:
In response to your let�er dated �'arch 8 , 1978, I would like to r�,ake
tne following cor�u~�znts :
Your letter dated ?3arch 8, 1978 was received today, March 13, 1978, �
wnich discusses items referred to in a letter to ?�ir. 3. J. Harrington
dated �Sarch 7, 1978, which at this tirne, have not' been clari�ied.
Bob, after our last discussion several �•�eeks ago, we had aareed that
you would be fonvaYding to the City of Orono a reply to our many concerns
in sufficient tir�e to allow our sta�f tir�e to review your report to us
which includes iniorr�ation that has been docur�ented over a period of
�any years. _ Now, you are asking us to reply within seven working days
to meet a deadline of Aiarch 23, 1978 to review a report �o the Pnysical
�evelopr.�ent Cor�nittee and also to meet a deadline of ?Sarch 23, 1978 to
zequest a hearing on our Metropolitan Svsteris Statement. The decisions
' r.�ac3e toc3ay will set the pattern for future planning in the City of Orono
and certainly requires a reasonable tir�e frame to allow for complete
staff review of your March 8 letter.
I believe our concerns as outlined in our letter to i�r. Ha?-ring�on, and
copied to vou, are valid ones that should receive your atten�ion. I
arn enclosing another copy of that letter for vour review_
I would appreciate your sincere consicera�ion o� de�erring any ac�ion on
your recor��mendations to the Ph��sical Develop;nent Cor:u-ni��ee on T��arcn 23,
and acain as outlined previously to rsr. Jonn �oland, we would �:ant to
request an extension to the i5arch 23 hearing deadline until we have
resolved our many concerns as previously outlined to you.
Very truly yours,
L�(/���� -,�
Tti�alter :��en�n�-
City _ inis�ra�or
Enc� sures
. �
` �._� :�.���?:R ,,;:��'IT;G CF _',ii. C;tO?JO CG�:iY�I:�, I'_yRCH 16 , i9;8 P�.c� 03
sight on his part and that he had been paid for 73-1 CLAIM
the easement. P-sr. Pike stated he would check (Continued)
urther and get back to ne.
On February 21 , 1978, r�r. Pike returned all
necessary documents and releases signed.
Therefore, it is my recomr.lendation that r9r. Pike
receive $575. 00 for restoration as agreed upon
in November of 1977.
Paurus moved Pesek seconded, to approve the
payment of $575. 00 to Earl Pike, 830 Windjar�r.ier
Lane, for the restoration of his proPerty from
the 73-1 sewer construction project. P��otion,
Ayes (4) - Nays (0} ,
Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to approve Year IV � YEAR IV BLOCK GRANT
Conmunity Development Block Grant Program as
subr,iitted and authorizing submittal of the
application to Hennepin County for inclusion in
the 1978-79 Grant Program. Motion, Ayes (4} -
Nays (0) .
Dick Ilenson, City Administrator, informed the City BIKE/HIKE TRAILS
�ouncil that we are in receipt of a letter from
the Department of Transportation, dated February 27,
1978, which states:
"Three criteria have been established that must be
satisfied prior to the designation and signing of
County roads as bike/hike routes. These criteria
are as follows:
l: The trail adjacent to the countv road must
meet the construction standards+ of the county.
2 . The trail must be part of an approved municipal
and/or area-wide trail system which is cor�plete,
or substantially so, and functional.
3. The designation of the bike/hike routes must
be requested by the City Council.
Your letter of January 30, 1978 listed several
prioritized segments of county roads in Orono
that had been designated as bike/hike trails by
the City Council. Upon examination of these route
sec�r�ents, it was found that only two meet all
three criteria listed above. These are CSAH 15 from
the Spring Park city lir.lits to CSAH 19 and CASH 19
from the Narrows Bridge to CSAH 15 in Navarre. (Continued)
, •
�il)T�f1!� T'�:�t 1 i'�';� ri7� �it�.l�TJ� CC�ti��'C 1 T� i:�� T l G `� D
�' _ O� � . --=:Ch 16 , 7� age F�
Present shoulder surfacing by the county provides BIKE/HIKE TRAILS
adequate width to accommodate bike traffic on those (Continued)
wo segments. `I'rail continuity is provi�ed west
into Spring Park and south into Tonka Bay. Bike ,
route signs will be installed bef�re spring.
None of the remaining route segrlents provide
sufficient surfaced shoulder width to meet
criter_ia 1 above. A 5 or 6 foot wide shoulder
is deened necessary. Plor are separate bike routes
rernote from the roadway available. Consequently,
bike route signing could be r�isleading to both
the cyclist and motorist using these rou'ces
resulting in a potentially hazardous situation.
However, even though not signed as bike routes,
these roads are, of course, open for bike travel
subject to rules of the road.
In sur.unary, priority #1, CSAH 15 from Spring Park • .
to CSAH 15, and priority #3 CSAH 19 from the
Narrows Bridge to CSAH 15 will be signed as bike
routes. ihe remainder of the routes cannot be
signed at this time due to insufficient bike
facilities.
Should you care to discuss this fu.rther or need
more inforr.►ation, please give me a call. "
Dennis L. Hansen, P.E.
End of letter
Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to accept the
letter fror,i the Departrient of Transportation
concerning bike/hike routes on County roads.
Motion, Ayes {4) - Nays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented the SALARY INCREASE
City Council with an employment evaluation of Tom Jacobs
Tom Jacobs, Building Inspector, from Hank Muhich,
Zoning Ad.ministrator, dated March 8, 1978, which
states:
On 2day 31, 1977, Tom Jacobs joined the City staff
as the field inspector on building and plur,ibing
projects for which we issued permits . He �:as
also responsible for inspections in Long Lake
and P�innetonka Beach. Since he has been with
us, we have also begun issuing permits for
mechanical inspections which have added to his
work load. Although we no longer provide this
service for Long Lake , we have contracted to
provide this sar,te service for the City of r4edina. (Continued)
` � � � ` ? C O� _. Ci:O'�O CO�:vCTT , i•J��CH 16 , �978 i are �S
t�EGLiT,AR .�i'�E'1 i�; � :� � � i
The permit trend seems to indicate that constructzon SALARY INCREASE
projects in rsedina will greatly outnumber those (Continued)
in Long Lake and Urol�ortionately add more to
Tom' s workload.
Tom has become much more Proficient hy C011L1T�llOL'Sly
enrolling in evening courses related to the field
of inspection. Since he started with us , he has
been involved in these classes at least two nights
a week.
He has completed the following related cours�s:
l. Arch History II
2. Int Urban Planning
3. Const. Est. & C.P.M.
4. Field Inspection
5, r�ech Inspection
6. Home Sewage Treatment Workshop �
He is currently attending the following clases
which are almost complete :
l. Non-structural Plan Review
2. Soils Engineering
On January 19, 1978, Tom received State Certification
as a Building Official. Only a few of the many
candidates accomplished this. More recently,
he was appointed to the State Disaster Committee.
In view of these continuous efforts and accomplishments
since joining our staff, I would like to recommend a
salary increase subject to your approval and Council
review.
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented a memo
dated I�Iarch 8, 1978, which states :
P4r. Tom Jacobs' salary is currently $1,020. 06 per
month. In view of Mr. Jacobs ' recent cornpletion
of State Certification, I do recommend an adjustment
to $1, 100. 00 per month, effective March 6, 1978.
This position will be reviewed again in September
when Tom has cor;�pleted his current courses.
Butler moved, Acting Alayor r4assengale seconded, to
approve a salary increase for Tom Jacobs to $1, 100. 00
per month, effective March 6 , 1978. P-4otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
� � - ��u?'�.R i�,�ETI'vG Or 'l'i�r CF:C�rvO COiJ'r��CIL, ,".T,�CH 16 , 1978 nage 66
Dick Bensor., City Acir�inistrator, presented the SALARY INCREASE
City Council with an employment evaluation of Susan P�4auderer
Susan rSauderer, Zoninc� Secretary , ��-om IIenry Muhich,
Zoning Administrator, dated P7arch 6 , 1978, �,�hich .
states:
Susan was first appointed to fill the position
as secretary for the Building & Loning Department
on r7over.tber 21, 1977. Her three month probationary
Period was completed on February 21, 1978.
t4ith her previous r:lunicipal experience and willing-
ness to cooperate, she has been able to perforr:►
extremely well and has accomplished the necessary
tasks competently.
After evaluating her performance, I would reco,unend
a salary increase subject to your approval and
Council review. ' .
t9e were fortunate to be able to find an er�ployee
requiring minimal instruction and direction.
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented a mer.mo
dated P�Iarch 7, 1978, which states:
After reviewing susan Mauderer' s performance, I
recommend a salary increase of $25. 00 per month,
effective February 21, 1978. This increase
will adjust her salary fror.t $800. 00 to $825. 00
per month.
Paurus rmoved, Pesek seconded, to approve a salary
increase for Susan P4auderer, Zoning Secretary, to
$825. 00 per r►onth, effect�.ve February 21, 1978.
PZotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented a rlemo - SALARY ADJUSTr4ENT
from Joh� Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator, William Carlson
concerning a salary adjustment for William Carlson,
dated P4arch 9, 1978, which states:
Effective r4arch 6 , 1978, Mr. William Carlson' s
position in the Utility Departrtent will be Z4ater
Plant Operator; therefore, it �vill be necessary
to adjust D4r. Carlson' s salary from $1, 373. 36
per nonth to $1, 332. 93 �er month, effective
P�arch 20, 1978.
The $1, 373. 36 reflects r2r. Carlson' s previous
salary without a 1978 salary increase. The
$1, 332. 93 per month does include the 1978
adjustment.
Butler r.�oved, Acting Mayor P2assengale seconded,
to approve the salary adjustment of William
Carlson to $1, 332. 93 per month effective i-Zarch 20 ,
1978. PZotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
. •
� I�_=�:�li�AR P"�;i�TIP�:G OF THE ORO?d0 COUNCIL, PIARCH 16 , 1978 Pag� 57
nick Benson, City Adr�inistrator, presented the SALARY ADJUSTMtNT
Ci�y Council with a memo frorl John Gerhardson , Douglas Erickson
Public T�orks Coordinator, concerning a salary
adjustment for pouglas Erickson, Golf Course .
P2anager, dated I•larch 8, 1978 , which states :
The City of Orono nas an annual contract and '
agreer.�ent with PSr. Douglas Erickson to operate
the Orono Goli Clubhouse.
In the past, it was agreed, according to the
contract, that I�ir. Erickson was allowed a
maximum of 400 hours and $1, 800. 00 for the�
golf season. Because Mr. Erickson' s time is
required to be available to the City staff_
prior to the opening of the golf course and
after the closing, it is my recommendation to
increase the maximum hours , in the contract
agreement, to 420 and the maximum monies to ' .
$2, 000. 00.
Acting P�4ayor Massengale moved, Butler seconded,
to approve the salary adjustment for pouglas
Erickson, Golf Clubhouse Manager, to 420 hours
and $2, 000 . 00. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Paurus moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the P�SANAGER AGREEMENT
1978 Golf Course Clubhouse P'ianager Agreement Golf Course Clubhouse
with Douglas Erickson. Motion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) . -
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented the APPOIrdTMENT - PLANNER
City Council wit}i a memo concerning Alan Olson, Alan Olson
Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator,
ciated March 8, 1978, which states:
P�Ir. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning
Adriinistrator, joined us January 19 , 197� as
Building & Zoning Inspector. Mr. Olson' s
background consists of Bachelor of Architecture
degree, engineering aide design consultant,
Associate Architect, and Inspector of Architecture.
It is obvious that P4r. Olson' s background lends
riore to planning and administrative c�ualities
than field work and the emphasis has been to
direct P4r. Olson more to the planning process
than to building and zoning matters which has
been Mr. Olson' s goal. In view of this and the
related Block Grant Program which will allow
us to support our future planning process in our
comprehensive planning with Block Grant funds , I
recor.unend the appointment of Mr. Olson to the
position of Planner, He will continue to assist (Continued)
� � � !
:-'.=�.�uLl�R '���.:il'2G OF TiiE GRONO CGi;:vCIL, 'i:'�RCH 16 , 1978 Pa�e 6
PSr. r�uhich as he has in the �ast but will also APPOINT,ZrNT - PLAPJ"JER
dir�ct his attention to comprehensive planning (Continued)
r:�atters. F�is present salary is $1, 500 per month,
which will be reviewed in three r_months . .
Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the
appointment of i-ir. Alan Olson as City Planner
at his present salary of $1, 500 oer rionth with
a review in three months. :�otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
Pauriis moved, Pesek seconded, to ap�rove the 1977 FINANCIAL STATEi�1ENT
1977 Financial Statement and to authorize the
posting of same. P�iotion, Ayes (4) - 2Jays (0) .
Butler rnoved, Pesek seconded, to approve the CORRECTION
correction of Suml^iary of Receipts , Disbursements , • Receipts , etc. .
and Balances for the twelve �ionths ended Twelve r4onths
December 31, 1977, in the amount of $410. 00.
tlotion, Ayes (4) - Navs (0) .
D�ck Benson, City Administrator, announced to WASTE ��1AGEMENT MEETING
the City Council that on March 28, 1978 , the March 28, 1978
City of P4edina will host a meeting with the City of Medina
P4etropolitan �aaste Control Corunission to discuss
alternatives to waste r,ianagement.
D4r. Jim Olson, City Engineer, presented the City LAKE IMPROVEr�iENT PROJECT
Council with -his- letter concerning riprap
maintenance work on Lake Minnetonka dated
March 16, 1978, which states:
"Enclosed herewith please find copies of perr,iit
applications from Hennepin County to the DNR for
riprap repair work at the f�llowing locations
on Lake Minnetonka:
Stubbs-P?axwell Bay Channel
Big Island Channel
Hendrickson Public Access
�ae take no exception to the proposed work as
outlined in Lhe application forms and recor,unend
aPproval. However, in the "Detail of Standard
Riprap Construction" prepared by Hennepin County,
there is no mention of a filter blanket under
the riprap. We suggest that a filter blanket be
considered (if it is not already part of the
specifications) . It is our experience that a
filter blanket will substantially prolong the
effective life of the riprap structure. "
End of letter
(Continued)
' � ' v -� r, Q
.- }:�GuL�'.R I11�ETI'.�G Ot il�t O1-;�NO COli'dC i_T,� '�i'�Rt:,I� 16 � 19 18 _ _c�. 6
Paurus moved, P�sek secor.ded, to approve the LA�E I?�iPROVEAZENTS
adc3ition of a filter blanket under riprap for (Continued)
he repair work at Stubbs-P4axwell Bay Channel ,
Big Island Channel , and Hendrickson Public Access ,
projects by Hennepin County. r;otion, Ayes (4) -
hays (0) .
Pesek moved, Paurus seconded, to adopt Ordinance ORDINANCF NO. 208
No. 208, An Ordinance To Ar�end The Municipal Code Amend �4ater Rates
Of Tne City Of Orono By Amending ChaPter 25A
Establishing Rates, Charges, And Regulations
For The Use Of P�uniczpal ��vater. �-Zotion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0) .
Paurus r.ioved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Ordinance O�DINANCE NO. 209
No. 209 , An Ordinance To Amend Fee Schedule �ti'ater Rate Schedule
Ordinance No. 197 Of ihe Municipal Code Of The �
City Of Orono Relating To P�tunicipal P7ater Rates.
Psotion, Ayes (4) - rlays (0) .
Pesek moved, Paurus seconded, to postpone until INTERCEPTOR �
the r,leeting of P�7arch 30, 1978 the resolution
for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Interceptor. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Butler r_loved, Paurus seconded, to hold a public PUBLIC HEARING DATE
hearing concerning the on-site disposal ordinance On-Site Disposal
and resolution for the design manual Thursday,
'lpril 13, 1978 at 7: 15 P.M. Motion, Ayes (4) -
ays (0) .
.' :ting r2ayor Massengale moved, Butler seconded, BILLS
� '�at the All Funds Accounts 6287 through 6367,
li)873 through 19875 , 1978 through 2051, 19705
through 19797 and Liquor Store Accounts 12396
through 12431, be paid. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Butler r►oved, Paurus seconded, that the following LICENSES
licenses, be approved: Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Dale Sorensen Company - Plurlber �
The D�g House Boarding Kennels , Inc. Kennel License
Butler moved, Pesek secondeci, that the meeting ADJOURNMEPIT
be adjourned at 11: 30 P.M. r7otion, Ayes (4) -
Nays (0} .
��� � �� ��
� �, � ,
/ � - . L,��,
Wllliam B. Van est, P4ayor
Attest: �
Walter . son, Clerk-Administrator
, !