07-14-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J' - > 4 » r f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT, Continued) McMillan indicated that she would relay the City ’s position to the Board at the meeting Wednesday night. She stated that it would not surprise her if others expressed similar concerns. Murphy inquired who would pay the price if the City would not support the expenditures. McMillan pointed out that the LMCD operates at K4% of the state levy limit; however, she believed the LMCD could tap into its reserve budget or put off expenditure for the time being. She noted that both Orono and Minnetonka saw increases due to their higher tax base. Moorse suggested the LMCD consider using resen es for the big ticket items for 2004, that are not in the budget every year. McMillan empathized with the City ’s concerns and reiterated that she would relay those sentiments to the Board at Wednesday’s meeting. She stated that the vote was scheduled for Wednesday in order to turn the budgets around by July for member cities. In addition, McMillan reported that the Grand Opening of the Gray’s Bay access was held. She indicated that its design was modeled from the Maxwell Bay boat access and noted that two ponds were designed to handle the runoff from the excessive hardcover at the access. The City Council reiterated its objection to the 2% levy increase. Murphy maintained that he found it dinicult to support the increase based on the lack of‘hardship’ to support it. Mayor Peterson asked if the LMCD had any connection to the saveminnetonka.com website she had seen advertised recently. McMillan indicated that she had no knowledge of the website; however, she would visit the site to investigate. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 3. #01-2714 FREDERICK PUZAK, 1340 BALDUR PARK ROAD - VARIANCES - REVIEW CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 4720 Gaffron explained that the applicant had requested the Council approve eliminating the variance approval condition requiring connection of his proposed new resi^nce to sewer. Gaffron noted that the new septic system constructed in 2002 for the existing house does not have design capacit>' to serve the proposed 5 bedroom home. In addition to the need for a formal variance renewal (which expired 1 1-13-02), the Resolution language calls for Council review since the sewer connection is not feasible and construction using a septic system is not consistent with the variance approvals. Gaffron stated that the neighbor has failed to file the appropriate sewer easement as requested by the applicant and the City. PAGE 2 of 15 • r