05-13-1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 • ( #8 - #2126 City of Orono - Continued) Kelley questioned the vacation asking whether the City should retain the easement for a bike path through the area. Callahan remarked that there was alot of traffic in the area. Hurr thought it was a good idea. Kelley noted that there is more and more pressure for a bike circuit. He noted that the old road connected Navarre with Wayzata at one time. Kelley said it could be used in the future and could always be vacated at a later date. Hurr asked if the vacation went to Lafayette Ridge, and if easements were taken back. Mabusth said they were assessed for street lights and easements were taken over all the vacation. Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to deny the vacation of portions of Navarre Lane adjacent to church property and Lafayette Ridge but to complete the vacation of 33' of right -of- way adjacent to the O'Sullivan/Smith property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #9) ON -SITE SYSTEMS CODE - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2ND SERIES Steve Weckman said the proposed revision to the septic code was due to new State . standards. The ordinance would comply with the changes as well as clean up wording and omissions presently in place. • Goetten commented that she appreciated the 5 year extension for completion of repairs to the non - shoreland systems found to be non - conforming due only to the lack of 3 -foot separation. Weckman responded that there are alot of systems in need of replacement, and it would take time to upgrade the systems. Jabbour suggested eliminating the shoreland regulation and respond when the need is shown. Weckman said it was a matter of compliance and need for inspections. He suggested the Council set a different length of time period for completion of the repairs if the separation issue was not of vital importance and no failure of the system is shown. Jabbour suggested 20 years. Kelley voiced his concern with the need for both primary and alternate sites for properties of 2 acre non - shoreland. He gave an example of a developed lot not having the required 3' separation but having a working system. He asked how that property owner could be asked to abandon a working system to go to an alternate system, which would be the property owner's "insurance policy ", when the state does not require a time period for conformance on the 3' separation. Kelley said if a mound system was installed, and it failed, the property owner would not have any alternate solution. 11