Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-1991 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ROLL- CALL : The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Edward Callahan, Gabriel Jabbour and Mary Butler. The following represented the City Staff: City Administrator Mark Bernhardson, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Public Works Director John Gernardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and City Recorder Laurie Scheffler. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (W)CONSENT AGENDA. Mayor Peterson requested the removal of item #21 from the Consent Agenda. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda; with the exception of item #21, which was removed 'and discussed in the sequence in which it appears on the Agenda. All voted -aye. %ocicn passed. ( #2)RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION POLICE CHIEF MELVIN KILBO Mayor Peterson presented Chief Kilbo with a Resolution of Appreciation for his many years of service to the City of Orono in the capacity of Chief of Police, and wished him well in his retirement. ( #3 *)APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held May 28, 1991. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #4 *)APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held June 10, 1991. All voted aye. Motion passed. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT Bernhardson informed Council that JoEllen Hurr was unable to attend the meeting this evening. He noted that LMCD Executive Director, Gene Strommen was present to discuss Agenda Item #12, LMCD Budget. Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Strommen if he wished, at this time, to comment on LMCD matters not related to their budget. Strommen indicated that his comments this evening would pertain only to the proposed budget. - 1 - r r, ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Henry Furchner, 360 Leaf Street, indicated that he believes he is being harassed by an employee of the City. He stated that when the Septic Inspector visited the property behind his, he spun the wheels of his automobile on Per. Furchner's property. Mayor Peterson referred to the memo from Michael Gaffron, dated June 20, 1991 (presented as an attachment to.Agenda Item #26), and asked Gaffron if Mr. Furchner had received a copy. Gaffron advised that a copy of his memo had not been sent to Mr. Furchner. Mabusth handed Mr. Furchner a copy of Gaffron's memo to review. Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron if there would be additional inspections of Mr. Furchner's property and the properties adjacent to it. Gaffron indicated that the inspections that have occurred, were done at the insistence of Mr. Furchner. He also stated that he was unaware of any incident involving the spinning of automobile tires, but would look into the matter further and report back to Council. Mayor Peterson informed Mr. Furchner that he would be hearing from City Staff regarding the tire spinning incident. She encouraged Mr. Furchner to call the City after he reviewed Gaffron's memo if he had further questions or concerns. Mr. Furchner stated that, in his opinion, there is a real problem with the septic system at 400 Leaf Street. He explained how a rockbed had been installed with a ditch leading to the septic tank and that there was seepage all over the yard this Spring from the system. Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron if the three properties that have been the subject of Mr. Furchner's concerns are included.in the Stubbs Bay sewer area. Gaffron answered in the affirmative. Mr. Furchner encouraged the City Council to take whatever steps are necessary to get the Stubbs Bay sewer project initiated. Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron to have Mr. Weckman visit the Furchners tomorrow (June 25, 1991). - 2 - 7 } ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: ( #5)ZONING FILE #1657 -NICK SIMONDS 2007 SUGARWOOD DRIVE DRIVEWAY REQUEST Nick and Nanne Simonds were present. Bernhardson explained that the Simonds were requesting approval to vary from the Development Standards for the Sugarwood PRD. Mabusth displayed a sketch of the proposed driveway, showing that it would curve around several existing trees, and encroach into the 30 foot side yard setback area. Bernhardson stated that the intent of the 30 foot side yard setback is to. assure minimal tree removal. The Simonds request for encroachment into that area stems from their desire to preserve several large existing trees. He noted that three Planning. Commission members had voted to recommend approval, three voted to recommend denial. Mr. Simonds confirmed Bernhardson's statements, adding that the encroachment into the 30 foot side yard setback area would have no impact on the neighboring properties. Goetten stated that she had attended the June 17 Planning Commission meeting when this matter was reviewed. She appreciated the efforts put forth by the Planning Commission pertaining to establishment of the Development Standards. Goetten said, "In this case, however, the Simonds are trying to preserve trees, which is the basis of many of the Development Standards_ I cannot see why we would not allow this to occur. I did go out to the Simond's house and I could see that a large Maple tree, among others, would have to come down if the Development Standards are met." Jabbour, Mayor Peterson, and Butler indicated that they concur with Goetten that tree preservation is an important aspect of not only the Sugarwood Development, but the entire Community as well. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve a Variance to the Sugarwood Development Standards. by allowing the driveway at 2007 Sugarwood Drive to encroach into the 30 foot side yard setback in order to preserve several mature trees. All voted aye. Motion passed. Mr. Sid Rebers, owner of property adjacent to the Simonds, expressed his appreciation for Council's approval and confirmed that the proposed location of the Simonds' driveway.-would in no way impact his property. - 3 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( $6) WHITNEY MACMILLAN ... 1620 FOX STREET REQUEST TO WAIVE DIRECTIVE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan were present. Bernhardson provided an overview of the events that took place and __issues involved with this application. (Refer to Jeanne Mabusth's June 20, 1991, memo). He added that should Council approve the MacMillan's request to waive the need for a demolition permit, it would then be necessary to grant a Variance to the City's Ordinance requiring the use of clean fill. Mrs. MacMillan explained that she was not aware of the need for a demolition permit. They had hired a contractor to come in and crush what remained of the house, after it had been burned. The crushed material was then buried in a hole. She stated that it was not until the process was complete that she received a letter from the City notifying her of the need to have obtained a demolition permit. Mrs. MacMillan. stated that there was nothing in the burning /demolition process with the Fire Department or City that alerted her to the fact that such a permit was needed. She stated that the Building Inspectors had been out to the property several times and had not informed them of the need for a demolition permit. Jabbour suggested that it may be appropriate to require the various Fire Departments to notify people that a demolition permit must be obtained from the City in conjunction with burning a building. Mabusth stated that persons intending to burn. a structure must obtain a permit from the PCA. The PCA permit application includes a question about the method that will be used to dispose of the debris. If the applicants indicate that the debris is to be buried on site, the PCA requires that certain covenants be filed in the chain of title for that particular property. Callahan noted that Mr. MacMillan's letter of June 4, 1991, indicates that he will provide the necessary covenants to meet the PCA requirements. He questioned what further action is required on the part of the City Council. Mabusth explained that the MacMillan's did not obtain a demolition permit to demolish the structure on their property. When . City Staff notified the MacMillan's for the need of such a permit, they sent' a letter asking that the requirement for a demolition permit be waived. She noted that it was not until today, when Staff further discussed this issue, that it was determined there would be a need for a Variance proceeding If Council granted the MacMillan's request. It would be necessary to hold a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and obtain approval of a Variance from the City's Ordinance requiring == F J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #6)MACMILLAN CONTINUED the use of clean fill. Mrs. MacMillan stated that the contractor that had crushed the foundation of the structure had informed her that the crushed debris was classified as clean fill. Butler commented that it is not the responsibility of the Building Inspectors to make sure that property owners secure the proper permits for all aspects of a project. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten. to require the applicants to obtain an after - the -fact demolition permit for the razing of the principal structure located at 1620 Fox* Street. Further that the fire departments that serve the Orono area should be directed to notify persons seeking burn permits of the requirement for a demolition permit as well. All voted aye. Motion passed. (V)SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT B4abusth summarized the information provided in her June 19, 1991 memo pertaining to the Planning Commission's recommendation for a Temporary Sign Ordinance Amendment. Mayor Peterson .asked. Planning Commission Chair, Charlie Kelley, if he wished to make any comments regarding this matter. Kelley stated that the Planning Commission did not want the Temporary Sign Ordinance to be drafted in such a way that it would over- regulate the citizens. He said, "The Planning Commission's recommendation primarily focused on the need for the business owner to obtain a temporary sign permit. This would also apply in the case of advertising balloons and banners." Butler asked Staff how the City will keep track of the number of temporary sign permits issued to each property to assure that no more than four permits are issued per year. Mabusth advised Butler that the City has a computer program in place for recording the number of permits issued to each property, and that it is currently used to monitor.permits issued on a property. Butler asked if other communities have similar* sign ordinances in place. She added that, in her opinion, such an ordinance seemed to be very "knit- picky ". She asked, "How can a person located in a multi- tenant building run a business if the other tenants have depleted the four signs per year., per building allocation? There are. very few free - standing businesses within the City of Orono. Most are clustered under one roof." Mabusth replied, "In the case of multiple -use buildings, I =� t ; ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 (#7)SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONTINUED would recommend that the property. owner apply to the City for a permanent sign that would provide the ability to display temporary advertisements. The main focus of this Ordinance Amendment is to discourage the use of the yellow, bread -board type signs throughout the business areas. It is the consensus of Staff and Planning Commission that these signs are aesthetically undesirable." Jabbour commented that John O'Sullivan had been present at the Planning Commission meeting when the Public Hearing on this matter was held. Bernhardson asked Mabusth if Staff had notified the Merchants Association of the particular language proposed for the Ordinance Amendment. Mabusth replied, "I believe John O'Sullivan understood what was being proposed. The Merchants Association provided me with some final' input. As I understand it, the amendment met with their approval. They were mainly concerned about the existing Ordinance which allowed only one temporary sign every 24 months. There was one business owner on Wayzata Boulevard who did not approve of -the aspect of the four signs per year applying to all of the tenants within one building. To that property owner, I would recommend a permanent sign, that would provide flexibility for advertising." Jabbour asked Mabusth in what capacity John O'Sullivan was present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mabusth stated that he was present on his own behalf for an application pertaining to an addition to his service station, but then stayed for the Temporary Sign Public Hearing and represented the Navarre business owners. She asked Council if they would prefer to have the area merchants review the proposed amendment prior to Council action. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Goetten, to table this item until the Orono business owners have reviewed the proposed amendment. All voted aye. Motion passed. MAYOR /COUNCIL REPORT: ( #8)HARDCOVER REVIEW OF FINDINGS Mabusth advised that at the June 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, Charlie Kelley raised the question of whether Council intended to allow the use of non -woven fabric within the 0 -75 foot setback area, and if so, to what degree. Goetten stated.that she had been of the understanding that when Council took action approving the use of non -woven fabric, � 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #8)HARDCOVER REVIEW.. CONTINUED that the approval was of a conceptual nature and more detailed standards would be discussed. She indicated that she would like to have more definitive standards incorporated into the Ordinance Amendment, and suggested referring the issue to the Planning commission. Butler stated that Council may wish to prohibit use of the non -woven fabric within the 0 -75 foot setback area. Mayor Peterson stated that she, too, was of the understanding that some restrictions would be incorporated into the Ordinance Amendment. She added that she had not intended to allow the use of the non -woven fabric within the 0 -75 foot setback area. Callahan, who had -voted against the motion to allow the use of non -woven fabric, indicated that his understanding of Council's action was that non - woven, geotechnic fabric, would not be considered as hardcover. Jabbour suggested assigning a certain percentage for which non -woven fabric would be considered as hardcover. He said, "If we assign as certain factor to the non -woven fabric, we can more easily control the extent of its use. If it is considered as even a fraction of a percent of hardcover, it cannot be used in the .0-75 foot setback area at all, as we do not allow anything there. He asked Gaffron to comment on his proposal. Gaffron indicated that he would prefer that a hardcover factor not be assigned to the non -woven as it would further complicate an already complex calculation, that from experience seems often impossible for anyone but City Staff to do correctly. He said, "If it is Council's wish to have nothing but trees, shrubs, and grass within the 0 -75 foot setback area, then that should be stated, though there will be numerous Variance requests." Mabusth noted that geotechnic fabric has been used as a method of stabilization for steep, eroding banks along the shoreline. Callahan stated that for the most part, the requests that have come before Council involving landscaping plastic has had to do with its removal as a trade -off for the addition of hardcover elsewhere on that property. . He said, "I do not recall an instance where someone has requested a Variance to install landscaping plastic. It may be appropriate to' establish a policy stating that non -woven fabric cannot be used as a trade -off for other forms of hardcover. It was the consensus of the Council that this issue should - 7 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ($$)HARDCOVER REVIEW CONTINUED be reviewed by the Planning-Commission. Kelley asked Council what policy will be in effect in the interim. Callahan suggested leaving the pre- existing Ordinance as is (which states that any weed control material, plastic or fabric, is considered as hardcover) until an appropriate amendment is recommended by Planning Commission and adopted by Council. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to rescind the Ordinance relating to non -woven fabric until such time that an Ordinance Amendment is drafted and adopted. All voted aye. Motion passed. Gaffron noted that in light of the action previously taken by Council, he knows of several .people that have installed non -woven fabric on their property. Council stated that they, could foresee no problem with the existing situations. Staff was asked to continue urging people to use. the. fabric, as opposed to plastic, but with an understanding that during the-interim period of fine tuning the ordinance amendment, the fabric will be considered hardcover. OTHER . Mayor Peterson stated that she would be meeting with Betsy Swartwood, Mayor of the City of Long Lake, to discuss some of the issues of mutual concern for both cities. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: ( #9)STUBBS BAY SEWER Bernhardson presented Council with information pertaining to the issues of financing the project, further engineering work that should be done on the project,. and the areas to be included in the project. He said, "The City could opt to contribute a certain amount to the cost of project, which would defray the cost to the individual residents. However, there is really no way of knowing what degree of financial involvement on the City's behalf will make the project acceptable to the residents. Would the City consider a request from the residents to defray the project costs by 50%? The City could either determine a certain percentage of participation and ask the residents if that would be acceptable, or ask the residents for input as to what they would consider to be an acceptable level of City participation." Butler stated that it would be difficult for the City to indicate its willingness to pay a certain percent of the project costs, because the project costs are not known at this time. J I le .. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 (# 9) STUBBS BAY •SEiIER CONTINUED Jabbour said, "I believe that the project is long overdue, and that Council must make a decision. This project is necessary for the public's health, safety and welfare. I think we should deal with the cost issues after the final numbers are known." Mayor Peterson asked John Thiesse, a member of the Stubbs. Bay Sewer Committee, if he had any additional information. Thiesse advised Council that he talked with 27 people in the Stubbs Bay area about the project. He said, "I would estimate that approximately 85% of those people would pay up to 60% of the cost of the project." Mayor Peterson agreed with. Jabbour that the project has to be done. She asked what the next step should be. Glenn Cook stated that the next step should be updating the costs indicated in the original feasibility study. Mayor Peterson asked if the areas to be included in the project have changed since the original feasibility study was done. She said, "There were discussions about excluding Christine Drive and Oxford Road." Bernhardson advised that neither Christine Drive, nor Oxford Road were included in the original project. Properties east of Leaf Street were not included in the original project, but properties in this location are approaching the point where they may need to be included.. He said. "Properties in the Bederwood and Bayside areas meeting specific criteria could 'opt -out' of the project. That criteria, would also apply to the properties on Christine Drive and Oxford Road." Goetten understood that there were several properties on Oxford Road in need of municipal sewer. Gaffron confirmed that there are three properties on Oxford Road that have problems with their septic systems. Two of the systems have problems related to distribution systems and can be repaired. The problem with the system on the third property is that it has been over used for many years, and must either be added onto or replaced. Goetten asked if any of these properties are on the lake. Gaffron replied, "Two of the properties are not lakeshore. Virtually every property has two acres and the ability to replace the existing system if need be. The question is whether, from a philosophical viewpoint, the City wants to sewer lakeshore properties. In my opinion, it makes good sense to sewer lakeshore properties." ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ($9)STUBBS BAY SEWER CONTINUED Mayor Peterson stated that an Oxford Road resident had contacted her indicating that they would like to be included in the project, but wished to review cost estimates. This particular resident.is having difficulties due to clay soils. Callahan asked if_ it would in fact be necessary to get Metropolitan Council approval for a 'MUSA line extension if Christine Drive, Oxford Road:. and Sussex Drive are to be included in the project. Bernhardson replied, "Technically, we would have to get approval of a MUSA line extension for the entire .area. We identified the five areas originally included in the feasibility study in the Comprehensive Plan as being areas the City intended to sewer. The two acre properties outside those areas were not identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Setting that issue aside, Sussex and Christine are not on the lake, and are in the Two -Acre Zone. At what point does the City draw the line on including two -acre properties in the sewered area. Both Christine Drive and Sussex Drive are new developments." Callahan stated that the septic problems for the two -acre properties in the Stubbs Bay area should be treated no differently than the two -acre properties elsewhere in the City. He said, "We can say that the problem -is worse in the Stubbs Bay area because of the lakeshore properties. It seems to me that all we need to do is require those properties that are having problems to go to their alternate systems. In my opinion, if there are two -acre lots in the Stubbs Bay area that have adequate alternate areas, that the City is justified in allowing them to opt -out of the project. The City would need to strictly enforce the septic standards and require the owners to change to alternate drainfields if that is necessary." Goetten noted that at some point, those properties will fully utilize the capacity of-the alternate sites, and would then have to look for yet another alternative. Callahan responded that such is the case with every two -acre property within the City. Butler said, "It would seem to me that the properties that are being considered for exclusion from the project, should in fact be included. It is those properties that are picking up the unit charge, the . "make- ready" charge. If those properties are included now, then in the future when the alternate septic site fails, there would be an option to merely hook up to the trunk line without the need to do another entire project. Can we not replicate the methods we used when municipal water was installed. When water was first installed, the City charged a ready -to -serve f,ee. Further, including those - properties would drop the per unit - 10 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #9)STUBBS BAY SEWER CONTINUED charge for the trunk line." h Gaffron agreed with Butler, but noted that the question then is where to draw the boundary for properties that are potentially served. He said, "A lateral could be installed that is two miles long and it would serve the rest of the City." Gaffron displayed a map he had prepared showing properties that would be included in the initial project, and hooked up directly to the trunk, and those properties that would be served by a neighborhood lateral. He stated that there are approximately 100 properties, of which 60 would be in the initial project, and the other 40 would be split up into three or four different neighborhood lateral projects, but could pay the trunk charge now. Gaffron advised that the project could be expanded to include properties on Cygnet Place, which is the next area that will begin to experience problems with existing septic systems. Butler asked if there are any existing problems on Cygnet. Gaffron advised that approximately 1/2 of the properties have replaced systems over the last ten or twelve years, and those systems are still working. Callahan asked whether it would be appropriate to forego a motion calling for an updated feasibility study and proceed to ordering plans and specifications. Gerhardson indicated that construction of this project would not begin for sometime, and suggested that it may be more beneficial to have an updated feasibility study. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Jabbour, to direct the City Engineer to update the feasibility study for the Stubbs Bay sewer project. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #10)CITY FACILITIES - FINANCING Bernhardson presented Council with additional information regarding financing of the City facilities, as well as a draft resolution to set a public hearing to determine if Council desires to establish a Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Mayor Peterson stated that Council would consider and take separate action on' each of the issues presented in Bernhardson's June 21, 1991 memo. Bernhardson explained that if Council chooses to adopt the draft resolution setting a Public Hearing to establish and HRA, the City Attorney would review the final resolution prior to publication in the newspaper. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution #2978, to publish a notice of Public Hearing to - 11 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #10)CITY FACILITIES FINANCING CONTINUED establish an HRA, which is to be drafted by the City Attorney and published by July 5, 1991. Motion, Ayes -4, Mayor Peterson, Nay. Motion passed. Mayor Peterson stated that she understood Council's reasoning -behind their vote to establish an HRA. She believed however, that due to the magnitude of costs involved with this project, that it should be put up for a referendum. Jabbour indicated that timing is critical in this process, as any delay may result in additional costs to taxpayers, should there be a change in interest rates. Jabbour stated that it is extremely important for Council to do the job they have been elected to do, as effectively as possible. It was his understanding that the interest. rate is at the second lowest point it- has had "in fourteen years. Jabbour urged Council to move swiftly on this matter. Bernhardson referred Council to the information regarding a draft time schedule for. the project that can be used as a guideline. He asked Council to accept the information, and stated that no action is needed on this aspect of this item. Issue number four set forth in Bernhardson's memo requested Council approval to send out the draft Request for Proposal for hiring a construction manager, as well as establishing a committee to interview candidates. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Butler, to authorize Staff to seek proposals from qualified construction managers for use on the project. All voted aye. Motion passed. Bernhardson suggested it would be appropriate for the preparation of informational brochures to begin. He advised Council that the approximate cost of preparing the brochure would be $1,500, and the cost to produce and distribute it throughout the Community would also be approximately $1,500. Bernhardson asked Council to authorize the expenditure of approximately $3,000. It was moved by Butler, .seconded by Mayor Peterson, to authorize Boarman and Associates to prepare a draft brochure for review at the Council's July 8, 1991 Council meeting. All voted aye. Motion passed. The final City facilities issue Bernhardson presented for. Council's consideration and action pertained to the formation of a Design Committee. He stated that Mayor Peterson, and �Councilmembers Goetten and Butler -had expressed interest in serving on this. Committee, and asked that two members from the Planning Commission be involved as well. Bernhardson proposed a three - meeting schedule for the Design Committee. Goetten stated that Steve Wilson, who had served as the - 12 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #10)CITY FACILITIES FINANCING CONTINUED Chairperson for the City Facilities Citizens Committee, would make an excellent addition to the Design Committee. Jabbour stated that he would like to participate in the Design Committee. Mayor Peterson asked Charlie Kelley if he would be a member of the Design Committee. Kelley indicated that he would. Mayor Peterson also suggested Planning Commission members Maureen Bellows and /or Sara Moos. Bernhardson asked the Committee members when they would prefer to hold their first meeting. It was agreed that the first meeting would be held Tuesday, July 2, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., in a location other than the Council Chambers. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Butler, to establish a Facilities Design Committee with the following members: Barbara Peterson, Mary Butler, Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Charlie Kelley, Steve Wilson, Sara Moos, and Maureen Bellows. Goetten asked Staff to notify all members immediately of the date, time and location of the first meeting. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #11)HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Bernhardson reported that the June round of Highway 12 Committee meetings resulted in.the elimination of the Highway 55 and County Road 11 corridors. He added that he and Butler had done everything possible to stress the importance of eliminating everything but the existing corridor. DINDOT indicated that they would only accept the deletion of Highway 55 and County Road 11 at this time, based on transportation objectives, and asked the Committee members if any were opposed to the deletion of those two corridors. No objections were raised, and the two corridors were dropped. Bernhardson also advised that he had spoken with the Mayor of the City of Maple Plain, subsequent to the Highway 12 Committee meeting. He said, . "The primary reason for Maple Plain's position favoring a southerly corridor. is that they believe that option drops the most traffic count in the current corridor. Now that the northern corridors have been deleted, Larry*Dallam indicated that MNDOT will be looking at some of the sub - alternatives. Such as extending the south route around Maple Plain and tying it into the current corridor and Highway 6 to see if that pulls down some of the traffic counts to an acceptable =99� L. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #11)HIGHVIAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY CONTINUED range. That may satisfy Maple Plain 's" position.. In my opinion, a south by -pass around Maple Plain, tying into the current corridor,, versus it continuing south, should not have an appreciable effect on the traffic counts in the City of Maple Plain." Jabbour expressed disappointment about the City of Maple Plain taking it upon themselves to .design a highway corridor through the City of Orono. He said, "It is my understanding that the merchants in the City of Maple Plain are unhappy about the Council routing traffic away from them. The merchants have drawn up a petition favoring the existing corridor. I do not think we want to get involved with Maple Plain's business, but. I would like to see Maple Plain reconsider their position on where the corridor should go once it leaves the City of Maple Plain." Jabbour further indicated that he had received the letter from the City that was sent to all Orono City residents. He complimented Staff and Councilmember Butler for their efforts in preparing and distributing the letter. Bernhardson noted that included with his June 13, 1991 memo is an attachment setting forth the schedule of.activities that have and will take place. Council accepted the information presented by Bernhardson, and took no formal action on this matter. ( #12)LMCD BUDGET Bernhardson stated that the LMCD Board would be reviewing the proposed budget. Wednesday, June 26, 1991. He offered to draft a letter similar to that of the letter from the City of Tonka Bay. Bernhardson advised that the distribution of the proposed budget to the City of Orono represents an increase of slightly over 10% for next year. He stated that is due in part to a re- codification in the method of distribution, which.at one time was based on assessed value, and now uses taxable market value. Butler referred to a letter that had been sent to the LMCD from the City of Tonka Bay, and stated that she agreed with the comments and concerns raised in that letter. She said,. "It seems that the LMCD continues to increase line items in its budget, while municipalities are attempting to decrease these items. Many communities have reached a point where they are receiving little or no State aid. Organizations such as the LMCD, that exist at the pleasure of other governing bodies, would be well advised to be very careful of their budgeting process. It seems that the routine costs of running an office have a dramatic increase proposed. Those are areas that could be cutback rather than increased." - 14 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ($12)LMCD BUDGET CONTINUED Strommen stated that the concerns raised. by Councilmember Butler and the City of Tonka Bay have been taken into consideration by the LMCD Board. He added that it is difficult, however, to accurately predict the amount of office supplies that will be used in the upcoming year. The Board tries to go by past experience when making budget projections. He assured Council that the LMCD staff is very cost conscientious. He .agreed that there may be areas in which reductions could occur. and that the Board should be receptive to such recommendations. Jabbour suggested to Strommen that a considerable amount of funds could be raised if the LMCD increased its late fee from $100 to $200. Goetten informed Strommen that nearly all municipalities within the State are concerned about salaries. and increases are being limited to three percent or less. She noted that the salaries indicated in the proposed LMCD budget will be increased approximately 5 %, and questioned whether such increases are appropriate at this point of time. Strommen agreed with Goetten stating that such questions should be brought to the attention of the LMCD Board. Jabbour indicated (to Strommen) that it is not a .good practice to present the cities with a proposed budget, when in fact those cities have no means to do anything to change it. He said, "You are basically here on a courtesy call. The cities have no power of veto, and cannot take a position that the amount shown will not be paid. Somehow, this process 'has to be revised." Bernhardson stated that the cities have the right to appeal the LMCD budget once it has been published. Strommen confirmed that the cities do have the ability to make an appeal, but cannot veto the LMCD budget. He stated that there is active communication between the LMCD cities and the LMCD Board, and that the Board has been sensitive to the concerns raised by the cities. Strommen stated that over the course of the three years he has been involved with the LMCD. only three city councils have raised periodic questions regarding the budget, which reflects a general, overall satisfaction with the budget on the part of the cities. Mayor Peterson noted that Milfoil effort include $170,000 Strommen what will happen in the meet that goal. the budgeted revenues for the from public agencies. She asked event the public agencies do not Strommen replied, "In that case, the LMCD would come back to 15 - 1. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #12)LMCD BUDGET CONTINUED the cities for input as to where they would `like the Milfoil program to go. Is it something that the cities could like to have continued, increased, contained, or abandoned entirely ?" Goetten asked why the 1992 budget shows no revenues generated from the private sector. Strommen indicated that the LMCD will .continue to solicit private funds in the way of a mail campaign, which they expect may yield $60,000 to $75,000. The monies received from private sources would be directed toward research of a permanent solution to the Milfoil problem, rather than the control program. Strommen stated that they may receive more contributions for private sources if people know it is going to find a cure. Callahan asked Strommen if there has been any feedback from the public agencies as to how much they intend to contribute. Strommen replied, "The-DNR has confirmed that-they will give us $30,000. The DNR had hoped to contribute more, but due to a lack of appropriations from the legislature, and the fact that the monies from the $2.00 watercraft surcharge will not be realized until next year, $30,000 is the extent of their budget." Callahan asked why the LMCD has not given consideration to keeping their budget at its 1991 level. Strommen again stated that would be an appropriate suggestion to make to the LMCD Board. He said, "The Board has not discussed a zero increase budget, but could still look at that." Goetten asked Strommen to pass that request along to the LMCD Board. .Jabbour commented that the LMCD Board has been more receptive to the ideas-of the LMCD cities, and that there has been more open lines of communication. He said, "My main concern is that, with times being what they are, the cities have to be fiscally responsible. We have to find innovative ways to cut costs. Has the LMCD given 'any consideration to having a volunteer harvesting program? The Lake Minnetonka Homeowner's Association is anxious to participate with the LMCD. The L11CD needs to find ways to accomplish their goals without raising budgets, and ultimately taxes." Butler asked Strommen if there have been any efforts on behalf of the LMCD Board to lobby for financial support from the Park Reserve District or the Metropolitan Council for the Milfoil program. - '16 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #12)LMCD BUDGET CONTINUED Strommen replied, "We are receiving `in -kind assistance from the Parks through their harvester -and operator. They have supplied one harvester and a full time operator for the entire 50 days of the program. We also have - the benefit of computer assistance and data recording-which they have been providing for three years. The harvester and operator have been donated for the past two years." Butler stated that Lake Minnetonka is a resource used by persons from all over the Metropolitan area, not just from the 14 communities surrounding it. She asked, "Why is the LMCD not beating the bushes to capitalize on the.fact that agencies have told us, on no uncertain *terms, that the Lake is of Metropolitan significance? If .such is the case, then why is the LMCD not receiving financial support from the entire Metropolitan area to help fight the Milfoil that limits the use of this resource ?" Strommen stated that it was determined from a survey done by the LMCD that approximately 92% of the people that use Lake Minnetonka, reside within Hennepin County." Butler commented that there are many, many people living in Hennepin County, and if each one were asked to give a dollar for the Milfoil program, it would eliminate the funding problems. Jabbour stated that he did not understand how Hennepin County could pass an 11% budget increase that did not include funding for the Milfoil to which they contributed last year. Callahan asked Strommen if the LMCD pays for the services of the Hennepin County Water Patrol. Strommen replied, "The Water Patrol is funded by the County, and State subsidies. The total budget for Water Patrol is in the $450,000 range. We get approximately 80% of the dater Patrol's service time, which is a major contribution on the law enforcement that is in the County in that regard." Callahan asked if there are allocations within the proposed budget for increasing safety on the lake, and educational programs for boaters, etc. Strommen stated that boater safety education is part of the Lake Management Plan.- He said, "The boater education campaign that is going on at this time is a distribution of the summer rules which contains highlights of all of the ordinances governing behavior on the lake,' and how to properly conduct boating practices. That information was mailed out to all lakeshore residents, and a copy is kept at all the access boxes." Callahan asked if there have been attempts to .get additional - 17 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #12 -)LMCD BUDGET CONTINUED water patrol on - -the lake. Strommen replied, "Not at this time, though that is one of the objectives to secure." Council thanked Gene Strommen for his time. Bernhardson indicated that a letter would be sent to the LMCD Board expressing the concerns and recommendations of the Orono City Council. Council took no formal action on this item. ( #13)LAKE USE COMMITTEE Bernhardson informed Council that the Lake Use Committee has scheduled -a meeting for June 27, 1991, where they will discuss shoreland regulations and the draft mission statement. He, noted that he recently learned that the DNR will submit the City's grant agreement after the first of July, for the appropriate signatures. Council accepted the information presented by Staff, and took no action. ( #14)1992 BUDGET PROCESS Bernhardson provided Council with information pertaining to initial estimates for budget consideration, as well as a proposed budget process. Council accepted the information as presented, and took no formal action. ( 115)1990 AUDIT REPORT Bernhardson asked Council if they would like to have a representative from Malloy, Karnowski & Co. attend a Council meeting to answer questions about -the. 1990 audit. It was Council's consensus that there is no need to ask a representative to attend an upcoming Council meeting. No formal action was taken. ( #16)LIQUOR LICENSE REVIEW The June 20, 1991 memo prepared by Mark Bernhardson, presented Council with information pertaining to a revised policy for hearing issues related to liquor license suspension. The memo outlined four methods of addressing a liquor license review. Bernhardson recommended alternative #3, which involves the selection. of an in -house individual to serve as the Hearing Officer. It was moved by Butler, seconded -by Jabbour, to adopt - 18-- 11 .61 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD'JUNE 24, 1991 ( #16)LIQUOR LICENSE REVIEW CONTINUED procedure 011 as outlined in Attachment "A" of Bernhardson's June 20, 1991 memo. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #17)SEWER POND LEVEL - PERMIT REQUEST Bernhardson* reported that Staff is in the process of submitting a permit to the Department of Natural Resources to establish a level in the pond. He referred Council to his June 12, 1991 memo which outlined the historical events pertaining to the pond. After speaking to representatives from the DNR,-it is Staff's recommendation that a level of three feet above the lowest point is sufficient to sustain wildlife, while minimizing the City's liability. The permit would be subject to certain conditions that would allow the City to drain the, pond if problems occur. Draining would only occur in conjunction with permission from the DNR. Jabbour stated that he has have indicated. that the City compost site. He asked Staff if spoken to several residents who has been using the pond for a this is true. Gerhardson answered in the affirmative. George Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road South, .distributed pictures of the sewer pond before and after the City drained it. He stated that the' pond had been very deep and was used by.a large number of water fowl. Mr. Hust also provided a photograph of the compost pile situated on the property. He advised that the DNR became involved with this issue at the request of Brad Peterson, and they were extremely concerned about the condition of the pond. Callahan indicated that the City should submit the permit to the DNR asking permission to increase the water level in the pond. He stated that two of the Park Commission members have discussed the pond level with him. Callahan said, "It seems to me that we ought to request a six foot level, rather than three feet. That does not mean the pond must be filled to six feet, but could be if we find that more desirable. While we are waiting for a response from the DNR, we can review the report from the Park Commission regarding their recommendations for the pond." Goetten inquired as to the size of the pond. Brad Peterson, 2160 Shevlin, stated that' the pond is seven acres. Mr. Peterson has - resided in the area of the sewer pond for. some time and offered to give Council a brief description of what has .transpired since the pond was created. He stated that the pond was used for 20 years by the City to take the, sewage from the area, but was abandoned when the area hooked into the Metropolitan Waste system. The pond sat in an abandoned state - 19 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #17)SEWER POND LEVEL._CONTINUED for approximately 13 years, during which time the water level fluctuated between four to six feet. Mr. Peterson commented that at one point a beaver had constructed a dam in the pond and completely closed off the weir. The City decided to remove the beaver dam and started disposing of yard wastes in a small corner. The following year that area was expanded, and harvested Milfoil was also deposited on the site. He indicated that it was at that point that. he, George Hust, and Mike Ellis became involved. Mr. Peterson stated that he has done a lot of research and has been working-with the DNR over the last three or four months. He said, "It comes down to two things: The City of Orono can no longer dump in that pond because it is classified as a protected water, which is different than a protected wetland. It is considered in. the same classification as French Lake and Lake Minnetonka. Ceil Strauss, from the DNR, advised that no more dumping could occur, but she could not require that a certain level of water had to be maintained in the pond because the DNR has no jurisdiction for water levels above the Ordinary High Water Mark. We learned however, that the level of the pond can be controlled due to the Ordinary High Water Mark established during the 13 years when the pond was abandoned. You can see by looking around the perimeter of the pond, there are tree lines and grasses that vary from the water vegetation. We had both the DNR hydrologist and wildlife personnel visit the pond. The wildlife people suggested that a level of three or four feet would be sufficient. • We felt that was better than nothing and did not wish to push the issue. If the City decides to raise the level to five or six feet, that would be better. There are migratory waterfowl that use the pond, and they require much deeper water. I would also like to see that the permit from the DNR has an established time limit for the City to remove the snow fence and rubbish." Bernhardson reiterated the potential liability problem for the City if the level of the pond exceeds three feet.. He suggested if it is Council's wish to exceed three feet, that submission of the permit be delayed -until further information and recommendations from the Park Commission and /or other experts can be reviewed to determine an appropriate level. In the interim, the water level of the pond would continue to naturally increase or decrease. Goetten. indicated that she would like to review the information from the Park Commission before making a decision about the water level. Butler cautioned Council to be :attentive to the issue involving the City's liability in relation to the depth of the water. She said, "On the other hand, I would be very receptive to whatever information we may receive concerning the most appropriate level for the pond from an environmental point of - 20 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #17)SEWER POND LEVEL CONTINUED view. The area is very unique and needs to be protected." Mike Ellis, 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road, stated that there are retention ponds located throughout the City that have more water depth than that of the sewer pond. Butler asked Ellis if there is currently water in the sewer pond. Ellis stated that there is approximately one foot of water in the pond. He added that just because the City may agree to allow a level of six feet in the pond, it does not mean that such a level will actually be achieved. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Goetten, to table this matter until such time that Council can review additional information from the Park Commission and the DNR as to the appropriate level of the pond. All voted aye. Motion passed. Callahan noted that Park Commission member, Susan Wilson, was present and could perhaps shed some light on the Park Commission's review of this matter. Wilson advised that the Park Commission had discussed this issue at their June 3, 1991 meeting, but that only five of the eight members were present. The consensus of the five members was that they would like to.have the pond designated as a natural wetlands area, but that the other three members should be given an opportunity to provide their input. She said, "There is definite interest in the area, and we would like to see the water level restored. The key use of the pond is by diving ducks, which require a certain depth of water. It was that element which made for a unique wetlands complex, which would be nearly impossible to duplicate. I am a member of the Nature Conservancy and have had the opportunity to see other wetland complexes in the State. This is one of the best I have seen. I encourage the Council to push for the additional depth. The diving ducks and migratory birds will come back." ( #18)SPATES AVENUE ALTERNATIVES In response to Council's request, Bernhardson provided information and sketches pertaining to various alterations that could be done to Spates and /or Railroad Avenue in order to reduce traffic levels. He asked Council for their input. Butler suggested that Staff should provide this information to the residents in the area, such as Dan Crear and Art Tourangeau, who had raised concerns and asked the City to address the traffic problems on Spates Avenue. It was Council's consensus that this information should be - 21 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #18)SPATES AVENUE CONTINUED presented to the. residents living on Spates Avenue asking them for their input. Bernhardson suggested scheduling a neighborhood meeting for the residents and City Staff to discuss the issue and the alternatives. Council agreed with Bernhardson's suggestion and took no further action. ( #19)PUBLIC /PRIVATE ROADS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, to table this item Until September, 1991. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #20)POLICE.CHIEF SCREENING Bernhard ,son informed Council of the upcoming meeting scheduled for July 2, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. which will be held to reduce the number of applicants down to a range of 5 to 7. He asked Council to determine which two members will serve on the screening committee. Mayor Peterson indicated that she and Councilmember Butler would serve on the screening committee. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to appoint Mayor Peterson and Councilmember Butler to the screening committee. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #21)1991 SUPERVISOR'S CONTRACT Mayor Peterson had requested that this. item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Bernhardson noted that his memo incorrectly indicates that a $20.00 increase in insurance would be $321.00, rather than $231.0.0, which is the correct amount. Mayor Peterson noted that the contract refers to long -term disability and dental insurance and she asked whether the.City is providing such coverage to its employees. Bernhardson stated that the City does not offer such coverage, but that the Police Officer Contract includes a reference to those two items. He said, "That provision would only come into effect when the City offers this coverage to its employees." It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Attachment A as the 1991 contract between the City and its Police Supervisors.. All voted aye. Motion passed. - 22 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ( #22 *)CITY ADMINISTRATOR GOAL SETTING - UPDATE It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Attachment A as goal setting for the time period May 1, 1991 to April 30, 1992 for the Administrator. All voted aye. Motion passed. (#23 *)EQUIPMENT PURCHASE-PA RKS.AND RECREATION It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the purchase of one 45 horsepower Toro mower, Model 345, for an amount not to exceed $9,770.00. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #24 *)RESIGNATION -PART TIME POLICE SECRETARY -SALLY CHRISTIANSON It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to - accept the resignation of Sally Christianson with thanks for a job well done together with authorizing staff to seek a replacement for the position to be brought back to Council for approval. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #25 *)CHIEF KILBO RETIREMENT - RESOLUTION #2977 It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2977, for Police Chief Melvin Kilbo on his retirement. All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #26 *)ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Leaf Street Septic Problems, Sandy Beach, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Tanks, 1950 Shoreline Drive - Removals, Highway 12 Damage Claim, March /April Receipts and Disbursements, and Wire Transfers. All voted aye. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett referred to information that had been distributed to Council under separate cover, regarding the current status of the agreement. He stated that he had heard nothing further from the City of Long Lake. ( #27 *)LICENSES It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the following license(s): Set Up Permit: Navarre Lanes,. Inc. 3435 Shoreline Drive All voted aye. Motion passed. ( #28 *)BILLS It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. All voted aye. Motion passed. - 23 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 24, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:50 p.m. All voted aye. Motion passed. T: Barbara A. Pet /erson, Mayor -Ni othy M. allin, City Clerk AZ' =