The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-23-2010 Council Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 8— Z3 "" �� L�COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Please complete the following information for Cify records. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. c �� 14-�-� �. �,,,� � .L r;� � 2. �� '' ,�-.�-�1 �� ... ,. __�_ _ � , ,r �... , -;� 3. `�-�-� '�,r� /+ � /? _.:, - � ��-�''�(-� � �;1/. /�-��-h,•�--21�-'- ' �� 4� -, ��4� J-� �,� � � '��>��G' ��^ -�� r'rt��1 ,(��-� ��- ;, , 5. �"'C.,�j1�,` �<}z�;��-�i G��E ��°>�;'�� L �. ' � �'f�^G.�,V G�". �`il �L JnC- / �L" ��:} ' �._ i / 6. L C %"'`" f.-u ',Lc �.� `l�J,I L,L J-C�C�4 ! � � t (.1 d"�f)�i� r 1 �,L 7. �'� ,f� �.�5�� ./'i�� ,�� l � � . ��.�, ,_ �'�_ $. /�"' �� '��i�� ,� � -,> L,�l< <��, � �- �� 9. � �l'�f ' ,��'j ��y�'� ,a� ��`� �ti' ��''rl� �l) � �, � � , � � � , t� 10. � � � I�/✓G-� ��+�. .u;,�f� � :�,�:y ; . � L� ✓ ..---� � 11. �� t'A' �L ``G �VL�-t'�a'1.c��. �� , � � � � "�� G� ' _.____" 12. .��'-G�� -='��'� _� � �C � � - � / ' � � 13. d'� �-- /� y -, ':� �� - �r'�- , �. � .. -��.. 14. ��,��'�tc�� -�� l Y' �� 1; -��'j , e� r � —� �,,^ ' �� 15. r � ��ti C � � l , � � ��r/ a � � �i V:1(LEGAL FORMS)\�FORMS�IPUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE �� -- � ��' � COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Please complete the following information for Cify records. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1 �r�'��' �= L l (.� )'L �t:��;'��?� /�./ti� ��-�%��1�i 3��'`'�'?' 'r-�. t �� , �� , , . ; , _ 2. �.�' � " � `� � � � �l �.� t� \� � k ► L� l.. �,�.� .�. - - � -- j ti 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\�FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 23, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Consent Agenda 1. Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes * 2. Regular Council Meeting of August 9, 2010 * 3. Council Work Session of August 11, 2010 Planning Commission Comments – Denise Leskinen, Representative Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report * 4. #10-3477 John Roedel, 4725 North Shore Drive – Variance – Denial Resolution 5. #10-3483 City of Orono – Amendment to Residential Zoning Districts to Allow Internment of Cremated Remains as an Accessory Use to Places of Worship – Request for Direction Mayor/Council Report City Engineer’s Report 6. Draft Old Crystal Bay Road Traffic Study 7. Street CIP 8. Award Bid – Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project 9. North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer City Administrator's Report 10. Tobacco Free Parks – Ordinance 11. Compensated Absences Fund – Resolution 12. Police Service Contract 13. Planning Department City Attorney's Report 14. Licenses & Permits Firearms – Annual Club Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 23, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us * 15. Bills Upcoming Issues and Events 2010 08/23 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 08/24 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. - Cancelled 09/01 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 09/06 – HOLIDAY, Labor Day 09/13 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09/14 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 pm 09/17 – Absentee Voting Begins for General Election, Friday 09/20 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Lili McMillan) 09/27 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09/28 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 10/01-10-31 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Mondays-Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. 10/06 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 10/11 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 10/12 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 10/18 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Cynthia Bremer) 10/25 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 10/26 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 10/30 – City Offices Open for Absentee Voting, Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 17 ROLL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White, Council Members Jim Murphy, Lili McMillan, Cynthia Bremer, and Doug Franchot. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Finance Director Ron Olson, Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Planner Evelyn Turner, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor James White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 4 was removed from the Agenda at the request of the Applicant. Item Nos. 8 and 10 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 26, 2010 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of July 26, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF JULY 27, 2010 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of July 27, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. LMCD REPORT – ANDREW McDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE McDermott reported that the DNR has found zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka at nine different locations. McDermott stated the zebra mussels have not yet gone through the narrows and are limited to the lower lake. A web site has been created by the DNR regarding the zebra mussels and they have also retrained the boat inspectors and increased the fines. A special work session for dock installers and people who service the lake will be held on Thursday at Tonka Bay Marina. The LMCD held an emergency session last Wednesday to discuss this issue. Luke Skinner from the DNR provided an update on the situation and what they perceive will be the growth of the zebra mussels. McDermott stated that zebra mussels will adhere to anything hard and are different than native mussels, which burrow into the mud at the bottom of the lake. The DNR is recommending to all the landowners Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 1 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 17 (LMCD REPORT, Continued) along the lake to check their boats when they are docked for the winter. McDermott indicated the winter freeze will kill off any zebra mussels that are located above the freeze line. The DNR feels the zebra mussels have been in the lake for a couple of years now. The LMCD also met to discuss the Carlson development in Minnetrista. This development has the potential to create 150 new boat slips on the lake. The LMCD was given a boat tour along the lakeshore of the proposed development. Murphy commented the situation is almost overwhelming in that the City and the LMCD will need to ask the boat owners to change their behavior and that the zebra mussels can create other problems, such as plugging up people’s inlets and irritation systems. McDermott noted hot water is required to sterilize the boats. Murphy noted there are links to the DNR web site available on the Orono web site. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – JON SCHWINGLER, REPRESENTATIVE Jon Schwingler stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 4. #10-3470 PAMELA WILSON, 3508 IVY PLACE – RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. 5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT/VACATION OF EASEMENTS Terry Schneider, Applicant, was present. Schneider stated they appeared before the Planning Commission last month, and based on the recent Supreme Court ruling, they have elected to revise their plans to eliminate the side setback variance. The building has also been relocated slightly to stay out of the wetland buffer. The wetland delineation report has been updated and the plat has been redesigned accordingly. The general use of the facility is designated as a memory care facility, which is different from assisted living or senior living, and will serve as a transition from the residential area to the higher density areas. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 2 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Prairie City Cottages will manage the facility. Schneider indicated they are only asking for approval of the front building at the present time but that they have designed the plat to accommodate two buildings. Schneider stated with the previous application for an office building, the City Council was inclined to rezone the land from the B-4 District to an RPUD, which will eventually need to be done in this case if a second building is constructed. The first building is basically a large duplex and will house a maximum of 12 residents on each side. Each unit will have its own bedroom, with two units having two bedrooms, and their own restroom. There will be a common laundry, dining and kitchen area as well as a caretaker’s area. There will also be a common secure back yard area. Both sides will share an LPN and an RN. Caregivers will be designated for each side. Under the original proposal for the office center, the B-4 zone required a 15-foot setback. A one-story memory care facility requires a 25-foot setback. Under the current proposal, the front building has been relocated 10 feet to the south and the layout of the building has been changed slightly. Each room was reduced by six inches and the dining area was reduced by three feet on each side. The bedrooms were reconfigured slightly. The width of the building was reduced by six feet and the depth of the building was reduced by four feet. The south edge of the garage was relocated four feet closer to the property line than what was originally proposed, which will help preserve some of the landscaping area. City Staff has been provided a considerable amount of information on the parking requirements for this type of facility. Memory care facilities are different from an assisted living facility in that memory care residents tend to be less active and traffic generally is less than an assisted living facility. A survey of a number of communities has been submitted to Staff which shows that the proposed parking for this facility exceeds similar facilities in other communities. The parking that is depicted is for both buildings. An elaborate series of ponding, rain gardens, and bio-filtration swales have been incorporated into the plan to ensure that the drainage will satisfy the requirements of the City Engineer. The current design has also reduced the hard surface by approximately 3,000 square feet from what was originally proposed. Final calculations will need to be done once the other civil engineering plans are completed. Schneider illustrated on the overhead the layout of the site depicting the two buildings and the garage, which will house the trash and recycling containers. The facility is basically a one-story residential appearing building. Schneider noted one of the issues raised at the Planning Commission was traffic on Shadywood Road, but this type of facility has the lowest type of traffic generation of any type of use for the B-4 district. White opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Bill Stoddard, 2605 Kelly Avenue, indicated he lives directly across the street from this site and has developed senior living facilities in Florida. Stoddard indicated he is against this project due to the location and type of business it is. The main reason for his opposition to this project is this appears to be Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 3 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) a means of combining the lots. It also takes a residential property and turns it into commercial, which is spot zoning. Stoddard pointed out the subject property and the residential property in question. Stoddard illustrated the residential zones that surround this site. Stoddard stated this use would change the residential character of Navarre since it is a 24/7 facility and would result in ambulances and police coming to the site routinely regardless of how well managed the facility is. This lot is the furthest south of any commercial property in Navarre. The best location for this type of project is close to a hospital or other commercial properties along Highway 12. Stoddard stated in his view this location is not proper since it is a residential neighborhood. Stoddard encouraged the Council to place restrictions against combining the residential lot with the commercial lot and to require the developer to work with the neighbors on landscaping. Julie Thomas, 2620 Kelly Avenue, stated they do recognize that this type of property is preferable to an office building or a similar use and that it will be a relatively quiet use. Thomas indicated one of the biggest reasons for her family staying in the area is because of the green space, the preservation of the vegetation, and a priority to preserve the wildlife. Thomas stated in her view a number of the wildlife will be lost as well as a lot of privacy. Thomas pointed out their house and the hill that is on the subject site. If a second building is constructed, the residents will be able to see into their house, which is a big concern of theirs. Thomas stated in her view the second building will be against the City’s philosophy to preserve distinct rural areas. Marilyn McClaskey, 2693 Kelly Avenue, stated she was impressed by Mr. Schneider’s presentation and the improvement over the last proposal they brought for this property. McClaskey indicated she has resided in high density areas in the past and that on almost every block there was a nursing home, a halfway shelter or a homeless shelter and that they got tired of people in the suburbs saying not in my back yard. McClaskey stated she does not have any concerns about locating this facility on this site but that she does not feel taking that large residential parcel and combining it with this lot would be a good idea since it affects the wildlife and green area. The small children in the neighborhood and other residents enjoy having some peace. McClaskey stated to destroy the habitat would be a great shame and would also reduce the neighbors’ property values. McClaskey stated in her opinion the combination of the lots should not be done. McClaskey expressed a concern with the second stage and how that area would be accessed by the equipment needed in order to construct the second building. McClaskey requested that the lots not be combined and the second building not be constructed. Janice Berg, 2655 Lydiard Avenue, presented a petition to the City Council in opposition to the application. Berg stated she is opposed to the project and that the residential lot should remain residential. The mass of the buildings is bigger than the church and the Snyder’s building. The Snyder’s building is 11,000 square feet and is now empty. Berg asked if an environmental assessment has been done regarding the wildlife and the runoff. Berg indicated she concurs with Mr. Stoddard that there will be traffic the neighbors will need to contend with. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 4 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Berg stated the City needs to take an in-depth look at the Navarre area and what they envision for it rather than doing spot zoning and reacting to various applications. Berg stated once the use is changed and a conditional use permit is approved, the CUP will stay with the land and will open up the possibility for a hospital to some day be located on that site. Patty Morris, 2697 Kelly Avenue, indicated she is a licensed real estate agent and that she concurs with the concerns already raised by the neighbors. This type of facility does not have a place in a residential neighborhood. Morris stated the issues are about maintaining the neighbors’ peace and quiet and the fact that it could potentially reduce their property values by approximately 30 percent. Schneider stated they have conducted a market study and that there is a huge demand for this type of facility, which is lacking in this area. This is a mixed use district. Schneider stated they would like better direction on the criteria for a residential planned development. Schneider stated they are well aware that they are subject to the Council’s approval for rezoning of the residential lot and that they will need to come back before the Council for the rezoning at a later time. If that is not approved, the first building will need to stand on its own. Schneider stated in his view they can do an adequate amount of buffering for the neighbors and they also have the ability to construct a building half the size if required. They are interested in constructing the whole building but will not be requesting that the lot be rezoned to B-4 with a conditional use permit. They would prefer to combine the two lots since there is no access to the rear lot. A duplex could be constructed on the rear lot but they would need to do adequate planning to ensure they have access to the rear portion of the property. Schneider stated it makes sense to combine the lots. The only zoning district that allows two buildings on one lot is the residential planned unit development. By combining the lots, the rezoning to B-4 is basically removed and the entire site will need to be rezoned to RPUD. As it relates to buffering, setbacks, view sheds, they are willing to address those issues with the residents at a later date. Schneider noted they have been attempting to get a compatible use for this property since 2000. McMillan asked whether their approach to Phase 1 would change if the lots were not combined. Schneider stated the optimum layout of the site is the two buildings, and if one of the buildings were not constructed, they may make the phase one building a little bigger. McMillan asked whether the bio-filtration is designed for both buildings. Schneider indicated it is designed for two buildings with the parking lot as proposed. The bio-filtration area may need to be scaled back slightly to allow for access to the second building. The square footage of the hardcover is slightly less than what was originally designed. McMillan asked if trees can be planted in the bio-filtration areas. Schneider stated certain types of plantings can be done around the perimeter of the bio-filtration area. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 5 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) McMillan commented the lot appears to be maxed out and that she has a concern about the ability to plant tree buffers. McMillan stated if all of the available dry land is used for bio-filtration, there will be a lack of room to plant trees McMillan noted the dry buildable consists of two and a quarter acres and that some of the hardcover calculations included a portion of the wetland. If the wetland portion is eliminated from the calculations, the hardcover is almost double. McMillan expressed a concern that if the use of the buildings changed in the future, additional parking would likely be required. Schneider noted the conditional use permit is limited to this use and that other uses would likely require additional parking. Turner noted that given the configuration of the parking, it would not be adequate for assisted living and that it would be the intent of Staff to make the conditional use permit specific for a memory care facility. Turner pointed out that approval for the second building is not required at this time since it is not part of the application. Franchot asked where the second building would be located. Schneider indicated the second building would be 50 feet from the edge of the wetland. Turner illustrated the general location of the second building. The wetland does extend onto a neighboring property. Turner stated there is also a clump of trees and shrubs that make it difficult to determine the exact location of the building. The majority of the vegetation is buckthorn and that Staff could take steps to ensure that no significant trees will be removed out of the buffer area. White stated the main issue is the two different zonings and having a business use located within a residential area. White stated it would be difficult to give approval to a second building given the residential character of the neighborhood. Turner stated she did request the applicant to have their surveyor depict all residential houses within 100 feet of this lot and that she was told the closest house is 175 feet. Schneider indicated they are willing to work with the neighbors on landscaping and screening. Franchot commented it is difficult when change comes but that in his view this is a good project for this site. Franchot stated the developer has been very responsive to working with the neighbors on view shed and that the Council does not have the right to require that. McMillan stated there has been talk of a trail along County Road 19 and that she would like to see an easement for a sidewalk or trail up to Lund’s. McMillan stated at some point the City needs to look at preserving a corridor in that area. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 6 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Schneider stated now is the time to plan a trail and that since they have a 35-foot setback, there is adequate room to integrate a trail. Schneider indicated they would be willing to grant an easement for a trail but that they would like to plan for that now if the City requires it. Curtis pointed out a trail easement is not required since it is not a subdivision. Turner stated Staff would also need to check with Hennepin County because the information Staff has received is that a trail likely would be beyond the right-of-way. White commented that Staff can look into that issue, and that the main issue is the combining of the two lots. White stated the facility will change the use of the neighborhood and that the Council will need to look very carefully at this application and its impacts on the neighborhood. White commented the owners of the facility will need to take extra caution with flammable materials given the nature of the residents but that the ambulance could shut off its sirens once it gets close to the facility. Bremer indicated she is not in favor of a second building and that she has a concern with the marketability of the structure. Bremer pointed out there is another memory care facility being proposed for the City and that she does have a concern that this facility may not be as accessible to emergency services as another lot. Bremer stated she would like to feel comfortable with the environmental impact as it relates to this facility and asked whether the current plan as drafted has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Kellogg stated there are some issues that still remain to be addressed but that there is sufficient space to handle the storm water and drainage. Murphy commented there are several stages of Alzheimer’s and that the need for residents of a memory care facility to have appropriate structure and quiet is extraordinary. Murphy commented this facility in his view would be good in this neighborhood but that he would not be in favor of the second building. Murphy commented in his view it is a workable project and that the fire department will take extra steps to handle this facility with care. McMillan asked if they are only looking at phase one at this time, whether the residential lot will be separated from the land area calculations and storm water requirements. Turner stated because the applicant is requesting to plat all of the land into one lot, the zoning would not change but that Staff would look at the entire property as one lot. At the time the second building is proposed, Staff would need to look at the requirements at that point in time. The residential zoning would not change with this application. White stated the one lot creates the bulk to accommodate the building and comply with the regulations. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 7 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Franchot asked whether creating a single lot would force the City Council to make a particular decision down the road in favor of the second building. Mattick indicated it would not and that changing it from three lots to one lot does not increase the applicant’s density options but would help to clean up some title issues. White stated he would like to see exactly what type of buffering would be proposed given the surrounding neighborhood. Turner illustrated the proposed landscaping plan. Turner indicated the front part of the site has a fair amount of landscaping but that Staff would recommend the row of arborvitae be changed to a hedge since arborvitae can get very tall and create a wall. Franchot stated in his view the neighbors would prefer a wall versus a hedge. Turner illustrated the location of the arborvitaes and the wetland area. A portion of the lot is somewhat heavily wooded and that in Staff’s view some smaller shrubs might be more appropriate than a row of arborvitae. Franchot stated the neighbors and the developer should work out a landscape plan rather than having the City require something. Turner suggested the developer put some marking on the lot that would mark the edge of the wetland and the edge of the building so the neighbors can get an idea of what will remain. McMillan asked if phase one were to be approved, what type of impact it would have on the residential lot as it relates to the grading and drainage. Turner stated that would need to be spelled out in the conditional use permit but that the landscaping and buffer plantings would need to go in. Some grading is required to have the runoff diverted into the infiltration ponds. Schneider stated he is willing to work with the neighbors on the landscaping and the phasing in of the second building. Schneider pointed out the landscaping will be more mature by the time the second phase is being contemplated and that an option might be to construct a smaller second building. Murphy commented the site can be cleaned up quite a bit but that there should not be a rush to rip out all of the landscaping at one time. White stated he would like to see plans drafted to incorporate the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to direct the applicant to complete the civil engineering plans for the first phrase. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 8 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Murphy asked how these units would be priced and who these units would be marketed to. Schneider stated the amount of required care would be intensive and that the average rates would be around $6000 to $6500 per month, which is comparable to a nursing home. The market would be elderly people who would like to reside in the area. McMillan asked whether building two should be shown on the site plan. Turner stated the applicant is required to show additional buildings when an application is submitted but that the conditional use permit will only be granted to the one building. Mattick stated the City Council is not promising or assuring anything regarding phase two and that anything to do with phase two will need to come back before the City Council. Stoddard stated unless the City Council is stating a finding of fact that the residential lot will not be rezoned, it is a little misleading to the residents and the developer that there is a chance it will be looked at in the future. Mattick pointed out the applicant is always allowed to make an application and that phase two is not before the Council tonight. Mattick stated the back lot would remain vacant until an application is brought before the City and approved. Janice Berg asked why the two B-4 lots are not just being combined rather than the three lots. Turner stated essentially it would tie up the rear portion of the property and that the applicant would not be able to do anything on the rear portion of the property without making it a separate lot. The residential lot will be maintained as part of this development. Bremer pointed out the residential lot is not being rezoned at this time. White stated there is no objectionable reason or factual presentation that says the applicant should not be able to combine the three lots into one lot and that the issue is the two different zoning districts. Mattick pointed out the applicant is actually losing some zoning rights by combining the three lots. Telford Thompson, 2636 Lydiard Avenue, stated acceptance of the use for this property could set a precedent for the developer if he gains approval and that in the future it may be very easy for him to construct the second building and make it all one piece of property. Thompson commented that precedents sometimes take the forefront and that the Council also knows that at times these applications are easier to approve after they have already been established, which is a concern he has at this point. Thompson indicated he does not necessarily want to have the entire property not constructed but that he would like it to be on record that this is a concern and could set a precedent for future increased development on that property. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 9 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Mattick stated the applicant is requesting construction of one building, which is something the ordinance already contemplates and that he is not asking the Council to change any of their zoning or regulations. The applicant is asking for something that is allowed under the current zoning and he is required to comply with the City’s ordinances. The applicant has also provided information regarding buffers and parking, etc. Construction of the first building does not give him any rights to obtain approval on the second building and that a public hearing will need to be held with regard to the second phase of the project. Mattick stated approval of the first building would not set a precedent for the second building. William Stoddard stated the neighbors would like the Council to quit referring to the two phases and have the Council not look favorably on the second building. White pointed out the applicant is not requesting a second building at this time and that the applicant does have the right to come back at a later time and request approval for the second building. McMillan asked whether a new landscaping plan will also be required with the motion. White stated the developer will be meeting with the neighbors on the landscaping. Julie Lonihan, 2565 Lydiard Avenue, asked whether Mr. Klingelhutz is delinquent on his property taxes for the three lots. Schneider stated he is not aware whether he has paid his property taxes but that all property taxes will need to be paid at the time the final plat is filed or else they would not be allowed to file it. Schneider stated he is more than willing to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. White stated as long as the neighbors are satisfied with the landscaping plan, he does not feel that Staff would need to get involved. Murphy pointed out that this application will need to come back before the City Council for final approval and that Staff will ensure that all the required components are completed. Rhonda Thompson, 2636 Lydiard Avenue, stated it appears that it is a foregone conclusion that phase one will be allowed and that there does not appear to be any consideration being given to the petition that was submitted tonight. Janice Berg stated in her mind this application was not well considered by the Planning Commission. Franchot noted he was in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and that in his opinion it was given serious consideration. Franchot stated everyone had a chance to speak who was in attendance at the meeting who wanted to speak. Rhonda Thompson stated she was in attendance at the Planning Commission and that she was disappointed at the lack of preparedness by the commissioners and the lack of questions by them. The Planning Commissioners seemed to rely considerably on the City’s presenter and the applicant and there Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 10 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 17 (5. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 & 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) was no evidence that the commissioners had read the information provided to them and they did not appear knowledgeable about the issues that needed to be addressed. Thompson stated in her view it did not feel like she was represented. White commented that the majority of the people on the Planning Commission and City Council have elected to run for office to address issues that they feel are important. White encouraged the audience members to consider submitting their application for one of the city council or planning commission positions. McMillan noted there will be a resolution coming back before the City Council. White stated the final construction has to match exactly what was approved by the City Council or they will not be given a certificate of occupancy. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #10-3476 DAVID NETJES, 550 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 5954 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5954, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Land Alteration per Section 78-966, for the property located at 550 East Long Lake Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #10-3477 JOHN ROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE – VARIANCE John Roedel, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant recently purchased the home at 4725 North Shore Drive. In 2007 a builder constructed a spec home on the property. Additionally, the builder made unapproved changes to the building construction plans which were inconsistent with the plans approved with the variance resolution. These changes removed a second story deck and potential grade level patio under the deck and added two floors of home to the footprint. The building permit hardcover matched the variance hardcover; however, the building eliminated an outdoor living space which the new owner would like to have. The applicant would like a 75-250 zone hardcover variance in order to allow installation of a 187 square foot paver patio. At its July meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the hardcover variance. Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable use of the property and the hardcover proposed is not supported by a hardship. Further, the applicant has not demonstrated that enforcing the hardcover provisions of the zoning Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. Planning Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variances for the project. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 11 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 17 (7. #10-3477 JOHN ROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Murphy stated he did review the property and that the vacant lot next door is a mess and has some erosion problems. Murphy commented that this house is beautiful but that unfortunately the Supreme Court limits the City’s options. Murphy stated this is the first applicant who has stated he would be willing to provide some cushion to improve the permutation. Roedel stated when they purchased the property, it was blighted and that they have not caused this problem. They have complied with everything the City has requested of them, including the installation of a heated driveway at a cost of $50,000. They purchased the property on April 28th, filed their application on June 22nd, and the Supreme Court ruling came out on June 24th. Roedel noted they did submit their application prior to the Supreme Court ruling and that they were not aware of the case before it until after the ruling came down. Roedel stated he watched the entire Supreme Court hearing on Saturday. In that case the one neighbor had a flat roof garage and wanted to extend it up 10 feet, which would block the adjoining neighbor’s view. Roedel stated their project is not going to block anyone’s view and that all eight of his surrounding neighbors are in agreement. Four of the immediate neighbors are in attendance tonight and are supportive of the project. The City Council should do what the constituents want as long as it is in the best interests environmentally of the City, which they will be able to demonstrate. During the Supreme Court hearing, Paul Chamberlain was asked if there wasn’t a flat roof and the property owner wanted to increase the height of the roof by three inches to improve the water runoff, how he would feel about it, and Chamberlain said that it would be smart thing to do and they would be in favor of it. Roedel stated they are not even asking for a three-inch extension but would like to make the ground more permeable and more ecologically beneficial. On July 23rd, he had the property set up with top soil to sod and then there was a terrible storm. When he looked at the ground following the rainfall, the land was like rock and all of the top soil had washed down into the lake. Roedel indicated he dug down 30 inches and the pictures demonstrate that the area is not permeable. Roedel stated he would like to dig down under the patio area and fill it with rock and sand to increase the pervious material. Roedel stated in his view the Minnehaha Watershed District would be an expert on this so he contacted them and obtained some information from them. The representative from the Watershed District indicated he is in support of what is being recommended. Roedel stated it is difficult to understand why it would be denied because in his view there should have been some type of grandfathering allowed for under the Supreme Court ruling. What they are proposing would be more ecologically beneficial and they did not cause the problem. Roedel requested the City Council approve their application. Roedel indicated they also purchased the property because there is an electric tram on the property which would allow his partner to access the lake. Roedel stated his partner has multiple sclerosis and that her doctor has recommended she walk on hard, flat surfaces, and a pervious paver patio would allow that. Roedel reiterated they have the support of the neighbors on this project and that it would be ecologically beneficial for the area. Franchot stated at the Planning Commission meeting the four nay votes were due to the ruling of the Supreme Court and that the tenor of the discussion was that this was a reasonable request. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 12 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 17 (7. #10-3477 JOHN ROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) White noted the variance is to add additional hardcover. White asked the applicant whether he could remove a portion of the driveway to offset the hardcover he would like to add. Curtis stated if he can do that and maintain the functionality of the driveway, Staff would not be opposed to that as long as it still meets the City’s minimum driveway standards. Curtis pointed out it was not a requirement of the City to heat the entire driveway but only a portion of it. Roedel stated with a heated driveway that is an incline, you can no longer have heavy trucks come in and that you have to hand shovel. Roedel stated he could have done just the incline but that he does not want to hand shovel the rest of the driveway. Franchot stated the question is what the City Council can do to remedy this. Bremer noted the City has turned away a number of people in similar situations who applied in advance of the Supreme Court ruling but Council denied their applications. Bremer commented there is a movement to change the law and that the ruling is probably not going to be a permanent thing. Bremer stated in her view this request makes sense and that three months ago this application would have been on the consent agenda. Bremer stated she is not sure how the City Council can say yes to this applicant but no to others since a majority of the applicants say that their project will improve their property. Mattick stated the timing of this application does not have any bearing on the Supreme Court’s ruling since the language did not address pending applications. Secondly, the prior owner used that approved hardcover area to construct a portion of the kitchen rather than the patio area. The question before the City Council now is if the original applicant were standing before them right now, would the applicant be approved for an additional 187 feet, and it is likely the City Council would not allow it given their hardcover restrictions. Mattick stated the applicant could comply with the original terms of the variance and if the kitchen were downsized, the patio would be allowed. If other hardcover is removed elsewhere on the property, depending on how the resolution was written, it is possible that they could allow the new hardcover. Mattick stated he has not watched the video of the Supreme Court hearing but that he has spoken with the attorney who argued the case on behalf of the City and that it is not a case of whether the neighbors agree with it or not. The neighbors do have some level of input but that neighborhood support does not guarantee approval of the variance. The Supreme Court has said with this recent ruling that when a city establishes provisions that govern zoning and there is a variance request, absent a showing that you have no reasonable use of your property, you cannot be granted a variance. If the City simply grants the variance, they would be ignoring the law. Mattick recommended the City wait to see what the legislature will do to fix the problem. Mattick indicated the question is whether the homeowner has reasonable use of his property without the 187 square feet of property. Roedel stated he purchased a home with three patio doors that had been approved by the City and that a logical assumption would be that he would be allowed a patio. On June 22nd, no one was aware of the Supreme Court decision and that it is a hardship for him not to have a patio. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 13 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 17 (7. #10-3477 JOHN ROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Mattick stated three months ago it is likely this application would have been approved on the consent agenda but that circumstances have changed since the Supreme Court ruling. Roedel stated they are talking about something that increases the value of the home and neighborhood and benefits the environment and is really not comparable to the case before the Supreme Court. Mattick stated the Orono City Council does review hardcover at significant lengths but that the City’s options are limited given the ruling. Roedel stated on June 24th the Supreme Court Ruling become public knowledge but he was not aware of it when he purchased the house. Curtis noted the applicant met with Staff prior to the purchase of the property and he was told at that time that it would be difficult to obtain a hardcover variance. The patio doors were not depicted on the plan at the time the application was approved. At the time the building permit was applied for, the patio doors were depicted on the plan and the building inspector approved additional pads for the landings, which was hardcover in addition to what was originally approved. Roedel stated he was informed by the building inspector that a 3 x 3 hard surface was a requirement and that he has complied with everything that has been asked of him. Murphy stated it is a difficult situation for the homeowners and that he does not feel comfortable talking about hardcover and what would happen if the City goes ahead and approves it. Murphy noted the City’s Attorney has said that the Council cannot grant the variance. White stated the hardship as defined under the new Supreme Court ruling is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without something, which is a very high standard. The City Council unfortunately cannot ignore the law and they cannot grant a variance unless the language is changed. Bremer asked whether the joint tram was ever constructed. Roedel indicated it was not built. Roedel asked whether he could give up the easement for the tram in exchange for the patio. Curtis pointed out the tram is located in a different zone. Gaffron stated the tram is allowed within the 0-75 foot zone. Franchot asked whether the Council could offset the proposed hardcover if he reduces the hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Gaffron indicated Staff has not discussed that option as it relates to this application. Mattick noted the tram is not included in the hardcover calculations. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 14 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 17 (7. #10-3477 JOHN ROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) White stated the City Council will not be able to approve the variance tonight and that he would encourage the applicant to see whether he can reduce the hardcover in some other location to offset the new hardcover. Roedel asked whether he can give up the tram in exchange for the patio. Gaffron stated the tram is not hardcover that is applied to the property and so therefore the City Council cannot use it as trade for other hardcover. Ms. Kellogg asked whether the entire driveway is included in their hardcover. Curtis indicated only the portion that is located on their property is included. Marilyn Crawford, 4745 North Shore, commented they were happy that someone purchased the property and improved it. Crawford stated they were living there in 1987 when the City received that terrible rainstorm storm and that their whole front yard went down into the lake. The neighbors would be very much in support of the patio. Franchot commented in his opinion the City Council’s hands are tied and that at the present time he does not see an answer to the problem. Bremer moved, McMillan seconded, to deny Application #10-3477, John Roedel, 4725 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT McMillan stated she attended the Long Lake public hearing on the police issue, and that one thing that jumped out at her was the fact that the reserve officers are part of the community and that the reserve officers help to strengthen the community. One of the Long Lake Council members had also commented that there is not much crime in Long Lake, which is in large part due to the prevention efforts by the police department. McMillan reported that Gabriel Jabbour accompanied Renae Clark out to Big Island to look at the vegetation and riprap. The vegetation is filling in nicely at the park and the trails look good. The public works employees will be out there next week to help with some minor cleanup on Big Island. McMillan stated the Big Island Committee will need to finish the management report. CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT Kellogg reported that the McCulley Road guardrail project has been completed. The overlay and milling project will be commenced next Monday. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 15 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 17 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *8. 2010 POLICY SERGEANT CONTRACT Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the “Labor Agreement Between the City of Orono and Law Enforcement Labor Services ( Local No. 168) – Police Sergeants 2010” attached to the staff memo dated August 9, 2010. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. REQUEST TO PAVE ROAD – FRENCH LAKE PRESERVE Robert Melamed, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the City is fee owner of Outlot A, French Lake of Orono, a major portion of which has been designated as French Creek Preserve. The road accessing the Preserve from Old Crystal Bay Road serves four existing homes plus the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sewer lift station and contains a small parking area for the Preserve. Because French Creek Preserve is a nature area, Staff is requesting direction on how to proceed. If the Council agrees to the paving, Staff and the City Engineer will work with Melamed on the appropriate pavement specifications. It will be paved only at the current gravel width of approximately 16 feet. Murphy asked if there are any issues with any of the neighbors regarding the paving. Melamed indicated the neighbors come in off of the asphalt strip and not on the gravel portion. The neighbors have been informed of the meeting tonight and have indicated in the past that they are supportive of the project. The same blacktop company that did the first section will be doing this work and he will be under the supervision of the City Engineer. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to grant approval to Robert Melamed to pave a portion of the City road serving French Creek Preserve as described in the August 5, 2010 staff report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. LIQUIDATION OF 16’ JON BOAT Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the liquidation of a 2003 Alumacraft MV 1650AW Jon boat with a 2009 Yamaha 25 hp, electric start, 2-stroke with tilt and trim, and a 2009 Shorelander 1400 lbs bunk trailer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None *11. LICENSES & PERMITS None Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 16 of 17] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 17 *12. BILLS Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: ______________________________________ _______________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James M. White, Mayor Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/09/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/09/2010 [Page 17 of 17] Orono City Council Committee of the Whole August 11, 2010, 6:30 p.m. Orono City Council Chambers Page 1 of 1 Present: Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Doug Franchot, Lili McMillan and Jim Murphy; City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Clerk Lin Vee 1. 2011 Budget Discussion Finance Director Ron Olson presented 2011 budget information, focusing on the General Fund and operating needs. Council discussed the impact of expected expenses and revenue sources, as well as the tax levy required to fund the proposed budget. Council is required to adopt the preliminary budget and tax levy at the September 14th Council meeting. 2. Comments Regarding Information Updates There were no comments. 3. Other Issues of Current Interest Police Chief Correy Farniok provided a recap of the meeting that was held at the Long Lake City Hall at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to accept public input regarding the provision of police service in Long Lake. The meeting closed at 8:47 p.m. ATTEST: ________________________________________ _______________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James M. White, Mayor Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 08/11/2010 [Page 1 of 1] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3477 [Total Pages 15] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 27] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Draft Old Crystal Bay Rd Traffic Study [Page 1 of 1] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 1 of 7] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 2 of 7] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 3 of 7] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 4 of 7] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 5 of 7] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 6 of 7] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 STreet CIP [Page 7 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Award Bid - Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project [Page 1 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Award Bid - Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project [Page 2 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Award Bid - Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project [Page 3 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Award Bid - Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project [Page 4 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Award Bid - Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project [Page 5 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Award Bid - Lift Station No. 12 Improvements Project [Page 6 of 6] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 1 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 2 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 3 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 4 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 5 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 6 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 7 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 8 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 9 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 10 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 11 of 12] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 North Farm Road Petition for Sanitary Sewer [Page 12 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 1 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 2 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 3 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 4 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 5 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 6 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 7 of 8] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Tobacco Free Parks Ordinance [Page 8 of 8] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Compensated Absences Fund Resolution [Page 1 of 2] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Compensated Absences Fund Resolution [Page 2 of 2] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Police Service Contract [Page 1 of 1] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Planning Department [Page 1 of 1] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 4] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 2 of 4] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 3 of 4] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 4 of 4] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 1 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 2 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 3 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 4 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 5 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 6 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 7 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 8 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 9 of 10] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 08/23/2010 Bills [Page 10 of 10]