The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-13-2010 Council Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE �-�3 - I b , � COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Please complete the following information for City records. _ PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (piease print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER �. �, ;�! �.. � � � � �'�11�'��.i =�'y L� �. . �r�!'—�-t' ,��-,; �� .� }�l , , ; � . 1 � � __ �1 ��E �' �� ;, '' , -;..r °� _ � �. 2. j t L!�_ � �� C-E`—� ' �-� � �` �`�f � 'lr� �L � 'v �l� L L_ i V�. /�' .�_� ° / t C't �, - _ � "� � � 3. � ��..1 `-�t� i.r � �'"�� " , ��, � -- ; �3 0 � �'� �,� ;,�, � 4. � f-c �% _ 5. ��v�� (v� ��' ��--i �-� ��-� 5 S �,� >yi�� `�� - ,, , � � 1�, ��. � , --;ty � c 6 � �� 1 L:, i� %/`,/ ' . ._ [ c � .� �' 7 : I;:>i��; c�f�' �' -� ...�- 7. ��`'•r'�.� � C�!��-il.. 5..��,`, J'l�.°i..��y �; � � _� J .JJ $. L 1�ra ��. �)�r �� i ��% � �=L< �,�� - �`� �� E 9. ��'%� 1 ' Li � � F '' ��.�( �I �� c� , ,�� ''`�� .�- ` � ---., , �o. 1��)�1.i. ��l� �-� �-f'� ��1 `� �� r,'�� Y��y� ,-� � � ��1�,� j' � � �� . , . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS�\�FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC �� Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, September 13, 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 23, 2010 LMCD Report – Andrew McDermott, Representative Planning Commission Comments – Kim Kang, Representative Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report * 3. #08-3381 Barry Tanner, 3435 Shoreline Drive (Navarre Lanes) – Extension to Open Bowling Center – Resolution * 4. #10-3482 Michael Gallus Construction, Inc. on behalf of Matthew and Melissa Briggs, 1985 Fagerness Point Road – Variances – Resolution 5. Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan – Resolution Mayor/Council Report City Engineer’s Report 6. North Farm Road Sewer Project A. Order Preparation of Feasibility Study – Resolution B. Receive Feasibility Study and Schedule Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing – Resolutions C. Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications – Resolution D. Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids – Resolution 7. Request for Payment No. 1 and Final – McCulley Road Guardrail Project 8. Request for Payment No. 1 – Willow Drive South Mill and Overlay Project 9. Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant – Resolution City Administrator's Report 10. Adopt 2011 Tax Levy and Budget – Resolutions 11. No Parking Zone on Kelley Parkway – Resolution Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, September 13, 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 12. Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation 13. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval 14. Liquidation of Forfeited Vehicles 15. Plans for Dedication of Lurton Park City Attorney's Report * 16. Licenses & Permits * 17. Bills Upcoming Issues and Events 2010 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 – Orono City Council and Orono School District Joint Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 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 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 18 ROLL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White, Council Members 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, 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 Nos. 8, 12, 13, and 14 were added to the Consent Agenda. Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 2010 Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of August 9, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF AUGUST 11, 2010 Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of August 11, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – DENISE LESKINEN, REPRESENTATIVE Leskinen stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Randy Gilbert, Long Lake Mayor, stated he is here before the Orono City Council tonight to remind them that the two cities have a lot of commonalities regardless of the decisions that were made last week by the Long Lake City Council. Gilbert noted that in November new members will be elected to both cities and at times there will be disagreements between the two cities. Gilbert encouraged the Orono City Council to continue their conversations and discussions to help ensure that the two cities continue to work together on various projects. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 1 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 18 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT *4. #10-3477 JOHN ROEDEL, 4725 NORTH SHORE DRIVE – VARIANCE – DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 5955 Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5955, a Resolution Denying a Variance from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288, for the property located at 4725 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 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 Curtis stated this zoning code text amendment would address inurnment or burial of cremated remains at places of worship in residential zoning districts by: 1. Allowing indoor columbaria as an accessory use to a place of worship; 2. Allowing outdoor columbaria, ground niches, and direct earth burial with or without an urn that is accessory to a place of worship with a conditional use permit. At its August meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the zoning code text amendment to allow inurnment or burial of cremated remains at places of worship in residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission recommended that the conditional use permit take into consideration appropriate setbacks, buffers, and a provision addressing the possibility that the property is no longer a place of worship. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney has indicated that columbaria must be treated no differently than any other nonconforming structure. Absent adopting an Interim Use Permit process, there is no method for requiring the removal of columbarium once the use changes. Before the Planning Commission made its recommendation, Staff had advised the Commission that it was not necessary to establish setbacks in the code but they could be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the adjacent land use. Subsequently the City Attorney has advised that setbacks should be established to avoid arbitrariness. Currently places of worship have a 50-foot building setback. Staff would propose the following minimum setbacks: 1. To provide for screening and separation from adjacent uses, a 10-foot setback from adjacent property for any part of the columbaria area other than landscaping or a fence/wall (without niches) of the height otherwise allowed. 2. Structures six feet high or less would be allowed within the remainder of the 50-foot setback. 3. A 50-foot setback for a structure over six feet or a columbarium building. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 2 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 18 (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, Continued) 4. Adjacent to streets a 20-foot setback for anything but landscaping and fence/wall (without niches). 5. Within the yard setback required by the zoning district, no structures over 42 inches high. 6. Between the yard setback required by the zoning district and the 50-foot setback, no structures over six feet high. 7. A 50-foot setback for a structure over six feet or a columbarium building. Council should discuss the changes to the proposal, particularly in regard to the need to make columbaria a principal conditional use and the inability to require that the structures be removed. Bremer noted she is a member of one of the churches that is present tonight but that the City Council is not being requested to vote on an application being submitted by any particular church. Mattick pointed out this is a city initiated application. Bremer commented that most everyone is aware of columbaria and that it is a fairly common practice throughout the Twin Cities. Bremer stated in her view Staff’s recommendations and the input of the City Attorney have addressed the concerns that have been raised. Betsy Lee, St. Edward’s Church, stated they are not actively working on constructing a columbarium at the present time but are contemplating building it at some point in the future. At the time the church was reconstructed, their plans incorporated a columbarium. Julie Zubay, 150 North Shore Drive, Trinity Lutheran Church, indicated they are also in the process of drafting a plan but are not ready at this point to commence actual construction. Dave Owen, 3486 Ivy Place, stated he is here to some degree representing Good Shepherd Church. The congregation is ready to construct an inurnment garden at this time, with the plan being to place the ashes in the ground rather than to construct an above-ground columbaria. Plans and agreements have been developed and a contractor has been lined up. The garden would be located more than 120 feet away from any other development. Owen commented there is a need for this type of structure given the fact that new cemeteries are not being developed. Churches that are now accommodating a resting place for remains are providing a much needed service to the community. Cremation is considered the final disposition of the body and the remains are sterile, provide no health risk, and are considered an ecological safe method of burial. Good Shepherd started this process approximately six or seven years ago. Owen noted that there are both in ground and above ground columbaria in a number of surrounding communities. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 3 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 18 (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, Continued) Owen noted Staff has raised two issues regarding this project, with one of the issues being setbacks. Good Shepherd’s intention is to construct an in ground inurnment garden and they were wondering if those setbacks would apply. Owen noted that Staff’s report only addresses columbaria. Curtis stated the intent is for a minimum for a 10-foot setback for an above-ground or in ground columbaria. Owen indicated their church has five to six funerals a year and that approximately three to four of those would result in the remains being buried on church grounds. Owen stated their inurnment garden would be very low impact and that they currently hold church picnics that have a larger impact on the neighbors than what this project would entail. Owen encouraged the City Council to approve the zoning text amendment. Judy Starkey asked as it relates to Orono’s zoning laws, whether it would be permissible to take human remains and scatter them about the grounds. Mattick indicated he is not aware of any regulation that would prevent that. Starkey stated the second issue relates to a pet memorial garden that they currently have and they encourage their members to have their pet’s name put on a brick located in the memorial garden and to scatter the ashes within the garden. Starkey asked whether that could be done with the pet remains. Their church has discussed placing an urn where the pet remains could be placed. Mattick stated people are allowed to scatter cremated remains on their own private property but that if churches are encouraging people to scatter remains on church property, there are zoning regulations against that. Mattick stated he is not aware of whether pet remains can be placed in an urn on church property under current zoning laws. Loren Davis, Pastor of Good Shepherd, stated he has been asked in the past whether a tree could be planted on church property and the remains of a church member buried underneath it, which is what started this conversation five to six years ago. Davis stated in his opinion there should be an ordinance regulating this since more people are choosing cremation versus the full body burial and that concerns regarding the remains have been raised. Good Shepherd currently has three sets of cremains in their safe at the church. Davis encouraged the City Council to continue with this process. Davis noted there is a church in Mound that has a garden that allows for the placement of cremains and that Good Shepherd would like to accommodate that need. Davis indicated they would like to construct the garden in a wooded area to allow for privacy. Zubay stated their process started in much the same way as Good Shepherd and that they also are storing remains at their church while they are undergoing this process. Zubay indicated the committee has done some research and visited other columbarium. Trinity Lutheran Church has drafted a 12-page contract Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 4 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 18 (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, Continued) which outlines what is and is not included with this service. That information is available for review by the City. White requested the information be sent to Staff. McMillan stated one of her concerns is the initial burying of the remains but that the perpetuity of the church is also important. McMillan stated it is important the relatives know there is some type of permanency to this type of care and that urns offer more portability should the church relocate. McMillan stated her other concern was the need for a setback and that a 50-foot setback in her view is important since there will be some visitors to the site. Franchot stated his primary concern is the permanency of the church and that there needs to be some consideration given to that. Franchot asked as it relates to McMillan’s support of the 50-foot setback, whether she feels that should apply to both columbaria and gardens. McMillan stated in her view it should apply to any structure either in ground or above ground but not apply to any landscaping. Franchot noted that stance is different from Staff’s recommendation. Franchot stated there should be some type of setback but that he does not see the need for a 50-foot setback. Bremer commented she can understand Council Member McMillan’s concern for a 50-foot setback but that in her view it would depend on the layout of the columbaria and the specific property. Bremer indicated she does not have a definite setback in mind. Bremer commented the memorial garden in Mound is very understated and beautiful with very few visitors. Bremer stated she does not see this as being a high impact type use and that a 50-foot setback may not be necessary. White stated in his view the City Council should proceed forward with the zoning text amendment and that a 50-foot setback is probably not necessary. White recommended the language incorporated in the contracts drafted by the churches be included in the zoning text amendment to address the concerns regarding permanency. White recommended the proposed language be sent back to the Planning Commission for their input as well. Mattick pointed out this could be a stand-alone use and asked whether the Council would like them physically connected to the church. Mattick also pointed out that there is no mechanism to make the columbaria structure be removed should the church relocate. In terms of the gardens where the ashes are sprinkled on the ground, there would be nothing to remove. Franchot stated the main issue is if the church relocates and asked whether there will be a way under a conditional use permit to address the relocation of a church and the columbaria. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 5 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 18 (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, Continued) Mattick stated you cannot sunset the conditional use permit or require the removal of the columbaria. Mattick stated if the City Council has concerns about the possible removal of the columbaria at some point in the future, Staff would need to look at that further. Bremer stated the permanency would be part of the record for each property even if the church no longer existed. Bremer stated she has less of a concern since they are not actual bodily remains but rather ashes. Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to direct Staff to draft a zoning code text amendment to address inurnment and/or burial of cremated remains at places of worship and to send it back to the Planning Commission for their review. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT This item follows Item No. 10. 10. TOBACCO FREE PARKS – ORDINANCE NO. 78, THIRD SERIES Loftus stated the Youth in Action group at the Orono High School previously presented a policy proposal for tobacco-free parks and that an ordinance has been drafted for Council review. Bremer asked if the students have had a chance to review the motion. Karissa Wentzel, Program Coordinator, indicated that they have had a chance to review the proposed ordinance and that they have communicated back and forth with the Orono police chief concerning the policy. The students do not have any concerns regarding the ordinance. McMillan moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 78, Third Series, an Ordinance Adding Chapter 51 to Title V, Public Protections, of the Orono City Code Concerning the Orono Tobacco-Free Parks and Workplaces Act. Franchot complimented the students on their fine work and efforts in compiling all the information and presenting it to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Franchot stated he spent some time at the Fox Road/Brown Street intersection and that the no snowmobiling sign no longer exists at that location and should be replaced. Franchot stated he also would suggest that the City consider having that intersection changed to a four-way stop sign rather than a two-way stop given the speed of the traffic on Brown Road. White noted tomorrow night’s work session has been cancelled. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 6 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 18 CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT *8. AWARD BID – LIFT STATION NO. 12 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to award Lift Station 12 Improvements Project to Landwehr Construction, Inc., in the amount of $132,955.50. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 9. NORTH FARM ROAD PETITIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER Kellogg stated last week on Thursday the City received a petition from some of the North Farm Road residents for the Council’s consideration to install sanitary sewer to serve their neighborhood. A neighborhood meeting was held previously regarding the contemplated improvements. The petition process is what has been followed on previous sanitary sewer projects servicing the Myrtelwood, Farview, and Jamestown Road neighborhoods. In these previous projects, the sewer was constructed as a City project and the total project cost was assessed to the neighborhood on a per lot basis. The North Farm Road neighborhood has a total of nine buildable lots. Kellogg noted that typically these projects are fully funded and assessed to the neighborhood. Three property owners have indicated they are willing to sign the petition once they get clarification on when they would be required to hook up to City sewer and water. If those property owners sign the petition, there would then be seven properties interested in sanitary sewer. Kellogg recommended the City follow up with the inspector to get clarification on his position regarding hookups. Gaffron stated there are four or five types of systems, such as compliant, noncompliant, and failing. Each one of those definitions has a different trigger for when a hookup is required. A question mark is whether, when you do an addition to your house that increases the water use or perhaps doesn’t increase the water use, if that property owner would be required at that time to connect to city sewer. Gaffron noted all of the houses in this neighborhood are within the shore land overlay district and if they have a system that does not meet the 3-foot setback, they would have to upgrade by 2011. Gaffron stated he does not know the status of any of these particular systems as it relates to compliancy. Failing systems would need to connect immediately. Gaffron concurred that when systems are required to be hooked up should be clarified. White asked if any of the residents in attendance have replaced their systems recently. Patty Bartholomew stated city sanitary sewer came up as an issue following the passing of her parents, Joe and Sue Offerman. As they were in the process of selling the property, prospective buyers have raised questions regarding the septic system. Three of the neighbors have installed new septic systems within the last few years and they are not interested in connecting up to city sanitary sewer. Those property owners would like some reassurance that they will not be forced to connect up in the near future. Gaffron indicated Staff would need to get clarification but that it is his belief they would not need to connect unless their system starts to fail or if the system does not have sufficient capacity. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 7 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 18 9. NORTH FARM ROAD PETITIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, Continued Franchot noted the City would require the septic system to be inspected and possibly upgraded if they add on to their house. McMillan noted property owners are allowed to pay their assessment up front even if they do not connect immediately. Gaffron noted the cost to connect to sewer would be significant since they would all be individual grinder systems. Bremer commented the shore land district is an important district to ensure that all septic systems are in compliance. Bartholomew asked the City to consider the possibility of this property and the Perkins property hooking up through the easement. Bartholomew stated if other residents eventually decided to hook up, it could be an extension off of that stub. Kellogg noted the City did create a policy regarding individual connections versus neighborhood connections. Gaffron stated it is the City’s intent to avoid additional individual connections to the City sewer system whenever a neighborhood project makes more sense. There are a number of cul-de-sac neighborhoods throughout the city where it would be possible for the end house to connect to the city sewer system but the City has adopted a policy that says that type of property cannot connect to the city sewer until the whole neighborhood connects. Bartholomew stated they would be forced to remove a number of trees and the value of the property would be diminished if they are required to have a mound system installed. Kellogg stated the Offerman property is on the market currently and is unsalable in its current condition. If they are interested in connecting up with city sewer, the City is running out of time to prepare plans and obtain bids prior to the winter. The next step in the process would be to prepare a feasibility report and then prepare plans and specs. If a feasibility study is not done in the very near future, the project would not be able to be commenced until next spring. Bremer stated she would be comfortable if seven out of the nine agree to the project but that she is not comfortable with four out of nine. Kellogg stated they would bring the feasibility study before the City Council at their next meeting, and in the event there are still only four signators, the City Council would still have the option to not proceed forward with the project. Kellogg noted the feasibility study would be good for four or five years. Franchot requested that the City’s septic inspector call each of the property owners to verify the functionality of the septic systems and determine whether they will be required to hook up to city sewer. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 8 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 18 9. NORTH FARM ROAD PETITIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, Continued Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to authorize the preparation of a feasibility report for North Farm Road, and to direct the City’s septic inspector to contact the various property owners to verify the compliance of their system. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6. DRAFT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY Kellogg stated the City Council previously authorized the preparation of a traffic study to review pedestrian and vehicular issues along Old Crystal Bay Road between Old Highway 12 and County Road 6. The draft study has been completed and addresses traffic counts and other issues associated with the school and roadway. Kellogg indicated their office and Staff have developed a good relationship with the school on this project. Kellogg indicated the next step in the process is to prepare a feasibility report that will identify such things as project feasibility, estimated base project costs, optional project costs, right-of-way needs, storm water improvements, utility improvements, etc. In order to stay on schedule and try to have a bid set ready by early 2011, work must begin on the feasibility study in the near future. Scott Israelson, Bonestroo, addressed the City Council regarding the proposed project for Old Crystal Bay Road. There are a number of issues associated with this project. Israelson indicated he did visit Old Crystal Bay Road while school was in session and have held a number of discussions with the school district, City Staff, and law enforcement. The study found that there currently are unsafe conditions for pedestrians, excessive congestion on the roadway, and right-angle conflicts. The main issue is the unsafe conditions, which are caused by frustrated drivers. Pedestrians also cross in unexpected spots, which creates an additional hazard. Currently Old Crystal Bay Road is posted for 40 miles an hour but there is also a 20-mile per hour speed limit sign for when children are present. Israelson indicated very few vehicles are traveling 20 miles an hour. The school district is dissuading students and children from walking or riding bikes due to the traffic conditions. Israelson pointed out the middle school on the left-hand side, the intermediate school on the right-hand side, and the drop-off/pick-up area. Making matters worse is that there are vehicles that want to go straight through but they are caught behind vehicles wanting to turn right or left. In addition, there are a number of right-angle conflicts given the number of driveways along the roadway, which raises the potential for collisions. One solution is to add a sidewalk to the west side of the roadway, which would make it more pedestrian friendly. The second option is to install a roadway median and streetscape features to create a physical or psychological barrier to prevent pedestrians from crossing wherever they want. Bremer asked if there is a concern that the pedestrians will still cross wherever even with marked crosswalks. Israelson indicated that is a concern and that the intent is to create an atmosphere where the students feel safe in the area designated to cross. A very clearly defined crosswalk would be needed. Israelson Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 9 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 18 (6. DRAFT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY, Continued) indicated they do not want to do something that is obscuring a pedestrian crossing but that they would want to limit the places where they can cross to something that is clearly signed and motorists are expecting. As it relates to the unsafe speeds, one option is to narrow the roadway to an 11-foot width and install curb and gutter along the roadway, which will make an uncomfortable sensation for the driver to travel at a higher rate of speed. The goal is to physically or psychologically bring the speed down. The last item is high visibility or high impact spots for pedestrian crossings, such as painting a ladder crosswalk. Signage can also be erected with blinking LED lights to be more noticeable, which are effective year-round. Alternative one is the lowest cost and has the lowest right-of-way impacts. This alternative addresses some of the traffic congestion areas by attempting to implement right-turn lanes and left-turn lanes at key intersections. At the middle school there would be a right-turn lane. If a motorist wants to continue straight through on Old Crystal Bay Road, they will be able to bypass those cars waiting to turn. The same thing can be done at the high school. This alternative will result in an improvement in traffic conditions but will not address the right-angle conflicts. There will still be left turning vehicles competing with right turn vehicles at the key intersections. Israelson noted alternative one is the cheapest option. McMillan asked whether the stop signs would be removed. Israelson indicated they can be removed. In addition, all three alternatives provide the option of consolidating some driveways or converting them to right in/right out, which will be looked at during the feasibility study. Alternative two will have the best impact on traffic operations by removing all left turns. Each driveway would be a right in/right out. This option is the most expensive. There will still be the right turn lane and bypass lane. If you want to turn left into the school driveway, you will need to go down to the roundabout and come back up Old Crystal Bay Road to the driveway. There will still be access into the City Council facilities off of Kelley Parkway. A disadvantage to this option, in addition to the roundabouts, is the fact that motorists will need to go down to the roundabout and then come back up Old Crystal Bay Road. Israelson noted they are proposing full size roundabouts due to the fact that they have tractor trailers and school buses that will need to navigate the roundabouts. They have arrived at a reduced footprint for some of the roundabouts. This option will help improve traffic operations by removing a number of left turns from the roadway and reducing the speed along the corridor. This option includes having one driveway that will allow access to semi-tractor trailers and school buses. Israelson noted the left-turn conflicts will be improved considerably over alternative one. White commented it also provides a pedestrian barrier. Israelson stated there can be an additional pedestrian crossing that can be provided north of the roundabout. Given the benefit and cost, they would recommend Alternative 1 or 3. Israelson noted alternative three provides the greatest benefit and safety for the cost. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 10 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 18 (6. DRAFT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY, Continued) Franchot stated he was unable to determine from the charts how many of the cars that were counted were there solely due to the school. Israelson stated they have noticed this is a roadway corridor that is heavily dominated by the schools and that there probably is minimal through traffic from Highway 12 to County Road 6. Franchot stated he did travel that road a couple of times and asked why this is being considered as a street. Franchot stated perhaps it should be considered as an access road for a large campus. When you look at it from a street perspective, there are probably very few cars that are utilizing the road and that the main use is to access the various schools. Franchot suggested perhaps they should look at reducing the speed limit to 20 miles per hour on a permanent basis. Franchot stated in his view alternate one is not a viable option since it will likely increase the speed on the roadway and does not really address the issues. Israelson stated as engineers they need to balance safety and efficiency. Without having hard data to calculate the number of through commuters, Israelson indicated it is quite possible that for 23 hours of the day that road runs fine, but it is that period of time in which people are dropping and picking up kids where there is a problem. They need to come up with a solution that impacts the safety and congestion during those problem times. Bremer asked if the pickup and drop off locations could be relocated since that appears to be a major part of the congestion problem. White commented it would be difficult to change how the schools are designed without major cost. Bremer stated people more than likely will not like the roundabout and that the roundabouts make it feel less like a school campus and are not part of the rural character of Orono. White stated stoplights would also address the issue or an under/over bridge for pedestrians, which would be costly. Israelson stated the issues on this roadway are complex and that a complete overhaul would be a very expensive solution. Franchot asked if it would be three times as expensive or twice as expensive. Israelson indicated he does not have that answer right now without having some input from the school district. They are looking for a cost feasible solution that will address the safety issues by maximizing the efficiency of the road. What is being presented are options that can be done within a reasonable budget and improve safety and operations. Franchot asked if alternate one would improve safety. Israelson stated it will help to a certain extent by reducing congestion on the roadway but that alternates two or three would better address those. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 11 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 18 (6. DRAFT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY, Continued) Franchot commented that children in this age group will exhibit some more risky behavior and that opening up that lane will generate higher speeds rather than lower speeds. Franchot expressed a concern that the City could spend millions of dollars without really addressing the problems. Franchot commented that in his view it could be made a very attractive welcoming place that is not a through street. White noted the high school parking lot is the one that is highly used and that there is adequate room to move that access. If the lot is relocated, it would remove approximately 50 percent of the traffic in that one area. Israelson stated currently students are parking along Kelley Parkway, which is a chief source of the pedestrian crossings. The school district has indicated that next year on street parking will be restricted. One option discussed with the school district is to force all student parking to the west side of the roadway. The school district does not have the existing parking available to accommodate that option. McMillan asked how much the school district has been involved in this study. Israelson indicated he has met with representatives from the school two or three times. McMillan noted this issue has existed for a number of years. McMillan asked if the school district has commented on the alternates. Israelson stated they have provided some preliminary verbal comments. Kellogg indicated the discussion regarding land has been pretty much limited to pedestrian crossings. If a sidewalk is added, it will be outside the right-of-way. The City will also need to look to the school district for their help on sewer and storm water. There currently is no curb and gutter, but once the road is widened, there will be no room for a ditch since it will take up all the right-of-way. Kellogg indicated they have not had any discussions regarding land for relocating parking. McMillan asked if the school start times are staggered. Kellogg stated to his knowledge the morning start times are staggered as well as the afternoon times. In terms of how the whole campus functions, there has been an attempt to centralize the drop off location, which may be an obstacle that will be difficult to overcome due to the layout. Kellogg stated the alternatives do not illustrate fully the ultimate access closures that would be accomplished. Israelson indicated the school district is willing to look at the location of their driveways and how that access could be improved. McMillan suggested access to the city hall be relocated solely to Kelley Parkway. Loftus stated the City Council should decide whether they are interested in pursuing any of the three options. Loftus pointed out that they have not met as a group without representatives from the school Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 12 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 18 (6. DRAFT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY, Continued) district being present. The school has indicated there are a couple of driveways they would be willing to close. In addition, the school district has conducted traffic studies and flow studies into their driveways and they are reluctant to change the access for the buses. McMillan asked if those traffic studies have been shared with the City. Loftus indicated they have not. Israelson stated the school district is very worried about the safety of the students and that if this was a more bikeable/walkable road, they would encourage the students to ride or walk. At the present time they are discouraging people from walking or biking since it is not compatible with the heavy traffic flow. Franchot noted all of the discussion to date has centered around changing the roadway. Franchot asked if this area were all a field, how the engineers would recommend it be laid out. Franchot reiterated in his view the through road acts more as a constraint and that they should look at this from other angles. McMillan asked how much wider the road would be. Israelson stated they are proposing two 12-foot lanes with shoulders, for a total of approximately 40 feet. A turn lane would add another four feet. Tom Fidler stated with a minimal median, you would have two lanes, a through lane and a turn lane. McMillan asked if alternate one would have a median. Fidler indicated it does not. Kellogg pointed out that since the primary funding source for this project is state aid, they are being held to certain design standards. If it is entirely funded through the state aid system, closing the road in the middle would not be an option. McMillan asked if the Council should provide some direction on which alternative to pursue. Kellogg stated as part of the traffic study, they were looking at the street concept and not at replacing the storm water, sanitary sewer, water main or landscaping features. Kellogg indicated they would like to get some direction from the Council to proceed with a feasibility report, which can look at one, two, or all three of the options and price them out. Kellogg stated they can break out the costs for a basic street design with the cost listed for each additional option. Bremer moved, McMillan seconded, to authorize a feasibility study for Old Crystal Bay Road looking at Alternates 1 and 3, and to invite the Orono School District to a City Council work session to discuss this project. McMillan recommended the city hall site also be looked at. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 13 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 18 PUBLIC COMMENT, CONTINUED Don Berkstad, 3585 Crystal Place, Navarre, indicated he owns lots 3, 4, 5, and is here tonight concerning a nuisance property, which is Lot No. 2, which adjoins Mr. Forester’s property at 3599 Crystal Bay. Mr. Forester distributed pictures of the lot taken this spring and noted that the property is in even worse condition. Forester stated in the last year and a half he has been having a very bad rodent problem. Berkstad stated he had resided on this property for approximately 20 years and that this property is not occupied by the owner. There is a renter that has been there for approximately 10 years. Berkstad indicated he has been in contact with the City via e-mail and phone conversations regarding refuse, trash, garbage, junk cars, bicycles, animals, and now rodents. Over the years he has seen rats, mice, squirrels, and raccoons enter the premises. The renter has a tent in his back yard that is obviously a nonconforming structure, which is full of trash. Each morning crows go over his garbage pile to pick at the refuse. Berkstad stated he has a screen porch on his structure that he is unable to use because this person burns his garbage outside and the smell is intolerable. Forester indicated the police have been there more than once. Berkstad stated this problem has existed for at least ten years and that it is a nuisance property. Nothing has been done to correct the situation by the property owner and he is not sure who to speak to about it. Curtis noted Staff has issued a notice to the property owner as well as talked to him personally on the telephone. Mattick stated they have stepped up code enforcement in Orono starting this spring and some of the early cases are in the court system at this point. The proper process is for Staff to take pictures documenting the problems, send a letter to the property owner, and if they receive no response, Staff refers it to his office for prosecution. The property owner can be prosecuted criminally. Bremer asked who was sent the notice. Curtis indicated a notice was sent to the property owner and that they have spoken with him on the telephone. The property owner has asked the City for help because they are having trouble with their renter. The City does not have a mechanism in place to help them at this point. The property owner is responsible for the property since they own the property. Curtis indicated Staff does not know the status of their rental agreement or any other agreements they have with the tenant. The owners do understand they need to take care of the problem. White asked if there is a time line for the property owner to improve the situation. Curtis indicated there is. Mattick stated Staff typically gives the property owner two weeks to respond and then a follow-up letter is sent by his office notifying them that they will be charged criminally if nothing is done within 10 days. If the property is being brought into compliance, no criminal action will be taken. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 14 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 18 PUBLIC COMMENT, CONTINUED Forester indicated the situation has been gradually getting worse, with junk cars on the property being filled with garbage. Forester noted vehicles parked on someone’s property are supposed to be driveable and asked why the City is not doing something about them. Curtis stated the City does not require them to start the vehicle and that it needs to look operable. Berkstad stated to his understanding the vehicle has to be currently licensed and asked whether it has to be operable. Curtis stated they look at the vehicle to see if it can be driven, such as having four inflated tires and the necessary parts. Staff does not make the person start the vehicle since they feel there is a liability in requiring them to start a vehicle. Mattick stated the City really has no right to require them to start a vehicle. If there is a violation of City Codes, they will be prosecuted. The City cannot just go on the property and start cleaning it up. Berkstad indicated it is a health issue. Bremer noted Staff did send a notice to the property owner and that if no action is taken within a short period of time, they can be criminally charged. Franchot stated the major issue appears to be the property owner versus the tenant. If the property owners are attempting to improve the situation, no criminal action would be taken by the City. Mattick stated the property owners are required to keep the property in a condition that is compliant with the City’s codes. Bremer indicated the property owners could evict the tenant if he refuses to clean the property up. White noted the process has been started and that he would recommend the gentlemen contact Staff to see when the deadline is for taking action on this situation before they are criminally charged. Mattick stated once this is in the court system, a remedy will not be accomplished overnight. Mattick noted it may take several months for it to get through the court system. Richard Qunell indicated there are parents and children that come down the street on the bicycle path and go through the stop sign without stopping. Qunell expressed concern that someone will get hurt. Berkstad noted there is no stop sign on Northern or Crystal Bay. Forester commented it should be a three-way stop. Berkstad stated you cannot see oncoming cars and routinely bicyclists go through the stop sign. Qunell indicated he has spoken with the police about it. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 15 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 18 7. STREET CIP Olson noted there were some questions raised about whether work on Willow Drive should be moved up to 2013. Staff has had discussions with the public works department and they have come up with some numbers regarding ongoing maintenance. The costs associated with maintaining Willow Drive until it is reconstructed is estimated to increase to $31,050 from $28,200, for a total of $59,250. Another advantage to moving the project up to 2013 is the current low interest rate environment. When Willow Drive is reconstructed, it will require an additional bond sale to fund the project. Selling the bonds now will insure that the City can take advantage of the low interest rates. A recent sale of local municipal bonds with a maturity of 15 years came in at 3 percent. One option is to sell bonds for Old Crystal Bay Road so the levy will not be affected. Orono Orchard Road will require approximately $1.4 million worth of bonds depending on the Metropolitan Council’s participation. As part of the Casco Point Road project, there was approximately $1.6 million of water and sewer work that should come out of the water and sewer fund, which will help pay for the bonds issued for Casco Point. Olson stated those two projects should have a minimal impact on the levy based on timing and the low interest rate obtained. Staff is currently working with Ehlers and Associates to update the City’s Pavement Management Plan. This plan must be updated prior to any bond sale. Olson noted the plan needs to be adopted unanimously. Staff would like to know what year the City Council would like to schedule Willow for improvement. McMillan stated she appreciates the research done on this and the minimal impact it will have on the tax levy. Given the current state of the economy, the proposed 2010 bond scenarios, the City is looking at a fairly significant jump. McMillan indicated she is hesitant to issue more bonds and that she would like to know exactly what the City’s property tax revenues are going to be. Franchot stated given the low interest rates and the fact that the road needs to be rebuilt in the upcoming years, he would like to go forward with Willow. Kellogg noted Willow Drive is a state aid route and the debt service would be paid by state aid. Olson noted the City would not have enough in state aid funds to pay for the entire project since Old Crystal Bay Road would take a large portion of the state aid funds. Loftus asked if Council Member McMillan is comfortable with leaving Willow Drive for 2016. McMillan indicated she is. Olson stated they can leave it in and remove it later or remove it now. Franchot asked what the likelihood is that the project would come in lower than expected. Kellogg state the cost of construction currently is low and that he is not able to say what it will be like three years from now. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 16 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 18 (7. STREET CIP, Continued) Bremer indicated she agrees with Council Member Franchot and that it would be more fiscally conservative to go ahead with the project rather than delay it until 2016. McMillan noted in 2015 the fire station bonds are paid off and that by delaying this project, the City will not have to raise taxes. McMillan noted the City has done road projects in a staggered fashion for a number of years and that she has a concern about attempting too many projects at one time given the poor economic climate. Bremer asked whether they need unanimous approval to take it to the next level. Olson stated they do not need unanimous consensus to proceed forward to the next step and that if the City decides to leave it in, they can make the final decision down the road, but that once it is removed, they will not be able to elect to do it in 2011. Olson stated the Council may have a better idea of what is happening with the economy in another couple months. White stated if the City is able to find savings somewhere, they should be able to move forward with the project. McMillan stated she is more concerned about 2012 to 2014. It was the consensus of the City Council to schedule Willow Drive for improvements in 2013 and to review this item in a couple of months. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 11. COMPENSATED ABSENCES FUND – RESOLUTION NO. 5956 Olson stated currently $375,000 is shown as a designation of fund balance, which means that the City intends to use this fund balance to pay the liability that is shown on the books. By creating a compensated absences fund, the City can fund this liability. The City does have a significant fund balance at the moment so this is an ideal time to create it. The City, at the end of the year, was at 59 percent fund balance as compared to the operating budget. The state auditor prefers cities’ fund balances to be no greater than 50 percent. The City’s overall operating budget will be decreasing by approximately $300,000 based on the decision by Long Lake as it relates to the police department. Olson stated the City should move some money out of the fund balance to bring it down closer to the 50 percent. McMillan moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5956, a Resolution to Create the Compensated Absences Fund, an Internal Service Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *12. POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the new police service contract with the Cities of Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 17 of 18] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 18 *13. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to lay off the City Planner position effective immediately and to authorize a planning consultant to support the department on an as-needed basis. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. *14. LICENSES & PERMITS Club Firearm Use Permit 1. Annual Permit for Trap Shooting Park Gun Club 3660 Sixth Avenue North Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the above listed permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *15. BILLS Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT McMillan moved, Bremer seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: ____________________________________ _______________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James M. White, Mayor Item #02 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 08/23/2010 [Page 18 of 18] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #08-3381 [Total Pages 3] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #08-3381 [Total Pages 3] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #08-3381 [Total Pages 3] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 File #10-3482 [Total Pages 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 1 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 2 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 3 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 4 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 5 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 6 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 7 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 8 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 9 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 10 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 11 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 12 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 13 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 14 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 15 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 16 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 17 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 18 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 19 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 20 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 21 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 22 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 23 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 24 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 25 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 26 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 27 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 28 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 29 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 30 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 31 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 32 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 33 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 34 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 35 of 36] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan [Page 36 of 36] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 1 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 2 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 3 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 4 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 5 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 6 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 7 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 8 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 9 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 10 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 11 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 12 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 13 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 14 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 15 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 16 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 17 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 18 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 19 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 20 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 21 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 22 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 23 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 24 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 25 of 26] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 North Farm Road Sewer Project [Page 26 of 26] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request for Payment No. 1 and Final - McCulley Road Guardrail Project [Page 1 of 6] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request for Payment No. 1 and Final - McCulley Road Guardrail Project [Page 2 of 6] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request for Payment No. 1 and Final - McCulley Road Guardrail Project [Page 3 of 6] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request for Payment No. 1 and Final - McCulley Road Guardrail Project [Page 4 of 6] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request for Payment No. 1 and Final - McCulley Road Guardrail Project [Page 5 of 6] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request for Payment No. 1 and Final - McCulley Road Guardrail Project [Page 6 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request Payment No. 1 Willow Drive S Mill & Overlay Project [Page 1 of 5] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request Payment No. 1 Willow Drive S Mill & Overlay Project [Page 2 of 5] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request Payment No. 1 Willow Drive S Mill & Overlay Project [Page 3 of 5] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request Payment No. 1 Willow Drive S Mill & Overlay Project [Page 4 of 5] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Request Payment No. 1 Willow Drive S Mill & Overlay Project [Page 5 of 5] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 1 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 2 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 3 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 4 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 5 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 6 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 7 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 8 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 9 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 10 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 11 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 12 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 13 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 14 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 15 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 16 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 17 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 18 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 19 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 20 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 21 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 22 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 23 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 24 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 25 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 26 of 27] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Authorize Application for BWSR Water Quality Grant [Page 27 of 27] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 1 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 2 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 3 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 4 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 5 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 6 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 7 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 8 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 9 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 10 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 11 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 12 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 13 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 14 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 15 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 16 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 17 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 18 of 19] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Adopt 2011 Tax Levy & Budget [Page 19 of 19] Department Approval: Name: Title: Item #11 - CCAgenda - 09/13/2010 No Parking Zone on Kelley Parkway [Page 1 of 3] ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 31, 2010 Item No: fV ` Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Correy Farniok Police Chief CY Item Description: No Parking Zone on Kelley Parkway — Resolution DISCUSSION: Parking is currently allowed only on the south side of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to the east edge of Public Works. The remainder of Kelley Parkway is posted "No Parking" except parking is allowed on the north side of Kelley Parkway in areas adjacent to Stonebay that have designated parking bump -outs. Kelley Parkway has seen a significant increase in parking and safety issues related to student parking from the Orono High School. Students are using this area to park and are creating potentially hazardous conditions due to the amount of pedestrian traffic walking in the roadway, vehicles stopping to drop off others at their cars, vehicles stopping to talk/socialize with friends, vehicles are parking in front of fire hydrants and obstructing entrance/exits of the dental office and creating limited sight lines for individuals coming to and leaving these businesses. This part of the road is also a primary route for emergency vehicles and public works vehicles. It is staff recommendation that the south side of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to the east edge of Public Works be posted as a "No Parking" area. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve attached resolution to have signs placed on the south side of Kelley Parkway east of Old Crystal Bay Road as "No Parking". Item #11 - CCAgenda - 09/13/2010 No Parking Zone on Kelley Parkway [Page 2 of 3] A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF SIGNS PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KELLEY PARKWAY WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal organization under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Kelley Parkway is a City street serving existing and future residential and commercial development, the City of Orono municipal campus, and the general public; and WHEREAS, the street is a primary route for emergency services vehicles and Public Works vehicles; and WHEREAS, per City Council Resolution No. 4915 adopted January 27, 2003, on - street parking is prohibited on all portions of Kelley Parkway abutting the residential & commercial portions of the development known as Stonebay except in designated parking bump -outs along the north side of the street, and is posted as such; and WHEREAS, the north side of Kelley Parkway from the west boundary of Stonebay to Old Crystal Bay Road has previously been posted No Parking due to the numerous driveway entrances existing in this section of the street; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that there are parking problems associated with vehicle parking along the south side of Kelley Parkway from the west edge of Stonebay to Old Crystal Bay Road. This parking is the result of students parking vehicles and walking over to the high school. Problems include increased pedestrian traffic in the roadway, vehicles stopping to pick- up/drop off other students, vehicles stopping to talk and socialize with others, obstructing entrance/exits to businesses, etc.; and WHEREAS, the large number of vehicles parked on the street severely limits lines of sight for vehicles entering and leaving the abutting commercial properties, decreasing the level of pedestrian and vehicle safety in the area. Page 1 of 2 Item #11 - CCAgenda - 09/13/2010 No Parking Zone on Kelley Parkway [Page 3 of 3] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby direct that both sides of Kelley Parkway from Old Crystal Bay Road to the west boundary of the plat of Stonebay shall be designated "No Parking", and further directs the Orono Public Works Department to install the appropriate signage. Adopted by the Orono City Council at a regular Council meeting held on September 13, 2010. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James M. White, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 1 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 2 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 3 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 4 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 5 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 6 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 7 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 8 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 9 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 10 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 11 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 12 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 13 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 14 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 15 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 16 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 17 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 18 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 19 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 20 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 21 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 22 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 23 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 24 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 25 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 26 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 27 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 28 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 29 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 30 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 31 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 32 of 33] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Program Participation [Page 33 of 33] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 1 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 2 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 3 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 4 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 5 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 6 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 7 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 8 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2011 Budget Approval [Page 9 of 9] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Liquidation of Forfeited Vehicles [Page 1 of 3] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Liquidation of Forfeited Vehicles [Page 2 of 3] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Liquidation of Forfeited Vehicles [Page 3 of 3] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Plans for Dedication of Lurton Park [Page 1 of 5] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Plans for Dedication of Lurton Park [Page 2 of 5] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Plans for Dedication of Lurton Park [Page 3 of 5] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Plans for Dedication of Lurton Park [Page 4 of 5] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Plans for Dedication of Lurton Park [Page 5 of 5] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 1] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 1 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 2 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 3 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 4 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 5 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 6 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 7 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 8 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 9 of 10] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 09/13/2010 Bills [Page 10 of 10]