Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-2001 Council Minutes• MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ROLL The City Council met on the above - mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Jim White, Jay Nygard, Richard Flint, and Bob Sansevere. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA ( #1) Approve /Amend Items 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 17 were added to the Consent Agenda. Items 3 and 4 were removed from the Consent Agenda. Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • PUBLIC HEARING — 7:00 p.m. ( #2) Use of Funds from Community Investment Fund Moorse stated the City Council had authorized Staff to purchase the property at 3770 Shoreline Drive at a cost of $235,000, plus the cost of an environmental review and the cost of demolishing and disposing of the existing house on the property. Moorse indicated the Park Fund at this time does not have a sufficient balance to fund 50% of the cost of the current parcel, and at this time is recommending to fund the purchase 50 percent from the General Fund and 50% from the Community Investment Fund. Moorse stated the Community Investment Fund was established to be used basically as an endowment fund. Staff is recommending that $120,000 from the Community Investment Fund be used as partial funding for the purchase of the property located at 3770 Shoreline Drive and that the Community Investment Fund be reimbursed over the next one to three years. There were no public comments regarding this item. Mayor Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Sansevere inquired what the tax impact would be to the taxpayers on an annual basis. Sansevere commented he does not want the purchase of this property to be a tax burden to the citizens of Orono. • Moorse stated in his view the tax impact would be very minimal. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 (Use of Funds from Community Investment Fund, Continued) Sansevere inquired what the possibilities are for the Park Fund repaying this money. Moorse stated the Park Commission is looking at replacing some play equipment in the next few years and would not have sufficient funds available to repay this money. Moorse stated it would depend on the amount of new development in the City, which generates park dedication fees. Moorse stated he would recommend the City look at bonding for this money as part of the next bond issue. White suggested the City utilize the proceeds from the sale of the front piece of property to help repay this money. Flint stated he is in favor of proceeding forward with the purchase. Flint moved, White seconded, to approve the transfer of $120,000 from the Community Investment Fund to the Park Fund, to be used as partial funding for the purchase of the property located at 3770 Shoreline Drive; and to amend the Community Investment Fund budget and the Park Fund budget to reflect the transfer and expenditure. Sansevere requested the proceeds from the sale of the front portion of the property be allocated towards the purchase price of this property and be listed as the first option for repayment. Flint noted the property currently is zoned residential. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ( 0) REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 14, 2001 Mayor Peterson stated she removed Items 3 and 4 from the Consent Agenda since she was not present at either one of the meetings. Nygard requested the name Nyberg on page five be corrected to read Nygard. Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 14, 2001, as amended. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0; Flint and Peterson Abstained. ( #4) RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2001 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Reconvened Board of Review of May 14, 2001, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0; Flint and Peterson Abstained. PAGE 2 • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 PARK COMMISSION COWNIENTS — Andrew McDermott, Representative McDermott reminded the City Council of the upcoming Park Tour on Monday, June 4, 2001, at 5:15 p.m. Mayor Peterson thanked Meyers and Bouchard for their work on Orono's lake access points. McDermott indicated Bederwood Park looks fantastic thanks to the efforts of the city crew. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — Bill Stoddard, Representative Stoddard indicated he would be available for questions at tonight's meeting. LMCD REPORT — Lili McMillan (1) Coffee Channel Snowmobile Access McMillan stated the LMCD did discuss their options regarding Coffee Channel, with the LMCD members being reminded of a discussion that was held approximately two years ago regarding this same subject. The LMCD at that time had checked into the possibility of bridges, with the • only bridge being available at that time was one that went from ice to ice rather than from land to land. McMillan stated the LMCD decided there was not a solution to this but would be willing to hear about any new technologies that may now be available to address this problem. Nygard commented in his view the LMCD should continue to take a proactive approach to solving this situation. McMillan indicated considerable work was done two years ago to address this problem and a solution was not reached. Nygard stated in his view any problem is solvable and the LMCD and the other cities should continue to address this problem. Nvgard suggested the snowmobile clubs in the area be approached and asked for suggestions. Nygard stated the people who are not from this area who utilize the lake need to be made aware of the problem with Coffee Channel. Sansevere concurred that the local snowmobile clubs be contacted. McMillan reiterated the LMCD is N; illing to look at any new technologies that are available today. McMillan stated there are also issues of who would finance it and maintain it. Nygard suggested that a floating dock system could be utilized, with the area being marked when it is safe and when it is not safe to travel through the channel. Nygard reiterated this item should continue to be addressed and that a meeting should be scheduled among various representatives of the different organizations. . McMillan noted the snowmobile clubs have not approached the LMCD regarding this item. PAGE MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 • (LMCD, Continued) Sansevere inquired whether the City has exhausted any land options available. Gappa indicated there is no land available for snowmobiles, with this area being filled with a number of residences. Moorse indicated he would be willing to schedule a meeting with representatives from the LMCD, the City, the snowmobile club, the Hennepin County Water Patrol, the City of Spring Park, and the person who has a potential design for a bridge to discuss this situation. Sansevere suggested that perhaps one of the editors of the snowmobile magazines be contacted to see if there is technology available elsewhere in the country. Sansevere commented the snowmobilers also have to have some common sense and personal responsibility. Sansevere stated the fire lanes are not an option due to the closeness to the residences. McMillan stated the best option would be to rebuild the bridge, which is not a possibility at this time. McMillan stated the LMCD is still willing to discuss this item if there is new technology available, but at this time they are internally unable to generate a solution. Sansevere noted the former mayor from time to time would head up certain causes, and suggested • that perhaps Nygard would be willing to spearhead this. Nygard stated he would be willing to help find a solution to this problem and will discuss it further with the City Administrator. Flint suggested the DNR also be contacted. (2) Update on Additional Water Patrol McMillan reported the costs for the water patrol would be 40 percent less than anticipated due to the hiring of the full -time officer for only five months and a part-time officer the rest of the time. (3) Audit Results for 2000 McMillan stated the audit results for 2000 have been provided to the Council. McMillan indicated the LMCD is currently working on the upcoming budget. McMillan stated in her view the LMCD should look at outside funding as well since Lake Minnetonka is used by residents state -wide. Mayor Peterson suggested a work session be scheduled with the Council to discuss that item Sansevere suggested the LMCD consider a user fee or a voluntary donation. 0 4 PAGE 4 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 (LMCD, Continued) (4) Improving Water Quality for Stubbs/Maxwell Bay McMillan stated the water quality report recently completed by John Barten listed some concerns with Stubbs/Maxwell Bay. McMillan stated the Council last year had arranged for the Watershed District to do a feasibility study on Stubbs Bay watershed area, which at this time has not occurred. McMillan stated the new Highway 12 corridor will be constructed through that watershed area, and suggested that perhaps this item be placed as a higher priority and discussed with Mn/DOT. McMillan suggested a meeting be scheduled with Mn/DOT, the City of Orono, and the Watershed District to discuss this particular watershed area. Moorse indicated the City has had some discussions with the Watershed District about this area, with the Watershed District presently doing some water quality monitoring on the water entering Stubbs Bay. Flint indicated a hydrologic study was done in conjunction with the new Highway 12 corridor. Flint inquired what stage the mitigation process is in. Moorse stated it is Staff's understanding that the Watershed District has requested that Mn/DOT • look within the same watershed area for the wetland mitigation as best they can. Moorse stated Staff can find out what progress has been made on the mitigation process. Moorse stated Mn/DOT will be constructing two or three new retaining ponds in conjunction with the new Highway 12 corridor. Gaffron stated it is his understanding that very few areas are being redirected, with Mn/DOT doing mitigation both within this watershed district and outside it. Mn/DOT will be constructing some water retention ponds near the intersection of County Road 6 and Highway 12, with all the work being tied into the City's stormwater management plan. Flint concurred that now is a good time for the City and the Watershed District to work with Mn/DOT on this watershed area. McMillan stated it is her personal view that the western part of Highway 12 does not have a lot of coordination and needs to be further addressed. McMillan stated she would be willing to help with this effort. Mayor Peterson requested Moorse stay in contact with McMillan regarding this item. PUBLIC COMMENTS Rae Pesnick, 1235 Lyman Avenue, stated she is present at tonight's meeting to protest the special permit issued for the house tour scheduled in June for this area. Pesnick stated they have been living in a construction zone for the past two years, with no end in sight. Pesnick stated their road and landscaping in the area has been torn up because of the construction, with possible drainage PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 40 (Public Comments, Continued) problems ensuing as a result of a new residence being built in the area. Pesnick stated if the buses are allowed into this area, they would need to travel over this dirt road and cause further traffic problems. Pesnick requested the road be restored to what it was prior to the construction. Roger Kirshner, 2000 Shadywood Road, stated he lives on the south side of the fire lane that was mentioned as possible access for the snowmobilers earlier this evening. Kirshner expressed concerns how dangerous that area would become if hundreds of snowmobilers were allowed access in that area. Kirshner stated the lane is located three feet from his house and that he has major safety concerns for his grandchildren if that access point was made available to snowmobilers. Richard Phillips, 1117 Lyman Avenue, also expressed concerns regarding the upcoming house tour and the amount of traffic, noise, and parking issues that will result. Phillips stated due to the construction in the area, the road has been inaccessible at times and at times barely passable due to their condition. Mayor Peterson indicated the police chief is addressing the traffic and parking concerns relating to the house tour. Peterson stated one solution is to use a shuttle bus and only allow parking on Orono Orchard Road, with the local residents having a sticker on their vehicle allowing them to be in the area. Sansevere inquired when construction typically starts in this area. • Pesnick commented the contractor routinely starts construction between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Sansevere requested that Staff contact the contractor and request that construction not begin prior to 7:00 a.m. Sansevere commented in his view there should be some restrictions on where the construction vehicles can park. Phillips indicated large semi - trucks routinely make deliveries to this area and block the road. Phillips stated this is a rather narrow road with a large number of speeders and activity on the road. Pesnick indicated the contractor did not notify the neighbors in this area of this house being on the house tour. Pesnick stated this is a one -way road, with three head -on collisions havine occurred in this area. Pesnick commented in her view that people who view the Parade of Homes book and see this address in there will travel into this area. White commented the Orono Police are very aggressive in tagging people who are illegally parked. Mayor Peterson thanked the people for their comments. is PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ZONT G ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ( #5) 001 -2674 DENNIS & DIANE KILLIAN, 1420 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE RENEWAL — RESOLUTION NO. 4654 Mayor Peterson noted this is a variance renewal. Peterson stated she was opposed to this item being placed on the Consent Agenda since she opposed it back in 1999 and will continue to vote against it. Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4654, a Resolution granting renewal of a bluff setback variance to permit construction of a new residence located at 1420 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson Opposed. *( #6) 41 -2675 DONNA LILE, 2765 ETHEL AVENUE, VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 4655 Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4655, a Resolution granting variances to lot area and lot width to permit construction of a gabled dormer above the existing entrance of the house located at 2765 Ethel Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • ( #7) 0`01 -2678 KRISTI ROESLER, 1169 ELMWOOD AVENUE — VARIANCES Kirsti Roesler, Applicant, and John Waldron, Attorney -at -Law, was present. Weinberger stated this is a two -part application, with the first part of the request being for variances for lot area/width regarding the lake lot to permit future residential construction. Weinberger stated the lake lot currently is undeveloped and is 50 feet wide at the lakeshore, with the property being located in the LR -1B District, which has a requirement of 140 feet. The lot consists of approximately .255 acres or 11,100 square feet, with this district requiring one acre. The Planning Commission has reviewed this application and history of the property. In 1971, a variance was applied for on the lakeshore lot that was denied by the City of Orono. The property has long been used as dock access for adjacent properties that it has been held in common ownership with, which technically is a violation of City Code since it is a lot that stands on its on. Weinberger noted that docks are considered an accessory structure and are not permitted on lots without a principal structure. Weinberger stated the lot is located adjacent to platted Elmwood Avenue and is in an area of Elm,Nood Avenue that is undeveloped. Weinberger stated a city lift station is located within the right -of -way or just off the right -of -way in that location as well. The Planning Commission did review this application and voted 4 -0 to recommend denial of the variance for lot area/lot width that would allow Lot 7 to be considered buildable. f PAGE MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) • Weinberger stated the second part of the request is for variances to permit this property to be used for dock use and held in common ownership with 1169 North Arm Drive. Both properties were purchased together, with the principal residence being located at 1169 North Arm Drive. Weinberger stated at the time it was sold it was advertised as deeded lake access; however, there is no legal access for a dock in this area. The two properties both have separate parcel numbers and could be sold separate from one another. Weinberger stated the second part of the application would allow the two properties, which are not adjoining, to be combined and therefore always allowing lake access for the property located at 1169 North Arm Drive. Technically this would require a variance to allow dock use on the lakeshore lot. The lot combination agreement would function as a recorded document on the chain of title to insure that the two lots are in common ownership. The Planning Commission reviewed the second part of the application and had recommended approval of the variance for dock access. Weinberger stated it is the desire of the Applicant to have part one of the application be approved and have the lakeshore lot become a buildable lot. Waldron stated their records indicate this lot has been a lot of record since 1933. Waldron stated the information indicates the owner of the lake lot originally applied for the same lot area/lot width variance back in 1971 as is being applied for tonight. Waldron stated the adjoining property owner six months later applied for the same variance. That property also consists of 50 feet of frontage and is actually a slightly smaller lot. Waldron indicated that variance was approved by the City Council. Waldron stated in comparing those two applications, they are attempting to see if there were any differences that existed in order for one to be approved and the other to be denied. Waldron stated one of the hardships that exists is that there is no adjacent property that can be utilized for building purposes. Waldron stated that same situation was in existence when the neighboring property variance was approved. Waldron stated they are looking at the legal definition of a hardship and how the courts have interpreted it and whether there is a basis for the City to have granted a variance on the one property and denying it on the other. Waldron stated the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that the Zoning Ordinances must operate uniformly, and thus the unequal treatment of similarly situated parties is prohibited. Waldron stated in his view these two lots are identical and there is no legal basis for the City to deny the first part of the application. Waldron stated it is his understanding the same rules and ordinances apply today as they did back in 1971. Waldron commented the courts have interpreted the requirement for hardship very liberally in favor of the property owner seeking a variance. Waldron cited the case of Roul versus the Board of Adjustment for the City of Moorhead in which case a church wanted a variance to add onto the existing structure, with the Court finding that there was a hardship because the church would have to build a weird looking addition to the existing structure without the variance. • f PAGE 8 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) Waldron stated without a variance for this particular lakeshore lot, they have no practical u_e of the lot. Waldron stated a dock or a structure is currently not allowed, and places a greater hardship on the property owner than what was found in Roul. Waldron stated this situation "vas not one created by the homeowner, and in the Roul case the Court found the situation was rot created by the property owner since the existing church was constructed before the enactm:: t of the ordinance. Waldron reiterated this has been a lot of record since 1933, which is before the current restrictions. Waldron stated the third requirement the courts look at is whether it will alter the essential character of the locality. The adjoining property in this case is essentially the same as the S::bject property, with a residence being permitted to be constructed on the property. The granting of a lot area/lot width variance would not alter the general locality. Waldron stated there are steps the City could take to insure hardcover and setbacks are com711ed with. Mayor Peterson inquired about the sewer assessment that was never paid. Peterson inquires if the Council should deem this as a buildable lot, what the current sewer assessment would be. • Gaffron stated sewer crossed the property in 1970, with the property being assessed the 50 foot frontage assessment but not for the unit charge or the plant charge since there was not a structure located on the property. A year later the Council declared this lot unbuildable. Gaffron stated at that time the Council did not take any action that he is aware of to refund any part of the 50 foot assessment. �J Gaffron stated at the present time the unit and plant charge would probably amount to approximately $10,000, and should probably be a condition of approval. Mayor Peterson inquired whether Staff has any information concerning the property that NN as granted a lot area/lot width variance back in 1972. Gaffron stated he is not familiar with that particular case. Gaffron stated the Council minutes taken at that time probably will not give as much detail as the Council would like. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, questioned whether the two lots in question have always been M. common ownership. Waldron stated they have not. Barrett inquired when they came into common ownership. Waldron stated they do not know. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) Barrett stated that might be one basis that the City Council determined that the owner of the back lot had a second lot which was available to them for lake access, and because they were in common ownership, there was no need, which is similar to the application tonight. Waldron stated the lake lot was owned by an individual that did not own the back lot at that time. Flint stated he sees the two lots here as being one parcel. Flint stated he does not understand Mr. Waldron's comment. Waldron stated perhaps he misunderstood the City Attorney's comment, but that it is his understanding of the subject lake lot, at the time the property owner made this application back in 1971, did not own the property that was located off lake. Roesler indicated he did own both lots at that time. Waldron stated he stands corrected then. Barrett stated if that was the case, that could be one basis why the application was denied. Barrett stated it is his understanding that in 1970, when the property owner of the lake lot applied for the variance, at that time it was in common ownership with the other lot. Roesler stated the prior owner owned both lots, with both lots being separate. Barrett stated they were commonly owned since they were owned by the same person. Barrett reiterated that could have been one basis for denial back in 1971. Sansevere commented the Council can only guess that that was the basis for denial back in 1971. Waldron stated at the time the application was made back in 1971, the two lots were not combined. Mayor Peterson inquired how large the building envelope would be on the lake lot. Weinberger stated there are ten foot side setbacks, so they would have 30 feet wide to build in, and a 35 foot setback to the rear of the property. Weinberger stated it would be the standard building envelope that you would see on most of these small lakeshore lots. Sansevere inquired whether the Council had to base their decision tonight on w-hat was done back in 1971, which may have been a mistake. Barrett stated the record before them tonight does not adequately the reasons for the denial and the approval on the other lot. Barrett commented the Council is in a position to try to distinguish them on the facts as we understand them if they wish to, but if they are unable to distinguish them, then there is a strong case to treat like cases alike. Barrett noted Staff has indicated that the same ordinances apply today as they did back in 1971. Barrett stated the big difference is the • E southern lot which was granted the variance came in as a common ownership situation and they • PAGE 10 • 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) built the house on the front and not the back part of the lot. Barrett stated in this case rather than one house, they would get two houses if the variance is approved. Flint stated if the Council had made a mistake back in 1971 to approve the variance on this one application and there were 50 other cases where the City denied it on other similar applications, Flint inquired whether the City would be obligated to follow that one example. Barrett stated he does not know the answer to that. Barrett stated if the Council determines that a mistake has been made, the best alternative is to rezone and start over. Barrett stated the Council should determine on the record whether a mistake has been made. Barrett commented he is unsure whether that determination can be made based on the records available. Sansevere inquired whether any additional information could be made available should this application be tabled tonight. Gaffron stated there is nothing in the City Council files that embellishes on what action the Council took back then. Moorse inquired whether a staff report would exist. Gaffron stated a staff report might exist to the Planning Commission but probably not the Council. Moorse stated all the information the Council has in front of them right now is one example of a lot that was approved and one example of a lot that wasn't approved. Moorse stated there might be other examples of similar lots around the lake that exist and that perhaps those lots should be reviewed. Sansevere stated it would be his guess that there are circumstances that existed back then for the approval that this Council is not aware of. Bill Stoddard, Planning Commissioner Representative, stated the Planning Commission based their decision on their current understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the sewer assessment. Stoddard indicated he voted in opposition to the first part of the application. Sansevere moved, Flint seconded, to approve Application #01 -2678, Kristi Roesler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, granting of a variance to allow a dock without a principal structure by means of a special lot combination, and to deny the variances for lot area and lot width declaring it an unbuildable lot. Barrett requested the Council clarify its findings so that the Staff can bring back to the Council a resolution reflecting the findings. Nygard stated in his view there are several problems with this application, and that he is unsure what the exact solution is. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2678 Kristi Roesler, Continued) Barrett stated the record should reflect that the Council is basing its denial in good part on the fact that there are two lots in common ownership which can be combined, and that as a consequence the variances would be denied because there is not a hardship. Nygard inquired whether they would be permitted to sell off the separate parcel and request a variance in the future by allowing this. Barrett stated that is correct, that this is a lot combination. Flint indicated the City has also consistently treated this as an unbuildable lot over the years. Flint stated this lot probably has also been taxed as an unbuildable lot. Gaffron stated the former property owner only paid the frontage sewer assessment and not the plant and unit charge. Barrett stated he would prefer Staff draft a resolution with necessary findings, and bring it back before the Council for their review and approval. Flint noted the Planner's Report further states under action requested that the Council direct Staff to draft a resolution for adoption on June 11, 2001, by the Council of the official action on the application. Sansevere stated he will let his motion stand with the direction to the Staff being noted. White commented the City has not treated this as a buildable lot over the years, and in his view there had to be a reason that isn't apparent tonight for the denial back in 1971. Roesler inquired if the Council's decision would be different if the two lots were not owned by the same person. Flint stated he would like an analysis of other similar properties. Sansevere inquired whether other similar lots exist on the lake where they are considered as a special lot combination and a dock is permitted. Gaffron stated in this situation it is very appropriate to allow dock use on the Lakeshore lot and that there are other lots within the City that are similar. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Nygard Opposed. (Recess taken from 8:45 p.m. to 8:53 p.m.) 0 f PAGE 12 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 *( #8) #01 -2679 SHARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIG-m COMPANY, 450 AND 480 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 4656 Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4656, a Resolution granting a conditional use permit for a guest house, a variance to permit an accessory structure to be located nearer to a front or street property line than the principal residence, and a variance to permit more than one oversized accessory building on the property located at 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ( #9) #01 -2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ZOTNT G CODE AMENDMENT — REQUEST TO CONSIDER APPLICATION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW George Wells, Sam Gladis, Helmer Heckel, and Frank Svobctia were present. Gaffron provided backgrund regarding the May 21 Planning Commission meeting at which this item was initially considered. Gaffron stated it was Staff's understanding of the May 21" Planning Commission meeting that there would be five members present and therefore no altema:es were contacted. The meeting was commenced with a quorum of four members, and progressed steadily until the last agenda • item, the Baywind Church application, commenced at 9:15. Gaffron indicated one of the commissioners at the beginning of that item indicated that she would need to leave at 10:00 o'clock, which left 45 minutes for the Planning Commission to review this item. Acting Chair Smith indicated to the Applicants that once their quorum was' ost, they would be unable to take any action on the application and attempted to review the app ":ration completely in the time allowed. �J Gaffron stated the Planning Commission was unable to comp'.:te their review in the time allowed and the item was declared effectively tabled once their quoru-- was lost. The Applicants indicated to Staff and to the Planning Commission that it was a problem to have their application tabled for a month, and it was suggested that the Council revi :-.v this item on June 11`h, which is the request before the Council tonight. Gaffron stated this is an issue that the Planning Commission r ad discussed for approximately 45 minutes without coming to a decision, and it is up to the Cou=1 whether any additional review is necessary by the Planning Commission. Mayor Peterson apologized to the Baywind Christian Church for what happened at the Planning Commission meeting. Peterson inquired whether a special Planning Commission meeting could be held to discuss this item prior to the upcoming City Counci' meeting. Gaffron stated it has been difficult to have a quorum on the Planning Commission this year, and in his view he is doubtful whether a quorum could be reached on a day other than the designated Planning Commission meeting day. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 • ( #01 -2676 Bay-wind Christian Church, Continued) Sansevere stated in his opinion a special meeting of the Planning Commission should be attempted. Nygard indicated he was present at the Planning Commission meeting, with the majority of the discussion centering around what the issues would be if a church were located within the B -4 district. Nygard stated he did not really hear any negative comments or any reason not to allow it within this zone and were close to reaching a decision in his opinion. Nygard commented he does not know if it would be necessary to have the Planning Commission review it further since he did not hear any negative comments about the church being added to the B -4 District. Bill Stoddard, Planning Commission Representative, stated it was his feeling that the application would have been tabled that night in order to allow Staff to gather more information regarding why churches were excluded from the B -4 District initially and what the requirements for churches are in the "R" District. Stoddard indicated parking and traffic on County Road 19 were also issues that were raised. Sansevere inquired whether there is a reason why churches are not allowed in the B -4 District. White stated he is opposed to allowing churches in the B -4 District since it reduces the City's commercial zone, which only comprises 2 percent of Orono. White stated he would like to have the input of the Planning Commission. White inquired whether a stipulation could be included • that once the church is no longer a church it reverts back to a regular B -4 District. White commented in his view this may open the door to allowing churches in all the commercial districts. Flint stated the issue before them tonight is whether this application should be heard at the June I Ith Council meeting. Flint indicated he would prefer this application be fully reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to it proceeding to the Council and would be in favor of a special Planning Commission meeting. Flint inquired Nvhy churches were excluded from the B -4 District when schools, libraries, galleries, and restaurants are allowed. Mayor Peterson stated in her view this item should be reviewed by the Council on the 11`h and that it would be beneficial if a special meeting could be held. Gaffron stated in his view it will be difficult to get the Planning Commission together prior to the 11`h. Gaffron indicated the draft minutes of the Planning Commission did give some idea of what was discussed at the meeting. Wells stated the church's mission is education and that it could be argued that it is an educational institution with a church attached. Wells stated they are attempting to provide for the needs of the congregation and have tried in the past to purchase the Grace Baptist Church with no success. Wells stated they would like to be a part of this community, with the character of churches changing over the years. Stoddard stated he requested the church look into the building code requirements to see whether this existing structure would meet their needs and whether major structural changes would be necessary-. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 is ( #01 -2676 Baywind Christian Church, Continued) Sansevere questioned why churches were not included in the B -4 District originally. Gaffron stated he has not researched that, noting that schools and municipal buildings are the only uses on that list which are permitted in residential areas. Gaffron stated it may be difficult to come up with a reason why churches were excluded from the B -4 District, and that this district was created in the early 1970s. Gaffron stated churches are allowed in residential districts, with his guess being that the Council looked at that fact and decided that they did not need to be included in commercial districts as well. Gaffron indicated the City presently does not have any churches in their commercial districts. Sansevere stated he probably would be in favor of allowing churches in the B -4 District since there does not appear to be a very strong reason for excluding them. Flint noted they need a 4/5s vote to add churches to the B -4 District. Flint questioned why schools were allowed in a commercial district. Gaffron stated he does not have the answer to that. Sansevere commented that it might be in the best interests of the church to have the Planning Commission fully review their application. • Heckel indicated they are currently located in Excelsior and need to move back into this area where the majority of their parishioners are located. Heckel stated the 98 percent of property that is available to them is very expensive and that this structure does meet their needs. Heckel stated they would like to use this building on a temporary basis and then resell it to generate enough revenue to relocate into an area that is more appropriate. Gaffron stated early on at the Planning Commission meeting there was a concern expressed about putting churches in the B -4 District. Gaffron stated with the property being vacant next door and a house next door, that leaves the possibility of having the entire B -4 District taken over by churches as opposed to only having it within the B -4 District for a short period of time. Mayor Peterson inquired how they could accomplish that. Gaffron stated they would need to work with the Planning Commission in order to set some restrictions on the property and still allow them the use that they presently have. Mayor Peterson requested Staff speak with each Planning Commission member and put their comments down in writing for review by the Council prior to June 11`h. Gaffron noted the building would need to be remodeled in order to meet their needs. Wells stated they would have to do some basic changes within the building. Heckel noted they have submitted a plan for the inside of the building to the City. f PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 • ( #01 -2676 Baywind Christian Church, Continued) Mayor Peterson inquired whether they would be willing to meet with the Planning Commission in a special meeting to discuss this further. Heckel stated they would like to work with the City and do not want to be an obstacle to the City. Gaffron stated he will attempt to get the Planning Commission members together via phone prior to the 11 th. Barrett noted the public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting on May 21" A resident in the audience commented that a number of lots within the City are not sewered and it would be difficult for the church to find a suitable site elsewhere. It was the consensus of the City Council to review this application at their June 11`h meeting. ( #10) #01 -2687 CPV DEVELOPMENT, FINAL PLAT OF KOKESH FARM — RESOLUTION NO. 4657 Craig Alshouse, on behalf of CPV Development, was present. Weinberger stated on April 9`h, the Council granted preliminary plat approval on a vote of 5 -0 for a 37 acre site located within the five acre zoning district to be developed into six lots. The property is located north of Watertown Road, County Road 6 to the north, and Orchard Park to the east. The Applicant has requested final plat approval, subject to final approval of all requirements of the preliminary plat by Staff, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to releasing the plat for filing with Hennepin County. One of the items still outstanding was approval by the Watershed District. Weinberger stated due to a concern raised by an adjacent property owner, the Watershed District Board tabled the applicaticn and placed it on their June agenda. Staff has reviewed that drainage concern raised by the neighbor, which was whether the drainage flow would increase the elevation of a wetland located in this area. Staff has concluded that the wetlands all do drain and that there are no culverts or areas where this water level would actually be increased, which was also the decision of the Watershed District today. Weinberger stated the second issue to be discussed tonight would be the possibility of future trail access in this area. The Council had recommended the Park Commission review this development further to determine whether a trail would be appropriate in this area. Weinberger noted a trail along Watertown Road is not included in the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan. The Park Commission did review this application and recommended that a trail easement be given along the north side of Watertown Road. Weinberger stated this trail would provide a future north/south connection to County Road 6 and the Luce Line. The negative impacts of this trail are the fact that the trail would encroach within • a wetland area and wetland mitigation would be necessary as well as variances for fill within a PAGE 16 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2687 CPV Development, Final Plat of Kokesh Farm, Continued) wetland. Weinberger stated in some cases the Watershed District can issue permits for the purposes of crossing wetlands with roads or anything that might be a right -of -way, but does not specifically talk about trails and would need to be reviewed by the Watershed Board. Weinberger stated the second connection that was discussed by the Park Commission was the east/west connection along the north side of Watertown Road, which also is not part of the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan. Weinberger noted the amount of easement that could be obtained in this area is very limited and would require the City to obtain additional easements in the future. Weinberger stated one of the obstacles of placing a trail along Watertown Road that should be considered this evening would be the impact on trees as well as some of the current grades. A large hill does exist in the area and would need to be flattened. Weinberger noted final approval from the Watershed District should be obtained later in June. Mayor Peterson noted one member of the Park Commission was opposed to dedicating a trail in this area due to the need to piecemeal this trail. Peterson stated she also is opposed to doing this trail in segments and indicated this trail was omitted from the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan for good reason due to the wetlands and topography in the area. Peterson stated a shoulder really does not exist in this area at all. Andrew McDermott, Park Commission, stated the Park Commission did discuss this trail at length, and concluded that this trail would eventually provide access to the Lurton property as well as Bederwood Park and County Road 6. McDermott stated the City in the past has obtained trails at piece at a time, with the City just banking the land until enough land is obtained to construct a trail. Flint stated there is a properly owner south of Watertown Road currently allowing people to cross over his property to access the Luce Line. Flint stated the City has not formally approached him to request a permanent trail easement. Sansevere stated it would be difficult to get a trail easement from him since it would need to cross over the middle of his propem and that he is generously allowing people to cross his property to access the Luce Line at this time. Flint stated if you look at County Road 6 on the south side, there is quite a lot of right -of -way in that area, and that the Lurton property is not easily accessible. Nygard stated due to the wetlands and the other properties that would need to be accessed, he would question whether this trail is appropriate. Sansevere commented he would like to see a trail access to Bederwood Park, and that this area is being viewed as a possible area for that access. Sansevere stated Orchard Park is not an option and that County Road 6 in one area really does not have a shoulder. Sansevere stated the only other option would be to go to the west. Mayor Peterson inquired whether it is the Park Commission's goal to get a connection to the Luce Line. f PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 is ( #01 -2687 CPV Development, Final Plat of Kokesh Farm, Continued) McDermott stated one goal is to try to get a connection to all of Orono's Parks. Robert Wyatt, 4220 Watertown Road, stated he has a concern about a trail being constructed in this area because of the row of trees that would need to be removed and the closeness of his residence to the proposed trail. Wyatt indicated his residence would be located 50 feet from the trail. Sansevere stated his view of this trail would be that it would mirror the Luce Line trail. Jeanne Wyatt, 4220 Watertown Road, commented the City would be sending a mixed message if they approve this trail since it would require the filling of wetlands and the removal of trees as well as negatively impacting the properties in this area. Wyatt stated most people in their neighborhood walk for exercise and do not want the shortcut. Wyatt questioned whether this trail would be appropriate given the limited number of people it would serve. Alshouse stated almost all of those trees in that area would need to be removed. Sansevere inquired whether the trail could be constructed between the fence line and the trees. Alshouse stated that area consists of all trees. A resident located on County Road 6 expressed concern regarding the need to fill the wetland in • order to construct a trail. Sansevere indicated the wetland extends over to the next property line and divides that one property in half. Hibbeling commented that to do a trail in sections makes sense if there are other larger sections of land that will be subdivided in the future. Hibbeling stated due to the five acre zoning in this area, he is doubtful whether the land in this area will be subdivided. Alshouse stated the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan is designed to serve the needs of the citizens and gives the City a long -range plan that you can implement over time. Alshouse stated by requiring him to construct a trail in this area at this time does not follow that plan and raises questions in his mind as to why the City even has a long -range trail plan. Alshouse stated the Council needs to look at a number of issues relating to a trail in this area; one, that a trail will greatly impact the adjoining property owners; and two, require the removal of a large number of trees. Alshouse stated his original concept plan was to construct a riding trail around the entire perimeter of the property, which was found not to be feasible due to the topography and the impact on the adjoining property owners. Alshouse stated he is being requested to plant a tree every 50 feet along both sides of the road, and then on the other hand he is being asked to remove 80 year old trees and being asked to fill in wetlands in order to construct a trail. Alshouse indicated he was told by the Watershed District to stay away from that wetland, which is contrary to what the Park Commission is recommending, and in his view is a double standard. 10 4 PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2687 CPV Development, Final Plat of Kokesh Farm, Continued) Alshouse stated in his opinion this area is not conducive for a trail, and presented pictures to the Council depicting the area. Alshouse stated a trail would require him to cut into a slope and construct a retaining wall. Alshouse stated he was told that he could pay either a park dedication fee or donate land, and he has chosen to pay a park dedication fee. Alshouse stated he has already submitted a check in the amount of $21,200 in payment of those park dedication fees. Alshouse stated this is the first time he has been informed that the Park Commission would like a trail constructed in this area. Alshouse stated he is scheduled to close on the property tomorrow morning and that if a trail is required along the north /south property line, it would affect the purchase price that he would be willing to pay for the property as well as the layout of the lots. Alshouse stated it will affect his lots, the adjoining property owners, the topography of the land, and the trees, and for these reasons he would encourage the City Council to vote no on the trail. Flint indicated a trail easement was discussed at the April 9`h meeting, and that they also discussed the west side of the property for a possible trail. Flint stated only two properties would be affected from Watertown Road to County Road 6, and once on County Road 6, you could follow the right -of -way to the Lurton property. Alshouse questioned whether a trail should have been discussed at the time the concept plan was presented. Flint reiterated the trail was discussed at the April 9`h meeting. Alshouse stated a north /south route was not discussed at the April 9`h meeting and that the only trail that was discussed was along Watertown Road only. Flint stated it was left open for review by the Park Commission. Alshouse stated he has adjusted the property lines on his preliminary plat a number of times, and that he was required to construct a trail along the north /south line, he may not have purchased this property or renegotiate the price because it affects the property. Alshouse stated he should have been told of the possibility of a trail back in February and not at final plat approval. Mayor Peterson stated a trail along Watertown Road was discussed but not a north/south trail at the April 91h meeting. Alshouse stated that preliminary plat approval is not conceptual, with a resolution being signed by the Council which said that he should pay a park dedication fee or donate land. Alshouse stated now he is being asked to do both. Flint stated it would be one or the other, but that the Council leaves it up to the Park Commission to decide which they would prefer. • Mrs. Wyatt inquired whether by allowing animals on this trail it would affect her well. f PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 • ( #01 -2687 CPV Development, Final Plat of Kokesh Farm, Continued) Weinberger stated the wells to his understanding in this area are about 300 feet down, and he is unsure what the long -term environmental affect would be. Sansevere commented that this might be an area where a trail is not appropriate. Sansevere stated he had the understanding when he reviewed the area that the fence line was right on the property line or right next to it, which appears to be incorrect. Sansevere stated it would not be feasible to put a trail along Orchard Park due to the closeness of the homes to the road in that area. Alshouse concurred that a trail in this area is not appropriate. White stated he has a concern regarding the removal of the tree line in this area. White commented a trail in this area does not appear to make sense and that there are too many impediments to overcome in order to construct a trail. Nygard inquired whether the findings from the Watershed District were okay. Weinberger stated they are, but questioned when the City would receive the mylars from the County. Alshouse stated the County has reviewed them and would get them back to us within a couple of days. Alshouse stated he cannot file those since the City needs to have them, and requested that final plat approval be given subject to all necessary documents being submitted to the City. Flint stated if a north/south trail is not going to work, he would like to go back to what was discussed on April 91h, which would just be a trail along the south side. Flint noted the trail would not be constructed at this time since it does not go anywhere but the Park Commission could bank the land for the future. Flint stated in many cases a trail cannot be envisioned until the whole thing is there. Flint stated if Alshouse would be willing to move the trail over on the west side of the property, very few trees would need to be removed. Flint stated a 12 foot easement would be given to the City with no trail being constructed at this time. Alshouse stated he would prefer not to have a trail on either side. Alshouse stated a 12 foot trail easement would affect the neighbors' homes that are located close to the road. Flint moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt a Resolution approving the final plat of Kokesh Farm, subject to receipt of the mylars, approval by the Minnehaha Watershed District, and a 12 foot trail easement along Watertown Road. Sansevere stated he would encourage this Council or future Councils not to allow horses on the trail if one is constructed along Watertown Road in order to limit the size of the trail. Sansevere stated he would limit the use of this trail due to the closeness of the homes in this area to the trail. Sansevere questioned whether it would be more appropriate to take a park dedication fee in this instance in order to help fund the proposed improvements at the other parks. McDermott noted the Park Commission did recommend a mix of cash and land in this case • PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 ( #01 -2687 CPV Development, Final Plat of Kokesh Farm, Continued) Weinberger stated the assessor would value what that easement is worth, and if it is less than $21,200, the difference would be refunded back to the developer. Hillebring inquired how the City would acquire the other easements in this area if they are less than ten acres. Flint stated the City would need to condemn the land. Sansevere stated he would not be in favor of condemning anyone's land for a trial. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 1, Nays 4; Peterson, White, Sansevere and Nygard Opposed. Nygard moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4657, a Resolution approving the final plat of Kokesh Farm, subject to receipt of the mylars and approval by the Minnehaha Watershed District, with the understanding no trail easement will be taken, and that the developer pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $21,200. VOTE: Ayes, 4, Nays 1, Flint Opposed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT • Sansevere inquired whether the Public Services Director had any information regarding the signs on North Shore Drive. Gappa stated he has spoken with Hennepin County and they are waiting for an order before putting the signs up following approval by the engineer. Sansevere inquired whether any notice to the boaters would be given. Mayor Peterson commented it was her understanding they would just give them warnings for a couple of weeks. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT ( #11) SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Gaffron stated the City Council discussed this item at their March work session, wherein a few revisions to the wording of certain sections of the SWMP were discussed. Gaffron indicated the requested changes have been incorporated into the plan. Gaffron stated the fee structure for properties in the five acre zone has been reduced. Gaffron stated the final draft of the surface water management plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary review. Gaffron stated it is important that the City outline . very clearly who has implementation responsibilities for some of the different facets of the stormwater management, such as who will have jurisdiction over wetland regulation protection, PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 r� lJ (Surface Water Management Plan, Continued) which includes the Wetland Conservation Action Administration; and enforcement of buffer requirements. Gaffron stated the City currently has jurisdiction over those two facets of the plan, with shared jurisdiction regarding no net loss of quality, quantity, or biodiversity. The City of Orono also has shared jurisdiction regarding erosion and sediment control enforcement and water quality public nuisances. Gaffron stated the City has jurisdiction over shoreland and flood plain management. Gaffron recommended a work session with the Council in order to further address issues of jurisdiction. Drew Budelis, Bonestroo, quickly reviewed the Surface Water Management Plan, noting the purpose of the plan for regulatory requirements is to satisfy the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. Budelis indicated the SWMP will eventually become part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Budelis stated the Minnehaha Watershed District would like the City of Orono to make a decision on which jurisdictional responsibilities the City wants to assume. Budelis indicated the jurisdictional responsibilities the City chooses to assume will then become incorporated into the plan as well as an implementation strategy. Budelis stated the plan identifies the surface water management needs given the future • development of the area and the proposed land uses that are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and based on the needs and policies and goals of the City, a strategy is then identified to help address those needs. Budelis stated the plan is broken down into eight main sections consisting in part with plan purpose, capital improvement plan, financing, and implementation. Budelis stated some of the projects identified in the plan have already been started. Budelis indicated 12 parcels of land likely to be developed in the City have been identified in order to monitor the development of the City and the infrastructure needs. Budelis stated the financing section identifies how the capital improvement plan will be funded, which basically consists of trunk fees for new development, a potential stormwater utility that is being recommended, and then other funding from a variety of other sources. Budelis noted there is some flexibility in the financing section and that the fees can be adjusted depending on the type of development. Flint inquired how much of the $2 million would be raised by stormwater utility rates and how much will be raised by trunk fees. Budelis indicated the actual utility fee has not yet been determined. Gappa stated for 3,000 lots at $2.00 a month, it would amount to approximately $72,000 a year. Gappa indicated the trunk fee would depend on the type of development. Gaffron stated the $2 million figure is the capital improvement plan, which includes a number of projects. • PAGE 22 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 (Water Surface Management Plan, Continued) Budelis stated the water restoration projects will in large part be funded by the DNR, the Metropolitan Council, and the Minnehaha Watershed District. Kellogg inquired which items would be funded by the stormwater utility. Budelis stated the swamp implementation strategies and priority projects in developed areas. Gaffron stated the City can expect to generate fees from new development in the two acre zone at $5,000 per lot and townhomes at $1,200, which would be approximately $200,000 if twem-�- new lots are developed per year. Budelis stated some of the projects would be funded by other agencies and grants. Budelis shred they will be looking at the utility fee in the near future to determine what an appropriate fee would be for this area. The City Council directed City Staff to schedule a work session for Tuesday, June 19'h, at 8:30 a.m. *( #12) BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PARK BENCHES • Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve a budget adjustment for the Park Dedication Fund in the amount of $2,520 for the purchase of six park benches. VOTE: Ayes 5, NaN s 0. *( #13) BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR DOCK PURCHASE Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve a budget adjustment from $5,000 to $5,380 for the 2001 Parks Capital Outlay Budget for the purchase of two roll in docks. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Items 14 through 17 follow Item 18. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ( #18) ORONO WOODS SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT FINANCIAL PACKAGE - RESOLUTION NOS. 4658 and 4659 Moorse stated the City needs to vote on resolutions approving the development plan and TIF plan for the Orono Woods Senior Housing Project, approving the Housing Program, and approving the issuance of housing revenue bonds. Moorse indicated a public hearing was held on May 14' regarding the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1, Adoption of the Housing Program, and TEFRA hearing on the issuance of housing revenue bonds. Moorse stated since . only three members of the Council were present at that hearing, approval of the resolutions «as tabled until the May 29`h meeting. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 • (Orono Woods Senior Housing Project, Continued) Flint moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4658, a Resolution Adopting the Redevelopment Plan for Housing Project Area No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -1 therein, and Adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor, and to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4659, a Resolution Approving Housing Program and Stating Intent to Issue Housing Revenue Bonds. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, CONTINUED ( #14) INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT AT COUNTY ROAD 6 & WILLOW DRIVE INTERSECTION Flint indicated he has concerns regarding the installation of a street light at this intersection. Flint noted the City has only received one request from a resident in this area requesting a street light. Gappa recommended a street light be installed at this intersection due to the number of accidents that has occurred at this location over the past few years. Flint commented by installing street lights, the complexion of Orono would change. • Gappa stated in his view a street light is needed at this intersection. Gappa noted other street lights have been installed along County Road 6 and would help to improve visibility and alert drivers to the presence of the intersection. Flint inquired whether a flashing amber light was considered for this intersection. Gappa stated a flashing amber light tends to be more intrusive. White suggested the City monitor this area for one year to see whether a light is needed. Sansevere indicated he would support a street light if Gappa feels it is needed for safety reasons. Flint noted the one fatality that occurred at this intersection occurred during the daytime. Gappa stated installation of a street light is one of the most cost effective safety improvements that can be made to an intersection. Gappa noted this intersection will be used more frequently once the new development is completed. Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the installation of a streetlight at the County Road 6/Willow Drive intersection by Wright Hennepin Electric for a S375 installation cost and a monthly operational cost of $8.40. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, White and Flint Opposed. PAGE 24 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, CONTINUED Nygard stated in his opinion the Planning Commission should have seven members every time rather than five. Sansevere concurred, noting one of the reasons why he supported three alternates was to keep the number of commissioners on the Planning Commission at seven for every meeting. Mayor Peterson inquired whether Staff has a deadline by which the commissioners need to notify the City whether they will be able to attend the meeting. Gaffron stated they like a week's notice if possible whenever they are unable to attend the meeting. Gaffron stated the lack of five members at this Planning Commission was unexpected. Sansevere stated in his opinion Staff should attempt to have seven commissioners present at every meeting. Mayor Peterson requested a formal letter of apology be sent to the Baywind Christian Church. Sansevere recommended a memorandum be sent to every commissioner advising them of the need to notify Staff if they are unable to attend. Gaffron stated Staff will attempt to have seven commissioners at every Planning Commission • meeting. • Peterson moved, White seconded, to temporarily adjourn the City Council meeting at 11:20 p.m., to open the HRA meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The Council met on HRA matters from 11:21 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.) Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to reconvene the City Council meeting at 11:31 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT, CONTINUED *( #15) CAPITAL EXPENDITURES — LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the expenditure of $3,516.01 as final payment for the updating of the pumper and tanker, and the expenditure of $68,641.57 as Orono's share of the cost of a replacement tanker for the Long Lake Fire Department; and approving a budget amendment in the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund to reflect the expenditures. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 • ( #16) LONG LAKE FIRE STATION AGREEMENTS The City Council reviewed the draft settlement agreement, draft contract for joint ownership and draft 20 year fire services agreement regarding the new fire station. Nygard expressed concern over the impact this agreement would have on the citizens of Orono as well as giving some of Orono's land away to another city, which is in violation of Orono's Ordinances. Sansevere stated he would continue to support the new fire station even though he has some concerns regarding the tax impact to the residents. Nygard stated he would like the City to look at other options before entering into this agreement. Moorse noted a consultant was hired to study where the new fire station should be located, with this location being recommended based on response times. Moorse stated the response time by the fire department can vary by five minutes depending on the location within the community. Sansevere commented he has concerns regarding the City paying rent on property it owns. Mayor Peterson indicated she is in agreement with Sansevere. White noted an agreement with Mn/DOT has been reached and that an agreement between the • two cities should be executed as soon as possible. White noted the two cities are losing $10,000 a month in interest by not having an agreement. White noted this is a joint venture and the two cities need to continue to work together. Nygard stated Orono has been attempting to work with Long Lake but there is a limit on how much Orono will be able to fund. Sansevere commented he also has concerns about some of the items in the agreement. Moorse indicated the amount of financing by Orono was reached in order to give Orono fifty percent ownership in the fire station and equipment. Sansevere suggested the Council discuss this further in a work session. The City Council directed City Staff to schedule a work session for Friday, June 1, at 12:30 p.m. *( #17) VERIZON ANTENNA LEASE Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the lease agreement with Verizon Wireless, and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the lease agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. f PAGE 26 n U r� U MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 29, 2001 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None *( #19) LICENSES Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve the following licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Garbage Hauler: Frank Blackowiak Blackowiak & Son, Inc. 1195 Sunnyfield Road North Mound, MN 55364 *( #20) BILLS Flint moved, Nygard seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • ADJOURNMENT Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:58 p.m. 0 There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjoum:d at 11:58 p.m. ATTEST: Barb Peterson, Nfsvor PAGE 27