Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1988 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING • HELD OCTOBER 10, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor' Grabek, Councilmembers Nettles,_ Goetten and Callahan; Councilmember Peterson was absent. The following represented the "City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Building Inspector Jacobs, City Planning Consultant Shardlow, City Recorder Scheffler and City Attorney Barrett. PUBLIC HEARING 7:02 P.M. - 7:04 P.M. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 1929 Fagerness Point Road 3960 Sixth Avenue North The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that there were hazardous building proceedings that involved both of these properties. The cost to be assessed to 1929 Fagerness Point Road is $4,800.00. This amount resulted from not only the necessary legal fees involved, but also the costs for actual removal of the structure. The $1,500.00 costs for 3960 Sixth Avenue North were • primarily legal fees. The owners of these properties were not present for this public hearing. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. , It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles to assess the properties at the addresses mentioned above with special assessments as set forth in Resolution #2523. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bernhardson requested the removal of Consent Item #30. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item #30, which was omitted. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the Mintues of the September 28, 1988 Regular Council Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no Planning Commission comments. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • PUBLIC COMMENTS City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Butch Loomis had submitted a Petition regarding safety for the 1 1/2 mile section of- Highway 12 between the Luce Line and downtown Long Lake. Mayor Grabek accepted the Petition. There were no further public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief introduction of this matter. When Orono had adopted the Comprehensive Plan amendment, Mr. Shardlow was hired to develop an ordinance to implement that plan. The initial proposal was presented to the Planning Commission in June. The Planning Commission heard the matter at a special meeting on August 17, 1988, and forwarded it on to the Council. Mr. Shardlow was going to present a revised proposal and introduction to the Councilmembers and Mayor Grabek and hoped to receive some feedback. This matter would be tabled and action would be taken at either the October 24th or November 14th Council Meeting. Mr. Shardlow stated that there were three items he would be • addressing. The first was a set of special requirements for rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor. These would correspond with the minimum standards to achieve zoning that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan itself. There are some over - riding issues such as sanitary sewer, the need to correspond to the overall transporation plan for that area and concerns regarding the quality of development. The first ordinance provides more details in accordance with the Plan as follows: A. Minimum area is the first item addressed in the proposed ordinance. This sets forth a minimum of 5 acres that would be required in order to apply for rezoning.- B. Access and circulation plan which requires that no matter what the size or shape of the area, there must be information provided that demonstrates that the proposal will tie into the Corridor and overall traffic objectives. C. Sanitary sewer availability is a key point and the applicants would need to demonstrate that they have adequate capacity availability now or a future plan that is feasible to the City to serve the subject property. D. Storm water management addresses the issue of water quality and requires the applicant to submit detailed site drainage plans to show that runoff and storm water ponding will • be handled in accordance with the City's standards. E. Available Zoning Districts that can be applied for are K MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED • identified in this section. They are as follows: HC- Highway Commercial District PRD- Planned Residential Development R1A -One Family Residential District R1B -One Family Residential District M6- Multiple Family Planned Residential District Also available within the Corridor will be the new PUD District which will be a floating district that anyone could apply for anywhere within the community. F. Building Design and Construction addresses the building standards within the Corridor. It requires that all additions to buildings, outbuildings and accessory structures, retaining walls, etc., will all be constructed of. the same type of high quality material. G. Requirement of Development Agreement. This section states that any application for - rezoning will have to be subject to a development agreement between the City of Orono and the applicant. The development agreement would address such issues as sanitary sewer, timing of construction, .etc. The next section Mr. Shardlow outlined was the B -6 Highway • Commercial District. This zoning district was created was because of the need to tailor a zoning district specifically to the commercial alternatives adopted by the City for Highway 12. The Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Shardlow's list of proposed commercial uses for the Highway 12 Corridor. They indicated that they would like to limit the permitted uses with the understanding that if there was an application for a use not expressly permitted that an application could be submitted under the Planned Unit Development process (PUD). This would enhance the City's discretion and review of such proposals. The permitted uses are as follows: .1. Offices (Business and Professional) 2. Banks and financial institutions 3. Libraries 4. Motels and hotels 5. Class I Restaurants This section clearly outlines the relationship between the B -6 Highway Commercial District and the PUD District. Subdivision 4 allows for the application of commercial uses that are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, but the City would regulate the application for those uses through the PUD process. Councilmember Nettles asked whether the review process for • the PUD would be the same as if an application were submitted for a use permitted within the district? Mr. Shardlow stated that 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED there would be an application for a use that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but a rezoning process would still be necessary. It would be difficult to deny a use that was allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The review process would focus on aesthetics, the quality of the development, traffic and other performance standards. If application were made for a use that was shown as a permitted alternative, it would be a request for a rezoning for a use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Nettles then asked whether the Council could deny such an application, even though the proposed use was permissable under the zoning plan for other districts other than the B -6 Zone? Shardlow replied that if the Council were not comfortable with allowing certain uses within certain areas, then the Comprehensive Plan should be changed accordingly. The Planning Commission had previously indicted that their concern was not use as much as quality. Shardlow had suggested .placing performance standards within the B -6 District over and above those in the other zoning districts. In addition, the PUD gives the City the opportunity to enter into making a design framework manual, and specific covenants part of the official approval. However, land use should not be a basis for denial. City Attorney Barrett stated that should there be any • changes to the ordinance that would now allow any subsequent zoning to defy the Comprehensive Plan so that it would not control the zoning under the statutes, that may give the Council more discretion in the zoning process. However, the list of uses is very narrow and distinguishing that list from slightly different uses would not be easy and the idea that there is a distinction which would require a different level of review would be difficult. Nettles suggested that since, the Highway 12 Corridor is such an important issue, that perhaps some criteria should be established as to how uses would be diffentiated from the City of Orono as-a whole to the Highway 12 Corridor. The ordinance sets forth the specific performance standards such as lot area, lot widths, setbacks, etc. Lot area has been a topic highly discussed. Some of the proposed uses may not require 2 acres of land. The Planning Commission indicated that they wanted to leave the minimum lot area at 2.acres with the understanding that should there be application for a series of uses, some of which would sit on smaller lots, they could apply through the PUD. The PUD would help in providing an overall consistency for such applications. The PUD would allow for flexibility in the performance standards as long as the applicant could show the advantages of such flexibility. The ordinance also addresses the issue of drainage and requires that site and drainage plans be submitted with an •application. It places a height limitation of 35' except through the issuance of a conditional use permit. There would be a requirement that a minimum of 25% of the lot area and at least 3% 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING "OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED • of the land area within a parking area be landscaped. That section of the ordinance sets forth minimum sizes of landscape materials at the time of planting. Section I provides direction with regard to trash and trash handling equipment. Any accessory structures must be,of similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. The ordinance would require that the ground level view of all mechanical utilities and external loading and service areas be screened, and that automobile headlights and other sources be screened whenever it may directed onto adjacent residential windows. The final ordinance is the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance. The PUD would be a floating district that would be available for application anywhere throughout Orono. The PUD would provide for flexibility in the development standards. The current process for handling nonconforming applications is through the granting of a variance, which requires determination of a hardship. The PUD would encourage innovation of building designs and would provide some incentives to the developer, who in turn could offer increased amenities to the community. It would also allow for negotiations throughout the development process, and would give the City more stringent or detailed controls where it may be necessary to do so. The PUD allows for mixed use development and would allow a • developer to apply for virtually any use. When an application was received, the zoning district within the current ordinance that most nearly parallels the use applied for would provide the basic performance standards. If the application proposed a variance from those standards, the developer would need to show why it would be advantageous to the community and the project to proceed as he requested. The City would then have the oportunity. to weigh the variance of his proposal. There would be a great deal of flexibility given to the City in terms of required standards. The PUD would be reviewed and coordinated with the subdivision regulations. There are three stages in the PUD process as follows: 1. Sketch Plan Review. Before a great deal of time and money is spent on behalf of the applicant, there would be an initial consulation with the City Staff. This meeting would provide the developer /builder with an idea as to the City's concerns about development in a particular area. The applicant would then go before the Planning Commission and Council with a sketch plan. The Planning Commission and Council would give the applicant some positive or negative feedback and some direction as to how development should take place. 2. Concept Approval. It would be at this stage that the • rezoning and planning and development would occur. Concept approval corresponds with preliminary plat approval. By the time 61 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 iHIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED concept approval is given, the planning and development =zoning would have already been granted. The density would have been established. Once the applicant has achieved concept approval, they would then obtain their final plat, engineering, architect, civil engineering drawings, etc. When the applicant comes back for final approval of the Planned Unit Development, that would be the time they would submit their performance bond and detailed engineering drawings. It would be during this concept stage that the City's approval or non - approval would be determined. Mayor Grabek asked how the PUD process varied from the current process. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the current process was as specifically detailed in stages. The current review process does not allow as much flexibility. The PUD would provide for more staff input. Currently there are very limited meetings or exchanges that occur between the applicant and staff before the matter is heard by the Planning Commission. Sharadlow stated that providing concerns, ideas and criticism will allow the- applicant to more efficiently develop a concept plan. If the applicant prepares a good concept plan, there should be enough information presented to decide whether to approve the application at that point. Mayor Grabek asked if the PUD would replace the PRD? Mr. • Shardlow stated that there was no intent for the PUD to be a substitute to the PRD. However, the PUD does perform everything the PRD would, plus some additional functions. Mabusth also asked for clarification as to whether the Planned Residential Development would be the same as the PUD, or would the PRD format be allowed as well? City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the City would need to decide whether they would repeal the PRD or not. Grabek asked whether the PRD served the same purpose as the PUD? Bernhardson replied not necessarily. There is not as much flexibility or..input in a PRD. Shardlow explained that the PRD allowed for some flexibility in density and provides for an official acceptance or approval of private open space. A PUD would allow for those functions in addition to others. Mayor Grabek requested a comparison and suggestions as to whether both the PRD and PUD would need to exist. The revision and changing aspect of the PUD process has yet to be addressed. The Planning Commission is not satisfied with the current language proposed. There is general acceptance of the idea that there be room for minor administrative changes without the need to go back through.the entire process. The current language says that minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee will be defined by ordinance as the City Administrator, Zoning • Administrator and /or other persons as depicted by the City Administrator. Shardlow said if this provision were not included, the City would be operating in violation of the City's N MINUTES'OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT 0 ordinance. The intent of this provision would be to allow for changes that would not impact the area or performance standards. Councilmember Callahan inquired as to whether the PUD would take the place of the existing zoning districts within the City. Shardlow clarified that the PUD would be available throughout the City. Subdivision 2 spells out that any change in use or rearrangement of lots or building tracts,'can only be approved by a public hearing conducted by the City Council. The purpose of this is that the final development plans would be recorded and would become the zoning guideline that would run with the land. There would be a performance guarantee provided and a performance bond or letter of credit shall be required of the developer. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four - fifths vote of the entire Council. Callahan stated that in essence this would be "spot zoning ". Councilmember Nettles asked whether there was minimum acreage that would be required in order for a PUD to be used. Councilmember Callahan stated that 5 -acre minimum was proposed. Mayor Grabek asked what would happen to a 5 -acre lot. Shardlow stated that instead of having an application that would subdivide the parcel one lot at a time, there would be the need to have a development plan for the entire parcel. Grabek stated that the current zoning ordinances allow only one structure on a 5 -a.cre parcel. Shardlow stated that the PUD would allow someone to apply for a commercial use in a 5 -acre residential area. The Council could approve or not approve the application based upon its merits. Mayor Grabek asked why that type of flexibility was advantageous? Shardlow stated that one of the advantages would be the opportunity to design development in accordance with the land as opposed to having an arbitrary set of standards to every piece of property., Mayor Grabek expressed his concern of a City Council being able to allow commercial development in residential areas with'only a 4 /5ths vote. Shardlow stated that currently that could be done. Mayor Grabek asked why the 5 -acre minimum was necessary? Shardlow stated that the 5 -acres was intended to assure that there would be enough land to provide for an integrated plan. He added that the PUD would enhance the discretion of the City. It would allow the City to regulate and discuss aspects of development which are beyond the basic requirements of the typical zoning ordinance. Shardlow stated that the City could draft a design framework manual as a part of the PUD that would regulate the building materials used within a building development. Grabek asked to what percentage of available land in Orono would the PUD apply. Mabusth replied that the Navarre area and all along Highway 12 would apply. Shardlow stated that the PUD could be used for redevelopment, not only • initial development of an area. rl MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED Councilmember Goetten asked whether the purpose of the 5- acre minimum was to specifically prevent development unless 5 acres were available to do so? Shardlow responded that the purpose of the 5 -acre was to achieve a more comprehensive development of any area as opposed to a hodge -podge of 1 -acre developments. It would defeat the purpose of the PUD if only a 1 -acre minimum was required. City Administrator Bernhardson added that.the PUD could apply in any zoning district whether it be 2 -acre, 1/2 -acre, etc. It is expected that there would be few applications within the 2 and 5 acre zones unless the proposal involved clustering the development as in a PRD application. The 5 -acre zone has no density significance with regard to the PUD. The only requirement for the PUD is that there be a minimum 5- acre assemblage of property. One reason the possibility of a 10- acre minimum was discussed was because the overall PUD development would need to have a plan for storm water, sewer, water, etc. Shardlow interjected that the 5 -acre PUD would require the developer to provide enough information to demonstrate that those same objectives could be accomplished. Zoning Administrator Mabusth inquired as to whether the PUD would be a valuable tool for the development of Navarre? Shardlow answered affirmatively. Mayor Grabek asked Shardlow for the worst and best scenario •involved in a hypothetical situation involving a PUD application wherein several 1 or 2 acre residential lot were joined to meet the 5 -acre minimum. Shardlow stated that a bad use of the PUD would be excessive density on one piece of property where it was inconsistent with the overall area. Shardlow said that could be avoided by the Council not approving such�a plan. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that not passing the PUD now would not disallow a future council body from rezoning an area. Councilmember Goetten stated that the current ordinances would not allow such a plan to be approved. Callahan added that there would be a less likely occurrence of such rezoning of property if the PUD was not permitted. Shardlow. stated that a good use of the PUD would be in the clustering of a development on the land where it was best suited. Mayor Grabek asked if such a plan would constitute a PRD? Shardlow stated that the PUD could allow some increase in density. Councilmember Goetten asked if, there would still be credits for wetlands, etc.? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that would apply if the property were sewered. The current PRD ordinance does not give density credits, only the LR -lC1 district provides for density credits. The PUD allows for better development. Goetten stated the PUD would make it easier to deal with the wetlands, ponding areas and soil conditions found in Orono. Mr. Shardlow stated that the PUD proposal came about because the Planning Commission wanted development controls put in the B -6 District. Shardlow did not believe that would be consistent with the limits of the City's authority. The Planning MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT Commission wanted to guarantee quality and consistency. The PUD • would allow that to happen. Mayor Grabek asked why a PRD would not take care of,that? Shardlow stated that a PRD,only deals with the density issue. Mayor Grabek stated that he understood the need to focus development in a certain area to benefit not only the land, but the surrounding area. However, in his opinion, a PUD would give the City the ability to control the density. The PRD would allow the clustering of a development for the purpose of preserving wetlands or other unique geographical conditions. Councilmember Callahan stated that the PUD would allow f or a gas station /grocery store on one acre and an apartment complex on another acre, with a commercial office building. Mayor Grabek stated that he understood the aspect of density, however, he did not see where there would be controls or restrictions. Shardlow stated that the PRD would only apply to residential property. A PUD would apply to all types of property. The idea of the PUD was to require an applicant for rezoning along the Highway 12 Corridor to present their design framework manual so that all buildings and landscaping would meet certain standards prior to approval. It would enhance the discretion that the City would have for prior to approval. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to whether there would be any "loopholes" that would enable an undesireable development • within the Orono Community if the PUD were allowed. Shardlow stated that this ordinance would provide the City with a process that would allow more guarantees and controls before development begins. Mayor GrabekCasked why that could not be done without a PUD? City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the PRD is very limited in that it applies mainly to density. There are PID's, PCD's and other such zoning designations in other Cities that provide detailed controls for development. The PUD combines the controls of all- those zoning districts and eliminates the need to have more than one. The current PRD is not that extensive. The PUD also allows for a mixed use development where residential development could be integrated with office buildings and other forms of commercial development. Mayor Grabek asked whether the PUD could be designated for use only within certain areas of Orono, such as Navarre and the Highway 12 Corridor? Shardlow stated that conceptually he would see no reason why such limitations could not be established. Bernhardson suggested that a PUD in the 2 and 5 acre zones not be allowed to increase the density credit. The other sewered areas could be considered if allowing an increase in density credit were desired. The primary purpose of the PUD is not to allow increased density, but rather to allow better use and control. Councilmember Nettles inquired as to whether Orono could legislate the types of uses it would allow or disallow for a PUD.. • Councilmember Callahan stated that he favored the idea of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED flexibility of setting standards for the PUD, but who would set those standards. Shardlow said that the standards would be set through the PUD process. The developer would proposes the Planned Unit Development and-specific details would be ironed out by the review and approval process. Shardlow continued to explain that whatever use was applied for, all of the standards in the zoning district that most closely alines with the use applied for would be the base standards that would apply. All of the present zoning standards would still exist, the PUD process would enhance those standards. Mayor Grabek stated that he needed more review time to review all the ramifications of the PUD. He thanked Mr. Shardlow for his input. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this matter at least until the October 24, 1988 Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1305 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES 2605 WAYZATA BLVD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2509 Mr. Joe Pallansch, a represenative from Washington Scientific Industries, was present for this matter. • City Administrator Bernhardson briefly outlined this application as being a request for an on -site storage pond to accomodate the drainage from the new addition. The storage site has been approved by the M.C.W.D. There would be the need for grading the soils along the west side of the property. Some of this soil was contaminated and has been placed along the side of the property. Handling of these soils will be covered under a separate application.. It was moved by-Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2509. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1340 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES 2605 WAYZATA BLVD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - FIRST PHASE RESOLUTION #2510 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application was for the purpose of dealing with the contaminated soils that were found on the property. Mayor Grabek asked how long ago? Bernhardson replied approximately one year ago. Washington Scientific promptly notified the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency of the contaminated soils. However, the P.C.A. did not inform the City of Orono of this problem. • The solution for ridding the area of this contaminated soil 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1340 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES CONTINUED involves two phases. The first phase would entail the digging of a 24' deep trench through the contaminated area and underlying it with tile. It would then be backfilled with appropriate materials and would then undertake pumping of that area with treatment of the waters for contamination. The water would go into the sanitary sewer. The second phase would involve treating the contaminated soil that remains above ground.' The process of "airstripping" would be used which involves treating the soil by thin spreading it to allow evaporation of the organic solvent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she had asked the P.C.A. why they had not apprised the City of Orono of this matter. Their response was that due to the cooperation and openess on the part df Washington Scientific, they had not felt it necessary to follow the formal permit process. However, they will keep the City updated from here on out. Councilmember Goetten stated that she had always felt that Washington Scientific had been straightforward in dealing with the City. She wanted assurance that the method of treating the contaminated soil would not pose any problems. Councilmember Nettles asked what the chemical was that they discovered in the soil. Mr. Pallansch stated that it was in the same family as drycleaning solvent. Nettles asked if it would leave any residue? Mr. Pallansch responded negatively. Goetten asked about the size of the area? Mabusth responded that it was approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of an acre. The trench will be 200' long 20' wide and 24'deep. Goetten asked whether the City would oversee the process ?, Mabusth stated that the City would be a part of the monitoring process. The engineering firm representing Washington Scientific would be responsible for keeping the City informed on a regular basis. It was moved by;Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2510. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1306 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3280 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2511 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item involved the application for a conditional use permit and variances for construction of a lift station. The proposed structure has been revised to have a residential appearance as opposed to a utility building. It will contain the underground piping, together with the pumps and an emergency generator. The generator would only be activated in the case of a power outage or for the purpose of testing which will occur once a week for 20 minutes to half an hour. 11 • U • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1306 METRO WASTE CONTROL CONTINUED It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #,:2511. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1331 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3280 NORTH SHORE DRIVE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2512 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application was for the purpose of dividing off a portion of an existing lot. The existing lot does currently have two residential units. One unit will be removed and replaced with the lift station. There would be an outlot of approximately 3,000 s.f. designated in an area where 21,000 is normally required. However, the outlot would be for utility purposes rather than residential purposes. Mayor Grabek asked if there were any concerned parties. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the gentleman renting the house on Lot 1 of the subdivision had indicated that he had no problem with the proposal. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2512. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1321 TOM HAISLET 950 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION 12513 The applicant,. Tom Haislet, was present for this matter. Ms. Lucy Taylor, a member of the School Board, Mr. Bill Fenholdt, School District Administration, and Mr. Tony Leung, Attorney for the School District were also present. City Administrator Bernhardson outlined this matter for the Counci lmembers and Mayor Grabek. Mr. Hais let was representing the School District in their purchase of property located at the southeast corner of County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road, opposite the High School. Because of the School District requirements pertaining to land acquisitions, they are only buying the parcel a quarter at a time. This method of acquisition required a four lot subdivision and because there are four lots, a road outlot is required and has been designated. The City of Orono will take underlying road and utility easements, just as the City would do with any private road. Once the School District has purchased the property within the 11 -year time period, the City would vacate the easement. This application is at the premliminary subdivision stage and there will be an agreement drafted by the City Attorney and Mr. Tony Leung, the Attorney for the School District. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1321 TOM HAISLET CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth reported that the applicant had . reviewed the 8 concerns set forth in her memo that needed to be included in the agreement. Items 3, 6 and 7 will be futher defined and' worked on by the City Attorney and Mr. Leung with staff's input." With regard to Item #2, Mabusth presented two possible schemes of development of the eastern parcel. The problem is the possibility of a developer coming in to the east who will be expected to address a future road connection to the proposed road outlot within the current development. The City will be obligated to inform such a developer of that agreement with the School Board. Mr. Leung stated that the reason he -had asked Ms. Mabusth to make that clarification was to verify the fact that the School District would not be obligated to develop the road. There cannot be a road running through the School's property for many reasons, but mainly due to safety. Mayor Grabek stated that the agreement would protect both the City and School District. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2513. Councilmember Callahan inquired about the park and road fees required with all subdivision applications. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission had overlooked the fees in their attempt to resolve all of the aspects of this application. Mabusth interpreted the Planning Commission's intentions would be not to charge the School District for those fees. There was no further discussion. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1324 MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM GREGORY 1099 TAMARACK DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2414 Mr. Clifford Reep, from Minnetonka Portable Dredging was present on behalf of'the applicants. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicants were seeking a conditional use permit to excavate an existing wetland to create a wildlife pond. All of the dredging or grading that would be done would be retained on the property. Even though the wetlands are being enlarged and deepened, there willl be no increase in the ponding area. Because of the configuration, it will lessen the storm ponding area by 9 %. When dealing with ponding, it is the outlet that determines the amount of storage, not the depth of the pond. The ponding area would still have capacity to handle the 100 -year storm. Mayor Grabek asked whether this would disturb the wetland area? Bernhardson replied that it would be disturbing the wetlands, but the applicants have received approval from the 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1324 WILLIAM GREGORY CONTINUED Watershed District. Garbek asked if this was the same • application that had been reviewed 4 years ago? Bernhardson replied that it was the same applicants, but a different location. Mayor Grabek asked if the other pond was ever excavated? Zoning Administrator Mabusth responded that the Gregorys had built one of the two other ponds. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to- accept the conditional use permit, Resolution #2514. Councilmember Callahan inquired about future development of any additional ponds. 'Mr. Reep stated that he did not know of any future plans. There were no further comments. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, ' Motion passed. #1325 LAKEVIEW GOLF OF ORONO 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2515 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application. involved after - the -fact approval of maintenance of two ditches and creation of a pond that was done in 1985, as well as approving the current application to construct 3 new ponds and relocate a tee box. There was some confusion on behalf of the applicant with regard to the after - the -fact approval for the work done in 1985. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the work done back in 1985 had received approval from the Planning Commission, but had never received formal approval from the City Council. Bernhardson resumed his explanation of the current application. He stated that the proposed locations for the ponds were not within any wetland area. The reason approval is required is due to the amount of dirt that is being moved. Gaffron added that the main reason the tee box is being relocated is because of complaints received from an adjacent property owner. It was moved by'Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2515. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1332 MARCELO GUMUCIO 980 FERNDALE ROAD WEST VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2516 Mr. Gumucio was not present for this matter, nor was his agent from Arteka, Inc. City Administrator informed the Council that Mr. Gumucio was • seeking an after - the -fact variance for the construction of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE' #1332 MARCELO GUMUCIO CONTINUTED driveway pillars that exceed the 3 -1/2 limit. They do conform • with the required width to allow for emergency vehicle access. Bernhardson asked Gaffron to confirm that the problems with this application were due to Mr. Gumucio's agent. Gaffron affirmed that observation and added that the - problem stemmed from a misinterpretation of the City's codes. Councilmember Goetten questioned the hardship that had been indicated concerning the need for lighting: If indeed that was the hardship, why then were the lights not being utilized? Gaffron responded that there were integral lighting fixtures halfway down each pillar that would be used immediately. The applicant was asking that opportunity be reserved for the future to place lights on top of each pillars should it be determined that more light was necessary. Goetten stated that she was not against the pillars, but she did not find the hardship to be worthy. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the pillars were up and they did 'not seem to be imposing upon the surrounding area. The Planning Commission had recommended., approval with a 4 to 1 vote. The one vote against was due to a believed lack of any true hardship. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2516. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, • Motion passed. 11333 SIDNEY REBERS 715 NORTH BROWN ROAD REZONING RESOLUTION #2525 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved the rezoning of a 32 acre parcel of land from the current rural, non - sewered 2 acre lot to a sewered 1 acre lot. Mr. Steve -Pf laum and Mr. Robert Rost from BRW, were present as respresentatives for Mr. Rebers, who was also present. Mr. Steve Pf laum updated the City Council with respect to the Rebers application. He informed them that the application was being presented in two sections, the rezoning and the subdivision. He reiterated Bernhardson's explanation of the proposed rezoning. The project hinges upon the approval to connect with a sewer interceptor. The Planning Commission had a sketch plan review of both proposals and had recently approved the rezoning application. There will be a number of conditions that will be set forth in a developer's agreement. Prior to the public hearing for the rezoning, Mr. Kost met with Planning Commission Chairman Kelley and other Planning Commission members for the purpose of making a list of items to be addressed at the public hearing concerning the conditional use permit and PRD. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1333 SIDNEY REBERS CONTINUED •Mr. Pf laum explained that the property is approximately 40 acres, only 32 acres will be addressed at this time. The southerly 7 acres are scheduled for commercial development at a later time. The 32 acres being reviewed for rezoning are,heavily wooded and have considerable steep slopes. The objective of the rezoning is to have a sewered subdivision with minimum destruction of the trees.,, The PRD concept is to try to preserve a buffer around the perimeter of the development. The 32 acres would contain 25 lots and will have single access. The proposal was for a large cul -de -sac, however, the Planning Commission preferred that the road be looped for the purposes of emergency access. There would be no connection to other roads around the site. The Planning Commission also requested that an outlot be designated for the ultimate construction of a frontage road to access the commercial section of the parcel. The proposal was developed in such a way that it would meet the current zoning ordinances and the proposed ordiances involved with the Highway 12 Corridor. Mr. Robert Kost showed the Councilmembers and Mayor Grabek the topography of the parcel which depicted the unique characteristics that were considered when the plan was developed. The Rebers' parcel is surrounded on the east, west and north side by rural residential property in the 2 -5 acre densities. The south side of the property is zoned commercial. The lowest point •on the property is 9941. Drainage occurs off of a ridge and'some runs into upper Dickey Lake, the majority of runoff runs through a swale and ends up at a culvert at the corner of North Brown Road and Highway 12. The site access will either be at the top of the `hi 11 on North Brown Road or at the bottom. Mr. Kost brief ly addressed the proposed subdivision. The main objective of the subdivision will be the preservation of as many trees as possible. There are not many mature maple tree forests left within the Minneapolis Metropolitan area. The PRD will allow for the creation of a large open space that will be deeded to a homeowner's association that will be anywhere from 50' to 100' in width and surrounds the entire site. There will be heavy restrictions pertaining to tree removal placed on this section through covenants. The covenants would also prohibit site grading and building within that protected area. There will also be preservation measures developed to protect the trees around each building pad on each lot. Sewering this property will also alleviate the need to remove trees to install mound systems. The type of soils on the parcel are not conducive to septic systems. Calculations were made to compare the amount of tree removal necessary on a 2 -acre lot with septic versus a 1- acre lot with sewer. With septic systems and 15 2 -acre lots, 207,600 s.f. of tree removal would be required. With 25 1 -acre, sewered lots, 175,000 s.f. of tree removal would be necessary. Mr. Kost showed a sketch plan depicting an image of how the lots • would be developed. Placing the homes on a cul -de -sac will also 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1333 SIDNEY REBERS CONTINUED allow for more tree preservation. Mr. Rost stated that one of the two major points in favor of the rezoning is the transition that will occur between the commercial and residential zoning. The 1 -acre PRD with the buffer perimeter will lend itself better to abutting commercial property than the 2 -acre rural residential zoning. The other point is that this proposal is consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor, which has served as the underlying, framework for this plan. , Councilmember Callahan asked for clarification as to where the proposed rezoning will occur. Mr. Rost indicated on the sketch where the dividing line between the commercial zoning and the proposed 1 -acre zoning would occur. Callahan stated that he was impressed with the proposal asked whether there were any neighbors present who wished to express their view point. Mr. Robbin Sentell, 736 Dickey Lake Drive, addressed the Council.. He agreed that the development plan was laid out very well. His only concern involved a potential connection of the cul -de -sac with Pine Ridge Lane. Since that was not being proposed, he had no objections to the proposal. Callahan expressed his opinion of having the subdivision and rezoning applications heard simultaneously. • Councilmember Goetten thought that the development was going • to be very attractive and utilized the area quite well. Her concerns involved traffic, Brown Road and a buffer between this development and the property owners to the north. Councilmember Nettles stated that he liked the concept of transition from Highway 12 to this residential development. He questioned where the private road would loop should it be required to do so, or in the alternative, where an emergency vehicle access would be located? Mr. Rost stated that there would be two possible locations for the emergency access. One would be off of Highway 12, the other would be Pine Ridge. Nettles questioned the need for such an access and asked the City Attorney about the City's liability requirements. City Attorney Barrett responded that there has been increased litigation arising with regard to road designs. The zoning ordinances that would control this development, discourage cul -de -sacs. However, a variance would not be required if approval of the cul -de -sac were given. City Administrator Bernhardson added that the issue of the cul -de -sac is one that will be addressed under the guidelines of the subdivision. Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Pflaum if there was a significant reason why the rezoning needed approval at this meeting, as opposed to waiting until the subdivision was presented for a vote? Mr. Pf laum stated that the subdivision issues were complicated so if the rezoning portion of the plan • 17 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL-MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1333 SIDNEY REBERS CONTINUED could be voted upon and put aside it would help keep the process moving. 1 It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2525. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1338 DUANE & CONNIE SCHIBILLA 3235 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2517 The applicants were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved a request to construct a 241x 26' two - story, two -car garage. This garage would replace a previous garage that was destroyed in the July 1987 "Super Storm ". The main issue involved with this matter is whether a 33' easement in favor of the City of Orono exists on the property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron added that the Schibil la's attorney is working to find out whether the easement is a mistake. The City Attorney has examined the records for this property and has determined that the easement could be a mistake. If the Schibilla's attorney determines that the easement exists, the Schibillas would need to go through a Proceeding Subsequent to remove the easement from title. At that time, the City would need to determine whether they were interested in maintaining the easement or if they would prefer to vacate it. The issues regarding the size of the proposed garage and the hardcover still need to be addressed. The staff's recommendations are that any action to approve this application be conditioned upon deferring issuance of a building permit until the easement matter is resolved. Mr. Schibilla stated that it was highly questionable whether the easement exists. He has seen surveys and legal descriptions of adjacent property and the easement does not exist on those properties. Originally, the applicants' property, was two separate parcels. On one description, the easement is indicated, on the second parcel, there is language that allows for the right to create an easement. If the City does have an easement, Mr. Schibilla believed it would only be 33' x 151. The City will have to decide whether or not they want the easement. He wanted the Council to decide that issue immediately so he could commence with the construction of the garage. If there is an easement, and the City decides it does not want to vacate it, Mr. Schibilla would not have another location for his garage. All of the neighboring properties have garages that are located in such a • way that they too would be on the 33' easement. Mayor Grabek asked about the ramifications allowing Mr. Schibilla to build if in fact the easement did exist. Gaffron 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • ZONING FILE #1338 SCHIBILLA CONTINUED stated that the City Attorney had advised against the City allowing a structure on a public easement. City Attorney Barrett added that. the City would have to abandon the easement. Grabek asked about the easement extending on the properties to the east of the Schibillas'. Gaffron stated that the existence of the easement on neighboring properties appeared sporadically. Grabek asked how that would affect the City. Barrett stated that the City would need to condemn the property where the easement did not exist in order to make the easement continuous and accessible. Mayor Grabek inquired whether it would be in the City's interest to keep the easement since it is sporadic? Mayor Grabek asked if the Schibi 1 la's previous garage was located in the same place? Gaffron answered in the affirmative. Grabek asked if the proposed garage would be in line with the neighboring garages? Gaffron replied that it would, and added that all of the garages are accessed by the gravel road within the railroad property. i Councilmember Callahan observed that should Crystal Bay Road be closed and the Railroad not grant an easement to the property owners, the City may need to retain the 33' public easement. Councilmember Goetten stated that she had the same concern. Mr. Schibilla stated that allowing him to build a garage would not mean that the City was giving up its easement. City Attorney Barrett said there would be the question of whether allowing the construction of the garage would mean the City was abandonning the easement. He suggested that there may be a document that could be drafted to address that. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Schibilla if he intended to build his garage yet this year? Mr. Schibilla stated that he was ready to go. Councilmember Goetten reiterated her concern over the lack of accessibility,. should Crystal Bay Road be closed. Councilmember Callahan suggested the possibility of a lease agreement that would require razing the garage if a determination were made that the easement did in fact exist. City Attorney Barrett said that the problem is that allowing the construction to take -place, without determining whether the easement exists would mean the City would have to abandon it rights. Mayor Grabek inquired as to how the City could enter into a lease if ownership was not certain. Councilmember Callahan stated that the lease would be a written indication that if the easement did exist, the City did not intend to abandon it. The lease would provide the stipulation that if the easement did exist and the City decided to put a road through in that area, Mr. Schibilla would tear down his garage. City Administrator Bernhardson suggested another alternative, which would be building the garage just off of the easement. There is no required setback from the easement. • However, the topography may be a problem and there would be an increase in hardcover. Mrs. Schibilla added that it would also 19 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE #1338 SCHIBILLA CONTINUED require removal of trees. Mr. Bill Wolfe, a neighbor of the Schibillas' further added that the garage would not be in line with the neighboring garages. The proposed location for the garage makes the most sense. Mr. John Nelson, the Schibillas' contractor stated that the pre- existing garage was closer to the railroad property than the new structure would be. Mayor Grabek stated that if a lease could be drafted to address the potential easement situation, he would be in favor of the application. Councilmember Callahan concurred. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the application #1338, and adopt Resolution #2517, conditioned upon the drafting of an agreement between the City of Orono and the Schibillas. The agreement shall provide that if a public easement is found to exist on the Schibilla property, and if the City of Orono ever decides to construct a road on that easement, the Schibillas will raze their garage. Councilmember Goetten asked how this would be handled. City Attorney Barrett stated that if a Proceeding Subsequent ensued, the City would need to go into Court and declare its interest. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reminded the Council and Mayor Grabek that the application involved a two- story accessory structure. He added that the'proposed Resolution placed conditions on approval that prohibited using the other level for a dwelling and that plumbing could not be installed. The Planning Commission approved the application, citing topography as the hardship. There will be hardcover at 39.6% in the 75' to 250', which is essentially the same as the previous garage. Gaffron asked whether the language within the Resolution needed to be changed to state that there will be an agreement that could take effect as soon as it is drafted and executed. Mayor Grabek stated that was correct. Councilmember Goetten stated that she would like to see no additional hardcover in the future. Mayor Grabek stated that the City should handle the drafting of the agreement to assure that it contains the necessary provisions. Mayor Grabek asked from where the funding would come? City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the applicant would have to pay for anything over and above the initial application fee. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. #1341 DANIEL R. VAUGHAN & TODD ZIESMER 3440 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2518 Todd Ziesmer, one of the applicants, was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhards'on explained that the applicants were seeking a lot width variance to construct a home. The portion of the lot where the structure is proposed to be built is shaped like a pan handle. The lot width in that area is 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 ZONING FILE 11341 VAUGHAN & ZIESMER CONTINUED • 118' where 200' would be required. The concerns expressed by the neighboring property owner did not pertain to the side yard setbacks, but rather sight lines. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the neighbor to the east had asked that house be moved northward approximately 10 to 151. He felt that he could work with the applicant on this issue as opposed to requiring specific language within the Resolution. Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Ziesmer about the concerns of his neighbor. Mr. Ziesmer stated that he did not foresee any problems in working with his neighbor to resolve their differences. Councilmember Goetten inquired about the septic system. Gaffron stated that Mr. Ziesmer had the required testing done for the purpose of placing a septic system on the property. However, if the City should determine that City sewer would be installed in that area, he would like to have a holding tank installed as opposed to paying the cost of a full septic system. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2518. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.. #1342 DAVID & VALERIE PETERSON . 1125 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION 12519 Mr. Peterson was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that this application involved the request for a side setback variance in order to construct a detached garage. The original proposal was to build the garage only 1' away from the neighboring side property line. The Planning Commission had requested the applicant revise his proposal so that the garage would be 5' from the neighboring property. Councilmember Goetten commented that she had visited the site and in her opinion, the proposed location for the garage was the only suitable location due to the extreme slopes. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2519. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: ORONO /LONG LAKE DISCUSSIONS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, that the Council accepts the information regarding the Orono /Long Lake discussions. Motion, Ayes =4, 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • ORONO /LONG LAKE DISCUSSIONS CONTINUED Nays =O, Motion passed. APPOINTMENT PARK COMMISSION MEMBERS City Administrator Bernhardson explained that back in 1985 the City Council decided to increase the number of Park Commission members from seven to eight. The ordinance was never changed to reflect that change. Currently there are three vacancies within the Park Commission and three persons have expressed interest in filling those positions. The Council could either choose to appoint all three persons and amend the ordinance or only choose two members, which would allow the ordinance to remain as is. Councilmember Callahan indicated that Mr. Richard Flint was a professional partner and therefore he would abstain from voting in this matter. Councilmember Goetten stated the Mr. Flint had contacted her and expressed his concerns about the bike /hike trail. She was,in favor of Mr. Flint being appointed to fill one of the vacancies. She added however, that if there were three interested persons and three vacancies that all interested persons should be allowed to serve. Councilmember Nettles concurred. • It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to amend the ordinance to allow for eight Park Commission members, and to appoint Richard Flint, James Gilbert and Alexander Vongries to the Park Commission. Motion, Ayes =3, Nays =O, Councilmember Callahan abstained. Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: RECYCLING PROPOSALS City Administrator Bernhardson reported that the City of Orono has been participating in the West Hennepin Recycling which has provided drop -off sites for several communities in this area. There is a proposal to undertake curb -side pick up. The question, however, is the costs involved with curb -side pick up. The City has contacted two firms, Super Cycle of Minneapolis and Polka Dot Recycling of Buffalo. At this time, Super Cycle would be the most economical. i One of the two areas that need to be addressed is the acquisition of containers. Most of the communities that have curb -side recycling have funded the acquisition of the containers which are approximately $7.00 each. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated that the containers are large enough where the City would only need one. Hennepin County would reimburse Orono $2.00 for each container. If one container were purchased, the overall cost would be approximately $13,000.00 per year; two • containers would be $26,000.00. The other aspect to be reviewed would be the operation 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • RECYCLING PROPOSALS CONTINUED itself. If the City were to contract with Super Cycle, the initial cost for one year would be $26,000.00. However, Hennepin County would reimburse 50%-80%, which would mean a net operating expense between $6,000.00 and $13,000.00 to the City of Orono on an ongoing basis. This matter was being presented as information for future consideration. The costs mentioned above have not been included in the 1989 Budget. .Councilmember Goetten stated that she have received a phone call from Mary Frank who was very conerned about a community recycling program. Goetten added that she too had been an advocate for recycling. She believed that the City needed to take a leadership role in establishing a recycling program. Ms. Beth Peterson, 2625 Fox Street, stated that she was very concerned about recycling and had attended the meeting purely for the purpose of hearing what the Council intended to do. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that originally it was thought that drop -off recycling would be the only feasible method, because the cost, especially in rural areas of curb -side could be very expensive. He was surprised to find out how • economical curb -side pick up could be. The Communities of Mound, Maple Plain and Minnetonka Beach have undertaken curb -side recyling. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated that they were also looking into the possibility of having pick -up in the location where the garbage would be picked up. If Super Cycle were used, the cost would be the same for such pick -up as opposed to curb -side pick up. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that if at a later date, there was a cost differential, it would be very difficult to go back to just curb -side pick up. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated that Super Cycle would only pick up aluminum, glass and newspaper. Bernhardson inquired as to whether West Hennepin would still be maintaining the drop -off sites? Gerhardson replied that the City could enter into an agreement for drop -off sites with whomever was performing the curb -side pick up. Ms. Peterson asked whether there had been any effort made to get commercial properties involved with recycling? Gerhardson stated that the commercial aspect of recycling was just getting underway. Bernhardson added that at one time the City could include the-corrugated paper, etc. from various commercial entities in its overall tonnage. However, the County wants the commercial recycling segregated from the residential. Gerhardson stated that was a reason why the required percentage for recycling in 1989 dropped from 13% to 10 %. However, by 1990, the County wants an overall 16% residential recycling achievement. • Councilmember Goetten asked whether Orono was recycling 10% of their overa1 1 garbage? Gerhardson stated that it was difficult 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 •RECYCLING PROPOSALS CONTINUED to determine how Orono was performing, but overall, the communities are doing -very well, with each community averaging only 1% or 2% short of the expectation. It was moved' by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this item until October 24, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. BUDGET ADOPTION /1989 TAX LEVY City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this item was for the purpose of adopting the General Fund Budget for 1989 and establishing a tax levy for 1989. Information was presented to the Council and Mayor Grabek concerning the costs involved with legal prosecution costs and citation and fine revenues. Based on 6 -month data for 1988, the principal costs are being driven by the number of citations from 1985 to 1988 that have been processed for Orono have doubled and so have the fines and forfeitures. However, our legal costs have more than doubled. This was due in part to the hourly rates being billed by Popham, Haik were lower than the hourly rates for which the City was currently being billed. Had we been billed at the current level we were being charged, back in 1986, our legal costs would have been 34% higher. The ratio of prosecution rates to fines in 1986 Would have been the same as those projected in 1988. The rinciple reason both fine revenues and prosecution costs are up is due to the Police Officers issuing substantially more citations. Councilmember Goetten asked for this to be tabled so she would have further review time. City Administrator Bernhardson mentioned that the two items could be separated and voted upon separately. He added that there were two changes 'to be made in the proposed 1989 Budget. One item was the possibility of $100,000.00 being included in the budget from the General Fund in order to allow for more flexibility; and the conversion of the recorder position. from a part -time to a full -time position. Councilmember Goetten inquired whether recycling costs would need to be addressed for the proposed Budget. Bernhardson stated that would be a reason to table the budget portion of this item. Councilmember Callahan inquired as to why the tax levy would not be affected by the Budget? Bernhardson stated that the recommendation was to levy the maximum allowed in order to retain flexibility. If the City chooses not to spend that, it could be adjusted in future years. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember 0allahan, to table the 1989 Budget, but adopt the tax levy of 1,352,690 together with $30,000.00 for the deficit for the Crystal Bay Sewer. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 CITY FACILITIES - SITE CRITERIA • Councilmember Callahan surmised that the information with which he was presented was the criteria that may be applied for selecting a site. _City Administrator Bernhardson agreed and added that in taking any proposed site, the criteria with which the council was asked to weigh, would be used to determine whether the proposed site would be adequate. Callahan asked how the process would work once they received the feedback from the Council. Bernhardson stated that the site planners presented the City with a list of criteria that were usually considered when choosing a new building site. The City staff and Planning Commission evaluated the list and made deletions and additions to that list. This information was now being presented to the Council and Mayor Grabek for their consideration, deletions and additions as to what they would like taken into consideration when determining a site for a new facility.. Councilmember Callahan asked whether there were actual, physical sites that were being considered? Bernhardson responded that the sites being considered were the Crystal Bay area or the location by the sewer ,plant. Callahan suggested having the site planners choose a site they feel is best and then approach the Council for feedback. Councilmember Goetten stated that it was her understanding that the site planners were to meet with each Councilmember individually. Bernhardson stated that the time • element began to be a problem and that presenting the criteria list was a part of that process. Goetten stated that she agreed with Callahan, in that she would not know which of the proposed sites was best unless she weighed the pros and cons of each site. Bernhardson stated that the site planners were attempting to gather criteria to weigh the sites. Councilmember Nettles said that one of the Orono Police Officers had approached him and suggested that the Police Department be more central.ly located because of the long response time to get to ShorelinetDrive. He did not know if that was already addressed within the criteria, but if not, he would add police response time under "Functional Relationship to other Services and Uses" Goetten observed that perhaps that was why the present City Hall location and the Old Crystal Bay Road were favored more than the Highway 12 area. Mayor Grabek interjected that the police were not always responding to a call from the Police Station, response time would be from a street location. Bernhardson stated that issue would be critical if it were going to apply to the fire station. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt the site criteria for the site analysis of City Facilities and the Council directs staff to explore substituting the site at the southwest corner of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 for the site on Brown Road. Councilmember.Callahan • asked whether this proposal included removing this site from consideration and adding the site on Highway 12? Bernhardson 25 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • CITY FACILITIES -SITE CRITERIA CONTINUED clarified that it was up to the Council. Mayor Grabek stated that he wanted to see how all three sites faired. Bernhardson stated that there were additional costs involved with each site evaluated. Callahan stated that he seriously objected to the removal of the Brown Road site from consideration. Goetten and Nettles concurred. 'Mayor Grabek amended his - motion to exploring the three possible sites, Councilmember Nettles seconded. Motion, Ayes =4, Motion passed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt the site criteria for the site analysis of City Facilities. Motion, Ayes =3, Callahan, Nay. Motion passed. AMEND COUNCIL SALRIES It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to have the Council and Mayor salaries remain the same. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to whether these salaries had been raised in the past? City Administrator Bernhardson replied that that they had been raised 2 years ago. There was no further discussion. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 TASK FORCE City Administrator Bernhardson reported that the direction of the Task Force, subsequent to a meeting in Delano, is now to •request MNDOT to spend engineering time to develop a maximum highway within the existing right -of -way and to request that MNDOT determine a layout along the existing alignment. This would provide people with information as to what each of those option would entail. It would not indicate support for either of those options, but would be for information only. Councilmember Callahan agreed that the more information available, the better. Councilmember Goetten added that Highway 12 was of great concern to the citizens of Orono. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to indicate its support for the request since the request would not in any way bind the City to support of any particular option, but only to gain information as to options that may be realistic. In addition to requesting MNDOT to do work to determine the maximum within the current corridor and impact of a four lane on the current alignment, the City desires as appropriate that MNDOT begin work to develop alternative corridors for Highway 12. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. LOCAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM City Bernhardson explained that there had been a request from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to obtain financial support from Orono to contribute toward the development •of data and proposals for the 1989 Legislature to try to make the current property tax system more rational. Most of the larger communities have committed to contribute approximately $2,000.00, . MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 • LOCAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM CONTINUED the smaller communities, $500.00. Bernhardson recommended that the City contribute up to $500.00. There was also a proposed Resolution from the City of Brooklyn Park encouraging the Legislature to undertake a reform of the property tax and State aid system. If it was the Council's desire to do so, a similar resolution could be sent *from Orono to the Legislature. Mayor Grabek stated that making sense of the tax system would be money well spent. He also would not object to sending a resolution to the Legislature. Councilmember Goetten concurred, especially if the efforts - proved to be beneficial to Orono. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to contribute up to $500.00 for the funding of a Property Tax Data System development together with the adoption of Resolution #2535 urging the legislature to take a comprehensive review of the property tax system in the State of Minnesota. Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. ANIMAL PERMIT ORDINANCE City Administrator reviewed this item. The. question is whether to delete the ordinance or implement a system to monitor and regulate the ordinance. The zoning ordinances regulate the • ownership of animals other than dogs or cats, but does not offer much control. '\— Mayor Grabek stated that he could go either way. Councilmember Goetten stated that she did not want to see Orono ._ ,/get so restrictive that it would discourage people from having animals other than dogs or cats. .She inquired as to whether there had been past problems in this regard. Bernhardson replied that there had been few complaints. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to delete the Animal Ordinance No. 9.13, subd. 7, entitled "Animals and Fowl - Keeping, Transporting, Treatment, Housing ". Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. RULES FOR DEPOSITORY Mayor Grabek questioned whether the Investment Policy Draft had been sent to the City Auditors for their review. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that had not been. Councilmember Callahan suggested having the Auditor's comments by the October 24,, 1988 Council Meeting. Mayor Grabek stated that he would like to see a letter from the Auditor indicating his approval for this proposal. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to table this itme until the October 24, 1988 Council • Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays. =0, Motion passed. 27 't • a h MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 NAVARRE CROSSWALK* It was moved. by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to direct staff to notify Hennepin County that the City of Orono is requesting a crosswalk be allowed at or near its present -location in the Navarre Business Area dependent upon the location of the MTC bus shelter in the Navarre Business Area. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by. Councilmember Nettles, that staff be directed to place this item for discussion on the agenda for the October 24, 1988 Council Meeting. Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. BOHNS POINT FEASIBILITY STUDY* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to withdraw the feasibility study for the upgrade of Bohn's Point Road.' Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. HAZARDOUS BUILDING PROCEEDINGS 2180 PROSPECT RESOLUTION, #2521 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the house at •2180 Prospect had been in a deteriorating state for a number of years. The house is no longer occupied. One of the basement walls has caved in and there are several other structural and environmental problems with the house. The City would like to initiate hazardous building proceedings. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2521. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. MOUND FIRE CONTRACT* . It was moved by-, Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the revised language for the Contract for Fire Service withthe City of Mound and to approve the 1989 cost to Orono of $53,425.00. Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. ASSESSMENT ROLL DELINQUENT CHARGES /PAYMENTS RESOLUTION #2522* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2522, adopting the' assessment roll for hazardous Building Actions, 1988., Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. — - HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS RESOLUTION 12523* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by •Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2523, providing' 'for the collection of delinquent charges for 1988 sewer and water utility services and annual septic inspection program fees. Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 UTILITY /SEPTIC CHARGES RESOLUTION #2524* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2524, providing for the collection of delinquent Developers' Fees and Alarm Users' fees in the amount of $1,957.6:9 and to add 10.0% interest to the amounts due, effective November, 1988. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. ' ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Woodhill Avenue; County 15 Progress; Orono /Minnetonka Beach Interceptor Progress; 3508 Ivy Place; County 15 Beautification; Michael Rirnyczuk; and Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: There was no report from the City Attorney. LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the following license: Home Occupation License - Patricia R. Fitzpatrick 2845 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 • Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. ' BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:55 P.M. City Administrator Bernhardson requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:55 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 P.M. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed. NN Jam s R. Grabek, Mayor Barbara A. Peterson, Acting Mayor 0