HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-1989 Council Minutes• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING
HELD MAY 22, 1989
ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M.
The Council met on the above date with the following members
present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Nettles, Goetten and
Peterson; Councilmember Callahan 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,
City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook, Police Chief Kilbo and
City Recorder Scheff ler.
CONSENT AGENDA*
Councilmember Peterson requested the removal of item #23
from the consent agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the
exception of item #23 which was removed and discussed in the
order it appeared on the agenda. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion
passed.
APPPROVAL OF MINUTES*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
• Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the May 8, 1989
Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
•
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -BOARD OF REVIEW*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the May 11,
1989 Board of Review Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion
passed.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT:
There was no LMCD Report as Representative, JoEllen Hurr,
was unable to attend the meeting.
Mayor Grabek indicated that he had been contacted by the
Mayor of Greenwood concerning the St. Alban's Bay Marina. Mayor
Grabek also mentioned that he wished to address the issue of the
amount of shoreline over which the LMCD wanted to have
jurisdiction. He wanted to get an opinion from the Council and
pass that information along to Representative Hurr.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
1
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: •
#1396 14INNETONKA BOAT WORKS
1449 SHORELINE DRIVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2638
Mr. Irwin Jacobs, owner of the Minnetonka Boat Works, was
present as was Ms. Beth Whittaker, a representative of the
Minnetonka Boat Works.
City Administrator Bernhardson said that this item was
conceptually approved at the previous Council Meeting. Staff was
bringing forth the Resolution and a revised plan that was also
previously approved.
Mr. Jacobs indicated that he had no objections to the
Resolution and was confident that the plan as approved would be
mutually satisfying.
Councilmember Nettles stated that he discussed this matter
with Councilmember Callahan and found that Callahan shared his
concerns regarding safety of County Road 15 and increased lake
density. Nettles said he determined that Callahan's vote in
favor of this application was based on his feeling that the City
Council did not have jurisdiction to regulate docks. Nettles •
said that he had reviewed the case of "Welch v. The City of
Orono" and though the City lost, under Minn. Stat. 412.221, subd.
12, Orono does have the power to regulate dock location, length
and other reasonable regulations that extend into Lake
Minnetonka. Nettles was authorized by Callahan to speak on his
behalf and indicate that he wanted more time to evaluate this
application. Nettles said that Callahan shared his concern that
the way in which the City was relating with the LMCD on this
application was not ideal. In his opinion, the City was
responding to the LMCD's authorization for the number of docks
granted to Minnetonka Boat Works and the City was supposed to
react to that authorization from a land use standpoint. He said
that he would like a more coordinated effort with the LMCD.
Nettles clarified that his reservations had no relation to the
applicant personally, or his ability to do a good job. He felt
that the City could not ask for a better developer than Mr.
Jacobs.
Councilmember Nettles said he was concerned that the City
was stacking uses to an already congested area. In his opinion
the City would be adding uses beyond that area's capacity to
safely handle them. He also did not want to see the City add
more commercial concentration along Highway 15. He feared that
the Highway Department would at some point request that Highway
15 be expanded and upgraded. Additionally, Nettles was concerned
about the City's consistency in relation to this application and •
the safety issue regarding County Road 51. He also noted that
the City is on record as being opposed to the Regional Park, due
in part to the City's belief that there is already overuse of
2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
• ZONING FILE #1396- MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS CONTINUED
Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Jacobs' application, if approved, would add
48 large boats to that use. In conclusion, Nettles said that he
had received a call from a citizen congratulating him on his
stand against this application.
Nettles proposed that in lieu of acting on this application
that it either be tabled until Councilmember Callahan was present
to express his views, or that a moratorium be placed on new or
expansion of existing commercial marinas on the lake until a
sufficient ordinance addressing these concerns could be drafted
and adopted.
It was moved by Councilmember Nettles to propose a
moratorium on new or expansion of existing commercial marinas
until such time that an ordinance is drafted to deal with the
statutory power the City has to regulate piers, docks and wharfs
under that statute. Mayor Grabek suggested that the other
Councilmembers be given the opportunity to discuss the
application.
Mayor Grabek opined that Nettles' concern for safety was
somewhat unfounded. It was his belief that this development
would improve the safety of Highway 15 from what currently
exists. He noted that the aspect of parking and pedestrians made
• the City's concerns for County Road 51 comparable to County Road
15. He said that Mr. Jacobs was trying to eliminate the parking
and pedestrian traffic along County Road 15, which the Mayor
believed was the real safety problem. Mayor Grabek said that
having a designated cross -walk would improve the situation. In
response to Nettles concern of increased density, Mayor Grabek
replied that this marina had the lowest density of any marina
area. Grabek noted that there was also the benefit of the
amenities being provided. Mayor Grabek stated that in his
opinion the development would be an improvement to the City and
the safety along that entire stretch of road. Mayor Grabek said
that he was not in favor of a moratorium and did not feel that
the City should sacrifice the opportunity to improve the
lakeshore and the commercial establishments existing in the area.
He said that the City did not want to depress development and
improvement of property, but would rather promote it. Mayor
Grabek said that this was an opportunity for City improvement in
exchange for 40 boat slips. Mayor Grabek told Nettles that use
of the term "big boats" was inappropriate.
Councilmember Peterson expressed her concerns regarding the
parking plan being proposed and the runoff and retention basin.
Peterson said that she would not oppose an increase of parking
stalls to 52, but objected to a proposal for 68. Peterson noted
the City Engineer's recommendation concerning the use of
limestone in surface pavement. Mr. Jacobs interjected that he
• was very flexible and was being as specific as necessary for the
benefit of the Council.
Mr. Jacobs reminded the Council that he is a resident in that
3
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
ZONING FILE #1396- MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS CONTINUED •
area and would not make a proposal that would increase congestion
or safety risks. Jacobs noted that there were more people in
that area at one time today, than there are boaters to his marina
on any given day. He said that he paid the Orono Police
Department over $300.00 to have police patrol of that area
during the weekend. Ms. Whittaker confirmed that in addition to
the security personnel 5 days a week, Minnetonka Boat Works has
had Orono Police on hand for weekends. She said that people had
to be removed from the parking lot and no parking areas.
Councilmember Nettles did not disagree that the situation was bad
at this time, his concerns stem from adding to the existing
congestion. Mr. Jacobs asked Nettles why he believed the
development would add to the congestion? Nettles cited the
factor of 1/3 of the new slips, or 14 boats, would add to the
number of boats and boaters already using the facility. Jacobs
argued that with the addition of 14 boats there would still be
less congestion due to the elimination of illegal parking and
pedestrians in that area. Furthermore, Jacobs advised Nettles
that he was providing a loading dock that would limit the amount
of crossings of Highway 15. Jacobs cited the Boat Works Marina
in Wayzata as an example saying that there is far more traffic in
and out of that area, but there have been no incidents of any
kind in 2 1/2 years. Jacobs said that he would be spending more
to develop this marina than he would get back. The development
was not for the purpose of being a money- making venture, but •
rather to improve an eyesore. He said he wants to see the
project done right and hoped to set the standards for neighboring
marinas.
Mayor Grabek interjected that Mr. Jacobs was trying to clean
up more than half of that area and did not understand how the
area would not be improved once Mr. Jacobs' proposals were
implemented.
Councilmember Goetten said that she had always had concerns
regarding docks and the City's jurisdiction. She appreciated the
work an research that Councilmember Nettles had put forth, but
was not in favor of moratoriums, especially since the Council was
in the midst of this application and had given conceptual
approval. However, she felt that the City could still be looking
at the issue of marinas and docks. Goetten said that the City
has been supportive of the LMCD for quite some time and she did
not want to have one set of standards for the LMCD and another
for the City. She preferred to see the two entities work
together. She said the last thing the City would want would be
for the DNR or Met Council to take control over the lake. She
felt that this matter could be worked through and that approval
could be given to Mr. Jacobs without further delay.
Mr. Robert Paige wondered whether the Council was aware that
the major part of the congestion came from the area farther down •
County Road 15 where parking was allowed. Mayor Grabek replied
that it was indeed a source for Mr. Jacobs' problems and that the
City had been working on that problem for 5 years. Grabek
4
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
• ZONING FILE #1396- MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS CONTINUED
informed Mr. Paige that if that area was designated "No Parking"
the City would be further limiting access to Lake Minnetonka. He
noted that the City was successful in eliminating parking on the
corner.
Mayor Grabek concurred with Councilmember Goetten's concerns
about placing a moratorium on marinas, especially in the midst of
an application.
Mayor Grabek reminded the Council that Councilmember Nettles'
motion for a moratorium was still on the f loor. There being no
second to Councilmember Nettles motion, the motion failed.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2638, approving the Conditional
Use Permit /Variances requested, providing that staff address
Councilmember Peterson's concerns regarding parking and drainage
and that the City Engineer approve the final surfacing of the
parking area. Motion, Ayes =3, Nettles, Nay, Motion passed.
#1334 SIDNEY REBERS
ROAD NAME REQUEST
City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that Mr.
Rebers was seeking approval of a street name for his subdivision.
• Mr. Rebers' first choice was "Sugarwood Drive ". His second
choice is "Sugarbush Drive ".
Councilmember Goetten said that it was refreshing to have a
different name.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson to approve Sidney Rebers' request to name
the road serving the plat of "Sugar Woods" as Sugarwood Drive.
Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the process to
amend the Accessory Structure Ordinance had begun two years ago.
Currently residential zones require that any proposed accessory
structure with floor space exceeding 1,000 s.f. obtain a
variance. Following several applications for accessory structure
variances, it was suggested that it would be more appropriate to
gauge the size of the accessory structure in relation to the lot
area. The Planning Commission has drafted an amendment that
would allow one oversized accessory structure based on footprint
area. The structure must be within the permitted use for the
property and the number of such structures is limited to one. As
the lot size increases, so does the allowable size of an
accessory structure. This issue of limitation based on lot size
• is excluded for pools, tennis courts, etc. Any new oversize
accessory structures must meet the 30' minimum setback from rear
and side yards and must be behind the front line of the house.
Bernhardson said that the City has delayed one application for an
accessory structure variance and another such application is
5
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONTINUED •
pending.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said
that staff has been reviewing the Planning Commission draft in an
attempt to find any loopholes that may exist. The Building
Inspector has indicated that the 1,040 s.f. limit may cause
conflicts with the building code. The main reason the Planning
Commission chose 1,040 s.f. is that would allow for a 26' x 40'
structure which is a standard size. However, staff would prefer
to use 1,000 s.f. as the limit to avoid any conflict with
building code thresholds. Gaffron said that staff was
contemplating whether placing a limitation on the number of
stories of an accessory structure would also be appropriate.
Mayor Grabek questioned whether the amendment would prohibit
a 5 -acre property to have a rambler -style residence and a barn.
Gaffron clarified that a horse barn was excluded from the 30'
height restriction in the existing code.
Councilmember Goetten said that the Council was always
cautious when attempting something new. She believed that this
amendment was necessary.
Gaffron depicted some potential situations that may arise
using "generic" lots to show the Council how the amendment will •
be utilized. Goetten said that she was especially concerned
about the smaller lots and the lakeshore lots.
Councilmember Peterson asked for clarification regarding
buildings with a footprint under 120 s.f. as being excluded from
the calculation of total accessory structure footprint areas.
Gaffron replied that it was the Planning Commission's intention
to allow residents to have storage for items, rather than having
them out in the open. Peterson asked whether a person would be
able to have as many sheds as he /she desired? Gaffron indicated
that the Planning Commission did not wish to limit the number of
accessory structures. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted also
that building permits were not required for such small
structures; only zoning reviews were required to assure that the
structures conform to the setbacks.
Mayor Grabek questioned whether staff was comfortable with
the proposed amendment? Mabusth and Gaffron concurred that some
"fine- tuning" still needed to be done.
Councilmember Goetten indicated that the proposal was a good
start and asked staff to convey that to the Planning Commission.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to table this item. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion
passed. is
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
• ENGINEER'S REPORT:
LIFT STATION #10/ #43 - BID AWARD
City Administrator Bernhardson apprised the Council that six
bids had been received for the combined projects for lift
station #43 and #10. The lowest bid was $181,640.65 and there
would be an additional 25% added to that to cover legal and
engineering, and administrative fees. The total would be
substanially less than the $275,000 estimated cost for the
project.
City Engineer Cook gave a brief synopsis of what the project
would entail. The funding for part II of the project would come
from revenue funding. There would be two options for funding
part I of the project. Option one would be to fund 25% of the
cost through the sewer operating fund, which would amount to
$39,250.00. This would be a 20 year payback on the operation of
the lift station. The remaining cost of the system, $117,700.00
would come from future service connections in that district at
the cost of $1,407.00 per unit. Option 2 would involve charging
50% back to the revenue fund and the connection charge would pick
up the balance, which would be $980.00 per unit.
Councilmember Goetten questioned whether public hearings
were required for these projects. Bernhardson replied that the
• City was not ordering a special assessment. There would be a
connection charge which had no statutory need for a public
hearing. Bernhardson said that it would be appropriate to hold
some form of public information meeting . He noted that this
would only apply to undeveloped property and would not affect
those already hooked up to sewer. Goetten replied that even
though the property was not developed, it was still privately
owned. Cook interjected that a fee ordinance amendment would be
required to establish the connection charge.
Mayor Grabek surmised that the Council would vote just on
approving the low bid. Cook said that staff would recommend that
the bid be awarded to Albrecht Excavation, Inc. He said he has
worked with the contractor on other projects and felt confident
that they would do a satisfactory job.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to accept Albrecht as the lowest bid on the project.
Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to table the method of financing the project until such
time that the owners of the affected propety could be notified.
Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
• UTILITIES HIGHWAY 12 - BIDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
City Engineer Cook indicated that the City was seeking
approval of the plans and specifications to advertise bids for
the sanitary sewer and water main along Highway 12 to serve the
Rebers and Otten subdivision. Cook explained that after meeting
7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
UTILITIES HIGHWAY 12 CONTINUED
with all parties concerned it was determined that the mains
should run parallel to Highway 12. By doing so, the line could
be constructed at this time without any major impact on the
properties. Cook provided a description of what the project
would involve. He asked for authorization to take bids on this
project on the 30th of June at 11:00 a.m.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to give approval to take bids on the date and time
indicated. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
MAYOR /COUNCIL REPORT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S EVALUATION AND CONTRACT
Mayor Grabek said that he preferred to discuss the City
Administrator's performance over the past year in an Executive
Session. The renewal and terms of the contract would be tabled
this evening and discussed at the June 12, 1989 Council Meeting.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to discuss the personal evaluation of the City
Administrator in an Executive Session, and table discussion
pertaining to the Contract until the June 12, 1989 Council
Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to appoint Mr. Marc McCabe as one of its
two primary representatives to the West Hennepin Human Services
Board. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
WAYZATA COMMUNITY EDUCATION REPRESENTATIVE*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to direct staff to work with the Wayzata
School District to have them determine if there are other
interested parties to serve on that Board. Motion, Ayes =4,
Nays =O, Motion passed.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
STUBBS BAY SEWER
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this project
had been a consideration of the City for some time. The Council
was being provided with some additional information concerning
what had been done to date, project layout, financing
possibilities, and to examine the process for determining whether
to proceed with the project. Bernhardson said he had received a
letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Minkema, residents in the area,
who were faced with a dilemma regarding replacement of a failing
septic system. It would cost the Minkema's approximately $2,000
to $4,000 to temporarily upgrade their system or $10,000 to
install a new mound system. There are other residents in the
area that are experiencing the same problems. Last summer, the
City Engineer did an update to the feasibility study to see if
i
L�
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
• STUBBS BAY SEWER CONTINUED
the cost of the project could be lowered. Bernhardson said that
looking at the combination of assessment connection charges and
reserve charges, the City could obtain financing through a user
fee. Bernhardson was not sure that was the most productive way
to approach the financing issue. He said that it would be best
to hold a public meeting of the residents in July to update them
and see what level of interest existed.
Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reported
that there were septic systems in the Stubbs Bay area that were
problems. The combination of small lots and clay soils
contributed to the problems. After studying the area, it was
his opinion that sewer was the best permanent solution. Gaffron
felt that the City should proceed with the preliminary phase of
a public meeting to apprise the residents of the information
determined from the feasibility study.
Mr. Minkema expressed his need to have some specific
direction from the Council as to what they might expect. He said
that the cost of the sewer project was rather substantial. He
did not want to invest $10,000 to install a new septic system and
then be required shortly thereafter to hook up to sewer. He said
their house was the last house in the study. He said he could
not wait six months to find out how the City intends to proceed.
• Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Minkema what consequences would
result from waiting six months. Mr. Minkema replied that their
present system has failed and he was in the process of replacing
it with three tanks for a shallow trench system. Grabek
commented that there was no easy way to do this. He questioned
whether the Minkemas could pump the present system. Gaffron
noted that there was another property in the area that was in the
same situation and that pumping the system would be possible.
Grabek asked if it would be possible to allow persons installing
new septic systems to alleviate a health and safety problem an
extension of time required to hook up to sewer? Gaffron noted
that there is always concern on the part of those persons who
hook up on schedule regarding those that have not.
Councilmember Peterson asked if it would be possible to
eliminate the Minkemas from the project entirely due to the
location of their house.
Mayor Grabek questioned how long the project would take once
the public meeting had occurred? Cook estimated that hookup
probably would not occur until September, 1990. Gaffron noted
that the City has been allowing minimal septic system repairs to
occur in the Stubbs Bay study area rather than requiring full -
scale repairs since the area was under study. Grabek suggested
discussing such an alternative with the Minkemas as well as the
• possibility of an extension of hookup time.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to establish July 27, 1989 as public meeting with staff
9
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
STUBBS BAY SEWER CONTINUED
and residents with public notice being sent to all property
owners in the proposed and abutting areas for the project.
Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
FACILITY SITE ANALYSIS
City Administrator Bernhardson said that in response to
Councilmember Callahan's request he had received information
regarding the use of Site A for City Hall and Police and Site C
for Public Works. Site preparation of this option would be
$317,750.00. Included in this figure is an amount necessary to
provide screening and road systems between the facilities.
In regard to touring other city facilities, Bernhardson
estimated that it would take 4 hours to do a bus tour of some
specific sites. A weekday is proposed for the tour so that the
sites to be observed would be open and functioning.
TELEPHONE SYSTEM- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
City Administrator Bernhardson asked for authorization to
seek request for proposal for a new phone system. The current
system is outdated and restrictive. This is not a budgeted item,
and $10,000 to $12,000 would need to be allocated. The phone
system could be moved to another location for an additional $1500
to $2000.
Councilmember Peterson indicated that she did not want to
allocate any funds until proposals were reviewed.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to authorize staff to take to qualified vendors the
request for proposal ,for a new phone system. Staff is further
directed to bring back the analyzed request for proposal with a
recommendation. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
POLICE SUPERVISORY IMPLEMENTATION
City Administrator Bernhardson reported that Chief Kilbo had
provided 5 options for implementing a third supervisor. Chief
Kilbo's recommendation is to delay this implementation until
October to allow further "inside" personnel to develop and allow
time for the second supervisor who was recently appointed to
develop and be operating efficiently in his position.
Mayor Grabek indicated that he agreed with Kilbo's
recommendation.
Councilmember Goetten said that she was not in favor of
expending $50,000 to select someone from outside.
Councilmember Peterson questioned why there seemed to be a
sense of urgency when this matter was initially presented to the
Council and now the recommendation was for a 6 month delay?
Chief Kilbo replied that October was an arbitrary month, but felt
that if the process began at that time, the new supervisor could
begin by January 1, 1990. He added that if everything progressed
10
•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
• POLICE SUPERVISORY IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED
more rapidly, he would be happy to adjust accordingly.
Councilmember Nettles questioned whether option 2 would
utilize the same process used for selecting the second
supervisory position? Kilbo replied that the process would be
very similar.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to accept the information from the Police Chief
regarding his implementation plan for the third supervisor.
Motion, Ayes =3, Peterson, Nay due to the further delay.
Mayor Grabek took this opportunity to commend the Police
Department for their efforts regarding a medical emergency
involving Ms. Charlotte Hill. She wrote a letter to the City
indicating that the responding Police Officers had saved her
life.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MORATORIUM
City Administrator Bernhardson presented an interim
ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Bernhardson said that
the recommendation is for a 90 -day duration period.
Councilmember Goetten asked if a moratorium was required
• with every ordinance amendment. She expressed her dislike of
moratoriums and questioned whether this particular one was
necessary? Zoning Administrator Mabusth interjected that the
moratorium should have been placed on accessory structures two
years ago. Goetten concurred with Mabusth adding that it seemed
senseless to propose a moratorium when the amendment was only
weeks from adoption.
City Attorney Barrett explained that the reason for
proposing a moratorium would be in the event an applicant had
rights under the existing ordinance, the City could not deny the
application. He said that the City did not have the right to
delay an applicant merely on the premise of an upcoming ordinance
amendment. A moratorium allows the City to legally delay an
action pending an ordinance amendment. Barrett further explained
that if the City delayed an application which in some form
resulted in damage to the applicant, the City could be sued if a
moratorium did not exist.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to table this matter to the June 12, 1989 Council
Meeting. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
LIVINGSTON AVENUE DRAINAGE
City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief review of
this application. The results of the feasibility study were
presented at the April 24, 1989 Council Meeting and Ms. Cuff
received information to take back to her neighbors. Since that
time, those residents have made a proposal for above - ground
drainage at a much lesser cost and submitted a petition to the
11
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
•
LIVINGSTON AVENUE DRAINAGE CONTINUED
City. The Cuffs are concerned about above - ground drainage due to
the possibility that the runoff may be contaminated.
Ms. Cuff said that she would be more comfortable if she knew
that the runoff was clean. She said that the majority of the
neighbors preferred the over - ground drainage and were concerned
about cost and the required easements involved with the
underground project.
Mayor Grabek asked about the agreement regarding payment of
the feasibility study? Bernhardson informed him that should the
storm sewer project be abandoned, the Cuff's would pay for half
of the study.
Mayor Grabek suggested tabling this matter until the Cuff's
and the City obtained more information regarding each proposal.
Mr. Curt Thostenson said that he was concerned about the
impact that either proposal would have on residents at the end of
the drainage area. City Engineer Cook replied that the water
would run across the track and down into a ditch on the north
side of the tracks.
Mr. Robert Paige asked where the storm sewer would be •
located between Livingston and Navarre Avenues? Cook replied
that it would run north to Crystal Place and then west across the
railroad tracks.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to table this matter. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion
passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION /COUNCIL JOINT MEETING NAVARRE*
This was a reminder of the upcoming joint meeting on June 1,
1989, at 6:00 p.m.
BOARD OF REVIEW RECONVENE MEETING
MAY 24, 1989, 7:00 P.M.*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information regarding the
Board of Review reconvening date at 7:00 p.m., May 24, 1989.
Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's
Information regarding: Highway 12- Safety Improvement; 1972
Shadywood Road; Spring Managers Conference; Highwood Storm Sewer;
Ferndale Marsh Fire; Camp Teko; Spring Clean Up; Metro
Waste /Weekend Construction; and 4460 North Shore Drive. Motion, •
Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
19
:7
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
There was no report from the City Attorney, however, City
Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session.
LICENSES
Councilmember Peterson questioned the procedure required to
obtain a license from the City. She cited the Wheels and Spokes
event in particular as being poorly planned.
It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor
Grabek, to approve the following licenses:
Septic System Installer: A -1 Rootmaster
7502 Hudson Blvd.
Lake Elmo
American Sewer & Water
Route 3, 193A
Buffalo
Swedlund Septic Services
9520 Lake Town Road
Chaska
Garbage & Refuse Collectors: Blackowiak & Son
1195 Sunnyfield Road N
Mound
East Tonka Sanitation
P. O. Box 242
Long Lake
Special Event: Wheels & Spokes,
Bicycle Ride
Sunday, May 21,
Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
Inc.
1989
BILLS*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds
Accounts. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - 8:50 P.M.
City Attorney Barrett requested that the Council go into an
executive session at 8:50 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT 9:30 P.M.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion passed.
13
s
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989
ATT T:
Dorothy M al lin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
14
•
40