Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2013 Council Minutes . , , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Kristi Anderson, Lizz Levang, and Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson,Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jesse Struve, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,and 20 were added to the Consent Agenda. Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 23,2013 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session of September 23,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23,2013 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of September 23,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING—7:00 P.M. Struve noted the wellhead protection plan has been an ongoing process for the past two years. An earlier public hearing was held in April, and due to some changes from the Department of Health, it was strongly recommended that another public hearing be held on the wellhead protection plan. The wellhead protection plan is a way to prevent drinking water pollution by managing potential contaminant sources. Struve indicated there are specific requirements associated with the plan and that community public water systems are required to delineate, inventory and manage areas within contributory areas of the City's wells. The wellhead protection plan involves two parts: Phase 1 requires communities to delineate the wellhead protection area, identify the drinking water supply management area boundary, and a vulnerability assessment of the drinking water supply management area. Phase 1 was completed by the Minnesota Department of Health and approved in 2011. Phase II of the plan was previously approved and submitted back in April. Comments were received back from the Department of Health,who basically made some minor changes to the plan. The new revised plan is due by November 22. The plan revisions included editing of text, updating some figures in report references, and removing some data that was not required by the plan. Under Rule 25,the City needs to identify 25 wells within the DWSMA area. Page 1 of 23 t � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC HEARING— �:00 P.M., Continued) Struve displayed the areas covered by the wellhead protection plan on the overhead. Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. McMillan asked who requires the wellhead protection plan. Struve indicated it is the Minnesota Department of Health. Levang moved,Printup seconded,to approve Phase II of the Wellhead Protection Plan. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PRESENTATION 5. HENNEPIN COUNTY UPDATE FROM COMMISSIONER JAN CALLISON Callison reported Hennepin County has approved a maximum levy in September with a 0.98 percent increase far the County's 2014 general operating budget. The average increase has been .19 percent increase over the past three years. If the housing and rail authority is included in the levy,the increase would be 1.6 percent. Callison noted one of the reasons for the increase in the levy is that the County is negotiating on a two-year contract. Since employees have not been given cost of living adjustments for the past two years, Hennepin County is looking at providing that. Callison reported Hennepin County has also been seeing for the first time since 2007 a slight increase in overall market values. The County's truth-in-taxation hearing is scheduled for November 26 at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis. Callison stated earlier this year Hennepin County passed a$10 wheel age tax per vehicle that starts in 2014. The money will be used for pavement improvements, repair and improvements on bridges, and for traffic signal improvements. In Orono for 2014,there are 17 locations that are scheduled for guardrail repair or improvement. Callison stated Hennepin County will be terminating its passport services on November 1 at Ridgedale, Southdale and Brookdale. Since Hennepin County issues the birth certificates and other documents upon which passports are based,new regulations issued by the Department of State require that those two functions be physically separated and not performed by the same staf£ Hennepin County has found that it has become more and more expensive to perform that service and so they have elected to discontinue that service. Callison indicated people will still be able to obtain passports at some post offices as well as online. Page 2 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (S. HENNEPIN COUNTY UPDATE FROM COMMISSIONER JAN CALLISON, Continued) Hennepin County has also decided to change some of the library hours,which will become effective sometime in January. Generally across the system the hours will be expanded. Some libraries will see a decrease, some will stay the same, and some will increase. Callison indicated this change will help make the library hours more uniform across the system and is a result of the merger of the Minneapolis and Hennepin County libraries. Callison stated she routinely hears from her constituents that roads need to be improved as well as traffic and pedestrian accommodations. Callison noted Hennepin County has been working in Navarre as it relates to pedestrian safety and also on New Highway 112. McMillan thanked Hennepin County for working with the City on County Road 15 and the turnback process for Old Highway 12. McMillan stated the City appreciates the work that has been done by the County on the roads in this area. McMillan noted she has not visited the service center recently and asked how long the wait times typically are. Callison indicated the wait times are approximately a half hour,which is one reason why the passports are being discontinued. Callison stated the County has worked on improving the wait times over the past year and that she has not received a call from a constituent this year regarding the wait times. Levang asked how many passports are typically processed by the County. Callison stated she does not remember that number right now. Callison stated the majority of the services provided by Hennepin County do not generate revenue and passports were one of the few services where the County was able to raise money. Given the new regulations, Callison indicated it is becoming less and less profitable for the County to continue to provide that service. McMillan noted the equipment at Bederwood Park has been installed and the ribbon cutting ceremony for Bederwood might be delayed until the spring. McMillan stated she appreciates the grant money that was made available from Hennepin County. Callison stated the grant money will be available for a number of years. Levang asked how many cities are in Ms. Callison's jurisdiction. Callison stated she currently has 16 cities. The largest city in the district is Minnetonka. Some of the other cities in the district include Edina, Hopkins,approximately half of Mound, a portion of Eden Prairie, and the cities around Lake Minnetonka. Levang asked what steps Hennepin County is taking to address the emerald ash barer issue. Callison indicated she has not seen any information on that issue and to her knowledge the individual cities are addressing that. Levang noted Orono will be holding a work session in 2014 regarding that item. Page 3 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—BRUCE LEMKE,REPRESENTATIVE Lemke stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. LMCD REPORT—ANDREW McDERMOTT,REPRESENTATIVE McDermott reported it was a relatively quiet summer on the lake and that the water levels were normal to slightly above for the majority of the season. McDermott noted the Save the Lake campaign also raised slightly more revenue this year, with the majority of the grants going toward public safety and water quality improvements. The LMCD will be holding a pilot boater safety course on Saturday,November 16. The program is being targeted at 12 to 17 years old. It will be an all-day program at the Hennepin County Water Patrol in Spring Park and a certificate will be given after successful completion of the course. McDermott noted the LMCD recently held their annual meeting with the marina owners,with a majority of the owners being in attendance. The business owners expressed quite a few concerns about going forward with their business under current LMCD regulations. As a result of those concerns,the LMCD is going to be reviewing their regulations and will likely consider adopting a separate ordinance for commercial marinas. Anderson asked how a person goes about registering for the course. McDermott stated interested people should call the LMCD office. Levang asked if the course is free. McDermott indicated it is but that he is not sure whether that will continue into the future. McMillan commented she is glad to hear the LMCD is having a discussion with the marinas. McDermott stated one of the concerns expressed is the constant change in the representatives on the LMCD Board. McMillan noted discussions have been held in the past about possibly making the number of representatives smaller, but that there are 14 cities included under the jurisdiction of the LMCD and that all cities really should be represented on the Board. Levang asked what the overall opinion is regarding aquatic invasive species on Lake Minnetonka this year. McDermott stated there was a lower than average amount of milfoil harvested this year but the exact reasons for that are not specifically known. McDermott indicated he discovered zebra mussels today when he pulled out his sprinkler pump. The LMCD is still conducting the boat inspections to help keep out new invasive species. Page 4 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT—ANDREW McDERMOTT,REPRESENTATIT�E, Continued) McMillan asked if there is anything that should be done to the sprinkler systems to prevent the zebra mussels. McDermott stated the one recommendation he is aware of is that it should be run every day for a minute or two to keep them flushed out. Printup asked if the winter temperatures will kill the zebra mussels that are on the docks. McDermott stated the cold temperatures will kill the zebra mussels if the dock is left outside. If the dock is being sold,the dock should be sanitized before it is transported anywhere. McMillan asked if a large number of zebra mussels were found during the boat inspections. McDermott stated he would assume that was the case but that he does not have the specific data at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ralph Kempf, 36'75 Togo Road, stated he would like to thank Jan Callison for meeting the Navarre Initiative Group in Navarre to see firsthand the safety issues that Navarre is dealing with. Kempf indicated Commissioner Callison was very instrumental in helping move along all the improvements that are currently happening in Navarre. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT *6. #13-3618 EDWARD AND JULIE LAGERSTROM,2248 SHADYWOOD ROAD— VARIANCES—RESOLUTION NO.6327 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6327,a Resolution Granting Variances from Orono Municipal Code Sections 78-1435,78-1439,and 78-1700,for the property located at 2248 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *7. #13-3626 LORI GHERARDI ON BEHALF OF STEPHENSON HOLDINGS,2700 SIXTH AVENUE—FINAL PLAT (PINE VIEW)—RESOLUTION NO.6328 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6328,a Resolution Approving the Plat of Pine View. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. S. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE—SUBDIVISION Gaffron stated the subject properties are located on Forest Lake Bay and are comprised of a lakeshore parcel consisting of approximately 0.24 acres and an off-lake parcel across the road consisting of approximately 0.42 acres for a total of 0.66 acre or approximately two-thirds of an acre. Page 5 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ` Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) The applicants are requesting subdivision approval to extinguish a Special Lot Combination Agreement that was executed by the City and the prior property owners in 2001. That agreement formally established that the lake parcel and the off-lake parcel will not be used, conveyed, sold, leased or otherwise encumbered except together as if they were a single parcel. The applicants are requesting the lake parcel become a separate buildable lot. The Planning Commission, at its September 16 meeting,voted 4-3 on a motion to recommend denial of the subdivision. Gaffron stated the applicants have requested that the Special Lot Combination be extinguished. The lake parcel is located on the opposite side of Elmwood Avenue and offset by approximately 100 feet. The applicants have been working to create a building floor plan, grading plan, etc.,that they believe would meet setback requirements as well as hardcover requirements for the lake lot. The off-lake parcel is where the existing house is located and it has a driveway off of North Arm Drive. The lake parcel and off-lake parcel have been commonly owned since 1969. In 1971,the owner at that time applied for variances to make the lake parcel buildable. The owner at that time was suggesting the assessed value was too high for a buildable lot. His intent in purchasing the lot was to have a dock. The variance application in 1971 was denied. In 1981,ten years later, a variance application was again submitted by the same owner. After the Planning Commission recommended denial,that application was withdrawn. Gaffron stated a third variance was applied for in 2001 by a new owner. The variances were again denied. In order to legitimize the use of the lake parcel for a dock,which is an accessory structure and not allowed on a lot without a principal structure,the owner, Kristi Roesler,was required to execute a Special Lot Combination Agreement. The agreement established that the lake parcel and the off-lake parcel will not be used, conveyed, sold, leased, or otherwise encumbered except together as if they were a single parcel. That agreement is binding and goes with the property permanently. The basis for the applicants requesting a subdivision is Term No. 7 in the Special Lot Combination Agreement which states that the terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified,amended or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A and Parcel B may be subdivided, sold separately, or reduced in part only upon application by the grantor of the property to the grantee,the City, for approval of a subdivision in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application. Gaffron stated the condition that requires a subdivision was carefully and purposely worded and goes back at least 30 years. The City has other Special Lot Combination Agreements that go back at least 30 years that contain the same or similar language requiring a subdivision process to undo the agreement with the requirement that such subdivision must adhere to the platting code that is in effect at the time of the application. Gaffron stated such a future subdivision could only occur if the new lots adhered to the current zoning standards, and Lot 7, as a separate lot, is substandard in width and area. The lot is located in a one-acre zoning district. Page 6 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, I169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron indicated one of the questions that have been raised is how the statutes that were recently revised within the past three or four years would affect this parcel. The applicants' attorney has suggested that because the City has allowed other similar sized lots to be built on in recent years,they should be treated equally. The practical difficulty standards have also been cited. Gaffron noted the City is not processing a variance but rather a subdivision to create a new lot. In addition,the applicants' attorney suggests that the provisions of Item No. 7 were intended solely to allow for a dock on the lake parcel and not to prevent future development. Staff disagrees with that characterization and would offer the following comments: 1. It cannot be construed that the City has recently simply allowed development of small lakeshore lots. The City has, by action of the Legislature, been forced to permit residential development on certain classes of existing lots of record in the Shoreland that meet very specific conditions. It is important to remember that the statute applies to existing lots and not the creation of new lots. 2. It is the City's position that the applicants' properiy, by virtue of the Special Lot Combination agreement, is not similar to other lakeshore lots which do not have this binding covenant that allows the City to limit their development. 3. The practical difficulties standard relates to variance applications involving the zoning ordinance. The applicants are not applying for a variance. This is a subdivision that is governed by City Code Section 82-48 and Minnesota Statute 462358. Additionally,the argument that the agreement was not agreed to by the applicants is erroneous, as it is a document of record and binding on all future owners of the property. 4. The lake parcel cannot be considered as a"nonconforming single lot of record"by virtue of the Special Lot Combination Agreement which permanently makes it functionally combined with the off-lake parcel. It no longer retains its status as a separate lot and is therefore not subject to or benefitted by the cited statute provisions. 5. The applicants' attorney has argued that the Agreement was intended to be extinguished in the event the City allowed development of lots with similar characteristics in the future is misplaced. In the event the City Code allowed for the creation of nonconforming lots,which it does not,this argument might have some merit. If it Staffls position that establishment of such an onerous process as subdivision approval in accordance with City Codes at the time of such application to merely extinguish a covenant in itself indicates the intent and spirit of the agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure that the applicant understood that they were combining two lots into one lot. Since the Planning Commission meeting,the applicants' attorney has raised a number of questions which have been addressed in Staffl s report. The first question asked if the lot would be buildable under the statutes and city code if it was not encumbered by the Special Lot Combination Agreement. Gaffron stated if the property was not encumbered by the Special Lot Combination Agreement, it would be buildable under the statute provided it meets the other required standards, but the fact remains that there is a Special Lot Combination Agreement in place. Page 7 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 " 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) The second question raised is whether it is true that the City has been allowing other 50-foot lakeshore lots to be built on and how many of these are a result of the statute changes. Gaffron indicated there are very few vacant substandard lakeshore lots that exist in Orono. The vast majority of new homes built on small lakeshore lots are replacing an existing home that already occupied the site. In the period from January 1, 2000,through September 30,2013,the City has issued 385 permits for new single-family homes. Of these, 242 were for replacement homes and 1432 were for new homes on previously vacant lots. Of the 143 new homes on previously vacant lots, only five were on lakeshore lots. The range in sizes of these five previously vacant lots was 0.62 acres to 2.0 acres in area and 65 feet to 300 feet in width. There have been no permits issued for new home construction on previously vacant lakeshore lots as small as the applicants' lot in the past 13-plus years. As the Council is aware, a number of nonconforming non-lakeshore lots within the past two years have had to be allowed buildability due to the statute changes. Staff does anticipate a very small number of existing vacant lakeshore lots will become buildable due to the statute changes but has not attempted to enumerate those. The third question raised was whether the applicants could build on the lakeshore lot if they removed their existing home on the off-lake parcel with the Special Lot Combination agreement remaining in effect. Gaffron stated this would require that the terms of the Special Lot Combination agreement be revised,as the off-lake parcel is currently considered in the agreement as the primary parcel which may be used for any allowed principal permitted uses, while the lake parcel is accessory to the off-lake parcel and has specified conditions as to what can occur on it. A fourth question raised by the applicants' attorney is whether there are other Special Lot Combination agreements in effect and, if so, have any of them been later extinguished. At the Planning Commission meeting, Staff indicated there may be as many as a dozen such agreements in effect, and that few, if any, are similar since most connect lake parcels to non-lake parcels that are directly across from each other. The applicants have requested a listing of the Special Lot Combination agreements that currently exist. Staff does not specifically track these agreements and has had to rely on a computer file search as well as Staff's collective memory to create such a list. Gaffron stated in researching City records, it appears there have been no situations exactly like that of the applicants. Staff found just a handful of Special Lot Combinations, and of these, only two are lakeshore situations pertinent to attaching a lakeshore parcel to an inland parcel. In both cases the lake parcel was directly across the road from the residence(s)it served. In one of those situations,the lakeshore parcel was actually a part of the inland parcel until platting occurred. Gaffron noted the chart included in Staff's report outlines the various Special Lot Combination Agreements that Staff is aware of. Page 8 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, I169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Contin ued) The fifth question raised by the applicants' attorney is whether there have been any variances granted to allow docks on lakeshore lots without a principal residence structure. Gaffron stated the City has not historically granted variances to allow docks on vacant lake lots. The only variance situation Staff is aware of is the handful of 20' x 20' dock lots near the Narrows Bridge on County Road 19. In this situation, sma1120' x 20' lots were created in the mid-1950s to provide lake access for developed properties in the neighborhood. Eventually those tiny lots were sold separately from the residential properties they were intended to serve. In 1985,the City granted conditional use permits/variances as a method to recognize and control the existing nonconforming dock use. Gaffron stated as it concerns the question regarding lakeshore properties in the City that have docks where there is no principal structure and why they were not required to have a Special Lot Combination Agreement, only a few situations have been created in the past 40 to 50 years. Gaffron stated there are many situations along the shore where a lakeshore residence is separated from the lakeshore by a roadway that runs parallel to the shore and they typically fall under two different scenarios: One,the off-lake parcel extends through the road to the shore and the road exists as an easement and the property on both sides of the road exists as a single tax parcel. Two,when these properties were subdivided via a platting process,the off-lake parcel and the lakeshore parcel were platted as separate parcels, each with its own tax number. The lake parcel was typically platted as an Outlot as part of the subdivision approval,was required to be owned with its opposite off-lake parcel. In either case, Gaffron stated the City typically has not required a Special Lot Combination agreement where those characteristics exist. As it regards the road access and the lift station,the applicants' attorney questions whether the lift station can be located in the middle of the road right-of-way. The lift station is 30 feet deep, and the open cut needed at the time to install it would have been extremely deep and wide. Placing it at the center of an undeveloped alley that was not serving any existing homes was likely the prudent location with the least impact on neighboring properties under the circumstances. Gaffron noted it would be very expensive to relocate that lift station. The final question raised by the applicants' attorney is whether 50-foot lots are characteristic of this neighborhood. Gaffron stated if the neighborhood is considered to be the five lots on either side of the applicants' property, the range of sizes of the lots go from 51 feet to 200 feet. There are developed lots to the immediate north that range between 120 feet, 150 feet, 200 feet, and 140 feet. To the south the lots range from 51 feet, 102 feet, 102 feet,and 55 feet,with the average being 115 feet. If the entire eastern shore of Forest Lake is considered,the range of those 32 lots with homes is 40 feet to 200 feet,with an average width of 87 feet. If the entire shore of Forest Lake is considered,the average width would be substantially greater. Following the Planning Commission meeting,the applicants' attorney raised two issues. The first issue relates to the language contained in the Special Lot Combination agreement requiring a subdivision application in order to separate the two parcels. Gaffron indicated that language has been incorporated in the boilerplate of the Special Lot Combination agreement documents since at least 1983 and appears in all agreements Staff has been able to locate. The language was and is intended to provide a level of permanence to the agreement. Page 9 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 ' 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron stated the fact that it specifically states that any future subdivision must be in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application supports the underlying premise that these requirements were specifically put in place to ensure that such a future subdivision could only occur if the new lots conformed to the dimensional requirements of the code at the time a subdivision is requested. The applicants' attorney further states that"Staff does not dispute that all across the City of Orono building has occurred or will occur on identical lots with 50-foot shorelines." Gaffron noted this statement should be taken into context with the answer to Question No. 2. The majority of all such construction since the year 2000 has been teardown/rebuild situations, where a house already existed on the property. Since 2000, and perhaps earlier,the City has not approved nor issued a permit for a new home on a 50-foot wide,historically vacant lakeshore lot. However, as a result of the statute changes, there is one pending application in the applicants' immediate neighborhood. Finally,the applicants' attorney suggests that the Alness situation is unfairly being treated differently than others in the neighborhood. Staff would contend that the other situations in the neighborhood are different for the following reasons: 1. No other properties in the neighborhood are subject to a Special Lot Combination that ties together two properties that are not abutting or directly across the road from each other. If the road was vacated, properties owned in common directly opposite each other would become completely abutting properties, as each would be gaining their half of the road. That is not the case with the Alness properties. 2. The properly to the north, Lot 6, is owned by the owners of the home directly across the 20 foot platted road at 1135 North Arm Drive, they have complete visual control over the dock. If the road was vacated their lot with the residence would abut their lake parcel. If they requested combination,the County would very likely approve it. 3. The property to the south,where a dock exists on vacant Lot 9,was until very recently owned in common with Lots 10 and 11 for the past three decades. The owner of 1179 no doubt placed his dock on Lot 9 due to the steep topography of Lots 10 and 11. In the future that property owner will have to relocate his dock to Lots 10 and 11 since Lot 9 has been sold in combination with the small lot directly across the road east of it and will be built upon in the near future. Lot 9 was one of a group of contiguous commonly-owned lakeshore lots that the City was required to allow as buildable since it meets the standards for separate build ability established by the statutes. Gaffron stated Staff has approached review of this application primarily on the basis of the Special Lot Combination language. The history of past denials for this property, details of the applicants' site plan for a home that meets setback and hardcover requirements, access issues related to the location of the road and the lift station, are all secondary to the primary issue. Gaffron noted an added potential complication that has recently come to light is that the portion of the property proposed to be built upon may meet the criteria to be defined as a bluff and additional topographic data may be required in order to make a final determination. Page 10 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANANDSTACYALNESS, 1169NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron stated despite the arguments made by the applicants and their attorney, it is Staff's view that the Special Lot Combination establishes a relationship between the off-lake parcel and the lake parcel that can only be extinguished by City approval of a subdivision under current codes and is not negated by the recent changes to the statutes. Staff recommends denial of the requested subdivision on the basis that to approve it would violate the provisions of the subdivision code with regards to lot area and width. Council has the option to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of the subdivision request; direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of the subdivision request; or table the application for further information. Printup asked if the property at 1121 North Arm Drive currently has a home on it. Gaffron indicated it does. Printup asked if Lot 8 has a home on it. Gaffron indicated it does and noted that Lot 8 is legally combined with the lot across from it. Printup asked if Lot 9 is being combined with the lot across from it. Gaffron indicated it is being requested to be combined. Printup commented he is struggling with the concept of a subdivision for a lot that does not touch the primary residence. Printup stated he understands the fact that there is an agreement in place but that he is having a hard time understanding how the City can subdivide a property that does not touch the primary property. Printup asked if that means a person on the other side of town who acquires a vacant lake property can combine it with his other property. Gaffron stated the Special Lot Combination requires Council approval and that it has been used in the past in situations where properties are located across the road. Gaffron stated Staff does not track Special Lot Combination agreements separately and Staff is only aware of a half dozen such agreements. In every one of those cases,the City Council had to approve the agreement and they were only approved where there was a relationship between the lots. Gaffron noted in one situation the county would not combine the two parcels even though they abutted each other because they were located in two separate school districts. In that case a Special Lot Combination was the solution. Gaffron stated he is not aware of a situation where someone who owns property extremely far away has ever attempted to have a Special Lot Combination. Gaffron stated as it relates to the Orchard Beach application,which is a lot located on the lakeshore,the City received a phone call from a person on North Shore Drive inquiring whether they could purchase that lot and combine it with their property four or five houses down from it in order to allow them to have a dock. The answer given to that property owner was that it likely would not be approved since the City has not done that in the past. Page 11 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARM DRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron stated the Council, if asked to do that,would have some hard decisions to make on why they would allow separated parcels to be combined. Gaffron stated this is an unusual situation and the Council allowed a Special Lot Combination in order to allow a dock on the lakeshore lot. McMillan commented the property is almost like the applicant's own personal outlot. McMillan noted the City has tended to be very restrictive of outlots,and that while there are a few that have happened in Orono for various reasons, it is generally not the policy of Orono to allow personal outlots. The Special Lot Combination agreement gave the property owner the advantage of gaining lake access but it was an unbuildable parcel. McMillan stated allowing a dock on the parcel enabled the properly owner to get some value from the property. Printup asked if allowing the subdivision in this situation would be precedent setting. Mattick stated in his opinion it does not set a precedent and that by saying it would set a precedent suggests that the situation will come up again. Mattick noted the two lots are not abutting or directly across from each other and that he is not aware of any other situations like this. Morgan Kavanaugh,Attorney-at-Law representing the applicants, stated there has been a lot of time put in by Staff reviewing this matter and that he has submitted three letters previously in response to Staff's arguments. Kavanaugh indicated he does not want to spend a lot of time revisiting all that. Kavanaugh stated the primary issue is the intent of the agreement and that he respectfully disagrees with the City Attorney that the intent is not crystal clear. In the 2001 application, Paragraph 11 of the resolution says Lot 7 could be continued to be used for private dock purposes and on Page 6 it states to allow for lake access. In addition,the Planning Commission minutes reflect that the applicant at the time stated that the main purpose for purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. If she could not do that, she wanted to be able to keep her dock. The City Council minutes from 2001 specifically states that Staff commented to have a dock would require a variance and the motion was to specifically allow a dock. Kavanaugh stated Page 12 reflects that the agreement and the use of the Special Lot Combination Agreement it is very appropriate to allow a dock. Kavanaugh stated if you look at the facts and circumstances of the 2001 application, it was to allow a dock and there is nothing in the record reflecting that the City wanted to bar development on the lot for all time. Kavanaugh noted that Planner Gaffron acknowledges in his report that the agreement is boilerplate language. To say that it was specifically and purposely drafted for this situation is not entirely true. If you look at the language itself, it states that the terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, amended or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A and B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by Grantor to Grantee for approval of a subdivision in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application. Kavanaugh noted it does not say that it has to meet the minimum lot requirements. Page 12 of 23 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Kavanaugh stated he is not sure whether this is referencing the fact that the application has to be made in accordance with the platting code or whether the lot has to be made in accordance with the platting code. Kavanaugh commented that City Staff wants it to say and mean that it is the minimum lot requirements at the time. If Staff specifically crafted this language for this situation,that particular language could have been used, but it does not say that and it was not put in there by the City. Kavanaugh stated if the applicant at the time who entered the Special Lot Combination Agreement had applied a couple of years later to terminate the Special Lot Combination Agreement because they no longer wanted a dock, his assumption is that Staff would have had no problem with that. Kavanaugh stated if you go back through the record,the agreement was not to prevent development but merely to allow a dock. Kavanaugh stated it is also clear a new lot does not have to be created since it already exists and has been there since 1933. There are separate tax ID numbers. The property owners are not asking for several acres of raw land to be converted into lots that do not meet the minimum requirements. Stacy Alness, Applicant, stated the goal with the lot is to be able to construct a home that meets their family's growing needs. Alness noted they currently have one son and they would like to have more children at some point. The current home does not accommodate their growing needs and they would like the opportunity to construct on the lake lot. Alness stated they have shown they can meet the City's requirements and they are willing to work with the City to address any access issues. Alness indicated they have already spoken with the neighbor at 1153 to obtain an easement and that they are attempting to come up with other solutions to deal with the lift station. Alness stated as it relates to the bluff, she would have thought the surveyor would have pointed that out on the survey. Surveyor Mark Gronberg is very familiar with the area and knows what a bluff is. Alness reiterated they are willing to work with the City to resolve any issues relating to runoff and access. Ryan Alness stated the small lot size would not be uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. The property next door just recently sold and was part of 1179 for 30 years. That lot has been broken off and will be built on. In addition,the property at1161 for the last 30 years had a dock on it without a principal residence. The principal residence was at 1179 Elm Street and a Special Lot Combination agreement was never enacted, which allowed them to sell it off as a separate lot. Stacy Alness stated the Hannas also own a little piece across the street. Alness stated they can break a little sliver off of Lot 6 and do some sort of agreement. Alness stated they meet all the requirements with their lot. Alness stated it has been pointed out that the other neighbors across the street own little slivers and they can do that as well. Mattick indicated he has spoken with Staff and Mr. Kavanaugh on this application. Mattick stated he understands that Mr.Kavanaugh disagrees with the City's position but that he does not believe Mr. Kavanaugh's interpretation of the agreement is correct. Page 13 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARM DRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Mattick stated he has no doubt the prior property owner came to the City and asked what it would take to put in a dock,to which the City said that the two lots must be combined. In terms of whether this is boiler plate or language drafted specifically for the situation is irrelevant. It is an agreement that has been entered into and the terms of the agreement control. Mattick noted the agreement talks at the top about a special lot combination agreement,which is the principle behind the document. It is to combine these two lots. When you read through the agreement, you see phrases such as, shall henceforth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persons and used or developed in common by the grantor as if in fact they were one parcel, which is what the agreement says and is the intent of the agreement. Mattick stated with that said,the Special Lot Combination is an agreement, which means if circumstances change and the parties come to a mutual understanding,the agreement can be amended. Mattick stated the agreement says what it says and combines these two lots and keeps them in common ownership. Under the City's regulations, a person cannot build two houses on one lot. Mattick stated if there are other reasons why the Council feels it would be appropriate to abandon or modify the agreement,that would be an option but the access would need to be discussed. Staff has laid out the history for why there has not been development on that lot in the past. State law, as it relates to nonconforming lots, still requires minimum lot size, and this lot is not close to that. Levang stated she has examined the agreement a number of times and has also visited the properties. Levang stated the agreement combines Parcels A and B into one lot and that there is a process for extinguishing that, which is the subdivision process, but the applicants do not meet the guidelines to approve a subdivision. Levang stated based on that, her position would be to deny the application. Anderson stated she is wrestling with quite a few obstacles on this application. While it is an entirely unique situation,the lot was not buildable at the time of the combination,which is part of the reason why the lots were combined. Anderson noted the applicants did purchase the property knowing that this agreement went with the property a dozen years ago and it was not something new. In addition, this is not an existing lot of record and it will create a new lot that will be nonconforming. Anderson indicated she is wrestling with the fact that the subdivision process would create a nonconforming lot and it would not meet any of the codes to be a buildable lot,which is clearly stated in the agreement. Printup stated he sees it that you are subdividing something that is physically together only on paper per the contract. Printup indicated he reads the agreement as saying this is special but that it is a weird situation,which is the hardest issue he has with it. Printup stated the agreement is telling him two plus rivo equals five because it says so on paper but that in his view it is two separate lots. Mattick stated it is unique to have combined two lots that are not adjoining or across the street. Mattick indicated he has not seen this situation before. Page 14 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Printup stated if the City is looking to draw a straight line and they are just a little bit off in the beginning, that line becomes further off decades down the line. Printup stated the City is perpetuating something that is special or weird with these two lots that are not physically together. Printup indicated that is the issue he is wrestling with and why he can rest very easy with separating the two. McMillan stated regardless of the state statute,the lake lot is not able to be developed due to the Special Lot Combination. If the two lots were separated,the lots still may be unbuildable due to access because in her view access is going to be very difficult to achieve. McMillan stated given what she has read to date, it may be difficult to gain an easement from one of the neighbors. McMillan stated the state statute has been very difficult for Orono since it has gone against the City's philosophy and has allowed a number of lots to be developed that the CiTy otherwise would not have allowed to be developed. Building houses on substandard lots creates difficulty with runoff,density, and traffic issues even if they meet the hardcover and side setback requirements. McMillan commented this lot unfortunately is difficult to access, and that with those two issues taken together, she finds it hard to believe that separating the lots will work. McMillan stated in her view the intent in 2001 was to provide dock access and that that is clear from the staff reports and minutes. McMillan stated she has a hard time seeing the value of the City attempting to go down a path of separating the two lots given the access issue and that in her view it is a very difficult site to develop. Printup stated joining it together a number of years ago created this problem by allowing something that was illegal to begin with. McMillan pointed out it was created for the benefit of the property owner at the time. Printup stated the intent was to make a benefit for the property owner but that it calls for a process that would probably never be allowed. McMillan stated at the time the benefit was to allow the property owner access to the lake. The City Council was not aware that in 2010 a state statute would be passed that would make this discussion possible. Anderson noted the City's codes and requirements have not changed to make the two lots buildable. Printup stated as it relates to Question No. 1, if the Special Lot Combination Agreement was not in place, the Council would not be having this discussion. Printup stated in his view the language is weird. Levang stated as was pointed out in Staff's report,the words Special Lot combination is used in the City for unique situations and was not created specifically for this situation. Printup commented it was created for lots that are not similar to this situation. Printup indicated he is okay with separating the two lots but that he is not sure whether it requires this agreement to be abandoned or another approach. Printup suggested that perhaps the Council look at the access issues first. Page 15 of 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 ' 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRII�E—SUBDIVISION, Continued) Mattick stated if there is a willingness on the part of the Council to examine separating the two,the logical next step would be to address the access issues. However, if there is not a willingness to separate the two lots,there is no reason to examine the access. Levang indicated there is a process outlined in the Special Lot Combination agreement for how these two lots could be separated and that she is not willing to separate the two lots since the intent of the Special Lot Combination Agreement was to combine the two lots. Printup stated if the two lots are not split apart,the City would have houses up and down the shareline except for this lot because of a weird agreement that was entered into 12 years ago. Levang noted one of the neighbors sold a little piece to create a buildable lot. Levang stated there was every opportunity for whoever owned that lot to buy 1137 or 1153 at some time, and that would have resolved the issue as well. Printup pointed out the City is dealing with properties that do not touch. Levang stated the properties are noncontiguous,but even if those lines are drawn,the lots have been combined under the Special Lot Combination Agreement. Levang stated the lines do not mean anything. McMillan asked whether the Gotten property had a special lot across County Road 15. Gaffron stated the Gotten property was approximately three acres north of County Road 15 and it also included a remnant parcel at the lakeshore south of County Road 15 that was combined with the off-lake land by the County prior to subdivision. When the property was subdivided,two buildable lots were platted off-lake along with an Outlot encompassing the lakeshore remnant. Once that platting was completed,the westerly buildable lot was then combined with the remnant outlot via a Special Lot Combination because they were separated by County Road 15. The County in that plat situation was not expected to combine newly platted lots across a highway right-of-way. Gaffron stated the Gotten parcel always had lake access because it was all one parcel existing on both sides of the County road. Once the split was done,the westerly of the two lots were under a special lot combination with the lakeshore parcel so that lot would have lake access. Five or ten years later the adjacent lakeshore property owner chose to purchase the lakeshore outlot and undo the special lot combination. Gaffron stated the property started out as being one parcel with the road and railroad having easements through it. Gaffron stated the easterly 33 feet of the lot was always part of the triangle to the north. Gaffron indicated that also was an unusual situation but it resolved itself as a result of the purchase by the adjacent property owner. Anderson stated she views this as something similar to a conditional use permit which accompanies the property. Anderson noted this agreement was made relating to these two parcels and went with the property. Anderson stated no matter whom the next owner was,they were aware of the combination and it was not something that was a hardship to them at the time they purchased the property. Page 16 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE , ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, Continued) McMillan stated despite the state statute,this is its own entity, and that even though things have changed since 2001, it does not necessarily affect this parcel since both lots are considered part of this parcel. McMillan stated the agreement provides lake access but it does not provide the ability to build on it. Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to direct Staff to draft a denial resolution for Application #13-3629,Ryan and Stacy Alness, 1169 North Arm Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 1,Printup Opposed. Ryan Alness stated they would still like to deal with access to the property since they are currently landlocked. There is currently no way to gain access to the property and they would request the City deal with that. McMillan stated she will have Staff get back to him on that. *9. #13-3630 BILL COFFMAN ON BEHALF OF ERWIN WACHMAN,PLAT OF BAYSIDE MEADOWS—WAIVER OF LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS/AMEND LANDSCAPE PLAN— STREET NAME ASSIGNMENT—RESOLUTION NO.6329 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6329,a Resolution Revising the Boulevard Landscape Plan for the Plat of Bayside Meadows. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT Struve reported the Eagle Scout project has been completed and it looks very nice. A tentative date for dedication has been suggested as November 12. McMillan noted it would be dark at that time and that the Council should decide whether to do it at 5:00 on October 28 prior to the Council work session. It was the consensus of the City Council to hold the dedication ceremony at 5:00 on October 28. Struve reported the brush site has been officially closed. The site has been opened at various points for the City to haul some brush in there. Public Works will be moving forward with chipping the entire site in the near future. Struve stated residents can still bring leaves and grass to the Public Works Department from 9 a.m.to 3 p.m.,Monday through Saturday, until early November. Levang asked when the chipping will occur. Struve indicated no definite date has been set but that it will be in the near future. Struve reported work on Willow Drive was finished today. Page 17 of 23 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. *10. HENNEPIN COUNTY'S 2014 SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION PROGRAM— RESOLUTION NO.6330 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve RESOLUTION NO. 6330,a Resolution Supporting Application for Hennepin County's 2014 Sidewalk Participation Program for Sidewalks Along Hennepin County's CSAH 15 and CSAH 19. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *11. WINTER MAINTENANCE OF TRAILS Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to direct Staff to send a response to Three Rivers Park District that Orono will not be authorizing winter use of the regional trail segments in the City and will not be maintaining them during the 2013-2014 winter season. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *12. PAY REQUEST NO. 1 -2013 FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve Pay Request No. 1 for the contractor G.L. Contracting,in the amount of$195,622.39 for the 2013 Forcemain Improvement Project. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *13. PAY REQUEST NO.3—WAYZATA BOULEVARD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve Pay Request No.3 for the contractor GM Contracting,Inc.,in the amount of$43,944.04 for the Wayzata Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Project. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *14. PAY REQUEST NO.4—WILLOW DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve Pay Request No. 4 for the contractor C.S. McCrossan,in the amount of$105,826.58 for the Willow Drive Reconstruction Project. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang stated they have been working on the LMCC situation and a meeting is scheduled for October 15. A draft budget has been prepared but is not ready for Council review at this point. Levang noted the Council approved the LMCC fund balance resolution tonight on the Consent Agenda. Levang stated the committee has looked at taping Orono's meetings and the committee is close to an agreement with Granicus to do parsing. Some of the features the committee has been looking at adding on are EComment where citizens would be able to comment on issues. Levang indicated they would like to get set up and going with taping the meetings before adding that additional service. McMillan indicated the company is out of San Francisco and they currently work with the LMCC to do the agenda parsing. McMillan noted they also have a time stamping option and an Ipad application that can be added. Page 18 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (MAYOR/COiINCIL REPORT, Continued) Levang indicated City Clerk Rachel Dodge has been attending the meetings as well and has indicated it could improve office efficiency. McMillan stated the other issue to decide is whether the City should purchase a freestanding camera or mount permanent cameras in the council chambers. The committee felt it would be nice to have two cameras. McMillan commented there are a number of options available that the committee is still attempting to get prices on in order to figure out what will work the best. McMillan stated the City does not have to commit to anything permanent at this point and that they can experiment with different options. Levang stated they hope to go live with something possibly in November or before the end of the year. McMillan stated the company also makes it easy to live stream the meetings over Mediacom. Levang stated the whole objective is attempting to address transparency as much as possible. The new software would also allow the City to do surveys and gather information in a much easier fashion. The LMCC will be presenting a plan tomorrow to provide a la carte services. McMillan commented at the joint meeting with Long Lake and Orono her objective was to discuss all the items related to the turnback and that perhaps the Council could continue that discuss at their next work session. McMillan indicated she would like to see if the City can get a better handle on the amount of money that would be required for the different components. Levang stated the fact that Hennepin County is willing to put more money toward the costs is also a good thing and helps to lower the costs to the City. McMillan stated the total trail system was estimated to be $800,000 and Hennepin County was willing to pitch in$500,000, with Long Lake and Orono contributing the remainder. Levang commented a public hearing on the Orono portion of the turnback project would be a good idea as well as including something in the local newspapers. McMillan asked when the Council would need to make a decision. Loftus stated Mr. Grube has indicated he would like municipal consent by the end of the year. McMillan asked if Staff would have time to gather the information in the next two weeks and then schedule a public hearing sometime in November. Loftus indicated Staff can start to gather the information and then schedule a public hearing in November. Loftus asked whether the Council would like Mr. Grube to be in attendance at the public hearing to answer some of the detailed questions that might be difficult for Staff to answer. McMillan suggested Mike Turner or Jim Grube be invited to attend. Page 19 of 23 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) Loftus asked if the Council would like the information presented at the public hearing to be more general or more detailed. Levang stated in her view it should be specific to the Orono portion,which would be the gateway and then the additional stretch of road. McMillan requested Staff check to see if they are available in November and that Council would have a better idea of what type of information would be required following the October work session. McMillan stated in her view the City should have a short meeting perhaps prior to the November Council meeting to answer the residents' questions. Printup noted there is a joint City CounciUPlanning Commission work session,and asked what is going to be on the agenda. Levang indicated it would be on the Lakeview Golf Course. Printup stated he does not remember reading Lakeview and that perhaps the notice could be more informative than simply public hearing process. Loftus noted Staff has asked all the Council members to come in on their off week and join the Planning Commission for a work session prior to the Planning Commission's 6:30 meeting in October. The Planning Commission will be discussing the Lakeview Golf Course's request for a comprehensive plan amendment later that evening. Loftus indicated it will be a fairly large subdivision application and will be a big change to the area. Loftus stated the work session will allow the Council to understand the process and the requirements associated with that application. The work session and Planning Commission meeting are open to the public and Staff will provide sufficient public notice. Loftus indicated the discussion will be general and will not be specifically discussing the sketch plan but will be more related to the process that will be followed. Loftus stated the intent is to get both the City Council and the Planning Commission prepared for what is being requested. The Lakeview application is scheduled to come before the Council on November 12. Loftus noted another item on the agenda is alternative energy systems and the public is also invited to comment on that. Loftus indicated both items are advertised on the city's website for public input. Printup noted the Long Lake Fire Department event was a success and that the memorial looks very nice. Printup indicated he also visited the new learning pavilion and that the area has some beautiful scenery. Printup stated he has not been in that area for 25-plus years and that the visit brought back a lot of good memories. McMillan noted the school also thanked Orono Staff for their help with permitting of the pavilion and that the Long Lake Fire Department thanked the Orono Public Works Department for their assistance in grading the site. Page 20 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) McMillan noted the Lake Community Coalition had Carol Arthur speak at their last meeting. Carol Arthur is the director of the domestic abuse program. McMillan indicated the local police departments are seeing a rise in domestic abuse and that the Lake Community Coalition is attempting to address that issue. The thought was to tailor the program more towards teen and relationship issues and abuse in young adults. McMillan noted the school's curriculum is fairly well set at this point but that the coalition is working on the details for what can be presented. The local police departments are recommending that some awareness on this issue in the communiTy would be good and that they are waiting to hear back from the schools on the availability in their schedules. McMillan reported the area mayors spoke at the meeting of the Westonka Community and Commerce organization. In attendance were representatives from the cities of Minnetrista, Spring Park,Mound, and Superintendent Borg from the Westonka School District. McMillan indicated she was also in attendance and spoke at the event. McMillan indicated the Westonka Community and Commerce group is very active and that their goal is to promote business awareness. McMillan stated in her view everyone seemed to be appreciative of the new police contract. McMillan reported she also attended the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District public hearing on the Long Lake old sewage lagoon. The Metropolitan Council has agreed to dredge some of that out and recreate the wetland. The entire project is anticipated to cost approximately$600,000. McMillan stated the neighbors seem to be very supportive of the project. McMillan stated the residents are hopeful the dredging and other work will improve the water flowage as well as create a better overall environment. McMillan indicated the project involves more than just improving the water quality and that the MCWD would also like to restore the habitat and the wetlands. McMillan stated in her view it will be a very positive project and will help clean up the heavy metals in the area. McMillan reported the Navarre Community Initiative meeting went well and that they received some positive comments from the citizens. Anderson commented the residents can see some good progress being made in the Navarre area. McMillan suggested Jesse Struve send his PowerPoint presentation over to the Pioneer so they can put together an article. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *15. CONSULTING PLANNER CONTRACT FOR LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE PROJECT Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve the Agreement for Professional Planning Services with Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants,on a time plus materials basis as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Page 21 of 23 MINUTES OF THE , ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. *16. GOLF COURSE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND—RESOLUTION NO.6331 Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6331,a Resolution to Create the Golf Course Fund,a Special Revenue Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 17. DONATION FROM NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS—RESOLUTION NO.6332 McMillan, on behalf of the City of Orono,thanked the Northwest Tonka Lions for their donation. McMillan suggested some type of appreciation event be held this year for the volunteers at the golf course. Anderson moved,Levang seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6332,a Resolution Accepting a Donation from the Northwest Tonka Lions in the amount of$1,000 to be used for maintenance at the Orono golf Course. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *18. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT (WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT) Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve a contract to provide law enforcement services at Shirley Hills Primary School and at Grandview Middle School with the Westonka School District through the 2015-2016 school years. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *19. LMCC FUND BALANCE RESOLUTION Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt the LMCC Fund Balance Resolution,a Resolution for the Distribution of Accumulated Cash Reserves for the Franchise Expiring December 15,2013. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Mattick stated he had nothing to report. 20. LICENSES & PERMITS Solicitor License—Extension Request 1. Applicant: Edward Jones Investments, Ronald T. Drake Activity: Financial services Date: To be determined Time: 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve the above listed license. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Page 22 of 23 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 14,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. *21. CLAIMSBILLS Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:57 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ATTEST: ,�L�L,r°c.�__ �' / /�° �C' �G�'�- '���.5iGL6.Y1f1�, Rachel Dodge, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 23 of 23