Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 12, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to direct Staff to draft an encroachment agreement allowing the <br />entire retaining wall subject to compliance with the regulations that the Minnehaha Creek <br />Watershed District would require for establishment of the native vegetation, with waiver of the <br />after -the -fact permit fees. <br />Printup stated what he hears loud and clear from this application is that it is very familiar to another <br />application that had a fire pit encroachment. Printup stated his concern is that the municipality is not <br />coordinating well with the Watershed District. Printup stated he would prefer to error on the side of <br />people who are being proactive and attempting to do the right thing only to be stopped in their tracks by <br />all of the bureaucratic paperwork. Printup stated the question is how the City can work better with the <br />Watershed District. Printup noted the City Council has talked about that before and that is what concerns <br />him with applications of this type. <br />Levang stated Staff has been working hard over the years to establish a good working relationship with <br />the Watershed District. Levang stated if someone looks at the flowage and covenants, it was very clear <br />what should have happened with the property and that the property owners should have realized it was <br />their responsibility to understand all the conservation easements and covenants and that the property <br />owners should have been apprised of those things at the time they purchased the property. Levang stated <br />the property owners need to understand exactly where their property boundaries are and that Staff has <br />worked very hard to develop a strong relationship with the Watershed District. <br />Mack stated he does not see this issue as a conflict with the Watershed District. Mack stated the Planning <br />Department has discussed this very thoroughly and have actually instituted some measures that will help <br />prevent this from happening in the future. Mack stated the changes have to do with the way landscaping <br />occurs on a site and whether it is part of the original building permit or not. Mack stated those changes <br />will help make sure the homeowners are not caught in this type of situation in the future. Mack stated this <br />situation involved different contractors and a lack of clear understanding of what was on the survey. <br />McMillan stated at times the developers fail to inform the property owners that certain areas have <br />covenants over them or fail to notify them of a wetland buffer. McMillan stated it is very difficult for the <br />average person to understand how those lines are formed since they are often determined by soil types <br />and that when the lots are sold, they are not always marked. <br />McMillan asked for clarification on the fee. <br />Curtis stated a building permit is required for the wall exceeding four feet in height as well as a zoning <br />permit for the lower wall. The zoning permit is a $50 permit and the building permit is a sliding fee based <br />on the cost of the project. Curtis stated the double fee is for the after -the -fact permits. <br />VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />Mattick noted this application will be brought back before the City Council at the time a plan is finalized <br />with the Watershed District. <br />Page 8 of 19 <br />