Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2020 Council Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh,City Council Members Richard Crosby Il,Matt Johnson,Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals.Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief,Finance Director Ron Olson, Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oaken,Director of Public Works/City Engineer Adam Edwards, and City Attorney Soren Mattick. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27,2020 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 27,2020 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 5. APPROVAL OF KENNEL LICENSE RENEWALS 6. FERNDALE ROAD NORTH—PRE AWARD APPROVAL 7. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD(CSAH 112-CSAH 6)ROAD PAY APPLICATION NO.8—FINAL 8. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION 9. LA19-000098—JOE HAHS/EVERGREEN CONSTRUCTION,2385 SHADYWOOD ROAD,CUP—RESOLUTION NO. 7070 10. LA19-000099—CITY OF ORONO- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TRAIL PRIORITIES—RESOLUTION NO. 7071 11. LA19-000105—JOHN KRAEMER,855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION NO. 7072 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 12. LA19-000106—TOM LEMMERMAN, 1389 ORONO LANE,VARIANCE— RESOLUTION NO.7073 13. ORONO PRESERVE SECURITY FOR SIDEWALK REPAIR Page 1 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 13A. REQUEST TO STATE SENATOR DAVID OSMEK TO ADD$350,000 IN FUNDING FOR BIG ISLAND PARK TO THE STATE BONDING BILL—RESOLUTION NO. 7069 Crosby moved,Seals seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as revised,with Item No. 11 being removed from the Consent Agenda and Item No. 13A being added to the Consent Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 11. LA19-000105—JOHN KRAEMER,855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION NO.7072 Staff presented a summary of packet information. Walsh said this is generally a boathouse structure within the 0-75 feet,and the City has not done a volume expansion within that. Barring any practical difficulty,the property owner has to stay within the same volume they presently have,they can't move it outward, because that would open a Pandora's box. Printup stated the Council could allow this project but it reminded him of a situation where a property owner wanted to put solar panels on a new shed and the Council suggested the owner put them on an existing shed instead. This goes against some other applications the City Council has denied. Walsh said people can't create their own practical difficulty. They could go back to the same sloped roof, or build the flat roof but it's got to come back in a bit so the volume isn't any bigger. Otherwise,everyone will be coming in to change their volume and maximize what they have in a 0-75. Crosby asked to hear the applicant's explanation regarding their changes and then have a discussion. Johnson stated he was prepared to leave it on the Consent Agenda. The actual peak height was reduced and it is insignificant in overall size. It dropped down %a foot and the sides came up 1'h feet to probably aesthetically match the house plan. He is fine with the slight adjustment since overall height is reduced. Mr. John Kraemer said they are really not expanding the footprint of the structure;they are just bringing it up two feet to get it out of the floodplain. Crosby asked if there was a particular reason he was changing the slope of the roof. Mr. Kraemer said the change is to match the architecture of the home they are building. Walsh and Crosby noted that does not mean it is a practical difficulty. Johnson asked Staff if the peak outlined on the diagram is based on the original floor height. Curtis stated it was. Page 2 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Johnson said they had to raise the structure to get it out of the floodplain,but they are keeping it lower than the existing structure so there's less volume on the inside of it than there was because they had to bring it up 2.4 feet. The peak illustrated is the same peak when it was two feet lower.He asked what the height is from the finished grade to the bottom of the peaks. Curtis referenced a drawing and stated there was a seven-foot door. Johnson stated if that was a seven-foot door,the peak is six-some feet if they put the other roof back on. Crosby said he thinks it is reasonable and the property owner has a practical difficulty because of having to raise it for the floodplain. Walsh noted they do not have to rebuild and so the homeowners are creating their own practical difficulty. Council members and Staff discussed the existence of another structure on the property the owner is considering to rebuild,a cabin-type structure,which is past the 0-75 lake setback. Walsh said it is an existing structure and he is not worried about the variances from the setback. Walsh said the owner is creating their own practical difficulty by raising the structure.He is worried about setting a precedent. Johnson stated although he agreed with Walsh,the City also wants people to improve their structures. Printup asked Staff for more information regarding the flood zone and raising the structure. Curtis said flood regulations require full conformance with the low floor elevation if someone rebuilds a structure. You can make maintenance improvements to a structure that exists in the floodplain;but for significant repairs, it triggers conformance,which in this case means raising the low floor. Mattick noted the property owner gets to rebuild it but the City is not going to allow them to rebuild in a place that is known to flood or at least geographically does. You can build it in place, in kind,but out of the floodplain.That is why it gets bumped up by two feet. Johnson asked what would happen if the homeowner raised the structure 2.4 feet up. Curtis said if the owner took the existing building and built it to conform, it would be 2.4 feet higher. Johnson asked whether she meant 2.4 feet higher than the dashed line depicted on the drawing. Curtis used an illustration to show where the top of the peak would be if that were the case and said they would also need a variance to do that. Walsh said it's a good conversation to have because there are a lot of non-conforming structures in the lakeshore setback.After this conversation,he is in support of the request. Johnson moved,Crosby seconded,to approve LA19-000105 John Kraemer,855 Old Crystal Bay Road South,Variance,Resolution No.7072 VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 3 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA19-000101—AL AZAD,200 BEDERWOOD DRIVE,LOT AREA VARIANCE Staff presented a summary of packet information. Crosby asked Staff to indicate the location of the lot; Staff indicated the lot locations and proposed driveway easement. Walsh asked whether the proposed driveway easement meets all the setbacks. Oakden said the easement would have a six-foot setback from the neighboring property line,it would be a 12-foot driveway,and there would be six feet of space before the easement would end. The City has a minimum five-foot driveway setback. Mr.Al Azad, 200 Bederwood Drive,Orono, said the lot is more than two acres and they have been working to create an access. There is no other lot access and the beautiful lot is sitting empty. Walsh stated he understands and,because it is a buildable lot,the owner has a right to have access to it. It's just a matter of how,where,and when. Mr. Azad said the property owners to the south have lived there over 30 years,the Azads have lived there since 1998, and there has never been an issue with the service line. If they prepare an easement,he would be glad to give them access to the pipe as long as it is only access for the pipe. Mr.Jeff and Ms. Renee Mueller,222 Bederwood Drive. Mr.Mueller does not have a problem with a driveway going to the property.His concern is, it is going to go over his sewer line which goes to the main trunk. The sewer line was put in years ago, and he does not think the line was made to have a driveway over it with heavy equipment driving on it. It is not a sewer line underneath a road; it is through a lot to a trunk line. He referenced a comment made that the pipe is at least ten feet under the ground. He doubts that,because when the line was put in,there was a hill and the line is behind it,which is why the houses are fed from behind.The main trunk is 22 feet in the ground,and he does not think they went another ten feet to have the line from his house down another ten feet. When the sewer trunk was put in, there was already an access to that lot with a concrete culvert and a driveway, and Orono should have that as an as-built. It was not his choice to put the sewer line there,but he would like some kind of guarantee that it is not his responsibility to dig up the driveway if there are damages. Walsh stated that is a different legal issue. Mr.Mueller said Orono created the issue.Ms.Mueller said they asked at the Planning Commission meeting if the City usually put a sewer connection on someone else's property, and they said no. Walsh noted there was a lot of weird stuff in Orono and this is not the only circumstance. Mr.Mueller said they sat in a lot of meetings when the sewer was put in and it was the City's decision to do that.If a house is built on the lot,there is going to be all kinds of construction equipment driving over the sewer line. If it gets ruined,he is not fixing it and paying for their driveway. Walsh stated it is pretty clear that if someone damages something directly,there is an obvious claim to understand who is going to take care of it. Page 4 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Mueller asked what happens if it is in the middle of winter and it is frozen from driving over it.He does not think the line is ten feet down. The City should be able to show the as-built for him. Crosby asked Staff how far down the line is,and Barnhart stated they have an as-built but he could not find it.The building code has certain standards for how deep a sanitary sewer line should be buried. If it is less than that,it can be insulated.He said they could provide advice to the applicant and the commenter on what that depth is. Walsh said that would be good information to know and anybody with a locater should be able to do it. Johnson and Barnhart discussed the City's certainty of the location of the sewer line based on the drawing associated with the project,and that the survey does not indicate the location as it only shows easements. Mr.Mueller,with Staff s help,described the sewer line and concrete culvert/sewer connection locations on the map. Oakden used an aerial map to show the approximate location of the plumbing line,which Mr.Mueller agreed with,which is connected to the Mueller house.Both houses on the map go out the back and connect into it,going uphill, and Mr. Mueller noted the Staff's pointer was in the location where the sewer line goes over and connects to it. Council members and Staff talked about how many times the road would cross over the Muellers'sewer line and the main sewer line and that it would cross the Muellers' sewer line three times. Mr. Mueller said that is a main trunk in the road. Johnson asked Mr. Mueller if he was fine with the main trunk and it was not a concern. Walsh said the Muellers are worried about their connection on their property. Mr. Mueller said he is worried about his pipe which is going to get driven over. Johnson said he would be worried,too. Mr.Mueller referenced the manhole and said when everything was put in there,a concrete culvert was put in to access the back lot and there was a driveway there.Ms.Mueller said there was also a smaller house. Oakden referenced the drawings to show the as-built,the Muellers'service line,the manhole, and the second manhole on the back lot. Council members and Staff discussed the typical depth of sewer lines being ten feet and referred to elevations of 9.52 and 9.40 done in 1992 and that the sewer line looked to be at least ten feet down. Seals asked what if it was not,because she lives in that area and nothing is as they were told,either. Crosby noted people drive over sewer lines all the time and his road is over the sewer line. Page 5of15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Johnson asked if Crosby's sewer line was like this. Mr. Mueller stated he worked in construction for a lot of years. The sewer main that's in the road is different than his little one. Crosby stated his is a trunk on a private road. Mr. Mueller said there is a trunk line and the lines run up to the trunk line. Council members and Staff discussed the sewer line depicted in green on the aerial map is the trunk line, which is eight-inch PVC,and the size property owners have for their service line. Mr. Mueller indicated his was a four-inch line. Walsh noted there are two scenarios: One,the road goes where the applicant wants it because he's got the right to put his road where he wants it,and the City says he needs to get an easement set up with the neighbors. Two,the City gives the applicant access to the back lot but the road has to move to a different location. He does not know why the road was picked to be in the present location versus where the driveway was and said just because there was an existing driveway does not mean it has to go there. He asked the property owner how that decision got made. Mr.Azad said if he puts the driveway in the middle of the lot, it takes away from the main lot of the house,so it makes perfect sense to put it farther away.Also,when it comes to maintenance like cutting the grass,you have to cross the road to the other side. With the setbacks the City requires,they went a foot beyond that so it would be easier for the maintenance. Walsh said he could see why the owner would not want a road in the middle of his yard;he'd have people driving through the middle of his property. Helping them out with an easement would be no problem. Walsh and Seals discussed whether the survey depth of ten feet should be verified as it does not look like there is an as-built for the private line. Seals thought the Muellers would like the depth verified. Johnson noted Mr.Mueller seems to have a fairly strong understanding of the sewer line location. Crosby asked if there was a way to make sure the Muellers were not responsible if something did happen to the line underneath the driveway area,and whoever is the homeowner or owns the driveway has to take care of repairing the line even if it is the Muellers' line. Mattick asked if there was an easement over the property for the Muellers' line. Mr. Azad said there was not and until now it never came up. Johnson said this is a good time to bring up these things. Walsh stated if it is broke and Mueller needs to get on Azad's property,he does not have the right to do that. They want to solve that issue in addition to where the road should go. Page 6 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mattick,Walsh,and Crosby said the Council is looking at an individual wanting access to a landlocked property,the Muellers asking the existing owner to give them an easement for a pipe that already exists on his property,and the Muellers' concern for the sewer line pipe breaking and not wanting to be held liable for it. Mattick and Walsh discussed that it was the City's decision to put the Muellers' pipe in that location 30 years ago, although Walsh did not think the City put in the service lateral. Mr.Mueller said all the homeowners had to hook up to the line when the City put the line in. Johnson asked what prevents the Muellers'sewer line from connecting at the road. Mr.Mueller said the City did not want to dig 22 feet into the ground to service a couple houses. It was easier to put the trunk through the lot. Walsh said they never put in an easement at the time, and the issue is the applicant wants to put a road in a location and the neighbor does not want him to put it there. Printup clarified that the Muellers want the pipe protected. Ms. Mueller said the sewer is the main concern and that they want the pipe protected. She also referenced Mr.Azad's comment about it being easier to maintain his property with the driveway in that location. She said their lot is very small and putting the driveway in that location is an issue for them and she would like to understand that he is going to maintain it,because he has not been and there was a lawsuit for 11 years over six feet of property. Walsh stated he thinks the sewer issue could be solved. If a road is put in and damages their plumbing while they are doing it,it is self-evident of who caused that.If, five years down the road, it freezes eight or ten feet down, it is their pipe to take care of,but they have an easement to figure it out. He did not know how much better the City Council could do. Mattick agreed with Walsh and said the applicant has a right to put in that road and a right to access the land.As part of that,he has offered to give the Muellers an easement that they don't have right now. Mr.Azad said if the Muellers draw up an easement which is only for access to the pipe,he would have no problem signing it. Walsh said the applicant can put the road where he wants. If the road meets the setbacks,that is where the road gets to go. It would be contingent upon getting an easement with the neighbors that both parties agree on and sign. That way the neighbor is covered and the applicant gets the road.He cannot worry about what happens down the road as far as whether the applicant mows his lawn or not. Printup stated the as-built says the line is at least ten feet down and he knows sewer issues in the City have been crazy over time. Walsh and Mr. Mueller agreed the trunk line is ten feet down. Printup and Walsh discussed the service line and whether they could hire a plumber to figure out depth. Page 7 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Mueller asked if it would be his expense to find out how deep the City put the pipe in. Walsh stated regardless of whether the Muellers find out how deep the service line is, it still comes back to the issue of the Muellers needing an easement and the applicant can put the road on his property. Printup suggested,to make the resident feel more comfortable in this situation,the City can easily find out how deep it is. As far as the condition,that's another story. Walsh and Printup agreed that would be an issue for Edwards. Seals noted Edwards was not present. Johnson stated there are two separate issues which are not mutually exclusive to each other. One is the road and what responsibility does the City have if they created the issue. He said if this is a private sewer line and the resident picked the location because it was less money,that would be a consideration. Mr. Mueller said they paid a lot of money for the service to the City. Johnson said if he was Mr.Mueller,he would be concerned about his utility not being in his care, custody, and control and he is responsible for it. On the other hand,there is the road. Walsh said he would like to tie it all together. The only thing he is hearing that should be added is Edwards should document from the Mueller property line up to the connection what the depth is, which may change,but have a graph of the depth so the Muellers and the City know what it is. Mr.Mueller said he knows the applicant will put a driveway there and that is not his problem. His concern is, a year from now he does not want to spend a lot of money replacing someone's driveway because his line got damaged because of construction. Crosby said that was understandable. Printup stated he believes he heard Mr.Azad say he would tie it in that the driveway is the responsibility of the new homeowner. Mr. Azad confirmed his comment. Walsh suggested tabling this matter until the next Council meeting so all the information could be gathered to work on getting an easement,and Rief agreed to get the information. Mr. Azad said he had no problem with that. Crosby commented that the Muellers want to be protected,too,which makes sense. Johnson asked if Mr.Azad had a location for the house that would be going on the property. Mr. Azad said he did not;they want to put in a driveway first. It is two acres so there is plenty of room. Page 8 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Seals moved,Crosby seconded,to table LA19-000101—Al Azad,200 Bederwood Drive,Lot Area Variance—Resolution.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 15. LA19-000097—CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT—DOCK LICENSING Barnhart said he introduced the dock licensing ordinance in January which allows the City to issue licenses for the placement of private docks on City property. It was drafted for four properties on Crystal Bay Road,allowing them to put a dock on City property across Crystal Bay Road directly in front of their house.The goal was to minimize the reach of these types of improvements. He made some minor changes based on a discussion with the Council and is interested in feedback from the balance of the ordinance. The ordinance introduces a new duty on the part of either the City Administrator or Community Development Director. As Dock Administrator,you're granting certain authority for one of those individuals to issue licenses. The City Attorney would likely draft a template License Agreement the Council could review,but it would not necessarily go in front of the Council in the future. The suggested term for the license is ten years,which would provide enough time that the property owner could retrieve the value of that improvement.The other direction the Council had was to remove the docks from City property and they would need to be stored on private property over the winter. The ordinance was drafted to include a provision for visitor dock passes, although dock rental was prohibited. He asked for direction from the Council as to whether to leave that in or take it out and any other feedback. Seals asked what the current language is for any docks on lakes in Orono properties and whether it states 48 hours or anything regarding days. In other words, someone could have a weekend visitor. Barnhart indicated that is not permitted elsewhere. Seals asked why the City Council would do anything differently here than is done for anybody else. Barnhart said the reason he suggested it is the model ordinances he reviewed--Minnetonka Beach, Mound, and Big Lake--have that provision because the City is allowing private improvements on City property and allowing licensing or rental of docks which is not allowed elsewhere.He felt there was some value in providing a little measure of additional protection against that concept spreading. Walsh stated this was a privilege because the City is basically doing a license, it's more the character of the neighborhood, and the City has the ability to do that. He likes that there is a lot of bite in the ordinance so if rules are not followed,the City can take it away.He suggested getting rid of lines 83 to 88 so the visiting dock permit could be up to a period of 48 hours occurring two times in one calendar year. Seals stated that's why she was asking,because it seemed different than everywhere else and she wondered why Orono was creating something else. Walsh said it is more of a privilege than anything else so the City might as well have a little more control, especially for the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Brown,3435 Crystal Bay Road, said he wanted to clarify that the 48 hours pertains to if somebody wants to visit him and tie their boat up on his dock for 48 hours. Page 9 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Walsh stated he was correct,then clarified that the language was fine and it can be done twice a year.The part he wanted to get rid of is where someone could get a temporary dockage permit for somebody to sit there for 21 days. Seals stated they have a place on the lake. When they have family over,they bring over a pontoon and park it for the weekend.They are not around to inspect it, but 21 days is a little much. Walsh said most of the time people are coming and going,and there are not a lot of times that people are docking for a couple days straight. Johnson stated he would not be in favor of having overnight parking other than registered boat owners. In reviewing other cities'language,he did not see provisions for other people to use that space.There are two types of properties here:Two that already have a dock and two that have no dock rights.The City is grouping them together,but they are completely different. His recommendation would be to not muddy it with any rights of overnight parking other than the registered owner on the application. Walsh commented that language was getting a little too tough and the City Council could really stick it to somebody, and he does not want to get in that position. He would like to have a little flexibility. Printup stated the issue was discussed as far as overnight and friends and family and who comes and visits and how it should be done. It was decided to get away from having too stringent of language in the enforceability. If he is on a boat and wants to visit Crosby and gets too tired and can't drive later,is that going to be the greatest choice,to say they can't dock here,they've got to go to. He felt it was a safety aspect.Printup asked how it would be enforced on the weekend. Crosby said leaving the 48 hours in the language is reasonable but he would get rid of the 21 days. Printup said he understands Johnson's point as far as safety and not having strangers around.However, if the police notice something going on around the weekend, it would be documented. The City Council has teeth and can say, "Guess what, folks,you just lost your dock." They are not going to want to lose their dock. His big issue was,he had no interest in selling the land. The Council settled on the idea of maybe allowing some docks. The City does not want to be in the dock business. If it's not already in there,he would like to see a termination clause. Walsh stated that language was in there. Johnson said it's a little softer in that people have the right to become compliant. Crosby agreed with Printup's point,that there are going to be times when you have a friend over,possibly drinking. You don't want to send somebody out intoxicated just because of your dock license. Walsh stated there are appeals in the document such as appealing per the City Code. Crosby said the 21-day language should be removed but the 48 hours is reasonable. Printup noted there's language regarding on November 1 the dock has to be removed for City-owned parcels both in the water and on land. He asked what would happen on November 2 if the dock is still Page 10 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. there. He suggested the City take it and store it for a fee.If it is not picked up in two days,then the City gets rid of it. Mattick stated he is reluctant to codify every single thing one can do,but in the license application it is your property and it is their dock.You can have items in there that will allow the City to remove it. Walsh and Printup discussed that the City could do most of the codifying and stringent teeth in the License Agreement, as that is where they would agree to the terms. Printup said he does not want to seem like a bull and just taking stuff but wants it to be very clear so people don't mess this up. The Council wants it to be successful. Walsh agreed and said that is why the City Council is doing it. Mattick stated the license is a privilege and if there are problems and constantly enforcement actions,the City does not have to issue the license the next time. Walsh added that there are enforcement provisions within the term of the license to begin with. Mattick agreed and said the next year when the property owner applies again,the answer can be no. Walsh reminded Mattick it is a ten-year deal,and that is why there are provisions in the document to enforce and take away if the City needs to. Printup indicated there's a question about dock length which gets into the LMCD world. Seals asked if that is something the City needs to be involved in. Printup said it is something the City can be involved in because the City is the owner.If it is a drought year or years and if you have to go out 150 feet to get into four-six feet of water,those are LMCD issues. Does the City want to apply to make that happen or say,"Forget it,we're only going out 50 feet or whatever the LMCD says."The City would not apply for variances through the LMCD. Walsh stated the property owner would have to go through a variance for the City on top of dealing with the LMCD. Printup stated that is what he meant: The City does not want to get involved in that. He used drought years as an example of having to extend the dock out farther. The property owner would come to the City to apply.He said the City does not want to get involved in that,that it is not going up in the drought years. Walsh stated the City has the option of not applying. Printup stated he is suggesting that the City does not. Walsh commented that the owners can always ask and the City Council can decide. Crosby asked if the property owners had fairly good depth in the area. Page 11 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Brown said it was five-six feet. Johnson asked if the City Council is being asked to approve an ordinance,or in the same stroke is this also approving the docks for that stretch. Barnhart said he is looking for direction for changes in the ordinance and then will bring it back. The Council could direct the City Attorney to draft a template License Agreement so the Council reviews it,is comfortable with it,and adopts it.Then the property owners can be invited to make license applications. Printup moved, Seals seconded,to accept what the City Council has with the changes and then move forward at the same time to have Attorney Mattick start putting together a License Agreement to couple with that for review again as a final package. Johnson suggested adding a provision that it be the property owner's primary residence. He asked if it's a vacation rental,if that property can be used by someone other than the property owner.There are four properties--two with docks,two without--and the City is giving two people that don't have the privilege now, so wouldn't it make sense that it is their primary residence in order to have the privilege. Walsh stated if the property owner's primary residence is Florida, he would say no.As long as they own the property and they can show they own the boat,they have the right to put it out there. He would keep it with the homeowner,whether it's their primary residence or not. Johnson asked if the homeowner would be allowed to create a rental,purchase a boat in their name, and rent it out with the privilege of the boat as part of their rental. Crosby said if it is not in the homeowner's name,the answer would be no. Printup, Seals, and Walsh said it has to be the same owner for the boat and home. Crosby said the City would be getting into situations of VBRO, like renting out a vacation home for a longer period of time. Walsh said if they want to rent out their house and have somebody use their boat because it's at their dock,that is their issue.The Council is giving the homeowner the right but it's got to be his boat at the dock. Crosby said the craft has to be licensed to the homeowner. Walsh said it would be clear that the City would not let somebody rent and have their own boat. Crosby stated he thought that language would cut out a lot of that situation. Walsh said the City does not have a lot of that to begin with. Johnson agreed but said it could be created. Page 12 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Johnson said if the Council passes this,anybody that has property across from City land has the right to come to the City and get a dock. Walsh said that was not true. Johnson asked how the situation is different in this case from other cases. Walsh said it is a very specific and unique situation in Orono,where you have a road on your property. Printup added that people have been asking to buy it for decades. Barnhart stated it was spelled out for four specific parcels by PID. Johnson agreed that the City Council is calling attention to the specific four but did not see how somebody else who has a similar situation cannot apply for a dock license. Barnhart said a resident could ask to change the ordinance to include their property. Crosby clarified that a resident can ask, but the City Council has to look at each specific circumstance because they're all slightly different. Walsh stated the situation is pretty unique. Crosby said to him it is cleaning up an abnormality and that it shouldn't have been like this to begin with. Johnson asked if Printup weighed in on having one dock cluster versus a singular dock since it was tabled earlier until the full City Council was present. Printup indicated he is okay with it being adjacent,or single dock,and that it should include the termination clause and not messing with variances,no 21 days, and the property owner is the boat owner. Seals asked if it should be approved as a resolution so it comes back again to make sure it is right. Walsh stated that is being done and the motion is to continue to move it forward. Johnson brought up the fee that would be charged,noting he thought Staff's recommendation was$300. Barnhart said originally it was $325 a year for three years,which is about$1,000. It would be up to the City Council on how to charge the fee. Walsh stated to him it is$325 a year and residents can pay it every year or all at once,but every year it has to be paid by X date or they are in default of the License Agreement,which could be part of the License Agreement. Johnson shared the rates that Excelsior and Tonka Bay charge which are based in part on boat footage and residents vs.non-residents. Page 13 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Walsh noted the City Council has tried to keep fees as low as they can, actually what it costs versus trying to get as much money as the City can. Johnson said he wanted to tell the Council what other cities were doing because they were not introduced. Crosby,Johnson,and Printup had a discussion regarding Orono being in the dock business to a degree but that it does not want to be overly involved. Barnhart asked if the City wanted to charge for a second boat. Walsh said no, as long as they go by the LMCD regulations. If the property owners want to have Jet Skis or boats,the residents are treating it like it is their property and they have to comply. It should be$325 a year whether it's one boat or two boats. Printup asked if it was normal to have more than one boat;he was thinking one boat. Walsh said they would have to have room for it. Crosby stated he did not know where they would fit more than one boat on those lots. Seals, Walsh,and Crosby discussed the need to address swimming/bathing rights if there are four docks and a lot of boats, since the area would be clogged up. Crosby stated he did not think the City should go down that path and did not think it would happen,and Walsh said there are still setbacks between neighbors and there are setbacks for docks and everything else for the LMCD. Mattick said if someone has a dock and a boat 20 feet from the shoreline,once you're talking about swimming on the surface water,they can do that in front of anyone's property. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1 (Johnson). FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Olson had nothing to report. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Johnson had nothing to report. Crosby noted Shannon's fiance got back safely from Kuwait.They are very grateful and also thankful for his service. The Chiefs won the Super Bowl. Printup had nothing to report. Seal said Planning Commissioner Mark McCutcheon broke his leg in two places playing broomball and asked everyone to keep him in their thoughts and prayers. Walsh encouraged everyone to participate in the local elections. He noted there was a story in the Star Tribune about vacation rentals edging out residents in resort villages. VRBOs are buying the property, Page 14 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,February 10,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. and neighborhoods are disappearing and families moving out.He said Orono worked hard a few years ago to address that issue. He also talked to David Osmek and was disappointed to hear Minnetonka Beach asked Osmek to go to the state legislature to see if they can free eight million dollars in the bonding bill to pay for their water problem. He feels bad for the residents of Minnetonka Beach because they haven't had anybody putting away money for them,but he thinks they can and need to start,and not by going to the legislature and asking for a handout. Orono has prided themselves for budgeting correctly to ensure constant funding for infrastructure,roads,sewer,and water systems. Crosby said he thought the state surplus budget should come back to the taxpayers and the balance put away for a rainy-day fund. He agrees Orono should not be paying for anybody else's water issues. Walsh stated city councils are there to properly budget finances. He thinks Orono leads the way and is a model on how to do it. Printup said it has been proven and demonstrated time and time again that it works. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Rief said they have no Park Commissioner applications and they need some so everyone should reach out to people they know. They also need applications for Planning Commissioners.He met with Long Lake, and they will reconvene in a couple of weeks for more discussion. Walsh said 30 years ago the Public Works Department was located in the spot they are now. They are landlocked and the facility is pretty old.The City of Orono in the next year or two will start to plan what they can do for the next 30-40 years for the Public Works Department and where they might be situated. Rief said there is 3.4 to 3.8 acres that is actually usable so there is not a lot of space. Walsh said they have storage sheds for salt, rock,and equipment and are running out of room. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Mattick had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Seals moved,Crosby seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:19 p.m.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Dennis Walsh,Mayor AT ST: Anna Carlson,City Clerk Page 15 of 15