Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2020 Council Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9,2020 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, 1I, Matt Johnson, and Victoria Seals. The following members were absent: Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Attorney James J. Monge, IIl. 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 FEBRUARY 24,2020 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24,2020 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSE 5. PARK COMMISSION SCHEDULE REVISION 6. PARKS MOWING SERVICES 7. APPOINTMENT OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 8. 2020 ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT—AWARD 10. LA19-000097—CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCK LICENSING ORDINANCE NO. 239,THIRD SERIES 12. LA20-000007—REVISION LLC O/B/O DENNIS& CYNTHIA BREMER, 1030 TONKAWA RD, CUP—RESOLUTION NO. 7078 13. LA20-000010—JAMISON KOHOUT O/B/O REAL ASSETS LLC, 1645 SHADYWOOD ROAD, FINAL PLAT: LESLIE LAKEVIEW ESTATES—RESOLUTION NO. 7079 16. LA19-000103—CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCK PERMITTING,JOINT USE DOCK LICENSING,AND MARINA LICENSING ORDINANCE NO. 240,THIRD SERIES 20. CITY OF ORONO FEE SCHEDULE, ORDINANCE NO. 241, THIRD SERIES Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as revised,with Item Nos. 9 and 11 being removed from the Consent Agenda,and Item Nos. 16 and 20 being added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 17 was removed from the Regular Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Page 1 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 9. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS—RESOLUTION NO. 7077 Walsh noted Planning Commissioners were interviewed earlier in the evening. Walsh moved,Crosby seconded,that Scott Kirschner will be added as a Planning Commissioner and David Peterson will be an alternate.Three alternates--Janice Berg,Lauren Schoenzeit,Denise Leskinen—will be removed from the list.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 11. LA19-000063—CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SPECIAL EVENTS Mr.Bob Erickson thanked everyone for their efforts to revise the text amendment. He said the regulations apply to large fireworks displays that require professional, licensed operators to set off large,explosive devices that can be seen and heard from large distances. The drafts created so far include smaller consumer fireworks that fall into two categories:those that are legal for purchase,and those that are illegal.He noted all the fireworks pictured were illegal in Minnesota and doubted whether anyone in possession of illegal fireworks would include that in their Special Events Permit application.He listed several legal fireworks in Minnesota and said he does not see any common-sense reason for them to be included in the Special Events Ordinance.He recommended the definition for"fireworks"be limited to the 1.3G fireworks only and that a definition for"fireworks display"be a display of 1.3G large fireworks. Walsh stated a lot of stuff would be excluded if that was taken off that people would want the permit for. Mr.Erickson said the original idea was for large fireworks displays,and that remains on the list.In his view,there is no need to regulate snakes,sparklers, and that sort of thing. Crosby asked whether the small items would be off the list because no permit is required if they are legal. Mr. Erickson said the definitions included state all types of fireworks, including sparklers,and includes somewhat larger fireworks which are designed for individual use that you might buy in other states but are not legal in Minnesota.It was brought up in the Work Session that a regulation is not necessary for legal fireworks nor fireworks that are totally illegal. The work done so far has been to create a framework for large displays where people hire a licensed operator to send up the big stuff. Walsh asked if the big stuff is illegal. Crosby said that all the big stuff is illegal unless it is launched by a licensed professional. Mr.Erickson noted those types of fireworks require a permit by ATF just to move it in a truck. Walsh stated that the professionals are still detonating the illegal stuff if they have a permit. Barnhart indicated professionals can get a permit for the large, legal ones. Page 2 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Crosby said he is not sure what Mr. Erickson is trying to resolve,because the other fireworks would not be coming under regulation, anyway. Walsh agreed with Crosby. Barnhart said his understanding from the Council was to keep the language more broad. In the previous version, a specific Minnesota statute was referenced. He believes that Mr. Erickson thinks the smaller fireworks don't have as much of a reach as the large ones and does not want to bring the City in on some of the smaller events. The City is looking at what the Fire Code identifies as fireworks to make sure a fire hazard is not being created. Seals asked if the language matches the Minnesota State Fire Code, or as close as possible, which is the goal. Barnhart said he thinks it does. Walsh said they do not want to set a standard that is not attached to the Fire Code. If the City finds it is too overzealous it can be amended later,but he would rather err on the side of caution to start with. Crosby stated he does not see authorities coming after people with sparklers or other minor items. He agreed with Walsh as far as matching the State Fire Code language. Mr. Erickson said that is why he used the 1.3G designation as part of the Minnesota State Fire Code. He stated the 1.4G are the small fireworks, both legal and illegal. He noted you need to hire a licensed operator for the 1.3G fireworks in addition to having a permit. During the Work Session,the Chief of Police mentioned no one would interfere if somebody had a sparkler because they are legal. The police are aware that bottle rockets,the next step up, are illegal and they can intervene at any time. There is adequate state law forbidding those, so it does not need to be included. He noted the section that has been agreed upon includes arequired vote by the City Council based on the Fire Chief's recommendation, which guarantees adequate notice being sent to neighbors, etc. He is trying to limit the scope of what the problem is and they seem to be getting close, and he wants to get it to the final step to move it forward. Walsh indicated he understood Mr. Erickson's point and appreciated his time. Seals said she would like the language to match what the State Fire Chief says, in case it changes. Walsh noted that was the same direction as in the Work Session. Johnson stated his understanding of Mr. Erickson's concern: the City Council is reinforcing something that is already illegal and it is unnecessary. Barnhart stated the smaller fireworks are referred to as consumer fireworks. Minnesota does not allow consumer fireworks to fly, such as bottle rockets. The proposal is, anything under the larger umbrella of a firework, as defined by the Fire Code,requires a Special Events Permit. The Fire Chief would review the application, confirm the launch location, and the City Council review and approve the permit. Johnson asked if that was the 1.4 scenario. Page 3 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart answered that it was the 1.3 also. Councilmembers discussed a potential scenario where a gathering of people would need a permit to use smaller bottle rockets with a licensed operator as opposed to the bigger ones where they would not need a permit. Barnhart said the Fire Chief would check to see if the resident had the proper licensing and accreditation for the 1.4 size. If the resident didn't,the Fire Chief would deny that portion of the permit. Crosby commented that if someone was doing that,they would be out of Code,anyway. Barnhart said if a resident was licensed,accredited and can launch all fireworks, including the 1.4,the Fire Chief would still review the application and could issue a Special Events Permit. The City is being cautious,understanding changes can be made if needed. He noted licensed operators may use both the 1.3 and 1.4 fireworks. Walsh stated it is a fire issue if anyone is launching fireworks of all types, so it would be better to know than not know. Barnhart said the City is making sure its Ordinance matches the Fire Code's definition of fireworks, because that triggers the Special Events Permit. Johnson asked whether Mr.Erickson's concern is that some I AG fireworks are legal and don't require a permit but the language is requiring them to apply for a permit. Barnhart stated he was correct. Walsh and Barnhart discussed that would be the case even on a small scale. Barnhart noted it would be reviewed by the Fire Chief and he would advise the City accordingly. Councilmembers noted if the fireworks were legal,technically a resident would not need a permit. Johnson asked if it is a legal firework,the citizen should not have to contact the City,and if Mr. Erickson's concern is that a resident has to contact the City if they have legal fireworks. Barnhart stated that is what he believes Mr. Erickson thinks.The Fire Chief told him some smaller items that people believe are fireworks are not actually defined as fireworks, according to the Fire Code. Crosby suggested matching the Fire Code language rather than picking apart definitions. Johnson suggested a compromise would be to insert a paragraph to exclude legal fireworks. Councilmembers and Barnhart discussed what language could be used and whether they could add some language referring to State Code, such as"excluding any legally defined fireworks per State Code." Barnhart said he would like to come back with a definition from the City Attorney's office because the State Fire Code identifies what a firework is,and if the City is going to depart from that, it needs to be looked at very carefully. Page 4 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Johnson asked whether that is even if it is referencing an obvious fact: if something is legal, a resident does not have to come to the City. Barnhart reiterated he would like to discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Mr. Erickson stated it is clear to him that I AG under the Fire Code includes legal and illegal fireworks. Johnson asked if the City Council's understanding was correct: Mr. Erickson's concern is that there should be an obvious exclusion to legal fireworks so people know they do not have to get a permit. Mr. Erickson said that was a large part of it. He said if someone wants to buy their children sparklers, they should not have to get a permit. Walsh asked Monge if he had an opinion on the matter. Monge stated he knows what the State statute says and he knows what is defined as legal and what are not defined as fireworks. He does not have access to the State Fire Code. Walsh said he was looking for a quick opinion or if it should be funneled to Mattick for his input. Barnhart quoted the definition from the Fire Code-- "containing restricted amounts of pyrotechnic composition" -- and indicated the "restricted amounts" language is important because that is where you get to the lawful/unlawful fireworks. Some states allow the 1.4 small fireworks to be launched; in Minnesota,they are restricted. Crosby said he does not see the Orono PD going after people with small sparklers. He thinks the Fire Code should be followed. Walsh suggested waiting until the first week in April, when Attorney Mattick returns, to work on the language. Johnson added a regular citizen should be able to read the City's Code and be clear on what it says. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to table LA19-000063—City Of Orono Text Amendment Related To Special Events. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14. LA20-000005—GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION O/B/O DAVID& LYNN GUTERMUTH-2665 CASCO POINT ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES Staff presented a summary of packet information. Johnson confirmed with Staff that the house was new construction. Johnson asked if the homeowner removed existing hardcover around the lakeside shed in order to apply the hardcover in another location to make sure they were conforming. Curtis stated that was true; a sidewalk/stair system, a deck, and a fire ring that were to be removed. Page 5 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Walsh asked if there was a photo showing the original deck. Johnson said he wanted to make sure that when they came in for the permit the deck was there and that they elected to remove that to get their hardcover within acceptable standards. Curtis stated that was true. Johnson asked if, when they presented the as-built survey, it did not include the decking,and after the as- built it was discovered the hardcover was added. Curtis said that was true. Johnson asked if the recently discovered changes of the structure were subtle. Curtis said when the inspector went out,the changes in the building were present.After the as-built,the deck was put on. Johnson asked how many permits would be required to do what has been done. Curtis discussed the different permits required for the different tasks completed. Johnson asked if the homeowner pulled those permits. Curtis said the re-siding permit may have been,but the changes to the structure--the volume and expansion--were not. It could have been one building permit for the shed. Johnson asked if there was a fireplace in the structure or a chimney for a future fireplace. Curtis stated the builder would have to answer that question but that would be a separate permit. Johnson asked if there were any utilities in the shed. Curtis and Councilmembers discussed that it appeared as though electrical was available and also a sink. Johnson asked what was in the shed prior to the reconstruction. Curtis said she did not know. Mr. William Haack, Gordon James Construction, 5159 Main Street,Maple Plain, said there was electrical in the shed previously. The owner wanted a countertop with a sink installed.A cabinet was put in but no sink installed and no plumbing. There is an irrigation system that comes alongside the structure. When they were building the new home,the owner asked them to freshen up the boathouse. He indicated the 2015 survey showed the same square footage of the boathouse as the 2019 survey--286 feet--which was after the work was done,so hardcover was not changed. It was a simple facelift and it was not considered that any special permits were needed to re-side it.The homeowner removed the deck and hired a dock company to install a removable dock system. The homeowner considered it part of his boat dock and that is how it was constructed. Page 6 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Crosby asked if the calculation on the old deck was added to the square footage of the new house. Curtis stated she is not sure where it went, but it did go to the project. Mr. Haack indicated if Staffs numbers were 240 square feet on the dock, 249 is the number for the permanent deck that was on there originally. Walsh said the construction company has been around for a long time and knows the rules. He asked how a conversation about putting a dormer on a boathouse goes when everyone knows it will not get approved. Mr. Haack stated they looked at it from a footprint and height perspective. The height is exactly the same except the chimney; the footprint does not change. The architect may have overlooked that the gable part goes out of the spirit of an in-kind/volume aspect. Walsh asked if Mr. Haack now understands the rules. Mr. Haack stated they are getting more clear. Walsh said he was personally a little disappointed to see it was done without asking anyone,because approval would never be given. He stated anything above the high-water mark, whether it is on planks or not, is a deck/hardcover. The owner has the right to have the same amount of hardcover as before but will have to find hardcover somewhere else. Crosby noted a plumbing permit was not yet pulled and wondered, since there is a sink planned, if that would be done later or would be done in the middle of the night. Curtis indicated the homeowner can have a sink with a permit. Mr. Haack stated they would be putting in a sink and a cabinet. He said the chimney is for aesthetics, but if the homeowner chose to put a fireplace in later, they would need to contact the City for a permit. Seals said the facelift looks very nice. The City is very protective of the first 75 feet, it is clear a homeowner can replace in-like/in-kind, and the City was clear in their direction regarding the new build of the house. It is sneaky to call it a dock, and when you do anything on the water, everyone can see it. She agreed there is no practical difficulty and because it is after the fact, it is concerning. She supports the Planning Commission and Staff. tf the Council says yes,it could bring about more of this behavior. Crosby noted it will allow the homeowner to have more hardcover in their original building by pulling the old deck from there and bringing it to the house. Walsh added the City holds a zero tolerance for any expansions of boathouses and they want to remain consistent that it is a no for everyone. Mr. Haack clarified that the oversight was the gable on the roof. Walsh indicated that it would have to go back to the original roofline. Page 7 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Haack said the homeowner hired people to put the dock together.The homeowner asked for consideration that the dock remain,that it is smaller and their view is that the dock is not a deck. Walsh said the homeowners can have what they had,but that it has to come off somewhere else and they have to make that decision. Curtis pointed out the areas of the expansions after Crosby asked to look at the original sketch. Johnson asked if that was an after-the-fact sketch and noted the City was never considered in any of the improvements. Crosby indicated that he is clarifying on the gable part that the City was not considered. Mr. Haack said he understood it was on the original submitted plans. Johnson asked if Staff recommendations included returning it to its original state. Curtis clarified that the recommendation was to not approve any hardcover variances. Mr.Haack stated if the dock sections are taken off,the homeowner would be under the variance approval for square feet of the property. Walsh clarified that the homeowner will receive no hardcover variances. He can decide what to do with the 74 square feet he has;he can do so within the footprint of what he had previously.The chimney and gable would need to be removed. If the boathouse remains the same but is re-sided with 2-inch stone rather than 'h-inch siding,he would be fine with that. Curtis asked how the Council felt about the gable bump-out. The Councilmembers indicated that anything which expanded the envelope and the volume needs to be brought back to the original structure.The core shell cannot be expanded.If the homeowner gets rid of all the deck,he will have 75 square feet to work with. Johnson asked whether any changes will still require a permit. Curtis indicated that was correct. Mr.Haack asked if the changes being discussed would need a permit. Johnson and Walsh said he was correct and that there would be additional permits needed and perhaps field inspections. Johnson moved, Seals seconded,to follow Staff recommendations and stay within the approved hardcover,get the appropriate permits and pay the appropriate fees for the permits,and get inspections regarding LA20-000005—Gordon James Construction O/B/O David& Lynn Gutermuth-2665 Casco Point Road,After-the-Fact Variances.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Page 8 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 15. LA19-000091—CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO GRADING AND LAND ALTERATIONS Barnhart said in September 2019 the Council directed Staff to prepare an Ordinance to address an issue with slope failures. It was also an opportunity to clean up the process and reduce time in granting land alteration permits. The DNR will also need to review and approve the Ordinance because of the location of some of the property, after which the City Council will approve the final document. He noted the Planning Commission has reviewed the document. Staff is looking for approval by the City Council subject to review by the DNR. Barnhart said the process was started because of a slope failure issue. The Ordinance corrects the grading part. The City still does not permit structures in the 0-75-foot setback;that would still require a variance. He stated Staff changed the grading and land alteration about 16 months ago. At that time,they realized most activities that involve hauling triggered an Interim Use Permit(IUP).As a result, in 2019 there were nine IUPs; in the previous four years there were two. When looking at an import/export type of permit, the main issue is impact to streets: damage being caused to the streets and haul routes being adjusted to minimize impact to residents. He stated Staff established haul route standards and tried to encourage people to use City streets at a minimum, instead using State and County roads as much as practical. The Ordinance also introduces stockpiling standards. Currently it addresses the amount being stockpiled; however,the bigger issue is how long the stockpile is there. Changes were introduced to address that. Johnson and Walsh said they thought the new language was good, giving a quicker reaction time to some of the failing slopes. Johnson commented that while growing up on a lake, any trees over six inches in diameter were untouchable. He asked why the City would give people a vehicle to get rid of big trees within the 0-75 feet, excluding diseased or damaged trees. Barnhart displayed the current regulation as it applies to vegetative alterations, explaining that none can be removed without a permit. When a permit is requested,the question is why, with the exclusion of diseased/damaged/dead trees. Live trees are removed if they are on a building site, encroaching an existing building and causing foundation damage, creating a hazard to a building, etc. Staff provided a schedule of what needs to be replaced because the Code does not give guidance. He noted the City is in the Shoreland Overlay District section, which the DNR looks at, so he wanted more definition in what is looked at for replacement. Johnson noted the document would be a tool for Staff to help people decide how to replace trees and how many to replace and the guidelines related to size of trees. Walsh agreed that it is a tool to help people regarding vegetation. Barnhart indicated there would possibly be tweaks from the DNR when it comes back from them. Crosby moved to direct Staff to forward the draft to the DNR for review. Planning Commissioner Chris Bollis, 210 Kintyre Lane, referenced adding a column for all other lots above 5 acres and thought the minimum/maximum numbers would also be changing, the 50-5,000 cubic yards. Page 9 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated if that was a direction given, he did not catch it. Referencing material displayed,he discussed grading and noted that the numbers could be raised. Walsh noted the threshold is 50. Barnhart agreed,clarifying that in the lake yard it is much different. Walsh asked Bollis if the Planning Commission suggested 500. Bollis stated the Planning Commission added the column regarding 5 acres or over. He said there are many larger lots that should not carry the burden of the 50 number. They also adjusted the larger numbers, and he thought the trigger number on the lower end was going to be higher than 50. Walsh asked Bollis what the trigger number would be. Bollis said that he did not remember a number being discussed but that it was a direction. He stated it could be up for discussion. Barnhart suggested changing the lower number to 100 for the larger lots on the grading. Walsh asked if that would be for lots larger than 5 acres. Johnson indicated it should be 5 acres of drive/buildable. Walsh said 100 was a good number to start with and the Planning Commission could do more thinking and connect again with Barnhart. Rief noted some of the parcels that are larger than 5 acres are horse farms, and 5,000 square feet of area will not allow them to grade their arena. Barnhart stated they can do that,but they would need a permit by Staff to ensure that the owner will stabilize the site and not cause any drainage issues with neighbors. Bollis said 100 sounded reasonable. Crosby moved,Seals seconded,to direct Staff to forward the final draft to the DNR for their review and comment as required with the 11100" and"5-acre plus" language included.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 17. LA20-000003—JOHN NEWELL- 1485 SIXTH AVE N- SKETCH PLAN This item was removed from the agenda. Page 10 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 18. LA19-000102—KEVIN CLARK OB/O YMCA GREATER TWIN CITIES, 135 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD Barnhart said this was a sketch plan review for property owned by Gordon James Construction. They are proposing a five-lot subdivision and the property owner has a plan which meets the City's Ordinances. Generally,the lots meet the size requirements of 2 acres of drive/buildable. The middle lot is challenging in that there are steep slopes and substantial vegetation. A couple lots don't meet the width requirements, but that is easily remedied. The new road appears to meet the requirements for width and length, and the cul-de-sac meets the City Ordinances. Because Lot 1 has frontage on Orono Orchard Road,that is technically the front yard; the width, measured at the front yard setback, is approximately 50 feet. COuncilmelnbers and Barnhart discussed options regarding Lot 1 given the lot's configurations. Barnhart said Lot 2 also does not meet the lot width requirement, which is not uncommon and is seen quite a bit when looking at cul-de-sac lots. One option would be to extend the outlot to get additional frontage on Lot 1. That may impact a portion of Lot 4 or Lot 5. Walsh indicated the property presents its own practical difficulty because of the layout. Councilmembers and Staff discussed the location of the easement through Lot 3 and whether anything was underneath it.Barnhart stated he does not believe so, based on Orono's and Long Lake's utility maps, but would need to look at the language of the easement to see if it could be moved. Barnhart indicated he is looking for reaction to the layout and the road network and if the Council sees any red flags other than what he mentioned. He knows more detail will be necessary including septic sites, grading, and the road plan. Johnson asked whose easement it was. Barnhart stated it might be the Met Council. Seals suggested learning more about the easement. She said she likes the plan much better than the earlier one and likes the fact that every lot is different. She said it is going in the right direction. Walsh, Crosby, and Johnson agreed with Seals. Mr. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction, 5159 Main Street,Maple Plain,explained they have talked about taking the triangle on the front,bend the road a little, and dedicate the corner to a monument. He stated the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be moved far enough to do a swap and still be within the appropriate numbers. Johnson asked if that would keep Lot l at 2 acres. Mr. Quinlivan said it would keep Lot 1 at 2 acres by rotating the line. He noted there is not a lot of room to play around with lot lines, so the final rendition will be close to what the sketch plan is. No action was taken at this time. Page 11 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 19. LA20-000009—DON GAMBLE O/B/O RICHARD A AND KIM A EDWARDS,2480 AND 2474 CARMAN STREET,SKETCH PLAN Barnhart stated the sketch plan is a proposal to split two lots down the middle which exist on a shoreline. This will create two lots north of the inlet and two lots south of the inlet. The applicant represents both property owners for this purpose.The lot has two different zoning districts:the north lot requires a''h-acre zone,and the area south is a minimum of 1 acre.The two lots north of the inlet conform to lot area and lots width.The two lots south cannot meet the lot area requirements. In addition,the parcel to the west cannot meet the lot width requirement.The project is predicated upon the Council's support of some waivers or variances to allow additional lots.Not a lot of work has been done because the City Council historically has not supported additional density at the lakeshore. Johnson,referencing the displayed aerial photograph,asked if the yellow line down the middle is the existing property line, Barnhart stated he was correct. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and recognized the inherent challenges with the amount of land but did not support a waiver. Mr.Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury,said he grew up on Lake Minnetonka and knows the lake very well. It is a unique property and situation.The south properties cannot be conforming because they are not attached to other land;the north properties would be conforming if they were on their own.Looking through a lot of the historical information on City planning and Navarre planning, everyone has noticed the lots and said,"What a great opportunity."But it is only a great opportunity if they are on their own. He does not know what would happen to them if they could not be split off.He indicated the south houses are nonconforming whether the north portions of the lot are there or not. Walsh asked Mr. Gamble whether he represented the property owners. Mr. Gamble said he does;he is a real estate developer/broker. Mr. Gamble said the properties have been for sale at times and there are two different buyers:people that want the houses or want the land;they don't want both.He stated he talked to the City to see if they had any interest in having commercial in the area.The City indicated they could not change zoning. He said various Councils and community interests have thought about what to do and what can happen there. Johnson stated the City Council does not have a history of making subdivisions to create nonconformity. Mr. Gamble noted it was not creating a nonconformity. Johnson said making four parcels instead of two does create nonconformity for two of the four. Seals asked if the property could be created into three parcels. Page 12 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gamble stated it is nonconforming the way it currently exists. Johnson commented that it is lawfully nonconforming at this point and there are hardcover benefits. Mr. Gamble said the property owners do not get the benefit of the land north of it to use as hardcover for south calculations. The only calculations for the south hardcover are the houses that are there. Barnhart, Walsh, and Seals stated he gets the benefit of the hardcover because it is gross for the lot. Johnson said the big issue is the 75 feet from the lake because everything is a variance. The City Council is more rigid on the hardcover within 75 feet. Crosby noted the property owners are taking advantage of the hardcover because of the north land. Walsh suggested a scenario where the two wooded lots became one lot which would conform and it is 1.2-1.3 acres and the other lots are individual lots. He asked if those lots stand on their own how much hardcover they have, and whether that would make them nonconforming. Barnhart stated it may. He did not do an analysis of the hardcover for the south lots. The two north lots conform in area and width. The only way to make the south lots conforming is to combine them, although he understands there are two dwelling units there. Seals stated it is not that the City is not interested in commercial; however, the residents in the area would be opposed to that. Council members discussed the zoning in the area which was ascertained to be residential. Crosby stated the owners get the benefit of the hardcover from the land and they should have added it on to 2414 and 2440 as their backyard. Mr. Gamble commented that it is his job to maximize the use of the land in its current situation and asked how he would do that. Crosby and Mr. Gamble discussed whether the land to the north was helpful regarding hardcover for the lots on the south. Johnson stated there was a lot of hardcover on the 2474 address. Mr. Gamble stated when it was surveyed, a hardcover survey was done. Johnson asked where the property line was for the survey. Page 13 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gamble said that for the north and south lots it is in the middle of the lagoon.He stated it was unique that both owners are thinking about doing something.Neither of them are buyers;they are both sellers.It seems unusual that something cannot happen to those pieces of property such as different zoning. Walsh indicated the City would have to change zoning and density. Mr. Gamble suggested keeping the zoning.He said the houses to the south are like all the neighbors' houses--smaller,nonconforming lots--so it is not asking for a change. Walsh noted there are a lot of neighborhoods similar to that: several small houses and a large house. Crosby asked what the width of the two lots was. Mr. Gamble said the Shoreline Drive is 125 feet. When you get to the 2480 address,it bumps out bigger. Barnhart indicated 2474,north of the inlet,is about 136 feet; 2480,north of the inlet,is about 121 feet. The requirement is 100 feet.For the west side property south of the inlet, it is 124 feet,and the width requirement is 140 feet. On the east side,the measurement is 155 and the requirement is 140 feet. Barnhart said he did not know how to measure something when it has three sides but it is something that can be dug into. Johnson, Walsh,and Seals said they did not see how the City had a path for Mr.Gamble to follow for a subdivision. Crosby noted that there would be hardcover issues on the south lots. Rief said if there was a single buyer who would combine the lots,build one house on the peninsula and then subdivide the top two,that would make it conforming. Crosby noted the bottom two were the only ones in compliance currently. Rief indicated if one owner was not willing to buy the other owner out,the scenario would not work. Crosby added that the entrance would then need to come off of Shoreline Drive. Mr. Gamble stated there is an entrance off of Shoreline Drive.The County put in curb cuts for the lots so there is access. Walsh reiterated the City Council did not have a path for the applicant. Page 14 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gamble said he has read through hundreds of pages and listened to the City Council, and although it is complex,there is usually a path if it makes sense. He asked what the path would be if there was one. Walsh stated the path would be to give variances for all of the densities and change the zoning which is something the City Council is not interested in doing. There is no rule that this situation fits in without having to change all of the rules. Mr. Gamble asked if this was a highly unique situation. Johnson said there have been some very bizarre situations, which is why he knew hardcover could be used regardless of where it is,because people take advantage of the hardcover as a whole. They apply it to their area,the City does not allow them to subdivide it, and then a nonconforming situation is created. Mr. Gamble noted if one of the issues with the south lots is that they are not a full acre, if he could add the hardcover from the north land,then the only nonconforming part is the width. Barnhart said that regardless of where you cut the line,the lots south of the inlet are not conforming due to size and for one of them it is both size and width. Crosby stated the 75-foot setback from the shoreline is also an issue. Walsh indicated there are people on 3 acres in a 2-acre zone, every house is on '/a of an acre and they want to split them up. The City won't let them because it has to be conforming. Mr. Gamble said one of the owners had a question about 2470 and 2490. Mr. Richard Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, said his neighbors to the west had three lots, combined the three lots and redrew the lot lines to create two lots, and two new buildings were put on them in the past two years. Both lots are not wide enough and are about .5-.6 acres. He asked why that was approved when it is a bigger change. Walsh said you have a right to build on a nonconforming lot; it is a question of what you have a right to build on it. Mr. Edwards noted there were three lots, now there are two, and there was a change; it wasn't simply that it was the same lot and a new house was put on it. Councilmembers explained that the situation was made better. Johnson commented if the owner wanted to take two lots and make them into one, a conversation could be had with the City Council. Page 15 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Edwards said he does not understand how a house on 2490 could be approved that was not there before. Walsh stated the Council could not comment on something they have no knowledge about and that the incident did not happen two years ago. Mr.Edwards stated the buildings were two years ago but the approval process was probably in 2017. He believes there is an additional house that was not there before on nonconforming lots that were not there before.The density actually increased in the zoning area,which does not make sense to him. Walsh and Crosby said the Council cannot comment on or answer for something another Council might have done. Walsh also indicated it is not the City Council's job to find a solution,only to give guidance. Mr. Gamble asked if 2480 decides to go ahead,which meets the width requirement and it has a small area that would have to change,could that be allowed. Johnson told Mr. Gamble that he would need to present the facts. Mr. Gamble said he submitted all of the information. Walsh explained that basically Mr. Gamble was asking the City Council to approve a nonconforming lot from a conforming lot.He does not think the Council has ever done that. Barnhart explained that the discussion has been about the sketch plan,and the formal application would be to apply for a variance and the applicant would have to prove practical difficulties. It would be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and Council. If the Council approves the variance,he could submit his preliminary plat. Crosby noted the applicant could not create his own practical difficulty. Mr. Gamble asked if there was somewhere he could go at the City to see if a precedent has been set. Barnhart stated Mr. Gamble would have to provide a data request for specific information and the City would then provide that.That would be done with the City Clerk's office. Walsh commented that he would need to build his argument with similar situations that have occurred. Seals noted there were plenty of weird situations around the lake,depending on what you buy. Page 16 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gamble stated he understands these are the last two lots of people that used to own the farm. Zoning changed along the way and somehow it got zoned separate. Obviously, there was an intention that the lots be developed separately and in a different manner. Crosby asked for the zoning on the lots. Barnhart said that south of the inlet, it is zoned LRI B. Walsh stated the wooded area is '/z-acre. Walsh reiterated if the applicant can build an argument that shows the Council that this needs a resolution that shows a practical difficulty which makes sense, he would be supportive of it. Mr. Gamble said it makes sense to make the attempt for the benefit of the City. Seals stated it would be up to Mr. Gamble because that is why the property owners hired him. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals had nothing to report. Johnson had nothing to report. Crosby asked residents to use common sense regarding the coronavirus: handwashing,being cautious, staying home from work when not feeling well, and being respectful of others. He stated there is no reason to panic and noted the flu epidemic has taken about 50,000 people in the United States this year. If people are prudent and do not go into a panic, it will benefit everyone greatly. Walsh noted spring break is coming up and a lot of people will need to make a decision as to whether to travel or not. He asked everyone to be safe. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Rief said they survived the elections, noting that Staff was at the office until 1:00 AM and back early the next morning. The new rules are complicated and there will be a lot of feedback. Staff is aware of the coronavirus and will be keeping track of things and ready if it comes up. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Monge had nothing to report Page 17 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,March 9,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved,Seals seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:57 p.m.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ATT T: "t—�iz —a,wi , Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh,Mayor Page 18 of 18