Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-2021 Council Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 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,Council Members Matt Johnson Richard Crosby,III,and Victoria Seals. Council Member Aaron Printup was absent.Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick,City Administrator/City Engineer Adam Edwards,Finance Director Ron Olson,Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart,and City Planner Melanie Curtis. 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 APRIL 26,2021 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26,2021 3. CLAIMSBILLS 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 5. CSAH 15/19 INTERSECTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 6. APPOINTMENT OF 2021 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 7. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATIONS 8. VERIZON TOWER AGREEMENT 9. LA21-000023—MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES— RESOLUTION NO.7191 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Johnson. 10. LA20-000047—TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO BOAT STORAGE 11. LA21-000027—TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO PLUMBING IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 12. NAVARRE PARKING LOT—AUTHORIZATION FOR PLANNING Crosby moved,Johnson seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. Page 1 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT 13. FIRE DEPARTMENT UTILITY VEHICLE REQUEST Fire Chief James Van Ey11 said the Fire Department has a capital project for 2021 to replace Utility 13 with a vehicle similar to Utility 11 (pictures included in the packet).The new utility vehicle would be at Station 1,the old utility vehicle would move to Station 2, and the grass rig(Utility 21)would be repurposed back to a utility truck at Station 1. This has been in the capital plan for the last few years and in 2018 the officers met and revised the plan a bit which is where they combined Utility vehicles 11 and 13 together for efficiency in paring down the fleet.Bids have come in higher than expected,ranging from $170,000 to$190,000. Chief Van Eyll noted in the capital plan they had$130,000 allocated for this and he is before the Council tonight to see what the City would like to do with this capital purchase for 2021. Seals noted there is a$20,000 difference between the truck bids from Fire Safety U.S.A. and McQueen and asked if it is like a Kia versus a Chevy. Chief Van Eyll replied they were both given the Utility truck with the same parameters that the Fire Department wanted to duplicate; a four-door pickup truck, single tires on the back,fiberglass body,and a slip-in unit for grass rigs.He noted McQueen is the"Cadillac"builder out there,they are fantastic fire truck builders but one does pay for that.He was surprised to see Fire Safety U.S.A./CET as one of the lower bids and he expected Midwest Fire,which is local to Minnesota,to be one of the lower ones. Seals does not want the department to buy the cheapest just to buy the cheapest. If Midwest Fire or McQueen give a longer life on the machine, she thinks they should look at that,also. Crosby asked about the chassis they are providing. Chief Van Eyll replied it is a Ford F-350 Crew Cab Super Single from Fire Safety U.S.A. Spencer and Midwest are also Fords;he does not know exactly what McQueen's was. He was very impressed with Fire Safety U.S.A./CET when they came out with a demo truck and displayed much better in person than online. He would not be here asking for that truck if he did not feel it was a good fit for the Fire Department for the future. Crosby asked if it will have extrication tools on it. Chief Van Eyll stated it will have extrication tools,which were purchased with the money saved the previous year when his salary was allocated through the CARES Act for Covid-type things.Those tools will be moved onto this vehicle. Walsh said they have a lot of discussions going on with Long Lake right now and probably need a few more discussions to understand moving pieces going forward and who is doing what. He asked what this purchase is replacing or adding to. Chief Van Eyll said it is replacing a Utility 13 pickup that had been donated;that truck totaled out due to some airbag recall issues,tried to replace with aftermarket parts, and Chrysler came back and said no, they will buy the truck back.He clarified Station 1 has the majority of calls so they will get this new grass Page 2 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 13. FIRE DEPARTMENT UTILITY VEHICLE REQUEST—Continued rig utility vehicle and Station 2 will get the older one. In five years they have a replacement for the one down at Station 2 in the 15 year capital plan. Walsh would like to have a little more conversation regarding all the equipment and vehicles to see what they really need and do not need,perhaps at a work session.He is not ready to make a decision on a $100,000 or$200,000 vehicle today without knowing all the moving parts and having those conversations with Long Lake regarding the future. Chief Van Eyll said absolutely and stated he would not be doing his job if he was not here presenting the capital plan and planning for the future of the department. Walsh noted just because something is in the capital plan does not mean it is purchased. Crosby agreed a work session makes sense to understand and become more familiar with this going forward. Johnson asked when they turned the truck over for recall. Crosby asked what they got for it. Chief Van Eyll said it was the end of 2019 and was about$7,500. Seals asked Chief Van Eyll not to hesitate to come to the Council with expired life-saving equipment, because they do want the firemen to be safe and have all the tools. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Ron Olson reported auditors will be present the following week for the field audit.Real-time utility payments will be live the following day or two,and there is an upcoming training on the installation of the Check 21 scanner. He shared Building Permit revenues,noting a big uptick in March 2021;he noted they are ahead of last year and are at 36%of budget. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 9. LA21-000023—MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO.7197 Staff presented a summary packet of information.The applicant is requesting variances to build a new detached garage in a similar location as the existing, failing garage. The new garage will be 82 square feet larger than the existing to improve the functionality and will be taller;the project will result in a 49 square foot reduction in hardcover resulting in 37.3%where 37.7%currently exists. The garage is shown to be 4.5 feet from the west property line and 7.5 feet from the east. Hardcover and side yard setback variances are requested.Following a public hearing during the Planning Commission meeting on April 19,2021, the Commission voted 6-0 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances. Staff recommends approval. Page 3 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 9. LA21-000023—MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 7197—Continued Mark Prueter noted the garage is estimated to be built in the 1970's and is a block foundation with a wood parking level on the second floor and the integrity is declining. He noted the rear yard creates some challenges and his goal is to build a new structure and improve the integrity,manage the setbacks favorably, and build an aesthetic structure that matches the neighborhood and is in conformance with the house. Crosby asked to see pictures of the existing garage. Johnson drove by the property and in comparing what he saw with the drawing,he noticed some increasing in massing of the height and then he learned it is bigger. Because it is in a non-conforming location, if they want to take advantage of its location being non-conforming,then increasing of the massing is not allowed.That is what he would like to discuss. Curtis showed a drawing on screen and said it is not the footprint size of the existing garage as that is getting a bit larger; she showed the height difference in the drawing. She noted the garage is currently more than conforming on the west side with 7.5 foot setbacks and the applicant has opted to encroach on the west side. She believes the property owner to the west is comfortable with that but she did not speak with them. The applicant is proposing to meet the side setback on the east where it was previously very close to the lot line. Walsh asked the width of the lot in the front. Prueter thinks it is 35 feet. Walsh said generally speaking for the garage it is 35 feet wide with 7.5 feet setbacks on each side which would give a 2 car garage. Mr. Prueter replied yes,that is what they currently have. It is 20 feet wide and is extremely tight for two moderate vehicles. Crosby asked a normal width on a two car garage. Johnson replied a garage door is 16 feet wide. Mr. Prueter noted they are proposing a 22 foot wide garage with an 18 foot wide door. Johnson noted they reduced setbacks from 10 to 7.5 to avoid variances. In this case,if they want to keep the non-conforming location,then they cannot mass them and make them bigger.They must use the same existing footprint. If one switches the location,people have come into conformity then on other garages. The Council has not allowed them to get bigger and not conform. Page 4 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 9. LA21-000023—MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO.7197—Continued Walsh said if the applicant wants to keep the non-conforming they could rebuild it the size that it is. If the applicant wants to make it bigger from a height perspective,they must conform on size which gives a 20 foot garage. Mr.Prueter pointed out they are asking for 82 square feet. He asked for 92 square foot addition of an entryway in 2007 and he was at the podium for an hour arguing that,which came to approval.He would imagine in driving the street the Council has seen some new construction; several homes have gone in that have doubled the size of the existing structure on property that is much smaller than his. He knows they all have their limitations for properties.He feels what they are asking for is reasonable and they tried to do it in a respectful manner,managing the setbacks they could for both neighbors and the City, and increase the garage size. If they are going to invest the money to build this,they would like to increase the space and be able to open the doors of the cars to get in and out.They are asking for additional height for additional storage as currently things are stacked in the rafters and the integrity of the rafters is no better than the foundation. The height is to allow for sufficient storage and for Mr. Prueter to be able to carry it into place.He noted the neighbors are supportive of the project. Walsh asked how big the lot is. Mr.Prueter replied at lakeshore it is 60 feet,rear is 35 feet,and about 140 feet deep and is a pie shape. Walsh said it is about '/4 acre. He noted it is already a practical difficulty with a small lot and setbacks;it would be about another foot of encroachment. Going up on a lot that is quite small—Walsh said every lot there is substandard from a zoning perspective and there has been a lot of leeway, especially with new construction. Crosby stated there is some height to the garages back there. Walsh said in the end,the applicant is trying to make a better placement by centering the garage and getting a little more space. He noted cars are not getting any smaller. Walsh acknowledges Johnson's issues but he knows the lots in this area are very tight and tiny from a width perspective.He thinks the applicant is trying to make the property better,and is still in compliance on one side,and just a bit of extra space is more benefit and the Council should give credit for that. He would be supportive of the application. Johnson said there is nothing preventing this from going farther back and closer to the house. For space, the garage can also go deeper. When they allow the massing increases on these very narrow spots,they get complaints about the water shedding off the roof onto the neighbors. Mr. Prueter asked to address those issues.His neighbors at 3205 Crystal Bay Road have a sizable garage with a similar design and height to what he would be achieving.He does not think they would outpace the Page 5 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 9. LA21-000023—MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 7197—Continued neighbors in terms of height. Mr.Prueter clarified they needed variances on almost all sides for the house when they modified it in 1994. In moving the garage closer to the house,they would not gain a whole lot but would eat up more of the yard and eat up additional hardcover with the driveway. The structure itself is not increasing in tremendous size,they are shifting and trying to center it.The stairs are what is making it the 4.5 and moving the structure itself provides more breathing room. He believes the height restriction is 30 feet from the highest grade and this structure will come in at 19 feet and perhaps 26 off the back side. The height of the home is about 28 feet. Crosby stated it keeps in character with the neighborhood. They are dealing with a very tiny lot and he thinks it is extremely reasonable and he is okay with the project as is. Walsh said it is a trade-off.Do they want more hardcover to then be in compliance with the side setback? From a lake quality standpoint,he would rather have less hardcover. Mr. Prueter said in regards to the water shed,he asked to show the survey and noted there is an underground swale that goes from the rear of the garage all the way to the street to carry water,which was part of the renovation in 1994. The intention is to have gutters and bring the water down to the swale and move it along and control the water flow. The neighbor's initial concern was having water flow out the back and down to the neighboring property.Mr. Prueter's proposal addresses that. Johnson said when he went to the property,one of the neighbors have a gutter going out into the road. When he checked in with Staff, it is railroad property and is not City jurisdiction. Johnson moved to deny LA21-000023,3215 Crystal Bay Road,Variances,based on the increase massing in an existing non-conforming location. Motion failed. Crosby moved to adopt LA21-000023,3215 Crystal Bay Road,Variances. Johnson would like to add that there is a storm water plan approved by the City Engineer. Edwards said it would have to be approved when they come to apply for the building permit. Johnson asked:to add gutters on,as well? Edwards replied yes,that is often one of the comments he will provide. Crosby is comfortable with adding that. Motion seconded by Seals.VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 1 (Johnson). Page 6 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE Curtis said at the April 12,2021,Mr. Thull presented his request for a permit to place a private dock on the City's right-of-way pursuant to the City code. In addition there were several members of the public present offering input. Following the discussion, Council tabled the application and directed the applicant to work with other Big Island property owners to develop a solution or policy addressing dock access needs for inland property owners. Meetings have been held with a small group of Big Island neighbors on April 28 and May 5,2021.The applicant provided a written summary included in the packet as Exhibit A and they have not yet developed a solution. Other comments received were from Ms.Fames and are included in the packet. Walsh noted they heard from many people at the last meeting and to avoid repetition he would prefer updates;he and Crosby went to the island and walked it all so they have visual,firsthand thoughts. Joseph Thull said at the last Council meeting,he came with a dock request and the Council asked the residents to work together and not just solve it for one person but find a solution preventing this from coming up season after season. That became a complex scenario and they are trying to figure out the needs of today and how to adopt the future plan.The neighbors have met numerous times,traded proposals,and had good,open discussions. On May 5,2021 they had a discussion and the resolution went from finding a dock for Mr.Thull's location and turned into solving this for approximately 7 interior lot owners which changes the dynamic of what they are trying to solve. It was decided to send communication broadly to other residents because they might be impacted;Mr. Thull went from being a rather unpopular person to being even more unpopular as he bore that effort. They notified those residents that this meeting was happening so they can get an update and send meeting minutes from the last meeting for context. Mr.Thull noted there are currently approximately 7 vacant lots without a dock permit and 3 owners currently looking for a solution. There are 7 right-of-ways of which 3-4 are better- suited options. Scenarios include designing one dock, one right-of-way,one lot owner; another is one dock,one right-of-way,with a shared dock. The third scenario is where feasible and if necessary,multiple docks, and multiple property owners; some lots are bigger than others.He said it is likely that the City needs to look at those right-of-ways and assess each one and showed them on screen. Nancy Fames,230 and 460 Big Island,requested that Mr. Thull drop the application to revoke the permit she has had for 35 years and he said no.Now they are talking about 5-8 other locations and the hardship affects 210,220,230,and 260. They have 2 large cruisers and it is actually 34 feet rather than 38 feet. With another dock and boats, it also encroaches on Jud's property. She feels the property values will go down hundreds of thousands substantially, and will also affect neighboring properties if they cram more boats in there. Walsh noted they are trying to talk about solutions and ideas and Ms.Fames is saying she just does not want anything there. He asked her when was the last time she put a dock there? Ms. Fames replied it has been about 6 years.At the prior meeting she explained that they have had medical issues and while they used to almost live there,now they are only able to get out there twice a Page 7 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued year or so. Their children enjoy going there and neighbors have been kind enough to allow the use of their dock. The only solution she could come up with in reading everyone's emails and feedback is just to deny the application,table it, and bring up the bigger picture of what it appears the application is about.It involves many people at Big Island. Walsh replied that is actually not true. The application is about the dock placement on that specific area and has nothing to do with anybody else. The Council brought that up because they see an issue here that needs to be addressed.The situation was going to take a dock that Ms.Fames has had for all those years even though they do not have a right to.That is the issue they are trying to address and solve. Ms. Fames said if the City wants to deny and take away...which they have already done. Walsh noted they have not done anything yet. He asked if she has any solutions or ideas beyond just tabling it. Ms. Fames replied to table it because it is a broader picture that involves more people.After reading approximately 20-30 emails and many conversations,there just is not a clear-cut solution. Walsh stated that is why they are listening to everyone's ideas and solutions. Ms. Fames is talking about 230 Big Island between her property and Jud's. Mike Loughlin, 120 Big Island, is adjacent to the existing 90 foot right-of-way where the existing dock is now. He said as the Council saw,the existing dock and situation on that property has been haphazard at best as far as storage and the way the conditions are. Walsh asked if he is talking about the 90 foot right-of-way. Mr. Loughlin is talking about 220 Big Island's access dock that ran through the swamp and has been piled up there for a couple of years. The concern is that in the document that was given for access there, it was supposed to be kept clean and presentable; obviously that has not happened. Going forward if there is a solution, he asked how it will be worded to make sure the inland dock owners keep the land pristine and do not have winter storage to look at. Walsh replied the Council has dealt with the issue on Crystal Bay Road and the model used there was they received a license to use the dock but had to store the dock on their own property rather than City property.After being out there(to Big Island),Walsh thinks they may have to bring a barge out to get rid of some things in the public right-of-way,such as the docks and metal in the swamp. Those are definite concerns. Page 8 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Mr.Loughlin noted there is a Minnehaha Watershed Creek District permit tied to that; he apologized that he does not have any solutions as they just found out about the meeting the previous Thursday. Initially he thought it would all be done at the other end of the island and now he has heard rumors that they may want to put a 100 foot dock out there with 7 property owners sharing it. Walsh said no one has proposed a 100 foot dock, but he shares those concerns about what is being stored on City property,as down by the area Mr.Thull is proposing the next door neighbor is storing his dock on City property,as well. Walsh is not familiar with the Watershed District permit. Mr.Loughlin said it is part of the documents filed with the County pursuant to this agreement with the 220 Big Island property owner. Curtis thinks there was some City-approved filling and mitigation done to make that usable as part of improving that area to get walkable,clear access. Mr.Loughlin noted another question brought up by a property owner,who thinks in 1975 a study was done about buildable lots within Orono, including the island.He asked if the lots in question are even buildable lots. Walsh replied everything is buildable;there is just so much space to build within. Mr.Loughlin said according to that property owner,there are lots on the island that are not buildable. Curtis noted the statute has changed to allow parameters for development of small lots. There are some lots that potentially do not qualify and would need variances but the statute did change which is different than what historically was allowed. Mr. Loughlin said the easement between his property and the property next door-the two closest properties already have access there.At the other end where the 7 lots are,there are three existing right- of-ways going down to the lake and the closest accessibility is at that end of the island. Walsh said there is a nice pathway all the way from Judson's house to the right-of-way next to Mr. Loughlin's house.The two people that have licenses right now have yearly applications so there is the ability to combine and change things to make it different. Mr. Loughlin advocated that the properties access the closest point from their property. Cheryl Uran, 140 Big Island, stated her property abuts the 90 foot right-of-way and said 20-or-so years ago this issue came up.David Lovelace owned a huge portion of an inland lot and wanted a dock permit. At the time, Gabriel Jabbour was mayor and they wanted to put 4 docks in by 140 Big Island.It is 90 feet but most of it is wetland; she noted they were railroaded and did not get a say.People wanted to put two Page 9 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued docks by Fred Bunchen's property,which was approved, as well as a permit to have a dock by Ms. Uran's property. She noted they filled,took out trees,leveled brush,and left it in a huge pile just down from the cabin. Walsh asked who is"they"? Ms. Uran replied she does not know who did it,Gabriel was in charge and was the one pushing for it by the Uran's property because Fred did not want it by his property. She said it is like the same issue is coming up again and again and is getting pushed down by her property. Walsh replied they need to remember there are already two licenses for people to dock near her property. He is not pushing anything there,as there are already two people that can put docks there. Ms. Uran said they had heard `massive docks' and that is what gets people going. She thinks the problem does need to be addressed and she is in favor of one right-of-way,one resident, and one dock. Share the pain,she does not see why they have to have it all down by their property. Johnson thinks there is support for that.The Council hopes the property owners come up with a solution but if they do not,there is a good sense of a solution from the Council's vantage point. Ganging them all up on one family is not a realistic way to solve it in Johnson's mind. Ms. Uran said it is nice to hear that it will be taken into consideration.People are also concerned about having a dock next to them:will someone come roaring in on an ATV and disturb things?Ms. Uran stated having the dock next to them did not decrease their property values.Yes, it is inconvenient and nobody wants the dock by them. She clarified during a wet season,the dock near her is almost underwater. Ms. Uran would love to see this get solved,as well,and she is not sure there will be a solution everyone will agree on. Suzy Thiss said she and her husband Peter live at 270 Big Island,right next to Bay Place. She read the minutes from the last meeting and attended a planning session; she would like to understand what the permit says as it transfers from one person to the next person. As Walsh understands,whoever applies for it and gets approved,the other person gets knocked off. Ms. Thiss asked what the Council thinks about that. Walsh said it was set up oddly and they are trying to solve that problem,as well. Ms. Thiss thinks the application should be denied and something more realistic put in place. She took a look at the map and said there is a place on Cruiser's Cove that is adjacent to park land;that particular Page 10 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued access is not next door to anyone's cottage or home and she finds that might be a good solution and have it capped at 7 boats. Walsh asked if the Thiss' are next to Judson's. Ms. Thiss replied it goes Judson's,Fames', Saari's, and then Thiss'. She said having a public/rental dock next to the park in Cruiser's Cove makes sense to her. Peter Thiss noted there is a defined road and people utilize it in the winter for construction materials and it is accessible for all the houses up there.He noted it is a low-impact area. Going down through Ms. Fames' and Jud's it is literally a drainage ditch,it floods,will not be accessible in heavy rains,and becomes a real problem. Ms. Thiss has walked through there and is full of water,nettles, snakes, and lizards. Mr.Thiss believes the other area proposed is low impact,easy,does not affect any residents, and will work for everybody. Crosby asked how close the area on Cruiser's Cove would be to where the boats are anchored and docked. Ms. Thiss said the Deggendorf family has a family dock,there is one cottage and a sign on the dock that says"private."She thinks putting a private sign on is a good solution and pointed out someone could walk on her dock,as well. Barnhart looked at the resolution that previously approved the dock;the way is written is: should there be any other requests from inland property owner to use the site,the permit is automatically revoked. He clarified it is not an approval or denial question,it is when a request comes forward the Council at that time felt the need to look at it more comprehensively like they are doing now. Walsh said once the applicant puts an approval in,they get it and the other person is out. Barnhart replied once they make the request,the other person is out and the Council decides who gets it. John Uran, 140 Big Island,is right next to the 90-foot easement. He asked if the Council puts a dock in down there,would they guarantee that they would not fill in the wetland to make docks down there. Walsh can guarantee he is not going to fill in any wetlands down there. Mr. Uran remembered one time Orono said they would not fill any wetland for anyone. He said they filled in 5-8 feet of the wetland on the 90-foot easement; someone needs to take a survey of that wetland and the Page 11 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued road they put in has sunken down and with a hard rain the road is all filled up.Right now there is a dock that has been laying there for 6 years and is an eyesore. Walsh agrees. Mr.Uran asked the Council not to fill up wetlands and keep their word. Walsh sat with Edwards and Olson the week before to talk about how to get the docks off the public property. Mr.Uran felt bad for the people that want a dock. He spoke with them and said he does not have any objections to one dock down there as the guy has not had a dock there in 6 years. He said one boat,one dock,he would be all for. Chris Bollis,370 Big Island and 220 Stubbs Bay Road,noted there is a lot of misinformation floating around the island. It might be helpful if the City sent a legal notification telling people that this situation is trying to be resolved so everyone is notified officially that Council is trying to work with residents to find a solution.Mr. Bollis does not know if it should rest on the City to provide a dock for an inland property owner;he thinks a private solution would be better,possibly an easement from a property owner. Or the recreational seasonal zoning code could be modified to allow an inland owner to rent dock space from an existing shoreline owner. He noted the ideas are different than the others and he is throwing them out here to see what happens. Johnson thinks that is where they started,the Thull's tried to find a deal and that suggestion would have been easiest for everyone. Paul Marabellis, 130 Big Island,thinks the solution the City should look seriously at is going to the southwest of this property. The property is just a stone's throw from the lake to the southwest, and abuts Three River's Park land. If the City could work out a deal with Three River's it could solve a lot of problems. He does not think it is reasonable to ask someone to go all the way up to the north shore,for example. On Big Island there is an advantage to having your boat close-at-hand,both for security and for convenience. Karen Backes, 170 Big Island,is not a property owner with a right-of-way next to them, so the resolution does not affect her per se.As the Council has heard,there are a lot of options being tossed around and misunderstandings among people. She agreed it would be helpful to have something that says what the City is trying to do. When she looks at the plotting of the properties, she does not see 7 inland properties— she sees 7 inland owners but 17 inland properties.Could those be sold off individually and then they are talking about docks for 17 properties rather than 7? She does not know but thinks they need to be aware and talk about it. Ms. Backes has an opinion on putting things on Party Bay;being on that end of the property,they already deal with people coming to their cabins asking where the bus stop is,how to catch Page 12 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued a taxi, or asking for a ride. Many people on the island spend time walking in the park district picking up toilet paper,condoms,and broken bottles. She thinks putting an unmanned dock in Party Bay where there is not a cabin-as there is for the Deggendorfs-invites people to come there unless the City puts a beautiful paved path to the new facilities being built there. Right now people do not even need a dock, they just go to shore and do their business and she does not think that is a great idea. Ms. Backes advocates for the one-to-one and spreading it out. She also focuses on the environmental impacts to the wetlands of increased traffic. If someone needs to get from one end of the island to the other,they will not walk but use motorized vehicles. That area between Jud's and Fames' property is a low spot which gets full of water,mud, and there is not a way to commute when that happens;people then go through the other neighbors' property.Ms. Backes thinks putting the docks closest to where the property is so there is less traffic and disturbing of nature. Big Island is quiet and peaceful and she hopes this gets resolved and there is not conflict and a battle. Judson Champlin said there is no requirement that people get a dock,they just need reasonable access,so he does not know that the Council has to worry about getting all 17 interior lots a dock. Many of the proposals are a zero-sum situation where someone is losing and someone is winning. It is usually being taken from the exterior owners and being given to the interior owners. He is a free-market guy when he can be and loved the solution of an easement being granted and he guarantees there are easements available,it is just that the price is too high right now.That should not be a reason for the City to come in and give people docks. One suggestion was to allow renting of the dock, and the Council did make one exception for the easement and he would encourage doing something similar solely for people to access their interior lot property. That way it is a win-win.Another solution would be some type of long-term lease on a patch of property that someone could put a dock on. Ted Hanna,490 Big Island,owns the property right next to the Thull's.He does not think himself,Joe,or Sara wants to ruin anybody's life. He has lived next to areas that are public property and in the long-run it does not really hurt so much. Proximity to the property would be good if they will be asked to remove the docks;this is part of the reason why they poo-pooed Cruiser's Cove.Mr. Hanna thinks there will be relatively low usage as most of his usage has been in the winter cross-country skiing. If he ever had a dock he is not sure how many times he would go out there but it would be super fun to have it,a safe place to put the boat rather than pulling it up on shore.He appreciates the Council's effort in trying to work things out here and noted the property owners are not trying to get something for nothing here,they are just trying to get to the land short of buying an amphibious car.He does not want to take anything away from the existing home owners but is curious about the future.He and the Thull's would be good stewards of things if they were given the chance out on the island. Mr.Thull shared that proximity to their lot would be more advantageous than so many feet away in Cruiser's Cove. He asked the Council to consider that if they are required to remove the dock which will be a bit of a challenge. He appreciates the residents being open-minded in this process, as well. Walsh closed the conversation to bring things to the Council for discussion. Page 13 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Johnson thinks the City has established a history of providing some dock access to those lots;he is in favor of that as they are lawful lots.He would have liked to hear the solution from the people out there as this is not that complicated to him,those are City-owned sites,the old fire lanes and access points...the City and the citizens of Orono own them. To Johnson,a 24-foot long singular dock at each one of those— he heard some families say one dock,one boat—he is in favor of having one dock to two property owners (one on each side).The complication with that would be sharing the dock and he has zero interest in the City of Orono owning these docks. They could not even get cooperation to sort out even these few people and he is a little concerned about introducing one on each side because then they have to get along in sharing the dock.Johnson thinks that is a reasonable expectation but they need to own the dock. One at each fire lane,up to a 24-foot long boat,the dock is three 8-foot sections for 24 feet, and the property owners can pick any of those access points to go to.The City's job is not to provide the route to their place once they get on shore,but it is to provide the dock for them to get on shore. With the Crystal Bay Road property the City decided there will be no storage of docks on City property. He suggested a permit fee;the City should have a one-year permit,and extinguish the previous agreement that was put in place. Walsh said at the Bay Place access there is one dock allowed now.Basically what they would be saying is there will still be one dock but will give two people(one on each side)access. Someone needs to apply for that—for example,the Thull's—and the City will say the Thull's have the permit and can put the dock in but someone gets to use the other side.Then it would depend on who wants the second permit. He would suggest whoever had it the first year gets the first option but must apply for it by January 1,then it is open for whoever wants to apply for that dock and permit. To Walsh,where the 90 foot spot it,there are two licenses or approvals there so they could have one dock with two people sharing it, or because there are already two docks,perhaps they have two docks with two on each side for four boats. Mr.Loughlin said the dock at 130 Big Island is already an easement across his property so it does not get included in the wetland right-of-way. Walsh asked him to explain that...the dock has an easement through Mr. Loughlin's property? Mr.Loughlin replied yes,there is a 10 foot easement for them to access and put a dock there. Walsh asked what the name of the resident was? Mr. Loughlin replied Scheftel. Walsh clarified that is a private easement and they have an agreement with Mr.Loughlin. Mr.Loughlin said it is a private easement and from that point over it is basically wet all year round. Walsh asked who has the agreement with the City to put a dock in there? Curtis said there are two properties tied to the other resolution. Page 14 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Mr.Loughlin said the way 220 Big Island delineates a 10 foot path to that dock and from the path going out is a single dock. Walsh asked if that is a recent easement. Mr. Loughlin stated it is part of the 4456 Resolution.There is a map that goes with it and the City has delineated a road specifically for that dock that is 10 feet wide on the 90-foot right-of-way. Walsh said that is on Mr. Loughlin's property. Mr. Loughlin replied no, Scheftel's easement is on his property.The 220 Big Island address of Doherty's is in 90-foot right-of-way. In looking at the map,there is a 10 foot road identified through the lot and is the egress access for a single dock. Walsh said this is the first he has heard about it and asked if it is a recent easement that the Scheftel's have through his property. Mr. Loughlin said it is from 1971. Walsh noted they just enacted something that one could not do in Orono previously, and that was get an easement from an inland piece of property. It was illegal to do and the City just changed it for Big Island; he was clarifying whether it was something Mr. Loughlin took advantage of last year or if it was older than that. Curtis clarified the resolution that granted the other dock permit is tied to 130 and 220 which are the linear, interior lots shown on screen. Walsh asked if that is a permanent easement. Curtis stated it is not an easement, it is a resolution granting a permit for a dock. They can share one dock or if they disagree they could each have their own dock at that location. Walsh asked if that is a permanent resolution? Curtis replied it is until the City revokes it. It does not have exactly the condition that Resolution 2038 has where it is automatically revoked,but it does say the City has a right to revisit on an annual basis. Walsh said they could do the same thing as Bay Place and get rid of that agreement and do a new agreement with the Doherty agreement. They can put a new agreement that there can be one dock with one person on each side,either through a lottery or through a first-come-first-serve.He stated they have one in front of the Council today and they can probably solve that one today. It does not sound like the Page 15 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued existing permit owner who has not had a dock there in 6 years will put a dock in this year either,unless he is wrong. He would be in favor of giving it to the Thull's with the caveat that they must share one side of it...he would give Nancy Fames first choice to see if she wants to have access to share the dock with the Thull's. Nancy Fames said there were good ideas here that they can solve this for themselves.For instance, exclusively for Big Island,because there are no roads but rather a lake. Is it possible for the City to pass an ordinance just to rent a dock for a person across the way? Walsh said that is a good conversation and he does not know if they have talked about making an exception for Big Island inland dock owners to build a rent-a-spot from someone with lakeshore on Big Island. Ms. Fames suspects if they took a vote, everyone would say yes to that. Crosby asked can't neighbors rent docks from each other anyways? Walsh replied they cannot rent. Johnson said the problem with relying on that is that they cannot even cooperate on this right now when the Council asked them to go back and work it out. This rental thing will be a moving target and he can appreciate that someone who owns real estate in Orono and happens to be on Big Island wants guaranteed access to their place every year and not beholden to the rental rates decided collectively out there. He is all for allowing people to cooperate out there and he thinks it already does on its own. However,when they are not finding cooperation;that is how they got here. Walsh said they could always have a neighbor allow one to use their dock,nothing stops them from that. Ms. Farms said that is correct. Walsh said to Johnson's point,the Council can solve Bay Place today which will be two people. Ms. Fames has not put a dock there for 6 years anyways and if she wants to use it, she has the first choice to share the dock. Ms. Fames does not know how the two other cruisers will fit. She provided a diagram from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)and it only fits barely a 16 foot boat. Walsh stated she must remember this is City property and they are not guaranteeing one can bring a 35 foot boat in there. Ms. Fames is talking about her neighbors who have two cruisers and the diagram just does not fit to have. Page 16 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Walsh said a 20 foot dock should fit just fine;he went out and looked at it.Just because their property goes at a diagonal does not mean they can draw a diagonal across the front of Orono's property and say one cannot put a dock there. Ms. Fames said that is true but she also sees that Mr.Thull is the only one who wants that request and this entire room would prefer another arrangement. There are offers of people to rent a dock to Thull and she does not know what the going rent would be but is sure it would be much less than a permit. She does not know how the City can justify collecting money and permits and lotteries when there is no maintenance of docks. Walsh said no one stops Ms. Fames from renting a spot from one of the neighbors,either. She has the same opportunity. Ms. Fames said if one does not pay for them,they do not maintain anything, and are not responsible or liable for anything, and not paying for the dock...she questions if that is a viable solution in a situation that really is not a hardship—they have access. Walsh stated Ms.Fames' situation was just to deny them and have no one have a dock there. That does not seem to work very well. Ms. Fames said that is correct and it has worked fine for 50 years and she is not going to argue. Walsh noted every 50 years starts with year one. This is going to be year one of the next 50 years. Ms. Farms said should the City choose that option,the value will go down to$30-$40,000. Walsh said they have already heard that is not the case.He clarified Ms. Fames never had guaranteed access to begin with,she is making up something that she did not have. Ms. Fames is not going to argue this as they have already had this discussion. Johnson agreed and thinks they should move forward. They have all learned a lot but at the end of the day,the City Council must make choices. Ms. Fames said at the end of the day on her permit, if the Council is doing that, she would like a survey and would like them to take care of all the soil-filling from the erosion of the roads and grounds,and there are snakes there to go up to the house,and all the trees,and the encroachment,and all of it. Johnson said to be clear,what the City Council is providing is right of access to a dock access point. Page 17 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Ms. Fames noted in the City Codes it states that"we"are financially liable and responsible to maintain it —the abutting neighbors which would be Jud, Saari's, and Ms.Fames.They have maintained it. Johnson stated that is a good point and there is a code review committee that looks at different codes and perhaps they need to review it and extend it to anybody that uses that access point, as well. Ms. Fames said,or the City can come out and maintain all of it. Walsh noted they can put that as part of the license of using the dock. Dave Saari,260 Big Island, is exactly adjacent and apologized that his boat lifts have been on City property,that has not been his intent nor has it been there in years past—he has a new dock guy and it will be off by this weekend. What they are not addressing is the larger hole,there are 17 pieces of property that could be affected and have an adverse reaction to this singular look of Bay Place.Bay Place cannot be the only place on the island they look at and he thinks they still need to come back to having a much larger view.Johnson indicated access points around the island make logical sense and Mr. Saari could not agree more,that was his early concern and point that has not been addressed as they are singularly looking at a location.He suggested west-side of the island properties would have access on the west side and east-side properties would have access on the east.There is a larger solution than simply looking at a single location adjacent to his property. Walsh said sometimes they need to do one bite at a time. If there were twice as many people,he wonders if they will have more agreement?At least the Council is hearing some ideas and vetting some of this and sometimes it tells the Council they cannot come to any solution better than what Johnson thought of or what has done before in trying to make it a bit better through these access points. Johnson stated in the other permit the docks have to conform with LMCD and if the LMCD allows it,that is a function of the permit to demonstrate that it meets the setbacks. What is put in there makes sure it is done the best way,the right way,the fairest way they can do it. He does not think they even need to get into the business of saying which one because people out there can decide for themselves;but there is just one dock and it is limited to two boats. Mr. Saari understands and thinks,what if there are 17 potential property owners looking for that same solution. Johnson said they will run out of docks.There is a cap as to how many they can do with this plan. Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island(Bay Place)and 2643 Thoroughbred Lane, and would like the Council to consider that adjacent to the City's right-of-way is private property,and when the docks are being removed in the fall there should be no trespass on private property. Similar to the docks not being stored Page 18 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued on City right-of-way,an individual's dock(whoever owns it)has to remove it from City right-of-way without trespassing on adjacent private property lines. Walsh thinks that would go without saying. Knowing how hard it is to know where property lines are, it would behoove everyone to have some kind of marker so people know. Ms. Champlin noted that is part of the discussion—who is going to do that surveying and demarcation of the private property lines. She said they actually got it wrong and all the trees she thought were to be cut down are actually still on her property so they will stay. Walsh thinks it would behoove them to demark the north and south start and end of the back access. If Ms. Champlin is worried about her property, she should mark her property. Ms. Champlin stated they will get a survey with markers from their shoreline up to the road that connects all the right-of-ways. Walsh would put the onus on her if she is worried about someone being on her property,to mark the boundaries of that property. Ms. Champlin noted there is a lot of wildlife and when there is a storm the wildlife brings ducks and cranes and she would like to keep it preserved and not very developed. If the City does not mind that she has a lot of markers demarking whose property is whose,they should not be responsible for corralling people and keeping them on the City right-of-way. The Council agreed. Mr. Thull would like some clarifications. What he thinks he heard Johnson say is that they would prefer one right-of-way and one dock owner, shared, but are open to different right-of-ways as they are there for the access. Johnson replied that is right. Mr.Thull thinks in the LMCD in terms of length of dock to get out to 3-4 feet of water,can the dock be to 4 feet of water? Johnson thinks they keep it at the distance until they figure it out.They are trying to do a reasonable length(which is somewhat arbitrary)but three sections is 24 feet. Perhaps there is a better location and one of these access points may be better without having to go way out which is less intrusive to the neighbors. If they can at least limit the scope for the neighbors,and if that is not a possibility,someone would have to come back to the Council and say that. Page 19 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Crosby stated that can be in the discussion later and there has to be a reasonableness to it. Walsh said the Council needs to make a decision about approving or not approving. Johnson clarified they would deny Mr.Thull's application and introduce a new one? Barnhart thinks he heard some expansion of the dock licensing program that the City employs for Crystal Bay Road,which has its own built-in infrastructure. He would come back with an expansion of that license—it is not a permit—to identify future dock sites and employs the same application. Walsh suggested starting with Bay Place.He suggested directing Staff and the City Attorney to draft a new license for that Bay Place with the Thull's doing the initial application and with Ms. Fames as the second—unless she does not want it. It would be a one-year license along the same lines as Crystal Bay. Barnhart said hopefully the Council would approve the Thull's application for a license at the next meeting. The length and other things are kind of employed by the LMCD so that question has already been answered. He would come back with a license application by Mr.Thull. Walsh said the Council should probably make a motion to dissolve the current license or permit that is there. Attorney Mattick stated they will bring back the revised ordinance and asked Barnhart if that is correct. Barnhart can look into it. Johnson said they would have to modify it a little bit,one of which was a 10 year term and these would be one year and would specify dock length. Attorney Mattick thinks because they will modify the ordinance,it would be best to bring back the amended ordinance with the changes the Council wants with the new application and they take care of it in one fell swoop. Walsh said they would just table it now until the next meeting.Then they can deal with the other sites as they move forward. Johnson asked Mr.Thull if this is the one he wants it to be. Mr.Thull asked if it is possible to come back and say a location may be a better option? It is not a problem for Johnson or Walsh. Walsh does not have a problem looking at other locations but he wants to deal with this one while they are here with Bay Place. He asked Mr. Thull if he wants a dock there. Page 20 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued Mr.Thull thinks there are a couple of other locations. Walsh asked if they should deny his application for Bay Place as he cannot come back and pick-and- choose at this point. Johnson thinks Mr.Thull is responding to his point saying that he is open to any of them. Walsh said in the meantime,let's put together the Bay Place one and if other people want to come apply for it,they can come as it will be first-come-first-serve. If Mr. Thull wants to come back and bring a different location the Council will probably have to go out and look at the locations themselves and will not be able to make those decisions at the next Council meeting. Mr.Thull appreciates the Council trying to solve this today. Walsh said being boots-on-the-ground out there is worth a million pictures. Seeing it firsthand was everything to understand and if there are more places to see,which there are because there are lots of places to walk out there. Mr.Thull asked about moving forward with this one and if there is an option for a better place. Walsh said Mr.Thull can always give up the one he has. Johnson clarified Walsh is saying take this one and if they can work out another one. Mr.Hanna, 490 Big Island, said regarding the 24 foot thing,he thinks a minimum boat in Minnetonka is about 20 feet.He thinks 24 might be a bit short as the bow would only be a small way from shore;there are a lot of 80 foot docks and 50 foot lots but it gives a little room for error. Walsh said the Council is trying to be cognizant of the neighbors,which is most important right now.He said it is a work in progress...if they need more because shore is 12 inches deep,he thinks the LMCD has a rule that one can overhang the dock by 4 feet.He would rather start short and get longer if needed. Ms. Fames said it is her understanding that Mr.Thull asked to table for a couple of weeks. Walsh stated the Council is tabling it because there is nothing to make a decision on tonight. Ms. Fames said now the Council told him to grab it,don't revoke her permit, and she is confused as to where they are at. Walsh clarified what the Council has done. Unless something changes,Mr.Thull is going to get dock access and will share it with Ms. Fames if she wants to share it. If at another time Mr.Thull comes back Page 21 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued and says he found another great place to put a dock,he receives another license and gives up that one then someone else can come and take his spot over there. Ms.Fames said the Council won't deny the application and let him come back if he finds something better. Walsh said they are going to redo the code for that spot at Bay Place. Ms. Fames clarified they will not redo the code to let people rent. The Council said no. Walsh noted someone can go get free space from someone anytime. Ms. Fames said$60,000 for a little on bricks 35 years ago on the permit is not free,and it was there 42 years prior. Walsh stated Ms. Fames still has dock access if she wants it.No one is taking that away from her. Ms. Fames said traffic,boats,nature disrupted,everything disrupted. Walsh clarified they are not adding people to the lake or Big Island—it is the same amount of people. He said there is no need to argue,the Council has made a decision on this spot and are moving it forward. If Ms. Fames wants to share a spot with the Thull's,she gets first shot to have that. If she does not want it, that is okay and someone else can have access to that second spot. It is Ms.Fames' decision. Ms. Fames thinks they all would have voted for renting a dock and the easements they have already gone through. Attorney Mattick noted Staff has received the Council's direction and will bring it back. Walsh stated the Council would take a 5 minute break at 8:04 p.m. Walsh brought the meeting back to order at 8:09 p.m. 15. LA21-000024—LORRAINE GOODWALD,706 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCES Barnhart said the property owner at 706 North Arm is requesting side, lake, and average lakeshore setbacks(ALS)variances to replace an existing irregular shaped deck with a rectangular one that is 18x8 feet.The Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial because the request before them at the tie was an 8x36 foot deck which covered the entire back wall of the house.Both proposals—the original and the current one—require a hardcover variance.The Planning Commission recommended denial because they were uncomfortable recommending an increase of any hardcover.Hardcover levels at the property are already 33%and the proposal for the Planning Commission was 34.4%.After that meeting,the Page 22 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 15. LA21-000024—LORRAINE GOODWALD,706 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCES— Continued applicant retooled the proposal and reduced the size of the deck;this does increase hardcover over the existing level by about 30 square feet. The applicant wants to get to the same hardcover level and has agreed to remove 30 feet of the impervious surface patio below the deck; Staff supports that change,so the variances requested are for the side, lake,and ALS setbacks and hardcover would be at the 33%which it is currently at right now. Staff recommends approval. Walsh asked if the design is to be determined or what it looks like now. Barnhart showed the irregular shape of the deck on screen and said right outside the door it is about 3 feet and it is hard for a wheelchair to get out.The applicant is proposing to make the deck smaller and remove some hardcover below the deck. Walsh asked about the 0-75. Barnhart showed the 0-75 lakeyard which kind of cuts through the house,and showed the ALS line that cuts about the last 7-8 feet of the house and the entire deck.All of this side of the house is within the lakeyard and within the ALS. This is a bigger encroachment than what is existing but the hardcover level is the same. The objective from the applicant is to make a more usable deck because there is a challenge opening the door and getting out on to the deck. The applicant's mother needs a wheelchair and that is part of the goal with this improvement—to make it a little more accessible. Johnson asked if it is protruding out the same as it was before. Barnhart believes one portion is about the same,and another portion is not. Lorraine Goodwald, applicant, said the current deck is 8 feet and then it circles in to about 3 feet 11 inches, so when she opens the door she is at the most narrow portion. She is proposing to stay at the 8 feet,not encroach any more towards the lake,and basically just square it off. She would like to be able to open the door and safely maneuver her mother's wheelchair without reclining it. She would like it to be functional as right now it is not functional,it is more like a balcony. Walsh noted this entire thing is just about the deck. Ms. Goodwald replied it is just about the deck,she is not asking for stairs,roof,nothing else. Walsh said the entire deck is in the 0-75 and the applicant is basically going to scrape the deck and put a new deck there. To him, as long as it is not closer to the lake,whatever square footage that deck is,they can have the square footage. He clarified whatever the square footage is of the current deck,she can have that square footage for a square or rectangular shaped deck. Otherwise they are adding more square footage in the 0-75. Page 23 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 15. LA21-000024—LORRAINE GOODWALD,706 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCES— Continued Barnhart asked to clarify and said squaring this off will have a portion of the deck closer to the lake. Walsh said they would be getting rid of some of the 0-75 and there will be a bit that is closer but no closer than the other point. Johnson clarified Walsh is saying if this deck is 100 square feet right now,the applicant can have her 100 square feet in any configuration she wants,as long as it does not protrude farther than the farthest point. Ms. Goodwald noted she has windows there. Walsh said that is the problem when there is a 0-75 and the Council could just say no,she could just make it lower and square it off.They are giving her something here. Barnhart asked to assume that this amount of deck is the same area of the existing deck;this would be acceptable even though a portion of it extends closer to the lake. Walsh is just thinking they could have the same square footage of the deck the applicant has today but cannot get any closer than the closest point. She can create the shape herself. Ms. Goodwald said the pavers really do not matter. Barnhart said the pavers matter from a hardcover standpoint.They can't exclude 100 square feet of deck when it is above an impervious surface. If it is above grass they can exclude that 100 square feet from the hardcover calculation. Walsh noted that is irrelevant because right now they are giving the applicant the same amount of deck. Barnhart thinks he is hearing the same amount of deck square footage as provided that no portion of the deck is more than that dimension from the existing corner. Walsh said yes, whatever that distance is. Barnhart noted the Council has given him direction and he will come back with a revised plan and a resolution for approval with those parameters. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN,LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION Curtis said the application is regarding approval for two separate,non-conforming accessory buildings in order to reconstruct them with minor expansions or changes to the volume. The first is a carriage house and the second is a boat house. Regarding the boat house,the applicant has requested hardcover within the 75-foot setback, side yard setback,lake setback, and ALS variances in order to expand the envelope of Page 24 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN,LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION—Continued the existing building as part of an in-kind replacement and moving it 9 feet further from the lake in order to meet flood plain regulations. It does result in the corners of the new flat roof expanding outward from the sloped portions of the existing roof in the new location and will be 2.5 feet farther from the side lot line(it is currently 2.5 feet and they are proposing 5 feet).The drawings show the existing outline of the boat house as it is today in purple.The footprint is essentially the same configuration,there are three areas where there is a small foundation expansion which is for a shear wall which Curtis believes is an architectural feature. Regarding the carriage house,the applicant is proposing to raise the floor inside the living space as well as the floor inside the garage to allow for some more accessible ceiling dimensions. The footprint is going to stay the same,the location will stay the same,the roof will expand in some places and will lose encroachment in others. Curtis said it is hard to go through it piece-by-piece and the applicant has provided some good exhibits illustrating what they are changing. The applicant is looking for rear and side yard setback variances for the carriage house. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19,2021 and following the public hearing they voted 5-to-1 in favor of a motion to approve the variances subject to the boat house not having hardcover landings and the property owner signing the standard plumbing covenant. Commissioner Libby was the dissenting voter and did not provide reasoning for his nay vote.No comments were received from neighbors; Staff is recommending approval and a resolution has been drafted for the Council's consideration. Jeff Lindgren,6514 108th Trail,Brooklyn Park,stated this is a fairly substantial project and currently there are three structures on the site and they propose to take down all three because they are not safe and are unlivable.The current owner is looking to build a new home on the site in the future.They are trying to take care of the two smaller structures first as they do not want to cut off access once the new house is up and these two are connected with sewer. Working with Curtis,they found that the current boat house is in the flood plain and they want to be sensitive to those issues and thought it would be best to move that one back and also give more breathing room on the property line for fire code reasons. The footprint stayed the same as for living space—actually it is a bit under—the current architectural features on those walls are from a detail they are trying to get. The current boat house has a good sized overhang around the perimeter;the homeowner would like to build a more contemporary home so they are trying to create these two structures to be congruent with the home. The idea is to have a flat roof on the boat house and to make sure they are meeting energy code they had to raise the hill-height or the wall height around the perimeter given the current structure was hand-framed and had about 4 inches of insulation space.They are trying to find the middle ground by raising the side and lowering the overall height from a viewing standpoint.Regarding the carriage house, it has stayed the same size.The current floor is a bit lower and the back wall is pregnant and is diving in due to water intrusion issues.The thought process is to raise it up to get positive drainage,the current garage doors are at 6.5 feet and they are trying to raise those to a 7 foot height to allow vehicles to enter and enough ceiling height for an operational garage door. They are trying to be cognizant in keeping the roof lower than where it was and using special materials to keep energy efficiency up. Overall they are trying to bring massing down while maintaining a structure that is usable. Johnson asked if there is a stoop on the drawing. Page 25 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION—Continued Mr.Lindgren said that is a proposed patio;as long as they meet hardcover calculations it can be put in that location. Walsh said the proposed carriage house is getting bigger on two sides because of the proposed patio wrapping around. Mr.Lindgren replied the patio is getting bigger,but the structure is not getting bigger. He said currently it is a floating deck and there is a bridge there. They are filling that area in because it is a valley. Johnson clarified that is allowable hardcover. Curtis replied that is correct. Crosby asked how far in they are moving the boat house from where it is now. Curtis stated it is 9 feet from the lake and 2.5 feet from the side. Walsh said on the carriage house they are tearing it down and rebuilding in the exact same footprint,not going any higher. Mr. Lindgren replied not in total height,no.They are changing the height of the outside for energy efficiency and head room which is also pushing up the height of the main level because of the water intrusion in the garage. Walsh is asking because they are in a non-conforming spot and the Council has had that issue many times in getting higher in a non-conforming situation. Johnson clarified just one little corner is higher and the rest of it is lower. Crosby is okay with that. Walsh thinks that is reasonable.The rule is that one cannot move boat houses;they used to not even be able to renovate them but now they can be renovated.However,the City does not allow them to be moved so they will have to work with the existing footprint there. Mr. Lindgren said they were advised to move the boat house per recommendation of the City because of the flood plain. Curtis stated the flood plain contour cuts through the existing building,so they need to elevate the floor out of the flood plain and fill. Page 26 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN,LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION—Continued Walsh said the problem is they are creating their own practical difficulty by doing that because they do not have to do anything to this. Curtis said if they renovate it to a certain extent,they need to bring it into conformance with the flood plain regulations. Walsh noted they are creating their own practical difficulty by renovating it. Curtis noted they could always demolish it. Walsh said they could get rid of it if they want to.He has never seen anything where the City has allowed anyone to move a boat house or even a storage facility between the 0-75. Johnson asked if Mr. Lindgren is fine keeping it where it is. Mr.Lindgren said the structure would fit where it is currently today and he can take off some wing walls to make it fit.However,he will have pushback for raising the floor of it because it does not meet today's standards. Then he would not be able to renovate it. He asked if that is the City or the watershed. Curtis replied it is FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency). Mr. Lindgren noted FEMA would not allow him to renovate it. Walsh asked to define renovation.Mr.Lindgren could put new walls and floors in. Mr. Lindgren would have to apply for a permit to do that and a permit would not be granted if he does not have a FEMA or watershed permit. Walsh is torn on that because he is against anyone moving any boat house,even away from the lake. Mr.Lindgren asked his theory on that. Walsh said because then everyone wants to move a boat house. He reminded people that in the past one could not even renovate they just had to tear them down.Now they can be fixed up and that may be the only thing Mr. Lindgren can do is fix it up barring any permits. He does not know and is torn on that as he does not want to open up Pandora's box with people coming in and wanting to move their boat house. Johnson has less of a hard time with that. He thinks getting it out of the flood zone is not to the applicant's convenience, it is just a good practice. He does not think there should be any enlargement of the structure but moving it back and farther from the property line-he thinks it is a good practice not having things in the flood plain. Page 27 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN,LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION—Continued Walsh stated they could also just get rid of the part that is in the flood zone. Curtis asked about options. Similar to 855 Old Crystal Bay Road,they had a couple cabins on the lake, redeveloped the lot, and received variances to keep the"sauna"building in the same foot print in the same location, but the City granted them a variance so they were able to elevate the floor level to meet FEMA. It did result in variances similar to this one with the flat roof,changing from a pitched roof. Johnson asked to look at the side elevation of the existing on screen.He said the front of it was at 931.2 and asked what the flood zone line is. Curtis replied it is 931.5. Johnson said that is 3 inches. Curtis said this property is in the flood plain and would need to be brought into conformance which would mean elevating the entire structure. Crosby asked how much they would have to elevate it. Mr. Lindgren said there are two floor elevations in the current structure;one is a step up at the entry point and one that steps up into the main part of the structure. He thinks it is at 933.2 and 934.1 are the two floor elevations currently. Johnson said the flood zone is the lowest opening. Curtis said there is a low floor and a low opening. The low floor requirement is 932.5,that is the floor elevation. On Lake Minnetonka one foot is required. Crosby asked if there is room to elevate it out of the flood zone. Curtis noted it would expand the top or elevate it up if they needed to have the living space or head room. Crosby is always conflicted over these because he is empathetic over the possible flood situation; however he also understands the steadfast rules of not moving boat houses. Crosby would be in favor of letting the applicant raise it to get it out of the flood zone. Tim Holland, homeowner,looked at both options of raising it and thought that moving it back was better for the neighbor's view which is why they lowered the roof,also. They were trying to be neighborly. Crosby would be more inclined with moving it backwards but in the same respect,with the long rule of not moving boat houses,they create a problem later when everyone wants their boat house moved. Page 28 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN,LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION—Continued Walsh can see some flexibility in saying the applicant can raise it up and they have to live with what is there,or saying they could cut off whatever is in the flood plain and add that on to the back side of the structure. Johnson agrees. Crosby said in adding things to the backside that is in essence what they are proposing to do in getting it out of the flood plain. Mr.Lindgren showed on screen the non-conforming portion and the proposal of setting that in another portion of the structure. Walsh does not remember the sauna project they talked about and asked if he was here for that. Curtis thinks Walsh expressed similar concerns and they talked through the flood plain compliance and the reduction of the peak height to the flat roof. She does not want to put words in his mouth but she thinks that is where he saw that there was a practical difficulty.This project is not identical,but is similar. Mr.Lindgren noted the City shared this information before they went down this venture. He remembers reading through those documents and it was more similar than not. Curtis noted the other project had two structures,there was one by the house that was rebuilt and another by the lake. Johnson noted Walsh is consistent, it was the same thing where they flattened out the roof and the Council said okay because the peak height is still lower, it was not a massing increase and it made sense to get it out of the flood zone. Walsh does not remember that,but he noted they are trying to tell him there is precedent for doing this. Curtis replied yes,they did not move the building but in this instance they are pulling it back from the lake in light of the neighbors. Walsh clarified they did not move the building? Johnson said no,the Council allowed them to increase their overall height to not move it out so the finished floor would be above the flood plain.He thinks Walsh said he would rather not have them move it and increase the height than have them move it a quarter of an inch. Mr.Lindgren asked if there are flood plain and flood zone differences? Page 29 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000026—JALIN DESIGN,LLC OB/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES—RESOLUTION—Continued Curtis said there are different regulations about where one is within the flood way or the flood plain. Attorney Mattick said the idea in dealing with a flood plain, even when one replaces a non-conformity in- kind, if they are in the flood area,they are still expected to raise it up. It is not in-kind in the flood area, they either need to raise it up or move it back. That is what Curtis has been instructing them to do here. It is a little different than some of the non-conformities the Council deals with because not all of them have the flood plain issue. Seals noted there is history where the Council has raised it up and not moved it. Attorney Mattick said they have allowed that,but they have to raise it up to rebuild it. Seals is a strict believer of like-and-kind because once they move left or right,it is a hot mess and Pandora's Box. She is supportive of raising it so it is in compliance with FEMA and everywhere else,and they have done it before,while keeping the same footprint. She said it is great that they want to be kind to their neighbors. Crosby said the reality is the neighbor will be looking at a much nicer structure when this is done. Walsh agrees to keep it in the same footprint and raise it up. Johnson asked if they are talking 1-1.5 feet? Curtis said they need to raise the structure out of the flood plain and also maintain a fill elevation of the 931.5. She does not know the exact height. Mr. Lindgren said the issue with raising it is he will have almost a step-and-a-half to get to that new level and he cannot add any elevation to the exterior around the perimeter of it from a landing standpoint to get in. Walsh said that would be a practical difficulty and they would have to give that to the applicant. Mr.Lindgren thinks he may have some issues with watershed. Curtis does not know but knows he will need to get their permission to fill within the flood plain and depending on how much they will have to mitigate the fill. Seals moved,Crosby seconded,to table LA21-000026.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Walsh said they would bring it back before the Council on May 24,2021. Page 30 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17. LA21-000025—ERIC VOGSTROM OB/O ERIC VOGSTROM,WILLIAM,AND SUSAN DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE,SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Barnhart said the applicants wish to remove the conditions on the final plat that prohibit a connection of 2709 Walters Port to Pence Lane.Those conditions were applied as part of a platting process. Staff sees that same process to remove those conditions. It would be a platting process which would include a sketch plan,preliminary, and final plat. Staff can support the removal of these conditions via the formal platting process if Pence Lane is improved to a private road standard which includes 24 foot wide pavement,a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and a terminating cul-de-sac. The proposal shows the terminating cul-de-sac,no improvements are proposed or shown on the existing Pence Lane,and it should be pointed out that the existing segment of Pence Lane right-of-way is only 30 feet so there would be a challenge getting to the 50 feet. The applicant has argued that the road is already a private road and the Council received a number of comments and letters from the attorneys of the applicant and the neighboring properties. Staff maintains any situation that increases the non-conformity should not be approved without adjustments and that is where the cul-de-sac and improvements to Pence Lane come in. Staff is looking for non- binding feedback. Walsh understands that Bill, Sue, and Eric could put the cul-de-sac down farther and have the roads come off there to their house and would not need any approvals to do that. Barnhart noted they would need some approvals because the existing parcel would need some re-platting. Walsh said they would not need the City's approval to put a cul-de-sac down there generally,they do not need a variance or anything like that. Barnhart said the platting would be an issue and there may be some hardcover issues applied.Part of the reason this plan works is both lots 1 and 2 meet the hardcover and structural limitations for this property. In making lot 2 smaller,he thinks it will bump up against some hardcover issues and perhaps also for lot 1. Walsh said after the Planning Commission, Walsh,Barnhart,and Eric sat at the white board and said if they wanted to make just one road coming down and put the cul-de-sac down there with driveways off it they would not need any approvals. However,that would be very intrusive,it would not look great,and would then present itself as a practical difficulty to say a better solution for everybody from a viewing standpoint would be to put the cul-de-sac up on Pence Lane on the private drive and have two separate ones come off there. Barnhart said there are some advantages to putting it there. He noted there were some concerns from the property owner about the cul-de-sac near their property.He said nobody will necessarily be happy but this does offer some of the solutions Walsh talked about. Walsh asked by doing this,what kind of variances do they really need? Barnhart said by doing this,there is some question about Pence Lane being a private road or driveway. Pending the solution of that, if it is considered a private driveway and they want to approve it to a private road they may be looking at a variance from the Pence Lane width issue.They could argue that is a 17. Page 31 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. LA21-000025—ERIC VOGSTROM OB/O ERIC VOGSTROM,WILLIAM,AND SUSAN DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE,SKETCH PLAN REVIEW practical difficulty because it is already a fixed boundary. Lots 1 and 2 are conforming from hardcover, lot area, lot width,and structural coverage so from that perspective it is a big hill to climb. That is why Staff supports this proposal.The Planning Commission did have some challenges with the parallel driveways;to address those comments, one applicant had talked about doing some cross-sections to better illustrate how that would look. Walsh thinks the biggest issue was they did not look very far apart and where would the snow go; in reality,they are 10 feet apart.He asked the arguments against putting the Pence Lane cul-de-sac up where the private drive is. Barnhart does not have any arguments against it. Crosby thinks the one neighbor in the back had some concerns visually.Pence Lane on the other side of the gates is keeping it at the same width so they do not need to encroach any more. Barnhart said if it is a private road,it needs to be 24 feet wide. Crosby said ideally if they had the cul-de-sac there,perhaps they do not have to expand on the other side and can keep that the same width as one neighbor has trees(probably on their property)and another neighbor has a fence(probably on their property). They would keep that as-is in this design. Walsh agrees and thinks it looks much better doing it there than trying to put it anywhere down there because then they run into issues.However,since this is a sketch plan without all the issues or variances needed, if this plan goes to Planning Commission,what kind of variances will they need? Barnhart said right now the only one he can think of is the width of Pence Lane. Staff's recommendation is that they pave Pence Lane to 24 feet wide,and the cul-de-sac be conforming to City standards.When they come back with an application it may trigger some variances. Walsh said that would be the cleanest way to go. Crosby agreed with Walsh this seems like the most reasonable plan. If the cul-de-sac was on the other side it would be right in front of the Heuler's home which is not great for them, either. Johnson said from a safety standpoint having the cul-de-sac farther down makes the most sense. Jay Lindgren,Dorsey and Whitney law firm, is here on behalf of Bill and Sue Dunkley.He would like the Council to hear from the applicant's position,when they come in with an application it will just be for a re-plat within that area. It is their firm belief that they do not need to widen Pence Lane, it is an existing roadway. He has put all of the records within the packet on page 22 that shows from 1947 on,this was a roadway;that legal conclusion is in there and he thinks it is sound. He noted their view is the conclusion Page 32 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17. LA21-000025—ERIC VOGSTROM OB/O ERIC VOGSTROM,WILLIAM,AND SUSAN DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE,SKETCH PLAN REVIEW that even the practical aspects of widening Pence Lane as a private roadway is not needed.The only reason one would widen it even under a variance setting is for the health and safety issues.Regarding the cul-de-sac,they are happy to work with the neighbor moving it over a bit. Someone in the chambers asked if there would be any merit in a fire truck turnaround instead of a cul-de- sac. Walsh said the City has said no to hammerhead turnarounds. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT Barnhart reported they have a fairly normal Planning Commission meeting coming up so the Council will see those at the beginning of June. They are working on sign ordinance.He thanked the Council for approving the plumbing ordinance as that will help quite a few property owners and the boat storage for an enforcement standpoint. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. It has been busy,they went into closed session and talked about that. Some of the applications have been higher maintenance than normal,but they are moving along. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT Edwards reported on the construction side,the construction season is underway and City projects are happening. There are water shutoffs and transitions,sewer transitions happening this week along with the milling overlay. The Three Rivers project on the Dakota Trail extension starts this week. Johnson asked if they found resolution for the fire that was caused. Edwards noted they did send the bill,he does not know if they have received the check yet. He knows the home owner asked for some clarification and they sent someone out to show them the damage done to the street. They based the bill on exactly what it cost the City in materials and labor to fix the one patch on the side of the road that they could say directly happened when the fire trucks were there. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Johnson said he and Walsh were on the committee to review architectural firms for the Public Works facility; Edwards and Walsh interviewed the firms and chose Oertel.They specialize in City facilities and municipal buildings. Johnson moved to begin working with Oertel subject to the review and negotiation of the contract. Walsh said he will authorize Staff and Attorney Mattick to let them know the City will accept the proposal and go through their contract. If they can go through the AIA document and send their Page 33 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 10,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT—Continued comments to Walsh and Edwards,then they can combine their notes and go back to them. The motion is to accept them and move forward to process through that, subject to getting through the contract. Walsh seconded the motion.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. Walsh would like to keep this at the Council-level the entire way through the process,for public meetings,and everything. Crosby noted he and Walsh went out to Big Island. He wished everyone a Happy Mother's Day. Seals had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Walsh moved, Seals seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ATTEST: 10A. A a Carlson,City Clerk Dennis Walsh,Mayor Page 34 of 34