The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-14-2011 Council Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 3 — ` ` ^ � � � COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Please complete the following information for City records. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER ; .� ; l�,'.�} ', � 1. `. . r''v t� l� e� 1 C- t Jt-�lS �� 2. ��` �c� � �� .�r�� `�� — ��i��;��.� �r�-, 3. �,f,�(Z-(C,i..� �,�� 1 L/L v'�L' � ,�"1, L 4. C' � � 1 _ �'�� , ` - 5. � � �-1_;_, � �-� � ,� �� 6. •�. .�I� 1 ��.� ��:: � 7. s=-fl Lt ;� ( ` - ` ►{ �c��t � t` %� i', � t- � �� t� f � i 8. �� `L��"� i,�`�-�� Z`/ , � 9. � 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. � 15. V:\�LEGAL FORMS)\�FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, March 14, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Oath of Office Council Member David Rahn Approval of Agenda 1. Consent Agenda – Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes * 2. Regular Council Meeting of February 28, 2011 * 3. Joint Planning Commission and City Council Work Session of March 2, 2011 Presentation 4. Orono Energy and Environment Display – Amelia Kroeger LMCD Report – Andrew McDermott, Representative Planning Commission Comments – Denise Leskinen, Representative Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report 5. #07-3336 Mitch Cook on behalf of Central Bank, Stonebay, Outlot A – Extend Final Plat Approval – Resolution 6. Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements - Resolution 7. Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair Appointments 8. Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage 9. Massage Therapy License Requirements City Engineer’s Report 10. Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update a. Authorize No Parking on Old Crystal Bay Road – Resolution 11. Approve Additional Expenditures Grinder Station 31 Improvements Mayor/Council Report Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, March 14, 2011, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us City Administrator's Report 12. Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance - Resolution 13. Publication of Legal Notices 14. Establish March 28th Work Session City Attorney's Report 15. Licenses & Permits Gambling Premises Permit – Resolution * 16. Bills Closed Meeting 17. Pending Litigation Adjournment Upcoming Issues and Events 2011 03/21 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Mayor McMillan) 03/28 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 04/06 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 04/11 – Council Work Session, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 04/11 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 04/18 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Aaron Printup) 04/20 – Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. 04/23 – Spring Cleanup Day, Saturday, 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. 04/25 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 04/30 – Spring Cleanup Day, Construction Debris Only, Saturday, 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 13 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Doug Franchot, and Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, City Attorney Soren Mattick, City Clerk Lin Vee, Assistant City Administrator of Long Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 7, 8, and 9 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 3 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF FEBRUARY 14, 2011 Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of February 14, 2011, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 3. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2011 Franchot requested that Page 16 be amended to read that he stated that the City had been told that Three Rivers had experimented with the installation of a bomb proof toilet and that it was not the City of Orono’s toilet on Big Island that was blown up. McMillan requested Page 11 be corrected to read that the Big Island subcommittee met on Friday, February 25th. McMillan requested the motion for Item No. 18 be amended to read as follows: “Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to authorize the removal of the remaining buildings and debris as noted by staff, and to obtain two additional quotes on the costs for the removal, with the cost of the project not to exceed the estimate received from THN Enterprises ($28,500) plus tax. Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of February 14, 2011, as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 1 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - LOREN SCHOENZEIT, REPRESENTATIVE Schoenzeit stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS James Van Eyll, Orono Fire Department, noted that their annual pancake breakfast is scheduled for April 17th. Van Eyll reported the Long Lake Fire Department recently participated in the Fight for Air Climb sponsored by the American Lung Association, which consisted of firefighters in full fire fighting gear climbing 30 flights or 660 stairs. Long Lake's team of nine firefighters participated in the event and took third overall. Van Eyll indicated he was impressed with their accomplishment and that they raised over $2400 as a team. Dick Lyman, 715 North Ferndale Road, stated he wondered what involvement the Water and Soil Conservation District has with the City of Orono. Lyman noted he spoke with City Clerk Lin Vee the first week of February and was provided a fair amount of information on that agency as well as the Hennepin County Conservation District. Lyman indicated he has read the information over and that in his opinion eliminating the Hennepin Conservation District would be a good opportunity to cut some redundancy and expense out of the government. Lyman noted the Hennepin Conservation District has annual revenues of around $27,000. The reports do not reflect any achievements accomplished by that agency. The information also does not say how many meetings they have yearly but just merely indicates that they affiliate with approximately a dozen other organizations that do the same thing. The Department of Natural Resources downgraded the Hennepin Conservation District in 2009, and he would recommend ending the existence of the Hennepin Conservation District and there would be one less office to vote for in future elections. Lyman indicated he had some materials with his notes to leave with the Council regarding the Hennepin Conservation District. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT None CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT 4. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE Kellogg reported that last week they completed the plans to the point where they were able to be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. At the last Council meeting it was mentioned that a presentation was going to be given to the seventh graders educating them on roundabouts and general engineering. They had hoped with the presentation to get a handful of students to volunteer to construct a 3D model of the buildings along Old Crystal Bay Road. The response was greater than expected and as a Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 2 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 (4. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE, Continued) result the students will be completing the work in the classroom rather than after school. Their office was also contacted by the teacher's assistant to give a similar presentation at the high school level. Kellogg indicated he met with some representatives from the School District along with City Administrator Jessica Loftus approximately one week ago and had a discussion with them regarding the school's ability to water the landscaping and median areas. The school district does not possess a water truck. The city owns a waterering truck and the Public Works Department estimated the costs to the City would be $15,000 to $20,000 to maintain the vegetation throughout the two-to-three year establishment period. Kellogg noted that in addition, the city truck dumps large quantities of water and the equipment they use is not capable of gently watering the vegetation. It was the recommendation of the Public Works Department that an irrigation system be installed as part of the project. The estimated cost for the irrigation system was $30,000 to $32,000. John Slack, Landscape Architect, met with an irrigation contractor to arrive at that cost and has included some water conservation components in the specifications. Kellogg indicated he had met with John Slack today, who pointed out that the irrigation system will likely be turned off after two to three years except in the case of a drought. Kellogg indicated his office will need to know by the next meeting whether the Council would like to proceed with the irrigation system. Kellogg pointed out the City currently has an irrigation system along Kelley Parkway to The Lofts. One of the alternate bids as part of this project would be the extension of the sidewalk from the Lofts to Old Crystal Bay Road on the north side, along with some street lighting and trees. It is likely they will be extending that irrigation system. McMillan asked whether there is an irrigation system beyond the parking lot of the City Hall. Kellogg indicated to his knowledge it does extend beyond the parking lot to maintain the green space between the parking lot and Kelley Parkway. Bremer asked how the irrigation system would be extended. Kellogg stated it currently ends in the vicinity of The Lofts where the sidewalk ends, and if the sidewalk were extended from that point, it was the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the irrigation system also be extended since watering trees and landscaping is a high maintenance item for the Public Works Department. Kellogg noted they have been able to identify the easements and rights-of-way needed for the project. One of the things that is somewhat problematic is where the private utilities will be located since they need to be located in an easement. The City Council reviewed an overhead graphic depicting the current easements. The items denoted in blue are additional right-of-way and public utility easements needed for the project. Those easements are required for the rain gardens, storm ponds, and the additional right-of-way needed for the roundabouts. The yellow indicates easements necessary for private utilities, such as gas, electric, telephone and cable. The result of the School District meeting was that the school was willing to help with the easements. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 3 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 13 (4. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE, Continued) Kellogg stated adjacent to the school's existing pond there needs to be some additional water infiltration, which the School District is willing to grant an easement for. Kellogg indicated they intend to meet with School District representatives on a biweekly basis to keep them updated on the project. Bremer asked whether the School District would be granting the easement free of charge. Kellogg stated they would be providing it at no cost to the City. Loftus stated the School District has requested the City work with them on the rain gardens. Kellogg stated the school’s detail and the city’s detail for the rain garden work are very similar and they are essentially on the same page in regards to that work. McMillan asked whether the rain gardens would add to the cost of the project. Kellogg stated in his estimation the costs will be lower than anticipated due to the changed routing of the water to the regional pond. The pond to the south was designed to take some of the drainage off the roadway but it lacked the conveyance to get the water to the pond so the routing was changed, which has reduced the costs. McMillan asked whether the City Council needs to look at the costs for the parking lot and sidewalk. Kellogg indicated that aspect of the work will be bid as an alternate and the Council can determine at that point whether they would like to proceed with that aspect of the project. Kellogg stated he anticipates the bids will be lower than in the past given the state of the economy. Franchot asked whether the City Engineer would like to get some direction on the irrigation tonight. Kellogg stated they would like to put together a landscape plan for review at the next City Council meeting and that a final decision will need to be made at that point on the irrigation system. Franchot noted he would not be in attendance at the next meeting and stated that if the costs are what have been stated tonight, he would prefer to go forward with the irrigation system since it would protect the City's investment in the landscaping and would also afford the City the ability to water the landscaping in the event of a drought. McMillan asked whether there would be any other aspect to the maintenance agreement with the contractor other than the watering and getting the landscaping established. Kellogg indicated there generally is a two-year warranty period on trees given by the contractor and a 30-day warranty on the sod. After the 30 days the City would assume responsibility of the sod, which would be the sod located outside the curb and would be included in the existing irrigation system. McMillan asked whether the irrigation system would replace the maintenance agreement with the contractor. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 4 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 13 (4. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE, Continued) Kellogg indicated that it would and that the City would not need to do both. Kellogg noted the warranty on the trees would still be in effect. Printup asked whether the Council should discuss the maintenance agreement with the School District. Mattick stated that the irrigation system would be one of the main items included in the maintenance agreement if the City Council elects to go that route. Printup indicated he would like to see a monetary cap on the maintenance of the landscaping. Mattick stated the question is whether the maintenance agreement would include all items or exactly how maintenance of the landscaping would be handled. Mattick indicated Staff was not sure how to handle the irrigation portion. Kellogg pointed out the School District does not have the equipment or the ability to water the landscaping and that they would need to involve the Public Works Department for watering the landscaping or the contractor doing the watering through an agreement. Franchot noted when they spoke with the School District a couple of weeks ago, they had indicated they would take over maintenance of the irrigation system. McMillan asked what type of controls would be included on the irrigation system. Kellogg indicated they would consist of rain sensors and soil sensors to trigger the system on and off. It would not be an elaborate system but would be greener than most systems. Kellogg indicated the median landscaping plan will be ready to bring to the March 14th Council meeting. 5. CHANGE ORDER #1 AND REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2, LIFT STATION 12 IMPROVEMENTS Printup noted the work on the lift station is to correct something the contractor had done incorrectly. Printup asked why the City is being held responsible for work that was apparently done wrong by the contractor. Kellogg indicated this was a project that was done in conjunction with TH 12 and the City did not have oversight of that project. The only plans the City had for reference were record plans, which typically only show pipe locations and pipe elevations. The plans said the structure was to be abandoned to 4 feet below grade and to fill the rest with sand or granular material. The contractor did not fill it with granular materials. It is very likely the process of abandoning the manhole was not inspected or documented. Printup asked if it had to do with compaction over time that would make it unsafe. Kellogg stated the work is not unsafe but that they reused an existing structure. When the structure was abandoned, the top 4 feet was to be removed and the rest was to be filled with granular material as opposed to removing the entire structure which was approximately 20 feet deep. Kellogg indicated the Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 5 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 13 (5. CHANGE ORDER #1 AND REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2, LIFT STATION 12 IMPROVEMENTS, Continued) current contractor wouldn’t know it wasn’t filled with granular material until it was dug up as part of the abandonment process. The method in which the structure is abandoned isn’t typically noted on the record plans. Kellogg indicated Scott Oberaigner with the Public Works Department and Jared Ward from Bonestroo worked with the contractor on payment for this item. Scott and Jared negotiated a cost for the work that was less than what the contractor originally requested. Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,460 and Request for Payment No. 2 in the amount of $48,115.08 for the Lift Station 12 Improvement Project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Printup noted he attended the League of Minnesota Cities conference last weekend. Printup indicated he had the opportunity to listen to people from larger communities as it relates to business matters and economic matters and that it was a good learning experience. McMillan stated she also attended that same conference and participated in the experienced officials sessions. The League of Minnesota Cities offered a significant amount of training for city leaders and she found it very worthwhile. McMillan noted she also attended a meeting last week with the mayors of Long Lake and Wayzata to discuss future sharing of public works services. A dialogue on this subject was started and the three cities will continue to talk about future cost sharing between the cities. McMillan stated they are looking at additional ways the cities can be more efficient. McMillan noted the joint Planning Commission/City Council work session is scheduled this Wednesday, March 2nd, to discuss hardcover issues. McMillan indicated she will also be attending the Lake Minnetonka Mayors meeting this coming Friday, which will be a good opportunity to learn about the issues currently facing the County. Hennepin County has added media recycling to their program and they are now accepting computer disks, DVDs, game cartridges, memory cards, flash drives, jewel cases, vinyl records, etc. Hennepin County has already collected 700 pounds of this material and the items can be dropped off at their various drop-off facilities. McMillan stated she asked what is done with the material they collect and it was indicated that it is shredded with other plastic items that are recycled and sold on the plastics market. McMillan noted there is a City Council work session scheduled for March 14th at 6 p.m. and that they will be talking about goal setting for 2011. Loftus noted that Staff is creating a list of goals that they feel should be addressed this year and will be looking for Council input. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 6 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 13 (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) Franchot commented that it seems backwards to approve the budget first and then talk about various goals, and suggested the Council consider changing that process. Franchot asked whether the goals are included in the budget. Bremer stated historically they were more strategic planning goals. Franchot recommended that when Mayor McMillan meets with the other local mayors that she ask if they also feel that they do not have much of a voice with Hennepin County as well as the Metropolitan Council. Franchot commented that if the smaller city mayors unite on certain topics, they would have a larger voice at the county level. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 6. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANT COUNCIL POSITION - RESOLUTION NO. 6025 Loftus reported there were eight applications for the vacancy on the City Council. The City Council has conducted interviews of each candidate. Loftus noted the City received a withdrawal letter from Jeanne Mabusth this past Friday. Franchot stated in his view this has been a good process and he has been impressed with the number and quality of the candidates. The thing that he was most mindful of was that this was an appointment as opposed to an election and that the Council had the responsibility to do proper vetting of each candidate. Franchot indicated he was also mindful that this Council has lost a number of years of experience in the last election and that in his view experience and skill sets were important in picking a candidate. Some of the candidates met that standard. The City Council has an applicant who has experience on the council and planning commission level that brings a number of skills relating to issues that the City will be dealing with, such as building and construction standards. Franchot indicated he would like to recommend David Rahn to the position. Franchot noted that by his comments and his recommendation, he does not mean in any way to diminish the candidacy of the other people who applied. Printup stated he also gave consideration to the vetting process and to the fact that the voters would not be making the decision. Printup indicated he started thinking back to the election last fall and the message that he received from the citizens was that they wanted new energy and candidates who would exercise fiscal responsibility as well as a desire to preserve the mission of Orono. Printup commented in his view a good team player would be Dennis Walsh. Bremer commented she also was impressed by all the candidates and the commitment they have shown to the City. After looking at the list of qualifications and experience to be a city council member, Bremer indicated she feels the most important thing to look for is someone who has shown commitment to the City. Bremer noted she and Mayor McMillan were re-elected to the City Council even though they are not a new voice and that people respect experience. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 7 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 (6. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANT COUNCIL POSITION, Continued) Bremer stated there are a few candidates on the list who have demonstrated they are willing to spend the time and have spent the time in service to the City and know the nuances of city government. Bremer indicated she would put Denise Leskinen, Kim Kang, and Richard Crosby into that category but that she feels David Rahn is the most qualified candidate given his past experience on the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, Dave Rahn has a good grasp of construction and will not be someone who will just say yes to please people but is able to think outside the box. Bremer noted Rahn currently serves in a building official capacity and has experience with other local cities, which is very valuable. Bremer stated for those reasons she would recommend Dave Rahn. McMillan echoed the comments expressed by the other Council members on the high quality of candidates that have applied. McMillan indicated the Council has an opportunity to appoint someone who will bring a special skill set that is needed in the near term to assist the City Council with issues facing the City at the present time. McMillan indicated Dave Rahn would bring skills in three major areas. First, Dave’s knowledge of planning and zoning issues, including his Planning Commission and City Council experience, will assist the Council with hardcover issues and variance restrictions that the City will be dealing with in the upcoming years. Secondly, his background in building inspection will be valuable as the city plans for future infrastructure improvements. Thirdly, McMillan indicated that Rahn had also made the comment that no savings is too small, which in her opinion shows that he understands and has the ability to look at innovative ways to save money. McMillan thanked the City Council for their hard work during the appointment process and the thorough interviews that were conducted. Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to appoint David Rahn to the vacancy on the City Council and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6025, a Resolution of Appointment to Fill a Vacancy on the Orono City Council. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0, Printup Abstained. *7. LONG LAKE OFFICER DUTY TRUCK Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to approve payment to the City of Long Lake for the purchase of a 2011 Ford Explorer in the amount of $29,257 and to amend the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund to reflect the expenditure. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0 *8. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2011 SQUAD CAR Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the purchase of a 2011 Crown Victoria from Elk River Ford for $22,367.64 plus tax, registration and other miscellaneous fees. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT *9. TOBACCO VIOLATIONS Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Stipulation of Facts and Civil Penalty executed by O'Sullivan's Holiday 546 and Big Island General Store. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 8 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 13 10. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Mattick indicated he has drafted a preliminary agreement which, to his knowledge, includes the majority of the items the City Council had requested the agreement cover. Mattick stated to his understanding the City will install the vegetation and pay for the landscaping but that the School District will maintain the landscaping. Mattick indicated there are some outstanding issues, such as the question of who will pay for the vegetation in the event it dies. Mattick commented he prefers a simple, straight forward agreement when it is between two government agencies. The agreement does contain a mediation provision that will allow the City to address certain situations, such as if the School District states they no longer have the money to maintain the median, and recourse the City then has to address that as well as other unforeseen circumstances. Franchot asked whether the School District would agree with the word install in the fourth whereas. Franchot noted the School District had made it very clear that they did not want to install the landscaping. Mattick indicated he has not spoken with the School District about the agreement, but that his intent with that language was that the School District was in agreement with the fact that landscaping will be installed within the median of the road, not that the School District would be installing it. Franchot commented in his view it is a good agreement and captures the wishes of the City Council. McMillan stated to her recollection the School District was also going to maintain the roundabouts and recommended language to that effect be included in the agreement. Mattick indicated language to that effect would be easy to incorporate into the agreement. Mattick noted the roundabouts are located in the median but that it could be spelled out more clearly. Bremer stated she would like to see a similar list outlining the responsibilities of the City, such as installing and maintaining the hardscape and replacement of trees. Franchot noted the School District was fine with pruning the trees but that they did not want to assume responsibility for replacing the trees. Bremer asked how much control the City would like to maintain over the appearance of the softscape portions of the roadway. McMillan stated she would like the School District to take over replacement of the landscaping except for tree replacement. McMillan indicated she has a concern with snow plowing and snow storage and the impact that could have on the landscaping. McMillan stated if the School District has ultimate responsibility for replacing the landscaping, that would lessen the economic burden on the City. Franchot asked whether that type of language would change it from a maintenance agreement into a transfer of ownership and that he did not envision the school taking ownership over the landscaped median. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 9 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 13 (10. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, Continued) Mattick noted there is language in the agreement that states the City owns the median and all landscaping features. Mattick commented that there likely is a natural lifespan for some of these items and that at some point in the future they will need to be replaced. Printup noted the School District has not made a final decision on the type of landscaping to be planted and that it would be nice to know what the School District is contemplating. Printup asked if the west side sidewalk interferes with any trees being planted on that side of the roadway and whether the School District would be replacing those trees if they are injured during the construction of the sidewalk. Mattick stated for purposes of this agreement, he viewed it as covering the items between curb to curb and that it does not cover the trees outside the curb. Bremer recommended that the agreement define it as being curb to curb. Kellogg indicated on the south end of the roadway the exact configuration of the sidewalk has not yet been determined but that there is going to be two or three rain gardens on the west side that will be between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. The sidewalk will be pushed further away from the back of the curb. As it relates to the existing trees, the intent is to locate the sidewalk where it will not impact the existing trees. The impact to the trees will be primarily from the roadwork and the utility work. Printup asked as it relates to the irrigation paragraph, whether language should be included that the School District will be repairing the irrigation system and defining precisely what the operation of the irrigation system is. Mattick indicated he can clarify that and that he was unsure at the time he drafted the agreement whether there would be irrigation. Bremer stated she would like to see some kind of annual check by the City on the landscaping. Bremer commented the communication between the two entities has been fantastic and should be continued into the future. Mattick stated the City could require an annual meeting between the School District and perhaps Public Works or simply have a representative from the City meet on an annual basis with a representative from the School District. Printup asked as it relates to Item 1, Part B, whether that language should be deleted since it is not sure at this time what type of landscaping will be planted. Mattick pointed out there will be specifications for the landscaping in the near future. McMillan asked if there is a way to specify what landscaping plan should be followed. Franchot stated it would be whatever plan is approved by the City Council. McMillan commented the wording “initial plan” is confusing. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 10 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 13 (10. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, Continued) Kellogg indicated his intent is to have the landscape architects come before the City Council with a draft landscape plan at their next meeting, and based on the comments of the City Council, it will be revised and then evolve into a final plan that will be approved by the City Council. Mattick stated he can change that language to final plans and specifications dated such and such a date or other similar language. Printup asked whether a cap on the landscaping should be specified. Mattick noted the City Council will be approving the landscaping bid, which would detail the costs. Bremer asked when the City Attorney is anticipating the agreement would be signed. Mattick stated it was his understanding that the City Council would like some assurance that the School District is comfortable with the draft agreement and that he can do that before the next City Council meeting once he incorporates the changes recommended tonight. Franchot commented he would like some assurance that the School district is comfortable with the agreement prior to the Council officially voting on it. Mattick asked what position the Council has on tree and landscaping replacement. Printup noted the establishment period is approximately two years for the landscaping and that the agreement should include the period after that. Franchot stated in his view the agreement will be delayed if the City requires the School District to replace the trees. Mattick indicated that tree replacement can be included and the School District can either agree or disagree with it. Kellogg pointed out the majority of landscaping, including trees, will come with a two-year warranty. Kellogg noted the sod would have a 30-day warranty. Bremer stated she would like some provision included in the agreement concerning a maintenance agreement with the contractor if the City Council elects to go that route, which would affect the timing for replacing any of the landscaping. Bremer indicated she personally is in favor of irrigation. McMillan noted the School District would conduct the mowing of the median and roundabouts once the grass is established. Printup asked whether there is a cap on the amount to be spent on the irrigation system. Mattick noted the irrigation component will be an alternate and the City Council can either elect to go with an irrigation system or not. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 11 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 13 (10. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, Continued) Kellogg indicated the City could look at bidding a maintenance agreement as an alternate and an irrigation system as an alternate and the City could pick which one they would like to go with. Bremer stated the City does not want two parties maintaining the median and the roundabouts since that could result in each party blaming the other for any damage that may occur. Bremer stated an “if” clause could be included in the agreement to cover a maintenance agreement similar to the irrigation clause. Mattick indicated he could include language that the School District is responsible for replacing the landscaping except for those items covered under the contractor's warranty agreement. McMillan stated it is important that the City specify the ownership and ongoing maintenance of the roadway, median, trees, landscaping, and roundabouts. Bremer commented the City has to make sure the word ownership is not used in the agreement so it is not misconstrued. Bremer stated in her opinion the yearly meeting is paramount to ensuring that the agreement is followed and that the lines of communication remain open. The City is ultimately the owner of the roadway and median. Printup asked whether the City would then have to replace the landscaping. Bremer stated the City could require replacement of like, kind and quality by the School District. Franchot commented the City could retain authority over what is planted as replacement. Printup stated he does not want the City to be held responsible for replacement ten years from now. Bremer commented that amendment provisions are paramount because there will always be unknowns no matter how well drafted the agreement is. Bremer suggested the City Engineer give some thought to what else should be included in the agreement as it relates to landscaping. Mattick asked if there was anything else that Council Member Bremer would like to have included in 3A. Bremer recommended that anything the City is responsible for should be spelled out, and that language should be incorporated into the agreement stating that anything else not defined in 3A would be the responsibility of the school. Printup noted as it relates to Item No. 3, it states the City shall be responsible for all railing and hardscape. Printup commented he does not want to have something installed that will rust and have to be replaced every 10 years. Mattick noted the hardscape and railing will be the City’s responsibility with the exception of the irrigation system. Bremer stated the Council will need to know exactly what is included in A and that quality products should be used, but until the bids are received, the City will not know what that will be. McMillan commented the landscaping will also hopefully cut down on the need for railing. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 12 of 13] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 13 (10. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, Continued) Bremer stated the main focus of the landscaping is that it prevents pedestrian crossings at unsafe locations and that she does not want to see the median become more and more bare over time, which the annual meetings would address. Franchot encouraged the City Council not to nitpick too much over one or two trees. Franchot commented Council Member Printup has twice raised the cost of some of these investments and noted those costs would be outlined in the bids. Printup stated he would like to see the bids sooner than later so they are fully aware of the costs. McMillan stated the Council needs to be mindful that whatever is accepted, one of the two parties will need to maintain it. Mattick indicated he can incorporate the changes in the next couple of days and then provide it to the School District with the proviso that the City Council has the final approval. Mattick stated he would have the agreement ready by the next City Council meeting. Loren Schoenzeit, 4484 Forest Lake Landing, stated his initial understanding was that this agreement would cover mowing, trimming, and planting of annuals. Given the charter of the City and the School, if he were a School Board member he would not sign an agreement that says the school is responsible for replacing trees because their charter is the education of students and they have limited funds. The City Council took no formal action on this item. *11. LICENSES & PERMITS None *12. BILLS Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Franchot moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 13 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 ROLL The Orono City Council and Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Doug Franchot, Aaron Printup; Planning Commissioners Kim Kang, Denise Leskinen, Loren Schoenzeit, Jon Schwingler, and Alternate David Rahn. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Assistant City Administrator of Long Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Planning Assistant Christine Mattson, Consulting City Planner Ben Gozola, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Cynthia Bremer arrived at 6:43 p.m., and Planning Commissioner John Thiesse arrived at 6:47 p.m. The work session was called to order at 5:38 p.m. NEW BUSINESS HARDCOVER REGULATIONS UPDATE Ben Gozola thanked the City Council/Planning Commission for allowing him to speak tonight. Gozola noted he has 12 years of planning and zoning experience and currently works for approximately 12 cities. Gozola noted on January 24, 2011, the City Council authorized City Staff to begin the process of updating the City's regulations governing hardcover. One of the purposes of tonight's meeting is to discuss the general overarching goals that Staff should use as guideposts throughout the review process of the City's hardcover regulations. Staff will be seeking consensus from the group as to what general outcomes are being sought. Some of the overarching project goals to discuss include the following: 1. Simplification of the regulations so all parties understand what is required and how to comply. 2. Continuance of historically stringent standards for the protection of local water bodies. 3. Greater options for citizens to legally comply with code requirements in light of the revised variance standard established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010. 4. Openness to new technologies as they may arise. 5. A transitioning of the City's focus away from "meeting minimum standards" towards "achieving desired results." 6. Reaffirming Orono as a civic leader in hardcover management policy. Gozola asked if there were any additional overarching goals that should be included. Kang commented the bullet that talks about transitioning from meeting minimum standards to achieving desired results is a good goal. Kang stated the City needs to clearly define what its desired results are. McMillan stated the original philosophy of Orono was fairly comprehensive and helped to reduce the Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 1 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone and reduce the massing on the lots, but over time the regulations grew more complicated. Orono has achieved a great outcome over the years but the regulations should be simplified and adjusted to today’s technology. Rahn commented simplification of the regulations should be a primary goal to make it more understandable by contractors and builders, which would reduce the time that Staff has to spend explaining the regulations. Rahn stated the amount of hardcover currently allowed by the City is at a good level but that the different zones contribute to the confusion. Rahn stated the City should determine whether they want to continue with the different zones. McMillan commented that the smaller lots and different shapes of the lots can also be problematic at times. Kang stated that it appears from the comments that appearance and massing is also another major component. Rahn stated the other item he would like to see is uniformity between the lakeshore cities and that the City should look at what other cities are doing for setbacks and hardcover. Gozola pointed out the tiering concept is unique to Orono. Leskinen stated she would like to see the terminology be consistent throughout the regulations and that a decision needs to be made on what constitutes an impervious surface. Schoenzeit stated performance standards would allow the applicant and the City some flexibility to bring the plan into compliance. Performance standards would also put the burden on the applicant rather than having the Planning Commission redesign the plan or suggest modifications. In addition, the City should identify where the 50 percentile is in the variances, which may eliminate some of the customary variances. McMillan stated a lot of comments that they receive from applicants relates to the amount of money that they have paid for the lot and that they complain they are not allowed to construct whatever they want on the lot. Franchot stated the City needs to be careful about institutionalizing circular logic. McMillan commented part of the problem is that people are not aware of the City's hardcover regulations. Franchot stated he is not familiar with the number of variances that are granted in relation to the overall activity of the Planning Department, which would be helpful to know. Franchot indicated he understands how the City evolved into their current regulations, but that the decisions are beginning to feel somewhat arbitrary. Franchot stated the City should focus on outcomes that are desirable and talk about standards, which would make the regulations logical to the applicants. Bremer stated a number of people have asked the City Council to eliminate the zones, which is now one of the items being proposed. Bremer noted the different zones have been established to help limit structure and hardcover near the lake, but that she does not want to go away from Orono being the Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 2 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 forerunner of protecting the lake, which should be their number one concern. Bremer indicated the City should also be open to new technology and look at the number of variances that have been granted in the past. Bremer indicated her second concern is that she does not want residents to be upset that they have been denied under the old regulations and that she does not want to give the impression that those rules have been changed almost overnight. Bremer noted the City routinely denies decks because they exceed the hardcover numbers. Curtis stated one of the project goals is to hold open houses and meetings to bring forth that input by the residents. Gozola noted they will be able to document the questions/input by the public and the process the City went through in changing its regulations. Gozola pointed out that even if the code is simplified, that does not mean it will be easier to get a variance. Schwingler stated simplifying the process does not necessarily make it easier to obtain a hardcover variance. Schwingler stated it is not the Planning Commission’s job to redesign the applicant’s plans and that the regulations should not be less stringent but to have language that is easier to understand by the applicants. Bremer asked if the Planning Commission feels that applicants tend to propose their hardcover numbers at a higher level because that will allow them some leeway with the Planning Commission. Bremer noted Staff does inform the applicants of the hardcover regulations and that most local builders are aware of the numbers. Bremer stated the City Council should stick with one particular number. Schoenzeit reiterated there should be some performance standards that have to be met for the extra hardcover. Bremer noted under the recent Supreme Court ruling, they are not allowed to swap hardcover for a variance. Curtis pointed out they would be viewed as performance standards and not a variance. McMillan asked when the hardcover regulations originated in the City. Gaffron indicated they started in the 1970s and evolved due to questions by the developers and builders over what would be allowed, such as a shared driveway and what percentage is allocated to each property. There were also questions over what is considered hardcover and what is not hardcover. Back in the 1980s, there was a discussion regarding plastic under rock versus fabric, which raised a concern that people would create rock gardens within the 0-75 foot zone and plastic was subsequently banned. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan helped to document the vision of the City. Gozola stated there appears to be agreement for simplification of the code, consistent terminology throughout the code, outcome based regulation versus a hard cap on hardcover, and providing options for people to meet the code, which would allow for some flexibility in meeting the City's stringent regulations. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 3 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 Franchot pointed out the group has not really approved those specific goals but have indicated they would like those ideas explored. From a process standpoint, the City needs to clearly identify the goals and the desired outcomes and should avoid jumping too quickly at the answers without looking at it from all angles. Gozola indicated he has some specific items he has identified within the code that the group may want to consider. Staff would request the group identify additional aspects of the current policy which must be retained, things people have historically liked, and things about the current policy that people feel must change. Gozola stated the first area deals with multiple terms that are currently used throughout code to address the issue of impervious surface. Hardcover is essentially defined as anything that interferes with direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. Lot coverage is essentially defined as area covered by structures while hard surface is undefined and impervious coverage is undefined. Bremer noted the term typically used in Orono is structural coverage rather than lot coverage and that she would recommend the term lot coverage be changed to structural coverage. Schwingler asked whether other cities use lot coverage. Bremer stated they use lot coverage to define hardcover. Franchot commented there is not much confusion about what lot coverage is, but that his sense is that the term hardcover has caused a number of problems since there is some deviation in thought on what hardcover truly is. Decks, for example, are considered hardcover even though they have openings in them, which has caused some consternation on the part of the applicants. Consistent terminology and clear definitions would help to overcome that. Gaffron stated another example of inconsistency is gravel that is driven on is considered hardcover while gravel that is not driven on is not considered hardcover. Gaffron commented they have had people in the past put holes in their plastic to make it nonhardcover, which required Staff to inspect it. Curtis noted geotextile fabric is not allowed for landscaping but it is exempted when it is used on a mound system. McMillan stated one of the overall goals is to make the terminology more consistent throughout the regulations. Bremer asked whether other cities have more consistent definitions. Gozola indicated there are some consistencies in what is considered hardcover but that there are also some inconsistencies, such as the hard packed gravel, decks, and landscaping. Plastic is always considered hardcover but that other cities do accept the geotextile fabric. Gozola commented that enforcement does become a problem over time. Leskinen agreed the group should look at whether hardcover could possibly be tied into performance Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 4 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 standards. Gozola stated area two deals with soffits. Soffits that are in excess of two feet have historically been considered hardcover but that the following are issues that are raised periodically: -Surfaces under soffits are typically not hardcover; -Surveyors are ostensibly being asked to verify a point above ground on as-built surveys; -Limits architectural styles and roof types; -Is there any desire to see this changed if it can be justified. McMillan commented in her view the City should lighten up on some of the hardcover regulations and that she personally feels bigger roof overhangs should be promoted more since they help keep water away from the house. Rahn stated at the time it was discussed, it was felt that anything over two feet would be considered hardcover but that the property owner could have whatever size overhang they wanted. Gaffron noted the Council did look at that but never came to a final decision. McMillan stated she personally would like some leeway on that since it affords some protection against water coming into the house. Franchot commented that is probably one of the items that appears arbitrary to the residents. Curtis stated that item was made more consistent in the last few years with the City's nonencroachment regulations. Franchot stated the method the City follows sometimes appears to be arbitrary, which has been a complaint raised in the past by applicants. The City should look at it in the context of how it can be made less arbitrary, which would also help ease the burden on Staff. Franchot commented there needs to be a good balance between how that is accomplished and the City’s goal of clean water, etc. Curtis stated typically the surveyors do not denote things above grade, which creates some issues for Staff. Theiss stated if the goal of the City is to have good infiltration of water, a two-foot overhang provides the ability for the ground to absorb the water; whereas an eight-foot overhang prohibits water from infiltrating the ground near the house. Rahn pointed out they are not limiting the design but rather the hardcover. Gozola stated the third area is whether the City should regulate all properties in the City. Current regulations seem to ignore non-shoreland areas unless they are zoned industrial, RPUD or PRD. While there are "lot coverage" regulations affecting all properties within the City, it appears current hardcover regulations are limited to the shoreland district, industrial district, RPUD district, and PRD areas. It appears that nonshoreland areas which are not in an industrial, RPUD or PRD district do not have hardcover requirements. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 5 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 Franchot asked what area is considered shoreline. Gaffron indicated it would be the first 1000 feet near the lake. Most of the rural area away from the lake is not subject to hardcover regulations. Gozola stated all of the properties feed into the water system regardless of whether they are considered shoreland properties or nonshoreland properties. Gozola asked whether the City is interested in looking at including those lots that are not currently included. Bremer commented in her view they should be looked at since the hardcover impacts appearance and massing. Curtis noted the reason the industrial, RPUD and PRD district have hardcover regulations is because they have been created within the last ten years. McMillan commented that Orono does have a tremendous amount of wetlands within the City, which helps to filter the water before it reaches Lake Minnetonka. McMillan asked whether the City should be more aggressive on industrial/commercial lots. Gaffron noted that all of the City's industrial lots far exceed the hardcover limits and that the City should be more aggressive in requiring different types of ponding on industrial/commercial properties. McMillan commented that NURP ponds can also be expensive to maintain over time, but that the City could incorporate a number of different requirements to help infiltrate the water in those areas. Gaffron recommended that there be a different set of standards for the industrial districts. McMillan commented that rain gardens are becoming more popular on industrial sites and that they are easier to monitor on those sites versus residential lots. Franchot stated one of the issues the City struggles with is that the regulations are written from the perspective of starting with a vacant lot, which is often not the case. The question then becomes, how does the City transition from where we are with the things that we don’t like to where we like them. Franchot indicated small lots are a classic example of lots that meet very few of the City's minimum standards. Franchot recommended that as part of this process the City spend some time thinking about ways to improve Navarre and make it a better place to live. Gozola stated to achieve something like that, the City could build in some incentives to have those types of investments. Franchot commented one of the reasons people come in here asking for something is that their neighbor has it, but they are not always aware that some of those items were previously allowed but are no longer allowed. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 6 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 Schoenzeit stated it is more likely in Orono to have someone spend a fair amount of money to build something to help infiltrate the water rather than lose a significant amount of parking lot and that performance standards would allow the City to be more proactive. Gozola indicated the current code also includes a provision granting credits when shared driveways are used, which is one way to reduce hardcover. Things for the group to consider are: One, does the City want to continue this practice; and two, the Code does not appear to give property owners credits when public roads or other hard surfaces are accidentally built outside of easements or right-of-way. Gozola asked whether the City would also like to provide credits where there are encroachments on someone else’s lot. Bremer noted that while it does not appear in the Code, the City Council does give the property owner credit for that when the application is before the Council. Rahn asked whether they are speaking of residential properties with the shared driveways. Bremer indicated they are. Rahn stated he would like to eliminate shared driveways between residential properties since it tends to create problems in the future. Rahn suggested a penalty be imposed rather than an incentive. Gozola commented that is actually a common sentiment in other cities. Gaffron indicated that provision came about in an effort to address existing situations rather than as an incentive to have shared driveways. McMillan asked whether any credit is currently given to people who have a shared driveway. McMillan stated one of the problems is the configuration of the lot and the driveway, which sometimes creates long driveways. Curtis noted the City does have minimum standards for driveways, but that a long, thin lot requires a longer driveway. Bremer stated in the past the 15 percent structural coverage number was imposed very strictly and that they were given a minimal driveway. McMillan noted the City also has minimal standards for things such as driveways and sidewalks. Bremer stated the average lakeshore setback, which is intended to preserve the view of the lake, also helps to reduce the length of the driveway by pulling the house back away from the lake and closer to the street. Curtis commented the 15 percent structural coverage limit is helpful to Staff. Gozola stated another area of the code he would recommend the group look at is their tiered system. The City has historically protected the first 75 feet of area beyond the OHW and uses a tiering system for hardcover beyond that point. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 7 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 Gozola requested the group consider the following: -Does the City wish to continue its policy of strict protection of the first 75 feet beyond the OHW? -Is the City interested in maintaining their policy of hardcover tiering? Or is the City more interested in maintaining similar to better results than what is obtained through the current policy? -The ability to transfer allowable hardcover from one zone to another seemingly transforms a difficult to implement policy into an administrative nightmare. Poor documentation at city hall could easily result in different future hardcover interpretations, new surveys, and bad feelings all around. Staff would suggest the approach which comes out of this process be easy to understand by all parties and easy to document. Gaffron indicated the goal of the tiered system initially was to protect the 0-75 foot zone by not allowing any hardcover and then to allow the next tier to have a limited amount of hardcover. The tiered system did not have anything to do with massing initially but rather infiltration. Schoenzeit noted the DNR has a standard of 50 feet. Curtis pointed out the City does not allow any credit for the 0-75 foot zone. Bremer stated it is 15 percent of the entire lot that is allowed for structure but that people get no credit for the 0-75 foot zone as it relates to hardcover. Some of the frustration and misunderstanding comes from the fact that people have to maintain that area but they are not allowed any hardcover in that zone. Rahn commented that someone with a larger 0-75 foot zone with a narrower lot on top can be restricted on their hardcover simply because of the configuration of the lot even though they have the same setback. Franchot stated in his view the majority of the group likes the tiered system but that there is some frustration with how the discussion goes on particular applications. Franchot stated he cannot think of any other item that would create more controversy than changing the policies for the 0-75 foot zone and that in his view most people do not understand the need for infiltration, which then becomes an educational piece. Gozola noted other cities do not have a tiered system. Rahn stated to his belief Deep Haven was exploring the possibility of implementing a tiered system and that it would be interesting to see what discussion they had regarding that. McMillan asked whether the DNR has redone their shoreline regulations. Curtis indicated the DNR is still working on that. Gozola stated the tiered system allows for differing amounts of hardcover throughout the different zones of the property. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 8 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 Gozola indicated they will double check the code for consistency. One example of inconsistency is that decks are always considered hardcover but that there is another section that says you can add hardcover under your deck if certain conditions are met. Gozola recommended another area to be considered is whether the current ordinance compels citizens to comply with the regulations or encourages them to do things without proper permits or oversight. In addition, some thought should be given to how much additional survey costs citizens incur to demonstrate compliance to the current tier system and whether the permitting process is timely. Gozola asked whether there is anything about the current ordinance the group would like to discuss. Printup stated the common theme repeated tonight has been the need to ensure there are clear definitions, and that when the definitions are not consistent, it creates frustrated. Rahn concurred that consistency throughout the Code would be good. McMillan commented that another criticism she has received concerns gravel driveways and why they are not promoted more. McMillan stated there can also be issues with performance standards, such as pavers that are installed and then not maintained properly over the years and then they are paved over, or rain gardens being filled in after the property owner has been given credit for them. Performance standards are great if the residents know how to maintain the items. Lakeshore buffers are also another item that over time tend to become a maintenance nightmare. Loftus noted in Tonka Bay they started requiring easements over the improvements as well as access easements, with language allowing the City to assess the costs back to the property owner, which helps with the enforcement but created some anger among the residents. McMillan noted that Minnetonka also attempted that. Loftus stated that was the only way they could think of to gain access to a property. Enforcement and access are huge issues and it will generate some anger. Gaffron stated they are dealing with that as it relates to wetlands and wetland covenants. Schwinger indicated that a lot of what they are dealing with is items relating to redevelopment and new technology. McMillan stated one of the best things people can do it aerate their lawn every fall to help with water absorption, which does not need to be spelled out in an ordinance but is more an education piece. Kang asked whether the City could provide a one page list of various resources to the residents. Loftus noted the City currently does that. McMillan suggested that information also be included on the City’s web site. Bremer stated the question becomes, how do you stop people from finding ways to circumvent the Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 9 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 regulations and how that can be built into the process. Gozola stated they do recognize the need for maintenance oversight and that will be taken into consideration as they go through this process. Gaffron stated another item the group may want to consider is stormwater quality rather than hardcover limitations. The goal behind limiting hardcover on a site is to increase the water quality of storm water entering into area water bodies. While limiting hardcover is certainly one way to achieve the goal, the group should consider whether there are other solutions that achieve the same goal. Gaffron stated the City will want to try to avoid the need to have builders, contractors and homeowners do some type of complicated calculation. Curtis stated the City could also require a higher level of approval. If the resident is able to meet this new number, they are allowed to do it, but if it requires five percent more hardcover, then the City could incorporate additional best management practices, which could lead to a higher level of approval, such as requiring a conditional use permit. Gozola concurred that there could be ways to tier out the performance standards and hardcover regulations. Rahn stated new technology also needs to be considered as part of this process and that the City needs to motivate people to do the right thing, such as installing impervious pavers, and perhaps providing them some type of minimal credit for those types of items. Curtis commented when Staff speaks to a homeowner and they want a logical solution and you talk about arbitrary standards, they start to doubt where the City’s intentions are. When they are told they can do something that is beneficial but they don’t get credit for it, they become defensive. Schwingler indicated that is seen from applicants going before the Planning Commission because the rules do appear arbitrary. Bremer stated one of the things that should be gained from this process is that the City feels like what is being required is justified, has a rational basis, and is consistent. Whether or not the homeowners are happy cannot be the focus of this process or the regulations. Franchot concurred that is one of the goals and that it would be impossible to make everyone happy. One of the City’s goals is to uphold Orono’s rural character, which is in conflict with people’s desire to do what they want with their properties. The rules need to make sense and be clear. Schoenzeit stated the City needs to be able to show that they have done the due diligence on the different technology. Gozola stated as it relates to the timeline, during March they will be in contact with the MCWD and DNR to get supplemental support for developing a template ordinance. In April the goal is to have the research completed on all final DNR and MCWD rules and look at possibly revising the timeline to accommodate final goals and objectives. The goal in May is to be able to hold city open house to introduce the process to the public, solicit Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 10 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 potential focus group participants and get people on an e-mail distribution list to keep them informed. Once the focus group is established, Gozola indicated they would like to hold the initial focus group meeting to tell them the goals established by the Council/Planning Commission, explain their role in the process, provide background research that has already completed, and bring in expert presenters. In July they would like to meet with the Planning Commission to present options and receive feedback. A second open house would be held in either late June or early July, followed by the preparation of an initial draft ordinance for review by both the City Council and Planning Commission. In August they are aiming for public hearings at the Planning Commission, followed by approval by the City Council. Bremer asked whether this is a realistic timeline. Gozola indicated in his opinion it is a realistic timeline and pointed out that they are only reviewing one section of the code. Kang expressed a concern that a majority of the work with the public will be completed in July and August, which is the time when a number of the residents take vacations and are busy with other things. Gozola indicated he will take that into consideration if the amount of public feedback is minimal. McMillan asked if the open house is a means of finding potential members for the task force or whether Staff would be recruiting volunteers. McMillan suggested the first open house be a more informative session. Gozola indicated that is what he was envisioning for the open house. McMillan suggested that perhaps now would be a time to compile some people for the task force and that she would prefer the focus group be preliminarily assembled in the near future. Curtis stated if the open house is held prior to the ordinance being drafted, it lets the public know that the City is looking for their input. McMillan commented when she thinks of a focus group, they typically have a particular topic that they focus on, and that the City could have like a focus group open house where certain topics of the hardcover regulations are discussed. Franchot asked how many of these open houses Ben Gozola has participated in and what process he has found works best in these situations. Gozola stated you typically hold at least one open house during a process like this. Gozola stated people come to the open houses to learn as well as vent over certain items. Having that opportunity to express their thoughts tends to satisfy the residents that they have had their opportunity to speak on the subject. They do plan to be constantly communicating with people throughout the process and Staff will also available for comments and questions. Gozola indicated they would be immediately responding to questions of the residents. Franchot indicated he would prefer to defer to Ben Gozola on the actual process and to have the group Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 11 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 focus on the goals. Schwingler commented the last open house on the comprehensive plan, while it allowed people an opportunity to provide input and ask questions, gave the impression that the City had already completed the comprehensive plan and that their input really was not needed. Franchot commented that a number of the residents in attendance had the impression that the comprehensive plan was already completed. Franchot commented he believes the process outlined by Ben Gozola is a good one. Gozola indicated Staff feels it is critical to establish a focus group for this process and that the group has two important questions to address: One, who will sit on the focus group and, two, what input role will the focus group be given. Gozola suggested the focus group consist of one or two council members, one or two planning commissioners, a residential lakeshore owner, a residential nonlakeshore/nonshoreland owner, a local builder or architect familiar with Orono, and a commercial/industrial landowner. Gozola indicated he would prefer to keep the focus group relatively small. Schwingler recommended the members be limited to people who actually reside in the City of Orono. Schwingler pointed out Orono has two very different residential landowners, lakeshore and nonlakeshore, and that perhaps they should have someone from both groups on the focus group. Bremer noted there are also differences within the nonlakeshore group depending on the size of their lot. Gozola commented that it would be difficult to accommodate every group and still keep the focus group small. Rahn stated with that small sampling of volunteers, there could be a strong opinion one way or another by one or two people on the focus group and that a bigger number of people would help to rectify that. Gozola stated that it may be necessary to go out and approach certain individuals if not enough interest is expressed. Franchot stated there needs to be an identification of ideas and different perspectives, but that it would be helpful if the members of the focus group have experience and expertise in this area. Bremer recommended they start with a small group at first and perhaps reach out to other people with expertise in this area. Curtis asked if it is important that the builder/contractor actually live in Orono. Curtis commented that it is important they have ownership in Orono but that a commercial/industrial landowner may not live in Orono. The builder and contractor is the person Staff typically meets with before coming to the City and that she does not feel the person needs to live in Orono to be on the focus group but should perhaps work within the City and be familiar with the rules and regulations. Franchot stated that is the reason why it is important the City clearly define what it is they want the focus group to do. If the City wants to have a metering device that helps the process stay on track with Orono values and vision, they should live in Orono. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 12 of 13] ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 McMillan commented the important thing in her mind for the focus group individuals is they have the time and have the interest. Gozola indicated he was anticipating having one meeting a month for four months. McMillan stated she would like to have some or most of the focus group individuals on board before the open house, which would allow them to listen to the information being presented. Gozola stated they could identify some individuals prior to the open house and encourage them to attend the first open house. Bremer stated if there are outside contractors and/or builders that would be interested and have the time to be on the focus group, they should be included. Gozola thanked the group for providing their input and indicated he will be providing a summary of the meeting in the near future. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. ATTEST: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approval of Joint Planning Commission & City Council Work Session Minutes [Page 13 of 13] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Orono Energy and Environment Display [Page 1 of 4] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Orono Energy and Environment Display [Page 2 of 4] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Orono Energy and Environment Display [Page 3 of 4] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Orono Energy and Environment Display [Page 4 of 4] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 File #07-3336 [Total Pages 9] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 1 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 2 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 3 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 4 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 5 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 6 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 7 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Formal Acceptance of Stonebay Public Improvements [Page 8 of 8] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Planning Commission Chair & Vice Chair Appointments [Page 1 of 1] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 03/04/2011 Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage [Page 1 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 03/04/2011 Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage [Page 2 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 03/04/2011 Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage [Page 3 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 03/04/2011 Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage [Page 4 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 03/04/2011 Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage [Page 5 of 6] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 03/04/2011 Land Use Application/Development and Wetland Signage [Page 6 of 6] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 1 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 2 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 3 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 4 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 5 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 6 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 7 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 8 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Massage Therapy License Requirements [Page 9 of 9] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 1 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 2 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 3 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 4 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 5 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 7 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 8 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 9 of 10] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Update [Page 10 of 10] Item #10a - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Authorize No Parking on Old Crystal Bay Road [Page 1 of 2] Item #10a - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Authorize No Parking on Old Crystal Bay Road [Page 2 of 2] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approve Additional Expenditures Grinder Station 31 Improvements [Page 1 of 3] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approve Additional Expenditures Grinder Station 31 Improvements [Page 2 of 3] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Approve Additional Expenditures Grinder Station 31 Improvements [Page 3 of 3] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 1 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 2 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 3 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 4 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 5 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 6 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 7 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 8 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 9 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 10 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Stubbs Bay Ravine Grant Acceptance[Page 11 of 11] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 1 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 2 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 3 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 4 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 5 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 6 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 7 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 8 of 9] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Publication of Legal Notices [Page 9 of 9] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Establish March 28th Work Session [Page 1 of 1] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 2 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 3 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 4 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 5 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 6 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 7 of 8] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 8 of 8] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Bills [Page 1 of 6] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Bills [Page 2 of 6] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Bills [Page 3 of 6] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Bills [Page 4 of 6] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Bills [Page 5 of 6] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Bills [Page 6 of 6] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 Pending Litigation [Page 1 of 1]