Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-2003 Council Minutes0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Jim Murphy, Bob Sansevere, and Jim White; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve /Amend Council members added items 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 0 *2. Regular Council Meeting of June 23, 2003 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2003 as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *3. Amend Minutes for Council Meeting of April 14, 2003 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to amend the Minutes of the Council Meeting of April 14, 2003 as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Items 14 and 16 were moved up on the agenda in order to hear a presentation by Police Chief Good. *14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the donation of time and expertise from Stephanie Grande for building the new Orono Police Department web site. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Chief Good introduced Stephanie Grande, a website designer who has devoted over 200 hours of volunteer service to the Police Department updating a web site and links for the community and •W PAGE 1 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. ( *14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation, Continued) Grande thanked the Chief for her comments and complimented the OPD on its fabulous service to the community. She walked the City Council through a power point presentation of the new website, noting the main sections. The primary categories on the home page include; about us, services supplied by the department, crime prevention, youth, regulations, forms and permits, community resources, and FAQ's. She pointed out that each of the headings will link the user to other resources, such as the Teen Driving Contract, and a search function will be available in the coming weeks. Grande again commended the department for its dedication and indicated that their goal will be to continue to keep the website current and fresh. Mayor Peterson stated that she had visited the site and had found it to be a useful tool containing much practical information. Sansevere concurred, stating that the website seemed very user friendly. Murphy questioned whether the site would be interactive and provide a link for youth to contact the OPD. Grande and Chief Good stated that the site allows for PDF downloads and does offer email capability. Since communication is an ongoing goal, the site can ensure anonymity for those who need it and in the future provide answers to even more questions. *16. Appoint Volunteer Services Coordinator for Police Department Through Grande's volunteerism, Chief Good pointed out how rewarding it was to the officers to be involved in the website development process and feel appreciated by the community. In an effort to draw in more people like Grande to volunteer with the department, Chief Good indicated that the OPD asked Grande to remain on as volunteer coordinator. Grande thanked the OPD, acknowledging that she too would have missed the involvement she had with the department. She was pleased to continue ongoing communication with the OPD and felt she could provide a meaningful bridge between the community and the police department. Mayor Peterson suggested an article be put together for the next newsletter encouraging residents to visit the website and introducing the new volunteer coordinator Stephanie Grande to the community. • Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to appoint Stephanie Grande as the Orono Police Department Volunteer Program Coordinator. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. • PAGE 2 OF 21 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS — Pauline Bouchard, Representative Bouchard reported that several items of interest were discussed at the recent Park Commission Meeting, including; the 20 -year park improvement plan to be shared with the Council at the upcoming work session; a meeting attended by Gappa and McDermott with other municipalities north and west to discuss the notion of trail planning and future links, one link includes County Road 19, which could be a candidate for federal grant money. In addition, she invited the Council to join the Commission on its annual park tour, Tuesday, September 2, 2003. Bouchard continued, stating that Wolfe had contacted both the WILD and Twins organizations in an effort to find support for fields and rinks; however, learned that the WILD does not make donations and merely helps with fundraising. The Twins had not yet responded to Wolfe's inquiry. Bouchard reported that Halvorson had learned of, and would be pursuing, an Autobahn sanctuary agreement which partners the society with golf courses, in an effort to maintain habitat and decrease the dependency on chemicals. On a final note, due to environmental concerns regarding debris being blown into the lake, Halvorson asked Bouchard to encourage the Council to contact the DNR to • install waste receptacles at the Maxwell Bay landing. Mayor Peterson concurred, stating that the landing had become a mess. She also encouraged Gappa to investigate cars with trailers parking along Tonkawa Road. She added that the Council members would be in attendance at the park tour on September 2 °d PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — Liz Hawn, Representative Hawn stated that she would remain for comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive, explained that he had met with the Planning Commission and Council back in October of 2002 to gain approval for a replacement deck on his residence. He was granted approvals for a deck the same as the original size subject to various removals. The original deck, according to a letter from the previous owner, measured 1OX30X14. He stated that the removals have taken place and when he obtained his permit, the deck size had been reduced to 300 s.f. deck, or 8X30X10 on the permit. Cloud indicated that construction has been in progress and he is concerned that he will not be able to meet this smaller size and install an overhang to accommodate railings. Although he argued that the deck should be the original size as it was approved, he admitted that he merely needed an additional 6" to put up the railings. He asked to be given flexibility, as nothing had changed from his original application, stating it would be a hardship • to force him to reapply and pay an additional $250. PAGE 3 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Gaffron maintained that the original approval granted Cloud a 300 s.f, deck, which equates to 8X30X10; therefore, the applicant should submit a new application to gain the extra 6 ". According to the original submittals, Mayor Peterson pointed out that what was approved reflects a 300 s.f deck, 12X30X8. Sansevere questioned whether there was any scenario which would allow the applicant to avoid repermitting the construction and paying an additional $250 permit fee. Cloud stated that Bruce, the building inspector who visited the site that day, felt they could solve the problem. Gaffron suggested Cloud eliminate an additional 15 s.f. of hardcover elsewhere on the property to gain the necessary 6" for installation of the railings. Mayor Peterson encouraged Cloud to work with Gaffron to determine where the 15 s.f. would be • removed to add the overhang. Barrett believed that staff could work with the applicant to determine a mutually acceptable solution and interpretation of the resolution. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *4. #03 -2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place — Variances — RESOLUTION NO. 5006 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5006, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24 Subdivision 5B, 10.22 Subdivision 2, 10.55 Subdivision 8, and 10.56 Subdivision 16 (J) and 16 (L), for the property located at 1300 Spruce Place. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #03 -2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West — PUD Concept Plan — Formal Withdrawal of Application No formal action was required. PAGE 4 OF 21 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #03- 2906Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagerness Point Road — After - the -Fact Variances As the applicant was not present, Gaffron explained that the applicant had requested after -the- fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0 -75' setback zone, constructing hardcover and structure where none is permitted. Staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to 1) Deny the variance to allow retaining walls on the lakeside of the street; but permit construction of a 4' wide stairway, bringing in 10 cubic yards of topsoil with a staff issued permit in the 0 -75' zone to allow that area to become lawn and regrading of the area with the new walls to be removed to provide a stable, maintainable slope including revegetation. 2) Approve a two- tiered retaining wall replacement system on the house side of the road, with landscaping /screening to soften the visual impact for the property located at 1937 Fagerness Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #03- 2909Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road — After- • the -Fact Variances Gaffron explained that the applicant requests after- the -fact variances for reconstruction of an accessory structure (old boathouse) within the 0 -75' lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed. A permit was issued for non - structural maintenance and modifications to the building; work proceeded beyond the scope of the permit, including moving the building off its foundation and reconstructing the foundation. Gaffron identified 4 issues for consideration, which would be expanded as Council proceeded: 1. Was the building, including its foundation, altered in ways that increase its non - conformity per 10.55 Subd. 26(A)? 2. Do the changes to the foundation constitute structural alterations that exceed 50% of the building's value at the time it became non - conforming (1975) per 10.55 Subd. 26(B)? 3. Does removal of the building to a location 50' away and removal/reconstruction of its foundation, constitute it being `destroyed' as that term is used in Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E)? 4. Based on the conclusions to the above questions, if a variance is necessary to allow the structure to be placed at its former location, do adequate hardships exist that support the variance request? With regard to the history of this application, Gaffron reported that the applicants in 2002 determined to restore /remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City • staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects PAGE 5 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit), in a few respects structural (which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City code does not allow for non - conforming lakeshore structures - see 10.55 Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be approved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. Gaffron noted that it was the City's expectation that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed "50% of the structure's value at the time it became non- conforming" which the City had long established as January 1, 1975 when the 75' setback ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely minimal, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessor's records. 0 Gaffron explained that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new • accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. Continuing on, Gaffron explained that after issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had done extensive work on the foundation of the structure, which consisted of posts sunk into the ground with beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any `legal non - conforming' status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it was placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status. However, in staff's opinion the new foundation clearly was `structural alteration' and undoubtedly exceeded 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. The Planning Commission was not unanimous in its view of this application. However, on a vote of 4 -2, the Planning Commission recommended that the boathouse be allowed to be placed back onto the foundation, on the basis that it is the original foundation, that the work on it was not structural repair, and should therefore retain its legal nonconforming status, and no variance should be required, even though it was temporarily removed. The minority opinion was that this approval was CJ PAGE 6 OF 21 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) inconsistent with the way the City has historically treated similar applications for repair /replacement of lakeshore accessory structures. Staff Perspective — Gaffron expanded on the questions he raised earlier: 1. Foundation Alterations. The first issue to resolve was whether the foundation had been altered. Staff believes it had been extensively altered. Staff believed the foundation had been altered as follows: a) The pre- existing beams were unbolted from the sides of the posts and set aside. b) Most if not all of the pre- existing posts were pulled out of the ground (See photos). c) New postholes were dug, Sono -Tubes were installed for some of the posts. d) The old posts were placed into the tubes or holes which were then filled with aggregate to provide stability to the posts. It is unknown whether a concrete pad at a 42" depth was placed; however, such a footing would have been required by building code for a legal foundation replacement. • e) The pre- existing beams were then placed on top of the posts rather than alongside them and were held in place by brackets rather than through- bolts. Gaffron stated that it is staff's opinion that the foundation as it had previously existed was in fact totally removed, and a new foundation was constructed with a combination of old and new materials in a configuration different than the old foundation. Has it been altered in ways that increase its non - conformity? The building is nonconforming as to location, which is not proposed to change. The building will not increase in size. But it will, as a result of the reconstruction of the foundation, have the potential to remain in place as a nonconforming structure for a much longer period of time. This might be considered as an increase in nonconformity. Gaffron maintained that the actions taken by applicant's contractors are absolutely consistent with what staff has long considered as structural alterations or additions. We have consistently told people that cosmetic improvements such as re- siding or reroofing are allowed but that structural improvements are not. The work that is listed above clearly is considered as structural improvement. 2. Does Structural Alteration Exceed 50% of 1975 Value ?. The second issue to resolve is whether the extent of structural alterations was more than 50% of the structure's value at the time it became nonconforming (1975). Staff believes the value of the structural alterations does exceed the 1975 value of the structure. The mere value of the labor involved in the construction of the new • foundation probably exceeds the value of the structure in 1975. PAGE 7 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) No value has been formally established for this structure as of 1975. The assessors' records do not separately recognize or document its existence on the property. Therefore, we must find other methods to estimate its value as of 1975. Taking liberty, Gaffron believed the 12'x 20'(240 s.f.) structure could reasonably be equated to a one -stall detached garage, although it has a flat roof and a wood post/beam foundation which would probably reduce its comparative value. Staff found permits issued in 1975 for detached garages on 8 different properties, ranging in size from 440 s.f. to 768 s.f. with valuations ranging from $2200 to $4000. The average permit valuation was $5.06 per square foot. For the 240 s.f. McGlynn boat house, using a 1975 figure of $5 per square foot, the value of the boathouse in 1975 was probably no more than $1200. This would be replacement value, and does not account for any depreciation based on the (unknown) condition of the building at that time. It follows that, per 10.55 Subd. 26B, the boathouse could undergo no more than $600 in structural repairs during its lifetime. Gaffron noted that staff believes the costs of reconstructing the foundation, including moving the building off the foundation, have far exceeded the $600 limit. • Applicability of 50% Rule. Applicant's attorney suggests the reconstruction of the foundation would "substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure ", and therefore the 50% limit of Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff would submit that applicant had no initial intent to raise the building to meet any flood protection requirements, as evidenced by the lack of foundation revisions shown on their submitted plans. 3. Was the Building "Destroyed "? Gaffron noted that since the City code does not define the term "destroyed" in the context of non- conformity. Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) indicates that if a non - conforming building is destroyed to an extent of more than 50% of its assessed value, it may not be `reconstructed' except in conformity with the code; but the City may issue a CUP for reconstruction if the building is located outside the floodway (i.e. landward of the 929.4 elevation contour) and is flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected inconformity with 10.55. Temporary relocation of the structure was not contemplated by City staff and was not divulged by the contractor during the permit application and review process. Had such a relocation been proposed, staff would have immediately advised the contractor that relocation, even on a temporary basis, would put the entire building in j eopardy. This would have been considered in the discussions as part of a variance review had the proposed temporary relocation been anticipated. The City has r1 U PAGE 8 OF 21 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) long held that if a nonconforming building is intended be moved laterally, that it can and should be moved to a conforming location. 4. Should a Variance be Granted? If Council concludes 1) that the building and its foundation have been structurally altered in a way that increases its non - conformity and 2) that the extent of the structural alterations exceeded 50% of its 1975 value, then it follows that a variance is necessary for the building to remain. If Council then concludes that the structural alterations substantially reduce potential flood damages to the structure, then the 50% rule might not apply. Gaffron stated that in staff's opinion this would not necessarily void the argument that this building ceased to exist at its original location and putting it back needs a variance. Assuming a variance is required, should it be granted? The variance must be considered on the basis of hardship and the potential impacts on the neighborhood. There are few if any new impacts to the - neighborhood. The building has existed at this location for a long time, and if replaced at its former location will not alter the essential character of the locality. The hardship is self - imposed, perhaps unknowingly, by removing the structure in order to do work on it. Issue of Establishing Precedent Gaffron maintained that allowing this structure to be removed from its foundation and temporarily relocated while the foundation is reconstructed, would have been called out as requiring a variance before the fact and should be considered no differently after the fact. Similar cases in the past have been treated as requiring a variance. In 1981, John Erickson at 1620 Shadywood Road did similar work on a lakeshore structure and was made to remove the structure. His variance was denied. In more recent history, the Council has approved the renovation of some lakeshore accessory structures and denied others. The consistency is that each has had to go through the variance process. In conclusion, Gaffron reviewed the Staff Recommendations as follows: 1. Staff concludes that the reconstruction of the foundation constitutes structural alterations in excess of 50% of the structure's value when it became nonconforming. 2. Staff concludes that the removal of the structure from its nonconforming location cannot be condoned except in the context of a variance, or the City risks claims of inconsistent treatment between similarly situated properties. PAGE 9 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) 3. Staff has not seen convincing evidence that the structure has been or will be changed in a manner that substantially reduces its potential for flood damage, and therefore staff concludes the exemption in 10.55 Subd. 26B does not apply. 4. Staff concludes that the variance process is the only method via which the structure should be allowed to be replaced back into its former location. Gaffron maintained that the Planning Commission did not act on the merits of the variance application or define any hardships; they simply chose to conclude a variance was not required. Therefore, if Council concludes that a variance is necessary, the application could be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Gaffron reiterated that the City has failed to be consistent on these types of rulings over the past years and staff would appreciate direction for future clarification. Attorney Boeder, on behalf of Mr. McGlynn, asked to make some clarifications to the presentation made by Gaffron. To begin, Mr. Boeder explained that the McGlynns went through the permit process in the summer of 2002 with the intent to restore the boathouse, built originally in the 1940's. Building Inspector Oman indicated that the boathouse was in excellent shape and worth preserving, not a tear -down. After obtaining permits in March of 2003, work began on the installation of insulation and plywood. Plekkenpol recognized the danger involved in working in water with power tools for their people and that the only reasonable way to do the work was to lift the boathouse up. Since the new pressed lumber foundation was constructed in the 1980's and in good repair, the contractor was under the impression that the foundation could be pulled out and inspected. Boeder pointed out that Oman was present during this inspection process when the posts were pulled out and can attest that these are original posts. Boeder felt it relevant to clear up the misconception that these posts were new, he maintained that they reused the original pieces. With regard to the City's intent to see all boat houses disappear by attrition, Boeder argued that the Ordinance or code does not reflect this sentiment. He maintained that Mr. McGlynn had gone thru the proper process, had permitted work going on, when he was stopped. Boeder stated that the City's expectations are not enforceable when a permit has been issued and no ordinance supports those expectations. With regard to the 1970's value of the boathouse, Boeder stated that there is no hard evidence to base its value and questioned how anyone could make judgments to that effect today. He referred to comments made by Planning Commissioner Rahn, an inspector himself, stating that he understood the concept of raising the boathouse structure and the values assigned the project, including minor alterations. PAGE 10 OF 21 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Boeder explained that two lakeside posts were removed entirely and the building was to be cantilevered over the water. Boeder disagreed with staff's perspective that 10.55 Subdivision 26B doesn't apply. In fact, Boeder maintained that the 50% Rule should apply and presented a bill from the contractor for $505 for brackets and supplies. In addition, since the beams as reconstructed would be above flood level, this which would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure. Furthermore, Boeder pointed out that it was not the intent of the applicant to `destroy' the boathouse, rather to restore and remodel the structure. Unlike the Erickson Resolution Gaffron referred to, Boeder stated that McGlynn pulled the appropriate permits to do the restoration work and went thru the appropriate process. He maintained that these are not after - the -fact variance requests on behalf of Mr. McGlynn, as they were in the Erickson case. Boeder stated that their position remains the same, that a variance is not needed, the use has not changed, the structure has not been enlarged, and the same materials are being used. He pointed out • that it is difficult for contractors to distinguish between structural and nonstructural work based on the code, in their opinion, maintenance of the foundation should not be considered structural. 0 Sansevere questioned what phase of completion the McGlynn's were in when forced to stop work. Boeder stated that all that remains is painting and installation of French doors. Boeder stated that the entire restoration project was estimated at a cost of $20,000; whereas, the foundation work was just a mere $505 of that bill. Having visited the site, Murphy acknowledged his preference for keeping the old lakeshore buildings. As a homeowner with a nonconforming barn and shed in need of floor repair work, which to be done right, the structures should be lifted off their foundation. He had difficulty supporting staff's notion that the structure not be moved. He recognized the contractor's need to ensure the safety of his workers. Gaffron maintained that lifting a structure off a foundation should be viewed differently than moving it entirely off its foundation. Murphy did not understand the difference if the structure was returning to the same place. Gaffron pointed out that once the nonconforming structure has been moved off of its original foundation, the City has an opportunity to relocate or encourage the applicant to move it to a PAGE 11 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) conforming location. He stated that discussions to this effect have occurred at the Planning Commission level in an effort to eliminate nonconforming structures. White agreed with Murphy, that the distinction between lifting up and lifting sideways seemed silly, and did not seem sensible distinction to base the ordinance upon. If the Council felt the distinction was not warranted, Gaffron encouraged Council to clarify the policy further. Although he agreed that, on instinct, the distinction of movement is weak, Barrett questioned whether the structure was moved and work done that might not be considered permitted. Murphy maintained that, to him, restoration or remodeling by improving the foundation to set the building back on top would be considered part of the restoration process; whereas, structural change means something that alters the structure altogether. Barrett explained that nonconforming structural changes to the foundation have always meant a • Y major change requiring a variance application or it would not be permitted. He maintained that, to allow the applicant to change the foundation, would be somewhat inconsistent with efforts of the past. Murphy indicated that he had difficulty with the nonconforming language, since it was the boathouse that had remained in the same location for 50 years, and similar to his barn and shed, only became nonconforming as the language changed over the years. Barrett stated that the boathouse is nonconforming, since it is located in the 0 -75' setback zone. He suggested the applicants be encouraged to find a conforming location to place the boathouse, or cautioned the City that it might be faced with similar scenarios in the future, if they do not find a hardship for this application. Murphy questioned what Oman considered the structure would be when finished, based on an estimated $20,000 in repairs. Gaffron stated that Oman expected new siding, windows, and roof; however, he questioned if Oman expected the structure would be moved from its foundation. Gaffron stated that he could not determine how Oman expected the applicant to do the insulation and plywood work to the underside if it were not moved. Clearly, Gaffron stated, replacing foundation, joists, and/or adding to the PAGE 12 OF 21 C� MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) structure would have caught his attention. Gaffron questioned how the windows changed from the original submittals. Boeder assured the Council that Oman was aware of the window change and supplied the Council with a change order initialed and faxed back and forth between the contractor and Oman with regard to the windows. With regard to the post holes being redug, Boeder stated that once the posts were pulled to be looked at, the holes filled in, thus necessitating the need to redig them. White stated that the City accepted the $20,000 building permit from the beginning and now the Council needs to determine whether the building stays or goes. Based on a broad interpretation, Sansevere pointed out that the floor was not removed; therefore, questioned whether they could use this as part of the findings to support the work. Gaffron stated that the floor would be viewed as absolutely inseparable from the foundation and • posts. Murphy had difficulty accepting that through benign neglect the City should see boathouses disappear entirely. Gaffron stated that based on 1992 and 1995 Shoreland and DNR codes, we do not allow structures in the shoreland district and limit the structural alteration to items located in the 0 -75' setback zone. He maintained that, due to requests like this, the City needs to carefully analyze the codes and create some consistency in their evaluation. Sansevere questioned whether the hardship could be the improved drainage condition gained by setting the building up 6" on the posts and joists to decrease the flooding potential. He commented that several Council members would like to see this be allowed, and asked staff to help them find a way to approve it. Planning Commissioner Hawn outlined the Commission's discussion as follows. Although they were similarly confused, the Planning Commission relied on the fact that the building permit was granted, and that it was their understanding that Attorney Barrett had rendered an opinion that moving the building to one side for safety reasons would not constitute a problem to it being placed back again; therefore, the Commission found the need for the variance null and void. Hawn stated that based on the fact that the materials were not new, they felt no variance was necessary, or it would have been denied. PAGE 13 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Barrett stated that the basis for decision would not abandon the City's intent of the original permit; however, they would be overturning staff's conclusion that the work was structural. Murphy moved, White seconded, to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation that no variance was required for the work performed on the boathouse. Moorse acknowledged that the $500 cost of the foundation work meets the requirement that the cost not exceed 50% of the 1975 value of the structure; however, he questioned the potential loss of the opportunity to move the boathouse to a conforming location. He felt this was an opportunity to bring things into conformance, and put the boathouse anywhere on the site for a mere $500. Barrett stated that they should amend the motion and call it an appeal to the stop work order which would reverse the staff recommendation, since the work amounted to less than half the value. Murphy added to the motion that the appeal to the stop work order placed on the applicant by staff indicating he could not move forward was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and reversed, based on the findings that the foundation work was less than half the value, and that the work was not, in this case, a structural repair because the same material was being put back on. Murphy reiterated that, in his opinion, the City has fewer opportunities to hold on to the great history of our lake, and based on resident's acknowledgement of the boathouse, he felt it fit within the character of the community and would hate to see it moved. Although he agreed that historical significance plays a role in preservation, Moorse questioned whether this structure truly had historical significance, as it did not have a unique architectural style. He pointed out that a structure should be maintained in its historical state to be considered historical or it jeopardizes its unique historical character. Sansevere questioned how many boathouses exist on the lake in Orono. Gaffron stated that about 1000 lakeshore properties are in need of inventorying to determine the characteristics worth preserving. Of those 1000, Gaffron believed 100 or so would fall within Orono, and 20 -50 would be worth preserving. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Mayor Peterson dissenting. The Mayor felt the structural work had gone beyond the 50% rule. PAGE 14 OF 21 is i C� MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03 -2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Gaffron stated that, in other communities, if 50% of an existing nonconforming structure is removed, then it must be replaced in a conforming location. Recess was taken from 8:57 -9:05 P.M. The Council adjourned to the scheduled HRA Meeting at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:07 P.M. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere questioned whether past Council member, Mr. Nygard, had refunded the City the portion of pay for the month of June which he did not complete. Attorney Barrett stated that he had sent a letter this past week to Mr. Nygard requesting the refund of approximately $120; however, it had not yet been received. Murphy commended staff for painting the back wall of the chamber and staining the peak the golf house. White reported that the State Historical Society had agreed to accompany him on a lakeside tour of several sites on the lake, including the ice house on the Cable property and points along Casco, Thursday of next week. He asked staff to submit additions to the list of sites they should view, questioning whether Big Island should be examined for significance. He noted that the Cable's had removed more than ' /2 of the driveway as required and suggested staff address the nonconforming chain link fence running to the lake as well. Gaffron stated that only foundations from the amusement park remain on Big Island where the promenade posts, and lights existed. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT *8. Adopt Assessment Roll for Heritage Drive Sewer Extension — RESOLUTION NO. 5007 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5007, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 15 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. 9. City of Medina — Medina Morningside Expansion Development Sansevere questioned whether staff supported the proposed development. Murphy noted that the City has a good relationship with Jim Lange, of Medina, and asked if there were any issues to be worked out. Gappa stated that several issues accompany the expansion development. The proposed development, west of Willow Drive between the Orono City limits and the existing Medina Morningside development, is comprised of twenty - one' /4 acre lots on 22 acres of land, where one single family residence exists currently. Gappa noted that the high density of this urban development directly adjacent to the 2 -acre zoning in Orono is one issue to be addressed. With regard to sewer and water service, Gappa noted that there should be both sufficient capacities in the Orono water system and waste sewer systems to handle the flow, should a future agreement between Orono and Medina be approved. Gappa stated that the City has concerns about the increased traffic impacts from the proposed Keller Is Estates Development upon the intersection of Willow Drive /County Road 6, especially, since the County does not intend to correct the intersection in the near future. The tentative plan is for completion of an intersection safety improvement project with the provision for a future traffic signal; although, the schedule, costs, and funding for this project have not yet been determined. Gappa stated that Medina, and/or the developer, would likely be asked to share in the costs for the intersection, at minimum 25 %. He indicated, also, that the developer has indicated a willingness to fund Medina's share of the intersection improvement costs. In conclusion, based on a letter sent to the City of Medina, Gappa stated that until the traffic safety concerns at the Willow Drive /County Road 6 intersection are resolved and the potential impacts of a higher density urban development directly adjacent to the 2 -acre density development in Orono are reviewed and discussed, staff would not be in favor of recommending modification of the Long Lake /Orono/Medina sanitary sewer agreement to include the proposed Keller Estates Development project. Gappa asked the Council to review and discuss the project and provide direction to City staff regarding the issues outlined above for the project. Sandy Larson, Medina City Employee, was present. Sansevere suggested the City of Orono also send the adjacent 4 -5 Orono neighbors a letter ahead of time to give them advance notice of the proposed project. He questioned whether there should be a buffer required between the development and where it meets the City of Orono. PAGE 16 OF 21 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. City of Medina — Medina Morningside Expansion Development, Continued) Gappa stated that the City could send a letter to the neighbors now that a formal request has been made. Moorse noted that formal covenants could be added to the approvals, similar to the Fleming Subdivision, since the development would significantly change the backyard impacts felt by those Orono residents. Murphy agreed a buffer should be added; however, suggested the City poll the current residents to see what they feel would be adequate requirements. Gappa indicated that the City could poll residents and notify them of the density, buffer concerns, etc. Murphy questioned Medina representative, Larson, whether the City of Medina itself wishes to see this development move forward. He hoped to gauge their level of interest before proceeding, and • indicated he would contact Lange. Larson stated that the current owner of the site wishes to subdivide and is aware that doing so is subject to Orono approvals. Gappa asked if the Council or City wished to be represented at the public hearings. The Council wished to be represented. *10. Request for Payment — County Road 6 Reconstruction Project Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the request for final payment of $12,097.95 to Hennepin County for the County Road 6 Reconstruction Project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *11. Request for Payment — Navarre Fire Station Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the request for payment in the amount of $3,240.00 to Constructive Ideas, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 17 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. *12. Planner Salary Range Correction Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the starting salary of the new Planners at $48,306., which is approximately step 2 of salary range Level III of the Supervisory Administrative pay schedule. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. Accept Bulletproof Vest Reimbursement Grant Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve bulletproof vest reimbursement grant. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation Addressed earlier on the Agenda. *15. Approve Contract for Service — Teens Alone Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve contract for services with the Teens Alone • Program. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *16. Appoint Volunteer Services Coordinator for Police Department Discussed earlier in the Agenda. 17. Amendment to Noise Ordinance Sansevere questioned what the impetus of this ordinance was. Moorse stated that complaints were received from a resident regarding diesel dump truck fumes and noise. While Sansevere pointed out that the ordinance should specifically pinpoint residential properties versus areas, he cautioned that the ordinance would impact City Hall, Otten Brothers, etc. Since all residents of the rural/urban Orono would be impacted by this ordinance, Murphy questioned whether the City had gotten to the point where it should regulate problems between neighbors. While he was sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns, he believed the City might be asking for more trouble than it bargained for. • PAGE 18 OF 21 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (17. Amendment to Noise Ordinance, Continued) Attorney Barrett recognized the Council's concerns, stating that in an effort to limit this problem they focused on the noise ordinance. Murphy suggested that an odor or pollution ordinance might be more practical. He asked if the neighbors or City had spoken to the offending owner. Moorse stated that the City has very general odor, nuisance, and noise ordinances currently in place, admitting how difficult it is to get too specific in these areas. Moorse stated that the truck owner is aware that he is allowed to keep his dump truck at home, and does not believe he meets the definition of a home occupation. Gappa acknowledged that these are the types of problems Orono is faced with as it transitions from rural to metro. Gaffron inquired whether the City could further define the oversize vehicle definition to include diesel trucks. • Sansevere and Murphy indicated that they were not comfortable to move this ordinance forward. 0 Moorse stated that they would continue to rework the ordinance. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to table the ordinance amending the City's Noise Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Attorney Barrett reported that the City is in negotiations with the Cable's. *18. LICENSES Kennel 1. Tony and Mary Becker 259 Hollander Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Kennel License requested by the Becker's. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 19 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. Special Event Permit 1. Applicant: Bruce Kienke Event: Wedding and Live Music for 150 Guests Location: 541 North Stream Road Date: Saturday, July 26, 2003 Time: 6:00 p.m.- Midnight Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Special Event Permit requested by Mr. Bruce Kienke. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 2. Applicant: Robin K. Olson, Vice President/Tournament Director Event: Minnesota Bass Federation Club Tournament Location: Maxwell Bay Public Access Date: Sunday, August 17, 2003 Time: Sunrise to 3:00 p.m. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Special Events Permit requested by Robin • Olson for the Minnesota Bass Federation Club Tournament. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *19. BILLS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) The City Council viewed a recent video -taped Mound City Council meeting during which the Mound City Council considered a cooperative agreement between the City of Orono, Medina, and Corcoran to receive a `Safe and Sober' police grant. On the videotape, the Mound Police Chief asked the City of Mound to participate in the multi - agency grant with the Orono, Corcoran, and Medina Police Departments, pointing out that Mound is currently the only City that doesn't take advantage of the great opportunity offered by participation in the `Safe and Sober' system in the metro area. He explained that the OPD would act as administrator of the funds for this unconditional grant to enforce DWI's, speeding, and seat belt issues, which could mean in excess of 200 over time hours, or $8,000, to the City of Mound. Mound City Council members failed to second a motion to accept the opportunity to partner with the three other communities and receive the `Safe and Sober' grant money as presented.,The Council . PAGE 20 OF 21 • • 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) was hesitant to enter into a partnership with Orono and questioned how the funds would be administered. The Chief explained that how the funds are administered is specifically laid out in the grant. The Council asked the Chief to return with specific dollar and grant details and, once again, voiced their reluctance to partner with the City of Orono. Mayor Peterson questioned what the City of Orono had done that was perceived as so dishonest by the City of Mound to warrant this reaction. Mayor Peterson was at a loss to explain where this perception stemmed. Murphy complimented the new Mound Police Chief for trying very hard to supply the City of Mound with leadership, information, and maintain a non - political position. He stated that it would be unfortunate for the Mound Police Department to be denied these funds that could help them in their service to the community, based solely on Council sentiments. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of July 14, 2003 at 10:13 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: { / Linda S. Vee, City Clerk PAGE 21 OF 21 &M4� Barbara