HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2002 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
- • - 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 Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Jay Nygard;
and Late Arrival City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron
Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy
Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder
Kristi Anderson.
Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
A. DONATION
Mayor Peterson accepted an $8,000 donation from Jim Anderst, owner of the Narrows Saloon,
proceeds from its 2nd Annual Golf Tournament held this summer.
Rick Meyers, of the Park Commission, thanked Mr. Anderst for his community spirit and
recognized him for his generous fundraising efforts on behalf of the City Park Commission.
Meyers stated that The Narrows Saloon in Navarre has become a focal point for community
activities and indicated that he looked forward to future fundraising efforts.
0 CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve /Amend
Items #17, 18, 20, 21, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. Regular Council Meeting of October 14, 2002
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council
Meeting of October 14, 2002 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M.
3. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees - RESOLUTION
NO.4880
Mayor Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m.
• There were no public comments.
Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m.
PAGE 1 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
3. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees — Continued -
Murphy questioned how the $92,770 figure compared to years past.
Moorse indicated that the figure was much higher than in the past, however, as the deadline
approaches he expected the figure to decrease. In fact, he stated the figure is probably closer to
$70,000 now and as the deadline approaches he expected the figure to be closer to $40,000-
50,000.
Mayor Peterson wondered if the figure was alarming to staff.
Murphy suggested that staff keep on top of these delinquent accounts since the state of the
economy is so precarious.
Sansevere moved, Nygard seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4880 providing for the
collection of delinquent charges for the 2002 sewer and water utility services, the septic
inspection program, the recycling program, the false alarms, developers improvement fees,
and other general service fees. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Rick Meyers, Representative
Meyers reported that the resodding and reseeding in Navarre was complete and should look very
nice in the spring.
After several attempts to establish a prairie environment at French Creek, Meyers indicated that
the attempts had failed to produce a prairie environment and the Park Commission will be
meeting with the prairie restoration group to find out how to start over again.
Meyers pointed out that the Hackberry Park installation was on line. Gappa added that the
concrete work was complete and that they were waiting for the equipment. Meyers thanked the
Council for their support as the Park Commission continues to work to maintain the high
standards they've set for Orono Parks.
Meyers noted that the Commission discussed the lake access points and urged the City Council
to make a recommendation for a timeline. Meyers stated that the Park Commission had held up
its end of the bargain, mapping and categorizing the access points, and now would await Council
direction. The Commission is aware that staff has many other priorities.
White indicated that due to a combination of staff time and monetary restraints the access points
were postponed. Of the 30 proposed and 13 to have been marked, he questioned whether any had
been done.
Meyers acknowledged that they had hoped to accomplish at least one this year, but that had not •
occurred. to date. He stated that he understood they were a low priority in comparison to the
many things that fill staff's time and what happens next is up to the Council.
PAGE 2 of 20
w
E
0
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued)
White suggested the access point discussion be added to an upcoming work session agenda
between the Park Commission and the City Council.
Beyond December, Sansevere asked Meyers if the Park Commission would like to lessen their
load over the winter and meet less often. .
Meyers indicated that, in his opinion, that would be fine since much of what they discuss during
the winter months is repetitive.
Mayor Peterson asked Meyers if he had made a decision with regard to his reappointment to the
Park Commission.
Meyers stated that he would like to continue his work on the Park Commission. Since several
others terms would be ending, Meyers felt he should remain in order to keep a certain level of
continuity within the Commission.
From what he had witnessed, Murphy believed Meyers to be a driving force within the
Commission and he was glad that Meyers would continue his service.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - J. Marc Fritzler, Representative
Fritzler indicated that the Planning Commission had done a great deal of work on the Dahlstrom
Development Project and the Orono Professional Properties proposal which had taken them late
into the evening last week. The Commission has had many full dockets and Fritzler indicated
that he would be available for questions this evening.
LMCD REPORT - Lili McMillan
Lili McMillan was not present.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
PRESENTATION - 7:30 P.M.
4. Sally Koenecke, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission - 2003 Proposed
Budget
As the representatives were not yet present, they returned to this item later.
PAGE 3 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
-- 22. Resignation of Paul Weinberger from City Planner /Zoning Administrator- Positioir=
Resolution
The Mayor read and presented Weinberger with a framed resolution of appreciation, and thanked
him for his years of outstanding service to Orono.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
5. #02 -2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE -
FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW
Weinberger explained that the applicant, Barbara Hensley, intends to purchase the property at
3850 Shoreline Drive, which is currently operated as "Bay Furniture ". The applicant intends to
operate an upscale resale store called "Hope Chest for Breast Cancer ". The proposed business
will continue to sell fuuniture, antiques, crystal/china, jewelry, and home accessories such as
lamps, pictures, and rugs. There will be a limited amount of clothing and accessories.
The application is two -fold: 1) Findings of Similar Use to allow the furniture store to operate as
a permitted or conditional use. If the Planning Commission and City Council deem the proposed
use to be substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district, they can allow it. 2) The •
second part of the application is the commercial site plan review. The property is zoned B -5,
Limited Neighborhood Business District.
Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 to
permit use of the building as a resale retail business similar to the existing furniture store, and
approved a commercial site plan for alterations to the parking lot subject to 9 conditions
identified in the staff report.
While he had no problem with the proposed use, White stated that he had two concerns, first why
the antique shop was not an approved use originally, and second, he questioned what the City
would do if the other end of the spectrum applied for a permitted use. He wondered how the
City could designate what they do and don't want operating in this area.
Although not all similar uses might be desirable businesses, Weinberger noted that this was
unique in that it was not a drop off center and the owners indicated they expect at least 90% of
the merchandise would be delivered by truck, not a customer drop off point. . .
In order to avoid being labeled as capricious judges, White wished the City could provide him
with a recommendation that distinguished this proposal from other future similar uses.
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve use of the property for a resale retail operation
for "Hope Chest for Breast Cancer" finding the use is substantially similar to uses •
permitted in the district and to approve the commercial site plan for changes to the existing
parking lot. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PAGE 4 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
T 7:00 o'clock p.m. `
- *6. #02 -2832 RANDY ARNESON, 625 DEBORAH DRIVE - CONDITIONAL -USE
PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4881
Murphy Moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4881 , a
Resolution granting a conditional use permit to approve the holding tank for the accessory
structure. Staff has approved the holding tank and the property owner has agreed to a
plumbing agreement for the holding tank at 625 Deborah Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*7. #02 -2833 G &G HOLDING COMPANY, 1160 LOMA LINDA AVENUE -
VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO. 4882
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4882, a
Resolution granting lot area and lot width variances to permit construction of a new house
on the property located at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*8. #02 -2835 THOMAS ADAMS, 500 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - RENEWAL
VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4883
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4883, a
• Resolution granting variance renewals subject to the conditions as approved by the Orono
City Council in the resolution approving the variance in 2001, including: the accessory
building shall be completed and final inspection approved prior to issuing any permits to
permit the house to be moved and/or remodeled, and all other accessory building (except
for the approved garage) shall be removed prior to issuance of any permits for relocation
of the house located at 500 Orchard Park Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
0
*9. #02 -2836 CHARLES AND JENNIFER PHELPS, 385 TURNHAM ROAD -
VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 4884
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4884, a
Resolution granting a front yard setback variance to construct a mud room on the street
side of the residence located at 385 Turnham Road. VOTE: Ayes 5 Nays 0.
10. #02 -2837 JEFF DANBERRY, 3545 IVY PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO.
4885
Weinberger explained that the applicant had requested a front yard setback variance to permit a
14' third stall addition to the attached garage. The proposed addition would encroach 12' into
the required 30' setback to the front/street property line.
PAGE 5 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
( #02 -2837, JEFF DANBERRY, Continued) -
Weinberger noted that staff did not support a variance involving a conforming structure, on a
conforming lot, built after the standards for the zoning district were established. Staff was
concerned that approving a variance for this project might set a negative precedent for additions
and alterations to conforming structures on conforming lots.
By a vote of 5 to 2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances.
Weinberger noted that it was the majority opinion that while the lot and house were conforming
structures, there were unique factors that could be applied to this property that do constitute
hardships. Since the property is located at the end of Ivy Place, there is no outlet and the garage
addition would not negatively change the character of the neighborhood. Weinberger explained
that since the property is on the lakeshore, they would be allowed construction of a detached
garage 10' from the street property line, whereas the proposed garage would be 18' from the
property line. The Planning Commission felt that the attached garage stall functioned much
better for the property than a detached building. The Planning Commission believed that the
overall appearance of the property would be enhanced by having an attached garage stall rather
than a detached building located nearer the street. Finally, there are several utility easements on
the property that impact the building envelope making additions to the house difficult.
Weinberger pointed out that it was the minority opinion of the .Planning Commission that the .
approval of a setback variance for a conforming structure on a conforming lot would set a
negative precedent, especially since the lot was developed under current zoning standards.
Sansevere believed it odd and questioned whether it was a flaw in the building codes that the
applicants could be allowed a detached garage 10' from the street property line versus not being
allowed the proposed attached garage 18' from the street property line.
Because it is a lakeshore lot, Weinberger explained that the intent is that proposed garage
additions or detached garages would stay in the back yard versus lakeside.
Sansevere asked Weinberger if he believed there were legitimate hardships to justify the request.
With the exception of the fact that it is a conforming lot with a conforming building, Weinberger
stated that the Planning Commission makes a valid argument that it is more aesthetically
pleasing to allow the attached garage, if the property owner were to agree that he would not
come back and propose a detached building in addition to this application later.
Sansevere stated that, if this were viewed as a hardship condition, it would not be seen as
precedent setting.
Mr. Danberry had nothing to add.
Murphy indicated that, in his opinion, the attached garage addition would not be out of sorts with
the rest of the road and he favored their not losing trees to a detached garage.
PAGE 6 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
- • - 7:00 o'clock p.m.
( #02- 2837, JEFF DANBERRY, Continued)
Danberry stated that no trees would be lost due to construction.
As he lives near the site, White stated that he agreed with the attached garage proposal. Having
been present at the Planning Commission discussion he concurred with their opinion and thought
this looked good.
Sansevere moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4885, approving a front
yard setback variance to permit construction of a third garage stall addition encroaching
12' into the required 30' street yard setback for the residence at 3545 Ivy Place based on
findings noted in the Resolution. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
11. BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, 3320 WATERTOWN ROAD -
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a Preliminary Plat for a two -lot
subdivision of a 50+ acre site located on Watertown Road. The property is located in a 2 acre
zone and will be divided by creating two building sites (Lots 1 and 2) and shared driveway
( Outlot A). Weinberger noted that the general site plan meets all requirements for a frontiback lot
• subdivision, a 3 acre site for Lot 2 is met. Since back lots are also required to have driveway.
access a minimum of 30' in width, Outlot A has been designed much wider than the 30' to allow
the driveway approach to be located at the highest point to provide the best site lines for the
driveway. There is no request for the development for a third property at this time.
Weinberger pointed out that each lot has demonstrated two septic sites which meets local and
state standards. There are wetlands on Lot 1 and Lot 2, which are protected by the City and will
be subject to some minimal impact by this development, however 50% of the site is designated
wetland. Due to Fire Code requirements for a minimum 20' driveway access, including the
portion across the wetland, a variance will need to be granted to allow access to go thru the
wetlands, and WCA guidelines might require additional wetlands be created on the property.
With regard to the stormwater trunk fee, Weinberger- indicated that since the applicant has
proposed to divide the 50 acre parcel into 2 building sites, the new Storm Water and Drainage
Trunk Fee (SW &DT) requires lots in the RR -1B (2 acre) district to pay $2,700 per acre totaling
5135,000 for this lot. The applicant has requested that the fee be adjusted based on the fact the
fee assumes full development, which will not occur in this case. The trunk fee amounts to
$67,500 per lot in this case.
Weinberger pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan
and approval of a variance to permit widening of the driveway through the wetland based on four
findings on page three of the staff memo, followed by five conditions on page four of the staff
® memo dated October 11, 2002.
PAGE 7 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, Continued)
John Boyer commented that, although this was a complicated issue, he felt that essentially the 10
dry buildable acre runoff would be treated within the property itself and was asking for an
adjustment to the SW &DT.
Weinberger pointed out to Council Exhibit B, prepared by Mike Gaffron, which creates a
scenario in which the City Council could establish a per -lot maximum fee for the 2 -acre zone.
This fee would be based on the projected 2 -acre zone overall density of 1691 homes on 6811
acres or 1 home per 4.03 acres at full development. Under this scenario, the maximum SW &DT
Fee of ($2,700 X 4.03 acres = $10,880) per single family lot would come into play for a rural
subdivision that contains an extraordinary percentage of wetland.
Boyer felt that it was disproportionate that properties that produce the most runoff pay the least
amount of fees. He also questioned how the SW &DT fees would affect remodeling projects,
since he, as a builder, has bid on work 6 mos. or one year down the road which would then need
to build in these fees.
Weinberger stated that the City has not collected fees for remodeling and merely through the
planning process have they been able to begin the process.
Gappa pointed out that smaller lots have a bigger impact on stormwater, that's why the cost per
acre was higher in that zoning district. Staff had attempted to factor in the fact that smaller lots
don't have enough room to treat runoff and at 5 acre districts you can be allowed credits if
stormwater can be treated on site.
White questioned where Boyer foresaw the per acre fee, the $2,100 - $2,600 acre range.
As she viewed it, Mayor Peterson clarified that she believed that Boyer felt that in order to be
comparable to other 2 acre zoning parcels, the total fee should be in the neighborhood of $8,000
versus the proposed $10,000. She asked staff for their comments.
Gaffron stated that, in general, it costs more per unit to, serve our low density residential users
with stormwater and sanitary sewer which includes grading, ditches, and other work that needs to
be done than at higher densities. On an overall basis, that is why the higher cost per acre for
higher density areas was created for the 2 acre zones, and 5 acre zones were offered certain
reductions. If the applicant was wondering what sort of rationale the City could look at to make
this more fair and equitable, he stated that it would not be the overall density, this is an unusual
circumstance, based on dry buildable land of merely 10 acres versus the 40 acres of wetland.
Gaffron acknowledged that, certainly, the $135,000 SW &DT Fee did not make sense.
Murphy asked what the rationale was for coming up with any of the dollar amounts for the
SW &DT.
Kellogg stated that the City had a single number base that was chosen within the City to look at
SW &DT.
PAGE 8 of 20
U
10
0
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION; Continued)
Gappa explained that this number was based on the average of 10 typical properties within the
City, taking the total cost of the stormwater improvements and dividing that by the acres, thereby
using the 2 -acre district as the base, factoring up and_ down from there.
Murphy asked staff whether they felt comfortable that, when they arrived at these numbers, they
were fair and equitable and they could live with them.
Kellogg confirmed Murphy's statement.
Murphy stated that he was glad to hear that the $2,700 figure was not an arbitrary number, that
staff had used a valid equation to determine the fee, and Gaffron was able to reach a reasonable
conclusion that supports the $10,000 fee.
White asked the applicant if this scenario was similar in other communities.
Boyer indicated that he had not been faced with this issue before and was not clear whether other
communities assessed this fee or not. He felt it was examined on a per site basis and in most
instances, the developer creates their own retention or stormwater pond whereby the concern is
moot.
Mayor Peterson asked staff if they could foresee other developments this could affect.
Gaffron stated that the Dahlstrom parcel could be affected, as would other sites in the future.
Dave Tuax, resident, stated that, in other municipalities, if you are trying to relate this to the
installation costs of sanitary sewer, they often use a linear foot of roadside as a.yardstick.
Kellogg commented that, in his opinion, the earlier statement that compares the park dedication
fees to stormwater trunk fees, was like comparing apples to oranges. Park Dedication fees are
based on the number of users that are going to impact the park, whereas, the stormwater trunk
fee cannot be based on the per unit fee because there are many issues that are not being
addressed when you develop a natural area. Since there will be runoff into -the natural wetland
area, what is going to happen downstream from this development, the natural wetland is going to
change once this site develops, and Kellogg didn't believe it fair to base the fee on a per unit
basis, and instead he suggested it continue to be reviewed on an area basis.
Based on the table supplied by Gaffron, Mayor Peterson pointed out that the SW &DT fees would
be paid for by new development.
Murphy clarified that, it seemed to him, the formula revolves around the City being able to
reasonably account for all the costs of moving stormwater and drainage from all of Orono,
40 through the City, and to the lake. He pointed out that this formula is based merely on a
proportionate share of that total cost, it has
PAGE 9 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, Continued) -
nothing to do with the specific need to drain or move stormwater off a specific parcel.
Gaffron felt this to be a fair statement. He added that it was also fair to say that somewhere
down the stream there would be a stormwater pond built that serves as a regional pond to serve
this property and other properties, and since the density is smaller, the cost to them is higher per
unit.
Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment to
Municipal Code Section 3.22 - "Rules and Regulations Establishing a Storm Water and
Drainage Trunk Fee" for consideration and adoption which incorporates a maximum per -
lot fee for the 2 -acre zones of $10,880. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
4. Administrator Sally Koenecke and Chair Bruce Williamson, Lake Minnetonka
Communications Commission (LMCC) 2003 Proposed Budget
Ms. Koenecke reported that the LMCC is comprised of 16 Cities around the Lake and every year
the LMCC visits member cities presenting their budget and answering any questions they might
have. She explained that the budget is itemized in terms of revenues and expenditures. The
usage fees support the organizations. Expenditures include the franchise administration budget
and studio production fees. This year the LMCC reviewed the franchise agreements with the
cable companies to make sure they understood what their obligations were under the franchise
agreement and found some non - compliance areas. Since that time, most have come into
compliance and issues resolved. The other thing the LMCC has accomplished this year is to
perform two audits, first, of the cable company's franchise revenues and the other having to do
with their rate structure for basic cable. Koenecke noted that the last page reflects equipment
needs for the LMCC. She pointed out that this year the LMCC purchased a used studio van
available for broadcasting community events.
Mr. Williamson pointed out that while each member City has ownership of the LMCC as it is
structured under the FCC, it is not supported by general tax money.
Sansevere questioned who would use the new studio van.
Williamson stated that, while the van is available to all member cities, it has mostly been used by
volunteers to cover community sporting events.
Williamson explained that, under the joint power agreement, the LMCC is required to present its
budget annually for approval by its member cities. He pointed out that only over the past several
years has the budget evolved into covering the line items, as any City budget would be required
to do. '
Sansevere asked if they were aware if the number of homes in Orono had increased from last
year.
PAGE 10 of 20
0
Cl
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
• 7:00 o'clock p.m.
- (LMCC BUDGET, Continued) - -
Koenecke stated that she did know the percents, however, she would provide him with the
figures from Mediacom.
Williamson stated that growth seems flat, however, it.is yet to be seen how the introduction of
high speed internet services and satellite will effect cable.
Murphy asked if all 16 communities were represented on the LMCC.
Williamson stated that Orono has been most recently represented by Mr. Albertson, who has
been highly supportive of the audit process.
Murphy asked how long the franchise agreements lasted.
Williamson indicated that Orono is in year 3 of a 15 year franchise agreement, an agreement that
is not an exclusive contract.
Murphy moved, White seconded, to approve the LMCC, Lake Minnetonka
Communications Commission, proposed 2003 budget. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
• *12. #02 -2841 DAVID DICKEY, 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO. 4886
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4886, granting a
hardcover in 75 -250' setback zone variance to permit construction of an attached garage
and foyer to the existing residence at 4425 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*13. #02 -2844 BRUCE AND CAROL CLINE- HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD
- VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4887
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4887, approving a
hardcover variance to permit 5,555 s.f. of hardcover for a 19' X 28' residential addition to
the residence at 2601 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
14. FLEMING ADDITION TRAIL FINAL PLAT - RESOLUTION NO. 4888
Murphy asked that item #3, line 2, of the Resolution be revised to reflect that the earth berm
would be at an approximate height to be determined in conjunction with the homeowners
association and not less than 5 feet high. He indicated that Lundgren Brothers had agreed to
work with Clark Jenney and the homeowners association to construct this berm.
• White moved, Nygard seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4888, amending the Fleming
Trail Addition final plat and final development plan with the condition that the berm be
not less than 5 feet and the height determined in concurrence with the Orono Oaks
homeowners association. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PAGE 11 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m. •
�- 15. #02 -2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY -
DISCUSSION OF WETLAND AND OTHER ISSUES
Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission on October 21 recommended approval of the
General Development Plan for the proposed medical/dental office after reviewing the most
recent plan sheets. This item is scheduled for Council action on November 12 assuming a
number of remaining issues can be suitably resolved. Some of the remaining issues that require
Council discussion and policy decisions include:
1. There is still no purchase agreement for sale of the City property to the applicants. Gaffron
explained that issues, which appear to be holding up completion of the purchase agreement,
include the following.
a) Potential need for wetland mitigation: Gaffron indicated that the questions that need to be
answered include, if the wetland requires mitigation, who will be responsible, the seller (City) or
buyer; if the buyers are responsible, how will that affect the purchase price; while on site
mitigation is preferable, it is not known if that will be possible.
Gaffron laid out staff recommendations to this first issue, as follows: The buyer should be
responsible for the mitigation; if the buyer can mitigate on site, the usability of the site is not
diminished, therefore the price of the land should not be affected; if mitigation occurs off site, •
this becomes an issue of negotiation of if or how the costs are shared among the parties.
With regard to the wetland issue, although John Smyth of Bonestroo, on the City's behalf, filed
an application for exemption with the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) on or
about September 1st, the MCWD has made slow progress at reaching any conclusion on our
request. In their view, Smyth and Ben Meyers of Bonestroo, believed that the wetland on this
parcel should be considered as incidental, since it was something that was created based on the
City's activities on that site over the past 8 -9 years. Therefore, they still believe the wetland that
is out there should not be something that is subject to the WCA, wetland conservation act
regulations.
Gaffron stated that the MCWD convened a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on Monday
October 7 to view the site and attempt to conclude whether the wetland is subject to mitigation
requirements as filed, however, neither staff nor Smyth were notified by MCWD of that meeting
and therefore were not given the opportunity to discuss the merits of our request. Gaffron
pointed out that as of October 25, 2002, Mike Wyatt of MCWD staff had indicated that he was
inclined to recommend denial of the exemption. Smyth still feels there is sufficient supportive
information to change Wyatt's mind.
PAGE 12 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
�• - 7:00 o'clock p.m.
( #02 -2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) -
Currently, Gaffron indicated that the City has extended the MCWD's 60 -day review period so
that the City can present its case to the complete TEP panel before the MCWD board makes its
final decision. The TEP panel is tentatively scheduled for November 7, the same day as the next
MCWD Board meeting, therefore, final board action might be delayed until November 21, 2002.
While the purchasers are willing to revise their site plan to mitigate by creating wetland in the
proposed lawn area southwest of their building, Gaffron maintained that, at this point, the
wetland has not been officially delineated and it is unknown how large it is and/or how big an
area will needed for wetland mitigation.
Sansevere questioned how common it was for our consultants to say the wetland was incidental
and the MCWD to disagree, and say that it is a wetland in need of mitigation.
Moorse indicated that this was the first time he was aware of this ever occurring. In fact, Moorse
pointed out that the wetland delineator who first viewed the site wasn't convinced the site was
worth delineating at all.
Sansevere asked how then the MCWD was convinced otherwise, and concluded that others in
• the TEP panel needed to look at it.
Gaffron stated that MCWD's staff has come to a different conclusion than John Smyth, who felt
the wetland should be exempt. The City, as well as John Smyth, have now been trying to
pinpoint the delineation report in order to allow the buyers to proceed with their planning.
Acknowledging that the applicants need to get something in the ground soon or wait until spring,
White stated that the City needs to move this forward. He was frustrated by MCWD's lack of
flexibility on this matter, and how their inability to make a decision would cost the applicant
greatly. He questioned whether a political contact by the Council or Mayor could relay to the
MCWD that this is an item of great concern, and cost, to the City of Orono. White urged the
Council and staff to relay to MCWD that we like this development and don't want to lose it. He
felt this intersection would be held up as the lynch pin piece for Orono and it was being hung up
by whether someone was sure or not there was a wetland to be mitigated for. White reiterated
that it struck him as being inflexible that the MCWD was unable to allow the applicant to go
forward with any kind of solution.
Attorney Barrett arrived at 8:36 P.M.
Murphy pointed out that the City has not done well negotiating with the watershed district and he
was unsure where the problem lies, especially since some of the same issues arose with regard to
the fire station initially.
10 White questioned at what point the City stands up, gets involved, and goes to bat for a
development that they would really like to see move forward, in an area surrounded by wetlands,
we are arguing over one incidental wetland.
PAGE 13 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m. •
( #02 -2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued)
Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron who the Council needed to speak with, or push, and how should
they do so.
Gaffron indicated that the 60 day window would expire at the end of the month, however, if the
MCWD denies the application of exemption on the 59th day based merely on their staff person's
recommendation, that would not give the City an opportunity to make their case to make the
wetland exempt. Therefore, the City Consultant suggested the City file for an extension in order
to meet with the MCWD TEP panel on November 7 to make our case prior to the monthly
meeting that evening. Gaffron felt it was doubtful they would go from the TEP panel that day to
the district meeting that night with a recommendation to call it exempt, and it would probably be
continued until November 21, 2002.
Mutphy inquired whether the TEP meeting could be set for the 7th and whether the City could be
put on the watershed district's agenda, so that a final decision could be made November 7, 2002.
Gaffron stated that they could attempt to be put on the agenda.
Sansevere suggested they make their case at the district meeting on the 7th, similar to how
applicants oftentimes skip a step, or recommendations by the Planning Commission, in order to
be heard by the City Council here. •
White stated that the MCWD could either accept the offer by the City to make the wetland
exempt or they could accept the City's offer for some kind of solution, like the developers are
proposing.
Gaffron indicated that if the developers are required to do some sort of mitigation, they would
likely be required by the watershed to file a plan that the watershed would then have to approve
for mitigation. While he was unsure how long that process would take, it could potentially take
an additional 60 days.
Mayor Peterson asked if staff believed the City's hands were tied.
Gaffron stated that from a staff perspective, working within the MCWD's system, the City's
hands were tied, and it could take some political effort to make things happen.
White suggested that staff contact the director of the MCWD and share with them that the Mayor
and City Administrator would like to talk with him about a project we have here, could you tell
us how the City could work within their system to make their system work for us. White
indicated that the City doesn't know their rules, and he believed there were only so many
projects that could have as huge an impact for a City as this development. He wanted to explain
to the MCWD that the City could not let this multi - million dollar project escape because it was
not deemed a priority to the watershed district. •
PAGE 14 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
'• _ 7:00 o'clock p.m. `
( #02 -2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) —
Gaffron indicated that the call would need to come from the City Administrator or Mayor.
White agreed, stating that the call should come from our Mayor or City Administrator to their
Director.
Mayor Peterson asked for further comments on potential solutions.
Murphy indicated that he was hesitant to deal with staff's wetland mitigation issue questions
until more answers were obtained from the MCWD.
Gaffron stated that it could potentially help the developer if the City could define its position
more clearly.
Sansevere asked what sort of dollar amount they were referring to for the costs.
Gaffron noted that it would be approximately $5,000- $10,000.
White indicated that he was not prepared to hold up a $3.5 million project for a mere $10,000.
Murphy asked if there was a standard as to whom pays for mitigation typically.
Gaffron stated that, for example, Dahlstrom is purchasing their property as is and performing the
required mitigation.
Dr. Berg pointed out that they have bent over backward to accommodate the City with regard to
Kelley Parkway, trails, and sidewalks. He stated that the difference between them and
Dahlstrom was that Dahlstrom knew going into their development that mitigation was going to
be a factor, whereas, Professional Properties of Orono did not. He stated that they do not have
access to areas for mitigation in a timely fashion. Dr. Berg continued that they have been asked
to give an easement and are surrounded on three sides by trails and sidewalks, he noted that all
they want is to be given a clear picture of what they will be required to do before they purchase
the property.
Murphy asked what was more of a deal breaker to the applicant at this point.
Moorse indicated that, in his opinion, there were more important issues than who will pay for
what. It is the timing, a wetland mitigation plan, and erosion control permit from the watershed
that take precedence.
Gaffron stated that there are permits that the developers need to get from the watershed, which
. include, the mitigation plan approval and erosion control permit, which would unlikely be
granted until they are comfortable with the project and understand that it will not affect certain
things. Gaffron added that this is a new commercial site and would likely require a stormwater
plan, which has been supplied to the City that shows a pipe that goes to the Dahlstrom pond.
PAGE 15 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m. •
( #02 -2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) -
The watershed district has said that, conceptually, they agree with that plan but they have not yet
approved the Dahlstrom plan either. In fact, that pond has not
been approved and may not be there when this property is ready to give stormwater off from it,
and given the way the wetlands were looked at recently, Gaffron was given the impression that
the watershed may not accept the Dahlstrom development wetland delineation and stormwater
plan either. There are many unknowns and Gaffron felt there should be a contingency plan
available for the MCWD so that they are comfortable with where the water will go if the big
pond does not get built.
Dr. Berg stated that they have been working with Vickie Lindahl, of Landforms,. to develop a
stormwater backup plan, with two options, first to use the property next door and dig a hole in it
for collection, the other would be to drain the water over to the MnDOT pond. In any scenario,
Dr. Berg noted that no paving would be done until next spring, and the wetland would not be
affected until then.
Gaffron reiterated that mitigation is MCWD's issue, although the City could work on behalf of
the developer with the MCWD to some up with viable solutions.
Since the City has been offered a development that it likes and one that fits all of our needs,
White maintained that the City should make an effort to let MCWD know this is important to us.
Mayor Peterson asked why the MCWD did not like this proposal.
Moorse indicated that it wasn't a matter of them liking the proposal, there is a certain process to
the way they look at their issues.
Murphy asked whether the City should go to worst case scenario and back a plan that finds a
mitigable plan to move this forward.
While not unwise to prepare a back up plan, Gaffron felt the consultant still had a case for the
incidental wetland.
Sansevere asked who, besides the staff person Wyatt, was saying no to the application.
Gaffron noted that Wyatt put together a TEP panel to look at this application, in doing so due to
lack of representation for our side,, which is a point of contention for the City, they only heard
Wyatt's perspective.
Murphy suggested, once again, that the City make an official attempt to get on the MCWD
agenda for November 7, 2002.
PAGE 16 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
^ _ 7:00 o'clock p.m.
( #02 -2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued)
Moorse argued that our engineer or consultant should have been given the opportunity to attend
the initial TEP panel to represent our interests, and believed a second panel should be scheduled
with our people present.
Murphy added that arrangements should be made to meet with their TEP panel on the 7th, the
same day we are scheduled on their district agenda, to get a decision made.
Dr. Kotteman stated that the only way they would be able to begin building this year would be if
the wetland was found exempt, otherwise everything may have to wait.
Gappa indicated that, for example, with regard to the fire station, the District could not make its
final decision the same evening and it had to be put off for two weeks, which in this case would
be November 21, 2002.
As the end of the growing season is typically October 15, Gaffron maintained that had the
MCWD made a timely decision after the application was filed September 1st, we would not be in
this quandary.
0 Issue b) Potential need to construct Highway 12 trail within the property.
Gaffron indicated that based on discussions with MnDOT, it is unlikely they will approve
construction of a trail in their right-of-way. Staff suggests the City obtain an easement along the
south 10' of the property for the trail, 'just in case'.
Murphy inquired where the County stood on this issue.
While Gaffron could not say, ultimately, he believed that the City would have to include it as
part of its conditions.
Dr. Berg pointed out that the 10' they refer to is where the sign and proposed landscaping would
be placed.
Item c) Public sidewalks and trails constructed within the property
Dr. Kotteman explained that, originally, they entered into negotiations to purchase a two acre
parcel, which has now been diminished greatly by all of these conditions. Conditions, which will
impact and not be considered for inclusion in the final purchase price of the site.
Sansevere questioned whether it would be done this -way even if the City were not the seller.
Is Gaffron stated that it could be precedent setting to some extent, however, the bigger issue is that
the applicants are purchasing the entire parcel and granting easements back to the City, if they
don't want to purchase the entire parcel then the City will have to do a subdivision to either
dedicate more right -of -way or do something that changes the property boundaries.
PAGE 17 of 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m. S
( #02 -2843, PROPESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) -
Dr. Berg indicated that they do plan to purchase the entire parcel and believed that they will get
the job done after much common sense negotiating.
Mayor Peterson asked the Attorney if this was problematic.
Barrett noted that the City was well within its rights to wear two hats, as seller and regulator.
Dr. Kotteman stated that they sincerely appreciated the City Council's interest in their project
and willingness to approach MCWD on their behalf.
Mayor Peterson urged staff to set the meeting with the MCWD TEP Panel for November 7, 2002
and keep her abreast of developments.
Sansevere stated that he would suggest a name to them in order to set up a meeting with an
advocate or representative of Orono who might be on their side and assist in making inroads with
MCWD.
Dr. Eberts reiterated their appreciation to the City Council for their going `to bat' for the
development. He stated that, ultimately, this would be a great thing for Orono. •
Sansevere concurred, stating that this is an important project for the community, and one the
Council wants to see happen.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - to be continued
Mayor Peterson suggested that the City send out letters of condolence to the Wellstone camp and
to those who lost loved ones in the Wellstone plane crash.
Mayor Peterson inquired if the upcoming work sessions were still scheduled for November 14
and 21, and December 5, 2002 at 5:30 P.M.
Moorse indicated that those were the dates they had discussed.
*16. HOUSING WEEK NOVEMBER 16-23,2002 -PROCLAMATION
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt the proclamation setting the week of
November 16 -23, 2002 as Housing Week in Orono. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Gappa had nothing to report.
PAGE 18 of 20
0
•
n
U
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT =
*17. PROMOTION OF KURT ERICKSON TO POLICE SERGEANT POSITION
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to promote Kurt Erickson to the Police Sergeant
Position. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*18. POLICE DEPARTMENT - TACTICAL RIFLE PURCHASE
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Police Departments tactical rifles
purchase.
19. VEHICLE FORFEITURE UPDATE
Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to reject the vehicle forfeiture. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays
0.
*20. POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FOR UNDERAGE
ACCESS TO ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE CHECKS
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the grant for underage access to alcohol
compliance checks. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*21. POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OYNCMEC COMPUTER DONATION
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept a donation from the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
22. RESIGNATION OF PAUL WEINBERGER FROM CITY PLANNER/ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR POSITION - RESOLUTION 4879
White moved, Murphy seconded, to accept Paul Weinberger's resignation effective
November 5, 2002, and to adopt appreciation RESOLUTION NO.. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2,
Mayor Peterson and Sansevere dissenting.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Attorney Barrett had nothing new to report.
*23. LICENSES
There were no licenses.
PAGE 19 of 20
.. _
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 28, 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
*24. BILLS
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - continued
Mayor Peterson reported that the North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition has initiated an
officer of the year program and hope to choose a candidate to award this to by December.
After reading a letter submitted by one of the candidates for Mayor that felt the City should
endorse the school referendum issue, Murphy questioned the City Attorney whether the City
could or should officially take a position regarding school referendum.
Sansevere asked how a governing body, like the City Council, could endorse that.
Attorney Barrett indicated that his first reaction would be that it was not something the City
should take a position on, however, he would investigate the legality of the question.
ADJOURNMENT
Sansevere moved, Nygard seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of •
October 28, 2002 at 9:27 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATT ST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
n
�.J
PAGE 20 of 20