Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2013 Council Minutes o�� � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Cynthia Bremer,Aaron Printup,Lizz Levang, and Kristi Anderson. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Attorney Soren Mattick,Public Works Director/City Engineer Jesse Struve,Consulting City Engineer David Martini, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 o'clock p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 10, 11, 13, and 15 through 21 were added to the Consent Agenda. Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. COITNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING OF APRIL 22,2013 Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve t6e minutes of the Orono City Council work session of Apri122,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *3. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22,2013 Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of April 22,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. RECOGNITION 4. POLICE OFFICER DAVE McNICHOLS—RESOLUTION NO. 6225 Mayor McMillan presented a plaque to Dave McNichols in recognition of his service to the City of Orono. Police Chief Correy Farniok commended Dave McNichols for his work in Spring Park and Orono and presented him with his badge. Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to accept Dave McNichols resignation and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6225,a Resolution Recognizing Officer David McNichols for his Twenty Years of Dedicated Service to the City as a Police Officer. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—JON SCHWINGLER,REPRESENTATIVE None Page 1 of 26 __ MINUTES OF THE - ORONO CITY COUNCII.MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. ` PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT *5. #13-3598 WILLIAM AND CYNTHIA BOWMAN AND MICHAEL SOWADA,OUTLOT A,WILLOW HILL(2300 WILLOW HILL DRIVE AND 450 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTI�—LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT—RESOLUTION NO.6226 Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6226,a Resolution Approving a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement for the properties located at 2300 Willow Hill Drive and 450 Willow Drive South. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOI�,80 CREEK RIDGE PASS—ATF VARIANCE—RESOLUTION NO. 6227 Dean Johnson was present. Curtis stated in November of 2012,a building permit was issued for the new home at 80 Creek Ridge Pass. While the builder's excavator was digging the area for the home's foundation,they encountered what appeared to be slowly running/leaking city sanitary sewer line underground that had been previously been worked on by a different contractor. Upon further investigation, it was determined to be a city sanitary sewer line that had been crushed prior to the recent construction activity. The builder then contacted the City on November 29`"and Public Works staff visited the site. Upon inspection, it appeared the sewer line was not centered within the utility easement as had been expected but appeared to angle off to the south toward the proposed home's foundation. The apparent location of the existing sanitary sewer line and the proposed home location would not allow for the required 10-foot separation between the foundation and the sewer line. The builder contacted Planning Staff after having a meeting on site and discussions with Public Works Staff. It was concluded in the field that the pipe was not where it was expected or supposed to be. The solution posed by the builder was to pivot the home 7.8 feet in the rear to move it ten feet away from the sewer line rather than revise the house plans or move the sewer line. This pivot would result in a 37.8 foot setback on the northwest side and a 24-foot setback on the southeast side where 30-foot setbacks are required. The builder is the owner of the subject property and the adjacent property at 90 Creek Ridge Pass,which is the property affected by the reduced setback. Planning Staff met to discuss the builder's options and the next steps that should be taken in order to provide direction to the builder. The sewer line discovery posed a timing problem for the builder as it was discovered at the end of November after the building permit had already been issued and excavation begun. Since there was no Planning Commission meeting in December and insufficient time to publish for a City Council meeting in December,no formal action was likely to occur until mid-January at the earliest. The likely six to eight week delay would make excavation and foundation construction more difficult due to the weather,as well as greatly affect Hometime Video's production schedule. Page 2 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 � 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOl�, 80 CREEK RIDGE PASS—ATF VARIANCE—RESOL UTION NO. 6227, Continued) Due to these constraints and the extraordinary circumstances presented by the sewer line location, Staff concluded it would be unreasonable to hold up this project. Based upon the reasons cited in Staffls memorandum,the builder was advised that he could proceed with the project by pivoting the home away from the sewer line to maintain the necessary 10-foot separation from it but would have to make an after- the-fact variance application. The variance would be for a minor encroachment of the required 30-foot setback on the opposite side of the house. Staff's conclusion was that this was a proper course of action. The after-the-fact variance application and survey were submitted on May 19`h. This after-the-fact variance is not considered to be a violation unlike other after-the-fact variances, which are considered to be code violations. Staff did not provide a strict submittal timeline for the builder.This explains why the variance hearing was not held until the April Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the setback variance. Following the Planning Commission's review, Staff required the builder to submit a survey showing the actual location of the sewer line prior to moving the variance forward to the City Council. When the survey arrived, Staff was surprised that it did not show the expected bend or offset in the sewer line. It turned out the surveyor merely sighted between manholes and did not re-dig the sewer line to survey it directly. As a result, Staff does not know the exact as-built location of the sewer line. At this point Staff has to rely on the verbal/visual reports from Public Works Staff and the builder that the pipe was located too close to the house. This situation has brought to Staffls attention the need to define a more effective process when such unforeseen predicaments present themselves. Ideally, and in the future, Staff will bring the situation to Council's attention immediately and advise them of the decisions being made at a Staff level. When lines are exposed in the future for repairs, etc., public works plans to utilize our City GPS unit to get an accurate in the field locate for our utility. In this particular case, it would have been of value to have the exact location of the pipe verified by the surveyor while the pipe was exposed before the owner is given a go-ahead in order to confirm the basis for the decision. Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact side setback variance allowing the 6-foot encroachment into the 30-foot side yard. Levang asked why this did not appear before the Planning Commission sooner since this happened in November. Curtis indicated the application was not looked at as a violation and Staff did not put the additional pressure on the builder as they typically would under different after-the-fact situations. Staff worked with the builder to make sure they submitted an application for an after-the-fact application and things were delayed slightly because the builder was out of the country. Once Staff received the as-built survey,the builder made the application for the after-the-fact permit. McMillan asked when construction the house started. Page 3 of 26 MINUTES OF THE � ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. � (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOI�, 80 CREEK RIDGE PASS—ATF VARIANCE—RESOL UTION NO. 6227, Continued) Curtis indicated November was when the excavation started and the problem with the sewer line was discovered. Dean Johnson,Applicant, indicated it was somewhere around the end of November, and that due to the weather,they were under the gun to complete the foundation. The excavator began digging the hole and discovered some water. It appeared to be a line of gravel that filled up with water. The next day it was running again and gurgling. The excavator lightly dug the top of the soil away and that is when the broken line was discovered. Scott Oberainger from Public Works then visited the site and they found that the sewer line was approximately seven feet from the house and veering toward the back corner of the house. By pivoting the house, it would be out of the way. Johnson indicated he also owns the adjacent property and that he does not have a problem with the house being within the setback. They plan on planting a number of trees between the two lots to help screen the house. Johnson commented in his view the solution arrived at was a win/win solution for everybody. Printup asked if there has been another occasion where Staff has allowed building to proceed before bringing an after-the-fact variance to the City Council. Curtis indicated not to her knowledge. McMillan asked who installed the sewer line. Curtis indicated it was the contractor for the developer. Gaffton stated back in 2005,the sewer and road construction began for this development. Gaffron indicated he has looked through the City's archives but has not been able to find the inspection sheets. At this time it is Staff s assumption that it was inspected by either the Public Works Director or Bonestroo. McMillan asked if the City had GPS at that time. Gaffron indicated they did not. Gaffron stated that this is one of those situations where Staff felt they needed to address the problem immediately and arrive at a solution. In hindsight Staff would have let the Council know about the situation. Gaffron noted the City did not have a Planning Commission meeting in December and only one City Council meeting in December, which would not have allowed the appropriate notice to be given. The developer knew from the start that he would need to apply for an after-the-fact permit. Gaffron acknowledged that notice to the Council was lacking in this case but that in his view Staff made the right decision at the time. McMillan commented this is an unusual situation. Gaf&on concurred that this was an unusual situation and not something that Staff had come across before. Levang stated she has a concern for the adjacent properly since the Planning Commission minutes reflect that Mr. Johnson will probably need a variance on the adjacent property since it is practically unbuildable. Page 4 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOI�, 80 CREEK RIDGE PASS—ATF i�ARlANCE—RESOL UTION NO. 6227, Continued) Curtis displayed the plat map for the two properties. Curtis stated initially the builder presented these plans for that property, but due to the wetland setbacks and other constraints of the lot, it was difficult to construct on that lot with those proposed plans. Johnson noted there is also a creek that runs through the lot and a 45-foot leeway from the creek and a 20- foot setback from the creek. After 2005,the City passed an additiona120-foot buffer,which has diminished the ability to construct on the lot. Johnson indicated they then decided to construct on this lot but that they will likely need a variance to construct on the adjacent lot. Gaffron pointed out the variance that would be needed for the adjacent lot would not relate to the application before it tonight. The Planned Residential Development for this site was approved in 2005. The original property consisted of 20 acres, with 14 acres being dry buildable. The previous developers were allowed to create a subdivision that has lots with buildable lots of approximately one acre for a total of seven lots. The homes were clustered together to preserve the wetland and some of the dry buildable land. Gaffron indicated there were a number of reasons why these lots were created relatively small for the two-acre zone but noted the Council still required a 60-foot setback between the houses to maintain the rural character of the neighborhood. Gaffron stated this anomaly may affect it slightly but the impact should not be significant. Johnson concurred that the impact will be minimal since the massing of the house will be on the other side. Levang asked how many feet will be between the two houses. Curtis stated the variance would allow a 24-foot setback on this lot. Levang noted there would be an impact by pivoting the house. Gaffron stated if the Council wanted to retain the 60-foot setback between the buildings,there would have to be some modifications made to the adjacent lot. Gaffron noted they do not have a design yet for the adjacent property but that there are a number of designs that could be constructed within the building envelop but the house may not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Johnson stated due to the price range of the homes, it would be difficult to sell if the size of the home is reduced. McMillan asked how big this house is. Johnson indicated it is 3,400 square feet for the top two floors. McMillan asked what the footprint is. Page 5 of 26 _ �_ _ MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOI�, 80 CREEK RIDGE PASS—ATF VARIANCE—RESOL UTION NO. 622 7, Contin ued) Bremer indicated it is 1,700 square feet. McMillan noted there appears to be quite a bit of bend in this line, and asked if the sewer line has been televised. Struve indicated Scott Oberainger was on site and the line was repaired to the City's satisfaction but the line was not televised. The line was cleaned and repaired at that time. McMillan asked what the possible deviation in the line is. Struve stated any pipe material will allow for some deflection at each joint which can range up to about three degrees. Over a long period of time, it is not uncommon for there to be swoops in the pipe. Struve stated it is fairly common to see pipes that wander slightly. When Scott was on site,the pipe was found to be within ten feet, and normally the City would want a 10-foot separation in the event the pipe would ever have to be dug up. McMillan asked if Staff could have brought this before the Council in January. Gaffron indicated they could have. Gaffron stated in the future Staff will bring similar situations to the Council's attention immediately. Mattick stated the City's process for a variance is clear and that there is no way to circumvent that. In some minor situations, Staff can handle some situations administratively, and that in his opinion Staff was following the correct procedure by requiring the applicant to apply for an after-the-fact variance. Printup asked what would happen if they denied the after-the-fact variance. Mattick stated if it is denied, it is denied,but pointed out that this was not an ideal situation and some decisions had to be made in the field. It was Staff's opinion that they would support the after-the-fact variance once it came before the City Council. Gaffron stated another option could be a lot line rearrangement but that would have an impact on the adjoining property. Gaffron stated if the intent is to keep the 60-foot separation, if a variance is requested for the adjacent lot that could be an opportunity for the Council to consider what options they have for maintaining the 60-foot setback. Bremer noted this lot is a lot of record and that they have a legal right to construct on the lot. Anderson indicated she is not comfortable with making the adjacent property make up for the shortfall on this lot. Mattick indicated the reason for relocating the house was because it was too close to a utility line and that the question comes down to whether the house should be further away from the utility line. Page 6 of 26 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOl�, 80 CREEK RIDGE PASS—ATF i�ARIANCE—RESOL UTIONNO. 6227, Continued) McMillan asked if there has been any discussion about redesigning the house. Gaffron indicated the reason they switched to constructing on this lot was because the house plans fit this lot better. Gaffron noted it was a City sewer line that was incorrectly located and that it is unlikely the City is going to reinstall the sewer line. Redesigning the house would also require additional costs on the part of the contractor. Johnson stated six feet may not sound like a lot to take out of a house, but given the number of different rooms that would be impacted, it would be difficult to do that and it would basically result in redesigning the entire house. Johnson commented it seemed like this was a win/win solution for everybody at the time. McMillan noted this was not the applicant's fault. Johnson noted they were not the developer and did not install the sewer line. Bremer moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6227,a Resolution Granting a Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420,for the property located at 80 Creek Ridge Pass. McMillan requested the word minor be removed on Page 2 under Item G and Item H. McMillan indicated she would also like to remove Item K on Page 2. Curtis stated she would make those changes. Bremer amended her motion,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6227,a Resolution Granting a Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420,for the property located at 80 Creek Ridge Pass,subject to the word minor being removed from Items G and H and Item K being deleted. VOTE: ayes 5,Nays 0. 6b. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOI�,80 CREEK RIGE PASS—REFUND REQUEST Bremer stated since the applicant was not at fault in this situation, she would be fine with waiving the fee. Levang moved,Printup seconded,Application No. 13-3599,Hometime Video Publishing,80 Creek Ridge Pass,approval of the waiver of the$700 after-the-fact variance application fee. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 7 of 26 _ MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. *'7. 13-3600 ESKUCHE ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF KATHRYN KALLAS,3048 NORTH SHORE DRIVE—VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—RESOLUTION NO. 6228 Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6228,a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-78-1279(6)and 78-330,a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-966,for the property located at 3048 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES Gaffron stated Staff and the Planning Commission have been working on this study for the past four months. Council has had the past week to review the amendments. One of the key elements of the zoning study is the addition of a preamble to the permitted conditional and accessory uses. It is currently proposed as follows: "Within any district,no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following permitted accessory uses. The intent of this language is to make the list of allowed accessory uses finite and it makes it clear that only the listed uses are allowed. Because no listing of uses that are"customarily incidental"to a primary use can be e�chaustive, an additional"catchall use"appears at the end of the list for each zoning district. It reads as follows: "Other uses that are customarily incidental to, and subordinate to,the allowed permitted and conditional uses in this District." As it relates to Section 20 and the height of structures, a fifth option has been added as recommended by the Planning Commission. The options provide for various levels of regulation for increases in accessory structure height above the standard limit. In addition,three new definitions have been added: No. 1: Structure, accessory,means a building or other structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and exclusively used for purposes customarily incidental to the principal use or structure. No. 2: Use,Accessory, means a use subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and exclusively used for purposes customarily incidental to the principal use or structure. No. 3: Use, Secondary,means a use of land or a building or a portion which is subordinate to and does not constitute the primary use of the land or building. Gaffron noted the definition of Use, Principal,means the main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. A principal use may be either permitted or conditional. If Council chooses any of the options in which the initial extra 50 percent would be allowed without the need for a conditional use permit or variance, Staff would recommend that Council review the individual structures in the list and confirm that they would generally be acceptable at a height of 45 feet in a residential zone. Page 8 of 26 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY i1SES AND STR UCTURES, Continued) The Planning Commission suggested that the accessory use entries for Recreational Facilities should be split into two categories: those recreational uses that are sporting in nature; i.e.,relatively active in nature and may have relatively greater neighborhood impacts, as opposed to those that tend to be more passive in nature and may have lesser neighborhood impacts. The two categories are listed in the draft as follows: 1. Private recreational sporting facilities such as swimming pools, basketball hoops,hockey rinks, tennis courts and sport courts,trampolines, skateboard ramps, batting cages, etc., and other recreational sporting facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents of the property and their guests. 2. Private recreational and play facilities such as hot tubs and spas, recreational fire rings,patios, barbecue pits and outdoor kitchens,playhouses and play structures, swing sets, etc., and other recreational play facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents of the property and their guests. Gaffron noted the City Attorney has suggested that it may be questionable whether there is a significant difference between the two categories in the context of a general recreational use,but that if the City wishes to have two categories,the examples of each use should be placed within a definition of the use and have been revised as follows: 1. Private recreational sporting facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents of the property and their guests. 2. Private recreational and play facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents of the property and their guests. New Proposed Definitions: 1. Private recreational sporting facilities means structures and equipment such as swimming pools, basketball hoops,hockey rinks,tennis courts and sport courts,trampolines, skateboard ramps, batting cages, etc.,which are used generally for active recreation purposes. 2. Private recreational and play facilities means structures and equipment such as hot tubs and spas,recreational fire rings, patios, barbecue pits and outdoor kitchens,playhouses and play structures, swing sets,etc.,which are used generally for passive recreation purposes. Staff would note that a potential difference between the two categories would be to establish different setback requirements. Large pools,tennis courts and sport courts already have a greater setback requirement than most other recreational facilities. Other sporting facilities that are semi-permanent or mobile(such as trampolines or skateboard ramps)would potentially not qualify as structures and may need to be addressed separately if a setback is desired. Page 9 of 26 __ _ MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITYOFORONO,ZONINGSTUDY—ACCESSORYUSESANDSTRUCTURES, Continued) Gaffron indicated those are the key elements to the zoning code text amendment and that he would be happy to answer any questions the Council may have. Gaffron indicated he does not expect the Council to take action on this tonight but that he hopes to have it finalized and back before the City Council by the end of May or early June. Printup asked if any residents have been hindered by the moratorium. Curtis indicated there have been several applications that have been impacted. McMillan suggested the City Council first discuss the customary and incidental language. Mattick stated it is easy to be definitive with your more intense uses, such as a conditional use permit, but when you get to accessory structures,there are a large number of things that would qualify as an accessory structure. It then becomes haxd to say to a resident that if it is not on this list, it will not be allowed. One solution to that is that a resident can come in and apply for a zoning ordinance amendment, but that would require even the smallest or most insignificant components to require a zoning ordinance amendment. Staff has attempted to list as many things as possible,but the fact still remains that you will not be able to include everything on the list,which leaves the City with one or two options. The first option is the City can say this list is all-inclusive, and if you want something that is not included on the list,the resident can come in and apply for a zoning ordinance amendment. The second option is to include the language customary and incidental to the primary use. Mattick noted that language sometimes causes some concern since there is some subjectivity to the ordinance. As long as there is a history of the structure and the Council can find grounds to justify it, it will be allowed. Mattick indicated that language is very common throughout communities. McMillan commented that typically with accessory uses,the City does not become aware of something until there is a complaint. Gaffron stated a wood pile next to the neighbor's fence would be an example. McMillan stated she is wrestling with those types of situations because they happen in everyday life and tend not to cause problems the vast majority of the time. Mattick stated he is not sure how the City would regulate some of that. Printup asked if the City is looking for more regulation with the list. Mattick indicated the list clarifies what the City allows, and while Staff has added things to the list and it could appear to be more regulation, it actually allows more things. Printup asked if Orono is going down the path of creating lists and whether someday they could be tested by having to define the list. Page 10 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USESAND STRUCTURES, Continued) Mattick stated it would be hard to say. Printup stated with a list,the City is creating possible loopholes. Mattik stated the list, in his opinion, clarifies what is allowed and not designed to create loopholes. One of the things the Council should pay attention to is, once you start including items,you are better off defining those uses. Levang commented a flag pole could be one such item. Mattick stated the question becomes whether the City should go through the exercise of defining a flag pole or whether the City should simply say that no structure can exceed a certain height without a variance. Mattick noted as the City's code stands now, flag poles are allowed up to a certain height. Levang commented monuments are another example. Gaffron stated some of the items that he would suggest be removed would be smokestacks and mechanical equipment. Smokestacks are typically associated with commercial buildings. Levang pointed out that the language also does not address items that move. Gaffron indicated a belfry would have movement and noise. Gaffron noted there were complaints regarding one of the churches in town because it had bells chiming on Sunday mornings. Mattick stated there are also a number of things that are similar but the City may not want them, and to describe them in a definition is difficult. Mattick indicated Staff has spent some time discussing whether definitions should not be used and simply say that things that take up this much square footage or meet a certain height restriction would be allowed. Staff elected not to go that route since it requires more staff time. Bremer asked what option in Section 20 Staff feels would work best. Gaffron indicated he likes the idea of a conditional use permit for the first 50 percent increase in height. Gaffron stated he does not feel it should just be allowed,which would leave out Items C and D and the first part Item E. For the next increase in height,arguably there should be no difference between that and the first 50 percent. McMillan noted some of the sporting structures are also mobile and can be placed in different locations. McMillan asked whether the City has received complaints regarding play equipment and barbecue pits. Gaffron stated a hockey rink can be annoying and the question becomes at what point do you say hockey rinks are not good but tennis courts are. Gaffron indicated it becomes impossible to create a definition for every possible use. A hockey rink can be permanent or not permanent and an above-ground pool could also not be permanent. Gaffron concurred that it is impossible to define every possible situation. Page 11 of 26 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STR UCTURES, Continued) Bremer noted concrete could also be removed and then the structure is no longer permanent. Bremer stated she would prefer setbacks and the impact that the proposed use could have on the neighbors. Gaffron suggested the Council discuss setbacks and the use that the structure would be for and the activity that surrounds it. Bremer noted there is nothing that prevents someone from standing at their lot line. Bremer stated in her view the neighbor issues come from activities that are near the property line that are more permanent. McMillan stated another option would be to keep the setbacks free of accessory uses. Mattick commented it would be similar to the City's regulations regarding the 0-75 foot setback. Printup asked if that would cover wood piles to trampolines and flag poles. Printup commented the Council may appear to be unpatriotic if someone would like to put up a flag pole and the Council does not allow it. Bremer noted a number of people have wood piles alongside of their garage. McMillan stated that option would also allow you to protect side setbacks. Gaffron noted some of the items might not appear in the non-encroachment section. Gaffron noted if they appear in the non-encroachment section that means they are okay in a specific yard. Gaffron stated they could explore and possibly amend the non-encroachment section by removing certain things that should meet a setback. McMillan asked what would happen if someone wanted to install an air conditioning unit in the setback. Gaffron indicated that would be a non-encroachment. The City has addressed some of those items by requiring a 5-foot setback from the property line. McMillan asked if diesel generators are included. Mattick noted air-conditioning units are called out and that a diesel generator would be considered a stand-alone structure. Gaffron indicated Pages 35 sand 36 list all of the non-encroachments. Item 1 covers things that are attached to the house or parts of the house. Item two covers name plate signs and lights for illumination and will require a 5-foot separation from the front lot line. Item 3 covers terraces, steps, uncovered porches and stoops. The City typically does get people that want to construct some sort of platform. The code has allowed those as close as two feet to a lot line in any yard as long as they meet hardcover requirements. Staff has added window wells that do not extend more than five feet from the building. Gaffron indicated sidewalks, driveways and parking are things that you can have essentially in any yard. Page 12 of 26 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITYOFORONO,ZONINGSTUDY—ACCESSORYUSESANDSTRUCTURES, Continued) Gaffron noted the term terrace is not used very much anymore and nowadays people tend to have patios and/or decks. There was a concern raised about how many cantilever sections the City has,which is why the restriction of 20 square feet aggregate. Gaffron indicated without that language it is conceivable you could end up with a mushroom style house that has 20-foot sections all around. Item 5 was added and relates to laundry drying equipment in the back yard,which generally means a clothesline but could possibly mean other things. Sidewalks are not allowed closer than ten feet. Gaffron noted it does not address accessory uses within ten feet of the lot line. Item 7 addresses air-conditioning and heating equipment, which can be located within a required yard but has to be within five feet of the building. Bremer asked if the entire thing has to be located within the five feet of the building. Gaffron stated in his view it would be within five feet. Gaffron noted it also depends on the size of the lot. Bremer asked if Mayor McMillan would like to see generators added. McMillan stated she would. Levang asked about smokehouses. Gaffron noted that is not currently on the list. Mattick stated that is one of the structures that could be defined different ways. An example would be if you take your typical shed and add a chimney and convert it to a smokehouse or is it considered a storage shed. The question is whether the City wants to regulate it Gaffron commented saunas have also not been included on the list. McMillan and Levang concurred that saunas should be included. Mattick asked if the fact that it is a structure more important or is the use more important. Bremer stated in her view it would be both and that the intensity of the use could be different among residents. Mattick stated saunas are typically indoors and hot tubs are not but they could have noise issues related to them. McMillan stated saunas are associated with possible noise and fire pits relate more to the smoke. The issue comes down to how someone is using their shed. McMillan stated setbacks seem to be a big issue as well as what the structure is used for. Page 13 of 26 �__ __ _� MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 . 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITYOFORONO,ZONINGSTUDY—ACCESSORYUSESANDSTRUCTURES, Continued) Mattick commented that is where it becomes difficult to define when it gets down to that level of detail. As it relates to setbacks, it could be similar to the 0-75 foot zone where nothing is allowed, and in other areas it could be allowed as long as you do not have hardcover issues,height issues, or not closer than 30 feet to the property line. Gaffron noted the City has numerous 50-foot lots and people will store boats and other items in that 30-foot setback because they have no other place to store them. Printup stated his concern is that you could leave people that own smaller lots essentially no yard. Printup commented these are items that are common for Minnesota and that it is difficult to tell people they cannot have them. Printup stated in his view these are a lot of really good solutions in search of big problems. Mattick commented this was a difficult issue to address and that other issues kept coming up as Staff discussed it. Mattick recommended the City Council take a close look at the amendments and to provide Staff with their feedback. The goal was to have it done by the end of May, which may not be possible, but it could possibly be done by June. Printup asked whether the Council could take action on any items right now given the fact that some residents are impacted by the moratorium. Mattick stated in his view it would be difficult to act on only one or two sections since there would be cross-reference issues. Gaffron asked whether any of the residents that are affected by the moratorium have an expectation that the City will have this completed by a certain time. Curtis indicated Staff has been telling those residents that it is the City's intent to have something in place by sometime this summer. Gaffron asked how many people have submitted applications that are impacted. Curtis stated there are a number of people that have called and asked questions and there are perhaps a half dozen that have met with Staff. McMillan indicated she likes Medina's code language as it relates to solar and geothermal. Gaffron stated Staff can add that in if the Council wishes. Mattick indicated he would also like to see that included. It was the consensus of the City Council to include Medina's sections on solar and geothermal. McMillan asked whether flagpoles should be permitted in the 0-75 foot zone as an allowed use. Page 14 of 26 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, Continued) Mattick stated there is a list of allowed uses within the 0-75 foot zone and that can be added. Gaffron noted that would be contained in a different section of the code than what is being discussed tonight. McMillan commented she likes the current height restriction for flag poles,especially in the residential zones. Anderson commented location and height are both important. McMillan stated in her view flag poles should stay out of the side setbacks. McMillan stated she recalls a house design on Tonkawa that wanted a cupola and the City put a height restriction on it. Even though it was not going to be an observation room or tower,the Planning Commission wrestled with granting the variance. McMillan stated she likes how the Planning Commission recommended it be divided up between architectural features on an existing building and a free-standing building. McMillan stated you do not want a structure towering over the neighbor's lot and that there is something to the use,which is where conditional use permits come into play rather than granting an automatic 50 percent increase in height. Levang asked where trash enclosures are included. Gaffron indicated they are possibly included with compost. Levang asked what the rationale was for including it in that section. Gaffron stated they do not appear to be listed but they would be considered customary and incidental. Gaffron stated a trash enclosure could be a number of different things. The City does not currently have an ordinance that prevents someone from having their garbage can sitting in front of their house. Bremer stated given the size of the new recycling containers,there are some people who would prefer to keep the container closer to the road. Gaffron indicated he will give some more thought to trash containers. Mattick pointed out a trash enclosure that is connected to the house is not really an accessory structure. Levang noted Page 2, Item No. 13, allows one roadside stand offering for sale... Gaffron stated that has been part of City Code for a number of years and that by state law the City has to allow residents to sell produce from their property. Gaffron noted 40 years ago this was more of a farm community and there were a number of people who wanted to have a stand next to the road. The City required the stand be located 30 feet back from the public right-of-way. Gaffron indicated the standards are questionable and it is up to the City Council on how they want to deal with it. Page 15 of 26 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 . 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STR UCTURES, Continued) Levang asked whether signage near the road would also be allowed. Gaffron stated that has probably been in the code since the 1960s and that the signage would likely be considered temporary. McMillan requested Staff check on what state law says regarding the sale of produce. Gaffron indicated Staff will continue to refine the amendments and requested the City Council Members provide their input via e-mail prior to the next meeting. Levang commented she likes the clarifications that have been made to date. The City Council took no formal action on this item. 9. NAVARRE UPDATE Gaffron noted there was a meeting with the Navarre residents on April 8`�'and a number of comments from the residents were provided at that time. In order to maintain forward momentum with regard to Navarre, a number of items are being prepared for the June l Oth Navarre Community Initiative meeting. One of the items that Staff has requested is that Jim Grube of Hennepin County revisit the crosswalk issue and address the public's recommendation for a second island at the western crosswalk location, as well as possible options for signage and/or signalization for the crosswalks. Staff anticipates receipt of his comments and potentially a revised plan prior to the June 10`�'meeting. Struve reported there are 38 existing streetlights that were installed in 1988. There is no conduit in the ground and the wire is buried in a small trench,which does pose some issues if you want to replace the wire. Spring Park's poles were installed at the same time and have experienced two failures. Barr Engineering has provided Spring Park with some plans for replacement of the poles. Barr Engineering has also examined a few of Orono's streetlights and found that they are in approximately the same condition, which does present some safety issues. Struve noted the Council wanted more residential input and have Staff explore additional options but was directed by Council to not to include the standard MN/DOT street pole as one of the options. The first option is a nautical type theme. The lighting fixture is similar to what Spring Park is moving forward with. Pole design or all options are the same as Spring Park. McMillan suggested the light bulb be removed from the graphic prior to the meeting. Struve indicated Option 2 is fairly similar to what Spring Park is installing but Spring Park's option contains a small scroll brave near the top of the pole and adds a more decorative touch. Option 2 is similar in appearance to Option 1. Option 3 is also very similar to option 2 and Option 4 is a more modern looking pole, with a different lighting mount. Page 16 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. NAVARRE UPDATE, Continued) Struve stated if the Council approves moving forward with the new options,they will be presented at the June 10`h Navarre Community Update meeting along with a survey. Staff is still making some revisions to the survey but some variation of what is included in Council's packet will be presented to the residents. Struve indicated you typically allow around 30 days for residential comment. The survey will be placed on the City's website and the residents can either submit their comments via the website or mail in their comments as well. Struve noted all options shown can be fitted with LED lights. Staff has conducted an analysis between the different types of lights. The high-pressure sodium light is a cheaper option,but given the long-term maintenance,the LED has a better long-term payout. Staff is recommending the LED lights. The wiring is direct buried,which means no conduit was used. The City's current system has not experienced any significant problems but it is nearing the end of its useful life. If the Council decides to move forward with the lighting,there will be additional costs to remove the poles and replace the wiring. In addition, Staff performed an assessment of the existing sidewalk condition throughout the Navarre area. All the sidewalks throughout Navarre and along Highway 19 and Highway 15 were examined. There is approximately 27,000 square feet of sidewalk. The repairs have been broken down into short- term repairs and long-term repairs. The short-term repairs represent approximately 4.5%of all the sidewalks in Navarre and the cost is approximately $36,000 to make all the necessary repairs. The long- term repairs constitute 5.1 percent of all the sidewalks and costs approximately$41,000 to repair. Struve stated due to the timing of the next Navarre meeting, it will be difficult to have a project started in 2013 and that he anticipates costs will also be higher in 2013 since it is outside the optimum bidding period and would require a shorter time period to complete the repairs. Struve recommended moving forward with a combined lighting and sidewalk project in 2014 that follows the schedule that is outlined in Staff's memorandum. Starting the project in 2014 would also allow Staff to explore more grants and funding options and receive more favorable bidding. Struve requested the Council provide input on which option street pole they prefer as well as what type of lighting should be utilized. McMillan indicated she is comfortable with all of Staffls recommendations. McMillan stated in her view the wiring system needs some further thought given the expense associated with it. Levang asked if there are any other options with regard to the wiring. Struve indicated the City either has to replace it or leave it as is since there is no conduit currently. Levang asked if the intent is to add the conduit. Struve indicated it is. If the City holds off with the wiring,there will be additional costs associated with that work since the poles will need to be removed and reset. Anderson asked if the wiring will add an additiona120 to 30,000 to the project as proposed. Page 17 of 26 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 . 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. NAVARRE UPDATE, Continued) Struve stated that is correct. Struve noted Spring Park is not replacing their wiring. If the wiring is not replaced at the same time as the street poles,there will be an additional cost to remove the poles. Bremer asked if the sidewalks would also be impacted to some degree if the wiring is replaced at a later time. Struve indicated some of the bases might need to be replaced but that it would be difficult to determine the exact costs. Loftus asked if the conduit provides any type of weather protection for the wiring. Struve indicated there may be some insulation on the wire but that the wire would be better protected in the conduit. McMillan stated once the City gets a better idea on what the costs will be for Old Highway 12,they can make a decision on the wiring. Struve suggested the City explore that option further and that it be included in the bid initially and removed at a later date if necessary. Anderson commented she would like those items to be built in when they apply for the grants and that the City does not need to go forward with them if the funding is not available. Bremer asked what type of pole accessories Staff is contemplating. Struve noted the pole accessory prices are for all the poles and not per pole. Struve indicated he would like some direction on what type of accessories the City is interested in. Anderson stated when the accessories are retrofitted,they do not quite fit right and that it is something that probably should be decided in advance. Printup asked what the difference is between the electrical outlet versus the electrical panel replacement. Struve indicated spring Park is intermittently replacing existing electrical panels which are tall silver panels that will house the meters. Printup asked if those are required. Struve noted Spring Park is replacing all of their electrical panels but not the wiring underground. The outlets are specifically little plug-ins for Christmas lights or a lighted banner. Printup asked if the poles are rated for Minnesota weather. Struve indicated the poles are stainless steel and have a 50-year life expectancy. Page 18 of 26 ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. NAVARRE UPDATE, Continued) Loftus asked what the current poles are constructed out of. Struve indicated the current poles are constructed out of steel and have started to rust. Levang asked why Spring Park is not replacing their wire. Struve indicated it was due to the costs. Levang asked if Spring Park conducted an analysis of their wiring. Struve indicated they have had some minor electrical issues and the recommendation was to replace the wiring. McMillan asked if Struve has checked the area by Calvary Church. Struve indicated he has not. McMillan stated she would like to have another meeting set up possibly in September sometime that could be announced at the June 10�'meeting. Levang asked when the City will have some further information about the turnback. Struve indicated Jim Grube will be attending the May 28`�'City Council work session. Loftus stated September 9`h is an option. Levang asked if the height is correct on the graphic for Option 1. Struve indicated that might have something to do with the graphic but that the light fixtures would all be set at 25-foot. The existing pole height is 35 feet. Struve indicated the feedback he has received was to reduce the lights down to 25 feet and that all the studies they have done indicate there will be adequate lighting at that height. In addition, all of the lighting fixtures would be set right over the curb line. Printup asked if the residents have any other options to send in their survey answers outside of mail and the website. Struve indicated Staff could explore doing the survey via Survey Monkey. Bremer noted the residents could also scan their surveys in and send them via e-mail. Levang asked if the City Council is comfortable with the different accessories. McMillan stated she likes the breakdown of the costs for the different accessories and that the Council does not need to make a decision on that at this time. Page 19 of 26 _ ____ ___ MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. NAVARRE UPDATE, Continued) Anderson stated that would be a good item to obtain public input on. The City Council took no formal action on this item. (A recess was taken from 9:00 p.m. to 9:05 p.m.) PUBLIC WORKS DIItECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT *10. SAFE ASSURE COOPERATIVE SAFETY TRAINING Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve the proposal from Safe Assure Consultants,Inc., for conducting safety training and preparation of the related written programs and documentation at an annual cost of$3,998. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0 *11. CHANGE TO 2013 GOLF COURSE FEE SCHEDULE Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve a change to the 2013 fee schedule raising the senior age limit from 55 years old to 60 years old. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 12. WILLOW DRIVE STREET RECONSTRUCTION—BID AWARD Struve noted at the January 14, 2013, City Council meeting,the Council approved a proposal from Bolton &Menk for design services associated with the reconstruction of Willow Drive North between Kelley Parkway and County Road 6,which is on the City's Municipal State Aid system. At the January 28, 2013,meeting,Bolton and Menk asked for direction from the Council for a few design options and the Council approved the preliminary design at the March 11'�'meeting. Bids were received on the plans and the low bidder was C.S. McCrossan. Bolton and Menk has submitted a proposal to provide construction phase services for the Willow Drive Street Reconstruction project. Staff would recommend awarding this project to C.S.McCrossan in the amount of$803,995.90. Levang asked why there was a 20 percent difference in the bids. Struve indicated it is difficult to estimate projects since some of it is done based on last year's projects and projecting out. Levang asked if there were one or two items that consisted of that difference. Struve indicated the cost of the asphalt was lower than anticipated and was the major item. Bremer commented the bids were somewhat spread out as well and noted one bid was close to the estimate. McMillan asked if Staff is comfortable with this contractor. Page 20 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING , Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (12. WILLOW DRIVE STREET RECONSTRUCTION—BID AWARD, Continued) Struve indicated C.S. McCrossan has done a number of major construction projects throughout the Twin Cities as well as Orono in the past. McCrossan completed the City's 2012 pavement management plan. McMillan asked if geotech fabric is included in the bid. Struve indicated it is. Bremer moved,Printup seconded,to award the Willow Drive Street Reconstruction project to C.S. McCrossan in the amount of$803,995.90,and the construction phase services to Bolton and Menk in the amount of$73,950. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT,CONTINUED Struve noted an open house was held with Medina on Willow Brook Drive. Participation from the residents was low. Struve reported the spring cleanup was a good success. This year the City combined the two weekends into one and had a continuous flow of residents for the majority of the day. Struve stated the weather may have hampered things a little bit since people may not have gotten outside to clean up their yards. Struve noted load restrictions have been taken off the roads. *13. WATER SYSTEM STUDY/WATER SYSTEM MODELING Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to accept the proposal for a water system study/water system modeling project from Bolton& Menk in the amount of$38,500. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang stated she met with the executive director of WeCan. They will be starting an emergency food support program here in the community. It is not intended to replace the current food shelf located in Mound but will offer emergency food to local residents and will include food from the donation garden. WeCan is also going to be opening up a thrift store and the target will be to inventory school clothes. Levang stated both of those are advantageous resources for the community and are the result of receiving a substantial grant to expand their facilities. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT(LMCD)2014 BUDGET Greg Nybeck,LMCD Executive Director,appeared before the Orono City Council to discuss the budget process being undertaken by the LMCD for 2014. Nybeck noted the LMCD sent out the first draft of the LMCD budget and a workshop session was held on April 16, followed by a review of the LMCD Board on Apri124. Page 21 of 26 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 . 7:00 o'clock p.m. (14. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATIONDISTRICT(LMCD) 2014 BUDGET, Continued) Nybeck stated he is here tonight to gain the Council's feedback on the budget,which will then come back before the LMCD on June 12. There will be an annual city review meeting with city officials, staff members, as well as council members where everyone will have the ability to come in and speak on the budget. At the meeting on June 12,there will likely be a conditional approval of the budget and then the LMCD will vote on the final budget on June 26. Nybeck indicated it is the desire of the LMCD to have the finalized budget back to the cities by July 1. The LMCD functions off of a strategic plan,which contains a variety of things dealing with management and prevention of AIS,ordinances, docks and boats, safety,promoting public access to the lakes, and other items. Nybeck indicated he will be recommending to the LMCD Board that the plan be reviewed since it is approximately four years old. Nybeck noted the LMCD is still actively involved in special event permitting but some of the responsibilities have been delegated to the Sheriff's Water Patrol to try to streamline the process. The LMCD is also involved in proactive code enforcement,which goes back to 2006. The LMCD receives feedback from the marinas and others as it relates to the competition they face and overall it has been a very successful project. The goal of the program is to identify problematic sites and provide education and help bring them into compliance. The LMCD will work with the various city staffs on those sites to help resolve any issues. The LMCD conducted a low water shoreline inventory last year. Low water is still an issue but the lake is approximately nine or ten inches higher this year than last year. Nybeck stated the Sheriffls Water Patrol is basically the law enforcement arm of the LMCD. The LMCD is looking at expansion of the solar light program. As it relates to the milfoil and curly leaf plan,this is a five-year public/private demonstration project. Carman's, Grays, and Phelps Bays were the three bays identified for treatment and large scale treatments were done. The goals and objectives were spelled out in a DNR document called the Lake Vegetation Management Plan. The LMCD also has an AIS task force with a variety of professionals who helped supervise the program. The feedback that the task force provided to the LMCD Board last April was that the project should not extend treatments after 2012 or should not expand the project to other bays until the LMCD has developed a comprehensive vegetation management plan for Lake Minnetonka. The Board concurred with that recommendation The total cost of the project, including both private and public contributions, is approximately$611,000, which was spent over five years for three bays. Carman's Bay did not have a treatment in 2009 since they fell short on the private fundraising. 2009 was the year this area had high water and it did not lend itself to treatment. Public sector contributions amounted to approximately 56 percent or$345,000. Page 22 of 26 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (14. LAKEMINNETONKA CONSERVATIONDISTRICT(LMCD) 2014BUDGET, Continued) There were a series of subcommittee meetings last summer to discuss the program. John Barton,Three Rivers Park District, and representatives from the Watershed District,the LMA, and the DNR were actively involved in preparing the vegetation plan. The plan was finalized over a few weeks' time and then came back to the AIS task force. The plan was presented to the LMCD Board in October. A public hearing took place in December and the plan was officially adopted by the LMCD Board on March 13`i'. Nybeck noted the plan contained references to typical money for harvesting budgets and typical money that would be probably be needed on an annual basis for equipment replacement and harvesting equipment,as well as partial funding for herbicide treatment, all of which were removed from the plan. The recommendation was to obtain feedback from the cities through the budget process for 2014. Nybeck indicated LMCD receives phone calls on bow fishing on Lake Minnetonka every year and at times the frequency of the phone calls can be heavy. It is very complicated or hard to respond to the concerns due to the different jurisdictions and ordinances involved. The LMCD elected to explore a lake-wide ordinance,which was adopted on Apri124 and is now effective. The goal was to improve communications to the public for those who want to fish as well as the residents. Since there is now a lake-wide ordinance,the DNR and the Sheriff's Patrol will do the enforcement of it. LMCD's ordinance is similar to what Orono has currently. Nighttime bow fishing will no longer be allowed on Lake Minnetonka. In the high traffic areas, such as Cruiser's Cove,restrictions are in place that only allow bow fishing from a certain time on Friday to a certain time on Saturday from Memorial Day through Labor Day. The third part of the ordinance is the DNR or local law enforcement has jurisdiction to act if it is in the best interests of the public peace or safety. The last part of the ordinance deals with disposal of fish. As it relates to the budget,Option 1 is a similar budget to what was adopted in 2013. The levy increase is a 3 percent overall levy increase from 2013 but it will be slightly less than 3 percent for Orono. The levy varies based off of your percentage of the tax capacity. The 1.3 percent increase in expenditures would increase it from 581,000 up to 588,000. There is a 25,000 transfer from the administrative reserve fund for equipment replacement fund and a two percent compensation adjustment is factored in for contingency. Nybeck stated it is important to keep in mind that simply because there is a two percent contingency budgeted,that does not mean the board is obligated to provide the two percent. In addition, there is also $30,000 budgeted for unspecified AIS management and prevention programs. Historically the LMCD has used that for watercraft inspections. Option 2 includes some recommendations for milfoil, curly leaf and pond weed. The levy increase under Option 2 would be 16.6 percent rather than 3 percent. There is a nine percent increase in expenditures, and that is primarily because of the money being included for herbicide treatments. The differences from Option 1 are the money for unspecified AIS management and prevention would be reduced from $30,000 down to $20,000 and $55,000 is proposed for open air and large scale herbicide treatments,which results in a net increase of$45,000. Nybeck stated over the years the LMCD has made a concerted effort to keep the levy flat and there has not been an increase in the levy from 2009 to 2013. The LMCD has attempted to keep the levy down because of the economic challenge the cities are facing. Page 23 of 26 �------ -------- MINUTES OF THE � ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 . '7:00 o'clock p.m. (14. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATIONDISTRICT(LMCD) 2014 BUDGET, Continued) As it relates to Orono, for 2013,the City's total levy is $58,406. Option one would increase it by approximately$100 and Option 2 would go up an additional $7,700. Printup commented it is impressive that over the last three or four years the levies have been kept low. Nybeck requested the City Council indicate which option they would prefer by the end of the month. Levang asked what would be eliminated as a result of the reduction in AIS management and prevention. Nybeck indicated that would likely come from a reduction in boat inspections. Levang asked how many boats would be inspected versus the prior year. Nybeck stated in 2013 there will be nine accesses that would be covered by watercraft inspectors this year. The DNR will cover Grays, Maa�well,North Arm and Spring Park. On the weekends during the peak periods,which are generally later morning through the evening hours,there will be DNR inspectors. The LMCD inspectors will be covering Halstad's Bay, Crook's, Carstons and Wayzata Bay,which are lower volume public access points. This year the inspectors will basically only be performing Level 1 inspections. Leve12 allows inspectors to go on the boat to check on live wells if needed and decontaminate boats. The LMCD Board is looking at the idea of purchasing of a decontamination unit at the local level to have available at some of the public accesses. McMillan stated she is in favor of Option 1. Option 2 sets a whole new benchmark for levies and that in her view it is too big of a jump financially for the cities and possibly unsustainable over time. Levang stated Option 2 is concerning and brings into question how the various cities would be able to maintain that level of increase over the years. Nybeck stated it is the LMCD's intent to get feedback from the cities so the Board can gauge where the level of support is. McMillan noted the City's tax base has declined by 24 percent over the past few years,which has resulted in a decrease in the levy for the LMCD. McMillan stated if the City's tax base increases,the City will be paying more. Nybeck stated the amount that was being levied over the years versus the maximum level that could be levied was $200,000. Now it is down to $100,000 and it is due in part to declining taxable market values. Bremer stated in her view it is the wrong time to propose Option 2 but that philosophically she is not opposed to it. Bremer commented the minutes from the LMCD Board meeting reflect that they understand cities are having a harder time financing. Printup indicated he also is in favor of Option 1 and that it will be interesting to see how it will be projected out in future years. Page 24 of 26 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �� Monday,May 13,2013 7:00 o'clock p.m. (14. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSER VATION DISTRICT(LMCD) 2014 B UDGET, Continued) Nybeck stated opinions vary on where the money should be spent. Minnehaha Watershed Creek District at the present time is focusing more on AIS prevention. McMillan stated she personally does not have much information about living with zebra mussels,and asked if there is anything the residents should be aware of to help deal with that infestation. Nybeck stated there are some best management practices that the DNR has adopted that could be provided to the City. For the sites that have water depth issues,the LMCD did increase the depth standard from four feet to five feet,with zebra mussels being one of the reasons for that change. McMillan stated she would like to see the Save the Lake doing the boat safety training again. Nybeck stated in addition to educating city officials,they are also targeting adults with the education. McMillan stated she noticed the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has found that for 9 out of the past 13 summers the creek water level has been low and that they are investigating why that has occurred with the University of Minnesota. Nybeck stated last week the water level on Lake Minnetonka was 928.81' feet and the Board can declare low water when the level drops down below 928.0'. Loftus pointed out a three percent expenditure increase has a ripple effect on the various departments of the City since Staff is expected to hold to a zero percent levy increase. Loftus encouraged Nybeck to keep in mind the impact the increase would have on the various city departments. Nybeck stated the expenditure increase was 1.3 percent and the 3 percent increase related to the levy. Nybeck indicated the LMCD did lose some grant funds from the DNR which resulted in the increase. The City Council took no formal action on this item. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Loftus reported that in spite of the additional snow this year,the City's street budget is still in good shape since they had a decent stockpile of salt and sand. Loftus indicated the space needs study for the police department has commenced and interviews with staff are being conducted. The City should have a report by July 15. Loftus noted the City Council's next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday due to the Memorial Day holiday. *15. ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF OFFICER DAVID McNICHOLS Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to accept the resignation of David McNichols effective May 13, 2013. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 25 of 26 MINUTES OF THE � ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 13,2013 � , 7:00 o'clock p.m. *16. REQUEST TO HII2E FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve the hiring of Jason Barnes as a full-time police officer at a pay rate of$23.60 per hour with a start date of May 14,2013. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *17. LIQUIDATION OF FORFEITED VEHICLE Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to liquidate a forfeited 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe through Minneapolis Auto Auction or similar business. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *19. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT—WILLOWBROOK DRIVE Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to adopt the joint powers agreement between the City of Orono and the City of Medina for improvements to Willowbrook Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *20. HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION AT 2740 SHADYWOOD ROAD—RESOLUTION NO.6229 Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6229,a Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Hazardous Building located at 2740 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *21. LICENSES AND PERMITS None *22. CLAIMS Anderson moved,Printup seconded,to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 22a. CLOSED MEETING FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Bremer moved,Anderson seconded,to go into closed session. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. (The City Council went into closed session to discuss Items 22a and 23 from 9:43 p.m.to 11:14 p.m.) 23. CLOSED MEETING—PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ADJOURNMENT McMillan moved,Bremer seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 11:14 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: �:�:...�..� ���-c� � �1���.' Rachel Dodge,City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan,Mayor Page 26 of 26