Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2014 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 1 of 25  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, Lizz Levang, and Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Andrew Mack, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 7 was removed from the agenda. Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF AUGUST 25, 2014 Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of August 25, 2014, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2014 Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of August 25, 2014, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 4. DRAFT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN David Martini stated work has been going on for the past several months to update the City’s pavement management plan. The plan was previously updated in 2011. The City Council had requested the plan be updated to reflect the current condition of the roads owned by the City and to determine the overall rehabilitation needs of the system and planning level cost estimates that can be used to plan for the future. Martini indicated the color-coded map on the overhead shows the existing conditions of the roads around town. The roads are further distinguished between low volume, collector, and municipal state aid. The proposed method of rehabilitation for each type of road starts with the assumption that the City’s roads can be improved within the footprint of the existing roadway. Work on low volume roads is proposed to be limited primarily to the pavement section, while collector roads and municipal state aid routes are proposed to include more work to the subgrade and areas beyond the pavement surface. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 2 of 25  (4. DRAFT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, Continued) Martini noted over the years the City’s maintenance operations have included crack sealing and seal coating. In general it has been the City’s practice to extend the coverage of the road budget by limiting the scope of work to the extent possible. Consistent with past practices, the updated pavement management plan attempted to look at seal coating and more maintenance type activities. Martini noted from a rehabilitation treatment standpoint, the assumption is that as the project starts to move forward or a particular road is being considered, a feasibility study would be completed. Martini noted the City has had some roads in the past where reclamation has been included as a feasible method for rehabilitation. Martini stated the plan has considered the following rehabilitation methods: seal coating and crack filling, mill and overlay, and reconstruction. The assumption was that a road with a PCI of 75 or greater would be improved with seal coating and crack sealing, a road between 60 and 75 would be a candidate for mill and overlay, and then a PCI less than 60 would be considered a road that would be reconstructed. Martini noted the plan does not specifically identify any roads for reclamation other than Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road where a feasibility study has already been completed. It is recommended in the plan that one of the options to be considered in the feasibility study would be reconstruction. Martini stated potential funding sources for road improvements include the pavement management fund, municipal state aid fund, the general fund/debt service transfers, franchise fees and special assessments. Martini noted the franchise fee is an alternate source of revenue that is traditionally used towards the City’s improvement projects. Martini stated the low volume roads identified in the plan amount to a little over $4 million worth of work, the collector roads amount to approximately $4.5 million, and the municipal state aid system amounts to approximately $3.1 million, for a total of $12.3 million. Martini noted that the costs provided in the report are all 2014 dollars and no effort has been made to project inflation. Because of the shift in the methodology of working within the footprint of the existing roadway, the previous plan had identified over $20 million worth of improvements, which has been scaled down significantly in the updated plan. Martini noted the plan is intended to be an average and some projects may require a bigger scope than what has been presented in the plan but the hope is that there will be other projects, based on existing conditions, those projects can be scaled back, especially on the lower volume roads. Martini stated when you break it down by rehabilitation type, seal coating and cracked sealing amounts to approximately $250,000 per year if it is divided by seven years. Martini noted the maximum life of a seal coating is seven years. The plan identifies approximately 30 miles of road that are in that seal coat category, which breaks out to approximately $59,000 a mile. Mill and overlay breaks down to approximately $324,000 a mile and covers nine miles of road. The reconstruction comes in at approximately $729,000 per year over a 10-year period. The total investment, if the City were to follow the plan, would break down to an average of $1.3 million per year. Levang stated she is happy to see the reduction from $20 million to $14 million and that she also appreciates the pictures of the roads that have been included in the report. Levang stated in her view it behooves everyone to remember that maintenance does extend the life of the road and that the seal coating and crack sealing are important things to be doing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 3 of 25  (4. DRAFT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, Continued) Printup stated the assumption that the roads would be repaired within the existing footprint is important going into the future. Martini stated as the projects are brought forward and input is received from City Staff and the residents, it would be at that point at which a discussion would be had on what method would be the most appropriate. Martini stated while he mentioned that the seal coating was based on stretching those costs out over seven years, the mill and overlay costs were spread out over ten years. Martini stated if you look at the total costs versus the annual costs, there is a discrepancy and it is because of the way the seal coating is figured. McMillan stated she appreciates the more realistic numbers. McMillan stated as it relates to the MSA funding, it would be helpful to have more detail on that since the Pavement Management Plan is a reference document for future councils. McMillan suggested the plan also include some numbers of what the City has received in 2014 as well as an explanation of why some sections of Fox Street are included and others are not. McMillan stated it is her assumption that has to do with how the City wants the road to be constructed but that having that explanation included in the plan would be helpful for future councils. McMillan stated the second item the Council was interested in related to bike trails. McMillan asked whether trails should be included in the Pavement Management Plan or the Capital Improvement Plan. Martini stated trails could be included since they are paved and that if the City is managing them, they probably should be included. Martini noted the parking lot for the Public Works Department has been included in the plan. Bremer noted there might be different funding options for the trails as well that should be looked at in a different section. Loftus asked if the Navarre parking lot should be added. McMillan indicated she is more interested in adding the trails and not necessarily parking lots. Bremer stated the condition of the parking lot is not good. Martini indicated he did not look at the parking lot. Bremer stated there is a lot of volume and cost associated with the Navarre parking lot, which may be one reason to include it in the plan, but given the fact that the City is looking at an overall plan for the Navarre area, it may be putting the cart before the horse. Bremer noted the Navarre parking lot is partially the City’s lot and partially a private lot, which complicates it somewhat. McMillan stated the challenge the City faces is to manage what they have and that the City needs to keep on top of maintaining the roads that are in good shape currently. McMillan noted the City spent a fair amount catching up with public safety improvements as it relates to the fire department and that the City needs to figure out how to implement the plan for the roads. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 4 of 25  (4. DRAFT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, Continued) Martini noted the difference in cost between a seal coating and a mill and overlay is fairly significant, so it is definitely important to perform routine maintenance on the pavement to help extend the life of the roads. McMillan noted the City has invested a significant amount of money in some recent road projects and that regular seal coating and crack sealing would help to maintain those. Loftus asked if the Council would like Staff to pursue any specific public process before the City Council takes final action on the plan. McMillan indicated she would prefer putting the plan on the website. The City Council took no formal action on this item. 5. 2015 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFORMATION McMillan noted the MN Legislature has given cities an extra two weeks to approve their budgets and that the City’s 2015 preliminary budget will be approved at the next City Council meeting. Olson stated at the next Council meeting the preliminary budget will be adopted, with the final budget being adopted at the December Council meeting. The preliminary budget is a culmination of a three and a half month process. Olson stated as it relates to the tax levy, that is currently set at $4,722,000, with a large portion being the general fund operating budget, which is approximately 85 percent of the tax levy. That dollar amount represents a 1.5 percent increase in the overall tax levy and is the first tax increase in four years. Olson indicated the City’s debt service is the other 15 percent of tax levy. In 2014 and 2015, the City’s debt service was $755,500. From 2016 to 2022, the debt levy will be $755,500 and will not be changing. The only thing affecting taxes in the near future would be changes in the operating levy that go to the General Fund. Olson indicated the graph on the overhead shows the City’s tax capacity, tax rate, and tax levy. In the mid 2000’s, the City’s tax capacity was higher and decreased as a result of the housing market. Olson stated the City’s tax capacity rate started increasing as property values came down. Since approximately 2008 to 2009, the levy has been relatively flat. Olson noted the City’s tax rate and tax capacity fluctuate more than the tax levy and that a person needs to look at all three factors to see what is happening with taxes. Olson noted from 2010 to 2014, the state average increase for property taxes was eight percent, which would be a pretty significant increase. Olson noted the City has attempted to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and has kept their tax levy rate fairly flat. Orono went up three percent over that same period of time as compared to the eight percent average. Olson noted Spring Park pays the City of Orono for police service and was decreased by $136,000 due to the police now patrolling by zones rather than 24-hour coverage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 5 of 25  (5. 2015 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFORMATION, Continued) Olson noted the City’s tax capacity increased in 2014 by 2.28 percent and the tax levy went up 1.5 percent. Olson indicated the City’s tax capacity rate is 17.674 percent for 2015 compared to 17.81 percent in 2014. Olson stated the City’s tax capacity goes towards calculating someone’s property taxes. On a $250,000 house, if the house did not change in value, the decrease in the tax capacity rate would save that house .76 percent or $3.18. On a $2 million home, the taxes would decrease by $32. Olson stated if residential property values go up 2 percent, it is likely a property owner would experience a slight increase in their taxes and a $250,000 home would see an increase in their taxes of $1.60 for the year. A $2 million home would see their taxes increase by $56 per year. Olson noted that portion is just the City portion of the taxes and does not include the school district and the state. Olson noted as it relates to the General Fund, revenues are currently budgeted at $7.5 million, which is an increase of $246,000 and consists of $70,000 in taxes. The majority of the revenue increase is in non-tax revenues and result from an increase in construction activity. Olson noted government service charges are going up 11 percent and government service charges are going up three percent. Olson pointed out the majority of the increases do not come from increased taxes. The engineering and legal fees are pass- through bills but also reflect an increase in activity. As it relates to expenditures, the preliminary budget reflects an increase of 2.7 percent or $195,000. Personnel services accounts for 66 percent of the City’s budget and professional services are another 13 percent of the budget. Olson noted there are not a lot of discretionary non-people items that can be cut. The police union contracts require a 2.5 percent increase, which amounts to almost $50,000. Nonunion wages would also receive a 2.5 percent increase in 2015, but the temporary 1.5% 2014 increase will not be continued. The increase in nonunion insurance would be with about another $8,300. Olson indicated a staffing change was made this year, with the City Council approving a change in the position of customer service assistant to full-time, which adds $24,000 to the overall budget. In order to offset some of this increase, $10,500 of the IT technician’s wages and benefits are now being allowed to the Cable Fund. In addition, the City hired a community development director. With benefits, this position adds $99,000 to the General Fund budget. The costs associated with this position are partially offset by the elimination of the building inspector position and a decrease in professional services. Olson indicated those staffing changes were made in an effort to improve customer service. Olson noted in addition, fuel costs are projected to increase by approximately $17,000. Liability insurance on the police department is increasing by $10,000. Other changes include an addition of $30,000 to the Public Works budget for street maintenance materials and supplies. In addition, the Park Department was increased by $11,000 for repairs and maintenance, $10,000 for tree trimming, and $10,000 for seasonal help. Olson indicated a staffing change at the golf course eliminates $10,980 in health insurance and the City will save $21,000 with 2015 not being an election year. Olson stated the City is required to certify its preliminary tax levy to the County by September 30. After adoption of the preliminary levy, the levy cannot be increased but it can be decreased prior to adoption of the final levy at the December 8 Council meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 6 of 25  (5. 2015 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFORMATION, Continued) McMillan noted the budget information will be available on the City’s website and that the City Council will be voting on the preliminary budget at the September 22 meeting. The City Council took no formal action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – BRUCE LEMKE, REPRESENTATIVE Lemke stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11- 0027 – VARIANCES Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct a residence on the property. The applicants originally applied for a height variance but have since withdrawn that portion of that application. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has reviewed this application and has voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of the average lakeshore setback variance. The reasons for the denial recommendation included the lack of a demonstrated practical difficulty, the history of past denials of variances for this property, and the resulting encroachment of lake views enjoyed by the adjacent lakeshore residents if the variance is approved. Gaffron stated the City has consistently measured the average lakeshore setback line based on the residence structures on adjacent lakeshore lots. By virtue of an existing Special Lot Combination Agreement, the Meerkins residence is on the adjacent lakeshore lot. While the Meerkins residence is located much higher in topography than the proposed Alness house and might not have its views obstructed as much as if the land were flat, the City has not contemplated that vertical dimension in the past in their review of average lakeshore setbacks. The degree of encroachment of the average setback is substantial, and granting a variance would clearly interfere with the neighbors views of the lake. Even though the applicants proposed house may be reduced in height so as to not need a height/stories variance, it still has a negative impact on the lake views enjoyed by the neighbors. The proposed house will impact the entire neighborhood and the Planning Commission typically attempts to mitigate those issues with the neighbors. Finally, the Planning Commission found that the applicants were aware of the conditions of the Special Lot Combination Agreement at the time they purchased their home. The property had been denied variances to make it buildable in the past. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 7 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Gaffron noted at the Planning Commission meeting there were comments received from attorneys for the applicants and the neighbors as well as some of the neighbors themselves. Gaffron stated the comments by the attorney for the neighbors and the neighbors themselves are summarized as follows: 1. The intent of the ordinance is to protect the lake views a lakeshore property owner enjoys over their neighbor’s lakeshore yard. The ordinance is there to protect the neighbors and a variance would go away from that. 2. The circumstances in this situation have been created by the landowner who knew or should have known of the restrictions on this lot when they purchased their house. 3. The proposal changes the essential character of the neighborhood. Instead of the Meerkins having a non-buildable lot in front of them, they will now be looking at a house and their view of the lake will be changed. 4. Rather than preserving a property right of the applicants, granting a variance would not be preserving a right but rather enhancing or giving the applicants more than what was originally contemplated when they purchased the property. 5. The Meerkins purchased their property knowing that the Alness lot had been denied variances on multiple occasions and relied on that fact as a measure to protect their lake views. Comments by the attorney for the applicants in support of the variance request are summarized as follows: 1. An average lakeshore setback variance should not be required since the line should be drawn from Lot 5, which is the lot north of the Meerkins lake lot. Using the immediately adjacent house, the lot is not functionally buildable without an average lakeshore setback variance. 2. With regard to the reasonable use element of practical difficulty, the applicants are seeking to build a modest, single-family home that will meet all code requirements. The lot is buildable under City Code except for the average setback issue. Building has occurred or will occur on identical sized lots with 50-foot shorelines and the proposed use for the subject lot is the same as all other property owners in the City and is reasonable. 3. With regard to the second element of practical difficulty, the applicants did not create the circumstances unique to the property and had nothing to do with the Special Lot Combination Agreement. The Meerkins lots are also separated by a right-of-way and a separate identification number and should be considered separate lots for the purposes of calculating the average lakeshore setback. 4. The proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the proposed use fits the neighborhood. The applicants’ attorney noted the next door lot, Lot 8, is also a 50- foot lot and there are other 50-foot lots located on Elmwood Avenue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 8 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) 5. The applicants meet the elements of practical difficulty and ask for approval of the variance request. Gaffron indicated he has provided the standards for a practical difficulty in the Council’s packet. Staff acknowledges that the lot is not functionally buildable unless an average lakeshore setback variance is granted. If the Council finds that an average lakeshore setback variance should be granted, then that action must be accompanied by an action to extinguish the Special Lot Combination Agreement in order for the variance to be granted. Gaffron noted if the Council determines that an average setback variance should be granted, the Council should direct Staff to draft a resolution incorporating findings that support such an action. If the Council determines that special conditions must be imposed to mitigate any special impacts created by the granting of the requested variance, the Council should define those conditions. Further, the Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare whatever documents are necessary to extinguish the Special Lot Combination. Gaffron noted if the Council determines that an average setback variance should not be granted, Staff should be directed to draft a resolution for denial, incorporating the reasons for denial. Morgan Kavanaugh, Attorney-at-Law, stated he represents Ryan and Stacy Alness and that he would like to make two quick points. As to the building plans, as Staff has pointed out; the proposed house is modest in size and fits in with the neighborhood. The applicants have also worked with an engineer and City Staff to resolve the access issues that were created by the lift station. In addition, the lot already has a sewer line ready to go. Kavanaugh noted as to the average lakeshore setback, the practical difficulty was not caused by the applicants’ plan. As pointed by Staff, the lot would be functionally unbuildable due to the Special Lot Combination Agreement of the neighboring lot and Special Lot Combination Agreements are rare and unique to certain lots throughout the City. Kavanaugh stated the purpose of the average lakeshore setback line is to protect lake views and avoid a tunnel view of the lake. Kavanaugh noted there will be no tunnel view in this situation since the neighbor’s house is above this house. As the applicants’ lot currently sits now, there are mature trees that are more than double the size of the proposed house. Mark Thieroff, Attorney-at-Law, stated he represents Renee Meerkins and Claus Weiler, who reside at 1135 North Arm Drive, which is immediately north of the subject property. Thieroff noted the Planning Commission has previously looked at this issue in depth and that he will not repeat that discussion. Thieroff stated the first point he would like to discuss tonight is the issue of whether the lot is buildable at all. As the Council knows, the zoning code has a one acre minimum requirement in this zone. At the August 18 Planning Commission meeting, Staff responded to a question by Chair Leskinen by stating that the lot would not be substandard and could be built on because of a statute amendment in 2009 that allows existing lots of record to be built on. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 9 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Thieroff stated the answer Staff gave to the Planning Commission is incorrect for two reasons: One, the ordinance talks about single lots of record. Currently this lot is one large lot by virtue of the Special Lot Combination Agreement and is not yet a single lot of record. As a result, that provision does not apply in this situation. Thieroff stated the provision that does apply and where the DNR addresses it is in the rules regarding subdivisions within the shoreland district. Thieroff indicated Subpart 3 from the DNR rules cover subdivisions in shoreland areas and that the DNR has adopted very specific rules about subdivision when the land is located within the shoreland. Thieroff noted the first provision states that local governments must not approve subdivisions that are designed so variances from one or more standards and official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purposes. If someone wants to divide a property in the shoreland, the City may not approve that subdivision if to use the property for its intended purpose they would need additional variances. Thieroff stated the applicants are requesting a variance so that requirement is met. Thieroff noted this is not discretionary and it is the DNR saying someone may not do this. Thieroff indicated it cannot happen without a subdivision due to the Special Lot Combination Agreement The second provision says that the lot shall meet the minimum lot size. Thieroff stated he will represent to the City Council that the other provision sets a 20,000 square foot minimum and this property is approximately 10,000 square feet. Thieroff stated by virtue of this regulation that the DNR adopted, the property is not buildable. That, by definition, means that the proposed use is not useable. If the proposed use is not reasonable, the variance cannot be granted. Thieroff stated the second issue he would like to touch on is the presence of a bluff on this property. At the July Planning Commission meeting, Thieroff indicated he took the position that the proposed location of the house was on a bluff. According to the City’s ordinances, if it is a bluff, all structures are prohibited. The Planning Commission tabled the application at that meeting and stated they would like to consult with Staff on that item. Thieroff stated the point of contention is the location of what is called the bluff toe, which is the point on the bluff that Staff makes the calculation to determine if the slope is steep enough over a long enough period of time to constitute a bluff. Staff had placed the toe in one location and it has been suggested that it should be placed in another location. Thieroff indicated Staff took the position that their argument should be rejected and that the way Staff had conducted the calculation was correct. Thieroff stated there was no analysis or legal reasoning provided at that time except that that is the way Staff has always done it. Thieroff stated with all due respect to Staff, the question is not whether the calculation is consistent with past practices but whether it is consistent with the law. Thieroff stated he has submitted the document that is on the overhead to Staff. Thieroff pointed out the location of Staff’s determination of the toe and their location of the toe. In conversations with Staff, they have indicated there could only be one toe. Thieroff noted the shoreline is 1,000 feet in length from the edge of the lake inland. Thieroff stated simply because there is no hilly area near the lake that does not constitute a bluff that does not mean that there is no bluff further inland. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 10 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Thieroff stated the ordinance on the overhead is important because Staff indicated there is only one toe and it is the first toe you come to from the lake. Thieroff noted the City’s ordinance defines toe to say the lower point of a 50-foot segment. The ordinance does not the first 50-foot segment but any 50-foot segment. Thieroff stated if you calculated the toe where they have said it should be there is a bluff here. Thieroff stated he understands the City may like to resolve the dispute by granting the variance, but that it may result in other legal disputes if this development is allowed to go forward since it is not authorized by law. Bremer stated she would like to hear from the City Attorney on whether or not this would be considered a subdivision. Mattick stated the City Council is well aware that this lot is encumbered by a Special Lot Combination Agreement as is the Meerkins lot. Mattick stated one of the reasons the Special Lot Combination Agreement was put in place for both lots is that these are vacant lots that are considered riparian lots and that people who want to put in a dock have been prohibited in the past since that is considered a structure without a primary structure. Mattick stated in order to allow a dock on a vacant riparian lot, the City created a Special Lot Combination Agreement that treated them functionally as one lot but did not merge them as one PID. Mattick stated he understands the attorney’s position regarding the subdivision and that he takes no issue with the law in terms of what is allowed or not allowed as it relates to a subdivision, but that what is being proposed by the applicants is not a subdivision. Mattick stated this is an agreement that allowed two lots to be put together in order to have a dock and not a document that merged those two PIDs together. Mattick indicated he does not agree with the analysis that this amounts to a subdivision and that he understands the Council disagrees with that interpretation as well. McMillan stated it is not considered one whole piece of land or contiguous. Mattick stated the Alness’s non-riparian lot is one back and three over and are not hooked together by anything other than a Special Lot Combination Agreement. McMillan asked what Staff’s feeling is on the bluff. Gaffron stated the neighbor’s attorney suggests that the code could be interpreted to establish any number of toes of a bluff. From a practical standpoint, the code would be impossible to enforce if there were multiple toes. Gaffron stated Staff has been consistent over the past 20 years using the lowest point that can be defined as toe rather than any one of many potential interim points as the toe. From a practical and logical standpoint, Staff feels there is one toe and not multiple toes. The analysis that Staff has done defines the lowest point as the toe, which determines whether the bluff meets the criteria. McMillan asked if a 50-foot segment is what is included in the toe. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 11 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Gaffron stated the 50-foot segment is in all definitions of the code. The lowest point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent would be considered the toe. Gaffron indicated according to the definition, part or all of the features should be located in the shoreland area, which it does. The slope should also rise at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body, which it also does. The last requirement is whether the slope from the toe to the bluff at a point 25 feet or above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater. Gaffron indicated the answer is no because the toe of the bluff must first be determined. Gaffron stated if any point on the bluff meets the criteria for a toe, Staff would have the impossible task of trying to find where to start the measurement. Gaffron stated the cross-section that was shown on the overhead has no place on the slope that is above the 30 percent grade line. As a result, Staff’s conclusion is that it is not a bluff. Gaffron indicated there are portions of it that are greater than 30 percent slope but do not start at the toe, which is the key element of the analysis. In addition, the slope must drain toward the body of water, which it does in this case. Printup moved, Bremer seconded, to extinguish the Special Lot Combination Agreement due to the fact that the lots are not contiguous the vacant lot has a sewer stub, and its own PID number. McMillan asked what would happen if the motion passes to extinguish the Special Lot Combination Agreement and the variance does not pass. Mattick stated at this point the Council is considering extinguishing the Special Lot Combination Agreement and that there will then need to be a discussion about the merits of the variance following that. Mattick stated there would be two separate motions at this point. Levang asked if one follows the other. Mattick stated they do not. Gaffron stated if the Special Lot Combination Agreement is extinguished and a variance is not granted, the applicants would have a non-buildable lakeshore lot that is not attached to any lot. Levang asked if the City Attorney would agree that it would become a non-buildable lot. Mattick stated it would be as it is being proposed by the applicants currently given the average lakeshore setback line. Mattick stated if the agreement is terminated, the right to have a dock on that lot would go away. McMillan stated that is her concern about doing them separately since it does remove the right of the applicants to have a dock on that lot. Mattick stated the applicants could ask the City Council to re-instate the Special Lot Combination Agreement for the purposes of a dock. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 12 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Printup stated in his view extinguishment of the Special Lot Combination Agreement should guide the City Council. Printup stated the question is why have the conversation on the variance if the Council is not willing to terminate the agreement. McMillan stated if the applicant is fine with that scenario, that is okay, but the risk is that the applicants will lose the ability to have a dock on that lot if the variance does not get approved. McMillan stated some of the agreement was situational at the time it was entered into and that it has caused a lot of difficulties. McMillan noted there is another 50-foot lot just to the north and that she does not have a problem with the motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Bremer stated her first question is regarding the proper lot to measure the average lakeshore setback from and that she would like to hear more about the appropriateness of using the lot that is to the north. Bremer noted the City has done different lines based on different locations of houses, but that this is a relatively unique situation since the lot next to the subject lot is vacant. Bremer asked if those lots are not legally combined, is there a rational conclusion that that is truly an empty lot. Mattick stated if Lot 6 had been built on, the determination of the average lakeshore setback line would be easy. Mattick stated one thing that the applicants’ attorney has suggested is using the next lot over to the north. Mattick stated it is his understanding the City has never done that and that the City’s code says you use the next adjacent lot that has a home on it. If the City were to do that in this situation, the Alness home would be behind the average lakeshore setback and a variance would not be required, which is in some respect what the applicants’ attorney has stated. Staff has determined that it should be the neighboring lot, and if you draw the line to the non-riparian lot, a significant portion of the buildability for the lot is eliminated and creates an extreme setback for the Alness lot. McMillan stated she would like to talk about the buildability of the lot as it relates to the minimum lot size. Mattick stated the neighbors’ attorney has pointed out the state statute which talks about a single lot that may be developed says you can do that without lot area and lot width being a factor, which makes it become buildable at that point. Mattick stated the City has seen this scenario not necessarily with a single lot situation but with a multiple lot situation, which has a different standard under the state statute. Mattick stated he agree the statute states that the lot is buildable without a lot width or lot area variance, which is the reason why there is only a request for an average lakeshore setback variance. McMillan stated her question was on the buildability and accessibility issues when this application was before the City Council last fall. McMillan stated her other concern with the application was whether what would be proposed would also meet hardcover, structural coverages, and resolve the drainage issues. McMillan stated based on what is being proposed, it appears that a lot of that now conforms to the requirements. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 13 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Bremer asked how many Special Lot Combination Agreements the City currently has. Gaffron indicated Staff has identified less than a dozen, with the majority of them being on lots that are located directly across the road from each other. Gaffron stated typically they exist on Stubbs Bay and North Shore Drive. Mattick stated it might make sense to run through some of the practical difficulty criteria outlined in Staff’s report. Printup asked if the average lakeshore setback line cuts through the middle of the property whether that creates a practical difficulty. Mattick stated it can since it basically leaves the lot unbuildable and does not leave much of a building pad. Mattick stated when you talk about practical difficulty that Staff’s memo lays out the 12 criteria. Mattick stated one of the findings of the City Council could be that the applicants are proposing to put it to a residential use, which is what the Comprehensive Plan guides it for. Mattick noted the size and scope of the project does not require any variances from the setbacks with the exception of the average lakeshore setback. McMillan stated the average lakeshore setback variance is a unique situation given the Special Lot Combination Agreement and is not something that the applicants created. Mattick stated one of the criteria is whether the situation is unique and not created by the applicants. The applicants purchased the land knowing that the Special Lot Combination Agreement was in force but that they did not create the lakeshore lot originally. Mattick stated what the average lakeshore setback line would be is not necessarily something a property owner would know coming into that situation. Mattick stated in his opinion this is a unique situation and was not something created by the Alnesses. Bremer stated she agrees with Points 1 and 2. As it relates to Point No. 3, given the fact the character of the locality is a residential area, that point also is not an issue. Bremer stated in her view No. 4 is also not in play here. Mattick stated there has been no demonstration that this is due to an economic consideration. The applicants are not asking to have a house bigger than what they are allowed and they are not trying to avoid one of the City’s requirements. Mattick stated the applicants’ proposal is code compliant except for the average lakeshore setback. Bremer stated Point N. 5 also does not apply. Bremer stated Point No. 6 is one of those situations that the City has struggled with and it is not a surprise to anyone that the City is still going through that internal struggle. Bremer noted the Special Lot Combination Agreement was in place for a number of years before the current Council was aware of it and that these types of issues tend to bubble up after a few years. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 14 of 25  (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Bremer indicated she would mirror the comments of the Mayor that a number of the concerns were whether the lot was buildable and what was being proposed. Bremer stated she does not see a reason or a way that the City should continue to enforce the agreement, especially given the non-contiguous nature of it. Bremer noted this is not the smallest or closest to the lakeshore lot that has been built on in the City and that the house immediate to the south is rather comparable. Bremer stated her concern relates to making sure that the average lakeshore setback line is drawn appropriately and that she is mindful of people’s rights to build a structure as well as the neighbors’ rights. Bremer pointed out adding a canopy to a dock can change someone’s view of the lake as well and that the applicants’ attorney has represented that the views of the neighbors in this situation will not be impacted to the point that they will not be able to enjoy the views. Bremer stated she takes that representation as truthful, and that if that were not the case, she would be less willing to move forward with the application. Levang sated she also is in agreement with what the Mayor has stated regarding builability and accessibility. Levang stated in her view there is a practical difficulty due to the average lakeshore setback if the line is used from the vacant lot. Levang stated having the line being drawn from a non-riparian lot to a riparian lot makes it an anomaly in her mind and adds to that practical difficulty. Printup moved, Bremer seconded, Application No. 14-2675, Ryan and Stacy Alness, XXX Elmwood Avenue, to approve the variance and direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting the average lakeshore setback variance based on all discussions and documentation in the record. Bremer stated she would make a recommendation that the City at some point in the future look at clarifying the Code regarding using non-riparian lots in calculating the average lakeshore setback. Levang stated the Code should be clarified about using riparian to riparian lots. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #14-3678 ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN ON BEHALF OF BRET AND JENNIFER RIEMENSCHNEIDER, 835 FOREST ARMS LANE – VARIANCE This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 15 of 25  8. #14-3679 THOMAS AND KATHERINE ZIEGLER, 2264 SHADYWOOD ROAD – VARIANCES McMillan stated she was okay with the structural variance but that her concern was the shed being two stories and the massing. McMillan stated she realizes there is a shed next door and one to the north but that she could not get an idea of how high the shed was going to be compared to the property next door. Curtis stated the lowest floor of the shed is on the lake side and is three and a half feet lower than existing grade. Curtis stated the shed door faces Shadywood, and from Crystal Bay Road, it will appear to be a shed set on grade. Curtis stated the applicants can better address why they chose this design element. McMillan asked if there is any blacktop going into the shed or whether it will be grass. Curtis stated the applicants have reduced the size of the overhead door to the minimum that does not require proof of hardcover. Otherwise the applicants would have to prove they have enough hardcover available to put a driveway there. McMillan stated one of her concerns related to future property owners and the desire to make that a paved driveway at some point in the future. McMillan indicated she is okay with the shed but that she is not sure about the two-story piece. Katherine Ziegler, Applicant, stated the two stories are due to the loss of their basement and the need for a storm shelter. Ziegler noted the house located across Crystal Bay Road also does not have a safety shelter, which is the reason for the design. Ziegler indicated the shed will have 7-foot ceilings and will not be a tall building. Ziegler stated the neighboring garage is considerably higher. Retaining walls will be installed to help smooth out the slope. By the time the low area is filled in, the shed will be an 8-foot plus high building. Ziegler indicated they are fine with a restriction prohibiting a driveway to the building. Ziegler indicated they do have a potential buyer anxiously waiting to hear the results of this request and that she has not heard them say they want to put a driveway there. Curtis noted the City does require a zoning permit for hardcover since the grade of the yard would be disturbed. McMillan asked if the applicant was originally thinking of giving up one garage stall to have a family room. Ziegler indicated the first garage stall could be converted to a family room. Ziegler noted the current garage is not a three-car garage. McMillan asked if any cars would be stored in the shed. Ziegler indicated there would not be given the size of the shed and that it will only be 12’ x 12’ and eight feet high. Curtis noted there are some trees already along the roadway but that the Council could perhaps request that additional trees be planted in that area to prevent cars from accessing the garage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 16 of 25  (8. #14-3679 THOMAS AND KATHERINE ZIEGLER, 2264 SHADYWOOD ROAD – VARIANCES, Continued) Ziegler stated they are offering this to potential buyers and that they will know that they have to debate any other provisions they might want. Bremer indicated she is fine with the proposal as is but that she would add the stipulation that no driveway be installed to the shed. Bremer stated given the fact that this is a pretty visible location, in her view there is not a very high risk to someone adding a driveway to the shed. Levang stated she is in agreement with the restriction on the driveway so that it is very clear the City Council said no to that and that automobile storage in the shed is not allowed. Levang moved, Bremer seconded, Application No. 14-3679, Thomas and Katherine Ziegler, 2264 Shadywood Road, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *9. #14-3680 NATURAL LANDSCAPE MINNESOTA, INC., ON BEHALF OF BRAD AND PAT CLEVELAND – RESOLUTION NO. 6442 Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6442, a Resolution Granting Variances From Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1282 and 78-1680, and a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-966, for the Property Located at 4395 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *10. #14-3681 BY THE WOODS, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DAN AND JANE HOUCK, 1535 FAIRVIEW COTTAGE LANE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 6443 Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6443, a Resolution Granting Variances From Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279 and 78-1680, and a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-966, for the Property Located at 1535 Fairview Cottage Lane. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Donald Jensen and Curt Ferth with Lakewest, LLC, were present. Rick Harrison with Harrison Site Design was present. Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan review and does not require any formal action by the City Council but that the applicants are looking for some direction on how to proceed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 17 of 25  (11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) Gaffron stated approximately three to four years ago, the City improved its 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan. One of the City’s requirements was to meet Metropolitan Council’s goals for density and, as a result, certain properties generally along Highway 12 and Navarre were re-guided in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for higher density. The property in question is the Eisinger property, which is at the very west end of the Highway 12 corridor area. A portion of the property has a former sanitary landfill, which leaves part of the property unusable for a number of things but that it is potentially usable for some uses that do not require foundations. The property generally has five acres that could be used for a housing development. Gaffron stated this land was re-guided in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for 10 to 15 units per acre, which would require City sewer and water. Gaffron indicated the property was re-guided for higher density with some specific language about how that higher density should occur. The Comprehensive Plan suggested that there should be two buildings, but no more than two, and that they should not be more than 42,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan also contemplated a multi-family dwelling situation. Gaffron stated he would like the applicants to make a presentation on their proposal. Donald Jensen, Land Development Director of Lakewest, LLC, stated they have met with Staff on this property and have discussed various options. Jensen stated when they attempted to work with the two building concept as called out in the Comprehensive Plan, it was determined that it would not be as economically viable for a number of reasons. Jensen stated the 42,000 square feet buildings created certain limitations on the layout of the development and that the Comprehensive Plan is basically silent as to where the garages would go, whether there would be detached or underground parking, and whether the square footage of the garages is included in the 42,000 square feet. Jensen stated they have looked at what the marketplace is comfortable renting for square footage and that they determined a majority of the people are looking for a floor plan that runs between 1,200 and 1,600 square feet per floor. Jensen stated if they are limited to a 42,000 square foot building, individual units likely would be approximately 1,500 square feet. In addition, space for elevators and hallways would need to be allocated, which would lower the floor space to approximately 1,200 square feet. Jensen stated they have worked with Staff on a number of different options and have come up with a design for detached units that would consist of slightly varying footprints. In total 26 units are being proposed. Jensen noted they originally proposed access to the site from the west side, which has since been revised, but access is now being proposed near the current driveway that serves the existing home. For fire department purposes, Jensen stated they are considering the possibility of using the driveway for the old construction landfill portion as access for emergency vehicles, which would leave the opportunity for water quality to be in the far west, south, and southeast portions of the site. Jensen noted some construction may be allowed on the old landfill site as long as the proper permits are obtained through the PCA and that they have just started to do some land exploration. Jensen stated one possibility would be a recreation area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 18 of 25  (11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) Jensen stated they see the target market as being people who are either empty-nesters or people with children in high school but do not have the time to perform yard maintenance. There will be a homeowners association, irrigation around the perimeter, and various recreational amenities. Jensen stated they are looking for Council direction and input on what they are proposing tonight. Rick Harrison, Harrison Site Design, stated they are utilizing software that allows a person to view the development from a panoramic 3D perspective to see exactly how the buildings are designed in relation to the topography. Harrison stated the software basically will enable the Council to view the development from different perspectives both inside and outside the unit. Harrison noted the software is based on engineered surveying and that the topography they are seeing is what actually exists on the site. Harrison indicated under their proposal, the units are staggered and coordinated to enable everyone to have a panoramic view of the area. Harrison indicated some of the units will be walkouts and quite a few of the units will have three-car garages. Harrison stated until the final survey is completed, they are not committed to the number of units, but that in his view this general layout is probably pretty close to what is realistic for the site. Harrison noted there are a number of trees along the edge of the right-of-way and that the idea is to have a walking path along Highway 12 that would connect this neighborhood to the high school. Harrison stated the software depicts the major trees in the locations that they are in and that care has been taken to locate the units in locations where the trees will not need to be removed. Harrison stated they did revise their plans slightly to address the comments of the Planning Commission, including widening the roadway and eliminating some of the shared driveways. McMillan states she appreciates the ability to look at the development from different perspectives. Levang noted the plan does not reflect a turnout for the driveways. Gaffron asked if she is referring to the bump-outs. Levang stated she is. Gaffron stated the bump-outs are to accommodate parking for visitors to the units and would be necessary on a 24-foot roadway. Gaffron indicated the Stonebay development has bump-outs given some of the narrow roadways and that once the development is totally built out, it may be likely that parking will become a premium. Gaffron stated in this situation, there is space for at least two vehicles in the driveway and that some of the units have additional parking available. Gaffron stated if there were more homes than the proposed 26 units, additional parking would be required. Jensen stated in the Stonebay development, parking is more critical in certain locations, but that they will look at the parking needs closer as they refine their plans. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 19 of 25  (11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) Levang indicated she is in agreement that additional parking might be needed for visitors but that her main concern was the need for vehicles to back out of someone’s driveway for safety reasons. Levang stated she is not sure whether they have the ability to create a turnaround on the driveways to allow someone to back up in the driveway rather than out on to the street. Harrison stated the guest parking could be situated at the ends where the trail picks up. Levang asked what the distance is between the homes. Levang asked if it is five feet on each side. Jensen stated there would be a property line in the middle of the two units, which could vary, but that for this presentation the separation is five feet for a total of ten feet. Harrison stated they would like to explore a zero lot line on the units that are not walkouts, which would allow for a private fenced-in side yard. Harrison stated on the walkouts, the ground drops and that would not work. Levang asked if they have done any market study analysis at this point. Jensen stated they have not specific to this property and at this time they are mainly looking for direction on the density. Jensen stated it is his belief that a market study would support a detached townhome development. The development would have a homeowners association which would be run by a management company. Jensen stated the 26 units would allow for lower homeowner association fees. Jensen noted the City already has an attached townhome development at Stonebay and that in his view this development fits the area very well. Levang asked if there would be different floor plans. Jensen stated they discussed having two or three different floor layouts. Jensen indicated they can change the perimeter colors as well as the finish colors to make it look and feel more like a detached neighborhood. Jensen stated in this particular case, the detached units will not have the sameness that a lot of the attached unit developments have. Levang asked if there will be a color palette that the owners could choose from. Jensen indicated there will be. Harrison stated by varying the angles and the setbacks, that is also taking some of the monotony out of the development. Harrison stated varied architecture would also help eliminate the sameness of the units. Jensen stated some floor plans would be more conducive to empty nesters but that the floor plans can be changed depending on the person’s needs. Harrison noted the height of the buildings will also appear to be varied based on the topography. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 20 of 25  (11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) Gaffron stated it would be helpful to get a view from the road to get an idea of the height of the development. Gaffron stated the City will want to minimize the visual impact of a higher density development as you look at it from the roads going by. Gaffron noted there were concerns initially with the memory care center, but given the screening and varying topography, the building is barely visible. Harrison stated you can see the tip of the wetland to the north from the roadway. Jensen stated as it relates to the view of the development, if someone is traveling east on Highway 12, they would probably only be able to see it for two or three seconds and maybe one to two seconds from the west. There will be a wetland buffer, appropriate setbacks and the trees, which will also help to decrease the view from Highway 12. McMillan commented this is somewhat of an orphan property and that the concern about the buildings towering over neighboring homes is not as great on this site. Bremer stated she likes the single-family detached concept. Levang stated in her view it is a big improvement over two big buildings. Bremer stated it is visually interesting and that the walkways are fantastic. Bremer stated in her view people will like this type of housing and that the location is ideal for it. Levang stated another development like Stonebay would probably not fly given the proximity of the two developments. Jensen asked if Staff would consider this a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Gaffron stated in his view the proposal does not have any regional impacts and would be a minor change. McMillan stated people typically do not tend to move out to this area to live in an apartment building and that the detached units are probably more marketable. Harrison stated in his view it fits the character of the area better as well. Levang stated by jogging the units, it also allows for some of the units to have a nice lawn. McMillan asked what the rational is for a three or four-stall garage. Harrison stated most people have recreational equipment in addition to two cars and that the three-car garage allows them to retain some of that. Jensen stated by entering from the side, you can use the length of the home, which allows the width of the garage to be extended. Harrison stated a tandem garage could also be constructed on the ends as well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 21 of 25  (11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) Jensen asked if there are any other concerns related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that they should look at. Mack stated one of the provisions that is clearly outlined in the statute is the undertaking of an amendment. Mack stated he would look at this as more of a housekeeping amendment in terms of the structure configurations and so forth. Mack stated the City is looking for some form of higher density than two-acre density and that this is a unique setting consisting of a landfill and the clustering of homes into a more dense location. Mack stated in his view the Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be handled as part of the annual cycle of the 10-year updates since it basically requires a simple rewording in the Comprehensive Plan. Mack noted the City will be doing its update a few years from now and that in his view the City does not necessarily have to take it to the Metropolitan Council right away. Mack stated his experience with this level of cluster development is that unless there is some provision for guest parking, the City may want to go with a standard private street width to allow for parking on one side and the movement of two vehicles on the traveled portion. Harrison indicated they will look at that closer. Levang stated she would prefer the wider road. McMillan asked what will be done with the rest of the site. Jensen stated the site was modeled and studied earlier on in this process and that what was done to the landfill area was appropriate and that there is no water contamination. Jensen noted the City’s guide plan says the area can house something other than residential as long as you do not disturb a whole lot of the cap. Jensen stated they could explore that area to see what the likelihood is for a separate neighborhood or look at locating some stormwater ponding in that area, which would free up other areas. Another option would be to reopen portions of the landfill and clean it up depending on what technology is available. Jensen stated that area of the site would be owned in a separate outlot and would not be dedicated to the association. Jensen indicated this development could perhaps be given a temporary use allowance for that area for recreation but that the possibility of a future development and some other items will need to be disclosed to the future owners. Jensen stated based on old reports, it appears that the material in the landfill consists primarily of road debris, which is less of a concern. McMillan stated the utilities will probably be run down the south side and that she would like to also look at a trail connection going from this property to the east and what the difficulties would be in doing that. Gaffron stated the major difficulty will be the wetland. McMillan asked how the utilities would be done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 22 of 25  (11. #14-3684 LAKEWEST, LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) Martini stated Staff would need to look at the capacity requirements of the site to determine what size pipe would be required. Martini stated the sewer would dead-end at this property. Jensen asked if it would be part of a special improvement project. Martini indicated Staff would have to sort through the fee structure of how that would work. Jensen stated he would like to keep the communication lines open on this project and that they will be providing any updated information they have to Staff. The City Council took no formal action on this item. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT Martini reported work on the Rest Point Road and Rest Point Circle projects continues to progress. At this point the concrete curb has been removed and will be relocated. The weather last week interrupted the timing of the pavement work but that it is expected that work will be completed in the near future. Martini stated the concerns received from the residents so far relate to the drainage and that he will continue to work with the individual property owners to make sure things are finished appropriately. Martini reported the heads for the Navarre streetlights have been shipped and that the sidewalk work will continue. Martini stated it is his understanding the poles will be shipped on Friday. Levang asked what will happen with the old poles. Martini stated it is his belief it becomes property of the contractor to dispose of. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang stated the City newsletter will be out the first week of October and that there will be articles on the upcoming election, hazardous cleanup, pictures of new staff members, and snow and ice removal. McMillan noted the Park Commission was unable to meet last week and that perhaps they could reschedule the meeting to the first Monday of October. Gaffron indicated he did speak with Rick Meyers today and that they were going to try for something within the next three to four weeks. Gaffron noted he will not be in town the first week of October. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 23 of 25  CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *12. ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF POLICE OFFICER BRENT RASMUSSEN Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to accept the resignation of Police Officer Brent Rasmussen effective September 14, 2014. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. REQUEST TO HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICERS Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the hiring of Jay McCoy as a full-time police officer effective September 15, 2014. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. ACCEPT DONATION Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to accept two $500.00 donations from Richard Larson and Philip and Susan Larson. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 15. MEDIACOM UPDATE Loftus noted the agreement the City has with Mediacom was non-exclusive, which means that another company could approach the City with plans for providing cable service. Loftus stated one of the goals of the agreement with Mediacom was to expedite the build-out of the infrastructure. Mediacom has provided a build-out map which shows that they have currently constructed 9.2 miles, which is approximately half of what the agreement requires. Mediacom will be completing another 8 miles in 2015, and by the end of next year the system should be completely built out. Loftus stated the franchise fees are a continuation of what the LMCC had done for franchise fees and include $1.20 per month for PEG fees. Staff has created a Cable Fund budget, which has been set up as an enterprise fund. The budget for the new fund shows anticipated revenues and expenses, which will include future equipment purchases. Loftus stated another component of the agreement was public access. Loftus reported Mediacom has provided a fiber connection to City Hall and today is the first time that the City is 30 times faster on its broadband connection. Loftus stated another benefit of the fiber connection is it allows us to stream the Council meetings, which previously limited what else could be accomplished on the City’s bandwidth. Loftus stated as part of streaming the Council meetings, the Granicus system was installed, which has allowed people to watch the meetings on demand, have access to the minutes and planning documents. On average approximately 22 people watch the meetings live and around 40 people watch the archived video. Loftus stated to date the City has had about 1,500 people view the meetings since January. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 24 of 25  (15. MEDIACOM UPDATE, Continued) Loftus stated one loss with the agreement is the LMCC programming. Loftus stated the LMCC sent a letter to all of the five communities that left the LMCC notifying the residents that the programming ended and suggesting the residents call their various city halls with comments regarding the change. Loftus indicated Orono has received two comments, one written and the other being a caller who was encouraged by Staff to put his comments into writing. The caller thought the fee should be lowered if the City was not going to provide that public access. Loftus stated the City is providing that access but it is in a different format and is provided online. Loftus stated one question the Council has not made a decision on is whether the City should provide a channel in addition to the web streaming. Staff felt it would be about an $18,000 equipment investment and a decent amount of Staff time to program a channel, which is something the City Council should consider at some point in the future. Loftus stated there are also other features of the Granicus software that have not been fully explored. Loftus stated in her view the City has accomplished a lot of what the Council set out to do and that she would welcome any comments on how the Council would like to proceed. McMillan thanked Staff for their work on the build-out. McMillan stated the City has developed a very comprehensive website with the availability of the agenda and attachments, the minutes, the video, and the MP4 that can be downloaded. McMillan stated in her view the Granicus system interfaces very well and that there have been 16,000 page visits on the Granicus page. Printup stated the ability to pull the reports is very nice. Bremer stated she utilizes the website to access the reports and that she appreciates the ability to go paperless. McMillan stated she would like to discuss in the next month or two a possible fee reduction or the possible elimination of the monthly PEG fee given the lack of interest in a public channel. Levang stated she would agree with a fee reduction if there is not going to be a public channel. McMillan stated a couple of years ago the Council discussed Cloud backup, which was restricted by the lack of fiber, and that perhaps in the near future the Council could also revisit that issue. Loftus stated to her knowledge the PEG fees are less than 25 percent of what the City receives and that the City might be able to accommodate that reduced revenue. Loftus noted the City only collects five percent on packages available on cable. Loftus stated the future of cable might be going over the internet and that in the future the City will likely see these cable revenues go down rather than up. Loftus stated in the past few years the amount received has declined. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________     Page 25 of 25  (15. MEDIACOM UPDATE, Continued) Loftus stated the Council may want to focus on the PEG fees first and build up a fund to replace equipment in the future. Loftus stated there has been a pretty dramatic changeover from cable to the Internet, and as a franchise, the City does not get to collect that fee on Internet service. McMillan stated there is also Staff time involved with dealing with any issues that might arise with Mediacom, which is also a consideration. McMillan stated in her view the change has been good so far. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED Loftus noted the utility work for the police project was completed last week and some interior demolition work has been started. Soil corrections will be done this week and the footings will be started the following week. Loftus indicated Staff experienced some conflicts with meeting space overlapping but that everyone is pitching in and being supportive of each other during the construction. Loftus stated last week the Council was provided with an update regarding the Minnetrista water main project. Loftus stated as part of that project, the residents may see some directional drilling occurring on County Road 151 and that they should be aware that the water main is not being connected to Lakeview. Loftus stated in follow-up to the last Council work session, Mr. Gamboni has proposed a date of April 9, 2015, which is a Thursday, from 6:00 to 8:30 to have the intergenerational dialogue and how that relates to the future of Orono. Loftus stated Mr. Gamboni is looking for people who would like to be on his planning committee and that he will be providing an outline of what he plans to be doing between now and April. Loftus indicated she will provide that information to the City Council once she receives it. *16. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:54 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: ________________________________________ ______________________________________ Rachel Dodge, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor