HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2017 Council Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard Crosby,II,Wendy Dankey,Aaron Printup,and Victoria Seals.
Representing Staff were City Administrator poug Reeder,Community Development Director Jeremy
Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron,City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 11, 12a,and 17 were added to the Consent Agenda.
2. City Council Meeting Minutes of Apri124,2017
3. City Council Work Session Meeting of Apri124,2017
4. ClaimsBills
5. Licenses—Kennel License
6. Public Works Roof Repairs
7. #17-3927 Nathan and Beth Brandenburg,825 Forest Arms Lane,Variance—Resolution No.
6757
8. #17-3928 Mike Hart,2510 Casco Point Road,Conditional Use Permit—Resolution No.6758
9. #17-3918 Rehkamp Larson o/b/o Bill Toles, 1095 Ferndale Road West,Resolution No.6759
Crosby moved,Printup seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Brad Erickson,2160 Wayzata Boulevard,thanked the City Council for their approval of a resolution
supporting his access to his business on County Road 112.
Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, stated his concerns are regarding Eureka Construction at
365 Old Crystal Bay Road,which is zoned residential. Currently there is the storage of dirt on the site
and quite possibly concrete crushing in the near future. Engleman stated he is quite aware that the Mayor
and City Council ran on the platform that they were going to work for the citizens of Orono,and as a
citizen,he would like their help.
Engleman stated he would like to first ask the Council if they would want to have a construction site next
to their house that includes storage and handling of dirt, large trucks,noise, and possibly a concrete
Page 1 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS—ConNnued
crushing operation with dust and noise that will be in the air long after the business is gone. Engleman
stated as he indicated earlier,this property is residential and has been residential since he purchased his
home in 1978.
Engleman stated he knows the Council is aware of this project and that it is his understanding from
Mike Gaffron approximately two weeks ago that Eureka was not going to crush concrete on the site as
originally planned but possibly store some concrete pipe. Eureka has now started hauling and storing dirt
without a permit from the Minnehaha Watershed Creek District. Engleman stated he is confused as to
what is going on.
Engleman asked what Eureka is doing on this site since they have no permits from the state or Orono for
storing of dirt and possible concrete crushing. It appears that they are in violation of permits. Engleman
stated he knows for sure that as of today they have not applied for an erosion permit from the Watershed
District. Per conversations with John Hopkins at the State of Minnesota Permitting,he has been told the
state wants to work with municipalities on these projects. As of this afternoon,Hopkins is confused as to
what Eureka and Orono is doing.
Engleman provided documentation from the State of Minnesota and Department of Transportation.
Engleman indicated it is a compilation of permits that Eureka applied for and was given. Engleman
stated he would like the city attorney to read Line No. 2 on the second page out loud.
Mattick stated it reads as follows: Standard conditions of miscellaneous work permits. If work to be
done lies within the city or platted town,permission must also be obtained from such city or town.
Engleman stated that means the City and the Council has something to say about it and that they cannot
say they cannot do anything because the state owns the land.
Mayor Walsh stated the state basically overrides everything in the City but the contractor will have to
abide by Orono's working hours,hours of operation.
Engleman asked about zoning.
Walsh stated the state overrides the City's zoning. Walsh stated the state doesn't choose to do whatever
they want all the time but that they do have the right to send someone onto their land without the City's
approval.
Engelman stated based on his interpretation of that sentence,the City of Orono can do something to help
him and the other citizens, and that he is asking for their help. Engleman stated Eureka has received no
permits from anybody and that he does not expect them to be working down there tomorrow. Engleman
stated he expects them to be served with a cease and desist order from somebody.
Walsh stated if they did not have a right to do something,the City would be the first entity there.
Mattick noted there is no ordinance in Orono that allows rock crushing but the state's contractor is
performing rock crushing on Highway 12. Mattick stated that is the same basic concept. Mattick stated
there is a provision in the permit issued by the state which says the contractor has to receive permission,
Page 2 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS—Continued
which traditionally means they have to work with the City on their hours of operation. Mattick stated he
understands Mr. Engleman does not want it next to his home and that he would be willing to contact the
contractor.
Engelman asked how the contractor can move in without any permits. Engleman noted the permit is for
rock crushing only and that it does not say anything about storing pipe and black dirt, which is in
violation of the perxnit.
Mattick stated the City can make a call and take a look at it.
Printup asked if the City can obtain a written response from the state explaining this issue.
Mattick stated to his understanding they eliminated rock crushing from the site but they are using the site
for storage.
Walsh stated to his understanding they are going to move the rock crushing to a different site and that
they will try to limit it to one day of rock crushing.
Gaffron stated Daryl from Eureka informed Staff last week that they intend sometime this summer to
potentially move their rock crushing activity to the site. What Eureka has said all along is that they will
limit the rock crushing to one day or a short period of time. A couple of weeks ago Eureka informed the
City that they plan to bring in black dirt and store it there. Gaffron stated he would not be surprised if the
rock crushing involves a large pile of bituminous and concrete, which is similar to what is in front of
Otten Brothers. Gaffron stated it is his understanding the rock crushing will not be a daily thing for
weeks at a time but will instead be short-term.
Seals commented it does not make sense to her that the same rules that apply to residents do not apply to
the state's contractor.
Engelman pointed out the rock crushing activity will also be closer to the apple orchard compared to the
Eisinger property.
Mattick stated cities exist because the state legislature created cities as well as the power and authority
that they have. Under state statutes, states are only subject to the rules that they voluntarily subject
themselves to. Mattick stated this is a fight that is common with cities and townships over who controls
what, and generally speaking it is accepted that there is a hierarchy that has been created by the state.
Mattick stated people tend to think that state and local governments will work with each,but the City has
very limited authority in these types of situations. Mattick noted Hennepin County has worked with the
City on access points, etc.,and the City can attempt to work with the state on this issue. Mattick stated it
is doubtful they will abandon the site.
Seals stated she would like the City to approach the state and express the City's views.
Crosby stated one question to think about is whether there is a better alternative site. Crosby stated the
state and contractor might feel this is the only avenue available at this point.
Page 3 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS—Continued
Mattick stated even if it is moved to a new location,there will likely be a new neighbor expressing the
same concerns. Mattick stated he does not know if there is any land available that would not impact
anyone. Mattick stated the location makes sense and the land is owned by the state.
Walsh stated currently the crusher is on the street or in the right-of-way and that they can be asked
whether it can be moved four blocks away,which might help mitigate things.
Engleman stated he does not understand how they can just move in and take over.
Walsh noted the contractor had to have permission from the state to be on that site.
Mattick stated Staff will take a look at it but that it is doubtful the state is not aware of it.
Printup suggested the state also be informed of the City's concerns,especially as it relates to the impacts
to residential neighborhoods.
Walsh stated the state is also looking at writing legislation to override the City's zoning ordinances as it
relates to wireless technology,with the City not having the right to issue permits or collect fees. Walsh
stated Orono would like to retain as much authority as possible.
Crosby commented placing it in a different area might also impact additional people rather than two or
three.
Cliff Otten,2350 West Wayzata Boulevard, stated a week ago the dust was so bad people could not see
his property and the noise was so loud people could not hear. Since then the crusher has been moved out.
Two weeks ago the contractor shut off access to Highway 12 but a temporary access has been created that
will be open tomorrow or the next day. Otten commented Eureka seems to be willing to do whatever they
can to accommodate the businesses.
Otten indicated he had the same questions as Mr. Engleman. Otten stated he is not sure if they are going
to move the crusher back in and that he is not sure how they can set up a crushing operation in front of a
business.
Walsh suggested Mr. Otten provide the contact information for the people he spoke with to Staff.
Otten noted his Internet and phone lines have also been cut but that the contractor took steps to fix it.
Crosby encouraged the residents to support the local businesses as much as possible.
Richard Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, stated he wanted to commend the local fire departments for
battling the recent marsh fire near Maple Plain.
Page 4 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PRESENTATION
10. RECOGNITION OF BIG ISLAND DONATIONS
Walsh thanked the following individuals for their generous donation to the Big Island docks: Tim
Stevenson, Sean Foy,the Denny Walsh family,Michael Williams' business and family,John Kwakenat
and Richie Anderson's marina and crew.
Dankey moved, Seals seconded,to accept the donations for Big Island as follows:
Tim Stevenson $2,000.00
Sean Foy $500.00
Denny Walsh Family $500.00
Michael Williams $2,500.00
John Kwakenat $500.00
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
*11. ADA TRANSITION PLAN PROPOSAL
Crosby moved,Printup seconded,to accept BMI's proposal of NTE of$9,624 to facilitate the
development of Orono's ADA transition plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
12. ORONO YOUTH FOOTBALL USE OF HACKBERRY PARK
Edwards stated the Orono Youth Football Association has requested permission to use Hackberry Park
for their practice sessions during the fall of 2017. With the Orono School District putting in a new field
house,the number of practice fields has been decreased and various sports groups are starting to reach out
to the City asking if they can use some of the parks for practice sessions.
The Orono Parks Commission voted last week to create a subcommittee to look at the use of Orono park
fields and how that will impact the nearby residents as well as creating a policy and fee schedule.
Edwards noted currently the City does not have a field reservation system set up.
Walsh commented it is a great way to use the parks and help out the different sports groups.
Crosby moved, Seals seconded,to approve the Orono Youth Football Association's request to use
Hackberry Park for flag football in the fall of 2017 for a fee of$20 per day. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*12a. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REASONABLE ACCESS TO COUNTY ROAD 112,
WAYZATA BOULEVARD,FOR THE ORONO STATION—RESOLUTION NO. 6790
Crosby moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6790,a Resolution Supporting
Reasonable Access to County Road 112,Wayzata Boulevard for the Orono Station.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Page 5 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT—BRUCE LEMKE,REPRESENTATIVE
13. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—ALLOW INTERIM/TEMPORARY USES
Curt Fretham,Lake West Development,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants received preliminary plat approval for a 27-lot residential development of
the Eisinger property in July of 2016. The property is guided and zoned for residential use. Currently the
site is in the RR-1B zoning district,which will be rezoned to RPUD upon final plat approval.
Pending more favorable market conditions,the applicants have chosen to not proceed immediately with
residential development. However,the applicants have requested to be able to be allowed temporary use
of the site for staging of construction activities, such as materials and equipment storage and a materials
recycling yard for the Wayzata Boulevard improvement project. That project is being done in phases and
could take up to four to five years for completion.
The proposed use for storage, construction staging and materials recycling is dissimilar to virtually every
permitted conditional or accessory use in any of Orono's zoning districts. The only functional method for
approving it is via an interim use permit. Orono's Zoning Code currently does not contain provisions for
interim uses. The applicants are requesting in this application that the City amend the Zoning Code in
order to allow interim uses.
Staff would note that the contractor for Hennepin County for the Wayzata Boulevard project has obtained
a permit from Mn/DOT to utilize the site at 365 Old Crystal Bay Road. That permit expires mid-2018.
The applicants have requested that their application for a text amendment and an interim use permit be
continued to be reviewed as they would like to be prepared for use of the Eisinger site for later phases of
that project.
MN Statute 4623597 permits cities to allow interim uses. Interim use is defined by statute as a
temporary use of a property until a particular date,until the occurrence of a particular event, or until
zoning regulations no longer permit it. The statute indicates that a governmental body may grant
permission for an interim use of a property if a number of conditions exist: First,the use conforms to the
zoning regulations. Second,the date or the event will be terminated can be identified with certainty.
Third,permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public
to take the property in the future. The user also has to agree to any conditions that the governing body
deems appropriate for permitting the use. Interim use may be terminated by a change in the zoning
regulations.
It is important to remember that a conditional use permit is permanent. It runs with the land and not with
the property owner. In contrast,the interim use permit provides the tools necessary to sunset a use that
may be appropriate for some temporary time period but it is not generally appropriate on a permanent
basis. Staff has long felt that an interim use ordinance would be a very useful tool for Orono because it
provides flexibility but with a high level of city control.
In order to allow the proposed staging use on a temporary basis,the Code must be amended. This
involves two elements of the Zoning Code: First,a general interim use ordinance must be adopted that
establishes parameters for any interim use regardless of zoning district. A draft ordinance for discussion
Page 6 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—ALLOW INTERIM/TEMPORARY USES—Continued
and possible adoption is attached in the Council's packet as E�ibit A. Secondly,the RR-1B zoning
district in which the subject property is located would be amended to include a section entitled Interim
Uses similar to the permitted conditional and accessory uses that are located else in zoning code sections.
A draft is included in the Council's packet as Exhibit B. The draft incorporates a number of parameters
and conditions for the specific use entitled Temporary Facilities for Construction Staging Materials and
Equipment Storage and Materials Recycling.
In considering whether the City should adopt an interim use ordinance,the Planning Commission
reviewed a number of examples where a temporary use may be reasonable but is not appropriate at a
given location on a permanent basis. The Planning Commission looked at examples found in other
Minnesota cities' codes and they are typically tied to a specific zoning district within each of those cities.
While there are some consistencies, it also appears that every city has its own ideas of what to regulate via
an interim use permit. In some instances cities are using IUPs to regulate activities or uses that Orono has
historically regulated as a permitted use or as a conditional use or as an accessory use or even via
licensing.
The Planning Commission also looked at conditions placed on similar equipment storage and interim use
code sections for three other Minnesota cities which allow this use. Changes recommended by the
Planning Commission have been incorporated into the ordinance and are outlined in Staffls report.
The Planning Commission considered the advantages as well as the disadvantages and some cautions
with regard to interim use permits. The advantages include adding the ability to allow for a specified
interim use in a specific zoning district, it gives the City and property owner a method or a tool for the
temporary use of a property, and it provides an option for properties that are expected to be developed in
the future in conformity with the zoning code but for various reasons such future development will not
occur immediately,which is the case before the Council tonight.
An example of a property is the site at the intersection of County Road 6 and Highway 12. That property
operated under a nonconforming use permit as early as 1968. That site was always zoned as single family
but it went through a variety of different uses through the years. The building eventually became a
daycare center. At some point Mn/DOT determined that property would be needed for the Highway 12
bypass and the daycare use was discontinued. It would be a number of years before that part of the
bypass would be constructed, and during that time the City had a variety of inquiries from business
people essentially saying they would like to use that building for a few years, such as an insurance office,
but the City did not have an interim use ordinance at that time and there was no way that temporary use
could be allowed.
There are some disadvantages and some cautions with an interim use ordinance. If the Council approves
an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow interim uses,the City,the property owners,and the
developers will have to be very clear about the parameters for such use. Clear and concise documentation
of the allowed land use activities and time periods will be required with each ICTP that is issued. To avoid
any confusion or misunderstanding, it will be important that all parties know the conditions and time
limitations established for the interim use permit.
Page 7 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—ALLOW INTERIM/TEMPORARY USES—Continued
Having any interim use option introduces the potential for property owners to propose land uses that are
inappropriate for a given site. The use could be disruptive to neighboring land owners or be inconsistent
with the character of the surrounding area. Business activities that could potentially be harmful to the
public health, safety and welfare could be proposed. Because of this,the City must be diligent,not only
in establishing appropriate interim uses within specific zoning districts,but in monitoring those uses for
compliance with the established terms of each IUP.
In the text that is before the City Council tonight,there are some changes that were recommended by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would like to see a review at least annually as opposed
to annually of any interim use permit that is issued. They would also like the language that the property
must be in compliance with all applicable City code standards be removed since it is inherently in conflict
with the flexibility that is offered via the interim use permit conditions. That text is Exhibit A.
Exhibit B is a separate ordinance that changes the text of the RR-1B District, which is a two-acre single-
family rural residential zone. Exhibit B has been revised slightly from the version reviewed by the
Planning Commission to reflect the intent that the use must be for a project in Orono,that the use must be
on a property adjacent to the public road being constructed or reconstructed, and the submitted plans must
also include a schedule and timing of the proposed activity.
As currently drafted,the RR-1 B amendment does not contain certain specific parameters for the
construction staging and use. That could be added if the Council desires.Those parameters include
whether there should be a minimum separation distance from nearby residential structures or lot lines,
whether there should be a minimum lot size for that interim use, whether there should be requirements for
site and adjacent road maintenance and traffic control measures, and that it should be allowed only for
government sponsored improvement projects as opposed to private projects.
The City Council has wide latitude to approve or deny any interim use permit for any given site. The
Council may establish any conditions for approval that the Council deems appropriate. The above
mentioned limitations and conditions could be inserted into the RR-1B ordinance as a required standard
that would require determination now as to the separation distance or the lot size. The other option is to
insert simply a listing of parameters without numerical distance or sizes that could be discussed in
reviewing each interim use request that comes before the City. If the Council wishes to establish
appropriate nuxnerical standards now,then a discussion should be held regarding minimum lot size and
separate distances.
Gaffron stated Council is requested to review the proposed use and the draft ordinance text amendments.
If the Council concludes that the Zoning Code should be amended to allow for Interim Uses,and that the
proposed road construction and staging activity should be an allowed interim use in the RR-1B zoning
district when all appropriate conditions are met,then the ordinances should be considered for adoption or
amendment.
If the Council determines that additional consideration of the requested amendments is needed,then
tabling would be in order. If a referral to the Planning Commission is desired,then specific direction for
such additional review should be provided.
Page 8 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 a'clock p.m.
13. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—ALLOW INTERIM/TEMPORARY USES—Continued
Printup asked what the process would be if there are violations, such as fill coming from outside the City
and the City is considering ending the use.
Mattick stated the person would be entitled to a public hearing and that Staff could not administratively
revoke or suspend the permit. The Council could revoke the permit following a public hearing if there is
a single violation. The City could also issue a letter to the property owner requesting they stop a certain
activity.
Printup asked if there have been cases in other cities where their interim use permits have been revoked.
Mattick indicated he is not aware of any litigation. Mattick stated in his view I[JPs are underused by
cities. Mattick noted the use is not meant to be there forever and the City has wide latitude on what
conditions it would like to impose. The use is also not grandfathered under an I[TP.
Walsh commented it gives the City a good tool to use that helps residents use their land a little more.
Mattick stated the more common uses are such things as gravel pits or other intensified uses but it can
also be used in redevelopment zones. Mattick stated it gives the City a very flexible tool to use.
Walsh noted it also gives the City the ability to test different uses.
Printup commented it almost sounds too good to be true and that he questions whether the City can deny
the use on one property if it is allowed on another.
Mattick noted the use does not have to be allowed in all residential zones and that certain setbacks could
be required. Mattick noted the area could also be rezoned to eliminate the interim use.
Walsh stated the underlying conditions would help limit where the use can go but that it does provide the
City the ability to allow residents to use their properties in different ways.
Crosby asked whether any of the neighboring cities utilize interim use permits.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of any right now but that Maple Grove has utilized IUPs.
There were no public comments regarding this item.
Gaffron stated the Exhibit A ordinance can probably be adopted as is. As far as Exhibit B,which is the
RR-1B district,there are some question marks on whether they should be included that have been
highlighted by Staff. Gaffron noted under Item 1,there is a question whether the facilities should be
associated with adjacent government-sponsored public road construction.
Page 9 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
13. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT—ALLOW INTERIM/TEMPORARY USES—Continued
Walsh stated he does not know if Items C and D are necessary since the Council could limit that at the
time of the permit application. Walsh stated in his view Item E is necessary.
Walsh moved,Dankey seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 194,Third Series,an Ordinance
Amending the Orono Municipal Zoning Code by Adding Article XIV Regarding Interim Uses; and
to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 195,Third Series,an Ordinance Amending the Orono Municipal
Zoning Code by Adding Section 78-421 Regarding Interim Uses Within the RR-1B Zoning
Districts,removing Items(1)c and(1)d as well as the words government sponsored under Item 1.
VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Printup Opposed.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting the City approve a permit for interim use of the property at
3245 Wayzata Boulevard for staging of construction activities that are associated with the Wayzata
Boulevard improvement project. The application can only be approved if the companion application for
an interim use ordinance,which has been done tonight.
There appear to be few suitable options for the staging area that would have minimal impacts on
neighboring properties. This site at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard would appear to score high marks in terms
of such a use. This site is open and relatively flat,has good accessibility to Wayzata Boulevard,it is large
enough for the intended activities, and it is relatively remote from nearby residential development. The
nearest home is 700 feet away across Wayzata Boulevard and the other property is 1000 feet from any
homes to the southwest across the freeway so that the potential negative impacts such as noise,vibration,
glare,dust,etc., should be minimal as compared to other properties along the Wayzata Boulevard
corridor.
Gaffron noted the grinding and recycling operation has been conducted in the Wayzata Boulevard right-
of-way for the past few weeks. The magnitude of any negative impacts to the adjoining business
properties is unknown; although,the Council did hear a little bit about it during the public comments
section.
The portion of the site for construction staging is primarily over the closed landfill area of the property.
The landfill has been closed for many years and is relatively open and flat. Layers of clean fill over the
landfill were added by the former owner in order to establish a suitable cap for the landfill and ensure
appropriate runoff. The current owners have had significant soil borings done in order to determine the
extent of the landfill as well as what materials might be encountered if a future phase of residential
development is ever proposed. That information was obtained as part of their 2016 development
proposal. The area that gained preliminary approval for residential development is not within the
proposed temporary staging area.
The proposed site use plan indicates a rock entrance for residential development would be located off of
Wayzata Boulevard. The proposed site use plan indicates the entrance is located where the proposed
Page 10 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCII.MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
access for the residential development is to be located. That access has been approved by Hennepin
County as a temporary construction access for this recycling activity. The Watershed District has
approved an erosion control permit for the construction staging activity.
The Long Lake Fire Chief has indicated no concerns with use of the site for construction staging. The
public works director has indicated the location is likely as good of a location that the contractor will find
for construction staging.
The site plan suggests that temporary lighting will be likely employed but that is not known for a fact. In
order to minimize traffic flow issues, some work might occur at night and it would be appropriate that any
temporary lighting be downcast or directed away from residential areas. The site plan indicates a
proposed visual and noise screening berm along the west and south boundaries of the site. The applicant
is working with the Pollution Control Agency to establish parameters and obtain permits for that permit,
which will become an amenity for future residential development. The City will require a grading plan be
approved for that and potentially will require a conditional use permit based on the volume of permanent
fill material.
The applicant has suggested that to make this use financially viable,the site might be used as a recycling
yard for projects other than just the Wayzata Boulevard improvements. The Planning Commission
looked at this use and recommended that it should be solely for activities related to the Wayzata
Boulevard improvement project and should not be used to support other projects. The Planning
Commission did not want the industrial use at this site to become a regional site and it should have a
definite end date commiserate with the Wayzata Boulevard improvements, which will likely last three or
four years.
The Planning Commission has reviewed this application on two separate occasions and recommended
unanimous approval based on the following conditions:
1. End date of the use to be no later than completion of the Wayzata Boulevard improvements or
three years,whichever is sooner.
2. Use of the site is intended solely for activities related to the Wayzata boulevard improvement
project and may not be used to support other projects.
3. Use of the site shall be subject to Orono Code standards with regard to noise, lighting, dust
control, street maintenance,etc. The hours of operation are to be limited as follows:
- Monday through Friday,normal construction hours,7 a.m.to 8 p.m.
- Saturday, 8 a.m.to noon only and limited to low-volume in-out activity,no heavy hauling.
- Sunday, no activity whatever.
4. Appropriate permits to be obtained from Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
MPCA, and any other agencies or governing authorities as may be required for activities on the
site. The proposal must meet MPCA guidelines and provide dust control from construction and
recycling activities.
Page 11 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCII..MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
5. Construction of a proposed permanent screening berm along the south and southwesterly
boundaries of the site will require conditional use permit application and approval.
6. An ongoing 6-month review of the interim use permit shall be conducted to determine whether the
use remains acceptable during the duration of the Wayzata boulevard improvement project.
In terms of public comments, at both the March and April meetings,public comments were received from
Alan Engleman generally in opposition to the use of residentially zoned lands for what he sees as a
commerciaUindustrial use. The minutes from both those meetings have been included in the Council
packet. In addition,a letter was received from the Dumas family,who owns the apple orchard to the east,
objecting to the proposed use at the Eisinger site which abuts their property.
The interim use standards require that an ICJP request be considered with respect to the conditional use
permit standards of the Zoning Code. Staff's report contains an analysis of the conditional use permit
requirements. The requirements address a number of issues. Gaffron recommended the Council review
those requirements and see whether they are in agreement. The analysis also discusses consistency with
the City's Comprehensive Plan, adequacy of service by police, fire, and storm water management,etc. It
also addresses compatibility with the surrounding area,the need for screening,and the impacts to traffic
and lighting.
In the draft IUP ordinance text,there are three specific pieces of information that are required to be
submitted,and are as follows:
1. Written documentation that includes a complete description of the use, schedule for
commencement and termination of the use,hours and dates of operation,and anticipated
employment.
2. Any special studies requested by the City when there is evidence that the proposed use may
negatively impact public infrastructure,the environment or adjacent land uses. These studies
may examine the impacts on such things as traffic,environment,wetlands and utilities.
3. Evidence of approval or preliminary approval from all other agencies with jurisdiction over
elements of the use.
The Council should review the information provided and discuss with the applicants any items of note as
well as any additional concerns of the Council. If the Council determines that an IUP for this site should
be granted, Staff should be directed to draft a resolution for consideration incorporating the
recommendations made by the Planning Commission and any other conditions the Council determines are
necessary. If the Council determines that more information is required,the application may be tabled and
direction given to Staff and applicant. If Council determines that an ItTP should not be issued for this site,
the application should be denied.
Seals asked where this property is located.
Page 12 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
Gaffron illustrated the location of the property. Gaffron pointed out the landfill area and the area for the
future development,the wetlands,the property boundary on the east,the access point,and the apple
orchard.
Seals asked if there is a way to verify that the contractor is truly only doing things related to this project.
Gaffron indicated it would not be a simple process to monitor everything that happens on the property and
that the City would likely have to hire someone and require submittal of daily bills of lading for what is
brought to the site.
Dankey commented this is a good location since it is far enough away from the businesses and residential
homes. It is also a good use of a vacant lot.
Walsh asked if the applicants are talking about storage or rock crushing or both.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated their first priority was to do rock crushing or asphalt
recycling for the Highway 112 improvement project but they did not recognize the amount of time it
would take for approval. As a result,the contractor started looking for alternatives and then began using
the Mn/DOT site. Fretham stated he is hopeful that use of this site will help alleviate some of the
concerns that have been expressed.
Fretham stated in their view it is a good site for this type of activity and that they believe they can manage
the process well given their experience with other similar projects. Fretham stated he understands there
has been concern that product will come in from other locations. Fretham stated if that is not allowed,he
would be losing a competitive edge because the contractor is using a taxpayer owed property free of rent
and he does not have to go through the permitting process,which creates an uneven playing field. In
order to get the contractor to use this site, it is likely they will have to be given the opportunity to bring
other material to this site apart from the Highway 112 project.
Fretham noted the contractor would be using the Mn/DOT site for this year and that he will need to
incentivize them in some way in order to get them to use this site.
Fretham noted he did hear public comments tonight that the contractor was performing the crushing
downtown but that he did not hear any of them say it was dusty. Fretham stated he is looking for
approval to perform crushing and storage on the site.
Seals asked if the other sites would go away if this site is approved.
Fretham stated he believes so. Fretham stated it is hard to get the contractor to agree until he has
received approval.
Walsh stated the question would be where they would do it if this site is not approved and the Mn/DOT
site is not available.
Dankey stated if she was a business owner, she would not be happy.
Page 13 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
Seals commented she would rather have it where it is presently located than next to someone's house or
an apple orchard.
Walsh stated the crushing activity is the bigger issue than the storage of construction materials.
Crosby noted a time limit can be placed on this specific activity.
Dankey asked if these activities would definitely occur at the site if approval was given.
Fretham indicated it is not. Fretham stated they still intend to go through with the residential
development that was recently approved at some point,but given the other residential development in
town,he felt it would be better to wait. As a result, other uses for the property in the meantime were
considered.
Walsh stated the crusher is a bigger issue given the dust and pollutants.
Printup asked where the activity would take place.
Fretham stated the activity would be located on the far west side of the site and the arrows depict the truck
route in and out of the site.
Printup asked if the soils in the landfill area will support the weight of the equipment.
Gaffron stated the Council can ask the developer to provide those studies if they deem them appropriate
but that he is not sure if anyone has looked at the carrying capacity of that area.
Crosby commented he would be more concerned about the soils once the residential project starts.
Fretham stated they have done over 100 soil boring holes as well as other different analyses that an
engineering firm is analyzing. In addition,they will be working with the Pollution Control Agency to
come up with a cleanup plan for the site. Fretham stated they do intend to come back at some point with
a redevelopment plan for the western portion as well.
Walsh asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application.
Allan Engleman asked when he applied for this permit. Engleman stated it looks to be February 21.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Engleman noted Eureka obtained the permit on February 13 but did not inform anybody, including Staff,
until he informed Staff about it on Apri14. Engleman commented this was all under the table until
February.
Gaffron noted Fretham has been speaking with Staff long before February 21 about this project.
Page 14 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
Walsh stated it sounds like Mr. Fretham has to go through a lot more permitting than the contractor.
No additional public comments were received.
Crosby stated in his view this property is a better spot than the Mn/DOT property since the City can set
parameters on the use and it is further away. Crosby stated he is not as concerned with the quality of the
soil until they are ready to build the residential development.
Printup stated he disagrees with the location and that in his view there is no suitable site in Orono.
Seals indicated she agrees with Council Member Printup.
Walsh stated he has concerns with the apple orchard and the dust. Walsh stated they also have the
Mn/DOT site and the question is whether the City can mitigate that site in some way. Walsh stated he is
not in favor of rock crushing in Orono but noted that activity is currently occurring in downtown Long
Lake in front of Otten Brothers. Walsh asked if they would be able to get the storage moved to this site
but not the rock crushing part.
Mattick stated the City can allow it on this site but that the City has limited control over the Mn/DOT site.
Walsh stated he would prefer no crushing on this site but that the City cannot tell the contractor not to use
the Mn/DOT site, which is closer to the apple orchard. Walsh stated he also is not in favor of other debris
from other cities' projects being brought to this site.
Dankey noted there is a residential development being constructed right next to the apple orchard as well
and that the use will be for a limited amount of time. Dankey stated the permit can also be terminated at
any time if the City deems it appropriate.
Seals asked Mr. Engleman if he has a preference for which site it would be at.
Engleman stated it would be better on the Eisinger property since it would be further away but noted the
Council is concerned about the contamination to the site. Engleman noted the rock crushing will also
contaminate the state land. Engleman stated in his view the City should get some money for the rock
crushing and that the City should not have to support them.
Printup asked where the runoff goes off of the Eisinger site.
Gaffron stated whatever runs off the existing Eisinger site goes to the wetlands and that the developer
could possibly construct some settling basins to help slow the runoff and help it infiltrate. Gaffron stated
if the Council is interested in those conditions,they can be imposed,but Staff would need to look into it.
Fretham stated the black dotted silt fence that goes around the entire perimeter of the site is to control
runof£ Fretham noted they have obtained the Watershed perxnit so they have reviewed the storm water
management for the site.
Page 15 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
Fretham noted this would be a recycling operation,and the closer you do the recycling to the activity,the
less fuel that is used and the fewer emissions. Fretham stated a number of cities are allowing the rock
crushing to occur closer to the activity since it cuts down on truck traff'ic and that he has done this type of
operation in much denser neighborhoods in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, and Minnetonka.
Crosby commented it would also expedite the project if it is local. Crosby indicated he would not be in
favor of allowing other projects to come in and that it could be limited just specifically to this project.
Crosby stated the rock crushing activity would be better on the Eisinger property than in front of
someone's business.
Walsh stated they currently have the rock crusher right in front of Otten Brothers but that could be moved
in front of the apple orchard or the school at some point.
Dankey and Crosby stated the Eisinger property is less intrusive.
Walsh stated the goal is to have it as far away as possible from the businesses and residents.
Seals commented the City has not really pushed back against Mn/DOT and that the City can at least try to
discuss this with Mn/DOT. Seals stated she is not enthused about having it in Orono at all and that she
would not want it next to her house or next to an apple orchard.
Dankey noted the residential development is happening right next to the apple orchard.
Walsh indicated he is in agreement with working with Mn/DOT but that the Council also needs to provide
some direction to Staff.
Mattick stated tabling it would allow Staff to speak with Hennepin County representatives and then Staff
could draft some language that could be either incorporated into a resolution or a letter.
Seals commented she would feel better about that and that she would not be happy if someone just
showed up next to her and started a rock crushing activity. Seals stated she would like Staff to speak with
Mn/DOT to see what can be done to help mitigate things.
Walsh stated that would allow the process to keep moving forward as well as allow Staff to obtain
additional information.
Dankey stated she would prefer the rock crushing not occur in downtown Long Lake but that she also
does not want both sites to be used.
Crosby stated he would like to get the storage and crushing away from the residents and businesses as
much as possible.
Mattick noted the highway project is being done in phases and that Mn/DOT would likely not be subject
to the City's permit. Mattick stated Staff will need to look into it a little bit.
Walsh commented it will be an ongoing process and that the Council will have to look at it periodically.
Page 16 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING.—Continued
Engleman noted the permit says nothing about stockpiling dirt and that he is not sure why they are doing
it.
Walsh stated Staff will be speaking with all the parties involved.
Seals moved,Printup seconded,to table Application No. 17-3910,Lake West Development,LLC,
3245 Wayzata Boulevard West,Interim Use Permit: Temporary Use for Construction Staging.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
15. #17-3941 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC, OB/O RICK AND BARBARA
LUPIENT,3580 IVY PLACE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development,was present.
Gaffron stated this is a sketch plan review for a proposed 2-lot subdivision of a vacant property located at
the northerly end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The property currently consists of three tax parcels just
totaling over two acres. It is located at the end of a peninsula. Each of the two lots would exceed the 1/2-
acre minimum lot size of the LR-1 C district. It requires 100-foot lot width. The property has remained
vacant since it was created by filling the wetlands in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The property is
encumbered by a number of easements and does not abut a dedicated public roadway except via
easements across the adjoining property at 3560 Ivy Place.
It was originally platted as tracts W and X back in 1955. Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the
property back in the 1950s. A progression of aerial photos shows how the property evolved through the
years,mainly through the placement of fill in the area of the wetlands. By 1967,the area is totally filled
in and there are very few trees. In 1971,the property is starting to be filled in with volunteer trees such as
buckthorn.
In 1975,there was an application to replat the property from three lots to two lots,which is what is being
proposed today. That application was approved by the City Council but the property owner never filed
the plat. At that time a number of the nearby neighbors were opposed to the subdivision saying that the
area was filled.
In 1975, Orono completed a wetland inventory and identified the entire property as wetland. Gaffron
stated he is not sure why it was identified as wetland at that time. Today there is one little wetland
approximately 10' x 17' and is difficult to recognize as wetland. Gaffron indicated he spoke with the
DNR about this property within the last year and they have indicated they are not opposed to someone
building on the site.
There are a variety of existing easements on and adjacent to the property. There is also a sewer line that
runs along the southwest shoreline. Gaffron noted the City restored that shoreline along with the
Watershed District. Some of the easements on the property include an easement for a cul-de-sac,which
was never built; a private driveway easement; a roadway easement; a view easement which limits the
number, location and height of the homes; and various utility easements.T'he applicant has approached
Page 17 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
15. #17-3941 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,OB/O RICK AND BARBARA
LUPIENT,3580 IVY PLACE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW—Continued
the property owner who has the view easement to see whether there is any chance of changing that
easement. There is a neighbor that also has a deck and a driveway that encroaches into the setback.
The property is a peninsula that is wooded with mostly poor-quality volunteer trees. The land is relatively
flat,with some portions of the site actually being located within the floodplain. Some mitigation
measures may be required as a result.
Each of the two proposed lots exceeds the minimum acreage requirements. Each lot is supposed to face
on a public street or an appropriate private easement. The applicants are proposing to create a 30-foot
wide outlot to meet City standards. Lot 2,being platted as a back lot given the unusual property shape
and access limitations,more than meets the 150 percent lot area requirement. Each lot exceeds the 100-
foot width requirement. The front/back lot configuration was recommended by Staff as the most
conforming method of converting these three lots into two. In order to convert the three lots into two lots,
a new,relocated access corridor to get past proposed Lot 1 is necessary.
Since the property is located on a peninsula, with both lots having shoreline on two sides,the average
lakeshore setback appears to be defined by the location of the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy. Since any new
homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be at least 75 feet from the shore, Staff would suggest that 75 feet become
the required average setback regardless of which of Lots 1 or 2 is built on first. As a result,the line
between proposed Lots 1 and 2 becomes the front lot line,requiring a 45-foot setback when the back lot
150 percent of standard setbacks rule is applied.
The proposed driveway extends from the end of traveled Ivy Place through the road easement across 3560
Ivy and is proposed to be constructed as an 8-foot wide paved driveway within Outlot A. The actual
driving surface is proposed to be mostly 30 feet from the shore, while portions will be within 12 to 25 feet
from the shoreline. Maximum driveway width allowed within 75 feet of the lake is eight feet. The
proposed driveway will require a hardcover variance. While eight feet is minimal for a driveway serving
two residences,that is the maximum width allowed by code within 75 feet of the lake. With the driveway
being so close to the lake, it would be appropriate that stormwater management facilities be established to
mitigate impacts of runoff from the driveway.
It is likely that re-grading of substantial portions of the site will be proposed and a number of trees will
likely be removed. The need for grading within the 0-75 foot protected zone should be carefully reviewed
at the time a preliminary plat application is proposed.
Staff does not believe there is any reasonable way to construct a cul-de-sac since it would eliminate the
ability to construct more than one house. That cul-de-sac would also be within 75 feet of the lake. The
Fire Chief has suggested the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems given the
narrowness of Ivy Street and the narrow width of the driveway. Gaffron stated it might be reasonable to
widen the width of the driveway to 10 feet,which would require a variance. The applicants are proposing
a fairly short backup apron on both lots,which Staff does not feel is a big issue. Construction traffic
would need to be located on site.
The property is served by municipal water and sewer and some fees will be required. There is also a
sewer connection for the house at 3560 coming across into this property, which will need to be located
and determined if an easement is required.
Page 18 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
15. #17-3941 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,OB/O RICK AND BARBARA
LUPIENT,3580 IVI'PLACE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW—Continued
The property will require a Conservation Design report.
Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan review and that the applicant is looking for direction from the City
Council.
Crosby asked what the height limitation is and whether the second house could be two stories.
Gaffron indicated it is one story for the house closest to 3560 Ivy and the second house can be two stories.
Dankey stated she used to live in the area and that the lagoon was created at some point. Dankey asked if
additional fill would need to be brought in.
Fretham indicated some additional fill will need to be brought in but not a lot. Fretham stated they will be
mitigating on another site and this site will be brought above the 100-year floodplain elevation.
Crosby stated in his view a wider driveway is necessary as well as a sprinkler system for the homes.
Chief Van Eyll indicated the fire hydrant is located at the end of the road by the lift station.
Seals asked if the applicant would be willing to construct one house.
Fretham stated that is a possibility but that they are interested in constructing two properties. Fretham
noted the property has been taxed as buildable lots for many years and that there are a number of
properties in town that have also been filled.
Walsh asked if he is fine with the comments from the fire chief.
Fretham indicated he is fine with them and that they were not unexpected.
Crosby asked if he is willing to limit the house to one story.
Fretham stated they are looking at a payxnent to that property owner to change the view easement which
would allow them to build two stories in order to shrink the footprint of the homes.
Crosby asked what type of footprint they are considering.
Fretham indicated they are looking at 5,000 to 6,000 square feet.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Gaffron noted in front of the City Council are two letters from 1987 and 2012 between the Lupient family
and the property owners of those two dates in which the Lupient family allowed the use of the southerly
end of the 3560 property to have a boat lift. Gaffron indicated the applicant will have to work that out at
some point. The property owner at 35600 has expressed concerns via their attorney with regards to the
close proximity of the house as well as drainage and runoff issues.
Page 19 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m. "
15. #17-3941 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,OB/O RICK AND BARBARA
LUPIENT,3580 IVI'PLACE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW—Continued
Fretham stated they will address that neighbor's concerns and that the situation should be improved as
part of this project. Fretham indicated he has also met with the neighbor regarding the view easement and
that they believe by getting further along in this process it will make those discussions easier.
Crosby asked if there is only one neighbor that has an issue with the view.
Gaffron indicated there is one lot that has a view easement.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission also discussed restricting construction parking and storage of
materials to the site only.
Fretham stated the property consists of over two acres and that they will be able to accommodate the
construction parking and material storage.
The City Council took no forxnal action on this item.
(Recess taken from 9:12 p.m.to 9:19 p.m.)
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.
Barnhart stated before the City Council tonight is a proposed text amendment related to wetland
regulations. Wetland regulations,and primarily the setbacks related to wetlands,ranked number six on
the Council's priorities set last fall. The Development Process Review Committee also recommended
that the wetland regulations be reviewed to be more consistent with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
There are two primary areas where the City ordinances differ from the Watershed District rules. Those
areas are buffer setbacks and when wetland delineations are required. Barnhart noted there is a difference
between a buffer and a setback.
A wetland buffer is established by the Watershed District as a"No-Touch"area when the Watershed
District requires a delineation. No activity may occur in the buffer. This buffer distance ranges from 12.5
to 75 feet depending on the type of wetland. The Watershed allows buffer averaging, which is an increase
of the buffer depth in one area of the lot to reduce it in another area.
A wetland setback is established by the City. No structure may be built within the setback but other
activity may occur in that area. Orono's setbacks vary between 35 feet and 85 feet. Currently,city code
requires a 35-foot setback minimum and is often used when no buffer has been established by the
Watershed District.
Bamhart stated in situations where there is a wetland but a buffer has not been required,the City requires
a 35-foot setback or whatever the wetland buffer would be.
Walsh asked why the Watershed District would say no wetland buffer is necessary.
Page 20 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—conNnued
Barnhart stated the Watershed District may not require a wetland delineation in certain situations under
their rules and then a wetland buffer would also not be required by the Watershed District.
Barnhart stated in drafting the proposed text amendment,he looked at what other cities are doing.
Minnetonka Beach has a 25-foot setback from the edge of a wetland,Minnetonka requires a 35-foot
setback from the wetland overlay district and 10 feet from the buffer,Minnetrista measures 35 feet from
the wetland edge, and Plymouth uses a straight 15-foot setback from the buffer. Overall Orono is
basically in line with what the other cities are following.
The Planning Commission was provided with three options to review at their April meeting. Those are as
follows:
1. Recognizing that the Watershed District's focus is regional and the City's is smaller,retain the
existing setback requirements and make no changes to buffers.
2. Recognizing the City's role in water quality protection,yet balance the need for use of land,
reduce the setback to 22 feet where no buffer is required or has been established. The 22 feet is
nine and one half feet more than the shortest possible buffer required by the Watershed District
for residential properties. In addition,22 feet is a memorable setback, less likely to be lost in the
mind of the applicant,to the benefit of protecting the wetland.
3. Completely defer buffer requirements to the Watershed District and remove the requirement of a
setback from undeclared buffers and the additional ten feet from declared buffers.
Following a lengthy discussion,the Planning Commission ultimately recommended no changes to the
buffer setback based on the information before them.
The Planning Commission did recommend,however, some changes to the wetland delineation language.
The City currently requires a formal delineation on any property where a project is within 150 feet of a
wetland regardless of the type of wetland. The Watershed District only requires a wetland delineation
when specific wetland rules are triggered,which is usually when a new home is built or the property is
subdivided.
Walsh noted wetland delineations can only be done when the vegetation is actively growing,which is
May through mid-October,and that this change would provide Staff with some flexibility.
Barnhart noted the Watershed District also requires a 15-day comment period following completion of the
delineation to allow residents to comment on it. The proposed ordinance would allow Orono to accept
information for a desk review in lieu of a formal delineation for projects not likely to impact the wetland
due to project scope,distance, and/or topography, similar to methods employed by the Watershed District.
If the applicant disagrees with the City's interpretation of the wetland boundary, a full delineation may be
provided.
Walsh stated if the information is more conservative and the resident does not agree with it,he would
have the ability to obtain a formal wetland delineation.
Page 21 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
Barnhart concurred the property owner would have the option to obtain a wetland delineation. Barnhart
noted the text amendment would allow Staff to approve the delineation if the proposed improvement is
outside of the 35-foot area.
Barnhart stated the City has received a number of comments for and against the buffer/setback changes.
Those in support of removing or reducing the setback feel the use of their land is being compromised
unnecessarily. Those in support of retaining the setback rules favor preservation of Orono character and
long-standing values. Barnhart noted the names in bold on Staff's memorandum are the ones that the
Council has already received.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted.
Walsh stated the Code Review Committee has been reviewing all of the City's ordinances and regulations
over the past five to six months and that this was one of their recommendations. Walsh stated in his view
the desktop delineation is a good way to give Staff another tool and to expedite the process.
Walsh stated in terms of the setback regulations,he saw three different issues. One was whether ten feet
was a reasonable distance beyond the wetland. Walsh noted they talked at the Planning Commission and
the Code Review Committee about how a 10-foot setback is needed in general and that it is a reasonable
number because it allows the property owner the ability to mow in that area and to have a small yard.
In terms of the 35-foot setback,the Planning Commission did talk about how that number is somewhat
arbitrary. Walsh noted the lowest setback buffer from the Watershed District is 12.5 feet. With ten feet
on top of that, you come up with 22.5 feet. Walsh stated the City basically took the 12 feet required by
the Watershed District and added 12 feet to come up with the 22 feet. Currently the City requires a 35-
foot setback.
Walsh noted under current regulations, if someone wanted to put a fire pit within that area,they would not
be allowed to do that. Walsh stated in his view it is worthy of a discussion regarding what items can be
placed within that setback to allow people a little more use of their yards.
Crosby asked if Minnetonka Beach has a 25-foot setback without the buffer being included.
Barnhart stated 25 feet is a setback from the buffer.
Walsh stated if there is no buffer,Minnetonka Beach would require a 25-foot buffer and Orono would
require 35 feet.
Seals asked what additional information the Planning Commission would have benefited&om. Seals
asked whether there are any studies that show the differences in the quality of water between the
communities where there are different setbacks. Seals stated the question is whether Orono's regulations
are making a difference.
Barnhart stated there are a number of studies out there that support buffers,which is one part of the
solution. The setback requirement is the City's part in the solution. The Planning Commission was
Page 22 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
uncomfortable with shifting the policy without data that suggested the City needed to or identified a true
problem. Barnhart stated part of the discussion tonight should be to question whether the City is on the
right path with the setback. The Planning Commission did not feel they had enough information to
answer that question since the City has not heard that the setbacks have no value.
Seals asked why the Watershed District does not also require setbacks in addition to the buffer.
Barnhart indicated the Watershed District looks region wide and the rules are applied the same across that
area. The Watershed District looks to cities to implement stricter rules on a lot by lot basis if the situation
calls for it.
Walsh commented it does not affect the amount of hardcover allowed on a lot or the height of a building
and that it comes down to whether the 35-foot setback is reasonable.
Bamhart noted Plymouth has a 15-foot accessory structure setback and Medina has a 5-foot setback,
which would allow fire pits and other similar structures in that area.
Seals asked whether the Planning Commission looked at different options for that area, such as nothing
within 10 feet or 15 feet, or whether fire pits or other structures should be allowed.
Barnhart stated they did not get into that level of detail but more questioned the purpose of the setback.
Printup stated there is no question that the buffer areas should be left alone. Printup questioned whether
there is a differentiation about whether a fire pit causes water to become contaminated. Printup noted
people are spraying their lawns in that area and that his belief is that a fire pit is pretty innocuous.
Barnhart stated allowing structures within the setback can lead to improvement creep since the edge will
move depending upon the whim of the property owner,which happens now. Barnhart stated he is not
sure he would advocate for placing a fire pit near a wetland since there are usually tall grasses that are
often dry and can catch fire.
Walsh concurred that someone should not put anything in the buffer.
Barnhart noted there are situations where there is a wetland with no buffer but there is a setback.
Walsh commented that could be dealt with separately.
Walsh asked for public comment.
Paul Muldoon, 1801 West Farm Road, stated the proposal to do the desktop wetland delineations is a step
forward since it will provide builders feedback in a timely fashion and accommodates seasonal changes.
Muldoon stated in terms of the setbacks,he strongly supports option one,which makes no changes.
Muldoon noted Orono began implementing their wetland regulations and protections in 1980 and that
there are several reasons for buffers and setbacks, such as a practical need for an additional setback from
Page 23 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGLTI,ATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
the setback in terms of property maintenance and recreation,and a scientific basis to promote cleaner
water by absorbing toxins,to provide essential wildlife corridors, and to provide open spaces and vistas in
the neighborhoods,which helps contribute to the rural nature of Orono.
Muldoon stated since only a few variances were approved last year to wetland setbacks,they appear to be
acceptable to 99 percent of the people in the community. In terms of scientific support, Orono's setbacks
meet the Fish and Wildlife Department's guidelines,and it is likely the actual recommended distances are
50 to 100 percent greater than what Orono requires. Aesthetically,the wetland setbacks serve the purpose
of allowing wildlife to live in harmony with humans and have equal access to some of the waterways.
Muldoon commented he is sympathetic to homeowners and builders that have issues with unique
topography challenges and that he agrees they should be able to ask for variances if there are undue
hardships. Muldoon indicated he has reached out to a few builders regarding these issues and that they
indicated they do not see the regulations themselves as being the source of the problem but the fact that it
takes time to review variances, even routine ones. Muldoon stated it is likely everyone would agree that
allowing desktop review of wetland delineations would speed up the approval process and address a
number of issues.
Muldoon stated it is his understanding Orono just reviewed and redefined their wetland regulations four
years ago and that the existing setbacks were agreed on by the town and the City Council and Staff. The
Planning Commission at their last meeting recommended to leave the wetland setback as is. Muldoon
stated in his view it is unnecessary to change the setbacks since it is inconsistent with the view of the
maj ority of the residents. Muldoon stated in the interests of maintaining Orono's special character,the
residents' opposition to the change, and the ability of the City to maintain local control over the
environment,he would strongly urge the City Council to keep the existing protections.
Seals asked whether Mr. Muldoon feels the general public would be okay with variances being approved
if the topography poses a challenge.
Muldoon stated he does not see a hardship to the residents since the regulations have been in place for
quite some time and they have been abiding by them. Muldoon stated as far as reducing the regulations,
in his opinion it is a real risk to the water quality,the wildlife, and invites additional density near the
wetlands. Muldoon stated if the City continues to squeeze the setbacks, invariably they will get requests
for more and more homes. Muldoon stated in his view they are losing ground even though they have
these regulations and that he is concerned about hardcover in the buffer and setback areas and what that
runoff will do to the waterways.
Jay Kinve, 950 Willow View Drive, stated he is opposed to the opinion that was just read by
Mr.Muldoon on the setbacks but that he does agree with the establishment of the desktop review and the
permanent nature of wetland reviews and permanent buffers. Kinve stated that makes all the sense in the
world since it is a big hassle and expense when new delineations are required by the City even though the
Watershed District does not require them.
Kinve noted they are talking about wetlands and they are not talking about Lake Minnetonka or Long
Lake. Kinve stated ironically the lakes have fewer protections from runoff than wetlands do and that a
Page 24 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
lake owner can have a yard right up to the edge of the water as well as riprap and stone that allows the
water to run off faster into the lake. In addition,there is no buffer of uncompacted soil and no 16 to 20
feet of weed bed. Kinve stated that would provide water protection and buffers that would dramatically
improve water quality around the lake.
Kinve stated for a lot of people that are concerned about water quality,they associate it with the lakes,
where wetlands already have a lot of built-in protections that lake properties do not. Kinve noted an
MCWD buffer provides a minimum of 12.5 feet,usually 16.5 feet from the wetland edge of undisturbed
vegetation and uncompacted soil, which slows and filters runoff from the surrounding property.
Accordingly,the MCWD does not require any setback for structures from a delineated buffer as the
buffer itself is the necessary and prudent protection for the wetland. As such, it would be completely
logical if Orono were to also require no additional setback from a delineated buffer.
Kinve commented he realizes that the prevailing attitude in Orono is that we need to be better than the
established standards. Kinve stated personally he is not a fan of more for more sake but that the
community should arrive at a common sense compromise that addresses many concerns that have been
raised at the Planning Commission meeting and tonight. Kinve stated he would suggest that a principal
structure be set back ten feet from an established buffer. An accessory structure, like a shed,patio, or a
sport court, should be allowed two feet back from a required buffer provided that the structure could be
constructed and/or maintained without interfering with the buffer.
Kinve noted the recommended changes that he just went over are all above and beyond the current
MCWD requirements. These changes address concerns about allowing enough room for homeowners to
walk around their house or maintain any hard surface near their home without impacting the buffer.
For setbacks with wetlands without a delineated buffer,Kinve stated he would suggest they maintain the
35-foot setback. The benefit to maintaining the 35-foot setback is that the City could encourage better
environxnental quality. Kinve stated they would be creating an incentive that does not exist today for a
property owner to establish a buffer on their property to achieve more use of their property. If nothing is
done, it will continue to allow someone to mow and spray chemicals all the way up to the edge of the
pond and let that run off into the pond without any filter or any type of buffer. Kinve stated if someone
wanted to build a deck,they could establish a buffer and control the runoff much better.
Kinve stated he is requesting that the City not go to the greater/or standard. Kinve stated his
recommendations is 10 feet for a principal building or structure; and if there is not have a buffer and there
is a wetland,there should be a 35-foot setback. If the person wants to come to the Planning Commission
to reduce that setback,they can seek a variance but that they also have the option of establishing the
buffer. Kinve stated in his view that would be fair to all existing homes and would allow people to more
fully use their property.
With respect to hardcover issues and runoff,Kinve noted they are not changing anything with respect to
hardcover. The buffer in and of itself is going to slow down and prevent the type of pollution that people
are looking to reduce or prevent.
Page 25 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
Kinve stated if a fire pit is built to code in the first place, it has to be surrounded by a certain measure of
flat surface,and if the entirety of the fire pit structure is outside of the buffer, it will not impact the buffer.
Kinve noted he would not have been allowed to build his sport court if he had to comply with the 35-foot
setback.
Walsh asked if the City is getting rid of the 5-year requirement on wetland delineations.
Barnhart stated a question was raised at the Planning Commission meeting about how to treat those
delineations. Under current regulations, a wetland delineation is good for five years and no changes are
being proposed to that. The purpose for that is that wetlands tend to change over time.
Walsh noted that is not a rule of the City and so therefore no changes can be made to it.
Kinve stated the Watershed District for additions of accessory structures does not require a new wetland
delineation. That would include a sport court,a patio or deck, a fire pit,or reconstruction of the house on
the existing footprint. If there was a tear down and reconstruction of a different house,that property
owner would need a new delineation to make sure the new house meets the same standards.
Walsh stated he wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page with that.
Barnhart stated the five-year rule is not proposed to be changed.
Kinve stated as long as someone is not rebuilding their entire home,the existing delineation is permanent
to the property for purposes of smaller accessory structures and a new delineation is not required.
Walsh asked if a new delineation would be required if Mr.Kinve would want to construct a deck ten
years from now.
Barnhart stated in that situation, Staff would use the best information they had,which would be a wetland
delineation. Barnhart stated in Mr.Kinve's situation, if he were to tear down his house and build a bigger
one and there is a declared buffer on the property,the Watershed District would use that buffer as the
edge and a new wetland delineation would not be required. If there was no declared buffer,then a new
wetland delineation would be required.
Christopher Jones,2320 Longview Circle, stated there does not seem to be a great need for this ordinance
change and that when circumstances arise that might require adding a buffer and working from that,the
variance process for that type of maneuver would be wonderful but that it can be take on a case-by-case
basis rather than changing the entire ordinance so that it redoes everything. Jones stated there does not
appear to be a great need for this change but that he does agree there are places where Orono can make a
bigger difference by requiring buffers or doing things with variances. In the case of adding fire pits or
hardscape, if the homeowner wants to have a variance granted,then the City is well within their right to
allow that. Jones stated the current process allows some give and take through the variance process.
Page 26 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
Jones stated there is nothing that he can find on the City's website that there has been any detailed
analysis of what is driving this change and what is causing it to be such a big issue. Jones stated if the
City wants to address it on a case-by-case basis,that would be appropriate.
Jones stated in reading through the proposal,he was kind of surprised when he read a statement on Lines
102 and 103 that states the four classifications for all properties except those zoned as residential. Jones
stated he is unsure how that language actually applies to the issue that is before the Council tonight.
Jones stated in his reading of the language, it appears to say that all of this is good and that the application
of the management classes Preserve 1, 2,and 3 would apply going forward under this ordinance to
everything that is not residential. Jones stated based on the language in the text amendment, it says
except those zoned as residential,which would seem to suggest that houses are not going to be following
this type of classification.
Barnhart noted Lines 98 through 104 establishes the different types of wetland classifications except those
zoned as residential. That language was added in there to reflect some changes recommended by the
Watershed District. Barnhart noted wetlands are an overlay zone and are already governed by the
Watershed District.
Jones asked if it would apply to residential structures on properties or not.
Barnhart stated based on the draft language,it would not since it is already governed by the Watershed
District. Barnhart stated from that wetland designation,the Watershed District applies their buffers.
Jones noted earlier this evening during the Eureka issue,Mayor Walsh stated the City does not want to
give up control to the state,but yet here they are advocating giving up control to the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. Jones stated there is a contradiction there that he is struggling with.
Walsh stated in his view they are a little different.
Jones stated in his view philosophically they are not.
Walsh stated they can agree to disagree on that.
Jones asked if the 22-foot setback would apply to Preserve Management Class I,2 and 3 or whether they
would be treated differently.
Barnhart stated originally the Planning Commission reviewed a version of the ordinance that had a
different setback in it. Under Line 90,it says where no formal buffer exists and where the MCWD does
not require a buffer,the City would require 35 feet. The Planning Commission saw a version that had the
setback reduced to 22 feet. That number came from adding 12 feet to the MCWD's 12.5 feet. Barnhart
noted wetland averaging would require a wetland delineation.
Jones asked if the 22 feet would apply to all four management classes.
Barnhart noted that is not before the City Council tonight.
Page 27 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
Walsh stated that number was for discussion at the Planning Commission but is not contained within the
proposed ordinance.
Jones encouraged the City Council to look at this issue carefully and to consider some of the unintended
consequences that might arise if the setbacks are changed. Jones stated the variance process would allow
the City to make case-by-case decisions rather than having a broad, sweeping change of the ordinance.
Walsh stated he is glad to see all the participation by the residents on this issue. Walsh noted the variance
process is not a give and take and it requires the property owner to prove a hardship.
Jamie Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, stated he agrees with the previous speaker's comments and that it
seems like this is being fast forwarded somewhat since it is early in the year and this was listed as five or
six on the Council's priority list.
Walsh stated the Council has probably gone through 1 through 10 already and that they are working their
way through the top 20 prioritized items. Overall the Council identified 60 total priorities. Walsh stated
the City is conducting a review of their ordinances to see what is relevant and what is not. Walsh
indicated this issue was brought up because there was a desire to revisit the delineation issue and setbacks
since it was causing some delays and other issues. Walsh stated the discussion allows ideas to come
about on how to deal with things.
Lowe asked how people were selected for the Code Review Committee.
Walsh indicated it is composed of people who expressed an interest in it and that the City will take
anyone who expressed an interest in being on the committee.
Lowe asked if there is a requirement to reside in the City to serve on a committee.
Walsh stated he is not aware of any hard and fast rule to that effect and to his knowledge the members on
the committee reside in Orono. Walsh stated there are some people on the Big Island committee that are
not Orono residents since it is more of a regional asset.
Lowe stated the vigorous,onerous processes that are in place are things that the residents have lived and
abided by and help to make Orono a special city. Lowe commented he does not want to be governed by a
body that does not have a direct interest in the City and that he would challenge the Council to leave the
regulations as is.
Printup stated he has heard a number of rumors as well and that he heard tonight that this change could
result in higher density,which he is not in favor o£ Printup stated in his view debating a 10-foot wetland
buffer will not impact density.
Lowe stated he had heard that some members of that committee were not Orono residents and that in his
view it would not be fair to have outside residents dictating Orono policy.
Dankey commented that is not the case.
Page 28 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
A1 Winston,Long Lake, stated he and his wife support the current regulations.
Kelly Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, stated she supports the 35 and 10-foot setbacks. Lowe stated she
also supports keeping the density as is and not increasing it.
Jane Davidson, 1020 Old Long Lake Road, Long Lake, stated she has resided in this area for four years
and that she is very impressed with Orono's strong environmental push with regulations. Davidson stated
this is a bad time to be considering changing environmental protections since there is growing pressure
for land use in the westem suburbs and that those residents who live on Long Lake are witnessing the
water quality decrease. Davidson noted it takes decades to remediate the damage at a very high cost and
that everyone needs to be very cautious in changing the rules. Davidson stated reducing the setbacks
would have huge impacts on the water quality and that it would relax the City's commitment to the
environment.
Davidson encouraged the City Council to stick with Option 1. Davidson stated variances work pretty
well and gives the neighborhood an opportunity to speak. Davidson stated she applauds Orono for their
leadership.
Davidson commented there are also different types of fire pits and that she was allowed to have a fire pit
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District since it only consists of six stones in a circle.
Crosby noted there is a standard size fire pit.
Jay Kinve noted variances are not easy to get and are not always based on common sense. Kinve noted
this regulation is four years old and that the residents have not lived under this regulation their entire
lives.
Gaffron stated the regulations have changed many times over the years but four years ago it was changed
again to what it is currently. Up until four years ago,the City had a buffer requirement but the Council
decided to let the MCWD regulate the buffers and the City would only establish a setback. Going back to
1975,the City had a 26-foot setback that was in place for two or three decades.
Kinve stated approximately 2006 was the next major revision to the wetland ordinances. Kinve stated
changing ordinances is not new and that there are no studies that show what was done four years ago was
good or bad.
Kinve noted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the environmental authority in this area and they
are the experts. Kinve stated the MCWD's concern regionally is the same as Orono's and that Orono
needs to think regionally as well since water flows elsewhere. Kinve stated the MCWD provides
protections for Orono as well as other nearby cities and that they are the experts. Kinve stated if the City
wants to impose additional setbacks,that is okay,but that variances are not that easy to obtain. Kinve
stated he would implore the City Council to adopt something that is protective and incentivizes property
owners to make things better than what exists today.
Page 29 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
Samantha Muldoon, 1801 West Farm Road, stated her understanding is that there is scientific support and
data that shows a 35-foot buffer setback is actually inadequate to protect water quality. The article from
the US Fish and Wildlife Services says at 30 feet the sediment removal is minimal and at 50 feet you can
maintain stream temperature,which is important for aquatic habitat enhancement and minimal nitrogen
and contaminant removal.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service article also said choosing a buffer width depends on the planning goals
of the area. As the buffer increases, it provides greater benefits,and a 30-foot buffer provides minimal
service. At 50 feet,the buffer meets minimum water quality protection recommendations and gives some
aquatic habitats benefit. For effective water quality and aquatic protection, a buffer width of 100 feet is
needed.
Muldoon stated there is data available. Muldoon noted it is different at every lake and it is very
complicated,but they know a larger setback is better. Muldoon stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District really provides a baseline that is regional in focus and it applies to a number of cities, such as
Edina and Eden Prairie. Muldoon stated Orono is not at all like those cities and that Orono is more rural.
Muldoon stated traditionally all of the cities have applied their own standards on top of the MCWD's
minimum common denominator and that she does not want the City Council to believe there is no data
available or that the MCWD is the overarching expert on water quality.
Muldoon stated she is in support of keeping the standards the way they are currently and that she is also
in favor of the desktop wetland delineation.
Walsh stated he appreciates the US Fish&Wildlife Service,but his understanding is that the data is taken
from a number of different lakes and streams and not just wetlands and that the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District has a narrower focus. Walsh stated in his view they are talking about apples and pears
when the two are compared.
Muldoon stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also published an article that talks about
minimum setbacks. That study talks about for sediment reduction from steep slopes or shallow slopes, all
of the setbacks are over 50 feet in terms of minimal distance. Muldoon stated in her view they should not
mess with what has been working.
Kinve noted he is also speaking for some other residents who were not able to attend tonight's meeting.
Kinve stated with regard to the Long Lake Water Association's email that went out,the data that says a
bigger setback is better is from the Panama City Field Office in Panama City,Florida,and relates to how
to protect large bodies of water and the salamander,which is not the situation here and is not applicable to
this area. Kinve stated the other people that he has talked to also made the point that people are spreading
information around that is not applicable to this region. Kinve noted they are talking about buffers again
and not setbacks.
Paul Muldoon noted earlier this evening he did recognize some comments that did have merit from
Mr.Kinve, and one of them was how do you look at situations where someone has an encroachment and
that person wants to do something in their yard, and if they do something else to mitigate what otherwise
could be a detriment,they can earn the right to do it. Muldoon stated that type of thing is hard to
Page 30 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
incorporate into an ordinance because variances do not allow for that. Muldoon stated maybe allowances
should be given for those types of situations.
Muldoon stated he is concerned about the water quality and that there might be a solution here,which
may be mitigation.
Kinve stated he was proposing creating an incentive where a person actually creates a buffer. Kinve
noted the information that was sent around talks about a buffer,which does not create an incentive to
have a buffer. Kinve stated he would leave the regulations�}nchanged except for allowing accessory
structures up to 10 feet from the wetland buffer. If there is no buffer,they have to be 35 feet back from
the wetland. Kinve stated it is the buffer that filters the water, slows down the runoff,and absorbs
chemicals and nitrates. Kinve stated the City could be a lot more lenient on variances but then there will
probably be a bunch of variance requests.
Muldoon commented the water quality needs to be preserved, and if the setbacks are cropped to the
shortest level,there will be more creep. Muldoon stated it will be easier to go down than it is to come
back up.
Laurie Goodsell, 2206 Watertown Road, stated she is very much in support of not changing the setback
and that little by little things are being chipped away. Goodsell stated she moved here for the rural
character. Goodsell stated she is not a water expert but she knows the water quality in this area is terrible
and that it needs to be protected more,not less.
Cassie Ordway, 1145 County Road 6, stated she would like the City Council to totally understand the
ramifications of the ordinance so there is a reasonable,thoughtful discussion on how homeowners should
use their land. Ordway commented perhaps a compromise could be reached that way.
Ordway stated if the City Council wants to look at data,they can go back to 2001 when the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District did an extensive study looking at 50 to 100-foot buffers from 2001 to 2007. At
some point a number close to 35 feet was implemented. Ordway stated less than 15 years ago,the buffers
and setbacks used to much greater than what they are now.
Ordway encouraged the City Council to be very thoughtful about this and that perhaps they should table it
given the lateness of the evening. Ordway stated she would also encourage Staff to look at other options
that might provide a compromise while still preserving the wetlands and the water quality. Ordway noted
wetlands ebb and flow and that if people are allowed to do things too close to the wetlands,they will
eventually want to pump the water out of that area.
There were no further public comments.
Printup commented he is surprised there has not been a bigger push to make larger buffers around Long
Lake given the water quality,but that he has a hard time connecting a small accessory structure or a fire
pit with really creating bad water quality. Printup stated he does not know how close a fire pit should go
to a buffer,but at the same time there are a number of residents that are going around their lawn with
Page 31 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS—
ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued
Round-Up and dandelion deterrent. Printup stated sometimes they go off topic and get emotional but that
he is having a hard time making the connection.
Dankey indicated she does not agree with Council Member Printup and that if you allow people to go
closer to the buffer,there will be creep because that is the way people are. Dankey stated she is fine with
the setback the way it is.
Printup indicated he is okay with the desktop wetland delineation.
Dankey stated some of the delineation maps seem a little extreme and that she is not sure how accurate
they are.
Crosby stated he would like to see that more defined and that the Council could consider allowing things
that will not interfere with the wetland.
Walsh stated the Council could also leave things as is and simply allow fire pits within the setback.
Barnhart noted a recreational fire is 3 x 3 x 3 and a fire pit can be any size.
Seals stated she is undecided about the data that was submitted and whether the setback should be
changed at this time. Seals stated in her view the City can do better than Option 1 or Option 2 but that in
her view people will creep closer to the wetland if the setbacks are reduced. Seals stated she would like
to keep everything the same until the Council looks at it further. Seals stated in her view a larger setback
will not solve all the problems that Long Lake is having since there are other factors that need to be
addressed.
Seals noted the Planning Commission said they don't have enough information and she also does not feel
she has enough information. Seals suggested the Council invite the Watershed District to one of the
Council's work sessions to talk about why the buffers are the way they are and what the impacts are.
Seals stated she would like to have a larger discussion about what can be done to improve the water
quality of the various lakes.
Crosby stated he would also like somebody from the Watershed District to speak with the Council and
that perhaps the City can be a little flexible by allowing fire pits within the setback.
Dankey commented it unfortunately is too late to make the setbacks and buffers better since the homes
are already there and that a 100-foot buffer is never going to happen.
Walsh stated it appears the City Council is in favor of the desktop wetland delineation and to send this
back to Planning Commission to look at setbacks,possible flexibility for some items within the setback,
and to obtain additional information from the Watershed District before a final decision is made.
Seals moved,Printup seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series,an Ordinance
Amending the Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Wetland Regulations,Option 1. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
Page 32 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
*17. AUTHORIZE TO HIItE CITY PLANNER
Crosby moved,Printup seconded,to authorize the hiring of Laura(Holey)Oakden to the position
of City Planner at Grade 11, Step 2. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Printup reported there was a Highway 12 Safety Coalition meeting last Thursday,with tl�e coalition being
updated on some of the issues taking place at the MN State Legislature. In 2021 there will be�some
money available for some improvements.
Printup stated he also received some feedback from when the LMCD representative was before the
Council and that the residents liked the Council's questions.
Crosby encouraged the local residents to support the businesses on Highway 12 during the road
improvement project.
Walsh reported he attended the May Park Commission meeting,which went well, and that he would like
to thank the Orono Thunder for spreading mulch on the trails at Lurton Park.
Walsh stated he would also encourage the residents to continue visiting the businesses in Long lake and
Orono during the construction.
Walsh noted the new daycare place, Little Acorns,experienced flooding two days after they moved into
the building,which closed down their business for a week.
Walsh reported they also had the Mayor Step-To-It-Challenge,with 15 to 20 people participating in the
walk.
Walsh stated he also has held a number of ineetings with citizens and Hennepin County regarding some
issues associated with the Highway 112 construction.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Reeder stated he has nothing to report.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Mattick stated he has nothing to repot
Page 33 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,May 8,2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Printup moved, Seals seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 11:11 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
ATTEST:
� . .,,� ,Z
� , .-,
�- .
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayar
Page 34 of 34