Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2015 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 1 of 43    ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and Dennis Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 7, 18, 19, 21, and 22 were added to the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2015 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of February 23, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2015 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of February 23, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. LMCD REPORT/BIG ISLAND REPORT – GABRIEL JABBOUR, REPRESENTATIVE Gabriel Jabbour stated Orono is very fortunate to have a number of volunteers in the community, which is how he is able to help maintain Big Island. Jabbour noted they added some signage on Big Island recently based on requests from the Water Patrol. The signage identified that no motorized vehicles were allowed as well as alcohol being prohibited. Jabbour indicated he welded every bolt so they could not be unscrewed but vandals went to the extent of pulling the signs off the posts, which took a great deal of effort. Jabbour stated during the process of maintaining the park, they occasionally have to use motorized vehicles. Jabbour stated one of the residents on Big Island continually calls the police and the Water Patrol and objects to him being there. Jabbour stated eventually the Water Patrol will stop responding to those types of calls, which he does not want to happen. Jabbour stated overall everything is going fine on Big Island and that they are looking forward to putting the docks out. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 2 of 43    (LMCD REPORT/BIG ISLAND REPORT – GABRIEL JABBOUR, REPRESENTATIVE, continued) Jabbour noted approximately one year ago he was expressing some frustration about the LMCD and the City concluded that he should be on the Board to implement some of his ideas and concerns. Jabbour stated he started by meeting with the Water Patrol and Sheriff prior to being on the Board about a variety of issues. Jabbour noted he just finished having a meeting with the chair of the LMCD and an aide of the sheriff this afternoon. Jabbour stated they unfortunately have gone from 54 volunteers down to 22 and from 11 gun holders to six. As of today there are 25 volunteers and 10 or 11 sworn deputies. The Water Patrol has brought back some of the people who are very familiar with the area. Jabbour indicated they are trying to implement a program where there would be an incremental increase in deputies. In addition, there will be a full-time deputy who serves exclusively on Lake Minnetonka and will work with the volunteers and have a stronger presence on the lake. Jabbour stated the other positive thing that has happened is that over 50 volunteers are currently undergoing background checks in order to work with the Water Patrol. Jabbour noted there are three levels of volunteers and that the 50 volunteers are being looked at for all three levels. Jabbour stated he also pointed out to the City of Shorewood in October that the LMCD has a strategic plan that only one or two board members were aware of. That resulted in a meeting in October with the chair and resulted in them distributing it to the board members and attempting to update it. There was also a meeting held in January of this year and the LMCD Board went through the report. Jabbour stated in the summer of last year he engaged the Carlson School of Business to do a survey of the residents about their perceptions of the LMCD. That program will be starting this month. Jabbour indicated some of the LMCD board members met with them and felt it should be under their umbrella. Jabbour stated he was not in agreement with that and that the MBA program will exclusively be doing the survey. Jabbour stated he also tried to freeze the salaries of the LMCD personnel until the job descriptions are finalized and the weight they put on those positions. Jabbour noted a number of government entities approve a three percent raise regardless. Jabbour noted last year the LMCD relocated to Mound and realized a $20,000 savings, or seven percent of the budget, but that the LMCD went ahead and raised the budget by three percent. Jabbour stated he was looking for reductions in the budget, which did not happen. Jabbour stated the LMCD was also founded as a coordinating agency and not founded as an implementing agency. The LMCD does not have the ability to levy, have staff, or do projects that they do not have the expertise or the know-how on how to do it. Jabbour stated the LMCD will be turning the inspection programs over and partnering with Three Rivers Park. The LMCD will still pay for the inspection programs but will not be in charge of running it. Jabbour stated in his view that will help save the LMCD some money. Jabbour indicated the Board will be looking for other programs that could possibly be taken over by other government entities. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 3 of 43    (LMCD REPORT/BIG ISLAND REPORT – GABRIEL JABBOUR, REPRESENTATIVE, continued) Jabbour indicated another item he would like the LMCD Board to look at is the milfoil harvesting. Jabbour noted money for the initial harvesters were donated but that the LMCD is now replacing them at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Jabbour stated with a number of bays now being treated by the residents themselves, the LMCD does not need to be harvesting the milfoil. Jabbour noted the original purpose of the milfoil harvesting was only to harvest navigable water and not all the bays. McMillan stated she appreciates the work being done by Mr. Jabbour. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – CHRISTOPHER McGRANN, REPRESENTATIVE McGrann noted on Item No. 10, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval of the street setback variance. In addition, the Planning Commission has spent a fair amount of time amending the zoning codes that are now before the City Council. McGrann stated he will be available for questions. PRESENTATIONS 4. BOY SCOUT BRIDGE, HENNEPIN COUNTY BRIDGE ENGINEER JAMES ARCHER James Archer, Hennepin County Bridge Engineer, stated he is here tonight to provide an update on the Boy Scout bridge replacement. The bridge is located on Tonkawa Road between North Arm and Maxwell Bay and is also known as the Boy Scout Bridge. Archer displayed a map on the overhead showing the location of the bridge. CSAH 135 runs north up to County Road 84, which is Bayside Road. The existing bridge is a single-span steel girder structure with a timber deck and 3-inch bituminous overlay, which was originally constructed in the 1930s. The bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and has narrow shoulders and is load restricted. Archer indicated a single-axle vehicle weighs approximately 23 tons and a three-axle vehicle would weigh around 36 tons. A non-posted bridge would have a 40-ton weight limit. Archer stated the bridge is load posted for 40 tons. Archer displayed pictures of the bridge and noted that the bridge also has substandard railings. The new bridge would be constructed with a concrete railing with a similar guardrail tying into it. The bridge is currently experiencing some deterioration at the beam line. Some of the design considerations include increasing the vertical clearance, widening the shoulder widths to four feet, and 12-foot driving lanes. The detour route would be north to Bayside Road. Archer noted no residents are able to access Tonkawa Road to the south of the bridge. Archer stated there are some existing utilities and overhead utilities in the area. In addition, the City has a force main in that area and Hennepin County will be coordinating with Staff on work in that area. Archer noted they have already spoken with Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gaffron about this project. Archer indicated they are still in the preliminary design phase of the project but that they are looking at constructing a single-span concrete bridge with a concrete beam section, which is similar to a concrete I-girder, but in the interests of vertical clearance, it is compressed into a rectangle. The existing MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 4 of 43    (4. BOY SCOUT BRIDGE, HENNEPIN COUNTY BRIDGE ENGINEER JAMES ARCHER, continued) foundation will be removed to channel bottom and made wider. At this time the architectural finishes are undetermined. Retaining walls may be incorporated into the design, but at this point it is uncertain how much exposed concrete there will be. Archer indicated they typically do not incorporate architectural features for walls under four feet and that component still remains to be determined. Archer displayed a picture of an existing section of the bridge and noted that the new bridge would be approximately eight feet wider than the existing structure. Archer indicated Hennepin County is working with City Staff on holding an open house at the end of March at Orono City Hall. The mailing area will include everyone along Tonkawa Road and up to Bayside Road. The residents on the south side of North Arm Bay will also be notified to get their feedback on whether the inside of the bridge should be lit and other aesthetic features of the bridge. It is anticipated the mailing will go out sometime this week. Archer noted this project will be eligible to receive federal funds as well as funds from Hennepin County. The City of Orono is not expected to contribute any funds to the project. Bids are expected to be open in August and the project will commence next summer. The overall length of the project is anticipated to be two to three months. Archer indicated he has also been in touch with the Water Patrol and that he will be contacting the LMCD at some point in the future. Archer stated he can either get city approval tonight or come back later once the plans are more detailed. In addition, the residents will be able to sign up at any time on the website in order to get news releases and information on the project. Archer noted another bridge replacement is being planned on CSAH 146 near the intersection of Fox Street. That project will also be receiving federal dollars. Archer noted that project will be smaller than this project and have fewer impacts to the residents. Council Member Levang stated she happens to live at the bottom of Tonkawa Road where it intersects with Bayside and that last fall someone towing a very large boat missed turning left or right and landed in her driveway. Levang noted no one was hurt in that incident and that Hennepin County has now erected a sign with arrows showing that they have to turn. Levang stated she would like to ensure that that area is looked at carefully since it is not the first time that cars have missed that intersection and have landed in her driveway. Levang indicated there is a very steep landing on either side and that when someone is driving down Tonkawa, it is a very steep incline. Levang stated if someone is not familiar with the road, they can fail to turn and land in her driveway. In addition, the incline can become very slippery when it is raining or snowing and the visibility is not that good. Levang stated that area has the potential for accidents to happen if traffic is diverted that direction and that extra attention needs to be paid to that. Archer stated that will be part of the detour but that this project will not require any construction in that area. Archer indicated he will make sure additional signage is added as well as perhaps implementing temporary speed limits prior to the project commencing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 5 of 43    (4. BOY SCOUT BRIDGE, HENNEPIN COUNTY BRIDGE ENGINEER JAMES ARCHER, continued) Levang suggested some type of sign that says steep hill ahead or some type of advanced warning be erected. Archer stated typically 10 to 14 days prior to the project starting signage will be put up. McMillan asked if there is a date set yet for the open house. Archer indicated they do not have a definite date set yet but that it will be held at Orono City Hall. McMillan asked if there are any public comments on this project. John Nyquist, 1432 Baldur Park Road, asked whether the bridge clearance will be raised for boat traffic. Archer stated they have preliminarily looked at the clearance and that it may be possible to raise the vertical clearance by four inches. Archer indicated they are not able to raise it further than that without turning it into a two-mile project. Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, noted there are two marinas on Maxwell Bay and that when the water elevation gets raised; oftentimes boat traffic cannot go under that bridge. Kempf stated if they can increase it by four inches, in his view the boating population will be very appreciative. Kempf asked if the architectural finishes will be determined by the time of the open house. Archer stated that would be ideal but that it will be more likely there will be some preliminary renditions. Archer stated in his view they are not far enough in the design process to finalize that component but that he can have some samples of other bridges for the residents to look at. Kempf asked if there will be another opportunity after the open house for public comment. Archer stated they can definitely reconvene the open house is there is sufficient public interest in holding another one. Information will also be posted to the website for the residents to access. The residents will also have the ability to submit written comments at the open house. Walsh noted he lives near the area where the County Road 19 project was done and that it went well. Walsh stated the extra width will be greatly appreciated. 5. NAVARRE BANNER DESIGN – JOAN WOLFE Joan Wolfe stated the City Council may have received an electronic document that is significantly darker than what is really being proposed and that she has some images that are closer to the actual banner. Wolfe stated during the process of coming up with a design, she had the assistance of local artist Mary McKenzie, who created the design. Wolfe stated when they first looked at this; their goal was to incorporate a very welcome title on the top of the banner. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 6 of 43    (5. NAVARRE BANNER DESIGN – JOAN WOLFE, continued) The title was then tied to the center of the image, which is a map of the bays around Navarre. Also incorporated into the sign are some lampposts, a cheerful yellow color as well as a yellow boat. Wolfe stated Mary has been working on the depth of the colors. Levang stated the design is quite beautiful and that she appreciates the artistry that has gone into it. Levang stated in her view this is a piece of public art rather than a banner with a basic color and some simple words. Levang stated the banner will be enjoyed for a long time and that perhaps the image could be used in brochures that talk about Navarre. Levang stated in essence they have come up with a new brand for Navarre with the uniqueness of the banner. Council Member Walsh stated in his view the banner is very well done and that he would be interested in hearing the comments of the residents of Navarre. McMillan stated she noticed in Joan’s book on the History of Navarre that Minnetonka Beach was also called the Island City and that she was wondering whether that would cause any confusion with Minnetonka Beach. McMillan stated in her view it is a great catchy phrase but that she is not sure whether it would be confusing. McMillan stated Navarre is also a neighborhood of Orono and that she did not know whether the banner should say a neighborhood of Orono. Wolfe stated while researching the background information in preparation for her book, it was very unclear where the exact boundaries of the Island City was and that it was generally located in the center of Lake Minnetonka near Crystal Bay. In addition, Minnetonka Beach was not well defined and that it evolved over time. Wolfe stated she is not sure that it is conflicting but that it did occur to her as well. McMillan stated in her view it would be nice to tie Navarre and Orono together. Wolfe stated they initially thought about putting the words Island City of Orono as a clarification but that Mary decided to incorporate Orono’s logo at the bottom of the sign instead. McMillan stated Orono has a number of named neighborhoods and that it is nice to differentiate them but yet tie them together with the actual city they are in. Levang noted when someone enters Navarre; they will see a Navarre sign that also says City of Orono. Levang stated she likes the word neighborhood. Wolfe stated they could take island off and just say Orono, but that may not be quite appropriate either. McMillan suggested they work with using both phrases to see how it would fit on the banner. Walsh stated from a banner perspective, he would encourage them to look at using better colors that will have a little more longevity. Walsh stated the yellow may not be visible in the sun. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 7 of 43    (5. NAVARRE BANNER DESIGN – JOAN WOLFE, continued) Wolfe stated the degree of color fast is definitely a question they will be asking when meeting with the banner vendor. McKenzie stated they tried blue on the banner but that sometimes blue will blend into the sky. Wolfe stated the light will shine on the banner at night given the way the light posts are situated. Wolfe pointed out that there is also an American Flag on the Minnehaha, which is a nice touch. Wolfe stated the Minnehaha is being worked on this winter and that they hope to get the stack to go up and down. Wolfe stated if they are able to do that, it is possible the Minnehaha will be able to go in the upper lake again. Rick Meyer, Park Commission Chair, stated in his view it is a great design and that the banner cannot be all things to all people. Meyer stated he has never seen anything from Minnetonka Beach that says Island City and that tonight is the first he has heard of it being referred to as that. Meyer stated Minnetonka Beach is part of the overall community. Meyer stated in his view the banner helps make Navarre a special neighborhood and that it looks different and is more artistic than any other banner he has seen. Meyer stated the banner also ties in with Joan Wolfe’s book and helps make Navarre a special neighborhood of Orono. Meyer stated it is his hope they do not change the banner too much. Ralph Kempf, 3675Togo Road, stated in his view it is a wonderful piece. Kempf asked if it bigger than the old banners. McKenzie indicated it is about the same size as the old banners. Kempf stated he likes the simplicity of the top and bottom words and that the image of the street car/boat is iconic and will be recognized. Kempf stated he is in agreement that Minnetonka Beach is not associated with Island City. Kempf stated they could perhaps say The Island City of Orono if it does not squeeze it down too much. Kempf indicated he also likes the cattails going down the side. Kempf stated his only concern is that people driving by who are not familiar with where Navarre is located on the lake where identify the brown tones with water. Kempf stated if he was driving through Navarre and saw the banner for the first time, he would not picture water. Kempf suggested they consider making the water look more like water to help people make the connection easier. McKenzie stated she needs the City’s permission to use their logo on the banner. McMillan stated that is not a problem. McMillan stated the words Island City is nice and concise at the bottom and that if everyone is okay with that, she would be fine with leaving it as is. Council Member Cornick stated the logo of Orono should perhaps be made more proportional to the words Island City. McMillan suggested the final design be submitted to the City Administrator and that the Council can approve it at their next meeting. McMillan suggested cost estimates also be submitted at the same time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 8 of 43    (5. NAVARRE BANNER DESIGN – JOAN WOLFE, continued) Wolfe stated it would be nice to get a sample of the banner so the Council can see it. Council Member Printup stated he would also be interested in knowing whether they prefer what is being presented tonight or whether they prefer the banner with the revisions. Walsh suggested they obtain a couple of estimates with different qualities of dye. 6. LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT, FIRE CHIEF JAMES VAN EYLL Fire Chief Van Eyll stated he is here tonight to present the 2014 annual report for the Long Lake Fire Department. It is the mission of the Long Lake Fire Department to minimize the loss of life and property for its fire service recipients in the Cities of Long Lake, Medina and Orono from fires, natural disasters and life-threatening situations. The goal of the fire department is to perform these services in a professional and efficient manner by maintaining effective training, fire prevention, fire suppression and emergency response. The Long Lake Fire Department is currently under the leadership of James Van Eyll, Assistant Chief John Hall, and Deputy Chief of Administration DJ Goman, District Captain Shane Gardner, and Fire Captain Kelly Shaughnessy. Van Eyll stated one of the fire lieutenants has stepped down and Doug Johnson has been appointed to fill the position until the end of the year. The Long Lake Fire Department reorganized approximately three years ago. There are currently 41 active members, with all members going to be Firefighter I or II state certified, First Responders or EMT certified, and HazMat Operations Certified. There are currently three probationary members that were brought on at the end of 2014. The Long Lake Fire Department currently has two stations it operates out of. In 2014, the Long Lake Fire Department responded to a total of 353 calls, with the majority of the calls being located in Orono. In 2014, Orono had 14 fire calls, 55 medical calls, 46 hazardous condition calls, 91 good intent calls, 65 false alarms, and 4 severe weather calls, for a total of 281. In 2013, Orono had 426 calls. McMillan asked if the fire calls related to building fires. Van Eyll indicated they can be any type of fire and could range from outside fires to building fires. There were two major structural fires that occurred in Orono in 2014. The average response time for Orono was 0.05.56 seconds, with an average response time for all cities being 0.06.18. The reduction in the response time resulted from the overall call volume being reduced as well as the location of calls. Mutual aid calls had an 0:11:30 response time. The majority of the calls were received between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., which was slightly down from last year. Orono had a total of 4,347 hours in calls. The Long Lake Fire Department is currently in the process of finalizing the budget for this year. In 2014, the Fire Department ended the year at approximately $3,000 under budget but the numbers have yet to be finalized. Van Eyll noted the Long Lake Fire Department will reach its 100-year anniversary in April. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 9 of 43    (6. LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT, FIRE CHIEF JAMES VAN EYLL, continued) Overall goals for the Fire Department completed in 2014 included Blue Card Lite training, refinement of the driver training program, creation of a small engine check sheet at both stations, debriefings after most calls, and participation in the Wellness and Fitness program. The Fire Department also completed more small group training, driver training, in-house Blue Card Lite training, CO alarm training with True Readings, and training with CAFS and Foam. The Fire Department’s 2015 goals include LLFD branding, duty clothing, review and revamp SOP. Training goals for 2015 include live burn training, medical training, officer development, driver training, and increased foam/CAFS training. Van Eyll noted upcoming events for 2015 include the pancake breakfast on April 19, the memorial 5k race on July 25, the centennial celebration on September 19, Kids Day on October 25, and the Slow Burn Brigade food drive on December 5. Walsh stated Chief Van Eyll is doing a great job. Walsh noted the Fire Department was approximately $3,000 under budget and that there were 20 percent fewer calls. Walsh stated as the Fire Department goes through the budget process, he would like to see how 20 percent more calls would impact the budget. Van Eyll stated the one wild card that plays into the budget every year is the number of calls. Van Eyll stated some of the things that are scheduled for the end of the year may need to be delayed if the funds are not available. Walsh stated it would be helpful to the Council if there were a couple of different scenarios presented and the impact it would have on the budget. McMillan asked if he has any thoughts on the rumble strips that have been installed on Highway 12. Chief Van Eyll stated the Long Lake Fire Department has not seen significant traffic accidents in their section of the corridor, which was true even before the rumble strips were added. Van Eyll stated the rumble strips appear to be doing what they were designed to do but that the weather has also been less severe this year. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Quinlivan stated he would like to comment on the section of road that Council Member Levang mentioned in regards to the bridge project. Quinlivan indicated he is a contactor and that he does a tremendous amount of work in that area. Quinlivan stated he has found that section of road to be dangerous. Quinlivan stated in his view there needs to be permanent signage erected in that area and not just during the construction period. Quinlivan stated unfortunately construction brings a lot of new drivers into the area and that in his view there should be a stop sign coming up the hill before you turn as well as some signage at the top of the hill. Quinlivan stated the road also does get slippery in inclement weather. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 10 of 43    *7. #13-3623 LIN YAN/CITY OF ORONO – 1330 CHERRY PLACE – CORRECTED RESOLUTION, RESOLUTION NO. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Corrective Resolution of the City Council for the property located at 1330 Cherry Place. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. #14-3685 WILLI ABBOTT ON BEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP, LLC Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting an amendment of the Development Contract and RPUD Agreement for Oliver Hill to revise the limits on lot coverage for two of the seven lots. Oliver Hill had a lot coverage limit of 15 percent per lot, which is lot coverage by structures. The developer initially had proposed to build fairly modest homes ranging from 1,800 to 2,200 square foot. Staff recently received a house plan for Lot 2, Block 2. Lot 2, Block 2 has a limit of 15 percent structural coverage. The house plan came in with a footprint of approximately 4,000 square feet or 22 percent lot coverage. Gaffron stated clearly that house does not fit the lot. The developer is still in the process of constructing the road and they have not constructed any homes at this point. The applicants have asked whether they could exchange lot coverage for Lot 2, Block 2 with Lot 2, Block 1, which is directly across from Lot 2, Block 2. Gaffron indicated Lot 2, Block 2, is a good sized lot but is small compared to the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. The lot consists of approximately 17,917 square feet and the lot across the street is almost 3,000 square feet. Gaffron stated lot coverage has always been a massing issue and that the 15 percent is based on the entire lot and not just the dry buildable land. The applicant has raised the question of whether it would be feasible to exchange the amount of lot coverage that is allotted to the lot to the north for the smaller 15 percent lot coverage for Lot 2 to the south. During the application process, the applicant indicated his intent was to build modestly sized homes, and the conceptual footprints shown on the approved development plans had no footprint larger than 2,200 square feet. The issue for the Council to consider is whether it is reasonable to allow the transfer of unusable excess lot coverage allotment from one lot to another lot. Gaffron noted that has not been done previously. From Staff’s perspective, allowing 22 percent structural coverage would be way out of proportion to the 15 percent structural lot coverage. Gaffron stated Staff remains neutral on whether it is appropriate to swap the lot coverage. Willi Abbott, The Broadway Group, stated he would like to raise a couple of points. Abbott stated it is his belief that he made a mistake and missed that lot when calculating the 15 percent on each lot. In addition, the lot lines were moved further back in order to meet the changed setback. Abbott stated when they were calculating the 15 percent initially; they knew that Lot 2, Block 2, was going to be tight but that they did not realize it would be that tight. Abbott stated they originally set out to do 2,100 to 3,000 square foot homes. Abbott stated if you look at the homes drawn on the survey, those were put on there by the surveyor to give an idea of where the homes might go rather than the actual square footages. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 11 of 43    (8. #14-3685 WILLI ABBOTT ON BEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP, LLC, continued) Abbott stated it has always been their intent to construct homes that ranged from 2,500 to 3,000 square feet. The house plan that was recently submitted is around 3,200 square feet, excluding the front porch and the screen porch, which is close to what was initially proposed. Abbott stated as it relates to the massing, in his view the impact will be very, very low since the other homes will not be that large. Abbott noted the plan submitted for Lot 1, Block 1, is around seven percent structural coverage. Abbott stated if the Council looks at it as a whole group, since it is an RPUD, it is below the 15 percent. Abbott stated in his view the development works well for the City of Orono when the lots are larger. With this lot only being 17,000 square feet, it makes it difficult to design a saleable house. Abbott noted the worksheet that was submitted deals with Items B, F, G and H. Abbott stated in his view this development fits this area and that the majority of the homes will be less than the 15 percent and close in size to each other. Abbott stated they also set out to have very low priced lots, which has been accomplished, and that they are the lowest priced lots in Orono. McMillan asked what the average price of the lots is. Abbott stated to his recollection the lots sold for around $165,000. McMillan asked what actual square footage of the house is for Lot 2. Abbott indicated it is 3,200 square feet, which does not include the screen porch. McMillan asked if there would be living space above the garage. Abbott stated there would be a first floor and second floor, which includes some square footage over the garage. Gaffron stated the deck and screen porch would also need to be included in the structural coverage if it is over six feet in height. Abbott stated he included the porch but not the deck since it is not above six feet. Gaffron stated if the deck railing height is no higher than six feet above the grade, it would not be included. Abbott stated to his understanding the total number would be 3,709 square feet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 12 of 43    (8. #14-3685 WILLI ABBOTT ON BEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP, LLC, continued) Walsh stated it is a slippery slope when they start talking about trading structural coverage for land and that it is questionable where it would stop. Walsh stated if the Council starts allowing it, the standards would be pretty much out the window. Walsh stated in his view everyone knew what the structural coverage limit was and that the developer has the option of either leaving it as a smaller lot or combining it with another lot. Walsh stated if the Council allows the land for one lot to be traded with another lot, it would set a bad precedent. McMillan indicated she is in agreement with Council Member Walsh. Walsh stated it could also lead to people selling their structural coverage. Levang stated the proposed house for Lot 1 consists of 2,932 square feet and the proposed house for Lot 2, Block 2, is 2,680 square feet, which are smaller numbers. Levang questioned whether he will be back asking for another increase. Levang stated the City Council and Staff looked at this development very carefully and had long discussions about the lot size and house size. Levang stated in her view the Council understood how the homes would sit on the property and that some of the lots had more land than others as it related to dry buildable. In the end the Council agreed to a certain configuration and that she is not willing to now change what was agreed to in the resolution. Printup indicated he is not comfortable with the trade-off since he is not sure where it will lead. McMillan stated the two lots will have two different kinds of back yards, which will provide diversity and helps keep the massing under control. Cornick indicated he also is in agreement with the rest of the Council. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, Application No. 14-3685, Willi Abbott on Behalf of the Broadway Group, LLC, to deny the request for an amendment to the resolution and RPUD agreement for the Oliver Hill development. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting approval of a revised grading plan and amendment of the terms of the PRD agreement for Northern Oaks with respect to the condition requiring compliance with the conditions of Preliminary Plat Resolution No. 6345. The applicants are specifically requesting the condition that the approved grading plan does not establish new existing grades for building height determination purposes. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 13 of 43    (9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS, continued) Northern Oaks has six parallel lots that extend to the back of the property with a fairly large wetland. The homes are all placed up against the road to the south, which is Northern Avenue. The first two homes on the left side are currently under construction and the third house from the left came in with a proposed lower level that technically, based on the existing grades on the site, would be classified as a story rather than a basement. The applicants have looked at both Lots 3 and 4, as did Staff, to see where they stand with those lots. The lots are very tight with no lateral ability to move the homes around. The original grading plan that was approved for the site specifically did not establish new existing grades. Gaffron stated based on the existing grades, both Lots 3 and 4 would not be able to have two stories with a basement. As a result, the surveyor has proposed a slightly different grading plan that would bring in slightly more fill to artificially change those levels from stories into basements. One of the concerns Staff has is what the City’s initial intent was with this development. In the case where the developer was not intending to immediately create building pads, the City would not ordinarily establish new existing grades. In the case where a developer were proposing to immediately create building pads, the City would generally accept those proposed grades that would be created by the developer as new existing grades for measuring basements. Gaffron stated in this case, one of the impacts of the proposed grading plan was that the houses at the east and west end of the development are higher in topography, and as you get towards the center of the site, the houses would be lower. In order to create new grades, those houses will have a little different character than they would otherwise have. Gaffron displayed a color rendering of the homes. Gaffron noted the houses are not exactly in a straight line and they all have approximately a 20-foot separation between the homes. The homes on the left side are set back slightly further than the other homes. Gaffron stated one of the things the City was hoping not to create was a neighborhood with six or seven homes that all look the same right in a row. Given the varying locations of the building pads, these homes will have a little bit different character. From Staff’s perspective, this application perhaps should have been looked at it as creating new existing grades. As the situation currently exists, Lots 3 and 4 would not be able to have two stories and a full basement but rather a basement and a story and a half, which would provide some vertical relief to the neighborhood. Gaffron stated if the Council feels approval is warranted, Staff can revise the development agreement. Gaffron noted the applicant has graded the stormwater ponds on the west and east side of the wetland and have done a good job with the drainage. Walsh asked whether the City would allow someone to change the grade on a tear down in any neighborhood. Gaffron stated Staff would want to see a grading plan to ensure it does not have any negative impacts on the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 14 of 43    (9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS, continued) Walsh asked whether the City has a hard and fast rule that prohibits the grade from being changed if it does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Gaffron stated depending on how much grading the person is doing, it could require a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated Staff could approve it administratively if the grading is just associated with the one house, is less than 500 cubic yards, and is not artificially changing the grade so the person is creating a basement out of a story Walsh asked what would happen if they are changing it from a basement to a walkout. Gaffron indicated a conditional use permit would likely be required. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated he and the developer worked very hard with City Staff and the Watershed District to achieve the correct drainage on the site. Gronberg stated they submitted a plan with proposed grades that had Lots 3 and 4 built up a little because they had to get the water off to the two sides. There was not enough room to put a pond or a stormwater area in the middle due to the way the wetland bows in. Gronberg stated he was surprised when he saw the resolution and had he been part of the discussion regarding the final resolution, he would have objected because it was based on existing grades. Gronberg indicated the resolution did not meet the intent of the whole grading plan of the Watershed District and the City Engineers. Gronberg stated they can still meet the approved grading plan for these homes and that in other developments they have worked off the approved grading plan. McMillan asked how many feet they would like to stack against the homes. Gronberg stated the original grading plan depicted just boxes, and that when they come in with a proposed house, there are sometimes minor changes to the plan. Gronberg noted they did not have to change it much from the approved grading plan. Gaffron stated the biggest changes were in between these two lots and on other side of Lots 3 and 4. McMillan asked if what the Council is being shown is the final plat grading plan. Gaffron indicated it is. Gaffron stated what Mr. Gronberg has provided is showing where there is more pronounced drainage between the homes, deeper ditches, and a little more fill in the front than what was there previously. Gaffron stated there is enough of a change that if you add another foot or two of fill; those stories would go back to being basements. Gronberg stated to his knowledge nothing changed by more than a foot or a foot and a half. Gronberg stated most of that is based on having definite house plans. Walsh asked if he saw this as more of a design/build process. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 15 of 43    (9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS, continued) Gronberg stated once someone arrives at a house plan, little tweaks sometimes need to be made to it. Walsh asked if they accomplished the grading plan prior to the final plat being approved. Gronberg indicated they did. Gronberg stated the basic grades did not change and that this is just to meet the criteria for a basement. Gronberg indicated the garage elevations and the walkout elevations are the same. McMillan asked if someone can have either a basement walkout or a story walkout. Gaffron stated how Staff deals with whether it is a basement or a story has to do with how much of the foundation below that first floor is exposed. If more than 50 percent of the perimeter is exposed more than six feet, it is considered a story. Gaffron noted some years ago the City had a discussion about whether they should measure from the basement floor up or from the floor above down. The City found that most cities go from the floor above down because it relates to how much of the basement foundation is exposed. Gaffron stated in this case, the actual elevations were not changed for the main floors. Gaffron indicated he did discuss with the applicants that in order to reduce the amount of additional fill they required, they could go from a 9.5 foot basement ceiling to an 8-foot basement ceiling. Gaffron indicated it his understanding the applicants are not interested in doing that since from a marketing standpoint they believe no one is interested in buying a story and a half. Gaffron noted Mr. Abbott a year and a half ago proposed a story and a half but is now proposing two stories. In this case the applicant has always proposed two-story homes. Gronberg pointed out this change would only affect the two homes in the middle and that the views from the back or the front will not change. Printup stated from previous conversations, the Council knew the last two lots would be more restricted, and everyone was aware of that, which was similar to the discussion with the previous applicant. Printup stated this would set a precedent and the question is whether the Council wants to start doing that. Printup indicated he is not comfortable with that. Levang stated to her recollection the Council has had similar discussions on what is classified a story or a basement. Gaffron stated Staff goes through the analysis with every new building permit that comes in to the City, and perhaps one out of two end up having to redefine or redesign something in order to make it work. Gaffron stated it is one of those things the City is dealing with almost on a daily basis. Levang stated that leads her to support Council Member Printup and that she would rather not deviate from what was initially agreed to. When Staff and the Council did the analysis on this development, they struggled significantly with how to define what would be a lot and how many would be walkouts. Two Council Members wanted the number of homes to only be five. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 16 of 43    (9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS, continued) Levang stated in her view it is not the work of the Council to look at the issue of whether a house is sellable or not in terms of a story and a half versus two stories. Levang indicated she is not willing to change the original resolution. Walsh indicated he is a little more receptive to changing it and that the City would not be breaking any new ground here in terms of adding additional fill. Walsh stated in his view the City would not be setting any precedent and that the City Council has an obligation to the City to make sure that the correct things are done and that they are not building homes that are not saleable. Walsh stated he would be a little more receptive to solving the problem and getting some good saleable homes. Todd Holmers asked if they dropped it to a foot and a half and went to the 8-foot basement whether that would solve the problem. Gaffron noted they had that discussion on the site and concluded that it would help but that Staff would need to see an exact plan. Gaffron stated it would definitely get it closer but it could potentially change the location of the garage and possibly other things. Gronberg stated they did look at having an 8-foot basement and it did work. Gronberg stated that would lower the house level from what was shown on the original grading plan. Gaffron stated that is true, and from Staff’s perspective, if there was a grading plan that showed additional fill and the location of the houses, they could review that. Gaffron indicated he would not want to do it as a variance but rather approve it only as a change to the master grading plan for the development. Gaffron stated he does not want to start a precedent of requiring a variance on it, which is why these two applications were brought before the City Council tonight. Gaffron stated this application is still in the development plan phase, which could justify changing the development agreement. Printup stated if the flexibility is there, the applicant could come back with another plan. Levang asked if Staff is recommending it be tabled until the applicant can submit a new plan showing the 8-foot ceilings. Gaffron stated it would be helpful to have an actual plan that Staff can review to see whether it would work. McMillan asked if they would need to come back to the City Council if the 8-foot ceilings worked. Gaffron stated if the lower basements work with the original grading plan, the only thing the City is doing then is saying that the City will accept the idea that the original grading plan did create the new existing grades for measuring basements and heights. Walsh asked if that is an interpretation or whether it would require a revision to the resolution. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 17 of 43    (9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS, continued) Gaffron indicated it would change one sentence in the development agreement and would not require a resolution. Gaffron stated Council action would be needed to amend the development agreement. Mattick stated he is in agreement with that. Typically the City will allow grading, but when Staff measures height, it is based on what the previous grade is. In a situation like this, the City does have some flexibility with those standards, which is why it is not a variance situation. McMillan noted the City has had some issues in the past with artificially creating grades and that she is protective of that. McMillan stated in her view if someone creates too high of a grade around the house, it can create faster runoff, which is something to consider. McMillan stated she does not particularly believe that someone needs two stories to sell a house and that a variety of homes is good for a community. McMillan stated in her view it is important to go with what offers long-term value for Orono, which is a variety of housing. McMillan stated she understands the developer’s point of view is what is selling now but that she is looking at the long-term appreciation for Orono, which is to have a variety of housing. McMillan stated the homes could be sold to someone that does not require four bedrooms. Levang stated she specifically remembers George Stickney telling the Council that these would be smaller homes for people who are downsizing and that a variety of modest homes were what the Council agreed to. Levang stated she does not want to set a precedent and that the Council needs to be mindful of the grading. Todd Holmers pointed out the two lots in the center will be lower than the other homes and will not be any taller than any of the other ones. Levang indicated she did visit the site earlier today and that it is considerably lower in that area but that everyone knew that it would be. Gaffron stated based on the analysis by Staff for Lot 3, even with the proposed grades, the lowest level would still be considered a story with 9-foot ceilings. Gaffron stated if a plan is submitted showing Lots 3 and 4 with an 8-foot basement based on the pre-existing proposed grades, then the City would only need to make a slight change to the development agreement. If that does not work and they still have an issue with the lowest story not being considered a basement, then it becomes a variance situation and a separate application. Gaffron noted the City normally does not grant height variances. McMillan noted the City also tends to avoid variances on new development. Gronberg stated in the past they have gone off the grading plan for other subdivisions. Gronberg asked how this can be avoided in the future MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 18 of 43    (9. #14-3687 REAL ASSETS II, LLC 3720 – 3730 NORTHERN AVENUE – PLAT OF NORTHERN OAKS, continued) Gaffron stated it needs to be clear in the future whether or not the developer is planning to create new building pads as part of the development improvements as opposed to going lot by lot. Gaffron stated in his view the City is better off approving a development agreement where it is clear that the developer is creating new pads. Gronberg stated sometimes in an effort to save trees, they like to wait until they get an actual plan in before tearing out trees and building the pad. Gaffron stated in this case all the trees were removed but they did not build the pads. McMillan asked if the applicant would like the Council to table the application. Todd Holmers stated they will see if the 8-foot ceilings work and then work with Staff to see if it can be worked out. Holmers stated on the first two homes, they made the garages on the right and that they are trying to switch up the garages a little bit, too. Holmers stated they were concerned because the first couple that purchased a lot was adamant about 9-foot ceilings. Holmers stated he would also like to add that he had those three plans done and into the City well before this development was approved. Holmers stated he was shocked when he found out that they could not get a permit for Lot 3 and that it was a big surprise to them after the fact. Holmers noted they are doing the development in two phases because of the grading, and that they figured as long as the guy was out there excavating, they would have him dig the pond. Holmers stated they went ahead and did both of the retaining ponds but in the beginning it was Phase 1 and Phase 2, with all the dirt being pushed from Lots 1, 2, and 3 to Lots 4, 5, and 6. Holmers stated all three of those plans were submitted before to the work being done. Gaffron asked if they were submitted prior to preliminary plat approval. Holmers stated to his recollection they were. Holmers stated in his view they went above and beyond to get those plans in as well as the color rendering on Phase 1 and that it was a surprise to them that it did not work. Holmers stated they knew those two homes would sit lower but that they were not trying to construct a house with three stories. Walsh suggested they look at the 8-foot ceilings and see if that works. Holmers stated he will do up something that shows an 8-foot ceiling for Lot 4. Holmers noted the plan for Lot 3 was submitted a while ago. Printup moved, Levang seconded, to table Application No. 14-3687, Real Assets II, LLC, 3720-3730 Northern Avenue, Plat of Northern Oaks. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 19 of 43    10. #15-3717 PAUL CAMERON/CAMBERLAIN CAPITAL, LLC – 1340 FOX STREET – SETBACK VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. Cornick stated on the northeast corner there is a retaining wall depicted and that he would like some clarification on what is happening with the retaining wall. Curtis indicated that will be taken out. Cornick asked what will happen with the area once it is removed. Cameron indicated they would like to remove it and then regrade the property. Cornick moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Granting Variances from Orono Municipal Code Section 78-420 for the property located at 1340 Fox Street. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:00 p.m. to 9:07 p.m.) 11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW Gaffron stated this is a proposed ordinance amendment in response to essentially a court case that suggested the City of Orono needs to adopt ordinances that allow in some manner wind energy conversion systems. The City adopted an ordinance last October that was a moratorium that lasted for one year. The moratorium is still in effect. Tonight the Council is reviewing some potential changes that currently ban wind energy conversion systems. The Planning Commission has held two public hearings on this item and has heard comments from some residents and a member of the wind energy industry that are included in the minutes. The Planning Commission looked at the ordinance that they had recommended approximately one year ago and made some potential changes to it. Those changes are reflected in Exhibit A. Since that time, the City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and made some additional comments, which are outlined in Exhibit B. Gaffron stated the Council should look at the exhibits and discuss the issues raised. McMillan asked if the exhibits have all the comments received. Gaffron indicated that is correct. McMillan suggested they start on Page 1 and go section by section. Gaffron stated the first page deals primarily with definitions. In most cases residential wind energy conversion systems has been changed to small wind energy conversion system. The whole concept of defining the difference between the residential and the utility wind turbines was using a 10 kV or 100 kV name plate generating capacity, which is what Staff found other cities use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 20 of 43    11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) State statute does not recognize a distinction. It says that there are small wind generators that are less than 5000 kV and then anything over 5000 kV is regulated by the state and the city does not have a say in how those are regulated. Gaffron stated the question to be answered is how the City would like to define them. In an attempt to understand the potential differences between a 10 kv, a 100 kV, or a 5000 kV, Staff has looked at a number of other city ordinances. Wind turbines that generate electricity ranging from 10 kV up to 300 kV are defined as small in many city ordinances. A number of the city ordinances stop at 10 kV and anything larger than 10 kV is not allowed in residential zones. Planning Commission Exhibit A is a table that looks at a number of other cities’ ordinances, other jurisdictions such as Des Moines, an MPCA model ordinance, and a model from Distributed Wind Energy Association. Gaffron noted there is quite a wide range of standards in terms of what is allowed and what limits are placed for residential wind turbines. From the perspective of Staff, a lot of what was done in the early draft was mimic what was found in other city ordinances, which is not always the best way to go. Gaffron stated a number of cities have also defined an ornamental wind device as a decorative structure that appears to mimic the appearance of a wind turbine as to the use of airfoils or other wind-capturing devices but does not have electrical generating capability. Gaffron noted this definition has not been included in previous drafts of the ordinance but has been included in the most recent draft. Gaffron stated there is a question of whether the City would like to identify or recognize that there are wind ornamental devices that do not generate electricity. Mattick stated from a legislative and drafting city code perspective, the City can differentiate between different wind turbines, but then the question becomes, why is there a differentiation. Mattick stated the example he can give is if there is really no difference in terms of size and a 10 kV and a 100 kV both look the same in size, from a land use perspective, then the question becomes, what is it that the City is regulating between the two sizes. If the City knows for a fact that there is an increase in the intensity of use or size issue, then the regulation makes sense. Mattick stated the final thing is under utility wind energy conversion systems and that Staff will need to refine that further. State statute says at 5000 kV and over the City does not get to regulate those and that language will need to be included Walsh stated as it relates to ornamental wind devices, the video that was presented to the City Council shows the device spinning or moving and causing flickering even though it is not generating electricity. Walsh asked if the Council should talk about anything that is spinning or moving rather than ornamental from a flickering standpoint. Mattick stated most people are familiar with the ornamental wind device and that there are some things that spin and move that the Council is okay with. The Council may want to examine whether it is the spinning that is the problem or the flickering. Mattick stated he is not sure if the Council would be able to come up with a definition that covers all the moving pieces. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 21 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Printup stated he is not comfortable with the paragraph on ornamental wind devices since it leads the way into Alice’s rabbit hole. Walsh stated it comes down to semantics. Printup stated the City has been talking about this for a number of years and that it is all semantics. Printup indicated he would lean towards eliminating that paragraph. Walsh asked if a 10-foot pole that has something spinning on it would fall under accessory structures. Mattick stated that would probably be viewed as an accessory structure. Walsh stated those two items need to work in tandem then. Mattick stated the current code does not really address flickering. Mattick noted the City’s lighting code says the light must be downcast and not cause glare on neighboring properties. Mattick stated the question is whether the Council cares about something that is spinning but not causing flickering. Printup stated he does not see that as a bad thing. McMillan stated the ornamental wind device definition could perhaps be eliminated and then perhaps address the spinning, moving, or making noise under accessory use. Walsh stated he would prefer to stick with wind energy exclusively and not ornamental devices. Walsh stated the issues associated with accessory structures should be dealt with separately. Mattick and Gaffron concurred that that approach makes sense. McMillan asked if the Council is okay with the different residential definitions or whether they should be combined into one, such as small wind. Printup stated that makes sense. Levang stated it does not appear that all the categories are necessary. Mattick stated the ordinance does not differentiate between them as it relates to how they are regulated and that Staff has struggled with the issue of whether a 100 kV wind turbine is bigger than a 10 kV. Mattick stated it might take a bigger size windmill to generate more electricity but that he does not know that. McMillan suggested those two definitions be combined. McMillan noted the two tower definitions can also be combined. Levang stated one tower definition appears to be sufficient. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 22 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Mattick stated the ordinance does not allow anything other than a mono pole so there is no need to define what a tower is. It was the consensus of the City Council to combine the two definitions. Gaffron stated Section B, Item 6, talks about wind energy systems. Staff had started by limiting them to less than 10 kV on lots at least 10 acres in gross area within the RR-1A and RR-1B Rural Residential zoning districts. Gaffron stated the wording, wind energy conversion systems are not permitted in any other zoning districts is probably not necessary, but that he would recommending adding the following: Small wind energy conversion systems less than 100 kV are allowed in commercial and industrial zones only by conditional use permit. The Planning Commission had a discussion about allowing WECS in commercial and industrial zones and the conclusion was that if they were going to be allowed in those zones, that they only be allowed by a conditional use permit. Walsh asked for an example of why they would not have the same restrictions as residential. Gaffron stated there are very few commercial or industrial lots in the City that meet the 10-acre standard. Walsh stated in his view 10 acres is an overreach. Gaffron stated the second justification would be that all of the City’s commercial and industrial districts are fairly close in proximity to residential zoning areas. Gaffron stated the question is whether there is a potential to have a bigger wind turbine on a commercial piece of property than a residential. Walsh stated he was attempting to find a reason to parcel them out for some reason. McMillan stated the intensity of use could also be another factor. Walsh stated the issues associated with setbacks and height are basically the same on residential lots as they are on commercial. Walsh stated the regulations have to be reasonable enough that they allow the potential for someone to have one and not be, in essence, a de facto ban. McMillan noted they would be required to obtain a conditional use permit and that it is not a de facto ban. Walsh stated it is a de facto ban is they cannot meet any of the conditions. Printup stated as it relates to the 10 acres, that is something he has thought about a lot over the weekend. Printed noted the judge made the comment “any person may have.” Printup stated he started to reflect on that and asked himself whether that means any person on 10 acres or any person that has it reasonably set back from a lot line, which may make it a 5-foot structure or a 2-foot structure. Printup stated in his view requiring 10 acres is too much that and that he would take it lot by lot, which might be addressed later in the ordinance when it talks about height. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 23 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Gaffron stated in the very first paragraph it talks about limiting it to a lot of at least 10 acres. Gaffron indicated what is on the overhead is an analysis that was done for the Comprehensive Plan five or six years ago. In gray and yellow are the lots that are at least 10 acres in area and the green and orange are two and five acre lots. Gaffron noted the map does not take into account wetlands and that there are quite a number of properties out there that might meet the standard of 10 acres if it is simply the gross area. Gaffron stated on the 10-acre lots, the question becomes, where can a wind turbine be located. Many lots are not square and the shape could be such that they might not be able to place a WECS on the property. Gaffron stated he also looked at a small area of the City west to northwest of Stubbs Bay, which is an area that has quite a number of 5-acre lots as well as 10-acre lots. Gaffron indicated he looked at 30 to 50 lots and only five or six were able to meet all the standards. Gaffron stated Staff can do a much more detailed analysis to determine which lots would be able to meet the proposed standards or parameters. Gaffron stated the other issue that comes into play is whether those sites are located in a woods or a depression where there is not any wind. As it relates to setback and height, the ordinance limits the total height to 45 feet with a blade height of no more than 15 feet, which will not get above the tree line and will likely hurt the efficiency of the system. Gaffron asked if the Council feels a 300-foot is acceptable when it is 45 feet high. Gaffron stated in order for the wind turbine to be effective, it needs to be away from trees and buildings and will likely be visible to the neighbors. Gaffron stated there are a lot of factors that need to be balanced in determining whether a WECS is appropriate in a specific location and that most cities have adopted an ordinance that says the setback must be at least 1 or 1.4 times the height so that in case it falls over, it does not cross the lot line, which is as far as most of the other cities’ ordinances take it. Printup stated that is an important requirement. Printup stated in talking with the residents, he finds that once they have a better understanding of the impacts, they understand the rationale for the setbacks. Walsh asked what the Council thinks about reducing the lot size to two acres with a 1.2 or 1.3 setback and with a maximum height of 45 feet. Walsh stated there also should not be any shadowing on anybody’s yards or houses. Walsh stated all the elements need to fit together. McMillan stated height and setbacks go together and that the height will help determine the necessary setback. McMillan asked if the Council is okay with the 45-foot height limit. It was the consensus of the City Council to go with the 45-foot height limit. McMillan stated the other issue is the flicker and noted that reflected light can travel further than the fall zone for the tower. Levang asked if the fall zone is the 300 feet that the Planning Commission recommended or the 1.5. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 24 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) McMillan stated the issue with flicker depends on what the sun is doing and that she would be willing to change the setback if it is on a bigger lot. McMillan stated on smaller lots there needs to be a fairly good setback since they also generate noise in addition to flicker. McMillan stated there could also be an issue with having a mechanical structure at eye level for the neighbor when they walk out on their deck. Walsh stated on 2-acre lots, the person would still need to meet the setbacks and address the flicker. Walsh noted there are companies that do flicker or shadow reports. McMillan stated she would prefer to keep it simple and avoid requiring flicker reports. McMillan stated if there becomes a demand for wind turbines, the standards could always be looked at again. Printup indicated he does have a concern with possible flicker and that one possible solution would be requiring the blades be painted with flat black paint. Printup stated the flickering can also change with the seasons as well as the angle of the sun. Printup stated he is not sure where to stop with the idea of flickering. Walsh stated shadows from the wind turbines can also be an issue and that some cities prohibit the wind turbines from casting shadows on neighboring properties. Levang stated she would like to clean up 6(a) before the Council moves on. Levang indicated the language says on lots at least ten acres in gross acre. Levang stated if gross area is allowed, the number of the parcels that are yellow or cream colored that are depicted on the map would increase. Gaffron stated there are probably more 10-acre properties than what is depicted on the map. Levang stated in her view the 10-acre requirement is satisfactory and that she does not want to see a reduction in the 10-acre requirement at this time. Levang noted the Council could look at possibly reducing it in the future if there is a big demand for wind turbines. Levang stated the City does have a lot of wetlands, which reduces the area that the wind turbine can be located in. In addition, the person would need to meet the setbacks. Levang stated when you look at how many homes in the city are clustered close together, it is because of wetlands. Levang stated her house sits on 8.85 acres and that she can clearly see into her neighbor’s yard, who has 12 acres, as well as her other neighbor’s house, who has 27 acres, and it is because the homes are clustered on the dry land. McMillan stated wetlands are always bowl-shaped with no trees around. McMillan stated some of the 10-acre lots on Watertown are narrow. Walsh stated someone is not allowed to build on a wetland. McMillan stated wetlands create views and vistas and the ability to see long distances. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 25 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Printup indicated he is okay with private property, private wells, and other items. Printup stated the question becomes, who can say someone cannot have a 45-foot pole if it does not harm someone else’s property. Printup stated based on that, he gets a little uneasy with limiting these only to the larger lots. Levang stated she is not being afforded the same level of protection simply because she lives on a larger lot even though she can see her neighbor just as well as someone who lives on a smaller lot. McMillan indicated the Council can come back to the 10-acre restriction. Gaffron stated Item B talks about residential WECS standards. McMillan stated it appears everyone on the Council is okay with the height standards. McMillan suggested the title be changed to WECS standards for residential zones. Gaffron stated another standard included under residential WECS includes clearance, which requires a minimum distance from the ground for the lowest point of a blade or any other moving part to be 12 feet. Roof or wall mounted WECS would not be permitted. The conclusion of the Planning Commission meeting was that they should be ground mounted and that roof or wall mounted presents a different visual impact but there was not a strong reasoning for one versus the other. Gaffron indicated a number of other cities do not allow roof or wall mounted. Walsh indicated he is fine with that. Gaffron stated the base of the WECS tower shall be set back at least 300 feet from all property lines. WECS cannot be installed in the front yard of any lot or in the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a public right-of-way. It also cannot be located more than 150 feet from the principal structure on the property. Gaffron stated the City Council would need to provide justification for that, but from a technical standpoint, there may be some electrical or technical reasons why it should not be located too far from the residence. McMillan stated the person who owns the wind turbine will need to live with it more than his neighbors but that it may be redundancy as it relates to the setbacks. Levang stated essentially the 150 feet is subsumed with the 300-foot setback. Gaffron stated every site will be different. An example would be a house that is located in the woods and the site for a wind turbine is over 150 feet away. Walsh stated the setback also dovetails with the acreage. Walsh stated if the 10-acre lot is a perfect square, the property owner would have approximately 60’ x 60’ in the middle, which likely does not exist and would essentially be a de facto ban. Printup stated in his view that is not reasonable. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 26 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) McMillan stated the Council could require a 100-foot setback if they would like to keep the requirement of no more than 150 feet from the principal structure. Walsh stated if you allow WECS on a 10-acre lot, the 100 feet might be reasonable, but that on a 5-acre lot, it might not be reasonable. Printup stated that is why he likes the fall zone. McMillan stated the goal with the ordinance is to prevent people from placing a WECS close to their neighbor’s property and them having all the disadvantages while the other person gets all the advantages. McMillan stated the Council needs to be cognizant of that. McMillan stated it could also negative impact the neighbor’s property values if the WECS is too close to the property line. McMillan noted the City Council has discussed not allowing flag poles in the setback and that it comes down to respecting your neighbors. Walsh stated the Council needs to come up with a solution and not just talk about what is fair. Walsh stated he likes the idea of requiring the WECS be close to their house. Printup stated what is annoying or what other people find annoying is subjective but that he understands what the others are saying. Levang stated the neighbors should also not have to pay for what someone else wants. Levang stated it is similar to a barking dog or chickens. McMillan stated the Council is given the job to deal with these types of situations. McMillan stated the closer people live together, the more regulations there are. Levang stated the City has a responsibility to regulate WECS. Printup noted the judge ordered that any person may have a wind energy system. Printup asked if that means someone who lives in a developed controlled by a homeowner’s association can have one. Mattick stated his understanding of the judge’s order is that not everyone has the absolute right to have a WECS and that the City can impose reasonable restrictions through its zoning ordinances on wind generators. Mattick indicated when he discussed this with Staff, they looked at the lot size and then talked about the 300-foot setback. Mattick stated the 300 feet seemed untenable and it caused Staff to evaluate what that number should be. Staff then discussed what the purpose of a setback and aesthetics. Mattick stated other cities have fall distances anywhere from 1 to 1.5 times the height, which could be the setback. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 27 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Mattick stated the other point that was discussed as one of the reasons for the setback is the flicker or shadow. Mattick stated one of the options is to require the person to provide a report that says they will not disrupt the neighbors, which helps with the setback issue. Mattick stated another option is to require the blades be painted black. Mattick stated if the Council feels it can address the items that cause the need for a setback through other standards, they can do it that, which may eliminate the need for a setback. Mattick stated the one issue that Staff was unable to come up with a solution to was how close the WECS should be to a neighboring property. Walsh questioned whether the 1.5 fall distance would also resolve the flicker issue. McMillan stated it sounds like the Council may be open to reducing the setback. McMillan stated as it relates to Item No. 10, nonintrusive color, she is totally in agreement with that, and that she is okay with the system not being illuminated. Gaffron stated as it relates to Item No. 11, the Planning Commission had some discussion about feeding the grid or the neighborhood and their conclusion was that it should just be feeding the person’s own home or the grid and not creating neighborhood systems. McMillan asked if Staff wants the Council to pick one of the paragraphs under Item No. 14. Mattick stated they would, and that in his opinion the second option creates a false sense of security. Mattick stated the report could come back and say that it does impact the neighbor but it does not say they cannot do that. McMillan stated she prefers the first paragraph, but that instead of saying fall on or in, she would put neighboring property instead of structure in case of a vacant lot. McMillan stated the intent is that the shadow or reflective flicker should not fall on the adjoining property. McMillan stated the City Council could always require a flicker report in the future. Walsh asked who would determine whether there will be a shadow or a flicker on the neighbor’s property. Mattick stated that still may require a report. McMillan stated Staff will need to determine that. Gaffron stated he prefers the third option, but that he would agree to changing it to neighboring properties rather than structures. Gaffron indicated he also has no idea how much a flicker report costs. Mattick stated there should also be some sort of consensus on what constitutes a flicker report. Printup asked if the non-reflective surface would cover the flicker. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 28 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Gaffron stated there could a flashing glare at certain times based on the type of turbine and where the sun is located and then there is the shadow. Gaffron stated in his view that is what the Council saw in one of the presentations, and that every time the blade passes in front of the sun, it causes a shadow. Levang stated she likes what the City Attorney has written with the verbiage neighboring residential property being inserted in there in place of structure. McMillan noted Item 15 will be deleted relating to ornamental wind devices. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission was not comfortable placing any standards for the commercial/industrial WECS. Mattick stated the other item for consideration is whether the Council is comfortable with having the required acreage being smaller in commercial and industrial zones than residential zones. The commercial and industrial zones are also identified as a more intense use area. McMillan noted the City does not have that many commercial or industrial zones. Gaffron indicated the commercial/industrial zone would primarily be near the Highway 12 area and that many of those are located close to residential areas. McMillan asked if Navarre is in the shoreland district. Gaffron indicated most of it is in the shoreland district. Gaffron stated if the City does not allow WECS in the shoreland, that would take out a significant part of Navarre. Walsh stated he does not see any reason for lessening the standards for commercial or industrial since they have to deal with all the same issues. Printup stated he would stick with the fall zones since it is a little more relaxed. Levang stated commercial is a more intense use and that there is the potential for more harm if the apparatus fell, which may magnify the safety issue. McMillan stated generally people associate wind turbines with being in the commercial or industrial areas and that she could see maybe relaxing the acreage standard in industrial zones. Walsh noted commercial businesses also tend to require higher power demands and that a wind turbine would likely not help that to any great extent. Walsh asked if the City could ban them in commercial districts. Mattick stated that is a gray area but that it is not an outright ban. Mattick stated he does not believe WECS have to be allowed in every district. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 29 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Walsh stated one option could be to ban them in certain districts. Mattick stated the more places the City allows them, the less likely it is the ordinance would be struck down. Gaffron stated as it relates to safety, standards and certification, the ordinance states that the WEC systems shall meet minimum standards and must be certified. In addition, all grid connected systems shall have an agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the WEC system is abandoned or remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. Gaffron stated he also does not have any idea whether the local utility companies have any interest in accepting electricity from a WEC system. Gaffron stated based on the discussion tonight, Staff can make some changes to the ordinance, but that the Council will need to determine what an appropriate lot size and setback is. Gaffron indicated he can bring back sketches of different sizes and shaped lots but that he is not sure how useful that will be. McMillan stated in her view the 300-foot setback is too restrictive but that she is not sure what it should be. McMillan indicated she likes the 10-acre lot size. Levang stated she does not want these devices to impact the neighbors and that the clustering of the homes need to be taken into consideration in addition to the lot size. Levang stated in her view the answer has to be setbacks or size of lots but that in her view five acres is not the answer. Levang stated she does not want to push this onto the backs of neighbors. Walsh stated whatever the Council does, it has to be defendable in court. Levang noted there is a significant number of five acre lots in Orono and that she does not want them to be worried about a wind turbine being installed in their neighbor’s yard. Cornick stated what is holding the Council back is not being able to decide on what size lot the turbines should be allowed on. Cornick stated he likes the 10 acres because it simplifies things a little more. Walsh indicated he does not agree with the ten acres but that he would go along with it to keep things moving along. Cornick stated the size of the lot could always be changed if the City finds it is not working. Levang stated the City can always go down but it would be difficult to go up. McMillan and Levang indicated they are both fine with requiring ten acres. McMillan stated two good restrictions are the flicker and shadow not being allowed on neighboring properties. McMillan stated they could have two setbacks, 100 feet from the property line and no further than 150 feet from the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 30 of 43    (11. #14-3700 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE – AMEND SECTION 78-1379: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) FIRST REVIEW, continued) Cornick asked if the Council should place some restrictions on how close it could be to the structure. Cornick asked if someone could install one five feet from their house. Gaffron stated under the City’s accessory structure ordinance, it would need to be ten feet away. Gaffron indicated he has not seen any other city code that requires a setback to someone’s house for a WEC system. McMillan stated in her view that would be covered under the building permit but that Staff should perhaps take a closer look at that. McMillan asked if the Council has anything else on the commercial or industrial areas. McMillan stated the City does not have a lot of commercial or industrial property. Gaffron stated the industrial zone near Highway 12 consists of approximately 40 acres and only one of those properties has more than ten acres. Almost all commercial properties within the City are within the half-acre to three quarter acre. McMillan suggested Staff make the revisions to the residential sections and that the Council can think about the industrial/commercial areas. Gaffron stated the revisions he has noted are the requirement of 10 acres, 100 feet to lot lines, and at least within 150 feet of own house. Gaffron indicated he will make those revisions and mold the ordinance around those standards. Walsh noted the Council also talked about a flicker report or shadow and light report. Mattick stated it would be helpful to talk to someone about what a flicker report covers. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to table Application No. 14-3700 , City of Orono, Amend Zoning Code Section 78-1379: Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. #15-3708 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405(A)(8) – STANDARDS FOR FENCES AS A NON-ENCROACHMENT Gaffron stated the proposed amendment is intended to clarify how fence height is measured in order to address the permanence of fencing materials and to establish standards for the use of temporary fences. In addition, the average setback applicable to fence construction on lakeshore lots is clarified. The Planning Commission reviewed various diagrams of how various fence configurations might be measured and concluded that measuring fence height perpendicular to the slope rather than vertically. A potential issue for discussion is that on a steeper slope it is not likely someone would build a fence with angled posts. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 31 of 43    (12. #15-3708 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405(A)(8) – STANDARDS FOR FENCES AS A NON-ENCROACHMENT, continued) In measuring fence height, a question that was originally posed was what should be considered the top of the fence. The amendment as initially drafted indicated that height should be measured from the top of any part of the fence, including vertical structural supports, lattice, ornate top design elements, and so forth. It was noted that a 6-foot screening fence with decorative post finials extending above it would technically be out of compliance with this. The Planning Commission concluded that limited finials above the top of the fence would be appropriate. The result is an exclusion of post finials from being considered as part of the fence, plus proposed text that states as follows: “Exception: post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not exceed 10 inches in width per finial and shall not extend above the top of the fence by more than 0 percent of the allowed maximum fence height at that location. A 6-foot fence would be allowed a 7-inchy finial above the top of the fence and a 42-inch fence would be allowed a 4-inch finial.” As it relates to the average fence setback, existing code indicates a different way of defining the average lakeshore setback line for fences than it does for other structures. The Planning Commission felt the current terminology creates confusion and the line being defined for fences should not be called the average lakeshore setback line. Staff is in agreement with that and the Planning Commission recommended that term be removed. The language now reads as follows: “Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner’s principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. As it relates to non-standard lakeshore lots, the following text is proposed: “When the building site of a lakeshore lot is separated from the lakeshore by a public or private road, the following definitions will apply for fence location purposes subject to the provisions of Section 78-1405(a)(8) a.2: When the yard on the opposite side of the building site from the lake does not abut a street, such yard shall be considered as a standard rear yard. The yard between the building site and the street shall be considered as a standard front yard.” The Planning Commission also recommended the following additional text to Subsection E, fence construction and maintenance: “Fencing materials shall consist of permanent all-weather products. Temporary fencing improvements, which normally consist of materials such as snow fencing, silt fence, bio-retention logs or other types of products normally associated with construction projects, shall not be allowed to remain on the property following final inspection, or issuance of a Certificate of Occupany for a permitted construction project, or protection of property during a similar project or winter conditions. Such temporary fencing materials shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis on a parcel.” MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 32 of 43    (12. #15-3708 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405(A)(8) – STANDARDS FOR FENCES AS A NON-ENCROACHMENT, continued) Gaffron stated at its January meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment with no public comments forthcoming. The item was tabled upon Staff’s recommendation as it was determined that the draft ordinance was incomplete and there were specific changes requested by the Planning Commission. A revised draft ordinance was reviewed at a second public hearing held on February 17. Following some revisions, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval. Levang stated Staff and the Planning Commission has done a good job with the draft ordinance. Walsh stated if someone would like a 4-foot fence rather than a 6-foot fence, he would allow a 7-inch finial standard so they would be allowed on a lower fence. Gaffron stated the proposed text reads as follows: “Exception: post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not exceed 10 inches in width per finial and shall not extend above the top of the fence by more than 10 percent of the allowed maximum fence height at that location.” Gaffron stated a 6-foot fence would be allowed a 7-inch finial above the top of the fence and a 42-inch fence would be allowed a 4-inch finial. Gaffron stated to his understanding they would be allowed under the current language. Walsh asked what the reasoning is behind the 42-inch fence versus a 6-foot fence. Walsh noted someone would be allowed to plant a 6 or 7-foot fence. Gaffron stated City Code for decades has defined which yards can have which fences and that he is not sure why 42-inches was picked. Gaffron stated the way the Code has read is that someone can have a 6-foot high fence in a side yard, but on a lakeshore lot, that fence must be reduced to 42 inches. Gaffron stated it comes down to a visual impact. Walsh stated it seems to be a double standard since someone would be allowed a 6-foot shrub or bush but not a 6-foot fence. Walsh stated in his view permanent needs to be defined better as it relates to temporary fencing. Walsh stated the City needs to separate it out from someone who might put out silt fencing to aggravate their neighbor and that he would suggest placing a limit on it from October to March. Gaffron asked if he is saying that snow fencing has a limited or seasonal time period. Walsh indicated that is correct. Gaffron noted he also talked about temporary fencing shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis and that they need to define what permanent is. Walsh stated permanent could be in the eyes of the beholder and that perhaps the City Attorney has a better definition. Mattick stated without a definition, permanent is rather open-ended. Mattick stated they perhaps could get rid of the concept of temporary or permanent and simply have a limit on how long the materials are allowed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 33 of 43    (12. #15-3708 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405(A)(8) – STANDARDS FOR FENCES AS A NON-ENCROACHMENT, continued) Walsh stated the other item he would like to add is that anybody who has an existing fence can rebuild or replace with a like, kind existing fence. Walsh stated in his view that would be fair. Walsh noted there is also a state statute that talks about that someone can rebuild with a like, kind structure, and that he would like to include that in the fence ordinance as well. Mattick stated that is state law and that someone does have the right to replace something in like, kind and quality. Gaffron stated that can be added and that he would like to bring the draft ordinance back in two weeks. Printup moved, Levang seconded, to table Application No. 15-3708, City of Orono, Amend Zoning Code Section 78-1405(a)(8) – Standards for Fences as a Non-Encroachment. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8:00 P.M. – HRA ANNUAL MEETING HRA meeting was held after Item No. 19. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT 13. WATERTOWN ROAD AND STUBBS BAY ROAD Edwards noted earlier today he sent the City Council a copy of some of the cost estimates for the upcoming road projects. Edwards stated on the agenda tonight is Phase I of Watertown Road from Stubbs Bay to Old Crystal Bay and then Stubbs Bay to Watertown Road South. The City Council discussed last October that the project would be broken up into different phrases. At that meeting the City Council approved engineering services for surveying, design, and bidding of reconstruction by reclamation of Stubbs Bay Road. Edwards indicated he has a couple of revised numbers from what was included in the packet based on some information recently received from Bolton & Menk. The estimated costs for doing the section of Stubbs Bay Road from Watertown Road to Bayside Road is $382,360, and the estimate for Watertown Road from Stubbs Bay to Old Crystal Bay Road is $824,200. The revisions increased the number a little bit for Watertown Road and decreased it for Stubbs Bay Road, which resulted in the overall cost going down slightly. Edwards stated Watertown Road is an MSA eligible road but Stubbs Bay Road is not eligible for MSA funding. The funding sources for this project include $969,505 in MSA funding. Resources could also be allocated from other funds, such as the General Fund Reserve, which currently has $346,071, and the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund, which has a balance of $820,000. Both of these projects also include stormwater management and that portion of the project could come out of the City’s stormwater funding. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 34 of 43    (13. WATERTOWN ROAD AND STUBBS BAY ROAD, continued) Another road identified in the City’s CIP is Baldur Park Road. The initial engineer estimate for that road is $223,917. The City has secured funding from FEMA in the amount of $59,223. Assuming that Stubbs Bay Road is the priority project, there would be $142,000 that the City would still need to fund. Edwards stated the most likely source of the funding would come from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund, which currently has a balance of $820,000. Edwards noted if money is taken from that fund, it has to be paid back. If that has to be paid back in 2016 and the City has to levy for that amount, it would result in a 4.2 percent increase for every $100,000 levied. On a $600,000 home, the property owner would see a $46 increase in their taxes for 2016 to pay for that $100,000. Loftus stated part of the Baldur Park project consists of drainage improvements, which would also come from the stormwater fund. Edwards stated those costs are not significant and that they could perhaps use those funds for the curb and gutter. Loftus stated that portion would qualify for money from the stormwater fund and currently $40,000 would be available from that fund. Edwards stated there are also some culverts that could be funded from that. Walsh asked if Baldur Park Road is a total reconstruction. Edwards indicated it is. Walsh asked whether the City could do a reclamation on the City’s portion. Edwards stated what he is recommending for Baldur Park is that the engineering work be completed to assess what is underneath that road and then determine what the City’s possible options are. Edwards stated it will depend on what is underneath the asphalt. Loftus stated Staff did discuss Phase 2 and 3 earlier today and that they are looking at $1.2 million that is still unfunded for next year. Walsh stated there are a number of roads that are unfunded and that in his view some portions of Phase 2 may not be necessary. Walsh stated the portion of Watertown Road where the curve is located is in great shape. Walsh stated he would like to spend the money smartly. McMillan stated Long Lake will be asked to commit to the $133,000. Edwards stated when the Council talked last October, they did make the deliberate decision that Phase 1 would consist of the most heavily traveled section of Watertown Road and the most damaged or the section that is in the most need of repair would be in Phase 2. Edwards stated the overall funding for road projects is scheduled to be discussed at a future work session. McMillan stated she wanted to ensure the City had a funding source for Stubbs Bay Road. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 35 of 43    (13. WATERTOWN ROAD AND STUBBS BAY ROAD, continued) Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve the project design for Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road and to authorize the solicitation of bids. Walsh asked if there is a timeline for the project. Martini indicated they are still waiting for comments back from MN/DOT, which they are hoping to receive by the end of next week. Once MN/DOT signs off on the project, then they will authorize the City to advertise for bids. Martini stated once the project is advertised, it is usually three weeks from the first ad to the bid opening. The best case scenario is the second meeting in April or possibly the first meeting in May. Walsh asked if the ad could also be included in the Blue Book, which is distributed free to contractors. Martini stated he would need to obtain that information from Council Member Walsh but that they could include the ad in there as well. There were no public comments on this item. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 14. BALDUR PARK ENGINEERING SERVICES Edwards stated the proposal before the Council tonight is for engineering services. There is a not to exceed fee that Bolton & Menk has proposed to do for the preliminary engineering up through design and bid on this project. Edwards stated he would request the Council authorize Bolton & Menk to perform that work. Edwards stated once that preliminary work is completed of the conditions on the site, he would bring it back to the City Council before the final design work is started. McMillan asked how many soil borings are anticipated on Baldur Park Road. Martini stated four soil borings should be adequate and that they are attempting to determine how much asphalt is there as well as the base. Martini stated one of the questions they are addressing is whether they will need to start from the sub-base as well as how much pavement and aggregate exist on the roadway. McMillan asked if they are talking about starting from North Shore and reconstructing the entire road. Martini indicated they are. McMillan noted the manhole on the far north of the road has experienced quite a bit of heaving and asked what that is related to. Martini indicated that is likely due to the subgrade holding water. Martini stated they will need to look at ways to shed the water but that it will be challenging due to the elevation of the road and the high water table. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 36 of 43    (14. BALDUR PARK ENGINEERING SERVICES, continued) McMillan asked what shape the sewer utilities are in underneath the road. Martini indicated they will review that with the Public Works staff to see if any work needs to be done but that he is not aware of this being a problem area. Printup stated at the work session there was a discussion about different weight limits being posted. Printup asked when the Public Works Director would like to discuss that. Edwards stated if the Council wants to look at posting different weight limits on this road year-round, the Council can discuss that at anytime. Edwards stated the road will need to be built back up to what it should be regardless of any weight limitations that might be placed on the road after-the-fact. Edwards stated the normal weight limits run from March until mid-May and that the City follows the state guidelines. Edwards noted this is a residential street rather than a through street and that typically heavy trucks would not be going down that road unless one of the residents is having some work performed. McMillan asked why curb and gutter is being considered for this road since the City normally does not install curb and gutter. Edwards stated one reason for the curb and gutter is a request listed in a petition from the residents. Other reasons for curb and gutter are potential aesthetics as well as implementing ways to control the water that runs down that road. Edwards indicated he is not particularly set on curb and gutter at this time but that an argument for curb and gutter at the beginning of the road could be made but further down it might not be necessary. Edwards indicated they will be looking at that. McMillan noted the City has done bituminous curbs in the past. Edwards stated bituminous curbs tend to be more temporary and are damaged by the snow plows. McMillan stated in the past the Council has felt that curb and gutter create more of an urban look rather than rural, but that in this case it may be necessary to help direct the water. Martini stated one issue involved with keeping the water from the lake off the road is that the curb and gutter would provide a little more elevation if the water level of the lake raised. Martini stated they would only put curb and gutter in if it aids in the diversion of water and not for aesthetics. McMillan asked if there are any public comments regarding this item. John Nyquist, 1432 Baldur Park Road, asked whether speed bumps could be placed in the roadway. Nyguist stated the posted speed limit does not seem to help deter speeders. Martini stated generally they try to create an environment that makes it uncomfortable for vehicles to travel fast, such as narrower roads. Martini stated in this situation they are dealing with a dead-end road and that the residents are aware of where the traffic is coming from and that they have some ability to police it as a neighborhood. Martini stated he would recommend letting the natural environment help curb the speeds. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 37 of 43    (14. BALDUR PARK ENGINEERING SERVICES, continued) McMillan stated Orono is pretty good at having natural speed bumps all through the City and that the City does periodically receive requests for speed bumps due to speed concerns. McMillan stated the City had speed bumps installed in one area on Crystal Bay Road and that the residents had issues with them due to the noise and vibration. McMillan stated she personally finds it hard to drive fast on Baldur Park Road but that other people might not feel the same way. McMillan stated keeping the road narrow will help. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to direct Bolton & Menk, Inc., to commence survey testing and design for the Baldur Park Road reconstruction project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15. NAVARRE STREET LIGHT AND SIDEWALK PROJECT – PAY REQUEST NO. 5 Edwards stated before the Council tonight is Pay Request No. 5 for the Navarre streetlight and sidewalk project. Edwards stated the Navarre streetlight and sidewalk project is almost complete with the exception of some punch list items that will be completed in the spring. Walsh stated he wants to make sure enough money is retained to cover the punch list items. Edwards stated there is, and that the few punch list items include some minor sidewalk corrections, removal of some banner hangers on a light pole and a couple of other small items. Walsh asked how much those items would amount to. Edwards stated it probably amounts to $5,000 to $6,000 and that the City will be retaining $11,000. Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 5 for the contractor MP Technologies in the amount of $17,040.29 for the Navarre Street Light and Sidewalk Project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *16. 2014 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION AND MANHOLE LINING – PAY REQUEST NO. 1 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 1 for the contractor Insituform in the amount of $176,770.21 for the 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 17. CYGNET AND CHEVY CHASE PARK STATUS Printup stated he does not necessarily have a problem with changing the status on these two areas, but that in the Comprehensive Plan it is labeled as undesignated open space. Printup stated the only concern he had was whether there is the potential for future development if the City changes the designation of a park. Printup noted he is speaking generally and not necessarily for these two parks. Walsh stated it comes down to what are the consequences of doing this going into the future. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 38 of 43    (17. CYGNET AND CHEVY CHASE PARK STATUS, continued) Levang stated Chevy Chase and Cygnet are drainage areas and not parks. Due to the topography, they are essentially ravines and that development of those areas is not possible. Edwards stated the concerns of the Park Commission were that these two areas are being advertised and listed as a park and that there is the possibility the City will put park resources into them when there is no recreational aspect to them. Edwards stated the City will continue to maintain them as drainage ways and natural areas. Levang stated people do go looking for them and are likely disappointed when they find out it is a ditch. Printup stated his concern related to the more global picture and how the definition of parks may be clawed back. Printup stated if the designations are changed periodically, it may open the door to future development of those areas. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve removal of the Chevy Chase and Cygnet Parks from the list of Orono Parks. Levang stated she is wondering why he feels that the definition of parks will be clawed back. Printup stated he has a concern with future Councils simply changing the designation. McMillan noted the City holds the deeds to those areas. McMillan stated she does not remember these two areas being a park when she was on the Park Commission. Gaffron stated as it relates to Cygnet Place, it was dedicated to the City as part of the subdivision that was done back in the 1960s. Gaffron indicated Chevy Chase is tax forfeited property that nobody wanted for development because it was a drainage way. Gaffron stated those two areas probably should never have been called a park. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONTINUED Edwards reported the water plant rehab is currently underway and some heaters were replaced at the Navarre treatment plant. The Public Works Department has also been keeping busy with tree trimming and removal at the city-owned parks. Edwards noted the seasonal road restrictions begin this Wednesday, March 11. The Public Works Department will be posting the signs on Wednesday and the police department will begin enforcing those restrictions on Thursday. Those will remain in effect until the state lifts their restrictions. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 39 of 43    *18. PARKS COMMISSION VICE CHAIR Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve establishment of a Parks Commission Vice Chair and to appoint Jan Berg to the Parks Commission Vice Chair position for 2015. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *19. GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEE HIRE Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the hiring of Susan Burns as clubhouse assistant. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. HRA ANNUAL MEETING Levang moved, Printup seconded, to recess the Orono City Council meeting at 11:11 p.m., and to open the HRA meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The City Council meeting was recessed from 11:11 p.m. to 11:13 p.m.) Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to reconvene the City Council meeting at 11:13 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh stated he attended a meeting at the Fire Department with representatives from seven other cities where they were assessing the future possibilities of cooperation between the cities. Walsh stated the Fire Department currently works together on equipment training but that they are looking at other potential ways to cooperate with the local cities. Walsh indicated some of the smaller cities are experiencing some issues with equipment costs and insurance ratings and that they are exploring entering into some type of joint agreement so they do not need to acquire additional bigger equipment. Levang sated the latest issue of the City’s newsletter has recently come out and that she has received lots of good compliments about it already. Levang reported she attended the Park Commission last week and that the Park Commission has assigned one main commissioner as well as a backup person to every park. The Park Commission also discussed possible changes to the website to make it more user-friendly and a meeting has been set up for Friday to discuss that item. Levang stated a meeting with the Navarre Initiative has been set up for Friday and that they will be talking about the pop-up demonstration project and in particular the farmer’s market. McMillan stated as it relates to the Whelan property access issue, she received a phone call from Former Mayor Lou Oberhauser, who has been working with the Whelans on their access. That resulted in a meeting with the City Attorney, Mike Gaffron and herself last week. McMillan stated at that meeting he provided some information the City has not seen before, which was an access that was surveyed by Surveyor Mark Gronberg located further west. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 40 of 43    (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, continued) McMillan stated that access is not as steep and that Staff will be looking at it. McMillan indicated that item may be back before the City Council at the next work session. McMillan stated the Long Lake Rowing Club also has a concern about access to their site due to the construction at the old Billy’s Lighthouse property. McMillan stated it appears the rowing club will be able to fit their boats in but that she asked Staff to look at what issues there might be if the rowing club used Summit Beach. McMillan indicated Staff’s comments have been passed on to the group and that at the present time it appears the Long lake Rowing Club will be continuing to use their usual site. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 20. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR COMPENSATION STUDY Loftus stated the City Council has discussed employee compensation many times during the past two budget years and that before the Council tonight is a request for proposals to conduct a compensation study. The compensation study would assist the City in looking at internal and external equity as well as demonstrate fiscal responsibility as it relates to employee compensation. Loftus stated it is an issue that will probably need to be addressed with the 2016 budget and that the City Council has talked about whether it would be worthwhile to look at those factors. Loftus stated this item is now before the Council to see if they are interested in obtaining that type of information. Loftus stated the three main elements of the compensation study are as follows: A job evaluation/pay equity review, which is a state requirement; an external market analysis for non-union employees; and a compensation structure review. Loftus noted the City has modified the step system a number of times over the past few years to add steps and that Staff’s memorandum outlines the stated goal of the study as well as the project components. Loftus stated they would like to advertise for 30 days, with the results of the study being received sometime in June prior to budget discussions. McMillan asked when Staff normally completes their report. Loftus stated the next report is due in January. Loftus indicated it usually takes a month or two to complete the study so it will probably be finished by the end of December. Loftus stated it has been nine years since the City’s point system has been updated and that the City has created some new positions since that time. Loftus stated pay equity is based on job points and that the report would give the City the methodology to calculate those points for a few years. Levang stated it would seem after nine years the City needs to take a look another at it. Levang indicated she is in favor of going forward with the RFP since it will take the City where it needs to go and that Staff would appreciate the Council being proactive. Walsh asked for clarification on the classification and compensation system testing that needs to be done every three years. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 41 of 43    (20. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR COMPENSATION STUDY, continued) Loftus stated that is one of the three elements of the study and that there is a state statute that the City is required to comply with. Walsh asked if the City is going above and beyond that. Loftus stated the last time the point system was developed was nine years ago and that Staff is proposing, given the new positions and the passage of time, that the City undergo this study to make sure the methodology and point system is still accurate so that in December, when the report is started, the City is meeting that requirement. Walsh asked if the City would just need to fill out a report again. Loftus stated the City has to fill out the report whether they go ahead with the study. Loftus indicated the study would help the City know what the point system is and ensure that the methodology they are using is correct. McMillan stated the pay equity relates more to gender and that the study would show how Orono compares to other cities in their compensation. Walsh asked if anyone has any idea of what this would cost. Loftus stated in looking at what other cities have done, Staff is anticipating around $15,000. In 2006 the City Council approved $19,000 for the study but only one component out of three was completed since there was a transition in the city administrator position. Walsh stated he does not have a problem with having more information but that he wants to make sure the City has the money to spend on the study. Walsh asked if the League of MN Cities already has this information. McMillan stated the City can decide not to do it after getting the RFPs. Loftus stated the City has relied on the salary surveys that are available through the League of MN Cities every budget cycle but that the League of MN Cities will not evaluate Orono’s job positions and provide a point value. Loftus stated there are so many differences between cities that it is sometimes hard to determine what you should be comparing the positions to. Walsh asked how long this study would be good for. Loftus indicated the study would be good for at least three to five years and that the City has used the last analysis for the past nine years. Loftus stated the external market analysis will provide a good basis of where the City wants to be in the market with the compensation. Loftus stated in her view it would be helpful for Staff to know that paying market rate is important to the City Council but that Staff understands they need to be fiscally responsible. Walsh stated in his view the City is doing a good job since not a lot of people are leaving. Walsh asked if Staff has been expressing complaints about the pay structure. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 42 of 43    (20. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR COMPENSATION STUDY, continued) Loftus noted the City did just lose its public works director due to compensation. Loftus stated the biggest issue is the disparity between the union and nonunion employees. Cornick stated he does not see the need to include the police department since it is pretty much controlled by the union. Loftus stated the market analysis would exclude the police department but that the job analysis needs to be done since the City needs to report on pay equity between men and women. Loftus stated the study will assign a number to a police officer position, and as long as the City is paying men and women the same amount for performing similar duties, the City is meeting the state requirement. Loftus stated the study will not have a lot to do with negotiation. Cornick asked how bound the City is to follow the results. Loftus stated if the state finds inequities, the City would be bound to that and the state may assess fees. As it relates to the compensation component, Loftus indicated she is in agreement that the union should be left out and that the results could possibly have repercussions. Loftus stated compensation studies are common in cities and employees are typically not excited about it since it could go either way. Cornick stated if the City goes ahead and commits to it, then the City should agree to rely on the information. Cornick stated the City cannot get the information and then ignore it. Printup stated he likes the information gathering through an independent study as opposed to the League of MN Cities because each city is providing the information and it could be manipulated; whereas, this independent study cannot be. Loftus indicated she is bringing this before the City Council now so they would have the results in time for budget discussions. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the advertisement of the Request for Proposals for the employee compensation study. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED Loftus noted Staff has met with Kraus Anderson and that they are in the process of creating a punch list. Loftus stated following the recent improvements, the drainage in the parking lot appears to be much better. Loftus stated the City has received 18 applications for the community development position and that they will be interviewing some of the candidates on Monday. *21. ORONO POLICE GARAGE – PAY REQUEST NO. 6 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 4 in an amount totaling $34,417.31 for the work performed on the Orono police garage. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 43 of 43    *22. ACCEPT DONATION – RESOLUTION NO. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Accepting a Donation from Gregg and Denise Steinhafel for use at Crystal Bay Park. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *23. LICENSES & PERMITS – RESOLUTION NO. Residential Kennel Licenses 1. Britt and Richard Gage 2180 Abingdon Way 2. Frank and Melissa Plachecki 3685 North Shore Drive One Day Gambling Permit 1. Orono Baseball Association Raffle held on May 2, 2015 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the above-listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Approving the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Exempt Permit of the Orono Baseball Association for a One-Day Gambling Activity. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *24. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 11:40 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST ____________________________________ _____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor