Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-27-2015 Council Minutes
MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 21 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, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11 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. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2015 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of April 13, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – JOHN THIESSE, REPRESENTATIVE None PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT *3. #14-3686 JOHN BESSESEN AND TOM WASMOEN O/B/O DAVID DELANEY, 2500 KELLY AVENUE RPUD REZONING DENIAL – RESOLUTION NO. 6497 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6497, a Resolution Denying a Rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development for the Property at 2500 Kelly Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS City Planner Curtis stated in the fall of 2014, Staff presented a number of code amendments to the Council and Planning Commission for prioritization. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 21 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS (continued) Within the list of proposed amendments was a text amendment which proposed two things: One, introduced a required separate zoning permit for landscaping for new home permits; and two, modified the requirement for submittal of a certificate of survey for minor building and site grading permits by allowing a site plan signed by a licensed professional if an existing survey is on file for small additions, decks, grading work, etc. At the present time a large percentage of the post-building permit issues Staff encounters are associated with unpermitted or unapproved landscaping changes or additions to the building permit-approved plan. Oftentimes a builder will have a plan prepared which meets the City’s requirements for grading, hardcover, etc., but is not the finished landscape the homeowner desires. Upon the home’s completion, a landscape professional will be contracted to provide a finished yard for the homeowner that may involve additional hardcover or modifies the approved grading plan. This results in a site that does not conform to the approved plan and delays the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Curtis noted a revised draft ordinance was placed before the Council this evening following some changes recommended by the City Attorney. Staff is proposing to institute a requirement for a separate landscaping permit to be issued to the landscape contractor with the building permit at the time of building permit issuance and prior to commencement of any landscaping on the property. The initial draft language contemplated a zoning permit at the end of the project. Curtis noted a sample site plan and permit have been included in the Council’s packet. Staff suggests changing the code language to allow for submittal of a site plan for a proposed project when signed by a licensed professional. The site plan is a drawing prepared to scale showing proposed structures, grading, etc., and is typically based on the certificate of survey. The certificate of survey is a record of what exists at the time of the survey and must be prepared by a registered engineer or surveyor. Staff is also proposing the following as a housekeeping item: Signed permits are not currently included within the list of required permits and should be added for consistency. In addition, permits for water wells are obtained through the Minnesota Department of Health and not the City and should therefore be removed from the City required permits. The draft ordinance accomplishes the following: 1. Adds sign permit to the list of required building permits in Section 86-66(a) and removes water wells; 2. Establishes a requirement for a separate zoning permit for any landscaping work associated with a building permit in Section 86-68(b); and 3. Allows for a site plan prepared by a licensed professional to be submitted in the place of an updated survey for building and grading permits in certain situations. The site plan must conform to the City’s survey and site plan requirements as outlined on Exhibit B. The language does not allow submittal of a site plan instead of a survey for new homes or complete reconstructs. Curtis stated the Council should consider adopting or amending the draft ordinance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 21 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS (continued) Mayor McMillan asked if the site plan is overlaid on the survey. Curtis indicated it is. Curtis stated the survey that is submitted shows the existing conditions. The homeowner then submitted a site and grading plan showing the proposed changes based on the underlying survey. McMillan asked what the landscaping plan would show. Curtis stated it would depend on what the person is proposing. Typically when the City receives a building application, it will show the house, perhaps a patio or step, and then the permit is issued if everything depicted is correct. At times the homeowner would then start to design a plan with a landscape professional, and what happens at the end of the construction process is a more elaborate patio, additional grading, retaining walls, etc. Staff is proposing to let the person know up front that Staff would like to see their landscaping plan before the project begins. Council Member Walsh stated he noticed in the request for Council action, Staff has introduced a required separate zoning permit for landscaping of new home permits. Walsh stated he does not see anything that talks about new home permits. Curtis stated it would typically be applicable with a new building permit but any building permit would require a landscaping permit. Walsh noted the draft ordinance says new home permit. Walsh asked if this is more of a general permit. Walsh stated it was his understanding the person will already have put together a landscaping plan with a building permit. Curtis stated they are submitting a grading plan with some simplistic landscaping at the time of applying for a building permit. Curtis stated if a person is just applying for a detached garage or other accessory structure where landscaping is not contemplated, the landscape plan would not be required. Walsh asked if a landscaping plan would be required if the homeowner is not doing any re-grading or land alteration but merely adding bushes. Curtis indicated it would not be. Walsh asked what the definition of landscaping or land alteration is. Walsh noted the proposed language in the ordinance is so broad that anyone could be required to submit a landscaping plan. Curtis stated Staff does not intend to make it apply to vegetation. McMillan stated in her view landscaping might not be the correct word. McMillan stated it perhaps should be a zoning permit for land alteration. Curtis stated that is what the permit is called. Walsh asked if the City has a definition of what land alteration is. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 21 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS (continued) Curtis stated there is a definition in the code and that the Council recently defined the permit parameters for that to 20 cubic yards. McMillan stated people typically think of landscaping as planting flowers, bushes or trees. Walsh stated he would like to make the language narrower to avoid any confusion for people who simply want to plant a few bushes. McMillan stated it could say zoning permit for land alteration rather than zoning permit for landscaping and that a grading plan shall be submitted with a surveyor site plan. Council Member Printup noted the draft ordinance establishes a requirement for a separate zoning permit. Printup asked if that would have another fee applied to the building permit. Curtis indicated the land alteration permit is $50 and it would be assigned to the landscaping contractor rather than the builder. McMillan stated with that change, the language should work. Walsh stated land alterations are already defined in City Code. Walsh noted the word landscaping is included in the ordinance a few times where it would need to be changed. McMillan stated landscape plan should be a grading plan in Paragraph B under Section 1. City Attorney Mattick stated to his knowledge it is called a site and grading plan on the sample permit. Mattick stated Staff will go through the draft ordinance, clean up that language, and bring it back before the Council. Walsh stated under Item B under surveys required it states, “shall be accompanied by a certificate of survey or site plan drawn to scale prepared by a person registered by the MN Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Interior Design. Walsh asked if it should be all of those or one of those. Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards indicated that is the name of the Board, which has sub- boards within it. Edwards stated the City’s current code reads that there needs to be a survey that is signed by a licensed surveyor and in some exceptions a licensed engineer. Edwards stated a licensed surveyor goes out and surveys the ground whereas a landscape architect or a civil engineer or an architect actually creates a plan and a design. Edwards stated Staff has been requiring individual homeowners or contractors to then put the design on the survey, which is an additional cost to the people. Edwards stated what they are attempting to say this is the board of professionals to be licensed through. Edwards stated they are not saying that someone who is an interior designer would be allowed to sign the survey or site plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 21 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS (continued) Walsh asked if he has a 40-year old survey, nothing has changed in 40 years, and he would like to do a project, such as a deck, would he be allowed to use that survey. Edwards stated if it is to scale and nothing else is going to change, as long as the person is a licensed registered professional, they can sign the document saying they put the plan on the registered survey and it is to scale. Walsh asked if it would be allowed if he was a landscape architect. Edwards stated he would be able to. Walsh stated that could increase the cost of a deck by $500, which is what the City is attempting to get away from. Edwards stated the language is attempting to broaden that and that they are requiring people to put the design on the survey, which would then be signed by the surveyor. Edwards stated if the person is a licensed professional by the State of Minnesota, such as an engineer, a civil engineer, a landscape architect, an architect or a surveyor, the City will accept any of those. Printup asked if broadening it would make it less cumbersome. Edwards stated that is the intent. Walsh stated in his example of a 40-year-old survey where nothing has changed, he does not want to pay anybody any money just to have them put their name on it. Walsh stated the Council talked months ago about not requiring homeowners to have to go to all of these professionals when it is an easy project. Walsh stated if the average person wants to build a simple deck for $500, he does not want to spend another $300 or $400 to have the survey updated and signed. Edwards stated his intent in proposing this particular language was in looking at the new home builds or major expansions where the person has already hired a professional to design it. Walsh stated this throws all the little guys doing little jobs in with all the major projects, which is what the Council wanted to avoid. Edwards stated he would be in favor of something that could exempt a certain size project, but the intent was to broaden it for the bigger projects. Printup stated he likes the direction the discussion is going and that he would like to make it less cumbersome. Printup stated he would like to make it simpler for the smaller projects. McMillan noted the draft ordinance is specifically for land alteration. Curtis stated the ordinance would be for all permits that require a site plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 21 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS (continued) Walsh stated this is a survey requirement issue. Walsh stated to his recollection the Council had discussed some language previously about allowing some leeway, which would hopefully resolve 80 or 90 percent of those issues without requiring professional signatures. Walsh stated he would like to make it easy for someone to build a small deck. McMillan stated part of the issue is hardcover or setbacks. Walsh stated the person would still need to submit the plan to the City and that he would like to get the small projects past this problem. Walsh stated the draft ordinance does not address that. McMillan stated the City needs to find something consistent across the board and that each situation is different. Walsh stated every project will now require a number of signatures. Curtis indicated the City already requires that. Walsh stated he does not want to overburden people who would like to do a small project, which is what the City is doing right now. Curtis stated Staff could perhaps come up with some thresholds or exemptions for the Council’s consideration. Curtis stated Staff did attempt to do that with this ordinance and the criteria became a little muddy. Curtis stated Staff will review to see if some criteria can be developed. McMillan stated even with a small project, there might be issues with wetlands, hardcover, setbacks, or something else. McMillan stated Staff wants to be able to have ways to look at something and be able to determine what that threshold is without just arbitrarily saying they will let this one slide or requiring a signed survey in one case and not another. McMillan asked if a building permit is required for a deck. Curtis indicated it is. McMillan noted the deck would also need to be inspected, which requires Staff time. McMillan stated the question is whether the homeowner should pay the money to have it surveyed. Printup stated he understands what Council Member Walsh is saying about the small projects. McMillan asked if it helps the building inspector to have a survey. Curtis stated it would depend on the project and the property. McMillan suggested Staff perhaps come up with some examples for thresholds. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 21 4. #15-3711 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND CHAPTER 86-68 TO MODIFY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR PROJECTS/ADDITIONS (continued) Mattick stated he understands the Council would like something drafted that is beneficial to the property but still give the City a comfort level as it relates to review. Mattick stated one issue encountered on plans is the level of detail that is included. Mattick stated while a plan may look reasonable, if a wetland is not depicted on the survey, it becomes a whole different issue and a signed survey would prevent situations like that. Mattick stated Staff will be looking at the plans and, on behalf of the City, say that it looks right, but that issues could come up if there is not a signed survey. Mattick stated Staff will take another look at it to see if some thresholds could be created. Printup asked if someone would be able to hand sketch something on an as-built survey. Curtis stated it would depend on the age of the survey. Curtis stated what the City required 15 years ago might be different than what is required be put on a survey today. McMillan stated she understands the issues with the expense and that the Council has struggled with this for a number of years. McMillan stated she hates to have the added expense but she would also hate to have someone construct something incorrectly, which could put Staff in a tough position. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to table Application No. 15-3711, City of Orono, Amend Chapter 86-68 to Modify Survey Requirements for Minor Projects/Additions. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW Senior Planner Gaffron stated the Council has a draft ordinance based on the assumption that the Council accepts the original dollar amount per acre and equivalency factors for the zoning districts. Before the Council tonight is a chart that looks at the existing base fee that is currently charged per acre for all acreage in a subdivision. For five acres, it is $3,075 per acre. The equivalency factors date back to 2000 when the Council looked at larger lots and determined that they do not have as much of an impact on stormwater. Gaffron indicated the City received a letter late this afternoon regarding the ordinance amendment from Homestead Partners, who is looking at developing a property located on Old Crystal Bay Road. The letter suggests that they like the idea of the City looking at amending the ordinance and that they would like the Council to look at what the fees were 15 years ago compared to what they are today, which would require a study if the Council is interested in going in that direction. Gaffron stated the proposed ordinance is in draft form at this time and this is an opportunity for the Council to provide Staff with clear direction as to what code revisions the Council desires. The draft ordinance is based on the idea that reapportionment really is not something the Council will do. The reapportionments result in a situation where the fees for large lots and the fees for small lots are closer together and the second option is where the small lots have a greater fee than the larger lots. Gaffron stated the second option really is not sustainable in Staff’s view. The third line on the chart reflects a per lot fee based on standard zone acreage. Gaffron stated under this option if there is a 5-acre zone, the person will pay for a 5-acre lot even if it is greater than five acres, MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) with no charge for land outside of the lot, such as outlots or a road. Gaffron stated the fee per lot times the number of lots would be called a base development trunk fee. The fourth option to look at is where the City would charge a per lot fee based on zone standard acreage and then also charge per acre for and outside of lots. The fifth option would give up to a 50 percent reduction in base stormwater and drainage trunk fees based on the acreage in conservation easements. Currently the existing code for the 5-acre zone has a 50 percent reduction possible in the base fee based on the acreage in conservation easements. Gaffron indicated the current code talks about perimeter buffer easements and some drainage way buffer easements. Gaffron stated a 50 percent reduction right now is only allowed in the 5-acre zone but it is something that could be added to the 2-acre zone. Gaffron stated the sixth option allows for different percentage reductions in the base stormwater and drainage trunk fee for acreage in conservation easements, both within and outside of lots, based on a percentage of the entire site acreage. The chart reflects the maximum potential reduction on a per lot basis. The proposed changes as they appear in the draft ordinance would do the following: 1. Incorporates a definition of New Development into Section 14-284 and revises the definition of redevelopment in Section 14-285. 2. In Section 14-284, incorporates provisions for how various types of subdivision configurations will be charged the SW&DT Fee. 3. Adds Section 14-288 regarding provisions for crediting past payments. 4. Revises the reduction provisions appearing below the Land Use Equivalency Factor table in Section 14-283© to accomplish the following: a. For the 5-acre zone, reduces the maximum fee-calculable acreage per new lot from 7.0 acres to 5.0 acres and establishes that the fee is charged just to acreage in lots not to acreage outside of lots, such as in road outlots, etc. Keeps the existing credit for perimeter buffers and drainage way buffers as-is, subject to a credit no greater than 50 percent of the 5-acre base lot. These revisions functionally negate the need to give a reduction for wetlands, as each 5-acre lot must have 5 acres of dry buildable land and would only be charged for its five dry-buildable acres. b. For the 2-acre zones, reduces the maximum fee-calculable acreage per new lot from 4.0 acres to 2.0 acres and establishes that the fee is charged just to acreage in lots, not to acreage outside of lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) If desired by the Council, an overall development acreage credit for one or more of the following can be established: - All wetland acreage to the boundary delineation line - All areas in easements for stormwater ponding - All conservation easements resulting from Conservation Design process. - Drainage ways in easements but not for standard perimeter D&U easements. c. For the 1-acre and ½ acre zones, establishes the maximum fee-calculable acreage per new lot at 1.0 acre and 0.5 acres respectively, and establishes that the fee is charged just to acreage in lots, not to acreage outside of lots. No reduction or credits are proposed for these zones. d. For multi-family and higher density residential developments, the ordinance has been drafted to remain on a per-total-acres basis rather than a per lot basis, but allowing a calculable acreage reduction for all acreage of delineated wetland and stormwater ponding areas. 5. At this time, no revisions to the commercial/industrial fee structure are proposed. Gaffron stated the Council should review the draft ordinance and provide direction to Staff as to what code revisions the Council desires. Based on Council’s direction, Staff will make whatever changes Council directs and bring back a final draft ordinance for consideration at the next meeting. Council Member Levang stated she appreciates the chart that Staff compiled. Levang stated she is in agreement that the reapportionment options one and two do not appear to work and the City would never get affordable housing if those were the trunk fees. Levang stated she hopes the Council can agree that reapportionment would be off the table. Council Members Cornick and Printup indicated they would be in agreement with that. Printup stated there was talk on how the wetlands would fit into the possible reduction. Printup asked how onsite facilities for cleansing and retention of water would fit into that. Gaffron stated he is assuming Council Member Printup is talking about wetlands and stormwater ponding, which could include rain gardens within an easement. Gaffron stated typically those would be in addition to the two acres dry-buildable in the 2-acre zone or the one acre dry buildable in the 1-acre zoning. Gaffron stated the way it is structured in the draft ordinance is that the Council would set the base fee in a 2-acre zone, which would be the number of lots times two acres per lot times the base fee, which would give the base development trunk fee. That number would then be reduced by 25 percent or whatever number the Council determines is appropriate based on the entire percentage of the property that is put into easements. Gaffron stated in his view that may be the most focused and easiest to follow. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) Gaffron stated the other option is to look at the percentage of the entire property in easements up to a maximum of 25 percent or whatever number the Council deems appropriate. Gaffron stated it would be easier to deal with a percentage since every property is different. McMillan noted stormwater ponding is mandatory and she has difficulty giving credit for that because in order to do a big development or a dense development, it is required. McMillan stated Lakeview did not have to do all that conservation and prairie restoration, which should be a credit, but that a credit should not be given for mandatory items such as protecting wetlands a stormwater ponding. Gaffron stated in the situation of Lakeview, in lieu of stormwater ponding, they are doing conservation areas, which would take the place of stormwater ponding. Gaffron stated one could do an analysis on how much land is being conserved, but because they are creating those conservation easements, the developer will not be creating stormwater ponds. McMillan stated it was her understanding they are building a pond in the northwest. Gaffron stated that has not become part of the plans. Gaffron indicated there was a discussion early on about restoring a wetland but that has not become part of the proposal. McMillan asked why that disappeared from the plan. Gaffron stated it was not part of the preliminary plat or final plat application. McMillan requested Staff follow up on that with the Watershed District since some of that was supposed to help with the water coming into the southwest corner. McMillan stated it was her understanding that they were going to create another pond in that area. Walsh stated if a developer is required to do something, they should not get credit for that, but if they go above and beyond that, they should get a certain percentage up to a certain maximum. Gaffron stated there would be some engineering factors involved in determining what is over and above, and the question is whether it actually reduces the impacts upstream or downstream. Gaffron stated the City could give a credit if someone upstream no longer has to do something based on what is done downstream, but that those are things that would have to be weighed from an engineering standpoint. Gaffron stated in the situation of Lakeville, most of the water that is coming into the northwest corner is coming in from other cities. Gaffron stated the water will come in at a certain rate and a certain quality. The question then could be, if the developer is going to clean that up on the site, what kind of credit is received. Gaffron stated it sounds reasonable to give them a credit but that there would need to be an engineering determination of whether or not the job is really getting done. Gaffron stated the other thing to remember is that the whole fee structure was based 15 years ago on the idea that the City is collecting money to do projects off site in order to serve the entire system and not necessarily the property being developed. Gaffron stated in his view the City Attorney will probably have some comments about that theory. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) Printup stated it would be less expensive for some in a new development that does not send the runoff downstream and keeps it onsite, which ultimately will preserve the wells and Lake Minnetonka, etc., as it flows downstream. Printup stated stepping back to Orono, does the Council want to think about reducing the fees if they are doing stormwater management onsite. Walsh stated adding the engineering factors into it will likely make it more complicated. Mattick stated on a large project, there will already be engineers involved. Mattick stated to his understanding the draft ordinance will also apply to single lot building. Gaffron stated the draft ordinance is talking about new development where there is a subdivision and that they have not started talking about redevelopment. Mattick stated that is something to keep in mind. Mattick stated he has spoken with Staff about the basic logic underneath all of this, which is the acreage component. Currently the City is charging a stormwater fee based on stormwater. Mattick stated there is something about a larger lot that can typically absorb what it is creating and that those might not be the lots that are having an impact on the City’s stormwater system. Mattick stated on the flip side, the City already has requirements in place that talk about how much water can leave the site. Mattick stated if someone starts analyzing that and looks at how much they are really contributing to the system downstream, it might be that the development is neutral in terms of what is being discharged as well as the quality of the water. Mattick stated he does not have an answer in terms of a formula, but that he has passed along to Staff the various formulas that other cities have used. Mattick stated it is important to study the basis of what it is the City is trying to accomplish here. Mattick pointed out Orono’s stormwater system is not the same as Minneapolis since Orono relies on a lot of natural features, such as ditches and wetlands, but that does not mean that the City does not have stormwater related projects. Levang stated the language has to be unique to Orono. Printup asked how many new developments the City is looking at and whether there are other developments in adjoining cities that will impact Orono. Gaffron stated Staff has taken a look at quite a number of cities in the metro area and only a very small number have a stormwater trunk fee, such as 20 to 30 percent, which means that 80 or 90 percent do not. Gaffron stated as it relates to the range of fees, there are a few cities that are similar to Orono and in the $5,000 to $10,000 per lot range and other cities are less. Gaffron stated there is not a lot of precedent where a large number of cities are doing this and that Staff has only found a few cities where they do it. Gaffron stated Staff has found that the cities that have a higher fee also exclude wetlands, areas that are in stormwater ponding, and road rights-of-way. Staff is proposing something similar to what someone would see in other cities that offer a reduction in their per acre fee. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) Printup stated he is not interested in saving the developer money because they will not be living in Orono, but that he is okay with creating stormwater reductions by having rain gardens since they would be preserving water and improving the quality of the water onsite. Walsh stated especially if it over and above what is required. McMillan stated at the time of a large development, the City wants to make those stormwater improvements up front rather than after the homes are constructed. McMillan stated in her view the first draft of the ordinance is pretty good, but she would like to see the 2-acre zone go up to 50 percent. McMillan stated it is doubtful it will always be at 50 but it would help to promote stormwater improvements up front. Walsh asked if she is talking about over and above what is required. McMillan stated she would say only newly created wetland acreage over what is existing since a large amount of people in Orono have a number of wetlands and they have not received a break. McMillan indicated she would say newly created wetlands all areas and easements for stormwater ponding. McMillan stated the City perhaps should grant that in those situations even though it is mandatory as well as giving credit to conservation easements. McMillan stated the fourth bullet point might be redundant and that she would rather remove that. Gaffron stated they do not want to give them double credit for the same piece of land. McMillan stated in her view drainage ways are covered under the conservation easements. Walsh asked if she would like to bump it up to 50 percent in the 2-acre lots. McMillan indicated she would. Gaffron asked if the maximum percent would be 50 percent rather than 25. McMillan stated both the 2-acre and 5-acre would be at 50 percent. Levang indicated she would agree with that but that she does not see a reduction happening in the one- half or one acre lots. Levang stated she also likes the cap at 5 acres. Levang stated the extra percentage would give them an incentive to avoid that extra fee. McMillan stated in her view the 5-acre zone should have the same three bullet points as the 2-acre zoning district but that Staff should remove the line that says protected by perimeter drainage. Walsh commented that would help make the two zones consistent. McMillan noted there is no credit for multi-family or high density. McMillan stated she is not sure what high density would mean. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) Gaffron stated the City would not get high density without it being multi-family and that it is based on what is currently in the code. Gaffron stated there is a distinction between four units per acre and less and then greater than four units in terms of the fee. Gaffron stated that language initially had to do with how much hard surface would be created with those two different types of development. McMillan asked if they should do three units or less since they have a half-acre in there. Gaffron stated they could do that. Gaffron stated multi-family will be attached units versus single-family and that multi-family of two, three, or four units would still be considered multi-family. McMillan stated a townhome could have three units. Gaffron stated multi-family will be something that has two or more units attached as well as five to however many. Gaffron indicated from a density standpoint, the City does not have a zoning district for multi-family other than RPUD, which gives the City a lot of flexibility in the type of development. McMillan suggested multi-family be listed as three units. McMillan asked how the Council feels about the acreages listed on Page 4 under Item 8. Walsh suggested the last two be combined in order to be consistent. McMillan asked if there should be a credit. Gaffron indicated this is saying that with multi-family, regardless of what category it is, if the fee is based on number of acres, the City is going to give them credit for the wetlands or the easements or stormwater ponding or conservation easements. McMillan suggested it read newly created wetlands. Gaffron asked if the City would essentially charge them for all 20 acres on a 20-acre site that has 10 acres of wetland. McMillan stated they would have to put in a stormwater pond or create a conservation easement in order to receive a credit. Walsh stated it should be consistent with the other zones. Walsh asked if Mayor McMillan is talking about all wetlands. McMillan stated it would just apply to newly created wetlands. Walsh asked whether Mayor McMillan would charge someone for 20 acres even if 10 acres were wetlands before they did anything. McMillan stated they would be charged for the number of lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) Gaffron stated under multi-family, it would be based on acreage. McMillan stated in her view there should not be a credit since it is high density. Gaffron stated the City would not give credit for the wetland acreage towards the high density. McMillan noted the other zones do not get credit for that. Gaffron stated on a 20-acre site with 10 acres of wetland that is guided for multi-family/high density, that could be 70 units whether they are individual lots or one or more buildings. Gaffron stated the question is whether the City charges them on an acreage basis for the entire site or on a lot basis. Gaffron stated on a lot basis, it would be very difficult to define what is appropriate because there could be anywhere from 4 to 100 or more units. McMillan stated if they do a unit fee the City will need to figure out a unit fee. Gaffron stated if the units are stacked three high, the question becomes what the impact will be on stormwater versus what the impact would be for the same units only stacked one high. Walsh asked what the fee would be in that situation on a per lot basis. Gaffron stated at a density greater than four units or more an acre, the fee would be $8,100 an acre. Walsh asked what it is currently. Gaffron indicated it would be $8,000 times 20 acres. Printup stated he likes the acreage concept. McMillan asked how that would differ from the 2- and 5-acre zones. Gaffron stated the difference would be that the fee is based on a per lot basis. Gaffron stated the multi- family would be based on a per acre basis. McMillan asked how the Council feels about giving a credit for wetlands. Walsh stated if the 20-acre parcel created another acre of wetland, they would get charged for nine acres of buildable land, plus the conservation easements, times 8,000 if it is done on an acreage basis. Cornick asked if the City has a definition on what a newly created wetland is. Gaffron stated a stormwater pond is based on the amount of runoff and the rate of runoff. A newly created wetland will likely not be built unless someone is mitigating for a wetland that is being filled. Walsh stated it could probably be left as simply wetlands. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 21 5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW (continued) McMillan stated if the City is not going to charge for all wetland acreage, then they do not need to put the words newly created wetlands in there. Walsh indicated he is good on that. McMillan noted the Council did include newly created wetlands under the other zones. Walsh stated that was a credit issue. McMillan stated this would be a no charge issue. Cornick asked if the City can accurately predict the new wetland acreage. McMillan stated when they do wetland mitigation, it is delineated. Gaffron asked if the Council has any questions on Page 4, Section 14-284, where it talks about new development projects. Gaffron stated this language attempts to lay out some parameters around different types of development projects. McMillan stated it appears to make sense. Walsh stated it makes good sense and is pretty straight forward. Gaffron indicated he will make the suggested changes discussed this evening and bring the Council some examples so they will be able to better understand how the fee will work under different scenarios. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to table Application No. 15-3722, Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. VOTE: Ayes 5, nays 0. *6. #15-3726 GREGORY WHITE O//B/O GREGORY AND LYN WHITE STEVEN AND PATRICIA WHITE TODD AND LISA SYLVESTER, 4355, 4375, AND 4245 BAYSIDE ROAD – SUBDIVISION FOR A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT – RESOLUTION NO. 6498 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6498, a Resolution Approving a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement for the properties located at 4355, 4375, and 4245 Bayside Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT *7. HIRING APPROVAL – SEASONAL PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the hiring of Rebecca Anderson as a seasonal parks maintenance worker. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 21 8. LURTON PARK UPDATE Edwards stated the purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval to move forward with the contract with Prairie Restorations to restore the right-of-way section of the park. The City contracted with Prairie Restorations approximately five years ago to restore the main section of the park. The donor family asked the City last year to do the right-of-way. Edwards stated the City has already secured a right-of-way permit from Hennepin County and have received a quote from Prairie Restorations. Edwards stated as it relates to the remaining action items, there was a memorandum generated last year with a list of items that need to be done at the park. Edwards indicated some of the items have been completed last fall and that the Public Works Department is planning on doing the rest this spring. Walsh commented it is a great looking park and that he is interested in hearing about the donor family and the history of the park. Gaffron stated the Lurton family has lived in Orono for a number of years and up until recently the Lurton’s lived on the northeast side of Lake Clausen. That property looked across at this piece of land. The Lurton family was living at this site when the property was going to be partially taken by MN/DOT for a highway right-of-way. The City ended up with an agreement that Mr. Lurton would donate it as a park to the City with the agreement that he could live there until the house was removed by MN/DOT. The property eventually was donated as a park and the proceeds from the portion that was sold or taken by MN/Dot was received by the City. The intent was that the money be used to maintain the park in perpetuity. Gaffron stated at a later date the City had a conversation about Big Island Park and Mr. Lurton agreed that a portion of that maintenance fund could be used partially towards the purchase of Big Island Park. The remaining funds have been used to upgrade Lurton Park. Currently the park has a parking area and two picnic tables. In addition, buckthorn has been removed from the wooded areas and a lot of restoration work on the prairie areas has been completed. Gaffron indicated the City has a letter going back to 2014 regarding things the family would still like to see as amenities at the park. Gaffron stated the original donation was to keep the park as natural as possible with a few picnic tables and benches and a limited parking area, which is how it has been maintained. McMillan asked if some plants have been placed around the sign. Edwards indicated that is not in the Prairie Restoration contract and that the Public Works Department will be doing that in house. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to approve the proposal with Prairie Restoration to restore and then maintain the Lurton Park right-of-way area to prairie. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 21 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT (continued) Edwards reported the Public Works Department has continued to perform pothole repairs throughout the City, completed tree trimming at some of the parks, and held the City’s annual spring cleanup day, which was successful. In addition, the first major phase of the water plant has been completed, which unfortunately resulted in an issue. Edwards noted he sent an e-mail to the Council yesterday regarding the issue at the water plant. Edwards stated the City experienced a fluoride over feed in the water system. Edwards indicated the system came back online on Friday after a four-day hiatus following installation of new piping and electrical. Edwards indicated he received a call on Sunday morning that someone was nauseated and smelt a chemical smell with their water. Water samples were taken and the water was found to be high in fluoride. Edwards stated the City was required to send that sample away to a lab since it was beyond what the City was able to test for. Following that, the Public Works Department received another call from a resident located on the northern side of the Sugar Woods development and their water tested well within normal limits. Edwards stated they were able to isolate the issue to the southern side and the fluoride system was shut down, the water tower tank was drained, water mains were flushed, and the system was refilled. Once that was completed, another round of testing was done in the area and the levels were found to be within the tolerances. The affected residents were told to flush their internal systems. Edwards stated as a secondary precaution, the Public Works Department did go over to the school and tested the water there, which was found to be fine. Edwards stated the root cause of the incident occurred because the fluoride system, when it was reinstalled, was running continuously rather than only when the main well turned on. Edwards stated once the City was notified of the problem, Public Works coordinated with the MN Department of Health to correct the problem and that he also spoke with Poison Control and informed them of the City’s plan of action. Edwards stated actions performed today was to have the contractor back out to review the situation. No final plan of action has been arrived at this point in time and the fluoride ejector is currently off until the City can be assured it is working properly. Edwards stated the City’s spring cleanup day was successful and that the Public Works Department hauled away 151 loads from Orono, 34 loads from Long Lake, and four loads from Minnetonka Beach of various recyclable or disposable items. The Public Works Department also trimmed or removed another 15 trees in the last couple of weeks. In addition, 15 tons of asphalt has been put down on the road to fix potholes. Edwards stated the roads in some cases are in pretty dire straits but that the Public Works Department will continue to plug the holes as they come up. McMillan asked if they are still doing some blade patching. Edwards indicated they have done one small blade patch so far this year but that it is not a precise way of laying down asphalt and it only has a one-year life. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 21 *9. SENTENCE TO SERVE (STS) CONTRACT FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the contract with Hennepin County Sentence to Serve for park maintenance, not to exceed $6,500. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh stated he attended the Highway 12 reconstruction open house this past week and that there was a good turnout. Walsh stated he hopes everyone is aware of the construction since it will impact Orono and Long Lake for the next couple of years. Walsh noted there will be more open houses and that he would encourage everyone to attend to see what is going on. Cornick stated he also attended the open house and that he is in agreement with Council Member Walsh. Levang stated she went to Orono’s cleanup day and that she would encourage the other Council Members to go to this event in the future since it is a good opportunity to meet and speak with the residents. Levang stated the cleanup day is also a good chance for the Public Works staff to talk with the residents. Levang reported the Navarre Community Initiative Committee has decided on Sunday, September 20, for the Navarre festival. The committee is in the process of developing a concrete plan but that they are trying to keep the event doable, successful, and tying in with the demonstration idea. Levang indicated the committee is also working with the Casco Point residents as well as Navarre residents and that good progress is being made. Levang stated it will be nice when the new community development officer is on board. Levang reported the communications committee is working on the next edition of the City newsletter, which will be out sometime in June. Printup stated according to the local newspaper, there were record turnouts at the annual Long Lake Fire Department pancake breakfast. McMillan stated she received a letter today from some residents on Town Line Road and that they would like the City to address the condition of the road. McMillan indicated she will have the City Administrator send the letter out to the Council. McMillan stated she has not driven down there yet but is planning on doing that. McMillan reported Navarre night is coming up this Thursday and will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Freshwater Center. McMillan stated mention of the event was mentioned in the Star Tribune, the Pioneer and Laker. Levang stated the banner will also be on display. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 10. FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Olson stated the first quarter financial report is now ready. City revenues are at 15.85 percent, which may appear to be low, but Olson noted the City will not receive their first tax settlement MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 21 10. FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT (continued) until June. Olson stated once that payment is received the City’s revenues will look pretty good. Olson stated the first quarter revenues are typically low, but by June the City will be at approximately 60 percent of revenues. Third quarter revenues will also be relatively flat and then increase in the fourth quarter when it is anticipated the City will be at approximately 100 percent of budgeted revenues. Olson noted the City’s overall expenditures are also on target for the year. Most of the adjustments that have been made are to include the portion of the first payroll of April, which is for compensation earned in March. Other adjustments are for significant expenditures that the City was not billed for at the end of March. Olson reported the majority of the departments are all pretty much where they should be, with the Mayor and Council Department being slightly over budget due to the fact that payments for memberships are due in the first quarter. Olson noted the Central Services Department is close to 30 percent for expenditures, which is a result of the payment of licensing fees that are paid in the first quarter. Olson noted the City no longer owns the operating system and every year the City has to pay for its server license and licensing Microsoft Office. Olson indicated he is not at all concerned about any of the departments being over budget at this point. Olson noted the City Council will be approving the transfers to other funds later in the year. Olson indicated he did adjust it somewhat simply to make the first quarter report more accurate. Olson stated he anticipates the City’s expenditures will be at 100 percent or slightly below by the end of the year. Olson stated as it relates to the City’s investments, the total CD’s are at $9.5 million, government agency bonds are at $5.5 million, and the City has $2.2 in money market accounts. Olson noted the City still has bond money that is being used and spent down as part of the police garage project, and as the water plant improvements move forward, that will also reduce the City’s money market fund. Olson stated interest earned through 3/31/2015 is $26,684.35, which compares to $33,174.61 during the first quarter of 2014. The interest earnings do not include any adjustments for the current market value of the portfolio. Olson stated as of the end of the quarter, this adjustment would be an increase of $7,307.44. This compares favorable to the $47,383 reduction in value at the end of 2014. Olson stated the bonds tend to offer better interest than the CDs and that the City currently has two government bonds. Olson stated both of those bonds mature in 2021 but it is likely both of those bonds will be called before 2021. Olson stated the City just had a bond that was purchased six months ago called last month. Olson noted the City attempts to pay off their bonds early to save money. The City Council took no formal action on this item. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED Loftus stated the Hennepin County Assessor has hosted its open book meeting on April 15. Three residents were in attendance this year in comparison to four last year. Loftus reported the Assessor’s Office has received approximately 100 calls from residents this year, which is slightly down from previous years. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 21 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (continued) Loftus reported she attended a fire services meeting to discuss opportunities for shared fire services. There were eight cities in attendance, including Long Lake, Medina, St. Bonifacious, Mound, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, and Spring Park. The group spent about two hours talking about challenges in the fire service industry currently. Loftus stated essentially it was an introductory meeting on shared fire services ranging from training to equipment. Loftus reported the new Community Development Director will begin his duties on April 30. Also, interviews will be held on this coming Monday for the Building Official position. Loftus noted Lyle Oman will be retiring this summer. Loftus stated the compensation study had a kick-off meeting with the consultant today to get the process moving and that the final report should be issued in June. Loftus indicated the City did receive a few calls about Mediacom’s build-out inquiring about when that work will start this year. Loftus noted Mediacom has until October to finish it. Loftus stated Mediacom changed their build-out map a little bit and some people were bumped out into the future. Loftus stated the schedule seems more optimistic as compared to last year, given that Mediacom has pulled right-of- way permits and they are starting work. Loftus stated one issue that came up during the Medicom buildout this year is that a gentleman on a private road attempted to shoo the Mediacom workers away because he did not want the utility. Loftus stated following that incident, Staff made sure the City has a right to be on those private roads. Loftus asked if the Council would prefer to e-mail her their top ten priorities on goal setting or whether they would like to brainstorm a list together as a group. Loftus stated some cities will hold a retreat, but that Orono, in the past few years, has done it in house. Loftus stated she is curious to know how the Council feels it has gone in the past and how they would like to do it this year. Printup stated he likes submitting something via e-mail so it is ready for the work session. Levang and Walsh indicated they are in agreement. Loftus stated goal setting will be on the May work session agenda. *11. ORONO POLICE GARAGE – PAY REQUEST NO. 8 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the payments to the contractors working on the Orono Police Garage Project in the amount totaling $8,160.50. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. LICENSES AND PERMITS Limited Use Firearms Permit Michael Roller 3125 Fox Street MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 21 Transient Merchant License Mark Lazarchic/Renaissance Fireworks, Inc. Sale of consumer fireworks 3435 Shoreline Drive July 19 through July 5, 2015 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the above-listed licenses and permits. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 13. *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 beyond what will be discussed during the closed session. CLOSED MEETINGS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to enter into closed session at 8:47 p.m. to discuss the purchase of property located at 2251 Pine Ridge Lane and to enter into a closed session based on Attorney- Client Privilege to discuss Orono versus Nygard. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The City Council went into closed session at 8:47 p.m.) 14. 15. Closed Meeting [§13D.05.3 (c)(3) to consider the purchase of property located at 2251 Pine Ridge Lane opened at 8:47 p.m. and closed at 9:37 p.m. Closed Meeting [§13D.05.3 (b)] for Attorney-Client Privilege (Orono v. Nygard) opened at 9:37 p.m. and closed at 10:23 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Orono City Council adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m. ATTEST: _______________________________________ ______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor