[00:00:02] >> IT IS SIX O'CLOCK, AND I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. [Roll Call] WE WILL FIRST OF ALL, ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE A FULL ATTENDANCE HERE ON COUNCIL. NEXT, WE WILL TURN TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE JOIN US. YOU TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE HERE WITH US TODAY. FIRST ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [Approval of Agenda] DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS TO ADD OR ANY OTHER CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA, INCLUDING MOVING ANY CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS TO FULL COMMENT? >> I'D LIKE TO MOVE NUMBER 8 PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COUNCIL? ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE ANY OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA? JUST BEFORE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THE PROCEDURES FOR OUR LAND USE MATTERS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THEM TONIGHT AND I'D JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND THROUGH WRITTEN COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE LAND USE ISSUES THAT WE'LL BE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. WE WILL NOT BE LOOKING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE DISCUSSION ON THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS. APPLICANTS MAY BE ALLOWED OR MAYBE ASKED TO SPEAK TO CERTAIN ISSUES. BUT AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED, YOU'VE GOT THE OPPORTUNITY DURING PUBLIC COMMENT TO COMMENT ON ANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. IF YOU USE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THAT, I WOULD ASK YOU TO HOLD YOUR COMMENTS TO TWO MINUTES OR LESS AND TRY NOT TO MAKE IT DUPLICATIVE IF THEY'RE HALF A DOZEN OF YOU COMMENTING ON THE SAME THING ABOUT A LAND USE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US. I'D ASK YOU TO TRY TO DECIDE AMONGST YOURSELVES WHO WOULD SPEAK FOR THE GROUP. WITH THAT, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA. [Consent Agenda] >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> MINUS NUMBER 8. >> MINUS NUMBER 8. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> MR. MAYOR, DID YOU WANT TO ADD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING? >> TO THE AGENDA, YES. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN OUR WORK SESSION. I WOULD ALSO ENTERTAIN A MOTION BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I GUESS, IS ON APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE HELD TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. BECAUSE THIS IS OUR ONLY SCHEDULED MEETING IN MARCH, AND WE DECIDED WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE HERE, LET'S HAVE A MEETING. ANYBODY LIKE TO MOVE THAT? >> I MOVE THAT WE HAVE A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. >> I THINK DO WE HAVE TO SAY WHAT THAT SPECIAL MEETING WILL COVER? >> AT THIS POINT JUST FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON HOUSEKEEPING, WE DID HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE AGENDA. IS THIS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT ORIGINAL MOTION? >> YES IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO IT. >> THEN WITH A SECOND ON THAT? >> BUT AS THE PERSON THAT MOVED. I BELIEVE YOU MOVED. >> I DID. >> IT WOULD BE A SPECIAL MEETING, WHICH DOES MEAN THAT ONLY THE THINGS ON THE AGENDA THAT GET PUBLISHED CAN BE DISCUSSED, SO YOU'RE LOCKED IN MORE THAN YOU ARE TONIGHT. YOU CAN'T SHUFFLE THE AGENDA AROUND. WE DO HAVE TO PUBLISH THAT FOUR DAYS IN ADVANCE SO AS YOU GET ITEMS AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO WANT, WE'LL ADD THOSE TO THE AGENDA, BUT ONCE IT'S PUBLISHED, YOUR AGENDA IS SET BECAUSE IT'S A SPECIAL MEETING AND NOT A REGULAR ONE. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED AND AMENDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CHANGE THE AGENDA? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. [Public Comments] AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. WE'D ASK YOU UNLESS IT'S A COMMENT ON A LAND USE MATTER TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. TWO MINUTES OR LESS, IF IT'S A LAND USE MATTER WE'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. WE'D ASK THAT ORONO RESIDENTS BE GIVEN FIRST CRACK AT PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY NON-RESIDENTS. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TONIGHT? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> SURE. [00:05:22] >> MY NAME IS JIM TYSON. I LIVE AT 1295 ELMWOOD AVENUE. I WAS AT THE FEBRUARY 24TH MEETING TO PRESENT OUR OPPOSITION TO THE LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN FOREST LAKE. I FEEL THE INFORMATION I'LL SHARE TONIGHT IS NECESSARY AS ORONO WILL SOON BE ASKED TO CONSIDER LID IN OTHER BAYS. THIS WILL ALSO TIE INTO YOUR CONSENT AGENDA NUMBER 11 FOR THE LID CREATED UNDER DENNY WALSH IN 2017. THE FIRST ITEM IS MINNESOTA DNR DEFINITION OF LIDS. IN SHORT, LIDS ARE SPECIAL PURPOSE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT AND ARE ALWAYS UNDER THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CITY OR COUNTY WITH JURISDICTION. THE NEXT ITEM IS STATE STATUTE. I'M GOING TO READ PARAGRAPHS 2 THROUGH 4. THE LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SHALL ASSUME ALL LEGAL RISKS AND LIABILITY, INCLUDING THOSE FOR DAMAGE OR ANY INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY ARISING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, ALTERATION, OR ABANDONMENT OF ITS PROGRAM PLANS OR ACTIONS. NEXT ITEM IS IN THE EVENT OF TERMINATION OF THE DISTRICT OR FAILURE OF THE DISTRICT TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS, THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES SHALL FALL UPON THE UNIT OR UNITS OF GOVERNMENT WHICH ESTABLISHED THE LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY OF ORONO. LAST ITEM IS STATE LIABILITIES. ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SHALL NOT IMPOSE ANY LIABILITY UPON THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SO ON AND SO FORTH. THIS, I WOULD ASSUME WOULD INCLUDE THE DNR. A RECENT LMCD PRESENTATION, ERIC EVANSON PRESENTED AT LMCD BOARD MEETING ON 2-12 OF '25. PARAPHRASED FROM HIS PRESENTATION, HE WANTS MORE LIDS WITHOUT PUTTING MORE TREATMENT COSTS ON PUBLIC AGENCIES. HE ALSO SUGGESTED THE USE OF DIQUAT FOR TREATMENT. FOR S LAKEY SUGGESTED THE USE OF EITHER DIQUAT OR PROCELLACOR. I WANT TO TAKE YOU TO THE FOLLOWING PAGE. I'VE JUST HIGHLIGHTED SOME ITEMS. DIQUAT WAS ULTIMATELY BANNED IN EU AND UK. YES, DIQUAT CAN BE HARMFUL TO HUMANS. LABORATORY TESTS INDICATE WALLEYE ARE THE FISH MOST SENSITIVE TO DIQUAT, DISPLAYING TACTIC SYMPTOMS WHEN CONFINED IN WATER TREATED WITH DIQUAT AT THE LABELED APPLICATION RATES. THE NEXT PAGE IS ABOUT DIQUAT AGAIN. CONTAMINATION OF WATERS WITH THESE COMPOUNDS IS A REAL PROBLEM. THEREFORE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NOVEL STRATEGY FOR THEIR REMOVAL FROM AQUEOUS MEDIUM IS NEEDED. THE LAST ITEM IS THE PROCELLACOR. CLASSIFIED THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT FOR PROCELLACOR IS A PFAS OR A FOREVER CHEMICAL. GOING BACK TO MY FIRST PAGE. MY SUMMARY IS, YOU REJECT THE IDEA OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TAKING ON ANY FINANCIAL OR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE A PUBLIC BODY OF WATER. WE AS LAKESHORE OWNERS SHOULD NOT BE ASKED OR PETITIONED TO DO SO TO OPERATE IN THIS CAPACITY. WE ASK THAT OUR CITY REJECTS THE FORMATION OF LIDS AND THEIR LIABILITIES AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE FROM ORONO? ANY NON-RESIDENTS? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO I GUESS, [8. Park Commission Appointments - Resolution 7571] CONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 8. PARKING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION 7571. >> I ASKED TO PULL THIS OFF THE AGENDA. JUST HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PARK COMMISSION ITSELF AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PARK COMMISSION TO BE ALIGNED WITH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IS TO HAVE A VICE CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO GET PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS ON THAT AND IF WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. >> WELL, WE'VE HAD A VICE CHAIR IN PARKS PREVIOUSLY. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HISTORICALLY, LIKE, MANY YEARS AGO, BUT I KNOW, COMMISSIONER PORTER, I BELIEVE, WAS VICE CHAIR FOR PARKS. [00:10:02] I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE A VICE CHAIR AND SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CHAIR IS NOT ABLE TO SERVE FOR A MEETING. I THINK TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE. >> I GUESS, THE OTHER THING IS, WE SHOULD NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION PLACES RICK CARTER AS AN ALTERNATE, AND HE HAD REQUESTED REAPPOINTMENT. WE EACH GOT A LETTER FROM HIM EXPRESSING HIS INTEREST IN ACTUALLY STAYING ON THE COMMISSION VERSUS BEING AN ALTERNATE. IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED AS WELL I THINK AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> MR. MAYOR AND TO COUNCILMEMBER PERSIAN'S COMMENT. WE HAVE IN THE PAST, ESTABLISHED A DEPUTY CHAIR, AS YOU MENTIONED, CAMERON PORTER. THAT'S BEEN NOTED OR ADDED INTO OUR ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS LIST. CURRENTLY IN THE ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS LIST, IT LISTS BRIAN ROATH AS THE CHAIR, AND CAMERON PORTER AS THE DEPUTY. WITH CAMERON STEPPING DOWN AND WHAT HAVE YOU, WE WANT TO APPOINT SOMEBODY TO FILL THAT. WE'VE NORMALLY DONE IT WITH OUR ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS LIST. THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE THAT, SO WE CAN AMEND THAT IF THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION. >> AMEND THAT TONIGHT, ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF APPOINTMENTS. >> I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. >> ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT MR. CARTER'S REQUEST TO BE PUT BACK ON THE COMMITTEE VERSUS AN ALTERNATE? >> I CAN MENTION WHAT I DID DURING OUR DISCUSSION IN THAT WORK SESSION WHEN WE HAD GOOD INTEREST, AND I WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT, I THINK WHETHER IT'S PLANNING OR PARKS, IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THING TO SEE A GOOD HEALTHY AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN THESE COMMISSION ROLES BECAUSE THEY'RE VITAL. I'M ALSO A BIG BELIEVER THAT ENABLING AND ALLOWING AND ENCOURAGING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT LEVEL OF INTEREST WAS REALLY NICE TO SEE. WE DID GET FOUR APPLICANTS, ALL OF WHOM HAVE LIVED IN THE CITY, HAD A LOT TO OFFER GREAT THOUGHTS ON THINGS AND ARE ALL INTERESTED IN SERVING ON PARKS. WHAT I SAID DURING THAT DISCUSSION, WHICH I'LL SAY AGAIN NOW IS THAT IT'S MY PREFERENCE, GIVEN THAT COMMISSIONER CARTER HAS SERVED TWO TERMS, THREE YEARS EACH, SO A TOTAL OF SIX YEARS ON ORONO PARKS COMMISSION AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE A PART OF CERTAIN INITIATIVES AND DO THAT WORK, THAT MY OPINION IS IT WOULD BE NICE TO ALLOW OTHERS AT THIS TIME TO STEP FORWARD AND HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE, WHICH IS WHY I SUPPORT APPOINTING THE FOUR NEW APPLICANTS TO THE POSITION. IT'S CERTAINLY RECOGNIZING MR. CARTER'S DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE, OFFERING HIM THAT CAPACITY AS AN ALTERNATE. >> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT VICE CHAIR OR DEPUTY CHAIR, I GUESS IT'S CALLED? >> WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO APPOINT THE DEPUTY? >> JUST A MOTION, I THINK. >> MOTION. >> JUST A MOTION NAMING THEM, THEN WE'LL ADD THEM TO THE ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS LIST. THE ONLY ROLE THAT THE DEPUTY REALLY HAS IS TO RUN THE MEETING WHEN THE CHAIR IS NOT PRESENT? >> WOULD WE KNOW IF THEY'RE INTERESTED? [LAUGHTER]. >> I'M SORRY. >> WELL, AGAIN, GIVEN WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM FOUR NEW APPLICANTS, AND I DO KNOW THAT AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WOULD BE INTERESTED UNLESS THEY'RE HERE. BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT OF THOSE FOUR CANDIDATES, JANIE DELANEY HAS A VERY RICH HISTORY OF SERVICE TO THE CITY, KNOWS THE PARKS, I'D SAY VERY INTIMATELY. >> THAT'S WHO I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND, AS WELL FOR HER HISTORY. >> IT'S ONE THOUGHT. IT'S NOT TO SAY AND LIKE I SAID, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THAT, BUT GIVEN HER HISTORY IN THE CITY, GIVEN HER KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARK SYSTEM, AND OF THE PROCESS, I'D CERTAINLY BE COMFORTABLE MAKING A MOTION TO APPOINT JANIE DELANEY TO THE VICE CHAIR. >> I WOULD SECOND THAT. >> THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED. >> YES. >> YEAH. >> WOULD IT BE OUT OF ORDER TO ASK HER SHE'S HERE? >> SURE. [LAUGHTER] I'D BE HONORED. >> SOLVES THAT. >> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. >> IT'S BEEN I THINK SO MOVED AND SECONDED THAT WE APPOINT JANIE DELANEY, MOLLY REYNOLDS, KIM CARSWELL, JACOB SELSETH AS PARK COMMISSIONERS, RICK CARTER AS A PARK COMMISSION ALTERNATE WITH JANIE DELANEY SERVING AS THE DEPUTY CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE. [00:15:05] ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE FINANCE REPORT, [20. Utility Rate Study Proposal] WHICH INCLUDES UTILITY RATE STUDY PROPOSAL ITEM NUMBER 20. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. TONIGHT, I HAVE THE UTILITY RATE STUDY PROPOSAL TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT. THE CITY ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS ARE FUNDED PRIMARILY BY USER FEES AND ARE OPERATED AS SEPARATE STANDALONE FUNCTIONS. IN ORDER TO ENSURE ACCURATE UTILITY RATES ARE BEING CHARGED TO THE WATER SEWER AND STORMWATER FUND SPECIFICALLY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AN EXTERNAL UTILITY RATE STUDY BE PERFORMED. THE LAST EXTERNAL RATE STUDY WAS PERFORMED IN 2009 BY EHLERS. THAT WAS WHEN WE HAD ADDED TIERS TO THE WATER RATES. INTERNAL STUDIES WERE COMPLETED BY STAFF IN 2013 AND IN 2019. THE NEW RATE STUDY WILL ANALYZED THE PRICING STRUCTURE TO ENSURE THE CURRENT COSTS ARE REFLECTED ACCURATELY, AND THAT FUTURE NEEDS ARE MET FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE OPERATING AND CAPITAL NEEDS AND RESERVES. WHILE CITY STAFF POSSESS STRONG KNOWLEDGE OF THE CITY'S UTILITY AND OPERATION, PARTNERING WITH AN EXTERNAL VENDOR HAS ITS ADVANTAGES. A CONSULTING FIRM HAS EXPERTISE AND SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OF THE CURRENT BEST PRACTICES, THE INDUSTRY TRENDS AND THE REGULATORY CHANGES TO ENSURE AN UNBIASED AND UP TO DATE ANALYSIS. I WON'T READ THROUGH THE WHOLE MEMO, BUT STAFF AT THIS TIME IS RECOMMENDING MOVING FORWARD WITH ABDO TO PROVIDE THAT UTILITY RATE STUDY FOR THE CITY. STAFF DID REACH OUT TO MULTIPLE VENDORS, BUT ABDO CAME IN AT THE LOWEST AND ARE ALSO OUR AUDITING FIRM AT THIS TIME SO THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR FINANCIAL. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> NO QUESTIONS FOR ME. >> I DO HAVE QUESTIONS. YOU MENTIONED WATER WORTH IS THE OTHER BID. IT IS LOWER, BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. I KNOW OTHER CITIES, I THINK ST. CLOUD, MAYBE BURNSVILLE, THEY HAVE QUITE A LOT OF INTEREST FROM OTHER CITIES, AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THE WATER WORTH MODEL AND HOW THAT WORKS AND WHY WE'RE NOT ENTERTAINING THAT TYPE OF, >> WELL, IT CAME IN AT THE LOWEST FOR THE FIRST YEAR, IT'S ONGOING SUBSCRIPTION. WE CAN CANCEL AFTER THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THEY DO THAT COST-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR US. HOWEVER, IT'S ONLINE PLATFORM AND STAFF CAN UPDATE THE SYSTEM AS WE GO ALONG AND WE CAN MANUALLY INPUT DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF WHAT WE WANT TO WITHIN THE PLATFORM. BUT ALSO, I BELIEVE THEY'RE A NEWER COMPANY, AND WE WANTED TO GO WITH SOMETHING MORE BASIC OR MORE STANDARD. THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING MOVING FORWARD WITH ABDO JUST BECAUSE WATER WORTH IS A NEWER PLATFORM, AND I WAS REACHING OUT TO THEM, AND NOT THAT MANY CITIES HAVE THEM. FOR A CITY THAT'S NOT GROWING, I BELIEVE A SUBSCRIPTION BASIS MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN AT THE MOMENT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE MORE LABOR-INTENSIVE FOR THE STAFF TO INTERACT WITH THAT MODEL. >> TO CONTINUE USING THE SYSTEM, IT WOULD BE LABOR-INTENSIVE TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE TO CONTINUE THAT SUBSCRIPTION. WE WOULD MANUALLY HAVE TO GO IN THERE AND INPUT ALL THE SYSTEM. I BELIEVE THEY ALSO HAVE CONSULTING SERVICE AS WELL. BUT AS STAFF, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION WITH THEIR STAFF, AND SO THAT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME TO KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THAT MODEL. >> THE OTHER PIECES WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT SOME CONSULTING FIRMS THAT HAVE SOME EXPERTISE IN PARTICULARLY IN OUR AREA, AND THAT'S WHY WENT AND TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT ABDO, WHO AGAIN, ALREADY HAS OUR FINANCIALS AND IS ALREADY DOING FORMING THIS SERVICE FOR MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO DRAW ON THAT KNOWLEDGE AS OPPOSED TO AT LEAST MY PIECE OF REVIEWING THE WATER WORTH IS IT WAS. [00:20:03] BUT IT SEEMED TO BE MORE LIKE BUYING A SUBSCRIPTION TO AN ONLINE SYSTEM, NECESSARILY THAN BRINGING SOMEBODY IN SOME IDEAS ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THINGS OR WAYS THAT OTHER FOLKS ARE DOING THINGS. THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF THE DIFFERENCE, WE LOOKED AT THOSE DIFFERENT MODELS. >> IS THIS JUST A ONE TIME LOOK? >> YES. WHAT ABDO OR ERS, IT WOULD BE A ONE TIME RATE ANALYSIS, AND THEN THEY CAN PERFORM DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR US AS WELL. ABDO CAME IN AT A LOWER QUOTE FOR THOSE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. THAT'S WHY STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING MOVING FORWARD WITH THEM. >> I ASSUME THEIR STUDY NOT ONLY LOOKS AT OUR COSTS, BUT ALSO LOOKS AT WHAT OTHER CITIES NEIGHBORING CITIES ARE CHARGING AND WHAT SORT OF STANDARD RATES ARE FOR THESE DIFFERENT SERVICES? >> THAT'S PART OF THAT THE RATE STUDY, WOULD BE LOOKING AT OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES AND WHAT THEY'RE CHARGING TO TO THEIR RESIDENTS OR THEIR PROPERTY OWNERS. THEN ALSO MAKING SURE THAT OUR RATES ARE COVERING OUR OPERATING AND OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS. YOU CERTAINLY HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS ON RATES. >> YES, AT LEAST. >> STILL, AND CERTAINLY IN MY TIME HERE. I THINK THE THING THAT INTERESTED ME ABOUT THE OTHER PLATFORM WAS THAT IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU JUST ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME, THAT IT LOOKED LIKE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO LOOK AT YEAR AFTER YEAR, WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED THAT. I JUST WANTED TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. IT'S A STATIC. WE GET ONE LOOK IN THIS STUDY, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING IN TWO YEARS OR SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PUT OTHER INPUTS INTO AND SEE WHERE WE ARE, AND IF THINGS NEED TO CHANGE, IN OTHER WORDS. >> SORRY, CAN YOU. >> THIS RATE STUDY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH, IS IT ABDO? IS ONE SNAPSHOT IN TIME. IS THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF THAT WE DO LIKE WHAT WE DONE IS IT 2017? IS THAT THE LAST ONE? DID YOU SAY 2017? >> THE LAST TIME WE DID A EXTERNAL RATE STUDY WAS IN 2009. THEN WE DID INTERNAL RATE STUDIES IN 2013 AND 2019. STAFF CURRENTLY HAS A SPREADSHEET THAT WE ADJUST YEAR AFTER YEAR, BUT WE WANTED THAT EXTERNAL VENDOR TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS ACCURATE. THEN BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT INTERNAL DOCUMENT ALREADY TO HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION BASE THAT WILL MIRROR OUR INTERNAL DOCUMENT. WE JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE IF WE ALREADY HAD THAT INTERNALLY. >> WITH THIS STUDY, WE'D GET THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY, AND THEN YOU'RE SAYING, EVEN IF IN A YEAR OR TWO, STAFF NEEDS TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN ADJUST BASED ON PROJECTS OR GROWTH, WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PUTTING ON THE SHELF. >> ABDO WOULD DO THE RATE STUDY, AND THEN WE COULD POTENTIALLY ASK THEM FOR THE SPREADSHEET OR HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THEIR FINDINGS. THEN WE CAN MANIPULATE THAT INTERNALLY AFTERWARDS. WE JUST WANT IT EXTERNAL VENDOR WITH THE EXPERTISE TO ENSURE THAT WHAT WE'RE CHARGING TO OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS ARE ACCURATE AND ACCURATELY COVERING OUR OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THEN ONCE WE KNOW THAT OUR TIER SYSTEMS AND OUR RATES ARE REFLECTED ACCURATELY BASED ON ABDOS FINDINGS, WE, AS INTERNAL STAFF, WE CAN MANIPULATE OUR CURRENT SPREADSHEET IN ORDER TO UPDATE THAT YEAR AFTER YEAR. >> JUST ALSO TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT OF HOW WE DO THIS AS YOU NOTICE THE STAGGERING OF THE YEARS. WHEN WE DO A UTILITY RATE STUDY, WHETHER IT'S INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL, WE'RE LOOKING AT A FIVE YEAR HORIZON. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. BUT THEN, PARTICULARLY FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS, EVERY YEAR, AS WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS, WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT THOSE RATES, BECAUSE WE'LL BE BRINGING YOU EVERY YEAR, ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE THINK WE NEED TO MAKE TO THOSE RATES THAT MAYBE WE'RE OUTSIDE OF WHAT THAT ORIGINAL FORECAST WAS. OH, BY DOING THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS TAKING A DEEPER LOOK AT ARE WE FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES? ARE THERE SOME OTHER WAYS THAT WE SHOULD BE ACCOUNTING FOR OUR CAPITAL AND OUR OPERATING EXPENSES, GETTING THAT FIVE YEAR FORECAST. ONCE WE HAVE THAT, WE CAN THEN MANIPULATE THE DATA YEAR ON YEAR. [00:25:02] THE ONE THING ABOUT THAT ONLINE PLATFORM IS WE WOULD SPEND SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLAR REALLY TO MAINTAIN A VERSION OF OUR SPREADSHEET THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE CLOUD, WHICH MIGHT BE VERY VALUABLE IF WE ARE A REALLY DYNAMIC COMMUNITY WITH A LOT OF CHANGES IN OUR UTILITY SYSTEM, BUT WE'RE NOT. WE HAVE MINOR CHANGES YEAR ON YEAR. THAT'S WHY WE AS WE LOOKED AT THAT, WE JUST DIDN'T SEE THE EXPENSE OF THAT SUBSCRIPTION AFTER THE FIRST YEAR TO REALLY HAVE A LOT OF BANG FOR THE BUCK. >> THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I'M JUST INTERESTED. WE DID THE LAST STUDY IN 2009, AND THEN TWO INTERNAL STUDIES. IS THAT THE IDEA HERE THAT WE WOULD DO THIS STUDY IN 2025, AND THEN INTERNAL STUDIES AGAIN, OR YOU'RE SAYING AFTER FIVE YEARS, ANOTHER EXTERNAL STUDY. >> EVERY YEAR, WE DO UPDATE OUR INTERNAL DOCUMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY IN THE POSITIVE IN EACH OF THE FUNDS. WE HAVEN'T DONE A DEEP DIVE INTERNALLY SINCE 2019. SINCE 2019, WE'VE BEEN USING THE SAME EXCEL SPREADSHEET TO UPDATE YEAR AFTER YEAR, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME TO TO CLEAN THAT SPREADSHEET UP AND TO UPDATE IT WITH CURRENT CALCULATIONS. >> IF WE'RE DOING THE STUDY IN 2025, AN EXTERNAL STUDY, THE EXPECTATION THAT STAFF IN FIVE YEARS, IT WOULD BE STAFF DOING AN INTERNAL STUDY OR ANOTHER EXTERNAL STUDY IN FIVE YEARS? >> IT COULD BE EITHER. CONDITIONS DEPENDENT IF AT THAT TIME, THE STAFF IS LIKE, WELL, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S REALLY CHANGED THE STAFF MAY COME FORWARD AND SAY, HEY, IT'S NOT WORTH THE EXPENSE AT THIS POINT. OR A BUNCH OF THINGS COULD HAVE CHANGED, AND THE RECOMMENDATION MIGHT COME BACK, OTHERWISE. IN THE NORMAL FLOW OF THINGS, WE DO A DEEP DIVE EVERY FIVE YEARS, WHETHER THAT'S INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL. THEN IN THE OTHER FOUR YEARS OF THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD, STAFF IS DOING INTERNAL TWEAKS TO THAT TO BRING YOU RECOMMENDATIONS. NORMALLY, WHEN WE'RE DOING THE ANNUAL THING, WE HAVE A PROJECTION THAT A UTILITY RATE MIGHT NEED TO INCREASE BY 2% YEAR AFTER YEAR COMING OUT OF THE BIG STUDY, AND WE MAY NEED TO TWEAK THAT EITHER UP OR DOWN BASED ON WHATEVER'S HAPPENING. BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THESE EVERY FIVE YEARS IS LOOKING IS OUR RATE STRUCTURE. ARE WE USING THE RIGHT METRICS TO FIGURE OUT THE RATES IN THE CASE OF THE WATER RATES ARE OUR TIERS, CORRECT, TO MEET THE CURRENT GUIDANCE FROM THE DNR AND OTHERS AND ALL THAT STUFF. IT'S THAT MUCH DEEPER LOOK INTO MORE DETAIL. >> WHERE DO WE GET OUR WATER I NOTICED IN CHECK REGISTERED, WE PAID LONG LAKE AND WE'VE PAID WAYZATA. >> WE PRODUCE OUR OWN WATER. THEN THERE ARE OVERALL FIVE WATER SYSTEMS THAT THE CITY OF ORONO RESIDENTS USE. TWO OF THOSE WATER SYSTEMS ARE ORONO OWNED AND OPERATED, THE ONE HERE IN THE NORTH, WATER TOWER. THE ONE IN NAVARRE WATER TOWER. THEN SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON THE EDGES, SO WE DO HAVE WATER THAT WE GET FOR THOSE FOLKS OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN. THEY'RE CONNECTED TO THE WAYZATA WATER SYSTEM. SOME OF THE FOLKS RIGHT ALONG THE FRINGES OF THE BORDER WITH LONG LAKE ARE CONNECTED TO THE LONG LAKE SYSTEM. THEN WE HAVE ONE CHURCH CONNECTED TO THE PLYMOUTH SYSTEM. THEN WE PROVIDE WATER TO SOME RESIDENTS IN MINNETONKA BEACH. THEN WE PROVIDE SEWER SERVICES TO SOME MEMBERS OF COMMUNITY. YOU TRY TO MAKE YOUR UTILITY SYSTEMS MAKE THE MOST SENSE FOR EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. THERE'S NO SENSE US RUNNING A PIPE ALL THE WAY FROM HERE TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE CITY WHEN THERE'S AN EXISTING PIPE SITTING RIGHT THERE FROM SET AS AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THESE INTERCITY AGREEMENTS ON UTILITY PROVISIONS. >> THANKS. HOW WOULD THESE SCENARIOS? NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT WOULD INCLUDE TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. WHAT VARIABLES WOULD YOU BE UTILIZING OR TWEAKING IN THE SCENARIOS AND HOW COULD YOU USE THAT TO CREATE FUTURE STATES THAT WOULD TRIGGER A NEW EXTERNAL VERSUS INTERNAL, FOR EXAMPLE. IF YOU SAY, IN THIS MODEL, SOME VARIABLE EXCEEDS BY X PERCENT, SO THAT MEANS THAT WE CAN GO THIS ROUTE OR THAT ROUTE? HOW WOULD YOU USE THOSE SCENARIOS TO EXTEND THE LIFE. >> SOME OF THE BIG SCENARIOS THAT WE LOOK LIKE IN OUR WATER SYSTEM, [00:30:04] WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT OUR TIERING. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO REQUIRED TO BY THE STATE TO HAVE A TIERED WATER SYSTEM FOR WATER CONSERVATION. PART OF IT IS LOOKING AT THAT. ARE OUR TIER CUTOFFS IN THE RIGHT SPOT, AND IT'S THE WAY THAT WE DISTRIBUTE COSTS BETWEEN THOSE TIERS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE FOR WHAT WE DO? IN OUR SEWER SYSTEM, AT LEAST SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT HOW WE CHARGE FOR SEWER, BECAUSE UNLIKE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT ARE COMPLETELY BUILT OUT FOR BOTH WATER AND SEWER, WHERE THEY CAN USE THE WATER METER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SEWER CHARGE SHOULD BE AS WELL, WE CAN'T DO THAT FOR A MAJORITY OF OUR SEWER FOLKS BECAUSE THEY'RE ON A PRIVATE WELL. WE DON'T HAVE THAT METE. WE'VE BEEN USING FLAT FEES AND THOSE THINGS, AND THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER WAYS TO CALIBRATE THAT OR DIFFERENTIATE HOW WE WOULD BE DOING, AS AN EXAMPLE, THE SEWER SERVICE. THEN THINGS THAT REALLY PLAY INTO YEAR ON YEAR AS WE'RE WATCHING OUR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, AND WE'RE WATCHING, OKAY, HOW IS THE COST OF REPLACING A FOOT OF WATER PIPE CHANGING YEAR ON YEAR, OUR CONSTRUCTION PRICES GOING WAY UP OR ARE THEY COMING DOWN? THEN THAT THOSE THINGS ALLOW US TO ADJUST IN AN OPERATING SIDE? OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT PARTICULARLY LABOR. WHAT IS IT COSTING US TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY OUR WATER UTILITY PERSONNEL, THAT THING. THAT'S THE BIG PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ON THE FINANCE SIDE THAT MAGGIE WOULD ADD, BUT. >> NO, I THINK YOU ANSWERED IT. >> IT WAS HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >> I GOT MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. THE ONLY OTHER ONE I HAVE IS THE TIMELINE FOR THIS. HOW LONG DOES THE RATE STUDY TAKE AND WHEN ARE THE RESULTS AVAILABLE? >> ESTIMATED WOULD TAKE AROUND THREE MONTHS IS WHAT THEY HAD MENTIONED 3-4 MONTHS. THAT'S WHY I'M BRING TO COUNCIL TONIGHT BECAUSE BY THE TIME THEY ARE COMPLETED WITH IT, THAT WOULD BE DURING BUDGETING TIME. THEN I WOULD WANT DONE IN TIME FOR DISCUSSION OF THE ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET, WHICH OCCURS IN I BELIEVE OCTOBER FOR THE ENTERPRISE FUND. TO HAVE THAT PRIOR TO THEN, AND THAT WAY WE CAN PRESENT A BUDGET BASED ON THE NEW RATE STRUCTURE IF THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THAT WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE APPROVE THAT RESOLUTION NUMBER 20. >> MOTION TO APPROVE, GET IT HERE. >> UTILITY RATE. >> YEAH. MOTION TO APPROVE THE UTILITY RATE STUDY BY ABDO. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> I TAKE IT, IT'S THE NOT TO EXCEED 28,000. >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. MOTION TO APPROVE THE UTILITY RATE STUDY PROPOSAL BY ABDO, NOT TO EXCEED OF 28,000. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO. >> NO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >> MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT, [21. LA24-000059, 215 North Arm Lane, Preliminary Plat: "Idyllvale Shores" - Resolution 7559] AND FIRST ITEM THERE IS ITEM 21-215 NORTH ARM LANE, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR IDLE BALE SHORES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THREE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PASS FAMILY. THE DEVELOPER REPRESENTING THE FAMILY REQUESTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 52 PLUS ACRE BUILDABLE LOTS, AND A NEW PUBLIC ROAD EXTENSION. UM, I HAVE THE PROPERTY ON THE OVERHEAD HERE ON THE SCREEN WITH AN AERIAL PHOTO JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT LOOKS CURRENTLY PLATE PROPOSED PLOT UP. THE PROPERTY IS MADE UP OF WOODED SLOPES AND WETLANDS AND CONNECTS TO LAKE MINNETONKA ON THE EAST. THE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN DELINEATED AND ARE DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BUFFERS SHOWN IN GREEN. THE PROPERTIES WILL BE SERVED BY PRIVATE WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS. EXCEPT FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE ROAD LENGTH, THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT. THE CURRENT DEAD END ROAD OF NORTH ARM LANE IS APPROXIMATELY 930 FEET IN LENGTH BECAUSE IT EXTENDS OFF OF NORTH ARM DRIVE. THE TOTAL ROAD LENGTH PROPOSED WITH THE NEW CONNECTION WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EXCEEDING THE CITY'S 1,000 FOOT LIMIT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION IN NOVEMBER, [00:35:02] WHERE IT WAS TABLED WITH DIRECTION TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE OVERALL TO ROAD LAYOUT. THE DEVELOPER PROVIDED A REVISED PLAN FOR THE FEBRUARY PLANNING MEETING. THE REVISED PLAN ADDRESSED THE IDENTIFIED LOT DIMENSION ISSUES, HOWEVER, THE REVISED ROAD DESIGN DID NOT MEET CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TURNING RADIUS AT THE CORNER. THE COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY VOTED FIVE TO TWO IN FAVOR OF DENIAL AS SUBMITTED DUE TO THE SUBSTANDARD ROAD. AFTER THE FEBRUARY MEETING, THE DEVELOPER MODIFIED THE ROAD DESIGN TO INCLUDE WHAT YOU SEE THE SECOND CUL-DE-SAC, ACCOMMODATING THE NECESSARY RADIUS FOR THAT LEFT TURN. THE CITY ENGINEERS RE REVIEWED THE REVISED DESIGN AND HAS DEEMED IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WERE RECEIVED DURING BOTH OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ALL SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, INCLUDING THE OLDER COMMENTS. THE REVISED PLAN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT REFLECTS CONFORMING LOTS IN A ROAD MEETING THE CITY'S ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS. ALTHOUGH THE NEW ROAD REQUIRES A VARIANCE DUE TO THE LENGTH OVER 1,000 FEET, STAFF CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE AS IT IS SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE REVISED PLANS, STAFF PREPARED AN APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. TONIGHT, YOU SHOULD REVIEW THE REVISED PLANS AND CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAT AS REVISED. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I HAVE OTHER VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM FROM AN AERIAL PERSPECTIVE. >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL. >> I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME WITH THE LENGTH OF THIS ROAD. I WOULD PREFER BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION OF THE ROAD, THAT IT NOT BE EXTENDED. TO ME, THAT MANY MORE FEET OF WATER AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S CARRIED ON THE ROAD TO BE CARRIED DOWN TO THE WETLANDS. I REALLY HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THE HOMES THAT ENCROACH THE WETLANDS. IN FACT, IN ONE HOME, I THINK IT'S IN LOT 5. YOU PRETTY MUCH. >> NONE OF THE HOMES OR IMPROVEMENTS ENCROACH ON THE WETLANDS. SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN UP TO THE EDGE OF BUFFERS. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM ON LOT 5 HAS A SLIGHT OVERLAP INTO THE BUFFER OF JUST THEIR SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM AREA. A MOUND SYSTEM IS TYPICALLY A LARGE SAND HILL OR MOUND WITH A SMALLER TRENCH IN THE CENTER. IF ANY OF THE PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM, WE'RE TO ENCROACH IN THAT BUFFER, FIRST STAFF UPON REVIEW WOULD FLAG THAT AT THE TIME OF PERMIT, BUT THE SETBACK IS REQUIRED FROM THE TREATMENT AREA, THE NOT THE EDGE OF THE MOUND OF THE BERM THAT'S CREATED. >> I GUESS, FOR ME, AFTER TALKING WITH LAURA AND LISTENING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MEETING, WHEN WE HAD THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS TO HELP US IN HAVING THE FOLKS ON FOX STREET BE CONNECTED TO SEWER RATHER THAN TO SEPTIC TO HELP THE LAKE QUALITY AND KEEP IT CLEAN. FOR ME, AFTER WE'VE JUST DONE THAT, TO LOOK AT A NEW PLAN THAT'S GOING TO PUT TWO SEPTIC SYSTEMS A BUT, IF YOU SAY SO, TO THE BUFFER, IS REALLY TROUBLING TO ME BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ONE HAND DOING SOMETHING TO HELP THE LAKE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'RE JUST CREATING THE PROBLEM AGAIN. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? >> A SEPTIC SYSTEM IS A VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE SYSTEM. IT HAS STANDARDS AS FAR AS SEPARATION FROM GROUNDWATER AND SEPARATION FROM OPEN WATER AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO COMPARE THE TWO PROJECTS AS FAR AS CONNECTING THOSE LOTS TO THE SEWER. I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF I HAVE A AN ANSWER FOR THAT. THIS AREA HERE IS NOT IN THE MUSA. IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CONNECTED TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> I CAN JUST ADD A POINT IN HERE. FOR OUR RURAL AREA WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT DOES POINT OUT FOR LOW DENSITY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENTS ABUDDING LAKESHORE DOES SUPPORT LAND DEVELOPMENT WITH SEPTIC SYSTEMS. WHILE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOCUSES A LOT ON THE PROTECTION OF LAKESHORE AND TRYING [00:40:06] TO IF SEWER IS AVAILABLE TO OFFER SEWER TO THOSE SENSITIVE PARCELS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO IDENTIFIES THAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT ALSO CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH SEPTIC IF THAT'S WHAT'S AVAILABLE THERE TO ADDRESS IT. I THINK YOUR POINT IS VERY VALID IN SEEING THE SIMILARITIES, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES JUST NOTE THAT OPTION AS WELL FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT. >> I UNDERSTAND THE SEPTIC FOR RURAL. I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT IT BEING THIS CLOSE TO A WETLANDS THAT FLOWS INTO LAKE MINNETONKA. JUST BECAUSE LAKE MINNETONKA QUALITY ISN'T AS GREAT AS IT COULD BE. THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> NOT AT THIS TIME. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. NEXT, I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS YET BUT YOU MAY. >> IT'S THE APPLICANT HERE? WELCOME. >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME. BEN JOHNSON, I'M WITH THREE MAC RESULTS, 125 WEST LAKE STREET, WAYZATA. WE REPRESENT THE PASS FAMILY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SOME HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF DEVELOPER, PENCIL COLLECTIVE, WHO COULDN'T BE HERE. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD APPRECIATE MELANIE'S INTRODUCTION AND WOULD THANK THE STAFF, BECAUSE THEY PUT A LOT OF WORK IN. MAYBE JUST REITERATE THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ITERATIONS OF THIS WITH STAFF DIRECTION, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER REALLY DID DO LITERALLY EVERY CHANGE THAT WAS REQUESTED TO GET TO CONFORMING STATUS. THE ROAD EXTENSION WAS AT THE CITY'S REQUESTS AND NOT THE DEVELOPER, BECAUSE THE CURRENT ROAD IS JUST DEEMED TO BE SUBSTANDARD. THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPER EVEN AT SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND EXPENSE WITH NO PUSHBACK, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY FEEL IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. >> ARE THERE QUESTIONS. >> HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS IF I CAN. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE ROAD PIECE. THE REQUEST OF STAFF, THE CITY ENGINEER, ME, WAS THAT THE ROAD BE PUBLIC, NOT PRIVATE. THERE WAS ALREADY INITIAL PLANS OF A COUPLE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF ROAD EXTENSIONS. THAT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IT BE A PUBLIC ROAD BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD AS OPPOSED TO BEING A PRIVATE ROAD IN AN OUT LOT AT THE END OF EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD. >> IT WAS APPLIED AS PRIVATE INITIALLY, LIKE I SAID THAT PUT SOME EXPENSE AND SOME REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPER, BUT THEY SAID, YES, WITH NO PROBLEM. >> IS THIS ROAD ON THE ROAD PROVEN PLAN AT ALL? >> THE ROAD LEADING UP TO IT? >> YEAH. >> YES. BOTH NORTH ARM DRIVE, NORTH ARM LANE ARE ON THE STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE VERSION THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR, WE WOULD BE ROADS IN 2026. THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO AS APPROVAL LATER HERE IN APRIL WHEN I BRING PROPOSALS TO BOARD. >> DO YOU KNOW ANDRE IF THIS IS GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME WIDTH OR OTHER ROAD? >> I'VE HEARD THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUBSTANDARD WIDTH OF THE ROAD THAT LEADS UP THERE. IT'S ABOUT 16 FEET IN WIDTH OF PAVEMENT, WHERE NORMALLY WE'D WANT 24, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING FOR THE NEW SECTION ROAD. MOST LIKELY I'D BE BRINGING A PROPOSAL FORWARD TO SEE HOW WE COULD GET THE ROAD THAT LEADS TO THIS WIDENED, SO IT'S SAFER FOR VEHICLES TO PASS ONE ANOTHER AND BRING IT UP TO A REASONABLE CITY STANDARD. >> ASSUME ALL OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING A ROAD IN THERE WERE CONSIDERED OTHER THAN DOING IT THIS WAY. >> THAT'S THE ONLY CONNECTION TO A ROADWAY THAT IS AVAILABLE. >> COULD WE RECONFIGURE THE ROAD, SO IT DOESN'T GO AS HIGH IN ELEVATION? >> IT COULD COME INTO THE PLATE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, SO IT WOULD CHANGE THE ENTIRE LAYOUT OF THE PLATE. >> THE ORIGINAL VERSIONS OF THE ROAD LAYOUT ALSO INCLUDED AN EXTENSION OF THE ROAD NORTH ALONG WHERE YOU SEE THAT VERY LONG DRIVEWAY. AFTER WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT THAT THERE'S NOT REALLY A NEED TO MAKE THAT A 24 FOOT WIDE ROAD WHEN A DRIVEWAY WOULD SUFFICE. BE A VERY LONG DRIVEWAY. THEY DID REMOVE THAT FROM THE PLAN. FROM A CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, THE ADDITION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT AT THE CORNER IS REALLY WHAT WE WERE LOOKING TO GET OPERATIONALLY. [00:45:01] RIGHT NOW, THAT ROAD JUST ENDS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. THERE ARE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS TO PUSH SNOW AS FAR AS WINTER MAINTENANCE, AND THERE'S NO CURRENT TURNAROUND, AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE OR A LARGE VEHICLE COULD MANEUVER. THAT WAS ONE THING WE ASKED THE DEVELOPER AND THEY DID. >> EDUCATE ME A LITTLE BIT ON THIS BUFFER ZONE BECAUSE I DID TALK TO THE MINNEHAHA WATERSHED, AND THEY SAID, YOU GUYS HAVE NOT SUBMITTED PAPERWORK TO THEM YET OR COMPLETED PAPERWORK TO THEM. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS PROPOSING AS FAR AS MEETING WITH THE MINNETONKA OR MINNEHAHA WATERSHED? >> THEY ARE ACTIVELY IN REVIEW FOR THEIR STORMWATER PLAN WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. >> I TALKED TO THEM TODAY AND THEY DO NOT HAVE. >> THEY RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THEM REGARDING THAT. >> THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION YET. >> IT'S NOT COMPLETE YET. THEY'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT, AND THAT'S USUALLY AN EVOLVING PROCESS AS WE GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS AFTER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT, THE DEVELOPER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, AND OUR ENGINEERING STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE THEIR PLAN MEETS BOTH THE CITY'S GOALS AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT GOALS, AND A FINAL PLAN IS REQUIRED AS FAR AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION MATERIALS. THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE EXPECTED PROCESS CURRENTLY. >> THIS WOULD COME BACK TO US. >> THE FINAL PLAT. TONIGHT, WHAT YOU'D BE APPROVING THIS LAYOUT. THERE MAY BE SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO STORMWATER PONDS OR GRADING OR CULVERT LOCATIONS. I DON'T ANTICIPATE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE LAYOUT IF THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE LAYOUT THAT RESULT IN DEFICIENCIES IN LOT SIZES OR AN ADDITIONAL LOT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD BRING BACK AND IDENTIFY TO YOU AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT. SOME OF THOSE CHANGES MAY WARRANT A PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. BUT TYPICALLY, AT THIS STAGE, WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS APPROVAL OF THIS LAYOUT AND FINAL PLANS ARE THEN DEVELOPED. THE ENGINEERING FOR THE ROADWAYS, THE STORMWATER PLANS, ALL OF THOSE REALLY DETAILED DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL PLOT AND PART OF THAT PACKET THAT GETS ADOPTED. >> REALLY, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, THE ONLY VARIANCE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THIS IS THE LENGTH OF THE ROAD, IS THAT TRUE? >> CORRECT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHY IS IT THAT OUR CITY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ROADS TO EXCEED THE DEAD END IN 10,000 FEET? WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT? >> IS THAT JUST AN ARBITRARY NUMBER? >> NO, I BELIEVE THAT'S BASED ON STATE FIRE CODE AND THE LENGTH OF FIRE ACCESS ROADS. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ON THAT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE DO REQUIRE THINGS LIKE CUL-DE-SAC OR THERE'S SOME ALTERNATIVE TURNAROUNDS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE FIRE CODE THAT WE SOMETIMES USE. >> THIS LOT PROVIDING A CIRCULAR DRIVE IN THEIR PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT LENGTH OF NARROW DRIVEWAY AND ACCESSIBILITY TO TURN AROUND ON SITE. >> I WOULD JUST ALSO BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF YOU. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER. WE HAVE MANY ROADS THAT EXCEED 100 FEET THAT DON'T HAVE A SECOND WAY OUT. THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT THIS CITY HAS. THE VARIANCE FOR ABOVE 1,000 IS NOT AN UNCOMMON VARIANCE. WHAT WE TRY TO DO WHEN WE GRANT THE VARIANCE IS DO THINGS THAT MITIGATE THE ISSUES, WHICH IS THINGS LIKE TRYING TO PUT A FULL SIZED CUL-DE-SAC OR SOME OTHER MEANS OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES, BEING ABLE TO TURN AROUND AND GET OUT. THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO HAVE A THROUGH STREET, AND THEN FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU'D HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO PUNCH A ROAD THROUGH A BUNCH OF OTHER PROPERTIES UNTIL IT CAN CONNECT TO SOME OTHER ROAD OR MAKE A LOOP BORE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JUST WITHOUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE AS PART OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS. >> TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, I JUST NOTE THAT WE HAVE MET WITH THE WATERSHED AND THE CITY TOGETHER. WE UNDERSTAND THEIR REQUIREMENTS REALLY CLEARLY, AND ANYTHING THE CITY APPROVES IS, OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO THEIR APPROVAL IN ADDITION. >> AS A PART OF THIS I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THIS ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR 2026. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING WIDENING THIS ROAD, PART OF THE EMAILS THAT I'VE GOTTEN HAVE BEEN SPIRITED AROUND SAFETY ON THAT STREET. [00:50:01] I'M LEADING DOWN TO THIS ADDITION. HOW ARE ROADS FUNDED, AND ARE THERE WAYS OF IF WE KNOW THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY NEED TO EXPAND THE WIDTH OF THIS ROAD IN ORDER TO IMPROVE SAFETY FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS DOWN THERE, AS WELL AS THE NEW ONES, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PUT INTO THE PLAN THAT IS INCORPORATED AS A PART OF THIS PROCESS AND PASSED ALONG TO THE DEVELOPER? >> TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT HOW ARE ROADS FUNDED? IN THE CITY OF ORONO PUBLIC ROADS ARE FUNDED IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. FIRST, WHICH DOESN'T APPLY HERE IS MUNICIPAL STATE AID, WHERE WE GET PART OF THE GAS TAX DOLLARS FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED ROADS. MOST RECENTLY, YOU APPROVED A PROJECT ON BROWN ROAD NORTH. THAT DOESN'T APPLY HERE, THIS IS NOT A MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROAD. SO ALL OTHER CITY OWNED ROADS ARE PAID FOR OUT OF THE LEVY AND SO YOU WILL SEE AS YOU GO THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS THIS YEAR, THERE'S A PAVEMENT LEVY THAT'S PART OF THE OVERALL LEVY AND SO THOSE DOLLARS ARE PUT INTO THE PAVEMENT FUND AND THE PAVEMENT FUND IS USED TO PROVIDE FOR PART OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. OBVIOUSLY, IF WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT STORM WATER OR OTHER UTILITY WORK, THEN THOSE PORTIONS OF THAT WORK COME OUT OF THOSE FUNDS. BUT THE PAVEMENT AND THE ROAD BED COMES OUT OF THE PAVEMENT FUND, WHICH IS PAID FOR BY TAX DOLLARS, THE LEVY. >> THE PEOPLE THAT CURRENTLY LIVE ON THE STREET WOULD NOT BE ASSESS SOMETHING TO WIDEN THE ROAD? >> THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE CITY. THAT IS AN OPTION. THE STREET LEVIES ARE SOMETHING THAT ARE USED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. SINCE I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY THE LAST 10 YEARS, NONE OF THE COUNCILS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO ENTERTAIN DEVELOPING A LEVEE OR, SORRY, AN ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT. >> YEAH. TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT EITHER JUST CLARIFYING SOMETHING. >> IT'S AN OPTION BUT IT'S NOT ONE WE'VE EVER TOYED WITH. >> WOULD THE DEVELOPER THOUGH PAY FOR THE JOG TO THE LEFT? >> YES. >> ALL OF THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, EVERYTHING YOU SEE THERE IS ON THE DEVELOPER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED. >> NO, I THINK YOU TOUCHED IT ALL, ADAM. EVERYTHING INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER. THE NEW STREET LEADING UP TO THAT OUTSIDE THE PLAT WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE DEVELOPER. ADAM COVERED THE FUNDING OPTIONS ON. >> OKAY. >> HAVE YOU THROUGH THIS PROCESS LOOKED AT CONFIGURATIONS THAT ARE LESS DENSE OR LESS CLOSE TO THOSE WETLANDS? >> WE'VE MANY CONFIGURATIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT STARTED, HONESTLY, MORE DENSE. THERE'S 25 ACRES THERE WITH A TWO ACRE MINIMUM PER PROPERTY. SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S FIVE HOME SPREAD ACROSS 25 AND THERE'S NOT A GREAT WAY TO MOVE THEM. HOWEVER, THEY DID MAKE A LONG SERIES OF ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DID FIT INSIDE THE BUFFER AND CONFORM AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK LIKE ONE LEVEL UP FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE REALLY NOT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE SURROUNDING. >> DO YOU FORESEE, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I NOTICED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOTES IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE ROAD AND THE TURNAROUND BUT ALSO ABOUT THE IDEA, AND I KNOW I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN THAT IT MAY BE CONFORMING NOW BUT THEN THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF POTENTIAL VARIANCES THAT COME DOWN THE PIPELINE. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU FORESEE HERE? >> NO. THIS IS A MATTER OF JUST MAKING SURE THE BUYERS ARE EDUCATED ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THIS PROPERTY BEFORE THEY GO FORWARD. IT'S NOT IN ANYBODY'S INTEREST TO TRY AND SELL A LOT TO SOMEONE WHO NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT WOULD BE APPROVED THROUGH TYPICAL BUILDING PERMITS. >> THAT'S TRUE AND YET I'VE SEEN IT. BUT THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. >> I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL AND MR. MAYOR. >> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> GABRIEL PASS, SO I AM PART OF THE PASS FAMILY. THE INTENT OF OUR IDYLLVALE SHORES PROJECT IS REALLY TO BE A HALLMARK DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. THE INTENT IS BASED ON MY LATE MOTHER'S WISHES. WE PROMISED MY MOTHER BEFORE SHE PASSED AWAY THAT WE WOULD WORK TO DEVELOP THIS WITH CONSERVATION IN MIND AND TO PRESERVE THE COMMITMENT THAT SHE HAD [00:55:01] TO HER FAMILY'S ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP OF HER FAMILY'S FARM. SIMPLY SELLING THE LAND WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUCH EASIER OUTCOME FOR US AND WOULD HAVE GIVEN MY FAMILY GREATER PROCEEDS AND EVERYTHING BUT THAT WASN'T OUR INTENT. WE ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO TAKE GREAT PAINS TO SEE THAT. FIRST OF ALL, AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM AND A WHOLE STRATEGY THAT WILL MINIMIZE THE JUST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE LAND. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION, INSTEAD OF CREATING JUST MAYBE A COUPLE SMALL HOME OR A COUPLE LARGE HOMES THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE THE SUBDIVISION. THOSE WOULD BE OWNING A VAST AMOUNT OF PROPERTY AND WOULD LIKELY BE OVER LARGE PALATIAL PLACES WITH LOTS OF AMENITIES THAT COULD THEN CLEAR CUT A LOT OF THE LAND, THAT BY DOING THE SUBDIVISION IT PREVENTS THAT. ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DESIGN, THE INTENT IS TO JUST MAINTAIN THE SURROUNDING DENSITY OF HOMES AND NOT EVEN ALLOW FOR CLEAR CUTTING OR MASSIVE CHANGES TO THE WAY THE ENVIRONMENT IS. MAINTAIN THE WETLAND, ET CETERA, BUT NOT JUST THE WETLAND BUT ALSO THE TREES AND THE FOREST AND EVERYTHING. THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S DESIGNED TO MESH INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. YOU CAN SEE THAT VERY CLEARLY WITH THE AMOUNT OF TREE PRESERVATION AND THE INTENTIONALITY OF THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DOESN'T COME UP AS CLEARLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A VARIANCE FOR IT OR ANYTHING BUT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART. THAT IS OUR WHOLE PURPOSE WITH DOING THIS AND JUST TO MAINTAIN THAT INTEGRITY TO MY MOTHER'S WISHES. >> THANK YOU. I GUESS, TO COUNCIL PEARSON RICK'S POINT EARLIER, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE THE LEFT CUL-DE-SAC TO THE RIGHT CUL-DE-SAC IS A FAIRLY STEEP HILL AND IS THERE PLANS FOR STORM WATER COLLECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT OR DOES ALL THAT JUST RUN RIGHT INTO THE WETLANDS? >> WE REQUIRED THEM TO ACTUALLY USE AN URBAN SECTION WHICH MEANS CURB AND GUTTER ON THAT SLOPED PORTION OF THE ROAD SO THAT THE WATER FROM THE PAVEMENT WOULD BE CAPTURED, MOVES DOWN. YOU CAN SEE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IN THE CUL-DE-SAC WITH THE IDEA THAT WATER WOULD BE COLLECTED AND THEN TAKEN TO THE STORM POND FOR TREATMENT. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU WERE TO SHORTEN THE ROAD, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO REPLAT IT SO THAT I KNOW YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT FIVE HOMES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU JUST PUT ONE AND TWO TOGETHER YOU COULD SHORTEN THE DRIVE, SAVE A LOT OF TREES. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A SEPTIC MOUND, ALL THE TREES HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THAT SECTION. YOU'VE GOT SOME PRETTY LARGE SECTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CLEAR CUT FOR THOSE SEPTIC MOUNDS. >> ACTUALLY, THAT WAS OUR INITIAL ATTEMPT BUT WHEN WE BROUGHT THAT PROPOSAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE TO NOT CUT DOWN SO MANY TREES AND TO PROVIDE JUST A SMALLER TURNAROUND WHICH DID ACCOMMODATE THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THAT, AS YOU SAW, WAS REJECTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE LAST MEETING AND THAT WAS THE GROUNDS FOR THEIR REJECTION THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANTED THE FULL TURNAROUND AND SO THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE. >> BUT COULD YOU STILL HAVE THE TURNAROUND AND JUST SHORTEN IT UP? I GUESS, IT IS JUST SUCH AN ELEVATION THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE FLOWING DOWN INTO THE WETLANDS. >> I THINK IT'S ALL ENGINEERING STORM WATER PLAN, IT ALL CONFORMS TO THE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. >> PART OF THE THING ALSO IS THE AGREEMENTS, THE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, AND THE ORGANIZATION AGREEMENTS FOR BUYERS, THAT THEY CAN'T GO AND TURN THEIR LAWN INTO A GOLF COURSE NECESSARILY. [01:00:07] THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE AMOUNT OF FOLIAGE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY'RE GIVEN WHEN THEY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO HAVE A LAWN AND MOW ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE THEN THAT WOULD BE A BIG PROBLEM. BUT ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO MITIGATE THAT AS YOU ALL KNOW IS JUST TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR HOMEOWNER AGREEMENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT. >> HOW ARE ORONO OWNER AGREEMENTS ENFORCED? >> NEIGHBORHOOD COVENANTS, ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL AND ALSO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION, THE INTENT IS THEY'LL BE SOLD AS TO BE BUILT VERSUS JUST LOTS. THAT MEANS APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE LOT SALE HAPPENS. YOU SHOULDN'T SEE ANYBODY COMING BACK FOR VARIANCES. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT AND THIS IS PROBABLY FOR STAFF. HOW DOES IT WORK WITH WHERE WE ARE. IT'S IN FLUX RIGHT NOW, IN PROCESS WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT? HOW LONG IS THAT PROCESS GOING TO TAKE AND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE OR DENY TONIGHT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS OF THAT DATA. >> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW LONG THEIR PROCESS TAKES. I THINK THEY'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THIS REVISED PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND ARE REVIEWING THAT PLAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR TIMING IS, EXACTLY. TYPICALLY, THEY ARE VERY OPEN WITH THEIR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THEIR STAFF AND OUR STAFF. AGAIN, WE WILL BE HAVING A MEETING WITH ALL RELEVANT PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PLANS ARE ALIGNED BEFORE THEY BRING THEIR FINAL PLAT BACK TO YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THERE IS SOME INFORMATION IN YOUR PACKET ABOUT THE OUTSTANDING INFORMATION IF YOU GET CHANCE TO READ THAT SHORT RESPONSE FROM THE ENGINEER. JUST AT LEAST DEMONSTRATING THEY'RE AWARE OF EXACTLY WHAT'S NEEDED. AS I MENTIONED, IF THEY DON'T GET WHAT'S NEEDED AND COUNCIL APPROVES THIS AND THEY DO NOT THEN IT DOESN'T WORK OUT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT TO SAY ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? >> I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7559, GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PLAT OF IDYLLVALE SHORES. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'M SORRY. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I DO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> YES. >> DOES THE MOTION INCLUDE THE VARIANCES AND ALL APPROVALS OR JUST THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> I THINK IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE HEARING AND THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS AND I DO APPRECIATE HEARING THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT'S GONE INTO THE DESIGN BECAUSE COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC INPUT. I'VE WATCHED THE VIDEOS, READ THE PLANNING NOTES AND IT'S INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR BASED ON MUCH OF THE FEEDBACK THAT THERE'S GREAT CONCERN WHICH DOESN'T SURPRISE ME BECAUSE WE LIVE IN ORONO AND WE LOVE OUR WILD SPACES AND OUR MATURE TREES AND OPEN SPACE. IT'S INTERESTING THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A GREAT DEGREE OF CARE THAT'S GONE INTO THIS DESIGN AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS AWARE OF. THAT MAY BE NEW FOR PEOPLE HEARING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY NEW TO ME. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE SEEN, THAT I'VE READ THUS FAR. THERE'S CERTAINLY A LOT OF CONSIDERATION BEING TAKEN IN AND AT THE SAME TIME, I DO ABSOLUTELY HAVE CONCERNS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I'VE SEEN APPLICATIONS COME IN AND BEST OF INTENTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY HOW THINGS TURN OUT. AND SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO BE VERY MINDFUL AND IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF [01:05:04] WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS AND AT THE SAME TIME IT'S CERTAINLY A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. AND AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTED, OWNERS OF THEIR PROPERTY CAN CERTAINLY LOOK TO DEVELOP THAT AS THEY WILL WHEN THEY ARE CONFORMING IN WITHIN THE CITY CODE. SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO DEVELOP THIS AND APPRECIATE THAT IT'S BEING DONE IN A WAY THAT'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND MENTALLY SENSITIVE. IT WOULD ALWAYS BE MY PREFERENCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE IMPACT BEFORE WE VOTE ON A PLAT DESIGN LIKE THIS BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE. I KNOW AND I ASKED MELANIE ABOUT THIS EARLIER, THERE IS GREAT CONCERN. I'VE HAD EMAILS ABOUT SOME SPECIES IN THAT AREA THAT MAY BE ON SORT OF I WOULDN'T SAY ENDANGERED BUT CERTAIN TYPES OF OWL SPECIES THAT ARE MAYBE NOT COMMON. AND SO THAT IMPACT, WHETHER IT'S TO THE WATER OR TO THE WILD LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS ON THE MINDS OF MANY, MANY PEOPLE, PERHAPS THE APPLICANT INCLUDED. SO I THINK IT WOULD ALWAYS BE NICE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE LOOK AT THIS BUT THIS IS WHAT WE GET FOR TONIGHT. WHAT I'M HEARING, MELANIE, IS THAT IF THERE'S AN APPROVAL TONIGHT, ANY AND ALL DEVELOPMENT IS CONTINGENT UPON THE APPLICANT MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT DNR AND EVERYTHING ELSE THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> ABSOLUTELY. YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> THAT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH OF THESE MEETINGS, BOTH WITH PLANNING AND COUNCIL WHERE IT'S NOT CLEAR AND IT CAN COME ACROSS ON A MEETING LIKE TONIGHT THAT IT'S FULL STEAM AHEAD AND CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW, AND I THINK THAT'S THE PERCEPTION THAT CAN BE OUT THERE THAT'S WHY I SAY IT. BECAUSE THESE PROCESSES ARE NOT ALWAYS CLEAR TO MANY, MANY PEOPLE. THERE'S A GREAT DEGREE OF CONCERN AND I'M NOT TAKING ANY OF THIS LIGHTLY AND I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. WHETHER OR NOT I'VE RESPONDED TO EVERY EMAIL OR INVITATION TO TOUR. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. >> OTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU. >> COULD I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION OF MR. PASS? >> I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AND STUFF. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S REQUIRED, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING BECAUSE OF THE FEEDBACK. >> YEAH, SO WE HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH NEIGHBORS, AND WE LET THEM KNOW THAT LETTERS WERE SENT OUT TO EVERYONE. WE WOULDN'T PROCEED, IT'S A REQUIREMENT ANYWAYS. FOR NOTIFICATION, BUT YES. ACTUALLY, WE DID GIVE NEIGHBORS OPPORTUNITY TO BUY LOTS, AND SO WE TURNED TO THEM FIRST, GAVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. I DO WANT TO JUST TO MENTION ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. YOU RECOGNIZED WHEN MY MOTHER WAS PASSING AWAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO SELL THIS PROPERTY. WHAT THAT MEANT TO US IS THAT IT'S A ROULETTE WHEEL, AND ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN, A PERSON COULD COME UP AND DECIDE THEY WANTED TO MAKE A PARK OR SOMEONE COULD COME UP AND DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE A GOLF COURSE FOR THEIR PRIVATE FAMILY. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT WITH A SINGLE OWNER WITHOUT A VARIANCE. THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING THAT THIS COUNCIL REALLY HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT. THE CHOICE THAT WE HAD TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS AND TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO PRODUCE SOME OF THOSE REALLY NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FOR THE LAND WAS OUR CHOICE, AND THAT'S WHY WE LOOKED AT ALL THE OPTIONS AND TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND TO PRODUCE COVENANTS AND TO BE BUILT SO THAT IT'S NOT EVEN AN OPTION TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE AMENITY RICH JUST COVER THE WHOLE PROPERTY OPTIONS ARE JUST OFF THE TABLE. THAT IS THE BEST WAY THAT WE SAW TALKING WITH OUR ARCHITECTS AND DEVELOPERS TO ASSURE THE PERPETUITY OF SIMILAR NATURAL OUTCOMES FOR THIS LAND. >> THANK YOU. >> FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> MR. MAYOR. MAY I JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION AND GOING THROUGH THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED AND AT ABOUT A VOTE IS THAT THIS WOULD BE ALL ASPECTS OF IT ARE CONFORMING. [01:10:06] IF THEY CHANGE ANYTHING FROM THOSE PLANS AND SPECS, THEY WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THEIR APPROVALS. BUT THIS APPROVAL DOES AUTHORIZE THAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED THE ROAD EXTENSION TO THE I FORGET THE LENGTH, BUT BEYOND 1,000 FEET. THAT IS INCORPORATED IN AS PART OF THE MOTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR. >> WE CAN'T CHANGE OUR MIND ON THAT ASPECT. >> WHEN THAT COMES BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL, THAT LENGTH AS PROPOSED HERE HAS BEEN APPROVED. BUT ANY OTHER VARIANCE OR THING THAT COMES BACK THAT'S NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. >> HOW DOES THAT COVENANT PROCESS WORK THEN? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> I AM. THOSE ARE PRIVATE. THOSE ARE EITHER IMPLEMENTED THROUGH COVENANTS THAT GET RECORDED AGAINST THE LAND OR THROUGH THEIR HOA DOCUMENTS. I'VE SEEN HANDLED DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT THOSE AREN'T SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN ENFORCE OR REQUIRE BECAUSE THAT GOES BEYOND YOUR CODE? >> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE LANDOWNER CAN CHOOSE TO DO. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WHEN THEY ENGAGE WITH BUYERS FOR THESE LOTS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? OTHERWISE, WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> MOTION CARRIES FOUR VOTES TO ONE. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 22, [22. LA25-000003, 155 Wear Lane North, Variance - Resolution 7566] 155 WEAR LANE NORTH, A RESOLUTION FOR A VARIANCE. THIS ONE IS AGAIN BACK TO MELANIE, IT'S NOT. >> THAT'S GOOD. GREAT. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MATT CARNEY. I'M A PLANNER UNDER LAURA, MEETING YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME AS WELL. MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE. I'M PRESENTING YOU THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 155 WEAR LANE NORTH. I PREPARED A LITTLE INFO GRAPHIC HERE THAT IS A LITTLE BIT CROWDED, BUT MORE OR LESS SHOWS SOME OF THE SURVEY CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSAL OF THE APPLICANT HERE. WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS ABOUT TWO ACRES IN SIZE LOCATED IN THE RURAL PORTION OF OUR TOWN NEAR THE END OF THIS ROAD OR CALLED DE SAC PER SE AT 155 WEAR LANE. ULTIMATELY, THERE IS A BIT OF WATER DAMAGE OCCURRING TO THIS HOUSE FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEIR TESTIMONY WHERE THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO EXTEND A COVERED ENTRY FOR THIS HOUSE. WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK BY ABOUT 4.7 FEET ON A 50 FOOT SETBACK. UTIMATELY, THERE IS NO COVERED ENTRY HERE AT THIS POINT. THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND A PORTION OF THE FACADE AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM AN AREA THAT HAS HAD FAIRLY CHRONIC WATER DAMAGE OVER THE YEARS. I CAN HAVE THE APPLICANTS TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WHEN THEY SPEAK WITH YOU, BUT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE ARGUMENT IN THEIR CASE. STAFF WOULD NOTE THAT THE ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THE SETBACK IS ADEQUATELY BUFFERED BY A LOT OF THE VEGETATION THAT WE DO HAVE IN THE AREA. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. OTHERWISE, THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AND CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT FIRST? >> NO. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I DO. >> YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE PROJECT, IF YOU'D LIKE. >> ROSS JOHNSON AT 155 WEAR LANE NORTH. >> JOHN DALY 153 SLAKE SREET WITH REVISION CONTRACTOR. >> I THINK IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. >> ACTUALLY, A BIT OF A LAUNDRY LIST JUST TO SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN 2016, I'LL TRY AND GET THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND REALIZED THE FIRST SPRING AFTER THE FIRST HEAVY RAIN THAT WE HAD SOME WATER ISSUES. THERE WAS WATER IN OUR BASEMENT UNDERNEATH THE KITCHENETTE. OF COURSE, YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, YOU PULL BACK THE CARPET, ETC. WE'RE THINKING, WELL, MAYBE THAT WAS JUST A FLUKE. [01:15:01] THE REALITY IS IT HAS NOT BEEN. WE DID AN EXTERIOR REMODEL ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS AGO. IT WAS EXTENSIVE. WE REPLACED ALL THE SIDING, ALL THE WINDOWS. THEN AS PART OF IT, WE REDID THE ROOF AND BUILT SOFFITS OVER THE GABLES, THAT WE WERE TOLD HELP WITH WATER, KEEP WATER, AT LEAST, TO SOME EXTENT FROM RUNNING DOWN THE SIDING. WE DID THAT ON EVERY GABLE IN THE HOUSE. THEN WE STARTED TO UNDERTAKE AN INTERIOR REMODEL ABOUT A YEAR AGO. PART OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT I ASKED JOHN FOR WAS, I SAID, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU THINK WE CAN FIX THIS WATER ISSUE AND THE DAMPNESS IN THE BASEMENT. BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T FIX IT, I DON'T WANT TO DO THE PROJECT, I WANT TO GET RID OF THE HOUSE. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS. I DON'T MEAN TO TELL A SOB STORY, BUT MY SON HAS EXTENSIVE ALLERGIES. IT WAS VERY HARD TO SPEND ANY TIME IN THE BASEMENT. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE ABANDONED THE TRANSIT VENTS IN THE FLOOR. IS THAT THE RIGHT WORD? THE TRANSIT VENT TRANSIT VENTS IN THE FLOOR. WE REMOVED ALL THE SHEET ROCK ON EVERY LEVEL, BUT THIS IS MOST IMPORTANTLY THE BASEMENT. OF COURSE, AT THAT POINT, WE COULD EXPOSE WHERE THE WATER WAS COMING THROUGH. WE COULD SEE THAT SOME OF IT WAS RUNNING DOWN BEHIND THE STOOP AND COMING DOWN FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL. WE COULD ALSO SEE THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM IN THE CORNER. IF YOU SEE THAT LITTLE INDENT BETWEEN THE ENTRYWAY AND THE HOUSE ON THAT FRONT AND THEN THE BACK CORNER OF THAT LITTLE INDENT. WE ENDED UP EXCAVATING DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE FRONT ENTRYWAY, HOPING THAT THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH AND THAT WE COULD AVOID EXCAVATING THE STOOP. I WENT IN ON HALLOWEEN OF LAST YEAR, IN 2024, WERE RENTING A HOUSE IN A DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE THIS IS GOING ON. WE WENT BACK TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRICK OR TREAT, AND, OF COURSE, I POPPED INTO THE HOUSE, BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE WAS A HEAVY RAIN. I WENT IN AND I STARTED INVESTIGATING BECAUSE THE WHOLE JOHN KNOWS ME. I'M INVESTIGATING THIS WATER ISSUE, AND I LOOK AT IT, AND WE HAD ALREADY EXCAVATED THE AREA BETWEEN THE FRONT ENTRYWAY AND THE GARAGE. THEN I'M LOOKING RIGHT DOWN BELOW WHERE THE STOOP WOULD BE, AND THERE'S WATER RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WALL. IT DIDN'T COME FROM THE TOP DOWN. IT WAS A BIG WATER SPOT IN THE WALL. OF COURSE, I SENT JOHN A PICTURE RIGHT AWAY, AND WE ENDED UP EXCAVATING THE ENTIRE STOOP AT THAT POINT. THEN WE WATERPROOFED. WE WATERPROOF WHERE THE STOOP USED TO BE HAVING REMOVED THE ENTIRE STOOP FOUNDATION ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE GARAGE. THE AREA TO THE LEFT OF THE FRONT ENTRYWAY, THERE WAS NO SIGN OF WATER ISSUES THERE. IT WAS LITERALLY ACROSS THE FRONT ENTRYWAY, AND THEN BETWEEN THE FRONT ENTRYWAY AND THE GARAGE AND THAT LITTLE INDENTED AREA. THEN OF COURSE, AT THIS POINT, WE HAD TRIED TO FIX THE GRADE WHEN IT INITIALLY HAPPENED IN 2016, AND WE BROUGHT IN A LANDSCAPER TO PROP IT UP AS HIGH AS WE COULD. BUT WE WERE SOMEWHAT LIMITED UNLESS WE WANTED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE WALK. THEN THE STOOP HAD NO ABILITY TO PUT IT, IT'S NOT THE STOOP YOU'D WANT TO PUT A COVERED ROOF OVER. AS PART OF THIS, WE'VE OBVIOUSLY EXCAVATED EVERYTHING. THEN WE WANT TO BUILD A COVERED AREA OVER THAT DOORWAY THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ONE. THAT WE CAN RUN GUTTERS OUT AND FURTHER RUN WATER AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. PEOPLE COULD CERTAINLY ACCUSE ME OF GOING OVERBOARD HERE AND BEING A LITTLE BIT CRAZY ABOUT THIS. BUT WE'VE MADE A BIG INVESTMENT FOR US IN REMODELING THE ENTIRE HOUSE. IF I GET DONE WITH THIS AND WE HAVE WATER RUNNING BELOW OUR NEW FLOORING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'LL DO. I MIGHT GO CRAZY. WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN, AND PEOPLE CAN CALL IT BELT AND SUSPENDERS. WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN BECAUSE I CANNOT HAVE THIS WATER ISSUE IN THIS HOUSE ANYMORE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> I DON'T WANT THAT PHONE CALL [LAUGHTER] I GOT IT ON HALLOWEEN. NOW, JUST TO GO THROUGH THE INTENT, THE DESIGN INTENT, THE ARCHITECTURAL INTENT, ABOUT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF IT REALLY IS TO BE ABLE TO GET THE WATER TO COME DOWN AND BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME GUTTERS ALSO ON THAT NEW EDITION COMING OUT FOR US TO THEN RUN THOSE GUTTER DOWN AND TO BE ABLE TO GET THEM OUT FURTHER ENOUGH AWAY FROM THAT CORN ON THE HOUSE. WE SELECTED OR WE SIZED IT TO BE SOMEWHAT APPROPRIATE TO THE REST OF THE SIZE AND THE SCALE OF THE HOUSE. I KNOW THAT THIS PICTURE DOESN'T NECESSARILY DEPICT THAT, AS WELL AS IT DOES ALIGN ON A PARALLEL LINE WITH THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT STOOP COMING OUT EIGHT FEET, IT DOES ALIGN STRAIGHT WITH THE GARAGE. IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS ON A CIRCLE, IT'S AT THE END OF THE ROAD, THAT THE PROPERTY LINE CURVES WITH IT ALLOWING THAT SETBACK. TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT TO FOUR FEET JUST DOESN'T GIVE ENOUGH SPACE TO BE [01:20:03] ABLE TO HAVE AN OVERHANG THERE THAT'S REALLY ARCHITECTURALLY INTENTIONAL FOR THE HOME AND THE PROPERTY, AND MEETS THE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO STAND UNDERNEATH IT WHILE YOU'RE AT THE FRONT DOOR. THE HOUSE IS AT A DENON ROAD. I KNOW IT HAS ADJOINING NEIGHBORS, BUT NO NEIGHBORS CAN REALLY SEE THE FRONT OF THIS HOME. IT'S UNIQUE. IT'S UNIQUE LOCALE BASED ON HOW IT SHAPED AND AND HOW IT SITS ON THE PROPERTY AND EVEN THE ANGLE IN WHICH IT SITS ON THE PROPERTY, IF THE HOUSE WAS ACTUALLY STRAIGHTENED OUT, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE HERE. WE'D JUST BUILD IT. BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROPOSAL. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> YOU REALLY LOVE YOUR HOUSE. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE NOT LIKED IT SO MUCH [LAUGHTER] >> BUT WE'RE GETTING THERE [LAUGHTER] >> IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. APPROVE OR DENY THE. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 25-. DO I NEED TO SAY 3 0003 AT 155 WEAR AVENUE NORTH? >> WEAR LANE. >> WEAR LANE. THANK YOU >> ANY SECOND. >> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU. >> WE'LL MOVE ON TO PAGE 2. [23. LA25-000005, 1480 Bohns Point Rd, Variance - Resolution 7568] ITEM NUMBER 23, 1480 BOHNS POINT ROAD. THIS STAYS WITH MATT, I THINK. >> AGAIN, MAYOR, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, I HAVE A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AHEAD OF YOU AT 1480 BOHNS POINT ROAD. REALLY, PARDON ME, NOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OF VARIANCE. SCREEN IS GLITCHING RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, APOLOGIZE. REORIENT. THIS IS AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1480 BOHNS POINT ROAD. THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS A SETBACK THAT'S IMPOSED BASED ON RELATIVELY A LINE DRAWN BY THE FUREST ENCROACHMENT LAKEWOOD OF ADJACENT STRUCTURES PRINCIPLE IN THIS CASE. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS FOR THIS BOAT HOUSE, WE'LL CALL IT, IS LOCATED ABOUT HERE, LAKEWOOD OF VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE HOMES THAT WE HAVE ALONG HERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF BOHNS POINT ROAD. ULTIMATELY, TO MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT IN KIND TO THE STRUCTURE WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE AS IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK. TO GET TO SPECIFICALLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A JOG IN THE STRUCTURE. WELL UP FOR YOU RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN INDENT HERE, PHOTOS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT, WHERE WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ODD SHAPE CONCAVE PORTION WHERE THE ROOF DOES STAY RELATIVELY EVEN ON THE TOP. FOR OUR PURPOSES, WE WOULD STILL CONSIDER THIS AREA HARD COVER THAT IS COVERED BY THE FOUNDATION OF THE STRUCTURE DESPITE THE ROOF LOCATION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SMALL REDUCTION IN HARD COVER WITH THIS PROPOSAL. LET ME BLOW THIS UP A LITTLE BIT FOR YOU HERE. WE ARE GOING TO A SLIGHTLY NARROW STRUCTURE WITH THIS PROPOSAL. HOWEVER, WE'RE GOING UP ABOUT THREE FEET IN DEFINED HEIGHT. DEFINED HEIGHT IN ONO WOULD BE TO THE MEDIAN POINT OF THE GABLE. WE'RE LOOKING AT AN INCREASE OF ABOUT THREE FEET IN BETWEEN THESE TWO DIMENSIONS RELATIVELY. WHAT THAT MINE STAFF HAD CONSIDERED THE PROPOSAL IN GENERAL AND WHAT THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS MEANT TO PREVENT, WHICH IS LAKE VIEWS. WE SAW THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT HERE AS TOO MUCH. IT DIDN'T MEET THE BURDEN FOR A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, ESPECIALLY AS WE DO ALLOW FOR OWNERS AND APPLICANTS IN THIS INSTANCE TO REPLACE OR REBUILD A STRUCTURE IN KIND. WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BURDEN HAD BEEN MET BY THE APPLICANT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE REGARDING THIS. WE DO HAVE A SLEW OF PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE PROPERTY, AERIALS, AS WELL THAT I CAN SHOW, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OBSERVATIONS. >> WELL, I WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY TODAY AND MET WITH THE HOMEOWNER AND WALKED AROUND THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND LITERALLY COULDN'T SEE [01:25:01] THE SHED FROM WHERE THE HOUSE SITS, BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A DROP-OFF THAT GOES DOWN FROM JUST WALKING AROUND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE DOWN, YOU LITERALLY CAN'T SEE THE SHED. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE THE SHED WHEN YOU'RE INITIALLY AT THE LEVEL OF THE HOUSE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT I NOTICED WAS, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE, THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH LITERALLY CAN'T SEE THE SHED EITHER. MY OPINION IS THAT IT'S NOT IN THE WAY AT ALL. IT'S AN EXISTING SHED. THEY WANT TO IMPROVE WHAT'S THERE, AND WHILE THEY'RE MAKING IT SLIGHTLY TALLER, THEY'RE MAKING IT ACTUALLY SMALLER, AND SO I'M NOT SURE. THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE A REASONABLE REPLACEMENT FOR A STRUCTURE. IT'S NOT AN ADDITION OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THERE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A REASONABLE REPLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE ON THIS PROPERTY, GIVEN HOW THE PROPERTY LAYS OUT. >> ANY COMMENTS? >> STEVE, CAN I ASK YOU, IF IT'S GOING TO BE, I KNOW IT'S THREE FEET, BUT THEN IT ALSO HAS THE PORTION AT THE TOP. DO YOU STILL THINK YOU'D NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT IN YOUR SIGHTLINE, EVEN IF IT WAS UP, LIKE ANOTHER WHAT IS THAT SIX FEET? >> I THINK THE DASH LINE IN THERE REPRESENTS WHAT'S CURRENT THERE. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YEAH. >> THE DASH LINE IS CURRENT. >> ARE THEY GOING TO ADD THE WEATHER VEIN ON TOP AGAIN? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> OKAY. WE'RE REALLY OKAY. >> BUT AS WE DEFINE HEIGHT, WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER THE COUPLE OR THE WEATHER VEIN AS A PART OF THE HEIGHT CALCULATION. >> WE WOULDN'T ANYWAY. OKAY. >> IT'S BASED ON THAT MEDIAN POINT OF THE ROOF. >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL JUST SAY THAT THE STANDARD FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS NOT MET HERE. THIS IS AN AESTHETIC DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FOOTPRINT IS DECREASING, I'M MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT I WOULDN'T SAY ENCOURAGING, BUT ENABLING OR ALLOWING IN THIS CASE A VARIANCE FOR AN AESTHETIC CHANGE WITHIN THAT ALS NOT ONLY SETS A PRECEDENT, BUT IT CERTAINLY MIGHT ENCOURAGE MORE OF THOSE SIMILAR TYPES OF APPLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE. I'M INCLINED TO BE IN ALIGNMENT, I GUESS WHAT I'D SAY WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> OTHER THOUGHTS, OR COMMENTS? >> I AGREE WITH YOU, LISA. >> YEAH, I'D BE WORRIED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT SETS AS WELL FOR JUST AN AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENT. ANYBODY, HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO WALK ME THROUGH WHAT THEY CAN DO HERE. >> THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT. THIS WOULD INVOLVE TAKING THE DIMENSIONS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE, ESSENTIALLY, AND REPLACING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT IS EXISTING HERE. IT COULD BE FIVE FEET LESS, LET'S SAY, AND GO LOWER THAN THIS ROUGH LINE, AND THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE IMPACT IS BEING REDUCED, OR THE CONFINES OF THAT STRUCTURE CAN BE REPLACED AS IS. THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO WITHOUT THE NEED OF A VARIANCE OR RELIEF THROUGH THIS PROCESS. >> THE APPLICANT COULD REPLACE THIS IN KIND WITH SOMETHING THAT MORE CLOSELY MIMICS WHATEVER THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE THE AESTHETIC OF THE HOME. IN OTHER WORDS? >> YES. I THINK THE ISSUE IS YOU'D BE CONFINED WITH THAT JOG THAT YOU HAVE IN THE SIDE, BUT THAT YOU STILL WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE AND ADDRESS THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT UP AS A PART OF THE APPLICATION. >> IS THE APPLICANT WITH US? >> HERE TOO. >> COMING. >> JACK SCHWARZ, SCHWARZ BUILDERS, 15119 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD, AND I'M WITH THE HOMEOWNERS. >> HOWARD DALTON, 1480 BOHNS POINT ROAD. >> MALLY GOLDEN, 1480 BOHNS POINT ROAD. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE THAT WE WANT TO REBUILD THIS SHED WITH A SLIGHTLY STEEPER ROOF PITCH. THIS IS A GREAT PHOTO TO SHOW HOW THE 1480 BOHNS POINT ROAD HAS 12/12 PITCHED ROOFS, AND THE BOATHOUSE OR SHED IN QUESTION DOES NOT. [01:30:03] THIS BOATHOUSE AND SHED WAS BUILT IN THE 1950S AND HAS NOT HELD UP TO THE TEST OF TIME, AND WE'D LIKE TO MAKE IT MORE AESTHETICALLY MATCHING WITH THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS. THE REASON FOR IMPROVING THE DESIGN AND STRUCTURE COMES FROM THE CITY CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THAT READS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS MUST BE CONSISTENT IN DESIGN AND COLOR WITH THE PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING FOR THIS SMALL INCREASE IN HEIGHT TO MATCH THAT PRIMARY RESIDENCE. EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD DO AN IN-KIND REBUILD AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE HOUSE, YOU CAN'T DO AN IN-KIND REBUILD, THAT MATCHES THE HOUSE WITHOUT DOING A STEEPER ROOF. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE BASED ON THE GEOMETRY OF A 12/12 VERSUS A 4/12. THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE SHED IS WITHIN THE ALS, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUE BECAUSE THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS SO FAR BACK FROM THE LAKE THAT THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS THAT FAR BACK. BUT THIS SHED DOES MEET THE 75-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE LAKE THAT THE CITY OF ORNO REQUIRES. EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T MEET THE ALS, IT IS MEETING THE 75-FOOT SETBACK, AND THE ALS IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE LAKE VIEWS. FROM THE OTHER PHOTOS, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE LAKE VIEWS AREN'T IMPACTED FROM THE 1480 BOHNS POINT, AND THEN ALSO THE SECOND TO LAST PHOTO SHOWS FROM THE 1420, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE OUR PROPOSED SHED. IF ROBIN WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING. >> YEAH. JUST NONE OF MY NEIGHBORS CAN SEE IT. IN ONE OF THE PHOTOS, YOU CAN SEE HOW IT SITS INTO THE HILL. IT'S ACTUALLY CUT INTO A HILL. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT VISIBLE. THIS HARDLY SHOWS THE STEEPNESS OF THIS HILL THAT YOU LOOK RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF THIS. IN FACT, WE'VE GOT BOAT CANOPIES ON THE WATER YOU LOOK OVER THE TOP OF. YOU JUST CAN'T SEE ANYTHING FROM ANY OF THE RESIDENTS ON BOHNS POINT. ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY NEIGHBORS ARE IN FAVOR OF, AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING SHED. IT BENEFITS THE NEIGHBORS, NOT JUST ME. I THOUGHT, YEAH, WE'VE ALL BEEN AROUND THE LAKE AND SEEN GOOD-LOOKING BOAT HOUSES. WE'VE BEEN AROUND AND SEEN CRAPPY ONES. THIS IS MORE OF A CRAPPY ONE AT THIS POINT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT UNIQUE AND FUN. >> IN THAT LAST PHOTO, THE ONE YOU RUN. >> THAT'S THE ONE. >> THAT ONE. YES. YOU CAN IMAGINE OUR PROPOSED DESIGN HAD THE NEW RIDGE AT THE HULL OF THE SAILBOAT THERE, SO THAT'S THE HEIGHT INCREASE. BUT THE ELEVATION CHANGE FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND MR. DALTON'S IS SO DRASTIC THAT THAT THREE-FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE SHOULDN'T IMPACT THE LAKE VIEWS. >> IT DOESN'T IMPACT ANYBODY'S LAKE VIEW BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT UNLESS YOU COME OUT TO THE EDGE OF YOUR DECK AND LOOK DOWN THE HILL. YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM WITHIN ANYBODY'S HOME. >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS, HITS. >> IS THERE ANY WAY TO DROP THE FOUNDATION A LITTLE BIT? >> ONE OF THE REASONS I WANT TO REBUILD IS BECAUSE OF THE STEEP HILL, THE WATER COMES DOWN, AND I'M GETTING WATER OVER THE TOP OF THAT FOUNDATION. I THINK I'D EXACERBATE THAT PROBLEM BY DROPPING IT. TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WHEN WATER FALLS GOES UNDER. >> RIGHT. CAN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED? >> THAT'S GRAPHIC? >> YEAH. >> THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE THAT PITCH ANY LOWER? SLIGHTLY LOWER? >> SURE. YOU CAN PUT A FLAT ROOF ON. >> YEAH, I KNOW. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. >> BUT THE REST OF THE HOUSE IT'S GOT MULTIPLE GABLES, AND [BACKGROUND] LOOKS REALLY NICE. >> WELL, AGAIN, WHEN I VISITED OUT THERE, IT WAS ALMOST DIFFICULT TO SEE WHEN I WALKED AROUND YOUR HOME. TO ME, I THINK THE INVESTMENT IN UPDATING ADDS TO THE VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOUR PROPERTY, AND FRANKLY, PROBABLY THE VIEW, NOT ONLY FROM YOUR SIDE OF THE HOUSE BUT THE VIEW LOOKING UP INTO THOSE PROPERTIES AS WELL. I DO UNDERSTAND THE PRECEDENCE, [01:35:01] BUT IN MY OPINION, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO AS A COUNCIL IS TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE DESIRES OF EACH CITIZEN WHEN THEY PRESENT SOMETHING. THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNIQUE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CODES. TO ME, THE PURPOSE OF A VARIANCE IS TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE NOT HAVING A LASTING OR NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE CONTEXT OF THE CODES THAT EXIST AND ALSO ALLOWS THE RESIDENTS TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. WHEN I VISITED THE SITE, IT SURE SEEMED TO ME LIKE NO ONE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY ALLOWING THEM TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY HAVE. >> THANKS FOR COMING TO VISIT, STEVE, WE APPRECIATE IT. >> I GUESS I HAVE TO AGREE WITH STEVE, I DO UNDERSTAND THE PRECEDENTS AND STUFF, BUT THIS IS A BOAT HOUSE THAT'S UNIQUE. THE FACT THAT IT IS 75 FEET AWAY FROM THE LAKE. A LOT OF TIMES WE'RE LOOKING AT OLD BOAT HOUSES THAT ARE SITTING RIGHT ON SHORE, AND WE HAVE SEEN PEOPLE EXTEND THEM AND NOT PROPERLY DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO WHEN REBUILDING THEM. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IN THIS CASE, TOO, GIVEN THE ELEVATION AND STUFF, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT. >> I'M TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. I WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE IF I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO ENCROACH ON ANYBODY'S VIEWS OR SUCH. THERE WAS A COUPLE OTHER SHEDS THERE WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE CLOSER TO LAKE, I JUST TORE HIM DOWN AND PUT IN LAWN. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS. I THINK MY TROUBLE WITH THIS, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IS THAT THE VARIANCE PROCESS IS, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD BE FAIRLY RIGOROUS, BECAUSE I HAVE SAT THROUGH A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE ON LAKE SHORE THAT ARE ABLE TO BE SEEN BY NEIGHBORS AND THAT ARE ASKING FOR JUST THIS ONE MORE FOOT OF GABLED ROOF TO MATCH THE HOME AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I TRY TO VIEW THESE APPLICATIONS AS MEETING A STANDARD OF RIGOROUS APPLICATION WITH THE VARIANCE PROCESS RATHER THAN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION CAN SEE IT. I ALSO JUST GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE VARIANCE NEEDS TO, ALLEVIATE A DEMONSTRABLE DIFFICULTY. I DON'T SEE THAT WHILE IT MAY NOT BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, IT CAN BE REBUILT, WHETHER IT'S IN-KIND PAINT OR SHINGLES OR WHATEVER THE AESTHETICS OF THE ISSUE ARE, I CERTAINLY WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT AND ENCOURAGE THAT LEVEL OF UPKEEP. BUT ALSO REMAIN REALLY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A PRECEDENT, IT IS ENABLING A PROCESS BY WHICH WE'RE NOT TESTING THIS APPLICATION AGAINST THE STANDARD AND REQUIRING THAT THIS APPLICANT MEET THAT PRACTICAL LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY. THE ENJOYMENT OF THE HOME OR THE SHED OR THE BOAT HOUSE AS POSSIBLE. THERE THERE'S NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OR AN INABILITY TO SEE SUNLIGHT. THERE ARE A LOT OF CRITERIA THAT NEED TO REALLY BE MET HERE WHEN CONSIDERING A VARIANCE LIKE THIS. MY STANCE ON THIS IS THAT I WOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE, AND DO APPRECIATE WHEN HOMEOWNERS ARE WANTING TO MAINTAIN AND UPKEEP THEIR PROPERTIES. BUT FOR THIS ONE, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THEREFORE, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE. >> ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS? >> I'M MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENCE OF A BOAT HOUSE OR ANY CLOSE TO THE WATER STRUCTURE IS SCARCE AND A RARITY AND A TREASURE AND ALLOWING FOR A VARIANCE WITHOUT RESOLVING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, SETS OF PRECEDENTS FOR MORE TO COME, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ADVISED. >> YEAH. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW BUT WOULD ENCOURAGE THE HOMEOWNERS TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND SEE IF THERE IS SOME WAY TO MATCH IT TO THE OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT REQUIRING A VARIANCE HERE. AS IT'S YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, THERE'S NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE, IT'S PURELY AESTHETICS. HOPEFULLY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE OVERCOME, IN MY OPINION. BUT ANYWAY, WOULD SOMEBODY CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> SURE. MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LA 25-51480 BOHNS POINT ROAD, RESOLUTION 7568. [01:40:05] >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? >> I SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY, SAY AYE. >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? >> NO. [OVERLAPPING]. >> MOTION CARRIES THREE VOTES TO TWO. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 25. AND THIS IS LAURA. >> MAYOR, I BELIEVE WE ARE ON ITEM 24, [24. LA24-000066, 430 East Long Lake Road, Conditional Use Permit & Variances] WHICH IS 430 EAST ON LAKE ROAD. >> DID I SKIP ONE? >> YEAH. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S BACK TO MATT. YOU CAN'T GET RID OF ME. [LAUGHTER] >> BEAR WITH ME ON THE COMPUTER FOR ONE MOMENT, NOT TO ME. I PUT TOGETHER THIS INFOGRAPHIC HERE FOR THIS REQUEST AT 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AS WELL AS VARIANCES TO THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS FOR THIS PROPERTY. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE APPLICANTS CAME IN WITH A REQUEST ON THIS ROUGHLY THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE PROPERTY TO KEEP PIGEONS. THIS WOULD COME OFF AS A UNCOMMON REQUEST FOR THE CITY OF ORONO, AND IN OUR EARLY DISCUSSIONS, WE DECIDED THAT FARM ANIMALS WERE THE MOST LIKE PORTION OF OUR CITY CODE TO WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED, WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED BY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE LRA ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AND THOSE CONDITIONS BEING THAT THE PROPERTY IS AT LEAST ONE ACRE FOR THE DWELLING. ONE ACRE FOR EACH ANIMAL UNIT, THAT THERE'S SEPARATION OF AT LEAST 75 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANIMALS AND THE NEAREST LOT LINE, AND ADDITIONALLY, SEPARATION OF AT LEAST 150 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANIMALS AND ADJACENT RESIDENCES. WITH THIS PROPERTY BEING THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFLICT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS ON ITS FACE. THERE ARE VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOT SIZE PRIMARILY, AND ALSO THE COOP LOCATION AS WELL. THESE PIGEONS WOULD BE HELD OUTDOORS IN A COOP ON THE PROPERTY PROPOSED AS CLOSE AS 35 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS PROPERTY OVER HERE WOULD ALSO BE THE WOOD RILL SCIENTIFIC NATURAL AREA, WHICH IS UNDEVELOPED, AS WELL AS THIS PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND THE BURDEN THAT THE APPLICANT IS MEETING FOR THE DISTANCE TO THE WAT LINES. STAFF FEELS THAT THE COOP LOCATION THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING IS REASONABLE, GIVEN THE AREA THAT THEY ARE LOCATED IN, IF THEY WERE TO SIT IT ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PROPERTY, IT MAY BE MORE VISIBLE TO EAST LONG LAKE ROAD, OR POTENTIALLY HAVE IMPACTS WITH SOME OF THE RESIDENCES THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE NORTH. THAT WAS THE PORTION OF THE REQUEST THAT STAFF WAS AMENABLE TO. IN TERMS OF THE LOT SIZE, THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD DIFFICULTY WITH IS THAT WE'RE TALKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ULTIMATELY AN ACCESSORY USE, WHICH IS KEEPING FARM ANIMALS ON A LAKE SHORE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ULTIMATELY, THEY STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET BENEFICIAL USE OF THE RESIDENTS ON THE PROPERTY OR THE PRIMARY USE, AND STAFF FELT THAT THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE HARD AND FAST IN THIS SITUATION. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH BUFFER BEING PROVIDED BETWEEN ANY POTENTIAL FARM ANIMALS AND ANY OF THE PERHAPS ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR THE RESIDENCES THAT YOU HAVE TO THE WEST AND THE NORTH AS WELL. WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF DID NOT SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION, MAINLY BECAUSE THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT MET FOR THE VARIANCES, AND ULTIMATELY, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS RIDING ON THOSE SPECIFIC CRITERION TO BE MET, WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DID NOT. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS REQUEST, AND ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AND CAN SPEAK MORE TO THE PARTICULAR PIGEONS AND HOW THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD. I WILL PREFACE THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS ON BEHALF OF THEIR TENANTS, SO THEY HAVE SOME ACCOUNTS FROM THEM, AS WELL AS DETAILS ABOUT HOW EXACTLY THIS REQUEST WOULD WORK ON THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU. [01:45:07] >> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, OR SHOULD WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO STEP FORWARD? >> I JUST HAVE SOME COMMENTS, BUT I GUESS MY FIRST THING WAS, I HAD A REALLY HARD TIME CONSIDERING PIGEONS, ESPECIALLY KEPT LIKE THIS AS FARM ANIMALS. IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE WE LET PEOPLE BREED DOGS, AND THESE I DON'T THINK THIS IS LIKE THEY'RE NOT BREEDING THESE PIGEONS FOR THAT TYPE OF SALE OR SOMETHING THEY'RE ACTUALLY KEEPING THEM AS A HOBBIES FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE OTHER MEETINGS AND STUFF. I GUESS I'M JUST STARTING OUT THERE. I HAVE A HARD TIME. WHEN THE CITY CALLS THEM FARM ANIMALS, I KNOW YOU GUYS WENT UP AND DOWN TRYING TO CATEGORIZE THEM AND STUFF, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT'S WHERE I'M STARTING OUT. >> I WATCHED THE VIDEO OF THIS SECTION WITH KEEN INTEREST. IT'S AN UNUSUAL TOPIC. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS FARM ANIMALS OR OTHER ANIMALS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> OUR CITY CODE HAS FARM ANIMALS DEFINED, WHERE IT LISTS CHICKENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEN WE ALSO DEFINE ANIMALS, WHERE IT LISTS BIRDS WITH FEATHERS OR ANIMALS WITH FEATHERS. WE HAVE DESCRIPTIONS OF ANIMALS TO VARYING DEGREE. WHEN STAFF WAS LOOKING AT HOW THIS APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY WAS BEING PROPOSED AND HOW THEY WERE PROPOSING TO KEEP THE PIGEONS, WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE BEST ALIKE TO HOW PEOPLE KEEP CHICKENS IN AN ACCESSORY COOP. SO THAT ALONG WITH THE DEFINITIONS WE HAD TO WORK WITH DIRECTED US THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT IT WAS AN INTERPRETATION AS OUR CODE IS UNCLEAR. >> THAT'S REALLY WHERE I LANDED. IN MY THINKING, WAS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ASSESS HOW THIS FITS INTO OUR EXISTING CODE WITHOUT THE CODE ACCOMMODATING IT SPECIFICALLY. I FEEL LIKE THE PROCESS IS BACKWARDS THEN. DO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE GAP IN THE CODE FIRST, THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT? >> STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR YOU TO REVIEW THIS APPLICATION AS IT'S BEFORE YOU WITH THE CV AND THE VARIANCE, AND IF YOU FEEL THE CODE ISN'T ADDRESSING SOMETHING OR HAS A GAP IN THE CODE. YOU CAN DIRECT STAFF TO REVIEW A TEXT AMENDMENT OR DIRECT PLANNING COMMISSION AS A DISCUSSION POINT FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, AND WE CAN RESEARCH AND PROVIDE THAT EITHER INFORMALLY TO YOU OR IN A MORE FORMAL DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD ALL BE APPROPRIATE AVENUES TO TAKE FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS. BUT THE APPLICATION TONIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU SHOULD ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN ON IT. >> I DID NOTICE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS IN SUPPORT OF IS SEVEN TO ZERO OR SIX TO ONE. I SAW IT WRITTEN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES. >> PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE OPENNESS TO THE REAR AND THE OPEN SPACE THERE, THE CONTAINMENT OF THESE TYPES OF PIGEONS NOT BEING OPEN IN ROAMING AND THE SIZING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES ALL WITHIN REASONABLE, AND THEY DECIDED TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE IN THE CUP REQUEST WITH A SIX TO ONE VOTE. >> I SAW IT 701 PLACE, AND THEN 61 AND ANOTHER, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. EITHER WAY, THEY WERE IN OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THIS. THE COVER PAGE, LAURA, I THINK I NOTED, AND AGAIN, IT'S A MINOR POINT, BUT I THINK ON THE COVER PAGE UNDER NUMBER FOUR, PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE AND COMMENT, COMMISSIONERS VOTED 61 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AND THEN IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES, IT WAS 7/0. SO THAT SHOULD BE 78S AND ZERO AS. SO THOSE ARE AT ODDS. >> YEAH. MY APOLOGIES. NO. IT IS A SIX TO ONE. SIX IN FAVOR ONE WAS AGAINST. >> THE POINT OF ME SAYING THAT IS THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING TO HAVE US OR HAVE STAFF LOOK AT THE AT THE CODE FOR THIS. THE TEXT AMENDMENT. >> PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS A GAP WITH THIS AND SAID, IF THE COUNCIL FELT AMENABLE, THAT APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS WOULD BE TO EITHER DO A TEXT AMENDMENT WITH WITH SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU, AND THAT CAN EITHER BE DONE AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND BROUGHT THROUGH AS A FORMAL APPLICATION WITH IF YOU HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU WANT THAT TEXT AMENDMENT TO STAY, OR IF YOU WANT MORE OF A RESEARCH BASED DISCUSSION, YOU COULD THEN DIRECT PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD IT AS A RESEARCH DISCUSSION ITEM AND WORK IT THROUGH AS A PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. THAT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION. >> SO WOULD TABLEING THIS BE AN OPTION THEN FOR TONIGHT, OR YOU'D RATHER SEE WITH A CUP, [01:50:03] IS IT VOTING IT UP OR DOWN? IS AS WRITTEN? >> LET ME SEE THE TIMELINE ON THIS. >> IT'S GOOD TILL THE END OF APRIL, THE 22ND. >> SIXTY OR 120. >> 120. >> WITH THE TIMELINE ON THIS ONE, I PROBABLY WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU TAKE ACTION ON IT FOR WHAT YOU SEE IS REASONABLE FOR TONIGHT FOR THIS APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU. KNOWING IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON WHAT YOU WANT A TEXT AMENDMENT OR A DISCUSSION ITEM TO LOOK LIKE, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT MOVING FORWARD. WE WON'T HAVE ANOTHER APPLICATION IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. >> I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT OUR CODE SAYS ABOUT THINGS LIKE BREEDING DOGS OR, ANY OTHER TYPE OF ANIMAL BECAUSE I HAVE A HARD TIME VIEWING A PIGEON AS A FARM ANIMAL. IT'S DISTINGUISHABLE FROM A CHICKEN. CHICKEN LAYS EGGS, EGGS ARE PRODUCE. THERE'S NO PRODUCE HERE. THERE'S NO SELLING OF THE MEAT THAT A FARM WOULD DO. I THINK IT'S DISTINGUISHABLE FROM A FARM ANIMAL PRETTY EASILY, DICTINCTABLE. MAYBE THERE'S JUST WE NEED TO FIX THAT GAP IN OUR CODE. >> YEAH, SO OUR CODE TALKS ABOUT FARM ANIMALS SPECIFICALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO ZONING, AND THEN IT HAS SOME OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING CHAPTER, IT TALKS ABOUT THE KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, SPECIFICALLY REGULATES DOGS AND CATS, AND THE NUMBER OF DOGS AND CATS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CAN HAVE. I BELIEVE IT'S THREE TO SOME DEGREE, IS THE MAGIC NUMBER IN SOME MIX, AND THEN BEYOND THAT IS, LIKE, COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSES, AND IT GOES IS MANAGED THROUGH A YEARLY OR BY A TWO YEAR LICENSE THAT THE PD ACTUALLY MANAGES AND OPERATES. IN OUR ZONING, WE REGULATE FARM ANIMALS AND TALK ABOUT THE KEEPING OF FARM ANIMALS, BUT THE KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS REALLY IS FOCUSED ON CATS AND DOGS AND IN RESIDENTIAL HOMES. >> THAT PART, TO ME, IS WHAT, I THINK, MAKES THE MOST SENSE, IS THAT THIS IS REALLY MORE OF A COMMERCIAL VENTURE TO THERE'S BREEDING AND BARTERING AND TRADING AND SHOWING OFF, AND THERE'S IT'S MORE OF A PASTE, MAYBE, RATHER THAN BREEDING ANIMALS FOR SALE. IT FELT MORE COMMERCIAL TO ME THAN FARM BASED. BUT I STILL THINK THAT THE CODE IS MISSING SOMETHING TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS IT, AND I HAVE A HARD TIME APPROVING OR DENYING SOMETHING WITH THAT BIG GAP. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO FOR US TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE A PROPER ORDINANCE THAT WOULD RESOLVE THIS GAP AND THEN APPROVE OR DENY BASED ON THAT ORDINANCE, AND I WOULD BE IN FAVOR. BEING UPFRONT, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE KEEPING OF COOP OF PIGEONS AS LONG AS THE ORDINANCE SUPPORTED IT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. >> NO, SO WHAT WOULD THE TIMELINE BE LIKE FOR PLANNING TO LOOK INTO THIS OR WHATEVER ELSE> >> SO IF YOU WANTED A TEXT AMENDMENT, THE TYPICAL PROCESS WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN TO COME IN FRONT OF YOU FOR ADOPTION. WE ARE OUTSIDE THE WINDOW TO PUBLISH FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MARCH PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE APRIL IF WE DEVELOPED LANGUAGE IN TIME, IT WOULD NEED TO IT COULD POSSIBLY GO TO THE APRIL PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN IT WOULD BE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL, FIRST MEETING IN MAY COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE YOU'D EVEN SEE A DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT WITHOUT ANY IF YOU COULD ADOPT IT ON THE FIRST TIME, YOU'D SEE IT. THAT'S THE TYPICAL PROCESS. WE DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE DRAFTED OR NOT QUITE SURE THE RANGE OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING TO AMEND, BUT WE COULD POTENTIALLY TALK ABOUT SPEEDING THAT UP WITH DIRECTING THE PUBLIC HEARING HERE AT CITY COUNCIL. THAT WOULD TAKE DIRECT ACTION, AND I THINK A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE TO MOVE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING UP TO YOU. A SUPER MAJORITY OF YOU GUYS TO MOVE THE PUBLIC HEARING UP TO YOU, THE SOON AS THAT COULD BE DONE. I'D HAVE TO COUNT THE DAYS BACK. I'M NOT CONCERNED. I'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING IT TO THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL. >> WELL, AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY. EVEN IF FOR TONIGHT, WHAT'S BEFORE US ISN'T QUITE RIGHT. IT GIVES US A CHANCE IN THE NEAR TERM TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENTLY AND TO BE ABLE TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION. IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM WHAT I READ IN HERE THAT THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT COMES UP AGAIN IF IT'S A POPULAR TYPE OF THING, [01:55:03] OR IT'S, I GUESS, MAYBE POPULAR SOME PLACES. BUT THIS COULD COME UP AGAIN, SO IT SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE A GOOD CLEAR PROCESS HERE RATHER THAN VOTING TO APPROVE THIS AS A ONE OFF WHEN IT'S NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS AND TO GO THROUGH THE HEARING AND SET THE RIGHT TONE FOR THIS GOING FORWARD. >> I KNOW MATT DID A HANDFUL OF RESEARCH ON HOW OTHER CITIES MANAGE IF CITIES MANAGE PIGEONS, I'M SURE HE CAN SPEAK TO THAT. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN UNCOMMON PRACTICE THAT IF YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING TO A TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CODE, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT WITH THE DIRECTION THEN TO AMEND THE CODE TO BE REFLECTIVE. SO THEN EVEN IF THIS APPLICATION OBTAINED THE CP OR VARIANCES NECESSARY WHEN WE MADE A TEXT AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD ALL FALL IN LINE AND BE CONFORMING THEN, ESSENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE, IN THE RECENT FUTURE, IF YOU DID A TEXT AMENDMENT. THAT BEING SAID, THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ACT TONIGHT TO GIVE US DIRECTION TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT, AND WE'D WORK THROUGH THAT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. >> BUT WE STILL COULD APPROVE IT TONIGHT AND JUST AMEND IT LATER. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> YOU CAN DO THAT. YOU ANSWERED IT. >> TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, THOUGH. IF YOU APPROVE IT TONIGHT, YOU ARE APPROVING A VARIANCE AND THEN A CUP, AND SO THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT. IF IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR, HEY, THE SYSTEM SEEMS OFF A LITTLE BIT. WHAT THERE'S NOT A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO DO IS RECONVERT THIS APPLICATION INTO SOMETHING ELSE. BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN NOTICED, AND WE'VE HAD HEARINGS ON. SO THIS DOES END UP BEING SOMEWHAT OF A ONE OFF THAT MAY ULTIMATELY BE CODIFIED LATER ON, DEPENDING WHETHER YOU ALLOW PIGEONS TO BE A PERMITTED USE OR WHETHER YOU WANT THEM TO BE A CUP. BUT THEY WOULD ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF THE APPROVAL NOW, BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT YOU FROM LOOKING AT PROSPECTIVELY HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT GOING FORWARD. >> OKAY. >> JUST TO PUT THAT IN DIFFERENT TERMS, IT DOESN'T AFFECT IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS TONIGHT, WE COULD HAVE ALL OF THE HEARINGS AND WHATNOT, AND IT WOULD THIS THEN BE CONDITIONAL ON THAT OUTCOME? >> NO. IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, THEN IT IS APPROVED. >> YEAH. >> BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A NEW ORDINANCE THAT HAT THIS APPLICATION? >> IS THERE SOME SENSE OF URGENCY HERE WITH THIS APPLICATION FOR SOME COMMERCIAL OR SOME PURPOSE THAT? >> JUST THAT THEY SUBMITTED THE FORMAL LAND USE APPLICATION. WE ARE REQUIRED TO ACT WITHIN A TIMELY MANNER, AND WE ARE COMING UP TO THAT DEADLINE. >> IF THE LANDERS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, THE APPLICANT, PLEASE ADDRESS US. >> HI, I'M DEAN THOMPSON. I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE. SUSAN THOMPSON, WE LIVE AT 685 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, AND WE PURCHASED A SMALL HOUSE ABOUT A HALF A MILE AWAY FROM US ON 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD, AND WE'RE RENTING IT AND SUPPORTING A UKRAINIAN WAR REFUGEE FAMILY, AND THE REASON WE APPLIED FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THAT WHEN ANATOLY, THE PARENT OF THE FAMILY WAS IN UKRAINE, FOR 50 YEARS, HE RAISED PIGEONS AS A HOBBY, AND IN EUROPE, THERE IS A COMMUNITY OF PIGEON ASSOCIATIONS. IT'S QUITE A VIBRANT HOBBY, AND I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHAT ANATOLY INTENDS TO DO IS RAISE THEM AS PETS AND ENGAGE IN THERE IS A MINNESOTA PIGEON SOCIETY AS WELL, AND HE TRADES THEM. HE DOESN'T SELL THEM. HE BARTERS THEM, AND IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL USE. HE DOESN'T GET MONEY FOR THIS. THEY JUST TRY TO RAISE MORE BEAUTIFUL PIGEONS, WHICH TO EACH THEIR OWN. EVERYBODY HAS A HOBBY, AND THAT IS HIS, AND BECAUSE HE'S A WAR REFUGEE, HE DOESN'T SPEAK THE LANGUAGE. HE'S RELIEVED TO BE HERE, BUT BEING IN A STRANGE LAND, NOT SPEAKING THE LANGUAGE, HAVING THIS HOBBY AND COMMUNICATING WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIMILAR INTERESTS WOULD BE VERY MEANINGFUL FOR HIM, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE APPLIED FOR THIS PERMIT. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T QUITE SEEM TO ADDRESS THIS. AS AN ATTORNEY, I LOOK AT THIS, AND I READ THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IT APPLIES TO FARM ANIMALS. IT'S A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMALS. YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T EXPAND IT TO THE OTHER DEFINITION USED OF ANIMALS. THAT'S NOT HOW YOU READ A STATUTE. YOU READ IT AS A FARM ANIMAL. THIS ISN'T A FARM ANIMAL. THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO APPLY FOR ANYTHING. I JUST HAVE MY PIGEONS IN THE SIX BY NINE FOOT COUP, AND I'M NOT VIOLATING THE LAW AT ALL. BUT IN GOOD CITIZENS, WE CAME AND TALKED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY SAID, WELL, WE THINK IT'S A FARM ANIMAL. I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT I PAID THE $500 TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU TO GIVE ME A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT A FARM ANIMAL, THERE IS, IN A SENSE, [02:00:02] SOME URGENCY BECAUSE HE'D REALLY LIKE TO START HIS HOBBY, AND WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR MANY MONTHS NOW, AND EVEN IF YOU DO CONSIDER IT TO BE A FARM ANIMAL, THIS IS SUCH A UNIQUE FARM ANIMAL BECAUSE IT'S NOT STUTING AROUND IN THE LAWN. IT'S GOING TO BE IN A 54 FOOT SHED. THAT COULD BE A TOOL SHED, EXCEPT IT'S GOT PIGEONS INSIDE. THEY DON'T FLY. THEY'RE NOT COMBING PIGEONS. THEY STAY IN THAT COOP. THEY'RE VERY DOMESTICATED AND QUIET ANIMALS. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT TO BE A FARM ANIMAL, PLEASE GIVE US A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND WE'LL PUT ANY CONDITIONS ON IT THAT YOU WANT. IF I WE SELL THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN GET RID OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WE DON'T WANT IT TO RUN WITH THE LAND FOREVER. WE REALLY DON'T CARE THAT THIS IS A PERMANENT PIGEON COOP ON OUR PROPERTY. WE JUST WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THESE PEOPLE ON THEIR HOBBY. I HOPE YOU FIND A WAY TO APPROVE IT TODAY, AND IF YOU WISH TO AMEND THE STATUTE, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IT NEEDS SOME CLARIFICATION, BUT I HOPE THAT DOESN'T STOP YOU FROM APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO THEY CAN ENJOY THEIR HOBBY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE OTHER THING THAT STRUCK ME AND MY REFERENCE TO COMMERCIAL AND WAS REALLY RELATED TO THE BARTERING, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. NO MONEY'S CHANGING HANDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFIED IT TO ALLOW FOR 25 INSTEAD OF 30 PIGEONS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY, AND IF WE'RE SAYING IT'S NOT A FARM ANIMAL, AND THE 25 LIMIT APPLIES TO FOWL CHICKENS, IT DOESN'T APPLY HERE. I WOULD IF WE DO APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DON'T PUT THE 25 LIMIT ON IT. THAT MUDDIES THE WATERS FURTHER. >> IF YOU DO PROCESS AS A CUP, YOU HAVE A CEILING ON THERE, SO YOU WOULD UNLESS THERE WAS A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THAT, THAT'S ONE OF THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. >> I FIND MYSELF BEING VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE NOTION OF DOING THIS. I WANT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, THOUGH, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CODE THAT SPEAKS TO IT, AND I THINK WE CAN MOVE THAT ALONG PRETTY QUICKLY. BUT THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT I WOULD PREFER TO TAKE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT PROBABLY MEANS WE NEED TO DENY THE APPLICATION TONIGHT, OR DOES IT NOT? >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, I US EITHER APPROVING OR DENYING TONIGHT AND THEN GIVING DIRECTION TO STAFF TO GET SOMETHING WITH PLANNING GOING IN THE NEAR TERM TO BE ABLE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK OR HAVE A HEARING AND BEFORE COUNCIL IN NEAR TERM. >> YOU CAN APPROVE OR DENY TONIGHT, STAFF OUTLINED OUR RATIONALE, BUT PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO OUTLINED THEIR RATIONALE FOR APPROVAL. SO IF YOU AGREE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION'S RATIONALE AND DISCUSSION FOR APPROVING THE REQUEST TONIGHT, YOU HAVE EVERY THAT'S WITHIN YOUR WHEELHOUSE AND WITHIN YOUR POWER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. IF IT WILL BE GOOD TO HAVE ACTION TONIGHT ON THIS APPLICATION, AND THEN DIRECT STAFF, IF YOU FAIL TO ADDRESS THIS GAP OR EITHER ADDRESS THE DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMALS OR CLARIFY OUR DOMESTICATED ANIMAL LANGUAGE, THEN YOU CAN GIVE US DIRECTION AND WE CAN MOVE THROUGH WITH A TEXT AMENDMENT. I WILL NOTE THAT I BELIEVE THE ZONING CODE REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARINGS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT QUITE REQUIRES THE SAME PROCESS IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE ZONING CODE. SORRY, RIGHT? DOES IF WE AMEND THE CODE OUTSIDE LIKE THE ANIMALS CHAPTER TO ADDRESS THIS, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS. >> NO, IT DOESN'T. THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE OUTSIDE YOUR ZONING. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING LAURA'S JUST SAID IN TERMS OF PROCESS. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS. THE I GUESS, AN ADDITIONAL ONE OPTION IS THE TIMING FOR THE CITY TO ACT ON THIS, OR OTHERWISE, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED IS IN APRIL AT SOME POINT. THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT TO US AN EXTENSION. WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT, AND SO WHAT WE COULD DO IS IF THE APPLICANT GRANTS US AN EXTENSION, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO PUSH THROUGH AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. WE COULD EXTEND IF THEY AGREE THE APPLICATION TO SOMETIME IN MAY, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE CODE HAS REWRITTEN, THEIR APPLICATION STANDS, AND IT'S BACK BEFORE YOU, AND THAT WAY, IT'S JUST TABLED UNTIL THEY SEE THE NEW. IT MAY BE ADVANTAGEOUS. THIS MAY COME BACK BECAUSE A PERMITTED USE. I DON'T KNOW. [02:05:02] BUT IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING, WE CAN GET THAT EXTENSION. OTHERWISE, I AGREE WITH LAURA, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS UP OR DOWN AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINES. >> ANY THE APPETITE TO EXTEND? >> I'D LIKE TO BE PATIENT AND COOPERATIVE, BUT I REALLY THINK IT IS WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND I'D ASK YOU TO DO THAT OR DENY IT, AND WE'LL JUST LIVE WITH YOUR DECISION, AND YOU CAN FIX OR AMEND THE STATUTE AT YOUR LEISURE. I DON'T THINK THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE IS UNCLEAR MEANS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED. UNDER THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, IT'S A FARM ANIMAL, AND UNDER THAT INTERPRETATION, I THINK WE DESERVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WAITING FOR OVER A YEAR NOW JUST TO HAVE PIGEONS IN A COOP STRIKES ME AS UNREASONABLE, AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE THE COUNCIL TO TAKE AN ACTION TONIGHT, AND WE'LL LIVE WITH IT. THANK YOU. >> THANKS. IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. >> YEAH. >> WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING. >> I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE LA 204-00-0066 AT 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UP TO 25 PIGEONS. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> SECOND. >> FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> I'LL JUST CLARIFY. AS PART OF THAT MOTION, IT IS TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION. THERE IS NOT A RESOLUTION INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT. WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION. WHATEVER YOU DIRECT US WE'LL COME TO THE NEXT COUNCIL AS A CONSENT IT. >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE VARIANCE ON THE CUP. >> I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THE CODE ISSUE ALONG WITH THAT. AS LAURA WAS RECOMMENDING. >> THAT IS A ACTION, PERHAPS. >> THAT WOULD BE I DON'T THINK I >> OKAY. >> YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR US TO PASS IT THE NEXT. >> YEAH. SO THE TYPICAL PROCESS WHEN A RESOLUTION IS NOT INCLUDED IS WE'RE ASKING FOR DIRECTION ON HOW YOU'D LIKE THAT RESOLUTION TO BE DRAFTED. THAT'S PRETTY COMMON I KNOW WE HAVE A NEW COUNCIL DEALING WITH LANDY'S APPLICATIONS. WHEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF HAVE A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION, DIFFERING DIRECTIONS, WE OFTEN WILL THEN COME TO YOU WITHOUT A RESOLUTION ASKING FOR DIRECTION. YOUR MOTION TONIGHT IDEALLY WOULD BE REFLECTIVE OF DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION WITH THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S FAIRLY UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR ENCOURAGING WHAT WE SAY WE TRY TO DO? YES, WE DO IS TO WORK WITH OUR RESIDENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN A WAY THAT IS NOT OVER BURDENSOME AND ALLOWS FOR ENJOYMENT. I THINK THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING. I FEEL THE SAME WAY. I THINK WE JUST ARE BEING MINDFUL OF DOING THINGS IN A WAY THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO COME BEFORE US AGAIN, AND THAT WE GET GOOD CLARITY ABOUT THIS. APPROVING THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEN DIRECTING STAFF TO COME FORWARD WITH A RESOLUTION ABOUT THE TEXT AMENDMENT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD SOLUTION. IS THAT FAVOR? >> WE'VE GOT A MOTION BEFORE US TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I DON'T I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE MOTION. UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE DISAGREES. ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU? I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO, ALLOW THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE KEEPING OF UP TO 25 PIGEONS IN A STRUCTURE OF THE SIZE OF THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION. LEAVE IS THE WAY TO PUT THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. [APPLAUSE] NOW I BELIEVE I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO WELL, [Additional item] TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT TO OUR CODES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE GOING FORWARD. [02:10:03] >> MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS, COUNSEL, IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT REAL QUICK, IN THAT MOTION OR AT LEAST IN THE INTENT OF THE MOTION, IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT FAIRLY BROAD, I'D HATE FOR US TO GO DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF STAFF EFFORT JUST FOR CHICKENS OR PIGEONS. IF THERE MIGHT BE OTHER ABSOLUTELY OUTSIDE OF DOGS AND CATS THAT SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. THERE'S A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY GONE DOWN SOME OF THESE ROADS, AND IT MIGHT BE WORTH US DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH TO SEE. HOW OTHER PEOPLE ARE DEFINING DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, SO WE'RE NOT JUST SOLVING A VERY NICHE PROBLEM, BUT RATHER LOOKING AT IT? >> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT. I WOULD DEFINITELY DISCOURAGE ITEMIZING A TYPE OF ANIMAL. >> DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? >> I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT. [LAUGHTER] I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE RETURNING TO COUNCIL, EXPLORING THE. >> WOULDN'T BE DRAFTING AN ORDER? >> DONE ORDINANCE, DIRECTING STAFF TO CREATE A TEXT AMENDMENT, ADDRESSING NON FARM ANIMALS BEING KEPT. >> IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? >> IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. >> SURE. WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU WANT TO EXPLORE OR LEARN ABOUT ANIMALS THAT COULD BE KEPT ON POTENTIALLY SMALLER LOTS OR IN MORE SMALLER LAND AREAS SIMILAR TO HOW THIS APPLICATION WITH PIGEONS IS BEING PROPOSED. WE SEE OTHER COMMUNITIES KEEPING THINGS LIKE BEES AND CHICKENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY AS FARM, HOBBY, FARM RELATED, BUT LESS INTENSIVE TYPE OF ANIMALS THAT ARE KEPT ACCESSORY TO THE PRINCIPAL. THROUGH YOUR DISCUSSION IS WHAT I'VE GATHERED. JUST BEFORE ANY MOTIONS ARE FORMALIZED, THE PROCESS OF THIS WOULD BE, WE STAFF WOULD DO RESEARCH. WE WOULD THEN BRING IT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO VET OUT AND HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS TO SCOPE OUT EXACTLY ANY CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS BEFORE IT WOULD COME TO YOU. >> GREAT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I DO. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> I SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH A YEAR OF WORKING WITH US ON THAT. >> WE LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY FOR 25 YEARS AND WE LOVE THE COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. THANK YOU. >> NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM 25, IS THAT RIGHT? [25. LA24-000063, City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Resolution 7560] YES. ITEM 25. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND I BELIEVE THAT FALLS IN [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. IF MATT OR ADAM COULD BRING UP THE PROPOSED MAP, I THINK I COULD START WITH THAT IMAGE. I THINK IT'S BIT. >> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, THE CITY'S PROPOSING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESTABLISHES LAND USE CLASSES FOR EACH AREA IN THE CITY. WITH EACH RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CLASS, THE PLAN APPLIES A DENSITY RANGE TO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DENSITY BASED ON A MULTIPLE OF FACTORS. THERE IS A PROJECT BEING PROPOSED TO EXTEND SEWER IN THE CLOUDED AREA ON FOX. YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MAP FOX STREET RIGHT THERE ABOVE MAXWELL BAY. I HAVE CLOUDED OVER. THAT AREA CURRENTLY IS IN OUR MUSA, ANTICIPATED TO BE SERVED BY UTILITIES, BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS SERVED BY SEPTIC. THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE IN THAT AREA. THERE IS A PLAN PROPOSED RIGHT NOW THAT WAS REVIEWED IN OCTOBER BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL TO EXTEND SEWER INTO THAT AREA. THAT PROJECT. I'M SORRY, I LOST MY SPACE, AS I WAS DISCUSSING IT WITH YOU GUYS HERE. THESE SPECIFIC LOTS ARE LARGE LOTS ON LAKE MINNETONKA, ON THE WEST END OF FOX STREET AND WITHIN THE MUSA, AND HAS SEWER LOCATED IN NEARBY RIGHT OF WAY AND ABUTTING DEVELOPMENTS, BUT NOT DIRECTLY AVAILABLE TO THESE PROPERTIES. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDES THE AREA FOR RECOMMENDED DENSITY OF TWO ACRE LOTS. [02:15:06] TODAY, THE LOTS IN THIS LOCATION RANGE FROM 2-8 ACRES. FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES FROM MET COUNCIL, IN ORDER TO EXTEND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE INTO THIS AREA, THE LOTS MUST MEET THE GUIDANCE OF THE LAND USE PLAN. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AN EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY TO MATCH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY. THE CITY AND THE MET COUNCIL CANNOT PERMIT THE SEWER EXTENSION UNTIL THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IS REFLECTIVE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE AREA. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TONIGHT WOULD CREATE A NEW LAND USE CLASSIFICATION WITH A DENSITY RANGE OF 0.125-0.05 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS 2-8 ACRE LOTS IN THIS AREA. THIS WOULD REFLECT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTIES CLOUDED RIGHT THERE ON FOX STREET. THIS WOULD DECREASE THE DENSITY THAT'S GUIDED FOR THIS AREA. TO BALANCE THAT DECREASED DENSITY OF THE NEW LAND USE CLASS CATEGORY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL RATIO. IT'S IDENTIFIED AS DEVELOPMENT AREA E IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT WE HAVE A MIXED USE OF URBAN MEDIUM A DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CLASSIFICATION THAT RUNS ALONG SHORELINE DRIVE. I HAVE IT CLOUDED IN THE CALL OUT BOX TO THE RIGHT THERE. RIGHT NOW, THAT RATIO IS A 70% RESIDENTIAL, 30% COMMERCIAL MIX. I AM PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL RATIO TO INCREASE TO 85% RESIDENTIAL, 15% COMMERCIAL WITHIN THAT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. THIS AREA, AGAIN, IS PRIMARILY LOCATED ON SHORELINE DRIVE AND IS IDENTIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENT AREA AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL PROTECT THE EXISTING CHARACTER WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON FOX STREET AND SURROUNDING AND ENSURE SEWER CAN BE PROVIDED IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA AROUND LAKE MINNETONKA, AND MAINTAIN THE DENSITY STANDARD OF THREE UNITS PER ACRE THROUGHOUT THE SEAWARD AREAS OF THE CITY. THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT RESULTS IN OUR OVERALL DENSITY BEING AT 3.1. THIS DOES HAVE US MAINTAIN AND KEEP ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. OVERALL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION AND DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THE LAKE SHORE BY ALLOWING SEWER TO BE SERVED ON LAKE SHORE PROPERTIES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT. THEY DID VOTE 6-1 IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT BY THE MET COUNCIL. IT DID NOT REQUIRE THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESSES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR LARGER CHANGES. THIS WOULD BE DONE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY THE MET COUNCIL, BUT WE DID GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. I SPECIFICALLY NOTIFIED THE PROPERTIES AFFECTED ON FOX STREET. I ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE CITY OF SPRING PARK NEXT DOOR SINCE THE PROPERTIES ON SHORELINE DRIVE WOULD BE ALTERED, AND SPRING PARK HAD NO COMMENTS, AND I RECEIVED NO COMMENTS FROM FOX STREET NEIGHBORS AS WELL. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE 24 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFLECTIVE IN RESOLUTION 7560. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OH, THAT'S NOT ALL I HAVE. I HAVE SOME TABLES OR SOME TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES, AS WELL, I COULD SHOW YOU, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO DISCUSS THIS, SO NOW THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION OF CHANGING THE DENSITY IN THAT INSET TO IN NAVARRE? >> THERE'S MINIMAL IMPACTS TO CHANGING THAT RATIO. WHEN I WAS TALKING TO MY COUNSEL ABOUT THESE CHANGES, THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION. CURRENTLY, THIS AREA IS GUIDED FOR MIXED USE. WE HAVE SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, AND SOME OF THESE PARTIALS ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL. THIS IS NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE ANY OF THE ZONING. IT'S STILL REFLECTIVE OF THE CURRENT ZONING IN THE AREA. IT JUST IDENTIFIED THAT THESE AREAS CAN BE MANAGED BY A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IF ONE WERE TO COME. MEANING THAT THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES THAT IF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WANTED TO COME IN THAT CATEGORY ON SHORELINE DRIVE, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO IT WITH MAINTAINING THOSE RATIOS. OUR COMMERCIAL RATIO DOES HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON POTENTIAL LIKE OUR FORECASTED EMPLOYMENT. BUT NUMBERS AND REQUIREMENTS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, [02:20:02] BUT BECAUSE THIS CHANGE IS SO MINIMAL, AND A LOT OF OUR EMPLOYMENT IS HOUSED ALSO UP IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, THERE REALLY IS MINIMAL IMPACT OR ALTERATIONS. WE ARE STILL MEETING ALL OF THE FORECASTED EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS REQUIRED. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE RESIDENTS IN THAT FOX STREET AREA HAVE REQUESTED TO PUT IN SEWER. WE'D LIKE THEM TO PUT IN SEWER, THEIR LAKE SHORE LOTS. THEY WILL PAY FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE SEWER LINE. THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. SEVERAL HOMES ARE BEING BUILT. AT LEAST ONE HOME IS BEING BUILT ON THAT PLOT, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO DO SEPTIC SYSTEMS IF WE DENY THIS AT THIS TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> IT AMOUNTS TO AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WANTS ON FOR 30-50 YEARS, IN ESSENCE. THE OTHER THING, I KNOW THAT LAURA GETS ON ME ABOUT, BUT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES HAVING SEWER FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS TO MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HAS AND TO PROVIDE THOSE UTILITIES IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVE A DENSITY TO NEED THEM. THE OTHER THING THAT OUR LAST SEVERAL COMP PLANS HAVE TALKED ABOUT, IF YOU LOOK AT THEM IN THE PAST, IS PROVIDING SEWER TO OUR LAKE SHORE PROPERTIES. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR SEWER MAP, WE SERVICE MOST OF THE LAKE SHORE PARCELS THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND THERE ARE A FEW GAPS. THIS IS ONE OF THE SMALL GAPS. IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY OUR PREDECESSORS BY THE FACT THAT THEY PUT IT IN THE MUSA MAYBE 20 YEARS AGO WITH THE IDEA THAT WHEN IT WAS FEASIBLE THAT WE WOULD ADD SEWER TO THIS AREA. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE MUSA. THIS IS A REQUEST TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO 20 YEARS AGO IF THE OPPORTUNITY AROSE, AND THE OPPORTUNITY HAS NOW ARISEN WITH SOME RESIDENTS DOWN THERE WHO ARE LOOKING TO REDEVELOP THE LAND AND HAVE THAT SEWER BROUGHT IN. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER CLUSTERS THAT WOULD MEET THAT 2-8 ACRE CATEGORY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SEWER YET? >> THERE IS ANOTHER AREA, IT'S MUCH LARGER THAN EIGHT ACRES. IT WOULD STILL BE LARGER THAN THE PROPOSED CATEGORY BEING USED. IT'S CURRENTLY, I THINK I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GUESS HOW MANY ACRES. 20, 30, 40 ACRES, SOMEWHERE IN THERE, ALL OWNED BY A SINGLE ENTITY. THAT POTENTIALLY IS AN AREA THAT HAS ANOTHER GAP IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, A SEWER SYSTEM THAT IS WITHIN OUR MUSA AREA. THAT HAS ALSO BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. THAT AREA IS GUIDED TWO ACRES AND SIMILAR TO OUR ZONING DISTRICT FOR THIS IDENTIFIED AREA ON FOX STREET IS STILL A TWO ACRE ZONING DISTRICT, MEANING IF THEY WERE TO SUBDIVIDE, SELL OR ANYTHING, THEY'D HAVE TO MEET THOSE TWO ACRE MINIMUM STANDARDS. BUT BEING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXTEND SEWER NOW, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO PUT A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY IN THERE TO REFLECT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TO ALLOW THAT INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE EXTENDED. >> TO YOUR POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER BARRETT, ONE THING IS AFTER HAVING ESTABLISHED THIS CATEGORY, AS WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FULL UPDATE, HAVING THAT CATEGORY AND THEN BEING ABLE TO LOOK PARTICULARLY MORE COMPREHENSIVELY AT THOSE OTHER AREAS WOULD SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. BUT THOSE OTHER AREAS ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR ASKING US TO BRING SEWER IN YET. BUT MIGHT BE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, SO SOMETHING TO PUT IN THE NEW COMP PLAN WHEN WE DO IT. >> I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SQUEEZE THAT. >> I THINK WE'VE MENTIONED THIS INFORMALLY, BUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE IS COMING IN ABOUT TWO YEARS HERE. WE'LL PROBABLY START NEXT YEAR, AND THERE'LL BE NEW STANDARDS. THERE'S NEW FORECASTS, THERE'S NEW EMPLOYMENT MINIMUMS, HOUSING MINIMUMS, DENSITY MINIMUMS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO INCORPORATE AND ADDRESS. WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THE CITY HOLISTICALLY AND RE EVALUATING OUR CATEGORIES, OUR RANGES, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. IN THE RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE AS IT PERTAINS TO THE LIFE OF A COMP PLAN. >> THERE WAS ONE PLANNING COMMISSIONER WHO SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR, THAT WHY ARE WE NOT DISCUSSING THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? WASN'T SUPPORTED FOR THAT REASON? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> I BELIEVE HIS COMMENTS WERE THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE CHALLENGING TO SUPPORT, AND ESPECIALLY WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMING IN THE RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE. [02:25:05] THAT BEING SAID, IT BALANCES AGAINST AN ASK WHERE WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED IN EXTENDING SEWER NOW, THAT IS TIME SENSITIVE. IT'S A BALANCING GAME, BUT KNOWING THAT YOU'LL BE LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE NEAR FUTURE WILL ALLOW US TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS HOLISTICALLY AND RECLASSIFY THINGS IF THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE FUTURE. >> FROM A MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH DR. CARTER FROM METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, SOUNDS LIKE THEIR DENSITY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN INCREASED TO 3.5 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS GOING TO POSE CHALLENGES FOR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS. ANYWAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OTHERWISE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> I'M HERE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7560 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 7. >> A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. IT WAS A WELL DONE SOLUTION TO AN ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE RESOLVED. THANK YOU. WE ARE DOWN TO, I BELIEVE, [26. LA25-000001, 485 Orono Orchard Road South, Preliminary Plat: "Sky Blue Waters" & Termination of Covenant - Resolution 7564] OUR LAST ITEM ON LAND USE, AND THAT IS 485 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLATE AND TERMINATION OF COVENANT. ON THIS ONE, WE GO BACK TO MELANIE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLOT APPROVAL TO CREATE ONE NEW TWO PLUS ACRE BUILDABLE LOT FROM THE 21 ACRE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON ORONO ORCHARD ROAD AND FOX STREET. THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF FOX STREET IS UNDEVELOPED OTHER THAN A HISTORIC DRIVE AND ENTRANCE MONUMENTS, AND IT IS PROPOSED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE LARGER NORTHERN PORTION. THERE IS NO CURRENT PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP THE NORTHERN LOT AT THIS TIME. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING THAT THE CITY TERMINATE AN EXISTING 1999 COVENANT RELATING TO SEWER CONNECTIONS, PREFERRING TO HAVE THE CITY RELY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING REGULATIONS, AND SEWER REGULATIONS TO GOVERN DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AT THEIR FEBRUARY MEETING. COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED AT THE HEARING, SENATOR ON THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESSES TO THE PROPOSED LOT SOUTH OF FOX STREET, AS IT IS ON THE FAR SOUTH END NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO THE DAKOTA TRAIL AND SHORELINE DRIVE. AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMMISSION VOTED 6-1 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE TERMINATION OF THE COVENANT. THE DISSENTING COMMISSIONER FELT THE COVENANT SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. STACK RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLOT AS APPLIED, INCLUDING TERMINATION OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THE COUNCIL SHOULD MOVE TO ADOPT THE DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLOT, AND THEN AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT TERMINATING THE COVENANT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, BUT I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES HERE. >> CAN I ASK, AND I THINK YOU TOLD ME THIS BEFORE, LAURA, WHEN THIS COVENANT WAS MADE, THEY WERE NOT COVERED BY MUSA, BUT NOW THEY ARE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN THE MUSA AT THAT TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THE TERMINATION OF THE COVENANT NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION, OR IS THAT A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION HERE? >> CURRENTLY, THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY THAT ARE SERVED BY SEPTIC, AS WAS THE CASE IN 1999. ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS WOULD NEED TO BE DISCONNECTED OR THE COVENANT WOULD NEED TO BE TERMINATED FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE SERVED BY A SEWER. >> WE COULDN'T SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND KEEP THE COVENANT IN PLACE WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE LAND. >> CORRECT. IT'S QUITE UNUSUAL THIS COVENANT HISTORICALLY. >> BUT THE REASONS FOR THE COVENANT HAVE GONE AWAY WITH THE IT BEING PART OF [INAUDIBLE]. [02:30:03] >> EXACTLY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? LOOKS LIKE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF GAS HERE. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE. DO YOU CARE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AT ALL? >> UNLESS, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, ONE FINAL CLARIFICATION. THE DRIVE AT THE SOUTH END IS NOT ENTIRELY ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY LINE GOES DOWN THE CENTER OF THAT PRIVATE ROAD THAT SNAKES UP THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. OUR CLIENT ISN'T IN A POSITION TO TERMINATE THAT DRIVEWAY. THEY ONLY CONTROL HALF OF IT AND IT'S SUBJECT TO A RECALL. >> GOT IT. >> IT'S NOT REALLY A PRIVATE DRIVE. IT SERVES A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OTHERWISE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE ONE? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE LA25-1 AT 485 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, SORRY, CAN'T EVEN READ ANYMORE, PRELIMINARY PLAT: SKY BLUE WATERS AND TERMINATION OF THE COVENANT FOR RESOLUTION 7564. >> I'VE GOT A MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 27, WHICH IS AN AGREEMENT FOR STANDBY PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES TO MINNETONKA BEACH. FOR THIS, WE GO BACK TO MR. EDWARDS. >> DO WE HAVE A ATTORNEY REPORT? [Attorney Report] >> WHAT'S THAT? >> ATTORNEY REPORT. >> I GUESS I PROBABLY NEED TO GO BACK TO THE AGENDA, AND THAT IS NEXT, SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS, MATTICK. >> I DO HAVE A BRIEF UPDATE. AS YOU'LL RECALL AT YOUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING, YOU WERE INFORMED AND YOU APPROVED A LEGAL SERVICE AGREEMENT. THE ORDINANCE AND PROCESS YOU HAD IMPLEMENTED REGARDING THE SPECIAL ELECTION HAD BEEN CHALLENGED IN WHAT IS, QUITE EASILY, THE FASTEST PROCESS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH YET. THAT PETITION WAS FILED. THERE HAS BEEN BRIEFING, THERE HAS BEEN ARGUMENTS, AND THERE HAS BEEN A DECISION. THE CITY OF ORONO PREVAILED IN FRONT OF JUDGE SUSAN BURKE. SHE DID RULE THAT THE PROCESS THAT THIS COUNCIL FOLLOWED WAS APPROPRIATE. THAT DECISION HAS BEEN APPEALED. WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WHETHER THAT APPEAL WILL BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OR IF THE SUPREME COURT WILL ACCEPT AN EXPEDITED REVIEW. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT DETERMINATION YET. I ANTICIPATE, AND THAT'S ALL IT IS, IS AN ANTICIPATION THAT WE'LL GET THAT BY TOMORROW OR WEDNESDAY. I HOPE SO. THE CITY DID FILE ITS SUPPORT IF YOU WILL, TO HAVE THIS HEARD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS. THE IDEA BEING, IF WE CAN JUST GET TO THEM, THEN THE DECISION WILL BE FINAL, AS OPPOSED TO TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THEN THERE'S AN ALTERNATE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT. ALL PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT. THAT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THEY WILL. UPON RECEIVING ANY OF THAT INFORMATION, I WILL FORWARD THAT TO THE COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY, SO YOU KNOW WHEN THE ARGUMENTS WILL BE HEARD, BUT WE ANTICIPATE THAT THIS WILL THIS WILL CONTINUE TO GO AT THE CURRENT PACE, WHICH IS EXCEPTIONALLY FAST. I'D STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE, THAT'S MY REPORT FOR TONIGHT. >> HOW MUCH LONGER IS OUR PERIOD FOR SIGNING UP TO RUN? >> SURE. I WAS GOING TO GIVE AN UPDATE, BUT I CAN JUST JUMP TO IT RIGHT NOW. UPDATE FROM OUR CITY CLERK ON SPECIAL ELECTION. OUR CANDIDATE FILING PERIOD IS OPEN THROUGH THE 18TH OF MARCH. IT OPENED ON THE 4TH. AS OF THIS AFTERNOON, WE HAD ONE APPLICANT OR ONE PERSON FILE AS A CANDIDATE. YOU SAW ON CONSENT, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BRINGING ON BOARD ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE ELECTION. VOTING WILL OPEN ON MARCH 28TH, SO FOLKS CAN REQUEST BALLOTS ONLINE, RECEIVE IT IN THE MAIL, MAIL IT BACK, AND THE CITY HALL WILL ALSO BE OPEN TO ASSIST. POLLING PLACES WILL BE OPEN ON MAY 13TH. EVERYONE WILL VOTE IN THE SAME PLACE THEY DID FOR THE LAST ELECTION AS A WAY OF PUTTING IT SIMPLY. WE HAVE THREE POLLING PLACES. THEN THE CLERK HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THEIR STAFF TO TRY TO KEEP OUR ELECTIONS WEBSITE UPDATED ON THE LATEST, BUT OVERALL, EVERYTHING IS PROGRESSING AS IT SHOULD FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO PROCEED, [02:35:06] SUBJECT TO SOMEBODY TELLING US WE CAN'T. >> GOT IT. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. MATTICK, THEN YOUR REPORT. >> NO, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE, MR. MAYOR. >> WELL, WE GOT A PARTIAL REPORT FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, BUT I'LL TURN IT RIGHT BACK OVER TO YOU. [27. Agreement for Standby Public Works Service to Minnetonka Beach] IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO REPORT, WE CAN GO AROUND TO THE AGREEMENT FOR STANDBY PUBLIC WORK SERVICE. >> SURE. LET'S JUMP RIGHT TO THAT. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE A COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORING CITY, MINNETONKA BEACH, TO FORMALIZE THE WAY THAT WE PROVIDE THEM BACKUP PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT. MINNETONKA BEACH, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ONE MEMBER OF STAFF IN THEIR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. HE'S ONE DEEP. WHENEVER HE GOES ON VACATION, IS SICK, OR OTHERWISE, CANNOT RESPOND TO EMERGENCY CALL OUTS, WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY PROVIDED THAT BACK UP. WHAT THIS AGREEMENT DOES IS FORMALIZE THAT PROCESS AND HOW WE'LL DO IT, WHEN WE'LL DO IT, AND THEN AS WELL AS HOW WE WILL BE COMPENSATED BY THE CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH FOR WHEN THOSE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED. THE OTHER THING TO TALK ABOUT IS THAT THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY BOTH CITY ADMINISTRATORS, BOTH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS, BOTH CITY ATTORNEYS. ALSO, I HAVE ENTERED INTO AN MOU WITH THE LOCAL 49, WHO REPRESENTS OUR PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES, WHERE THEY AGREED THAT THEY HAD NO ISSUES WITH OUR FOLKS PROVIDING THIS SUPPORT, AS LONG AS THEY WERE COMPENSATED, WHICH WE DID MAKE AN AMENDMENT FOR WITH THAT IN THAT MOU. IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND I UNDERSTAND MINNETONKA BEACH IS DECIDING THE SAME ON THIS AGREEMENT TONIGHT. >> QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? IF THE AGREEMENT WAS WELL-DRAFTED, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN. >> I SECOND IT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. >> MAYOR, MAY I? >> YES. >> ONE MORE JUST UPDATE FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR. I JUST WANTED TO SAY PUBLICLY AND IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE NOTICED AN UPTICK OF ATTACKS ON OUR CITY STAFF ON SOCIAL MEDIA OF LATE. SEEMS TO BE A CONTINUATION OF A TREND OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE TREND, SOMETIMES LINKING CITY STAFF TO POLITICAL DECISIONS OF OTHER FOLKS, AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND TRYING TO BRING US INTO THAT FRAY. TO NAME A FEW, THE FIRE CHIEF'S BEEN NAMED, THE POLICE CHIEF'S BEEN NAMED, THE PUBLIC WORK SUPERINTENDENT'S BEEN NAMED, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BEEN NAMED. I'VE BEEN NAMED IN THIS. THE LATEST, I CALL IT A CONSPIRACY OUT THERE THAT WE KNOW IS OUT ON, I BELIEVE, NEXT DOOR, IS THAT SOMEHOW STAFF IS SECRETLY ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE DIRECTIONS YOU'VE PROVIDED. I JUST WANTED TO PUBLICLY REASSURE THE FIVE OF YOU THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IF YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY THINKS THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME, AND LET'S HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT WHAT THE STAFF IS DOING OR IS NOT DOING. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY ON THAT. >> IF IT'S NOT CLEAR BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT THAT WE ADOPTED FOR OURSELVES IN THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT, IT NEEDS TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE DON'T TOLERATE THAT OR WE DON'T CONDONE IT, DON'T TOLERATE IT, AND ARE TRYING TO MODEL BETTER BEHAVIOR THAN THAT. JUST I GUESS, AN APOLOGY TO OUR STAFF THAT YOU'RE GETTING THOSE SORTS OF ATTACKS, AND WOULD ASK THE COMMUNITY TO PLEASE NOT DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE WE'RE BETTER THAN THAT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THAT? [02:40:01] AGAIN, APOLOGIES IF YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT. WE'RE ALMOST AT THE END HERE, FOLKS. IT'S TIME FOR COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND BOARD REPORTS. [28. Council Committee and Board Reports] USUALLY START WITH MR. PERSIAN, BUT I'M GOING TO START WITH MS. RICKS TONIGHT AND MOVE THE OTHER DIRECTION. >> MR. MAYOR, THE ONE IS THE COMMITTEE REPORTS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE STARTED A YEAR OR TWO AGO. I WAS PUTTING A FORMAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA ANYTIME THERE WAS ONE OF THE COMMITTEES OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PART THAT MET. I DID ADD THIS ON. I KNOW THAT DUE TO SOME CONFUSING GOOGLE CALENDAR INVITES, OUR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND. >> WE WERE STANDING BY WAITING TO BE ALLOWED INTO THE ZOOM CALL. LET IT BE KNOWN TO THE RECORD. WE WERE READY TO GO. >> THE REST OF THE COUNCIL KNOWS THAT THERE WAS A LONG LAKE FIRE ADVISORY BOARD HELD LAST WEEK. CHIEF VANEYLL AND I WERE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE CITY, AND I KNOW OUR TWO MEMBERS WERE TRYING TO DIAL IN TO A MEETING THAT WASN'T ONLINE, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT AS I PUT IN THE REPORT, THERE WEREN'T ANY MAJOR ISSUES. THEY FOLLOWED THE AGENDA, AS I INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE THE 2024 BUDGET WAS FALLING OUT. WE TOOK A LOOK AT WHERE WE WERE TO DATE ON THE 2025 BUDGET, AND WE REVIEWED THEIR DUTY CREW STATUS FOR THE LAST LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. THOSE WERE THE ITEMS THAT, I THINK, WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE IN 30 MINUTES. VERY CORDIAL, GOOD MEETING. ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO FILE THAT UPDATE. >> THANK YOU. >> JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BENSON AND I ATTENDED TOURS, I GUESS, OF [INAUDIBLE] AND A MEDINA'S PUBLIC WORKS BRENT FROM PUBLIC WORKS, ORONO PUBLIC WORKS ACCOMPANIED US. ONE OTHER THING, THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, I WAS ASKING ADAM QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SUPERVISOR FOR BROWN ROAD. I GOT A CALL FROM MINDA THE NEXT DAY BECAUSE I HAD ASKED HIM THE SAME QUESTION. WHEN MONEY FOR OUR ROADS COMES IN, AND IT'S EITHER STATE MONEY OR FEDERAL MONEY, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY SUPERVISOR. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT. >> JUST A QUICK THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER RICKS FOR BEING SO KIND TO ME AT THE CHUCK AND DONS. I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A BACK ISSUE, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT SHE WAS MOST GRACIOUS AND USED HER VIGOR TO CARRY MY BIG BAG OF DOG FOOD OUT TO MY CAR, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> AWESOME. A LOAD OF SHOP THERE WHEN YOU'RE THERE TOO. I HAD A BAD BACK AT THE TIME. >> THERE YOU GO. >> GO AHEAD. >> COUNCIL MEMBER RICKS AND I HAD A GOOD TIME TOURING MORE COMMODITIES. IT'S NOT JUST SALT SHED, IT'S ALSO THE COMMODITIES YARDS FOR, AS YOU SAID, MEDINA AND [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S NOW IN ADDITION TO MINNETONKA, CHANHASSEN, AND MOUND. WE'VE MADE THE ROUNDS. IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO SEE HOW OTHER CITIES NOT ALWAYS INDICATIVE OF OUR POPULATION OR ROAD SERVICE, BUT THERE ARE SOME COMMON FACTORS HERE, AND ALSO, IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND INFORMATIVE. THAT WILL HELP US. WE WILL BE ATTENDING A DESIGN MEETING TOMORROW WITH STAFF AND WITH THE ARCHITECT AND BOLTON AND MINK. SOME MORE TO COME ON THAT, BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO GIVE MORE UPDATES AS WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS PROCESS. >> THANK YOU. >> NO REAL UPDATE. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE WORK SESSION ABOUT CURRENT FIRE SERVICE AREA, AND NO REAL NEED TO REHASH THAT. I GUESS THE COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO MAKE GOOD PROGRESS WITH OUR PARTNERS IN LONG LAKE, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT. I THINK OUR MEETING HAS BEEN PRODUCTIVE. AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSION, I THINK WE'RE GETTING THERE. WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:44. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.