Apr 28, 2025 City Council

[00:00:01]

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL.

[Roll Call]

I WILL BE CHAIRING TONIGHT'S MEETING IN HIS ABSENCE.

AT THIS TIME, I ASK THAT ALL JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

BEFORE THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, I WANT TO MAKE A FEW QUICK COMMENTS TO JUST SET EXPECTATIONS ABOUT TONIGHT'S MEETING.

FIRST, AS I SAID EARLIER, I WILL BE FACILITATING TONIGHT IN THE MAYOR'S ABSENCE AND INTEND TO MOVE THIS MEETING ALONG IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER SO THAT BUSINESS CAN BE EFFECTIVELY CONDUCTED. THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY ADOPTED A CODE OF CONDUCT.

IT WAS LAST MONTH AND WE ARE COLLECTIVELY TASKED NOW WITH ABIDING BY IT, AND I DO HAVE A COPY TONIGHT FOR ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

SECOND, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD TONIGHT WILL BE DURING THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA ENTITLED PUBLIC COMMENT.

I WILL PROVIDE DETAIL ABOUT THAT ITEM DURING THAT ITEM, BUT THIS TONIGHT'S AGENDA DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND COUNCIL WILL NOT ENTERTAIN COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS DURING REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. SO IF YOU'VE COME TO BE HEARD ON ANY ITEM TONIGHT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO IS DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM, NOT DURING OTHER CITY BUSINESS. SO NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, AND IF THERE'S NOTHING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD,

[Approval of Agenda]

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER RICKS.

A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PERSIAN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 0. NEXT. THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[Consent Agenda]

UNLESS THERE ARE MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE ANY ITEMS FROM TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA.

I'D LIKE TO REMOVE 12. NUMBER 12. ANY OTHER ITEM? IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND FOR RECOGNITION. SEEING NONE I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 12.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL SECOND IT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 12.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEM BER PERSIAN, A SECOND BY COUNCILMEM BER RICKS.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. THAT ITEM NUMBER 12.

WE WILL ORDER THAT THEN AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT.

SO AT THIS TIME PUBLIC COMMENT IS THE NEXT ITEM AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL.

[Public Comments]

HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL MAY REFER ISSUES OR ITEMS TO STAFF OR FOR FOLLOW UP OR CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING.

SPEAKERS SHOULD STATE THEIR NAME AND HOME ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE BEFORE MAKING ANY COMMENTS.

ALSO, I ASK THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO SPEAK APPROACH ONLY AFTER THE PREVIOUS PERSON HAS FINISHED AND FOUND THEIR SEAT.

IF I INTERJECT, IT WILL BE TO REMIND THAT THE TIMER HAS SOUNDED AT THREE MINUTES, AND I WOULD THEN ASK YOU TO FINISH YOUR COMMENTS.

WITH THAT, I OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO BE HEARD? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BRUCE LEMKE. 565 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.

WOULD YOU MIND MOVING THE MICROPHONE UP A BIT JUST SO FOLKS CAN HEAR? THANK YOU. BRUCE LEMKE, 565 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.

[00:05:03]

HI, I'M JOHN SWINGLER, 1550 COUNTY ROAD SIX. I AM ALSO RUNNING FOR THE VACANT SEAT IN THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR CITY COUNCIL, AND I WANT TO THANK THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION FOR GIVING US THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO VOTE ON IN THIS SPECIAL ELECTION AND ALSO WANT TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GO OUT AND VOTE, EVEN IF THEY VOTE FOR BRUCE.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12, WHICH IS LA2468.

[12. LA24-000068, 430 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review - Resolution 7579]

GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONDO DEVELOPMENT AT 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD. I DON'T HAVE ANY NEW UPDATED OR ANY SPECIFIC PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SOME NEW PUBLIC COMMENT DID COME IN AT THE END OF TODAY.

I PRINTED IT AT YOUR STATION AND THEY WILL BE EMBEDDED IN THE PACKET WHEN WHEN WE RECONCILE THAT INTO THE SYSTEM TOMORROW, BUT THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU TONIGHT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COUNCILMEM BER RICKS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT OF NOTE THAT I RECEIVED QUITE A FEW EMAILS IN MY INBOX OF PEOPLE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT, MOSTLY FOR NOISE. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE APPARENTLY OLD CRYSTAL BAY HAS BECOME A GREAT PLACE TO REV YOUR ENGINES AND DRIVE SINCE IT'S A NICE FLAT ROAD AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY SMALL CHILDREN WHO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES TURNING AROUND THERE.

THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT KIDS WHO USE THE SIDEWALKS TO GO BACK AND FORTH TO SCHOOL.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS MADE NOTE OF AT THE MEETING.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS A VOTE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE IDENTIFIED CONDITIONS WRITTEN IN RESOLUTION 7579. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24000068 AT 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT, CIP AND SITE PLAN RESOLUTION 7579. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEM BER BERRETT.

SECOND BY COUNCILMEM BER PERSIAN. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO APPROVE THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAVE BEEN MET, AND SO IT SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME.

ANYTHING FURTHER WITH A MOTION, A SECOND? I WILL CALL THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE, AND OPPOSED. SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. MOVING ON TO NEXT ITEM.

[13. LA25-000007, 4745 North Shore Drive, After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit Amendment]

NUMBER 13 LA 25-74745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE AFTER THE FACT.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO STAFF. THANK YOU.

LAST SUMMER, THE APPLICANT, WHO WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY RECEIVED APPROVALS TO INSTALL A NEW STONE LAKE ACCESS STAIR,

[00:10:01]

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR SHORELINE RIPRAP PROJECT WHEN THE PROJECT WAS NEAR COMPLETION, THE CITY'S INSPECTOR OBSERVED ADDITIONAL WALLS AND LANDING EXCUSE ME, ADDITIONAL WALLS WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THE APPROVED PLAN, AND ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED PLAN WAS DESIGNED BY THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER FOR THE SITE CONDITIONS.

WHEN QUESTIONED, THE APPLICANT STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THE BELIEVED THE APPROVED PLAN WOULD NOT WORK, SO HE AND HIS CONTRACTOR HAD TO ADD THESE ADDITIONAL WALLS, WHICH WERE WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE SURVEY.

WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE THE WALLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL.

ON ON THE AS BUILT THEY PROVIDED THERE'S ALSO AN ADDITIONAL PATHWAY KIND OF A FLATTENED AREA.

NOT NOT A SUPER DEFINED PATH, BUT THIS AREA HERE THAT WAS ALSO CREATED AT THE BASE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE COUNCIL CONSIDER AN AFTER THE FACT AMENDMENT TO THEIR CUP TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL WALLS. PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING IN MARCH AND VOTED 5 TO 0 ON A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AFTER THE FACT CUP AMENDMENT CONDITIONED UPON SUBMITTAL OF UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLANS TO SCREEN THE WALLS FROM VIEW FROM THE LAKE AND THE NECESSARY ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR YOUR A CONSIDERATION.

THEY'VE IDENTIFIED THE TYPES OF PLANTS AND WHERE THEY WILL BE PLACED ALONG THESE WALL AREAS.

THEY, THEY DID PROVIDE UPDATED WALL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FROM THEIR ENGINEER.

HOWEVER, WE DO NOT HAVE THE REQUESTED ENGINEERED JUSTIFICATION OR THE NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL WALLS OR THE CHANGE IN THE PLANS.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TONIGHT THAT THE COUNCIL TABLE THE APPLICATION AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL WALLS, AND I'VE PROVIDED MOTION OPTIONS IN THE IN THE PACKET FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

I DO HAVE ALL THE MATERIAL TO PUT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I WOULD STAND FOR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL FOR MISS CURTIS? NOTHING. NO. NO. IN THAT CASE I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT IF THEY'RE HERE. HI. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD.

YEAH. MATT JASPER, 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY THIS TIME? YEAH, I WAS FOR THE JUSTIFICATION, AS MELANIE.

DID YOU GET THE EMAIL THAT I FORWARDED YOU FROM THE ENGINEER IN MARCH? NO, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE I FORWARDED. NO, I RECEIVED THE PLANS, THE UPDATED PLANS THAT THEY PROVIDED.

OKAY. YEAH, I HE JUST HE I ASKED HIM TO HE PUT IT INTO AN EMAIL AND SENT IT TO ME, AND THEN I FORWARDED IT TO YOU.

I CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AND RECORD THAT BUT THAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION.

I MEAN, IT MEAN, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE GREATEST JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY WE NEEDED THOSE THERE, BUT IT WAS FOR THE. I THINK THE ONE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WAS THAT LITTLE WALL DOWN THERE.

YOU WANTED JUSTIFICATION ON THAT ONE. WE WANTED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE IN THE PLANS, AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT WALL, WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY ABSENT DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW.

SO AS FAR AS I'M TRACKING, YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE THE JUSTIFICATION ON THE OTHER ONES, BECAUSE THAT WAS DONE A LONG TIME AGO.

THE ONE THAT YOU WERE WAITING FOR ON WAS THAT LITTLE ONE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, AND THAT WAS THE EMAIL I FORWARDED YOU.

YEP, AND THE JUSTIFICATION THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE EMAIL.

INITIALLY, I MEAN, IT SAID THAT THE WALLS WERE CONSTRUCTED THERE TO HOLD BACK THE AREAS FROM THESE STAIRS, BUT I THINK THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE JUSTIFICATION ON WHY THE CHANGE IN THE PLAN HAPPENED AND THE MISSING INFORMATION FROM THAT OTHER WALL, AND I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDERSTOOD THAT WALL WAS GOING TO GO AWAY.

WELL, THEY WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE ENGINEER SAID, AND THAT'S THAT WAS THE EMAIL THAT I FORWARDED TO YOU.

[00:15:01]

THEY ASKED BEFORE I DO THAT, TO GET COMMENTS FROM THE ENGINEER, AND THAT'S WHAT I ASKED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON.

I FORWARD IT SO I CAN GO BACK AND FORWARD THAT TO YOU. THAT'S NO PROBLEM, BUT THE REST OF THEM YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT AN ENGINEERS SAYING THAT THEY NEED TO BE THERE.

I DON'T LIKE IS THERE A SPECIFIC FORMAT YOU WANT IT WRITTEN IN OR.

I THINK IT SHOULD ADDRESS THE QUESTION, THE DEVIATION FROM THE PLAN.

OKAY. WHICH WAS INITIALLY DESIGNED BY THAT ENGINEER AS WELL.

RIGHT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF I WE'RE PROBABLY ALL GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION THEN TO GET WHAT HE WANTS.

LIKE WHAT I'M SAYING, IF AN ENGINEER IN THE CONTRACTOR THAT ARE THE PROFESSIONALS THAT DO IT ARE SAYING THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PUT ON PAPER.

I THOUGHT THAT WOULD SUFFICE, BUT I CAN GET HIM TO BE MORE IN DEPTH ON IT OR WHATEVER WE NEED.

I MEAN, I THINK THE COUNCIL CAN DECIDE WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF ANY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

ACTUALLY, I'M WONDERING JUST BECAUSE ON THE ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS NUMBER B, WHERE IT SAYS THERE WAS A NEW SURVEY ON SIX, 17, 24 AND THEN THEY ADDED WALLS SEVEN AND EIGHT AND THEN ADDED WALL NINE IN MARCH AND IN APRIL THEY DID THE REVISIONS. I WENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY TODAY.

MY DAD SAW YOU. YEAH. SORRY TO BOTHER YOUR DAD.

HE WAS BUSY, BUT THAT IS AN EXTREMELY STEEP BACKYARD AND GRADE.

SO IN FACT, I COULDN'T I DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO GO DOWN THOSE STAIRS AND DIDN'T BUT I GUESS FOR LOOKING AT IT AND I KNOW I HAVE FRIENDS WHO HAVE CABINS ON CASCO POINT AND HAD PUT IN A WHOLE NEW BACKYARD, AND IT RAINED AND THEY GOT TO PUT IN ANOTHER ONE IN THE NEXT MONTH BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING WENT INTO THE LAKE, AND THAT'S THE MAJOR THING WE WANT NOT TO EVER HAPPEN, IS WE WANT TO STOP EROSION INTO THE LAKE.

SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF YOU COULD JUST HAVE YOUR HAVE THEM WRITE UP A JUSTIFICATION WHY THEY OR NOT EVEN A JUSTIFICATION.

BECAUSE I KNOW THE JUSTIFICATION IS STEEP, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE GRADE.

ONCE WE STARTED PUTTING BOULDERS UP THAT GRADE STEEPER IS SOMETHING, JUST SOMETHING. SO WE CAN PUT IT IN OUR RECORDS, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM APPROVING THIS.

OKAY. YEAH, AND IT WAS I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE, JUST I CAN MAKE SURE AND GO SIT DOWN TO IT.

SO SOME OF THOSE WALLS, EVEN WHEN WE STARTED WORKING ON LIKE WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT WALL SEVEN RIGHT THERE.

BACK WHEN I INITIALLY CAME WITH THIS PLAN, I WAS GOING TO REBUILD A BOATHOUSE.

WELL, WHEN WE TORE THE BOATHOUSE DOWN, WE STARTED ENGINEERING THE STAIRS. WE SAW THAT THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A WALL THERE THAT THE DIRT HAD KIND OF LIKE WHAT YOU SAID.

IT'S SO STEEP IT SLID DOWN OVER THE TOP OF THAT.

SO SOME OF THAT WE STARTED FIXING AND WHEN THE, WHEN THE INSPECTOR IS OUT THERE AND IN HINDSIGHT NOW WHEN HE'S OUT THERE, I SAID, HEY, WE'RE PUTTING THESE UP, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

SO I FIGURED TALKING TO THE CITY INSPECTOR THAT WOULD BE CHECKING THE BOX ON.

HEY, I'M ADDING SOME WALLS HERE. I THOUGHT I WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT CAME TO FIND OUT AFTER THE FACT.

I WAS NOT, BUT YEAH, I CAN GET I'LL TRY AND GET HIM TO WRITE A LITTLE BIT BETTER STATEMENT, BUT THE THING IS, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY THAT GOES OUT THERE UNDERSTANDS IT.

JUST LIKE WHEN I WAS AT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE THE OTHER WEEK, ONE OF THE GENTLEMAN, HE WENT OUT THERE AND HE IF YOU GO ON SITE, IT MAKES SENSE. I KNOW IT'S VERY HARD TO YOU KNOW, SIT HERE AND LOOK AT IT AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, JUST WITH WHAT WE'RE SAYING, THERE'S THAT FLAT AREA CREATED.

I KNOW I'D SENT THOSE PICTURES BEFORE SHOWING THAT I DIDN'T CREATE A FLAT AREA.

THERE'S ONE OF THE OTHER ONES FACING THE OTHER WAY, BUT WHEN THEY WHEN THEY DO THAT RIP RAP AND THEY BUILT THE WALL ALL THAT STUFF WAS, WAS ON THERE. THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD JUST KEEP SLIDING DOWN INTO THE LAKE.

SO IF YOU LOOK RIGHT THERE, THAT WAS BEFORE ANYTHING STARTED, AND THAT'S THE FLAT AREA THAT I'M BEING TOLD THAT I CREATED, WHICH I DIDN'T. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? NO. OKAY, WELL, I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND A UNIQUE ONE BECAUSE I'M THE ONLY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO WAS HERE WHEN THE CUP WAS GRANTED, AND I DID, AS YOU MAY RECALL, VISIT THE SITE AND WALKED DOWN WHAT WAS THE PREVIOUS STAIRCASE TO THE BOTTOM? SO I WAS ON SITE PRIOR TO ANY OF THE WORK OR BEING DONE IN THE CUP BEING GRANTED AND PLANNING AT THE

[00:20:07]

THERE WERE MANY CONCERNS ABOUT PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE LAKESHORE AND DISCUSSION ABOUT VEGETATION.

THIS IS A BLUFF ZONE. SO IT'S NOT ONLY A SHORELINE, IT'S ALSO A BLUFF AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOVE AND BEYOND REGULAR SHORELINE ARE CONSIDERED, AND OUR COMP PLAN ADDRESSES THAT AND PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY WHICH PLANNING DISCUSSED BACK IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR IS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE LAKE.

SO AT THE TIME THE CUP WAS GRANTED, THE SHED OR BOATHOUSE THAT WAS STANDING THAT YOU HAD DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED WAS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THAT CUP TO BE REBUILT.

AND IN FACT, YOU DID NOT REBUILD IT. THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE WAS ALSO VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS GRANTED FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT YOU THEN WENT WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND THE RAMIFICATION OR THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CUP MEANING WHAT WE SEE IN YELLOW HERE AND RED AS COMPARED TO BLUE AT THE BOTTOM.

THE TOP IS WHAT WAS PERMITTED AND THE BLUE LINES ARE WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED, AND SO UNLIKE WITH THE SHED WHERE YOU DID ABIDE BY THE CUP IN THESE OTHER SITUATIONS, YOU DID NOT, AND THAT IS MY REAL CONCERN WITH THIS APPLICATION, IS BECAUSE THE CUP IS NOT SOMETHING THAT EVERY HOMEOWNER IS GRANTED, AND YOU WERE GRANTED THAT AND THEN THROUGH A SERIES OF DECISIONS CHOSE TO BUILD DIFFERENTLY, AND WHAT I DO RECALL IN OUR LENGTHY CONVERSATION THAT DAY AT THE SHORELINE IS THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LAKE PRESERVATION IS IMPORTANT IN THE CITY, AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE DURING ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, YOU INDICATED THAT YOUR INTENTION WAS TO WORK WITH CONTRACTORS WHO UNDERSTAND THE LAKES COMMUNITY AND OUR COMMITMENT TO PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE SHORELINE AND ALSO WATER QUALITY.

SO THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE AT THIS TIME WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT YOU MADE DIFFERENT DECISIONS DURING THAT THIS BUILD PROCESS TO NOT TO ABIDE BY THE CUP .

IN SOME RESPECTS, AND THEN NOT ABIDE BY IT IN OTHERS, AND THAT WAS A CHOICE THAT YOU OR THE CONTRACTORS MADE.

AND IT WAS NOT A CHOICE THAT THE CITY WAS INFORMED ABOUT OR CITY INSPECTOR FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS DURING A SITE VISIT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO THERE WAS NOT A PROACTIVE INTERACTION WITH YOU AND OUR CITY ABOUT THIS LARGE DEVIATION FROM THE CUP IN REAL TIME, AND SO NOW, HAVING GRANTED THAT INITIAL CUP , OUR CITY IS BEING ASKED TO NOW CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CUP AFTER YOU OR THE WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETE, AND THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH IT IS THAT IT'S WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS INITIALLY GRANTED, AND THAT CONCERNS ME FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS.

SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WASN'T JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS ADDITIONAL WORK.

THERE WAS NOT JUSTIFICATION AT THE TIME THAT IT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION TO PREVENT DEBRIS FALLING INTO THE LAKE.

IT WAS SIMPLY COMPLETED. SO THAT'S A CONCERN OF MINE, AND THE OTHER CONCERN IS THAT IN GRANTING A CUP , WE ARE ALLOWING A HOMEOWNER TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, AND IN THIS CASE IT WASN'T ABIDED BY, AND NOW AFTER THE FACT, ONCE THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE, WE ARE NOW BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER AMENDING IT WITHOUT HAVING APPROVED IT, AND SO I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH PLANNING IN THE PAST HAS REVOLVED AROUND WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES LOOK LIKE OR HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AND THE ISSUE IS WE AS A COUNCIL ARE TASKED WITH UPHOLDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALSO ENFORCING CUP S THAT WE GRANT.

SO IT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION FOR BOTH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND OUR COUNCIL TO BE PUT IN TO GRANT AN AMENDMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT IN THIS CASE, YOU APPARENTLY CHOSE NOT TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT DURING THE BUILD PROCESS, AND WHAT I KNOW FROM THE EMAILS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH PLANNING IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED, WHICH IS WONDERFUL IN THE PROCESS.

SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS WASN'T NOTIFIED TO THE CITY, AND NOW THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE IT. IT EXCEEDS WHAT WE GRANTED IN THE CUP.

SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO ANY OF THOSE POINTS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

YEAH, I WAS SAYING EARLIER THAT I TOLD THE CITY INSPECTOR AND HE SAID THAT BECAUSE I TOLD HIM I WAS LIKE,

[00:25:01]

SO I THOUGHT BY TELLING THE CITY ENGINEER THAT WE'RE BUILDING THESE DOWN HERE OR NOT THE ENGINEER.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S YOU, THE CITY INSPECTOR, THAT WE WERE GOOD.

I DIDN'T LIKE I SAID, IN HINDSIGHT, I COULD HAVE.

I SHOULD HAVE CAME BACK HERE AND TALKED TO THE OFFICE, BUT I FIGURED A PERSON THAT WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CITY AS THEIR INSPECTOR, IF I TELL THEM IT, IT WOULD HAVE. SO THE INSPECTOR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS THERE TO INSPECT EROSION CONTROL, NOT TO INSPECT THE WALLS. SO WHATEVER CONVERSATION WAS HAD WITH THE INSPECTOR WAS NOT REGARDING THAT INDIVIDUAL SIGNING OFF ON THE ON THE BUILD.

IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I WAS I MEAN, WE WERE JUST STARTING TO WORK ON THEM WHEN HE WAS OUT THERE TO INSPECT THE EROSION CONTROL.

YEAH, AND I SHOWED HIM WHAT WE WERE BUILDING AND HE SAID, YEAH, OKAY.

I JUST FIGURED IF THERE WAS IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE STOPPED BY HIM OR SAID, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. OR I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE, WITH THE HOMEOWNER IN THIS CASE, TO BE UNDERSTANDING THAT COMMUNICATION WITH THE POINT OF CONTACT, WHICH HAS BEEN MISS CURTIS SINCE, I BELIEVE, THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP UP THAT LINE OF COMMUNICATION.

YEAH, AND YOU KNOW, ON WORK SITES, PEOPLE PASS THROUGH A LOT OF THE TIME.

SO I THINK IT'S IT BEHOOVES THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT INFORMATION THAT IS TRANSPIRING BETWEEN VENDORS OR THE CITY OR YOURSELF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER IN THIS CASE.

SO I HAVE A HARD TIME BEING SUPPORTIVE OF TABLING THIS BECAUSE IT'S EXTENSIVE WORK THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED, AND IN THE WHEN WE GRANT A CUP , THE EXPECTATION IS THAT IT'S FOLLOWED, AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING PREVENTING OTHER FOLKS IN THE FUTURE FROM GETTING A CUP AND THEN SIMPLY BUILDING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THEN COMING BACK TO ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT AFTER THE FACT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH HERE.

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER COUNCILMEM BERS HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

I GUESS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE FOR THE INSPECTOR TO MAYBE HELP THE HOMEOWNER AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY LIKE, IF WE ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THAT, IT IS DIFFERENT.

YOU PROBABLY SHOULD TALK TO THE CITY. I'M NOT THE PERSON THAT YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH.

WHICH I MEAN, I CAN SEE IF YOU HAVE AN INSPECTOR THERE AND YOU TELL THEM EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO AND THEY DON'T SAY ANYTHING, I CAN SEE WHERE YOU YOU CAN FEEL LIKE, WELL, I'VE TALKED TO THE CITY.

I JUST DIDN'T TALK TO THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE CITY THAT THE INFORMATION WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO GO TO WHO IT WHO IT NEEDED TO GO TO.

EXACTLY. GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I TEND TO AGREE WITH JACKIE THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU HADN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY, THERE WAS NO ONE ON SITE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH.

THE UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN MY PERSPECTIVE AS WELL, BUT I ALSO CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM DEALING WITH THE CITY OFFICIAL AND MAKING THE CONNECTION THAT CITY OFFICIAL WOULD PROVIDE SOME SORT OF GUIDANCE IF IT WAS NECESSARY.

SO I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE COMPLEX ISSUE THAT IS BROUGHT UP HERE IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO SITUATIONS WHERE WE APPROVE AMENDMENTS AFTER THE FACT. IF YOU, IF YOU EVEN IF YOU'VE SPOKEN TO SOMEONE ON SITE, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT MY PERSPECTIVE IS I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND THAT IF YOU FELT LIKE YOU WERE SPEAKING TO A CITY OFFICIAL MAY HAVE DRAWN THE CONCLUSION OR ASSUMPTION THAT CITY OFFICIAL WOULD HAVE ENCOURAGED YOU OR SUGGESTED THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE CHANGE HERE, YOU MAY WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH CITY ENGINEER AND HAVE FURTHER DIALOG, AND YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S MY POINT WITH IT BECAUSE I'VE, I HAVE CAME BACK EVERY TIME TO MELANIE AND I'M, YOU KNOW, PRETTY QUICK TO ANSWER AND EVERYTHING. SO IT WASN'T OUT OF MALICIOUS INTENT LIKE I WAS TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING.

I WAS THE ONE THAT SAID, HEY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SAY SURPRISE.

IT'S DONE. SO YEAH, IN HINDSIGHT, NOW, I DO KNOW THAT 'S THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT.

OH, YES. SO THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I THINK IF THE CURRENT IF THE BLUE WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CONCERNS? NO.

BECAUSE IF IT WAS IN THE APPROVED PLAN, THAT'S WHAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT.

WHAT WOULD THAT PLAN HAVE BEEN APPROVED? IS IT WOULD THERE HABE BEEN ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT PLAN?

[00:30:04]

STABILITY, EROSION CONTROL, WHATNOT. THE APPLICANT WAS ENCOURAGED MULTIPLE TIMES BY STAFF TO PURSUE A LESS MECHANICAL SOLUTION TO THE SLOPE STABILITY. SINCE THERE WASN'T NECESSARILY A FAILURE OF THIS SITE.

IT WAS REALLY SPARSELY VEGETATED. THE UNDERGROWTH WAS ALMOST NON-EXISTENT.

SO IT WAS LIKE A LEAF CUTTER, LEAF COVER AND THEN DIRT AND THEN TREES.

HE WAS TRYING TO CLEAN THAT UP. THE JUSTIFICATION SHOULD COME FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEIR, THEIR PROFESSIONAL. THAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PLAN.

THAT ISN'T WHAT WAS PROPOSED. YEP. UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. MY POINT IS THAT HERE WE ARE, AND IF THE RETAINING WALLS AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY CONFIGURED WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVABLE HAD WE, YOU KNOW, GO IN THE WAYBACK MACHINE AND YOU PRESENTED THIS PLAN AND THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR IT AND IT MADE SENSE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

YES. SO I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT TO TRY TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD IS TO HAVE THE ENGINEER PROVIDE THE JUSTIFICATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF STAFF, WHICH IS IS IMPORTANT TO DO, AND THEN SEE IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

THAT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS? ANYTHING ELSE? DOES STAFF HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO. NO. OKAY. SO I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT HERE, WHICH IS THAT IT'S THE VEGETATION PIECE OF IT, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A SCREENING PLAN OR A LANDSCAPE PLAN PROVIDED ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS TROUBLING TO ME ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT AND THE WAY THAT IT OCCURRED IS THAT, AGAIN, WHEN I VISITED THE SITE, THERE WAS SOME VEGETATION. ALL OF THAT VEGETATION WAS THEN REMOVED AND IT WAS GRADED INTO A PATHWAY.

WE HAD IT ON THE LAST PICTURE OR A FLAT AREA.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WORK EITHER WAS PART OF THE CUP .

THAT WAS PART OF IT TO GRADE AND REMOVE. WELL, THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T GRADE ANYTHING.

THEY IN ORDER TO DO RIPRAP YOU NEED A 3 TO 1 SLOPE.

YOU HAVE TO SET THE LAKESHORE RIGHT THERE. BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT HILLSIDE IS THAT YOU HAVE TREES THAT WERE GROWING OVER THERE, LITERALLY GROWING HORIZONTAL, AND THAT ICE WOULD HEAVE AND SHOVEL UNDERNEATH THEM, AND THE HILLSIDE JUST KEPT FALLING IN.

SO FOR HAGEN, AND I WAS GOING TO USE SOMEBODY ELSE FOR RIPRAP, BUT I WAS ADVISED BY THE CITY THAT I SHOULD USE SOMEONE WHO WORKS WITH THE LAKE OFTEN.

CHRIS HAGAN, I THINK HE'S. YEAH. I DON'T ADVISE YOU.

YOU TOLD I HAVE EMAILS WITH THAT. YOU TOLD ME NOT TO USE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE GOING TO DO IT BY LAND.

AND I SWITCHED TO HAGEN. I CAN FORWARD THOSE STATEMENT.

JUST TO CLARIFY, I DID NOT TELL YOU WHAT CONTRACT.

NO, YOU TOLD ME NOT TO USE, BUT I'M CORRECT WITH THAT.

I CAN PROVIDE THE EMAILS, BUT. SO THE 3 TO 1 SLOPE IN ORDER TO GET THAT.

SO I DIDN'T HAVE CONTINUED FAILURE OF THE BLUFF.

THEY HAD TO DO THAT. THEY HAD THERE'S LIKE THE CHUNKS OF STUFF LIKE OLD BOULDERS, THINGS THAT WERE CAVED UP IN THERE.

THEY HAD TO CLEAN THAT STUFF OUT, PUT THEY PUT DOWN THE GRANITE, THE BLANKET, THE STONES, ALL THAT WAS IN THERE. I GOT TO THINK THAT CHRIS HAGEN KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING.

I MEAN, HE DOES A LOT OF THE WORK OUT HERE. MY RECOLLECTION, HAVING WATCHED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WAS THAT WAS YOUR CONTRACT OF CHOICE AND THAT YOU CHOSE HIM BECAUSE HE DOES WORK IN THE LAKES COMMUNITY, WHICH IS FAIR ENOUGH. AGAIN, AND THE REASON THIS THIS IS AN ISSUE IS BECAUSE THE LAKESHORE, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS TASKED WITH PROTECTING, AND IT WAS NEVER DETERMINED THAT THIS LEVEL OF WORK WAS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR THE HILLSIDE. THE BLUFF SIDE, THE EROSION CONTROL AND LAKE QUALITY BY CREATING THAT PATHWAY AND TAKING THE VEGETATION AWAY, WE THERE THERE WERE NEVER REPORTS, GIVEN THAT NOT VEGETATING IN THAT AREA OR REMOVING MORE VEGETATION VERSUS CREATING WHAT YOU DID WOULD BE BETTER FOR EROSION CONTROL. THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE CUP , AND THE REASON THE CUP WAS GRANTED, THE WAY THAT IT WAS, IS TO MINIMIZE ANY IMPACT ON THE BLUFF SIDE AND THE SHORELINE, WHILE STILL ALLOWING FOR A STAIRCASE

[00:35:07]

SO THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CITY, WHICH WE DO TALK ABOUT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MINIMIZING IMPACT WHILE ALLOWING SAFE ACCESS TO THE LAKE AND ALLOWING AN APPLICANT, IN THIS CASE, YOURSELF, TO DECIDE IN REAL TIME THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY, AND YOU KNOW, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, AND I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY ON PLANNING OR UP HERE IS AN ENGINEER, AND YET DECISIONS WERE MADE TO DEVIATE FROM THE PATH IN REAL TIME, AND THAT DECISION RESTS WITH YOU.

SO I DO FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT MATTERS THAT AS THE APPLICANT, THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY TAKEN ABOUT THE ACTIONS THAT YOU DECIDE TO CHOOSE DEVIATING FROM THE CUP. SO AND ALSO, I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO RECOGNIZE THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT STAFF AND PLANNING HAVE PUT INTO THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT IS EXTENSIVE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW AGAIN WITH STAFF WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE HERE WITH THIS ITEM FOR TONIGHT.

TONIGHT I LAID OUT SOME OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE AFTER THE FACT AMENDMENT AS APPLIED. THE SECOND WOULD BE TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT AND SEE THEM AGAIN AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.

THIRD OPTION DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO DENY THE AFTER THE FACT CUP AMENDMENT AND DIRECT APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY REGARDING REMOVAL OF ADDITIONAL WALLS AND RESTORATION TO FOLLOW THE APPROVED PLAN WITH RESOLUTION 7486.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS YOU MAY BE SEATED.

THANK YOU. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE TABLE AS STAFF RECOMMENDS TABLE THE APPLICATION AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WALL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ENGINEERS EMAIL.

SO THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE BY COUNCILMEM BER BARRETT.

I'LL SECOND THAT SECOND BY COUNCILMEM BER PERSIAN.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. THAT PASSES THREE ONE, AND NEXT ITEM, MAYOR PRO TEM. YES. CURIOUS ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE.

IS THAT TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING IN MAY, OR IS IT SORT OF A WHEN WE GET THE ENGINEERING REPORT, WE STILL HAVE OUR TIME.

WE HAVE TIME. SO WE COULD BRING IT . IF I DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL.

IF HE DOESN'T HAVE WHAT WE WERE GOING TO WHAT WE NEED, WE HAVE TIME TO HAVE IT ON THE NEXT FOLLOWING MEETING, BUT I ANTICIPATE ANOTHER MEETING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION DIDN'T CONTEMPLATE A SPECIFIC DATE OR SORT OF WHEN THE REPORT WAS READY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE'RE WAITING FOR SO. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE TIME.

YES. OKAY. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. OH, NEXT.

OH. THANK YOU. WE ARE AT THE CITY ATTORNEY REPORT.

MAYOR PRO TEM AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I DO NOT HAVE ANY REPORT FOR TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. CITY ADMINISTRATOR. ENGINEER REPORT.

[14. Orono Fire Department Reduction in Force]

AT THE APRIL 14TH MEETING, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES.

THE AMENDMENT THE AMENDMENT AGREEMENT ASPIRED TO LIMIT ORONO'S ABILITY TO EMPLOY PAID ON CALL FIREFIGHTERS PER EXHIBIT C OF THAT AGREEMENT. THE IMPACTED EMPLOYEES ARE LISTED IN YOUR COUNCIL PACKET.

ONE OTHER THING TO TALK ABOUT AS FAR AS THE REDUCTION IN FORCE IS THAT BASED ON THE WAY THAT WE'RE INTERPRETING THE STATE STATUTES ON A REDUCTION IN FORCE, ONCE A REDUCTION IN FORCE ELIMINATES ALL PAID ON CALL FIREFIGHTERS THAT ARE EMPLOYED BY THE CITY.

THEN THE FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION HAS TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO DISSOLVE PART OF THAT PROCESS INVOLVES THE

[00:40:09]

SO THE IN YOUR PACKET THERE'S AN ESTIMATE OF COST OF $170,000 THAT THE CITY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT VESTING AS THAT RELIEF ASSOCIATION HAS NOT BEEN IN PLACE LONG ENOUGH TO COLLECT THE STATE AID FUNDING THAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY HAVE COLLECTED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS TO TAKE CARE OF THAT RETIREMENT CAPABILITY.

SO IN YOUR PACKET YOU HAVE A CALCULATION OF HOW WE GOT TO THAT NUMBER.

ALSO, I LISTED ALL THE RELEVANT STATUTES. IT'S KIND OF SOME NEW TERRITORY FOR US ON HOW TO DO THAT.

AS AS IS ALSO SEEMS TO BE WITH THE STATE AS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET GUIDANCE FROM THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE ON HOW TO HOW TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT'S OUR BEST ESTIMATE NOW OF WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO.

THE OTHER THING IN YOUR PACKET IS RESOLUTION 7580, WHICH DIRECTS THE TERMINATION OF THE ORONO FIRE DEPARTMENT, PAID ON CALL EMPLOYEES, AND THEN FURTHER DIRECT STAFF TO GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE LAYOFF PROCEDURE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, AND THEN DOES MENTION THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS THAT WILL BE NECESSITATED TO FACILITATE THAT VESTING PROCESS FOR THE RELIEF ASSOCIATION. THERE'S ALSO A SAMPLE LAYOFF NOTICE IN THE PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW.

SO SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER TIMING THE TERMINATION OF ITS FIREFIGHTERS TO COINCIDE WITH AN ORDERLY TRANSITION TO THE GOALS IN EXHIBIT C OF THE FIRE CONTRACT AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS APPROVED LAST LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

BASED ON PROGRESS TO DATE, THIS WILL LIKELY OCCUR IN THE MAY, MAY OR JUNE TIME FRAME.

WHICH IS NOT WHEN THIS IS BEING PROPOSED TO HAPPEN.

SO WHAT IS WHAT'S THE RISK TO THE CITY FOR TERMINATING DOING THE REDUCTION IN FORCE PRIOR TO THE MAY JUNE TIME FRAME THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING? SO THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOING IT BEFORE MAY 1ST OR AFTER MAY 1ST.

IT'S PREDOMINANTLY AS FAR AS A RISK TO THE CITY IS PREDOMINANTLY A FINANCIAL ONE.

WITH THAT VESTING THE WAY THAT THE VESTING RULES READ IF YOU ARE NOT EIGHT MONTHS BEFORE THE DECEMBER OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TERMINATION OCCURS. THEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT DECEMBER.

SO ALL OF THOSE FOLKS WOULD HAVE ANOTHER YEAR OF VESTED RETIREMENT.

IF WE TERMINATED THEM AFTER THE 30TH OF APRIL.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE INCREMENTAL DOLLAR IMPACT.

YEP. SO THE REASON FOR, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE REASON FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SO THE THAT REASON IS ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL IN NATURE.

SO AS YOU KNOW, THE DECISION WAS MADE TWO WEEKS AGO TO BEGIN TO BEGIN A TRANSITION PERIOD, AND SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO GET US WHERE WE NEED TO GO, AND WE ARE, I THINK, WORKING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE CITY OF LONG LAKE AND EXECUTING SOME OF THOSE, SUCH AS GETTING HENNEPIN COUNTY DISPATCH TO SWITCH THE DISPATCHING OVER AND TO DO A NUMBER OF THOSE THINGS. THOSE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN IN IN TWO WEEKS, THEY TAKE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME THAN THAT.

EXCUSE ME. THE INFORMATION IN THAT EXAMPLE. THE CHIEF SAT DOWN LAST WEEK.

THEY WERE ABLE TO START FIGURING THAT DISPATCHING THING OUT.

THEY'VE GOT THINGS SUBMITTED TO HENNEPIN COUNTY, BUT THAT HASN'T ALL BEEN FINISHED YET, AND SO THERE'S JUST KIND OF A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OF WE NEED TO GET THAT FINISHED. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WORKS, AND THEN WE CAN BEGIN SOME OF THE REDUCTIONS IN, FOR INSTANCE, THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT THE DUTY CREWS ARE IN OPERATION.

ONCE WE KNOW THAT WHEN THE CALLS COME, EVERYTHING WORKS PROPERLY.

SO THAT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER IF WE HAD MORE THAN TWO WEEKS TO GET IT DONE, IS KIND OF THE ESSENCE OF IT.

WE DO. WE HAVE TRIED TO PUT SOME THINGS IN PLACE BECAUSE WE KNEW AT A STAFF LEVEL THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE TO HAVE THIS TAKE PLACE B Y THE 1ST OF MAY. SO , WE'RE TRYING TO PUT SOME THINGS IN PLACE JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A DROP IN A CALL.

[00:45:01]

SO IT'S JUST ADMINISTRATIVELY CHALLENGING TRYING TO KNOCK ALL THOSE THOSE MILESTONES OUT, AND THAT'S SUCH A SHORT TIME PERIOD.

THANK YOU, AND TO REITERATE MY POSITION ON THE TRANSITION.

I'M ALL FOR IT, BUT I AM CONCERNED, AND MY NAY VOTE ON THE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS WAS UNIQUELY BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS A PLAN FOR TRANSITION, AND I THIS IS THIS IS MY TRADE. THIS IS WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING, IS PLAN LARGE SCALE TRANSFORMATIONS, AND I DID NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF A PLAN FOR TRANSITION.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE HAVE TACTICS AND PLANS AND THINGS TO EXECUTE THAT WILL EXCEED APRIL 30TH, AND HENCE YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR NOT TERMINATING ON APRIL 30TH, BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME EXPOSURE TO SOME SORT OF OPERATIONAL ASPECT OF THE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE CITY.

IS THAT QUESTION I'M PARAPHRASING AND, AND SORT OF OPINING AT THE SAME TIME.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND. SO. THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME.

I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THERE'S A I MEAN, IT'S YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE FINANCIAL IMPACT, WHICH IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT AGAIN WITH THE REALISTIC ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE TRANSITION.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE , I DON'T THINK THOSE TWO THINGS MATCH.

AND SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMING. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. IF NOTHING, THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7580 AS WRITTEN.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PERSIAN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RICKS.

IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. NAY. THAT PASSES 3 TO 1.

THAT BRINGS US I HAVE JUST SOME OTHER ADMIN. OH, YES .

JUST A COUPLE NOTES THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT.

ONE WE DID CANCEL THE WORK SESSION TONIGHT THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE OUR WORK SESSION WAS GOING TO BE RIGHT IN THE WINDOW OF THE EXTREME WEATHER THAT WAS COMING THROUGH. LUCKILY, IT PASSED US, BUT WE'LL LOOK AT TRYING TO RESCHEDULE THOSE ITEMS. I THINK MY STREETS ITEM I'LL JUST BRING TO A REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL, AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHEN WE CAN GET LAURA'S UPDATE ON THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK PROCESS. ON A FUTURE WORK SESSION. ANOTHER JUST NOTE.

WE DID APPROVE IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, BUT WE OPENED BIDS THIS PAST WEEK FOR OUR STREETS PROJECT.

WE'VE AND AGAIN, YOU APPROVED THEM EARLIER, BUT WE DID GET SOME FANTASTIC PRICING THIS YEAR FOR OUR ROADS, AND SO ONCE WE HAVE A TIMELINE FROM THE CONTRACTOR, WE'LL BE GETTING WE'LL BE REACHING OUT TO THE IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS WITH SPECIFICS ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THOSE ROADS, OR HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH THE VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS ON THOSE ROADS.

AND THEN FINALLY JUST THE ATTORNEY ASKED ME TO MAKE SURE I SAID THIS VERBALLY.

SO ON THE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS A SUMMATION OF MY EVALUATION AT THE LAST MEETING.

IN THAT SUMMARY, I DID STATE THAT SINCE WE WERE IN THE WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING, THAT WE DID NOT COMPLETE IT, AND I WILL BE PROPOSING A DATE TO CONTINUE IT IN PROBABLY IN THE MONTH OF MAY.

SO OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

THANK YOU. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE STREET AND HOW YOU GUYS DECIDE WHICH STREETS WILL BE REPAIRED? I HAD AN EMAIL FROM SOMEONE WHO HAD TALKED TO BRENT, AND THEY HAD LIKE, PROBLEMS WITH THEIR STREET.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF HOW DO THEY TALK TO SOMEBODY TO COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

IT SEEMS LIKE THEY COULDN'T EVEN HAVE PLOWING DONE LAST WINTER BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD.

[00:50:01]

OKAY, AND SO, YEAH, THAT 'S KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF A ROAD WHERE THE ROAD AS A WHOLE IS NOT YET IN BAD ENOUGH CONDITION TO BE TOP OF OUR LIST FOR REDO, BUT THERE IS A SECTION OF IT THAT NEEDS TO, NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, AND SO THOSE WE DO THOSE KIND OF THINGS AS PART OF OUR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

OKAY. SO HE'S EXPLORING OPTIONS OF WHETHER WE DO A FULL WIDTH PATCH OR A HALF WIDTH PATCH OR YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME SETTLEMENT OVER SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS, AND THEN AS WELL AS JUST PART OF THE NORMAL PROCESS OF HOW WE FIGURE OUT THE ROADS, ONE ONE PART IS JUST USING OUR DETERIORATION MODELS.

OTHER IS FORMAL INSPECTIONS, AND THEN THE THIRD IS JUST FEEDBACK FROM OUR STREETS, CREW AND RESIDENTS, AND SO WE TAKE ALL THAT IN AND TRY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHICH WHICH ONES WE FLOAT TO THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR, FOR YOUR APPROVAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY. THAT BRINGS US TO MAYOR COUNCIL REPORTS.

[Mayor/Council Reports]

I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND, AND I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF WHO PUT THAT TOGETHER AND HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT'S A LITTLE MORE BROADLY ADVERTISED AND MAYBE A FEW MORE HOURS.

SORRY, ADAM, TO GET YOU TO HAVE TO WORK MORE, BUT I'D LOVE TO HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE AT THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, SO. NOTHING TO REPORT. OKAY. COUNCILMEM BER PERSIAN.

YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. I'D SPOKEN TO SOME FIREFIGHTERS LAST WEEK, AND ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY TALKED TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WAS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE TAKING PLACE IN PUBLIC THAT THEY DIDN'T FEEL WAS APPROPRIATE. AND I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT.

IN THIS FORUM THAT WHETHER YOU AGREED WITH AN INDEPENDENT ORONO FIRE DEPARTMENT OR NOT, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR NOT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN AND ALWAYS SHOW THE FIREFIGHTERS THAT STEPPED UP TO BE A PART OF THE ORONO FIRE DEPARTMENT.

GRATITUDE AND NOT, YOU KNOW, GIVE THEM OBSCENE GESTURES OR MAKE NEGATIVE COMMENTS TOWARD THEM.

SO I WOULD JUST ASK THE PUBLIC NOT TO TAKE AIM AT SOMEONE WHO'S GOT AN ORONO FIRE DEPARTMENT SHIRT ON, BECAUSE IT'S JUST SIMPLY IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO BE DOING THAT TO THE FIREFIGHTERS FOR BECAUSE THEY MADE A CHOICE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY, AND IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE WITH THE ORONO FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THAT IN THAT TIME FRAME.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. THANK YOU. WELL, I ATTENDED THE SENATE 45 DISTRICT MEETING OVER ZOOM WITH SENATOR JOHNSON STEWART IN THE MAYOR'S ABSENCE LAST WEEK, AND SHE REVIEWED A NUMBER OF POLICY INITIATIVES THAT ARE MOVING THROUGH THE SENATE RIGHT NOW RELATED TO BONDING AND HOUSING AND OTHER TOPICS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPEN BONDING MATTERS AT THIS TIME, BUT SHE DID MENTION WHETHER IT'S BONDING OR OTHER ISSUES.

WE HAVE THE BENEFIT IN THE LAKES COMMUNITY IN THIS DISTRICT OF BEING GEOGRAPHICALLY ONE OF THE MOST THE CLOSEST TO OUR NEIGHBORS, AND SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT COMES TO ADVOCATING FOR POLICY AT THE STATE LEVEL, THAT'S AN ADVANTAGE.

SO WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBORS IS A GOOD THING WHEN IT COMES TO STATE DECISION MAKING.

I ALSO ATTENDED, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, THE THREE RIVERS STATE OF THE PARKS ADDRESS LAST WEEK, HELD AT HIGHLAND THEY UPDATED ON A VARIETY OF INITIATIVES THAT RELATED TO RESTORATION AND PROTECTION OF WATERSHED WETLANDS, MANY THINGS VERY RELEVANT TO OUR CITY AND OTHERS LOTS OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

THEY HAD BOOTHS SET UP THERE TO EDUCATE ON WILDLIFE, WATER QUALITY NATIVE HABITAT, LOTS OF THINGS THAT ARE AGAIN RELEVANT IN OUR CITY, AND THEY DID A REALLY NICE PRESENTATION AND THEY ARE A VERY, VERY GOOD RESOURCE, AND I KNOW THAT OUR CITY WORKS CLOSELY WITH THEM.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE IN THE FUTURE IF YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND.

IT WAS IT WAS A REALLY GREAT GATHERING, AND ONE POINT OF BUSINESS IS THAT THERE WERE THERE WERE MANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE GARAGE CONDO PROJECT THAT WE'VE SEEN COME THROUGH AND SOME OF THE COMMENTARY THAT WAS GENERATED AROUND THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ALSO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS CREATED LAST YEAR, AND WHAT OUR CITY CAN DO IN THE FUTURE AROUND BOTH MASSING AND PARKING IS RELATED TO THAT ISSUE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WANTED TO MENTION TO STAFF TO.

[00:55:01]

YEAH. SO AS YOU GUYS HAVE DISCUSSED BOTH AT LAST WEEK'S MEETING OR I'M SORRY, LAST COUNCIL MEETING, AND AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NOT HAVING A SPECIFIC METRIC FOR OFF STREET PARKING, AND THEN ALSO I THINK PLANNING COMMISSION REFERENCED IT AS LIKE THE DENSITY OF THE SITE, BUT REALLY THE BUILDING MASSING ON THE SITE RAISED SOME CONCERNS. SO THAT IS NOT REGULATED BY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPLICITLY, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE AS A TEXT AMENDMENT WITHIN THE CITY CODE TO REGULATE OFF STREET PARKING FOR GARAGE CONDO USE WITH A SPECIFIC METRIC AND TO LIMIT. THE BUILDING MASSING. ADDITIONALLY, ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT JUST THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE REGULATES BUILDING MASSING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THE STAFF COULD EXPLORE. STAFF COULD DO RESEARCH ON THOSE KIND OF ELEMENTS OF THOSE REGULATIONS AND BRING FORWARD A TEXT AMENDMENT.

IF THERE WAS CONSENSUS OR DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT, THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF COULD WORK ON.

IS THERE ANY INTEREST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AROUND OUR CITY'S ABILITY? IN OTHER WORDS, IF I'M PARAPHRASING THAT CORRECTLY, TO BE ABLE TO GIVE INPUT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS ABOUT THE MASSING OF THE BUILDINGS AND HOW PARKING IS ESTABLISHED. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW PARKING WOULD ONLY LIKE UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, PARKING WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BE MANAGED AS LIKE A CONDITION BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT IS HAVING A, FOR EXAMPLE, MAYBE A LOBBY OR A COMMUNITY SPACE OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT GENERATE THE NEED FOR PARKING.

SO WE MIGHT SUGGEST A CONDITION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SUPPORT SOME OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

WE DON'T HAVE A FLAT METRIC LIKE WE DO ON OTHER BUSINESS USES.

THAT SAYS A GARAGE CONDO USE IS X NUMBER OF UNITS, WHICH RESULTS IN X NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

I KNOW THAT WAS A CONTENTIOUS TOPIC SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT METRIC.

THERE WASN'T A SOMETHING NECESSARILY TO COMPARE IT AGAINST WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH PLANNING AND WITH COUNCIL.

SO IF THE COUNCIL WISHES TO ADD THAT METRIC INTO THE TEXT AMENDMENT, THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF COULD EXPLORE AND RESEARCH AND THEN BRING FORWARD AS A TEXT AMENDMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT IF YOU WANTED THAT RESEARCH TO COME FORWARD, WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO GO AND DO THAT RESEARCH AND THEN BRING IT FORWARD TO A PLANNING COMMISSION. ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THIS OR.

I THINK FOR FUTURE PROJECTS. YEAH. YES. YEP. I THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO HAVE MORE, MORE INPUT OR PLANNING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE FURTHER DIRECTION IF THIS ISSUE WERE TO COME UP AGAIN REGARDING A GARAGE CONDO CONCEPT IN THE CITY.

BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, THERE WASN'T AS MUCH ABILITY TO DO THAT.

SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR COUNCIL TO JUST GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BE ABLE TO RESEARCH THAT FURTHER? YEAH. SO I'M LOOKING FOR COUNCIL IF YOU WANT ME TO PURSUE RESEARCHING AND BRING FORWARD A TEXT AMENDMENT, PURSUING AN OFF STREET PARKING METRIC AND POTENTIALLY LIMITING SOME BUILDING MASSING ON THE GARAGE CONDO TYPE USE.

I'M LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS AMONG YOU OR AND THEN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR DIRECTION THAT IF YOU HAVE SOME SCOPE FOR US BESIDES WHAT I STATED.

I TAKE ANY DIRECTION THAT COMES TO A CONSENSUS AMONGST AMONGST THE COUNCIL.

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A RESOLUTION OR DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OR JUST.

NO, I MEAN, DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A MOTION. WE'RE JUST LOOKING THAT AT LEAST THREE OF YOU ARE AGREEING ON WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT COULD BE A MOTION, BUT I T CAN BE A MOTION, BUT REALLY, I'M JUST LOOKING BECAUSE WE. I TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, SO I'M LOOKING FOR DIRECTION.

IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD ON THOSE TWO TOPICS.

I'M JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S CONSENSUS HERE.

I MYSELF WOULD LIKE IT. SO I'M ONE. I CONSIDER IT FAIRLY UNLIKELY THAT WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER GARAGE CONDO PROJECT. SO IF IT COULD BE SOMETHING MORE GENERIC, THAT WOULD BE USEFUL, BUT IF IT'S SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A GARAGE CONDO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD USE OF YOUR TIME.

PERSONALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S A GOOD POINT, AND THE QUESTION IS, WOULD THERE BE THE POSSIBILITY OF A FUTURE GARAGE CONDO IF ANY OTHER BUILDING IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE WERE TO BE REPURPOSED OR DEMOLISHED OR SOLD? OR COULD THIS COME UP AGAIN, IN OTHER WORDS. WELL, GARAGE CONDOS ARE A LISTED CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE.

SO ANY INDUSTRIAL PARCEL COULD ENTERTAIN A GARAGE CONDO USE.

GRANTED, WE DON'T HAVE A LARGE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF ORONO, SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, UNDER A DOZEN PARCELS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT AS A DISTRICT, THAT'S WHAT THIS RESEARCH WOULD BE APPLIED TO.

[01:00:07]

ARE YOU ARE YOU IN FAVOR OR ANY COMMENTS OR. OKAY.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. I TEND TO AGREE WITH CLAIRE THAT IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE IT MORE BROAD, IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE BETTER USE OF STAFF TIME.

IN THIS CASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A CONDITION OR A TEXT AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO GARAGE CONDOS.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HOW THE DIRECTION COULD BE MORE GENERAL.

I, I THINK I NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF SCOPE.

SO I GUESS I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND. IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT MORE BROAD LOOKS LIKE, I CAN WORK WITH THAT.

BUT AT THIS POINT THE COMMENTS I'VE BEEN HEARING ARE CONCERNING SPECIFICALLY THE GARAGE CONDO USE, AND SO I GUESS FOR STAFF, IN ORDER TO DO THE RESEARCH AND ACT, I WOULD BE LOOKING JUST FOR CONSENSUS AMONGST YOUTH ABOUT WHAT WHAT WOULD BE REASONABLE? I'M IN AGREEMENT.

I THINK IT SOUNDS IF THIS COULD COME UP AGAIN, AND IN THIS CASE, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ESSENTIALLY ON THOSE CONDITIONS, AND I WOULD I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT STAFF SPENDING SOME TIME TO GIVE SOME OPTIONS, AT LEAST FOR THE FUTURE.

AGREED. IS THAT ENOUGH DIRECTION? YEAH, I BELIEVE I'VE HEARD ONE OR TWO.

CONSENSUS. RIGHT. YEAH. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WE'RE GOING TO GO LOOK AT THOSE TWO ISSUES FOR SPECIFICALLY GARAGE CONDOS, BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THAT, WE'LL JUST ALSO LOOK IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND SEE.

YEAH, MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER USE THAT IS IS BROADLY DEFINED THAT MIGHT BENEFIT FROM LOOKING AT THE SAME ANALYSIS.

SURE. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. IS THAT ENOUGH? YEP, AND JUST FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, STAFF IS GOING TO GO DO SOME RESEARCH AND PULL SOME MAYBE OTHER CITIES OR BEST PRACTICES, BUT THAT WOULD COME THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EVERYTHING BEFORE IT WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. SOUNDS GOOD.

GREAT. THANK YOU. YEP. SO THAT BRINGS US TO THE LAST ITEM, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. TO ADJOURN.

I WILL SECOND IT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.