[00:00:02] >> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. [Roll Call] NOTING THAT WE HAVE FOUR OF FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BENSON IS NOT WITH US TONIGHT, BUT PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> >> THANK YOU TO ALL FOLKS THAT WE HAVE IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT. WE'LL TRY NOT TO BORE YOU TOO MUCH WITH THE CITY BUSINESS WE HAVE TONIGHT. FIRST ITEM OF WHICH IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA OR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, I GUESS, ALONG WITH THAT, THE CONSENT AGENDA, [Approval of Agenda] WHICH CONSISTS OF ITEMS THAT ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE, WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITH NO DISCUSSION. UNLESS A COUNCIL MEMBER OR STAFF PERSON WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION. TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE AS FOLLOWS. [Consent Agenda] CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING, CLAIMS, AND BILLS. MEETING CALENDAR 2026, OUR WORK SESSION SCHEDULE, ADOPTING 2026 SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THE 2025 FUND TRANSFERS, THAT'S RESOLUTION 7642, LEGAL AGREEMENT FEE DATE, LAKE ACCESS TO ORCHARD BEACH PLACE, RESOLUTION 7636, FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY HALL CAMPUS, RESIGNATION OF PART-TIME FIREFIGHTERS, APPOINTMENT OF A PART-TIME POLICE OFFICER. THAT'S RESOLUTION 7634. DONATION FROM CRIME PREVENTION FUND. THAT'S RESOLUTION 7635, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ALPR AUDIT, PURCHASE OF THREE POLICE VEHICLES, AND RESOLUTION 7639 REGARDING 865 PARTON WOOD ROAD FOR VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. RESOLUTION 7640, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 200 WISEA BOULEVARD WEST, RESOLUTION 7641, WHICH IS A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD. FINALLY, RESOLUTION 7637, WHICH IS AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 850 WIND JAMMER LANE. QUITE A CONSENT AGENDA WE HAVE TONIGHT. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MOVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS OUT OF THAT CONSENT OR MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES TO OUR AGENDA TONIGHT? >> I'D LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT. >> THAT IS? >> I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT HACKBERRY PARK, PLEASE. >> WE'LL ADD THAT BETWEEN ITEMS NUMBER 20 AND 21. ANY OTHER CHANGES? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? >> I'LL SECOND IT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. NOW'S THE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF OUR PUBLIC TO STEP UP TO THE PODIUM AND [Public Comments] PROVIDE AN ADDRESS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE WON'T ENGAGE IN ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, AND WE JUST ASK YOU TO BE MINDFUL OF OTHER SPEAKERS AND TRY TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. PLEASE, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, BUT WITH THAT, WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY AT THE PODIUM. >> KIM CONSTELL 261. >> YOU KNOW THE DRILL. SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> I'VE BEEN UP HERE WITH NO PREPARED SPEECH CAUSE I FEEL QUITE COMFORTABLE. I'M JUST HERE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU DID A YEAR AGO. YOU RAN, AND I THINK YOU CREATED A SERVANT LEADERSHIP CULTURE FOR THE CITY, AND WE'RE BENEFITING SO MUCH FROM THAT AND THE MILLSTONE OF THE NEW FIRE DEPARTMENT. I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M GRATEFUL AS CITIZEN OF ORONO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> NANCY BRANNINGHAM, 3185 COUNTY ROAD 6. I'M SORRY ALYSSA ISN'T HERE, BECAUSE LIKE HIM, I STARTED, I THINK, ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS REGULARLY, AND A LOT OF THEM THAT WENT LONG INTO THE NIGHT, LIKE, OVER TWO YEARS AGO. WOW. WHAT A TWO-YEAR RUN THAT WAS. THANK YOU THAT WE ARE HERE. THE HOURS. ALYSSA GOT PEOPLE ENGAGED AND INFORMED. BOB, YOU PICKED UP A BALL AND RAN STEVE. I KNOW THE TWO OF YOU IN PARTICULAR, [00:05:02] HAVE SPENT HOURS AND HOURS GETTING US TO A POINT WHERE WE HAVE A SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT. JACKIE, THANK YOU, AND JOHN, THANK YOU FOR RUNNING AND SHIFTING THE CULTURE AND MAKING BETTER RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT SURROUND US. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> ANOTHER GRATEFUL CITIZEN. CHERYL COL SETH, 725 STONE BAY DRIVE. I THOUGHT I'D WING IT, AND THEN I THOUGHT I'D BETTER NOT. I STARTED COMING TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THOSE MEETINGS WERE NOT EASY TO SIT THROUGH. I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AND TAKE ON THE HARD WORK OF UNTANGLING THE DECISIONS THE PAST CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP PUT IN PLACE FOR US TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN THE LAST YEAR IS PHENOMENAL. THIS COUNCIL'S VISION FOR THE SHORELINE FIRE DISTRICT IS FORWARD-THINKING, AND THE HARD WORK YOU'VE DONE TO SEE THAT VISION THROUGH IS MUCH APPRECIATED. IT HAS HELPED OUR COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS HEAL. THIS COUNCIL'S THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO CITY GOVERNANCE AND THE WILLINGNESS TO RESPECTFULLY LISTEN TO CITIZENS HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR WHAT YOU BRING TO THIS COUNCIL. WE CAN CELEBRATE THE SHORELINE FIRE DISTRICT BECAUSE YOU ALL DECIDED TO TAKE A LEAP AND RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL. STEVE. I HEARD YOU SPEAK AT CITY COUNCIL ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, AND DURING A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. YOU WERE WELL SPOKEN, KNOWLEDGEABLE, RESPECTFUL, HAD GREAT QUESTIONS. YOU WERE CHALLENGING. I LEFT THAT MEETING THINKING, WHO IS THAT GUY? DOES HE LIVE IN ORONO? WOULD HE RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL? GRATEFUL THAT THE ANSWERS TO THOSE LAST TWO QUESTIONS WAS YES. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK THAT FELL TO YOU FOR THIS NEW FIRE DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO ALYSSA, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S NOT HERE. ALYSSA, I'M GOING TO PRETEND SHE'S HERE 'CAUSE SHE'S GOING TO WATCH THIS. YOU WERE THE RUDDER FOR MANY OF US DURING THOSE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIONS, THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION. YOU WERE ALWAYS THOUGHTFULLY PREPARED, CALM, RESILIENT, CONSIDERATE, NEVER WAVERED IN YOUR REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE CITY. YOU GAVE US HOPE, YOU REPRESENTED US. YOU WERE OUR VOICE WHEN WE WERE SILENCED, SO THANK YOU TO ALYSSA. BOB, GAME CHANGER WHEN YOU DECIDED TO RUN FOR MAYOR. I REMEMBER THE HOPE AND THE RELIEF I FELT WHEN I HEARD WE HAD A GREAT CANDIDATE. YOU ROLLED UP YOUR SLEEVES, YOU GOT TO WORK. YOU QUIETLY, CONFIDENTLY LED THIS COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO BRING A CHANGE THAT YOU CAMPAIGNED ON, AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. YOU'VE LED BY EXAMPLE TO RESTORE DIGNITY AND TRUST IN THIS COUNCIL. SO THANK YOU. JACKIE AND JOHN, YOU BOTH ROUND OUT THIS COUNCIL, AND WITHOUT YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AND STEP UP AND SERVE THE SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO PASS. I KNOW, AS LONGTIME RESIDENTS, YOU ALWAYS KEEP THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY FIRST. THANK YOU BOTH, AS WELL. THEN, TO ALL OF YOU, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SYNONYMS TO COMPLETELY CONVEY HOW I FEEL RIGHT NOW.I'M APPRECIATIVE, GRATEFUL, INDEBTED, THANKFUL, AND AWED. A YEAR BACK IN 2023 IN NOVEMBER, I STOOD BEFORE THE COUNCIL DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TALKED ABOUT TRUST AND HOW MY TRUST HAD BEEN ERODED FROM THAT COUNCIL. YOU ARE ALL KIND, SMART, HARDWORKING PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND MY TRUST HAS BEEN RESTORED. I APPRECIATE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, AND I'M VERY PROUD OF THIS COUNCIL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> HI, MY NAME IS DENISE SILEY. I LIVE AT 3405 HIGH LANE, AND I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF BRINGING MY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLFRIEND. WE GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL IN 1971 IN TOKYO, JAPAN, AND I SAID, IF YOU WANT TO COME SEE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RUN AT IT'S BEST, COME TONIGHT. I AM SO HAPPY TO BE STANDING HERE, THANKING YOU ALL FOR THE WORK YOU DID TO UNDO SOME REALLY BAD BEHAVIOR. I'M REALLY GRATEFUL THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ARE BACK TOGETHER. WE'VE CONSOLIDATED THESE LOCAL COMMUNITIES FOR SERVICES. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] ANYONE ELSE? THANKS VERY MUCH. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT. [19. LA25-000042, 1840 Shadywood Rd, Lot Area, Lot Width, and Hardcover Variances] FIRST ITEM OF WHICH IS 1840 SHADYWOOD ROAD, [00:10:01] WHICH IS REQUESTING LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND HARD COVER VARIANCES. >> GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT, THE APPLICANTS REQUEST VARIANCES TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON THEIR PROPERTY. AS YOU STATED, THEY REQUEST A HARD COVER VARIANCE TO PERMIT 32.5% HARD COVER, WHERE 32.5% CURRENTLY EXISTS, WHERE 25% IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED. THE PROPOSED PLAN REFLECTS A MINIMAL TWO SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION IN HARD COVER. LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCES ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, AND THE ADDITIONAL HARDCOVER VARIANCES REQUESTED, SO IT CAN'T BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN. THE APPLICANTS PROVIDED UPDATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS AS EXHIBIT E. AT THEIR MEETING ON OCTOBER 20, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND HELD A PUBLIC HEARING. OUR COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED HARDCOVER AND FELT THAT ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS SHOULD BE MADE. FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION, THE COMMISSION VOTED 7 TO 0 IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCES. HOWEVER, THE MOTION ALSO INCLUDED A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE HARDCOVER VARIANCE AS APPLIED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED HARDCOVER LEVEL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED. STAFF PROVIDED SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR REDUCTIONS, INCLUDING REDUCING THIS SIDEWALK AREA, THIS CONCRETE SIDEWALK AREA AT THE FRONT DOOR TO THE MINIMUM TURNAROUND DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND SIZE, WHICH WOULD REFLECT AN 87 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION, AND SUGGESTED REDUCING THE SIZE OF A PROPOSED LAKESIDE SIDEWALK AND TERRACE BY 125 FEET, JUST PULLING IT AWAY FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE TO REDUCE THE HARD COVER. THESE REDUCTIONS WOULD REFLECT A 212 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION, WHICH IS 1.2%. TONIGHT, THE COUNCIL SHOULD REVIEW THE APPLICATION AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL AS APPLIED. COUNCIL SHOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A DENIAL RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION AT THE NOVEMBER 24TH MEETING. APPLICANT IS HERE, I DON'T THINK. APPLICANT IS NOT HERE. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TONIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT AND POSSIBLY JUST TABLE THE APPLICATION. I THINK IF THE APPLICANT ISN'T AVAILABLE. >> WELL, THE APPLICANT HAS HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SO WE AREN'T OBLIGATED TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO THAT PERSON TO ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES, ALTHOUGH WE TYPICALLY DO. WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS SCREEN WORKING SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TURN AROUND OR SQUINT OUR EYES TO THE FAR SCREEN. >> I CAN TURN THIS. >> SHOULD BE AN ON BUTTON. LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THIS ONE AS TURNED TOWARD US. >> THERE IS NO BUTTON. >> WELL, I WOULD OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION AND ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE. WE COULD CERTAINLY DECIDE TO TABLE IT OR TAKE ACTION TONIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? >> NO, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S KIND OF SIMPLE. IT'S A HARD COVER QUESTION. I KNOW I DIDN'T ATTEND THE PLANNING MEETING, SO I GOT TO HEAR ALL THE DISCUSSIONS AND STUFF, AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY SIMPLE TO GET HARD COVER DOWN IS BY REMOVING THAT GARAGE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONVENIENTLY LOCATED RIGHT OFF THE STREET. I KNOW THE HOUSE. THEY WERE VERY CONSCIOUS OF KEEPING IT VERY MODEST IN THEIR DESIGN AND STUFF, BUT EVEN WITH THAT, WE'RE STILL AT THE EXACT SAME HARDCOVER THAT WE WERE BEFORE, AND I KNOW THAT ORIGINALLY THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE 1950S, I BELIEVE. THE OTHER ORIGINAL HOUSE DID NOT HAVE A GARAGE ON IT, SO IF YOU DRIVE BY THEIR GARAGE ALL THEIR CARS ARE PARKED NEXT TO THE HOUSE. >> WELL, IT WAS ADDED. >> THIS IS A NEW GARAGE. THIS IS THE ONLY GARAGE THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY WAS THE ONE AS LOCATED NEAR THE STREET. [00:15:06] OBVIOUSLY, THEY'D LIKE TO KEEP IT FOR STORAGE AND STUFF BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY, BUT I KNOW THAT STAFF HAD DIRECTED, LIKE MELANIE WAS REFERRING TO FOR REDUCING THE CONCRETE WALK, BUT I THINK PART OF THAT WAS FOR TURNAROUND, WAS THAT NOT? >> THAT WAS DUAL PURPOSE, YES. THE MINIMUM TURNAROUND, REDUCING IT TO THE MINIMUM BACKUP APRON AREA, WOULD REDUCE THAT 87 SQUARE FEET, BUT WE'RE STILL OVER 30%. >> OH, YES. MY REDUCTIONS WERE ONLY A 1.2%, RIGHT ON CHANGE. >> OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> NO, FOR THIS RESIDENT TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN THEIR HARD COVER, IT REALLY IS MORE DIRECTLY AND THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO ACCESS THEIR HOME, THE NEW DRIVE NEW GARAGE, AND BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND. IT'S REALLY A DISCUSSION AROUND THE ELIMINATION OF THIS OTHER GARAGE. >> OR REDUCTION OF THE HOME FOOTPRINT. >> WHICH IS BASED ON THE CURRENT HOME FOOTPRINT, FOR THE MOST PART. THEY'VE REDUCED THE SITE. >> YEAH, THEY CENTERED IT TO MEET SETBACKS. RECONFIGURED IT A LITTLE BIT, ADDED A GARAGE, BUT YEAH, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME. >> YEAH. >> GIVEN THAT IT'S BEEN 32% AND DID SOME VARIATION CHANGES FOR MELANIE'S SUGGESTION, AND KNOWING HOW VALUABLE THAT GARAGE IS. THE NEIGHBOR, TWO DOORS DOWN HAS THAT GARAGE THERE TOO, AND FROM THAT TAKEN DOWN. IT'S JUST A DIFFICULT LOT. IT'S REALLY A DIFFICULT LOT, AND SEEING WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND IT'S NOT TRYING TO CRAM AS, IT'S JUST TAKING WHAT IT DID BEFORE AND IMPROVING ON THAT. I'M OKAY WITH EVERYTHING, IF THEY COULD DO SOMETHING TO GET THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'VE LIVED ALL THESE YEARS WITH THAT. THEY DO SOME MITIGATION, POSSIBLY. AS HE TALKED ABOUT THERE IN HIS LETTER, THE RUNOFF GOES TO THE WEST. NOT TO THE EAST. >> MELANIE, DID YOU DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT, WHETHER THEY I KNOW THEY MENTIONED THEIR LETTER THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO DO SOME EXTRAORDINARY THINGS FOR DRAINAGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. DID YOU GUYS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM AT ALL? >> REALLY HIGH LEVEL, AND THAT DISCUSSION WAS WITH THEIR ARCHITECT EARLY ON. >> IS ANY OF THAT FEASIBLE FOR HELP. >> THEY CAN CERTAINLY ADD SOME BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON THE PROPERTY OR I THINK THEY MAY BE WILLING TO MAKE SOME OF THE WALKABLE SURFACES WITH PERVIOUS PAVEMENT. BUT THAT'S NOT AN OFFSET NECESSARILY OTHER THAN THE 100 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWANCE THAT WE HAVE BUILT INTO THE ARDOR RULES. >> HOW ABOUT MOVING THE HOUSE MORE TOWARDS THE STREET? >> THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION. I THINK ON LAKE SHORE LOTS, THAT'S REALLY, THE LAST OPTION. IT REALLY PUTS THEM IN A TUNNEL. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE PHOTOS THAT HE WANTED TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING. I THINK THIS IS LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORING HOME TO [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY PROVIDED THIS OTHER PHOTO TOO THAT I DON'T REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF. >> WITH THE GARAGE, YOU MENTIONED THAT TWO DOORS DOWN, THERE'S A GARAGE AT AT THE STREET LEVEL. WHAT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS? >> THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR HAVE A DETACHED GARAGE RIGHT HERE. WE CAN BRING UP AN AERIAL PHOTO IF THAT'S. >> THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >> I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM THAT DO. >> I THINK IT'S PRETTY COMMON ON SOME OF THESE LAKE SHORE LOTS THAT HAVE THE DETACHED GARAGES. THE NEIGHBORS TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH IS UNDER THESE TREES HERE AND THEN DOWN FURTHER. IT'S A COMMON LAKE SHORE IMPROVEMENT. >> THAT'S A LARGER LOT, AS WELL, ISN'T IT? >> YEAH, THEIR LOT IS QUITE LONG COMPARED TO, [00:20:01] SOME OF THE OTHER LOTS ON SHADYWOOD. I THINK THEY SAID IT'S ONE OF THE LONGEST AND NARROWEST LOTS. PULLING THE HOUSE BACK WOULD BE IN MY OPINION, PRETTY DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR LAKE VIEW. >> SURE. >> TOTALLY. >> NICK, YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH OF THEM ON THAT. >> THEY'RE SITUATED A LITTLE BIT AHEAD ON THAT. >> THEIR TUCK UNDER GARAGE, HERE IS A 22 CAR GARAGE, OR IS IT MORE THAN THAT? >> I THINK IT IS TWO. >> [INAUDIBLE] IT THAT WAY. >> HAVING THAT TURNAROUND IS PRETTY CRITICAL JUST GIVEN TRYING TO BACK OUT ON SHADYWOOD. >> CORRECT. WE REQUIRE THE BACKUP ON THE BUSIER ROADS, MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. ROADS. THAT'S WHAT THAT SIDEWALK ENTRANCE COULD SERVE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THEIR INTENT, BUT I THINK THAT DEFINITELY SERVES COULD SERVE AS A BACKUP AREA. THEY COULD ALSO REDUCE. THERE'S A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO DRIVEWAY, NECKS. A LITTLE HARD COVER THAT THEY COULD REDUCE. BUT I SPOKE TO MR. ERICKSON ON FRIDAY, AND THEY'RE VERY OPPOSED TO REMOVING THE GARAGE, AND I DID ENCOURAGE THEM TO FIND OTHER REDUCTIONS IN THE HOME. >> IT'S A RAMBLER NOW IT'S GOING TO A TWO STORY, CORRECT? >> YES. >> I ALMOST FEEL LIKE WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE HOMEOWNER HIMSELF BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON THE HOUSE. >> I AGREE. >> IT'S A RAMBLER. IT'S A ONE LEVEL. >> I AGREE. I GUESS WHERE I'M AT IS, I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ERICKSON'S COME IN AND. >> ANY MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? >> MOTION. >> ANY SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND IT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLEING THIS UNTIL A FUTURE MEETING. SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. >> IS THEY HAVE TILL DECEMBER 13TH ON THEIR 60 DAY [OVERLAPPING] AND AN EXTENSION. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> HATE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE HOMEOWNER. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> THANKS, MELANIE. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 20, [20. LA25-000039, Text Amendments regarding Retaining Walls] WHICH IS TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING RETAINING WALLS. IS THIS MISS OPEN? >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE EARLIER WHEN WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THAT TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT. EARLIER THIS SUMMER, THE CITY COUNCIL HAD DIRECTED STAFF TO PROVIDE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO RETAINING WALLS IN THE BLUFF AND LAKE SHORE SETBACK. DURING THE REVIEW, OF THE CITY CODE STAFF ALSO IDENTIFIED SOME AREAS THAT NEEDED CLARIFICATION FOR RETAINING WALLS IN OUR PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE AS WELL. WE TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY TO A BIGGER CLEANUP. I'VE SUMMARIZED THE CHANGES ON THIS TABLE HERE JUST TO WALK THROUGH. WE DID SOME CLEANUP ON SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RETAINING WALLS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. WE ADDED THE CONDITION FOR SCREENING OF THOSE WALLS. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THOSE ARE NEW RETAINING WALLS IN THE LAKE SHORE OR RETAINING WALLS OVER FOUR FEET IN THE LAKE SHORE. WE'VE MODIFIED THOSE STANDARDS, AS WE DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS WALLS MUST BE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY. WALLS MUST CORRECT AN EXISTING EROSION CONTROL. THEN THE REQUIRED SCREENING IS A STANDARD. THEN AN ADDITIONAL STANDARD WAS PROPOSED ABOUT CREATING A LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SUBMIT FOR THE DISTURBED AREAS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL, AND GIVING US A NATIVE PLANTING SCHEDULE FOR WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO REPLACE IN THE DISTURBED AREAS. THAT'S THE POINT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS TONIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK THERE IN A MINUTE. ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE IS TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALLS, CLARIFY HOW MUCH AND WHERE THOSE WALLS ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH JUST INSIDE YARDS OR IN FRONT YARDS OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE SHORE, SO JUST REGULAR LOTS AND WHERE RETAINING WALLS ARE [00:25:03] ALLOWED AND PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS [NOISE] CLEANUP THAT NEEDED IN THAT SECTION, AND THEN CLARIFY HOW RETAINING WALLS APPLY PERTAINING TO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, AND THEN ALSO CLARIFY FENCING WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK. THERE'S JUST SOME LANGUAGE THAT WAS DUPLICATIVE AND CHALLENGING TO UNDERSTAND. I HAVE THE RED LINES, SO HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THAT WITH YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE CHANGES. BUT REALLY, WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LANDED ON HERE. LET ME BRING THIS UP. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THE CHANGES, AND FOR THE MOST PART, WERE GENERALLY POSITIVE WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING REPLACEMENT REGULATIONS. AS PROPOSED, VEGETATIVE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE TRIGGERED FOR ALL AREAS DISTURBED OR IMPACTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS. I'M TALKING ABOUT WALLS THAT TRIGGER THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STUFF IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. THE NEW LANGUAGE SPECIFIES THAT IMPACTED AREAS WOULD REQUIRE TO BE REVEGETATED WITH DEEPER NATIVE PLANTINGS. THE SECTION IN BLUE HERE AT THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN, THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS A PROPOSED STANDARD FOR RETAINING WALLS TRIGGERING THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE SHORE SETBACK. A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY VEGETATIVE REMOVALS IN A LOCATION FOR NEW AND REPLACEMENT WALLS TO ENSURE REMOVALS ARE LIMITED IN THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF THE WALLS. REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS MUST CONSIST OF DEEP ROOTED, NATIVE VEGETATION TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR THE SLOPE. THAT WAS THE STANDARD THAT PLANNING COMMISSION SPENT A LONG TIME TEASING AND DISCUSSING. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR RETAINING WALLS IN THE LAKE SHORE SETBACKS SEEMED EXCESSIVE AND MAY PROVE TO BE DIFFICULT OR MAYBE EVEN UNREASONABLE STANDARD FOR HOMEOWNERS TO MEET. THEY SPENT A LONG TIME PLAYING WITH DIFFERENT WORDS AND WORDSMITHING OPTIONS FOR MAYBE HOW TO REQUIRE OR MAYBE ASK APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT A LANDSCAPING PLAN, BUT NOT HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF NATIVE PLANTINGS OR NOT HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF DEEP ROOTED. THEN THEY DISCUSSED ELEMENTS OF LANDSCAPING PLAN VERSUS SITE PLAN AND DIFFERENT SCOPE OF WHAT TO SUBMIT. IN THE END, THEY ENDED UP DISCUSSING THE SECONDARY BLUE SECTION. THEY DIDN'T COME TO A CONSENSUS ON THE EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT SOMETHING LIKE A SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY VEGETATION REPLACEMENT IN THE DISTURBED SOILED AREAS OF THE PROJECT. REPLACEMENT VEGETATION SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE REMOVED VEGETATION AND SHOULD INCLUDE NATIVE PLANTS TO ADDRESS EROSION. A LITTLE LOOSER TO LOOSEN THAT STANDARD. REALLY, THIS IS WHERE I'M LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL TONIGHT. I DON'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT TYPE OF THIS STANDARD SPECIFICALLY AND WHERE THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DO OR WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THIS STANDARD. PLANNING COMMISSION MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH A REVISION LIKE THIS AND A 6-1 VOTE. CHAIR BALIS WAS A DESCENDING VOTE ON THAT. THIS DID GO OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DNR. THEY DID GIVE A CONDITIONAL LETTER OF APPROVAL, BUT WITH ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WE MAKE, I'D WANT TO RESUBMIT TO THEM. ADDITIONALLY, I TALKED TO COUNCIL MEMBER BENSON EARLIER TODAY AS SHE WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT'S MEETING, BUT I SUBMITTED HER EMAIL TO YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW. GENERALLY, I WOULD SAY SHE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO PUT A HIGHER STANDARD OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE DOING RETAINING WALL PROJECTS IN THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK. IN FRONT OF YOU, STAFF IS ASKING FOR THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPING AREAS. THEN COUNSEL SHOULD PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON THE PROPOSED STANDARDS, AND THEN I WOULD COME BACK AT A LATER MEETING WITH THE LANGUAGE. BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH RED LINES IF THAT'S EASIER TO WORK THROUGH OR JUST POSE A GENERAL DISCUSSION. I ALSO HIGHLIGHTED IN BULLET POINTS HERE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AND HOW THEY GOT TO THIS LANGUAGE. I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THAT AS WELL. >> STAFF QUESTIONS. >> I GUESS I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE YOU WALK US THROUGH THE CHANGES. >> LIKE I SAID FOR RETAINING WALLS IN [00:30:02] THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK [NOISE] THAT TRIGGER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THOSE ARE RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE BRAND NEW WALLS IN THE LAKE SHORE. THOSE ARE RETAINING WALLS FOUR FEET OR TALLER. NO MATTER WHAT TRIGGER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS THAT COMES THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL. STAFF WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THOSE STANDARDS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OUR STANDARDS WEREN'T QUITE GETTING US TO WHAT YOU WANTED FOR OUTCOMES FOR SUBMITTALS FROM APPLICANTS. WE WANTED A LITTLE BIT TIGHTER. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, A LITTLE BIT BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF, THE DISTURBED OR SUBJECT AREA TO LIMIT PROJECT CREEP ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. STAFF HAD COME UP WITH ONE OF THE STANDARDS TO BE THAT A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO REQUIRE VEGETATION REMOVALS IN THE AREA FOR THE NEW AND REPLACEMENT WALLS TO ENSURE REMOVALS ARE LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALLS. THEN FOR THE REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS IN THAT AREA, THE PLANTINGS MUST CONSIST OF DEEP ROOTED OR NATIVE VEGETATION TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR THE SLOPE. PLANNING COMMISSION DISAGREED WITH REQUIRING REPLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPING FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA. THE COMMISSION FELT THAT WOULD BE A BURDEN ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE COMMISSION ALSO FELT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE THAT SPECIFIC LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN IN PLACE ONCE THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED WOULD BE LIMITED, THAT WOULD BE A CHALLENGING THING TO DO THREE YEARS ON, FIVE YEARS ON. THE COMMISSION WAS SUPPORTIVE OF REQUIRING VEGETATIVE SCREENING OF THE WALLS, AND NOTED IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THAT SCREENING REQUIREMENT BE SEPARATE FROM THIS LANDSCAPING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT. SOME COMMISSIONERS WERE OKAY WITH REQUIRING NATIVE PLANTS, BUT FELT THAT THE DEEP ROOTED DESCRIPTION WAS TOO SPECIFIC OR EXCESSIVE. THEN COMMISSIONERS ALSO DISCUSSED USING THE LANGUAGE IN KIND IN SOME WAY, OR SAME OR SIMILAR TO ALLOW OWNERS TO MAINTAIN A SOD LAWN IN DISTURBED AREAS IF THAT'S WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE. IN A SENSE, THE COMMISSION HAD CONCERNS THAT IF A PROPERTY OWNER HAD A SOD LAWN AND HAD A FIVE FOOT RETAINING WALL AND HAD TO COME THROUGH A CUP PROCESS. THAT STANDARD OF REQUIRING THEM TO REPLACE IT WITH NATIVE VEGETATION, THE DISTURBED AREA TO REPLACE IT WITH NATIVE VEGETATION WOULD THEN REQUIRE THEM TO REPLACE IT WITH ALL NATIVE VEGETATION AND THEY COULDN'T RESTORE THEIR LAWN. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPENT A LONG TIME DISCUSSING THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT. I THINK WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL HERE IS I HAVE, MAYBE AN EXAMPLE PICTURE THAT MIGHT HELP US WRAP OUR HEAD AROUND. >> FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS A RETAIN WALL PROJECT YOU GUYS SAW EARLIER THIS YEAR. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED FOR VEGETATIVE SCREENING, ASKED FOR NATIVE PLANTINGS TO PROTECT EROSION AND THE LANGUAGE JUST WASN'T IN THE CODE TO REQUIRE THAT OF THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WELL MET EROSION CONTROL MINIMUMS, MAYBE WASN'T AS FRUITFUL AS THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE WANTED TO SEE FOR NATIVE PLANTINGS OR IMPROVING A SHORELINE FOR THE AREA. THIS WAS THE IDEA THAT BEING ABLE TO ASK THAT AREAS LIKE THIS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISTURBED TO BE REPLACED WITH NATIVE PLANT TEAMS. THE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS A HIGH BAR. IT IS A NEW STANDARD. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE CODE. IT IS A NEW STANDARD THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE THAT APPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS IN THE LAKE SHORE OR THE [INAUDIBLE] TO. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD CONCERNS THAT THAT BAR MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO HIGH. THAT'S WHERE I'M LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE ON WHERE THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO LAND ON HAVING A STANDARD LIKE THAT. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION IS MORE PALATABLE VERSUS PUTTING A HIGHER STANDARD OF REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. >> JUST LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE, WHICH IS REALLY HELPFUL, BY THE WAY. THE NATIVE PLANTINGS WOULD BE WHAT [OVERLAPPING] JUST JUST FOR THAT AREA. >> ANYWHERE WHERE THERE'S BARE SOIL, THE DISTURBED AREA. IT WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT AS PART OF THE SUBMITTAL, TO SHOW US A SITE PLAN OR A LANDSCAPE PLAN, IDENTIFYING HERE, THIS AREA IS WHERE I NEED TO DISTURB TO INSTALL MY WALLS. [00:35:03] MY WALLS ARE 10 FEET LONG AND FIVE FEET HIGH. IN ORDER TO GET THEM CONSTRUCTED, I'M GOING TO DISTURB THIS 300 SQUARE FEET OF AREA ON MY PROPERTY, MY CONSTRUCTION AREA. THEN WE WOULD THEN ASK, IF YOU'RE DISTURBING THAT AREA, WE WANT YOU TO REPLACE THAT AREA WITH REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS THAT ARE DEEP ROOTED NATIVE IS WHAT'S IN OUR CODE. IS ASKING THE APPLICANT TO DO. ALL OF THIS AREA WAS UNDERBRUSH, PARTS OF IT WERE FAILING, SLOPING, ALL THOSE THINGS. BUT BECAUSE OF THIS WHOLE AREA WOULD NEED TO BE DISTURBED TO INSTALL THESE RETAINING WALLS, THIS STANDARD THEN WOULD ASK THAT THIS WHOLE AREA BE NATIVE PLANTING, DEEP ROOTED TYPE VEGETATION. >> LET'S SAY THIS WALL HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR 50 YEARS, AND A FEW OF THE ROCKS HAD STARTED TO COME DOWN SO THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED AND THAT AREA BETWEEN THE RETAINING WALL AND THE LAKE WAS JUST GRASS THAT THEY MOWED, WOULD THIS SAY THAT WE GOT TO GO IN AND FIX A FEW OF THOSE ROCKS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE GRASS AND PUT IN NATIVE PLANTINGS? >> IF THEY WERE DISTURBING THAT AREA TO REPLACE THE BOULDERS, YEAH, IT WOULD. THIS IS ONLY FOR AREAS THAT TRIGGER THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IF THIS WALL WAS TWO FEET TALL AND THEY JUST WANT TO REPLACE THE BOULDER WALL WITH A REPLACEMENT BOULDER WALL, AND IT FELL UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF AN IN KIND REPLACEMENT, THEN THIS STANDARD WOULDN'T APPLY. STANDARD WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THINGS TRIGGERING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH ARE WALLS THAT ARE ALL WALLS OVER FOUR FEET, SO LARGER ONES, AND THEN NEW WALLS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A WALL TODAY, AND YOU WANTED TO PUT A NEW WALL IN. IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE FOUR STANDARDS AS TO ANY DISTURBED AREA WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH THAT NATIVE PLANTINGS. IT WOULD RELY ON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT WHAT THAT DISTURBED AREA IS. IT IS A BALANCING ACT BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO RESTORE IT WITH NATIVE PLANTING AREAS, BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE, APPLICANT YOU CAN TELL US WHAT YOUR DISTURBED AREA IS, AND IT'S TO YOUR BENEFIT TO SHOW US TO KEEP IT AS MINIMAL AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THEN THIS REQUIREMENT ONLY AFFECTS THE AREA THAT YOU'RE DISTURBING. >> AGAIN, BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. IF THEY HAD TO PUT A COUPLE OF THESE ROCKS. LET'S SAY THIS WAS A TWO FOOT RETAINING WALL, AND THEY JUST HAD TO PUT SOME ROCKS BACK UP TO WHERE THEY, WOULDN'T REQUIRE THEM TO DO ANY PLANTING? [OVERLAPPING] >> IN KIND REPLACEMENT WALLS OR WALLS THAT ARE UNDER FOUR FEET THAT ARE IN GENERALLY THE SAME LOCATION, THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE. ALL THAT WE WOULD ASK THEN IS JUST SCREENING. YOU WOULD JUST NEED TO PUT SOMETHING TO SCREEN THE WALLS FROM THE LAKE VIEW. >> YOU CAN'T DO A FOUR FOOT IN KIND. I'VE GOT A FOUR FOOT WALL THERE AND IT'S CRUMBLING OR WHATEVER IT IS AND I CAN'T DO THAT IN KIND, CORRECT? >> THE CODE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS BRAND NEW WALLS, AND IT'S MEANT TO ADDRESS WALLS OVER FIVE FEET. I BELIEVE FOLLOWING THE IN KIND RULES, IF IT IS ACTUALLY IN KIND LIKE HEIGHT, LOCATION, DEPTH, ALL THOSE THINGS, I BELIEVE THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVE. BUT IF YOU ARE CHANGING THE MATERIAL OF A FIVE FOOT WALL, AND IT'S A TIMBER WALL, YOU'RE CHANGING TO A BOULDER WALL, THAT'S CONSIDERED A BIGGER FOOTPRINT, AND THAT WOULD TRIGGER IT OR IF YOU HAVE TO ADJUST IT TO BE TWO FEET LONGER BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION OF YOUR SHORELINE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE NO LONGER IN KIND. >> WOULD NATIVE PLANTINGS INCLUDE CERTAIN TYPES OF GRASSES? >> YES. [OVERLAPPING] >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE DEEP ROOTED UNDER THE FIRST LANGUAGE? >> CURRENTLY, WE HAVE DEEP ROOTED NATIVES, AND THERE IS A VARIETY OF GRASSES, NO-MOW GRASSES OR DIFFERENT TYPES OF FESCUE GRASSES. THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENT STYLES OF ALL DIFFERENT PLANTINGS THAT WE COULD PROBABLY MAKE EASIER OR MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO HELP RESEARCH OR AS A GUIDE. RIGHT NOW, WE USE DNR AS OUR BACKSTOP FOR HIGH LEVEL PLANTINGS, BUT WE WOULD RELY ON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT WHAT THEY'D WANT TO DO AND TO SHOW THAT THEY'VE MET THAT STANDARD. >> THEN THE SCREENING, WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HIGH ENOUGH TO COVER UP THE WALL FROM THE VIEW OF SOMEBODY COMING BY IN A BOAT? >> YEAH. [00:40:02] >> I LIKE THE LANGUAGE YOU USED. I THINK IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO HAVE IT A LITTLE MORE STRICT NEAR THE LAKE. I THINK THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INVASIVE SPECIES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE LAKE. I THINK THAT IT ONLY BENEFITS THE LAKE WHEN WE HAVE PLANTINGS NEAR THE SHORE THAT ARE GOING TO HOLD BACK A LOT OF THAT WATER. I TEND TO FAVOR HAVING IT A LITTLE MORE STRICT. >> OTHER THOUGHTS? >> WELL, I AGREE THOUGH ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIDE, WHERE YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE TOO ONEROUS ON THE HOMEOWNERS DOWN THERE. >> BACK IN THAT PICTURE, IT HAD BEEN A WOOD WALL THAT STARTED TO FAIL. THEY THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT'S GOING TO LAST LONGER. THEY PUT IN ROCKS BUT THEY HAD LAWN DOWN THERE. WE WOULD BASICALLY REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE LAWN GRASS, IF YOU WILL, SOME OF THE NATIVE PLANTINGS. >> BECAUSE THEY HAD TO DISTURB IT TO BUILD THAT [OVERLAPPING] AND DO THAT CONSTRUCTION. >> I THINK WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS SAYING IS, HEY, IF THAT WAS GRASS DOWN THERE BEFORE, WHY ARE WE REQUIRING THEM TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THIS TIME? ESSENTIALLY THE SAME WALL, IT'S JUST A BETTER WALL. IT MIGHT DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM REPLACING WALLS THAT SHOULDN'T BE REPLACED AND THEREBY HELP WITH EROSION. I CAN SEE THAT POINT OF VIEW AS WELL. >> THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A NEW WALL THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS TRIGGERED. THIS WAS A LAKE STAIR, AND THEN THEY ASKED TO PUT A WALL AROUND THIS TO BACK FILL BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS ORIENTED ON THE GRADE. THIS WAS WHERE THE WALL ENDED UP OR WAS APPROVED. IN THIS >> SCENARIO, WE'D ASK FOR WHAT IS YOUR DISTURBED AREA AND THEN WHAT ARE THE PLANTINGS YOU'RE GOING TO PLANT THERE? YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE SOD HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT DEPENDING ON THEIR DISTURBED AREA, WE'D ASK FOR NATIVE PLANTINGS TO BE IN THE AREA THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED UNDER THIS NEW STANDARD? >> AS OPPOSED TO JUST PUTTING SOD BACK IN? >> YEAH. >> FURTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS? >> I GUESS, FOR ME, AND I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD USE BUT FOR ME, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS, I THINK THAT THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT THAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT MANAGES EROSION, MAINTAINING PROPER VEGETATION DOWN THERE, AND DOING IT IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE LAKE AND WHATNOT. I GUESS I CAN SEE BOTH OF THESE BEING EQUALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT PLACING SUCH HEAVY GUIDELINES THAT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY GET IN THE WAY OF A HOMEOWNER BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE SIMPLY UPDATING IN THIS CASE, A WALL THAT WAS FALLING APART. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF THEY'RE SAYING, WE WANT TO FIX THIS, WE WANT TO MAKE IT MORE SAFE, WE WANT WHAT BEST IN THIS, WE WANT TO PUT BACK DOWN THERE WHAT'S THERE ALREADY. THAT JUST STRIKES ME AS REASONABLE, AS LONG AS IT MAINTAINS THE EROSION AND WHATNOT THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. >> ALTHOUGH, IF IT'S A FIVE FOOT WALL, WHICH IS GOING TO TRIGGER THIS, DON'T WE REQUIRE THAT THE WALLS ARE SCREENED FROM THE LAKE OR IS THAT JUST A RECOMMENDATION? THAT IS A REQUIREMENT. [OVERLAPPING] >> SCREENING THE WALLS IS A STANDARD AND WILL BE A STANDARD EVEN FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE WALLS IN THE 75. THOSE WILL BE STANDARD THAT THE WALLS HAVE TO BE SCREENED, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOTED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THAT STAY SEPARATE FROM THIS DISCUSSION STANDARD OF THE LANDSCAPING IN THE DISTURBED AREAS AND WHAT TO IDENTIFYING THE DISTURBED AREAS FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THEN WHAT TO REPLACE THE PLANTINGS WITH. >> I GUESS I'M ASKING BECAUSE IN THAT PICTURE WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT GRASS AND WE REALLY COULDN'T JUST PUT GRASS BACK THERE. [BACKGROUND] WE HAVE TO SCREEN IT. >> IN ADDITION TO YOU. [00:45:01] >> YOU'RE SAYING IF WE SCREEN IT, WE'D LIKE IT TO HAVE DEEP ROOTS AND BE A NATIVE PLANT. >> FOR SCREENING IS A NATIVE PLANTING AND THEN IN ADDITION, THE DISTURBED AREAS. I WILL NOTE THERE ARE NO-MOW LOW VERSIONS OF A LOW GRADE FESCUE TYPE OPTIONS. THERE'S A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANTINGS AND THINGS, AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN COME BACK WITH AT THE FINAL, SO TO GIVE SOME EXPOSURE TO SOME OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THAT ALL IS. BUT JUST GETTING TO THE IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF STANDARD DO WE WANT FOR THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING LARGER OR JUST RETAINING WALL PROJECTS IN THE 75. >> TO ME, IT'S ALMOST LIKE IF THIS IS TOTALLY FLAT DOWN THERE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TOWARD THE LAKE, HOW MUCH EROSION ISSUE IS GOING TO BE DOWN THERE, IF IT'S PLANTED BACK TO GRASS. ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A BIG CHANCE OF EROSION THERE? I'M ALL ABOUT TRYING TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF THE LAKE AND WHAT THAT ELEMENT OF THIS REQUIREMENT DOES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF SOMEBODY HAS PRETTY FLAT GRASS DOWN BY THE LAKE THAT'S NOT REALLY SUBJECT TO EROSION, SEEMS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE A SITUATION WHERE YOU LOOK AT IT AND SAY, HOW MUCH ARE WE REALLY GAINING BY REQUIRING THEM TO REPLACE ALL OF THAT WITH SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT? >> I THINK, JUST AS A KNOW, A LOT OF THE REASONS FOR THE RETAINING WALL IS TO ADDRESS EROSION ISSUES IS ONE OF THE JOB OF RETAINING WALLS, BUT I THINK THE PLANTING SERVE A PURPOSE FOR INFILTRATION AND THAT WATER QUALITY BEFORE GETTING TO THE LAKE. I THINK IT IS WEIGHTED, BUT IT IS A NEW IDEA OF A NEW STANDARD THAT WE'D BE PUTTING ON FOR THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. >> GO AHEAD. >> AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU LOOK AT THAT NICE FLAT PLACE, BE NICE TO HAVE IT SIDED, ADIRONDACK CHAIRS, GREAT PLACE TO HANG OUT BY THE LAKE VERSUS THE NATIVE. >> BUT IF THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS WITH FESCUES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT AND PROTECT THE QUALITY OF THE LAKE WATER. >> AND GIVE IT THAT SCREENING, TOO. THE PARCEL IS THE SCREENING AS WELL AS THE MITIGATION. [OVERLAPPING] >> THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE SCREENING BEYOND THAT. >> MITIGATION FOR THE LAKE. >> YOU TALKED ABOUT COMING BACK WITH SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME MORE LESS GRASS, ESSENTIALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THAT ACTUALLY, AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US MAKE THIS DECISION. I THINK IN MY MIND, I WAS THINKING, THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE JUST, ALL GRASSES, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S AT ALL WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. >> I CAN BRING BY SOME EXAMPLES. BLACKTHORNE. YES, BLACKTHORNE. THAT'S IT. WHEN I COME BACK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE AS WELL? SO THAT IF YOU DECIDE YOU CAN ACT, IT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU? >> PLEASE. >> WE'LL COME BACK WITH THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN I CAN BRING EXAMPLES OF THE DIFFERENT GRASSES AND PLANTINGS. >> I PERSONALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING ELSE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS HERE AND SEEING WHAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE. THANKS FOR THE PICTURES, TOO. THAT REALLY HELPS. >> EVERY PROJECT IS A DIFFERENT SCALE. OF COURSE. GREAT. >> ITEM 21. >> MAYOR. >> YES. >> I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MR. ERICKSON, THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT IS HERE. >> WE TABLED THE MOTION FROM HERE. WE CAN BRING IT BACK. >> IF THERE'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE TABLE AND JUST BRING THAT APPLICATION BACK, THAT WOULD CLEAN UP THE RECORD FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. >> ANYONE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? >> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I SECOND THAT. >> FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. MR. ERICKSON, THE PODIUM IS YOURS TO DISCUSS YOUR PROJECT. >> SCOTT ERICKSON, 1840 SHADYWOOD ROAD, ORONO. APOLOGIES FOR BEING LATE. I THOUGHT I WAS LATER ON THE AGENDA, [00:50:02] AND I COULD SHUFFLE THE KIDS AROUND A LITTLE MORE. AS YOU SEE, WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO UPDATE OUR HOUSE 23 YEARS AGO. WE BOUGHT A 1952 CABIN, LIVED IN IT FOR QUITE A WHILE. WE'VE GOT TWO BOYS THAT GO TO ORONO. DID AS MUCH AS WE COULD IN THE OUTDATED HOUSE, AND IT'S TIME TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. PART OF COMING HERE AND TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE. IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE I'M ASKING FOR SOMETHING, BUT IT FEELS LIKE I'M IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH AND DESIGNING THE HOUSE AND DEVELOPING. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MAKING COMPROMISES. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET MORE HARDCOVER. WE LOST SEVEN FEET OF OUR HOUSE. THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR HOUSE IS ALMOST ON THE PROPERTY LINE OF OUR NEIGHBOR, THE EXISTING HOUSE. EVEN OUR CONCRETE SIDEWALK. OUR SIDE OF OUR SIDEWALK IS THE PROPERTY LINE THERE. OUR HOUSE HAS GOTTEN SUBSTANTIALLY NARROWER. THEN, WHEN IT GETS NARROWER, IT GOT A LITTLE LONGER TO GET THAT TWO-CAR GARAGE. THE FOOTPRINT OF OUR MAIN FLOOR IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE HAVE NOW, AND IT'S ONLY ABOUT, IT'S PRETTY MODEST SIZE ON THE MAIN FLOOR. WE'VE GOT THAT TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT IT'S GONE NARROWER, LONGER, AND ONE OF THE OPTIONS, SOMEBODY LAST TIME WHEN I CAME UP HERE, THEY'RE LIKE YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. YOU CAN EITHER LOSE THE GARAGE, OR YOU'VE GOT TO MOVE THE HOUSE BACK. THE GARAGE HAS BEEN THERE FOR 70-SOME YEARS, AND IT'S A GREAT STORAGE. I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M GAINING ANYTHING BY GIVING UP THAT GARAGE. I'M LOSING PARKING RIGHT NOW. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A TWO-CAR PARKING, LIKE A DEEP CAR. IT'S A SORT COURT. IT'S A PICKLEBALL HOCKING RANK. I MEAN, IT'S SO BIG NOW. WHEN WE GO BACK TO OUR NEXT PLAN, OUR CURRENT PLAN, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE SMALL TURN AROUND THERE, SO I'M LOSING SO MUCH UP THERE. BY GETTING RID OF THE GARAGE, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE HARD COVER WE'RE ASKING FOR. I'M REALLY NOT GAINING TOO MUCH PARKING UP TOP. I'M LOSING A TON OF STORAGE. I'M LOSING A TON OF PARKING DOWN BELOW. THE OTHER OPTION WAS, OKAY, LET'S MOVE THE HOUSE BACKWARDS. I THINK I SHOWED A PICTURE OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHICH IS TWO STORIES. RIGHT NOW, OUR HOUSE IS SITTING EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT, AND IT ALREADY LOOKS LIKE THAT. IF WE GO BACK ANOTHER 20 FEET, I MEAN, THOSE WINDOWS ARE JUST STARING OVER OUR PATIO. I MEAN, IT'S FINE. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. OUR NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES ARE AWESOME. WE HAVE GREAT NEIGHBORS. WE LOVE THE LOCATION, WE'VE BEEN THERE THAT LONG. WE REALLY ARE LOOKING TO JUST BE IN THIS HOUSE FOR A LONG TIME. THAT'S WHY WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK FOR US AS WE GET OLDER AND HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE. I'M PUSHING 50. I'VE NEVER HAD A PARKING GARAGE IN MY LIFE. IN THE GARAGE. THE DETACH GETS USED UP WITH JUST BIKES AND MOWERS, AND JUST STUFF. OUR LOT IS NARROW ENOUGH WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE TO GET A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE. IT FEELS LIKE, WHY DON'T YOU PUT THE GARAGE ON THE SIDEWALK. DRIVING SCV IN A TRUCK, I DON'T REALLY THINK I CAN. WE LOOKED AT THOSE OPTIONS, TOO. WE LEFT HERE AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS WORK OR HOW CAN WE LOSE SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THERE'S JUST NOTHING. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT GAINS. EVEN THE PATIO, I THINK WE'RE EVEN, SO WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE SIDE SETBACKS. WE DID NARROW THE HOUSE. THE OTHER OPTION IS IF THIS DOESN'T GO, WE REMODEL THE EXISTING HOUSE, THEN WE'RE NOT GAINING ANYTHING. WE'RE STILL KEEPING THE SAME HARDCOVER. WE'RE PUSHING. THE SIDE SETBACKS AREN'T ADDRESSED. I THINK THE OTHER THING WITH HARD COVERS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER DRAIN. WHERE'S THE WATER GOING. ON THE LAKE SIDE, THAT'S NOT CHANGING AT ALL. IT'S ALL GRASS GOING DOWN TO THE LAKE. THEN ON THE ROADSIDE, IT'S GOING TOWARDS THE ROAD. ANY OF THE HARD COVERS ARE REALLY GOING TOWARDS THE ROAD, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'RE TOUCHING ANY OF THAT LAWN. WE'RE GAINING RIGHT THERE. >> THE NATURAL SLOPE FROM EVERYWHERE LEFT OF THE HOUSE, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, IS GOING TO NATURALLY FLOW TOWARD THE STREET. >> IT'S MUCH MORE GRADUAL ON THAT SIDE. THE LAKESIDE, IT DOES GO DOWN. THERE IS A SLOPE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE HARD COVER REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> IS IT A FOOT OR TWO THAT GOES DOWN THAT DIRECTION? >> WHAT'S THAT? >> IS IT A FOOT OR TWO OF ELEVATION, OR NOT THAT MUCH INCHES, [00:55:02] OR WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? >> ON THE LAKE SIDE? >> ON THE OTHER SIDE. AGAIN, I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. >> THE ROAD UP. IT'S PROBABLY EIGHT FEET, I WOULD THINK. >> THESE ARE TWO FOOT CONTOUR LINES. OKAY. THIS IS A 944-46-4850. >> YEAH. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO FLOW THAT DIRECTION FROM THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. IT'S IMPORTANT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE HARDCOVER RESTRICTIONS >> THERE WILL BE SOME DRAINAGE ON THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY NOT GETTING EITHER [INAUDIBLE] SIDE OF WHICH I HAVE NOTHING. IT'S HOUSE AND THEN CONCRETE RIGHT TO THE NEIGHBORS. YEAH. THE WAY IT SITS TODAY. >> IS THIS HARD COVER WITH THE NEW PROPERTY? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S LESS THAN WHAT IT IS NOW. >> THEY'RE THE SAME. >> IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. >> IT'S A TWO SQUARE FOOT JUNCTION. >> YEAH. OKAY. >> BUT IT IS A REDUCTION. IT'S NOT AN ADD ON RIGHT? >> YES. >> I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO INCREASE THE HARD COVER ON ANYBODY'S LOT, BUT I APPRECIATE HOW YOU'VE WORKED HARD TO AT LEAST KEEP IT RELATIVELY THE SAME. >> AND THEN THE HOUSE ITSELF, I MEAN, WE'RE STILL AT 17% OF THE 20% FOR THE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, THE HOUSE ITSELF IS VERY TASTEFUL. IT'S JUST ONE LEVEL. I DON'T HAVE A SECOND STORY ON IT. >> HOW MANY SQUARE FEET? >> WHAT'S THAT? >> HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WILL THE HOUSE BE? >> THE TOTAL IS ABOUT FOUR, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S THE MAIN LEVEL, I THINK, IT'S LIKE THE 17. DOWN BELOW, WE'RE ADDING SOME SPACE ONTO THE GARAGE IF WE DO THAT. >> YEAH. I THINK THAT SOMEWHERE IN THERE, LIKE 17? >> YEAH, IT SAYS 17. >> THE MAIN FLOOR 17, ON THE MAIN FLOOR. >> YEAH. >> IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE. IT'S JUST WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT ATTACHED GARAGE, AND THEN SHOW REALLY NARROWED THE SIDEWALK AND THE TURN AROUND. >> I WILL SAY THAT THE ONE THING THAT I DO APPRECIATE ABOUT THE OLD GARAGE IS THAT IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE STREET. IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, I GUESS, AT LEAST FOR ME, THAT YOU HAD THAT WHOLE GARAGE ADDED ONTO THE HOUSE. LIKE YOU SAID, IF YOU WANT TO ADD PERCENTAGE-WISE ONTO THE HOUSE HERE AT 17% RATHER THAN 20, IT'S A LITTLE EASIER. I KNOW WE'RE STILL OVER 30, THOUGH, AREN'T WE? WE'RE AT 36? >> 32. >> AND EVEN IF WE CUT DOWN A LITTLE BIT OF THAT TURNAROUND, CAN WE GET AT LEAST TO 30? >> THE REDUCTION THAT I WAS PROPOSING WAS REDUCING THIS TO THE MINIMUM THAT'S NEEDED AND REMOVING THIS, AND THAT WAS 212 SQUARE FEET WITH THOSE TWO, AND IT WAS 1.2%. >> OKAY. >> REMOVING THIS, MEANING REMOVING THE EXTRA GARAGE? >> NO, REMOVING THE HARD COVER ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND REMOVING PART OF THIS HARD COVER ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRACE, AND REDUCING THE CONCRETE WALK. I WAS SUGGESTING THEY PULL BACK TO TEN FEET FOR THIS TERRACE AND REMOVE THE SIDE SIDEWALK. >> AND THAT WAS THERE MOSTLY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A SIDE DOOR TO LET DOGS OUT, AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE GRILL THERE JUST SO THERE'S NOT ROCKS AND GRAVEL COMING STRAIGHT INTO THE HOUSE. IT'S JUST A TWO FEET BUFFER THERE, WHICH IS FIVE FEET LESS THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. IT'S JUST THAT PIECE. THAT WAS THE THING WHERE WE STARTED LOOKING THAT THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT GAINS ANYWHERE. HONESTLY, WE JUST CAN'T JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE AND WHAT WE GO THROUGH ON THIS IF WE'RE LOSING TONS OF SPACE IN PARKING. IT'S JUST THAT DRIVEWAY EATS UP SO MUCH. I MEAN, GOING UP THAT DRIVEWAY, IF WE COULD LOOK AT A HOUSE FEW DOORS DOWN, OR IT'S SUPER SHORT, AND THEIR HOUSE IS JUST THERE, OBVIOUSLY. THEY HAVE A VARIANCE, TOO, BUT DIFFER FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU'RE JUST DEALING WITH SMALLER LOTS, IT'S JUST IT'S HARD. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WHERE WE COULD GIVE. >> ARE YOU USING THE GARAGE ON THE STREET FOR STORAGE, OR ARE YOU USING IT FOR PARKING VEHICLES? >> IT'S REALLY STORAGE. I MEAN, IT'S A 1952. THE CARS MUST HAVE BEEN REALLY SMALL, THEN. YOU FOLD THE MIRRORS AND YOU CAN BARELY TUCK IN THERE. IN A PINCH, YOU CAN GET IN THERE, BUT IT'S NOT COMFORTABLE. >> I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE, AND YOU WERE TO KEEP IT JUST FOR STORAGE, [01:00:02] IF THAT WOULD HELP US GAIN A LITTLE BIT. >> WE WOULD WANT TO SEE A REDUCTION IN THE GARAGE DOOR WIDTH AS WELL, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE USED FOR PARKING IF THAT IS AN OPTION. >> IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D BE WILLING TO CONSIDER? >> I GUESS, THEN WE'RE MESSING WITH THE GARAGE. I DIDN'T WANT TO TOUCH THE GARAGE. I MEAN, ONCE YOU START, AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST QUESTIONS TOO, IS I LOVE TO PARK IN THERE, I DON'T NEED THE ASPHALT. THE PARKING THERE IS IMPORTANT., I THOUGHT FOR TURNAROUND PURPOSES AND TO HAVE IT OUT, LIKE YOU NEEDED TO BACK INTO THAT. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THOUGH, IF I REMEMBER THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'VE SEEN IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT IF YOU TOOK OUT THAT ASPHALT THERE IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE, YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE THE GARAGE. >> DOOR LESS THAN SIX FEET. >> LESS THAN SIX FEET, BUT YOU CAN'T USE IT. >> WE HAVE TO COUNT THE HARDCOVER EVEN IF IT'S NOT THERE. >> OKAY. COULD HE PUT THE OLD IMPERVIOUS PAVERS IN THERE? >> HE CERTAINLY COULD, BUT THAT DOESN'T EQUATE A REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER. WE DON'T RECOGNIZE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT OR DRIVEWAYS. >> AND I SAY THAT AS FAR AS PARKING, BUT 13 AND A 50. SO, I MEAN, IDEALLY, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING. >> A PLACE TO PARK. >> YEAH, AND A SAFETY ASPECT TOO. >> SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I LOOK AT, WE HAVE A RESIDENT THAT'S WANTING TO REPLACE THEIR HOME HERE. ON A LOT. THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S A NEGLIGIBLE REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER, AND THEY'VE MET A COUPLE OF THE SETBACKS THAT WERE IMPORTANT. FROM A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDPOINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY STRUGGLE TO MEET THOSE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. BUT WITH HOW NARROW THIS LOT IS AND JUST THE NATURAL PRACTICAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY, IT STRIKES ME AS WE HAVE A RESIDENT THAT'S TRYING TO REALLY WORK WITH THE CITY TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THIS LOT, TO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO IT, TO BE ABLE TO PARK THEIR CAR OR TWO, IN A GARAGE AT THEIR HOME AND MAINTAIN SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY THERE. FOR ME, I KNOW THAT IF I WERE TO PULL IN THERE WITH A TRUCK, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO BACK IT OUT AND NOT BE BACKING OUT ON THE SHADY WOOD. I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION AROUND NOT APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THIS HARD COVER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'D BE REALLY IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THIS RESIDENT WITH MORE COMPLICATED SITUATION BY NOT DOING THAT. I, FOR ONE, AM IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THAT VARIANCE FOR HARDCOVER, AS WELL AS THE OTHER TWO THAT WERE ALREADY RECOMMENDED. >> AS WOULD I? >> MOTION AND A SECOND? >> SURE. YEAH. >> OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. WE'VE GRANTED YOUR VARIANCES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING. IT WAS HELPFUL TO HAVE YOU HERE. [LAUGHTER] NOW ONTO NUMBER 21, [21. Set 2026 Utility Rates] WHICH IS DISCUSSION REGARDING HACKBERRY PARK. >> AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, COUNCILMAN BOB, PERSIAN AND I HAVE BEEN ATTENDING A LOT OF THE HACKBERRY MEETINGS, AND ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT WE WANTED TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF IS THAT WE LOOK AT THE LOT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET ON ELM STREET FOR POSSIBLE PURCHASE TO ADD TO THE PARK. WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON PARKING WITH THE PARK, AND I GUESS IT'S JUST AN OPTION THAT WE'D LIKE TO BE LOOKED AT. [01:05:06] >> IS THAT LOT FOR SALE? >> IT'S GOING TO BE. >> OKAY. DOES IT HAVE STRUCTURES ON IT? >> THERE IS ONE HOUSE ON IT RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE. >> BUT IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE, RIGHT? >> IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE. >> ON THE NORTH SIDE. >> ON THE NORTH SIDE. >> JUST TO ADD ON TO WHAT JACKIE'S SAYING IS THERE'S A PROPERTY CURRENTLY THERE THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH SOME WORK TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIR NEXT STEPS ARE WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. AS HACKBERRY IS BEING RECONSIDERED AND SPUN UP AND DIFFERENT VERSIONS ARE BEING PUT TOGETHER IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR PARK COMMISSION, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE VALUABLE TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT PARTICULAR HOMEOWNER OR RESIDENT IS CONSIDERING DOING WITH THAT PROPERTY AND HOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY PLAY INTO WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THAT PARTICULAR PARK. ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT JACK AND I SPOKE AROUND WAS CREATING OR MAYBE INVESTING IN A PARK LIKE THAT SO THAT FUTURE EVENTS, WHETHER IT BE A PARTY IN THE PARK AND TRYING TO SHOWCASE, THAT IS A PARK AS WE REALLY INVEST IN THOSE FIELDS AND IN THE BALL FIELDS IN THE OPEN SPACE AREAS OF THE PLAYGROUND IS HAVING PARKING THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL EVENTS. NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT'S TAKING PLACE WITH THAT PARCEL TO THE NORTH AND THINKING ABOUT THAT AS A POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY TO YOU KNOW, ADDRESS SOME OF THESE PARKING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING ON WILLOW VERSUS PARKING AROUND THE RESIDENTS. IS THIS AT LEAST WORTH NOT PUTTING A HALT ON THE CURRENT PLANS, BUT AT LEAST IN UNISON, APPROACHING THAT PARTICULAR RESIDENT AND JUST UNDERSTANDING WHERE THEY'RE AT AND WHAT THEIR TIMELINE MAY LOOK LIKE, AND JUST LEARNING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. >> A WAY HE COULD BRING UP AN AERIAL THAT WE COULD VISUALIZE THAT. [NOISE] IS IT THAT WHOLE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT WOULD BE FOR YOUR PERSPECTIVE? >> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE JUST GOING THROUGH SOME WORK RIGHT NOW TO FIGURE OUT NEXT STEPS WITH THE PROPERTY. >> WELL, THAT WOULD GREATLY INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE PARK IF THEY WERE [INAUDIBLE]. >> RIGHT. >> THAT MIGHT BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. >> PART OF THE BIG CHALLENGE THAT JACK AND I AND MANY OF THE PARK COMMISSION ARE, WE'RE TRYING TO BE THOUGHTFUL IN HOW THIS PARKING AT THIS PARK, BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS WHEN THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THIS PARK, IT'S GOING TO SEE ACTIVITY, AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORTHY. >> YEAH. >> I BELIEVE THAT IDEA. >> YEAH, WE LOOKED AT IT AS A WAY TO HAVE PARKING WITHOUT TAKING AWAY ANY MORE GREEN SPACE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AT THE PARK NOW, BECAUSE AS THE DESIGN SITS, THOSE BALL FIELDS ARE GOING TO BE PUSHED TO THE WEST TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE. >> DRAINAGE. >> THEN FOR PARKING AS WELL. BUT IT STILL DOESN'T GIVE US ENOUGH ROOM FOR ALL THE CARS THAT COME IN OR LIKE LIKE FOOTBALL OR T BALL. >> BACK GAMES OR WHATEVER. >> EXACTLY. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT DO PARK ARE PARKING AT BACK INTO WILLOW, WHICH IS IT'S DANGEROUS WHEN YOU HAVE LITTLE KIDS RUNNING AROUND. I KNOW IT'S 30 MILES AN HOUR RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK SOMEBODY HAD TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY WANTING TO RAISE THE SPEED LIMIT ON THAT ROAD AS WELL, WHICH IS A WHOLE ANOTHER TOPIC, WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO RIGHT NOW. WE REALLY WE REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING OFF STREET PARKING, AND HAVING A LARGE AREA, THIS IS REALLY PUSHING IT OUT, BUT TALKED ABOUT SOME FESTIVAL FOR ORONO AND STUFF, AND NOW WE'D HAVE A PLACE WHERE MAYBE WE COULD DO SOMETHING A LITTLE WITH MORE SPACE. >> I LOVE THAT IDEA IF IT'S AVAILABLE ON REASONABLE TERMS. >> IT MAY NOT BE, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO [OVERLAPPING] STAFF TO EXPLORE. WHAT I'M HEARING [LAUGHTER] IS THAT THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN STAFF REACHING OUT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY INTEREST, [01:10:02] TO GAUGE MAYBE WHAT THOSE PARAMETERS WOULD BE, IF THERE WOULD BE INTEREST. THINGS, I'M NOT SURE FROM A STAFF SIDE. I'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH IT WITH ADAM, AND I'M SURE JOE AS WELL IS BUDGET CONCERNS. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE THAT LANDS OR WHERE THIS WOULD FALL TO AS IT'S A NEW IDEA AND A NEW VENTURE. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THAT WOULD LAND IN OUR BUDGET CHALLENGES. BUT STAFF COULD COME BACK WHEN WE OBTAINED SOME INFORMATION WITH MAYBE WHAT THE PARAMETERS WOULD BE AFTER ENGAGING WITH THE RESIDENT AND MAYBE SOME ANALYSIS ON A PRO CON, HOW THAT EITHER COULD WORK OR COULDN'T WORK, AND WHAT THE COUNCIL THEN COULD WEIGH. >> YOU CAN SEE HEAD NODS AROUND, SO I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO. >> OKAY. NOTED. GOT IT. >> GOOD. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT. THAT WOULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE, I THINK IF IT CAN BE OBTAINED AT THE RIGHT PRICE. ANYTHING FURTHER ON THAT? >> I'M SORRY. NO. >> NOW IT'S NEW ITEM NUMBER 22, SETTING THE 2026.UTILITY RATES. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. TONIGHT. I HAVE UPDATED SCENARIOS FROM WHEN JUSTIN HAD ABDO PRESENTED AT THE OCTOBER 27 COUNCIL MEETING. PER COUNSEL'S DIRECTION AT OCTOBER OCTOBER 27 COUNCIL MEETING, WE HAVE THREE NEW SCENARIOS AS WELL AS AN UPDATE TO THE TRANSFER FROM FACILITIES FUND BACK TO THE WATER FUND, WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA EARLIER TONIGHT. WE HAVE TWO NEW SCENARIOS WITH THIS SAME SCENARIO PRESENTED LAST TIME, BUT WITH UPDATED NUMBERS. SCENARIO 2 IS THE CALLS FOR A 25% INCREASE IN 2026 FOLLOWED BY 3% IN FOLLOWING YEARS. SCENARIO 3 IS A 8% INCREASE WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, SO 2026 THROUGH 2030, A 8% INCREASE, AND THEN SCENARIO 4 IS A 10% INCREASE IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS, SO 2026 THROUGH 2028 WITH 3% TO FOLLOW. IN THE MEMO, I TALLIED UP WHAT THOSE FIVE YEARS TOTALS WERE FOR EACH SCENARIO, AND ALL OF THEM FELL WITHIN THE SIMILAR RANGE, 36%-40% INCREASE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SCENARIO 2 GAVE US THE BEST SCENARIO AT THE END OF THE RATE STUDY IN 2030. IT PUT THE CITY IN THE BEST POSITION, FOLLOWED BY SCENARIO 4 WITH THE 10% INCREASE IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS AND 3% IN THE LAST TWO YEARS AND THEN THE SCENARIO 3 HAD A GOOD POSITION STILL, BUT WAS THE LEAST BENEFICIAL POSITION IN THE 2030 YEAR RANGE. WITH THAT, STAFF IS LOOKING FOR COUNSEL TO SET THE UTILITY RATES FOR ALL OF THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS. WATER, SEWERS, STORMWATER, AND RECYCLING IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO GIVE AMPLE TIME TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE 2026 UTILITY RATES. THESE ARE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, SO IF COUNSEL WANTS TO DEVIATE FROM THE SCENARIO SHOWN, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO JUST FOLLOW WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT COUNCIL IS. >> REMIND US OF WHAT I GUESS, A BIG DRIVER OF OUR NEEDS OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS IN THIS AREA IS ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS, SO 641,000 IN 2026, ALMOST 600,027 AND A LITTLE OVER 500,028. WHAT ARE THOSE ACQUISITIONS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED IN THOSE THREE YEARS? >> YES. BASED ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, IN 2026, THE BIG ONE IS THE NAVARRE PLANT CONTROL UPGRADE, AND THAT CONTROLS THE NAVARRE PLANT. [01:15:02] I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC DETAIL. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST FOR DJ TO ANSWER THAT OR ADAM, BUT THEY'RE NOT HERE TONIGHT. THEN 2027, THE BIG ONE ON THAT WOULD BE THE WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROJECT. I BELIEVE IT'S THE FINAL PHASE OF THE WATER REPLACEMENT PROJECT. WE'RE TRYING TO REPLACE ALL OF THE OLD METERS THAT ARE I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW OLD THEY ARE, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THEY'RE CLOSE TO 40, 50-YEARS-OLD WATER METERS, SO NEEDING REPLACEMENT TO BETTER READ THE WATER USAGE OF THOSE HOMES. THEY'RE FAIRLY OLD WATER METER THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, SO FINAL PHASE FOR THAT PROJECT. THEN IN 2027, WE ALSO HAVE THE NORTH WATER PLANT SWITCH GEAR UPGRADE. THEN THE BIG ONE IN 2028 WOULD BE THE NORTH TOWER REPAINT AND REHABILITATION. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL WHAT THAT'S MITIGATING. I KNOW IT'S MITIGATING SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE PHRASE FOR THAT. MY APOLOGIES. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE. YOUR MEMORIES BETTER THAN MINE. [LAUGHTER] I KNOW WE WENT THROUGH THIS WHEN WE HAD THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM ABDO HERE. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY? >> WITH THAT, STAFF IS JUST LOOKING FOR COUNCIL TO SET A PERCENTAGE RATES FOR THE WATER, ON SEWER STORMWATER RECYCLING. SEWER STORMWATER RECYCLING, DEAL UTILITY RATE STUDY FOR SEWER AND STORMWATER CAME BACK AT 3% FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN JUST KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION WISE, AND THEN RECYCLING, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING 3% AS WELL WITH THE RATES FROM THE HOLLER TO EVENTUALLY CATCH UP, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE AS THAT CATCH UP GETS CLOSER. >> MEGHAN, YOU SAID ONE OF THE SCENARIOS WAS BETTER FOR THE CITY THAN THE OTHERS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHICH ONE YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS AND WHY? >> STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SCENARIO 4, BECAUSE THAT WAS A IN BETWEEN. THE FIRST THREE YEARS WOULD BE A 10% IN HIT TO THE RESIDENTS, BUT THAT PUTS US AT A DECENT POSITION STILL COMPARED TO THAT SCENARIO 2 THAT THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. IT WAS A REALLY BIG INCREASE IN PER COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, NOT LOOKING FOR THAT REALLY BIG HIT TO RESIDENTS ALL AT ONCE, BECAUSE THAT SOMETIME HURTS A BIT UPFRONT. GRADUALLY DOING MORE GRADUAL INCREASES THROUGHOUT THE FIRST THREE YEARS. THEN THE 8% INCREASE THAT THAT WAS TO DO A 8% INCREASE EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS, THAT MIGHT BE A LOT. MORE FOLKS TO TAKE IN, AND THAT DIDN'T PUT THE CITY AT A BETTER ADVANTAGE POINT THAN DOING A 10% IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS, FOLLOWED BY 3%. BUT ALSO, IN THE FUTURE, STAFF WOULD CONTINUE TO DO INTERNAL RATE STUDIES BECAUSE WE ARE ADDING ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS HERE AND THERE, SO THIS STUDY DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AT THAT POINT. >> IN OTHER WORDS, JUST DON'T LOCK US INTO ANYTHING FOR NEXT YEAR. WE COULD [NOISE] NEW NEXT YEAR. >> 2027. >> 2027. >> NO, IT DOES NOT LOCK US IN. EVERY YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO BRING FORTH A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL AND THEN ASK FOR COUNSEL'S DIRECTION AND INPUT AT THAT TIME. >> I KNOW I JUST WANT TO SHARE IT THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR MEETINGS WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE UTILITY RATES AND STUFF THAT, WE DO HAVE AN OLDER INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE WHAT 20%, 23% OF OR NO RESIDENTS ARE ON SEWER WATER. >> YEAH, I JUST LOOKED AT THAT. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 30%, 33%. >> IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER THEN? >> YEAH. MUNICIPAL WATER. HOWEVER, STAFF DID TAKE A LOOK INTO THE WATER USAGE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, AND IT HAS BEEN WHEN WE DID THE LAST RATE STUDY, WE HAD PUT IN THAT WATER USAGE INCREASE. HOWEVER, THROUGHOUT JUST THE LAST THREE YEARS, WATER JUST DRASTICALLY DECREASE INSTEAD OF INCREASE, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NEEDING SUCH A BIG INCREASE TO RATES NOW BECAUSE CONSUMPTION WENT DRASTICALLY DOWN. SOME REASON WE LOST THE SCHOOL AS A WATER USER FOR ONE PART, BUT IN BOTH SOUTH AND NORTH AREA, [01:20:02] CONSUMPTION JUST DRASTICALLY INCREASED FOR SOME REASON. POTENTIALLY, IT'S THE TEAR STRUCTURE, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO HELP CONSERVE WATER, WHICH, I GUESS, IT'S DOING A GREAT JOB. HOWEVER, THEN THE REST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. >> OUR RATES ARE ALSO DISCOURAGING USAGE. >> YEAH. I SEE SOME SYMMETRY HERE, WITH THOSE NEXT THREE YEARS WHERE WE HAVE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS WE NEED TO MAKE THAT WE'D BE MM PAYING FOR WITH THIS INCREASE OVER THOSE THREE YEARS AND THEN DROP DOWN TO A 3% LEVEL IS WHERE WE REALLY WANT TO BE OBVIOUSLY. >> YEAH, PUSH OUT SOME OF THE BIG PROJECTS PAST THE RATE STUDY PERIOD, TOO. WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE BIG PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. >> WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT WE ARE AT SOME OF THE HIGHEST RATES IN THE AREA. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THAT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO PAYS THOSE BILLS, SO WELL AWARE OF IT. >> YEAH, NONE OF US IS IN FAVOR OF CHARGING MORE FOR WATER, BUT IT'S A SAD REALITY THAT I THINK WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE NEED TO, AND I, FOR ONE, I GUESS, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF SCENARIO 4. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHERS THINK. >> I WAS LOOKING AT THAT AS IF WE'RE DOING 3% FOR INFLATION, RIGHT IN ADDITION. THREE YEARS, IT PUTS US IN A GOOD POSITION IN YEARS 4 AND 5, AS WELL. BECAUSE OF OUR CAPITAL NEEDS. THAT CAPITAL THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO JUST MAINTAIN, PUT IT BACK. >> THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS ABOUT GOING UP 25%. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR OUR CITIZENS THAT ARE ON OUR WATER. BUT 10% IS SOMETHING I CAN SUPPORT GIVEN ALL THE OTHER FACTORS. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT SCENARIO 4 FOR OUR WATER. THESE UTILITY RATES FOR SET FOR 2026 AND '27, '28, '29 AND '30, I GUESS, BUT JUST FOR '26. [OVERLAPPING] YOU SAID WE'RE NOT LOCKED IN. >> DO YOU ALSO NEED US TO APPROVE THE SEWER AND STORM WATER RATES AS WELL, WHICH WOULD BE AT 3%, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. >> I'LL MAKE A NEW MOTION THAT WE ADOPT AND SET THE UTILITY RATES BASED ON SCENARIO NUMBER 4 FOR 2026. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE MOTION? [OVERLAPPING]. >> SEWER COVERS SEWER, STORM WATER AS WELL. >> RECYCLING, COVERS ALL OF THEM. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT, MAGGIE. >> THANKS MAGGIE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS MAGGIE. >> WE'LL MOVE ON TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. [Mayor and Council Reports] ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD STAFF PRINT WAS A REQUEST REALLY FROM THAT'S COME OUT TO NEIGHBORING MAYORS THAT WE CONSIDER GOING TOGETHER TO HIRE A LOBBYIST FOR FOR OUR LAKE AREA COMMUNITIES, ALL AS ONE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE MOST OF OUR ISSUES ARE SHARED ISSUES, AND THE PROPOSAL I GUESS, MADE BY MAYOR MULLIN IN WAYZATA IS THAT EACH COMMUNITY IN THIS LAKE AREA, APPROVE HIRING JOINTLY A LOBBYIST THAT WOULD DELIVER A CONSOLIDATED MESSAGE AT THE COUNTY AND STATE LEVEL. THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO HIRE A PARTICULAR FIRM, CARNIVAL BURNS, A GUY NAMED JOHN BURNS. AT A COST OF $50,000 A YEAR, THAT WOULD BE SPLIT BETWEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES BASED ON LET'S SEE. IT'S BASED ON CITY'S TAXABLE MARKET VALUE FOR PAY '25. I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY MOTION TONIGHT OR ANY FORMAL APPROVAL. IN FACT, WHAT THE FEEDBACK THAT I'VE GIVEN TO MAYOR MULLIN AND THE OTHERS IS THAT I'D LIKE TO MEET THE INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HIRE OR THAT WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO HIRE AND THAT THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT THAT PERSON WOULD DO FOR $50,000 FOR ALL OF US. [01:25:04] I JUST WANTED TO TO RAISE THIS AS A POSSIBILITY AND GET FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO WHETHER THEY THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD USE OF FUNDS. OF COURSE, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON HOW MANY CITIES STEP UP TO DO THIS. BUT MY GUESS IS BASED ON OUR TAXABLE VALUE, VIS A VIS, OTHERS, WE WOULD PAY, I DON'T KNOW. AGAIN, DEPENDS ON HOW MANY OTHERS PLAY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO HALF OF THAT 50,000, MAYBE MORE LIKE TEN OR $15,000 A YEAR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> HOW MANY CITIES? >> ALL THE LAKE AREA. MAYORS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED, I BELIEVE IT'S 14. >> FOURTEEN HAD BEEN ASKED. WE DON'T KNOW. YEAH. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE SAYING, YES. I KNOW, MINNETONKA BEACH IS CONSIDERING IT TONIGHT. SEVERAL OTHER CITIES HAVE APPROVED THIS, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM MORE RECENTLY. I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO HAVE OUR VOICE BE HEARD AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE COUNTY, BECAUSE ONE OF OUR ISSUES HERE IN ORONO IS ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN COMMON WITH OTHER LAKE NEIGHBORING LAKE COMMUNITIES AS WE PAY A MUCH LARGER PERCENTAGE OF TAX DOLLARS TO [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY THEN COMES BACK TO US. WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE A BIT IGNORED IN TERMS OF THE NEEDS DEPARTMENT OUT HERE, BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY EXPECTED TO PAY MORE THAN OUR FAIR SHARE FOR THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY. THIS MIGHT BE ONE WAY OF TRYING TO LEVEL THE SCALES A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH $50,000 A YEAR IS GOING TO GET US IN THESE SERVICES, BUT JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR GENERAL REACTION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PURSUE OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY WANT TO SPEND MONEY IN THAT WAY. >> I WOULD SUGGEST PURSUING IT. THAT WOULD BE, TO FIND OUT WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME OUT. IT'S GOING TO BE AS YOU SAID, WHAT'S OUR BENEFIT AND WHAT'S OUR COST GOING TO BE? >> YEAH. ONCE I GET THAT INFORMATION, I COME BACK AND GET IT. >> IN THEORY, I LIKE THE IDEA OF IT. >> YEAH. >>I WOULD AGREE WITH JOHN. I LIKE IT IN THEORY. >> YEAH, I AGREE. CONCEPTUALLY, I AGREE. I THINK DEPENDING ON HOW IT SHAKES, COULD BE A POSITIVE THING TO BE PART OF. WELL, THANKS. I JUST WANTED TO RUN THAT BY FOLKS TONIGHT. BECAUSE IF I WAS GETTING THE OPPOSITE REACTION, I WOULD CERTAINLY PASS THAT ON TO THE OTHER MAYORS AND SAY WE'RE NOT INTERESTED, BUT I'LL TELL THEM WE'RE INTERESTED, BUT WE NEED TO DO MORE DILIGENCE. ANY OTHER REPORTS? I WANT TO REPORT ON FIRE BOARD MEETING? >> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT. OUR BOARD HAD AN INITIAL MEETING ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, AND I JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF THE KEY TASKS THAT WE WERE THAT WERE COMPLETED. WE ELECTED A BOARD CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR. WE ESTABLISHED A SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE A FULL TIME CHIEF, A FULL TIME DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF, PRIMARILY OVERSEEING TRAINING AND OPERATIONS, AND A FULL TIME ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR PREVENTION AND FIRE MARSHAL SERVICES WITHIN THAT ORGANIZATION. AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER CAPTAIN ANOTHER SET OF POSITIONS THAT WEREN'T FULL TIME, BUT WE'RE OFFICER POSITIONS, FIREFIGHTERS. WE APPROVED THE ORONO LONG LAKE FIRE STATION LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH THE SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE DISCUSSED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE COMMUNICATION PLAN PUT TOGETHER BY RACHEL UP HERE IN CITY OF ORONO. SHE'LL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH CHIEF HIGHLAND ON TIMING AND MESSAGING. WE COMPLETED SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, INCLUDING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD, PROCURED A FINANCIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTION FOR BOOKKEEPING, APPROVED A WEBSITE VENDOR, AND APPROVED OUR MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2025 AND 2026. WE ALSO FINALIZED THE 2026 OPERATING BUDGET, WHICH CAME IN AT $1.3 MILLION. SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS WORTH OF NOTE HERE, IF YOU COMBINE THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF BOTH DEPARTMENTS FROM LAST YEAR, THE AMOUNT THAT WE BUDGETED FOR 2026 REPRESENTS A NEARLY 29% REDUCTION IN BUDGETED FIRE SERVICE COSTS FOR THE CITIES OF ONO AND LONG LAKE, WHILE MAINTAINING AND ENSURING KEY SERVICE COMPONENTS SUCH AS A DUTY CREW COVERAGE AND TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT RESTORING OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH LONG LAKE. THEN WE ALSO FINALIZED THE 2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHICH IS A $475,000 MEMBER CONTRIBUTION, [01:30:06] 456,000 OF WHICH IS COMING FROM ORONO. THIS PLAN INCLUDES ABOUT $230,000 FOR INITIAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER START UP COSTS, AND SOMETHING THAT I FELT WAS IMPORTANT TO SHARE ABOUT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DOLLARS. DUE TO OUR RESTORED RELATIONSHIP WITH LONG LAKE, THE $456,000 CAPITAL INVESTMENT WE'RE MAKING IS ROUGHLY 350 ROUGHLY A $350,000 REDUCTION IN WHAT ORONO WAS PLANNING TO SPEND BASED ON LAST YEAR'S CAPITAL PLAN DOCUMENTATION. I FEEL LIKE THE CONSOLIDATION AND THE COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP WE WERE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER WITH OUR PARTNERS IN LONG LAKE HAS MADE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE CITIES ARE SPENDING FOR FIRE SERVICES. WE'RE DOING IT BETTER. WE'RE DOING IT LESS EXPENSIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, AND WE'RE MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE SERVICES THAT WE'RE PROVIDING. LOOKING AHEAD, SOME IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES ARE TO INITIATE A HIRING PROCESS FOR THE NEW FULL TIME TRAINING AND OPERATIONS DEPUTY CHIEF, AS WELL AS BUILDING OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. ALSO, BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT PLANNED BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 26, THE OPERATING COMMITTEE WILL MEET TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REVIEW BOARD BYLAWS AND IDENTIFY A NEW LOGO. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT UPDATE TO THE GROUP. >> GREAT. I WOULD ADD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER PERSIAN, IS OUR NEW CHAIR FOR THE BOARD AS WELL, SO REALLY HAPPY THAT HE SAID YES TO THAT. VICE CHAIR IS JOHN DEVIC FROM LONG LAKE. >> ALSO, ANOTHER KEY PART OF THIS WHOLE THING IS JUST REPAIRING THAT COMMUNITY WITH LONG LAKE AND THAT WHOLE PROCESS AND THAT. THAT'S AS MEANINGFUL AS THE SAVINGS AND THE REDUCTION OF THE COSTS ON THESE THINGS COMING TOGETHER. IT'S JUST PLAYING RIGHT THERE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK, YOU GUYS. >> ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO ADD? >> I WAS AT THE PARKS COMMISSION MEETING LAST WEEK, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THEIR SCHEDULE, TALKED ABOUT HACKBERRY. YEAH, IT WAS JOE. TALKED ABOUT HACKBERRY, RIGHT KIM AND THEN LEADERSHIP AS FAR AS WHEN THE TURNOVER OCCURS IN MARCH, SO FOR NEW LEADERSHIP GOING FORWARD ON THAT. I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT IT. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH. ALSO AT THAT MEETING, THE CHAIR, BRIAN ROATH, ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS TO BE GOING TO BE DONE AS OF 12:30. [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. >> BEFORE HIS TERM IS OVER. >> A BIG THANK YOU TO HIM FOR ALL HIS YEARS OF SERVICE. I GUESS I CAN ALSO UPDATE THE COUNCIL ON I ATTENDED THE REGIONAL COUNCIL MAYORS MEETING TODAY. GOVERNOR PAWLENTY WAS THERE TO SHARE LEADERSHIP INSIGHTS, WHICH WAS VERY INTERESTING. ENGENDERED A PRETTY ROBUST DISCUSSION AMONG ALL THE MAYORS THAT WERE IN ATTENDANCE. THAT WAS INTERESTING AND THEN AFTERWARDS, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT CITIES CAN DO WITH RESPECT TO THE GUN VIOLENCE AND THAT WAS ALSO AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. THE REGIONAL COUNCIL MAYORS WAS VERY CAREFUL TO SAY, THIS IS NOT PART OF OUR MEETING, BUT THE MAYORS ARE HERE AND WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. THAT WAS A ROBUST DISCUSSION AS WELL. I LEARNED THAT THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED, I GUESS, BY STATE LAW FROM ENACTING ANY LIMITATIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN CONTROL AT A CITY LEVEL. BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE CAN BE WORKING TOGETHER WITH OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT THAT SEEMED TO GET THE MOST TRACTION WAS TO MAYBE CONSIDER A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. INSTEAD OF MAKING IT A POLITICAL DECISION, IT WOULD BE A DECISION OF THE CITIZENS OF MINNESOTA AS TO WHETHER THEY WANTED TO PUT LIMITS ON ASSAULT RIFLES. ANYWAY, VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION, NOTHING REALLY FOR OUR CITY TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT BECAUSE OF THE PREEMPTION LAWS, [01:35:06] BUT AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, NONETHELESS, AND I WANTED TO PASS THAT ON TO THE GROUP AS WELL. I REALIZED THAT OUR AGENDA DID NOT INCLUDE AN ATTORNEY REPORT. I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU OFF THE HOOK. >> I'M HERE TO LET YOU KNOW I HAVE NO REPORT. [LAUGHTER]. >> THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THE AGENDA. ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYBODY HAS TO BRING BEFORE THE COUNCIL THIS EVENING. SEEING NONE, I'D I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> A SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:35. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.