02-18-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:00 p.m. Ressler stated that he believes that deliberation can happen with the applicant. Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury, gave a brief description of his history in the City. He noted that he sold property that was discussed earlier tonight at 505 Willow and noted that he graduated from the high school across the street and helped build the first condominiums in downtown Wayzata in the 1970s. He stated that he has been working with the separate land owners for a while trying to find the highest and best use. He explained that they found that separating through the water the north lots become non -conforming even though they are bigger than everything around them. He stated that he had suggested bringing in more dirt in order to create larger lots and was told that probably wouldn't work. He stated that other than that there is no way the lots can be anything other than what they have been forever. He stated that the City of Navarre has identified the north portions of the lots and have included them in their 2040 plan as separate lots in their urban plan. He agreed with Commissioner Libby's input that historically this has been looked at as separate lots with separate zoning. He stated that he does not understand how it happened if the intent was not for it to be separate. He noted that there is curb cut access to the north but you cannot get there from the south houses other than by using Shoreline Drive. He asked if he was correct in thinking that the County wanted wider easement. Barnhart stated that he believes the County wants additional right-of-way. Mr. Gamble stated that there is no point in looking at flood plains or other details if they cannot subdivide the south homes as they exist. He noted that representatives of the different land owners are also present tonight if the Commission has questions. Ressler stated that he recognizes this property because when the Commission was looking at the Comprehensive Plan, he remembers discussion of whether something different could be done with this property. He stated that he wonders if it is zoned separately because the structure to the south preceded the changing of how this was guided. He stated that he has never seen one lot that has two guided uses. Barnhart stated that it does not happen very often and does not always line up with property lines as is the case here. He stated that in terms of the Navarre area and connecting it to the lake, the consultant planners saw that there was vacant property and lake frontage so they felt it was a great idea. He stated that when it was rolled out to the public, the consultant planners learned that it was not quite the great spot that they had imagined. He explained that this is why is shows up in their Comprehensive Plan and noted that connection to the lake was studied, but the Navarre plan ended up going in a different direction, Thiesse asked if it could be construed that the City was expecting this to be separated since it was guided in 2 different directions. Barnhart stated that he thinks that assessment would be a stretch. Curtis stated that she thinks the zoning was based on distance from the street. Barnhart agreed that was possible and noted that he was not part of the discussion of where that line was drawn. Bollis asked if the property was zoned differently or just guided differently. Barnhart stated that it is zoned differently. Page 23 of 30