Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> they looked at. Two additional requests if this would be approved. No 1) if a new permit is granted that <br /> the previous permit be noted in that document to show the continuity of this site being used as an access <br /> point for many, many years, and he thinks officially a lot longer than that. He asks that it be noted as he <br /> thinks there are questions as far as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)as far as the access <br /> and the rights-of-way. No 2) he asked for a reasonable spot to put a seasonal dock in the winter months <br /> within and around the right-of-way. He thinks there is probably a similar thing granted for the other <br /> property owners that are not hauling their docks. In looking across the various easements,there are various <br /> uses of those to store things currently across Big Island. Mr. Thull noted there was a lot of feedback and <br /> addressed a couple of points within his application. Regarding the impact to Ms. Fames and Mr. Brunjten <br /> as owners of 230 Big Island,Mr.Thull supports that they should not have something taken away,and thinks <br /> that language created a win/lose scenario and that is not fair. As a property owner,he believes their rights <br /> need to be withheld within that. Although sharing a dock is not a perfect scenario in a perfect world,this <br /> is a unique situation and they are trying to balance each other's rights. Mr.Thull noted there was a question <br /> of the use of turning the right-of-way into construction and taking out trees and vegetation. He clarified he <br /> has no intent to do that and that would be less convenient. They are looking for a walkway path from the <br /> dock up to the inner road that leads to the property through the right-of-way. He stated there have also been <br /> some questions about the LMCD and compliance. Does the site comply,should it be grandfathered in? He <br /> thinks that is a question for that group. In looking through the code,there are many points within the code <br /> itself that lay out different ways that unique situations are addressed. Whether it is pre-existing conditions <br /> for permitted use, practical difficulties, a unique situation, setback variances provided. He thinks one of <br /> the main points of that is so that docks are not stacked up on top of each other. At this access point,looking <br /> to the left, he showed a photo on screen of the neighboring location; in another photo he showed the <br /> neighbor's dock and location. Mr. Thull said the use of variances are obviously sprinkled throughout the <br /> LMCD documentation so if this property is not grandfathered in, he thinks given the unique situation he <br /> would imagine 99% of the issues they deal with are ultimately how one accesses the lake versus this <br /> situation which is how one accesses their property. Substantially different in terms of how they are trying <br /> to use this going forward. He said it would seem reasonable as it states, reasonable in terms of under the <br /> circumstances and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Thull thinks his <br /> application fits the code,there is already a permitted dock there for a single dock so no material change in <br /> terms of should a dock or can a dock be placed there. He is in favor of sharing the dock and also believes <br /> the site may qualify as either grandfathered in or a variance as part of that. Mr. Thull noted they have had <br /> a long-term dream of building a cabin out there and are now in the position to actually move forward with <br /> that. Mr.Thull has one question in regards to the information about the Public Works Director and what it <br /> entails getting approval from them. <br /> Curtis believes the Public Works Director,being that it is a City right-of-way,would want to have approval <br /> of the dock location should it change,or in addition to the dock that is there,and where that storage location <br /> would be in the winter. <br /> Bollis thinks the Applicant has done a good job of answering the neighborhood questions and asked if they <br /> would be interested in adding those as additional conditions to the permit if the Commission gets that far. <br /> Such as no modification to the platted rights-of-way, Bollis assumes the Applicant is not using this dock <br /> for recreation but just for access,that type of conditions. <br /> Mr. Thull said sure. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. <br /> Page 6 of 34 <br />