Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission Regular Meeting <br />Monday, August 18, 2025, 6:00 PM <br />City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 <br />and the current owners, the Roaths, who purchased in 2015, added a 10 X 12 shed and the patio <br />extension, and the retaining wall. The homes are close, and water from the neighbor's roof through a <br />gutter system causes erosion on their property. The Rasmussens have paid for a survey to be done. Set- <br />back inhllsions have been compounded by the retaining wall as well as erosion. The Rasmussens are <br />concerned about the height of the wall and the danger of falls. They have been told the trees in the <br />retaining wall will die in the next five years, and are concerned they are in danger of coming down in a. <br />storm because the root systems are gone. They are asking for the setback to be returned and making the <br />retaining wall safe. <br />Brian Rasmussen, 1186 Wildhurst Trail, said there was no erosion before the neighboring lot was cleared. <br />Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Rd, asked about the engineering study and the height of the previous <br />retaining wall. He said Roath, as park commission chair, should have known better than to commit such <br />an egregious violation to his yard and the neighbor's yard. He advocated for rettuning the slope to the <br />way it was. <br />Brian Turbeville, 997 Wildhurst Trail, said he believes there was confiision, and this situation started <br />innocently. It may not have been intentional, but it is not OK to let it be remediated in anon -conforming <br />way. The retaining wall was not needed for the trees. <br />Barbara Schmidt, 50 Landmark Drive, said it's unbelievable that the Park Connnission chair for over five <br />years doesn't know to get a pei-�nit, and that people should not be allowed to do these things and get an <br />after -the -fact permit. If that is allowed, it will be repeated all over the lake. She said the lot needs to be <br />restored. <br />Dave Velander, 5655 Alexander Drive, said the situation is ridiculous and the City needs to play by the <br />rules. <br />Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. <br />Planning Commissioners had more questions for the applicant, who contended that a portion of the <br />encroaching patio and the stair landing, and the stairs were already present when they bought the house in <br />2015. Commmissioners suggested it was necessary to look at the application as two parts —the patio and the <br />retaining wall. Building so close to the property line will inevitably cause issues with run-off and <br />trespassing. Existing conditions are that approvals were given to allow the house partially in the setback, <br />and if all parties are willing to work together, perhaps a solution can be found, and this would be a good <br />time to fix erosion and nln-off issues, they said. They were concerned about the larger patio and would <br />support just enough to have a safe landing area. and to get over to the rest of the former patio. <br />Conulussioners supported tabling the application so the applicant can work with staff on the patio issue. <br />Regarding the retaining wall, they questioned, with input from professionals, if it could be changed to not <br />encroach on the neighbor's property or the setback, and not exceed height limits. They were not in favor <br />of the proposed remedy for the wall. <br />Ressler moved, Prchal seconded, to table LA25-000036, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, After -the -Fact <br />Variances and Conditional Use Permit for more information based on the discussion. VOTE: Ayes <br />6, Nays 0. <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />0 <br />