LA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex E Draft PC Min

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ on that off-site in a modular way and will move that out to the location. Mr. Thull reiterated the intention is to eventually put a cabin out there. As mentioned, they have primarily accessed the location by anchoring near the lot, swimming, and then hiking across the Three Rivers location that abuts the property. Mr. Thull noted they have been members of the Power Squadron in the past but that is probably 8x the distance and really not feasible. He said they have aging parents and kids and they want to find a more permanent way to access the property as they invest in it. They are not developers or property flippers, and have sought multiplied easements, one with Three Rivers, noting that roadway comes just short of the lakeshore and unfortunately Three Rivers denied that. The Applicant has also pursued easements with neighboring properties and has not found a path forward on that. He looks at the property rights and does not think they are asking for what other interior lot property owners have been provided underneath the code. They are seeking, basically, those same rights afforded to others and there is some precedent in terms of the spirit of multiple lot owners collaborating and sharing an access point to create a feasible solution for those interior lot owners. He showed a few sites they identified in working with the City – some are better than others – and they identified the site they felt was most feasible. Some criteria was feedback from the City Planning office regarding location 1, also the site in terms of its level terrain and the low impact in terms of the right- of-way, really the walking path, proximity to the property and that the Applicant is not looking to use the site as a construction access point as that will all be done through the primary access point on the other side of the island. He noted they are really looking at minimal lakeshore disruption and that was the criteria they looked at. Two additional requests if this would be approved. No 1) if a new permit is granted that the previous permit be noted in that document to show the continuity of this site being used as an access point for many, many years, and he thinks officially a lot longer than that. He asks that it be noted as he thinks there are questions as far as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) as far as the access and the rights-of-way. No 2) he asked for a reasonable spot to put a seasonal dock in the winter months within and around the right-of-way. He thinks there is probably a similar thing granted for the other property owners that are not hauling their docks. In looking across the various easements, there are various uses of those to store things currently across Big Island. Mr. Thull noted there was a lot of feedback and addressed a couple of points within his application. Regarding the impact to Ms. Farnes and Mr. Brunjten as owners of 230 Big Island, Mr. Thull supports that they should not have something taken away, and thinks that language created a win/lose scenario and that is not fair. As a property owner, he believes their rights need to be withheld within that. Although sharing a dock is not a perfect scenario in a perfect world, this is a unique situation and they are trying to balance each other’s rights. Mr. Thull noted there was a question of the use of turning the right-of-way into construction and taking out trees and vegetation. He clarified he has no intent to do that and that would be less convenient. They are looking for a walkway path from the dock up to the inner road that leads to the property through the right-of-way. He stated there have also been some questions about the LMCD and compliance. Does the site comply, should it be grandfathered in? He thinks that is a question for that group. In looking through the code, there are many points within the code itself that lay out different ways that unique situations are addressed. Whether it is pre-existing conditions for permitted use, practical difficulties, a unique situation, setback variances provided. He thinks one of the main points of that is so that docks are not stacked up on top of each other. At this access point, looking to the left, he showed a photo on screen of the neighboring location; in another photo he showed the neighbor’s dock and location. Mr. Thull said the use of variances are obviously sprinkled throughout the LMCD documentation so if this property is not grandfathered in, he thinks given the unique situation he would imagine 99% of the issues they deal with are ultimately how one accesses the lake versus this situation which is how one accesses their property. Substantially different in terms of how they are trying to use this going forward. He said it would seem reasonable as it states, reasonable in terms of under the circumstances and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Thull thinks his application fits the code, there is already a permitted dock there for a single dock so no material change in