Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 15,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3039 City of Orono,Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Continued) <br /> Rahn opened the public hearing. <br /> John Winston, 1555 Wehr Lane North, stated he is appearing tonight on behalf of the Steinhafels. <br /> Winston noted that an application filed by the Steinhafels for a conditional use permit was tabled pending <br /> the City's adoption of a wetlands protection ordinance. <br /> Winston stated under the interpretation of the draft ordinance,a four-foot dock would be a permitted use <br /> and a wider dock would be considered a conditional use. Winston stated he has a concern that a dock <br /> greater than four feet would not be allowed as a conditional use. Winston noted the Steinhafels are <br /> requesting a six-foot dock. <br /> Winston stated the matter could be addressed by revising Section 78-1607,and suggested that the <br /> four-foot width limitation not be imposed arbitrarily on every property in Orono and that different widths <br /> could be stated for different sized properties as a permitted use. Alternatively, while a four-foot wide <br /> limitation could be stated as the optimum in Section 78-1606 as a permitted use, discretion should be <br /> granted to the City under Section 78-1607 to grant wider dock/walkway widths,when circumstances <br /> merit,the same as a conditional use. <br /> Winston requested the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the draft ordinance to,one, allow <br /> greater widths for larger properties on a permitted use basis or,two,to allow greater widths for any <br /> property on a conditional use basis. <br /> Steve Bohl,Bohland Development, stated the current preliminary plat application process requires that <br /> you go through the watershed district since they are the LGU. Bohl expressed a concern that the need to <br /> go through the MCWD is an inefficient and costly process, and recommended that the City's standards be <br /> made consistent with the MCWD's to avoid the need to appear before the City on multiple occasions. <br /> Rahn noted the City is attempting to be consistent with the MCWD's requirements as much as possible. <br /> Rahn indicated a discussion was held regarding the Steinhafel application and noted that the dock width <br /> issue is a DNR requirement. Rahn stated in his opinion the City should be consistent with the dock width <br /> that is allowed by the DNR. Rahn commented that docks have been proven to be a habitat for wildlife <br /> and that he personally would like to see some consistency on the dock widths. <br /> There were no further public comments regarding this application. <br /> Bremer requested the dock width issue be addressed. <br /> Gaffron stated a distinction may need to be made between docks that are located on Lake Minnetonka, <br /> which are dealt with by the LMCD, and those docks that are constructed through wetlands. Gaffron <br /> indicated he has not spoken with the LMCD regarding dock width. Gaffron stated if a dock width greater <br /> than four feet is allowed, language could be included under 78-1607 a(1)that docks through wetlands <br /> PAGE 4 <br />