HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2020 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Jon Ressler and the following members appearing remotely: Commissioners Chris Bollis, Bob
Erickson, Matt Gettman, Dennis Libby,Mark McCutcheon, and Scott Kirchner. Representing Staff were
Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart;City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden.
Mayor Dennis Walsh and Council representative Richard Crosby were also appearing remotely.
Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Erickson asked if the new Commissioner, Scott Kirchner, would be sworn in at the meeting or a later
time.
Barnhart stated he would be sworn in when the meeting could be at City Hall, hopefully in June.
Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to approve the Agenda for the May 18,2020 Planning
Commission meeting.Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Libby,Erickson,McCutcheon,Bollis, Gettman,
Kirchner,Ressler),Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16,2020
Libby moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve the March 16,2020 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes.Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Libby,Erickson,McCutcheon,Bollis,Gettman,Kirchner,
Ressler),Nays 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LA20-000021 JEFF BRADY,350 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST,VARIANCE,6:05 P.M.
-6:16 P.M.
Jeff Brady,Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
McCutcheon asked if the height of the garage was less than the height of the house.
Oakden said it is an addition to the house but believes they are maintaining the roofline.
Bollis asked if the tent shed and shed on the survey were neighboring properties or if they were owned by
the applicant.
Oakden said she was not sure and that might be a question for the applicant.
Mr.Jeff Brady,350 North Shore Drive West,said when the Wright-Hennepin Power Company came
through and clear-cut a section for the power line, which feeds the people behind them, it was eroding
away the driveway so they placed the tent shed and shed there. As far as the people who owned the
Page 1 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
property beforehand, it was a spot that was washing out into what would now be considered a little grassy
area. It is kind of swampy and holds some water. They will be moved if necessary.
Kirchner stated it looks like to the east and west of those buildings there are markings of the survey that
say "PP," which he is assuming are power poles,and the line between them are the overhead power lines
that Wright-Hennepin would have clear-cut for.
Mr. Brady said he was correct.They also maintain that to keep an accessible route for Wright-Hennepin,
so they can get in and out of there if needed. It is a transformer pole.
Ressler asked Mr. Brady to be available for any questions, which Mr. Brady agreed to do.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m.
Libby stated he was trying to log on to a second screen to view the full application but had reviewed the
application earlier. He does not have any objections to the application. He is unable to reference what
Staff determined on this, but he does not see any problems with the proposal.
Ressler said the packet indicated Staff was in support;they identified enough practical difficulty. He read
the language, "Staff finds that there are some practical difficulties due to the location of the septic,
location of the existing home and substandard lot area for the district." He stated that the setbacks
required for front and rear are 50 feet and the subject property are 42 and 168 feet,respectively. He noted
42 is almost 50 but not quite. The required north and south side setbacks are 30 and the existing is 136
and 16.8, which is part of the variance application.
Erickson said he reviewed the Staff report and is in agreement with voting in favor of the approval of the
request.
McCutcheon said he would tend to agree,noting the garage is in line with the house,the driveway is right
there, and it makes the most sense to put it in that location. He is in favor of approval.
Bollis stated he agrees with Staff and it seems to be the most practical place to put the garage given the
constraints of the property. He would like to see the other two sheds brought into conformity somehow.
Ressler commented that this should be noted for the City Council.
Gettman and Kirchner stated they agreed with the points brought forward and would support the
application.
Ressler said he also agrees with Staff's recommendation, a reasonable practical difficulty has been
identified, and he would support the application as provided.
Page 2 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Bollis moved, Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA20-000021 Jeff
Brady,350 North Shore Drive West,variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Libby,Erickson,
McCutcheon,Bollis, Gettman,Kirchner,Ressler),Nays 0.
2. LA20-000024 JAY NYGARD, 1380 REST POINT ROAD,LOT AREA,LOT WIDTH,
HARDCOVER,AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES,6:16 P.M. -7:04 P.M.
Jay Nygard,Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
McCutcheon noted in the pictures there is a stake next to what he assumes to be the boathouse. He is
assuming that is one foot away from it and assumed the wood stakes with the yellow are the proposed. He
asked if the clump of trees pictured are considered to be on the east or west property.
Barnhart said he would defer questions about the pictures to the applicant.
Ressler stated,based on the City Attorney's comments that were provided, it sounds like ruling it on the
basis that it was requested would require it to be awarded in Court only. He asked if that was something
that the Planning Commission could provide in the Planning Commission setting, or was it only available
through the legal process.
Barnhart advised that the Commission should focus its analysis and review based on the standards for
variance of the doctrine by practical location. He said he thought that was a decision that came from a
Court system versus a City action.
Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest Point Road,referenced the question regarding"boundary by practical location"
and stated that is a legal doctrine, it is not a law. He said doctrines are developed in the legal culture in
order to help guide proper decisions,which is why he brought it up,because he is basing the application
on the legal doctrine to better help the Commission understand why he is trying to do this. He is trying to
do this because the best practical location to put the boundary is at the crest of the hill from the street
down.He knows it changes a little bit when it gets to the boathouse,but he tried to follow the crest of the
line the best he could.As far as the root structures of the trees on the line,they are on both properties
because root structures are as big as the tree umbrella. He said when he was on the Planning Commission
and City Council, he visited every property when something came up and it was important for him to see
the property personally, because pictures and Staff can't always tell someone the whole story. He asked if
anybody got the chance to look at the property.
Libby and Bollis indicated they did.
Mr.Nygard said he was disappointed because he felt Barnhart misrepresented what is going on and it is a
lot easier to see things in person. He indicated Barnhart is saying they are increasing hardcover on the
property, and that is not the case.They removed an illegal driveway turnaround and an illegal fence on
the property to bring the property into compliance,which totaled 270 square feet. Those were removed
before he had the surveys done, so those are not included in the surveys. City Hall may have a survey
which would include those things. On the last page he included a map showing they removed 270 feet of
hardcover on the property,all of it being illegal hardcover. After removing that 270 feet, it reduced the
hardcover from 29 percent to 28 percent overall to the property,even with the boundary shift. As a
Page 3 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
lifelong resident of the area and being on the Planning Commission and City Council, it is very important
to him that the area gets taken care of. With every project he has done to improve the property, it is
always in the back of his mind as far as how he can bring it more compliant and still make the project
work. He stated that several times in the write-up by City Staff,Barnhart claims that the slope is getting
steeper at the property line,which is far from the truth. The intent is to bring the property line to the crest
of the hill. The previous neighbors put a fence right at the crest of the hill because that is the most logical
place for it to go. He was never able to maintain anything on his side of it without trespassing, so he
always had invasive weeds and toxic,nauseous weeds coming through. He has been able to resolve that
issue, but it does not resolve the issue of how to maintain a hill that goes just about straight down for the
majority of the length of the property line. He stated it would be a lot easier to do so from his area up. He
said if you look at the pictures,at the tree,it is 1 %2 feet and it telescopes out. The reason it does is because
that's where the crest of the hill goes. He said he went to a meeting the previous November, and many of
the applications were approved with variances similar to what he is asking for: five-yard setback issue, lot
width issue. At that time,Barnhart said the revised configuration of the lot would not impact the character
of the neighborhood, and that was the reason Barnhart used for approval back in November.He said that
is exactly what would happen in this case: no one would be able to tell from the street, lake, air, or
anywhere else anyone is looking, any difference between the property. He is falling into the guideline that
Barnhart stated last year. As he looks through the different applications,there are rear yard setbacks; a
second rear yard setback; average lakeshore; average lakeshore, structure and hardcover; lake and rear
yard hardcover in excess of 20 feet; lot width,rear yard, and hardcover. Those were variances granted to
other people.He is asking for a similar type of consideration. He said sometimes City Code cannot match
everything, especially in an area where he is, where all the lots are obviously substandard because they
were zoned well after they were platted. He is trying to readjust it to where it would have been if someone
had come out when the lots were platted and said that this is where the lot line should go. He noted a
house is being built two houses away from him and the owner ended up getting two different rear yard
setbacks. He feels precedence on this issue has been that setback variances are okay,especially given the
lot sizes and when they were zoned versus when they were platted. He indicated there has been a lot of
strife between the properties over the years. He inadvertently installed a waterfall over the line after the
fence was installed because he assumed the other owner went along the property line.Although that
caused a lot of strife,the Courts allowed that waterfall to stay there through two different litigations. He
thinks the Courts allowing it to stay there means something. He will have an encroachment into one
property that the City is not trying to help him resolve. If the Courts have allowed it to stay there for 18
years, he guessed they would get to keep it there because it is over the statute of limitations for adverse
possession. He stated it is all about solving problems.He is a little frustrated because he wishes Barnhart
would have gotten on the bandwagon and understood that that is the goal of the application,but Barnhart
kind of cherry-picked a couple of things and only gave the Commissioners part of the story.
Libby asked Mr.Nygard to summarize what he would consider to be the highest net benefit from being
granted the variance, since he owns both properties and basically shares both lot lines,such as a bottom-
line benefit in resale later on. He said it cannot inconvenience either property since he owns both of them.
He appreciates the nuts and bolts and mechanics of it, but as a former independent fee appraiser,he would
like to hear the net benefit if the Planning Commission suggests granting of the variance to the City.
Mr.Nygard said the net benefit is resolving the issues from now until eternity.He has lived at the home
25 years and this is the location where it really belongs, which is why he brought up"boundary by
practical location."He is considering selling the property.He is putting solar power on it and has put a
new driveway in and reduced the illegal hardcover. If he sells the property, it is going to sell for less,so
Page 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
there is no net financial benefit for him to do this.He is doing it because he thinks it is the right thing to
do. It is a way to solve problems not only for him,but for the City as well.
Ressler noted Mr.Nygard, having been on the Commission in the past, understands one of the issues is
identifying enough practical difficulty to grant a variance to the rules that the City is required to abide by.
One of the difficulties the Commission is having is understanding a worsening effect when you have the
difficulties, and that is identifying the boathouse going from a six-foot setback to a 1-foot. Unless he
misunderstood,the survey in the application does not reflect the removal of 270 feet of hardcover, nor is
there a"subject to survey showing what it would look like once it is removed." When it comes to
structure, whenever someone intensifies an existing problem,that is going in the wrong direction. He
asked if Mr.Nygard tried to find a way to solve the issue without doing that.
Mr.Nygard stated he is going off the character of the land, and that is the thing that he always respected
when he looked at these applications. The character of the land says the property line should be the crest
of the hill, and that is why they are going there.As far as the survey,the Commission is looking at the
final survey with the new driveway,removed sidewalk,removed turnaround, and removed illegal fence. It
is an after-the-fact survey. He was not privy to having a survey prior to the removal of those items,but
because he is an engineer,he can do a general calculation to figure out that it is approximately 270 feet of
hardcover removed that wasn't accounted for in the calculations. He is not looking for any kind of
hardcover variance because he is decreasing that. He is looking at adjusting the lot width and side yard
setback for the boathouse. The one side of the boathouse has never been usable land,that being the 1380
property, for the 25 years he has lived there. The owner before him would scrape up the milfoil and make
a huge pile of milfoil there,which built up the ground,and that is how he used that. It's not so much that it
is a practical difficulty,but that is why he gave the Commission the"boundary by practical location" legal
doctrine, because it is out there for a reason.The doctrine says if there is a practical location for that
boundary to be,then that's where that boundary should be. He is identifying the practical location, which
is given by the nature and features of the land itself,with the reasoning that is needed in order to be
granted a variance.
Ressler clarified that the crest of the hill seems to be Mr.Nygard's answer to the practical difficulty issue
and his opinion is that the more correct way to draw the line would include reducing the area from the
property line from six feet to one foot.
Mr.Nygard said to be really right he would put it all the way up to the boathouse,but there was a
grounding rod over there. He is going to run the sprinkler pipe along there, so he left a foot so that there is
enough area on the land by the boathouse.He could move it back to two feet and jog it behind the
boathouse if necessary. He was considering writing in, if/when he sells the property, a 2-foot easement for
the boathouse so they would always have a permanent ability to maintain the side of the boathouse if
necessary.
Kirchner indicated Mr.Nygard mentioned that the final survey, dated November 12,2019, was after the
illegal hardcover was removed from 1380 and that he was reducing the hardcover. In looking at the
hardcover calculation worksheet for 1380 Rest Point,also dated November 12, 2019, from Gronberg&
Associates, it indicates the hardcover with the lot line rearrangement would increase it to 28.43 percent. If
his understanding is correct, it is now at 27.39,so it would be increased a little over one percent. He asked
Mr.Nygard to help him understand and clarify what he was referencing with the documents not being
correct or from a prior application and referencing the survey as being the final from November.
Page 5 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Mr.Nygard asked the Commissioners to look at the last page of the packet he submitted, noting that he
has the site plan he submitted for the driveway permit which shows new driveway versus removed
driveway. Referencing a picture from Google Earth, he indicated an area at the bottom of the driveway
where he removed 240 square feet of an illegal turnaround, a retaining wall, and a sidewalk. He said on
the other side of the driveway there was a small slip he pulled out and there were 20 square feet for fence
posts.He stated they were not included in the Gronberg survey because they were removed after he
purchased the property but before Gronberg surveyed it. He said if you add the 270 square feet of
hardcover to the initial existing,you end up with 4,819 square feet,giving over 29 percent hardcover. He
noted it was originally over 29 percent and it is being reduced to over 28 percent.He is asking for 610
square feet and removed 270 square feet,which is 44 percent. They removed a large amount of hardcover
in order to accommodate this. He can foresee the hardcover issue being important,but he also knew they
were illegal additions to the property that did not belong and he wanted to remove them. He noted the
City never dealt with the fence. Even though the driveway was installed,the previous owner who went
through and got a variance and upgraded the property in 2004 or 2006 was blindsided because he did not
know that the driveway turnaround was illegal.The City ended up approving it even though it was illegal.
Although he is saying it is illegal,the turnaround and sidewalk is still City-approved hardcover. He
removed them, anyway.
Ressler asked Mr.Nygard to be available for any questions that may arise and he could do so by raising
his hand so Ressler knew he was willing to participate,and Mr.Nygard agreed to do so.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
Ressler stated the Planning Commission generally does not like to intensify lot line setbacks to structure,
which is the difficulty he is having with the rearrangement.
Kirchner said he has concern regarding the 1-foot setback that would be created at the boathouse.He also
has concern with the hardcover that would end up at 1380 Rest Point Road. He appreciates the applicant's
desire and the efforts taken to remove the hardcover that was over the allowance and get the property
closer to compliance; however,with the lot line rearrangement, a percentage of that is being added back
and he feels like it is going two steps forward and one step back. He has concerns over the proximity of
the lot line to the boathouse for maintenance of the boathouse for future owners as well as the hardcover
that would be added to 1380.
Erickson stated in order for the Planning Commission to determine the existence of a practical difficulty,
they first need to determine that the proposed use is a reasonable use, which is where he has a problem
with the proposal as it relates to the 1-foot setback. He understands the applicant has an explanation,but
he has been trying to conjure up in his mind some circumstance where he might support a 1-foot setback
anywhere for anyone,and he has been unable to do so. His conclusion is that a 1-foot setback is an
unreasonable use and,therefore,there is no practical difficulty as required by state law.
Libby said he agrees with Erickson but has a couple of additional points. He has substantial familiarity
with the property from a terrestrial, aerial, and lakeside standpoint because that is a common visiting point
for him as a boater.An inference of hardship does not follow through with any credence because he
Page 6 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
knows what the pitches are from having been there often. He cannot find that any change in the lot line is
going to change any sort of hardship from the pitch and grade from the street to the lakeshore. He cannot
see a large net benefit either economically or as an access or as a drainage benefit and that this is a change
worth going through for a variance.
McCutcheon said he agrees with the previous comments. He noted that in looking at it without the
boathouse and putting the property line back in play, it's the top of the hill or bottom of the hill, it's a
horse apiece, and difficult both ways. The applicant is saying, even when the fence was there,they had to
trespass to maintain the fence. Here is a situation where, if they want to maintain the boathouse,they will
have to trespass. He does not see replacing one problem with another as beneficial. They might as well
leave well enough alone and keep the six-foot setback, which is better than a 1-foot setback. He also does
not see the practical difficulty.
Gettman noted he disagrees with only one point in that it sounds like the applicant is willing to potentially
have an easement but work on that side of the actual boundary line. While the crest is one issue and the
boathouse the other issue, it sounded like the applicant might be willing to adjust the line closer to the
boathouse to address that issue.He sees this as a practical difficulty in that the landowner had to literally
buy the other house to try to resolve the issue. If the Commission can address it now, it will prevent
another issue down the road.
Ressler noted the Commission can't modify it because it does not have the"subject to" drawing. He
suggested finding a way to rearrange the lot where it is not intensifying the setback to the boathouse. He
noted that was the biggest issue for him. Changing the width of the lot has an impact, and the hardcover
survey being correctly reflected is another. What he is hearing from fellow Commissioners is that the
boathouse setback is creating a problem that is not as big of a problem as it is today.
McCutcheon indicated the existing lot line is close to the shed, and a devil's advocate could say that they
are moving the lot line for the boathouse closer but actually helping the shed. The tiebreaker in his view is
the boathouse is closer to the lake, and the only reason it can be there is because it has been there a long
time and is probably grandfathered in. He referenced the comment about years of strife because of the
property line and doubted it was as simple as that,because if it was as simple as moving a property line,
that would have been the solution a long time ago.A lot of work is being done just to move a lot line and
he is trying to see a value,but he sees a problem going closer to the boathouse.
Ressler agreed that drawing a line between the shed on one side and the boathouse on the other seems like
the reasonable place that it already is. It is up for debate whether it's the crest of the hill,the middle of the
hill, or the bottom of the hill. He personally does not see that a practical difficulty has been demonstrated
enough to change what it is. He understands the hill part, but it did not solve the problem with the two
structures lakeward.
Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to deny Application No. LA20-000024 Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest
Point Road,lot area,lot width,hardcover,and side yard setback variances.
Mr.Nygard stated the reason he put the line one foot from the boathouse is because that was the
straightest line he could draw down from the crest of the hill. He would be willing to adjust the line to
two feet so they would have room to maintain it.He noted the problem with all of the properties is that no
matter what you do, something is going to be out of compliance.There was no easement before when
they had the issues and the fence was put up. He stated that if someone puts a fence up and they are
Page 7 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
hostile and then they want to come to your property,traipse through a garden in order to maintain the
fence, it becomes an issue. He wanted to give an easement to ensure the property owners could maintain
the boathouse. He is trying to solve all of the problems at the same time. He understands that the Planning
Commission is struggling with the boathouse, but it is already subpar, and making it a few more feet
subpar does not upset that property in any manner, considering that it was never usable space and was
filled with noxious weeds the whole time. He is trying to put the boundary where it really belongs. The
land is what created the crest of the hill.He did not do that and the neighbor did not do that. The land did
it and it's done it for a long time. He noted that his neighbor two houses up got a variance in order to have
the house located closer to the street.He asked how the land caused that person a problem so that his
house could be located closer to the street. He said one big practical difficulty the Commissioners have
not considered is the waterfall that's been over the property line for 18 years and, in two different
litigations,two different judges left it there. He has not heard any discussion about it. It is really important
because when those people sued him the last time,he had to buy the house to solve the problem. He is
trying now to solve the problem forever and make it clear and obvious so there are not any more problems
and lawsuits. He indicated he could go through a legal action and try to get it solved that way,but he
thought it would be easier working with his City and having people understand that all of these properties
are unique, it is a unique hill between a couple of properties,and the Commission could understand how
that might cause an issue. He suggested resolving the issue by moving the property line over. It would
solve the waterfall issue, solve the weed issue, solve the maintenance issue, and solve everything else so
there aren't issues in the future. He said the City lets fencing go right on property lines now which creates
issues. That is not what he is suggesting. He is trying to set it up so the people on that property will be
able to maintain that boathouse and will have legal access through an easement in order to do that. He is
getting all of the compromising done ahead of time to try to improve the situation.
Ressler said that the Planning Commission has to rule on what they can see,what they have,and what
they have in front of them.He can understand giving legal access to maintain a shed,but right now the
variance is not necessary based on the lot line that has been placed in front of the Commission, and that
clearly poses a problem. Providing an easement is certainly a solution. He suggested that Staff could give
the applicant options as far as where he can go from here. He stated removing the waterfall may be
something that could be brought up or done another more conforming way.
Bollis noted the boathouse is his hangup and he knows they are supposed to vote on what they see,but the
simplest solution may be to create an easement that runs along the property line for maintenance and it
would run on both sides so each neighbor can maintain each side of the property line as they need to. That
would possibly forego a lot line rearrangement and other nonconformities.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Kirchner, Gettman,Bollis,McCutcheon,Erickson,Libby,Ressler),Nays 0.
3. LA20-000028 BAY CLIFF HOMES,2440 OLD BEACH ROAD,VARIANCE,7:04 P.M.-
7:29 P.M.
Bill Worms, o/b/o Bay Cliff Homes, Applicant, and David Jacobsen-Gretsch, Property Owner, were
present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
There were no questions for Staff.
Page 8 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Mr. Bill Worms, 18281 Minnetonka Blvd Ste E, Wayzata MN, said if the Planning Commission has read
all of the material, he does not want to go into all of the nuances other than the basic idea with the views
and property to the north.The property to the north is being moved back so they could do a pool, which
ultimately is the hardship,because now it has brought the existing home into nonconformity. A bold line
was pointed out on the displayed site plan,and he stated that was from the existing property to the south
and the line that would have occurred if the property to the north built up to their setback line,which they
chose not to do because of the pool and the pool's encroachment to the sewer.
Mr. David Jacobsen-Gretsch,2440 Old Beach Road,said the reason they are asking for the variance is
they found this was in somewhat disrepair. Also,their family consists of seven people and they want to
add a screen porch which doesn't seem to be an unreasonable use. The biggest issue he has is the fact that
if somebody moves their property backwards, it doesn't seem to be aligned with the regulation or law in
place. Rather, it was designed for lots where, if you move forward,you will be in somebody's view. He
indicated they have a letter of support from each of their neighbors to do this,and if the neighbor moved
their lot back 100 feet,his entire house would be nonconforming.He feels this is reasonable,there is no
harm,he is improving the value and property in the neighborhood, and they have support. He has heard
the Commission say before that it can be built elsewhere,but he really can't. There's an egress issue with
where the rest of the house is with bedrooms. He said it is the family living area, and from a health
perspective a screen porch is something he wanted to do in that location.
Ressler thanked them and asked them to be available for any questions,which was agreed to.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Barnhart asked the applicants to lower their hands and, if new information was to be presented,they could
re-raise their hands so the Planning Commission knows they have not called on them yet, which they
complied with.
Bollis asked Staff why the City is measuring the average lakeshore setback with regard to how it pertains
to the house to the north at the porch and not at the edge of the pool.
Curtis stated the pool is not a massing improvement, it is not part of the principal building. The principal
building is what determines the average lakeshore setback. She noted that even if it is on a patio,the patio
is not part of the principal building, it is not part of the building footprint, so it does not count towards the
measurement of the average setback.
Ressler,referencing the next property over,asked if the City knew where the structure is located for that
property on an aerial view.
Curtis said the City does. Referencing the survey, she indicated the house to the south.
Ressler noted it was the house that the applicant was saying there was a structure previously where the
pool currently is and they are trying to make the position that if that was not done,they would not be
Page 9 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
encumbering on the average lakeshore setback. Knowing the Commission has seen that in other places,he
was curious where the structure is located at the property farther over from that neighbor.
Curtis said she does not have an aerial photo that shows it,but said the applicant's survey shows the line
from the previous house and pointed that area out on the drawing. She also pointed out the home to the
north of the new home next to them.
Ressler,referencing the drawing,asked, if the neighbor's house where the pool is would be gone, whether
the average lakeshore setback would carry over to that and it would carry a straight line.
Curtis stated Ressler was incorrect and that it would be determined by the home to the south and pointed
it out on the document. She added if there was a vacant lot on either side,they use the direct measurement
of the house on the built-up side.
Ressler referenced where Staffs pointer was and asked, if the line was drawn to the left and the property
on the left where the pool is did not exist,where that average lakeshore setback would generally be.
Curtis stated it would be 116 feet,so it would not help the applicant's difficulty because they are
proposing to be situated 107 feet from the lake,where they are currently 118.6 feet. If the lot was vacant,
it would not help them.
Ressler clarified whether the discussion was about lake yard setback or average lakeshore setback.
Curtis indicated it was the average lakeshore setback. She said if there is a vacant lot on your left,the
setback is determined by the actual distance from the lake of the house on your right. She noted the same
rule would apply if there was a street on the left.
McCutcheon noted the Planning Commission gets one of these requests every meeting and he realizes it
is frustrating for homeowners because it is not straightforward, and it is frustrating when you look at a
pool or building structure. He noted with the previous applicant they were fighting over six feet to one
foot,and now it's 10 feet.The Planning Commission has to draw the line somewhere and there are rules
and a lot of precedence set.Even though it may be frustrating and people wonder why they do not just
allow this,the Planning Commission cannot do that. He would be in favor of denying the application.
Libby noted he likes to contribute an alternative if he can.He said architecturally it is a lovely home and
thanked the applicant for a very nice and articulate explanation about their life-style,needs, and why they
want to do a screen porch. He is thinking about a practical solution for them so they can satisfy their need
and desire for a screen porch and suggested that the applicant go back to their architect and take a look at
positioning a screen porch off the existing library to the right of the library where it looks as if there's
some hard surface there. He does not think there would be as much of a battle.They are going to build
something new, anyway;there's cost in design, engineering,and construction. It would solve the average
lakeshore setback issue if they were to design and build something to the right of the library. He has not
been out to the house,but he can tell from the aerials that it looks feasible.
Erickson said any government agency should try to be as even-handed in their application of the law as
possible and avoid any kind of precedent that might be considered arbitrary which could result from an
uneven application. He noted there was an application in the Walters Port area where there was an
existing building with a foundation and part of a basement that were stuck into the average lakeshore
Page 10 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
setback,just about the same amount as in this case. The Planning Commission voted at that time not to
permit it, and that was an existing structure. This is a proposal which has not yet been built, and Staff has
advised the Commissioners the house could be made bigger if they had located the addition in a different
part of the property. That tells him that the reason for it being proposed where it is, is for the applicant's
convenience because there are viable alternatives. If it is a convenience to the applicant,they should not
try to make a practical difficulty out of it, because it is not there in his view.
Kirchner noted he does not have any further feedback beyond what has been provided. In reviewing the
practical difficulties report from City Staff,he does not believe that a practical difficulty can be
established in this case.As Erickson pointed out,this may be more so a matter of convenience.
Gettman said he does not see the overcoming practical difficulty in the request and noted the previous
Commissioners have already stated his position.
Ressler noted that Erickson did a nice job of summarizing. He stated there are alternatives available,they
have denied applicants of similar characteristics in the past,and the code that the Commission has to
follow does not allow any sort of grandfathering in of previous structure once structure is replaced.
Unless there is a motion that carries and changes the by-laws to allow grandfathering for a previous
structure to redraw potential average setbacks,the Commissioners have to go by the rules and guidelines
and grant variances to practical difficulties. He said he tends to agree with the rest of the Commissioners.
Kirchner commented that there has been a lot of discussion about the property that's under construction
that was pushed back in regard to accommodating a swimming pool. He said he zoomed out a little bit on
the survey and sees the approximate existing dwelling one more to the left of it, and he is trying to figure
out if the house was moved back to accommodate that average lakeshore setback, although he could not
determine where that line would be.
Curtis noted the applicant provided that line on the survey. She indicated the line and noted that it cuts
through the applicant's proposed addition slightly.
McCutcheon moved,Gettman seconded,to deny Application No. LA20-000028 Bay Cliff Homes,
2440 Old Beach Road,variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Gettman,Kirchner,Bollis,McCutcheon,
Erickson,Libby,Ressler),Nays 0.
4. LA20-000029 MICHAEL LOUWERSE,4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,
7:29 P.M. -8:17 P.M.
Michael Louwerse and Elise Kottraba,Applicants,were present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
McCutcheon stated it looks like the property east has a garage closer to the road than the applicant's
house,and asked if they are in violation of the setback.
Curtis said she did not have their survey information. She stated they show the nearest part of the house
on their survey which was provided,but she does not have it. She did not believe it was in the setback. It
is not much if it is.Using the survey, she stated it was 21.7 feet; the setback is 30 feet.
Page 11 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Mr. Michael Louwerse and Ms. Elise Kottraba,Applicants, were present but not able to be heard.
Ressler asked Staff how they should handle the application since respondents were not able to be heard.
Barnhart suggested the Planning Commission have some internal conversation with the hopes,before
they make any motion or recommendation,the applicants would come back to the meeting.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Michael Louwerse and Elise Kottraba,4731 North Shore Drive, said they would be happy to answer any
specific questions that anybody has. He stated he was running around trying to get his computer to work
so he did not hear all of the Commissioners'comments. As far as the shared driveway,they are not able to
use their driveway because they cannot park cars there in order to allow their neighbors to get out. He
believed Staff has an aerial view from Google Maps that shows the situation. He and his wife purchased
the house in September, she's pregnant with their first child, and with the items you acquire living on a
lake and for yard work and then with their family expanding, it would be really nice to have additional
storage and keep the cars in the garage as well. It would also help them to be able to stay in the house
long-term as their family grows, as opposed to having to move and find a place where they have more
storage. He noted Curtis discussed what she called the deck down by the lake and pavers. They were there
when they bought the house;they didn't put that in. He said the deck is a dock. It is dock material and
built over the riprap, and it was also there when they bought the house.
Ressler asked the applicants if there was anything further,or he could open it up for questions from the
Commissioners.
Mr. Louwerse indicated any questions were great.
McCutcheon stated he sees what looks like a shoulder where people could park on the side of the road. He
asked if there was a safety issue coming in and out of the driveway.
Mr. Louwerse said the topography in the driveway is pretty sloped. Their neighbors pull in and turn left
and park their car forward into their garage,which is a three-car garage. They back up all the way against
the applicants'garage and then pull out forward up the driveway. It is a fairly busy road,and it would be
dangerous to back out of their driveway. He said they back out of their driveway into the neighbors' space
and then pull up.The neighbors have a driveway that is quite a bit bigger than the applicants' driveway,
and they can park a car over to the left side of their driveway.
McCutcheon stated he was glad to hear the explanation because as he looks at the area,potentially the
applicant could lessen the chance of having a car in front of the garage to make coming in and out of the
driveway easier.
Mr. Louwerse agreed. He said the neighbor has a Yukon XL/Denali-sized car, and if the applicants have
just one car in the driveway,the neighbor has a hard time backing her car in there and getting out.The
neighbors have asked the applicants if they could be parked in their garage at all times. As they live in the
Page 12 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
house longer and accumulate more things for yard work and lake supplies, it's getting a bit cramped and is
only going to get worse as their family grows.
Ressler asked the applicants to be available during their discussion if they called for them to answer any
questions,which they agreed to do.
McCutcheon said he looked at the aerial photo of the neighborhood and saw there were some houses with
garages that are closer to the road than the applicants',although they may be grandfathered in.He stated
safety is a huge concern and he is glad Staff recognized that and was willing to meet the applicants
halfway in allowing the hardcover to extend. He said the applicants'point is valid.They just bought the
house and knew the situation, although they didn't know the nuances of extending the garage and the
complications that arise.He understands why the applicant is before the Planning Commission, especially
with a baby on the way. It is a busy road, and he would like to do anything to help improve safety.
Bollis said he agrees with McCutcheon. In looking at it,he can see the practical difficulty, and some sort
of reconfiguration needs to happen in order for them to utilize the driveway in a safe manner.He is in
favor of it. In a perfect world he would like to see the 18.1-foot setback be no less than the 21.7 the
neighbor has, but he does not know if that is possible.He is generally in favor of the proposed addition of
the garage and driveway section.
Libby said he tends to concur with Bollis and McCutcheon. Shared driveways seem to be very difficult to
work out. Regardless of how they are configured,they pose some type of deficiency versus private,
unshared driveways. The applicants knew that was the existing condition when they bought the property.
He does not have a problem with the proposed addition or the request.He noted the adjoining property
seems to have a further encroachment into the setback and asked if that set any sort of precedent on a
street side average setback. He asked if that gives any net benefit to this applicants' request for a variance.
Curtis said she thinks each lot is looked at individually. The two properties used to be three. They lost the
one lot to make two lots larger. 4725 was developed first. The 4725 lot has less of a constriction on the
lake side due to the bluff because the subject lot pulls up into the lot. The drainageway on the west side is
quite steep,so the bluff does wrap around, causing further setback concerns for the development of the
lot, which is why the house is built the way it is. She would not say that someone else's variance approval
would give a precedent to approve a variance on either lot unless it's an identical situation. She suggested
to look at each lot on its own merits.
Libby said he is looking at some way/method the Commission can temper this in a manner that would
allow the applicants to have what they need without abusing or violating City Code. The safety issues
enter into the equation.The idea of having to back out on a thoroughfare like North Shore Drive is tough
and risky. If they have another method of doing that from a new garage, it may not change the safety
issues.He does not have a solution but suggested discussing it further and taking it to a vote.
Erickson stated that when the time comes to vote on a motion, this particular case might lend itself to two
separate motions.He brought it up in part because Staff recommendation is to approve one set of
variances and deny another set of variances, and one way to deal with that would be to have separate
motions and separate votes.The variance Staff is recommending is the one involving hardcover, and that
would give the applicants more driveway room to maneuver and get on and off of the busy road safely,
which he is in favor of. He would see a clear hardship if that was not approved.As far as the setback
variance for the three-car garage,the applicant pointed out he wasn't sure how much of a hardship that
Page 13 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
was;he mentioned that it's nice to have more storage space. Perhaps that fact leads Staff to conclude that
part may be a convenience,which may preclude a hardship.Although it goes outside the boundaries of
the application in front of the Commission,there may be some other ways to improve the storage without
going closer to the county road. He suggested if the two-car garage were extended in depth, it would get
closer to the unimproved road and there would be no neighbors there. If there were a variance in that
direction, it might be something to look at. An accessory building in the backyard for lawn mowers, et
cetera,would be something else that could be considered.He is very much in favor of the hardcover
variance because it creates an opportunity to require the applicants to remove the unpermitted hardcover
very close to the lakeshore. When the applicant mentioned this is really dock material, his memory
immediately went back to another recent case the Planning Commission had of a contractor who
expanded a boathouse without a permit but then said those were dock sections that were added next to the
boathouse. At that time the Commission's vote was against the interpretation of the dock section being
permitted hardcover. If the hardcover variance is a vehicle to require that unpermitted hardcover to be
moved, it is definitely worthwhile. He does not even know how he would vote. It may be something that
could be subject to a later discussion.
Kirchner said he drove past the subject property and it is a unique area.He drove by twice to look at it
based on the topography of it and how it slopes down towards the lake.Although it is not immediately
next door to the applicants' residence,in the 4400 block of North Shore Drive,to the east of the
applicants,there are homes that have sheds which have full single garage doors on them that are
essentially on the property line.They were closer to the road, it seemed. He noted another home almost
directly across and a little to the west of the applicant that is situated pretty much on the road and believes
it is an old home constructed many years ago and might be abandoned. He said that the neighboring
property that they share the driveway with does extend some into that 30-foot setback as well. He is
thinking along the lines of Erickson in that it is a challenging application to determine between the
practical difficulty versus convenience, but he also struggles with the fact that the neighboring property is
encroaching into that 30-foot setback where the applicant is saying that that's part of what they're trying to
accomplish as well with a single garage stall.
Gettman stated the way Staff laid out the hardcover question made a lot of sense,but he thinks the
Planning Commission is missing the fact it is a slippery slope. The 21 feet of the neighbor is not the new
norm, it's not what the Commission is dealing with. 30 feet is 30 feet.There is no practical difficulty to go
inside that,which is the issue Erickson was bringing up,because how do you potentially split it out to
give them the safety,the practical difficulty of turning around, and not fall down the slippery slope of
now saying the new norm is 21 or 18 feet, etc. He is definitely for the safety concerns if that means the
Commission has to do something they otherwise wouldn't do. He'd like to try to split the variance out to
allow the applicants the safety measure of trying to have the hardcover without actually eating into that
30-foot setback requirement.
Ressler stated he does not know that there is enough practical difficulty for encroaching on the setback.
He noted they just had a very long deliberation over another application with the same premise; if there's
not enough of a justification, it's difficult. The real estate terminology he thinks of is "functional
obsolescence," where you have a difficulty of a property that affects the value. An unjust enrichment,
where hopefully there is probably a financial concession for that obsolescence,generates the difficulty for
use and, unfortunately,that is affecting the applicants. Structure is something that the Planning
Commission takes seriously and is very difficult to overcome.His personal feedback is they cannot try to
redesign an application on the fly. He recommended the Commissioners vote based on the application in
front of them with feedback on perhaps something that would be agreeable. He is not sure how he feels
Page 14 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
about the hardcover structure lakeward from the building of the house. It's difficult that it was in existence
prior to taking possession, it is meaningful to know, so he is not wanting to weigh in on that. He is willing
to consider,in lieu of added structure, a parking pad next to the house,where it doesn't add structure but
the hardcover gives an additional place for parking and turnaround. That might give the applicants a
better ability to park safely without adding structure and further encroaching upon the road,and
eliminates the need for a rear setback variance. He noted it is adding hardcover so it is not a slam dunk,
and maybe removal of the deck or dock and the riprap that the Commission generally frowns upon might
be one of the concessions that would be agreed upon in that application. He noted that is not what is in
front of the Commission. He is not in support of adding additional structure. It makes sense,but the
Commission does not grant variances based on what makes sense.
Erickson moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve the hardcover variance as submitted by Staff
recommendation to enhance safety so that both neighbors can gain safe access to the busy road.
Part of that variance would require the removal of the illegal hardcover near the lake.
Ressler asked Erickson if the motion was for a partial approval of the application.
Erickson clarified that he is voting in favor of the part of the application which the Staff is recommending
for approval, and his motion does not say anything about that portion which recommends denial.
Ressler asked Erickson if his motion includes allowing the structure,the dock or deck over the riprap
lakeward,which was shaded in pink on the map being displayed, and the walkway that goes up to it.
Erickson stated that was part of his motion. He is following Staff recommendation to require removal of
that material,as it is illegally placed. He stated that would be an appropriate condition of the hardcover
variance for the other portion of the property. He is not saying anything about the garage addition. He is
leaving that door open for further discussion of a second motion.
Ressler stated he is not in favor of supporting the motion because that is not the application but more
Staff's feedback. His position is that instead of redesigning what is approvable,the Commission provides
the feedback of denial based on the current application. That would allow the applicant to go forward to
the City Council and perhaps they could amend their application by that point. He pointed out there is a
motion and a second and asked if there was any further discussion.
Erickson stated at the end of the Planning Staff report it said, "Planning Staff recommends denial of the
setback variance for the garage addition.However, Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance
to permit 504 square feet of hardcover for new driveway and parking pad conditioned upon the removal
of the unpermitted deck and flat paver walkway at the lake and the walkway converted to be a non-
hardcover surface."He said he believes his motion parallels the Staff recommendation as far as that
portion which Staff recommends approval of, and it leaves the door open for further discussion on the
other part which the Planning Staff recommends denial of.
Ressler asked Barnhart to weigh in on the issue,noting his understanding is that is not the application in
front of the Commission,it is more the feedback of what would be agreeable to Staff and perhaps the
City. He asked Barnhart to clarify Staff's recommendation.
Page 15 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart said he thought it was appropriate to break up the application as proposed. They can respond to
the hardcover variance in terms of the increase and also respond to the building addition. He had no issue
with what has been done so far.
Ressler asked if the Staff feedback included that the hardcover would be where the proposed addition is,
or is it just where the proposed drive is along with removal of the unpermitted hardcover. He asked both
Barnhart and Erickson to clarify.
Barnhart said he would defer the hardcover location question to Curtis.
Curtis stated the Staff recommendation for the hardcover would basically be what they have proposed for
the driveway and garage but no building.They could park next to the existing garage or store something
next to the existing garage on a paved surface but not have a building there.
Ressler, referring to a drawing, asked if the proposed addition would be replaced from structure to
proposed drive as an extension for that same platting.
Curtis said if that configuration works for the applicants. She reiterated Staff has not reached back out to
them but that is Staffs recommendation,to allow for an additional drive and parking area in conjunction
with removal of the illegal hardcover.
Ressler noted they would probably have to turn it back to the applicant to comment on that. He asked
Staff to clarify that if the applicants would like to continue on with their application as applied as well,
that it doesn't impact their agreement.
Curtis said she believed the Commission could make a recommendation and the applicant can continue on
to the City Council with their request as-is and with the Commission's recommendation.The City
Council can vet the rest of it themselves.
Ressler clarified that it was whether one,both,or none were approved.
Curtis agreed with Ressler. She stated she thinks the Commissioners'comments and recommendations are
important.
Ressler stated he would agree that it would be reasonable to add as a hardcover where the proposed
addition is, as he mentioned in his previous comments. He asked Erickson to clarify if that was what he
was proposing as well.
Erickson said that Ressler was correct. He noted his motion is intended to mirror what Curtis described as
the Staff recommendation.
Ressler asked if McCutcheon's second remained.
McCutcheon stated when Erickson first said he was in line with Staff recommendations,that is what he
was thinking,too.
Libby stated he agrees with McCutcheon and Erickson and the motion seemed to mirror Staffs
recommendation.
Page 16 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Mr. Louwerse said the process is new to him, but if he is going to have a driveway where it says
"proposed driveway," as well as proposed addition,which is going to be the same width, it's going to be
just as close to the road as an addition would be. To him, an addition would look better and more
professional, not to mention just getting that much more functionality out of it. It seems odd to him that
they can build a driveway that is"X"amount of feet away from the county road but yet can't have a wall
that's"X"amount of feet to the county road.
Ressler indicated the applicant would be surprised at how many rules and regulations the Commission has
to adhere to. It would probably have to be another time as far as getting into the why's,but generally,
structure is harder to pass than hardcover.
McCutcheon pointed out the matter goes to the City Council next and the Council can ignore everything
the Commission has to say and make their own determination, which the Council has done in the past.
Ressler told the applicants the Planning Commission is looking to approve a portion of their application
and it goes to the City Council.The applicants can move forward with just what the Commission has
approved, or they can move forward on the entire application as it stands if that is all right with them.
Mr. Louwerse said that works for him.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Libby,Erickson,McCutcheon,Bollis,Kirchner, Gettman,Ressler),Nays 0.
Ressler asked Staff for clarification as to whether part of the motion was to deny the rest of the
application.
Curtis stated she would defer to Barnhart but she heard the Staff recommendation even though the word
"deny" was not used.
Barnhart said since he heard the motion as an approval of the hardcover,he would recommend a motion
to deny structure setback variance.
Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to deny the setback variance for the structure portion of
Application No. LA20-000029 Michael Louwerse,4731 North Shore Drive. Roll call vote: Ayes 6
(Libby,Erickson,McCutcheon,Kirchner, Gettman,Ressler),Nays 1 (Bollis).
5. LA20-000030 SAMBATEK ON BEHALF OF YMCA OF GREATER TWIN CITIES, 135
ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH,PRELIMINARY PLAT, 8:17 P.M. -9:02 P.M.
John Quinlivan, o/b/o Gordon James Construction,was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
There were no questions for Staff.
Mr.John Quinlivan, Gordan James,Inc. said the plan is straightforward and pretty much what they
brought in the sketch plan review;the two issues that were brought up then are the two issues that will be
Page 17 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
discussed today. He stated they could make the small triangle on Orono Orchard Road a small outlot if
needed and put a monument there to come into compliance.
Ressler asked Mr. Quinlivan if he could be available for follow-up questions,which was agreed to.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Mr.Mark Sponsler, 169 Meadow Lane, said their property backs up to the creek and the current driveway
that will become Outlot A. He noted the driveway runs adjacent to Long Lake Creek, and they are
concerned about the impact of having a hard-surface road 6-10 feet away from the creek. He asked if the
existing house on the property is included in the four lots that are being proposed to build.
Mr. Quinlivan said their engineer will be required to take drainage to holding ponds so it would not
impact the creek. That will be done in compliance with the Watershed District and feedback from their
engineer.The existing house is included as part of the four lots.The house would either stay or the people
that bought the lot would take it down.
Mr. Sponsler stated they have lived adjacent to the property for 25 years. It is one of the few remaining
wildlife/natural areas in western Hennepin County and Orono. They see 8-10 deer on the property any
afternoon year-round. He asked the Commissioners to give some consideration as to whether every last
square foot of land in Hennepin County/Long Lane/Orono will be built out. He stated that it is a
sentimental observation as someone who has looked at the property for 25 years.He asked the
Commission to respectfully consider what they have offered as their point of view.
Jamie Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road,said he lives in the house that directly borders Lot 1. Part of their
house faces Orono Orchard Road and the back side of the house mirrors the YMCA lot. Their house is
wedged into that space. His concern is they have not heard any word from the developer.They will be
significantly impacted by this development, and he understands it will be developed,but he wanted it
noted there has been zero communication. He said as he read through the packet prepared by Staff, it was
ambiguous around the details. For example, Barnhart noted it is a beautiful plot of land with significant
conservation design supporting the property. He stated the north side of his house sort of backs into the
new road on the corner. He asked Barnhart to identify on the site plan the area he was speaking about,
which Barnhart complied with,and then asked how that space would be addressed.After asking if anyone
had walked the property,Bollis raised his hand. Mr. Lowe stated there is lots of vegetation. He asked
exactly what that will look like and how that will impact his home. He also asked what the detailed
landscape budget is,because often there are cost overruns and the budget can be diminished,and he wants
to ensure that does not happen. He also asked the applicant if he was building spec homes or if the land
will be sold and then homes are built. He would like to know exactly where the home on Lot 1 will be
positioned,noting it looks like it would be behind the carriage house that was built 6-7 years ago. He
wanted to know how many trees and how much dirt will be removed and what the height of the homes in
Lot 1 and 2 will be. He appreciates it is a sketch plan,but it seems appropriate that detailed questions are
answered and specifics provided.
Mr. Quinlivan said all of the houses will be custom built. The house locations as shown on the lots are
placeholders and are dependent if they build a rambler or a two-story, 90-degree angle garage vs. a front-
loading garage. As they build,they will have to be in compliance with the ordinances for setbacks.He
imagines the people moving into the lots, due to the cost, are going to want as much screening as the
Page 18 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
homeowners on the Orono Orchard Road side will want so there is privacy for both properties. They will
do landscape plans per lot as they do design-builds on each lot.
Kelly Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, said she would like to reiterate that considering they had a
relationship with Mr. Quinlivan and he built the three-car garage/carriage house they have, she is
incredibly disappointed that she found out about the four lots by pulling up the agenda today. She knows
Barnhart is probably sick to death of her and her husband checking in with him every month to see what
is going on behind them. She knows they have been a thorn in his side,but there should be proactive
communication to who will be the most visible neighbor. She is heartsick that after 16 years, she is not
going to see the beautiful Orono Preserve behind them. She has concerns about the amount of hardcover
on the road so close to the creek. She is not smart enough to understand,when Mr. Quinlivan says
something about wells/drainage, what it means. She is not a builder; she does not pretend to be one. She
wants to make sure the hardcover does not impact the creek or any drainage to their property. When Mr.
Quinlivan says"placeholder,"right behind their house may be the most buildable spot,and she is
concerned about the value of their home. She reminded everyone that first they had a motorcycle shack
and they poured over$1.2 million into their property and continue to do landscaping and keep it as lovely
as they can based on their budget. They will lose significant value if they get somebody dropped into their
backyard and would be disappointed. She asked when the conversation happens about where all of the
cars park, because she does not want to see a row of construction/service vehicles lined up in front of her
beautiful trees. There is a lot of land for people to park who are doing the work, and she wants to make
sure it is done in the right way. She stated the septic person was out and mentioned to her husband that
septic placement is going to be quite difficult based on the water. She may be saying it wrong, but there is
water about 12 feet down in a lot of areas so it is a fairly wet space, and she wants to make sure those
things are being looked at as the lot divisions and placement decisions are made. She wanted the safety of
the Watershed District,the beauty/pristinity of the area, and the deer taken into consideration.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
Ressler said the public comments made good points. This is a preliminary plat,but it is still subject to
conditions that are afforded and required by the City, including Engineering and Planning comments.
That has to do with screening and replacing in-kind trees that get removed. As much as everyone likes to
see things remain rural, improvements for a buildable lot or what could be a buildable lot have to be given
the ability to be made.
Barnhart stated public comment raised good points. Before the project can be final, septic reports are
required for each of the lots,which is the research the septic designer did to identify the prospective sites.
The City has not gotten that report. It is a lot of technical writing that does not interest most people but is
something the City looks at. Staff expects the report soon,before the City Council reviews it. If the
Planning Commission would like to see it,the action could be tabled until then.As far as stormwater
management and how it relates to the creek and new road,the City Engineers are reviewing that. The City
does not normally give final approval as part of a permanent plan at this stage, but Staff has not really
gotten anything from the Watershed District. He again noted the Commission could table the action if
they wanted to see the Watershed District's response. Staff is moving things along because they anticipate
what they are going to say,but the Planning Commission has the ability to see the response. The City is
not necessarily proposing screening for this property, as it is adjacent to other parcels, because the land
use types are the same: rural residential to rural residential. The City does not usually require screening in
those situations. There are some trees along the new road that are to be planted, and usually there is some
sort of entrance feature expected. They have not seen anything yet,and if the Commission wants to see
Page 19 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
that,the matter could be tabled. Currently Staff does not know the house location or design that will be
constructed;that is not something that is known at the time of a plat frame. Staff has an idea and the
applicant has provided schematics of what they are envisioning and marketing the property for, but
ultimately it will be designed by the end-user, which is not abnormal for Orono. Staff can say definitively
that waivers and variances from the setbacks have not been asked for.The properties themselves provide
adequate space for a home of the character Staff would expect. He can say with confidence that the home
would be consistent with the zoning district standards for each lot. Staff tries to manage construction
traffic and construction activity during a project like this. It is somewhat hampered because there is about
a 50-foot space that this property touches Orono Orchard Road and they know where the traffic will come
from, but they will manage traffic as best they can internal to the site with the exception, perhaps,of when
they are pouring the asphalt for the road. He restated that if the Planning Commission would like to see
the final stormwater management plan,the final landscaping plan,and septic reports,they do not need to
act on the application.The applicant is expecting the Commission to do so and the expectation is it would
carry forward to the City Council,but the Commission has the right and ability to wait for that
information if they so desire.
Bollis said that when he looks at the plan, it is very consistent with the sketch plan. He noted there is one
less lot and felt that would impact the neighborhood less. He would like to see the triangle on Lot 1 be
turned into an outlot so Lot 1 can be conforming,because he thinks it is important when the ability is
there,which he feels is the case. He agreed with Staff that the other issues are typically approved in these
types of developments, where it is a technical piece on where the property line is measured from,which
happens all the time on pie-shaped lots. In general,it looks very good and he would be voting for this.
McCutcheon said he generally agrees with Bollis. After looking at the contours,he felt it might be a good
idea to look at the septic report,because it is pretty flat and swampy.Looking at the contours,there is raw
acreage and buildable, and the numbers are pretty close together. He asked if the area is relatively flat,
because as he drove by,the trees blocked a lot of the view and he did not go into it.
Barnhart stated it is a unique property and it gets that way by having the undulation. The outside of the
property is dominated by wetland,and that establishes the low area. The middle of the property rises up
and the current house is situated on top of the hill, and that is where one building site will be.As the road
slopes up to meet the existing home is where the other homes will be.The property undulates and
provides some character,and part of the benefit of doing by-design homes for each of the lots is you don't
lose the character by masquerading and creating housepads. He thinks the applicant is striving to fit a
home that fits with each given lot rather than make the lot fit with a proposed home.
McCutcheon said you can tell by looking at the plat that a lot of care and thought has been put into it. He
is glad the number of houses was reduced by one. Without looking at each individual lot and the septic
tank and drain field, it is hard to understand.As Barnhart said,the Planning Commission has to go
forward assuming everything will be approved; if it doesn't for whatever reason,it could be re-evaluated.
Libby stated,while listening to the Lowes' comments,he can be sensitive from both sides of the fence
because historically and currently he is involved in land development and new construction building but
has also been an ombudsman for his neighborhood,where the intensity of new construction both as in-fill
and development has almost been deafening. He suggested to the Lowes that they develop as much
dialogue/conversation with the developer as they can because it is a very constructive way to keep
themselves informed about the progress.He looks at what came back to the Planning Commission, and he
is pleased at not seeing so much crowding and not seeing what developers often do, which is to squeeze
Page 20 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
out another lot,because it is about land development and making money with the dirt available. Builders
don't have anything to build on unless they have dirt,and developers play a key role in bringing housing
to market. He thinks it is a very much improved plan from the first time.He deals with subsurface
treatments and the engineers that design it, and it is pretty remarkable what they can do with subsurface
treatment. The use of tanking and pumping is closely regulated by the State,just like all the other
elements of the conservation district,DNR, etc.There are so many eyes, ears, and scrutiny in a
development that it takes a long time to put it together to a point where, all of a sudden, construction
traffic shows up and the contractors/subcontractors are there in large numbers. You don't build 5-10,000
square foot houses in a couple of months; it takes quite a while to do that. It is an adjustment for
neighbors, and what better way than to know the developer and builders, have a dialogue with them so
they are respectful about their private property rights and quiet enjoyment. He stated he would tend to
favor the sketch plan,because he is very hands-on about how long it takes to move a project along and the
builders/developers are very seasonally timed. The amount of progress one can make in moving
something forward is going to be predicated on how short the season is. Holes can be dug and concrete
poured well into October and November. The sketch plan is greatly improved from the first time, and he
would be in favor of approving it as a sketch plan.
Barnhart pointed out it is a preliminary plat and not a sketch plan.
Libby stated he stands corrected.
Erickson said his view of the plan mirrors Bollis'. It could be improved slightly with a small outlot in the
corner of the one lot. He was reasonably comfortable with the five-lot plan and now it is less dense with
the four-lot plan.
Kirchner noted he was not a member of the Planning Commission when it was presented the first time.
Referencing the preliminary plat map,he indicated in the top left portion where the road comes in off of
Orono Orchard Road is a black circle,and he asked if the triangle is what could become an outlot.
Barnhart stated Kirchner was correct.
Kirchner said if the ability is there to make Lot 1 conforming,he would like to see that occur by making
that triangle an outlot and making Lot 1 wider where it needs to be. With the exception of that,he thinks
it is a good plan and the Commission should continue to rely on Staff to review and follow through on
things that may be over the Commissioners' heads in technical terms as far as the sewage, septic tanks
and drainage fields, and how they apply to the land.
Ressler noted that it was good feedback. His opinion lies in agreement with the Staff recommendation and
making it subject to the conditions, including Engineering and Planning comments.He said it does not
appear that the Planning Commission is voting to approve any substandard lots; he would not be onboard
with approving any substandard lots.The Commission does not need to create any more problems,but
they need to allow people to develop property that they own. He thinks it is prudent to recommend
approval subject to conditions that include Engineering and Planning comments, but he does not think it
is necessary to table the matter until they can see it because he does not know of a circumstance based on
the feedback that is going to change his opinion. His opinion is going to rely upon the experts to provide
the insight on whether or not it is sufficient.
Gettman stated he had nothing to add to the comments the other Commissioners made.
Page 21 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Kirchner moved,Bollis seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA20-000030
Sambatek on behalf of YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Road North,
preliminary plat,subject to conditions including Engineering and Planning comments, remaining in
place for the continuation of the project. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Libby, Erickson, McCutcheon,
Bollis,Kirchner, Gettman,Ressler),Nays 0.
6. LA19-000031 DALE GUSTAFSON,2927 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,
9:02 P.M. -9:34 P.M.
Dale Gustafson,Applicant,and Don Adams, Property Owner,were present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Ressler asked, in lieu of the applicant not asking for a side yard setback for relocating the building that is
in the lake yard setback currently, does Staff still recommend denial even though they have the ability to
rebuild where it stands currently in-kind.
Oakden stated they are currently allowed to rebuild in-kind as it sits today. Moving the building in any
way would be a new encroachment, as it creates new massing and volume where currently no building is
permitted within the lake yard and average lakeshore. Even though the applicant is willing to move it over
to meet the side yard setback,they will need variances for the lake yard and average lakeshore,and Staff
would not support moving the structure.
Ressler clarified that the reason Staff recommends denial even though they can rebuild as it currently sits
is because anytime there is a relocation, it is no longer in-kind even though it is alike.
Oakden said Ressler was correct,that it is no longer in-kind when you move the location of it.
Mr. Don Adams, 2927 Casco Point Road, said their goal is to provide stairs down to the lake in a safe
manner. The north side of the lot has a very severe pitch, and by putting it to the south side,they are
trying their best to put it in an area that has the least amount of pitch.Their other concern is the steepness
of the shoreline and making sure the shoreline does not collapse. There is very little root system: one bush
and one major tree are holding up the shoreline.Their goal is to use the stairs as support for the shoreline
to make sure there is not a slide. They have one of the steepest shorelines on the point. He understands a
house in the area had a major collapse of their shoreline a couple years ago, so he is concerned. He is
hopeful,through the stairline and bushes they are planting,that will be avoided. He noted where the
stairline comes down it goes into the shed,which is the reason he has proposed moving the shed.Another
goal is to remove and eliminate hardcover;the whole shoreline is hardcover in addition to the steppers in
the shed area. Their goal is to also build non-visible stairs; with the bushes that will be planted,no one
will see the stairs.
Libby asked Mr.Adams to describe the condition of the existing shed near the water.
Mr.Adams stated the inside is not very nice. He thought it was used for a pump for the sprinkler system.
The wood inside has water damage to it. He does not know if the former owner rebuilt the outside and
kept the structure inside,but it is not a very appealing area to store anything because of the wood quality.
His hope is to build something more conforming to the style of their house. He noted the picture shows it
Page 22 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
currently has a dome roof and looks more like a planetarium than a shed. They would like to upgrade that
in addition to the beauty of their shoreline.
Libby asked Mr.Adams whether building something like-kind but in better condition and conforming
with the architectural design of the house is not satisfactory to him.
Mr.Adams said he was not sure he understood Libby's question.
Libby asked Mr.Adams if his needs would not be satisfied if he was able to rebuild at the exact position
but something that would be more architecturally conducive to the style of his house and in a fit-and-
finish condition that would work well for storage, etc.
Mr. Adams said it would be adequate but the position of the shed is right at the base of his stairs. His
hope is, since there is already existing hardcover on the north side of the land,that he can move it and
have a better flow and not be in the way of the stairs.
Libby noted, as guided by Staff recommendations,the Planning Commission is dealing with two different
things.
Erickson stated he understands there is no building generally permitted in the lakeshore setback. He has a
vague recollection of some kind of a provision for a storage box next to a dock or something similar if it
is closely related to a dock.
Oakden said the City still allows something like that; it is very minimal and has a small footprint.There is
a height restriction as well. It is meant to be low-level so as to not block sight lines. It is a chest-box size
for life jackets and water-oriented youth type of things.
Erickson asked whether that would be within the City's ordinance if the applicant proposed something
along those lines.
Oakden agreed that if the applicant was proposing something like that, it would be a permit. Currently it
is a whole building. They permit a storage chest,not a building.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:21 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:21 p.m.
Kirchner said he struggles with relocating the shed. His understanding is the current shed is grandfathered
in, and the City has a strong history of remaining true to leaving grandfathered structures and allowing
them to be built like-kind in their location. He does not see an issue with relocating the stairs.He
appreciates that there has been a lot of thought about how natural landscaping can be used to reinforce the
soil conditions and slope and grade of the property while keeping it natural in appearance. He would vote
to deny relocating the shed because he does not believe it is in accordance with the history of what has
been approved/allowed in the past and within the City's ordinances.
Gettman stated Kirchner explained it very well and he had no further comments.
Page 23 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Erickson said Staff has done a good job of reporting the facts.He supports the variance for the retaining
wall with conditions as mentioned in the Staff report.
McCutcheon commented the Planning Commission always denies these things,but at Camp Teko there
was an incident where they wanted to update a storage shed and the Commission thought they would let it
go because kids were trying to lift up gear from the lake and it would make it easier for them, and the City
Council denied it. He said it is impossible to get any structure moved within the lake setback. Knowing
the history, it is what it is.The existing staircase is closer to the north and the applicant said that was
steep, but he may have to re-evaluate the plan if he wants to keep the shed. His opinion is in line with the
rest of the Commissioners.
Bollis stated he is in line with Staff and had no additional comments.
Ressler said he recalled the application McCutcheon referenced. He stated if someone feels a certain way,
their feedback could be given and to not be discouraged. He said this is one of the few circumstances
where he is a little more open-minded. If they are not further worsening their position from the setback,
not further raising the height from the current roof to the proposed structure, and not further increasing the
massing of the current structure,he is okay with it being relocated to the side setback,especially since the
Commission has letters of encouragement from neighbors. He said the topography puts it on a bluff which
has less of an impact, if any,for sight lines to the lakeshore. He would be opposed if they were trying to
relocate it within the side setback requirements,but he is in favor of it as long as it does not further
encroach toward the lake, does not increase massing by height or square footage,and is not within any
sort of side setback variance requirement.
Erickson said this situation could also lend itself to the same type of approach that the Planning
Commission had earlier,perhaps having two motions based on the Staff report which is supportive of one
set of variances and denial on another type of variance. He suggested doing a split to give a clear message
to the City Council.
Ressler asked if Erickson wanted to make a motion on Application No. LA19-000031 based upon the
Staff recommendation which included all of the language.
Erickson moved to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000031 Dale Gustafson,2927
Casco Point Road,variances,based upon Staff recommendations for the proposed retaining walls
and steps,with conditions as stated.
Erickson suggested somebody may want to make a second motion regarding the Commissioners' opinion
as far as the old structure being moved, etc.
Ressler asked Staff if the applicant should be asked if they would like the Planning Commission to split
the application into two different parts or if they would like a vote on the application at hand.
Oakden stated the applicant could be asked. However, it is the Planning Commission's recommendation
to the City Council,and if they follow Staff's recommendation in the Memo, it can be done with one
motion. If the Planning Commission chooses to go in a different direction, Staff would probably ask for
clearer verbiage.
Page 24 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler noted it would be cleaner and there would not have to be two separate motions.
Erickson said if the motion is split,there might be different results. Hypothetically,there might be
unanimous approval for the retaining wall and some kind of a split vote as far as the shed. He suggested
using two motions to reflect that rather than having a split vote on the whole thing.
Libby seconded.Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7(Libby,Erickson, McCutcheon,Bollis,Gettman,Kirchner,
Ressler),Nays 0.
Kirchner moved,Gettman seconded,to deny Application No. LA19-000031 Dale Gustafson,2927
Casco Point Road,for the side yard average lakeshore and lake yard setback for the relocated shed.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6(Gettman,Kirchner,Bollis,McCutcheon, Erickson,Libby),Nays 1 (Ressler).
OTHER BUSINESS
7. LA20-000027 BOB ERICKSON,365 WESTLAKE STREET, SKETCH PLAN, 9:34 P.M. -
10:08 P.M.
Bob Erickson,Property Owner, was present.
Ressler noted that since Commissioner Bob Erickson was an applicant,he would be treated as such and
muted when he was not doing his application. He assumed Erickson would abstain from voting due to
conflict of interest.
Erickson agreed with Ressler and said he understood the sketch plan would not call for a vote but seeks
feedback and comments.
Staff presented a summary of packet information. She noted Staff is looking for feedback and comments
from the Planning Commission.
McCutcheon said he thinks the City of Orono would benefit more from the cul-de-sac, but the access to
the lake is kind of swampy. He asked if there was any history of how the public uses the access, if at all.
Oakden stated it is identified in the Comp Plan as a pedestrian access. The City Engineer commented that,
prior to vacation,the Park Commission should be consulted for how the lake access is used or potentially
could be used,as that is part of the Park's chapter of the Comp Plan. Though not currently improved for
recreation, it could be used in the future for winter access or for provisions of a small fishing dock and
other action items that way.
Libby said he visited the property and also read the narrative. He noticed there are somewhat interesting
drainage accoutrements. There is some stormwater drainage that runs parallel to the right-of-way. It is
odd because some are, in parts, subsurface,and then they become surface drainage and go directly into
the lake.Historically,that has not been a popular method of stormwater drainage for the DNR and other
conservation entities. He noted it would be interesting to see how the Park Commission would look at it.
It sounds like,from the DNR's opinion, it would better serve not being there, draining off surface
effluents and out into the lake. He asked Staff if there were any elevations or depths of the portion that
would be part of the right-of-way that would be considered to be lakeshore.
Page 25 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Oakden stated she did not have an idea of the depths.Referring to the survey, she said they did call out
the 929,which is the ordinary high water. She did not have the actual depth of the lake but displayed an
image submitted by Mr. Erickson which showed it is relatively shallow due to the vegetation shown.
Libby said he agreed with Oakden and that is how he perceived it. He has owned property similar to this;
with the vegetation that is there, it is pretty swampy. If you could float a kayak or canoe in there,you
would be lucky.
Oakden said it does go north of the road.
Libby indicated that is where it is the most shallow and thought Staff had some numbers on the depths.
Since currently there is a fairly high watermark for the season, he thought it might not be more than two
feet at the most.
Oakden commented that she is not sure of the depth of the lake at that location.
Robert Erickson,365 Westlake Street,said his goal is to combine the land at 365 Westlake Street with the
south 127 feet or so of Westlake Street while dedicating land for a new cul-de-sac. He believes this could
be accomplished by the approval of a single lot replat resulting from a Class 3 subdivision. The new cul-
de-sac would be centered at the same point that was used in 1999 when he received a lot line
rearrangement on the east side of Westlake Street for his house at 372 and another lot at 364. At that time
the City agreed to a 40-foot radius on the east side of the street. The new additional cul-de-sac area shows
a 50-foot radius. The new portion will be big enough to provide on-street parking. Since the area is larger
than the amount dedicated,the new 1.16-acre lot will be slightly less nonconforming in the two-acre zone.
In addition,he is offering to pay a$100,000 park dedication fee and remove 2,286 square feet of
pavement hardcover from the south end of the street; 59%of this hardcover is within the 75-foot setback
area.The reduction in hardcover close to the lake will reduce the amount and rate of stormwater runoff
and reduce the amounts of unburned hydrocarbons, salt, and sediment entering the lake. The existing
"lake access" does not actually provide any access to the lake because the lakeshore has been completely
overgrown with aquatic vegetation for a number of years. It is never used because it is not possible to do
so. He said two separate portions of the east-west alley on the east side of Westlake were vacated years
ago,the most recent in the 1990s.Almost every house on the street has their own lakeshore, so neighbors
would not have a use for public access even if it was usable. Easements can be provided for drainage and
sanitary sewer maintenance. At the same time, having a dead-end street of substandard width with no cul-
de-sac causes frequent problems for delivery trucks, garbage haulers,and lawn services.Fortunately,
there have not been any fires or medical emergencies,because Westlake Street is not prepared for them.
These problems intensify when anyone parks in the street, which is barely wide enough for two-way
traffic. He noted the City maintains a fishing dock at the south end of Stubbs Bay Road which is also used
for launching canoes and kayaks. In the winter it is used by snowmobilers and cross-country skiers who
also use the nearby Luce Line Trail and improved parking area for Bederwood Park. These existing
recreational facilities are within walking distance of Westlake Street.Also on Stubbs Bay is the Eastlake
Street access,which adjoins a larger neighborhood of homes without lakeshore. With an underused lake
access,it would probably see more use if it were improved. The DNR lake access facility is two miles
away on Maxwell Bay with boat ramps, fishing docks, and toilet facilities. It is perhaps the most complete
access on Lake Minnetonka. The Hennepin County boat ramp and trailer parking on North Arm is nearby
as well. He said he would be glad to answer any questions.
Page 26 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
McCutcheon said he lives close to the area and thinks when he looked at the area it was the first time, he
has been down that road.He cannot imagine there is a lot of activity. He asked Mr. Erickson if he talked
to any of the neighbors and got their opinion.
Mr. Erickson said he talked to several of his neighbors, although not all of them.A neighbor he has not
talked to is at the extreme north end of the street; he is the only neighbor that does not have his own
lakeshore or dock rights. He said at one time the neighbor had an access easement across the lot from
where his house was built and that was the only place he could put the house. When Mr. Erickson tried to
buy the land,it created a title problem, so between the seller and himself as the buyer,they contributed
$25,000 and bought out the easement. Everybody else on that street owns their own lakeshore.Every
other parcel on Westlake Street is less than two acres.The house he had was a lot line rearrangement,
approved by the City Council in 1999, and has 1.2 acres in a two-acre zone. The lot next to it,which he
sold and has a house now, is 1.4 acres. Both lots are relatively generous compared to many of the other
lots, including one north of that which is .6 or .7 of an acre. If the variance is approved at 1.19 acres,
that's just above average for Westlake Street and would follow the precedent that was set in 1999.
McCutcheon agreed that one lot is more preferable than three.
Mr. Erickson said when he bought the property it had three houses on it. He removed two of them the past
summer, and his proposal is to create one new lot for one new house. When he received approval in 1999
for the two lots,there were four residential units on the property.He removed two rental cabins and two
older houses, and now they have been replaced with two relatively new houses.
Libby noted Staff mentioned the cul-de-sac would aid in the service of some of the facilities,but he
wanted to mention there is a lift station in the northwest corner where the cul-de-sac would come and
curve into the west. Since that needs maintenance from the City,the cul-de-sac would serve a highest and
best use,because the City maintenance vehicles that service the lift stations are fairly substantial in size
and it would be much easier for a City maintenance vehicle to turn around with a cul-de-sac and then
back out again, so he sees the practical aspects of it. When looking at old plats and seeing 50-foot lots,
putting the lots together to make an actual real lot is the highest and best use in the area. He likes the
change and thinks it makes sense.
Oakden noted she was displaying an infrastructure map showing the lift station in yellow and the green
line indicating sanitary sewer.
Ressler told Mr. Erickson that he would be muted while the Planning Commission had their discussion.
McCutcheon said right now the water dumps into the lake, so building the cul-de-sac and keeping the
hardcover away from the lake helps the lake. He said if you look at the area, it makes sense. There is not a
big public use of it, probably because of the vegetation, although it may be used in the wintertime. If the
public has comments,the Commission can go from there.
Bollis stated he agrees with McCutcheon's comments;the cul-de-sac is a public benefit. He can see the
lake access is a benefit for the public,but he does not feel it is being utilized and would take some major
infrastructure to make it something the public could utilize, based on vegetation growth and where it sits.
He does not see any issue with the lots being combined into one large lot. Without a public hearing,he
does not know what the public interest is in the access point.
Page 27 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler said one of things he heard from Staff was the Commission would need DNR feedback as far as
vacating the access.There would probably need to be a contingency.
Libby stated the idea of removing the hard surface blacktop is a benefit,because he was there after heavy
rainfall. It is a narrow thoroughfare, and if it were salted or traffic were coming in and out of the
extension beyond the cul-de-sac, it is inevitable that effluents and surface contamination will run straight
into Lake Minnetonka. He felt everyone was in favor of minimizing or eliminating that. The offer to
remediate the blacktop and take it out is commensurate to somebody who is willing to put their money
where their mouth is. He is in favor of the proposal as a sketch plan.
Gettman said he had nothing further to add.
Kirchner noted he drove by the area and,having an SUV, understands the interest in having a cul-de-sac
in the location,because it took him a while to get turned around once he had driven down the street past
driveways. He agreed with the previous comments that it seems to be a public benefit to have a cul-de-sac
to allow for vehicles turning around. Although there is lake access/a public right-of-way, unless someone
lived there or were making a delivery,he did not know how someone would end up on that street. He
does not think it attracts people and does not think he would have ever been on the street except for the
agenda item. He is supportive of the sketch plan, and they can continue to follow through on the DNR
side of things as well as seek public feedback.
Ressler said DNR feedback is going to be a pivoting factor for him, among other things. There are a lot of
these types of things scattered around the City. There are rules in favor of granting situations like this, and
there have been times the City has approved and times the City has denied. He noted it is hard to make
heads or tails as to what the citizens' opinions are. In one case the citizens were staunchly opposed
because they alleged they used the public access. In this case it is not developed for access and he did not
know if it would even be considered access in the winter because of the wetlands,etc., in the area. He
suggested there could be use of the access by the neighbors if it was made available to them like it is right
now. He reiterated DNR feedback would be important because the area could not be used for access
without changing stuff and getting approval.There is a total of five other accesses on the bay,with one of
them just down the street.He is trying to gauge what the City Council's opinions are. The Commissioners
represent the City's citizens in that if there is usage for it,that's one thing; if there is also a potential
future need for emergency vehicles,that's another; if there's maintenance on it,that's a third. If the first
two are not happening, it is a burden for the City more than anything else. He said it would be prudent to
ask for DNR feedback,but it generally makes sense to him based on the points noted.
Libby added the Park Commission would need to also give feedback.
Mr. Erickson commented that when the lot line got rearranged in 1999,the City Council voted to forbid
motorized traffic south of the cul-de-sac. In one other lake access situation that was on the agenda for a
bit,there were a number of snowmobilers in the neighborhood who wanted to use it; however,not only is
that not possible with this access because of vegetation,but snowmobilers have already been banned.
8. UPDATE ON APRIL 27,2020 COUNCIL MEETING
Barnhart noted he left his notes in his office so he could not provide an update but would do so at the next
meeting.
Page 28 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,May 18,2020
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Libby moved, Gettman seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:09
p.m.VOTE: Ayes 7(Libby,Erickson,McCutcheon,Bollis,Gettman,Kirchner,Ressler),Nays 0.
ATTEST:
Jon Ressler, Chair
Page 29 of 29