HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2021 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Scott Kirchner, Commissioners Chris Bollis,Bob Erickson,Matt Gettman,Mark McCutcheon, and
Jon Ressler; Commissioner Dennis Libby was absent.Representing Staff were Community Development
Director Jeremy Barnhart and City Planner Melanie Curtis. City Council representative Dennis Walsh
was also present.
Chair Kirchner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ressler moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21,2021
Gettman moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of June 21,2021 as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LA21-000029 BOB ERICKSON,365 WESTLAKE STREET,VACATION OF PLATTED
RIGHTS-OF-WAY—WESTLAKE AND ADJACENT ALLEY.(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART)
Bob Erickson,Applicant,was present. Commissioner Erickson stepped down and excused himself for the
item.
Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart stated Mr.Erickson is requesting a vacation to
vacate a portion of Westlake Street adjacent to his property. Originally the request included vacation of an
adjacent alley but he has removed that from the request. This is part of a multi-step process and ultimately
the Applicant is proposing to plat this property and provide right-of-way to complete the portion of a cul-
de-sac that is already platted. The Applicant is also proposing to provide an easement for an existing
sanitary sewer facility in that area. Staff is recommending-in addition to the easement for drainage and
utility purposes-a pedestrian access to maintain access to the lake. Staff has received a number of
comments from neighboring property owners who object to that pedestrian access easement. Staff
supports the vacation request subject to the easement for drainage and utility purposes,and subject to a
pedestrian access easement to maintain or provide access to Lake Minnetonka in this area. Staff notes that
there are four other accesses on Stubbs Bay;one is for winter only,one is for fishing only, and two are
noted as no public access in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has received a number of comments in support
of the vacation, and some comments that object to the easement for pedestrian access. Staff recommends
approval subject to conditions.
Chair Kirchner asked if the easement and right-of-way for pedestrian access would be improved at this
time.
Barnhart replied the easement for drainage and utility is already improved,the pedestrian access
improvements are not proposed at this time. There would be no change right now, it would be for
potential future access to the lake.
Page 1 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Bollis asked if there are any current conditions on access number 14,the one they are looking at vacating,
such as winter access,no motorized vehicles, etcetera.
Barnhart stated that access is noted as pedestrian access in the current Comprehensive Plan.
Ressler asked if that portion of the property is currently being used as pedestrian access.
Barnhart said used is a strong term, it is pretty overgrown and he showed some pictures of the access
point with large cattails growing. He noted it is not likely that it would be a summer access without
significant improvements;he imagines it may be a winter access in the future or perhaps even now. It is
not restricted based on the Comprehensive Plan.
Gettman asked if a pedestrian access would potentially change the DNR's position.
Barnhart replied the DNR provides comment and recommendation but not a lot of weight. The access for
pedestrians would support their goals for lake access for the State.
Bollis asked what width they are suggesting for this easement.
Barnhart said probably similar to the easement necessary for the sanitary sewer;the goal is not to restrict
development for the property owners on either side but to maintain access so 20 feet is likely.
Bob Erickson,365 Westlake Street,read a letter he sent out to his neighbors:
To our neighbors: Thank you for this opportunity to share with you our vision for Westlake Street
improvement that we believe will improve vehicle function and home values in our neighborhood. Our
long-term plan began to take shape in 1999 when we applied for a rearrangement of the two parcels we
had purchased at 365 and 372 Westlake so that the unequally-sized lots could be made more equal in
area in lakeshore measurements.As part of that process, we donated a half-circle of land on the east side
of Westlake Street for a future cul-de-sac.At the same time, the City Council voted to close the part of the
street south of the cul-de-sac to all motorized vehicles.Later, we acquired the house at 365 Westlake
Street and two smaller houses which were demolished about a year-and-a-half ago. Now the time has
come for us to plan for the cul-de-sac completion by applying for vacation of the south 140 feet of
Westlake Street and combining that area with the 365 Westlake property for which we will pay$100,000.
In addition, we will donate a new half-circle of land on the west side of the street to complete the area
needed for the cul-de-sac. We will also donate easements over the vacated land to the City for drainage
and sanitary sewer maintenance. In view of the recently announced addition of Westlake Street to the list
of streets to be improved during 2022, we are also willing to add a 10x150 foot donation of land at 341
Westlake Street as a boulevard reserve. The original plat for Westlake Street was approved over 100
years ago when most of its traffic was made up of small horse-drawn carriages, the 30 foot right-of-way
width was adequate at the time, and firefighters would put hoses into the lake to put out fires.For many
years now the Fire Departments have used tank trucks when needed and all types of vehicles have grown
in size. That is why a new neighborhood subdivision requires 50 feet of street right-of-way and a 50 foot
radius for a cul-de-sac. When complete, the new cul-de-sac will make Westlake Street look and function
much like a newer neighborhood. Take a quick spin around the Landmark Drive and Eileen Circle cul-
de-sacs to compare how modern vehicles can be accommodated. Delivery trucks, garbage trucks, lawn
services, and utility workers all have a much easier time getting in and out of those neighborhoods. If you
have questions, we are here to answer them in person or by phone. Signed, Bob and Lisa Erickson.
Page 2 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Since sending out this letter,Mr.Erickson has received five endorsements of the street vacation and cul-
de-sac.Mr.Erickson's general comment regarding the DNR is that he cannot work with this as the DNR
is describing it,as it would negatively impact the value of the real estate and the value of their neighbor's
real estate. Finally,what the DNR described as having no public value actually has no value to the DNR
for access to a lake which is overgrown and has little or no water in it at this point.He stated he has been
there for 18 years and the access does not get used for obvious reasons in looking at photographs.He
noted the DNR's comment has no basis in fact;to be more specific,the letter talks about present and
potential use.Mr. Erickson noted there is no present use. The letter says regarding potential uses: "as
land-use patterns change..."As a Planning Commissioner and someone who participated before that in
the Guide Plan Advisory Committee,they all get involved in land-use,making those decisions or giving
advice.Land-use patterns do not just change by themselves and the Guide Plan is supposed to be good for
20-30 years although it gets reviewed every 10 years. The DNR's letter also stated fluctuation in lake
levels, either seasonal or long-term,can be unpredictable. Mr.Erickson has also served on the Board of
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)and they work very hard at maintaining lake levels
where they would like them to be.He copied a graphic from the MCWD where it shows how the control
mechanism works at the Gray's Bay Dam;he noted the lowest the lake ever was,was in the 1930's during
the drought and depression where it reached 922 feet above sea level.He noted on the graphic it shows
the record high level is 931.1 feet above sea level which has been approached several times over the last
115 years but has never gone over that.He stated for planning purposes a projected regional flood of four-
tenths of a foot higher than that;this would be virtually impossible to exceed because before getting to
that point there is unrestricted flow into Minnehaha Creek,which leads over the falls and into the
Mississippi River.The only way this could happen is if the Mississippi River raises itself 230 feet and it
would then be at the 931 that Lake Minnetonka is at.He clarified at the 931 the MSP Airport would be
120 feet underwater. The DNR stated the access may be needed for emergency vehicles,to which Mr.
Erickson responded if the airport is 100 feet underwater he thinks the emergency vehicles will be
concentrating their efforts in South Minneapolis rather than Lake Minnetonka. He finds it hard to be
convinced by a figment of someone's imagination.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m.
Wade Kram, 340 Westlake Street,noted Westlake Street is a tiny little street. If they had the public access
after the cul-de-sac were to come in and have people come for this supposed snowshoeing or snowmobile
access and trample over everything that is already there,when right around the corner they have the
Stubbs Bay Road with the beautiful park that has been renovated and all of the parking, it does not make
any sense. Why would someone venture off into a neighborhood,park their vehicle on an already tiny
street and impede things for service trucks.He said to put that potential traffic far outweighs, in the
negative,the positive of some potential access someone may need 50-100 years down the road. He does
not understand and from a safety standpoint,he has three little children,and with increased traffic,
potential littering,and parking it does not make sense to him.
Linda Thrasher, 356 Westlake Street stated Mr.Erickson has presented an unusual partnership as one
does not see many private landowners offering to pay$100,000 for beautification of a cul-de-sac. She
understands that he,too,will benefit but her advice would be to take advantage of a unique opportunity of
which adding public access destroys the integrity of what Mr. Erickson is trying to do. The Erickson's
have done a fabulous job with their current property and if their vision for that property is the same for the
cul-de-sac, it is going to be gorgeous and will be natural—that is what Ms.Thrasher would like the DNR
to see.Having a public access just does not make sense as they have been landowners in the area for 9
years and she has never seen anyone enter the lake for snowshoeing,snowmobiling,or walking. She
Page 3 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
walks her dog down there and it is impossible to actually access the lake.Driving by the other access
points that were pointed out,they are widely used, and she is asking for a rational decision. She said let's
make this rather unattractive,narrow street attractive,and make it easy for vehicles to come turn around
and do the right thing.
Sherry White,3516 Ivy Place, is here to ask the Commission to recommend to the City Council that they
deny the vacation request for this property. The vacation of the lake access will provide no public benefit
and that is the standard the City must adhere to,not whether it is a good idea to have this or not,but rather
is there a public benefit in vacating the property. She noted there is a significant financial benefit to the
Applicant as he assembles property for development, and she finds that disparity very troubling.The lack
of public benefit was stated by the DNR and the Staff recommendation says there is a benefit to having a
cul-de-sac and it would be a great thing to have utility,stormwater,and pedestrian easement—but of
course the City already has those things.That would not be a gain but a clawing back of a loss.There is
public benefit in retaining this property,it is obviously access and they do not know what the future
holds.There is a natural resource value in all undeveloped land. There are letters of support giving
reasons why the cul-de-sac would be a good thing,she buys that,but the blanket statements of support in
those letters with no rationale given is not persuasive.A quick note about pedestrian access, she quoted
from the DNR letter that they would recommend that if the City did vacate,they would retain the right of
the public to travel across the property. That does not say foot traffic. She hopes this will not be vacated
but if it is the City should be very thoughtful in crafting conditions for that,which may include
stormwater and utility easements,access for pedestrians and recreational vehicles,and City or other
government vehicles that may need to access it in the future. She said to require the developer to plant
native vegetation,enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to keep that vegetation going,and
require signage indicating that there is a public access there.These conditions might somewhat ameliorate
the loss of a public property.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m.
Chair Kirchner said currently in the photographs he saw there is no parking on that street. Is there any
intention to widen the street to allow for parking or would it likely remain signed as"no parking."
Barnhart does not believe there is any intention to widen the road for parking.
Bollis' understanding is that the developer is not proposing to pay for and build the cul-de-sac.
Barnhart's understanding is they are providing the right-of-way for the cul-de-sac and next year when
Westlake is part of the street project the Applicant intends that the City would pave the cul-de-sac at that
time.
Bollis asked if there is an estimate on the cost to build this cul-de-sac.
Barnhart believes that is in engineering at this stage.The pavement will be a decision of the City Council.
Kirchner asked if the application they are voting to approve or deny includes pedestrian access or not?
Barnhart replied the request is to vacate the road. Staff is supporting the vacation based on several
conditions, including the pedestrian access. The Commission can pull conditions out if they so desire.
Page 4 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Kirchner thinks they can all agree that the vacation of the roadway to allow for a cul-de-sac development
is a sound judgment and the point of contention here is going to be the pedestrian right-of-way access
point.Regarding the pedestrian easement,personally,he struggles to vacate that portion of it as they have
heard numerous comments of limited use in the last 9-18 years and he does not see how a cul-de-sac at
the end of the street is suddenly going to increase pedestrian traffic to that area. If the area remains signed
as no parking,there may be someone who snowshoes or cross-country skis there to access it but if the
roadway is entirely signed as no parking that would prevent the increased parking on the roadway.He
does not see a problem with it and he would like to see the pedestrian right-of-way remain.
Ressler is a little conflicted on maintaining the pedestrian access simply because he feels there are five
total accesses on Stubbs Bay, some appear to be seasonal. He knows that the one that is guided for fishing
access has been used for other uses besides fishing,as he personally has gone through the landing to
snowmobile. If Ressler was an emergency vehicle looking for access to the lake he thinks that would be
his first choice because of its convenience, efficiency, and direct access without any encumbrances. This
particular property with the wetlands is telling as to why it has not been used. He is conflicted as he thinks
they may want to reserve the right to future access and he is okay with the vacation not granting the
access based upon the other accesses near this location.He is supportive of the vacation as applied.
Gettman said in looking at the density of the different access points,he looks around at West Arm,North
Arm,and they have similar density to the access points.More importantly,he learned that one does not
give something up unless it is of equal value or more beneficial and that is the whole purpose of doing the
vacation, it has to have a public benefit and Gettman is not hearing that.He would latch on to the
suggestion that there be signage for public access,keep the cul-de-sac concept as that is good,but also
keep the public right-of-way and there would not be the parking issue.He said if they were going to go
really far,why not vacate the entire road and let them do the improvement next year and they cannot have
their$100,000 invested in whatever but take care of the road. Gettman is not sure he is hearing anything
that tips the scale to vacate that public access, it just does not make any sense to him.
Bollis thinks they have to keep in mind that there might be five access points on Stubbs Bay but two of
those they learned are not actual public access points but for the City's own purposes. Therefore,they are
really only looking at three access points, and one has a winter restriction, so there is this access point and
the one on Stubbs Bay Road are the only summer access points.He is not in favor of not having some sort
of easement if they go the vacation route.He likes the idea of vacating and trading that for a cul-de-sac
but would rather see that the developer builds and pays for the cul-de-sac versus the City. It might cost
more than the$100,000 to actually build the cul-de-sac. Therefore,the City may be at a net loss. He is not
in favor of it as it is applied for and would be a no vote tonight.
McCutcheon was surprised there was not access today,and even if they put a cul-de-sac or any
improvement in there,no one is going to use it. In the winter there may be someone walking a dog or an
ice fisherman but going down there as it is public use to be walked on, and he does not want to see
snowmobiles down there.He struggles because logically he says no,they do not need it because no one
uses it,but they cannot predict the future and if it is already there,why take it away.He can understand
the neighborhood concern on drawing people in and more activity with a cul-de-sac but he still does not
see that.He understands right now the way it is,no one bothers the residents in the neighborhood and in
putting any kind of improvement people are going to start using this place more so he understands the
contention.He is torn but does not think there would be a lot of activity using it so he would be in favor
with the Staff's recommendation in leaving the ingress and egress access.
Page 5 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler may have misunderstood the application and asked if part of the proposal as applied is a cul-de-
sac or is that something they are just discussing that would happen later.
Barnhart said the cul-de-sac,sanitary sewer easement,and the storm sewer easement are a part of the
application or proposal that would manifest itself as part of a final plat. The pedestrian access easement is
a Staff recommendation in addition to those others.
Ressler agrees with Bollis that the developer pay for the cul-de-sac would be something he would support
as a condition.He has no problem with the proposed amount being paid above and beyond that for the
property,he does see adequate benefit for the storm water and utility for drainage as a public benefit as
well as the ability for emergency vehicles to turn around in said cul-de-sac.
Bollis is confused,and asked if tonight they are just voting on vacation and the potential of a cul-de-sac in
the future if that property gets platted,but there is nothing to connect that to the vacation.
Barnhart replied yes,that is why there are the recommended conditions in terms of the cul-de-sac
provision and the easement for the utilities.
Bollis clarified they can vote to approve it tonight based on those conditions later.
Barnhart said what the Commission and later City Council would be saying is there is no public benefit or
public purpose for this property.Then the County disburses it,typically equally to each property owner
on either side. Mr. Erickson owns both properties and he has indicated a desire to re-plat the area,
including this to-be-vacated portion. That is when they would see those changes occur and is why they
want to see it as a condition.
Gettman moved to approve LA21-000029 Bob Erickson,365 Westlake Street,Vacation of Platted
Rights-of-Way—Westlake And Adjacent Alley with Staff recommendations that the vacation
provide for the drainage and utility easements,pedestrian easement,and additional right-of-way to
complete the cul-de-sac.
Ressler asked as applied, is Gettman suggesting that the City would pay for the cul-de-sac?
Gettman did not say that,he did not mention the$100,000 offered,so it is just as the Staff had
recommended.
Kirchner asked Mr. Erickson to provide some clarity as to what the$100,000 would go towards.
Mr. Erickson has not specified that so far and the reason is that he feels it is really the City Council's call.
They approve the budget for everything else that goes on, and have asked for amounts from other access
vacations in the past. This one is three times the amount of the former high for a wider right-of-way than
this one,and also for another lake access that had usable water at it with docks on both sides.He felt that
the number itself is the most generous that has been offered for a number of lake accesses that have been
closed in recent history. If he had overreached his position as an Applicant,he could have said he wants
all or part of it to improve the existing access at Stubbs Bay Road,for example.
Page 6 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart had asked Mr. Erickson to confirm the offer of$100,000—which he did-and the City Council
will determine what an appropriate use is for that money.He would suggest Gettman add that as part of
the recommendation.
Mr.Erickson clarified if he had specified that the$100,000 be used for improvement of a public access
such as Stubbs Bay Road,then the DNR objection would have been nullified.
Amended Motion by Gettman to include the$100,000 contribution to the General Fund with his
original motion.Motion seconded by Kirchner.
Ressler clarified the only reason he would be opposed in this vote is because he is concerned over the cost
of what the cul-de-sac is going to be as that would be on the burden of the City.He also feels the adequate
benefit to the City and would be okay with vacating the public access.
McCutcheon said they never want to take away value. He sees this neighborhood and it is a really quiet
street.Yes,there was access to Lake Minnetonka but no one used it because it was not really feasible.
Putting a cul-de-sac there may make it feasible and may impact their value. He sees the point they make
about creating a cul-de-sac and making something more accessible that was not there before. In thinking
about that he feels for the neighborhood and from a citizen point-of-view it is not a great access as the
cattails are 8 feet tall for 50 feet of lake.He may change a bit and is not in support of the public easement,
but he is supportive of the vacation and taking away the pedestrian traffic.
Bollis said speaking as the only non-lake resident right now,he does not see a problem with keeping
access to the lake for those that do not live on the lake. It will be a no for him because even if they include
the easement for people to walk on it,he still feels like the cul-de-sac is going to cost more than the
$100,000 being donated.
Kirchner hears that concern and noted earlier there was discussion about requiring the developer to pay
for the cul-de-sac.This vacation would need to happen before a cul-de-sac would be approved and the
Planning Commission approving a vacation does not necessarily mean that a cul-de-sac is going in next
year,five years,ten years...it just means that the right-of-way exists in order to do so.
Barnhart believes the intention is that the vacation would occur,and the platting would be completed
before the street project next year. The intention of the engineering department is that the cul-de-sac and
street pavement would occur at the same time.
Gettman commented that the cul-de-sac seems to be an advantage for the public so he does not
necessarily suggest that the developer be the one responsible for all of it. They are vacating part of the
land and for utilities, for emergency vehicles,for deliveries, and everything else. Cul-de-sacs are things
they are always asking for and in this case the road will get done anyway. The benefit for the public is to
have a turnaround access as it is safer.He does not see the advantage of giving up the public access
because it is one of two public access points to that part of the lake.That is his struggle with trying to
combine them.
Mayor Dennis Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle,wants to clarify the road.He asked the Commissioners not
to forget that the City already owns the road that is all the way through the middle,they already have the
easement to the right;they are only talking about approximately 25%of the cul-de-sac that Mr. Erickson
will give the City the land for.If the City is responsible for all of the rest of the cul-de-sac,he clarified
Page 7 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
they are only talking about a small piece of the cul-de-sac.He noted it is not an entire cul-de-sac as the
City already owns about two-thirds of it,Mr.Erickson will just be giving the City the other one-third.
VOTE: Ayes: 2 (Gettman,Kirchner),Nays 3(Bollis,Ressler,McCutcheon).
Barnhart feels that Council should receive a recommendation either to deny the vacation outright or
amend the motion such that there is a recommendation of approval of a motion.
Gettman would be glad to amend the motion. He asked Staff what kind of wording would be appropriate.
Barnhart replied"recommendation to approve the vacation subject to provision of a drainage and utility
easement, a pedestrian easement,cul-de-sac right-of-way, and$100,000 or the cost to improve 1/3 of the
cul-de-sac,whichever is greater."
Gettman moved to add the additional language by Staff that the caveat of$100,000 or greater if it is
determined that the cul-de-sac is more than $100,000.
Bollis understands the motion as$100,000 minimum; if the cul-de-sac costs more, it would be in addition
to the$100,000. However if it is less, it is still the$100,000.
Kirchner clarified if the cost of the cul-de-sac was$120,000 the cost to the developer would be$120,000
and the City would net zero for vacating this roadway.He summarized that generally the Commission is
supportive of the vacation,supportive of the right-of-way of the cul-de-sac,supportive of the drainage
and utility easement.Regarding the pedestrian access,there are some dissenting but the majority of the
Commission is in favor of that. The biggest sticking point is the monetary value and that could be
something that the City Council is made aware of and can be a discussion for them.
Gettman suggested denying the application as submitted.
Bollis suggested tabling to allow the Applicant time to go back and present them with a plan they could
approve.
Barnhart noted the Commission reacts to the request in front of them,there is no negotiation. In tabling
something,they would generally give the Applicant direction of what they want to see different. If the
concern is the cost for the cul-de-sac,the City will not know until February or March of the next year and
it is improper to wait for that. Staff's recommendation was supporting of the vacation independent of the
$100,000,because the additional cul-de-sac width offsets any"loss"to the taxpayer.A cul-de-sac that
provides easy access and turnaround for emergency vehicles,deliveries, etc...offsets what they"lose"for
the vacation.He is hearing from the Commission that they are hung up on the cost for the incremental
improvement; if that is the issue,Barnhart recommends approval independent of that and to provide a
secondary motion for the Council to better understand the impact of the cul-de-sac expense.By that time
perhaps they will have a preliminary estimate or expectation from the City Engineer that Staff can share
with the Council.
Gettman goes back to the motion to deny as it puts it back on the City Council that if and when they get
that additional information,they are the decision-makers and the Planning Commission are making the
recommendation;they have heard everything that they have said and there is nothing additional that the
Page 8 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Commission would add if they even get that information the following month. He wonders if the City
Council wouldn't be better off themselves getting that information and making an educated decision.
Gettman moved,Bollis seconded,to deny LA21-000029 Bob Erickson,365 Westlake Street,
Vacation of Platted Rights-of-Way—Westlake and Adjacent Alley as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 3
(Bollis,Gettman,Kirchner); Nays 2 (McCutcheon,Ressler)
This item will be reviewed by the City Council on August 9,2021.
Commissioner Erickson returned to his seat at the Planning Commission bench.
2. LA21-000045 REVISION LLC,4535 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,REQUESTS AN AVERAGE
LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 47 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DECK. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS)
Jay Perry of Revision LLC,Applicant,was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information.Curtis said the Applicant has requested an average
lakeshore setback(ALS)variance in order to construct a 47 square foot addition on the lake side of the
existing deck.A small portion of the existing deck encroaches into the average lakeshore setback
currently. The proposed deck extension is shown to encroach approximately 3 feet lakeward of the ALS
line. The Applicant identified the location of the home to the west as the practical difficulty supporting
the variance and has provided supporting documentation in the packet and should be asked for additional
testimony tonight. Staff agrees that the home to the west contributes to the practical difficulty on this
property and the curve of the shoreline also creates challenge regarding the ALS. They have not received
any public comments and Staff recommends approval of the ALS variance as requested provided the
hardcover not increase above the 25%maximum. The Applicant is showing 24.8%hardcover.
Jay Perry,Revision LLC,Wayzata,is asking for the two feet to be approved,basically the size of the
desktop in front of the Commissioners. If the home to the west decides to remodel or be torn down and
rebuilt they can bring that home closer to the lake and by doing that,it would give the Applicant plenty of
room to add the footage.They are just asking for the variance to get that extra two feet at this time.They
do not need to put any more footings but are just cantilevering the deck outward.
Gettman asked what is the actual difficulty they are trying to address in having those two additional feet
towards the lake.
Mr. Perry noted they are just trying to open up the deck.
Gettman asked why two feet rather than five feet?
Mr.Perry replied in cantilevering he can only go three feet and the clients just want the two feet. The
extra two feet would allow a 24 inch table to be placed on the deck.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Page 9 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler is in support of the application and Staffs recommendations. They have seen other examples of
applications like this that have been positively received by the City Council.
Kirchner echoes those statements.
Bollis is generally in favor but would like to note that in the previous applications the other house that
could be built closer was extremely far back, so this is a little different. If they allow this house to go
another two feet closer,that will change the ALS for the next house over more than it is today—and then
that house can go two feet closer—which will change the next house and the next house. In general,he is
not in favor of the ALS line at all as this will trigger a domino effect down the line. He would be in favor
of the application.
Gettman asked to pull up Exhibit G on screen and noted how much farther down the house ends up going
or extending towards the lake.
Curtis pointed out the homes on screen and noted the impact of the deck extension is kind of minimal as it
is an angle across one direction rather than another.
Bollis noted it would affect the ALS for 4515 and asked if that is correct.
Curtis replied yes.
Ressler said 4595 already has quite a bit of structure going lakeward so that is not a giant difference and
adding that two feet does not appear that it would make a major change because of how much 4595 brings
it lakeward. That is the reason it does not seem like a big deal to him.
McCutcheon agrees with Ressler;the Commission has seen these before and he understands the practical
difficulty to the house to the left and he noted it is not egregious as they are not asking the entire length of
the house.
Erickson supports the Staff recommendation.
Ressler moved,Bollis seconded,to approve LA21-000045 Revision LLC,4535 North Shore Drive,
Requests an Average Lakeshore Setback Variance in Order to Construct a 47 Square Foot
Addition to the Existing Deck as Applied.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0.
3.LA20-000047 MATCOM O/B/O CAMP TEKO,645 TONKAWA ROAD,REQUESTS
HARDCOVER,LAKE AND AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES TO PERMIT
RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXPANDED BOAT STORAGE BUILDING WITHIN THE 75-
FOOT SETBACK.(STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS)
Mark Matasovsky of Matcom o/b/o the property owner,was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis stated Camp TEKO has been operating on the
property at 645 Tonkawa since 1965. In 2019,they submitted a Master Plan showing a number of desired
future improvements, including new buildings and a new trail network. The owner is working with a new
architectural firm and the boat building,which is the subject of this current application,was not part of
the original Master Plan approval,nor was it shown on the plan. The Applicant has begun to move
Page 10 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
forward with the Master Plan.A portion of Phase One, including a lake access boardwalk change and
reconstruction of the"boat building,"requires hardcover and lake setback variances.The rebuilt boat
building is located 17 feet from the lake and due to its proximity is used to house lifejackets,paddles,and
other lake accessories. The project will result in a hardcover increase of 226.5 square feet.The boardwalk
increases the hardcover by 140 square feet and the boat building by 86.5 square feet. The Applicant's
practical difficulty analysis and project narrative were included in the packet for Commissioner review.
This current request is one of two structures along the shoreline; during the Master Plan review the City
Council did not support modification of the eastern building and for that reason Staff cannot support the
expansion of this boathouse structure within the 75 foot setback. Staff can support findings that support
placement of dock sections providing ease-of-access to the dock in the water given the practical
difficulties which include topography and existing site conditions. Staff has not received any comments
from the public on this proposal and recommends approval of the hardcover and lake setback variances to
accommodate the changes to the boardwalk which will improve safety and comply with accessibility
regulations. However, Staff cannot support the expansion of the boat building as noted because practical
difficulties are lacking. The boat building can be rebuilt in-kind and if additional storage opportunities are
needed the Applicant should consider constructing a new building or expand an existing building located
behind the 75 foot setback. If the Planning Commission identifies practical difficulties which support the
proposed increase to the footprint and height,a recommendation for approval may be appropriate.
Rabbi Marcia Zimmerman noted the camp has been in Orono since 1965 and is one of three
congregations in the country within the Jewish tradition that have a camp. She hopes to give her overall
perspective on why this is so important.In Judaism they have a sacred text called the Talmud which was
written at the same time as the New Testament and says that they are required in their community to teach
their children to swim because where the modern State of Israel is there is a lot of water there. Rabbi
Zimmerman noted there is also a lot of water around Camp TEKO and no one guessed that Minnesota
would have a Jewish population with so much water. Teaching children to swim is survival,
independence,and is so crucial. Rabbi Zimmerman stated it is also allowing children with any kind of
disability to have access to the outdoors and to learn how to swim,as well. In looking at this project,the
first thing they did was look at the lakefront which is very important because they want to have
accessibility down to the waterfront,they want kids to be safe,and 60%of their campers are 2nd grade and
younger. The idea is that the boathouse and additional hardscape or seasonal docking would make sure
that counselors are focusing on the safety of kids rather than carrying down lifejackets and oars,with K-
2nd graders. This boathouse will allow the camp to house all of that safety equipment for very young
campers.
Mark Matasovsky stated the grade there is incredibly steep and they have a set of stairs that goes up to the
four existing cabins. In going back to the 2019 approval,there is a changing building drawn in there.He
noted they are leaving the shoreline pretty much as it is with the four existing cabins and the changing
building does not exist anymore and they do not even want to build in the bluff setback. They do need a
larger life-safety storage area because with Staff carrying life jackets,oars,and items up the hill,the
children aren't being watched. That building would have a tambour door the width of the building that
would open up. Mr. Matasovsky showed illustrations on screen of what the new building would look like
compared to the old building and noted there would be very little change due to the L-shape of the
building. This would allow the Staff to be within the building hanging up life jackets without going up
that set of stairs up the hill to the cabins.He noted they received funding for ADA accessibility and a
number of paths are changing to have access for disabled children and wheelchairs. The seasonal dockage
allows them to get a wheelchair across the sand to the dock and out onto the pontoon boat. The boathouse
Page 11 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
falls into the same category.He understands the City not liking things within the 75 foot setback so he
offered to go back 100 feet and not change anything other if they can just have this 86 feet of boathouse.
Bollis understands the seasonal bridge and docks.He asked if this new proposed boat building would be
ADA accessible, also.
Mr. Matasovsky replied yes.He spoke with the MCWD and they are above the line so they do not need a
permit.If one sees the lakeshore,they would not necessarily even know they were there as they keep a
pretty low,quiet profile.
Bollis asked with the new proposed building,if there was a camper down there in a wheelchair and they
needed quick shelter one could wheel them into that building, and they would not be able to do that with
the current building?
Mr. Matasovsky replied yes.If the Commissioner saw the current building, it is hard to stand up in some
spots right now.
Gettman clarified if they kept the same footprint and just changed the building, it is the footprint that is
the bigger concern for him. He actually lives right across the lake and he does hear,see,and smell all the
different things every time the kids go out there.His concern is that it is sacred and with his comments on
the previous Applicant,when one comes closer to the lake that is where the Commissioner's largest
discussions come from because then everyone else is going to want to change and it is the domino effect.
Gettman is still listening for practical difficulties because the camp could have motorized vehicles taking
the kids up and down the hill and they would not have to store as much down there. He noted there are
alternative ways.
Mr. Matasovsky understands the concern with other homeowners coming in and saying they want a
boathouse made into a home,etcetera,but they are not serving disabled or handicapped children under 2°d
grade.
Gettman asked if this camp is free for all children.
Rabbi Zimmerman noted there are a lot of scholarships.
Gettman asked if the camp is free for all children.
Mr. Matasovsky replied not for all.
Gettman stated as they were talking with the previous issue,public access is what they are referring to.He
definitely appreciates it and he is not against children. So the Applicant is hearing it loud and clear,he
stated they are looking at the overcoming practical difficulties for this.
Ressler asked if the current versus proposed building is going any further lakeward than it is currently?
Curtis replied no it is not.
Ressler knows they have heard this application in the past and noted they are not going any further
lakeward or increasing the size of the space and asked if that falls within building in-kind.
Page 12 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted they are increasing the size and showed on the screen the red is the existing footprint.
Ressler clarified the new portion would not be going lakeward but would be going inland.
Curtis stated the same point of setback that is existing.
Mr. Matasovsky said the existing structure sits on concrete which is poured and the new building would
be up on posts so water,air, and everything can pass underneath
Ressler is familiar with the property and noted the bluff is right upon them so they cannot go back without
digging into the bluff and asked if that is correct.
Mr. Matasovsky replied yes,the gradient lines are pretty tight going up and the only spot they have is an
emergency vehicle path to bring a large golf-cart/four-wheeler down there in case of an emergency
evacuation.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Kirchner understands the good intention of this and the thought behind it,however,he does struggle to
approve within the 75-foot lakeshore setback. They have had similar applications for boathouse structures
in the past and that has been something the City and this Commission have drawn a hard-and-fast line on
for the most part. He respects that there are disabled individuals and young children utilizing the camp
and he thinks it is a phenomenal asset to the lakeshore.However,Kirchner thinks they would be ignoring
a large factor in that approving this they could potentially have a homeowner come forward who has a
disabled individual living in their home,or young children,and make the argument that they need their
boathouse amended or improved because of a living situation within their own home on the lake. Based
on the Commission's past history with these types of applications and his opinion with the 75 foot,
Kirchner does not believe this is something that he could support but is open to hearing other
Commissioners' thoughts.
McCutcheon is the minority on this one and has gone on record multiple times.He noted they had a
situation where someone with a boathouse and moved it back and City Council denied it;they just do not
want any footprint to change within the lakeshore setback. With this one,there are kids involved,going
up that very steep embankment,the Applicant is not asking for a lot,and he would be for approval of this,
for the hardcover setback,the lake setback, and expanding the boat building. He likes the camp,he thinks
it is an asset to the community,he likes driving by it with his boat and seeing the kids.Anything they can
do to make that tradition continue and not turn into a bunch of houses,he is in support of.
Ressler echoes McCutcheon.His question for Staff is do they set a precedent because of the different type
of property that this is,and can that be something to lean on for approving such an application or does it
still set a precedent for a residential application or is there another path they can take for a conditional use
permit.
Curtis thinks the findings that the Planning Commission cites with any approval or denial are specific to
the property that is the subject of the application. She thinks they can craft their findings based on the
practical difficulty but specific to the property and how it is used.
Page 13 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler continued to echo McCutcheon's opinion that this is a unique property and its use,character,and
feasibility for its campers is something that he is really supportive of.He would much rather see this
camp continue to thrive and he thinks this will allow it to do so.He does not think that adding the
additional structure will add an eyesore to the lake and is thoughtfully placed within the application.He is
in support of the application because it is a unique campsite that is trying to find themselves in
compliance with ADA as well as being able to accommodate young campers.
Erickson does not see a practical difficulty in this;in order to qualify as a practical difficulty the result
must be not for the convenience of the Applicant. When they say the reason they have to be in the 75 foot
zone is because of kids running around while they are trying to carry lifejackets,but what he did not hear
is that perhaps they should hire more staff to watch the kids. To Erickson, it is for their convenience that
they can do these things closer to the lake than they are supposed to be and not take on additional staff to
watch the kids.To him,it is a convenience issue which does not qualify as a practical difficulty.
Bollis would echo McCutcheon and Ressler, and add that he sees the practical difficulty as converting this
so it is ADA accessible not only for campers but also for employees working there. He does not believe
the current configuration would be accessible to have a wheelchair come in,navigate the space, and then
come back out.He thinks there are unique features to this being that it is a camp and not a private
residence so he does not think they are setting a precedent there.However,he would like to note that the
Applicant is going away from the lake with the expansion of it, and he also likes that they are not
proposing to come closer to the lake.
Kirchner's biggest hang-up is the expansion of the boathouse,he is okay with the boardwalks,it is strictly
the footprints of the boathouse. While he generally supports what Commissioner Bollis said regarding
making this ADA compliant,he has not heard that the Applicant has tried to repurpose the existing
footprint and found that it is completely unusable to make it ADA compliant.Now the Commission is
drawing an inference that they think it could not be made that way and he would rather hear that they
have tried and realize there is no physical way to make the existing structure ADA compliant.
Mr.Matasovsky noted an ADA restroom needs a five foot circle for a wheelchair turn and that L-shaped
has no room for a five foot turn in it at all. The new shaped building would allow for a wheelchair turn
around.
Gettman thought this building was purely for storage and there would not be activities in the building.He
asked if someone with a wheelchair would be turning around or if they would just be dropping off
lifejackets and oars.
Mr.Matasovsky replied at the front door they would be dropping things off,however if someone needed
to be brought inside,the lifejackets are being hung to dry above the head.He clarified this year they have
50%camp capacity and they had trouble staffing that amount.
Gettman asked if the Applicant has looked at trying to keep that same footprint and updating or upgrading
it.
Mr.Matasovsky replied they have done some drawings and looked at it. It then causes them to use the
staircase and the one building that touches the 75 foot setback,they have to carry lifejackets up the hill
and store it there.He noted they have quite a bit stored on the beach and they would like those things
stored away and not have them out all the time.
Page 14 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve LA20-000047 Matcom OB/O Camp TEKO,645
Tonkawa Road,Requests Hardcover,Lake and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances to Permit
Reconstruction of an Expanded Boat Storage Building within the 75-Foot Setback as applied with
the condition that the non-existing permanent bridge is to be removed seasonally.
Gettman sees that the City will be losing the precedent that they already have,that they have protected
and argued about,and he is not hearing the practical difficulty.He does not see any advantage for
plugging in the seasonal dock as it will already be removed so he does not see the give-and-take on that.
VOTE: Ayes: 3 (Bollis,McCutcheon,Ressler); Nays 3 (Erickson,Kirchner,Gettman).
Kirchner is hung up on the practical difficulty for expanding the footprint within the 75 foot setback. He
hears the argument that it is a different kind of property but he does have concern that it establishes a
precedent. They certainly have children under 13 and disabled individuals that use the lake,so to use that
here,he does not know that it entirely fits.
Ressler thinks they heard Staff share that same concern and what made him comfortable was that each
individual property can be assessed based on its use. The only reason he would be opposed is because
they do not want to set a precedent for another property and other applications. To him, it is enough to
feel like it does not set a precedent because this property's use is different.
Kirchner noted if the property were to ever change hands and become residential,they now have a
structure there that is larger than what is allowed and would be grandfathered in. In 10-15 years down the
road is anyone going to remember that the reason the Commission approved this is because of the use of
the property?He clarified that even if the Planning Commission approves something, it is just a
recommendation to the City Council and they may deny or approve it.
McCutcheon noted this is a unique property,the City is pro-business,and it is a community asset. He
suggested they could say if this ever became a private property that boathouse would not be allowed.
Barnhart clarified no,they cannot.
Ressler noted the Council can hear all of the comments made and they will do with it what they want
regardless.
Gettman moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA20-000047 Matcom O/B/O Camp TEKO,645
Tonkawa Road,Requests Hardcover, Lake,and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances and to deny
the Reconstruction of an Expanded Boathouse Building Within the 75 Foot Lakeshore Setback.
VOTE: Ayes(Erickson,Kirchner,Gettman); Nays(Bollis,McCutcheon,Ressler).
The Commissioners discussed allowing hardcover rather than additional structure.
Ressler moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000047 Matcom O/B/O Camp TEKO,645
Tonkawa Road,Requests Hardcover,Lake and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances with the
revision that they would allow hardcover instead of additional structure.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4.LA21-000048 COURTNEY PAULSEN, 1090 WILDHURST TRAIL,REQUESTS SIDE YARD
SETBACK,AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES IN ORDER
Page 15 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH A NEW LAKESIDE DECK OVER
THE EXISTING HOME. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS)
Courtney Paulsen,Applicant,was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis stated the Applicants are requesting variances in
order to construct a second story addition and new lakeside deck on the existing home including average
lakeshore setback(ALS),sideyard setback on the north,and hardcover variances. The existing home is
situated 2.6 feet from the north side lot line and entirely lakeward of the ALS. The proposed addition will
occupy area within the required sideyard setback and ALS. The hardcover currently exceeds the 25%
limitation and the Applicants are proposing a 170 square foot reduction. Curtis noted a 7.5 foot setback is
required for the home.The second story addition will result in new encroachments for the second floor
within the sideyard setback. The current plan shows the proposed deck stair encroaching into the sideyard
more so than the home is currently.Upon receiving Staff's modification,the Applicant intends to modify
the deck so it lines up with the setback of the home on the north and add a spiral staircase to be consistent
with the home setback and not encroach more into the ALS. The property currently has 31.6%hardcover
and the reduction of 170 square feet includes 123 square feet from within the 75 foot setback.The
Applicant has identified the existing lot configuration,neighboring home locations,and their home's
relationship to the lakeshore as practical difficulties to support the variance. Staff finds that the location of
the home,the neighboring home,setbacks from the lake,the curved shoreline, and the narrowness of the
Applicant's property create practical difficulties limiting all improvement opportunities for the home.
Staff recommends approval of the ALS variance to permit the second story expansions of the home as
well as the sideyard setback variance for the second floor.
Courtney Paulsen, 1090 Wildhurst Trail,noted they would remove 120-some of the pavers to meet the
hardcover and she spoke with the land owner to the north and they would be okay with the Applicant
going flush with the north side of the house.They do not want to do anything that would upset neighbors
as they plan for this to be their forever home and have addressed the proposed changes with both
neighbors and so far they seem to be agreeable.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
Loren Schoenzeit,4480 Forest Lake Landing,thinks it is important to note that the house at 4480 Forest
Lake Landing is where it is because not shown on the survey,the City has a sewer for which they have no
easement so their only building site is the particular location. Ordinarily they would ask the Planning
Commission and City to enforce the ALS but the goal of the lakeshore setback is to preserve lake views
and 1090 Wildhurst Trail is north of his house and the view there is not to the lake.He would request in
the future if another neighbor is ahead of ALS that it would be preserved because it would challenge their
view of the lake.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
Chair Kirchner noted they are reducing hardcover and they are bettering a situation.He thinks this is
something he could support as applied for.
Ressler does not have any opposition to the application, it does not seem to impact the peace in the
neighborhood, and allows more usability of the property.He is supportive as applied.
Page 16 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Bollis supports Staff recommendations.
Ressler moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA21-000048, 1090 Wildhurst Trail,Requests Side
Yard Setback,Average Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Variances in Order to Construct a
Second Story Addition with a New Lakeside Deck over the Existing Home based upon Staff
recommendations.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0.
5.LA21-000046 CITY OF ORONO, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CREATE
NEW AND AMEND LAND USE CATEGORIES,PRIMARILY IMPACTING 2060 WAYZATA
BLVD W,3025 WAYZATA BLVD W,AND SHORELINE DRIVE IN NAVARRE.(STAFF:
JEREMY BARNHART)
Staff presented a summary packet of information.Barnhart noted the City is proposing a Comprehensive
Plan amendment that will create a new land-use category and amend three existing land-use categories.
They are not proposing to change uses from commercial to residential or from residential to industrial.
Rather,it is modifying within the existing framework of their land-use guidance.All cities in the metro
area are required to update their Comprehensive Plan every 10 years; Orono last did theirs in 2018.As
part of the plan the Met Council requires that the City provide opportunity to meet three key goals within
the land-use plan. They must provide an average density of development in the sewered area of the City
of 3 units/acre. The City must also provide 154 affordable housing units throughout the community;those
areas that are guided for densities at 8 units/acre or more. The third requirement is the City must provide
an opportunity to meet the expected growth in the 2020 time period and the 2030 time period.For Orono
it was adding 225 units between 2020 and 2030 and another 340 units between 2030 and 2040.This does
not mean the City can tap on any property owner's shoulder and say they must develop today;rather,they
must provide the opportunity for that to happen. Barnhart explained within each density,Met Council
only cares about the lowest density number. The City has tried to sparingly apply density in land-use
planning to the area it is most appropriate,usually adjacent to highways,bus routes,employment areas,
water and sewer areas. He explained the residential classes and showed them on screen contrasted with
the proposed changes of urban estate,urban low,urban medium,urban medium-high, and urban high
density classifications. The City Council directed Staff to look at the land use classes;these changes
primarily impact two known properties:the Dumas Orchard and Eagle Ridge.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Jim Hillier, 1224 Briar Street,has been corresponding with Barnhart to make sure that the zoning density
accomplishes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and those conversations were around how they can
make sure they do that.He was very happy to finally see this as he thinks it is long overdue.For years the
City Council has been trying to get density and zoning aligned to meet the goals of the plan.He thinks it
looks great,however,he thinks the City needs to do a better job of looking at all the opportunities;he
brought an opportunity for the Crystal Bay neighborhood to do what they are doing here and expand
opportunities for affordable housing. He thinks they must look at all of the opportunities and not just
those identified here tonight. He is waiting for a response from Barnhart as to the Crystal Bay
neighborhood because there are sewer stubs available, empty lots available,and there are others that need
to be looked at.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
Kirchner thinks this is a good step in the right direction and can be supportive of it.
Page 17 of 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,July 19,2021
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve LA21-000046 City of Orono,Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to Create New and Amend Land Use Categories.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0.
OTHER BUSINESS—Update on July 12,2021 City Council Meeting
Barnhart noted the City Council reviewed four actions from the June meeting and approved all of them.
ADJOURNMENT
Erickson moved,Bollis seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
ATTEST:
Kirchner, Chair
Page 18 of 18