HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex F All Public Comment largeFrom:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Aleya Champlin
Melanie Curtis
Permit Request for 480 Big Island, Orono (LA21-000017)
Sunday, March 7, 2021 11:16:21 PM
Dear Ms. Curtis,
As a matter of introduction, my husband Jud and I are the owners of 210 Big Island. We have owned this
property since 2007 and are so grateful to the City of Orono for all the improvements made to Big Island
over the years, preserving its natural beauty and historical significance.
We received a notice from the City of Orono regarding the upcoming March 15 Planning Commission
meeting to discuss the above-referenced land use application permit request. We have read the permit
request document submitted by Joseph Thull, and are planning to attend the March 15 meeting. This
past weekend, we went out to Big Island to do a walk-through of the area described in the permit request
to get a better understanding of Mr. Thull's proposed plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
We are providing you with our comments regarding this permit request in the attached document. There
is a link to a video of our walk-through in the document, but in case that link does not work for some
reason, here it is again: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HPKLi4YpTbqvonbV9
Please do let us know if anything in the attached document is unclear or would benefit from additional
information.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration,
Aleya and Jud Champlin
2643 Thoroughbred Lane
210 Big Island
Orono, MN 55356
952-476-0258 (home)
612-419-0200 (Aleya's cell)
612-240-8100 (Jud's cell)
Comments on
480 Big Island
Dock Permit Request
480 Big Island Permit Request: Goal of Dock Permit is Construction
(Thull Permit Request, Page 22)
480 Big Island Permit Request: Proposed Dock Location
(Thull Permit Request, Page 19)
480 Big Island Permit Request: Use of Unimproved Right-of-Ways for Construction Goal
(Thull Permit Request, Page 15)
Public Right-of-Way and
Proposed Dock Area?
Proposed Dock Location Will Require Removal of
Established Shoreline Trees and Native Growth (Photo Taken on March 6, 2021)
Property marker
for 260 Big Island?
Path to be
Used for
Transporting
Construction
Materials and
Equipment?
Unimproved Right-of-Way Includes
Mature Trees and Native Growth
Providing Natural Habitat and
Big Island Rainwater Drainage Buffer Zone
for Lake Minnetonka
(Photo Taken on March 6, 2021)
Video Walkthrough Available Here:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HPKLi4YpTbqvonbV9
Natural Habitat In Proposed Dock Location and Right-of-Way Use
The proposed dock location and the unimproved right-of-way are currently in a natural state, and the private property
areas directly adjacent to the right-of-way have been largely untouched by the property owners, allowing native trees,
shrubs, vegetation and wildlife to grow and thrive on the shoreline and along the right-of-way.
The City of Orono had informed property owners that the established native growth and resulting soil condition in the
unimproved right-of-way serve as a buffer to quell the drainage of rainwater from the higher elevations of Big Island
directly into Lake Minnetonka.
The southern perimeter of the “keyhole” adjacent to the proposed dock location has similarly been left untouched by
the property owner. The soil in the southern portion of the perimeter is saturated and supports vegetation adapted to
such growth conditions. The southern portion of the keyhole also supports wildlife including blue herons, ducks,
geese, turtles and beavers, often serving as a “safe harbor” for such wildlife, away from the watercraft traffic on Lake
Minnetonka.
A dock in this location would disrupt the native shoreline growth and habitat. Use of the unimproved right-of-way from
the proposed dock location to 480 Big Island for construction purposes would likely disrupt the native trees and other
growth which currently serve as a drainage buffer.
Comments Regarding the 480 Big Island Permit Request
The stated goal of the 480 Big Island Permit Request is for the construction of a shed, and
for planning for a larger residential structure on the 0.28 acre property.
Construction of any size will require equipment and materials to be brought onto the property,
from the Proposed Dock Location and along the unimproved right-of-way that are currently in
a natural state. It is highly likely that the natural trees, vegetation and habitat will be
disturbed and even destroyed in this process.
There is no provision in the Permit Request for storage of the dock during the winter season.
Transporting the dock from the shoreline to 480 Big Island to avoid encroachment is also likely
to cause damage to the unimproved right-of-way.
Reasonable alternatives are currently available to enable access to 480 Big Island, such as
those shown in the 480 Big Island Permit Request.
480 Big Island Permit Request: Numerous Alternatives
(Thull Permit Request, Page 12)
Reasonable Alternatives Not Addressed in Permit Request
● Use of existing permitted dock at one of the public access areas
●“Beach” boat at a public access site and use barge access site for
construction materials and equipment
●Join boating safety organization with docks located adjacent to Three Rivers
Park District property boundary
●Approach all property owners for easement or temporary dock usage
Sec. 78-567. - Permit for private improvements within public rights-of-way.
LINK TO SECTION
It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes in any RS district any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property owned by the city without first obtaining a
permit from the council, as follows:
(1)Inland property access. Persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right-of-way for such purpose.
The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the council shall find that there is no reasonable alternative access available, and that the proposed improvements and/or type of use would not unreasonably affect
other properties abutting the right-of-way. The council may approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations, including without limitation the
configuration of adjoining record lots, the location, width, topography, drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of existing or future property owners who may require access at the same
location. Any land alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable inland access.
(2)Land alterations. Grading or physical alteration of any platted public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such work has been specifically authorized as
part of a permit issued by the council. The permit applicant shall provide a detailed land survey of the right-of-way and appropriate engineering drawings sufficient to identify the full extent of all proposed work .
Permit approval shall be subject to obtaining a grading permit from city staff; and land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only clean fill, and all other permits as may be required by
other agencies having jurisdiction. Public rights-of-way so improved shall be maintained by the licensee.
(3)Dockage on right-of-way. Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such dock has
been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the council. Not more than one seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the
council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way, the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with city and Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit.
(4)Encroachments prohibited. No private property, buildings, structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be built, stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted public right-of-way,
within any platted public park, or on any other property owned by the city except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this section.
...
(Code 1984, § 10.31(5); Ord. No. 210 3rd series, § 12, 6-25-2018)
Orono, Minnesota Code of Ordinances
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code of Ordinances
Section 2.01. Authorized Dock Use Area
LINK TO LMCD CODE OF ORDINANCES
Subd. 2. Description of Authorized Dock Use Area. An authorized dock use area is described as follows:
a) Length - The authorized dock use area for sites bordering on the Lake extends into the Lake a distance equal to
the site Lake frontage to be measured at right angles to the side site lines...
b) Width - The authorized dock use area for sites bordering on the Lake is limited in width by the setback limitations
prescribed herein. The setback from side site lines as extended in the Lake shall be as follows:
Request for Consideration
As there are existing alternative access options to reach 480 Big Island, it is reasonable to
consider these alternatives instead of disturbing or destroying the native trees, vegetation,
habitat and drainage buffer along the shoreline and unimproved right-of-way that would result
from granting the 480 Big Island Permit Request.
The unimproved right-of-way identified in the 480 Big Island Permit Request includes areas that
may be deemed to be wetlands according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
guidelines.
The LMCD side setback requirements for the Proposed Dock Location would involve the removal
of shoreline trees and vegetation from the unimproved right-of-way.
A complete land survey of the unimproved right-of-way, a shoreline classification review, and
conformity with the LMCD dock regulations should be required prior to determining the status of
the 480 Big Island Permit Request.
Thank you for
your time and
consideration
JuJud and Aleya Champlin
210 Big Island, Orono
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Judson Champlin
Melanie Curtis
Aleya Champlin
480 Big Island Dock Permit
Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:31:08 PM
Hello Melanie. I know this is coming in late, but I figured it might be of some help to you.
I tried to figure out my own way through all of the LMCD rules, and decided I better talk to an
expert. I ended up speaking with Mathew over at the LMCD about the proposed dock, and he
was able to rattle off enough of their rules to get my head spinning.
One thing he mentioned was that docks need a 10 foot setback from any adjoining lots. I
guess this setback actually extends beyond the shoreline and into the lake. At least this is how
I understood it!
Attached are a couple of sketches I made to try to show this. In the handmade one, I used a
ruler to determine where 10 foot setback is, and I calibrated my measurement based upon the
38.5 feet of shoreline stated in one of the slides in the application. I also tried to illustrate it by
overlaying a slide from the application itself, but that is just me eyeballing it. If you figure a
dock is maybe 3 feet wide, plus the width of any boat tied to it, the dock might have to be
pretty short to stay within the setbacks. I have no idea how accurate any of this is, so It might
be a good idea to get this all surveyed to figure where these boarders actually lie.
Mathew said he would be very happy to help out with any questions you all might have. From
my limited understanding, there are a number of relevant LMCD rules that might have an
impact here.
Hope that helps! Thank you again and take care. -Jud
--
Judson K. Champlin
Westman, Champlin and Koehler, P.A.
Suite 1100
121 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.wck.com
612-334-3222
Intellectual Property Attorneys
WARNING: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged or
confidential. It is intended only for the above identified recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, please forward this transmission to the author. Please delete this
transmission and all copies. Thank you.
10 Ft Setbacks
From:Jeff Hornig
To:Melanie Curtis
Cc:Olivia Hornig
Subject:Big Island Dock Permit
Date:Thursday, March 4, 2021 12:19:20 PM
Melanie,
Thank you for your time on the phone. First and foremost, my wife Olivia took the time to review the proposal vs a
knee jerk no response. We have decided that we are opposed to this dock permit as proposed. I have 3 thoughts for
the application.
1.Motivation. I am concerned that the motivation is purely financial gain which is not a reason to allow the
permit. Obviously a lot with lakeshore is worth 10x what a lot without it is worth. He has owned his lot for 12
years and hasn’t done anything to start a build process. Being in housing, the cabin he wants to build in the picture
he included I estimate to cost around $650-$750k with septic. I looked up his home in Chanhassen, worth about
$600k. I would be surprised if they built a cabin worth more than their primary residence in my experience. A
solution would be to tie the allowed dock permit to his building and septic permits. When he applies for those and
starts construction, his dock permit is approved at the same time. This creates tax revenue for the city and proves
his motivation is pure.
2.Options for Docks: He states that he has to boat over, anchor, swim to his lot. The power squadron is right next
door to his property and is very affordable. If he never joined the power squadron in the 12 years I question his
motivation, going back to his financial gain being his primary objective.
3.Land Locked Lots on Big Island: As we discussed, if you allow for this permit the other lots will quickly want
and expect the same thing. Perhaps this is the time to address the whole issue. If this is going to be approved, I
would propose that all the landlocked lots get a permit at the same time for that space and allow a dock for each of
them on that site.
Thank you for your time and effort on this issue.
Jeff Hornig | Owner. 450 Big Island.
Lakes Sotheby's International Realty
Jackson Hole Sotheby's International Realty
Sun Valley Sotheby's International Realty
t 952.230.3165
From:Paul Maravelas
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Joe Thull lake access request LA21-000017
Date:Monday, March 8, 2021 4:34:16 PM
Dear Ms. Curtis,
I am one of several landowners at 130 Big Island and a historian of the island. I wanted to
share my opinion regarding Joe Thull's lake access request (LA21-000017).
I don't think it is reasonable to ask the Thull family or the immediate neighbors to trek
overland to the northeast a considerable distance as is contemplated in the conditional use
permit application. It is difficult enough to bring materials and supplies to the island without
adding the additional complexity of having the lake access so far away. It would impart a
great convenience for the owners of 480, 490, and 500 (lots 12 through 15, Morse Island Park)
to have their docks and boats nearby as well, where they can be conveniently monitored.
I believe the city should condemn a part of the southerly portion of the Three Rivers Park land
in order to extend Anawan Avenue to the southwest through the Three Rivers land to the lake.
Anawan Avenue is a platted street which adjoins Mr. Thull's property on the southeast side. It
appears to me from maps that the distance from the current termination of Anawan Avenue to
the lake is about 50 feet. The extension of the street would not affect the park district's land
inordinately, as it lies on the extreme edge of the parcel and would not divide it.
The west end of Anawan Avenue is platted to be 33 feet wide, but the extension I propose
could probably be reduced in width if wanted.
Paul Maravelas
Mayer, Minnesota
612 581 8207
From:Tom Kolar
To:Jody Laughlin; Mlaughlin@mpnexlevel.com; Scheftel, Joni (MDH); Paul Maravelas; stevescheftel@gmail.com; John Uran; William Liljemark; Maggie Lunetta; kevin@powerplayretail.com; Steve Backes; Karen Backes; Tom Kolar; Sarah Kolar; Daniel O"Gara; Kris O"Gara; hilary.cheeley@gmail.com; mark.d.cheeley@ampf.com; Judson Champlin; aleya@champlins.us; Michael Dougherty; dsaari53@gmail.com; lsaari54@gmail.com;
saarico1@aol.com; bigislandcat@aol.com; gimprints.rp@gmail.com; gloria.fink@comcast.net; Pete Kopfmann; samantha.haldeman@gmail.com; Bill Yaeger; LaWayne; john.dean41949@gmail.com; Dwyer, Jim; jdeandwyer@gmail.com; rod.landers@gmail.com; Jennifer Landers; sandie.threepo@yahoo.com; mcgrawleslee@gmail.com; Douglas Ramsey; Jon Rausch; kellyrausch143@gmail.com; David Larson; Dawn Dahlberg; Lee
Bailey-Seiler; Liz Adams; Johndmcmahon@yahoo.com; libbymac48@gmail.com; jumpinjacks8@gmail.com; Greg OConnor; maureenolson@gmail.com; johnReimann18@gmail.com; Alice Reimann; Jeff Hornig; Olivia Hornig; chris@generalstoreofminnetonka.com; joethull@gmail.com; sjthull@gmail.com; tedhanna@qwestoffice.net; tadeg@comcast.net; terry.deggendorf@outlook.com
Cc:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Permit to use right of way for a dock
Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 8:38:57 AM
Attachments:
To: All East Side Big Island Residents
Melanie Curtis, Planner from the City of Orono has requested that I forward the attachednotices to you all so that you are aware that a permit to use an island right of way for a dock
has been applied for by Joe Thull of 480 Big Island. Some of you may have received these notices by mail from the City.
This issue rarely comes up on the island but it did happen last year on the West side with an ownerthat did not have lake access for a dock. This is the case with this permit request. I would like to point out that the the permit request is not for the two common access points located near 140 and 450 Big Island.
Please read the attached conditional use permit application and if you have any questions, comments or concerns,
please contact Melanie before March 8th directly at 952-249-4627 or mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us
Regards,
Tom Kolar-personal
t-kolar@comcast.net612-859-5985180 Big Island
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Aleya Champlin
Melanie Curtis
"Judson Champlin"
Re: 480 Big Island Dock Permit
Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:38:43 PM
Dear Ms. Curtis,
Thank you for kindly adding our earlier-submitted updated comments in the public packet for this
application. Please find attached additional comments pertaining to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) and its wetland classification of various regions of Big Island, including the unimproved
right-of-way that is the subject of the 480 Big Island Dock Permit Request.
I sincerely apologize for the timing of these further additional comments, but I worked over the weekend
to learn a little about the MCWD and its rules pertaining to Lake Minnetonka. It is clear that in addition to
the City's ordinances, the MCWD rules need to be addressed, along with the rules of the LMCD and the
DNR as discussed previously.
I completely understand if this submission is too late to be included in the agenda materials for
tomorrow's meeting, but I do thank you for your consideration of the points made in this document. I look
forward to attending the meeting tomorrow.
Thank you very much,
Aleya Champlin
210 Big Island
On Friday, March 12, 2021, 07:09:45 AM CST, Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote:
Thank you. I will add these updated comments to your original and they will be included in the public
packet for this application.
Melanie Curtis
(952.249.4627 *mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us
All permitting is now done through our new online portal - LINK!
From: Judson Champlin [mailto:jchamplin@wck.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>
Cc: Aleya Champlin <aleya@champlins.us>
Subject: 480 Big Island Dock Permit
Hello Melanie. I know this is coming in late, but I figured it might be of some help to you.
I tried to figure out my own way through all of the LMCD rules, and decided I better talk to an expert. I
ended up speaking with Mathew over at the LMCD about the proposed dock, and he was able to rattle off
enough of their rules to get my head spinning.
One thing he mentioned was that docks need a 10 foot setback from any adjoining lots. I guess this
setback actually extends beyond the shoreline and into the lake. At least this is how I understood it!
Attached are a couple of sketches I made to try to show this. In the handmade one, I used a ruler to
determine where 10 foot setback is, and I calibrated my measurement based upon the 38.5 feet of
shoreline stated in one of the slides in the application. I also tried to illustrate it by overlaying a slide from
the application itself, but that is just me eyeballing it. If you figure a dock is maybe 3 feet wide, plus the
width of any boat tied to it, the dock might have to be pretty short to stay within the setbacks. I have no
idea how accurate any of this is, so It might be a good idea to get this all surveyed to figure where these
boarders actually lie.
Mathew said he would be very happy to help out with any questions you all might have. From my limited
understanding, there are a number of relevant LMCD rules that might have an impact here.
Hope that helps! Thank you again and take care. -Jud
--
Judson K. Champlin
Westman, Champlin and Koehler, P.A.
Suite 1100
121 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.wck.com
612-334-3222
Intellectual Property Attorneys
WARNING: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged or
confidential. It is intended only for the above identified recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, please forward this transmission to the author. Please delete this
Addendum to Comments
Submitted by Jud and Aleya Champlin
210 Big Island
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD)
Functional Assessment of Wetlands
(FAW)
MCWD’s Functional Assessment of Wetlands
● The MCWD’s goal regarding wetlands is to “(p)reserve, create and restore wetland
resources and maximize the benefits and functionality of wetlands to the watershed”
(Sec. 4.11, Goal 11)
● For Lake Minnetonka, Goal 11.1 is to “(m)aintain existing acreage of wetlands in the
subwatershed and achieve no net loss in their size, quality, type and biological
diversity.”
● Goal 11 states that a “key strategy of this plan is regulation of wetlands in accordance
with a management classification…” (emphasis added)
● The area of the proposed dock is assigned to a “Manage 3” wetland classification which
is allowed some impacts, considering their effects on stormwater management.
The 480 Big Island dock permit application for use of the unimproved
right-of-way should to take into account the MCWD’s wetland classification of the
area and the watershed impact on the shoreline.
The proposed dock location would be in the Minnehaha Creek
Corridor and the unimproved right-of-way is a designated MCWD
Priority as a Key Conservation Area
https://www.minnehahacreek.org/maps
Close-up of MCWD Map
Proposed Dock Area is Classified as a MCWD “Manage 3” Wetland
MCWD Water Resources Section 3.2.5: Wetlands
https://www.minnehahacreek.org/32-water-resources/325-wetlands
MCWD Functional Assessment of Wetlands Fig. 28
MCWD Resource Management Section 4.11
Goal 11: Wetlands
https://www.minnehahacreek.org/40-resource-management-goals-and-strategies/411-wetlands-2
MCWD Resource Management Section 4.11
Goal 11.1: Lake Minnetonka
https://www.minnehahacreek.org/40-resource-management-goals-and-strategies/411-wetlands-2
From:David Saari
To:Melanie Curtis
Cc:Eric Saari
Subject:RE: Joe Thull
Date:Friday, March 12, 2021 2:06:29 PM
Melanie,
As I think about the CUP request from Joe Thull, some thoughts:
Fred Bruntjen has had an approved access in place next to our lot 260 for years – an obvious
need for his cabin to continue to have lake access
BTW - Fred’s cabin was built by my Grand Parents back in the mid 40’s -
Unfortunate the Three Rivers Park District is not willing to allow an access to Joe with an
easement adjacent to lot 470
From your perspective is there any hope the TRPD would change their mind?
The best and easiest resolution for Joe
Given no movement by the TRPD, logic would suggest the best solution for all property
owners is for the interior lots to access the lake utilizing the city owned right of way with
access to their bays
East Bay – Access via city owned right of ways adjacent to properties 120, 140, 260 and
280
West Bay – Access via city owned right of ways adjacent to properties 460 and 450
North Side – Access via city owned right of way adjacent to property 110
South Side – Access via city owned right of way adjacent to property 380 – may not be
an option, appears 370 may own a 10’ frontage at the shoreline
Obviously Joe’s property is facing the West Bay – granting access via the right of way adjacent to
property 460 is the most logical choice for all involved
Thank you for your consideration. Look forward to seeing you Monday evening.
Dave Saari
21035 Oak Lane
Greenwood, MN 55331
612 747 3606
From: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:07 AM
To: David Saari <david.saari@advantagesolutions.net>
Subject: Joe Thull
Melanie Curtis, Planner
Direct 952.249.4627
Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Email: mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us
Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us
From:Suzy Thiss
To:Melanie Curtis
Cc:Thiss Peter
Subject:LA21-000017 Joseph Thull 480 Big Island
Date:Friday, March 12, 2021 5:10:02 PM
Hi Melanie,
Thanks again for returning my call on March 10th regarding the request to revoke Nancy Farnes dock permit in
front of her cottage, and switch it to Thull an inland property owner, 1.2 Miles away, as well as info regarding the
use of ATV’s on the walking paths.
First, we have been neighbors with Fred and Nancy for close to 25 years, they go to their cottage, hang out like the
rest of us. In the past couple of years health issues have come up so it has been more difficult, however I cannot
understand how you could even consider revoking their dock access in the right away. It’s my understanding that
they have had their cottage for 35 years and the permit in the access has always been in place for One Dock, One
Property owner.
None of the neighbors next to the public access want to see a marina situation, it needs to be one dock- one family.
All the people that invested in inland lots will be requesting to cut down paths to improve and sell their investments
with a dock if we let this revocation take place.
As I mentioned on the phone, the best solution is for Thull to rent a boat slip at the Power Squadron, they have
showers, bathrooms and he could walk to his property from there.
All the neighbors enjoy the quiet woods/wildlife and are not advocating to develop Big Island into development
central, it’s really not conscientious to take an older couples dock permit away after 35 years.
Thanks for listening and have a nice weekend.
Suzy Thiss
Brand Ambassador Minneapolis
Ray-Ban Genuine Since 1937
Ph: 952-452-0186
CS: 800-422-2020
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Nancy Farnes
Melanie Curtis
I am ONE hour late
Monday, March 15, 2021 1:18:07 PM
Melanie,
I can drive over or fax the attachments starting now.
Please call and advise!
I am so, so sorry; this took on a life of its own. I have been deligently working steady on this all weekend.
Hope my exhaustion and brain overload doesn't reflect in this.
And appreciate your flexibility in this very serious matter to defend best as I could in a week.
Nancy
March 14, 2021
To: Melanie Curtis, Planner
Re: #LA‐21‐000017 Thull
Your drafted March 15 letter to Chair and Planning Commission Members
Melanie,
In reviewing above I note the below for consideration due to llth hour changes with research,
discovery etc. this last week.
Background last paragraph:
Two dock permits have been issued in the past 35 years. Resolution 2038 (exhibit F) was
granted to 230 August 1986 with an existing dock use and structure. Resolution 4465
attributed to 220 and 130 May 2000 (Exhibit F).
Page 2 third paragraph, fifth sentence …informal agreement with City since early 1940’s. Tenth
sentence …Permit 2038 has remained in effect since 1986. See Nancy Farnes revised comments
submitted March 15 in exhibit 1.
Discussion:
Second paragraph ...formal revoke. I did not receive a formal 30 day notice of revocation. An
application twenty years ago for a dock permit at 230 set precedent; no discussions or notice to
revoke was entertained or enforced. Permit 2038 was undisturbed; new application withdrawn
to submit new application council approved/recommended for 220 at 130; it was not revoked.
Does this merit a revocation or discussion of “intent” when 2038 was properly secured for 220
Big Island dock permit after 35 years and already met LMCD, city codes etc. requirements?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Tabled until further research if it is feasible for applicant to propose sharing one dock, or add a
second dock, apply for a second permit if so or reasonable to revoke 220 Big Island until done.
2038 Permit went thru proper procedures in 1986 to secure permit to 220 Big Island. The
permit issued 35 years ago is one dock for 220; one boat w/one dock meets LMCD guidelines.
Comments indicate 33‐34’ lakeshore does not facilitate applicant for two boats with one dock
OR two docks in LMCD ordinances. A withdrawal or denial is reasonable based on preliminary
efforts and work submitted by others that applicant didn’t do or include in application. It may
be served better for all that an application/request to amend the code will protect and conform
all prior work invested by city, planners and applicants on the two dock permits issued. It is a
hardship on all to revisit the same issues resolved; it also complicates a dock permit application.
Exhibit L March 14 Comments in Highlight for Curtis
Dear Ms. Curtis,
I am writing to submit additional information and clarity based on further
discovery of the existing permits and submitted feedback and concerns
from property owners directly impacted by my application.
As stated on the first page of my background and context that I submitted
with my application. I am hopeful that an amicable and a neighborly
solution can be found and still allows me access to my property.
I have gained additional historical context on the rarely requested dock
permits on this part of the island (I believe two in the last 38+ years).
My request and application follow’s similar precedent to the other interior
property lot holders who have also requested access to their property and
which has been approved.
I would like to add some clarifying points and also pose a potential scenario
for the council to consider that balances some of the concerns of the most
affected parties.
As I reviewed feedback submitted by Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen at 230
Big Island with an existing permit, one of the unusual aspect is the following
language within the permit. It states;
I withdrew reactionary material to M. Curtis. The complexity, legalities and
narrative in application did not have clarity for me to accurately respond.
“Should there be any other another request from an inland property owner
to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties this permit is
automatically revoked.”
1983 Dock Permit was issued to a unique 220 property with structures. A dock
was used since 1940 for 220. Prior to purchasing 220 the owner went thru proper
process with surveys, etc. to include legal use of existing dock for 220 in 1986.
While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted so long
ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for any permitted
dock holder.
I request adequate time with M Curtis to research relevant, accurate intent
and documents for her recommendation to committee and council.
Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable to find a
solution does not create a win-lose scenario.
Applicant is only person in 35 years stating permit is “harsh language”.
Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983
One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to create a
new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the permit, the old
permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit holder having a side.
Please see my replaced narrative, LMCD, lake shore feet, drain fields,
trench etc. and also the relative material submitted by Jud.
This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not materially
impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to access their
property and allows me access to my property. While this is not the perfect
solution it does balance the needs of each party and would work to limit the
impact on the existing construct that exists today.
230, 210, 260, land and lakeshore right of way are negatively impacted…
As a show of good faith, should this scenario be feasible, I would consider
purchasing a dock at my expense if one is not currently available from Ms.
Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen.
I believe this outcome would be similar in spirt to how the lot owners at
#130 and #220 share an access point.
Not remotely similar, 220 had structures and access points not accurate.
Right-of-Way Construction Traffic Concern: As a point of clarity, I am not
proposing that this site and right-of-way be used as an access point for
construction vehicles. The right-of-way I am requesting would used as a
walking path from the dock up the main road everyone currently uses. Who
is everyone, where is assumed “path”? This path will have no impact on the
trees and topography on that right-of-way.
The “path” on right of way is a drain field, mature trees, drainage trench…
One application in 35 years set precedent to this identical request in early
2000. After much turmoil and discussions with city and private owners it
was resolved a new application would be approved at 1
Any future construction would use the primary access point on the other
side of the island that all other property owners use getting on an off this
part of the island. Any future construction would use the primary access
getting on and off this part if island.
Applicant states #4 is a primary access point; it is riprapped private
property owned by 460. Right of way was a 10’ alley; not a 30’ road.
In summary, I hope this clarity’s a few points and provides a scenario for all
interested parties to consider.
Applicant’s summary opens up a Pandora’s Box for a dock permit. Some
are matters between neighbors, Variances, easements, permits etc. Many
of the issues have precedence by lengthy proper procedures.
Regards,
Joe Thull
M:612 812 1280
Joe.Thull@gmail.com
March 15, 2021
To: Malanie Curtis, City of Orono Planner
From: Nancy Farnes
Re: #LA‐21‐000017 Joe Thull, 480 Big Island, Dock Permit
This serves as my requested response to assist in above‐named matter with attachments for reference.
The application and updated letter as exhibit L still dismisses City Codes, LMCD ordinances, and
precedent set on an identical application. It was a tumultuous hardship on neighbors affected. And it
was resolved by withdrawal of application for a new application granting dock permit #4456 by council.
Doesn’t the City have a duty to protect property rights of Thull and property owners affected as well as
the city codes, right of ways and LMCD ordinances?
Isn’t the intent of planners, Planning Commission and Council to review applications and not to create
issues down the road or hardships? The application was submitted without relevant research. A harsh
burden fell on me and neighbors a week ago to provide it for planner on informed recommendation.
Attached validates a handful of wrong narratives in Thull application. He includes what should be several
change requests on existing precedence, city codes and LMCD ordinance packaged in his dock permit.
Considering a new code for easements and many sales I hope common sense may prevail to withdraw it.
1)230 Big Island was purchased at 45K with an existing dock and structures since 1942.
a)Precedence was set 2038 conforming w/existing lakeshore, traffic and quite enjoyment.
b)Precedence was set 2000 by 4456 resolution where application for dock at 230 withdrawn.
c)Precedence acknowledge by last buyer of 220 inside 4.5 acres at 100K. He asked us and
inquired for dock at 230. I believe he dropped idea after his due diligence.
d)Right of way between 210 and 230:
1)It is a drain field with established trench for water runoff in spring and storms
2) 78‐567 (1) violation; see attached notice from City Orono dated October 22, 2003
3)Right of ways became small walking trails about 3 feet wide. Some are established
behind private properties. Per code78‐567 (5)…No permit shall be required for any
person whose property abuts a platted public right of way or a platted park to control
weeds or brush, seed, sow mow or otherwise maintain the right of way or park ….record
lots …divided by platted, unopened public right of way may incorporate and use such
right of way as PART OF THEIR YARD without a permit….
e)The city does not maintain right of ways, survey or provide signage.
Perhaps administration inquiries should be directed to abutting property owner
who preserve land, “incorporate and use such right of ways as part of their
YARD without a permit” lacking sufficient knowledge to advise.
f)Approx 34.5 lakeshore footage at right of way in front of 230 does not conform
to applicant proposal for 2 boats sharing 1 dock or two docks and two boats.
Attached is LMCD ordinance, 210’s video/diagram submitted and mine.
Summary: Applicant’s proposal for his 10 yr. 9K purchase transfers 130K wealth to
‘ him and tanks 35 yr. 45K purchase at 230 (intent of permit) down to 20K.
I respectfully ask if his proposal to “revoke” 2038 may be harsh. It has no
precedent, due diligence or communicating to affected neighbors etc.
2) 460 statement that it is a right of way with an access point used by all with lakeshore.
a)See attached bona fide survey on the subject property.
b)The right of way was conversion of a 10’ ally between 450 & 460 with no lakeshore.
c)The strip (lot 2 and 3) is privately owned; was riprapped years ago in neighborhood project.
Summary for applicant and planner for consideration in recommendation to deny/approve:
Given a week for me to locate old relevant files and with planners help, this should be tabled if needed,
denied and or applicant may withdraw application submitted with no diligence or data to validate it.
From my perspective and observation the City has exhausted and gone above and beyond to facilitate
application for a dock. Per 78‐567 (1) .permit application (did not) demonstrate a reasonable alternative
and (does) unreasonably affect me at 230, other properties abutting right of way (six). I request planner
to review llth hour work I submit along with others last week to deny a recommendation. It negatively
impacts drainage and vegetation; includes mature trees for a permit, survey and proposal damage the
established trench.
Perhaps applicant may choose to review all the work and LMCD provided by neighbors to assess if his
application is feasible And pursue to revoke 230 from a 35 year old permit assigned to 230 in unique
situation since 1942 on grounds it is “harsh” language, etc. doing the neighborly thing to withdraw it.
It may be wise for applicants to perform their own due diligence prior to official application submission.
Hennepin site is friendly user BUT clearly states “as is”, not a survey or to be used as such…..
2038 Resolution is intended for 230 Big Island. Besides Hale family division in 1983 Orono was working
to established ordinance 246 to increase lot size from 2 acres to 5 acres with 10.31 code attached.
Nancy Farnes
230, 460 and 38 Big Island