Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex E Draft PC MinMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. LA21-000017 JOE THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, DOCK PERMIT ON ROW (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Joe and Sara Thull, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicants own 480 Big Island which is a non- lakeshore property on the eastern portion of the island. They have owned the property for a number of years and it is located between two platted, undeveloped rights-of-way which connect to the Bay Place right-of-way and connects to the lake on the eastern side of the island. There are many interconnecting undeveloped rights-of-way which are accessible to the public but no developed roads on Big Island and non are open for vehicular traffic. Code section 78-567 provides a mechanism for inland or off-lake property owners to request a permit to install or construct private improvements, such as a dock, on public rights-of-way. A dock would provide access to the Applicant’s property and this provision only exists within the RS district which consists of Big Island and Deering Island. Pursuant to this code the Applicants seek a permit to place a seasonal dock on City right-of-way. Two dock permits have been issued in the past 20+ years. Resolution 4465 attributed to 220 and 130 Big Island granted in 2000. Resolution 2038, referred in the Staff report as Permit 2038, attributed to 230 Big Island granted in 1986. 230 Big Island is an inland lot and that permit was for a dock that existed on the property on that location in the right-of-way since approximately the 1950’s. It was granted subject to a number of conditions including the following verbiage: “should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked.” Permit 2038 appears to have remained in effect since that time, and has been transferred to the subsequent owners (Fred Brunjten/Nancy Farnes). Ms. Farnes has provided comment on this request, which was emailed to the Commissioners and placed at their seats, in addition to other comments received after publication of the packet. Staff finds the Applicants’ request generally meets the criteria outlined in the code for approval. Knowing the subdivision code has recently been changed to allow for easement access as another option for inland lots in the RS district only, the Applicants have attempted unsuccessfully to secure a private easement from neighbors including Three Rivers Park District as detailed in the submittal. They made the permit request in February. As a result of the request and based on the language in the resolution for Permit 2038, it should be considered to be revoked. Staff has concerns that the holder of this permit continues to desire dock access. There are two additional interior lots on the east side of the island, both just to the east of the Applicant’s property – they do not have lake access and may in the future request a permit for dock on the right-of-way as well. The City should anticipate requests from these property owners at some point. The other remaining properties on the east side are either lakeshore properties or in common ownership with a lakeshore property, thus providing the opportunity for a dock. Staff recommends the dock access question for inland lots be looked at comprehensively by the City. A number of public comments were received and included in the packet as Exhibit I; most of the comments received oppose the dock. Staff recommends approval of a dock with the following conditions: 1. The location of the installed dock shall be approved by the LMCD, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The permit issued shall be valid for one year, and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. 3. The approval should identify which property(ies) has rights to use the dock, and each owner shall be permitted one boat slip for use by the owner of the property exclusively. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be identified and approved by staff. 5. Dock sections shall not exceed 6‐feet in width. 6. No canopy shall be erected Curtis noted most of those comments are from the code section that allows the permit. Staff further recommends that a comprehensive solution to the dock access question be considered. After the packet was finalized last week, Staff received an updated request and narrative from the Applicant in which he addresses some of the comments he received. His updated request includes an alternative to share a dock with the current permit holder for 2038. The Applicant can speak to his request. Kirchner said in reference to Permit 2038, he asked Curtis to note where that dock is situated on screen. Curtis pointed it out and said at the subject location. Ressler noted the way the City’s existing permit that is currently granted becomes revoked in the event that another request is made. Curtis replied upon request from another property owner it is automatically revoked. Ressler asked if Staff understands why they would have such language in that approval. Is it because they are trying to be sure they revisit the whole situation all over again rather than an addition of another permit. He asked what it is that they typically see in those situations for such language? Ressler understands he may be asking Curtis to speculate. Curtis noted she cannot speculate. Curtis said they do not typically see that kind of language. The language in the 2000 permit – although it mirrored some similar code-required conditions – did not include this. So, a permit that was issued after resolution 2038 did not include that automatic revocation language. Curtis could speculate a lot of things but she would rather not. Ressler stated it is a landlocked lot so the only access right now is by right-of-way and trails? Curtis replied that is correct. They are pedestrian access but there is no dock access. She thinks the Applicant can better describe the situation but she thinks they have been anchoring and swimming to shore as they have used the property over the years. Ressler commented he knows there is a lot of interest based on the feedback the Commission has seen and there are a lot of voices that want to be heard. He said in the essence of time they want those voices to be heard, but at the same time the Commission requests in the public comment section that people try to limit their comments to 5 minutes or less if they can. If one is in agreement with a previously stated comment, he asked if they could just state that they support the previous comment instead of restating the comment in different words. He noted they appreciate any consideration on that. Joe and Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, showed a few slides on screen to give more context. Ressler is right there has been a lot of feedback and comments regarding his application and he hopes to add a little more color to that. He noted he has owned the property for over 12 years and the intention was always to build a cabin out there. They have approached the City and have a permitted shed and have started construction MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ on that off-site in a modular way and will move that out to the location. Mr. Thull reiterated the intention is to eventually put a cabin out there. As mentioned, they have primarily accessed the location by anchoring near the lot, swimming, and then hiking across the Three Rivers location that abuts the property. Mr. Thull noted they have been members of the Power Squadron in the past but that is probably 8x the distance and really not feasible. He said they have aging parents and kids and they want to find a more permanent way to access the property as they invest in it. They are not developers or property flippers, and have sought multiplied easements, one with Three Rivers, noting that roadway comes just short of the lakeshore and unfortunately Three Rivers denied that. The Applicant has also pursued easements with neighboring properties and has not found a path forward on that. He looks at the property rights and does not think they are asking for what other interior lot property owners have been provided underneath the code. They are seeking, basically, those same rights afforded to others and there is some precedent in terms of the spirit of multiple lot owners collaborating and sharing an access point to create a feasible solution for those interior lot owners. He showed a few sites they identified in working with the City – some are better than others – and they identified the site they felt was most feasible. Some criteria was feedback from the City Planning office regarding location 1, also the site in terms of its level terrain and the low impact in terms of the right- of-way, really the walking path, proximity to the property and that the Applicant is not looking to use the site as a construction access point as that will all be done through the primary access point on the other side of the island. He noted they are really looking at minimal lakeshore disruption and that was the criteria they looked at. Two additional requests if this would be approved. No 1) if a new permit is granted that the previous permit be noted in that document to show the continuity of this site being used as an access point for many, many years, and he thinks officially a lot longer than that. He asks that it be noted as he thinks there are questions as far as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) as far as the access and the rights-of-way. No 2) he asked for a reasonable spot to put a seasonal dock in the winter months within and around the right-of-way. He thinks there is probably a similar thing granted for the other property owners that are not hauling their docks. In looking across the various easements, there are various uses of those to store things currently across Big Island. Mr. Thull noted there was a lot of feedback and addressed a couple of points within his application. Regarding the impact to Ms. Farnes and Mr. Brunjten as owners of 230 Big Island, Mr. Thull supports that they should not have something taken away, and thinks that language created a win/lose scenario and that is not fair. As a property owner, he believes their rights need to be withheld within that. Although sharing a dock is not a perfect scenario in a perfect world, this is a unique situation and they are trying to balance each other’s rights. Mr. Thull noted there was a question of the use of turning the right-of-way into construction and taking out trees and vegetation. He clarified he has no intent to do that and that would be less convenient. They are looking for a walkway path from the dock up to the inner road that leads to the property through the right-of-way. He stated there have also been some questions about the LMCD and compliance. Does the site comply, should it be grandfathered in? He thinks that is a question for that group. In looking through the code, there are many points within the code itself that lay out different ways that unique situations are addressed. Whether it is pre-existing conditions for permitted use, practical difficulties, a unique situation, setback variances provided. He thinks one of the main points of that is so that docks are not stacked up on top of each other. At this access point, looking to the left, he showed a photo on screen of the neighboring location; in another photo he showed the neighbor’s dock and location. Mr. Thull said the use of variances are obviously sprinkled throughout the LMCD documentation so if this property is not grandfathered in, he thinks given the unique situation he would imagine 99% of the issues they deal with are ultimately how one accesses the lake versus this situation which is how one accesses their property. Substantially different in terms of how they are trying to use this going forward. He said it would seem reasonable as it states, reasonable in terms of under the circumstances and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Thull thinks his application fits the code, there is already a permitted dock there for a single dock so no material change in MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ terms of should a dock or can a dock be placed there. He is in favor of sharing the dock and also believes the site may qualify as either grandfathered in or a variance as part of that. Mr. Thull noted they have had a long-term dream of building a cabin out there and are now in the position to actually move forward with that. Mr. Thull has one question in regards to the information about the Public Works Director and what it entails getting approval from them. Curtis believes the Public Works Director, being that it is a City right-of-way, would want to have approval of the dock location should it change, or in addition to the dock that is there, and where that storage location would be in the winter. Bollis thinks the Applicant has done a good job of answering the neighborhood questions and asked if they would be interested in adding those as additional conditions to the permit if the Commission gets that far. Such as no modification to the platted rights-of-way, Bollis assumes the Applicant is not using this dock for recreation but just for access, that type of conditions. Mr. Thull said sure. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Jud and Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island (next door), live at 2643 Thoroughbred Lane. He thanked the Staff and Commissioners for doing all this and noted he is kind of surprised that his neighbors Freddy and Nancy are not here, but Freddy has had some health problems the past couple of years and Mr. Champlin guesses the snow storm kept them away. As Curtis will attest, there are very deep feelings going back from them and their belief as to how that dock should be allocated. Mr. Champlin said this is a tough thing because by filing this it automatically takes away Freddy’s dock access. He noted it is a very kind thing of Mr. Thull to offer some alternatives and at the same time it gives this quite valuable piece of property to Mr. Thull – Mr. Champlin can certainly understand the predicament. In his reading of the City code, one of the requirements for granting this access is that there are no reasonable alternatives. Mr. Champlin thinks there are reasonable alternatives and they have not really explored them all. Other than being asked for an easement, this is the first he has heard about it and he thinks if they went around the island, usually people team up and help each other and it is generally a pretty good community. It is when this sort of thing starts happening is when some heads get butting. One thing Mr. Thull said is that the primary access point is down next to 460 Big Island and in an email to Mr. Champlin, Mr. Thull also said that is the most convenient access way. One does not have to put a dock there to get access; the requirement of the City’s code is not that one access a dock, it is that one has reasonable alternative access. It is very easy to nose a pontoon boat in there, even at the end of the Power Squadron property that is very close. There are other dock locations that could be looked at as well. Having trouble putting in a septic system, a shower, and running water might be good reason to renew the membership to the Minnetonka Power Squadron and as a past commander he can say that would be very good. Mr. Champlin thinks if the Commission went around and asked neighbors, they would find a lot of people helping out. There is a reason that Freddy does not have a dock there: he does not want that in front of his house. This pretty much shows there are reasonable alternative ways to access property on the island. Freddy does not have a dock. He asks his neighbors to dock there, and can use Mr. Champlin’s dock any time, he pulls his pontoon boat right up in front and walks right through. Mr. Champlin’s other concern is the pathway through the woods – right now it is all wooded – there has not been a survey done recently so he is not quite sure where the boundaries are but he thinks it will either be going over Mr. Champlin’s property or Freddy’s property or through the woods. If they are familiar with the island it is a big effort to increase ground cover and leave things as natural as possible and MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Champlin would hate to see those woods come down. He understands the intent is not to do anything bad there but intent is very hard to put into a permit. Once people start walking up there, who knows what will happen? As another alternative, Mr. Thull is welcome to use Mr. Champlin’s dock up to 10 days a year, just shoot him a text and let him know, don’t bump the boat into it too hard, but he welcomes that and is pretty sure he would find a lot of other people that would support Mr. Thull as well. They like people on the island and like them doing good things on the island. He appreciates all they have done for Big Island. Aleya Champlin agrees with her husband’s comments and asked to go to Exhibit I to show the pictures that were taken on Big Island on March 6. This is what the shoreline currently looks like and they think there is a property marker with a stake in the ground for 260 Big Island. The rectangle is where the Champlin’s think the proposed dock is going to go and there are a lot of trees and native growth there that would have to go and she just does not want to see all those trees gone. Dave Saari, 21035 Oak Lane, Greenwood, along with his brother, owns the property at 260 Big Island. The family has been cutting the grass on the City’s public property for probably the last 50 years and their grandparents built the cabin that Fred Brunjten now owns. He noted they have been on that property for a while and appreciate the fact that it has not been developed and it is a fine piece of property. The Commissioners heard from the neighbors their enthusiasm for that. He suspects there will be a larger conversation about the use of those access points regarding the interior lots. In his notes to the City (he apologizes for them arriving late) there are east and there are west bay alternatives and he thinks it is a bigger story than simply accessing the lake via one particular location. To that end, there are a couple of access points on the west bay, four on the east bay and asked how is this all going to look? They certainly do not want to have a marina next to their property and if that becomes the access point for all inland properties on the island, that would be a significant concern. He thinks what would be fair is west going to the west and east going to the east. From a larger standpoint they then discuss the strategy of all the inland owners as opposed to simply one. Suzy and Peter Thiss, 270 Big Island, have thoughts of one land owner, one boat, one slip. She does not understand the wording that Fred and Nancy’s dock permit can be revoked; does that mean Fred and Nancy can revoke it from the Thull family next year? Ressler noted that is one of his questions, as well. Again, they have to speculate because it was several years ago that it was issued, but he ventures a guess that the reason it is worded that way is because they want the opportunity to revisit that permit at the same time of issuing another one; and that is the trigger for the event. If there is another application for a dock, they want to be able to change the approval or the use of that – that is the only speculation he might have. It will probably come up in the discussion among the Commissioners. Ressler does not think it is a black and white situation where now there has been an application, one loses their rights to a dock. He thinks it becomes more of a situation where it is revisited because of the trigger. Ms. Thiss noted it is a very passive, quiet place with deer, foxes, and all kinds of things in that meadow. She noted everyone enjoys it, and so does nature. The whole idea of making it a multiple dock or dock sharing, Ms. Thiss does not think it is a marina and thinks that the Power Squadron is a super viable option for someone who needs to get to their place, use a bathroom, take a shower, as all those facilities are there. She stated the whole idea that someone can put up a cabin and not cut down trees and make more paths…this past year there were ATVs going around the island with chain saws at night and there were people cutting paths and running the camouflaged 4-wheelers like crazy. She noted that is the kind of stuff she would hate MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ to see because there is so little land in the City, it is important to preserve Big Island and to look 10-15 years down the road and keep it that way. Ted Hanna, 490 Big Island, said his parents have owned the property since 1968 and he got it about 10 years ago. He would be a little concerned about having some access in the future. He lived over in Greenwood until about a year ago so it was mostly just winter ski access for him with a tent platform and a teepee. He noted it would be great to get out there and visit some more – they do not have a family cabin which used to be on the south side of all this for years. He would ask that some kind of solution might be figured out for some kind of dock access. He noted one comment mentioned a piece of land where Three Rivers is – he asked if that would ever be up for imminent domain. Curtis clarified the piece of land that is blocking the right-of-way continuation used to be all one little sliver. Mr. Hanna sees that those pieces are now deeded to the adjacent landowners. Curtis replied that is right and this one is owned by Three Rivers and they have declined – she believes one of those reasons is the funding source that they used to purchase the property prohibits granting an easement or selling it for any of those uses. Mr. Hanna asked the Thulls if they have thought about using something down on that side. He noted he may be in front of the Commission in the future to try to figure something out, as well. Nancy Farnes, 230 Big Island, approached the podium with an eleventh-hour package she is delivering, but she only brought five and can get more for the following day. She noted her property is directly affected by this application. In the exhibits, she showed that it started off with 7 inside lots back in 1980-something. This application is revoked and given to 484 Meadow because he transferred over about 4-5 different private properties. It also adds five additional inside lots to the three that he says are remaining. So now they are kind of over – going backwards – in 35 years, using this as a solution. Ms. Farnes feels that history dictates there is just not lakeside for accommodation to 3 or 7 inside lots. Furthermore, they bought the cabin with the value included at $45,000. If this is taken from them and revoked, that value in 35 years of maintenance, taxes, appreciation, just tanked to possibly $20,000 with a property they cannot use. She noted they have spent substantial time improving it, maintaining it, and in the last ten years they have endured several emergency and physical health crises that have deferred them from enjoying the island as they always have with three generations of family. During that time period, which they are still winding down, their kind neighbors have allowed them to use their dock, have helped maintain the area, and in goodwill have even cut the grass and maintained the permit without Ms. Farnes even asking. They have even offered to bring the family out there as time has only allowed for them to go out about twice a year, and that is basically to rake leaves, clean up inside and out, and go home. This is while everyone else is out in June and July on the boat, in swimsuits, enjoying life. She sees an end to this in about a year or two and she finds this is the first time in 35 years anybody has tossed out the words “revoke our permit” and it is very, very disturbing, unsettling, and emotional. Ms. Farnes does not find any precedence to do that. Perhaps they revisit the wording on the two existing permits so they do not have to go through this grueling, tumultuous, and emotional process, because there just simply aren’t enough and everything has been exhausted, in her opinion, by the City. She will happily work with Ms. Curtis and has boxes of records she can help assist with for clarity to the recommendation of this Board, if necessary and required, if they still feel it warrants a recommendation instead of a permanent solution. Ms. Farnes has one final thought: it is assessed at $165 [$165,000?] with no lakeshore but the permit. The 480 application bought his property just ten years ago, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ there was precedence, and it was valued at $9,000. Ms. Farnes stated it makes it unsellable, and their investment in real estate, and their retirement, is now gone over one dock permit that was properly secured through the proper channels that had a boat since 1942 with that cabin. Initially it was a handshake on the family to the owners. When Ms. Farnes’ family bought it, it converted to this permit. The only permit they created for this unique property and unique situation. Ressler thinks it will be difficult to read through the handout on the fly. Curtis believes the materials Ms. Farnes has provided were emailed to the Commissioners this afternoon. Ms. Farnes said [off microphone] there are photos. Ressler clarified for those watching online, the comments were that the handout included some photos reiterating the difficulty of being inclusive of adding more dockage. Chris Bollis, 470 Big Island, is just adjacent to the Applicant’s property. He only wants to comment about access on the west side of the island. There is a road right-of-way that comes in – he does not know if it has a name – it is just by 460 Big Island. Curtis pointed it out on screen. Mr. Bollis said that is probably the only vehicle access on Big Island where one can drive from the ice or from a barge right up on there. He noted they have used that for septic pumping, well drilling, and in 2005 (he thinks) there was a big fire on the south end of the island and they hauled in fire departments, pumps, food, bobcats, and it was a big problem. He wants to say that the access by 460 Big Island should not be considered as a dockage area because it is the only spot one can get on the island with any size of a vehicle to do the service work that is required. Ted Hanna, 480 Big Island, said that however many years ago this thing was platted out – the spirit of the whole plat to allow people access to their interior lots – he thinks that is something that should be considered for future use, as well. As Ms. Farnes said, they combined a bunch of lots so it cut it down but there could have been a bunch more people there asking for it. He thinks that was the spirit of the whole thing, to have roads and not just for fire access. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Ressler noted this is a tough one. Kirchner said first and foremost from what they have heard at the public hearing, he does not believe that there is ill-intent upon the Applicant to revoke the existing permit 2038. He does not believe that was the intent but is just an unfortunate wording. Regarding the permit, he noted Staff, City Council, and City Attorney could have further discussion on this - he does see at the bottom it states that the City of Orono further reserves the right to review this permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. Kirchner would say this would qualify as a reason to review it rather than to automatically revoke it. Therefore, that may give some leeway and some time. He agrees with Ressler’s remarks that this is not a black and white, just because there has been an application there should be a revocation of this permit. With that said, he appreciates the Applicant’s due diligence in exploring options, speaking with City Staff, evaluating those MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ options, asking for easements, and speaking with the Three Rivers Park District. Where Kirchner struggles with this application is that he feels this could potentially create a bit of a ripple effect, in that if the City will allow this for one lot, will it produce other similar applications. In that case, he believes that perhaps there needs to be a larger scale approach to this, to find a solution if a dock is deemed appropriate, rather than try to band-aid this several times over the next many years. That is Kirchner’s biggest hang-up, and he is concerned that by allowing one parcel this, it merely kicks the can down the road. He thinks there needs to be a larger evaluation of this to find any potential solutions and work at it on a larger scale. Libby said there was quite a bit of material given to the Commission fairly late in the game so it took him a while to actually read through some of this and it was very interesting. As they were listening to the cases of the property owners, there seems to be a reason for him to ask Staff a question. He noted there was a submission by Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island, which is very detailed. Having had many, many years working with LMCD and MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), he is quite familiar with their authority and functionality. He does not know how to ask this any other way than to ask Staff if they have known that whether one of the MCWD functional assessments of wetlands has actually been performed on this public access they are talking about. Curtis brought up Hennepin County’s wetland map. Libby stated the information provided to the Planning Commission is quite well-delineated and is very specific in the categorical classification. He said he is bringing this up as a point of information. He has about 30 years of living on the lakeshore and having the blessing of having a dock and owning lakeshore, so he is familiar with properties that have riparian rights where they actually have lakeshore and a lot and are allowed to put it up. He noted the circumstances of these permits are quite unique, pretty much in Orono, Mound, and surrounding municipalities there are common areas and permits that can be lotteried and assigned. However, when there is a landlocked property without any access to the lake, he can see why this is a very sought-after commodity and why it is a point of discussion. He thinks when they see in the City of Orono – particularly within the auspices of the LMCD – one cannot really even have a dock on property that is owned even if they have riparian rights, unless there is a structure there. Libby said this is a different situation because they have landlocked properties that do not have access. If in fact MCWD has delineated this area and has conservation and wetland attributes, he wonders if it could have been an oversight by the City over these many years that people are talking about. He feels it would be prudent before a decision is made by this body to find out whether or not this type of a survey has actually been done by the MCWD because it could actually be appropriate from a conservation standpoint. Curtis does not believe the area identified on the map indicates a wetland. She believes it indicates what the commenter has written here, that it is noted as a MCWD conservation area but not a wetland. Libby said it is a conservation area but does not need to be a wetland to be a conservation area. Curtis noted they do not have any specific protective requirements over that and if there are other regulatory bodies that have input on this application, they will not purport to assume what they will decide. She clarified they have to talk about the City issues. If this issue moves forward, she thinks the Applicant would need to inquire with the Watershed District and the LMCD what regulations and rules they need to follow. The location they are talking about has had a dock so that is what the Applicant is asking for as well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Libby said that answered his question. The idea was that they do not want to overlook anything, many circumstances when talking about variances or applications they have other authority that they have to wait on. If this is something that had perhaps been overlooked, the initiative that the property owner took to put this together and bring it to the Commissioners attention was of great value. Ressler asked to clarify that the existing permit in place and others alike all share something in common which is they are either lakeshore property themselves or common ownership in lakeshore property. Curtis asked Ressler to restate the question. Ressler asked if the existing dock permits have been issued. Curtis replied they are for inland lots. Ressler said for all of those that have been issued. Curtis clarified they are for inland lots and they have two permits. Ressler restated a different way: regarding both inland lot dock permits, do they both share these two things in common. They are either owners of lakeshore property as well or have a common ownership. Curtis replied no. Any of the other inland owners that they have not identified in addition to the Applicants and the two adjacent are the only ones that are not connected to a lakeshore lot, in ownership or actual lakeshore. Bollis stated the Commission has to look at what is in front of them and the code allows provision for inland lots to apply for a dock as long as it does not affect the neighboring properties. The first thing this does is affect the neighbor at 230 Big Island because it revokes their dock permit. He thinks any solution they come up with should really consider 230 Big Island and make sure it is an equitable solution for both. He does not know that they can find a comprehensive solution tonight for all of the inland lots, he thinks they have to look at the permit requests the Commission has in front of them and design the permit so that it is similar to what they did with the original one 2038 and have some language in there that if additional people apply, then that permit gets revisited and looked at again. He knows as a permit holder it is not fun, but it seems like it could be an easy solution right now and the Applicant is being neighborly about this and agreeing to additional conditions on the permit to appease the neighbors. He noted there are endless conditions they could put on it so the neighbors feel comfortable he will use the dock for the purpose he wants to use it for. McCutcheon said he did not hear from Ms. Farnes about what she thought of the shared dock solution. Ms. Farnes said the information delivered to her was late on Friday and she has spent 24 hours a day trying to pull something together. She said absolutely not. In the packet she delivered, it is not even feasible and the space does not even allow for two boats with one dock and/or two docks. Bollis stated it appears that it would require a variance from LMCD for that dock. Ms. Farnes noted all the traffic, the drainage area that has been tampered with, it is full trees there on both sides which she showed pictures in her packet. There will have to be surveys, trees cut down, damage to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ the island, and it just seems a bit much when there are still so many other empty lots. For 35 years there has been the same amount of empty, vacant lots. Perhaps a lottery when somebody turns it in to amend the language. Bollis clarified Ms. Farnes’ short answer is no, she does not like it. Ressler is not entirely in disagreement and thinks what the Commission has ahead of them is addressing how the City would like to grant access to all of these inland lots. It is not going to stop here and he thinks there are other considerations here. If they take out the water and were looking at this as if it were a road accessed lot, it would also be difficult to figure out how to provide access because there is no road there. Ressler thinks it is prudent for the City to decide how they want to handle all of these inland lots. One of the public comments was about a fire – the more structure they have out there besides the fact that it would take away trees which the City is generally opposed to – they are also creating a fire hazard with the more habitation and structure there is, the less ability there is to extinguish that structure and the greater risk of losing that structure as well as the rest of the island. These are his concerns as they talk about developing these inland lots which are generally not even accessible and that is probably one of the reasons why the price tag is what it is. He said of course the property owned by Three Rivers would be a great alternative to provide some dockage for inland docks and he understands that Three Rivers is not in support of providing an easement for that. He does not know if that resonates something on its own. Ressler said before they make it easier to access these inland lots, they need to address the additional use and access of the inland lots. He does not know that they will be able to decipher that tonight. Once they get through that, then they have to talk about lot sizes and what the building envelope is. Being able to provide private sewer and septic or well becomes a concern, they have minimum setback requirements, reasonable access requirements, and there is a lot to unpack. He personally feels this is an issue they need to figure out but he is not sure they can figure it all out today. He noted they rarely do this but he would almost rather table this so they can have a City work session. Curtis noted that is an option. There has been a lot of feedback and public comment tonight and she still believes the City Council is the decision maker and should be holding that conversation between themselves and the issue. She said if the Commission is going to table it, she thinks they need to have a good reason to table it, and a direction to go. Otherwise, Curtis thinks they can provide their feedback and comments and move it forward to the Council for their analysis. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is. Gettman moved so as to move it along and have the City Council then send it back to the Commission or have a workshop. Barnhart thinks it would be appropriate that the Commission recommend that the Council direct Staff to examine a more comprehensive solution that could be reviewed. Gettman amended his motion. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is, including Barnhart’s additional comments and the feedback that has been provided. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Erickson is in favor of tabling. The subject matter demands a comprehensive approach and he can think of more things to avoid than to positively strive for at this particular moment. It is a conflict subject, and they have many property owners here, each with their own view. One thing the Commission needs to remember is at the top of the pyramid of priorities for land use is the Comprehensive Plan; in looking at the Plan and many portions of the ordinances as well, the phrase “preservation of property value” comes up over and over and over again. It is a very basic part of the code. Part of that overall, they want to make sure they are not doing or suggesting anything that would detract from someone’s value, so the Commission needs to preserve whatever they can. Also, there is often a chance for improvement where property values can be improved. He said they need to be very careful how they do that, keeping in mind that there are some changes and many people are resistant to any change. However, the City is involved in some very positive changes on the east end of Big Island in improving trails, access for the handicapped, and so on. From what Erickson is hearing about these trails, one has to be pretty athletic in order to get there and as one is there they may not even know if they are on the trail or on someone else’s property. If some modest improvements were made to mark the trails and some minor grading done to make it more walkable, that would be an improvement to him but perhaps not to everyone. He thinks tabling is important. Ressler noted that was his perspective as well, this one is a little more complex and has a lot more moving parts and he is generally opposed to tabling as well. If they table, that gets them back together as a Commission before going to the City Council. Because there is a motion to deny on the table, if that passes, it would go straight to the City Council. If the Commissioners are comfortable with that, they should vote as such and if they are not, they would need to table it. McCutcheon thinks City Council wants to know as that is the Planning Commission’s job. He thinks they are all on the same page in needing to look at this holistically and where they want to go. He does not know the entire history of the island and at first glance there is a property owner who needs access to their lot, he understands that people do not want new docks in front of their lots, some of these lots are very small, and what can one really do with them. There is a history of all the different access points, and it needs to be looked at holistically to find a long-term vision of where this will be 20-30 years from now so residents do not need to keep going through the emotional – they saw what happened today – there is a lot to unpack here, the Commission should tread lightly and be cautious, and get all the data. McCutcheon would support denying it just to get it in front of the Council and go from there. Ressler asked Staff if the Council decides they want the Planning Commission to weigh in further on the issue, do they have the right or ability to do so. Curtis replied yes. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Ressler), Abstain 1 (Bollis).