Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex C Council Min 04122021MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,April 12,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 16. LA21-000016—Schimmel Construction o/b/o David & Kathryn Wiemer, 1405 Rest Point Road, Variances—Continued David and Kathryn Wiemer thanked the Council and said the feedback and guidance from the Planning Commission and Ms. Curtis has been extremely helpful to come up with the revised plan. Given the challenges of the lot with the lake and road setbacks,the revised plan now meets that 25%hardcover requirement and will also work for the goal of having a four season porch and have a deck to enjoy the outdoor areas of the yard without sinking in to the ground in their chairs. Johnson moved,Seals seconded,to approve LA21-000016, 1405 Rest Point Road,Variances VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 17. LA21-000017—Joseph& Sara Thull,480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place) Joseph& Sara Thull,Applicants,were present. Barnhart presented a summary packet of information and said the Applicants are owners of an inland lot on Big Island and have requested a permit to place a dock on City right-of-way as allowed by Section 78- 567. They have been unable to locate a suitable private easement agreement and are asking for the permit. The proposed location of the dock coincides with another dock and the approval for that dock in 1986 was approved with a condition that any other request for a dock revokes that permit issued. Planning Commission heard testimony and ultimately voted to deny the request with a vote of 5-1-1. There has been significant public interest in this application. The staff report summarizes the main concerns including a lot of record buildability,tree removal, wetland issues,and access for construction. Based on the standards in the code, Staff recommends approval subject to the six conditions outlined in the staff memo,which includes the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)approval. The permit is to be valid for one year and can then be reevaluated as necessary. The dockage rights accommodate two boats. Winter storage for the dock would be approved by City Staff as it likely would be impactful of some of the right-of-way in that area. Staff also suggests a minimum width for the dock of six feet and no canopy included. Barnhart noted this project identified the need to look at the dock use for all of these inland lots comprehensively and Staff is looking for feedback from the Council to look into that solution long-term. Walsh was at the Planning Commission meeting and said personally,he is not here today to make any big decisions about this item. What they have found out is that sometimes there are code issues and they do not always realize are problems,or they are not written correctly and until something pops up,people do not realize it. He believes this code is one of those issues and thinks it was written specifically because for someone to have a dock on public property, they cannot just claim that indefinitely forever. Walsh said that is why it was put in that the dock permit could be cancelled if someone else applied;the problem is someone else could do the same to that person with the dock permit,and another person,and it would just continue. He thinks they need to find a resolution for this. On Big Island,the families that have been out there for decades,everything has worked just fine;obviously they do have an issue on interior lots. Walsh thinks what it tells the current family that has that dock is that it is not a permanent dock for the family;they could not ever mortgage the property and say they have dock rights or sell the property with Page 4 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,April 12,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17.LA21-000017—Joseph & Sara Thu11,480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place) Continued dock rights. He thinks everyone now needs to understand that is what the language says. He hopes the solution is to come from the people on Big Island to bring to the Council,rather than the Council imposing something that will impact families that have been there forever. If he were those families that have the dock today but may not tomorrow,the only way they will have permanent potential access it to have a code rewritten that gives everyone in the interior land on Big Island potential access to that dock. He said this is just theoretical but it would be a group application such as on Crystal Bay where people have a license to put a dock every year and they apply for it as it is public land. He believes there is a code issue that needs to be addressed by all of the interiors including the family that has the permit today, because it can be gone tomorrow,which they all found out based on the language. He hopes they can get together and bring something that would work for everyone to the City Council so they do not have to impose something on the families that have been out there for a long time. Crosby asked how many in the audience are in the chambers for this particular issue by raising of hands. Walsh noted it is just about everyone. Crosby thinks Walsh made an excellent suggestion. Johnson was suspicious the reason the permit was written that way is so not one person can control it— just because someone was there first does not entitle one the privilege to what all taxpayers actually own. Walsh noted nobody has rights to City land and that is exactly why it was written that way. It brings up an opportunity as there are a fewparcels that need to solve this. He hopes theycan come upwith aPPYjust solution and work together to bring this forward. Johnson replied it was written that way to be sure it was revisited if there was another interested party in using it. Crosby asked what year the permit was granted. Seals replied it was 1986. Johnson likes asking the community to work together to find a solution that works. Walsh would not be in favor of granting any permit tonight—he would either put it off or deny it—and then revisit it knowing the family that has it,the flag has been raised,this is not a permanent dock whether one puts a dock there or not. There is not a permanent right to it and everyone knows it now,so let's solve it and fix it. He noted the Council is not going to impose something on one person that is not going to work for everyone. Rather, they want it to work for everyone because it is a small community out there. Page 5 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,April 12,2021 II 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17.LA21-000017—Joseph & Sara Thull,480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place) Continued Seals said the way this was written-she is sure there was some logic-but in reality it just puts neighbors against each other so she questions the rationale behind some of it. She definitely likes the idea of thinking about the interior lots and how they can gain access for everyone at once in a smart way and having it come from those residents rather than the Council. Crosby asked how many interior lots there are. Walsh thinks for that piece in that little area there are three or four. Johnson does not think any dock storage should be on City property. Seals agreed. Walsh said they should have to bring the dock up into their yard. He welcomed anyone else to come up and talk about it and noted they have all the transcripts from the Planning Commission meeting. Joe and Sara Thull,Applicants,approached the podium and Mr. Thull wants to convey that they are open and amenable to a solution that works for everyone. He has no objection to that and thinks it makes sense. The timeline was brought up and he is hearing that the Council is putting it back on the group to collaborate and solve. He gave a bit of background noting he has tried to get an easement and has been unsuccessful to date—he even went to Three Rivers Park District where the road cuts off about 25 feet short. He started there and did not have any luck,then he went to the easement route and has not exhausted that list but went to a number of people and was unsuccessful there. He went to the City and said he has identified multiple locations where there are rights-of-way and asked where they suggest is the best place based on topography, emergency equipment, etcetera. He came to Site 1 which also has the other permanent dock. It was a progression to get there and if there are alternative locations, whether Site 3 or Site 2 or wherever,Mr.Thull thinks there are enough right-of-way points that if they take four lots and come back with a single dock and each person gets a side at Site 3 and Site 1,that might resolve it. Then the Council may not have this repeated aspect. He is open to collaborating with neighbors and he is just looking for the outcome. Walsh noted the Council cannot make anyone talk but they are encouraging everyone to talk. It is a portion of code that says nobody has the right to have a dock there so now he suggested figuring out where everyone can have a win-win and solve this moving forward. Mr.Thull had a conversation with Matthew Cook at LMCD to get his input who said he can be quoted on this: LMCD understands the highly unique aspect of Big Island and has also had these discussions. Mr. Cook is familiar with the situation and knows that there are a limited number of interior lots that do not have access. Mr. Cook said the internal discussions have been if the City can come up with some type of permit or license,the LMCD will not stand in the way because they know access is highly limited.99% of the issues the LMCD deals with is people accessing the lake and this situation is the reverse,it is the Page 6 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1111 Monday,April 12,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17. LA21-000017—Joseph & Sara Thull,480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place) Continued 1%of people needing to access the lake to get to their property. It is unique from that standpoint. He wants to express to his neighbors that he is willing and open to figure out a plausible and reasonable way it may not be the perfect solution—but he thinks they can get something that works for everyone. Walsh hopes they can come back in a couple weeks and have some conversations with the family that has the dock and the others,if they are interested. Mr.Thull noted another interior neighbor is here tonight. Walsh asked them to talk and collaborate and come back to the Council and tell what their thoughts are. The neighbor at490 Big Island approached the podium and said he understands that anyone adJacent to 1, 2,3,and 4 is probably not going to want a dock. The next step is what will happen if they say number 2 or 3 is good because they are the widest but the neighbors say no. Then they are back to square one. Walsh noted number 1 already has something in place Now the question is can they collaborate and work together and everyone can be at that one or talk to the others and maybe they will not have a problem with a dock and there will be more options. The neighbor stated being a lake owner himself,those people don't want a public dock next door. He said if everyone adjacent to these say no,he wonders. Walsh replied there is already one spot that has a dock regardless,because there is a right to have a dock there. Can the people who don't have interior lots collaborate and work together to see what that would look like? He would like to have the conversation with the adjacent neighbor also on the placement. The neighbor at 490 Big Island said they probably would not need a 6 foot dock, a 4 foot would probably be fine and if they had 6 foot boats on each side they are really talking about 15-16 feet total in width unless it is two pontoons on each side. Walsh thinks it behooves everyone that does not have access to talk and work together. Johnson thinks the people that do not have access are going to be very quick to find a solution. Where the problem will be is if someone lives there,they do not want a dock there. His opinion is this:the City has already demonstrated that the interior lots will have access by the one that is there. That tells Johnson he is going to find a solution for the other interior lots to have the same privilege that another person had since 1986. He likes Walsh's idea as the property owners know what is best and the least intrusive way to do that.If they cannot come to the conclusion,Johnson is prepared to come up with his own solution of getting people access out there because the City gave it to someone already. Page 7 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,April 12,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17.LA21-000017—Joseph & Sara Thull, 480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place) Continued Dave Saari, 260 Big Island,is the property adjacent to the City-owned property that has been there forever. He likes the Council's idea and needs to be focused on what those public accesses are around the island and he would hope that as a group they are not putting a marina in location 1 because for those there and neighbors on either side it would not be fair,either. Walsh said it looks like the marina could be three boats,but that is what the conversation is about. Mr. Saari said they cannot just focus on location 1 when they have 2, 3,and 4 to look at,as well. Nancy Fames. approached the podium and asked who to talk to in the City for some alternative ideas. Walsh noted that would be Barnhart. Barnhart said the property owner can continue to work with Ms. Curtis and the direction he is hearing from the Council is for the neighbors to work together to find a solution. Walsh encouraged her to work with the neighbors. Ms.Fames said they have not had one interior looking for a dock in 35 years. Walsh replied now it has and they know there is a problem with how it is written and they are trying to solve it. He suggested she talk with the neighbors and it would be nice if everyone would come up holding hands and tell the Council they have a great solution. He noted the property owner may have had the permit for a long time but they do not have the right to have it, and that is what they found out. No matter how long one has had it,there is not a right to have it any longer as someone else has put their foot down and said they need a dock too. Right now,there is no room in the code for both of them to have it. Ms.Fames said three other people have put their foot down and the City Council and Planning Commission said no. Walsh is not sure what she is referring to. Ms. Fames asked if they can apply for an easement. Walsh said they can if they have an agreement from a property owner to be able to do that. Ms. Farms said that would be the City. Walsh replied no,they do not need an easement from the City to walk through City property. They changed the code earlier on Big Island so someone could get a private easement through a private property to get to the lake. Page 8 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,April 12,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17.LA21-000017—Joseph & Sara Thull, 480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW (Bay Place) Continued Johnson said where the City land was-the neighbors did not want the dock there-so they were able to get an easement through a lakeshore owner's property to have a dock right. Walsh noted that would exist for Ms. Fames or anyone else to go and do that same situation. That is always an option,but there must be a party on the other side willing to give an easement through their private property to do that. Ms. Fames clarified the City would not be willing to give her an easement to use the land that 230 Big Island has had since 1932. Walsh said it sounds like everyone who wants to can apply for that same permit,just like she can; if she has the permit and someone else applies and they get approved,they have the permit now. This is why it would behoove everyone to all have access all the time versus one person one year and another person the next year. As Johnson said,the Council has demonstrated that they want to make sure those with interior lots have access. Ms.Fames said they have been accessing it for 35 years. Walsh said having the right and having access are two different things. If the Applicant gets the permit for the dock and she does not,she does not have lake access anymore. He is saying, let's get them all to have lake access. The Council is not going to give her one separately Seals noted they do not want to pit the neighbors against each other. It is a better situation for them to work together and find ways for more of them to get access. If it is really just about getting access to interior lots, if they can have three slips in one location. Ms.Fames asked if it would be one request for one dock. Walsh replied yes,it would be one dock that everyone can use. Ms. Fames said it is a marina. Walsh said it sounds like there are three people so there would be three boats. Is that a reasonable piece of ground that could handle three boats being there, and make sure the neighbors are okay, as well. As Johnson said if the property owners cannot work it out, the Council will just come up with a solution. Ms. Fames asked if the Applicant can drop the application. Walsh said anybody can drop the application. Page 9 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,April 12,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17. LA21-000017—Joseph & Sara Thull,480 Big Island,Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place) Continued Johnson moved,Crosby seconded,to table LA21-000017—Joseph& Sara Thull,480 Big Island, Permit for Dock City on ROW(Bay Place)until the next City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 18. LA20-000053—Dale Richardson o/b/o CBS MN Properties, LLC,2060 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan Dale Richardson,Applicant,was present. Barnhart presented a summary packet of information. Dale Richardson is requesting initial sketch plan feedback on the proposed zone change to an R-PUD zoning district. He proposes to build a new 48 unit market-rate apartment building just west of Orono Woods on Wayzata Boulevard. The proposed building would be three stories of apartments and one level of parking,most of which is underground. During the review of the concept plan, Staff and the Planning Commission identified several areas for future discussion or waivers. He noted in the R-PUD zoning district waivers can be approved,the idea being flexibility in the requirements and in exchange they receive something they are looking for as a City that maybe does not quite fit the code. Things identified by Staff and Planning Commission included the site size,the R-PUD zoning district requires a five acre minimum,although there are a number of considerations/exemptions the Council can approve. One is if the project is a transitional project,to the west is a gas station and warehouse,to the east is an apartment building, and to the north is single family residential. The Council could consider this a transition between high-active gas station and low density residential. The project is either 35 feet or 41 feet in height based on the defined height and there is some debate how the site height is calculated. The 35 feet is based on pre-development levels of grading. This property was approved as an office/townhome project around 2005-2007. The property was graded to accommodate those walkout office buildings; only one of those buildings was built although another foundation was poured but activity did not continue. Using the pre-development grading(before 2007- 2008)the calculation would be 35 feet. Right now it is 41 feet so it is higher than what the Council has historically allowed from a building-height standpoint,which has been 30 feet. Other Planning Commission conversations included the roof style,this rendering shows a flat roof building and the R- PUD zoning district requires an architectural pitched roof. There has been some change in what is residential between now and when the R-PUD zoning district was drafted as they are now seeing more flat roofs. The Planning Commission did not seem too opposed to the height increase if it was a flat roof structure. If there are modifications to the height allowed, they will have to provide some kind of a waiver from a setback standpoint. The building meets the minimum setback requirements based on the zoning district from the north and the east,however,there is also a stipulation that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. If the building is determined to be 41 feet they will need to see a 41 foot setback,primarily from the east. Finally,the R-PUD zoning district requires a 10%of gross land area for private recreation,usually a combination of trails,play area, open space. This project shows a dog run area,an outdoor patio/grill area,and trails to link those amenities.It also shows 2 rooftop deck facilities which would be unique for Orono. Barnhart pointed out this is not looking like a subdivision so there will not be any park dedication collected as part of the project. The Planning 18. Page 10 of 15