HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2001 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
•/ .-, ,, ,, , .
MEETING DATE -,7/-Li - ,-71-L)‘----) I
O COUNCIL
Er-PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
O PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
O OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. /VAN AD EZ;:.-f`-' S ,)frif ,
/G) Y 0 )i) .1/z 1,-, 07: vii/,:,) l'1,4) ) 5 3 6 y
6, ,/i
2. ceie,fLfixt..‹. IjIg)4,--/F- :180/011
--II° 7
1 .. ,--. ,
3. Tht,-;<_fn c- , , ,.,,.... -:Thj,,,, 1-ht, :S.-4 77 1.-0'1,-,,,-.-.--.-k.i.A AWL_ C--)/-P70 (
\ N( 0
6. (L J4 --1-4 ',2-/Y.1.4-1,-4 1:1 ,)-0-44 CL-,c-A-&•Tt_ 531/ Z/ 45 /6{-) c'-'i---,727e 1:---'—
1
0/ -JC(1)
7- nit: fi / :h(-`1,i ,-,))■1,-, j ii/431 (,......0 11 D ..)(O'kj,1 ,
pi
8. \Jain ,.. c,4',172/0,1-/Stiir 1,.,‘ I t)- C_ -1(.4to-ic-,-_, 0 i 44-0'2111 Lt/z7 14 - ? f;,ci 1
f i v / 7-,, ,i,, (/:t ,
I-,,, , T L1-) 0 -
7 ,
ma r _.,..( . •6- _ •
,
11; • -- -t--1--/-er iv 'I) 1/1 (o uu / 0'1/tee:lit L c-f,
2.4)9 1-6
12. C-Q1 1,e-iii\t JI-i2:Q..1,V,a2/ eot 4
0 i ttl
13. A/, 4 1-/ 13 <
14. '. .:. . ki . f_AM •dP Wcdce/.-iviwv, Le. 4- D — .- ?
15. ji sltigvik Qcv .2) cos 2d O
X:\APPS\WPW II \ UBLIC.ATT
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMIVIISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. � $ �• _ o. 4. • .!
2. ITW�1-�`( A 61P40- --cu ? C'
C�/. q '7 42;/AA�y�r Ti
3. v=im �
4. • - • a1 b c1 U -�v-�,�
5. `�; . c- w� L 9
6. ea-21/44A-
7. _
t.,_j�.V.) S..±1 3S'f 6 _Lod
8. Itf S I/U.6264 -r IG1? 3 L.)rtt's r ts
9. 0I0-/'` L ' c S C .a 6-0
10. �J /)e ,,l� l5C 615cc /2F lZci-
11. (Nth D PDo'tS Jr J 300 1 st &Ad GIrGie
12. L c/ i l7 `9 liv1,uv �f
13.
14.
15.
X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
•* MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Daniel Kluth,Janice Berg, Jeanne Mabusth, Sandra Smith,
Dale Lindquist,and Alternate Gary Welsh. Commissioner William Stoddard was absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Wendy
Bottenberg,Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Representative Jim White was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #01-2702 FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP,3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES
Hawn moved,Smith seconded,to remove Application#01-2702,Fine Line Design Group,from
the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Item#1 follows Item#4.
OLD BUSINESS
(#2) #01-2691 J. ERIC AND CHRISTINE MENGE,340 TURNHAM ROAD,VARIANCES,
6:31 p.m.—6:48 p.m.
Craig Johnson, TC Best Homes,was present on behalf of the Applicant.
Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the July 16,2001 Planning Commission meeting to
allow the Applicants time to revise their proposed plan regarding a garage and family room addition.
The Applicants have redesigned their plan and have relocated the garage 24 feet from the side lot line
and 53.7 feet from the front lot line. The Planning Commission had directed the Applicants that the side
setback should be not less than 30 feet. The family room addition to the rear of the residence remains
the same.
Bottenberg indicated a variance to the side yard setback is required to allow the garage to be located
24 feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required,and a family room addition to be located 49.8
feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required. A variance to the front yard setback is also required
to allow the garage to be located 53.7 feet from the street lot line where 100 feet is required.
Johnson stated they have rotated the garage square with the house,which has resulted in the garage to
be located 24 feet off the property line rather than 12 feet. Johnson stated it was his understanding from
the previous Planning Commission meeting that the garage could be located between 25 and 30 feet off
the side property line. Johnson stated they are planning to construct a two car garage consisting of 30
feet deep and 20 feet wide. Johnson indicated they are unable to make the garage any narrower and still
accommodate two cars.
PAGE 1
' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2691 Eric and Christine Menge,Continued)
Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Commission had directed the Applicant to locate the
garage 30 feet off the side property line.
Johnson stated this plan allows the big oak tree to be preserved. Johnson noted the residence to the
north is located 25 feet off the property line rather than 15 feet as indicated at the previously Planning
Commission meeting. Johnson stated due to the steep slope located to the rear of the house, it would be
necessary to locate the garage in its proposed location,with the front yard setback remaining essentially
the same. A location for the mound system has been identified, with the Applicants awaiting the results
from a perk test to determine whether this site will be a viable location for the septic system. Johnson
stated the changes made to the driveway approach should eliminate the neighbor's concerns regarding
headlights shining into their residence.
Smith pointed out in order for a tree to be preserved,the canopy of the tree needs to be taken into
consideration.
Johnson stated they did take the canopy into consideration. Johnson indicated the driveway would be a
Class 5 driveway.
Smith commented this is a better plan than what was previously submitted but still falls short of the
30 feet setback as directed by the Planning Commission.
Hawn inquired whether the neighbors have been shown the revised plan.
Johnson stated they have not.
Weinberger indicated the neighbor did stop by City Hall and reviewed the revised plan. The neighbor
indicated the plan was a better plan than what was previously submitted.
Lindquist stated he would prefer to see a 30 foot side yard setback but can live with 25 feet.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Welsh inquired whether the neighbor indicated this plan was okay.
Weinberger stated the neighbor indicated he felt it was a better alternative, but did not indicate one way
or the other whether he was in support of the revised plan.
Mabusth requested the septic issues be resolved prior to this application proceeding to the Council.
Smith suggested that a condition of approval could be that Staff review and approve the septic
information prior to this proceeding to the City Council.
Lindquist moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2691,J.Eric and
Christine Menge,340 Turnham Road,granting of a side yard setback to allow the garage addition
to be located 24 feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required,and a family room addition to
be located 49.8 feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required,and to grant a variance to
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2691 Eric and Christine Menge,Continued)
allow the garage addition to be located 53.7 feet from the street lot line where 100 feet is required,
subject to Staff review and approval of the septic information prior to this application proceeding
to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#3)#01-2693 DAVID AND MARYANN MAISER,2700 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,
6:48 p.m.—6:56 p.m.
David Maiser,Applicant,was present.
Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the July 16 Planning Commission meeting to allow the
Applicant time to revise his plans. The Applicant is requesting hardcover variances and a variance to
the side yard adjacent to street setback to permit a garage addition,deck replacement, and the addition
of a deck and patio. The Applicant is proposing replacement of an attached 9' x 28' deck within 75 feet
of the lakeshore, a 23' x 28.8' garage addition encroaching within 75 feet of the lakeshore, and a 12' x
20' porch with an attached 12' x 11' deck within 75 feet of the lakeshore. The proposed garage addition
will not increase hardcover since it is being built over existing hard surface where the previous parking
area was located.
The Planning Commission indicated the garage addition and replacement of the deck in equal dimension
was acceptable. The issues were in relation to the proposed porch addition. The Applicant has revised
the plan slightly in order to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
Weinberger stated the existing detached garage would be utilized as a workshop and storage area,with
the driveway leading to the detached garage being removed. The green house presently attached to the
garage will be removed as well as the sidewalk and porch area by the garage.
Weinberger indicated a variance is required for the three-season porch located off the end of the house
since it will be within 75 feet of the lakeshore.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the deck to be replaced within 75 feet of the
lakeshore. The Planning Commission had indicated at its previous meeting that the porch and deck
addition would be acceptable if the deck is removed from within the 75 foot setback and removal of
hardcover within the 75-250' setback would reduce hardcover to less than 25 percent.
Maiser stated the residence is basically located on the 35 foot setback,with a 12 to 18 inch
encroachment by the southwest corner of the house.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn commented this is a better proposal than what was previously submitted.
Mabusth noted this plan does address every issue raised by the Planning Commission.
Smith suggested hardcover be limited in the future on this property.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2693 David and Maryann Maiser,Continued)
Hawn moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2693,David and
Maryann Maiser,2700 Shadywood Road,granting of a hardcover variance to allow 901 square
feet of hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore; granting of a hardcover variance to allow
23.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250' setback; granting of a hardcover variance to permit the
replacement of a deck and garage addition within 75 feet of the lakeshore; and granting of a
variance to side yard adjacent to street setback to allow the patio to encroach eight feet into the
side yard adjacent to street setback,with the understanding no additional new hardcover will be
allowed in the future. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#4) #01-2692 ABC SUPPLY COMPANY,INC.,2765 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:56,p.m.—7:05 p.m.
Myron Dahl, ABC Supply Company, was present on behalf of ABC Supply.
Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the July 16th Planning Commission meeting to allow the
Applicant time to address issues relating to landscaping and parking. ABC Supply Company, Inc., has
been leasing the VCI Capital Building since March,2000. ABC Supply is a wholesaler/warehouser of
building and construction supplies, including roofing materials, siding and windows. Weinberger
indicated the supplies are mainly for the construction of residential houses. Wholesale and warehouse
businesses are listed as"permitted uses" in the Industrial District.
ABC Supply is requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent"outside storage"of stock
materials on the property. They have been storing materials on the site since moving to the property.
The outside storage area is located on the south side of the building,consisting of approximately
24,000 square feet in size. The Applicant is required to provide screening to buffer the storage area and
activity associated with the outside storage area. City Code requires the open storage area to be
screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50 percent opaque. Lots
are also required to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. The new plans submitted
by the Applicant indicate a berm and planting area to be located between the proposed outdoor
storage parking area and Old Crystal Bay Road. The height of the berm is required to be six feet, with
plantings above and around the berm. The Applicant is proposing 16 six-foot trees over the length of
the berm,which will provide an initial 12 foot screen.
The Applicant has relocated the employee parking to the east side of the outside storage area meeting
the required 75 foot setback, and utilizing the remaining area as outdoor storage.
Weinberger indicated the Applicant has agreed to replace a chain link fence with a six-foot cedar fence
which will completely screen the yard from Old Crystal Bay Road. The Applicant will be installing two
signs north of the delivery entrance that state"No Overnight Truck Parking". ABC Supply has also
notified their vendors that overnight delivery parking would be located around to the east side of the
building.
Weinberger stated the business hours during the summer are Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m.to
5:00 p.m., and Saturday from 7:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2692 ABC Supply Company,Continued)
City Staff is recommending approval of the application subject to the relocation of the employee
parking.
Myron Dahl, Operator/Manager,had no additional comments to Staffs report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn inquired when the berm would be constructed.
Dahl indicated the berm would be constructed as soon as he is able to find a contractor to do the work.
Mabusth moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2692,ABC
Supply Company,Inc.,2765 Wayzata Boulevard,granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
permanent"outside storage",subject to the conditions outlined in the August 13,2001 Planner's
Report,and further subject to the employee parking area being relocated east of the designated
outdoor storage area. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#1) 01-2702 FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP,3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES,7:06 p.m.—7:18 p.m.
The Applicants were not present.
Hawn stated this application would be open for public comment only,with the application being tabled
to next month's meeting to allow the Applicant to be present. Hawn indicated the Planning
Commission would not be commenting on this application without the Applicant being present.
Harold Windberg and JoAnn Holsbeck, 3541 Livingston Avenue, stated they have questions and
concerns regarding this application. Windberg inquired what would happen with the existing retaining
wall located along the south property line. Windberg noted a portion of this wall is located on
Holsbeck's property and is in poor condition. Windberg stated at the time the house was removed from
this property, some damaged occurred to Holsbeck's yard,which was not repaired by the property
owner. Windberg stated they would like some assurance that this would not occur again.
Windberg inquired whether Holsbeck would need to do anything concerning the drainage, noting
Holsbeck's property is located four feet higher that the adjoining property.
Hawn stated Holsbeck would not be required to do any grading in connection with this project. Hawn
stated the neighbors' comments will be taken into consideration at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, stated this area has experienced drainage problems for a number
of years,with a large amount of water runoff being directed through a catch basin located at the end of
her driveway. Cuff stated this catch basin is not large enough to handle the present water runoff, and
expressed concern that the additional hardcover would result in an increase in the water runoff
Mabusth recommended Staff require a grading and drainage plan on this application.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2702 Fine Line Design Group,Continued)
Bottenberg noted a letter was received by the City from one of the neighbors expressing some concerns
about the drainage in this area.
Lindquist moved,Welsh seconded,to table Application#01-2702,Fine Line Design Group,
3551 Livingston Avenue to the September 17,2001 Planning Commission meeting,due to the
absence of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#5) #01-2689 MANDEEP SODHI,4080 DAHL ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:18 p.m.—7:53 p.m.
Mandeep Sodhi, Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the City of Orono became aware in late spring of some vegetation removal and
replacement of a stairway on the lakeshore side of the property located at 1080 Dahl Road. The
property owner had purchased the property the previous year and hired a contractor to replace the
stairway and retaining walls on the hillside and to remove the vegetation. The vegetation removal
occurred along the stairway leading to the lakeshore. Weinberger noted this work was done prior to the
City issuing a permit approving the work. Staff issued a stop work order and required the property
owner to apply for the proper permits.
Orono's Shoreland Ordinance does not permit"Intensive Vegetation Removal"within 75 feet of the
shoreline, on steep slopes, or within the bluff impact zone. Weinberger indicated the area where the
vegetation removal occurred is a protected bluff area,with the slope exceeding an average grade of 12
percent over the length of it. Weinberger stated the area above the stairway consists mostly of an
overgrown grassy area,which suffered some damage due to the equipment driving over the area. A
walkway also existed from the residence down to the previous stairway.
Staff, upon discovering removal of the vegetation,reviewed the site and found that a portion of the
stairway and retaining walls had been replaced. Staff did issue a permit to allow the property owner to
complete the stairway and retaining wall replacement,with the condition the property owner apply for
an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit to permit the retaining wall replacement within 75
feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger noted the City of Orono does allow one stairway down to the lake
even though it is considered hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Permits were also issued to
allow the property owner to complete the two retaining walls in this area. Technically the retaining
walls are considered hardcover and would require a variance. Staff issued the building permit to allow
the work to continue in order to address some erosion concerns. Staff requested any landscaping in this
area be delayed until the Applicant appeared before the Planning Commission and
City Council.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2689 Mandeep Sodhi,Continued)
The Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for this area, which includes two maple trees left of the
stairway, a spruce tree and crab apple tree. Staff was able to verify that one tree greater than six inches
in diameter was removed, along with some undergrowth and natural vegetation that was growing on the
hillside. Weinberger stated this lot is 45 feet wide, and once the two maple trees mature,they will
provide a full canopy over the majority of the lot. The landscaping plan includes some bushes and
hostas, giving it more of a garden appearance than a natural species shoreline. Staff is recommending
the addition of some day lilies and junipers,with the natural regrowth being left undisturbed to restore
the natural appearance of the lakeshore. The natural restoration would allow the property owner to
remove any buckthorn and poison ivy. Staff is recommending the undergrowth be planted as soon as
possible in order to prevent erosion and to become established prior to winter as well as possibly
planting one or two more trees that are native to the area.
Staff recommends conceptual approval of the plan.
Sodhi indicated he purchased the property approximately one year ago and was not aware of the proper
procedure that should be following prior to commencing the work in this area. Sodhi stated the previous
stairs were built approximately 30 years ago and were in a deteriorating condition. Sodhi expressed
concerns regarding safety if the stairs were used, noting they had discontinued using the stairs due to
their condition. In addition,the Applicant's family has experienced problems with poison ivy and were
attempting to remove it. Sodhi indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve these issues.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn inquired whether the grade of the slope has been altered with any fill.
Weinberger stated to his knowledge it was the natural grade at the time he reviewed the site.
Sodhi stated the slope has remained basically the same except for the area where a putting green is
being constructed above the stairway.
Weinberger stated he is unaware of a putting green being constructed in that area. Weinberger stated it
appears that work is being done outside the bluff area.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant obtained a permit for the putting green.
Sodhi indicated he has obtained permits from the City allowing the putting green. Sodhi stated this is an
older survey and does not show the second set of stairs.
The Applicant indicated where the second set of stairs was constructed.
Kluth questioned how a putting green could be constructed in this area due to the slope of the land.
Weinberger stated the area for the putting green is outside the bluff area. Weinberger stated a steep
slope does not necessarily preclude any work from occurring, but would require additional review on
the part of Staff to insure proper steps are taken for erosion control.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2689 Mandeep Sodhi,Continued)
Mabusth noted the Planning Commission does not have a survey that reflects what exists at the present
time.
Hawn commented the survey before the Planning Commission is different than what she saw when she
visited the site this afternoon. Hawn inquired whether the width of the stairway has been increased from
what previously existed.
Sodhi stated the width of the stairway has remained the same.
Kluth commented it is difficult for the Planning Commission to make any recommendation on this
application since they do not have all the information before them. Kluth questioned whether the
putting green would have any impact on the vegetation plan.
Gaffron stated the City of Orono does allow for a stairway leading down to the shoreline,with no other
structures being allowed. Gaffron stated the City would need to review the retaining walls to determine
whether they are necessary for erosion control.
Weinberger noted the putting green is not located within the bluff impact area.
Hawn concurred that the Planning Commission does not have sufficient information concerning this
application.
Kluth stated in his view the proposed landscaping plan does not follow the typical natural vegetation
restoration plan for this area. Kluth questioned whether the proposed plantings, such as hostas, were
a good choice for this area.
Weinberger stated Staff felt hostas, along with day lilies,would help to establish some ground cover
prior to the natural vegetation growing.
Kluth commented in his view the proposed landscaping might not be sufficient vegetation and that
perhaps some grasses should also be allowed to grow in this area.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant plant a couple more trees in this
area.
Sodhi indicated his plan includes two maple trees.
Hawn expressed concern that the survey before the Planning Commission does not reflect what has been
recently constructed.
Sodhi stated basically the second retaining walls is missing from the survey. Sodhi stated there would
be planters on both sides of the stairway.
Smith inquired whether the replacement stairway is the same size as the stairway that was removed.
Weinberger stated Staff was not able to determine that.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2689 Mandeep Sodhi,Continued)
Sodhi stated the old stairway was actually six feet wide,with the replacement stairway being five feet
wide.
Mabusth stated she was told the old stairway was four feet wide.
Smith commented she would like to see a more robust landscaping plan,with this area being more
heavily vegetated.
Hawn suggested the Applicant include maple trees, day lilies and hostas.
Weinberger indicated Staff could incorporate the Planning Commission's comments into one proposal
for the Applicant, along with an explanation of what the City would like to see this area restored to.
Hawn stated she would like to see a new survey submitted,which would give the Planning Commission
a better idea of what exists on both sides of the bluff line.
Kluth recommended the Applicant update his landscaping plan showing exactly what he intends to plant
in this area along with the current contour lines.
Hawn stated lilacs and spirea could also be possible options for this area.
Weinberger stated Staff will provide some information to the Applicant regarding natural plantings.
Hawn moved,Berg seconded,to table Application#01-2689,Mandeep Sodhi,4080 Dahl Road,
to the September 17th Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to submit a
revised landscape plan and updated survey. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(Hawn excuses herself from Application#01-2698)
(#6) #01-2698 KIM AND JOHN PUCKETT,4100 WATERTOWN ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,7:54 p.m.—8:20 p.m.
Kim Puckett,Applicant,and Suzy Kokesh,Horse Trainer,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are applying for a conditional use permit to permit public use of the
barn and riding arena on the property located at 4100 Watertown Road. The property consists of
13.1 acres and lies within the RR-1A, One Family Rural Residential District. Variances are needed to
permit the barn to be located with 150 feet of the property line and to permit a nonowner to provide
instruction to the owner of horses boarded at the site. Both boarding and training will be managed by
Suzy Kokesh. She will also be offering lessons to people who own and board their horses on the
property.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2698 Kim and John Puckett,Continued)
Bottenberg stated the Planning Commission would need to determine how many horses would be
allowed on this property. Lots 4 and 5 and the pasture easement are owned by the Applicants but are
not legally combined. Option one is with Lots 4 and 5 being legally combined, which would amount to
11.1 acres potential pasture area. At two acres pasture for the first horse and one acre for each
additional horse,the total number of horses allowed would be ten horses, assuming all 11 acres are
available for pasture. The sketch submitted by the Applicant shows a total pasture area of
approximately six acres,which would allow five horses to be pastured by City Code.
Bottenberg stated if Lots 4 and 5 are not legally combined,then each lot would be considered a separate
record lot and separate tax parcel,which could be sold off at any time for construction of a residence.
Lot 5 is developed and has one septic site available to replace its non-conforming system in the future.
Lot 4 has two tested septic sites that should be maintained in order for Lot 4 to be a viable future
buildable lot. Under this scenario, if Lots 4 and 5 are not combined,then City Code would limit the
number of total horses to four.
The Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission consider option three,which would allow them to
have a total of 15 horses on the property. Council has the option of establishing that 15 horses could be
housed on the site subject to reasonable conditions to protect the public, such as acceptable manure
management, rotation of pasture areas to avoid bare ground, et cetera.
Puckett stated they are requesting more horses that what is allowed under City Code because the horses
being kept on this property will not be pasture fed. Puckett stated in her view they should have ample
pasture to allow the horses to run.
Kokesh stated the horses would be in the pasture approximately two to three hours a day.
Puckett stated due to economic reasons,the minimum number of horses she would need to house on the
property would be 15. Puckett stated 19 stalls are available, and they would be requesting the Planning
Commission consider allowing somewhere between 15 and 19 horses on this property.
Greg Kellenberger,4045 Watertown Road, stated he has lived in this area since 1996, with the previous
property owner of this site conducting a similar type of operation. Kellenberger stated he would be in
favor of this proposal in order to help maintain horses in Orono.
Smith stated the Planning Commission will need to determine how many horses should be allowed on
this property based on what is before them tonight,which are two lots not legally combined and some
pasture land.
Kluth stated the criteria for determining how many horses would be allowed on this property based on
acreage does not apply in this situation since the horses will not be pasture fed. Kluth indicated he
would be in favor of option three, and suggested the Planning Commission select a reasonable number
for this property.
Smith noted the City does have codes which address how many horses should be allowed on a property
based on the number of acres. Smith stated according to the formula,the maximum number of horses
allowed on this property would be 10 or 11.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2698 Kim and John Puckett,Continued)
Bottenberg stated the 13 acres includes the easement area as well as some wetlands.
Kluth recommended the number of horses in this case not be tied to the amount of pasture land
available. Kluth inquired if a portion of the land is sold whether the Applicant would be required to
come back before the Planning Commission if the number of horses allowed on this property is
determined based on the acreage.
Smith stated they would have to.
Puckett stated they do not have any intentions to sell the additional lot.
Smith noted the horses should not be allowed in the areas designated for septic sites.
Gaffron stated the number of horses being proposed for this amount of land is acceptable to Staff and
should not pose a problem with the septic sites. Gaffron indicated Staff would not have a problem with
the density of horses being proposed unless the Applicant elects to pasture all ten horses on a very small
pasture area.
Mabusth stated it would be helpful if the Applicant submitted a plan to the City showing exactly where
the pasture area will be along with the septic sites prior to the City Council meeting.
Puckett stated they would be agreeable to submitting a plan showing the septic sites,training areas, and
pasture areas. Puckett stated they would also be relocating the fence. '�
Mabusth inquired whether the 15 horses also includes the two or three horses the Applicant owns
personally.
Puckett stated it does. Puckett stated due to economic reasons, she would like to board 15 to 19 horses,
with the minimum number being 15.
Kokesh indicated there is a horse farm located in Medina who has 32 horses on 13 acres and another
horse farm who has 40 horses on 15 acres.
Smith stated the Planning Commission would need to determine how many horses should be allowed to
be boarded on this property.
Lindquist stated he would be okay with 19.
Berg and Kluth stated they also were in agreement with 19.
Smith inquired under what conditions the Planning Commission should review the number of horses
boarded on the property.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission should revisit this issue if one of the lots is sold off.
Smith inquired what arrangements the Applicant has concerning manure removal.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2698 Kim and John Puckett,Continued)
Puckett stated she has contracted with an individual who will be coming to the site every two weeks to
remove the manure. Puckett indicated this arrangement could be adjusted if necessary.
Mabusth recommended the diagram to be submitted basically show the functioning layout of the
operation for City Council review and approval.
Smith inquired whether all the stalls would be utilized for horses rather than some other use.
Puckett stated she will be utilizing all 19 stalls for horses,with the stalls being 12' by 14'.
Kluth moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2698,Kim and
John Puckett,4100 Watertown Road,granting of a conditional use permit to permit public use of
a barn and riding arena on this property,and granting of variances to permit the barn to be
located within 150 feet of the property line and to permit a nonowner to provide instruction to the
owner of horses boarded at the site,subject to the Applicant submitting a plan for review and
approval by City Council detailing the functional layout of the horse operation and the
arrangements concerning manure removal,with the understanding the conditional use permit will
need to be reviewed if one of the lots is sold in the future.
Smith inquired whether there were any issues relating to parking,noise,or signage with this application.
Bottenberg stated not that she was aware of.
Puckett stated they are not planning to have any signage,with the operation being closed on Sundays
and Mondays. Puckett indicated she does not anticipate parking to be a problem since many of her
boarders own more than one horse.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(Hawn returned at 8:21 p.m.).
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#11) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.50, SUBD. 13,
STORAGE OF BOATS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY,8:21 p.m.—10:37 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated a public hearing was held at the July 9`h City Council meeting to obtain some public input
on whether the existing ordinances governing boat storage on residential properties should change.
Gaffron stated the City elected to review the boat storage ordinance in response to some concerns raised
by some residents.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Gaffron stated the Council then referred the matter to the Planning Commission with some general
direction. First,to consider increasing the length of boats allowed to be stored without screening.
Secondly,to consider expanding and clarifying the area where boats can be stored on the various types
of lots. Third,to consider what types of screening are necessary and under what circumstances or
conditions as well as what type of boat coverings might be appropriate.
The Planning Commission then held a work session on July 31st, which led to the draft ordinance before
the Planning Commission tonight.
Gaffron stated the existing ordinance is as follows: "Exterior Storage in"R"Districts. In all"R"
Districts,all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not
to be visible from adjoining properties,except boat and unoccupied trailers less than 20 feet in length,
which are not stored for commercial purposes, if stored to the rear of the house and a distance of ten feet
or more from any property line." Gaffron stated under the current ordinance, a property owner may
store a boat in excess of 20 feet on their property if it is within a building or fully screened. If the boat
is less than 20 feet in length,the boat may be stored to the rear of the house and ten feet from the
adjoining property line. Gaffron noted the current ordinance has been in effect since 1967.
Gaffron stated the City of Orono has enforced the boat storage ordinance only upon a complaint being
received. The City of Orono has typically had a number of boats being stored on residential properties
that are technically in violation of the current ordinance.
Gaffron indicated the draft ordinance before the Planning Commission is much longer in length and
has some of the following points:
A. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the owner or occupant of the
property, and shall be in operable condition. The maximum period a boat may be stored outside on
a property is nine months per calendar year,the intent being to discourage the long-term storage of
inoperable boats on residential property.
B. No boat shall be stored on a property that does not contain a principal residence structure.
C. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 27 feet in length, and boats on trailers which as a
combination exceed 30 feet in length, shall not be stored on any residential property except within a
fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards; except that such
boats,boat trailers or combinations may be stored outside on a property of 2.0 acres in area or
larger when located a minimum of 30 feet from all property lines, when located to the side or rear
of the principal residence structure, and when fully screened.
D. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers 20—27 feet in length, and boats on trailers which as a
combination have a length of 23 —30 feet,may be stored outside on a residential property to the side
or rear of the principal residence structure, shall be located no less than 10 feet from any lot line,
and shall be fully screened.
E. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers less than 20 feet in length, and boats on trailers which as a
combination are less than 23 feet in length,may be stored outside on a residential property to the
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
F. side or rear of the principal residence structure, shall be located no less than 10 feet from any lot
line, and need not be screened. Such boats may also be stored within the driveway in the street yard
of the principal residence structure during the months of June through August as long as a setback
of ten feet from all lot lines is maintained. However, if the boat,trailer or combination extends
higher than six feet above grade,the entire boat,trailer or combination shall be fully screened.
G. Boats of any length or height shall not be stored within a required lakeshore yard, and shall not be
stored so as to block lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors.
H. "Fully screened"as used with regards to boat,trailer and boat/trailer combination shall mean
screened by dense vegetation or privacy fencing of legal height and location, sufficient that no
portion of the boat,trailer or combination shall be visible from adjacent properties during all
seasons. Canvas,tarps, shrink wrap or other boat coverings shall not be considered as adequate
screening.
Gaffron stated the draft ordinance makes screening a higher priority,which may be difficult to
accomplish on most affected properties. The draft amendment still requires boats over 20 feet long to
be screened. Fences over six feet high are not allowed in most places that people will want to store
boats and vegetative evergreen screening may take some time to grow to a sufficient height, with many
lots not being easily screened. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission consider relaxing the
screening requirements in order to enable more property owners to comply with the ordinance.
Gaffron indicated enforcement of the 10 foot setback requirement will also be difficult because there are
many situations currently where boats have been stored nearer the lot line than 10 feet and meeting the
ten foot setback at these locations will be impossible.
Gaffron stated with a new ordinance comes the expectation that the City will enforce it,which may be
unrealistic as it relates to this ordinance, due to the number of existing boat storage situations that will
be out of compliance with this new ordinance.
Gaffron stated some other issues that should probably be addressed by the Planning Commission at
some point include the storage of boats along the lakeshore on a track system,the status of jet skis on
trailers,the status of snowmobiles on trailers,and whether there should be a limit on the number of
boats stored on one residential property. Staff is recommending a restriction on the use of temporary
membrane structures. Gaffron suggested using the average setback to define the view impact on the
adjoining properties.
Gaffron noted the draft ordinance also does not address utility trailers,with the current ordinance
addressing that situation.
Gaffron stated while the new ordinance is a significant change from the existing one,the City's practice
has been to only enforce the ordinance upon a complaint being received. Gaffron stated if Staff is
expected to enforce this ordinance strictly,there will be a significant number of people who will be
unable to comply.
Hawn stated the public at this time is welcome to comment upon the proposed ordinance.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
French Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, stated in this community boats are an integral part of the lake,with the
homeowner knowing best where to store their boat on his or her property. Dampier stated in his view
the City is on shaky legal ground with the boat storage ordinance and ignore the fact that a large number
of homes have been grandfathered in and will not be able to comply with this proposed ordinance.
Chuck Boehm, 997 Wildhurst Trail, stated in his view the new ordinance is imposing a tax by making
people store their boats at an indoor storage place. Boehm quoted some prices he received from a boat
storage place,with the lowest amount being$916.00 for a 20 foot boat and$1651 for a 30 foot boat.
Boehm stated in his opinion if one of the neighbors has a problem with a boat being stored on an
adjoining property,the two should get together and work it out. Boehm stated in his view the City may
be creating a problem by making the ordinance stricter when there have not been a lot of complaints
received in the past. Boehm suggested a conflict resolution board be established to deal with the
complaints.
John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood Road, stated his property consists of 125 feet of lakeshore, and he is
unable to meet the setback requirements to store his 32 foot boat. Ericson stated he has elected to store
his boat at a boat storage facility this winter for a cost of$1,945. Ericson stated in his view the
neighbors should attempt to work out whatever problems exist between the two of them with the City
not becoming involved.
Ken Dotzenroth, 3085 Casco Point Road, questioned how the City would be able to enforce this
ordinance. Dotzenroth stated given the limited number of complaints received in the past by the City,
the ordinance should not be changed.
Patrick Fitzgerald,2598 Casco Point Road, stated he has lived in the City of Orono for 28 years and
owns a 26-foot boat. Fitzgerald stated in his opinion the City is attempting to regulate the size of boat to
how big the lot is and that if there is a concern,the neighbors should attempt to work it out between
themselves.
Smith stated there needs to be some guidelines in place in the event the two neighbors cannot work it
out amongst themselves and turn to the City for some assistance in resolving the situation.
Fitzgerald stated since this is a lake community,people should expect to see boats stored on people's
property. Fitzgerald stated in his view the boat should be in good repair. Fitzgerald stated in his
opinion boats should not be singled out.
Skip Jewett, 3546 Ivy Place, inquired whether all of Orono's ordinances are only enforced whenever a
complaint is received.
Gaffron stated due to the large number of ordinances that exist, it is difficult to enforce every single one.
The City has chosen over the years to enforce the boat storage ordinance whenever a complaint is
received rather than attempting to make all property owners comply with the ordinance.
Jewett stated in his opinion Staff should not be picking and choosing which ordinances should be
enforced.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Hawn stated it appears the City has elected to enforce this ordinance only when the neighbors have not
been able to work things out among themselves. Hawn stated in those situations where there is a
problem due to the boat being stored too close to the property line,the boat being stored year-round,or
not being in good repair,the citizen can turn to the City for assistance in resolving the situation. Hawn
stated the complaints received by the City are the reason for the ordinance being in place and protects
the rights of those people whose rights are being abused.
Jewett indicated he is able to store his boat indoors at a boat storage facility and winterize it at a cost of
approximately$400. Jewett stated he takes pride in his property and in his neighborhood, and in his
opinion boats stored on residential properties are not attractive and are an eyesore. Jewett stated he pays
a large amount of money in taxes and is entitled to live in a nice looking neighborhood.
Tim Line, 4415 Forest Lake Landing, indicated he is one of the residents who have complained about
the storage of boats on residential properties and raised the issue of the selective enforcement of the
City's ordinances. Line stated he is in agreement with Hawn's statement for the reason why the City
has adopted ordinances. Line commented he is proud to live in Orono and have seen property values in
this area increase 30 to 40 percent over the past four to five years. Line stated the issue comes down to
the beauty of the neighborhood,with boating being an expensive venture to get into. Line stated in his
view the Planning Commission does not need to get hung up on the size of the boat but needs to be
included prohibiting boat storage in the 0-75 foot setback.
Smith stated the City works very hard to protect the 0-75 foot setback, and now all of a sudden it is okay
to haul a big vehicle in and out of that 0-75 foot area. Smith stated in her view that would affect the
lakeshore.
Lindquist establish a procedure for residents to follow in the event there is a conflict among the
neighbors.
Dotzenroth pointed out the property values for Orono residents have not been depreciated because of the
storage of boats. Dotzenroth stated if the City is going to take steps to regulate how a neighborhood
should look as far as boats,there are other issues such as the color of houses and gravel driveways that
are not attractive.
Hawn indicated the storage of boats also relates to hardcover and the impact that has on the lake as well
as the appearance.
Ken Dotzenroth stated in his view it merely is an issue of aesthetics. Dotzenroth concurred that a
conflict resolution board might be appropriate to help deal with these issues.
Hawn noted the ordinance regulating the storage of boats, although not strictly enforced, is not a new
ordinance, and that the Planning Commission is considering revising the ordinance in an effort to
establish some guidelines for when there are conflicts between neighbors.
John Ericson commented hardcover really is not an issue since the boats are stored over the winter and
the ground is frozen. Ericson inquired what penalty or fine would be imposed if the property owner is
unable to comply with the ordinance.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Gaffron stated that the courts don't place a high priority on this type of issue, and there could be a small
fine of perhaps $100 to $200 imposed,which could be stayed if there are no future violations of the
ordinance.
Ed Pekarik,2990 Casco Point Road, stated at the time the existing ordinance was adopted,the lots may
have been larger,with the boats being smaller in size. Pekarik stated since this is a lake community,the
residents may have to learn to put up with boats just as people who live in other areas have to put up
with farms,horses, or snowmobiles. Pekarik stated in his view it is absurd to say you cannot store a
boat on your property when you live in a lake community.
Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhurst Trail, stated in his view since the ordinance has only been enforced on
complaint,the City probably does not have an ordinance regulating boat storage. Rahn questioned
whether the costs to enforce this ordinance are worth it. Rahn suggested a 60 foot boat be the maximum
size boat you could store on residential properties. Rahn stated in his view boats are attractive,noting
there are a number of ugly color houses in this area which could be commented upon.
David Boies, 1360 Rest Point Circle, stated he has unknowingly violated the law over the last 15 years.
Boies stated he and his neighbor have stored their boats alongside the property line for years. Boies
indicated he would be unable to conform with either ordinance given his small lot. Boies stated in his
opinion the storing of boats on residential properties does not negatively impact property values since
the boat is only there part of the time. Boies commented people who live on the lake should learn to
expect boats to be stored on people's properties.
Kevin McDahla, 2118 Shadywood Road, stated in his opinion the screening requirement contained in
the ordinance is impossible to comply with since he is unable to build a shed that big on his property.
McDahla commented in his view a 40 foot boat is probably more in reality with today's boats.
McDahla stated he has discussed the storing of his boat with his neighbors, noting he is not in favor of
boats merely sitting in someone's yard rotting away.
Hawn commented the Planning Commission has heard lots of reasons why the City should not do
anything regarding the storage of boats on residential properties,but noted there have been very few
suggestions offered on how the City should deal with the situation if a complaint is received.
McDahla agreed the City should have some level of authority if there is a complaint.
Hawn stated the City needs an ordinance to deal with complaints. Hawn indicated the ordinance
specifically identifies what property owners should and can do with their boats. Hawn stated the
Planning Commission would like to hear the public's comments regarding what limits should be in
place.
McDahla stated in his opinion the length of the boats are too small and the screening requirements are
too strict.
Frenchie Dampier suggested dealing with boat storage on an individual basis. Dampier suggested the
City continue to enforce the current ordinance only on complaint,with a conflict resolution board being
established to deal with any complaints.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Hawn noted there still needs to be some standards in place to deal with complaints regardless if a
conflict resolution board is established or not.
Dampier stated the length of the boat should not matter.
Kluth stated he is in favor of a conflict resolution board,with the ordinance being enforced upon receipt
of a complaint, but that there still need to be standards in place in order for the board to judge whether
the complaint is a reasonable one.
Marti Boehmer, 3750 Casco Avenue, inquired when and why the 2.0 acres was put into the ordinance.
Hawn stated the 2.0 acres is part of the new ordinance.
Boehmer stated she is unable to buy additional land in Orono to comply with the 2.0 acres. Boehmer
stated she owns a half an acre and is unable to meet the new criteria.
Hawn stated the 2.0 acres come into play because it was felt that would allow the boat to be more
successfully screened if more acreage is available.
Boehmer stated in her view the 2.0 acre requirement is somewhat discriminatory towards the people
who own smaller lots. Boehmer commented her lot may have just as much green space as a larger lot
that has been built up.
Lori Line, 4415 Forest Lake Landing, stated the issue in her view is not about boats per se but where
and how the boat is being stored. Line stated she is not necessarily offended by the boats that are stored
alongside the house or in back of the house, but does have issue with lakeshore lots where they store
their boats next to the street. Line stated she would like to see the ordinance changed requiring that the
boats be stored on the lakeshore side of the house so people driving by do not have to look at them.
Ken Dotzenroth stated the Planning Commission is dealing with some quality control issues, and the
way they are handled in industry is to take pictures of what should or should not occur. Dotzenroth
commented some of the property owners in Orono do not have the luxury of being able to store their
boat in their back yard.
Marsha Hickey,4640 Tonkaview Lane, inquired what condition the boat needs to be in to be stored on
private property. Hickey noted her husband has lived here for 40 years and expects to see boats in
people's yards.
Hawn stated the boat needs to be operable and float in the water.
Hickey stated in her view each case should be looked at individually since the lots vary in size and
topography.
Hawn stated the rule of law insists that there be a standard set of rules that can be applied to all residents
rather than separate rules for each person.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, indicated he has lived in this community for over 60 years. Kaster
noted most of the property owners who live off the lake are not in attendance at tonight's meeting.
Kaster stated this ordinance will also affect them and will change the lifestyle of the community if
people are required to store their boats off their properties. Kaster stated most boats nowadays are over
20 feet, and in his opinion since boats are getting larger and larger, some restrictions are needed.
David Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Road, inquired whether a 14-foot fishing boat could be stored up along the
shoreline during the winter months.
Hawn stated the boat could not be stored along the shoreline.
Gaffron stated the way the ordinance is currently written, a boat cannot be stored within the 0-75 foot
setback at any time.
Rahn inquired whether the City would now be granting variances to allow fences in excess of six feet.
Hawn stated in her view the screening would consist more of natural vegetative hedges and trees.
Rahn stated in his opinion a problem boat would be one that has sat there for a long time and is not
operable. Rahn indicated he would prefer a lax ordinance to deal with the major violations, noting the
other cities in the area do not have a maximum length in their ordinances.
Chuck Boehm inquired whether there is anything wrong with the current ordinance. Boehm stated
people should be allowed to store any length boat anywhere in their yard, and if there is a complaint,the
person complaining should live within the radius of that house rather than just driving by the house on
their way to work. Boehm commented in his view six foot fences are objectionable, and that if a boat is
not under active restoration for two years and has not been moved,the boat should be removed. Boehm
stated there are too many rules and the ordinance should only be enforced whenever there is a
complaint.
Jim Theisen, 1295 Elmwood Avenue, inquired how many complaints the City receives each year
regarding boat storage.
Gaffron indicated the City probably receives three to five complaints every fall, especially when the
boat is being stored in a new location or is blocking their view of the lake. Gaffron stated in the past the
building inspector has spoken to the person and requests that the boat be stored in a different location
that is satisfactory to their neighbor.
Theisen stated due to the limited number of complaints,the City should leave the ordinance as is.
Theisen stated under the proposed ordinance he would not be able to comply with the screening
requirement.
Richard Edwards, 2480 Carman Street, indicated he has lived on the lake for 46 years and enjoys the
lake as well as boating. Edwards stated since he is retired, he is not able to store his boat off his
property. Edwards noted he does like the way the ordinance is written. Edwards stated he enjoys his
view of the lake and he would prefer not to have to look at boats along the lakeshore.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Kluth stated based on tonight's comments,the maximum length of the boats that can be stored on
residential properties appear to be the main source of discontent with the proposed ordinance, and
suggested that perhaps the restriction on the length of boat be reconsidered.
Hawn pointed out that most of the people in attendance at tonight's meeting are owners of lakeshore
property, which tend to be smaller lots, and most of the property owners will have difficulty meeting the
criteria in the ordinance regardless of the size of the boat.
Kluth commented he would like Orono's ordinance to be in step with other nearby communities.
Hawn concurred that the majority of the people in attendance at tonight's meeting are unhappy with the
maximum length of boat proposed.
Kluth noted the trailer would add another three to four feet.
Lindquist inquired what type of enforcement Staff is intending to do should the new ordinance be
adopted.
Gaffron stated the City in the past has enforced the boat storage ordinance whenever there is a
complaint. It is Staff's belief that at least one-half of the boats currently stored on residential properties
are in violation of the existing ordinance, and without someone raising a complaint with the City, Staff
has not dealt with it except by complaint.
Lindquist inquired whether some type of enforcement policy should be put in place.
Gaffron stated he has attempted to convey that once a new ordinance is adopted,people will expect the
City to enforce it, and unless there is language included in the ordinance that says the ordinance will be
enforced only on a complaint basis,there will be some people who are unhappy that the new ordinance
will not be enforced.
Lindquist inquired whether that type of language could be included in the ordinance.
Gaffron stated he would need to consult with the City Attorney.
Hawn inquired whether there is a possibility of creating a conflict resolution board to deal with the
complaints.
Gaffron stated Staff could look at that option, and stated that the people who make up the board would
need to be considered and what authority the board would have.
Smith stated a conflict resolution board would need to be provided some direction by the City or it
would become total anarchy.
Lindquist suggested perhaps another option would be to leave the existing ordinance in place and make
only minor changes to it, such as limiting the boat length.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Smith stated if there are complaints regarding boat storage,there needs to be some mechanism in place
to deal with those complaints. Smith commented it would be absurd to expect City Staff to police the
community in an effort to determine who is in compliance and who isn't.
Lindquist stated if the new ordinance is adopted, it should be understood it would be enforced only on a
complaint basis.
Smith stated in her view the ordinance adopted back in 1967 needs to be reviewed and updated.
Hawn noted there have been complaints raised regarding boats that have been left indefinitely on a
person's property without being moved.
Welsh commented the Planning Commission routinely looks at after-the-fact variances, hardcover
variances, and wetland issues. Welsh stated in his opinion those are the types of applications that
should be the primary focus of the City since they will determine the quality of life in this area for years
to come. Welsh stated in his opinion the issues relating to boat storage is a very low priority and is in
effect asking the people to comply with even more regulations.
Hawn recommended the Planning Commission give some direction to City Staff on how to proceed
with this ordinance.
Mabusth suggested the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance and make suggestions on
items they would like to see redrafted.
Gaffron stated Item A requires that all boats stored outside on a residential property be licensed to the
property owner or occupant of the property and be in operable condition,with operable having been
defined as being able to float.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that all boats stored outside on a residential property
should be licensed to the property owner or occupant of the property and be in operable condition.
Welsh stated in his view the amount of time the boat may be stored on the property should be
eliminated. Welsh noted the boat could be inoperable if the boat is under restoration,which could take a
couple of years. Welsh gave the example that a person could suffer a heart attack and be physically
unable to take his boat out on the lake.
Kluth suggested the last sentence in Item A be removed or have the language be amended to say, "
the maximum period a boat may be stored outside on a property is nine months per calendar year,unless
under active restoration.
Smith stated in her view there needs to be some type of time limit on it or there will be faced with the
situation where boats are stored on a person's property for years without being moved.
Welsh stated unfortunately the people who have drafted the ordinance do not have a lot of experience
with boats, and that it is very realistic to expect that restoration of a boat could take up to two years.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Lindquist inquired whether Welsh was in favor of discarding the entire ordinance.
Welsh stated he was and that the City should start all over again.
Hawn stated at the moment the Planning Commission is looking just at Item A. Hawn noted the
Planning Commission is in favor of requiring that all boats stored on the property be licensed to the
property owner or occupant. Hawn indicated there appears to be some issues regarding the amount of
time a boat can be stored on a property. Hawn stated she would like to poll the Planning Commission to
determine how they feel about the length of time a boat can be stored on a property per calendar year.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the maximum period a boat may be stored outside
on a property should be reconsidered.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would like a requirement that the boat be in the water
for some point during the calendar year.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not require that the boat be in the water for some
period of time during the calendar year.
Hawn inquired how long the boat could be stored on land without being in the water.
Kluth stated without that language,the boat could be stored indefinitely on land.
Hawn inquired how Staff would determine whether it is inoperable or not.
Kluth suggested the language if it is not under active restoration.
Smith inquired what would happen if the restoration has been inactive for the past two years. Smith
stated she has the impression the Planning Commission would prefer a one year period of time but that
longer than one year is not acceptable unless it is under active restoration.
Hawn inquired whether the boat could be inoperable for a period of one year or 18 months.
Smith commented a person could work on a boat for a period of years.
Hawn noted that language was included in the ordinance due to complaints regarding boats that are
stored on residential property for years without being moved. Hawn stated unless the Planning
Commission specifies the length of time a boat can sit inactive,there will be no language addressing
this issue.
Welsh inquired how many of these situations exist where the boat has been sitting inactive for a number
of years.
Hawn stated she is unaware of the number, but that there have been complaints regarding boats being
stored on a person's property for years without being put in the water. Hawn suggested that perhaps if a
boat is inoperable for a period longer than 18 months, it should be removed from the property.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Welsh commented the boat is on the property owner's land and he should be able to store his boat there
if he so chooses.
Kluth stated in his view it is a matter of aesthetics.
Berg stated there might be some cases where a person does have health problems and is unable to use
their boat for a period of time.
Smith stated the Planning Commission cannot go to the extreme situation in trying to control boat
storage. Smith stated in her view the City does have a problem with boats that sit inactive on a person's
property for a long period of time.
Lindquist suggested a maximum of two years that a boat may sit inactive on a person's property.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to incorporate the following language into the
proposed ordinance: "All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition, except that
inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years.
Hawn stated she would like the language indicating the reason why the boat cannot be stored
indefinitely on a person's property.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the following language in the ordinance:
"the intent being to discourage the long-term storage of inoperable boats on residential property".
Hawn inquired what the Planning Commission feels about Item B, "no boat shall be stored on a property
that does not contain a principal residence structure.
Welsh stated there could be a situation where a person owns two lots and stores his boat on the
additional lot where there is not a house.
Berg stated the language unless the lot is adjoining a principal residence could be added.
Smith stated the City does not want to have vacant lots with only a boat being stored there.
Welsh stated in his view property taxes will preclude that from happening.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to keep Item B in the ordinance with the following
language being added, "unless the property is contiguous to the property containing a principal
residence".
Hawn inquired about Item C regarding length of the boat. Hawn stated whether the language fully
screened means all the way around the boat or just along the property line dividing the two properties.
Welsh stated the Planning Commission needs to go to Item G where it says the boat cannot be visible
from adjacent properties.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Smith stated to meet that qualification the screening could be one sided or two sided depending on the
situation.
Hawn inquired whether it would be possible to amend the language regarding screening to have it apply
only to the adjoining property on one side or the other.
Kluth stated he would eliminate screening and that the maximum length of the boat is too low.
Mabusth stated that number was suggested from someone on this panel who does have boating
experience.
Pat Fitzgerald stated the Minnesota Department of Transportation requires a permit if a boat is over
eight and a half feet wide and over 44 feet long.
David Rahn commented a 25 foot boat could have a 10 foot beam.
Welsh stated in his view Item C should be deleted since it is a major bone of contention with the
residents.
Chuck Boehm stated most boats tend to get wider as they get longer.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is trying to develop a standard that should be in place for
regulating the size of the boat stored on someone's property.
Welsh stated in his view Item C should be deleted.
Kluth reiterated the Planning Commission is attempting to come up with a reasonable size for a boat
that can be stored on residential property.
Hawn stated in her view MN/DOT's standard might be reasonable for a non-commercial hauler.
Kluth inquired whether Welsh would be in favor of allowing someone to park an 80 foot boat on their
property and allowing it to be brought in by semi-truck.
Welsh stated that might be a stretch.
Kluth questioned how the size of the boat should be regulated.
Welsh stated due to the emotion and the heat regarding this ordinance, it might be wise to revisit this
issue in about a year. Welsh stated in his view the City really does not have an ordinance regarding boat
storage since it has not been enforced. Welsh stated he does not see any health, safety,or welfare issues
here.
(Smith leaves at 10:19 p.m.)
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Hawn recommended Item C be changed to allow boats to be a maximum of 44 feet or no more than
13.5 feet high to be stored on residential property under certain circumstances. Hawn stated 13.5 feet
would cover most Winnebagos and things of that sort.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend the language to allow boats to be a
maximum of 44 feet in length or 13.5 feet in height.
Hawn inquired what the Planning Commission feels about the screening requirement.
Welsh stated the screening requirement should be removed.
Hawn suggested that the language should state that vegetative screening should be used whenever
possible,but not make it a requirement.
Mabusth stated screening issues could be raised with the conflict resolution board and used as a possible
solution to a problem.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to remove the requirement regarding screening of
boats.
Hawn inquired whether the 2.0 acres should be eliminated.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to eliminate the language concerning the 2.0 acres.
(Smith returns at 10:23 p.m.)
Hawn inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had regarding the setbacks.
Lindquist stated the City requires the property owners to comply with setback requirements on other
structures and RVs, and in his opinion this requirement should remain for exterior storage of boats.
Hawn, Berg, and Kluth indicated they are in agreement with leaving the setback requirement in the
ordinance.
Welsh inquired about the situation where a property owner has a garage located 10 feet from the lot line,
there is a five or six fence along the property line and they store a fishing boat along the property line.
Welsh stated the boat is not a permanent structure.
Lindquist stated the City would look at it when there is a complaint received.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the requirement concerning the ten-foot
setback in the ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the screening language contained in Item E be
stricken.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Hawn inquired about Item F.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require that boats not block lake views enjoyed by
adjacent neighbors.
Lindquist inquired about lakeshore lots.
Mabusth stated there are some developments on Casco Point that have tracks where the boats are
brought up out of the lake and stored on the lakeshore side of the yard. Mabusth inquired whether that
should be allowed.
Kluth stated if the first part of the language is stricken, it would make more sense,with the second half
remaining the same. Kluth stated boats stored on the lakeshore side of the residence cannot block the
adjoining property owner's view of the lake.
Smith inquired what effect driving a boat in and out during the summer has on the degradation of the
lake and lakeshore, if any.
Lindquist stated that does not need to be addressed in this ordinance.
Kluth stated if you routinely drive your boat in and out in the same place, it could raise issues of
hardcover.
Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission was considering boats in the 0-75 foot setback.
Lindquist stated boats in the 0-75 foot setback are not allowed. Lindquist stated if the track already
exists,that is fine, but a new track cannot be installed.
Smith inquired whether boats could be stored in the 0-75 foot setback regardless if there is a track there
or not.
Lindquist stated in some cases they could.
Hawn stated language could stated in his view it does affect the lakeshore.
Hawn stated every time you remove a boat from the lake your vehicle would need to be down there.
Lindquist stated he is in agreement with Kluth that boats should not be stored where they will block
adjoining property owner's view of the lake.
Smith suggested the language, and boats shall not be stored in the 0-75 foot area.
Lindquist stated then the Planning Commission is better off leaving Item G as is.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Hawn stated under the ordinance boats will not be allowed to be stored in the lakeshore yard. Hawn
stated she does not have a problem if boats are stored on the lakeshore side of the property, but would
not want boats to be stored in the 0-75 foot area.
Smith stated that is a reasonable requirement in her view.
Lyle Rahn commented there are probably 1,000 fishing boats pulled up on people's yards year-round.
Hawn inquired whether boats could be stored in the 0-75 foot area.
Smith commented it is traffic in and out of the 0-75 foot area,which results in wear and tear of the
lakeshore.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not incorporate into the ordinance any language
prohibiting boat storage within the 0-75 foot area.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission is in favor of allowing boats to be stored on the
lakeshore side of lakeshore lots.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it is acceptable to store boats on the lakeshore
side of lakeshore lots.
Mabusth recommended Staff develop criteria for a conflict resolution board to deal with complaints
regarding boat storage.
Hawn noted the names of people who file complaints with the City are currently anonymous. Hawn
stated should it go to a conflict resolution board,the name would become public.
Lyle Rahn stated the City should not listen to complaints of people who are simply driving by and see
something they do not like. Rahn stated other cities require that the person filing the complaint has to
pass by that lot or it is not a legitimate complaint.
Lindquist recommended Staff review that and put together some suggested guidelines.
Hawn inquired whether the redrafted ordinance would come back before the Planning Commission.
Gaffron stated he would like the Planning Commission to review and approve it prior to City Council
approving it. Gaffron stated he could e-mail it or fax the redrafted ordinance to the commissioners for
their review and comment.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have Staff e-mail or fax the redrafted ordinance to
them.
Hawn noted the redrafted ordinance would be available to the public for their review.
Gaffron inquired when this item should appear before the Council.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage,Continued)
Hawn recommended the first City Council meeting in September.
Gaffron stated he would set this item on the September 10`h Council agenda.
(#7) #01-2699 JAY AND KENDAL NYGARD, 1386 REST POINT ROAD,VARIANCES
Berg moved,Lindquist seconded,to table Applicant#01-2699,Jay and Kendal Nygard,
1386 Rest Point Road,to give the Applicant time to submit a certified survey, hardcover
calculations,and a proposed floor plan sketch with dimensions. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#8) #01-2700 VINCENT AND VIRGINIA ANDERSON, 1855 CONCORDIA STREET,
VARIANCES, 10:39 p.m.—10:48 p.m.
Vincent Anderson,Applicant,was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to replace old and deteriorating wood decks and
walkways within the 0-75' setback area and the 75-250' setback area. Hardcover variances are required
for both the 0-75' setback area and the 75-250' setback area.
Bottenberg stated the first part of the project is to replace a small section of walkway and steps which
lie within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. The walkway and steps lead from the house towards the lake.
The hardcover is not changing in this setback area and will remain at 49 square feet. Part two of the
project is to replace the wood deck by the front door and other walkways surrounding the residence
which lie in the 75-250' setback area. The Applicants are also proposing to enlarge the deck/patio on
the north side of the residence. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will decrease from 6,084
square feet to 6,060 square feet,with the Applicant removing a wood walkway and patio blocks.
Anderson stated they are adding a patio area and removing one of the walkways.
Hawn noted the walkway has already been removed.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Anderson stated he does have a letter from his neighbors,Jeff and Nancy Twidwell, 1865 Concordia
Street,who are in support of the project.
Welsh indicated he would like to make a motion in support of the application.
Smith indicated she would like to see the hardcover in the 75-250' setback come closer to the 25 percent
limit.
Mabusth stated she has toured the site and it does not have the appearance of a lot of hardcover.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2700 Vincent and Virginia Anderson,Continued)
Hawn stated the walkway is constructed out of slated wood, which does allow the water to enter the
ground.
Lindquist stated it still is considered hardcover.
Smith stated typically the Planning Commission does require hardcover to be reduced as much as
possible when the hardcover is in excess of the 25 percent limit. Smith stated she does not have a
problem with the replacement.
Hawn noted there has been a small reduction in hardcover already.
Kluth inquired whether this is all replacement.
Berg stated it is not.
Mabusth inquired whether the deck that is being added onto the northwest corner goes out to the
retaining wall.
Anderson stated it would.
Mabusth stated a side setback variance is also required.
Hawn stated she does not see the hardship for a side setback variance.
Welsh stated in his opinion when a request comes in on a new project for a variance,they need to stick
to the ordinances as much as possible,but in this instance since this residence has been around for a
long time and they are not increasing the hardcover, some leeway could be given.
Smith stated the Planning Commission for the past number of years has attempted to get the hardcover
reduced whenever possible.
Hawn inquired whether the deck could be built without the need for a side yard setback variance.
Anderson stated the deck is part of the stairway.
Mabusth stated the applicant is allowed to replace his stairway,but the new deck does encroach into the
setback.
Anderson stated the deck already exists with everything basically being replaced.
Mabusth stated the current garden area would be filled in with patio.
Hawn stated that was her understanding as well, with the patio in the garden area being the only new
section being added. Hawn inquired whether everything else is replacement.
Anderson stated the rest is replacement.
PAGE 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2700 Vincent and Virginia Anderson,Continued)
Hawn stated a side yard setback would also need to be granted.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved,Lindquist,to recommend approval on Application#01-2700,Vincent and Virginia
Anderson, 1855 Concordia Street,granting of a hardcover variance for the 0-75' setback area,
granting of a hardcover variance for the 75-250' setback area,granting a side yard setback
variance to allow the replacement of a wood deck and a small increase in a side patio covering an
existing garden area,subject to the removal of wood decking on the north side of the residence,
which would reduce the hardcover from 34.9 percent to 34.35 percent. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#9) #01-2701 MARK AND CECILIA SCHULTE,3477 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,
VARIANCES, 10:48 p.m.—10:53 p.m.
Mark Schulte, Applicant,was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a side setback variance to allow the construction of a
detached garage,which would replace an existing car port that is attached to the house. The proposed
garage would be located to the rear of the house since this is the only location detached structures can be
built. The Applicants are proposing to construct a 16' by 26' detached garage five feet from the side
property line where a ten foot setback is required.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have looked at other options for locating the garage on the property.
The garage cannot be built in front of the house since accessory buildings are not permitted in front of a
principal structure. Locating the garage next to the residence would require an attached garage,which
structurally is difficult. Placing the garage in the center of the back yard would create a difficult
driveway access and create additional hardcover.
Weinberger stated the five foot side yard setback variance would allow the Applicants to have a
straight in/straight out access to the garage and to not have to change any of the access to the property.
The five foot setback allows the adjacent property owner the ability to build within five feet of the
property line and maintain the ten feet required distance between structures. The proposed garage will
be approximately 12 feet from the nearest point of the neighboring residence structure.
Staff recommends approval of the variance with the understanding the existing car port will be removed.
Schulte had nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2701,
Mark and Cecilia Schulte,3477 Livingston Avenue,granting of a side yard setback variance to
permit the construction of a 16' by 26' detached garage five feet from the side property line where
a ten foot setback is required. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 30
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#10) #01-2703 ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION, 1030 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 10:53 p.m.—11:08 p.m.
Kurt Boerner, President of the Orono Baseball Association,and Clarkson Lindley, Orono Baseball
Association,were present.
Weinberger stated the Orono Baseball Association is requesting a conditional use permit for
construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields Complex. The property is located south
of County Road 6 and east of Old Crystal Bay Road. The property is owned by the Orono School
District and is leased to the Baseball Association. There are currently two little league fields located on
the property, with the new field being located east adjacent to the Willow View development south of
County Road 6.
The Orono Baseball Association constructed the two existing baseball fields in 1994. At that time there
was no conditional use permit required for the west one-half of the property. The City of Orono has
leased the west one-half of the property from the Orono School District. The City has then leased the
property to the Orono Baseball Association. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that as long as the
City was leasing the property from the school for a period greater than ten years,that the baseball fields
would be considered a permitted City park use.
Weinberger stated the new field would also be utilized for soccer. Since the City does not have a lease
for this portion of the property and it is owned entirely by the School District, a conditional use permit is
required for the construction.
Weinberger stated the access road would be an extension of the existing access off of Old Crystal Bay
Road. There will be a 48 stall parking area west of the ball field. In addition,the parking area will
include a turnaround area. Pedestrian access will include a sidewalk that would be located adjacent to
the new parking area and provide access to a future trail extension along County Road 6. The trail
connection would not be constructed by the Orono Baseball Association at this time due to lack of
funds.
The Park Commission reviewed this request at their August 6th meeting and stated they are supportive of
a set aside of land that could be used for a trail connection in the future. The land could be designated
for trail use by granting of an easement by the School District.
Weinberger stated the Orono Baseball Association is also planning to include some batting cages, a
24' by 36' storage building, a play lot,and announcer's booth. The Baseball Association is proposing to
replace an existing storage shed with a larger shed and expand the parking area along the entrance drive.
Weinberger stated the Baseball Association only plans to utilize the fields during the daytime,which
would not require any lighting.
Clark stated they are here to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have regarding the
proposal.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth inquired whether there is adequate parking for 288 fans.
PAGE 31
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2703 Orono Baseball Association,Continued)
Weinberger stated the 48 parking stalls depicted on the plan should accommodate the parking needs.
Kluth commented he does not want to see parking along the roadway in this area.
Lindquist inquired whether the other parking area would be eliminated.
Weinberger stated that parking lot would remain.
Boerner stated the storage shed would not be built at this time but they would like to get approval for it
to be built something in the future.
Lindquist inquired whether the storage shed is included in the proposal.
Weinberger stated it is.
Berg inquired whether the Baseball Association is in favor of a trail in this area.
Boerner stated they are.
Weinberger stated the City received one call regarding this project,with the person indicating he is not
opposed to this project since no outdoor lighting is being proposed.
Lindquist inquired whether the Orono Baseball Association is in agreement with the conditions as
outlined in Staff's report.
Boerner stated they were.
Hawn inquired whether the Orono Baseball Association would be installing lights in the future.
Boerner stated they would not be.
Smith noted the Fire Marshall and City Engineer would need to approve the turnaround area.
Boerner stated there is room to make the turnaround larger if necessary.
Weinberger stated one of the recommendations is that the road be staked no parking.
Clark stated there will be placing some boulders along the road and turnaround area to prevent parking
on the grassy area or along the roadside.
Lindquist moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2703,Orono
Baseball Association, 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road,granting of a conditional use permit to allow
the construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields Complex located south of
County Road 6 and east of Old Crystal Bay Road,subject to the conditions outlined in the
August 13,2001 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
(#12) #10-2705 WINTON AND SHERYL WOLD, 1760 CONCORDIA STREET,
CLASS III SUBDIVISION
This application was withdrawn at the request of the Applicants.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS—JULY 23,2001 AND AUGUST 13,2001
Hawn stated she attended the July 23`d Council meeting where a lengthy discussion was had concerning
the boat access points. Hawn stated there appears to be some community contention regarding the lake
access point located at Forest Lake Landing.
Jim White, Council Representative,commented the lake access points are also considered to be wildlife
areas and need to be maintained.
Stoddard attended the August 13th Council meeting but was not present at tonight's meeting to give a
report.
(#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
(#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 16,2001
Lindquist moved,Berg seconded,to approve the minutes of the July 16,2001 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes,6,Nays 0; Kluth Abstained.
(#16) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
AUGUST 27,2001 AND SEPTEMBER 10,2001
August 27, 2001 —Lindquist September 10,2001 —Kluth
ADJOURNMENT
Smith moved,Berg seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 11:17 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
/
zabeth Hawn,Chair
PAGE 33