HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2012 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Loren Schoenzeit, Commissioners Lizz Levang,Denise Leskinen,Kevin Landgraver,John Thiesse,
and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic
Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Member David Rahn was present.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21,
2012
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Planning Commission minutes of
February 21,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #12-3544 CHARLES CUDD DeNOVO ON BEHALF OF MARY J.BOWMAN TRUST,
1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:33 P.M.-
6:57 P.M.
John Sonnek,Charles Cudd DeNovo,was present.
Curtis noted this application was tabled at the February Planning Commission meeting in order for the
applicant to resolve some inconsistencies between the survey,the hardcover calculations,floodplain
impacts,and wetland boundaries. The applicant has provided clarification and updated plans and surveys
for the Planning Commission's review. In addition,the applicant has provided a buffer planting and
landscape plan for the rear of the lot and along Ferndale Road. They are also proposing to remove all
fencing as indicated at the February meeting.
As a result of the revised information,the applicant is now requesting the following approvals in order to
construct a new residence on the property:
1. A lakeshore setback variance to allow a 47' setback from the lake for the proposed home where a
75' setback is required.
2. Hardcover variances within the 0-75'zone to allow 9.7 percent hardcover where 0 percent is
allowed and within the 75-250'zone to allow 33.8 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed.
The revised information reflects an increase within the 75-250'zone.
3. An average lakeshore setback variance to permit portions of the proposed home to encroach
closer to the lake than the adjacent residential home.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. A wetland buffer setback variance to allow the new attached garage to encroach 15 plus feet into
the 20-foot buffer setback.
5. A wetland buffer impact mitigation for 1,059 square feet of buffer impact and 1,210 square feet
of mitigation proposed in the Ferndale Road ditch.
6. A rear/street setback variance to allow an existing, stone building to remain 0'from the property
line and allow the new home to be constructed 33'from the property line where a 50-foot setback
is normally required.
7. A conditional use permit to conduct grading activity within the 75-foot setback and within the
floodplain in conjunction with removal of the existing home and construction of the new home.
The structural coverage numbers have been revised and are based on the home site portion of the parcel
on the south side of Ferndale Road. The calculation was presented this way in order to adequately
address the relationship of the massing of the proposed home when compared to neighboring properties.
The result is a proposed lot coverage level of 14 percent,which is below the allowed 15 percent level. If
the entire property is included,the structural coverage level would be closer to 2.8 percent.
The proposed hardcover has been adjusted to account for the applicant's proposed removal of the existing
access on to the shared driveway. The hardcover numbers contained in Staffs report have been revised
based on the corrected hardcover information and revised survey. The driveway serving only the
neighbor's property has been recalculated to 1,194 square feet. Hardcover in the 0-75'zone is currently
16.4 percent. The applicant is proposing 9.7 percent hardcover in this zone. Within the 75-250'zone the
applicant is proposing 33.8 percent,which is 769 square feet less hardcover than existing.
There are two Preserve classification wetlands present on the home site portion of the property. The
portions of the property across Ferndale Road are impacted by the larger Ferndale Marsh,which is also a
Preserve wetland. A 50-foot buffer and 20-foot structural setback from the buffer are required from each
of the Preserve wetlands. The survey has been revised to correctly represent Wetland 1 as a Preserve
wetland. Therefore,the relative buffer width has also been revised. As a result, a portion of the proposed
garage will encroach into the required buffer setback from the western wetland. It appears the garage
encroaches approximately 15 feet into the required buffer setback.
Additionally, existing and proposed structures and hardcover which encroach into the required buffer will
require mitigation of buffer area square footage as impacted. The applicant has calculated the impacted
buffer area and provided a buffer mitigation plan. However,the proposed mitigation is entirely within the
ditch or right-of-way of Ferndale Road West. While it is an acceptable location for a buffer to filter road
runoff,the mitigation area should be located on the applicant's property.
John Sonnek noted they have submitted a revised plan and the mitigation area is now located on the
property.
Curtis stated Staff did receive a revised landscape plan today and that she has not had time to review it in
detail. Staff recommends approval of the application as outlined in Staff's report.
Landgraver asked why Item No. 1 is included under issues for consideration.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated the official control relates to the setbacks and is part of the practical difficulty analysis.
Leskinen asked if the increase in hardcover in the 75-250' zone was a result of the recalculation.
Curtis indicated it is a recalculation and that the applicant did revise the driveway slightly but did not
increase the house size.
John Sonnek,Charles Cudd DeNovo, stated they have relocated the driveway slightly and relocated the
mitigation area,which allows them to collect all of the runoff water for the entire yard before it hits the
wetland. Sonnek stated originally this area was not a wetland but was a drainage pond that was
constructed for Highway 15 and Ferndale. In addition,they will be taking all of the downspout water and
diverting it to the NURP pond prior to it going into Lake Minnetonka.
Schoenzeit requested the applicant review the revisions to the plan that have been made since the last
Planning Commission meeting.
Sonnek stated the biggest change is they have separated out the different layers of their plan to make it
easier to understand. Sonnek pointed out the different setbacks they are proposing and the location of the
house and driveway. Sonnek stated they are actually not grading anything as it relates to the height but
that they will be filling a little bit on the slope and around the house. They also will be taking the wooden
fences down and removing the rose garden after the house is constructed. That area will be lowered
slightly after the house has been completed.
Sonnek displayed the revised landscaping plan.
Levang asked for clarification on the native vegetative buffer along the shore.
Sonnek stated they are proposing grass up to the rocks since that is what has always been maintained in
that area.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
Schoenzeit commented the revised hardcover numbers appear reasonable. Schoenzeit noted the Planning
Commission has not required previous applicants to include a native vegetative buffer along the shore.
Thiesse stated in his view the area is relatively flat and the native vegetative buffer strip is not necessary.
Schwingler pointed out the applicant is also filtering the runoff prior to it reaching Lake Minnetonka.
Schoenzeit asked what the current lakeshore setback is versus the proposed.
Curtis illustrated the proposed home and setback.
Sonnek noted they have relocated the home further back.
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted a larger portion of the current home encroaches into the setback than what is being proposed.
Schoenzeit commented it is an improvement over what currently exists. Schoenzeit commented in his
view the proposed home appears to work well in that area.
Leskinen concurred the proposal is a dramatic improvement over what currently exists.
Curtis displayed the existing patio and home on the overhead. Curtis pointed out the location of the
neighbor's home and the fence.
Levang commented under this proposal the neighbor may actually have a better view of that area.
Curtis noted she has not received any comments from that neighbor.
Leskinen noted the proposed home does meet the height regulations and that at the last meeting the
applicant had discussed the fact that they will be lowering the elevation of the grade for the home.
Leskinen asked whether they will be reducing the grade.
Sonnek noted they have reduced the elevation of the grade for the home by approximately a foot and a
half.
Schwingler moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3544,Charles
Cudd DeNovo on behalf of Mary J.Bowman Trust,1165 Ferndale Road West,granting of
variances and a conditional use permit,with the elimination of the native vegetative area. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #12-3546 TODD HOLMERS ON BEFIALF OF SANDY BEACH,LCC, 1545 MAPLE
PLACE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:57 P.M.-7:13 P.M.
Todd Holmers,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant had recently received approval to plat the six southerly 50-foot lots into three
100-foot lots. They have since changed directions and plan to develop each of the seven 50-foot lots
individually according to MN State Statute 462.357. In order to successfully develop each of the seven
lots,the previously approve stormwater grading plan must be implemented. The previous plan was
reviewed and approved as part of the plat. As the plat will not be finalized,the applicant requires
conditional use permit approval to accomplish the similar/same grading plan which exceeds 500 cubic
yards of land alteration.
The primary change to the grading plan includes incorporation of building pads for three additional
homes and currently shows two 4-foot high retaining walls on Lots 7 and 8 to accomplish the swale to the
road culvert. According to the statute, and as with the previous plan,the properties are limited to 25
percent hardcover each where 30 percent and 35 percent would normally be permitted by City Code. The
increase in the number of home sites does not result in an increase in total hardcover,only a change in the
location and size of building pads and common lot line swales. It should be noted that the building pads,
as shown, exceed the 1,500 square foot size as allowed by City code. The pad sizes were shown for
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
grading purposes and to assure accommodation for varying shapes of potential 1,500 square foot home
footprints.
The plan involves primarily moving existing site material around rather than importing/exporting a
significant amount of material. There will be tree removal in the pond/swale area as well. The City
Engineer has reviewed the grading plans and generally approves. The City has completed the necessary
design work and permitting through the MCWD for the City's portion of the project and will proceed
with the stormwater improvements in Maple Place once the project receives City Council approval.
The subject property is identified in Orono's Surface Water Management Plan as being located within a
drainage area,which is a sub-part of the North Arm drainage area. Because this property is at the low
point of the neighborhood drainage area, stormwater facilities would be appropriately located within these
properties to serve the neighborhood and the subject properties. Ideally,a storm water pond would be
constructed that would then be piped to the north where it would discharge near the right-of-way upon
which Sandy Beach is located. The sizing of a pond was determined by the City's and the applicant's
engineers to address the drainage area needs and the potential impact, if any, on development of these
properties.
As it relates to the conditional use permit analysis,the applicant will be required to adhere to the City's
erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD. In addition,timely re-
vegetation and stabilization will be a requirement of the permitting process.
Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the community management plan and the property will
be adequately served by roads, police and fire services as well as city sewer. The properties will be
served by private water supply wells. The applicant will be required to provide a financial security to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the project and the proposed project is intended to improve the
stormwater management in the area.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP in conjunction with adherence to the conditions
outlined by the City Engineer, Staff, and Planning Commission.
Landgraver asked if there is any major differenee from what was previously received and reviewed.
Curtis stated there are no major changes to the plan. Curtis pointed out there is now a small retaining wall
being proposed and that they have removed the 10-foot retaining wall channel.
Todd Holmers,Applicant,asked if the Planning Commissioners have any questions regarding his
proposal.
Schoenzeit asked if the 1,500 square foot building pads are acceptable.
Holmers indicated with the second level and an unfinished basement,the homes will have approximately
2,200 square feet of finished space. The homes will be cottage style and should fit into the neighborhood.
Schoenzeit asked when they will get started moving dirt.
Holmers indicated they will get started as soon as they are allowed �
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
Cheryl Granning,3898 North Shore Drive,commented she sees the change from what currently exists to
seven residences,which is a great change in the number of people that will be living in the area. Granning
stated her first concern relates to the public beach. There is no parking on North Shore and the people
who come to the beach park on Maple Place. Granning stated there does not appear to be much room
between the proposed homes and the road. Granning asked whether the visitors will be parking on the
street and whether this proposal will impact the public's use of the beach.
Granning stated her other concern relates to Item No. 10,which is the requirement that the applicant
provide screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb
surrounding uses. Granning asked what the applicant is proposing on the eastern side of the lots.
Granning commented cu'rrently it is a beautiful area and that she would like to see the area remain that
way.
Schoenzeit noted state statute trumps Orono's codes,which was the reason for the change in the proposal.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge none of the local streets in this area have been posted no parking.
Landgraver indicated there are three no parking signs along where the building pads are proposed.
An unidentified person in the audience indicated that the western side of Maple Place is posted no parking
with trailers.
Gaffron stated some years ago the City was attempting to keep trailer parking off the local streets. If
there is no parking on the west side of Maple Place,then any off street parking would need to be across
the street on the east side,which would be across the street from this development.
Gaffron asked if there are any no parking signs along Cherry.
Cheryl Granning stated Cherry is a very narrow street and it is difficult for two cars to pass each other.
Gaffron stated the beach serves the neighborhood well,but as soon as you start bringing an element of the
public that does not walk to the beach,you bring a parking element into the mix which can cause
problems. It has not been in the City's plans to create any additional parking off street for that beach area.
Since it is also a drainage way, Gaffron stated there are some concerns related to how much of the beach
paroel or corridor can be used for parking.
Landgraver stated the signage stated it was a swimming beach,which is probably the reason why no
trailers are allowed.
Gaffron stated the beach is purely for swimming and not for boats.
Thiesse stated unfortunately people put their boats in at the ramps and then park elsewhere.
Schoenzeit asked as it relates to Item No. 10,whether the applicant has addressed that.
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated her understanding of the concern was the appearance of the homes. The application tonight
is for a conditional use permit to conduct grading on the site and that the City does not have landscaping
requirements for single-family homes. Curtis indicated she is not aware whether the applicant has spoken
with the neighbors regarding the application.
Holmers indicated he does not have a color rendering of the proposed homes but that they will be cottage
style homes.
Schoenzeit asked what landscaping is being contemplated.
Holmers indicated they will attempt to save as many trees as possible but that they have to accommodate
a pond for the drainage. Holmers indicated he does not have a formal landscaping plan at this time.
Schoenzeit noted the application is for a conditional use permit and that the applicant is allowed to use his
property as allowed under state statute. Schoenzeit noted the Planning commission needs to ensure that
all the conditions are met for a conditional use permit.
Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3546,Todd
Holmers on behalf of Sandy Beach,LLC, 1545 Maple Place,granting of a conditional use permit,
subject to conditions of City Staff and the City Engineer.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #12-3547 JOHN&PHOEBE STAVIG,790 BROWN ROAD NORTH,VARIANCES,7:14
P.M.-8:04 P.M.
John Stavig,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting bluff setback,average lakeshore setback, and a rear/street setback
variance in order to construct a home on an undeveloped property. A variance to build within the bluff
impact zone is also being requested.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. An average lakeshore setback variance. The location of thee average lakeshore setback line for
this property is difficult to ascertain as the property exists on a partial point and the northerly
adjacent lakeshore home is significantly behind this property in orientation. The result when
using the closest lakeward point of the home to the south places the average lakeshore setback
line completely off of the subject property. When using the point of the southerly home closest
to,or more impacted by,the subject property places the average lakeshore setback line within the
required 50-foot rear setback. Either of the lines results in the subject lot having no conforming
buildable area with respect to the average lakeshore setback. A variance may be requested.
2. A bluff setback variance. The applicant is requesting a 15-foot variance to allow construction of
the home 15 feet from the top of bluff where a 30-foot setback is required. Additionally,the
proposal would place the home five feet into the required 20-foot bluff impact zone as well. The
applicant's proposal includes a"possible" lower garage beneath the upper main garage.
Page 7
NiINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. A variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. A setback variance
to allow the home/structure up to 25 feet from the rear property line. The proposal includes a 20-
foot variance to allow a setback from the rear or street lot line of 30 feet where a 50-foot setback
is normally required.
The subject property was platted in 1969 as part of RLS 1275 and has remained undeveloped. A bluff
area exists on the property and combined with the 50-foot rear setback requirement results in a limited
legal building envelope. In order to prepare the property for sale,the applicant is requesting bluff
setback,average lakeshore setback,and rear/street setback variances to create a more reasonable building
pad. A variance to allow structure within the 20-foot bluff impact zone is also requested.
Protection and preservation of bluff areas within Orono has been a key aspect of our Shoreland
regulations since our adoption of the DNR shoreland rules in 1992. The bluff impact zone and bluff
setback requirement are meant to limit potential negative impacts to the bluff and the vegetation which
stabilizes the bluff from slump, erosion,and slope failure. Encroachments into the sensitive areas
increase the potential for irreversible damage to occur. The applicant's potential lower garage area would
� require additional grading and potentially greater impacts to the area adjacent to the home. At a
minimum, staff would suggest the lower garage be eliminated from the plan. Regarding bluff areas in
general, it is Staffls position that in particularly new construction situations, all bluff setbacks should be
met and variances should not be granted.
In order to meet the required bluff setback,the home footprint may need to be reduced and/or moved
closer to the street. The proposal is for a 2,354 square foot home and garage footprint. City Code states
that each developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of principal structure(including
garage). It is possible that a combination of a greater variance to the rear setback, combined with a
reduction in the proposed footprint to 1,500 square feet,would result in elimination of the bluff variances.
Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance if the Planning Commission
determines the existing lake views from the home at 800 Brown Road North will not be encroached upon
by a home on the subject property, and approval of a setback variance to allow the home/structure up to
25 feet from the rear property line. Staff recommends denial of the bluff setback variance and denial of
the variance to encroach into the bluff impact zone with structure or grading. In addition, Staff suggests
the Planning Commission consider recommending a reduction of the total footprint of the home from
2,354 square feet to a footprint closer to 1,500 square feet.
Thiesse asked if the property that is being used for the average lakeshore setback has property on the lake.
Curtis indicated in order for that property to be considered as it relates to the average lakeshore setback, it
would need to. '
Thiesse commented that the survey does not appear to depict that.
Curtis pointed out it is an L-shaped lot.
Thiesse asked if the fact that it is an L-shaped lot is the only reason why it is being included in the
determination of the average lakeshore setback.
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis illustrated the location of the home and the second piece of the property. Under the definition in
the code, it would be called an adjacent lakeshore lot. Curtis stated that is the reason why Staff is
recommending approval of the average lakeshore setback variance.
Schoenzeit asked for some background on the bluff regulations.
Gaffron stated prior to 1992,the City did not have an ordinance that protected bluffs but they did have
some subdivision regulations that define the dry buildable area of the property to exclude slopes that are
in excess of 18 percent,which are still in place but rarely used. This is an existing lot of record and is a
situation that the City does not encounter often.
Gaffron indicated the City has had a couple of situations on North Shore Drive and Tonkawood Road
where the City expected the properties,when they were being rebuilt,to meet all the required setbacks as
much as possible. The bluff impact zone,which is the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff, is an area
that should not be violated with any vegetation removal. The next 10-foot area constitutes a bluff
setback, and grading within that area is not as critical. The DNR opposes all development in the bluff
impact zone since it may contribute to destabilization of the bluff. Gaffron noted the City had a situation
two summers ago that involved a bluff on North Shore Drive that experienced catastrophic failure and it
took quite a bit of engineering to reconstruct the slope.
Gaffron indicated this specific site meets the criteria of a bluff. There have been some discussions about
whether the entire width of the property should be considered a bluff. The applicant's engineer has
outlined the areas he feels should be defined as a bluff. To determine the top of the bluff, Staff bases it on
the point where the slope changes from greater to 18 percent to less than 18 percent. Gaffron stated in his
view this is clearly a bluff and should be subject to all the applicable regulations.
Landgraver noted there is an old driveway bed and asked how that factors into this situation. Landgraver
asked whether the Planning Commission should ignore the driveway bed.
Gaffron stated as it relates to the top of the bluff as defined on Exhibit L2, it is at the lakeshore side of the
old driveway bed. From Staff's perspective,the driveway bed does not change the stability of the slope
and does not have an impact on the way the top of the bluff is determined.
John Stavig,Applicant,stated they purchased both of the lots in 2002,with the long-term intention of
eventually selling off this lot. Stavig indicated they are attempting to get approval for what they feel is a
realistic and reasonable proposal to construct a modest house on this lot. The lot is slightly over two
acres.
Stavig indicated at one time the City would have allowed building down to the 75-foot setback line.
Stavig stated they have paid property taxes on the area included in the bluff. Stavig stated the assessed
market valuation for the property is$585,000,which is a decrease from$720,000, and we are now being
told the lot cannot support much more than a garage or a trailer. Stavig reiterated that in his view this is a
reasonable proposal. Staff has been very responsive to our questions and we are hopefully we can come
to a reasonable solution.
Stavig noted the driveway bed was completely left out of Staff's report,which is an important
consideration in his view. The driveway bed is at least 102 years old and was originally constructed
sometime between 1870 and 1910. There is no erosion whatsoever in that area. The lot itself clearly is
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
much steeper on one side,which is a bluff area,but the other areas of the lot appear to be at a lower level
in terms of the severity of the slope and could be constructed upon. Virtually no grading would be
required on the sides of the lot.
Stavig indicated they have attempted to propose as small of a house as possible in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. In his view the driveway bed is a structure. According to City Code
under the definition of a structure,the driveway bed would meet those criteria. Stavig stated they are
proposing something that would leave the driveway bed. Their proposal is very reasonable, especially
since there are no hardcover issues, septic issues or side lot issues. Stavig noted this lot was buildable
back in 1969 and that they are hoping for a reasonable resolution.
Schoenzeit asked how the applicant's plans would be impacted if the area is determined to be a bluff.
Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission does not see a lot of bluff situations in Orono so their
experience with them is minimal. Schoenzeit noted there have been other government agencies making
comments on this application encouraging the City to enforce the existing codes. .
Stavig stated if it is determined a bluff, he would argue that the driveway bed should be considered a
structure under Section 78.1.
Schoenzeit stated to his understanding a structure has to be six feet off the ground.
Stavig stated a structure is an edifice or building of any kind,which he would argue that it is, or any piece
of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which requires
a location on,below or above the ground, land or water, or attached to something having a location on the
ground, land, or water.
Thiesse stated he would prefer to defer determination of whether the driveway bed should be considered a
structure to later if that becomes necessary. If the roadway is determined to be structure, it would need to
be removed prior to a house being constructed on the lot.
Schoenzeit noted the applicant would be over on structural coverage if the driveway bed is considered
structure.
Stavig stated if it is determined to be a bluff,he would argue that a nonconforming structure exists on the
property and he would attempt to push the property setbacks further back toward the bay.
Levang asked why the applicant stated that all the code would allow would be a trailer or a garage when
the applicant is proposing a structure that is 1,500 square feet.
Stavig stated he has paid approximately$200,000 in property taxes on this lot, and that his comment was
in response to a comment by Staff. There are variances being considered to allow the structure to be
closer to the cul-de-sac,which would make it out of character with the neighborhood and would be less
appealing to some of the immediate neighbors.
Gaffron stated on Exhibit L2,the hashed area is an area that is left over if all the setbacks are met,which
results in a fairly skinny area. Gaffron stated he would not be surprised if it was commented on by Staff
as being an area that a trailer could fit into.
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission would like to work with the applicant. Schoenzeit
asked if a variance is granted to the cul-de-sac,what the updated buildable area would be.
Curtis stated if the house is moved further back and complies with the rear setback and bluff setback, he
would be left with a 29-foot depth.
Gaffron stated they calculated it at approximately 3,500 or 3,700 square feet but that it would be in a
strange configuration. Gaffron illustrated on E�chibit L2 that if the 30-foot setback from the west is
extended 20 feet closer to the road to meet a 30-foot or a 25-foot setback, it would leave an area of
roughly 3,700 square feet.
Schoenzeit commented it appears that a building would fit into that area.
Stavig noted they are requesting a 25-foot setback in the front and that the 1,500 square feet would also
include a garage.
Schoenzeit commented there appears to be a building envelope available to the applicant that would meet
the bluff setbacks.
Stavig stated the house would be 700 to 800 square feet because the 1,500 square feet would also include
a garage.
Schoenzeit stated the building envelope would be 3,700 square feet if there is a variance to the cul-de-sac.
Thiesse commented a 1,500 square foot house would be out of character for the neighborhood and noted
that this lot was originally developed and approved for construction. Thiesse stated Exhibit Ll shows that
the applicant is being penalized by the 40 percent. Thiesse noted it is an established tree line bluff.
Gaffron stated Staff is going to take the lower point of the 50-foot segment that is less than 18 percent
versus one that is over 18 percent. The top of the bluff is at 978',which is below the driveway. You have
steeper slopes as you go closer to the shoreline and then a flat area. The bottom of the bluff is down at the
shoreline and not 20 or 30 feet in where it is fairly flat. Gaffron stated the survey shows that the top of
the bluff pretty much follows the lakeside of the driveway bed and that in his opinion the applicant is not
being penalized.
Thiesse commented this is a unique situation and asked if any of the catastrophic bluff failures were in a
well defined mature tree bluff or a graded area.
Gaffron stated in one case there was a catastrophic failure that happened on the property next door first
and then they constructed retaining walls. In that case the house was required to be constructed 30 feet
from the bluff, so it did not contribute to that bluff failure. Most of the failures have been rebuilt
residences on bluffs. There was also a catastrophic failure on the north side of Long Lake approximately
seven or eight years ago where there was an existing house that was rebuilt using the same footprint.
Gaffron noted there is no existing footprint in this situation.
Thiesse stated the old roadbed means something to him, and asked if the applicant hires an engineer that
conducts a global stability check,whether that would help.
Page
11
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated there is nothing in City Code that provides for that type of analysis. If the Planning
Commission would like to consider that,that is a subjective process to deal with objective facts and could
perhaps insert some more objectivity into the process. Gaffron stated that is a decision the Planning
Commission would have to make.
Stavig stated they would be constructing above where the driveway bed is and that there has been no �
movement in that area for over 100 years.
Schoenzeit commented the additional information might be helpful to the Planning Commission.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated Staff's recommendations follow along very nicely with City Code,but that he would
recommend tabling the application and perhaps collecting some further information regarding the nature
and stability of the bluff,which would perhaps allow the granting of a variance.
Thiesse stated he does not want the applicant to incur additional expenses if this application is not going
to be approved. Thiesse commented he does not want to go against Staffs recommendations but pointed
out that the majority of the bluff setback requirements relate to maintaining slope stability. Thiesse stated
this situation is unique and that in his view slope stability is not an issue.
Levang stated she is hesitant to go against the recommendation of the DNR.
Thiesse asked why she is hesitant to go against that recommendation if the applicant can prove slope
stability is not an issue.
Landgraver commented it is a unique and mitigating factor, but fundamentally you hesitate to open the
door to unique and mitigating factor on bluffs. Landgraver stated in his view all bluff areas will have
extenuating circumstances and that he is reluctant to table it to allow the applicant to compile additional
information on whether the driveway provides some stability to the slope.
Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that she would be very
hesitant to allow anything to encroach into the bluff setback zone. Leskinen stated the applicant could
decide on his own to obtain additional information prior to the City Council meeting,but that she would
not be willing to recommend the applicant obtain that information.
Thiesse stated that is where he is having difficulty since it is a one-size fits all,and pointed out the reason
for the line being placed there is to maintain the slope stability. If someone can prove that the line is
actually in a different spot,then it would not be a bad idea for the applicant to obtain that information.
The applicant purchased a piece of property that was deemed to be buildable but that it is not buildable to
the standards of that neighborhood.
Page
12
MIl�TUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Levang commented she understands the applicant's desire to construct a home on that lot but that the
Planning Commission has a responsibility to ensure the City codes and ordinances are adhered to.
Levang commented she does not get the impression the applicant is flexible on this application.
Stavig stated in his view the proposal they attempted to put forward a proposal that is very flexible. The
driveway bed defines the top of the bluff and the flat area of at least 15 feet has stood still for over a
century. Their proposal is to stay behind that and go further forward to make sure that no erosion issues
are created. Stavig commented he hopes that is a flexible approach since it is not where they would like
to locate the house.
Stavig noted there have been bluff setback variances granted previously in Orono and that in his view this
is a reasonable request. The top of the bluff as defined by the roadbed is flat for 15 feet and they will stay
behind that. Stavig stated the other adjoining lot also has bluff areas that they have maintained over the
years. Stavig stated in his opinion their proposal is within the spirit of the regulation,which is not to
erode the bluff. The area is marginally a bluff and is defined by the roadbed. They are placing the house
in a different area out of respect for the bluff.
Levang asked whether they would be willing to downsize the house.
Stavig stated downsizing the house would require it to be two-story,which would be out of character of
the neighborhood. Staff has rejected that. Stavig stated they have also attempted to ask for as few
variances as possible. If erosion is the concern, Stavig indicated he is not sure how their proposal would
impact that since the driveway bed has existed for over a century.
Leskinen asked if the City can grant a bluff setback variance if the DNR recommends denial.
Gaffron stated the City can still grant a variance since it is merely a recommendation from the DNR.
Curtis commented typically the DNR will say they do not oppose it or the City will receive no comment
back. Every application for a variance in the shoreline is under the DNR's review and they generally do
not comment on the majority of them.
Stavig asked whether there have been some approved in the past. Stavig stated it is his understanding the
City granted one in 2006.
Gaffron stated Staff has not done a complete analysis of how many bluff setback variances have been
granted. Gaffron stated there likely have been some variances granted to allow a rebuild, but that he does
not recall any that were granted to a vacant lot.
Curtis noted the 2006 application was a rebuild.
Landgraver stated he does not have the ability to opine on stability of slopes,but by the same token,the
applicant has proposed a smaller footprint house close to the edge of the street,which is out of character
with the neighborhood and that he is not sure if the neighbors have had a chance to consider this
application. Landgraver indicated he is leaning towards tabling the application for the applicant to
consider obtaining the additional information,which is another expense that he would incur with no
guarantee of results.
Page
13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schwingler stated they Planning Commission does look at these on a case-by-case basis and that this is a
unique situation. Under Code the applicant has practical use of the property and that he has a 100-plus .
year old driveway that has not had any issues. Schwingler commented he would hate to send the
applicant on an expensive goose chase.
Schoenzeit stated it appears from the discussion that if the roadway is stable,that might influence the
Planning Commission. There appears to be some support on the Commission for obtaining additional
information on the stability of the slope,and the applicant has the choice to have the Planning
Commission table it or vote on the application. Schoenzeit stated there may be some value in putting
some science behind the stability of the bluff and the practical difficulties of the lot.
Stavig indicated he is willing to look into that.
Schoenzeit commented it is a complicated endeavor to construct a house on a unique piece of property
and that unfortunately some properties do require additional expense. Schoenzeit asked whether the
applicant would like his application tabled since it is unlikely the application would be approved.
Levang noted the applicant also has the option to have the Planning Commission vote on his application
and then go before the City CounciL
Stavig indicated he would like his application tabled.
Curtis stated if the application is tabled tonight,the application would be back before the Planning
commission in April if the additional information is submitted on time.
Schoenzeit moved,Levang seconded,to table Application#12-3547,John and Phoebe Stavig,790
Brown Road North. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4.#12-3548 ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT,685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH,
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT,8:04 P.M.-8:14 P.M.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval in order to construct an open-sided 924 square foot
pavilion with a 330 square foot open deck 20 feet from the delineated wetland edge, approval of two
future 426 square foot observation platforms,and after-the-fact approval for three raised observation
platforms already constructed along a wood chip nature trail within the 150-foot lake setback and where a
50-foot wetland buffer and 20-foot structural setback is required. Conditional use permit approval is
required for permits as the school use is a CUP within the RR-1B zoning district.
Orono Schools recently received funding from the MCWD to construct walking trails with raised
observation platforms along the edge of the wetland surrounding Lake Classen,which is classified by the
DNR as a natural Environment lake. General development lakes such as Lake Minnetonka require a 75-
foot structural setback. Natural environment lakes require a 150-foot setback for structures.
Additionally, in order to further the school's environmental learning program,the applicant also requests
approvals to construct a 1,254 square foot open-sided pavilion or shelter adjacent to the wetland edge.
The platforms and the pavilion are shown within the 150-foot lake setback. The platforms were
constructed and installed over the fall. The applicant's narrative outlines the background of the
environmental learning program as well as their variance and CUP request in more detail.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances and the CUP for the existing and future observation
platforms. Staff also recommends approval of the variances to allow the pavilion to be constructed as
shown. All of the City Engineer and Wetland Specialist's requirements, including wetland buffer
improvements and erosion control measures,will be addressed with the administrative building permit
(and land alteration permits)following variance and CUP approval. Submittal of a revised survey and
grading plan showing the OWHL of Lake Classen should be required prior to City Council review and
approval. Submittal of MCWD approval of the projects should be required for the administrative permit
as well.
Justin McCoy, Orono Public Schools, stated this is an important project for their environmental program.
The School District has moved ahead after receiving the funds and has looked at a number of options. If
the pavilion is constructed within the required setbacks, it would require additional land alteration. They
have an ecosystem that they are focused on educating the students on,which is why they are proposing
the pavilion in the location that they are. The variance will be required for the proper placement of the
pavilion and walking trails.
Schoenzeit asked if the area would be fully handicap accessible.
McCoy indicated it would be. The ground surface would be crushed granite. The goal is to comply with
all best practices for hard surface runoff.
Schoenzeit asked what the time frame for the project is.
McCoy indicated the deadline is June 30`"in order to receive the funding.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
Landgraver commented this is a good opportunity for the students.
Levang moved,Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3548,Orono
School District,685 Old Crystal Bay Road North,granting of variances and conditional use permit.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. #11-3503 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT-LAKESHORE
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: DOCK RENTAL,8:14 P.M.—9:44 P.M.
Gaffron stated the City is considering two options for regulation of residential dock slip rental.
Approximately one year ago Staff proposed an amendment to clarify the current regulations. The City
Council has directed recently that this option be amended to allow docking of guest boats on a short-term
basis since the current code does not allow that. The City Council also directed that another option be
considered as part of this process,which is to essentially remove all the current prohibitions on residential
dock slip rental.
Page
15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Exhibit B goes through the different code sections regarding dock rentals. The definition in both the
zoning code and licensing section defines the marina business as being engaged in one or more of the
permitting accessory or conditional uses that are allowed in the B2 district,which is the marina district.
Another definition says that within the B2 district,rental of in-water boat slips is a permitted use as is on
land storage of boats during the summer. One of the basic principles of zoning is if the use is not listed as
a permitted accessory or permitted use, it is not allowed. Rental of in-water boat slips is not listed as a
permitted accessory or permitted use in any of the residential zoning districts.
In those districts,private docks are an allowed accessory use. Private docks are not specifically defined
in the code. The City has continually stated and the courts have upheld that a private dock is an accessory
structure which is used by definition is used exclusively for purposes incidental of those of the principal
use for the use of the owners or occupants of the property. The licensing section also states that the
business of docking, mooring or storing of boats is renting or otherwise providing space, including boats,
buoys for docking, mooring or storing one or more boats belonging to persons other than the owner or
occupant of the property except when licensed as a joint use or business use, such as engaging in either
the marina business or in the business of docking or storing boats.
Gaffron noted there is also a document in the packet that talks about how the definition of dock rental
regulation has evolved since 1962.
Item No 6 of the licensing section also says that it is unlawful for any person to engage or participate in
business use without first having obtained an annual license. Item No. 7 of the licensing section says that
you cannot get a business use license unless you are in the B2 marina business district. Slip rentals are
considered a marina business and slip rental requires a marina business license. Marina businesses are
not allowed to be licensed in residential district.
Gaffron stated that is the series of ordinances currently in force today that prevents rental of slips at
residential properties. Last May Staff brought before the Planning Commission and City Council a text
amendment that was intended to make it less of a tedious review so that it would be combined in one
location of the Code.
Gaffron noted the Code itself has changed through the years. In addition,the definitions through the
years have changed regarding what is considered to be a boat owner's relationship to a property. In 1962,
when the first code was adopted, it talked about persons other than the owner of the property not being
allowed to have boats at the property. That was changed in 1974 to allow persons other than the owner or
renter of the property. That changed again in 1984 to persons other than the owner or occupant of the
property.
The Council pointed out that this language constitutes a violation if a property owner were to allow a
neighbor or a relative to keep a boat at their dock. Staff feels that is problematic because there are
situations where a relative may want to have a boat at their relative's dock. There are also situations in
neighborhoods where someone does not have a boat or has a few boats and someone would like to use
that boat slip.
The existing code historically has been enforced primarily when a complaint is received. The City
receives a number of complaints each year. Staff has identified and documented 14 complaints or
situations where there has been a violation in the last three fiscal years. Orono has approximately 1,000
lakeshore properties, so the number of complaints amount to less than one percent. The questions or
Page
16
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
complaints that do arise are typically from neighbors where boat slips are being rented to a non-owner,
non-renter, or non-occupant of the property. The impacts include traffic,noise, activity at odd hours,
parking concerns, and the uncertainty of unknown persons being in the neighborhood.
Gaffron stated in his view there are situations that have caused issues but there are probably a significant
number of situations that have not caused problems. Orono does have a number of commercial marinas.
In total they provide approximately 450 rental slips. The marina owners are aware that some of the boat
owners likely will gravitate to a less costly,private slip if the opportunity is available. Whether this is a
common occurrence has not been studied and Staff does not know how often this is happening. Staff
does have some examples of property ownership in the leasing of lakeshore property that makes this more
of a complex issue than it may seem on the face of it.
Gaffron stated two actual examples Staff has faced in the past include the following:
If one person rents or leases a lakeshore cabin, does that give them dock rights even if he is not living
there. What if up to four unrelated persons each have a lease of tlie cabin but do not live there and just
visit the property to use their boat? This situation existed in 1993 and exists today,with a residence
structure that has a tax valuation of$4,000 and is not habitable. Four slips continue to be rented out to
various people because the property owner is able to produced cabin rental leases for the boat owners.
This situation was looked at by the City Attorney in 1993 and resulted in the following opinion: "Absent
some evidence that the spaces at the dock are being rented out to persons who are not entitled to use the
remaining portions of the property,we believe this does not constitute a commercial use of the dock."
His comparative analysis concluded that"If this type of arrangement is construed to be an unlawful
operation of a commercial dock,any dwelling in this(residential)district would also constitute an illegal
commercial dock if the tenant used the dock on the property to store a boat."
The second situation is: If I live in and homestead in Maple Grove but my parents own a lakeshore cabin
on Lake Minnetonka, and my boat that I keep at the cabin is registered in my name to my residence in
Maple Grove,what is my status? I'm clearly neither the owner nor the occupant. In a few past cases,the
boat owners have re-titled their boat to the property owner's name and address to get around this.
The effect of the code sections that currently, in combination, act to prohibit slip rental at private
residential property cannot be extinguished by merely crossing out some wording. The regulation as it
exists relies on the established zoning premise that because"rental of in-water boat slips" is a recognized
permitted use in the B2 District and not in other districts is,by definition, a marina business,which
requires a license per Section 94-76 but which cannot be issued for property in a district other than B2.
In order to make rental of slips legal in residential districts,the City would have to list it as an allowed
use in those districts, as well as revise the definitions of"Marina Business" and "Business of Docking,
Mooring or Storing Boats"where they appear in the zoning and licensing codes.
Per City Council direction and following input received from the public and Planning Commission, Staff
and the City Attorney will begin working on draft language for each of the two regulatory options under
consideration.
The Planning Commission should address the following:
1. Hold a public hearing to gather public input regarding the issues surrounding rental of slips at
private residential docks.
Page •
17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. The Planning Commission should identify the specific negative activities associated with rental of
slips and discuss how and by whom they should be addressed.
3. Planning Commission should address whether or not the City should continue to regulate the
rental of residential slips at any level.
4. If the Planning Commission concludes the City should no longer regulate residential slip rental
then a recommendation to the Council to that effect would be appropriate.
5. If the Planning Commission determines that City regulation of residential slip rental should
continue then the following should be addressed:
a. What level of regulation is appropriate?
b. Are there specific activities which should be addressed?
c. Should a new enforcement policy be developed rather than complaint driven?
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has the option to table the application if they feel further study or
public input is necessary.
Gaffron noted the City did receive a copy of a letter from a resident in Plymouth who is talking about not
being able to continue their slip rental at a marina. This is clearly a situation where they have found
someone on Maxwell Bay who is renting a residential dock. The issue is whether the City should regulate
dock slip rentals at a residential property.
Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Tom Egan,360 Big Island, stated he is not a marina owner but that they provide a wonderful business,
which brings up a good point. The City receives a lot of property tax on the business they generate,they
pay sales tax,and they employ local people. When you look at what a marina has to maintain and the
regulations they have to comply with,Egan stated in his view it makes a whole lot of sense that the City
should stay clear of regulating dock use since they would need to regulate them similar to a marina. If the
City allows residential dock rental, it would open up a can of worms. When you allow someone to rent a
residential boat slip,you may get it rented on a weekend or on a daily basis. It will not just be a dock
with a boat on it that people walk down to, get on their boat and leave. The people will come in and go
swimming in the neighborhood and/or go skiing from the dock. Since many of the docks that you
seeallow electrical plug-ins,the City is basically adding a cabin to someone's do
Egan stated there were some things brought up by some of the people on the City Council that did not
make sense to him and were not true. It was stated by a council member that currently the City pays the
LMCD $65,000 to regulate this, so why should the City regulate it. Egan pointed out the LMCD does not
care about any impact on the neighbors. They are concerned with the lake and not how it impacts the
neighborhood. Dock rentals in residential neighborhoods will definitely impact the neighbors. Egan
indicated he does not want his neighbors renting out their dock since it will impact his property. It does
not make sense that the City would allow John Q.Public to change the character of the neighborhood.
Egan stated the neighborhoods will also have parking issues associated with the rental and that he does
not see any benefit to the City to allow this.
Page
18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
� Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Egan stated the same council member that talked about the LMCD also stated that he felt the majority of
the residents would want this. Egan stated in his view there are not that many that would want it. The
City did a good job covering this last May and that he is not sure why the Council did not follow that
recommendation. Egan stated in his view this is a waste of time from what was done last May and that he
would ask the Planning Commission to clarify the existing rules and keep it that you cannot rent out a
residential dock slip.
Andrew McDermott,2702 Walters Fort Lane,noted he is Orono's LMCD representative. Every time the
LMCD grants a variance or a setback or canopy allowance,the LMCD will put on the stipulation that the
boat has to be owned by the resident of the structure.
McDermott stated as a private homeowner,he would not want his neighbors renting out dock slips.
Schoenzeit noted at the present time 40-foot cabin cruises and jet cruises are common. Schoenzeit asked
whether the LMCD has any plans to modify that.
McDermott stated that issue was just raised and that there was no significant interest from any of the 14
community cities to change that.
Levang asked why he would not want his neighbors to rent dock slips.
McDermott indicated parking and noise would be two issues.
Landgraver asked if friends or family using the dock would be an issue.
McDermott stated friends or family would not be an issue for him personally as long as it was specifically
family. The LMCD defines it as living or residing at the residence.
Landgraver asked if the LMCD defines it as the owner and/or renter of the property.
McDermott indicated the owner or resident of the site can have up to four boat under current LMCD
regulations.
Gaffron asked if the LMCD defines resident or owner or occupant in any specific way. Gaffron noted
there are various ways to acquire a right to use a dock,and residing there means you live there, occupying
means you have the ability to be in that unit,and renter implies that you reside there.
McDermott indicated it would be someone residing at the property.
William Wolfe,3255 Crystal Bay Road, stated his immediate neighbor does not rent out a boat slip but
that there are boat rentals in his neighborhood. Traffic and parking is an issue with those rentals. The
cars parked on the street restrict access for ambulances and fire. The neighbors have called the police
several times to deal with the situation.
As it relates to zoning of marinas,Wolfe commented in his view that is a good idea. Wolfe pointed out
that marinas will have toilets,while rental residential docks do not have that if the people renting the dock
are not allowed access to the house. The people will use the outdoors for that purpose,which does not
help this situation.
Page
19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, stated he would like the Planning Commission to relook at how
they are approaching this subject since the City has had the tendency over the past few years to approach
the problem by making a deal,which does not work well.
Jabbour noted he does own a marina which has 78 slips in it. One year the marina stored 800 boats on
shore. The majority of the income does not come from rental of the slips. Up until a few years ago, it
was illegal to sell boats at a marina,which was resolved by a court case and the marinas prevailed.
When the City started doing zoning,they took the time to figure out what type of community Orono was
and how they wanted to grow in the future. The City has zoning areas of half an acre on the lake all the
way up to five acres on the lake. The City also has a number of ordinances that tell you what a lakeshore
lot is and what use that lakeshore lot should have. Jabbour stated he personally owns six residential
properties and pays an enormous amount of taxes to Orono. He is not allowed to have a dock unless he
has a house, but yet,based on this proposal,his neighbor could have a dock that belongs to anyone. In
order to be fair and equitable to everyone,the Planning Commission has to think of the overall
ordinances.
The reason for the various size lots was to minimize density. On every one of those sites,the City has
lakeshore regulations. If you introduce other uses for people that do not live in the house,the City will
end up with more boats,more canopies, and jet skis,which will have a strong impact on the visual
appearance of the lake. Jabbour stated he is a strong proponent of public access but not to the detriment
of the lakeshore owners.
Jabbour noted the City had a person that had a house boat. The City took the property owner to Appellate
Court and the court ruled that he could not have a dock. That person was actually advertising that his
house boat was a cottage on the lake. Jabbour indicated he bought him out to make the problem go away.
These regulations will affect the adjoining properties.
Schoenzeit asked whether Jabbour has any issues with family and friends renting the docks.
Jabbour stated he does have a problem with changing the spirit of the code. Jabbour stated people are not
equal under the law. People have property rights,too, and if you change the structure of the ordinance, it
will affect other people. Jabbour indicated he does not have a problem with relatives but that he does
have a problem with friends. Jabbour stated in his view the City has been relying too much on the
opinions of City Attorneys and City Engineers and that the City should check with the Water Patrol and
the Police Deparhnent as well.
Sean Foy,3345 Crystal Bay Road, stated he has stored his boat at a marina for 15 years. Foy commented
marinas are great for handling people that are coming from different places and that you need some sort
of regulation for that type of use. Foy stated there have not been any problems at the marinas. On Crystal
Bay Road,there is not enough room for people to park their cars. Foy stated he knows there are people
renting boat slips out in his neighborhood and that he is against the fact that they let private citizens rent
their slips. Foy stated allowing your friends and family use your dock slip seems reasonable.
David Boies, 1360 Rest Point Road, stated over the past 26 years,he has benefited from his neighbor's
generosity in that they have allowed them to store their boat at their dock. Boies stated he is here to ask
the Commission and Staff to include language in whatever proposal that goes before the Council to allow
neighbors and immediate family members access to docks,primarily to protect the landowners
Page
20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING ,
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
themselves from potential prosecution or penalty as a result of their generosity. Boies stated he does not
cause parking problems because they live next door and that they work out their differences between
themselves.
Boies stated failure to include such language would cause him to have to go out and buy an annual
oversized load permit so he can get his boat to the lake whenever he wants to use it. That could
potentially cause a road hazard between his home and the North Arm Landing where he takes my boat.
Boies requested the Planning Commission consider neighbors and family in whatever language they put
into the zoning amendment.
Denny Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle, stated in his view now is a good time to simplify things and to look
at the overall goal of what it is the City wants to accomplish. The City needs to determine whether they
should include neighbors and relatives. Walsh commented there is a problem defining exactly what is
family or friend and that nobody wants people walking through their yard to access the lake. People want
privacy. Walsh stated renting a dock slip out is a different issue than allowing someone to use their dock
periodically.
Rich Anderson,3205 Crystal Bay Road, stated he is the owner and operator of North Shore Marina
located in Brown's Bay, Smith's Bay and Maxwell Bay. Anderson indicated he has also owned the
Woodwind Marina and Sailor's World. Anderson noted he did attend the last meeting and that the
Planning Commission at that time voted 6-0 to adopt the language that was proposed. Anderson stated
none of the stakeholders were notified of that meeting and there was only one resident in attendance who
spoke at the meeting.
Gaffron noted that would have been the May,201 l,meeting, and that notice of the meeting was published
in the local paper and posted locally.
Anderson commented it was interesting that the one person who knew about the public hearing happens
to live in the neighborhood of one of the most vocal council members wanting to change this law.
Anderson stated the Planning Commission should enact language so the City can enforce the law because
currently on his road they have had three people renting there last year and they still live there. The City
cannot enforce the law if the property owners are not receiving any rent.
Anderson commented this would impact his family's livelihood and that he employs Orono residents and
pays t�es. Anderson stated if a resident wants to have a spot for his daughter or son,that would not be a
problem, but that if that property owner wants to rent a boat slip to a friend,he would have a problem
with that. The property owners should apply for a variance or a permit if they want to rent a boat slip
from a neighbor or another private property owner.
Orono has approximately 1,000 lakeshore owners. The marinas occasionally will have people who drink
too much or something else and the marinas are in a situation to be able to call the police. That would
likely not happen in a residential situation. The marinas are equipped to handle people who are drunk or
need to use the restroom.
Anderson stated there is a house on his road with 140 feet of lakeshore that could have three 40-foot
boats. There is no place to park on the street. The City should have the ability to shut them down since
the LMCD can't.
Page
21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Anderson noted there are five marinas in town and that the City has to protect the marina business. The
rest of the lakeshore communities allow private residences to rent out dock slips except Orono. Anderson
indicated last year he bought Sailor's World. There was a lot of discussion about boat clubs last year.
Anderson indicated he is not planning on having a boat club because it will not meet the parking
requirements. Staff was against boat clubs but the City Council approved them. Anderson stated he has
an issue with friends renting boat slips at residential properties but that he does not have an issue with
relatives.
Anderson displayed pictures of people parking illegally at residences. Anderson stated Orono City Staff
wants some language that would allow them to kick a person out if someone is violating the law.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m.
Schoenzeit noted he did attend the City Council meeting where this was discussed,and that he would
commend City Council Member Rahn for asking some questions regarding the City ordinances and the
LMCD and questioning whether there are other remedies to deal with some of these complaints. The
other question raised at the Council meeting was how many complaints the City receives each year
regarding docks and are there people,whether they are friends or family,that are not in compliance.
Schoenzeit commented there is quite a bit of material to discuss regarding this text amendment.
Leskinen indicated her opinion has not changed from last year and that the current language should
remain in effect. Leskinen stated perhaps some of the language could be tweaked somewhat to
accommodate relatives and/or friends,but that she is not in favor of eliminating this type of regulation
altogether. Leskinen stated it is likely the reason the City only has a handful of complaints is because the
regulation is in place and that it has been on the books for a number of books. Leskinen indicated she is
in favor of simplifying the language.
Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen. Thiesse stated the regulations are in
place for a reason and that perhaps the City Attorney can refine the language somewhat to accommodate
family and friends to some degree.
Landgraver noted the Planning Commission has heard primarily from people who are opposed to the
residential dock slip rental and that he would be interested in hearing from people who are in favor of it.
Landgraver commented he does have an issue with how the regulation will be enforced.
Levang stated how the City enforces this is also a question in her mind and that the situation with friends
can be a slippery slope. Levang stated she understand the concerns of the marina. The marinas provide a
valuable service for the lake and that it sounds like the work Mr. Gaffron has done with the marinas has
improved the situation. Orono has been a leader in lakeshore regulations and typically is stricter than
many other cities,which she does not have a problem with. Levang commented if we are going to keep
Orono a bedroom community,then the Planning Commission and City Council need to think in broader
terms and not narrow terms. The goal of the City is to preserve the lake and that they need to decide how
to do that.
Schwingler stated in his view the regulations need to be simplified. The reality is whether the City will
be able to police this.
Schoenzeit commented it is unfortunate that no one came to speak in favor of the text amendment.
Page
22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked whether the Planning Commission felt the public hearing should be held over another
month to accommodate people who might be away for the winter.
Gaffron noted Staff has not had a chance to discuss this more in depth with the City Attorney. There
appears to be a good amount of support for language that allows for short-term use of docks by relatives
and perhaps friends. Gaffron indicated he would like an opportunity to craft some language and bring it
back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron noted Staff is not able to send a notice out to all 1,000
lakeshore owners but that he is fine with allowing additional comment to be received by the Planning
Commission.
Levang commented that perhaps the City could partner with the LMCD on complaints.
David Rahn,City Council,stated he is against residential renting of boat slips. Rahn commented the fact
that there are marina owners here and no residents is simply because out of the 1,000 lakeshore residents,
99 percent of them are unaware of the fact that their family members would not be able to keep their boats
at their dock if the original text amendment is approved. Rahn stated he is interested in getting some type
of code that is simple to understand and that the City needs to define these issues. Since the City is
contemplating the text amendment,now would be the time to fine tune it.
Rich Anderson stated what he has heard being discussed is not simplifying it. Anderson stated the City
could require that property owners come in to city hall and request a variance and then Staff would know
exactly who is at everybody's dock. Anderson noted he has millions of dollars invested in the marina
business and that he was aware Orono did not allow private residences to rent out dock slips. People who
use someone else's dock should need to get permission. Marinas are the only ones who can legally rent
out dock slips.
Denny Walsh stated in his view the City is simplifying things since they are consolidating it into one
section of the code.
Levang moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application#11-3503,City of Orono,Zoning Code Text
Amendment—Lakeshore Residential Zoning Districts. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING CONIMISSION COMMENTS
6. REPORT OF PLANNING COMNIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 27,2012,AND MARCH 12,2012
Schoenzeit stated he attended the February 27��'City Council meeting and the boat slip rental was
discussed. Schoenzeit commented there is a lot of information that needs to be considered when
reviewing the text amendment.
Levang stated she attended the March 12'"meeting where there was a short presentation on the Forest
Lake bridge replacement. There was also a presentation on the Long Lake Fire Department. Levang
reported that Andrew McDermott,LMCD representative, stated the lake was extremely low but not at
historical low levels. Due to the low water elevation,the LMCD will be allowing people to extend their
docks further out. The application on North Shore Drive for a variance and the Casco Point variance was
placed on Consent Agenda.
_ Page
23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 19,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Schwingler moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
9:54 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
� l�-���� 2� � 2
Loren Schoenzeit, Chair
Page
24