>> welcome, everybody to the november 17th meeting of the orono planning commission.
we'd like to start each meeting with the pledge of allegiance. Ask that you please join us.
>>
>> first item on the agenda tonight is the approval of the agenda.
>> motion to approve the agenda. >> welcome, everybody to the november 17 meeting of the orono planning commission.
I'd like to start each meeting with the pledge of allegiance. Ask you, please join us.
>> mr. Chair, operating in proxy tonight. [laughter] >> there you go.
we have a motion to approve the agenda by commission resler. Do I have a second? >> second.
>> second by commissioner tiff. Any further discussion?
all in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? Hearing none motion carries.
first item on the agenda tonight is the approval of the agenda. [laughter]
>> motion to approve the agenda. >> welcome, everybody to the november 17th meeting
of the orono planning commission. To start each meeting. Anyone with allegiance? Ask you please join us.
>> we're just getting some feedback. >> we have a motion to approve the agenda by commission resler.
do I have a second? Second by commissioner tiff.
any further discussion? All in favor, say aye.
>> aye. >> any opposed? Hearing none motion carries.
we're going to move to the next item on the agenda, approval of the minutes from october 20th meeting.
>> I actually had one point of discussion.
>> we have to approve the agenda. >> in reading the minutes in particular around the language changes that we made in what,
I think was the final agenda item. We were very thoughtful and careful of the language changes that we wanted to include,
and we stated that it would be approved with those changes, and I would've liked to have seen those changes documented on the record.
that something that we can. >> we're going to move to the next item on the agenda,
approval of the minutes from october 20th? Fading. >> I actually had one [inaudible]
>> in reading the minutes. [inaudible] >> this is a new error in our system that happening.
>> I'm sorry. We were very thoughtful and careful of the language not that it would be approved with those changes,
and I would've liked to have seen those changes. >> I don't know where that feedback is coming from.
>> that's something that we can. >> we're going to move to the next the agenda, approval of the minutes.
>> thank you, commissioner perkel, for your questions and comments.
that was summarized or it was summarized in how it went to planning or went to the city council,
and it was identified in the memo and presented that way when it was presented to city council.
minutes are a point of a summary of motions and actions.
but as amended, I'd be happy to bring additional clarification or language into
those minutes if that's the direction of the commission. >> especially when we're
approving the text amendments with some clarifications to them.
I feel like those clarifications should be included in the minutes.
otherwise, it's not clear what we actually approved. >> commissioner perkle, for the record,
you're referring to the text amendment regarding retaining walls? >> yes. Thank you. >> just for the commissioners that don't have the minutes in front of them,
we had a lot of discussion on that point, and the minutes,
they just say the planning commission discussed the item. It sounds like it was moved forward with our comments, but I get,
if people look at the minutes online and want to see what we discussed, there's no reference there.
we could put that to a vote to change the minutes so that there's reference
of what we spoke about. Is that what you're requesting?
>> yeah, I think some documentation added to the minutes regarding what that discussion entailed and what we actually approved would be helpful.
>> sounds like you have a motion. >> yes, I'd like to make a motion to amend the minutes to
clarify the text amendment changes that we asked for to be included.
>> I'll second that. >> a motion by commissioner perkle,
a second by commission resler. Any further discussion? >> if I can. I think that leaves it a little bit ambiguous,
and maybe not necessarily for this motion.
when we have these in the future, maybe we just want to call out what
our bullet points are because there is a lot of conjecture in there.
that maybe something for us to learn from. If we're going to nail something down as a point of change,
then we can make them concise one word summaries. Then those can be included in the minutes in the future.
>> I think that would be helpful. >> we have a motion and a second. All in favor?
>> aye. >> any opposed? Hearing none motion carries?
I'm going to reach out to staff here because approval of the minutes I guess,
approval wasn't part of your motion, commissioner perkle?
>> no. >> amend and approval? >> no 'cause we can't approve them without knowing what they will say.
>> how would you like me to continue on that agenda item?
>> if you want to then take a motion to table, and then I can bring them back with amended in january.
>> sure. >> okay. >> I would make a motion to table the approval of the minutes till the next meeting so we can amend them.
>> I'll second that. >> motion to table by commissioner perkle.
second by commissioner welson. All in favor? >> aye.
>> any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. That's going to bring us to our first public hearing of the night.
la25-33. This is hennepin county for 3,700 north shore drive.
this is the north arm public boat launch. This is for a vacation, a variance,
a conditional use permit, and an interim use permit. Miss oakton. >> yes. Good evening,
commissioners. Thank you very much. In front of you tonight is a project within
the city limits to redesign the north arm public boat launch.
of this application and part of the redesign, there's multiple aspects to this project.
one will be to a request to vacate. It is the 20 eastern feet of a cherry avenue,
which is an unimproved right of way, but it is improved as part of the existing parking lot.
then a 20 foot alley, again, it's not improved for an alley,
it is part of the existing parking lot. There are three variances identified for hardcover in the 75 lake shore,
building and structure in the 75 lake shore, and then overall hardcover. There's a conditional use permit for a shoreline protection improvement within
the floodway or the proposed seawall improvements associated with the project,
and then an interim use permit for grading over 10 cubic yards in the lake shore setback.
this is located in our lr-1c, single family residential zoning district.
however, it is a legal non conforming use. This use was created and constructed in
the 1960s and was used as a public boat launch since then,
and we adopted our city code in the 1970s. After this was in existence,
so this is a legal non conforming, how it's operating. It is in our stormwater quality overlay district as a 25% tier hardcover limit,
and the site is roughly 1.8 acres in size.
for the existing conditions, the site currently exists roughly of 70% hardcover,
mostly per two meters, for the parking lot. From the existing condition survey,
roughly 67 parking spots, five handicap, 14 dedicated trailer,
and then 48 standard. The public boat launch, obviously,
there's a garbage dumpster, some temporary porta potty restrooms,
some asi or the aquatic invasive species information, decontamination areas.
some fencing on the site, there's footpath throughout the site. There's some benches and then utility infrastructure,
including generators and other elements throughout the site. Proposed in front of you is to reconstruct the parking lot area and boat launch,
a new fishing areas and walking paths improvements on the east side of the parcel in the shoreline.
improvements to the decontamination area and installation of
a shade structure to support the inspection program for asi inspection program.
installation of new accessibility lift for ada lake access,
reorientation of garbage containers to support fishing activities,
specifically, improvement of overall stormwater management of the site.
a large way that they're addressing that is the parking spaces themselves will be permeable with
a grid gravel system with underwater not underwater,
under parking filtration to manage stormwater.
removal of invasive vegetation and established native plantings on kind of the west side of the site,
as well as screening between the site and a budding residential areas.
the first part of this application is a vacation. The property is bisected by a platted right of way.
I've highlighted the area in red that's proposed to be vacated.
it is 20 feet of cherry avenue, which is over here, and then the 14 foot alley.
there is a blue area over here. It's not showing up great on the screen, but that is proposed to remain right of way.
this is where the existing met council generator is located on the site.
as part of the vacation process, the dnr was notified and provided a letter included in your packet.
as part of that letter, they noted that the proposed vacation does not change the public access to the lake minnetonka, as it exists today.
the dnr and city staff agreed to retain public access over this space should the use ever change in the future,
which can be documented as part of the resolution for this project. This specific right of way that goes into the lake is not identified as
a lake access point within the comprehensive plan. Just of note.
of the variances, there are three variances. The overall site hardcover.
the new hard cover proposed on the site is estimated to be 79% following the definition of hard cover and our city code,
of that 79% proposed, 36% of it is permeable,
which is that parking area that will be kind of that grid and gravel system,
and then 43% will be impermeable, which is concrete and bituminous.
overall, the site will result in a 22,000 square foot decrease in concrete and bituminous.
or of impermeable space on the site as under the current proposed application.
hardcover with the 75 foot lake yard, approximately 24,000 square feet of hardcover will be in the 75.
it is anticipated that there would be hardcover in the 75 as this is
a water oriented use as part of the site for that legal nonconforming use.
buildings and structures within the 75 foot setback. The project plans to upgrade the improvements on
the site and maintain the ancillary use of the site.
they're proposing to change the garbage dumpster into new trash cans over by the fishing area,
proposed screening and fencing around the porta potty, which is there today,
but we'll be moved to a different site here outside of the 75 foot setback.
I'm specifically screening and fencing around utilities such as this
met console generator and some of the asi shed area,
a new canopy for the asi inspector up here,
a new shed to support asi decontamination back here, and the new lighting and signage around the site as well.
a conditional and interim use permit are also requested a conditional use permit for floodway or shoreline management.
specifically, we're calling it the seawall improvements. The application is proposing granite steps on the east side of the property here
to promote accessibility and non motorized boat launching from the site, canoes and kayaks.
new steps along the east side of the shoreline to preserve shoreline
from erosion and allow easier access for non motorized boats, new fishing piers,
and the new orientation of the lake access boat launch, all trigger the need for the shoreline management/sea wall cup,
because it potentially impacts the floodplain.
then an inter use permit for grading. Overall, within the 75 foot setback,
they're cutting roughly 547 cubic yards and filling just over 200 cubic yards of fill.
it results in a net reduction of 339 cubic yards from the area,
which is good as it promotes better 100 year flood storage for the area.
it does trigger our interim use permit for the amount of grading for the site.
highlighted and summarized in your packet, but I just wanted to touch base on a handful of
comments from other government agencies in the public that we've received. The orono pd did submit email with
questions regarding accessibility and enforcement of the site. I did also include hennepin county's response to those questions,
so that's available to you. Dnr provided a letter of support for that vacation.
they also provided an email from the area hydrologist regarding improvements with extent to
those improvements within the ordinary high water level within the fishing piers here,
specifically, they are proposed to butt into the lake beyond the existing shoreline.
the dnr noted that they would have to go
through their permitting process and potentially some site amendments maybe pulling those back to the shoreline,
existing edge of shoreline or something to that effect may be necessary.
the applicants still working through the dnr permitting process. Minnehaha creek submitted a letter included in your packet that
notes the project regarding the wetland requirements,
stormwater and shoreline protections as well. Following minnehaha creek watershed district's comments,
city staff is recommending to incorporate a natural shoreline around the parcel as much as possible,
but not to limit the use of access for the public. Regarding the wetland, there is
a potential wetland shown along the western lake shore side of the property.
the applicant and minnehaha creek indicated that this is likely a wetland not protected by the wetland conservation act,
so it's considered a no loss wetland. A determination is required, however.
if that determination finds that this does qualify under the wetland protection act,
then additional approvals and public hearings may be required as that may trigger an alteration to a wetland.
a condition in front of you tonight as proposed is that a notice of decision
from the watershed must be submitted to the city before the application can proceed to the city council,
just to verify all public hearings are handled before this goes to the city council.
>> lmcd is also involved in the process of reviewing the boat.
they are in the process of reviewing the boat access and launch and the new docks. Comments may be forthcoming from them as they're work through their permitting process.
then the city has received public comments on this application as well. Highlighted in your packet under, I believe,
the three different exhibits from different entities that have submitted, but highlighted as concerns with commercial barge activity,
safety concerns with industrial machines on the site. Preservation of natural buffers, minimize infrastructure,
address trash concerns on the site to maintain public access to the lake,
or high-level summary comments from the comments that were submitted.
in front of you tonight, staff has prepared a few discussion questions and then our recommendations as well.
just for the discussion questions, does the commission have any concerns with the proposed improvements on the site?
are there any concerns with the application related to use and enforcement on the site?
the planning commission should request additional testimony from the applicant regarding the parking demands on the site,
and then the commission should review the materials about how the site may impact abutting residential areas,
including landscaping, lighting, and ask for additional testimony there as you discuss.
with that, staff is recommending approval of the application, conditioned on hennepin county
obtaining all necessary permits from other government agencies, a notice of decision from minnehaha creek to
address wetland regulations before this moves to city council. Then efforts should be made to incorporate a natural shoreline around the property where
possible as to not limit the use for the public.
that's the really high-level 10,000-foot view of this project.
I have a lot of information. I'd be happy to put up on the screen, answer or discuss,
but the applicant is here tonight as well, if you have any questions of them.
with that, I'm available for questions.
>> thank you. Any questions for staff? >> I have a few.
>> yes. >> can you clarify the underlying impetus behind the project?
is it driven by the county? >>yes. >> adding industrial use.
that's one of the big changes. With the barge activity?
>> I wouldn't say that they're adding an industrial use. I think comments that we're hearing and questions are
just about the current state of industrial and commercial activity on the site.
earlier versions of this site did have a barge access,
or they called it a vertical lift element or improvement to this site through conversations and comment letters,
that element has been removed from the site. That element of a barge lift or
a vertical access lift is no longer proposed or as part of this project.
>> then, are you privy to information regarding how the county determined
that this is their priority for making some of these changes to
allow for these different types of access?
>> I think that would be a question for the county.
>> then I'm also curious,
given the amount of feedback received and the fact that there,
is still a question around protected wetlands. I just want to clarify that instead
of saying we might need additional approvals to get around protected wetlands,
we actually may need to rethink the project or question if
some of those wetlands are found to be protected.
but I guess my question is, if staff is recommending approval,
help me understand where that's coming from.
>> when you open up and look at our wetlands map layer,
which indicates an estimation of where wetlands are based on topography and historic information,
it does indicate a wetland on the western side of this property. That being said, there is a long documented history of
this site being man-made and created in the 1960s on fill.
with that, and I'm not necessarily an expert on wetland conservation act and wca,
that comes from the watershed, but between the hennepin county and minnehaha creek conversations.
my understanding is because that is a man-made created area,
and the wetland identified on there is from this man-made area and will most likely count as a no loss,
as it's a wetland that's not protected under the wetland conservation act because it's a man-made area.
I'll let the hennepin county speak to this more, but it wouldn't be regulated under minnehaha creek,
and it wouldn't be protected under the wetland conservation act. That being said, hennepin county does need to go through
the process with minnehaha creek to submit that application and get that determination.
that process hasn't been completed yet through minnehaha creek.
that's why minnehaha creek felt fairly comfortable or confident,
as well as hennepin county, that this most likely because it's a man-made area will not count under the wac of protections.
however, there is a chance because they haven't finished that process.
they won't give that definitive answer, and neither hennepin county until that's completed. I just wanted to bring that to the attention.
>> sure. Thank you. Given that open question and some of the other,
fairly significant feedback that we've received, my question is around how staff got to the recommending approval.
>> with the information that we have based on the submittal and on the information from minnehaha creek,
we believe that that wetland most likely will be a no loss meaning and won't count [overlapping].
>> aside on the wetland, as a point of process, I guess.
>> included in your packet is one of the early exhibits is
governing regulations where staff did the analysis on our practical difficulty standards,
our cup standards, and our interim use standards. Through those standards with the governing regulations put forth by our city code,
staff found that those standards are met for this project.
>> thank you. >> yes. >> any other questions for staff?
>> I have a couple. These are going to be in a random order.
the met console generator. >> yes. >> can you just high level explain what that function is.
[laughter]. >> I believe it supports the sewer.
let me try and get to an aerial here. This right here. Right away.
that generator helps power and support the sewer infrastructure in the area.
>> that's within the city right away. >> yes.
>> hard cover. Permeable surfaces.
you had a nice slide up there with it.
the existing site is 70% somewhere in there.
>> road cover. >> proposed is 79%.
a big portion of this is going to be permeable. >> yes.
>> remind me again, the credit we're allowed to give for permeable versus [overlapping].
>> 100 square feet. >> 100 square feet.
>> by our definition of hardcover, this will increase from 70-79.
I did call out the difference in that this isn't permeable pavers.
if you give me a minute, I can pull up examples of what they're proposing, but it is a loose grid system in all the parking space areas,
and it's a function of their storm water management of the site that they're hoping to
improve by allowing better filtration and capture more storage of water.
I'll let the hennepin county or the applicants speak to their storm water management plan and how that relates to the hard cover.
>> thank you for the clarity. I feel like that's somewhat misleading to show a
22,000 square feet decrease when it's actually increasing.
but I'm understand that correctly. The site's increasing in [overlapping].
>> the site is increasing from 70% hardcover to 79% hardcover.
>> got it. Do you
feel like the application is complete without the wetland delineation?
>> I feel working with hennepin county and neighboring government agency here,
they have submitted enough information for it to be deemed complete outside of that wetland standard,
which is something that has come up as we've been reviewing the project alongside minnehaha creek?
>> timeline january 20th. The city has to make a decision or planning commission has to make a decision by january?
>> as of right now, the city council has to make a decision by january 20th. That is the deadline for the 120-day.
that being said, that's the applicant can extend that deadline if they see fit,
or if they're working through this project. But that is the 120-day extension would be city council acting by that time.
>> that's all I have right now. >> thank you. Anyone else? >> mr. Mayor.
>> yes. >> just one question. I was trying to mind it. Maybe I missed the trailer vehicle counts, propose versus existing.
>> I'm sure the applicant could speak to this as well. Currently, the site, I believe,
has roughly 67 parking, but 48 of them are standard.
that being said, I believe a lot of the parking that abuts north shore.
people use the grass area for trailer parking, but counting it has its constructed.
it is 48 standard. As it's proposed, they have I believe, 64 parking.
is what's proposed on the site with majority of them being trailered, parking.
I believe I have it in my memo, the breakdown, specifically on parking.
but I can get you those numbers as well. Here,64 total stalls, 18 of them will be standard parking,
five will be handicaps, and 41 will be boat and trailer.
>> forty one boat and trailer. That's is it also 41 right now?
>> right now, there is 48 standard.
there's 14 boat and trailer right now currently. >> technically.
>> technically, by the improvement? There's 14 boat and trailer as it exists today,
and they're proposing 41 under the new proposed site plan.
>> perfect. Thank you. Go ahead. >> any other questions?
>> just quickly, and I don't know if you have this or if this is for the applicant. Has there been any analysis of the current traffic counts and patterns on the site?
submitted with it, or? >> the applicant submitted a maneuverability of the site,
but actual traffic counts I do not have. That's something you can ask of the applicant.
>> thank you. I was just going to follow-up on the chair's question about
the amount of permeable hard cover that we give credit to.
is that maximum threshold informed by
how realistically effective permeable hard cover is compared to no hard cover at all?
do we think that maximum is adequate in this. >> for a 100 square feet of permeable.
permeable hardcover is something that we haven't give credit to in the past,
because it takes maintenance. It takes long term maintenance and tracking to ensure that it stays permeable.
that being said with this project, I believe hennepin county would like to speak to the permeability
of their project since it is part of their storm water elements, but in the past,
our city code hasn't identified or given credit beyond 100 square feet of permeable. By definition.
>> any other questions or we can hear from the applicant? >> just one quick question.
just to understand the process. If we approve it, deny it,
table it, no matter what we vote on it, it has to go to the city council because of the open items.
without government agencies, is that correct?
>> it needs to go to city council because of the deadline associated with the project.
that being said, that'd be a question for the applicant, if they'd be willing to extend that deadline to let it go
through the process at your discretion. But we are required by state statute
to act within certain number of days on land use applications.
following that deadline, we have to act within 120 days, which puts us at january 20th.
that the council needs to act by. Other government agencies have their own timing in their own processes.
>> I apologize. I do have one other question.
do we have anything in our code about light pollution near and close to lake?
>> specifically, we talk about shoreline management,
shoreline protections, and our comp plan, and our guiding principles and our impotence for creating for adopting our shoreline regulations,
but there's no specific zoning ordinance that says, no pollution.
>> it's coming up because on the plan when I was looking at it, there was an introduction of lights where the fisheries are,
which is a high traffic waterway. >> light pollution. >> light pollution, which could potentially harm the species and nature there.
>> regarding light pollution, we have a light ordinance about
lighting brightness and how it's viewed on neighboring properties.
but we don't necessarily have an ordinance about light pollution into the water. >> we don't have anything in the lake shore setback related [overlapping].
>> light pollution into the water. >> light fixtures. >> not in the shore setback.
we do have lighting standards for parking lots. We have lighting standards for how it impacts neighboring properties,
but we don't have regarding as a lighting protection against the open water.
>> thank you. >> yes. >> I just had a question regarding the regulation of the boat launch itself,
and who is responsible in some of the counties documentation they submitted that they don't regulate.
who's responsible? Can you answer that question or provide some direction there?
>> it probably more speaks to what we're trying to regulate.
but the county owns and operates the site.
regarding regulation and enforcement of the site, that would be a conversation of what you're trying to regulate or what you're trying
to enforce on who and what would step in to enforce that.
>> thank you. >> any further questions?
if the applicant is here and wish to speak, please approach the podium.
state your name and address for the record, please. >> hello, guy, project architect with
the hennepin county and address is government center, downtown.
>> yes, so I just have a very quick and short presentation to give you,
just to give you a high level understanding of the impetus of where this project is coming from.
I think what occurred was that the county identified that
the location in the project or the current site is worn.
it's just worn weather old. We either need to do something,
either replacing the vituminous asphalt or do something else,
and we decided to go bigger and modernize this.
from the list of deficiencies, there's no dedicated aquatic invasive species decontamination facility.
there's no traffic flow. Ramp that's optimized for modern vehicles and trailers.
they've gotten bigger over time, since the 1960s. There's poor or non-ada accessible shore fishing experience.
the asphalt is worn and the stormwater system is deteriorated.
then the limited accessibility for recreational boaters with disability.
those were the big problems that we saw with the site currently as it stands.
next slide. Our solution is, find a place for a dedicated space for aquatic invasive species prevention.
actions and permanent decontamination facility. That's what you see in number 1,
which is towards the entrance and exit. The site is actually a one way.
it's a right in, and then counterclockwise movement.
then naturally, the exit would also be going on the right side along that,
and the decon station is pretty good there.
optimized traffic flow and parking for larger vehicles and trailers.
like I said, 1960s cars, boats, little smaller.
the trailer parking stalls are actually larger and wider also.
number 3 is wider ramp standard for lake minnetonka with straight backing.
if we go back to the other slide, we can tell that it takes corner backing to get into the ramp right now,
which is not an ideal way of accessing the ramp.
with this, we're going to fix that. There's plenty of space to do just a straight backing maneuver.
then number 4 is enhanced and ada accessible shore fishing experience.
I think that was a pretty big one right now where there's rip rap,
and there's no way for wheelchairs or crutches or walkers
or anything of that nature to enjoy the fishing in that area.
we plan to remedy that. Then five is a new grid pervious parking spaces and stormwater management.
imagine like a milk crate. It's high density poly at the lane.
you throw some gravel and there rocks in there, and water just percolates through it.
I did identify or see that the system does have a long lifespan,
but it's not indefinite because stilt might get trapped under there,
which might cause it to not be permeable over time.
but I think with the county, what we would most likely do or insist on
doing is having it tested at the 15 year interval, and then every five years after that,
just to ensure that the system is working properly.
that's to everybody's best interest. Six is access improvements,
assisting non-motorized watercraft such as kayaks, canoes, and paddle boards.
the parking for the non-motorized watercraft is just below number 6 there.
there is an area that is a little better for
people to pull their water crafts into the launch area,
which is also steps adjacent to the dock.
being able to just access that physically getting your water craft or one's water craft there it's going to be an improvement.
then seven is wheelchair ramp and lift. This is a very special thing.
during the public meetings that we had, we had a non-profit organization called out
wheelchairs and wallis out of south dakota approach us. What they've been doing out there is that they've identified that the use of
their waters was being prevented by persons with disabilities,
somebody who's wheelchair confined or has a temporary disability,
being able to get on the boat to get onto the lake.
their solution, which is a pretty good one is a ramp where the wheelchair would roll up,
and then there is a lift. That's practically one of those swimming pool lifts that they have.
the person on the wheelchair would be lifted onto the boat,
and then the boat would launch on the ramp. That's why it's adjacent to the ramp.
there. Yes, and I think that would be the first of its kind on lake minnetonka.
we'll see how that one goes. But, next slide.
these are the timeline schedules and milestones today.
we have the planning commission meeting. City council meeting. I got really aggressive with that schedule and put it on the eighth.
if it goes to january, totally understand. But I think the big overarching goal is to get the construction document started in
2026 and then have it go out for bidding and procurement in the second quarter.
then the third quarter would be the construction commencement with the caveat that construction will be done in phases,
and we prioritize maintaining public access during the busiest portion of the fishing and boating season.
we don't want anybody to miss out on a good summer.
I can entertain all of the other questions, too, if you can just remind me.
>> we can remind you. Any questions for the applicant?
>> I guess you. >> go ahead. >> just on the question I had asked, our staff,
would like to hear from your mouth just how you guys feel about the regulation of the specifically I'll say,
commercial use of the site. [overlapping] regulation of that.
>> yes. From the county's point of view is,
we don't have a policy in place,
and we're not seeing anything from the state or from the city in terms of policy that would prevent that.
I think that if there was a written policy that we could, I guess,
reference and put on a sign, and it is the policy,
and there is some rules or laws in the books. We wouldn't be opposed to that,
and that's something that could occur in the future. But from our standpoint,
it's a policy issue. The way that the site has operated before since 1960s,
it's been public. It's been open. I don't think that the county has any desire to close it
off to any other users that are currently using it right now.
I will say that we took off the vertical lift access because that could be construed as an expansion of the use.
we acknowledge that and we took it off. Now big picture on
this site now is that it's going to operate the same way that it's operated before.
it's going to be signed properly. If people aren't parking correctly. We'll have signs that make it so that the nopd can enforce that.
then in terms of enforcement from the hennepin county sheriff's office,
the sheriff's office will be enforcing the water side of things. We do have a limit of 20 minutes for people using the launch.
they can't just sit idly and just stage there. That's our approach.
>> thank you. >> is the purpose of the straight backing focused
on larger and possibly industrial use, or is that?
>> no. The purpose is that, I've backed boat trailers,
and I'm not really good at that. It's more of a recreational user focus item.
it's more consistent with what we're seeing at the other boat launches around the lake, too.
>> are there other launches around the lake that are equipped for more industrial use?
>> that, I don't know. I can't understand.
>> rays bay or something that's closer to highways and not adjacent to residential areas.
>> there possibly is, yes. >> then, are you pursuing these same updates or
changes at other accesses around the lake,
including those adjacent to residential areas? >> the county has another access on the lake,
and that's spring park. That's also where the sheriff's office out of.
but I don't think we have any other funding,
really, in a way. >> then, my other question is around the waste receptacle management plan.
the documentation says the county will encourage users to pack it in and pack it out.
a dumpster will not be provided due to the gross misuse of the existing dumpster.
waste and recycling receptacles will be provided in the fishing area. I'm wondering if this is a standard elsewhere and how that's working,
in particular, if there is misuse of the current waste receptacles.
how can we be assured that there won't be waste sitting around this neighborhood?
>> I think what we're doing is we're trying something different currently it's not working.
that dumpster is being grossly misused. It's over filled with stuff that's not even really related to the boat launch.
do you know how often it's being emptied today?
>> I'm chris kenzel. I'm the l water supervisor, hennepin county, address 625 fourth avenue, south in minneapolis.
my staff oversee management of the site. The receptacles are emptied twice per week during the boating season.
that's on mondays and fridays. Proceeding and following weekends.
in that, too, we have a sentence to serve crew that will also do landscaping management as well.
they'll mold the site, maintain it as well. Then the base removal is done by a company we contract with directly.
that will continue on this site, even with removal of the dumpster and just with the waste receptacles.
>> can you speak to how you would characterize the misuse of the dumpster?
>> sure. What we've seen is mostly household waste. When I speak to the misuse only,
we do certainly see a lot of bottle waste in that trash as well. What we've typically seen is if we emptied it,
like I said on mondays and fridays, by saturday mornings and tuesday mornings, it's often full again.
we have been trying to better track that, and we have looked at doing drop offs even between that twice a week period,
especially if we have household waste that's overflowing, like, we've had chairs, gas tanks,
a lot of other things like that. If we have a need to remove it, we do remove it at that time. We haven't identified the person or persons that are doing it,
per se, but we just try to keep it [inaudible]. >> you have or have not? >> we have not. >>you have not. Is there signage related to penalties for
dumping household or other non voter related refuse?
>> not to my knowledge, no. >> do you think that might be helpful? >> it may be helpful, yes.
>> do you think it's reasonable to expect people to not have
any waste coming off of the boat after a day of boating?
>> the way we manage this is really similar to as this guy outlined how other ecstasies manage this too.
it's consistent with this county zero waste plan, which is to really limit the amount of waste that we generate,
both on this site and off of it. I do think it's reasonable not to provide this.
we certainly are providing it to our shoreline fishermen that are there, but for those that use this access,
and I've used many other ecstasies across other lakes, too, not necessarily minnetonka,
I'm used to that as well. That if I do generate any waste on a lake, that I'm taking it with me and throwing it away, wherever I'm going.
>> my concern would just be that there would be, if you have small receptacles by the shoreline fishing and you take away the dumpster,
that anyone exiting a boat that has take out
containers or other things that they want to get rid of and not
pack back in their vehicle with them that those small receptacles are going to get
over filled very quickly and not be able to be used for the intended purpose,
which is to prevent littering, especially littering or waste falling into the leak.
>> yes, that's certainly on our radar, and what could happen. That's an area of the plan that we're willing to change once we institute it to.
for example, we plan to have both recycling and trash. If we find ones getting over used,
for example, we have a lot of people recycling. We can sign that better as well. If we do find certainly that the dumpster is needed,
either through our work on the site or through advocation we have through our partners, we're willing to add it back to this site, too.
it was just something we wanted to try because we thought it was more consistent with how our axes are managed, including the spring park.
>> that's what I was going to ask, it does work at others? >> yes. >> where you have some small receptacles,
but no large dumpster. >> yes. At spring park, I can't speak specifically for that one per se.
but at other areas that I've certainly gone to, I'm from chicago county myself.
we do occasionally see those in those cases, too. Honestly, most of the time, there's nothing there.
even the availability of those receptacles are special relative to a lot of the other accesses I've been to.
typically, you have nothing there. >> if I can piggy back on that question.
you mentioned that it's a test on this site to not have a dumpster.
if this were to be approved and move forward and you realized that you need a dumpster,
is there a spot on this plan that you would have an enclosure for a dumpster?
>> we have that picnic area on the northwestern portion of the site where
the vertical access formally was that provides ample space where we could provide a dumpster.
we'll also have our signage in that area. To the previous point, we could also include signage there that would
outline expectations that we have for trash management on site.
>> commission kriegler, do you have more questions or if not, I have some I'll start with.
thank you. I think that's all mine that pertain to the garbage.
in the application, one of the reasons for
this redesign you said was to promote safety on the site.
what is currently unsafe about the site, and what does promoting safely mean?
what in this new project is making it safer? >> what's the?
>> that was in the application. That was one of the reasons for the application was to promote
safety on the site and I'm curious what's unsafe about the site today.
>> right now, the site is just not lit.
there's one pole that's by by the boat ramp, and then there's,
I think, one light on county road and that's the only lighting that's on site.
I think that one of the things that we want to
promote in terms of safety is upgrading the lighting.
technically, that was also the impetus for the vertical access lit.
or the vertical access point is that we identified that there are recreational users who get priority on the site,
but there are also other users, and those two users can't exist at the same time in the same place.
if we look back at the vertical access point that we've taken out the reasoning for that was
that we just left spaces for both user groups to use it in a safer manner,
where they're not on top of each other. Currently, they are on top of each other,
and the way that it's going to be going right now, unless there's a policy change,
we assume that's going to occur. Between the lighting and the vertical access point and
then also the accessibility is a safety thing. We don't want anybody who is not able to go fishing,
try to attempt to go on trap rock and hurt themself further.
we've actually seen and witnessed people getting hurt on that.
having things that are accessible it just doesn't benefit,
people who have disabilities, but it benefits everybody.
it makes it safer for everybody. Then in terms of the site circulation,
that's also a safety thing, too, having it be a one way, and then having it be pretty wide aisles,
like, for a one way aisle, having it be 30 feet. That's pretty wide, because on a typical two way,
parking access, it's 24 feet. We're giving more room, you know,
more space to maneuver around the site,
and hopes that it increases the safety for everyone.
>> thank you. A question on the vacation of the city right ways.
is it possible to have this existing use function without that vacation of the right ways?
it this proposed plan. >> would be, I would think.
but just being able to clean it up right now, when we're going through the redevelopment,
I think would be a benefit to everybody.
>> clarity on the parking. Existing, you have 14 boat trailer stalls and it says they're adding 27.
that's a total of 41 trailer and both stalls, correct?
>> correct. >> trailer and car stalls. >> vehicle and trailer stalls.
but with the kabat, if you go back to the first slide,
I learned that that area along the county road,
that the trailers are in in that grass, it was designed as that.
it was designed for the trailers to back up into the grass, hoping that it wouldn't get the county or reach the county road.
I think saying that there's only 14 trailer spaces is technically speaking,
the way that we see it, the way that we would identify it is true. But I think that if we read between the lines and seeing how it is right now,
I would consider those trailer parking spaces also.
>> explain to me the actual boat launch changes. It says wider ramp.
is there a changing the angle of the ramp other than just widening it or what?
>> yes. The angle of the ramp, I think clockwise a little bit.
that was the constraint was the channel.
we didn't want to get the ramp and the docks closed. >> it's more the departure angle or
the actual angle of the ramp itself going into the water. >> that would, I don't think that would change.
I mean, that's pretty standardized, I would assume.
>> thank you. Any other questions? >> I'll go last. Anybody else?
>> I might have some follow up questions after we get into deliberation.
people talk and things before. I just had one question.
in contrast, has the county considered any launch fees for
hennepin county at launches just to supplement costs and things like that. I know that, for example,
the state parks vehicle permit fees. >> sure. >> you think about rights to use things versus privileges versus
licenses and and how that comes together when it comes to funding?
>> yes, we haven't considered that no I don't think we will consider that that would defeat the purpose of a public access.
>> I guess humor me on that. [laughter] you have a state park and you have permit fees for that, wouldn't you?
>> correct. >> defeat the purpose of a state park? >> no, I don't think that would defeat the purpose of a state park.
because a state park has amenities such as camping,
such as groom trails, such as things that would need more maintenance and upkeep.
but even in a state park where there's a lake,
there is public access to the lake. I think the dnr carves out that public access because
public access to lakes are a very central thing to minnesotans.
we have so many lakes, and if we start to, I guess, gatekeep it, we might run into a slippery slope on that.
now, the minnesota state forest, I think, doesn't have any access fees.
you can go, like, camping, wilderness, just remote out there,
but there aren't that type of amenities that come with that.
I don't think that, this site, personally, would,
I guess, benefit from departure from the other sites on lake minnetonka,
because what we're offering is nothing more than what the other sites are offering.
it would be unfair to charge people only on this site exclusively if there are other sites,
that aren't being charged. Then I think part of it, too, is that, the number of parking stalls that we have was a recommendation
from the dnr in terms of how many acres of lake there is.
I think they came down to, like, 700, trailer parking stalls.
we're trying to do our part, and that's why we have the request to expand the setback so that we can,
maintain that number of trailer parking. But going back to your question about,
a fee to use it. I personally, I don't think the county would go for that,
because, we view this as a public access.
>> thanks. >> I've just got a quick question on the handicap ramp and lift.
you've got one stall for handicap parking with trailer it looks like next to it?
>> correct. >> however there's two handicap spots across.
is there a reason they're spread out? I would think it'd be better to keep them closer to launch lift?
>> with the launch lift, that's not every accessible stall user would be using that launch lift.
because let's say, if I were somebody who, had an accessibility tag,
had a boat and trailer, needed to park it, but I didn't need to use the ramp,
that's a possibility, because I think they give out those tags to not just people who have,
physical limitations, but, I think I'm sure that if you get old enough,
they'll give you one because they're saying, well, we don't want you to walk too far.
but the number of accessible stalls that we have, I think,
is dictated by the amount or percentage of what is being provided.
I think 5% of parking stalls need to be given,
accessible consideration. Just put it that way.
>> a few questions. First question,
has there been any research into the traffic or any data that you can provide about how many boats are using this launch on average per day?
I know the dnr records it, so I'm curious if you've put that together so we can understand what it looks like right now.
>> I don't have any of that data.
>> do you have any projection on how much this is going to increase the traffic?
>> judging by the size that the site is the same size, and the number of parking stalls are pretty much the same,
I think it would be fair to assume that even if the traffic did want to increase,
it couldn't because it's size constrained. If you have a site with 70 parking stalls
before and you have a site with 70 parking stalls after. No matter how nice it is,
it's just people might want to use it, but they're going to find out very quickly when they get there that,
all of the stalls are taken because it's public access, first come first use,
and everything is signed. Even if you wanted to, work around it by,
detaching your trailer and parking anything in a parking stall,
you're going to get ticketed and find. >> I apologize. I guess I misunderstood.
I thought there was a net increase in parking spots coming out of this.
>> I believe it's a decrease of, like, three parking stalls.
a decrease of the site. It's going from, like, 67-64.
>> that's all I have for a night. >> any other questions?
>> I apologize that I was going to down until there was a little four.
but just out of statistical question, do you know how many boat launches are in hennepin county and
over how many lakes that is of hand by chance. I was trying to find it, so I didn't have to ask you.
>> I think we have two in lake minnetonka. I don't know about the other.
>> was your question, total accesses regardless of owner or accesses managed by the county?
>> I guess the latter. I guess I'd be interested in finding out both questions.
any does the county have? >> the county has two, so the one we're talking about today,
north armas well spring park that we own and operate. Across minnetonka, I think,
believe there are about 10 other ones that are owned and operated by a mix of cities,
worth park district, and dnr. More broadly across the county,
I don't know the exact number, but venture to guess, it's probably well over 100 accesses across lakes and
rivers that are managed by a mix of dnr arc districts,
including three rivers, park and record and various cities.
we do one of my staff members has a full accounting of that. I can get you a total number.
we definitely have that number somewhere. >> I'd be good to know just how many in the county do you guys actually operate?
we be good to know that. Again, didn't mean to put you on the spot, I was trying to find it.
chatgpt keeps spinning right. [laughter] >> then number is two. I can say that definitively. We have to.
>> what question for guy. You mentioned this is back to the permeable parking.
you had mentioned that's made of a high density polyethylene?
>> polyethylene. >> polyethylene. >> like a milk create. >> any environmental impacts from that that we should be worried about.
>> it's recyclable, so it's made from recyclable content. I think in terms of useful life,
the system is, made for 30+ years, probably closer to 50.
maintenance wise, I think you would just take the gravel up,
clean up the silt that's on the bottom, and then reput the gravel back down.
in terms of environmental properties of it.
it's something that's better than asphalt. I'll put it that way. It's better than asphalt, but quite a bit.
>> in what way? >> in that it can be reused,
recycled at the end of its life cycle, in that the actual system itself,
like the gravel also can be reused, where we would argue that asphalt could be reused.
it could be chipped up and used again, but how often that gets done and to what extent?
I don't think it's as favorable compared to the system that we're proposing right now.
>> thank you. >> can you speak to the maintenance, and who performs that and how often that will need to be done?
>> yes ma'am
>> it'll be my staff doing that. As part of this being a cip project,
this will fall under our asset management for the county. Very similar to how we handle our storm water ponds and other stormwater infrastructure.
this will get on a list that's tracked and then maintained regularly.
in the case of permeable pavement, what we typically do is clean it out to take out any silt or
other materials that can fill in and reduce its capacity.
it would be consistent with the manufacturer's expectations, which I think I would lean on ishmael to provide those details,
but we would expect probably at least yearly clean out. >> you're using this somewhere else in the county today?
>> yeah. We have permeable pavement. I wouldn't say fairly widely,
but we probably have at least a half dozen examples of where we use it across the county in various different use types.
>> if it's not properly maintained, then it just starts to act more and more like traditional hard cover.
the permeability is limited? >> exactly. >> okay. Thank you.
>> yeah, and we've accounted for the capacity of the system, too,
and I think it's thicker than it needs to be, so that it has more capacity to hold that water.
>> winter maintenance of the site. What's proposed? Similar to what's being used right now?
>> yeah, I think what's being done right now is that the county plows the dry aisle, and that's it.
they'll be plowing the bitumens or the asphalt dry aisle.
>> not the parking? >> not the parking. No, because I think the use is reduced.
there aren't as many people using it. >> that's currently they're doing that?
I thought they were plowing the entire thing. >> sorry.
>> I believe it's actually the city that is currently plowing it. They do often use it as a resting area, the plow drivers.
I can get that answer though in terms of I think this as winter access.
I don't know the details and the frequency of plowing, but I can provide that. That is a question we should follow up on.
>> fair to say the winter access isn't going to change or the winter use isn't going to change from what we see today.
>> the materials are not at risk with regular plowing?
>> no, certainly not where you outside of permeable area specifically.
those are very easily plowed. Those permeable areas will keep snow piles there,
so as that snow melts, it can infiltrate into that permeable pavement and provide
some especially chloride reductions at a minimal degree,
or any sediment bound nutrients can also be captured in there from a runoff standpoint, it's also beneficial.
but I think if we do plow it would just be a plow way to get from akasa 51 north shore drive down to the lake.
>> thank you. >> any other questions? >> questions, again, about the traffic.
the road that this is on as a county road. >> correct. >> challenging road situation of the launch for large vehicles with boats to pull out.
is the county going to make any changes to the road or the intersection to help alleviate any of the stress from that with this?
>> there was no intention of taking the project scope outside of what we're seeing here.
but I know what you're saying, because I drove by the side. >> I've launched a 32 foot boat from there,
and I've almost been hit a million times. That's why I asked is because even though I understand the parkings not changing,
I can assure you that the use is going to significantly increase from the improvements, and if we've already got traffic issues because of
a blind intersection in the city or the county is the one to take care of it, my hope was that the county would address that at the same time.
>> I think the only thing that we're doing is adding light at the entrance,
so it's better led, but otherwise.
>> there's no option to move the entrance, so it's further away from the blind spot.
because when you come out of there, the right becomes very difficult to see oncoming traffic that's coming through the intersection,
specifically because of where the entrance is right now.
>> I'm not sure if that is an option. The curb cut that's existing. It's a great change.
>> we are removing some of that brush there, so that'll have a minimal benefit, but not a significant one.
I will bring that up with my leadership to see if there will be discussions that re-dated the current project and to understand.
I don't believe it's on our cip list, but I'll make sure I have that answer.
>> I appreciate it. I'd also make some suggestion to because there's a no stop sign coming the other way,
that's what makes it a very dangerous situation to pull out of there. The traffic going eastbound on
that road it's not slowing down when it comes around the blind spot.
>> just looking at this photo right now, I think the driving factor is that
grade change as it's going up because as you move the curb cut to the east,
you'll have a delta elevation that's greater than what it is now.
pick your poison, I guess, we pick this one.
>> thank you. If that's it, we'll open the public hearing. Thank you.
>> thank you. >> this item is a public hearing. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item, please approach the podium.
state your name and address for the record, please.
>> hello, my name is matt herman. I live at 3825, cherry avenue in orono,
and I got into this after having a conversation with the lake minnetonka association,
and I think all of my neighbors received a letter that this project was going to happen
and part of what I heard from eric was that a lot of citizens hadn't said anything,
and there was this belief that there was there wasn't any concern.
after talking to our neighbors, there's a lot of concern, and you brought up a lot of them tonight.
I would say probably the first thing is the lack of regulation.
the fact that we've seen a tremendous amount of commercial and industrial use at this site.
as many of you know who live here, it's not a huge property,
and it's within a neighborhood. The lake, as you all know is under a lot of pressure,
and we're seeing more landscaping barges that are dropping boulders at the site.
they're running skid steers across the site.
it's not conducive to have semi trailers coming in here with dump trucks, in my opinion.
it creates a huge safety issue that lighting is not going to change.
I truly believe that there should be some regulation on commercial industrial use at this site,
telling people that they can't dump trash and putting up a camera and telling them they're going to be fined.
I think greatly reduce that. Having just receptacles for fishermen,
I think is a huge miss. It concerns me that we're going to lose the buffers that are across from that wetland,
and we don't need a parking lot in our neighborhood. This is a great asset,
and I commend hennepin county for trying to improve an aging asset.
but I think we're seeing a lot of different businesses using this site,
whether they should be or not. I'll be the first to say, I hire a barge to take my boat lift out annually.
I'm not talking about docks and lifts. I'm talking about rip rap and back hoes and dump trucks and skid steers that
are interacting on a property with that should be designated for recreational use, in my opinion.
I'd say one other thing as you mentioned, there's a lot of activity going on here in the winter.
we're seeing more and more guide services that are staging on this site with fish houses,
without houses that are going out onto the bay and coming back off.
there's a lot of activity that happens on this property all year long.
I appreciate you taking my comments. >> thank you.
>> [noise] good evening. My name is betsy newsbam, and I live at 3480 north shore drive in the balder park neighborhood,
which is adjacent to this north arm access.
I'm just going to read
a short paper that I have that we went around and got signatures from neighbors.
as residents of orono most directly affected by the proposed expansion of commercial activities at north arm landing,
we respectfully urge the planning commission and city council
not to approve the current plan. We support improvements that enhance safety and
recreational enjoyment of the site, however, we strongly oppose any additions that would
accommodate or attract increased barge traffic or commercial use.
is public access should prioritize recreational access
and neighborhood livability, not commercial expansion.
to that end, we request the following. Reject all features intended to support or expand commercial use,
retain only those design elements that promote recreational use and protect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.
require hennepin county to maintain the site litter free with
garbage removal at least twice per week as a condition of any permit.
require hennepin county to reimburse the city of orono for enforcement or litter
removal costs if the county fails to adequately manage the site.
I have to underline that because that is a huge issue.
residents are cleaning up the mess at this access.
preserve existing vegetation along the north and west shoreline.
do not approve its removal. Reject any design changes that facilitate increased barge or commercial activity,
including those that may lead to more traffic or parking on neighborhood streets.
this is a huge concern. Thirty years ago, my husband and I
advocated to stop all parking on north shore drive with trailers.
we could not access our own lake shore because we would
have to climb over people's trailers parked along there.
we would have to shoot people off of our docks, which is a huge concern.
we got that pass. We're so grateful. It's made the neighborhood so much better,
but I got to tell you, I would really hate to see that parking come back to us again,
which it will because there's areas in our neighborhood that don't have no parking signs,
and people find it, and they're going to park there. We have lots of small children in our neighborhood,
and people that come to put their boats in there don't care about us.
why should they? They don't care about our lake shore, and they don't care about us,
so we just need to be very careful and very
responsible for the decisions that are made here tonight and going forward.
thank you so much. >> can I ask one clarifying question.
just to make sure you get credit for those who signed.
how many signatures do you? >> here. May I approach.
thank you. I also wanted to show. This is the upkeep on that site. >> you can pass around.
>> it's not pretty. When they say they take care of it twice a week.
I'm questioning that. We just have to be really careful because that all ends up in the lake.
other accesses have the same garbage problem.
every access has the same garbage problem, so it's an overall huge issue that needs to be,
and it's not only that, obviously that takes care of all these sites, but.
>> thank you. Ms. Oakton is there. >> thank you. >> do you know if that documented stuff is part of the record?
>> no, that document was not submitted to the city, so I don't have that as part of the record.
when it's done being reviewed by the commissioners, if it could make its way back to me, I'll make sure it gets put into the packet.
>> I just did a quick count. There appears to be 40 names.
>> as a note, in one of the public comments, there is a neighborhood signature of one that was submitted.
I'm not sure if that's a different version of this one, but this one looks to be slightly different.
I'd be happy to include that in the packet at the end of this meeting. >> thank you.
>> well, gabriel jobur 985 tanka road.
you guys got a few emails from me. For you to understand what I'm trying to say,
I want to take a few minutes and give you the background how I got here.
I am 54, 53 years of residency on tanka road.
I served almost every position in the city, including the mayor.
that used to be good until the last mayor ruined our reputation.
[laughter]
>> thank you. >> anyway, long story short, I used to be proud of saying it, then I quit saying it.
if you like him, you could hate me. Anyway, so back to the issue.
I believe on public and recreational access.
the state of minnesota of public water. I serve on many committees, our national committees.
we go to colorado, montana, different places, and when we get here,
people ask, why can we do something? The reason we can or cannot is because our constitutional in the state of
minnesota designate water as public for all public.
>> in the '80s and the '90s,
particularly in '90s, I assisted the dnr. Everything I'm telling you firsthand,
not second hand, now I heard about it. I mean, I assisted them personally in acquiring, negotiating, funding, facilitating,
licensing, and dealing with the neighbors for
two years in getting maxwell bay access and grace bay access.
I worked with minnetonka, asked me to help and all. I believe we should have access.
I believe every citizen of the united states or resident should be able to access and nobody put it more eloquently
than bruce stanton when he donated the beach to us to all people to use it indefinitely.
well, to access to water, you need public access,
and I really worked very closely with hennepin county and the neighborhood and all to make things happen.
last five, six years, the wheel fall off the wagon at hennepin county.
starting with one of our representative resigned,
and we had no commissioner for a couple of years, followed by a new commissioner whose brand new didn't know how to go about it,
and we were excited to have a new commissioner be representative.
this is the vision of one man.
the public person who is in charge of minnetonka.
he's been extremely hard on our staff and extremely hard. We are minnesota.
I'm not going to tell you that. As you can tell from my accent, I'm not minnesota and other agency.
the reason the vertical went away access is not because they decided to do that,
is because a lot of pressure was put on our county commissioner and quite a bit of it by our elected official in on.
but this is over ambitious, extremely overreaching.
if you look at the slide before this one,
and you look at this one, please look at the vegetation.
besides the fact it's greenery and we prohibit
any cutting of trees 75 feet of the length,
and we have taken our citizens to court and forced them to re vegetate and
got an entry to their property by court order until the trees are mature.
this serve as a sound buffer, visual buffer, etc,
and I'm really concerned about it. But I would like to show you things more important than this.
there are a few things about this. Give me extreme anxiety,
and few give me heartburn. I'm going to label them heartburn anxiety.
could you be kind enough to show them number one.
staff said, we don't have anything on the books to stop this.
cony wasn't guided. There is something on the books. If I'm doing this regularly at my home,
and the neighbor complain. What do we do? Zone residential.
could you go to the next one? They come in and they unload,
and you guys probably got all of those, and I don't want to bore you. I see I'm losing some of you already.
they unload the cat, the baco off the barge.
you could see it as steel track. The truck comes in and drop the full whatever,
14 yards, 12 yards, full of boulders on the ground.
they go and get the empty one from the barge.
they get back and put the full one on the barge. The cat go back on the barge,
and then they take the empty one back, 10 minutes, 20 minutes.
that's what they want you to believe that this is going to happen 20 minutes. We love shore fishing.
for shore fishing come families and kids.
kids, if you keep their attention for five minutes, you're better than anybody.
they love to wonder. I happen to own three marinas.
by the way, as part of my beliefs,
I offer anybody to launch at
my marina for free and that happened from the day I owned it to this minute.
if you're launching your own boat, you could launch it free on my land.
it's not I'm just doing the talk, I'm doing the walk.
when the barge leaves, it literally take about 1,000 feet.
could we go to the next one, please?
I think there's one in between.
here's one is totally different. They actually gets on the truck with the semi.
this is zone residential. We have nothing to prohibit.
this is not public access. This is a staging slide.
when the city of ana builded the public works.
you were there when they cut the ribbon before they even started,
they barricaded the area. G nygard wanted to go and take in the trailer and take pictures of the drawings.
they made them have a hard hat, a vest, and they walked him back there.
kids are using those trucks to do salam courts
between their parents and the area of their interest.
I cannot believe the city think we have nothing to stop this.
could we go one more, please? Here we are.
one more. Now could we play this?
this is just a handful of rocks left over from my job.
I cut it short because I figured you don't want to sit here all night listening particularly to me.
this is what happened there. This is a negative access.
not that we're not adding access. We're taking away access.
the mom pad that used to come here six other places because they
are competing with extremely dangerous environment.
public safety is the number one that you are in charge of or the city in charge of.
I'm really, really extremely disappointed that the city and staff did not say,
hey, this could not happen. Furthermore, I'm going to send you all a document, 1974,
where the county recognized that they need a site for that,
and they identified the site, and they asked that we sent support for them.
in '74, the county was using one site,
and there was only one dredging company on the length.
when they say it's legally non conforming, that is absolutely not true.
gabriel jabbour called tony, who was in charge of the site four years ago and told him there's a barge unloading,
and he be lying there and stopped him. Three years ago, the policy changed and they flocked here.
those aren't barges that located on the water.
those are barges are being imported to the water as people paying a lot of money.
I'm sorry I'm going on long, but how could you get all of that experience if you didn't live it. Go ahead.
second use, people doing business on the site.
jetski rental, right there, and the county was so nice to modern them and they were so good to put the sign back.
good. Next one. Here's the boat frontal.
they go up and you rent the boat for half a day. You go out till noon and you come back.
what happened to the sewage in the boat? That's not something we want to talk too much about.
here what it is. I want those people to have a good time responsibly.
I want the guy to make a lot of money appropriately. One more.
now, a gas station is built and being used right at the site.
this is not a flat tire that we need to fix.
this is rebuilding engines and changing oil.
where is the county? Absentee ownership.
absentee ownership. I'm not trying to beat on them,
although sounds are way. I'm trying to warn you that promises get you nowhere.
contract get you somewhere. Here they are. See the engines being ripped apart redone. Right there.
getting to the garbage, my favorite subject, as you remember, we did 10 years of cleaning garbage on big island.
got to zero, 40 yards. I personally specialized in cleaning this one.
for the last three years, been total disaster,
and they are right, and the neighborhood is right.
then, particularly in the end of the season. This is full of construction debris.
during the season, there is maynard bags,
there is flucher bags. There are all kinds. This is debris from boats. Go ahead.
please one more. That's my sunday afternoon on my way to eat dinner at fluchers.
I always keep a pitchfork in the bag, and I get it. Now, did we learn the truth?
I called tony, two weeks it was not picked up.
I called aspen, and they intend to do it.
but tony is too busy giving lecture on ais someplace up in northern minnesota.
he was a public works of the leg, and now he is a scientist most concerned about ais.
go ahead, please. This is what we're talking about industrial.
the next one. Go back to the other one,
please, cannot be with this. Those two have an extreme conflict,
a conflict of use. Now, the county really need to find a place for such activities.
in answer to some of the question, there's 78,000 boats launched on minnesota.
the state of minnesota does not allow charging for public water.
that's why your license $80 for three years, and your car license could be as much as 2000.
one is taxation, and I will send you a letter with analysis from the dnr about that.
the problem lies is they might intend to do well.
probably in their mind, this is wonderful. But we learned long time ago,
and I really appreciate a step to rethink the way they approach some of those.
there's urban model and there's rural model. There's open trench for storm water management,
and there's curb and gutter. We are rural. We don't apologize for our philosophy,
and we made that decision in the early '70s to be a residential community.
I'm sorry, sound like I'm a preacher, but I am a preacher for ono and his philosophy.
I really urge you that whatever you do,
even I suggest you approve something that you'll have a stack this wide,
what they cannot do and will do and the consequences.
their own honesty told you, they're not going to manage it.
it's ono police and what have you. There's a letter from ono police and the letter from hennepin county.
hennepin county specifically sheriff, their employee warns you about the large truck in that area
to the comment of shane about the traffic coming in and coming out.
by the way, shane, there used to be a stop sign on the other side.
did I mispronounce your name? >> no, you pronounced right. >> that's a problem. Well,
I'm sorry if I took too much. But you know what? Feel free to call me.
I mean, I'm literally living mammoth.
>> thank you [applause]
>> hi. I'm amy herman, 3825 cherry avenue. Thank you, commissioners, for hearing us.
as you can probably get this is a big issue for our neighbors.
I hear the balder park neighborhood.
I agree with them that the variances and the vacancies should not be approved.
and primarily, it's because this plan is not. And I want to take a moment,
and I would like everyone who's here about the north harm access to raise their hand.
this is a big issue. So let's hit it. So the plan is great recreationally.
I think I have some questions about the handicap access. Who's going to maintain that lift and that ramp?
that ramp is big. And I'd hate for that handicap lift to become a sculpture because it's not maintained,
and it's not used. Also, I feel there's several other governing bodies that need to weigh in on this.
and why not wait and see what some
of those other groups are saying before orono plants the flag?
hard cover, I feel the parking spaces are excessive.
the wetland, which has come up, and I guess it's non-conforming.
I don't know what that means. But I can tell you that if it's been there since the 1960s,
the birds and the animals and the plants don't care.
and you would be amazed at the activity in that wetland in the spring in the fall with ducks flying in and out,
and the red wing blackbirds calling. It's really beautiful, and it really adds to the access, I think.
clear cutting the west side. I don't know. I guess they're non-native species.
but once again, the trees don't know that, and it actually provides a really nice buffer between the neighborhoods. The lighting.
well, we want to go from one light pull to a target parking lot.
that's what it feels like to us. Trash management. I don't think I need to hit on that anymore.
the entrance and exit that shane brought up, I feel for you, shane,
because we hear the breaks and the horns at that entrance all the time.
the non-motorized access. I feel like it's crammed in there.
I think there's other places that would be better.
maxwell bay has a dock that's almost zero access.
you could almost just walk right into the water there. And I think it would be better to open that space up to something else
and encourage paddle boarders and kayakers to go to maxwell bay.
we've already talked about the industrial and commercial use. I definitely feel like it does not mix with recreational use.
if this is a recreational access, let's call it that and not a public access.
and finally, once construction begins on this access,
north arm will be changed forever. It's not going to be the same,
and that's really hard on the neighborhood. Thanks.
>> thank you. [applause]
>> hello, commissioners. I'm christie anderson. I live at 1408 balder park road.
so I am backing up to the landing with the wet land
is in my back yard on the peninsula to give you a little bearings there.
I'm not quite as eloquent as everyone else that was here because I didn't come with a whole lot of prepared notes,
but I sure scribbled a lot of notes while I heard everybody speaking tonight. So I appreciate being given the opportunity to talk.
I appreciate commissioner procal being able to voice for us.
what is the impetus? I was going to this coming in here saying,
why are we doing this? What really is the unsafe piece of it.
and then taking it a little further what is the hard cover issue when we're talking already currently 70%,
and I think standards are 25, but this is going to be exception because it is commercial.
not commercial. Public. So these things started to
occur to me that there is two lights currently.
I am backing up to this, and I don't see where the lights are intended to be placed,
but I don't want to have that light pollution to shane's point.
flowing out into my backyard 24 hours a day is
one other item that I found annoying as I was thinking about the project.
the traffic patterns, again, enter and exit, if we're increasing the amount of use that can be made of the area,
that is going to be a problem, but also, I'm thinking of the water way congestion that you're creating.
I'm not clear wholly, but I think I heard you say that you're tilting the ramp itself in towards what looks like the channel.
that's a pretty congested channel as it is when people are loading and unloading their boats.
so to tilt it, so people are unloading into that lane is
a little bit more nerve racking because I'm someone that does that every season, the beginning and the end of the season.
so to increase that, traffic.
and then to try to squeeze in to my neighbor's point here, the ramp next to it for unloading paddle boards or kayaks or canoes, those folks,
if you look at the picture, are going to be caught in the middle between the people
that are putting their boats and the people that are coming through the channel. So I'm not sure where they're really supposed to go safely if we're talking about safety.
so again, I felt this really expanded the use of that area recreationally.
I think that's really a nice thought. But again, looking at the fishing piers that are out there,
and I think there was an insinuation they might pull those back. That is, again, already a pinched narrow channel after it was redeveloped.
so having those piers potentially reaching out is a real issue as well.
I might have covered all my notes.
it does feel as though we're enlarging this to create a better opportunity for commercial use, not just residential.
to gables point, we are a rural neighborhood. We are not spring park.
so even comparing those two landings doesn't really it's not comparing apples to oranges, apples to apples.
because, truly, that is an industrial area in spring park.
that is where a lot of the commercial usage is happening. This is a residential area.
there is nothing commercial here about it. It's all recreational.
so trying to increase the usage because they want to update.
I understand that. And I think I wrote this down. We decided to go bigger because we had the budget.didn't really sit well with me.
I think there's a different plan that can be made. So I appreciate your time.
>> thank you.
>> good evening. My name is eric evenson. I'm the director of the lake minnetonka association.
prior to that, I was a long-term administrator of the mine creek watershed district,
and I served as a planning and zoning director for two counties in minnesota.
the lake minnetonka association is a homeowners association on the lake.
we represent all 4,000 of the property owners on the lake. We have, actually,
over 1,000 paid members of the lake. We support providing a better and
a safer recreational handicapped access at north arm landing.
however, some of the proposed changes have significant implications lake wide moving into the future,
especially related to the commercial and the industrial use on the site.
I want to start by making a couple of comments and to reinforce what mr. Debor had said.
the question was about
commercial use on the site and whether or not you had the ability to say anything. I believe the county's response was there are no policies to prevent commercial use.
that is not a fully accurate statement. First off, the dnr does not allow commercial uses any of its accesses in the state,
if they're only recreational. Secondly, if any funds were used, if any federal grant dollars were used for this access,
back in the 60s, when many of them were funded, those grants also prohibit the use of commercial activities at these accesses.
also, the rivers does not allow commercial use at their accesses.
further, I just want to go into what staff was talking about with this in the plan.
this is an lr1c zone, it is listed within that zone as a park recreation or open space.
you have your own policies that prohibit the use of commercial activities in parkland,
and that's something you might want to have this discussion with staff on. Further, as a planning director and somebody who had some experience in this,
I can tell you when something comes before you as a variance, you have considerable latitude and arguably an obligation to
address many of the deficiencies in the plan through conditions that you have the ability to put on it.
so you can definitely, just like you can require them have a trash container there,
you can definitely require no commercial access in these these areas, or you can state limits on the type of commercial activity that can occur.
the question was earlier about who's responsible for regulation? Well, the owners are going to have to take care of this property.
they're going to have to maintain it, and there are some regulations that the sheriff and the police will have to deal with.
but ultimately, this group right here, is responsible for land use regulation in the city of orono.
now, many of these issues are land use things that don't have lake concerns,
and probably I don't want to get into a lot of those, but I am a little confused.
the role of zoning, typically, from my experience, has been to reduce nonconformities,
whether legal illegal nonconformities are just illegal, but legal nonconformity, the role of planning is typically to reduce the nonconformity.
so I'm not seeing anything here that's going to reduce that nonconformity.
secondly, your role is to determine what
are the practical hardships that are driving this. I believe the question was asked.
what's the need? What's triggering the need? And there was a slide up earlier that you were shown that says,
well, we don't have ais decontamination on the site.
the traffic flow was not optimized. We needed to optimize traffic flow.
we don't have good ada fishing requirements, and their ada access needs some maintenance. It's in poor shape.
those aren't practical difficulties. Those are all very solvable without even going through a variance.
the concern about safety was raised, and the response was, well, there's lighting and other things that need to be done.
again, not a practical difficulty. It's hard for me to get my head around what is creating
the practical difficulty other than that the county wants to expand the use.
I find it very interesting that in the entire write up,
I don't see where the county talks about expanding the use. They talk about redesign.
they talk about improvements. But we are creating new cuads and fishing things,
which is fine, construction of a significantly larger boat ramp,
construction of new docks, buildings, and other structures, increase of hard cover 79% encroachment into the 75-foot wetland area.
all of these are expansions. Now, your rules and regulations are very clear about not
wanting to see expansions and limiting expansions of a nonconforming use.
all of this is talking about expansions. None of this triggers a practical difficulty.
there is nothing other than I want to that is triggering this practical difficulty.
this site can be designed to be safe. This site can be designed to provide adequate access
without even needing a variance can be done.
so again, we'd want to figure out what is causing the practical difficulty on this site.
again, this is a local decision for you and the city council to consider is a vacation of easements on this.
right now, there are ways you can recoup funds through franchises and so forth with having a city easement through there.
once you vacate that city easement, you lose that ability. I don't see a lot of advantage to the city.
I see a lot of advantages to the county for you to vacate the easement, but there aren't really any advantages to the city to do so.
once you do that, you've lost your ability to really enforce and to
assure the site is adequately maintained and operated into the future.
I am very concerned that the heavy commercial and industrial uses.
everybody has talked about here tonight, have raised about the safety issues on the site.
again, your role in planning is public health safety and welfare.
mixing recreational use and industrial use or commercial use.
you typically don't allow in any of your parks or in any other zoning areas unless it's designated for that use.
now, we're mixing the two of them together, and that's going to create opportunities for conflict,
that's going to create opportunities for accidents, injury and possibly even death.
so it's really not a consistent with the role of good community planning.
I'm also very concerned the environmental issues. Mr. Jabbour showed pictures of people fueling at this ramp.
if you have a big barge and you're out there, you're not going to take the barge off,
take it someplace, fuel it, and bring it back on. You're not going to do it. You're going to fill it up,
you're going to take care of it right there. There are only specific places on the lake where you're allowed to do
fueling and the type of maintenance that are being done at this site.
I also appreciate the comment that somebody had made about some of the facilities that are being put into the site.
if you are as a person that actually has looked at
the type of handicap a accessibility features.
we were looking at that on the creek to allow for canoeing and stuff like that.
the watershed district rejected that idea, simply because we didn't have the staff to maintain it.
anytime you've got a something that needs some mechanical operation,
it's going to get broken within the first few weeks. That's just how it is. You're going to have people who're using it inappropriately.
you're going to have people screwing around with it. It's not going to last. So that's an issue.
>> also, I'm a little confused because your rules,
it's really your call, but your rules say that,
the county says it's minimal fencing going to be used on the site, yet your rules require fencing and a gate for county sites.
I'll give you the ordinance section number, but it says,
"within lr1a lake shore residential district,
a county dock is only allowed," and then they list in other things. It says on the last point that it is secured with a gate and a fence.
I'm not seeing any of this, so I don't know how that gets around the issue.
finally, I want to talk a little bit about safety issues, and it's a bigger issue that gets overlooked.
you're putting a picnic place. I do have to acknowledge that the county did
hear what we were saying earlier on when we were talking about barges and getting rid of the vertical lift or whatever they called it there.
but it does not address continuing and allowing this site to be used for commercial purposes,
mixing recreation and commercial, is creating what is called an attractive nuisance.
if any of you have any law or real estate background, you'll understand what an attractive nuisance is.
the reason swimming pools are fenced off under most rules are because swimming pools are an attractive nuisance.
there are five criteria that are really looked at in most lawsuits,
and these aren't little lawsuits. They've happened right here in minnetonka,
where people have been sued for creating an attractive nuisance.
the first is that the property owner, knows they have created or reasonably should
know that what they are doing is attracting children. This is a public boat launch.
you're going to have fishing piers, you're going to have kids. You've got a picnic table right up there. That the property owner should know that children are likely to trespass in their place.
we're inviting them. We're not trespassing. We're inviting them. The property owner should know that the attractive nuisance has
created a risk of injury or death to a trespassing child. We know that. When you've got kids playing around heavy equipment,
heavy equipment operators that have been doing this all day long on a hot day that aren't paying much attention to what's going on there,
and I've also operated heavy equipment, so I get it. It gets repetitive, and you stop thinking after a while.
kids are going to take risks. If the property owner fails to exercise reasonably degree
of care to protect children from harm due to an attractive nuisance,
you're doing nothing right now by allowing commercial traffic to continue through the site.
I think this is putting the county, I think this is putting the city and any other permanent agency at risk of
significant liability by allowing this mix of activities to occur.
this can be simply fixed. The concerns can be simply addressed,
simply by saying, look, folks, we're going to limit commercial activity,
or we're going to prohibit commercial activity on the site, and you have that ability to do that.
I'm going to pass out a summary of my notes. There are a lot of things that were brought up tonight that I wanted to emphasize,
and there were other questions that were raised that I thought were excellent questions and excellent concerns raised by the audience.
many are not included. But I would argue that there's got to be a way to either table
this thing moving forward or to possibly even deny it, because I'm not seeing what practical hardships are being
proven and asking the applicant to come back after they've gotten the responses from the other agencies and reapply for something with
a much better description of what it is that they're trying to solve with this problem,
because the five items that they've listed here for the practical hardships are not practical hardships,
they're things that the county itself is creating. It's I want rather than I have to. Thank you.
>> thank you. [applause]
>> thank you for listening to all this very good questions, richie anderson, I live at 3205 crystal bay road.
there was a lot of good points that were made tonight. The north arm launch ramp has turned into a war zone.
it's not on you, but it is on your counsel. You saw that sign that gabriel showed advertising for jet ski rentals and boat rentals.
the reason we have an issue now at north arm is
because you have to get a license to rent boats from the lmcd.
but the first obstacle is whether or not we have a license requirement at the city.
if there's no requirement at the city, then the lmcd licenses the rental watercraft.
the city of mound put a caveat like that in place so all that traffic came to our place.
it was a war zone. I counted one day,
seven cars parked in car trailer spots.
what happens is all the spots for the fishermen come to get dinner,
they're all taken by rentals. The pictures gabriel showed with all the garbage on
the sea wall there, they were rentals.
mound kicked them out, and we got them. But anyway, I'll get one of you guys to partner with me,
and we'll go to present this to the city. I tried to get it done twice to no avail,
but I won't quit because this is what happens.
they talked about the vacation of the orono property. I agree with eric. You don't vacate.
you have teeth, you mentioned the waste which gabriel showed you.
we reached out to mr. Genzol,
he finally got a larger dumpster in there at the marina,
we always had four yard dumpsters. They'd always fill up. Now we have six yard dumpsters, and they work.
that is a problem that can be solved. Bigger dumpster, county pays for more pickups.
that's a non-factor. I don't know if you were at the open house meeting.
the trash cans along the shore. We used to have garbage cans at our marina.
raccoons get in, garbage is all over the place. We have one dumpster.
you bring your bags to the dumpster, throw them in there, it's done.
there might be some leftover. You go to all the channels, there are some leftover minnow things and stuff,
but it won't be bags of garbage. You were spot on.
when the county says that they don't control it, that was quite obvious this summer.
quite honestly, we did talk to him at the open house to try to get that resolved,
but it fell on deaf ears, obviously, because it was uncontrolled.
why should our ono police have to police this thing?
that seems to me to be ridiculous. If they want to invite this traffic,
they should police it. Anyway, can you start my- as you know,
I was in on this initial discussion with the guys from imo and tony.
tony had sent me out a drawing, what do you think of this?
I said, well, I'll meet you down there. Bring the truck for the trailer.
travis came down. We tried some of the parking spots, and we thought that worked pretty well.
this was the initial drawing. Now, this initial drawing has 55 spots in it.
now it's down to 44, and you were correct, 413 whatever handicap.
I went down to the property this morning.
we have 53 current spots that can be used for car trailer spots,
51 and two handicap. I'm curious why we're going down to 44.
that doesn't seem like a a special use of the property when we're trying to create,
use of recreational, the industrial stuff, you all know about that.
but the fact of the matter is, if you look at the second we're supposed to be at 80,
and I'll show you the mandate that was passed on to us. This was in 1992,
the lake access task force. All these people got together.
you can see jerry rockvam, who we know well,
was very instrumental, gabriel jabar, you can see all the mares,
everything that was there. If you go to the next page,
you can see that north arm was was given credit for having 80 spots.
now, why is this important? Then on the street, north arm was 31.
those were the parking spots that the signage took care of,
and they're gone now. We're supposed to have 80 spots and the fact of the matter is,
we get ais money for designated trailer spots. We currently have 53,
and the proposal is to go down to 44.
we should be going the other way, the initial drawing that I went out and we checked,
see if it worked traffic wise, was 55, and now we're 44.
this will be an issue. It's been go along, get along.
but the fact of the matter is the current access works great for the 53 trailer parking spots.
I keep coming back to the fact that it is a one person issue.
but the fact of the matter is, we all bitch and moan about our 25 percent increase in our haman county taxes.
here is something that works perfectly well.
there's no reason to do this for many reasons,
but to spend money that we really don't have. Now, the last two pictures are current garbage that have been there for about two weeks.
that picture there, and you can see the spot for the dumpster, if you back up.
they took the dumpster out ahead of time. I can't believe it. It should sit there for all winter for all the traffic.
I talked about the fish houses that are going out there now with the satellites.
that's a big deal. Guess what? They got trash. You can notice that.
why would they put the trash there? Because they'd have open bottle of felonies,
not felonies, but tickets if that was in their car, so they throw it on there.
then the last one, this is over where the satellites are not now there.
there's a toilet sitting there. Why should we be responsible for this?
it's only going to get worse it's
only going to get worse because they don't do anything about it.
they expect our cops to patrol it. They say they got signage.
the signage says, don't park here. They park there. Pretty simple fix,
get a tow company, and they come in there and make some dough. But anyway, thanks you guys.
very good questions. You're tuned in. Thank you. >> thank you. Anybody else?
I'll close the public hearing. We'll bring this item back up here for discussion.
there's a lot to discuss. Does any of the commission want to take
a short recess before we get into further discussion?
>> at some point [inaudible]. >> for the next item. Perfect. Well,
first, I want to thank everybody for coming and speaking. I think that makes our decisions a lot better up
here as commissioners to have that public input. Good to our bad, it's good to have that so thank you.
who'd like to start discussion? I'm looking down here. I'm going to pick on you. Go ahead.
>> actually, I've got a couple more questions that have spurred up from this for the applicant, if that's okay.
>> yes. Applicant. >> thank you. My first question just relates to the funding.
the funding's already been allocated for this I'm assuming? >> right. This is a capital improvement project.
the county board has decided to get some money out and door, and now,
typically it goes east to the city of minneapolis and such, but we decided that this is a good use of our funds.
>> is there a time limit if this dragged on or didn't get approved or something came up,
would those funds expire? >> there is no time limit per se,
but I do want to say that, we did have public meetings last year,
so there is a reasonable expectation from our leadership at the county that this moves along in a timely fashion.
the opportunity to do the public meeting, or go there and voice everything,
it's been done, and it's gone. We're trying to react to this
here because we want to listen to people.
>> this isn't, I guess I'm confused, isn't this? >> the haniba county held two open houses earlier this year.
>> last year. Public engagement. >> with different sample and design elements where they were gathering feedback.
you are hosting the formal public hearing required by state statute for the application.
>> those sessions that they held,
was the ono community made aware of that before and given an opportunity to go see.
yes. >> second question. Two launches hennepin county controls on lake minnetonka right now?
>> correct. >> one of them is essentially supervised 24/7 by the sheriff's department, correct?
>> the office is right there, yes. >> comparing what happens in that one to this one is
really not apples to apples because, things that happen there are going to happen
under the guise at the sheriffs watching it, correct? >> that would be a fair assessment.
>> is there any intention to have a better sheriff's presence at
this one to alleviate a lot of these issues that are happening because there's no supervision?
>> well, that's one of those issues where I think we would resolve as it comes,
and it sounds like, currently I'm hearing that the on opd and the sheriff's office are working together.
the tag team, any issues that come along.
but in terms of dedicating the sheriff's resources to things like,
parking issues and such. I think we'd have to ask leadership,
how they would like to approach.
>> another question that comes up is that came up. When we talk about policies that impact this,
hennepin county does have rental policies in place for anybody to use rental equipment, correct?
rental boats, watercraft. There are policies in place for that?
>> no, we don't have a policy in place for, mandating or regulating that.
as I think was previously mentioned, imcd does have a time limit at docking spaces that we have signed in,
for example, at spring park, that signs up right now. I can't say definitively if it's been at north arm too,
but I know it was provided at spring park to limit the staging time, because we would want to see is,
the watercraft placed their boat at a dock for many hours,
clogging up that particular dock. We are enforcing that.
>> question then just going on that. So there is a hennepin county rental requirement
for permits for any rental craft on lake minnetonka. [overlapping] because I'm looking at the website right now where it says,
water craft are required to have a hennepin county permit?
>> I think you're referring to one of the reasons as I understand it,
lmcd wanted to put that in place is that it ensures that water patrol,
so our sheriff's office is allowed to properly enforce some of the safety requirements.
that's as far as I understand it. I can't speak to what you're looking to specifically, but my understanding.
>> any other questions for the applicants since they're up here? Apologize. I do have one more.
one of the things you had talked about with this one is increasing the lightage? Correct. When I look at the spring lake park,
there's only two lights there for a significantly larger space, why is there so much more light needed at this one?
>> well, let's look at the lighting plan. With lighting, those numbers on there are the values,
and that's the amount of light that's shining on the surface. You will see a lot of zeros.
at the boundary of border, there's definitely zero. There's no light bled whatsoever.
we kept the consultants that, we don't want any light bled.
we don't want anything, disturbing the skies. We are for, dark skies.
we want to do, just enough so that there is,
lighting for people to feel comfortable and safe. But not too much that it's going to be glaring or, offensive to people.
if you look at the values underneath the actual light poles, we went from three or four fixtures down to one fixture.
when you see a value of eight, 7.7 and six,
that's, that's dimly lit parking lot lighting effectively.
we're mounting in on 20 foot poles, instead of 30 foot poles,
which would technically be better in terms of the minimum to maximum and lighter distribution.
but that comes at the cost of, somebody staring up and looking at a light, whereas a 20 foot pole is more manageable in terms of that amount of glare.
then when it comes to the north side where the fishing is, those numbers,
are effectively zero because they're pedestrian mounted light,
and they are up and down. There's a shade on it that bounces the light up and then bounces it down,
so there would only be a soft glow there. We are reducing that number from 2467 to I told my consultant five,
just being aware of all of this. If you look at all of the other places,
we strategically placed all of the lights where it would benefit the most.
one is that the picnic loading area for the ramp there.
but then it just drops off rather quickly. In between the lights,
we see effectively one foot candle or less.
ideally, if it was up to me, I would clear the skies and have a full moon every night,
and it would be one foot candle all on the site. But that's not possible.
then the other spot that we have, the light is at the entrance there. That's, another security safety thing.
can we reduce this down some more, probably.
that's why we're putting it on dimmer switches so that we can control the intensity of the light?
what you're seeing is the efficacy of the light at 100% when it's first installed,
it'll dim down over time at about 80-85%.
our strategy is, between the dimmer, when it first gets there,
we'll tweak it down. Then when the light fades, we'll tweak it up again,
so it stays more consistent. But then we also have it on a timer because we don't feel
the need to burn the lights that night after 10:00 pm. It'll be off from 10 until sunrise.
but after hearing a comment about safety, I don't know.
we might want to do it at the picnic area because I hope everybody understands that this is a 24/7 open environment.
that's why there are no gates. That this is allowed for public use 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, and it will not be closed. >> the lights are going to be on dusk to dawn.
>> sunrise. Then it'll kick on, I think,
30 minutes before it gets dark, stay let until 10,
and then go off. We also entertain the idea of having it dimmed down to half or,
just turn on when somebody approaches. But we figured that would be a little more annoying than just turn it off.
>> 10:00 pm, they'll be off. >> 10:00 pm. That's our goal. >> I think that's different than what our packet says.
it says they'll be on until sunrise. That's what I read, but.
>> I just want to ask one quick question. When you guys go into design phases,
like pre-design, through the stages, what type of, outreach do you do?
with community, with stakeholders or impacted residents?
>> we do the open house process,
and we had two open houses before this, and that was during schematic design.
right now, we're trying to get into the design development phase. Everything isn't fixed yet.
we always welcome feedback. We always welcome, things that we can work with,
other partners with just, so that everybody knows what's going in there.
I know change is tough sometimes, but there are things that I think people get in
their minds that they think it's going to be, really bad, but it really isn't all that bad.
just referencing the trees along that buffer, the west side,
we had our forestry department look at it and identify trees that were either invasive or voluntary.
our idea is to clear and grub, what we need to. But the other part of the idea is to replant,
to get something else going on there to establish to recreate that buffer,
with the species that are more appropriate.
then, I think, I'm hearing a few conflicting things in terms of the parking.
there's a parking requirement for the trailers, x number that we have now.
some people say, well, we should have more. Well, more parking means increased use or increased intensity.
that's just how how it shakes out, really. What we're doing is, we're trying to keep it as,
similar as possible so that the actual use itself is as similar as possible as it is now,
as it was from 1960. Because I think that's what drives all of this in terms of the intensity of the use.
>> one last question. Do you have any design examples from
the open house feedback you received that you incorporated into the second on?
>> if we look at the triangle space up there where the fishing pier is,
that resulted in a comment, I think, city council member,
that was at one of the meetings. [background] before, it wasn't as developed as this as in green spaces and everything,
it was, just open. I think at one point, it was, artificial turf.
then we took that comment, and we integrated into our design.
that is a result of, one of the comments there. The vertical access point being, taken out,
is a direct result of, neighbors saying, that they're fearing that, you know.
by taking it out, our stance is that, the use is now the same.
I just can't see how the use can be increased,
with the number of parking, and it's just constraint to this size.
then, accessibility. The wheelchairs and ways ramp,
came from one of the meetings. That ramp is actually being donated to the county by wheelchairs and ways.
in the agreement, wheelchairs and ways will also be maintaining it.
that's part of their, agreement with the county. In exchange, I think the county will allow wheelchairs and ways to host one event every,
year on this space, using that space so that people, can fish.
>> you mentioned that the vertical access point was removed out of concerns for industrial use of the space.
is there anything else with this design, that was on the table to change with a similar motivation in mind.
in other words, is there anything else that you would consider maybe changing with this project design too,
outside of more consistent enforcement, it sounds like to change this space to make it clear that it isn't for industrial use?
>> I think the county would be looking for the city to have a policy in place,
that is, enforceable, and actually, we can put it on a sign.
in my mind, those two things don't really overlap.
this project is, reconditioning this site use, and it's going to be used the same way as it was before.
we're not, the county won't be taking the lead on,
denying access to, whatever user.
although we don't allow smoking on county property, and that's going to be signed.
if you're trying to smoke here, good luck, not here. [laughter] but well,
that's what we have. That's in our policies that there's no tobacco use on our, properties.
but in terms of, commercial use, industrial use, if the city has something in place or if the state has
something in place that we can reference clearly, we will gladly sign it,
and we will work with, enforcing, whether it's sheriff's office or or an opd, enforcing it.
>> at what point did that policy change with this site for commercial use?
>> the policy never changed. From 1960 unit was built.
it's always been a public access. What changed was, I think the city zoning came in in 1975, I want to say.
that's what changed it from, zoning this to an lr3, is it?
>> city adopted our zoning in 1975 to lr1c residential,
but that's where we commented that this is a legal nonconforming use since the use was
operating before the zoning to came into place.
>> this was built before the americans disability act in 1991.
a large part of this is us going in and saying, well, this isn't right, you know?
that's why we're seeing a lot of accessibility and everything that we touch.
>> mr. Chair. >> yes. >> I don't have any questions if you might be available later on.
but I just wanted to keep moving.
a couple of things, as commissioners,
we're all volunteers. We're not paid. I want to tell you first and foremost, I know this is not fun for you to probably be standing up here and get fired away
by the [inaudible] instead of resistant to change.
humans are naturally resistant to change. That it's always difficult to be the mouthpiece of change.
the reasons the ways to do that is you demonstrate what the benefit is,
you demonstrate what the improvement is, and that what's going to be on the other side is going to be better than what you have now,
and hope that that bridges the gap. But I think that's my foundation of why I'm opposed to this.
as commissioners, we're all supposed to be coming from different places of expertise.
some are more familiar with, acreage and livestock and things like that.
I come from the lake district. I know a lot about this stuff,
and I've experienced a lot of this stuff, and I think there's a little bit of angst.
I just got opened up my county tax record statement. I think we know 18%.
say what you will about public officials and
previous mayors and current mayors and city council and all those things.
maybe I'm naive, but I give benefit of the doubt for everybody that we're all trying to do what's best.
I always like to give that benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to disparage any of those people.
I do appreciate how there are business owners that are suffering,
for boat rental companies and boat services that are not paying taxes in our county for those services,
and there are businesses that are here that do. I appreciate them bringing those things up.
but I think some of the burn is, there's a lot of things that are being put on our city,
among others, that is a burden that gets passed on,
and I think taxation is one of them. I mean, as a city, we have a lot of taxes.
then when we have the raises, we don't see a lot of that come to our city with that.
I think that naturally makes people resistant when the ass comes on the other side.
then you look at it in the way of if this is an application.
one of the residents mentioned, our job is to try to find a way to make this an improvement.
how are we improving the current condition? Or not? We might be fixing it,
but I lived across the road from that boat launch for 30 out of the last 46 years.
I was the guy those private bmx bike in and out of parking spots.
I'm the guy now that lives across the way, that launches my boat there,
and that boat launch has been in disrepair for a really long time. That's disappointing.
that's why I was actually asking about some of the fees, because I think the grand scheme of things for living
around here to pay a fee to park and things like that, a drop in the bucket compared to what our property taxes are.
if it provides safety and it gives us the ability to maintain it, now you're talking.
I think the residents get behind safety, the residents get behind maintenance.
>> when I was doing my research, there's 59 total boat launches in hennepin county,
according to my records that I tried to research. You mentioned two are owned and operated by the hennepin county.
the rest are scattered between 15 cities, two park districts, the dnr,
and our national parks. Of those, many of them actually do have fees.
then you start thinking about some of these being more familiar. Lake minnetonka regional park being one of them.
they did a tremendous job developing that space. It became a place of attraction for people that live here and people that don't.
it's a safe place. There's a nice amenities, and they're paid for with some of those use fees.
fish lake regional park, french regional park, highland lake,
lake rebecca, lake minnetonka regional park, twin lakes boat access, and robbinsdale.
all of them have fees, and I think there's good use for that.
I agree that access should be given,
but here's some contrary accesses in hennepin county that do have fees for that.
I don't think it's a fee to make it a barrier to launch. It's an expensive industry to be a part of in the first place.
but I think what it does do is it take some of the burden off of the city,
in this case, to maintain. There's a lot of police cars across the road doing their best to maintain the parks,
but that's paid for by us. I don't know if the county's paying for that.
I don't know if we're getting credit for the density that we could rezone this for, because we have to answer to
the met council all the time about how we're going to add density, and add multifamily housing to appease them.
otherwise, we lose our funding for our municipalities, and city sewer and city water.
guys, this is what local politics are, and that's a tough job.
that's why I don't disparage any previous mayor, previous regime or anything like that.
we have representatives from the lmcd that's here to represent orono and what's best for orono.
we all have that responsibility. I'm going to give benefit that we're all doing that for what's best for orono.
if you look at it, as a practical difficulty, it doesn't because it hard covers is going 70-79.
on top of that, we're really not adding any spots. It's a launch that needs to be improved upon because it hasn't been maintained,
but that's not a reason to approve this. We don't have a tax benefit.
it's an intensification of traffic and trailer. If you think about what egress and ingress,
based on the amount of residential homes are in that immediate area,
you are either sending them down 51 where there is no stop light,
which then becomes the county wants to put a stop light in, or you have to drag them through navarre,
and that's already a heavily congested intersection.
that's not really conducive for making it easier to add more traffic.
I think it'd be awesome if you have community centers that partner
with cities and counties where you as a community center can use a facility as a city resident,
and maybe that's a place to go with this is helps maintain it, helps keep safety.
city of orono residents for a city of orono property can use it for free,
or maybe if you're just launching, you're not parking, you can launch for free.
I think, that's where one of the previous marina owners mentioned you can launch for free.
probably can't park for free. All those things. I'd love to get some ideas that way.
>> sure. Clarifying question. When you say that these parks are charging fees,
are they charging fees for the park use or charging fees for the lake access?
>> I'm going to have to dig into that more, but from what I was trying to find their trailer pass requirements.
honestly I was surprised. This is not a congressional investigation.
[overlapping] I'm trying to get anybody. I really wanted to know. >> right because I know from reading a few things that I think one of
the stipulations by the dnr with this piece of
property that the county owns is that we can't charge a fee to access the lake.
>> yeah. >> I think, part of it was also in a report for the parking, and that's why the number of parking stalls that are made available is what it is,
and why we're trying to keep it up also. Could we keep it the same?
but that would be at the expense of stalls that are back to nine feet wide,
which essentially means that some stalls just aren't usable because,
a vehicle in a trailer and a nine foot wide stall might encroach on the other stall potentially.
>> I don't disagree. I think part of this is just maintaining it too.
but more importantly, is the vast majority of hennepin county,
not even in the greater minnesota, are not owned and operated by hennepin county.
maybe that's a problem. Because the city can then decide who does it, who maintains it,
how they manage it, and who comes in and out of it and what design they want and all those things.
then we don't have that dissonance. Because again, I honest to goodness, want to try to always think about what's best.
I'm like, is this because of a burn about met counsel asking us for density or is this because my taxes went up?
because I don't want to make it about me. It's not. It's about, okay, well, are we improving it for the benefit of the city?
are we improving it for the benefit of ourselves? As applicants, if that's the case,
I always try to put that hat on. The answer is no, in almost all of those aspects,
because I would love to get some of the counts when they have those people that survey who, where you came from.
what was your last lake? How many of those are orono residents? I don't see a lot of, I don't know what you may know that.
>> no. I don't know that offhand, but I will say that the county's approach to
things with land ownership is stewardship, first and foremost. Then, secondly, also we serve residents.
residents of orono, and everybody else within the county.
I can appreciate the residents locally, advocating for themselves,
and also gabe advocating also. But I think from the county's point of view,
we have 1.3 million people that reside in hennepin county.
what we want to do is make sure that all of those people's lives also get enrich,
and that's the accessibility part, heavy part of it. >> you segue right into my last point.
there's the gray area between a right and a privilege.
I think through use comes experience. I think if you are a boater on lake minnetonka, that on weekends,
you'll find less experience in relation to the use,
and that can be frustrating for the people that do know the rules, and practice those rules.
when you have shoreline erosion, that becomes a casualty of that, then that becomes a cost for those people as well.
I think the landowners are the ones that are the stewards of the, what is our proverbial national park,
and the gate entrance to that park is that boat launch. The difference is.
you guys have a gate keeper in those state parks and those parent county parks,
there's no gate keeper there. Maybe I'm completely off base.
but that's, I'm trying to find a way for me to support this.
but we're not improving the condition, or not benefiting the environment.
we're not benefiting orono residences, and we're not offsetting any expenses or improving expenses that
might be able to be deferred to other things and maybe reduced taxation.
but again, it's not personal. I appreciate you being here and having to answer these tough questions.
>> definitely. >> but, again, I don't like to
complain and not have an answer as to how what the resolution is, because just saying that you're opposing do any good.
in doing my part in that, I think what I would like to see with that would be some ability to charge
a trailer use fee or to do a partnership with the city where there's a joint ownership,
and a joint regulation on it and what becomes of it. That allows you to pay for some of those amenities to be monitored and maintained,
and/or maybe just sell it to the city, and work with the city on figuring out what works
best in that same vein. But that's all I had. >> go ahead.
>> go down the aisle, if that's okay. First off, thank you to the community members for your feedback.
that's an important step. Well, I will say that. I'm not going to as elegantly explain my thoughts,
I wrote down some bullet points because there's a lot to tackle here, but on the negatives,
I think the trash is something that stood out to me when I first read the application.
I'll leave it at that. The commercial use is clearly
a concern vocalized in images in the voices of the residents.
the safety, I think this is a great opportunity to improve the safety of the in and out at the roadway there.
I'm not sure I'm not an engineer. I'm not good with road design.
I'm not sure how that's possible, but at least the thought, and spending time on that.
I think, this is an important time for that. My last negative is that it's more of an observation.
one of the residents brought it up, but the non motorized access being in between the rotated boat.
the launch, sorry, and the channel. I think that is unsafe,
and I'm surprised that, that truthfully made it this far along.
again, I'll leave it at that. On the other side, I think the site has aged,
as everyone can agree. I think refreshing it is okay.
I do think although the hard scape is increasing,
we're actually reducing the impermeable surface, which I think improves the site.
there is increase in recreational use with the fishing,
the ada accessibility, the non motorized access,
as well as the picnic area and the green space. I also do see there's clearly better flow with the revised layout, larger parking stalls.
I know the lighting is a little bit of an issue, but lighting from back then to today,
and the standards that are in place, I think, the lighting will be greatly improved.
again, the green spaces that I mentioned.
back and forth, I will say with those thoughts out there,
just with the amount of resident pushback, I have a hard time approving a variance.
when you look at what's in front of us for our approval tonight, it's the vacation of the easement,
which I have yet to hear a reason from your guys perspective as to why we would do that.
I firmly in opposition of that. The variance of the hard cover, again,
I do see improvement in the impermeable surface, overall, which I could get behind.
I'll come back to that in a second. The conditional use permit and the interim use permit, I think,
I see those just as pretty regular transactional approvals
for the improvement of the site. I could get behind those.
back to the variance, a question maybe to staff would just be,
if we are going to go out of our way to approve this variance,
this is where we have the ability potentially to put things in place as a reason for the approval,
and correct me if I'm wrong in that statement, but I guess would that be an opportunity for us to put regulations of commercial use in
place against what tools we have in front of us and what the pushback we've heard from the residents?
>. Sure. To put a condition with a variance, there should be a nexus.
for the condition, it should be tied to countering or addressing that variance.
sometimes you'll see variances for hard cover, and then a condition would be to add supporting
storm water features to the site to counter that variance specifically.
if you are interested in having discussions or having the council discussions regarding the commercial use of the site,
that would be an additional comment that the council should
discuss of potential policy or regulatory changes.
I would anticipate that is
obviously a catalyst with the redesign of the site that these discussions are happening,
and it allows us to have a really in depth review of how this site is used. But to require or enforce maybe
commercial or industrial or specific user on the site would be most likely
a policy implication that the council would consider
probably separate from specific approvals of the site plan project.
>> awesome. Thank you. You got to the second part of that question is,
what would be the best way forward? With what she outlined there,
I would definitely be in favor of some form of language.
I don't need to propose some yet. Maybe I'll think of some, but some form of language to hold the property owners liable for
enforcing not only setting a boundary of what's deemed usable or not,
but also a method of enforcing it, I think is an important step.
>> chris bollis? >> that's what I have. >> can I just clarify? Are we in discussion,
or are we still asking questions of the applicant? >> it's both right now.[laughter]
>> okay. Because I do think it feels different to have discussion between
us versus feeling like we're validating our points of view to the applicant.
it feels like a different way to have that discussion.
>> [overlapping] do you mean, if all the applicant sat down?
>> if others still have more questions for the applicant, I think.
>> I was under the impression. We were discussing ourselves, and that's why I didn't direct any questions towards them?
I don't have any at this time, but that's where I was. >> more question. With the impermeable that's being suggested for this,
is there weight limits on that? As far as how much weight it can support before it starts deteriorating or right if?
>> sure. There's probably a weight limit, but that weight limit [overlapping]. >> I've to turn one of the trucks,
like we saw on there, decided it was going to park in those parking spots. Is that go to damage those parking spots?
>> no. [background]
the public hearing is closed, but it is a valid question. How to maintain the dirt,
I think you had mentioned a maintenance schedule for that? >> it's not dirt. It's gravel.
>> the gravel? >> box. Yeah, it's aggregate. >> but you had mentioned a maintenance schedule for that?
>> yeah, there is. The maintenance would come once fine particles percolate down and start to fill up I guess,
the bottom where the water wants to go down.
this system, because we have like, 12 ",
of substance there, it's going to take a while for it to do that.
but I think part of our plan is pretty much testing to make sure that everything is functioning on an interval that's appropriate.
I think,15 years is what I'm hearing that, that's about the first time that you want to test it.
if we find that it's not doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is the storm water management aspect of it,
then we would maintain it. That's most likely taking up the gravel,
taking out all of the silt that might be clogging it up and then putting the gravel back on.
>> okay. >> I'll jump in here with my thoughts.
thank you, everyone for coming. I appreciated hearing so many different perspectives on the issue.
I think you raised a fair point, commissioner ressler,
about taxes coming by way of the city through the county.
it seems to us we have an opportunity here where budget is on the table for us.
I do want to take a careful look at this project. There's a lot I like about the project.
from its expanding area for fishing to its expanded accessibility.
it feels like the revisions outlined here will make the lake more accessible to more people, in orono.
I'm in agreement that this should not be a place where fees are requested.
I think that would still have the same enforcement challenge we see today.
we would still need someone patrolling this area and making
sure people are properly licensed or whatever the requirement is.
I think keeping this for public use without fees is important.
it sounds like that might be a requirement of the site regardless. I think what really gives me pause,
as commissioner brandabur raised is approving this
without some provision or at least recommendation from
the commission that [noise] enforcement and clear signage about
the usage of the site will be promptly displayed after these developments.
it seems right now that, that is not taken too seriously on the site.
it doesn't feel like there is much threat of enforcement if from an industrial perspective,
and that's what's led to the improper usage of the site. I would feel comfortable moving forward with a version of this.
should that proper signage enforcement be a part of that plan.
it sounds like that will have to come through at the council level rather than here.
but I wouldn't feel comfortable moving forward with approving this project unless that was a part of this design.
>> thank you. I'll go.
this one is pretty easy for me. As planning commission, we have to look at what's in front of us.
in front of us is a vacation for public right away, variance for hard cover, etc.
conditional use permit for a sea wall, and then an iup to move the dirt for the site.
personally, I don't think it meets the practical difficulty standards, what you've posed to us today.
the site is, although it's in disrepair or it old, it still functions.
what you're presenting to us is going to function exactly the same way.
I don't see the practical difficulty in going above and beyond with the hard cover, etc.
I know that we can tie conditions,
two variances, if there's a nexus, but those conditions are usually something that's a piece of that project,
not a policy piece to it. The only time I know that we can tie
a policy condition is if this is a cup for the entire project.
to me, this looks like an expansion of an existing non conforming use. I look at it.
an analogy would be, gas station in a residential area,
existing non conforming use, would we be allowing these variances to expand that use?
when I look at the parking metrics, going from 14 trailer stalls to 41,
it's 192% increase in parking spots for trailers.
that is an expansion of the use. I could get behind having more parking for trailers,
as long as there's a condition that would eliminate the commercial use from the site.
I don't think the way that this is given to us, I don't think we have the power to put a condition policy condition on this.
I think this should be coming to us as a cup for the entire site because it's a complete redesign of the site.
this is more than just a vacation and some variances for hardcover.
I can go into all the nuances of it, all the points.
but that's just the high level piece of it, so that's why I'm not in favor of this.
>> I'll just add my $0.02 here. Definitely agree with what everyone's saying.
if we make it simplified black and white, look at the application.
we're not doing much with changing the parking. We're improving the surface coverage, etc,
and not doing anything about the entry and exit point.
obviously, there's a lot of passion from the community around this. I think that's a second area to solve that's unrelated to what we do here.
trash, commercial use, running businesses, that needs to be solved whether we do something with this or not.
then going back to this base, I would agree with what you're saying.
it doesn't seem to make it better when you look at the functionality.
based on that point alone, I'd be against it. >> I agree with my fellow commissioners with the concerns around the industrial use,
and I would just add the open question around wetlands,
I think, remains open. I find that concerning the county has not
demonstrated a great history regarding maintaining the existing access.
I think there are concerns about enforcement as well. I would encourage the county to to focus on starting there.
I do see some benefit to some improvements, and I hope we can find a way that makes sense
to allow the space to be improved for residential use.
I agree that we need to find a way. I don't think it's through this venue,
but to propose that the city limit the commercial and industrial use at that space.
>> apologies. Like everybody else. I want to thank all the community for coming and speaking out.
I appreciate all the time that you've given to us tonight staying late with us all to talk to this.
as many of the other commissioners said, I have pros and cons.
I do, to some extent, like the layout and the look of it. I understand what you're trying to get at,
the ada clincy of it, making it more accessible. I really like that. I think there's a lot of value to that.
my struggle is that as well as many of them have said,
there's this two fold that we're getting where we're going to do all this,
but if it comes to enforcement, everything else, we're going to put that on you, and we're backing off on it,
and a struggle with that because this expansion, which it is, we're expanding we're giving a variance to expand the footage.
that's going to create more use. It's going to create more traffic problems. It's going to create a lot of other things,
and I'm just not hearing anything to solve any of those issues other than well,
we've had this many spots before, but I've driven by there, and I've never really seen all those spots used like that.
that's where a lot of my struggle comes from, and I'd really like to see something more
concrete about how this is going to benefit the county, benefit the city beyond just here, it's done.
you deal with it, we're done. That's my perspective of it.
>> I would propose a motion to deny this proposal as applied.
>> are you recommending or are you making a motion? >> I'm making a motion.
>> I'll second the motion. >> I have a motion to deny from commissioner perkle.
I have a second by commissioner ressler. Any further discussion? Seeing none,
will vote, all in favor. Say aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? Hearing none motion carries.
>> thank you. >> thank you. >> I think this would be a good time to take
a short break five minute break for the next application.
[background]
>> reconvening the november 17th meeting of the on planning commission after that short break.
this will bring us to our next public hearing, la 25-7, ryan peters, 1978, shadywood road.
this is a lake setback and average lakeshore setback. Ms. Curtis.
>> thank you. The applicant is requesting a 75 foot lake setback variance to construct a covered porch and
a privacy screen over an existing lakeside deck and also relocate a deck stair tread.
an average lakeshore setback variance is also required for a portion of the privacy screen.
the privacy screen is on the north side of the deck.
the applicant is proposing to construct a 202 square foot roof porch over the existing deck,
48 feet from the lake where a 75 foot setback is required.
project also includes the five foot tall privacy screen on the north side of the deck.
with the deck height at 18 inches, it's about 6.5 feet total height,
and then there's a new smaller relocated stair tread centered on the porch.
the stair tread depth will be reduced resulting in a six square foot reduction in hard cover.
the proposed privacy screen also encroaches two feet into the average lakeshore setback.
the applicants identified the small lot size and the proximity of the home to the lake as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances.
staff concurs with the applicants assessment of the private properties and finds
that although the project will result in an increase in the building footprint within the lake setback,
it does not result in new hardcover encroachments within the lake setback.
as the porch and the privacy screen are [noise] constructed over minimal or over existing improvements.
the average lakeshore setback encroachment by the privacy screen is minimal. It's used to screen
an area that they're going to use for a small kitchen, outdoor kitchen.
the affected neighbor indicated that their view will not be adversely impacted. The neighbors on either side of the applicant's home have
submitted support for the application. Comments were included in your packet as exhibit h.
staff is recommending approval of the application as applied. The property owner is not in attendance this evening,
but they have sent their representatives and they are here and available for questions. Thank you.
>> thank you. Any questions for staff? No. If the applicants here wish to speak, please approach a podium.
state your name and address for the record, please. >> good evening. >> hi. >> my name is david berta.
I live at 1966 shadywood road. Two doors down from brian and lynn.
I only mentioned they're out of town and unable to attend, so he asked me to step in his dad.
the request over half the house is within the 75 foot setback from the lake,
so anything they do to the back, we're going to require a variance for this. The deck, as you seen that picture.
no, you keep that picture up because that's a good representation. Was existing.
it was just replaced with a new deck. The one request is the step you see that's now
centered underneath that roof is a little bit off to the right, centered between this panels of the sliding door.
moving that a little bit to the left and reducing the size just makes it aesthetically
more pleasing with the addition of to that.
the privacy screen, as it's referenced, is really no more than like a black backsplash,
so they're having a little bit of outdoor kitchen put in. Having a tree below the countertop.
real. That privacy screen, as we're calling,
it is really designed not only to add asthetics to it, but as you have things on the counter there,
we're right on the lake there, obviously, and the winds pick up pretty good. Keeping things from blowing around.
I'm to the right of that privacy screen, and we're sitting out on our patio it doesn't lock
much just adds a little bit of protection from stuff on the counter.
but also the backside, once you put in the cabinetry, that will block the back of the cabinetry,
which sometimes is finished, or what have you. The real changes, obviously, with the roof,
the 200 change square feet and roof addition is being added,
still has them below the 20% allotment for coverage for all building area.
on the size of the property, they're at about 13,000 square feet lot standpoint.
two still keeps below that 20% number. The idea with this, not only is it very attractive,
but we have the good fortune of living on the lake
and utilizing it for all it has to offer is obviously critical to our enjoyment of the lake.
where this is at, the idea is to add a little bit more livable space
outside when the weather isn't j sere not my words.
these are brian's words. The entertainment space inside the house is somewhat limited.
this just allows them to pull more outside and enjoying nice weather or when it's not nice out,
you now have a little bit of coverage. As we get older, sensitivity to sun becomes a concern,
and having some shaded area certainly helps that protection. The idea is to add this.
it's a two season. There will be retractable screens inset into the posts so that they can be open and close,
depending upon bugs, what have you, as well as pull down plastic windows.
that is I ask nick to come up. Nick is with e elevated, the contractor.
maybe you can [inaudible].
>> nick, before you start, could you state your name and address for the record? >> nick camp 1161.
>> great. >> the overall porch would have retractable vinyl panels that open most vertically,
those would be concealed within all the beams in trim details,
and then they have manual retractable screens that slide horizontally.
one of the reasons for trying to move the step two feet to the south is because on the lake side,
those two screen panels come together in the center. For functionality, to be able to walk over and open and close one of those and
have direct access to the [inaudible].
>> the request, you can see is pretty minor with the step.
just need to get your permission to do that because we're in the setback. The backsplash, purely functional,
but also add some decorative elements to it. Then the addition of the 200 square feet for the roof,
providing just some more usability to the overall space outside, as well as making it more functional and weather isn't ideal on the lake.
any questions? No questions. Thank you.
>> really? >> [laughter] that's usually a good thing. >> no comment? >> [laughter] we will. Thank you.
I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. >> this item is a public hearing.
anyone from the public wish to speak on this, please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record.
saying nobody close the public hearing. We'll bring it back up here for discussion.
this one looks very straightforward to me. You look at the if you look at the survey,
being put that back up on the screen. Basically looks like more than half the houses in front of that 75 foot,
and I think they're doing everything they can to keep it behind the average lakeshore setback and the small encroachment there,
I don't think impedes any of you. >> I agree. I'll just add that you're
a really good neighbor to sit through all of this to represent your neighbor.
>> [laughter] thank you.
>> any other comments? Any questions or concerns? >> I would agree with commissioner perkle's comment about being
a good neighbor I have lead them know we gave you a hard time in charge him extra. No, I would hearing nothing else from the commissioners.
I would make a motion to approve la 25-47 as applied.
>> I will second. A. >> motion to approve by commissioner brandeber second by commissioner jonah.
any further discussion? No. All in favor say aye.
>> aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? None motion carries. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> la 25-48 is our next public hearing.
this is hoxie homes, 755 tonka road. This is for a variance, mr. Kearney.
>> thank you, mr. Chair. This is a variance application at 7:55 tonka road.
ultimately, the applicant is proposing a sawa building,
which by our classifications is an accessory building.
this is being proposed on a property of 2.33 acres located towards the west end of the city.
in terms of the proposed conditions that the applicant has presented to staff.
we're looking at an approximately 148 square foot sauna building
with a slightly larger roof structure above it.
I think getting that up to 293 square feet for hard covers considerations by our estimations and the numbers submitted by the applicant.
we're looking at an increase of about 0.4% to the total hard cover.
generally speaking, we are looking at a pretty significant impact to the average lakeshore setback line.
however, we are about 6.6 feet past the 75 foot lakeshore.
we'll note that as I move it into the survey on the next page,
it's about the same distance lakeward of the average lakeshore setback as the existing house.
this building meets the 10 foot side setback.
in terms of the average lakeshore, we have a fairly unique property here,
not for the property itself, but the property it is neighboring.
don't have many cases where we are adjacent to non-residential property.
this is the camp teko property to the north. Staffs determination ultimately is that there are a number of buildings on this property,
and as we have identified it in the past,
all of the buildings incidental to that camp teko use in
our previous staff interpretations have been identified as principal buildings where the average lakeshore setback would be measured from.
given the circumstances regarding this site, we measured the average lakeshore setback from the closest principal building on
the camp teko site to the closest protrusion on the property to the south,
leading to this fairly aggressive line that is about 140 feet behind
the existing house and 140 feet or so behind where the proposed sauna is located.
looking at the area image I presented here,
we are not anticipating any impact whatsoever to sight lines for either property,
mainly because the house to the south is already in
close proximity to a lake consistent with that of the subject property.
there is a sufficient amount of vegetation separating the two structures or the two buildings,
the home and the principal buildings that we have identified on the camp teko site.
with mind staff has found that a practical difficulty has been established,
and mainly that sit lines are to be minimally impacted, if at all, staff has not received any public comments pertinent to the application,
and we recommend approval of the variance as applied.
>> thank you. Questions for staff. >> do you have the 75 foot line on that map?
>> 75 foot line will be this tapered line as it goes through here,
so it breaches the house and this relative location, but is just ahead of the sauna and the location.
>> any other questions? >> no. >> thank you. If the applicant is here and wish to speak, please approach the podium.
state your name and address for the record, please. >> hello. Thank you, jeff hoxie, hoxie homes,
364 industrial boulevard, waconia, minnesota. Thank you, matthew. I'll quickly add.
I believe the existing house is about 40 feet from the lake. The 75 yard does cut the 75 foot. Is that back?
proximity of the sauna is simply close to the house, easy access.
it is a flat yard, so trying to keep it as close to the house as we can.
it is out of the sightlines of the lake, and we could maintain the 75 foot set back,
but with that camp to the north northwest, not that even if there was a house to the north northwest, it would have met it,
but it's all about proximity to the home for easy access. Any questions?
>> no questions. Thank you. This item is a public hearing.
anyone from the public who wish to speak on this, please post a protium state your name and address for the record.
seeing no one will close a public hearing. Bring it back here for discussion.
commissioner ressler, would you like to start? >> I can go. This one's pretty straightforward for me.
it's not within the 75 feet, which we're very sensitive typically,
for the purpose of placement is next to the existing structure.
the size of the lot is reasonable when we're talking about existing hard cover 16%.
they're allocated 25 at how it's zoned. I don't have an issue with that,
and then the last mitigant is, of course, being not next to another residential property,
being argued or a commercial property that gives
you a little bit of leeway in my opinion as far as use goes.
for me very straightforward because or 75 feet is one of things sensitive to all the things called out and thank you,
mr. Kearney, for pointing those out and makes it easy for me. I'd be prepared to make a motion agreement for you.
I'm going to do it. I'm going to make a motion to approve la 25-47 as applied.
>> I second. >> motion to approve by commissioner ressler,
a second by commissioner perkle. Any further discussion? Hearing none.
let's vote. All in favor. Say aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? Hearing nothing.
motion carries. Thank you.
la 25-4902 design, on behalf of stephen and stacengm,
1450 brackets point road. This is for a cup for retaining wall, ms. Curtis.
>> the property owner is requesting the conditional use permit to
allow a new retaining wall to be constructed within 75 feet of the lake. The owners are planning to rebuild the existing boathouse in kind,
and as part of the project are also reconstructing the aging walls surrounding the both house.
they're using a different material resulting in a smaller footprint. The lake access stairs are also being reconstructed and reconfigured, and as a result,
one of the existing walls will be constructed under the new stair to support it.
that wall requires a conditional use permit. The hardcover associated with the both house walls and stairs
is going to be reduced by eight square feet from the existing condition.
there's a new home currently under construction on the property. As design, the new wall will run perpendicular to the lake and
will be completely screened by the stair it is supporting. The plans were designed by a registered landscape architect and structural engineer,
and they were provided in the packet. We received a supportive comment from one of the neighbors.
that was included in your packet as well. Staff is recommending approval of
the conditional use permit for the new wall as proposed. I have the plan information,
the survey to show, if you have any questions, I can address those [inaudible]
>> thank you. In your eyes, it meets all the conditions of the cop. >> true.
>> thank you. If the applicants here and wish to speak, please approach the podium. State your name and address for the record, please.
>> comissioners, my name is han jon. I'm in 1034 hite avenue, s pam.
I from 02 design representing les and peter stendm, the home owner.
this is originally a pump pause when the whole bracket point was on property,
and it was pumping water from the lake to support the nurseries for this whole mansion.
it was left empty and vacant for the longest time, and the new home owner wants to use it as
a porch just step closer to the dock in the summertime.
we are going to keep all the activities inside other than the boat dock,
which is seasonal, we will get the lake min tonka permit separately.
the existing stone is original, and as you can see in the photos,
it was a clutch of different sides of stones, and it was cemented together.
it's actually bulging quite badly. We have consulted a structural engineer.
we really think it is a structural safety issue, if we start to dig anything or do any renovations very close to that.
that's why we decide to build a new wall. The home owner is actually very kin to these traditional stones,
and she was kind of set to let it go. By doing that, we are going to construct a concrete wall,
which will be behind the boathouse, totally screened by the boathouse from the lake side because the new wall is concrete.
we are reducing the bulging footprint of the wall from two feet to the 12 inch.
and that will allow us to have actual square footage to construct the stairs,
which we aren't it to be perpendicular to the house and parallel.
I'm sorry, perpendicular to the lake and parallel to the house.
>> any questions? >> any questions for the applicant?
no. Great. Thank you. Thanks. This item is a public hearing.
anyone from the public wish to speak. Please oppose podium. State your name and address for the record.
say nobody, I'll close the public hearing. We'll bring it back here for discussion.
>> I'll just say, I think the fact that they're rebuilding in kind
and need the supportive structures in order to do that makes this really straightforward for me.
>> I agree. Very straightforward. Anyone applying for a retaining wall in the lake yard,
this would be good to take notes on this application. It's nice when they come to us,
meeting all the conditions that engineer design,
et cetera. I'm in favor of this. >> make a motion to approve la 25-49 as applied.
>> I'll second. Motion to approved by commissioner brandeber second by commissioner welson.
any further discussion? All in favor say aye.
>> aye. >> any opposed? >> no. >> motion carries. Thank you.
la 25-51 ungerman, inc 4680 north shore drive.
variance. Mr. Carney. >> thank you, mr. Share. Also, we have a variance located at 4680 north shore drive.
this is a rear setback variance. Ultimately, there is a proposal to put in a bump out
or an addition of sorts to the existing garage in the rear of the property.
I will note that we have a standard within our zoning code.
once you hit 100 square feet as a standalone accessory building,
you are considered an oversized accessory building. What this means is that principal building setbacks or what you would
typically see for a house would be applicable for a building of this size.
I just want to make that distinction right now. Overall, we're looking at a property of about 26,000 square feet.
I did not get the tier changed on there. It is actually tier two,
which is 30% hard cover. In terms of proposed conditions,
I did a few markups on the survey submitted by the applicant. In terms of a six foot bump out,
we are looking a little bit eastward. The bump out will be towards the east over an existing driveway.
in terms of hard cover, hard cover is not going up or down.
it's simply being changed from the existing bituminous driveway to where this addition would be.
no changes to hard cover even though we're in the realm of about 29.7%.
the addition itself will be about 234 or so square feet for six feet out the length of the garage.
the clarification about the setback, and I put a little bit of a blue bar on the graphic.
that is my measurement of 30 feet from the property line, which would be the principal building rear setback in this case,
whereas ten foot would be applicable if this building was below 1,000 square feet.
that is where the setback line would fall almost halfway through the existing garage.
I will note as well, although we're looking at an existing condition of about ten feet from the property line,
that encroachment is not supposed to get larger as a part of this addition.
I have some elevation views to show you as well, given the topography and some of the uniqueness of the property,
the eastern side, where the garage doors would be, where that addition would be,
just on the main level, balcony on top of it, and nothing on the third level.
as a three story garage, the addition is confined just to the bottom level of the building.
in terms of a summary to walk through the staff findings,
ultimately, this is the expansion of a non conforming building.
even beforehand, the building is measured at 1,008 square feet,
meaning that this oversize building setback would be applicable that 30 foot rear.
staff will note that the property is unique, that there are existing conditions and topography on the site that make
this different from other variance cases and would like
to make note that there is something unique about the property in terms of
how it is laid out and the existing building and how it's built into the grade there.
whether that be for screening or whatever purpose, it is noteworthy to staff.
and staff would also qualify their findings with,
mainly that the reasonable use of the building exists. There is an existing garage there that can
be used for the purpose that the applicant has stated. Although it may not be large enough for
the materials or the equipment that they want to store there, there is still reasonable use of that building.
I will identify that there were not any public comments submitted for this particular application.
given the items I've walked you through here, staff recommends denial of the variance as not all criteria of approval.
favorable for the variance. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.
>> thank you. You did touch on it, but if this was not an oab,
it would be a ten foot setback. >> that's correct?
>> that's the maximum size accessory building. >> allowed,2000. Even with the addition that would come up to
one and 242 square feet.
>> there's no other garages on this site, correct? >> this is the only accessory building.
>> can you show, that one.
if the applicant had an interest, they have the ability and
the hard cover allowance to expand the building without requiring a variance, correct?
in a certain direction? >> it could be. Really, that blue bar illustrates,
you know, the extent to which the building is falling within the setback.
ultimately, changes or a proposal to the south side of the building could be conforming with zoning requirements.
>> thank you. >> any other questions for staff?
the applicant is here and wish to speak.
please state your name and address for the record.
>> harte, 46 80 drive. I'm ron ngraman with grea construction,
14021st avenue, north, plymouth, minnesota.
>> any questions at all for the applicants.
>> do you guys know if this building was there before the current owner took ownership of the I couldn't hear you.
>> this existing garage, was that there prior to the current owner's purchase of the lot?
assuming they didn't build the structure? >> yes, it was. It's been there for decades.
I don't know when it was built, but it's it's definitely older than the house.
the house is not that old. >> the aerials confirm it back through the 90s at a minimum.
the aerial imagery that we have dates it back to at least the '90s. Couple of decades.
>> is there an existing garage attached to the house, or is this the only garage for the property?
>> there is attached. >> the main purpose of the bump out is you would like to be
able to park his boat and trailers actually inside the garage versus leaving him parked outside in the garage.
what he wants to do is be a good steward of the neighborhood, tuck them away so they're not out invisible for everybody.
that's really the main purpose of it just so we can park. >> if you were to expand on the south side of the garage,
would you need to reconfigure the driveway and add additional hard cover?
>> well, you would have to reconfigure the driveway to go up and in. You'd also have to re engineer the building.
the practical difficulty really here is just that the building itself is non conforming.
anything we do to the building, whether it's putting a roof on or siding,
everything we do is non conforming.
>> I'm trying to orientate myself on the view.
the east side is the view that you're expanding out, correct?
>> that's the natural way that the garage functions right now as well. >> that is correct. The doors are on these.
>> thank you. Any other questions for the apple? Thank you.
>> thank you very much. >> this item is a public hearing.
anyone from the public wish to speak? Please approach the podium. State your name and address for the record, please.
being nobody. Close public hearing.
bring it back up here for discussion. >> quick question for staff.
is there a reason why you guys define it as not having a practical difficulty?
but acknowledging the topography of the site? >> it's really the way that the practical difficulties are laid out within our code.
ultimately, the practical difficulties are defined by state statute and very specific about what those items are.
the criterion that staff did support are elements of our code that speak
to really the special conditions of the structure or the land in question,
peculiar to the property or the immediately adjoining property.
there are aspects of the property in this particular area that are unique to this particular case,
but they don't rise to the level of warranty in this type of expansion to a non conforming.
we believe that nonconformity should not be expanded in that particular area,
just given some of those specifics. Although I do believe, you know,
the slope, the topography, the existing condition of a fairly massive accessory building is noteworthy.
why we identified that to you as those cry for those criteria being met,
whereas some of the others didn't rise to that level. >> the last question is,
is it fair to say that this building was present before that city ever had regulations on oversized accessory buildings?
well, that's I don't either. Thank you.
>> can I just ask about the requirements for setback from the side of the property?
I understand the garages are accessed from the east side.
if they wanted to add a fully separate stall,
to the south of the building, they could do that. There's no setback requirement that would be challenged on the west side?
>> sorry to interrupt. I believe from a setback standpoint,
that might be possible, but I think the site is right at the limit of hard cover. They would have to balance adding additional hard cover.
>> it's at approximately 29.7% hard cover just with the eyeball test.
some amount of that driveway that is going to where we have these doors proposed would have to
go away in some way shape or form in order to accommodate the reallocation of hard cover on the south side of the build.
>> I'll just voice my opinion quick that I grew up around the area very familiar with this road,
and I think the images we're seeing don't really do it justice as how unique this property is.
you're standing on the north side of this building, you'd be looking over the roof.
if you're on the west side of the property, you're not going to see there isn't a house there,
obviously you can see all the woods. You're not seeing the bump out.
now, if you're driving on the road and look to your right, you're probably going to see the bump out,
but you're also might be going down in the lake, which is about 150 feet below you right there.
I find the practical difficulty just being within the topography of the site as well as it being,
a structure that was there prior to this owner isn't something they did to themselves.
buildings been there for a while and they're trying to improve it. Not to mention to hide some of their stuff out of
their yard and keeping a better condition than it could be. I would disagree with staff's recommendation,
and I personally would definitely be in support of this. This variance or cost.
>> question for staff for the applicant. When I look at this, there's no windows or anything on the second story of that,
so that's currently not a livable space on the second story, but it's being proposed to become one?
>> ultimately, it's part of a larger building permit for remodel of that space.
>> does that allow for two livable spaces that could be rented out? >> no. This property would not qualify for an accessory unit.
>> but is that what's being proposed by them as an accessory? >> no. That is something that staff can approve administratively as an interior model,
subject to certain controls to assure it's not being used as an accessory dwelling unit.
however, what is before you tonight is strictly for that additional six feet coming out of the garage and that ancillary [inaudible]
>> thank you.
>> I'll add my comments quick. Looking at the picture here,
the design is actually going to hang over the driveway,
so you're not going to do anything to technically the hard cover.
you're not going absurd with six feet, so it's not really going to change the characteristics by much.
then looking at the design of the building, it seems impossible to pull out another wing of that rectangle building to extend it.
then if the use case is for boats that's where you need the length.
it's through the entry point and to extend it.
I guess I'm having a hard time saying I would be against this.
I think the staff has raised some good comments and suggestions on it,
but I actually would be in favor of this.
>> mr. Chairman. >> yes. >> I think there's a lot of things that make sense.
there's a lot of things that are demonstrated. I think the topography of the lot is relevant.
I think the biggest thing is I don't think it's a coincidence that
the existing total cover that we have in structure is exactly at the location because that's what was built.
this isn't like an after the fact variance they had built the house or anything like that,
but that's why we have limitations as you fit it into the box, you build what you can. That's already there.
that's the only hard part that I have with this is if there was some mitigation,
there with hard cover that would be still within the guidelines, and within the boundaries as well as how we define accessory buildings because again,
it was probably built at a time before we realized that that could be a problem,
and I think we've done some great things in the last decade and tightening things and loosening things and continue
to do so I think we have to set rules for what they are.
a little variance is still a variance.
I agree, it does make sense. Just that I don't agree with [inaudible]
>> they're not increasing the hard cover. >> but it's at the maximum. Right now, I guess what I'm trying to determine
is if they're eliminating hard cover to accommodate an addition.
is that going to be sufficient [inaudible].
>> just for clarity, they're proposing the addition on top of the existing hard cover,
so they're not trying to eliminate it somewhere else. >> no, but the structure is an addition like this right now.
>> the structural hard cover is increasing. I think structural hard cover.
now we're speaking the same language.
but they're not exceeding structural hard cover. >> that's correct.
>> I'm looking at this, and I think that is the practical place to put in addition to an accessory building.
there's an existing garage on the house that presumably is designed for
vehicles that person there is living and using the attached garage of their house.
the purpose of the accessory building is to store accessories such as boats, etc.
boats are bigger than they were in the 90s. I think I look at this,
and I can see the practical difficulty with the elevation change on the lot.
if they were to try to configure this on the south side of the garage,
they're not going to gain any length.
it's variance is all over. It's pick your poison.
we're going to be looking at a hard cover variance. They try to expand on the south side.
I don't think that the 10 foot setback is affecting anybody.
I agree with the applicant's practical difficulty analysis. Thanks.
>> we did not hear from the neighbor to the north. >> I have not heard from any neighbors in the area.
>> I agree with agent ressler that I think we have code for a reason.
we got to stick to it when there's validity to it.
I have some concern about this, just when you look at the aerial cover of it, if you could bring up the aerial quick.
it's not technically considered hard cover at this very specific point in time.
do you have an actual aerial aerial that's not concealed by the tree?
that's really a roundabout there, that's not being calculated as hard cover because it's just being driven over the grass.
but historically, we've seen where that all of a sudden somehow becomes driveway at some point in time,
it becomes considered a hard cover, and now we're stuck dealing with it.
I also have some difficulty where he's talking about how this is really about a boat,
six feet going from 10-16, but it's really more about a deck for
upstairs space that could all of a sudden become a rental space without a rental license.
I don't want to put things out there, but this seems to be a lot more going on than I'm just
trying to get a space to put a 14 foot boat or a 12 foot boat.
>> question for staff. I know a while ago it used to be a cup for an adu.
now it's administrative decision.
do the setbacks of the building, does it have to be in conforming structure within conforming setbacks,
or does it just have to be a structure on the property? >> we used to have a conditional use permit for guest houses,
and that's what our code did was guest houses, and that still, I believe required a covenant.
for guest houses, that it couldn't be rental or could could be a dwelling.
we amended our code 6 five years ago.
a few years ago, to open it up to allow accessory dwelling units,
and then we dropped the conditional use permit for guest houses. We allow oversized accessory buildings,
and then adus are administrative, and that's how they were written when the regulation went into place.
to build a new adu need to be conforming to setbacks.
I believe you can convert an existing structure to an adu as long as the conditions of the adu are
met regarding the connection for sewer and the sizing requirements and things of that nature.
>> there's no conditions on that as far as conforming setbacks if you're converting an existing building?
>> if you get the variance first as a garage, then it's an existing building that can be converted.
but if you were to go for these in the beginning you'd need those setbacks.
>> if you have a building, and you want to turn it into an adu,
you need to meet the standards of the adu. Example, this site, one of the standards for
an adu is you need to have one acre minimum, so I don't [overlapping].
>> the setbacks are not part of that standard. That's [overlapping]. >> let me confirm.
>> those are my concerns. It just we have
ordinance and rules in place to keep things from becoming a slippery slope, and just need to continue to go down.
I haven't seen enough justification for why he needs to expand it to put a 12 foot boat in there.
>> mr. Chair. >> yes. >> I have a question. It probably was already answered.
what's the demarcation of oversize accessory building by size? Was it 1,008?
>> before the expansion. >> yes, I see [inaudible].
[laughter] because I'm like, wait a minute. I thought for a second, maybe it just had to do with this setback.
that's what I thought it was. We're taking an accessory building that's already oversize making it bigger.
>> but you're allowed to make it bigger. You're allowed to make it bigger just within the setbacks.
because that triggers a different setback for an oversized accessory.
>> oversized accessory building can be up to 2,000 square feet on this property, is that correct?
be conforming. What's not conforming is that it's in the setback.
>> that's correct. >> I know that we're going to read and sign,
but we can't have any of the proposed additions inside the 30 foot, is that correct?
>> [inaudible] >> but then you're adding the hard cover to the site.
>> [inaudible]. >> or if you add it to the house.
>> I'm just going to take a stab at here because I'm always trying to find ways to be in support of it.
if we could make the hard cover standard 30% and we're not doing any of the addition within the 30 feet,
I would probably support it. I know that sounds [inaudible],
whoever we vote on this if that feedback gets on the record for council.
>> that wouldn't happen for us.
>> there you go. [laughter]. I think we all want to support this.
I'm still in support of it. I think that if we're looking at the application as its face
and not trying to guess into the future that they're going to turn this into an adu,
this accessory building can be bigger. I think it meets the criteria of
practical difficulty so that you can store the accessories that he has in this building.
I'm still in favor of it. I don't like looking into the future and saying,
then he might apply for an adu permit, which is fine. It's administrative. We've already come up with the standards of what that person needs to get that permit,
and there's conditions a time to it. That's stuff that we debated over and talked about for months years ago.
it's worked really well because we used to have a room full of people applying for cups for guest houses.
they were very long meetings, and they all came to the same conclusion that the people could have the guest house.
it really wasn't an issue, because we found out that people aren't using these as rental properties.
that's a condition of it, so it doesn't scare me looking at this.
I think we have to look at this at face value. What he's applying for is to make this garage bigger so he
can store the accessory equipment that he owns. That's a practical difficulty.
>> my perspective is that if he can bump out
only a portion of the building and not the entire east side,
that he can still meet,
I would guess the majority of his needs for boat storage,
or at least some of them.
because that exists within the current code,
that would be where my vote would lie.
I don't think we all need to agree, and so at some point,
if we all vote our own way, that's okay.
>> any other discussions? >> I'm going to make a motion.
I think it's in the best interest of the applicant. Again, I'm hanging my hat on just that it's in their property right.
it's a structure that was there prior to their ownership of the property.
I think they're making a reasonable proposal. They're not extending out 15 20 feet.
I think it's very much in the means of that. I think a big part is they're not increasing the hard cover.
I would certainly not be in approval if they were increasing the hard cover.
again, there's clearly demonstratable difficulty in my perspective based on the topography.
because of those reasons, I'm going to make a motion to approve as applied la-25-51.
>> I'll second that. >> a motion to approve by commissioner brandabur as applied.
I have a second by commissioner pajonar. Any further discussion on that motion?
hearing none. We'll put it to a vote. All in favor say aye. >> aye.
>> any opposed? >> nay. >> that motion failed 3-4? Is that correct?
>> chair, can you please note who were the nays?
>> raise your hand if you were a nay? >> four? >> yes.
>> thank you. >> yes. That being said, entertain another motion.
>> I'll make a motion to deny. >> I'll second.
>> motion to deny by commissioner wilson, a second by commissioner percol. Any further discussions?
all in favor of denial, say aye. >> aye.
>> an opposed? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.
>> motion is denied. That we'll move on to city council meeting on 10th of december, I think.
>> eighth. >> on a note that's somewhat related to this application.
I think it'd be interesting to revisit the code for oversize accessory buildings.
make sure that there's an actual need for this additional setback.
because I think it seems a little egregious, especially when we're looking at this existing building is only eight feet over,
and this would require it to be built 30 more feet towards the center.
I think that's a big reason that people don't want [inaudible] upper room,
have some accessory buildings on their lots, and I think we need to revisit that piece to make sure
that it's adequate for today's use. >> I think that's a good idea mr. Chair,
the neighboring communities have for those. >> second, I think we could revisit the adu
and make sure that the standards for that would take something like this into consideration.
I can see some places where it might be a problem if someone wants to convert a zero setback building into an adu,
and they can just do that through the administration process right now. That should be looked at,
and that's my thought. Do you need something formal from us to push recommendations forward or?
>> no. This is probably getting more to the administrative side of the meeting,
but as we move forward [noise] in the early part of next year,
staff will be putting together probably some work session and work session topics and discussion,
so I'm taking note of the different things we've run into this year to be a point of discussion,
and from that, we can move on with discussions and direction from there.
I'll add this to the list of potential work session discussion or topics.
>> just for clarity, the applicant, if we were to revisit that language,
it's possible the applicant could build that without needing a variance.
in the future, if we were to change or re-examine those setback requirements.
just a thought. >> yes. My thought is not to be aggressive with these changes, but look at them,
is 1000 feet really the right metric we need for that oversized building?
maybe it's [overlapping]. >> or the setback. >> maybe it's 1,500,
but anything bigger then has to get that bigger setback. Those are things we should constantly be looking at, I think.
>> we did, like three years ago, change that regarding this is an elevation to stay..
>> that was that change the criteria, you're right there,
it's usually seen as that the transparency
to look into those things to change the progress. >> yeah.
>> I don't disagree with it. >> all that being said, we'll move on to new business.
chair appointment discussion. >> commissioner, I think that is an old agenda that got published.
my apologies or that got printed. The next item is la 25-44.
>> we're just out of order. >> I think the one that got printed out front was out of order,
my apologies, and the one that got published. >> do we formally asked to change the agenda?
>> I think the agenda was changed immediately after publication,
but I think the copy that got printed on the out there was the old copy.
>> we formally adopted the correct agenda. We just have cancel it. >> yes. That's true, chair. Thank you.
[laughter] the one online is correct. Yes. >>that brings us to a sketch plan.
>> for the clarity quick. The hair appointment discussion that's not until like february, march, correct.
is that when that would happen? >> no, we'll talk about a recommendation for appointments of chair on this agenda,
but actual reappointments of people who want to get reappointed formally as commissioners or if there's openings,
will happen later in the first part of 2026.
>> brings us to la 25-44. This is a sketch plan, scott england,
on behalf of barbara lupian, for 3220. Was that a boulevard? Ms. Oakton.
>> thank you. Will you bring up just the I believe I have a site plan.
is exhibit d. We'll just kind of work from this.
the applicant in front of you tonight is a sketch plan. The applicants requesting comments regarding
a proposed development for a 26 detached townhome on the south side of lake classen,
which is on the north just to the north of wayzata, boulevard.
as a point of a reminder, a sketch plan is a part of a process to get non-binding feedback to a project.
it's not a formal application in the sense that this is a high 10,000-foot
view of the project to gauge interest or support from commission,
as well as council before any formal applications are made.
a little bit background, the proposed property is in the rr-1b district,
guided rural residential through our comprehensive plan. The parcels are outside of the musa and are
not eligible for sanitary sewer and water at this time. The parcels are located on lake classen,
which is a natural environment lake with 150 foot lake shore setback for all structures.
based on the existing zoning of this parcel, the minimum lot size for new lots is two acres and
200 feet width measured at that lake shore setback. The proposal in front of you tonight provided by the developer,
is a 26 detached townhome proposal. The homes are single-storey with a combination of 2-3 car garages.
the project includes a viewing platform for the residents,
as well as a large conservation easement, which is indicated in that darker green perimeter edging on the site plan.
access to the site is provided on two entrances, off wayzata boulevard on the south of the subject property,
which would be subject to approval by head of the county.
the proposal will require an amendment, the comprehensive plan for both land use and expansion of the musa boundary.
the met council requires that a minimum density of three units per
acre for all land within the musa for the city.
the upcoming comprehensive plan amendment that we will start to work on it's called the comp plan for 2050,
will require the city to meet a 3.5 units per acre in density.
we will be asked for more density within our musa district, coming into the comprehensive plan update.
net density for this site specifically, the property is roughly 14 acres in size in land.
the developer is proposing that conservation easement, which is roughly 4.5 acres around the perimeter.
a conservation easement can be subtracted from the developable land
of the density calculation if the area is owned and maintained by a government agency.
if the conservation area is removed, the adjusted land would be approximately 8.5 acres in size,
which results with the 26-unit project and a 3.1 unit per acre density,
which is in line with the current 2040 city guidelines of our comprehensive plan,
but would be short of the future requirement for our 2050, which is 3.5.
let's see here. Comp plan and land use.
the comp plan talks at length about the rural character of orono and the protection of
natural resources noting that the delineation of urban and rural area is fixed.
this is at a demarcation part in our comprehensive plan. To the south is considered urban.
this parcel is considered rural. Part of the city's solution to retain its rural character is to place
higher densities as appropriate locations in the city, such as navarre.
the planning commission, the council should determine if the site is appropriate for an urban density,
greater than one unit per two acres. If so, they should determine if the proposed development
provides appropriate level of density for the city. In our 2040 comp plan,
we do prioritize projects when considering musa expansions. One of those priorities would be that properties that above the shoreline of orono lakes.
another policy or another prioritization is that
new developments use some cluster or permanently preserved blocks of open space.
this development does meet those two. I think there are six in total prioritizations for conditions for expanding the musa.
under zoning, orono does not have a high-density residential zoning district.
all of our high-density zoning is done through a tool,
either an rpud or a puds. Stone bay, orono senior housing orono woods are all done under our rpud,
which is a residential planned unit development. That specific zoning requirement lists that no [noise]
can be within 250 feet of an ohw of a protected water,
so that would be encumbered with the site. However, the city does have another tool that is a planned unit development in pud.
[noise] this is allowed or this is a site that would qualify for a pud,
as it is off of wayzata boulevard or old highway 12, but it would need to be explored regarding the priorities of
clustering development and the densities associated with that pud.
if the planning commission and council supports the project, some modifications to a zoning ordinance may be necessary,
may be an ordinance amendment or a variance. A leniency may be requested depending on the scale and location of approvement.
plan commission should provide guidance for its appetite for necessary modifications.
for public comments, this is not a public hearing.
no public comments have been submitted to the city for this project. The applicant, however, did hold a neighborhood meeting on november 5,
and they submitted supporting documents of that meeting,
where they showed the sketch plan and heard from neighbors.
items for consideration. Does the planning commission support expansion of the musa boundary?
is a specific question that you should discuss and provide feedback on.
then, as well as, does the commission support expansion of an urban density into the property?
because if we expand the musa, then the density should support that infrastructure.
additionally, specifically for this site. The proposed conservation easement
shown must be owned and maintained by a government agency.
this is critical for this proposed site, as is estimated density of 3.1 units is only met
by identifying that conservation area and netting those acres out of the development.
the planning commission should ask the applicant for additional testimony regarding this requirement and
provide feedback on city ownership or maintenance of the development for that conservation easement.
that conservation easement must be dedicated to a government agency as well as maintained by that government agency.
then, would the planning commission support any zoning ordinances if it was necessary for the site?
are there other issues or concerns with this project? I have maps from the comprehensive plan we can work through.
I also have some perspective views to work through on this,
but the developer has prepared a powerpoint as well. I'm happy to take any questions.
>>that was a lot. >> yes. >> good job.
>> I know. [laughter] >> you said it doesn't meet the guidelines of an rpud because?
>> an rpud has a specific regulation that it can't be within 250 feet of an ohw.
that being said, the an rpud it may either require
a text amendment or a variance to that zoning district to incorporate those rpud standards.
I think there's some tools in place that applicant could explore regarding our zoning,
whether it's an rpud or a pud district, but further research and information on the proposal would need to be determined.
>> in the pud, it does not meet because of? >> staff believes it does meet the pud standards.
we only allow puds in the navarre area or in the highway 12 corridor.
the highway 12 corridor study was done in the '80s and was
a small area site plan that was when we were planning to shift highway 12 from wayzata boulevard to now.
this area was identified as rural and part of that plan, but it was part of that plan,
so it would be identified and potential a possible lot for a pud development.
>> either of those vehicles, there need to be code changed?
>>there might not be a code change for pud, but pud does prioritize cluster development.
it allows for mixed-use development. It's a little bit wider breadth of it all.
>> just a second. Not to interrupt you, but you're saying it's not meeting the current.
>> I think it would meet the pud standards. >> the standards it meets, but it doesn't meet the current location for puds?
>> it does meet the pud. I do believe a pud would work for this site.
>> you said the pud is not allowed on this site because it's only allowed on the highway 12 corridor.
>> it's just considered part of the highway 12 corridor. >> it is? >> yes. >> yes. I totally misunderstood what you said.
>> this is part of the highway 12 corridor. I'm sorry if I spoke in circles there. This is considered part of the highway 12 corridor.
it is in the area where a pud could be identified and could be placed.
>> that makes more sense. >> so sorry.
>> if that land along the lake shore is not maintained by a government entity,
that feels like a really high burden.
what would the density need to change to? >> yeah, so if that land would be counted.
the site is roughly 14 acres. Under our current guide, we need three units per acre at minimum.
that would be 14*3. It's light and that's math.
>> forty two. >> what was that, matt? >> forty two. >> thank you, 42 units would be required just to hit
the absolute minimum to support a musa infrastructure,
and following council requirements. >> remind us how many are we looking at here?
>> twenty six. >> doubling the size, essentially/.
>> without the musa boundaries, this site could accommodate seven homes?
>> at most. We would require 200 feet of width at the 150-foot setback.
forty five. I haven't sketched it out, but rural.
>> can I clarify, also, because of the setback requirements from the lake,
you'd have to fit those 42 units within the lighter green shaded area, correct?
>> the dark green is roughly at the 75-foot setback.
there's an additional line right at the rear of the homes. >>yes.
>> that's the 150. >> got it. >> within the current homes area,
you'd need to fit almost double the amount of homes if the lakeshore was not being maintained by a government entity.
>> yeah, if it could not be netted out, if it had to be counted on the parcel.
>> if that was turned over to government agency and there was the overlook,
would that agency be responsible for that overlook to then in this point? >> not necessarily.
I think an agreement could get worked. That's a question for the applicant. But I believe there could be a agreement in
place that would allow an overlook to be maintained or be in that space while the rest of
the area could be a lot or an an easement managed by the government agency. That would be an agreement between those two entities.
>> I didn't pull it up on a map, but what does the other side of the lake look like from a density standpoint?
>> just to the west is the lurton dog park to
the east is the orono school district campus.
there's an existing neighborhood in the northeast.
>> there's just a small handful of homes. >> then there's about, I think five properties on honey hill.
that is a newer development that will be building that's a rural two-acre development on just north of the lurton dog park,
where that little pond is right there. Then to the south, I will note,
on the south side of wayzata boulevard, right where the cursor is, that's where we have guided low and high residential density for the city.
will you pull up the comp plan exhibit g?
this shows rural and urban areas.
we have this also identified as rural and urban to the south,
and then if you go down a map, I believe we have our land use map.
this is a shore land. There we go. We have this land identified as rural, but just to the south,
we do have it guided for different variations of high, medium, and low density, but urban area.
we are anticipating some city densities in that spot. But to the south.
>> mr. Chair. >> yes. >> I believe the applicants here as well if you have a question?
>> I do I will have more questions. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. First of all, I appreciate you pointing out some things like the classification,
is not something that we have in our inventory. That's helpful to know.
my question is, expansion of the ma and expanding urban density, calling out.
I think you said we're 3.1 units per acre, and we need to go to a density of 18.
under comprehensive plan. >> under our current comp plan,
we are required to be three units per acre for all land within the musa,
and that's not necessarily existing conditions, that we've provided opportunities for
development that would meet us at three units per acre. We currently are at three even. Three even right now.
2050 comp plan has as a requirement for 3.5.
we will start the comprehensive plan, updates, outreach, public engagement stuff, probably into 2026.
into 2027, it's required to be submitted in 2028.
>> in effect 2030? >> it would be in effect once we submitted it to the mt council.
so 2028 is when the deadline to submit, I will go into effect early part of 2029 once they accept.
>> summary, we got to get to 3.5 units per acre for the comp plan right around two years from now?
>> yes. That's a bigger conversation. I just noted.
>> yes. >> it's review just so that that's are on the horizon.
>> if I can jump in just a question. I thought I heard you say that that ratio only counts for properties that are in the musa.
if this wasn't a part of the musa when [inaudible].
>> they're requesting city services. That land is only for land in the musa.
land outside of the musa or in our rural area is not counted in.
>> I was just asking, so if this state exactly to count negatively.
>> true. >> I'll have more questions, but I'll maybe let the applicant last question,
I think it was mentioned, but I'm not sure if it was resonated with anyone.
current guidance is rural residential in the 2040 compel.
>> true. >> one last question, sorry.
has the county provided feedback or, at what point do they provide feedback regarding the road,
and all this density that's going to be faking out right there at a high high speed road.
>> no. The applicant would engage with the county once a
preliminary plan or once the formal applications are starting to be developed and created.
I will note that the county knows that we do have high density guided just to the south side of this road,
so they are anticipating. Any additional traffic demands that this development would trigger,
the county would work and ask for upgrades from the developer to install.
>> the applicants here and wish to speak? >> I believe there's a powerpoint. Thank you.
>> chair members of the commission mike waldo with ron clark construction,
07,500 west 78th street n dana. Along with us tonight, what architect neil webber
is also consultant for us on this project. Might have been more eloquent a couple of hours ago [laughter].
hopefully, everyone's still awake. We'll try to be through this after as laura said, it's a very complicated process we're requesting,
but I think a lot of it is driven by the fact that we're bringing sewer pipes to the site.
in other words, with the development to the south, there will be sewer pipes running along our order.
the other thing that I think as we talked a little bit with the neighbors about is this is as a council continues to push everyone for more density.
getting this developed at 3.1 or if you decide,
what, you want us to be at 3.5, that's a couple of units we probably get there.
but at some point, with the natural environmental lake and with a limited amount of developable area,
all of a sudden, they could be pushing you to 60 units. All of a sudden, you're looking at a 100 or 300 unit apartment,
similar to what was brought in front of you by someone of 56 years.
which the landowners apologize for. There was a miscommunication between consultant of the land owner,
even that that site even got in front of you. Two of the landowners, which is the three mam members,
didn't even know it had. One of the things. Reason why our first meeting was with
the neighborhood before we came to you guys was just because of them going through the process and we need
to re engage the neighborhood, talk about what we're doing. Talk about the fact that, this has been in
their family for 40 years, and they want to be. I'm going to let step back for a second,
have tim talk about the plan quick, and then I'll jump in and talk for some of the technical stuff and then be
available for questions and try not to make this go too long. Thank you.
>> good evening, chair, commissioners. Tim whitten, witness associates,
men tonka. Are you there?
move. Over here, sir. Could you hand down a couple more?
what's go with this for now?
the property itself, the grades are such that
the highest point is really in the center along is that a boulevard.
then it slopes down steeply towards the shoreline.
our mission is always to design a product that adapts to the site as opposed to forcing a design,
on the site and change the elevations and so forth of the property.
this villa type design does that very well.
it's very flexible, because each of the units are 40 foot wide,
and we have 15-20 foot space in between each of the homes.
then as it flares out, around the shoreline that actually widens to a greater separation.
the fact that we have a sloping down towards the shoreline,
we have one level, low profile villas with walkout, lower levels.
then for the units that are facing south towards,
is that a boulevard, those are a tuck under type. Still the same formula where you've got the owners live on one level,
main level, and then the lower level has a family room with some guest bedrooms.
again, very low profile, it's really designed for empty nesters, active adults locally,
in many cases, that choose this alternative lifestyle,
that offers a homeowners association and no maintenance.
it's a very high demand, and I'm sure it's very popular within this area.
I'm not sure there's too many options, right now available. This would be a great option for the site.
the units are approximately 3,000-3,500 square feet in that range.
there's 26 fillers proposed, and there are two access points, along wiseley boulevard.
the one to the west is really in line with an existing drive that's to the south.
it's also pretty close to where we have an existing access to this site right now.
the second access is on the east, which is pretty in line with an existing access as well.
there's one in the center. We're not proposing on having that one.
having two access points as opposed to three, will be favorable.
we have a single private drive, very simple, private drive that gives access to all the villas on the site.
there is, as mentioned, this proposed conservation area,
along the shoreline, that really preserves all the existing trees in that area.
then with that, there's the 150 foot setback, that pulls the homes back from it.
mike can talk a little bit more about what hoa type controls are in that area,
but the whole intent is for that not to be an active area at all.
the architecture is proposed to be what we call transitional,
which is a combination of traditional forms,
but with a contemporary, materials and details,
the fact that they're going to have variety of exterior elevations,
of colors and materials, along with a number of these homes,
offer either a side load garage, or a front load garage.
virtually every villa will be unique. This is going to be four sided architecture.
same detailing we have on the front of the home is going to go around the entire home,
same thing with the materials and the colors and so forth, of high quality material.
I think with that, I'll give it back to mike. Thank you.
>> not to drag in too long. I try to talk a little bit about the neighborhood meeting.
we did include that. I'll try to step back a little bit. Include that with your packet.
the comments that came out of there. I think a couple of the neighbors are here tonight.
we're at that same meeting. Some of the lighting in the back we talked
about in most cases in our billing neighborhoods, we don't allow spot lights in the backyard.
I think that's an important piece for them because they don't want that light across the lake.
also no lake access. The little viewing area,
which we're still trying to determine location. I think in the end, it may end up going over towards more towards the high school.
because the topo was a little bit better there to be able to get down there. Otherwise, we'd have some pretty good steps going down.
the intent of that is strictly, that it's a viewing area. It's a quasi dock,
with no vertical structure, no lake access, no canoes, because the residents pretty much said there
isn't really anyone that uses a lake because it's natural environmental. What's really just to look at.
I think from one of the things, we've done our homework, can you back to the original?
got to start to the second slide. Again, I think as everyone looks at,
we've can see that it's tucked away and is really more relationable to the area to the south,
probably than it is to the homes to the north. If we jump to the next one,
we've done our homework, we've went in and reverifi with the dnr, the elevation of the water.
we've actually done the wetland study to determine wetland edge and make sure we knew exactly what we had to work with there.
we actually did a tree survey to determine where the nicer trees were.
the area to the west, has been an orchard for a long time. Those are a lot of smaller trees.
again, a lot of the internal trees aren't super healthy. I think the ones along the bank and along
the lake have seemed to be maintained pretty well. As past that. Let's keep going.
again, we just showed you a little bit of that. There was that tree survey on the next one down.
sorry. That shows the ones that we would have.
we actually took that tree survey, and overlaid where the houses are at.
we could show a correlation to the fact that, really in that first 20,
30 feet behind the homes, we expect that to be sod, somewhere between that 30 and 50 foot mark.
we may expand that conservation from 100 feet from the water to maybe 120,
depending on what we need in order to meet the density requirements of the city, but also just looking at they want a little bit of mobile lawn,
but the rest of it, we really want to be able to maintain with buffer grasses, which a lot of that stuff is pretty right now so we've work with the water to replant,
reef grass that buffer, take out the dead trees.
that's one of the biggest things we have a complaint for, at least, in that first 75 feet,
maybe that last 50 feet to the water, we'd have to work with the watershed to determine. Some of them they want the dead.
they fall in and be habitat for that. Which is okay, probably, because a lot of that's at the lower piece. Let's see.
again, looking at it, as you're sitting on if you're on the lake, these are what they are.
we're looking at ranches with walkouts and garden levels to be most cases. If you pop the next one, you'll see,
these are the actual trees located on the plan and a lot of the elevations.
the trees are well higher than the height of those houses.
but one of the things as we talked about with the neighbors was, you're going to see a few rooftops.
you're going to see maybe a little bit more in the winter, but you're not seeing a massive building that's two or three or four stories high.
even if you put in six or seven, the mega mansions, which is what gets built.
they're going to be 2.5 story huge houses. They have no control over what you do the lake.
they can mow right down to the edge of the lakeshore. You're taking the at environmental and making that not as economically friendly.
we think there are some advantages there. No, let's a couple of different protective views.
this is actually view from standing, I think, would be about just not quite north.
this one is actually, we did a couple of drone shots. This one looking back from the north,
looking south at the property. I think if you go back one. This was actually the one looking north to see
where you can see that we don't see any of the houses that are across,
just like they wouldn't be seeing.
coming back to the reason we're here. We've been working with the landowners for a couple of years.
I think as we've looked through the comp plan, and said, why are we in a position to bring something forward,
which is we think unique to the city because we think it's a great product with an empty nester product that can work well.
but we do look at the comp plan. We do meet the priority for. We've got urban services right to our doorstep.
then four with the other ones you mentioned. We think that we meet, those criterias.
I think from a neighborhood perspective, we bring a product that we think is compatible with them,
even though it is 26 units or 24, 28, whatever that ends up being,
to make the density work, versus a six or seven, but it's under a lot more control.
we have reached out to both the watershed initially. Neil reached out to james at the watershed.
they will have an interest or we'll consider, taking over that conservation easement had done that other areas.
we also will reach out depending on its size. I don't I didn't seem like staff thought that the city
would be supportive of being in control of it because there's working. The other thing that happens when we do that with either the land trust
or the watershed is we provide a funding mechanism, within the homeowners association to cover those costs of maintenance.
it doesn't become a burden on the watershed to maintain that property.
the homeowner association takes on that responsibility, and the watershed is there strictly as a governing agent to say,
every spring, this is what you can do, this is what you can't do. You need to go fix this up, or you need to fix that up.
it doesn't put the burden on that government agency, but it actually allows for the protection of that area permanently,
which is what I think you as a planning commission will be looking.
the story. Again,
one of the other things that's in the ordinance is that between us, combined with the homeowners to the south,
would end up paying for all the infrastructure out there. One of the advantages to this could be is that it may allow the properties to the south,
to develop sooner because we would be paying our pro rata share of bringing the utilities out here.
or if we end up bringing them out first, they would actually then pay their pro rata later.
it allows for that development to be a limit or contiguous, but actually give them the opportunity right completed in a more timely manner.
>> a couple of the questions that came up. The one was about traffic.
we've done multiple neighborhoods and I think I left you some examples in there of the different neighborhoods we had and recommended that the residents look at those two.
the impact of traffic on this will be minuscule.
the advantage is because they're empty nester, they're not leaving at peak hours in the morning,
not leaving at peak hours at night. Normally, it's one car because it's a retired couple.
those are the things that affect that when we've done little traffic memos and
traffic analysis of probably five or six projects for [inaudible], a lot of traffic coming on.
I know in one of the conversations from the neighbors, they'd love the speed limit to be lowered in front of this property.
we would be supportive of that. If we could get it to 35 instead of 45,
I think that's a win win for everyone. But I think the traffic driven by the project to the south will be 10 times ours.
that's consistent with we've done traffic studies both before and after, we've done projects.
I think I've covered everything, and, I think our goal is to bring a high quality homeowners association maintainer to orono,
and we look forward to your feedback and just see what you're
thinking and what you think are the positive and negative what we're doing and what do you see with concerns about us proceeding?
>> thank you. Questions.
>> how many of these projects have you done in excelsior orono?
>> none in orono, build up on crystal bay years ago.
we've done minnetonka, eden prairie.
we're just do in plymouth. We've done a lot of them. Have not done any out here.
these are not a great sites in orono, but allow for something like this. >> these are ideally going to be $1 million retirement.
>> I would say we will see somewhere 1-2. Where we see the project.
>> do you think there's demand for that versus the condos that are being put up in yz?
>> the last s it we just finished in ridgewood was only an 11 allowed project.
we had seven sold before we opened our bottle. >> where was ridgewood? >> those are average between those average about two point.
>> sorry. Apologize. What city was that? >> [inaudible]. >> on the lake or near the lake?
>> no. On a wet land. Very similar this is a lake, but it was on a very nice wet land that was 24 acre site we purchased
that actually had about six acres buildable,11 lots on it.
similar to this. It's actually a 24 acre site. If you look at that one map, we actually own a little sliver over by the dark park yet,
so this is a very similar situation. About 13-14 acres buildable,
not five like there was on. >> how long did it take you to sell that one? >> we've been open 15 months, and we have left.
we tend to our goals to be we're not a national builder.
our goals have been a project to do between 4-6 year. We're not trying to build it out in eight months.
>> no, I've just done some of these in excel [inaudible], and I've seen them take three years to self. So that's where my question comes from is I know
that those communities have high demand for this, but ours has shifted towards like
the minnetonka flats and the significant ones that are going into that, where that retirement communities looking for
something a little more high end with lake access.
>> I think there's again, there's we feel very confident
based on the other project you've did and the fact that orono does have a mixture of some of the condos,
but there's a lot of people that aren't willing to accept the world enough to go into a condo,
and they want to still have the fully association maintain a third of, I think, almost half the people in
our ridgewood site go south for at least three to five months. We've probably got three in there that are actually florida residents.
>> your estimate that these would be targeted
towards retirees is based on the price point and the limited maintenance.
>> it's more just based on the floor plans. Every one of them is a ranch with a primary bedroom on the main floor,
beautiful kitchen, and then downstairs is two bedrooms, and a family room bar area,
which is the grand area, as we call it. >> sure. >> we have not age restricted them ever.
we did a project in minnetonka also, where we had a combination of villas,
twins, we did town homes, and we did a condo, and we had one high school age kid living around there.
>> because that was going to be my next question is, if you've done any duplexes,
you're right in the shadow of the school, and if you were able to get depending on the density requirements going forward,
if you were able to get more units in there with duplexes
or other multi family smaller multifamily.
>> I think a lot would be freak what the zoning would allow we've done some two,
three, and four unit townhomes, both in legacy and in our plymouth project.
you get there are 30 foot wide products, so you get a little bit more density on them.
you don't really get still the ones in plymouth are still going to average 890-960,
so we're not looking at something where it's going to be based on kid being able to do it.
it's going to be in a kind of a mature family. >> what is your research show the city
is in need of when it comes to this denser housing.
>> I think it's the empty nester product. The product that we're looking at on the villa concept.
when you look around everything that's been done here and the houses that are built around.
you've got 678000 square foot homes. You've got people it's more of a lateral move even a down move.
but they're getting rid of that big home, which then it continues to attract more families.
but they're looking for something that when they're living there, they don't want to feel like,
god, where's that wing or this wing? It's like I live my kitchen, dining room, family room, and then my bedroom.
>> my biggest concern is around the government entity requirement with the lake shore property.
you've spoken to some folks. Do you have any expressed interest from the watershed?
>> the watersheds common issue was they would consider it. I think based on what we're looking at here,
we know that would be a requirement. I didn't want to waste a lot of their time unless we
knew that there was interest in that from the city's perspective that, this is something we would like.
work with the watershed dump ideals. I worked with the land trust on a similar to this in the past.
I think we'll get something done. If the city has an interest, we'd be interested.
of course, you guys would be the first choice in that, but I think honestly, the watershed has other properties like this,
where they've maintained them, especially in situation like this, where it's ecologically sensitive.
>> thanks. >> this is a couple of questions from my side. I think you had mentioned you've been working on the property
for a few years now, two years plus? >> two years plus. >> obviously, we want to give you constructive feedback that you can action.
I guess, has the plan changed much over the two years, or what's been the biggest sticking point in the design process?
>> I think the biggest sticking point was probably the political environment in orono over the last 36 months.
honestly, we looked at potentially doing it, and we just felt it was a suicide mission to come in.
at time, and I think that's one of the reasons, again, why we've held off now,
knowing that we've got a brand new council with four new members. We were looking for this to be able to come in at a time when
we felt it could get at least a fresh look. We know there's no guarantees.
we feel very strong. There's a great project. We think we can do a great neighborhood. I think any of you that have seen our stuff, it's high quality.
but we wanted to come in with something where we felt we could get a good look at it and evaluate the print the actual issues,
which is what I think we're looking for you guys tonight to say is, do you want to see this be 50 or 100 units down the road?
do you wanted this to be stay at six or seven with private septics? We think that ours is a nice balance in between that is beneficial to the community,
beneficial to the tax base, helps pay for some of the pipes out there, and doesn't negatively affect the neighbors.
still does they'd love to see nothing, but blame.
>> thank you. For a couple of questions,
and commissioner perko, you asked one or it got answered in there. I was is it age restricted,
but your traffic study is based on a certain age living there.
>> they'll run the traffic. They run it as a little bit more expansive. It's a number of bedrooms.
at the end of it, so they base it on the fact that, yes, you could have and I'd be here,
I would think if the proximity of high school that if somebody's got a senior or a junior and they're looking if that's their last kid,
I would move into here. It has been empty nasty for way too long.
>> but if it's not age restricted, any traffic study is just going to be based on based on general general occupancy,
and then you showed a lot of nice views from the north.
have you considered the views from the south for the residents to the south that live?
>> I really won't be much because it'd be the multifamily the higher density stuff to the south,
and then we've got a pretty good tree buffer that we'll be able to maintain along the right away there.
>> further south across the highway. There's houses that are elevated up high above that have perfect view of that property.
similar to across lake lassen, but just on the opposite side. >> back here towards the old crystal bay and row and some of those areas.
we've looked when we ran, I've got another 150 of those drone shots,
and we didn't see anything there that would see that we have houses looking into this.
again, especially with the ranch style, with the walkout, you've got a very low profile home.
you don't have full two stories with upper stuff in it.
I would see we can pull some additional stuff as we move forward,
we'll make sure we get some of that information. But when we looked at the drone shots, we didn't see anything that we thought would negatively affect
anybody south of west of them. >> in your opinion, the advantage to open this site up to the musa
for the city is that there's just more control over the development?
>> I think the first sees there, and if I look at the com plan,
we meet the com plan priorities for expansion. We think there's a benefit there,
which ultimately that's what we're looking to see if you guys agree with that.
we think it brings a new product into orono, where there hasn't been a lot of it.
there was a few of them, which actually, I'm not quite sure if that's long lake or.
orono border there it gets confusing to me, even. But I think it's just the fact that you all of us are aging grandkids going to graduate.
I think that's what we're looking at is that buyers looking for that little bit simpler life,
being able to travel more. Don't want to maintain the big house anymore, and orono is a perfect location
for that because it's got a lot of that product out there. >> specifically, you had mentioned something about the property would
be under more control this way than if it were seven individual homes or or whatever could fit within.
> I came in the plan to develop seven homes because I think we do have enough 200 foot lengths to get seven to six or seven my camera.
at that point, that individual resident has complete control of the lot.
city doesn't have any ability to really restrict it beyond that situation,
so they can mow down to the grass, they can mow down. They can take trees.
>> I see what you're saying. I disagree with that, though because there are code provisions in our code to
limit removal of trees specifically by wetlands and high provisions for buildings etc.
just wanted to see where you are going with that piece. Great. Thank you.
>> I did have one question. Do you just have an estimate on the hoa cost and what that encompasses? I think you mentioned.
>> these have run because with the villas, they do their own insurance and a lot of those things,
so these probably run about around $500. A month, I would say with this one with the natural area.
we probably see that maybe being about $200 more, so probably maybe closer to 700 because of the natural area and the cost of mat.
>> then the insurance you were saying as part of the homeownership. >> homeownership because it's a detached home.
they take care of that. They take care of their exterior maintenance. The homeowner association if you let something get run down,
the homeowners compensation ask you to fix it, but they're not going to actually do it like you would in down home association where they just maintain.
>> I just my last question, do you have any comments as a developer on the density that is
being pushed on the property versus what you guys prefer to do?
>> I think in our mind, we look at each property and decide what we think is the best use for it because we do apartments.
single family. We do the villas. The villas is something that we have seen as an extremely high demand product right now.
we think it fits in well with existing neighborhoods. Even when we've had issues where we've in a neighborhood in the neighborhood.
we don't want this in. At the time we're done, they're like this is great. Why do we care? [laughter] I completely, it's
exactly the neighbor that you want in a situation like that. I think that's really what we see as a positive.
you could do a couple hundred unit apartment here. I just don't think it fits the nature of
that lake and what you're looking at for that area, even though it would fit on that.
>> I think you'll have grandparents fighting for these units at the high school personally.
>> yes. >> on the note of the hoa.
could you describe why you feel that is essential here? Could this development exist without the hoa?
>> we usually find with the villas that that's one of the things that they're looking for is the fact that when they're gone in the winter,
noah's being taken care of. They're looks like it's lived in even
if they're spending a month down south or traveling, and even the same thing in the summer. They just don't have to worry about it.
I know people are spending tens of thousands of dollars a year maintaining their property.
or they're looking at is that's not somebody else's problem.
>> I'm looking through the wetland summary that you presented here,
and I'm trying to find the classification of that wetlands primarily one wetland. >> it's actually classified as a lake,
so it's not but considered a wetland edge, but it actually is classified as a lake. Natural is not a wetland.
>> it is not a wetland? >> it is a lake. >> that's why we had the dnr confirmed the ordinary water level,
which is how our setback. I think it's the lesser of the tubing.
>> it's pretty common that the edging of lake and land, there is an identified perimeter wetland by a lot of means,
but then they'll take the more restrictive regulation between
the two often when they overlap like that on that edging. I believe you guys did go through a wetland delineation.
have you submitted it to the watershed or? >> it's been approved. >> they've been working through that with the watershed
and sounds like they have a notice of decision with that, and those are good for five years once they're adopted by the watershed.
>> I understand. I'm looking at the wetland map on the application.
and it's showing a delineated shoreline, but then it's also showing a wetland.
I'm just curious what the applied buffers are for that.
not for the shoreline, but for the wetland. >> mannehaha creek would assign buffers on once a formal application is developed,
they won't necessarily assign buffers just with the notice of decision. When a preliminary plat comes through,
they would then work through to assign necessary buffers depending on the intensification and the use of the site.
>> the the buffers are assigned based on the classification of the wetland.? >> they are.
>> is the wetland classified right now or not? >> I'd have to look back through the notice decision.
it's been a year since we did that. I think the more restrictive at this point is a 150 foot setback from the lake edge,
whereas the wetland buffer would be more in that 70 50 to 75 range,
so the more restrictive at this point is going to be that lake edge verification.
>> thank you. >> I have an additional question, victors, have you guys thought through a berm on the nearest to county road side and or
a future light potential from the department complex that may or may not be on the south side?
>> we would normally, like I said, I think one of the things we had talked about was whether we do a street light or not.
I think that we were we weren't sure what or that we normally see one of the two intersections.
I think it lights that. I think from a buffering of the property to the south and a higher density,
we'd have a combination of either possibly a fence or we would just do additional trees because we'll have a setback from that road there.
we'll have additional trees being able to put along the right away that we would try to do more natural screening. Anything else?
>> great. Any other questions for applicant? Otherwise we can [overlapping]. >> thank you.
>> thank you. >> the purpose of this is a sketch plan.
there's no public comment period. If anyone from the public that's here,
that's great. I'm glad you guys are here. We won't hold a public hearing, but if this application moves any farther,
there will be an opportunity for the public hearing, just so everybody knows that.
discussion tonight from the commission is expanding the musa to this site.
who up here feels that it's a good idea to expand the musa to a site that it's not designated for? Order.
>> I think we've looked at this quite a few times.
I'm curious. We're running out of places to add density.
this is one of the places that are very attractive to do so.
the egress and ingress from main roads make this a lot
more affordable for a city to put infrastructure for expanding the musa.
I think from the applicant made a notation that historically,
we add density reluctantly, but we do so because we are required.
typically when the flip over of the next comprehensive plan is usually what then it happens,
whether you have to wait for that to happen or not, I think would be still determined through who counsel,
what their beliefs are because we always change things like that.
but if it were, I think this ironically becomes a conversation where is it enough density?
I don't disagree that I don't think a four story apartment complex is the right place for that, either.
I think what's being proposed by the applicant for the sketch here,
would be a great fit, and it resonated that we don't have inventory like this.
you either have town homes, your condos or apartments or you have the five million dollar houses.
there's not a lot in between. It does provide some other options,
I think, for people that want to stay in the community. I had the opportunity to visit the development that they have in minnetonka.
it does by like far 94 and 384.
if you drive through, it's thoughtfully placed and you wouldn't exaggerate a little bit,
but you really can't really tell that it's a cluster or a detached plentier town.
it looks like a single family home, with tight guidelines would depending on the city,
and what probably would be. I think that as far as what would go there,
what could go there? I think it would look really nice there.
I'm just worried about having enough density quite candidly looks
darn down the barrel of the next comprehensive plan.
we're just running out of real estate. It's a nice property.
>> my struggle with putting it on the musa is that I think we are better served from meeting
our quota by looking
at some of what's going to be coming for the navarre area to significantly increase the units there.
instead of trying to add something else to it that's going to put us in a jeopardy to begin with.
I know there's several developers that are looking at doing a massive upgrade there,
which realistically we need anyways. That could be the gateway to or know if
somebody does it like what they're doing in victoria right now, where we could add significant units to meet those quotas without having
to expand the musa to something that could have put sending us negative.
that's my opinion, I've seen these and they work really
well in certain places where the surrounding community meets the needs,
whether it's minnetonka, that's close to everything and really popular or eden prairie or pryor lake,
where there's a lot of demand for people to live there because what they want is surrounding there.
that's my other struggle is I can't see retirees going there when they don't have a boat slip like
they do in some of the other places in the area where they can get the same price,
the same hoa fees, but have a slip. That's my other struggle is are we putting something there that's going to be like
the one in excelsior that sat five years before it could settle? >> question for steff.
typically, if the musa is expanded,
that's going to expand our density requirement. Right now, we're not required to have anything density on that.
>> this is considered our rural area. We are not anticipated,
and it's our rural and urban line. Our musa line is a fixed line.
this parcel is outside of that land and does not count towards our musa calculations,
it's anticipated this to be rural and to stay rural. If you were to expand it to put the musa in that land,
then that land now is counted in the calculations of meeting that three units per density,
soon to be 3.5 units per density. We would need to take that into account in our
guiding a land use classification to ensure that we're guiding it with enough units to maintain the city's a required three units per acre.
>> but it would help us towards the total calculation for the city. >> no.
>> if you add it into the musa, then you need to put enough density on that land so it maintains the city's unit.
>> it does not help with our existing musa boundary. >> it does not impact or hurt musa.
[overlapping] not part of the equation. >> it's not part of the equation. That's where I was getting to.
the talk about 100 or 50 unit apartment building is just that. It's just talk.
this is guided for rural residential. It's not guided for to be within the musa and be high density.
it does not affect this requirement that we're talking about.
that is that fact. >> yes, this property is rural residential and does not
count into our musa calculations currently. >> now, when we redo the comp plan, the 2050 plan,
if this gets rescheduled for high density, or whatever the case is,
then it will count towards that. >> if in our 2050 comp plan,
if we suggest to alter our musa boundary and include this in the musa,
we would then need to guide it for a land use classification that allows us to have enough units,
so we're maintaining a required 3.5. >> 3.5. That being said,
if for some reason we were to allow this development prior to the 2040 plan and the guidance,
we'd have to amend the comprehensive plan, would we then subtract out
a different musa area from the 2040 plan to compensate for this?
>> no. >> we would be adding density regardless.
it would not help. It would create the need to add more density.
it would be a negative impact. >> did it before the new comprehensive plan.
>> if it wasn't guided in the new plan, then it wouldn't matter.
as it's guided today, we're looking at the 2040 plan. >> I will note my council
is not recommending adjusting our musa at this point for the 2050 plan.
they see it as a fixed boundary, as we do as well. It would take a suggestion to amend it either
from the city or from a development or something. >> just so the commission knows if we direct them and say,
yes, we think this is a good idea, and we think that it's good to adjust that musa boundary,
we're putting those conditions on ourselves for the density. It doesn't count towards the density that's already supposed to be there.
>> we currently have land guided within the musa, that we are meeting three units per acre today as it sits.
if you were to expand the musa, this land now counts into that calculation,
and we would need to re-evaluate that calculation to ensure we have enough density on this land where the city's maintaining that three units.
>> we would essentially want to make sure that in order for it to help,
it would need to have more than 3.5 per. >> it still wouldn't help because we're
expanding that area that has the condition of the density. But they're not proposing to.
>> if it's higher than the city average, wouldn't that push it?
>> in an extreme situation, if you were going to help the city's density,
you could suggest adding a small area land with a lot of a lot of units.
there's 300 units on two acres of land, something very extreme.
that would then push the calculation. The city's average density is well above our minimum standard of three units per acre.
right now, the city meets our minimum standard three units per acre.
this site would need to be at least three units an acre to maintain that calculation.
>> even though it's not required to, do we know if it meets that threshold?
>> right now, as proposed, it meets the 2040.
the project meets the 2040 of three, if this project were to come through in 2050,
our standard would be 3.5, and as proposed, it does not meet that 3.5.
but that's just getting the city to the minimum standard of 3.5.
it's not getting the city at or above our required standard. >> but it doesn't meet the 2040.
you say, as proposed at musa 2040. There's no guidance for this that is requiring three point anything for this.
>> if this land were to be entered into the musa.
then it would meet the density of the musa because it is 3.1.
currently, under the 2040, it is guided rural, and we would need to change that land use classification and
the musa expansion in order to support this type of development. Today, this type of development is not anticipated as part of the comprehensive plan.
the comprehensive plan has this land guided rural.
>> mr. Chair? >> yes. My question,
I guess, was for clarification is generally speaking, we have basing on a 10-year renewal,
the need to provide a demonstration of how we're going to add more density.
is that not your understanding? >> within the musa, and they're not proposing to change the musa boundaries.
that would be simply looking at, it's not simple,
but the 2040 plan, looking at that, looking at the density there, the musa is not changing.
it's looking at the areas within that, you can add the density 0.5 per acre.
>> we're adjusting our density ranges. Adjusting our density categories to anticipate some different units or
finding some infill areas or redevelopment areas potentially in the city.
but that's for the 2050 comprehensive plan.
>> where I was trying to get with that is, if we'd feel like that area,
which has been heavily examined to add density,
it seems like it's the death star. Feels like it's going to happen. There's not a lot of places for it to sensibly happen
without having to spend a lot more on infrastructure. I guess that's where my head was at.
going back to it as the density requirements grow,
that means that right now it's 3.1. If it goes into the next chapter, it has to be 3.5.
that means you have to create even more density if you were to develop it.
it just goes down the tracks of apartments is what my concern is.
I feel like we'll never have to and never will develop any of that area,
even though we have a development going on right now off of road 6.
there's two large parcels that are right there by each other and they all dump off onto a major road.
I'll bet you a dollar that the next 20 years that's going to get developed.
if we're going to have it developed, we might as well have it developed at lower density, that's more reasonable.
if you're going to have [inaudible] was my perspective. [overlapping]
>> but I don't think there
was I think that when you look at this,
this does not have to become a more dense it's rural residential.
that's what it is. That's what it is going to be, 2040. That's what's going to be 2050. The only people driving this to be a high density is the land owner. The city is not.
we're not going to, our plan doesn't ever say that this lot will be a high density lot.
the only one coming and saying, hey, I want to make this high density as the owner.
that's what I just want to point out here, there's not going to be a 10 year down the road.
we got to figure out how to put 3.5 houses on it because it's still going to be rural residential if we don't approve it.
>> I disagree. I think that can change down the line. We don't know where that will go.
when you look at the map and you look at the comprehensive plan map.
that is a lone rural residential in the middle of high density.
>> that's what blows the pipe. It's already there.
>> I don't disagree with you. >> it's got to be discovered.
that's for the volunteers that create the 2050 plan. I'm glad I'm not one of those.
commissioner ressler, you do have a point. It looks like a natural place to continue the pipe because it is to the south there.
but it's also around a lake that is surrounded by rural residential.
I think that's why the creators of the 2040 plan left it, not to be,
like the commercial higher density stuff.
I think that's why it's now. I'm not saying that this isn't a nice plan. I think there's a lot of nice aspects to the plan but it does not fit with our guidance.
it does not fit with our 2040 plan, and it does not fit with the current zoning. Not even close.
you could come and subdivide it today and possibly get 6-7 houses there.
that's what we can approve. You probably wouldn't even be before us for it.
there are with it being on a lake like this,
they're not going to come and clear cut the lots because they're not going to be allowed to. There's stuff in our zone our code that allows that those trees have to stay.
it's not going to be a clear cut with seven giant homes there.
they'll be seven giant homes or potentially. But it's still going to look very similar to what it is today.
I think if we approve to move that musa line, we're putting it on ourselves to say, hey,
we're orono, we want more density here, because that's what we're doing.
I don't see it. I like the product. I think the product's awesome. I just think it needs to be in a different spot in the city.
>> that's where I disagree, there's not a better spot.
if you want to have discussion about lakes and the wetlands,
that's where you need to have musa. You need to protect it from to have the city sewer and city water there.
it makes more sense to have the musa fixed there where you've got rural property to protect.
>> especially with the grading that it has down towards the lake.
>> steff, can you confirm that musa is already enveloped the southern
sites?e>> you can see a southern of the subject property is in those brown colors.
the dotted line indicates the musa boundary. Those properties to the south of the subject property in brown are within the musa.
>> there's not a scenario where musa would come to us and say,
we want that piece as well. >> when I informally talked to the met council about the site,
they did not anticipate that they would be suggesting any musa expansions.
so no, and I don't think they typically have historically.
they typically haven't. They're not pushing the infrastructure out here.
it's development driven.
>> yeah, I see it both ways. >> there's no talk about reducing the musser.
>> the musser there. We can't re if we expand it here, we can't reduce it somewhere else.
that isn't developed, but has it. >> I think with the comprehensive plan,
you can talk about maybe adjusting land where you take some away and give some back,
but it's it's not something I think we did at the last comprehensive plan.
I think, and that's not, it'd be unusual, but you through the comprehensive plan,
you can make suggestions to adjust your musser. But that impacts your density,
your guidance, property values, and it impacts all those things. Right. When you adjust those guidance.
>> I think that's why we always wait for the comprehensive plan when everything's shifting around at once,
so that there's much calculations, horse trading, if you will, everything comes together.
>> that's a lot of discussion about musser. Can you remind me the second topic for discussion tonight on this one?
>> urban density. >> yeah. So the first question was expansion of musser.
next was, would you support the urban densities since this is guided rural?
>> right. The current property is guided rural. It's guided that way till 2040.
is that something that we see that we'd support is guiding this a different way or to urban density?
>> I'm pro development, but I see that site, and I think seven homes would be beautiful.
but at the same time, I don't want an apartment complex there.
that's what that's what I'm weighing right now. That's why, isn't that far away from?
>> but what's the scare of the apartment complex, if that let's just say the 2050 plan,
said that, hey, we're going to guide that towards that's going to be part of the musser boundary.
there's no requirements, and still requirements going to be 3.5 versus three, like it is today?
it's not going to be 100 units. >> I would be putting the land use density guidance on the land.
if it was in the musser, it then is up to the city to determine how to allocate the units across the musser area.
>> I just like. >> it's just that eventually,
we're going to be looking for areas to increase our density. We will run out of spaces.
that's where I say. If we don't develop it now as four homes or 10 homes,
we will eventually be looking at this parcel and saying, that's an opportunity to increase our density as a city and it will potentially,
at that point to point, you need 100 units now to actually change the metric of your density as a city.
and again, that's a parcel that has capacity to allow that.
that's where I struggle. >> yeah, I think you make a lot of good points. That could be a big tipping point for the next 10 years of development.
then I just keep thinking back with the use case. You have the school right there. If you built some nice single family homes,
you pull a lot of new families into the area that are looking. Then I think there's a rather new development
just to the south of the on school systems, it would match that neighborhood pretty well.
so yeah, I agree with your points. Just along those same lines,
my first thought was that it would be nice to see
some more affordable housing close to the school like
that because I think economic diversity is beneficial.
>> yeah, it's hard to imagine that 900 was it one to $2 million is affordable,
but that's just the world that we live in, and that's, again,
I agree with you, that right now you've got, either really expensive or you've got something
that's maybe something that's more updating and what have you.
there's not a lot in between. >> I was actually thinking that even more affordable would be nice, but [laughter].
>> possible in our city. >> it really, isn't? That's some of the conversations that we've had.
you know, but you know, commissioner brander makes a really good point.
if we don't think that it's going to get developed, then that's a completely different conversation.
but I know that I've been on the planning commission for eight years. This has probably come up for sketch seven times.
if you look at the map, it's kind of the lone one and it just follows.
there's going to be a time where we're going to be approach and has to expand our musser.
I'm sorry. It's just go to happen. I'm surprised that they're saying that they're not. I think that's cool. I think it's great.
but if there's not being it's not being developed, when they do s2s2.
this is going to get developed and it won't be this. That's what I'm concerned about. Yeah, that's it.
that's why I think that m I'm supportive of it simply based on the fact that it is going to
provide a classification of homes that we don't currently have to commissioner of [inaudible] and candidly,
selfishly, I'd rather not have an building in there.
>> I do think that's an important point, about the product they're proposing.
I do think that's a missing middle of our community. I think they're going to sell relatively quick,
just based on a price point they're hitting, but also a villa buyer. There's not a lot of that in our area.
as much as I'd like to see six homes that unfortunately, those price points are going to go above 2.5 million,
and then you might as well go. You know, there's other opportunities for that product right now.
to your point about a more affordable option, that's going to be on the south side of the street with high density.
>> I think even if you build those six single family homes,
the reality is to your point. Families won't be occupying them. It'll still probably be empty nesters.
we do have provisions around what you can do along the shoreline there.
but I think this proposal actually sets up more incentives for the residents of the lot.
to leave the shoreline alone and not take it into their hands and rip up vegetation and bring in the rocks along the shore,
as we've seen happen time and time again. I think this plan actually does a really nice job of creating
more homes while preserving the shoreline, exactly.
especially if that's managed by a separate government agency,
that would give me a lot of confidence in managing the rural character of the lot well,
still providing more homes at a relatively reasonable price I'm
given or noose range here.
>> the part that I don't think any of us can answer would be whether this is whether it is or isn't because that's not deliberating here,
but would be what our council feels like if it were to be changed,
if it would need to be changed when the turnover of the comprehensive plan is renewed.
but I don't think we can answer that because it's going to be up to the city council.
but I will say that being the staff tasked us with these questions.
should we expand the musser and should we expand urban density? For the reasons that I mentioned,
generally, no, but because I think that it's going to be asked for. This is going to be the better of the two.
it's not now, it's going to be later at a higher density. For that reason, I would be in support of it for this classification of homes.
>> I did say I appreciate our discussion. I think it helped me kind of think through it and generally,
I'd say I'm in agreement with commissioner ressler.
>> looking at the conservation easement. That's another discussion point.
do we feel it's a benefit that that would be controlled by a government agency?
is that something that we would want to suggest to put that task on the city,
or should the developer be looking for a different agency to be the one that's in charge of that.
>> I love the idea of the watershed. I think it makes a lot of sense given the proposal and the goals of the proposal and
the means through which the government agency would be able to maintain the property.
I think the watershed would make a lot of sense if they have an interest.
>> anybody else feel strongly on that, whether the city should be the one or the different agency?
>> I just wondered, isn't oftentimes the city is going to defer to somebody else anyway as experts because we're not going to be the ones to staff experts.
so to me, I guess I'm indifferent for that. Probably would go to watershed from their perspective.
>> do we know how much the city is currently managing shoreline in that area?
I mean, if they're in the area already up, you know, it could be a pretty.
>> there's a little nature preserve right there on the west side of school.
I don't know. Is that run through the parks? >> no. The city doesn't do a lot of necessarily shoreline.
we do we manage a bunch of land and open space and conservation these parks on passive parks,
lake access points, and that type of thing. There is land that we own that's not necessarily
a park that we do provide maintenance for, but it is secondary as just making sure.
it's really a question of, is the city want to be the responsible party for
maintaining trees in the area when they're dead, dying or hazardous.
then secondly, about if there's issues with that relationship with
the hoa and the city then would play a role with managing some of that as the land owner,
and what the role of the city would be doing as the maintenance of that land.
>> I'd rather have us on a boat launch.
>> it's not it's not our core purpose,. >> correct? [laughter]. >> or it's not our expertise, right?
>> yeah. >> then the last discussion point,
I have zoning written down here, but can you remind me laura what that was?
>> yeah, so there's kind of two zoning tools we have. One is a rpud,
which this would require flexibility towards as an rpud requires a 250 foot setback from an ohw.
so this would be within that zone, so there would either need to be a zoning amendment or a text amendment or a variance for that zoning district.
that's the typical zoning district we've seen when we redo residential plan zoning districts.
puds, the other zoning district, that's a little bit unique. We haven't done a lot of those,
but they are allowed within the highway 12 corridor and within the navar area.
lots of times that's identified for areas that want to do mixed use. But there is an element in there that prioritizes or supports for cluster developing,
or potentially this one could qualify for that. So just as a note that staff brought up,
that there could be some potential leniency needed depending on with the two tools that we have,
as they are just customizable tools, we don't have just a uniform district for this level of density.
>> which vehicle would staff recommend that they support?
>> right now, we're exploring the pud. That seems to be more conforming to the location,
but there is a priority about cluster developing, so just going through those regulations and making sure that this meets that,
which it seems to be as they are creating a conservation and protection of open space.
but again, that's kind of just 10,000 foot view. Haven't come through the formal standards of that yet.
>> I don't know if it was a typo, but quick clarification. The applicants presentation had prd.
>> that's a third district we have. It's an overlay district,
but that one really allows for, that one also allows for cluster developing,
but you have to have an underlying zoning district, and it doesn't allow for additional density beyond that underlying zoning district.
that one wouldn't I think that was part of our discussion when we were talking about
the different tools that we have in our zoning district, but that one really wouldn't be applicable, as this one's asking for additional density
beyond any underlying zoning district that we could apply. >> I'm sorry. What is ohw?
>> the ordinary high water level. It's the trial lake. I'm sorry. >> you've said it. >> I have said it a few times. I'm sorry.
[overlapping]. >> ohw. I got.
>> there's a 250 foot set back from the lake. For that rpud zoning district. Sorry.
>> how I'm picking up what you're throwing. >> there you go. >> all right. >> thank you. Great discussion, guys.
is there any last comments anybody wants to give? >> the only last comment is, I want to be in support of the overlook.
I think that's a little excessive. I think you're also sticking it to a lot of the neighbors who are told that they can't build anything in there,
and then all of a sudden this comes in with an overlook and a place that's not allowed to build.
I don't see really any justification for it other than increasing the value of the homes.
>> are you talking about the lake shore, the little lake gathering area?
>> the viewing area. Yeah. That 150 supposed to be a no build anything.
you look at all the other houses, they don't have anything giving them look over the lake,
and then all of a sudden, you've got that. Again, the only value that really gives is increasing the value of the units,
and it doesn't seem to be a good justification for me. >> there are restrictions on that lake for docks or put a dock out there?
>> you can have a dock. >> this won't be an improvement from having it as a dock?
>> yeah, so you can have a dock, but this would be an improvement within 150 foots above.
>> are there environmental restrictions? Can you have a boat on this lake? >> motorized.
>> build a platform that serves a purpose, a permanent dock.
that's a platform that would be a gathering place. As long as it's in the water and not within the set back.
>> part of their feedback they got, I read did say the neighbors didn't want them to basically have
lake access or sporting activities that would maybe define it in that area,
and I think this is a great way to improve property value,
a beautiful view of the lake, and a community gathering area, if you will.
so those reasons, I'm in support of it, but glad you brought it up. >> yeah, I just pointed out because increasing
the property value is not a justification for a variance. So as much as we can say win like that,
we cannot use that as a decision maker for venus. >> so just making it clear to the applicant that
that one would take a lot of discussion and very well may not get approved.
>> [inaudible]. >> it looks to be on land, though, not in the water.
>> [inaudible]. [laughter] >> again, I pointed out because that's bigger than the houses.
[laughter]
>> [inaudible]
>> there are some I don't think are within orono, but they're within nearby lakeville victoria, that.
the one just in maple plain, there,
where there are some, like, walking path docks. Do you know what I'm talking about?
>> boating docks. Kind of a thing. >> they just follow the shoreline,
and they're not meant for anyone to get in or out of the lake.
they're just a nice, like, walking path that allows visibility.
that might be something that would meet
the dock standard and not building within the setback standard.
>> I think that'd be a reset. >> katrina.
>> could you, sorry, could you come to the microphone, please? Thank you. Sorry.
>> katrina lake is the one that I was thinking of on the far west northwest side of it.
>> just state your name and address, so we have it.
>> right county right now. I lived 23 years in long lake.
you are a wonderful neighbor. Well, I think what we're talking about is a lot of what is done at the high school.
they're not being maintained very well right now, but the platforms, are you aware of what area down there?
there are three or four platforms that are adjacent to the wetland.
I think that's what we're talking about.
>> I don't know that you're allowed to build those now,
according to the city code within the setback. That's what I think, just our feedback is just
be aware of that because that's pretty sensitive. It would be a hard variance to pursue.
>> just to add to that. I had the conversation with james whiskers about this thing,
and he said that they would have a lot of questions about it to know what they would
be getting into to talk to the city staff and us together.
the region agreement for that. They do maintain or monitor conservation easements,
and he would be interested in pursuing it. >> this is who? Sorry.
>> james whiskers, the director and minnehawk creek. >>> got it. >> I'm sorry.
>> no, it's okay. >> I spent eight years on the cac committee for the watershed district.
I got to know jim when he was in the planning department, and now he's heading it up.
but basically, we've had I've had these conversations with him over the years.
this is a great opportunity where excuse me.
you get into these public-private relationships,
and I think that from the city's point of view,
and from the council's point of view, it would be better if the city weren't involved in it.
just involved in the formation of it, but not the running of it,
because they don't have the staff. The minnehawk creek has to maintain it.
james, I would have to have annual inspections,
reports, and so forth. It's not just a passive relationship. It's an active relationship.
the thing that I think works well for this is when you look at the aerial of it,
when you take the dog park, the land owned by the school district,
and then add this to it, it provides a visual,
at least to do the calculation. About two-thirds of the shoreline of lake lassen is in public control,
which I think long range, 30, 40 years is of great benefit to everyone.
>> well said. Thank you. >> we don't make a motion on this.
>> correct. I do see the applicant has one more comment here. Speak.
>> I want a clarification question. Can you get back to the uthaline diagram on yours?
I think this was a comment that you made. Just want to clarify that over half of the lassen lake right now is in the mussa line.
everything on the east side of it is in mussa,
and I think it was done that way to protect it in the future if there was septic to do.
yellow is music, correct? >> true, so it's the school compound and then
that neighborhood up is all within the mussa, yes. >> we wouldn't be the only thing in the mussa in that clarification. That was a comment.
>> you see those lines going all over, it's like, unless you've studied it for a long time, you didn't catch that. Thank you.
>> I think that's some great discussion, and certainly a lot of guidance,
and hopefully that's helpful for you guys and that moves us onto our next agenda item.
>> appreciate [background]. >> thank you. I lost my agenda here.
this is a new business chair appointment discussion.
>> tonight, the staff is asking for the commission to make a recommendation to
the city council for who will operate as chair and vice chair of the commission for 2026.
these are part of the annual appointments. Council reviews annual appointments.
council reviews annual appointments at the december meeting of every year to reappoint for the upcoming year.
I've included in your memo, history of who has been chair over the last ten years or so, since 2026.
it has fluctuated. There was a period where one person would be the chair for a continuous time.
one person would be the chair for a continuous time, multiple years, and then there was a change in pattern where I think the past council had a desire
to rotate chairs to let everyone have an opportunity to experience being chair,
so I think that was implemented for a while as well. There hasn't really been a clear pattern as of recent on how the chair has come to be,
but I wanted to give the opportunity to the commission to create a motion
to give a recommendation on who you feel should be the chair and vice chair for 2026.
is not a final, but it's for the council to consider. >> just to clarify the timing given the hour.
this must go to the december meeting, so we can't table this agenda item to the next meeting.
>> true, because the council will be deciding on appointments, or december meeting.
however, if you don't feel like you have strong opinions, you do not need to act on this.
this is a staff. This is an administrative management of this thing of the commission.
the council will appoint someone for next year with or without your recommendation if you don't feel like it.
we will not decide on a motion tonight. [background]
>> I have heard it all night, I think, just because it's so quiet in here. >> the family got quiet.
>> you don't of anybody talking in the office. >> with that, the staff is asking for you to make
a motion on a chair and a vice chair as a recommendation for the city council to consider.
>> is anybody interested in a chair? Raise your hand? >> volunteer. I'm happy to serve in any role.
>> same. >> I've served as chair in the past.
I would be willing to throw my head in the ring as a chair if
the council were so inclined. There are others.
>> I guess I would be in favor of keeping everything the way it is right now,
but if we wanted to do a little seat and trade.
I guess, chair, I'd be looking for your input on if there's zero offense if anybody wants to dethrone me.
I've been doing this, I've been chair for two years now, I think. >> I think you got appointed mid-2023.
there was a change up in there. In 2023, 2024, and then 2025.
>> I think what worked well in the past was to have somebody with tenure as the chair,
and then a vice chair, and then the vice chair actually gets to run the meetings when that person isn't here.
I mean, with that thought, if I don't know.
>> I support. If you're interested in no longer being chair,
then I would support commissioner ressler as chair.
I'd be happy to serve as vice, or if you wanted to be vice.
>> was that a motion? >> well, no, I'd like,
given the vice chair discussion, I'd like an independent perspective in motion. I guess.
>> are we able to vote you to chair then? I mean, sorry, to the vice chair.
so essentially sheet. >> we can do essentially, you can do whatever you want.
I actually personally feel like it would be nice if I were not chair or vice chair.
I think it'd be nice if someone that has had experience here, I guess,
commissioner ressler has been here quite a while, so if he were chair,
and then we put someone new as vice chair, and then you're able to swap duties and move in.
>> I would be fine. I guess my 2 sense would be we put ressler as chair,
and cris as vice chair. >> quickly, on either one of you guys being chair.
are either of your guys' terms up next march? Would that matter, or are you guys both serving?
>> I have the longest term. >> I will say the two newest appointments.
I believe commissioner tift and commissioner wintel are on a one-year rotation.
in march, we'll be talking before them, but in march, I'll be requesting if you guys want to do a second term,
which will be a three-year stint, and typically, incumbents have glided to keep their position.
it's not unless someone decides to step down or someone expires in their term that a really open seat gets interviewed for.
I'm saying too many words. I'm so sorry. I said expires,
so to answer your question, commissioner tift and wenzel, I believe, are up for reappointment next year if they're interested.
>> we have a much younger planning commission now.
>> you're just looking for a motion from us on what we think.
>> it'll be a recommendation for the council to consider when they're making appointments at their december meeting.
>> was that a motion that you put forward or just a discussion?
>> put it forward, but I want to make sure we have other voices too.
does everyone have any opposition or comments? >> I don't know if you guys ever have a preference.
I'm happy putting commissioner ressler's chair. Sounds like commissioner bis was okay with that and
was willing to step aside from being vice chair. I don't have any interest in serving as vice chair.
I'd like to continue learning, maybe a future role I'd be interested in, but not right now.
I didn't hear from either of these two about wanting to be vice chair, so I'm not sure if you guys have a fighting preference,
otherwise. That's where I stand. >> I'm in the same boat. I'd like to spend a little more time on the commission,
becoming more familiar with the intricacies of everything we're talking about here before I step into a role like that,
so I'm respectfully off.
>> I think right now, we have a third. We have a chair vice chair, and a third.
>> I don't know if we still have that this year. I think we had that at one point because there were a lot of transitions going on,
but I think once we came to a full appointment, I don't think we kept the third.
but we did have that relatively recently. You're right. >> if the goal is to have a pipeline,
given that I have the longest term, I believe, remaining.
I don't know if that influences thought process, and if that makes sense for me to then serve as vice,
or if others would like the opportunity earlier. Thoughts?
>> I think logistically that makes a lot of sense. For me, the most important thing in a chair is
someone who brings the commission along with them. Makes sure voices can be heard across the panel and
tries to look for that synthesis when things are seemingly.
>> actually true. I think as someone who has also served in the chair before.
it is more about just the point of order and protocol and remembering,
and it's not like a stand of the world if you miss it. When you make a mistake, usually,
the staff does a pretty nice job of getting you back on track.
it is a situation where you get your legs underneath, you're just getting used to the process,
and sometimes the only way to do that is to do it, right? But you know, it's a good job,
but it's mr. Ballas has done a fantastic job for.
>> I'll make a motion on this, so the motion would be to nominate
commissioner ressler for chair and nominate commissioner perkel for vice chair.
>> a second. >> who am I going to take? [background] I got that one.
>> there's a motion on the table for commissioner journat,
commissioner ressler, to be chair, and commissioner perkel to be vice chair for 2026.
>> correct. >> there will be a recommendation to the council. The councils ultimately will decide who to appoint,
but I'm happy to give that recommendation up. >> there's a second by commissioner tift.
any further discussion? All in favor? Say aye. >> aye.
>> any opposed? Motion carries. >> motion to adjourn.
>> second. >> all in favor? >> aye.
aye. Good night. [laughter]