Oct 16, 2023 Planning Commission

THERE YOU GO. WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE OCTOBER 16TH MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.

[00:00:08]

WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE JOIN US.

BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE FIRST ITEM, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE MINUTES THAT COMMISSIONER CRAMER WILL NOT BE HERE TONIGHT, AND WE'LL JUMP TO THE FIRST ITEM APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[Approval of Agenda]

OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY LIBBY.

A SECOND BY RESSLER.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED. HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. SECOND ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2023.

[Approval of Minutes: September 18, 2023]

SECOND OF A FIRST BY RESSLER.

A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

[Public Hearings]

THE FIRST ITEM IS LR 20 2-59.

THAT'S TOM RYAN, 2245 WATERTOWN ROAD.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL BUILDING SITE.

MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE FIVE INDIVIDUAL PADS INTO TWO BUILDABLE LOTS.

THE COMBINED AREA OF THE PROPERTY IS 5.13 ACRES AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RR1 B SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS APPLICATION IS NOT A SUBDIVISION.

IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED AS A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT THAT WE ARE PLATTING, BECAUSE TWO OF THE PARCELS ARE CONSIDERED OUTLOTS, WHICH ARE NOT BUILDABLE LOTS.

ADDITIONALLY, THE WOODED SITE INCLUDES A SMALL DRAINAGE CREEK WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PLANNING TO RE REORIENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

WORK BEGAN ON THE DRAINAGE CREEK IN THE FALL WITHOUT CITY PERMITS.

THE WORK WAS STOPPED AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT THROUGH PERMITTING.

WE ANTICIPATE THE PROJECT BEING COMPLETED OR BEING PERMITTED THROUGH THIS THROUGH THIS PLATTING PROCESS.

APPROVAL. THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE RECEIVED ON THIS APPLICATION WERE PRIMARILY SURROUNDING THE THE DITCH WORK.

THE PROPERTY OWNER INTENDS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPOSED LOT ONE.

DEVELOPMENT OF LOT TWO HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.

THE PROPOSAL RESULTS IN TWO CONFORMING TWO PLUS ACRE LOTS AND DEDICATION OF A 33 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR WATERTOWN ROAD.

THE CITY'S ENGINEER REVIEWED THE PLANS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CITY RESOURCES REGARDING THE DITCH.

THERE WERE NO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLAT.

HOWEVER, COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE THE DITCH AND THE REQUEST FOR RESOURCES SHOULD BE HELD AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS.

WE RECEIVED TWO COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT.

ONE WAS RECEIVED TODAY AND THEY WERE PLACED AT YOUR AT YOUR SEATS.

AGAIN, THE COMMENTS FOCUSED ON THE EROSION FROM THE UNPERMITTED LAND ALTERATION AND DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENTATION.

STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CITY ENGINEERS REQUIREMENTS.

FURTHER, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT AND OBTAIN PROPER PERMITS FOR THE DRAINAGE CREEK ORIENTATION.

EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE WORK AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.

TONIGHT, PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PRESENTED.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANTS HERE WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

I'M FINE. 92245 WATERTOWN ROAD.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE.

A PRELIMINARY WORK STARTED WAS.

I THOUGHT WE HAD APPROVAL TO DO IT.

AND SO WE BROUGHT IN PHIL AND SO.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CAUSED THE SETTLEMENT.

IT WAS THE ROAD WORK.

THAT CURB AND GUTTER GOT SET UP IN LONG LAKE, AND THAT CHANGED THE WATER FLOW.

[00:05:02]

SO THIS IS A RESTORATION OF THAT THROUGH THE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I VISITED YOUR SITE TODAY.

EXCUSE ME. I VISITED THE SITE TODAY.

YEAH. OKAY. AND I COULDN'T HELP BUT NOTICE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT THE CULVERT GOING UNDERNEATH THE ROAD THERE, AND THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT COULD BE A LOT OF WATER GOING THROUGH THERE AT ANY TIME.

YOU HAVE SOME RAIN.

AND I ASSUME THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS EROSION DOWNSTREAM FROM THAT.

YEAH. SO THEY WHEN THEY REDID WATERTOWN ROAD, THEY ALSO PUT IN CURB AND GUTTER UP THROUGH LONG LAKE.

AND SO THAT CHANGE THE WATER FLOW.

WHAT USED TO SHEET OFF THERE AND JUST KIND OF I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 33 YEARS JUST KIND OF IT WAS DRY ALMOST ALL THE TIME.

THEY ENHANCED THE CULVERT, MOVED THE WATER THROUGH THERE.

THEY DID ARMOR THE FIRST 20FT WHERE IT STOPPED BEING ARMORED.

IT ERODED LIKE CRAZY.

AND SO THE PROPOSAL AS DRAWN UP, WOULD PUT IN THE APPROPRIATE CHECK DAMS. AND WE HAD THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OUT IN MINNEHAHA WATERSHED AND EVERYBODY OUT THERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MITIGATE IT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S CAUSING THE NEIGHBORS AND GRIEF AS WELL.

ENHANCED WATER FLOW WHEN THERE'S RAIN.

AND SO YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL OTHER ENTITIES.

THEY'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO TO STOP THAT EROSION.

YEAH. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HELPED DRAW UP THE PLANS.

I DIDN'T DO IT.

I HAD EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS TO DO IT.

AND IT'S IN THE PLAN.

WELL, YOU CAN SEE THAT, YEAH.

DEFERRED TO THE PROFESSIONALS.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

TOM MAJOR, 2200 DEVON LANE, ORONO.

I'M THE PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.

SO THE DITCH FLOWS INTO MY PROPERTY AND FLOWS PRETTY MUCH ALONG MY PROPERTY UNTIL IT FLOWS INTO THE NEXT PROPERTY SOUTH OF THAT.

UM. WE'VE BEEN THERE 37 YEARS.

DIDN'T NOTICE A PROBLEM OF ANY KIND UNTIL ABOUT BETWEEN 2 AND 4 YEARS AGO.

AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SANDY SILT THAT HAS.

DROPPED ALONG THE BED OF THE DITCH AND RAISED THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH ABOUT A FOOT OR MORE.

AND. SO MY CONCERN IS.

YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND GO THROUGH A REDESIGN AS ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS BEEN LOOKED AT AND ANALYZED.

AND I CAN'T SEE ANYWHERE IN HERE WHERE THEY HAVE.

SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT CLEANING UP WHAT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY.

I THINK YOU JUST MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT REQUIRING THAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

THE QUESTION IS MY PROPERTY IS ONE ISSUE, BUT THEN YOU'VE GOT THE EFFECT ON A KIND OF A FLOODPLAIN JUST BELOW THAT, THAT THE NEXT APPLICANT CAN TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S ADJACENT TO HER PROPERTY.

ANY QUESTIONS? I GOT ONE.

SINCE? SINCE YOU NEVER.

YOU NEVER HAD ANY WATER GO ACROSS YOUR PROPERTY UP TO THIS POINT IN THE 22 YEARS YOU'VE BEEN THERE? NO, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD. THE DITCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACTIVE.

SO CAN YOU. IS THE DITCH RUN ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE RIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? OKAY. SO YOU JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AFTER THIS IS ALL DONE, THAT THE WATER CONTINUES TO GO THERE AND NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WELL, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE LONG TERM EFFECT OF THE EROSION.

I WANT TO MAKE IT IF IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE OR NOT.

YEAH. AND THAT'S RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE WATER AS IT RUNS DOWN THE DITCH.

SURE. THAT'S A VALID CONCERN.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

HEIDI HESS AT 2225 DEVON LANE.

SO I'M JUST SOUTH OF THAT.

UM, AND AND THIS GOES WAY BACK FOR ME.

WE'VE BEEN IN THE HOUSE, LIKE, ALMOST 20 YEARS.

AND WHEN THEY DID THAT ROAD PROJECT UP THERE ON THE CORNER, IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER.

[00:10:01]

AND THEN WE HAD AN EPIC RAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, AND IT JUST DESTROYED EVERYTHING.

NOW I'M A PROFESSIONAL GARDENER AND A NATURALIST, AND I JUST, I STUDY ALL THIS STUFF LIKE I USED TO TAKE MY GIRL SCOUT TROOP, AND WE'D WALK DOWN THE MARSH AND AND SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN IT.

AND IT HAS CHANGED SO SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE OF THE SILT THAT HAS THAT STARTED 15 YEARS AGO, AND NOW IT'S SPREAD OUT AND CAUSED THE DELTA TO FORM.

AND NOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING A STREAM DOWN THE MIDDLE THAT GOES ALMOST TO THE LUCE LINE AND THEN MEETS UP WITH THAT BY BROWN ROAD AND GOES UNDER, BECAUSE WE'VE PUT IN KAYAKS THERE AND KAYAKED FROM BROWN ROAD DOWN AND OUR SWAMP, WE COULD ALMOST GET DOWN TO IT PRIOR TO THAT AND CARRY THE THE CANOES, THE KAYAKS OVER THE CULVERT.

THERE'S NO WAY TO DO THAT NOW.

AND THE WATER NOW COMES DOWN AND IT SPREADS OUT AND MAKES A GIANT MESS.

SO IT WASN'T 100% LIKE THE THE SECOND PROJECT.

HE INHERITED A HUGE PROBLEM AND IT ERODED IT OUT.

THEN FOR SOME REASON THEY TOOK OUT ALL THE TREES AND VEGETATION ON ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT CAUSED EVEN MORE EROSION AND THE SILT PILED HIGH IN OUR AT THE ENTRANCE.

AND WE'VE LOST AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN TREES BECAUSE THERE'S STANDING WATER ALL OVER THAT PROPERTY THAT'S SPREAD OUT.

AND I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T.

IT'S A VERY DEEP DITCH THAT'S FILLED IN, AND IT'S JUST SPREADING OUT EVERYWHERE AS IT COMES DOWN.

AND EVEN IF YOU PUT THE CULVERTS AND THINGS THAT WERE DESIGNED, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK BECAUSE IT'S A DEEP DITCH AND THAT TAKES AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF WATER AND HEAVY RAIN.

IT'S GOING TO ERODE IT OUT.

AND WE NEED TO PUT MORE THAN GRASS ON THE SIDES.

YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH LIKE THE DNR OR THE WATERSHED SHOULD HAVE A LIST OF PLANTS AND HOW TO DO IT.

I KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT JUST SIMPLY PUTTING GRASS ON THE DIRT ISN'T GOING TO HOLD IT, AND AN EROSION EMBANKMENT ISN'T GOING TO WORK.

YOU'VE GOT TO PUT MORE TO STOP THAT EROSION, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DIG THE WHOLE THING OUT AND REDIRECT IT.

SO I'M HOPING WE CAN RESOLVE THAT.

WE USED TO HAVE WOOD, DUCKS AND PHEASANTS AND ALL.

THESE AREN'T CREATURES.

WE USED TO CATCH CRAWDADS AND THEY'RE ALL GONE BECAUSE OF THE SILT.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE FOR THE COMMISSION HERE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE.

FIVE EXISTING PADS, COMBINING THOSE PADS TO MAKE TWO CONFORMING TWO ACRE LOTS.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS DITCH PROPOSED DITCH FROM THE FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS IS DONE RIGHT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT THE DITCH IS ACTUALLY DESIGNED BY THE ENGINEERS AND APPROVED BY THE PWD.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING ON IT.

SO. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? I JUST HAD A QUESTION.

MISS CURTIS. SO, WATERSHED.

THE WATERSHED OVERSEES THIS APPLICATION? NO. OKAY. THERE ARE EROSION CONTROL, PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE CITY IS.

THIS IS THE CITY'S JURISDICTION REGARDING THE GRADING.

THE THE DNR DOES NOT HAVE THIS IDENTIFIED AS A PROTECTED TRIBUTARY.

THE WATERSHED DISTRICT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY WETLAND OR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE OVERLAY HERE, SO WE ARE REVIEWING IT AS SUCH.

SURE. SO WE WOULD SO PROTOCOL FOR THIS WOULD BE NOT WATERSHED, BUT WE WOULD HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CITY GRADING PERMIT.

OKAY. THAT'D BE THAT WOULD INCLUDE ENGINEERING AS WELL.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN ENGINEERED DESIGN.

AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE PLAN.

SO WE COULDN'T WE WOULDN'T NEED TO PUT THAT STIPULATION IN PLACE.

I AS FAR AS WHAT CONDITIONS OR OTHER STIPULATIONS THAT YOU CAN PLACE ON THIS.

WE WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE IDENTIFIED, THE SEDIMENT RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY, THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR.

THE PAST 15 YEARS OR SO, IF THAT IS, IF THAT IS CAUSED BY THE ROAD PROJECT.

[00:15:04]

AND THAT IS A CONTINGENCY OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. YEAH.

JUST CLARIFYING BECAUSE I'M OBVIOUSLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.

IT MEETS THE. PARAMETERS FOR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

SOUNDS LIKE JUST THE REAL BIG HANG UP BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS.

AND THE EXISTING ISSUE IS THE WATER.

SO, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF'S ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT AS A CONCERN AND PROPOSED A WAY TO MITIGATE IT AND SUPERVISE IT.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT.

SO I THINK THE CONCERN WITH EVERYBODY HERE IS THAT THE CITY'S GOT A PLAN, AND WE ALL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLAN WORKS.

AND SO AS FAR AS THIS GOES, BOUNDARY LINE, I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN IS MAYBE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO.

SINCE THERE'S A HISTORY HERE OF GETTING LIKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A SEDIMENT PROBLEM AND THERE'S ASSUMPTIONS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED AND WE DON'T WANT IT TO OCCUR AGAIN.

AND I KNOW THAT THE.

IT'S THE ORONO ENGINEERS RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOUSE.

THEY DID SOMETHING SIMILAR WHERE YOU GET A LOT OF EROSION COMING DOWN THE HILL, AND THEY JUST DID SOMETHING RECENTLY THAT.

SURE, I'M SURE THE IT'S IT'S NOT THEIR FIRST TIME REROUTING WATER AND ORONO.

SO I'M SURE THEY GOT SOME EXPERIENCE WITH THIS, BUT MAYBE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THE CITY CAN DO AS FAR AS.

HAVE A I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST POST A PLAN SO THEY CAN THEY GET MORE PUBLIC, HAVE MORE DETAILS ON IT.

IS THERE ANYTHING THERE WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONCERN IS WHENEVER YOU HAVE THESE BIG ROAD PROJECTS, THAT SOMETIMES YOU HAD ADVERSE EFFECTS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS.

AND I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING, NOT THAT THIS IS KIND OF OUT OF OUR SCOPE.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BE DONE WITH THE CITY, BUT I THINK WHAT THEY WANT IS JUST SOME KIND OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS, THE NEXT STEPS HERE.

SO THIS IS ALL PART OF THE DRAINING PLAN, BUT I THINK THEY WANT MORE DETAILS SURROUNDING THAT.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE ANY BACK AND FORTH.

IS THERE SOMETHING WHERE WE POST A PLAN? IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THE ROAD PROJECT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A DIFFERENT STORY, AND THAT ISN'T PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE, TO BE DONE WHEN ROAD PROJECTS HAPPEN.

YES, WE POST AND IDENTIFY PROJECTS.

THIS WAS A JOINT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF LONG LAKE AND THE CITY OF ORONO.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW THAT PROJECT WAS LAID OUT, BUT.

THIS IS A PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT.

SO SO THIS SO THE PROCESS IS THEY'LL PUT A PLAN IN PLACE.

THEY'LL EXECUTE THE PLAN.

ANY ISSUES WITH THE PLAN.

THEN THE CITY WILL COME UP WITH A NEW PLAN.

THE CITY ISN'T COMING UP WITH ANY PLAN.

IT'S THE APPLICANT'S PLAN THAT WE'RE REVIEWING AND APPROVING.

THIS IS AN APPLICANT.

OKAY. YEAH.

SO IF THE PLAN, THE EXISTING PLAN FAILS, AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF EROSION THAT OCCURS, HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY GO BACK TO THE CITY OR WE GO BACK TO THE PRIVATE OWNER.

WE MAKE SURE THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND VEGETATED BEFORE ANY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REMOVED.

THAT IS TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO WHEN WE HAVE A GRADING PROJECT.

IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH IT, WE CAN REVISIT IT IF RESIDENTS BRING UP A CONCERN.

I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN THING, THE PROCESS.

AND SO I THINK THAT HELPS. SO.

LET'S GO FORWARD WITH THE PLAN.

AND IF THE PLAN FAILS, THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO REEVALUATE.

I THINK THIS THIS PLAN HAS CHECK DAMS TO DISSIPATE THE INTENSITY OF THE WATER AS IT TRAVELS THROUGH HERE. MISS.

THE THE THE NEIGHBOR HAD A HAD A COMMENT ABOUT THE VEGETATION, AND I DID ASK HER IF SHE FELT SO INCLINED TO SUBMIT HER THOUGHTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD CONSIDER.

WE CANNOT TELL THE APPLICANT WHAT TO DO.

WE CANNOT TELL THE APPLICANT WHAT TO PLANT.

WE CAN REVIEW WHAT THEY PROVIDE AND DETERMINE IF IT'S GOING TO BE ADEQUATE OR NOT, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ASSURING THAT IT IS FULLY VEGETATED BEFORE ANY MEASURES ARE REMOVED.

MR. CHAIR. YES.

A QUESTION. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED SUPPORTING DOING ALL THE CHANGES THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY.

CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY.

UM. I THINK I THINK WHAT STAFF IS GETTING AT, AND I WOULD AGREE, I'M NOT GOING TO BE SOMEBODY THAT'S AN EXPERT IN HOW DRAINAGE IS OR ISN'T PROPERLY PERCOLATING OR RUNNING. SO I THINK IT'S PROBABLY IN THE BETTER HANDS OF THE, OF THE ENGINEERS.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY I WOULD WANT TO TABLE THIS AND SEE IT AGAIN, BECAUSE I WOULD JUST LISTEN TO WHAT THE CITY ENGINEER'S OPINION WOULD BE IN THAT CASE ANYWAY.

[00:20:08]

I WOULD SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED BASED ON THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

SOLELY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP ALREADY.

SO IT CERTAINLY IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED BY EXPERTS, PROBABLY BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE OF US HERE AT THIS PANEL.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S GOING TO GET REVIEWED.

WELL, IT'S THE PLAN IS OBVIOUSLY DRAWN BY AN ENGINEER, SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.

THE CITY ENGINEER IS GOING TO REVIEW THAT WORK.

SO THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO BODIES LOOKING AT THAT PROJECT.

AND THEN THERE'S CHECKS AND BALANCES THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS AS WELL.

PRELIMINARY PLAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO DO THIS WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

FINAL PLAT. THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHECK AND BALANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THIS WORK HAS BEEN DONE ACCORDING TO WHAT THE ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS ARE.

SO MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN, I THINK IT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THIS RUNOFF SITUATION BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.

I WOULD AGREE THAT.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.

IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER LIBBY, I TOO WOULD SUPPORT THE STAFF'S DECISION, BUT I'M ALSO VERY SENSITIVE AND GRATEFUL FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM BOTH FROM MR. RYAN AND FROM HEIDI HURST.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT AS A NON ENGINEER, A HOMEOWNER AND A PLANNING COMMISSIONER FROM A CAUSE AND EFFECT.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED THAT IS REMISS IN THE DRAINAGE.

BUT AGAIN, YOUR POINT, MR. CHAIR, WAS VALID THAT THIS IS BEYOND OUR ENGINEERING SCOPE.

WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE NOR THE DECISION MAKING POWER THAT SOMEONE LIKE THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE VARIOUS OTHER AGENCIES THAT ARE OVERSEEING THE PROPRIETY OF HOW THIS APPROVAL HAS BEEN APPROVED BY BY OUR STAFF.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT CREDIT IS GIVEN WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, BECAUSE MR. RYAN WAS VERY THOROUGH IN TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE SCRUTINY THAT HIS PLAN HAS HAD OUTSIDE OF OUR AUTHORITY, WHICH WE HAVE TO LEAVE THAT AS IT IS.

AND THEN I APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF HOWEVER, THIS REALLY TURNS OUT, AND I THINK THAT YOU COULD HAVE SOME COMFORT IN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT EXPERTISE INVOLVED IN THIS WAY BEYOND OUR SCOPE.

BUT I WOULD TEND TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON THIS, BECAUSE THAT IS REALLY OUR OUR OUR SUGGESTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE IN HAND THAT WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THESE OTHER ENGINEERING IDEAS OR THE OR THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF HOW LONG LAKE PERHAPS INCORRECTLY REMEDIATE THE DRAINAGE AT, WHICH CAUSES SOME CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE.

I'M RESPONDING ONLY TO THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICATION, WHICH I TEND TO BE IN FAVOR OF.

THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

QUICKLY. THERE'S NO PROPOSAL FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT ON LOT TWO RIGHT NOW.

IF AND WHEN SOMETHING WERE TO BE BUILT THERE, WOULD THAT GET ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY THROUGH MINNEHAHA CREEK? POTENTIALLY THEY WILL REVIEW AN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT.

RIGHT. SO THERE'S EVEN ONE MORE STEP IF AND WHEN SOMETHING IS EVEN BUILT.

YEP. AND THAT'S STANDARD.

AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND THEY'RE DECIDING DOES IT NEED EROSION CONTROL OR DOESN'T IT.

AND THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THEIR REVIEW AT THAT TIME.

SO THE SITE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION WHEN ANYTHING IS EXPOSED.

RIGHT. SO IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS COME IN.

SO WHEN THIS DOES GET DEVELOPED.

THEY HAVE THAT BACKGROUND WHEN IT GOES TO MINNEHAHA CREEK? YES. PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

YOUNG TOM MAJOR AGAIN.

SO YOU GUYS HAVE MAINLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECT, YET THERE WERE SOME REFERENCES TO DOING SOME WORK DOWNSTREAM.

AND THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION, IS HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE DEFINED AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE AND WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE DONE? HEIDI MENTIONED THAT THE DITCH NO LONGER EXISTS.

GOING PAST HER HOUSE, SO THE DITCH HAS TO BE REESTABLISHED, BASICALLY.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ANYWHERE DOWNSTREAM OFF OF THIS PROPERTY.

IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT WHAT STAFF IS SUGGESTING IS THAT IF THERE ARE IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE SEDIMENTATION HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE EXPOSURE IN NOVEMBER AND THROUGHOUT THIS TIME THAT HAS PASSED, THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THAT.

[00:25:01]

UM, THEY NEED TO GIVE HIM PERMISSION AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO.

AND IF THEY DON'T WANT THAT HIM TO ENTER THE PROPERTY TO DO THAT WORK, THEN WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO ALLOW HIM TO ENTER THE PROPERTY.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THEM IS THERE IS SEDIMENTATION ON THEIR PROPERTIES THAT HAS HAPPENED FROM THIS RECENT PROJECT, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDING THAT THAT SEDIMENTATION BE REMOVED.

SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE GO ALL THE WAY TO TANAGER WITH THIS REMEDIATION, BECAUSE OF COURSE, STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE ALL OF THE SEDIMENTATION IS THE RESULT OF MR. RYAN'S PROJECT.

ARE WE PRESUMING THAT THE SCOPE OF THE PERMITTING FOR THIS DITCH IS GOING TO INCLUDE THE PERMITS FOR THESE OTHER PROPERTIES? IS THAT SOMETHING? OKAY.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED AT THE AT THE TIME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR THE GRADING.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY, COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

SO, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE WE'RE WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE MY MOTION WILL EVENTUALLY BE WHENEVER PEOPLE ARE READY FOR IT WOULD BE TO MOVE TO APPROVE, BASED ON SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

THAT CALLS OUT THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVED THE DOWNSTREAM SENTIMENT AND OBTAIN THE PROPER PERMITS, WHICH INVOLVES THE ENGINEERING AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING FOR THE DRAINAGE. CREEK REORIENTATION.

EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE WORK AND BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED, SO THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T SPEAK.

THAT VEGETATION BEING PRESENT MITIGATES THOSE ISSUES.

IT'S ASKING FOR EROSION CONTROL UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.

BUT BEFORE ALL OF THAT, WHILE THAT'S BEING WELL, THAT'S WHILE EROSION CONTROL IS IN PLACE.

IT IS THE DRAINAGE CREEK REORIENTATION AND ALL THE THINGS THAT ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING IS GOING TO REQUIRE.

SO I THINK FOR THAT REASON IS WHY I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS YOUR MOTION.

I DON'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD ONE SECOND.

TOM, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE OTHER QUESTION.

THE DITCH.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE DITCH DURING ITS LIFETIME? DOES ANYBODY KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A MOST LIKELY IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNERS.

UNLESS THERE IS A PUBLIC EASEMENT OVER THAT DITCH.

CORRECT? SO THE FACT THAT THE DITCH HAS BEEN FILLED IN AND NO LONGER IS A DITCH, BUT IS A MORE OF A FLOODPLAIN NEXT TO HEIDI'S PROPERTY, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR REESTABLISHING THAT DITCH IN THAT AREA? WOULD THAT BE HEIDI? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE WAY THIS APPLICATION IS GOING AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF, IS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD CLEAN UP ANY DAMAGE THAT WAS THERE, BUT THE MAINTENANCE IS GOING TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY OWNER OF THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. YEP. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WITH THAT SAID, THERE'LL BE A CALL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION IF I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 20 2-59 ON THE STIPULATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT AND OBTAIN THE PROPER PERMITS FOR THE DRAINAGE.

CREEK REORIENTATION FOLLOWED BY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE WORK AND BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER HAVE A SECOND BY SCHULTZ.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. ALL OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THAT WILL MOVE US ON TO OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS 23 DASH 50 LUCID BUILDERS 3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR LOT AREA.

LOT WIDTH 75 FOOT LAKE SETBACK HARDCOVER HARDCOVER WITHIN 75 FOOT LAKE AND A REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME.

MISS NYE. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR SEVERAL VARIANCES AS YOU LISTED AT 3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LIKE MOST OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, IS SUBSTANDARD IN SIZE AND WIDTH.

THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RUNNING THROUGH IT.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SURVEY.

AND I'LL ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.

THE CITY REMOVES THE AREA OF THE ROAD WHEN CALCULATING LOT AREA, LOT COVERAGE AND HARD COVER.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 5500FT² IN THE LR ONE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 21,780FT²,

[00:30:08]

THE LOT WIDTH IS 50FT, WHERE 100FT IS REQUIRED.

THESE ARE TWO OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE FOR LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH IN ORDER TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

THE EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY IS NON CONFORMING TO THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT LAKE.

SETBACK. SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK AND HARD COVER.

I HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY ON THE SCREEN.

THE PROPOSED HOME, WHICH I'LL PUT UP RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED SURVEY.

WE'LL ALSO IT WILL NOT MEET THE 70 FOOT LAKE YARD SETBACK, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.

IT WILL ALSO BE OVER ON HARDCOVER AND WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK.

THE ONLY SETBACK THAT THE NEW HOME WILL COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT THE CURRENT HOME DOES NOT IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

IN RECENT YEARS, YOU HAVE SEEN MANY VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR NEW HOMES ALONG CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.

I'LL PULL UP THE AERIAL AS WELL.

HISTORICALLY. STAFF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, HAS BEEN STRICT ON UPHOLDING THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE UNIFORMITY OF THE STREET. HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS BEEN SOME RELIEF FROM THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.

THE PROPOSED HOME MEETS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND IS REQUESTING A SETBACK OF 63.4FT FROM THE BWL.

THE CURRENT HOME IS ABOUT 65FT AWAY.

ADDITIONALLY, IN THE PAST, WE HAVE APPROVED A TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THESE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, A LOT OF THESE HOMES ARE ABOUT TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

THIS PROPOSAL IS ALSO TEN FEET, PROPOSING A TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.

THE EXISTING HOME IS ABOUT 39% HARD HARDCOVER.

AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT THE REMOVAL OF THE CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PORTION AND THE PROPOSED.

THE PROPOSED HOME AND SITE WILL BE AT ABOUT 45% HARD COVER.

THIS IS DUE TO AN INCREASE ABOUT 345FT².

THE CURRENT HOME HAS A SINGLE SINGLE STALL GARAGE, AND THE PROPOSED HAS A TWO CAR GARAGE, PLUS THE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF IT.

THIS ACCOUNTS FOR MUCH OF THE HARD COVER INCREASE, PARTICULARLY IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I THINK YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED I WANTED THE APPLICANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THE EXACT INCREASE WAS IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A BIT OF A PRESENTATION TO ME TODAY THAT I'LL LET THEM DO, BUT THEY PUT IN THAT PRESENTATION THAT THERE IS AN INCREASE OF 140FT² IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, LIKE LIKE I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE TWO STALL GARAGE AND THAT TO THOSE TWO PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF IT.

THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES STATED BY THE APPLICANT INCLUDE THE SMALL LOT SIZE, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

THEY'RE HERE TODAY TO ELABORATE MORE ON THAT DURING THEIR PRESENTATION.

STAFF AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S ASSESSMENT.

THE PROPERTY IS EXTREMELY SUBSTANDARD IN SIZE.

IT HAS THE UNIQUE ELEMENT OF THE ROAD RUNNING THROUGH IT AND IT IS A VERY SHALLOW LOT.

THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, ALLOWING IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE INCREASE IN HARD COVER WITHIN THE 75 ALLOWS FOR THE TWO CAR GARAGE AND PARKING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS ISSUES WITH PARKING, STREET PARKING.

UM STAFF HAS RECEIVED SOME PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE FIRST LETTER THAT I INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET WAS FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY.

THEY PROVIDED A LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT.

KIND OF A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT LETTER.

HENNEPIN COUNTY RAILROAD, REGIONAL RAILROAD, RAILROAD AUTHORITY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TEN FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK DUE TO A HISTORY OF ENCROACHMENTS IN THE AREA.

IF I PULL UP THE AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY INCLUDED.

THERE'S A SHED THAT'S LOCATED ON THE LAND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE, BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE REASON WHY HECKER DID NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL.

THEY ALSO SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED SOME SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE PUT AS A PART OF THE ATTACHED IN THE RESOLUTION. THEY PROVIDED TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

FOR CONDITIONS, THE FIRST BEING A STATEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT OTHER THAN THE RIGHTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC USE TO THE HECKER CORRIDOR, THAT THEY HAVE NO

[00:35:08]

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCLUDE IN THE RESOLUTION, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT SOMETHING WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPROVE ANY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT THERE.

THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION FROM THEM WOULD BE.

THAT THE APPROVAL BE CONDITIONED UPON THE REMOVAL OF THE ENCROACHING SHED ON THE PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN, THAT IS PART OF THE PROPOSAL.

ANOTHER ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE WEST, PROVIDED COMMENTS AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY DID NOT APPROVE OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN HARDCOVER, AS WELL AS THE OBSTRUCTION OF THEIR VIEW OF THEIR CURRENT VIEW OF THE LAKE.

I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER HAD SOME DISCUSSION, SO MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN TALK TO TALK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT.

ADDITIONALLY, ONE OTHER NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM WAS SUBMITTED TODAY AND I PASSED THAT OUT TO ALL OF YOU.

OVERALL STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY ALONG CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.

HOWEVER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL USE OF PERMEABLE PAVERS AND OTHER STORMWATER MITIGATION ON THE SITE.

PLEASE DISCUSS THE INCREASE IN HARD COVER, PARTICULARLY IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO DISCUSS THE HACKER COMMENTS AND AS WELL AS INQUIRE ABOUT A CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED, BUT WE DID RECOMMEND THREE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I'LL PULL UP THE PRESENTATION THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO HAVE UP, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME PRIOR TO THAT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. YEAH.

MR. NYE, FORGIVE ME BECAUSE I'M HUNG UP RIGHT NOW ON THE LAKESHORE.

SETBACK CHANGES.

CAN YOU JUST SUMMARIZE THOSE THREE CONDITIONS? JUST A HIGH LEVEL, JUST SO I KNOW WHAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR OUR CONDITIONS.

SURE. THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT USE THE HACKER CORRIDOR FOR ANY PERSONAL IMPROVEMENTS.

NUMBER TWO, PERVIOUS PAVERS OR SIMILAR MATERIAL MUST BE USED FOR ANY WALKWAYS OR PATIOS.

NUMBER THREE STORMWATER MITIGATION, SUCH AS GUTTERS, MUST BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY.

GREAT. CAN YOU HELP ME CLARIFY? YOU TALKED ABOUT THE RAILWAY THAT GOES BEHIND BEHIND THE POST HOUSE RIGHT HERE.

YES. AND I WENT TO THERE TODAY.

I COULDN'T SEE THAT BACK THERE.

WHAT IS THERE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT BEEN IMPROVEMENTS BACK THERE, THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS BELONG TO THE RAILWAY OR THE IMPROVEMENTS BELONG TO THE.

YES. HISTORICALLY, THIS CORRIDOR AND SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE PUT IN IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS CORRIDOR, SUCH AS SHEDS OR FIRE PITS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY RAILROAD AUTHORITY.

THEY OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T ALLOW HOMEOWNERS TO PUT PERSONAL IMPROVEMENTS THERE.

IS IT THE TYPE OF THING THAT THEY DON'T ALLOW IT, BUT IT HAPPENS ANYWAY? IT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, BUT I THINK THAT THEY'VE BECOME MORE STRICT AND HAVE BEEN ENFORCING IT MORE NOW.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, AND WE'LL PROBABLY GET INTO IT AS WELL, MISS NYE.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IMPROVING OUR POSITION ON THE REAR SETBACK BY APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET, BUT WE ARE FURTHERING LAKEWARD ON THE LAKESHORE SETBACK BY A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN TWO FEET.

ANY COMMENTS ON THAT AS JUST KIND OF WHAT MADE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? I THINK WE'VE BEEN PRETTY STRICT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE TEN FOOT SETBACK, SO WE DID WANT TO STAY STRICT WITH THAT WITH THE APPLICANT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THAT'S WHAT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH THE OTHER REDEVELOPMENTS.

SO IMPROVING IT FROM WHAT IS A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK TO A TEN FOOT SETBACK DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A BIG ASK.

AS FAR AS THE LAKE YARD SETBACK, WE KNOW THAT THESE ARE SHALLOW LOTS, SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ENFORCE THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AS THE TRUE SETBACK LINE FOR THESE PROPERTIES. SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM WITH THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK.

AGAIN, THEY'RE STAYING RELATIVELY SIMILAR.

YOU SAID JUST ABOUT TWO FEET OR SO OF A DIFFERENCE.

BUT WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT AT LEAST THEY WOULD MEET THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, WHICH THEY DO.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE THE APPLICANTS HERE.

IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

[00:40:02]

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONERS PLANNERS.

DIRECTOR. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR APPLICATION THIS EVENING.

MY NAME IS JOHN WITH LUCID BUILDERS.

WE'RE AT 18 315 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD IN DEEPHAVEN.

I DID BRING A PRESENTATION THIS EVENING THAT HOPEFULLY CAN HELP CLARIFY SOME OF THE LINGERING QUESTIONS RAISED BY PLANNER NYE.

AND IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THAT NEXT SLIDE, I CAN START RIGHT OFF.

THIS IS KIND OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS YOU KNOW, IT'S MADE UP OF A MIX OF NEWER AND OLDER AND REMODELED HOMES.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS NEWER HOMES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IT'S A SIMILAR REPRESENTATION, BUT OF THE AGE OF THESE HOMES STARTING IN THE 1900S AND AS LATE AS 2019.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'RE SHOWING THE HARDCOVER OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN RELATION TO WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO.

THE AVERAGE THAT WE CAME UP WITH, WHICH IS FROM DATA BOTH HENNEPIN COUNTY GIS AND SURVEYS ON FILE AT THE CITY ARE ABOUT 47% IN THE VIEWING AREA YOU SEE HERE. EVEN WITH OUR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADDITIONAL HARDCOVER, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR ABOUT 45.7.

THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF PERVIOUS PAVERS THAT WE'VE SUGGESTED WE WOULD IMPLEMENT, AS THAT'S NOT CALCULATED BY THE PLANNERS AT THIS TIME.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE WE'RE SHOWING.

OUR EXISTING TWO STORY ON THE BOTTOM, JUST RELATIVE TO SOME OF THE NEWER HOMES ON EITHER SIDE, AND KIND OF OUR ARTIST RENDITION THERE, SHOWING THE OVERALL HEIGHT AND THE AVERAGE HEIGHT, BOTH KIND OF IN LINE AS YOU GO UP THE HILL TO THE WEST.

YOU'RE TRYING TO DEPICT. THIS IS IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN THIS SLIDE, WE DID TRY TO ADDRESS THE PARKING CONCERNS.

SO IN THE ORANGE RIGHT THERE RIGHT OFF THE BAT, TYPICALLY WE DO A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE OR WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WILL END UP BEING.

IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ACTUALLY WORK WITH AN EXCAVATOR THAT HAS DONE A COUPLE OF THE HOMES DOWN THE ROAD HERE.

AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS ALLOW FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TYPE GRAVEL ALONG THE WHOLE WIDTH.

SO WE'LL HAVE OUR SILT FENCE ON BOTH SIDES, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MATERIAL, WHICH ALSO HELPS WITH TRACKING FOR SILTATION AND THE LIKE TOWARDS THE LAKE.

ALSO ON THIS SLIDE, YOU SEE THE PROPOSED HOME OUTLINE THAT'S OVERLAID WITH THE EXISTING HOME OUTLINE, JUST TO SEE KIND OF THAT BULK OR THAT MASSING, AND WHERE WE'VE MADE IMPROVEMENTS AND WHERE WE'VE TAKEN A LITTLE BIT MORE, MOSTLY IN THE REAR.

WE DID IMPROVE ON THE EAST SIDE ABOUT A FOOT.

AND THEN OF COURSE ON THE WEST SIDE WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT WIDER THERE AND RESSLER STATED A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE LAKE.

THAT THAT SHOULD BE ABOUT 5 TO 8 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

AND OUR PROPOSED TIMELINE IS ROUGHLY ABOUT AN EIGHT MONTH, EIGHT MONTH PROCESS, ESPECIALLY STARTING IF WE CAN IF THIS GOES AWAY ROUGHLY DECEMBER.

SLIDE SIX HERE.

IT'S ANOTHER OVERLAY JUST SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE IN HARDCOVERS BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED, ALONG WITH THAT 75 FOOT LAKE SETBACK.

UH, THE NEXT SLIDE WE TRIED TO CALCULATE AND WITH HELP FROM OUR SURVEYOR, WE CAME UP WITH THESE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGES.

AND IN THE GREEN, THOSE ARE THE EXISTING HARDCOVERS THAT WE ARE REDUCING.

AND IN THE BLUE YOU'LL SEE THE INCREASE.

NET DIFFERENCE IS 140FT², WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO THAT SHED WE'RE REMOVING FROM THE RAILROAD PROPERTY.

NOW WE DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THAT.

THIS KIND OF SUMS UP OUR ASK AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO AS PLANNER AND I ALLUDED TO A LITTLE BIT, THERE IS WE'RE TRYING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING TWO STORY WITH A ONE CAR GARAGE WITH A WITH A NEWER, MODERN, LIVABLE TWO STORY WITH A TWO CAR GARAGE.

NOT. OVERALL, HARDCOVER IS ABOUT 340FT².

EACH YEAR. SO ON SLIDE EIGHT, WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE MADE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE REACHED OUT TO BOTH ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND WALKED THE STREET A LITTLE BIT.

I DID HEAR BACK INITIALLY FROM ONE NEIGHBOR AND THEN AND THEN WAS OFFERED THEIR CONSIDERATION.

THAT WAS OFFERED TO PLANNER NYE.

AND THEN WE TRIED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS ON THE WEST SIDE.

I THINK ORIGINALLY YOU CAN SEE ON OUR 3D DEPICTION WE HAD A KIND OF A SIDE LOAD SPLIT ENTRY TYPE OF

[00:45:04]

WE REMOVED THAT COMPLETELY, WHICH DID A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IT IMPOSED LESS ON THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, AND ALSO REMOVED HARDCOVER IN BOTH RETAINING WALL AND A SIDEWALK ON THE EAST SIDE.

YOU'LL SEE OUR AVERAGE SETBACK LINE THOSE TWO GREEN LINES.

THE FIRST ONE WHERE THE CURSOR IS ON IS THE.

AS IT'S STATED, I BELIEVE IN YOUR ORDINANCE IS WHERE THAT SHOULD BE CALCULATED FROM.

AND THAT NEIGHBOR HAD REACHED OUT TO PLANNER NINE AND ASKED THAT WE MOVE THAT TO THE WESTERLY CORNER OF HIS PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S THE ONE WE ARE USING TODAY FOR THIS PROPOSAL.

THAT WAS A PRETTY EASY ASK FOR US.

IT WAS ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF.

SEEMED REASONABLE. ADDITIONALLY, I KIND OF POINTED OUT THAT 30 FOOT SETBACK AND THEN DID KIND OF A BUILDING ENVELOPE IN ORANGE JUST TO SHOW KIND OF WHAT A HOME FOOTPRINT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT WERE KIND OF STRICTLY TO CODE, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS KIND OF MORE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN, YOU KNOW, OUR PROPOSAL.

FOLLOWING TWO SLIDES. JUST KIND OF COMPARE THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT WE COULD FIND IN OUR VIEWING AREA WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY.

JUST AS A COMPARISON.

IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE AND AGREE WITH STAFF THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO OTHERS AND IN HARMONY WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WITH QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

WE JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

LOOKING AT THE DIMENSIONAL, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE OF THE SLIDES I'M LOOKING AT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE FROM GRADE TO MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE AT ROUGHLY 42FT.

IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT WE USE THERE WAS A TEN FOOT OFFSET FROM THE BASEMENT.

SO I THINK OUR OVERALL HEIGHT IS CALCULATED AT 28 FOOT FOUR INCH.

SO THAT CANTILEVERED ROOF THAT COMES OFF TO THE TO THE SIDE THAT THAT PEAK IS ADJUSTED BY BASEMENT DEPTH.

THE PEAK WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.

IT'S OUR MID POINT IS WHAT THAT'S CALCULATED TO.

OKAY. I WOULD ASSUME THAT STAFF HAD REVIEWED THAT.

BUT WE'RE CONTINUALLY LOOKING AT A 30 FOOT MAXIMUM AS A STANDARD FOR US TO GAUGE BY.

SO I JUST WONDERED.

RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. 30 FOOT MAXIMUM.

AND THE WAY WE WE MEASURE BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO THE MIDPOINT.

SO IT MIGHT NOT BE TO THE VERY PEAK.

AND THEN ALSO WE TAKE EITHER THE HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE OR LOWEST PLUS TEN IS THAT WHICHEVER IS LOWER. SO THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF PRELIMINARILY AS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

AND THEN WE'LL ALSO BE REVIEWED AGAIN AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

OKAY. AND AGAIN I'M NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENTS.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT A BLACK AND WHITE ONE DIMENSIONAL DRAWING THAT HAS A NUMBER ON IT THAT STIPULATES FROM THE GRADE WHERE THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUSE STARTS TO THE TOP, IS IN EXCESS OF TEN FEET HIGHER THAN WHAT WE NORMALLY WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A CODE STANDARD FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

SURE, THAT'S ALSO WHY WE PROVIDE THAT.

THAT ARTIST'S RENDITION TRYING TO SHOW YOU.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

MCCUTCHEON. DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH. NO THANKS.

COMMISSIONER LIBBY, THAT ANSWERED MY FIRST QUESTION.

SO THE GRAY IN THE BACK YARD GOES UP TEN FEET.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THE DRAWINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE APPLICATION, THEY DIDN'T HAVE LIKE A DECK.

AND YOUR LAST PICTURE HAD A DECK.

WHAT'S THE FINAL DECISION ON LIKE A ROOFTOP DECK.

DID I SEE THAT RIGHT.

NO DECK. CAN YOU CAN YOU GO TO THAT SCREENED IN PORCH? SCREENED IN PORCH RIGHT HERE.

THIS RENDITION OVER HERE WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

NO. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT. OH.

THE COMPARISON.

YEAH. WHAT IS THAT? THIS IS A DIFFERENT HOME, RIGHT? THAT'S THE BIG HOUSE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY.

GREAT. WOW. SIMILAR JUST LIKE THAT IS UP THERE OKAY.

SO IN 30FT OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S MY QUESTIONS I HAD THE SAME CONCERN THE HEIGHT.

SO WITH THE GRADE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE RISING TEN FEET TO THE BACKYARD THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

SO THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT I'M ASSUMING ONE QUESTION.

I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'VE SEEN THE THREE CONDITIONS.

STAFF'S PROPOSING.

WE'RE AWARE OKAY.

PERFECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THIS 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.

BRANDON BALDOCK, THREE THREE, SIX FIVE CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, JUST TO THE WEST OF THE PROJECT.

[00:50:04]

PRETTY ORIGINAL. I JUST DID A DECK PROJECT.

I WAS HELD TO A PRETTY HIGH STANDARD FOR.

SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING SO WANTED TO.

JUST KIND OF EXPRESS THAT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S I THINK WHAT THEY SHOWED ON SLIDE SEVEN.

IT IT LOOKED LIKE.

MY DECK THERE SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE IS UP THERE.

SO. I'LL HAVE A PRETTY.

IMPEDED VIEW, WHICH IT'S IT IS WHAT IT IS.

BUT ON THAT.

YOU KNOW, ON THAT STREET THERE ARE SEVERAL TALL HOUSES, AND EVEN THE ONE THAT WAS SHOWN AS THE EXAMPLE IS A TALL HOUSE, BUT THEIRS, THEY SEEM TO BE SET BACK WHERE THEY'RE NOT TAKING UP VIEWS.

SO ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO PUSH BACK AND NOT IMPEDE VIEWS WOULD BE GREAT.

AND THEN.

THESE HOUSES AS THEY NEW HOMES.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION DONE, SO THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO.

SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE THAT WOULD.

PROTRUDE OUT.

THERE'S A THERE'S CURRENTLY A PORCH.

THAT'S THERE, AND IT'S ONLY ON THE SECOND LEVEL OF THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN SEE UNDERNEATH IT, YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IT.

THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, 42FT HIGH.

AND TWO FEET OUT FURTHER THAN THAT PORCH.

AND IT'S. IT'D BE LOOKING AT A GIANT WALL.

FOR MOST OF MY. YEAH, OTHER THAN THAT.

THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT I HAD. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

UP HERE WOULD LIKE TO START, COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ, A QUESTION I HAVE IS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD IMPEDE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S VIEW OF THE LAKE.

WELL, I THINK IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO CONFORM.

AND WITH A FEW FEET TO SPARE TO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THOSE VIEWS OF THE NEIGHBORS.

AND THAT'S. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. BUT I THINK WHAT THE NEIGHBOR WAS SAYING IS THAT CURRENTLY I THINK THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR, IF CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT AND RIGHT NOW, THERE ISN'T AS MUCH HOUSE HERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DISTANCE AND THAT WILL BE FILLED IN BY THE NEW HOME.

SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE SOME VIEWS FROM THE SIDE OF THAT HOME THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED.

BUT THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE FURTHEST POINTS FOR FOR EACH SIDE AND DRAWING A LINE AS BEST WE CAN TO PRESERVE THE VIEWS.

DOES THAT HELP ANSWER THE QUESTION? I GUESS IT'S THE VIEW OF WHAT? RIGHT. BECAUSE IT WILL.

THERE'S NO DOUBT IT WILL IMPEDE A VIEW, BUT IT'S FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

YEAH, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THE ANGLES THAT, THAT TYPE OF THING.

AND SO FROM WHAT I CAN SEE IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS NOT ON THE NEIGHBOR'S.

CORRECT. I SHARE THAT SAME THOUGHT THAT THE THE NEIGHBOR WILL STILL HAVE THE SAME VIEW OUT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ITSELF, THE SIDE THAT ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT WILL BE IMPEDED.

OKAY. ANY ANYONE ELSE? ANY THOUGHTS? SURE.

COMMISSIONER RESSLER SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST, I APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPORT THEM FOR GUTTERS, PAVERS FOR WALKER PATIO.

AND THEY'RE NOT USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE HENNEPIN COUNTY RAILROAD AUTHORITY.

BUT THE GUTTERS AND PAVERS OBVIOUSLY GO TO KIND OF THE CONCERN OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

AND THAT AREA IS REALLY TIGHT.

EVERY APPLICATION ON CRYSTAL BAY ROAD HAS ABOUT THREE PLUS VARIANCES, AND THEY'RE JUST TIGHT LOTS.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SLOWLY TRANSFORMING INTO THESE THESE HOMES.

AND YOU KNOW, BUILDING UP IS SOMETHING THAT IS NATURALLY GOING TO HAPPEN ON TIGHT LOTS BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE A HOME THAT YOU CAN USE.

AND THIS THIS APPLICATION DOESN'T HAVE A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR EXCEEDING OUR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.

[00:55:03]

BUT WITH TIGHT LOTS YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO SPRAWLING ACREAGE.

AND SO I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CHANGE IN HOW THAT THE VIEW IS APPRECIATED BY THE NEIGHBORS, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO CHANGE THE SPIRIT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN AND APPROVED IN THE PAST.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I HEAR THEIR I HEAR THEM, BUT I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE CAN'T APPROVE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEM GOING UP.

I APPRECIATE STAFF'S COMMENTS ABOUT GOING TO A TEN FOOT SETBACK FROM THE REAR.

I RECOGNIZE THAT WE'VE SEEN THAT CHANGE IN THE PAST.

I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I ALWAYS THINK THAT I WOULD RATHER SEE IT GO REARWARD THAN LAKEWARD, GENERALLY SPEAKING, AND IT'S JUST A REALLY WEIRD PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THAT RAILROAD AUTHORITY SPACE IS JUST VACANT.

I WISH THEY WOULD SELL THE LAND TO THE HOMEOWNERS AND LET THIS MOVE ON, BUT THE PERSPECTIVE THAT I HAVE ON IT, I GUESS I I'D PERSONALLY RATHER SEE IT GO REARWARD, BUT I KNOW THAT STAFF WOULD PROBABLY VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HOLD TO THAT TEN FOOT STANDARD, BUT THAT'S JUST MY FEEDBACK FEEDBACK TO PUT OUT THERE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT MEETS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE, EVEN AS AMENDED AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT.

THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN WITH WHAT THEY HAVE.

THE ONLY THING LEFT GOES BACK TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

I DO RECOGNIZE AND APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTY RECORDS AND PRIOR APPLICATIONS FOR HARDCOVER.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT GO DOWN.

I MEAN, AT THE VERY LEAST, I SUPPOSE MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL WITH THEIR APPLICATION AS TO MORE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR HAVING THAT INCREASED HARDCOVER, PERHAPS WITH THE DRIVEWAY, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY NEED THAT FOR PARKING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

I COULDN'T REALLY SEE THAT IN THE APPLICATION AS MUCH, BUT THAT CERTAINLY WOULD HELP ME PROBABLY GET MORE COMFORTABLE ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS.

SO JUST BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS, I MEAN, I GUESS I WOULD APPROVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED, BUT JUST WITH SOME OF THOSE NOTED COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RESSLER, IF IT I REMEMBER SOME OF THESE THAT WE'VE APPROVED ON THIS ROAD, AND THE CHALLENGING PIECE TO ME WAS THAT HARDCOVER AND THEN ALSO THE FACT THAT THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE A PLATTED ROAD THROUGH THE FRONT OF THEIR YARD THAT THEY THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY BACK THAT OUT OF THE CALCULATION.

RIGHT? SO TO ME, I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THE HARDCOVER IS IF YOU BACK THAT OUT AND DIDN'T CONSIDER THE ROAD.

YEAH. BUT EITHER WAY IT'S HE'S COMING IN AT AN AVERAGE HARDCOVER THAT'S LESS THAN HE'S COMING IN WITH A HARDCOVER THAT'S LESS THAN THE AVERAGE ON THAT STREET. SO IT'S.

YEAH. TO YOUR POINT THOUGH, YOU KNOW.

YEAH I AGREE. AND AGAIN ALLOWED IS 25%.

SO IT'S GROSSLY HIGHER.

BUT OF COURSE THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT.

AND SO I DID THINK ABOUT THAT TOO.

AND I THINK RESTING ON JUST WHAT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS FOR HARDCOVER AGAIN IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A SPACE THAT WE'RE SUPER EXCITED ABOUT ADDING HARDCOVER IN.

SO IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN HAVE SOME LOGICAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WE NEED IT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT.

IT'S ALSO NOT IDEAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE STREET PARKING.

SO IF YOU CAN PROVIDE SOME REASONING THAT SAYS THIS ALLOWS TWO CARS SIDE BY SIDE, AND WE'RE NOT BEING EGREGIOUS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR COUNCIL AND THEIR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER LIBBY, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RESSLER, BUT THERE IS THE ELEMENT OF SAFETY INVOLVED, WHICH I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON.

AND HAVING VISITED MANY OF THESE HOUSES MANY TIMES OVER MANY YEARS, BACKING OUT ONTO OLD CRYSTAL BRAY ROAD CAN BE QUITE TENUOUS AND RISKY.

SO HAVING A TURNAROUND AREA, EVEN THOUGH IT PROBABLY IS PARKING.

BUT I MEAN, THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO TURN THE CAR AROUND AND THEN BE ABLE TO HEAD OUT.

FULLY VISIBLE OF THE THOROUGHFARE, AND THE TRAFFIC, I THINK, IS A NET BENEFIT FOR SAFETY FOR EVERYONE, BOTH PEOPLE DRIVING BY AND FOR THE RESIDENTS.

AND I WOULD BE PREPARED TO SECOND THAT MOTION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MY SENSE OF HUMOR SAYS SOMEBODY OUT THERE HAS GOT TO HAVE THE WORLD RECORD FOR THE MOST SPEED BUMPS ON A ROAD.

WOW. NO SPEEDING ON THAT ROAD.

YEAH, I MEAN, I JUST THE HEIGHT KIND OF JUMPED OUT AT ALL OF US WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED AT IT.

[01:00:02]

SO MAYBE THEY ADDED TWO MORE FEET OF DIRT TO GET TO TEN FEET.

NOT A BIG CONCERN, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT AS YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE TRAIL, LIKE, DID THEY ADD A BUNCH OF DIRT UP HERE OR WHAT? SO I THINK IT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING GRADING PLAN.

SO BUT THE HEIGHT, THE MASSING ON THIS IN THIS AREA IS JUST.

IT JUST SEEMS TO CONTINUE AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE END IS.

AND I'M LOOKING AT IT AND IT'S A BAD SPOT.

I DO APPRECIATE THEIR GETTING AWAY FROM THE TRAIL.

THEY GOT THE ROAD IN FRONT, BUT THEY ARE DEFINITELY MAXIMIZING THE.

SO. BUT BUT LOOKING AT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S IT'S IN.

IT'S. NOT UNCOMMON.

SO I THINK IT'S JUST AS MORE OF THE HOUSES GET REMODELED.

THIS IS. THIS IS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO BUT SO I GUESS I WOULD BE IN IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE'RE MAXIMIZING I MEAN, NO BIGGER I MEAN THEY'RE GOT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO. TO MASS THE HOUSE THEY'RE DOING.

YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. AND IT IS.

IT'S IT'S THE TOUGHEST AREA IN THE WHOLE ZONING OF ORONO.

BY THE WAY. THIS IS A VERY SMALL LOTS.

I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU, BUT.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SLIDE THE APPLICANT PROVIDED OF THE THE HEIGHT, I KNOW IT JUMPS OUT TO YOU AT FIRST, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER ROOF LINES ALONG THAT STREET. AND THEY'RE JUST AS TALL.

AND HE'S CONFORMING TO THE TO THE CODE SO.

WELL. AND THE CODE I MEAN IS LET'S CALL IT LIKE IT IS.

THE CODE DEFINES.

WELL, ACTUALLY, I'M NOT GOING TO STATE IT.

I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT YOU DO CLARIFY IT STAFF, BUT IT'S THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE WINDOW TO THE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF.

AND IT'S THE MIDDLE POINT BETWEEN THAT RIGHT OR THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE.

OKAY. MIDPOINT OF THE TROUGH.

SURE. SO, SO THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOF TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF.

THAT'S THE MIDDLE. THAT'S THE DEFINING OF 30FT.

YEAH. CORRECT. OKAY. MIDPOINT.

MIDPOINT OF THE ATTIC KIND OF HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

SURE. YEAH. THERE'S LIKE SIX DIFFERENT WAYS TO MEASURE IT.

YEAH. RIGHT. BUT I THINK IT JUST JUMPS OUT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT'S A CONTEMPORARY LOOK.

BUT LOOK AT LOOK AT THE HOUSE TO THE WEST DOWN RIGHT.

TWO DOORS DOWN. IT'S IT'S HIGHER.

IT'S ACTUALLY TALLER. YEAH.

THE GRADE MIGHT GO UP. YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I MEAN IS EVERYBODY'S MAXIMIZING WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT.

YEAH. SO MAYBE IN OUR 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE CAN TALK ABOUT AVERAGE HEIGHT SETBACKS.

AND IT'S GETTING TO COME.

YEAH IT'S COMING RIGHT. YEAH YEAH YEAH.

OVERALL I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS I THE ONLY PIECE THAT I THAT I WISH WAS DIFFERENT IS THAT WE TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT SEVEN FOOT INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE REAR TO TEN. THAT WAY IT WOULD IT WOULD HELP APPEASE THE NEIGHBOR A LITTLE BIT, KEEP THAT VIEW SHED FARTHER BACK.

AND I'M TRYING TO RACK MY BRAIN ON THE OTHER ONES ON THIS STREET.

I KNOW THERE WERE A COUPLE THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND THAT REAR YARD SETBACK WAS KIND OF A STICKING POINT, AND I DON'T REMEMBER HOW THEY ENDED UP. THERE WAS A TEN AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS ZERO OR IT WAS CURRENTLY ZERO.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE.

I THINK WE'VE WE'VE TRIED TO STAY STRICT TO THAT TEN FOOT SETBACK WITH RESPECT TO ALSO THE HACKER PROPERTY AS WELL, AND JUST GIVING PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE TO.

TO PUT A PATIO OR SOMETHING IN THEIR BACKYARD.

BUT I THINK WE'VE WE'VE TRIED TO STAY TO, TO STICK WITH THAT TEN FOOT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND I, I THINK WE CAN PASS THOSE COMMENTS ALONG TO, TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT MAINTAINING THE SEVEN FOOT INSTEAD. YEAH.

ALL THAT DISCUSSION.

I MEAN, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR SURE IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE ONE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE MOST EVERYONE'S IN FAVOR.

MAY I JUST, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT SOMETIMES WE GET INTO THESE APPLICATIONS AND WE TALK ABOUT THE APPLICANT LIKE WE'RE ON A HOSPITAL BED, THAT THEY'RE HERE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT, COULD YOU CLARIFY? JUST HUMOR ME FOR A SECOND.

IF WE WERE, WE WERE ALL SUPPORTIVE OF YOU MOVING THE THE HOUSE BACK 1.9FT OR WHATEVER THAT DIFFERENCE IS, TO STAY WITHIN THE EXISTING LAKESHORE AND REDUCE FROM TEN TO MORE THAN SEVEN, BUT LESS THAN TEN REAR REAR.

SO BASICALLY JUST SHIFTING THE WHOLE HOUSE BACK.

I KNOW STAFF MIGHT SHAKE THEIR HEAD AT ME, BUT WOULD THAT BE REASONABLE TO TO CONSIDER? OR WOULD YOU RATHER NOT JUST IS THERE FEEDBACK FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ON THAT?

[01:05:01]

THEY'RE LESS OF A SETBACK THAN THIS.

ONE THING THAT THEY'VE COME BACK TO IN MANY INSTANCES IS SETTING UP A LADDER.

HOW MUCH ROOM DOES IT TAKE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDE OF THAT HOUSE? FIVE FOOT, TO ME IS REASONABLE THERE IN ALL PRACTICAL BUILDING APPLICATION HERE.

THAT TEN FOOT ACTUALLY KIND OF HELPS US A LITTLE BIT FOR BENCHING AND GETTING THAT FOUNDATION IN AND DOING SOME OF THE HARD WORK TO BUILD THIS THING.

SO WE DON'T MIND THAT IF YOU ALLOWED US TO, TO PUSH BACK.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS CAN CONSIDER OUTSIDE OF THE FOUNDATION IS THE PROPOSED PATIO KIND OF HARD COVER.

WE KIND OF SHOEHORNED THAT ONE IN THERE, TOO, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN WITH THAT TEN FEET.

THAT IS A PLACE FOR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PUT A.

YEAH, RIGHT. OKAY.

THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE ALSO WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN DRIVEWAY HARDCOVER IF YOU SHIFTED IT BACK TO.

OKAY, I COULD SPEAK TO THAT DRIVEWAY AS WELL.

WE TRIED TO ADHERE TO A DRAWING THAT THE CITY HAS.

AS FAR AS YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT DRIVEWAY.

THAT'S A LITTLE BIT WHY THERE'S THAT FUNNY HOURGLASS SHAPE.

YEAH. SOUNDS GOOD.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

MISS NYE A GOOD POINT. I MEAN, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE SURVEY, AND I'M NOT GOOD AT READING THEM, BUT LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY 22FT.

SO IF YOU'RE COMING IN ANOTHER COUPLE, THAT'S 40 PLUS FEET THAT YOU'D BE INCREASING HARDCOVER, BUT WE'D BE MAKING A NEIGHBOR HAPPY.

WE'D BE HELPING A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH PARKING, MAYBE.

UM, I'M NOT HERE TO REDESIGN THE APPLICATION.

I WANT TO KEEP IT MOVING. I'M GOING TO MOTION TO APPROVE IT AS APPLIED WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS ON RECORD TO SEE IF THE COUNCIL OR IF THE APPLICANT HAD SOME ON THE FLY CHANGES THAT THEY COULD MAKE OR PREPARE FOR, IN CASE THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE, BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR HARMONY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF NOTHING ELSE.

AND I CAN GET BEHIND A LITTLE BIT MORE HARDCOVER.

SO THANK YOU.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 20 3-50 AS APPLIED BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

I WILL SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY RESSLER TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING. SEEING NONE, WE WILL VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU. ON TO ITEM THREE.

LA 20 3-51 KEPLINGER AND KIERNAN BUILDERS 2795 SHADYWOOD ROAD.

REQUEST LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH.

HARDCOVER. REAR YARD SETBACK.

LAKE SETBACK.

BUILDING ON FILL, NOT MEETING 15 FOOT FILL.

BENCH REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE SHORELINE DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE.

MISS CURTIS, THANK YOU.

I'M JUST PUTTING THE EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY UP BRIEFLY.

I'M GOING TO PUT THE PROPOSED UP SO I CAN START.

TALKING ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCES.

VARIANCE FOR HARD COVER WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.

AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

VARIANCE FOR THE NEW DECK AND A 75 FOOT LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE CHANNEL AND LAKE FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

ADDITIONALLY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT FILL BENCH TO BE LESS THAN 15FT ON THE SIDES OF THE HOME.

IN CONJUNCTION WITH ELEVATING THE HOME ABOVE THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION ON FILL.

THE EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK FROM BOTH THE LAKE AND THE FOREST LAKE CHANNEL.

THERE ARE HARD COVER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, AND THE HOME IS NONCONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FEMA FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS RELATING TO LOW FLOOR AND ADJACENT GRADES.

THE OWNERS PROPOSE A NEW HOME ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE ADDITION ON THE REAR.

THEIR PLANS INVOLVE ELEVATING THE NEW HOME ON FILL AS A RESULT OF THE REQUIRED FILL, AND THE CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOME.

THE OVERALL HEIGHT IS PROPOSED TO INCREASE BY APPROXIMATELY 14FT OVER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A COMPARISON ELEVATION VIEW.

OF THE HOME TO SHOW THE HEIGHT CHANGE.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ANALYSIS AND HAS IDENTIFIED THE CHANNEL AS THE PRIMARY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.

THEY ARE PRESENT THIS EVENING AND SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE LOT ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING VARIANCES.

HOWEVER, STAFF DOES NOT FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE SCREEN PORCH PORTION OF THE HOME WITHIN 13FT OF THE CHANNEL.

[01:10:07]

THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THIS PORTION OF THE HOME IN KIND, BUT STAFF DOES NOT FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SUPPORTING THE VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE PORCH DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE.

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR VARIANCES RESULTS IN THE PROPERTY'S INABILITY TO CONFORM TO ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL STANDARDS PROVIDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD.

THEREFORE, LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCES ARE ALSO REQUIRED.

THE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD THE HOME ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

THE VARIANCES ARE MOSTLY THE RESULT OF THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE HOME.

IN ORDER TO ELEVATE IT ON FILL IN RESPONSE TO FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

THE CURRENT HOME DOES NOT MEET THE FLOODPLAIN STANDARD.

THE CURRENT PLANS REFLECT A CONFORMING WALKOUT BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION OF 933.5.

APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE LAKE AND CHANNEL.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE TOTAL SITE HARDCOVER BY APPROXIMATELY 1600 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING 528FT SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, MITIGATING FLOODPLAIN FILL AND ELEVATING A HOME ON FILL WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

FEMA REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE FLOODPLAIN CAPACITY TO BE EXPANDED ELSEWHERE SO THERE IS NO DECREASE IN FLOOD STORAGE CAPACITY.

THE PLAN REFLECTS THE THE CUTTING AND FILLING AREAS, AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THEIR FLOODPLAIN PERMIT.

ADDITIONALLY, FEMA REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE CREATION OF A FILLED RESCUE BENCH ALL AROUND THE BUILDINGS PROPOSED TO BE ELEVATED ON FILL.

THE FILL MATERIAL MUST CONTINUE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING TO CREATE A 15 FOOT RESCUE BENCH.

THE HOME IS SET BACK APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET FROM THE CHANNEL SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

WHILE THE TEN FOOT L-1B DISTRICT SETBACK CAN BE MET ON THE INTERIOR SIDE, THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT ROOM ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOME TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE 15 FOOT PERIMETER FILL REQUIREMENT. THE CODE REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO FORMALLY ADDRESS THE DEPARTURE FROM THE FILL BENCH REQUIREMENT.

NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AS PROPOSED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SCREEN PORCH NOTED EARLIER.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT REDESIGN THE PORCH AREA TO MINIMIZE THE MASSING IMPACT SO CLOSE TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.

FURTHER, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADDRESSING THE RESCUE BENCH DEFICIENCIES.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE.

I HAVE OTHER VIEWS OF THE HOME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM, BUT I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

QUICK QUESTION THIS FILL BENCH THE 15 FOOT.

CAN YOU DUMB THAT DOWN FOR US? WE'RE TALKING 15FT IN WIDTH.

CORRECT. 15FT IN WIDTH AROUND THE HOME.

SO THAT YOU HAVE AN ABILITY TO GET OUT OF THE HOME ON THAT FILL.

GOT IT. AT FIRST I WAS THINKING 15 IN HEIGHT AND I WAS OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO YOU STATED.

I'M JUST CLARIFYING IT.

WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKSTOP HERE TOO, BECAUSE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT IS THEY HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION. THEY DO.

AND THEY HAVE A 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD.

THAT COMMENT PERIOD HAS STARTED, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY, IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REQUESTS A BOARD REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION, THEN THAT WILL TAKE PLACE.

IF THERE IS NO REQUEST FROM THE PUBLIC DURING THAT 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD, THERE IS NO BOARD REVIEW AND IT'S REVIEWED BY THE STAFF ENGINEER WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. YOU JUST HAVE TO COMPENSATE THE CAPACITY.

YEAH. OKAY.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THIS IS COMPLICATED.

AND IT IS.

I'M NOT GOOD AT THIS, SO I WOULD RATHER RELY ON SOMEBODY ELSE TO BE SMART AND TELL ME WHAT, WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT.

SO. QUESTION, IF I MAY.

LOOKING HERE, I SEE A TERM THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH.

NO CHANGE IN THE MASSING INCREASE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THAT SECTION? TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS PERTAINING TO THE SCREEN PORCH.

I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S SO THE SCREEN.

PORCH. THE FILLING CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO RESULT.

JUST AS A MATTER OF FACT, OF THE PROPERTY, THE HOME BEING HIGHER.

THEY HAVE CHANGED THE STRUCTURE OF THE ROOF.

SO IF YOU LOOK HERE, THIS, THAT THE AREA THAT I'M CIRCLING IS THE SCREEN PORCH ALONG THE CHANNEL.

EXCUSE ME. AND THIS COMPARISON LINE SHOWS WHERE THAT HEIGHT OF THE NEW SCREEN PORCH ROOF IS.

IT'S 14FT TALLER THAN THE CURRENT SITUATION.

YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

[01:15:01]

IT SAYS THE SETBACKS HERE ON THE CHANNEL AND ON THE LAKESHORE AND THE PROPOSES NO CHANGE.

IT'S A MASSING INCREASE.

WHAT DOES MASSING INCREASE MEAN? MASSING INCREASES THE VOLUME OF THE HOME GOING UP.

THEY'RE NOT GETTING CLOSER TO THE LAKE.

THEY'RE JUST MORE MASSIVE.

THANK YOU. FOOTPRINT, THEN YOU'VE GOT MASS.

SO FOOTPRINT IS WIDE.

MASS IS HIGH. UM.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANTS HERE WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

A MIRACLE WITH KEPLINGER AND KAREN AND BUILDERS 6250.

HIGHWAY 12 AND MAPLE PLAIN.

ERIC WEINGARTEN, 2795 SHADYWOOD ROAD.

I'M THE OWNER. NATHAN LOOKS WITH KING K, CAPTAIN AARON, KAREN AND BUILDERS AT 6250 US HIGHWAY 12.

IT'S STILL TOO LOW WITH K AND K BUILDERS ALSO.

SO I GUESS I GUESS OUR ONLY COMMENTS ARE THAT WE DID WHAT WE COULD TO STAY WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT WHILE ADDING A GARAGE.

THE BIG QUESTION OF MASSING THE SCREEN PORCH.

WE'RE DEFINITELY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON THAT, BUT WE TRIED TO MAKE IT BLEND IN WITH THE NEW ADDITIONS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.

I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING YOU CAN SEE BY THE DRAWING IF WE LEFT IT AS IT WAS.

AND IT WOULD LOOK A LITTLE BIT LIKE A DOGHOUSE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, BUT.

BUT YEAH, WE'RE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON THAT.

AND THEN ONE MORE COMMENT WITH THAT, SINCE WE'RE REQUIRED TO RAISE THE HOUSE A LITTLE OVER THREE FEET, THE EXISTING FLOOR OF THAT HOUSE IS ALREADY 14IN BELOW THE MAIN LEVEL OF THE SCREEN PORCH, SO WE'D BE.

FOUR FOOT THREE, FOUR FOOT FOUR BELOW THE MAIN LEVEL WITH THE DECK ON THAT SCREEN PORCH.

IF WE LEFT IT AS IS.

TO BUILD IT AS IS.

IT CAN BE REUTILIZED AS A PATIO AREA AS WELL IF IT ISN'T.

CAPTURED AS A STRUCTURE.

WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT PICTURE FROM THE LAKE? YEP. DO YOU HAVE ONE FROM THE OTHER SIDE? I HAVE A YEAH, I HAVE LIKE THE FRONT.

YEAH. SO HAS ANYBODY DROVE THROUGH THE NEAREST CHANNEL? YEAH, A FEW TIMES. I SEE MY HOUSE A COUPLE OF TIMES.

IF YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH THIS CHANNEL, THIS STRETCH IS SO HEAVILY WOODED THAT YOU WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE THE MASSIVE INCREASE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED.

THE OTHER PART OF THIS.

SEE, LOOK AT THAT. YOU CAN'T SEE IT.

SO IF WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE.

SO OUR PLANS NEXT YEAR ARE TO PLANT A HEDGE ACROSS THAT CHANNEL SO THAT IT DOES PROTECT SOME OF THE VIEWS FROM THAT CHANNEL AND FROM OUR HOUSE, OF COURSE. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE REALITY IS, IS THAT THE MASSING OF THAT WILL BE ALMOST INVISIBLE.

AND WE JUST CUT THAT WILLOW TREE, TRIMMED IT UP, MADE IT MORE HEALTHY BECAUSE IT WAS LITERALLY FALLING DOWN.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN SEE THE HOUSE THREE YEARS AGO, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.

IT'S PRETTY SCARY. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE REALITY IS, IS THAT THE MASSING WILL BE COMPLETELY HIDDEN BY THE TREE COVER.

WHEN THAT WILLOW GROWS IN AND GROWS DOWN AND TRIMMED UP, YOU WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE THE HOUSE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MHM.

THANK YOU. I'M ASSUMING IF YOU MOVE THAT, I MEAN, THAT NEW PROPOSED PORCH FOOTPRINT IS THE SAME AS THE OLD ONE, AND IT'S ACCESSED OFF THE SAME FLOOR LEVEL AS THE OLD ONE.

CORRECT? JUST BECAUSE EVERYTHING MOVED UP THAT THE MASSING WENT HIGHER.

AND THEN THERE'S A ROOF CHANGE.

THE ROOF SHAPE IS DIFFERENT, CLEARLY.

BUT THE FLOOR.

YEAH. THE FLOOR IS RAISED TO MEET THE NEW.

IS THERE? IS THERE ANYTHING ABOVE THAT ROOF? IS IT JUST ATTIC SPACE IN THAT? PROPOSED PORCH.

IN THE PROPOSED PORCH IS JUST A VAULTED CEILING INSIDE OF.

SO I HAD A QUESTION, AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A STICKING POINT FOR ME.

I'M JUST CURIOUS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDRESSING THE MASSING, WE'RE GOING UP WITH THAT SCREEN PORCH, BUT WE'RE ALSO ADDING A PEAK ROOF VERSUS A FLAT ROOF. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED OR POSSIBLY BE AGREEABLE TO JUST CHANGING THE PITCH, INSTEAD OF IT GOING PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LOT LINE TO SLOPING BACK TOWARDS THE THE MAIN STRUCTURE? JUST AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT MIGHT BE AGREEABLE TO STAFF OR.

[01:20:11]

NO, I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET FEEDBACK BECAUSE I JUST.

BUT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT I GUESS I JUST WANTED I JUST WANTED TO ASK BECAUSE I'M NOT I'M NOT HERE TO REDESIGN YOUR HOUSE.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? JUST ONE. MR. LIBBY, LOOKING AT THE AT THE REVIEW, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ABOUT A 1212 PITCH.

IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT WHERE THE ROOF PEAK IS? THE THE ONE THE GABLES YOU'RE LOOKING AT ARE 14, 12 AND THE THE OTHER WAY IS 1012.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF WATER FLOW OFF THOSE OFF THOSE ROOFS COMES DOWN PRETTY FAST.

THOSE PITCHES UP THERE.

I'M THE GUY WITH THE SEVEN AND A HALF WITH STEEL EXTRUDED GUTTERS, BECAUSE I GOT A 1212 PITCH FOR THE WATER COMES DOWN SO FAST IT WOULD GO OVER A REGULAR GUTTER.

SO I'M THINKING ABOUT DRAINAGE AND HOW THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.

AND A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE.

IT'S STILL IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT IS SO CLOSE TO THE THE WATER BODY.

AND DO WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER HIGHER ELEVATION VIEWS OF THE LOCATION.

JUST PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS, ANYTHING THAT WE AN AERIAL PHOTO.

YEAH. YEAH. THANKS.

IT'S. OKAY.

SO I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS, BUT DID ANY OF THE OTHER ENTITIES CHIME IN ON THAT 13 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE WATER EDGE? WE HAVEN'T THERE'S NO WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY LIKE YOU MEAN LIKE FROM THE WATERSHED OR THE.

YEAH, THE WATERSHED IN PARTICULAR.

THE WATERSHED WOULD NOT COMMENT ON THAT.

INTERESTING. SAME AMOUNT OF WATER.

IT'S THE SAME. IT IS EXISTING.

THEY WOULD REVIEW TODAY.

WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE AVERAGE HIGH WATER MARK THERE.

YOU KNOW 929 FOUR.

SO THAT'S WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION WITH THEIR PURVIEW.

NO NOT THE NOT THE HOME LOCATION.

NO. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NO ONE. HEARING NO ONE.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I CAN START ON THIS ONE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF IT AS APPLIED.

I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MASSING OF THIS PORCH.

THE OVERALL MASSING HAS INCREASED, AND I THINK THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE LOCATION.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT PORCH HAS TO BE ACCESSED SOMEWHERE OFF THAT MAIN FLOOR.

THE MAIN FLOOR RAISED UP.

AND THE KEY POINT FOR ME IS THAT THAT MASSING ISN'T WITHIN ANYONE'S VIEW SHED.

ANY NEIGHBOR'S VIEW SHED OF THE LAKE.

IT'S. THEY'D HAVE TO LOOK LOOK THROUGH THE HOUSE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN IT.

SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

AND THE REST OF IT IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD ON THESE TIGHT LOTS.

THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE TO PUT THOSE STRUCTURES.

ANY OTHER FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION? YEAH, I TEND TO AGREE.

I MEAN, WE JUST HAD THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT MASSING, RIGHT.

NATURALLY GOING UP.

YOU'VE ALREADY GOT STRUCTURE THERE ADDING A ROOF OVER IT VERSUS A FLAT ROOF VERSUS A PEAKED ROOF.

NOT SEEING ANYTHING TOO EGREGIOUS ON THAT.

GENERALLY, I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S STRUCTURE THAT'S BEING REPLACED BY KIND.

WE'RE JUST GOING UP.

DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.

SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE DECK, I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, IT IS HIGH AND I'M JUST THINKING OF ALL THE WATER COMING DOWN AND IT'S PITCHED AWAY, AWAY FROM THE LAKE SO IT CAN GO FRONT AND BACK.

WELL, IT'S ON THE CORNER.

SO I'M THINKING THAT JUST TO DEAL WITH ALL THE WATER, IF YOU HAD LIKE A FLAT ROOF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT JUST I JUST DON'T THINK IT WOULD.

PUNCTUALLY WORKED OUT GREAT.

AND THEN PLUS I DON'T THINK I THINK IT SINCE THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE, IT KIND OF FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A HOUSE.

THE DECK KIND OF BLENDS IN.

[01:25:01]

THEY. PLEASE.

I THINK FUNCTIONALLY IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

I'D BE INTENDED TO AGREE TO APPROVE THIS AS APPLIED.

ANYONE ELSE. OTHERWISE, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANT TO DO IT.

I'VE DONE TWO IN A ROW.

LET'S SEE. THIS IS NUMBER THREE.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 23 DASH 51 AS APPLIED.

CALLING OUT THAT WE'RE WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE THE ROOF AS APPLIED AS WELL.

YES. I'LL SECOND THAT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION. MOTION BY MCCUTCHEON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY RESSLER.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING. SEEING NONE, WE'LL VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0.

THANK YOU. ITEM FOUR ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

LA 20 353.

THIS IS PILLAR HOMES FOR 3765 WATERTOWN ROAD.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED ENTRY.

MISS NYE. THANK YOU.

THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SETBACK.

VARIANCES AT 3765 WATERTOWN ROAD IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW COVERED PORCH, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN, AS WELL AS COVER TWO ADDITIONAL ENTRYWAYS ON THE EXISTING HOME.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE RR ONE, A RURAL ZONING DISTRICT WHICH REQUIRES A 100 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH YOU CAN SEE DEPICTED HERE ON THE SITE PLAN.

THE EXISTING HOME DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE SETBACK, AND AT ITS CLOSEST POINT IS ABOUT 70FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

THE PROPOSED FRONT PORCH.

I'LL PUT THE PLANS ON THE SCREEN HERE.

THAT'S ABOUT 43FT² AND DOES NOT EXTEND PAST WHERE AND IS ABOUT 87FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

NONE OF THE EXPANSIONS OF THE ROOF EXPAND BEYOND THE CURRENT SETBACKS OF THE HOME.

THE OTHER TWO ENTRIES ENTRYWAYS ON THE HOME WILL BE COVERED BY A NEW ROOF, AS YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

AND HERE ARE MINIMAL VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.

BECAUSE THESE EXPANSIONS, THESE ADDITIONS, THESE EXPANSIONS DON'T MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSAL TO BE MINIMAL AND DOES NOT BELIEVE IT WILL IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME ON THE LOT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT'S PRESENT.

STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.

ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

THIS LOT DOESN'T IS NOT SUBJECT TO HARD COVER OR LOT COVERAGE MINIMUMS. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD EVENING. KC CERMAK IS MY NAME.

COMPANIES. PILLAR HOMES.

WE'RE LOCATED AT 1700 NIAGARA LANE, RIGHT DOWN COUNTY ROAD SIX BY PARKERS LAKE.

CHANGES THAT WE ARE REQUESTING HERE ARE PRETTY MINIMAL, I THINK.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION WORK.

I WOULD SAY THAT COSMETIC AND CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE REALLY DRIVE IT.

WATER MANAGEMENT AND A BETTER LOOKING FACADE ON THE FRONT IS WHAT WERE SOME OF THE DRIVING FORCES BEHIND IT.

WE THINK WE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB BLENDING THE OLD WITH THE NEW.

WE HAVE DONE SOME WORK ON THE HOUSE ALREADY IN AREAS WHERE WE DIDN'T NEED A VARIANCE OR A PERMIT.

THIS IS JUST KIND OF COMPLETING THE OLD WORLD MEETING WITH THE NEW WORLD.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I REALLY DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH MORE FOR YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? NO THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU'RE HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING. HEARING NONE.

WE'LL BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

WE'D LIKE TO START. I'LL PICK ON THIS SIDE DOWN HERE.

COMMISSIONER LIBBY, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF.

THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE DONE.

I THINK TYPICALLY.

WITH WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT.

TO GIVE AN APPROVAL FOR THESE VARIANCES.

STAFF IS CONSIDERED. THIS I THINK DILIGENTLY AND SO I WOULD TEND TO BE SUPPORTIVE.

GREAT. THANK YOU. WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT IS PRETTY MINIMAL.

I MEAN, THE LOT IS IT DROPS OFF SO MUCH HERE.

THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE IS SO CLOSE TO THE ROAD HERE.

SO THIS IS PRETTY SUBTLE.

[01:30:01]

YEAH. NO I AGREE I'LL LET YOU MAKE THAT MOTION.

I'LL JUST REITERATE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A NICE IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY.

WOULD BE BETTER USE.

MAKES IT LOOK NICER, YOU KNOW FRESH.

IS IT A LITTLE BIT SO YEAH, I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH IT NOT CHANGING ANY OF SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

GOOD DEAL. IF YOU PREFER TO MAKE A MOTION, DO IT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'D LOVE TO HEAR ONE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LR 23.

QUADRUPLE OT 53.

KILLER HOLMES PARTNERS.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

SO I HAVE A MOTION BY LIBBY TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PROJECT? SOUNDS LIKE THERE ISN'T ANY.

WE'LL PUT IT TO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE LA 23 DASH QUADRUPLE, OT 58.

THIS IS TRIPP SNYDER FOR 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD.

THIS IS ACTUALLY TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ONE IS AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 78 1279.

AND THEN AFTER THE FACT, APPROVAL OF A SETBACK VARIANCE TO ADDRESS THE EXPANSION OF A NON CONFORMING DECK.

MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU.

IN JUNE, THE OWNER SUBMITTED A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING DECK IN KIND.

DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, THE CITY'S BUILDING INSPECTOR NOTED INSPECTOR NOTED DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS DECK AND THE DECK UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

WHEN THE INSPECTOR NOTED THE DISCREPANCIES, THE PROJECT WAS STOPPED AND THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE CONCERNS.

SPECIFICALLY, AT THAT TIME, THE PRIMARY ISSUE IDENTIFIED WAS THE CHANGE IN STAIR CONFIGURATION BECAUSE THE DECK IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE NEW DECK SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN EXACT REPLACEMENT.

THE OPTIONS PROVIDED WERE TO REVERT THE DECK STAIR BACK TO THE PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION, OR TO APPLY FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE.

THE INCREASE IN DECK HEIGHT AND RAILING CHANGE WERE DISCOVERED THROUGH THE VARIANCE REVIEW.

THE OWNER SUBMITTED AN APPEAL OF STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF CITY CODE SECTION 78 1279 REGARDING THE NEW DECK STAIR WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE APPEAL NARRATIVE WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS IN THE APPLICANT.

THE OWNER IS HERE THIS EVENING.

THE OWNER ASSERTS THAT THE CODE PERMITS ALL STAIRS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE SPECIFIC CODE LANGUAGE WAS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF DENIED THE STAIR CHANGE BECAUSE THE STAIR IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DECK CONNECTED TO THE HOME, AND NOT A STAIR TO ACCESS THE LAKE OR A DOCK.

IT IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THIS CODE HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED IN THIS MANNER.

PLANNING COMMISSION.

EXCUSE ME. PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE APPEAL AND MAKE A DECISION ON THE OWNER'S REQUEST.

THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS BINDING.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 78 1279.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT REGARDING THE APPEAL ARE.

STAFF WAS CORRECT IN IMPLYING THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE DECK STAIR MAY NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE APPROVAL TO REMAIN.

STAFF WAS INCORRECT IN APPLYING THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT STAIR IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT.

THE COMMISSION COULD SUGGEST THAT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS APPROPRIATE, WHICH WOULD CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE IN QUESTION IF THE INCORRECT STAFF WAS INCORRECT IN THEIR IN THEIR INTERPRETATION. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE DECK.

AS NOTED, THE OWNER FILED AN APPEAL REGARDING THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF STAIR LOCATION.

THEY DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE VARIANCES.

APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TONIGHT.

STAFF FINDS THE CURRENT ORIENTATION OF THE OWNER'S HOME IN RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORING HOMES CREATES A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SUPPORTING THE VARIANCES FOR SETBACK.

ADDITIONALLY, THE VARIANCES TO ELEVATE THE DECK TO BE THE SAME LEVEL OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOME AND ADD GUARDRAILS ARE SUPPORTED TO INCREASE THE SAFETY OF THE DECK AND FOLLOW STATE BUILDING CODE GUIDELINES.

REQUIREMENTS. THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DECK IS APPROXIMATELY ONE STEP OR EIGHT INCHES HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DECK.

THE DECK IS SET BACK 8.5FT FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE, WHERE A 12 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED.

THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE DECK IS AN EXPANSION WITHIN THE SUBSTANDARD SIDE YARD SETBACK AS WELL.

IMPROVEMENTS THAT DO NOT BLOCK LAKE VIEWS ARE CURRENTLY ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE CODE PERMITS STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS 42IN OR LESS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE OWNER'S DECK WAS NON-CONFORMING BY APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME TO THE SOUTH.

THE ENTIRE DECK AND AN APPROXIMATE 800 SQUARE FOOT SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE HOME ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER BECAME NON-CONFORMING IN 2019, WHEN THE NEW HOME WAS BUILT TO THE

[01:35:10]

COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH ARE AND WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES TO PERMIT THE MINOR EXPANSIONS OF THE DECK.

AS APPLIED TONIGHT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TWO REQUIRED ACTIONS.

FIRST, REGARDING THE APPEAL IS OPEN AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND RENDER A DECISION.

THE SECOND REGARDING VARIANCES.

OPEN AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE AFTER THE FACT SETBACK VARIANCES.

MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE VARIANCES AS APPLIED.

THIS IS SUPER CONFUSING SO WE CAN PICK IT APART IF YOU NEED TO.

AND THE HOMEOWNER IS HERE.

BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THE APPEAL FIRST AND WE CAN WORK THROUGH THAT.

AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? LET ME JUST TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU JUST GAVE US.

THERE WAS A AT SOME POINT THERE WAS AN APPLICATION FOR A DECK AND THAT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DECK.

THAT WAS CORRECT.

YES. AND DURING THAT PROCESS THERE WAS A CHANGE MADE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE DECK.

YES, IT WAS BROUGHT UP TO MEET THE GRADE AT THE DOOR.

MEET THE THRESHOLD. THRESHOLD OF THE DOOR, NOT THE GRADE, RIGHT.

THAT CHANGE THEN FORCED A STAIRWAY CONFIGURATION CHANGE OFF.

I UNDERSTAND IT, OKAY.

THERE WERE SOME PREVIOUSLY EXISTING IN GRADE STONE, OR SOME SORT OF STAIR IN THE GRADE, AND THE NEW HEIGHT AND THE CODE DIDN'T REQUIRE, DIDN'T ALLOW THE THE SAME STAIR CONFIGURATION TO MEET THAT GRADE.

SO THE STAIRS WERE MOVED.

THE APPLICANT CAN DEFINITELY DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN I CAN.

SO THERE.

BUT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

IT. SO THAT'S REQUIRING AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS FINISHED, BUT IT IS.

IT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

IT WAS BEING INSPECTED WHILE WHEN THE WHEN THE EXPANSION WAS DISCOVERED.

OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? IT DOES. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

THERE IS AN APPLICATION HERE FOR A VARIANCE THAT WE CAN.

THERE'S TWO APPLICATIONS.

ONE IS TO APPEAL THE DECISION THE ACTUAL APPLICATION ITSELF TO DO THAT, EVEN IF THE APPEAL IS UPHELD IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOR, THE ELEVATION OF THE DECK AND THE RAILING PORTION OF THE DECK STILL REQUIRE AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE.

SO MY OTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT STAFF WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION.

ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. OKAY, COOL.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. SO WE BECAUSE THERE'S TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE'RE GOING TO BREAK IT INTO TWO.

AND THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE GOING TO HOLD IS ON THE APPEAL PROCESS.

YEP. AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE AFTER THAT ONE.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

MY NAME IS TRIPP SNYDER, 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD, AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE AT THAT LOCATION.

WE'VE OWNED THE HOUSE SINCE 2007.

THE PREVIOUS DECK? WELL, FOR DOING THE APPEAL.

I DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE DECK, RIGHT? TRUE. MY APPEAL ON THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.

RELATES TO SECTION 78.

1279, PARAGRAPH SIX.

AND IN THAT PARAGRAPH, AND I'LL JUST READ THE FIRST SENTENCE, WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT ONE.

IT SAYS NO PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE.

AND THE AVERAGE DISTANCE FROM THE SHORELINE OF EXISTING PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON ADJACENT LOTS.

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO PATIOS AND OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

LESS THAN 42IN ABOVE EXISTING GRADE AND OR STAIRWAYS, LIFTS, LANDINGS, LOCKBOXES, LOCKBOXES, FLAGPOLES, AND PUMP HOUSES.

THE STAFF INTERPRETS THIS SECTION TO APPLY ONLY TO STAIRS GOING DOWN TO A DOCK, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE IN SECTION 78.

1282 NOT IN SECTION 78.

[01:40:03]

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE ON THE APPEAL? NOT ON THE APPEAL. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SORRY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION THERE.

IN YOUR APPEAL, THERE ARE SOME REFERENCES FOR SOME SUPPOSED CHANGES RELATIVE TO SAFETY THAT ARE REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO VERSUS IN CHAPTER OF THE, OF THE CODE.

CAN YOU ARTICULATE ON THAT? YES I CAN. THE THE PREVIOUS DECK IF I, IF I'M SORRY IF I MAY, LET'S KEEP THIS DISCUSSION TO THE APPEAL OF THE CODE LANGUAGE AND NOT TO THE DECK ITSELF.

OKAY. IF THAT'S OKAY.

AND WE CAN BRING THAT UP LATER.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOPE. SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU. IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NONE.

LET'S BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I THINK TRADITIONALLY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING HOW WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS SECTION OF CODE.

AND IT MAY BE THAT THE WORD STAIRWAYS, WE'RE READING THIS LITERALLY, LITERALLY TO SAY STAIRWAYS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS.

TRADITIONALLY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT STAIRWAYS ATTACHED TO DECKS HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT HERE THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO EXEMPT STAIRWAYS FROM THE O.W.L.

OR FROM THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, AND IT'S PROBABLY A CLARIFICATION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IF THAT WAS THE INTENT.

BUT RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS STAIRWAYS, WHETHER THEY'RE ATTACHED TO A HOUSE, WHETHER THEY'RE FREE FLOATING IN THE YARD.

YEAH, IT ACTUALLY EXEMPTS A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT HERE ON ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF OF THIS.

REGARDLESS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENT WAS BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF US WROTE THIS.

YEAH. I MEAN, THE DISCUSSION OF HIGH WATERMARK AND LAKE STAIRS TO ME IS THE PROVERBIAL RED FLAG BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW STRUCTURE IN THAT AREA.

SO THAT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT.

THE APPLICATION OF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DETERMINATION THAT STAFF MADE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CLEAN UP THAT LANGUAGE.

BUT I BELIEVE OUR THE SPIRIT OF OUR APPLICATION TO THIS IS CONSISTENT AND IT IS ATTACHED TO A MAIN STRUCTURE.

SO I AGREE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT STAFF'S OPINION OF THE APPLICATION OF IT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? LET'S SEE. SO FROM REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT IS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.

ONE WOULD BE THE APPEAL MOTION AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE THE ATF AFTER THE.

YEP. YEP. TWO SEPARATE PHONES.

YEP. THIS IS JUST THE APPEAL.

THIS IS JUST THE APPEAL THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW.

SO, YEAH, WE'LL BE TRYING TO SEPARATE THEM OUT.

YES. I THINK THAT AGAIN I HAVE TO LOOK AT PRECEDENT.

WE HAVE HAD MANY NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WHERE THIS HAS APPLIED, AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THE VERSE IN CHAPTER AND THE EMPIRICAL LANGUAGE, AND I'M SORRY, BUT I REALLY CANNOT EMBRACE THE APPLICANT'S INFERENCE OR HIS STATEMENT THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION THAT HE IS APPLYING IN HIS IN HIS COMPLAINT OR HIS CONTRADICTION.

I TEND TO SUPPORT OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS, WHICH ARE ALMOST UNIFORMLY ACCEPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN MATTERS LIKE THIS.

SO I TEND TO TO FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE VERSE IN CHAPTER THAT WE HAVE AS OUR GUIDELINES TO ADVISE THE ULTIMATE BODY, WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND I CAN'T EMBRACE THE CONTRADICTION THAT THE APPLICANT IS IS STATING, EVEN THOUGH HE HE DID READ THE VERSE IN CHAPTER, I DON'T EMBRACE THAT AS SOMETHING

[01:45:09]

SO WITH THAT, I DO HEAR A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THE ACTUAL APPLICATION, WHICH IS THE NEXT THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS, WHICH MIGHT ALLOW US TO LIMIT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT MAYBE THE LANGUAGE COULD BE CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT IN DEFINING IT, BUT THE APPLICATION OF IT IS STILL IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT OUR OUR CITY HAS BEEN WANTING.

AND SO I THINK THE PROPER THING TO DO WOULD BE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND HEAR THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

NEXT. AND WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T MEAN TO BE PRESUMPTIVE, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT I'D BE PREPARED TO DO.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

IS THIS REALLY CALLING? IS THE STAIRS PART OF THE DECK? IS THAT WHAT THIS REALLY IS? THE FIRST PART. THE FIRST PART IS IF I FEEL LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD PULL THAT UP SO THEY HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THEM.

IF YOU'RE ON THE AND IT'S PARAGRAPH SIX OF 78, 1279 AND IT CLEARLY EXEMPTS STAIRWAYS FROM FROM THIS AND IT DOESN'T SAY ATTACHED STAIRWAYS, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING TO THAT.

SO I THINK THE APPEAL IS VALID 100% BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLARIFIED.

AND UNTIL THE MINUTES DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT.

WELL, NO, IT CLEARLY EXEMPTS STAIRWAYS.

BUT BUT IF THE STAIRWAY IS ATTACHED TO A STRUCTURE THEN IT BECOMES PART OF STRUCTURE.

IT DOESN'T SAY ATTACHED STAIRWAYS.

IT SAYS ALL STAIRWAYS.

YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT EITHER WAY, BUT IF IT'S ATTACHED TO A STRUCTURE THAT TO ME IS PART OF STRUCTURE.

I THINK THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN APPLYING.

WHEN I LOOK AT AVERAGE SET AVERAGE SETBACK, I'M ALWAYS CONSIDERING THE STAIR PART OF THE DECK STRUCTURE.

SO TO ME IT'S I GUESS IT'S INTERPRETATION.

BUT I COULD SEE HOW ONE WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT.

BUT JUST I THINK COMMISSIONER LIBBY HAD A GOOD POINT.

WELL, WELL, PRECEDENT. WE KIND OF ALWAYS TREAT STAIRS AS PART OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO. ONE OF THE SAME.

YEAH, I THINK IT GOES BACK TO THE INTENT.

WHOEVER WROTE THIS PARAGRAPH, WHAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND IT? IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE.

IT'D BE NICE FOR THE DNR.

DRAFTED THOSE WORDS.

THE DNR DID. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEETING MINUTES ON WHAT THE ACTUAL INTENT WAS ON STAIRWAYS.

NOT NECESSARILY, BUT IT DOES MIRROR WHAT WE ALLOW.

HERE AS FAR AS WHAT THOSE WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK STAIRWAYS AND LIFTS.

THESE ARE THESE ARE FEATURES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.

THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT'S USED UP HERE.

SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS BECAUSE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK IS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BY DEFAULT.

SO IT'S CLARIFYING THAT THOSE FEATURES CAN BE WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BECAUSE THEY'RE ALLOWED IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.

SO IF THAT IF THAT WAS INDEED THE INTENT OF THAT SECTION, IT'S JUST POORLY WRITTEN.

IF WE IF WE NEED TO BECAUSE THAT EXEMPTS ALL STAIRWAYS.

COMMISSIONER LIBBY IN CONCERT WITH COMMENTS FROM.

UH. MR. RESSLER, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE CAN BE CREDENCE IN BOTH PARTS, AND I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT SAID IT IN IN HIS CONTRADICTION TO THE CLEAR WORDING.

AND MR. RESSLER ALSO STATED IT THAT PERHAPS IT COULD USE SOME IMPROVEMENT, BUT I STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT WE ARE WE HAVE CERTAIN. TENANTS THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN AT THIS POINT WITH THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE TO WORK WITH.

SO YEAH, I ALSO THINK ABOUT LIKE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF LIKE WHERE THIS COMES INTO PLAY.

BUT IF YOU THINK OF LIKE A SLOPING DOWN TO THE LAKE AND YOU'VE GOT STAIRS THAT ARE STANDALONE STAIRS.

THAT ARE GOING DOWN TO LAKESHORE.

I THINK THAT'S PERHAPS THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS.

NOT NOT STAIRS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO STRUCTURE.

AND AGAIN, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES.

GREAT. I'M REALLY GLAD THE APPLICANT POINTED IT OUT BECAUSE WE CAN CLEAN UP THAT LANGUAGE.

BUT I THINK OUR APPLICATION OF IT IS IF IT'S ATTACHED TO STRUCTURE, IT'S CONSIDERED PART OF STRUCTURE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A VARIANCE TO APPROVE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

WE HAVE GENERALLY BEEN REASONABLE WITH THOSE APPLICATIONS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO SO.

BUT WE WOULD HAVE DISCRETION ON THAT.

SO I'M CERTAINLY GOOD WITH MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF NOT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.

[01:50:06]

THIS IS JUST FOR THE APPEAL.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO. I'M GOING TO MOTION TO DENY JUST THE APPEAL PORTION OF LA 20 358.

BASED ON THE COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED, AND ENCOURAGE STAFF TO POTENTIALLY DRAFT SOME AMENDING LANGUAGE THAT HELPS CLARIFY THE. THAT PART OF OUR CODE IN THE FUTURE.

HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER TO DENY THE APPEAL.

SECOND. HAVE A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

SO CLARIFICATION.

SO THEN THE THE EFFECT OF THE MOTION TO DENY WOULD BE TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SEEING. HEARING NONE.

WE'LL PUT IT TO A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. CARRIES 5 TO 1 TO DENY THE APPEAL.

NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE.

WE'VE HEARD STAFF'S REPORT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THAT.

AND AGAIN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS THE SAME.

IT'S TRIPP SNYDER ADDRESS IS ALSO THE SAME 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD.

AS I MENTIONED, WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 2007, AND AT THE TIME WE PURCHASED IT, THE PREVIOUS DECK WAS IN PLACE WITH NO GUARDRAILS ON ANY SIDE.

IT HAD BENCH SEATING AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE DECK, AND ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE DECK.

THERE WAS A THREE TIERED STAIRWAY ON THE NORTH SIDE.

IT WAS EIGHT FEET WIDE.

ON THE EAST SIDE IT WAS FOUR FEET WIDE, AND THAT STAIRWAY, THE BOTTOM STEP OF THAT STAIRWAY, ENTERED ONTO A CONCRETE PAD THAT WAS THREE FEET WIDE, AND FROM THE PAD THERE WAS A STAIRWAY, A CONCRETE STAIRWAY DOWN TO A FIRE PIT THAT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THOSE STAIRS.

UH. OUR INITIAL PERMIT APPLICATION HAD US PUTTING THE STAIRS DOWN FROM THE DECK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DECK.

AND IT WOULD HAVE LANDED ON THE PREEXISTING CONCRETE THAT THE INSPECTOR HAD INFORMED US WAS NOT THE CORRECT SIZE FOR A LANDING.

THE LANDING NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST FOUR FEET WIDE, AND THIS CONCRETE LANDING WAS THREE FEET WIDE.

AND THE CONCRETE LANDING ALSO STARTED INTO A SERIES OF CONCRETE STEPS GOING DOWN TO THE FIRE PIT.

IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE CONCRETE LANDING, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE CONCRETE STAIRWAY.

WE ELECTED TO CHANGE THE STAIRS INSTEAD OF GOING EAST.

WE ELECTED INSTEAD OF GOING NORTH OFF THE DECK.

WE CHANGED THEM TO GO EAST OFF THE DECK.

AND AS STAFF HAS MENTIONED, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE DECK, THOSE STAIRS.

ENDED UP BEING TWO FEET CLOSER TO THE LAKESHORE THAN THE PREEXISTING WRAPAROUND STAIRS HAD BEEN FOR THE PREEXISTING DECK.

WHICH CREATED THE NEED FOR OUR VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE NEW. THE STAIRS COMING DOWN TO THE EAST, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE, ARE FOUR AND ONE HALF FEET WIDE, WITH A SAFE AND ADA COMPLIANT SAFETY RAILING ON ONE SIDE, AND THE LANDING AREA AT THE BOTTOM OF THOSE STAIRS IS APPROXIMATELY 8 OR 10FT WIDE NOW.

SO WE HAVE MITIGATED, AS YOU ASK, THE SAFETY ISSUE FROM THE PREVIOUS STAIRS AND THE CONCRETE LANDING INTO A MUCH WIDER LANDING, WHICH WE FEEL IS QUITE A BIT SAFER THAN OUR PREVIOUS.

PROPOSAL WAS.

NOW, IF I COULD ALSO ADDRESS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE SHOWN IN THESE PICTURES THAT ARE UP ON THE SCREEN NOW.

THE HOUSE TO OUR SOUTH AT 1525 BAY RIDGE ROAD, WAS CONSTRUCTED ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO AFTER TEARING

[01:55:08]

UH, WHEN THAT HOUSE WAS TORN DOWN AND REPLACED, THE HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT WAS PUSHED ABOUT 75FT FARTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE THAN THE PREVIOUS HOUSE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE IF YOU APPLY THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, HALF OF MY HOUSE IS NOW OUTSIDE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO NEIGHBORS.

SO WE'VE GOT A SITUATION HERE THAT.

FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.

WE THINK THE STAIRS GOING TO THE EAST, THE LAKESHORE SIDE ARE SAFER.

THERE ARE TWO FEET CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE PREVIOUS STAIRS WERE.

THAT'S THE ISSUE.

THANK YOU. YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND HOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A HOUSE THAT'S TRYING TO CONFORM AND DO BETTER, ACTUALLY.

PUTS A PROBLEM ONTO YOUR PROPERTY THAT WAS CONFORMING, AND IF YOU WANTED TO DO ADDITIONS, THAT ONE, IT ACTUALLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR YOU.

COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE DECK? THE REASON THAT YOU RAISED IT IS ALSO A SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE.

AGAIN, THAT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

THE PREVIOUS DECK, AS YOU EXITED THE SUN PORCH AREA DOWN TO THE DECK, THERE WAS ABOUT AN EIGHT INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE TWO.

UH, I'M 76 YEARS OLD, SOON TO BE 77.

MY WIFE IS NOT TOO FAR BEHIND ME.

WE FELT THAT IN REPLACING THE OLD DECK, IT WAS A LOT SAFER TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT SO THAT IT WAS EVEN WITH THE THRESHOLD FROM THE DOOR. SO NOW YOU WALK STRAIGHT OUT ONTO THE DECK WITHOUT HAVING ANY DECREASE IN HEIGHT.

THANK YOU. THE ONE MORE QUESTION I HAVE THEN THE NEW STAIRS.

WHAT IS THE TOP HEIGHT OF THE NEW STAIRS ON THE DECK? IS IT UNDER 42IN OR IS IT ABOVE THAT? I HAVE NOT MEASURED THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF DID OR NOT.

I BASED ON THE GRADES, I DID A REALLY QUICK MEASUREMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE SURVEY DOES TELL US WHAT THE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION IS.

IT'S 950 4.3.

THESE CONTOURS OUTSIDE KNOW THIS ONE IS NINE.

48. AND THIS.

IS A 48.

YEAH AS WELL.

SO I JUST KIND OF EXTRAPOLATED THAT HEIGHT DIFFERENCE FROM AT LEAST FROM GRADE UP TO WHERE THE DECK SURFACE WAS.

I ASSUME THE DECK SURFACE IS 954.

LOOKS LIKE THREE. SIX.

YEAH, LIKE SIX FEET.

SEVEN FEET, DEPENDING UPON WHERE THAT DROPS OFF THERE.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE A MEASUREMENT BECAUSE WE KNOW IT COULD BE THAT IT'S NOT SIX FEET.

IT COULD BE THAT THE STAIRS ARE CONFORMING ON THE 42.

BECAUSE THEY'RE LOWER THAN THE DECK.

THEY'RE ATTACHED TO THE DECK, BUT THEY'RE LOWER THAN THE DECK AND THEY'RE ATTACHED TO THE DECK.

SO IT'S ALL ONE STRUCTURE, OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? THANK YOU. THIS IS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE COME UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

MY NAME IS DON GERMANSON.

AT 1501 BAY RIDGE ROAD, I'M THE NEIGHBOR IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS.

NOT SERIOUSLY, BUT I MEAN, THIS ISN'T A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WE VIEW THIS AS A GRANDFATHER SITUATION, NOT AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ISSUE.

I KNOW THERE'S A NEW TERM FOR THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, BUT BUT ANYWAY, WHEN WE SAW THIS DECK GO UP, ALL OF A SUDDEN OUR ALARM BELLS WENT UP BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS THING WHICH IS NOW ELEVATED.

PREVIOUSLY THERE WERE THREE STEPS.

NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S EITHER 8 OR 9 BASED ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

BUT ANYWAY, UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IS IS BUILT AS IS.

AND WE DON'T VIEW THIS AT ALL.

THIS IS MUCH ELEVATED.

AND AND MAYBE THAT'S OKAY FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT COMING OUT OF THE HOUSE.

AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT IF IT IS GOING TO BE ELEVATED AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NINE STAIRS UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, THIS OUGHT TO BE THE STAIRS OUGHT TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, MEANING THE DECK MIGHT JUST BE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.

[02:00:03]

SO THAT'S THAT'S OUR VIEW OF THE DECK SITUATION IS THIS OUGHT TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.

AND THAT IS WHAT THEY INITIALLY REQUESTED FROM A BUILDING PERMIT STANDPOINT.

BUT THE VARIANCE IS NOW ADDRESSING THE EXPANSIONS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND SO OUR ENCOURAGEMENT IS TO KEEP THIS WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

AS THE CURRENT PICTURES OF THE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, BUT OF THE OF THE AERIAL SHOWS THAT ALMOST HALF OF HIS HOUSE IS NOW BEYOND AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. WELL, TO THAT DEGREE, IN OUR VIEW, IS THIS IS SORT OF A MOOT POINT.

SO THIS FALLS BACK TO THE GRANDFATHER LANGUAGE, NOT THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LANGUAGE.

SO THAT'S HOW WE WOULD VIEW IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

THESE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT AND IT'S HARD.

YOU HAVE TO ALMOST PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAP.

WHAT WOULD WE HAVE APPROVED IF THIS WOULD HAVE COME BEFORE US TO BEGIN WITH, WITH THESE MODIFICATIONS FOR THE SAFETY AND TO MAKE IT A BETTER? I MEAN, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A LOT MORE SCRUTINY ON THE FOOTPRINT WHERE THE STAIRS OFFLOAD ALL THAT INFORMATION IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD IT AHEAD OF TIME. I THINK WHAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THE ARTIFACT VARIANTS, I THINK IS REASONABLE.

I THINK THERE ARE SAFETY CONCERNS THAT PROBABLY WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION TO GIVE THE APPROVAL FOR THIS.

THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION UP HERE WOULD BE GREAT.

AS FAR AS AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE PIECE.

YOU RAISE THE QUESTION, THOUGH, THAT YOU COULD SHRINK THE SIZE OF THE DECK SOMEWHAT.

AND HAVE IT BACK ON THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT.

A AND WHILE THAT MAY CHANGE THE.

THERE IS SOMEWHAT.

IT WOULD STILL MAKE BACK THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE OTHER ARGUMENT HERE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, RIGHT? YEAH, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE CONTROL ON WHERE THOSE STAIRS OFFLOAD AND TRYING TO KEEP THEM WITH THE EXISTING STAIRS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE OR NOT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE THOUGHT.

IF IT COMES BEFORE US TO BEGIN WITH, WE CAN LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE VERSUS AFTER THE FACT.

THERE'S NO DOUBT. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY APPROVED THE SAFETY CONCERNS AND COME UP WITH SOME CONFIGURATION THAT WOULD WORK.

THAT WOULD PROBABLY.

NEED THAT VARIANCE APPROVAL.

WHAT WOULD IT BE? THIS.

THE ONE THAT WE'RE SEEING THAT'S ALREADY BUILT.

AND I GUESS WE DIDN'T.

I ASKED STAFF THE QUESTION.

I DIDN'T ASK IT OF THE APPLICANT.

IS IT COMPLETELY BUILT RIGHT NOW? IT IS NOT. IT'S NOT COMPLETELY BUILT.

THE STAIRS ARE IN WHERE WE HAD.

REDESIGN THE DECK, BUT THE DECK ITSELF IS NOT COMPLETELY BUILT YET.

OKAY, THE STAIRS ARE ATTACHED AND ARE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AND THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? I MEAN, I THINK THE EXISTENCE THE PREVIOUS DECK WAS.

NOT DONE BY CODE, I MEAN IT REALLY NEEDED A RAILING.

SO WHEN HE PUT THE RAILING IN, HE GOT OVER THE 42 INCH MAGIC THRESHOLD.

AND THEN IT'S JUST THE ISSUE WITH THE STAIRS AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL, THE FOUR FOOT MINIMUM LANDING PAD.

YEAH, HE COULD HAVE THIS.

TECHNICALLY, THE STAIRS COULD BE PROBABLY TWO FEET NARROWER, BUT.

UM, LOOKING AT IT BEFORE.

I MEAN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT ESTHETICALLY, IT LOOKS FINE.

YOU GOT RAILINGS ON EACH SIDE.

IT'S A MUCH SAFER APPROACH.

IT'S. THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LOT HERE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE TO, TO THE NORTH, I MEAN, IT'S EVEN CLOSER TO THE ROAD AND LAKE.

SO IT'S LIKE THAT'S WHY.

THAT'S WHY THESE COME TO US.

BECAUSE IT'S AVERAGE SETBACK AND THERE'S ALWAYS.

WITH THE INTENT HERE.

IS THIS BEING EGREGIOUS OR NOT? AND THAT'S AND WHEN I LOOK AT IT, I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR MUCH.

AND SO I'D BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING IT.

THAT'S MY THOUGHTS.

SO I'M CONFUSED.

THERE'S THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT THERE WASN'T A RAILING PREVIOUSLY, BUT I'M SEEING PICTURES ON.

SO THERE'S A THERE'S A BENCH.

THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A BENCH THAT THERE'S THIS IS A BENCH LIKE A, LIKE I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG DECK BECAUSE I WAS DOING THE SAME THING.

SO IT'S 40 PAGES TOTAL.

I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 24 WHICH THE NEIGHBORS COMMENTS.

[02:05:04]

SO THIS IS THE PREVIOUS DECK? YEAH. OKAY.

THAT ONE. YEP YEP YEP.

RIGHT HERE. YEP I'M LOOKING AT THE.

AND NOW THIS IS THE NEW RIGHT OKAY.

SORRY. YEAH I WAS LOOKING AT THE APPLICANT OR THE NEIGHBORS.

YEAH. YEAH. THAT WAS FLIPPED I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG DECK.

THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. THANK YOU.

SORRY. CARRY ON. I GUESS.

I GUESS NOW YOU'RE BRINGING UP.

LOOKING BACK AT THE PREVIOUS ONE.

IS THE ENTIRE.

WAS THE ENTIRE DECK BROUGHT OUT TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE OLD STAIRS.

THERE IS NO CHANGE IN HARDCOVER.

I CAN ANSWER OKAY.

THE PREVIOUS DECK, NOT COUNTING THE WRAPAROUND STAIRS, WAS 16 BY 24.

THE DECK WE PUT IN IS 16 BY 24.

NOT COUNTING THE STAIRS.

OKAY. YEAH.

IT JUST IT APPEARED TO ME IN THAT PHOTO THAT IT ACTUALLY ENCOMPASSED THE OLD STAIRWAY, BUT YOU REPLACED THE 16 BY 24 WITH A 16 BY 24.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DECKS IS THE OLD WRAPAROUND STAIRS VERSUS THE NEW STAIRS.

MAY I CLARIFY ONE THING? YOU'RE DEFINING PREVIOUS DECK WAS 16 BY 24.

AND ALSO NOT COUNTING THE STAIRS.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

YEP, YEP. GREAT.

ARE YOU PLANNING TO REMOVE THE CONCRETE STAIRS OR THE STONE STAIRS THAT ARE THAT EXTEND? NOT UNTIL THE SPRING ANYWAY.

RIGHT? BUT I MEAN, THOSE ARE NOT NEEDED ANY LONGER FROM A HARDCOVER STANDPOINT.

THEY REALLY AREN'T NEEDED, SO WE PROBABLY WILL TAKE THEM OUT.

YOU'D BE AGREEABLE TO THAT.

SURE. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT IT BACK IN TIME.

I THINK WE REASONABLY WOULD HAVE APPROVED THESE SAFETY CHANGES TO REBUILD THAT DECK.

SO IT SO IT WORKS.

I MEAN, WOULD WE HAVE LANDED RIGHT ON THIS ONE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUR JOB TO DESIGN IT.

RIGHT. BUT IF HE WOULD HAVE PROPOSED THIS I THINK WE WOULD HAVE REASONABLY I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF VIEWING THIS IS HOW WOULD WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS ORIGINALLY IF IT WAS THERE? IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE IT'S TAKING UP MORE MASSING THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RAILING, YOU KNOW, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR EGREGIOUS BY ANY MEANS.

AND THERE IS. THERE'S GREENERY AND SHADING AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO PROVIDE SOME BUFFER AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW, I THINK I'M, I THINK I'M, I THINK I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

I CAN HEAR THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS ABOUT IT.

I DO RECOGNIZE THAT.

BUT I THINK I THINK IT I THINK IT FITS CORRECTLY WITH HOW IT NEEDS, HOW IT'S INTENDING TO BE THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED.

UM, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

OTHERWISE, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE ONE UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES FOR THE NON-CONFORMITIES IN THE DECK.

SECOND. YES, THAT'S A MOTION.

SO I HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING. SEEING NONE.

LET'S VOTE ON IT.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX.

LR 20 359.

PEBBLE DESIGN, 980 TONKAWA ROAD.

THIS IS A REQUEST.

THIS REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK.

VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SIDE YARD.

MISS NYE. YES.

THANK YOU. LET ME JUST PULL UP ALL OF THE.

DOCUMENTS. ALL RIGHT.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS COMPRISED OF A SIX FOOT SCREEN WALL, WHICH HAS ELEMENTS OF AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN, INCLUDING A GRILL AND SINK.

THESE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS ELEVATE THE USE FROM JUST A FENCE OR A WALL INTO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT HAS REQUIRED SETBACKS.

THE PROPOSAL.

LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN SEE.

A LITTLE BIT. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A PATIO, WHICH INCLUDES THIS ELEMENT THAT DOES NOT MEET OUR.

[02:10:05]

I COULDN'T FIND A GOOD.

IT MIGHT BE A GOOD RENDERING TO HAVE UP.

THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDS THE LIMIT, WHICH IS THE FIRST VARIANCE.

REQUEST ANYTHING IN FRONT OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK LINE, WHICH IS THE PURPLE LINE ON YOUR SCREEN, CAN'T BE OVER 42IN IN HEIGHT.

AND THE SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE SETBACK.

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS SIX APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S THAT ORANGE ORANGE BAR HERE.

THAT'S THE STRUCTURE I'M TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK IS REQUIREMENT IS TEN FEET.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY AS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

MUCH OF THE EXISTING HOME.

MOST OF IT IS IN FRONT OF THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

THERE'S ALSO QUITE A BIT OF GRADE CHANGE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING THE IMPACTED NEIGHBOR AND THE PROPOSED AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT HAS ASSESSED THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD NOT IMPACT THEIR VIEW OF THE LAKE.

THESE HOUSES ARE ALSO SET BACK QUITE A DISTANCE FROM THE LAKE, AND STAFF TENDS TO AGREE WITH THIS ANALYSIS.

AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK GOES.

THERE'S DENSE VEGETATION, THERE'S A GRADE CHANGE.

THERE WOULDN'T REALLY BE ANY IMPACT IN THE VISIBILITY OR IN THE VIEW OF THE LAKE.

HOWEVER, STAFF WHERE STAFF IS CONCERNED IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

I'LL PULL UP. WHAT THE.

I'M SORRY IF YOU CAN'T HEAR ME.

I SHOULD HAVE PULLED THAT CLOSER.

UM. THIS IS WHAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE.

IT'S THE SIX FOOT WALL, AS WELL AS THESE ELEMENTS OF AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT ELEVATES IT TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

STAFF DOESN'T FIND THAT THERE'S ANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN HAVING THIS CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN OUR REQUIREMENT OF TEN FEET.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET.

THERE'S AMPLE SPACE HERE TO MOVE IT.

IN STAFF'S OPINION, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT THERE'S A SIMILAR STRUCTURE IN A SIMILAR LOCATION.

NOW, THERE IS ABOUT A THREE FOOT WALL WITH A GRILL THAT'S IN A SIMILAR LOCATION HERE.

AND SO THAT THEY THE REASON WHY THEY ARE PROPOSING THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AS IS IN THAT LOCATION, IS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KIND OF CAPTURE THAT.

HOWEVER, STAFF FINDS THAT THE SIX FOOT WALL IN THE LARGER LENGTH IS AN EXPANSION OF WHAT WHAT'S THERE TODAY.

AND IT'S ALSO IN A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

ULTIMATELY, STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.

STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVES NOT LIMITED TO POSSIBLY MOVING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE INTO TEN FEET.

SO THAT'S TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN ELEMENTS OF THE SCREEN WALL.

THE SCREEN WALL COULD BE TREATED THEN LIKE A FENCE AND COULD BE IN THAT SAME LOCATION.

THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN ELEMENTS COULD MAYBE BE PUT SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THOSE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF OPTIONS THAT STAFF GAVE THE APPLICANT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL FOR THE SIX FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AND FOR THE TWO REQUESTED VARIANCES, WHICH ARE AVERAGE SETBACK FOR THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT AS WELL AS THE.

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK OF SIX FEET.

THERE WERE SOME NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS SUBMITTED, BUT AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AS APPLIED.

THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PRESENT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

JONATHAN POLASEK, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT.

FOR THE APPLICANT, I WAS ACTUALLY UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE HAD REMOVED THE KITCHEN AND PROVIDED DRAWINGS FOR IT TO NOT BE PART OF IT, PER YOUR RECOMMENDATION, SO I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE.

THAT'S NEWS TO ME.

THAT'S GREAT. I KNOW THAT THERE'S TWO SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATIONS.

THERE WAS ONE FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THERE'S THIS ONE.

SO I WASN'T REALLY SO APPARENTLY I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT OR MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN I KNOW I HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN TALKING TO YOU MUCH.

I'VE BEEN. JENNIFER.

YEAH. SO I WAS ACTUALLY UNDER THE, UNDER THE IMPRESSION, BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION, THAT WILLING TO REMOVE THE KITCHENS IN ORDER TO KIND OF LIKE GET THE WALL TO GO THROUGH JUST I THINK THE.

[02:15:01]

I THINK THE LOWEST FLOOR LEVEL IS AT LEAST 15FT HIGHER THAN THIS ACTUAL PATIO AREA, AND THEN IT'S SEVERAL STORIES HIGHER THAN THAT, WHICH YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT.

WELL, I GUESS, YEAH, THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE IT OFF.

AND SO FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK STANDPOINT, IT SEEMED THE SPIRIT OF THAT WAS BEING HELD WITH THE WALL.

AND WE JUST INCLUDED THE KITCHEN ELEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS THERE AND IT WOULD BE HIDDEN.

WE ALSO TALKED TO THE NEIGHBOR.

THEY HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT, SO WE INCLUDED IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

BY ALL MEANS, I'M SURE THE CLIENT WOULD LOVE IT TO BE CONSIDERED, BUT ALSO WOULD PREFER THE SCREEN KIND OF.

I THINK THE OTHER KIND OF COMPONENT TO THE CONSIDERATION FROM A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT WAY, WOULD BE JUST PRIVACY TO THE FACT THAT THE NEW HOME IS PERCHED SORT OF ABOVE THE PROPERTY, TO THE EFFECT OF REALLY LOOKING DOWN ON IT.

I REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT EACH OTHER.

AND SO IT'S THE EFFECT OF THAT, THAT SORT OF SIX FOOT HEIGHT BEING CONSIDERED A FENCE OF A SCREENING NATURE.

AND SHORTER IN LENGTH.

SO IF WE WANT TO CLARIFY, STAFF IS AGAIN SUPPORTIVE OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE SIX FOOT SCREEN WALL.

AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HAVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MISCOMMUNICATION, BUT IT IT DEPENDS HOW THE APPLICANT WANTS TO PROCEED.

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS WHETHER YOU WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN, WOULD WOULD THE WALL WITHOUT THE KITCHEN NEED A VARIANCE? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE. YES. BECAUSE IT'S OVER 42 AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S SIX FEET.

AND THE ALS BUT NOT THE SIDE YARD.

RIGHT. THERE ISN'T A IS THERE A SETBACK FOR A FENCE.

IS THERE A HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON A FENCE? YES, 42IN IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS STILL LIMITED TO 42IN WHEN YOU'RE IN THE AVERAGE.

SO THERE'S STILL A FENCE.

SO THEIR REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE REQUIRES A VARIANCE.

ADDING THE KITCHEN ELEMENTS TURN IT INTO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO REMOVE THAT, OR IF THE COMMISSION'S WILLING TO GIVE DIRECTION TO REMOVE THAT.

ANY FUTURE OUTDOOR KITCHEN EXPANSIONS WOULD NEED TO MEET THE TEN FOOT SETBACK AND WOULD NEED TO MEET THE 42 INCH HEIGHT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SINCE IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON IT, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JOANNE ARNOLD.

I MET 1000 TONKAWA RIGHT NEXT TO THEM.

ON THE SOUTH SIDE. I'M THE HOUSE THAT'S KIND OF SITS ABOVE THEM.

UM, WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO.

WHETHER WHATEVER'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.

OR A SIX FOOT WALL OVER A 42 INCH TALL WALL.

UM. AND THE REST OF THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY WITH ME.

AGREE WITH THAT. UM.

I DON'T. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS THAT WE'D BE NOTIFIED IF THERE'S CHANGES TO THE PLAN IN THE FUTURE? YES. SO ANYTHING THAT GETS APPROVED TONIGHT, EVEN IF IT'S A CONDITION ANY BUILDING PERMIT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT WOULD HAVE TO MATCH THE SUBMITTED PLANS, SUBJECT TO WHATEVER CONDITIONS WE HAVE.

ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THAT? THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK, LIKE IF THEY WANTED TO PUT AN EIGHT FOOT WALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REQUEST THAT.

IT'S ALMOST ADVANTAGEOUS FOR US IF IT'S SIX FEET TALL, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR PRIVACY FOR BOTH OF US.

YOU. THAT WAS IT. THANK YOU.

IF ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK, I DON'T SEE ANYONE.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

WELL, THIS THIS IS NICE.

WE HAVE NEIGHBOR SUPPORT FOR A VARIANCE IN A SIX FOOT FENCE IN THAT SPACE.

WE HAVE THE APPLICANT THAT IS REMOVING THE ELEMENT, THE KITCHEN ELEMENT FROM IT.

BUT IN FRONT OF US WE HAVE WE HAVE TO PUT A VOTE ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, NOT WHAT HAS CHANGED.

SO OR CAN WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.

OKAY, PERFECT.

WELL, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE SIX FOOT FENCE.

I THINK IT. IS THAT A FENCE? IT'S A WALL. IT'S A FENCE.

THAT'S ONE OF MY COMMENTS.

YEAH. AS SOON AS THE WALL IT WOULD TRIGGER A STRUCTURE.

BUT IT'S A IT'S A FENCE SO IT CAN BE CLOSE TO THE SIDE YARD WHICH IS FINE.

AND WE'RE FINE WITH IT IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IMPEDE ANYONE'S VIEW.

THAT'S MY OPINION ON JUST THE FENCE IF YOU'RE REMOVING THE ELEMENT OF THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN.

[02:20:06]

THEN IT WOULD WELL I BELIEVE A FENCE IS ZERO.

CORRECT. YEAH.

FENCE CAN GO UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

BUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

IF WE REMOVE THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN ELEMENTS, WHICH THE APPLICANT STATED THEY'RE WILLING TO DO.

SO WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT IT JUST BEING THE FENCE OR WALL AND THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSED DISTANCE OF THE SETBACK IS RIGHT NOW? IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET.

SIX FEET. SIX FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

HOW LONG IS THAT EXISTING GRILL RIGHT NOW OR THAT I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE.

MAYBE THE APPLICANT JUST I NEVER WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM SOMEBODY.

RIGHT. SO THEY'RE ALMOST LIKE THEY HAVE SOMETHING THERE.

AND SO IT DOES PROVIDE SOME.

IT'S NOT IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION.

OH, IT'S NOT IN THE SAME PLAN, BUT IT IS.

IT'S SIMILAR OKAY, OKAY.

I THINK IT'S RIGHT HERE IN THE PURPLE.

SO THE DRAWING YOU HAVE JUST FOR US WITH THE CHANGE, IT'S STILL THAT ORANGE PINK LINE.

IT'S GOING TO BE THAT LONG.

IT'S JUST INSTEAD OF A KITCHEN IT'S JUST GOING TO BE THAT WALL.

SIX FEET HIGH. SURE.

GREAT STUFF RIGHT THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND.

LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. YES.

YOU SEE THAT THE GRADE COMES DOWN ABOUT MID WAY UP ON THAT WALL OKAY.

SO THAT I MEAN WHILE THE WALL IS HYPOTHETICALLY GOING TO BE SIX FEET TALL.

ONE OF THE ONE SIDE OF THE WALL IS ONLY GOING TO BE FOR THREE.

I THINK THAT'S. UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT IN THAT SAME IT'S SIMILAR, BUT IT'S NOT IN THAT SAME LOCATION AS THE EXISTING WALL.

RIGHT. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE MENTIONING IS THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME GRADE CHANGE ALONG THIS LONG WALL WHERE IT MIGHT NOT BE SIX FEET ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND I THINK REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S SIX FEET ACROSS THE BOARD OR IF IT'S SIX FEET GOING DOWN TO THREE.

STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF OF IT BEING IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

I THINK THE HANG UP THAT STAFF HAD AS A DENIAL FOR THE APPLICATION AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPLIED IS THAT OUTDOOR KITCHEN ELEMENT WHICH MADE IT THE STRUCTURE? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GRADE COMPENSATES FOR THE HEIGHT AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE SIDE SETBACK FROM SIX FEET OR FROM TEN FEET DOWN TO SIX? OR IS THAT A CONVENIENCE SITUATION? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULDN'T NEED THAT SET BECAUSE IT'S A FENCE.

IT DOES NOT NEED A SETBACK.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATING THAT VARIANCE.

THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

RIGHT. IF IF THEY REMOVE THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT'S SETBACK VARIANCE.

THE SIX FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE THAT'S ELIMINATED IF THEY REMOVE THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN.

SO THE SECOND VARIANCE THAT STAFF WASN'T SUPPORTIVE OF IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE IF THEY MODIFY THE PLANS.

OKAY, WHICH THEY SAID THEY WOULD.

OKAY, GO AHEAD SIR.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN STATED THAT THE.

APPLICANT OR THE DESIGN WOULD BE WILLING TO FOREGO THE KITCHEN.

BUT IS THERE ANOTHER REMEDY, PERHAPS, WHERE THE SETBACK COULD BE MADE? WOULD THERE BE PROVISIONAL SPACE ALLOWED? IF YOU GO TO THE TEN FOOT TO STILL INCORPORATE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE KITCHEN, BECAUSE THEN ESSENTIALLY A DENIAL WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MODIFY THEIR PLAN.

I'M NOT TRYING TO REDESIGN HERE, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT A MIDDLE GROUND THAT COULD BE MET.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN THE WALL CONSTRUCTION AND THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE TO, TO, TO PUT IN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, KITCHEN OR NOT.

BUT IF THERE IS AND YOU COULD MOVE THE WALL FURTHER, YOU KNOW, IT'LL STILL PROVIDE THE PRIVACY.

BUT WOULD THERE BE ENOUGH SPACE TO PUT THE ACCESSORY KITCHEN BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE WALL IF WE'RE MEETING THE TEN FOOT SETBACK? UM, I GUESS MY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT IN THE CONSIDERATION, THE DESIGN IS VERY MUCH IN KIND WITH THE EXISTING SPACE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK SITS, THERE'S TO KEEP SOMETHING KIND OF IN THAT AREA YOU'D BE SO CLOSE UP TO.

YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THE WAY I WAS LOOKING FOR.

SO IT DIDN'T MAKE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

NEVER MIND. TO PUSH IT OUT DOES A LOT OF BAD THINGS OKAY.

[02:25:07]

AND MY FIRST THOUGHT, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO REDESIGN IT, IS VOTE ON THE FENCE IN THE KITCHEN WITH COMMENTS AND PROBABLY MOVE TO DENY IT, BUT VOTE WITH COMMENTS SAYING WHEN WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

THERE WOULD BE THAT FINAL DESIGN CHANGE AND SHOWING THAT WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE FENCE OR THE WALL, THE WALL FENCE, RATHER THAN TRY TO REDESIGN IT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO VARIANCES IN FRONT OF US.

AND NOW, UNLESS STAFF CAN GUIDE US IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

I FEEL LIKE IF YOU WANT TO NOTE, EXCUSE ME THAT WITH YOUR DISCUSSION AND THE APPLICANT'S OPEN APPLICANTS OPEN AVAILABILITY TO REMOVE THE KITCHEN, YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE WALL OR FENCE IN THE AVERAGE LECTURE SETBACK AND THEN AS WELL AS DENY AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE SO YOU CAN SPLIT IF YOU.

THAT'S YOUR FAVOR.

THE POINT WHY WE DON'T WANT TO REDESIGN IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LEAD TO CONFUSION.

BUT WITH THAT CLARITY, WE COULD MOVE FORWARD IN.

THE APPLICANT COULD STILL THEN PROVIDE AMENDED PLANS TO THE COUNCIL WITH A CLEAR APPROVAL FROM YOU.

IS WHAT I'M HEARING THAT MAKES SENSE? OKAY, ON THAT NOTE, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION OR ANOTHER MOTION, IT'S I'D ENTERTAIN ANY MOTION AT THIS POINT.

WELL, IF I COULD, WHAT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE WAS.

YOU KNOW, YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT BOTH WAYS.

YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU NEED A TALLER HEIGHT, WALL, FENCE, WHATEVER, BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF GRADING BETWEEN ONE PROPERTY TO THE OTHER. BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT PROPERTY YOU'RE STANDING ON, YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE OPPOSITE WAY TO.

SO THAT'S ONE THING. IT'S AN OBSERVATION FOR ME.

I LOOK AT KIND OF WHAT I BELIEVE WE'RE DEPICTING.

THE CODE TO CALL FOR IS FOUR FEET.

SO I THINK SIX FOOT WALL IS PRETTY, PRETTY SIZABLE.

I THINK A FOUR FOOT WALL IS A LITTLE MORE REALISTIC, AND I THINK A SIX FOOT FENCE IS PROPER IF YOU'RE NOT PUTTING A KITCHEN THERE.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO PUT A WALL THERE IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A KITCHEN AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SO MAYBE IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO, TO.

WELL, AGAIN, I GUESS I'M NOT GOING TO ASK TO DENY IT, BUT I WOULD.

I WOULD NOT SUPPORT A SIX FOOT WALL ON THE BASIS OF, AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT BOTH WAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE LOWER PROPERTY, THAT WALL LOOKS EVEN BIGGER BECAUSE IT'S HIGHER UP ON ELEVATION.

AND I THINK A FENCE TAKES UP LESS SPACE.

IT'S LESS STRUCTURE.

IT'S. MORE MANAGEABLE, AND THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY MORE PRUDENT IN THIS SITUATION FOR A HEIGHT OF SIX FEET THAN A WALL.

MY OPINION. STAFF.

COULD YOU PUT UP THE AERIAL PHOTO? THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

MR. RESSLER, YOUR POINTS ARE NOTED.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T GO IT WENT AROUND THE WHOLE LINE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'D BE ONE THING. IT SINCE IT'S JUST I THINK IT'S KIND OF ARCHITECTURALLY SCREENING, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING MADE OUT OF WOOD OR STONE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE THAT BIG A DIFFERENCE TO ME.

I MEAN, I LOOK AT IT AND I GO, I GOT A WOOD PILE BETWEEN ME AND MY NEIGHBOR'S LAWN.

IT DOES THE SAME THING, WHICH IS, IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW.

SO. UM, I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S. I'M IN FAVOR OF WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF REMOVING THE KITCHEN.

ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE. HOW DID IT DO IT? SHE'S SO GOOD. LET'S SEE.

SO IT WAS APPROVED WITH THE AMENDMENT OF REMOVING THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN.

FOR THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE.

AND. WHAT'S THE SECOND PART? LET'S SEE. THAT ALL WE NEED TO SAY.

THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. THE SECOND PART WAS REMOVED, RIGHT?

[02:30:01]

THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S A FENCE AND IT COMPLIES WITH THE SIDE YARD.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SO WE DO HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING. SEEING NONE.

WE'LL PUT IT TO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. OKAY.

EVERYONE APPROVED EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

JUST FOR THE RECORD.

MOTION CARRIES. AND THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN.

LA 23 DASH 54.

THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR CHAPTER 78.

THIS IS FOR ALLOWANCE OR IT CONTEMPLATES THE ALLOWANCE OF RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE SHORE.

SHORE SETBACK ZONES.

MS.. OAKDEN. YES.

MELANIE OR NATALIE IN THE PRESENTATION FOLDER.

I HAVE A POWERPOINT.

I JUST BROUGHT FORWARD THE POWERPOINT THAT I SHARED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AT A WORK SESSION TO BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED WITH WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

SO EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING FORWARD DISCUSSION ITEMS AND TEXT AMENDMENTS, POTENTIAL TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS RETAINING WALLS IN THE SHORE SETBACK.

AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS A COMMON VARIANCE REGARDING SWAPPING OF MATERIAL, WHETHER IT'S TIE BACKS OR LIKE RAILROAD TIES TO BOULDER WALLS OR CONSTRUCTION TO ADDRESS EROSION CONTROL PROBLEMS. IT'S A VERY COMMON VARIANCE WE SEE.

AND SO COUNCIL HAD DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING BACK SOME RESEARCH AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EASE THAT PROCESS FOR RESIDENTS, WHETHER IT BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR SOME CLARIFYING CONDITIONS FOR AN EASIER PROCESS FOR PEOPLE SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO REQUIRE IT, SO THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS EVERY TIME THEY TOUCHED A RETAINING WALL IN THAT SHORE SETBACK.

SO WE CAN JUST WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION HERE.

SO IN FRONT OF YOU I HAVE THE DEFINITION OF RETAINING WALL IN OUR CITY CODE.

CURRENTLY RETAINING WALLS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE SHORE SETBACK.

THAT'S SPECIFICALLY THE 75FT ON LAKE MINNETONKA IS WHERE WE MOST OFTEN SEE THAT CURRENTLY WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO IN-KIND REPLACEMENTS AS A STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.

ANY NEW WALLS, CHANGES TO WALLS, EXPANSIONS OF WALLS IS NOT PERMITTED.

CURRENTLY, NEW WALLS REQUIRE VARIANCES OR EXPANSIONS OF WALLS REQUIRE VARIANCES.

THIS PROVIDES A HANDFUL OF CHALLENGES FOR APPLICANTS SO AND FOR STAFF, LET ALONE THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVING THESE.

THERE'S NO CLEAR GUIDANCE IN THE CODE FOR CONSTRUCTION METHODS.

MATERIALS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

A CHANGE IN MATERIAL WILL OFTEN RESULT IN NEW EXPANSIONS, LIKE I SAID, WITH RAILROAD TIES OR CONCRETE BLOCK OVER TO BOULDER.

THAT'S KIND OF CHANGES WITH AS WE GET MORE KNOWLEDGE OF BEST PRACTICE IN THE INDUSTRY.

CURRENTLY, THE CODE OFFERS NO ABILITY TO PERMIT SOME SUPPORTING BOULDERS FOR A LAKE ACCESS STAIR, WHICH IS ALSO A COMMON VARIANCE WE SEE WHEN THOSE STAIR IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRE SMALL RETAINAGE JUST TO INSTALL THOSE STAIRS.

THAT REQUIRES VARIANCES THAT HAVE TO COME FORWARD FOR YOU.

CURRENT CODE DOES NOT PERMIT A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO ANY CATASTROPHIC FAILURES, WHICH THEN RESULT IN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES AND JUST THE GENERAL CHALLENGING PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS TO DO MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS IN SOMEONE'S YARD.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT SYSTEM, WHICH IS A PROHIBITION AND VARIANCE PROCESS.

WE WANT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE TWO OPTIONS FOR PERMITTING RETAINING WALLS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ZONING PERMIT, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY STAFF, AND THEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD STILL REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND A PROCESS THROUGH COUNCIL, BUT WOULD OUTLINE SOME MUCH CLEARER CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET FOR THOSE WALLS AND THEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER A BUILDING PERMIT AS WELL.

SO WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR REPLACEMENT WALLS.

IF THEY ARE UNDER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, THERE IS A DOCUMENTED FAILURE OF THE EXISTING WALL, AND THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT IS IN THE SAME GENERAL LOCATION AND HEIGHT. SO NO REAL INTENDED EXPANSION.

BUT IF IT'S A FOUR FOOT OR A FOUR FOOT TALL WALL BY SIX FOOT LONG, YOU GENERALLY HAVE THAT SAME FOOTPRINT TO WORK WITH.

[02:35:01]

ALSO, WE'RE SUGGESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR NEW WALLS ONLY IF THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART TO AN APPROVED LAKE ACCESS STAIR, WHICH IS PERMITTED BY CODE. WE ARE THEN ALSO OUTLINING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY WALLS NOT THAT DON'T MEET THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS, BUT ADDITIONALLY, ANYTHING OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT WOULD INSTANTLY REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

ANY WALLS WITHIN THE DEFINED BLUFF OR BLUFF AREA WOULD REQUIRE A.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF THEY WANT JUST A BRAND NEW WALL THAT'S NOT PART OF A LAKE STARE OR THE APPROVED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT'S PERMITTED, AND THEY MUST HAVE SOME SORT OF DEMONSTRABLE FAILURE OR EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM THAT THIS WALL IS ADDRESSING OR SOLVING IS A BIG CONDITION THERE.

OBVIOUSLY, FOR ANY PERMIT THAT COMES THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, WE REQUIRE SITE PLAN AND WOULD REQUIRE ELEVATION VIEWS.

PLANS INCLUDE MUST INCLUDE FOR THEIR MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT EROSION CONTROL.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT COUNCIL REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR VEGETATION.

RIGHT NOW THAT'S A GUIDANCE BY STAFF AND OFTEN A CONDITION.

COUNCIL DID DISCUSS THAT, BUT WE'RE HAVING CHALLENGES REGARDING THAT REQUIREMENT AND THE LONG TERM REQUIREMENT OF HAVING THAT VEGETATION PLANTS DIE OFF AND THINGS. SO COUNCIL MOVED AWAY FROM THAT STRICT REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE.

THAT IS A CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO REVIEW THOUGH EVERY TIME A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMES FORWARD, AS THAT IS AN APPROVAL THAT GOES THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AND A COUNCIL PROCESS, AND THEN ALSO ANY PLANS OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, ANY RETAINING WALL WOULD REQUIRE A LICENSED ENGINEER PER STATE BUILDING CODE, SO LICENSE AND PLANS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR SUBMITTAL.

SO YOU CAN CLOSE THIS ONE DOWN.

IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE STAFF LANGUAGE, PLEASE.

THIS WAS GUIDANCE FOR THE I HAVE APPROVED OR I HAVE PROVIDED THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WHERE WE'RE CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF RETAINING WALL. WE ARE ALSO ADDING THESE CONDITIONS FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.

IF YOU WANT TO SCROLL DOWN FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN THE CODE.

AND THEN AT THE VERY BOTTOM, THERE ARE FOUR CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET FOR THE ALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING.

THIS ARE DIRECT CONDITIONS.

THIS IS LANGUAGE PROVIDED FROM THE DNR FOR RETAINING WALLS IN THE SHORE.

SETBACK. BY ADDING THIS LANGUAGE INTO OUR CODE, THE DNR HAS GIVEN US CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

IF BY ADOPTING THESE CONDITIONS, THIS WAS THEIR IMPORTANCE REGULATIONS FOR THEM AND FOR US, IT FOLLOWS OUR GUIDELINES AS WELL.

IT'S DESIGNED TO CORRECT AND ESTABLISH EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM SUITABLE GIVEN A DEMONSTRATABLE NEED.

IT'S DESIGNED BY SOME LICENSED ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

AND THEN IT IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM, WHICH IS OUR INTENT AS WELL AS WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW EXCESSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, BUT WE DO WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE OR CLEANER PATH AND CLEARER CONDITIONS FOR REPLACING AND ADDRESSING ANY EROSION CONTROL PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE. SO THIS IS WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE COMMENTS.

I'D BE HAPPY TO GIVE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH THAT WE DID TO KIND OF COME UP WITH THIS.

WE REACHED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES.

WE'VE REACHED OUT TO DNR AS WELL, AND AS I NOTED, WE HAVE ACHIEVED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM THE DNR WITH A FORMAL LETTER.

FINAL APPROVAL FROM THEM COMES AFTER COUNCIL ADOPTION, SO THEY NEVER GIVE FINAL APPROVAL UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR LISTEN FOR A RECOMMENDATION.

YEAH, GREAT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THE CITY FOR COUNCIL OKAY.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NONE.

CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

UM, MY, I THINK IT'S VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND I THINK THAT A CHANGE IS DEFINITELY NEEDED AS WE SEE THESE WALLS THAT WERE BUILT IN THE 70S OR EARLIER STARTING TO FAIL.

AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY NEW, NEW MATERIALS NOW THAT PEOPLE CAN USE.

AND IT'D BE NICE IF THEY CAN DO THAT ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO.

BACK UP HERE.

[02:40:01]

WHEN ARE THEY OUTCROPPINGS? WHEN DO THEY COUNT AS RETAINING WALLS? WHEN ARE THEY LANDSCAPE EDGING? ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION IN THE DEFINITION TO ADDRESS AND STREAMLINE SOME OF THAT.

SO SIMPLIFYING THE DEFINITION TO SAY THAT THE A RETAINING WALL IS A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO HOLD BACK AND PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH AS A CLEANER DEFINITION THAN WHAT WE HAD, AND THEN CLARIFYING THAT WE DETERMINE A RETAINING WALL REGARDING BOULDERS AS TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS, SO OUT LANDSCAPE OUTCROPPINGS WILL NOT COUNT AS RETAINING WALLS.

WHILE THAT IS A METHOD TO ADDRESS EROSION CONTROL AT TIME, THAT'S NOT DOING THE THE INTENSIVE IMPROVEMENT AS RETAINING WALLS DO.

THAT IS MORE A LANDSCAPING EFFECT THAN A RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT.

SO TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS IS THE START OF A RETAINING WALL THAT'S 24IN IN DIAMETER OR GREATER.

OFTENTIMES PEOPLE USE SMALL ROCKS FOR LANDSCAPE EDGING AND BORDERING, WHICH AREN'T INTENDED TO BE REGULATED BY THE CITY CODE.

WE DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING LANDSCAPING NECESSARILY, SO TRYING TO MAKE IT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH WHERE IT'S CLEARLY TO 24 INCH BOULDERS IS A FOUR FOOT WIDE WALL THAT'S INTENDED TO START ACTING AS RETAINING WALL OR STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN ALSO JUST CLARIFYING THAT ANY LANDSCAPE EDGING LESS THAN SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT IS NOT A RETAINING WALL, AND IS INTENDED TO BE LANDSCAPING EDGING.

THAT'S OFTENTIMES WHAT PEOPLE WILL USE FOR AROUND A TREE BORDER AND PLANTINGS AND GARDENING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF AGAIN.

LOST MY WORDS, BUT MANAGING PEOPLE'S LANDSCAPING AND WANT TO START GETTING TO MORE STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS.

I THINK IF IT WASN'T GREAT, IF IT WASN'T IN FRONT OF THE LAKE, ANYTHING LIKE SOMEONE'S COMMON YARD, ANYTHING UNDER FOUR FEET, YOU DON'T NEED TO GET ENGINEERED. BUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RETAINING WALL APPROVED BY AN ENGINEER IF YOU REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT A BRAND NEW WALL IN, IF YOUR WALL IS OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, IF YOUR WALL IS A SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AND THAT THE CONDITION, THOSE ARE LISTED CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

TO PUT MYSELF IN THE YEAH IN JUST IN THE 75 IS EXCLUSIVELY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND THOSE COPS WOULD COME BEFORE US.

YEP. THEY REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING STILL.

SO THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD CHANGE IN THE LAKE YARD WOULD BE THE STUFF UNDER FOUR FEET, ESSENTIALLY.

OR STUFF THAT IS UNDER FOUR IS A 42IN.

SO FOUR FEET UNDER FOUR FEET, THAT'S AN THAT WE CONSIDER A REPLACEMENT WALL WILL ADMINISTRATIVELY DO.

OR WALLS THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF AN ACCESSORY STAIR.

IF IT'S A BRAND NEW WALL WHERE NO WALL THERE EXISTED TODAY, NO MATTER THE HEIGHT, IT'S STILL TRIGGERS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

YEAH. MY CONCERN IS IT'S A STEEP GRADE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AROUND GETTING AN ENGINEER APPROVAL.

THEY PUT TWO BIG BOULDERS UP TO HOLD BACK THE EARTH, AND THEY ROLL DOWN THE HILL.

TWO YEARS LATER, TWO BIG BOULDERS WOULD REQUIRE WOULD BE A BRAND NEW WALL.

IF THERE IF THERE'S LIKE A CONCRETE IF THERE'S A WALL THERE UNDER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO SWAP OUT MATERIAL, THEY ANY WALL STILL REQUIRES A PERMIT PERIOD FROM STAFF, A ZONING PERMIT, ONCE IT HITS THE FOUR FOOT LEVEL, IT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE IN PLACE TODAY AS WE'RE ACTING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT IF THERE WAS A SIX FOOT BOULDER FENCE? WERE YOU DRAWN TO RETAINING IT IN THE 75? IS IT RETAINING ANY LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE EARTH? I, I LIKE ALL THE CHANGES.

I THINK THE DEFINITION, FOR SOME REASON, I FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS SOME WORK BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE WAY THAT IS WRITTEN AND I GET WHEN WE WRITE THESE AND THERE'S THE INTENT BEHIND IT. BUT JUST LIKE WE SAW IN THAT PREVIOUS APPLICATION WHERE SOMEONE WROTE THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT, BUT THAT INTENT DIDN'T GET TRANSLATED TO THE ACTUAL CODE, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS GOING TO THIS IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE THIS APPLIES TO ALL THE RETAINING WALLS, NOT JUST THE LAKESHORE, THE DEFINITION.

AND SO THAT'S GOING TO THE 24 INCH DIAMETER.

AND THESE BOULDER THINGS THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY CREATE RETAINING WALLS WHERE THERE ARE NONE.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I CAN DRIVE BY A LOT OF HOUSES THAT HAVE THESE BOULDER OUTCROPPINGS THAT HAVE 2 TO 3.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY RETAINING ANYTHING.

THEY'RE BIG BOULDERS.

THEY'RE NOT RETAINING ANYTHING THAN THEY'RE NOT.

[02:45:02]

RIGHT. BUT THAT'S BUT SOME OF THESE ARE KIND OF HEELED IN WITH LIKE THIS ESTHETIC LANDSCAPING PIECE.

AND THEY ACTUALLY. PUT DIRT BEHIND HIM.

IT'S NOT RETAINING A HILL OR ANYTHING.

ARE THEY A BUDDING OR ARE THEY? I MEAN, THERE'S SOME ARE BUDDING, SOME ARE.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST A LANDSCAPING FEATURE THAT DECORATIVE, IT'S DECORATIVE.

BUT IF WE COULD IF THE INTENT IS NOT TO INCLUDE THOSE, I MEAN, YOU COULD NEED A LITTLE MORE WORK ON THAT DEFINITION IN MY OPINION.

BUT THAT'S SUGGESTIONS ARE WELCOME.

THERE'S BEEN SUGGESTIONS AT STAFF LEVEL.

IS 24IN TOO SMALL? SHOULD IT BE LARGER TO REALLY CAPTURE RETAINING WALLS? IS IT SHOULD BE TWO SHOULD BE THREE ABUTTING ROCKS TO MAKE IT MORE OF A CHAIN.

I MEAN, IT'S IT'S KIND OF A MOVING TARGET.

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOUGH, PLACEMENT OF THOSE WALLS DECORATIVELY, EVEN IF THERE'S DIRT BEHIND THEM, THEY'RE NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD BACK AND PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH.

RIGHT. SO THEN WE'RE OUT.

THEY'RE JUST ROCKS SITTING THERE IN THE DIRT BOULDERS.

I MEAN, THIS IS A.

IF THIS ISN'T TO HOLD BACK AND PREVENT THE LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH, BUT THAT DOESN'T THAT THAT FIRST PART OF THE DEFINITION, I DON'T THINK INCLUDES THE BOULDERS, BECAUSE IT'S JUST SAYING THAT THE BOULDERS TWO OR MORE.

BUT IT'S IT'S TWO SENTENCES.

CORRECT. YEAH. SO RETAINING WALLS MEANS A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO HOLD BACK AND PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH.

THEN IT FURTHER DEFINES IT AS TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS 24IN IN DIAMETER OR GREATER, PLACED TO HOLD BACK EARTH ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A RETAINING WALL, SO MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE PLACED TO HOLD BACK.

MAYBE IT SHOULD GRAB FROM THE FIRST SENTENCE.

BECAUSE LATERAL MOVEMENT, LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH VERSUS EARTH, DOES THAT MAKES SENSE? QUESTION, IF I MAY.

WHEN I THINK ABOUT RETAINING WALLS, TO ME THERE ARE NO TWO THAT ARE GOING TO BE ALIKE.

THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE CUSTOM MADE.

AND SO WHAT? THE BEST WE COULD GET OUT OF THIS DOCUMENT WOULD BE A GUIDELINE FOR WHOEVER'S GOING TO ISSUE THE PERMIT TO USE THEIR COMMON SENSE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT THE CORRECT WAY OR NOT.

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A GARAGE HERE, WHICH CAN BE MY FEET.

I MEAN, EVERY ONE OF THESE WALLS IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.

SO ANYTIME SOMEONE WANTS TO COME IN WITH A RETAINING WALL, NOT IN THE LAKE YARD, JUST ANYTIME THEY REQUIRE A ZONING PERMIT, AND THEY HAVE TO REQUIRE SUBMITTED PLANS TO US AS STAFF.

AND WE REVIEW THEM BOTH FOR GRADING PURPOSES.

AND THE MINUTE THEY ARE OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, THEY REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT WITH ENGINEERED PLANS FOR OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ALSO REVIEW.

SO THAT'S THE SCOPE OF ALL RETAINING WALLS ACROSS THE CITY.

THIS CODE IS SPECIFIC.

RETAINING WALLS ARE PROHIBITED CURRENTLY IN THE 75 FOOT LAKE YARD.

SO THIS CODE IS AMENDING A PATH TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO GET TO US WITHOUT GOING TO COUNCIL FOR SMALL REPLACEMENT WALLS OR WALLS TO SUPPORT STAIRS AS TO COME STRAIGHT TO US FOR THEIR SPECIFIC PERMITTING NEEDS AND NOT GO THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS, AND THEN OUTLINES CLEAR CONDITIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEN THEY ARE BRAND NEW WALLS OR LARGER WALLS, OR IN A SLOPE OR SENSITIVE AREA.

AND THEN WE CAN WE OUTLINE THOSE CONDITIONS THAT THEY MUST MEET, PER THE DNR'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE MINIMUM NECESSARY AND THINGS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED BEFORE.

ONCE THEY GO THROUGH THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, THEN THEY WILL ADDITIONALLY GO THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS AS STAFF AS WELL, JUST LIKE ANY PROJECT REALLY DOES THAT COMES IN FRONT OF YOU.

SINCE THE APPLICATION PROCESS HAS BEEN PRETTY PRETTY MUCH ENTIRELY ONLINE AND VERY EFFECTIVE.

I'VE USED IT MYSELF.

SOME OF THE REAL HELPFUL GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR INFORMATION HERE.

WILL THOSE BE AVAILABLE THEN WHEN THERE'S AN ADOPTION ON THIS? WILL THOSE BE AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR CONSUMERS MAKING APPLICATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS.

SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A HANDOUT RIGHT NOW ABOUT RETAINING WALLS.

AND WHEN THEY ARE APPLIED AND WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED, WE WOULD BE UPDATING THAT HANDOUT TO REFLECT ANY AMENDED CODE.

AND WE INCLUDE SOME IMAGES AND WE CAN INCLUDE ADDITIONAL.

THE STUFF THAT'S IN HERE IS NOT ONLY VERY ILLUSTRATIVE, BUT IT SHOWS THE MOST COMMON EXAMPLE IN THE IN THE LAKE YARD.

YEAH. ALL THOSE EXAMPLES FROM THE PAST POWERPOINTS.

YEAH. SO I HAVE A SUGGESTION ON THE BOLDER PIECE.

IF THE INTENT IS TO NOT DEFINE LANDSCAPE OUTCROPPINGS AS BOULDER WALLS.

CAN'T WE JUST REMOVE THAT FROM THE DEFINITION?

[02:50:07]

LANDSCAPE EDGING LESS THAN SIX INCHES TALL IS NOT CONSIDERABLE.

THEN IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE GRAY AREA OF SOMEONE HAVING THREE BOULDERS AS AN OUTCROPPING BE CONSIDERED.

OR IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE PUTTING TWO BOULDERS TRYING TO MAKE A RETAINING WALL? YEAH. PEOPLE OFTEN TRY AND GET AROUND OUR RETAINING OUR PROHIBITION OF RETAINING WALL BY ACTIVELY USING VERY INTENSIVE LANDSCAPING TO TRY AND THEN GET THE INTERPRETATION.

SO IT IS NOT A RETAINING WALL, BUT SO THAT'S WHERE STAFF IS LEANING TOWARDS PROVIDING A SENTENCE IN THERE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BOULDERS.

BUT IF YOU THINK THAT OPENS A GRAY AREA, THAT'S DEFINITELY A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT COULD BE CLARIFIED.

WELL, A FEW MINUTES AGO YOU TOLD ME THE INTENT WAS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPE OUTCROPPINGS, BUT NOW THE INTENT IS SO THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY. KEEP PEOPLE FROM PUTTING CREATING BOLD ARE STILL ALLOWED TO PUT MAKING THEM.

YEAH. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE SUPER CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT INTENT IS FOR THE DEFINITION, BECAUSE THAT DEFINES RETAINING WALLS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, NOT JUST THE LAKE PROPERTIES. SO CHECK YOUR MAILBOX, COME IN YOUR DRIVEWAY.

YOU HAVE BOULDERS HOLDING BACK A MULCH BED.

THAT'S A RETAINING WALL BECAUSE IT'S HIGHER THAN.

SIX INCHES. YEAH. IT'S LIKE IN A TWO FOOT BOULDER ISN'T VERY BIG.

NO, NO. I'M THINKING RIGHT NOW MY DRIVEWAY.

DRIVEWAY THAT I HAVE SO 18IN OR SOMETHING, THEY'RE JUST HOLDING BACK MULCH, WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE 36IN.

THERE'S EXAMPLES OF MULTIPLE BOULDERS AND IT HAS TO BE THREE OR MORE OR A HIGHER THRESHOLD TO CREATE.

THIS WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A HIGHER STANDARD THAT THE DNR SUGGESTED AS WELL.

THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE COPY WERE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE DNR NEEDED TO HAVE INCLUDED THIS DEFINITION.

WE PULLED FROM DNR, PROVIDED A BEST PRACTICES OF COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND THIS DEFINITION MIMICS THOSE BEST PRACTICES.

SO THIS WASN'T SPECIFIC A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, BUT WE PULLED IT FROM THEIR BEST PRACTICES.

YEAH. UM, BUT DNR WOULDN'T NEED APPROVAL FOR THE CODE CHANGE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY JUST FOR THE LAKE.

TRUE. THAT'S WHY I SAID THEIR CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE IS SOMETHING THEY NEED TO HAVE IN THERE.

BUT THIS DEFINITION WE JUST PULLED FROM THEIR BEST PRACTICES.

UM, WOULD WE WANT TO MAYBE INCLUDE SOMETHING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY IN THE SHORE SETBACK DEFINING THOSE BOULDERS? BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM FOR A LANDSCAPER, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WHAT IS A RETAINING WALL OR WHAT IS HARD COVER AND WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING IT AND.

WE KEEP HEARING BOULDERS ARE NATURAL.

THEY EXIST HERE.

SO? SO MAYBE A POTENTIAL.

REVISION TO THAT DEFINITION.

I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT.

MELANIE WOULD BE THE FIRST SENTENCE IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS.

AND THEN TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY OVERLAY.

YEAH. THAT ARE SUCH AND SUCH DIAMETER.

YEP. OR WITHIN THE 70.

WITHIN THE SHORE SETBACK.

SHORE SETBACK. YEAH, EXACTLY.

JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP ANY ANY MORE THINGS.

DEFINE A BUDDING BOULDERS.

IF THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING, ARE THEY A BUDDING? I MEAN, I'M BEING DEAD SERIOUS BECAUSE WE JUST.

YEAH, WE JUST DELIBERATED WHETHER STAIRS ARE ATTACHED TO STRUCTURE CONSIDERED STRUCTURE OR NOT.

YEAH, WE TOOK THAT AS IF THEY'RE TOUCHING.

THEY'RE ABUTTING.

SO IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE ONE INCH APART, THREE INCHES APART THEN YEAH, I MEAN WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE THREADING THAT NEEDLE.

RIGHT. DO WE DO WE DEFINE THAT.

NOW WE DO NOT.

RIGHT NOW WE LEAD THAT TO INTERPRETATION.

WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT IN THERE.

NO, I KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING WE ARE REWRITING THIS.

DO WE WANT TO DEFINE WHAT'S ABUTTING OR NOT.

THAT'S I MEAN, AGAIN, I COULD SEE A LEGAL POSITION THAT SAYS THESE ARE NOT ABUTTING, THESE ARE SPACED.

SO THEREFORE I HAVE NOT VIOLATED MY.

AND THEN WE'LL GET AN APPEAL.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT PROCESS AGAIN.

ALWAYS ALWAYS.

SO I THINK YEAH I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LEAN ON JUST THE KIND OF DICTIONARY OF A BUDDING OF A BUDDING.

AND IT SAYS TOUCH OR LEAN ON.

PEOPLE WANT TO PLACE THEM THREE INCHES APART.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY, RIGHT? IS WE DON'T ALLOW RETAINING WALLS.

AND THEN PEOPLE PUT BOULDERS ALL OVER FOR OUTCROPPINGS AS LANDSCAPING.

AND THAT'S FINE.

WE DON'T DEFINE THAT AS PART OF THE RETAINING WALL, BUT WE WERE TRYING TO CLOSE THAT LOOP BY SAYING TWO OR MORE ABUTTING OF A SUBSTANTIAL SIZE

[02:55:01]

AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT SMALLER ROCKS, THEN YOU CAN GET AROUND IT.

AND IF YOU WANT TO MAKE BOULDER OUTCROPPINGS, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO REGULATE LANDSCAPING, BUT WE DO WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR, CONCISE PART OF OUR DEFINITION THAT WE SAY, THIS IS THIS IS THE LINE WHERE WE CREATE WHERE WE THINK THIS IS RETAINING WALLS ARE I MEAN, THE WHOLE PROPERTY, THE WHOLE LAKEFRONT IS BOULDERS ALWAYS. SO HEAR ME OUT.

SOMEBODY PUTS ON THESE TWO 24 INCH DIAMETER BOULDERS AND THEY SPACE THEM APART THREE INCHES, SPEND A FORTUNE DOING IT, APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO REPAIR THEIR SHORELINE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IT WAS NOT STRUCTURED AS A PROPERLY RETAINING WALL.

AND NOW WE'VE GOT TO HEAR THEM TO REPAIR THE SHORELINE.

THAT WASN'T DONE PROPERLY AT THAT POINT.

THEN THEY'RE NOT REPLACING AN EXISTING WALL RIGHT THERE, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING A PROJECT OF A FAILURE OF AN EROSION CONTROL FAILURE OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, AND THAT'S I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION.

I'M JUST SAYING, WOULD THAT REQUIRE A PERMIT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PUT TWO BOULDERS? ON THEIR LAKE YARD.

AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING, IF THEY'RE RETAINING LATERAL EARTH AND THEY'RE LESS THAN 24IN, THAT'S IT'S IT'S ALMOST.

YEAH. IT'S WEIRD, ISN'T IT? IT'S HARD WHENEVER YOU START TO DEFINE SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN, YOU'RE DEFINING WHAT CAN HAPPEN.

IT'S BEST TO TRY AND WRITE CODE WITH THE INTENT AND THE GOAL OF WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO WRITE CODE TO ADDRESS LOOPHOLES AND FAILURES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU GET EXTREMELY COMPLICATED CODE, EVENTUALLY IT'S GOING TO FAIL.

THAT'S WHERE THE WATER IS GOING TO GO.

YEAH, EXACTLY.

THERE'S AN INFERENCE OR A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION THREE IN RED.

THAT WOULD BE KIND OF MAYBE HELPFUL TO BORROW TO MORE, MORE DEFINE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BECAUSE THE AND THE RETAINING WALL IS DESIGNED TO BE THE MINIMUM SIZE NECESSARY.

SO IF YOU CAN INCORPORATE THAT WITH SOME SORT OF A GUIDANCE ABOUT BOULDER WALLS, I MEAN, WE COULD GO ON ABOUT BOULDERS FOR.

EVER. I MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING WHERE IT GIVES YOU AUTHORITY THROUGH THE REWRITING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE THAT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE THREE BOULDERS JUST DOESN'T MAKE IT. WE ALL KNOW THAT.

I THINK IT'S THE WALL IS DESIGNED TO BE THE MINIMUM SIZE, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

YEAH. AND YOU KNOW, THIS ONE UNFORTUNATELY HAS TO DO WITH THE STAIR ACCESS.

BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, WHEN THESE RETAINING WALLS ARE INSTALLED, IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE THERE'S AN ELEVATION OF SOIL OR SOMETHING ABOVE IT THAT THEN IS HAS THAT LATERAL MOVEMENT TO COME DOWN TOWARDS THE SHORELINE, WHICH YOU'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

SO IT'S KIND OF A GIVEN THAT LOTS OF TIMES THERE'S GOING TO BE STAIRS TO GET TO THE LAKESHORE, NOBODY'S GOING TO BE JUMPING OVER THEIR FOUR FOOT WALL.

SO ACTUALLY THIS WHOLE LITTLE A OF THIS COULD BE APPLICABLE IN TRYING TO GET SOME GUIDANCE ON BOULDERS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO FINALIZE OR HOW'S THIS ANOTHER THING, THE DNR HIGHER STANDARD ALTERNATIVES, INDIVIDUAL BOULDERS GREATER THAN 30IN DIAMETER ARE CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL.

RIGHT. WHAT IF WE DEFINE THAT IN LAKE LAKE YARD AS THE SAME THING? IF IT'S 24IN IN DIAMETER OR GREATER, IT'S CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL, INDIVIDUAL WALL, INDIVIDUAL BOULDERS.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED.

THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED. AND THEN PEOPLE PUT IN LARGE BOULDER OUTCROPPINGS AND THAT'S LANDSCAPING.

SO THEN CAME IN THE TWO ABUTTING THAT'S A WALL.

BUT IN THE LAKE IS A SINGLE ROCK, A WALL LAKE YARD IN A LAKE YARD IN A LAKE YARD IS A SINGLE ROCK, A WALL.

BUT DON'T WE WANT TO HAVE SOME HAVE SOME SAY IN WHAT THEY COULD BE CARED.

YES. AND THE QUESTION IS, IS A SINGLE ROCK A WALL? BECAUSE INTERNALLY I HAVE YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS.

AND I THINK YOU COULD POUR A CEMENT WALL THAT'S 36IN AND IT WOULD BE A WALL TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

THAT WOULD DO THE SAME FUNCTION AS A 36 INCH ROCK.

BUT IN THIS COMMUNITY, WE SEE PEOPLE INSTALL 48 INCH BOULDERS AS OUTCROPPINGS.

SO WE SEE THAT HERE.

HOWEVER, BEST PRACTICE IS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM TALKING TO THE CITY ENGINEER, BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PEOPLE IN THE FIELD, THAT A SINGLE ROCK IS AN OUTCROPPING AND DOESN'T CONSTITUTE A WALL.

IT'S NOT UNTIL YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER DOES IT, DOES IT START TO CREATE THAT STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS.

I JUST. WE'RE GOING TO AIR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO AIR ON THE SIDE OF REQUIRING PERMIT.

SO WHAT? ENGINEER LIKE.

OKAY, THIS IS YOU WANT TO HOLD.

YOU WANT TO HOLD BACK THIS MUCH EARTH THAT'S ADEQUATE.

[03:00:03]

THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD AIR.

SO JUST LIKE, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOU JUST HAVE A BOULDER HERE AND THERE DOESN'T NEED APPROVAL.

YEAH. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY WANT PEOPLE TRYING TO AVOID THE APPROVAL PROCESS, RIGHT.

AND PUTTING THESE TWO STONE WALLS IN THE LAKE YARD OR THREE INCH SPACE WALLS.

COMMISSIONER LIBBY, YOU BROUGHT SOMETHING UP THAT MY MIND WAS GOING TO AND I WASN'T NECESSARILY COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH THE LANGUAGE SAYING THAT THE WALL NEEDS TO BE DESIGNED TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.

I GET THE INTENT THAT YOU DON'T WANT THESE OVERDESIGNED GIANT WALLS, BUT YOU ALSO DON'T WANT THE MINIMUM.

YOU KIND OF WANT SOMETHING IN BETWEEN.

NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM.

SO IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THE MINIMUM.

RIGHT. BUT YOU ALSO WANT TO IN MY MIND, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, YOU WANT TO OVERDESIGN FOR THAT PROBLEM.

WELL SIGNED BY A LICENSE OR EXCEEDS.

RIGHT. THAT'S IT'S NOT SAYING WELL NO, YOU CAN'T EXCEED THE STANDARDS.

IT'S JUST SAYING YOU CAN'T.

AND THAT'S A STANDARDS.

NO, THIS IS THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS GUIDED BY THE DNR.

AND SO WITH A WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND SO ANY TIME SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A NEW WALL IN TO CORRECT EROSION CONTROL, THE DNR AND AND STAFF AND COUNCIL WITH THE WORK SESSIONS NOTED THAT WE WANT A PROFESSIONAL TO ANALYZE THIS WALL, WHICH IS THE REGISTERED ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND THEN NOT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S EXCESSIVE FOR LANDSCAPING OR FOR TO CREATE NEW SWITCHBACKS OR WHATEVER PEOPLE WANT TO INSTALL, BUT TO ONLY DESIGN WHAT'S NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM ON THE SITE, IF IT'S EROSION CONTROL, IF IT'S A FAILING SLOPE, IF IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE WANT A PROFESSIONAL TO TELL US THIS IS WHAT'S NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS.

AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE CONDITION THE DNR PUT FORTH AND THAT STAFF AND AGREED WITH.

OKAY. SO WE COULD CAN WE SEPARATE LANDSCAPING FROM RETAINING IF WE PUT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ANY BOULDER OVER X SIZE IN THE LAKE YARD BEING USED FOR HOLDING BACK DIRT OR WHATEVER YOUR LANGUAGE IS IN, THERE WOULD BE CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL.

SO WE ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING SINGLE BOULDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ONLY IF IT'S WITHHOLDING DIRT, RIGHT? IF IT'S IF IT'S MORE DECORATIVE THAN IT WOULDN'T BE IS WHAT IS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT.

IT'S LANDSCAPING INSTEAD OF RETAINING.

IF WHAT IF IT WAS MORE BROAD AND SAID BOLDER.

OUTCROPPINGS AND OR TWO OR MORE BOULDERS ABUTTING EACH OTHER IN THE LAKE.

YARD IS CONSIDERED A.

SO THE COUNCIL HAD DIRECTED THIS TO EASE THE PROCESS FOR PEOPLE.

ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT TO SEE BOULDER OUTCROPPINGS AND MAKE RIGHT NOW PEOPLE IF THEY'RE DUE BOULDER OUTCROPPINGS DON'T NEED TO COME FORWARD WITH A PROCESS THAT'S LANDSCAPING.

YEAH, YEAH.

DO YOU WANT TO START REQUIRING THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE TO START COMING THROUGH A PROCESS? MY WHOLE MY WHOLE THE ONLY THING I'M TRYING TO THE ONLY THING I'M CALLING, I WAS TRYING TO AVOID THE WRONG THING GOING IN, IN PARTICULAR IN THE LAKE OR THE STEEP OLD RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE THAT HAVE FAILED BECAUSE THEY WERE INSTALLED IN THE 70S INCORRECTLY AND FAILED.

YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO AVOID SOMEBODY TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GET A PICKUP TRUCK CONTRACTOR TO DO IT THE WRONG WAY.

AND NOW IT'S EVERYBODY'S PROBLEM BECAUSE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIX IT.

AND THIS MISMATCH OF BOULDERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO SEE IT THAT WAY AS WE DON'T WANT TO GO AND DO IT AFTER THE FACT, YOU KNOW, CAN WE JUST DEFINE FIND A WAY TO DEFINE AND SEPARATE THAT FROM LANDSCAPING? BOULDER IS WHAT I'M AFTER.

WELL, I'VE HEARD A FEW ITERATIONS OF AMENDMENTS TO THIS DEFINITION.

DO YOU WANT TO SCROLL UP TO THE DEFINITION JUST FOR A SECOND? SO FOR THE RETAINING WALLS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CITY, I HAVE WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED, WHICH IS KIND OF A BASELINE I HAVE CLARIFYING THAT TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS 24IN DIAMETER OR GREATER, PLACED TO HOLD BACK LATERAL MOVEMENT AND ADDING THAT CLARIFICATION.

SO IT REALLY IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS RETAINAGE.

I HAVE CLARIFYING THAT THE THIS TWO OR MORE BOULDERS 24 DIAMETER IS ONLY A DEFINED WALL IN THE SHORT SETBACK. AND THEN I ALSO HAVE A DISCUSSION POINT ABOUT JUST REMOVING THE TWO OR MORE BOULDER SENTENCE ALTOGETHER AND JUST SAYING RETAINING WALLS OR HOLDING BACK LATERAL WORTH.

AND THAT LANDSCAPE EDGING IS CONSIDERED ANYTHING UNDER SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT.

SO I HAVE FOUR OPTIONS THAT I SEE AS AMENDMENTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S 1 OR 2 WHERE YOU GUYS FAVOR OR DISFAVOR OR WANT TO PUT ANOTHER ONE ON THE TABLE.

I THINK I, AFTER HEARING YOU GO THROUGH THEM, I THINK I FAVOR THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND THE LESS THAN SIX INCH TALL IS NOT CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL.

REMOVING THE TWO OR MORE BOULDER AND SKIP THE OTHER PIECE, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET ARE 23 INCH BOULDER WALLS IN THE LAKE YARD, SEPARATED BY ONE INCH RIGHT.

[03:05:08]

AND YOU CAN SAY, LOOK, YEAH, I SEE YOU PUT 22 INCH BOULDERS IN THERE SEPARATED BY ONE INCH, BUT THAT'S A RETAINING WALL.

BUT IF YOU DON'T DO THAT THEN IT GIVES SOMEONE PERMISSION TO DO THAT.

YEAH I AGREE, EXCUSE ME, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL OUT OF BOULDERS.

AND IN MY PARKING LOT WE HAD A.

IT WERE SIX BY SIXES THAT WERE OKAY.

AND SO I THINK THAT IF YOU STAY AWAY FROM REFERENCING A PARTICULAR MATERIAL, IT IS A COMMON ISSUE THAT WE HAVE THAT WE NEED TO GET SOME CLARITY FOR GUIDING APPLICANTS REGARDING.

WHAT THEY DO IN THE LAKE YARD.

AND THE INDIVIDUAL BOULDER PLACEMENT IS.

IS OVERUSED.

IN A LOT OF INSTANCES TO GET AROUND.

WALLS. AND SO BECAUSE WE DON'T DEFINE IT AS SUCH.

BUT THIS, THIS, THIS WORDING, THIS PROPOSED WORDING DOESN'T CHANGE THE INDIVIDUAL USE.

RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT IT DOES WHEN, WHEN THEY IF THEY'RE TOUCHING ANYTHING THAT GUIDES US REGARDING BOULDERS.

IF IT'S NOT A RETAINING WALL, THAT'S THE CYCLE WE GET INTO WITH AN APPLICANT.

DEFINING IT. I THINK WE HAVE AT LEAST I THINK I'VE TAKEN SOME CLEAR DIRECTION WITH WHAT STAFF HAD PUT OUT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT BOULDER WALLS VERSUS LANDSCAPING. AND THEN I'M HEARING SOME DISCUSSION ON ON REMOVING THAT SENTENCE ALTOGETHER.

I'D LIKE CLARIFICATION WITH A MOTION WHEN YOU WHEN YOU'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ACTION ON THAT.

BUT THESE WILL ALL BE ITEMS I CAN HIGHLIGHT FOR THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS.

SURE. EIGHTH ON BOULDER FENCE.

NO. NOT AT THIS TIME UNLESS YOUR RECOMMENDATION INCLUDES IT.

EVERYBODY EXCEPT RESSLER.

WAS DOING IT FOR THE MINUTE.

MY WIFE SAYS IN THIS SITUATION, UNTIL I'VE GOT A WONDERFUL SENSE OF HUMOR.

AND SHE SAYS, ON A GOOD DAY, IT'S WORTH ABOUT TWO.

ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT? LAURA MADE A MOTION.

MOTION TO WHAT? SO I THINK WE'RE.

FROM WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, MOST EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH THE INTENT OF THIS.

TO FURTHER DEFINE THE RETAINING WALLS, TO FURTHER ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE REPLACEMENT IN THE SHORE YARD OR, SORRY, SHORE SETBACK.

SO I THINK WE'RE ALL PRETTY GOOD WITH THOSE SECTIONS.

AND OF COURSE, THE PART THAT THE DNR WROTE SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE.

IT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP IS ON THE DEFINITION AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE INCLUDING THESE, THE BOULDER LANGUAGE OR BROADENING THE BOULDER LANGUAGE.

SO I THINK I DON'T KNOW IF CAN YOU CAN YOU I LIKE THIS IDEA.

CAN YOU HAVE THE SAME SENTENCE? RETAINING WALL MEANS STRUCTURE DESIGN TO HOLD BACK, PREVENT LATERAL.

THE EARTH, RIGHT? THEN SAY, AND THEN JUST CALL IT OUT SINCE IT'S A PROBLEM.

A BOULDER IS CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL.

IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL.

COULD YOU KEEP IT LIKE THAT, OR IS IT.

A BOULDER COULD BE A SINGLE BOULDER.

COULD REGULATE SINGLE BOULDER.

IS MY QUESTION.

WELL, IT DOES CALL IT OUT.

THE LANGUAGE CALLS OUT 30IN OR MORE IS CONSIDERED A SINGLE BOULDER.

30IN OR MORE IS CONSIDERED A RETAINING.

A SINGLE BOULDER IN THE LAKE YARD COULD BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE BOULDER IN A LAKE.

I WAS SAYING WE COULD DO THAT WITH 24IN BY ITSELF IF WE WANTED TO.

I DON'T KNOW ANOTHER WAY AROUND IT, TO BE HONEST, AND IT IS A PROBLEM.

EVERY LANDSCAPER COMES IN TO AVOID THOSE BOULDER.

DO YOU WANT TO REGULATE BOULDER OUTCROPPINGS? RIGHT NOW WE DON'T.

WELL, NO, I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THAT.

BECAUSE IF YOU ADOPT THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN, YOU'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED THAT SOMEONE WHO IS REMEDIATING EITHER A DETERIORATING WALL OR THEY'RE MAKING AN APPLICATION AS A, AS A CUP TO, TO BUILD A NEW WALL, THEY HAVE TO ENGAGE A PROFESSIONAL, CREDENTIALED DESIGN INDIVIDUAL.

SO LET THEM DETERMINE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPLICANT.

IN ALL THESE EXAMPLES THAT YOU BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED, I MEAN, I LOVE THOSE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE WALL.

WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS HERE ABOUT SEVERAL RETAINING WALLS, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THESE VARIOUS DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND STRUCTURE TO LOOK AT AS EXAMPLES.

WE HAD WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD AND THEY DIDN'T BUILD RIGHT.

[03:10:01]

IF THE ENGINEER DOESN'T DETERMINE THAT THE BOULDER IS GOING TO BE THE BEST WAY TO TO TO REMEDIATE THE PROBLEM, THEY'LL PUT SOMETHING ELSE IN.

THERE'S GOOD POINTS THAT THERE'S THAT SCRUTINY, BUT THAT'S ONLY IF IT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A RETAINING WALL.

AND THE WAY THEY HAVE THAT WRITTEN.

THEY CAN BUILD A RETAINING WALL OUT OF 23 INCH BOULDERS AND GET AROUND THE SCRUTINY AND NO PERMITTING NEEDED.

SO THAT'S KIND OF FROM DNR THAT YOU'VE INCORPORATED, NOT.

NO, BECAUSE THE IT WOULDN'T TRIGGER A RETAINING WALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL, BECAUSE IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THE RETAINING WALL IS.

YEAH. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO SAY I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE DEFINING.

WE EITHER HAVE TO DEFINE, WE EITHER HAVE TO TAKE THE BOULDER LANGUAGE OUT AND SAY, A RETAINING WALL IS A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO HOLD BACK THIS EARTH AND PREVENT THIS LATERAL MOVEMENT AND LEAVE THE BOULDERS OUT OF THERE.

THOSE ARE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HERE ARE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ENGINEERS.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION.

SO THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DEFINING IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S LESS THAN THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL IF IT SAID DESIGNED OR USED TO.

HOLD BACK BECAUSE YOU DON'T DESIGN A BOULDER.

BUT YOU CAN USE IT TO PULL BACK A SINGLE.

YEAH. UM, SO I THINK WHAT STEPH WAS SAYING EARLIER, MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, COMMISSIONER.

MR. CHAIR, IS THE.

BY TAKING THE LANGUAGE OUT.

IT DEFEATS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS ALLOW VOTERS TO SHOW UP.

RIGHT. WELL, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, BECAUSE UNDER THAT FIRST SENTENCE, YOU COULD CONSIDER A SINGLE BOULDER DESIGNED OR USED TO HOLD BACK AND PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT EXACTLY AS WE SAID.

SO IF YOU CHANGE THE FIRST SENTENCE, SAY RETAINING WALL MEANS A STRUCTURE DESIGNED OR USED TO HOLD BACK TO PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT OF THE EARTH, THEN A SINGLE BOULDER COULD BE CONSIDERED IF IT'S IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE.

AND THEN REMOVAL OF THE SECOND SENTENCE.

AND THEN. BECAUSE WE ARE NOW MAKING THAT JUDGMENT CALL AGAIN OF THIS IS HOLDING BACK LATERAL EARTH, LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH.

THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS PLACEMENT OF THIS STRUCTURE.

IT IS NOW A RETAINING WALL.

SO I MEAN, THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS IS TRYING TO CLARIFY WHEN IT'S LANDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING OUTCROPPING AND WHEN IT'S A WALL. BUT IF YOU WANT TO IF WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT RETAINING WALL IS A STRUCTURED DESIGN OR USE TO HOLD BACK, PREVENT AND PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH, AND REMOVE THAT SECOND SENTENCE, THAT KIND OF ELIMINATES THOSE LOOPHOLES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.

BUT IT FALLS BACK ON STAFF MAKING THAT INTERPRETATION AGAIN, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.

OKAY. TO ME THAT SEEMS FINE.

BUT WOULD YOU GET A LOT OF CALLS LIKE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? IS IT ROCK? OKAY. I MEAN, WE PUT LANDSCAPING EDGING LESS THAN SIX INCHES TALL AND INDIVIDUAL BOULDERS LESS THAN.

INSIDE DIAMETER ARE NOT CONSIDERED RETAINING WALLS.

IT KEEP THE MATERIALS OUT OF THE QUESTION.

I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WALL HERE THAT WANTS TO STOP LATERAL MOVEMENT, PERIOD.

YEAH. I MEAN, YOU'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE STAFF FROM HAVING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE THERE.

NO, WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO CLARIFY BECAUSE PEOPLE USE LANDSCAPING, PEOPLE USE BOULDERS BOTH FOR LANDSCAPING AND FOR WALLS.

SO WHEN IS IT A WALL AND WHEN IS IT LANDSCAPING.

AND I THINK THE DEFINITION CAPTURES WHEN IT'S A WALL.

WE WERE TRYING TO TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER AND CLARIFY WHEN BOULDERS ARE.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT'S OPENING IT UP FOR MORE DISCREPANCY.

FOR LOOPHOLES, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, NO, THAT'S A WALL.

YEAH, THOSE ROCKS ARE WALLS.

AND SO IF THIS IS OPENING IT UP TOO MUCH BY PROVIDING WHAT WE WHAT WE INTENDED FOR CLARIFICATION.

BUT REALLY, IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO ALLOW FOR MORE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH A BUNCH OF 20 INCH BOULDERS IN LINE, THEN IT'S NOT REALLY ACHIEVING THE INTENDED PURPOSE, RIGHT? SO MAYBE THE REMOVAL OF THAT SENTENCE IS THE DIRECTION IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

BUT MAYBE COUNCIL HAS BETTER SUGGESTIONS.

[03:15:03]

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING EVERYBODY SAYING.

YEP. AND WE CAN BOTH PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION, THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOUR ENDING DEFINITION.

AND THEN I CAN PROVIDE MORE IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, SOME DNR BEST PRACTICE KIND OF THING TOO.

AND THEY CAN THEY CAN TAKE UP THIS DISCUSSION OF WHAT THEY WANT A DEFINED RETAINING WALL TO BE IF THEY WANT TO OUTCROPPINGS OR A CERTAIN SIZE BOULDER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WOULD IT BE PRUDENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK? I'M GETTING THE FEEDBACK AS APPROVE AS DRAFTED WITH THE DELETION OF THE TWO OR MORE BOLDER SENTENCE.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? YEP. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT AMENDED LANGUAGE.

REMOVING THE SECOND PAGE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION ONE.

FROM CHAPTER 78.

YEAH, I GOT IT. COOL.

THAT'S MY MOTION I WOULD SECOND.

OH, HE WENT FIRST. HE GOT FIRST.

WOO! I CAN GET BLAMED FOR IT.

SO I HAVE I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT AS DRAFTED WITH THE CHANGE TO REMOVE IN THE DEFINITION TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS. LANGUAGE.

AND I HAVE A SECOND BY.

WE DECIDED IT WAS MCCUTCHEON.

OKAY. IT WAS THE FIRST ONE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, GUYS? I DON'T SEE OR HEAR ANY.

SO LET'S VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0.

THAT BRINGS US TO OTHER ITEMS. UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT PREPARE A REPORT TONIGHT AS I'VE BEEN BUSY WITH THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

I DON'T RECALL, JUST LET ME THINK BACK FOR ONE SECOND HERE.

THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED YOUR APPLICATIONS.

THEY MOVED THE 2605 NORTH SHORE TO CONSENT.

THEY APPROVED THAT RECOMMENDATION.

THEY APPROVED THAT PROJECT.

THAT WAS THE POOL PATIO RETAINING WALL.

THAT WAS WITH THE BIG INLET.

WETLAND INLET.

YOU GUYS HAD DIRECTED TO MOVE THE THE POOL BACK BEHIND THE 75 OF LAKE LAKE MINNETONKA PROPER, BUT STILL BY THE INLET OF LAKE MINNETONKA.

THEY FOLLOWED THAT RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVED IT.

HUH? YEP.

AND THEY MADE IT PERVIOUS PAVEMENT AROUND THE POOL AS WELL.

SO THEY FOLLOWED YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

THEY ALSO APPROVED EAST LAKE, THE DECK.

RIGHT. THEY APPROVE THAT.

THEY DID WITH MODIFICATION TO MAKE IT SMALLER, COVER THE FOUR FEET PER HER SUGGESTION, TO MAKE IT FOUR FEET SMALLER.

THEY TOOK HER UP ON THAT AND THE REMOVAL OF.

SHE HAD A WALKWAY ALONG THE SIDE OF HER HOUSE.

THAT WAS A STONE STEP WALKWAY WITH THE REMOVAL OF THAT TO TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE HARDCOVER BALANCE BECAUSE OF ALL THE EXCESS HARDCOVER.

OH THANK YOU.

THEY ALSO APPROVED THE 3001 CASCO POINT, WHICH WAS THE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE FOR THE LAKESIDE DECK BECAUSE THERE WAS A ROOF OVER IT.

THAT WAS THAT TIMING ISSUE OF SUBMITTAL WITH THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE DECK CALCULATION.

SO THEY APPROVED THAT ONE AS WELL, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

EVERYTHING ON CONSENT ALSO WAS APPROVED CONSISTENT WITH BOTH STAFF AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

SO RIGHT ON PAR THERE I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER UPDATES.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THAT OLD AGENDA.

YOU'RE MAKING ME WORK AT THE END OF THE NIGHT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY RESSLER TO ADJOURN.

A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

I THINK YOU WERE FIRST. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MEETING'S ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.