>> YEAH, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T LIKE.
[00:00:03]
>> WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE JANUARY 16TH,
[1. Call to Order]
2024 MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> THEN IT STOPPED IT, SO I DON'T KNOW.
[3.1.November 20, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes]
>> FIRST ITEM WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A FIRST BY MCCUTCHEON, SECOND BY LIBBY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
MOVES US TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20TH, 2023, PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> I HAVE A FIRST BY LIBBY, A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. OPPOSED? NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
MOVES US RIGHT TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[4.1. LA23-000062, Granite Companies LLC o/b/o Travis & Sara Wildenberg, 3838 Cherry Avenue, After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit]
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS LA23-62 GRANITE COMPANY'S LLC ON BEHALF OF TRAVIS AND SERA WILDENBERG, 3838 CHERRY AVENUE.THIS IS AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MISS CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT NEW AND REPLACEMENT RETAINING WALLS ON THE LAKE YARD SLOPE WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE LAKE.
A NEW HOME IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THIS PROPERTY.
VARIANCES WERE GRANTED IN JANUARY OF '23 FOR HARDCOVER EXPANSIONS OF THE HOME WITHIN THE 75-FOOT IN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AREAS.
FOLLOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING HOME, THE APPLICANT BEGAN INSTALLING RIPRAP UNDER A PERMIT FROM THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.
WHILE INSTALLING THE RIPRAP, IT APPEARS THE APPLICANT REMOVED THE ENTIRETY OF THE LAKE VEGETATION AND THE WALLS THAT WERE THERE, AS WELL AS THE OTHER STAIR IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY BEGAN INSTALLING A NEW STONE SLAB LAKE ACCESS STAIR, NEW ANGULAR BOULDER RETAINING WALLS.
THERE THERE WAS NO CITY PERMIT FOR THIS WORK, SO THE WORK WAS STOPPED AND STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
THE COMMISSION MAY RECALL THAT THE CITY RECENTLY ADOPTED NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING LAKESHORE RETAINING WALLS.
THE NEW CODE PROVIDES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE SHORE SETBACK ZONE AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE NEW CODE CREATED AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING IN-KIND WALLS MEETING CERTAIN STANDARDS.
THESE REPLACEMENT WALLS DID NOT MEET THOSE STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND A CROSS-SECTION DRAWING, ILLUSTRATING THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEW WALLS.
THIS IS THEIR CROSS-SECTION SHOWING THE LAKE AND THEN THE TIERED WALLS, AND THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
ACCORDING TO THE NEWLY ADOPTED CODE, THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE EXISTING WALLS AND/OR SLOPE WERE FAILING, AS WELL AS A PLAN SHOWING THAT THE NEW WALLS WILL NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AND WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE EXISTING FAILING WALLS.
STAFF OUTLINED THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FOUND THAT SOME OF THE CONDITIONS HAVE NOT YET BEEN SATISFIED BY THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.
FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE NOT SUBMITTED AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE REQUIRED STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS ABOUT THE SLOPE STABILITY AND THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED WALL PLAN FROM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL AND A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDING A MIX OF MID-HEIGHT, DEEP-ROOTED PERENNIALS, NATIVE SHRUBS, AND NATIVE CONIFEROUS OR DECIDUOUS TREES, PROVIDING A NATURAL-LOOKING YEAR-ROUND SCREENING OF THE PROPOSED WALLS AND THE MASS OF THE HOME.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS BEFORE YOU, HOWEVER, STAFF FINDS THAT IT SHOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED AS NOTED.
ANALYSIS OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITION IS NOT IDEAL, AS SOME OF THE FACTORS FOR EVALUATION CAN BE MISSING OR ALTERED.
IN THIS SITUATION, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED PHOTOS AND A SURVEY SHOWING DETAIL ABOUT THE SLOPE AND THE PRE-EXISTING WALLS PRIOR TO THEIR REMOVAL.
THE PROPOSED NEW WALL INSTALLATION APPEARS TO BE MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING WALLS.
THE COMPLETE DENUDATION OF THE SLOPE,
[00:05:01]
WITH THE REMOVAL OF ALL VEGETATION, INCLUDING THE ROOT STRUCTURES, AND ALL OF THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS HOLDING THE SLOPE, HAS RESULTED IN THE CREATION OF A MORE VULNERABLE SLOPE.HOWEVER, THE CODE REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXISTING WALL AND/OR SLOPE IS FAILING, AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION FROM A PROFESSIONAL STATING THE PROPOSED SOLUTION IS APPROPRIATE AND SIZED CORRECTLY.
FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, STAFF RECEIVED PHONE CALL INQUIRIES FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE NEW APPLICATION.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENT FROM THOSE NEIGHBORS.
BECAUSE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN ALTERED, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO ENSURE THE NEW PROPOSED PLAN MEETS THE NEWLY CREATED CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING RETAINING WALLS IN THE LAKEYARD.
A STATEMENT FROM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL REGARDING THE NEED FOR THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED WALLS, DEMONSTRATION THAT THE EXISTING WALLS WERE FAILING AND/OR SLOPE WAS FAILING, AN UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN DESCRIBED.
OPTIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING FOR MOTION.
DENY THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED OR MOVE TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ON YOUR FEBRUARY AGENDA.
OR IF THE COMMISSION IS GENERALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSAL, MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF PRIOR TO PLACEMENT ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.
I WOULD NOTE THAT BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS AFTER-THE-FACT, IF YOU DO MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED, THE COMMISSION SHOULD IDENTIFY THE NEXT STEPS FOR THE APPLICANTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANTS BE REQUIRED TO RESTORE THE SLOPE AND STABILIZE WITH NON-STRUCTURAL VEGETATIVE SOLUTIONS.
A REASONABLE TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
I DO HAVE THE OTHER SURVEY PLAN INFORMATION I COULD PUT UP AT YOUR REQUEST.
>> THE PLAN THAT'S PROVIDED, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE FALLEN UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL.
>> IT VARIES TOO MUCH FROM THE EXISTING, IS THAT THE REASON OR?
>> LET ME DO A LITTLE SIDE-BY-SIDE IF I CAN DO IT HERE EASILY ENOUGH.
IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THEY ARE NOT IN KIND.
THE EXISTING WALLS AS OWN ON THE SURVEY ARE IN RED.
THERE WAS A STAIR TO THE LAKE THAT WAS PART OF THIS DECK.
I BELIEVE IT WAS A WOODEN STAIR ABOVE GRADE, NOT SHOWN HERE, BUT THE YELLOW ARE THE PROPOSED WALLS AND THIS IS THE NEW STAIR.
NOW, THE STAIR WOULD BE ALLOWED, IT IS JUST REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT.
BUT THE REMAINING IMPROVEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN, STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THEY APPEAR TO BE IN KIND.
>> THANK YOU. FOR STAFF TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ESSENTIALLY THREE DIFFERENT THINGS AND REVIEW IT, WHICH WOULD BE, IF I HAVE IT RIGHT, STATEMENT OF NECESSITY.
THESE PLANS DRAWN BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL, LIKE AN ENGINEER, EXPLAINING WHY IT NEEDS IT AND THEN THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
CAN YOU BE SPECIFIC ON THOSE ADJUSTMENTS.
>> THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING WOULD BE TO RESULT IN MORE OF A NATIVE LOOKING SHORELINE.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAKE SHORE, AS WAS EXISTING, WAS VERY OVERGROWN.
THERE WERE TREES WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE THAT WERE REMOVED.
THE TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED, IT'S A HYDRANGA TREE, WHICH A VERY NICE TREE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THERE BE MORE NAIVE ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THERE, ]AND OR OVER STORY TREES.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE, WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY WIFE AND I CURRENTLY OWN 38 38 CHERRY AVENUE.
I ALSO LIVE AT 14:21 NORTH ARM DRIVE AT BOTH ORNO.
OUR DESSION DOES 4 NOT TO START ANY WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT.
WE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT TO HELP DEVELOP THIS SITE PLAN.
[00:10:03]
WE WERE UNDER THE MISUNDERSTANDING.IT TURNS OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HELPED TO DEVELOP THIS COMPREHENSIVE LAKEFRONT PLAN WITH THEM, THAT THAT WAS NOT.
SUFFICIENT FOR THE WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED, BUT WE WERE NOT TRYING TO GO WITHOUT A PERMIT.
WE THOUGHT THAT PERMIT COVERED THE ENTIRETY OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.
MY GOAL TONIGHT HAVE SOME MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, SOME CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION HERE WITH YOU GUYS.
I THINK THAT EVEN JUST WITH THE PICTURES THAT MELANIE HAS ON THE EXISTING OR WHAT WAS EXISTING THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE WALLS WERE IN PRETTY BAD SHAPE AND WE'RE FAILING.
I'VE ADDITIONAL PICTURES THAT I COULD DEFINITELY SUBMIT THAT PROBABLY SHOWS IT CLEAR WHEN A LOT OF THAT VEGETATION IS BARE AND PULLED OUT FROM THE SPRINGTIME.
ALSO, THE EXISTING WALLS, I THINK THE THING THAT ONE OF THE CRITERIA WAS THAT IF THEY WERE UNDER FOUR FEET FOR THE PROPOSED WALLS, DON'T NEED LIKE A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER.
I THINK YOU CAN SEE ON ONE OF MELANIE'S PICTURES FROM HER SITE VISIT ON OCTOBER 25H.
YOU GO INTO THE ONE WHERE YOU'RE FACING THE STAIRS, THAT VERY LAST PICTURE.
YEAH. THERE YOU GET A PREVIEW OF WHAT THE WALLS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY TAKE UP IN HEIGHT, THE RISE ON THOSE STEPS IS ABOUT 6''.
IT TAKES UP ABOUT LIKE THREE, MAYBE FOUR OF THOSE STAIRS, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 18", MAYBE 21, 24" TOPS.
EACH ONE OF THOSE WALLS IS ONLY TWO FEET TALL AT THE MOST.
WE WENT DOWN FROM THE SURVEY THAT MELANIE SHOWED, SHOWS LIKE, TWO WALLS ON EITHER SIDE.
IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THOSE PICTURES AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF MY OTHER PICTURES THAT I'VE GOT, LOOKS LIKE ON THAT WEST SIDE THERE, [NOISE] THE RIGHT SIDE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE LAKE, THERE'S FIVE DIFFERENT TIERS OF WALLS THAT ARE DILAPIDATED, FALLING APART.
WE'RE GOING DOWN TO THREE TIERS, WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT'S LESS THAN WHAT'S THERE.
I THINK IT'S LESS SUBSTANTIAL.
I GET THAT. IT'S MAYBE A LITTLE STRONGER, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE POINT.
WE'RE GOING TO SHORE UP THAT WHOLE SLOPE.
>> CAN I STOP YOU THERE FOR A SECOND? DO YOU THINK THERE'S A DISCREPANCY FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY THEN AS TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE? TO ME, IT LOOKS TO ME IT LOOKS DIFFERENT.
>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT IT REPRESENTS ACCURATELY WHAT WAS THERE.
THAT SIMPLIFIES IT QUITE A BIT AND SHOWS THAT1,2,3 WAS WALLS THERE.
I MEAN, THERE WERE THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT TIERS OF WALLS AND PLACED IN A HAPHAZARD ARRANGEMENT.
SO I'D BE SURPRISED IF YOU GUYS WANTED US TO REPLICATE THOSE EXACTLY AS WELL.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I GOT ONE. BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME TREES STANDING THERE.
I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THE WATERSHED DISTRICT WOULD WANT YOU TO REMOVE TREES.
>> IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
YOU LOOK AT THE BASE OF IT, THE BARK'S ALL GONE ON THAT TREE.
PART OF OUR RETAINING WALL WAS KIND OF BUILT AROUND IT.
THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM.
I DIDN'T SPEAK THAT MUCH WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GET THAT THING OUT OF THERE.
OUR BUILDER AND THE COMPANY DOING IT DID MOST OF THAT WORK.
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY TREE REMOVED THEN, THAT ONE.
>> THERE'S LIKE A SMALL LITTLE SHRUB OVER THERE.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INTERJECT THAT THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, THIS ISN'T THEIR JURISDICTION FOR TREE REMOVAL, IT IS THE CITY'S, AS WELL AS THE UPLAND FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.
>> YEAH, I JUST JUST USED FOR CONTEXT JUST FOR ME FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WHEN I SEE THESE THINGS COME FORWARD. THANKS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO MORE RIGHT NOW, BUT POSSIBLY AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE FOUR FOOT OR UNDER.
DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY HERE? DOES THAT CHANGE ANY OF THE, I GUESS THE THREE ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD?
>> AGAIN, AND AFTER THE FACT, CONDITION IS HARD TO RECAPTURE AS FAR AS WHAT WE NEED IN MOVING FORWARD FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT WE CAN APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHOUT EXTREMELY CLEAR DETAIL.
THE HEIGHT OF THE WALLS, I MEAN,
[00:15:01]
IT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND NOT DOCUMENTED CLEARLY. I GUESS I DON'T.>> PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE WAY THAT THE REGULATION SECTION 78-1279, PART 3 SUBPART C READS, THE LAST STATEMENT IS THAT NEW WALLS AND REPLACEMENT WALLS GREATER THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SINCE OUR NEW WALLS ARE NOT GREATER THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, WE SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO THOSE CONDITIONS.
SO THAT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY-
>> THEY ARE NOT IN KIND AND STAFF CAN'T APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY A WALL THAT ISN'T IN KIND, A NEW LOCATION THAT IS NOT REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S HOW IT READS.
>> SO I CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARITY.
SO THIS IS A BRAND NEW CODE THAT WE ADOPTED AND IT JUST TOOK EFFECT BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR.
I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNSEL RECENTLY DISCUSSED THE INTENT OF THIS CODE, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE FOR A SIMILAR REPLACEMENT STYLE.
ALL NEW WALLS, AND THEN ALL WALLS, EVEN IF THEY'RE SIMILAR REPLACEMENT, IF THEY'RE FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT OR TALLER ARE MEANT TO TRIGGER THE HIGHER THRESHOLD OF THE CUP.
BUT A LOW UNDER FOUR FEET AND IN SIMILAR LOCATION, MAYBE THAT'S THAT CHANGE OUT FROM A FAILING TIMBER WALL TO A BOULDER WALL OR SOMETHING, BUT IN THE SIMILAR LENGTH AND SIMILAR HEIGHT AND SIMILAR LOCATION, IS MEANT TO BE CAPTURED WITH THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THEN ALL NEW WALLS AND NEW LOCATIONS, REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT, IS TRIGGERING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, WAS THE RECENT INTENT WHEN THE DISCUSSION HAPPENED.
>> THESE WALLS KIND OF ARE IN THAT GRAY AREA, RIGHT? THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY NEW, THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY REPLACEMENT.
>> - THAT WERE NOT DOCUMENTED CLEARLY FOR US TO DETERMINE IF IT IS AN IN KIND LOCATION AND PLACEMENT.
SO WE'RE HERE AND GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
>> I FEEL LIKE IT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. IF NOT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
THESE AFTER-THE-FACT ONES ARE ALWAYS REALLY HARD BECAUSE FROM THE PHOTOS, IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE WALLS WERE CLEARLY DEPICTED ON THE SURVEY.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MAYBE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
WHILE THE APPLICANT THINKS THAT THESE MIGHT BE CLOSER TO BEING IN KIND, WHAT WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF IS THAT SURVEY, AND IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THEY ARE, WHICH TRIGGERED THIS CONDITIONAL USE.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE LOOKING FOR THREE THINGS FROM THE APPLICANT, AND I THINK STAFF COULD GET BEHIND APPROVAL, AND THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD IS ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
IT'S JUST THAT STATEMENT OF NECESSITY, SOMETHING SIGNED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL, WHICH AN ENGINEER OR SOMEONE SAYING THAT THESE ARE DESIGNED TO RETAIN THE EARTH AND ADJUSTING THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN.
THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD IS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE ON THE- YEAH, SURE.
>> THANKS. I THINK EVEN LOOKING AT HIS PLANS, HE'S PROBABLY RIGHT.
WHAT HE HAS IS PROBABLY GOING TO GET CERTIFIED OR APPROVED.
JUST TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT, WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY HERE OF RETAINING WALLS FAILING, SO IT'S A REAL SENSITIVE SPOT FOR THE CITY WHENEVER ANY OF THE LAKE SHORES IS TOUCHED AND THAT'S WHY WE GOT ALL THESE ORDINANCES IN PLACE.
GETTING A PLAN CERTIFIED, LIKE YES, IT'S RETAINING WALL PLAN, IS GOING TO BE VIABLE, IT'S GOING TO STAND UP AND ETC, WE CHECK ALL THE BOXES.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, WE CAN DISCUSS, BUT FOR SURE, SINCE WE LOST A TREE, I THINK STAFF IS RIGHT, WE SHOULD DEFINITELY HAVE AT LEAST ONE TREE PUT OFF JUST TO ESTABLISH SOME ROOT STRUCTURE JUST TO MAINTAIN WHAT IT USED TO LOOK LIKE.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER ITEM? WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE MISSED? I THINK THAT'S IT. MY MAIN TWO CENTS IS JUST,
[00:20:01]
GET THE PLAN APPROVED.THE VEGETATION, DEFINITELY IT WAS OVERGROWN.
BUT A LOT OF TIMES WITH LANDSCAPE, IT LOOKS, LIKE THAT PICTURE WAS PRETTY STRIKING, RIGHT? I CAN SEE WHY THE NEIGHBORS CALLED IN OR WHOEVER FOR THE STOP AT YOUR WORK.
BUT WITH LANDSCAPING, THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU CAN MAKE IT PRETTY REAL QUICK.
I THINK JUST GETTING A VEGETATION PLAN THAT WE CAN AGREE ON, THAT WOULD NOT ONLY APPEASE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH FILTRATION TOWARDS THE LAKE AND THEN ANY KIND OF EXISTING CHARACTER IT HAD.
I THINK I'D BE WILLING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD SO THEY CAN CONTINUE THIS PROJECT.
>> SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL THE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED?
>> I THINK THERE MIGHT BE TWO WAYS WE COULD LOOK AT THIS ONE IF WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF NOT APPROVING IT AS IS.
THE FIRST WOULD BE TO TABLE IT, WAIT FOR THESE THREE CONDITIONS TO COME BACK HERE, REVIEW IT AGAIN.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD COST MORE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT, OTHERWISE WE COULD DENY IT AND GO ON RECORD THAT THESE ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT IT'S MISSING AND WOULD GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO MOVE ON TO COUNSEL AND HOPEFULLY MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE COUNSEL.
I THINK EITHER PATHWAY WOULD BE FINE WITH ME.
I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER LIBBY, DO YOU HAVE OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
>> WELL, I THINK WE'VE FACED A NUMBER OF DILEMMAS LIKE THIS IN THE PAST.
NOT NECESSARILY AFTER THE FACT, BUT I ALWAYS HAVE A PRIMARY FOCUS WHICH IS PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF LAKE SHORE BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND WILL BE DONE HAS TO BE FOCUSED ON THAT PRESERVATION OF THE QUALITY OF THE WATER IN THE LAKE SHORE AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY REGRADING OR REMOVING FOLIAGE.
QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH ITS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE NOT ONLY ARE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON OUR CODE AND OUR ORDINANCE, BUT THEY'RE ADDING NATURAL ELEMENTS BACK INTO SOMETHING THAT BORDERS THE LARGEST NATURAL ELEMENT THAT WE HAVE AND ONE OF OUR GREAT TREASURES IN THE CITY OF ORONO.
I WOULD TEND TO THINK THAT IT'S MAYBE JUST MISFORTUNATE THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DIDN'T REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS REQUIRED, AT LEAST THEY MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GO TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT WHO ONLY HAS PARTIAL AUTHORITY.
THE AUTHORITY, AS WAS MENTIONED, IS REALLY WITHIN THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THAT AUTHORITY IS EMBODIED IN THE CITY.
I GUESS THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
I WOULD TEND TO FEEL THAT SINCE NOW THE APPLICANT AND THE ENGINEER HAVE EMPIRICAL AND CLEARLY DEFINED REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT I WOULD FEEL MORE IN FAVOR OF TABLING AND ALLOWING THEM TO REGROUP AND RESTATE THEIR PLAN AND THEN COME BACK AND HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO US AGAIN.
>> YES, I CONCUR THAT TABLING IS A GOOD METHOD I THINK IN THIS CASE.
IT'S JANUARY, WE WERE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A SHORT CONSTRUCTION SEASON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
GIVEN THE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WERE ENCOUNTERED PREVIOUSLY WITHOUT A PERMIT, I THINK WE NEED HAVE THE BEST PLANS AVAILABLE THAT WE CAN AT THIS TIME.
WE'VE GOT TIME TO DO IT DURING THE WINTER AND ALSO HAVING LOOKED AT THEIR REVISED PLANS, THEN ALSO TO DISCUSS THEM WITH STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S ON THE RIGHT PAGE, THEN I THINK TABLING IS APPROPRIATE FOR US.
>> SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT BE READY FOR A MOTION.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE ACCORDING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE TWO CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THE STATEMENT FROM THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL, AND ALSO REGARDING THE NEED FOR THE WALLS.
ALSO ON THE UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN.
[00:25:08]
I THINK IN ADDITION TO REGULATING WALLS, WE ALSO HAVE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CUTTING OF TREES WITHIN 75 FEET OF THE LAKE, AND SO WE SHOULD CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE REVISED PLAN CONCURS WITH THAT.I THINK THERE'S A FORMULA FOR A REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN SIZES AND THAT SORT OF THING, WHICH WE SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ERICKSON TO TABLE AND HAVE THE APPLICANT LOOK AT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESUBMIT.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
>> WELL, WE COULD JUST INVITE THEM TO COME BACK AND SEE US AT OUR FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> YEAH, I MEAN, TABLING IT ONLY, IT'S JUST ONE MORE MEETING IN THE WINTER MONTHS, WHAT'S ONE MORE MONTH? I AGREE.
>> OKAY. LET'S PUT IT TO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION PASSES THE TABLE.
[4.2. LA23-000064, Brent Walton, 2405 Dunwoody Ave, Hardcover Variance]
AND THIS IS BRENT WALTON, 20405, DUNWOODIE AVENUE.THIS IS FOR A HARD COVER VARIANCE. MISS CURTIS.
>> MR. WALTON IS THE OWNER OF 2405 DUNWOODY.
HE IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY HARD COVER ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE HOME BECAUSE THE PROPERTY EXCEEDS [NOISE] 25% HARDCOVER.
CURRENTLY, HARDCOVER VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO CONVERT THE DRIVEWAY HARDCOVER TO BUILDING HARDCOVER.
THE PROPOSAL RESULTS IN A 155 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION IN HARD COVER.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE LONG, NARROW SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THEY'VE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION AND SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY TONIGHT REGARDING THEIR APPLICATION.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE NARROW SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING CONDITION OF 33 AND 1/2% HARDCOVER CREATE DIFFICULTIES REGARDING EXPANSION OF THE HOME.
THE CITY CODE ALLOWS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF RELOCATION OR CHANGE TO AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE.
THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DRIVEWAY HARDCOVER TO BUILDING HARDCOVER, THUS INCREASING THE MASS AND THE INTENSITY OF THE NONCONFORMITY, HOWEVER, CANNOT BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, THEREFORE THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS APPLICATION, AND BECAUSE THE APPLICATION RESULTS IN A CONFORMING BUILDING LOCATION AND STRUCTURAL COVERAGE AND A REDUCTION HARDCOVER, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
[NOISE] THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STEPH? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> I'M NOT THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M THE CONTRACTOR.
THE APPLICANT IS A PILOT. HE'S FLYING TODAY.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU WANT.
>> 3545 IVY PLACE IN WAYZATA, WHICH IS CASCO.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD.
>> IF I'M SEEING THIS CORRECTLY, IS THIS A GARAGE ADDITION EXTENSION BEYOND THE EXISTING BUILDING, AND THEN ARE THEY CONVERTING THE SPACE THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS GARAGE SPACE INTO LIVING SPACE?
>> NO, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A DEEPER GARAGE.
>> WE'LL BE EXPANDING THE ROOM ABOVE THE GARAGE ALSO. IT'S AN OFFICE.
SO BASICALLY, A TANDEM GARAGE?
TYPICALLY, WE LOVE THESE BECAUSE IT'S REDUCING THE HARDCOVER, AND I'M ASSUMING THEY PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO THE PLACE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING IT, AND THEY'LL STILL HAVE AMPLE ROOM TO BACK A CAR OUT, ETC.
>> BECAUSE IT'S REALLY CLOSE TO COUNTY ROAD 15, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BACK ALL THE WAY OUT, SO YOU WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A TURNAROUND THERE.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SAVING SOME OF THE HARDCOVER.
[00:30:06]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE. THANK YOU. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU CAN BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK THIS ONE IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I'D BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS ONE AS APPLIED.
>> I AGREE WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION ALSO.
>> WITH THAT, I MOVE TO APPROVE LA 23-64 AS APPLIED.
>> SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MCCUTCHEON AND SECOND BY MYSELF.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING, HEARING NONE.
WE'LL VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? [OVERLAPPING].
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THAT BRINGS US TO LA 23-65, COOKIE DESIGN,
[4.3. LA23-000065, Eskuche Design, 4423 North Shore Drive, Variances]
4423 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, MULTIPLE VARIANCES. MS. [INAUDIBLE].>> JUST ONE SECOND, LET ME PULL IT UP THE SCREEN FOR YOU.
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR VARIANCES FROM AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK AS WELL AS BLUFF SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME IN A SIMILAR LOCATION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A LAKE LOT THAT ALSO FRONTS ON A CHANNEL.
AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE THE PROPOSED SURVEY ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
[NOISE] THERE'S ALSO BLUFF ALONG BOTH THE LAKE SIDE AND THE CHANNEL SIDE.
THE CITY CODE OUTLINES TWO BLUFF SETBACKS, A 30-FOOT BLUFF SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF, AS WELL AS A 20-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF, KNOWN AS THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.
NO STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE PERMITTED IN EITHER SETBACK.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO BLUFF SETBACKS AS WELL AS LAKE SETBACKS ON BOTH THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINES.
THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS DETERMINED BY THE ONLY NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST.
THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS A FLAT DISTANCE OF 107.6 FEET.
THE CURRENT HOME ON THE PROPERTY, I'LL BRING UP THE EXISTING SURVEY, IS NON-CONFORMING.
IT ENCROACHES INTO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ON BOTH THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS OF THE HOME, AND PORTIONS OF THE HOME ALSO ENCROACH INTO THE BLUFF SETBACK AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.
THE PROPOSED HOME HAS BEEN PULLED AWAY FROM THE BLUFF, BUT A VERY SMALL PORTION OF IT STILL ENCROACHES.
I'LL PULL UP AN EXHIBIT THAT I MADE.
THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, AS WELL AS CERTAIN OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED PATIO, AS WELL AS RETAINING WALLS, AS WELL AS AN EXISTING SHED AND AN EXISTING WALKWAY THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE REPLACED OR EXTENDED.
I'VE HIGHLIGHTED EVERYTHING THAT'S WITHIN THE BLUFF SETBACK.
THERE'S A PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND I'VE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED SOME EXTENSIVE GRADING THAT IS NOT ONLY IN THE BLUFF SETBACK BUT THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE AND INTO THE BLUFF.
THE PROPOSAL HAS STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REBUILD THE SHED AND EXTEND THE WALKWAY, AND THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED THESE AS WELL.
THIS SHOWS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK A LITTLE BIT.
THE PROPOSED HOME ALSO ENCROACHES INTO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, PRIMARILY ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE HOME, BUT ALSO A LITTLE BIT ON THE WESTERN SIDE.
ALL OF THE ENCROACHMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BLUFF REQUIRE A VARIANCE, AND THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE HOME INTO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT LEAD TO A SMALL BUILDING ENVELOPE.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE SMALL GREEN TRIANGLE IS THE COMPLIANT BUILDABLE AREA.
[00:35:01]
THE EXISTING HOME IS OLDER, BUILT IN THE 1950S, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE A MODERN HOME ON THE PROPERTY.THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS VERY STEEP, WITH A 10-12.5 PERCENT GRADE.
THE STEEP DRIVEWAY ALONG THE EDGE OF THE BLUFF, THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED IS DANGEROUS AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO IMPROVE THAT.
THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS DETERMINED BY THE ONLY NEIGHBOR, AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT IMPACT THE VIEWS OF THE NEIGHBOR.
THE NEIGHBOR HAS ALSO PROVIDED SUPPORT, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
STAFF FINDS THE BLUFF'S PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY AND THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK AGREES THAT IT CREATES A SMALL BUILDING ENVELOPE.
STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AS LONG AS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR AND IS IN A SIMILAR LOCATION AND ENCROACHMENT AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
HOWEVER, DUE TO THE SENSITIVITY OF THE BLUFF, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT ANY PORTION OF THE NEW HOME TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BLUFF SETBACK OR FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LIKE PATIOS OR RETAINING WALLS TO BE LOCATED IN THE BLUFF OR BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.
STAFF FEELS THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOME CAN BE MODIFIED ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THE BLUFF SETBACK.
THESE PATIOS AND WALLS COULD BE REMOVED AND POTENTIALLY PLACED ELSEWHERE.
STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE EXTENSION OF THE WALKWAY REPLACEMENTS OR THE SHED IN THE ACTUAL BLUFF.
STAFF CAN SUPPORT A BLUFF SETBACK FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS, ALTHOUGH STAFF BELIEVES IT SHOULD BE MINIMAL.
THE PROPOSAL, IN STAFF'S OPINION, DOES NOT APPEAR TO MINIMIZE THE SIZE OF THE DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE IMPACT.
IN SUMMARY, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED DUE TO THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE BLUFF AND FAILURE TO MEET DIFFICULTIES.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE CHOICE OF HOME DESIGN AND THE AMENITIES ARE MORE OUT OF CONVENIENCE THAN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
IT IS STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD MODIFY THE DESIGN BASED ON STAFF AND POTENTIALLY PLANNING COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ONE QUESTION. I'M LOOKING AT THE DELINEATED ELEVATIONS OF THE BLUFF, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SEE THERE OR ON MY SCREEN WHAT THE DEVIATION IS BETWEEN THE SUMMIT OF THE BLUFF AND THE LOWEST AT THE LAKE SHORE AND THE CHANNEL SIDE.
CAN YOU GUESSTIMATE THAT FOR ME.
IS IT 50 FEET? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AN ELEVATION?
>> MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT.
WE HAVE THE LINES IN THE DELINEATION, I JUST CAN'T TELL FROM THE HIGHEST BLUFF SUMMIT TO THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
>> QUESTION OR MAYBE JUST TO CLARIFY.
WE HAVE THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE WHICH IS 20 FOOT SETBACK, AND THEN WE HAVE A 30 FOOT SETBACK ON TOP OF THE 20, AND THAT'S FOR BUILDING.
WHAT CAN HAPPEN BETWEEN THAT BUILDING SETBACK AND THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE?
>> SURE. NO STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS CAN HAPPEN IN EITHER WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
I THINK WE ALLOW SOME MINOR GRADING WORK WITHIN THE BLUFF SETBACK, BUT THAT BLUFF IMPACT IS MORE PROTECTED.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY IMPROVEMENTS IN BOTH THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, BUT ALSO SOME GRADING WORK IN BOTH AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS KENNETH SMELLING, 5515 MINNEAPOLIS AVE, 55364.
I'M HERE WITH MY ARCHITECT, PETER ESKUCHE FROM ESKUCHE DESIGN, AND BUILDER DAVID BIEKER FROM DENALI HOMES.
SO THANK YOU, NATALIE, FOR YOUR ASSESSMENT.
I'VE BEEN INTRIGUED BY THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 4423 NORTH SHORE DRIVE FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS AND WOULD ARGUE THAT IT IS ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE PROPERTIES ON LAKE MINNETONKA.
SINCE BUYING THE PROPERTY, MY WIFE JUDY AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH OUR DESIGN AND BUILD TEAM TO DESIGN A HOME THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS UNIQUE LOT.
AS WE GOT INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS, RECEIVED THE SURVEY OF THE LOT AND LEARNED MORE ABOUT THE APPLICABLE SETBACKS,
[00:40:01]
IT BECAME VERY REAL HOW SIGNIFICANTLY CONSTRAINED ON THIS 1.5 ACRE LOT THAT THAT STRUCTURE WAS GOING TO BE.WE HAD SEVERAL GOALS WHEN WE WERE WORKING THROUGH OUR DESIGN PROCESS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANTED TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL HOME THAT WE COULD RETIRE IN THAT WAS FUNCTIONAL AND APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SETTING.
THE CURRENT 1950S HOME HAS LAKE VIEWS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND A WALKOUT BASEMENT TO THE WEST, AND THESE ARE ALL KEY DESIGN FEATURES THAT WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN.
THE HOME SITS ON TOP OF A HILL, SO WE WERE VERY CONSCIOUS OF LOOKING AT WHAT THAT HOUSE WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE LAKE.
TODAY, WE LIVE IN A VERY TRADITIONAL HIGH PEAKED HOUSE.
WE SAID THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.
WE OPTED FOR MORE OF A FLAT ROOF, MODERN DESIGN.
IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAINTAIN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND BUILD A HOUSE CONGRUENT TO THE NEARBY HOMES AND OTHER SIMILAR NEW HOMES BUILT ON LAKE MINNETONKA.
THE SECOND ITEM, ONE OF THE SECOND OTHER PRIMARY GOALS WAS WANTING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE CITY CODES.
THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US.
WE REALLY BROKE THAT UP INTO THREE DIFFERENT PARTS.
THE FIRST PART IS, THE NEW HOME COULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE RIPARIAN VIEWSHED RIGHTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE HAD THIS DONE TO US BEFORE AND WE PROMISED THAT WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO SOMEONE ELSE.
DURING THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE MET AT LEAST TWO TIMES WITH CHRIS AND DARLA TOME AT 4415 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST.
WE'VE REVIEWED THE PLANS, AND THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT.
WE HAVE ALSO MET AND REVIEWED THE PROJECT WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, SCOTT ALBRECHT AT 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
THE SECOND PART, RELATIVE TO THE CITY CODES AND BUILDING CODES, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO US TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY HAS NOT REALLY BEEN WELL KEPT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AND WE WANTED TO REALLY TAKE CARE OF THAT.
THIS INCLUDES ALL FACETS OF THE PROPERTY, BUT SPECIFIC CONTEXT PROTECTION OF THE BLUFFS IS ONE OF OUR KEY OBJECTIVES.
THIS INCLUDES POSITIONING OF THE HOUSE ON THE LOT TO COMPLY WITH ALL BLUFF SETBACKS.
WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE WE ACHIEVED THIS.
I KNOW NATALIE IS SAYING THAT WE DIDN'T ACHIEVE THAT.
OUR DESIGN INTENT WAS TO ACHIEVE THAT.
WHEREVER WE'RE VARIANT ON THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO FIGURE THAT OUT AND WORK THROUGH THAT.
IT WAS HER INTENT TO HAVE THE FOUNDATION WITHIN ALL OF THE BLUFF SETBACKS.
THE BLUFFS ARE A REALLY KEY PART OF WHAT MAKES THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE AND PROTECTING THESE BLUFFS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR US.
WE ARE ALIGNED WITH THE CITY ON PROTECTING THE BLUFF TO PROTECT OUR WATERWAYS, BUT ADDITIONALLY, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST TO PROTECT THESE BLUFFS TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY VALUE, SO IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US.
THEN THE LAST ONE IS, IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THE PROPERTY.
THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY HAS A 12.5 PERCENT GRADE THAT IS NOT SAFE, OBVIOUSLY, IN OUR MINNESOTA WINTERS.
WE DO HAVE A PERSONAL SITUATION THERE, SOMETHING THAT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO US.
MY WIFE HAD ONE OF HER BEST FRIENDS PERISH IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT SLIPPING OFF AN ICY ROAD IN UPSTATE NEW YORK, SO WE WANT TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THAT DRIVEWAY.
ACCOMPLISHING ALL OF THESE GOALS IS LIKE THREADING THE NEEDLE ON THIS PROPERTY, AND THERE WAS NO PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT WE WORKED TO GET WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE BEST SOLUTION.
ONE EXAMPLE IS IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF THE DRIVEWAY.
WE GAVE GREAT CONSIDERATION TO THAT ELEVATION AND TRYING TO GO FROM THE 12.5 PERCENT GRADE DOWN TO 8.5 PERCENT.
SOME OF THIS IS DRIVEN BY THE FACT THAT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACHING THE PROPERTY IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH THE NEIGHBOR WITH AN EASEMENT, SO THERE'S SOMEWHAT LIMITATIONS ABOUT WHERE WE CAN START THAT GRADE.
THE COMPROMISE WAS THAT WE LOWERED THE ELEVATION OF THE GARAGE, THEN WE LOWERED THE ELEVATION OF THE WALKOUT BASEMENT, WHICH CREATED SOME ISSUES ON THE BLUFF SIDE.
IT IS REALLY THREADING THIS NEEDLE AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE BEST TO DO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, I THINK THE THREE PARTS.
UNIQUENESS, CLEARLY THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUE AS IT BASICALLY IS A PENINSULA WITH WATER ON TWO SIDES, BLUFF SETBACKS, AND ONLY 10 PERCENT OF THE LOT IS BUILDABLE SPACE.
REASONABLENESS, I THINK WE'VE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL OF CARE IN THIS DESIGN TOWARDS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THEN ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, THE LOT AND HOME ARE CONGRUENT WITH OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEW HOMES BEING BUILT ON LAKE MINNETONKA.
WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD, DILIGENTLY AND THOUGHTFULLY TO GET THIS POINT TO MAXIMIZE SAFETY, MINIMIZE OUR VARIANCES, AND BUILD A BEAUTIFUL HOME.
WE'RE VERY COMMITTED TO BUILDING A HOME THAT IMPROVES THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING PROTECTION OF THE BLUFFS.
AS I SAID, THE BLUFFS ARE A VERY UNIQUE CHARACTER AND WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE.
I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> HELLO AGAIN. PETER ESKUCHE,
[00:45:02]
18318, MINNETONKA BOULEVARD AND DEEPHAVEN.DO YOU MIND PULLING UP THE, I THINK IT'S L2.
AS PAUL SAID, IT DEFINITELY IS THREADING THE NEEDLE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT.
THEN CAN YOU GO BACK TO L1 BRIEFLY? L1, THE RED SHOWS ALL OF THE ENCROACHMENTS CURRENTLY.
THE TWO TRIANGLES ARE THE ONES THAT BASICALLY ENCROACH INTO THE BLUFF.
THE DRIVEWAY ENCROACHES ENTIRELY INTO THE BLUFF, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THE BUILD SITE SO THAT'S PRETTY UNAVOIDABLE.
AS PAUL MENTIONED, IN ORDER TO THREAD THIS NEEDLE, WE HAD TO MAKE THE DRIVEWAY SAFER.
WE HAD TO DROP THE HOUSE DOWN.
THE DRIVEWAY AS PROPOSED, REALLY MATCHES WHERE THE CURRENT DRIVEWAY IS.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE HOUSE IS TODAY, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S VERY FAR WEST TOWARDS THE BLUFF.
AND IF YOU GO TO L2, WHAT WE DID ON THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY IS WE MATCHED THE EXISTING HARD COVER SO THAT WE DIDN'T INCREASE ANY OF THE HARD COVER.
WE BASICALLY TRIED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE LESS STEEP ON THE WAY UP TO THE HOUSE.
BASICALLY, WE PUSHED THE HOUSE FURTHER EAST, SO NONE OF THE HOUSE GOES INTO THE BLUFF.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS STATED IN THE REPORT THAT THERE'S ENCROACHMENT IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
IF YOU LOOK AT ARTICLE 10, SECTION 78-1405, IT EXCLUDES OVERHANGS UP TO TWO FEET.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S CASTING INTO THE BLUFF SETBACKS IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE.
AND AT LEAST IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING OF THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHING INTO THE BLUFF SETBACK.
IF YOU LOOK AT, THAT'S A GREAT.
THAT SHOWS BOTH EXISTING AND RED AND PROPOSED.
SO IF YOU LOOK WHERE ARE THE RETAINING WALLS ARE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY FAR LEFT SIDE, THEY HAD A WALKOUT ALREADY AND THERE'S THIS SEMICIRCULAR RETAINING WALL A LITTLE BIT FURTHER LEFT.
THEY HAD BUILT THAT RETAINING WALL ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND INCREASED THE BLUFF IMPACT.
WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO IS GET RID OF THAT RETAINING WALL AND SMOOTH OUT THE GRADE AS YOU GO TOWARDS THE HOUSE.
AND THEN WE MOVED THE RETAINING WALLS QUITE A BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BLUFF, MAINTAINING A WALKOUT.
CURRENTLY, THE WALK OUT IS 7.5.
THE CEILING HEIGHT IS ONLY SEVEN FEET, WHICH IS NOT REALLY TODAY'S STANDARDS SO WE INCREASED THE LOWER LEVEL TO ABOUT NINE FEET AND WE KEPT THE GARAGE LOW.
THREADING THE NEEDLE, WE TRY TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY PITCH LOWER, MAKING IT SAFER.
BUT BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS LOWER, CAUSES US TO GRADE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT LOWER LEVEL.
AS PAUL MENTIONED, WE JUST DID OUR BEST TO TRY TO BE IN THE CONFORMING AREA, BUT IT REALLY DID LIMIT US TO FOLLOW THE BLUFF SETBACK.
I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT L4 AGAIN.
CAN YOU LOOK AT L4? MAYBE IT'S NOT AS CLEAR AS IT WAS ON L2 ACTUALLY, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE REDUCED PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE IMPACT OTHER THAN GRADING IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE AND KEPT THE HOUSE AT LEAST AS FAR AWAY FROM THE LAKE ON THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
I BELIEVE THAT SUMMARIZES WHAT WE DID HERE.
AGAIN, I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND I THINK IF STAFF CAN GO TO EXHIBIT J. I THINK WE'RE THERE SAYING THAT THE STRUCTURE ENCROACHING.
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, NONE OF THE ACTUAL HOUSE STRUCTURE ENCROACHES, BUT I THINK THE PATIO AND THOSE RETAINING WALLS, THOSE CERTAINLY APPEAR TO ENCROACH.
BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THERE'S EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS AND THESE ARE IMPROVED FROM THE EXISTING.
>> CORRECT. LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THE 20 FOOT,
[00:50:03]
WE'VE PULLED ALL THE PAVING OUT OF THE 20 FOOT THAT WE COULD.DRIVEWAY, WE COULD NOT PULL OUT.
SO THAT LOWER PATIO IS PULLED COMPLETELY OUT OF THE 20 FOOT.
IT'S ONLY FROM 20-30 SECTION AND I BELIEVE THAT WE DID NOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PAVING.
AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS, WE DID PULL THOSE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BLUFF AS WELL SO WE WERE TRYING TO IMPROVE IT.
WE DID GRADE DOWN LOWER, BUT THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE HAD TO LOWER THE HOUSE TO MAKE THE DRIVEWAY SAFER.
>> I WISH I HAD A 3D MODEL HERE, SO I THINK IN ORDER FOR THAT RETAINING, THAT RETAINING WALL IS IN.
IS THERE LIKE A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH GRADING YOU'RE TAKING OFF? WHAT I'M ENVISIONING IS YOU'RE TAKING OFF BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT DRIVEWAY SAFER SO YOU'RE TAKING OFF 10 FEET OFF THE BLUFF?
>> BASICALLY, IF YOU TAKE THE GARAGE, WE DROPPED THE GARAGE ABOUT 2.5, 3 FEET.
BECAUSE THAT HOUSE ONLY HAD 7.5 FEET FROM THE LOWER LEVEL TO THE MAIN LEVEL IS TODAY'S STANDARDS.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT MEETS CODE FOR THE CEILING HEIGHT.
>> CORRECT. SO THEN THE LOWER LEVEL DROPS AS MUCH AS FIVE FEET OF GRADE FROM EXISTING.
BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE BLUFF THOUGH, IT'S ONLY THREE FEET LOWER.
AND THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE RETAINING WALL WHICH WE FELT WAS UNNATURAL ANYWAY, WE'VE REMOVED AND SMOOTHED THAT OUT.
>> YEAH. SO SINCE YOU TAKE OFF THAT TWO FEET, THAT RETAINING WALL IS LESS OF A NEED.
THANKS FOR WALKING US THROUGH THAT BECAUSE THIS ONE'S COMPLICATED.
>> IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT PATIO OFF THE SCREEN PORCH, THAT'S WHAT I VIEW AS THE MAIN ENCROACHMENT THERE IN THOSE RETAINING WALLS.
>> I'M NOT SURE HOW THE SURFACE IS CATEGORIZED FROM A CODE STANDPOINT, BUT THE RETAINING WALLS ARE CONSIDERED STRUCTURE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT ENCROACHMENT IS.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO IT WITHOUT THE RETAINING WALLS?
>> WHAT WE TRY TO DO IF YOU LOOK, WE HAVE THE WALKOUT IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE REALLY MATCHED IT.
THEY HAVE RETAINING WALLS NOW, WE BASICALLY JUST REPLACE THEM WITH THE NEW DESIGN, BUT THEY GO A LITTLE BIT LOWER.
TO DO A WALKOUT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME TRANSITIONING GRADE AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR A LITTLE HIGHER TRANSITION NOW.
INSTEAD OF 7.5 FEET, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO 12.
YOU COULD HAVE OUTCROPPINGS THAT ARE MORE NATURAL STONE THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SMOOTH, A LITTLE MORE NATURAL.
THE CITY CODE I THINK IS ONE IN THREE PITCH IF YOU DON'T HAVE RETAINING WALLS, BUT THAT EXTENDS GRADE OUT MUCH FURTHER.
>> HELP THE IMPACT ON THAT BLUFF.
>> I GUESS A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO WE KNOW THE RETAINING WALLS ARE LOOKED AT AS STRUCTURE IN THE BLUFF.
HOW IS THE PATIO LOOKED AT THE SAME?
>> SO SIMILAR TO THE DRIVEWAY WE DON'T ALLOW HARD COVER WITHIN THE BLUFF, THOUGH WE STILL CONSIDER THAT IMPROVEMENT.
SO THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE WHICH THEY'RE REQUESTING.
JUST TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, AS FAR AS STAFF'S POINT, IT DIDN'T APPEAR AS THOUGH THERE WAS A PATIO HERE.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, AND THERE IS ONE PROPOSED.
>> ACTUALLY, IF YOU GO RIGHT BACK, IT SAYS PAVERS.
PAVERS? NO. ON THE OTHER SIDE.
[OVERLAPPING] AND SO THAT IS WITHIN THE 20 AND THE 30 AND WE TOOK EVERYTHING OUT OF THE 20 AND ONLY HAVE SOME IN THE 30.
AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT PAVING WAS OKAY AND THAT 20-30 JUST STRUCTURE WASN'T.
>> JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON WHAT THE CODE SAYS, IT'S IMPROVEMENT SETBACK IS THE 30 FOOT SETBACK.
NO IMPROVEMENTS ARE PERMITTED CLOSER TO THE TOP OF BLUFF THAN THAT 30 FEET.
WHAT YOU CAN DO BETWEEN THE 20 AND THE 30 IS SOME GRADING WORK, BUT THEN THE TOP OF BLUFF TO THE 20 FOOT SETBACK IS REALLY A NO TOUCH, NO IMPROVEMENT, NO GRADING ALLOWED.
THE STRICTEST SETBACK IS THE TOP 20 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF WHERE REALLY IT'S A NO TOUCH ZONE.
THE 20-30, THERE'S ALLOWED FOR SOME GRADING AND THEN ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS PATIOS, RETAINING WALLS, BUILDING FOOTPRINT, IT HAS TO MEET THE 30 FOOT SETBACK.
THAT'S THE TIERED SYSTEM AND I KNOW IT GETS MUDDLED SINCE
[00:55:03]
THERE'S MULTIPLE SETBACKS GOING ON, THAT KIND OF FLUID.I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT POINT OF CLARITY HERE.
>> WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT ZONE IN TERMS OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PATIO IN THAT LOWER LEVEL IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY AT THIS POINT SO WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO DISCUSSING THAT WITH YOU TO UNDERSTAND.
I CAN'T REPRESENT HIM IN THAT DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD IT.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF THAT THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE 30 FOOT SETBACK.
SO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SCREEN PORCH AND THAT FIRST YELLOW LINE WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE 30 FOOT BLUFF SETBACK.
>> AGAIN, THERE'S 1,092 SQUARE FEET IN THE BLUFF CURRENTLY AND THERE'S 1,092 SQUARE FEET IN THE BLUFF AS PROPOSED.
>> WE JUST CHARACTERIZED THAT THE CURRENT CONDITION ON THAT BACK PATIO WHERE THAT WALKOUT IS, IS THERE ARE SOME LOOSE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS.
BUT THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF BARE SOIL AND SO IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD CONDITION THERE.
AND OUR EXPECTATION WOULD BE TO TRY TO IMPROVE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> JUST I'D LOVE FOR YOU GUYS TO ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND IT, BECAUSE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DESIGN FOR IT.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. MR. MCCUTCHEON ALREADY ASKED THIS QUESTION AND THE ANSWER MAY HAVE BEEN ADEQUATE.
BUT I HAVE A LITTLE DEEPER QUESTION FOR YOU.
THE CREATIVE IDEA OF REDUCING THE PROFILE LOWER BY TWO FEET IN ORDER TO BRING THE GRADE OF THE DRIVEWAY DOWN.
THAT'S A GREAT CREATIVE IDEA. I LIKE THAT.
BUT I'M INTERESTED IN IF YOU HAVE ANY ESTIMATE OF THE VOLUME OF SOIL THAT YOU'D ACTUALLY REMOVE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO FEET IN THE DIMENSIONS OF WHATEVER THAT GARAGE IS.
SO IN YARDS, WHAT WOULD YOU GUESS THAT AMOUNT OF SOIL IS TO TAKE OUT TO DO THAT?
>> I'M NOT A YARD GUESSER. [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT'S FINE. THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE REMOVING SUBSOIL AND IT HAS CLOSER PROXIMITY TO THE BLUFF, IS THAT PARTIALLY THE NECESSITY FOR THE RETAINING WALL? WOULD THAT EXACERBATE THE RISK TO THE BLUFF IF YOU'RE REMOVING THAT VOLUME IN 13 YARDS IN A TYPICAL DUMP TRUCK? IS THAT MAYBE 5,6 DUMP TRUCKS OF SOIL TO TAKE OUT OF THERE? WOULD THAT INCREASE THE NECESSITY TO HAVE THE WALL ON THE OUTSIDE, THE RETAIN?
>> WELL, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ANSWER IT EXACTLY AS YOU WANT THE ANSWER.
BUT I THINK BY TAKING THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL AWAY AND ROLLING THAT GRADE UP MORE SMOOTHLY TO THE PROPOSED HOUSE, WE'VE ACTUALLY, FOR THE MOST PART, ELIMINATED THAT BLUFF BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE 25 FEET OF RISE.
THAT ENDS UP BEING ABOUT 20 BECAUSE IT'S REALLY AT 24.7 IN THAT AREA.
WE'RE BASICALLY MAKING IT A NON-BLUFF IN THAT AREA.
>> YOU ARE MODIFYING THE BLUFF THEN?
>> YEAH. WE'RE REDUCING THE GRADE ENOUGH THAT IT REALLY WOULD, THIS IS BARELY A BLUFF ALONG THAT WHOLE WEST SIDE.
>> THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL, IF I UNDERSTAND, THERE IS A RETAINING THAT WALL THERE NOW.?
>> IT WAS IN 1955. WHO KNOWS WHAT THEIR REASONING OR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN WAS.
I DON'T REALLY EVEN KNOW IF I LOOK AT PRECEDENT, OVER THAT MANY YEARS.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE WAS A BLUFF ORDINANCE IN 1955.
I JUST KNOW VERSE AND CHAPTER OF THE ONE THAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH IS QUITE HARD AND FAST.
THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENCY, THERE HAS BEEN A VERY STALWART EFFORT BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INVOLVED IN THESE MODIFICATIONS OF THESE BLUFFS.
WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF PRECEDENT, QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE.
THAT'S WHY THE ROUGH ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY CRAFTED AND WHY THESE SETBACKS WERE ORIGINALLY PUT INTO LAW SO THAT WE CAN AVOID THE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THEN DOUBLY IMPORTANT WHEN IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE LAKE SHORES.
I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD BRING THAT UP SO IN THEIR DENIAL I THINK OUR STAFF IS LOOKING AT PRECEDENT AND WHAT THE LAW SAYS AS FAR AS THE ENCROACHMENTS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD.
I THINK PART OF IT IS WHEN YOU PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND THERE'S AN EXISTING NONCONFORMITY THAT YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE AND WE'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO IMPROVE IT.
[01:00:02]
DON'T GET ME WRONG, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REDESIGN YOUR HOUSE.
>> WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HAVE A REGULATORY COMPLIANCE.
>> I WOULD ASK FOR SOME CLARIFICATION IN THE STIPULATION OF WHAT DICTATES A BLUFF.
THERE IS AN ITEM NUMBER 2 THAT IT SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE 25 FEET OR HIGHER THAN THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE.
>> IF WE LOOK OUT ON THE WALKOUT SECTION, WHAT IS THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE BLUFF VERSUS THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK?
>> I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER IT'S EVEN A BLUFF.
I THINK IT'S REALLY ON THE VERY EDGE DEPENDING ON EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE MEASURING THAT ELEVATION AT TOP OF BLUFF.
>> JUST A QUESTION THERE MAYBE TO [NOISE] UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER.
>> IF IT'S 24.7 WHERE WE ARE AT THE TOP OF THAT RETAINING WALL.
BUT WE TAKE THE RETAINING WALL AWAY AND REGRADE MORE SOFTLY AND MORE NATURALLY.
THERE'S THE LETTER OF THE CODE OF COURSE AND THE INTENT, OF COURSE, WE WERE JUST HOPING THAT WE'RE IMPROVING IT. THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT.
>> YEAH, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE THAT RETAINING WALL IS THERE, IF YOU'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE IT, BUT THEN WHEN YOU REGRADE THAT OUT, YOU THINK BY REGRADING IT OUT, IT NO LONGER WILL QUALIFY AS A BLUFF FOR THAT PORTION RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
>> YEAH. THAT WASN'T REALLY THE INTENT.
THE INTENT WAS REALLY JUST TO MAKE IT MORE NATURAL.
WE DIDN'T SHOW LIKE WE'VE MODIFIED THE BLUFF LINE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THAT REALLY WASN'T THE INTENT.
THE INTENT WAS TO JUST MAKE IT MORE NATURAL BECAUSE THAT RETAINING WALL, WHOEVER DID THAT WORKOUT JUST WANTED TO EXTEND THEIR LOWER-LEVEL GRASSY AREA [BACKGROUND] SO THEY JUST LIFTED IT UP.
WELL, THAT MADE IT AND IT'S ACTUALLY NOT REALLY A BLUFF, IT'S 24.7.
>> IF YOU'RE QUESTIONING THE DEFINITION OF THE BLUFF, THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO START WITH THE SURVEYOR BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO COLLECT ALL THE DATA.
WE JUST CROSS-CHECK THEIR DATA AND STUFF.
IF YOU ARE UNSURE OF WHAT THEY'VE DETERMINED AS A BLUFF, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE FIRST POINT.
BUT KNOWING THAT THERE'S CLEARLY BLUFF ON THE OPEN LAKESIDE AND THEN IT ROLLS BLUFF AROUND THE CHANNEL.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD REMOVE ONE SMALL SECTION THAT THIS ISN'T A BLUFF.
I THINK WE'RE GOING OFF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SURVEYOR LIKE FLORA SAID.
IF THE SURVEYOR HAS THE TOP OF BLUFF LINE SHOWN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING OFF OF FROM THIS.
>> I THINK IF THERE'S ANY DISCREPANCY OR IF YOU'RE THINKING THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM THERE.
I THINK GOING BACK TO THE SURVEYOR WOULD BE THE FIRST THING [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE I CAN'T REALLY SAY, OH, YOU'RE REMOVING IT SO THE SMALL SECTION, IT DOESN'T APPLY.
I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN BLUFFS THAT JUST STOP.
>> I THINK THEY COULD START AND STOP THOUGH.
>> THEY HAVE. WE'VE DONE OTHER PROJECTS WHERE THAT HAPPENS TOO, OF COURSE.
BUT I THINK HAVING A DIALOGUE WITH YOU AND UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU WERE TO DISSECT THE GRADE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE POINT IS.
I THINK THE POINT IS TO PRESERVE THE BLUFF, PRESERVE THE LAKE, KEEP IT CLEAR, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAKES ANY SENSE TO DISSECT THE SURVEYOR'S WORK AS MUCH AS HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT WHAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, WE COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THAT IS, IT SEEMS WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN MISSING FROM SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION, IT RELATES TO THE HARDSHIP AND THE PRACTICAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
IT'S MENTIONED, NUMBER 2, THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER.
I'VE HAD A FEW COURSES AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AND UNIQUENESS IS ALWAYS A MAJOR FACTOR.
THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS ABOUT AS UNIQUE AS THEY COME.
I CAN ONLY THINK OF OTHER ONE THAT MIGHT EVEN COMPARE WITH IT.
[01:05:06]
AND THERE WAS A TRIANGULAR LOT THAT BACKED UP TO THE [INAUDIBLE] AT A A GOLF COURSE AND IT HAD A BIG BLUFF IN THE BACKYARD.BUT THIS ONE I THINK MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE UNIQUE THAN THAT BECAUSE OF THE STEEPNESS INVOLVED IN THE SIDES, WHICH ON THE ONE HAND, IS A TREMENDOUS CONSTRAINT FOR ANY LANDOWNER, BUT AT THE SAME TIME SERVES AS A BENEFIT TO OUR CITY ORDINANCES BECAUSE IT MORE OR LESS ENSURES THAT THEY'VE GOT SIDE SETBACKS AND GOOD LAKE SHORE SETBACKS AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.
IN READING THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE ONLY REALLY SIGNIFICANT CONCERN IS THE BLUFF.
BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESPONSE, REALLY THE RESPONSE TO NUMBER 2 IS BEST WRITTEN IN THE RESPONSE TO NUMBER 5.
THAT IS THE STEEPNESS OF THE ACCESS ONLY CONFORMING BUILDING AREA IS VERY STEEP.
LIMITED SIZE OF THE CONFORMING BUILDING AREA IS ONLY 10% OF THE LAND, WHICH IT'S RARE THAT.
THEN DUE TO LOCATION OF THE ADJACENT HOME, THE AVERAGE SETBACK THAT PREVENTS A REASONABLE SIZED HOME WITHIN THE CONFORMING BUILDING AREA, WHICH STAFF MENTIONED THAT THE AVERAGE SETBACK WAS NOT THE PRIMARY CONCERN.
WITH ALL THESE OTHER CONSTRAINTS, AND AS WELL AS THEY ARE DOING TO MEET THEM, VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOR THE BLUFF, I THINK A VARIANCE ON THE BLUFF IS WORTHY OF OUR CONSIDERATION.
I THINK I WOULD BE PERSONALLY WILLING TO SUPPORT IT AS APPLIED.
>> THANK YOU, BOB. YOU MADE SOME VALID POINTS THERE.
BEFORE WE CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION, LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
IF ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NOW, WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I'LL START WHERE YOU LEFT OFF, BOB.
I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I THINK THE APPLICANT'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB TRYING TO GET THEIR DESIRED HOUSE TO FIT WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS.
ON THE EAST SIDE, THEY'RE MEETING MOST OF THE SIDE LIKE ALL THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ARE BEING MET, WHICH IS GREAT FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
THEY'RE MEETING THE 75 FOOT FROM THE LAKE.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE THAT THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS.
TODAY THE HOUSE DOESN'T MEET THAT, AND I THINK THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO BUILD WITHIN THAT, AND THEY'RE NOT TAKING AWAY THE VIEWSHED OF THE NEIGHBOR.
I THINK INSTEAD OF JUST DENYING THE ENTIRE THING, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PIECES THAT WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF.
THEN THOSE OTHER MAYBE IT CAN BE APPROVED.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, THE STUFF IN THERE IF WE GO BACK TO, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THIS POINT, I CAN DEFINITELY GET BEHIND THAT THEY NEED TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY, SO THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING TO HAVE TO IMPACT THE BLUFF.
THEY'VE DESIGNED THAT DRIVEWAY SO THAT IT'S SAFER THAN THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE TODAY, AND IT DOESN'T TAKE UP ANY MORE HARD COVER THAN THE EXISTING ONE.
I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE I CAN GET BEHIND THAT IMPACT, THE SHED THAT THEY'RE REBUILDING, I THINK BECAUSE IT'S BEING REBUILT, IT'S CONSIDERED A NEW IMPACT.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING EXISTING THERE.
I THINK IN MY MIND THAT COULD STAY THE SAME WITH THIS TRAIL OR WALKWAY THAT'S EXISTING TODAY.
I THINK THE HARD PART THAT I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IS
[01:10:02]
THIS PATIO PIECE OFF OF THE SCREEN PORCH AND THE RETAINING WALLS.I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THERE.
ACTUALLY, I THINK THE PROPOSED SCENARIO WILL BE LESS IMPACTFUL ON THE BLUFF THAN WHAT IS THERE TODAY.
THEY'RE MOVING EVERYTHING AWAY FROM THE BLUFF, FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF.
WHAT'S THERE DOES NOT CONFORM AT ALL.
WHAT'S THERE IS IN THE 20, AND THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE 20 FOR THE MOST PART EXCEPT FOR THE TAILS OF THOSE RETAINING WALLS.
IT'S HARD TO SAY THIS IS IMPROVING A LOT, AND I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT'S THERE TODAY, BUT IT DOESN'T FIT.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THERE EXCEPT FOR THAT PATIO OFF OF THE SCREEN PORCH AND THE RETAINING WALLS.
JUST DRAW A HARD LINE THERE AND LEAVE THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL, LEAVE THE BLUFF ALONE.
THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD IS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM [NOISE] OTHER COMMISSIONERS SO THEY HAVE A DIRECTION TO ADJUST THE PLAN IF NEED BE.
>> I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THEY'RE ROTATING THE HOUSE AND THEY'RE EATING MORE INTO THE AVERAGE LAKE SOURCE SET BACK IN THE PREVIOUS HOUSE, MORE MASSING ACROSS THAT LINE.
THAT'S ONE TRADE OFF, BUT THEY'RE GIVING IT UP IN OTHER PLACES.
BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT PATIO THAT YOU MENTIONED, [NOISE] THAT IS A BIT MORE THAN WE NORMALLY COMPROMISE.
USUALLY THERE'S SOME GIVE AND TAKE.
IT'S LIKE, WELL, YOU GAVE THAT UP, YOU CAN TAKE THIS AREA, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE PATIO MIGHT BE A BIT MORE THAN WE NORMALLY LIKE TO SWAP, BUT INTERESTING.
BUT THEN YOU BRING UP TO THE COMMENT THAT SINCE WE'RE GOING TWO FEET LOWER, AND IF WE CAN GET A SURVEY THAT SAYS THAT'S NOT TECHNICALLY A BLUFF ANYMORE, WELL, MAYBE THEY MAY GOT SOME GOOD POINT.
I TEND TO AGREE THAT THE PATIO MAY BE GOING A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR INTO MAYBE NOT ALLOWING THAT VARIANCE, BUT ALLOWING THE OTHER PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
BUT IF I'D HEARD IT FROM A SURVEY THAT WE REALLY SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT SOUTH PART OF THE LOT A BLUFF, WELL THEN, MAYBE WE WOULD ALLOW THAT.
THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS, BUT THIS ONE'S A TOUGH ONE.
>> COMMISSION, JUST TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, THE SURVEYOR HAS IDENTIFIED THAT AS A BLUFF, SO I WOULD ADVISE THAT YOU MAKE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE TONIGHT.
IF NEW INFORMATION WERE TO COME OUT, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE PARAMETERS OF OUR REVIEW AND WE'D WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN.
>> YEAH AND ALSO A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THE PATH.
I THINK SOME OF IT'S EXISTING AND I THINK SOME OF IT IS AN EXTENSION STAFF IS OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTIVE OF KEEPING WHAT THEY HAVE, BUT EXPANDING IT AND MAYBE THEY CAN SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT EXACTLY WAS EXPANDING AND WHAT WASN'T.
BUT THAT WAS AN AREA THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE WEREN'T SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
>> IF STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> IT'S PETER COKE. AGAIN, THE TOP PART WITH THE DOUBLE BLACK LINE IS ALL EXISTING, BUT THEN IT DODGES RIGHT TOWARDS THE LAKE, WHICH WE DIDN'T LIKE BECAUSE OF EROSION.
BASICALLY, IT'S ALSO UNSAFE BECAUSE IT TAKES A REAL 180 WHEN IT DOES A SWITCH BACK.
THIS DOESN'T I THINK THE EXISTING SURVEY SHOWS THAT BETTER.
IT DODGES RIGHT TOWARDS THE LAKE AND THERE'S A HUGE RETAINING WALL RIGHT ALONG THE LAKE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS DIMINISH THE IMPACT ON THE BLUFF BY STRAIGHTENING IT OUT AND MAKING IT SAFER AT THE SAME TIME.
>> COMMISSIONER LIBBY, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BLUFF? ARE THOSE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD GET BEHIND OR ARE THOSE SOMETHING THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK I MENTIONED THAT WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING IN 1955 OR IF WE EVEN HAD A RULE OF LAW OR A PRECEDENT OR GUIDANCE FOR US TO GO BY.
NOW WE HAVE ONE, WE KNOW WHAT IT IS VERSUS IN CHAPTER, AND I WAS VERY ENCOURAGED WHEN MR. SCHMELING WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT HE HAS A PENSION TO TRY TO PRESERVE AND CONSERVE THE BLUFF.
[01:15:04]
THAT'S COMMENDABLE AND THANK YOU, THAT'S A VERY COOPERATIVE SPIRIT.BUT WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN OUR COMMUNITY OF HAVING BLUFFS.
WE LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT WAS GLACIAL MORAINIC.
A LOT OF THESE ARTIFACTS OF GLACIERS COMING THROUGH HERE LEFT THINGS LIKE BLUFFS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW OF THEM.
ONE OF THE LARGEST ONES THAT WE HAVE IS TANAGER HILL BLUFF IN BETWEEN LAKE MINNETONKA AND TANAGER LAKE.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR COUNSEL BECAUSE THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DECIDING BODY.
BUT THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENT.
IN REALLY NOT FAVORING ANY ENCROACHMENT INTO THESE SETBACKS THAT WERE SET PRUDENTLY AND SET AS GUIDANCE FOR US AND FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSERVE AND PRESERVE THESE BLUFFS FROM EROSION AND DISTURBANCE AND DESTRUCTION.
I THINK I WOULD JUST LEAVE MY OPINION IT WOULD BECOME VERY PARALLEL TO THE STAFFS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN CATEGORIZED AS A BLUFF.
I KNOW YOU PERHAPS ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A BLUFF OR NOT.
BUT AS LONG AS OUR SURVEYORS, AND LAND SURVEYORS ARE DETERMINING WHAT THE NATURE OF THE NATURAL ARTIFACT IS, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AS A BLUFF.
WE'RE JUST AN ADVISORY BODY ADVISING THE COUNCIL ON WHAT WE SEE AND FEEL AND THINK.
I'M NOT ARGUING WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I'M JUST STATING ANOTHER POINT OF FACT AND A LITTLE DIFFERENT OBSERVATION BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH PRECEDENT, ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO KNOW THAT THESE BLUFF ORDINANCES WERE WRITTEN TO CONSERVE AND PRESERVE THESE NATURAL FEATURES.
I BELIEVE YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOUR SPIRIT AND FEELING TOWARDS CONSERVATION OF THE BLUFF IS INTENTIONAL.
I WOULD JUST EXPECT THAT LIKE THE CREATIVE THINKING THAT YOU DEALING WITH YOUR DRIVEWAY IN A CREATIVE WAY, THAT PERHAPS YOU COULD DO SOMETHING MORE CREATIVELY WHERE YOU CAN ALLEVIATE AND NOT DEPRECIATE THE ARCHITECTURE AND THE BEAUTIFUL DESIGN OF YOUR HOME AND JUST TO HAVE A VARIANCE OR ENCROACH INTO ANY OF THESE PROTECTED AREAS THAT ARE SO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE ONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE AT THAT POINT YET.
>> LET'S SEE. MAYBE WE SHOULD SUMMARIZE HERE.
I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSE LOOKS FINE EXCEPT FOR THAT PATIO ON THE WEST SIDE.
>> I THINK THE STRUCTURE THERE'S NO DENYING THE STRUCTURE IS OUTSIDE OF THE BLUFF SETBACKS.
IT'S THE ACCESSORY PIECES THAT I THINK ARE THERE AND I THINK WE'VE GOT SUPPORT FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO BE WITHIN THE BLUFF AND I FEEL LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR THE EXISTING ELEMENTS TO STAY WITHIN THE BLUFF.
I THINK IT'S IT'S THAT PIECE WITH THE PATIO THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO THAT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE FULL SUPPORT FOR.
IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION AND IT CAME BACK TO US, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT AS FAR AS IT'S MAKING THE SITUATION BETTER.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US TO SEE IT.
>> IF YOU WERE TO MAKE A MOTION, WOULD IT BE CONTENTION ON SOME OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT?
>> IT I THINK AT THIS POINT I THINK IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO DENY AS APPLIED WITH THE COMMENTS THAT THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND THE EXISTING BLUFF ELEMENTS AND SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE LIKE REBUILDING THE SHED, ETC.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE MOTION I'LL MAKE IT.
I WOULD MOVE TO DENY LA 23-65 AS APPLIED, BUT WITH THE COMMENTS THAT THERE IS SUPPORT FOR DRIVEWAY AND THE OTHER EXISTING BLUFF ELEMENTS AND IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE BIG PIECE IS THAT PATIO OFF OF THE SCREEN PORCH.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF TO DENY AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
[01:20:01]
>> ALL IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.
>> IT BRINGS US TO LA 23-66 DEL HOMES,
[4.4. LA23-000066, Hendel Home, 2605 Mapleridge Lane, Variance]
2605 MAPLE RIDGE LANE.THIS IS FOR A VARIANT, MISS NYE.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMODEL AN EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY.
THE RENOVATION INCLUDES RAISING THE ROOF BY APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT.
I WILL PULL UP PLANS. STRUGGLING TO OPEN.
RAISING THE ROOF BY APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT IN ORDER TO UPDATE INSULATION AND BY ADDING AN ADDITION ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE HOME.
THE EXISTING HOME IS NON-CONFORMING WITH THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE BISECTING THE HOME.
THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT AND THE ADDITION CREATES NEW ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WHICH REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE HOME INCLUDE AN ADDITION UNDERNEATH THE DECK, AS WELL AS TWO NEW DECK STAIRS.
ALL OF THE NEW ENCROACHMENTS ARE BUBBLED HERE ON YOUR SCREEN.
ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LR1B DISTRICT ARE MET.
THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THE EXISTING HOME LOCATION THAT IS NON-CONFORMING AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE MINIMAL AND DO NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING VIEWS OF THE LAKE.
THE PROPOSAL ALLOWS FOR AN UPDATE TO THE HOME ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE AND IS DONE WITHOUT RADICALLY CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT OR SIZE OF THE HOME.
STAFF AGREES WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ASSESSMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED.
SUPPORT LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> RAQUENDO 15250, WAYZATA BOULEVARD, WAYZATA.
I'LL JUST REITERATE, THE EXISTING HOUSE, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ADD TO THE MIDDLE SECTION OF THE ROOF AND THAT'S ONE FOOT AND THAT'S TO INCREASE THE CURRENT INSULATION WHICH IS ONLY AN INCH AND A HALF.
WE WANT TO INCREASE THAT, BRING IT UP TO CODE LIKE THE REST OF THE ROOF.
THE REST OF THE ADDITION, THE WATER IS UNDER THE DECK.
THAT DECK IS ACTUALLY WATERPROOFED RIGHT NOW SO IT'LL KEEP JUST BELOW THAT DECK.
THEN THE OTHER AREAS ARE, IT'S A GRILL AREA WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO A CURRENT RETAINING WALL AREA WHICH IS NEXT TO A CURRENT RETAINING WALL NEXT TO THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THERE'S A UNIQUE SHAPE TO THE LOT.
THE NEIGHBORS ARE QUITE A BIT BACK FOLLOWING THE WATER LINE IN THE BANK.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE CURRENT HOUSE, JUST UPDATE IT.
>> GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> I CAN. I AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DELTA'S, IT'S HARDLY ANYTHING.
I LIE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> I TOO AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS.
I THINK PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT'S JUST A MINIMAL INCREASE AND BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS LOCATED RIGHT THERE,
[01:25:01]
THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE, THEY'RE JUST MAKING SOME IMPROVEMENTS ON IT.VERY MINOR. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE LA 23-66 AS APPLIED.
>> SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MCCUTCHEON, DO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.
ASSUMING THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, LET'S HAVE A VOTE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[4.5. LA23-000068, Murphy & Co. Design o/b/o 3400 Fox Street Trust, 3400 Fox Street, Average Lakeshore Setback Variances]
MURPHY AND COMPANY DESIGN ON BEHALF OF 3400 FOX STREET TRUST.THIS IS FOR 3400 FOX STREET AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE. MISS CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR 3400 FOX STREET.
THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE IS BASED ON THE LOCATION OF HOMES ON EITHER SIDE, AND IT RENDERS THE PROPERTY UNBUILDABLE.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO ENCUMBERED WITH A VIEW EASEMENT BENEFITING THE OWNERS OF 3350 FOX STREET TO THE EAST.
THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE IS DEPICTED ON THE AERIAL PHOTO ON YOUR SCREEN.
THE VIEW EASEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY IN THE RED BOX.
THE PURPOSE OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK REGULATION IS TO PRESERVE VIEWS OF THE LAKE FROM THE HOMES ON THE MOST ADJACENT LAKESHORE PROPERTIES.
THE STRICTEST INTERPRETATION OF THIS REGULATION LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE SETBACK PROTECTS A LAKESHORE PROPERTY OWNER'S VIEW OF THE LAKE ACROSS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE APPLICATION OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ON THIS PROPERTY RESULTS IN NO AVAILABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING GUEST HOUSE ON THE WEST SHORELINE IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN.
OTHER THAN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, THE PROPOSED HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE WILL CONFORM TO ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR MINOR CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DETACHED GARAGE'S PARKING COURT, WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS AMENABLE TO MAKING THOSE CHANGES.
LATE FRIDAY, THE APPLICANT NOTIFIED STAFF THAT THEY HAD REVISED THEIR PLAN SLIGHTLY, SHOWING A CHANGE IN THE ATTACHED GARAGE.
THE BLACK OUTLINE IS THAT CHANGE.
STAFF PUT THAT ON THIS PLAN TO ILLUSTRATE THAT IT DOES STILL MEET THE SAID SETBACK, THE ONLY CHANGE IS JUST THE ORIENTATION WHERE THE ENTRANCE OF THE GARAGE IS FACING.
THAT CHANGE SHOULD BE PUT ON THEIR PLANS PRIOR TO COUNSEL.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE ORIENTATION OF THE PROPERTY AS A PENINSULA AS THE PRIMARY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, INCLUDING ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT LAKESHORE HOMES.
THEY PROVIDED SUPPORTING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AND THEY'RE ALSO AVAILABLE TO PRESENT THIS EVENING.
STAFF AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S ASSESSMENT THAT THE PENINSULAR CHARACTER OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS THE LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, CREATE CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK RENDERS IT UNBUILDABLE, AS IT DOES OVERLAP WITH THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
THE ADDITIONAL ENCUMBRANCE OF THE PRIVATE VIEW EASEMENT FURTHER COMPLICATES THE BUILDABILITY OF THE PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED DETAILED PLANS TO THE ABUTTING NEIGHBORS, WHICH WERE ESSENTIALLY THE PLANS THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THE PACKET.
NEIGHBORS WERE ENCOURAGED TO REACH OUT WITH ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS, AND STAFF HAS NOT HEARD ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORS.
WE WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS RELATING TO THE CHANGES TO THE DETACHED GARAGE PARKING AREA, BUT STAFF FINDS THAT THE VARIANCES ARE SUPPORTED BY SIGNIFICANT DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
I DO HAVE THE PLANS IN THE 3D RENDERINGS SHOWING THE OVERLAY OF THE PROPOSED HOME WITH THE EXISTING HOME IN RED.
THE NEW HOME IS CONSIDERABLY BACK AWAY FROM THE LAKE AS THE EXISTING HOME, AND IS SMALLER AS FAR AS THE MASSING IS CONCERNED.
[01:30:02]
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, BUT THE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO HERE.>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> T. J. MCDURKY, PARTNER WITH MURPHY AND COMPANY, 235 LAKE STREET EAST IN WAYZATA.
JUST THAT AVERAGE SETBACK LINE.
OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PENINSULA SHAPE THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HERE, IT, AS MISS CURTIS SAID, DEEMED IT UNBUILDABLE, SO WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DEFINE THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE BUILDABLE AREA.
IT MADE SENSE TO US TO TAKE THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THAT 150 FOOT VIEW EASEMENT.
AS YOU SAW FROM THOSE MASSING STUDIES, EVERYTHING IS COMING IN, COMING BACK FROM THE LAKE ON BOTH SIDES.
MASSING IS BEING REDUCED, PULLED BACK FURTHER.
THIS WAS JUST WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE THE BEST INTENTION FOR THAT SITE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. SEEING NONE.
>> THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
SEEING NONE, I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
THIS IS NICE. IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD THAN THAT.
THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK MAKES IT UNBUILDABLE.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD COMPLETELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OTHER SETBACKS.
>> I'M GOING TO DRIVE BY THIS EVERY BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE SUMMER AND I APPRECIATE THE NEW PLANS. IT LOOKS NICE.
I'M GOING TO MISS THE LAKE OFFICE.
>> SINCE THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT OR NOT, I MOVED TO APPROVE LA 23-68 AS APPLIED.
>> WITH YOUR CONDITION? YES. THE STAFF'S CONDITIONS?
>> WITH THE DETACHED GARAGE AND THE DRIVEWAY? YES. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NOTE ON THE ATTACHED GARAGE AND THE RECONFIGURATION, THE SLIGHT ANGLE.
I HAVE A MOTION BY MCCUTCHEON AND I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION UP HERE? SEEING NONE, WE SHOULD VOTE.
>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO NEW BUSINESS.
[5.1. LA23-000067, Lakewest, LLC, 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Concept Plan]
THIS IS LA 23-67 LAKE WEST, LLC, FOR 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD.THIS IS A CONCEPT SKETCH PLAN.
MELANIE, CAN YOU BRING UP THE CONCEPT PLAN, JUST THE REGULAR PDF? THAT ONE.
IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONCEPT REVIEW FOR A NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD.
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ASKED FOR NON-BINDING FEEDBACK, SO INFORMAL FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THEIR DESIGN AND NEXT STEPS FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A DEVELOPMENT ON A 30 ACRE PARCEL.
IT'S ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE PID'S AT THIS TIME.
IT IS A CONDO TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS AREA IS GUIDED FOR SOME OF THE HIGHEST DENSITY IN THE CITY TODAY UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IN THE PAST, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
ALL OF THOSE PROPOSALS HAVE SINCE EXPIRED, SO THERE'S NO CURRENT APPROVALS OR ACTIVE APPLICATIONS ON THE SITE.
THE SITE CONTAINS AN OLD LANDFILL THAT DOES SOMEWHAT HAMPER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOWS SEVEN SEPARATE BUILDINGS RANGING FROM 18-24 UNITS PER BUILDING IN A MULTIFAMILY CONDO, TOTALING ROUGHLY 156 UNITS.
EACH BUILDING IS PROPOSING TO HAVE UNDERGROUND PARKING.
THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE CONTAMINATED SOIL FROM THE WATER TABLE AND WETLANDS AND CAP IT ON SITE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BY PROVIDING THIS LANDSCAPING BERM FOLLOWING ANY MPCA GUIDELINES.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY COMMUNICATING AND WORKING WITH MPCA ON WHAT EXACTLY THAT LOOKS LIKE.
[01:35:04]
THE PROPERTY HAS ACCESS OFF WAYZATA BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH.THE PROJECT WILL BE SERVED BY MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER AND IS WITHIN OUR MUSA DISTRICT TO DO SO.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE CITY'S WILLINGNESS TO ADJUST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGNATED DENSITY GUIDANCE FOR THE PROPERTY.
AS PART OF THE SUBMITTAL, THE DEVELOPER HAS IDENTIFIED WETLANDS RIGHT AWAY, BUFFER AREAS, ALL THAT LIMIT THE BUILDABILITY OF THE SITE.
LIKE I NOTED, THEY'RE WORKING WITH MPCA, THEY'RE ALSO WORKING WITH MINNEHAHA CREEK REGARDING THE DELINEATION OF THE WETLANDS, THE REQUIRED BUFFERS AND SETBACKS ASSOCIATED TO THAT, WHICH ALL INFORMS OUR BUILDABILITY OF THE ACTUAL SITE.
HOW MUCH LAND CAN BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
CURRENTLY, THE SITE IS UNDER TWO DIFFERENT DENSITY GUIDELINES UNDER OUR LAND USE PLAN.
A LOW GUIDANCE TO THE NORTH AND A HIGH DENSITY GUIDANCE TO THE SOUTH.
STAFF ESTIMATES THAT IF WE WERE TO RE-GUIDE THIS SITE, WE WOULD NEED TO MAINTAIN A 15 UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CITY'S OVERALL THREE UNIT PER ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR SEAWARD AREAS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY.
IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT DENSITY GUIDANCE TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE THE SITE TO AN URBAN, MEDIUM, HIGH DENSITY RANGE, WHICH IS A LISTED CATEGORY WITHIN OUR COMP PLAN, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S TWO SEPARATE GUIDANCE RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD MAKE THE OVERALL SITE A UNIFORM GUIDANCE FOR THE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
RIGHT NOW, STAFF IS ESTIMATING THAT AS PROPOSED, THEY ARE ROUGHLY AT 13.8 UNITS PER ACRE FOR DENSITY.
THIS IS ALL STILL BEING WORKED THROUGH AS THE BUILDABILITY OF THE SITE WILL BE MORE INFORMED IN THE SPRING WHEN WE HAVE THE DELINEATION AND CLEARER FEEDBACK FROM MPCA, BUT AT THIS TIME, STAFF BELIEVES ADDITIONAL UNITS WILL BE NEEDED TO REACH THAT 15 UNIT PER ACRE REQUIREMENT.
ZONING. THE PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE REZONED AND DEVELOPED AS AN RPUD, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH SETBACKS AND DIFFERENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
CURRENTLY, IT'S ZONED RR1B, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS WE HAVE SO MUCH DENSITY GUIDED HERE.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE RPUD ZONING WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE REZONING TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE AND WOULD ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN SETBACKS.
AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FLEXIBILITY ON THE STREET SETBACK AS THEY ARE PROPOSING A 35 FOOT SETBACK.
REGARDING MINNEHAHA CREEK AND DNR, THE APPLICANT NOTED THEY'RE WORKING WITH LMCD TO REAFFIRM A WETLAND BOUNDARY AND BUFFERS WHICH THEY HOPE TO ANTICIPATE IN THE SPRING.
ADDITIONALLY, A LOT OF THIS LAND IS WITHIN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND STAFF WOULD ADVISE THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH DNR TO DETERMINE THAT FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AND HOW MUCH LAND IS IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SO WE CAN AVOID IMPACTS TO THAT AREA.
THE BUILDING DESIGN AND STYLE ARE AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT TO THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHILE THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING HASN'T BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE COMMISSION SHOULD TALK ABOUT THEIR GOALS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONTEMPORARY LOOKING BUILDINGS.
MELANIE, I THINK IN THE NARRATIVE, WILL YOU SCROLL DOWN, THERE'S SOME ELEVATION VIEWS EMBEDDED IN THAT.
THERE ARE SOME STONE BASED, GABLED ROOF, STUCK A WALL STYLE, TWO-AND-A-HALF STORY TALL INTENDED TO MEET THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
EACH UNIT IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A ONE LEVEL LIVING AND EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE A PRIVATE SHARED ACCESS, IS HOW IT'S DESCRIBED.
PLANNING COMMISSION MAY WANT TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THAT.
I THINK IT IS EMBEDDED IN THEIR TEXT AS AN IDEA.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT TONIGHT HAS A PRESENTATION WHICH ALSO HAS SOME ADDITIONAL DEPICTIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURE.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, FOR THAT FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT, STAFF HAS POSED A FEW QUESTIONS.
DO YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY? DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PROPOSED BERM AND THE ONSITE CONTAINMENT OF THE SOIL? ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SETBACK FLEXIBILITY REQUESTED FROM WAYZATA BOULEVARD? DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ABOUT THE SITE LAYOUT OR THE PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN?
[01:40:02]
AT THIS TIME, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF TO ENSURE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE CITY.ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REQUESTED TO GIVE THAT NON-BINDING FEEDBACK BASED ON YOUR REACTION TO THIS PROPOSAL.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT, I BELIEVE.
THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK AND CONSENSUS.
>> THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> MELANIE. IT'S THE ORNEL FLATS CONCEPT REVIEW. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KURT FRET WITH LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT.
OUR ADDRESS IS 14525, HIGHWAY 7 IN MINNETONKA.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO HEAR US TONIGHT.
LAURA HAS DONE A NICE JOB IN SHARING WITH YOU OUR THOUGHTS.
I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN OTHER ITERATIONS WE'VE GONE THROUGH OVER THE YEARS AND HAD GOOD INTENTIONS BEHIND ALL OF THOSE.
BUT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO IT, THE CONTAMINATION OR SAW CORRECTIONS AND IN SORTING THROUGH WHAT THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, ALL THOSE COMPONENTS MADE THOSE FINANCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, JUST DIDN'T WORK WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSISTANCE THROUGH A GRANT OR SOME OTHER TIP OR SOME OTHER MATTER.
SINCE THOSE AREN'T AVAILABLE, WE'VE REALLY HAD TO SCRATCH OUR HEAD AND THAT'S WHERE THE BERMING THAT WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY REALLY HELPED US TO CREATE SOME DIRECTION ON SOMETHING THAT COULD BE VIABLE.
A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT US, LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, WE'VE BEEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS MOSTLY IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS FOR ALMOST SINCE THE MID '90S.
WE'VE DONE OVER 80 INFILL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA, AND WE THINK THIS IS A SPECIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WOULD LIKE TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT.
WE VALUE INSIGHT YOU HAVE FOR US TONIGHT.
WITH US TONIGHT, I HAVE KELSEY THOMPSON FROM OUR OFFICE.
SHE'S GOING TO COME UP HERE AND SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL ABOUT [NOISE] THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND STEPHAN JENSEN, THAT MIGHT PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL BACKUP.
BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
I'M THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AT LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT AT 14525 HIGHWAY 7 IN MINNETONKA.
IF YOU WANT TO FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THANKS. YOU ALREADY SEEN THIS CONCEPT THAT LAURA HAD SHARED WITH YOU.
I'LL BE WALKING YOU THROUGH IT.
JUST A HIGH LEVEL HERE, THE SITE YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH, JUST LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF LAKE CLASS.
IT'S ABOUT 30, 30.5 ACRES TOTAL SITE.
HALF OF THAT SITE IS A WETLAND.
LAURA WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH THE BUILDABLE AREA, IT'S ABOUT 11.24 ACRES, A LITTLE BIT UNDER 15 ACRES OF BUILDABLE AREA.
THIS PLAN I CAN BRING YOU THROUGH AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.
THE COUNTY IS ASKING US TO PUT IN A RIGHT TURN LANE AND A CENTER TURN LANE TO TURN LEFT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE'VE GOT ON THE PLANS AREA TO PUT MAYBE A MEDIAN WITH SOME NICE LANDSCAPING MONUMENT SIGN, SOMETHING NICE.
AS YOU ENTER INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, WE'VE BRANDED IT ORONO FLATS, OPEN TO YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT.
AS YOU KEEP COMING DOWN INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU SEE THAT THERE ARE FIVE BUILDINGS ON THE EAST.
THESE BUILDINGS ARE THREE-LEVEL, AND I CAN GET MORE INTO THE DESIGN ON ANOTHER SLIDE ONCE I SHOW SOME ELEVATIONS, BUT THEY ALL HAVE UNDERGROUND PARKING.
WE LEFT ROOM IN THE SITE PLAN FOR JUST SOME SURFACE LEVEL PARKING, GUEST PARKING, PONDING.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN SPACE ON THIS PLAN.
WE THINK THAT THIS IS A REALLY GREAT LOCATION FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT TO REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NICE VIEWS OVER THE WETLAND.
THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES RANGE BETWEEN 18 UNITS AND 24 UNITS.
THEY MEET YOUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET.
AS WE TALK ABOUT THE CONTAMINATED SOIL, THE FIVE BUILDINGS ON THE NORTH,
[01:45:01]
THERE'S REALLY MINIMAL CLEANUP REQUIRED FOR THIS AREA.AS WE WERE DESIGNING THIS CONCEPT, WE EXPLORED POTENTIALLY THE IDEA OF DOING THIS IN PHASES WHERE WE COULD GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST FIVE BUILDINGS, THEN USING THAT MOMENTUM TO GET THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLETE IN A SECOND PHASE.
THEN ULTIMATELY, THAT MATERIAL THAT WE'D BE CLEANING UP AND GETTING THE CONTAMINATED SOIL OUT OF THE GROUNDWATER, THAT CONTAMINATED SOIL WOULD THEN GO INTO THE LANDSCAPING FIRM THERE ON THE SOUTH, WHICH WOULD BE CAPPED WITH CLEAN MATERIAL.
ACCORDING TO THE MPCA, WE CAN USE THAT AREA FOR LANDSCAPING, PROVIDING SCREENING ALONG HIGHWAY 12.
WE'VE GOT A LABYRINTH DESIGNED IN THIS PLAN.
THEN FROM THAT LANDSCAPING BERM, THERE'S A 200-FOOT SETBACK FOR ANY DWELLING UNITS.
WITHIN THAT 200 FEET, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE GOT A LARGE AMENITY SPACE.
I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME PICKLEBALL COURT PLAYGROUND, LIKE LITTLE TODDLER AREA.
I CAN'T READ THIS FAR AWAY, BUT SOME COMMUNITY GARDENS MAYBE LIKE A DOG PARK.
ANYWAY, WE'RE OPEN TO SOME IDEAS IN THIS AREA, BUT WE CAN HAVE ROADS.
WE CAN HAVE PARKING, ANYTHING WITHIN THAT 200-FOOT SETBACK.
IT JUST NO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS.
THAT'S WHY THE UNITS ARE MOSTLY THERE UP ON THE NORTH OF THE SITE.
FROM HERE, I CAN BRING YOU TO THE NEXT SLIDE WHERE WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO DENSITY.
LIKE LAURA MENTIONED, THERE'S A MAP ON THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN THAT SHOWS THE PARCEL OUTLINED IN RED.
WE LEFT OUT THE AREA WHERE THE WETLAND IS, BUT OF THE BUILDABLE AREA, YOU CAN SEE THE URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT'S GUIDED FOR THE 3-8 UNITS AN ACRE IS ON THE NORTH, IT'S IN TAN.
THEN THE URBAN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE BROWN COLOR, WHICH IS GUIDED FOR 20-25 UNITS AN ACRE.
OUR PROPOSAL BLENDS THESE DENSITIES FOR AN OVERALL SITE DENSITY OF ABOUT 14 UNITS AN ACRE.
WE'VE EXPLORED SOME OPTIONS OF PROVIDING MORE UNITS.
IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL, I THINK, WHAT THE CITY IS ASKING FOR FOR THIS SITE TO MAINTAIN THAT DENSITY OF THREE UNITS AN ACRE FOR THE MET COUNCIL REQUIREMENT.
WE COULD EXPLORE POTENTIALLY SOME OPTIONS TO PROVIDE THAT EXTRA UNITS.
AS LAURA MENTIONED, THIS AREA IS DEFINED FOR AN URBAN AREA SO IT'LL BE SEWERED AND WATERED AND VETTED FOR THIS HIGHER DENSITY THAT LAURA CALLED OUT.
I THINK WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE TOOK SOME DATA OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ULTIMATELY, I DIDN'T GET INTO THE DESIGN YET OF THE CONDO FLATS, BUT THE PRODUCT TYPE IS REALLY A HYBRID OF A TOWN HOME AND A CONDOMINIUM.
THERE'S ONE LEVEL LIVING WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE OFFERING.
SOME STATISTICS ARE THAT 56% OF THE HOUSING STOCK IN ORONO IS MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD.
WE'RE SEEING A NEED FOR THIS LIFE CYCLE HOUSING AND MORE DIVERSITY IN THE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THEY LIKELY WILL WANT TO STAY IN THE COMMUNITY NEARBY THEIR FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS.
THIS ONE LEVEL LIVING IS REALLY CATERED TO AN AGING DEMOGRAPHIC WHO WANTS TO AGE IN PLACE, MAYBE WANTS THE MAINTENANCE-FREE TYPE LIVING OPPORTUNITIES, WHO WANT TO GET OUT OF THAT TWO STORY LIVING AND BE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.
SOME OTHER STATISTICS THAT WE FOUND ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT 94% OF ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN ORONO ARE SINGLE FAMILY, WHILE ONLY 6% OF THE UNITS ARE MULTIFAMILY.
FURTHER OF THE MULTIFAMILY, THERE'S A LACK OF THIS TYPE OF ONE LEVEL LIVING PRODUCT IN THE MARKET.
WE THINK IT'LL BE A REALLY GREAT ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE NEED FOR DENSITY IN THIS AREA, BUT ALSO TO NOT BE ADDING TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
WE REALLY THINK THAT THIS ONE LEVEL LIVING PRODUCT WILL CATER TOWARD THAT AGING DEMOGRAPHIC, THE 45 OR 55 PLUS EMPTY NESTERS AND HOPEFULLY KEEP
[01:50:01]
THE SCHOOLS WITHIN WHAT YOU'RE WANTING.I THINK WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
NOW WE CAN GET INTO SOME MORE OF THE RENDERINGS.
REALLY NICE DESIGN, THE WAY THAT THIS IS DESIGNED FOR THE CONDO.
THERE ARE CONDOS THAT LIVE LIKE TOWN HOMES SO THEY DON'T HAVE A COMMON CORRIDOR LIKE A TYPICAL CONDOMINIUM WOULD HAVE.
WE THINK WITH COVID, IT CHANGED THE WAY PEOPLE WANTED TO LIVE.
INSTEAD OF HAVING ENTRANCE THAT EVERYBODY ACCESSES WITH A LONG HALLWAY, THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO COME INTO THE DOOR AND TURN RIGHT OR LEFT, AND GO DIRECTLY INTO THEIR UNIT.
REALLY LIKE A TOWN HOME, BUT HAVING THAT ONE LEVEL LIVING.
THE THIRD STORY IS TUCKED IN THERE NICELY INTO THE ROOF LINE.
IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CREATING MORE NICE, WELCOMING RESIDENTIAL FEEL.
AGAIN, THE PARKING GARAGE WILL BE UNDERGROUND.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON THIS SLIDE.
I ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT THE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY NICE DESIGN WE'RE INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS TONIGHT.
THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION POTENTIALLY TO GO TO A FLAT ROOF THAT WAS DESIRED, ESPECIALLY TO GET SOME MORE UNITS IN ON THE THIRD LEVEL, THAT'S AN OPTION WE'RE WILLING TO CONSIDER.
WE'VE GOT A RENDERING HERE OF WHAT THE AMENITY PACKAGE MIGHT LOOK LIKE JUST IN THAT POOL AREA UP BY THE BUILDING.
I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANOTHER SLIDE OR NOT.
HERE'S THE SITE PLAN IN HIGH LEVEL, SO 156 UNITS, GIVE OR TAKE.
WE ARE JUST INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF, THE DESIGN, THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDINGS, THE DENSITY, AND THE BLENDING OF THE DENSITY AND I THINK THAT'S ALL FROM OUR PRESENTATION.
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO GO INTO THOSE OTHER SLIDES, SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. SO WE CAN BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION THAT WE SAW A LOT THERE I'M SURE.
I THINK MOST OF US ARE HERE WITH THE LAST DESIGN SKETCH PLAN, I THINK FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I'LL START WITH SOME COMMENTS.
WELL ACTUALLY ONE QUESTION ON THE CONTAMINATED SOIL AND THAT PROCESS AND THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU HAVE THE APPROVAL OR SOFT APPROVAL FROM MPCA ON THIS DESIGN RATHER THAN TRUCKING IT OFF SITE.
>> I WOULD CALL IT A SOFT APPROVAL THEY'VE VERBALLY APPROVED IT THEY'RE REVIEWING OUR RESPONSE, OUR WRAP AND WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET A FORMAL APPROVAL ANY DAY.
BUT MOST OF WHAT WOULD BE KEPT ON SITE, IF WE RUN INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE KEPT ON SITE, THERE IS THE RISK WE'LL HAVE TO EXPORT SOME MATERIAL, BUT A VERY LIMITED AMOUNT.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S A PRETTY CREATIVE APPROACH TO UTILIZE THAT AS A BERM BUFFER FOR HOUSES TO THE SOUTH, THE VIEWSHED OF IT.
OVERALL, I LIKE THIS CONCEPT BETTER THAN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX ONE THAT WAS THERE.
I REMEMBER THAT LAST ONE SAYING, LET'S BE EXTREMELY CREATIVE ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST OF ITS KIND AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING IS VERY CREATIVE SO I LIKE THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS I THINK THAT IT'S NICE THAT THESE, I GUESS COMMERCIAL STYLE BUILDINGS ARE UNDER THAT 30 FOOT SO IT APPEARS MORE RESIDENTIAL, LIKE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT'S MY OTHER HYBRID TOWNHOUSE/CONDO I THINK IS PRETTY CREATIVE AS WELL.
THERE'S DEFINITELY A NEED IN THE CITY FOR THE FIRST FLOOR OR SINGLE LEVEL LIVING.
ONE OTHER COMMENT I HAD SEE BLENDING THE DENSITY, I THINK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR THIS PIECE BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S GUIDED IT PUTS
[01:55:06]
THAT HIGH DENSITY RIGHT ALMOST IN THE WETLAND AND SO I THINK IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO TRY TO BLEND IT AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF UNITS.I THINK THAT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT THE STAFF IS WILLING.
I THINK THERE'S A MINIMUM THAT WE HAVE TO HIT WITH THAT AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANYONE ELSE?
>> I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU, CHRIS, THAT I LIKE THIS PLAN, IT'S A VERY ATTRACTIVE PLAN AND I DO LIKE IT BETTER THAN SOME OF THE APARTMENTS WE'VE SEEN BEFORE.
I HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF ENTHUSIASM AT THIS POINT SO I FEEL VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THAT.
ALSO, THIS MAY BE PRELIMINARY PERHAPS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION JUST A COUPLE OF DETAILS AND BECAUSE IF I WAIT, THEN IT'LL MIGHT BE TOO LATE.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I ALSO NOTICED THE FIRE CHIEFS REPORT, HE'S LOOKING FOR TWO STANDARD [INAUDIBLE] WHICH I BELIEVE A BOOK STANDARD IS A 50 FOOT RADIUS AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE WESTERLY ONE MIGHT FIT THERE [NOISE] BUT MAYBE THE EASTERLY ONE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING RIGHT NOW MIGHT BE A LITTLE SMALLER AND SO YOU MIGHT KEEP HIS REMARKS IN MIND AS YOU GO FORWARD.
ALSO, ANOTHER DETAIL IN YOUR MEETING WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY, KEEP IN MIND ALSO THAT ONE OF OUR PRIDES OF OUR RECREATION AREA IS TO THE WEST OF YOU IS, THE LURTON DOG PARK, WHICH I'M SURE THAT MANY OF YOUR RESIDENCES THEY WILL END UP GOING THERE SO PERHAPS IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THERE MIGHT BE A CERTAIN SPOT ALONG THE ROAD WHERE YOU MIGHT BE SUITABLE FOR A DOG CROSSING OR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AND, MAYBE HAVE IT MARKED MAYBE, I THINK ALTHOUGH YOU DON'T SEE THEM VERY OFTEN BUT I DO THINK THAT I'VE SEEN EXAMPLES OF LIKE A DOG CROSSING, OR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FOR SURE, TYPE OF JUST A SIGNAGE, JUST A SIGN LIKE ON MY WAY HOME I SEE DEER CROSSING SIGNS NOT INFREQUENTLY, BUT THIS MIGHT BE A PLACE FOR THAT AND THEN ALSO IN TALKING WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY, YOU MIGHT ASK A LITTLE BIT POSSIBLY ABOUT ONCE THIS IS BUILT, I'M SURE IT'LL BE A TREMENDOUS THING, BUT WITH THESE UNITS AND SO ON, OF COURSE, IT WILL INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON THAT STRETCH OF ROAD WHICH IT'S A PERFECT PLACE FOR.
WHY IS AT A BOULEVARD FOR ACCESS AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE YOU HAVE HIGHWAY 12? I SPOKE ABOUT UNIQUE PROPERTIES A LITTLE EARLIER TONIGHT.
THIS ALSO IS A UNIQUE PROPERTY.
WITH THAT HIGHWAY, WHY IS THAT A BOULEVARD, IT USED TO BE THE OLD HIGHWAY 12 AND NOW YOU'VE GOT BOTH THE OLD AND THE NEW.
IF THERE IS A PLACE THAT CAN SUPPORT HIGH DENSITY, I MEAN, IN MY MIND, THIS LOCATION WOULD BE THAT PLACE.
BUT ALSO, YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOIL CONDITIONS AND SO ON LIKE THAT.
THAT'S GOING TO LIMIT HOW MANY UNITS YOU CAN GET, BUT OTHER THAN THAT IT'S AN EXCELLENT PLACE FOR IT.
WITH ALL OF THAT IN MIND, AT SOME POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, WOULD THEY CONSIDER MAYBE LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT JUST A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE 55 RIGHT NOW AND PEOPLE GO ALL OF THAT.
I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THEM GOING 65 PLUS PAST, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT AND SO ON.
THAT'S PERHAPS NOT A GOOD THING.
BUT THOSE ARE MY LITTLE POINTS.
[02:00:01]
BUT THE BIG POINT IS THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A GREAT PROJECT AND I WISH YOU LUCK.>> I TEND TO AGREE, I THINK WITH REGARDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY, I HAVE A LOT OF SUGGESTION FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY, BUT THIS ONE I DO AGREE THAT DOG PARK IS USED A LOT.
IT'S AMAZING, EVEN ON THESE COLD DAYS, YOU SEE PEOPLE WITH THEIR DOGS THERE.
I REALLY SEE THIS STRETCH SO CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL.
THIS THEORY IS JUST GOING TO GROW AND IT'S GOING TO BE PHENOMENAL. I CAN ALREADY TELL.
I DO SEE A NEED TO GET A CROSSING ACROSS WAS AT A BOULEVARD.
AT SOME POINT, LIKE MAYBE TOWARDS WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOG PARK, THE ELEVATION RISES.
SOMETIMES THE GOLF COURSES, THEY HAVE SOMETHING UNDERNEATH THE ROAD.
I SEE SINCE THE ELEVATION RISES, MAYBE A CROSSING THERE WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE UNDERNEATH THE ROAD.
BUT YEAH, IT'S A PHENOMENAL PROJECT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE UNDERGROUND PARKING WHICH IS HUGE.
A LOT OF DEVELOPERS DON'T DO THAT.
THAT JUST MAKES IT LOOK SO MUCH NICER FROM THE ROAD.
I REALLY LIKE ANGLE SINCE IT'S CLOSE TO THE ROAD, SINCE YOU GUYS WE'RE WORKING A LOT OF VARIANCES HERE.
SINCE YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE ROAD, YOU ANGLE THEM, WHICH IT DOESN'T SEEM SO INTRUDING.
I REALLY LIKE THAT TOUCH OF IT.
THEN YOU INCREASE THE DENSITY THAT WAY AS WELL, WHICH WE NEED FOR ORONO SENIOR COUNSEL.
BUT ANYWAY, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT.
I REALLY LIKE THE CONCEPT DRAWINGS.
THE ONLY FEEDBACK IS YEAH, WHATEVER THE FIRE COAL SACKS ARE 50, GREAT IF YOU CAN APPEASE THEM.
OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT LOOKS REALLY NICE AND I'M EXCITED FOR IT TO GO FORWARD.
>> WELL, I'M REALLY GLAD TO SEE THIS.
I LIKED IT THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT.
BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS HOUSING NEED.
WE HAVE A VERY LARGE AUDIENCE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER APPROACHING OR AT END OF CYCLE HOUSING NEEDS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU STARTED YOUR METRICS AND PUT QUITE A BIT OF TIME INTO THINKING ABOUT PERHAPS THAT A LITTLE OLDER ADULT WHICH I AM.
I HAVE BEEN A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR 35 YEARS, SO I HAVE A LOT OF CLIENTS NOW THAT ARE REACHING THAT END OF CYCLE.
THAT ARE SEEKING THIS ONE LEVEL LIVING, THE SIMPLICITY, THE NO FUSS, THE NO MUSS, MANY OF THEM SNOWBIRDS THAT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHEN WE HAVE WEATHER LIKE THIS.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF NUTS AND BOLTS.
QUESTIONS FOR YOU THOUGH, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SINGLE LEVEL LIVING.
I LIVE IN A CALIFORNIA RANCH ABOUT 4,000 SQUARE FEET, SO NO BASEMENT.
IT'S GREAT FOR MY WIFE AND I WILL PROBABLY GO OUT OF THERE, HOPEFULLY NOT SOON, BUT WE'LL PROBABLY GO OUT FEET FIRST BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NO NEED FOR US TO MOVE.
WE CAN HAVE FAIRLY INDEPENDENT LIVING FOR A LONG TIME.
SOMEONE WHO WERE TO FOREGO THE LARGE RURAL RAMBLER LIKE WE LIVE IN IN ORONO AND GO INTO THAT SIMPLE LIVING, HEATED UNDERGROUND PARKING IS REALLY A HIGH ATTRACTION.
I CAN SPEAK TO THAT NOT ONLY PERSONALLY BUT TO MANY OF MY CLIENTS THAT HAVE MADE THAT MOVE INTO THAT SIMPLER LIVING.
YOU HAVE A LOWER LEVEL HEATED GARAGE, THEN YOU HAVE UNITS ON A GROUND LEVEL, AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHER PRIVATE UNITS WITH PRIVATE ENTRIES ON THE UPPER LEVELS.
WILL YOU HAVE AN ELEVATOR IN THESE? YEAH. THAT'S BECOME MORE COMMON EVEN IN RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO STAY AND AGE IN PLACE, AND THEY PUT AN ELEVATOR IN THEIR HOUSE SO THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE TO MOVE.
THAT'S NICE. THE OTHER THING THAT'S KIND OF AN ECONOMIC QUESTION, AS A FORMER APPRAISER, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME PRICE POINT? I KNOW IT'S QUITE A WAYS OUT TO BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT YOU HAVE AFFORDABILITY PRICE POINT.
>> YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE, THERE'LL BE SOME ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
THEY'LL PROBABLY BE IN THE 600 AND THEY COULD GET INTO THE 900 BUT PROBABLY MORE AT 6 TO 800'S.
>> SQUARE FOOTAGE ON A ONE BEDROOM?
>> PROBABLY IN THE 600 TO 800.
>> BUT MOST MARKED TWO BEDROOM PLUS DEN.
>> 2,000 SQUARE FEET, SOME ARE 1,400, SOME ARE 2,200.
>> THEN ON A LARGER GUEST ROOM TYPE UNIT LIKE THAT, I KNOW IT'S ONLY.
>> THAT BY THE TIME YOU GET THIS DONE AND APPROVED AND BUILT, WILL BE A BARGAIN?
>> I THINK SO. I MEAN, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S A HIGH END DESIGN.
[02:05:02]
EXPENSIVE COMPONENT THAT IT'S NEEDED TO MAKE THAT DENSITY WORK.OTHERWISE WE CAN'T GET IT TO FIT.
>> ANY THOUGHTS AS LONG AS I HAVE YOU HERE.
I NOTICE THAT THE CHIMNEY FEATURE, WHICH IS A COOL, REALLY NEAT FEATURE TO GIVE IT THAT COMFY RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK.
ARE THESE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONCERNED? I MEAN, THESE ARE DIRECT INVENTING GAS FIREPLACES, HOPEFULLY?
>> I DON'T THINK THEY LET YOU PUT TOO MANY WOOD FIREPLACES IN ANYMORE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE NOT PROPOSED TO BE WOOD, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ALLOWED OR NOT.
>> AN INTERESTING QUESTION THAT I GET, REALLY A PLOT.
>> FROM OVER 45 HOME BUYERS IN THIS, WILL YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE GAS STOVES WHICH MANY TOWNHOUSE COMMUNITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED BY CODE?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE.
>> ASSUMED THAT WE COULD, BUT I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DISALLOWANCE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
>> AGAIN, A COMPLIMENT TO YOU ON THE POTENTIAL DESIGN OF HAVING A PARK DEDICATION, WHICH WE USUALLY REQUIRE ANYWAY, IN A RECREATIONAL SPACE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT THOSE THINGS ARE WALKABLE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TOO FAR.
NOT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO HAVE A DOG.
THEY MAY NOW WANT TO GO TO LUTON IF THEY WANT TO RECREATE AND WALK AND BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I COMPLIMENT YOU FOR HAVING THE GREEN SPACE AND DOING IT NICELY IN A PENINSULA THAT YOU HAVE THAT COMES OUT THAT LOOKS TO BE PRETTY MUCH ALL PARK AND DEDICATED TO GREEN SPACE.
>> YES. RECREATIONAL GREEN SPACE, COMMUNITY SPACE THAT COULD BE USED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, BUT IT HAS A SOCIAL ELEMENT AND EXPERIENCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE OR COINCIDENTAL CONVERSATION, CAMARADERIE.
>> SOME OF THESE COMMON ELEMENTS THAT ALWAYS SEEM TO COME INTO THE CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE MARRIAGE WOULD BE COMMON GARBAGE PICK UP.
>> THE GARAGE MOUNTED DISPOSAL ONE TRUCK COMES IN AND PICKS UP GARBAGE FOR EVERYBODY.
IT'S NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND EMPTY ROLLING PLASTIC CONTAINERS FOR EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY.
THE HVAC COST IN INSTALLING, WOULD THEY BE HEAT PUMPS FOR ONE BUILDING, OR WOULD YOU HAVE INDEPENDENT FURNACES AND HEATING FOR EACH UNIT? WOULD THEY BE A TENANT I'M I'M SORRY, A TENANT AND OWNER COST OR WOULD THEY BE UNIVERSAL?
>> I DON'T THINK WE'VE GONE THAT DEEP, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THEY WOULD BE INDIVIDUAL UNITS..
>> SURE. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT OVERHEAD COST BECAUSE THERE'S THE COST OF THE UNIT, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO ONGOING HVAC COSTS AND THOSE KIND OF EXPENSES.
>> I SUSPECT THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE TO A COMMON SYSTEM, BUT THEN IT'S PEOPLE LIKE TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE PAYING THEIR OWN TALE.
>> TOUGHER TO CONTROL ALSO FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERS, ESPECIALLY 8900.
THEY WANT THEIR OWN THIRD MISTAKE.
>> WELL, THANKS. I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE US SPECIFICALLY TO COMMENT ON THAT WE HAVEN'T? I KNOW THESE SKETCH PLANS ARE VALUABLE TO US AND TO THE DEVELOPER, SO LET ME MAKE SURE.
>> I THINK IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES WE COULD GET INTO MAYBE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE WETLAND.
I THINK IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN.
WE HAD A WETLAND THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2016 BY THE WATERSHED.
WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM ASKING IF THEY WOULD RE-APPROVE THIS WETLAND DELINEATION.
WE JUST HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH DIALOGUE BACK FROM THEM.
WE DID HAVE IT RE-DELINEATED, [INAUDIBLE] WENT OUT THERE, I THINK IN DECEMBER OF 2023.
THE YELLOW LINE IS SHOWING THE NEW DELINEATION WHERE THE RED LINE IS SHOWING
[02:10:01]
THE OLD DELINEATION. ONE QUESTION.THE NEXT STEP AFTER THE CONCEPT REVIEW WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEN IT'S TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION.
WE ARE TRYING TO GAUGE WHAT STAFF AND WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER US APPLYING FOR OUR PRELIMINARY PLANT APPLICATION WITHOUT THE FORMAL REVIEW RESPONSE FROM THE WATERSHED, GIVEN THAT THERE'S REALLY BEEN LITTLE TO NO CHANGE, AND US, AS THE APPLICANT, WOULD BEAR THE RISK THAT IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES TO OUR APPLICATION THAT OBVIOUSLY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND BUILD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT JUST TO GET THAT PROCESS STARTED EARLIER THAN WAITING FOR THE WATERSHED.
>> THEY'RE WAITING FOR JUST THE SITE VISIT AND APPROVE THE NEW.
>> I THINK YOUR POLICY IS WE NEED TO HAVE A CURRENT [INAUDIBLE] APPLICATION, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION BECAUSE IT'S SEASON TILL SPRING.
>> NARROW WINDOW FOR YOU TO DO THAT.
>> YES. BUT BECAUSE IN THIS CASE IT REALLY IS GOING TO HAVE VERY LITTLE, IF ANY, IMPACT ON OUR APPLICATION.
WE'RE WILLING TO BEAR THAT RISK BUT WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THE PROCESS GOING AND IF IT CHANGED WE WOULD MODIFY THE PLAN SLIGHTLY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT CHANGE.
>> SO IT'S AN APPLICATION WITH A CONDITIONAL WETLAND.
IT'S MORE OF A STAFF QUESTION ON THAT.
>> YEAH. WHAT WE LOOK AT WITH WHAT WE REQUIRE, WHY WE REQUIRE THAT DELINEATION.
ONE IS TO DETERMINE THE EDGE OF WETLAND, BUT ALSO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY THEIR BUFFERS, AND THEIR BUFFER AVERAGING, AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION OF THAT WETLAND AND WHAT TYPE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT BOTH THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE WETLANDS, OR THE BUFFERS ASSOCIATED, OR GIVE ANY FLEXIBILITY ABOUT BUFFER AVERAGING AND EVERYTHING.
SO IF IT'S COMING LIKE A RECLASSIFICATION, OR THEY'RE DETERMINING IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF WETLAND THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS THE TYPE OF BUFFERS NEEDED.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE ASKING BECAUSE OF MAYBE THAT CUL DE SAC, OR MAYBE ONE OF YOUR BUILDINGS YOU'RE LOOKING AT AVERAGING AND YOU WANT TO GET CLOSER IN ONE SPOT TO MAKE A LARGER SPACE IN ANOTHER SPOT.
THAT ALL IS HOUSED UNDER THAT DELINEATION, WHICH IS WHY WE REQUIRE IT AT A TIME OF SUBMITTAL.
AND IT'S OUTSIDE OUR GOVERNMENT POWER TO DETERMINE.
SO THAT DIRECTLY INFORMS OUR SETBACKS AND IN THIS CASE IT WILL DIRECTLY INFORM THE BUILDABILITY OF THE SITE, WHICH IS A KEY NUMBER THAT INFORMS OUR DENSITY CALCULATION.
WE WOULD WANT THAT DELINEATION DONE SO WE CAN DETERMINE THE BUFFERS AND SUBTRACT THAT LAND TO FIGURE OUT YOUR DENSITY.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE. ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO WE DID HAVE [INAUDIBLE] GO OUT ON SITE AND ALSO UPDATE, IT'S CALLED A MNRAM REPORT.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR WETLANDS, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR THESE DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS.
ANYWAY, THEY WENT OUT ON SITE AND FOUND THAT THE WETLAND ON THE EAST IS A MANAGE 1 AND THAT THE WETLAND ON THE WEST IS A MANAGE 2, AND GAVE US THIS INFORMATION FOR THE BASE BUFFER WIDTH, THE MINIMUM BUFFER WIDTH, AND THEN HOW YOU COULD OBVIOUSLY AVERAGE THAT.
SO WE DO HAVE THESE RESULTS AND THESE HAVE BEEN ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE WATERSHED.
WE WERE, AGAIN, HOPEFUL FOR THEIR RESPONSE, BUT JUST HAVEN'T HEARD A RESPONSE FROM THE WATERSHED SO WE'RE THINKING THIS MIGHT ALSO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T RESPOND TO UNTIL SPRING WHEN THEY REOPEN, BUT [INAUDIBLE] HAS BEEN IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THEM AND TRYING TO GET AN ANSWER.
SO THIS TOO WE WOULD UNDERSTAND IS IN OUR SUBJECT TO CHANGE IF THE WATERSHED, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DIDN'T APPROVE THIS.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SPEAKS TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.
WE DID DO SOME EXTRA WORK TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BUFFERS WOULD BE.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S A CHANGE FROM WHAT YOUR CURRENT DELINEATION IS.
THE WETLAND 1 AND 2, ARE THEY CHANGING THEIR TYPES?
>> YEAH. I THINK CURRENTLY IT'S PRESERVED.
>> WHICH DIRECTLY TELLS THE WATERSHED THE TYPES OF BUFFERS AND THEN THEY'RE THE ONES THAT GIVE THE FLEXIBILITY OF WHERE IT SHOULD BE 40 FEET OR 60 FEET AND WHERE THEY CAN GIVE LENIENCY TO ALLOW THAT MINIMUM LIKE 24 FEET WHICH WE WOULDN'T DETERMINE AND WOULD DIRECTLY INFORM BOTH THE LAYOUT AND THEN THE BUILDABILITY OF YOUR SITE.
I WOULD SAY THAT IS A KEY KEY INFORMATION FOR US TO DO OUR ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> LAURA SPARKED A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS NOW.
[02:15:02]
FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION BECAUSE MAYBE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM HEARD BEFORE, BUT IT WENT BY PRETTY FAST FOR ME.SO IF YOU DON'T MIND REPEATING, THE MATERIAL THAT YOU HAVE TO REMOVE, THE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT BERMING.
WILL SOME OF THE MATERIAL STAY THEN ON SITE AND BECOME BASIS FOR SOME OF THE OTHER LAND OR STRUCTURE?
>> SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO DIG OUT, NOT ENTIRELY, BUT A LARGE PORTION OF THE SITE.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CLEAN IT UP IN ITS ENTITY BUT TAKE A LOT OF THE MATERIAL OUT OF THE WATER TABLE, AND PUT IT IN A FARM ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY, THAT YELLOW AREA ON THE MAP, LANDSCAPING BERM.
SO WE CREATE A BIG MOUND THERE, AND THEN CAP IT WITH CLAY AND TOP SOIL THAT COULD GROW TREES, AND LANDSCAPING, AND CREATE SOME NICE FEATURE OUT OF IT.
>> AND WHAT SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO REMOVE? WHAT PUT THAT IN THAT STATE?
>> WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE '70S AND EARLY '80S WHEN THEY RE-DID HIGHWAY 12 GOING INTO THE CITY, MINNEAPOLIS, MAINLY EVERYTHING THEY FOUND THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO GET RID OF GOT DUMPED THERE.
AND THEN THE FARM THAT LIVED THERE, ANYBODY IN THE AREA THAT HAD SOMETHING TO GET RID OF WAS WALKING TO DUMP IT THERE TOO.
AND SO IT BECAME A LANDFILL AND WE'VE DONE TESTS THERE AND HAVE EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS ON IT, AND IT HAS HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE, AND IT HAS A LOT OF ORGANICS IN IT WHICH CAUSE METHANE.
THEY'RE JUST LEAVES AND TREE, GRASS CLIPPINGS, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE ALSO.
BUT IT CAUSES METHANE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT THEY WANTED THE HOUSING TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SEPARATION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH METHANE THAT WE CAN LIGHT A TORCH, BUT IT MEETS THEIR CRITERIA.
>> NOW I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.
>> TAKING UP A BUNCH OF THOSE.
>> ONE LAST ONE, I PROMISE I WON'T ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.
IN THE WETLAND DELINEATION PROCESS, AND AGAIN, BOTH CITY AND OTHER AGENCIES ALL SPEAK TO PROTOCOL IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THIS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER WETLANDS THERE THAT ARE DEEMED IN A CATEGORY THAT YOU ARE USING OR WOULD NEED TO USE? THIS IS VERY COMMON IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHERE DEVELOPERS SOMETIMES GET A LITTLE GREEDY AND THEY WANT TO GET A COUPLE MORE HOUSES IN.
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE DELINEATION PROCESS AND THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH DNR AND THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CATEGORIES OF THOSE WETLANDS.
IN THAT PROCESS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN AT QUITE LARGE SCALES, MUCH LARGER SCALE THAN THIS, WE HAVE HAD A DNR-APPROVED REPLACEMENT OF WETLANDS THAT ARE NOT REALLY NATURAL ELEMENTAL.
THEY'RE NOT CATEGORIES AS HABITAT.
THOSE WETLANDS WHICH REALLY DON'T SERVE A REALLY GREAT ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSE CAN BE REPLACED ELSEWHERE.
IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN YOUR PLAN THAT YOU WOULD NEED?
>> A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE THAT IS ON NORTH PORTION OF THE MAP.
RIGHT IN THERE. IT'S SHOWING IN GRAY.
IT'S GRAYED IN. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD PUT THE CURSOR ON IT.
RIGHT THERE. THERE'S A SMALL AMOUNT OF WETLAND IN THERE THAT WE'LL NEED TO GET A REPLACEMENT WETLAND BY A WETLAND CREDITS BOARD.
>> IT'S PROBABLY A QUARTER OF AN ACRE, NOT EVEN 200 BY 10 OR 15 FEET.
>> IT CAN GET EXPENSIVE UNLESS YOU FIND CHEAP CREDITS.
>> IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY MAKE UP ON-SITE ALSO.
>> SURE. [NOISE] TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THAT'S THE ONLY PORTION OF WETLAND THAT WE WOULD NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S NOT REALLY DRIVEN BY LOCATION OF THE PROJECT.
IT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO PUT THE TURN LANE, SO WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OF THAT.
[02:20:03]
IF WE DID, WE COULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT IT.OTHERWISE, WE WEREN'T INTENDING TO FILL ANY PORTION OF WETLAND.
>> IS THAT TURN LANE, IS THAT STATE HIGHWAY OR IS IT IN HENNEPIN?
>> HENNEPIN COUNTY IS REQUIRING.
WHY SHOULDN'T WE CONTINUE WITH YOUR THOUGHT IF YOU HAD MORE ON THAT? OTHERWISE, YOU ASKED IF WE HAD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU CAME UP WITH THE QUESTION.
IS THERE A MECHANISM THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD IN OUR APPLICATION WITHOUT HAVING A COMPLETE WETLAND DELINEATION, KNOWING WE BEAR THE RISK OF HAVING TO MANIPULATE OR MOVE A BUILDING OR A ROAD, OR SOMETHING IF IT COMES BACK DIFFERENTLY? DO YOU GIVE US THAT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO START THIS SPRING, SUMMER VERSUS THIS FALL?
>> I CAN LOOK AT THE CODE AND DEPENDING ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE FROM CHEL HOG AND WE HAVE A RECENT DELINEATION AND HOPEFULLY, WE CAN HAVE A MEETING WITH THE WATERSHED HERE SOON TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM, AND WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S ENOUGH DEFINITE INFORMATION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED APPLICATION.
IT'S REALLY JUST A MATTER OF CHANGING THOSE WETLANDS FROM DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT TYPES THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS YOUR BUFFERING PUT ON BY THE WATERSHED.
IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
THEN SECONDARY, BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING GRADING ON THE SITE WITH ALL OF THE BERMING AND EVERYTHING AND YOU'RE CLEANING UP THOSE WATERWAYS IS THAT IMPACTING YOUR WETLAND EDGE OR GRADING IN YOUR WETLAND? JUST THE WETLANDS IN GENERAL, HOW ARE WE IMPACTING THAT WITH THE PROJECT? I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT MORE TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
>> THIS BRINGS US TO COUNSEL UPDATE.
[6. Council Update]
>> PERFECT. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE HAVE MET.
I KNOW YOU GUYS ALL HAVE NOW LOGGED IN AND ARE USING ILEGISLATE.
THAT IS OUR NEW SYSTEM THAT WE'LL BE HAVING MOVING FORWARD.
WE'RE STILL WORKING INTERNALLY ON SOME FORMATTING OF THE COVER LETTERS AND OF THE AGENDA.
I JUST KNOW THAT'S HOW WE'LL BE NOTIFYING YOU MOVING FORWARD.
THE COUNCIL HAS ALSO JUMPED ON AND HAVE ADAPTED TO ILEGISLATE.
SINCE I'VE SEEN YOU LAST THE APPLICATIONS THAT GOT FINALIZED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A RETAINING WALL VARIANCE ON 2601 CASCO THAT GOT APPROVED, AND THEN THERE WAS A NEW HOME AT 3600 CASCO AND THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED.
THEN SPRUCE PLACE HAD THAT LAKE ACCESS VACATION THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL BUT THEY TOOK YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN A DRAINAGE AREA FOR THE DRAINAGE TO THE LAKE TO MAINTAIN THAT UTILITY THERE.
I BELIEVE THOSE ARE OUR MOST RECENT APPLICATIONS CLOSING UP WHAT HAPPENED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR.
COMING IN TO THE BEGINNING PART OF THIS YEAR, STAFF HAD BEEN WORKING ON A RECODIFICATION PROJECT.
WE ARE COORDINATING WITH DNR TO GET THEIR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER, BUT JUST KNOW THAT A BUNCH OF TEXT AMENDMENTS AS A RECODIFICATION WILL BE COMING YOUR WAY, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT GETS PACKAGED AND HOW WE GET THE INFORMATION BACK FROM DNR.
I AM CONSIDERING HOSTING A WORK SESSION FOR US TOO TO DISCUSS IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF LITTLE CHANGES.
HOPEFULLY, IT'S NOT ANYTHING TOO BIG OR MAJOR, BUT IT'S A LOT OF REWRITING, REORGANIZING RED LINING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
I'M CONSIDERING THAT DEPENDING ON HOW WE GET OUR FEEDBACK BACK FROM DNR.
OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
WITH ALL THAT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> OPPOSED?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.