Mar 18, 2024 Planning Commission

WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE MARCH 18TH, 2024, MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.

[1. Call to Order]

[00:00:07]

WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE FOLLOW ALONG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[3. Approval of Agenda]

AND JUST BEFORE WE APPROVE THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE NOTE THAT THE WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB APPLICATION IS NOT ON THIS AGENDA.

THAT WAS A LATE DELETE.

AND I THINK THEY'LL BE ON THE APRIL 15TH MEETING.

SO WITH THAT ANYONE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.

I HAVE A MOTION BY RESSLER AND A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY

[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 2024]

PLANNING COMMISSION. A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

A MOTION BY RESSLER.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES.

[5.1. #LA24-000008, GreenWood Design Build o/b/o Brenda Iversen, 1850 Lakeside Trl, Variance (Melanie Curtis)]

THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE LA 20 4-8 GREENWOOD DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF BRENDA IVERSON FOR 1850 LAKESIDE TRAIL.

THIS IS FOR VARIANCE.

MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU.

THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED IN 2019 AS PART OF THE WILLOW BAY SANCTUARY DEVELOPMENT.

DICKEY'S LAKE CREEK, WHICH IS A PROTECTED TRIBUTARY, CROSSES THROUGH THE PROPERTY, CREATING A 150-FOOT-WIDE HARD COVER RESTRICTION ZONE IN THE FRONT YARD, SHOWN IN GREEN ON THE SCREEN.

THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A DRIVEWAY WITH A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET WITHIN 75-FOOT SETBACK AREAS IF THERE IS NO OTHER ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE EIGHT-FOOT-WIDE DRIVEWAY TO BE INCREASED TO 12FT, CREATING NEW ENCROACHMENTS AND ADDITIONAL HARD COVER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CREEK. THEIR REQUEST TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL 737FT² OF HARD COVER WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK.

THE PROPERTY WOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONFORMING TO THE TIER TWO HARD COVER LIMIT.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE LOCATION OF THE TRIBUTARY AND SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE NARROW WIDTH AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCE.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE NEWLY CREATED PROPERTY AND ROADWAY CORRIDOR WERE ARRANGED AND ORIENTED, WITH THE TRIBUTARY AS AN EXISTING CONDITION.

THE CODE PROVIDES FOR THE MINIMUM WIDTH TO GET IN AND ACCESS THE PROPERTY WITHIN SENSITIVE AREAS.

STAFF DOES NOT FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUEST TO INCREASE THE WIDTH TO 12FT.

THERE WERE NO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC.

FINDING NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, OR THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.

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

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

YES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS DOUG CUTTING AND FEEDBACK.

I'M THE OWNER OF GREENWOOD DESIGN BUILD AND REPRESENTING BRENDA IVERSON THIS EVENING.

ON THE DRIVEWAY ON THIS PROPERTY.

YEAH. THE APPLICANT HAS SOME CONCERNS OVER THE EIGHT-FOOT WIDTH RESTRICTION ON THIS PROPERTY.

AND I BELIEVE WHAT'S UNIQUE TO IT IS THE FACT THAT IT DOES IMPACT OVER 150FT OF THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY.

THIS ISN'T A SITUATION WHERE A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY IS WITHIN A 75-FOOT SETBACK OF THE TRIBUTARY.

IT IS AFFECTING THE ENTIRE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.

I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, RIGHT AT THE CREEK, THERE'S ROUGHLY 50 TO 60FT OF THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH THERE, WHERE WE HAVE A DROP OFF OF OVER 12FT ON EACH SIDE OF THAT.

THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE EIGHT-FOOT WIDTH IS.

THAT SHE MAY GO OFF HER HARDCOVER AND ONTO THE YOU KNOW, ONTO THE GRAVEL.

AND, AND THERE'S A RATHER DEEP DROP OFF THERE TO THE CREEK.

WE CAN'T ALTER THE GRADING MUCH THERE, BECAUSE THE CULVERT THAT RUNS UNDER THE DRIVEWAY IS ALREADY IN PLACE.

THAT WAS ENGINEERED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO, WE HAVE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH PLAY THERE TO MAKE HER FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY, ESSENTIALLY.

[00:05:10]

THEY ALL MEASURE EIGHT FOOT TEN INCHES WIDE.

SO JUST FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU REMOVE TEN INCHES OF THE SPOT YOU PARKED IN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE AS FAR AS THE WIDTH.

SORT OF SECONDARY CONCERNS IS THIS WOULDN'T BE A DAILY ACCESS, BUT SHE DOES HAVE CONCERNS THAT SAY AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE OR EVEN A MOVING TRUCK WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE HOUSE EASILY. MOST OF THOSE DO DIMENSION AT A FULL EIGHT-FOOT WIDTH IN THEIR WHEELBASE.

SHORT OF THE SMALLER VANS AND ACCESS VEHICLES.

SO. THE QUESTION FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, THE HOUSE IS BEING BUILT.

WHAT? CORRECT. WHAT IS THE FLAT LIKE? WHAT DOES IT MEASURE RIGHT NOW? THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS.

IS IT THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS RIGHT NOW IS CLOSER TO 13 TO 14FT WHERE WE HAVE ROCK.

YEAH. AND SO YOU WOULDN'T IF OBVIOUSLY THE DRIVEWAY EIGHT FOOT IS WHAT'S WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS.

BUT IF YOU MOVE THIS TO 12, YOU WOULDN'T BE DOING ANY ADDITIONAL GRADING TO MAINTAIN A 12-FOOT-WIDE DRIVEWAY.

CORRECT? CORRECT. YEP.

THE GRADING WOULD STAY VERY MUCH AS IT LOOKS TODAY.

WITHIN THAT AREA.

THERE'S ACTUALLY NOT MUCH WE CAN DO TO MODIFY THAT.

IN FACT, THE CONTOURS ON THE SURVEY YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY ARE DASHED, LIKE YOU SEE THERE, THAT IS EXISTING GRADE.

SO, WE'RE PRETTY MUCH MAINTAINING THE EXISTING GRADE THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE 150FT.

AND ALTERING UP WHERE WE CAN PASS THAT WHERE THE HOMES BEING CONSTRUCTED.

SO, THE REQUEST TO EXPAND THIS REALLY WOULDN'T ALTER.

WHERE ANY OF THE RUNOFF IS CURRENTLY GOING, OR WHERE ANY OF THE PROPOSED RUNOFF WOULD GO.

OUR TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, EVEN WITH THE EXPANSION, IS STILL UNDER 9% OF THE PROPERTY.

AND IN TIER TWO WE ARE ALLOWED UP TO 30%.

SO, THE REQUEST ISN'T PUSHING THE LIMITS, FOR EXAMPLE, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TO.

TO COVER THE PROPERTY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSION.

YOU MENTIONED THE DIP.

IS THERE EVER ANY? I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GO OUT TO THIS ONE BEFORE.

APOLOGIES THERE, BUT ANY, LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LIKE A BRIDGE OR ANYTHING OR.

IT'S ALREADY VERY WELL BUILT UP.

I MEAN, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO SEE THE PROPERTY, BUT THE EARTH IS ESTABLISHED ACROSS THE CULVERT TO THE FULL DEPTH.

I GUESS YOU COULD EXPAND OUT, I GUESS, IF THE CLIENTS.

THEIR CONCERN IS THE DIP.

YOU CAN FIX THE DIP BY MAKING A BRIDGE.

SO, I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS CONSIDERED.

I THINK THE CONCERN THERE IS THE BRIDGE DOESN'T.

ALTER THE ALLOWABLE PAVED WIDTH.

SO YEAH, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DRIVE ON THE DIRT.

BUT YEAH, WE'RE ON THE BRIDGE.

BUT BRIDGE, I GUESS, WOULD BE CONSIDERED LIKE A DECK, SO IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ADDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

BELIEVE WHAT WE WERE GIVEN AN EXEMPTION OF 100FT² OF IT.

YEAH, JUST THE 100 SQUARE BRIDGE WOULD BE MODIFICATION OF THE CREEK AREA.

AND. RIGHT.

I WOULD IMAGINE BY THE ORDINANCE NOT GENERALLY WELL RECEIVED AS WELL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. IF NOT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

I SEE NONE. SO, BRING IT BACK.

WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF, MISS CURTIS.

IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THE 12 UP TO 12FT.

DO YOU SEE THAT? HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE CALCULATION? WOULD THAT AFFECT THE HARD COVER? ALLOWABLE HARD COVER ON THIS LOT.

THEY WOULD BE ADDING 737FT² OF HARD COVER.

AND THAT'S JUST WITHIN THAT GREEN AREA, WHICH IS THE 75-FOOT SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CREEK.

BUT YES, THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO THE TIER TWO LIMITATION.

IT'S JUST NO HARDCOVER IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK, SO THE EIGHT-FOOT ALLOWANCE IS A CODE STANDARD.

GOT IT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I'LL START. I CAN SEE THE CONCERNS OF THE APPLICANT HERE, AND I CAN, I CAN SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS THE SAFETY ASPECT.

[00:10:06]

SO, IT'S NOT. IT WOULD JUST BE A PORTION OF THAT DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD BE LIMITED TO WIDTH.

BUT IN THIS APPLICATION, IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THAT DRIVEWAY.

FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, I CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT, AND I COULD SEE IT BE THAT 12-FOOT WIDTH, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW WITH GRAVEL.

WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PAVED SURFACE EXTENDING OUT TO BE A FULL 12 WIDTH WITH DELIVERY TRUCKS.

AND I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THAT MOST TRUCKS AND RESCUE VEHICLES HAVE AN EIGHT-FOOT WIDE OR 8.5FT WIDE WHEELBASE.

SO, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL GRADING, NO OTHER CONCERNS.

BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR OTHER COMMISSIONER'S OPINIONS.

YEAH, I GUESS I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MEAN, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THE GRAVEL PROVIDES AN EXTENSION OF THE HARD COVER TO BE A UTILITY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, DELIVERY VEHICLES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

BUT YOU ALSO, IT'S A PRETTY LONG DRIVEWAY.

SO, IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE CATCHING A DELIVERY VEHICLE ON COMING WHILE YOU ARE OUTGOING THAT'S A LONG WAY TO BACK UP WITH VERY FEW FEET MARGIN OF ERROR AS WELL. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE ENTERTAIN THAT BORDERLINE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO VANITY. THIS CLEARLY IS NOT.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF ESTHETIC.

YOU KNOW, DESIRE BEING AIDED HERE, AND I THINK BASED ON THE APPLICATION.

WHAT'S TRIGGERING THIS IS, IS THE OBVIOUSLY THE SETBACKS WITH THE WATER SO CLOSE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S GOT TO WORK.

AND I THINK IT COULD CREATE A PROBLEM IF IT'S ONLY EIGHT FEET.

SO, I SEE WHERE THE I SEE WHERE THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO ONLY ALLOCATE A KIND OF A MINIMUM.

BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A MINIMUM, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.

AND I DON'T SEE ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.

SO TO ME, EVEN THOUGH I RECOGNIZE STAFF'S DIFFICULT POSITION, I PROBABLY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF GOING TO 12 AT FIRST, THINKING MAYBE TEN WOULD BE REASONABLE.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF MARGIN OF ERROR IF THERE'S VEHICLES THAT NEED TO BACK THEMSELVES UP BECAUSE THEY'RE MEETING HEAD ON, YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

THAT'S MY FEEDBACK.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO COMMENT CONCUR THAT THE TEN IS PROBABLY A REASONABLE NUMBER? EIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT THE.

THAT WOULD BE LIKE A COMPACT CAR SPACE, YOU KNOW, AND OR TYPICAL LANE FOR A CITY STREET WOULD BE A TEN, POSSIBLY 11 IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A STATE AID FINANCING.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, MAYBE A 12 IS USED FOR INTERSTATE FREEWAY LANES, RIGHT? WHICH MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO GO QUITE THAT FAR, BUT CERTAINLY WHEN YOU HAVE VEHICLES THAT THE FEDERAL REGULATION ALLOWS THE VEHICLES TO BE 8.5FT WIDE WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND, AND SO IF SOMEBODY'S GOT A, YOU KNOW, ANY KIND OF A PICKUP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, TRAILERS, YOU KNOW EIGHT IS, IS REALLY RESTRICTIVE AND.

AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT IS A VARIANCE.

IT COULD BE, BUT IT'S THE FIRST TIME I BECAME AWARE OF THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND.

IN THE LONG TERM, WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT MAYBE REVISING THAT TO A SOMEWHAT MORE PRACTICAL FIGURE.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

I TEND TO WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS, TOO.

I'M LIKE, TEN SEEMS TO BE FINE.

AND THEN NOW WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS HERE.

BUT I THINK TEN, BECAUSE STILL IT'S OVER A CREEK, RIGHT? YOU PROBABLY ARE PROBABLY DRY ENOUGH WHERE IT DOESN'T EXIST NOW, BUT IT IS STILL A WETLAND, AND WE WANT TO REDUCE THE RUNOFF.

AND I GUESS. WITH TEN FEET.

DO IT RIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S A DRIVEWAY.

WE'RE NOT RUNNING 30 MILES AN HOUR ON IT.

AND IF THE SIGHT OF YOU.

IF SOMEONE'S COMING, I MEAN, YOU JUST WAIT, RIGHT? IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A HEAVILY TRAFFICKED TRAFFIC AREA, SO I WOULD TEND TO AGREE, JUST MAYBE CURIOUS TO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS, YOU KNOW?

[00:15:06]

A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I REMEMBER SEEING SOMEWHERE IN THE CODE.

REMIND ME A REGULAR DRIVEWAY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.

WHAT IS THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THAT? THE MINIMUM WIDTH IS EIGHT FEET FOR A REGULAR DRIVEWAY.

THAT'S THE. WAS THERE SOMETHING? 14. DID I SEE 14 OR IS THAT A MAXIMUM? NO. WE REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE ENOUGH DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE GARAGE THAT MATCHES THE WIDTH OF YOUR DOORS.

AND THEN WE HAVE CERTAIN TAPER STANDARDS.

AND THEN THE SMALLEST WIDTH WE WOULD ALLOW IS EIGHT FEET.

OKAY. WE'LL TRY TO GET CREATIVE WITH HARDCOVER AND THAT KIND OF THING.

SO, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THEM TO NOT GO LESS THAN EIGHT FEET.

GOT IT. MAKES SENSE.

WELL YEAH, I FIRST I AGREE THAT EIGHT FEET THEN THAT MAKES SENSE WHY IT IS THAT BUT AS A MINIMUM OF EIGHT.

BUT I THINK IF WE'RE CONSIDERING MAYBE A FUTURE AT A CONSIDERATION OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CODE, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF MAKING SURE HARDCOVER IS STILL WITHIN REQUIREMENTS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, NOT TO BE PEDANTIC HERE, BUT TEN FEET VERSUS 12 IS PROBABLY NOT A HUGE DIFFERENTIATOR.

AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, AS COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON MENTIONED, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS IN THE LONGER DRIVEWAY AND IT WINS AND THERE'S GRADE CHANGE. AND I THINK THOSE ARE PROBABLY THE FACTORS WHERE I FEEL LIKE 12 IS PROBABLY MORE REALISTIC THAN IF IT WERE JUST A STRAIGHT SHOT, NOT AS LONG AND FLAT THAT MAYBE TEN WOULD BE REASONABLE.

SO, FOR THAT REASON, IT'S PROBABLY WHY I FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT GOING ALL THE WAY TO 12.

JUST THINKING OF A UPS TRUCK WITHOUT AN ABILITY TO LOOK BACKWARDS WHEN BACKING A TRUCK UP AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

RIGHT. AND I FEEL LIKE IF WE IF THERE'S PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE TO GO ABOVE THE EIGHT AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT SUPPOSED TO REDESIGN THE APPLICATION, THEY'RE ASKING FOR 12. AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY MIND GOES.

IT'S NOT EGREGIOUS BY ANY MEANS TO GO.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A 20-FOOT-WIDE DRIVEWAY OR 16.

AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WON'T EVEN ADJUST THE GRADING THERE.

SO, IT'S JUST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXTRA BLACKTOP ON EACH SIDE.

WITH ALL THAT, IF ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE.

LA24-000008 AS APPLIED.

AS APPLIED. ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE A MOTION BY RESSLER.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? ANYBODY. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SO, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE.

THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.

12 FOR VARIANCE FOR A 12 FOOT.

OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, LET'S VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? POST. OKAY, SO MOTION CARRIES 3 TO 1.

WHO OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED.

THANK YOU. THAT'LL BRING US TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.

[5.2. LA24-000009, Revision LLC, 797 Ferndale Road North, Variance (Natalie Nye)]

THIS IS REVISION LLC 797 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH.

THIS IS FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE.

AND THIS IS MISS NYE.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

JUST ONE MOMENT. I'LL PULL UP THE SURVEY FOR THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME ON A VACANT LOT AT 797 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH.

THE PROPERTY IS A LAKE LOT FRONTING ON LAKE LYDIARD.

LAKE LYDIARD IS CLASSIFIED AS A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKE AND REQUIRES A 150-FOOT SETBACK.

THE PROPOSED HOME MEETS THE 150-FOOT SETBACK BUT DOES NOT MEET THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AS SHOWN.

THIS LINE RIGHT HERE, AND I'LL ALSO PULL UP.

AN AERIAL, WHICH WILL SHOW IT A LITTLE BETTER.

THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS LOT TO BE BUILT UPON WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

THE FLAG SHAPED LOT TO THE NORTH, AND THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, BEING SET BACK A GOOD DISTANCE FROM THE LAKE, CREATES AN EXTREME AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

THE HOME TO THE NORTH IS ABOUT 500FT AWAY FROM LAKE LYDIARD, AND THE SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR IS ABOUT 375FT BACK FROM THE LAKE.

[00:20:09]

STAFF FINDS THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN A WAY TO MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO ANY CURRENTLY ENJOYED LAKE VIEWS.

I'LL PULL UP THE PLANS AS WELL.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE HOUSE SITE IS SITUATED ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT.

THEREFORE. AND THE NEIGHBORING HOME RIGHT HERE IS PUSHED BACK, PUSHED UP A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED HOME IS MEASURING 20FT IN HEIGHT.

AND OUR CODE ALLOWS UP TO 30FT IN HEIGHT.

STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

WE DID RECEIVE A FEW PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM CONCERNED NEIGHBORS.

THOSE LETTERS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR YOU.

I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM MIGHT ATTEND TONIGHT AND WILL SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE COMMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THE LAKE SETBACK IS BEING MET.

IT'S ONLY THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THAT IS RECEIVING THE VARIANCE.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL NEED TO MEET OUR CODE.

ALL OTHER SETBACKS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WILL NEED TO MEET.

AND ALSO, I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT ON THE SEPTIC LOCATIONS.

THERE WERE SOME PROPOSED SEPTIC LOCATION SITES SHOWN ON THE SITE.

THAT WILL ALL BE IRONED OUT AT PERMITTING AND THEY WILL NEED TO MEET ALL THE REQUIRED SEPTIC SETBACKS.

BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS IF THOSE COMMENTS ARE MADE.

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

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROB FISH, AND WE CURRENTLY RESIDE AT 630 INDIAN MOUND IN WAYZATA.

I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND ON OUR INTEREST.

IT WASN'T LONG AFTER WE SOLD OUR HOME OF TEN YEARS AT 735 FERNDALE, WHICH IS TWO DOORS DOWN FROM 797.

AND FROM WHAT? FOR THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT THAT WE REALIZED THAT WE DEARLY MISSED THE SETTING, THE WILDLIFE, THE LAKE, THE PATH AROUND IT.

AND HAVING ONCE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF RETURNING AND BUILDING A COTTAGE LIKE HOME, WHICH MAKES SENSE FOR US AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

OUR CURRENT PLANS CALL FOR A 2800 TO 3000 SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE ON THIS SITE, WITH THE PRIMARY GOAL OF BLENDING IN WITH THE EXISTING SETTING AND WITH AS LITTLE INTERFERENCE AS POSSIBLE TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

IF WE'RE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED.

WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO BEING A GOOD STEWARD, NOT ONLY FOR OUR PROPERTY, BUT WE KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

WELL, WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE STONEWOOD AS OUR CONTRACTOR AND PETROSKY AS OUR ARCHITECT.

AND JOHN DALY FROM STONEWOOD IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OF US.

AS I THINK YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION OF ALL THOSE GUIDELINES, PROCESS CODES, RESTRICTIONS AND THE LIKE.

WITH THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

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

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

FOR THE RECORD, I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT I DID PASS OUT SOME ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM.

THERE WERE SOME NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS. THANK YOU. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARK DOEPKE.

I LIVE AT 265 HOLLANDER ROAD, WHICH IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SURVEY DRAWING, WE COULD.

POINT THAT OUT RIGHT UP THERE.

YEP. THE ITEM THREE UP THERE.

ANYWAY, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MY LETTER THAT I SENT OUT WAS BASED INITIALLY ON WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.

[00:25:03]

SO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

COMING OUT. BUT.

WITH REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED 150-FOOT SETBACK AS SHOWN HERE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT NEEDS TO DO A WATERSHED DELINEATION OR A LAKESHORE DELINEATION, OR I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT'S CALLED, WHICH I BELIEVE NOW, ONCE I GOT THIS DIAGRAM, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S BEEN A COMPANY THAT'S DONE THAT, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER THEY DID A BRAND NEW DELINEATION PROJECT OR WHETHER THEY SIMPLY STAKED THE LOCATION OF THE PREVIOUS DELINEATION PROJECT, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN UP TO 30 YEARS AGO.

SO THAT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME.

BUT I WOULD THINK THAT BEFORE WE START TALKING TOO MANY SPECIFICS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT 150-FOOT LINE AS SHOWN, IS, IN FACT FROM THE MCD IS APPROVED.

DEAL. THE LOT WE'VE LIVED IN THE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 28 YEARS.

THE LOT IS VERY LOW.

IN MY LETTER I GO INTO SPECIFICS WITH REGARDS TO SOME OF THE DATA THAT I GOT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY.

IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE PROPOSED HOME, AS WELL AS THE SEPTIC SITES ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FEMA 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN DEAL.

SO THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE.

AND I LOOKED ALSO AS TO THE HIGH-WATER LEVEL MARK, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS 793 POINT SOMETHING FEET, AND THERE WAS JUST A TINY PORTION, I THINK, OF ONE OF THE SEPTIC THINGS THERE THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE ENCROACHED ON THAT JUST A TITCH, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE SIGNIFICANT.

IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING TO INCLUDE COMMENTARY ON LOCATION OF THINGS LIKE SEPTIC FIELDS AND THAT SORT OF THING.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO LOOK AT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

AND THAT TECHNICALLY IS THE ONLY SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS MEETING THAT IS TECHNICALLY OUR ONLY.

BUT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LET US KNOW YOUR CONCERNS OF THINGS AND IF STAFF CAN RESPOND TO THAT.

BUT A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION ISN'T IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW.

YEAH, OKAY. AND PROJECT LIKE THIS.

THERE'S A TON OF STUFF THAT DOESN'T GET DETERMINED UNTIL LATER, BUT SO I GUESS SO I GUESS MCDW NEEDS TO DO THEIR STUDY BEFORE, IN MY OPINION, BEFORE YOU'D MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, BUT FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE HOUSE IN THE LOCATION WHERE IT IS. AND LIKE I SAID IN THE LETTER, I'D WELCOME NEW NEIGHBORS.

IF AS LONG AS ALL THE ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES ARE KIND OF DEALT OR ALL OF THE SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ARE MADE WITH REGARD TO THE SEPTIC, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION, JUST BASED ON MY OBSERVATION HERE, OF THE CONTOUR LINES AND SO FORTH, THE SEPTIC YOU'VE GOT A PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM OR AREA AND A BACKUP OR A SECONDARY SEPTIC AREA. IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE SECONDARY SEPTIC AREA IS LOCATED AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THAN THE PRIMARY SEPTIC AREA.

SO SOMEWHERE IN HERE.

WELL, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT THE PRIMARY SEPTIC AREA BE ESSENTIALLY MOVED TOWARDS THAT NORTHWEST TO SOUTHEAST LOT LINE THERE TEN FEET FROM IT, AND THAT'LL BRING IT AWAY FROM BEING RIGHT ON TOP OF THAT HORIZONTAL PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEN YOU TILT THE SECONDARY SITE JUST A TITCH, AND YOU COULD HAVE TWO SITES, THE PRIMARY ONE OR THE ONE THAT YOU'D BE USING.

FIRST WOULD BE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION, THE LOWER SEPTIC.

THE LOWER SEPTIC SYSTEM BASED ON THE CONTOUR LINES, LIKE I SAID, RUNS ANYWHERE FROM 975FT ELEVATION TO 979FT ELEVATION.

SO THAT 975FT LOW POINT IS JUST ABOUT TWO FEET ABOVE THE HIGH-WATER MARK FOR THE

[00:30:06]

JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT MATTERS, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D POINT IT OUT.

DO THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS NEED TO BE 150FT FROM THE LAKESHORE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

BUT AGAIN, ANY OF THE SEPTIC COMMENTS AND STUFF WILL BE FOR A FUTURE AND THEY ALL HAVE TO GET APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

SEPTIC ENGINEER.

ALL THE PROCESSES THERE ARE ALSO GOING TO ADD.

ONE OF THE THINGS I HEARD IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPTIC.

SO THAT'S NOT WE'RE NOT APPROVING OR DELIBERATING PLACEMENT OR GOING OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR SEPTIC.

IT'S MERELY JUST ALLOWANCE FOR PLACEMENT OF THE HOME BASED ON SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ON THE UNIQUE LAYOUT OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ON THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

OKAY. I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION AS TO WHETHER GIVEN THE VERY LOW LEVEL OF THIS LOT.

AND I'M NOT SURE HOW WATER SEEPS UNDERGROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT ARE THERE GOING TO NEED TO BE ANY PILINGS DRILLED IN THERE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, OR DO YOU NEED TO BRING IN A LOT OF FILL? I GUESS THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION.

YEAH. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME.

AND THAT WOULD AGAIN BE DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT ITSELF.

OKAY. AND THAT'S SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT HEARING IN FRONT OF THIS BODY.

NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANOTHER HEARING UNLESS THERE WAS A VARIANCE INVOLVED IN THAT.

SO THAT WOULD JUST BE THROUGH STAFF.

TYPICAL HOUSE BUILDING THING.

THIS IS THIS IS WHAT WE PROPOSE TO BUILD.

HERE'S OUR HERE'S OUR FOUNDATION, HERE'S OUR BASEMENT, ET CETERA.

AND THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH ENGINEERING.

SO, EVERYTHING ON THIS LOT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS CONFORMING AND WILL BE CONFORMING TO THE CODE.

YEAH. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A VARIANCE FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

SO OKAY.

AND AS THIS PROCESS GOES ON, WILL, WILL NEIGHBORS BE INFORMED OF PLANS LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THEY DECIDE TO FLIP THE HOUSE SOMEWHERE ELSE AND PUT THE SEPTIC SOMEWHERE ELSE.

OR IF THEY IF YOU CHOOSE TALLER, WOULD THAT BE A.

WELL, IT WILL ALL BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE IT'LL BE AN APPLICATION THROUGH THE CITY.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO STAY INFORMED ON IT, YOU WILL BE.

BUT I SUGGEST THAT YOU IF THOSE ARE CONCERNS, I SUGGEST YOU TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE COMMUNICATION ABOUT THOSE.

BUT AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

AND IF THEY WERE TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT WOULD CREATE A NEED FOR THEM TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE, THERE'D BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL THAT.

BUT I CAN ONE SECOND CLARITY.

SO, IF THIS WERE TO ACT ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN IF THE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO ACT ON IT BECAUSE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE RECOMMENDING BODY, THIS APPLICATION WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION.

IF THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO REDESIGN THEIR PLAN TO MOVE IT TO A NEW LOCATION, MAKE IT TALLER, PROPOSE A NEW ENCROACHMENT BEYOND WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, OR IF IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT WOULD WARRANT AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND WOULD WARRANT IT TO COME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND A NEW NOTIFICATION WOULD GO OUT.

OKAY, BUT THAT'S IF IT'S A VARIANCE AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY A CHANGE IN THE PLANS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE BOUNDARIES THAT WE HAVE HERE.

THEY NEED TO MATCH WHAT GETS APPROVED.

SO, THEIR BUILDING PERMIT WILL NEED TO MATCH THIS LOCATION, THE HEIGHT THAT'S PROVIDED WITH THE.

GOTCHA. OKAY. IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT THOUGH IS CONFORMING TO THE CITY CODE, LIKE REORIENTING OR RE GETTING MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THEIR SEPTIC OR REORIENTING THEIR DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TRIGGER A NEW VARIANCE PROCEDURE BECAUSE THOSE WOULD BE CONFORMING THINGS WITHIN THE CITY CODE. OKAY.

AND ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT, AGAIN, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 28 YEARS.

WE'VE GOT SOME OTHER FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE 30 OR SO ANYWAY, FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

THERE'S A KIND OF A TRAIL AROUND THE LAKE THAT RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKESHORE, WHICH HAS BEEN TYPICALLY USED AND REGULARLY USED BY LOTS OF PEOPLE IN TERMS OF ACCESSING THE WOOD RAIL STATE PARK OR STATE NATURAL AREA OR WHAT IT'S WHATEVER IT'S CALLED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF LYDIARD LAKE.

SO AGAIN, I'VE NEVER BEEN AWARE OF ANY HOME ALONG THE LAKE THAT'S HAD A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE TRAIPSING DOWN THE LAKESHORE.

BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD, LET'S SAY, GUARANTEE THAT THERE WOULD BE CONTINUED PATHWAY ACCESS RIGHT ALONG THE LAKE. IT'S NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S AN ESTABLISHED TRAIL THERE, ANY EASEMENTS OR ANY SPACE THERE THAT THE CITY MANAGES OR MAINTAINS.

[00:35:02]

YEAH, IT'S INFORMAL.

YEAH. YEAH. SO, THIS USE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

YEAH. BUT IT IS ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY HAS NO RIGHTS TO MAINTAINING OR ESTABLISHING.

SO THAT WOULD BE A REQUEST THAT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH PARKS COMMISSION AND CITY.

BUT I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, I HAVE YET TO MEET MR. FISH, BUT HE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE, AND I THINK THAT THE PATHWAY WENT RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS PLACE THERE, TOO.

I'M NOT PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT ANY CHANGES ON THAT, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO NOT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

GOT IT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION? HI, MY NAME IS JENNIFER GRONOWSKI.

I LIVE AT 793 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, SO I AM THE LOT RIGHT BEHIND.

YES, EXACTLY THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

I DID SUBMIT SOME CONCERNS AS WELL, SO IT WILL BE IN THE PACKET.

BUT YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO FIRST OF ALL UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF RAISE THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY THERE WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.

AS MR. DECK MENTIONED THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THIS LOT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE LAKE.

IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE WETLAND.

IT'S NOT CLEAR AT THIS POINT THAT THE LAKESHORE DELINEATION STUDY OR REQUIREMENT HAS HAVE BEEN MET.

SO, I DO FEEL IT'S A LITTLE PREMATURE TO APPROVE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WITHOUT KNOWING THAT INFORMATION.

AND THE LAKE, THE LAND IS VERY WET.

IT'S VERY DAMP.

AND I AM CONCERNED THAT THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM FOR MY PROPERTY BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY IS ALREADY FAIRLY WET AND KIND OF LOW LYING AND YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY DO HAVE SOME AREAS THAT KIND OF POOL UP ALREADY AND IN FACT, ARE ACTUALLY EVEN WET RIGHT NOW, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T HAD SNOW OR RAIN FOR EVEN, YOU KNOW, SIX WEEKS.

AND SO, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

SO, I WANT TO JUST RAISE THAT AND JUST UNDERSTAND WHY THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WOULD BE CHANGED AND KIND OF WHAT REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE MET IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

SO, THAT'S ONE THING.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED NOW, OR I CAN BE HAPPY TO MOVE ON TO MY OTHER CONCERNS.

BUT SO THAT THAT IS ONE CONCERN.

AGAIN, I MENTIONED THE LOW-LYING NATURE OF THE LOT.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL HARTWELL.

ANY HARD COVER, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT'S A VACANT LOT TO THE LOT.

AS I MENTIONED IN MY STATEMENT TO THE COMMISSION, THEY WHERE THEY PROPOSE TO BUILD THE DRIVEWAY ALREADY DOES POOL UP PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY.

SO, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO AT THE, AT A MINIMUM REQUEST THAT THERE BE SOME SORT OF MITIGATION MEASURES TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT YOU KNOW, IS NOT FURTHER AFFECTED BY THE RUNOFF THAT OCCURS THERE. THERE IS ALSO A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S SORT OF NEAR IF YOU LOOK UP THERE, KIND OF AT THE END OF THE LIKE END OF THE RED LINE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE AT THE TOP THERE'S LIKE A FIRE PIT RIGHT THERE.

YEP. AND SO RIGHT THERE, WATER ALSO DOES POOL UP QUITE A LOT TYPICALLY AFTER A RAIN.

BUT AGAIN YOU KNOW, CONCERNED AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY LEAST LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE BE SOME MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

OF COURSE, I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF WHERE THE HOME IS.

YOU KNOW, I LIKE YOU KNOW, MR. FISH DO ENJOY THE QUIET SOLITUDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE MOVED THERE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO FROM WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, WHICH, IF YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT AREA, IT'S QUITE DENSE.

[00:40:07]

CERTAINLY, PLACING THE HOME WHERE IT IS PROPOSED WOULD BE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF OUR HOME.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK WHERE SORT OF THE AWAY FROM THE POOL, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE THE HOME WOULD BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT HALF OF THE HOUSE.

AND THE HOME IS, YOU KNOW, OUR HOUSE IS SORT OF SITUATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT MOST, WELL, PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE WINDOWS AND THE VIEW IS DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE LAKE.

SO, THERE WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN OBSTRUCTION TO OUR ABILITY TO VIEW THE LAKE.

WE ALSO YOU KNOW, I AM ALSO CONCERNED.

ABOUT THE DISRUPTIVE NATURE OF THE BUILDING.

CURRENTLY THERE IS NOTHING ON THE LOT.

THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY.

THERE ARE NO THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE.

THEREFORE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING SOME PRETTY HEAVY MACHINERY DOWN THAT YOU KNOW, WHICH IS A SLOPE DOWN INTO THAT YARD WHICH IS COMPLETELY COVERED RIGHT NOW WITH TREES.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OUT QUITE A BIT OF TREES IN ORDER TO GET THE SEPTIC BELT OR THE HOME BUILT.

THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY BE VERY DISRUPTIVE TO MY, YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY AS WELL AS MY NEIGHBORS.

WE YOU KNOW, I ALSO AM CONCERNED JUST WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE THERE NOW.

AND GIVEN THE SORT OF WET NATURE AND DAMP NATURE OF THE LAND I WONDER, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE ELECTRIC, YOU KNOW, ELECTRIC, ELECTRIC WIRES ARE GOING TO GO.

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, ELECTRICITY POLES SITTING, YOU KNOW, IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AND THAT SORT OF THING BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE THINGS. LIKE IF ELECTRICAL WIRES ARE ABLE TO BE BURIED ON SUCH A WET LOT.

YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I JUST RAISE THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS FOR, YOU KNOW, OUR VIEW.

AGAIN, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEPTIC.

I DID PUT INTO THE RECORD THAT AT LEAST AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED; THE SEPTIC DOES NOT ACTUALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORONO CODE.

IT IS TOO CLOSE TO OUR PROPERTY LINE UP AT THE TOP.

WE HAVE A A VERY THIN KIND OF PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT RUNS ALONG THAT SIDE.

AND IT DOES NOT LOOK, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL.

OF COURSE, I'M DOES NOT SEEM TO CONFORM TO CODE.

SO, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT IT CONFORM.

I ALSO AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE SEPTIC DOES THE PROPOSED SEPTIC AS LIKE THE ACTUAL SITE, THE PRIMARY SITE AS WELL AS THE FUTURE SITE SEEM TO OVERLAP.

I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN.

AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN, YOU KNOW, HOW CLOSE IN PROXIMITY THAT IS TO OUR PROPERTY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT OTHER PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE A POOL, AND WE HAVE SORT OF A DECK AREA AROUND THAT POOL.

WE SPENT OBVIOUSLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME THERE, PARTICULARLY IN THE SUMMER.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S RIGHT WHERE THE SEPTIC WOULD BE PROPOSED TO BE.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CONCERNED JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THAT AREA.

AND ALSO OF COURSE, OUR CONCERNED AGAIN ABOUT THE VIEW.

AND SO WOULD OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, AT A MINIMUM PROPOSE THAT THERE BE SOME SORT OF MITIGATION MEASURE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, OUR NEW VIEW OF FROM OUR POOL IS NOT OF A SEPTIC MOUND.

SO, I WOULD REQUEST THAT AS WELL.

AGAIN, KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE DISRUPTION.

YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, AS MR. DUPUY MENTIONED, IT'S POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE, THE LAND, THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME FILL OR SOME PYLONS TO BE PUT IN.

OF COURSE THAT WOULD NOT BE VERY PLEASANT FOR, FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING MYSELF.

[00:45:02]

LET'S SEE IF I MAY JUST FOR A MOMENT.

YEAH. AND I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.

NO, NO. FEEL FREE. MAYBE WITH ORGANIZING DIRECTION.

YEAH. SO, IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP A LITTLE BIT ABOUT VIEWS AND EVEN MAYBE STRUCTURAL PLACEMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT.

IF I MAY, I MEAN, IT, IF IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY, OF COURSE, BEING NEIGHBORLY AND RESPECTFUL TO VIEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE PART OF IT, BUT IT IS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. SO, THERE'S THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY FOR US TO, TO WEIGH ON.

THE LOCATION OF SEPTIC, I THINK IS PROBABLY ALONG THE LINES OF NEIGHBORLY AS WELL.

THAT WOULD BE A GREAT CONVERSATION MAYBE TO HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL.

WE CAN'T TELL THEM WHERE THEY CAN PLACE THEIR SETBACK.

I'M SORRY. THEIR SEPTIC MOUND SYSTEM, AS LONG AS IT'S COMPLIANT.

RIGHT. SO, THERE'S REASONS OR RULES THAT THEY HAVE FOR THAT.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DELIBERATE EITHER.

RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE FOCUS OF THIS APPLICATION IN THIS STAGE BEFORE WE GET INTO ENGINEERING, BECAUSE IT'S ALL GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THAT, RIGHT.

THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN, BUT WE'RE REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE IS CAN WE PLACE A HOME HERE WITHOUT FEELING LIKE WE ARE? WELL, MAYBE PUTTING IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

CAN WE PLACE A HOME HERE? AND IS THE VARIANCE BEING MET FOR THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK? AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS GOING TO BE REALLY DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THEY CAN PROVE THAT THEY CAN MEET ALL OF THE REMAINING CRITERIA, IF THAT HELPS.

NO, THANK YOU. THAT DOES HELP.

I'M SORRY. I MAYBE MISUNDERSTOOD COMMISSIONER BOLLIS INSTRUCTION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO TELL OUR FEELINGS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, IF I MAY.

IT IS IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION.

SO, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS YOU HAVE, I'D LOVE YOU TO EXPRESS THOSE CONCERNS SO THEY CAN GO ON RECORD.

THANK YOU.

YES. AND YOU KNOW, THERE WERE A FEW, JUST A FEW OTHERS.

YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT AT LEAST I UNDERSTAND FROM THE PACKET WERE TO BE CONSIDERED TODAY INCLUDE YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.

I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THERE WOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE VALUE OF AT LEAST MY PROPERTY PARTICULARLY BECAUSE AT THIS POINT YOU KNOW, FROM OUR HOME, WE DO NOT HAVE AN OBSTRUCTED VIEW OF A LAKE AND YOU KNOW, CLEARING THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PUT TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, TO PUT THIS HOME AND TO PUT THIS UPTICK WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE WAY THAT OUR PROPERTY LOOKS.

AND SO I THINK THAT IS I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK.

I THINK THE LAST THING I WOULD JUST MENTION IS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THERE BE SOME MITIGATION MEASURES PARTICULARLY RELATED TO THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.

MAYBE THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD COME UP, YOU KNOW, AS THIS PROCESS GOES ON.

BUT YOU KNOW, WOULD JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AS WELL, THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO TELL ME? I'M HAPPY TO LISTEN, BUT OTHERWISE, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I'M GUESSING THAT A GOOD PORTION OF YOUR CONCERNS WILL GET ADDRESSED IN DISCUSSION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? HELLO, MY NAME IS PAUL BREWER, 275 HOLLANDER ROAD.

I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THIS.

ASK FOR THE VARIANCE.

I'VE LIVED AROUND LYDIARD LAKE FOR 32 YEARS, AND MY CONCERNS ARE MORE ABOUT THE QUALITY AND NATURE OF THE LAKESHORE IN TOTAL.

IF THE GOOGLE MAPS COULD ZOOM OUT AND DRAW 150-FOOT SETBACK AROUND THE ENTIRE LITTORAL ZONE OF LAKE OR LYDIARD LAKE OPEN WATER MARSH.

[00:50:01]

AND I WAS THE WATER QUALITY MONITOR FOR THE MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT, FOR LYDIARD LAKE FOR TEN YEARS, AND IT'S THE ONLY BODY OF WATER WITHIN 50 MILES THAT HAS A PLUS QUALITY WATER.

IT'S A VERY UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT.

CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY MR. FISH WANTS TO LIVE THERE.

IT'S A WONDERFUL PLACE TO BE.

BUT THIS SETBACK VARIANCE IS NOT THE TYPICAL WHERE DO WE PUT THE FENCE WITH THE NEIGHBOR? I FIND IT INTRUSIVE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY, ANYTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP ALREADY.

SEEING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

AND YEAH, LET'S IF STAFF COULD PUT UP.

WELL. THE SLIDE YOU HAVE UP IS GREAT.

THIS KIND OF UPSIDE DOWN COMPARED TO THE OTHER ONE.

SURE. I KNOW THE NEIGHBORS HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS, AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT THAT I THINK HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A WHILE AND NO ONE'S BEEN THERE.

BUT WE DO HAVE SOMEONE THAT OWNS THE OWNS THE PROPERTY.

IT'S A BUILDABLE LOT.

THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD WITHIN ALL THE SETBACKS.

THE ONLY ONE THAT THEY CAN'T MEET IS THE ALS, WHICH WE'VE SEEN A BUNCH OF TIMES UP HERE.

AND THAT IS DEFINED BY THOSE TWO EXISTING HOMES.

SO, IF WE COULD GET THE OTHER SLIDE UP.

THE. THERE IS NO BUILDABLE SPACE.

TO. THERE IS NO BUILDABLE SPACE ON THAT LOT TO CONFORM WITH THE ALS.

SO, IN MY MIND THAT IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ALS LINE.

WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S ALLOWED ALL THE OTHER PIECES TO THE BUILD WILL BE WORKED OUT THROUGH THE BUILD PROCESS AT THE CITY, WITH CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERS LOOKING AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, ET CETERA.

IF WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE, IF YOU CAN MISS NYE.

AS FAR AS THE PLACEMENT OF THAT HOUSE WITHIN.

ASSUMING THAT THE VARIANCE GETS GRANTED FOR THE ALS, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THE ONLY CONFORMING SPOT ON THE LOT.

SO, IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO ADJUST OR MOVE THE HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO PUT IT IN A POSITION WHERE IT'S NOT CONFORMING AND NOW IT'S GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL VARIANCES. SO, IN MY MIND, I THINK I SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE.

TO ALLOW THE ALS VARIANCE, I DON'T I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME OTHER DISCUSSION.

ESPECIALLY NOW TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL, ALL OF THE THOUGHTS.

YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE HEARING THE AUDIENCE.

I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY COMING OUT.

IT IS SHOCKING. ESPECIALLY THERE'S NO HOUSE THERE FOR 30 PLUS YEARS.

AND NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE THAT IS, I'M SURE, THE SHOCK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE SEE THESE ALL THE TIME.

AND THIS IS NOT EGREGIOUS AT ALL.

YOU KNOW, SO THE AVERAGE LIKE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND HERE SINCE THE HOUSE DIDN'T EXIST, OBVIOUSLY IT'S IT WASN'T ACHIEVABLE.

MAYBE YOU COULD PUT LIKE, A BIRD HOUSE THERE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT ENVELOPE THERE IS NORMALLY WHAT WE SEE IN THESE APPLICATIONS IS YOU GET PEOPLE TRYING TO PUSH THE LIMITS, AND I DON'T SEE THAT HERE AT ALL.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S A SHOCK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THIS IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY CONSERVATIVE PLAN FROM WHERE I SIT.

YEAH. AND THEN INDIGENOUS.

SORRY, INDIGENOUS. THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP OF MANY.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A BUILD PLAN.

AND ALL THE BOXES THAT YOU GUYS ARE WORRYING ABOUT ARE GOING TO BE CHECKED.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO PERC TESTING FOR SEPTIC AND ALL THAT STUFF AND FILL ALL THOSE DIFFERENT, ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT YOU'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE.

ALL THOSE THINGS WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE STAFF HERE.

YEAH, I THINK I APPRECIATE BOTH OF THOSE COMMENTS BY YOU BOTH.

WE DO SEE IT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY.

LAKE MINNETONKA IS PROBABLY SOMETHING WE SEE THIS THE MOST AND WE'VE EVEN DELIBERATED.

CAN WE CHANGE THE TEXT OF OUR RULES TO BE MORE CONDUCIVE TO NOT HAVING THESE HERD AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK WITHOUT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, USUALLY A PRETTY COMMON ONE.

I THINK THE OTHER ONE IS PUTTING ANYTHING THERE.

WHERE THERE IS NOTHING, THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE.

AND I THINK IT'S NATURAL FOR PEOPLE ARE NATURALLY RESISTANT TO CHANGE, BUT IT ALSO IS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S OWNED BY SOMEBODY ELSE.

AND WE HAVE TO BE ALLOWING IF SOMEBODY OWNS THAT PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY USE THAT PROPERTY AND

[00:55:01]

AND SO, IF THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING HERE IS AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, NOT A NOT THE TOTAL SETBACK, AND WE KNOW THAT THE AVERAGE SETBACK IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE COMMONLY HAD TO ADDRESS BASED ON LAKE SHORE AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

I THINK MR. CHAIR MADE THE REFERENCE AS TO WHAT WE'RE DELIBERATING HERE SOLELY IS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.

I AGREE IT'S BEEN MET.

I ALSO HEAR THE COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THERE'S CONCERN THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHAT THE RUNOFF WILL DO TO THEIR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WHAT IT WILL DO TO THE MAINTAINING THE TRANQUILITY OF THE LAKE AND EVEN PLACEMENT OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, IF THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT GETS USED, I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE MINDFUL OF THAT.

BASED ON WHAT OPTIONS THEY HAVE AS TO WHERE THEY COULD PLACE IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE NEIGHBORS, I'M SURE EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE NEIGHBORLY.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE CURRENT STATUS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

DOES, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE SOIL THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, I'M.

I SEEM TO RECALL THAT IF THEY HAVE TO BRING IN FILL AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WILL TRIGGER ANOTHER VARIANCE.

IF THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT. CORRECT.

IF THERE'S AN AMOUNT OF FILL THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT IN OR WHAT.

I KNOW WE'VE HEARD THOSE BEFORE WHERE SOMEBODY THE WATER TABLE, YOU'VE GOT TO BRING IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF AMOUNTS AND CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME I THINK YOU MIGHT BE THINKING LIKE FILLING IN A WETLAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE'VE HEARD SOME OF THOSE VARIANCES.

I THINK JUST BRINGING IN FILL IN GENERAL, I THINK THAT'LL ALL GET REVIEWED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER WHEN THEY REVIEW THE ENGINEERING PLANS.

AND SEE WHAT IF THE THRESHOLDS ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S PERMITTED.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ANY ANYTHING THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE ALLOW WOULD NEED TO COME IN FOR A VARIANCE.

BUT I'M NOT THE ONE WHO REVIEWS KIND OF THE BRING IN THE FILL AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO. WELL, THE ONLY REASON WHY I HAD A QUESTION FOR THAT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS THERE WAS A QUESTION AS TO WHAT TRIGGERS THIS ALLOWED THIS TO COME BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION.

AND I RECALL THERE WAS AN APPLICATION ON NORTH SHORE DRIVE WHERE WE HAD ALREADY APPROVED A VARIANCE, BUT THEN SOME STUDIES THAT CAME BACK BECAUSE THERE WAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FILL THAT YOU CAN EITHER BRING IN OR TAKE OUT WITHOUT AND HAVING TO PERMIT THAT.

AND I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT TRIGGERED THAT.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT VERY WELL COULD OCCUR HERE, IF THAT IS A SITUATION.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WE HAD A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF FILL.

WE'VE CHANGED THE CODE STRUCTURE TO PERMIT THAT FILLING ACTIVITY THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS.

IF IT'S IF FILLING OR, OR REMOVAL IS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, IT'S LIKELY TRIGGERING COUNCIL REVIEW.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT.

FILL BEING BROUGHT INTO A SITE.

JUST STRICTLY TO BE BRINGING IN TO PUT THE HOUSE ON TOP OF IT DOES IMPACT WHERE WE CALCULATE BUILDING HEIGHT.

THE HOME THAT'S PROPOSED HERE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE HEIGHT THAT IT'S PROPOSED TO BE.

AND IF IT IS, IF IT IS ADJUSTED SUCH THAT THE HOUSE WILL BE TALLER, IT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THAT THAT I HEARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO, I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL.

SO, GETTING BACK TO IT, I THINK FOR ME RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE A CONDITION OF ANY OF OUR MOTIONS, BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT AFTERWARDS.

THE WETLAND DELINEATION, THE STORMWATER RUNOFF THE PROPER PILINGS AND FOOTINGS FOR PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURE.

SO RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE FOCUS HAS GOT TO BE JUST SOLELY ON WHAT THE APPLICATION IS FOR, WHICH IS AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

SO, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

AND I'D LIKE TO.

AGREE IN THE SENSE OF THE WE HAVE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.

I IN THE PAST SPOKEN ABOUT UNIQUE PROPERTIES AND UNIQUE SHAPES AND PROPERTY LINES AND EVERYTHING.

AND MOST OF THE TIME WHEN I'VE APPLIED THAT ARGUMENT, THEY WEREN'T NEARLY AS UNIQUE AS THIS ONE.

BUT SO, THAT'S A CLEARLY QUALIFIES UNDER THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

HOWEVER, I THINK TWO WE MIGHT EXPLORE WHAT

[01:00:09]

AND I'M THINKING OF, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE PART OF IT RELATES TO THE CURRENT STATE OF THE EXHIBITS.

YOU KNOW, WE WE'VE GOT AN AERIAL VIEW WHICH SHOWS LOTS OF BEAUTIFUL TREES AND EVERYTHING.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF INDICATION AS TO HOW MANY OF THEM WILL STILL BE THERE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS FINISHED.

RIGHT. SO, I THINK PERHAPS WE COULD ASK FOR SOME IDENTIFICATION OF SOME OF THE MAJOR TREES AND ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT THEY PLAN ON KEEPING, IF ANY.

SO, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A HELPFUL INFORMATION.

ALSO, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXHIBIT IN TERMS OF IT JUST SHOWS 1 OR 2 OF THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER HOUSES NEARBY THAT ARE OFF THE EDGE, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

SO, I THINK BEFORE THE IT GETS TO COUNCIL, WE SHOULD TRY AND DEVELOP A, AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS MORE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AT LEAST WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED OR RELATIVE TO THIS ONE.

AND ALSO, I'M WONDERING IF AND THEN IN, IN ADDITION TO THE WOODED AREA ON THIS LOT, WHICH IS TERRIFIC.

BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO IN THE TOWARDS THE NORTH AND KIND OF MORE OF THE SEPTIC AREA, THERE'S WHAT APPEARS TO BE UNWOODED AND, AND THEN, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THAT SIDE TOO.

SO PERHAPS WE MIGHT EXPLORE SOME, SOME NEW PLANTINGS OF MAYBE SOME CEDAR TREES TO BUFFER ALONG THE NORTH SIDE.

AND RESTORE SOME OF THE PRIVACY THAT WILL BE LOST.

AND AGAIN, AND SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME, SOME CONCEPTS I THINK THAT WOULD ARE WORTHY OF FURTHER EXPLORATION. SOMETIME BEFORE.

GOES TO COUNCIL, I WOULD HOPE.

AND. YOU KNOW, WE COULD.

DIDN'T MAKE THAT PART OF AN APPROVAL, I SUPPOSE.

OR WE COULD TABLE FOR ANOTHER MEETING OR, YOU KNOW, I'M OPEN NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT WAYS TO DO THAT.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS TYPICAL OF WHAT YOU'D SEE IN A SUBDIVISION OR A DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT.

THIS IS JUST A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL BUILD, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE WE REQUIRE THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND ALL OF THIS WHAT YOU'RE.

BUT I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER BEFORE COUNCIL SO THEY COULD SEE NEIGHBORHOOD, COULD KIND OF SEE A PROPOSAL OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE ONCE THAT HOUSE IS BUILT.

BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A REQUIREMENT AT THIS STAGE.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S GOOD FEEDBACK MAYBE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, MORE ILLUSTRATION TO MAYBE MAKE THE NEIGHBORS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE AS TO WHAT'S GOING THERE.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THOUGH IT PROBABLY DOESN'T IMPACT OUR DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS CONCERN ABOUT JUST UNCERTAINTY AND UNKNOWNS.

SO, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP THE NEIGHBORS PROBABLY AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING, TOO.

SO GOOD FEEDBACK FOR THE APPLICANT, I SUPPOSE, FOR THE, YOU KNOW, FOR WHERE THIS GOES, WHEREVER IT GOES FROM HERE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.

NO, I THINK IT'S A, I THINK COMMISSIONER ERICKSON BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.

THERE ARE SOME OLD GROWTH TREES THERE, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD GESTURE TO THE APPLICANT TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLEAR THE LOT, WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO. I MEAN, WHY WOULD YOU WITH THOSE BEAUTIFUL TREES AND BEAUTIFUL SETTING? BUT THAT MIGHT HELP, HELP, HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

COME OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS ON THE BUILDING PLAN.

I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE APPRECIATED, BUT NOT REQUIRED.

I BELIEVE TREES WITHIN 75FT ARE PROTECTED AS WELL.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, 150FT HERE, 150FT ARE PROTECTED.

OKAY, WELL. THERE YOU GO.

EVEN MORE. WELL, WITH ALL THAT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE'S WILLING.

[01:05:06]

LET'S SEE. WHAT NUMBER ARE WE ON THIS ONE? ROB? THIS IS NINE BECAUSE I'M PAYING ATTENTION.

YES. LA24-9.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-9.

AS APPLIED. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? COULD I NOTE? I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED, BUT ON YOUR MOTION NOTE THAT 20-FOOT HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO, IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN THAT, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S IN THE APPLICATION BEFORE US AND THE FOOTPRINT IS AND ALL THAT.

BUT IF THAT CHANGES, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'LL COME BACK TO US FOR RECONSIDERATION.

ABSOLUTELY. THOSE PLANS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVAL.

SO, IF IT BECOMES A TALLER HOME, THEN IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY TRIGGER COMING BACK.

SO, WITH THAT, WE REALLY DON'T NEED TO ADD ANYTHING TO IT.

CORRECT? BUT I DO THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THAT IS A SUBTLE THE PUBLIC IS NOT USED TO ALL THE NUANCE OF WE CAN BARELY KEEP UP OURSELVES.

BUT YEAH, IF THEY WERE TO BRING THAT, THAT WOULD BRING IT BACK TO US FOR VARIANCE.

I MEAN, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION I DIDN'T SEE, I DIDN'T GET A LOT OF TAKERS ON MY MOTION.

SO, WE DO HAVE A MOTION.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO SECOND THAT MOTION? I STRUGGLE, I'M NOT SECONDING IT, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S JUST A LOT TO UNPACK.

AND THERE'S THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION WAS PRETTY BARE BONES.

AND SO, I'M JUST TRYING TO SORT IT ALL OUT BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S SOME DETAIL MISSING.

BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME, MY STRUGGLE IS WE'RE NOT HERE TO DELIBERATE A WHOLE LOT.

BESIDES WHAT'S.

WELL, I DO BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORS BROUGHT UP A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THE SITE IN GENERAL, BUT THE ONLY REAL ONE THAT PERTAINED TO THE ALS WAS THE VIEW SHED OF THE NEIGHBOR.

BUT LOOKING AT WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE, THEY'VE LIMITED THE HEIGHT TO 20.

NORMALLY THEY CAN GO 30.

CORRECT. IS IT 30 OR 32? YEAH. 30. 30.

YEAH. THEY'RE LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.

THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO BUILD THIS UP ON A PAD OR ANYTHING ELSE.

AND THEY'VE PLACED IT WITHIN THEIR SETBACKS WHERE THEY CAN BUILD.

AND I DON'T SEE ANOTHER.

POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR THAT.

YEAH. AND EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO BE COMPLIANT.

SO. RIGHT. EVERY ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WILL ALL GET ADDRESSED AT THE STAFF LEVEL DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, WHETHER THAT'S ACCESS TO THE SITE ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION THINGS.

AND HOPEFULLY THERE'S SOME SORT OF VEHICLE AT THE CITY WHERE THE WHERE THE NEIGHBORS CAN STAY INFORMED ON JUST THIS PROJECT.

I MEAN, I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY CAN STAY INFORMED AS A GROUP AND BE NEIGHBORLY WITH THE APPLICANT DURING THE BUILD PROCESS.

BUT YEAH.

COMMISSIONER THE BEST WAY WOULD BE WE'D ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD UP TO DATE ON THEIR PROGRESS, BECAUSE IT IS AT THEIR TIMING OF WHEN THEY IF THIS WERE TO GET APPROVED THROUGH COUNCIL, IT'S AT THEIR TIMING WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO SUBMIT THE PERMIT AND EVERYTHING.

WHEN AND IF THEY DECIDE TO SUBMIT A PERMIT, THEN THAT IS ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION.

THERE'S NO NOTIFICATION PROCESS, BUT IT IS VIEWABLE FROM IF YOU SEARCH OUR CITY WEBSITE FOR PERMITS.

ALSO AVAILABLE IS STAFF FOR A PHONE CALL.

IF ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE QUESTIONS OR WANT TO KNOW A STATUS OR ARE HAVING TROUBLE REACHING OUT TO US, I MEAN, WE'RE AVAILABLE DURING THOSE DURING THE WEEK.

SO, THANK YOU.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY RESSLER AND WE CAN VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

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

THAT BRINGS US TO PUBLIC HEARING LA24-11.

[5.3. #LA24-000011, Robey Construction o/b/o Steve Streich, 1487 Shoreline Dr, Variances (Melanie Curtis)]

THIS IS FOR MULTIPLE VARIANCES.

THANK YOU.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A 75 SQUARE FOOT, TRIANGULAR SHAPED ADDITION ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE HOME, AND IT IS SHOWN IN RED ON THE SURVEY ON YOUR SCREEN. THE HOME IS SITUATED WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK AND PARTIALLY WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

AS CLOSE AS 24FT TO THE LAKE.

[01:10:01]

NOT EXTENDING CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE EXISTING HOME IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE HARDCOVER TO BE ADDED IN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEARLY EQUAL AMOUNT OF HARD COVER WITH THE REMOVAL OF A CONCRETE STAIR AND SIDEWALK.

THEY ALSO ARE REMOVING A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY ALSO SHOWN IN GREEN.

THE TWO REMOVALS ARE SHOWN IN GREEN.

TOTAL REMOVALS WILL REDUCE HARD COVER ON THE PROPERTY OVERALL BY 646FT².

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT SETBACK OF THE HOME EXISTING NONFUNCTIONAL INTERIOR LAYOUT OF THIS PART OF THE HOME AND SOME PROBLEMATIC ROOF DRAINAGE AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUEST.

STAFF DOES FIND THE PROXIMITY OF THE HOME TO THE LAKE PREVENTS ANY STRUCTURAL OR MASSING MODIFICATION.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES APPEAR TO ALSO RESOLVE THE ISSUES WITH THE ROOF DRAINAGE.

THE EXISTING HOME'S LOCATION IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

THEY DID RECEIVE SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THEY WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED.

I HAVE THE PLANS AND AERIAL PHOTOS TO PUT ON THE SCREEN AS YOU TALK.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE LAKEWOOD HARD COVER THAT'S BEING REMOVED IN GREEN IS CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE ADDITION, THE PROPOSED ADDITION A LITTLE BIT, YEAH, IT IS. OKAY.

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

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

HELLO, MY NAME IS TOM ROBEY OF ROBEY CONSTRUCTION, AND MELANIE DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING OUR SITUATION.

THE, THE BIGGEST PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS THAT OUR HOMEOWNERS THAT DID RECENTLY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO FULLY REMODEL IT, WHICH ACTUALLY PARTIAL PART OF WHICH IS ACTUALLY UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW.

THE BIGGEST PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS THAT THEY WERE NOT MADE AWARE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE HOME THAT HALF OF THE HOME IS WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK.

AND IN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE HOMEOWNER REALIZING THAT NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE HARDCOVER ALSO EXCEEDED THE LIMITS UPON PURCHASING IT.

THEY THE HOMEOWNER SAID, OKAY, WHAT CAN WE DO? THEY TOOK A LOOK AT SOME AREAS THAT THEY FELT THAT THEY COULD RELIEVE WHICH ADDS 721 SQUARE FEET OF HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED TO ADD ONLY 75 BACK.

THE OTHER THING THAT THAT MAYBE WASN'T MENTIONED IS THAT THE HOMEOWNERS INTEND TO RESIDE HERE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AND POSSIBLY EVEN AGE IN PLACE.

AND THE INTERIOR LAYOUT OF THE HOME DOES HAVE SOME, SOME ENCUMBRANCES TO IT.

AND ADDING THIS TINY LITTLE ADDITION WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE ON THE FLOW OF THE HOME.

AND ALSO, AS WITH THE ROUGH LINE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A BIG VALLEY THAT COMES DOWN, SO THEREFORE THERE'S A LOT OF EROSION.

SO, BY FILLING IN THE ROOF LINE, YOU'LL ELIMINATE A LOT OF THAT AND BE ABLE TO CAPTURE THE WATER AND BE ABLE TO GET RID OF IT IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY.

SO, YOU'RE NOT ERODING THE LAKESHORE.

AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN GENERAL IS THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT COMPLIANT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, AND IT GETS A LOT CLOSER TO BEING COMPLIANT. FOR THE HARDCOVER, IF WE DO REMOVE THAT SECTION OF DRIVEWAY AND THEN ALSO THE STAIRWAY THAT'S NEXT TO IT, WHICH IS CLOSER TO THE LAKE. THIS PROPOSED EDITION IS SECOND.

WELL, IT'S CANTILEVERED OVER.

THERE'S NOTHING UNDERNEATH THAT, CORRECT? YES. YEP.

IT DOES NOT TOUCH. AND BOTH THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN FAVOR AND THEY NEITHER CAN EVEN SEE, YOU KNOW, THE PEACEFUL GROWTH THAT WILL BE ADDED.

ONE JUST ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

JUST LOOKING AT THE VIEW THAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING FROM THE WATER IF ANYTHING, IT'LL MAKE THE BACK OF THE HOUSE LOOK MORE CONSISTENT GOING IN AND OUT. AND YOUR AVERAGE PASSERBY ON A WATERCRAFT SHOULD BE UNNOTICEABLE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? I GUESS I WAS.

I GUESS I WAS HOPING FOR A LITTLE BIT BETTER RENDERING AS TO HOW THAT WAS GOING TO SUCH A LARGE AREA WAS GOING TO CANTILEVER.

THE PLANS THAT WERE PROVIDED.

[01:15:05]

FROM A STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVE, YEAH.

THERE'S A LARGE BEAM THAT GOES FRONT TO BACK.

YOU CAN SEE THE DOTTED LINE.

YEAH, WHERE IT SAYS NEW BEAM FLUSH.

AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER BEAM THAT TIES ACROSS.

YEAH. AND SO, IT'S ALL BEEN IT'S ALL BEEN THROUGH ENGINEERING WITH THE HANSON GROUP, OF COURSE.

I'M JUST I ALWAYS GET CURIOUS IF THE NEXT ACT IS THEN A VARIANCE TO PUT FOUNDATION UNDERNEATH SAID CANTILEVER.

OF COURSE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

RIGHT? THERE IS JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE, THERE IS A, WE HAVE TO UNDERPIN THE ONE CORNER WHICH WOULD BE CLOSEST TO THE WORD LOUNGE. SO THAT HAS TO BE UNDERPINNED TO CARRY THE WEIGHT.

AND THEN THERE IS A SMALL FOOTING THAT GOES ON THE CORNER.

AND SO THE HOUSE DOES EXTEND A LITTLE BIT RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. THOSE ARE JUST THE TWO THINGS.

AND THAT'S LIKE I SAID, IT'S ALL BEEN THROUGH GROUP ENGINEERING, BUT THERE'S NO INTENTIONS OF HAVING ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL.

FOUNDATION UNDERNEATH THAT CANTILEVER IN THE FUTURE.

NO COMING ACROSS.

NO DISCUSSION LIKE THAT? NO. GREAT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YEP.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. YEAH.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

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

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I'LL START WITH THIS; I THINK IT'S NICE THAT THEY'RE REMOVING CONSIDERABLY MORE HARD COVER THAN WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN.

THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE IS NON-CONFORMING TO THE SETBACK.

SO, I SEE THIS AS A VERY SMALL CHANGE.

IT WON'T BE VISIBLE BY ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS.

SO, IT'S NOT.

CREATING ANY KIND OF HARDSHIP ON ANYONE'S VIEW SHED.

IN GENERAL, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.

I DO SEE WHERE YOU WERE GOING, JOHN, WITH THE NEXT STEP.

DO THEY WANT TO ENCLOSE THE UNDERSIDE AND MAKE IT A SCREENED IN PORCH OR DECK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REALLY CHANGES MY OPINION, EVEN IF THE APPLICATION WAS FOR THAT REQUEST, BECAUSE IT'S STILL THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT'S STILL HARD COVER.

THE ADDITION IS CONSIDERED BUILDING COVERAGE, RIGHT? SO, IT WOULD ALREADY BE COUNTED IN FOR THAT.

THEY WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T BE INCREASING ANYTHING OVER THAT IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

YEAH, I TEND TO. ACTUALLY, WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE IN ORONO, IT HAD ONE OF THESE NOTCHES TOO, AND IT WAS VERY GOOFY, AND I FIXED IT.

I ACTUALLY DID THE SAME THING; EXCEPT I WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION.

SO, I JUST GIVE THE FEEDBACK.

I DON'T WE DON'T KNOW IF IT HAD TO COME BACK TO US AGAIN OR NOT, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY REASONS WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT, BUT I WOULD.

I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU IF THE PLANS DID INCLUDE GOING TO THE FOUNDATION.

IT'S MORE OF THE IT FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE AND THE ENVELOPE AND GIVING UP HARDCOVER.

AND I KNOW WE HEAR THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE BUY IN MINNETONKA AND THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR DREAM HOUSE AND WHAT I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT.

YOU KNOW, WE GET THAT A LOT HERE.

SO, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE APPLICANT'S COMING FROM.

BUT YEAH, THIS IS PRETTY SUBTLE.

I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF IT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. IF NOT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOVE TO APPROVE LA 24 DASH 11 AS APPLIED.

A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MCCUTCHEON.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SORRY. NO.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO.

NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS LA 24-12.

[5.4. LA24-000012, Robert Breon, 2700 Casco Point Road, Variances (Natalie Nye)]

MULTIPLE VARIANCES.

MISS NYE.

THANK YOU.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND KEEP AN EXISTING TWO STOREY DETACHED GARAGE.

THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE IS CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING AS IT RELATES TO THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

[01:20:03]

THE NEW HOME WILL EXPAND THE NONCONFORMITY, AS THE SECOND STOREY ABOVE THE GARAGE WILL BE EXPANDED IN HEIGHT AND INCLUDE BOTH LIVING SPACE AND A COVERED PORCH OR PATIO OVER THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THE GARAGE.

THE THIRD FLOOR AND THE REST OF THE HOME IS CONFORMING TO ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20FT WHEN 30FT IS REQUIRED, AND A 22.

FOUR-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK WHEN A 7.5FT SETBACK IS REQUIRED.

THE LOT IS SUBSTANDARD IN SIZE AND WIDTH, AND THEREFORE VARIANCES FROM LOT AREA AND WIDTH ARE REQUIRED AS WELL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.

LOT SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 8200FT².

ABOUT ONE HALF AN ACRE IS REQUIRED.

THE ZONING CODE REQUIRES 100FT IN WIDTH, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS JUST UNDER 50FT.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY'S SMALL SIZE AND WIDTH AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AS WELL AS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE AND THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.

THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO REMODEL THE EXISTING HOME ON THE SITE, BUT THE FOUNDATION WAS BEYOND REPAIR, AND SO THEY HAD TO THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR IT DOWN AND REBUILD.

BUT THE CONDITION OF THE DETACHED GARAGE WAS VERY GOOD.

AND THAT IS WHY THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO INCLUDE IT INTO THE DESIGN OF THE NEW HOME.

STAFF AGREES WITH THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE LOT IS SUBSTANDARD, AND THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING GARAGE MAY REMAIN.

OR COULD EVEN BE REPLACED IN KIND.

BUT STAFF WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMITY, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE SECOND STORY ABOVE THE GARAGE, AND DETERMINE IF THERE IS ENOUGH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO SUPPORT THOSE VARIANCES.

GENERALLY, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST FOR THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING GARAGE INTO INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE HOME.

PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.

A STAFF DID RECEIVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.

THERE WERE SOME LAST-MINUTE ADDITIONS AS WELL THAT I INCLUDED AND NOTIFIED.

AND YOU GUYS WERE NOTIFIED.

I BELIEVE SOME LETTERS WERE UPLOADED BY THE APPLICANT BY MISTAKE.

AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO WORK TO SPEAK WITH HIS NEIGHBORS TO GAIN THEIR SUPPORT BUT WAS NEVER ABLE TO.

I WAS ASKED TO REMOVE EXHIBIT G FROM THE PACKET, BUT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK MORE TO THIS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

SPECIFICALLY, I THINK SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE RECEIVED WAS DIRECTLY ABOUT THOSE EXHIBIT G.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION, MISS NYE.

WE'RE IMPROVING THE SOUTH SIDE SETBACKS AND REAR SETBACK.

IS THAT. AM I READING THAT RIGHT? FROM 6 TO 7 AND 7.7.

AND GOING REAR, STARTING CURRENTLY AT 67 AND IMPROVING IT TO 78FT.

AM I READING THAT RIGHT? YES.

OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO ASK.

MAYBE I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF I MISSED SOMETHING YOU SAID WAS INCREASING.

WERE WE INCREASING? SO THE RIGHT.

SO, THE CURRENT GARAGE.

IT'S KIND OF YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HATCH LINE HERE OVER THE GARAGES.

THERE IS A SECOND FLOOR CURRENTLY ABOVE THAT GARAGE.

BUT THE PROPOSAL IS TO EXTEND THAT THAT WALL, IT'S A BIT OF A TALLER CEILING HEIGHT.

SO, THIS RIGHT HERE IS KIND OF THE EXPANSION OF WHERE THAT NONCONFORMITY IS BEING EXPANDED.

AND YOU CAN SEE IN THIS VISUAL THERE'S ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE ENTIRE ENTIRETY OF THAT GARAGE FOOTPRINT.

SO, THERE IS AN EXPANSION IN THOSE SETBACKS AS CLOSE AS 2.5FT ON THAT SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

ANOTHER THING THAT I'LL MENTION IS THAT I'LL PULL UP THE AERIAL HERE.

THERE IS SOME SPACE HERE.

THIS IS AN UNIMPROVED ALLEYWAY.

AND THAT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL KIND OF BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBOR.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION COULD REALLY JUST DIVE INTO MAYBE TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHY THE DESIGN IS THE WAY IT IS IN THAT EXPANSION THERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT PREVIOUS ONE THAT YOU HAD JUST HAD UP.

WE'RE REALLY. YEAH.

SO, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE TWO TRIANGLE PIECES THAT THAT ACTUAL STRUCTURE ISN'T MOVING CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S JUST MOVING UP.

YES. OKAY. GOT IT.

YEP. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I THINK, AND THERE'S SOME GOOD EXHIBITS HERE WITH THE FLOOR PLANS THAT SHOW

[01:25:03]

SO, YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S KIND OF BEYOND THAT? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER 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.

ROBERT BRIAN, 2700 CASCO POINT ROAD.

NATALIE, I DON'T THINK I COULD HAVE SAID ANY BETTER.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THE EXPLANATIONS.

AS NATALIE SAID, WE HAD PURCHASED THIS HOME A WHILE BACK FROM MY MOTHER-IN-LAW AND REALIZED THAT THERE WAS SOME FOUNDATION ISSUES.

WE TRIED TO RENOVATE IT AND REALIZED THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE.

SO, THEN WE CAME IN WITH THIS NEW SET OF PLANS TO MOVE THE HOUSE MORE IN CONFORMITY, IF YOU SAW HOW, IT WAS OUT.

SO NOW IT'S SQUARER TO THE GARAGE LINE AND, AND THE REASON WE'RE GOING UP WITH THE WALLS, THAT WAS KIND OF THE ORIGINAL INTENTION TO BUY IT WAS REALLY TO JUST BRING IT LIKE THIS VERSUS LIKE THIS.

SO YOU HAVE SOME ROOM ON THE SIDES AND IT'S ALSO BRINGING, YOU KNOW, BEING BROUGHT UP LIKE THAT SO IT CAN SUPPORT THE ENTRANCE TO THE ATTACHMENT.

SO THAT'S THE OTHER REASON REALLY PROBABLY THE MAIN REASON IS SO WHEN YOU ATTACH IT, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE YOU'RE KIND OF NOT COMING IN AT, YOU KNOW, AN ANGLE LIKE THIS, YOU'RE KIND OF COMING IN AT A STRAIGHT LINE.

AND AS NATALIE SAID YOU KNOW, WE WERE KIND OF UNAWARE OF THE SETBACKS WHEN WE DID BUY IT.

ESPECIALLY THE FRONT SETBACKS.

I WAS UNAWARE OF THAT.

YOU HAD TO BE SO MANY FEET, BECAUSE IF YOU MEASURED FROM THE GARAGE TO THE STREET, WE'RE 38FT, YOU KNOW, AWAY FROM.

AND ACTUALLY, THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH OF US IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN OURS IS.

AND ALL WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS JUST FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, IS PUT AN OVERHANG OVER THE GARAGE FOR INCLEMENT WEATHER AND TO KIND OF BLEND IT IN SO YOU DON'T HAVE THIS BIG STRUCTURE JUST STARING DOWN THE STREET.

IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ESTHETIC.

AND WE'RE NOT BUILDING A BIG HOUSE HERE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY SHRINKING THE FOOTPRINT.

WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT MY NEIGHBORS KNOW.

ME. I'VE BRIEFLY TALKED TO HIM.

I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, TOO, IN A SECOND HERE.

BUT TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE, YOU KNOW, ESTHETICALLY PLEASING WITH THE SURROUNDINGS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

WE ALL KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN VERY OVERBUILT.

EVERY HOUSE ON THERE IS NEW.

I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 15 YEARS.

SO, I'M NOT TRYING TO BUILD THIS TAJ MAHAL.

I'M TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ESTHETIC THAT WILL BLEND INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT WILL LOOK NICE AND NOT BE IMPOSING TO MY NEIGHBOR ON THE RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT, OR ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE. JUST SOMETHING THAT LOOKS NICE THERE.

SO, WE HAVE A FEW ISSUES.

I'M NOT TRYING TO GO OUTSIDE THOSE LINES.

I'M JUST KIND OF I WANT TO GO UP.

I'M KIND OF THERE, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO TEAR DOWN A PERFECTLY NICE BUILDING THAT HAS GOOD WALLS AND EVERYTHING.

I'VE ALREADY HAD TO DO THAT.

SO THAT'S REALLY KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.

I DO WANT TO ADDRESS ONE ISSUE NATALIE BROUGHT UP.

I WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION EARLIER TODAY FROM MY NEIGHBORS, WHICH I HAVE ADDRESSED MY NEIGHBORS AND APOLOGIZE TO THEM.

THERE WERE TWO LETTERS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP THAT I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO LUANN OR DAVID THAT I WAS HOPING THEY WOULD SIGN.

I HAD MET WITH JEFF AND SARAH AND HAD THE DOCUMENT, BUT I GAVE THEM THE CITY DOCUMENT VERSUS THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE HE SAID HE HAD SOME ISSUES. SO, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK HIM.

BUT I HAVE MET WITH HIM ON THE STREET.

I DON'T THINK THEY I THINK THEY HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

VALID CONCERNS.

YOU KNOW, BUT I DO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, NATALIE I TALKED ABOUT, I SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN UPLOADED.

THEY ACCIDENTALLY GOT UPLOADED, SO I DIDN'T WANT ANY MISREPRESENTATION THERE AT ALL.

SO OKAY.

HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES.

YEAH, IT DEFINITELY EXPLAINS THAT BUNCH OF STUFF.

THAT PIECE OF IT. YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD A LOT TONIGHT ALREADY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? FROM ANYONE.

WE MIGHT HAVE SOME, BUT IF YOU STAY CLOSE BY.

SURE. WHEN? WHEN WE OPEN AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. NATALIE.

THANK YOU. LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[01:30:02]

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

I'M LOU ANN RUNKLE.

MY HUSBAND AND DAVE.

MY HUSBAND, DAVE AND I OWN THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OF THIS HOME.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY.

AND IF YOU LOOK THERE, NATALIE DID BRING UP THE ALLEY ISSUE.

WE HAVE AN ALLEY BETWEEN THOSE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY.

AND NATALIE DID SAY IT IS AN ALLEY.

IT'S GOING TO STAY AN ALLEY.

OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE FUTURE.

IT'S AN ALLEY. THAT'S HOW WE CAN ACCESS THE BACK OF THOSE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.

AND I'M SURE IT WILL CHANGE.

IT'S FULL OF A BIG DIRT PILE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS.

SO, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS OVER, IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP.

I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL AWARE IT'S AN ALLEY.

I GUESS THE OTHER THING THAT IS KIND OF YOU HAVE HEARD THIS ENOUGH ABOUT NEW HOMES, THE CONSTRUCTION ON CASCO POINT, PARKING WITH ALL THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.

THEY'RE JUST. AND THAT'S A BAD TURN OR CURVE.

AND THERE'S KIDS AND CARS.

AND ON THE BIGGER PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHEN ALL THE OTHER HOMES ARE BEING BUILT, PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS A PARKING LOT, AND I ASKED PEOPLE TO MOVE AND THEY SAID, WHY THE CITY OWNS IT.

I GO, NO, THEY DON'T.

AND THERE WERE RUTS IN THERE.

SO, WE JUST HOPE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE POLITE AND PARK AT THAT HOCKEY RINK AND WALK UP THERE OR SOMEWHERE SPECIFICALLY.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ALLEY PARKING IN THE NO.

IN OUR LOT. IN YOUR LOT, IN THAT LOT.

YEAH. THE ALLEY IS THE CAN PARK AND THEY'RE NOT FULL OF STUFF.

AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE BIG DIRT.

AND MAYBE THERE'LL BE MORE THERE.

AND IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.

THERE'S NO EROSION.

WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT? SILT WALL SILT FENCING THERE RIGHT NOW.

SO, SOMETHING HAS TO BE PUT UP THERE.

SO, ALL THAT DIRT DOESN'T COME RUNNING DOWN THERE OKAY, OKAY.

AND THAT'S IT.

I'M SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY NICE HOUSE.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

NATALIE, I DID NOT HEAR YOU.

ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THAT LETTER THAT SAID WE SIGNED OUT OF THE PACKET? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, WE WOULD LIKE IT REMOVED.

AND NOT THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED NOW, BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.

SO, AND THANK YOU, NATALIE, FOR EXPLAINING EVERYTHING TO US LAST FRIDAY, AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS.

WELL, I'M JEFF LOHMAN, SO I'M A 2710 CASCO POINT ROAD.

THE HOUSE JUST TO THE SOUTH.

SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE TO START HERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, ROBERT'S APPLYING FOR THE VARIANCES AND SO AND, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY REAL ISSUE WITH THOSE AND YOU KNOW, AND FEEL, YOU KNOW, TO ROBERT'S POINT, YOU KNOW, AND TO POINTS THAT WERE MADE PREVIOUSLY IN THIS, THAT IT IS HIS PROPERTY AND HE CAN BUILD THE THINGS HE WANTS TO BUILD AND IS ENTITLED TO DO THAT.

AND I HOPE SOMEONE WOULD GIVE ME THAT.

NOTED. YOU KNOW, MY GARAGE IS CURRENTLY NOT COMPLYING AS WELL.

EVEN MORE SO YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT I DO AND WOULD LIKE TO JUST VOICE AND EXPRESS A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN AND MAYBE JUST OPEN UP KIND OF A FORUM FOR ROBERT AND MYSELF TO CONTINUE.

AND I DID HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP TO HIS ATTENTION.

WE ARE POSITIONED ON A HILL; YOU KNOW BASICALLY BOTH OF US KIND OF AT THE TOP OF THE HILL.

HIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION INVOLVES ESSENTIALLY A TEN-FOOT RETAINING WALL JUST ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY.

KIND OF RUNNING THAT WHOLE LENGTH THERE.

WHICH, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE CONCERN AND GRANTED ON HOW THAT'S GOING TO FUNCTION AND BE BUILT AND RELATE TO OUR PROPERTY.

WE'RE ON THE PROPERTY LINE ON OUR SIDE.

WE HAVE TWO VERY MATURE MAPLE TREES RIGHT THERE.

AND JUST HAVE CONCERN WITH THAT.

THE OTHER CONCERN I MIGHT VOICE WHILE I THINK HE IS DESIGNING QUITE A BEAUTIFUL HOME AS I SAID OUT FRONT.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TRANSPARENCY FROM HIS PROPERTY TO OURS.

JUST IN TERMS OF THE ADDITIONS AND MAYBE SOME THOUGHT ABOUT.

MAYBE NOT SO MUCH GLASS, OR MAYBE JUST LOOKING, LOOKING DIRECTLY AT OUR FRONT OF OUR HOUSE.

BECAUSE I DO THINK AND APPRECIATE HOW THEY'VE INCREASED THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY A BONUS.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT MOVE.

BUT MAYBE, MAYBE EVEN ON THE BEDROOM WINDOWS THAT FACE OUR PROPERTY ON THE UPPER PORTION, MAYBE THOSE ARE CLEAR STORY OR SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION LIKE THAT.

[01:35:14]

THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

BESIDES, I REALLY HAVE TO SAY THANK YOU.

TO YOUR POINT, ON THE RETAINING WALL, I REMIND ME AGAIN.

I KNOW WE REVIEWED THE RETAINING WALL CODE A WHILE BACK.

WHAT TRIGGERS THE ENGINEERING OF THOSE WALLS? THE HEIGHT, I FORGET.

EXACTLY FOUR FEET.

THEY'RE TOUCHING FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

REQUIRE ENGINEERING.

UNDER FOUR FEET DOES NOT.

BUT WITH THIS, WE'D REVIEW ALL THE DRAINAGE AND THE GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THAT THOSE RETAINING WALLS.

SO, THE DRAINAGE OF THE SITE WILL GET LOOKED AT WITH THE RETAINING WALL BEING, BEING PROPOSED.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, DO YOU LOOK AT JUST THE WATER ON THE SITE OR DO YOU LOOK AT HOW IT AFFECTS THEY LOOK AT HOW IT AFFECTS THE DRAINAGE.

AND IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECTED TO IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

SO, THEY, YOU TRY AND MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE, YOU KNOW, ON WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

CAN I JUST ADD ONE THING? YES, OF COURSE. YOU HAVE A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.

IF YOU COULD COME UP HERE SO IT'LL BE ON THE RECORD.

YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO PULL IT UP, BUT I CAN'T GET INTERNET ACCESS.

YEAH. JUST TO ADD TO THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THAT SIDE IS WE DO HAVE A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER THAT IS LOOKING AT THAT, THAT IS DRAWING UP THE PLANS FOR THAT TO CONFORM TO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THAT.

I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO JEFF THAT WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO IMPOSE ANYTHING.

THOSE TREES. I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO AFFECT ANY OF THOSE TREES.

SO BEFORE ANYTHING IS DONE THERE, I TOLD JEFF THAT WE WOULD TALK AND HE WOULD BE AWARE OF WHATEVER WAS GOING ON FROM A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STANDPOINT.

GREAT. THAT SOUNDS THAT SOUNDS WONDERFUL.

THAT'S WHAT WE LIKE TO HEAR.

OKAY. I'D GO EVEN A STEP FURTHER IF, IF, IF YOU WANT TO AS A NEIGHBOR, I KNOW YOU'LL HAVE TO DO SILT FENCE FOR EROSION CONTROL.

OH, NO. NO, BUT THAT I TOLD LUANNE THAT'D BE DONE.

AND AS FAR AS THOSE TREES ARE CONCERNED AND MAYBE EVEN THAT PROPERTY LINE, IF YOU CAN FENCE THAT SOME WAY WITH SOME SNOW FENCE OR SOMETHING SO THAT.

YEAH, WHEN PEOPLE ARE THERE WORKING ON IT.

YEAH, THEY KNOW WHAT BOUNDARIES TO STAY WITHIN AND WHAT NOT TO.

THERE IS ONE THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE SOMEHOW.

THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE I THINK DIDN'T GET IT PUT IN APPROPRIATELY.

PERFECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU GUYS. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

SO REALLY LOOKING AT THIS ONE IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE TYPICALLY WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AS ALMOST AS LIKE A REMODEL BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE THAT'S BEING ADDED TO WHETHER IT WAS THE MAIN STRUCTURE OR IN THIS CASE, IT WAS A SECONDARY STRUCTURE.

AND REALLY WHERE MY HEAD GOES IS GETTING BEHIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF CREATING THE ADDITIONAL MASSING FOR THAT STRUCTURE.

WITH THAT, THOSE TRIANGLE PIECES.

AND I SEE HOW I SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN MAKING THAT CONNECT TO THE ADDITION, ETC..

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FLOOR PLAN, WHERE IT WHERE IT SITS ON THE SURVEY.

IT'S ONE THE SURVEY ONE.

WELL, SURVEY ONE, YOU CAN SEE THE OLD FOOTPRINT OF THE, THE OLD HOUSE TOWARDS, TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE LOT THERE.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE NEW FOOTPRINT, WHICH IS, IN MY OPINION, CONSIDERABLY SMALLER AND LESS INTRUSIVE.

BUT THEN THERE'S THAT TRADE OFF FOR THAT, WHICH IS THAT, THAT SECOND, THOSE, THOSE TWO TRIANGLE PIECES BEING MORE INTRUSIVE ON THE FRONT.

BUT I THINK WITH ANYTHING THERE'S GIVE AND TAKE AND I THINK WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS SMART TO REUSE THOSE CERTAIN FEATURES THAT ARE ON THE SITE.

AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, OF THE VARIANCES FOR THIS PROJECT.

BASED ON THAT, I THINK IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT AND CONFORMITY OF THE LOT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A SMALL SECTION THAT'S NOT GOING TO CONFORM.

THAT IS TECHNICALLY GETTING WORSE, RIGHT? AS FAR AS THE ALLEY GOES, I WOULD LIKE OF COURSE, TO SEE THAT CLEANED UP PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SO THAT THAT'S MAINTAINED AS AN ALLEY, LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

SO HOPEFULLY I WOULD I WOULD LOOK AT THAT, I WOULD LOOK IN FAVOR OF THAT CONDITION WITH THESE VARIANCES.

[01:40:06]

OTHERWISE, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

ANYONE ELSE? HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT.

I MEAN, THIS IS A TOUGH AREA.

IT'S PRETTY COMPACT.

EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S GIVEN THE FOOTPRINT, THEY COULD BE GETTING MORE AND THEY'RE NOT.

SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE PLANETS, IT'S IT'S A PRETTY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.

WE'RE USING WHAT'S THERE AND CONSIDERING A.

ALL THE CHALLENGES I'LL NARROW THE LOT IS I THINK IT'S.

IT'S APPROPRIATE.

I THINK I KIND OF AGREE LIKE THESE BECAUSE CASCA POINT WHENEVER ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS COME UP, A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT, JUST BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A PAIN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE, I'M SURE I DON'T EVEN NEED TO SAY IT, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, YOU HAVE PEOPLE SHOWING UP THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T KNOW THE BOUNDARY WATER, JUST THE BOUNDARY LINES.

TRYING TO HAVE PEOPLE PARKING IN THE NEIGHBOR'S LOT WOULD BE CONCERNING, RIGHT? YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO AVOID THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS IS A PAIN TO THE COMMUNITY JUST KNOWING WHICH I'M SURE THE HOMEOWNER AND THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT, THAT'S A PAIN POINT FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO JUST BE RESPECTFUL AS IT'S BEING IMPROVED UPON.

YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE.

I ALWAYS TRY TO KEEP MY PERSONAL OPINIONS, ASIDE FROM WHAT THE VIEWS OF THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY.

LOOKED AT, AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF ANY TIME WHEN YOU'RE IMPROVING POSITIONS.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

WE'RE IMPROVING HARD COVER, WE'RE IMPROVING REAR SETBACK.

WE'RE IMPROVING SIDE SETBACK.

AND SO THE ONLY SITUATION THAT'S WORSENING IS MASSING.

BUT I PERSONALLY THINK THAT AND THAT WOULD THAT HAVE SEEN THE AS A CITY, WE SEEM TO BE MORE FORGIVING OF MASSING THAN THAN ADDING STRUCTURE AND FOOTPRINT.

AND SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE IMPROVING WHAT'S THERE.

AND AND EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE GOING HIGHER, YOU'RE IMPROVING THE MASSING OR I'M SORRY, YOU'RE IMPROVING WHAT'S BEING OCCUPIED IN THE FOOTPRINT FOR STRUCTURE.

SO I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED AND BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION IF AN OPPORTUNITY.

THE QUESTION FOR STAFF QUICK.

AND I KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORS BROUGHT THIS UP AND IT IS A HUGE CONCERN ON CASTLE POINT PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION.

IS THAT ALLEY AVAILABLE FOR PARKING IF IT WAS CLEARED? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALLOW OR GET BEHIND, OR IS IT EVEN OR ARE WE CREATING AN.

A PROBLEM. TYPICALLY WE REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION PARKING TO BE DONE WITHIN THE SITE TO NOT ADD ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION PARKING. STRESS ON THE ROAD AND THE ALLEY IS NOT IMPROVED.

SO THAT WOULD IF THEY WANTED TO USE THAT FOR CONSTRUCTION, THEY COULD REQUEST, LIKE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING.

THEY COULD CONSIDER THAT TYPE OF REQUEST AS PART OF THIS VARIANCE BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

IF THEY WANTED TO USE SOME OF THAT ALLEY SPACE.

BUT AS IT'S SET UP TODAY, IT'S NOT TYPICAL THAT WE ALLOW WITHOUT THAT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT, IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE RIGHT.

RIGHT. WHEN YOU SAY TYPICALLY YOU REQUIRE ALL THE PARKING WITHIN THE SITE, WE KNOW THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON.

RIGHT. IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE OF THE PERMITS OR.

IT'S NOT. BUT IT IS A CONDITION.

SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS CAN EXPLICITLY STATE AS PART OF YOUR MOTION OR AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

IT IS A CONDITION WE'VE ADDED ON PREVIOUS VARIANCES.

I THINK THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS ON CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ON ON THOSE TIGHT LITTLE LOTS.

WE REQUIRED A SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION, PARKING TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AND THEY HAD TO SUBMIT A SPECIFIC PLAN AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE IF IT IS A CONCERN WITH THIS TIGHT DEVELOPMENT YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT AND CAN BE A REQUIREMENT OF THEIR PERMIT. THANK YOU.

KNOWING THAT, DOES ANYONE UP HERE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? PARKING HERE BECAUSE IT'S TIGHT.

IS THERE ROOM FOR TWO CARS ON SITE? LOOK FOR FOUR CARS ON SITE.

YEP. YES.

MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING THAT RAN IN.

DAVE AND I CAN WORK OUT BECAUSE I HAVE PARKED IN THAT ALLEY DELIVERING STUFF TO THE LOT.

[01:45:07]

AND MAYBE SOMETHING BETWEEN US CAN BE WORKED OUT IF THERE IS.

WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN EXTRA CAR OR WHATEVER ON THEIR.

YOU KNOW, CLARK GOT CLOSER TO WHERE THE HOUSE IS.

IN 19. I WOULD HAVE TO PUT OUT.

TO BLOCK THEIR VIEW.

I WILL BE WILLING. WELL, I DEFINITELY.

IF I DEFINITELY THINK THAT PARK IN THE ALLEY WOULD BE LESS INTRUSIVE FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORS IF.

BUT THAT WOULD BE A SPECIAL PERMISSION FROM THE CITY.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD NOTE.

IF NATALIE CAN SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S THEY WANT TO CONSIDER WITH THEIR APPLICATION, THAT COULD BE A CALLED OUT CONDITION THAT IF THEY WANT TO USE THE ALLEY AS PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE ALLEY ESSENTIALLY IS A ACTS AS IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD.

I MEAN, IT'S UNIMPROVED, BUT IT'S THE SAME LIKE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AS A PUBLIC ROAD WOULD HAVE AND EVERYTHING.

SO YES, IT'S NOT USED PARKING IN THE ALLEY, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT.

WILL PROBABLY NOTICE IT MORE IF PEOPLE CALL AND COMPLAIN AND THE OVERUSE AND THE DISTURBANCE OF IT.

THAT WAS WHAT WOULD GET US OUT THERE.

BUT WE'RE NOT LIKE ACTIVELY TICKETING PEOPLE FOR USING IT, FOR EXAMPLE.

BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF THIS, IT SHOULD BE CALLED OUT AND IDENTIFIED FOR THAT, FOR THAT USE, MAYBE A CONDITION TO LIKE IF THERE ARE BIG RUTS IN IT THAT THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING IT IF THEY DID DAMAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OH, YEAH. WHO WANTS TO PACK THAT ALL TOGETHER, RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S NICE WHEN THE LOTS ARE BIG ENOUGH TO PARK EVERYTHING THERE OR IF THERE'S AMPLE STREET PARKING, BUT.

WE ALREADY KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE PRIOR TO GOING INTO THIS.

SO WITH OTHER WITH OTHER PROJECTS ON THAT ROAD.

BUT AS THE NEIGHBOR MENTIONED, THERE'S A PUBLIC PARK NOT FAR FROM THERE THAT.

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES COULD GET SHUTTLED UP FROM, SO I THINK.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL ON IT.

I MEAN, IT'D BE NICE IF THERE WAS AN EASY SOLUTION RIGHT NOW THAT WE COULD THROW A CONDITION ON THERE THAT WOULDN'T STRANGLE THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT EVERYONE TO GET THE PROJECT DONE AS SOON AS IT COULD BE DONE.

SO YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOU DON'T WANT TO DRAG IT OUT A LONG TIME BY ADDING THESE EXTRA CONDITIONS.

THE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE SUPER DIFFICULT, FIRST OF ALL.

I MEAN, AND SO I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAYBE JUST ON A NEIGHBORLY BASIS, WE GO BACK TO BEING NEIGHBORLY, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

JUST KIND OF A PLAN.

I THINK THAT PROBABLY I'M HEARING THAT THAT'S MAYBE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS.

SO THAT PROBABLY GOES A LONG WAY ON A NEIGHBORLY BASIS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO COMPLICATE THE APPLICATION IN THAT MANNER, BUT IT'S GOOD FEEDBACK, I SUPPOSE.

SO. YEAH.

I MEAN, AND THE OTHER THING YOU WORRY ABOUT IS SETTING A PRECEDENT WHERE NOW EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT THAT'S ON CASTLE POINT ROAD HAS TO COME UP WITH A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, TOO.

AND THEN ENFORCEMENT BECOMES AN ISSUE.

SO SO.

YEAH. BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CAN'T USE SO MANY SUBS AND TRADES ARE CONSTANTLY COMING AND GOING, AND NOT ALL OF THEM ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

AND THAT BECOMES A DIFFICULTY IN.

AND NOW WE'RE TASKED WITH REGULATING YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS.

CALL IT TEMPORARY BURDEN.

BUT AS LONG AS THE HOMEOWNER IS MAKING A POINT WITH THE CONTRACTOR, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY AS GOOD AS WE'RE GOING TO GET, IN MY OPINION.

OH, WITH THAT SAID, I'D MAKE A MOTION.

OKAY, LET'S HEAR IT.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

LA 24 DASH 12 AS APPLIED.

CAN I ADD ONE CONDITION TO YOUR MOTION? THE CONDITION WOULD BE THAT THE ALLEY.

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ANY CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THE ALLEY BE REMOVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

ANY THAT'S EXISTING TODAY WHEN WE'RE TALKING DIRT OR WHATEVER THE NEIGHBORS WERE LOOKING AT.

AND THEN. YEAH.

JUST THE THE THOUGHT THAT THE ALLEY COULD BE USED FOR PARKING.

JUST HAVE IT ON THERE SO THAT IT'S.

SO IT'S ON THE RECORD.

SO YEAH, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT.

JUST CURIOUS FOR STAFF, IS THAT OKAY WITH WITH JUST THE CONDITION TO CLEAN UP THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS OR DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT'S IN THE ALLEY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

OKAY. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT.

[01:50:01]

THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE IT.

MAKE IT A CONDITION.

BUT I CAN ADD SOME CLARIFICATION HERE.

I BELIEVE THIS IS AN OPEN CONSTRUCTION SITE RIGHT NOW.

THEY'VE APPLIED FOR A DEMO PERMIT SINCE IT'S AN OPEN SITE.

AND THERE'S THOSE CONCERNS REGARDING DEBRIS AND SOIL.

WE'LL HAVE OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL GO OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE THE SITE THAT THE SILT FENCE IS UP AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, WE HAVE THE POWER WITH THAT OPEN PERMIT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SO WE'LL GO OUT THERE AND ADDRESS THAT TODAY.

AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT OR TACK IT ON TO THE VARIANCE CONDITION.

SO I'LL REMOVE MY CONDITION, MY AMENDMENT TO YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SO IF YOU WANT FOR THE RECORD JUST REPEAT YOUR MOTION.

SURE. MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24 DASH 12 AS APPLIED.

SECOND MCCUTCHEON.

OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY RESSLER AND I HAVE A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

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

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. OPPOSED? NONE. MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO.

THANK YOU. NEXT PUBLIC HEARING LA 20 4-13.

[5.5. #LA24-000013, City of Orono Text Amendment: Phase 2 of the City's Recodification of City Code (Laura Oakden)]

MISS OAKDEN. YES.

GOOD EVENING. I'LL HAVE MELANIE OR NATALIE PULL UP.

I THINK I HAVE A POWERPOINT IN THE FOLDER.

A LOT OF THE SLIDES ARE THE SAME AS LAST TIME, SO I'LL GO OVER THEM QUICKLY, BUT WE'LL HIGHLIGHT JUST SOME OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

LIKE I NOTED, AS THEY WORK TO BRING UP THAT PRESENTATION THE CITY AS A WHOLE IS WORKING ON A CODIFICATION PROJECT.

THIS IS INTENDED MOSTLY FOR HOUSEKEEPING EDITS, CLARIFYING LANGUAGE REORGANIZING SECTIONS OF CODE.

WE'RE MOVING STUFF OUT OF DIFFERENT CHAPTERS TO FIND A BETTER HOME FOR THEM.

EASIER, ACCESSIBLE, EASIER TO READ.

SO WE IT'S GOING THROUGH I BELIEVE 1 OR 2 WORK SESSIONS HAVE GONE THROUGH COUNCIL FOR SOME OF THE OTHER CHAPTERS.

ALL CHAPTERS 78 AND 82 NEED TO COME IN FRONT OF PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WHICH IS REQUIRED.

WE AS CITY STAFF ARE ALSO ADDRESSING A FEW CHANGES IN OTHER CHAPTERS, WHICH I INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR YOUR REFERENCE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE CHANGING AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE. BUT WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO TONIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CHANGES TO CHAPTER 78.

IS IS THE STATE STATUTE REQUIREMENT? NOT WORKING. IT'S NOT IT DOESN'T WANT TO OPEN.

IT'S STARTING.

REALLY THINKING HARD ON ME OVER THERE SORRY.

NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT IS THERE A VOTE FROM US TONIGHT, OR IS THIS JUST.

OH, SO IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING AND A VOTE.

A PUBLIC HEARING? YEP, A PUBLIC HEARING ON CHAPTER 78 AND A VOTE.

SO I'LL JUST GO OVER.

I DIDN'T PRINT IT OFF IN FRONT OF ME.

OH, YES, I DID.

LOOK AT ME SO I CAN AT LEAST TALK ABOUT IT.

I THOUGHT I ONE SECOND.

AND THEN HAVE IT ALL READY BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE COULD.

TECHNOLOGY IS FAILING ME.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT MY BECAUSE.

WHAT? WE'RE GOING OVER HERE.

SO AGAIN, A RECONFIGURATION IS A PROCESS THAT INCLUDES A FULL LEGAL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE THAT ALL PROVISIONS ARE COMPREHENSIVE, LAWFUL AND ENFORCEABLE.

THE LAST TIME THE CITY CODE WAS CODIFIED WAS IN 2003.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT WE'RE CODIFY EVERY 10 TO 15 YEARS.

SO WE ARE A LITTLE LATE.

SO WORKING ON THAT PROJECT NOW, IT DID START IN 2022, AND STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING KIND OF BEHIND THE SCENES ALL THROUGH 2023.

AND HAS BEEN PROCESSING THESE UPDATES AND KIND OF LARGE CHUNKS THROUGH BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.

I CAN GO THROUGH KIND OF THE CYCLE OF HOW WE DID IT, BUT IT DID TOUCH THE LEGAL REVIEW THROUGH MUNICODE, WHERE THEY FIRST IDENTIFIED DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT WERE INCONSISTENT.

STAFF TOOK A LOOK AT IT.

THEN WE REALIGNED ALL THE TEXT.

WE THEN ALSO SENT IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, SPECIFICALLY IF WE WERE MAKING SPECIFIC CHANGES AND HE PROVIDED FEEDBACK.

WE'RE BRINGING THE CHAPTER 78 IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

AND THEN THERE'S HAS BEEN OTHER CHAPTERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

LET'S SEE HERE. SO TONIGHT, TO BE REVIEWED FOR YOU I HAVE INCLUDED I NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BUT CHAPTER 94 ARE SOME REGULATIONS ON WATERCRAFTS ON THE CITY OF LONG LAKE.

AND CHAPTER 54 ARE SOME REGULATIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES REGARDING SOLID WASTE? IN CHAPTER 54.

SO THAT'S OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE ARE JUST UPDATING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE CONSISTENT EITHER WITH STATE OR COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR SEPTIC OR OUR CITY OF LONG LAKE FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES WITH THE MONITORING AND DNR REQUIREMENTS OF LONG LAKE.

[01:55:02]

SO I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT GO OVER THEM.

AND THEN IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

SO THE FIRST ONE IN CHAPTER 78 SECTION ONE IS OUR DEFINITIONS CHAPTER.

MOST OF THESE DEFINITIONS ARE BY RECOMMENDATION OF EITHER THE LEGAL TEAM.

SO IT'S INCLUDING A DEFINITION OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE DEFINITIONS FOR THOSE TERMS SPECIFICALLY.

ALSO WHERE LATER ON WE'RE ADOPTING THE DRIVEWAY STANDARDS OUT OF THE STREETS CHAPTER AND INTO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE HAVE SOME STREET AND DRIVEWAY DEFINITIONS BEING ADDED TO REFERENCE WITHIN THE ZONING CODE.

CHAPTER 78 1279.

THIS IS CLARIFYING THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THERE HAS BEEN QUESTIONS IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS.

SO THIS IS JUST ADDING THE WORD LAKESHORE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DEFINITION PERTAINS TO LAKESHORE PROPERTIES.

SO IT'S IT'S JUST THAT ONE WORD BEING ADDED.

1250 I'M SORRY.

1285 IS VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS.

THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT.

WE CHANGED OUR POLICY, OUR VEGETATION BACK IN 2022, AND THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN CHAPTER 70 OR WITHIN THE 75 FOOT LAKE SETBACK.

THIS IS JUST A CONSISTENCY.

THERE WAS SOME DUPLICATE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WAS KIND OF HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

WE'RE ALSO PUTTING A REFERENCE THAT FOR TREE REPLACEMENT, WE AS STAFF ARE GOING TO REFERENCE THE DNR, NATIVE TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS AND NATIVE TREES FOR THE AREA. SO IT'S REFERENCING THAT AND THEN JUST PROVIDING SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN THERE.

HOPEFULLY I CAN BRING UP THE ACTUAL RED LINE.

LANGUAGE, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I'LL KEEP HIGHLIGHTING GOING OVER IT.

I THINK WE ALL HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US.

OKAY, GOOD. ON OUR SCREENS.

CHAPTER 1577 IS EXTERIOR STORAGE.

I BELIEVE THAT'S MOSTLY LANGUAGE BY OUR LEGAL TEAM.

CHANGING LIKE MOTOR HOME, MOBILE HOME TO MOTOR HOME OR MOBILE HOME TO MOTOR HOME.

IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

I'M CROSSING ONE OUT FOR THE OTHER.

AND THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION ON OUR LEGAL TEAM FOR OUR DEFINITIONS.

LET'S SEE HERE. CHAPTER 78 1682 IS LANGUAGE ON SHARED DRIVEWAYS.

I'M REMOVING THAT FROM TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN THE EXHIBIT, BUT NO CHANGE TO THE ACTUAL TEXT.

SO THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ON THAT PUBLICATION.

SO THAT WILL CLEAN THAT UP AND COME BACK TO YOU AT OUR ANOTHER TIME.

SO THAT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN CHAPTER 78 1492, THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE STREETS CHAPTER, WHICH IS MANAGED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER AND PUT INTO THE ZONING CHAPTER.

IT'S LANGUAGE THAT REALLY PERTAINS TO OUR DRIVEWAY STANDARDS.

SO WHENEVER PEOPLE ASK, CAN I HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS OR WHAT'S THE WIDTH AND REQUIREMENT DEFINITION OR REQUIREMENTS OF DRIVEWAYS? WE HOUSED ABOUT HALF OF THAT CODE LANGUAGE.

THE STREETS CHAPTER IN OUR CITY ENGINEER HOUSED THE OTHER PART OF THE CODE LANGUAGE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, SO WE'RE JUST BRINGING IT ALL UNDER ONE CHAPTER.

SO IT'S MUCH EASIER TO REFERENCE, MUCH EASIER TO SEE.

SO THAT'S MOSTLY JUST A MOVE BETWEEN THE CITY CODE REALLY NO CHANGE IN POLICY.

SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR.

YES, THE RED IS ALL ADDITION AND THE BLUE IS JUST SOME MINOR TWEAKS TO THE WORDING.

YEAH, BUT IT'S BUT IT'S COPY AND PASTED FROM THE OTHER PIECE OF IT'S COPY PASTED.

SO WE'LL ALL SHOW UP AS BRAND NEW LANGUAGE.

BUT IN REALITY THAT LANGUAGE IS IS BRAND NEW TO THIS CHAPTER.

IT'S PULLED OUT OF THE STREETS CHAPTER WHERE WE DELETED IT.

SO IT'S JUST MOVING IT TO A DIFFERENT SECTION.

IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING THE, THE POLICY OR INTENTION, BUT PUTTING IT ALL AS ONE, BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE ASK US THOSE QUESTIONS, WE WERE STUCK SENDING THEM LINKS AND REFERENCING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

THEY HAVE TO TALK TO A PLANNER AND THE CITY ENGINEER AND EVERYTHING TO GET THE ANSWERS.

SO TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE THAT I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO SPEND MORE TIME TALKING.

OR SOME TIME, MAYBE I'LL GET A PRESENTATION.

I'LL NEVER HAVE A PRESENTATION.

I'M SO SORRY. THE POWERPOINT WILL NOT WORK TONIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SO TONIGHT, I'M ASKING YOU TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THOSE CHANGES.

I THINK I HAVE THE PDFS OF THE STRIKETHROUGH LANGUAGE.

OH, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

SO HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU YOUR YOUR PDFS.

YES. SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

BUT TONIGHT, I'M ASKING YOU TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR CHAPTER 78.

COMMISSION SHOULD REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON ANY OF THOSE CHANGES, AND THEN MAKE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION AND A MOTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF'S RECOMMENDING TO ADOPT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR GO THROUGH ANY OF THIS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

[02:00:01]

YEAH I'M LOOKING AT THE DIFFS REAL TIME.

AND SO THE I SAW SOME THAT ARE RED AND SOME ARE BLUE.

SO IS THE RED ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS.

WHICH ONE LIKE THIS 94 1990 4-1 41.

THERE'S A THROUGH F I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY IS I THINK WHAT'S CROSSED OUT IS WHAT'S BEING DELETED.

AND WHETHER IT'S BLUE OR RED IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE AFTERWARDS.

ANYTHING UNDERLINED IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE.

OKAY. SO WE'RE ADDING OKAY.

AND STRIKE THROUGH IS DELETING.

ALL RIGHT. IT SHOWS UP KIND OF FUNNY ON HERE BECAUSE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE, ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT IT'S BRAND NEW LANGUAGE, IT'S JUST BEING MOVED TO A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE CODE RIGHT FROM ANOTHER SECTION.

IN MOST OF THE WORDS ARE JUST CLARIFYING, LIKE MAY TO SHALL.

THERE'S SOME OF THOSE JUST TO BE MORE DEFINITIVE AND MORE CLEAR.

YES. YEAH. SO YEAH, AND IT'S VERY FEW I GUESS THERE'S VERY FEW CROSS THERE'S VERY FEW REMOVALS.

RIGHT. YEAH. MORE OF A MERGE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY ON THIS LONG LAKE.

WATERCRAFT. YES.

LANGUAGE. THIS IS DESIGNED TO MIRROR THE REST OF LONG LAKE OR MERE LONG LAKES.

YEAH. SO I THINK IN DON'T QUIZ ME.

A FEW YEARS AGO WE HAD A BUNCH OF REGULATIONS ON WATERCRAFTS ON LONG LAKE, AND, AND THAT'S REALLY A LOT WHICH ALLOWS THE DNR TO ENFORCE THOSE REGULATIONS. THERE ARE SOME REGULATIONS ON BOAT CRAFT AND TIME OF MOTOR USE AND EVERYTHING OUT ON THAT LAKE.

IT WAS RECOMMENDED BOTH BY LONG LAKE AND ORONO TO ALIGN OUR CITY CODES.

SO WITH THAT, THE DNR HAD GIVEN US SOME LANGUAGE TO ALIGN THEM.

WE FOLLOWED THAT STEP.

I THINK SOME CHANGES CAME OUT OF THE CITY OF LONG LAKE.

AND SO NOW OUR CODES ARE AGAIN INCONSISTENT.

SO THIS CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH DNR RECOMMENDATION AND THE CITY OF LONG LAKE'S.

SO THE REGULATIONS CAN BE ENFORCEABLE SINCE BOTH CITY BOUNDARIES SPLIT THAT LAKE.

IT'S GREAT WHEN CITIES CAN WORK TOGETHER ON THESE TRIAD.

YEAH. YEAH.

EVERYTHING LOOKS EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE TO ME ON THAT ONE.

AND THE REST OF THEM, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THEM, IT LOOKS LIKE.

IT'S LIKE YOU SAID. IT'S JUST CLARIFICATION ON PIECES.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GETTING MORE RESTRICTIVE.

AS FAR AS THE ZONING, IT'S NOT REALLY LIKE A ZONING CODE CHANGE OR ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST. NO, THE POINT OF THE RECODIFICATION IS REALLY TYPOS, CLEANUP.

YOU KNOW, WE REFERENCE A LOT OF STATE STATUTES.

WE REFERENCE OLD COMP PLANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT'S REALLY JUST TO UPDATE A LOT OF THAT.

IF WE WERE DOING POLICY CHANGES LIKE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I'VE IDENTIFIED A BUNCH OF INCONSISTENCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES IN OUR SIGN CODE.

SO I'LL PROBABLY BE BRINGING FORWARD A SIGN CODE AMENDMENT MORE FORMALLY THROUGH YOU OUTSIDE OF THIS CODIFICATION PROJECT, BECAUSE THAT WILL IMPACT POLICY MORE IN INTERPRETATION OF THAT LANGUAGE.

SO THIS IS REALLY INTENDED TO BE KIND OF CLARIFYING CLEANUP OR UPDATING LANGUAGE OF HOW WE ARE CURRENTLY USING THE CODE.

THANK YOU. YES.

IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

LET'S DO THAT.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR LA 24 DASH 13.

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE DO.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

AGAIN, 70 8-1682 WILL NOT BE PART OF ANY OF OUR VOTING.

THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS.

OTHERWISE, I TEND TO WATCH THESE LIKE A HAWK, AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT'S THAT MAKES ANY THAT BRINGS ANY RED FLAGS UP IN MY MIND ON ON THESE CHANGES.

AND AGAIN, THE INTENT IS NOT TO CHANGE POLICY HERE.

THE INTENT IS JUST TO CLEAN UP INCONSISTENCIES AND MAKE IT EASIER TO, TO READ AND NAVIGATE THE CODE.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THESE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24 DASH 13 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF, NOT TO INCLUDE 78 DASH 1682.

YES. IS THAT DOES THAT NEED TO BE AMENDED, OR IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO IN YOUR MOTION FOR CLARITY, THAT'S JUST FINE.

YEAH. NO, I'LL AMEND MY MOTION AS SUCH.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FROM RESSLER TO APPROVE.

LA 24 DASH 13.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 78 DASH 1682, WHICH WILL BE REMOVED.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? YES, SECOND FROM MCCUTCHEON.

OKAY. SECOND FROM MCCUTCHEON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[02:05:01]

WE'LL VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO.

OTHER ITEMS. MISS OAKDEN OTHER ITEMS FOR UPDATE.

[6. Other Items]

FOR MY THREE PEOPLE THAT HAD TERM ENDINGS, I BELIEVE THAT WAS MR. BOB ERICKSON, DENNIS LIBBY, AND JOHN RESSLER.

YOU'VE ALL BEEN REAPPOINTED FOR ANOTHER THREE YEAR TERM, SO CONGRATULATIONS.

THANK YOU. SO LAST TIME LET'S SEE, WE MET.

SINCE THEN, THE COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED A FEW APPLICATIONS.

WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE BUSY, SO LET'S SEE HERE.

4423 NORTH SHORE WAS A VARIANCE WITH ON THE BLUFF IN THE CHANNEL.

WE RECOMMEND YOU RECOMMENDED DENIAL STAFF COUNCIL TABLED IT, DID A SITE VISIT AND THEN SAW IT, TABLED IT AGAIN, ASKED FOR AMENDMENTS OR TABLED IT ONCE, SAW IT, ASKED FOR AMENDMENTS, AND THEN IT WENT BACK A THIRD TIME.

AND THEY DID APPROVE IT, BUT WITH EXTREMELY LIMITED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE BLUFF.

JUST MONITORING SOME OF A FEW MINOR CHANGES IN IN ON AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL.

SO BUT THEY DID THEY WERE VERY MINDFUL OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

LET'S SEE HERE.

THERE WAS A CONCEPT PLAN AT 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE COUNCIL GAVE SOME MIXED FEEDBACK.

THAT WAS A LARGE, LIKE, 155 UNIT CONDO BUILDING DOWN ON WAYZATA BOULEVARD THERE.

WHILE THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE DENSITY BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE, THE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN A LOW DENSITY GUIDANCE WAS A CONCERN.

AND THEN THE PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ENSURING THAT THE LANDFILL CLEANUP HAPPENED IN A TIMELY MANNER.

AND THE AND JUST THE MAKING SURE THAT IF YOU'RE PROPOSING THESE BUILDINGS, THEY GOT BUILT AND NOT TWO OF THE FIVE BUILDINGS GOT BUILT.

SO WE'LL SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT DOES WITH THAT.

BUT THEY WERE GENERALLY THEY, THEY WERE EXCITED ABOUT A PROJECT WITH, WITH THOSE KIND OF CONCERNS.

THAT WAS A SKETCH PLAN OR A SKETCH.

OKAY. YEP. OTHER THINGS THAT WENT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL THAT YOU MIGHT THE RECODIFICATION PHASE ONE, WHICH HAD A HANDFUL OF AMENDMENTS, THOSE WERE ALL ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.

LET'S SEE HERE.

AND THEN THERE WAS A SECOND SKETCH PLAN AT 2480.

CARMEN. THAT WAS THE LOT THAT IS SPLIT BY THE LAGOON DOWN ON SHORELINE DRIVE.

I WOULD SAY COUNCIL WASN'T AS SUPPORTIVE FOR THAT.

THERE WAS, I THINK, A MIXED BAG BETWEEN THE COUNCIL.

SOME WERE SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE IT BROUGHT UP THOSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES INTO CONFORMANCE, WHILE OTHERS WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DENSITY BY ALLOWING THOSE LARGER LOTS TO BE SPLIT WITH THAT REZONING.

SO KIND OF A MIXED SPLIT.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO GO WITH THEIR NEXT STEPS.

BUT MIRRORING THE DISCUSSION YOU GUYS HAD AT PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THAT JUST AS A PLUG FOR ADVERTISEMENT WE DID POST FOR POSITIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATES.

SO WE HAVE ONE RIGHT NOW WHO'S ONLY AVAILABLE HALF OF THE YEAR.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THROUGH OUR LAST FEW MEETINGS, WE'VE BEEN RUNNING ON A LITTLE BIT OF A SKELETON CREW.

SO WE ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE IN LOOKING IF YOU HAVE A FRIEND OR KNOW SOMEBODY IN IN THE CITY WHO WOULD BE GOOD OR INTERESTED IN THIS POSITION, I SEND THEM MY WAY.

I'D BE HAPPY TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT THE ABOUT THE COMMISSION AND WHAT IT DOES.

WITH THAT OTHER UPDATES, I'M MISSING OTHER APPLICATIONS.

COMPUTER. THE COMPUTER NO LONGER WORKS, SO THAT MIGHT BE A SIGN.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YES. ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? THAT'S THE FIRST FROM STAFF EVER.

THAT'S TRUE. THE HOUR IN LOOKING OVER THE MINUTES AT THE FOR THIS MEETING OR THE PREVIOUS MEETING, IT APPEARS AS IF THE FORMAT FOR THE MINUTES IS CHANGED QUITE A BIT.

OUR OLD WAY OF DOING MINUTES, THEY'D HAVE A PARAGRAPH OR, YOU KNOW, A WRESTLER SAYS SOMETHING AND ERICKSON SAYS SOMETHING AND LIBBY SAYS SOMETHING.

YOU'D HAVE A NEW PARAGRAPH FOR EACH SPEAKER, YOU KNOW, AND NOW WE'VE GOT THERE WAS A MOTION AND IT PASSED AND AND ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

RIGHT. SO, SO IS THIS A PERMANENT CHANGE OR.

YEAH. SO THE FORMAT FOR THE MINUTES DID SLIGHTLY CHANGE.

THE RECORDED MINUTES THAT ARE WRITTEN ARE SUPPOSED TO JUST MONITOR THE MOTIONS.

AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT COMES THROUGH AS THE FORMAL DOCUMENTATION WHEN WE SWITCH TO OUR NEW STREAMING SERVICE, THEY DO HAVE A CLOSED CAPTIONING.

[02:10:07]

AVAILABLE NOW FOR OUR SERVICE.

SO FOR FULL DETAIL YOU CAN GO ON OUR WEBSITE AND DOWNLOAD EITHER THE TRANSCRIPT OR WATCH THE VIDEO WITH CLOSED CAPTIONING TO SEE A FULL DISCUSSION, OR TO WATCH THE VIDEO ITSELF IN MUCH CLEARER MANNER, BUT THE MINUTES ITSELF HAVE SHORTENED.

I KNOW THAT IS A DISCUSSION THE COUNCIL IS HAVING, AND I ANTICIPATE THEM TO HAVE SOME SORT OF WORK SESSION OR A CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE RECORDED MINUTES SHOULD HAVE.

SO THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AND TAKEN UP AT THE CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY, SO I'M CURIOUS THEN WHEN WHEN OUR MINUTES GO ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN DO THEY GET THE FULL CONTEXT OR DO THEY JUST GET THE ABBREVIATED? THEY GET THE FORMAL MINUTES THAT YOU GUYS, THE SAME MINUTES THAT YOU WERE SIGNING AND THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET, THOSE ARE THE SAME MINUTES FOR FULL TRANSCRIPTS AND EVERYTHING. IT WOULD ALL BE THROUGH OUR WEBSITE WHERE WE HOUSE THE VIDEO.

OKAY. IT IS. IT IS SUMMARIZED AS WELL BY STAFF.

YEAH, RIGHT.

I MEAN THAT THAT IS PART OF IT, BOB, IS I THINK THE THE STAFF DOES PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK OF THE DISCUSSION TO GIVES US GIVES THEM A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT.

I COULD SEE WHAT YOU MEAN AS FAR AS ALL THE CONTEXTS SOMETIMES MAY BE LOST IF THEY'RE NOT WATCHING.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

THE STAFF REPORTS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM IS GOING TO HAVE A SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION POINTS OR ANYTHING THAT WE WANT SPECIFICALLY IN THERE.

BUT THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN.

TRUNCATED TO JUST THE MEAT AND POTATOES.

OKAY. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS THE THE TIMING OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE AVAILABILITY OF VIDEOS AND MINUTES AND AGENDAS ON THE WEBSITE.

I THE OTHER A FEW DAYS AGO, I LOOKED BACK, I SAID, WELL, I'LL LOOK AT THE, THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MY RECOLLECTION WAS IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE DONE THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE LIKE, YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR TWO LATER YOU COULD LOOK AT THE VIDEO AND THE COUNCIL MEETING AND, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF THING.

THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE LONGER FOR THE MINUTES OR SOMETHING TO BE APPROVED.

BUT SO I DID THIS, YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR SO AGO AND, AND THE THE LATEST COUNCIL MEETING THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE WAS IN DECEMBER.

AND THEN I WAS LOOKING IN MARCH.

RIGHT. SO AND SO I SAID, GEE, YOU KNOW, DO I HAVE TO WAIT THREE MONTHS, YOU KNOW, TO KNOW I CAN PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

SO WE'RE SWITCHING.

LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE SWITCHED TO THIS NEW SYSTEM IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, THEY'RE RECONCILING OUR PAGES.

SO EVERYTHING 2023 AND OLDER IS ON THAT SAME PAGE WHERE YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE VERY TOP OF THAT PAGE, THERE'S A BIG BANNER THAT SAYS 2024 MEETING VIDEOS. IF YOU CLICK ON THAT LINK, THAT WILL BRING YOU TO ALL OF THE AGENDAS AND VIDEOS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS FOR THE 2024 MEETINGS FOR COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARKS.

SO IT'S ON A SEPARATE PAGE, WE'RE HOPING, AND WE'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM OUR SERVICER THAT THEY'RE RECONCILING THOSE PAGES.

SO WE'LL ALL BE ON ONE PAGE HERE SHORTLY.

BUT IN THIS TRANSITION TIME, SINCE WE'VE MOVED TO A NEW VIDEO STREAMER, THEY HAVE IT ON A SEPARATE PAGE.

SO WE HAVE A BIG BANNER THAT SAYS 2024 MEETING MINUTES.

SO I CAN I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT AFTER THE MEETING OR SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS TO BOB.

THANKS. YEP.

IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, WE WOULD.

I'D. I WOULD MOVE TO ADJOURN.

MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SECOND. MOTION BY RESSLER.

TO ADJOURN. SECOND. BY MCCUTCHEON.

ALL IN FAVOR? I OPPOSED.

HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.