6.1. #LA24-000017, Courtney Paulsen, 1090 Wildhurst Trl, Average Lakeshore Setback, Side Yard Setback, and Hardcover Variances, Public Hearing (Staff: Melanie Curtis)

[6.1. #LA24-000017, Courtney Paulsen, 1090 Wildhurst Trl, Average Lakeshore Setback, Side Yard Setback, and Hardcover Variances, Public Hearing (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]

WE HAVE 6.1 KNOWN AS LA 24-17, COURTNEY PAULSON AT 1090 WILD HORSE TRAIL WITH MISS CURTIS.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RE APPROVAL OF VARIANCES GRANTED IN 2021 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW LAKESIDE DECK ON THE EXISTING HOME.

THE SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE HOME THAT WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME HAS BEEN PUT ON HOLD.

AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND HARD COVER VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED.

THE EXISTING HOME IS SITUATED 2.6FT FROM THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE AND ENTIRELY LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

THE PROPOSED DECK WILL BE IN LINE WITH THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME AT 2.6FT, WHERE A 7.5FT SETBACK IS REQUIRED AND WILL BE ENTIRELY LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

HARD COVER ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY EXCEEDS 25%.

THEY ARE PROPOSING A 122 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION.

RESULTING IN 31% WHERE 31.6% CURRENTLY EXISTS.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING LOT CONFIGURATION, NEIGHBORING HOME LOCATIONS, AS WELL AS THE HOME'S LOCATION, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAKESHORE AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCES.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.

MISS PAULSON IS IN ATTENDANCE THIS EVENING AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THE COMMISSION HAS ANY.

STAFF CONCURS WITH HER ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION.

THE FIRST TIME MISS PAULSON APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCES IN 2021.

THE NEIGHBORS WERE SUPPORTIVE OF HER REQUEST.

TONIGHT SHE IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE DECK PORTION OF THE PROJECT.

[00:05:01]

THE DECK PLANS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVALS GRANTED IN 2021.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.

SO I HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS CURTIS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

WISHES TO BE HEARD. PLEASE COME ON UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

IF YOU WANTED TO COME UP AND REPRESENT AND JUST SAY THAT YOU'D BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IF WE HAVE ANY.

YEAH, SURE.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHILE SHE'S HERE BEFORE WE SEND HER BACK DOWN.

IS ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE.

IF WE DO. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYBODY WISHES TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION.

ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD AND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRINGING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS APPLICATION LOOKS LIKE IT'S COMING BACK.

IT'S THE DECK PORTION SHOWING STAFF APPROVAL OR STAFF SUPPORT.

ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS? ANYBODY THAT WANT TO START OFF HERE? I GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT IT.

I UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND THE LOT DIMENSIONS HERE AS WELL AS THE EXISTING HOME.

YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE EXISTING CANTILEVER PORTION OF THE MAIN LEVEL THERE THAT KIND OF STICKS OUT TO THE FRONT.

THIS IS THE ONLY LOGICAL PLACE THAT A DECK COULD BE PLACED, AND IT DOES NOT EXCEED OR ENCROACH ANY FURTHER ON THAT SETBACK THAN THE EXISTING HOME ALREADY DOES. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE WORSENING THE POSITION.

IT'S NOT GETTING BETTER EITHER, BUT IT'S IT'S STAYING STAGNANT.

AND I AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND DOCUMENTED THROUGHOUT THE APPLICATION AND THROUGH STAFF'S REPORTS.

SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

I APPRECIATE THAT, MR.. MCCUTCHEON.

MR. KIRCHNER ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO ADD OR ANY OPPOSITION OR OTHERWISE MOTIONS? THAT WAS A GOOD SUMMARY.

UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-17 AS APPLIED.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS A MOTION BY MCCUTCHEON.

MOTION BY. YES.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT IN THE AGENDA IS THE LA 24-22, AMY YANNICK AT 1355 VINE PLACE A VARIANCE APPLICATION BY NYE.

[6.2. #LA24-000022, Amy Yanik, 1355 Vine Place, Variance (Natalie Nye)]

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE A NON-CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK.

THE EXISTING DECK IS IN DISREPAIR AND IS LOCATED COMPLETELY IN FRONT OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION.

SAME FOOTPRINT? HOWEVER, THE DECK WILL HAVE RAILINGS THAT ARE 36 INCHES VERSUS THE 30 INCH RAILINGS THAT ARE THERE CURRENTLY.

MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 36 INCHES FOR DECK RAILING.

THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT, AND REQUIRES A VARIANCE DUE TO THE HEIGHT EXPANSION IN FRONT OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HOME.

THE CURRENT DECK CONFIGURATION SERVICE.

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

THE DECK IS PROPOSED TO BE.

IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE REPLACED IN KIND, BUT IS REQUIRED TO INCREASE THE RAILING HEIGHT DUE TO BUILDING CODE.

STAFF FINDS THAT THIS IS A DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AS APPLIED.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS FROM EACH OF THE NEIGHBORS.

THOSE WERE FOUND IN YOUR PACKET.

NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MISS NYE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

I AM HERE.

I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT STATED THERE THEY ARE HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE ANY, BUT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.

THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYBODY WISHES TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SEEING NONE. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

TOO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING. ANY OTHER, ANY COMMENTS? I WANT TO LEAD THIS ONE OFF.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IT NEARLY IS AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONFORM WITH UPDATED BUILDING CODES FOR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

[00:10:03]

AND SO THEREFORE I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

I THINK IT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT THE ONLY VARIANCE OR CHANGES THAT WERE, WERE ADJUSTING FOR EXISTING BUILDING CODE.

WE'RE NOT EXPANDING THE FOOTPRINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF.

AGREED. WELL SAID.

I THINK THE STAFF DID A NICE JOB OF EXPLAINING IT TO YOU.

PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

ANYBODY ELSE FOR OR AGAINST MOTIONS.

ANY OF THOSE THINGS? I THINK PRETTY ADMINISTRATIVE.

SO I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-22 AS APPLIED.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOODY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. APOLOGIZE.

FOR THE RECORD. THE SECOND WAS BY SCHULTZ, AND I DIDN'T CALL THAT OUT ON THE LAST MOTION.

JUST FOR THE RECORD. THANKS.

OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE THIRD PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA.

[6.3. #LA24-000023, Joanna Heinen o/b/o Kasey Lynn Jones, 884 Dakota Avenue, Variances (Natalie Nye)]

6.3 IDENTIFIED AS LA 24-23, JOANNA HEINEN, CASEY LYNN JONES 884 DAKOTA AVENUE.

ALSO MISS NYE.

YES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 528 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE THAT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 2.6FT FROM THE SIDE YARD, SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND 10.5FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

WHEN 15FT IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH, THE LOCATION OF THE DETACHED GARAGE HAS BEEN CHOSEN IN ORDER TO PRESERVE AS MANY MATURE TREES AS POSSIBLE ON THE SITE.

THERE'S ALSO AN EXISTING WELL, THAT WAS MINDFUL OF IN THE DESIGN.

THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE WILL UTILIZE A, AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION, AND THAT WILL MINIMIZE NEW HARD COVER. ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT OF THE GARAGE WOULD PRESERVE SOME OF THE TREES ON THE LOT.

HOWEVER, THESE TREES ARE NOT IN A PROTECTIVE ZONE, SUCH AS A LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND CAN BE REMOVED.

THE EXISTING EXISTENCE OF TREES ON A PROPERTY DOES NOT PREVENT A HOMEOWNER FROM ABIDING FROM REQUIRED SETBACKS.

STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES PRESENT TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCES FOR BOTH SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS.

STAFF BELIEVES THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON THE SITE IN A COMPLIANT LOCATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST AS APPLIED.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF THE SITE AND THE TREES THAT I CAN BRING UP IF NEEDED.

AND I'M ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS NYE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE. WISHES TO BE HEARD.

PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

HI, I'M JOANNA, THE APPLICANT.

SO I'M FRANK.

I LIVE AT 884 DAKOTA.

MIC] I, FRANK.

YEAH. SO I'M TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME OF THE, THOSE ARE ALL MATURE SUGAR MAPLES BACK THERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE.

I MAKE MAPLE SIRUP WITH THE TREES ON MY PROPERTY.

SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP AS MANY AS I CAN.

THIS PROJECT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE I HAVE TWO PLASTIC RESIN SHEDS BACK THERE AND IN THE SNOW FROM THE PREVIOUS WINTER, OBVIOUSLY NOT THIS LAST WINTER BECAUSE THAT WAS KIND OF WEAK

[00:15:03]

COLLAPSED IN THAT ROOF.

SO WE'RE LOOKING TO MAKE A MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION BACK THERE FOR STORAGE.

BOATS AND TRAILERS AND SUCH, AS YOU CAN SEE.

I ALSO HAVE HERE SORRY, THIS ISN'T IN THE PACKET, BUT A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM MY NEIGHBOR THAT I CAN PASS OUT TO YOU GUYS.

YOU COULD PROBABLY HAND IT TO A STAFF INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION, AND I'LL PASS THAT ON TO YOU.

AND THAT IS FROM MY NEIGHBOR AT 888 DAKOTA AVENUE, WHICH WOULD BE THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS AND THE CLOSEST TO THE STRUCTURE.

AND THEY'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.

I'VE SHOWN THEM THE DRAFTS OF PLANS AND THE SURVEY AND WHERE THE BUILDING.

AWESOME. I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT.

IS THERE ANY OTHER TO ADD? AND SO YOU CAN SEE IT IN SOME OF THE OTHER PICTURES.

BUT WE'VE HAD NEIGHBORS TAKING DOWN A LOT OF TREES.

THERE ARE MORE TREES COMING DOWN.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE] TREATING SOME OF MINE.

I'M GOING TO HAVE AN ASH TREE I'M GOING TO BE TAKING DOWN THIS YEAR, AS YOU CAN SEE.

IT'S CHANGING THE LOOK OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE'RE LOSING A LOT OF TREE COVER.

SO AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY MATURE TREES AS WE CAN.

SURE. THAT'S HELPFUL.

APPRECIATE THAT.

MIC] YEAH.

THANK YOU, MR. NYE. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, WELL BEFORE I SENT YOU BACK DOWN, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED IF ANYBODY HAD ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

THE QUESTION I HAVE MR. SCHULTZE. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT YOU'VE JUST COME UP WITH THAT'S GOING TO.

IT'D BE SOMETHING LESS THAN A 2.6FT.

WHAT WAS THAT PLAN ENTAIL? IS IT CHANGING THE ANGLE OF THE BUILDING? IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE MOVING IT FORWARD.

WHEN YOU SAY FORWARD, YOU MEAN..

AH MOVING IT? GOING NORTH.

NORTH. YEAH. NORTH, NORTH ON THE NORTH.

AND IT WOULD BE CHANGING THE ANGLE A BIT TOO AS WELL.

AND SO. AND WHAT WOULD THE SETBACK BE AT THAT TIME? I JUST GOT A COPY OF IT HERE.

I'LL TAKE A LOOK. I HAVE A COPY I CAN HAND OUT.

AND THIS IS ACTUALLY SHOULD BE FAIRLY ACCURATE.

I WAS USING A RULER IN MY SQUARE TODAY.

SURE. CALCULATIONS.

IT WILL BE ABOUT 11FT.

BUT I WOULD LOSE THE BACK PARKING PAD BECAUSE I'D BE MOVING IT UP ESSENTIALLY TO THE THAT FIRST BUMP OUT IS WHERE IT WOULD BE.

SURE. OH, GREAT.

WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ON THE FLY.

JUST SO YOU KNOW TYPICALLY WE HAVE TO RULE ON THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF US.

OTHERWISE, THINGS CAN GET CONFUSING.

UNLESS IT'S JUST A FRIENDLY MINOR AMENDMENT.

BUT WHAT WE TYPICALLY LIKE TO DO IS NOT TABLE IT.

RULE ON IT FOR OR AGAINST.

AND MAINLY THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THEN AFTERWARDS, WHETHER WE VOTE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED, IT ALLOWS YOU TO COUNCIL.

AND THAT'S WHERE IT ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE ACTION.

IF WE TABLE IT AND IT COMES BACK TO US, THEN IT COSTS YOU ANOTHER MONTH, AND THEN WE DISCUSS IT AGAIN AND THEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

GO AHEAD. YEAH. ONE QUICK QUESTION.

YOU MENTIONED THESE ARE ALL SUGAR MAPLES.

THERE'S NONE OF THESE ARE ASH THAT ARE CALLED OUT ON THE SURVEY.

CALLED OUT ON THE SURVEY.

YOU SEE THERE'S LIKE..

THERE IS ANOTHER ONE.

THERE'S A VERY TINY ONE.

I DON'T EVEN THINK IT'S ON THE SURVEY.

THAT IS AN ASH TREE BACK THERE.

BUT IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL ONE.

OKAY. THAT'S THE MAIN SUGAR MAPLE I'M TRYING TO PRESERVE THERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.

IN THE ILLUSTRATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW AND YOU SEE THE CANOPY, WHICH IS JUST A DRAWING, AND YOU LOOK AT THE TREE CANOPIES IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED SITE FOR THE GARAGE.

AND THEN I LOOK AT YOUR DISTANCES.

18 INCH MAPLE, SIX FOOT, 6.6FT.

SO IS THIS CONSTRUCTION FOUNDATION OVERHANG AND WALL OF A GARAGE THEN WOULD BE ABOUT 6.6FT

[00:20:07]

FROM THE TRUNK OF THE 18 INCH MAPLE.

IS THAT ON THE ONE I JUST HANDED OUT TO YOU? YEAH. I'M JUST QUOTING FROM WHAT YOU JUST HANDED THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN.

CORRECT? CORRECT. YES.

THAT'S THE TRUNK OF THE TREE WOULD BE ABOUT 6.6 FROM THE BACK CORNER, SO WOULDN'T THIS THEN? THE GARAGE IS AS SIMPLE AND BASIC AND STRAIGHTFORWARD AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET.

BUT WOULDN'T THERE BE OVERHANG? TREE OVERHANG? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ONLY THAT DISTANCE, YOU'RE..

VERY TALL TREE, THE CANOPY IS VERY HIGH UP.

THE TREE HAS BEEN TRIMMED.

SO IT WOULD BE I WOULD MORE DEFER TO YOU.

IT WOULD BE PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM THE ROOF.

WELL, THAT'S THAT WAS REALLY WHERE I WAS GOING WITH MY QUESTION.

YEAH. THE DISRUPTION OF THE SOIL IN AND AROUND THE TREE ROOT CAN HAVE A LONG PERIOD OF EFFECT ON THE HEALTH OF THE TREE.

HAVE YOU HAD AN ARBORIST? SOMEONE COME OUT AND SOMEONE CREDENTIALED, LOOK AT THIS PROXIMITY TO WHERE THE TREES ARE AND PUT THE FOUNDATION WHERE YOU WOULD BE PUTTING THE FOUNDATION AND THE OVERHANG AND THE WALL OF THE GARAGE.

MIC] WELL, I ADMIRE AND I RESPECT YOUR SENSE OF CONSERVATION BECAUSE I FEEL THE SAME WAY.

AND WE DO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT REALLY IS RURAL, AND TREES ARE ONE OF OUR GREAT TREASURES AND VALUES.

SO I, I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU ARE THAT CONSIDERATE OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE TREE THEN I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S CREDENTIALED TO COME OUT AND EXAMINE WHERE THE PLACEMENT OF THE FOUNDATION AND THE FOOTINGS AND THE SIDEWALLS AND THE OVERHANG OF THE GARAGE WOULD BE PLACED.

I JUST FEEL MORE, MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

THANK YOU DENNIS.

A WE HAVE A STANDARD AND A RULE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO MODIFY.

AND YET, I DON'T THINK THAT THE JURY IS REALLY IN YET ON THE PLACEMENT OF THE GARAGE IN PROXIMITY TO THE TREE.

I MEAN, I RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.

AND IN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, WHERE I OWN A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES, I KNOW THAT THOSE SETBACKS ARE DIFFERENT, BUT WE'RE UNDER OUR AUSPICES NOW.

I JUST THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT.

I WOULD RECOMMEND AND I'M JUST ONE OF A NUMBER OF PLAYERS HERE, BUT BUT I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT TREE CONSERVATION.

I LIVE NEXT DOOR, WHERE 140 LEGACY 75 FOOT TREES WERE TAKEN OUT FOR.

AND I LIVE IN THE CITY OF ORONO.

SO BY ALL MEANS, DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO CONSERVE THE TREE.

AND THAT MIGHT BE MIGHT COME UP IN DISCUSSION TOO YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE DELIBERATION.

YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE HERE? ACTUALLY, I GOT ONE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME CONSTRAINTS YOU'RE DEALING WITH.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I'M FIRST LOOKING AT IT, I'M LIKE, JUST MOVE THE STRUCTURE NORTH ON TOP OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

IS THERE PROBABLY AN ORDINANCE.

I SEE THAT THERE'S A WELL CLOSE BY IS.

WAS THAT MOVING THE GARAGE FURTHER NORTH? WAS THAT A CHALLENGE TO GO TO? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE ORDINANCE OF KEEPING AWAY FROM A WELL.

THREE FEET. OH, THREE FEET.

OH, IT'S NOT BAD. AND THAT THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT? THERE WERE FAR ENOUGH AWAY THE NEW PROPOSAL THAT WE JUST SENT.

OKAY.. IS SEVEN.

SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY FURTHER YOU CAN MOVE IT FARTHER NORTH IF YOU HAD TO.

RIGHT. THANK YOU.

[00:25:04]

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE HERE? ALL RIGHT. YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER WE'RE DELIBERATING.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. ABSOLUTELY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU BOTH.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION.

COME ON. COME ON UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR A DISCUSSION.

OKAY, THIS ONE IS A LITTLE COMPLICATED, BUT BY ITS DEFINITION PER THE STAFF FEEDBACK, PRESERVING TREES IS NOT DEFINED BY AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

THE ZONING FOR THESE FOR THIS PART OF ORONO IS A TWO ACRE LOT.

CORRECT. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS A POINT SEVEN ACRE LOT.

I CAN HEAR THAT.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY FEEDBACK? I MEAN, RIGHT NOW PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATIONS, 2.6 SIDE SETBACK, TEN FOOT REAR.

THERE'S CONSIDERATION TO MOVE IN THAT 2.6 TO A SEVEN FOOT, WHICH CERTAINLY HELPS.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO, GIVE A TAKE.

I'M JUST THINKING I'LL JUST THINK OUT LOUD FOR A LITTLE BIT.

THE DRIVEWAYS ALREADY IF WE COULD.

LOOKS LIKE THE DRIVEWAYS.

WELL, IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT THE DRIVEWAY IS A DISTANCE FROM THE SIDE SETBACK, SO I'M JUST THINKING IN MY HEAD, IS THERE A IS THERE A POSITION WHERE THE GARAGE CAN JUST BE IN LINE WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND JUST OH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 15FT.

SO THAT WOULD WORK. SO I'M JUST THINKING, WHY CAN'T JUST MOVE THE GARAGE NORTHEAST? AND I THINK TO BE AWAY FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

IT'S LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, TEN FEET, TEN FEET.

SO I'M JUST LIKE, THAT'S AN OPTION.

YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST LINES ON THE PAPER.

SO I DON'T SEE A PRACTICAL I DON'T SEE A REALLY A REASON TO HUG IT IN THE CORNER OF THE LOT.

SURE. SO THAT'S MY $0.02.

YEAH. WE START GETTING CLOSE TO THAT.

WELL THAT WAS ONE THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT.

THE I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO THERE IS A SHED ON THE PROPERTY.

DOES THAT COUNT AS STRUCTURE? AS THE TYPE OF SHED THAT'S DOWN THERE? YEAH. THOSE TWO SHEDS ARE WHAT I SHOWED IN THE PICTURES.

AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

SO YES, THERE ARE STRUCTURES.

THERE ARE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS HERE, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AND THEY, THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN.

YEAH. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT.

IF THEY'RE BEING REMOVED, WE ARE IMPROVING A POSITION THERE BY REMOVING THEM AND PROPOSING A STRUCTURE LEGALLY WITH AN IMPROVEMENT OF SETBACK FROM WHAT CURRENTLY IS THERE AS A CONDITION? MM.HMM. SO I'M HEARING THAT I'M HEARING A LITTLE BIT OF A PIGEONING BETWEEN THE TREES.

THERE ALSO IS A WELL TO BE CONSIDERED.

AND WE ARE POINT SEVEN ACRE LOT ZONED FOR RULES AND GUIDELINES OF A TWO ACRE LOT.

THAT'S THOSE ARE THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF WHAT WE'RE DELIBERATING HERE, FOLKS.

I RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S A NONCONFORMING LOT.

I PERSONALLY HAVE A NONCONFORMING LOT AS WELL ON A TWO ACRE AREA.

ALTHOUGH IT IS A NONCONFORMING LOT, I'M STRUGGLING TO ASCERTAIN THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T REDESIGN THIS, JUST LOOKING AT THE PAPER, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WE WERE JUST GIVEN, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO RELOCATE THE SHED, SIMILAR TO MISTER MCCUTCHEON'S POINT FURTHER NORTH UP THE DRIVEWAY, AND MAYBE IN LINE WITH THE DRIVEWAY. THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY ELIMINATE AND POSSIBLY ELIMINATE A NEED FOR VARIANCE.

I CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN, BUT IN DOING SO WOULD POTENTIALLY ALSO SAVE MAYBE ALL OF THE TREES, BECAUSE THE DESIGN THAT WAS GIVEN TO US JUST SHOWS THE TWO TREES THAT WOULD HIT THE BACK LINE.

AND SO IF YOU WERE TO MOVE IT FURTHER NORTH, ARGUABLY YOU WOULD ELIMINATE THE TREE ISSUE AND THE SETBACK ISSUE.

SO WHILE I'M, YOU KNOW, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO KEEP THE TREES AS WELL.

BUT I DON'T SEE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL THAT WE'VE EXHAUSTED EVERY OPTIONS TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE WITHIN THE EXISTING SETBACKS AND PHYSICALLY SAY IT CANNOT BE DONE. AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND PHOTOGRAPHS AND SURVEYS SHOWN HERE, I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

AND SO THEREFORE I STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THIS ONE.

THANK YOU, MR. KIRCHNER. MR. ERICKSON. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? OH, WELL, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF REPORT.

THEY'VE COME TO THE CORRECT CONCLUSION.

I BELIEVE THAT THE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT COULD BE

[00:30:02]

DONE. I CAN THINK OF THREE RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO DETAIL THOSE, BUT JUST SIMPLY MOVING THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE A FEW FEET NORTH AND A FEW FEET EAST WOULD PUT IT OVER PART OF THE EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED, WHICH IS NOT A DIFFICULT THING TO DO.

AND AS TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE.

WELL, I UP UNTIL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I OWNED A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT WITH THE WELL JUST OUTSIDE THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE BY ABOUT TWO FEET OR SO.

AND THEN I'VE SEEN OTHER HOUSES WHERE THE WELL IS INSIDE THE BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE.

RIGHT. SO. WHICH I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT FOR A GARAGE, BUT NONE THE LESS, PROXIMITY TO THE WELL.

AND THEN WE HAVEN'T EVEN ESTABLISHED HOW OLD IS THE EXISTING WELL, I MEAN, THEY DO GET OLD, AND THEY DO NEED TO BE REPLACED EVENTUALLY AT SOME POINT. AND AS TO THE LARGEST TREE THEY'VE ALREADY MARKED THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION AS THAT, THAT WILL BE REMOVED.

SO AND IT WOULDN'T TAKE TOO MUCH NORTHER NORTHWARD MOVEMENT TO MISS THE OTHER ONE.

SO ONE OF WHICH IS ONLY SIX INCHES, WHICH I MEAN FOR SIX, YOU COULD BUY A SIX INCH TREE, BUT SO I THINK REALLY TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ZONING CODE, WE NEED TO DENY IT AS APPLIED.

ANYONE ELSE. I AGREE.

OKAY. ANY FEEDBACK ON THE POTENTIAL OF IMPROVING THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED WITH THE SETBACK.

I'M HEARING DIFFICULTY IN SUPPORTING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, WHICH MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT HOW ARE WE FEELING ABOUT 15FT? ARE WE FEELING ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE REASONABLE.

ANYTHING MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF, BUT ANYTHING LESS THAN 15.

ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT? I THINK FOR ME, LIKE I STATED ALREADY, I'D LIKE TO SEE ALL OPTIONS EXHAUSTED, TO SAY IT PHYSICALLY CANNOT BE DONE DUE TO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK, WELL, SETBACK BEFORE I'D BE WILLING TO SAY YEAH, I'D GIVE A LITTLE BIT ON ON THE 15FT.

SURE. ANYONE ELSE.

TEND TO AGREE.

ANYONE ELSE? NO. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S BEEN A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION ON THIS.

THE ONLY FEEDBACK I HAVE, I MEAN I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EMPATHY WHEN IT COMES TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT VERSUS HOW IT'S ZONED.

I DON'T HAVE A I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO A PROPOSED REDESIGN HERE.

I THINK I THINK TWO, 2.6 IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO WORK.

I DON'T THINK MAYBE SEVEN WOULD WORK TEN PLUS MAYBE MIGHT WORK.

IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO MAYBE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES BUT WE DO HAVE A DIFFICULTY OF OUR OWN OF ESTABLISHING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

AND THAT IS WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT'S THAT STILL IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH.

SO THAT THAT IS A HARD PART.

WITH THAT BEING SAID IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OTHERWISE? COULD BE ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

THERE IS NO FURTHER REJECT THE APPLICANT AS IT'S APPLIED.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION BY SCHULTZE TO DENY.

SECONDED BY KIRCHNER.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO DENY.

SAY AYE. I.

OKAY. MOTION CARRIES.

MOTION DENIED UNANIMOUSLY.

THE MOTION WAS SCHULTZE, SECONDED BY KIRCHNER.

OKAY. SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA.

[6.4. #LA24-000024, Revolution Design Build o/b/o Mary and David Oâ€™Keefe, 2980 Goldenrod Way, Lot Area Variance, Public Hearing (Laura Oakden)]

6.4 LA 24 - 24 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD.

MARY AND DAVID O'KEEFE AT 2980 GOLDENROD WAY FOR A LOT AREA VARIANCE.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

OAKDEN. YES.

OAKDEN. YES. GOOD EVENING CHAIR.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

TONIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, WE HAVE AN APPLICANT REQUESTING A LOT AREA VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME ON A PARCEL HERE IN THE CITY.

SO THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A LOT AREA VARIANCE TO DEVELOP A 1.7 ACRE PARCEL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OFF THE END OF GOLDENROD WAY.

THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN IN THE 1980S.

[00:35:02]

AS A CONFORMING TWO ACRE LOT IN THE RR ONE B ZONING DISTRICT.

SINCE THEN, MNDOT DID THEIR HIGHWAY 12 PROJECT AND I BELIEVE TOOK OVER THIS PARCEL AS RIGHT OF WAY TO SUPPORT STAGING AND FACILITATE THE HIGHWAY 12 PROJECT.

THEN RECENTLY IN, I BELIEVE IN 2022, THEY SOLD OFF A PORTION OF THAT TWO ACRE PARCEL.

THEY KEPT ABOUT 0.3 ACRES TO SUPPORT RIGHT OF WAY FOR HIGHWAY 12, BUT THAT LEFT A 1.7 ACRE PARCEL THAT WAS LISTED AND SOLD BY MNDOT.

THE APPLICANT THE REMAINING LAND IS SUBSTANDARD, AS IT IS ONLY 1.7 ACRES IN A TWO ACRE ZONE.

THE NEW PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LOOKING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME ON THE ON THE PROJECT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR RR 1B ZONING OF THE CURRENT AREA, BUT A LOT AREA VARIANCE IS NEEDED TO ALLOW THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.

THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED THE LOT BEING SUBSTANDARD DUE TO THAT RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENT BY MNDOT AND COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THEIR CONTROL STAFF AGREES WITH THAT ASSESSMENT.

THE PARCEL OF LAND WAS FOR SALE.

AND THEY PURCHASED AS MUCH LAND AS WHAT? MNDOT. WHAT ALLOWED THEM TO PURCHASE? SO STAFF SUPPORTS THE LOT AREA VARIANCE.

SOME NEIGHBORS HAVE CALLED WITH QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION FROM STAFF.

I WILL SAY TODAY I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM A NEIGHBOR AND THAT GOT PASSED OUT TO YOU.

I RECEIVED IT IN THE AFTERNOON.

SO THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THE PURPLE WRITING ON THE TOP.

IT IS AN EMAIL OF SUPPORT.

FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN NOTING TO ME THAT THEY'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION AND WITH MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

SO WITH THAT, IT'S A LOT AREA VARIANCE STAFF IS HAS NOTED THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DEMONSTRATED BY THE APPLICANT AND IS A RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE.

APPLICANTS HERE TONIGHT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS OAKDEN.

ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, MISS OAKDEN, I JUST HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

SO IF IT SAYS PUBLIC HEARING BY THAT, IS THIS A FULL REVARIANCE APPLICATION? IT'S A LOT AREA VARIANCE.

SO THEY DO NEED A REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT'S A VARIANCE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH OKAY.

SO SO IT IS STILL A STANDARD VARIANCE APPLICATION.

SO JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THERE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M DOING THINGS RIGHT.

YEP. OKAY. OH I'M SORRY.

IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE END.

MY APOLOGIES. OKAY.

JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I'M PAYING ATTENTION.

NO YOU ARE. YOU GOT IT.

OKAY. SO VERY WELL, CROSS THAT OFF AND GO BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISHES TO BE HEARD.

COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

THANK YOU. THANK. I WANT TO THANK LAURA FOR ALL THE HELP SHE'S GIVEN US THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

THIS IS OUR FIRST HOME SINCE WE'VE BEEN MARRIED 50 YEARS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD.

WE SOLD OUR HOME IN MINNETRISTA.

WE'VE LIVED THERE IN THE LAST 23 YEARS.

AND THIS, WE HOPE, IS GOING TO BE OUR FOREVER HOME.

LIKE SHE SAID, WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE DOT AND THEN SINCE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES OF YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO DO THIS, YOU KNOW? I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS SUCH A LONG PROCESS FROM FROM THE START OF THE SURVEYS TO THE WETLAND DELINEATIONS AND AND ALL THAT STUFF.

SO I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE.

WE'RE JUST HOPING THAT THE, THE COMMISSION AND THE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

EXCELLENT. AND DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? EXCELLENT. NO, HE SAID IT ALL.

OKAY. IF YOU.

OH, AND WE HAVE CONTACTED, YOU KNOW, WE WROTE TWO LETTERS, TWO DIFFERENT TIMES TO ALL OUR ALL THE NEIGHBORS ON GOLDENROD WAY THERE, AND WE'VE HAD NOTHING BUT POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THEM.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S IN YOUR PACKET THERE, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAD A NICE TWO HOUR VISIT WITH MRS. DUMAS ON WHO OWNS THE APPLE FARM ON THE EAST SIDE OF US.

YEAH. WHICH WAS QUITE FASCINATING, ACTUALLY.

YEAH. RIGHT.

SO SHE SAID SHE WHEN EVERYTHING STARTS BUILDING, SHE WANTS TO JUMP ON HER HER GOLF CART AND COME OVER AND WATCH IT.

AND SHE'S 99 YEARS OLD.

YEAH. GOTTA LOVE IT.

SO THAT'S ALL WE GOT TO SAY? NEIGHBORS. THERE WAS, LIKE, FOUR OTHERS.

THEY CALLED, EITHER WROTE US BACK A NOTE BECAUSE WE SENT A NOTE OUT SAYING.

YEAH, TOLD THEM WHAT WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING,..

WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND THAT THEY SHOULD CALL YOU OR CALL.

WE HAVE THEIR SUPPORT.

[00:40:02]

THAT'S GREAT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, JUST MIGHT SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

OTHERWISE, I'LL MAKE YOU COME ALL THE WAY BACK UP.

RIGHT. I'VE MADE THAT MISTAKE ALREADY.

ONCE TODAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE SEND THEM BACK? ALL RIGHT. NOW, NOW, YOU MAY SIT DOWN AGAIN.

SAME AS BEFORE. IF YOU MIGHT MAKE YOURSELF AVAILABLE.

SHOULD WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AFTER WE.

THANK YOU. YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. THIS ONE SEEMS A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY.

WE'VE GOT A BUILDING ENVELOPE THERE.

IT'S A LOT AREA VARIANCE.

I WILL SUMMARIZE THAT.

EVERYTHING SEEMS PRETTY REASONABLE HERE.

WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE IS IN SPIRIT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK STAFF DID A NICE JOB SUMMARIZING THAT THERE WAS NOT ABILITY TO PURCHASE MORE LAND.

IT'S THE MAXIMUM THAT THE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PURCHASE AND BE GOOD TO PUT A HOUSE THERE RATHER THAN NO HOUSE.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AND ADD THAT THE AS FAR AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES GO, THE PLIGHT OF THE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT A NOT A DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE LANDOWNER.

IN THIS CASE, IT ARGUES FROM THE, THE SALE OF A NON-CONFORMING LOT, IN ESSENCE.

YEAH. AGREED.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME APPROACH IT DIFFERENTLY.

IS THERE ANYONE WITH OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED? AND IF NOT, THEN I WOULD ENCOURAGE IF I COULD INSPIRE A MOTION.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-24 AT 2980 GOLDENROD WAY AS APPLIED.

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY KIRCHNER.

SECOND BY ERICKSON TO APPROVE.

AND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES.

SO MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

BEFORE WE DO, I MIGHT ASK STAFF IF THEY MIGHT HAVE ANY ANY UPDATES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

LET ME THINK HERE.

THERE'S A HANDFUL OF APPLICATIONS THAT WENT IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL.

THERE WAS 38, 38 CHERRY, WHICH WAS THAT AFTER THE FACT RETAINING WALL CUP, I BELIEVE THAT WAS APPROVED.

1395 PARK FOR A NEW HOUSE WAS APPROVED AND 200 BIG ISLAND CABIN WAS ALSO APPROVED.

3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.

THAT WAS A APPLICATION WHERE STAFF AND THE COMMISSION WAS RECOMMENDING DENIAL.

AFTER YOUR FEEDBACK, THE APPLICANT WENT BACK AND AMENDED THEIR PLANS.

THEY SLIGHTLY SHRUNK THEIR ADDITIONS.

THEY TOOK OFF THAT FRONT PORCH.

THEY ALSO AMENDED THEIR DRIVEWAY TO MEET CLOSER TO CONFORMANCE FOR THE MOST PART, AND WITH CONNECTION.

AND SO WITH THOSE COMMENTS FROM YOU, THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR PLANS.

AND THE COUNCIL DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON THOSE CHANGES.

SO THAT RESOLUTION WILL BE GOING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FINALIZATION.

BUT I THINK THOSE WERE THE LAST APPLICATIONS.

LET ME KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER ONE.

I DON'T, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY UPDATE.

RIGHT. THAT'S HELPFUL.

ALL RIGHT. THAT SAID, OTHERWISE, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY KIRCHNER, SECONDED BY SCHULTZ TO ADJOURN.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

May 20, 2024 Planning Commission

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item