[00:00:01]
>> WELCOME TO THE JUNE 17 MEETING OF THE ONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
[1. Call to Order]
WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE JOIN US.
>> PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[3. Approval of Agenda]
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THE JUNE 17TH, 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY KIRSCHNER, AND SECOND BY LIBBY.
SECOND ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 2024]
THE APRIL 15TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ENTERTAIN A MOTION.>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 15TH MINUTES.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, AND A SECOND BY SCHULTZ.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
THAT BRINGS US RIGHT AWAY TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[5.1. #LA24-000018, Matt Jasper, 4745 North Shore Drive - CUP, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]
LA 24-18.MATT JASPER AT 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
THIS IS CUP AND VARIANCES. MS. CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. LET ME DESCRIBE MY NOTES HERE. THAT I DON'T HAVE.
SORRY. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE AND BLUFF AREA AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SHED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK AND THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THE PROPOSED WALLS ARE, SO I HIGHLIGHTED THE AVERAGE OR THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL IN GREEN.
AND THE 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL, THE ELEVATION IN BLUE.
THE RIP RAP IS SHOWN IN A DIFFERENT TEXTURE ON THE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A WALL THAT GETS A LITTLE BIT TALLER AS IT GOES TO THE EAST OR I THINK THE EAST ON THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE CITY'S ADJACENT UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.
THE WALL, IT APPEARS TO BE APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET TALL AT THE HIGHEST POINT.
THERE ARE ALSO WALLS SHOWN SUPPORTING THE LANDINGS ON THESE LAKE SHORE ACCESS STAIRS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
THEY ARE PROPOSING A SET IN GRADE STAIR AS OPPOSED TO AN ABOVE GRADE POST STAIR CONFIGURATION.
THE BOAT HOUSE IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN APPROXIMATELY 3.4 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.
THE SURVEY IS SHOWING IT AT A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SETBACK, AND WE WOULD NEED CONFIRMATION OF THAT.
BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THIS SHED IN PLACE OF A SHED THAT WAS REMOVED BY THE APPLICANT EARLIER THIS YEAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A SURVEY RECORD OF THIS SHED.
THE SHED THAT THE SURVEY DOES OR THE CITY DOES HAVE A RECORD OF IT'S MORE OF A PUMP HOUSE.
IT'S ABOUT 28 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S SHOWN ON THESE TWO SURVEYS THAT WE HAD IN THE FILE FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES.
BUT SO STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE CONSIDERED A NEW SHED AND NOT A REPLACEMENT IN KIND SHED.
THEREFORE, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SHED, AS IT EXCEEDS THE SIZE ALLOWED IN THE LAKE SHORE AREA, WHICH IS 20 SQUARE FEET.
[00:05:01]
THE APPLICATION INCLUDES SOME SURVEY INFORMATION, SOME ENGINEER INFORMATION, AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED SOME INCONSISTENCIES AND SOME MISSING INFORMATION THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE WALLS.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED TO OBTAIN THAT INFORMATION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPROACH THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT OVERALL, THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE BOAT HOUSE OR THE NEW SHED, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR ADDRESS ANYTHING NEW. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE STAFF?
MS. CURTIS, THE SHED THAT WE SAID WE HAVE A SURVEY OF A PUMP HOUSE ON THERE APPROXIMATELY 20 SQUARE FEET.
IS THAT JUST FROM A PREVIOUS PERMIT?
>> YEAH. THERE WERE TWO SURVEYS IN THE FILE, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED FOR WHAT PROJECT, BUT I THINK THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SURVEYORS, POTENTIALLY.
THE PUMP HOUSE HAS SHOWN HERE IT'S 6.7 BY 4.3 FEET.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER SURVEY DONE AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
ONE WAS DONE IN 2012, THE OTHER WAS, I THINK, 2019.
THEN WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PERMIT RECORD SHOWING A REPLACEMENT SHED WAS CONSTRUCTED.
BASICALLY, WE HAVE TO FALL BACK ON THE DOCUMENTED INFORMATION WE HAVE UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS PROVIDED THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE THAT.
>> QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE HEIGHT OF THAT PUMP HOUSE? WHAT IT PREVIOUSLY WAS, OR DO YOU JUST HAVE A FOOTPRINT?
>> WE DON'T AND THE SITE IS SO VEGETATED THAT EVEN HISTORICALLY, LIKE, AS WE GO BACK IN THE AERIAL PHOTOS.
OFTENTIMES, IF IT IS LABELED A PUMP HOUSE, IT'S USUALLY LIKE THOSE LOW DOG HOUSE LOOKING STRUCTURES.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EITHER SURVEY TO TELL US HOW TALL IT IS.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION, YOU MENTIONED THE MISSING MATERIAL FROM THE APPLICATION.
THAT'S ENGINEERING REPORT LANDSCAPE?
>> YEAH, THE APPLICATION DOES INCLUDE, THEY DO HAVE AN ENGINEER.
THEY'VE HAD AN ENGINEER PREPARE QUITE A BIT OF SLOPE ANALYSIS AND SOME WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.
THE DESIGN HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT THROUGHOUT OUR WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE CURRENT INFORMATION FROM THE ENGINEER DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT PLAN LAYOUT THAT'S PROPOSED.
THEY HAVE IN THEIR WALL DESIGN, THEY'RE SHOWING THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED WALL THAT WAS ALL ALONG THE SHORELINE AND OUR ENGINEER REVIEWED IT AND PROVIDED THOSE COMMENTS IN THE PACKET.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> EXCUSE ME. YOU TALKED ABOUT IT BEING A PUMP HOUSE, BUT IT'S LABELED AS A BOATHOUSE PAD HERE.
THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT'S PLAN IS SHOWING, IT'S CALLING IT A BOAT HOUSE ON THE SCREEN HERE, THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S PLAN.
THE SURVEYS THAT WE HAVE IN THE FILE TO DOCUMENT WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY, IT'S LABELED PUMP HOUSE.
>> BY UNDERSTANDING, IF IT WAS A PUMP HOUSE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DID NOT HAVE MUCH HEIGHT TO IT?
>> BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE A BOAT HOUSE, THEN WE'D HAVE SOME HEIGHT TO IT.
>> THEY'RE PROPOSING IT'S A SHED.
I CAN SHOW YOU THE PLANS THEY WERE IN THE PACKET.
>> YOU HAVE THE PHOTOS OF IT THAT I SUBMITTED?
>> THAT'D PROBABLY BE HELPFUL TO SHOW.
>> HERE THEY GO. THESE ARE PHOTOS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED.
THERE'S A SIDE VIEW OF THE SHED, WHICH IS LARGER THAN IS DOCUMENTED ON THE SURVEYS THAT WE HAVE IN THE FILE.
>> I'LL LAY BY MY DISH, TELL YOU TELL ME.
>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER?
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A WHOLE SHED ELSE IN THERE BECAUSE IT IS SO STEEP. THAT'S NOT MY ISSUE.
[00:10:03]
>> GREAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT IS HERE, IF YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT ANYTHING OR.
>> GOOD EVENING. MATT JASPER HERE.
I'LL PROBABLY HAVE ADD BRAIN HERE TRYING TO GO THROUGH AND RECAPTURE EVERYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT.
THERE ARE MORE PICTURES IN THEY'RE SHOWING.
JUST TO REWIND HOW THIS WHOLE THING TOOK PLACE.
I BOUGHT THIS 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE PROPERTY ON A VA LOAN.
IF ANYBODY UNDERSTANDS VA LOANS, THEY'RE A HUGE PAIN TO TRY AND GET THROUGH.
I FIXED UP A LOT OF STUFF IN THE HOUSE DURING THE PROCESS OF BUYING IT, BUT THERE'S TWO THINGS AND I DON'T KNOW IF MELANIE CAN PULL UP THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WAIVER.
IT'S ALSO IN THE FILE. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD HELP FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT, BUT BASICALLY WHAT THE VA DID WAS, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID THEY WANTED ME TO TEAR DOWN THE BOAT HOUSE, AND THEY WANTED ME TO TEAR DOWN THE STAIRS.
WHAT I DID IS, I TALKED TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, AND I SAID, HEY, IF I BUY THIS PROPERTY, I PLAN ON REBUILDING THE BOATHOUSE, IS IT OKAY, IF I TEAR THIS THING DOWN? THINKING IN MY HEAD, AND NOW KNOWING THAT I'M WRONG, THAT THAT WAS MORE OF A WATERSHED DISTRICT THING.
THE GIRL I TALKED UP THERE SAID, YEAH, IT HAS TO BE REBUILT IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT, YOU'RE GOOD.
WHAT I WORKED OUT WITH THE VA WAS, I WORKED OUT TO REMOVE THE BOATHOUSE BECAUSE THAT WASN'T A SAFETY THREAT.
BUT I GOT THE WAIVER TO KEEP THE STAIRS THERE, BECAUSE I JUST WIPED OUT ON THEM TODAY, ACTUALLY, THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO GET THESE THINGS REPLACED, WHEN I MET THE ENGINEER OUT THERE.
BUT I TOLD THEM THAT I NEED TO KEEP THOSE THERE TO SAFELY GET DOWN TO THE LAKE SHORE.
THEN FAST FORWARD A COUPLE OF MONTHS, AND I CAME UP AND STARTED WORKING WITH THE STAFF, AND FOUND OUT THAT I DID THAT INCORRECTLY.
THE ONE PIECE THAT I DO HAVE GOING FOR ME, AND I'VE ASKED FOR PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND LOOK AT IT, AND I WAS TOLD IT WASN'T NEEDED, BUT THERE STILL ARE FOOTINGS FROM THAT SIZE THAT'S THERE.
I TRIED TO GET AS CLOSE AS I COULD, LIKE HANGING A TAPE MEASURE BY MYSELF, JUST DOING IT, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE IN THERE, MR. SCHULTZ, I KNOW YOU ASKED ABOUT BUILDING INTO A HILLSIDE.
THERE'S A PICTURE IN THERE WHERE THIS SHED.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW, IF I'M ASSUMING, THE HILLSIDE SLID DOWN AND ERODED TO IT, BUT YOU CAN SEE A BUILT-IN PAD OF THE SIZE THAT I'M REQUESTING, AND THERE'S STILL FOOTINGS IN THE FRONT.
THAT SHED IS ALMOST SERVING A PURPOSE AS LIKE A RETAINING WALL BACK THERE AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE PULLING THE PICTURES UP OR NOT.
>> WHICH PICTURES ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?
>> YOU SENT, LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN GET IT.
>> THEN WHILE SHE'S LOOKING AT THOSE, SO AT 7:19 P.M ON FRIDAY, I WAS TOLD THAT I NEEDED SOIL ANALYSIS AND EVERYTHING QUICK TO REACT FOR MONDAY.
HOWEVER, PAID $1,000 FEE TO THE ENGINEER, MET HIM OUT THERE TODAY, GOT THE UPDATED ENGINEERING STUFF TO 100% REFLECT THE PLANS.
I TOOK CHRIS HAGEN'S PLAN, AND I PAID THE SURVEYOR TO PUT EVERYTHING ON THE SURVEY.
THERE'S NO QUESTIONS BETWEEN A SHED BEING 3.4 FEET BACK VERSUS 2.8 FEET.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT WAS, CHRIS HAGEN JUST COULDN'T GET HIS MOLES TO MOVE AT SUCH A LITTLE AMOUNT.
I'VE LITERALLY TAKEN EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED.
I LITERALLY DROVE FROM THE OFFICE TO HEAR THIS STUFF IS ALL UPLOADED IN THERE.
I PRINTED SOME STUFF IN CASE PEOPLE WANT TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I KNOW THAT I DIDN'T GIVE MELANIE A CHANCE TO REACT TO IT.
BUT MY BIG THING MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS IS, I WOULD HOPE THAT I COULD REBUILD THIS BOATHOUSE WHERE IT WAS.
I'M WILLING TO SHOW WHATEVER I NEED TO SHOW THAT IT'S THERE.
IT'D BE VERY EASY FOR SOMEONE FROM THE CITY.
I ASK ADAM, THE ENGINEER, TO COME DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK.
I'D BE VERY EASY TO SEE WHAT WAS THERE.
>> THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE. THAT'S ACTUALLY LIKE, IT'S A DROP OFF.
YOU CAN SEE IT WHERE IT WAS BACKED RIGHT IN THERE.
I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEND DRAWING AND TAKE PICTURES, BUT THE THING IS NOW, IT'S EVEN HARD LIKE, THOSE STAIRS, YOU CAN'T EVEN REALLY SEE THEM FROM THE LAKE, BECAUSE OF ALL THE VEGETATION THAT'S GROWING RIGHT THERE.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT TRYING TO JUMP THE GUN AND GET THIS BOATHOUSE DONE RIGHT AWAY.
I'M WILLING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THIS IS RIGHT, AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S IN APPROVAL WITH IT, ALONG WITH THE RETAINING WALLS.
MELANIE KNEW MY PLAN WAS TO DO THE RIP RAP BY LAND, BUT I WAS MET WITH A LOT OF RESISTANCE ON THAT, AND I CAVED, AND I'M NOW DOING IT BY WATER WITH CHRIS HAGEN.
BUT CHRIS HAGEN WANTS THOSE RETAINING WALLS, LIKE WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE EAST SIDE THERE.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S COMMENTS PUT IN THAT TRY OTHER OPTIONS LIKE VEGETATION.
I'VE NEVER TRIED GETTING VEGETATION TO GROW ON THE SIDE OF THE WALL.
THE RETAINING WALLS FROM TALKING TO CHRIS, THE GUY THAT DOES IT EVERY DAY AND DOES ON THE LAKE, IT NEEDS TO BE RETAINING WALLS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S LITERALLY A DROP OFF.
THERE'S THREE OPTIONS, RETAINING WALLS, VEGETATION, WHICH I CAN ALREADY TELL YOU WILL FAIL, THE ROOTS MIGHT TAKE, BUT AT SOME POINT,
[00:15:02]
IT'S GOING TO SLIDE OR THE THIRD OPTION WOULD BE TO GRADE BACK AND PULL IT, WHICH THAT WOULD BE A BIG IMPACT TO THE BLUFF SIDE, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO DO BECAUSE I KNOW HOW CAREFUL WE ARE AT THE BLUFF.THOSE ARE REALLY THE THREE CHOICES.
I'M GOING FORWARD WITH THE ONE THAT CHRIS, THE PROFESSIONAL THAT DOES EVERY DAY, RECOMMENDS, AND SOMEONE WHO WILL BE STANDING BEHIND THE WORK.
THAT WAS HIS PLAN AS A RETAINING WALL.
THOSE PIECES, I'M FINE WITH WAITING ON IF WE NEED TO DO THAT, BUT I'M SUPER TIRED UP ABOUT THESE STAIRS.
JUST BECAUSE LIKE WHAT I SAID TODAY.
MY MOM WIPED OUT OVER THE WEEKEND, I WIPED OUT TODAY.
THERE'S NO REASON THAT THESE STAIRS SHOULD HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING FOR APPROVAL.
EVERYTHING'S IN HERE, THE ENGINEERING.
THE ENGINEER WORKED WITH THE SURVEYOR.
EVERYTHING IS RIGHT DRESS AND TIGHT, EVERYTHING'S ON ONE SHEET OF PAPER. REALLY, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
IF I GOT TO COME BACK LATER ON FOR THE BOATHOUSE VARIANCE, BECAUSE WE WANT MORE INFO IN THAT OR MAYBE YOU WANT TO SEND SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE TO TAKE A PICTURE, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO COME ACROSS BEING RUDE, BUT I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO STAIRS, BECAUSE I'M GETTING PUT INTO A POSITION.
I'M NOT SAYING I'M GOING TO DO IT TOMORROW, BUT I'M GETTING PUT IN A POSITION WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHOULD BE WORSE, A FINE FROM THE CITY OR GETTING TAKEN OUT BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY BECAUSE OF THOSE STAIRS, SOMEONE GETTING HURT.
THIS, TO ME, WAS TODAY, TO GO OUT THERE, BECAUSE I HAD TO REACT WITHIN A COUPLE OF HOURS TO GET AN ENGINEER OUT THERE TO GO, AND DO THE SOIL TEST.
AS YOU CAN SEE THE HILLSIDE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'LL GET A THING TO GROW THERE BECAUSE NOTHING'S GROWN THERE IN THE PAST.
WE DON'T WANT TO CUT DOWN TREES BECAUSE TREES ARE BAD TO CUT DOWN, BUT YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A THING TO GROW ON THERE.
NOTHING HAS BEEN ABLE TO GROW.
LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME LILIES GROW, AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN GET.
WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS THAT PUT THOSE STAIRS IN, BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN HERE BY THE ENGINEER.
YOU CAN READ THE STABILITY ANALYSIS.
HE RECOMMENDS THAT THESE STAIRS, THE WAY THAT HIM AND THE SURVEYOR CONSTRUCTED THESE, IT GOES WITH THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE LAND, SO IT'S NOT CUTTING AND MAKING A BIG IMPACT IN THERE.
HE SAID, WHAT THAT WILL DO TOO, IS JUST HELP STABILIZE THAT WHOLE AREA RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW IS CURRENTLY WASHING DOWN.
I DON'T WANT ABOVE GROUND STAIRS BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I INTEND TO LEAVE TREES THERE, BECAUSE CUTTING DOWN TREES ARE BAD.
ANYTIME IT STORMS, BRANCHES COME DOWN, I'LL BE FIXING THOSE THINGS.
ANY MAINTENANCE FREE STUFF YOU PUT THERE, IT'S SLIPPERY, JUST LIKE WHAT I RAN DO TODAY.
I WANT TO DO STONE INSET STAIRS THAT ARE SAFE, AND NOBODY ELSE GETS HURT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING.
THE OTHER STUFF, IF WE NEED TO PUSH IT BACK, I'M FINE WITH IT.
I THINK I'VE SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO THE CITY STAFF.
I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS.
YOU ASKED ME FOR SOMETHING, I'M PRETTY QUICK TO GET THE STUFF DONE.
BUT AS FAR AS EVERYTHING HERE AND EVERYTHING IS CURRENTLY UPLOADED, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STAIRS LIKE ASAP BEFORE SOMEBODY GETS HURT, AND I HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE ON MY HANDS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
>> WE CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING HISTORICALLY ABOUT THIS UNKNOWN ELEMENT OF PUMP HOUSE, BOATHOUSE, SHED, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM YOU WHAT YOU FEEL THE NECESSITY IS TO HAVE SUCH A STRUCTURE NOW NEAR LAKE SIDE FOR YOUR PURPOSES.
WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO USE THAT FOR?
>> WELL, I MEAN, ONE OF MY BIG PIECES WITH BUYING THE PROPERTY OUT THERE WAS THAT, BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I COULD REBUILD IT IN THAT SIZE, I SHOULD HAVE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE AND LOOK BACK ON THE PREVIOUS SURVEY TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CAPTURED.
BUT THIS FALL, I'LL HAVE 22 YEARS ACTIVE MILITARY.
I'M DOING ANOTHER THREE YEARS.
I'LL GET OUT AT 25 YEARS, MSR MAJOR.
I WORK WITH A GUY NAMED JEREMY WAHLBERG.
WE DO A THING WHERE WE TAKE APTS OUT, WAKE SURFING.
IT'S LIKE A THING FOR THEM TO GET OUT AND DO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL.
THAT SOUNDS FUNNY, BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS LIKE, OH, THIS WOULD BE PERFECT.
PEOPLE COULD HANG OUT DOWN HERE, WE COULD GO OUT IN THE BOAT, WE GO OUT AND DO THAT.
JUST FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT IF ONE WAS THERE, AND IT WAS DOCUMENTED, YOU WERE ENTITLED TO IT.
BUT NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT A QUARTER OF WHAT WAS THERE IS WHAT WAS DOCUMENTED.
BUT I MEAN, WHEN I BOUGHT THE THING, THERE WAS A BIG PLASTIC CANOE.
THERE'S A 12 FOOT EXTENSION LADDER.
THERE WAS TWO PUMPS AND TWO PRESSURE TANKS IN THERE.
I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT WOULDN'T FIT IN THAT BOATHOUSE THAT WAS THERE, BUT I TRIED WITH THE MEASUREMENTS I HAD, WORKING WITH MY ARCHITECT TO EVEN THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, TO THE OVERHANG FROM WHAT YOU SAW IN THE PICTURE TO TRY AND GET ABSOLUTELY AS CLOSE TO THAT AS YOU CAN.
I MEAN, THAT'S ABOUT REALLY ALL I CAN DO IT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOME CRAZY, EXTRAVAGANT THING.
[00:20:03]
IT'S A LONG WAY DOWN THAT HILL.IF ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN ON JENNINGS BAY OVER THERE, AND IT'D BE A NICE THING.
IF YOU GO DOWN THERE, YOU COULD SIT AND RELAX.
MAYBE NOT HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK UP.
YOU COULD PUT CHAIRS OR BOAT STUFF IN THERE, AND NOT HAVE THAT ISSUE.
MY PARENTS TOO, MOM IS IN HER LATE 60S, AND THEY'VE DONE A LOT FOR ME.
I'M TRYING TO DO STUFF FOR THEM TO WHERE THEY CAN COME DOWN THERE IN AS WELL.
I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME SKETCH ABOUT WHAT YOUR THINKING WAS ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF HAVING THIS, BECAUSE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT POINT OF CONTENTION FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT FROM THE VERSE AND CHAPTER OF WHAT WE ADVISED THE CITY COUNCIL FOR.
THE OTHER ONE IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A NUMBER OF PRONOUNCED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN SEVERAL OF THE EVALUATIONS AND THE DIMENSIONAL REFLECTION OF SOME OF THESE DIMENSIONS BETWEEN ENGINEERING, AND IT WAS NOTED BY OUR STAFF.
IT WAS NOTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, WHICH STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THE REVIEW.
THERE ALSO WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS HAVING TO DO WITH THE WALL.
BUT WHEN I HAVE YOU HERE, AND I HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK THE QUESTION, I MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
THERE WAS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT OPINION THAT THE DESIGN AND THE APPLICATION OF USING A BOULDER WALL WAS NOT REALLY AS EFFECTIVE OR AS MUCH OF A NECESSITY AS SOME OF THE MORE TRADITIONAL METHODOLOGIES THAT WE'VE SEEN USED AROUND THE LAKE A LOT, WHERE IF THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT MOVEMENT OF SOIL AND EROSION TOWARDS THE LAKE, WHICH WE ALWAYS WANT TO TRY TO AVOID, THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS TO THE BOULDER WALL THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT COULD BE MORE CONDUCIVE AND HAVE A BETTER TRACK RECORD.
>> MR. LIBBY, I JUST LEFT THAT ONE UP TO THE ENGINEER AND TO CHRIS HAGEN WHO DOES IT.
HE'S ONE OF THE MAIN GUYS WHO DOES IT OUT HERE.
WHEN I FIRST CAME, PROBABLY SOME OF THE VERBS IN THERE TOO WAS, I WAS LOOKING AT DOING MORE RETAINING WALLS.
WHAT I APPRECIATE WITH MELANIE TOO, SHE SCUFFED ME UP, AND I TALKED TO CHRIS HAGEN, AND HE DEFINITELY SCUFFED ME UP AND HE'S LIKE, THESE THINGS AREN'T GOING TO PASS.
I'M LIKE, OKAY, WELL, THEN DO WHAT WILL PASS BECAUSE I'M TIRED OF THE ARGUING, I'M TIRED OF TRYING TO GET STUFF GOING THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
I TOLD HIM, COME UP WITH THE BARE MINIMUM IMPACT OF WHAT YOU THINK WILL WORK BEST.
I HAVE MY SKILL SET OF THINGS I'M GOOD AT, AND I'M SURE CHRIS HAGEN AND THE ENGINEER DO AS WELL, SO I JUST LEFT IT UP TO THEM.
A LOT OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE DISCREPANCIES, THEY'VE ALL BEEN CORRECTED, AND THEY'RE ALL RIGHT HERE.
>> WE'RE AT A LITTLE DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE STAFF HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THOSE, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THEM, SO THAT'S THE OTHER REASON THAT I BROUGHT THEM UP.
>> IT WAS SIMPLY A THING OF 7:19 PM ON FRIDAY.
WASN'T A TON OF TIME TO REACT, SO GOT IT ALL TAKEN CARE OF AND DONE TODAY WITH THAT STUFF.
IT'S IN THERE AND I CAN LEAVE YOU GUYS THE STUFF, BUT I HOPE I ANSWER.
I THINK THERE'S ONE OTHER THING THAT YOU'D ASKED ME.
IF YOU GUYS TELL ME THAT I CAN'T DO THE RETAIN WALLS, THAT'S FINE.
IF THE THING SLIDES, IT SLIDES, AND THEN I GUESS IN 10 YEARS, I GOT TO GO BACK AND REDO IT AGAIN.
NOTHING I'M DOING IS TRYING TO BE GREEDY OR MAKE IT APPEALING FOR ME.
MILITARY GUY, I'M OPERATIONAL MINDSET, I MITIGATE RISK.
I'M ONE OF THE CSMS FOR THE STATE.
I MITIGATE RISK, SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I'M TRYING TO MITIGATE RISK.
I DON'T LIKE DOING STUFF TWICE.
I LIKE TO DO IT CORRECT THE FIRST TIME AND BE DONE WITH IT.
IF THIS IS WHAT AN ENGINEER AND CHRIS HAGEN, PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE POPULAR GUYS IN THIS LAKE, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY RECOMMEND, THAT'S JUST WHAT I GO.
BY ALL MEANS, IF YOU GUYS SAY NO TO THE RETAINING WALLS, I'M FINE WITH IT.
YOU'RE GOING TO SAVE ME ABOUT 15, 20 GRAND, SO THAT'S OKAY IN MY BOOK.
EVEN WITH THE BOATHOUSE, I'D LIKE TO REBUILD THE THING, BUT IF I DON'T, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS.
BUT THE COMMON DENOMINATOR THAT I'M REALLY PUSHING FOR IS THE STAIRS.
I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TIL FURTHER MEETINGS BECAUSE I GET THESE WALLS AND STUFF THEY REQUIRE GOING IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT FROM EVERYTHING I'M READING, THOSE STAIRS DON'T. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.
>> I WAS GOING TO LET YOU FINISH. I DON'T KNOW WHO CHRIS HAGEN IS.
>> CHRIS HAGEN IS THE GUY THAT DOES THE MAJORITY OF THE RIPRAP AND STUFF IN THIS LAKE.
>> ON 130 MILES OF SHORELINE, HE DOES THE MAJORITY OF IT?
>> WELL, HE DOES A LOT OF IT. [INAUDIBLE] ASK HIM HOW MANY HE DOES, BUT HE SPONSORS EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY.
>> BECAUSE WE NEEDED AN ENGINEER'S OPINION.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT 7:19 ON FRIDAY WAS
[00:25:02]
THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU WERE NOTIFIED WE NEEDED AN ENGINEER'S OPINION?>> WELL, IT'S JUST THAT THE STUFF HAD CHANGED.
AT 7:19, I FOUND OUT I NEED SOIL ANALYSIS.
THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION I HAVE WITH THIS THING.
I GET THIS HAS BEEN A VERY BIG PROJECT, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MOVING PIECES, BUT IT MAKES IT VERY HARD TO KEEP UP WHEN I GET TOLD THREE OF THE THINGS I NEED ON ONE DAY, AND THEN THREE MORE THINGS I NEED ON ANOTHER DAY.
THAT'S WHY I JUST SAID, I WANT TO BE DONE WITH THAT LEVEL.
I WANT TO COME HERE AND I WANT TO TALK TO YOU GUYS AND SAY, WHAT DO I NEED, SO I CAN GET IT DONE? BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CHRIS HAGEN, YES, ANYBODY CAN LOOK HIM UP.
HE DOES A LOT OF STUFF IN THIS LAKE.
HE SPONSORS WHATEVER THAT FESTIVAL IS THAT'S GOING ON IN MOUND HERE IN THE NEXT WEEK.
BASICALLY ANY SHORELINE YOU SEE THAT'S HAMMERED IN, LIKE THE NICE FLAT STUFF, THAT'S HIM, HE'S DONE THAT.
BUT RON VICKERY, HE'S THE ENGINEER THAT PUT THAT STATEMENT THERE AS WELL.
I FIGURED THAT WAS THE BEST THING I COULD DO.
I COULD HAVE AN ENGINEER THAT'S THEIR LANE, THE GUY WHO'D BE DOING THE WORK, THAT'S HIS LANE, LET THEM COLLABORATE. I'M GOOD TO ARMY STUFF.
>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING BECAUSE CHRIS HAGEN SOUNDS LIKE A GUY WHO IS A LOT OF DOER, BUT HE'S PROBABLY NOT THE GUY THAT DOES THE DESIGNING.
ON THIS PANEL, WE'RE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE SOME VERY SOPHISTICATED PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONE AN AWFUL LOT OF SOPHISTICATED WORK, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE YOU SAID, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR SKILL SET.
WE TALK ABOUT VEGETATION NOT GROWING AND TREE COVER, THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE.
I'M NOT AN ARBORIST, BUT CERTAINLY I'M GOING TO LIST SOMEBODY THAT IS AN EXPERT IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SAY, SHOW ME SOME VEGETATION THAT CAN GROW IN A SHADE.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE TIME, RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET SOME QUESTION AND ANSWERS, SO WE'LL GET INTO THE DELIBERATION.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHO CHRIS HAGEN WAS FIRST BECAUSE I HEARD THE NAME SEVERAL TIMES.
I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY, IF WE WERE NOT CLARIFYING FOR YOU THE ENGINEERING OPINION BEING NEEDED OBVIOUSLY, I CAN EMPATHIZE FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHY ENGINEERS GET INVOLVED BECAUSE THEY'RE LICENSED AND THEY STAND BEHIND THEIR WORK JUST LIKE YOU SAID.
WE'LL TRY TO BE MORE CLEAR AS A CITY WHEN ENGINEERING NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IF WE'RE NOT BEING CLEAR ABOUT THAT IN ADVANCE.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS JUST THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
YOU SAID THAT THE BUILDING, THE VA LOAN REQUIREMENT WAS TO REMOVE THE STAIRS AND THE SHED, THE PUMP HOUSE, OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
THE CHAIN OF EVENTS, YOU WERE GOING INTO CONTRACT, AND THEN THE LENDER SAID THAT THOSE NEEDED TO BE REMOVED?
>> THEN SO AFTER BEING UNDER CONTRACT AFTER THE LISTING, IT'S PENDING SALE, YOU REMOVED THE SHED, AND YOU GOT A WAIVER TO NOT REMOVE THE STAIRS.
>> THEN THE SELLER REMOVED THE SHED OR DID YOU REMOVE THE SHED PRIOR TO SALE?
>> I REMOVED IT. BECAUSE THEY WERE OLDER PEOPLE, THEY'RE LIKE, IN THEIR MID 80S.
THERE'S A BUNCH OF STUFF INSIDE THE HOUSE I HAD TO GET DONE THEY'RE ALL STRESSED OUT ABOUT.
I TOLD THEM, HEY, RELAX, I'LL COME IN AND GET IT DONE. I DID EVERYTHING.
>> OKAY. IT WAS STILL IN THEIR POSSESSION WHEN YOU REMOVED THE SHED.
IT WASN'T YOUR PROPERTY AT THAT TIME? JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING.
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REAL CLOSE PLUS OR MINUS.
JANUARY 17TH IS WHEN I TOOK IT OVER.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REAL CLOSE TO THAT TIME FRAME TO BE ON.
>> YOUR CLOSING DATE WAS JANUARY 17?
>> SHE WAS REMOVED PRIOR TO JANUARY 17?
>> YEAH. IT WOULD'VE BEEN A COUPLE OF DAYS BECAUSE I HAD TO HAVE THAT STUFF DONE PRIOR TO CLOSE.
THAT LETTER, I DON'T KNOW IF MELANIE CAN FIND IT, BUT THAT LETTER FROM THE VA IS IN THERE.
HEY, I DO WANT TO ELABORATE, TOO.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT ALL WENT.
I DON'T WANT THESE GUYS TO GET SPANKED THOUGH, ABOUT NOT TELLING ME I NEEDED ENGINEERING.
IT WAS JUST CONSTANT THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE ENGINEERING.
WE'VE HAD THOSE ENGINEER PLANS FOR THREE MONTHS.
WE JUST FIND OUT FRIDAY AT 7:19 P.M THAT I NEED SOIL TESTING.
THOSE ARE MY THINGS. FROM THE GRANT'S SCHEME OF THINGS, THEY DO VERY GOOD.
I DON'T ENVY THEIR WORK BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY A LOT OF MOVING PIECES.
I GET THERE'S HUMAN ERROR TO EVERYTHING.
BUT WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHEN THERE'S HUMAN ERROR, LET'S WORK WITH EACH OTHER ON BOTH SIDES.
DON'T ALWAYS HAVE IT BE THE THE PERSON THAT'S TRYING TO FIX THEIR PROPERTY, BE THE [NOISE].
>> GOOD QUESTION. HOW DID YOU FIND THE ENGINEER THAT YOU CHOSE FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN?
>> I TELL YOU WHAT. YOU TRY AND FIND AN ENGINEER NOW? THEY'RE WEEKS OUT.
I JUST KEPT CALLING AROUND, AND I WAS LIKE, HEY, I DON'T CARE, WE CHARGE THIS, I'M LIKE, I DON'T CARE. GET OUT HERE AND GET IT DONE.
HONESTLY IT'S A PROCESS OF ELIMINATION, I TALKED TO, [INAUDIBLE] AT THE [INAUDIBLE] CUSTOM HOMES.
I JUST REACHED OUT TO A LOT OF THEIR NETWORK, AND I TRY TO USE PEOPLE AROUND THIS NECK OF THE WOODS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ORONO HAS A LOT DIFFERENT STIPULATIONS IN SOME PLACES.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE I'M USING PEOPLE THAT UNDERSTAND YOUR GUYS' LINGO.
[00:30:02]
THAT'S REALLY WHAT LED ME TO RON VICKERY AND CHRIS HAGEN.>> OKAY. YEAH, BECAUSE CHRIS HAGEN, IF YOU'RE WORKING WITH SOMEBODY THAT DOES WORK IN THE AREA, THEN THAT ENGINEER WOULD KNOW WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
>> THAT'S WHY, I'M SAYING THE MINE COULD HAVE BEEN A ONE OFF THING, BUT CHRIS HAGEN, WHO DOES A LOT OF WORK HERE CANNOT, EVEN HERE, YOU KNOW THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THIS SITE PLAN, WE'RE TALKING THE BOAT HOUSE.
WE'RE SAYING THAT ONE IS 3.4 FEET AND ONE IS 2.8 FEET BACK.
THAT'S LESS THAN A FOOT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING A SURVEY AND A SITE PLAN.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, A SITE PLAN IS A CONCEPTUALIZATION.
IT'S NOT A SURVEY. YOU'RE TAKING THINGS, YOU'RE COPYING THEM, YOU'RE DRAGGING THEM ON THERE.
CHRIS WAS SHOCKED THAT IT WAS MET WITH THAT CONFRONTATIONAL.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT'D BE, 6 INCHES OR SO.
HE SAID HIS MOUSE SIMPLY COULDN'T DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I WENT BACK AND JUST SAID, ALL RIGHT, I'M DONE WITH THAT.
I'M NOT GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT AGAIN.
I'LL PUT EVERYTHING IN A SURVEY, AND THE SURVEY WILL BE THE SYSTEM OF RECORD.
THIS NEW SURVEY I GOT HERE AND THE ONE THAT'S UPLOADED HAS ALL THIS STUFF ON HERE BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE DISCREPANCIES WAS, YOU CAN SEE THE BOATHOUSE RIGHT THERE.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS SURVEY?
>> YEAH, BUT THIS IS A NEW ONE FROM THAT ALREADY ONE THAT I JUST GOT BACK TODAY, BECAUSE YOU GUYS DIDN'T LIKE HOW CHRIS HAGEN'S SITE PLAN HAD DIFFERENT STUFF THAN THE SURVEY.
>> IT'S NOT ABOUT LIKING IT, I JUST NEEDED TO CONFIRM.
>> EVERYTHING'S NOW ON THIS, SO YOU CAN TAKE CHRIS HAGEN'S PLAN AND THROW IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL IN HERE.
>> WELL, I GUESS MORE IMPORTANTLY IS, THE REQUIREMENT IS IT'S NOT A SITE PLAN BECAUSE IT'S NOT EXACT, SO WE HAVE AN EXISTING SURVEY, AND WE HAVE A PROPOSED SURVEY, AND THE PROPOSED SURVEY IS VERY SPECIFIC.
THAT IS WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.
>> THAT'S WHY I SAY, GO WITH THE SURVEY.
>> WELL, RIGHT, BUT THAT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS BEEN AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF YOUR APPLICATION, PROBABLY, I CAN ONLY ASSUME.
>> I GOT IT. I'M JUST SAYING, THEN IF THAT WAS IN QUESTION, THEY SHOULD HAVE USED THE SURVEY.
WHY ARE YOU USING A SITE PLAN TO QUESTION WHERE THE BOAT SHED IS? CHRIS HAGEN COULD NOT COPY AND PASTE.
THE SURVEY IS THE CERTIFICATE OF RECORD FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE SITE PLAN IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF WHAT CHRIS HAGEN LAID STUFF ON THERE SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE BROAD SCOPE OF THINGS.
WHEN THEY START TAKING WHATEVER MEASUREMENTS THEY GOT AND PUTTING IT ON THE SCREEN, THAT'S WHERE CHRIS SAID, HE'S LIKE, I'M SORRY, IT'S OFF BY SIX TO 8 INCHES.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE THE SURVEY JUST TAKE EVERYTHING I HAVE AND PUT ON THE SURVEY, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE RIGHT HERE, AND I DID.
>> OKAY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME TRACKING EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID.
BUT RIGHT NOW, I KNOW THE ONLY SURVEY THAT WE HAVE IS A PUMP HOUSE THAT'S 20 SQUARED FEET.
WHAT IS PROPOSED IS SOMETHING THAT'S MORE THAN THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW. THERE IS NO STRUCTURE THERE RIGHT NOW.
>> THERE'S [INAUDIBLE] INS. BUT YEAH.
>> RIGHT. THERE'S NO STRUCTURE THERE RIGHT NOW.
>> YOU'RE MEASURING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SITE PLAN IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE SURVEY THAT YOU PROVIDED FOR YOUR APPLICATION?
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOUR SITE PLAN AND YOUR SURVEY HAVE A CONTRADICTION OF THEMSELVES? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> THIS WAS PRODUCED BY CHRIS HAGEN, SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO KEEP GOING TO A SURVEY AND PAY THEM MULTIPLE TIMES TO REDO A SURVEY.
THEY DON'T LIKE DOING SURVEYS 10 DIFFERENT TIMES AND RESIGNING THEM BECAUSE THAT'S AGAINST THEIR INDUSTRY STANDARD.
YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A TON OF SIGNED SURVEYS OUT ON A PROPERTY.
I WENT TO CHRIS HAGEN AND I SAID, HEY, CAN YOU PUT THIS STUFF ON HERE SO THE CITY CAN UNDERSTAND IT? WHAT WE'RE SAYING RIGHT HERE, IS THE FRONT OF THAT BOATHOUSE, THAT GRAY LINE, IS IT 2.8 OR 3.4 FEET IN THIS ONE?
>> OKAY. ON HERE, IT'S 3.8 FROM THERE.
IN MY OPINION, AND IN CHRIS' OPINION, IT'S, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THE WORD PETTY, BUT IT'S PETTY.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT NOW I THINK IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE CONFUSING.
WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, DID YOU SUBMIT THIS LANDSCAPE DESIGN OR DID YOU SUBMIT A SURVEY?
>> SUBMITTED BOTH. OKAY. IS YOUR SURVEY AND YOUR LANDSCAPING DESIGN THAT CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER?
>> IF THAT'S, YEAH, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IT, YEAH.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT, IF YOU'RE CREATING YOUR OWN CONTRADICTION AT THAT POINT.
>> YOU TELL ME HOW SOMEBODY IS SUPPOSED TO SET THAT THING 2.8 FEET?
>> EXACTLY, SO DON'T GO OFF THAT, GO OFF THE SURVEY IS WHY I'M TRYING TO SAY.
>> WHAT SYSTEM OF RECORD DID YOU USE TO FIND OUT THAT THAT WAS 3.4 INCHES?
>> I MEASURED IT ON THE PDF USING ADOBE AS I MEASURED THE SURVEY.
>> THAT'S WHAT CHRIS HAGEN WAS APOLOGIZING FOR, THAT HE COULD NOT PHYSICALLY TAKE THAT THING BECAUSE HE WAS COPYING PASTING IT ON THERE.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S THAT DEVIATION.
IT WAS WAS MERELY [OVERLAPPING].
>> WAS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO SEE IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
YOU SUBMITTED A SURVEY WITH THE PROPOSED BOATHOUSE?
[00:35:04]
>> AND A LANDSCAPE DESIGN WITH THE PROPOSED BOATHOUSE?
>> AND THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN JUST HAD A ERROR ON IT?
>> THE REVISED SURVEY DIDN'T SHOW THE WALL EITHER, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE PLAN TO LOOK AT.
>> ONE MORE VERY QUICK QUESTION.
>> IN YOUR DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT THE STAIRWAY, WHICH IS ANOTHER ELEMENT I REALIZED.
IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE INFERRING MINIMIZING THE GRADE THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING FOR WALKING THE STAIRWAY.
WERE YOU PROPOSING A CHANGE TO THE PLAN THAT WOULD INVOLVE LIKE A SWITCHBACK WHERE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS IN LANDING AND THEN TO AVOID THE SEVERITY OF THE PITCH?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE STAIRS ARE SHOWN HERE.
>> YEAH. WE COULD HAVE TRIED GOING STRAIGHT DOWN, BUT THE THING IS, I'D BE CUTTING INTO THE HILLSIDE. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.
THE WAY THAT THE SURVEYOR AND THE ENGINEER AND EVERYBODY LAID THIS OUT WAS TO WHERE IT WOULD WORK WITH THE NATURAL CONTOUR, AND THEY CAN PRETTY MUCH JUST BE LAID IN PLACE.
YOU'RE NOT CUTTING BIG AREAS OUT OF THE HILLSIDE.
I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO AN ABOVE GROUND ONE.
PEOPLE ARE FIXING THOSE THINGS EVERY DAY.
I'D RATHER DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME AND HAVE IT GOOD AND SOLID AND NOT SLIPPERY AND TREES FALLING ON AND EVERYTHING.
>> IT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE WE DO NEED THAT. ARE YOU GOOD?
>> I'M GOOD. YOU GUYS WANT THESE THINGS? IT'S ALL UPLOADED THE FILE, BUT THIS IS SINGLES?
>> I MIGHT CALL YOU UP AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
>> YEAH. MY ONLY THING IS, HEY, YOU GUYS WANT TO KICK THE OTHER STUFF DOWN THE ROAD? SURE. THAT'S FINE.
BUT THE STAIRS, I REALLY DO NOT WANT THEM GETTING KICKED DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN.
>> REAL QUICK, SIR. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SETBACK OF THE PROPOSED SHED WAS A POINT OF CONTENTION THROUGHOUT THIS.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS OF IT IS THE SURVEY THAT THE CITY HAS ON FILE SHOWS A 20 OR 28 SQUARE FOOT.
STRUCTURE THERE, WHATEVER IT WAS, A PUMP PULSE, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS LARGER THAN THAT.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE IN KIND, YES, THE SETBACK AMOUNT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, EVEN IF IT IS SIX INCHES OR EVEN HONESTLY A HALF AN INCH OR AN INCH, BUT ALSO THE OVERALL SIZE OF IT AS WELL.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ON WHAT THOSE TALKING POINTS.
>> GREAT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NOBODY, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO GET THE MISSING PIECES FOR THE APPLICATION AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE.
I DO FEEL LIKE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT, WE STILL NEED THE CITY ENGINEER TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.
WE CAN'T JUST HAVE THEM AT A MEETING BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF US ARE.
WE USED TO HAVE SOME ENGINEERS UP HERE.
ANYWAYS, IT REALLY HAS TO GO THROUGH THAT REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE CITY AND CITY STAFF.
I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION THAT THE APPLICANT WAS HAVING DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, BECAUSE UNTIL WE GET THAT REPORT BACK FROM THE CITY ENGINEER, THERE MIGHT BE PIECES MISSING IN THE ENGINEERING THAT WAS SUBMITTED, ETC, IT MIGHT NOT MATCH.
MY GUT TELLS ME ON THE STAIRS THAT I THINK THAT'S A FAIRLY GOOD DESIGN TO STABILIZE THAT BANK AND SET THE STAIRS IN TO MAKE IT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE FUTURE EROSION.
I DON'T MIND THE RETAINING WALLS.
I GUESS QUESTION TO STAFF WOULD BE ON APPROVAL ON THAT STUFF.
IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD ON LET'S SAY, STAIRS OR RETAINING WALL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, ASSUMING THAT THE ENGINEERING IS SOUND, WOULD THE CITY ENGINEER HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THAT PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING?
>> AS FAR AS THAT BOAT HOUSE PUMP HOUSE, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S NO DOUBT THERE WAS A BIGGER STRUCTURE DOWN THERE SOMETIME AFTER THIS SURVEY WAS TAKEN.
I DOUBT THAT WAS A LEGAL STRUCTURE, OR THERE'D BE A PERMIT FOR IT WITH THE CITY.
I THINK THE ONLY THING WE CAN GO OR I CAN GO OFF OF IS WHAT
[00:40:03]
WAS ON THAT PREVIOUS SURVEY AND THAT FOOTPRINT AND SETBACK, ETC.I THINK MAYBE THAT DID EXIST, AND THEN IT JUST GOT ADDED ONTO, BUT NOT IN A CONFORMING WAY.
THEREFORE, IN MY MIND, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S GRANDFATHERED IN.
BUT I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THEIR THOUGHTS.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU. THE STAIRS AND THE RETAINING WALL I HAVE NOT A PROBLEM WITH.
THIS WHOLE THING WITH THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE OR WHAT IT WERE OR IF IT WAS, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
THE FOOTINGS ARE THERE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THOSE FOOTINGS MIGHT BE.
THERE COULD BE A COUPLE OF BRICKS OR THEY COULD BE DOWN TO THE CROSS LINE.
I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I SEE COMMISSIONER SCOTT.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT'S STATED HERE.
THE STAIRS, NOT REALLY TOO CONCERNED ABOUT, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND.
BASED ON WHAT I'M READING IN THE CODE HERE, IT IS ALLOWED ON A BLUFF SETTING TO HAVE SOMETHING PLACED INTO THE GROUND SUCH AS THAT.
I JUST NOTE THAT THE STAFF IS JUST ASKING THAT THERE BE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MOVING PARTS IN THE FINAL HOUR HERE THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL THAT IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
WITH SOME VALIDATION OF THOSE STAIRS BEING THE PREFERENTIAL OPTION, I WOULD NOT HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THEM EITHER.
>> COMMISSIONER LIBBY, SAW YOU OR LOOKING AT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] RESPECT FOR AND IN THE SPIRIT OF REALLY WANTING TO SEE THE APPLICANT ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, I STILL HAVE TO TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF'S EVALUATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY ELEMENTAL PARTS OF THIS TO REALLY DO JUSTICE WITH WHAT HIS INTENTION IS.
I THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO GIVE STAFF, OURSELVES ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING COMPLETE, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY REMAINING QUESTIONS.
MOST CERTAINLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS THAT REALLY JUST DO NOT FIT INTO OUR GUIDANCE, OUR CODE AND WHAT WE NEED TO USE IS A CONSTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY GETS TREATED EQUALLY.
I AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE TABLE THIS AND GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE FEELS WILL EDIFY ANY OF THESE OTHER QUESTIONS.
GIVE THE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY, THE CITY ENGINEER AN OPPORTUNITY, AND US ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT, WHICH WOULD MEAN TABLELING ANY DECISION AT THIS MEETING AT THIS TIME.
WHEN WOULD IT GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL IF IT WAS APPROVED OR DENIED EITHER WAY, IF IT WAS MOVED TOWARDS THE COUNCIL THIS EVENING? WHAT MEETING WOULD THAT BE?
I BELIEVE IT'S JULY 8TH, IT'D BE THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> CAN I ASK, COMMISSIONER LIBBY, IF THE ENGINEERING CAME BACK AFTER IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF IT, AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS FINE FOR THE STAIRS AND THE WALLS, IF THIS WAS TABLED ANOTHER MONTH, WOULD THAT THEN CHANGE YOUR OPINION ON THE STAIRS AS IT LOOKS TODAY OR WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF THAT?
>> WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE A SIMPLE QUESTION, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SIMPLE ANSWER BECAUSE WE HAVE ELEMENTS OF THE WALL, THE STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT REALLY DOES SERVE ITS HIGHEST PURPOSE BY BEING A BOULDER WALL OR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF A CONFIGURATION.
THE ENGINEER HASN'T REALLY RENDERED THEIR OPINION.
THEY WERE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY OF SUPPORTING THE WALL.
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO CONSTANTLY REMIND OURSELVES, WE'RE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE.
WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE LAKESHORE SO CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION OF THOSE AREAS ARE TANTAMOUNT TO THE MOST IMPORTANT IN OUR CITY.
SO I WOULD SAY I CAN'T GIVE YOU A YES ANSWER.
I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON WHAT THE CITY ENGINEER REVIEWS.
>> IF IT'S CONTINGENT UPON THAT, WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING THE STAIRS AND RETAINING WALL ALONG WITH A CONTINGENCY THAT IT'S APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER?
>> REPHRASED THAT QUESTION, I CAN GIVE YOU A YES.
>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE UP HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> WHERE I THINK SOME OF US ARE GOING IS WHENEVER YOU TABLE SOMETHING,
[00:45:05]
IT STOPS TIME AND WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND RESTART TIME 30 DAYS FROM NOW.I'M SURE THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE HEADED.
I PERSONALLY CAN EMPATHIZE THE WANTING FOR STAIRS AND TIME SEASONS SHORT.
IF WE DON'T HAVE THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUFFICIENT STAIRS BEING BUILT, YOU COULD TABLE IT AND SAY, SHOW US SUFFICIENT STAIRS BEING BUILT.
IF WE CONCEPTUALLY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IF THERE IS ACCEPTABLE ENGINEERING TO PROVE THAT STAIRS CAN BE BUILT AND MAINTAINED, THEN YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK IN THE NOTES AND SAY, LET'S DECLINE IT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT PROOF, BUT THAT ALLOWS IT TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR A DECISION, AND HOPEFULLY DURING THAT TIME, AS WE'VE BROUGHT UP, THAT CAN BE PROVIDED AND AT LEAST SKIP AHEAD FROM HAVING TO WASTE 30 DAYS.
I'M SURE MAYBE THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY WAS HEADED WITH THAT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STAIRS AS LONG AS WE CAN DOCUMENT THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE SUPPORTED, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT'S WILLING TO DO THAT, JUST DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO IT.
INSTEAD OF TABLING IT AND COMING BACK TO THE SAME THING IF WE'RE ALREADY AT THAT CONCLUSION, AS WEIRD AS IT SOUNDS YOU DECLINE IT, WHICH ALLOWS IT TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND GIVING HIM THE TIME TO GET THAT INFORMATION RATHER THAN COMING BACK TO US AND THEN GOING TO COUNCIL A MONTH LATER.
THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD'S AT ON THAT.
ON THE PUMP HOUSE THAT DOES NOT EXIST, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A CONCRETE PAD THERE.
IT SOUNDS WHETHER THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THERE OR NOT.
IT WASN'T LEGALLY PLACED GOING ON HISTORICAL DATA RATHER THAN REALLY ANYTHING ELSE.
WHENEVER SOMETHING IS TORN DOWN WITHOUT BEING GIVEN PERMISSION TO BE REPLACED, IT'S ALWAYS AN UPHILL BATTLE TO REPLACE IT IN KIND, AS IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED, AND FURTHERMORE, IF IT WAS NEVER PERMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IT'S TORN DOWN, IT'S EVEN HARDER TO REPLACE IN KIND.
I THINK MY OPINION IS I WOULD NOT SUPPORT REPLACING THE PROPOSED BOATHOUSE IN THE DIMENSIONS OF WHAT THE FOUNDATION OR CONCRETE PAD REPRESENTS.
IT'S JUST NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH, AND I THINK IT'D BE PRETTY TOUGH TO APPROVE, AND I THINK COUNCIL PROBABLY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
FURTHERMORE, WITH THE PUMP HOUSE, WE'VE HAD BOATHOUSES IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE HAD TO ENTERTAIN AND WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO GO UP HIGHER IN HEIGHT FOR THAT MATTER.
IT WAS PRETTY RESTRICTIVE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LAKE YARD WHEN IT COMES TO STRUCTURE.
AS I THINK IT'S BEEN NOTED BY I THINK STAFF NOTES THAT PUMP HOUSES ARE OFTEN LIKE A DOG HOUSE OR THREE OR FOUR FEET TALL WHICH IT DOESN'T.
BUT IF THAT WAS STILL STANDING, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T APPROVE IT TO BE ANY LARGER THAN WHAT IT WAS, AND THAT VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN ONLY THREE OR FOUR FEET TALL AND 20 SQUARE FEET.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT'S WILLING TO TABLE SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS FOR US TO LOOK AT IN PARTICULAR THE HILL, WHETHER IT'S A RETAINING WALL, VEGETATION, ETC.
BUT HE'S ANXIOUS TO TRY TO GET THOSE STAIRS REBUILT.
I THINK MY POSITION IS WE WOULD DECLINE OR WE WOULD MOTION TO DENY AT LEAST THE STAIRS BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.
GET EVERYBODY'S OPINION ON WHETHER THAT STAIR PLAN, IF WE CAN GET SUPPORT FROM THE CITY ENGINEER, GET AN ENGINEER TO SUPPORT IT.
THAT AT LEAST ALLOWS IT TO GO TO COUNCIL NEXT.
BUT TABLE THE OTHER STUFF UNTIL WE GET MORE INFORMATION.
THEN PREDICATED ON THAT, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE ALSO TO HAVE THE APPLICANT GET WITH THEIR LANDSCAPE PERSON WHO APPEARS TO HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION IN HISTORY, WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ORONO AMONG OTHER CITIES, TO HAVE THEM PERHAPS GATHER WITH THE ENGINEER DIRECTLY OF WHAT EXACTLY IS NEEDED.
CLEAN UP ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE SURVEYS SO THAT'S NEAT AND TIDY BECAUSE CONFUSION CAUSES RELUCTANCE.
IF EVERYTHING IS CLEANING, AND THERE IS NO DISCREPANCIES IN THE APPLICATION, IT MAKES IT EASIER TO DECIDE ON. THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS.
>> THANK YOU, JOHN. I GUESS AS A COMMISSION, WE'VE GOT A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS HERE.
IF IT'S OUR WISH TO PUSH THIS ALONG TO COUNCIL AND APPROVE THE STAIRS AND RETAINING WALLS CONTINGENT ON THE ENGINEERING.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE NOBODY UP HERE HAS SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THIS BOATHOUSE.
[00:50:07]
>> I COULD COMMENT ON THE BOATHOUSE.
>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN I'VE HAD SUCH IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT COMES OUT VERY STRONGLY THAT THE BOATHOUSE REALLY HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO BE THERE.
THE METAL SHED WAS APPARENTLY REMOVED, WAS APPARENTLY NOT LEGALLY DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE [LAUGHTER].
THEN TO REQUEST ANOTHER VARIANCE FOR A NEW STRUCTURE TWO OR THREE FEET, WHATEVER IT IS FROM THE LAKESHORE, IS AN EXTREME SITUATION.
ALSO IN ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, THEY EVEN LABELED IT AS A BOATHOUSE, WHICH THE COUNCIL HAS A TRACK RECORD OF BEING EXTREMELY NEGATIVE ON NEW BOATHOUSES.
SOMEWHERE THEY'VE HAD OLD ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED.
BUT AS FAR AS STARTING A NEW ONE ON THE LAKE, VERY CLOSE TO THE WATER, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY THAT HAVE EVER BEEN IMPROVED.
I WOULD BE MOST AND THEN THE STAFF HAS ALSO GIVEN US FOUR OPTIONS FOR HOW WE MIGHT DEAL WITH THIS AND OF THOSE, I WOULD BE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH ONE THAT DENIES THE SHED.
THEN WE HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION.
WE COULD DENY THE SHED AND THEN ALSO TAKE SOME OTHER ACTION REGARDING THE STAIRWAY AND SO ON, WHICH I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITUATION.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR MS. OKTON.
WHAT WOULD BE THE SIMPLEST MOVING FORWARD IF WE WANTED TO APPROVE OR DENY, WOULD YOU LIKE A MOTION TO DENY THE ENTIRE THING WITH SUPPORTING COMMENTS FOR OTHER PIECES TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL, OR WOULD YOU LIKE A SPLIT MOTION? WHAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST?
>> I THINK WE JUST NEED CLEAR ON RECORD YOUR STANDING AND COMMENTS ON I GUESS THOSE THREE ELEMENTS.
I REALLY HONESTLY SEE THEM AS TWO ELEMENTS, WHICH IS THE RETAINING WALL WORK, WHICH IS RETAINING WALLS AND THE STAIRS BECAUSE THAT'S THE RETAINING WALL PROJECT AND THAT'S THE TRIGGER FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THEN THE SHED IS THE VARIANCE.
IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS APPLICATION MOVING FORWARD, YOU CAN APPROVE IT WITH COMMENTS.
IF YOU HAVE A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION, YOU CAN SAY, WE WANT TO APPROVE FOR EXAMPLE, MAYBE APPROVE THE CUP AS LONG AS THE CONDITIONS OF THE ENGINEER AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DENY THE SHED.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO TABLE IT, I'D RECOMMEND THAT YOU TABLE IT IN TOTALITY SO THEN ALL OF THE ELEMENTS CAN BE ADDRESSED ON BOTH THE VARIANCE AND THE CUP, AND THEN IT ALL STAYS HERE.
BUT IF THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION IS TO MOVE IT FORWARD, YOU CAN DO A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION.
DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LAND ON YOUR MOTION, I CAN PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON HOW THAT WOULD WORK AS WELL, BASED ON YOUR DISCUSSION.
>> MR. RESSLER WAS EXACTLY CORRECT IN WHERE HE THOUGHT MY QUESTIONS WERE LEADING TOWARDS.
WITHOUT PROPOSING A FULL MOTION, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE.
IS THERE ARE QUESTIONS TO THE RETAINING WALL PLAN NEEDING TO BE CLARIFIED, AS WELL AS A QUESTION TO THE STAIRS.
IN MY OPINION, I THINK WE SHOULD DENY THE ENTIRE THING BECAUSE QUESTIONS FOR THOSE ITEMS REMAIN.
I BELIEVE THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND WE SEND IT FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL DENYING EVERYTHING, CLEAN UP THE STAIRS AND THE RETAINING WALL QUESTIONS THAT CITY STAFF HAS HAD, PROVIDE THE REMARKS THAT WE DO NOT SEE ANY AREA WHERE WE WOULD APPROVE THE BOARD HOUSE AND THAT WOULD BE MY OVERALL.
IT'S CLEAN IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE THERE'S ISSUES OUTLYING ON EVERY ITEM IN IT, AND IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DENY IT ALL COME TO THE COUNCIL WITH A CLEAN SLATE.
[00:55:04]
>> I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THAT WOULD BE CLEAN.
BUT THE KEY TO THAT IS THAT DENIAL WOULD COME WITH OUR COMMENTS SUPPORTING CERTAIN FEATURES.
>> I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE WE ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED FOR COMMENTS, I THINK? I THINK THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF POSITIONS ON THE BOARD HOUSE.
I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY WITH A NECESSARILY OPPOSITION TO THE DESIGN OF THE STAIRS.
IF THIS WAS A FINAL APPLICATION, THE WIDTH OF IT, THE SIZE OF IT ALL SEEMS REASONABLE.
BUT, WE WOULDN'T, I DON'T THINK BIFURCATING THE APPLICATION INTO SEGMENTS ISN'T GOING TO DO ANY GOOD.
SIMPLY PUT WE CAN DEMOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION BASED ON INABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE A PROPER LANDSCAPING PLAN TO SUPPORT.
THE RETAINING WALL AS WELL AS PROVIDE THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE FOR THE REST OF THE APPLICATION NAMELY IN SUPPORT OF THE STAIRS, AS LONG AS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT'S BUILT WITH AN ENGINEERING PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.
>> IT IS. THEY'RE MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY RESSLER AND A SECOND BY KIRSCHNER.
THAT DENIAL IS MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE SHED AT ALL.
YOU'RE DENYING THE SHED AS PROPOSED, SHED OR BOARD HOUSE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
BUT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE RETAINING WALL, SLASH, STAIRWAY.
>> WE NEED THE PROPER LANDSCAPING PLAN AND ALL THE OTHER ITEMS. AGAIN, IF THE APPLICANT, JUST FOR THEIR OWN CLARIFICATION, YOU CLEAN UP THE DISCREPANCIES ON THE SURVEY VERSUS THE SITE PLANS.
GET WITH YOUR LANDSCAPING PERSON IF THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA ON WHAT ENGINEERING WILL BE NEEDED, SO THEN EVERYTHING'S NEAT AND TIDY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GO.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> OPPOSED. A NON MOTION CARRIES.
>> I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I ABSTAINED JUST BECAUSE I GOT HERE LATE.
>> I DIDN'T HEAR THE BEGINNING OF THIS, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
>> THAT WILL MOVE TO COUNCIL, WHICH WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO HAVE THE CITY REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS.
>> JULY 8TH, MONDAY AT 6:00 PM.
>> WELL, FROM WHAT WE DID, WE DIDN'T PUMP THE STAIRS.
>> WELL, IF WE APPROVE THE STAIRS, IT'D STILL BE JULY.
>> JULY 8TH FOR YOUR MEETING. IT JUST TO GO TO COUNCIL.
>> [OVERLAPPING] RATHER THAN WE COULD HAVE TABLED IT AND THEN IT'D BE A FULL MONTH HERE, AND THEN AGAIN. [NOISE] [BACKGROUND]
>> IT MAY ALSO BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN ENGINEER OR YOUR DESIGNER ON YOUR BEHALF, PERHAPS CHECK WITH CITY STAFF ON THAT TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FOR YOU.
>> THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.
[5.2. #LA24-000026, Gregg Steinhafel, 2265 and 2285 North Shore Drive - Grading IUP (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]
THAT'S LA 24-26, GREGG STEINHAFEL, 2265 AND 2285 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.THIS IS FOR A GRADING IUP. MS. CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY SEEKING APPROVAL.
THEY'VE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE LMC, AND THEY ARE SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE WATERSHED DISTRICT TO CONDUCT DREDGING WITHIN THE BAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY CALLED GRANDPA'S BAY IN LAKE MINNETONKA.
THEY PLAN TO DEWATER APPROXIMATELY 2,900 CUBIC YARDS OF SPOILS OFF SITE AFTER DREDGING.
THEY PLAN TO BRING THE SPOILS MATERIAL BACK TO THE SITE AND SPREAD THE MATERIAL IN THE AREAS SHOWN, ENCASED WITH THE SILK FENCING AND POSSIBLY CREATE SOME BERMS FOUR FEET TALL ALONG THE ROADWAY FOR SOME SCREENING FOR THE PROPERTY.
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT TO THE SITE.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THEIR PROPOSAL AND THEIR HALL ROUTE AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
OUR APPROVAL WOULD BE ONLY CONDITIONED UPON OBTAINING
[01:00:01]
AN ADMINISTRATIVE GRADING PERMIT AND THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE. THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GREGG STEINHAFEL 2265 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
[NOISE] I THINK MELANIE SUMMED IT UP PRETTY WELL.
THE 2913 CUBIC YARDS WOULD BE THE MAX AMOUNT.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT DOWN AS WE WORK WITH THE WATERSHED AND THE LMCD, AND JUST REPOSITIONING THE DOCK SLIGHTLY.
DON'T QUOTE ME [NOISE], BUT I THINK WE CAN GET IT.
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2000 CUBIC YARDS AND MAYBE 2,000 CUBIC YARDS.
BASED ON THE LARGE ACREAGE WE HAVE OF DRY LAND UP THERE, WHEN YOU DO THE MATHEMATICS WITHIN THAT DRY AREA THAT COMES TO ABOUT TWO INCHES PER 11 ACRES OR ONE INCH OF SPOILS FOR 22 ACRES.
WE HAVE 50 ACRES OF DRY SPREAD OUT ACROSS OUR FOUR PIDS.
WE'RE GOING TO CONCENTRATE ON THE TWO PIDS THAT WE MENTIONED.
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, WE WON'T DO ANY BERMS BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NOT ENOUGH, AND IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT THIS POINT TO DO IT WHEN WE CAN ABSORB IT IN THE GRASSLAND AREA.
WE'VE BEEN LOOKING TO GRADE THAT AREA [NOISE] REGARDLESS OF THIS ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS ONCE UPON A TIME A DAIRY FARM, AND IT WAS TILLED, AND IT'S NOT VERY FRIENDLY TO WALK IN, SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE SPOILS ON THERE.
WE'LL GET A GRADING PLANT PLAN.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO LOOK TO SMOOTH EVERYTHING ELSE SO THAT WE CAN WALK THROUGH IT, PERHAPS A MOW IT, AND I MIGHT EVEN PUT A LITTLE GREEN AND A TEACUP THERE.
[LAUGHTER] PART 3 GOLF COURSE WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH IT.
BUT THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF THE PROJECT.
THE BIG CHALLENGE IS, WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.
THAT TIMING IS STILL UP IN THE AIR.
WE'RE MEETING THIS WEEK WITH THEM.
HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET SOMETHING APPROVED IN TIME TO MEET THE VERY NARROW DREDGING WINDOW THAT WE HAVE THIS FALL.
WE KNOW WE HAVE TO WORK WITHIN THAT, AND SO WE'RE WORKING HARD TO GET THAT DONE WITH THEM.
THIS IS CONDITIONAL UPON THEIR APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HI. MY NAME IS STEVE CLEAR.
I LIVE AT 1360 FRENCH CREEK DRIVE, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTLY ACROSS NORTH SHORE.
JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS FROM MYSELF AND SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, GENERALLY, WANTING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
ONE OF THEM WAS, THEY JUST SAW REGRADING AND ASKED, IS THIS IN PREPARATION FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO POTENTIALLY PUT MORE HOUSING ON THE PROPERTY?
WE HAVE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY PLANNING, BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE NO PLANS TO SUBDIVIDE OR CREATE MORE LOTS.
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THE FUTURE, BUT WE'RE NOT PLANNING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS THE FIRST [INAUDIBLE] PLAN.
>> NO. THIS REALLY IS INDEPENDENT OF THAT BECAUSE WE OWN FOUR LAKE LOTS IN GRANDPA BAY, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THE LOT WE HAVE THE HOME ON IS INACCESSIBLE TO THE MAIN CRYSTAL BAY BECAUSE GRANDPA BAY BY ABOUT JULY 1ST IS NON-NAVIGABLE.
FOR THOSE LOTS TO BE CONSIDERED LAKE SHORE LOTS, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT TO THE MAIN LAKE.
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO DREDGE A CHANNEL, AND IT'S ONLY NATURAL TO TAKE THOSE SPOILS AND PUT IT ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE TESTING REQUIREMENTS, AND THE MATERIALS WERE DEEMED SAFE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION WAS, I THINK YOU ALREADY ANSWERED THIS, HOW HIGH OF A BERM ARE YOU CONSIDERING? THERE WAS SOME CONCERN FROM SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT [NOISE] THE SOUND, WHETHER THERE'S TRAFFIC ON OR SHORE.
IT'S GOING TO REFLECT A LOT OF SOUND IF THERE'S BIG BERMS THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU'RE
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE BERMS WAS AN INITIAL THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ONLY BECAUSE WE SAW FRENCH CREEK.
YOU HAVE SOME VERY BEAUTIFUL BERMS, BUT THEY'RE A LOT HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET.
>> WE LOOKED AT IT AND WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
WE THOUGHT MAYBE WE WOULD DO IT RIGHT WHERE OUR GRAVEL DRIVEWAY WAS.
BUT THEN WHEN WE STARTED REALIZING THAT WE PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH SOIL TO DO THAT, THE FIRST PRIORITY IS GOING TO BE TO LAY IT OUT IN THE GRASSLANDS AND NOT DOING BERMING.
BUT I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE WOULDN'T, BUT IT WOULD BE VERY MODEST.
IT WOULDN'T BE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE REALLY THE ONLY FLAT AREA IS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY.
[01:05:01]
THEN THE TOPOGRAPHY DROPS OFF REALLY FAST TO THE EAST.DO YOU MIND IF I JUST STAY HERE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT WORKS. I LIKE THOSE FORMAT.
>> BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE MAIN QUESTIONS WE HAD, I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT QUESTION WAS PROBABLY WHAT PEOPLE WERE WONDERING AND BE POTENTIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT'S PART OF THAT. GUYS A PROBLEM NEXT TO ME.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> I APPRECIATE STAFF'S ABILITY TO PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND IDENTIFY WHAT IT'S BEING DONE, I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT DOING THE SAME TO GIVE IN THE DETAIL.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ANY OF THE DREDGING AND EVERYTHING, THAT GOES IN LAKEWARD FROM THE RIP PERHAPS NOT OUR JURISDICTION ANYWAY.
ANY OF THE THING THAT'S DONE WITH THAT BAY IS NOT OUR.
>> CORRECT. WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION, FOR THE DREDGING.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THAT IS ALL GOING TO BE GOVERNED BY LMCD OR.
>> WATERSHED. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
CONTINGENT ALSO AND CONDITIONAL TO [NOISE], ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS WITH THAT APPLICATION, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE.
AS LONG AS THAT'S BEING PROVIDED, INTERCITY ENGINEERS REVIEWED AND APPROVED, THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
JUST WAS NOTING THE NO REASON TO GET INTO WHAT'S BEING DREDGED, HOW DEEP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR CALL ANYWAY.
TO NOTE, I APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS CLARIFYING EACH OTHER, AS FAR AS INTENT TO DEVELOP, OF COURSE, DOESN'T HURT TO CLARIFY THAT, IF THERE IS FUTURE DESIRE TO SUBDIVIDE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU'RE NOT HANDCUFFING YOURSELF BECAUSE IF IT MEETS THE ABILITY TO SUBDIVIDE REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU'RE CERTAINLY ABLE STILL TO DO THAT, BUT DO APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT FOR THE PUBLIC AND WHAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE THAT FEELS OTHERWISE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU'RE READY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS.
HE MADE THREE COMMENTS, WHICH THE THIRD ONE WAS AN ACT.
NOT TO WORRY. [LAUGHTER] THE FIRST TWO WERE RELATING TO THE GRADING PLAN AND THE BERM CUTS OFF A DRIVEWAY.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, HE HAS SOME WAYS TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND THEN ALSO, COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL SAMPLES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION.
BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE ENGINEER.
I WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THOSE CONDITIONS.
>> WE DO HAVE A COPY OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED IS STILL GOING TO BE CONDITIONED UPON THE ENGINEERING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I DON'T HAVE TO PUT THAT AS ANY AN AMENDMENT.
I WILL A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED, KNOWING THAT THAT'S ALREADY INCLUDED AS A CONDITION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAMER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S VOTE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION?
>> IT'S GOING TO BRING US TO OUR THIRD PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NIGHT, LA 24-28.
[5.3. #LA24-000028, Steve White, 4375 Bayside Road, Preliminary Plat (Natalie Nye)]
THIS IS STEVE WHITE AT 4375 BAYSIDE ROAD FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT. MISS NATALIE.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE TWO PROPERTIES, AND I'LL SHOW THOSE ON THE SCREEN INTO THREE LOTS.
THE APPLICANT IS THE OWNER OF TWO PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, 4375 BAYSIDE ROAD IS OUTLINED IN BLUE, AND 4246 BAYSIDE ROAD IS OUTLINED IN RED.
[01:10:01]
4375 BAYSIDE ROAD AT THE ROADWAY TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL LOT HERE.THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO MODIFY THIS SHARED LOT LINE SLIGHTLY AND MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT TO THE EAST.
THE SMALL PIECE OF LAND THAT BELONGS TO 4246 BAYSIDE ROAD SOUTH OF THE ROADWAY IS PROPOSED TO BECOME AN OUTLAW.
THERE ARE SEVERAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT SPAN THESE TWO PARCELS, WE HAVE LR 1A HERE TOWARDS THE LAKE, RR 1B AND RR 1A.
THE NEW PARCEL THAT WOULD BE CREATED HERE WOULD BE COMPLETELY RR 1A.
ALL THREE OF THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL MEET THE SIZE AND WIDTH STANDARDS PER THE ZONING CODE.
THE ONLY PARCEL THAT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED, WHICH IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, MEETS ALL REQUIRED SETBACK AND HARD COVER REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
THIS PARCEL WILL BE THE ONLY ONE WITH HARD COVER REQUIREMENTS, WHEREAS THE LOTS NORTH OF BAYSIDE ROAD WILL BE LIKE THAT.
WELL, THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE PLANS TO CONSTRUCT ON THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS THERE IS NO PROPOSED BUILDING PADS YET.
ANY NEW HOME THAT IS PROPOSED WILL NEED TO MEET ALL OF THOSE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS NO VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED.
THERE ARE SEVERAL WETLANDS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTIES, WHICH HAVE BEEN DELINEATED.
THE PROPERTIES WILL BE SERVED BY SEPTIC AND PRIVATE WELL.
BAYSIDE ROAD IS A COUNTY ROADWAY, AND HENNEPIN COUNTY HAS PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
HENNEPIN COUNTY RECOMMENDED POSSIBLY A SHARED DRIVEWAY FOR THESE TWO PROPERTIES OR AT LEAST THIS ONE TO USE THIS CHRISTOPHER CIRCLE AS AN OPTION DUE TO THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVEWAYS, AS WELL AS THE CURVATURE OF THE ROADWAY.
A PARK DEDICATION FEE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOT, AND THAT WILL BE CALCULATED AT FINAL PLAT.
STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> JUST CLARIFYING, THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE CONFORMING LOTS.
>> ALL THREE OF THEM. PROPOSED.
>> THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> STEVE WHITE, 4375 BAYSIDE ROAD AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD TO WHAT NATALIE SAID.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT LOT A.
IS THERE A REASON IT'S AN OUT LOT VERSUS JUST PART OF LOT TWO?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA.[LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW THAT I PROPOSED THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THE SURVEYOR DID THAT OR IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NATALIE THOUGHT SHOULD BE DONE.
>> THAT'S HOW THE SURVEY WAS PROPOSED.
I'M GUESSING BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY WETLAND, IT'S NOT BUILDABLE
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT EFFECT IT HAS TO BE AN OUTLAW.
MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.
>> I THINK IF IT WASN'T, PERHAPS IT'D BE CALCULATED IN THIS AREA, BUT AGAIN, WE CALCULATE THE DRY ANYWAYS, SO I DON'T THINK IT WOULD MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE, I THINK IT WAS JUST.
>> THE OUTLAW WOULD MEAN THAT IT CAN'T BE BUILT ON WITHOUT REPLATTING.
>> BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT'S MOSTLY AVAILABLE.
>> BECAUSE IT'S WETLAND, YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T FIT A BUILDING ON IT ANYWAY.
>> THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING HERE, SO IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NOBODY, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> I CAN JUMP INTO THIS ONE QUICKLY.
I HATE TO SAY IT BECAUSE SUBDIVISION OF THIS MANY ACRES IS REALLY NOT SIMPLE, BUT THIS ONE ACTUALLY SEEMS QUITE SIMPLE.
IT'S WELL LAID OUT, IT'S WELL THOUGHT OUT.
ALL OF THE BOXES THAT WE WOULD ORDINARILY CHECK, SUCH AS A WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT, CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN ANALYSIS HAS ALL BEEN COMPLETED.
PERSONALLY, FOR ME, I'VE SAID IT IN THE PAST, I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T DEVELOP LAND IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT'S ZONED TO BE DEVELOPED.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS, AND I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF IT UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS OTHER COMMENTS.
>> WELL, SAID, THREE CONFORMING LOTS THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
I DON'T SEE ANY CONCERNS. I'D SUPPORT YOUR MOTION IF YOU HAD ONE.
>> I'D ECHO THOSE THOUGHTS AS WELL.
>> BASED ON THAT, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA
[01:15:03]
24-28 AT 4375 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT AS APPLIED.>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER KIRSCHNER, I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NONE. LET'S VOTE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY I.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
[5.4. #LA24-000029, Robey Construction o/b/o Steve Streich, 1487 Shoreline Drive, Variance (Natalie Nye)]
LA 24-29 ROBY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF STEVE STRIKE, 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE FOR A VARIANCE, MISS NATALIE.>> THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY THE ROOF LINE ABOVE AN ENTRYWAY, I'LL PULL UP THE PLANS IT'S A FAIRLY MINOR PROJECT HERE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, MUCH OF THE HOME IS IN FRONT OF THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THE MODIFICATION IS AN INCREASE IN THE VERTICAL MASSING, WHICH FOR A NON CONFORMING BUILDING REQUIRES A VARIANCE.
THE MODIFICATION TO THE ENTRYWAY DOES NOT CHANGE THE FOOTPRINT OR ADD ANY HARD COVER.
STAFF FINDS THE APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THE TRIGGER OF THE VARIANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT'S HAPPENING IS THE ROOF LINE IS BEING MODIFIED.
THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL MASSING OTHERWISE?
>> ARE YOU OKAY? THE APPLICANT IS HERE PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> BILL ROBY. I'M HERE REPRESENTING STEVE STRIKE FOR 1487 SHORELINE DRIVE.
LIKE MISS NATALIE JUST SAID, ALL WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS TO ADD A CABLE ON THE FRONT ENTRY, JUST CHANGE THE FRONT APPEARANCE.
THE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT HAS ANY VIEW OF IT IS IN SUPPORT OF IT.
IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT ANY OF THE WATER RUNOFF ON THE ROOF.
IT'S PURELY AN AESTHETIC PIECE AND LIKE YOU SAID, THE REASON WE NEED THE VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THE WHOLE HOUSE IS IN THE 0-75 SET.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT SLIDE YOU HAD UP A SECOND AGO REALLY SUMS THIS ONE UP.
THAT THE BEFORE AND THE PROPOSED REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT ANYBODY'S LAKE VIEW, AND THIS IS FOR.
I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS AS APPLIED.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING ABOVE THE 30 FOOT, SO IT'S THAT LIKE KIND.
IF THEY WERE COMPLETELY REBUILDING THE HOUSE, THEY CAN STILL DO THAT.
I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE UNLESS THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT.
MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-29 AS APPLIED.
>> HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAMER, I'M ASSUMING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
BRINGS US TO NUMBER FIVE FOR TONIGHT, THAT'S LA 24-30,
[5.5. #LA24-000030, Aspect Design Build LLC., 3465 & 3515 6th Avenue N, + PIDs 29-118-23- 43-0013, 29-118-23-44-0004 & 29-118-23-44-0006 - Preliminary Plat (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]
ASPECT DESIGN BUILD, LLC, 3465 AND 3515 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH.MULTIPLE PIDS THIS IS FOR ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT. MS. CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. AS YOU NOTED, THIS PROPERTY INVOLVES TWO DEVELOPED LOTS WITH HOMES AND ADJACENT PIDS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO CREATE SIX BUILDABLE LOTS ON THE PROPERTY WITH ONE PRIVATE ROAD OUT LOT AND A SECOND OUT LOT TO BE TRANSFER TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER.
THE PROJECT IS IN THE RR1B ZONING DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
IT ABOUT LAKE CLAWSON, WHICH IS A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKE REQUIRING 150 FOOT SETBACK FOR STRUCTURE AND BUILDINGS.
THE PROJECT CONFORMS WITH THE DENSITY GUIDANCE WITHIN THE COMP PLAN,
[01:20:05]
THE ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS,, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WERE DELINEATED ON THE WATERSHED DISTRICT WILL DETERMINE THE BUFFERING THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT AND EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE WILL BE OBTAINED OVER THOSE BUFFERED AREAS AND WETLANDS.THE ROAD PROPOSED IS A 650 FOOT LONG CUL-DE-SAC PRIVATE ROAD, 50 FEET IN WIDTH AND PAVED AT 24 FEET AS REQUIRED BY CODE.
THEY ARE PROPOSING A SPLIT ENTRANCE ON THE NORTH END WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS SO THEY CAN PUT A LANDSCAPED DEVELOPMENT SIGN IN THAT SPOT.
IN THAT AREA, THE PAVEMENT IS WIDEN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT SO THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN THE DRY AISLE.
THEY HAVE PREPARED A CONSERVATION DESIGN MASTER PLAN.
THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN ARE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS IN THE REPORT ITSELF, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
THEIR PLAN CONCLUDES THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE PROPERTY OR THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE CITY AS FAR AS THE CORRIDOR OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND THE EXISTING RURAL NATURE OF THAT CORRIDOR.
THE INVENTORY NATURAL RESOURCES AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ARE PRIMARILY ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE SITE.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE FOCUSING ON THE AREAS CURRENTLY IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY.
THE SITE DOES MAINTAIN THE RURAL CHARACTER, AND THE PLANS WILL FOLLOW AND BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLANDS AND ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY EXCEPTIONS.
IN THE STAFF REPORT I DID A SUMMARY OF EACH LOT, AND IT'S DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, THE FEATURE IS IN THE LOT.
SOME OF THE LOTS ARE BEING SHOWN WITH PROPOSED GRADED BUILDING PADS.
EACH OF THE HOMES THAT IS SHOWING GRADING HERE, THERE IS A PAD TO BE CREATED.
THEY ARE PROPOSING ALSO ON A FEW OF THE LOTS, AND ADU PAD WITH THE SECOND DRIVEWAY ACCESS, WHICH IS PERMITTED.
THE STORM WATER GRADING IS BEING SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE THERE'S A BASIN OR A CONNECTED AREA.
THE THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE CITY ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE DEVELOPER'S PLANS, AND ANY COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE DEVELOPER FOR ADJUSTMENT IF NEEDED, AND WILL BE REVIEWED.
TYPICALLY, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THESE PLANS, AND WE ANTICIPATE A FINAL PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE FINAL PLAT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WON'T SEE THE FINAL STORM WATER PLAN, BUT THEY WILL BE MEETING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THAT.
LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER NOTABLE PER LOT.
THERE'S TWO LAKE SHORE LOTS TO BE CREATED.
LOTS 3 AND 4 ARE PROPOSED AS LAKE SHORE LOTS.
THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE WETLAND BODY THAT IS SEPARATING THE BUILDABLE AREAS OF THOSE LOTS FROM THE LAKE ITSELF, WHICH PROVIDES THE DESIRED SEPARATION AND FILTRATION NEEDED TO FILTER THE WATER THAT WOULD ENTER LAKE LASSEN.
THE DEVELOPER HAS PROPOSED A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND TREE PRESERVATION.
THE CODE DOES REQUIRE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF BOULEVARD PLANTINGS PER LINEAR FOOT.
LET'S SEE, DO I HAVE THAT IN HERE? THE REQUIRED TREES ARE ONE TREE PER EVERY 40 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG THE ROADWAYS.
THAT WOULD MEAN ALONG COUNTY ROAD 6, AS WELL AS IN THE ROADWAY.
THEY HAVE PROPOSED AN EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT INCLUDES NOT ONLY TREES, BUT SHRUBS AND OTHER PLANTS THAT WILL SOFTEN THE ENTRANCE AND THE ROADWAYS.
[01:25:02]
THE CODE CALLS FOR BASED ON THE FRONTAGE 48 TREES.AS PROPOSED, THEY WOULD NEED 13 MORE TREES TECHNICALLY TO CONFORM TO THAT.
I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED AND THE DEVELOPER CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL, WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE.
THAT CAN BE VARIED WITH THIS APPROVAL.
IT JUST NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.
LET'S SEE. THERE'S A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AS WELL PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING VEGETATION AND TO PROTECT THE TREES THAT THEY WILL BE PLANTING.
THE AREA OF NOTE HERE ON LOT 3.
THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CREATE A TREE PRESERVATION AREA TO PROTECT TREES THAT WERE I BELIEVE PLANTED BY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE WERE NO FORMAL AGREEMENTS PUT IN PLACE AND THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN CARED FOR BY THE NEIGHBORS FOR YEARS.
I THINK THE DEVELOPER IS PROVIDING THAT TO PROTECT THOSE TREES.
THEY HAVE SOME PROTECTION EASEMENTS NOTED AS DRAFTED IN THEIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN.
THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT TREE PRESERVATION TO ENCOMPASS THE PLANTED AREAS AROUND THE ENTRANCE AS WELL.
REGARDING PARK FEE, PARK DEDICATION, WE DO NOT HAVE A NEED IDENTIFIED FOR PARK LAND IN THIS AREA, SO ACTUAL DEDICATION OF LAND IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SEEKING AT THIS TIME.
TYPICALLY, WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS PARK DEDICATION, AND WE WOULD BE CALCULATING THAT PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLAT AND WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THAT.
I THINK THAT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS TO DISCUSS AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PACKET, BUT NAMELY THE BOULEVARD TREES, IF THE COMMISSION FINDS ANYTHING OF NOTE IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN MASTER PLAN THAT YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEN THAT'S IT.
>> WE WILL BE HOPEFULLY HAVING THAT STORMWATER PLAN, AT LEAST AN APPROVAL OR SOME COMMENTS BACK BEFORE WE GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT I HAVE A BUNCH OF PLANS TO PUT ON THE SCREEN.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, I THINK THE DEVELOPERS CAN SPEAK TO THEIR PROPOSAL.
BUT I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MS. CURTIS.
WELL IN SEPTIC, THOSE HAVE BEEN LOCATED?
YES. THEY DID PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TWO SEPTIC SITES ON EACH LOT.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH OUR SEPTIC MANAGER TO GAIN APPROVAL ON THOSE LOCATIONS.
>> ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOT 6, I THINK IT'S LABELED GRAVEL DRIVE.
IS THAT AN EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE? IS THAT PART OF THIS PROPERTY
>> NO, THAT'S A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY THAT SERVES THE NEIGHBORS, AND THE CREATION OF THAT OUT LOT B IS ENCOMPASSING THAT DRIVEWAY TO ISOLATE THAT DRIVEWAY IN THE OUT LOT FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> CURRENTLY, IT IS PART OF THE PROPERTY, THOUGH, CORRECT?
>> THEN IT'S BEING PARCELED OUT INTO AN OUT LOT?
>> THAT IS NETTED OUT OF THE LOT AREA FOR LOT 6?
>> IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LOT AREA.
>> GOT IT. THEN MY LAST QUESTION IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUST READING THIS WRONG.
IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS FIVE ACRE MINIMUM?
>> THEN THERE IS IN PARENTHESES FIVE ACRES.
>> DID I NOTE THAT INCORRECTLY?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS POINTING OUT BECAUSE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] STAFF REPORT FOR MY [INAUDIBLE].
>> I BELIEVE IT'S RR 1B, WHICH IS 2A [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT SAYS THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY ZONED RR 1B ONE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5.0 ACRE.
>> THAT MAKES IT EASIER. THAT LEAVES ME WITH A LOT FEWER QUESTIONS THEN.
[01:30:01]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THE QUESTION I HAVE SOUNDS TO ME, LIKE THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS PROMISED TO PUT INVERSELY THE CODE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT SOUNDS TO ME AS THOUGH THE BIG QUESTION STANDING IS THAT THE PLAN DOESN'T CONTAIN THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED BY THE CODE, IS THAT CORRECT?
I THINK THAT IN LOOKING AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY BORDERING THIS DRIVEWAY THAT'S EXISTING THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE THE AREA OF THE ROAD, THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TREES THERE, AND I THINK IF THE DEVELOPER CAN MAYBE SPEAK TO THAT, PERHAPS THAT SOME OF THOSE TREES ARE GOING TO REMAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE, BUT YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM AND SEE WHAT THEIR PLAN IS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND GO AHEAD.
>> SEAN WINKLER WITH ASPECT DESIGN BUILD ADDRESS 2450 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE.
>> I'M TOM PRICING WITH ASPECT DESIGN BUILD.
>> WE'RE 22 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY NECESSARILY INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS OTHER THAN GETTING INTO SOME OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER AROUND TREES OR WHATEVER, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DETAILS IN THE APPLICATION.
AND SO I THINK WE CAN JUMP INTO WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU KNOW YOU ALL HAVE.
>> THE BOULEVARD TREES. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE BIG QUESTION.
IS THERE A REASON FOR NOT PROPOSING THE ADDITIONAL 13?
>> MELANIE, CAN YOU PULL UP THE OVERHEAD THAT YOU HAD?
>> THERE ARE AND I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY WHEN YOU DID YOUR CALCULATION, WHAT TREES YOU'RE FACTORING IN, IS IT ONLY [INAUDIBLE] TREES?
>> WHAT I COUNTED WAS WHAT WAS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
IF THERE ARE SUPPLEMENTAL TREES THAT WOULD BE TO KNOW WHAT'S THEIR EXISTING.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE A BACK AND FORTH ON THAT YET.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THERE'S JUST A NUMBER OF MATURE TREES THAT LINE THAT BOTH THE EXISTING DRIVE THAT GOES IN THERE AND SIX, AND SO WE WANT TO FILL IN THE BLANKS.
WE WANT TO KEEP THOSE EXISTING TREES.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF PARTIALLY DISEASE TO DISEASE ASH TREES THAT ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT DRIVE THAT WILL REMOVE.
BUT AS MANY MATURE TREES AS WE CAN KEEP AND PLACE WE WANT TO KEEP IN PLACE [INAUDIBLE] THE REST.
THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE CAME UP WITH ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IS THAT THERE'S AREAS WHERE WE CAN BE ASKED TO ADD MORE TREES IN THE FINE DO.
IT'S JUST OUR BEST TAKE ON HOW TO ENHANCE THAT AREA.
IT'S KIND OF IN PARTICULAR, THE EAST PROPERTY OF THE TWO HAS BEEN, I WANT TO SAY NEGLECTED, BUT SEMI NEGLECTED FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.
SO KIND OF ON THAT EAST DRIVEWAY AND THEN HEADING UP TO COUNTY ROAD SIX, THERE'S A NUMBER OF FRUIT TREES, THESE BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT ARE FLOWERING REALLY NICELY RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE REALLY WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE AND ALL OF THAT BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER GROWTH AROUND IT.
[INAUDIBLE] THE INTENT IS TO TRIM MOST OF THE REST OF IT BACK OR GET RID OF THE REST OF IT AND SEE WHAT WE'RE DEALT WITH AND THEN KIND OF FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST ENHANCE IT FROM THERE.
>> THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN HAS US REMOVING BUCKTHORN, KEEPING CRAB APPLES THAT ARE KIND OF BEING CHOKED OUT AND DOING WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TREES THROUGH THERE.
WE CAN LOOK AT THAT TOO IF IT'S ABOUT GETTING INTO [INAUDIBLE] OF THAT.
THOSE TREES ARE COUNTED AND NUMBERED AND IDENTIFIED, AND THERE'S A NOTE ON THAT THAT SAYS, THIS ONE TO BE REMOVED, THIS ONE TO BE KEPT.
>> I THINK THAT CODE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BOULEVARD TREES.
I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT FROM A BARE LAND STANDPOINT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING IF THEY'RE SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN.
IT'S LIKELY APPROPRIATE WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED.
BUT IT'S GOOD TO GET THAT DISCUSSED.
>> ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> WELL, I GUESS ASKING THE APPLICANT, I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH MY QUESTION ON THAT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE OPPOSED TO ADDING 13 TREES, IF THAT'S WHERE WE END UP.
THEN IF THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ASKED THEN THAT'S WHAT CAN BE DONE.
>> I'D SAY ONLY IF IT MAKES SENSE.
[01:35:02]
IT'S ADDING A BUNCH OF TREES UP AGAINST MATURE TREES IN ORDER TO FIT THEM IN, THEN I WOULDN'T.I PUSH BACK AGAINST THAT, BUT WE'D HAVE TO REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS TO KNOW WHERE THOSE WOULD GO.
>> I KNOW IN THE PAST, WE'VE APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE METRIC FOR THE NUMBER OF TREES BASED ON THE LINEAR FEET OF THE ROAD, BUT THEY DON'T ALL HAVE TO BE IN A LINE ON THE BOULEVARD.
THEY CAN BE SPREAD OUT THROUGH.
IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL TREES TO ADD TO THE SITES, LIKE AROUND THE HOUSE PADS OR SOMETHING, MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THE ADDITIONAL 13 COULD COME IN.
BECAUSE I THINK I DO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT WOULD BE SILLY TO JUST SQUEEZE IN MORE TREES RIGHT ON THE BOULEVARD IF THERE'S ALREADY TREES THERE.
>> THAT WAS MICHAEL ON THE QUESTION, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATION.
>> JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION, AND THIS MAY BE BOTH THE STAFF AND YOU AT THE SAME TIME.
WOULD THE PRIMARY ACCESS ROAD THAT GOES IN THE STREET THAT GOES IN, WOULD THAT BECOME A IMPERVIOUS BLACKTOP STREET, AND WOULD THAT BE A PUBLIC OR WOULD THAT BE A PRIVATE?
>> IT'S PRIVATE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE PAVED.
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> WELL, I JUST MAKE A SUGGESTION, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY, OF COURSE, WHICH, EVENTUALLY, YOU'LL BE MOVING INTO A FINAL.
BUT BEFORE YOU GET THERE, LOOKING AT YOU'RE PLANNING ON A LANDSCAPING FEATURE CLOSE TO THE ENTRY TO THE ROAD FROM HIGHWAY COUNTY SIX.
I JUST WANTED TO A CAUTION, I HAD A NEAR MISS ON ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED FOR SOME TIME.
BUT THEY HAVE A STRUCTURE LIKE THAT, AND THEY HAVE A LARGE SIGN WITH THEIR NAME ON IT AND EVERYTHING, WHICH IS GREAT SO THAT PEOPLE YOU CAN SEE WHERE TO TURN AND ALL THAT.
BUT IN ADDITION TO PEOPLE ENTERING, IT'S NOW FULLY DEVELOPED.
THEY HAVE CARS THAT ARE LEAVING, TOO.
I WAS JUST GOING DOWN THE ROAD, AND THEN THIS CAR PULLS OUT FROM BEHIND THE SIGN.
YOU GAVE VERY LITTLE WARNING BECAUSE OF THE SIGN GETS IN THE WAY OF THE SIGHT LINE.
MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IF YOU CAN MOVE THAT SIGN FAR ENOUGH SOUTH SO THAT TRAFFIC ON COUNTY SIX CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING WHEN PEOPLE, SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED, AND YOU HAVE CARS COMING IN AND OUT SO THAT YOU HAVE A GOOD SIGHT LINE.
>> IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THE POST OFFICE COMES OUT AND THEY PUT MAILBOX THERE.
WE'VE HAD THE SAME THING WHERE I LIVE, AND WE HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME WATCHING TRAFFIC COMING IN FROM THE LEFT.
>> WE'VE INTERACTED WITH THE COUNTY AND THEY HAVE, IT'S NOT A SET CRITERIA, BUT THEY HAD A SUGGESTED 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT'S WHAT THAT REFLECTS IN FRONT OF THAT.
>> THEN I THINK THERE'S A MAXIMUM SIZE FOR THAT SIGN AS WELL, I CAN'T QUITE REMEMBER THAT RIGHT NOW.
IN ORDER TO WARD AGAINST THAT VISIBILITY CONCERN.
WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THAT.
>> JUST ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION.
ASSUMING MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I THINK IS NICE AND LINEAR, AND IT'S VERY RESPECTFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE, WOULD YOU BE DEVELOPING THESE LOTS YOURSELF OR WOULD YOU OFFER THEM TO THE BUILDER COMMUNITY, ANY PLANS FOR SPEC HOMES TO BE BUILT?
>> WE'LL BE OBVIOUSLY BRINGING IN THE ROAD AND DOING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STORMWATER AND ANY LANDSCAPING AND TREE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THERE.
BUT REALLY, WE'RE TRYING NOT TO OVERLY AFFECT THE LOTS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MATURE TREES.
THEN WE'LL BE SELLING LOTS TO, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER BUILDER, SO THERE IS US AND ANOTHER BUILDER THAT WILL BE BUILDING OUT THE COMMUNITY AND WE MAY DO SPEC HOMES.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT.
IT MIGHT BE ONE EACH, SO THAT'S JUST OUR INTENT WE HAVEN'T COMMITTED TO THAT.
[01:40:01]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS, IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GOOD EVENING, I'M TOM SAWYER, 3405 COUNTY ROAD SIX.
THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE EAST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> RECALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN REFERRING TO ABOUT..
NANCY SAYER WE'VE BEEN AT 3405 COUNTY ROAD SIX FOR 28 YEARS AND THAT'S WHERE THE HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS CAME.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF HISTORY THERE.
>> OKAY. THEN YOU DO YOUR THING AND I'LL SAY MY THING.
>> OKAY. WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 1996 WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 28 YEARS.
THAT'S OUR GRAVEL DRIVEWAY, AND THEN FURTHER ON THE PROPERTY LINES FOLLOW THAT.
WHEN WE MOVED IN WE'RE GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE LADSTRUMS, RICHARD AND GAYLE, AND THEY'VE SINCE DEPARTED, AND THE PROPERTY BECAME THEIR DAUGHTERS WHO LIVES IN WEST VIRGINIA.
WHEN WE FIRST MOVED IN, I SAW THIS FENCE LINE AND THE UTILITY LINES, AND ETC.
I MADE SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THAT BEING OUR PROPERTY, I DIDN'T CHECK IT OUT.
THIS PROBABLY ISN'T THE FIRST TIME AND SO I STARTED PLANTING TREES.
ALONG THAT DRIVEWAY, I HAVE 28 ARBVITS AND 15 SPRUCE TREES ALL MATURE.
THE INTENT THEN WAS, WELL, I DON'T OWN THIS PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, ANTICIPATING THAT SOMEDAY THAT MIGHT BE SUBDIVIDED AND DEVELOPED BECAUSE IF WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT BEFORE, I WILL PLANT A NATURAL BUFFER AND SO, WHATEVER HAPPENS THERE WE'RE OKAY.
WELL, LAW AND BEHOLD, THAT'S AN OUT LOT WE DON'T OWN THAT PROPERTY AND WE FOUND THIS OUT ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO.
BOTH LADSTRUMS AND US TREATED THAT AS OUR PROPERTY.
BUT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF WHO OWNS IT BECAUSE OF THE FENCE AND ALL OF THAT.
NOW WE HAVE THIS BUILT IN BUFFER, BUT IT'S NOT ON OUR PROPERTY, SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO ASK FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT OF RETAINING THOSE TREES.
THEY JUST PRETTY MUCH LINE UP ALONG THE DRIVEWAY, THEY DON'T TAKE UP THE WHOLE OUT LOT.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE STAFF AND THE BUILDER, AND THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
BUT I WANTED TO BE ON RECORD SAYING HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR US AS THE LONE NEIGHBOR, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AT THIS POINT, THAT PROTECTION THAT'S ALREADY THERE BE MAINTAINED AND RETAINED AND IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO US THAT THAT BE THE CASE BUT, THINGS HAPPEN.
THE PRIVACY IS IMPORTANT TO US SINCE WE'RE STAYING.
WE'VE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, AND WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF LEAVING AND WE REALLY WANT TO RETAIN THAT TREE BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE DEVELOPMENT.
LIKE I SAY, NOBODY'S ARGUING AGAINST THAT, BUT IT'S HOW TO DO IT SO THAT WE'RE SECURE KNOWING THAT WHILE SOMEBODY BUYS THE PROPERTY, LEGALLY, THOSE TREES ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY, AND SAY THEY DON'T SHARE MY INTEREST IN TREES, AND THEY WANT TO CUT THAT DOWN TO TRY TO IMPROVE THEIR VIEW OF THE LAKE.
AT A CERTAIN POINT IT GETS OUT OF MY CONTROL, AND THAT'S WORRISOME AND THERE'S ANOTHER REASON THAT WE REALLY WANT THE PRIVACY.
MY WIFE, DANCY WILL ADDRESS THAT, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH A NONPROFIT THAT WE'VE STARTED.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD, HONEY.
>> I HAVE SOME HANDOFFS BY THE WAY.
I HAVE A HISTORY OF HIGH RISK OBSTETRICS NURSING AND WITH THAT HIGH RISK, OBSTETRICS CAME LOSS AND WE ENDED UP STARTING ABOUT 12 OR 13 YEARS AGO OPENING A NONPROFIT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST BABIES OR CHILDREN.
WE HAVE OVER 280 BABIES AND CHILDREN MEMORIALIZED IN WITHIN 16 GARDENS ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE TREES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ARE A GREAT BARRIER OR A NATURAL BARRIER BETWEEN US AND ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
ONE PARTICULAR GARDEN, WHICH OVERLOOKS THE POND THAT IS,
[01:45:05]
YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP PLUS THE LAKE IS REALLY AFFECTED BY ANY CHANGES IN THE TREE LINE.WHAT WE DO WITH A NONPROFIT IS MEMORIALIZE THESE BABIES VIA LITTLE PLAQUES AND THE FAMILIES AND FRIENDS CAN COME AND VISIT.
ONCE THEY'VE BEEN, THEY CAN COME AND VISIT AND JUST MEDITATE AND HEAL AND WE'VE ALSO OPENED IT TO BASICALLY THE PUBLIC DURING COVID BECAUSE OF THE NICE OPEN, PEACEFUL NATURE.
THAT'S MAINLY OUR INVESTMENT IN MAINTAINING WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY, AND WE'VE MADE PLANS TO CONTINUE, THAT THE GARDEN SLEEPING ANGELS WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST FOR THE PUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER? GREAT.
>> JUST ONE OTHER THING. BUT WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS SOME OF THIS IS IN PROCESS.
BUT OF COURSE, I'M PRETTY CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE AND YOU CAN TELL WHERE OUR HOUSE IS IT'S LOW.
PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED USE AT THIS POINT.
BUT IT'S THERE AND WE'RE THERE AND WE DEAL WITH WATER IN THE SPRING AND LAKE [INAUDIBLE] EBBS AND FLOWS IN THE POND THAT YOU SEE.
OFTENTIMES THAT POND WILL FILL UP AND BACK UP INTO MY BACKYARD AND SO I ALREADY HAVE WATER ISSUES.
THE DRAINAGE PLAN IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE I'M DOWNHILL FROM PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
I TALKED TO THE BUILDERS TODAY, AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THINGS TO MITIGATE.
ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WE JUST WANT TO PROTECT WHAT WE HAVE, IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM ANYBODY ELSE.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, CAN YOU PULL UP THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN?
>> THE AREAS IN GRAY ARE PROPOSED.
>> THOSE ARE THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION AREAS.
>> JUST BASED ON THE NEIGHBOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM EXTENDING THAT PRESERVATION SO IT DOES PROTECT THESE TREES THAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING?
>> NO. THE MAIN TREES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED ARE IN THAT EASTERN SIDE.
WE SPOKE TODAY ABOUT EXTENDING IT NORTH, THE ARBORVITAE JUST TO THE WEST OF THAT NEW OUT-LOT, THE PROPOSED OUT-LOT.
IT'S BETWEEN THAT FENCE AND THAT NEW PROPERTY LINE IS WHERE THE ARBORVITAE SIT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM EXTENDING THAT.
WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER WELL, AND OUR INTENT IS TO PRESERVE ALL OF THAT AS WELL.
>> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. THE GOOD THING ABOUT BUFFER TREES IS FOR EVERY REASON THE NEIGHBOR WANTS THOSE, THE NEW OWNER IS GOING TO WANT THOSE TREES AS WELL.
HOPEFULLY, THAT'S MOVING FORWARD.
IF THAT'S OKAY TO EXTEND THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY NEIGHBORLY.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE.
>> ONE REASON THAT THE NEW LOT OWNER MAY WANT TO WOULD BE A VIEW OF THAT LAKE.
THAT MIGHT BE A REASON FOR THOSE TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR THE NEXT LOT OWNER.
THAT WOULD BE ONE THING THAT MIGHT TRIGGER THAT.
I DON'T KNOW. MY QUESTION IS MORE SO FOR STAFF ON THIS.
NOT THAT YOU WOULD, BUT YOU CAN'T REARRANGE THE LOT AREA BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT FOR YOUR MINIMUMS, BUT COULD YOU DO A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR THOSE ARBORVITAES SO THEN THE NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE THE RIGHTS TO NOT ONLY ACCESS BUT MAINTAIN THEM? ANYTHING LIKE THAT? ANY IDEAS? I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX THAT WOULD ALSO PROTECT THOSE TREES, BUT STILL MAINTAIN THE LOT.
>> THE TREE PRESERVATION DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE LOT AREA.
>> NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TREE PRESERVATION.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS JUST HAVING INTEREST IN WANTING TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARBORVITAES, AS MANY OF THEM AS THERE WERE, DO NOT GET TORN DOWN IN THE FUTURE.
IF THEY DON'T OWN THE LAND, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHTS TO DECIDE THAT LATER ON.
[01:50:01]
>> TRUE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW THE DEVELOPER PLANS TO STRUCTURE THAT TREE PRESERVATION.
THEY COULD DRAFT A TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE NEIGHBOR, WHICH THE NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PLAN IS AND WHO CAN CHANGE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
>> IF I CAN, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE COVENANTS THAT DICTATES WHAT THEY CAN'T DO WITH THAT.
THEY CAN MAINTAIN IT, BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THEY CAN'T DO, AT LEAST WITH THAT EXISTING AREA, AND SO WE WOULD JUST EXTEND THAT.
IT NAMES THAT AREA AS THAT ZONE.
WE WOULD JUST EXTEND THAT ZONE AND THEN THAT WOULD RESTRICT EITHER THE HOMEOWNER ON LOT 5 OR LOT 6 FROM TEARING DOWN OR [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION?
>> NO. FOR THAT, IT WOULD BE THE OWNERS ON LOT 5 AND 6.
>> WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING IT?
IT GETS TO THAT THING WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA DELINEATED, BUT IF THAT HOMEOWNER IS THERE AND THERE'S NO SIGN AND THEY DON'T READ THE CCR ON THEIR PROPERTY, LET'S CUT THESE DOWN AND HAVE A LAKE VIEW, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW.
THEN ONCE THEY'RE DOWN, THEY'RE DOWN.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT TREE PRESERVATION PLAN? IT'S A CCR, SO IT RUNS WITH THE TITLE OF THE LAND.
BUT WHO'S ENFORCING THAT IF SOMEONE INFRINGES IT?
>> I WOULD ALSO HAVE [OVERLAPPING]. [BACKGROUND] NO.
I'M THINKING OUT LOUD, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THE NEIGHBORS WHO WE JUST HEARD FROM THAT HAVE PLANTED THOSE TREES WOULD NOT BE A PARTY TO THE CCRS OF THAT HOA.
THAT COULD PRESENT SOME ISSUES AS WELL IF SOMEONE ON LOT 5 OR 6 CUT DOWN ON THE OTHER FOUR OR FIVE HOMEOWNERS SAID, WE DON'T CARE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT AS THE HOA.
THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST WOULD NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A PARTY TO THAT LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENTATION.
>> I GUESS THAT'S WHERE THE LEAD OF MY QUESTION WAS GIVES THEM LEGAL RIGHTS TO ALSO MAINTAIN THE GROUNDS [NOISE] WITHOUT DISRUPTING THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS A PRE-LIMB, SO JUST MORE SO THIS IS JUST DIALOGUE.
TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH AND WHAT CAN WORK, BUT JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH IDEAS THAT WOULD BE NEIGHBORLY.
BUT, AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO WHICHEVER APPLICATION WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHERE IF YOU HAVE LAND THAT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU STILL HAVE LAND THAT MEETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BE AS NEIGHBORLY AS POSSIBLE AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT STRUCTURE AND PROTECTION IS IN PLACE TO GIVE THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT ZONE, TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE FUTURE OWNER, AND GIVE IT TO THE NEIGHBOR, TO THE SAWYERS AT THIS POINT SEEMS FINE NOW UNTIL YOU'RE THE ONE THAT OWNS THOSE TWO LOTS BECAUSE THE REVERSE COULD HAPPEN.
THEY COULD TAKE THEM DOWN AS WELL THEN OR DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.
THE OWNERS OF LOT 5 AND 6 WOULDN'T HAVE RECOURSE EITHER.
>> THE HOPE IS THAT EVERYONE WANTS THE SAME OUTCOME AND THAT THERE'S PROTECTIONS IN PLACE TO PROTECT THAT.
>> WELL, IT'S THE OLD SAYING THAT IF YOU WANT TO CONTROL, YOU OWN IT.
THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S ALWAYS THAT MIDDLE GROUND WHERE IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE GOT TO GET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE YOU CAN START TALKING ABOUT REDRAWING LOT LINES, SELL THAT PORTION, REPARCEL IT.
THAT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS IF YOU DO THAT.
NOT THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO DO THAT.
SO MORE JUST BRAINSTORMING WAYS THAT MIGHT WORK FOR EVERYBODY.
>> THERE'S A WAY TO STILL GIVE THE CONTROL OF THAT ZONE TO THE FUTURE OWNERS WOULD HAVE MORE BITE, WE'D BE UP FOR THAT. JUST A WAY TO HELP.
[NOISE] I'VE BEEN A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR 30 YEARS.
IN THAT TIME, I'VE PROBABLY SOLD TWO DOZEN PROPERTIES THAT INCORPORATED CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN THE FORMATION OF THE ORIGINAL HOA.
THE TIME TO DO THAT WOULD BE WHEN THE HOA IS FORMING ITS RULES, REGULATIONS, BYLAWS, AND SO ON.
I THINK THE SAWYERS TOOK THE RIGHT APPROACH TALKING TO YOU DIRECTLY AS THE DEVELOPERS.
I THINK WHAT THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT AND THEY WERE REACHING OUT FOR WAS MUNICIPAL SUPPORT FOR THIS.
HAVING BOTH SOLD THESE KIND OF PROPERTIES MULTIPLE TIMES WHERE THE INHERITED CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS HONORED AND ENFORCED,
[01:55:02]
SO I DON'T SEE SOMEONE COMING IN AS A NEW HOMEOWNER, BUILDING IT, CUTTING THE TREES DOWN, OR 10 YEARS LATER, THE NEXT OWNER COMING IN.BECAUSE ONCE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS CREATED AND IT'S REGISTERED, IT STAYS IN PLACE.
FOR THE SAWYERS TO BE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THIS IS IDEAL AND, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN VERY CLOSE AND PERSONAL IN MY OWN PROPERTY, WHICH BORDERED THE JACOBS ESTATE IN ORONO, WHERE THEY REMOVED 140 LEGACY BIG WOODS TREES, MUCH TO MY CHAGRIN, AND DISCOMFORT.
THE CITY OF ORONO, EXCEPT FOR THE 75-FOOT SETBACK, DOES REALLY NOT INTERFERE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM TO WHAT A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER DOES WITH THEIR TREE COVER.
IT'S JUST BEEN POLICY AND HOW THE CITY HAS CONDUCTED THEMSELVES.
YOU FOLKS PARLAYING TOGETHER IS THE REAL SECRET SAUCE TO MAKE THIS WORK OUT TO BOTH INDIVIDUALS' BENEFIT.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING AN OPEN-MINDEDNESS TO TALK TO YOUR [LAUGHTER] NEW NEIGHBORS.
IT'S MORE IN THE SPIRIT OF HOW I LIKE TO SEE THINGS DONE IN THAT MANNER.
>> TO MR. RESSLER'S POINT, THE EASEMENT DISCUSSION, THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE SOMETHING BETWEEN YOU AS THE DEVELOPER, THE NEW HOMEOWNERS, AND THE SAWYERS NOT INVOLVING THE CITY.
BUT I HAVE SEEN EASEMENTS AS WELL THAT ARE GRANTED TILL THE DURATION OF THE SAWYERS RESIDE IN THE RESIDENCE OR OWN THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S MAYBE A MULTITUDE OF WAYS THAT YOU COULD DO THAT THAT OFFER SOME FLEXIBILITY ON BOTH SIDES.
JUST IDEAS, CERTAINLY, NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN IN THE MANAGEMENT OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> WE CAN BE MORALLY SUPPORTIVE BUT NOT TECHNICALLY SUPPORTIVE.
>> ANYWAY, SO CARRYING ON WITH THE PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK, I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE LOOKS GOOD, LOOKS NICE, IT'S WELL THOUGHT OUT.
IT'D BE GREAT IF WE COULD FIND ROOM FOR THOSE OTHER 13 TREES, WHETHER THEY'RE ON THE BOULEVARD OR ELSEWHERE JUST BECAUSE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE LIKE TO KEEP TREES AND KEEP THAT CONSISTENT.
I THINK THAT SMOOTHS OUT A LOT OF THINGS.
IF IT'S NOT DIFFICULT, THEN THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR APPROVAL.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER FEEDBACK OTHERWISE.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS?
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, AND THEY HAVE THREE CONDITIONS.
ONE IS THE WATERSHED DISTRICT APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND DELINEATION AND THE STORMWATER PLAN.
TWO IS AN UPDATED SEPTIC DESIGN.
THREE IS AN UPDATED LANDSCAPING AND TREE PLAN.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH ALL OF THAT?
>> THE LANDSCAPING AND TREE PLAN IS PROBABLY SPECIFIC TO THE 13 TREES WE'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WHAT'S THE FIRST ONE?
>> THERE WAS SOME SEPTIC COMMENTS.
>> BUT THE FIRST ONE, MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, YES, ABSOLUTELY.
WE KNOW WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS AND WORK THROUGH THAT.
YES. THEN THE SEPTIC, I THINK THERE WAS JUST SOME DISCREPANCY.
IN THE END, IT SAYS THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO HAVE TO DO A NEW SEPTIC PLAN.
IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT RAN RIGHT THROUGH THE SEPTIC SITES.
BUT IT WAS THE FORMER DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT, NOT THE FUTURE, THE PROPOSED, AND SO IT WON'T BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT.
>> YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS.
>> I DID HAVE I GUESS, COMMENTS ON THE CONSERVATION DESIGN PIECE OF THIS, AND HOW THIS CORRIDOR IS A RURAL OASIS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE RURAL OASIS AS HAVING A CLOSED ENCLOSURE CORRIDOR.
>> IT'S REFERENCED AS OPEN ENCLOSURE.
BASICALLY, IT'S A RURAL CORRIDOR.
IT'S IDENTIFIED AS A PROTECTED CORRIDOR IN THAT RURAL OASIS STUDY FOR THE RURAL MAJOR OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND A PROTECTED VIEWSHED OF THAT.
[02:00:03]
>> CORRECT. MY ONLY THOUGHT IS THIS ENTRY MONUMENT, AND I KNOW WE'VE BROUGHT IT UP THE SPLIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY CONFORMING WITH THE IDEA OF THIS TRYING TO PROTECT THE VIEWSHED OF THE PEOPLE DRIVING BY AND KEEPING IT RURAL.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY, I GUESS.
DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK THE SAME THING? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE ENTRY MONUMENT BEING A PLUS AND A MINUS AS FAR AS VIEWSHED FOR THE TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND I DO THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SET UP IN A WAY WHERE IT DOES CONSERVE THE VIEWS BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY RIGHT WHERE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY USED TO BE.
BUT THAT ENTRY THAT'S UP THERE, IS THAT WHAT IS CONSISTENT WITH A RURAL OASIS VIEWSHED? THAT'S, I GUESS, THE QUESTION, AND, I GUESS, STAFF WAS THE ONE THAT POINTED THAT OUT.
I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT IT IS.
I FEEL LIKE I'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE LESS SIGNAGE THERE AND JUST MORE OF A NATURAL ENTRANCE, AND THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC ISSUE THAT MIGHT HAPPEN THERE. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD ONE COMMENT TO THAT ABOUT A SIMILAR FEATURE ON A RELATIVELY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN MOONEY LAKE FURTHER EAST ALONG COUNTY ROAD 6, THE SAME CORRIDOR.
THEY DO HAVE A VERY SIMILAR FEATURE AT THEIR ENTRANCE POINT TOO.
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE SIGNAGE ON IT.
ON THE MOONEY LAKE, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S SIGNAGE THERE.
THIS LOOKS MORE OF A COMMERCIAL FEEL TO IT TO ME.
IT'S JUST RULES WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY, AND I'M JUST POINTING OUT WHAT'S IN MY HEAD ABOUT IT.
BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU, MELANIE, THAT IT'S SIMILAR TO THE ONE AT MOONEY LAKE.
THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS THAT ONE DOESN'T HAVE SIGNAGE.
>> I DO THINK THERE'S A NUMBER, AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ALONG COUNTY ROAD 6.
AS YOU GO UP AND DOWN, THEY DO HAVE SIGNAGE ON THEM STATING THE DEVELOPMENT.
SIZE WISE, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT COMPARISON.
>> I'D SAY, YEAH. IT WOULD BE WEST OF SUBMARINE.
>> I'D SAY THEIR INTENT IS TO DOWNPLAY THE SIGNAGE TOO.
OUR INTENT IS THAT IS MORE OF A PLAQUE WITHIN THE STONE STRUCTURE.
MAYBE IT DOESN'T REFLECT QUITE LIKE THAT IN THAT PICTURE AS I'M LOOKING AT IT, BUT IS TO JUST HAVE A PLAQUE THAT'S THERE AND THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN HAD A BIGGER, MORE, HONEY HILL SIGN.
WE'RE LIKE NO, FOR THE SAME REASONS, JUST WANTED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBDUED.
WE'RE UP FOR IT IF WE HAVE TO CHANGE SOMETHING, THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT IS [INAUDIBLE]
>> MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING FOR THE CITY JUST TO CONSIDER FOR THEIR OWN RULES OR GUIDELINES FOR THAT ZONING.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY ON LAS VEGAS SIGN THAT'S GOING TO BE HAVING ARROWS POINTING IN TO THE ENTRANCE.
>> I'M GUESSING IT'S GOING TO BE NICE AND TASTEFUL.
I GUESS, THE FEEDBACK IS, MAYBE YOU BRING UP MORE DETAIL WHEN YOU GET FURTHER ALONG AS TO WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND IT.
I GUESS SO INSTEAD OF JUST DIALOGUE.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO SIGNAGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS LONG AS IT LOOKS TASTEFUL AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT FITS IN.
>> THAT RURAL OASIS STUDY DOES IDENTIFY SIGNAGE TO AVOID NEGATIVE VIEWS, SO THAT CAN INCLUDE THINGS LIKE LANDSCAPING AND PLANTINGS AND THAT TYPES OF THINGS.
THOSE ARE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED IF YOU'RE DOING SOME SIGNAGE.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE PROPOSING SOME OF IT, BUT MAYBE A CLEAR DETAIL FOR THE COUNCIL AND WITH THEIR COMMENTS.
BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RURAL OASIS STUDY TO ACCOMMODATE TO MITIGATE ANY OF THE NON-RURAL IMPROVEMENTS.
>> ALSO A VENTURE, YES, THE PRICE TAG, YOU'VE BEEN PUTTING ON THOSE PIECES OF PROPERTY, AS IF SOMEBODY OWNS THEM, IT'S NOT LAS VEGAS, UNDERSTOOD YOU'LL BE PUTTING UP THERE.
YOU WANT IT TO BE UNDERSTATED.
>> THAT'S RIGHT THERE. SIGNIFIES IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD BUT HAVE IT UNDERSTATED.
[02:05:03]
>> WELL, SO MR. CHAIR, IS THIS ONE WHERE WE WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT?
>> IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE IS CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSION AND THERE ARE SOME OUTLYING THINGS, I THINK, WITH EXTENDING THE TREE CONSERVATION AREA, ADDING THE ADDITIONAL BOULEVARD TREES, NOT HAVING TO BE ON THE BOULEVARD, BUT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING WE'VE DISCUSSED.
>> SURE. IF I CAN CLEAN THAT UP JUST FOR A MINUTE.
THE TALK ABOUT THE TREE CONSERVATION AREA, I THINK IS MORE OF A NEIGHBORLY DISCUSSION PROBABLY THAN A REQUIREMENT IN MY PERSPECTIVE.
I'M OKAY MOTIONING TO APPROVE IT WITHOUT THAT AS A STIPULATION AND ENCOURAGE DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO TRY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE USABLE THERE.
BUT AS FAR AS THE TREE PRESERVATION MAP AS APPLIED, I THINK IT MEETS OUR REQUIREMENTS, SO I'M NOT FEELING LIKE I NEED TO MAKE THAT AS A STIPULATION.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A STIPULATION THAT WE MEET THE 13 THAT ARE MISSING OF BOULEVARD TREES, NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY NEED TO BE ON THE BOULEVARD.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF MY MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS ANY OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE REQUIRE ANYWAY.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION?
>> NOT AS LONG AS IT'S FRIENDLY.
>> TO EXTEND THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA NORTHWARD ALONG THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY OUT LOT.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. TO JOHN'S POINT, IT'S BETWEEN THEM.
BUT AT SOME POINT, THERE'S A BUYER FOR THAT LOT, AND THEY MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THE LAKE AND DECIDE THAT ALL THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE DEVELOPER DON'T AFFECT THEM.
I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD INCLUDE IT.
>> IT'S ONE MORE THING WE CAN DO AS A CITY TO HELP.
I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT IF THE TREES GET CUT DOWN, BUT AT LEAST WE DID WHAT WE COULD AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO IT.
IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT ON YOUR MOTION?
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE THE ONES ENFORCING THAT, WHETHER IT'S INCLUDED OR NOT.
>> THE QUESTION IS, CAN WE STIPULATE?
>> WELL, WE CAN STIPULATE, BUT WE CAN'T ENFORCE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
>> I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO THE COUNCIL THAT WAY, AND THEN THEY CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO PUT TEETH IN THAT OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
>> CAN YOU MAKE IT A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION? [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, IT'S ALREADY BEEN PUT ON RECORD.
IT'S OUR JOB TO EITHER IMPROVE OR DENY THE PLANS, AND WE DO HAVE DISCRETION ON THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA.
WHETHER WE ENFORCE IT OR NOT, BECAUSE CLEARLY, WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT ONCE IT'S BUILT AND DONE, IT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS, BUT AT LEAST WHEN IT'S HERE IN FRONT OF US, AND THERE'S WILLINGNESS FROM THE DEVELOPER.
>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT, JOHN, ON YOUR MOTION?
>> I WOULD RE-SECOND WITH THAT STIPULATION. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
>> WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT THE APPLE CART OF MR. CHAIR, SO I WOULD BE WILLING TO AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT AS WELL.
IT SOUNDS THAT WE HAVE A SECOND TO INCLUDE THAT AS WELL.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'RE PERFECT.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED WITH THE ADDITIONAL 13 TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND TO EXTEND NORTH THE TREE PRESERVATION, ALONG THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY LOT. CORRECT?
>> NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M ASSUMING.
LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? HEAR NONE MOTION CARRIES.
>> DON'T WANT TO END UP IN YOUR DOG HOUSE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
[02:10:10]
[5.6. #LA24-000031, Peter Eskuche, 3120 North Shore Drive, Variance (Natalie Nye)]
3120 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE, MISS NAYE.>> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK EXPANSION.
THE EXISTING LAKESIDE DECK DIRECTLY ABUTS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO EXPAND THE DECK LAKEWARD, AND THEREFORE, THE NEW DECKWARD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
AT THE MOST IN THIS CORNER, IT WILL APPROACH SIX FEET, ON THIS SIDE, I BELIEVE IT'S FOUR FEET NINE INCHES.
THE PROPOSED DECK IS OVER 115 FEET FROM THE OHWL AND WOULD MEET ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING HARDCOVER.
THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THE EXISTING DECK SHAPE IS SHALLOW AND AWKWARD AND PROVIDED SUPPORT LETTERS FROM BOTH NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE.
STAFF FINDS THE MINIMUM EXPANSION DOES NOT IMPACT LAKE VIEWS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ENJOYED BY THE NEIGHBORS, AND THEREFORE, HER STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE AS A [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS RICK BORN, I AM THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T REALLY WISH TO SPEAK, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ANYBODY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> I GOT NEIGHBOR APPROVAL, SEEMS LIKE A GREAT PROJECT I'D BE FOR THIS.
>> THE INTENT OF THAT ORDINANCE IS TO PROTECT LAKE VIEWS, AND THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THAT AT ALL FOR ANYONE. MR. LIBBY?
>> I OWNED A HOUSE ON THIS BLOCK.
I WATCHED THIS HOUSE BEING BUILT.
I VISITED IT ANY NUMBER OF TIMES, SO I'M FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THE UNIQUE AND ASTOUNDING ARCHITECTURE OF IT, AND I REALLY DO BELIEVE THE STAFF IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY IN THE FACT THAT THIS DOES NOT REALLY HAVE ANY DEROGATORY EFFECT AT ALL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND I'D BE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I WOULD EVEN WHEN TIME COMES, BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> THIS MIGHT BE YOUR TIME. I DIDN'T ENTERTAIN A MOTION I THINK.
>> ANY MORE DISCUSSION? [LAUGHTER]
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SUMMARIZE THAT THE HARD COVER IS ALLOWED.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ANYTHING MORE THAN JUST THAT LOT THAT SETBACK, SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF AS WELL, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD APPROVED OTHERS LIKE THIS.
GO AHEAD, MR. LIBBY, I THINK YOUR TIME IS READY.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED, L24-31, 31-20 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KIRSCHNER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NONE. LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
BRINGS US TO OUR SEVENTH ITEM OF TONIGHT, LA 24-32.
[5.7. #LA24-000032, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, Variances (Natalie Nye)]
GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES.>> HI, THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT, GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH IS REQUESTING SIGN AREA VARIANCES FOR A NEW DIGITAL SIGN.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A FREESTANDING SIGN SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
THE EXISTING SIGN HAS A MANUAL CHANGEABLE COPY PORTION.
THE EXISTING SIGN IS LARGER THAN WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED TODAY.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 40 SQUARE FEET, AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN THIS DISTRICT IS 32 SQUARE FEET.
THE CITY CODE ALLOWS FOR CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS, BUT LIMITS THEM TO 35% OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE SIGN.
THE EXISTING SIGN DOES NOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.
IT'S AT ABOUT 60% CHANGEABLE COPY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE SIGN,
[02:15:04]
SAME LOCATION, SAME SIGN BASE, SAME SIZE.INSTEAD OF A CHANGEABLE COPY AREA, THEY ARE PROPOSING A DIGITAL DISPLAY.
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE MANUAL COPY SIGN IS DIFFICULT TO UPDATE, ESPECIALLY IN COLD WEATHER MONTHS AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR EFFICIENT AND QUICK COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONGREGATION.
THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET AND ARE INVISIBLE DISTANCE OF THE DIGITAL PROPOSED DIGITAL SIGN.
THE REQUEST IS TO REPLACE THE SIGN WITH A NEW SIGN OF THE SAME SIZE OF A DIGITAL DISPLAY INSTEAD OF A CHANGEABLE COPY, BUT THAT WILL EXCEED THE 35% REQUIREMENT.
STAFF FINDS THE APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND WOULD NOT BE OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA ALONG SHORELINE DRIVE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
I'M THE PASTOR OR THE LEAD PASTOR AT GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN, 37/45 SHORELINE DRIVE, AND NOTHING MORE TO ADD.
THANKS TO MISS NAYE FOR YOUR HELP.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE. THANK YOU.
>> 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, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS IS THERE'S AN EXISTING SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY OF A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THAT'S GRANDFATHERED IN.
IT'S THERE, AND THEY'RE BASICALLY REPLACING THAT CHANGEABLE COPY WITH A BETTER METHOD SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.
>> MAYBE UNEARTH SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS FAR AS HOW OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN FOR AS SIGNAGE.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF COMMERCIAL AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN ORA.
WHEN IT DOES COME UP, IT'S WELL, GEEZ, WHY WAS THIS THING IN THE FIRST PLACE? I THINK OF THE GAS STATION ONE, WHERE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE IT'S THAT BIG OF AN EGREGIOUS STEP TO DO THAT.
THIS LOOKS VERY TASTEFUL, AND I APPRECIATE STAFF, CALLING OUT THAT THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BECAUSE EMITTING LIGHT FROM A DIGITAL SIGN CAN BE AN ISSUE OF CONCERN, BUT THAT WAS NOTED, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AND WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO MAYBE A VISIT TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE WE CAN CLEAN UP AND OUR CODE FOR THAT.
>> I'M ALSO IN FAVOR. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PRACTICAL MATTERS HERE, I THINK THAT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.
ONE, GOING TO AN LED, LOW CONSUMPTION LIGHTING REALLY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
LOWER ELECTRIC BILLS, LOWER COSTS FOR THE CHURCH.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT IF THE PASSER IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO GO OUT THERE IN MIDDLE JANUARY TO CHANGES THE SIGN, I WOULD THINK THAT A GOODLY AMOUNT OF REMOTE CONTROL.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] I HAD IN FAVOR.
>> I DIDN'T TEACH THAT SEMINARY?
>> WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMISSION IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.
>> BASED ON THAT, I'D MAKE A MOTION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KIRSCHNER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
THIS BRINGS US TO OUR EIGHTH PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NIGHT,
[5.8. #LA24-000033, Brian & Sarah Muhlbauer, 1448 Baldur Park Road - Variances and CUP (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]
LA 24-33, RYAN AND SARAH MAL BAUER, 1448 BOULDER PARK ROAD.THIS IS FOR VARIANCES AND A CUP. MS. CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANTS REQUEST VARIANCE APPROVALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO BUILD A NEW HOME LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH, VARIANCE, REAR YARD SETBACK, DRIVEWAY WIDTH, HARD COVER EXCEEDING 25%, AS WELL AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DEVIATION FROM
[02:20:04]
THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT PERIMETER RESCUE BENCH AS A RESULT OF ELEVATING THE HOME ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.THE APPLICANTS HAVE REQUESTED THESE VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO AND HALF STORY HOME.
IT IS PROPOSED TO MEET ALL OF THE SETBACKS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REAR WHERE ABOUT A TWO AND HALF SQUARE FOOT TRIANGLE WILL ENCROACH INTO THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK BY ABOUT 18 INCHES.
AS DRAWN, THEIR PLAN DOES REFLECT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE LIMIT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY WHEN IT CROSSES THE PROPERTY LINE TO 20 FEET, THEY ARE SHOWING 24.5 CURRENTLY.
THE VARIANCE FOR HARD COVER IS RESULTING IN A REDUCTION FROM THE EXISTING 33.1%.
THE LOT WITH AND AREA VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROCESSED AS A RESULT OF THE OTHER VARIANCE REQUESTS.
THE LOW ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY IS DRIVING THEIR NEED TO ELEVATE THE HOUSE.
THE HOUSE ISN'T IN THE FLOOD PLAIN ITSELF, BUT IN ORDER TO GET THE PROPER DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE HOME, THEY ARE ELEVATING IT, AND THAT ELEVATION WITH THAT FLOOD PLAIN CONTOUR THAT'S SHOWN IN RED AS IT SURROUNDS KIND OF THE PROPERTY REQUIRES THAT ELEVATION BE MAINTAINED FOR 15 FEET AROUND THE BUILDING.
THE CODE DOES HAVE AN EXCEPTION BUILT IN TO ALLOW THE CITY TO KIND OF VARY THAT, BUT IT IS A PROCESS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THERE IS A CONDITION BASED ON THE LOTS WIDTH, SO THAT IS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING FOR THAT REQUIREMENT.
THEY'VE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL FACTORS SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCE, THE LOT CONDITIONS, THE LOT SIZE, AND ELEVATION, THEIR INABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A BASEMENT FOR STORAGE BASED ON THE SHALLOW NATURE OF THE LOT, AS WELL AS THE PARKING LIMITATIONS ALONG BOULDER PARK ROAD, SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED.
STAFF AGREES AND FINDS THAT THERE ARE CHALLENGING ISSUES WITH THE SITE, THE DEPTH OF THE LOT AND THE NARROW CONFIGURATION ALONG THE CURVE SHORELINE AND THAT INTERSECTION OF BIRCH LANE AND BOULDER PARK ROAD AND THE LOW ELEVATION.
THEIR DRIVEWAY IS SHOWING THIS 24.5 FOOT CONNECTION.
THEY DO HAVE LIMITED PARKING ON STREET DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD LAYS OUT.
THEY'RE AT KIND OF THIS ENTRANCE POINT IN THE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO PARK IN GENERAL ON BALDER PARK.
THEY ARE SHOWING A 24.5 FOOT WIDTH.
THE STAFF IS SUGGESTING POTENTIALLY THAT THEY CAN NOTCH OUT THIS PORTION RIGHT AT THE ROAD.
ONCE YOU GET INTO THE PROPERTY, THEN THE DRIVEWAY CAN BE THAT WIDE NOW.
THEY ARE STILL ASKING FOR HARDCOVER VARIANCES, BUT THAT'S JUST A SOLUTION FOR THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH ISSUE.
THE OTHER ITEM THAT WAS IDENTIFIED DURING THE REVIEW, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE WAS THE APPLICANT'S INTENT WAS THE STRUCTURAL LEVEL.
20.1% IS PROPOSED, WHICH REALLY AMOUNTS TO 13.5 FEET OVER THE 20% COVERAGE.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS THEY CAN RESOLVE THAT, AND I THINK THEY ARE AMENABLE TO THAT.
THEY DID NOT INTEND TO GO OVER THAT LIMIT.
WE DISCUSSED IT I DISCUSSED IT WITH THE APPLICANT TODAY, AND THEY ARE OPEN TO DISCUSSING THOSE ISSUES.
THIS AREA HERE, THIS LITTLE TRIANGLE.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THEY CAN DO ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY CAN MOVE THE HOUSE UP BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE ROOM TO, THIS IS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, SO THEY CAN THEY CAN SCORCH THE HOME FORWARD.
HOWEVER, THAT DOES EQUAL MORE HARD COVER.
THEY'RE TRYING TO LIKE, FIT ALL THE THINGS INTO THE BALLOON WITHOUT POPPING IT ON THE LOT.
THE CONCERN WITH THAT 15 FOOT PERIMETER FILL ON A LOT LIKE THIS IS TYPICALLY THE GRADING RESULTING FROM THAT AND IMPACTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
OUR ENGINEER HAS TAKEN A LOOK AT THAT.
[02:25:01]
HE DOESN'T FEEL THIS GRADING PLAN WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.THE NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HAVE SIGNED THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, AND WE'VE RECEIVED SOME NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK OVER THE WEEKEND AND TODAY THAT I'VE DISTRIBUTED, I THINK YOU RECEIVED ONE OF THOSE IN YOUR OWN E MAILS, BUT I PRINTED OUT FOR YOU.
STAFF IS IN CONCLUSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW HOME.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING A REVISION OF THE DRIVEWAY AND A CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.
THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
I HAVE THEIR EXHIBITS THAT I CAN PUT ON THE SCREEN AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GO AHEAD.
>> MS. CURTIS, IF YOU JUST CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME.
I KNOW THAT I THINK YOU SAID, BUT I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.
THE STREET REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET REQUIRED, 29 PROPOSED.
WAS THERE A REASON IN THERE THAT WE COULDN'T GET TO THE 30? BESIDES JUST THAT APPLICATION.
>> AS I SAID, THEY WERE TRYING TO FIT EVERYTHING IN AND HAVE OPTED TO NOT MOVE THE HOUSE FORWARD.
THE GARAGE AS DESIGNED IS RELATIVELY TIGHT OR TWO CARS AND ANY STORAGE, WHICH THERE IS NONE AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THEIR CONCERN, AND THEY'VE PROVIDED SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY AND HOW THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE STORAGE.
NOT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THIS STORAGE, BUT THERE'S CURRENTLY EXCESSIVE OUTDOOR STORAGE AND JUST AN EYESORE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE THAT AND TUCK EVERYTHING IN.
MOVING IT FORWARD WOULD RESULT IN A TINY BIT MORE HARD COVER.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT AERIAL I JUST SAW A SECOND AGO?
>> YEAH. THE HOUSE WILL STILL BE EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL IN THE 29 THAT GARAGE, THAT'S A COUPLE FEET OFF OF THE YARD IT WILL BE GONE.
IT'S ACTUALLY IMPROVING QUITE A BIT BUT THEY DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THAT GARAGE.
>> CORRECT. DETACHED GARAGE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ONE'S IN A CONFORMING LOCATION OR NOT, BUT DEFINITELY THEIR HOME WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE WILL OFFER MORE SPACE FROM THE ROAD AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARKING AND THEN JUST NOT SO MUCH CROWDING ON THAT ROADWAY.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S WELL NOTED.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> JUST A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, NUMBER ONE IS TO REVISE THE DRIVEWAY.
THE OTHER ONE IS TO REDUCE THE FRONT PORCH FOOT TO MEET 20% OF LOT COVERAGE.
I'M JUST CURIOUS DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY SQUARE FEET?
>> 13? OKAY. THAT'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT.
>> OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THANK YOU.
I THINK ABOUT BOULDER PARK ROAD LIKE CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, WHERE YOU'VE JUST GOT SOME TIGHT SPACE.
>> HOW DID WE END UP ON THAT OTHER APPLICATION? DID WE END UP HAVING THAT SAME DELIBERATION AND THAT WAS ALLOWABLE JUST BECAUSE OF PARKING LIMITATIONS? YOU KNOW WHAT ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT WE CLOSED THIS?[OVERLAPPING]
>> IT HAD LIKE A GARAGE UNDER WITH A PORCH OVER IS WHAT THEY?
>> I THINK THAT WAS WIDENING THE DRIVEWAY AS WELL AND THERE'S NOT A CURB THERE, BUT IT'D BE WIDENING THE CURB CUT WE'RE ALSO CONSIDERING DOING.
AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO LEAD WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO ANYWAY AFTERWARDS, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T MISREMEMBERING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE APPLICANT IS HERE, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH APPROACH THE PODIUM STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HI, WERE SARAH AND RYAN MBAER, 1448 BOULDER PARK ROAD.
WE TRIED REALLY HARD YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THAT LITTLE CORNER, WE TRIED REALLY HARD.
WENT BACK AND FORTH MANY TIMES ONLY HAVING SPACE FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE AND HARDLY ANY STORAGE, NO ROOM FOR A SHED, ETC.
WE'RE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING OUR SNOW BLOWER, OR MOWER, ALL OF THOSE TOOLS TO KEEP THE YARD LOOKING BETTER THAN IT DOES
[02:30:04]
TODAY AND THEN JUST HAVING OUR MAIN LEVEL BE PRETTY SMALL BECAUSE OF THAT.IF WE MOVED IT FORWARD MORE TOWARDS THE LAKE, WE WOULD ENCROACH ON THE SIDE YARD SIDE SETBACKS, AND JUST IN BEING KIND TO OUR NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES, WE THOUGHT THAT THAT TINY LITTLE TRIANGLE, WHICH, AGAIN, NOT IDEAL, BUT WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT MAKING IT ANY SMALLER.
THEN THE PORCH OR THE 20%, WE HAD JUST CALCULATED THAT WRONG, SO WE ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE WERE BELOW THE 20%, SO THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE FIGURED OUT TODAY.
WE TALKED ABOUT SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR THAT AS WELL.
BUT WE REALLY DID TRY REALLY HARD TO GO WITHIN ALL THE RULES AND MAKE IT BE BETTER THAN IT IS CURRENTLY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS?
>> WELL, ACTUALLY, WELL, WE'RE HERE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO KEEPING THAT AT 20%.
>> YEAH. IF WE HAVE TO FIND 13 SQUARE FEET TO SHAVE OFF WE WILL.
>> JUST TO KNOW BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] THING THAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THAT'S A GOOD.
>> ONE WAY THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH IT EASILY BECAUSE THE WAY WE CALCULATE BUILDING FOOTPRINT INCLUDES THE AREA COVERED BY POST THE COVERED PORCH ON THE FRONT BECAUSE OF THE POST, IT IS MEASURED AT THE PERIMETER OF THE POST.
AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE POST OR CHANGING TO THAT COVERAGE OF THAT ENTRY COULD SOLVE THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THEY FOUND OUT JUST TODAY, SO THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A WAY TO PIVOT.
>> ON THAT NOTE, COULD YOU PUT UP THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE PLAN?
>> IT WAS MORE OF THAT STOOP IN FRONT OF THE DOOR.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> OKAY. IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, JUST SIMPLY MOVING THE POSTS THEMSELVES BACK TWO FEET WOULD DO THAT, NOT REALLY AFFECTING.
>> IS IT REALLY ANYTHING, NO HARDCOVER, NO OVERAGE?
>> YEAH, I THINK WE CALCULATED IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE 2.5 FEET, SO THEN THE POSTS WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE MIDDLE.
AGAIN, WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE TIME TODAY TO TALK TO OUR BUILDER, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE COULD REMOVE THAT FROM ANYWHERE POTENTIALLY IN THE HOUSE, JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STILL LOOKS GOOD AND DOESN'T LOOK AWKWARD.
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S WHY FIRST AND FOREMOST WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WAS AGREEABLE, BECAUSE THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO, FIRST OF ALL.
SECOND OF ALL, IT'S A PRETTY MINIMAL CHANGE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO BE AS CONFORMING AS POSSIBLE.
>> BUT TIGHT SPACES LIKE THIS YOU'RE DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU DO, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL START, I THINK IT'S PRETTY WELL THOUGHT OUT ON A VERY TIGHT LOT.
THE 15 FOOT BENCH FOR THE GRADING.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH STAFF ON THAT THAT WE DON'T NEED THAT ON THIS, SO THE GRADING CUP, I'M FINE WITH.
I WOULD NOTE THAT BASICALLY EVERYTHING IS IMPROVING ON THE SITE.
ALL OF THE SETBACKS, ALL OF THE HARD COVER.
I THINK THE TECHNICALITY IS THAT THE APPLICANTS MAYBE NOT GETTING CREDIT FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE THAT'S LIKE A FOOT OFF OF THE ROAD, SO THIS WILL ACTUALLY IMPROVE A LOT.
I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE 24 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY, JUST BECAUSE OF THIS LOT BEING ON A CORNER AND THE AVAILABLE PARKING.
I THINK MAYBE PUTTING A NOTCH OR A FLARE IN THAT DRIVEWAY IS JUST GOING TO LEAD DOWN TO SOMEONE IN THE FUTURE FILLING THAT IN AND USING IT ANYWAYS OR HAVING IT NOT BE ABLE TO GROW ANYTHING OR JUST CAUSE ISSUES.
I DO SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE PARKING.
>> THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS HOW WE HANDLED THE OTHER APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DID MAKE SENSE, BUT I HAD TO BE OPPOSED TO IT AT THE TIME, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT.
AGAIN, GOING BACK TO LIKE MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER CHANGES BASED ON CERTAIN ZONING OR WHATEVER YOU.
CASCO POINT IT'S ANOTHER ONE I THINK ABOUT WHERE WE RUN INTO DRIVEWAY WIDTHS, BUT WE ALSO CREATE PROBLEMS FOR PARKING WHEN YOU DON'T.
[02:35:02]
BASED ON THAT, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION.>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
>> I'LL FINISH QUERY. SO I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK, MR. CHAIR MADE A GOOD POINT.
THAT MADE ME FEEL A WHOLE LOT BETTER ABOUT THAT ONE FOOT.
WE ARE IMPROVING THE SPRAWL OF STRUCTURE WELL NOTED AND SUBSTANTIALLY.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THAT, AS WELL.
REALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I'M ASKING FOR IS FOR US TO STAY AT THAT 20% TOTAL STRUCTURAL.
THAT'S IT. COMMISSIONER LIBBY?
>> I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST SAID, AND IN SUPPLEMENT TWO OR ATTACHMENT TO, EXCUSE ME.
THOSE ARE PRETTY WELL ARTICULATED, HOW MANY POINT-BY-POINT IMPROVEMENTS THERE ARE WITH THIS NEW STRUCTURE.
WHAT I AM CURIOUS ABOUT IS THE VALIDITY OF THE STATEMENT THAT SAYS THAT OTHER VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON BOULDER PARK ROAD.
I'M NOT REALLY QUITE SURE WHERE THAT CAME FROM, IF THAT WAS LOOKING AT THE VERSE AND CHAPTER OF OUR NEXT NUMBER 2 ATTACHMENT, NUMBER 9.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE RECEIVED HARDCOVER VARIANCES DUE TO THE SIMILAR DIFFICULTIES INCLUDED IN OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS.
THIS MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE APPLICANT.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE PATTER HAS DIFFICULTY.
>> I HAVEN'T DONE AN ANALYSIS, BUT I HAVE HANDLED APPLICATIONS ON BOULDER PARK ROAD, AND THERE HAVE BEEN VARIANCES GRANTED.
I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THAT METRIC FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
>> I WASN'T REALLY LOOKING FOR A METRIC, BUT I KNOW YOU'RE GOOD.
>> ANYTIME YOU REBUILD WITHIN THE SETBACKS THAT'S CONSIDERED A VARIANCE, RIGHT? I MEAN, SO THEN ANYTIME THAT THAT'S HAPPENED, THERE WOULD BE OTHER VARIANCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
>> WELL, YOU DREW SOME SIMILARITIES TO THE OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, WHICH WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND THOSE ARE VARIABLES THAT HAVE REACHED THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE SEEN CLEARLY HERE WITH OUR DECISION-MAKING.
AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THAT HAD ANY BEARING ON THIS AS WE THINK FOR OUR FINAL DECISION HERE.
>> WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY, RECENT APPLICATIONS.
BUT I MEAN, WE'VE HANDLED APPLICATIONS ON THAT POINT FOR EXPERIENCES OVER THE YEARS, FOR NEW HOMES OR ADDITIONS OR CHANGES.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING STATED SO FAR.
THE DRIVEWAY IS CERTAINLY, I THINK PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BY STAFF STATEMENTS AS WELL, CHALLENGING OF PARKING.
THE 13 SQUARE FEET, I'M A LITTLE HUNG UP ON, IF THE POSTS WERE TO BE REMOVED BACK TWO FEET, COULD THE CONCRETE STOOP AND ROOFING OVER THAT STOOP STAY THE SAME?
>> YES. YEAH. AS WITH THE OVER.
>> FOR THAT REASON, I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT WITH THAT ONE BEING A DENIAL BECAUSE IN ESSENCE, WE'VE CHANGED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OTHER THAN WHERE A POST IS.
>> HOWEVER, IT'S HOW IT'S MEASURED TODAY.
CORRECT. IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE. D FUND INTENDED.
BUT AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AGREEABLE TO BE AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT.
IF IT WASN'T, OR THAT WAS CREATING SOME HARDSHIP, I PROBABLY COULD SEE HOW THAT GOES.
BUT BEING MORE CONFORMING IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING, IF WE CAN.
>> TRYING TO ESTABLISH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS TO WHY IT, CAN'T BE DONE.
>> ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NO, I'D MAKE A MOTION OTHERWISE.
>> TO APPROVE LA 24-33, AS APPLIED WITH ONE AMENDMENT THAT WE KEEP STRUCTURE AT 20% FOR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY RESSLER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAMER.
TO APPROVE, HOWEVER, WE'RE LIMITING THE STRUCTURE TO 20%, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
>> THAT INCLUDED THE DRIVEWAY.
>> DRIVEWAY WITH THAT? THAT LOOKS LIKE A NICE HOUSE.
GOOD LUCK. BRINGS US TO OTHER ITEMS.
[6. Other Items]
[02:40:01]
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I JUST HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.
THERE WERE A FEW ITEMS THAT THEY REVIEWED VARIANCES AT CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
LET'S SEE HERE,1090 WILDHURST, THAT WAS A DECK THAT WAS APPROVED, 13 55 VINE.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS APPROVED AS WELL, 28 90 GOLDEN ROD WAS A NEW HOUSE THAT WAS A LOT WITH VARIANCE.
THAT WAS APPROVED, AND THEN 33 39 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
THEY HAD CAME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH AN AMENDED PLAN BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS, AND THEY PULLED BACK THE GARAGE AND REMOVED THE FRONT PORCH, AND THEY ENDED UP GETTING APPROVAL AS WELL, BUT WITH UNAMENDED PLANS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE COUNCIL HAD A WORK SESSION TO TALK ABOUT AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THIS HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF THE PAST FOUR A HANDFUL.
I THINK WE'VE GONE FOUR TIMES NOW TO THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION TALKING ABOUT IT.
THEY HAVE COME TO A CONSENSUS OF A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THAT AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
I'LL BE GOING BACK TO ANOTHER WORK SESSION WITH PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
BUT THE ESSENCE OF IT IS POTENTIALLY ONLY APPLYING THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK LINE WHEN A PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THE PROPERTY OR THE BUILDING CONFORMS TO THE 75 FOOT OF LAKE MINNETONKA, THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK WOULD NOT APPLY.
IT WOULD ONLY APPLY AS A GUIDING SETBACK LINE IF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE 75.
LIKE A LOT, HOW WE USE IT WITH CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AS AN EXAMPLE.
THAT'S KIND OF THE TOPIC OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THAT AND WHERE WE LANDED, SO I WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THAT DISCUSSION.
I'LL BE GOING BACK TO ANOTHER COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE AND MAYBE A MORE BEEFED-UP PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS SINCE THAT'S A RELATIVELY BIG CHANGE WITHIN THE CITY.
BUT POTENTIALLY A CODE CHANGE COMING YOUR WAY HERE BY THE END OF THE YEAR ON THAT.
ADDITIONALLY, A DRIVEWAY WITH AMENDMENT FOR WHEN THEY'RE WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE.
YOU SAW THAT ON LAKESIDE TRAIL WHERE IT WAS A DRIVEWAY.
THEY'RE INTERESTED IN AMENDING THAT TO MATCH A DNR.
A LANGUAGE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD GIVE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO STAFF FOR SOME DISCRETION ON THOSE, AS LONG AS MANAGING NEGATIVE OR A WIDER DRIVEWAY OR POTENTIALLY ALLOWING WIDER DRIVEWAYS.
IT'S MORE ABOUT MANAGING ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS.
IF THE GRADE ALLOWS IT, IF IT DOESN'T IMPACT HARKER, IF IT'S A RELATIVELY MINIMAL SHORT DRIVEWAY.
IT WOULD BE AT STAFF'S DISCRETION TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THAT.
THEN IF THE APPLICANT AND STAFF COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, THE APPLICANT CAN ALWAYS APPEAL STAFF'S DECISION AND IT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU. THERE'S A PATH FOR THAT.
BUT THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE OUT OF THE DNR SHOREELND MODEL ORDINANCE THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES USE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ADOPTING THAT.
A FEW CODE CHANGES MIGHT BE COMING YOUR WAY BASED ON COUNSEL'S DISCUSSION.
IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR WANT TO DISCUSS THOSE.
I'D BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, BUT THAT IS MY UPDATE. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. IF ALS CHANGES, THEY MIGHT NOT NEED US ANYMORE.
IT'S LIKE, 90% OF THE APPLICATIONS.
WORKS FOR ME. BETTER PUT THE PITCHFORKS ON SALAS HARDWARE.
>> WELL, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.