WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE SEPTEMBER 16TH MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[3. Approval of Agenda]
SO MOVED.SECOND. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
SECOND ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19 2024.
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of August 19, 2024]
ANY MOTIONS? SO MOVED.I'LL SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAEMER.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[5.1. #LA24-000044, William Anderson, 1335 Briar Street, Variances, Public Hearing]
THAT'S GOING TO MOVE US TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING I AM GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM.
THIS IS MY BROTHER IN LAW'S APPLICATION.
SO I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF AND HANDING THE CHAIR OVER TO COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
1335 BRIER STREET FOR VARIANCES.
IS THAT YOURS? THEY ARE ALL MINE.
THERE IS NO GARAGE CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY.
TO MAKE ROOM, THEY PLAN TO REMOVE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SHED IN ABOUT THE SAME LOCATION.
THEY ALSO PROPOSED THE NEW, LARGER FRONT STOOP.
THERE'S A STOOP THERE CURRENTLY.
THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF IT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE FUNCTIONAL.
THE APPLICATION IS INVOLVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE, HARD COVER VARIANCE, AND BUILDING TO BUILDING SEPARATION REDUCTION.
THEIR LOT IS VERY SUBSTANDARD FOR THE DISTRICT.
IT'S IN THE TWO ACRE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE SETBACKS OVERLAP AND ELIMINATE THE BUILDABLE AREA ON THE PROPERTY.
STAFF DOES FIND THE ABSENCE OF A GARAGE ON A PROPERTY IN MINNESOTA TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, AND THE THE ELIMINATION OF THE BUILDABLE AREA PLACES A PRETTY HEAVY BURDEN ON THIS SMALL LOT, CREATING SUBSTANTIAL DIFFICULTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT.
THE STOOP TO BE ENLARGED IS ON THE BRIGHTER SIDE OF THE HOME SHOWN.
THE LITTLE GREEN, NOT THE LITTLE GREEN RECTANGLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE THAT IS THE FRONT.
IT'S PROPOSED TO BE AT THE SAME SETBACK AS THE EXISTING STOOP, WHICH IS ABOUT 22FT FROM THE FRONT.
AND WE'RE A 50 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED AND BECAUSE IT IS GETTING WIDER, IT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE STREET WHERE A 50 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED. THOSE ARE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS.
IT'S PART OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
SO IT DOES HAVE THAT HIGHER SETBACK.
THE NEW GARAGE IS PROPOSED FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE, WHICH IS THE SOUTH LOT.
FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR.
THE REAR IS THE WEST LOT LINE AND 23FT FROM THE SIDE STREET YARD.
THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN TIER THREE, LIMITING HARD COVER TO 35%.
THE PROPOSAL DOES RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN HARD COVER FROM 42.5 TO 39.3, WHICH IS 162FT².
[00:05:02]
HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE CONFORMING, A HARD COVER, VARIANCE IS STILL REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.WE DID RECEIVE COMMENT FROM THE MINNETONKA CENTER FOR THE ARTS.
THOSE COMMENTS WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
AMONG OTHER COMMENTS, THEY STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THEIR MATURE AMBER MAPLES THAT BORDER THEIR PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE SWALE THAT DOES GET CLOSE TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
HE HAS HE EMAILED THOSE COMMENTS TO YOU, BUT I ALSO PRINTED IT.
UNTIL YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE SITE IS SUBSTANTIALLY ENCUMBERED BY THE RR1B DISTRICT SETBACKS, AND DOES SUPPORT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR A GARAGE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT CARE BE TAKEN DURING CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID ADVERSELY IMPACTING THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SPECIFICALLY, IN THE AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE NEIGHBORS TONIGHT, YOU SHOULD REVIEW THE SUPPORTING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FINDINGS AND IF YOU AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS AND APPROVAL, RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
I HAVE THE OTHER EXHIBITS THAT I CAN PUT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU, THE PLANS AND SOME AERIAL PHOTOS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, BUT THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THIS PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MISS CURTIS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP TO US.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK YOU HAVE.
HI, MY NAME IS WILLIAM ANDERSON.
MY ADDRESS IS 1335 BRIER STREET.
I BELIEVE THE CITY IS WAYZATA.
TECHNICALLY 55391 IS THE ZIP CODE.
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE YOURSELF AVAILABLE JUST IN CASE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS AS WE PROCEED.
THAT'D BE GREAT. OTHERWISE WE APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION, PLEASE COME ON UP.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
OKAY. SO THANK YOU, MISS CURTIS, FOR THE SUMMARY.
DO APPRECIATE IT MAKES OUR JOB QUITE A BIT EASIER.
THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT I'M SEEING WE'VE GOT ONE NEIGHBOR IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. ANOTHER NEIGHBOR THAT HAS SOME CONCERNS THAT YOU KNOW, APPEARED TO BE ADDRESSED OR WILL BE ADDRESSED WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND GRADING PLAN WHICH THE CITY WILL BE OVERSEEING.
WE SEE IMPROVEMENTS TO SETBACKS, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, THINGS THAT WE FIND TO BE IMPORTANT.
SETBACKS. WHENEVER YOU'RE TAKING A POSITION OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, IMPROVING THAT POSITION CERTAINLY IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AND SO I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR DOING SO.
WE HAVE A FRONT SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 22.6 TO 22.
WE HAVE A REAR OR WESTERLY SETBACK GOING FROM 3.6FT TO FIVE.
SIDE STREET LOOKS LIKE THE APPROXIMATELY, GIVE OR TAKE, 34FT BEING REDUCED TO 23.8 AND A SHED.
IS THAT CORRECT, MISS CURTIS, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? I'M READING YOUR SETBACK LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET.
WE'RE ALSO IMPROVING HARD COVER FROM 42.5% EXISTING TO 39.3 PROPOSED AND AGAIN I NOTEWORTHY THAT THE GRADING PLAN BEING A CONCERN FOR THE CENTER FOR THE ARTS AS WELL AS THE TREES ARE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO MONITOR AS WELL. MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS SUFFICIENT AND SO THAT'S MY SUMMARY THAT I SEE AND FOR THOSE REASONS, FUNDAMENTALLY, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE.
BUT I DON'T SEE A REASON NOT TO BE PERSONALLY.
BUT I'M CERTAINLY HERE TO WELCOME ANYBODY ELSE'S OPINION.
MR. LIBBY. I CONCUR WITH THAT, AND I THINK THAT IT'S A RELATIVELY EASY ASK.
THE STIPULATIONS IN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS SEEM VERY ADEQUATE, AND COVER THE SCOPE OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY CONSIDER TO BE CONFORMING.
[00:10:01]
SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT AS WELL.THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH COMMENT? MY GARAGE IS A GOOD THING.
GARAGES ARE A GOOD THING INDEED.
YEAH, I THINK YOU GUYS COVERED IT ALL AND THE REDUCTION OF HARD COVER IS GREAT.
SO I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
ALL RIGHT, LET ME TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS OR OTHERWISE? I WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME A MOTION OF ANY KIND.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO WE'VE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YEAH. I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY ERICKSON AND A SECOND BY SCHULTZE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
CAN THE GAVEL CARRY ON? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
THAT BRINGS US TO OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NIGHT.
[5.2. #LA24-000043, Archos Architecture & Design PA, 1760 Shadywood Rd, Variances, Public Hearing]
LA 24- 43, ARCOS.A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND STORY.
5.3FT FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, WHERE 7.5FT SETBACK IS REQUIRED ABOVE THE EXISTING HOME'S FOOTPRINT. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AND LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SECOND STORY OF THE HOME TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 2.5FT LAKEWARD OF THOSE THOSE SETBACK LINES AND A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT, RESULTING IN A REDUCTION OF 27.7% HARDCOVER WERE 29% EXISTS AND 25% IS PERMITTED.
THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
THEY SHOULD BE ASKED TO SPEAK ON THAT TONIGHT.
THEY'RE REMOVING THE EXISTING ATTACHED 624 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, INCLUDING THE TUNNEL AND SOME OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THE STREET YARD.
THE GARAGE ADDITION RESULTS IN 19.6% STRUCTURAL COVERAGE AND THAT IS THE EXISTING LEVEL TODAY.
THE CHANGE IN HARDCOVER IS APPROXIMATELY A 183 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE 27.7% PROPOSED LEVEL.
STAFF MISTAKENLY INDICATED THAT PUBLIC COMMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED.
MISS SHAH, WHO LIVES TO THE NORTH, SUBMITTED COMMENTS LAST WEEK WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
WE DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH TODAY.
THOSE COMMENTS WERE PLACED AT YOUR SEATS AND THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
A POTENTIAL IS TO SHIFT THE SECOND STORY TO THE SOUTH TO MEET THAT SETBACK.
OR IF THE PROJECT INVOLVES A REMOVAL OF THE FOUNDATION AS WELL.
THE HOME COULD BE SHIFTED TO THE SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 2.5FT, AND THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE COULD BE ADJUSTED TO THE WEST ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE, AND IT WOULD MEET ALL OF THE BUILDING SETBACKS IF THE FOUNDATION WERE TO BE REMOVED.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, A HARDCOVER VARIANCE MAY STILL BE REQUIRED.
THEY SHOULD ALSO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION WILL ALLOW THEM TO MANEUVER A VEHICLE SO THAT THEY CAN FRONT OUT ONTO SHADY WOOD, AS THAT IS A REQUIREMENT ON THE COUNTY ROADWAYS.
[00:15:04]
I HAVE A NUMBER OF EXHIBITS IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO PUT THEM UP.THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION AND MAYBE TO CLARIFY ON THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE UP THE BLUE PORTION, THE EXISTING HOUSE IS THAT CURRENTLY OVER THE 75. YEP.
SO WHAT I'M SEEING THERE IS EXISTING.
THE ONLY ADDITION IS OF THIS NEW ATTACHED GARAGE.
EXCUSE ME. THE ONLY ADDITION IS THE NEW ATTACHED GARAGE OR IS THAT AND THE SECOND STORY.
CORRECT. BUT THE FOOTPRINT IS STAYING THE SAME.
OKAY. YEP AND BUT THE VERTICAL MASSING.
I'M SORRY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
LET ME GET THE PROPOSED EXISTING CONDITIONS JUST FURTHER ENCROACHING BY 2.3FT.
IS THAT KIND OF THE. SO THE THE DECK IS AN EXISTING CONDITION.
MOVING THE DECK, MOVING THE HOUSE AND THE DECK WOULD CHANGE THE POSITION OF IT.
SO THAT WOULD WOULD REQUIRE THE VARIANCES.
BUT THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF.
IF THAT IS THE CASE. OTHERWISE IT'S ABLE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED IN ITS SAME FOOTPRINT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GO AHEAD, MR. LIBBY.
A QUICK, QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THE SECOND STORY.
WE OFTEN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE HAVE A STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE MET FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
ARE WE UNDER THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT? THEY WILL CONFORM.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE.
THEY'VE PROVIDED SOME ELEVATION OVERLAYS FOR TO ILLUSTRATE THE EXISTING HOME AND THE PROPOSED HOME.
SO THE DARKER IMAGE IS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THE LIGHTER SHADED IS THE PROPOSED.
I REVIEWED THAT EARLIER BUT IT JUST ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS I NEED TO ASK.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE ECKERT FROM ARCOS ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN.
I'M FROM SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA AND BILL WILLIAM TURNER FROM SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA.
HELLO. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO STAY FOR QUESTIONS? STAY UP, OR ARE YOU GOING TO OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST? WELL, IF THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS, NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT OBVIOUSLY STAY CLOSE.
THEY MAY HAVE SOME AFTER THAT.
IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I'M THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, AND I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH MELANIE ABOUT OUR CONCERN, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO DO WITH THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE NORTH.
THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT WITH THE SINGLE STORY HOUSE CREATES A BIT OF A TUNNEL THERE, AND WE BUILT OUR HOUSE NEW IN THE 2017 TIMEFRAME AND CREATED A GRAVEL WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES FROM ONE FOUNDATION TO THE OTHER AND OUR BUILDER KIND OF CREATED A DRAINAGE FLOW TO ACCOMMODATE THE RUNOFF FROM BOTH HOUSES AND SO I THINK ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT THE SEVEN AND A HALF SIDE YARD SETBACK BE HONORED ON THE NORTH AND NOT CHANGE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE.
IT LOOKS LIKE EVEN WITH THAT SHIFT ON THE SOUTH SIDE, YOU'D STILL BE WITHIN THE SEVEN ONE HALF FEET AND IF THAT SHIFT WERE MADE, I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT DOING THE MATH OR THE ANALYSIS, BUT POSSIBLY THE CORNER THAT KIND OF VIOLATES THE SETBACK FROM THE LAKE MIGHT BE ALLEVIATED A LITTLE TOO, I'M NOT SURE.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S A LOVELY HOUSE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING NEW NEIGHBORS AND THAT IS REALLY OUR ONLY CONCERN.
[00:20:03]
FINAL CONCERN IS ALWAYS THE CONCERN WITH HOMES CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER THAT THE DEMOLITION, YOU KNOW AS I UNDERSTAND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.BUT BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS SO CLOSE TO OURS, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE NOTICE AHEAD OF TIME WHEN THAT'S OCCURRED AND TRY TO ANTICIPATE DISSIPATE ANY LANDSCAPING IMPACTS THAT WE MIGHT DO BEFORE IT HAPPENS.
ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY LIKE TO START A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE? YEAH. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY.
THE SCENE AT THE TOP HERE, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I'M SORRY. THAT THE EXISTING HOUSE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
CORRECT AND YOU WANT TO HAVE THE NEW HOUSE BE MOVED SLIGHTLY AWAY FROM THERE? AT THIS TIME, THERE'S NOT A DEFINITE PLAN TO BUILD A NEW HOME THERE.
THERE'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THAT NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THIS PROPOSAL.
SURE. WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO BUILD OVER THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, HOUSES OF THIS AGE AND OF ORDINANCE CHANGES OVER THE YEARS SOMETIMES BECOME CLOSER THAN OUR ARE ALLOWED CURRENTLY.
BECAUSE YOUR JURISDICTION HAS A VERY RESTRICTIVE AREA FOR BUILDING AND HARDCOVER.
WE WERE TRYING TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT BY TEARING OFF THE GARAGE.
THE GARAGE IS REALLY DOES NOT WORK FOR GETTING ONTO THE STREET.
IT REALLY IMPEDES THE SETBACKS AND IT DOESN'T.
IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE LOT FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT.
SO THE IDEA WAS TO TEAR THAT OFF, BUILD A NEW GARAGE, BUILD OVER THE EXISTING HOME.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AREA TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S A SLIGHT TRIANGLE TO THE WEST, TO THE EAST FOR THE LAKE.
DOES THAT HELP? YES, I THINK I VISITED THE SITE TODAY AND IT'S A SHOEHORN.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SINCE HE'S UP HERE? THANK YOU. YEAH.
I ADMIT I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO BUILD UP ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
THE NEIGHBOR WHO SPOKE DOES NOT WANT IT MOVING ANY CLOSER TO THE NORTH LINE, WHICH IT'S NOT.
THE ADDITION IS MOVING CLOSER TO THE SOUTH LINE WHERE THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE TO DO THAT AND WE'RE TAKING THE GARAGE OUT OF THE FRONT YARD SET, STEP BACK WHERE IT SHOULD NOT BE.
I WOULD CORRECT THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH DOESN'T SUPPORT THE SETBACK VARIANCE.
NOT DOESN'T WANT IT TO GET CLOSER TO THE LOT LINE.
THEY DON'T SUPPORT THE VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK.
I THINK SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T WANT IT TO GET ANY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
I'M SORRY I CAN'T HEAR VERY WELL.
SO AS FAR AS YOUR CONCERN WITH THE APPLICATION, WAS YOUR CONCERN THAT IT NOT GET CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON YOUR SIDE, OR THAT IT YOU WANT IT TO MEET THE SETBACK FOR 7.5FT.
I THINK MEETING THE 7.5FT SIDE YARD SETBACK GUIDELINE WOULD BE HELPFUL AND NOT VIOLATE THAT SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE. BECAUSE THERE'S MORE THAN 7.5FT ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
CORRECT AND THEY'RE NOT REBUILDING THE HOME PER SE AT THE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE PLAN AT THIS TIME.
IT WAS JUST POINTED OUT THAT IT.
IT'S TYPICALLY A POSSIBILITY WITH PROJECTS LIKE THIS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT HOW THEY'VE IF THEY'VE DETERMINED THAT THE EXISTING FOUNDATION AND HOME CAN SUPPORT THE SECOND STORY AND WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF THEIR REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT NOW IS ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE.
THE SETBACK IS NON-CONFORMING AT 7.5FT.
CORRECT. IT'S 5.3FT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.
SEVEN AND A HALF. IF THEY'RE GOING TO REBUILD ON THAT FOUNDATION, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
[00:25:05]
OKAY. BUT IF THEY HAVE TO REBUILD THE FOUNDATION, THAT THEY WOULD REQUEST THAT THE SETBACK, WE MOVE BACK TO 7.5FT.THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO REBUILD THE EXISTING HOME IN KIND AT THE SETBACK THAT IT IS LOCATED AT.
RIGHT. THAT'S STAFF'S POINT WAS SIMPLY IF THAT IS THE CASE, IF THE HOME IS TO BE TAKEN DOWN AND TO THE GROUND, THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME CONFORMING, CORRECT? OKAY. THAT'S WHY I'M FINALLY THANK YOU.
IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
YEAH, I THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE INTENDING.
IF WE TOOK THE HOME DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION, WE'RE BUILDING A NEW HOME.
THEN WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE SETBACKS.
SO THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME.
IT'S JUST WHEN YOU GO UP TO ANOTHER LEVEL, THEN THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
SO THEREFORE YOU CAN'T BUILD OVER IT WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT SECOND FLOOR SET BACK IN.
THAT I BELIEVE IS WHAT STAFF IS GETTING TO.
SO ARE YOU PLANNING TO TEAR THE EXISTING HOUSE DOWN TO THE FOUNDATION? WE THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
IT ALL DEPENDS ON COST AND STRUCTURAL ABILITY.
WE WILL HAVE TO DO SOME MORE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS WHERE WE'VE JUST TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE.
WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CITY WOULD ALLOW US TO DO.
BUT I THINK THE INTENT OF THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT TO TEAR IT DOWN AND RELOCATE IT.
IT WAS TO RENOVATE AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR.
YEAH. I THINK I FINALLY GOT IT STRAIGHT IN MY HEAD.
WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, HOMEOWNERS ENTITLED TO REBUILD IN KIND ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND GOING UP DOES TRIGGER A VARIANCE. LOTS OF THEM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THOSE TIGHT PROPERTIES.
I RECOGNIZE IT, AND YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT AFTER HAVING AN APPROVAL TO DO THAT SECOND STORY, TO REBUILD IN KIND WITH THE SECOND STORY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ASSUME AS WELL.
YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO POSITIONS AND I'M SAYING IT OUT LOUD BECAUSE I SOMETIMES READ THINGS INCORRECTLY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IMPROVING OUR POSITIONS.
HOWEVER IT'S ONLY 7.5 IS REQUIRED, WHICH SEEMS REASONABLE THEN THEREFORE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO TO THE STRUCTURAL BUILDING COVERAGES.
HARDCOVER IS BEING IMPROVED FROM 3178 TO 2995.
I DO SEE THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE GOING FROM 21.58 TO 21.60, SO TECHNICALLY THAT IS MAKING IT WORSE. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE WOULD BE THE SAME OR BETTER.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE WHAT WENEED.
RIGHT. SO OF COURSE THAT'S THE ONLY FEEDBACK THAT I HAVE.
WE JUST LIKE THE LAST APPLICATION, WE WANT TO SEE POSITIONS IMPROVING.
I THINK ADDING A SECOND STORY IS REASONABLE BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL LOT.
YOU WANT TO HAVE LIVING SPACE.
YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE USE OF IT.
SO I THINK THAT'S PRUDENT AND RESPECTABLE.
THE ADDITION ITSELF IS NOT GOING TO CARRY ON THAT SAME ENCROACHMENT ON THE SETBACK.
I APPRECIATE THAT IN THE APPLICATION.
SO TRULY MY ONLY FEEDBACK THAT I HAVE IS AS LONG AS IT IS, WHETHER IT'S CANDIDLY, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S NO SENSE IN CALLING IT, WHETHER IT'S A REBUILD IN KIND OR A OR IN ADDITION I'M SUPPORTIVE OF REBUILDING ON THE FOOTPRINT AS EXISTING, AS LONG AS IT'S MEETING THE SETBACK TO THE NORTH FOR THE ADDITION, AS YOU REPLIED AND I WOULD ALSO, THE ONLY THING THAT I REALLY AM OPPOSED TO IS IN THIS APPLICATION WOULD BE THE TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE STAYING AT 21.58 OR LESS AND CALLING OUT THE OBVIOUS USE, HAVING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT MEETS THE CITY.
BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT WITHOUT ME CLEANING IT OUT.
SO I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF ITSELF.
COULD YOU CLARIFY YOUR POSITION ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE?
[00:30:02]
SURE, YES SO THE SEVEN AND A HALF BEING MET FOR THE ADDITION.BUT I SEE NO PROBLEM REBUILDING IN KIND FROM WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
SURE, IT WOULD BE NICE TO IMPROVE THAT.
BUT IF THIS HOME WERE BEING RECONSTRUCTED EXACTLY HOW IT IS WITH THE EXACT SAME ELEVATIONS, THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DO THAT AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE TO THE DIFFICULTIES, IF YOU WILL. SO AS LONG AS WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, I'M OKAY WITH IT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IMPROVING THE TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE, OR AT LEAST KEEPING IT THE SAME.
CAN I JUST ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE.
THEY'RE CONFORMING AND IT'S THE IT'S 19.6%.
SO WHAT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE.
YEAH. NO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT JUST LIKE THE THEY'RE CONFORMING FOR THE NORTH SIDE PROPOSING.
RIGHT? TRUE AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS AS A COMPENSATING FACTOR, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE REBUILDING IN KIND WITH THAT SETBACK, I THINK THAT IS REASONABLE TO NOT ASK FOR AN INTENSIFYING OF THE TOTAL STRUCTURE OR COVERAGE BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
THAT'S MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THAT.
OKAY. I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED.
SO. 21, 60 IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
2193 IS ALLOWED, CORRECT? YES. OKAY.
I AM MERELY ASKING THAT THEY STAY AT OR BELOW EXISTING TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE.
AS A MITIGANT FOR THE NORTH SIDE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT.
IF THEY WERE REBUILDING IN KIND OR DOING AN ADDITION, THAT'S ALL.
IT'S TWO FEET I THINK THAT THEY CAN FIND.
YEAH. I MEAN, IF ANY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN CHANGE RESULTING IN A FOOTPRINT EXPANSION OR HARDCOVER CHANGE, YOU WOULD BE SEEING THIS AGAIN, RIGHT? SO I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY THERE, THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO GO OVER THAT, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO REBUILD THE EXISTING FOUNDATION, THE EXISTING HOME.
RIGHT. SO YOU'RE I'M JUST MISSING THE CLARIFICATION ON THE SECOND STORY ADDITION.
YEP. WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT? I'M OKAY WITH IT. YEAH.
SO WHETHER IT'S AN ADDITION OR IT'S A NEW BUILD, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO REBUILD ON THAT FOUNDATION.
I'M OKAY WITH THE SECOND STORY REBUILDING ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
STRAIGHT UP. SO EXPANDING THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT WITH THE SECOND STORY AT THE SUBSTANDARD SETBACK.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO. THAT'S AGAIN MY POSITION.
I THINK THAT'S AN OLIVE BRANCH.
BUT IF THEY ALONG WITH IT TO MOVE IT, THEN IT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW APPLICATION.
THAT WOULD H AVE YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT.
CORRECT ANDAGAIN THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING AN ADDITION.
RIGHT. BUT THAT ADDITION ALL SEEMS TO BE MEETING CONFORMING STANDARDS.
RIGHT OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
ANY COMMENTS? AS AN ADVISORY BODY ADVISING THE CITY COUNCIL, WE OFTEN AND AS OFTEN AS WE CAN LOOK AT PRECEDENT AS A DECIDING FACTOR AND HAVING HAD THIS SORT OF A SITUATION COME BEFORE US ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, AND THEN CONSCIENTIOUSLY FOLLOWING HOW THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD ADDRESS AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AS EXAMPLE AND AS SET PRECEDENT.
WE DON'T LET NON-CONFORMING ISSUES GO HIGHER IN A SIDE SETBACK.
WE DON'T, AS AN ADVISORY BODY IN THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AS PRECEDENT.
NOT REALLY ALLOWED THIS IN THE PAST.
SO I'M NOT QUESTIONING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT AS A PRECEDENT, WE REALLY HAVE NOT IN THE PAST.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO LEAN ON AS A PRECEDENT TO DEAL WITH AN ALREADY NONCONFORMING SITUATION IN THE SETBACK, AND IT'S TYPICAL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT IN THE PAST.
AND I'VE FOLLOWED THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES AFTER WE'VE PROCESSED IT THROUGH HERE.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT SUPPORTED AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT IN A NONCONFORMING SETBACK.
I'M JUST [INAUDIBLE] UNLESS I'M MISSED.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE DIFFERENT VOICES HERE.
OF COURSE. YEAH. NO. RESPECTFULLY, I'M RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
[00:35:02]
DON'T TAKE THAT AS CONFRONTATION AT ALL, MR. COMMISSIONER. LIBBY, I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING IN THAT RESPECT.SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A STANDARD NO OR A STANDARD YES ON THAT.
YOU, MR. LIBBY, YOU SAID YOU DISAGREED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS.
SO I WAS JUST MAKING SURE FOR SO LOST.
GO AHEAD. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, SHAPED PRIMARILY BY THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS A, I THINK, VERY WELL DONE.
WHICH TO SUMMARIZE, THERE ARE A FEW KEY PHRASES IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH.
RAISE FLAGS AND ONE IS THAT THERE'S A BUILDING ENVELOPE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE DESIRED FOOTPRINT, BUT NOT THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED.
THE PROPOSED VARIANCES ARE THEREFORE A NOT NECESSARY AND SERVE AS A CONVENIENCE TO THE OWNERS AND THIS THEN TRIGGERS A.
IT SHOWS A LACK OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT GOVERNS WHICH VARIANCES WE CAN OFFER AND WHICH ONES WE CAN'T.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD VOTE TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.
CERTAINLY, IF THEY WISH TO COME BACK WITH, YOU KNOW, AN AMENDED PLAN WHICH CONFORMS BETTER TO OUR ORDINANCES AND ALSO THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBOR.
YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TONIGHT IT DOES NOT GAIN MY SUPPORT AND THAT'S MY PERSONAL VIEW.
THANK YOU. FOR ME, IT COMES DOWN TO THAT REMODEL VERSUS REBUILD AND LOOKING AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, I CAN SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT IS WHERE THE FOUNDATION IS.
THAT'S WHERE IT EXISTS TODAY AND IF WE'RE GOING TO REMODEL ON THAT FOOTPRINT, WHAT'S ALLOWED.
RIGHT. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
SO IS IT ALLOWED TO GO UP AN ADDITIONAL STORY KNOWING THAT THE WHOLE THING COULD BE SLID OVER? BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REBUILD VERSUS A REMODEL.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO I'M KIND OF SPLIT ON THIS ONE.
I CAN SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE.
I DON'T SEE THE 7.5FT IS ALREADY EXISTING.
THEY'RE NOT ENCROACHING MORE ON THAT, BUT THEY ARE GOING UP IN HEIGHT.
I CAN SEE THE REST OF IT IS CONFORMING.
THEY'RE TAKING OTHER PARTS THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING, PUTTING THEM IN CONFORMING AREAS.
SO I FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AS IT IS, I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF IT IF THEY WERE SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO TEAR THIS DOWN AND REBUILD IT IN THIS LOCATION.
IF THIS VARIANCE IS GIVEN BASED ON THE PLAN IT IS TODAY FOR A REMODEL.
IF THEY COME BACK DURING THE BUILD AND SAY, LOOK, WE CAN'T THIS FOUNDATION WON'T SUPPORT IT.
WE HAVE TO PUT A NEW FOUNDATION IN.
[INAUDIBLE]. THEY WON'T COME BACK? IF YOU GRANT THE APPROVAL FOR THEM TO EXPAND UPWARD AS THEY'VE PROPOSED, THEY CAN TAKE THE WHOLE HOUSE DOWN AND THEY DO NOT NEED TO COME BACK BEFORE, EVEN IF THE APPROVAL IS BASED ON THIS BEING A REMODEL AND NOT.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REBUILD WHAT'S THERE TODAY.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WEIGHING TONIGHT, RIGHT? I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
[00:40:03]
THERE'S A LITTLE CONFUSION ON MY BEHALF.SO I JUST WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE PROCESS AS A WHOLE.
THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BECAUSE I WASN'T GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLETELY TEAR IT DOWN TO LIVE IN IT.
IT'S 1260FT², I BELIEVE AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, A MAN OF MY STATURE AND 1260FT² IS NOT THE FUNNEST THING EVER.
SO MY PLAN BEFORE BUYING THE HOUSE, BRINGING THE PROPER CONTRACTORS OUT TO LOOK AT IT, INCLUDING THE FOUNDATION, WITHOUT ACTUALLY DRILLING INTO ANYTHING.
LOAD BEARING WALLS ONLY HAD A HALF INCH OF BOW ON THEM, WHICH IS VERY, GOOD FOR AN OLD HOME OF, YOU KNOW, THAT AGE. SO AFTER FINDING THAT OUT, THAT IS WHEN I MOVED FORWARD WITH THE PLAN TO PURCHASE THE HOME.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN SAID AND DONE AND IS BEHIND US NOW.
THE FUTURE PLAN IS NOT TO REMOVE THE FOUNDATION BECAUSE I KNOW I DO NOT HAVE TO.
I DON'T LIKE TO WASTE, AND I KNOW THAT KEEPING THE FOUNDATION WHERE IT IS, GIVEN THAT IT IS IN GOOD SHAPE AND ABLE TO WITHSTAND ADDING A SECOND STORY IS GOING TO SAVE ME HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
ON TOP OF THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A SETBACK AND WHERE THE HOME SITS RIGHT NOW, IT IS NOT WITHIN THAT SETBACK WHICH IS CLOSER TO THEIR HOME AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THEIR ARGUMENT AND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW.
NOW, BEING THAT I AM NOT TEARING THIS DOWN AND TEARING THE FOUNDATION OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT TRYING TO MOVE THIS HOME WHILE KEEPING THE FOUNDATION IN PLACE TO ABIDE BY 2.5FT IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT.
I KNOW THAT I DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE FIRST STORY OF THE HOME, BUT EVEN BUILDING UP OVER THE EXISTING STORY RIGHT NOW AS IT IS AND HAVING TO CREATE THE 7.5FT SETBACK WHILE GOING UP IS GOING TO TRIGGER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON MY BEHALF TO ABIDE WITHIN THE SETBACK.
SO AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO AT ALL ENCROACH ON THEM AND AGAIN, I DON'T LIKE CONFRONTATION.
I WANT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT IS HELPFUL TO THEM.
NO, MUCH MORE THAN IT IS TO ME.
SO AS FAR AS RENOVATIONS GO, THERE'S NO PLAN TO COMPLETELY DEMOLISH THIS AND TAKE THE FOUNDATION OUT BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEED TO.
SO I HOPE THAT HELPS MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF SENSE OF THE MATTER.
OKAY. THANK YOU AND ACTUALLY, WE DID NOT REALIZE BEING ABLE TO TEAR OUT THE FOUNDATION AND BUILD IT IN THE SAME PLACE WAS SOMETHING WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO.
OKAY, SO I GUESS YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT.
I THINK IT'S WE NEED TO KNOW AS COMMISSIONERS WHAT WE'RE ULTIMATELY APPROVING OR RECOMMENDING AND IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND ON IT. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR WITH THAT.
DO YOU KNOW THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR SOUTH SETBACK IS? I BELIEVE IT'S TEN FEET.
WHAT'S YOUR SIDE SETBACK? HOW FAR ARE YOU SETBACK.
OKAY. COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS THAT YOU PROVIDED.
[INAUDIBLE] SO IT ISN'T QUITE [INAUDIBLE].
RIGHT? SIDE OF THE SAME AMOUNT.
TRUE AND WE WERE WONDERING WHERE YOUR HOME WAS SET ON THAT LOT LINE.
[00:45:03]
2016. I THINK IT'S ONE CORNER, WHICH WOULD BE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER WAS TEN FEET, BUT THEN THE NORTHEAST CORNER WAS NINE SOMETHING.SO YOU KNOW, YEAH, MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHY.
MAYBE IT'S THE WAY THE LOT LINE IS SET AND WHERE THE HOUSE WAS INADVERTENTLY BUILT.
YEAH AND I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE, I'M JUST TRYING TO USE THE KISS PRINCIPLE HERE, AND IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THE QUESTION IS, CAN HE REMODEL THE EXISTING PROPERTY BY PUTTING THIS SECOND FLOOR IN OVER THE EXISTING FOUNDATION? OKAY AND SO THAT'S THE QUESTION AT HAND AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE, IF THERE'S GOING TO IF THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT FOUNDATION, THEN IT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW STRUCTURE AND IT HAS TO GO THROUGH AN ENTIRELY NEW PERMITTING PROCESS.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
IF WE APPROVE IT BASED ON WHAT THE INFORMATION WE HAVE TODAY AND THEY GET THE SETBACKS, THE VARIANCE, IF WE RECOMMEND THIS TO THE COUNCIL AND IT GETS APPROVED, THAT WAY THEY'RE ABLE TO TEAR OUT THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION IF THEY WANT.
IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THAT'S THE INTENT AT ALL, BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEY WOULD THEN JUST MOVE IT 2.5FT AND MEET THE CONDITIONS TO TEAR OUT THE NORTH WALL AND THE EAST WALL, BECAUSE THOSE WEREN'T COMPLIANT AND IT'D BE EASIER FOR US TO BUILD.
THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO WANT TO HAVE IT THAT CLOSE.
RIGHT? YEAH AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO COMPLETELY RECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE PROJECT.
THEY'RE JUST THESE ADDITIONS AND THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THAT 7.5FT.
SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, THE WAY IT SITS.
BUT IT DOES SOUND LIKE THAT'S THE INTENT.
IT DOES SOUND LIKE THE APPLICANTS AT THAT POINT WOULD THEN MOVE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE.
IT COULD BE. BUT THESE ARE THE PLANS THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED.
THESE ARE WHAT WE HAVE TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY.
WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PLANS.
JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
WE'VE DEFINITELY SEEN THAT BEFORE.
MORE LIKELY TO BE A COMFORT LEVEL IF THE SECOND STORY WAS SET BACK FURTHER.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE APPLYING FOR.
SO WE AS A COMMISSION, HAVE TO VOTE ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.
YEAH. SO I LIVE ON CRYSTAL BAY.
I REBUILT MY HOME ON CRYSTAL BAY.
THAT WAS MY PARENTS HOME THAT I GREW UP IN, AND IT WAS MY GRANDFATHER'S LAKE COTTAGE BEFORE THAT.
I'M DARN PROUD TO BE A THIRD GENERATION OF IT.
SO THIS ONE HITS HOME TO ME BECAUSE TWO STORIES DOWN THE NEIGHBOR HAD TO REBUILD AND HE HAD TO STEP INWARD WHICH IS PART OF THE DELIBERATION HERE AND NOT GETTING ANECDOTAL HERE, BUT IT LOOKS DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT AND IT WAS VERY EXPENSIVE TO RE-ENGINEER AND WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS AN EFFORT TO CONDENSE WHAT'S BEING OCCUPIED ON THAT PROPERTY AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT, TO ME, IS AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE AND MITIGATE FOR REBUILDING IN KIND.
I APPRECIATE, MR. CHAIR. COMMENT ABOUT INTENT.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WHETHER THAT IS HONORED OR NOT AFTER THE FACT, AS STATED CAN BE CHANGED AND REBUILT AT THAT POINT AND THAT COULD MEAN IF THE HOME WAS SOLD IN FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS, IT STILL COULD BE REBUILT WITH A SECOND STORY IN KIND THAT WAY.
BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THE ADDITION, ETCETERA.
[00:50:08]
WORK. I SEE NO BENEFIT WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OF STRUCTURE IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ENCROACHING ON SITE SETBACKS.BESIDES MASSING, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE.
I MEAN, IT DOES CHANGE THE MASSING SLIGHTLY.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY ON THE OTHER.
WHAT WOULD THAT BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LAKE, THAT WHERE YOU'VE GOT PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE ONE FEET, ZERO FEET AND BUILT UPON THIS IS FIVE, 5.3. IT'S NOT EGREGIOUS.
THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THIS PROPERTY IN KIND.
THEY ARE DEMONSTRATING RELIEF OF THAT SIDE SETBACK BY DEMOING THE GARAGE AND REBUILDING IT WITHIN THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK WE HAVE AN WE HAVE THE REASON.
ANY REASON ENOUGH TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION? I'LL STAND BEHIND THE ONE CONDITION THAT I'M RECOMMENDING OF TRYING TO KEEP THAT TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE AT 215, EIGHT OR LESS.
BUT OTHERWISE, AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT INTENDED FOR ANYBODY IN DISAGREEMENT.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSPECTIVE BASED ON THOSE FINDINGS.
JOHN, YOU HIGHLIGHTED YOU HIGHLIGHTED AN INTERESTING POINT THAT POTENTIALLY A QUARTER OF THAT SETBACK IS IMPROVING BY JUST REMOVING THE GARAGE. THAT NORTHERN SETBACK AND SO THAT WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT.
THAT ALSO IMPROVES THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER KRAEMER, ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? I'M NOT GOING TO PROLONG THIS.
A LOT OF REALLY GOOD POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE HERE, BUT I THINK IN LIGHT OF THE FACT IT'S A REMODEL PROJECT AND THE FOUNDATION IS WHERE IT IS. AND OFFSETTING THAT SECOND FLOOR, 2.5FT BRINGS ON ALL KINDS OF STRUCTURAL.
WELL, OR AS PROPOSED, I SHOULD SAY.
WELL, WE'VE CERTAINLY HAD A SHARE OF DISCUSSION ON IT.
I'LL MAKE A FLIER AT THAT, IF I MAY.
AGAIN, WE TRY NOT TO CHANGE APPLICATIONS, BUT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE.
I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE APPROVE AS APPLIED WITH THE ONE CONDITION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE STAYING AT 2158 OR LESS.
MISS CURTIS, IS THAT TOO CLUNKY? WHAT TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.
AS LONG AS TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE STAYS AT OR BELOW CURRENT 2158 OR LESS.
SO OKAY SO LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND THERE.
SO YOU'RE APPROVING IT BUT NOT ALLOWING TWO SQUARE FEET OF STRUCTURAL COVERAGE RIGHT.
OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT'S IT'S CONFORMING AT 19.6%.
THE NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE OF TWO FEET.
I UNDERSTAND OVERLY COMPLICATED.
I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF THAT.
I'M TRYING TO IMPROVE OR KEEP OR IMPROVE CURRENT POSITIONS.
I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAEMER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THOSE MOTIONS OR ON THAT MOTION? HEARING NONE. WE WILL VOTE.
ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
SO IT WAS APPROVED AS APPLIED 4 TO 2.
IT'LL GO TO COUNCIL WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.
THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSION IS APPROVAL WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 2.
THAT WILL GO TO COUNCIL AT THE FIRST MEETING THAT THEY HAVE IN OCTOBER FOR THEIR REVIEW.
OUR GOAL IS NOT CONFRONTATION.
OH, YEAH AND IF WE HAVE A CHANCE FOR YOU.
[00:55:01]
WELL, I THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO THE THIRD PUBLIC HEARING.
[5.3. #LA24-000045, Larry Compton o/b/o Park Gun Club, 3660 6th Avenue N, Interim Use Permit – Mining/Processing, Public Hearing]
LA 24- 45.LARRY COMPTON, ON BEHALF OF THE PARK GUN CLUB AT 3660 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH.
LARRY COMPTON IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARK GUN CLUB AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLUB, HE'S REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR MINING, MATERIAL PROCESSING AND EXPORT OF MATERIALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LEAD RECLAMATION PROJECT AT THE CLUB.
THIS IS THEIR FIRST LEAD RECLAMATION PROJECT.
THE MAJORITY OF THE SHOTGUN RANGE CONSISTS OF WETLANDS.
THE LEAD SHOT WILL BE SEPARATED FROM THE SOIL.
THE SOIL AND THE PLANT MATERIALS, THE ROOTS AND ANY EXISTING SEED BANK WILL BE REPLACED IN THOSE SECTIONS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE SILT FENCING IN AS THEY GO ACCORDING TO THEIR NARRATIVE.
THE SHOT WILL BE COLLECTED, PROCESSED AND BAGGED ON SITE.
IT WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 2 WEEKS TO PROCESS ENOUGH MATERIAL TO BE SHIPPED, AND WHILE THE MATERIAL IS BEING PROCESSED, IT WILL BE STORED ON THE PROPERTY IN THEIR LOWER PARKING AREA.
THEY ANTICIPATE THAT ONCE IT BEGINS, IT WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS, WITH A TOTAL OF 30 TO 35 TRUCKLOADS OF MATERIAL LEAVING THE SITE, KIND OF ON A SLOW, GRADUAL BASIS. OVER THAT TIME, MR. COMPTON HAS CONTACTED THE MCWD AND THE MPCA AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGARDING THIS PROJECT FOR PERMITS.
THE APPROVAL FROM THE WATERSHED DISTRICT FROM MR. COMPTON. I'M WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM THE MPCA AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGARDING THE LEVEL OF PERMITTING AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING AS FAR AS THEIR PERMITS FROM OUR STANDPOINT, THE PROJECT SCOPE AND PURPOSE ARE REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE GRADING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE ACTIVITY.
THE ENGINEER WILL REVIEW THE PROJECT.
AT THAT TIME, HE HAS LOOKED AT THIS AT KIND OF A HIGH LEVEL AND DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
THE CITY MAY IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE INTERIM USE PERMIT.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I CAN TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I THINK MR. COMPTON IS HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE GUN CLUB.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
I'M LARRY COMPTON, PRESIDENT OF PARK GUN CLUB.
MY HOME ADDRESS IS ONE 8525 PIONEER TRAIL, EDEN PRAIRIE.
WE ARE PROPOSING A WELL, WE'RE WE ARE PROPOSING TO STRIP OFF APPROXIMATELY.
WELL, 12IN OF THE CATTAIL BOG AND THE TOPSOIL.
MELANIE, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN YOUR.
IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS IN ESSENCE, YOU CAN SEE THE FOUR TRAPS AND SO YOU SHOOT AT A TARGET AND IT YOU BASICALLY FALLS IN THAT THE SHOT FALLS IN THAT RANGE.
WE'VE BEEN SHOOTING THERE FOR 70 YEARS.
OKAY AND IT'S NEVER BEEN MINED AND OUR CONTRACTOR EXPECTS ALL OF THE LEAD TO BE IN THAT FIRST 12IN.
SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS STRIP THAT OFF, PROCESS IT AND IF YOU'VE EVER WATCHED THE ALASKA GOLD MINERS, IT'S WET SLUICING AND SO WE'LL DIG TWO PONDS.
SMALL ONE PROVIDES WATER FOR THE SLUICING AND THE OTHER THE OTHER POND IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE WHERE THAT THE SOIL MATERIALS GO AND THEN THEY ARE GOING TO BE PUMPED RIGHT BACK OUT WITH A SIX INCH PUMP, ALMOST LIKE POURING A CONCRETE SLAB BACK
[01:00:02]
INTO THE INDENTED AREAS.SO WITH THE SILT FENCE AROUND THEM, THE DIRT LESS LEAD GOES RIGHT BACK WHERE IT CAME FROM.
IT'S ACTUALLY THE DNR HYDROLOGISTS KIND OF SAID, WELL, THIS IS NICE, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT NEEDED BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT 40 ACRES OF SILT FENCE.
BUT YOU KNOW, BELT AND SUSPENDERS AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING.
WE EXPECT THE PROJECT TO BE DONE.
WELL, DEPENDING ON AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF WEATHER, I THINK.
SO WE'LL START EARLY IN THE SPRING.
WE DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE ANY MORE DISRUPTIVE.
NOISE, WYSE OR ANYTHING ELSE, THEN SAY IF WE'RE A CONSTRUCTION GRADING PROJECT.
LESS THAN THAT. THERE ARE NO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE POLLUTION ISSUES. THE LEAD ENCAPSULATES IT, LAYS THERE JUST LIKE IT WERE GRAVEL AND SO ONCE YOU TAKE IT OUT, IT'S OUT.
SO THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON AS FAR AS LEAD CONTAMINATION AND REPLACING WATER PIPES AND STUFF.
SO IF WE JUST TAKE IT AWAY AND SHIP IT OUT, THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH SOIL POLLUTION, WATER POLLUTION, HAVING TO DIG WELLS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT THIS.
YOU CAN ACTUALLY REFINE AND REMOVE THAT LEAD SHOT.
CORRECT. IT'S GOING TO LAY IT LAYS IN LENS JUST LIKE A GRAVEL.
I MEAN IT'S JUST STAYED THERE AND I ASSUME THERE'S NO MORE LEAD SHOT THAT YOU'RE USING.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE AND I'VE BEEN ASKED THIS QUESTION, TOO.
AS FAR AS ANOTHER TYPE OF SHOT, LIKE NONTOXIC SHOT, LIKE FOR WATERFOWLING AND STUFF.
THERE ISN'T A VIABLE, FINANCIALLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO LEAD SHOT FOR THIS KIND OF THING AND SO AT SOME FUTURE POINT, IT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE MINED AGAIN.
THEY PERIODICALLY MINE, YOU KNOW, SO IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN.
IS THAT ARE THOSE TRUCKLOADS OF ACTUAL JUST LEAD OR IS THERE SOME.
WOW. YEAH FOR WITH THE SLUICING, THE WET REMOVAL OF THE LEAD FROM THE SOIL.
HE GETS BETWEEN 98 AND 99% OF IT, AND IT'S SUPPOSEDLY CLEAN ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY BE REUSED, BUT IT'S SOLD.
IT'S A COMMODITY, RECYCLED AND REUSED.
I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, AND I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON IT.
NOISE POLLUTION DURING THIS PROCESS FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AROUND.
YOU SAID YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE MORE LOUD THAN A CONSTRUCTION SITE.
IS THAT WHAT IS THE YOU MENTIONED THE PROCESS, WHICH IS GREAT.
IS IT THE SLUICING THAT'S LOUD OR IS IT JUST THE GENERAL EXCAVATION OR WHAT IS IT SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND YOU GO IN THERE ACTUALLY HOW THEY ACTUALLY ACCESS IT IS ON CRANE PADS, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, 16 BY USUALLY 12 OR 14.
THEY'RE GOING TO THINK IT'S A PRETTY QUIET OPERATION.
[01:05:01]
YEAH. YEP. IT'S THAT SORT OF THING.YEAH. WELL, ACTUALLY, THOUGH, THE GUN RANGE ISN'T THAT LOUD EITHER.
YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORS ARE QUITE A WAYS AWAY FOR THE MOST PART AND I'VE ALSO CONTACTED ALL OF THEM SEVERAL TIMES ACTUALLY BETWEEN THE HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS THAT WE RUN OUT OF THE GUN CLUB AND THAT KIND OF THING.
WE KEEP IN SEMI PERIODICAL CONVERSATION JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SOMETIMES TEAMS THAT GET RAINED OUT OR SOMETHING AND WITH THE LEAGUES THE WAY THEY ARE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE YOUR SHOOTING IN THAT WEEK BY SATURDAY AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY MISS THEIR DAY BECAUSE IT'S POURING RAIN, WE GOT TO FIT THEM IN SOMEWHERE. YEP.
SO, YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO THEM AND JUST LET THEM KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT LEAD SHOT, FALL LINE IS OVER, THAT YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY MINING OFF OF THE PROPERTY? NO. OR ARE YOU? I DISCUSSED THAT BRIEFLY WITH THREE RIVERS.
WITH. WITH THE HEAD OF THE AREA, I GUESS AND WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW.
WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LEAD.
SO WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE, I MEAN, IF YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE THEORETICAL SIZE OF IT AND SO IF IT KIND OF PETERS OUT, WELL, THEN WE DON'T GO ANY FARTHER.
IF WE FIND WE ARE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO OR WHERE WE COULD ENCROACH, WE'LL BE TALKING TO THEM AND WE'LL HAVE TO GET THEIR PERMISSION.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXTEND BEYOND OUR PROPERTY LINE.
ANSWERS ALL MY QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
IS THE CLUB GOING TO BE CLOSED THEN FOR A TIME OR.
THE EQUIPMENT, IF SOME BEES FALL ON IT, IT'LL BE FINE.
THAT KIND OF THING THAT WON'T HURT IT.
IF YOU HAVE THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND YOU HAVE THE DNR INVOLVED IN THIS.
IT GIVES ME A GREAT DEAL MORE COMFORT IN HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE REMEDIATED AND TAKEN CARE OF.
BUT WHO IS THE ENTITY THAT ACTUALLY IS COMING IN? ARE THEY A COMPANY WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF EXPERTISE AND CREDENTIALS THAT ARE DOING THIS ABATEMENT? THEY DO THE INDIVIDUAL.
IT'S A SMALL COMPANY AND THIS IS WHAT IS SPECIALTY.
IF YOU I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE GUN RANGE AT ALEXANDRIA.
OKAY. THAT'S WHERE THE STATE TURNS AROUND AND ALL THAT.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE STREET SWEEPING THE STREETS WHEN THEY RECLAIM THE LEAD OUT OF THERE.
THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE, IF ANY, THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FIND ANY THAT DID THIS TYPE OF WORK IN A WETLAND AND HE'S AN ILLINOIS CONTRACTOR. HE'S WORKED EXTENSIVELY OUT THERE, AND HE WANTED TO TRY IT IN MINNESOTA AND SO I SAID, WELL, WE DEFINITELY HAVE THE PLACE, BUT IT'S BEEN A.
BEING THE FIRST ONE HAS BEEN KIND OF A JOURNEY FOR US.
PUT IT TOGETHER. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF FOLKS THAT AREN'T REAL FAMILIAR WITH RECLAMATION.
YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS IT GOES AND THEY WERE THINKING IT WAS REMEDIATION.
BUT IT'S DEFINITELY RECYCLING AS OPPOSED TO YOU KNOW, LIKE GETTING TAKING OUT HAZARDOUS WASTE.
[01:10:09]
SEEN THAT MUCH AROUND SINCE 1977.THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROHIBITED THE MANUFACTURE OF LEAD BASED PAINT, BUT KIND OF IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION AND AT THE SAME TIME, YOU IMPRESSED ME AS A PERSON THAT'S DONE YOUR HOMEWORK AND OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE DIRECTING A PROJECT THAT IS IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTALLY AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVEN'T BOUGHT A HOUSE LATELY OR HAVEN'T BOUGHT AN OLDER HOME OR OWNED AN OLDER HOME.
I DON'T KNOW THE INSIDIOUS NATURE OF LEAD AS A TRACE MINERAL AND HOW REALLY TOXIC AND DANGEROUS IT IS TO ANY TYPE OF EXPOSURE TO HUMANS OR OTHER CREATURES, BECAUSE IT ONCE IS IN THE SYSTEM, WHETHER IT'S ASPIRATED OR WHETHER IT COMES FROM THE TOUCH OF THE SKIN, OR IF A CHILD EATS A FLAKE OF PAINT OFF OF AN OLD WINDOWSILL.
THERE REALLY IS NO CURE FOR LEAD BASED PAINT POISONING.
SO IN YOUR EFFORTS AND ENERGIES TO DO THIS, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN EVERY STAGE OF THIS DOES REMEDIATION TO A DEGREE.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN A SKEET SHOOTER, BUT I HOLD AN NRA MARKSMANSHIP SHARPSHOOTERS CERTIFICATION, WHICH I EARNED MANY YEARS AGO. I'M NOT AN NRA MEMBER ANYMORE, BUT I STILL HAVE MY CERTIFICATES AND IN THE COURSE OF EARNING THAT, I WAS INVOLVED IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE I WENT TO SCHOOL, THAT 55 YEARS AFTER THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A SHOOTING RANGE, THERE WERE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SHOT, BUT THEY'RE STILL LEAD BASED.
55 YEARS AFTER REMEDIATION WAS DONE IN A VERY FORENSIC MANNER WITH FEDERAL OVERSIGHT.
THERE STILL ARE TRACE MINERALS OF LEAD IN THE SOIL AND THEN THE BUILDING SITE WHERE THEY BUILT HOUSING PUBLIC, NOT PUBLIC HOUSING, BUT I MEAN TOWNHOUSES AND HOUSING FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.
SO IN A PLACE LIKE ORONO, WHERE WE ARE THE LAKE CITY AND WHERE WE HAVE SO MUCH WATER AND WE HAVE SO MUCH ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL NATURE OF THE BEAUTY OF ORONO.
PLEASE DO EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN TO MAKE SURE THIS IS THE MOST THOROUGH AND COMPLETE REMEDIATION THAT YOU'LL EVER BE INVOLVED IN IN YOUR LIFE. WELL, AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT 98 TO 99% OF THE LEAD IN THE SOIL.
I, YOU KNOW, AND I WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T GET RID OF ALL OF IT.
I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT.
I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU KNOW, I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU THAT.
YOU'RE RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU'RE THE STEERING.
YOU'RE THE HEAD OF THE PROCESS.
SO I'M JUST APPEALING TO YOU AS AN ORONO RESIDENT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LIBBY.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
YEAH. SEEING NONE, I HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I THINK COMMISSIONER LIBBY BROUGHT UP SOME GREAT POINTS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE AN EXPERT.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING THAT THEY'RE CLEANING THE SITE UP.
SO THIS LEADS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN LEAD PAINT TO LEAD PAINT.
IT'S SANDED AND THEN YOU BREATHE IT IN OR LIKE SOMEBODY MENTIONED, KIDS EAT PAINT CHIPS OR WHATEVER.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EAT IT AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BREATHE IT IN.
[01:15:08]
I ONLY BROUGHT THE PAINT EXAMPLE UP BECAUSE IT'S A FEDERAL MANDATE.MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS IS NOISE POLLUTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH THE EXCAVATOR.
I'VE SEEN THE MINING SHOWS, I'VE SEEN THE SLUICES.
SO WE I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE APPROVED ANY TYPE OF MINING IN ORONO BEFORE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT WITH THE SLUICES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE RUNNING 24 OVER SEVEN SO THAT THEY CAN GET THE PROJECT DONE.
YEAH. THEY CAN'T. IS I KNOW WE HAVE NOISE POLLUTION ORDINANCE AND HOURS OF OPERATION.
THEY FOLLOW CONSTRUCTION HOURS IS.
SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SOME SORT OF MITIGATE ON THE POTENTIAL NOISE POLLUTION IF IT IS A PROBLEM, MR. CHAIR. YES. ARE YOU SUGGESTING STRICTER HOURS THAN THOSE THAT ARE ALLOTTED FOR FEASIBLE USE, LIKE BUILDING POTENTIALLY A STRICTER OUR THING.
SO THAT'S IT'S BASICALLY LIKE A CANVAS WALL THAT GOES AROUND THE MINING EQUIPMENT SO THAT IT DOESN'T, OR THE ATTEMPT IS SO THAT THE SOUND DOESN'T LEAVE THE SITE BECAUSE WE JUST I'M JUST POINTING OUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT WITH THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF MACHINERY.
HE STATED IT'S A LONG ARM BACKHOE.
THE I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE BACKHOE.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACTUAL SLUICE BOX MACHINE THAT'S RUNNING AND ACTUALLY DOING THE MINING AND YOU CAN PUT A CONDITION ON THE IUP IF WE RECEIVE COMPLAINTS REGARDING NOISE, THAT IT CAN COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL OR COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REVIEW THAT WITH THAT CONDITION THERE, THAT WOULD KIND OF BE A GOOD STOPPING POINT IF WE DO ENCOUNTER CONCERNS FOR NOISE.
I LIKE THAT BECAUSE I THINK COMMISSIONER RESSLER TIGHTENING UP THE HOURS IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE THE PROJECT LAST LONGER, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS THAT, BUT I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN IF IT IS AN ISSUE, BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T KNOW AND MAYBE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AT ALL AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL HOPING FOR. YEAH.
I MEAN, SO THEY'VE SHOT SHOTGUNS THERE FOR 70 YEARS.
YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY [INAUDIBLE].
QUITE, YOU KNOW, NICELY REMOTE FROM YOU KNOW, GRANTED THERE WAS THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT THERE NOW, BUT AGAIN I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE MACHINERY CAN'T BE MORE NOISY THAN A SHOTGUN GOING OFF EVERY FIVE SECONDS OR CHAINSAWS GOING OFF, YOU KNOW, AND I MEAN, I'VE SHOT A COUPLE OF YEARS OF LEAGUE THERE.
SO THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO MITIGATE SOME SHOTS THAT WENT AWRY BECAUSE I SENT A LOT OF CLAY OFF INTO THE DISTANCE AND YOU'RE SAYING YOURS AREN'T ALL IN THAT ZONE? I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE ANY MARKSMAN CERTIFICATES.
BUT I'M GRATEFUL THAT THEY'RE DOING IT.
I THINK IT'S GREAT TO CLEAN UP THE SITE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPROVEMENTS, AND SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE COGNIZANT OF THEIR NEIGHBORS AND BEING RESPECTFUL.
YEAH, I THINK I LIVE NOT FAR FROM HERE AS THE CROW FLIES.
I HAVE NEVER ONCE HEARD A SHOTGUN SHOT FROM THERE, BUT I'M ALSO SOUTH OF THERE.
SO THAT PRIMARY DIRECTION THEY'RE SHOOTING NORTH.
SO THAT'S MOST WHERE THE SOUND IS GOING TO GO.
BUT I WOULD BE CONCERNED FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT CLOSE PROXIMITY IF THIS MINING EQUIPMENT IS EXTREMELY LOUD, SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS WITH THAT STIPULATION.
I RIDE MY BIKE THROUGH THERE ALL THE TIME, AND I'VE NEVER BEEN HIT SO FAR.
YEAH, AND THE ROAD NOISE DROWNS OUT A LOT OF THE SHOTS, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, AND HONESTLY, ALL JOKES ASIDE, LIKE THE ROAD NOISE WITH THE FREEWAY AND EVERYTHING BEING SO NEAR, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WASN'T CARS PARKED DOWN THERE.
IT'S AMAZING HOW THAT DISSIPATES RATHER QUICKLY.
SO IT'S A MOMENT WHERE IT'S NICE TO HAVE ALL THAT TRAFFIC GOING BY.
YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND THEY HAVE A 70 YEAR HISTORY OF RUNNING A VERY GOOD CLUB THERE.
[01:20:05]
YEAH AND BEING GREAT NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY.SO I WILL I'LL TAKE A STAB AT MAKING A MOTION ON THIS ONE.
I'D MOVE TO APPROVE AS APPLIED WITH A CONDITION THAT IF THERE ARE NOISE COMPLAINTS, WE CAN.
IT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW BE BROUGHT.
IF THERE ARE NOISE COMPLAINTS, IT CAN BE BROUGHT.
THE IUP CAN BE BROUGHT BACK FOR REVIEW.
I STILL WANT A SECOND. OKAY, I'LL SECOND THAT.
SO, MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITION BY MYSELF.
SECOND, SCHULTZE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THAT BRINGS US TO OTHER ITEMS, MISS OAKDEN.
[6. Other Items]
YES. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRACKETTS POINT WAS APPROVED.
THAT WAS REARRANGING THOSE PLOT LINES WITH THE OUTLOT AND THE ROAD AT THE VERY POINT OF BRACKETS.
NO NEW LOTS WERE BEING PROPOSED WITH THAT, JUST A REARRANGEMENT OF A BUNCH OF LINES AND EASEMENTS AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO VACATE SOME EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HONEY HILL DEVELOPMENT.
YOU APPROVED A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
I THINK IT WAS A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION NOT TOO FAR FROM THE GUN CLUB THERE AND THROUGH SURVEY AND TITLE WORK, AS THEY'RE GETTING READY FOR THEIR FINAL PLAT, SOME EASEMENTS NEEDED TO BE VACATED ASSOCIATED.
SO KEEPING THAT IN THEIR TIMELINE, WE BROUGHT THAT PUBLIC HEARING TO COUNCIL.
SO CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THAT AS WELL AND THEN MY LAST UPDATE IS TODAY, I DID GET AN UPDATE FROM COMMISSIONER LIBBY THAT HE HAS TENDERED HIS RESIGNATION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS HE WILL BE MOVING.
SO I BELIEVE THIS MAY BE OCTOBER.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, THOSE ARE MY UPDATES.
ANYONE WISH TO MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED.
I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. LIBBY TO MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND BY ERICKSON.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION.
GAVEL OUT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.