Jul 21, 2025 Planning Commission

[Portions of the meeting does not contain audio]

[1. Call to Order]

[00:00:18]

ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[3. Approval of Agenda]

WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRANDABUR FOR APPROVAL AGENDA.

AND A SECOND BY PRCHAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. PRCHAL, TIFT AND BRANDABUR.

AM I SAYING YOU CORRECT? BRANDABUR. BRANDABUR, YOU GOT IT.

OKAY. SORRY. NEW CROWD TONIGHT. BE PATIENT WITH ME.

I HAVEN'T CHAIRED FOR A WHILE, BUT I HAVE DONE IT.

PROBABLY DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT. OKAY. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS.

PUBLIC HEARING. LA25. OH. DO WE DO THE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT.

[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of June 16, 2025]

DO I HAVE A MOTION? A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM JUNE 16TH, 2025.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FROM TIFT AND A SECOND FROM PRCHAL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES.

ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM. OPEN UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING IS LA25-23 DAVID CHARLEZ DESIGNS, MARK

[5.1. #LA25-000023, David Charlez Designs o/b/o Mark Stadheim, 1390 Rest Point Road, Variances (Melanie Curtis)]

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN EXPANDED 2ND STORY ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING HOME, AND A MINIMAL INCREASE IN THE ELEVATION OF THE LAKESIDE DECK JUST TO MEET THE THRESHOLD OF THE DOOR. THE PROPERTY IS NON-CONFORMING IN SIZE.

THE HOME IS 67FT FROM THE WATER AND ENCROACHES FOUR FEET LAKEWOOD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

IT ALSO ENCROACHES APPROXIMATELY TEN FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 30-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.

THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT INCREASE ANY OF THE EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS.

LET'S SEE, THE THE DECK IS LOCATED 54FT FROM THE WATER.

THE EXPANDED 2ND STORY WILL NOT INCREASE THE OVERALL ROOF PEAK HEIGHT.

AND AGAIN, THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCES.

THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ANALYSIS AND WRITTEN NARRATIVE WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS.

THEY SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.

THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXPAND THE 2ND STORY OF THE HOME OVER THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE, CONSIDERING THE NOTED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES RELATING TO THE LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF THE SUBJECT HOME, THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, AND THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS FROM THREE OF THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS, AND A LETTER OF SUPPORT WAS RECEIVED ABOUT THE PROJECT FROM THE OWNERS AT 1405 REST POINT ROAD. NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AS APPLIED.

I HAVE SOME AERIAL PHOTOS AND CAN LOOK AT THE SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY OR THE HOME PLANS IF YOU WISH, BUT I CAN STAND FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.

IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE AND WISHES TO PRESENT, FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD.

AND AS A REMINDER, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING, MR. COMMISSIONER. FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I THINK. MY NAME IS DAVID ZWEBER. I'M THE PRINCIPAL WITH DAVID CHARLEZ DESIGN.

WE DID THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR THIS PROJECT.

I THINK MISS CURTIS DID A WONDERFUL JOB OF SUMMARIZING WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR ON THIS PROJECT.

FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD ADDITIONS OVER THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

WE'RE INCREASING THE VOLUME OF THE HOUSE SLIGHTLY, BUT NOT BY RAISING THE ROOF OVER THE EXISTING ROOF HEIGHT.

EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE CONTAINED UNDER THE ROOF.

THERE'S A FAIRLY UNATTRACTIVE FLAT ROOF OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE SPACE.

SO WE'RE NOT ONLY BEAUTIFYING THE EXTERIOR OF THIS PROJECT, BUT ALSO BY DOING THAT, WE GAINED A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE ON THE INSIDE,

[00:05:04]

WE WERE VERY COGNIZANT TO NOT GET ANY CLOSER TO THE LAKE WITH THE STRUCTURE.

WE DIDN'T ADD ANY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THE SITE.

THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT, AND I'M HERE TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO APPROACH PODIUM AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, FEEL FREE. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT TO COUNCIL TO DISCUSS. FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.

THAT COLOR CODED YELLOW AND GRAY. IT SEEMS SUBTLE, BUT MUCH APPRECIATED UP HERE.

SO, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NO HARD COVER INCREASE. AND WHENEVER YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE LAKE LIKE THAT, THAT'S ALWAYS APPRECIATED. AND IT DOESN'T LOOK TOO EGREGIOUS. I'M ALIGNED TO APPROVE THIS ONE, BUT I JUST DIDN'T HEAR ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

YEAH. IN MY OPINION, NO FOOTPRINT EXPANSION, NO CHANGE TO THE OVERALL ROOF HEIGHT.

SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS FEELS PRETTY EASY TO SUPPORT THIS FOR APPROVAL.

I WOULD AGREE, I THINK THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS THOUGHTFUL.

IT'S REASONABLE. IT HELPS PRESERVE A HOME THAT'S OVER 100 YEARS OLD.

I THINK DENYING THIS REQUEST WOULD PUT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE OWNER.

I THINK WE SHOULD EMBRACE THEIR WILLINGNESS TO IMPROVE THE HOME, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONSIDERATION THAT WAS MADE FOR HOW IT AFFECTS LAKE SHORE AND EVERYTHING ELSE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION, SO I AGREE.

THANKS. I'LL KEEP IT SHORT. I AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

JUST WANT TO AGAIN NOTE THE LETTERS THAT WERE PROVIDED, SUPER HELPFUL FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY SUPPOSED TO TAKE COMMUNITY INPUT INTO FACTOR.

AND AS THEY MENTIONED AS WELL, JUST THE VISUALS AND PLANS ARE VERY, VERY WELL RECEIVED AND HELP ALL OF US.

AND I ASSUME THE COUNCIL AS WELL. SO THANK YOU.

NOW, HEARING THAT I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 25-000023. SECOND THAT. WE GOT A MOTION BY PRCHAL AND A SECOND BY BRANDABUR.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES.

[5.2. LA25-000025, Southview Design, 1530 Orchard Beach Place, Variances (Matthew Karney)]

LA25-25. SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, 1530 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE, VARIANCES BY MATTHEW KEARNEY.

ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR. THAT'S FINE.

MR. CHAIR. PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS A PRESENTATION FOR VARIANCES AT 1530 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE.

TO WALK YOU THROUGH A COUPLE OF DETAILS AND BRIEF PRESENTATION HERE.

SUBJECT PROPERTY OVER ON THE WEST SIDE OF, OR PARDON ME, THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN, YES.

ULTIMATELY THIS IS A LARGER PROJECT TO INCLUDE AN ACCESSORY CABANA BUILDING LAKEWOOD OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND WITHIN OUR BUILDING PLACEMENT SEPARATION SETBACK OF TEN FEET.

WE ASK FOR TEN FEET OF SEPARATION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.

NO UNUSUAL DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPERTY IN THE SENSE.

LR-1B ZONED. 25% HARDCOVER LIMIT. I WILL COMMENT ON THAT, AS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE ADDITION OF A PATIO, A POOL, WALLS AND LANDSCAPING THAT HAS CHANGED.

ULTIMATELY, THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S A BIT OF CONSTRUCTION GOING ON THERE CURRENTLY.

SO THE HARDCOVER HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED WITH THOSE PERMITS, AND THIS ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED IS ONLY ADDING A SMALL AMOUNT OF HARDCOVER OR SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THAT NUMBER THAT ISN'T ALREADY CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THOSE EXISTING PERMITS.

SO TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL, I'LL HAVE A MORE ZOOMED IN PICTURE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

BUT GENERALLY THIS IS THE ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED 15 BY 15 FOR THE MAIN PORTION OF THAT STRUCTURE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTENSION, I WANT TO SAY ABOUT 6.5FT TO THE EAST, LOCATED KIND OF KITTY CORNER TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE POOL AREA. SO TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THIS GRAPHIC,

[00:10:03]

ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE COME ABOUT WITH THEIR PROJECTS HAVE NOT INVOLVED THE LAKESHORE WHATSOEVER.

THEY'VE BEEN FAIRLY DILIGENT ABOUT MAKING THEIR IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA.

IN TERMS OF THE PATIO AND SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING ON, THEY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

HOWEVER THIS ACCESSORY BUILDING IS THE ONLY ITEM OR THE ONLY IMPROVEMENT THAT'S OVER THAT 42IN THAT KICKS IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AS WELL AS ABOVE, SHOWING THAT SEVEN FEET OF SEPARATION THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN THE CABANA AND THE HOUSE THERE. SO ULTIMATELY ANOTHER DETAIL THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS BECAUSE DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY, KIND OF SHOWN TO THE LEFT, THERE IS RIGHT OF WAY FOR ORCHARD BEACH PLACE.

SO IN THIS INSTANCE, BECAUSE IT DOES GO ALL THE WAY TO LAKE MINNETONKA, HOW OUR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK REGULATION IS WRITTEN.

WE WOULD BE TAKING A FLAT MEASUREMENT OFF OF THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST.

SO THE SETBACK FROM THAT HOUSE, KIND OF AS YOU CAN SEE, WHERE THE WINE IS GOING, THERE IS 129FT FROM THE LAKE.

SO THAT IMPOSES 129 FOOT SETBACK ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE, AN ADDITIONAL 54FT FROM WHAT'S REQUIRED WITH THE 75 FOOT LAKESHORE. SO, IN CONCLUSION, ULTIMATELY STAFF HAS FOUND THAT A HARDSHIP WAS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH THE REQUEST.

THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY USE ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED.

THIS IS AN ASK FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, WHERE STAFF FEELS THERE'S NOT BEEN A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION.

WHY THIS IS THE ONLY LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY THAT WORKS FOR THIS? THERE WASN'T ESSENTIALLY A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ESTABLISHED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE THE BUILDING PLACEMENT, ALTHOUGH IMPORTANT SEEMS TO BE AN EFFORT OF THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO LOCATE THE STRUCTURE ON A PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S LESS IMPACTFUL, THE LAKE VIEWS, BUT AGAIN, CREATES A CONFLICT THERE WHERE THE BUILDINGS END UP GETTING A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER THERE. THAT BEING CONSIDERED STAFF DOES FEEL THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, POTENTIALLY BASED ON THE SURVEY AND SOME OF THE OTHER GRAPHICS THAT ARE PROVIDED, KIND OF ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THERE COULD ESSENTIALLY BE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.

HAVING ONE WITHIN THE LAKE YARD DOESN'T CONSTITUTE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THE EYES OF STAFF.

WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH. COULD STAFF SPEAK TO JUST THE REASONING BEHIND THE TEN FOOT REQUIREMENT BETWEEN BUILDINGS? I THINK I MIGHT HAVE LAURA SPEAK TO THE HISTORY OF IT, IF YOU WILL.

YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT COMES FROM A REFERENCE TO THE STATE FIRE CODE WITH BUILDINGS NEEDING TEN FEET OF SEPARATION.

THEY CAN BE CLOSER TOGETHER, BUT INCREASED FIRE PROTECTION IS NEEDED.

BUT IN OUR CODE, WE CODIFIED THAT A TEN FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS IS REQUIRED.

SO WHILE THERE MIGHT BE LENIENCY IN THE FIRE CODE TO ALLOW BUILDINGS TO BE CLOSER IF WITHIN TEN FEET.

OUR CITY CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS A TEN FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED, SO THAT THAT STANDARD IS A REFERENCE TO IS THE FIRE CODE, WHICH SAYS TEN FEET TO NOT TO AVOID THIS INCREASED FIRE CONSTRUCTION LEVEL.

IT'S ALSO A MASSING REGULATOR TOO. OH YEAH, THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. AND WE GRANTED MANY VARIANCES OF BUILDINGS BEING ERECTED WITH LESS THAN TEN FEET RECENTLY.

WE DON'T GRANT MANY. IT'S NOT A COMMON REQUESTED VARIANCE, BUT WE HAVE GRANTED VARIANCES FOR THAT.

WHEN THERE IS A CHALLENGING BUILDING ENVELOPE OR CHALLENGE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT LEAN US TO NEEDING A CLOSER BUILDING, A CLOSER SETBACK BETWEEN BUILDINGS. SO I HAVE SEEN THAT VARIANCE COME THROUGH, BUT IT'S NOT A COMMON REQUEST.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WAS ESTABLISHED IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT WAS APPROVED? YEAH. YEAH. I CAN THINK OF ONE IN MY TENURE HERE IN EIGHT YEARS WHERE WE GRANTED ONE AND THERE WAS NO VIABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THAT SITE THAT WHERE WE GRANTED IT. SO WE HAD TO BE FLEXIBLE AND FIND A WAY TO WORK ON THAT SITE BECAUSE ALL THE SETBACKS OVERLAPPED.

SO THERE WAS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THE INSTANCE THAT I'M REMEMBERING, BUT IT'S UP TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF THIS REQUEST MEETS

[00:15:10]

SO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THEN IS ONLY BEING MEASURED OFF OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS UNUSUAL. CORRECT.

A RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. THEN WE WILL USE THAT MEASUREMENT OF THE ACTUAL IMPROVED STRUCTURE ON THE LOT ABUTTING.

OKAY. AND THEN CAN YOU BRING THE MAP BACK UP PLEASE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AND SO IN THIS CASE WHEN WAS THE WHEN WAS THE HOME BUILT? DO WE KNOW. THIS HOME? YES. I AM NOT AWARE. 2009.

OKAY. AND THIS POOL CABANA IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORAGE AND WHATNOT FOR ITEMS RELATED TO THE YARD, I WOULD IMAGINE, BUT I GUESS THAT'S MAYBE SOMETHING WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO.

ASK STAFF IF THE HOMEOWNERS CHOSE TO PURSUE AN EXPANSION OF THEIR HOME INSTEAD OF HAVING A GAP AND A SEPARATE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY PERMITTED? IT WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED. IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

BUT IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS WOULD BE DONE IN COMPARISON TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDARD VERSUS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. OKAY.

BUT AS STAFF IS WORKING, WE REVIEW WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.

SURE, OF COURSE. YES. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK AROUND.

SO. OKAY, I GUESS I'LL WAIT UNTIL MAYBE WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY OF THAT.

NO, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS. BACK TO STAFF QUICKLY.

SORRY IF I DON'T MIND INTERRUPTING. CAN YOU MAYBE PROVIDE SOME EXTRA CLARITY ON WHY THE RIGHT OF WAY DOESN'T BECOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? ULTIMATELY, IT'S HOW THE REGULATION IS APPLIED.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S WE'RE APPRAISING, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.

AND IN A TYPICAL SITUATION, WE'RE DRAWING THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE BASED ON TWO EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS.

AND THIS IS AGAIN, NO DIFFERENT THAN IF IT WERE A VACANT LOT NEXT DOOR OR IF IT'S RIGHT OF WAY IN THOSE CASES, WHEN THERE'S NOT AN IMPROVEMENT ON ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE HAVE TO TAKE THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE HIGH WATER LEVEL TO THAT STRUCTURE ON THE ADJACENT LOT. SO IT'S NOT A PICK AND CHOOSE.

IT'S ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE APPLICABLE REGULATION IN THIS CASE.

IF THE PROPERTY WASN'T ABUTTING A STREET, THIS ADJACENT LAKESHORE NEIGHBOR, RIGHT HERE ON THE SMALL LOT WOULD BE THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT LINE THAT WE DRAW.

AND THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

BUT IT IS JUST ANNOTATED IN THE CITY CODE, HOW WE DRAW THIS LINE.

AND WHEN YOU ABUT A RIGHT OF WAY, IT IS STATED IN THE CITY CODE THAT WE ONLY USE THE SIDE AS A FLAT MEASUREMENT.

GOT IT. I WILL NOTE, THOUGH, NOT TO INTERRUPT THAT PURPLE DASHED LINE THAT YOU SEE GOING CRISSCROSS THROUGH THE DARKER SHADED AREA WOULD BE THAT LINE BETWEEN THE. IF YOU WERE TO SKIP OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IF YOU WERE TO SKIP OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT WOULD BE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.

AND I GUESS JUST TO ARTICULATE MY QUESTION AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.

LIKE I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH HOW THE THE LINE IS APPLIED, BUT DOESN'T THE RIGHT OF WAY ITSELF.

ISN'T THAT A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY, THAT THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS TO THE.

AND THAT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. IS THAT NOT TRUE? I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMISSION COULD DISCUSS.

IT HAS NOT BEEN USED AS A STANDARD FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THE PAST BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN HOW WE CALCULATE THIS LINE, WHETHER IT ABUTS A, A RIGHT OF WAY, A VACANT LOT, OR THERE'S ANOTHER DESCRIPTION IN THE DEFINITION ON IF THE LINE BISECTS THE HOUSE,

[00:20:05]

AND SO IT, IT HASN'T NECESSARILY BEEN FULLY FLESHED OUT OR WE HAVEN'T USED THAT STANDARD FOR A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, BUT THAT'S FOR THE COMMISSION TO FURTHER DISCUSS, IF YOU WISH.

THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, AND I THINK SINCE IT'S NOT SHOWN HERE, THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY NO, BUT I'LL ASK ANYWAY. DO WE HAVE VIEWS LOOKING AT, FROM, I SEE WE HAVE THE VIEWS OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, BUT DO WE HAVE VIEWS OF THE HOME WITH THE STRUCTURE AND WITHOUT. SO WE CAN SEE HOW THE STRUCTURE.

AN ELEVATION VIEW? YEAH. LIKE HOW AN ELEVATION VIEW SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THE ADDING THE STRUCTURE CHANGES THE VIEW OF THE HOME FROM THE LAKE. PARDON ME LIKE ELEVATIONS WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE I DO NOT HAVE.

YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S ALL FOR ME. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. IF THE APPLICANTS HERE AND WISHES APPROACH TO PODIUM TO DISCUSS FURTHER, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

GOOD EVENING. JOSH KELLER WITH SOUTHVIEW DESIGN.

SO I'M THE LEAD DESIGNER ON THIS PROJECT. I ACTUALLY THINK WHAT THOMAS WAS MENTIONING IS EXACTLY WHY I THINK THAT THE VARIANCE IS, THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, A REASONING FOR IT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS.

SO THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO AVOID CAUSING ANY VIEWS FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE VIEWS TO THE LAKE.

YOU CAN SEE THE ONLY HOUSE THAT WE'RE TOUCHING IS THE HOUSE TO THE.

WELL, IF I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT HERE TO THE RIGHT.

AND I ACTUALLY MET WITH THOSE HOMEOWNERS, AND I HAVE A LETTER THAT THEY HAD SIGNED THAT SAID IT DOESN'T BOTHER THEM AT ALL.

I ACTUALLY HAVE PICTURES FROM THEIR DECK. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT ON THEIR DECK AND LOOK BACKWARDS TO EVEN SEE THE STRUCTURE.

SO YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE STRUCTURE IS NOT IMPEDING ANY VIEWS WHATSOEVER.

AND IN FACT, GIVEN THAT THERE'S A SERVICE ROAD RIGHT THERE AND IT'S NOT A ROAD FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY'S DRIVEWAYS TO GO IN THERE.

THERE'S A HOUSE RIGHT ON THE END OF THAT. SO WHERE THAT PURPLE DOTTED LINE ENDS, THERE'S A BIG, TALL, SKINNY HOUSE. THAT GOT A VARIANCE TO BUILD.

YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS, THE WHOLE BUILDING IS 30 FOOT, 40 FOOT FROM THE WATER.

AND WE SEE THAT HOUSE FROM WHERE WE'RE AT. THE CABANA WAS DESIGNED TO BLOCK A LITTLE BIT OF THAT VIEW FOR US.

SO IN ALL HONESTY, IN MY OPINION, AND I THINK IT'S OUR OPINION, THIS IS THE WHOLE REASON THAT THERE'S A HARDSHIP HERE.

THIS IS WHY YOU WOULD HAVE A VARIANCE IS WE'RE UP AGAINST A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS.

WE'RE NOT IMPEDING ANYBODY'S VIEW OF THE LAKE.

IN FACT, WE DESIGNED IT SPECIFICALLY SO THAT IT WOULDN'T BE IN ANYONE'S VIEW.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK BACKWARDS TO SEE THE STRUCTURE.

AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER STRUCTURE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICALITY OF THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, THERE'S A SERVICE ROAD RIGHT THERE.

AND THEN THIS HOUSE DOESN'T GET APPLIED. SO TO ME, I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THERE'S NOT A REASONABLE DIFFICULTY HERE WITH THE WITH A SPECIFIC STRUCTURE. NOW WE'VE SUPPLIED OTHER 3DS OF THE HOUSE AND THE STRUCTURE I CAN ALWAYS SEND TO THOSE AS WELL.

THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE FOUND OUT WHEN WE WERE CHATTING IS, YOU KNOW, HAVING THAT STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, TOO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE. IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE 3D IMAGE OF THE OF THE STRUCTURE REAL QUICK FOR ME.

YOU'LL SEE HERE THAT THE PIECE OF IT THAT ACTUALLY TOUCHES THAT LINE IS ACTUALLY JUST THE PERGOLA PORTION.

SO THE ROOF STRUCTURE PIECE OF THAT DOESN'T, IS WITHIN, IS FARTHER AWAY THAN THE TEN FOOT THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE CODE TO BE TOO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF SLIDING THE CABANA IF WE ABSOLUTELY NEEDED TO, TO GET AWAY FROM THAT TEN-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE HOUSE.

THAT'S AN EASY ENOUGH THING TO DO. I THINK WE'RE SEVEN FEET RIGHT NOW.

AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST TOUCHING THE PORTION OF THE PERGOLA, NOT THE ACTUAL CABANA ITSELF.

SO WE COULD EITHER REMOVE THE PERGOLA OR ACTUALLY SLIDE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE A LITTLE BIT TO THE LEFT.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S THAT IT'S THAT PURPLE LINE IF YOU DRAW.

WE JUST DREW THAT LINE FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE. YOU CAN SEE WE'RE WELL WITHIN WHAT THAT SETBACK IS.

AND IF THE CODE IS THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, IMPEDE ANYONE'S VIEW OF THE LAKE.

AND I GUESS TO ME, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS TO ME THERE IS A HARDSHIP HERE.

YOU KNOW, I GUESS IT'S AN INTERPRETATION OF HOW WE LOOK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I GUESS I GOT ONE. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED ATTACHING IT TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE?

[00:25:04]

THE PIECE IS STILL INTO THAT, OR A SETBACK FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT. SEE THE TOP BLUE LINE THERE.

I MEAN, IT ALMOST TOUCHES THE HOUSE IN EVERY AREA.

IN FACT, THE NEIGHBOR STAIRS ARE BEYOND THAT.

SO THAT'S ACTUALLY HIGHER PER THE CODE THAN WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

THE NEIGHBORING TO THE RIGHT, THE DECK STAIRS.

SO EVEN IF WE TRY AND ATTACH IT TO THE HOUSE, THERE'S NO, THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO, WE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO BASICALLY THE FRONT YARD, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO SETBACKS FROM THE SIDE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO WE'D HAVE TO PUT UP THE CABANA, IF YOU WILL, IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE HOUSE, WHICH ISN'T GOING TO HELP ANYTHING WITH SHADE OR IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP ANYTHING WITH POOL, POOL, TOYS AND LIKE TOYS AND EVERYTHING THAT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE DESIGNED IT ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE SO THAT WE WOULDN'T IMPACT ANYONE THAT VIEWS.

WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION FROM THE VERY START THAT WE WERE FINE.

AND EVEN FIRST COMING TO THE CITY, WE FIGURED WE WERE FINE BECAUSE WE HAD THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OVER THERE TOO. THERE WAS NO WAY IT WAS GOING TO EVEN BE CLOSE.

BUT THEN, PER THE RULES, THERE'S A ROAD RIGHT THERE.

SO DO YOU KNOW THE TOTAL HARDCOVER WITH ALL OF THIS? YEAH, IT SHOULD BE ON THE PLAN SOMEWHERE, UNLESS WE TOOK IT OFF FOR THIS SETTING.

IT'S UNDER YOUR HARDCOVER. WE'RE UNDER THE HARDCOVER.

WE'RE QUITE A BIT UNDER THE HARDCOVER. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? NO, RIGHT NOW, NO.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE HOMEOWNER IS HERE TO SEE YOU GUYS.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD ON THIS PROJECT. WELL, SORRY, JUST FOR TECHNICALITY.

CAN YOU APPROACH PODIUM NAME AND ADDRESS? BRETT.

SORRY. BRETT SCHREIBER I'M THE HOMEOWNER. WE'VE LIVED THERE FIVE YEARS, AND WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BUILD THIS AND, YOU KNOW, BE WORKING WITH THESE GUYS.

SO THIS IS JUST OUR LAST STEP HERE, AND WE DIDN'T THINK WE'D HAVE ANY ISSUES WHATSOEVER.

SO JUST THE WAY THE FLOW WOULD GO, AND YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS WERE REALLY CLOSE WITH TWO AND THEY WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS GREAT AND YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT.

YEAH. AND OUR DAUGHTER'S FOUR YEARS OLD AND SHE'S LOOKING FORWARD TO EVERYTHING.

WHEN'S IT? WE'LL LET HER OFF THE HOOK TONIGHT.

YEAH. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THEY DID MENTION THERE WAS A LETTER. DID WE GET THAT LETTER? THEY WERE OUT OF TOWN. I JUST GOT A THANK YOU.

WE CAN JUST PASS IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYBODY FROM THIS ATTENDING WANTS TO APPROACH THE PODIUM.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. DO YOU WANT TO READ THE LETTER SO WE CAN GET IT IN THE RECORD? THAT APPROPRIATE? IS THIS FROM. WE CAN DO THAT AT THAT NOW OR DO WE DO THAT WHEN WE DISCUSS? AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, ONCE YOU CLOSE IT, YOU CAN REQUEST IT BEING READ INTO THE RECORD.

ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING STILL OPEN IF ANYBODY WANTS TO. ADDRESS THIS ITEM, PLEASE APPROACH PODIUM.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT TO A COMMISSION TO DISCUSS.

YEAH. CAN YOU ARTICULATE WHAT THAT IS? ABSOLUTELY.

FROM DOUGLAS AND DIANE WALLACH. I BELIEVE THAT'S 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, WHICH WOULD BE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I. DIANE WALDECK, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.

AM WRITING TO CONFIRM THAT I AM AWARE OF AND HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE CABANA PROJECT PLANNED AT BRET SCHREIBER'S PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 1530 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE. I HAVE REVIEWED THE PLANS AND UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE CABANA RELATIVE TO OUR SHARED PROPERTY LINE.

I HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THE PLACEMENT AND SUPPORT THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD AS DESCRIBED.

I BELIEVE THE CABANA WILL BE A TASTEFUL ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY AND WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING HOMES.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME IF FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED.

SINCERELY, DIANE. THANK YOU. THANKS. LET'S SEE.

MY FIRST THOUGHT IS NO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. PERIOD.

SO UP TO TALK ME UP TO LET YOU HEAR THIS ONE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF THIS WAS LIKE.

IS THIS LAKESHORE SETBACK? I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, LIKE, ZERO BUILDING STRUCTURES ALLOWED IN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK PERIOD.

WHAT IS THAT? THAT'D BE IMPROVEMENTS GREATER THAN 42IN.

OKAY. WELL, SO THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENTS BESIDE LAKE STAIRS IN THE 0 TO 75.

AND THEN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. WE DON'T ALLOW ANY BUILDINGS PERIOD.

[00:30:02]

THIS IS JUST REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.

AND WHERE DO WE THINK IT'S WITH THE EASEMENT TO THE WEST.

IS THAT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW I SEE IT.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SHARE THE COMMISSION'S THOUGHT AND JUST LEAST DEFINE THE BIG PROBLEM, THE BIG, BIG STANDING ISSUE IN APPROVING THIS AS A VARIANCE.

I CAN GO FIRST QUICK. I KIND OF VOICED MY NOTE EARLIER ABOUT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

I CERTAINLY THINK THE ROAD STIPULATES THAT, THAT'S MY PERSONAL BELIEF.

I DON'T THINK IT'S HINDERING ANYTHING ON THAT WEST SIDE.

AND THAT KIND OF JUST ADDS TO MY REASONING WHY.

THE LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE EAST SIDE IS HELPFUL.

IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS, MAYBE OF THE CABANA BUILT IN PLACE WITH THE CURRENT STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD MAYBE BE HELPFUL FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE LIKE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED EARLIER.

BUT ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE STRUCTURE ITSELF I'M OKAY WITH.

HOWEVER, I WANT TO NOTE THAT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING A VARIANCE FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK TO ONLY HAVE TO CREATE ANOTHER VARIANCE FOR THE SEVEN-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE OTHER STRUCTURE. SOUNDED LIKE THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF POTENTIALLY REDUCING THAT.

TO HAVE THAT NOT BE A VARIANCE THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE, AND I WOULD BE ON BOARD WITH THAT.

I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF ATTACHING IT TO THE BUILDING, THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO TO BYPASS THAT.

I'D PREFER THEM. IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS AN OPTION TO JUST REDUCE THE OVERHANG ITSELF OR WHATEVER THAT WAS CALLED.

BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. I'LL LEAVE IT THERE FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN AROUND PRECEDENT AND AROUND THESE LINES ARE NOT WHICHEVER.

LIKE WE DON'T LOOK AT BOTH VERSIONS AND SAY WHICHEVER ONE.

HELPS THE SITUATION. HELPS THE SITUATION. YEAH.

WHICH WHICHEVER ONE WORKS, LIKE IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, PICK ONE OR THE OTHER.

THERE IS A, THERE IS A DEFINITION THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW FOR CODE.

SO I STRUGGLE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, WHILE I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE.

AND I WOULD SAY AROUND THE 7 TO 10 FOOT VARIANTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A WAY AROUND THAT.

THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD IS AT. I'M STRUGGLING WITH PRECEDENT.

AND THE FACT THAT IN THE PAST WE HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY HARD ON OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN THAT LAKESHORE SETBACK.

AND THERE'S A LONG HISTORY OF DENIED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT COME BEFORE YOU.

AND THE DEFINITIONS ARE WRITTEN IN THE CODE FOR A REASON.

SO I'M STRUGGLING TO GET TO COMFORT WITH, YOU KNOW, GOING AGAINST THE PRECEDENT THAT'S BEEN SET. OTHERWISE, YEAH.

I MEAN, WHEN I LOOK AT IT, IT'S LIKE YOU ALMOST KIND OF WISH, YOU KNOW, ALMOST LIKE I'D RATHER NOT DO A VARIANCE.

I'D RATHER JUST REWRITE THE ORDINANCE AND, LIKE, WELL, THERE'S AN EASEMENT RIGHT NEXT DOOR. SO HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK? BUT THEN IF YOU HAD AN ORDINANCE FOR EVERY SITUATION, WE'D EVEN HAVE A THICKER ORDINANCE STACK.

SO I GUESS. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A VARIANCE.

YEAH. AND SO IF YOU FIGURED THAT EASEMENT WASN'T THERE, THEY THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.

AND SO THAT THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE. I JUST THOUGHT I'D POINT THAT OUT.

COMMISSIONER TIFT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INSIGHT? I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PRCHAL CONCERNED ABOUT THE LAKESHORE SETBACK CONSIDERATION.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HEARING THE NEIGHBORS LETTER FOR THE FIRST TIME GAVE ME PAUSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEIR VIEW THAT I THINK YOU'RE PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT. THEN COMES THE QUESTION OF WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FUTURE VARIANCE REQUESTS WITHIN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

AND IF WE APPROVE THIS, DOES THIS CREATE A NEW UNDERSTANDING GOING FORWARD OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THAT SETBACK? AND I THINK IT KIND OF WOULD ELIMINATE THE, YOU KNOW, THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE AND FORCE US TO MAYBE RECONSIDER IF IT'S STILL APPROPRIATE.

WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY OUT OF SCOPE FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

SO THE LETTER FOR ME WAS, WAS HOW, YOU KNOW, HAD ME RECONSIDERING THIS PROPOSAL.

I'M STILL IN, YOU KNOW, I STILL THINK THIS RAISES CONCERNS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM BOTH THE FIRE CODE PERSPECTIVE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE THE TOP OF OUR LIST WHEN IT COMES TO CONSIDERING WHY OR WHY NOT,

[00:35:05]

I'D BE OPEN TO HEARING OTHER THOUGHTS. WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S PLENTY TO WEIGH HERE.

I'M GUESSING THEY PROBABLY KEPT IT CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO, YOU KNOW, REDUCE THE IMPACT OF THE SETBACKS.

I MEAN, LET'S SAY THAT IT WAS TEN FEET. WOULD IT BE OKAY IF THEY MOVED IT AND MET THE TEN FEET REQUIREMENT? DOES THAT HELP THE SITUATION AT ALL? COULD YOU REPEAT? INSTEAD OF SEVEN FEET IF THEY MOVE IT TO TEN, OR DO YOU RATHER SEE.

I MEAN, IS YOUR STANCE THAT YOU'D RATHER HAVE IT ATTACHED OR WHEN YOU SAID THE FIRE CONCERN? WELL, I THINK BOTH WERE RAISED WITH THIS APPLICATION.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, RIGHT. I MEAN, HEARING THAT THE ONLY PART OF THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IMPEDES THAT TEN-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS THE PERGOLA.

THAT TO ME, PROVIDES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK AROUND THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE.

LIKE, EITHER WE JUST SKIP THE PERGOLA. IF THE ISSUE IS A FIRE CODE ISSUE AND THERE'S WAYS AROUND IT WITH ADDITIONAL MATERIALS, I'M NOT SURE THE PERGOLA WOULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE TYPICALLY PERGOLAS ARE MADE OF WOOD.

BUT MAYBE YOU HAVE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE OR WE SKIP THE PERGOLA.

TO ME, THAT VARIANCE IS LESS CHALLENGING THAN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE WHEN THIS IS A VERY NICE TO HAVE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A REQUIREMENT.

IT'S YOU'RE BUILDING A BEAUTIFUL POOL IN PATIO AND IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO HAVE A POOL CABANA.

BUT THE PURPOSE OF VARIANCES IS TO FOCUS ON PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

AND IN MY MIND, FOR, FOR THINGS THAT ARE MORE REQUIRED THAN NICE TO HAVE.

MR. CHAIR, CAN I CLEAR UP ONE DETAIL? SURE. ONE THING I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN TO BUTTON ON WAS THE MEASUREMENT OF SEVEN FEET, IS WHAT I HAD TAKEN FROM THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING PERGOLA.

AH, THANK YOU. OKAY. SO YES, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER THAT SEVEN FEET.

BUT THE ONLY NUMBER WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THAT SEVEN FEET FROM HERE.

ALSO, ANOTHER DETAIL THAT I'LL BRING UP HERE IS WE HAVE A 20-FOOT SIDE TO STREET SETBACK AS THIS IS RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE'RE ABOUT SIX INCHES OR SO FROM THAT SETBACK.

SO ANOTHER RESTRICTION THAT WE HAVE ALONG THIS SIDE AS WELL.

SO, I WANTED TO ADD THOSE DETAILS. SURE. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A SMALLER STRUCTURE.

WELL YEAH. YOU'D GET CLOSER TO THE HOUSE. SORRY, NEVER MIND.

I JUST, I UNDERSTAND THAT PUTTING IT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OBVIOUSLY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE.

SO I WAS LOOKING AT THAT WHITE SPACE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE.

OKAY, AND YOUR GUYS'S INTEREST ON POTENTIALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH AN APPROVAL OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF REDUCED DOWN TO GET TO AT LEAST TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.

AND APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR THE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS WOULD BE OPEN TO? AND I JUST HANG MY HAT ON THE IDEA THAT THAT SERVICE ROAD IS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

IT'S CAUSING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY.

AND TO ME THAT'S VERY CLEAR. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STILL SIT.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO TEST THE WATER TO SEE IF YOU GUYS WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT IF I MOVE THAT FORWARD.

YEAH. I MEAN, I TEND TO AGREE, BUT I WOULD ADD ONE THING.

I WOULD ADD THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THEY'D HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT.

ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. OTHERWISE, I'D BE IN LINE WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T REALLY SEE. THE AVERAGE SET LIKE EVERY PLANNING COMMISSION YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE AT LEAST, RIGHT? YEAH. AND THERE'S JUST SURPRISES ME HOW MANY UNIQUE SITUATIONS THERE ARE.

AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

IF THAT EASEMENT, THAT ROAD WASN'T THERE ON THE WEST, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

SO I KIND OF ARRIVE AT THAT. SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.

BEFORE I MAKE, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, CAN I JUST GET CONFIRMATION FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF? YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, WE ABSOLUTELY COULD TIGHTEN UP A LITTLE BIT AND GET AND GET IT TO WHERE IT'S TEN FEET FROM THE HOUSE. WE'VE ACTUALLY PLAYED AROUND WITH RENDERINGS. THIS WAS KIND OF JUST BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST HOUR LIKE THAT.

[00:40:06]

WE CAN TIGHTEN IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. I CAN ALSO, YOU KNOW, PUT AN ANGLE ON THE CABANA STRUCTURE TO BE WITHIN THAT.

THAT'S AN EASY THING. THAT'S TO ME THAT'S A VERY EASY ADJUSTMENT.

AND I CAN PROVIDE A PLAN FOR THAT. IT'S JUST NOW GIVEN THAT THE OTHER HOUSE DOESN'T ADD TO IT, AND THAT'S IN OUR VIEW, AND WE'RE NOT IN A VIEW OF THE OTHER HOUSE, IT JUST SEEMS WEIRD BECAUSE NOW IT'S LIKE WE'RE THE CORNER LOT AND WE'RE THE FARTHEST ONE, FARTHEST ONE UP. SO THE PURPOSE OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS TO PREVENT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FROM BEING BUILT CLOSER TO THE LAKE.

SIGHTLINE. AND SO I APPRECIATE THIS, RIGHT, WITHIN THE SIGHTLINE.

YEP. AND SO I APPRECIATE THIS CONVERSATION FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

AND THAT PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE IT SMALLER.

SO I MEAN, WE CAN DEFINITELY TIGHTEN IT UP. BUT YEAH, IF IT'S TO PREVENT FROM BEING IN A SIGHTLINE, WE'RE CLEARLY NOT IN, YOU KNOW. OKAY. WELL I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD THEN WITH LA25-25, AN APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE WILL NOT BE APPROVING THE SECOND VARIANCE AND THAT THE STRUCTURE WILL BE AT LEAST TEN-FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PRIMARY OR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.

AND THEY WILL ALSO ADHERE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH. JUST TO CLARIFY.

REQUIRING A TEN-FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

ABIDE BY THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. AGREED. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION TO, DO I HAVE A SECOND OR FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I CALL VOTE? WELL, I HAVE TO GET A SECOND. [INAUDIBLE].

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NO SECOND. I CAN BRING IT BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND SEE IF WE CAN WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THIS. I THOUGHT I HAD YOUR GUYS CONSENSUS THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS WILLING TO BE WORKED WITH.

IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT I'M MISSING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GUYS CONSENSUS AND APPROVAL? I WAS ALIGNED, BUT THERE'S ONLY TWO OF US THAT WE'D BE, SO IT'S A MOOT POINT.

I'M STRUGGLING. I'M BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T.

THERE'S A. WELL, WE CAN. AT THE LEAST OF THE TWO LINES THAT ARE DRAWN.

ALTHOUGH. YEAH. THAT HELPS. THANK YOU. LIKE LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE, AND THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE OR THE INTENT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE LINE IS FOR VISIBILITY.

AND IF THAT WAS A PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, THE LAKE WOULD BE THAT DARK PURPLE LINE.

YES. OR THE LINE WOULD BE THAT DARK PURPLE LINE. SO I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE SECONDING GIVEN THIS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.

RIGHT. I'LL GIVE IT ANOTHER GO THEN. CAN WE JUST EXPAND ON THAT? JUST. YEAH, SURE. SO WHAT ABOUT THAT CREATES SORT OF A DISTINCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION.

COMMISSIONERS PRCHAL POINT THERE. BECAUSE IT'S AN ACCESS DRIVEWAY ROAD INSTEAD OF A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE LINE IS BEING DRAWN IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

SO IF THAT WAS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THE LINE WOULD BE THAT DARK PURPLE LINE, WHICH THIS IS WELL BEHIND.

AND IF THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE WAY THAT WE DRAW THE LINES IS TO CREATE SEPARATION FROM THE LAKE, THEN I BELIEVE AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS FURTHER, THE INTENT IS TO PREVENT VISUAL DISTURBANCES FOR NEIGHBORS. THIS DOES NOT CAUSE THAT.

THE INTENT IS TO PREVENT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES GETTING TOO CLOSE TO THE LAKE.

THIS DOESN'T HINDER THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES CLOSER TO THE LAKE.

AND IF THIS WAS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT WASN'T THE ACCESSORY ROAD, THE LINE WOULD BE THAT DARK PURPLE LINE, AND WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE. UNDERSTOOD, SO THIS ACCESSORY ROAD KIND OF PUT US INTO TECHNICALITY.

YES. WHEN IT CAME TO EVALUATING. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR CALLOUT.

[00:45:04]

WELL, THAT'S GOOD DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. I'LL TRY AND GO AGAIN HERE WITH LA25-25.

APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY WILL ADHERE TO THE TEN-FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND THEY WILL ADHERE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS AS WELL.

I HAVE A MOTION AGAIN BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.

I SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NONE. ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE WORK THROUGH THAT.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM IS LA25-26 GRIFFIN DOOLING, 1080 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, VARIANCE, PRESENTED BY MELANIE CURTIS.

[5.3. #LA25-000026, Griffin Dooling, 1080 Ferndale Rd West, Variances, (Melanie Curtis)]

THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE HOME, ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL.

THE 25-FOOT WETLAND SETBACK AND THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

THE EXISTING DECK ON THE EAST SIDE WAS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 24FT FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EDGE OF WETLAND, AND THE WESTERN DECK WAS 43FT FROM THE WATER.

AS PROPOSED, THE SETBACK FOR THE EAST DECK WILL BE 20FT, AND THE WEST DECK 38FT FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL.

THE NEW DECKS WILL ENCROACH FOUR AND FIVE FEET, RESPECTIVELY, FURTHER INTO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, LAKE SETBACK, AND WETLAND SETBACK. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED CORRECTED HARDCOVER WORKSHEETS TODAY, OVER THE WEEKEND AND COMBINED THE EXISTING DECKS ACCOUNT FOR 603FT² OF HARDCOVER.

PROPOSED DECKS, INCLUDING THE 49 SQUARE FOOT HOT TUB SHOWN ON THE PLAN, WILL RESULT IN 662FT², THE INCREASE OF 59FT² OVER EXISTING. THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED SETBACKS ASSOCIATED WITH FERNDALE MARSH AND THE LAKE. THE WETLAND WILL IMPACT THE DEVELOPER ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SUPPORTING THEIR REQUEST.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS AND SHOULD BE ASKED FOR TESTIMONY TONIGHT REGARDING THEIR APPLICATION.

FERNDALE MARSH OR THE LAKE FROM A SETBACK AND LAKE DESIGNATION STANDPOINT COMBINED WITH THE LR-1A DISTRICT SETBACKS ELIMINATE THE LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THE PROPERTY.

STAFF FINDS THESE FACTORS, COMBINED WITH THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, SERVE AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. GENERALLY, SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DECK AREAS APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE.

ALTHOUGH THE INCREASE IN HARDCOVER IS MINIMAL, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INCREASE.

RECOMMENDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL HARDCOVER PROPOSED WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK SHOULD BE OFFSET BY EQUAL OR GREATER HARDCOVER REMOVALS ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY.

COMMON IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED OVER THE WEEKEND AND WAS DISTRIBUTED TO YOUR SEATS THIS EVENING.

THE COMMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THE CHAIR COULD READ THOSE COMMENTS IF YOU WISH.

INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCE SUPPORTING THE DECK FOOTPRINT CHANGES.

DENIAL OF THE OVERAGE IN HARDCOVER REQUESTED.

THE APPLICANT SHOULD DEMONSTRATE HARDCOVER REDUCTION BEFORE PLACEMENT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.

I HAVE THE PLANS FOR THE DECK SHOWING THE THE OVERLAY OF THE EXISTING AND THE NEW ON THE SCREEN.

THE HOT TUB IS NOT SHOWN ON THE SURVEY, BUT IT'S SHOWN ON THE PLAN.

SO WE'RE JUST RIGHT HERE IN THIS LOCATION. THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE.

THE RED LINE IS THE REAR YARD SETBACK. THE BLUE LINE IS THE 75-FOOT SETBACK.

SO THERE IS NO BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THIS PROPERTY.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO THE PROJECT.

ONE QUICK QUESTION. YOU COULD PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE SOME DIFFERENT NUMBERS, THE CHANGE IN THE OVERALL EXISTING HARDCOVER OR FROM THE CURRENT TO THE FUTURE.

[00:50:05]

THEY CORRECTED THE NUMBERS. DATED PLAN? OKAY.

I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T. THAT'S THE REPORT. THAT'S, I DIDN'T ASSUME SO.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ONE QUESTION MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY PROVIDED THE UPDATED BREAKDOWN OF THE HARDCOVER VARIANTS OR THE HARDCOVER EXISTING VERSUS THE UPDATED.

OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT HERE. YEAH, SIR, I'M JUST GOING TO LOOK AT THIS FOR A SECOND, SORRY.

THIS IS EXISTING. YEAH. YOU CAN GO DOWN TO THE BECAUSE THAT'LL SHOW UP BOTH RIGHT.

PERFECT. AND I DID NOT ANALYZE THIS SPECIFICALLY TO SEE IF THOSE NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT.

I JUST TOOK THE DECK CLARIFICATION. ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE HARDCOVER OF THE DRIVEWAY.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A PROPERTY NORTHEAST, ROUGHLY.

I ASSUME. OH, THEY DO HAVE A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY OR DO THEY ACCESS? THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY. THEY DO HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED CLARITY ON. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR NOW. THANK YOU. YEAH, THERE'S JUST THE BUILDING ENVELOPE THERE IS NOT SO. COMPELLING? I APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE WISHES, APPROACHED THE PODIUM TO EXPLAIN THE PROGRAM THE PROJECT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

I MEAN, WE GENERALLY AGREE WITH STAFF'S ASSESSMENT HERE.

MELANIE'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL. TONIGHT IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING THAT THE HOT TUB IS BEING INCLUDED IN THE HARDCOVER CALCULATION, SO THAT IS KIND OF A NEW CONCEPT FOR US. NOT SURE REALLY HOW TO APPROACH THAT.

IT IS A SORT OF TEMPORARY HOT TUB. IT'S NOT A BUILT IN, YOU KNOW UNIT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. THE ONLY OTHER COMMENTS I WOULD MAKE JUST TO KIND OF ADD CONTEXT TO THE DECK SITUATION, IS THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE EASTERN DECK THERE IS JUST GOING FROM, YOU KNOW, A CIRCLE TO A SQUARE.

IT'S JUST EASIER TO BUILD A SQUARE. IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE, A LITTLE MORE PRACTICAL FOR US.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER DECK THE DESIGN SORT OF EVOLVED AND GOT WIDER PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES WITH THE HOME.

SO THAT CURVED SECTION OF THE HOUSE IS SUPPORTED BY A SOLID GLUE LAM BEAM.

SO IT'S A SORT OF 80S ERA 1985 SORT OF GLUE LAM BEAM, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO IT RIGHT BENEATH THAT DOOR.

SO THERE WERE A LOT OF REPAIRS REQUIRED THERE.

AND THEN BASICALLY IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAD SAID, HEY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THIS DECK BACK ON, YOU NEED TO MOUNT IT OVER FURTHER. NOT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'VE DONE THESE REPAIRS.

SO THAT KIND OF MADE THAT INITIAL SECTION THERE WIDER.

AND THEN WE ADDED THAT SORT OF AREA AROUND THE HOT TUB, SO.

YEAH. CAN I ASK FOR CLARITY. YOU SAID IT'S A TEMPORARY HOT TUB.

DO YOU JUST MEAN IT'S ABOVE GROUND VERSUS LIKE BUILT INTO THE CONCRETE? YEAH. SO IT'S LIKE A SELF-CONTAINED UNIT THAT'S.

STILL IMPERMEABLE THOUGH TO, I MEAN. I SUPPOSED, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE, BUT YEAH, NOT BUILT IN I THINK ON LIKE ON THE LAST PLAN, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS BUILT IN, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THE POOL. SURE. IT'S NOT BUILT IN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I CAN OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION.

FEEL FREE TO APPROACH THE PODIUM. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT FOR DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.

ANYBODY WANT TO START US OFF WITH THIS ONE? I'LL GO AGAIN QUICKLY.

I AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

I WOULD SAY IF THE APPLICANTS ARE WILLING TO REDUCE SOME OF THE HARD COVER ELSEWHERE TO GET THEM AT LEAST TO WHERE THEY ARE, IF NOT UNDER WHERE THEY'RE CURRENTLY AT, IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE ME MORE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, OR OF THE SUBMITTED PLAN. LOOKING AT THE. I AGREE, LOOKING AT THE HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PLACES TO PULL IT FROM. I'M GUESSING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TEAR UP PART OF THE DRIVEWAY.

SO SIDEWALK OR REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE DECK I GUESS WOULD BE SOME OPTIONS.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THEIR PLANS OF WHERE THEY PLAN TO REDUCE THE HARDCOVER BEFORE IT GOES TO THE COUNCIL.

[00:55:01]

SO THIS IS STILL, HOUSE BILL 85. YOU KNOW, APOLOGIZE.

I DIDN'T DO A LOT OF PRE-WORK ON THIS ONE. IS THIS LIKE.

IS THERE A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE? I THINK IT'S 3756, IS THAT WHAT IT IS? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SO ALL RELATIVE. I'M JUST. I JUST COME BACK TO, LIKE, A LOT OF TIMES WE COME IN AND ALL THE LOTS AND ORONO, ESPECIALLY IN ORONO, WE'RE LIKE HALF SWAMP AND THERE'S SO MUCH WETLANDS IN THE AREA, AND YOU GET A LOT, AND THERE'S JUST SO MUCH THERE'S YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NOWHERE TO MOVE IT TOWARDS THE STREET.

THERE'S NO MORE. WE CAN'T GO TOWARDS THE WETLAND. THEY JUST WANT TO DO ANY KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS.

WHAT ARE THEIR OPTIONS? AND, AND I DON'T THINK THE DECK IMPROVEMENT.

YOU KNOW, THEY HAD TO TEAR IT OFF TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES.

IN MY OPINION, I'VE SEEN WORSE. IT'S PRETTY SUBTLE, BUT THEY'RE REALLY NOT ASKING FOR MUCH, IN MY OPINION, GIVEN THEIR UNIQUE SMALL BUILDING ENVELOPE.

I MEAN, IF THAT WAS A BIGGER LOT, YOU KNOW, THEN WE COULD PROBABLY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSITIVE TOWARDS IT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M A SOFTY, BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY TAKE ON IT.

COULD I ASK STAFF ABOUT. THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED TO BE MARSHALL WETLANDS.

IF IT WASN'T, HOW THAT IMPACTS THE HARDCOVER? WE ONLY USED THE DRY COVER. RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY.

SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHERE, YOU'RE LEFT WITH NOT MUCH.

LET ME CLARIFY. BECAUSE IT'S LAKESHORE. YEAH.

IT'S CONSISTENT. IF IT WAS WETLAND, IF IT WAS A PROPERTY THAT HAD WETLANDS ON IT.

YEAH. THE PROPERTY THAT THAT AREA WOULD BE COUNTED.

BECAUSE THIS IS A LAKE. BUT ONLY WETLAND. YEAH.

THIS IS ALL CONSIDERED LAKE. YEAH. SO IT DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE BUILDING, THE LOT AREA.

YEAH. FEEL FREE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

GRIFFIN ALEXANDER, THE OWNER. SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT SORT OF IT'S LEGALLY DEFINED AS WETLAND, BUT THAT BODY DOESN'T CONNECT TO LAKE MINNETONKA.

THERE'S NO BOAT TRAFFIC. THERE'S NO, LIKE, OPEN WATER, YOU KNOW, TO THE NORTH OR ANYTHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, FERNDALE MARSH. AND SO IT IS, YOU'D CONSIDER A WETLAND IF YOU DROVE BY AND LOOKED AT IT.

YEAH. GRIFFIN, WHILE WE HAVE YOU UP HERE. COULD YOU JUST COMMENT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIALLY OFF SETTING THE HARDCOVER? YEAH. I'M NOT. I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE WE PULL IT FROM, IS THE THING.

YOU KNOW, THE ONLY HARDCOVER ON THE PROPERTY IS THE DRIVEWAY.

YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF STAIRS TO ACCESS THE DOORS.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT VERY ELABORATE PATHWAYS OR ANYTHING.

YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'D PULL IT FROM IS THE THING.

YEAH. SO THE INCREASE IS COMING FROM THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SQUARING IT OFF.

AND THE ADDITION OF THE LEFT SIDE WHERE THE HOT TUB WILL GO, ESSENTIALLY.

WITHOUT THE HOT TUB IT'S ABOUT A TEN SQUARE FOOT DIFFERENCE.

SO I THINK IT'S THE INCLUSION OF THAT HOT TUB THAT'S MAKING IT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, A LARGER NUMBER.

YEAH. YEAH. WHERE ARE THE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN THE HARDCOVER CALCULATION? I THINK IT'S, SO ALONG THE FRONT OF THE, WELL, STAFF.

I THINK I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THESE PICTURES WOULD OFFER ANY CLARITY.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE IF. IT'S. I CAN SEE. IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE EASIER ON THE ON THE SURVEY.

OKAY. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE WHERE IT SAYS GAS 941 BY THE FRONT DOOR THERE, THERE'S LIKE A SORT OF FAN SHAPED SECTION THAT GOES FROM THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY TO THE FRONT DOOR.

AND THEN JUST SORT OF NORTH EAST OF THAT, WHERE THAT BLUE LINE SORT OF COMES ACROSS THE HOUSE, THERE'S A LITTLE SORT OF SET OF STEPS THAT GO INTO THE SIDE DOOR THERE.

AND THEN OVER BY THAT DECK, SORT OF WHERE THE RADIUS MEETS THE DECK, THERE'S A LITTLE SET OF STEPS THERE.

THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY EXTERIOR SORT OF, YOU KNOW, HARDCOVER OTHER THAN DRIVEWAY.

MAYBE JUST JUMP IN AND I WANT TO REPHRASE WHAT I SAID EARLIER, BUT I THINK TALKING THROUGH A LITTLE BIT MORE, I'M DEFINITELY MORE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THE HARDCOVER AS IS.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY. I'M GLAD SOMEONE'S CAME IN AND CLEANED UP THIS PROPERTY AS A WHOLE.

I THINK IT'S LOOKED A LOT BETTER ALONG THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HERE. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE A ROADBLOCK TO GETTING THIS APPROVED, SO. I WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT TO SUGGEST SOMETHING SIMILAR.

IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE'S ANYWHERE REASONABLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO OFFSET THE HARDCOVER.

IT DOESN'T SEEM WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE RISES TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING WE SHOULD STOP BASED ON EVERYTHING WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED,

[01:00:02]

THEY WOULD PROBABLY SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO SQUARE IT OFF JUST TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIME, AND THEN THESE ARE JUST ROUNDING ERRORS TO ME. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S EGREGIOUS AND I THINK IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO ASK. I APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION, AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO PULL IT FROM ANYWHERE ELSE, I AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I WILL TAKE A STAB AT LA25-26 AND MAKING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF ALL THREE SETBACK VARIANCES AS WELL AS THE HARD COVER SETBACK VARIANCE.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA25-26 AS APPLIED BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TIFT.

CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOLKS.

THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS LA25-28 CITY CODE RECODIFICATION

[5.4. LA25-000028, City Code Recodification, Ordinance Update (Laura Oakden)]

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. IN FRONT OF YOU IS A REQUEST TO ADOPT TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RECODIFICATION OF THE CITY CODE. IN 2001, THE CITY COUNCIL HAD DIRECTED THE CITY STAFF TO REVIEW THE CITY CODE AND MAKE NECESSARY UPDATES FOLLOWING A RECODIFICATION PROJECT.

IN 2022 OUR CIVICPLUS, WHICH IS OUR VENDOR FOR OUR CITY CODE, DID A LEGAL REVIEW AND SUGGESTED UPDATES TO REFERENCES OF STATE STATUTE, ORGANIZATIONAL UPDATES, CROSS-REFERENCES, AND SUCH.

THROUGHOUT 23 AND 2024 STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS WENT THROUGH THOSE UPDATES AND MADE CHANGES.

COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON, I BROUGHT YOU REMEMBER ROUNDS OF CODE SECTION UPDATES THAT CAME THROUGH.

I THINK WE DID 2 OR 3 THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YEAH. THAT HAS NOW BEEN RECONCILED, ALL THOSE CHANGES OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND NOW WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CITY CODE.

ESSENTIALLY TONIGHT, NO TEXT CHANGES ARE PROPOSED.

IT IS JUST RENUMBERING. SO AS YOU'VE SEEN REFERENCE, YOU'VE SEEN LIKE THE ZONING CHAPTERS, CHAPTER 78 AND THEN THE CITY CODE SECTION. NOW THE ZONING CODE SECTION WILL BE SECTION 6.12, FOR EXAMPLE. AND THEN THE NUMBERS FOLLOWING WILL BE THE REFERENCE OF SPECIFIC SECTIONS.

SO THE DEFINITIONS ARE 6.12.010. SO THERE'LL BE NEW NUMBERS.

THE STATE STATUTE REFERENCES THROUGHOUT THE CITY CODE HAVE BEEN UPDATED.

THE CROSS REFERENCE NUMBERS, SOME OUTLINING SECTIONS THAT GET A LITTLE WONKY OVER THE YEARS, HAS BEEN RECONCILED. THIS IS RECOMMENDED THAT CODIFICATION HAPPENS EVERY 10 TO 15 YEARS.

I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME THE CITY DID THIS WAS IN 2003.

SO WE ARE PAST DUE TO CODIFY. REALLY TONIGHT YOU ARE JUST ASKED TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE TECHNICALLY WE ARE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER WITH THESE NEW NUMBERS. IT'S RATHER ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT THIS IS STATUTORILY WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO.

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

OTHERWISE, A PUBLIC HEARING AND A MOTION IS REQUESTED TONIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DID YOU USE AI TO HELP WITH THE NUMBERING? IT WILL BE A WHOLE NEW WORLD WITH NUMBERS, SO WE'LL BE FUMBLING THROUGH THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

BUT THAT IS AN IDEA. I WONDER IF AI COULD HANDLE OUR AUDIENCES, I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE. MAYBE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I GUESS I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS CHANGE, FEEL FREE TO APPROACH THE PODIUM.

SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT TO THE COMMISSION. ANY COMMENTS ON THE NUMBERING CHANGES? I THINK SO. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE WANTS TO DO SO.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA25-28 AS APPLIED.

AND A MOTION TO APPROVE LA25-28 BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL.

CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TIFT.

CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE.

OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM LA25-29, CITY OF ORONO, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #8.

[5.5. LA25-000029, City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #8 (Laura Oakden)]

[01:05:09]

WE ARE PROPOSING SOME MINOR CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OR TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESTABLISHES LAND USE CLASSES FOR DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY.

AS PART OF OUR RELATIONSHIP OR WHAT THE COUNCIL DOES IS THEY REVIEW ALL UTILITY EXTENSION PERMITS.

SO IN 2022, 2023, THE CITY OF ORONO ADOPTED OR APPROVED A SUBDIVISION FOR WILDHURST, LET ME SEE HERE, WILDHURST FOREST WHICH INCLUDED AN EXTENSION OF THE SEWER AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

AS PART OF THE UTILITY EXTENSION PERMIT THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL IN EXTENDING THAT SEWER.

THEY IDENTIFIED AN INCONSISTENCY WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEY ARE ASKING US TO RECONCILE THAT.

SO HIGHLIGHTED ON THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE A GREEN SQUARE AREA PARCEL, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2023, HIGHLIGHTED IN A RED BUBBLE. THE MAP IDENTIFIES THIS AS A GREEN RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

IT ALSO IDENTIFIES THIS PARCEL WITHIN OUR MUSA, WHICH IS RATHER INCONSISTENT, REALLY OUR RURAL AREAS SHOULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE MUSA.

IN OUR PROJECTED GROWTH TABLE FOR, WE ARE ASKED AS A CITY WHEN WE ADOPT OUR COMP PLAN, WHICH WE DID IN 2018, TO IDENTIFY DIFFERENT GROWTH AREAS IN THE CITY AND THEIR DENSITIES, WHERE WE CAN THEN PROJECT OUR OVERALL DENSITY FOR THE CITY.

LET'S SEE, I THOUGHT I HIGHLIGHTED IT HERE. I THINK IT WAS IN ORANGE.

OH, ORANGE. THANK YOU. WE DID IDENTIFY IT AND ACCOUNT FOR IT IN OUR DENSITY AS URBAN ESTATES, WHICH IN THE MAP IS YELLOW. SO THIS TELLS US, STAFF THAT WE ACCOUNTED FOR THIS AS IN THE APPROPRIATE DENSITY, BUT THE MAP JUST WAS NEVER RECONCILED. SO FOLLOWING THE MET COUNCIL THEY'RE ASKING US JUST TO RECONCILE OUR MAP AND WITH THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SUBMIT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MET COUNCIL.

A SECOND NOTE THAT THE MET COUNCIL IDENTIFIED.

SINCE WE ARE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND LOOKING TO RECONCILE, ANOTHER ASPECT, WHEN WE DO AN OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, IS TO TRY AND PROJECT WHAT DECADE THESE SUBDIVISIONS WILL BE DEVELOPED.

WE HAVE UP HERE A GROWTH DECADE OF 2020 TO 2023 IN COLUMN F, AND THEN A GROWTH DECADE OF 2030 TO 2040, IN COLUMN G. NOW, THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY AND GUESS WHEN A SUBDIVISION IS READY TO DEVELOP, AND IT REALLY IS TRYING TO INFORM THE MET COUNCIL AND THE CITY ON HOW TO PLAN FOR UTILITIES.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A GUESS AS IT IS DRIVEN BY DRIVEN BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.

THE CITY HAD PROJECTED IT IN 2030 TO 2040. SO WHILE WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RECONCILE THE MAP, THE MET COUNCIL ASKS US JUST TO CLARIFY THIS AS WELL, THAT IT BE FOLLOWED IN THE 2020 TO 2030 DECADE SINCE WE ADOPTED THIS IN 2023. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE KIND OF UPDATES THE MET COUNCIL IS LOOKING FOR US TO RECONCILE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NO DENSITY CHANGES, NO TEXT AMENDMENTS, BUT JUST SOME RECONCILIATION WITHIN THE OVERALL COMP PLAN.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING THAT COMES TO MIND.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I THINK I JUST HAVE ONE. I MEAN, SO THIS IS JUST, THIS IS NOT LAW.

THIS DOESN'T DEMAND THAT ALL THESE LOTS WILL BE SUBDIVIDED TOMORROW.

THIS IS JUST THE PLAN. AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE IN THIS AREA WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YEAH, YEAH. SO IF ANYTHING WERE TO CHANGE BEYOND WHAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED, IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU GUYS, YEAH. BUT IT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED WITHIN MUSA IN THAT AREA, BUT IT'S SHOWING ON THE MAP AS RURAL.

SO WE JUST NEED TO UPDATE THE MAP. YEP. YEP. AND IT WAS, YOU CAN SEE IN THE TABLE WHEN WE ADOPTED THE COMP PLAN IN 2018, WE DID ANTICIPATE IT AS URBAN. AND IT'S COUNTED IN OUR DENSITY CALCULATIONS AND OVERALL HOUSING AS URBAN.

OKAY. IT JUST DIDN'T RECONCILE ON THE MAP. I GOT YOU.

[01:10:02]

WHEN WE SUBMITTED IT TO THE MET COUNCIL, I DID HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWED THAT PARCEL AS HASHED AS "TO BE CHANGED" AFTER IT WAS ADOPTED.

IT JUST NEVER WENT BACK AND CHANGED, SO RECONCILE IS LIKE A CLEANUP STEP.

BUT AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE UTILITY EXTENSION, THE MET COUNCIL WOULD LIKE A FORMAL COMP PLAN AMENDMENT TO DO THAT.

OKAY, I MISUNDERSTOOD, SO. IS THIS HOLDING BACK UP THEIR DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW THEN? THE UTILITY EXTENSION PERMIT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS WORKING THROUGH IS ON HOLD UNTIL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, YES. AND WE NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, YES.

OKAY, LET'S GET TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY WISHES TO TALK ON THIS, I WON'T SAY APPLICATION, ON THIS ITEM, FEEL FREE TO APPROACH THE PODIUM.

ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSIONER.

OKAY. SO WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT, I THOUGHT THE UTILITIES WAS DRIVING THIS CHANGE, BUT IT CLEARLY LOOKS LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM THAT WE PROBABLY HAD A GOOD INTENTIONS TO MAKE IT YELLOW AND UPDATE IT, BUT SOME ALSO FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

SO WITH THAT, I GUESS IT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION, BUT IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO COMMENT ON IT.

OH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE MAP IN GENERAL, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO GET IT UPDATED CORRECTLY OR WHATEVER? AND I ONLY ASKED JUST BECAUSE I'VE LOOKED AT MAPS IN THE PAST AND THEY DON'T REFLECT WHAT'S ACTUALLY CURRENT WITH THE CITY.

SO WHEN DOES THAT PROCESS ACTUALLY HAPPEN? BECAUSE THE FACT THAT THIS IS DOING THE DEVELOPERS WORK IS, THAT IT LOOKS BAD ON THE CITY. SO HOW DO, NOT THAT IT'S ANYONE'S FAULT NECESSARILY, I DON'T WANT TO POINT FINGERS, BUT LIKE, WHAT IS THAT PROCESS AND HOW DOES IT GET AVOIDED IN THE FUTURE? YEAH, SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECONCILED WHEN WE ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE IN 2018.

AFTER IT WAS ADOPTED, THERE'S USUALLY A STEP THERE TO GO BACK AND KIND OF RECONCILE THESE MAPS AFTER FORMAL ADOPTION, WHICH DIDN'T GET RECONCILED. THIS IS OUR PROJECTED GROWTH.

OUR PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT GETS UPDATED EVERY TEN YEARS, THAT WE AS A CITY DECIDE WHERE YOU WANT YOUR HOUSING, WHERE YOU WANT YOUR DENSITY, WHERE YOU WANT YOUR GROWTH.

SO WE TRY AND GUESS BOTH WHERE WE PREDICT, WHERE WE WANT THE DENSITY, AND THEN WE TRY AND ASSUME WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN.

BUT IT'S JUST PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY ON A MAP.

AND OFTENTIMES WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES THROUGH AND IS READY TO DEVELOP THEIR LAND, A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH A PLAT OR MIGHT BE DONE BEFORE A PLAN GETS SUBMITTED TO RECONCILE A PROPOSED IDEA OR A PLAN.

SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON. AS YOU CAN SEE, I THINK WE'RE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NUMBER EIGHT, BOTH TO DO A COMP PLAN, MAYBE FOR A DEVELOPER, BUT ALSO DO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVELY, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

SO THEY HAPPEN BOTH WAYS. THE PROCESS IS JUST THAT BOLTON AND MENK WILL UPDATE THIS MAP.

YEAH. AFTER THIS IS ADOPTED, I WILL SEND IT INTO THE MET COUNCIL.

THEY HAVE WAIVED, TYPICALLY FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT WHEN IT'S AFFECTING OUR DENSITY OR AFFECTING A LAND USE CHANGE OR SOMETHING, THERE'S A 60-DAY REVIEW PERIOD ON THEIR END WITH A PUBLIC HEARING ON THEIR END.

THIS THEY'VE CLASSIFIED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.

SO ONCE I SUBMIT IT TO THEM, IT'S A 15-DAY REVIEW THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR THAT UTILITY EXTENSION REVIEW AS WELL.

GOT IT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. GREAT. WELL, IT SEEMS THAT THESE CHANGES SEEMS LIKE JUST SIMPLY REFLECT WHAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED ON THE GROUND. WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE DELAYS HERE. IT SEEMS WE WANT THESE DOCUMENTS TO BE ACCURATE AND HAVE EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE GOING FORWARD, SO I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT LA25-29 AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF.

I'LL SECOND THAT. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TIFT AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.

A CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. THAT IS IT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING.

WE GOT OLD BUSINESS LA25-16, CHARLES CUDD LLC, 2545 DUNWOODY AVENUE,

[6.1. LA25-000016, Charles Cudd Co LLC, 2545 Dunwoody Avenue, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]

LET ME GET A FOLLOW UP FOR YOU. SO THIS IS 2545 DUNWOODY HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

WALK THROUGH SOME IMAGES. WE HAVE A COMPLETE HOME REMODEL GOING ON AT THIS POINT IN TIME FOR A NEW HOUSE, AND WE'RE MORE OR LESS TALKING ABOUT RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE LAKESHORE, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SO BACK IN MAY, THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WERE SUBSTANTIAL, TO SAY THE LEAST.

[01:15:03]

ALTHOUGH THERE IS GOING TO BE A MATERIAL CHANGE, IT WILL NO LONGER BE WOOD AND SUCH.

THE DESIRE OF THE APPLICANT IS TO PUT IN WALLS FOR A LAKE STAIR THAT MATCHES MORE OR LESS THE EXISTING CONDITION.

AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT WOULD REMOVE THE NEED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE WALLS IN THIS CASE, AT THE TIME, THEY WERE IN SOME PLACES OVER FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

THE APPLICANT STATES THE WALLS WILL BE LESS THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, AND IT'S NOT 100% IN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT, BUT IT'S CLOSER TO, I THINK, WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS LOOKING FOR FROM OUR MAIN MEETING.

SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS RELATIVELY THE SAME LOCATION OF THE EXISTING STAIR.

THERE'S A PROPOSED TRAMWAY WHICH ISN'T AFFECTED BY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL AREA WHERE THE WALLS WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE SUPPORTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT ALSO FINDING A WAY TO INCORPORATE SOME LANDSCAPING AS WELL.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT RETAINING WALLS GOING UP TO THE RIPRAP WHERE THERE IS A SAND BLANKET LOCATED.

THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE REQUEST AS WELL.

AND GET OPEN SOME OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE HERE, AND WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE SITE PLANS AS WELL. SO IN ADDITION, SAY THE EXISTING WALLS AND STAIRS PERHAPS START AROUND HERE.

IT'S BEING EXTENDED OUT A LITTLE BIT, WHICH IS A REASONABLE REQUEST GIVEN THE ACCESSIBILITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR THE HOMEOWNERS.

THIS IS A LITTLE LARGER. AND THIS ULTIMATELY IS, YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BIT HERE, PROPOSED WALLS A LITTLE BIT OF THE EXISTING WALL UNDERNEATH.

BUT KIND OF AS WE WORK DOWN HERE, THIS IS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

AND AGAIN THIS IS PROPOSED. AND ADDITIONALLY LANDSCAPING WAS PROVIDED TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL DETAIL AS TO HOW THE WALLS WILL BE SCREENED.

THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THERE WILL BE A FAIR AMOUNT OF SCREENING FOR THE WALLS, NOT JUST WHAT YOU'D HAVE GOING OVER THE TOP.

KIND OF FROM THIS GRAPHIC. OH, THIS ONE. BUT SOME ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS THAT WE'RE HAVING AT THE BOTTOM AND THE TOP OF WALL TO ALSO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION OF SCREENING THE WALLS BETTER.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND STAFF FELT MORE POSITIVE ABOUT THIS ITERATION OF THE PLANS.

GETTING CLOSER TO THAT IN-KIND REPLACEMENT, I THINK, IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE HOPING FOR.

WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT IMPACT MINIMAL. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WAS GOING IN HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGE OF MATERIALS AND BEING MORE VISUALLY DENSE IN A WAY THAT THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE SCREENING FROM THE LAKE.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE THAT WITH THESE PROPOSED PLANS.

THE ONLY ISSUE THAT STAFF HAS AT THIS POINT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WALLS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED ENGINEERING OR ESSENTIALLY SOMETHING FROM A STAMP PROFESSIONAL SAYING THESE WALLS NEED TO PREVENT A SLOPE STABILITY OR AN EROSION CONTROL ISSUE THAT HASN'T BEEN DEMONSTRATED AT THIS TIME.

SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT ON THAT ENGINEERING BEING PROVIDED BEFORE THIS APPLICATION IS HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 8TH.

THAT REALLY CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I WOULD. CAN YOU SHOW ME THE CURRENT PICTURE FROM THE LAKE AGAIN? AND THE FUTURE PICTURE. I THINK IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT ANGLE.

IT'S JUST A. IS A DIFFERENT ANGLE. IS THAT A RENDERING OR.

YEAH, IT'S RENDERING. I WAS GOING TO SAY THERE'S WAY MORE TREES THAN THAT.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD. SO THE TREES ARE STAYING? YES.

OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. VERY GOOD SUMMARY. APPRECIATE THAT.

I WASN'T AT THE MAY MEETING, SO THAT WAS A REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME.

AND MR. CHAIR, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD FOR THIS.

HENCE WHY IT'S ON OLD BUSINESS. SO YOU DON'T NEED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT. I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF.

EVERY THING THAT CLOSE LAKE SHOULD HAVE A PURPOSE.

[01:20:03]

YEAH, TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. YEAH. FEEL FREE TO APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

I WORK FOR CHARLES CUDD COMPANY, SO THE WOOD STAIRWAY IS ON TOP OF AN OLD DEMOLISHED STONE STAIRWAY.

OKAY. IT WAS JUST PUT THERE SO THEY COULD WALK UP AND DOWN IT BECAUSE THE STONE WOOD HAD CRUMBLED SO BAD.

SO IF YOU GO BACK TO IN KIND, WE'RE PUTTING A STONE STAIRWAY AND WHERE A STONE STAIRWAY IS.

SO THE WOODEN ONE WAS JUST THERE, SO NOBODY FELL DOWN THE STEPS.

WE'RE REPLACING A LIMESTONE WALL WITH A GRANITE BECAUSE THE GRANITE DOESN'T DETERIORATE LIKE THE LIMESTONE.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE REPLACING A RETAINING WALL WITH A RETAINING WALL.

IT'S A WALL THAT'S UNDER FOUR FEET HIGH. SO BY STATE CODE AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT DON'T NEED ENGINEERING FOR IT.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT REQUEST IS.

ABOUT 50 YEARS AGO. THEY BUILT A WALL, RIGHT? OR 60 YEARS AGO. THEY BUILT A WALL. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PUT A WALL BACK WHERE THE WALL WAS.

I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WANT AS FAR AS THE PURPOSE.

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO ASK AN ENGINEER TO WRITE? BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME. IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE I DON'T NEED ENGINEERING ON A WALL THAT'S LESS THAN FOUR FEET TALL, EVEN THOUGH I CAN HAVE HIM SIGN IT. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD IT CORRECTLY.

BUT WHAT WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN THAT STATEMENT OF NEEDING ENGINEERING OF WHY THE WALL IS THERE? IT'S. YEAH. I MEAN, NORMALLY THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE HAD WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PILES OF ROCKS BEING WALLS AND STUFF.

SO WE CAN REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS HERE. I GUESS REALLY WHAT IT'S AFTER IS FROM A STRUCTURAL POINT OF VIEW, IF WE'RE PUTTING A WALL THERE, IS IT GOING TO COLLAPSE IN A YEAR? AND SO IT'S LIKE, IF IT DOESN'T, IF IT'S PURELY DECORATIVE, IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE ENGINEER TELL US IT'S DECORATIVE.

MR. CHAIR, I CAN INTERRUPT. ULTIMATELY, WHAT STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS LOOKING FOR IS WE HAVE FOUR CRITERIA THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ARE THE WALLS DESIGNED TO CORRECT AND ESTABLISH EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM? ARE THEY SUITABLE GIVEN THE DEMONSTRATED NEED? AND ARE THEY DESIGNED TO BE THE MINIMUM SIZE NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM? WE'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING WHAT IS THE EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM.

YEAH. SO. AND IF I. THE JUSTIFICATION MORE OR LESS.

SO I CAN. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM IS THE 60 YEAR OLD WALL FELL DOWN.

SO MY NEW ANSWER IS I'M GOING TO BUILD A NEW GRANITE WALL OUT OF MUCH BIGGER STONES.

AND AT THAT POINT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THEM SMALLER IN HEIGHT.

BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT DEEPER IN THICKNESS. SO UNLIKE THE LIMESTONE ONES THAT ARE IN THERE MANY, MANY. MY PARENTS HAD THIS WALL AT THEIR HOUSE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE 50S.

THE WALL WAS ONLY ABOUT EIGHT INCHES THICK OF LIMESTONE.

AND WITH THE RAIN AND FREEZE AND RAIN AND FREEZE, THE LIMESTONE JUST BREAKS UP.

IF THIS WALL WAS BUILT OUT OF GRANITE 60 YEARS AGO, IT WOULD STILL BE IN THE SAME CONDITION.

SO AGAIN, I DEFINITELY CAN HAVE AN ENGINEER SIGN THAT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE BUILD THIS WALL BACK IN THE SAME CONDITION OF THE WALL THAT'S THERE.

THE NEW GRANITE WALL WILL STAND, YOU KNOW, LONG AFTER WE ALL PASSED AWAY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT OR ANYTHING ELSE? I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO FLIP THROUGH THE PICTURES A LITTLE BIT.

SO IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE RENDERING, DID THE BEST WE COULD WITH WHAT WE HAD TO PLAY WITH IN THE RENDERING SOFTWARE.

THE VINES CAME DOWN THE HILL. THE VINES ACTUALLY GROW UP.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THE VINES ARE AT THE BOTTOM NOW.

AND WHAT WE DID TO HELP BUFFER THE WALL AND HIDE IT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN MAYBE THE LIMESTONE IS A LITTLE SOFTER COLOR THAN THE GRAY GRANITE IS. SO WE HAVE KARL FOERSTER'S GRASSES IN BETWEEN THE VINES.

SO THE GRASSES WILL GROW UP, AND THEY'LL BE ALMOST AS TALL AS THE WALL, AND THE VINES WILL GROW UP IN THAT.

AND SO, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, FROM THE LAKE, SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING CONDITION OF WEEDS ALL OVER IT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO BUFFER THIS WALL AS FAR AS WHERE IT IS FROM THE LAKE, AS FAR AS THE LEFT HAND SIDE.

IF YOU GO TO THE SURVEY WHERE IT SHOWS THE TWO WALLS, MAYBE ONE ATOP THE OTHER.

[01:25:01]

THE SURVEYOR JUST SURVEYED THE TOP OF THE PART OF THE WALL THAT FELL DOWN.

SO IF WE ACTUALLY GET TO THE BOTTOM WHEN WE GET TO THE BOTTOM COURSE AND WE GET THE WOODEN STAIR WAY OFF, WHEN WE GET TO THE REAL STONE WALL, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT THAT WALL IS STRAIGHT.

IT'S JUST IT'S COLLAPSED. AND THAT'S WHY IT GOT SURVEYED THAT WAY.

SO ALL WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS PUT IT BACK WHERE IT WAS.

OKAY. IN THAT SITUATION. AND THEN AGAIN, WE DID WE DID TAKE THE SAND BLANKET JUST SIMPLY LIVES WITHIN THE RIPRAP. AS FAR AS THAT GOES. AND WE HAVE A WATERSHED PERMIT FOR THE SAND BLANKET.

WAS THAT REDUCED AFTER YOU WERE HERE THE PREVIOUS TIME? WHAT'S THAT? THE SAND BLANKET, WAS THAT REDUCED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED? YES. IT'S ROUND ON THE CORNERS NOW VERSUS WHEN WE DREW THE ORIGINAL ONE, WE DREW IT AS A RECTANGLE, WHATEVER IT WAS. AND NOW IT'S JUST WHEN WE STARTED DRAWING THE RENDERING, IT JUST LOOKS BETTER IN THE PICTURE.

AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST YOU'VE GOT 12 LITTLE GRANDKIDS RUNNING ALL OVER AND IT'S JUST A MEANS OF JUMPING.

I'M IN FAVOR OF A LARGER ONE. THAT'S WHY I'M DISAPPOINTED HERE.

IT'S REDUCED. YEAH, BUT I KNOW THAT WAS PUT ON BY US.

SO I THINK MORE SAND THE MERRIER VERSUS THE BIG ROCKS.

BUT YOU GUYS WERE ADHERING TO THE SAND. WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT BETTER, AND IN THE RENDERING, IT JUST LOOKED MORE SOFT AND PRESENTABLE WITH A RADIUS CORNER THAN A SQUARE ONE.

SO I GUESS. ROLL UP TO THE LAST OF THE PICTURES IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE.

ON THAT ONE. OKAY. THAT ONE. SO GO TO THE THE LANDSCAPE ON THE BOTTOM, I GUESS IS THE LAST ONE.

OH, THERE YOU GO. SO AGAIN. YEAH, WE'RE JUST STRETCHING THE STEPS OUT A LITTLE FARTHER.

BECAUSE AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH WE GOT 12 GRANDKIDS, WE HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAT ARE 85 YEARS OLD.

AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS FROM THE ORIGINAL STONE STEPS AND THE WOODEN STEPS, IT JUST GETS US TO THE TOP OF THE SLOPE, BECAUSE THERE'S ABOUT FIVE MORE FEET OF SLOPE WHERE YOU HAD TO SLIDE DOWN THE GRASS HILL TO GET TO THE TOP OF THE STEPS.

SO JUST THIS JUST GOT ENOUGH STEPS TO GET US TO THE FLAT PART OF THE YARD.

SO ALL RIGHT. THANKS, THE CONTEXT REALLY HELPS.

APPRECIATE YOU WALKING US THROUGH THAT. GREAT.

I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

SO YOU GUYS WERE HERE FOR THIS, HOPEFULLY. SO YOU GUYS CAN PROBABLY ADD SOME COLOR FOR ME, SO. YEAH, I MEAN, IN MY OPINION THIS IS BEEN REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VERY NICELY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING WALL THERE. THE EXISTING WALL IS CRUMBLING.

AS FAR AS A NEED FOR WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A WALL.

I WOULD SAY YOU CAN'T JUST REMOVE THE WALL THAT'S THERE.

SO REPLACING IT WITH A STURDIER STONE MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME.

THE TRAMWAY WAS ALSO MOVED WAY OFF TO THE LEFT.

SO THIS IS MUCH MORE IN LINE WITH, THIS ALIGNS VERY CLOSELY WITH WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS MISSION WAS.

RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH APPROVAL HERE. I WAS IN APPROVAL BEFORE, I BELIEVE.

AND ALTHOUGH I DO LIKE THE THE REDUCED WIDTH OF THE STAIRWAY, I THINK WITH THE FUTURE TRAM PROPOSED OVER ON THE SIDE, I, I DEFINITELY AM IN AGREEMENT WITH APPROVAL HERE.

I THINK THE QUESTION FROM THE APPLICANT IN REGARDS TO THE, WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FROM THE ENGINEER IS KIND OF A LARGER QUESTION.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE WALL HAS TO BE DETERIORATING FOR US TO REPLACE IT.

AND I GET BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN KIND. BUT IF AN OWNER IS WILLING TO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY, I DON'T, I STRUGGLE WITH WHY THE DETERIORATING FACTOR OF THE WALL IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO DO SO.

AND MAYBE THAT'S WITH THEM GOING OUTSIDE OF THEIR CURRENT BOUNDARIES.

BUT TO THE POINT OF IF IT'S DETERIORATING AND THE OWNER WANTS TO IMPROVE IT.

I STRUGGLE WITH WHY THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH US.

BUT I'LL WRAP UP THERE BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE FOR THE FOR THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD JUST NEED AN ENGINEER'S LETTER THAT STATES THESE ARE THE FOUR THINGS AND THIS MEETS THOSE FOUR THINGS. AND IT SHOULD BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

RIGHT., I MEAN THIS VERY WELL PREPARED, VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT.

BUT THE AVERAGE APPLICANT DOESN'T DO THIS DUE DILIGENCE.

SO IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE PROFESSIONALS SIGN OFF. AND I GO, YES, I AGREE WITH THE HOMEOWNER'S PLAN HERE.

AND YOU KNOW IN THIS SITUATION IT PROBABLY IS A RUBBER STAMP.

[01:30:04]

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO AVOID ALL THOSE SITUATIONS AND DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE PROCESS WE PUT FORTH.

SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO MODIFY THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

AND HEAR WHAT WE OFFERED IN THE MAY MEETING. SEEMS WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT ON ON THIS ONE.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LA25-16, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

I'LL SECOND. I GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TIFT, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL.

A CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NONE. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT.

LAST ITEM IS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TIFT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ADJURN THE MEETING.

THANKS, CHAIR. SEE, I SET THE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.