[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:02]
>> WELCOME, EVERYBODY TO THE AUGUST 18TH MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SO WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE JOIN US.
>> FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
[3. Approval of Agenda]
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. BY PERKEL.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NO MOTION CARRIES.
SECOND ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 2025]
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21ST, 2025.>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING MINUTES FROM JULY 21ST, 2025.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER TIFF.
SECOND BY BRANDO BUR. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
THAT WILL BRING US TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING LA 25-24 BOYER BUILDING CORP
[5.1. LA25-000024, Boyer Building Corp o/b/o John & Suzanne Bohn, 1440 Baldur Park Road, Variances and CUP (Melanie Curtis)]
ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND SUSAN BONE FOR 1440 BOULDER PARK ROAD.THIS IS FOR VARIANCES IN THE CUP. MS. CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE BALDER PARK PENINSULA.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY, WHICH INCLUDE LOT AREA AND LOT WITH VARIANCES.
SETBACK VARIANCES ALLOWING THE HOME TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT INTO THE 30-FOOT REAR STREET SETBACK, 10 FEET LAKEWARD OF THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK.
THE SECOND-STORY BALCONY IS PROPOSED TO ENCROACH 14.3 FEET LAKEWARD OF THE 75-FOOT SETBACK AND APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET INTO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SET.
I'M ALSO REQUESTED AS OUR HARD COVER VARIANCES TO PERMIT 31.5% HARD COVER OVERALL, WHICH IS A 34 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION AND A CHANGE TO THE HARD COVER WITHIN THE 75-FOOT SETBACK.
LASTLY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE LOW FLAT ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PLANS INCLUDE ELEVATING THE HOME ABOVE THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ON FILL, WHICH IS REQUIRED.
IT ALSO REQUIRES ESTABLISHMENT OF A 15-FOOT-WIDE PERIMETER RESCUE BENCH AROUND THE HOME AT THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION.
THE PROPERTIES WITH LIMITS THIS ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THE 15-FOOT BENCH, TRIGGERING THE CUP.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE SUBSTANDARD AREA AND WIDTH OF THE LOT AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCES.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DOCUMENTATION WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS EXHIBIT C. WE DID RECEIVE LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REQUEST, AND THEY WERE ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS EXHIBIT I.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO BE REASONABLE AND ARE SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ON THE SMALL, NARROW, LOW-LYING PROPERTY.
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME HAS BEEN MOVED BACK EIGHT FEET, APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET FARTHER FROM THE LAKE THAN THE EXISTING HOME, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE HOME AND THE LAKE, ALLOWING FOR BETTER STORMWATER INFILTRATION.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS APPLIED, CONDITIONED ON ANY FORTHCOMING REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY'S ENGINEER AT BUILDING PERMIT AND THE WATERSHEDS.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, AND I HAVE THE ELEVATION VIEWS OF THE HOME IF THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT'D BE GREAT IF YOU PUT THE ELEVATION UP THERE.
JUST HIGH LEVEL, WHAT WAS THE REDUCTION AGAIN IN HARDCOVER?
>> THIRTY-FOUR SQUARE FEET OVERALL.
>> WAS THAT REDUCTION IN THE HOUSE FOUNDATION OR WAS THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE CROSS?
>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE REDUCTION CAME FROM, BUT THEIR PROPOSAL IS TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND THAT PROPOSAL IS 34 SQUARE FEET LAST.
>> TOTAL HARD COVER, NOT JUST STRUCTURAL HARD COVER?
>> YES. THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME IS SMALLER THAN CODE WOULD ALLOW FOR.
>> THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE IS SMALLER THAN CODE WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED?
>> I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.
THE PROPOSED HOME HAS SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN ALLOWED.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE 2,000 SQUARE FEET DUE TO THE SIZE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK.
PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HI, MY NAME IS JOE FRANSEN.
I REPRESENT BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION.
AND DO YOU WANT MY BUSINESS ADDRESS PERSONALLY?
[00:05:02]
>> THAT'S FINE, BUSINESS ADDRESS.
>> BUSINESS ADDRESS, 3435 COUNTY ROAD 101, TONKA, MINNESOTA.
YEAH, AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OTHER THAN WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST OF A VERY SMALL LOT AND MAKE IT FIT INTO THE OTHER HOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REDEVELOPED DOWN THE STREET.
SO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE ABLE TO ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING; IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS.
[INAUDIBLE] CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
WE'D LIKE TO START ON. MR. WILSON. ANY THOUGHTS.
>> MY STRUGGLE IS IT'S AN 800 SQUARE FOOT FINISHED HOUSE.
AND I CAN SEE WANTING TO EXPAND IT. YOU GET THAT.
MY QUESTION IS, AND I UNDERSTAND CODE WILL ALLOW UP TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET ON 10,000 LISTS, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING A 900 SQUARE FOOT FOUNDATION AND ALMOST DOUBLE IT.
BECAUSE THEY'RE USING CONCRETE SLABS TO SAY THEY HAD THIS, WHICH THEY DID.
IT'S THERE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS PROVED OR NOT, BUT THERE'S CONCRETE SLABS, THERE'S A DECK.
ALL THAT'S GOING INTO THAT HARD.
WHEN I LOOK AT IT AND JUST SAY, IF WE WANT TO HAVE VALUE BEHIND OUR CODE AND WHY WE HAVE HARD COVER AND WHY WE HAVE SETBACKS AND WHY WE HAVE ALL THIS, IS IT UNREASONABLE TO SAY THAT THEY COULDN'T BUILD ANOTHER 01,500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE THAT'S CLOSER TO CODE, CLOSER TO REASON, TAPER THE DRIVEWAY, REDUCE THE HARD COVER WITH THE DRIVEWAY.
BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S 26% HARDCOVER.
I THINK THE DECK IS KIND OF, LIKE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I DO APPRECIATE ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE'S MORE GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE LAKE AND THE CURRENT HOUSE, AND THAT IT SEEMS LIKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING MADE.
>> I'LL GO. IT LOOKS LIKE, AS A WHOLE, WHAT THEY'RE BASED ON THE STAFF'S FEEDBACK.
THEY'RE NOT EXCEEDING OR EVEN MAXIMIZING THE ALLOWABLE FOOTPRINT.
I'M NOT AS NOT AS BOTHERED BY THE INCREASE AS MUCH AS THE WHOLE PICTURE HERE IS, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE DEMONSTRATING AN IMPROVEMENT TO A SITUATION FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.
ALSO, I THINK THERE'S SOME GIVE AND TAKE HERE, WHICH I DO APPRECIATE SEEING.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION CARRIES A LOT WITH ME.
BECAUSE THEY'RE PROBABLY MORE AWARE OF THIS APPLICATION THAN OTHERS.
WE HAVE GENERALLY BEEN MORE LENIENT ABOUT AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK THAN OTHERS BECAUSE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS SO DIFFICULT TO PUT INTO A BOX, WITH EVERY SITUATION BEING DIFFERENT.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I SEE THERE'S A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO SETBACKS THAT ARE FROM EXISTING TO PROPOSED.
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXCHANGE THERE.
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD, AS FAR AS STRUCTURE INCREASE GOES, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED, AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THAT BECAUSE I'M NEW, SO I'M STILL LOOKING.
IF THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A 2000 SQUARE FOOT STYLE STRUCTURE ON THIS HOUSE AND NOT NEED ANY OF THE OTHER VARIANCES, WOULD THAT THEN BE APPROVED? OR DOES IT BECAUSE THE LOT IS SMALL? DOES THE TIER ONE STILL TRUMP?
>> I'M CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE THEY PROPOSED 2000 SQUARE PUSS AND DIDN'T NEED ANY OTHER VARIANCES?
>> BESIDES THE TIER ONE VARIANCE.
>> I'M SORRY. IF THEY PROPOSED A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, WOULD THEY STILL NEED A TIER ONE VARIANCE? TIER ONE TAKE PRIORITY. 2000.
>> I THINK WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS BALANCING CLOSE TWO.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR A CLARITY LIST.
>> YEAH. WHICH ONE TAKES PRIORITY? IS IT THE 25% HARDCOVER OR IS IT THE STRUCTURE HARDCOVER?
>> FROM A HARD COVER STANDPOINT,
[00:10:02]
IF THEY WERE ASKING FOR 2,000 SQUARE FEET, IF THEY'RE ASKING TO MAXIMIZE THAT FOOTPRINT AND ASK FOR A HARD COVER VARIANCE, STAFF WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.SO AS FAR AS ONE TAKING PRECEDENT OVER THE OTHER, THEY'RE BOTH ALLOWANCES.
THE LIMIT IS THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO BUILD TO THE LIMIT, WHICH CAN MOST PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY REDEVELOP SMALL LOTS.
THE FLOOD CLAIM CHALLENGE ON THIS LOT IS ALSO LIMITATIONS.
I JUST WHEN YOU FLIP TO THE EXISTING.
TAKE THESE 30-YEAR-OLD PAVERS OUT OF IT, TAKE EVERYTHING.
YOU'VE GOT LESS THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET.
I GET THEY'RE GIVING A CONCESSION BY DELETING A DOC, DELETING THIS OLD THAT, BUT THEY'RE USING THAT AS A HERE'S HOW WE'RE JUSTIFYING GETTING TO 31% BECAUSE WE'RE DELETING.
THAT'S WHERE MY CHALLENGE COMES FROM IS, RIGHT? IF YOU SQUASH THOSE TWO TOGETHER, YOU CAN STILL BUILD A VERY MODEST HOUSE.
THEN YOU WOULD FALL WITHIN THE SETBACKS.
>> UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE, I HATE TO SAY GRANDFATHERED DAN, BUT WHEN THE EXISTING PROPERTY HAS X AMOUNT OF HARD COVER.
THAT'S THE STARTING POINT THAT WE USED TO LOOK AT.
YEAH, BUT IS LOOKING AT THAT, REDEVELOPING, THEY'RE MEETING THE STRUCTURE SIZE ARE BEING UNDER, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE HARD COVER, AND THEY'RE BRINGING THAT HARD COVER BACK AWAY FROM THE LAKE, SO IT'S OUT OF THAT VIEW AS BEST AS IT CAN BE FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
>> I GUESS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
MY STRUGGLE IS LIKE, I LOOKED I WENT THROUGH ALL THE ONLINE DATA, AND I COULDN'T FIND ANY APPROVAL FOR A DECK THAT LOOKS LIKE IT IS LESS.
I COULDN'T FIND ANY APPROVAL FOR ALL OF THIS CONCRETE AS ON.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE REDUCING IT, BUT IF IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE CITY NEVER APPROVED THE DECK, AND THEY NEVER APPROVED THE CONCRETE.
I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT.
I CAN FIND THE PERMIT FOR THE GARAGE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERMIT FOR THE GARAGE, THERE IS NO REQUEST WITH THE GARAGE BUILT FOR ALL OR 500 FEET OF CONCRETE.
I WOULD ASSUME THE GARAGE INCLUDED THE DRIVEWAY, BUT NOTHING ELSE WAS IN THERE.
YOU LOOK, WE'VE GOT FOR THE HOUSE, WE'VE GOT FOR THE GARAGE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING FOR A DECK THAT'S LESS INT.
I'M STRUGGLING TO SAY, HEY, YOU YOU'RE SHRINKING SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE, BUT IF IT WAS NEVER APPROVED.
>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROJECTS WHERE WE DON'T WE DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY ON WHEN AND WHAT WAS APPROVED, WHAT CODE WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN.
WE JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S THERE EXISTING ON THE SURVEY? UNLESS THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME BEFORE US THAT SAID, THEY'RE REMOVING THIS CONCRETE, BUT THIS WAS NOTED THAT THIS WAS ILLEGAL CONCRETE OR WAS PUT IN CODE.
I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND MAYBE ABLE TO, IT'S HARD WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.
>> YEAH. I KNOW THERE'S ONLY AERIAL PHOTOS THAT SHOW IT DOESN'T EXIST.
>> I'LL JUST ADD MY THOUGHTS HERE.
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.
CHASING DOWN THOSE RABBIT HOLES.
I THINK THE PROPOSED PLAN IS A DRASTIC INCREASE IN IMPROVEMENT.
FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS ON THIS ONE, BUT OVERALL, I'M IN FAVOR.
THE RENDERINGS OF YOU GUYS PROPOSED PLAN LOOK WELL DONE, AND OBVIOUSLY, THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN AGREEMENT, WHICH IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART.
HONESTLY, I'LL LEAVE IT THERE.
>> I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE AS WELL.
I WILL SAY, COMMISSIONER WILSON, I'M ALIGNED IN THAT I WOULD APPRECIATE MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARITY ON HOW WE THINK ABOUT STRUCTURAL HARD COVER IN THIS CONTEXT VERSUS OVERALL HARD COVER.
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MAYBE SOMETHING WE CAN HASH WITH THIS ISSUE, BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS MOVES THE ACTUAL PROPERTY FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE, WHICH IS UNUSUAL WHEN IT COMES TO [INAUDIBLE] THE FACT THAT THEY AREN'T MAXIMIZING.
[INAUDIBLE] BOTH THINGS SEEM UNUSUAL AND SHOW SOME MODESTY AND CARE IN PUTTING TOGETHER THIS DEVELOPMENT.
>> SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT BE CLOSE TO A MOTION HERE. I'D ENTERTAIN SOME.
>> JUST ONE MORE QUESTION FOR CLARITY.
SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE,
[00:15:02]
A WIDTH VARIANCE IN A CPID.>> LOT AREA LOT WIDTH. YEAH. THE LOT AREA AND LOT WITH VARIANCES ARE TRIGGERED BY THE NEED FOR THE OTHER VARIANCES.
NORMALLY, IF THEY COULD BUILD CONFORMING, THAT THOSE TWO VARIANCES WOULD BE REQUIRED.
THEY'RE ASKING, YES, FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE, AVERAGE LAKE SHORE REAR YARD.
>> THE POINT WOULD BE THAT THOSE MEASUREMENTS ARE ALL GETTING BETTER THAN THEY ARE TODAY.
WITH THE EXISTING, EXCEPT FOR THE STREET, IS DECREASING BY THREE FEET, CORRECT?
SETBACK IS DECREASING BY THREE FEET FROM PREVIOUS?
>> YEAH, THEY'RE IMPROVING THE SIDE AND THE REAR SETBACK.
THE GARAGE SHOULD TECHNICALLY MEET A 30-FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE THE DOOR SPACE THE STREET ON THIS LOT.
>> THE CURRENT SETBACK ON THE DETACH GRADE IS 17.4.
>> PROPOSED IS 29. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING BETTER IN ALL OF THEM, BUT THEY'RE STILL REQUIRE VARIANCES FOR THOSE.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE ACTUAL CODE.
DOES THAT HELP? NO CHANGE YOUR MIND, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT.
I JUST LOOK AT IT AND SAY, IT'S LIKE I SAID, RIGHT.
IF THEY SHRUNK IT, IT WOULD FIT IN THE SETBACKS, WOULD STILL BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT OVER AN 800 SQUARE FOOT WOULDN'T NEED MOST OF THESE VARIANCES.
>> I GUESS THE ONLY COMMENT I MAKE.
IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF CURVEBALL WHEN YOU HAVE UNPERMITTED THINGS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE DETAILS, SO I CAN'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THEM.
IF IT'S FOR EXAMPLE, AS THE DECK, IF THE DECK IS THE ONE THAT'S POTENTIALLY UNPERMITTED, THEY'RE A PROVING THAT POSITION AS WELL.
VERY COMMONLY, I THINK IN THIS DISTRICT, IN PARTICULAR, WITH THESE SMALLER LOTS, IT'S PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID BEING SEVERAL VARIANCES BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL PIECES OF PROPERTY AND THE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE TO PROTECT THAT FROM EXPANDING, OF COURSE.
BUT WHEN YOU ARE REBUILDING, WHAT I'VE GENERALLY SEEN, AT LEAST HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT IS THE PROPOSED VERSUS THE EXISTING, YOU'VE GOT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S ALL TIGHT AS ONE PROPERTY LINE, GIVING IT A CHANCE TO BE REBUILT AND IMPROVING THAT POSITION TO TAKE SOME PRESSURE OFF OF THAT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH AT LEAST TAKES AND PLACES THE PROPERTY TO BE THE LEAST IMPOSING TO THE NEIGHBORS.
THAT IS EXPANDING A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT MY COMMENTS WERE THAT WERE APPROVING OUR POSITION GENERALLY SPEAKING.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY I FEEL THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S REASONABLE AND SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN WILLING TO APPROVE IN THE PAST.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD JUST MAYBE EXPLAIN MY PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET TOO DEEP ON IT, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD WELCOME MORE DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE ONE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE LA25-24 AS APPLIED.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSION RESSLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE WILL VOTE.
>> ONE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
>> COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR, I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE TO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICS.
I'M HEARING THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK AND A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE STREAMING.
JUST A REMINDER FOR THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. BRINGS US TO OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING,
[5.2. LA25-000031, Warren Garrett, 650 Brown Road North, Variance (Matthew Karney)]
LA25-31 WARREN GARRETT, 650 BROWN ROAD NORTH.THIS IS FOR A SINGLE VARIANCE. MR. KARNEY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS WILL BE A VARIANCE FOR 650 BROWN ROAD NORTH.
TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHERE THE PROJECT LOCATION IS, IT'S RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF LONG LAKE, KIND OF RIGHT ON THE CITY LINE THAT WE HAVE HERE IN ADJACENT PROPERTY, OFF OF LONG LAKE ITSELF, GENERALLY SPEAKING, LR-1A PROPERTY, TYPICAL HARD COVER LIMITS OF 25%.
[00:20:02]
BUT A FOUR ACRE PROPERTY ROUGHLY, A FAIRLY LONG ONE.BECAUSE THIS IS AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE IS GRAPHIC I CAN KEEP HOVERING BACK TO AS NEEDED, BUT I THINK THIS WILL HELP PAINT THE PICTURE FOR WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.
AGAIN, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WILL BE BASED OFF OF THE CLOSEST PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.
THE LINE WE HAVE DRAWN HERE ESSENTIALLY BISECTS THE HOUSE.
ULTIMATELY, THE HOUSE THAT'S UP HERE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE OR SO, 10 YEARS, MAYBE, DRAWING A NEW AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE WITH THE TOWN HOMES TO THE SOUTH THAT BISECTS THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING, WHERE HE IS PROPOSING ABOUT A 120 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION ON THIS PORTION OF THE HOUSE.
FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE, EVEN WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY VISIBILITY ISSUES FROM THE SOUTH, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S WITHIN THE MASSING OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BASED ON THAT CLOSEST LAKEWOOD PROTRUSION TO THE NORTH.
THIS IS GOING TO BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE MASSING OF THE HOUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL.
FOR THE SIZE OF THE ADDITION AND ITS LOCATION, RELATIVELY TUCKED IN SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AND ALSO AN ADDITIONAL 290 OR SO FEET FROM THE LAKESHORE.
STAFF ISN'T SEEING ANY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS IN SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, STAFF SUPPORTS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE, AND I WILL FURTHER COMMENT THAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY INTERACTION FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
WHEN THE NEW HOUSE TO THE NORTH WAS BUILT, THEY USED THE AVERAGE SHORE SETBACK OF WHICH TWO HOMES? WAS THERE ANOTHER HOME? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
>> I'M NOT TOO SURE THE ORDER IN WHICH THESE WERE CONSTRUCTED.
BUT MY GUESS, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE LINE OFF OF THE TWO HOUSES THAT WE HAVE HERE, THAT THIS HOUSE WOULD BE LOCATED BEHIND IT.
OR AS I'LL COVER ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT WE HAVE LATER IN THE EVENING.
WHEN WE DO HAVE JUST ONE ADJACENT PRINCIPAL BUILDING, WE WILL TAKE THAT MEASUREMENT FROM THAT STRUCTURE TO THE LAKESHORE AND APPLY THAT AS A BLANKET SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY IF WE WERE TO CALCULATE THIS TODAY AND THERE IS NO HOUSE HERE, WE WOULD USE THE DISTANCE FROM THE CLOSEST PRINCIPAL BUILDING, WHICH IN THIS CASE, WOULD BE THIS PARTICULAR TOWN HALL, AND TAKING THAT MEASUREMENT FROM THE CLOSEST POINT TO THE LAKE AND APPLY THAT SETBACK MEASURE ACROSS THIS PROPERTY.
>> AS A REMINDER TO THE NEW COMMISSIONERS HERE, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, IT'S FROM STRUCTURE TO LAKE, NOT POOLS OR PATIOS OR ANYTHING.
>> I'LL CORRECT YOU THERE AND SAY THAT'LL BE THE BUILDING.
A STRUCTURE WOULD BE A POOL, A BUILDING WILL BE SOMETHING THAT IS CLOSE.
>> DO WE KNOW WHERE THE HOUSE IS THAT TO THE NORTH ON THE RIGHT SIDE?
>> WHERE THE PREVIOUS BUILDING WAS THAT ONE.
>> THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK CHANGED SOMEHOW WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS REBUILT?
>> CORRECT. IF IT WAS BEHIND OR IN THE RELATIVELY THE SAME LOCATION, BE ABLE TO BE PERMITTED.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING OF THIS ONE BEING CONSTRUCTED, BUT PLEASE FOR THIS ONE IS BEHIND THE PRESENT REQUESTS.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH, IS THAT MARSH? THAT LOOKS LIKE MARSH FROM THE PICTURE? WHERE DOES THE LAKESHORE ACTUALLY START IF THAT'S MARSH?
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL IS.
WE WILL APPLY THE SETBACKS FROM THE HIGH LEVEL, BUT IF THIS IS WETLAND OPPOSED TO THE WATER LEVEL, THE NINE.
THIS IS ONE I'M NOT SURE THE ELEVATION IF IT'S THAT LAKE ELEVATION THAT WE HAVE HERE, WE'D APPLY THE ORDINARY LINE TOO.
>> STARTING FROM WHERE THE MARSH ENDS THEN INSTEAD OF.
[00:25:01]
>> WITH THAT COULD ALSO BE WHY THE HOUSE WAS MOVED BACK BECAUSE POTENTIALLY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE OR WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE PRESS THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
>> WARREN GARRETT, 650 NORTH BROWN ROAD.
IF YOU CAN PUT THAT GRAPHIC BACK HAND.
BOTTOM RIGHT HOUSE WAS THE FIRST ONE TO GET BUILT.
ONE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US GOT TORE DOWN, AND THAT WAS THE SECOND ONE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
THE ONE IN BETWEEN WAS CONSTRUCTED NUMBER 3 OF THOSE THREE LAKESHORE LOTS.
IT USED TO BE 124 ACRE PROPERTY.
NOW IT'S SEVEN LOTS? THREE LAKESHORE.
>> TELL US ABOUT YOUR ADDITION AND YOUR REQUEST?
>> JUST LOOKING TO MOVE OUR LAUNDRY UPSTAIRS SO WE CAN STAY THERE.
A LOT MORE YEARS, 61, 71, AND WE LIVE ON A VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY.
LIKE WHERE WE LIVE? TRYING TO LESSEN THE STAIRS.
>> GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?
>> THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK.
APPROACH PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR RECORD.
SEEING NOBODY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. I'LL START WITH THIS ONE.
I THINK THE LOCATION OF THAT ADDITION BEING THAT IT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING MASSING OF THE HOUSE, I THINK IT WORKS OUT TO THE APPLICANT'S FAVOR BECAUSE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE HOW THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE VIEW OF EITHER OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THAT'S THE WHOLE INTENT OF THE LS.
I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. AS APPLIED, I LIKE TO HEAR OTHER COMMENTS FOR OUR ORDINANCE.
>> YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
I THINK WHERE THEY DID THE ADDITION WITHIN THE HOUSE IS PROPER LOCATION, AND AS YOU SAID, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS A SIGHT LINE.
IS THE WHOLE INTENTION OF IT, AND THAT'S NOT BEING IMPACTED HERE, SO I'M IN FAVOR.
>> YEAH, I WON'T RESTATE WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED.
I WOULD JUST ADD THAT IT GOES ALONG THE SAME LINES AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WHERE EVERY SURE SAID REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIND CIRCUMSTANCES ALWAYS ARE DIFFERENT THAN READING THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, LOOKING AT THE SCREENING THAT'S IN PROPERTY LINES ALREADY.
I DON'T SEE ANY IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY.
THE NEIGHBORS SEEM TO AGREE, SO ALSO IN SUPPORT.
>> I CONCUR. IT'S A MODEST CHANGE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO BETTER USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.
>> GREETING THE APPLICANT WITH A TREMENDOUS CARE IN LAYING OUT THIS PLAN.
>> ANYONE READY TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> FIRST, I WOULD SAY I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR ISSUES, AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.
>> A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE?
THE MOTION TO APPROVE IS COMMISSIONER WELTZIN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[5.3. LA25-000032, Brad Jans o/b/o Good Shepard Church, 3745 Shoreline Dr, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]
RAD JANS, ON BEHALF OF GOOD SHEPHERD CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE.>> MR. CHAIR, THIS WILL BE A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED DOWN NAVARRE AREA ON THE SOUTH END OF TOWN LR-1A ZONE PROPERTY.
TIER 3, THOUGH, 35% HARDCOVER RESTRICTION, BUT AN APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRE PROPERTY.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HERE IS FOR AN INTENSIFICATION OF CHURCH AND DAYCARE USES.
WHENEVER THERE IS A REQUEST TO ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE, INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE, STORAGE IN THIS CASE, EVEN THROUGH AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, THAT WOULD BE AN INTENSIFICATION OF AN ALREADY EXISTING LAND USE.
IN THIS CASE, WHERE IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE, WE REQUEST APPLICANTS GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROJECT, A PROCESS TO UPDATE THEIR CONDITIONAL USE.
FOR THE PROJECT DETAILS, WE'RE TALKING TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PARKING LOT HERE.
BOTH WILL BE ABOUT 14 BY 14 OR 196 SQUARE FEET.
[00:30:03]
THERE WAS AN APPLICATION HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL APPROVED BY COUNSEL IN 2020 FOR TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, ONE OF WHICH WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE ONE YEAR TIME FRAME BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SO THAT APPROVAL HAD LAPSED ULTIMATELY.THE GARAGE THAT WAS APPROVED IN THAT SITUATION WAS ALSO LOCATED IN RELATIVELY THE SAME LOCATION AND WAS ABOUT ROUGHLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BOTH OF THESE TWO SETS COMBINED.
WE DO HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF THE WETLAND EDGE AS MUCH OF THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED WETLAND.
BASED ON OUR CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE STRUCTURES OR THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE LOCATED AT LEAST 35 FEET FROM THE WETLAND EDGE.
CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS A RELATIVELY MODEST REQUEST, THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS LOOK AT POTENTIAL IMPACTS, HOW THE PROPOSAL IS MITIGATING IMPACTS, HOW THIS WILL WORK WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE COMMUNITY.
ALL IN ALL STAFF DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THERE ARE SIZABLE CONCERNS HERE, ESPECIALLY AS, THIS IS A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF STORAGE ARE COMMON IN THIS AREA.
STAFF DOESN'T FIND THAT THERE'S ANYTHING DETRIMENTAL OF THE PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE REQUESTS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR A SINGLE BUILDING?
ONE SMALLER ACCESSORY SHED, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 64 SQUARE FEET.
BUT THE LARGER, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT MORE AS A GARAGE.
THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THAT ONE YEAR TIME FRAME FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL.
ULTIMATELY THAT APPROVAL HAS LAPSED AND ULTIMATELY WHY THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> THESE TWO UNITS ARE ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE SINGLE UNIT THAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE?
>> YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE NOT PROPOSING TO.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY CONDITIONS APPLIED TO THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL AND AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE IS ABOUT 30-40 SQUARE FOOT LESS THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED DOESN'T FEEL THAT ANY ADDITIONAL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I WAS WONDERING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE WETLANDS.
>> THE APPLICANT, I WILL NOTE HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MANY GREEN WATERSHEDS, SO THERE IS UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT MEASUREMENT IS VERY BASED ON THE SIPS OF THOSE.
>> ALL OF THOSE NUANCES WILL BE HANDLED DURING PERMITTING.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
THE ADDRESS OF THE CHURCH IS 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE.
AS PLANNER KARNEY SUGGESTED, OR STATED, WE ARE BUILDING TWO SHEDS, ONE SHED FOR THE CHURCH STORAGE, AND THE SECOND FOR THE DAYCARE TO CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE UNDER ROOFING.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> IS THERE ANY REASON THE OLD STRUCTURE THAT WAS APPROVED WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED? MAYBE JUST IN A SIMILAR VEIN, IS THERE ANY REASON YOU GUYS AREN'T DOING ANY ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE TO FACILITATE THIS STORAGE VERSUS THESE SHEDS?
>> THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUS WAS A GARAGE.
PART OF THE PROCESS OF ESTIMATING CURRENT COSTS.
THE CEMENT FLOOR OF IT OVER BUDGET.
THAT'S THE BIGGEST REASON WE'RE NOT BUILDING A GARAGE.
REASON IT WASN'T BUILT PREVIOUS.
I HAD A FULL TIME JOB. I GOT NO TIME IN THE DAY TO DO IT.
SOMEHOW I'M ONE THAT HAS TAKEN ON AS THE PROJECT TO DO.
[00:35:02]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
NOBODY? I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> GENERALLY, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, BASED ON MY VOTE, I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES TRYING TO OPERATE JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH OF IT, AND IT'S NICE TO HAVE BUSINESSES IN THIS CITY.
THE APPLICATION IS SUMMARIZED WELL THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TO DO THIS. DIDN'T HAPPEN.
IT'S NOW BEING DONE IN A DIFFERENT WAY WITH COST AS A MEANS FOR IT.
IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE EGREGIOUS, AND WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT THE TRIGGER FOR IT IS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS IN FRONT OF US.
FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DISCUSSION WE WANT TO HAVE UNLESS THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, BUT IF THERE'S NOT OPPOSITION, I CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION.
>> ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE LA 25-32 AS APPLIED.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WALTSON.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
LA 25-35 MILLER DUNWIDDIE, 880 PARTENWOOD ROAD.
[5.4. LA25-000035, Miller Dunwiddie, 880 Partenwood Rd, Variance (Matthew Karney)]
THIS IS FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE, MR. KARNEY.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. HAVE ANOTHER AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR YOU LOCATED AT 880 PARTENWOOD ROAD, LOCATED RELATIVELY IN THIS VICINITY OF THE CITY.
I GOT SOME PROXIMATE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE UP NEAR THE HOUSE AS WELL.
AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO A PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
LESS THAN AN ACRE HERE, BUT ALSO WITH THE 25% HARDCOVER LIMIT.
I WANT TO BRING THIS UP HAVING PREFACED THIS REGULATION DURING THE LAST MEETING THAT THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ISN'T CALCULATED BY DRAWING A LINE.
TOUCHED ON A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TONIGHT, EVEN, BUT IN THE CASES WHERE WE HAVE A VACANT LOT, OR IN THIS CASE, IT'S A PLATTED-OUT LOT, WE WILL BE TAKING THE CLOSEST DISTANCE TO THE LAKE FROM THIS STRUCTURE, 89 FEET IN THIS CASE, AND APPLYING AN 89-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE LAKESHORE ON THIS PROPERTY.
I'M HAPPY TO COME BACK TO THE SLIDE IF WE NEED IT, BUT THIS WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON HAVING THIS COMING UP MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
IN TERMS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, WE HAVE A HOUSE THAT IS NOT EXACTLY PARALLEL TO THE LAKE HERE, BUT IN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SHAPE THAN WE COMMONLY SEE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE HOUSE IS HERE FROM THE APPLICANT LOOKING THIS WAY.
WE HAVE THE 75-FOOT LAKESHORE THAT A LITTLE BIT OF THE DECK SEEMS TO BE GOING PAST, AND THEN WITH THE 89-FOOT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHERE IT WOULD SIT, AND THAT WOULD IMPACT THE HOUSE, AS IT SITS CURRENTLY.
IN TERMS OF WHAT THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING IS A MODEST SIZE ADDITION THAT EXTENDS INTO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
INCREASING THE DECK, WHICH IS AN UPGRADE DECK BELOW 42", NOT A TRIGGER FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, COULD BE BUILT RIGHT NOW WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
THIS BLACK PORTION THAT WE HAVE OF THE ADDITION WOULD BE WHAT IS ULTIMATELY TRIGGERING THE VARIANCE, WHICH AMOUNTS TO A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SMALL AMOUNT HERE, I BELIEVE THE GENERATOR AND AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WERE MOVED FROM, A LITTLE BIT CLOSER OVER TO HERE UP TO HERE, SUPPOSE TO END UP HERE TO HERE, WITH THAT MODEST DECK EXTENSION AND THEN THE ADDITION AS WELL, THAT WILL BE AT GRADE AND NOT THE SECOND STORY.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LETTER FROM THEIR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER,
[00:40:02]
THE ONE IN WHICH THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WOULD BE MEASURED FROM, AS WELL AS A LETTER, I BELIEVE, FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALSO INDICATING SUPPORT.ULTIMATELY, STAFF FEELS THAT THIS ADDITION IS BEING SCREENED WELL FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IT'S BEING LOCATED IN A PLACE THAT IS MINDFUL OF THE SIDE SETBACK THAT WE HAVE HERE, BUT ALSO IS MAKING A VERY MINIMAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SITELINE AS ESTABLISHED BY THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> QUICK QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STREET SETBACK IS AND WHERE THE HOUSE SITS RIGHT NOW?
>> THE STREET SETBACK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IS 30 FEET.
I MIGHT HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT. 30.
>> HOW FAR IS THE BACK SIDE OR THE ROAD SIDE OF THE HOUSE?
>> NO. ALONG THE DRIVEWAY, WHAT'S THE CLOSEST THAT THE HOUSE GETS?
>> I SAID ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF I MAY.
LOOKING AT THAT RENDERING RIGHT THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE ENCROACHING AND IT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT IF WE CAN, MR. KARNEY, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY IN THIS LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET WE'RE LOOKING AT, LAKESHORE SETBACK, NOT AVERAGE, BUT JUST ACTUAL LAKESHORE SETBACK.
EXISTING IS 71.4 COUNTING THE EXISTING DECK, BUT PROPOSED TO IMPROVE TO 75 FEET.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT ON THIS BECAUSE IF WE'RE COUNTING DECK AS STRUCTURE, THEN THAT SEEMS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT, NOT AN ENCROACHMENT.
THAT RING A WRONG SO JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.
>> MORE OR LESS I WAS DEFINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
THE 71.4 IS NOT CHANGING, BUT THE NEWLY PROPOSED DECK GOES TO 75-FOOT LINE.
>> SO IT'S IMPROVING AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
>> WHICH COLOR IS THE CURRENT? CAUSE THEY SEE THE EXISTING DWELLING IN THAT PEACH COLOR.
>> THIS WILL BE THE EXISTING CONDITION, RIGHT HERE.
THERE'S NO DECK, WHERE THE ADDITION IS BEING PROPOSED CURRENTLY, CORRECT?
>> THERE IS A PORTION OF DECK WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY.
>> THAT PURPLE IS THE EXISTING DECK?
>> THAT WAS MY CLARITY. THANK YOU. THAT'S FANTASTIC.
>> THE MAJORITY OF THAT NEW PROPOSED DECK IS NEWT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK.
PLEASE APPROACH PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> JERRY GRAY, 880 PARTENWOOD ROAD.
PER OUR COVER LETTER, WE HAVE LIVED IN THE HOUSE SINCE 1992 AND WE'D LIKE TO STAY THERE A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
WE NEED A MAIN FLOOR BEDROOM TO LET US BE THERE.
ALL THE BEDROOMS ARE UPSTAIRS.
A STAIRLIFT HAS FIXED THE STAIRS, BUT STAIRLIFTS DON'T WORK WHEN SHE'S IN A WHEELCHAIR, WHICH SHE IS NOW.
IT'S A LONG WAYS FROM THE BEDROOM TO THE STAIRLIFT.
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A MAIN FLOOR BEDROOM.
WE'VE WORKED HARD IN TERMS OF DRAWINGS AND PLANS, TO KEEP EVERYTHING INSIDE 75 FEET.
WE CAN'T FIX THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE.
THE ONLY PERSON THAT IT IMPACTS IS OUR NEXTDOOR NEIGHBOR, BOB AND JOYCE.
THEY CAN'T SEE OUR HOUSE, FROM WHERE THEY LOOK OUT.
THE PARTENWOOD HOA, ALL 12 OF THEM, THEY LIKE THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE THEY'D LIKE US TO STAY AND KEEP PAYING A 100 BUCKS A YEAR IN DUES.
THAT'S WHAT WE GOT. WE WANT A MAIN FLOOR BEDROOM, AND WE'VE TRIED REALLY HARD TO MAKE THE EXCEPTIONS MINIMAL.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:45:02]
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.SEEING NOBODY, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION HERE.
LOOKING AT THIS ONE, I LIKE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE 75. THAT'S A MUST.
BECAUSE IT'S ON A PENINSULA, THERE IS NO OTHER NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST OF THEM THAT WOULD BE DEFINING AN ACTUAL LAKESHORE SETBACK.
THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING DON'T APPEAR TO AFFECT THE VIEW OF THE HOUSE THAT IS TO THE WEST OF THEM.
LOOKING AT THAT, I DON'T SEE A SPOT WHERE YOU COULD PUT ANOTHER MAIN FLOOR BEDROOM THAT WOULD NOT IMPEDE ANOTHER SETBACK ON THAT PROPERTY.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE?
>> BEING THAT IT'S JUST AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, ECHO WHAT YOU SAID.
I THINK THERE'S ALSO SOME IMPROVEMENT WITH MOVING THOSE UTILITIES CLOSER TO THE HOUSE.
THERE WAS A REASON WHY THEY WERE WHERE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY, BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT AS WELL, AND HAVING THE LETTER FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS IS VERY HELPFUL.
I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
I'M IN AGREEMENT OF APPROVAL AS IS.
>> I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS ONE.
I THINK YOU BOTH HAVE SAID IT PRETTY WELL THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAIN FLOOR OR MASTER SUITE, YOU NEED TO HAVE VIEWS OF THE LAKE.
I CAN'T SEE ANY WAY YOU'D DO THAT WITHOUT PUTTING IT THERE.
I CAN'T SEE ANYWHERE ELSE YOU'D PUT IT OTHER THAN RIGHT THERE.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANTS WORKED HARD TO STAY WITHIN THE 75, AND IT'S A, RELATIVELY MODEST ADDITION THAT FALLS WITHIN THE SAME LINE OF THE HOUSE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AND THE FACT THAT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR IS NOT IMPACTING THEIR SIGHT LINES, AND THEY'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE.
THIS FEELS LIKE A REASONABLE WAY TO HELP THE HOMEOWNER MAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO STAY IN THE HOME.
>> I'D AGREE. SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS, WE'VE LOOKED AT LANGUAGE, TO TRY TO SEE IF WE CAN HELP AVOID SOME OF THESE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES, BUT THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO MAKE IT SCIENTIFIC LIKE WE'VE MENTIONED.
MR. CHAIR, YOU MADE A GOOD COMMENT THAT SAID THAT THE REASON WHY WE HAVE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACKS IN PLACE IS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS' VIEW.
OF COURSE, WE'RE TOLD THAT NEIGHBORS AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ARE WORTH NOTING BUT SHOULDN'T BE THE WEIGHT OF OUR DECISION, BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS, AS WE'VE SAID, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE SPIRIT OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS TO PROTECT THOSE NEIGHBORS.
IF THOSE NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT, IT CERTAINLY HELPS.
I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S BEEN SAID.
IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND SEE IF IT'S REASONABLE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE.
I AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT SUPPORT WAS MADE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE LA 25-35 AMENDED BY STAFF.
>> A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER TIFT.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
[5.5. LA25-000036, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, After-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit (Melanie Curtis)]
BRIAN ROATH, 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL.THIS IS FOR AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MISS CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING AFTER THE FACT APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PATIO AND IMPROVEMENTS NEAR THE HOME TO REMAIN WITHIN THE 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
CUP AND VARIANCE FOR TIERED RETAINING WALLS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE
[00:50:01]
7.5 FOOT SETBACK AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF SIDE YARD.APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THEIR IRREGULAR LOT LINES, THE EXISTING HOMES ORIENTATION AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
THEY PROVIDED A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY SUMMARY, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS EXHIBIT C. BASED ON THE PROPERTY'S WIDTH, THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FLEXIBILITY CAN BE APPLIED, REDUCING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 7.5.
THEREFORE, THE PATIO STAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD MEET THAT 7.5 FOOT SETBACK.
AS CONSTRUCTED, THEY EXTEND UP TO AND ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.
OUR CODE ALLOWS WALLS WITHIN A LAKE YARD VIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE WALLS ARE APPROXIMATELY 43 INCHES TALL PLUS A CAPSTONE.
ACCORDING TO THE CODE, NEW WALLS WITHIN THE SHORE SETBACK ZONE MUST BE DESIGNED TO CORRECT AN ESTABLISHED EROSION PROBLEM.
BE SUITABLE GIVEN THE DEMONSTRATED NEED DESIGNED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, AND DESIGNED TO BE THE MINIMUM SIZE NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION PROBLEM.
THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED OPINIONS FROM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND ARBORIST AS TO THE NECESSITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONALS WHO INSTALLED THE WALLS WAS SUBMITTED THIS AFTERNOON AND PLACED IN FRONT OF YOUR SEATS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE RETAINING WALLS TALLER THAN TWO FEET MUST MEET A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
TIERED WALLS IN THE LAKE YARD EXTEND UP TO AND ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.
STAFF FINDS THE RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE 7.5 FOOT LAKE YARD APPEAR TO PROVIDE A BENEFIT REGARDING STORM WATER RUNOFF AND MAY BE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE TREES AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE SLOPE.
EXISTING LANDSCAPING AROUND AND IN FRONT OF THE WALLS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY SCREEN WALLS FROM THE LAKE.
ADDITIONAL VEGETATIVE SCREENING SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
THE PORTIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE REPLACED IN KIND OR IN THE AREA OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING IMPROVEMENT ARE ABLE TO BE REPLACED OR MAINTAINED.
THE NEW ELEMENTS AND THOSE THAT ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK SHOULD BE REMOVED OR MODIFIED SO THEY DON'T ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, NOT PARTICULARLY FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT.
SINCE PUBLICATION, SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AND WE EMAILED THEM TO YOU TODAY AND THEY HAVE BEEN PRINTED FOR YOUR REVIEW AND PLACED AT YOUR SEATS THIS EVENING.
THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
STAFF HAS NOT IDENTIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE LAND THAT SUPPORT GRANTING SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE NEW ENCROACHMENTS.
WHILE THE LOT LINES ARE NOT PARALLEL TO THE HOME AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ASSUMED, EACH OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
THE PERMITS BEEN REQUESTED, PROPERTY LINES AND SETBACKS COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND CLARIFIED.
THE PROPERTY HAS CONFORMING LOCATIONS TO SUPPORT PATIO IMPROVEMENTS.
THE ENGINEER'S ANALYSIS OF THE RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE 7.5 FOOT LAKE YARD INDICATES THE WALLS ARE NECESSARY TO STABILIZE THIS PART OF THE SLOPE, IMPROVE STORM WATER INFILTRATION, AND AN EROSION CONTROL CONDITION.
THE RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE 7,5 FOOT SETBACK MUST BE MODIFIED TO MEET A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND SCREEN TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL SHORELINE VIEW FROM THE LATE.
DENIAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCES, AND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RETAINING WALLS WITH THE CONDITIONS MODIFIED AND MODIFICATIONS ALREADY NOTED.
TONIGHT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS.
OR DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT, OR A PARTIAL APPROVAL, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE LAKE YARD, WITH CONDITIONS FOR SCREENING AND WALL MODIFICATIONS, MEETING THE SIDE SETBACK AS NECESSARY, AND DENIAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS NEAR THE HOME AND THE LAKE SLOPE WALLS AND THE PATIO.
TO ACCOMMODATE A SAFE LANDING AND ACCESS TO THE AREA, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO MODIFY THE PATIO LANDING TO MEET THE 7.5 FOOT SETBACK.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXHIBITS THAT I HAVE.
I CAN PUT UP WHATEVER WAS IN THE PACKET THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. JUST ONE QUESTION JUST AS I AND TRY AND WADE THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
I UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY SOMETIMES FOR RETAINING WALLS.
WHAT IS THE CITY'S VIEW IF THAT NECESSITY IS A RESULT OF REMOVING VEGETATION THAT WAS HOLDING THE LANDSCAPE? IF THIS WASN'T AN EROSION ISSUE BECAUSE THERE WAS VEGETATION THERE TO HOLD IT IN PLACE,
[00:55:01]
AND THEN A HOMEOWNER REMOVES ALL OF THAT VEGETATION, AND NOW IT BECOMES AN EROSION ISSUE.DOES THAT THEN QUALIFY FOR A RETAINING WALL OR NOT?
>> IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A QUALIFICATION FOR A RETAINING WALL OR A DISQUALIFICATION.
I THINK WE DEAL WITH VEGETATION REMOVAL WHEN WE BECOME AWARE OF IT AND TRY TO RESTORE OR GET COMPLIANCE IN REPLACING THAT VEGETATION OR REPLANTING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO KEEP THE VEGETATION.
>> OUR PREFERENCE IS ALWAYS VEGETATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR EROSION, STABILITY.
THE CODE DOES ALLOW THOUGH FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
>> NO. YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR AND I APOLOGIZE.
I WORKED IT HORRIBLY WRONG, BUT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHICH IS THE PREFERENCES OF VEGETATION OR IS IT CLEAR THE VEGETATION.
>> ALWAYS A NATURAL SLOPE IS OUR PREFERENCE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] MS. CURTIS, I KNOW THIS IS COMPLICATED, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING IT RIGHT.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS, OF COURSE, TRIGGERED HERE BECAUSE OF THE SETBACKS TO THE LAKE SHORE, BUT THE TRIGGER FOR THE VARIANCE IS WHAT'S IDENTIFIED AS RETAINING WALL IS GREATER THAN TWO FEET.
OTHERWISE, IF IT WAS NOT GREATER THAN TWO FEET, IT WOULD NOT BE A VARIANCE.
IT WOULD JUST BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY.
>> RETAINING WALLS, TWO FEET OR LOWER ARE ALLOWED TO BE WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE IF THIS IS NOT THE TIME OF THE PLACE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THIS EXISTING ON TWO STRUCTURES, WOULD THIS APPLICATION CARRY OVER OR WOULD THAT BE A SEPARATE APPLICATION TO APPROVE? IF IT WERE TO STAY, I'M NOT SAYING IT IS.
WOULD THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HAVE TO APPLY FOR THE SAME THING?
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PORTIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT THAT ARE ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE THAT IS DEALT WITH ON THE WITH THAT PROPERTY? IT'S NOT PART OF HIS APPLICATION.
>> GOT IT. AGAIN, IT'S MORE SO JUST GO TO CURIOSITY.
THAT DOESN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN WHERE YOU'VE GOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERFECT FOR ONE, BUT NOW IF IT'S ENCROACHING INTO A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS AGREED TO DO IT, AND THAT THE OTHER NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT ON THEIR OWN AS WELL.
>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPLIED FOR JOINTLY AND APPLIED TO BOTH PROPERTIES AND ONE APPLICATION HAD IT COME FORWARD THAT WAY, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
>> AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE. IT'S JUST FOR EDUCATION BECAUSE IT HAVEN'T BEFORE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? JUST ONE.
IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE FIRE PIT AS WELL? OR WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN AND I'M JUST ASKING JUST TO LEARN? IF I WANTED TO PUT A FIRE PIT ON THAT BY THE LAKE, WOULD I NEED.
>> VERY FEW IMPROVEMENTS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE 7.5 FOOT SACK.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, THAT STRUCTURE IS NOT ALLOWED.
I LOOKED BACK AT AERIAL PHOTOS.
I WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHEN THAT STRUCTURE BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE.
THIS WERE STRUCTURE, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS PROBABLY WOULD CHANGE AS FAR AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A VARIANCE.
THIS IS A RETAINING WALL, WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
JUST RESTATING WHAT YOU ALREADY CLARIFIED, IT WOULD JUST BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
IF THOSE RETAINING WALLS DID NOT EXCEED TWO FEET IN HEIGHT?
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE MY HEAD ON STRAIGHT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK.
PLEASE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> NAME IS BRIAN ROTH. AT 1,200 WILD HEARST TRAIL.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOU SOME COLOR COMMENTARY ON OUR APPLICATION TONIGHT.
FIRST, WE REGRET THE NEED TO BE HERE AND TAKE YOUR TIME FOR THIS MATTER.
BUT, IN 2021, WE MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR PROPERTY.
WE ARE HERE TO ASK FOR PERMITS FOR THAT WORK AFTER THE FACT.
HAD WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE NEEDED THESE PERMITS, WE WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS THEN.
WE APOLOGIZE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO RESOLVING THIS IN A FAIR AND REASONABLE WAY AND THEN GETTING ON WITH OUR LIVES.
APPLICATION COVERS TWO AREAS OF LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS.
FIRST, I'LL ADDRESS THE PATIO AREA.
WE ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND THE PATIO IN A WAY THAT ENHANCES OUR ENJOYMENT OF THE LAKESIDE PROPERTY.
ON THE SURFACE, THIS SHOULD BE A SIMPLE REQUEST.
[01:00:03]
BUT AS YOU SEE, THE ROOT PROBLEMS DATE BACK TO THE '70S WHEN OUR HOME WAS BUILT.WHILE THE HOUSE WAS PROPOSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY TO ADHERE TO 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACKS IT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED THAT WAY.
>> YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS ONES.
THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT MUCH OF OUR DECKED STAIRS, PATIO, AND OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS SIT WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK.
WE LOOK SQUARELY OUT OF OUR KITCHEN, AND INSTEAD OF SEEING OUR LAKE SHORE AND DECK, WE SEE THE NEIGHBORS LAKE SHORE AND DECK.
WHEN THE PATIO WAS EXPANDED, IT ENCROACHED ON OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY BY A FEW INCHES.
WE FULLY INTEND TO REMOVE THE ENCROACHMENT.
OUR REQUEST FOR YOU TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW A SMALL AREA OF NEW PATIO TO EXIST WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK IN ORDER TO EASILY TRANSITION FROM THE ALLOWED PATIO LANDING FROM OUR DECK TO THE NEW PATIO AREA.
ON PAGE 19, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, YOU WILL SEE THE ORIGINAL PATIO, THE EXISTING PATIO, AND A PROPOSED MODIFIED PATIO CONFIGURATION.
>> IF I CAN INTERRUPT FOR JUST A MOMENT, I THINK YOU MIGHT HELP MS. CURTIS, RATHER THAN THE PAGE NUMBER TO IDENTIFY WHAT DOCUMENT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES, INSTEAD OF HAVING IT AS ONE CONTIGUOUS FORM, IT'S ATTACHMENTS.
IT MIGHT HELP HER AND US SEE THE ILLUSTRATION.
>> YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN AREA, LIKE SHE'S HIGHLIGHTED, WAS THE PRE-EXISTING PATIO LANDING AND THEN THE EXISTING PATIO OR THE PRE-EXISTING PATIO IS THE DOTTED LINE THAT'S ABOVE THE 9 FOOT PATIO EXTENSION LABEL.
WE EXTENDED THE PATIO TOWARDS THE LAKE, AND IN DOING SO, WE DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME, BUT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE IS WHERE IT'S AT.
THE FURTHER WE WENT OUT, THE MORE IT CONVERGED TOWARDS THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> CAN I STOP YOU THERE FOR A SECOND?
>> JUST SO FOR CLARIFICATION, SO WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
THE GREEN WAS A LANDING OFF OF AN EXISTING PATIO.
>> LANDING FOR THE DECK STAIRS COMING DOWN.
>> IT WAS PART OF THE PREVIOUS PATIO.
>> THE PATIO EXTENSION THAT'S IN RED IS THE PART OF THE NEW PATIO THAT'S OVER THE SETBACK LINE?
>> BUT THAT ENTIRE 9 FOOT PATIO IS NEW.
>> THE ENTIRE 9 FOOT PATIO IS NEW, CORRECT?
>> THE 9 FOOT PATIO EXTENSION. ALL THE WAY TO.
>> WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THERE'S A DOTTED LINE THAT AS THE LABEL R6.83 FEET.
THAT IS ONE WAY THAT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO MODIFY THE PATIO.
THANK YOU. THAT ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO MOVE OUTSIDE THE SETBACK.
THE WAY THAT MELANIE DREW THE LINE THERE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY IN THE SETBACK.
THE INTENT IS TO MOVE THOSE STEPS OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK, WHEREVER THAT SETBACK IS.
THE DOTTED ARC IS WHAT WE'D ASK FOR OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONTINUE DOWN THE STAIRS, ONTO THE LANDING, AND THEN DOWN, THERE'S ANOTHER STEP RIGHT THERE ONTO THE NEW PATIO AND SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE OVER TOWARDS THE NEW PATIO EXTENSION.
>> WAS THE WORK PERFORMED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR?
>> THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT ASK IF YOU HAD A PERMIT?
[01:05:02]
TO PREVENT THE RUNOFF FROM GOING INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY?THE HILL COMES DOWN PARALLEL WITH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THERE.
THAT'S WHERE THE RUNOFF COMES DOWN THIS WAY.
>> THEN IT RUNS INTO HIS YARD.
>> NO, IT DOESN'T RUN HIS YARD IS TO THE RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. IT RUNS DOWN THE RIGHT SIDE, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT YOUR PROPERTY, DOWN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FENCE, DOWN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STAIRS, WHICH LOOKS FROM THIS GOES THROUGH THE MULCH AND INTO HIS YARD?
>> BUT NOW YOU'RE INCREASING IT BECAUSE IT'S GAINING MORE FROM THE HARD COVER THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, SO YOU'RE ADDING MORE WATER GOING HIS YARD.
BECAUSE IT'S COMING OFF YOUR HOUSE, GOING ONTO THE PAVERS, GOING ONTO THE PAVERS EXTENSION, NOW GOING MORE INTO HIS YARD.
YOU'RE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S FLOWING OVER INTO THE YARD BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THAT SETBACK.
>> SUPPOSE IT EVENTUALLY GOES TO HIS YARD ANYWAYS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IS ORIENTED.
>> I GUESS THE REASON I'M ASKING OR SAYING THIS IS BECAUSE IF THAT PATIO EXTENSION WASN'T THERE, YOU WOULD HAVE EARTH TO ABSORB SOME OF THAT WATER, NOT ADDING WATER TO HIS YARD.
>> HENCE, MY QUESTION, WHAT DID THIS COMPANY DO TO MITIGATE THAT OR HAS ANYTHING BEEN DONE TO MITIGATE THAT? ARE YOU PRESENTING ANYTHING TO MITIGATE THAT WATER?
THAT WE HAVE THE ROCK MULCH THERE TO DO THAT.
YOU ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER BEFORE I CAME UP ABOUT THE NATURAL VEGETATION, IT'S FURTHER DOWN.
THERE'S QUITE A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PATIO THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND THE LAKE SHORE.
A LOT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PATIO AND THE RETAINING WALL.
THERE HAD BEEN AN UNIMPROVED AREA ABOVE WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS RIGHT NOW.
THE SLOPE FROM OUR PATIO DOWN TO THE LAKE.
I KNOW WHAT THE SLOPE IS, BUT IT GOES AND THEN IT INCREASES QUITE A BIT BY THE RETAINING WALL IS.
THE VEGETATION THAT WE REMOVED WAS ABOVE THE WALL ON THIS LOWER SLOPE AREA.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, OTHERWISE, I'LL CONTINUE.
>> CAN I ASK HOW THE PROPERTY LINE IS MAINTAINED?
>> HOW THE PROPERTY LINES MAINTAINED?
>> YES. IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES, NEIGHBORS ARE MOWING TO A LINE OR YOU DIDN'T HAVE A SURVEY DONE, BUT WOULD YOU HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION TO KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS BASED ON HOW YOU'RE MAINTAINING PROPERTIES?
>> BEFORE THIS SPRING, IT WAS A CONTINUOUS YARD THAT GOES FROM OUR S UP TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THERE WAS NO DELINEATION OF WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS.
>> THERE'S A LINE TO WHICH YOU MOW?
>> YES. THE NEIGHBORS HAD BEEN THERE FOR YEARS BEFORE WE MOVED IN IN 2025.
WHAT WE KNEW ABOUT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS, WHERE HE STOPPED TO MOWING, WHERE WE CONTINUED THE MOWING.
WHILE A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE NEW PATIO WOULD BE WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK, THE SMALL AREA OR THE AREA IS COMPLETELY ON OUR PROPERTY, COMPLETELY IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, WITHIN THE NATURAL LIVING SPACE, AND IN NO WAY IMPEDES ON THE NEIGHBORS USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
THE SECOND AREA OF IMPROVEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS THE RETAINING WALL NEAR THE LAKE.
FOR THE MOST PART, I RELY ON EXPERTS TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKET IS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM OUR CIVIL ENGINEER.
HE BRINGS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPLAINS IN THE LETTER, THE PURPOSE OF THE WALL, AND THE BENEFITS, INCLUDING EROSION CONTROL, HILLSIDE STABILITY, AND WATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT, ETC.
ONE THING I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AS BACKGROUND IS THAT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE OF 2015, MOST OF THE BACKYARD WAS OVERGROWN WITH SHRUB TREES, BUCKTHORN, AND ETHER WEEDS.
I'M SURE IT WAS LIKE THAT FOR YEARS PRIOR.
WE IMPROVED THE AREA UPHILL FROM WHERE THE WALL STANDS TODAY.
IT LOOKS GREAT, BUT ONE DOWNSIDE OF INSTALLING GRASS IS THAT THE RUNOFF AND EROSION DOWNSTREAM BECAME MORE OF A PROBLEM, EVEN WITH THE VEGETATION IN THE HILL.
[01:10:06]
THAT'S WHEN IN 2021, WE STARTED LOOKING INTO A RETAINING WALL.IN YOUR PACKET IS A SECOND LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM A CERTIFIED ARBORIST.
HE EXPLAINS THAT THE OAK TREES ARE HEALTHY AND THRIVING AND THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS LIKELY A BIG PART OF THAT.
ALSO IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH CAME TODAY, IS AN EMAIL FROM A LANDSCAPER WHO WAS ON THE TEAM CONSTRUCTING THE WALL.
HE ALSO IS A TRAINED ARBORIST WITH A DEGREE IN URBAN FORESTRY.
DURING PLANNING FOR THE WALL IN 2021, HE EXPRESSED CONCERN FOR THE HEALTH OF THE OAK TREES AND THOUGHT THE TREES WERE NOT LONG FOR LIFE.
BUT HE HAS SEEN FIRSTHAND THAT THESE TREES HAVE TURNED THE PAGE AND ARE NO LONGER STRESSED.
HE ARGUES THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS THE REASON WHY THEY ARE STILL ALIVE AND MODIFYING THE PLACEMENT OF THE WALL MAY JEOPARDIZE THEIR HEALTH.
LASTLY, IS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE LANDSCAPER WHO CONSTRUCTED THE WALL.
HE DETAILS A CONVERSATION WITH US AND THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE RATIONALE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE WALL EXTENDING ONTO THEIR PROPERTY.
EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME PAGE THEN, AND FROM THEN FORWARD, WE CONSIDER THIS A SHARED WALL BETWEEN NEIGHBORS.
I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SITUATION IS TODAY, BUT I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT COWBOYS OUT THERE TRYING TO BREAK THE LAW OR GO AGAINST THE ORDINANCE.
WE HAD INTENTIONS, GOOD INTENTIONS TO INCLUDE THE NEIGHBOR IN THIS AND SOLVING THE PROBLEM FOR BOTH OF US.
IN THE YEARS FOLLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION, THE NEIGHBORS STARTED EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL.
NOT ABOUT THE LOOK OF THE WALL OR THE FUNCTION OF THE WALL.
THE DRIVING CONCERN SEEMED TO BE THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE RETAINING WALL MADE THE PROPERTY LOOK SMALLER THAN IT IS.
THIS SPRING, THEY DELINEATED THE PROPERTY LINE USING PLANTS TO YOUR POINT EARLIER.
NOW THERE'S A STRING OF ARBIVITY BUSHES THAT GO DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE.
NOW WE KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS.
WITH THAT, WE HAD HOPED THAT THEIR CONCERNS HAD BEEN ADDRESSED, AND THERE WOULD BE A JOINT APPLICANT FOR THE CUP TONIGHT.
AS YOU'VE HEARD, THERE WERE LEGITIMATE WELL INTENTIONED REASONS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE WALL WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 612 AND ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.
SINCE RECEIVING THE STAFF ANALYSIS LAST WEEK, WE NOW BETTER UNDERSTAND SECTION 612, AND THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN TWO FOOT WALLS AND FOUR FOOT WALLS AS PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIDE SETBACK.
OUR QUESTION FOR TONIGHT IS WHETHER TREE HEALTH IS A REASON WHY RETAINING WALLS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE SIDE SETBACK AREA.
IF NOT, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER BE TABLED AND NOT VOTED ON TONIGHT AND ALLOW US TO CONSIDER WHAT OPTIONS B AND C MIGHT LOOK LIKE THAT ADHERE TO A FIVE FOOT SETBACK.
WE WOULD PLAN TO BRING THESE ALTERNATES BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I'M WILLING TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTION REAL QUICK FOR STAFF.
IS IT NINE FOOT OR FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR THE RETAINING WALLS?
>> THANK YOU FOR WALKING US THROUGH THAT.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES HERE.
>> I THINK THAT WAS HELPFUL FOR MYSELF, FOR SURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SURE, SIR?
>> COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING SOME COLOR AND ILLUSTRATION AS TO HOW YOU GOT HERE.
CERTAINLY, IT SEEMS VERY PLAUSIBLE THAT THERE MIGHT BE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
WITH THAT SAID, CAN YOU COMMENT.
IF I'M HEARING AN UNDERSTANDING, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE WORKING ON TRYING TO CORRECT THIS WHERE YOU'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE PROPERTY LINE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. THE PATIO, WE PROPOSING TONIGHT A MODIFICATION, AND WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO CHANGE THAT MODIFICATION EVEN FURTHER BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE WILLING TO FIX THAT?
>> THAT'S GOOD. THE OTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTION I HAD TO THAT WOULD BE KNOWING THAT 24 ", AND HEIGHT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DEMARCATION POINT.
JUST LOOKING AT PICTURES. I HAVE NOT BEEN ON SITE, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY JUST KNOWING HOW THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S STEPPED? AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO REDESIGN, AND I'M NOT A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
BUT IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT STEP A LITTLE BIT SHALLOWER,
[01:15:01]
WHERE WHAT APPEARS TO BE RIGHT NOW A HIGHER HEIGHT.YOU FILL THAT IN, AND IT NOW BECOMES THE BACKFILL SUPPORTING THE WORK CHANGING WALL WHERE YOU STAY IT WITHIN 24.
>> JUST MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER BY THE TREES, BOTH TIERS OF THE WALL.
>> THE SIMPLE ONE, IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE THIS RESULT IN WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING, WHICH IS TO PROTECT THOSE TREES FROM EROSION, BUT STILL MAINTAINING WHAT'S CLASSIFIED AS A RETAINING WALL AT 24 " OR LESS.
>> THAT'S THE QUESTION AT HAND.
LIKE I MENTIONED, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND 612 UNTIL WE GOT IT ON FRIDAY.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS, NOT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOUR FOOT AND THE TWO FOOT.
IT'S SEEMS TO ME THAT I WOULD ASK SOME TIME, WE WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO WORK THROUGH THAT.
>> SURE. IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK [LAUGHTER].
I'M ON THE PLAN COMMISSION AND I HAVE TO ASK A STAFF ALL THE TIME FOR CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING.
IMPORTANTLY, IS JUST TO UNDERSTAND INTENT.
DO YOU INTEND TO SEE IF YOU CAN, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK ONE.
IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN REDESIGN THIS WHERE WE'RE 24 " OR LESS? CAN WE REDESIGN THIS WHERE WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, WHILE STILL ACCOMPLISHING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? THEN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SAYS, YES OR NO, AND THEN MAYBE YOU COME BACK? FIRST, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT INTENT IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO AND PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THAT.
NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT FOR CODE.
BUT THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON HOW CLOSE THE TIERS ARE TOGETHER, CORRECT?
>> THE MORE TIERS WE PUT IN THERE, THE SHORTER IT IS, THE MORE TIERS WE'D HAVE TO PUT IN THERE, AND THE CLOSER THE TIERS WOULD HAVE TO COME TOGETHER.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO PUT THE HILL WHERE IT IS, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT IS, AND THERE'S NOT MUCH I CAN DO ABOUT THAT'S ALL.
>> TIER WALLS, THE SETBACK DOESN'T CHANGE.
THE TIERED WALLS, NOT SEPARATED BY TIE ON THE HEIGHT OF THE LOWER WALL REQUIRE AN ENGINEER DESIGN NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE ON THE PROPERTY.
TURNING THE WALL INTO THE PROPERTY OR ADDING ANOTHER TIER OR SOMETHING.
IT WOULD JUST HUGE PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CODE STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
>> OF COURSE. WHAT IS THE CODE? IT'S TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE BOTTOM? LOWER WALL.
IF THE LOWER WALL IS IS TWO FEET, AND IT CAN ONLY BE FOUR FEET.
>> WITHOUT HAVING IT ENGINEERED, YOU NEED TO BE FOUR FEET, BUT WHERE YOU ARE, PROPERTY REQUIRES A [INAUDIBLE].
>> REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT OF THE WALLS, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE AN ENGINEER DESIGN BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THEM.
BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE'S A MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN WALLS BASED ON THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING WALLS.
TALLER THE WALL, THE MORE SEPARATION YOU NEED.
BUT IF YOU WERE TO REDUCE THE WALLS TO TWO FEET, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU NEED MORE WALLS BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE SLOPE BETWEEN THE TWO WALLS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DECIDE.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAKE IT WORK.
>> JUST GOING BACK TO VEGETATION.
IF YOU COULD BRING UP THIS SLIDE, IT LOOKS FROM THIS SLIDE THAT YOU'VE GOT A SIMILAR SLOPE, SIMILAR ISSUE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE WALKWAY DOWN, AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SHOW IT, BUT THE SUBMISSION FROM RASMUSSEN, IN THEIR COMMENT?
>> I CAN IT'S WILLING FOR THEM TO GIVE THE BOARD THE COMMENT.
>> APOLOGIZE, I HOPE I DON'T WANT TO BRING IT UP. THERE'S ONE PICTURE.
>> I WANTED TO SEE THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
>> IT'S ON THE PICTURE, IT'S RIGHT THERE.
>> NO, THE OTHER NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
>> I THINK I CAN ANTICIPATE YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY THAT HAS VEGETATION.
>> YEP. MY QUESTION IS LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY THAT'S DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIRECTION. THAT PROPERTY RIGHT THERE.
LOOKING AT THEIR PRIOR PERMIT, THE ELEVATION LOOKS LIKE IT GOES FROM THEIR YARD CLEAR ACROSS YOUR YARD TO RASMUS YARD.
[01:20:04]
I'M QUESTIONING IF YOU NEED THE RETAINING WALL ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE WALKWAY DOWN TO THE LAKE.DO YOU THEN ALSO NEED IT ON THE LEFT SIDE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SAME SLOPE, OR IS IT BECAUSE OF THE VEGETATION THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW THAT YOU DON'T NEED IT?
>> WE ARE NOT SEEING THE SAME SIGNS OF EROSION ON THAT SIDE.
I BELIEVE THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE WATER COMES DOWN HILL.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S SOME VEGETATION IN BETWEEN THERE.
THE WATER THAT COMES DOWN THROUGH THE YARD FIRST HITS THE PATH.
THEN AND REDIRECTS THE WATER DOWN THE PATH INSTEAD OF OVER THE PATH INTO THE DOWN THE HILL.
>> BUT THEN YOUR NEIGHBORS AREN'T SEEING THE SAME ISSUE AND NEEDING A RETAINING WALL.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS THERE.
THEIR SLOPE IS DIFFERENT ON THAT SIDE.
>> ISN'T THE SLOPE STEEPER ON THAT SIDE FROM THERE?
>> THEY'VE FURTHER BACK THE LAKE SHORE, AND THEN IT GRADUALLY GOES UP.
>> OURS STARTS OUT SLOWER AND THEN INCREASES AS IT GOES DOWN THE HILL, WHEREAS THEIRS IS A MORE CONSISTENT SLOPE.
I BELIEVE IT ALSO SLOPES INTO, THEY HAVE A CULT RIGHT DOWN BY THE WORD VERTICAL THERE.
THEY HAVE A CULVERT RIGHT THERE THAT I BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF THE RUNOFF GOES THAT DIRECTION AS WELL.
>> I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR DISCUSSION.
IT'S MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AS AN APPLICANT, AND SO I WASN'T GOING TO GET INTO IT, BUT IT MIGHT HELP COMMISSIONER WATSON ON THIS ONE.
WHEN I WAS READING THE ARBORIST REPORT, UNDERSTANDING, IT SEEMED LIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE RETAINING WALL OR AT LEAST THE MOST PRESSING FROM READING THAT WAS TO TRY TO SAVE THOSE OAK TREES.
>> YEAH. I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT VERY WELL COULD BE THAT IF THEY WERE HEALTHY OAK TREES BEFORE, THAT THAT ALL MOUNTED BECAUSE THEY REMOVED A VEGETATION AROUND IT, AND THEN WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER TO PUT THE VEGETATION BACK.
THAT'S WHERE I KEEP LEANING TO THIS AND WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS ABOUT VEGETATION WORKING OVER HERE.
CAN YOU JUST PUT THE VEGETATION BACK INSTEAD OF THE WALL?
>> WHAT ALTERNATIVES WERE CONSIDERED PRIOR TO PUTTING IN THE WALL TO ADDRESS EROSION?
IT WAS UNIMPROVED AREA, AND IT WAS STARTING TO GULLY OUT IN THE CENTER THERE.
I DIDN'T EXPLORE TRYING TO REPLACE THE HILLSIDE THERE AND THEN PUT VEGETATION IN.
>> HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT REMOVING THE BUCKTHORN AND OTHER VEGETATION THAT WAS THERE?
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE QUESTION WAS OR IF YOU WANT MORE THAN THAT [OVERLAPPING] IN HERE AND USED ONE OF THE TOOLS HERE THAT IS AVAILABLE AND TOOK OUT THE BUCKTHORN, AND THEN THERE'S OTHER NON-BUCKTHORN TYPE OF STUFF THAT WE JUST ROLLED TILED OUT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW FOR THE APPLICANT?
SORRY, STAFF TO HAVE YOU JUMPING AROUND HERE.
I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, IN YOUR PROPOSAL, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED PUSHING BACK THE NEW PORCH DEVELOPMENT AND ABIDING. THERE IT IS.
PERFECT. WOULD YOU BRING THE PORCH THAT RED LINE BACK ALL THE WAY TO WHERE THE PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS IN THE REDESIGN, OR WOULD THERE STILL BE SOME OF THAT RED SPACE OCCUPIED AFTER?
>> I'M REQUESTING THAT, WELL, AT LEAST THE SMALL TRIANGLE THAT'S ON THE TOP LEFT, THAT REMAIN.
THEN MAYBE A DIAGONAL OR, LIKE I SHOW HERE, AN ARCED PATIO THAT ALLOWS US TO COME DOWN THE STAIRS, TO HIT THE LANDING, COME DOWN THE NEXT STAIRS, AND THEN TRANSITION OVER TO THE PATIO.
IT MAY NOT BE WHERE THE DOTTED ARC IS RIGHT NOW.
IT PROBABLY HAS TO BE FURTHER UP TO ALLOW FOR
[01:25:02]
JUST THE TRANSITION OVER TO THE NEW PATIO AREA AND WHERE THE NEW STAIRS WILL BE.>> GOT IT. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING.
THERE'S SOME COMMENTS FROM YOUR ENGINEER, IT SOUNDS LIKE REGARDING A CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT WHERE THE RETAINING WALLS WOULD END IN TERMS OF THE TREES DOWN THERE.
YOU MAYBE EXPAND ON THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND AS WELL, COMMENT ON IF ANY CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD ABOUT THE PATIO WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR?
>> NO CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD ABOUT THE PATIO.
IF YOU SAW WHERE THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND HOME IS, THE PATIO AND EVEN THE EXPANDED PATIO RIGHT NOW, I FEEL IS IN OUR LIVING AREA.
IT'S RIGHT UNDERNEATH OUR DECK.
NEITHER OF US HAD UNDERSTOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS UNTIL THE NEIGHBOR HAD A SURVEY DONE.
WE WERE BOTH SURPRISED AT THE ANGLE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE HAD BOTH UNDERSTOOD THE PROPERTY LINE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SQUARE TO THE SHORELINE.
THAT MEANT THAT IT WAS FURTHER UP AT THE SHORELINE ON THIS END, WHEREAS AT THE ROAD, WE WERE SURPRISED THAT IT WAS FURTHER TOWARDS THEIR PROPERTY.
NEITHER OF US WERE RIGHT, BUT THAT'S HOW WE HAD LIVED.
THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE AS PROPOSED DRAWING BACK IN 1976, I BELIEVE, 1976 OF OUR HOUSE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A CLEAR SETBACK BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND OUR HOUSE THERE.
THIS IS NOT HOW IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
THE ORIENTATION WAS TWISTED SO THAT THE DECK OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS IN THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE RIGHT THERE, IS ENCROACHING ON THE SETBACK, AND ALMOST ON THEIR PROPERTY.
>> QUESTION. THAT'S A PROPOSED SURVEY OR AS BUILT SURVEY?
>> IN 1976, WE DID NOT GET AS BUILT SURVEY.
THIS IS PROPOSED. THE PROPERTY LINES HAVE ALSO BEEN ADJUSTED.
THE ORIGINAL LOTS WERE ADJUSTED.
THEN AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE INFORMATION THAT HABER COUNTY IS SHOWING, FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE HERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE EITHER THE ANGLE OF THE HOME AS IT WAS CONSTRUCTED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I'M NOT SURE. I WASN'T ABLE TO REALLY FIND A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION IN OUR FILES.
>> WE SHARE A PATH THAT GOES BETWEEN THAT HOME AND OUR HOME, AND THERE'S AN EASEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO AND MAYBE AND WHY. I DON'T KNOW.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OTHERWISE, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK PRIOR TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT IF THERE'S QUESTIONS, WE CAN CONTINUE.
>> I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE, SO I CAN WELCOME MORE QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. CAN WE TAKE A SHORT FIVE MINUTE BREAK? WE WILL RECONVENE HERE. THERE WE GO.
WE WERE JUST ABOUT READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
WOULD ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? IF YOU DO, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> MY NAME IS SANDY RASMUSSEN.
MY HUSBAND RYAN IS HERE AS WELL.
WE LIVE AT 1186, WILDHURST TRAIL, SO WE'RE THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE ROTHS AND SUBJECT TO THE ENCROACHMENT.
WE HAVE LIVED AT THIS PROPERTY SINCE 1991, ABOUT 34 YEARS, SO BEAR WITH ME FOR A MOMENT WHILE I GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AND HISTORY ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES THAT I THINK CAN HELP A LITTLE GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT.
[01:30:02]
REALLY THE MESSAGE HERE THAT SHOULD COME THROUGH IS THAT SETBACK ZONING REQUIREMENTS MATTER.THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS HAD JUST A CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING ADDITIONS SINCE THAT PROPERTY WAS FIRST DEVELOPED.
I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH AS A PART OF THIS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.
IN 1996, WHEN THE BUILD PLAN WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE MINUTES DOCUMENTING THE APPROVAL TO ROTATE THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH AND PROVIDE A SIX-INCH VARIANCE FOR THE NORTHEAST FOUNDATION CORNER INTO THE 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
THE REASON FOR THAT WAS, THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROTHS WAS BUILT OVER ITS PROPERTY LINE.
BEFORE THE CRUISE CRAFTS AT THE TIME WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THEIR PROPERTY, THEY HAD TO NEGOTIATE A CHANGE IN THEIR PROPERTY LINES WITH THE NEIGHBORS, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT QUIRKY LITTLE THING GOING ON.
IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE SIDE SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING OF THAT HOUSE, IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT HOUSE BE ROTATED, AND THEN JUST THE FOUNDATION COULD GO SIX INCHES OVER.
SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THAT HOUSE, BEFORE WE BOUGHT, ADDED AN ASPHALT WALKWAY AND A FIRE PIT WITH SEATING AT THE SHORELINE.
THEY ADDED THE DECK AND THE SCREEN PORCH, AND THOSE THINGS.
WE ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS URBAN LEGEND, BUT WE WERE ALWAYS TOLD THAT WHEN THE WATER DRIPPED OFF THE RAILING OF THE DECK, IT DROPPED ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE MENTIONED THAT FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE ROTHS, BUT WE HAD NO DOCUMENTATION, NO REASON TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. IT WAS PRE-EXISTING.
LATER, WHEN THE HOLEN HORSE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY ADDED RIP RAP TO THE SHORELINE, AND I'M SURE THEY HAD A PERMIT FOR THAT, BUT THAT WAS MORE HARD COVER.
THEN AFTER THE ROTHS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 2015, THEY ADDED A 10 BY 12 SHED, APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET TALL IN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SET BACK ZONE, AND THEN LATER ADDED THE PATIO EXTENSION AND THE RETAINING WALL ALSO WITHIN THAT BACK ZONE.
TOP LEFT IS A PICTURE OF THE ROTH'S PROPERTY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
YOU SEE THOSE TREES IN THE FOREGROUND, THOSE ARE ON OUR PROPERTY.
THE ORANGE TEMPORARY FENCING THERE LITERALLY TOUCHES THE RAILING COMING DOWN AND CROSSES OVER THE PATIO.
ON THE BOTTOM LEFT, YOU SEE THAT NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE THAT WAS ALSO ADDED WITHIN THAT AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR THAT.
JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S INTERESTING, YOU SEE THE ACTUAL MINUTES THERE FROM THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHERE THEY SAID MR. KRUSKOV WOULD HAVE TO ALTER HIS BUILDING PLAN BY MAKING SLIGHT ROTATION OF HIS HOUSE ON THE LOT IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGE IN THE LOT LINE VARIANCES.
THERE WOULD BE THIS SIX-INCH VARIANCE.
THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT FROM BEFORE WE PURCHASED IT TODAY.
ON THE LEFT, OF COURSE, IS WHAT MR. ROTH WAS TALKING ABOUT WHERE IN HIS AFTER THE FACT PERMIT REQUEST THE FIRST TIME THROUGH PUT A DRAWING OF THE DECK.
WHEN WE SAW THAT IN HIS APPLICATION, WE IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO DO SOME RESEARCH BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.
ALL OF THE DRAWINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN TODAY, THE CERTIFIED, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, SURVEYS, THANK YOU.
THOSE WERE COMMISSIONED BY US.
WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE PAID FOR SURVEYS.
WE'VE PAID FOR SURVEYS TWICE NOW.
WHY DID WE DO A SURVEY? I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION.
BECAUSE THE ROTH'S HOUSE IS SO CLOSE TO OUR PROPERTY, AND ALL OF THE WATER FROM THE ROOF FLOWS THROUGH A GUTTER SYSTEM AND A LONG GUTTER THAT DIRECTS THAT WATER ONTO OUR PROPERTY.
THAT WATER THAT FLOWS BETWEEN OUR HOMES HAS CAUSED EROSION FOR YEARS.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EVERY TIME THE HOUSE WAS RESIDED, WHEN THE DECK WAS REBUILT, WHEN THE ROOF WAS REDONE, ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT, ALL OF THE BACK AND FORTH FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, OBVIOUSLY WAS ON OUR PROPERTY,
[01:35:01]
AND WE KNEW THAT, BUT WE WERE GOOD NEIGHBORS.WE UNDERSTOOD. BUT THE EROSION HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT.
ONE DAY, MR. ROTH SAYS TO ME, "MY WIFE'S TALKING TO OUR LANDSCAPER AND WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING SOME LANDSCAPING HERE BETWEEN THE HOUSES," AND I'M THINKING, "THAT'S ODD.
THAT'S ALL MY PROPERTY." I TALKED TO MY HUSBAND. I SAID, WE REALLY NEED TO GET A SURVEY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING BETWEEN THE PROPERTY, WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THAT LINE IS, AND THAT'S HOW WE DISCOVERED THE ENCROACHMENTS.
THIS IS A SURVEY YOU SEE, AS YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, THE DOCUMENTATION OF EVERYTHING WITHIN THE 10-FOOT.
WE CAN JUST KEEP GOING. THERE YOU SEE THE VERY FIRST PROPERTY MARKER THAT CLUED US IN TO THE FACT THAT THAT PATIO WAS ENCROACHING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP RIGHT, THAT'S JUST A GARDEN HOSE, AND BASICALLY, EVERYTHING YOU SEE THERE IS WITHIN THAT 10-FOOT SETBACK.
THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A VISUAL OF THE SCOPE AND THE SIZE OF THAT PATIO THAT'S IN THE 10-FEET.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE CONFUSION OVER, WHEN MR. ROTH TALKS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS FOOTPRINT, HE USED A AERIAL VIEW FROM 2022.
I MENTIONED, AND HE HAS MENTIONED THAT HE ACQUIRED THAT PROPERTY IN 2015.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW FROM 2015, AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE PREVIOUS NEIGHBORS.
THE ORIGINAL PATIO ENDED AT THE INSIDE OF THAT HOST FROM THAT UPPER PATIO.
THERE WAS NOTHING IN FRONT OF THOSE STEPS. IT WAS GRASS.
YOU STEPPED ON TO GRASS. THE EXPANSION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS THE SECOND EXPANSION THAT THE ROTHS DID.
THE FIRST ONE THAT HE REFERENCES AS BEING PRE-EXISTING, YES, IS PRE-EXISTING FOR THE SECOND EXPANSION, BUT IT WAS NOT THERE AT THE TIME THAT THEY ACQUIRED THE HOUSE.
WE CAN KEEP GOING. WE STARTED WITH THE PROBLEM AT THE HOUSE, AND OF COURSE, THAT SURVEY LED TO THE DISCOVERY THAT NOW THESE SETBACK INTRUSIONS HAVE BEEN COMPOUNDED BY THE RETAINING WALL.
I WILL SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES, BUT PRIOR TO THAT WALL, AS I THINK HE MENTIONED THAT, LAKE FRONT AREA DID CONTAIN BRUSH, TREES, GRASSES.
I WILL TELL YOU FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, NOBODY WOULD HAVE WALKED IN THERE BECAUSE IT WAS SO THICK.
I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY EROSION.
YOU WOULDN'T SEE THE ROOTS OF THE TREES BECAUSE THEY WERE COVERED BY BRUSH AND TREES AND GRASSES.
IT WAS JUST LIKE OTHER PROPERTIES ON LAKE MINNETONKA.
AS YOU'VE SEEN, AND YOU'LL SEE AGAIN IN A MINUTE, THE PROPERTY ON OTHER SIDE ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT WALL BASICALLY HAS A VERY SIMILAR SLOPE AND DOESN'T EXPERIENCE ANY EROSION TODAY.
I SEARCHED LONG AND HARD TO FIND A PICTURE FOR YOU OF WHAT THAT LAKE FRONT LOOKED LIKE.
YOU CAN SEE THERE. THAT'S WHAT WAS THERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO TREES ON THE RIGHT, THE TREE ON THE FAR RIGHT, SOMETHING'S ODD ABOUT IT, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PRETTY MUCH ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE TREE IN THE FRONT.
NOW LOOK AT THAT TREE IN THE WALL.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A CLARIFYING QUESTION?
>> I THINK YOU SAID IT, BUT THE TWO TREES IN THE TOP PICTURE AND THE TWO TREES IN THE BOTTOM PICTURE, ARE THOSE THE SAME TREES?
>> THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME TWO TREES.
THE THIRD TREE IN THE BOTTOM PICTURE IS JUST HIDDEN IN THE TOP PICTURE.
SO LET'S STAY ON THE TOPIC OF THOSE TREES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DISTANCE FROM EACH OF THOSE TREES TO THE BLOCK IN THE RETAINING WALL, IT'S 31" FOR ONE OF THE TREES, AND IT'S 42" FOR THE OTHER TREE.
THEY HAVE 10, 15 FOOT DRIP LINES.
WHERE ARE THE ROOTS? DID WE SAVE THE TREES? NO, THESE TREES WILL, AS OUR ARBORIST HAS TOLD US, WE'LL DIE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WHETHER THAT WALL IS THERE OR NOT, BECAUSE THEIR ROOTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
IT'S A CONVENIENT WAY TO LOOK AT THINGS TO SAY THAT WERE THAT THERE WERE ISSUES.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, YOU CAN'T SEE THE ROOT STRUCTURES OF THESE TREES.
THEY'RE GONE. BOTTOM RIGHT IS SIMPLY SOME ARBORBITY THAT WE PUT INTO.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT OVER THE YEARS, IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT,
[01:40:02]
IT'S A VISUAL OF WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE ACTUALLY LIES ON THE YELLOW.THE ORANGE IS VISUALLY WHERE YOUR EYE TAKES YOU WITH THE WALL.
I PROBABLY HAVE ASKED NO LESS THAN 10 PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME TO MOW THE LAWN, TO RAKE THE LEAVES, TO MAINTAIN THE WALL, TO NOT GO PAST THAT SECOND TREE TO THE LEFT.
SO THERE IS ONGOING, AND TRESPASS ON OUR PROPERTY.
OUR FEAR, AND YOU'LL SEE THIS IN A MINUTE IS THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET HURT, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY, IF WE CAN JUST GO TO THE NEXT.
THIS IS MY HUSBAND STANDING ON THE WALL.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A VERY TALL WALL.
NOW, MY KIDS GREW UP ON THIS PROPERTY.
THEY SPENT THEIR LIVES SLEDDING DOWN THAT HILL IN THE WINTERTIME.
YOU SLID DOWN THAT HILL, AND YOU HIT THAT WALL, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET HURT.
IF YOU'RE ON THAT WALL, AND YOU'RE DOING MAINTENANCE, AND YOU BACK UP, AND YOU FALL OFF THAT WALL, YOU'RE GOING TO GET HURT.
IT IS A VERY DANGEROUSLY TALL WALL. ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT'S OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL.
EVERYTHING YOU SEE FROM THAT TEMPORARY FENCING TO THE RIGHT IS THE ENCROACHMENT.
THIS IS WHAT OUR PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SLOPE ON THE LEFT, YOU DON'T SEE ANY EROSION.
THAT BUTTS RIGHT UP TO THAT WALL.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FAR RIGHT OF OUR PROPERTY, YOU SEE A MUCH STEEPER, GREAT.
NO EROSION. THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM BETWEEN THERE, AND THE LAKE.
THIS IS JUST WHAT WE'RE USED TO, AND VERY MUCH THE CHARACTER OF FOREST LAKE BAY. WE CAN KEEP GOING.
JUST STEPPING BACK A LITTLE BIT TO LOOK ACROSS THE PROPERTIES.
EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THE LONG LINE IS THE ENCROACHMENT.
I'LL TALK ABOUT THE NINE FOOT SETBACK IN JUST A MINUTE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S BY YOUR ZONING.
I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE A NINE FOOT SETBACK, BUT I'LL TALK ABOUT WHY.
SO YOU SEE A GOOD 35, 40 PERCENT OF THAT WALL, IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE.
SO WHEN MR. ROTH TALKS ABOUT HOW WE HAD SOME MEETING, FIRST OF ALL, I NEVER SAW A DRAWING, THERE WAS NO DRAWING.
A GUY CAME OUT, AND THEY STARTED TO BUILD A WALL.
THERE WAS NO CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BUILDING OF A WALL BEFORE THEY STARTED BUILDING A WALL.
THERE WAS NO CONVERSATION ABOUT MY TREES, AND HOW WE NEEDED TO PROTECT MY TREES.
IN FACT, IF YOU WANTED TO PROTECT MY TREES, YOU WOULD HAVE STOPPED THAT WALL AT THAT NINE FOOT POINT, AND NOT TOUCHED ANY OF THOSE TREES.
AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THAT HILL, THERE'S NO ROOT STICKING OUT.
OF COURSE, THE ONE ABOVE IT, IT'S ALSO AT THAT LEVEL, YOU JUST CAN'T TELL ANYMORE.
WE CAN JUST KEEP GOING. THESE ARE JUST QUICK DRAWINGS.
EVERYTHING IN THE RED BOX, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IS NEWLY ADDED SINCE THE ROTH'S ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, AND IS WITHIN I HAVE 10-FEET ON THERE.
I ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S 7.5, WHATEVER IT IS.
BUT MY POINT IS, WHATEVER IT IS, THE EROSION IS DRAMATIC.
I TOOK PICTURES BEFORE I CAME TODAY.
IT HAS BECOME A DITCH BECAUSE BALL OF RAIN WE HAVE THIS SUMMER. LET'S KEEP GOING.
IF WE CAN JUST KEEP GOING, YOU'VE SEEN THESE BEFORE.
THIS IS WHY I THINK IT'S A 9' SET-BACK.
THIS IS ACTUAL PULL OUT OF YOUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
SO TIERED WALLS ARE CONSIDERED AS ONE WALL, UNLESS THEY'RE SEPARATED BY A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE LOWER WALL.
THEN STRUCTURES EXCEEDING THE ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A FENCE.
SO THE TOTAL HEIGHT SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO MEET THE REQUIRED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SET-BACKS ESTABLISHED FOR THAT YARD.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE? SO FENCES WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE FENCE SETBACK SHALL NOT EXCEED 42" IN HEIGHT.
WELL, THIS WALL IS CLEARLY MORE THAN TWICE THAT IN HEIGHT.
FOR ACCESSORY USES, AGAIN, THIS IS WITHIN OUR AREA.
THE SIDE SETBACK FOR LOTS THAT ARE NON CONFORMING, WHICH THIS IS, IT'S 90 FEET IN WIDTH.
[01:45:02]
IT'S THE LESSER OF 10 FEET OR EQUAL TO 10 PERCENT OF THE LOT WIDTH, BUT NO LESS THAN THAT 7.5 FEET.TEN PERCENT OF 90 FEET IS NINE FEET.
SO I ASK THAT YOU HAVE A NINE FOOT SETBACK FOR THE WALL, IF YOU DECIDE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
WE CAN JUST GO, I THINK I GOT ONE OR TWO MORE.
THIS IS JUST A VISUAL TO MAKE THE POINT THAT ON A VERY NARROW PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THESE ARE THE CUMULATIVE NON CONFORMING THINGS IN VARIOUS SETBACK AREAS.
SO THAT ORANGE LINE IS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK LINE.
NOW, I HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK LINE.
THAT'S WHAT OUR SURVEYOR PUT ON THE DRAWING.
YOU HAVE THE RETAINING WALL IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, THE FIRE PIT SEATING.
NOW, I DID NOT PUT IN HERE THE ASPHALT PATH THAT COMES DOWN BECAUSE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY ALLOWED.
THEN THE RIP RAP, WHICH, AGAIN, I THINK WAS APPROVED, BUT NEVERTHELESS, MAKES THE POINT THAT ON A VERY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THERE ARE A LOT OF NON CONFORMING THINGS THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED, AND HAVE AN IMPACT ON US.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS JUST SHARE A FEW PICTURES WE TOOK AROUND FOREST LAKE BAY.
BECAUSE I THINK THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING YOU MUST CONSIDER IN APPROVING THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THE PRECEDENTS YOU ARE SETTING ON A BAY.
THE PRETTY MUCH THE CHARACTER IS YOU MIGHT AS WELL BUILD A WALL AROUND THE ENTIRE LAKE.
SO LET'S JUST LOOK AT A FEW OF THEM.
THIS WAS RECENTLY BUILT ON THE POINT COMING INTO FOREST LAKE BAY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY REQUIRED THAT THAT ALL BE NATURAL GRASS.
SO THIS IS BEFORE THE GRASS HAS STARTED TO GROW.
SOME PRETTY STEEP SLOPES ACROSS THE BAY FROM US.
AGAIN, GRASSY SLOPES LIKE OURS.
MORE GRASSY SLOPES, VERY SIMILAR, MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE SLOPE THAN WHAT YOU SEE ON THE ROTH'S PROPERTY.
VERY SIMILAR, YOU CAN JUST KEEP GOING THROUGH A MELON.
AGAIN, THIS IS VERY TYPICAL, SO WHEN WE SAY BRUSH, THIS IS HOW A LOT OF FOREST LAKE BAY LOOKS.
YOU DON'T MAINTAIN IT, YOU LEAVE IT NATURAL.
IS THERE EROSION UNDER THERE? MAYBE. BUT IF EVERY ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES SAID, OH, MY PROPERTY IS ERODING.
I GOT TREES. I NEED TO PUT A WALL IN.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU DRAW THAT LINE BECAUSE THIS IS THE CHARACTER OF FOREST LAKE BAY.
IF WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH THE REST OF THEM.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE THE LAST ONE OR THAT ONE.
THAT'S ALL I HAD. ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE? IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT [LAUGHTER], I'LL SAY.
A LOT OF SLEEPLESS NIGHTS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT UNDERSTANDING HOW ALL OF THIS WORKS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE AN APPRECIATION BOTH FOR THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE'RE FACING. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> NORMALLY, WE DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, I THINK, AT LEAST FOR ME.
THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD, THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMENTS, AND I APPRECIATE THEM.
BUT ONE THAT YOU MADE WAS YOU HAD A CONCERN OVER THE ROOT SYSTEM BEING DAMAGED TO YOUR TREES?
>> SURE. DID YOU, BY CHANCE, YOU MENTIONED YOUR ARBORIST.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED. YOU GET A LETTER FROM YOUR ARBORIST THEN?
>> NO, BECAUSE I DIDN'T EXPECT THAT AN ARGUMENT WAS BEING MADE THAT THESE TREES WERE NEVER UNHEALTHY.
THEY ALWAYS HAD FOLIAGE JUST LIKE THEY DO TODAY.
THE ONLY REASON WHY I MENTIONED OUR ARBORIST IS BECAUSE WE HAD SOME TREES UP AT THE HOUSE GO DOWN IN A STORM THIS SUMMER.
THEN WHEN THEY WERE OUT, MY HUSBAND SAID, "MY NEIGHBOR'S SAYING THAT THESE TREES ARE DYING." HE'S LIKE, "NO, THOSE TREES ARE PERFECTLY HEALTHY." HE SAID, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO DIE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
I THINK I MENTIONED THAT TO MISS CURTIS, AS WELL THAT, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO REMOVE THOSE TREES.
WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM THERE AS LONG AS THEY ARE.
I'M WORRIED THAT THOSE TREES MAY BE A HAZARD, BECAUSE THEY TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS THE LAKE, AND WITHOUT THAT ROOT STRUCTURE THERE.
WITH ALL THE RAIN WE'VE HAD, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THEY WOULDN'T GO DOWN IN A STORM, BUT I HAVE NO DESIRE.
IF YOU LOOK AT MY PROPERTY, IF YOU WENT BACK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, O PROPERTY IS COVERED IN TREES.
WELL, YOU CAN'T REALLY APPRECIATE IT THERE, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO GO BACK FARTHER,
[01:50:01]
MELANIE, WHERE I JUST SAY, YEP, THERE IT IS.YOU KNOW, OUR PROPERTY IS COVERED IN TREES. WE LOVE TREES.
U I KNOW, AGAIN, SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.
BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL, GIGANTIC BLUE SPRUCE AND OTHER PINE TREES ON THAT PROPERTY, WHEN IT WAS SOLD TO A NONRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO JUST RENTED THE PROPERTY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THOSE TREES WERE CLEAR CUT OFF THAT PROPERTY.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE CHARACTER HAS CHANGED OVER TIME, AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE REST OF THE LAKE.
BUT ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS, AS YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED TO HIDE THE WALL FROM THE LAKE, TO GIVE ME THE FULL NINE FOOT SETBACK THAT I THINK LIES, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS NOT THE HEIGHT IT IS TODAY, AND THEN DROPS DOWN WHERE SOMEBODY COULD FALL ON MY PROPERTY, AND I WOULD GET SUED.
I DO THINK IT'S DANGEROUS FOR ANYBODY WHO SUBSEQUENTLY MIGHT BUY THAT PROPERTY, AND HAVE CHILDREN.
THEN, LIKE I SAID UP AT THE HOUSE, OUR REQUEST IS THAT THERE BE NOTHING AT THE END OF THOSE STEPS.
IT WAS GRASS, IT SHOULD GO BACK TO GRASS.
WE HAVE SO LITTLE BUFFER BETWEEN OUR PROPERTIES.
WE ALREADY HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH EROSION, AND WATER FLOW COMING OFF OF THAT HOUSE.
IT JUST A COMPOUNDS THE CONFUSION FOR THE NEXT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WILL WANT TO COME EVEN FARTHER ONTO OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY WON'T HAVE THIS HISTORY OR WHOEVER MIGHT BUY OUR PROPERTY FROM US.
THEY WON'T KNOW ALL THAT HISTORY.
SO AS I HAD SAID TO THE ROSS, WHEN WE DISCOVERED I SAID, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN REALLY GREAT NEIGHBORS.
NEVER BOTHERED US WHEN YOUR CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE WERE HERE, AND THE KIDS CAME THROUGH HERE, AND EVERYBODY.
YOU CANNOT GET FROM THEIR BACKYARD TO THEIR FRONT YARD PERIOD ON OUR SIDE WITHOUT BEING ON OUR PROPERTY.
I JUST SIMPLY SAID IT'S TIME TO STEP BACK FROM THE LINE.
THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. LET'S STEP BACK THE MAXIMUM FROM THE LINE, AND THEN LET'S MAKE IT SAFE.
IT'S VERY SIMPLE. ANYBODY ELSE?
>> QUICKLY, WHILE, YOU'RE UP HERE, JUST TO PROVIDE CLARITY FOR A DISCUSSION LATER.
YOU SAID REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL.
YOU SAID YOU WANTED YOUR NINE FOOT SETBACK, BUT YOU ALSO WANTED A REDUCED RETAINING WALL.
COULD YOU PROVIDE CLARITY ON WHAT YOUR IDEAL SITUATION IS FOR THE OUTCOME OF THAT RETAINING WALL JUST TO HELP THE DISCUSSION LATER ON?
>> YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'D DO IT WITHOUT RIPPING IT OUT, AND STARTING OVER HONESTLY.
BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU TOOK FROM THE BOTTOM OF ONE, AND DID A LITTLE SLOPY THING, YOU STILL COME FLYING OFF THAT WALL, AND YOU'RE GOING TO DROP.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY FEET. I MEAN, 10 FEET.
YOU SHOULD COME OUT, AND LOOK AT IT.
OR MAYBE THEY HAVE TO PUT A FENCE ON TOP OF IT, A BARRIER, SO SOMEBODY CAN'T FALL OFF OF IT.
BUT THE SIDE, AS THE SIDE COMES DOWN.
IT NEEDS TO STEP DOWN TO WHEREVER THAT SETBACK IS.
IT SHOULDN'T JUST DROP OFF LIKE IT DOES, THE WAY HE'S GOT IT DEAD ENDED INTO THE HILL.
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT DEAD ENDS INTO THE HILL, IT STILL CREATES A MAJOR DROP OFF.
SO IF SOMEBODY FELL, WE NEED THEM FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET SUED.
>> I'M BRIAN RASMUSSEN, THE NEIGHBOR.
I GOT A MILLION THINGS TO SAY, BUT I'LL BEAR YOU OF.
CAN YOU BRING UP THE TOPOGRAPHICAL PICTURE THAT HAD THE YELLOW LINES ON IT? IF YOU DRILL IN DOWN BY THE WALL.
NOW OUR PROPERTY IS UP ABOVE THAT WALL THERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THOSE LINES.
THE ELEVATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AT THE TOP OF THE WALL IS OUR PROPERTY, AND THE BOTTOM BY THE LAKE SHORE IS OUR PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE MOW UP, AND DOWN, WE DON'T HAVE EROSION THERE.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE THE HALLOWEEN SNOWSTORM.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW AN ENGINEER COULD SHOW UP ONE DAY, AND SAY, OH, THERE'S EROSION, SO YOU NEED A WALL.
THAT JUST USES IN, AND I WISH HE WAS HERE.
BUT ALL I CAN SAY IS I READ THAT TO GET A CUP FOR RETAINING WALL WITHIN 75 FEET, YOU HAVE TO HAVE EROSION, AND THAT WAS IN OLD LETTERS/CONFIRMED EROSION.
I CAN JUST CONFIRM THERE WAS NO EROSION.
[01:55:10]
>> I GUARD 1386 REST POINT ROAD.
COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS HERE.
WHEN WAS THAT ENGINEERING STUDY DONE? DONE BEFORE OR AFTER?
>> I WAS SUBMITTED, I BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER.
>> THEN THERE WAS A RETAINING WALL THERE SIZE-WISE, AND WHAT WAS THERE, AND NOW? BECAUSE I KNOW IN PICTURES I CAN SEE THERE WAS AN OLD WALL THERE.
>> I WASN'T PROVIDED WITH THAT.
NOT REALLY, BECAUSE I DEALT WITH THE LAST REGIME QUITE A BIT.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE UNFORTUNATELY, PART OF THAT REGIME IS STILL OPERATING.
WELL, LAST QUESTION, IS THAT STILL THERE?
>> I DON'T HAVE A SURVEY FOR THE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS THAT SHE HAD THAT IT IS STILL HERE.
LOOKS LIKE WE GOT A HISTORY OF VIOLATIONS FROM A PARK COMMISSIONER, CITY OFFICIAL.
SOMEONE SHOULD OBVIOUSLY KNOW BETTER.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE A PARK OFFICIAL, YOU'RE DEALING WITH BLUEPRINTS, AND ZONING ISSUES ALL THE TIME.
YOU WOULD THINK THAT THIS TYPE OF THING WOULD BE RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY, AND I'M A LITTLE ASTOUNDED THAT MR. ROTH DOESN'T KNOW WHERE HIS PROPERTY LINES ARE.
ESPECIALLY GIVEN HE MOVED IN, AND THERE'S A RETAINING WALL DOWN BY THE LAKE, WHICH MAKES IT PRETTY OBVIOUS FOR ANYONE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT, BUT STILL PRETTY.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE EVEN HERE TONIGHT.
THIS SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW IN REMEDIATION.
I DON'T THINK THE CITY SHOULD EVEN BE ENTERTAINING RIGHT NOW, APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS.
THIS GUY NOT ONLY DID HIS YARD, HE DID HIS NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THAT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEIGHBOR IS NO LONGER AT ALL CONCERNED.
THEN THERE'S NO ISSUE TO DISCUSS THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT HOW CAN WE EVEN SAY PUTTING OTHER STUFF IN THERE, MAYBE HAVING AN ENGINEER WHO COMES IN AFTER THE FACT, DESIGN SOMETHING NEW TO REPLACE WHAT'S GOING ON? MR. ROTH HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE GREENED IT UP AND STARTED PUTTING THE GRASS IN, THAT'S WHEN HE HAD HIS EROSION ISSUES.
NOW WE'VE GOT SELF-INFLICTED EROSION ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY, BY THE WAY, WITHOUT GOING TO THE CITY TO FIND OUT WHAT WE CAN LEGALLY DO.
I'M JUST TROUBLED BY ALL OF THIS.
IF IT WAS JUST ME OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE COMMUNITY, IT WOULDN'T BE A BIG DEAL.
THIS IS OUR PARK COMMISSION CHAIR.
THIS IS A GUY IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THE NATURE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
THIS IS A GUY WHO WAS HERE WHEN THEY REMOVED ALL THE TREE PROTECTIONS.
HIM SAYING THAT THERE'S TREE PROTECTIONS, OR HE'S TRYING TO SAVE A TREE IS AWFUL SILLY BECAUSE THE ORONO ORDINANCE PROTECTING TREES IN THE 0-75 HAS GOTTEN AWAY WITH LAST ADMINISTRATION.
THERE'S NO TREE PROTECTION ANYMORE, AND I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING WITH THE COUNCIL WE NEED TO RESTORE THAT.
WE NEED TO START BRINGING SOME OF THAT STUFF BACK TO PROTECT OUR NATURE.
WELL, YOU GUYS NEED TO PROTECT NATURE HERE.
THERE ARE WAYS TO RESTORE THIS BLUFF NATURALLY.
WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY A BLUFF, BUT THIS HILL.
THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT, AND I'M GOING TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUSH THAT OPTION AND SAY, MAYBE I COULD SEE ONE OR TWO LITTLE THINGS, BUT THIS IS SO EGREGIOUS.
IT'S TIME TO BRING THIS THING BACK TO WHERE IT WAS.
I'M HOPING YOU GUYS HAVE LISTENED TO ME ON THAT THING.
>> RYAN [INAUDIBLE], 997 WILDHURST TRAIL.
I THINK IT STARTED INNOCENTLY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A GUILTY PARTY HERE.
THIS CAME OUT THIS WAY AND CONFUSION ON THE LINE, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT LET'S PUT IT IN CONTEXT.
TONIGHT WHILE YOU'RE AT WORK, SOMEBODY PUT SOMETHING, 11 FEET ONTO YOUR PROPERTY, AND YOU SPEND THE NEXT THREE YEARS TRYING TO GET IT REMEDIATED.
NOW YOU'RE HERE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
LAKESHORE PROPERTY, EXTREMELY VALUABLE, 11 FEET PLUS THE SETBACK IN TWO DIFFERENT ZONES, AND THE VICTIM BECOMES THE ONE THAT HAS TO TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL, BUT IT'S NOT OKAY TO STAY IN.
IT'S NOT OKAY TO LET IT BE REMEDIATED TO A NON-CONFORMING PIECE EITHER.
DON'T REWARD THE INACTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE BEGINNING.
[02:00:03]
WELL, IT JUST SHOULDN'T BE REWARDED ANYWHERE.WE'LL SET OF PRECEDENTS, AND I DO LIVE ON FOREST LAKE BAY, AND IT IS A TRUE STATEMENT THAT THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BAY.
THERE ARE 30 TREES ON THAT HILLSIDE THAT ARE ALL THERE, LIVING HEALTHY, AND THEY'RE JUST FINE.
IT DIDN'T NEED THE RETAINING WALL TO HOLD THE TREES UP.
IT'S NOW AN AFTER-FACT THOUGHT TO TRY TO GET IT TO REMAIN, BUT IT REALLY SHOULD BE STRIPPED OUT, BUT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS AND NOT GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT ACTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> THANK YOU FOR TAKING A LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A COMPLEX ISSUE.
MY NAME IS BARBARA SCHMIDT, AND I LIVE AT 50 LANDMARK DRIVE.
LOOKING AT THIS PHOTO RIGHT HERE, THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.
IF HE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HIS LOT LINE IS, THEN WHY IS HIS RIPRAP EXACTLY ON THE LOT? IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.
HE'S A PARK COMMISSIONER CHAIR FOR OVER FIVE YEARS, AND HE DOESN'T KNOW TO GET A PERMIT, 1, 02, AND THEN PUTS IN THIS HUGE STRUCTURE, AND HIS LANDSCAPER DOESN'T KNOW TO GET A PERMIT? IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK GOOD, AND EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT IT.
WE SHOULD NOT LET PEOPLE DO THIS AND THEN GIVE HIM AN AFTER-THE-FACT OKAY ON IT.
YOU LITERALLY ARE OPENING UP EVERYBODY TO DO THAT, AND THEN GET AN AFTER-THE-FACTS WAVE, THANK YOU, GOOD ENOUGH.
NO, IT SHOULD BE RIPPED OUT, AND WE NEED TO STAND UP FOR STUFF LIKE THIS BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THEN IT GETS REPEATED ALL OVER THE LAKE, NOT JUST IN FOREST LAKE, BUT EVERYWHERE IN ORONO.
WE HAVE YOU GUYS SITTING THERE SO THAT WE FOLLOW THE RULES, AND THE RULES ARE THERE FOR A REASON.
WE APPLAUD THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENCY AND WE'RE TAKING CARE OF THE LAKE, AND WE'RE TAKING CARE OF EACH OTHER'S PROPERTIES, AND WE'RE BEING MINDFUL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE TURNED BACK AND FIXED.
>> I GOT TO STRAIGHT MY KNEES OFF.
[INAUDIBLE] LANDER, 5655 ALEXANDER DRIVE.
I WAS ON THE MAPLE PLAIN PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MANY YEARS.
I AGREE 100% WITH THIS LADY, THIS GENTLEMAN, AND THE REST.
LET'S GO BY THE RULES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK OR I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NOBODY, WE'LL CLOSE IT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR COMING AND VOICING YOUR OPINIONS ON IT.
THE FIRST NEIGHBOR THAT SPOKE, SHE HAD A SLIDE AT THE BEGINNING.
IF YOU CAN PULL IT UP, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
IN THE 2022 PATIO, WAS THAT APPROVED WITH THAT PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON THAT OLD SURVEY?
>> THIS PLAN WAS SUBMITTED FOR THIS PERMIT.
>> THAT PATIO WAS NOT PERMITTED.?
>> THAT WAS DRAWN FOR THE PERMIT.
>> WAS THERE A PERMIT FOR THAT PATIO FOR 2022 WHEN IT WAS BUILT?
>> LET ME LOOK FOR THAT, AND I WILL ANSWER.
>> UNLESS THE APPLICANT KNOWS.
MAYBE IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHEN YOU BUILT THE PATIO IN 2022, DID YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR IT?
>> NO. BUT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION.
IF YOU GO BACK TO PICTURE THAT HAS THE EXISTING PATIO AND THEN THE NEW PATIO.
>> NO, THE PICTURE THAT YOU DREW ON.
>> YEAH. I CAN TELL YOU FOR CERTAIN THAT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THE PATIO EXTENDED TO THAT DOTTED LINE THAT SAYS NINE-FOOT PATIO EXTENSION, AND THE GREEN AREA EXISTED AND THAT WAS A LANDING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE MS. RASMUSSEN IS GETTING HER INFORMATION FROM,
[02:05:02]
BUT THAT EXISTED WHEN WE MOVED IN.>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF I LOOK AT AN AERIAL FROM 2015, I'M GOING TO SEE THAT PATIO IN IT?
>> YES, NOT THE PART THAT IS LABELED PATIO EXTENSION.
>> NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M GOING TO SEE THAT FIRST PATIO IN A AERIAL PHOTO.
>> THIS IS A ACCURATE RENDERING AND DRAWING OF WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS.
>> THE PAVERS WEREN'T CHANGED OUT?
>> THE PAVERS WERE CHANGED OUT.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY COULD NOT GET THE PAVERS THAT WERE UNDERNEATH THE DECK AND THEN EXPAND IT OUT A LITTLE BIT AT THE TIME.
THEY COULDN'T FIND A MATCHING PAVER, SO THEY PULLED ALL THE PAVERS BACK TO WHERE THE POST IS THERE, AND THEN FROM THE POST OUT WAS NEW PAVERS.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WITH THE SIZE OF THE NEW PAVERS BEING DIFFERENT, THAT THE TOTAL AREA WAS EXPANDED SLIGHTLY?
>> NO, BECAUSE IT LINED UP WITH OUR MULCH AREA THAT HAS NOT CHANGED.
ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE DRAWING THERE, AND THE POST RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE MULCH AREA TO THE LEFT THAT SAYS SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, THERE'S A POST JUST TO THE RIGHT THERE, THAT RIGHT THERE, THE FIRST ONE.
IT WAS LINED UP WITH THAT POST, THE END OF THE PATIO.
>> THE STAIR LANDING WAS FARTHER BACK?
>> STAIR LANDING, THE GREEN WAS FARTHER BACK IF IT WAS LINED UP WITH THAT BOAT?
>> NO. I WAS A SIX-FOOT LANDING THERE, AND THEN THERE ARE STEPS THAT GO DOWN TO THAT PATIO.
>> BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION, THERE WAS NO APPLICATION IN 2022 FOR THE PATIO?
>> CORRECT. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TONIGHT.
>> AFTER-THE-FACT PERMIT FOR THAT PATIO EXTENSION.
>> IS IT ORIGINAL PATIO UNDER AN OVERHANG?
>> THE PATIO, WHEN WE MOVED IN, WAS UNDER THE OVERHANG, BUT THEN EXTENDED BEYOND.
>> THE DOTTED LINE, IS THAT THE OVERHANG?
>> DOTTED LINE IS THE OVERHANG, RIGHT THERE. YES.
>> THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SINCE HE'S UP HERE?
>> ACTUALLY, MELANIE, CAN YOU DO A COMPARISON AT 2015-2024 OF THE AERIAL RED?
THAT TREE CASTS A DARK SHADOW, BUT THERE'S A GRAY EDGING BEYOND THE OVERHANG.
>> THEN IF YOU SLIDE IT BACK, SO THEN EVERYTHING THERE WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
>> WELL, OTHER THAN A SLIVER ALONG THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S IN THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE WAS BUILT AS SHE SLIDES IT BACK.
>> I DON'T THINK I AGREE WITH THAT, BACK TO THE OTHER DRAWING THERE.
>> I KNOW, BUT THERE WAS NO PERMIT SUBMITTED, THERE WAS NOTHING FOR THAT OLD DRAWING, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO VALIDATE WHAT THAT DRAWING IS OTHER THAN THAT DRAWING AND THEN THE AERIAL PICTURES THAT ARE OF THIS.
THE OTHER THING, IF YOU COULD GO ZOOM IN DOWN CLOSER TO THE LAKE ON THIS.
>> THIS ONE, I CAN'T. I DON'T THINK I CAN ZOOM IN.
>> IF YOU CAN SWIPE AND SHOW THE LAKE.
WHEN WE HAD ASKED ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF VEGETATION, YOU SAID THERE WAS NOTHING WHERE THAT WALL IS.
FROM THIS AREAL, PHOTO IT DOES LOOK, AS I'M LOOKING AT THAT PAVED WALKWAY, THERE IS VEGETATION THERE HOLDING THAT LANDSCAPE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THERE WAS VEGETATION THERE, YES.
WHAT WASN'T THERE WAS ABOVE THE WALL, IF YOU SLIDE IT OVER A LOT OF IT.
IF YOU DRAW A LINE THAT REPRESENTS WHERE THE TOP OF THE WALL IS, EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THAT WAS REMOVED.
[02:10:01]
>> WHEN YOU REMOVED ALL THAT, THAT'S WHEN THE EROSION STARTED HAPPENING?
>> NO. THERE WAS EROSION ALL ALONG THERE, BUT IT ACCELERATED THE EROSION BECAUSE THAT WASN'T THERE AS A BUFFER BEFORE IT GOT TO THE SEEP PART OF THE HILL.
IF YOU REMEMBER, THIS IS ONE GRADE, AND THEN RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE WALL IS WHERE IT INCREASES.
>> DO YOU HAVE THE ELEVATION WITH THE LINES STILL UP? YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S PRETTY FLAT ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND THERE'S NOT ALL THAT?
>> NO, IT'S NOT FLAT, BUT YOU CAN SEE A SLOPE DOWN TO THE 350 LINE.
THEN IT ACCELERATES DOWN THE HILL FROM THE TOP OF WHERE THE PATH STARTS DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PATH THERE.
>> THIS ISN'T SURVEY LEVEL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I KNOW IT'S NOT SURVEY. I GET THAT.
IT'S JUST DIRECTIONAL, IF ANY.
THEN WHEN THIS EROSION HAPPENED, WAS IT BEFORE OR AFTER THE UNPERMITTED PATIO WAS PUT IN?
>> THE PATIO WAS BUILT AFTER THE WALL.
>> IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE PATIO THERE, TO ANSWER YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION, THERE'S A FIRE RING OR FIRE PIT RIGHT THERE.
IF YOU EXTEND THE END OF THE DECK THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE FIRE PIT, THAT WAS THE EXISTING PATIO.
EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THAT WAS EXISTING.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE COMPARISON? WHAT MATERIAL WAS THAT PATIO?
>> THE SAME MATERIALS AS TODAY, EXACT SAME.
THEY JUST COULDN'T FIND THE SAME PAVERS, SO THEY LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
>> I KNOW THERE'S ANKLES OFF, BUT YOU'RE SEEING AT THE EDGE OF THAT PATIO THERE IN YOUR HOUSE.
>> I THINK YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE'RE SEEING THE FRUSTRATION BECAUSE BECAUSE IN 2015, WE SEE THERE'S NO PATIO THERE ACCORDING TO THE AERIAL.
>> OR IT'S NOT AS SIGNIFICANT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OR COULD HAVE BEEN OVERGROWN GRASS, I DON'T KNOW.
>> I DON'T KNOW. [OVERLAPPING]
>> FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THAT REALLY MATTERS WITH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY, GUYS. SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO[OVERLAPPING]
>> THINK THAT IT'S SHADOWED BY THE TREE.
>> I THINK IT DOES BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS APPLICATION AS IF PART OF THAT PATIO EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS, AND THERE'S NO SURVEY.
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO GO OFF IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, AND THIS IS IN FRONT OF US.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE A VERY SLIM WALKWAY, ESSENTIALLY, THAT MIRRORS THE ROOF LINE.
YOU CAN SEE, IT'S SLIGHTLY LIGHTER ON THE RIGHT, BUT IT'S VERY SLIM.
>> THE CURVE PART THAT COMES DOWN RIGHT THERE?
>> WHAT THAT IS, AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THE DRAWING, THERE'S A SMALL RETAINING WALL THAT'S CURVED RIGHT THERE BETWEEN THE RED AND THE GREEN ARROWS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT THERE.
>> THE PREVIOUS PATIO FOLLOWS THE ROOF LINE.
IT DOESN'T EXTEND OUT FROM BEYOND THE ROOF LINE, IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>> BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS LANDING AREA FOR THE STAIRS.
I DON'T SEE THAT ON THE PHOTO.
>> THE PHOTO'S DIRECTIONAL AT BEST BECAUSE IT'S AT AN ANGLE FROM MILES UP, AND YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH TREES BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FOLIAGE ALONG THIS LINE IT LOOKED LIKE.
BUT AGAIN, I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE IT COMES ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE OR THE EDGE OF THE PATIO, AND I JUST CAN'T MAKE THAT IN ANY OF THE PHOTOS, AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO VALIDATE.
>> I COULD TRY AND PICK SOME PHOTOS UP IF THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WERE THE STAIRS THERE?
>> WERE THE STAIRS THERE PREVIOUS TO YOU BUYING THE HOUSE?
>> THE STAIRS TO THE DECK? YES, THEY WERE THERE.
>> YES. I'M JUST TRYING TO GRASP AS TO WHERE WE ARE.
ARE WE ASKING QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT OR ARE WE IN DISCUSSION?
>> WE'RE IN DISCUSSION, BUT WE HAD HIM CLARIFY SOME POINTS.
>> IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE HE'S UP HERE? OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REALLY CLARIFIED WHERE MY HEAD WAS ON THE EXISTING LANDING FOR THE STAIRS OR NOT, BECAUSE BUT I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THE APPLICATION THAT THE NEIGHBOR WAS REFERRING TO IS THE ONE FOR THIS ONE, BUT THAT'S ON A PREVIOUS SURVEY THAT IS.
[02:15:01]
I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WILLFULLY TRYING TO COMPLY, PUT SOMETHING BEFORE US THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION FOR.I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PATIO HARD COVER AND THAT SETBACK AND PICK THAT APART, AND THEN RETAINING WALL PIECE.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY MIND IS HEADED.
WITH ANY OF THESE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES, IT'S THEY'RE CHALLENGING FOR CERTAIN, AND IT'S HARD TO GO BACK IN TIME AND LOOK AT IT.
WITHOUT THAT STUFF THERE OR PUT THAT HAT ON, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE APPROVED? WHAT COULD WE HAVE APPROVED? WOULD WE HAVE APPROVED ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PUT IN? THAT'S THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY THE HARD QUESTIONS.
I WOULD LOVE SOME OPINION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS HERE ABOUT THE PATIO AND THE PROPOSED SOLUTION FROM THE APPLICANT.
WHAT WE COULD GET BEHIND ON JUST THE PATIO P. THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THE WALL LATER.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO START. I THINK YOU REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS, TOO.
IN MY OPINION, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AN AFTER A FACT, AND I'VE BEEN LOOK THROUGH THE AGENDA AND I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT MY THOUGHT WAS, I NEED TO TAKE THIS AS, THIS IS A NEW APPLICATION.
THIS IS ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE BEFORE US.
GO FROM WHAT WOULD WE DO? IF WE WERE ASKED TO APPROVE THIS RIGHT NOW.
THIS ONE I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, AND IT ELUDED WITH THE RUNOFF.
I LIVE THROUGH THIS, SO I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU BUILD THAT CLOSE TO A LOT, IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, THAT THERE IS RUNOFF AND THE RUNOFF IS DAMAGED. GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE.
I STRUGGLE WITH A LOT OF THE IMPROVEMENT THAT'S IN THE RED, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S NOTHING DONE TO ADDRESS THAT.
IT'S JUST SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT IT'S GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE WITH THEIR AR.
JUST HANDS DOWN. PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE WALKING INTO THEIR YARD.
MY PERSPECTIVE IS IT NEEDS TO BE TAPERED OFF FROM WHAT THAT LANDING ORIGINALLY WAS.
THEN IN THE OTHER SPACE, BASED ON HIS ALLOWABLE HARD COVER, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS OVER THERE AND MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY.
BUT HE HAS TO HAVE SOME LEVEL OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THIS IS HERE.
I NEED TO DO THE BARE MINIMUM THAT GETS ME OFF THE STAIRS AND ONTO THE LANDING HERE, AND I NEED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE RUNOFF WITH WHATEVER THAT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RUNOFF FROM THAT SMALL LANDING IS TAKEN CARE OF, AND THEN I CAN BUILD THIS BEAUTIFUL PATIO IN THE REST OF THE SPACE, AND I HAVE PLENTY OF HARD COVER. THAT'S MINE.
>> I CAN JUMP IN QUICK. THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR THE PUBLIC INPUT.
I JUST WANT TO FIRST SAY THAT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE CONTENTIOUS.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER.
BUT FOR US TO UPHOLD CITY CODE AND THE PROPERTY RIGHTS, I THINK EVERYONE INVOLVED HERE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY BOTH EVERYONE INVOLVED.
AS PROPERTY OWNERS HAS A LITTLE BIT OF SKIN IN THE GAME AND NOT KNOWING WHERE THEIR PROPERTY LINES ARE.
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE.
I THINK EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE HERE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE'S EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TO ALLOW THE HOUSE SLIGHTLY WITHIN THE SETBACK, HOW THE STAIRS ENDED UP FURTHER IN THE SETBACK.
SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION THAT THE CURRENT HOME OWNER TOOK.
FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, BUILDING A DECK, THERE IS A REQUIRED LANDING THAT NEEDS TO MEET CITY CODE.
WHILE WE JUST TALK ABOUT THE LANDING IN THIS PATIO HERE, I THINK SOME FORM OF LANDING, SORRY, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS THAT'S SHOWN I COULD GET BEHIND.
I AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONER'S WORDS THAT WHAT'S IN RED DOESN'T SEEM TO BE NECESSARY AND SHOULD BE REMOVED.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS IN TERMS OF THE NINE FOOT EXTENSION.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ISSUES WITH THAT, AGAIN, OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S IN RED.
AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE BOTH PARTIES ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER.
HOPEFULLY, YOU GUYS CAN FIND A SOLUTION OR WE CAN HELP PROPOSE A SOLUTION THAT MEETS, WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR A LANDING, BUT ALSO DOESN'T EXTEND INTO THE SETBACK.
THAT'S THERE. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT EROSION.
AGAIN, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS,
[02:20:01]
THERE'S GOING TO BE RUNOFF THAT FALLS ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO IMPROVE THAT, THAT'S GREAT, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S ALSO AN EXISTING CONDITION THAT WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, WHERE IT WAS BUILT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS JUST A RESULT OF THAT.
BUT IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO FIX ANY OF THAT EROSION RUNOFF AS WE RESOLVE THE PATIO ISSUE HERE.
I'LL STOP THERE AND SAVE MY WORDS FOR THE RETAINING WELFARE LATER.
YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PATIO, DO YOU FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO REMEDY IT WITH THIS RADIUS AND REDUCE THE SIZE? DO YOU THINK THAT FITS? WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE?
>> I WOULD NOT. I WOULD PREFER JUST WHAT'S IN GREEN, BASICALLY.
THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO CREATE A SAFE LANDING AREA AND HAVE IT LOOKS LIKE ROOM THERE TO GET OVER TO THE REST OF THE PATIO.
THE ADDITIONAL WHAT'S IN NEW AND RED THERE TO ME IS ADDING TO RUNOFF ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND IS WITHIN THE SETBACK, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE THAT I FRANKLY, AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF, CURRENTLY.
OKAY. I COULD BE CHANGED MY MIND, BUT THAT'S WHERE I STAND RIGHT NOW.
>> AS YOU BROUGHT IT UP, CAN I ASK STAFF? IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR A LANDING OR GUIDANCE AND CODE FOR A LANDING FOR A STAIRWAY?
>> THE BUILDING CODE WOULD DICTATE THAT, AND I AM NOT SURE IF IT HAS TO BE AN IMPROVED AREA OR JUST A LEVEL GRADE.
THAT IS A BUILDING OFFICIAL PER REALM.
>> I CONCUR AND A LITTLE TROUBLED BY THE PHRASEOLOGY OF, IT WAS WITHIN OUR LIVING AREA OR WITHIN OUR NATURAL LIVING AREA BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
I'M SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THAT ENCROACHMENT CAN GROW OVER TIME, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE UPHOLD OUR OWN PROPERTY RIGHTS.
I CONCUR THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE RED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME DRAINAGE OR PLANTING.
THE LAST THING WE WANT IS ALL OF THE WATER FROM THE ROOF AND THIS LARGER PATIO BEING DIRECTED ACROSS THAT VERY CLOSE PROPERTY LINE.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT PUSHING A BIT FURTHER BACK ON THAT DOTTED LINE IS NECESSARY HERE.
AGREE THAT SOME ROOM FOR A SAFE LANDING AT THE BOTTOM IS.
BUT LIKE MINIMIZING THE HARD COVER WITH DIFFERENTIATED IS [INAUDIBLE].
THEY GOING TO BE IMPORTANT HERE.
I'LL JUST SAY, I'M ALSO EMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA THAT, YOU'RE NOT ALWAYS CERTAIN WHERE YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINES ARE.
I'M A LITTLE UNCERTAIN ABOUT MY OWN HOUSE MYSELF, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY THESE PROCESSES EXIST.
IT IS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CERTAIN OF THESE THINGS MEASURE TWICE BEFORE YOU COME ON.
BODIES LIKE THIS GET A LOT OF CRITICISM FOR HOLDING THINGS UP, BUT I THINK THIS IS JUST A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY THESE PROCESSES EXIST HOMEOWNERS.
PROPERTY LINE. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT PULLING THAT PATIO BACK A BIT FURTHER.
>> I WOULD ALSO CHALLENGE THE FACT THAT WHAT IS SHOWN HERE ON GREEN AS PREVIOUS EXISTING WAS, IN FACT, PREVIOUS BECAUSE OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
I DO SEE A SMALLER RECTANGLE THAT KIND OF BIFURCATES THAT GREEN AREA THAT IS APPEARS TO BE MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH THE ROOF LINE PARALLEL, AND IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME IF THAT GREEN AREA WAS ACTUALLY, UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN IT'S BEING SHOWN ON THIS PARTICULAR DRAWING COMING FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> HOW DOES THE COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT A CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT LANDING AND THE EXTENSION OF THE PATIO? IT APPEARS THAT IT POTENTIALLY IF THAT LANDING WAS THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT PROBABLY CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING PATIO, CALL IT.
BUT EXTENDING THE PATIO, YOU'RE CREATING YOUR OWN CONDITION AND THEN ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION WITHIN THE STEP BACK.
I'M CURIOUS HOW EVERYBODY FEELS.
>> YEAH. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, COMMISSIONER MAKES A GOOD POINT, LIKE,
[02:25:04]
HE STATED THAT THAT DOTTED LINE THAT CURVES WAS A RETAINING WALL.IF THIS WAS ALL GRASS, THEN THERE WAS MAYBE AN IMPERVIOUS SMALL LANDING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS, BUT IT WAS DIRT BETWEEN THERE TO GET AROUND OR GRASS.
DO YOUR QUESTION, I THINK THAT WHAT'S THERE NEEDS TO STAY WHAT WAS THERE, AND IT'S A SMALL LANDING AT THE BODY AND IF THE CONNECTION GOES BETWEEN THERE AND OVER THE RED THAT I DON'T I DON'T SEE SUPPORT FOR IT.
I THINK IT SHOULD SAY GRASS OR MULCH OR SOMETHING.
>> IT'S VERY EASY TO PUT, LIKE, A SMALL STEPPING STONE OR TWO, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO EXTEND THE PATIO IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT CONNECTS FULLY.
IT ALSO COULD CONNECT TO THE LEFT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO CONNECT GOING TOWARDS A LAKE, IN MY OPINION.
>> THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON IT IS IT LOOKED LIKE THERE POTENTIALLY WAS A CONNECTION BEFORE, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO CONNECT TO THE NEW EXTENSION PORTION, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD, BECAUSE IT'S CONTIGUOUS.
IT'S ONE IS UNDER THE DECK OR ONE IS UNDER COVER AND ONE ISN'T.
I'M JUST GOING BACK TO, LIKE, IF WE WERE APPROVING THIS FROM AN APPLICATION, WOULD WE ALLOW ANYTHING IN THAT HARD COVER? OR IN THE SORRY, THE SETBACK SIDE.
I THINK A CONNECTION IS REASONABLE.
>> I MEAN, I CAN SEE WHERE THERE WOULD BE A VERY SMALL ALMOST WHERE THAT THIN BLACK LINE RECTANGLE IS.
THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE ABOUT THREE FEET AND IT CONNECTS TO THE LEFT.
BUT ALL OF THIS IS WITHIN THAT 7.5 FOOT SETBACK.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING ADDITIONAL PATIO TO BE BUILT BEYOND WHAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONNECT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS OVER TO THE LEFT.
>> I THINK BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ASKED RIGHT NOW IS TO GIVE DIRECTION.
>> I THINK WHAT WHERE I'D LIKE THE DISCUSSION TO GO HERE IS SO THAT WE CAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICANT'S WILLING TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS FROM WHAT HE'S PROPOSING FOR THIS, PATIO EXTENSION, WE'LL CALL IT AND HOW IT CONNECTS TO THE STAIRS AND THE PORTION THAT'S OVER THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE SETBACK.
SORRY. IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A CONSENSUS, CAUSE I FEEL LIKE NOBODY HERE, WELL, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ALL THE COMMISSIONERS YET.
BUT NOBODY FEELS THAT THIS MEETS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD APPROVE.
IF WE CAN GIVE HIM DIRECTION IN THE EVENT THAT I THINK I THINK THIS IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO GET TABLED, AND HE COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPROVE.
THAT'S WHERE I'M HOPING THE DISCUSSION AT LEAST ON THIS.
I THINK BASED OFF, THAT MY DIRECTION WOULD BE TO HAVE SOMETHING NEW DESIGNED THAT HAS A SMALL LANDING AND SHOWS US SOME OPTIONS OF HOW IT WOULD CONNECT TO THE EXISTING DECK.
I'M GOOD AT VISUALIZING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME LEEWAY TO SAY, HERE, SHOW US WHAT IT IS, KNOWING THAT WE WANT THE LEAST AMOUNT OF IMPACT.
IF IT'S PAVER STEPS THAT ARE SPACED OUT, AND IT LOOKS GOOD, AND IT IS GOING TO MINIMIZE THE RUNOUT WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
>> JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE THING.
FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND REDO THIS.
THE LANDING THAT'S IN THE GREEN THAT WAS EXISTING BEFORE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT'S AT A GRADE HIGHER THAN THE REST OF THE PATIO.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I SAID THAT BEFORE OR NOT.
BUT WHERE IT EXISTED BEFORE, THAT LANDING TO THE LEFT WERE ADDITIONAL STEPS TO GO DOWN TO THE PATIO.
AS IT EXISTS TODAY, TOO, CAN YOU BRING UP MY PICTURES FROM TODAY THEY SENT?
>> YOU'RE SAYING THE HARD COVER WAS THERE, BUT YOU'VE ACTUALLY CHANGED THE ELEVATION AND BROUGHT THAT UP.
>> I HAVEN'T CHANGED THE ELEVATION.
NO. IT WAS ALWAYS THE PATIO WAS ALWAYS LOWER THAN WHERE THE LAND IS FROM THE STEPS.
>> IT IS NO. YES, IT IS LOWER TODAY.
THE LANDING IS AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS IT WAS, AND IT'S THE SAME SIZE AS IT WAS.
PATIO IS AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS IT WAS.
IF YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE STEPS THERE?
>> YEAH. BRIAN, WERE THEY IN WERE THEY IN YOU AN EMAIL WITH THERE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BEFORE YOU GUYS GIVE ME SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD,
[02:30:04]
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNEW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.>> I GOT THE I'M LOOKING FOR IT.
BUT I GOT THE EMAIL WITH YOUR PAPER.
>> HOW ABOUT THE I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME MORE.
>> I DON'T THINK I HAVE AN TODAY. I'M NOT.
>> OKAY. THAT'S FINE. THANKS. MY POINT IS IS THAT WHEN YOU COME DOWN THE STAIRS AND YOU HIT THAT LANDING, YOU STILL HAVE A BIG DROP OFF TO GET TO THE THE ELEVATOR.
>> I CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY MR. ASKISON.
>> THAT THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR AS FAR AS THIS TRANSITION AREA THAT GOES THROUGH THE RED IS ADDITIONAL SPACE SO THAT I COULD STEP DOWN ONTO THAT OTHER PATIO.
I THINK THE COMMISSIONER MENTIONED BEFORE, JUST PUTTING A PAVER OR A STEPPING STONE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT YOU'RE AT, IT'S AT A SLOPE RIGHT THERE THAT I REALLY PUT THAT THERE.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO ON THIS DRAWING RIGHT HERE, THE STAIRS, THOSE ARE THE WOOD STAIRS THAT COME DOWN FROM THE DECK, CORRECT?
THEY'RE ALL PAD AT PAVER STAIRS.
>> WHERE IT SAYS STAIRS RIGHT THERE COMING DOWN FROM YOUR DECK.
>> THEN THEY LAND AT THE GREEN.
BEFORE YOU BUILT THIS EXTENSION, HOW DID YOU GET OFF OF THAT?
>> THERE WERE STEPS GOING DIAGONAL.
THAT'S THE DIAGONAL AREA THERE WHERE THE GREEN ARROW LANDS.
YOU WOULD TURN AND GO LIKE A TRIANGLE.
YEAH, YOU WOULD GO BACK AND ACCESS THE PATIO THAT WAY.
AND THEN THERE WAS THAT RETAINING SMALL RETAINING WALL RIGHT THERE TO SEPARATE THE EXISTING PATIO FROM THE DROP OFF TO THE GRADE.
>> THEN THAT GREEN AREA RIGHT THERE, WHERE IS THAT IN RELATION TO THE NEW PATIO? HOW HIGH UP IS THAT?
>> I ASK BEFORE YOU FINISH YOUR CONVERSATION.
>> YOU CAN GO BACK TO ACTUAL CERTIFIED SURVEY, WHICH THIS IS NOT.
YOU WILL SEE THAT THE PROPERTY LINE RUNS TO THAT TINY LITTLE STEP FIRST STEP.
ANYTHING BEYOND THAT CROSSES THE PROPERTY LINE. DO YOU SEE THAT? THE DARK BLACK LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT LITTLE TINY PART IS THE LANDING.
ANYTHING YOU APPROVE BEYOND THAT IS ON MY PROPERTY?
>> THE WHITE PART YOU'RE SAYING WAS THE EXISTING LANDING THAT MELANIE'S PUTTING HERE.
>> THAT IS THE ONLY PART THAT IS ON HIS PROPERTY.
>> IT'S STILL WITHIN THE 7.5 FOOT SETBACK, AND IT LOOKS.
>> I'M JUST SAYING ANYTHING BEYOND THAT NO MY PROPERTY.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT FUTURE PLANS ARE ON A SURVEY, AND NOT JUST A DRAWING, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS.
>> CAN I MAYBE PROPOSE IN GO AHEAD I MEAN INTERRUPT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THERE IS A LANDING THERE.
FROM WHAT I CAN KIND OF SEE IN A PACKET THAT MR. SMISON SUBMITTED, THERE IS I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOUR FOOT BY FOUR FOOT, BUT THERE'S A LANDING AREA THERE.
CURRENTLY, THERE'S STEPS THAT GO DOWN, AND THEN THERE'S MORE STEPS THAT GO DOWN TO THE YARD.
IT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE ASK FROM OUR COMMISSION IS TO LEAVE THE LANDING AREA THERE THAT YOU CAN SLIGHTLY SEE.
I ASSUME THERE'S NO MORE STEPS.
I ASSUME IT GOES FROM THOSE WOOD STAIRS TO THAT LANDING THAT LOOKS ABOUT FOUR FEET MAYBE.
INSTEAD OF CONTINUING THE STAIRS THERE AND THEN MORE STAIRS TO THE YARD.
THAT IS WHAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK.
REALLY, THAT LANDING AREA THAT WE CAN SEE SHOULD HAVE STAIRS TO THE RIGHT TO GET THEM TO THEIR EXISTING PATIO.
THAT'S WHAT I SEE AS A SOLUTION HERE.
I KNOW THAT'S NOT OUR JOB, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING EVERYONE CAN GET BEHIND ACCESS TO THE EXISTING STAIRS, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REST OF WHAT'S IN THE IMAGE THERE IS WITHIN THE SETBACK AND AND NOT NECESSARY.
[02:35:01]
>> WELL SAID. I THINK THE ONLY PORTION THAT WE'D BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING IN THE SETBACK WOULD BE A SMALL CONNECTION FROM THAT LANDING TO THE PREVIOUSLY BUILT PATIO THAT HEADS THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
LEAST IMPACT FOR ON THE NEIGHBOR.
I THINK WE COULD GET BY AGAIN THERE'S A CONNECTION.
IF NONE OF THAT NEW PATIO WAS IN THE SETBACK, DOES IT MEET AND CONFORM WITH CODE? AS IT'S AS FAR AS HARD COVER, ETC.
>> THE PORTION IS NOT IN THE SETBACK?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASSUMING I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION.
>> FROM MY READING, THE HARDCOVER REPRESENTS 24%. PREVIOUSLY IS 23%.
IT'S ARGUABLE, WHAT WAS THE PERSON THOUGHT IN MARCH OF 2015.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S FOR US TO DETERMINE TODAY.
OBVIOUSLY I'M IN THE POSITION OF TABLING THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON WHERE THINGS ARE GOING.
I CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH STAFF TO RECTIFY AND REPAIR SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES WITH THE NEIGHBOR.
MY HEART HURTS A LITTLE BIT FOR NEIGHBORS OF TEN YEARS TO BE HERE.
I HOPE THAT GETS PATCHED UP AND FIXED.
BECAUSE I AGREE WITH ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THIS I'M GOING TO GIVE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THAT THIS WAS NOT ON PURPOSE.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW PROPERTY LINES ARE EXISTING VERSUS HOW THEY'RE MAINTAINED THE VERY DIFFERENT IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS IN PARTICULAR.
I IN PARTICULAR FOUND OUT THAT MY PROPERTY LINE WENT HALFWAY INTO MY NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY.
IT'S BEEN IN MY FAMILY SINCE THE 60S.
I NEVER KNEW. WE FIXED IT THE RIGHT WAY.
WE DID A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FROM STAFF'S GUIDANCE AS TO HOW THEY RECOMMEND WE DO THAT.
IT WAS AN EQUAL SPLIT BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED, AND WE DID IT.
LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS ARE TRICKY. THEY'RE VERY TIGHT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE UNDULATIONS OF THE LOT LINE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THAT.
I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO HAVE A TAKE TONIGHT ON THE 7.5 VERSUS NINE FEET OR PAVERS OR FOR RETAINING WALL.
I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO AT LEAST FIX THE ENCROACHMENT FIRST AND FOREMOST.
LET'S ALL BE MINDFUL THAT THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE AN ENGINEERING REVIEWING STORMWATER RUNOFF OF WHATEVER IS BEING PROPOSED, WHETHER IT'S HERE OR LATER BECAUSE THAT IS ONE THING THAT'S IN PLACE WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION.
I'M GOING TO GIVE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE APPLICANT ALSO THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE A PERMIT, SIMPLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT I RECOGNIZE HE'S A PARK COMMISSIONER AND I APPRECIATE THAT VOLUNTEERING TO BE THERE FOR OUR CITY.
THERE'S GOING TO BE ALWAYS DIFFERENCES, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THEM AS WELL.
I NEVER KNEW THE APPLICANT BEFORE TONIGHT, AND I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALMOST EIGHT YEARS.
THAT JUST TELLS YOU HOW DIFFERENT WE ALL ARE.
WE ALL HAVE JOBS, AND I DON'T KNOW THE RULES ARE OF THE PARK COMMISSION.
I'M GOING TO GIVE THEM BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THAT MAYBE YOU DIDN'T KNOW NECESSARILY WHEN YOU'RE TRIGGERED TO PULL A PERMIT FOR REMOVING BRUSH VERSUS NOT.
BUT AGAIN, I'M GIVING BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT OF THAT LEEWAY JUST AS I WOULD ANY OTHER APPLICANT IN THIS CITY.
I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE TREE PROTECTIONS WITHIN THE 75 FOOT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.
REPLACING TREES THAT ARE IN THE 75 FEET.
MY UNDERSTANDING, STAFF, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
THERE'S STILL THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MITIGATED AND APPROVED TO BE DONE.
PLEASE INTERRUPT ME AND TELL ME THAT I'M WRONG.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
THAT BEING SAID, I'M WILLING TO MOTION TO TABLE THIS, GIVE IT SOME TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF AND FIND OUT WHAT'S REASONABLE.
I THINK THAT'S A STARTING POINT, AND HE'S ALREADY DEMONSTRATED HIS WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT.
I HOPE PAPERS CAN GET ALONG AGAIN.
>> THAT ADDRESSES THE PATIO ISSUE.
WE STILL NEED TO SPEAK TO WALLS TO GIVE DIRECTION THERE,
[02:40:01]
BUT I AGREE WITH YOUR INCLINATION TO TABLE THIS WITH YOUR DIRECTION, AND I AGREE IT'S BENEFICIAL THAT THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO WORK WITH STAFF IN THE CITY TO FIND A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.>> AS FAR AS THE RETAINING WALL IS CONCERNED MEMORIALIZING LAKE SHORE AND BLUFFS AND RETAINING WALLS.
WE'VE SEEN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES, EVEN RECENTLY, WE HAVE.
THEY'RE NOT FUN BECAUSE THE MOST RECENT ONE, WE ACTUALLY GAVE VERY CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE AND IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT IT ENDED UP WITH, AND THAT WAS UNFORTUNATE.
IT WAS A TOUGH CONVERSATION. WE GOT THROUGH IT.
BUT IT WAS A TOUGH CONVERSATION, AND NOBODY ENJOYS THEM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, INTENT IS IS NOT ALWAYS DETERMINED, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RETAINING WALL, I RECOGNIZE THE PUBLIC COMMENT BY THE NEIGHBOR OF CONCERN ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THAT.
I THINK THAT'S ONE REASON WHEN WE COME UP WITH OUR CITY LANGUAGE, TALKING ABOUT TWO FEET BEFORE WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AS A TRIGGER FOR A VARIANCE VERSUS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I THINK THAT'S VERY GLARING AS TO ONE OF THE REASONS, AS WELL AS THE MASSING BECAUSE IT BECOMES MORE PREVALENT TO EXIST WHEN IT'S MORE THAN TWO FEET.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE RELEVANT HERE.
AS FAR AS HOW THE PROPERTY WAS MAINTAINED AND WHETHER THE RUNOFF WAS IMPACTED FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, AGAIN, THAT'S ONE REASON WHEN YOU HAVE THESE APPLICATIONS, WE GET DIRECTION AND APPLICANTS GET DIRECTION FROM STAFF.
WHICH IS WHAT PUT ME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I EVEN APPLIED FOR THINGS STAFF GAVE ME DIRECTION, I APPLIED THE DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME.
ONE OF THEM WOULD BE ENGINEERING REPORTS AND OPINIONS ON CONDITIONS AND HOW THEY CAN BE MITIGATED AND WHETHER THEY ARE MITIGATING, WHETHER THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL, WHEN WE LOOK AT BLUFFS? WE WANT THAT ENGINEERING TO SAY THIS IS NOT GOING TO FAIL.
WE DON'T WANT TO COME BACK HERE AND DO IT AGAIN. ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
NOW THAT THIS IS AN APPLICATION, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE STRUCTURE AND REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL AT LEAST HELP.
BUT IT'S HARD TO GO BACK IN TIME AND FIGURE OUT IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MANAGED, THOSE TREES WERE BEING SAVED, OR THOSE TREES WERE BEING HINDERED OR POTENTIALLY DYING AFTER THE FACT, THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT.
BUT I THINK IF THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST LETTER THAT STATES THAT, TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT WOULD BE CALLING THAT PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST A LIAR AND I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I ADD A QUESTION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT WAS, IF THERE WAS A PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST THAT CONTRADICTED THAT OTHER ONE.
I'M SURE THERE'LL BE MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I WILL BE PREPARED TO MOTION TO TABLE THIS AND HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME BETTER CLARIFICATION AND MORE A DIRECTION AFTER THAT.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PERKEL, I THINK OBVIOUSLY THE STARTING POINT IS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT ENGINEER OR THAT ARBORIST OR THE LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECT OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED ON THIS TO A CHANGE THAT RETAINING WALL TO NOT ENCROACH ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FOR ONE THING.
FOR ANOTHER B, CAN YOU DO THAT WITHOUT EXCEEDING A TWO FOOT HEIGHT? IT ELIMINATES THAT PART OF THE VARIANCE WHERE IT JUST BECOMES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I LOVE THAT, BUT NOT AN ARCHITECT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE.
THEN SEE WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT NOT ONLY ENCROACHING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, BUT ENCROACHING WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK, WHATEVER WE DETERMINE THAT TO BE.
THE WALL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SETBACK AS WELL AS ENCROACHING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. IN MY OPINION.
>> FAST FORWARD, AGAIN, JUST GOING THROUGH THIS IN YOUR MIND, DO AND AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO TELL EVERYBODY ELSE HOW TO FEEL THAT'S WHAT'S AWESOME ABOUT THIS.
BUT I COULD SEE A LETTER COMING BACK SAYING THERE'S A TREE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THAT SETBACK.
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO NOT PUT A RETAINING WALL TO RETAIN THAT TREE ROOT STRUCTURE WITHOUT IMPOSING THE WALL WITHIN THE SETBACK.
THAT IS WHAT A VARIANCE IS FOR. AMONG OTHER THINGS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THAT'S WHY WE ASK A PROFESSIONAL TO WRITE THEIR A LETTER AND PUT THEIR STAMP ON IT.
I KNOW THAT OUR STAFF WILL PROBABLY DO A NICE JOB OF GIVING THAT DIRECTION.
I RAMBLED A LOT. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR STAFF.
[02:45:01]
THE CONDITIONS FOR ROUTINE IS STRICTLY TO FOR EROSION, IT'S NOT FOR TREE PRESERVATION. CORRECT.>> IF WE'RE NOW THAT WE'RE I THINK JUST SO THE APPLICANT CAN SEE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THIS, I THINK.
HOPEFULLY, UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT ON THE PATIO PIECE.
IF WE SEE A MODIFICATION, THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THAT MODIFICATION BECAUSE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US WE CAN'T APPROVE.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE RETAINING WALL, THAT'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION HERE.
I THINK IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT NOW BEFORE THE APPLICANT COMES BACK, SO WE CAN KNOW WHERE TO GO IF WE MODIFY IT.
I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY UP HERE IS IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED REMEDY FOR THE WALLS RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IN MY MIND, IT'S REALLY HARD TO GO BACK IN TIME, I SAID BEFORE.
IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE CODE REQUIRES ACTIVE EROSION TO CREATE A RETAINING WALL THERE, ESPECIALLY ONE OF THE SIZE.
WITH CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UNLESS IT'S UNDER TWO FEET.
IS THAT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION?
>> A WALL TWO FEET OR LESS CAN BE WITHIN THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> A VARIANCE OR WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVE.
>> WITHOUT A VARIANCE. STILL THE CUP IS STILL THERE?
>> THE CUP CONDITION IS STILL HAS TO PROVE THE EROSION.
>> BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
BUT THE SIDE LOT LINE, YOU'RE ALLOWED A WALL UNDER TWO FEET TO GO TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> TO GO TO UNDER TWO FEET CAN BE WITHIN THE SETBACK. TO THE PROPERTY LINE?
>> YES. OTHER CONDITIONS SUCH AS DRAINAGE AND THOSE THINGS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION.
>> GOT IT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON WHAT THEIR TAKE ON A SOLUTION FOR THIS WALL WOULD BE, WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE.
KNOWING THAT, I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE IS GOING TO APPROVE WHAT IS THERE.
>> JUST TO RESTABLE CLARIFY MY POSITION.
WE DO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE ARBIST STATING THAT THE TREES WOULD BE RATED OR THAT WAS THE REASON.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CONSTITUTES EROSION CONTROL OR NOT.
>> I SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING. IT DOES TO ME.
>> I GUESS THAT'S MY POSITION. I WOULD I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT BE LESS THAN TWO FEET OUTSIDE THE 7.5 FOOT SETBACK.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REAL.
I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT POSSIBLE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S POSSIBLE.
REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, I JUST WANT TO PREPARE FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT AND SAY, IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN I GUESS I WOULD BE WANT TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WAS, HAVE YOU EXPLORED OTHER O OTHER WAYS TO DO THIS? NO, I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO DO THIS.
I WANT TO KEEP THE TREES THERE.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR CONTEXT, COMMISSIONER RESSLER, ABOUT, WE'RE NOT EXPERTS IN THIS SPACE.
I GUESS MY THOUGHT PROCESS WOULD BE TO ENGAGE SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH A PLAN.
NOW, I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS HAVING CONTRADICTING EXPERTS.
THE NEIGHBORS FEELING COMFORTABLE OR CONFIDENT WITH THE EXPERT THAT WAS SELECTED, YOU ALMOST NEED, LIKE A NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY TO COME IN AND HELP CREATE A MITIGATION PLAN FOR HOW THIS COULD BE DEALT WITH IN A WAY THAT IS NEUTRAL AND NOT PRIORITIZING ONE NEIGHBOR OR THE OTHER.
>> I THINK THAT'S BEYOND OUR SCOPE.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATIONS IN FRONT OF US AND THAT APPLICATIONS EXPERT AND WHAT THEY BRING TO THE TABLE.
THEN OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S AN OTHER.
>> I THINK IT WOULD MEND FENCES, TOO.
>> I THINK ONE THING THAT WOULD HELP FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT IS TO HAVE OBVIOUSLY SURVEY DATA WHERE IT'S ACCURATE, SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WHICH WOULD ALSO PROVIDE CLARITY ON THIS EXHIBIT AS FAR AS WHOSE TREE ARE WE IMPACTING BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FROM A PROPERTY LINE NOT THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT RESOLUTION.
I THINK CLARITY ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THIS APPLICATION IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY AS FAR AS THE LAYOUT.
[02:50:01]
>> NO. THE NEIGHBOR THE RASMUS HAS THIS SURVEY.
IT DOESN'T SHOW THE EXTENT OF THE WALLS OR THE TOPOGRAPHY OR ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR OR A PERMIT ON THE FRONT END, I THINK THAT'S KEY TO STAFF WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO GUIDE THEM ON HOW AND WHAT TO CHANGE TO GET TO POINT WHETHER THEY NEED THIS VARIANCE ANYMORE FOR THE SETBACK OR WHAT, BUT THE RATERS WALLS ARE THERE.
>> I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT IF THE RASMUSSENS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR SURVEYS AND THEY'VE BEEN NOW FORCED TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, WHO PAYS FOR THE SURVEY THAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO RECTIFY WHAT'S ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY?
>> IT'S A CIVIL THING THAT WE DON'T GET INVOLVED IN.
BUT FOR THE APPLICATION, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED.
>> THE SURVEY WORK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY.
OBVIOUSLY, WHAT WE ASK FOR, FOR DATA IS AN EXTENSION OFF THE PROPERTY TO UNDERSTAND HOW ANY INCORRECT THAT NEIGHBOR, SO THERE IS A LITTLE BLEED OVER.
>> THE APPLICANT HASN'T PAID FOR PARDON.
WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME TO THIS AFTER THE FACT.
>> THEY DID NOT SUBMIT A SURVEY. I WOULDN'T ANSWER.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU. THAT ISN'T A REQUIREMENT OF THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALL.
>> HE ASKED FOR INFORMATION TO BRING THIS TO YOU AND TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS [INAUDIBLE].
>> WAIT, CLARIFICATION, AGAIN, IS IT A REQUIREMENT OF THE COP TO HAVE THE SURVEY?
>> WE NEED THE MOST INFORMATION POSSIBLE, SO YES.
TYPICALLY, THAT IS WHERE THAT INFORMATION COME FROM.
SOME OF THAT INFORMATION CAN BE A CERTIFIED SITE PLAN, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR AN ARCHITECT IN PREPARE.
BUT THE TYPE OF APPLICATION WILL DICTATE THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION THAT WE REQUIRED.
SURVEY IS REQUIRED FOR A NEW HOME OR DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT OR A NEW HOME OR A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION OR A PROJECT LIKE THIS CERTAINLY COULD TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A SURVEY.
>> IT'S AT STAFF'S DISCRETION.
>> WHAT WE NEED IS TO UNDERSTAND THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL, DRAINAGE PATTERNS.
SOMETIMES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND SOMETIMES OTHER PROFESSIONALS CAN PROVIDE THAT DATA.
TO SAY A SURVEY IS REQUIRED ISN'T NECESSARILY A STATEMENT THAT STAFF CAN MAKE.
HOWEVER, THAT TYPICALLY IS THE EASIEST WAY TO PROVIDE THAT DATA IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE IT ALREADY, OR IT ISN'T WORKING WITH LIKE A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OTHER PROFESSIONALS.
OFTENTIMES, MOST OF THE TIME YOU'LL SEE A SURVEY TO GIVE US THAT DATA.
BUT WHAT WE NEED IS THE TOPOGRAPHY, TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL, DRAINAGE PATTERNS TO REVIEW THESE RETAINING WALL INFORMATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY.
>> I CAN ORGANIZE MY OPINION HERE.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE RETAINING WALL NOT APPROACH UPON 7.5 FEET.
IF THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT HAS A PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO DO THAT.
BUT SURE I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT.
I'D LOVE FOR THE RETAINING WALL TO NOT EXCEED TWO FEET.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT SURE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
AS FAR AS THE PATIO PAVERS IS WITHIN 75 FEET, THAT'S A HARD ONE.
WE DON'T USUALLY HAVE A LOT OF LEEWAY.
MINOR AMOUNTS. MINOR IS ARGUABLE.
AS A PERCENTAGE, IT'S BELOW THE 25% HARDCOVER REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S SOMETHING I'M MINDFUL OF, BUT YET WE ARE STILL WITH THE 75 FEET.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD DEMONSTRATION TO IMPROVE WHERE IT IS, AS A MEANS FOR GETTING LATITUDE ON OTHER THINGS.
THIS APPLICATION, IF I CAN SAY THAT.
BUT, WE HAVE APPROVED WITHIN THE 75.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE BELOW THE 25% HARD COVER, WHICH WE ARE.
WE ARE NOT EGREGIOUSLY INCREASING THE HARD COVER AND BEING MINDFUL THAT WE ARE STILL GOING TO REQUIRE IT.
STORMWATER RUNOFF PLANS THAT SAYS
[02:55:01]
IT'S BEING MANAGED ON WHATEVER'S BEING PROPOSED. THAT'S HELPFUL TOO.THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A CONDITION FOR US.
THAT SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE DISAGREES WITH ANYTHING I SAID IF THEY WANTED TO BE NINE FEET BECAUSE THAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.
>> QUESTION ABOUT THE NINE FOOT OR THE 7.5 FOOT.
>> FOR TWO FOOT OR LESS WALLS.
>> OVER TWO FEET HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> UNDER TWO FEET CAN GO UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> SEVEN OR NINE DOESN'T APPLY.
>> THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SHE FOUND THAT SAYS AN IMPROVEMENT OR A STRUCTURE OVER A CERTAIN HEIGHT TRIGGERS THE FENCE.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT OVERLAPPING CODES, AND THE CODE THAT IS ALLOWING THE TWO FOOT HIGH WALL.
THE FIVE FOOT IS IN THE PRO-ENCROACHMENT SECTION, THE EMITTED ENCROACHMENTS. IT'S ALLOWED.
>> BUT ANYTHING OVER TWO FEET, SO IF WE GO TO A COMPIETIERED WALL OF TEN FEET.
>> THERE'S MULTIPLE THINGS THAT SHE HAD IN HER PRESENTATION, AND THEY DON'T ALL APPLY THE WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT DOESN'T APPLY, BECAUSE IT DID SEEM LIKE IT APPLIED BECAUSE IT WAS A COMBINED.
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT READING IT IN CONTEXT.
WE CAN REVIEW THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE APPLYING THE CODE CORRECTLY, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEBATE THAT HERE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE ANALYSIS.
I WILL SAY THAT THE PATIO AREA AND THAT SEVEN A HALF FOOT EXCEPTION, I DON'T HAVE A SURVEY FOR MR. ROTH'S PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT WIDTH OF HIS PROPERTY TO APPLY THAT SETBACK, AND WHEN WE MEASURED IT, THAT'S WHERE IT LANDED.
WE CAN CONFIRM THAT, AND I'LL WORK WITH PROPERTY OWNER ON THAT.
BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THE CODE WITH YOU TO THAT FENCE HEIGHT AND THOSE OTHER PIECES OF IT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, MISS CURTIS.
I'LL AMEND MY PERSPECTIVE HERE, I GUESS, KNOWING THAT IF IT'S LESS THAN TWO FEET OR TWO FEET OR LESS, I SHOULD SAY, IT CAN GO RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
I OBVIOUSLY, I'M SUPPORTIVE IF OUR CITY CODE ALLOWS IT TO BE THAT WAY.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT, AND EVEN BETTER IF IT'S ONLY TWO FEET OR LESS WITHIN THAT FIVE FEET.
IF IT'S MORE THAN THAT IN LEND OF THE PROPERTY LINE, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE THAT EVEN.
BUT AGAIN, IT STILL COMES BACK TO WHAT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR ARBORIST CAN COME UP WITH HOW TO MANAGE THIS BECAUSE IT STILL NEEDS TO PASS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
THAT'S THE ONE AMENDMENT THAT I GUESS I'LL MAKE TO THE COMMENTS.
IF ANYBODY DISAGREES WITH THAT OR HASN'T ANYTHING IN ADDITION, LET ME KNOW, OTHERWISE, I'LL MOTION THE TABLE BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK.
ALONG WITH THE FEEDBACK, JUST TO BE SUPER CLEAR.
I THINK THE APPLICANT ALREADY KNOWS, BUT TO TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
>> I THINK MUCH LIKE THE CHANGES TO THE PATIO, IT SEEMS WE SHOULD LEAVE THE APPLICANT SOME FLEXIBILITY HERE IN TERMS OF HOW THEY MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THE WALL TO BRING IT CLOSER TO CITY CODE.
I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY NEED TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I'M ALIGNED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT YOU OUTLINED.
OBVIOUSLY GETTING OFF LINE THERE.
IN ADDITION TO PROBABLY CONDUCTING A SURVEY.
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT CONFIRMS THAT EROSION.
THERE'S EROSION. I THINK NOT A PERSON WHO BUILT A WALL OR SOMETHING ELSE, BUT, LIKE, SOMEBODY TO COME UP AND SAY, YES, HERE IS A DISTINCTION OF EROSION, NOT WE THINK THESE OAK TREE DIE.
>> AGREED. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME AS WELL.
IT'S HARD TO GET THAT AFTER THE FACT, I THINK, TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT'S NOW BEEN RETAINED AND SAY, YES, THIS WAS EROSION, UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS PHOTOGRAPHS OR SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN BRING IN, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THIS.
>> I THINK, BUT YOU COULD ALSO LOOK AT IT THE OTHER WAY AND IT COULD BE CAN SOMEBODY JUSTIFY CREATING A SLOPE THAT DOESN'T CREATE EROSION REMOVING THE RETAINING.
UNDO IT WITHOUT FURTHER EROSION.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD ALSO ADD TO
[03:00:01]
COMMISSIONER RESSLER'S POINTED FEEDBACK IS THE DISCUSSION AROUND FURTHER SCREENING WITH ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REQUIRE GENERALLY, AND IT DOES LOOK QUITE BARE RIGHT NOW.>> TYPICALLY A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS ACCOMPANIED WITH THESE TO SHOW HOW THE RETAINING WALL BE SCREENED, ET CETERA.
>> I WILL SAY I VISITED THE PROPERTY AND RESEARCHING IT WAS MUCH BETTER COVERED.
>> THE GOOD SPOT MAYBE FOR SCREENING WOULD BE THE TOP OF THOSE LEDGES.
AGAIN, YOU BACK, WE HOPEFULLY GIVING SOME DIRECTION FOR THIS TO COME BACK.
I'M GOING TO MOTION TO TABLE LA 25-36 FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BASED ON THE DISCUSSION.
>> A MOTION TO TABLE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PERK.
>> ONE THING I JUST WANT TO ADD BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONTINUITY AROUND THIS.
I THINK WITH ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE HARD COVER FOR THE PAVERS, WE NEED A REAL HARD COVER CALCULATION.
THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, NOT SELECTED ONES.
>> WE HAVE THAT APPLICATION, DON'T WE?
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE A HARD COVER CALCULATION.
>> IT INCLUDED A HARD COVER WORKSHEET.
I PROPOSED WELL, EXISTING HARD COVER IS TOTAL LOT AREA OF 27,859, WHICH IS 23%.
PROPOSED IS 27,859, WHICH IS 24% ROUGHLY IS THAT A 400 LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FOOT DIFFERENCE.
I JUST I BELIEVE IT GUIDES FOR 25%.
IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WERE SOME THINGS LIKE THE FIRE PIT MISSING AND SOME OTHER THINGS.
>> THAT'S THE SITE SURVEY SHOULD HELP YOU ACCOUNT FOR THOSE.
>> YEAH. THIS IS FROM 23 OF 25.
>> SITE SURVEY THAT STAFF RECEIVES, WOULD BE ABLE TO VERIFY THOSE NUMBERS WHEN WE DO GET THAT.
>> WELL. WE HAVE A DISCUSSION.
>> WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS MOTION WITH ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THIS BODY, OR WILL THAT BE SUMMARIZED BY.
>> THERE WON'T BE A DIRECTION, I'LL BE COMING BACK TO US, AND THEN STAFF WILL AND SINCE THE APPLICANT IS HERE, HE CAN SEE OUR WISHES.
THAT BEING SAID, HE COULD COME BACK WITH THE EXACT SAME APPLICATION.
IT'S UP TO THEM. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WILLING.
I THINK THERE IS WILLINGNESS HERE TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING THAT IS THAT WE CAN APPROVE.
THE NEIGHBORS WILL BE HAPPY WITH.
I'M GLAD THAT EVERYBODY'S SITTING IN A ROOM TOGETHER, TRYING TO WORK OUT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
MOTION CARRIES BE TABLED INTO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
[Other Items]
>> GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
TONIGHT, I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE AN INFORMAL UPDATE ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
THEY REVIEWED A HANDFUL OF APPLICATIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WORKED THROUGH, INCLUDING PROJECTS ON DUNWOODY, WEST POINT, FERNDALE, AND THEN A FINAL PLATE ON SIXTH AVENUE.
ALL WERE APPROVED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.
THEY HEARD THE APPLICATION ON ORCHARD BEACH FOR THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, WHERE THERE WAS A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF RECOMMENDING DNILE AND PLAN COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE BUILDING AND BUILDING SET-BACK.
THE APPLICANT AMENDED THEIR PLANS TO MEET THE TEN FOOT SET-BACK AT YOUR DIRECTION.
BUT THROUGH THE REVIEW OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORES, COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
FOR THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SET-BACK.
THAT RESOLUTION WILL BE GOING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AS THEY WERE JUST GIVING DIRECTION AT THE LAST MEETING.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE ARE THE UPDATES ON THE LAST SET OF APPLICATIONS THAT YOU SAW.
STAFF'S HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WHICH APPLICATION DID YOU SAY THE CITY COUNCIL REJECTED?
THEY WERE ASKING FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK TO SUPPORT A PATIO POOL PROJECT THEY WERE DOING.
THERE WERE TWO VARIANCES THAT YOU GUYS SAW.
[03:05:01]
THEY MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS.THEY WERE ONLY ASKING FOR THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL.
BUT THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED NOT SUPPORTING THAT VARIANCE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE HAS ANYTHING? OTHERWISE, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> ANY OPPOSED? [BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.