[1. Call to Order] [00:00:04] WELCOME, EVERYBODY. IT'S THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'D LIKE TO START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [3. Approval of Agenda] I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. I'LL SECOND. A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JARNOT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. SECOND ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 18TH, [4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of August 18, 2025] 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION. I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 18TH PLANNING COMMISSION. I'LL SECOND THAT. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL. A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. [5.1. LA25-000038, Grizzly Construction o/b/o James Morrison, 1384 Baldur Park Road, Variances, Public Hearing] BRINGS US TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. LA25-38. THIS IS GRIZZLY CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF JAMES MORRISON FOR 1384 BOULDER PARK ROAD. THIS IS FOR MULTIPLE VARIANCES. MISS CURTIS. IS IT ON THE WRONG HDMI? OH. YOU KEEP. I'LL CHECK INTO IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON BOULDER PARK ROAD, WHICH IS A PENINSULA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING LAND USE APPROVALS TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A NEW HOME, INCLUDING A LOT AREA, A LOT WITH VARIANCE 75 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE, HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO EXCEED 25% FOR THE SITE OVERALL, AND HARD COVER VARIANCE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. THE SITE WAS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE SETBACK FROM THE NORTHERN LAKESHORE. THE PROPOSAL IMPROVES THE SETBACK ON THE SOUTH BY 13FT. THEY'VE REMOVED A 737 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE WHICH WAS LOCATED 42FT FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL, SHOWN IN GRAY. AND THEY ARE ADDING THE, THE NEW ATTACHED GARAGE WILL BE 55FT FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL ON THE SOUTH. THEY ARE REFLECTING A 1240 SEVEN SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION OF HARD COVER WITHIN THE COMBINED NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN 75 FOOT SETBACK AREAS. THE PROPOSED PLAN IS MAINTAINING THE OVERALL EXISTING HARD COVER. THE APPLICANTS HAVE RESPONDED TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CRITERIA AND A SHORT NARRATIVE. THEY'RE BOTH INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AS EXHIBIT C. STAFF FINDS THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE SUPPORTING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE AND ARE SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. THE REQUEST FOR HARD COVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES RESULTS IN THE PROPERTY'S INABILITY TO CONFORM TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LOT AREA AND WIDTH STANDARDS. THEREFORE, THE LOT SIZE VARIANCES ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST. THE 75 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR NEW BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS, DIFFERENT NEW BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK AREA. THEIR PLAN APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD ON BOULDER PARK, AND ALTHOUGH THEY'RE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING HARD COVER LEVEL, THEY PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE APPLICATION, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL INQUIRING ABOUT THE APPLICATION. I PROVIDED THE PLANS TO THEM. I DID NOT HEAR BACK AFTER DOING THAT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS APPLIED BEFORE CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. STAFF IS ASKING THAT THE APPLICANT REVISE HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEETS TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED HARDCOVER WITHIN BOTH THE 75 FOOT SETBACK AREAS AND JUST UPDATE THE PROPOSED SURVEY TO REFLECT THE SOUTHERN 75 FOOT SETBACK LINES. I DREW IT IN, IT GOES THROUGH THE THE ATTACHED GARAGE, BUT THEY SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE SURVEY FOR CLARITY. PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD MAKE A MOTION THIS EVENING TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. REVISION OF THE HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEETS AND UPDATE THE SURVEY TO SHOW THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK LINE ON THE SOUTH. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ON THE HARDCOVER. IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXISTING IS 32.5%. THEY'RE PROPOSING 32.6%. ONE FOOT IS THERE. THE CORRECTION YOU WANT THEM TO MAKE ON THE CALCULATIONS IS THAT ACCOUNT FOR ANY OF THIS DISCREPANCY, [00:05:04] OR IS THIS IS THAT ARE THOSE NUMBERS ACCURATE THAT I JUST READ? I BELIEVE THEY'RE ACCURATE. I JUST USED THEIR NUMBERS AND REFIGURED IT AND GOT MORE SPECIFIC WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE TENTHS OF A PERCENT. JUST FOR CLARITY, BUT I GUESS THE DISCONNECT ON OF THE 75 FOOT SETBACK HARDCOVER SHOULD BE CLEAR. I HAD TO PULL OUT THE THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE HARDCOVER AND CALCULATE AND AND JUST RECONFIGURE IT SO IT WAS REPRESENTED CORRECTLY. I SEE. OKAY. SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THESE NUMBERS THAT WERE. NO IT DOESN'T. IT JUST CORRECTLY PLACES IT WHERE IT BELONGS. PERFECT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION QUICKLY BECAUSE MY WI-FI IS OFF. AND ARE WE RECORDING AND ARE WE LIVE ON THE WEBSITE? YEP. SO I CROSS-CHECKED IT AND WE ARE LIVE STREAMING ON THE WEBSITE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING DISCONNECTED LOCALLY INTERNALLY TO THIS TV SHOWING. BUT I DO HAVE IT AND IT IS SHOWING LIVE STREAMING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? IF NOT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC OR IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU WISH TO. BASICALLY, I THINK MELANIE KIND OF OUTLAID EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS DECREASING THE ACTUAL HARDCOVER. I THINK IT WAS 33% WERE GOING DOWN TO 32 IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT RIGHT. AND THEN I ALSO THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ERROR. WE'RE ALSO DECREASING THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. I THINK WHEN THE SURVEYOR PUT HIS CALCULATIONS IN ON THE DRAFTSMAN FOR THIS PROJECT, WHEN THE SURVEYOR PUT HIS CALCULATIONS IN, I THINK HE WAS INCLUDING A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WEREN'T ACTUALLY IN THE FOOTPRINT, SUCH AS THE EGRESS PIT. AND I THINK THE CHIMNEY THAT'S BEING TAKEN OFF THE PROPERTY. SO WE SHOULD BE 19.6%, I THINK, INSTEAD OF THE 20%. BUILDING COVERAGE? FOR BUILDING COVERAGE. SO THAT SHOULD BE EVEN BETTER. I THINK IN ALL CASES, WE'RE REALLY IMPROVING THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING RID OF A LOT OF THE HARD SURFACE THAT WAS CLOSER TO THE WATER. AND ALL IN ALL, I THINK IT'S GOING TO FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRETTY GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I JUST HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION IF I COULD. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M READING IT RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY MR. CHAIR, BOLLIS WAS ASKING. TYPICALLY WE LIKE TO SEE AN IMPROVEMENT NOT A CALL IT AN INCREASE IN HARDCOVER AND ANY OTHER OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE TRY TO KEEP SETBACKS AS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE EXISTING. I CAN SEE THAT IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY YOU'RE DRASTICALLY IMPROVING THE HARDCOVER WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE TOTAL HARDCOVER. REGARDLESS OF THE SETBACK YOU HAD MENTIONED, IT WAS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM 33 TO 32. RIGHT NOW, AS IT'S IN THE APPLICATION, IT'S ACTUALLY 0.1% MORE THAN EXISTING. JUST BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK, IT MIGHT BE JUST A CALCULATION LIKE YOU MENTIONED. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO COMMIT THAT WE WOULD BE DOING A REDUCTION IN TOTAL HARDCOVER. IN SOME CAPACITY. NOT NOT AN INCREASE AS PART OF YOUR APPLICATION. WELL, BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S MY INTERPRETATION WAS 33% AND WE'RE AT 32.6. AND THEN WHAT WAS THE OTHER FIGURE YOU GAVE US, MELANIE? 32.5. SO THE POINT 1%, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT IS. SO WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING THAT, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, BUT I THINK IT'S PRETTY NEGLIGIBLE. SURE IT IS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S THE EXISTING HARDCOVER IS CALCULATED AS 3909FT², AND AS PROPOSED IS 3910. YEAH. SO JUST A MATTER OF A BINARY OF IT. IF YOU IF WE CAN MAKE THAT 3908, IF YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO EITHER HAVE THAT CALCULATION REFLECTED IT'S AN. I'M SURE WE COULD TAKE A POINT. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. 10% OUT OF SOMETHING. EVEN TWO FEET. RIGHT? TWO SQUARE FEET. IT'D PROBABLY BE LESS THAN THAT. EXACTLY. YEAH. THAT WOULD MAKE MAKE OUR JOB A LITTLE EASIER. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION ON THAT. OKAY. THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. SO FIRST, JUST FROM CLARIFICATION STANDPOINT, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT? [00:10:07] THREE, FOUR MONTHS? FOUR MONTHS? THREE MONTHS. YEAH. AND WHEN YOU FIRST PRESENTED IT TO THE CITY, WHAT WAS THE TOTAL STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER THAT YOU PRESENTED THE FIRST TIME? WELL, IT WAS CONSIDERABLY MORE I WELL, I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH. SO YES, THEY PROVIDED AN ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR THIS APPLICATION THAT STAFF COULD NOT SUPPORT. IT DID REFLECT LIKE 21.8% BUILDING COVERAGE. THE HOME WAS IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THERE WERE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SIDE SETBACKS. AND THEY THEY SHOWED A POOL IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. SO WE DISCUSSED THAT AND WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE. AND THEY TURNED THE PLAN AROUND VERY QUICKLY. AND WITH THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE HERE, I THINK THERE WAS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, 38%, YES, 38% HARDCOVER. SO THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS KIND OF IN LIMBO, RIGHT? IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGES, IT SAYS STILL TO BE UPDATED FOR WHAT THE ACTUAL HOUSE LOOKS LIKE. THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THIS LOT. WELL, THE HOUSE WILL LOOK BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE HOUSE HAS FOUR STALLS. SO THEY'VE GIVEN US A REVISED BUILDING FOOTPRINT THAT REFLECTS THE SURVEYED FOOTPRINT. THE ELEVATION VIEWS AND THE REST OF THE PLANS HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED, BUT I INCLUDED THEM IN THE PACKET TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA. I MEAN, BASICALLY THIS THIS AREA HERE, THIS FOYER AREA IN THE BREEZEWAY IS HAS BEEN REDUCED AND PULLED BACK. AND THEY MADE THE CHANGE TO THE GARAGE. OKAY. COULD YOU GO TO THE PICTURE SLIDE SIX. PHOTOS. YEAH. THAT WERE IN THERE. SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS THIS IS ABOUT SO THIS IS THE GARAGE THAT'S IN THE SETBACK, CORRECT? YEP. THAT IS EXISTING RIGHT HERE. AND CODE SAYS A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING CANNOT GO ANY LARGER. CORRECT. AND THAT'S BOTH STRUCTURALLY AS WELL AS ELEVATION. CORRECT. THEY NEED VARIANCES. SO THE PROPOSAL HAS THAT GARAGE GOING FROM ABOUT TEN 12FT TO 32, IF I'M CORRECT ON THE PLANS. WELL YEAH, BUT THAT'S WAY IN FRONT OF THE. WELL, THAT'S ONLY ABOUT HALFWAY BECAUSE THE NEW PLANS SHOW GOING HALFWAY THROUGH THE GARAGE, SO. WELL, YOU'RE STILL IN THE 75 SETBACK. YOU'RE GOING FROM 12FT TO 32FT, WHICH IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. CORRECT. THEY NEED VARIANCES. THEY NEED A VARIANCE TO GO TO. THAT IS THE THIS IS THE PROCESS FOR. I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE THIS ISN'T JUST A STRUCTURAL. THIS IS IF YOU TOOK THE VOLUME STANDPOINT, THE VOLUME COMBINING BOTH SIDES WITH THE HEIGHT IS GOING TO BE ABOUT THE SAME. NO, IT'S IT'S LARGER. THE HOME FOOTPRINT IS LARGER THAN THE EXISTING. COMBINED WITH THE TWO. I'M JUST TALKING I DID SOME MATH. SO IF YOU TAKE THE STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT JUST WITHIN 75FT OF THE LAKE, MULTIPLIED BY THE NEW ELEVATION VERSUS THE OLD ELEVATION, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ADDING A LARGER VOLUME OF STRUCTURE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. TRUE ON THE. IF YOU GO TO THE SLIDE SEVEN IN THE PHOTOS, MY CONCERN THEN COMES FROM HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES AROUND IT? SORRY, THE NEXT ONE AFTER THIS. SO THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE HAD BAY WINDOWS SPECIFICALLY SET UP TO LOOK OVER THE GARAGE INTO THE BAY ON THE OTHER SIDE. THIS NEIGHBOR, THAT NEIGHBOR. AND IF YOU GO BACK TO FIVE TO SEE THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE ONE MORE SLIDE. YOU CAN ONE MORE FORWARD. FROM STREET LEVEL, YOU CAN SEE THE WINDOWS OF THE OTHER HOUSE LOOKING OVER TO GET LAKE VIEWS OF THAT. IF I'M GOING TO JETTISON THAT FROM 10 TO 32FT, I'M ALL OF A SUDDEN GOING TO TAKE ALL THAT LAKE VIEW AWAY FROM BOTH OF THOSE. YEAH, THAT IS TRUE. YEP. WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT MUCH FAR FORWARD. THE OTHER IF YOU COULD GO TO TWO ON THAT SLIDE TWO ON THIS ON THE PHOTO SLIDES. YEP. MY OTHER CONCERN IS WHEN I LOOK AT WHERE ALL OF THOSE HOUSES ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET SITS, THIS NEW HOUSE AS PROPOSED PROPOSED, IS GOING TO JETTISON ABOUT 30FT CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN EVERYTHING NEARBY ON THE SOUTH SIDE. ON THE SOUTH SIDE. SO IT'S GOING TO CREATE AN INTRUSION FOR EVERYTHING AROUND THERE. AND A VIEW FROM THE LAKE IS NOW GOING TO SEE THIS ODD HOUSE THAT'S STICKING FARTHER OUT FROM ALL THE REST OF THE HOUSES. IT'LL BE A LARGER MASS OF HOME THERE. YES. THERE'S NO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IN THEORY THERE STILL IS, BECAUSE IT IS A LAKESIDE AND WE STILL WANT TO MAINTAIN A LAKE, RIGHT? BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. BUT THERE IS NO THERE'S NO VIEW PROTECTION ON THAT SIDE FOR THAT. BUT IT IS STILL SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY VALUE. ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S THE NEIGHBORS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT IS NOW THEY HAVE NOT. BUT YES, THERE THERE WILL BE A MORE MASS IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK ON THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE. [00:15:02] IT'LL BE FURTHER FROM THE LAKE, BUT IT WILL BE DEFINITELY TALLER. AND MY OTHER QUESTION THEN, FOR YOU, JUST AS YOU'VE LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY, HAVE YOU CONFIRMED THAT THAT THE LARGE MASS OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS OVER THE CODE? HAVE YOU CONFIRMED THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY PERMITTED AND IS A LEGAL, NONCONFORMING DRIVEWAY? WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT REFLECTS THAT IT IS NOT. I, IF YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL OVERVIEWS FROM 94, THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY THERE BECAUSE THAT WASN'T A PAVED ROAD AT THAT POINT IN TIME. AND ANYTHING PAST 92, IF I'M READING THE CODE CORRECTLY, WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAD A VARIANCE. RIGHT. BUT WE HAVE NOT ACTIVELY ENFORCED A VIOLATION ON THAT. TYPICALLY, IF WE ENCOUNTER SOMETHING THAT IS A VIOLATION, WE TRY TO ADDRESS IT AT THAT TIME. IF SOMETHING FROM A HARD COVER STANDPOINT, WHICH IT DOES APPEAR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DO PAVING, THEY PAVE THEIR DRIVEWAY WIDER, THERE'S BEEN INCONSISTENCIES OVER THE YEARS OF WHETHER OR NOT A HARD COVER PERMIT WAS REQUIRED. CURRENTLY, WE DO REQUIRE A HARD COVER PERMIT. IN THE PAST WE DID NOT. SO THERE WASN'T A PERMIT NEEDED TO PUT ANYTHING AFTER 92 REQUIRED A PERMIT? NO, NOT HARD COVER PERMIT. STRICTLY A HARD COVER PERMIT. NO, WE HAVE HARD COVER REGULATIONS. AND THOSE REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED IN 92 FROM THE SHORELINE ORDINANCE. BUT THE PERMITTING ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN. WE HAVE NOT REQUIRED A CONSISTENT HARD COVER PERMIT. I APOLOGIZE. WE HAVE, THOUGH, SINCE 92 REQUIRED A VARIANCE FOR ANYTHING OVER 25%. YES. SO THAT DRIVEWAY PUTS IT OVER 25%. THAT DRIVEWAY WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VARIANCE TO GO OVER 25%. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, I'M. GO AHEAD. JUST FOR STRUCTURE OF THE MEETING, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR DISCUSSION FOR ALL OF US. ABSOLUTELY. ANY QUESTIONS? RIGHT NOW, MAYBE JUST A QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER. MAYBE IN THE SAME LINE, IN THE SAME VEIN, BUT THEN THE REST OF US CAN PARTICIPATE AS WELL IN THAT AFTERWARDS, IF THAT WORKS. YEAH. NO APOLOGIES. OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. YEAH. I THINK ONE THING TO ADDRESS ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS IS THE HOUSE TO THE NORTHEAST IS ALMOST ENTIRELY WITHIN THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK. SO BY PULLING THIS HOUSE BACK I THINK THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE YOU COULD REALLY DO WITH THIS THING, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THAT HOUSE WAY FARTHER FORWARD. THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH IS PRETTY MUCH CONFORMING, SO TRYING TO GET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THESE TWO IS, I THINK, WHAT THE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS GOING TO PROBABLY BE THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THAT. SO I WAS WONDERING IF YOU LOOKED AT THIS STRIP OF HOUSES, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, DID YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY GARAGE STALLS ARE TYPICAL WITHIN THESE HOMES? I NOTICED A FEW OF THEM. MOST OF THEM ARE THREE NOWADAYS THERE'S A, BUT. NO, I HAVEN'T TRIED TO COMPARE THAT. OKAY. JUST I DROVE BY HERE BECAUSE IT WAS ON MY WAY HOME. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE ONE NORTHEAST, BUT EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ALONG THAT ROAD IS TWO STALLS FACING THE STREET, AND IT WAS TO REDUCE THE HARDCOVER FROM THE DRIVEWAY. THANKS. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NOBODY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. I CAN START. I THINK THIS IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A A PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR IT THAT WE NEVER SAW. THAT WAS QUITE A BIT MORE HARDCOVER, MORE MASSING, ETC.. TO COMMISSIONER WILSON'S POINT, THE SOUTH LAKESHORE. YES. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE MASSING WITHIN THAT 75, BUT THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SIDE IS WHERE WE'RE CONCERNED WITH THE MASSING AS FAR AS AND THIS THIS PROPERTY HAS TWO OF THOSE SETBACKS WITHIN IT, WHICH MAKES IT VERY UNIQUE, I THINK. AND THAT'S WHEN WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, YOU'VE GOT TWO 75 THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET. YOU'VE GOT A VERY SMALL BUILDING ENVELOPE. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO US IS TAKING THE EXISTING STUFF AND SHRINKING IT DOWN AS MUCH AS THEY CAN. GETTING IT AWAY FROM THE VIEW SHEDS THE MAIN VIEW SHEDS OF THE LAKE. THE ONES THAT ARE THAT KIND OF. WE'RE BOUND TO PROTECT BASED ON THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. [00:20:01] SO AND WHETHER IT HAS 2 OR 3 CAR STALL GARAGE, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN REALLY COMMENT ON THAT, BUT YOU THINK I CAN PARTIALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT THIS IS A CONSTRAINT LOT. I THINK WHERE I LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE, IT CAN'T BE SOMETHING THAT'S A SELF-IMPOSED PRACTICALITY OR DIFFICULTY, RIGHT? IF I'M GOING TO SHIFT THE GARAGE AS IT IS IN THAT PLAN, SO THAT THEY'RE EXITING OUT THE LEFT, CREATING A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE TURN TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENTRY TO THAT, AND THEN NARROW THE STRUCTURE SIZE AND THEN FORCE TO BRING IT FORWARD BECAUSE I NARROWED IT, THAT'S MORE OF A SELF-INFLICTED PRACTICE DIFFICULTY THAN IF I HAD THE CAR, THE GARAGE, AND MATCHING THE REST OF THE HOUSES AND THEN EXPANDED THE WIDTH. RIGHT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT ON THE BLUE BOX. I THINK IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT BLUE BOX AND GOT RID OF DRIVEWAY AND REPLACED IT WITH STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER AND HAD IT MORE IN LINE WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? EVERY OTHER HOUSE IS A TWO STALL GARAGE FACING THE STREET. THEY HAVE A NARROW DRIVEWAY TO HELP MINIMIZE. THEY WERE ALL BOUND INTO THIS. I'VE GOT TO STAY UNDER 25%, SO I'VE GOT TO MAKE SOME TRADE OFFS BETWEEN DRIVEWAY AND HOUSE AND DESIGN AND LAYOUT. I THINK YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO A 20% HARDCOVER INSIDE OF THAT BLUE BOX, JUST WITH LOOKING AT ALL THE NEGATIVE SPACE THERE AND HAVING A HOUSE THAT ISN'T PROTRUDING AS FAR TO THE LAKE AND BLOCKING THE THE VIEWS OF THE OTHER ONE, AND THEN IT FALLS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT SOUTHERN. THAT WAS ALSO MY CONCERN. AND THIS SHOWS OF FOUR STALL GARAGE. RIGHT. THEY'VE REDUCED IT RIGHT TO THREE. THE, SO THE THE ELEVATION PLANS THAT ARE IN THE PACKET ARE NOT REVISED. THE FOOTPRINT IS. THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO REVISE THE ENTIRE ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE MAKES IT REALLY HARD. MELANIE, COULD YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL, PLEASE? BECAUSE I THINK THE HOUSE DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH HAS THE SAME ORIENTATION OF A GARAGE, BUT THAT'S A POINT EIGHT ACRE LOT. CORRECT. BUT BUT IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE TWO POINT, THE POINT TWO EIGHTS, WHICH ARE ALL THE OTHER ONES, THEY'RE ALL CONFORMING THE SAME. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AND JUDGING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE HAVE TO. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT CAN'T BE SOMETHING SELF-INFLICTED, RIGHT? BY THE APPLICANT. BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT IS INHERENT TO THE LOT HAVING THE DOUBLE SETBACK ON IT, THEY DIDN'T CREATE THE DOUBLE SETBACK. THEY DIDN'T CREATE THE LOT. NO. I'M JUST PROPOSING SAYING THAT APPLICATION, THE PARTICULAR PROPOSAL THAT THEY HAVE IS CREATING THE CONFLICT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT CREATING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, THOUGH. THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS INHERENT TO THE LOT. AND THEY'RE JUST SAYING THIS IS THE CONFIGURATION WE WOULD LIKE OF OF THE PROJECT. AND WE'RE STAYING WITHIN. WE'RE STAYING WITHIN THE WE'RE ACTUALLY ALL OF THE SETBACKS ARE IMPROVING. ALL OF THE HARDCOVER IS IMPROVING. AND EVEN THE STRUCTURAL BUILDABILITY IS IMPROVING. EVERY SINGLE. I HAVE A REAL ISSUE WITH THAT HARDCOVER BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH EVERY CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM BACK TO 92. THIS LOT HAS NEVER HAD A VARIANCE IN IT, SO WELL, NOBODY'S COMPLAINED TO IT. I DON'T THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE A FREE PASS FOR SOMEBODY TO SAY, HEY, I GET ALL THIS EXTRA HARDCOVER TO JUSTIFY DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S A BIG STRUGGLE FOR ME. WHEN OUR STAFF HAVE DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB OF DIGITIZING EVERYTHING, I CAN GO TO THE SITE AND DO A GOOGLE SEARCH AND FIND EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SO I CAN SAY THAT IT ISN'T. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, BOTH OUR CODE AND STATE LAW SAYS THAT IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE IT. IT'S THE APPLICANT. THEY HAVE TO PROVE TO US THAT THAT HARD COVER IS LEGAL, NOT US. MY CONCERN ALIGNS WITH THAT IN THAT WHILE THEY ARE SHOWING A PLAN THAT DECREASES THE HARD COVER AND DECREASES THE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, THERE APPEARS TO BE AN ORIENTATION OF THE GARAGE THAT IS A MORE EFFICIENT REDUCTION IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK AND THE HARD COVER SETBACK THAT STILL IS WOULD BE CONFORMING WITH THE SURROUNDING HOMES. THAT'S MY THAT'S MY CONCERN IS I KNOW THEY THEY PREFER IT THIS WAY, BUT THERE IS CERTAINLY ROOM TO HAVE A TWO STALL GARAGE THAT YOU DRIVE STRAIGHT INTO. THAT IS MUCH MORE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK AND FURTHER REDUCES HARD COVER. I JUST WANT TO SPEAK UP AS WE TALK ABOUT THE GARAGES COMING FROM A A BUILDER THAT MASS PRODUCES HOUSES, OUR BIGGEST COMPLAINT IS THAT THE GARAGES FACE THE STREET. AND SO HONESTLY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING FURTHER DOWN EAST TOWARDS THE ROAD HERE WHERE YOU HAVE ALL THOSE DETACHED GARAGES FACING LOOKS LIKE A COUPLE FEET OFF [00:25:03] THE MAIN ROAD. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE AN IMPROVEMENT. AND ALTHOUGH WE CAN'T GO BACK IN ALL THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF WHAT WAS APPROVED AND NOT APPROVED WITH WHAT IS THERE I, I FRANKLY AM QUITE IN FAVOR OF A LOT OF WHAT'S PROPOSED BEING THAT THEY'RE IMPROVING FOUR OF THE FIVE SETBACKS WE HAVE GOTTEN THEM TO AGREE, IT SOUNDS LIKE TO AT LEAST NOT INCREASE THE HARD COVER. IF NOT, KEEP IT THE SAME. AGAIN, THAT CAN BE DEBATED ON WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE AND WHETHER IT WAS LEGALLY THERE OR NOT. BUT ALSO FROM THE LAKE PERSPECTIVE, I'D MUCH RATHER LOOK AT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAN THOSE GARAGES. IF YOU'RE ON THE THE SOUTHERN BAY THERE. I THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD TAKE SOME OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND MAYBE I'LL HAVE SOME MORE POINTS LATER, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP QUICK BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S THE BIGGEST PUSHBACK IS THAT ALL OF OUR GARAGES ARE THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S EFFICIENT AND CHEAP FOR US, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO HAVE SOME ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION AND CHANGE. NO, I WAS MORE THINKING OF THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED LAST TIME WE WERE HERE. SO THE LAST ONE WE APPROVED WAS ON MULDER DRIVE, AND IT WAS A TWO STALL FACING THE ONE THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED IS A TWO STALL FACING ALL THE NEW BUILDINGS THAT ARE. THERE ARE TWO STALLS FACING THE STREET BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT MY CONCERNS AROUND THE 75 FOOT SETBACK ARE MORE FOCUSED ON WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE LAKE THAN THE VIEW FROM THE LAKE OF THE GARAGE VERSUS THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, I GUESS. AND JUST ON SHANE'S, COMMISSIONER SHANE'S POINT THERE, IF IT WAS WITHIN THE HOUSE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A THREE CAR GARAGE, NOT A TWO CAR GARAGE, IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MY ISSUE IS THAT THE CHOICE IN THE THREE CAR GARAGE TURNED SIDEWAYS CAUSED A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN HARD COVER FOR THE DRIVEWAY. SO IF YOU PULL UP THE PLANS AGAIN, THAT DRIVEWAY IS ALMOST THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE GARAGE. THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HARD COVER RIGHT THERE JUST TO TURN THE GARAGE SIDEWAYS. THAT COULD BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS MORE CONFORMING WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY ON THAT STREET. AND PART OF OUR INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL OF THAT, NOT TWO HOUSES THAT ARE LOWER TO THE GROUND. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS GIGANTIC ONE THAT JETS OUT THIS WAY INTO THE HOUSE. RIGHT. THAT THAT'S KIND OF AN EYESORE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE TO HAVE ALL THESE CONSISTENT HOUSES. AND THEN ONE THAT'S 20 OR 30FT CLOSER TO THE ROAD THIS WAY THAN EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE STREET. IF I MAY. YES. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS REALLY GOOD COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS DEMOCRACY IS WE ALL DON'T HAVE TO AGREE OR CONVINCE EACH OTHER TO AGREE WITH HOW OUR PERSPECTIVE WORKS. FROM MY EXPERIENCES, WHAT WE DO SEE A LOT OF IS VARIANCES AND THINGS LIKE THESE, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE LAKESHORE AND THESE SMALL LOTS. WHAT WE DO LOOK FOR IS AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE POSITION, KNOWING THAT PEOPLE CAN REBUILD IN KIND. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE PUT SO MUCH WEIGHT ON JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE MAKING AN IMPROVEMENT WHERE THEY COULD REBUILD THAT GARAGE. THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE VERSUS WHAT'S PROPOSED. IT WOULD BE FURTHER IN ENCROACHING ON WHAT THE PROPOSED IS. AND MIND YOU, I DO RECOGNIZE THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING, WHICH IS RIGHT. BUT THE EXISTING GARAGE VERSUS THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS LARGER. I RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT I'M IN MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE LOOKING AT THIS AS JUST KIND OF ONE, ONE UNIT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED. WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO CONNECT IT. BUT WHAT WE DO MEASURE BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE IS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FOOTPRINT AND THAT SEEMS TO BE OKAY. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO INCREASE OR ADD TO AS FROM THE VARIANCE IN THE APPLICATION. AND FOR THAT REASON, I DO RECOGNIZE, YES, THE GARAGE IS GETTING BIGGER. BUT IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE EXISTING GARAGE AS FAR AS HOW MUCH THAT STRUCTURE SPRAWLS TOWARDS PROPERTY LINES. AND FOR ME, THAT IS NOTABLE FOR ME BECAUSE WE ARE IMPROVING THAT. GRANTED THAT ONE BUILDING THE GARAGE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN SIZE, BUT IT'S AN INCREASE IN SIZE IN INWARD OF THE PROPERTY. SO YOU KNOW, SO THEN FOR ME THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. THAT WAS A GRATEFUL THAT THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO AT LEAST GIVE US THE CHECK BOX THAT WE'RE NOT INCREASING, BUT DECREASING AND ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE HARD COVER. WE ARE DRASTICALLY IMPROVING THE AMOUNT OF HARD COVER IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M ALSO GRATEFUL ABOUT BECAUSE, [00:30:05] AGAIN, THEY CAN REBUILD IN KIND AND ALL THAT HARD WORK. SO FOR THAT REASON, KNOWING JUST AS COMMISSIONER WALTON SAID, WE'VE SEEN THIS PROPERTY COME UP A FEW TIMES OVER THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE AND RANGING FROM LIKE SUBDIVISIONS TO EVERYTHING ELSE. AND YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT ROAD BEING FAIRLY NARROW IN TRAFFIC AND PARKING BEING PART OF THAT, KNOWING THAT PARKING IS WHAT GARAGES ARE OFTEN FOR AND THE PLACEMENT OF THAT GARAGE LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF OF SOME DRIVEWAY PARKING AS WELL AS VEHICLE PARKING INSIDE GARAGE. BASED ON ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT I MADE, I'M NOT SO SURE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT WE'RE GOING TO REDESIGN THIS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS BESIDES MAKING IT CLOSER IN. BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO DO THAT BECAUSE WHERE THEY ARE IS PROPOSED IS ALREADY CLOSER IN THAN WHAT IS EXISTING. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS BUT AGAIN, VERY RESPECTFUL OF EVERYBODY ELSE'S PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE WE ALL ARE HERE TO VOTE, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT IT. SO IF I COULD JUST ADD I THE ONE THING WITH WHAT WHAT THAT I DISAGREE WITH JOHN IN TERMS OF OR COMMISSIONER RESSLER SORRY. AROUND JUST THE WAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK ABOUT VARIANCES IS THAT I DON'T LOVE THE CONCEPT THAT WE'RE TELLING OUR COMMUNITY, IF YOU'RE JUST ONE FOOT DECREASE, THEN BECAUSE THERE'S AN IMPROVEMENT, YOU IT SHOULD BE APPROVED. I THINK SETTING THAT KIND OF A PRECEDENT OR COMMUNICATION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT. YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. MY STRUGGLE IS MY TIME HERE. AND THEN WATCHING COUNCIL MEETINGS IS WE SEEM TO BE VERY ADAMANT ABOUT STRUCTURE HEIGHT FOR LAKESHORE SETBACKS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. I, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE A NEIGHBOR WITH A 0.27 ACRE LOT WHO TRIED TO PUT A SECOND STORY ON HIS GARAGE THAT WAS FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. HE WAS TOLD IT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A LAKESHORE LOT HERE AND WE'RE TRYING TO HEM AND HAW TO JUSTIFY QUADRUPLING THE SIZE, HEIGHT WISE. BUT IF THIS WAS A BOATHOUSE, WE WOULD BE LIKE, NO WAY. IF THIS WAS A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS AND WE'RE WE'RE SETTING A VERY ODD PRECEDENCE FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO SAY, WELL, WHY IN THE WORLD DID YOU LET THAT GUY TRIPLE HIS GARAGE AND BLOCK THE VIEWS OF HIS NEIGHBOR? BUT I HAD MY NEIGHBOR SAY, HEY, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT SHED MATCH THE ROOFLINE OF THE HOUSE. AND EVERYBODY SAYS NO. IT'S A VERY, VERY TOUGH, COMPLEX WHEN, RIGHT, YOU COULD STILL PUT THE FOOTPRINT THERE. KEEP IT AT TEN FEET. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY CREATE A DIFFICULTY. RIGHT? YOU COULD STILL HAVE A BREEZEWAY BETWEEN THIS GARAGE TO THE HOUSE. YOU'RE JUST LOSING A BONUS ROOM. AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR A BONUS ROOM. I HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN SAYING, HEY, I'M COMING BACK TEN FEET. YOU SHOULD GIVE ME THIS APPROVAL, RIGHT? THE WHOLE FORM WAS LEFT BLANK. BUT ONE LINE THAT SAID, I'M CUTTING BACK TEN FEET. WELL, I WILL SAY THEY'RE UNDER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROJECT, BUT NOT. BUT THEY ARE UNDER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROJECT. BUT A SHELTER OR APOLOGIZE, A BOATHOUSE COULD ALSO BE 30FT TALL IF IT'S UNDER THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE. BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BOATHOUSE. WE'RE TALKING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ATTACHED GARAGE. JUST A SECOND. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ATTACHED GARAGE TO A PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, AND THEY'RE UNDER THE REGULATION, THE REGULATED HEIGHT. SO MY PERSPECTIVE OF IT IS IF SOMEONE COMES TO US WITH THIS, YES, THERE'S SOME OTHER SETBACK ISSUES THAT WE HAVE, BUT THEY'RE BASICALLY GIVING US SOMETHING THAT WE SAY IS OKAY TO HAVE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A THREE CAR GARAGE. THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS ON AMOUNT OF STALLS IN A GARAGE. NO, BUT I'M SAYING THEY'RE TRADING, RIGHT? THEY'RE TRADING. I'M GOING TO SHRINK AND GO UP. I KNOW OUR JOB IS NOT TO REDESIGN THE APPLICATIONS. THIS IS WHAT THEY KNOW. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND JUST JUST FOR A QUICK SECOND, LET'S LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF TURNING THE GARAGE. AND WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REDESIGN. BUT IF YOU TOOK THAT THREE CAR GARAGE AND TURNED IT FACING THE STREET, NOW YOUR ENTIRE DRIVEWAY, ALL THIS BIG HARD COVER IS GOING TO BE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT RIGHT OFF THE STREET. ELIMINATES THE SPOT FOR A RAIN GARDEN, WHICH IS RIGHT WHERE YOU SHOULD HAVE A RAIN GARDEN ON THAT IN THAT 75 ON THE LAKE. SO WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REDESIGN. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHT THAT WENT INTO HOW THIS IS. AND I THINK I THINK IT IS PRETTY THOUGHTFUL. THIS IS THE SECOND RENDITION OF IT. IT YOU KNOW, IT'S. YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD MY COMMENTS. [00:35:04] YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THIS THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO OBVIOUSLY THE HEIGHT. YEAH, I DEFINITELY CONSIDER IT. BUT YOU KNOW, WE SENT LETTERS TO THE NEIGHBORS. CORRECT. AND WE HAD NO COMMENTS. SO OBVIOUSLY WE'D WANT TO TAKE THEIR INPUT AND, AND NOBODY SEEMS TO BE OBJECTING. I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE A LOT OF GOOD POINTS ABOUT HAVING THE GARAGE ON THE SIDE. SO YOU ACTUALLY SEE A HOUSE VERSUS A GARAGE THAT'S GOING UP. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WORKS. SO I GUESS I WOULD SECOND THE FACT THAT I THINK THIS IS A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND THE NEIGHBORS DON'T SEEM TO BE UP IN ARMS OVER IT. SO I THINK IT'S A IT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. IF I COULD JUST JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO STATE SOMETHING THAT'S INCORRECT IF IF YOU ARE REBUILDING EXISTING STRUCTURE IN KIND, ITS ITS VARIANCE. BUT YOU'RE ABLE TO REBUILD, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A VARIANCE. IF YOU INCREASE HEIGHT YOU. YES. IT TRIGGERS VARIANCE. IF IT'S IN THE SETBACK, CORRECT. BUT THEN IF THEREFORE IT'S STILL VARIANCE BUT THEY CAN REBUILD IN KIND ON THAT FOOTPRINT AND THEN YOU KNOW IT, THE HEIGHT WOULD TRIGGER THE VARIANCE BUT. TRUE. GENERALLY SPEAKING OUR PRECEDENTS WOULD BE ALLOWANCE OF AS LONG AS THE CONFORMING LIMITATIONS TO THE HEIGHT. CORRECT. YEAH. I MEAN DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY DEPENDING UPON THE PROJECT, THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THAT, DEPENDING ON HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO A SIDE LOT LINE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO THE LAKE. WE HAVE REQUIRED A SECOND STOREY ADDITION TO STEP IN FROM THE LOT LINE IF IT'S VERY CLOSE OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER SIMILAR DIFFERENT ROOF ELEMENTS LIKE A HIP VERSUS A GABLE END OR THINGS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE HEIGHT. SO THERE IS, THERE'S REALLY BEEN NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO PROCESS THESE. THEY ARE LOOKED AT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, AN ENLARGEMENT IS NOT ALLOWED FOR AN IN-KIND WITHOUT A VARIANCE, BOTH STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER AND HEIGHT. AND IT'S THE ENTIRE ENVELOPE VOLUME. SO IN THE SETBACK. YES. SO YEAH. LET ME, COMMISSIONER RESSLER. THANK YOU FOR POSING THAT QUESTION. IN-KIND IS VERY LITERAL OF YOU HAVE THIS CUBE YOU CAN REBUILD WITHIN THIS CUBE VOLUME, WHETHER THAT'S HEIGHT, WHETHER THAT'S ADDING A BASEMENT BELOW, GOING OUT, CHANGING THE ROOF. YOU HAVE THE SAME SQUARE THAT IS EXISTING. YOU CAN REBUILD THAT SQUARE. YOU CAN REBUILD SMALLER THAN THAT SQUARE, ALL ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH PERMITS. WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IS CREATE AN ENLARGEMENT, THEN THAT'S NO LONGER DEALING WITH IN-KIND. YOU ARE NOW DEALING WITH A NEW PROPOSED STRUCTURE WHERE YOU'RE ASKING FOR VARIANCES. WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING IN A SETBACK WHERE A BUILDING IS NOT ALLOWED. SO YOU SEE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS HERE THEY'RE ASKING US TO YES, THEY HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING, BUT THEY'RE ASKING TO MAKE AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT MOVES IT AWAY FROM THE STREET OR [INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS A NEW REQUEST FOR THIS NEW BUILDING WITHIN THE SETBACKS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. AND THEY HAVE SOME EXISTING CONDITIONS OF A HOUSE AND A DETACHED GARAGE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS OF HARDCOVER THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH WITH THIS LOT. BUT IT IS A NEW REQUEST FOR VARIANCES THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THESE SETBACKS. SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S KIND OF LIKE A BLANK LOT THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE IN WITH SOME REFERENCE TO WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION YOUR AS PART OF YOUR KIND OF THE LOT AND THE CHALLENGES OF THIS LOT AND WHAT'S EXISTING HERE AND HOW ARE YOU DEALING WITH THAT. ARE YOU REPURPOSING AN IN-KIND. ARE YOU ASKING FOR SOMETHING ALL BRAND NEW? AND WE TRY TO CONVEY THAT IN THOSE MEMOS OF WHAT'S BEING ASKED IF THEY'RE UTILIZING ANY IN-KIND REPLACEMENT. I THINK ONE ONE THING THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, JUST BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION, THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE FOR COUNCIL IF IT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, IS A COMPARISON, VOLUME WISE, AN OVERLAY SHOWING THE EXISTING ELEVATION VIEW OF THE GARAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE NEW HOME OVERLAID ON TOP OF IT, JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THAT EXPANSION SO THAT COUNCIL OR YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FULL IMPACT OF THAT HEIGHT IS RATHER THAN TRYING TO. I THINK IF IT DOES MOVE FORWARD, IT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD TO INCLUDE SOME RELEVANCE TO THE IMPACT IT HAS ON THE ADJACENT LOTS. FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO SAY, HEY, OKAY, IF THIS VOLUME IS PUT HERE, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE HEIGHT WISE WITH WITH THE MASSING? YEAH. YEAH. QUESTION STAFF. THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IN THAT VERBIAGE. [00:40:01] DOES IT TALK ABOUT THE PRIMARY LAKEVIEW IN OUR WRITE UP HERE. IT TALKS ABOUT THE PRIMARY LAKEVIEW AND THAT THE PROPERTY DOESN'T TOUCH A SOUTH LAKE. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NOT AVERAGE LAKESHORE APPLIED THERE. IS THERE LANGUAGE IN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK THAT DEFINES THE PRIMARY LAKEVIEW OR NOT? NO. BUT THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY DOESN'T TOUCH THE LAKE. AND TYPICALLY, IF THIS WAS IF THAT WAS THE ONLY LAKESIDE, THERE WOULD BE NO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. THANK YOU. SO DID THE CITY ACQUIRE THE LAND FROM THE HOMEOWNER? BECAUSE AT ONE TIME IT DID TOUCH BOTH SETBACKS AND THE CITY HAD AN EASEMENT. YEAH. I THINK TO JUST ON THIS I MEAN, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, I ACTUALLY WAS IN FAVOR OF THAT ROOF ON THAT SHED BEING. YEAH, REGARDLESS OF THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE IN MY PERSPECTIVE. THAT HOUSE SAT UP HERE. THE SHED WAS DOWN HERE. AND THE LAKE SHORE. YOUR VIEW, IT WAS NOT OBSTRUCTING ANY VIEW, IN MY OPINION. AND SO I THINK YOU BRING UP A GREAT POINT OF THIS STRUCTURE POTENTIALLY OBSTRUCTING A VIEW. BUT AGAIN, I GUESS AS THE CODE LAYS OUT RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS PREVENTING THAT. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIASED BECAUSE THE HOUSE ON THE EASTERNMOST SIDE LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN RENOVATED SINCE THIS HOUSE HAS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A TWO STORY HOUSE. AND SO IF THAT HOUSE WAS ONLY ONE STORY AND OURS WAS THE ONE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT WAS A 2 OR 3 STORY HOUSE NOW, AND IT WAS VICE VERSA. YOU KNOW THAT I THINK IT'S HARD BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE BASICALLY HINDERING THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY BUILT LAST, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE AGAIN, THIS AVERAGE SETBACK IS A VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION. AND YEAH, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE SURVEY QUICK LIKE, PART OF ME THINKS THAT THIS HOUSE WOULD BE BETTER FOR ITS NEIGHBORS IF IT WAS ACTUALLY SHIFTED CLOSER TO THE LAKE. THE OTHER WAY, IF YOU SCROLL UP SO YOU CAN SEE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, IF IT WAS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE LAKE ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND IT WAS INTRUDING ON THE LAKE ON THAT SIDE INSTEAD OF THE OTHER SIDE, IT WOULD CONFORM BETTER WITH THE HOUSES THERE WOULD CONFORM BETTER WITH THE HOUSES. I AGREE, BUT IF YOU GO BACK DOWN TO THOSE AERIAL SHOTS, THEY'RE LIKE THAT HOUSE ON THE WESTERNMOST SIDE IS LIKE 20, TEN FEET FROM THE WATER. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN SOME SOME RESPECT. SO BUT IF YOU PUSHED IT, IF YOU PUSHED IT FORWARD, IF YOU PUSH IT NOW YOU'RE OVER THE OTHER 75. BUT IF THAT'S THE VIEW SHED THAT WE HAVE TO, WE'RE ACTUALLY BOUND TO PROTECT THAT VIEW SHED NOT THE OTHER SIDE. WELL THAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. IF YOU MOVED IT THE OTHER WAY, YOU'RE NOT BLOCKING THE VIEW SHED BECAUSE THE VIEW SHED IS THE. BUT THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE OVER THE WELL, EITHER WAY YOU'RE OVER THE 75. BUT I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT. I WOULD RATHER HAVE IT OVER THE OTHER 75 FOOT SETBACK, WHERE IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH THOSE TWO HOUSES. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN ON THAT. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENTS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN. APPROVING BUILDING OVER THE 75 ON THE WITHIN ITS OWN PROPERTY. ON THE BACK SIDE, IT'S A 75 FOOT PROJECTED FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. NOW, THIS IS LAKE ON BOTH SIDES. 75FT. CORRECT. BUT IT DOESN'T TOUCH THE LAKE. IT'S NOT THE OWNED LAKESHORE ON THE BACK SIDE BY THE ROAD. THAT'S THE CITY'S LAKESHORE. MR.. JUST TO CLARIFY THANK YOU FOR DISCUSSING THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT TOUCH THE LAKE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. SO THE LAKESHORE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS APPLIED ON THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE IT'S NOT TOUCHING THE LAKE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS NOT. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M. IF YOU LOOK, I WOULD RATHER HAVE IT SEE IT ON THE FOOTPRINT FOR THE HOUSE EXTENDING OVER THE 75 FOOT SETBACK WHICH IS STILL WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. RIGHT. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IN MY TIME ON THE COMMISSION, I'VE NEVER SEEN US APPROVE A HOUSE, A NEW CONSTRUCTION OVER THE 75 FOOT SETBACK ON ITS OWN PROPERTY. I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT. WHEN IT CAN, WHEN IT CAN CONFORM. AND THIS IS IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO, TO MAKE IT CONFORM TO THAT 75 FOOT LINE BY PUSHING IT BACK. AND THERE MIGHT BE IT'S NEGLIGIBLE WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE A VIEW DISTURBED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAKESHORE THAT'S NOT OWNED BY THE ONE WE JUST APPROVED LAST TIME OVER THE 75. NOT NEW, NOT NOT A COMPLETE REDEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU'RE APPROVING IT. THAT WAS ON THE SAME ROAD. IF THERE'S NO OTHER BUILDING ENVELOPE BUT THIS. THIS HAS A BUILDING ENVELOPE BEYOND THE 75. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I'M JUST SAYING, WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENT SO THAT WE'RE PROTECTING A VIEW THAT WE'RE NOT BOUND TO PROTECT BY PUSHING IT THAT WAY, THAT THAT, TO ME, IS SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT I DON'T I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH. WE DON'T HAVE HISTORY OF APPROVING FURTHER ENCROACHING THE 75. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY. SO IF IT'S ALREADY IF IT'S ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO I KNOW, [00:45:01] BUT THE HOUSE WAS ALREADY ENCROACHING ON THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. CORRECT. BUT THEY'RE IMPROVING ON THAT. CORRECT. YEAH. BUT IT'S. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OVER THAT IS IMPROVING OVER THE 75 IS ALSO THEY'RE IMPROVING THE LAKESIDE 75 AND THEN THE LAKESHORE THAT THEY DON'T OWN. THERE'S A PROJECTED 75. AND THEY'RE ALSO IMPROVING THAT POSITION AS WELL. BUT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I'VE SEEN US APPROVE HOUSES BUILT ON TOP OF OTHER ENCROACHMENTS ON THE LAKESIDE 75 FOOT SETBACK, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT BENEFITS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THE VIEWS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I'M NOT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME TO. I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. I MEAN, YOU BRING UP GREAT POINTS, AND I LIKE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES HERE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE JUST REITERATE THE PRECEDENTS WE'RE SETTING. RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO BE OKAY INCREASING THE BUILDING HEIGHT ENVELOPE HERE. AND THEN OTHER TIMES WE'RE NOT. WHEN THERE'S NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ABOUT WHY WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE IT HERE. THIS IS FOR A BONUS ROOM OVER A GARAGE. I GUESS I HANG MY HAT ON THAT. THERE'S THERE'S NO VARIANCE THAT WE ARE GIVING THEM FOR INCREASING THAT AREA THAT STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THERE'S NO MATH. IT WAS. IF IT WAS A ONE STORY GARAGE VERSUS THE 2 OR 3 STORY GARAGE THEY'RE PROPOSING. THERE'S THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCE THAT WE'RE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US TO APPROVE TODAY. AND THAT'S WHERE I HANG MY HAT ON, ON OF BEING IN FAVOR OF OF THE APPLICATION. YEAH. I'LL JUST SECOND WHAT YOU SAID. I MEAN, IF I'M THE APPLICANT ON THEIR BEHALF, YOU GIVE ME A LIST OF RULES TO PLAY WITH. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES, YOU KNOW, AND THEN IF WE START TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT, WHICH THEY'RE NOT OFFENDING, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD DRIVE ME INSANE AS THE APPLICANT BECAUSE AGAIN, I WENT, I WENT TO DO WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, AND I FOLLOWED AND EXECUTED ON THE RULE BOOK. SO I THINK THEY DID WHAT YOU KNOW, WE WOULD EXPECT THEM TO DO. THERE AREN'T OTHER COMMENTS. I MAY TRY AND BRING A MOTION FORWARD, MR. CHAIR, YES. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, I MY PERSPECTIVE, AS HAS BEEN SAID. SO I WON'T RESTATE, BUT I DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT OF A THAT, THAT I TRY TO BE A STICKLER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT IS NOT WORSENING A POSITION. SO COMMISSIONER MADE A GOOD POINT. YOU KNOW, SHE SHE DOESN'T ADVOCATE JUST IMPROVING. SHE WANTS MAYBE SOMETIMES MORE, WHICH IS FINE. BUT I, AT LEAST HAVE THAT MINIMUM IN MY TYPICAL POSITION. WHICH IS WHY I ASKED THAT QUALIFYING QUESTION ABOUT HARDCOVER. EVEN THOUGH THAT'S A IT SEEMS LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICALITY, TECHNICALITIES ARE WHAT CAN BE RUN RAMPANT ON BECAUSE WHERE DO YOU LIMIT THAT TO. I WOULD BE WILLING TO PROPOSE A MOTION AS IT'S APPLIED BASED ON THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT ANY SORT OF LIMITATIONS ABOUT THE THE HEIGHT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BEING WE DON'T HAVE THAT ILLUSTRATION. I CAN RECOGNIZE IF PEOPLE WANTED TO MOTION TO TABLE IT SO WE COULD SEE WHAT THOSE ELEVATIONS LOOK LIKE. BUT I GUESS I DON'T HAVE THAT CURRENTLY BECAUSE I'M, I BELIEVE THAT IF WE ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE THERE, THEN WE ALLOW THE HEIGHT TO BE THERE. IT'S A UNIQUE PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S WATER ON BOTH SIDES, SO ONLY ONE FRONT YARD. AND THAT'S USUALLY WHERE WE CARE THE MOST. AND AND THAT SEEMS TO BE BEING MET AS BEST AS THEY CAN. HOWEVER, THERE IS IN THE TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE, THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE A DISCREPANCY BECAUSE WE ALLOW 2398 IN SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THIS PROPERTY, 20% EXISTING IS 1793, BUT WHAT'S PROPOSED IS 20 409. THAT'S EXCEEDING WHAT'S ALLOWED FOR TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT MEET THE ALLOWED TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE. AND SO USUALLY WE EITHER INSTEAD OF REDESIGNING, WE'LL VOTE TO DENY WITH THE FEEDBACK, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO OTHERWISE IF IT'S. I'LL ASK STAFF MAYBE OR MR. CHAIR, MAYBE YOU COULD ASK STAFF, WHAT. CAN I CAN I INTERRUPT YOU? I THINK THEY'RE I THINK THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR STRUCTURAL COVERAGE. THEY'RE CURRENTLY AT 20% AND THEY'RE PROPOSING 20%. IF YOU SEE THE ACTUAL NUMBER NEXT TO THAT, WHAT'S ALLOWED IS 2398. [00:50:05] WHAT'S PROPOSED TO 2409. SO 20% IS 20%. BUT THOSE NUMBERS, CAN WE GET CLARITY ON THAT STAFF? YEAH. NO I'D LIKE CLARITY ON THAT. I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IF YOU DO THE ROUNDING IT, IT'S 19.996% AND 20.08%. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT ROUNDS TO THE 20%. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. YEAH. SO. AND AGAIN. YEAH. SO WHAT? I'M. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS IF WE CAN IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING MY, I WOULD ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE HARDCOVER IS BELOW WHAT IS EXISTING, EVEN IF IT'S BY ONE FOOT, AND THAT THE THE TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE IS BELOW WHAT IS ALLOWED, EVEN IF IT'S BY ONE FOOT. AND IF THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT, I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED. AS LONG AS THEY'D BE WILLING TO AMEND TO IT WHEN THEY GET TO COUNCIL. BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE SUPPORT FOR THAT, WE WANT A TABLE. I'M NOT GOING TO MISS FRIENDS TODAY. WE'LL BE ALL RIGHT. I JUST QUICKLY ADD THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. IT SOUNDED LIKE THE APPLICANT HAD SOME POTENTIAL. I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO CALL MISCALCULATION, BUT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME NUMBERS THAT WERE A LITTLE WONKY. AND WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US VERSUS WHAT THE CURRENT PROJECT IS. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ADDING THAT AS A PART OF PART OF THE MOTION IS, JUST, AS HE SAID, STRUCTURING, BUILDING COVERAGE BEING MAINTAINED OR REDUCED AT A MINIMUM. IT SOUNDED LIKE, YEAH, THERE WAS A WINDOW, WELL, OR SOMETHING THAT WAS FIGURED INTO THE EXISTING CALCULATIONS, WHICH MIGHT ACTUALLY BE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING MIGHT ACTUALLY BE BELOW THE 20% OR BELOW THE SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MOTION AS WELL FOR THAT. I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF A TABLE ON THIS. JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. WELL, MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE'D BE WILLING TO AMEND THAT IF WE WERE? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IS APPLIED RIGHT NOW. SO I THINK BEFORE WE VOTE ON SOMETHING, IF THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THAT AND SEE IF STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, THAT'S THE PATH WE TAKE. I THINK YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY STATED THAT THESE THESE ITEMS ON THE STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER IN PARTICULAR ABOUT THE FIREPLACE AND THE OTHER THING, I'D ENTERTAIN IT. I'M GOING TO MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT PROPOSED HARDCOVER AS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION. AND ALSO THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURAL COVERAGE IS BELOW WHAT IS 2398, AKA 20% OF WHAT'S ALLOWED ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT. THOSE TWO FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS STIPULATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A, IF YOU WOULD SUPPORT A THIRD FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR IF IT'S NECESSARY AS AN AMENDMENT, BUT JUST THE PROVIDING THE EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS, I THINK, WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COUNCIL TO SEE IN THEIR REVIEW AND ALSO FOR THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH THIS IS THEIR TIME TO VOICE THE CONCERN, I THINK IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST AS WELL. IS THAT A NECESSARY AMENDMENT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON? I CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THAT, PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION FOR CLARITY. IF YOU'D LIKE IT AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL OR THE RECOMMENDATION, THEN IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PART OF THE MOTION. BUT OTHERWISE IT SOUNDS LIKE I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO STAFF. SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I SECOND HIS MOTION. SORRY. OKAY, THERE'S THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO COMMISSIONER RESSLER A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH TWO CONDITIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TOTAL HARD COVER DOES NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING TOTAL HARD COVER, AND. LESS THAN 3909. LESS THAN 3909. AND THAT THE STRUCTURAL HARD COVER DOES NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING NOT. DOES NOT EXCEED THE ALLOWED, WHICH IS 2398. THE ALLOWED AND I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, WE'LL VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO THREE. NEXT UP, OTHER ITEMS. [6. Other Items] YES. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS. JUST A QUICK UPDATE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE LAND USE APPLICATION THAT WAS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, WHICH WAS 1530 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE. IT WAS A TABLED APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE COUNCIL. THAT WAS A ACCESSORY BUILDING POOL, CABANA AND THE AVERAGE SETBACK. [00:55:02] IF YOU RECALL, PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. STAFF HAD GIVEN A DENIAL RECOMMENDATION. THE COUNCIL WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT OVER MULTIPLE MEETINGS, AND AT THE LAST MEETING DID DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AN APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR THAT. SO THAT WILL BE GOING BACK TO COUNCIL HERE ONE MORE TIME, BUT THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY UPDATED LAND USE APPLICATION I BELIEVE I HAVE FOR YOU. AND THE ITEM THAT WAS TABLED LAST WEEK OR LAST MEETING, THAT ONE WE WERE EXPECTING TO SEE THAT. YEP. SO I BELIEVE AS PART OF THE DIRECTION THAT YOU TABLED, WAS ASKING FOR SURVEY WORK TO CLARIFY THE SETBACKS AND THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOT SO WE COULD REGARDING SO WE COULD THEN PREDICT THE SETBACKS AND SETBACKS APPROPRIATELY. SO THEY ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF GETTING THAT SURVEY WORK DONE, I BELIEVE. SO WE ANTICIPATE RIGHT NOW THAT TO COME BACK IN NOVEMBER, THE [INAUDIBLE] APPLICATION THAT WAS TABLED. THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MEETING ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.