[00:00:02] GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH, 2026 ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. [*A portion of this clip is without video* ] [1. Call to Order] WE START EVERY MEETING WITH PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. OVER TO THE AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER 3 IS WHERE WE'RE AT. [3. Approval of Agenda] DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE SAID AGENDA? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SECOND BY TIFT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 20TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. [4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of January 20, 2026] 2026 MOTION TO APPROVE. I DID HAVE 1 EDIT. THE ONE PORTION OF THE MINUTES, IT REFERENCES CHAIR BOLLIS INSTEAD OF CHAIR RESSLER. IT'S IT'S IN THERE AS RESSLER SOME OF THE TIME AND BOLLIS THE OTHER. SO WE NEED TO AMEND THAT. YOU COULD APPROVE IT WITH THAT AMENDMENT. OKAY. THAT IS ENOUGH THAT I COULD I COULD MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE I GET INTO THE RECORD. OKAY. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THEN TO APPROVE WITH THAT EDIT. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHERS, I HAVE THAT SAME REVISIONS. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION VERY WELL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE, AYE. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. ITEM NUMBER 5. [5.1. LA26-000001, Denali Custom Homes o/b/o Lisa M Flynn Revocable Trust, 860 Brown Rd N, Variance (Matthew Karney)] WE HAVE OUR FIRST WHICH IS LA26-000001. DENALI CUSTOM HOMES. 860 BROWN ROAD VARIANTS WITH MR. `ARNEY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WILL MAKE 1 MINOR CORRECTION BASED ON THE AGENDA. IT DOES APPEAR THAT BROWN ROAD IS SHOWN AS NORTH ON THE AGENDA. IT IS 860 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, FOR THE RECORD. GOOD. THIS WILL BE AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PRINCIPAL BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R.R 1.B AND IS APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES IN SIZE, LOSING APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES TO WETLAND AREAS, WHICH I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IN A SECOND. FIRST OFF, I WANT TO IDENTIFY AS THIS WILL BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION, MORE OR LESS. JUST LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BEING A LAKESHORE LOT. STAFF IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS A LAKESHORE LOT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A TRIBUTARY GOING THROUGH THERE. THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PROVISION BEING THE SHORELAND FOR THE LAKESHORE LOT APPLIES THE SHORELAND OVERLAY STANDARDS HERE, MEANING YOUR LAKE SETBACK IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE WITH THE CONTIGUOUS 920 9.4 FLOOD ELEVATION THAT TOUCHES THE PROPERTY, IMPOSING THE LAKESHORE SETBACK. WHAT MAKES THIS SITUATION COMPLICATED, AS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG BROWN ROAD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT TOUCH THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AS YOU CAN SEE, HAS THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH NOT CONSIDERED A LAKESHORE LOT, BUT THE NEIGHBOR BEYOND, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A COMMON BOUNDARY ESTABLISHING THE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THROUGH THIS PROPERTY. ULTIMATELY THIS IS JUST A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, LOCATED IN A LOCATION THAT IS VERY MINDFUL OF THE WETLANDS, THE FLOODPLAIN, AND ALL THE OTHER VARIOUS FACTORS FACING THE PROPERTY. SOME ELEVATION VIEWS AS WELL. THE, THE THE PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPLIED FOR AS A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS WAS IDENTIFIED FAIRLY LATE IN THE PROCESS. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT RELATIVELY FINAL PLANS FOR THE BUILDING AND THE LOCATION. ULTIMATELY IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES STAFF REALLY IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO MAJOR SIGHT LINE ISSUES AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS PROPERTY. THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS CLEAR, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT PROPERTIES THAT ARE THIS LARGE. VIEWSHEDS CAN BE PRESERVED FAIRLY EASILY, AND WITH HOW FAR BACK MOST OF THE HOMES ARE IN RELATION TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL. STAFF DOESN'T HAVE MANY CONCERNS REGARDING SIGHT LINES WHATSOEVER. WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. [00:05:02] KARNEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DAVID BECKER. I'M THE OWNER AND PRESIDENT OF DENALI CUSTOM HOMES. MY ADDRESS IS 4041 NORTH SHORE DRIVE IN ORONO. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY LISA FLYNN AND CHRISTIAN SARICH, AND THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH US. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? LISA AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINALLY SET OUT TO FIND A RURALLY ORIENTED PROPERTY HERE IN ORONO. THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN BEING ON THE LAKE. WITH ALL THE BUSYNESS, THEY WERE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR MORE OF A QUIET SETTING AND SOMETHING THOUGH WITH VIEWS THAT LED US TO BROWN ROAD AND THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT. THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY DID HAVE A HOUSE ON IT. AND THE HOUSE WAS SITED WHERE OUR NEW HOME IS TO BE LOCATED. AND THAT SITING IS RESPECTFUL OF THE ELEVATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH ARE LOW ON THE STREET SIDE AND THEN LOW AGAIN TOWARDS THE WETLANDS. SO GOOD BUILDING PRACTICE. YOU BUILD ON THE HIGH POINTS FOR DRAINAGE AND WHATNOT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND THE SIGHT LINE, THE HOUSE COULD BE MOVED TOWARDS THE ROAD. UNFORTUNATELY THAT CREATES SOME DIFFICULTIES. YOU END UP WITH A EITHER 2 THINGS, YOU END UP WITH THE HOUSE BEHIND THE HILL SO THEY DON'T GET TO ENJOY THE VIEWS, OR YOU END UP WITH A TUCK UNDER THE GARAGE, AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THEIR RETIREMENT HOME THAT THEY SPEND MANY YEARS IN. AND THAT WOULD CREATE STEPS. OR THEY COULD HAVE A VERY STEEP DRIVEWAY UP TO THE GARAGE. SO WE FELT THAT IT WAS THE BEST USE OF THE LAND TO SITE THE HOUSE WHERE THE OLD HOUSE WAS. WHEN WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS THIS SIGHTLINE REQUIREMENT, WHICH WE WEREN'T AWARE OF WE LOOKED TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH AND COULDN'T SEE OUR NEIGHBORS. SO WE WERE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THAT WE HAD TO FOLLOW THAT. AND SO THAT LED US HERE TODAY. MATT DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THIS SITUATION HERE. I HAD LOTS OF THINGS THAT I INTENDED TO SAY, BUT I'LL KEEP IT SHORT SINCE HE DID A GOOD JOB. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, MIGHT THERE BE SOME QUESTIONS DURING THE DELIBERATION? THAT'D BE GREAT. ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION. PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. SO THANK YOU, MR. KARNEY, FOR THAT PRESENTATION AND EXPLANATION. I FEEL LIKE IT DOES GIVE US A LOT MORE DIRECTION WITH YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE THE CAUSE FOR WHAT IS MAKING IT VARIANCE IN THE 1ST PLACE, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE MITIGANTS FOR IT. ANY ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I MEAN, I WILL JUST START BY SAYING THAT I THINK REBUILDING ON AN EXISTING SITE PLAN IS VERY LOGICAL. I CONCUR, I THINK THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THIS SAME SPOT EARLIER MAKES THIS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION. IT SEEMS THE STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WERE ESTABLISHED WITH THIS. SO YEAH, I FEEL QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AS IT STANDS VERY WELL. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO. CONVINCE ANYBODY TO HAVE RESTATE THE POSITION. SO IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S NOT OPPOSITION, I WOULD CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA26-000001 AS APPLIED. SECOND MOTION BY BRANDENBURG. SECOND BY TIFF TO APPROVE LA26-000001 AS APPLIED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO [5.2. LA26-000003, The Landschute Group o/b/o Leigh Johnston Hull, 2245 French Lake Rd, Variance (Matthew Karney)] LA26-000003. THE LANDSCHUTE GROUP 2245 FRENCH LAKE ROAD FOR VARIANTS ALSO. MR. KARNEY, PLEASE. [00:10:20] OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THIS WILL BE ANOTHER VARIANCE APPLICATION. ACTUALLY NOT TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD FROM THE PREVIOUS. WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OVER ON FRENCH LAKE FOR A SEPARATE VARIANTS SPECIFICALLY FOR HARDCOVER AND STRUCTURES. PARDON ME FOR THE POOR EDITING THERE. I CAN ZOOM IN ON THIS DETAIL A LITTLE BIT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS WELL. BUT WITH THIS BEING A 2 AND A HALF ACRE PROPERTY THAT IS PERHAPS MORE WIDE THAN IT IS DEEP. WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE BUILDING ENVELOPE HERE THAT SOME OF OUR LONGER STANDING PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEMBERS MAY HAVE SEEN THIS A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN IT CAME THROUGH FOR A POOL LOCATION AS WELL AS TO REBUILD THE HOUSE AT THE TIME. ULTIMATELY, THAT THIS SITE WAS IDENTIFIED AT 1 POINT IN TIME TO BE THE DESIRED POOL AND PATIO LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY APPROVED BY VARIANCE IN 2023. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO SHIFT THIS PATIO OVER TO A MORE CENTRAL LOCATION IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND FRENCH LAKE TO THE SOUTH. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS FLIPPED OVER. THE 1 DETAIL I WILL NOTE AS WE HAVE THE NUMBER APPEARING HERE AS WELL, IS THAT THIS LAKE, FRENCH LAKE, IS A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKE. LAKE MINNETONKA WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE 75 FOOT SETBACK. THIS WILL BE A 150 FOOT SETBACK, CREATING SOME ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES ON THE LOCATION. THE IMAGE THAT I HAVE HERE IS WAS ULTIMATELY A PART OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2023. SHOWING SOME INCREASED DETAIL TO THE HOME THAT WAS REBUILT IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE THAT WAS ONCE EXISTING IN YELLOW. AND AT THE TIME WHEN THE POOL WAS CONSTRUCTED, WE ONLY HAD SOME MINOR EXPANSIONS TOWARDS THE LAKE TO PRESENT DAY. THIS GRAPHIC SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IS A VERY GOOD VISUAL IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT TRANSITION LOOKS LIKE IN RELATION TO THE ONCE EXISTING PATIO. WHEN THE VARIANCES HAD INITIALLY BEEN APPLIED FOR BACK IN 2023. SO THIS SHOWS ULTIMATELY THE SCALE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS ONCE EXISTING AND WHAT IS PROPOSED TODAY. ULTIMATELY, WITH THIS PROPOSAL, WE ARE SEEING A DECREASE IN HARD COVER ON THE SITE. THE APPLICANT FOUND A WAY TO, WHILE REWORKING THE POOL AND PATIO TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HARD COVER THAT WE HAVE. UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS ALSO CHALLENGING, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT A VERY SIZABLE AMOUNT OF HARD COVER WITHIN THE LAKE SETBACK. HOWEVER, ANY CHANGE WITHIN THE ZONE I WOULD FEEL IS POSITIVE, EVEN IF IT'S JUST 200FT². JUST PROVIDING A GENERAL VISUAL HERE AS WELL. I TRIED TO LOOK FOR AN AERIAL IMAGE THAT CAPTURED WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE BEFORE IT HAD GONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I THINK THAT'S MORE OF THE PRESENT DAY CONDITION. WITH THE HOME STILL IN PROGRESS AND THE POOL AND PATIO AREA BEING PERMITTED. ULTIMATELY WE CAN IMAGINE THAT THE POOL PATIO AREA WOULD BE RELATIVELY IN RELATION TO RIGHT HERE, KIND OF AS WE SEE WHERE THAT PATIO HAD CUT OFF IN RELATION TO THE POOL. ULTIMATELY, STAFF, WHEN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST, ACKNOWLEDGES THE GENERAL REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER DESPITE THE FEW FOOT INCREASE IN OR DECREASE IN DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PATIO AREA AND THE LAKE. WE DO EVALUATE THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE SITE IS REASONABLE. KNOWING THAT WE HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT IS AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THAN THE POOL, AND THE HOUSE BEING HIGHER THAN THAT AS WELL, KIND OF AS A LOW POINT. SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS IN TERMS OF RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING MIGHT MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS THAT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS AREN'T LOOKING TO DO. AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS IT WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE PREVIOUS VARIANTS, THE POOL AND THE PATIO AREA REALLY ESTABLISHES A REASONABLE USE. AND STAFF FEELS THAT THIS HASN'T CHANGED WITH THIS CURRENT REQUEST. [00:15:03] WITH THAT IN MIND, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE WITH A TENTATIVE COUNCIL DATE OF MARCH 9TH. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. KARNEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE DESIGNATION OF FRENCH LAKE AS A. I'M SORRY YOU SAID. DID YOU SAY NATIONAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT? NATURAL ENVIRONMENT? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I AM FAMILIAR WITH OR HAVE SEEN SINCE JOINING THE COUNCIL LAST YEAR. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE? YEAH, WE JUST HAVE SOME DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. I BELIEVE IT'S THROUGH THE DNR DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR LAKES. AND AS A RESULT, WE HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHAT THOSE DIFFERENT WEIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS ARE. I'M NOT SURE THE SPECIFICS THAT HAVE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BEING THAT MORE SENSITIVE GROUP, BUT THE SETBACKS ARE IMPOSED BASED ON THEIR SENSITIVITY OR THEIR ECOLOGICAL VALUE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAD ONE. I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY LEGISLATE LOGIN, SO I NORMALLY WOULD HAVE THIS, BUT WHAT HOW HOW MUCH MORE LAKEWARD ARE WE GOING WITH THE SETBACK? I BELIEVE I IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT 7 FEET FROM WHERE THAT IF YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE HAVE, LIKE THE HATCH OF THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED POOL. YEAH. IF THIS WAS 95FT, THIS WAS 88 AND THIS WAS 102, JUST GENERALLY WITH THE TAPERING OF THE LAKESHORE. OOPS. GOT IT. SO LAKE WAS 7 FEET. BUT 200FT² OF HARD COVER IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE 150, IS THAT RIGHT? TRUE. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND A TOTAL IMPROVEMENT OF HARD COVER OF 134. YES. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE THAT. ONE OTHER QUESTION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THE THE PROPOSED POOL LOCATION IS GOING WHERE THERE WAS A PATIO EXISTING OR A PATIO APPROVED. WHERE THERE WAS ONCE A PATIO PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION. THANK YOU. MAYBE QUICKLY ASK IN CASE YOU CAN'T, THE APPLICANT CAN. THE RETAINING WALL WAS GOING TO BE PLACED BY THE SEPTIC SYSTEM TO HELP BUILD THE POOL. THAT'S BEING REMOVED NOW BECAUSE OF THE NEW POOL PLACEMENT, AND THAT'S PART OF THEIR HARD COVER REDUCTION, I BELIEVE. SO ULTIMATELY, I THINK THERE WAS MORE RETAINING WALLS THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN CURRENTLY. AND WHEN REVIEWING THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WHEN THE WHEN THE VARIANCES WERE APPLIED FOR IN 2023, RETAINING WALLS WERE ALSO A VARIANCE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO WITH THE REQUIREMENT SHIFTING TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE APPLICANT REWORKED THEIR PLAN TO NO LONGER INCLUDE NEW RETAINING WALLS. SO WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN HERE IN TERMS OF RETAINING WALLS WERE WALLS THAT WERE APPROVED WITH THAT INITIAL APPLICATION IN 2023. SO THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A PART OF THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL AND THESE AREAS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS THAT POOL AND PATIO AREA WILL NO LONGER BE PURSUED WITH APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR THIS POOL LOCATION. AND THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION AS, AS THAT WAY AS WELL, RIGHT? YES. JUST CLARIFYING THAT. OKAY. THAT THAT'S ALL I HAVE. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL STAFF. MY NAME IS JOHN MONSON. I'M THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF LAND SHOOT GROUP OUT OF EXCELSIOR. WE ARE A DESIGN BUILD FIRM. I HAVE BEEN BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND THE BUILDER FOR ABOUT 45 YEARS, AND HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE MINNETONKA AREA FOR SINCE ABOUT 1980. AND SO WE'RE THRILLED TO BE WORKING FOR THE HALLS. THIS IS A LEGACY PROPERTY. LEE MRS HALL'S FATHER GREW UP IN THIS HOME. AND IF ANY OF YOU EVER VENTURED BACK ON FRENCH LAKE ROAD, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN KIND OF A COOL OLD COLONIAL CLASSIC THAT HAD SEEN BETTER DAYS. AND SO THE HALLS HAVE ENGAGED US TO DESIGN AND BUILD US A NEW PROPERTY, A NEW HOME FOR THEM WITH THE AMENITIES. [00:20:10] AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I. AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME HERE, BUT YOU MAY SAY, WELL, WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THIS? THE BEAUTY OF DESIGNING AND BUILDING IS IT'S A ORGANIC EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. AND AS WE LOOK AT, WELL, LET'S SEE. OKAY, WE'VE GOT THE POOL APPROVED FOR DOWN HERE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE USING UP OFF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE ON THIS LAKE. YOU CALL THAT THE BACK? MOST LAKES, THAT WOULD BE THE FRONT. BUT YOU KNOW, SO WE WANT TO RELATE THE MAIN LIVING AREA INDOORS TO THE MAIN LIVING AREA OUTDOORS. HENCE THE THE REQUEST. I DID NOTICE ONE THING IN THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MEANINGFUL AT ALL, BUT IN THE AERIAL THAT MATT HAD UP THERE A FEW MINUTES AGO, WHAT I WHAT JUMPED OUT AT ME IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WHICH IS THE LINE THAT KIND OF GOES DOWN PLAN DOWN TO THE LEFT. RIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO COMPARE. SO. RIGHT WHERE THE. I HAVE MY POINTER, BUT RIGHT WHERE THE OPEN WATER STARTS AS IT'S COMING UP FROM THE LEFT THERE. THANK YOU. IT STOPS. THAT MIDWAY POINT. SO EVEN THOUGH THE ELEVATION WOULD SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE OW. THE REALITY IS THAT THE CATTAILS HAVE GROWN IN. THEY'RE SO THICK YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT'S OPEN WATER. SO I THINK BY SHIFTING THINGS TO THE EAST, YOU HAVE A PERCEIVED BELIEF THAT YOU'RE FURTHER FROM THE WATER THAN YOU ARE IN REALITY. SMALL POINT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OF IMPORTANCE TO YOU OR NOT, BUT I THOUGHT IT JUST JUMPED OUT AT ME. THAT'S THANKS FOR YOUR FOR YOUR VISUAL. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE MATT DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THINGS, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RESTATE THAT WE THINK AS PART OF OUR DESIGN BUILD MENTALITY THAT THIS IS WHERE THE POOL WANTS TO BE, AND THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER FOR THE INTERNAL FUNCTIONALITY OF THE HOME, ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER WHEN EVERYBODY'S IN THE KITCHEN DINING LIVING AREA. JUST JUMP OUT. YOU'RE AT THE POOL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN AND BACK UP. AND SO THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING I MISSED IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE. IF WE HAVE A QUESTION DURING DELIBERATION, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD. PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPOSED HOUSE. CHANGE THE POOL. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD. POOL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IF ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE HEARD. ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. SO I GUESS YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR MITIGANTS OR REASONS AND WE TRY NOT TO PUT THINGS IN PLACES THAT SHOULDN'T BE JUST BECAUSE IT FITS. I THINK FRENCH LAKE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT GETS DEFINED AS A LAKE AND ACTUALLY IS MORE SCRUTINIZED THAN LAKE MINNETONKA, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THAT. ENCROACHMENT, I THINK IS ONE THING TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. I THINK THAT'S A VALID MITIGANT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED HERE, BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE TREATED AS LAKE. IT REALLY ISN'T. IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE. MORE SO A POND, IF NOTHING ELSE, IN ITS ACTIVE USE. SO I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S MR. KARNEY'S CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL AS THE APPLICANTS. WE ARE SEEING AN IMPROVEMENT. WE LIKE TO SEE THOSE IN VARIANCES. WE WE'RE IMPROVING OUR HARD COVER BY 134FT². THAT'S MEANINGFUL AND SIGNIFICANT. WE ARE ALSO IMPROVING 200FT² WITHIN THE 150FT THAT IS IN DISCUSSION. SO I THINK GOING 7 FOOT LAKE LAKEWARD IN SITUATIONS LIKE THESE KNOWING THAT IF IT WAS 75 BY DEFINITION AND MUCH MORE [00:25:04] IMPACTFUL IF IT WAS A BUSY LAKE LAKESHORE, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY. SO BASED ON THAT SUMMARY AND THOSE FINDINGS, I UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO IT, I WOULD BE PERSONALLY WILLING TO TAKE A MOTION. I WOULD JUST ADD THE NEIGHBOR COMMENTARY IS HELPFUL. SO THANK YOU. I CAN JUMP THE GUN AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION AS WELL TO APPROVE LA26-000003 AS APPLIED. I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BRANDENBURG TO APPROVE. APPLIED SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PIRKLE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO 5. [5.3. LA26-000004, Robert Arone, 3590 North Shore Drive, Variances (Melanie Curtis)] 5.3 ON THE AGENDA. LA26-000004 3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. VARIANCES. MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU. THE OWNER IS REQUESTING SEVERAL VARIANCE APPROVALS TO SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME ON THE PROPERTY. A LOT AREA VARIANCE. A 75 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR BUILDING IQN HARDCOVER AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. THEY PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME IS NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO LAKE AVERAGE, LAKESHORE REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS, AND IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOW FLOOR REGULATIONS FROM THE FLOODPLAIN. REGARDING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, THE OWNER STATES THAT THE PROPERTY POSES DIFFICULTIES DUE TO ITS IRREGULAR SHAPE, THE SHORELINE ORIENTATION, AND LIMITED BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. THEY'VE PROVIDED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, AND ARE HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK. STAFF FINDS THAT THE UNIQUE SHORELINE WETLAND ENCROACHMENTS ON THE VACANT PROPERTY TO THE WEST CREATE DIFFICULTIES FOR THE PROPERTY AND AGREE WITH THE OWNER'S ASSESSMENT OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. APPROXIMATELY 60% 65% OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK AND IS UNBUILDABLE. APPLICATION OF THE SETBACKS RESULTS IN AN AWKWARDLY SHAPED 1300 SQUARE FOOT BUILDABLE AREA SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THE CODE PROVIDES OPTIONS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF LOTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM AREA OR WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. SUBSTANDARD PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY BE REDEVELOPED WITHOUT VARIANCES FROM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS, IF THEY MEET THE STANDARDS LISTED IN THE CODE. THE REQUEST FOR THE SETBACK AND HARD COVER VARIANCES RESULT IN THE PROPERTY'S INABILITY TO CONFORM WITH OUR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL STANDARDS. THEREFORE, THE THE LOT AREA VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUIRED. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO RECONSTRUCT THE HOME ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND LOCATION WITH THE SECOND STORY. THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE EXISTING HOME ARE IRREGULAR. IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE THE HOME, THE EXISTING HOME. IT'S NOT QUITE RECTANGULAR. SO THEY'RE CORRECTING THAT WITH THE PROPOSED LAYOUT AND ADDING A SECOND STORY. SO THE VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED. FOR THE, THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOME AS IT EXISTS. AND FOR THE SECOND STORY, THE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED HOME DO SHOW A 4 FOOT OVERHANG SURROUNDING THE STRUCTURE, WHICH WILL ADD TO THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING AND SETBACK AREAS. THE SETBACK TABLE WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT REFLECTS THE FOOTPRINT MEASUREMENTS NOT THE OVERHANG MEASUREMENTS. JUST TO NOTE THAT THE DNR REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND THEY PROVIDED RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THIS VARIANCE IS IF THE VARIANCES ARE APPROVED, THE OWNER PLANT TREES IN THE LAKE YARD TO SCREEN THE MASSING FROM THE INCREASED HEIGHT IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE LAKE, THEY SUGGESTED 1 TO 2 NATIVE TREES. THE WE DID RECEIVE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM AND A SUPPORTIVE STATEMENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST WHO'S IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PROPOSED. CONDITIONED UPON THE OWNER PROVIDING A MINIMUM OF TWO NATIVE TREES PLACED WITHIN THE LAKE YARD TO PROVIDE SCREENING OF THE HOME FROM THE LAKE. AND THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA FOR REVIEW. I CAN PUT UP THE THE HOUSE PLANS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE. AND I HAVE SEVERAL AERIAL PHOTO VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE FOR DISCUSSION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, MISS CURTIS. SO AND FORGIVE ME, I JUST AM A LITTLE BIT MORE LIMITED THAN I NORMALLY AM BECAUSE I CAN'T GET IN TO LEGISLATE [00:30:06] OTHERWISE. I'D BE LOOKING AT YOUR SUMMARY THAT YOU NICELY PUT TOGETHER. SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, THIS IS BASICALLY, IN ESSENCE, BEING REBUILT ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND WE'RE GOING UP. AND THAT'S THE TRIGGER, OF COURSE, BESIDES A MINOR CORRECTION. YEP. THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD ASSESSMENT. AND THE WE'RE NOT INTENSIFYING ANY HARD COVER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S LIKE AS WELL. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL. ANY QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION THAT I HAD. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. WISHES TO BE HEARD. PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YEAH. HI, GUYS. I'M ROBERT ARONE OF 3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. THANKS, MELANIE, FOR EVERYTHING SHE'S DONE. SHE'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL FOR GETTING THIS ALL TOGETHER. I ALSO HAVE MY FATHER HERE, AS WELL AS THE ARCHITECT THAT'S HELPING US DESIGN THE HOME. YEAH, WE ORIGINALLY HE ORIGINALLY SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THE ARCHITECT THAT IS JEAN DEVELOPED OR PUT IN PLACE PLANS THAT WERE MUCH LARGER, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE INTRUSIVE TO THE SETBACK. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEPTH OF LIKE 42FT, WHICH WHEN I SAW THAT AFTER I BOUGHT THE HOME FROM MY DAD. OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T KNEW THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO INTRUSIVE. SO WE JUST WANTED TO GET SOMETHING THAT WOULD REBUILD ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT JUST TO GO UP. SO LIKE RIGHT NOW I LIVE ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHEN I'M IN TOWN AND IT'S A 6 FOOT CEILING AT THE PEAK. SO I'M KIND OF, YOU KNOW, DUCKING JUST TO EVEN WALK AROUND UP THERE. AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY OLD HOME AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN EYESORE AS WELL FROM THE LAKE OR THE STREET. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY, INCLUDING OUR NEIGHBORS, TO BUILD ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT. ALL WE'RE ASKING IS JUST TO GO UP, OTHER THAN A MINOR ADJUSTMENTS OF THE RECTANGULAR FOOTPRINT, JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR BUILDING PURPOSES TO GET THE FULL 26FT DEPTH. SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S TOO EXTREME OF AN ASK. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING FURTHER THAN WHAT THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT IS. SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT WOULD BE. WE'RE ALSO BRINGING THE FLOOR UP FROM THE BOTTOM AS WELL TO GET OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TOO, JUST TO MAKE SURE TO KEEP IT FUTURE PROOFING IT FOR THE FUTURE. AND THEN ANOTHER THING WOULD BE THE TREES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE ONE THING I WILL ADD IS WE DO HAVE BASICALLY A NON BUILDABLE LOT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO THE WEST AS YOU CAN SEE THERE. SO THERE IS A LOT OF TREE COVER AS IT IS. SO OUR HOUSE IS PRETTY MUCH HIDDEN WHEN YOU'RE COMING THROUGH THE CHANNEL THERE TO GET INTO NORTH ARM. AND BY THE LAUNCH, IT'S THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY, NOT THAT IT REALLY IS GOING TO HINDER OUR VIEW, BECAUSE MOST OF THE WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING, THE KITCHEN IS GOING TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE, LOOKING OUT TO THE NORTH INTO THE LAKE. I WOULD SAY, LIKE OUR NEIGHBOR, YOU CAN SEE THEIR DEPTH OF THEIR HOUSE IS DEEPER. SO I KNOW ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IS NEIGHBORS IS TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR SIGHT LINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AS MELANIE MENTIONED, OUR NEIGHBOR FULLY APPROVED EVERYTHING SIGNED OFF. HE HAS NO PROBLEM. THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM. I WOULD SAY IF WE DO HAVE TO PLANT THOSE TREES, THE ONE NEGATIVE FACTOR WITH THAT IS WITH THEIR FURTHER DEPTH. IT'S GOING TO BLOCK THEIR SIGHT LINES ONCE THEY'RE FULLY GROWN, WHICH THAT MAY TAKE SEVERAL YEARS, BUT THEIR SIGHT LINES TO THE LAUNCH AND THE CHANNEL ARE GOING TO BE MORE IMPACTED A LOT MORE ADVERSELY THAN OUR HOUSE WOULD BE BECAUSE WE'RE MORE YOU KNOW, PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT. SO THAT'S ONE THING I WOULD MENTION FOR THE TREES FOR THAT CAVEAT IS THAT IT MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL BLOCKAGE, THAT WE MIGHT GET MORE PUSHBACK FROM NEIGHBORS THAN JUST NOT HAVING IT AT ALL. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YEAH, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND THAT'S KIND OF THE SEMANTICS OF THE BUILD HERE. THANK YOU. ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE. I MIGHT HAVE ONE, IF I CAN, WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE. SO I DIDN'T QUITE READ YOU. SO YOU ARE OR YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO ADD TREES INTO THE THE LAKE AREA FOR THE DNR RECOMMENDATION OR REQUEST? YES, WE'RE WILLING TO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT INTO EFFECT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THAT YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS, I THINK THE BIGGEST IMPACT, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT US AS MUCH. OBVIOUSLY, WALKING DOWN AND THINGS. IT'S PRETTY NARROW ON THAT SIDE, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY BIGGEST, YOU KNOW, HINDRANCE. I THINK OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE DEEPER BACK TOWARDS THE LAKE. WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF BLOCK THEIR THREE 60 VIEW OR 180 VIEW, I GUESS. SURE. SO THE, THE, THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO PLANT THE TREES SOMEWHERE, LIKE KIND OF CENTRALLY LOCATED TO SCREEN THE HOME FROM THE LAKE. I YES, I, I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF SCREENING, YOU KNOW, ON THE WEST SIDE EXISTING ALREADY TODAY, BUT THE I THINK THE DNR INTENTION WAS TO SCREEN THE FRONT, THE LAKE VIEW OF THE HOUSE LOCATION. YEP. SURE. AND THEN REAL QUICK ON THAT. SO I GUESS I WAS THINKING TO BE MORE OF WHERE THE NON BUILDABLE AREA IS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY GO BACK TO THE SURVEY. IT'S ON THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE GARAGE THERE. [00:35:01] THIS IS WHERE WE'RE THINKING THIS IS WHERE THEY WANT THE TREES. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. BECAUSE I GUESS I WAS JUST LOOKING. THERE'S NO THERE'S ONLY HOUSES OVER THERE. I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE FROM THE LAKE COVERING UP FROM THE LAKE, SO I GUESS BUT EITHER WAY, WE'RE OPEN TO WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL THINK MAKES SENSE. I'M JUST KIND OF PUTTING MY $0.02. YEAH. NO, I DON'T WANT THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE PROPOSED. SO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING IN FIVE, TEN YEARS RAISES UP WHERE THEY BLOCK PART OF THEIR VIEW OF THE LAKE THAT WASN'T ORIGINALLY APPROVED UPON FROM THEM. SURE. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS APPROVE A MOTION FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO. SURE. SO I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WHATEVER YOU GUYS THINK WE'RE OPEN TO FOR THAT? AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, OF COURSE, WHENEVER EVEN THE ROOFLINE CHANGES OF HEIGHT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT TRIGGERS A VARIANCE. BUT WHEN WE'RE NOT INCREASING HARD COVER, WE'RE NOT INCREASING YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE. ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GENERALLY BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF GOING UP AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE REQUIRED HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND THOSE THINGS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES WE LIKE TO SEE AN IMPROVEMENT IN HARDCOVER. AND I THINK THIS IS A CHALLENGING LOT. ANY IMPROVEMENT TO HARDCOVER WOULD BE A HINDRANCE TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND. IT'S A PRETTY BUSY ROAD THAT THEY'RE BACKING INTO. AND I DON'T, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM NOT ASKING FOR THAT IS MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OPINION FROM THE REST OF YOU COMMISSIONERS. I MEAN, IT'S 2 STORIES NOW. IT'S JUST AN UNUSABLE SECOND STORY, NOT FULLY USABLE SECOND STORY. AND SO JUST MAKING THAT SECOND STORY MORE USABLE SOUNDS LIKE IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. YOU SAID THERE IS A SECOND FLOOR, THERE IS CURRENTLY JUST SIX FEET. PROBABLY. IT'S JUST VERY TIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] AND THIS IS THE THE VIEW ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS THE THERE'S A FULL SECOND STORY SHOWN. THIS IS THE HOUSE TODAY. SO IT IS A IT IS AN INCREASE. IT IS AN INCREASE. BUT THIS APPEARS TO BE I DON'T KNOW TO ME A REASONABLE BUILDING WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT. I DO THINK THAT THE DNR ASKING FOR SCREENING FROM THE LAKE BECAUSE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE MAKES SENSE. I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S SIGHTLINES. I DO THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY TO PLANT THOSE TREES CLOSER TO THE HOME SO THAT THEY AREN'T IMPACTING THE NEIGHBOR'S SIGHTLINES. IF THAT APPEARED TO BE WHAT WHAT KIND OF MADE THE THE PROJECT MORE AMENABLE? I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND IT, THE INCREASED HEIGHT HERE DOES NOT STAND OUT. IT FEELS LIKE A LOT OF THE HOMES IN THAT AREA ARE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION ANYWAY. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS HIT MY HEAD IN A LOT OF LOW CEILINGS BEFORE, TOO. I'M WITH YOU. LET'S LET'S CHANGE THAT. YEAH. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE 2 TREE REQUIREMENT WITH THE HEIGHT INCREASE, TOO. AND FINDING A PLAN THAT WORKS FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBOR. AND STILL KIND OF MEETS THE STAFF'S INTENTION THERE. I THINK THAT'S A TOTALLY FINE INCLUSION TO KEEP, BUT, YEAH, NO, NO CONCERNS ON MY SIDE IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE TO INCREASE HEIGHT HERE. THANK YOU. I MIGHT, IF I CAN INTERRUPT A QUESTION FOR MISS CURTIS. SO IS THE INCREASE THAT WE ARE ENTERTAINING BECAUSE OF THE ROOF OVERHANG? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OR WE'RE ADDING A SECOND STORY? NO, NO, NO. I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL ARE WE INCREASING THE FOOTPRINT? THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME IS GOING TO BE THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHTENING OUT THE RECTANGLE. OKAY. THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING UP A LEVEL AND THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OVERHANGS ARE. CURRENTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FOUR FEET ON THE OLD VERSUS. WHAT IS THE THE THE 4. YEAH I CAN'T I CAN'T TELL. NO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S THE SAME. YEAH. WHATEVER. YOU'RE CHANGING THE ROOFLINE A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S A CASUALTY OF IT. THAT'S FINE. MORE SO I JUST THOUGHT I HEARD THAT WE WERE I HEARD IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO WE'RE GOOD THERE. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OPINION ON THE DNR'S RECOMMENDATION? SOUNDS LIKE, AS A, CALL IT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION IF IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED TO, [00:40:02] TO HAVE IT AS PART OF OUR MOTION. ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT? IS THAT A CITY REQUIREMENT OR IS THAT JUST DIRECTION FROM THE DNR? DNR? IT'S A MITIGATING MEASURE THAT IS NOT UNCOMMONLY REQUESTED IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE BUILDING WITHIN THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK. IT'S HELPS TO OFFSET THE IMPACT OF THE MASS OF THE HOME, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'RE GOING UP ANOTHER STORY. YEAH, I STRUGGLE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. LIKE IF I'M A LAKE OWNER, I WANT VIEWS OF THE LAKE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE THE MASSING FROM THE LAKE SIDE IS NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. BUT I THOUGHT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT OTHER, NOT ONLY HIS VIEW POTENTIALLY BEING BLOCKED FROM THE LAKE, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF OWNING THE LAKE ITSELF, A LAKE LOT ITSELF. BUT I GUESS THAT'S WHAT LIKE IF IT'S NOT A CITY REQUIREMENT, THEN I STRUGGLE WITH. NOT THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH THE DNR, BUT I JUST STRUGGLE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT AND LET ALONE ALL THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE WESTERLY PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE HOUSE TO THE EAST THERE IS SOMEWHAT NEW. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TREES IN THEIR PROPERTY, SO I DO STRUGGLE WITH THAT KIND OF ADDED ON. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, I'M MORE PRO-DEVELOPMENT, LESS REQUIREMENTS ON ANYBODY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING. AND AGAIN, IF WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT, WE JUST APPROVED SOMEONE EXPANDING INTO THE 150 FOOT, YOU KNOW, SETBACK WITH REGARDING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. AND I JUST THINK ONLY DOING IT TO ONE APPLICATION ISN'T FAIR. AND SO I ALSO JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THEY'RE INCREASING OR IMPROVING THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION. THAT'S KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT OF THE NEW FOUNDATION. AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY IMPROVING THE SETBACK WITH THEIR ONE NEIGHBOR ON THE EAST BY A COUPLE FEET. SO. OR A FOOT MAYBE. BUT I'M DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT KIND OF AS IS. I JUST I THINK WE SHOULD QUESTION WHY WE'RE ACQUIRING THE THE TREES. AND I UNDERSTAND EVERY LITTLE BIT CAN HELP, BUT HIS TWO TREES REALLY GOING TO MAKE THE WATER QUALITY OF LAKE MINNETONKA BETTER KNOW IF THAT'S ENHANCED BUNCH. YES, MAYBE. BUT I JUST PUSHED BACK ON WHEN WE WHEN WE HINDER DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS WITH WITH SMALLER REQUIREMENTS THAT AREN'T PART OF THE CITY CODE. THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. YEAH. NO, I APPRECIATE THE THE THOUGHTS. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALSO REALIZE THAT WE ARE MAKING THAT THE CITY CODE IS IN PLACE AND WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, NOT JUST FOR THE HOMEOWNER. AND SO SOME OF THESE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ARE PUT IN PLACE OR SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE ARE SOME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE. ARE PUT IN PLACE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THOSE USING THE LAKE ALSO AREN'T BEING HINDERED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THIS INTENSIFICATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THOSE OF US WHO DON'T LIVE ON THE LAKE BUT LIKE TO USE THE LAKE ALSO GET TO SEE, TO HAVE BEAUTIFUL VIEWS. AND SO THAT'S JUST LIKE THE THE INTENT BEHIND SOME OF THOSE MITIGATING FACTORS. I DON'T THINK THAT 2 TREES IS ESPECIALLY JUST WE'RE NOT SPECIFYING SIZE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT DOESN'T FEEL INAPPROPRIATE TO ACCOUNT FOR A SECOND, A SECOND STORY DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE TO ME. GIVEN THE THE DNR AND STAFF ARE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT. I APPRECIATE THAT. GO AHEAD. I WOULD JUST SAY I AGREE. I THINK YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NATURAL INSTINCT TO MAYBE CUT DOWN THOSE TREES FOR THE BETTER VIEW. AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S VERY UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT I THINK IF ALL THE HOUSES WERE TO CUT DOWN THEIR TREES, DRIVING AROUND LAKE MINNETONKA IN THE SUMMERTIME WOULD NOT FEEL LIKE IT DOES RIGHT NOW. AND THERE IS, YOU KNOW, AN INVESTED INTEREST WE ALL HAVE IN PRESERVING THAT TO SOME DEGREE. I DON'T THINK WE WANT RESTRICTIONS, THOUGH, THAT ARE SO DIFFICULT TO, TO, TO MEET THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO BASIC THINGS LIKE THIS TO YOUR HOUSE AND MAKE THE SECOND FLOOR MORE ACCOMMODATING. SO YEAH, I THINK THE TWO TREES STRIKES A NICE BALANCE. WITH THAT IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T FEEL YOU KNOW, OUT OF PLACE, ESPECIALLY IF I'M, IF I'M SEEING THAT AERIAL VIEW CORRECTLY, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE ARE MANY TREES OUTSIDE OF TO THE SIDE THERE. [00:45:01] SO IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S AMPLE SPOTS. YOU COULD, YOU COULD, YOU COULD PLUG THOSE IN AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT, TO, TO THE TREES PLANTED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST NATIVE IS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT. OKAY. SO YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. A GREAT GREAT COMMENTS. I, I KIND OF AGREE. I MEAN, THE I DON'T RECALL THE DNR OFTEN WEIGHING IN THIS WAY. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING DOWN GRADE. AND I THINK THE DNR IS MAKING THE POSITION, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SCREENING, WHICH IS THE SAME REASON WHY WE HAVE PRETTY STRICT CODES WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE, BOAT HOUSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. INTENSIFICATION OF STRUCTURE. LAKEWARD. SO THE MASSING BEING ADDED AND PROBABLY LOOKING AT IT AS IT'S A REASONABLE PLACE TO PLACE A TREE OR TWO ESPECIALLY BEING IT BEING A DOWNGRADE I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THERE APPEARS TO BE TREES IN ALL OF THE LOTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE THREE RIGHT THERE. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE INEVITABLY REGARDLESS OF HOW WE RULE OR WHATEVER, WE DECIDE, THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN AS WELL. SO REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS MOTION GOES AND CARRIES, IT'S GOING TO BE OUR FEEDBACK. BUT THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELABORATE PERHAPS MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD OR WOULD NOT WANT TO PLANT A TREE WHEN YOU GO TO THE COUNCIL. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL. SURE. YEP. ABSOLUTELY. THE APPLICANT IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. FRANK ARONE, 3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PUTTING THE TREES IN. BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE HEIGHT. AND IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU PULL UP THE ELEVATIONS ON THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSE I MEAN, WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO GO AS HIGH AS HIM. SO YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING UP A FEW FEET FROM WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, AND THEN YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO REACH KEVIN'S PEAK.I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN AND BLOCK OUR HOUSE WITH THE NEW BUT THEN YOU LOOK AT NEXT DOOR. WELL, THAT'S GOING TO BE HIGHER. NOT GOING TO BLOCK THAT. WE'D HAVE TO PLANT 30 TREES. WE WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET IT DONE TO GET THE VARIANCE. WE HAVE 2 TREES. WE'LL PUT THEM STRATEGICALLY. BUT I DON'T SEE THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACK LOT OF KEVIN'S, HE'S GOT BIG TREES THAT COVER THE BACK END OF HIS SITE. AND THEN WE'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF TREES ON THE WEST SIDE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE. SO WHEN WE'RE SITTING ON OUR HER PATIO. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE LAUNCH. SO ANYBODY THAT'S COMING THROUGH THE CHANNEL, THE ONLY TIME YOU CAN SEE OUR HOUSE. AND THEN NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ON THE EAST SIDE, AS YOU'RE GOING UP, ALL YOU SEE THERE IS CATTAILS. THERE'S NOBODY'S TRAVELING IN THERE FROM FROM OUR DOCKS WHERE YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE. PUT THE POINTER ON OUR DOCKS, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU GO STRAIGHT UP TO THE NORTH, YOU CAN'T DRIVE A BOAT IN THERE. SO THERE'S NO TRAFFIC IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S SO SHALLOW THAT THE ONLY SPOT THAT YOU WOULD PEOPLE WOULD SEE OUR HOUSE WOULD BE TO THE LEFT WHEN THEY'RE COMING TO GO THROUGH THE CHANNEL OR COMING FROM THE BOAT LAUNCH ONCE THEY GET OUT FAR ENOUGH. BUT LIKE I SAY, WE'RE MORE MORE THAN AGREEABLE TO PLANT WHATEVER YOU WANT. IF YOU WANT TO PLANT TEN TREES WILL PLANT TEN. VERY WELL. I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK THE I THINK THE THE PROPERTY, THE LOT THE YARD IS CONDUCIVE TO TO PLANTING. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 20 FOOT TREES OR 60 FOOT TREES. I AGAIN, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I DON'T THINK IT'S AN EGREGIOUS ASK. I DON'T SEE IT OFTEN FROM THE DNR. WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT THE DNR FEEDBACK IS. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I CAN SEE WHERE THEIR PERSPECTIVE IS COMING FROM. BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE VOTES AND THAT'S WHY WE COME TO OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE APPLICATION, WE HAVE THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF US. WE CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE. OTHERWISE WE COULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IN ANY CAPACITY. BUT THE APPLICATION AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TREES FOR THE DNR. FEEDBACK. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DNR AND STAFF TO PLANT 2 NATIVE TREES ON THE PROPERTY. LAKEWARD OF THE HOME. ALL RIGHT. JUST TO CLEAN UP THAT MOTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE, CONDITIONAL UPON THEM SATISFYING THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TREE REPLANTING FOR THE DNR [00:50:08] FEEDBACK. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. IS THAT THAT'S THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. SO YOU CAN JUST FOR STATS? YES. VERY WELL. SO TO CLEAN IT UP EVEN FURTHER WOULD BE TO FOLLOW WE WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE WHICH PER THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, NOT AS APPLIED. ALL RIGHT. AND I SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A WE HAVE A MOTION BY PRCHAL AND A SECOND BY TIFT AS EXPLAINED. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY ANYONE? NO. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MARCH 9TH. CITY COUNCIL IS. WHAT'S THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING? YES. IS MARCH. MARCH. IT'S IT'S SCHEDULED TO GO TO MARCH 9TH AND I WILL CONNECT WITH YOU. I'M POTENTIALLY ABLE TO. SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER6. WE'RE AT OTHER ITEMS. [6. Other Items] MISS OAKDEN. YEAH, JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON SOME PAST LAND USE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU SAW. WE WE TOUCHED BASE A LITTLE BIT AT THE WORK SESSION, BUT THERE WAS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING VARIANCE REQUEST OFF NORTH SHORE DRIVE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS APPLIED. ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FROM FOX STREET AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONCURRENT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND THEN 2697 KELLY, WHICH WAS AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE. THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED AND APPROVED THAT AS WELL. ONE OTHER THING IS WE DID JUST HAVE A WORK SESSION ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU THINK ABOUT ACCESSORY BUILDING STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS. ALWAYS BE WILLING TO BRING THOSE UP. OR IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE REACH OUT TO STAFF. WE'RE HAPPY TO CLARIFY. AND IF THERE'S OTHER TOPICS FOR WORK SESSIONS. AGAIN, HAPPY TO RESPOND AND LISTEN TO THOSE REQUESTS. STAFF IS ANTICIPATING A SPRING WORK SESSION TO GO OVER KIND OF A LEGAL REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES. JUST KIND OF HIGH LEVEL ON THAT ONE LATER THIS SPRING. BUT WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER UPDATES. THANK YOU, MISS OAKDEN. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOVES US ON TO ADJOURNMENT. IF WE WOULD GET A MOTION TO DO SO, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS EVENING. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY MISS BURKLE. WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY TIFT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION TO ADJOURN. THANKS, GUYS. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.