OKAY. THANKS, EVERYONE FOR COMING TONIGHT. I AM VICE CHAIR [1) Call to Order] [00:00:10] KELLY PRCHAL, BUT I'LL BE ACTING AS CHAIR THIS EVENING, AND WE START EVERY MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SO PLEASE STAND AND FACE THE FLAG. 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. THANKS SO MUCH, EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING. I'M PLEASED TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. AND WE HAVE ONE ADDITION TO THE AGENDA. [3) Approval of Agenda] SO WE'RE ADDING THE OATH OF OFFICE FOR STACEY ROYAL AS AN ALTERNATE PLANNING, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE? APPROVE WITH THE REVISION OR AMENDMENT. I'LL SECOND THAT. SO I HAVE A, I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN DOWN. MOTION. YEAH. JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND. CAN YOU GUYS JUST. YES. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE HAD A MOTION BY BRANDABUR AND A SECOND BY JARNOT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. SO NOW WE'LL NEED TO PERFORM THE OATH OF OFFICE FOR. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW OR DID YOU WANT. OKAY. WE CAN DO IT NOW, SO THAT WAY COMMISSIONER ROYAL CAN TAKE A ACTION WITH YOU GUYS TONIGHT. SO STACEY, IF YOU WANT TO RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, AND THEN YOU GO AHEAD AND REPEAT AFTER ME. I STACEY ROYAL. I STACEY ROYAL. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR. THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES. AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES. OF THE OFFICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER. OF THE OFFICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER. OF THE CITY OF ORONO. THE CITY OF ORONO. IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. TO THE BEST OF MY JUDGMENT AND ABILITY. TO THE BEST OF MY JUDGMENT AND ABILITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS, STACEY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, COMMISSIONER ROYAL. NEXT ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16TH, [4.1) Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 2026] 2026. MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. [5.1) LA26-000005, Revision LLC o/b/o Brent Teele, 356 Westlake Street, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) ] THIS IS LA26-5, REVISION LLC ON BEHALF OF BRENT TEELE, 356 WESTLAKE STREET. MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXPAND THE ROOF PORTION. EXCUSE ME. THE ROOF PORCH ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE HOME, WHICH IS PARTIALLY LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ENCLOSING THE EXISTING OPEN ROOF PORCH FOR LIVING SPACE ON THE SECOND STORY, AND EXPANDING THE 12-FOOT PORTION OF THE PORCH LAKEWARD OVER THE DECK THAT IS EXISTING AND IT WILL BE SCREENED IN. THE PLANS ALSO INCLUDE A NEW LANDSCAPE STAIR ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ADDITION, SUPPORTED BY A THREE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL, SIX FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THE NEW 20-FOOT PORCH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE EXISTING DECK, EXTENDING 12FT CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE EXISTING, SEVEN-FOOT-DEEP PORTION OF THE ROOFED PORCH TODAY. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT APPEAR TO IMPACT VIEWS OF THE LAKE FROM HOMES ON EITHER SIDE. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH HAS LAKE VIEWS DIRECTLY TO THE EAST, BUT COULD BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN. [00:05:05] WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THIS PROPERTY OWNER. THE HOME TO THE SOUTH HAS VIEWS FACING SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST AND WOULD NOT LIKELY BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED THE NON-CONFORMING SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING HOMES AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THEY PROVIDED A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS AND IT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS EXHIBIT C. A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. STAFF FINDS THAT THE LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT LOT AND ITS NARROW WIDTH CREATE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND LIMIT EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES. SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THE SOUTH SIDE. EXHIBIT F WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. AND WE DID RECEIVE TWO SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS TODAY THAT WERE PLACED AT YOUR SEATS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS APPLIED. HAVE THE PLANS TO SHOW YOU IN SOME AERIAL VIEWS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, BUT I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION TO STAFF? HEARING NONE. WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT OR SOMEONE ON THEIR BEHALF. IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING I'D LIKE TO ADD. BUT WE'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS. SVEN GUSTAFSON WITH REVISION AND STONEWOOD, 153 LAKE STREET EAST. GREAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, SO. IF YOU COULD, SORRY IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORDINGS. THANK YOU. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF ORONO ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW. WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY OF WINTER OF LAST YEAR AND MOVED IN LAST SUMMER. AT THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT OF US, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME. IT WAS A SINGLE STORY HOME WITH AN EXISTING DECK. YES, EXACTLY. IN THAT, IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH. THAT WAS WHEN WE KIND OF STARTED THE PROGRESS OR THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE PLAN FOR A SCREENED PORCH. IN THE MEANTIME, THEY'VE TORN THAT PROPERTY DOWN AND LDK HAS BUILT A SPEC HOME THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY MARKETING. SO I DID ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO THE OWNER OF THE BUILDER A COUPLE TIMES DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE. I'VE SPOKEN TO ALL THE OTHER EXISTING NEIGHBORS, MOST OF WHICH HAVE LIVED THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. ALL OF THEM ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT. OBVIOUSLY IT DOESN'T IMPACT A LOT OF THEM BECAUSE OF LOCATION OF THE SCREENED IN PORCH. IT'S KIND OF AN ISOLATED ADDITION ON THE BACK OF THE HOME. REAL, THE REAL REASON FOR THE, THE REQUEST OR THE MOTIVATION BEHIND IT IS OUR HOME THAT WE PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN ON NORTH ARM. WE CONSTRUCTED A TWO LEVEL SCREENED PORCH. WE WENT THROUGH A SIMILAR PROCESS AS THIS TO GET IT APPROVED. AND WE ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT. WE SPENT THE MAJORITY OF OUR TIME THERE DURING THE SUMMER. WE REALLY MISS IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS NOW WITH OUR EXISTING DECK. SO IT'S REALLY TRYING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY AND INCREASE THE USABILITY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION WITH QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF ANYTHING COMES UP. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO HAS ANY COMMENTS. PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. ANYONE HAVE ANY PARTICULAR THOUGHTS? I'LL SAY MY FIRST OPINION IS IT SEEMS VERY, YOU KNOW, THOUGHT OUT. IT'S NOT OVERDONE. OBVIOUSLY A GOOD OUTREACH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LOOKING AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY REPORT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, IT'S A VERY NARROW LOT, SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OTHER OPTIONS YOU COULD LOOK AT TO GET AROUND THE SETBACK. SO I, I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME OPPOSED TO IT AT THIS MOMENT. I AGREE, I THINK IT'S A WELL LAID OUT DESIGN. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO INFRINGE ON ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS VIEWS AND SEEMS TO BUILD HOW THE SPACE IS CURRENTLY BEING UTILIZED. SO NO CONCERNS ON MY SIDE. THANKS. I THINK THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBOR IS I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOUTH OR BELOW IN THE PHOTO. [00:10:05] THEIR HOUSE IS ANGLED VERY FAR AWAY FROM THERE'S, THERE'S NOT MUCH VISUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR THE VISUALS. THEIR FOCUS IS REALLY SOUTH ON THAT PHOTO. SO HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT. CAN MAKE THEM. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. YEAH. I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA26-5 AS APPLIED. I'LL SECOND. GREAT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR AND SECOND FROM JARNOT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO LA26-7. [5.2) LA26-000007, Allied Construction o/b/o Barbara Burwell, 1100 Millston Road, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis)] ALLIED CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BARBARA BURWELL. MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU. JUST HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH THE SCREEN COORDINATION HERE. IT'S NOT COOPERATING. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING. I THINK IT'S YOUR IT'S YOUR DOLBY. THERE WAS A IT'S LOTS OF THINGS. WE'LL TAKE JUST A MINUTE FOR SOME, IT CHALLENGES. AND THIS ISN'T WORKING. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? AND I'LL START. I THINK I WANT THAT ONE. DO YOU WANT ME TO? OKAY. WHAT WAS THAT? I HAVE THE ABILITY TO PULL UP. THROUGH THIS COMPUTER TO GET ON THE SCREEN. WHAT DOES THAT SAY? I'M GOING TO START PRESENTING. SURE. THANK YOU. THIS IS HAPPENING. THANK YOU. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY BARBARA BURWELL. THE APPLICANT, ALLIED CONSTRUCTION IS SEEKING APPROVAL OF TWO VARIANCES FOR THE 1100 MILLSTONE ROAD PROPERTY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 12.7 ACRES AND CURRENTLY CONTAINS SIX ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TOTALING 9047FT² OF FOOTPRINT AREA. FOUR OF THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS EXCEED 1000FT² AND THEREFORE ARE CLASSIFIED AS OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, OABS IN OUR CODE. CITY CODE ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA BASED ON LOT SIZE AND LIMITS. EACH PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF ACREAGE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDING. THE REQUEST INCLUDES A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ACCESSORY, BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PROPERTY, AND A VARIANCE FROM THE LIMITATION OF ONE OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDING. CURRENTLY FOR. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE TWO. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 11,000 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING TO REPLACE THREE OF THE EXISTING OABS THE GREENHOUSE, THE WHITE GARAGE AND RED BARN. WHILE THIS RESULTS IN A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF OVERSIZE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY, IT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED ACCESSORY BUILDING FOOTPRINT BY 7140FT². THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE SCALE OF BUILDING NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE PROPERTY'S MAINTENANCE NEEDS IN RELATION TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AS A CHALLENGE. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF OVERSIZE BUILDINGS. I'M SORRY. AS A CHALLENGE, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF EXISTING OVERSIZE BUILDINGS THEY'VE PROVIDED, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE PACKET, AND SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. STAFF FINDS THAT THE COMBINATION OF THE PROPERTY'S LARGE SIZE, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AND MULTIPLE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDING CREATE A SITUATION WHERE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE LIMITATIONS RESULTS IN AN IMPRACTICAL AND INEFFECTIVE, INEFFICIENT OUTCOME FOR THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO CONSOLIDATE THREE EXISTING OVERSIZE BUILDINGS INTO A SINGLE LARGER BUILDING RESPONSE TO SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. THE PERCEIVED IMPACT OF THE NEW BUILDING IS MITIGATED BY THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SITING ON THE LARGE PROPERTY, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOW DENSITY RURAL RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN AN L CONFIGURATION, AND WILL HAVE AN OPEN DRIVE THROUGH IN THE CENTER TO REDUCE THE APPEARANCE OF MASSING AND BREAK UP THE LONG BUILDING FACADE WHEN VIEWED FROM THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH. OH, YOU GOT. ONE OF THEM. OKAY. THE PROPERTY OWNER ALSO OWNS TEN ADJACENT PROPERTIES. [00:15:04] 25 ACRES IN ADDITION TO THE 12.7-ACRE PROPERTY. BRINGING THE TOTAL LAND AREA TO 38.5-ACRES WHICH IS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT F, IF YOU CAN BRING IT UP ON YOUR OWN SCREENS. BASED ON THE 12-ACRE SIZE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO 7000FT² OF ACCESSORY BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE PROPOSAL WILL INCREASE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING FOOTPRINT BY APPROXIMATELY 5000FT² OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS. STAFF FINDS THAT THE IMPACT OF THIS INCREASE IS MITIGATED BY SEVERAL FACTORS. THE PROPOSAL CONSOLIDATES THREE OF THE BUILDINGS INTO A SINGLE STRUCTURE, RESULTING IN A MORE COMPACT AND ORGANIZED SITE LAYOUT, REDUCING THE VISUAL CLUTTER THAT'S CURRENTLY PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS SUBSTANTIAL SIZE PROVIDES ADEQUATE AREA TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASED FOOTPRINT WITHOUT CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF OVERDEVELOPMENT OR OVERCROWDING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT. THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IN COMBINATION WITH EXISTING VEGETATION, TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE, DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINES AND ADJACENT RESIDENCES SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS VISIBILITY FROM OFF SITE VANTAGE POINTS. ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSAL EXCEEDS THE ACCESSORY BUILDING FOOTPRINT LIMITATION, THE FUNCTIONAL AND VISUAL IMPACTS ARE LESSENED WHEN COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND THE RESULTING SITE CONFIGURATION APPEARS TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS APPLICATION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS APPLIED. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER ARE HERE. UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T BRING OTHER PLANS UP, BUT THIS ONE. WE'RE GETTING THERE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD THE COMMISSIONERS, WE DO HAVE THE FULL PACKET IN FRONT OF US WITH ALL OF THE PHOTOS AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO STUDY THAT OVER THE WEEKEND AS WELL. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM COMMISSIONERS? IT SEEMS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SOMEWHAT LEANS ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A RATHER LARGE LOT. JUST CONSIDERING THE BREAKUP WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST NUMBER OF YEARS IN ORONO OF THESE LARGER LOTS INTO SMALLER LOTS. IF THIS WAS APPROVED, WOULD THERE BE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON BREAKING UP THIS 12-ACRE LOT IN THE FUTURE? OFTENTIMES WE HAVE SEEN. YES, THERE WOULD BE WE, WE CAN HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL BUILT INTO THE RESOLUTION THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BUILDINGS WHEN THAT, WHEN AND IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN. AND YOU CAN ALSO ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT HER INTENT IN THE FUTURE. WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALSO OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THE FACT THAT WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT IF SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING AND OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD BE HOUSED HERE WOULD BE USED ON THOSE PROPERTIES WHEN, WHAT'S THE PROCESS IN ORONO FOR JOINING THOSE PROPERTIES OR HOW IS, HOW SHOULD WE AS COMMISSIONERS BEST CONSIDER THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THIS PROPERTY VERSUS THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES? I THINK WE FOCUS ON THE, ON THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY. IT'S KIND OF LIKE ANECDOTALLY, JUST LETTING YOU KNOW AND BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT SHE DOES OWN PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE. SO THERE AREN'T ANY ABUTTING RESIDENCES OR OTHER RESIDENCES THAT ARE IN PROXIMITY TO EVEN SEE THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COULD YOU MAYBE HELP, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN OUR PACKET TALKING ABOUT THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED ACCESSORY BUILDING FOOTPRINT. IS THAT A SPECIFIC VALUE? IT SAYS IN HERE THERE'S LANGUAGE ABOUT IT'S BASED ON THE LOT SIZE. IT IS. THERE'S A TABLE IN THE CODE THAT LISTS A RANGE OF PROPERTY SIZES UP TO 14, WHERE THE TABLE ENDS WITH MAXIMUM SIZES FOR EACH RATIO OR RANGE OF LOT SIZES. WHEN IT GETS TO 14 IT'S BASICALLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE MAXIMUM ON 1.3% OF THE PROPERTY SIZE THERE. THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC REASON THAT THOSE SIZES WERE PUT ON, PUT IN THERE. WE PREVIOUSLY HAD A SEPARATED TABLE THAT BROKE IT INTO TOTAL ALLOWED ON THE SITE AND THEN A SMALLER NUMBER FOR THE MAXIMUM. [00:20:03] AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE BROKE THAT AND WE COMBINED THAT INTO JUST ONE MAIN LIMITATION. SO YOU COULD HAVE ONE LARGE BUILDING IF YOU WANTED TO UP TO THAT MAXIMUM SIZE. SO THAT'S HOW THE CODE READS NOW. DO YOU REMEMBER APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS DONE? I'M ASSUMING ALL OF THESE OTHER INDIVIDUAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WERE BUILT WELL BEFORE THAT. OH, SIGNIFICANTLY BEFORE THAT. YEAH. BUT THE CODE CHANGE TO JUST MAKE IT ONE MAIN LARGE SIZE WAS PROBABLY 18 OR 19. IT'S NOT THAT LONG AGO. NO. NO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN PRESENTING OR SPEAKING TO THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE DO. PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. ROB WILSON, 2080 SHADYWOOD ROAD. I'M WITH ALLIED CONSTRUCTION. I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. I'M JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS? NO. NO. I'M THE OWNER. I'M BARBARA BURWELL. I LIVE AT 1100 MILLSTONE ROAD. I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS. IT'S AN INTERESTING PROJECT TO ASK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. IT'S QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF THINKING ABOUT SUBDIVIDING. I HAVE BEEN ACQUIRING MY HUSBAND PASSED AWAY 11 YEARS AGO. WHEN WE MOVED IN, WE HAD NO CHILDREN. AND AS OUR LIVES PROGRESSED, WE HAD ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE EACH OF OUR CHILDREN PARCELS OF LAND. AND THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER THE YEARS, THE LAST 40 YEARS IN WHICH JUST COINCIDENTALLY, THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. AND SO THESE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THAT, AS WE'VE CALLED THEM, THE GREENHOUSE. THE WHITE GARAGE, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY A BARN, AND THEN WHAT WE CALL A RED STRUCTURE, WHICH IS A BARN. IT IS. WE HAVE NO ANIMALS OTHER THAN A COUPLE DOGS AND A LOT OF KIDS. HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED OVER THE YEARS. AND THAT'S TO THE WEST IS THE FORMER JACOBS PROPERTY, RIGHT? I OWN FIVE OF THE SIX LOTS. IN LOOKING AT THOSE LOTS, WE HAVE, I HAVE CONSULTED WITH REAL ESTATE ATTORNEYS AS TO WHAT THE BENEFITS WOULD BE TO COMBINE OR NOT COMBINE. AND AT THIS POINT I'M JUST LEAVING IT AS CENTRAL PARK WEST. WE ACQUIRED FROM THE JACOBS A LITTLE COTTAGE THAT WE, WE CALL IT A COTTAGE, WHICH IS BEHIND A RED BARN, WHICH IS A DIFFICULT PROBLEM WITH THIS DESIGN BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND TRYING TO NOT HAVE A ROAD MORE HARD SCAPE GO AROUND INTO AN AREA THAT I WOULD LOOK AT FROM MY FRONT DOOR. SO WE CAME UP WITH A PASS THROUGH IDEA. WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY AND HOW TO BEST CREATE A NEW BUILDING. EACH OF THESE BUILDINGS IS IN DISREPAIR BIG TIME. AND SO WE HAVE TAKEN WE'VE TRIED TO BE INFORMED OF WHICH AT THE MOMENT, I WILL THEN TURN TO THE STAFF AND SAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND GUIDANCE OF A DECADE TO GET HERE TONIGHT. SO THAT WE ARE FIDUCIARIES OF THE LAND. ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS NEED TO BE RAZED. THE CURRENT RED BARN HAS A CONCRETE FLOOR THAT IS FALLING IN. WE ARE, I JUST RECENTLY SOLD OUR JOHN DEERE BUSINESS OF 49 STORES. SO I HAVE A LOT OF GREEN AND YELLOW EQUIPMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE HOUSED AND IS NOT BEING ABLE TO BE HOUSED, BECAUSE IT IS A DANGER OF GOING THROUGH THE CONCRETE FLOOR. THUS, WE NEED A NEW STRUCTURE. THE RED, THE WHITE BARN, THE WHITE GARAGE WAS A FORMER BARN THAT HAD A FIRE BACK IN THE 60S, AND THEY CREATED A CAR GARAGE BELOW IT WHICH IS IN TERRIBLE DISREPAIR. NOTHING WORKS. THE GARAGE DOORS DO NOT WORK. THE CONCRETE IS FALLING IN. AND THEN THE, THE GREENHOUSE WAS ADDED BY THE JACOBS FAMILY BECAUSE THEY OWNED THE PARCEL WITH THE LITTLE COTTAGE, [00:25:04] THE WHITE GARAGE AND THE GREENHOUSE. AND SOME YEARS AGO, BEFORE MY HUSBAND'S PASSING, WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THAT FROM THE JACOBS, WHICH THEN BROUGHT 1100 MILLSTONE ROAD INTO THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION OF THE ORIGINAL FAMILY, THE FREDERICK WELLS FAMILY. AND THUS WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT OUR VISION FOR OUR CHILDREN. THEN WE THE GREENHOUSE AND ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS, ALL THE BUILDINGS ON MY PROPERTY TOOK A HIT LAST SUMMER WITH A HAILSTORM. SO TO ADD TO THE NEED FOR WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT CREATING THIS ONE BUILDING, WE NOW HAVE HAIL DAMAGE AND THE GREENHOUSE LOOKS LIKE SWISS CHEESE. SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO QUESTION. I MEAN, WE PUT PLASTIC OVER IT THIS WINTER TO BE ABLE TO HOUSE THE PLANTS, BUT THAT WAS A BIG BAND AID AND A VERY LARGE HEATING BILL. TO THE EAST IS GREEN TREES THAT HAS SIX LOTS. WE ACQUIRED THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY PRIOR TO MY HUSBAND'S DEATH AND WE CALLED THAT THE FRATERNITY HOUSE FOR MY SONS. WE FOUND OUT THAT THAT HOUSE WAS REALLY BEING ENJOYED BY THE RODENTS AND THAT IT WAS HAVING, IT HAD SOME SEVERE, IT WAS A PRETTY INTERESTING BUILDING THAT EVERYBODY THANKED US EXCEPT FOR THE RODENTS FOR TEARING IT DOWN AND WE USED IT AS A TRAINING BURN. AND SO IT IS MERELY A LOT. AND THEN RECENTLY ACQUIRED THE ASSESSING THAT WE BURNED THAT DOWN ON IN OCTOBER. IT'S STILL BEING IT'S GOT TO BE FINISHED. AND THE OTHER TWO HOUSES THAT I'VE ACQUIRED ON GREEN TREES, WHICH I HAD NOT PLANNED ON, BUT I OWN. THEY WILL STAY INTACT. I AM NOT GOING TO BE BURNING ANY MORE HOUSES DOWN. AND MY BIG PROJECT RIGHT NOW IS A, THIS MAINTENANCE BUILDING BECAUSE ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE IN VERY BIG DISREPAIR. AND DURING THIS TIME WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL SURVEYORS AND SEVERAL OUTSIDE CONSULTATION, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH HAS BEEN THE CITY OF ORONO ADVISING US WITH ALL OF THE PROPERTY THAT I'VE ACQUIRED. THIS IS THE BEST POSITION FOR THIS KIND OF A BUILDING. AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION EARLIER, YES, THIS WILL SERVE AS TANAGER HILL AND GREEN TREES AS WELL AS MY PROPERTY THAT I, THAT I LIVE IN. WHAT'S THE OTHER QUESTION? SO WE'VE GIVEN THIS A LOT OF DILIGENT THOUGHT, TRYING TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT MAKING IT AS USER FRIENDLY. WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT PLACEMENTS OF IT WITH THE IDEA OF SECURITY ON ALL SIDES TO BE ABLE TO SEE PEOPLE COMING FROM THE LAKE, FROM THE ROAD, FROM THE EAST AND FROM THE WEST. I HAVE NO PLANS ON SUBDIVIDING ANYTHING. I JUST WANT WHEN ASKED WHAT AM I GOING TO DO? I HAVE SAID ON GREEN TREES, I'M GOING TO MAKE A PARK AND THEN IT'S BEEN QUESTIONED. OH, IS THAT GOING TO BE A PUBLIC PARK? I CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT BEING A PARK ANYMORE, BUT I'M LOOKING TO SIMPLY GRASS IT AND PUT IRRIGATION IN AND AND ENJOY IT. WHAT HAVE I LEFT OUT? IF I HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. SO THERE CURRENTLY ARE FOUR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OVER THE 1000FT², AND THIS WILL CONSOLIDATE THREE OF THEM. WHICH ONE REMAINS? I BELIEVE YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE POOL HOUSE, I THINK. WELL, THERE'S. WHICH HOUSE. WHICH ONES WILL REMAIN? THE. THERE'S THE COTTAGE. COTTAGE. THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT THE PASS-THROUGH DRIVEWAY. YEP. WE. THAT WAS THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF HOW DO WE GET FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE IS LOCATED IN A SPOT YOU COULD NEVER REBUILD. THIS LITTLE COTTAGE IT'S VERY CUTE. BUT IT IS LIKE I CALL IT SAN FRANCISCO THAT HOW A DELIVERY TRUCK, HOW CARS, HOW WHATEVER HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR IS JUST BY THE GRACE OF GOD BECAUSE IT IS THAT ASPHALT IS IN DISREPAIR. AND THIS HAS ALL BEEN LEFT AS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE MASTER PLAN FOR THIS. [00:30:03] AND SO BY DOING THE GRADING AND BRINGING THIS DOWN, IT WILL SERVICE THE CUTE LITTLE COTTAGE THAT YOU WOULD NEVER LET US REBUILD. AND THEN OVER TO THE EAST OF MY, OF MY HOUSE, WE HAVE A THREE-CAR GARAGE BUILDING AND A POOL HOUSE THAT SERVICES THE POOL. AND THE BOTH BUILDINGS ARE IN DIFFERENT SPOTS, BUT THEY WERE ALSO THERE WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE. THANK YOU. PAUSE ONE MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. MAYBE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, I'LL JUST ASK IF YOU KNOW HOW BIG ROUGHLY JUST THE GREENHOUSE ITSELF IS, THAT IS PART OF THIS OVERALL ONE STRUCTURE? IT'S 2600FT². THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT SIZE. GREENHOUSE. THE GREENHOUSE. YEAH, BUT I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE NEW ONE ROUGHLY. JUST ROUGHLY WHAT THAT IS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING. I'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE. OH, SORRY. FIRST, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION. I GUESS I'LL GO AND GIVE MY $0.02. I MEAN, THIS ONE'S DEFINITELY UNIQUE VERY COMPELLING AND ARTICULATE STORY, SO I APPRECIATE IT. I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE IDEA OF TAKING THREE IN NEED BUILDINGS COMBINING INTO ONE. I THINK THAT'S A SMART MOVE. A LOT OF TIMES WE LOOK AT WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBORS. THIS ONE'S EASY. YOU KNOW, HAVING OWNERSHIP ON BOTH SIDES. AND THEN AGAIN, LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE IMPACT TO THE LAKE OR VISUAL ESTHETIC TO THE LAND? AND IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE REALLY SHELTERS THE BUILDING. AND I THINK CONDENSING INTO ONE STRUCTURE, EVEN THOUGH SIZE IS STILL THERE VISUALLY WILL BE MORE APPEALING. I JUST THINK IT'S A REALLY NICE PLAN AND IT'S BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH FOR A WHILE. I'M NOT SEEING A LOT THAT'S GIVING ME HEARTBURN OVER IT. IT'S DEFINITELY PLAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING AS AN APPLICANT. OTHERS WITH THOUGHTS IN PARTICULAR THE QUESTION AROUND CONDITIONS TO ADDRESS FUTURE SUBDIVISION. ANY THOUGHTS ON YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY BUILDING A VERY LARGE ACCESSORY BUILDING YOU WOULDN'T WANT FUTURE SUBDIVISION TO, TO MAKE THIS REALLY, REALLY OUT OF PLACE ON, ON A MUCH SMALLER LOT. THOUGHTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON ANY CONDITIONS. I CAN SEE THE CONCERN, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE LOT AND THE LAYOUT OF THE LOT, I STRUGGLE TO SEE HOW IT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED THAT WOULD MAKE THAT HAPPEN, RIGHT? THE HOUSE IS OVER HERE AND THIS IS WAY OVER THERE. LIKE YOU'D HAVE TO BASICALLY TAKE A CHUNK OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF IT TO MAKE THAT CONCERN HAPPEN. SO I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR IT IN MY OPINION. AND JUST ON TOP OF THAT, WHEN I LOOK AT THE OVERALL LAYOUT, THE DESIGN, THE WORK THAT WAS DONE WITH IT, I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT'S TAKING THESE THREE KIND OF SEPARATED, OVERSIZE BUILDINGS AND BRINGING THE FOOTPRINT DOWN CLOSER TOGETHER AND PULLING SOME OF IT AWAY FROM THE LAKE AS WELL, I THINK IS A GREAT JOB. SO I COMMEND THAT. THAT'S A GREAT POINT. JUST MOVING THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AWAY FROM THE LAKE, CONSOLIDATING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE DEDICATED TO THOSE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. AND YEAH, I THINK CONSIDERING THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION, IT DOESN'T SEEM SUBDIVISION IS AS MUCH OF A CONCERN HERE. I THINK THE ONLY REASON WE WOULD CONSIDER IT WOULD BE PRECEDENT AND REMAINING CONSISTENT WITH OTHER REQUESTS LIKE THIS THAT COME ACROSS. YEAH, I, I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT I DON'T, I DON'T THINK REALISTICALLY THAT THAT IS OF MUCH OF A CONCERN HERE. I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE CONCERNED WITH, WITH PRECEDENT. I AGREE. ALSO JUST SPEAKING TO THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SLIGHTLY OVER 1000FT². THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE LONG BEEN THINKING ABOUT. WE DON'T REALLY VARY THAT BASED ON LOT SIZE IN OUR CODE. [00:35:06] AND I DO THINK THAT THERE, IT'S CERTAINLY VERY REASONABLE FOR A PROPERTY OF THIS SIZE TO HAVE MULTIPLE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THAT ARE BETWEEN 1 AND 2 OR ONE IN 3000FT². SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD THINK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE FOR LOTS OVER TEN ACRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. WELL, IF THERE'S, I DO AGREE ALSO WITH THE NEED FOR SETTING PRECEDENT. AND IF THERE'S NOT REALLY A CONCERN FROM THE APPLICANTS AROUND FUTURE SUBDIVISION, THEN IT HOPEFULLY WOULDN'T BE TOO BURDENSOME. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IF THERE WERE BUILDING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OF THIS SIZE, IF THERE WERE CONDITION ON LIMITING SUBDIVISION IN THE FUTURE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE CHALLENGING? I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION EXACTLY. MAYBE I CAN CUT TO THE CHASE OF SAYING IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO BE SUBDIVIDING. RIGHT. BACK TO WHEN WE BOUGHT, WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I BOUGHT OUR CURRENT PROPERTY. WE BOUGHT IT RIGHT AT THE 11TH HOUR OF IT GOING INTO SUBDIVISION. OKAY. SO WE SAVED IT. SO AS WE WERE SAYING, THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I WANT YOU TO KNOW, I WAS JUST SAYING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE COLONIAL DAMES OF AMERICA. SO I AM A MEMBER OF THAT AND I AM A PRESERVATION. THANK YOU. SO IF THAT'S NOT A CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT, THEN AND WE DO HAVE A THOUGHTS AROUND WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE SET PRECEDENT. I DO THINK IT WOULD BE NOT IDEAL TO HAVE AN OUTBUILDING OF THIS SIZE BUILT AND THEN STILL THE OPTION TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY FURTHER. SO THOUGHTS. YES, LAURA. YEAH, SO I COULD PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND. SO THE VARIANCE ITSELF IS GOING TO BE IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY. IF THEY WERE TO COME THROUGH AND DO A SUBDIVISION AND WANTED STAFF WOULD THEN IDENTIFY DEPENDING ON HOW THE LINE, THE LINES WORK OUT AND THE LOTS WOULD BE DEVELOPED THAT THE ANY BUILDINGS THAT WERE PROPOSED TO BE REMAINED WOULD NEED TO MEET THE SETBACKS AND THE CODE, AS THAT CODE IS UNDER THE CURRENT TIMELINE INTO THE FUTURE. IF IT DIDN'T MEET THE CODE AND THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO KEEP THIS BUILDING ON A STANDALONE LOT OR WHATEVER SCENARIO IS, THEY WOULD THEN BE ASKING FOR SOME SPECIFIC VARIANTS FOR THAT SITUATION INTO THE FUTURE. JUST LIKE IF SOMEONE WERE TO SUBDIVIDE AND THE LOTS NEEDED A AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATION AS PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION. VERY HELPFUL. THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF OVERSIGHT IF SOME NONCONFORMITY EXISTED AT TIME AT TIME OF SUBDIVISION, BECAUSE THIS VARIANCE IS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO. PERFECT. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. IN THAT CASE IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. WHAT IS THIS? LA. 26-7. 26-7 AS SUBMITTED. I'M GOING TO. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALTON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TIFT. ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK I WOULD JUST ADD THAT I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY. I KNOW WE DID A WORKSHOP ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS EARLIER THIS YEAR, BUT I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S WORTH REVISING. APPARENTLY THIS CODE THAT WE'RE GOING BY TODAY THAT WE'RE CREATING A VARIANCE FOR IS CREATED IN LIKE 2018. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION THAT IT SEEMS A LITTLE OUT OF LINE. AND SO I WOULD JUST ADD THAT. THANK YOU. NOTED. I WILL ASK THEN ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. AND MOVING ON TO LA26-13. [5.3) LA26-000013, Woodcraft Design Build o/b/o Jesse & Rebecca Lucking, 900 Dakota Avenue, Variances (Matthew Karney)] MR. KARNEY. ONE MOMENT. THANK YOU. MEETING PEOPLE UP THERE TO BE SAFE. OH, OKAY. I'M SCARED. I'M SCARED. I'M SCARED. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. I'LL PRESENT THE VARIANCE FOR 900 DAKOTA AVENUE. [00:40:07] THIS IS JUST A SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION LOCATED IN THE LR-1A ZONE DISTRICT KIND OF KITTY CORNER TO LONG LAKE ON THE NORTH END OF TOWN. WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 0.64 ACRES OR 27,000FT² IN SIZE. IN TERMS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS I KNOW THE OWNER HAS INTERACTED WITH STAFF ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION TO ALLOW FOR AN EXPANSION TO THE GARAGE ON THIS PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE KIND OF ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BLACK TOP IS A SINGLE ONE CAR GARAGE, MOSTLY INEFFICIENT FOR MODERN SIZED VEHICLES, AND WAS TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WOULD BE LEAST IMPACTFUL TO SETBACKS FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE. ULTIMATELY, WHAT WAS DECIDED UPON WAS SOMETHING IN THE CLIP THAT I HAVE ABOVE A GARAGE ADDITION TO COVER A PORTION OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. I HAVE THE ADDITION HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE AND THE SETBACK LINES DRAWN WITH THE DOTTED OR DASHED LINES. ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING SHED YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BLACKTOP THAT SITS ABOUT 3.3FT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE WOULD INVOLVE SOME RELOCATION ON THE SITE, AND I THINK THE DECIDED UPON LOCATION IS JUST NORTH OF THE HOUSE. KNOWING THAT THE TRAFFIC IS HAS SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE, IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE SHED WAS GOING TO GO, SO THAT WAS INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE NOTIFICATION IN CASE THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN SETBACKS AS WELL. BUT A CONFORMING LOCATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. SO THIS LR-1A DISTRICT, THIS PROPERTY IS NONCONFORMING IN TERMS OF LOT WIDTH WHICH ALLOWS FOR A SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION. SO ORDINARILY WE'RE LOOKING AT 30FT. BUT IN THIS CASE WE ALLOW FOR 10% OF THE DEFINED LOT WIDTH AS THE SIDE SETBACK. SO WE HAVE 127 OR SO FEET CALLED OUT ON THE SURVEY HERE, MEANING THAT THERE IS A 12.7FT SIDE SETBACK. SO WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT AN ENCROACHMENT OF ABOUT 2.7FT TO THE SOUTH AND ABOUT 10.4FT TO THE EAST. DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT IS TO THE EAST IS A FAIRLY LARGE PROPERTY IMPACTED BY SOME WETLANDS AND SOME OTHER NATURAL FEATURES, AND IS GENERALLY FAIRLY LARGE IN SIZE IN COMPARISON TO A NUMBER OF THE PROPERTIES. SO ALTHOUGH THAT IS THE GREATEST ENCROACHMENT AT ABOUT TEN FEET, IT IS AGAINST A PROPERTY THAT IS FAIRLY NATURAL IN THAT STATE AND NO BUILDINGS ARE THAT CLOSE. I JUST NOTING THAT THE CLOSEST BUILDING WOULD ACTUALLY BE TO THE SOUTH, WHERE THERE IS THE ENCROACHMENT OF 2.7FT, ABOUT 65FT OF SEPARATION FROM THAT NEIGHBOR. AND THAT NEIGHBOR HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED HERE, GIVEN SOME OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE PRESENT HERE, REALLY THE SETBACKS ARE THERE TO CREATE REASONABLE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, FOR THAT MATTER, STAFF BELIEVES THERE WILL BE A VERY MINIMAL IMPACT, IF ANY, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE ADDITION BEING PROPOSED HERE. AND GENERALLY, WE'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SETBACKS WILL COME INTO CLOSER CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CODES AS A SHED THAT WAS NOW OR ONCE LOCATED 3.3FT FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WILL NOW BE IN A CONFORMING LOCATION. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH NO CONDITIONS. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THIS APPLICATION WILL BE GOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 11TH. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. JESSE LUCKING, 900 DAKOTA AVENUE. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP TO COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION. [00:45:04] PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. ANY THOUGHTS? I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST BASED ON THE SITE CONDITIONS. THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD GETTING, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST SOME FORM OF NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL OR AT LEAST REACHING OUT AND INFORMING THEM OF THE PROJECT IS ALWAYS WHAT I LOOK FOR. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR FURTHER THOUGHTS MYSELF. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. I THINK THIS ONE'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I WAS JUST LOOKING THROUGH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANSWERS. AND, I MEAN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT ANY OTHER WAY TO SHIFT IT, YOU'RE REMOVING MATURE MAPLE TREES, IMPACTING SEWER LINES, CHANGING BEDROOM WINDOW VIEWS. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT DOES MEET ALL THE GUIDELINES FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO, FOR ME TO WANT TO APPROVE IT. IF NOT FOR THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT, I WOULD PROBABLY BE ASKING US TO TALK ABOUT IF THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE SHOULD BE REDUCED TO THAT 12.7FT SETBACK ON THE SIDE. BUT GIVEN THE NEIGHBOR'S FULL SUPPORT AND THE FACT THAT THEIR LETTER CLEARLY STATED THEY UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE TEN FEET, ABOUT TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. THAT WENT A LONG WAY FOR ME ON THAT SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE VARIANCE. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA26-13 AS A [INAUDIBLE]. I'LL SECOND. AND A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER JARNUT AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WELTZIN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ANY OTHER ITEMS. [6) Other Items] YES. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS. JUST AS A FOLLOW UP, WE TALKED LAST MEETING OF SCHEDULING A WORK SESSION FOR THE LEGAL REVIEW. THERE WAS A FEW SNAFUS WITH TRYING TO COORDINATE SOME DATES, SO WATCH FOR THAT TO COME IN MAY AS I'M GETTING SOME NEW DATES FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AS I. HIS ATTENDANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THAT WORK SESSION. SO I'LL STILL SEND OUT A DOODLE POLL WITH SOME OPTIONS ONCE I NARROW DOWN A FEW DATES FROM OUR CALENDARS. AND DO WE KNOW IF THAT WILL BE ON A MONDAY NIGHT OR A DIFFERENT DAY OF THE WEEK. THE DAYS I'M LOOKING AT ARE ON MONDAY EVENINGS OR WEDNESDAYS, AND I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR MAYBE SOME DAYTIME OPTIONS AS WELL AS PART OF THE DOODLE, LIKE SOME AFTERNOON OR SOME DAYTIME OPTIONS TO SEE WHERE WE CAN GET MOST ATTENDANCE. OKAY. BUT MONDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS SEEM TO BE WHAT ALIGN WITH THE SCHEDULES, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S THE SCHEDULE. SO OKAY, I'LL THROW A DOODLE POLL WITH SOME OPTIONS ONCE I GET SOME A FEW TIMES AND DATES NARROWED DOWN. AND THEN ALSO JUST AS A BACKGROUND KIND OF NOTE STAFF IS GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD, MAYBE NOT IN MAY, BUT IN THE SUMMER A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR ADDRESSING OUR PARK FEES. IT'S SOMETHING AS PART OF OUR SUBDIVISION CODE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH. THERE WAS A MOMENT IN 2020, BUT IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE CLUNKY IN OUR ABILITY TO APPLY IT WITH DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS. SO JUST AS A BACKGROUND NOTE, THAT IS SOMETHING STAFF IS DOING SOME RESEARCH ON AS A STAFF INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE HOPE TO BRING FORWARD TO YOU GUYS HERE THIS SUMMER. SO JUST SOME BACKGROUND WORK WE'RE WORKING ON. ALSO WATCH AS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WE'LL BE DOING SOME WORK TO START, INITIATE THE COMP PLAN, KICKOFF ITEMS AND SOME SURVEY WORK WITH THE PUBLIC AND EVERYTHING. SO SOME DATES WILL BE COMING OUT FOR OPEN HOUSES. AND WE'LL BE PULLING TOGETHER A SUBCOMMITTEE LATER THIS YEAR AND EVERYTHING. SO WE'RE GETTING ROLLING ON SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS AS WELL. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE MUCH. OH, I DO, I DO YOU GUYS REVIEWED SOME APPLICATIONS, A BIG APPLICATION THAT YOU GUYS REVIEWED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR WAS THE NORTH ARM BOAT LAUNCH REDESIGN PROJECT THAT DID GO TO COUNCIL THIS LAST COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY NIGHT, THEY REVIEWED THE PROJECT. THE COUNTY HAD AMENDED THEIR PLANS AND BROUGHT FORTH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BASED ON THE DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WHAT THEY HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC THAT NIGHT. AND SO THOSE AMENDED PLANS WERE BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. THE COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO DRAFT APPROVAL RESOLUTION FOR THE VARIANCES, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SEAWALL IN THE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE GRADING ON THE SITE. THEY DIRECTED STAFF TO DRAFT A DENIAL RESOLUTION TO VACATE THE RIGHT OF WAYS. AND THEN THERE WERE SOME CONDITIONS WHICH THE, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU SAW A NEW CONDITION THAT WAS ADDED WAS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SOME SPECIAL MOBILIZED EQUIPMENT, STAGING, LANDSCAPING, TYPE OF EQUIPMENT ON THE PARKING LOT SPECIFICALLY, [00:50:06] AS THAT HAD A NEXUS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EXPANDED HARDCOVER. SO WE WERE ABLE TO, BASED ON THE DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CREATE A CONDITION THAT FOLLOWED THAT DISCUSSION. THAT IS ANTICIPATED AT THIS TIME. TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON MAY 11TH, AS THE COUNTY IS LOOKING TO PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION TOGETHER BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THEY GOT FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE MOTION THAT THEY RECEIVED. SO I ANTICIPATE THAT GOING TO THE COUNCIL HERE IN THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE COUNTY CAN GIVE ME THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BUT JUST AS AN UPDATE, SINCE THAT WAS A RATHER BIG PROJECT AND A BIG MEETING FROM LAST YEAR, THAT THAT'S STILL BEING WORKED ON AND MOVING THROUGH THE SYSTEM. VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. YES. ANYTHING ELSE? NOPE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. IN THAT CASE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL SECOND. I WAS I NEED TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YOU WANT TO FIRST? YEAH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. I'LL SECOND. GREAT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER JARNOT AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ROYAL TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.