[1) Call to Order]
[00:00:05]
WELCOME TO THE MONDAY, JUNE 15TH MEETING OF THE ORONO.
WE START EVERY MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[3) Approval of Agenda]
WE HAVE NEXT UP APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA BY PERKLE, A SECONDED BY JARNOT.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[4.1) Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 2026]
TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 18TH.2026 ORDON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION SO MOVED A SECOND OF A MOTION BY BALL IS SECOND BY PERKLE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE MOTION CARRIES THANK YOU ON
[5.1) LA26-000015, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, Waiver of the 6-month waiting period, After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis) ]
TO PUBLIC HEARINGS WE HAVE 5.1 LA 26 6-000015 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL AND AFTER-FACT VARIANCE WITH MS. CURTIS.THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVALS FOR SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW A LAKE YARD SHED TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TIERED RETAINING WALLS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 75 FEET OF THE LAKE.
COMMISSION MAY REMEMBER THAT IN 2025, THE APPLICANT SOUGHT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE IN CUP APPROVALS FOR A PATIO AREA AND LAKESIDE RETAINING WALLS, THE SAME WALLS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT CITY PERMITS.
ACCORDING TO THE CITY CODE, WHEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED, AND IS DENIED, A NEW APPLICATION FOR THE SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR REQUEST MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED FOR SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF DENIAL UNLESS THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE REQUEST HAVE CHANGED.
THE APPLICANT IS NOW PROPOSING MODIFICATIONS TO THE WALL SO THEY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IS REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD.
SO THE CITY MAY CONSIDER THE REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
RETAINING WALLS LOCATED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SHORE SETBACK REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE REQUIRED CUP FINDINGS FOR WALLS IN THE LAKE SETBACK INCLUDE JUSTIFICATION FROM A LICENSED ENGINEER, WHICH MAY INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION ADDRESSING SLOPE STABILITY, EROSION CONCERNS, OR NEED FOR GRADE CORRECTION.
RETAINING WALLS GREATER THAN TWO FEET IN HEIGHT MUST MEET A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
AS CONSTRUCTED, THE TIERED WALLS ARE APPROXIMATELY 48 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND THEREFORE ARE SUBJECT TO THIS SETBACK.
THE WALLS WERE ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED UP TO AND OVER THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINE.
AFTER THE DENIAL OF THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, THE NEIGHBORS REMOVED PORTIONS OF THE WALLS THAT ENCROACHED ONTO THEIR PROPERTY.
THE REVISED PLAN NOW SHOWS THE RETAINING WALLS TERMINATING AT THE FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
I CAN BRING THAT PLAN UP MOMENTARILY.
DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT APPLICATION, PUBLIC COMMENTS IDENTIFIED A SHED SHOWN IN YELLOW.
THAT HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED 3.7 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WHERE A 9.2 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED.
THE SHED IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AFTER THAT FACT APPROVAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE SHED IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
APPLICANT IDENTIFIED NARROW LOT WIDTH, IRREGULAR LOT LINES, A LARGE AREA IMPACTED BY THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
AND THE HOME ORIENTATION AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCES.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.
STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST TO JUSTIFY GRANTING THE REQUESTED SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE SHED.
ALTHOUGH THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK DOES AFFECT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR LAKE YARD, THE PROPERTY DOES CONTAIN A CONFORMING AREA WITHIN THE REAR STREET YARD WHERE A SHED COULD BE LOCATED IN A CONFORMING WAY.
STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HAVE BEEN MET.
[00:05:01]
THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR THE CUP APPROVAL WAS DENIED ON MARCH 9TH, 2026, AND WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE RESUBMITTED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9TH.AS PART OF THIS REVISED REQUEST FOR THE AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER OF THIS WAITING PERIOD BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE THE REVISED WALL REVIEWED AT THIS TIME.
REGARDING AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, THE SHED IS LOCATED 80 FEET FROM THE SHORE.
WHICH DOES ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE.
IT IS SITUATED IN A TREED AREA WHERE THE SHED IS SCREENED FROM THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH THE STAFF REPORT DID REPORT THIS AS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.
IT'S VISIBLE FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH BUT IT'S BLOCKED BY THE TREES FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE PROPERTIES 92 FOOT WIDTH WOULD AFFORD IT A NINE POINT TWO FOOT SETBACK THE SHED MUST MEET THAT 9.2 FOOT SETBACK.
AS CONSTRUCTED, IT IS 3.7 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS, AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION FROM THE CODE, OR IN THE CODE.
THE WALLS ARE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 45 TO 50 FEET FROM THE LAKE.
THE CODE STATES THAT NEW WALLS AND REPLACEMENT WALLS GREATER THAN 4 FEET IN HEIGHT MUST BE DESIGNED TO CORRECT AN ESTABLISHED EROSION PROBLEM AND SUITABLE GIVEN THE DEMONSTRATED NEED, DESIGNED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT SCOPE, AND DESIGNED TO BE THE MINIMUM SIZE NECESSARY TO CONTROL.
STAFF DID PROVIDE A VARIANCE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS AS WELL AS AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE THIS, TO NOT CONTINUE.
TO TALK THROUGH THIS WHOLE PRESENTATION.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ANY OF THOSE CRITERIA, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO SO, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO READ THEM FOR YOU.
THE CITY ENGINEER DID COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION.
THE COMMENTS WERE JUST GENERAL COMMENTS FOR RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME.
COMMENTS FROM BOTH NEIGHBORS WERE RECEIVED.
COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE WERE RECEIVED TODAY AND WERE PLACED AT YOUR SEATS.
THE NORTHERN VENTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET WHEN PUBLISHED.
STAFFS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOW THE WAIVER OF THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD AND APPROVE THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS.
STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCES FOR THE SHED IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS FROM BOTH A LICENSED ENGINEER AND A CERTIFIED ARBORIST REGARDING THE NECESSITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS.
BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, STAFF FINDS THE RETAINING WALLS LOCATED AS CONSTRUCTED, ALTHOUGH WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL, THEY APPEAR TO PROVIDE BENEFITS RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ON SITE.
THE APPLICANT'S REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS AROUND AND IN FRONT OF THE RETAINING WALLS.
STAFF FINDS THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, THOSE LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS SHOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE SCREENING OF THE WALLS WHEN VIEWED FROM THE LAKE.
HOWEVER, THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANNING MATERIALS APPEAR TO BE WELL-SUITED TO THE SITE'S GROWING CONDITIONS AND CLIMATE.
THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY NATIVE TO MINNESOTA.
AS A RESULT, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULLY ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S PREFERENCE FOR THE USE OF NATIVE VEGETATION IN SLOPE REGISTRATION AND SCREENING EFFORTS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD...
DISCUSS THIS AND CONSIDER WHETHER ADDITIONAL NATIVE PLANTINGS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
STAFF DOES NOT FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SIDE YARD AND AVERAGE SETBACK AREAS AS THERE ARE CONFORMING AREAS ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SHED CAN BE LOCATED, AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS A DENIAL.
TONIGHT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS.
ACT ON EACH REQUEST AND GRANT A PARTIAL APPROVAL AS FOLLOWS.
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD FOR THE CUP.
APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS WITH CONDITIONS FOR SCREENING IF NECESSARY.
AND DENIAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE SHED.
OR APPROVAL AS APPLIED, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A WAIVER OF THE WAITING PERIOD, THE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE SHED, AND THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS.
THE COMMISSION ALSO HAS THE OPTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT.
APPLICANTS PLANS AND SOME PHOTOS AND OTHER INFORMATION IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT I WILL UNTIL YOU REQUEST IT BUT THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR PRESENTATION THAT'S ALL YOU MISS CURTIS A LOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
[00:10:02]
CLARIFICATIONS? THERE'S A LOT THERE.I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT ALL OF THE PARTS AND ALL THE THINGS CORRECT.
SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ALLOWANCE OF THE WAIVER OF A SIX-MONTH RE-APPROVAL OF AFTER THE FACT CUP FOR A RETAINING WALL.
THEY ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF SHED, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
IS THE SHED PART OF THE ALS? THE SHED IS WITHIN THE SIDE YARD AND THE AVERAGE SETBACK.
MR. BALLAS? I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT WHEN YOU'RE DONE.
IF I REMEMBER FROM THE FIRST APPLICATION, THERE WERE SOME PATIO ENCROACHMENTS.
THOSE ARE NOT PART OF THIS? THEY'RE NOT.
THE APPLICANT RESOLVE THOSE IN A GOOD WAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO I THINK WE'VE GOT A GOOD SUMMARY HERE.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE INFORMATION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER RESSLER, COMMISSURES, STAFF.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY.
GO THROUGH MY APPLICATION, WHICH DOES HAVE A LOT OF DETAILS.
I THINK STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF LAYING THOSE OUT.
I'M PRIMARILY HERE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I DID WANT TO JUST SUMMARIZE REAL QUICK.
SO WE'VE GOT TWO ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
STAFF MENTIONED AND I'M SURE SHE'LL GO TOO SOON I'VE SUBMITTED A REDESIGN THAT CONFORMS TO THE SIDE SETBACK AND ALSO I HAVE IN YOUR PACKET ALSO HAVE SOME ILLUSTRATIONS OF SOME ADDITIONAL SCREENING THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THAT WE CAN ADD THERE AND IF THERE'S DIFFERENT SPECIES THAT ARE IMPORTANT.
I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO ANYTHING.
I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF SCREENING.
IF I HAD A GREENER THUMB, THERE WOULD BE MORE SCREENING RIGHT NOW.
BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE PLANTED JUST DIDN'T GROW.
I THINK THAT THE GRASSES HAVE DONE WELL.
MAYBE WE'LL PUT SOME MORE GRASSES THERE.
I'M OPEN FOR ANYTHING TO HELP SOLVE THAT ISSUE.
DURING THIS PROCESS IS WHEN THE SHED ISSUE CAME UP.
AND I KNOW A COUPLE OF YOU HAVE BEEN OUT AND HAVE LOOKED AT THE SHED.
I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING THE TIME DOING THAT.
IT WAS SITUATED THERE TO HIDE IT.
THERE AREN'T THAT MANY OTHER OPTIONS.
I THINK IN MY PACKET I DO HAVE A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY, AND I SUGGEST TWO OTHER OPTIONS FOR LOCATING THE SHED.
YEP, SO THERE YOU'LL SEE IN THE GREEN BOX, THAT'S THE EXISTING LOCATION.
IT IS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND IT IS FOUR FEET ABOUT FROM THE SIDE SETBACK.
JUST LOOKING, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THERE WERE TWO OTHER PLACES THAT I PROPOSED HERE, BUT BOTH OF THOSE ARE WITHIN EITHER THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK OR WITHIN THE ROAD SETBACK.
THERE AREN'T THAT, I DON'T, I'M OPEN FOR SUGGESTIONS IF THERE ARE OTHER, IF I'M NOT, IF I'M MISSING.
ANOTHER PRACTICAL LOCATION OPTION, THEN I WOULD BE UP TO HEARING THAT.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SETBACK FOR THE SHED IN THE RED LINE CAN BE CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE HOME CAN.
THE REASON I DIDN'T ORIGINALLY PUT IT THERE WAS BECAUSE IT IS HIDDEN WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW IN SOME...
SOME WOODED AREA AND UP BY THE ROAD OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE.
I DID SEND YOU SOME PICTURES IF YOU HAVE IN YOUR EMAIL, JUST SO EVERYONE HAS A GOOD CONTEXT TO WHERE THAT SHED IS.
[00:15:05]
I JUST SENT HIM THIS EVENING.THAT MAKES IT NOT AVAILABLE? I CAN'T.
THERE ARE SOME PICTURES IF YOU GUYS, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I DO HAVE, LIKE STAFF SAID, THERE IS A LETTER FROM...
MY NEIGHBOR 1214 WILDHURST TRAIL, WHO'S TO THE SOUTH, AND THAT'S WHO'S CLOSEST TO THE SHED, THEY ARE IN SUPPORT.
I HAVE NOT SEEN THE LETTER MYSELF, BUT IN TALKING TO HER, SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO SEND A LETTER THAT SAID THAT SHE'S IN SUPPORT OF THE LOCATION.
NOT MOVING IT ANY FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SIDE SETBACK IS PREFERRED TO HER.
OF HOW IT'S HIDDEN WITHIN THE WOODS THERE.
AND THEN ONE OTHER THING I'LL POINT OUT IN MY APPLICATION, THERE'S AN ELEVATION SIDE VIEW THAT ILLUSTRATES, YEAH, AT THE TOP IT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE PEAK OF THE SHED IS 13 FEET BELOW THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AT 1214.
WILDHURST TRAIL THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR THAT IS IMPACTED BY THIS SO I'VE GOT LOTS OF OTHER THINGS I CAN TELL YOU BUT I'LL LET YOU GUYS START YOUR DISCUSSION, AND I'LL BE HERE FOR FOUR QUESTIONS.
I APPRECIATE THAT YEAH, IF YOU COULD BE AVAILABLE IF WE HAVE SOME FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS DURING DISCUSSION.
I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR WHENEVER IT'S AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND ALL THOSE THINGS IT GETS TO BE CONFUSING WHEN YOU SEE EXISTING VERSUS PROPOSED AND ALL THOSE THINGS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT WAS IT THERE BEFORE PERMIT ALL THOSE THINGS YEAH I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT YEP SO THE EXISTING SHED WAS THAT THERE WAS THAT WAS THAT PUT IN PLACE AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPING WAS TO HELP YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHEN THAT WAS PLACED IT WAS NOT PART OF THE SAME PROJECT IT WAS PROBABLY A YEAR LATER I THINK IS 2022 PERHAPS 2021 OKAY AROUND THERE UNDERSTOOD ALL RIGHT SO I JUST WANTED TO JUST GET AN IDEA WHEN EVERYTHING KIND OF WENT IN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE STILL UP? JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT, THE EXISTING SHED IS THE CURRENT ONE THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW THAT YOU'RE APPROVAL FOR? YOU'RE NOT LOOKING TO BUILD ANY? OH, NO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE.
ALL RIGHT, THIS OPENS UP TO PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE TOPIC, PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
NOW, IF AN APPLICATION FOR THIS WAS PUT FORTH BEFORE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED, WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN...
FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS, INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS, SOMETHING TO VALIDATE THE STRUCTURE CONSIDERING IT'S ON A HILL.
NO, WE JUST REQUIRE FOR SHEDS UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S A ZONING PERMIT AND IT'S A FINAL INSPECTION JUST TO CONFIRM PLACEMENT.
AND HAS IT BEEN INSPECTED? NO, BECAUSE NO PERMIT WAS PULLED.
SO IF WE APPROVE IT, WOULD IT STILL NEED TO BE INSPECTED BEFORE IT COULD GET...
THEY WOULD NEED A PERMIT AND THEN...
ALRIGHT, SO TO SUMMARIZE, IT IS A LITTLE MESSY BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF GOING BACK IN TIME HERE.
I TRY NOT TO GET INTO THE MERITS OR THE INTENTIONS TOO MUCH IN THESE BECAUSE, BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE AND A CUP FOR RETAINING WALLS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE SHED.
I'M SURE IF WE'D LIKE THE STAFF TO EXPAND UPON THAT, WE CAN GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO, BUT I THINK THE BASIS OF THAT IS WHENEVER YOU GET INTO THE ALS OR THE AVERAGE LEACH FOR SETBACK, THE CITY WERE VERY,
[00:20:01]
VERY RELUCTANT TO GRANT VARIANCES FOR THEM.SO WHETHER IT'S ALREADY THERE AND YOU'RE INCREASING THE SIZE OF IT OR...
OR ADDING IT ANYTHING THAT IS IN THERE.
IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO APPROVE AND I KNOW THAT THE SPIRIT OF THAT IS BASED ON VISIBILITY, BUT WE ALSO DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING BAKED INTO VISIBILITY AND THAT'S, I THINK, PROBABLY WHERE THE STAFF IS COMING UP WITH THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
IF I COULD IMAGINE THE WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK IF YOU GUYS HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS TO MAKE OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S PART OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AS WELL.
I MEAN JUST AS RECENTLY AS OUR PREVIOUS MEETING WE HAD A SIDE YARD SETBACK THAT WE DID NOT APPROVE.
IT WAS AND IT'S IT ALL DEPENDS ON A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF COURSE AS WELL BUT I MEAN AT THE DAY THE THREE THINGS ARE THE AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANTS OF THE REMOVAL OF THE SHED OR NOT AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
IT'S THE THREE THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT HERE TO DISCUSS.
SO POORLY SUMMARIZED AS THAT WAS.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO START OUT WITH? ONE THING THAT DID STRIKE ME IN REVIEWING ALL OF THE MATERIALS FOR THIS ITEM WAS THE STAFF NOTE THAT THERE ARE OTHER CONFORMING LOCATIONS WHERE THE SHED COULD BE PLACED.
COMMISSIONER BALLS? ON THAT SAME TRACK THOUGHT, THOUGHT TRACKED.
I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WHAT IS THE FRONT WHERE I GUESS THE STREET SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VERSUS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE? TEN FEET.
IT'S HARD TO TELL ON HERE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE PRIMARY SETBACK IS 45-ISH FEET.
THE SURVEYOR HAS THIS MARKED CORRECTLY.
AND SEPARATION FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOUR ANALYSIS SHOWS THERE'S ROOM FOR IT.
LOOKING AT THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE CHARACTER OF THAT STREET HAS GARAGES CLOSER TO THE STREET, SO IT'S COMMON IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CLOSER TO THE STREET.
COMMON ON LAKE SHORE LOTS BECAUSE THAT IS...
THE ONLY THING ELSE I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS IF THE SHED WERE TO BE MOVED BACK IN THE LAKESIDE PORTION OF IT, IF IT WERE TO BE MOVED BACK AND OVER AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS, THAT WOULD BE MORE OBSTRUCTIVE TO THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL.
SO IF THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, I WOULD SUGGEST THE FRONT YARD AS OPPOSED TO THE LAKESIDE.
FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR RESOLVING ALL OF THE RETAINING WALLS.
I KNOW THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE, AND IT SEEMS TO BE ALL RESOLVED, SO I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT.
I'M GENERALLY OKAY WITH THE APPROVING OF THE WAIVER FOR THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD, AS WELL AS THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS IN TERMS OF THE SHED.
I STRUGGLE WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT, AND I'M SURE I'LL CONTINUE TO HERE, BUT BASED ON THE OTHER OPTIONS, I REALLY THINK IF THIS WAS A VARIANCE PROPOSED, MAYBE PUSH IT OFF THE SETBACK, BUT I DON'T THINK THE LOCATION OF IT IS THAT WELL.
IT'S SCREENED, WHICH IS THE MAIN GOAL OF A SETBACK.
HOW WE ALLOW A SETBACK WOULD BE TO HAVE PROPER SCREENING, AND I DO THINK IT'S SCREENED WELL FROM THE LAKE.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, EVEN FROM THE ROAD IT'S SCREENED WELL.
I JUST THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY, I THINK THAT SHED IS IN A PRETTY GOOD LOCATION, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, DESPITE IT BEING...
FOR THE FACT, I THINK IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME AND YOU WERE TO WALK THAT PROPERTY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY YOUR NUMBER ONE SPOT.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD BE IN APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW, AND I'LL LET YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO DISCUSS.
AND MAYBE JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW MOVING PARTS, ESPECIALLY REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS IS HEARD, THIS CAN GO TO COUNCIL.
IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED TO ALLOWING THE WAIVER OF THE SIX-MONTH RE-APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALL?
[00:25:01]
WE CAN CLEAR THE DECKS ON THAT, OKAY.SO WE CAN INSTEAD JUST MORE SO JUST DISCUSS THE THE SHED AS IT PERTAINS.
SO IN ONE THING I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AS WELL, MISS CURTIS, WHAT IS THE, HOW MANY FEET OR WHAT'S THE SETBACK OF THE SHED RIGHT NOW? IS IT BEYOND 75? IT'S JUST THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE? THAT'S THAT RED PINK LINE, OR REDDISH PINK LINE? OKAY, SO IT'S THE, NOT THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, BUT IT'S THE 75-FOOT SETBACK? I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
WHAT THE VARIANCE WOULD BE FOR? AVERAGE LAKESHORE.
SO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS RIGHT HERE.
SO IT'S PAST 75, BUT IT'S NOT PAST THE AVERAGE.
GIVING ME BACKWARDS BUT YEAH I KNOW I HEAR YOU I'M NOT IT'S NOT A PERFECT NOT A PERFECT DELIVERY HERE UM ANYWAY THE UM THE OTHER THING I GUESS WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO DELIBERATE THIS FOLKS AND AGAIN WE'RE NOT HERE TO REDESIGN ANYTHING BUT UM IF IT'S BEING IT'S BEYOND THE 75 IT'S NOT WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE WHICH WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND WHETHER WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF IT YOU KNOW COMMENTS ABOUT THAT FOR OR AGAINST I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT IF THERE'S COMMENTS ON I'M GETTING FEEDBACK, SORRY.
THERE'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE SIDE YARD, IF IT WERE COMPLIANT ON THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS MEETING ALL THE CRITERIA EXCEPT FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
DOES THAT CHANGE ANYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE? I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S MY HAT IN THE RING, BUT I THINK THAT'S WORTH WEIGHING IN ON IF ANYBODY HAS AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AGAIN, BECAUSE IF THIS DOESN'T PASS AND THERE'S FEEDBACK THAT WOULD...
SUPPORTIVE OF IT IN ANOTHER WAY TO INCLUDE IF YOU HAVE THAT FEELING.
NO, I THINK JUST KIND OF TO SUMMARIZE MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE SHED, I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDPOINT, I STRUGGLE WITH EIGHT AND THAT THERE'S SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT JUSTIFIES IT BEING ON THE LAKESHORE SIDE VERSUS THE STREET SIDE, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO FAIL TO...
TO MEET THAT CRITERIA OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR PUTTING IT ON THAT SIDE OF THE LOT, WHICH THEN GOES TO YOUR POINT ON THE SIDE YARD AND THE AVERAGE LAKE FOR A SETBACK.
IF IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ON THE STREET SIDE, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE TODAY.
IF THIS WAS COMING AS A BRAND-NEW VARIANCE REQUEST, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE GARAGES IN THE FRONT YARD, THERE IS A CONFORMING LOCATION FOR THE SHED.
I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO GRANTING A NEW VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD AND AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK GIVEN THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO PUT THE SHED IN A CONFORMING LOCATION.
I ALSO JUST WANT TO MENTION COMMISSIONER RESSLER THAT I BELIEVE THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO TO VOTE ON TONIGHT THE CUP FOR THE WAIVER THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS, INCLUDING WHETHER OR NOT ADDITIONAL SCREENING IS REQUIRED, AND THEN THE SHED VARIANCE.
I WAS LUMPING IN THE CUP WITH THE SIX-MONTH WAIVER AT THE SAME TIME.
THEN I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE SIX-MONTH WAIVER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRANDEBAUER THAT IT'S HELPFUL THAT SOME OF THE ORIGINAL RETAINING WALLS THAT WERE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
I DO THINK THAT HAVING SEEN THE PROPERTY AS WELL, THAT UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IT MAY CAUSE MORE ISSUES WITH THE LAND AND HOLDING THE LAND IN PLACE TO TRY AND REDO THOSE EXISTING RETAINING WALLS AS THEY ARE.
AND SO WHILE AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES GIVE US ALL A LEVEL OF DISCOMFORT, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE WALLS THEMSELVES, BUT DO THINK THAT ADDITIONAL SCREENING SHOULD BE REQUIRED AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR NATIVE PLANTINGS.
[00:30:01]
THINGS THAT ARE EASIER TO GROW THAT CERTAINLY WOULD DO A GOOD JOB SCREENING.SO GIVEN THAT DIRECTION THAT WE'VE GIVEN TO OTHER APPLICANTS, I WOULD...
BE IN FAVOR OF BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
I'LL JUMP IN HERE AND ADD MY POINTS.
I GUESS I AGREE PRETTY CLOSELY WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I WOULD HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE WAIVER.
IN REGARDS TO THE RETAINING WALL, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME TALL NATIVE GRASSES, SO IT MIGHT BE ONE SMALL CAVEAT TO ADD.
IF WE GO AHEAD AND DENY THE VARIANCE FOR THE SHED, THE OPTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD BE...
TAKE THAT DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL OR COULD THEY CHOOSE A NEW LOCATION AND THEN APPLY FOR A PERMIT WELL YOUR RECORD IS THERE A TIME FRAME WE CAN PROVIDE THE APPLICANT I MEAN WE'RE AFTER YOU ACT OKAY.
COMMISSIONER JARNOT, I GUESS THAT'S ACTUALLY EXACTLY WHY I WAS LOOKING FOR SOME FEEDBACK ON IF, LIKE, THE SIDE SET HERE, IF THAT WOULD CHANGE ANYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE AND SUPPORT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT LANGUAGE, THAT DIALOGUE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE...
FACTOR IS ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REDESIGN, BUT IT DOES GIVE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION FOR COUNCIL IF WE'RE SUPPORTIVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THESE CONDITIONS CHANGE AND IT DOES ALLOW THE APPLICANT RECONSIDERATION AND MAYBE THEY WANT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH IF AND WHEN THEY DO GO TO COUNCIL.
SO, BUT I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE DISCUSSION AND I GUESS THE FIRST ONE FROM COMMISSIONER PERKLE.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT'S OPPOSED TO NOT ONLY THE WAIVER OF THE SIX MONTHS FOR THE CUP BEING HEARD, BUT ALSO IS EVERYONE SUPPORTIVE OF THE WAIVER OF THE SIX MONTHS FOR THE CUP BEING HEARD AS WELL AS THE RETAINING WALL? AS STAFF HAS WRITTEN WITH CONDITIONS ALREADY KIND OF CALLED OUT REGARDING VEGETATION AND THAT SCREENING, SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SPECIALIZE THAT UNLESS WE SO DESIRE.
CAN I JUST SAY ONE MORE THING? PLEASE.
I WAS AT THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY AND WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND MR. ROTH, AND THE WORK HAS NOT BEEN DONE TO CLEAR UP THE SETBACK YET.
THE NEIGHBOR TO, I BELIEVE, THE NORTH HAS, MR. RASMUSSEN, HAS TAKEN OUT SOME OF THOSE BLOCKS.
THERE IS STILL, I BELIEVE, FIVE FEET THAT GOES OVER THAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED, AND MR. ROTH IS AWARE OF THAT, WHICH WILL STILL NEED TO BE MANAGED FROM AN EROSION PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE LIKE THIS COMMISSIONER PERKLE SAID YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE WALL OUT BECAUSE THAT MIGHT CAUSE BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN DOING THAT.
THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT ON PUBLIC RECORD IS THAT I HOPE THAT THE NEIGHBORS CAN WORK OUT A PLAN TO REMOVE THE ORANGE SNOW FENCE THAT EXISTS, AS WELL AS THE BLOCKS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE RASMUSSEN PROPERTY.
VISIBLE THING THAT I WAS ABLE TO SEE IS IF YOU TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND GET YOUR SIGHT LINES FIGURED OUT AND TALK TO THE CITY BEFORE PROJECTS START, YOU'LL ALLEVIATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PASSION BETWEEN THESE NEIGHBORS THAT I HOPE CAN BE RESOLVED AMICABLY AS THEY GO THROUGH THESE NEXT STEPS.
BUT THE WORK STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
I APPRECIATE THAT, COMMISSIONER.
YEAH, AND I PERSONALLY, I THINK IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE TO, BEFORE YOU START CHANGING THINGS, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE CHANGE.
YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO KEEP DIGGING THINGS UP TO DIG THINGS UP.
AND THERE'S PROACTIVE AND THEN THERE'S GUESSING.
AND I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH NOT ACTING UNTIL, I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT ALL THOSE THINGS.
AND THE FACTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT, SO IT'S APPRECIATED AS WELL.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'RE ALL UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE SIX-MONTH WAIVER.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'RE IN FAVOR OF THE CUP FOR THE RETAINING WALLS CONDITIONALLY, ON THE THINGS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AND BEING IT'S BEEN NOTED
[00:35:01]
BY STAFF AS SUCH, I FEEL COMFORTABLE AT LEAST WITHOUT PUTTING ANY MORE COMPLICATIONS IN THAT.SO THAT JUST GOES BACK TO THE SHED.
SIDE YARD, SIDE BACK, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND NOTED THAT THERE IS AN OPTION FOR PLACEMENT OF THAT SHED IN A COMPLIANT PLACE.
SOME OF THE RIGIDITY ABOUT HAVING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND THOSE THINGS, YOU KNOW, IT DOES MEET THE 75 FEET, IT JUST DOESN'T MEET THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO ADD WHERE...
WHERE YOU WOULD FIND A REASON FOR THIS TO BE SUPPORTED.
I WOULD JUST ADD QUICKLY, YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE GARAGES ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH I HEAR AND SEE.
I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS IS A SHED, AND PEOPLE AREN'T PARKING CARS HERE.
A LOT OF THE DRIVEWAYS, OR THE GARAGES, SORRY, THAT ARE STREETWARD, THAT'S BECAUSE OF HARDCOVER RESTRICTIONS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND I THINK PUTTING A SHED IN YOUR YARD IS A NORMAL REQUEST.
A REASONABLE REQUEST, I SHOULD SAY, AND THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, I AM GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF WHERE IT'S LOCATED.
YOU KNOW, IT'S LAKE THINGS, IT'S THE MOWER, LIKE HE SAID.
SO, AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT TO MY REASONING.
I APPRECIATE THAT, COMMISSIONER BRANTFORD.
I THINK THE ONE THING WHERE THE SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WE GET INTO IS A SHED BECOMES A BOATHOUSE PRETTY QUICKLY, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU JUST RUN INTO A LOT OF DIFFICULTIES, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE MOSTLY SEE THIS SHOW UP.
BEING CALLED A BOATHOUSE AND THEY'RE VERY VERY STRICT ABOUT THAT FIRMS YOU APPROVE ONE NEXT THING YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A PATIENCE FOR SHEDS GOING IN THERE TO DIFFERENTIATE I THINK NOW I MEAN AGAIN CITY WE SAID THAT WE'D LIKE TO YOU KNOW DELINEATE JUST VACATIONS FOR THOSE THINGS WHETHER YOU'RE INSIDE COVER AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT'S FOR A DIFFERENT DAY BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US SO I GUESS WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'VE WELCOMED SOME FURTHER COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY ABOUT IF THAT SHED WAS LOCATED COMPLIANT OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
I'LL GIVE YOU MY PERSPECTIVE ON IT.
I WAS OUT TO THE PROPERTY, SO I WAS ABLE TO WALK IT AND SEE THE LOCATION OF THE CURRENT SHED.
AT FIRST, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I COULD GET BEHIND THAT SHED.
IF IT WAS AT THE PROPER SETBACK FROM THE SIDE YARD BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITHIN THE 75 TO THE LAKE BUT THAT'S ME LOOKING AT THIS THINKING THAT THERE WASN'T ANOTHER CONFORMING LOCATION I KNOW NOW KNOWING THAT THE SETBACK IS DIFFERENT FOR THE FOR THE STREET IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A CONFORMING LOCATION IN THE FRONT ALTHOUGH THAT'S PROBABLY NOT AS PLEASING I FEEL LIKE IT'S HARD TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE FOR ONE THAT WE NOW HAVE TO GIVE ANY EXPERIENCE FOR AND SO WHERE MY HEAD GOES IS WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC USE OF THAT SHED? DOES IT HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY THE LAKESIDE OF THE HOUSE? IS THERE EQUIPMENT IN THERE THAT CAN'T NAVIGATE FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK? I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
SO LOOKING AT IT, INITIALLY I'D BE IN FAVOR IF IT MET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
BUT NOW I FEEL LIKE I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SHED BECAUSE...
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT WHEN WE LOOK AT DIFFICULTY, YOU CAN'T GRANT IT BASED ON CONVENIENCE.
AND THAT'S A HARSH WORD BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONVENIENCE, IT'S UTILITY, BUT IT STILL RESTS ON CONVENIENCE.
AND YOU THINK OF SOME OF THOSE REALLY LARGE PROPERTIES LIKE, I'LL PICK ON BONES POINT, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME REALLY LARGE PIECES OF PROPERTY FAR BEYOND 75 FEET, BUT A LONG, LONG WAYS FROM THE DWELLING.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE RULES AS THEY'RE WRITTEN.
IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT IS A VULNERABILITY WE'VE BEEN GENERALLY RESTRICTIVE ON.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT SOME REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION, REALLY GOOD DIALOGUE, AND GOOD CLARIFICATION, SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THAT.
IF THERE IS GENERALLY FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'D WELCOME IT.
IF THERE IS GENERAL CLARIFICATION ON MODIFICATIONS THAT YOU WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF OR NOT IN SUPPORT OF, I WELCOME IT.
OTHERWISE, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION OF SORTS, BUT REMEMBER IT WOULD BE A MULTI-PART MOTION IF SO.
SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD FOR THE CUP APPLICATION.
[00:40:02]
FOR THE RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE LAKE YARD WITH CONDITIONS FOR SCREENING AND WE DISCUSSED NATIVE PLANTINGS.DENIAL OF THE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE SHED RIGHT SO WE HAVE A MOTION AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION SO BE OKAY APPROVAL SIX MONTH WAITING DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR THE SHED APPROVAL OF THE CP THOUGH AS WELL FOR THE RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE 75 LAKES OR SETBACK AS APPLIED YEAH WITH CONDITIONS FOR SCREENING IN NATIVE PLANTING.
JUST FOLLOWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
SCREENING IS PARTICULARLY CALLED OUT.
SO BEING THE MOTION DOES INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY SCREENING AS WELL AS ANY OTHER STAFF'S CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS.
I'LL INCLUDE THAT IN THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 6 AYES, 1 NAY.
USUALLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT DICTATED BY THE COMMISSION, BUT THE STAFF USUALLY CAN CLARIFY IT FOR YOU, WHAT WOULD DEFINE IT.
BECAUSE WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON LANGUAGE ON WHAT DEFINES NATIVE PLANTINGS, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE, LIKE, LAURA AND MELANIE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY COULD PROBABLY GIVE YOU BETTER CLARIFICATION THAN I COULD, ESPECIALLY ON THE RECORD.
[5.2) LA26-000016, Nam Pham, 4755 North Shore Drive, Variance (Matthew Karney)]
THANKS, EVERYONE.ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO 5.2, LA26-000016, THAT'S 4755 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
MR. CARNEY? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST BEING MADE AT 4755 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
THIS IS A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO...
TO BUILD REPLACEMENT DECKS WITHIN THE BLUFF SETBACK.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE FAR WESTERN EDGE OF TOWN AS WE START GOING NORTH ON COUNTY ROAD 19.
THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE A 25% HARDCOVER LIMIT.
IT DOES HAVE A PROPERTY SIZE OF .36 ACRES, BUT THERE IS A BIT OF A CAVEAT WITH THAT I'LL COVER ON A LATER SLIDE.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE PROPERTY IS COMING IN WITH A NON-CONFORMING HARDCOVER QUANTITY OF 4,381.
SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT 28%.
IN ADDRESSING THE LOT SIZE, ONE THING THAT WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION WAS THAT LAKE STREET, AS WE HAVE SHOWN HERE ON THE SURVEY, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT HAD BEEN VACATED.
WHERE THIS ACREAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE IS NOT A PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BUT IS ULTIMATELY BISECTING THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY FROM THE LAKESHORE.
SO AS A RESULT, IN ABOUT TWO MONTHS, I WANT TO SAY IN AUGUST, THERE WILL BE A VACATION REQUEST COMING THROUGH TO CONTEMPLATE THE VACATION OF THIS PORTION WHERE IT'S ASSUMED THAT A LARGE AMOUNT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL GO BACK AND BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE ACREAGE OF THIS PROPERTY.
I THINK THE NUMBER THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS CLOSER TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET IF LAKE STREET IS VACATED, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE HARDCOVER THAT IS EXISTING ON PROPERTY CONFORMING WITH REQUIREMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT FOR YOU.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE DECK THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS LOCATED OFF THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
I WILL NOTE THAT THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOME IS RIGHT HERE, AND THIS IS THE 30-FOOT BLUFF SETBACK THAT IS BEING TAKEN FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF.
JUST AN IMAGE SHOWING, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IN TERMS OF SLOPE AND LOCATION OF THE DECK.
IN RELATION TO VISUALLY THE TOP OF THE SLOPE.
SOME IMAGES OF THE DECK AS WELL, JUST SHOWING HOW IT INTERFACES OUT TO THE ACCESS TO THE NORTH WITH NORTH SHORE DRIVE AND THE DISTANCE AS WELL AS THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOME AT THE EDGE OF THE DECK.
THIS IS A PRETTY LOADED SLIDE AND I'LL GO THROUGH IT PIECE BY PIECE.
SO TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE COLORS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, THIS IS A WIDE VARIETY OF SETBACKS THAT WE'RE LOOKING
[00:45:01]
AT HERE.BUT STARTING FROM THE TOP, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
SHADED IN BLACK IS THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE AFTER WE CONSIDER ALL THE VARIOUS SETBACKS THAT ARE BEING APPLIED HERE.
30 FROM THE STREET, 10 FROM THE SIDES, AND THE BLUFF SETBACK AT 30 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF.
PURPLE HERE IS WHAT'S EXISTING TODAY IN TERMS OF AN EXISTING DECK.
THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE THIS IS A CRITICAL PIECE TO THE ACCESS OF THE HOME, IS PROPOSING TO KEEP SOME DECK OVER HERE.
BUT THEN MOVING THE DECK OVER HERE AS WELL BECAUSE THERE IS A HISTORIC DRAINAGE COURSE THAT GOES THROUGH UNDERNEATH THE DECK AND HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DETERIORATING CONDITION OF THAT DECK.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WHICH IS THIS DARK OR NAVY BLUE AND THE LAKE SETBACK 75 FEET SHOWN IN THIS LIGHTER BLUE.
TOP OF BLUFF IS THIS MAGENTA OR PINK.
THE THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, WHICH IS 20 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF.
IS LOCATED HERE IN THIS STANDARD RED.
THE BIG POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT THIS, THE TOP OF THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE PROHIBITS ANY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES, PERIOD.
THE DECK THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT EXISTING WAS LOCATED WITHIN THAT BLUFF IMPACT ZONE AND THE PROPOSAL PULLED, ALTHOUGH IT'S IN TWO PIECES, THE DECK OUT OF THAT BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.
AND ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGES, WE'RE LOOKING AT A SIMILAR ENCROACHMENT INTO THAT SETBACK AS WELL, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING FOR THE PRIVACY FOR THE OWNER WHOSE AREA ON THE DECK WAS MOSTLY VISIBLE TO COUNTY ROAD 19.
SO IN TERMS OF A REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA.
THIS IS MORE OR LESS A SUMMARY OF MY REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE'S A FAIRLY TIGHT BUILDING ENVELOPE WHEN ALL THE SETBACKS ARE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY.
WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE DECK AREA IS NOT INCREASING AS WELL.
IT'S REMAINING 475 SQUARE FEET, ALBEIT IN TWO DIFFERENT PIECES.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DECK IS NO LONGER ENCROACHING INTO THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, SO 20 FEET WITHIN THAT TOP OF BLUFF.
NOTING FULL ON THAT THE SOME FORM OF DECKING IS NEEDED, DECKING OR STAIRS FOR THAT MATTER, WITH THE GRADE BY THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOME JUST TO PROVIDE ACCESS.
HARDCOVER IS BEING REMOVED FROM A HISTORIC DRAINAGE COURSE AS WELL.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED LANDSCAPING, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I RECEIVED A PLAN SHOWING HOW EXACTLY THAT WILL LOOK.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PERTINENT TO THIS REQUEST.
BUT ANOTHER DETAIL IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE AREA IS THAT MOST OF THE PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE THAT BLUFF IMPACT THAT ARE REALLY LIMITED ON THEIR LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT, HAVE LAKE-FACING DECKS OVER THE EDGE OF THEIR HOUSES.
I THINK THIS IMAGE CAPTURES THAT PRETTY WELL.
NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS MANNER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, AGAIN, THIS IS A BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE.
THIS WILL BE ABOUT 9.5 FEET INTO THAT BLUFF SETBACK.
STAFF HAS NOT FIELDED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS REQUEST, BUT THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE THE NEIGHBOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS FROM EITHER SIDE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.
GIVEN THE TIMING IN WHICH WE DISCOVERED THE LAKE STREET VACATION ITEM AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE.
WE'LL BE BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL NEXT WEEK TO KEEP IN LINE WITH THAT 60-DAY REVIEW TIMELINE AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU MR CARNEY UM ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEE NONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION UM DOES IT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THIS TO HAVE THE THE VACATION SUPPOSE IF ONE HANDLES THE OTHER? THE APPLICANT COULD SPEAK TO IT, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BECAUSE THAT DECK IS A COMPONENT FOR THE ACCESS TO THE HOME AND IT IS FALLING APART, IT'S IN HIS INTEREST TO GET THAT DECK FIXED AND REPLACED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THEY HAVE SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THEIR HOME.
WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE A 60-DAY REVIEW PERIOD FROM THE DNR FOR VACATION REQUESTS, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE LAKESHORE.
SO IN ORDER TO MEET THAT TIMING, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT AN ADDITIONAL 60 OR SO DAYS IN ORDER TO HAVE A VARIANCE REVIEWED
[00:50:01]
BY THE COUNCIL.SO THIS IS MORE OR LESS OUR WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT'S TIMELINE FOR THEIR NEEDS.
YEAH, FOR COUNCIL, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD FOR THAT INCLUDED AS WELL.
THE TIMING DOES APPRECIATE THAT.
SO WE WOULD BE COMPLIANT FOR THE MOST PART UPON VACATION OF THAT LAND.
WE'RE IMPROVING A SITUATION WHERE WE CURRENTLY HAVE STRUCTURE OVER A DRAINAGE AREA.
WE'RE ALSO REMOVING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVING THE ENCROACHMENT OF STRUCTURE IN A BLUFF ZONE.
CALLED OUT FROM STAFF REPORT FROM 15 FEET TO 20.5 FEET.
THERE ARE GENERATORS IN CASE POWER WENT OUT, BUT I BELIEVE THE WIND HAS PICKED UP QUITE A BIT.
SO I THINK THAT'S CAUSING SOME INTERFERENCE WITH SOME OF OUR LIGHTING.
WELL, AS IF I DON'T GET DISTRACTED ENOUGH AS IT IS.
YEAH, I THINK YOU'LL SEE SOME STUFF POPPING OUT.
WELL, IF WE LOSE POWER, I'LL JUST SPEAK LOUDER.
SO THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT WE'VE GOT AS A GOOD SUMMARY.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WELL, I SHOULD SAY, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HEARD NO, BUT I DON'T.
AS FAR AS THE VACATION REQUEST, WHEN I LOOK ON THE AERIAL, IT LOOKS LIKE THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT VACATION HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH.
TYPICALLY DRIVEN PROPERTY OWNERS, THERE'S ONE OR TWO PROPERTIES ALONG THAT STRETCH THAT VACATION YET.
THIS, I BELIEVE, IS JUST ONE OF TWO.
SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE A TIMING THING.
IT'S NOT YOUR TYPICAL VACATION THAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING, WHERE SOMETIMES IT IS, SOMETIMES IT ISN'T.
THAT'S GOOD CLARIFICATION AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
IS THAT GOOD? KHRUSHCHEV-VALLS? YES.
ANY OTHER ONES? THIS QUESTION, PLEASE.
THE VARIANCE YOU GUYS KEEP REFERENCING, THE ONLY WAY THAT AFFECTS THIS VARIANCE OF THE BLUFF SET, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE OTHER THAN IT'S THE HARD, OR SORRY.
THE PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER? RIGHT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE AFFECTING, BUT THEY'RE ALSO NOT INCREASING THE HARDCOVER ON SITE.
THAT WAS MORE OR LESS TO PREFACE THAT THERE WILL BE AN APPLICATION THAT YOU WILL BE SEEING IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, AND THERE WAS SURVEY AND MATERIALS WITHIN THE APPLICATION THAT INDICATED THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T OWN THE LAKESHORE, THAT THERE WAS THIS PIECE, I GUESS, THAT WAS FLOATING OUT THERE.
BUT THERE STILL IS A VARIANCE FOR...
SET BACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF.
SO IT'S NOT COMPLETELY COMPLIANT EVEN WITH THE VACATION.
IT'S JUST, AGAIN, IT'S IMPROVING, WHICH IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE IN THOSE VARIANCES.
I JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT OUT BECAUSE I MAYBE MISSED THAT THE FIRST TIME ENTIRELY.
ALL RIGHT, NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THAT CLEANED UP, 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.
SO I WANT TO ASK A COUPLE OF ISSUES.
THE REASON WHY IT'S NOT VACATED OR THE VACATION DIDN'T HAPPEN IS THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT.
AND EVEN WHEN I APPROACHED THE STAFF, I DON'T THINK NEITHER OF US WERE AWARE OF IT UNTIL WE REALLY DIG INTO THE SURVEY.
AND WE'RE LIKE, OH MY GOD, IT HAS NOT BEEN VACATED.
RIGHT, AND THE OTHER REASON WHY I'M ASKING FOR TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DECK AT THIS POINT VERSUS WAITING FOR IT TO VACATE IS BECAUSE THE HOME ITSELF WAS BUILT IN 1962.
I BELIEVE THE DECK WAS ALSO BUILT AT THAT TIME, SO AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S VERY, VERY OLD.
IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PURPLE, IT'S HELD ONLY BY 80 FEET.
SO THE WHOLE DECK ITSELF IS HOLD TOGETHER BY 80 FEET AND RIGHT NOW WITH THE EROSION THE DECK ITSELF IS SLIDING OFF AND YOU KNOW MY CHILDREN I DON'T GONNA ALLOW THEM BACK.
WE ENTER THROUGH THE GARAGE ONLY, YOU KNOW, EVEN STAFF OR I'M SORRY LIKE GUESTS COMING OVER I YOU KNOW WE DON'T OPEN USE FRONT DOOR SO I AM URGING TO GET THE VARIANCE FOR THE DECK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND WE CAN ENJOY OUR HOUSE, BUT EVERYTHING THAT MATT HAS PRESENTED TO YOU.
WE DON'T USE IT BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT SAFE.
SECOND OF ALL, THERE'S NO PRIVACY.
[00:55:02]
BECAUSE IT GOES RIGHT NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE TWO NEIGHBORS.THAT'S WHERE THE NEIGHBORS PARK.
THAT'S WHERE, AND ALSO ON TOP OF THAT, IT'S A VERY BUSY NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
SO WITH THE DECK THE WAY IT'S SO UNSAFE RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAVE TO REBUILD THE DECK IN ORDER FOR US TO USE IT, I SAID WE MOVE IT TO THE BACK.
SO TO GIVE IT MORE PRIVACY AND TO SERVE ITS PURPOSE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE UP? I WANTED JUST SO I CAN COMPLETELY GET BEHIND THE BIGGER DECK CLOSER TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE BLUFF.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS, IS THERE A FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE TO THE DECK COMING OUT OF THE MAIN DOOR EXTENDING SO FAR INTO THE BLUFF? NECESSITY FOR THAT OR A BUILDING PURPOSE FOR THAT? I THINK IT'S ALSO BECAUSE OF WHERE THE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE VIEW OF IT WHEN YOU COME WITH YOU WOULD WHEN YOU COME OFF OF IT IT'S AND ALSO WHAT KIND OF A TURNAROUND RIGHT NOW THE EXISTING DECK IS VERY BIG ON WHAT THE ENTRANCE ARE WHERE AND THE WAY WOULD REDUCE IT WE THOUGHT YOU KNOW, THAT'S GONNA BE THE MOST THE SMALLEST THAT THAT WILL STILL KEEP THE FRONT AREA YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC MOVING IN AND OUT, I GUESS IT'S RIGHT NOW IF YOU LOOKED AT IT, WE DON'T WANT TO GO HORIZONTAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS.
AND RIGHT NOW, I THINK YOU SAID EARLIER IT'S A BIGGER DECK.
IF THERE'S A FUNCTIONAL NECESSITY FOR THE DECK TO COME OUT THAT FAR OR IF IT'S MORE OF JUST A CONVENIENCE FOR A VIEW OR A LAKE? I'M TRYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN...
IT'S MORE CONVENIENCE BECAUSE OF HOW WE GO FROM A VERY LARGE AREA DOWN TO...
WE LIKE TO GO A LITTLE BIT LONGER AND JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE DURING DISCUSSION, IF WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, I'LL BE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRINGING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, MR. CARNEY, FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I APPRECIATE THE COLOR AND THE BACKGROUND.
THE TIMING OF THIS IS RELEVANT.
WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT NOT BE NEARLY AS ARDUOUS OF AN APPLICATION IF WE WERE TWO MONTHS LATER, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE TIMING OF THIS DISREPAIR AND WANTING TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY IS WORTH NOTING.
SO, IN SUMMARY, I THINK I'M JUST GOING TO TEE THIS UP, AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION.
BUT I'M SEEING THAT THERE'S AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE BLUFF ZONE SETBACK FROM 15 TO 20.5 FEET, WHICH IS MEANINGFUL.
WE'RE REMOVING STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING OVER DRAINAGE, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE TYPICALLY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF AS AN APPLICATION.
SO I THINK I'M GOING TO TURN THE TABLES, JUDGING FROM OUR ITINERARY TONIGHT AS WELL, AND THE WEATHER.
IF THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THIS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT, BUT IF THERE'S SUPPORT OF IT, I'D LOVE TO HEAR A MOTION OR ANY OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMMENTED.
LA 26, 4755 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE AS APPLIED, AND THAT IS BY COMMISSIONER ROYAL AND A SECOND BY JARNOT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? AND I DON'T WANT TO BE LONG.
I CAN SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR A LOT OF...
AND AS I SAID, THE LARGE, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE LAKESIDE TO PUT THAT PIECE OF THE DECK.
THE STRUGGLE I GET FROM A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDPOINT IS WE CAN'T ISSUE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR A CONVENIENCE OR...
WELL, IT'S NOT A CONVENIENCE, BUT THEY COULD REBUILD WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
SO WHENEVER YOU'RE IMPROVING IT, THAT'S WHERE WE USUALLY ARE GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF IT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IMPROVING THE SITUATION...
THEN YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, IN THEORY, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS IMPROVING WHAT'S CURRENTLY NOT COMPLIANT, SO THEY'RE MAKING IT MORE COMPLIANT.
BUT THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REBUILD THAT DECK EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.
THAT'S WHY GENERALLY WE'VE BEEN
[01:00:01]
IN SUPPORT OF A VARIANCE LIKE THAT.LIKE I SAID, I CAN GET BEHIND THIS ENTIRE POINT THAT I SAID, WHERE WE COULD GET ALL OF IT OUT OF THAT BLUFF ZONE AND STILL SERVE THE PURPOSE AND THE FUNCTION OF A DECK.
ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION, OTHERWISE WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL IT TO A VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.
[5.3) LA26-000018, Mom's Design Build, 1080 Heritage Lane, Variance (Matthew Karney)]
OKAY, WE'RE MOVING ON TO 5-3, WHICH IS LA-26-000018, WHICH IS 1080 HERITAGE LANE IN A VARIANCE ALSO WITH MR. CARNEY.I HAVE ANOTHER VARIANCE LOCATED AT 1080 HERITAGE LANE.
TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS, THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED DECK THAT IS LOCATED ABOUT 39.8 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE WHERE 50 FEET IS REQUIRED.
PROPERTY IS ZONED LR1A, SUBJECT TO A 35% HARDCOVER LIMIT, AND I WILL SAY WITH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED HARDCOVER THAT YOU'RE SEEING, THERE ARE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT THAT AREN'T SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCE, SUCH AS A POOL AND PATIO THAT ARE ADDING TO THIS HARDCOVER AMOUNT BUT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUEST.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A DECK GOING OVER THE REAR SETBACK LINE.
SO IN TERMS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, THIS IS AN AS-BUILT SURVEY THAT WE HAVE FROM THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE WE ARE LOOKING KIND OF ALONG HERE, DOWN AND AROUND.
THE OBSERVATION IS THAT THE HOME IS BUILT PRETTY TIGHT TO THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS AS WELL, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM ON EITHER SIDE YARD FOR ANY POTENTIAL BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE FRONT OR THE REAR.
THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE FACING OF THE HOUSE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE EXISTING DECK AS WELL AS SOME OF THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT THE HOUSE IS BUILT INTO AS WELL AS GENERALLY THE LOCATION OF THAT SIDE YARD THAT WE CAN SEE RIGHT HERE.
IN TERMS OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MULTI-FACETED PROJECT, NOT NECESSARILY JUST FOR A DECK BUT FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIDE YARD AS WELL.
THE DECK THAT WE HAVE EXISTING IS SHOWN KIND OF UNDERNEATH THE SHADING PROVIDED, BUT WILL EXTEND INTO THIS BLUE SHADED AREA, WHICH WOULD BE THE AREA OF NONCONFORMITY, EXTENDING ABOUT THAT 10.2 FEET INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.
SOME RENDERINGS AS WELL PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING WHAT THIS DECK WILL LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF JUST VISUAL LAYOUT AND HOW IT MIXES IN WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, SUCH AS THE POOL AND PATIO SPACE.
IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, THIS IS ANOTHER CHALLENGING ONE IN THE SENSE THAT THIS IS A CHALLENGING PROPERTY WITH THE SETBACKS THAT ARE BEING APPLIED.
THIS IS A TWO-ACRE ZONE, BUT A ONE-ACRE PROPERTY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME PRETTY STEEP SETBACKS, 50 FEET FROM THE FRONT AND 50 FEET FROM THE REAR.
WHICH IN MANY RESPECTS IS PRETTY CLOSE TO ABOUT 60% OF THE LOT DEPTH, AT LEAST ON THAT WESTERN SIDE.
ADDITIONALLY, AS YOU COULD SEE IN THAT IMAGE OF THE HOUSE FROM THE SIDE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TOPOGRAPHY THAT THE HOUSE IS BUILT INTO THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THAT REAR YARD.
IN MANY RESPECTS, THE DECK CAN BE SCREENED BY THAT GRADE AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPING THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.
WHAT STAFF CONTENDS IS THAT A CONFORMING BUILDING ENVELOPE DOES EXIST.
IT'S IN THE AREA OF THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT, SUCH AS THE PATIO OR THE POOL.
AND GENERALLY, BASED ON OUR REVIEW OF THE NARRATIVE, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUBMITTED, THAT THE SIZE INCREASE INTO THE SETBACK IS NOT JUSTIFIED FULLY BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
AND I GUESS MY ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY OF THIS APPLICATION IS ALTHOUGH THE ENVELOPE IS RESTRICTIVE, AMPLE AREA EXISTS TO ALLOW FOR A LARGER DECK THAT MEETS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE, WHICH IS FOR THE REAR SETBACK, ULTIMATELY TO ALLOW 39.8 FEET OR 50 FEET REQUIRED.
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS REQUEST.
AS THERE IS NO 60-DAY REVIEW WINDOW ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION, I'LL PROCEED NORMALLY TO THE JULY 13TH MEETING WITH THE
[01:05:03]
CITY COUNCIL.I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? I JUST MIGHT HAVE ONE.
SO OFTEN WE'RE SEEING THESE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALWAYS TIED TO THE TORAL APPURTENANCES, THIS IS ONE THAT'S MORE SO ABOUT A REAR, THAT'S JUST REAR SETBACK BASED ON A TWO ACRE ZONING.
SO I JUST DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AS MUCH.
MEMORY WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF IT IS TIED TO LAKESHORE VIEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THAT'S UM THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE STANCE THAT WE'VE HAD AS CITY HAVE BEEN IS THERE ANY UM ANY IDEAS FROM STAFF ON HOW HOW THAT GENERALLY HAS BEEN VIEWED UM HISTORICALLY WE'VE LOOKED AT THESE PROPERTIES AND THERE IS A FEW NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE DEVELOPED AS ONE ACRE LOTS HISTORICALLY AND THERE ARE TWO ACRE ZONES SO THEY ARE SUBSTANDARD ZONES WE DO LOOK AT THEM UNIQUELY AS WHAT'S A REASONABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE, IS THERE REASONABLE ACCESS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS TO CONFORM, AND IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONFORMANCE, THAT'S ALWAYS THE GOAL AND WE ALWAYS WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANTS TO DO SO.
USUALLY WE'LL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT GEOGRAPHY OR UNIQUE LOT SHAPE AS REASONS TO US PROCEED POTENTIALLY WITH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A VARIANCE.
SO IT IS A LOT BY LOT AND UNIQUE IN THAT WAY, BUT WE DO TRY AND DO IT IN WHATEVER PROJECTS IN FRONT OF YOU SO JUST ONE LAST FOLLOW-UP TO THAT JUST FOR A REFERENCE AND THIS IS LR 1A CORRECT SO THE NEXT LEVEL UP IN DENSITY WOULD BE LIKE LR 1B IS A ONE ACRE ZONE AND THE ONE LR1A IS A TWO ACRE ZONE AND THIS ISN'T A TWO ACRE ZONING DISTRICT.
AND AGAIN, I'M ONLY WONDERING JUST FOR MY OWN CURIOSITY.
SO IF IT WAS ZONED ONE ACRE LA LR1B, WHAT WOULD BE THE SIDE? OR THE REAR? REAR, YES.
THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, IF THE APPLICANTS HERE WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
OUR ADDRESS IS 1080 HERITAGE LANE.
THIS IS MY HUSBAND, MIKE, AND THIS IS OUR DESIGNER, OWEN.
WE'RE PROUD TO BE ORDO RESIDENTS.
OUR KIDS ATTEND ORDO SCHOOLS, AND WE'RE ACTIVE MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
AFTER MOVING HERE FROM HOUSTON NEARLY SIX YEARS AGO, WE KNEW THIS IS WHERE WE WANTED TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN.
OUR MAIN GOAL WITH THIS PROJECT IS TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE OUR KIDS WILL WANT TO CONTINUE TO SPEND TIME AT HOME AND WHERE WE CAN CREATE A SPACE FOR OUR WHOLE FAMILY TO SPEND TIME OUTDOORS TOGETHER.
THE PLAN DESIGNED BY MOMS DESIGN BUILD CENTERS ON A SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD, A STONE PATIO SURROUNDING IT, AND THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE, A DECK OFF THE KITCHEN OF OUR HOUSE OVERLOOKING THE POOL.
THE DECK WOULD SIT ROUGHLY 40 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
REQUIRING A VARIANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET FROM THE 50-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, OUR LOT IS A LEGALLY NONCONFORMING PARCEL OF ONE ACRE IN A TWO-ACRE MINIMUM DISTRICT.
THE LOT PREEXISTED THE CURRENT STANDARD AND TODAY WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE.
IN ADDITION TO THE TWO-ACRE SETBACKS ON A ONE-ACRE LOT, THE REAR OF OUR HOUSE IS A GIANT HILL.
ALTHOUGH IT'S GREAT FOR SLEDDING, IT'S NOT GREAT FOR A PATIO.
DUE TO THIS GRADE, OUR LOWER LEVEL EXITS OUT TO THE SIDE, NOT THE REAR.
THIS LAYOUT HAS BEEN A TRICK WHEN NAVIGATING HOW TO LAY OUT A YARD IN A WAY THAT IS FUNCTIONAL FOR OUR DESIRED USE.
THE REAR NEIGHBORING HOME SITS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HILL BEHIND US, APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED DECK.
THE TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING TREE CANOPY COMPLETELY BLOCK ANY LINE OF SIGHT BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.
FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND FROM ANYWHERE OFF OUR PROPERTY, THE DECK WILL NOT BE VISIBLE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, AND WE FEEL THAT OUR CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE MERIT.
WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE CONSIDERATION.
IS NOT NOWHERE TO BE SEEN ESPECIALLY FROM THE REAR DIVIDED PROPERTY LINE IF YOU LOOK HERE I THINK IT'S TO THE SOUTH AND SO YEAH I THINK I
[01:10:02]
THINK IT'S A QUEST THAT'S VERY IN THE SPIRIT OF KIND OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE INTENDING TO DO AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS GOING AGAINST KIND OF YOUR GOALS THANK YOU THANK YOU APPRECIATE OH WELL I SHOULD SAY BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE THEY DO IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS, THAT'D BE GREAT.THOSE 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 RECORD AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
OKAY, SO I'LL SUMMARIZE IF I CAN.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT IS A ONE-ACRE LOT, SO NATURALLY IT BECOMES CHALLENGING TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF A TWO-ACRE CLASSIFICATION.
I DO FEEL LIKE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INVOLVING LAKERS, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE SO RIGID AND DIFFICULT.
IT FEELS LIKE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AUTHORITY TO WORK.
I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT LR1, NATION 30 FEET, THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
HERE'S 50, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS, SO I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS TO FOLLOW IT.
BUT FOR THAT REASON, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE LENIENT.
THAT'S JUST MY SUMMARY AND PERSPECTIVE.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR EVERYONE ELSE'S.
JUST CHIMING IN QUICK, I PRETTY MUCH FOLLOWED DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU LAID OUT.
BEFORE YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, THE STAFF WAS LOOKING INTO THE SETBACK OF THE LR1B, WHICH IS 30 FEET FROM THE REAR.
I ALSO I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE INCREASING THEIR HEART COVER PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY, THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE 35% THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED.
AND I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY KIND OF MAYBE WOULD QUESTION THEIR WANTING TO PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT'S ALLOWED, I THINK I JUST POINT TO THE HARD COVER AND THAT, TO ME, THAT ISN'T THE CASE NECESSARILY.
AND ALSO THE SCREENING, THIS ISN'T ABSTRACT.
INSTRUCTING ANYONE VIEWS OR IS IN VIEW OF ANYONE AROUND THE AREA.
AND I GUESS I WOULD JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT, THAT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE AS APPLIED.
ANYONE ELSE? I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND I LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT IF THIS WAS A ONE-ACRE LOT AREA WHERE EVERYTHING WAS A ONE-ACRE LOT AND IT WAS ZONED AT A ONE-ACRE LOT, EVERYTHING IN THE COMMUNITY...
COMMUNITY WOULD BE A 30-FOOT SETBACK.
WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO PICK ONE OUT AND DO 30 FEET ON THESE ONE, WHEN YOU START TO CREATE SOME ANOMALIES THERE AND SOME DIFFICULTIES IN THE FUTURE, IF WE SET THAT AS OUR STANDARD IS GOING TO BE TO GIVE IT NOW, WE HAVE TO GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY.
THE SECOND PIECE, AND AS I'VE LEARNED, OPINION OR FEELING BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DOES IT MEET THE STANDARD THAT'S SET FOR AND TO THE WORK STAFF DOES I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES JUST BASED ON WHAT THE QUESTIONS ARE A LOT OF SLOPE IN THE BACKYARD AND THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE BUT THE SLOPE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH WHY YOU'RE GOING FOR THE SLOPE TO PUT THE DECK SOMEPLACE ELSE I DON'T NEED TO REDESIGN IT BUT I COULD SAY YOU COULD SACRIFICE SOME POOL AREA YOU COULD THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE I THINK ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, I MIGHT HAVE APPROVED IT, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE SET TO DO, WHICH IS REALLY JUDGE ON THE DIFFICULTY, DOES IT MEET? YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
IT'S HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT'S ZONED FOR.
THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A DIFFICULTY ON ITS OWN.
YEAH, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S ABOUT A STANDARD FOR THAT COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA.
THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS PANEL IS...
AND WE GET TO GO HOME AND NOT HAVE HURT FEELINGS,
[01:15:02]
YOU KNOW? SO I WELCOME THOSE OPINIONS.ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, I'LL ADD MY OPINIONS HERE.
JUST LOOKING AT THE AERIALS NOW, I THINK THE SCREENING ACTUALLY IMPROVES THE CURRENT STATE.
YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THERE'S ITERATIONS OF THE DESIGN THAT TRIED TO FIT WITHIN THE BOUNDS AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED THAT GREAT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.
SO I GUESS LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THE DETAIL NOW A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, I'M LEANING TOWARDS APPROVAL FROM MY END ON THIS ONE.
I'LL ADD THE COMMENT THAT FOR ME, THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THE FACT THAT THAT'S BUTTING UP TO A ROAD, NOT A DRIVEWAY, CORRECT? IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY? OKAY.
MATT, CAN YOU BRING UP THE AREA, LIKE THE GIS? WILL YOU BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN? AH, THAT IS A, OKAY, THAT IS A DRIVEWAY.
I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THERE WAS ANY, UM...
IF IT WAS A ROAD, IF THERE WAS ANY ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE OFF OF THE ROAD, THAT'S LIKE THE CITY PROPERTY OR SOMETHING.
BUT I WAS LOOKING AT THE MORE ZOOMED-IN ONE.
BUT IN GENERAL, WITH SOME OF THE OTHERS, AS THEY'VE MENTIONED, IMPOSING THIS PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED A SINGLE-ACRE PROPERTY.
YES, IT'S WITHIN A TWO-ACRE ZONE, BUT IT IS A PROPERTY THAT IS LEGAL.
AND WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO BE ONE ACRE.
IMPOSING TWO-ACRE SETBACKS ON IT, I DO BELIEVE, IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PERKLE.
ONE OTHER THING, I GUESS, THAT I THINK ABOUT, TOO, IS, NOT THAT WE WANT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS, BUT I THINK ABOUT...
WHEN YOU'VE GOT SUBSTANDARD LOTS, LIKE LET'S JUST SAY THIS WAS A NEW DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S ZONED FOR TWO ACRES, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, A TOOL, TO TURN THIS INTO WHAT'S CALLED A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN THAT MEANS, LIKE, OKAY, WELL, IT DOESN'T MEET THE TWO-ACRE LOTS OR ONE-ACRE PARCELS, BUT WITH THAT IT KIND OF HAS ITS OWN SET OF RULES WITHIN THAT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT MIGHT BE, OKAY, INSTEAD OF TWO-ACRE LOTS, THERE ARE ONE-ACRE LOTS.
INSTEAD OF 50-FOOT SETBACKS, IT'S 30-FOOT SETBACKS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONED IN THAT BECAUSE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS.
PARTICULAR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AND SO LIKE IF THIS WERE WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT TODAY AND IT WAS A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAYBE THAT WAS IN PLACE THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE NO LONGER A VARIANCE AND SO YOU KNOW UM YOU KNOW COMMISSIONER WATSON MAKES SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS WHICH IS WE DO HAVE TO ESTABLISH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BUT I THINK THE SUBSTANDARD LAT LOT IS THE IS THE ONE THAT I'M HANGING MY HAT ON UM SO I APPRECIATE THE COLOR I REALLY APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT HELPS US ALL UNDERSTAND.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE? WELCOME THEM OR A MOTION.
SORRY, I'M MAKING SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT APPLICATION IN FRONT OF ME.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA-26-18 AS APPLIED.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY BRANDENBURG AND A SECOND BY PERKLE TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I DIDN'T VOTE IN TIME, BUT I WAS A YAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO FOUR AND THREE? I WAS A YAY.
CHAIR, COULD YOU CALL A VOTE SO WE KNOW? BY ALL MEANS, YEAH, I WAS JUST ABOUT TO.
BOLLIS AND THE THE REST WERE EYES IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
YES, SO FIVE TWO SO WILSON AND BOLLIS.
[5.4) LA26-000019, Marc Gensler, 1101 Ferndale Road West, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) ]
GOOD.THANKS EVERYONE FIVE DASH FOUR MOVING ON TO LA 26 DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ONE NINE WHICH IS 1101 FERNDALE ROAD WEST A VARIANCE APPLICATION WITH MISS CURTIS THANK YOU.
[01:20:09]
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 22 FOOT BY 22 FOOT ADDITION THAT WILL ADD GARAGE SPACE WITH LIVING SPACE ABOVE ON THE REAR OF THEIR HOME.VARIANCES FOR HARDCOVER, 75 FOOT LAKE SETBACK, REAR SETBACK, AND STRUCTURAL COVERAGE ARE REQUESTED.
NO NEW HARDCOVER IS PROPOSED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS A NON-CONFORMING HARDCOVER LEVEL THAT CHANGE IN NATURE FROM NON-STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER TO STRUCTURAL BUILDING.
HARDCOVER DOES REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANTS IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE LACK OF STREET FRONTAGE, SMALL LOT SIZE, LOW ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE SHORE ON TWO SIDES AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUEST.
STAFF AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IMPACTING THE PROPERTY.
THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS COMBINED WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPED LOT RESULT IN DIFFICULTIES TO EXPAND THE HOME.
WHILE THE PROPERTY DOES EXHIBIT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN STRUCTURAL COVERAGE BEYOND THE ALLOWANCE IS NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE USE AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE REGULATIONS.
THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING HARDCOVER LEVEL IS 48.79%.
THE ADDITION WILL BE PROPOSED OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY HARDCOVER.
AND WHILE THE ADDITION WILL OCCUPY SPACE WHERE THE EXTERIOR ON-SITE PARKING WAS PROVIDED, THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY PARKING AREAS ON THE SIDES OF THE DRIVEWAY ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AND MANEUVERABILITY FOR THE SITE.
THE ALLOWANCE FOR STRUCTURE ON SMALL LOTS IS 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING COVERAGE.
THE EXISTING HOME EXCEEDS THAT LEVEL BY 234 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSAL RESULTS IN AN ADDITIONAL 490 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
THE PROPERTY'S LOW ELEVATION DOES PRECLUDE THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A BASEMENT, SO THEY DON'T HAVE A LOWER LEVEL FOR STORAGE OR USE.
THE EXISTING REAR YARD SETBACK IS ALSO NON-CONFORMING AT 45 FEET, WHERE 50 IS REQUIRED, AS THIS IS A TWO-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSAL CONTEMPLATES FURTHER REDUCTION OF THE REAR YARD, RESULTING IN A SETBACK OF 23 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THE PROPERTY DOES NOT ABUT THE ROAD.
THEY ACCESS OVER AN EASEMENT OVER THE PROPERTY AT 1105.
AT 80 FEET, THE EXISTING HOME IS CURRENTLY CONFORMING TO THE LAKE SETBACK ON THE LAGOON SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE BLUE DOTTED, THE PROJECT WILL INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT AND THE MASS OF THE HOME ON THE LAGOON SIDE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK, REDUCING THE SETBACK TO 60 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL AND CREATING A NEW BUILDING ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK OF THE PROPERTY.
THE CITY ENGINEER IS RECOMMENDING IF THE PROJECT WERE TO GO FORWARD THAT THE OWNERS RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WITH THE EASEMENT.
THE EASEMENT FOR THE SEWER IS SHOWN IN YELLOW.
THE GREEN LINE REPRESENTS THE SERVICE SERVING BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
EASEMENT SHOULD PROBABLY BE COVERING THE SERVICE LINE RATHER THAN NOT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE HANDLED SEPARATELY BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE NEIGHBORS AT 1105 FERNDALE ROAD PROVIDED COMMENTS AND THOSE COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED IN THE PACKET.
STAFF CAN SUPPORT THE REQUESTED HARDCOVER VARIANCE.
HOWEVER, THE REQUESTED STRUCTURAL COVERAGE AND SETBACK VARIANCES SHOULD BE DENIED AS APPLIED.
WE DID RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT I DISTRIBUTED THIS EVENING.
I KNOW THE PROPERTY APPLICANT WANTS TO SPEAK AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO READ THIS OR DISCUSS THIS THEMSELVES BUT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED SOME CLARITY JUST GARAGE STORAGE SOME PHOTOS SHOWING HOW THEIR CARS FIT IN THAT GARAGE THAT I CAN SHOW WHEN THEY COME UP AND SPEAK BUT OTHER THAN JUST THE OTHER EXHIBITS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE.
THANK YOU MISS CURTIS SO THE THE SETBACK LINE, WE'VE GOT TWO ABUTTING LAKESHORE SETBACKS FOR THE LAGOON AND THE ACTUAL LAKESHORE, YEAH? SO THAT'S WHERE WE KIND OF RUN INTO SOME, WE GET A LITTLE JAMMED UP.
APPRECIATE THAT ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEYOND THAT I MIGHT HAVE SOME DURING DISCUSSION, BUT I'LL WAIT ON THAT.
[01:25:11]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISS CURTIS IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE WISHES TO BE HEARD PLEASE COME ON UP STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IT'S WAGE SCHMIDT, AND I'LL BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF ACTUAL APPLICANTS AND MY ADDRESS IS 291 BERNARD STREET EAST, WEST ST.AND I GUESS THE TALK OF THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE IS KIND OF WHAT I WANTED TO GO OVER AS PART OF THE DESIGN TEAM, TOO, TO KIND OF MAKE MORE SENSE OF WHERE WE LANDED ON THE COVER.
IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO PULL UP THE MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN, I THINK WE COULD SIT THERE.
AND USUALLY ON THINGS LIKE THIS, WE DON'T TYPICALLY DISCUSS THE INTERIOR MUCH, BUT I THINK THIS WILL HELP KIND OF WALK THROUGH WHERE WE LANDED ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION.
IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO GO, THIS IS THE EXISTING WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, AND THE GARAGE DEPTH IS 22 FEET.
AND INSIDE THE EXPANDED GARAGE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE LINES OF THAT GARAGE ARE.
ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE EXISTING DINING, GREAT ROOM, KITCHEN, STUDY, STAIRS, POWDER ROOM.
WE'RE LEAVING THAT ALL WHERE IT IS.
WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE EXTENDED THE GARAGE 22 FEET AND THEN ADDED A FULL 8-FOOT-WIDE MUDROOM, FULL BATH THAT CAN BE ACCESSED BY THE SIDE.
LAKE ACCESS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND EXPANDING THE GARAGE IS REALLY PART OF THE CRUX OF THIS WHOLE DESIGN.
SO IT ENDS UP BEING 35 FEET IN DEPTH AND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO ACCOMPLISH IS BEING ABLE TO GET TWO FULL-SIZE FAMILY VEHICLES IN ALONG WITH, I MEAN, FOUR BIKES AND KAYAKS AND SOCCER GOALS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT FAMILIES WANT TO HAVE NOWADAYS.
EXISTING GARAGE JUST ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WITHOUT CREATING SOME KIND OF EXTERIOR STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM OR ADDING ANYTHING ELSE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S LIMITED SPACE ALREADY WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND HARDCOVER.
EVERYTHING'S ALREADY OVER, I GUESS.
AND THE LIVABLE SPACE ABOVE, IF WE COULD GO UP TO THE UPPER LEVEL, I'LL JUST WALK YOU THROUGH THAT QUICK.
SO IN THE REAR WE HAVE THE MASTER BEDROOM AND WE'VE ACTUALLY REDUCED THAT IN SIZE AND ADDED CLOSET SPACE THERE, KIND OF RECONFIGURED THE TWO BEDROOMS FOR THE BOYS TO TAKE CLOSET SPACE DOWN AND THE JACK AND JILL INTO TWO BATHS FOR EACH.
AND THEN WHAT'S ADDED ABOVE THAT ADDITION GARAGE IS A GUEST BEDROOM WITH A FULL BATH.
AND A LOUNGE AREA IN THE CENTER AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY ALWAYS WANT TO GO DOWN WITH AND SINCE WE CAN'T GO AND CREATE ANY KIND OF BASEMENT OR LOWER LEVEL THIS IS OUR ONLY OPTION AND WE REALLY WEREN'T GOING TO EVEN TRY TO PUT ANYTHING OR EVEN CHANGE ANYTHING ON THE LAKE SIDE AND ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION WE WOULD BASICALLY BE GIVING THE WHOLE HOUSE A REFRESH SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DETAILS IN THE EXTERIOR WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE UPDATING IT AND REDOING IT AS LONG AS WE'RE PROPOSING TO RIP.
PARTS OF THE ROOF AND THINGS LIKE THAT OFF OF THE GARAGE.
I JUST WANTED TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT LED US TO LAND ON THE FOOTPRINT THAT WE DID.
IT'S OUR ATTEMPT AT BEING AS RESPECTFUL AND PRACTICAL AS WE COULD, GIVEN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE ELSE HAS.
I DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE AND TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? AND, YEAH, THAT WAS IT IS THE MOST NONCONFORMING LOT PROBABLY EVER, WHICH WE PROBABLY HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
[01:30:01]
FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE LATER ON FOR QUESTIONS.THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
HEY, SO WE'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF THE CYCLE HERE TONIGHT.
IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED.
WE'VE GOT, IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT, WELL NOTED.
IT IS A DIFFICULT LOT TO BUILD ON, BUT WE GET INTO LAKESHORE.
GRANTED, LAGOON IS DEFINED THE SAME WAY AS LAKESHORE, BUT IT IS THE LAGOON.
YOU'VE GOT CURRENTLY AN 80-FOOT SETBACK, 75 IS REQUIRED, SO IT'S CURRENTLY CONFORMING, BUT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS TO BECOME NON-CONFORMING TO GO DOWN TO 60.
AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THE REAR.
THE SETBACK IS CURRENTLY 45, WHICH IS NON-CONFORMING.
50 IS WHAT'S REQUIRED, SO IT'S CLOSE, BUT PROPOSED GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 23.
THAT'S MY SUMMARY OF WHAT I THINK WE MOSTLY NEED TO DELIBERATE HERE.
ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PICTURES OF HOW THE CARS ARE PARKED.
AFTER DRIVING BY, IT JUST SEEMS I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBOR'S RESPONSE ABOUT HOW WHEN YOU HAVE...
THE EXTENSION OUT INTO THE DRIVEWAY, HOW THE CARS WILL LOOK AND HOW THEY'LL DRIVE IN AND OUT.
AND JUST THE CHALLENGE THAT THAT WILL POSSIBLY BE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN SUPPORT AND THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE THIS WORK AS WELL.
BUT I JUST THINK LOOKING THROUGH HOW THAT WILL ACTUALLY WORK AND HOW THE NEIGHBORS WILL NAVIGATE THEIR CARS AND HOW CARS WILL PARK.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT.
HOW THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM FOR THE GARAGE.
YEAH, AND HERE, AND IT'S IN A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
FRONT OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS AT THE SAME STORE NEIGHBOR.
THANK YOU ARE YOU THERE FOR SIX YEARS YOU OUT? SO IS THERE CONCERN WITH WHERE THE CARS IN THIS PICTURE, WHERE THOSE CARS ARE PARKED AND HOW THEY WOULD BACK INTO POSSIBLY ONE OF THEIR CARS? IS THAT THE CONCERN? THE NEIGHBOR BACKS OUT TO THE LEFT, WE BACK OUT TO THE RIGHT.
WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE'D BACK OUT TO THE LEFT TOWARDS THE TREE THAT'S VACANT.
THERE'S PROBABLY NOT MANY HOUSES WHERE THE FOURTH GENERATION LIVES IN THAT HOUSE, SO THAT'S NICE THAT YOU GUYS ARE STILL THERE.
I THINK THAT WAS MY CONCERN, IS JUST AFTER PHYSICALLY SEEING THE HOUSE TODAY AND THEN JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND NAVIGATE THAT, I JUST WANTED A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ABOUT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE UP? ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE LATER ON, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THOSE OF US WHO SHOULD BE HEARD, COME ON UP.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRINGING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
NOW THAT WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS OUT OF THE WAY.
SO I GUESS, AS I CAN EMPATHIZE, I'M A THIRD-GENERATION OWNER OF MY OWN PROPERTY.
WHAT BROUGHT ME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION EIGHT YEARS AGO.
ACTUALLY STILL LIKED ME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY APPLICATION.
BUT THERE WERE LIMITATIONS TO IT, AND ONE
[01:35:01]
OF THOSE WAS THE PRECEDENCE OF IMPROVING YOUR POSITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.SO THAT HAS NOT WAVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE TIME SPENT HERE.
AND THAT IS A DIFFICULT, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY VALUABLE, VERY EXPENSIVE PROPERTY, AND THERE'S SENTIMENTAL VALUE.
LOVE TO HEAR COMMENTS ON THAT PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S A DIFFICULT LOT TO BUILD ON.
WE ARE ASKING TO CREATE DIFFICULTIES OR CREATE NONCONFORMITY AND THAT IS THAT IS A STEEP.
I'LL JUST NOTE ONE THING SINCE WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF APPLYING TWO ACRE ZONING TO A ONE ACRE LOT.
WE ARE TALKING IN SOME CASES HERE ABOUT APPLYING TWO ACRE ZONING TO A.
SO I DO SEE AND UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT THAT CAN CREATE, CHALLENGE, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK FOR A MODERN HOMESTEAD.
BUT JUST WANTING TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT.
THE CHALLENGES OF APPLYING THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO A MUCH SMALLER PROPERTY.
I THINK WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, MY FIRST STRUGGLE, I TALK ABOUT A LOT IS HARDCOVER.
WHEN YOU'RE APPLYING STANDARDS TO A SMALLER LOT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER, IT GIVES YOU LEEWAY, RIGHT? THAT 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER IS ACTUALLY GOING TO PUSH YOU TO A LIMIT ON A LOT THIS SIZE.
WELL, THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY OVER 2,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY EXCEEDING THAT LIMIT FOR A MUCH LARGER LOT.
AND NOW THEY'RE ASKING TO GROW THAT STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER, I THINK IT'S 10%, 20% ABOVE WHAT IT ALREADY IS, WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY USING WHAT...
YEAH, THE HARDCOVER ALLOWED BY CLASSIFICATION IS 25%.
IT'S ALREADY EXISTING, BUT IT'S NOT GOING DOWN.
NO, AND I'M TALKING MORE ABOUT THE BOX ABOVE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THE STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER.
ALLOWED IS 2,000, EXISTING IS 22, THEY WANT TO GO TO 27.
SO TAKING OUT THE OVERALL HARDCOVER, BUT LOOKING AT WHAT WE DEEM ALLOWED, REALLY A BIGGER LOT FROM A STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT IS ALREADY BEING EXCEEDED.
AND I GO BACK TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
THERE'S A HOUSE, THERE'S A THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE, IT'S GOT ALL THE NECESSITIES OF A THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I DID TRY TO QUALIFY A LITTLE BIT TO SEE IF THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY WHEN IT'S NOT IN THE LAKE.
FIVE FOOT, IT'S JUST BEEN SO RIGID.
WE'VE JUST GENERALLY BEEN SO VERY, VERY RIGID.
AND THE CITY UNLESS WE CHANGE THAT OPINION ARE THAT'S JUST ANYTHING INVOLVING MAKE SURE AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO I KNOW THE REASONS BEHIND IT SO GETTING ON AND I THINK THAT DOES MAKE IT DIFFICULT DIFFERENT FROM I DO APPRECIATE WORTH NOTING THE PERSON OKAY, WELL ANY OTHER ANY OTHER ITEMS TO ADD ON THIS I MEAN I THINK IT'S JUST IT'S A DIFFICULT LOT TO MAXIMIZE IT AND I THINK GOING TO BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTALS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE IN THESE APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCES IS YOU KNOW GOING EVEN UP IN ELEVATION YOU KNOW INTO MASSING BUT THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT ITSELF EXPANDING ON THAT HAS BEEN JUST REALLY DIFFICULT TO TO IMPROVED AND IMPROVING EVEN IF IT'S THE SLIGHTEST AMOUNT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS GIVES US A LITTLE BIT TO YOU KNOW HANG OUR HAT ON SO LIKE GUIDING HERE TOO BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CREATE FOR YOUR FAMILIES THAT'S BECOME THE SECONDARY OF COURSE AND THROUGH THAT, I CAN, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION TO ADD OR ANYTHING? I HAVE A QUESTION.
[01:40:01]
IT MIGHT BE A TWO-PART QUESTION.IT SEEMS LIKE MOST OF WHERE WE'RE HANGING UP IS ON THE STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER.
THE HARDCOVER BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING THIS STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING HARDCOVER.
RIGHT, BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE LAGOON SIDE IS 75 REQUIRED.
AND SO YOU'D BE GOING FROM CONFORMING TO NON-CONFORMING.
STAFF SEEMS MOST HUNG UP ON THE STRUCTURAL PIECE OF THE HARDCOVER.
IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION? YES.
SO WHEN LOOKING AT THAT REPORT, AND I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND, THIS IS JUST A BLANKET 2,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PROPERTIES UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND DO WE KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM? OH.
ARE YOU REFERENCING SECTION 6.12.6930? WHERE IT CAME FROM AS FAR AS WHY WE WERE RIGHT.
YEAH, AND WHERE, WHEN, WHY? CITIES HAD A 15% BUILDING COVERAGE LIMITATION, AND ON SMALL LOTS UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT LEVEL WAS 01,500.
AFTER MAKING A COVER REGULATION 12, THE COUNCIL SAW THE NEED TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO MASSING COVERAGE.
JUST MORE, 20% AND 2,000 ON SMALL LOTS, THINKING THAT THAT WOULD OFFSET SOME OF THE HARDCOVER VARIANCES THAT WE WERE SEEING.
THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE CONTEMPORARY HOME, I THINK, IS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING, THEY CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER BASICALLY PULLING A PERCENTAGE OF A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
AND THIS LOT IS CONSIDERABLY UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET, 08,600.
SO I THINK IF YOU APPLY THAT SAME PERCENTAGE ACROSS, I THINK IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THAT PIECE OF THE CODE, THE STRUCTURAL PIECE, BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO SAY.
WELL, I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO REVERSE IT.
I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT CODE IS TO KEEP MASSING IN THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE DOWN.
02,000 SQUARE FEET ON A 10,000 SQUARE...
FOOT LOT WAS WHAT WE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE FOR MASSING ON THAT SIZE LOT.
WE REALIZED THAT THESE SUBSTANDARD LOTS ARE SUBSTANDARD, SO WE ALLOWED THAT LARGER MASS.
WE APPLIED THAT RATIO TECHNICALLY.
THE APPROPRIATE HOUSE ON THIS LOT SHOULD BE WORSE.
YEAH, THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY...
OKAY, LET ME FLIP IT ANOTHER WAY BECAUSE I HEAR WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS, COMMISSIONER BALLAS.
AM I HEARING THAT IF THEY WERE TO KEEP THEIR TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE AT OR BELOW WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S CURRENTLY 2234, WHICH THEY COULD REBUILD, AND THEY REBUILT IT IN 2233 SQUARE FEET STRUCTURAL COVERAGE, WOULD YOU BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? FIRST QUESTION, FOLLOW UP TO THAT QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION WITH THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE LAKESHORE LAGOON SIDE OF 60 FEET, OR WOULD THAT NEED TO BE WITHIN OR BEYOND 75 FEET TO MAKE THAT COMPLIANT? IT WAS A TWO-PART QUESTION.
AND THAT'S DIRECTED TO ME? SURE.
I'M ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF IT AS APPLIED.
SO I WOULDN'T, AND IF WE TALK ABOUT THOSE SETBACKS, CLEARLY ON THERE, THE NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE IS.
ALMOST AT THE EXACT SAME SETBACK TO THE LAGOON, POSSIBLY EVEN CLOSER.
THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 90S, I THINK, IS WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID.
AND THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CARS, VEHICLE SIZE SINCE THE 90S, I THINK.
WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT CAN FIT IN A STANDARD GARAGE TODAY, OR WHAT COULD FIT IN A SMALL GARAGE THAT WAS DESIGNED IN THE 90S.
I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR LARGER GARAGES THAN THERE WERE YEARS AGO.
AND I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THE CODE IS UP TO DATE AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
SO I DO SEE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THIS.
I THINK IT'S WELL THOUGHT OUT, WELL DESIGNED.
THEY'RE PUTTING THE HARDCOVER WHERE IT SHOULD GO.
AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PLACE TO PUT IT THERE, BUT THEY'RE PUTTING IT OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
THE MASSING, WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT STRUCTURAL COVERAGE AND THE MASSING, CLEARLY IN THAT RANGE, NOT TO ME.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE FROM THE BEFORE AND AFTER.
WE'RE LOOKING AT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THEIR GARAGE PROTRUDES THAT FAR OUT.
[01:45:02]
SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOUR STADIUM AT THE 2,000 SQUARE FOOT HARD STRUCTURAL LIMIT ON 10,000 AND UNDER HOUSES IS OUTDATED? BECAUSE AS I'M LISTENING TO YOU, I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW WE'VE HAD LOTS OF VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR PEOPLE WHO STARTED AT 12 AND WE DREW A HARD LINE AT 02,000.AND NOW WE'RE SAYING MAYBE 02,000 IS TOO SMALL FOR THESE LOTS.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, BECAUSE EVERYONE'S DIFFERENT BASED ON THE LOT AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
HOW I UNDERSTAND IT IS THE APPLICANT DID NOT BUILD THE HOUSE AND CREATE THE EXISTING 02,200 SQUARE FOOT.
THEY DIDN'T CREATE THAT CONDITION.
IF THEY DESIGNED THAT HOUSE AND CREATED THAT CONDITION AND THEN WANT AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE, IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING.
BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE CHECKPOINTS.
THEY DIDN'T CREATE THE EXISTING CONDITION.
I WOULDN'T SAY A BLANKET THAT THAT IS OUTDATED.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE, BECAUSE YOU WERE SAYING TIMES HAVE CHANGED, THE GARAGE SIZE, WE NEED BIGGER GARAGES NOW, WHICH WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
WELL, IF THEY'RE PROPOSING A GARAGE ADDITION, I CAN GET BEHIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF THAT IN PARTICULAR PIECE.
YOU THINK TWO SUVS AND A GARAGE IS TOO SMALL? WELL, LET'S NOT GET INTO IT.
I THINK THE POINT, THOUGH, I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER WALLACE, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD A GARAGE SIMILAR TO THAT, AND GARAGES WERE BUILT.
AND YOU CAN DO THE MEASUREMENTS OF THOSE.
AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT THE CODE OF MAYBE MAKING SOME SORT OF ADJUSTMENT FOR GARAGES.
IF IT'S COMING IN THIS WAY AND THERE'S A LOT OF VARIANTS THAT COME IN FROM A GARAGE PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE WE CAN LOOK THROUGH WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
AND IF THERE IS AN ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE IT EASIER AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER WE SHOULD APPROVE IT OR NOT.
BECAUSE, I MEAN, THE PICTURES SHOW HOW THEIR CARS FIT IN THERE RIGHT NOW.
ONCE THEY HAVE TEENAGE DRIVERS, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TEENAGE DRIVERS NOW, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF DAMAGE TO THOSE CARS.
AND SO I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT NOW THAN IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO WITH CARS.
I THINK ONE OF THE PIECES TO KEEP IN MIND IS LOOKING AT A REBUILD, LIKE ADDING ON A CONDITION THAT THIS THING, WE DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM SIZE.
OR A RATIO OF HOUSE TO GARAGE, BUT IT DOES COME INTO THE ANALYSIS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A VARIANCE REQUEST LIKE THIS, LIKE WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE, IS IT FUNCTIONAL, THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT, I MEAN, I SEE YOUR POINT.
SO I'LL JUST ADD MY POINTS QUICKLY HERE.
SO I'M TRYING TO SUMMARIZE IT AGAIN AT A HIGHER LEVEL, AND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT VARIANCES, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE THREE MAIN TOPICS WE SHOULD LOOK AT.
SO THE FIRST ONE, PROPERTY WILL BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER.
OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IT FITS THAT WELL.
BASED ON COMMISSIONER BULLIS' POINT, THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO A PROPERTY NOT CAUSED BY A LANDOWNER.
AND THEN THE THIRD ONE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF LOCALITY.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, LOOKING AT THE HARDCOVER PIECE, SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING I LOOKED AT IN THE APPLICATION, THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING BUILT ON TOP OF THE DRIVEWAY GIVES ME A LITTLE MORE COMFORT.
AND THEN THE VARIABLE THAT I WANT TO WEIGH INTO IS THE SETBACK.
SO BASED ON THE LOT, THE SETBACK IS A PRETTY IMPOSSIBLE FRAME TO FIT THE STRUCTURE OR THE PROPOSAL.
SO THOSE ARE WHERE MY THOUGHTS ARE RIGHT NOW, TRYING TO BRING IT BACK HIGH LEVEL AND LOOK AT IT KIND OF BLACK AND WHITE.
I'LL JUST ADD ONE ADDITIONAL THING.
I AM IMPRESSED THEY WERE ABLE TO FIT THOSE TWO VEHICLES IN THERE.
I THINK I HAVE A SIMILAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO MY HOME, AND IT'S DEFINITELY CONSIDERED A ONE-CAR GARAGE IN OUR HOUSE.
AND I THINK JUST IN GENERAL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE THINK ABOUT IS BEING ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY AND USE YOUR HOME AS IT'S INTENDED.
AND WE HAVE HARSH CONDITIONS IN THE WINTER, AND TO BE ABLE TO FIT TWO VEHICLES AND A LAWNMOWER AND A COUPLE OF BIKES IN YOUR GARAGE CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE USE.
I THINK THE SITE WE'RE LOOKING AT DEFINITELY HAS SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, AS WE'VE ALL ACKNOWLEDGED AND I THINK LARGELY ARE IN AGREEMENT ON.
[01:50:01]
THE ONE THING I STRUGGLE WITH IS THAT THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE IS NOT CHANGING, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT STANDS OUT AS TIGHT.THEY'RE NOT MAKING IT ANY WIDER TO IMPROVE STORAGE IN THERE.
THEY ARE ADDING DEPTH, AND I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THEY'RE ADDING DEPTH TO THE DEGREE OF THAT NORTHWESTERN NEIGHBOR.
I THINK IT'S 1105, AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR THAT THEY KEPT THAT GARAGE AT THAT PROPERTY LINE, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ADDING A BATHROOM AND A MUDROOM, AND I THINK THE...
SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IS EXPANDING BEYOND THE GARAGE AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT FOR US TO DECIDE UPON.
IF THAT GARAGE WERE TO EXTEND BEYOND THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES A BIT EGREGIOUS.
BUT BECAUSE THEY KEPT IT THERE, I THINK, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR.
HOPEFULLY THAT ADDS A LITTLE COLOR.
I APPRECIATE THAT, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY MY JUDGMENT.
I THINK THE POINT YOU MADE, MY STRUGGLE WITH MEETING...
PARKING IN THE CARS PARKING IN THE GARAGE, SO YOU'RE NOT HITTING DOOR I THINK IT FAILS TO MEET A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THAT SENSE THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY SOLVING WHAT THEY'RE COMING HERE SAYING THEY'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN YEAH.
I MEAN THAT THE BIG THING IS WE'RE WE'RE NOT MEASURING BASED ON WHAT PART IS GARAGE WHAT PARTS NOT AND THE TOTAL STRUCTURE ISN'T.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING CALLED OUT, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT A BIGGER GARAGE, YOU CAN HAVE A SMALLER HOUSE.
THAT IS A PROBLEM THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU RUN INTO IN EXCHANGE.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THIS THING IS FUNDAMENTALLY SPEAKING, IT'S JUST, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GENERALLY SUPPOSED TO, EVEN IF IT MAKES SENSE.
COMMISSIONER BALL, AS YOU HAD A COMMENT.
YEAH, MR. CHAIR, I THINK, JUST TO CLARIFY MY POINT, I THINK THAT RAJ IS JUST ONE PIECE TO ME UNDERSTANDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF THIS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW A BASEMENT.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE 2,000 SQUARE FOOT COVERAGE THAT WAS JUST BLANKETLY APPLIED FOR LOTS UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET, I'M ASSUMING PROBABLY 80%, 90% OF THOSE COULD HAVE A BASEMENT.
THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A MUCH BIGGER AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOT FOR THAT HOUSE.
SO ADDING THESE AMENITIES INTO THE HOUSE, LIKE A MUDROOM, FULL BATHROOM, ETC., I THINK THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S A GOOD THING THAT IF THIS LOT WASN'T WHERE IT IS, IF IT WAS JUST IN A FIELD SOMEWHERE, THEY COULD PUT A BASEMENT IN, AND WE WOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT ARE HERE, BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT'S A HUGE ONE.
YOU CAN'T PUT A BASEMENT BELOW THE LAKE.
SO THE GARAGE HAS ONE POINT TO IT, BUT IT'S MULTIFACETED, WHERE I CAN WRAP MY HEAD AROUND.
WE ALSO CAN GO THREE STORIES UP.
THE FOUNDATION IS A 04,500-SQUARE-FOOT HOUSE.
THAT'S WHERE WE'VE GENERALLY SEEN THAT FLEXIBILITY.
WE HAVE RIGIDITY WITH, YOU KNOW, TOTAL OCCUPATION OF HARDCOVER, AS I'LL CALL IT, BECAUSE HARDCOVER INCLUDES STRUCTURE, BECAUSE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS ANOTHER FACTOR HERE.
BUT I THINK WHERE WE HAVE BEEN FLEXIBLE, MORE FLEXIBLE THAN WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, BECAUSE IN THE PAST WE WERE RELUCTANT TO INCREASE MASSING EVEN IN THE EXISTING.
AND THAT'S WHERE I'M LIKE, WELL, THAT'S NONSENSE, BECAUSE IF WE ALREADY HAVE HARDCOVER, WE ALREADY HAVE STRUCTURE, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN GOING UP? IT'S THE SAME RAINWATER.
SO I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST DECADE, WE'VE SEEN THAT IMPROVEMENT.
I APPRECIATE THAT OUR CITY HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT BECAUSE THAT JUST MAKES LOGICAL SENSE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING IT, IT DOES GET A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU ARE LOOKING AT, BY THE NUMBERS, EXISTING HARDCOVER OF NEARLY DOUBLE WHAT'S ALLOWED.
AND I HEAR YOU, IT'S JUST NOT AN EASY...
CAN I MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT? I APPRECIATE THE CONCEPT OF THAT THEY COULD GO UP A LEVEL.
AND IF I'M THINKING ABOUT MY ENJOYMENT OF THE LAKE AND SPENDING TIME ON THE LAKE AS A NATURAL RESOURCE FOR OUR CITY,
[01:55:01]
AND I'M RIDING IN SOMEONE ELSE'S BOAT ON THE LAKE, I THINK I WOULD BE REQUIRING LESS SCREENING, WOULD HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR AN ADDITION THAT MOVED THE GARAGE BACK BEHIND THE HOUSE THAT'S NOT VISIBLE VERSUS AN ENTIRE THIRD STORY.SO JUST THINKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME.
MR. BRANDENBURG? IF THERE'S NOT MORE COMMENTS, I MAY MAKE A MOTION UNLESS ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK UP.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION LA-26-6-19 AS APPLIED.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY BRANDENBURG, SECONDED BY BALLAS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SO WE HAVE FIVE AYES, TWO NAYS.
[5.5) LA26-000020, HTG Architects o/b/o Orono Public School District 278 + Orono Hockey Association, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Site Plan Review and Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]
ALL RIGHT.BRINGS US TO 5.5, LA 26-000020, ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, VARIANCES FOR ORONO AND ORONO HOCKEY ASSOCIATION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 800-SEAT ARENA ADDITION.
THE APPLICATION INCLUDES VARIANCES FOR HARDCOVER, BUILDING HEIGHT, SIGNAGE, PARKING AND PARKING LOT SETBACK.
THE ORONO YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION PURCHASED THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE ONE WITH THE BARN, TO THE WEST, WHICH WILL BE COMBINED WITH THE SCHOOL CAMPUS.
THE LOT WAS PURCHASED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED 48,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION AND EXPANSION OF THE MORRISON ARENA.
THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE EXPANSION PROJECT WHEN THEY PRESENT.
TONIGHT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THE SITE PLAN, INCLUDING THE VARIANCES THAT I LISTED.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON INSTITUTIONAL USE, THE TOPOGRAPHY, AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED USE.
THE PROPOSED ADDITION MUST BE PHYSICALLY CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING ARENA WHILE ACCOMMODATING GRADE CHANGES ACROSS THE SITE.
CONTRIBUTING TO THE NEED FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE AND INFLUENCES THE PLACEMENT OF PARKING AND SPORTING IMPROVEMENTS.
IN ADDITION, THE EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE SCHOOL CAMPUS LIMITS ADDITIONAL DESIGN FLEXIBILITY.
THE APPLICATION INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES.
THE CITY LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS TO 30 FEET AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
AS PROPOSED, THE NEW BUILDING ADDITION WILL BRING THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT OF THE TOTAL BUILDING TO 45.5 FEET DEFINED.
IT'S A RELATIVELY FLAT-ROOFED BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT'S PLAN FOR THE NEW ARENA AND PARKING AREAS WILL ADD 89,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW HARDCOVER TO THE SITE, RESULTING IN TOTAL SITE HARDCOVER LEVEL OF 43.9%, WHERE 35 IS PERMITTED.
THERE'S A PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE.
SCHOOLS AND INDOOR ICE ARENAS ON SCHOOL PROPERTIES ARE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE RR1B DISTRICT.
THE CODE STIPULATES THAT ALL STRUCTURES MEET A MINIMUM OF 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY ZONE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
HOWEVER, THE CITY CODE ALSO OUTLINES THAT OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS MUST MEET A 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
NOW, THE PROJECT GENERALLY COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS AND THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INDOOR ICE ARENAS, EXCEPT FOR THE WEST PARKING AREA ON THE SHARED LOT LINE WITH THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR.
A 10 FOOT SETBACK IS PROPOSED, WHICH WAS...
FOLLOWING THE OFF-STREET PARKING GUIDANCE ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE.
THE RESIDENTIAL SIGNAGE IS AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.
RESIDENTIAL SIGNAGE PROVISIONS ARE NOT WRITTEN TO ADDRESS AN INSTITUTIONAL FACILITY.
THEY'RE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, SO THEY'RE QUITE SMALL.
SIGNAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IS LIMITED TO SIX SQUARE FEET PER WALL SIGN AND SIX SQUARE FEET FOR MONUMENT SIGNS.
THE APPLICANT'S PLAN REFLECTS SIGNAGE SIZES VARYING FROM 32
[02:00:01]
SQUARE FEET TO 128 SQUARE FEET FOR THE LARGEST WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING.THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE PROPOSED IS 619 SQUARE FEET, WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED THE FRONTAGE-BASED LIMITATION FOR THE PROPERTY.
EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNS, HOWEVER, EXCEED THE SIX-SQUARE-FOOT ALLOWANCE.
THE APPLICANT'S PARKING ANALYSIS IS BASED ON THE CALCULATION FOR SKATING RINKS IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO USES AND PARKING.
PARKING SPACE ALLOTMENTS, THE APPLICANT FINDS THAT TO BE A SUFFICIENT COMPARISON FOR THIS.
BASED ON THAT SKATING RINK STANDARD, 298 PARKING STALLS ARE REQUIRED.
THE AVAILABLE PARKING WILL BE EXPANDED ON THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE NEW LOT AND WILL INCLUDE THE EXISTING 123 SHARED PARKING SPACES ON THE SCHOOL LOT TO THE SOUTH.
THERE'S AN EXISTING SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT THAT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PARKING DURING OFF-PEAK TIMES FOR THE SCHOOL AND THE ARENA.
CURRENTLY, THERE'S A WALKING PATH CONNECTING THE TWO AREAS OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PLANS SHOW A FUTURE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO AREAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IF THEY DETERMINE THAT NECESSARY.
A TOTAL OF 299 STALLS ARE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO PARKING AREAS, AND THE STALLS MEET THE STANDARD SIZE DIMENSIONS.
LANDSCAPING AND TRASH ENCLOSURES THE CODE DOESN'T PROVIDE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FOR THIS USE OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDES A COMBINATION OF DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES AND SHRUB TREES AROUND THE NEW BUILDING ENTRANCES AS WELL AS WITHIN AND AROUND THE NEW PARKING AREAS.
AFTER REVIEW, STAFF FINDS THAT ADDITIONAL BUFFERING IS NECESSARY ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO PROTECT THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR FROM ACTIVITY SPILLOVER AND...
HEADLIGHTS SHINING INTO THEIR PROPERTY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETERMINE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT APPROPRIATELY.
TWO TRASH ENCLOSURE LOCATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN, ONE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ARENA HERE AND THE OTHER AT THE LOADING DOCK LOCATION ON THE NEW BUILDING.
THE LOADING DOCK LOCATION FACES THE ONLY ADJACENT NEIGHBOR WHO HAS IDENTIFIED BEING ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THE EXISTING NOISE SPILLOVER FROM THE WEEKLY TRASH PICKUP AT THE SCHOOL'S, I THINK, CAFETERIA DUMPSTER LOCATION IN THE MORNINGS.
THE PLAN DOES NOT CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE OR PROVIDE REASONING FOR THE SECOND LOCATION.
COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THE LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF TRASH ENCLOSURE AREAS ON THE PROPERTY AND WHETHER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS.
OR IF APPROPRIATE, DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION.
REGARDING LIGHTING, THE CITY CODE STIPULATES THAT ANY USE REQUIRING AN OPERATION PRODUCING AN INTENSE HEAT OR LIGHT TRANSMISSION SHALL BE PERFORMED WITH THE NECESSARY SHIELDING TO PREVENT SUCH HEAT OR LIGHT FROM BEING DETECTABLE AT THE LOT LINE OF THE SITE ON WHICH THE USE IS LOCATED.
LIGHTING IN ALL INSTANCES SHALL BE DIFFUSED OR DIRECTED AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND PUBLIC STREETS.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A LIGHTING PLAN DEPICTING THE PROPOSED LIGHTING LEVELS ACROSS THE PROPERTY.
THEY PROPOSED THREE 25-FOOT-TALL POLES PROPOSED ON OR NEAR THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND SEVEN WITHIN THE PARKING LOT, IN ADDITION TO THREE WALL PACKS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING ADDITION.
IT APPEARS THAT THE LIGHTING LEVELS AT THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE WILL RANGE BETWEEN 0.1 AND 0.8-FOOT CANDLES, WHICH IS VERY LOW BUT YET STILL DETECTABLE.
IF YOU'RE READING THE CODE PLAINLY.
THE LIGHTING PLAN DEPICTS FIXTURES WHICH APPEAR TO BE DOWNWARD FACING.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THEIR LIGHTING PLAN, SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY PROPOSE TO MITIGATE LIGHTING SPILLOVER, IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORS, TIMING, AND THE AMOUNT OF LIGHTING VISIBLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE CURRENT PARKING AREA SERVING THE ARENA HAS ONE FULL ACCESS CONNECTION ON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH.
THE PLAN SUGGESTS CREATION OF A NEW RIGHT-IN, RIGHT-OUT ACCESS CONNECTION TO COUNTY ROAD 6.
THIS CONNECTION IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY HENNEPIN COUNTY.
EARLY COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STAFF, INDICATING A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ACCESS ONTO COUNTY ROAD 6.
THEY CITED CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCESS, SEPARATION, FROM OTHER ACCESSES AND SAFETY CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE REGIONAL TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE
[02:05:01]
OF THE ROADWAY.THEY ARE ENCOURAGING THE UTILIZATION OF EXISTING ACCESSES ON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT FINAL APPROVAL BE CONDITIONED UPON OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COUNTY APPROVALS AND PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED ACCESS.
I HAVE THE EMAIL FROM THE COUNTY STAFF HERE.
I DIDN'T GET IT IN THE PACKET OR EMAIL IT OUT TO YOU TODAY, AND I BROUGHT IT IN.
I'VE SUMMARIZED IT, BUT I CAN READ IT IN.
CITY ENGINEER REVIEWED THE PLAN AND PROVIDED PRELIMINARY COMMENTS, WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, EXHIBIT A IN YOUR PACKET.
COMMENTS WERE FOCUSED ON THE COUNTY ROAD 6 ACCESS.
A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, JUST IDENTIFYING THAT ENGINEERED PLANS WOULD BE REQUIRED, AND THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION.
THOSE SHOULD BE EXPLORED WITH PERMITTING.
REGARDING THE LIFT STATION, OUR ENGINEER SAID THAT THAT PARTICULAR LIFT STATION ONLY SERVES THIS ICE ARENA, AND IT HAS BEEN OVERWHELMED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST.
THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO PERFORM A CAPACITY CHECK.
PERFORM A CAPACITY ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHAT UPGRADES WILL BE REQUIRED.
THE NEW FACILITY WILL ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THE MET COUNCIL'S RULES AND REQUIRE A SAC DETERMINATION.
HE ALSO RECOMMENDS THE OWNERSHIP BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE FACILITY OWNER.
THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LIFT STATION BE TRANSFERRED TO THE FACILITY OWNER.
HE ALSO SUGGESTS THE FIRE CHIEF WILL NEED TO PERFORM A REVIEW OF THE UTILITY AND HYDRANT LOCATIONS.
WE DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM TWO OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST.
THEY WERE BOTH INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
I'VE IDENTIFIED SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THEY RAISED IN THE REPORT.
IN SUMMARY, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED ARENA EXPANSION REPRESENTS A REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE SCHOOL CAMPUS.
ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT DOES REQUIRE VARIANCES, STAFF FINDS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE SITE, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SCHOOL CAMPUS, TOPOGRAPHY, AND THE NEED TO PHYSICALLY CONNECT THE ADDITION TO THE ARENA, CREATE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE GENERALLY THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA, PROVIDED THE APPROPRIATE BUFFERING, LIGHTING CONTROLS, AND OPERATIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THE ASSOCIATED VARIANCES FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, HARDCOVER SIGNAGE, PARKING DEFICIENCY, PARKING SETBACK SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ALL THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
APPLICANTS SHALL OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED APPROVALS AND PERMITS FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY AND MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE MET COUNCIL FOR SAC.
A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN DEMONSTRATING ENHANCED YEAR-ROUND SCREENING ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
IN ADDITION, STAFF SUGGESTS A FENCE OF SOME KIND BE INCORPORATED INTO THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT RETAINING WALL TO FURTHER INHIBIT TRESPASS AND JUST ENHANCE THE SCREENING PROVIDED, ENSURING THAT THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PLAN AND DIRECTED AND SHIELDED AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
ALSO THE RECOMMENDATION ABOUT PROVIDING THE SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED.
SIGN DETAILS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED CONFORMING WITH THE CITY SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS REQUIRING THAT A SEPARATE PERMIT BE OBTAINED FOR SIGNS WHEN AND IF THEY'RE INSTALLED.
I SAID A LOT OF WORDS AND I DIDN'T SHOW YOU ANY OF THE PLANS, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY PULL THE PLANS UP AND WE CAN TALK THROUGH THEM IF YOU'D LIKE.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S VERY THOUGHTFULLY PUT TOGETHER.
JUST ONE CLARIFICATION THAT I HAD.
SO THE FENCE THAT THEY'RE, THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON IS THAT FENCE ON THE WEST TO PROVIDE THAT SCREENING, PRIVACY, LIGHT MITIGATION FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALREADY, THAT'S WHAT'S PROPOSED, RIGHT? THEY'RE PROPOSING RETAINING WALL AND THE KIND OF LIKE THE FOUNDATION TYPE SCREENING.
YEAH, WITH SOME VEGETATION AND STUFF.
[02:10:01]
THAT'S ALREADY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.SO I THINK IT'S THOUGHTFULLY PUT TOGETHER BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE SUMMARY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WILSON? YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE DETAILS OF IT JUST BECAUSE I'VE EXPERIENCED IT AND THEN EITHER I MISSED IT.
CAN YOU GO OVER THE PARKING DEFICIENCY AGAIN? BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THIS ARENA LOOKS LIKE WHEN THEY HAVE HIGH SCHOOL GAMES.
RIGHT, AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, YOU'RE USUALLY TALKING ABOUT CROSSING ANOTHER PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS ALL ON ONE PROPERTY, SO THEY ARE ACCOMMODATING PARKING.
SAY THERE'S GOING TO BE A PARKING DEFICIENCY, THAT'S WHERE...
THEY'RE ACCOMMODATING THAT NUMBER BY MEETING IT WITH THE PARKING LOT.
SO NOT CHANGING WHAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY...
I DO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NOW...
THAT'S GOING STRAIGHT TO KIND OF ROAD SIX.
I MEAN, OF COURSE THE BAY HAS BEEN A CONGESTED AREA WELL CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, SO SEEING THAT THERE'S NOW A WAY TO DUMB OFF AND AVOID THE COUNTY IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AND NEITHER ARE THE NEIGHBORS.
WELL, I GUESS WE'RE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES THEN.
I WOULD BE, BUT I'M SURE THE APPLICANT IS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, PROBABLY EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
BUT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I GUESS, AT THIS POINT, MR. BALLS? YEAH.
WITH THAT SOUTHERN PARKING LOT.
AND THEN CAN YOU GO OVER THIS PARKING SETBACK? THEY'RE PROPOSING A 10-FOOT ON THE SIDE, THE WESTERN SIDE? YEP, THEY'RE PROPOSING A 10-FOOT SETBACK.
IT GETS A LITTLE TIGHTER UP HERE AT 10 FEET, AND IT'S GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE SEPARATION AS YOU GO TO THE SOUTH.
NOW, THE CODE STATES THAT ALL STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL AND ARENA USE NEED TO MEET A 50-FOOT SETBACK.
WE WENT THROUGH THE CODE A FEW YEARS AGO TO CLARIFY THAT.
SPECIFICALLY CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING AND STRUCTURE, AND I CAN SAY CONFIDENTLY THAT WE DIDN'T PROBABLY CATCH IT IN EVERY AREA THAT IT OCCURRED HOWEVER THE CODE READS STRUCTURE AND SO THAT PARKING LOT IS A STRUCTURE TECHNICALLY NEEDING TO MEET A 50-FOOT SETBACK AS THE CODE IS WRITTEN.
IT DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE IN THAT SECTION BETWEEN BUILDING AND STRUCTURE, OKAY? THAT'S THE ISSUE IS THERE AN ACTUAL PARKING SETBACK? NOT FOR THIS USE AND NOT IDENTIFIED CLEARLY IN THIS DISTRICT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE PARKING SETBACKS AND THAT IS THE 10-FOOT SETBACK THAT THEY APPLIED.
IT'S GENERALLY OUR COMMERCIAL PARKING SETBACK.
BECAUSE THE BUILDING ITSELF IS 62 FEET, RIGHT? PROPOSED TO BE 62 FEET SETBACK FROM WELL BEYOND 50 FEET.
ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, OUR STANDARD FOR PARKING SETBACK IS 10 FEET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STEPHELPS? HOW FAR ARE THE PROPERTIES FROM THE WESTERN, OR HOW FAR ARE THE HOMES FROM THAT WESTERN PROPERTY? WHAT'S THAT SETBACK? SO THE LOT THAT THEY BOUGHT IS THE SMALL CLUSTER RIGHT THERE.
OR IS THAT OTHER HOUSE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? IT'S SHOWN, IF YOU LOOK, I HAVE TO MEASURE IT, BUT HERE IS THAT DRIVEWAY.
THOSE TWO LOTS, THE EXISTING, THE HOME THAT SHALL BE REMAINING, AND THE ONE THAT WAS REMOVED SHARED THIS DRIVEWAY.
SO THAT'S LIKE THAT SEPARATION.
BUT I CAN MEASURE IT FOR YOU, I JUST NEED A SECOND TO GET IT.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE WALL CAME FROM, WAS TO KEEP THE FENCE? PEOPLE ON THE SCHOOL PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF CROSSING OFF, BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE, I MEAN, THERE'S LIKE THIS FIELD HERE.
SO, I MEAN, IF SOMEONE PARKS HERE AND THEY WANT TO WALK OVER TO THIS AREA, IT SHOULDN'T BE ACROSS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
IT SHOULD BE WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND GETTING IN THERE.
AND WHEN YOU DO SEE A DEMARCATION OF ONE CLASSIFICATION TO THE OTHER, YOU DO SEE THOSE.
LARGER WALLS OR MORE SUBSTANTIAL WALLS JUST TO PROVIDE THE SEPARATION.
[02:15:01]
WE SEE THE MARINAS ON COUNTER 15.WE HAVE THAT WHERE YOU'RE SEPARATING RESIDENTIAL FROM A MARINE.
A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S NOT TO MAINTAIN FOR PEACE AND QUIET.
THE NEIGHBORING HOME IS ABOUT 58 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
STAFF, THAT AERIAL HEAD BEFORE, YES.
COULD YOU CLARIFY THE PARKING LOT? WHEN YOU SAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
THAT IS INCLUDED IN THEIR 299 NUMBER? YES.
AND THEN THERE'S 179 ADDITIONAL SPOTS, IT SAYS? THEY'RE BUILDING.
THEY'RE BUILDING THOSE STALLS.
AND DID THAT NUMBER COME, THE REQUIREMENT COME FROM OUR CODE? FROM SKATING RINKS.
FROM OTHER SKATING RINKS? OUR CODE IDENTIFIES SKATING RINKS.
I BELIEVE THIS SAYS IT'S BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 85,000 FEET, OR 85,000.
SKATING RINKS, DANCE HALLS, PUBLIC AUCTION HOUSES, AND SIMILAR RECREATION USES AT LEAST 15 STALLS.
PLUS ONE FOR EACH 300 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT I THINK THAT THEY ALSO BASED THEIR...
ALLOTMENT ON RESEARCH FROM OTHER FACILITIES.
COULD YOU SUMMARIZE THAT LETTER FROM THE COUNTY? I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU READ THE WHOLE THING.
I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE BABY ONE I COULD GET.
IT SAYS STAFF IN THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GROUP WERE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE ORONO RINK EXPANSION SITE PLAN THIS MORNING ON FRIDAY.
STAFF DO NOT SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 6, AS IT DOES NOT MEET OUR ACCESS SEPARATION GUIDELINES, ESPECIALLY IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A SCHOOL.
SCHOOL AND THE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED SAFETY CONCERNS GIVEN THE REGIONAL TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND THE CROSSING AT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS SITE CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING ACCESSES TO OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
THEY WILL DO A FORMAL REVIEW, BUT THEY REVIEWED AT OUR REQUEST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF THEY'RE HERE AND WISH TO BE HEARD, MOUNT UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
START IN ON THIS PRESENTATION, AND I DID SPEAK TO THEM AFTER THAT EMAIL, AND WE DID HAVE...
MS. ERICKSON, COULD YOU JUST NAME AND ADDRESS? SPEED THEM.
ANGELA ERICKSON, 1695 HUNTER DRIVE.
OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO GO TO THE PARKING LOT FIRST BEFORE I START ON THE PRESENTATION.
I DID SPEAK TO THEM AGAIN AFTER THAT EMAIL, AND SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GOING TO WRITE TO ANOTHER EMAIL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T GET DONE.
AND THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT THAT, MAINLY WE WILL NEED A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, AND THEY DID AGREE TO THAT.
AND THE REQUEST WAS AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WAS BUILT THAT IT BECAME AN EMERGENCY EXIT THAT WAS GATED.
AND SO I DO FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE THAT EMERGENCY EXIT, AND THEY DIDN'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
NOW, TO GO FURTHER WITH THAT, WITH A WRITE-IN, WRITE-OUT, THAT WAS SOMEBODY IN THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT.
THIS NEW GAL HAS JUST REPLACED HER.
SO THAT WAS THE VERBAL WE HAD UP UNTIL FRIDAY.
OKAY, SO NOW I'M GOING TO GO TO WHAT I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.
WE'VE BEEN HERE OVER ALMOST TWO AND A HALF HOURS.
BUT THIS IS A MONUMENTAL MOMENT FOR ORONO.
I'M GOING TO MAKE IT EMOTIONAL.
THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING TONIGHT.
IT IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE'VE NEGOTIATED FOR THREE YEARS WITH NO FUNDING UNTIL WE'VE HAD A GENEROUS DONOR COME IN AND PURCHASE THAT PROPERTY.
WE'VE HAD AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF DOORS OPENING EVERYWHERE WE WENT FROM THE WORK WITH...
OUR OWN NONPROFIT THAT IS RUNNING THE RINK TO THE SUPERINTENDENT IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND JUST THE GREEN LIGHTS THAT WE HAVE FELT FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO STANDING HERE PRESENTING THIS IS REALLY QUITE SOMETHING.
AND SO I ASKED JUST TO GIVE A FEW MINUTES ON THE BACKGROUND OF HOW WE DIFFER PROBABLY FROM ANY RINK IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND WHY WE ARE SO UNIQUE.
AND SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
[02:20:03]
MINNESOTA, IN GENERAL, IS VERY UNIQUE TO THE HOCKEY COMMUNITY.SO IT IS PROBABLY THE BEST MODEL IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
IN MINNESOTA, WE ARE COMMUNITY-BASED.
SO YOU SEE THE LITTLE, THE YOUTH ASSOCIATION, THE YOUTH, YOU'RE SEEING YOUR FAMILY STAY IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND YOU'RE SEEING THEM GROW UP THROUGHOUT THAT COMMUNITY WITH THEIR FRIENDS FROM A YOUNG AGE AND PLAYING ON HIGH SCHOOL TEAMS. YOU WILL ONLY SEE THIS MODEL IN MINNESOTA, SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES IN NORTH DAKOTA AND WISCONSIN THAT PLAY IN THE SAME MINNESOTA SYSTEM, AND SASKATCHEWAN.
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, HOCKEY IS A PAY-TO-PLAY SPORT.
IT'S BIG DOLLARS, IT'S TRAVELING FAR DISTANCES, AND IT'S COACHES THAT ARE GOING TO CARE ABOUT THEIR TOP LINE ONLY.
BECAUSE NEXT SEASON, IF THEIR SECOND LINE DOESN'T PRODUCE, THEY HAVE GOT MORE PLAYERS THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IN THAT ARE GOING TO PAY MORE.
AND SO ONLY IN MINNESOTA WILL YOU SEE THIS, AND IT'S A BIG PUSH EVEN BY OUR MINNESOTA WILD FOUNDATION.
IT'S CALLED SKATE IT FORWARD, TO KEEP HOCKEY BASED ON THE COMMUNITY.
AS I SAID, ACCESSIBILITY IS A BIG THING FOR HOCKEY, AND EVERY YEAR, ORONO YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION SCHOLARSHIPS ANY PLAYER THAT CANNOT AFFORD TO PLAY.
SO WE ARE PROVIDING HOCKEY TO EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE ARE DOING THIS AS ACROSS...
IT IS A COMMUNITY-FUNDED RINK, AND SO FOR OUR NEXT SCREEN, YOU TAKE THIS BROAD PICTURE OF HOW MINNESOTA IS UNIQUE, AND THEN YOU GO EVEN, WE'RE EVEN MORE UNIQUE.
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT RINKS IN MINNESOTA OUT OF OVER 200 RINKS THAT ARE NOT FUNDED BY GOVERNMENT, CITY, OR SCHOOL FUNDING THAT ARE FUNDED BY PRIVATE NONPROFITS.
OUR SKATERS IN ORONO SKATE ON TWO MORE OF THOSE SHEETS, POND AND THALER.
SO OUT OF EIGHT RINKS, WE SKATE ON THREE OF THOSE SHEETS OF ICE.
YOU LOOK AT DULUTH HERITAGE, A BEAUTIFUL FACILITY IN DULUTH.
IT WAS BUILT WITH TIF FUNDING, GOVERNMENT FUNDING, IN AN UNDERDEVELOPED AREA.
YOU LOOK AT FOGARTY IN BLAINE.
THEY HAVE A BAR ATTACHED TO IT, CURLING, AND ANOTHER INCOME.
SO YOU GET DOWN TO US AND A COUPLE OF RINKS I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO, AND YOU SEE HOW UNIQUE WE ARE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
WE ARE PROBABLY THE ONLY RINK BEING BUILT BY DONATIONS, SOLELY BY DONATIONS, IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.
AS I SAID, THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FOR $1.2 MILLION THROUGH THESE DONATIONS AND IS BEING DONATED TO THE ORONO SCHOOLS.
30 YEARS RENEWABLE WITH THE SCHOOL, AND THE HOCKEY YOUTH ASSOCIATION PAYS A DOLLAR A YEAR.
AGAIN, COMMITTING TO THE COMMUNITY AND NOT THE FOR-PROFIT MODEL.
I WANT TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH AS A YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION.
OUR KIDS ARE SKATING FROM 6 A.M.
IN THE MORNING UNTIL 10.30 AT NIGHT.
SO FOR A BANTAM, THAT HAS TO STICK.
8 AT 6 A.M., THEY'RE WAKING UP AT 4.30 TO BE TO PRACTICE AND BE ON THE ICE AND GET READY ON TIME.
AT 10.30 AT NIGHT WHEN THEY COME HOME AND THEY TAKE A SHOWER, THEY'RE GOING TO BED AT 11.30 AT NIGHT.
MY BOYS WERE BANTAMS LAST YEAR.
THAT PROCESS OF GOING TO BED AFTER 11 O'CLOCK WAS TWO TO THREE TIMES A WEEK.
WHAT HAPPENS? SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.
WHAT'S GIVING IS YOUR FIRST HOUR OF SCHOOL.
AND SO IN OUR HOUSE, WE CREATED A STUDY HALL.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS THAT CAN'T KEEP UP THOSE KIND OF HOURS AND ALSO KEEP UP THEIR SCHOOL IN THE SITUATION WE'RE IN.
AT THE SAME TIME, OUR BANTAMS ARE SKATING AT 63% OF USA HOCKEY STANDARDS.
IN THE COMMUNITY, WE CAN'T EVEN MEET THE HOCKEY STANDARDS.
OUR GIRLS, WHICH WE WOULD LOVE, AND OUR GIRLS' PROGRAM IS STRONG.
AND WE HAVE THE NUMBERS TO BRING IT BACK INTO ORONO AS ORONO SPARTANS FROM YOUNG KINDERGARTNERS.
BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ICE.
SO WE'RE CURRENTLY CO-OPS WITH MOUND, AND THEY'RE CALLED THE WARRIORS.
AND OUR YOUNG GIRLS WEAR WARRIORS JERSEYS, AND OUR VARSITY PLAYERS WEAR SPARTAN JERSEYS.
AND WITH THIS NEW ICE ARENA, WE WILL HAVE THAT AMOUNT OF ICE TO BRING OUR GIRLS BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
SKATING AS ORONO SPARTANS FROM A YOUNG AGE.
[02:25:02]
HOW ARE WE SURVIVING RIGHT NOW? I KNOW THIS.I'VE BEEN THE ICE SCHEDULER IN THAT RINK FOR TWO YEARS.
I KNOW WHERE WE BUY ICE AND HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO SHUFFLE JUST TO MAKE IT.
AND I KNOW THE COMPLAINTS OF ALL THE PARENTS.
BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE SCRIMMAGES THIS YEAR, ALL HOME SCRIMMAGES WILL BE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.
WE ARE BUYING ICE AT MARIUCCI AND RITTER.
YOU ADD 5 O'CLOCK TRAFFIC, SNOWSTORMS, AND YOUNG KIDS TRAVELING DOWN TO THE U OF M MULTIPLE TIMES A MONTH, EVERY TEAM, YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING JUST TO KEEP HOCKEY IN ORONO.
IN MAPLE GROVE, THEY'RE SKATING 270 PLAYERS PER SHEET OF ICE.
IN ORONO, IF YOU INCLUDE POND, WE'RE ALMOST DOUBLE THAT AT 417.
IF YOU SAY WE'RE ONLY GOING TO CONNECT...
COUNT OUR FULLY DEDICATED SHEETS, WE'RE SKATING ALL 625 SKATERS IN OUR PROGRAM RIGHT NOW ON THAT MORRISON ICE.
IN ORDER TO MEET OUR STANDARDS, WE NEED 300 HOURS OF ICE.
WITHOUT POND, WE NEED 700 HOURS OF ICE.
THAT COMPLETELY FILLS ANOTHER SHEET OF ICE.
WE WILL HAVE BOTH RANKS FILLED YEAR-ROUND.
OUR PROGRAM'S GROWN 30% IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AND POND, IF ANYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH POND ARENA, DOES NOT HAVE A LONG LIFE EXPECTANCY.
WHEN POND IS DONE, IF THIS ICE SHEET IS NOT BUILT, I DON'T KNOW.
I CANNOT SEE THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE FOR OUR YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION IN ORONO.
PEOPLE ASK ME, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IF THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN? I SAY THERE'S NOT AN OPTION.
THERE'S THINGS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE HERE TONIGHT WITH VARIANCES, AND THAT'S IN THE HANDS OF EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM.
BUT TO KEEP HOCKEY IN ORONO, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS HOW ICE RINKS ARE BEING BUILT IN MINNESOTA.
THESE ARE ALL THE ICE RINKS, OR A MULTITUDE OF THEM, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
BLOOMINGTON ICE GARDEN, $37 MILLION, CITY-FUNDED.
INVERGROVE HEIGHTS, A MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT, $70 MILLION FOR THEIR HOCKEY HALL OF FAME.
EDINA, CITY-BACKED, $45 MILLION.
EVEN DELANO, WITH AN OUTDOOR ICE ARENA, $2.5 MILLION CAME FROM THE CITY.
A TYPICAL MODEL IS HERMANTOWN, $7.5 MILLION IN STATE BONDING, $11 MILLION IN THE SALES TAX INCREASE, WHICH WE'RE SEEING ACROSS ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT SALES TAX BASIS HERE.
VERY PROUDLY, $6.5 MILLION IN DONATIONS.
WHERE ARE WE TODAY? WE'RE NOT SEEKING STATE BONDING.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SALES TAX HERE IN ORONO BECAUSE WE COULDN'T SUPPORT THAT.
WE'RE AT $12 MILLION OF COMMITTED PRIVATE DONATIONS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY UNHEARD OF SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
THAT'S GOT TO GIVE YOU CHILLS.
WE HAVE $8 MILLION LEFT TO RAISE.
WE STILL HAVE NAMING RIGHTS ON POTENTIALLY BOTH RINGS AND ALSO LARGE SPACES ON THE INSIDE OF IT.
THE GOAL HERE IS TO COMPLETE THIS FUNDING BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
AND WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS LITERALLY THE SHEET OF DREAMS. THIS IS THE IMPOSSIBLE THAT NOBODY SAYS CAN HAPPEN.
THIS IS COMMUNITY VERSUS GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION.
THE COMMUNITY IS WATCHING THE PAPER AND THE MEDIA.
AND THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN.
AND I'M TELLING YOU, WITH ALL MY HEART, I'VE INVESTED THREE YEARS INTO THIS, AND I'M NOT GOING AWAY UNTIL IT'S DONE.
AND I BELIEVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
I BELIEVE IN THIS STREET THAT HOUSES ALL OF OUR STUDENTS FROM KINDERGARTEN TO HIGH SCHOOL.
AND I BELIEVE THE BEST CLASSROOM WE CAN BUILD IS THIS ICE ARENA.
LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE UP HERE.
THIS IS TRULY AN INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE.
I BELIEVE IN WHAT THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION AND THE KIDS THE HOUR BEFORE THE ICE TIME AND THE TIME AFTER AND THEIR COACHES, THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY CREATING LEADERSHIP IN THE NEXT GENERATION.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
I HAVE A CHILD THAT SUFFERS FROM SOCIAL ANXIETY.
I HEARD THIS YEAR HE SITS AT THE SCHOOL LUNCH TABLE ALONE.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, HE'S ONE OF THE BEST SKATERS
[02:30:01]
ON THE ICE, AND HE'S A LEADER IN THE LOCKER ROOM.AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT BUILDING A HOCKEY RINK.
THIS IS ABOUT BUILDING OUR NEXT GENERATION, AND THIS IS ABOUT BUILDING THE KIDS.
THIS IS SATURDAY MORNINGS WHEN DADS ARE ON THE ICE FOR FOUR HOURS STRAIGHT, AND MOMS ARE DRINKING COFFEE BECAUSE IT'S 40 DEGREES OUTSIDE, AND THIS IS THE HUB OF OUR COMMUNITY.
THIS IS WHERE YOU GO AND YOU SPEND YOUR DAY.
AND OUR GOAL IS TO BUILD THIS SO THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE HOME WHEN YOU'RE THERE.
IT'S JUST A REALLY GREAT QUOTE, BUT BASICALLY IT SAYS, OUR RINK IS WHERE THEY LEARN TO PLAY, WHERE THEY LEARN TO SERVE, AND WHERE THEY LEARN TO LOVE.
THIS ONE GETS ME, AND I HAD TO STOP.
LOVE THE GAME OF HOCKEY AND LOVE THEIR PEOPLE.
THE RINK IS WHERE WE COME TOGETHER AS A FAMILY AND A COMMUNITY.
SO I CAN'T READ THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH IT.
THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE PICTURES.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S ABOUT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'S THE YOUNG KIDS BEING MENTORED BY THE HIGH SCHOOLERS, THE OLDER HIGH SCHOOL TEAM, AND THAT WAS ON YOUTH NIGHT WITH THE GIRLS.
IT'S LEARNING HOW TO HANDLE DEFEAT, AND WE DO THAT IN ORONO, TOO.
IT'S THE SMILES ON THEIR FACES AND THE UPPER PHOTO.
WAS LAST YEAR'S BANTAMS COACH.
AND I WATCHED HIM BREAK DOWN IN TEARS AS HE SAID, I WANT TO TEACH THEM TO BE GOOD LEADERS BECAUSE I LOVE THESE KIDS SO MUCH.
SO TONIGHT, EVERYBODY'S GIVING THEIR PART TO THIS.
THE DONORS ARE GIVING THEIR PART.
THE SCHOOL'S GIVING THEIR PART.
AND I ASK AS WE DEBATE THE VARIANCES AND WHATEVER WE'RE DOING HERE, THAT YOU TOO, AND AS...
THE COMMISSIONERS OF THIS COMMUNITY THAT YOU HELP US FIND A WAY TO CREATE THIS FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE, YOU TALK ABOUT DIFFICULTIES TONIGHT, WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFICULTIES AHEAD OF US.
THE FIRST 12 MILLION ACTUALLY WAS PROBABLY THE EASIEST 12 MILLION TO FUNDRAISE.
THE NEXT EIGHT WILL BE THE MOST DIFFICULT.
AND SO THE ROAD AHEAD IS TOUGH.
WE ARE EXCITED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND WE JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
TO TRY TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WILL BE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME, FAR BEYOND ANY OF US WILL SEE IN THIS ROOM.
AND I'LL LEAVE THAT TO OUR ARCHITECTS.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIRPERSON AND COMMISSIONERS.
YOU HEAR THE PASSION THAT'S DRIVING THE PROJECT BEHIND.
ANGIE'S THE FACE OF SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE BEHIND.
I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON A FEW ITEMS HERE.
EARLY ON WHEN WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT A SECOND SHEET, WE THOUGHT WE KNEW THIS SITE WAS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE AND HAD CHALLENGES WITH IT AND WITH OURSELVES.
IN THE END, IT DOESN'T BECAUSE FAMILIES, AS ANGIE SAID, THIS IS GOING TO BE A COMMUNITY HUB.
YOU WANT FAMILIES THAT HAVE MULTIPLE KIDS.
IN THE HOCKEY PROGRAM COMING TO ONE PLACE.
THEY COULD HAVE KIDS SKATING ON THE ICE AT DIFFERENT TIMES OR ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER AND IT GETS HARD TO TRAVEL BETWEEN.
THEY WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE IT AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ALL UNDERSTAND AND JUST TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION IS PURCHASING THE LAND.
THE LAND WILL THEN BE GIVEN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND IT WILL BE REPLANTED AS PART OF THE OLD SCHOOL CAMP.
HOCKEY ASSOCIATION WILL STILL OWN IT.
BUILDING ON ATLANTA PROPERTY, WHICH IS HOW THE EXISTING RINK FUNCTIONS TODAY.
SO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTUALLY TAKES CARE OF THE SITE ONCE IT'S IN PLACE.
THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION IS RUNNING THE BUILDING ITSELF.
SO MAYBE YOU KNEW THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE CHALLENGES AND SOME OF THE VARIANCE ITEMS. I CAN JUST TOUCH ON EACH OF THOSE A LITTLE BIT.
SIGNAGE, YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, WHY IN THE WORLD ARE THERE SO MANY SIGNS ON THIS BUILDING? AND PART OF THAT IS THE SPONSORSHIP THAT ANGIE'S TALKING ABOUT.
YOU KNOW, NAMING RIGHTS, THOSE THINGS APPEAL TO DONORS, AND DONORS ARE WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS PROJECT HAPPEN.
SO THAT'S THE STORY BEHIND SOME OF THE SIGNAGE ITEMS. THE PARKING NUMBER SHARED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THERE'S AN AGREEMENT WRITTEN BETWEEN THE TWO THAT THE...
THE SHARED PARKING SO THAT THE HIGH SCHOOL CAN USE THE PARKING LOT AROUND THE RINKS.
[02:35:01]
THEIR SITE, SO THEY WILL USE THAT PARKING DURING THE DAY.BUT IN THE EVENINGS WHEN THE HOCKEY PROGRAMS ARE GOING ON, THERE'S A TRAIL THAT EXISTS THERE.
WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AT THE SAME TIME ABOUT THAT TRAIL AND WHETHER IT IS A DRIVE IN THE FUTURE.
THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS SOME DOLLARS COMING.
WELL, THEY'RE WORKING OUT THERE TONIGHT ON RESURFACING SOME OF THE PARKING LOTS.
THAT WORK IS ALSO PLANNED FOR THE EXISTING LOTS HERE COMING UP HERE IN THE FUTURE.
THE PARKING SETBACK, I HONESTLY, UNTIL THE STAFF REPORT CAME OUT, I THOUGHT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARKING BEING 10 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S WHY WE DESIGNED IT THE WAY WE DID.
THE HARDCOVER, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SCHOOL DISTRICT TOO, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS WILL ALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OVERALL SCHOOL CAMPUS AT SOME POINT.
THAT'S HOW THE WATERSHED SEES IT, AS MY UNDERSTANDING.
IT'S ONE PARCEL, AND SO THEY'RE RUNNING THEIR NUMBERS OFF OF THE PARCEL NUMBER AS FAR AS HARD.
SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THOSE THINGS AS WELL.
THE HEIGHT, WHY IS IT SO TALL? WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROPERTY THAT'S NEXT TO THE EXISTING RINK HAPPENS TO BE THE TALLEST SPOT.
THE GRADE KIND OF GOES DOWN FROM THERE ALL THE WAY AROUND.
AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE THAT MAKES SOME SENSE FINANCIALLY ON WHERE DO YOU SITE THAT NEW BUILDING.
AND WE ENDED UP, IT'S SITED SO THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN IN THE RINK, BUT THE NEW FLOOR LEVEL OF THE.
THE NEW RINK WILL BE AT THE TOP OF THE BLEACHERS OF THE EXISTING RINK, SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO WALK OUT THE TOP OF THE BLEACHERS AND BE AT THE FLOOR LEVEL.
THAT MAKES EVERYTHING A LOT MORE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE AND EASES THE MOVEMENT.
WE'RE POSITIONING NEW LOCKER ROOM SPACES BETWEEN THE TWO RINKS AND MOVING THE TALLER BUILDING AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE A SNOW LOAD ON THAT EXISTING RINK.
SO THAT'S WHAT DROVE SOME OF THE DESIGN.
THE LIGHTING, YEAH, 10 FEET IS NOT A LOT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT THERE.
I THINK ONE THING WE COULD DO IS MAYBE THERE'S MORE POLES, BUT THEY'RE SHORTER SO THAT THERE'S NOT AS MUCH SPILL.
BUT THE LIGHTS ARE DESIGNED WITH AS MUCH SHIELDING AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AS WE CAN PROVIDE.
IT'S A BALANCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE BETWEEN SAFETY AND LIGHT SPILLING ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
I THINK LANDSCAPE WAS ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT.
WE HAVE PLACED TREES AND LANDSCAPING ON EVERY SQUARE INCH THAT'S LEFT, AND THAT'S AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT.
IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT YOU ALL WOULD FEEL WOULD BE REQUIRED, WE COULD FIND OTHER PLACES, I GUESS, ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RINK OR MAYBE ON THE SCHOOL CAMPUS OR SOMETHING IF NEED BE.
BUT WE DID TRY TO LOAD UP ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
THERE IS A RETAINING WALL, AGAIN, TRYING TO BALANCE THE...
THERE IS A RETAINING WALL THAT'S ALONG THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO HELP MAKE THE GRADES WORK AND THOSE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
THAT'S HELPFUL AND VERY THOROUGH.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OUTCOME WHILE THEY'RE STILL HERE? I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY USE.
GROWING UP IN MINNESOTA, I I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR KIDS TO LEARN HOW TO SKATE, EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY HOCKEY.
WILL THERE BE A COUPLE OF HOURS AVAILABLE FOR COMMUNITY YOUTH? SO COMMUNITY LEARN-TO-SKATE PROGRAMS CURRENTLY ARE ON SATURDAY MORNINGS, AND THEY ARE WRITTEN INTO THE LEASE THAT THE HIGH SCHOOL, JOINTLY WITH THE COMMUNITY, HAS 350 HOURS COMMITTED TO THIS RINK.
CURRENTLY, THE COMMUNITY ED...
SKATE HOURS COME AHEAD OF THE YOUTH ASSOCIATION.
SO IT IS THE HIGH SCHOOL COMMUNITY ED HOURS ARE FIXED ON SATURDAY MORNING, AND THEY WILL REMAIN, AND THEN THE YOUTH ASSOCIATION.
AND WE DID HAVE ONE, WE FOUND ONE HOUR LAST YEAR TO HAVE IT OPEN FOR OPEN SKATE, AND IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT ICE AVAILABILITY NOW.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION, BECAUSE ANY TIME...
THEY'VE BEEN LIKE WAIT-LISTED BEYOND BELIEF.
WE'RE HAVING SOME OPEN SKATE COMMUNITY TO COME.
THE THINGS WERE PERTAINING TO THE.
[02:40:23]
SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ON ALL KINDS OF OPTIONS.THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS TO, YOU SEE KIND OF A DASHED DRIVE THERE LINKING THE TWO.
FINDING STORMWATER AND PONDING, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE A CHALLENGE FOR US RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH.
I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE SOME OF THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE AS WELL, SO MOVING THAT POND WOULD BE A CHALLENGE TOO.
SO THAT WAS LOOKED INTO, BECAUSE JUST LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A NATURAL CONNECTION TO KEEP THAT BULK OF THE NEW PARKING BETWEEN PARKING.
BUT IT'S THAT STORMWATER PIECE THAT'S CAUSING THE ISSUE THERE? THERE'S THREE BASINS THERE THAT ARE PART OF THE WHOLE OVERALL STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA.
THE LONG, NARROW ONE IS THE ONE I'M REFERRING TO? YEAH, THAT ONE'S PART OF IT.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I FORGOT TO MENTION IS THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING.
WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH SOME OF THE ARCHITECTURE THAT'S HAPPENING AT THE HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT NOW WITH THE ACTIVITIES CENTER, AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO...
MAKE THE OVERALL PLACE FEEL LIKE ONE LARGE CAMPUS.
AND THEN YOU SEE THAT GLASS THAT STRETCHES THERE ACROSS THE FRONT.
THAT REALLY IS THE LOBBY THAT'S LINKING THE TWO.
UPPER AND THE LOWER ENTRANCES IF YOU WILL AND SO THERE WOULD BE THAT'S THE COMMUNITY HUB SPOT THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE HANGING OUT ON BOTH LEVELS WITH TABLES AND CHAIRS FAMILIES HANGING OUT HOME DOING HOMEWORK THANK YOU QUESTION ON THE REFRIGERATION PLANT IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE UH WHICH WILL BE CLOSE TO SOME OF THOSE HOMES ON THE WESTERN BORDER IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT NOISE THEY'RE OPERATING MAINTENANCE THE TIME SLOTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SAME WITH EVEN THE ZAMBONI, ARE THEY NOT ALLOWED TO GO AND DUMP OUTSIDE AFTER 10 OR 12 AT NIGHT? YEAH, THE ZAMBONI IS EASY.
SO THAT WILL ALL BE CONTAINED INSIDE.
THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE DUMPING INSIDE THE BUILDING.
THEY WON'T GO OUTSIDE UNLESS IT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
THE REFRIGERATION, WE HAVE A ROOM THERE THAT'S PLANNED.
SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE'RE EVALUATING THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
ONE OPTION IS TO PUT THAT EQUIPMENT INSIDE THE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF NOISE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I GUESS TOO WHILE YOU'RE HERE JUST WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT TO THE THE ARCADE ON THE STREET SIDE COUNTY ROAD 6 AND OR THE WESTERLY NEIGHBORS IT LOOKS PRETTY BLAND FROM THE ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS.
I KNOW MOST OF THE TIME WAS SPENT PROBABLY ON THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE BUT I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SIDE OF THE RINK NOW AND I'VE ALWAYS NOT LOOKED GREAT SO JUST WHILE WE'RE HERE DOING THE PROJECT.
THERE BEEN ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHT IN ENHANCING THE VISUAL OF THE NORTHERN OR WESTERN? THERE'S, I THINK, A SIGN FEATURE ON THE SIDE THAT FACES COUNTY ROAD 6.
THERE'S SOME THERE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BRING SOME OF THE ARCHITECTURE THERE.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING HERE IS THE LANDSCAPING.
IT DOES LOOK BLAND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT JUST THE BUILDING.
THE THOUGHT IS THERE IS TO SOFTEN IT WITH LANDSCAPING ALONG THOSE SIDES.
YOU SEE THE TREES THAT ARE THERE ALONG THE HIGHWAY.
SINCE THIS IS A NEW BUILDING, HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE PUTTING UNDERGROUND PARKING? BECAUSE AS YOU HAVE THOSE NEIGHBORS ON THAT LEFT SIDE THERE, YOU HAVE CARS COMING OUT AT 10 OR 11 AT NIGHT, AND THERE'S HORNS HONKING.
I MEAN, THEY'RE KIDS SOMETIMES, AND SO IT DOES GET TO BE A LITTLE CHAOTIC, AND THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN THAT HOUSE.
AND THE PARKING PRIOR TO THIS NEW ONE, ALL HOCKEY PARKING WAS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HOCKEY BUILDING.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THAT AS AN OPTION OF HAVING PARKING UNDERGROUND.
I MEAN, WITH THE ELEMENTS IN MINNESOTA, I THINK YOU'D PROBABLY EVEN GET MORE PARKING DOWN THERE.
YEAH, IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE, CERTAINLY, OBVIOUSLY.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE? YOU TOUCHED ON IT QUICK.
THIS RINK IS COMPLETE, THE CO-OP WITH MOUND.
THE REGISTRATION, ALL OF THE BACK-END ADMIN OF THE CO-OP, THEY ARE TRYING THAT FOR TWO YEARS, A YEAR TO TWO YEARS.
[02:45:02]
SPARTANS AGAIN.AND WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE, THAT'S A COUPLE-YEAR PROCESS.
BUT WE'RE NOT JUST WALKING AWAY FROM MOUND, BUT THE GOAL IS EVENTUALLY TO BRING OUR GIRLS IN AS SPARTANS.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA OF THE QUESTIONS.
WE DO WANT TO TRY TO STICK WITH THE MERITS.
OKAY, WELL, I'M NEVER REALLY HARD TIME ACTING LIKE I'M NOT BIASED IN HERE BECAUSE I GREW UP PLAYING HOCKEY.
YES, BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING IF THERE'S ANY ELSE WHO WISHES TO BE HEARD? PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM STAGE AND NAME AN ADDRESS.
HI, I'M MIKE WALLIG, RESIDENT ON JAMESTOWN ROAD, AND I'M THE NEXT PROPERTY OVER FROM THE IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED PROPERTY.
I THINK A LOT OF WHAT YOU HEARD HERE TONIGHT WILL REINFORCE THE FACT THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS PROJECT GO AND TO MAKE IT SUCCESSFUL, THAT THERE HAS TO BE EXTENSIVE USE OF THE BUILDING, AND BOTH SHEETS OF ICE USED FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES.
AND THAT DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE CONCERNS THAT WE AS NEIGHBORS HAVE FOR THE VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED THAT WE BELIEVE ARE EXCESSIVE FOR THE PROPERTY.
THAT THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE, THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TAKING TWO ACRES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY A RESIDENCE AND TURNING IT INTO AN ADDITIONAL 48,000 SQUARE FEET, 800 SPACE ARENA.
I THINK THAT'S JUST A STEP TOO FAR FOR THE LAND THAT IS AVAILABLE THERE.
AND I THINK THAT CERTAINLY SOME RESOLUTION HAS BEEN, OR SOME PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT.
I TRULY BELIEVE THERE'S A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE THE MATTER IS FULLY RESOLVED AND BEFORE WE COULD COME, BEFORE YOU SHOULD COME TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE WILLING TO RECOMMEND A DESIGN OF THE ARENA.
SO, I MEAN, I SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR, WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS AND I JUST BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE THE START OF A BASIS.
FOR DISCUSSION TO TRY TO ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS INDIVIDUALLY AND TO HOPEFULLY REACH A RESOLUTION THAT CREATES A DESIGN THAT THE HOCKEY FOLKS CAN DEAL WITH AND A DESIGN THAT WE AS RESIDENTS CAN LIVE WITH.
THE WEBSITE FOR THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION TALKS ABOUT BEING AROUND FOR 50 YEARS.
SINCE VARIANCE IS RUN WITH THE LAND, THAT'S A LONG TIME, AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THIS GROUP TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES NOW SO THAT THERE CAN ULTIMATELY BE A LONG-TERM USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE.
THE THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO RECORD DEFINITION OF SETBACK, YOU KNOW, 10 FEET IS HOW WE DEFINE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T DEFINE PARKING FROM STRUCTURE, BUT REALITY IS 62 FEET, WHICH IS RESPECTFUL AND APPRECIATED.
THE 10 FEET FOR THE PARKING, PARKING IS A CONCERN.
I'D LOVE TO FIND A WAY FOR THE COUNTY TO FIND SUPPORT FOR THAT.
[02:50:02]
BAY ROAD OVER AT 6TH.I THINK WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WHAT THEY THINK IS THE MOST FEASIBLE.
AND I THINK I CAN 100% AGREE THAT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ARE IN FOR HOCKEY IS UNIQUE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AS A COACH FOR YOUTH HOCKEY, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ACT LIKE I'M NOT BIASED BECAUSE...
GOING THROUGH THIS STUFF AND CARING AND LOVING THESE KIDS, I GET CHOKED UP THINKING ABOUT IT MYSELF, BUT WHEN YOU GO TO OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, THE COST OF HOCKEY IS, WELL, IT'S EXPENSIVE HERE, BUT THE FACT THAT SO MANY OF THESE ARENAS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, UNIQUELY TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, ARE PRIVATELY OWNED.
BUT TO KNOW, IT'S VERY IMPACTFUL TO KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE ARENAS.
OF THE EIGHT THAT ARE PRIVATELY FUNDED.
AND AS A PERSON WHO LIKES TO BE FIDUCIARILY RESPONSIBLE AND SEEING HOW TAXATION ALWAYS SEEMS TO CONTINUE TO CREEP UP ON US.
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT I THINK IS GOING TO ADD SOME LIVELIHOOD TO A COMMUNITY THAT CAN GET A WAY TO GET IT THROUGH.
IT BRINGS PEOPLE IN, AND WE DON'T HAVE A HUGE COMMERCE DISTRICT.
THE MORE RINKS YOU HAVE, THE MORE ABILITY YOU CAN HOST AND SUPPORT RETAIL.
OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES HAVE STRUGGLED TO DO THAT.
AND AS A PERSON WHO TRIED TO BE INVOLVED IN THREE SPORTS AND MUSIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE, HAVING HOCKEY PRACTICE AT 6 O'CLOCK AND THEN HAVE MUSIC REHEARSAL AFTERWARDS AT 6 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT WHILE TRYING TO GET READY FOR COLLEGE, IT'S NOT EASY.
EITHER IS SKATING SIX DAYS A WEEK, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES HOCKEY UNIQUE.
AND THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT MAKES THE...
THE COMMUNITY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AS YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME TOGETHER THAT YOU HAVE TO GET ALONG.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU GUYS.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A LOT OF THE WORK HERE BECAUSE I'M PRETTY BIASED.
NOW I'M A HOCKEY COACH, SO HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO BE OPPOSED TO THIS? I WASN'T A HOCKEY PLAYER.
MY DAUGHTER WAS A HOCKEY PLAYER.
MY DAUGHTER'S FIRST TIME ON THE ICE WAS ON THAT DIFFERENT TIME THAT WE...
SHE ALSO, I ALSO LEARNED THE WHOLE IMPORTANCE OF THE ICE, RIGHT? THAT POND WAS A RESULT OF BOTH MOUND AND ORNER.
I DROVE THE CO-OP BECAUSE BOTH MOUND AND ORNER.
I COMPLETELY KNEW IT WHEN THEY TOLD ME AT LEAST THREE YEARS AGO AT THAT TIME.
MADE SENSE, RIGHT? YOU NEED MORE ICE.
MY STRUGGLE, AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IS I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THE PARKING ON IT.
I'M PARKING ACROSS THE STREET.
I DON'T SEE THAT PARKING BEING ENOUGH TO WHERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE PARKING ON 6, PARKING ON OLD CRYSTAL BAY, AND THIS HUGE CLUSTER OF CONGESTION AT THE END OF THE GAME WHEN YOU'VE GOT...
TWO SHEETS OF ICE THAT ARE GETTING OFF AND GETTING ON AND THAT ONE TIME.
I REALLY I SUPPORT THE WHOLE THING AND I THINK IT'S A I THINK THE COMMUNITY NEEDS IT I THINK TO BE MORE ICE I JUST THINK KIND OF SPEAKING ABOUT MY THOUGHTS IS THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT MORE WORK ON WHAT DOES THAT? PARKING LOOK LIKE BEFORE I COULD REALLY GET BEHIND IT BECAUSE I JUST SEE THIS SCHOOL GAME NIGHT YEAH, BECOMING A DISASTER.
YEAH, IT JUST BREAKS EVERYTHING AND THEN IF THE SCHOOL HAS ACTIVITY WHERE THEY'RE YOU SPORTING EVENTS TRYING TO SHOW THAT I SEE A STROKE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE ACTUALLY TO SUPPORTING THE VARIANTS BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO RECREATE THIS PARKING AND THIS ICE RINK IN ANOTHER LOCATION AND THAT'S A BIGGER UNDERTAKING BECAUSE YOU ARE TO SHARE THE REAL STADIUM FOR THE EXISTING HOCKEY ARENA AND GOOD OR BAD, WHEN CROWDS GATHER FOR A BIG HOCKEY GAME OR A BIG FOOTBALL GAME, THAT'S ALSO A REALLY COOL THING, TOO.
BUT IT'S GOT TO BE CONTROLLED.
I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE, I THINK, YOU KIND OF TOOK IT A DIFFERENT, MY CONCERN IS THAT I'VE BEEN TO THAT GAME WHEN I SEE THE SUPPORT FOR A VARIANCE,
[02:55:01]
BUT I THINK THE TRAFFIC SIDE, RIGHT, I'D LIKE TO SEE A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT SHOWS...WHEN BOTH RINKS ARE AT CAPACITY FOR PARKING AND THIS PLACE IS AT CAPACITY, WHAT DOES THAT TRAFFIC LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY PART OF WHAT DROVE THE CITY OR THE COUNTY TO SAY, HEY, HOLD UP, IF YOU'RE DUMPING ONTO 6 NEXT TO THESE RESIDENTS, NOW YOU'VE GOT A LINE IN FRONT OF THESE RESIDENTS.
CHAIR, CAN I SPEAK ABOUT THE PARKING A LITTLE BIT TOO? BECAUSE I'M A RESIDENT ON JAMESTOWN ROAD WITH WALLACH'S, AND WE HAVE OTHER NEIGHBORS HERE.
AND I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT HIGHWAY 6 TRAFFIC.
IT IS A 55 ZONE, AND NOBODY GOES 55.
YOU COME DURING A SCHOOL DAY, AND YOU HAVE TRAFFIC BACKED UP.
HAVING AN ENTRANCE ONTO OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, I WENT AND WALKED DOWN THERE, AND IT'S A HILL GOING UP HIGHWAY 6.
SO THAT TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING FROM THE WEST WILL NOT SEE CARS COMING OUT.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO, FIRST OF ALL, CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE COUNTY ABOUT 20 TIMES ABOUT IT, UNLESS THERE'S 10 FATALITIES WITHIN A YEAR.
THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY POOR WAY OF CHANGING A SPEED LIMIT.
SO MAYBE WITH HAVING AN ACCESS POINT AT THAT POINT, MAYBE THEY WOULD CONSIDER IT.
IT'S 40 MILES AN HOUR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 12.
BUT FOR HERE, UP THROUGH HIGHWAY 6 ON THIS SIDE OF 12, IT'S 55.
THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY ACCIDENTS OUTSIDE OF TRINITY.
THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY ACCIDENTS AT THE SCHOOL.
IT STILL DOES NOT GET CHANGED.
SO TO ADD ANOTHER ENTRANCE THERE WHERE YOU HAVE 300 PARKING SPOTS THAT COULD COME AND GO, COMING IN AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL THERE, IT'S A BIG CONCERN TO HAVE THAT SPOT.
SO I FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT PARKING, IT CAN'T BE THE DESIGN THAT'S THERE NOW.
IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT ALLOWS FOR TRAFFIC TO COME AND GO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ALL GO OUT THAT ONE SPOT EITHER SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT A SOLUTION IS BUT HIGHWAY 6 IS A DISASTER AS IT IS AND IT IS IT IS I KNOW CRYSTAL BAY IS TOO.
I AGREE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROBABLY SOLVE IT TODAY.
I THINK IS THE SCREENING OF ALL THE COUNTY BUT YOU KNOW WHERE MY HEAD YOU KNOW THE BUSIER TIME SIX OR IT'S ON FIRST BAY ROAD, BUT THAT ALLOWS THE HECK OUT OF THERE.
HEY, SCHOOL, TRY NOT TO HAVE A MAJOR EVENT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE VARSITY HOCKEY GAME.
WE'RE COUNTING THAT TRAFFIC PARKING COUNT, AND WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT THAT STIPULATION IN PLACE, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT THAT EVENT'S GOING TO BE.
YOU KNOW, THE BASEBALL FIELD ALSO IS A SPILLOVER FOR PARKING THAT HASN'T BEEN.
IT'S NOT A GREAT WALK FROM ACROSS CHRISTA BAY ROAD, BUT WE ALL HAVE DONE IT.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK ALSO WHEN YOU HAVE A VARSITY HOCKEY GAME, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FULL SHEETS OF THE RINK FOR THAT DRAW.
SO NOW YOU'RE ADDING A LOT MORE PARKING ACCESSIBILITY FOR A VARSITY GAME.
IT SHOULD HELP A LITTLE BIT OF THAT CONCEPT.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TWO VARSITY GAMES GOING ON.
YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE DRAW OF A VERNAL.
AND AGAIN, I KNOW THE SHEET ADVICE IS NEEDED.
I JUST STRUGGLE WITH WHAT THAT PROVES LIKE THIS, WHAT THAT INTERSECTION IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S PARKED ALONG THE ROAD, BASEBALL FIELD.
OH, I KNOW, AND THAT'S WHY I BRING IT UP.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S VALID WE COULD HAVE AN OFF-DUTY OR WE COULD HAVE AN ON-DUTY.
BUT MS. PERKLE, WERE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING? YEAH, I JUST, I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING, BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO VOICE A CONCERN SPECIFICALLY ABOUT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
SAFETY RELATED TO THE PARKING, BECAUSE OF WHAT I HAVE SEEN, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, I WOULD REALLY, REALLY ASK.
THE APPLICANTS TO LOOK AT THE LIGHTING ON OLD CRYSTAL BAY WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE OVERFLOWING ACROSS TO THE BASEBALL FIELD IT IS DARK THERE ARE NO LIGHTS LIGHTING UP THE STREET AT THAT POINT AND I AND YOU NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT HOW WHEN THERE ARE BIG GROUPS OF PEOPLE COMING OUT OF AN EVENT AT NIGHT WHEN IT'S
[03:00:01]
DARK WHERE THEY WILL ALL BE GOING AND HAVE ADEQUATE LIGHTED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS TO DIRECT THAT TRAFFIC SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACCIDENTS.I THINK MAYBE THAT'S GOOD FEEDBACK, FIRST OF ALL.
YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN WE HAVE A COUNTY ROAD 15 FOR THE MARINA CROSSINGS, YOU'VE GOT THE LIGHTED CROSSWALKS WHERE YOU HIT THE BUTTON AND IT LIGHTS IT UP AND IT CALLS IT OUT AS A LEGAL CROSSING.
THAT PART OF OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD DOESN'T USUALLY...
TRAFFIC THAT MAYBE INCLUDE THIS CONSIDERATION SO THANK YOU SO I'LL JUMP IN HERE YOU KNOW I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO REDESIGN OUR SOLUTION FOR THE APPLICATION I WOULD SAY I'LL START I'M IN FAVOR OF IT I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE ATTACHMENT TO HOCKEY AND NONE OF MY KIDS PLAY HOCKEY SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS KIND OF AS ANOTHER APPLICATION BUT I DO REALLY APPRECIATE HAVING EVERYTHING CENTRALIZED FOR ORONO.
THAT WAS A BIG APPEAL FOR US MOVING HERE.
SO I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE ADDITION STAYS WITHIN THE EXISTING SPOT.
MY BIG CONCERN WAS THE WEST SIDE, LOOKING AT THAT RETAINING WALL, LOOKING AT THE SCREENING, LOOKING AT A 12-MONTH SCREENING IN THE WINTER, WHAT KIND OF PLANTS, TREES ARE GOING TO BE THERE WITH THE FENCING, JUST TO CREATE THAT SEPARATION FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE A GOOD START THERE FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN, BUT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY CAVEATS IS THAT HAVE TO BE VERY THOROUGH.
I, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I AGREE WITH THE PARKING ISSUES COMING UP.
IT COMES UP WITH EVERYTHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, GARAGE CONDOMINIUMS, THE MARINA.
BUT I DO THINK WE PUT A CAVEAT IN THERE TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL LOOK AT IT AND DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, DO A FIRE ROUTE STUDY, AND THEN GIVE US THE BEST RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE DON'T DESIGN IT, BUT I DO THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A CAVEAT.
AND THEN AS FAR AS APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING, SIGNAGE, HEIGHT, I THINK WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED SEEMS SUFFICIENT AND MANAGEABLE.
SO I WOULD SAY, AGAIN, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF IT WITH THE CAVEAT OF MAKING SURE THAT THE SCREENING ON THE WEST SIDE IS 12 MONTHS YEAR-ROUND.
LIGHTING IS DEFINITELY CONSIDERED.
EAST FACING SO IT'S NOT SPREADING WEST AND THEN AGAIN UM YOU KNOW LEAVING IT UP TO THE PROFESSIONALS ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO FLOW PEOPLE IN AND OUT SO I APPRECIATE THAT YEAH WE WERE UH I MEAN HARDCOVER UH 35 IS HOW IT'S GUIDED IF YOU'RE CURRENTLY AT SO, YOU KNOW, SO AS FAR AS THE HARDCOVER GOES, I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AS LONG AS THE STORMWATER IS BEING MITIGATED.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO KIND OF CHECK SOME THINGS OFF THE LIST, WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT OR NOT.
WELL, MR. CHAIR, YEAH, IF I COULD SPEAK TO THE HARDCOVER A LITTLE BIT.
THIS WILL EVENTUALLY BE DONATED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT AN OVERALL AGGREGATE HARDCOVER.
SO WE'RE APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE SITE AS IT SITS, BUT IT WILL NEVER...
BE THAT WAY BECAUSE NOW ONCE IT ONCE IT'S DONATED IT WILL BE YEAH OVERALL HARDCOVER THAT'S WHAT I GAVE YOU IT INCLUDES THE NEW LOT THAT INCLUDES A VACANT NEW LOT WITH THIS HIGHLIGHTED THE BUBBLED AREA SHOWN OKAY SORRY I MISSED THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE SITE AS IT SITS TODAY IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONATED AS I UNDERSTAND RIGHT IT IS THE EXISTING CALCULATIONS COUNT THIS LOT, THIS PARCEL FOR THE SCHOOL, PLUS THE NEW PARCEL AS VACANT.
ARE YOU SAYING LIKE THE ENTIRE SCHOOL? I'M SAYING THE ENTIRE SCHOOL.
THE ENTIRE SCHOOL ISN'T WHAT THEY HAD TO CALCULATE.
THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS WORKING ON THE STORMWATER PLAN, AND THAT'S A WHOLE SITE PLAN, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO WORK ON THE STORMWATER FOR THE WHOLE CAMPUS.
THIS APPLICATION CONTEMPLATES HARDCOVER LEVELS CHANGING ON WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED.
THIS LAW IS IDENTIFIED AS THE BUBBLED AREA.
SO IT IS A LARGER PARCEL THAN JUST THE SPECIFIC ADDITION.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE 49%.
BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY I WANTED, I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING IS IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE ENTIRE SCHOOL'S FOOTPRINT INTO CONSIDERATION.
BLEND THAT WITH ALL OF THE CAMPUSES.
THE OBLIGATION WOULD BE IF YOU LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE OCCUPATION OF THE...
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, LIKE,
[03:05:02]
THE ENTIRE CAMPUS, BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER PROJECTS GOING ON IN OTHER LOTS OF PLACES.THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS GOING TO, THIS PROJECT, IN ADDITION TO WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING, TRIGGERS THEIR STORMWATER RULE.
SO THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE APPLICANT, WELL, THE SCHOOL'S ENGINEER FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL CAMPUS.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME HARDCOVER RULES, BUT THEY ARE MEETING.
SO THE HARDCOVER VARIANCE THAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOT, NOT...
I MEAN, BECAUSE AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE HAS TO BE SOME JUSTIFICATION, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN CONSIDER THE MITIGATION.
SO IS THERE ANY, AGAIN, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO BE MET, WHICH OF COURSE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A CAVEAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS WITHOUT PASSING.
BUT WITH THAT CAVEAT IN MIND, AS LONG AS WATERSHED AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS TAKEN CARE OF, IS THERE ANYBODY DISCUSSION ABOUT HARDCOVER BEING THAT? IF NOT, LET'S CLEAR THAT OFF FOR ONE, OKAY? AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK, YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND.
NO, I THINK YOU ARTICULATED IT WELL.
IF THE STORMWATER RUNOFF IS ACCOMMODATED FOR BY THE WATERSHED, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH IT.
I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, I THINK IN MY MIND, THAT TIES INTO THE PARKING OVERALL, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER BALLAS EARLIER WAS TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA OF FILLING IN PARKING ON THESE OTHER POND AREAS, AND IF THE WATERSHED IS BEING VERY ADAMANT ON NOT DOING THAT.
WHETHER IT BE FOR THEIR REASONS WITH STORMWATER RUNOFF, WHATEVER IT IS.
I JUST STRUGGLE WITH WHY WE'RE BEING SO LENIENT ON THE PARKING THEN.
LIKE, THEY'RE HOLDING THEIR GROUND WITH THEIR STORMWATER NUMBERS AND NOT FILLING IN THOSE PONDS POTENTIALLY, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS AND HAVE PARKING GO ALL THE WAY UP AGAINST THE BOUNDARY ON THE WEST BORDER.
TO ME, I DO THINK THAT TIES INTO THE HARDCOVER A LITTLE BIT.
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT HARDCOVER IF WE FEEL IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED.
ANY CONSIDERATION OF HEIGHT AS AN EXCEPTION TO, AS IT'S BEEN APPLIED? YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT AN INCREASE IN ELEVATION, SO THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE TOTAL HEIGHT IN COMPARISON TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT WAS HELPFUL IS...
DOES PROVIDE SOME ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING IN AT GRADE AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS FOR THE OTHER NEIGHBORING ARENA.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE OPPOSITION TO THAT GRADE AS IT IS DEFINED TONIGHT? NO, I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS HOW DOES THE ELEVATION COMPARE TO THE REST OF THE SCHOOL? THAT IS NOT AN ANALOGY.
RIGHT, BECAUSE THE HEIGHT OF THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE HEIGHT OF THIS.
THE PROCESS IS, GIVEN THE PRETTY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLE THAT THEY'RE AS SUPPORTIVE AS THEY ARE.
AND HEIGHT WAS NOT ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY, WHO WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED, VOICED.
SECURITY AND SCREENING AND LIGHT POLLUTION AND NOISE POLLUTION.
I THINK A 40-FOOT BUILDING, THE LIGHTING REALLY NEEDS TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THOSE NEIGHBORS.
THAT IS A BIG CONCERN THAT I KNOW I HAVE FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T KNOW THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY RIGHT THERE, BUT I THINK IF YOU HAVE A 40-FOOT BUILDING AND LET'S SAY YOUR HOUSE, I MEAN, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW, THEIR HOUSE IS A TWO-STORY HOUSE, SO IT'S A BIG DROP-OFF.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LIGHT AND...
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BACK OF THIS BUILDING LOOKS LIKE.
I ASSUME THAT THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE AS MANY LIGHTS ON IT, BUT I THINK THAT THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE THOUGHTFUL TO THOSE NEIGHBORS.
I DIDN'T GROW UP HOCKEY, BUT I DO SUPPORT THIS BUILDING DESPITE MY NEGATIVE TONE OF THINGS.
I'M JUST CONCERNED, AND IF I DON'T SPEAK UP ON THOSE CONCERNS, BUT I DO GENERALLY SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY OF WHAT IS GOING ON, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE HOCKEY COMMUNITY TO KEEP ORONO HOCKEY HERE.
TAKING THIS AND PUTTING IT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS A BIG CONCERN FOR ME.
YEAH, AND YOU'RE PLAYING INTO MY HAND A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE SIGNAGE IS NEXT.
I'VE GOT, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY.
YEAH, PLEASE, MR. BALLS, GO AHEAD.
[03:10:01]
FOR STAFF, JUST CONFIRMING WHERE WE'RE MEASURING THE HEIGHT FROM THE BUILDING.WE'RE MEASURING IT FROM THE LOWER PARKING LOT, CORRECT? IF YOU GO TO THE, YEAH, I MEAN, WE DID A.
THE EXISTING ARENA DEFINED HEIGHT IS 25 FEET.
THE PROPOSED ADDITION, THE DEFINED HEIGHT IS 34.5 FEET.
DEFINED HEIGHT USING THE WHOLE BUILDING, USING THAT LOWER 10 FEET LEVEL, IS 45.
THE PEAK HEIGHT OF THE NEW BUILDING IS 42.
BUT THAT'S FROM THE LOWER LEVEL.
THE PEAK HEIGHT FROM THE NEW BUILDING IN PLACE IS 42 FEET.
THE CALCULATION BASED ON THE FIRST FLOOR, YOU WILL SEE A 42-FOOT.
AND THE CURRENT STANDARD IS 30 FEET, CORRECT? WE DON'T HAVE A WALL HEIGHT MAXIMUM.
IT'S A DEFINED HEIGHT MAXIMUM.
SO IT'S ADJUSTED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROOF PEAKS? IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO HOW WE MEASURE THE STANDARD HOUSE.
LAKE COVEN, LIKE THE MIDPOINT BETWEEN THE PEAK AND THE TRADITIONAL GABLE, IT'S THE MIDPOINT.
SO THAT HOUSE MIGHT BE LIMITED TO 30 FEET, BUT THE HOUSE COULD BE 40 FEET TALL.
SO I THINK IT'S PLAYING OUT HERE, BUT THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE FACING THE CAMPUS, CORRECT? I THINK SO.
YOUR CURSOR IS OVER THE WEST SIDE.
THE PEAK WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE, BECAUSE THE BUILDING RUNS ALONG COUNTY 6. BUT THIS IS THE SIDE FACING THE SCHOOL.
SO THE WEST ELEVATION IS THE TOP PICTURE.
THAT'S WHAT WILL BE THE NEIGHBOR.
I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT COULD, I COULDN'T FIND IT IN ANYTHING, IF THE APPLICANT COULD TELL US THE HEIGHT FROM GRADE ON THE WEST ELEVATION TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING THERE.
THEY WOULD HAVE THAT IN THEIR ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.
IN THE SURVEY, WOULDN'T IT BE? ON THE SURVEY, WE DON'T NEED THEM TO.
ON THE WEST SIDE, THAT WEST SIDE, WHAT THE NEIGHBOR SEES THERE, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THAT FROM GRADE TO THE TOP THERE? YOU'RE TRYING TO ASK THE PEAK HEIGHT OF THE WEST ELEVATION? CORRECT.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, MS. CURTIS? THEY MIGHT HAVE A CALL.
BUT COMMISSIONER ROYAL, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK ALSO YOU'VE GOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT ON COUNTY ROAD 6 THAT'S VERY EXPENSIVE HOMES THAT DON'T WANT A WHOLE LOT OF POLLUTION, AS WELL AS INTERESTED NEIGHBORS.
I THINK THAT DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT LIGHTING IN AN APPLICATION, IT EVEN TALKS ABOUT THE BEING DISSIPATED TO BE BETWEEN 0.1 AND 0.8 FOOT CANDLES.
JUST DOING SOME QUICK RESEARCH ON MY OWN, I FOUND THAT LIKE A STREET LIGHT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS 0.4 TO 1.5.
MORE PRUDENT OR RELEVANT, I THINK, WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL ROAD LIGHT.
RESIDENTIAL ROAD LIGHTS ARE 0.4 TO 0.6.
SO I THINK IN RESPECT FOR THAT, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ILLUMINATION IN THE PARKING LOT STAY PROBABLY AT THAT 0.6.
BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF WE'RE A BUNDY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WE SHOULD BE APPEASING RESIDENTIAL ROAD LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS.
SO I THINK THAT'S PRUDENT TO REQUEST, JUST TRY TO STAY AT THAT 0.6.
BY DEFINITION, AT LEAST THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE.
IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PERSPECTIVE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE SHARED.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE DIRECTIONALITY OF THE LIGHT.
IT'S DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY SO THAT IT'S FOCUSED ONTO THE PARKING LOT, AND THEN THE ILLUMINATION CAN BE KIND OF WHATEVER IT IS, BUT IF THE LIGHT IS OPEN OR OMNI AND BLASTING TO THE NEIGHBORS, LIGHT WILL GO ON.
WHAT I WASN'T UNDERSTANDING WAS LIKE THESE LIGHTS, ARE THEY,
[03:15:02]
WHAT ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING ARE THEY? YOU GET THE APPLICANT TO COME UP AND ACTUALLY SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE JUST TO BE ON RECORD IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.THE FURTHEST ONE SOUTH OF THOSE THREE, THAT'S ABOVE THAT EXIT DOOR, AND SO THAT'S A CODE REQUIRED ONE BECAUSE IT'S AN EXIT DOOR, BUT WE WOULD PLAN TO LINE THE OTHER TWO UP WITH THAT LIGHT AS WELL.
FLOOR HEIGHT? YEAH, 9, 10 FEET, WHATEVER IT WOULD BE.
AND THEN WERE THOSE INTENDED TO BE DIRECTIONAL, SO THEY'RE ONLY GOING UP AND DOWN AND NOT...
LED LIGHTS ARE SO NICE AT BEING ABLE TO REALLY FOCUS THEIR...
POLLUTION I'VE DONE A LOT OF LOOK LOOKED INTO THAT KIND OF STUFF IT'S PRETTY HELPFUL COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE SO I'M SURE YOU'RE GONNA LOOK INTO THAT TO MAKE SURE IT DOES HOLES WE CAN ADD SHIELDING AROUND IT TOO SO LET'S SEE YEAH AND WE DO HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR NATION POLLUTION IS HOW MUCH LIGHT CAN EMIT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE THAT IN OUR GUIDELINES CODE DETECTABLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT.
SO THERE ARE THINGS IN PLACE JUST TO GO ON RECORD.
SO NOT DETECTABLE IS A VERY GOOD WAY OF SAYING IS OR ISN'T.
BUT GOING BACK TO MY WHERE I HANG MY HAT, I THINK.
WHERE I HANG MY HAT IS I THINK IF WE CAN TRY TO GET THAT FOOT CANDLES TO BE THAT POINT SIX THAT'S FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL ROADS, I THINK THAT'S MEANINGFUL TO ME.
YOU KNOW THE PARKING LOT SETBACK I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO FOLLOW WITH YOU, HAVE THE BUFFERING AND THE SCREENING IN PLACE.
I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, AND IT'S NOT A LARGE PART OF IT.
IT'S NOT AN ENTIRE PARKING LOT THERE.
IT'S A ROW OF CARS, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A SLIGHT OTHER ROW OF CARS THAT ARE EVEN FURTHER AWAY THAT MIGHT BE CLOSER TO THAT 60-FOOT SETBACK.
SO HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, THAT'S DOING A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN IF IT WERE AN ENTIRE PARKING LOT.
THERE BUT I WILL GO BACK TO THE LIGHTING BECAUSE I HATE SIGNAGE I THINK IMPORTANT TO HAVE SIGNAGE I THINK THAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT CONSERVATIVE WITH SIGNAGE IN OUR IN OUR DISTRICT WE'VE BEEN OPENING THE DOOR TO MAKE IT LARGE FOR I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEEN BURNED AND STABILITY WE CAN WHATEVER YOUR SIGNAGE THERE, I DON'T THINK WE REGRETTED ANY OF THAT.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA THAT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL ZONE, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO HAVE A STIPULATION THAT PERHAPS YOU HAVE A LIGHT THAT'S A...
IF YOU'RE GOING TO LIGHT THAT SIGN, IT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE NOT OUTWARD EMITTING, SO LIKE A HALO STYLE, SOMETHING WHERE IT'S LIGHTING UP THE LETTERS, NOT OUTWARD LIKE A NEON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE TASTEFUL BECAUSE IT STILL PROVIDES THE SIGNAGE BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT'S SO IMMEDIATELY CLOSE BY I THINK THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND I THINK THAT MAYBE IF WE WANTED TO EVEN GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND PUT SOME SORT OF LIMITATION AS TO EVEN ANY SORT OF LIT SIGNAGE ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NEXT DOOR UM YOU KNOW AGAIN YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE BUT IF IF UH I WOULD SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR.
THE WESTERN SIGN IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE LIT.
MAYBE JUST ADDING LANGUAGE IN OUR CONDITION THAT IT CAN'T BE.
IT'S NOT PROPOSED IT TO BE, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT.
I THINK TO THAT POINT, THOUGH, IT IS SOUTH-FACING, AND IF THAT LIGHT CAN GO OUT THAT WAY, IT STILL COULD BE AFFECTING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
TALK ABOUT, I WOULD PUT THAT AS A CAVEAT ON FOR ALL OF THIS, FROM THE SIGN ITSELF.
IF YOU HAVE A GLOWING SIGN, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT FOREVER UNTIL A TREE OR A BUILDING GETS IN THE WAY OF IT, WHICH WOULD BECOME ANNOYING IF I'VE GOT A HOUSE TOO.
[03:20:04]
THE RECOGNITION WITHOUT ACTUALLY IS EVEN MORE THAN A HALO OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.I GUESS WE ALL HAVE THE IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEER RUN COMMUNITY OR WHATEVER.
AWAY FROM COUNTY ROAD SIX I THINK IT'S GREAT TO HAVE A SIGN THERE IT'S GREAT TO HAVE THAT RECOGNITION MAYBE THERE'S SOME GOOD FUNDRAISING THAT CAN BE MADE FOR THE ARENA AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO RECOGNIZE A REALLY COOL AREA WHILE STILL BEING RESPECTFUL OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THE PLACE TO PUT IT YOU KNOW AND THEN NOT HAVE I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CALL OUT THAT WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT APPROVING THE SIGNAGE SO THEY HAVE A MECHANISM TO HELP.
...FACING IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SEEKING FUNDING FROM GOVERNMENT...
...PUT SIGNAGE UP THERE THAT THEY...
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR LIGHTING FOR THE SIGNAGE.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE SIZE OF THE SIGN.
WHICH THEY DO MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF, BUT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCES THAT ONE SIGN IS BIGGER THAN SIX FEET.
I'LL ALSO POINT OUT ON THE SITE PLAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SOUTH ELEVATION, IT'S ACTUALLY ANGLED TO THE SOUTHEAST, KIND OF AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY.
SO ANY SIGNAGE ON THERE, IT'S ALREADY GOT AN ANGLE AWAY FROM WHICH IS NICE.
IT'S NOT A LIGHTING EMISSION VARIANCE, BUT I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A MITIGANT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT TO BE LARGER, I WOULD BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF IT IF IT WAS LESS INTRUSIVE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT? SUPPORTIVE, DIFFERENT? OKAY.
AND WE CAN GO BACK TO ANY OF THESE THINGS AS WELL.
I'M JUST TRYING TO TRY TO CHECK SOME OF THESE THINGS OFF THE LIST.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THAT TONIGHT.
HENNEPIN COUNTY IS GOING TO NEED TO BE INVOLVED AND FIND OUT WHAT'S AGREEABLE.
AS FAR AS THAT, WE DON'T HAVE A PARKING STUDY.
I THINK PARKING IS GOING TO NEED TO BE MANAGED THE BEST THAT IT CAN, BUT I GO BACK TO THE TIME THAT THERE'S THE MOST PRESSURE ON THAT SPACE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE LIKE A HIGH SCHOOL.
I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN THAT PERSPECTIVE, I LOOK AT THAT AS AN IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE MORE THAN DOUBLING YOUR HOT.
ACCOMMODATION OF SPACE AND THAT MEANS THAT IF THERE IS ONE GAME GOING ON EVEN IF THERE IS ANOTHER ONE ON THE ADJACENT ICE RINK IT CERTAINLY ISN'T GOING TO BE THE SAME DRAW SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO AT LEAST RELIEVE SOME OF THAT PRESSURE.
I THINK THE CROSSWALK ACROSS THE OTHER SIDE OF CRYSTAL BAY ROW IS RELEVANT.
I THINK THE REST OF THE SCHOOL HAVING PARKING ACCOMMODATIONS MAKE IT THE MOST REASONABLE FOR A SITE BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE IT TONIGHT.
WHAT THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED IS COMPLIANT BASED ON HOW IT'S BEING CALCULATED WITHIN ONE SPOT.
IS THAT CORRECT? 299? IT'S BASED ON THAT SKATING RINK.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
THAT TO ME IS, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OFF BY A WHOLE LOT.
I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING AND DISCUSSING THE PARKING, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT BUCKETS WE NEED TO PUT THE PARKING INTO.
ONE IS THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF STALLS.
IN MY OPINION, I THINK THEY MEET THAT, AND I WOULDN'T BE PROPOSING THAT THEY TRY TO EXCEED IT.
THEY EXCEED IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT UNDUE CONDITIONS ON SOMETHING IF THEY'RE MEETING OUR ORDINANCE.
THE OTHER BUCKET I LOOK AT IS WHERE IS THE PARKING SITUATED ON THE SITE PLAN, AND IS THAT IN CONFORMANCE? SO I SUPPORT THE NUMBER OF STALLS THEY'RE PROPOSING BECAUSE IT MEETS OUR ORDINANCE.
THE WAY IT'S SITUATED ON THE SITE PLAN, I'M NOT SURE IF I SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL THAT IT MEETS THE ORDINANCE.
AND I THINK THERE'S ADDITIONAL SPACE THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT TO PUT IT.
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY HEAD GOES.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT BUCKETS TO THE PARKING.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, YOUR CONCERN ON THE WEST SIDE IS BECAUSE TECHNICALLY...
WHERE EVERYWHERE ELSE THERE'S A 10-FOOT PARKING SETBACK, BUT THE SETBACK IS DEFINED AS STRUCTURE IN THIS CASE? I THINK IT'S INTENTIONALLY DEFINED THAT WAY FOR THE SCHOOL.
[03:25:02]
IS CONSIDERED STRUCTURE AGAINST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.AND SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT A 50-FOOT SETBACK.
LIKE 2004 OR SOMEWHERE WHERE WE CAN SEE AND YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE THAT YOU CAN PULL UP THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING ICE ARENA AND HOW IT CONFORMS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT'S THE 50 FOOT SETBACK YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING FALLS RIGHT ON IT AND THAT'S THAT WAS INTENTIONAL THAT'S INTENTIONAL THAT'S WHAT THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN LIKE THAT SO YOU DON'T HAVE THIS INTENSIFIED INDUSTRIAL RIGHT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, AND I KNOW I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO REDESIGN IT, BUT THE NATURAL PLACE TO PUT THE PARKING IS TO CONTINUE.
THAT SOUTH AND NORTH PARKING LOT TOGETHER AND RELOCATE STORMWATER SINCE THAT'S BEING LOOKED AT FOR THE ENTIRE SITE AS WELL.
AND THEN THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF THE 50-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE THAT IS NEXT IN LINE TO SEE IF WE'RE OKAY WITH.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PARKING, THE NUMBER OF STALLS I THINK IS FINE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND VISUALIZE THIS NEW BUILDING, THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE, LOOKING MORE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING ARENA THAT'S THERE.
OKAY, I THINK THAT'S WHY THE CODE IS IN PLACE FOR THAT YEAH I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE HOW IT WAS LAID OUT BEFORE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE BUILDING IS DEFINED THAT 50 FEET THERE THERE'S A BIG HILL THAT PROBABLY MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT PARKING GO ANY FURTHER TO THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT NOW I DON'T I DON'T THINK THEY COULD ABOVE THAT TO A 10-FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE LOOKING PRETTY LARGE RETAINING WALL IF YOU WERE REDESIGNING THAT WAY I THINK THE HILL IS PROBABLY WHAT'S SITTING RIGHT ON THE 50-FOOT LINE.
CORRECT, BUT THAT'S HOW IT'S DEFINED IN THE CODE.
THEY DIDN'T ASK, WHEN THEY WERE BUILDING THAT, THEY WERE STICKING TO THE CODE AND NOT ASKING FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
FOR THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING.
BUILDING IS 50 FEET, SO WHAT I'M JUST SAYING IS THEY BUILT THE BUILDING ON THE SETBACK THAT I THINK WE ALL REST OUR LAURELS ON.
I JUST DISAGREE THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY THE PARKING STOPPED 50 FEET WAS BECAUSE THERE'S TERRAIN THAT OBSTRUCTS IT FROM BEING ABLE TO GO FURTHER OR HAVE THEM MAKE THAT FINANCIALLY VIABLE TO BUILD THE GIANT RETAINING WALL TO GET TO A 10-FOOT SETBACK WHEN YOU'VE GOT 25 FEET OF ELEVATION IN THAT 40-FOOT SPACE.
AGAIN, WE'RE BOTH SPECULATING AS TO HOW THAT CAME ABOUT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF YOU GO TO THAT SITE RIGHT NOW, THAT'S A BIG HILL.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THE PARKING LOT STOPPED IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS.
I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT IS THAT EXISTING IS WHAT THE CONFORMING CONFIGURATION WOULD LOOK LIKE OF THAT WEST PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS IMPACTFUL ON A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT'S WHERE MY MIND IS SAYING.
IF THERE WAS NO OTHER SPOT TO PUT THE PARKING, I COULD POTENTIALLY GET BEHIND A VARIANT.
BUT WE'RE KIND OF OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS, ALLOWING STRUCTURE 10 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.
WELL, I THINK WE'RE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS TO DEFINE STRUCTURE AS A PARKING LOT.
IT'S ALREADY DEFINED THAT WAY.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THE REST OF THE SCHOOL CAMPUS AND HOW THE BUILDING'S IN THE PARKING LOT...
ARE THAT'S HOW IT'S CONFIGURED.
I THINK THERE'S A NATURAL SOLUTION FOR THE PARKING.
I JUST FEEL LIKE IF THE APPLICANT CAN REDESIGN THAT PARKING IT SOLVES A LOT OF ISSUES AS FAR AS THE OTHER SETBACKS, THE OTHER VARIANCES THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.
I THINK OVERALL I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.
I LOVE THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
I THINK STALLS, I THINK IT'S IT.
CONFIGURATION OF THAT PARKING LOT WILL REALLY CHANGE THE IMPACT.
BUT I WILL SAY, I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.
I JUST AM NOT 100% IN SUPPORT OF THE SITE PLAN.
SO LET ME ASK YOU A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO RIGHT NOW THE STEP BACK OF THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE IS NOT MAXED OUT.
SO TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, THAT MEANS THEY COULD BUILD STRUCTURE 12 FEET FURTHER TO THAT PROPERTY LINE.
[03:30:01]
I WON'T ANSWER ON BEHALF OF WHAT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR WOULD VENTURE ON THIS, BUT THERE'S A GIVE AND TAKE.12 FEET OF A MASSIVE STRUCTURE FURTHER TOWARDS YOU.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT THAT'S, I THINK, PART OF WHAT WE NEED TO DELIBERATE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MAXED OUT.
I THINK A LOT OF THAT CONCERN, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH, THAT CLOSE TO A PROPERTY LINE.
I THINK WHATEVER WE DO APPROVES.
WALKING THROUGH SOME KIND OF A BUFFER.
I REALLY LIKE MY CONCERN WITH THE PARKING IS THE TRAFFIC AND MODELING IT THROUGH THAT ONE TINY ENTRANCE.
I THINK NOW THAT IT'S SCHOOL PROPERTY INVOLVING THE SCHOOL, TO LOOK AT IT OVERALL GLOBAL, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO TO MAKE PARKING BETTER AT ORONO? AND I THINK THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION FOR THEM TO ADDRESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FEW OTHER THINGS GOING ON, BUT I THINK THAT PUTTING THAT ON THEIR PLATE IS AN IMPORTANT THING.
I'M PRETTY QUIET, SO I MIGHT JUST CHIME IN QUICK.
BRING US BACK TO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US HERE.
I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THE PROJECT AND THE WHOLE IDEA IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
BEING AN ORONO RESIDENT NOW, I'D LOVE TO SEE THIS EXPANSION.
I CAN GET BEHIND THE HARDCOVER VARIANTS IN FRONT OF US, THE BUILDING HEIGHT, THE SIGNAGE.
I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THE PARKING NUMBERS.
I STRUGGLE WITH THE PARKING LOT SETBACK ON THE WESTERN BORDERLINE.
THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, AND IF I'M TAKING MY KIDS TO THIS RINK IN 10 YEARS, I JUST DON'T THINK I'D BE VERY PROUD OF MYSELF FOR APPROVING WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT.
NOT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, BUT I JUST THINK THE OVERALL LAYOUT AND THE HINDRANCE WE'RE PUTTING ON THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE WESTERN BORDER.
AND FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T THINK I COULD SEE MYSELF APPROVING THE PARKING LOT SETBACK THAT'S IN FRONT OF US.
HOW THE APPLICANT SOLVES IT, THAT'S NOT UP TO ME TO DEBATE, AND I KNOW YOU GUYS PUT A LOT OF IDEAS AND THOUGHTS FORWARD, BUT I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LARGER SEPARATOR BETWEEN THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT, AND FOR THAT REASON, I JUST...
I THINK THIS PROJECT WILL MOVE FORWARD ONE DAY, AND I'LL BE REALLY PROUD OF IT, BUT I JUST CAN'T BE PROUD OF WHAT THIS IS IN FRONT OF ME TONIGHT.
AND THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE RINK.
OF COURSE, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED, BUT THE ENTRANCE IS ON THE...
AS FAR AS ACTIVITY GOES, YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE IS PARKING THERE, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT'S GENERALLY GOING TO BE A DISRUPTIVE ONE.
I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO, I ALWAYS TRY TO THINK OF MYSELF, RIGHT, AND SIX DAYS A WEEK I'M THERE IN THE WINTERTIME.
I DON'T REMEMBER, GENERALLY SPEAKING.
NOT A BAD PLACE TO HAVE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE IT'S GENERALLY NOT GOING TO BE THERE.
I DO GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT I THINK IF IT WERE ME, AGAIN, THIS IS NO LONGER ME AS THE HOCKEY PARENT BUT ME AS THE NEIGHBOR, I WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT FEET OF SPACE BUILDING IN EXCHANGE FOR ALLOWING SOME PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF HAVING A FOOT THAT THEY COULD BE CLOSER TO.
ALIGNED WITH THE CONCERNS OF THE BACK PARKING, I DO WANT TO NOTE THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRASH ENCLOSURE AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY CAN CURRENTLY HEAR EARLY MORNING TRASH PICKUPS THAT ARE FURTHER AWAY.
THE NORTH SIDE? THE PROPOSED IS TRASH AND CLOSURE.
NO, I THINK THEY PROBABLY HEAR THE HIGH SCHOOL ONES, IS MY GUESS.
YEAH, THE HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA.
WHICH IS FURTHER AWAY THAN THIS.
AND SO AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONCERNS FOR THE NEIGHBORS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RECOGNIZE
[03:35:01]
THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS VOICED AS WELL.I DO WANT TO ADD A LITTLE COLOR QUICK TO MY COMMENT ABOUT THE PARKING LOT SETBACK IN THAT I CAN'T SPECULATE ON WHAT THE COUNTY DOES WITH COUNTY ROAD 6, BUT I'VE DRIVEN ON THAT ROAD MY WHOLE LIFE AND BEFORE THERE WAS A STOP SIGN THERE, YOU COULD GO VERY FAST ON THAT ROAD AND I JUST, SAFETY IS KIND OF WHY I HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING BEHIND IT.
I DON'T THINK AN IN AND OUT, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT THERE, DEFINITELY HELPS ALLEVIATE CONGESTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE SAFEST WAY.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT POTENTIALLY BEING AN EMERGENCY EXIT AND GATED.
THAT THEREFORE KIND OF BRINGS THE CONCERN OF THAT NOISE AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT BACK PARKING LOT THAT WON'T BE MONITORED, THAT WON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TRAFFIC.
AGAIN, NOT TO MENTION JUST THE OVERALL CONGESTION OF THE PARKING LOT IF YOU ARE TRYING TO LEAVE.
AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THE SOLUTION FOR IT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF PART OF THE REASONING AS TO WHY I STRUGGLE WITH APPROVING WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CAVEAT OF REDESIGNING TRAFFIC FLOW PARKING, WHERE DO THEY PRESENT IT TO NEXT? WE DON'T SEE THAT.
MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH YOUR CONDITIONS AS YOU SEE FIT.
I'M HEARING A DISCUSSION AROUND THE PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC, SO AN APPROPRIATE CONDITION COULD BE TO ASK FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY TO KIND OF EXPLORE PARKING SAFETY, MANEUVERABILITY, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
ESPECIALLY IT WOULD NEED TO BE RECONSIDERED, OR AT LEAST CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY BECAUSE OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY, AS WELL AS A FRIDAY, KNOWING THAT CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN ARE MOST LIKELY COMING ANYWAYS DUE TO THE COUNTY COMMENTS.
SO THE NEXT STEPS AFTER YOUR RECOMMENDATION, WHATEVER SCOPE IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL TENTATIVELY FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY.
HOWEVER, IF THE APPLICANT HEARS COMMENTS FROM YOU OR HEARS COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY AND IS WORKING TO MAKE AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY CAN OPT TO EXTEND THEIR REVIEW PERIOD AND PUSH THE MEETING AS THEY AMEND PLANS.
SO AS QUICKLY IT CAN GET TURNED AROUND TO THE JULY IF THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION AS IS.
IF THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE AMENDMENTS, IT'S AT THEIR DISCRETION IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND THAT REVIEW PERIOD TO DO SO.
WE ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ON MULTIPLE POINTS, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO TABLE.
THE ONLY THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE PARKING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WITH THESE RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS WHERE YOU CAN GO UP.
SPANNING OUT RIGHT THAT'S DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES OF IT BUT UH YOU KNOW YOU THINK OF A PARKING RAMP NOT SURE THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT NO WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST SLIGHTLY BUT THAT SOLVES A LOT OF PROBLEM FOR PARKING DO WE WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEN IT'S LIKE OKAY WELL WHO PAYS FOR IT DOES THAT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN CITY CITY MONEY INVOLVED YOU KNOW BUT BECAUSE AGAIN IF THIS IS THE BEST SITE FOR IT WHICH I THINK I THINK IT IS THE BEST SITE FOR JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF BEING ABLE TO SHARE RESOURCES, YOU CAN HAVE SHARED EQUIPMENT, SHARED MAINTENANCE, ALL THOSE THINGS.
AND THEN IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL THEN YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS WITH SCRUTINY AND GO, OKAY, WELL THEN WHAT MAKES IT WORK? AND IS A PARKING RAMP SOLVE THE PARKING? WELL, YES, BUT IS THAT WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT? PROBABLY NOT.
MAYBE A ROW OF CARS IS PROBABLY BETTER.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANOTHER OPTION THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED WITH THE WATERSHED? AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANSWER THAT TONIGHT.
AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I THINK WE COULD, WE'VE GIVEN ENOUGH DISCUSSION.
IT'S ON RECORD THE COUNCIL CAN DO IT.
I THINK IF WE PUT A RECOMMENDATION IN THERE FOR POSSIBLE REVISING, A STUDY ON THE PARKING AND A STUDY ON THE TRUCK, THEY CAN GO GET THOSE.
TO GET OUT OF DECORUM, BUT IF I MAY, JUST ONE SECOND, ONE OTHER THING.
SPEAKING OF TRYING TO KEEP THINGS MOVING, WHEN YOU TABLE SOMETHING, THAT STOPS THE CLOCK AT 30 DAYS.
THAT MEANS IT HAS TO COME BACK TO US.
IF WE DECISION IT, THEN IT CAN GO BACK TO COUNCIL.
AND STAFF, PLEASE INTERRUPT ME AND TELL ME I'M WRONG WHERE I AM.
BUT IF WE DECISION IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT HAS THE CHANCE TO GO TO COUNCIL.
AND IF COUNCIL WANTS TO BRING IT BACK TO US BASED ON INFORMATION, THEY CAN DO SO.
BUT IF WE TABLE IT, IT HAS TO COME BACK TO US BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL, CORRECT? TRUE.
SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY STOP THE REVIEW CLOCK IN ORDER TO TABLE IT.
WE ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME AS PART OF OUR REVIEW TO DO SO.
[03:40:01]
IT WOULD COME STRAIGHT BACK TO YOU.IT WOULD JUST STAY AT YOUR LEVEL.
IF YOU PUT IT UP TO COUNCIL AND NEW INFORMATION COMES AND THEY WANT A RE-REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO ALWAYS SEND IT BACK TO YOU AFTER THEY DELIBERATE.
I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE US TO DECISION THIS INSTEAD OF TWO TABLES.
AND I AGREE, AND I THINK I CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF, INCLUDING A BORDER, A PARKING STUDY REVIEW, AND A TRAFFIC REVIEW TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL.
IS THAT A FORMAL? IT'S FORMAL.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY WILSON.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE AS APPLIED BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONTINGENCIES AND ALL THE OTHERS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND EVERYTHING ELSE I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT ALL INTO ONE.
A LONG LIST OF CONTINGENCIES THAT ARE OUTLINED.
ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO ADD TO THAT MOTION? ANY OTHER CONTINGENCIES OR SPECIFICITY? COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU BROUGHT INTO THIS TRAFFIC? MOTION TO APPROVE IS APPLIED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO I BELIEVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WERE CITY ENGINEER SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO SATISFY THE CITY ENGINEER.
APPLICANT SHOULD OBTAIN REQUIRED APPROVALS.
OKAY, SO THE EXTRA ONES ARE A PARKING STUDY.
I THOUGHT THOSE WERE ALREADY INCLUDED.
YOUR PARKING STUDY? PARKING AND TRAFFIC? PARKING AND TRAFFIC.
SO IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY YOUR MOTION, BECAUSE IS THIS ALSO A MOTION ON SIGNAGE SIZE? IT WOULD BE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE ALL THE VARIANCES.
WITH THE STIPULATION OF HAVING A TRAFFIC STUDY.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, BECAUSE YOU MADE THE MOTION, WHAT IS THIS TRAFFIC STUDY GOING TO GIVE US? I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF, LIKE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, I'M SPEAKING WITH...
MANAGEMENT OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT.
IF WE'RE APPROVING IT, SO WE WANT TO PULL THAT VARIANCE.
SAYING IF IT MEETS PARKING, IT MEETS PARKING.
IF IT MEETS PARKING, IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE, WHICH THEY DO, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
CITY COUNCIL CAN REVIEW IT AND THEY CAN MAKE ANOTHER DECISION.
AS LONG AS THEY'VE GOT THE WALL, AS LONG AS THEY'VE GOT THE VEGETATION THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED.
THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
MY REAL CONCERN IS A LOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE PARKING LOT CAN ACCOMMODATE FIRE TRUCKS, CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING AND GOING AT THE SAME TIME, IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING LOT ITSELF.
WE'RE APPROVING IT, SO WE'RE NOT REQUIRING A TRAFFIC STUDY.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT FOR COUNCIL'S REVIEW.
I DON'T MEAN TO ASK YOU TO AMEND YOUR OWN MOTION, BUT IF WE MIGHT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT IN THE PLAN, BUT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO INCLUDE IN THAT NO LIT? YES, I APOLOGIZE.
NO OUTWARDLY LIT SIGNAGE ON ANY OF THE SIDES.
MY CONCERN ON NOT JUST THE WEST BUT ALSO THE NORTH.
OUTWARDLY LIT BUT NOT LIT IN GENERAL.
NO LIKE NEON BRIGHT SHOOTING OUT LIGHT.
NO OUTWARD PROJECTING LIGHT I THINK WOULD BE...
SO WE ALLOW BACKLIT SIGNS AND THEN WE ALLOW LIKE SIGNAGE TO HAVE LIKE DOWNCAST.
YEAH, SO NOT A MARATHON GAS STATION SIGN.
WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED ANYWAYS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.
WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THE BACKLIT.
INTERNAL ILLUMINATION VERSUS BACKLIT BY...
HALO LIGHTING WOULD BE WHAT YOU'RE DEFINING.
AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I'VE, IN OTHER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, THAT'S WHAT DEFINES HALO
[03:45:01]
LIGHTING OR DOWNWARD PROJECTING LIGHTING WHERE IT LIGHTS UP FROM AN EXTERIOR LIGHT.BUT EITHER WAY, I THINK THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER WELDON SAYS.
MY HOPE IS TO AVOID ANY OUTWARD PROJECTING LIGHT.
BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION, MINUTE.
BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS HAVE THAT SET.
IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN AND IF THE COUNTY DENIES ACCESS, AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE TO HAVE TYPICALLY IN AND OUT BASED ON SIZE.
IS THAT A REQUIREMENT ON THIS SITE, OR CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH THE ONE IN AND OUT? THAT WILL COME DOWN TO THE REVIEW OF THE FIRE CHIEF AND EMERGENCY SERVICES.
SO THIS WILL BE GOING THROUGH THAT REVIEW PROCESS.
WE HOPE TO HAVE COMMENTS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER, BUT IT WILL BE GOING THROUGH THE PD AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW EMERGENCY ACCESS.
BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO ACCESSES IN THERE, THAT THAT TYPICALLY IS MET WITH THAT MANEUVERABILITY, BUT IF THAT NORTHERN ACCESS IS REMOVED, THAT WOULD BE A REVIEW POINT FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE.
COMMISSIONER VANDENBERG, MY WORDS ARE NOT VERY GOOD.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THOSE PROTECTIONS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SOLVE, RIGHT? SO IF IT MEETS PARKING, IT'S GOING TO STILL NEED TO MEET THE FIRE, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO TURN EMERGENCY VEHICLES AROUND.
IF IT NEEDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, IT ALSO NEEDS TO MEET WATERSHED DISTRICTS.
SO WE CAN HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO ADJUDICATE BECAUSE THOSE OTHER AGENCIES THAT ARE IN PLACE HELP US TO TAKE THAT OFF OF OUR PLATES.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION BECAUSE IT DOES HELP, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMITMENT TO DISCUSSION.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
I DO, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, BECAUSE IT'S A BIT CONFUSING.
YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE ALL THE VARIANCES, EVEN THE WESTERN SIDE PARKING 50-FOOT VARIANCE.
THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
AS LONG AS THEY FENCE IT AND VEGETATION ON IT, SO THAT IT CAN SHIELD THE NEIGHBORS FROM IT.
IF EVERYTHING IN THERE MEETS PARKING AND TRAFFIC.
I THINK WE PULLED THE PARKING OFF OF THE APPROVAL.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT FOR YOUR MOTION, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, AND THERE'S SO MUCH THAT WE CAN'T DECIDE AS A GROUP BECAUSE OF THE FIRE, BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH MODIFYING THAT MOTION TO PULL THAT PARKING PORTION OF IT? WHAT HAPPENS IF WE...
YOU CAN AMEND YOUR MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THAT SETBACK AND THEN WITH THE CONDITIONS OF GETTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND AN UPDATED SCREENING OR LANDSCAPING INFORMATION OR LIGHTING INFORMATION, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE IDENTIFIED.
SO IT WOULD BE RECOMMEND MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND WITH IDENTIFIED CONDITIONS.
SEPARATELY NOT NOT AS A SEPARATE MOTION, BUT AS A SEPARATE STATEMENT A DENIAL AND IT STILL GOES TO COUNCIL TO MAKE A FINAL YES YEP, A DENIAL STILL GOES TO COUNCIL AS ONE BIG ACTION AND YOU CAN KNOWING THIS DISCUSSION IT CAN BE PRESENTED THAT THAT WAS THIS FOR CLARITY FOR THE APPLICANT THAT DENIAL WOULD JUST WOULD BE THE DENIAL AS PRESENTED TONIGHT, SO IF YOU MADE ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL, THEY COULD CHOOSE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT ANYWAY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
SO KNOWING THAT, YES, I WOULD AMEND AND DENY THE PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT.
WE'VE MADE A LOT OF VALUE FOR THE COUNCIL.
IS IT THE PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE OR THE SIDE STRUCTURE VARIANCE? THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GET TO.
MY OPINION WAS I WAS IN SUPPORT OF IT AS APPLIED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF HAS A 62-FOOT SETBACK AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 10-FOOT STRUCTURE OR A 10-FOOT SETBACK OF THE PARKING LOT.
BUT EITHER WAY, MY MOTION IS TO DENY THE SETBACK.
THE SIDE YARD OR THE PARKING SETBACK? THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PARKING LOT.
[03:50:01]
WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS.AND SO ARE THEY WHO ARE STILL HERE.
DO WE HAVE AN OPINION ON THE 62 FEET SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING AS OPPOSED TO 50 AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 10 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PARKING? I THINK WE'VE HAD THE CONVERSATION.
OKAY, IF IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO HERE, THEN THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO GO ON THE RECORD TO SAY WHAT OUR OPINION IS OF THAT.
AND I THINK THAT, APOLOGIES, I THINK WE'VE MADE THAT STATEMENT IN THE MEETING NOTES FOR THE COUNCIL TO SEE THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON YOU JUSTIFIED IT BECAUSE IT'S 67.
MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WISH, WE COULD EACH STATE OUR OPINION.
I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ITEM, AND IT MIGHT NOT COME BACK TO US.
SO IF WE IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR PARKING I WANT IT TO BE KNOWN IF WE IF WE FEEL LIKE IT'S MITIGATED BECAUSE 62 FEET INSTEAD OF 50 FOR STRUCTURE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT DEFINED IN OUR CODE THEN IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYBODY FEELS ABOUT THAT AS FAR AS A GOVERNING GUIDING BODY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THE COUNCIL DO JUST GUESS HOW WE FEEL BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION BUT I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY'S STUCK THEIR FOOT I PUT MY FOOT IN THE GROUND AND SAID THAT LIKE 62 IS A GOOD MITIGATE INSTEAD OF 50 HAVE PARKING IN THERE BECAUSE I AS A NEIGHBOR I WOULD ENJOY HAVING FEET BUFFER FROM BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE.
I'D BE WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME PARKING AND PROPERLY THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED IN THEIR APPLICATION LOVE TO HEAR ANYBODY ELSE'S PERSON.
LET'S START AND WE'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE.
SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE CODE AND HOW IT'S WRITTEN, THE PARKING LOT IS CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE.
I THINK IT'S INTENTIONALLY WRITTEN THAT WAY.
I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION WHETHER THE 12TH, IF THEY DECIDE TO MOVE THE BUILDING UP TO THE 50-FOOT LINE, I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT.
I THINK WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS THE INTENSIFIED USE OF THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
TRAFFIC IN AND OUT, JUST PARKED THERE VERSUS A WALL OF A BUILDING THAT MIGHT BE CLOSER THAN CARS THAT ARE NOW FIVE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD IS ON THAT ONE.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S HOW THE CODE'S WRITTEN.
WE SHOULD BE STICKING TO THE CODE UNLESS THERE'S A CLEAR NEED FOR THAT VARIANCE.
AND I DON'T SEE THE CLEAR NEED FOR THAT VARIANCE.
IT ALSO FIXES THE ISSUE WITH THE SCREENING ON THAT SIDE.
IT FIXES THE ISSUE WITH THE LIGHTING ON THAT SIDE.
BECAUSE YOU WON'T NEED PARKING LOT LIGHTS IF THERE'S NO PARKING LOT THERE.
SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE WORRYING ABOUT, OUR CODE IS EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE ABOUT THE LIGHT SPILLAGE.
THAT'S NOT POINT ONE, THAT'S NOTHING.
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU GET THAT IF YOU HAVE A PARKING LOT ON THAT SIDE.
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN MEET THAT PIECE OF THE CODE.
IT HAS TO BE UNDETECTABLE LIGHT, THAT'S JUST THE WAY OUR CODE IS WRITTEN.
DO I AGREE WITH IT? STICK WITH THE RULES THAT WE HAVE.
THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING MY HEAD.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE REST OF THE PIECES.
I ESSENTIALLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BALLAS, AND MY HEAD GOES TO THE SCREENING SECURITY LIGHT POLLUTION AND NOISE POLLUTION THAT WERE VOICED BY THE NEIGHBORS.
ALL OF THAT GOES AWAY IF THAT STRIP OF PARKING IS NO LONGER THERE.
YEAH, I'LL MAKE MY COMMENT SHORT.
BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT BOTH COMMISSIONERS JUST STATED.
JUST FROM THE GET-GO OF THIS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION WENT FIRST TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE IN THIS QUORUM THE PARKING LOT ISSUE, BUT THOSE ARE GREAT POINTS.
IF THE PARKING LOT WAS RELOCATED, IT MITIGATES ALL OF THE RISKS FOR THE TRAFFIC ISSUES, THE LIGHT, ENCROACHMENT.
TOWARDS THE PROPERTY LINE, ETC.
SO I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONERS.
I STRUGGLE WITH THE PARKING ON THAT SIDE AND THE SETBACK.
I NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE.
I CAN'T REDESIGN SOMETHING BETTER.
I PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE COMMUNITY, THE STUDIES, AND SAY, WE NEED PARKING, THIS IS THE BEST PLACE FOR PARKING, WE WILL MITIGATE THOSE.
[03:55:21]
SLOW IT DOWN SO IT CAN COME BACK TO US SO WE CAN HAVE IT.I'D LIKE TO ADD ONE CLARIFYING POINT.
I AM NOT SAYING WE DON'T NEED THOSE PARKING SPOTS.
I'M SAYING I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD BE ON THAT WESTERN LOT LINE.
YEP, AND I THINK I SENSE THAT FROM EVERYBODY.
THAT'S WHY I KIND OF TOOK AND SAID WE CAN'T REDESIGN IT HERE.
WE COULD SPEND ALL NIGHT TRYING TO REDESIGN IT, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR JOB.
WESTERLY PARKING SETBACK, I AM NOT IN APPROVAL OF THE 10-FOOT THAT IS PROPOSED.
I THINK THE 50-FOOT THAT IS PROPOSED OR IS REQUIRED IS NECESSARY, AND I THINK THE 62-FOOT BUILDING THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED IS A RESULT OF THEM TRYING TO GET PARKING IN, WHICH I APPRECIATE, THE 62-FOOT, BUT I'M NOT IN APPROVAL OF THE 10-FOOT PARKING.
I AGREE I'M NOT IN THE APPROVAL OF THE 10-FOOT PARKING, AND I THINK HAVING A NARROW PARKING SPOT LIKE THAT, I HEAR THE KIDS HONKING THEIR HORNS AND SCREAMING DURING THE SUMMER AND RIGHT AFTER SPORTING EVENTS.
AND IF YOU HAVE ONE PRIVATE ROW RIGHT THERE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE OF THAT THAT CAN GO ON VERY EASILY.
SO NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THAT ALL SORTED OUT, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
THE MOTION IS TO MOVE AS APPLIED WITH THE CONDITION OF DENIAL FOR THE PARKING.
DONE ON THAT FOR CITY COUNCIL.
IF THEY WANT THIS TO COME BACK TO US, THEY CAN, BUT OTHERWISE IT ALLOWS THEM TO CONTINUE ON AND BE HEARD ON IT.
MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT SINCE WE'RE GOING ON THE RECORD, I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD BE MORE IN FAVOR OF BEING MORE OF PARKING VARIANTS OF NUMBER OF SPACES.
THAN THE PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE.
BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ENTIRE SCHOOL CAMPUS WHERE THERE'S PARKING AT THE BASEBALL FIELDS, THERE'S PARKING.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T ADD SOME SPOTS, BUT I'M SAYING I'D BE MORE IN FAVOR OF SAYING YOU GOT 250 SPOTS.
I THINK I'D GET BEHIND THAT VARIANCE MORE THAN I WOULD GET BEHIND THE VARIANCE OF HAVING THE PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
I'D LIKE TO SEE, I'M JUST SAYING, THERE'S FLEXIBILITY THERE.
ALL RIGHT, SO I THINK WE'VE FRAMED IT UP PRETTY WELL.
THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR THE DISCUSSION.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OTHERWISE, LET'S CALL THIS TO A VOTE.
WAS THERE A SECOND? THERE WAS A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER ROYAL, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? OKAY, MOTION CARRIES.
[6) Other Items]
I'LL LET STAFF DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANTS HOW THE NEXT STEPS GO, BUT I THINK IT'S HELPFUL, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S INPUT.SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THEIR WORK.
OKAY, OTHER ITEMS? JUST A FEW GENERAL UPDATES.
THE COUNCIL HAS SEEN A HANDFUL OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE PASSED THROUGH.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE LAST MONTH OR SO, THEY REVIEWED A FINAL PLAT FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OFF FOX STREET.
THE VARIANCE, AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE ON BOWLES POINT, THEY ALSO LOOKED AT THE NORTH ARM BOAT LANDING AND 1100 MILSTEAD.
ALL OF THOSE WERE RECOMMENDED WITH APPROVAL WITH VARIOUS CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS AND AMENDMENTS, BUT JUST AS AN UPDATE OF THEM WORKING THROUGH THOSE FOLLOWING YOUR FEEDBACK.
THE CITY DID HOST A COMP PLAN OPEN HOUSE LAST WEEK.
JUST THAT WILL BE KICKING OFF HERE, AND WE'LL BE PUTTING TOGETHER A STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THAT, WHERE IF YOUR NEIGHBORS AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE INTERESTED, I WILL BE PUSHING OUT APPLICATIONS FOR THAT THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH THEM TO JOIN.
BUT I ALSO WILL BE ASKING IN THE FUTURE HERE AT A MEETING IF THERE'S ANY INTERESTED PARTIES IN JOINING AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPRESENTATIVE, AS A PROBABLY...
I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT IF I WANT TWO COMMISSIONERS OR IF I WANT ONE AND AN ALTERNATE, BUT JUST TO START THINKING ABOUT IF THERE'S ANY INTEREST THERE, PROBABLY LATER THIS SUMMER I'LL BE ASKING FOR AN ACTION FROM APPOINT SOMEBODY TO JOIN THAT COMMISSION.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL KEEP IT SHORT.
[04:00:06]
DISCUSSION? SAY AYE.AYE. AYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.