[1) Call to Order] [00:00:03] WELCOME TO THE MONDAY, JULY 20TH MEETING OF THE ORDO PLANNING COMMISSION. WE STARTED OUR MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN. THANK YOU. [3) Approval of Agenda] FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. IF I COULD HAVE A MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLLIS, SECOND BY JARNOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. [4.1) Planning Commission Minutes of June 15, 2026] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 15TH, 2026 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION, IF I MAY. MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION BY PRCHAL. SECOND. SECOND BY BRANDABUR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. CARRIES. [5.1) LA26-000014, Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney)] CARRYING ON UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 5.1, WHICH IS LA 26-000014, WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH MR. CARNEY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS MATT CARNEY. FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH ME, I'LL BE WALKING THROUGH A FEW PRESENTATIONS TONIGHT, THE FIRST BEING AT 200 WOODHILL ROAD, WHICH IS THE ORONO SIDE OF THE WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ANYTIME THERE IS WHAT WE CONSIDER AN INTENSIFICATION OF A USE, AN EXPANSION OF BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, PERHAPS AN EXPANSION OF AMENITIES THAT MIGHT NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO THE SITE, TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WILL ULTIMATELY COVER THE NEW CONDITIONS OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS A REDESIGN OF THEIR SOUTHERN CAMPUS AREA. MAINLY TO REDESIGN THEIR PARKING FACILITIES WITH SOME DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS NEAR THEIR STORM POND, AS WELL AS TO MODIFY A HISTORIC ACCESS CONDITION REGARDING WOODHILL AVENUE AS WELL. SO IN TERMS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, PRETTY MUCH WHAT I HAVE ENCAPSULATED IN THIS AERIAL VIEW IS THE AREA OF WORK, MORE OR LESS. WE HAVE ALMOST LIKE AN ACCESS LOOP OF SORTS THAT GOES REALLY AROUND THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS LAWN AND A SOUTH SIDE THAT GOES REALLY ADJACENT TO THE STORM POND WITH SOME ANCILLARY PARKING FACILITIES IN BETWEEN AND THIS WILL THIS IS ULTIMATELY THE DEMOLITION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT THAT SHOWS THE SITE PLAN VERSION OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IN TERMS OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS WALKING THROUGH WHAT THE ANTICIPATED USE OF THIS AREA WILL BE IS FORMALIZING THE PARKING AREA, PROVIDING STRIPED ASPHALT PARKING SPACES AS WELL AS PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES SUCH AS CROSSWALKS AND ADDITIONAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AS WELL AS A MORE FORMAL PARKING SETTING DOWN BY THEIR WARMING BUILDING CLOSER TO THE POND FOR SOME OF THEIR WINTER ACTIVITIES. AND REMOVING THAT SOUTHERN ACCESS PORTION THAT WAS ADJACENT TO THE STORM POND, REALLY TO OPEN IT UP FOR EVENTS AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN THAT AREA THAT HAS OTHERWISE BEEN DIFFICULT WITH THE ACCESS BEING LOCATED THERE. BUT THIS IS REALLY THE SCOPE OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. HOWEVER, NOT ON THIS SHEET, I WILL NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME LIGHTING FIXTURES PROPOSED IN THE PARKING LOT AS WELL, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING TOO MUCH OF A LIGHT. SPILLOVER, NOT EVEN 20 OR 30 FEET BEYOND THE PARKING AREA AS WELL. AND WE'RE LOOKING, I WANT TO SAY, 70 OR 80 FEET TO THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS ALSO A WOODHILL-OWNED PROPERTY AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR. CARNEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAVE ONE FOR CLARIFICATION. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE SOME MORE TO GO THROUGH. OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SUMMARIZING IN FINALS. NO. DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. GO AHEAD. YOU'RE GOOD. REGARDING THE CONDITION TO WOODHILL AVENUE, I WILL ASK THAT THE COMMISSION REQUEST SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE CHANGES TO THIS CONDITION. IN THE STAFF REPORT, I PROPOSED A RATHER GENERIC CONDITION OF SORTS BASED ON WHAT WAS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICANT'S COVER LETTER, BUT ADDITIONAL DETAILS SUCH AS HOURS OF OPERATION, WHO WOULD BE USING THIS ACCESS AS WELL AS [00:05:03] A NUMBER OF OTHER PERTINENT DETAILS AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE DISCUSSED TO REALLY SET THE PARAMETERS FOR A FUTURE CONDITION. BUT WHAT I HAVE SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN IS CONDITIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE MOST RECENT CUP DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS ACCESS. AND REALLY I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT IS UNDER REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION. SO IN SUMMARY, THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REALLY HAS TWO PRONGS IN TERMS OF THEIR REQUEST. IN TERMS OF THE PARKING LOT REDESIGN AND HOW THEY'RE REWORKING THAT AREA IS A TRIGGER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WELL. BUT ADDITIONALLY, THEIR REQUEST TO MODIFY A HISTORIC CONDITION OF APPROVAL FROM OVER 25 YEARS AGO AT THIS POINT AS WELL. SO THAT WILL BE THE BALANCE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. I WILL NOTE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS, OR TWO OF THE THINGS, THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED THIS EVENING ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED TODAY, BOTH BY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ALONG WOODHILL AVENUE, AND I BELIEVE THEY MAY BE HERE TO SPEAK AS WELL. ADDITIONALLY, OUR STAFF WILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS IT MEETS THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AS IT WOULD PERTAIN TO A GOLF COURSE IN OUR R1B ZONING. AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICATION WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 10TH. THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS NOW, CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OF COURSE. I'LL ASK AGAIN. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN YOU PULL UP THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LANGUAGE ONE MORE TIME? YEAH. THANK YOU. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD, SO ON E ON THE LEFT SIDE, IT SAYS FOR PRIVATE PASSENGER VEHICLES BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 AND 8 DURING THOSE DAYS THAT THE CLUB IS OPEN. ON THE RIGHT SIDE, CLARIFYING WHAT THE CUP DOES NOT COVER IS GENERAL PUBLIC. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT GUESTS OF MEMBERS OR STAFF? IT'S ONLY TO BE USED BY MEMBERS RIGHT NOW, NOT GUESTS OF MEMBERS OR STAFF. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY, THANK YOU. I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT SHOULD CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. AND YOU MENTIONED, I JUST WANTED TO CALL OUT, IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, THE SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR SOME OF THE... I BELIEVE THE SETBACK THAT WAS BEING OPERATED PREVIOUSLY WITH THE PARKING LOT WAS OVER 200 FEET, AND THAT WAS THAT. GRAVEL PORTION THAT'S DOWN ON THE SOUTHERN BUT WITH THAT NEW PORTION OF PARKING LOT THAT DOES EXTEND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE SOUTH THAT'S STILL RESULTS IN THE SETBACK OF MY CORRECTION 110 FEET 110. OKAY, AND THEN NO FURTHER HEARING NONE. THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE TOPIC, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE DO ASK THAT TONIGHT IS A LENGTHIER MEETING, SO NORMALLY WE KIND OF ASSUME IT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO JUST CALL OUT THAT WE TYPICALLY ASK THAT PEOPLE TRY TO KEEP THEIR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. MR. CHAIR, ISN'T THE APPLICANT SUPPOSED TO SPEAK FOLLOWING STAFF? BOY, I'M OUT OF SORTS TODAY. YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT I'LL FINISH THE COMMENTS ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN WE'LL ASK THE TIME. YEAH, PLEASE. THANK YOU. AFTER EIGHT YEARS, YOU'D THINK I'D HAVE SOME DECORUM FIGURED OUT, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. ALL RIGHT, SO FINISHING THE THOUGHT ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S A LONGER MEETING, SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO TRY TO ASK IS IF YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT, ENFORCE A PREVIOUS COMMENT, YOU CAN STATE THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESTATE IT. TRY TO KEEP IT TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. IF YOU'RE ABLE TO, WE WOULD APPRECIATE. BUT WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE WITH THAT BEING SAID IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS BRIAN EDMISTON. I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER AT WOODY HILL COUNTRY CLUB. THANKS TO MR. CARNEY AND THE CITY STAFF FOR THEIR THOROUGH EXPLANATION ON THAT AND THE WORK DONE TO THIS POINT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, FOR TAKING THE TIME. TWO MAIN REQUESTS TONIGHT ARE THE PARKING LOT ADDITION. AND WOODHILL AVENUE ACCESS ADJUSTMENT. SO PARKING LOT QUICK FRAMING ON THAT, NOT A NEW USE, JUST AN ELEVATION OF WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING IN OUR PROPERTY. CONVERTS UNIMPROVED OR GRAVEL PARKING INTO A MORE FINISHED PERMANENT AREA AND SERVES OUR [00:10:02] MEMBERS AND GUESTS TO ACCESSING OUR LOWER CAMPUS FACILITIES IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. IMPROVES FORM, FUNCTION, LOOK, FEEL IN THAT PART OF OUR CAMPUS. SO PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY FOR THE PARKING, BUT HAPPY TO TOUCH MORE INFORMATION ON THAT IF NEEDED. WOODHILL AVENUE ACCESS. THE FRAMING ON THAT IS REALLY DRIVEN TOWARDS SAFETY. SO IN MY A LITTLE OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS AT WOODHILL, I'VE BEEN APPROACHED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT ACCESS AND HAVING TO DRIVE OUT TO COUNTY ROAD 15, WHICH IS GETTING BUSIER ALONG WITH THE BIKE TRAIL, BUT TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA, IT'S A HARD ROAD TO NAVIGATE. SO MEMBERS WE HAVE, THEY LIVE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AREA, HAVING THAT OPTION TO EXIT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE MEANINGFUL IN A SAFETY CAPACITY. THERE IS INCREASING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, NAVIGATING THERE IS TROUBLESOME. AGAIN IN THE WINTER WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE SLIPPERY IT ALSO ADDS SOME COMPLEXITY TO THAT SPACE AND BECAUSE YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW WE DO LIMIT THAT BACK GATE OR THE WOOD HILL AT CLUB OPERATING HOUR P.M. THAT WERE REMAIN THE SAME IT'S JUST WE WOULD ADD INCOMING WOULD HAVE EXIT AS WELL SO TO A TRAFFIC DURING THOSE COLLABORATIONAL TIMES SO A QUESTION WAS CALLED OUT WHO WOULD HAVE ACCESS THAT WOULD BE MEMBERS MEMBERS PRIMARILY WOULD EXIT THAT WE DO HAVE SIGNAGE THERE THERE WILL BE MEMBERS AND STAFF, BUT STAFF IS REALLY REROUTED IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. WE WOULD CUT THAT RESTRICTION AND JUST HAVE MEMBERS AT THE BACK GATE. WE HAVE SIGNAGE IN THE AREA THAT SAYS PRIVATE ROAD AND MEMBERS ONLY. WE HAVE GATES INPUTTED THAT ARE ON A SCHEDULED TIMER RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD CLOSE, OPERATE OUTSIDE THE WINDOWS WE DISCUSSED. AND WE ALSO HAVE CAMERA IN THE SURVEILLANCE AND TO MONITOR IT IN THAT. SO HOURS WE TOUCHED ON. THE TEMPORARY EXEMPTION WOULD BE ANYTIME COUNTY ROAD 15 MAY BE IN AN OUTLYING INCIDENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION OR SOMETHING THAT BLOCKS THAT, WHERE SAFETY AND EGRESS IS MEANINGFUL. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WHERE IF WE KNEW AHEAD OF TIME, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST TO THE CITY. SO IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED IN THAT AREA, GRAVEL I THINK WOULD BE MEANINGFUL TO STRENGTHEN THE SHOULDERS. THAT ROAD IS QUITE NARROW AS IT CURRENTLY IS. WOULD ADD SOME GRAVEL TO ACCOMMODATE THE WE WOULD HAVE TWO-WAY TRAFFIC COMING IN AND GOING, AND WE DO HAVE SOME SIGHT LINES THERE, SO UNDERBRUSH COULD BE CLEARED BY OUR TEAM TO CLEAR THAT OUT JUST TO MAKE IT MEANINGFUL ON OUR PROPERTY LINES TO MAKE THE SAFE EXIT OF THAT PROPERTY FROM ITS CURRENT CONDITION. THANK YOU. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD, PLEASE GO AHEAD. I HAD A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE GATE ON WOODHILL AVENUE. YOU SAID IT IS LIMITED RIGHT NOW. IT WILL NOT GO UP AFTER 8 P.M.? CORRECT. IT'S ON A SCHEDULED TIMER. OKAY, BUT NO KEY CARD ACCESS IS REQUIRED, SO IF A GUEST WERE TO USE THAT ENTRANCE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THAT ENTRANCE? CURRENTLY, IN ITS CURRENT STATE, DURING THE OPERABLE HOURS, YES, A VEHICLE APPROACHING, IT WOULD RAISE FOR. OKAY, THAT'S IT FOR NOW. THANK YOU. RIGHT UP, YOU MENTIONED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 A.M. AND 8 P.M. IS THAT SOMETHING I'M JUST MISSING? I SEE, EXISTING CUP, IRC. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL MAYBE JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ON THE VOLUME IN TERMS OF... DAILY TRIPS THAT YOU GUYS GENERATE ON THE COUNTY ROAD 15 AS A TOTAL? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE DON'T CURRENTLY. WE DO HAVE SOME VIDEO ANALYTICS WE COULD LOOK AT THAT MEANINGFULLY BECAUSE ALL OF OUR INGRESS AND EGRESS CURRENTLY HAPPENS OR FOR SURE EXITING PROPERTY GOES TO THAT WAY. SO WE COULD TRACK THAT AND WE HAVE THE SAME CAMERA SETUP GOING IN THEIR BACK GATE. DO YOU HAVE ANY ROUGH ESTIMATE LIKE 10%, 30%, 50% OF WHAT MEMBERS YOU THINK WOULD UTILIZE THE NEW EXIT? I WOULD, JUST FROM THE REQUESTS I'VE GOTTEN, IT WOULD BE PRETTY MINIMAL, THOSE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. IT HASN'T BEEN A ROBUST NUMBER BY ANY MEANS. I'D HATE TO PUT A NUMBER ON IT. I COULD DO SOME RESEARCH ON ADDRESSES AND PROPERTY AND MAKE AN ASSUMPTION TO FOLLOW UP IN WRITING IF THAT WOULD HELP YOU. NO WORRIES. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE LIGHTING. WHAT DO YOU HAVE PLANNED FOR THE ADDITIONAL LIGHTING? THE LIGHTING FOR THE PARKING LOT? CORRECT. WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S 13 LIGHT FIXTURES GOING UP ON THAT CURVED LOOP GOING IN. I GUESS RIGHT THERE YOU'LL SEE THOSE CALLED OUT. THEY'RE KIND OF HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE'S LITTLE SA CIRCLES COMING INTO THE MAIN ROUTE IN AS WELL AS THE PARKING LOT. AND THAT'S THE PHOTOMETRIC SHOWN THERE. AND THE LIGHT CREEP BEYOND THE PARKING LOT IS MINIMAL. [00:15:01] IT FADES OUT VERY QUICKLY. THESE ARE THE WARM LIGHTING. IT'S DOWNLIT. IT IS NOT BIG AND BOLD. IT IS JUST... FOR AGAIN YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING AT NIGHT WHEN IT IS QUITE DARK IN THAT AREA. IS WOODHILL AVENUE CURRENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC? IT IS NOT. WE HAVE SIGNAGE UP THERE AND THE GATE THAT SAYS IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT IF I DROVE UP TO IT, THE GATE WOULD GO UP FOR ME, CORRECT? DURING THOSE TIMES, IT WOULD GO UP, BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF OUR SIGNAGE. DO YOU TRACK HOW OFTEN THAT HAPPENS? CURRENTLY, NO. IT'S RELATIVELY LOW USAGE, SO IT HASN'T BEEN A BIG ISSUE COMING IN. BUT WE DO HAVE, AGAIN, CAMERA SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO MONITOR THAT. AND I DO KNOW, I DID NOTICE THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, SO I ACTUALLY DROVE OUT THERE. GOOGLE TAKES YOU THERE IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE WEST. HAVE YOU TRIED TO REROUTE THE GOOGLE PIN AND WHERE IT IS AND MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT A ROAD FOR PUBLIC USE? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. GREAT IDEA TO GET INTO THAT TO REROUTE BECAUSE I KNOW DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, IT IS THE QUICKEST OPTION. EVEN GETTING HERE FROM IT ROUTES ME THAT WAY. EVERYONE JUST KIND OF A MEMBER STANDPOINT, BUT THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT, TO YOUR POINT. YEAH, THANKS. I ASSUME THAT GOES FOR AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE AFTER HOURS. THEY KNOW NOT TO TRY TO GO DOWN THAT AVENUE BECAUSE THE GATE MIGHT NOT BE OPEN. CORRECT. IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN. HOWEVER, THEY DO HAVE KEYED ACCESS. ALL EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT GATE AT ALL TIMES. ALL RIGHT, SO IN SUMMARY, I MEAN, REALLY, THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I MEAN, YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME MATH, SO THEN IT'S NOT DIFFICULT. I'VE BEEN IN THE AREA, SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE APPLICATION, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ADDRESSING KIND OF THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE. IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE. THANKS VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, NOW IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. HI, JANE DELANEY, 1315 WOODHILL AVENUE. I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1986, SO I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE IT WAS A DIRT ROAD. WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS... THAT I INCLUDED IN MY PACKET. AFTER I READ THE PACKET THAT WAS SENT OUT BY THE CITY, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF HISTORY IN THERE, HOW WE CAME FOR THIS ROAD TO BE OPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. THERE WAS A LAWSUIT, THERE WERE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED, THE CITY WAS INVOLVED, AND IT WAS A BIG STICKLER THING. SO I INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT I SENT, OLD COMMUNICATIONS AND LETTERS AND DOCUMENTATION, TRAFFIC STUDIES, ETC., THAT SUPPORT WHY WOODHILL AVENUE SHOULD NOT BE OPEN TWO WAYS, FIRST OF ALL, OR ONE WAY AT THE TIME. I MEAN, THE CITY, THE CLUB CAME IN AND JUST BULLDOZED A ROAD OPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT PERTAINS TO THIS TRAFFIC ON WOODHILL AVENUE. AND SO... I JUST WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE PARKING AND WHATNOT. I SEE THAT, I DO KNOW THAT THE CAPACITY FOR THE BARN OVER THE HILL WHERE THIS PARKING LOT IS, IS 160 PEOPLE. AND IF IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING MADE, THERE'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE MORE EVENTS THERE. I MEAN, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE PROMOTED. AND SOMEWHERE I SAW THAT THEY REFER TO THAT AS THEIR WINTER CAMPUS. SO MORE ACTIVITY BACK THERE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE LEVEL OF THIS ACTIVITY IS. BUT TO ME, IMPROVEMENTS, PARKING LOTS, LIGHTING, AND ALL THAT DEFINITELY POINTS TO MORE ACTIVITY THERE. SO HOW MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE, IF THE PLACE WAS FILLED TO CAPACITY, COME FROM THE WEST? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. TO THAT. AND OVER THE YEARS, THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS BEEN ABUSED REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER. DELIVERY TRUCKS, NEIGHBORS FROM UP ON SMITH ON ATVS, GOLF CARTS, GUESTS. [00:20:05] EMPLOYEES, I MEAN, I JUST THINK HANDING OUT A PASS TO THEM AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF VIOLATING THE CONDITIONS OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT RIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST, THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION. THE CLUB MANAGER STOOD UP HERE AND SAID THAT THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW MANY, VERY FEW. WELL, I CAN BE OUT IN MY YARD ON A SATURDAY NIGHT, AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON, WHATEVER THE EVENT IS, OR A DINNER, OR... A WEDDING, THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO THE BARN WHERE THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE. THEY COULD BE GOING TO THE CLUB, AND IT CAN BE CAR AFTER CAR AFTER CAR. SO WHATEVER, HOWEVER THAT NEEDS TO BE MONITORED NEEDS TO BE MONITORED BETTER. AND IN THE PAST, ANY COMPLAINTS TO THE CITY, THE CITY ALWAYS TURNED THEM BACK AND SAID, GO WORK WITH THE CLUB MANAGER, AND WE DID. AND THAT WAS SUCCESSFUL, BUT THE CLUB MANAGER CAN'T. STAND DOWN THERE AND MONITOR PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT. AND SO IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE MEMBERS' BEHAVIOR MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. SO THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED THE LENGTHY DOCUMENTS THAT I DID, BECAUSE IT'LL REALLY PAINT A PICTURE OF THE HISTORY AND HOW THIS WHOLE THING OPENED UP AND WHAT HAPPENED. SO IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, IT'S NOT VERY PEOPLE. I LIVE THERE, SO I CAN ATTEST TO THAT. AND THEN SAFETY HAS BEEN THE CARD THAT'S BEEN PLAYED FOR A LONG TIME. WE ALL HAVE TO DRIVE OUT. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF HOMES ON COUNTY ROAD 15. THERE ARE BUSINESSES WITHOUT ANY TURN LANES. WOODHILL ROAD HAS, I THINK IT WAS SOMEWHERE BEFORE 2000 WHEN THEY DID THE IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 15. THEY PUT IN TURN LANES BOTH WAYS. I MEAN, THERE ISN'T A SAFER SPOT. TO GET ON TO COUNTY ROAD 15, THEN WOODHILL ROAD. AND AT WOODHILL ROAD, THERE IS A 35-MILE-PER-HOUR WARNING SIGN, AND THAT'S THE ELECTRONIC, THE SOLAR ONE THAT GOES OFF. SO, YOU KNOW, GETTING OUT FROM ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I MEAN, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I DRIVE THERE ALL THE TIME. TAKING SAFETY AND DUMPING IT INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT FAIR, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE BEHAVIOR SINCE 1999. I THINK THAT'S REALLY ALL. I THINK THERE'S MORE IN MY LETTER AND MY NOTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MADISON 1230 WOODHILL. SO I'M RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THIS BACK. DOOR ENTRYWAY TO UH WOODHILL I'LL BE PERFECTLY HONEST I PREFER FROM TAKING ORNO OVER THERE BECAUSE THAT PROBABLY HAS TO BE THE MOST DANGEROUS INTERSECTION IN THE HISTORY OF ORNO IT'S ORNO OR ORCHARD SOUTH GETTING ONTO HIGHWAY 15. BECAUSE YOU GET THAT CORNER COMING THROUGH YOU GOT THE PEOPLE DRIVING AND THEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO HIT A BICYCLIST OR WHATNOT THE ENTRANCE YEAH, LIKE I SAID, THE ENTRANCE TO WOODHILL WOULD BE LIKE A DREAM. IN FACT, IT WOULD BE QUICKER FOR ME TO GET HOME. SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A DANGER. THAT'S JUST HOGWASH. I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON THERE WOULD BE ANY DANGER GETTING ONTO WOODHILL FROM SHORELINE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ENTRY AND EXIT MIDDLE LANES TO GET INTO IT. THE OTHER THING IS THAT I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, AS HE HAD MENTIONED, IT WAS FROM, WHAT, 7 IN THE MORNING OR 8 IN THE MORNING TO 8 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. I... I LIVE THERE, I WORK FROM HOME, SO I'M THERE CONSTANTLY. I KNOW IT GOES BEYOND, NOT THAT I'VE HAD AN ISSUE WITH IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IF I READ THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM 1999, YOU KNOW, THERE'S VIOLATION AFTER VIOLATION OF THAT. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE, I GUESS, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, LIKE SPEED BUMPS. THOSE AREN'T THERE. THAT WAS LIKE, I GUESS, AFFORDED TO IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I, IF I'M BACKING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, I WOULD RAM SOME, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE COMING THE OTHER DIRECTION, I KNOW NO ONE'S COMING THE OTHER DIRECTION NOW. AT LEAST I'M SUPPOSED TO KNOW. NO ONE'S COMING. THEY HAVE. BUT TYPICALLY, IT'S USUALLY, I GOT THREE DAUGHTERS THAT ARE, ONE'S OF DRIVING AGE, THE NEXT ONE'S OF DRIVING AGE IN ABOUT SIX MONTHS. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WILL BE PRETTY SOON AFTER THAT. AND I KNOW THEM BACKING OUT BECAUSE OF WHERE MY ENTRANCE GETTING ONTO MY PROPERTY IS. IT'S, WOODHILL IS IN A STRAIGHT LINE. IT KIND OF CURVES AROUND. SO IF I BACK IN, I WOULDN'T SEE ANYBODY. I'M NOT GOING TO PUT UP LIKE A MIRROR OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT ON MY PROPERTY JUST FOR LIKE HAVING AN ENTRANCE TO [00:25:01] A COUNTRY CLUB THAT SHOULD HAVE AN ENTRANCE, NOT THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD. AT LEAST. SO I JUST DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OR THE, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN THIS IS LIKE, YOU MENTIONED THIS WAS LIKE DONE THROUGH LAWYERS AND EVERYTHING IN LIKE EONS AGO. I MEAN, THIS WAS KIND OF SLIPPED INTO THE CONDITION OF USE PERMIT. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PARKING LOT. THAT'S FINE. BUT TO PUT THIS LIKE AS AN ENTRYWAY, I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST. I JUST SEE NO REASON FOR IT. AND I JUST THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE. PROPERTY OWNERS THAT PROBABLY PAY MORE TAXES THAN THE GOLF COURSE DOES GIVEN YOU KNOW SPECIAL BENEFITS GOLF COURSE GETS FOR OUR FREE TAXES THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANYONE ELSE WHICH IS TO BE HEARD ON THE TOPIC I'D SEEN NONE OF IT AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION OKAY, SO I THINK THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO DISSECT HERE. DO WE HAVE ANY OPINIONS OR COMMENTS JUST ABOUT THE ACTUAL CHANGES ABOUT THE PARKING LOT BEING ADDED, SETBACKS INVOLVED WITH THOSE THINGS? DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN OPINION POSITION? I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT ARE APPLICANT. YEAH. YOU HAD MADE COMMENTS ABOUT CAMERAS. MONITORING LICENSE PLATES ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE LOGGING THE LICENSE PLATES ARE YOU REVIEWING THE LICENSE PLATES THAT GO THROUGH THERE DAILY AND WHAT KIND OF ACTIONS ARE YOU TAKING TO THE PEOPLE THAT GO THROUGH THERE THAT ARE NOT THE BACK GATE ACTUALLY IS GETTING INSTALLED TODAY OR THIS WEEK IT'S GETTING POWER HOOKED UP FRONT GATE WE HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY UH THE BACK GATE THE WOODHILL AVENUE WILL BE INSTALLED THIS WEEK WE HAVE OTHER CAMERAS THAT ARE STILL THEY'RE NOT LICENSE PLATE READING CAMERAS THEY'RE JUST GENERAL SECURITY CAMERAS WE DO NOT HAVE LICENSE PLATE READING TECHNOLOGY TO BACK IT YET. BUT THE PLAN IS TO HAVE? THIS WEEK. AND IT'S GOING TO ALERT YOU WHEN NON-REGISTERED PLATES GO THROUGH? YES, IT COULD. IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME PROCESSING TO GET THERE. YOU HAVE TO TRACK EVERYONE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THERE SO YOU CAN FLAG WHO'S NOT. IT'LL TAKE A LITTLE BIT, BUT YES, THAT'S THE PLAN. AND THEN DO YOU HAVE A POLICY OR PLAN IN PLACE ON HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS LICENSE PLATES THAT GO THROUGH THAT WEREN'T APPROVED? NOT FULLY VETTED OUT THIS TIME WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO IF IT'S A FREQUENT ABUSER OF THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD PARTNER WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE AREA IF IT'S NEEDED, IF IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TRESPASS, OR HOW WE MANAGE THAT IN THE NEXT STEP UP FROM A WAR. THEN HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT ABOUT PUTTING VISOR TAGS SO THAT IT DOESN'T JUST AUTOMATICALLY OPEN, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER? YEAH, GOOD POINT. WE'VE INVESTIGATED THAT. THERE IS A PRETTY GOOD CAPITAL INVESTMENT TO DO THAT, AS WELL AS IF MEMBERS FORGET THEIR CARD, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT THERE, THAT IT CAUSES COMPLEXITIES FOR STAFF TO GO MANUALLY OPEN OR OPERATE OR HAVE THAT POSITION POSTED AND STAFFED. WE'VE LOOKED INTO THAT. WE THOUGHT WE'RE GOING TO LEVERAGE TECHNOLOGY IN THIS INSTANCE WITH TRACKING LICENSE PLATE AND THEN GO TO NEXT STEP AS NEEDED IF COMPLEXITIES ARISE. SO I JUST HEARD TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. YOU SAID THAT THE GAME WAS INSTALLED THIS WEEK. CAMERAS. CAMERAS WERE INSTALLED. AND THEN THE ABILITY TO READ LICENSE PLATE IS BEING DONE, AND IT WILL PROHIBIT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LICENSE PLATE THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE SYSTEM AS A MEMBER, OR IT JUST MONITORS? IT JUST MONITORS RIGHT NOW. SO YOUR APPLICATION DOES NOT HAVE INCLUSION IN THAT OR SOMETHING? THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT, SO BACK TO DISCUSSION. MR. WELTON, YOU HAD THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS, SO I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD AND START WITH YOUR COMMENTS. YOU KNOW, I JUST ASKED BECAUSE THAT'S MY WHEELHOUSE. IT'S WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING IS THAT MONITORING SYSTEM, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S COME TO A POINT WHERE IT'S EXTREMELY INSIGNIFICANT TO PUT A VISOR TAG ON THERE. I DO IT IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS. YOU'VE GOT THE VISOR THING, THE GATE AUTOMATIC. IT OPENS, YOU GO THROUGH, YOU TOOK A FRIEND'S CAR, YOU USE IT. COST-WISE, IT'S UNDER A COUPLE GRAND. THAT'S WHY I ASKED. THE OTHER PART IS IT'S BECOME VERY COMMON WHERE I CAN INSTALL A CAMERA SYSTEM WHERE I CAN ENTER ALL THE APPROVED LICENSE PLATES, AND IT WILL SEND AN ALERT TO THE OWNER THAT SAYS, HEY, LICENSE PLATE JUST CAME UP ON THE CAMERA THAT WASN'T APPROVED. SEEMED LIKE VERY SIMPLE THINGS THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT AND ADDRESS TO HELP RESOLVE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS, RIGHT? CAN I MAKE A FEW COMMENTS? YES, PLEASE. [00:30:03] I GUESS GENERALLY IF WE'RE HEARING FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON THE ROAD THAT THE CURRENT CUP IS BEING ABUSED, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO EXPAND THE USE. BESIDES THAT, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC ON A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL ROAD. FOR ORONO RESIDENTS AND DOUBLE, ESSENTIALLY, THE ROAD USE. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT WOULD IMPROVE PROPERTY VALUES OF THOSE PROPERTIES. AND JUST, IT SIMPLY SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO ME. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GO WEST AFTER LEAVING THE CLUB CAN MAKE A RIGHT-HAND TURN ONTO 15, WHICH IS VERY EASY TO DO. SO I SEE NO REASON TO BE RUNNING. TRAFFIC THROUGH A SMALL RESIDENTIAL STREET. ADDITIONALLY, THE CURRENT SIGNAGE, THERE'S THE SPEED BUMPS WEREN'T INSTALLED, THERE'S NO HOURS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE SIGNS THAT I SAW, NO CARD READER, GOOGLE TAKES YOU THERE. THERE'S JUST A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT THIS JUST DOESN'T LOGICALLY MAKE SENSE TO ME FOR ORONO RESIDENTS AND ORONO ROAD. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE PARKING LOT. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. YES, PLEASE, GO AHEAD. IS THE CITY AWARE OF ANY HISTORICAL VIOLATIONS OF THE COP? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I DO BELIEVE HISTORICALLY WE HAVE HEARD COMPLAINTS, NOT RECENTLY, SO HENCE WHY MATT MIGHT NOT BE OVERLY FAMILIAR, AND I WILL SPEAK TO MYSELF, I'M NOT OVERLY FAMILIAR AS WELL. SO NOT RECENTLY IN THE LAST, I WOULD EVEN SAY, FIVE YEARS. UM BEFORE THAT I DO KNOW THERE WAS COMMUNICATIONS WHEN COMPLAINTS THAT WE WOULD THEN COMMUNICATE UP TO WOODHILL AND AS FAR SO WE WOULD THEN DIRECT CERTAIN COMMENTS TO BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO WOODHILL AS WELL AND I THINK RELATIONSHIPS HAVE IMPROVED OVER THE YEARS VACATION AND THAT ALSO DO RECALL UH I FORGIVE ME UM SPECIFIC DETAILS BUT THE COUNCIL I BELIEVE DID TAKE ACTIONS SIX YEARS AGO REGARDING THE SPEED BUMPS. I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ELEMENT WHERE THE SPEED BUMPS WERE INSTALLED AND THE COUNCIL REVIEWED IT PER A NEIGHBORHOOD DISCUSSION AND THAT RESULTED IN THE SPEED BUMPS. SO THAT HISTORICALLY WAS INSTALLED, AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE HISTORY ON THAT, I'M SURE. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP, IF YOU GET INVITED BY THE CHAIR. PLEASE, YES. THAT WAS IN MAY OF 2020. AND THEY CAME, THE THEN CITY ENGINEER, ADAM EDWARDS, CAME TO THE MEETING AND WANTED TO REMOVE THE SPEED BUMPS. YOU KNOW, SO THERE'D BEEN AN ISSUE WITH THE SPEED BUMPS BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THEY WERE, WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM, BLACKTOP. YOU KNOW, THEY WERE PERMANENT ON THERE. AND THEN WHEN THEY PUT THE SEWER IN, THEY SCRAPED THEM OFF. AND THEN IT TOOK LIKE A COUPLE OF YEARS TO GET THE SCREW-IN ONES IN, AND THEN THEY'D ONLY PUT A COUPLE SCREWS IN. SCREWS AND THEY'D FLOP ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THEN IN 2020, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CITY ENGINEER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REMOVED AND THE COUNCIL DENIED THAT. SO, BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, YOU GET, JUST GET TIRED OF CALLING. YOU SAY THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS. IT'S LIKE, IT DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD. SO YOU JUST KIND OF GIVE UP A LITTLE BIT. SO THE SPEED BUMPS HAVEN'T BEEN THERE. THEY WEREN'T THERE LAST YEAR. THE CLUB WAS CLOSED. CLOSED BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING THE RENOVATIONS. THEY'RE NOT THERE THIS YEAR, BUT EVERY YEAR I'VE HAD TO CALL AND SAY, PLEASE, CAN YOU PLEASE INSTALL THEM? AND SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWED THROUGH ON. CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT ON THE ROAD, THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROAD? THE ROAD IS CURRENTLY UNDERSIZED. IT'S 22 FEET, AND IT OFTEN FLOODS RIGHT TO THE BLACKTOP EDGE. BECAUSE THEY'RE A POND ON EACH SIDE, SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT FILLING WITH GRAVEL IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING. IT WOULD PROBABLY JUST FALL INTO THE POND. OKAY, THANK YOU. I'D FOLLOW UP WITH THAT FOR STAFF. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IN SOME DIALOGUE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT IT WAS A PRIVATE ROAD, BUT IS THIS A CITY RESIDENTIAL STREET? SO WOODHILL IS A PUBLIC ROAD OFF OF ORONO ORCHARD. AND THEN WHERE IT TERMINATES ON THE EAST THERE IS A GATE, AND THAT'S THE ACCESS THAT WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB MANAGES. [00:35:02] BUT THE ROAD ITSELF LEADING FROM ORONO ORCHARD TO THAT GATE IS A PUBLIC ROAD. SO WOODHILL AVENUE IS THE STREET, WOODHILL ROAD IS THE STREET. DO YOU WANT TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN SEE? THANK YOU. SO I THINK THESE ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY A LITTLE BIT. SO ORONO ORCHARD RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THE ORONO GOLF COURSE ON THE WESTERN SIDE THERE. YEP. SO THAT ACCESS ALL THE WAY TO WHERE IT TERMINATES TO THE EAST IS PUBLIC, AND THEN WHEN IT ENTERS INTO THE COUNTRY CLUB, THAT'S KIND OF THE... WHERE THE COUNTRY CLUB MANAGES IT. AND THESE CONDITIONS ARE PUT ON FOR ACCESS THAT MEMBERS ONLY CAN ACCESS AT THAT POINT. YEP, SO THAT DEMARCATION POINT, WOODHILL AVENUE VERSUS WOODHILL ROAD. WOODHILL ROAD IS PRIVATE, RIGHT? I'M JUST, YES, OF COURSE. SO WOODHILL AVENUE, PEER STREET, AND WOODHILL AVENUE. WOOD HILL AVENUE IS WHERE THE CONDITIONS ARE PLACED. YEP, ABOUT ACCESS. OKAY. AND SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO IN THE CONCERNS, I MEAN, ONE THING IS THE SPEED BUMPS. IS THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TO INSTALL THAT IF IT'S ON A CITY STREET? IF SO, WE COULD LOOK INTO THAT LATER ON. THAT IS A CONDITION THAT I BELIEVE I DON'T HAVE A TON OF HISTORY ON. IT WAS A CONDITION THAT WAS PLACED WHEN THE... CUP CONDITIONS ON THAT ACCESS BACK IN THE 90S, AND THEN THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OVER THE YEARS BY THE COUNCIL. I'D HAVE TO, THAT SPECIFIC ELEMENT, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND BRING FORWARD. NO, AND DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION. MORE SO OF MY OWN EDUCATION. I JUST WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, YOU KNOW, SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE IT IN PLACE AND WE COULD ADVOCATE FOR THAT. APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. MAYBE WE CAN LOOK INTO IT. I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORS WILL THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY, FURTHER DISCUSSION. YEAH, I'LL PUT MY COMMENTS IN HERE. SO I LIVE JUST A COUPLE BLOCKS FROM WOODHILL AVENUE, SO I DEFINITELY SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS AS BOTH RESIDENTS THAT SPOKE ABOUT TRAFFIC. IT'S A BIT OF A BLIND CORNER AROUND THAT GOING NORTH, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT'S A PAIN TO PULL BACK OUT ONTO SHORELINE DRIVE COMING SOUTH. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT ACTUAL PARKING LOT, THE DESIGN, THE LIGHTING. I WOULD JUST BE HUNG UP ON THE ENTRANCE POINTS. SO I THINK I COULD GET BEHIND THE PARKING LOT PLANS, MAINTAINING THE WOODHILL ROAD AS THE MAIN ENTRANCE FOR ACCESS. TRY THAT ONE MORE TIME. I'M SORRY. YEP. SO THE ACTUAL PARKING LOT DESIGN. SPACING ETC I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH I HAVE ISSUES WITH DRIVING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THROUGH WOODHILL AVENUE BECAUSE THERE'S BOTH A BLIND CORNER GOING NORTH ON ORNO ORCHARD ROAD AND IF YOU GO SOUTH OUT OF THERE IT'S A ANOTHER ISSUE PULLING ON A SHORELINE DRIVE SO COUNTY ROAD 15 SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OR CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHAT WE DO IN REGARDS TO THOSE POINTS I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO SOME SORT OF TRAFFIC STUDY OR HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY MEMBERS WOULD ACTUALLY START USING THAT VERSUS THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF COUNTY ROAD 15. BUT I THINK THOSE ARE BIG CONCERNS OF MINE. BUT AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE BASIC DESIGN OF THE PARKING LOT, MAYBE SOME CHANGES TO THE ROAD NEAR THE PARKING LOT AND THE LIGHTING, NOTHING IS STICKING OUT TO ME RIGHT NOW AS A CONCERN. SURE. SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND... SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS THAT THE ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ENTRANCE, JUST LIKE THE PUBLIC OPINION, WAS THAT YOU'RE INTENSIFYING A DIFFICULTY. THAT'S NOT THE IDEAL WAY TO END IT. CORRECT, AND THAT'S SPEAKING FROM MY EXPERIENCE SINCE I LIVE BASED TWO BLOCKS NORTH OF THAT ROAD. ANYONE ELSE? I CAN JUMP IN HERE. I THINK WE'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH IN CONSENSUS ON THE PARKING. I'M OKAY WITH IT AS WELL, SO I'LL LEAVE THAT THERE. THE CONDITIONAL ACCESS, I STRUGGLE WITH. I THINK BIG PICTURE, WOODHILL IS AN ASSET TO THE CITY, AND WE'RE RESPONSIBLE WITH KEEPING THEM IN GOOD FAITH, IF YOU WILL. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE USING IT ARE... KIND OF OUR LIABILITY AS WELL. SO WHETHER WE'RE PUTTING THEM ON COUNTY ROAD 15 OR ORNER ORCHARD ROAD, I DON'T THINK EITHER WOODHILL AVENUE, SORRY, EITHER IS A GREAT ANSWER. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THE SPEED IN THAT ORNER ORCHARD, WOODHILL AVENUE [00:40:01] IS LOWER AND ANY KIND OF CRASH OR ACCIDENT WOULD BE LESS IMPACTFUL, BIG PICTURE. AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I DO THINK THEY'RE ARE GOOD PARTS ABOUT IT GOING DOWN THAT WAY? I THINK PART OF MY THOUGHT WAS HAVING SOME KIND OF APPROVAL ON THE CONDITION OF HAVING THE COUNTRY CLUB SUBMIT A MONTHLY TRIP REPORT OUT OF THAT DOOR WOULD AT LEAST ALLOW US TO THEN IMPLEMENT THE CUP. IF THERE'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC, WE CAN RESTRICT THAT AND SO FORTH. CURRENTLY, YOU HEARD THE CURRENT RESIDENTS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, THEY CALL THE CITY AND COMPLAIN. THERE'S NO WAY TO IMPLEMENT AN INFRACTION OR TO ACTUALLY PENALIZE THE CLUB. CLUB FOR USING IT THE WAY THEY ARE CURRENTLY. AND I THINK THIS MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS A CONDITIONAL TO OUR APPROVAL TO REQUIRE THEM TO SUBMIT SUCH DATA SO THAT THE CITY THEN HAS ACTIONABLE ITEMS THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, POINT TO WHEN TRYING TO RESTRICT THE USE OF THAT ROAD. IF IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF IT GOES FROM 200 YOU KNOW THE NIGHT OF A WEDDING AND THEN A DAILY IS 100 YOU KNOW SOME WAY TO MONITOR IT THAT WOULD ALLOW US THAT ABILITY SO UM SO JUST LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE I APPRECIATE THAT UM COMMISSIONER VANDERBURN ALSO I DO APPRECIATE THE SUMMARIZING INVITATION HERE MISSION I AGREE I MEAN DOES ANYONE HAVE IT SO WE CAN CLEAR THE DECKS ON THAT? SO NOW WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET DUG INTO ON THE CUP. NOW, ONE THING THAT IS NOTABLE HERE IS CUPS ARE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. THEY'RE CONDITIONAL USES, AND THEY CAN BE REVOKED. BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT, AS WE ARE SEEING TONIGHT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO REVOKE THEM. PAINSTAKING PROCESS, SO EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE REVOCABLE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT SIMPLE. SO I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT FOR US. FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT AT ANY TIME WITH YOUR OWN OPINIONS. I THINK A MONTHLY REPORT COULD BE ARDUOUS ADMINISTRATIVELY. IT'S A GREAT IDEA. THAT'S WHERE I'D LOVE STAFF TO... INTERJECT, YOU KNOW, OR IF WE CAN DO A COUNT BECAUSE WE SOMETIMES CAN DO ROAD COUNTS FOR TRAFFIC ON OUR OWN OR TRUCK STUDIES. WE HAVE PART OF OUR CONDITION BE WE DON'T FEEL ...LOCATION AS IT'S WRITTEN, THEN OF COURSE WE MOTION TO GET THAT FEEDBACK AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD FIND TO BE REASONABLE. I JUST WOULD PROPOSE THAT SOME KIND OF A LICENSE PLATE READER OR A KEY CARD ACCESS, HANG TAG, WHAT HAVE YOU... IS WHAT THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE CURRENT CUP WITH THE ONE-WAY ACCESS. AND SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THAT CURRENTLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD EXPAND ACCESS TO TWO WAYS. THAT'S MY THOUGHT. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO SUMMARIZE MY VIEW ON THIS. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY FOR THE TWO WAYS. IF I LIVED NORTHWEST, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO GO OUT THAT DIRECTION TO GET THERE. BUT MY STRUGGLE IS, I KNOW THAT, ESPECIALLY IF GOOGLE TAKES YOU SOMEPLACE, NOBODY READS SIGNS. I HAVE A SIGN ON THE OUTSIDE OF MY BUSINESS THAT SAYS, DELIVERIES TO THE REAR DOCK. GIGANTIC SIGN AT THE FRONT DOOR. AND EVERY DELIVERY DRIVER GOES TO THE FRONT DOOR. SO I KNOW SIGNS DON'T WORK. YOU HAVE TO PHYSICALLY STOP SOMEBODY AND FORCE THEM TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. FOR IT TO REALLY HAPPEN AND IF THE GATE GOES UP AND GOES DOWN THAT'S WHERE MY STRUGGLE TO APPROVE THIS IS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO HELP METER THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING THROUGH THERE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOR. I CAN UNDERSTAND MEMBERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO GO IN AND OUT OF THAT ENTRANCE WHO WOULD WANT TO USE IT RIGHT IF I LIVED EAST I PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT TO GO UP THAT THE OTHER ENTRANCE IF I LIVE WEST ON SHORELINE TO WHAT EVERYBODY SAID IT'S AN EASIER ENTRANCE TO GET ONTO WEST SHORELINE TO GO THE OTHER WAY. YOU REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE MEMBERS GOING OUT THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE FACILITY. IT'S THE EVENTS, THE DELIVERIES, THE EVERYTHING [00:45:01] ELSE, AND THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO STOP IF THEY'RE NOT FORCED TO STOP. AND THAT'S MY HOLDUP TO APPROVING THIS IS I JUST CAN'T SEE. NOTHING THAT REALLY PERMANENTLY STOPS SOMEBODY WHO SHOULDN'T GO THROUGH THAT ENTRANCE FROM STOPPING THEM FROM GOING THROUGH THAT ENTRANCE SO CAN I ASK A DIFFERENT WAY JUST BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S A LONG AGENDA TONIGHT SO I'M NOT TRYING TO JUMP AHEAD EITHER SO IF WE WANT TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION THEN SAY WE WANT TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION BUT CAN I ASK IS THERE ANYONE UM DO WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH CONDITIONS OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UM AS APPLIED TONIGHT THAT ANYBODY WOULD BE UM WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION OR IN FAVOR OF UM BECAUSE IF NOT THEN WE FEEDBACK, AND IF SO, THEN WE CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A MOTION. I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PARKING LOT AND TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INCREASING THE ACCESS THROUGH WOODHILL AVENUE. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE PARKING LOT. CLEAR THE DECKS ON THAT, AND SO THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY ONE OF THE THINGS. BUT IF WE'RE IN FAVOR... CERTAINLY EVENTUALLY MAKE THAT MOTION. WE WOULDN'T REWRITE THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THAT'S NOT HOW WE DO IT. WE WOULD WE WOULD MOTION TO DENY, BUT THEN WE WOULD JUST CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE CONVERSATION TO WHAT MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE, IF ANY CONDITIONS TO BE ADDED TO THAT CONDITIONAL USE. MAKE SENSE? YES. ALTHOUGH MY INTENT WAS TO MAKE THAT MOTION WITH WHAT I JUST DID. ARE YOU? YES, I WAS MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PARKING LOT AND DENY THE INCREASED USE OF THE CUP FOR INCREASED WOODHILL AVENUE ACCESS. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I WOULD JUMP IN BEFORE ANYONE MAKES A SECOND AND JUST INQUIRE IF COMMISSIONER PRCHAL WOULD BE OPEN TO THE IDEA OF ALLOWING THE FULL CONDITION IN FRONT OF US UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED, SIMILAR TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DATA SO THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT THE CUP IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I THINK THAT ADDITIONAL DATA WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND IF THEY CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE ABIDING BY THE CURRENT CUP. I SEE NO REASON TO EXPAND IT. ADDITIONALLY, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO STATE MAKING A RIGHT-HAND TURN ONTO 15 OUT OF THE CLUB IS EXTRAORDINARILY EASY FOR ANYONE WHO IS GOING WEST, AND I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR AN EXIT POINT ON THAT WOODHILL AVENUE. I'LL JUST ADD TO THIS. COMMISSIONER WILSON POINTED OUT SO MUCH OF THE TECHNOLOGY AROUND LICENSE PLATE READING AND LOGGING AND MONITORING HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY AUTOMATED. THIS IS NOT SOMEONE SITTING OUT BY THE GATE WITH A CLIPBOARD. I THINK IF WOODHILL DOES OPERATE AND WORK WITH THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THERE IS FULL TRANSPARENCY ABOUT WHO'S USING THE ROAD AND MAKING SURE THE CURRENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS ABIDED BY, THAT DOES SEEM FEASIBLE, JUST GIVEN HOW MUCH TECHNOLOGY HAS EVOLVED IN THIS SPACE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH A MOTION THAT... IS THAT A SECOND? THAT IS A SECOND. VERY WELL. SO THE MOTION BY PERCOW IS SECONDED BY TIFT. AND BEFORE WE ACTUALLY DO THE MOTION, WE SAY, IF ANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME... WE CAN. COMMISSIONER BALL. COMMISSIONER BALL. YEAH, YEAH, THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CLARITY ON THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE, BUT NOT ACCEPT THE CHANGES FOR THE ACCESS. CORRECT. ARE YOU ACCEPTING COMMISSIONER BRANDEBURG'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT LICENSE PLATE RESTRICTING TECHNOLOGY? FOR THE CURRENT CUP, NOT TO EXPAND IT TO TWO-WAY USE. SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION, AND STAFF, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT COMING FROM US? SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO THE MOTION AND THEN WITH THE AMENDMENT, WHAT I'M TRACKING IS APPROVE THE PARKING LOT REDESIGN, DENY THE REQUEST TO INTENSIFY THE WOODHILL AVENUE ACCESS TO TWO-WAY, AND THEN TO ADD A CONDITION TO REQUEST TRAFFIC STUDY? NO, I'M... SORRY, LICENSE PLATE MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE GATE. OR ACCESS TAGS, ANYTHING THAT GIVES US DATA. I WOULD JUST JUMP IN AND GENERALIZE. MY THOUGHT WAS JUST THE IDEA OF IN AND OUT. I DON'T CARE WHO IT IS, WHETHER IT'S A MEMBER OR A GUEST. I WANT TO KNOW IF SOMEONE WAS IN AND OUT OF THAT GATE SO THAT WE CAN CONTROL THE ACCESS ON WOODHILL AVENUE OR THE VOLUME ON WOODHILL AVENUE WHERE I WAS [00:50:01] COMING FROM. SURE, AND SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO IN BUT NOT OUT, AND MY MOTION DOES NOT EXIST. EXPAND THE USE FOR THE OUT. AND YOU WERE ASKING FOR TRAFFIC COUNTS. UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANT THE COUNTS IN AND OUT SO THAT EVEN IF IT WAS TWO-WAY. AND THERE WAS POTENTIALLY LESS TRAFFIC TWO-WAY, THAT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT RATHER THAN THE CURRENT ONE-WAY. THAT'S WHERE I WAS COMING FROM. THAT'S WHY I THINK HAVING IN AND OUT IS IMPORTANT, SO THAT WHETHER IT'S ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAY, WE HAVE THE VOLUME AND WE CAN CONTROL THAT FROM THE CUP PERSPECTIVE. YEAH, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE MERITS OF WHERE BOTH OF YOU ARE COMING FROM. SOMETIMES THIS IS WHY WE TRY NOT TO REDESIGN AN APPLICATION. SOMETIMES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN APPLICANT LIKE THEY'RE ON A HOTBED. THAT'S WHY I KIND OF WANT TO KEEP IT CLEAN AND ALLOW THEM TO READ THE FEEDBACK THAT WE WOULD FIND THE FEEDBACK THAT BUT AGAIN, IT'S YOUR MOTION. THAT'S FINE. SO THE ORIGINAL... GO AHEAD, SORRY. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS TO... APPROVE AND DENY. APPROVE AND THEN DENY, YES. GOT IT. OKAY. AND I STILL WANT CLARITY. ARE WE ADDING THIS ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION FOR TRACKING OF DATA? YEAH, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE COMMENTS SECTION OF THIS IS WHERE I WAS GOING TO GET INTO THAT. I THINK... IS THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION OR NOT? I THINK THAT'S COMMENTS AFTER. I THINK IT'S A SUGGESTION FOR THEM. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK IF WE ADD, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF WE ADD AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION, IT HAS TO BE TIED TO AN ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OR SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. YEAH, SO WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, YOU'D WANT TO TIE IT TO THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE, SO YOU'D WANT SOME SORT OF NEXUS THERE. BUT IF WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ACCESS, THEN WE CAN'T NEXUS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION ON TOP OF. THE CUP THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE FOR THE ACCESS. RIGHT, BUT THEY ARE DOING AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE SITE, SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL THERE TO DISCUSS ABOUT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE INTENSIFICATION THEY'RE REQUESTING. THAT BEING SAID, I'M HEARING THAT THE MOTION IS JUST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PARKING LOT, DENY OF THE REQUEST TO INTENSIFY THE ACCESS, AND THEN THE COUNTS ARE MORE PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER. OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY MUCH MY ORIGINAL STANCE ON IT. THAT WAS MORE SO A SUGGESTION RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT WE GET INTO. YEAH, NO, LOUD AND CLEAR. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND BY THE WAY, THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL AS WELL. SO THEN TO PUT THIS INTO A BOX, DO WE HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THE HOURS OF OPERATION? DO WE WANT TO HAVE RESTRICTIONS WHERE THAT IS NOT JUST MONITORED? IT IS ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO OPEN UNLESS... FEEDBACK ON THAT RESTRICTIONS ON THE MISSIONS. DO WE HAVE OPINIONS ON MR. CHAIR? I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT MOTION ISN'T CHANGING THE VOTE ANY OF THOSE CORRECT DISHES I'M IF WE VOTE ON IT, WE'RE DONE WITH THE DISCUSSION SO NOW IT'S JUST FEEDBACK ON WHAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING OR WHAT BE SUPPORTIVE, YOU KNOW BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T THINK I GET A FEELING THAT WE'RE GONNA APPROVE WE MOTION TO APPROVE THE UP JUST GET ON THE RECORD WITH IF THEY WANTED TO READ FEEDBACK ON BEING RESTRICTED TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. SO THE CURRENT CUP SAYS THAT IT'S RESTRICTED FROM 7 A.M. TO 8 P.M. THERE'S NO SIGNAGE THAT INDICATES THAT, BUT THAT IS... ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, WHEN THE GATE WILL OPEN. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE GATE WILL NOT OPEN IF SOMEONE APPROACHES IT AFTER 8 P.M. I'M HEARING FROM RESIDENTS THAT THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE, SO I GUESS MY DIRECTION OR MY INCLINATION WOULD BE THAT THEY NEED TO ABIDE BY THE CURRENT CUP. AND THERE ARE MEANS THAT CAN HELP MAKE SURE. THAT THAT'S HAPPENING, WHETHER THAT BE A COMBINATION OF SIGNAGE, INCREASED SECURITY ON THAT GATE ACCESS, MAKING SURE IT'S NOT GOING TO OPEN AFTER HOURS, BECAUSE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE [00:55:01] TO CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT IS CONDITIONAL ON THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES, AND I THINK THAT THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN STATED CLEARLY FOR... FEEDBACK HERE TODAY. YEAH, SO MS. PRCHAL, IF YOU CAN, WOULD YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, SO WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THERE IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT TO BE USED, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, BUT THAT'S AN EXISTING. NOW, FOR THE CHANGING TO THE CUP, IF WE'RE GOING TO ENTERTAIN ADDITIONAL INTENSIFICATION OF THAT CUP, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION THAT SAYS? SURE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN SUPPORTING IT IF YOU DO X, Y, Z. THAT'S WHAT I'M AFTER HERE. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN TWO-WAY USE EVEN WITH ADDITIONAL GATE RESTRICTIONS. I THINK THOSE GATE RESTRICTIONS WOULD HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING CUP AND THAT I DON'T SEE A BENEFIT TO BEING ABLE TO EXIT WESTWARD YOU ONTO WOODHILL AVENUE BECAUSE A RIGHT-HAND TURN ONTO 15 IS VERY EASY TO DO, AND ANYONE GOING WEST CAN MAKE THAT RIGHT-HAND TURN AND GET TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING VERY QUICKLY. AND I DON'T SEE A BENEFIT TO ORONO RESIDENTS OR PROPERTY VALUES BY MAKING THAT A TWO-WAY USE. WHAT I'M HEARING IS REALLY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU WOULD HAVE USED UPS. THAT'S CORRECT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A PERSPECTIVE ON THAT? I DO. I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT OPINION. I DON'T THINK THAT TWO-WAY ACCESS WILL HELP, ESPECIALLY AS FAR AS THE RESIDENT TRAFFIC IS CONCERNED. I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY TAKING WHATEVER TRAFFIC IS THERE FOR THE CLUB RIGHT NOW AND DOUBLING IT, AND THAT'S NON-RESIDENT TRAFFIC ON A VERY SMALL STREET. I DON'T SEE THE SAFETY NEED. I MEAN, SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT, BUT I DON'T SEE IT. I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY MAYBE CREATING A SAFETY ISSUE BY DOING THIS. BY ALLOWING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE, VERSUS I HAVEN'T SEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT SHOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE UNSAFE ACCESS ON 15. NOTHING FOR US TO LOOK AT AND REVIEW AT ALL. SO I DON'T SEE INTENSIFYING THIS OTHER THING UNDER ANY CONDITIONS, WHETHER WE'RE LIMITING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. SO LET ME APPROACH THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. SO WHAT IF WE HAVE AN EXISTING CUP AND WE DON'T HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS CURRENTLY? THE APPLICANT DECIDES THAT THEY WANT TO COME TO US AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WILL DO A LICENSE PLATE READER AND WE WILL NOT HAVE THIS AVAILABLE UNTIL THE CLOCK, BUT THAT MEANS THAT IF... THEY'RE GIVING AND TAKING. AND SO THAT RESTRICTION'S IN PLACE. CURRENTLY IT'S NOT. THEY PUT THEIR BEST FOOT FORWARD AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? IF YOU GIVE US THIS, WE'LL DO THAT. AGAIN, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ADJUDICATED TODAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW. FOR ME, I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE ME MORE SUPPORTIVE, AND EVENTUALLY MAYBE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. TO CERTAIN PEOPLE AND IT IS REGULATED WE'RE RIGHT I DON'T KNOW I GUESS I DON'T HAVE A I DON'T HATE THAT IF THAT QUESTION IS DIRECTED TOWARDS ME I WOULD BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE MY OPINION ON THAT WOULD BE I CAN SEE THE ISSUES WITH TECHNOLOGY BLOCKING THAT EXIT OR ENTRANCE FOR THAT MATTER IT'S A VERY SMALL ROAD. I CAN IMAGINE PEOPLE COMING UP THERE NOT HAVING THE APP READY, NOT HAVING THEIR CARD. THERE'S NOT EVEN A CUL-DE-SAC FOR THEM TO TURN AROUND THERE. AND NOW IF THIS GATE DOESN'T OPEN, I THINK WE'RE CAUSING A SAFETY CONCERN OR A TRAFFIC PROBLEM FOR THESE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON A VERY SMALL STREET THAT HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS NEXT TO THEM. SO THAT'S JUST ONE THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY SOLVES THE TRAFFIC ISSUE OR THE TRAFFIC COUNT. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THAT ACCESS PROBABLY SHOULD BE BLOCKED OFF ALTOGETHER AND THIS JUST FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL, ET CETERA. [01:00:04] I WOULD AGREE, AND I THINK THAT ACCESS AND EXIT FOR MEMBERS ONLY BUT NOT OTHERS, THAT SOUNDS REALLY CHAOTIC FOR AN EVENT THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE ARE LEAVING. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A GIANT ONE-WAY SIGN. THAT'S JUST ABOUT THE ONLY SIGN THAT... BETWEEN A ONE-WAY SIGN AND A STOP SIGN ARE PROBABLY THE ONLY TWO SIGNS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO. SO ANYTHING MORE DETAILED THAN THAT SOUNDS CHAOTIC TO ME. IF THAT GATE WAS ONLY ONE... REGULATE. YEAH, I MEAN THAT WOULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING THOUGH. WHERE? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING AN ENTRANCE. YEP, AND BOTH. AND EXIT. NO, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, I MEAN I GUESS IF THAT WAS WHAT THE CLUB WANTED TO DO, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT LIGHT AND SAY, OKAY, DOES THIS WORK? I THINK THAT'S THE FEEDBACK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE. WHETHER THAT CHANGES OUR OPINION. ANYONE ELSE? NOBODY ELSE, I'LL GO. SO I COULD GET IN SUPPORT OF IT BECAUSE I CAN SEE WHERE I WOULD WANT TO EXIT THERE TO GO TO LONGLEY. MY RESTRICTIONS ARE WHAT I WOULD NEED TO REALLY GET BEHIND IT IS, ONE, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE ON GOOGLE. DRIVING DOWN, OR NOT EVEN ANYTHING BEFORE YOU TURN LEFT. FIRST I NEED SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE PROMINENT UP ON THE MAIN ROAD. THEN I WOULD NEED SOMETHING THAT SAYS, THIS IS ONLY GOING, MAYBE IT'S ONLY MEMBERS THAT LIVE NORTHWEST THAT COME IN AND GO UP TO THAT SIDE. THEN WE CAN GIVE A BENEFIT TO MEMBERS. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAPS, AND I DON'T LIVE IN THAT KIND OF PART, BUT IF I WAS COMING HERE FROM WOODHILL THE WAY IT'S KIND OF INTENDED, I WOULD HAVE TO GET ON 15 TO GET ON ORCHARD AND THEN CUT ACROSS FOX AND THEN COME UP. SO I'M FORCING MORE TRAFFIC ONTO 15. THAT REALLY DOESN'T NEED TO GO ONTO 15. IT COULD JUST COME OUT AND GO UP ORCHARD DRIVE AND AVOID SOME OF THAT HASSLE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN BLOW UP THE MAP A LITTLE BIT SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. OH, I DROVE IT THE OTHER DAY. WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS YOU'RE FORCING PEOPLE TO GO ON THE 15 AND THEN GO DOWN TO ORCHARD VERSUS JUST COMING OUT ON WOOD. YOU'RE FORCING MORE TRAFFIC. YEP, BUT THAT'S WHERE I GO BACK TO PART OF WHAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO PROVE IT IS YOU NEED TO HAVE A FINITE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE APPROVED. OUT THAT DOOR. SO YOU'RE LIMITING THE VOLUME, JUST EVERYBODY, BUT PEOPLE THAT REALLY HAVE A REASON. MY POINT IS WE SHOULD BE LIMITING THE VOLUME UNDER THE CURRENT CUP WITH ONE-WAY ACCESS. YEAH, JUST FEEDBACK. IT'S ALWAYS JUST FEEDBACK. I'M JUST SAYING, LIKE, IF YOU CAME TO ME AND YOU SAID, HERE, WE'RE GOING TO GET A SIGN ON THE MAIN ROAD THAT SAYS THIS IS NOT AN ENTRANCE INTO THE CLUB, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A FINITE LIST, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A POLICY TOGETHER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GATE IS ENFORCING IT. I THINK YOU CAN GET SOME SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY AROUND THAT. MAYBE NOT. YEAH, THAT'S A BIG BALL IN HERE, BUT NO, I'M SORRY. WE'VE GOT PUBLIC OPINION. WE'RE RUNNING LONG HERE. I'M GOING TO STOP RAMBLING. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'LL TAKE. AGAIN, I CAN JUST SEE FROM A VISUAL WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO STAND. YEAH, I AGREE. I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE ALL JUST KIND OF PUTTING OUR FLAG IN THE GROUND. MY PERSPECTIVE IS RIGHT NOW THAT THAT GATE OPENS NO MATTER WHAT. COMMISSIONER BALL, AS YOU POINT ABOUT THE... LIKE YOU'RE DRIVING THE CAR THAT RESTRICTION WHERE YOU ARE I THINK IS A FOR MAYBE THE I WOULD GET BEHIND THAT ON TO IT'S NOT OPERABLE AT ALL UNTIL AFTER 7 O'CLOCK P.M. THAT MAKES THE ACCESS ONTO ORONO ORCHARD ROAD LESS OF AN IMPACT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING DURING RUSH HOUR. [01:05:02] 7 O'CLOCK, 15 IS A BUSY ROAD, NO DOUBT, BUT IT'S LESS BUSY AFTER 7 O'CLOCK. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT. JUST FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, FOR THE HOURS, I'M JUST GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE, 7 TO 9 P.M. AND SO IT'S A PRETTY LIMITED USE, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE RELIEF OF PERHAPS QUITE A BACKUP OF JUST TWO-LANE TRAFFIC FOR AN ENTIRE EVENT THAT'S GETTING OUT. MANY MEMBERS THAT DO. SO THAT'S MY FLAG IN THE GROUND. THAT DOESN'T MEAN FEEDBACK, BUT THAT'S MY OWN. ANYONE ELSE? OTHERWISE, IF THERE IS NO MORE, WE CERTAINLY CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. AND I THINK THAT'S GOOD FEEDBACK FOR THE APPLICANT FOR US TO USE. AND WE CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THE AGENDA. I DID MAKE A MOTION. YES, YOU DID. AND COMMISSIONER TIFT SECONDED THAT MOTION. HIS WAS ASKING FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. YOU DECLINED. NO, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER TIFF SECONDED COMPLETELY. BRANDEBURG ASKED FOR THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND WE DECLINED. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER THE SECOND, YOU ASKED IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, WHICH WE'VE HAD. SO IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE WOULD MAKE THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, SO IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, I'M SORRY, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ADDITION OF THE PARKING BUT DENY THE EXPANSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FOR THE MOTION UH ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE AYE WE HAVE UH ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX EYES AND ONE OPPOSED BRANDABUR GOOD STAFF THANKS [5.2) LA26-000022, Chris Adams o/b/o Thomas Adams, 500 Orchard Park Road, Variances, Public Hearing (Staff: Melanie Curtis)] EVERYONE GOOD JOB OKAY UH MOVING ON TO 5-2 LA 26-22 THIS IS UH CHRIS ADAMS OVIO THOMAS ADAMS 500 ORCHARD PARK ROAD UH VARIANCE WITH MISS CURTIS THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN OUR FIVE-ACRE RR1A ZONING DISTRICT, REQUIRING 100-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND 50-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THE EXISTING HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ABOUT 1919, AND IT IS LOCATED 42 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE, 21 AND A HALF FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE, MAKING IT LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO SETBACKS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 400-SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE HOME. WITH AN 8-FOOT BY 10-FOOT REAR DECK AND A NEW 3-BY-7 ENTRY LANDING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY. BECAUSE THE EXISTING HOME IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACKS, VARIANCES ARE NECESSARY TO ALLOW ANY EXPANSION OF THE FOOTPRINT. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL NOT ENCROACH CLOSER TO THE FRONT OR SIDE LOT LINES THAN THE EXISTING HOME. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE LOCATION OF THE HOME PREDATING OUR CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS. SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITING IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES AS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, SUPPORTING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCES. THEY HAVE PROVIDED A SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE WITHIN THE PACKET AND ARE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE IMPACT OF THE FIVE-ACRE DISTRICT STANDARDS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING HOME. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL CONDITION WOULD BE THAT STAFF ASK THE APPLICANT BE DIRECTED TO UPDATE THE SURVEY SHOWING THE DECK AND THE LANDING FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. I STAND FOR QUESTION. THANK YOU, MS. CURTIS. JUST FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, THE STAFF REQUESTED THAT THEY UPDATE THE SERVICE TO REFLECT THAT. I ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION. IT'S REQUIRED. I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE DIRECTED AS THAT. VERY WELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MS. CURTIS. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. PLEASE, COME ON UP. NO, JUST IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE. I KNOW MS. CURTIS DID A GREAT JOB OF TALKING THROUGH IT. GREAT JOBS. ALL RIGHT. I'LL START WITH ASKING, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS [01:10:01] FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, AND THEN... THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICATION OR ABOUT THE APPLICATION, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ALICIA COZINE, I LIVE AT 580 ORCHARD PARK, WHICH IS JUST... OFF THE TOP OF WHAT'S SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK IT'S GREAT TO SEE OUR HOUSING STOCK BEING MAINTAINED, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW THERE, BUT THAT'S A WETLAND IN BETWEEN, SO THERE'S NO WAY TO MOVE, WELL, ANYWHERE THAN WHERE THEY HAVE. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO HEAR ABOUT ANY APPLICATION? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC. I'LL START JUST BY A SUMMARY. DO YOU SEE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TO GO TO WETLANDS AND ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK? YEAH, I THINK FOR ME THIS ONE'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. OBVIOUSLY A HOUSE THAT'S OVER 100 YEARS OLD IS GOING TO MEET A LOT OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CHECKLIST ITEMS. OBVIOUSLY THE WETLANDS PLAYS IN HEAVILY, AND THEN WE'RE ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK, SCREENINGS, VIEWPOINTS, AND I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING STANDING OUT THERE. AND IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THE RECONFIRMATION FROM THE NEIGHBOR IN SUPPORT. I GUESS LOOKING THROUGH THIS, READING THROUGH IT ONE MORE TIME, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR AS IS. ANYONE ELSE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA-22 AS APPLIED. I'LL SECOND. I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WOULD ANYBODY, I'D INVITE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IF THERE WOULD BE. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE IN FAVOR. SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [5.3) LA26-000025, Stonewood LLC o/b/o Kevin + Julia Gillis, 1555 Orchard Beach Place, Variances, Public Hearing (Staff: Melanie Curtis)] MOTION CARRIES. THANKS, EVERYONE. MOVING ON TO 5.3, LA-26-25. THAT IS STONEWOOD, LLC. KEVIN AND JULIA GILLIS AT 1555 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE. THIS IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION. MS. CURTIS? THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO RECONSTRUCT THE BOATHOUSE ON THE PROPERTY AND RESTORE IT TO ITS PREVIOUS TWO-STORY CONDITION. THE BOATHOUSE IS LOCATED FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE, FOUR FEET FROM THE OHW, AND 113 FEET FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE CONSISTS OF THE REMAINING LOWER-LEVEL CONCRETE STRUCTURE AND LAKESIDE DECK OF THE PREVIOUS TWO-STORY BUILDING. THEY INTEND TO RECONSTRUCT THE SECOND STORY AND FINISH THE EXTERIOR OF THE BOATHOUSE TO MATCH THE PROPOSED HOME ON THE PROPERTY. SIDE YARD SETBACK, 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK, AND AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED TO PERMIT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BOATHOUSE AS IT HISTORICALLY EXISTED. MINNESOTA STATUTE PERMITS RECONSTRUCTION OF LEGALLY NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME FROM DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION, OR REMOVAL BETWEEN 6 AND 12 MONTHS. THE SECTION IN THE CITY CODE THAT ADDRESSES NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES STATES THAT A LAWFUL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE CAN BE REPLACED IN KIND WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO CITY CODE, IN KIND, WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF REPLACEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, MEANS THE REPLACEMENT OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE COMPLETELY WITHIN THE LIMITS, LOCATION, HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND DEPTH OF THE PREVIOUS BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. BECAUSE THE UPPER-LEVEL PORTION OF THE BOATHOUSE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED IN THE PAST AND NOT REPLACED AT THE TIME, IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE REPLACED NOW WITHOUT VARIANCES. THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTY'S HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE SURROUNDING PROPERTY. DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, TOPOGRAPHY, SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE DESIRE TO RESTORE THE BUILDING TO ITS FORMER APPEARANCE AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUEST. THEY MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY TONIGHT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO RESTORE THE BOATHOUSE TO ITS HISTORIC APPEARANCE. HOWEVER, RESTORATION OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING OR HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT CONDITION DOES NOT BY ITSELF ESTABLISH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES UNDER THE STANDARDS. THE PORTIONS OF THE BOATHOUSE PROPOSED FOR RECONSTRUCTION HAVE NOT EXISTED FOR SEVERAL DECADES AND THEREFORE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT AS AN IN-KIND RECONSTRUCTION. THEY MAY RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING [01:15:01] PORTIONS OF THE BOATHOUSE IN-KIND. WHILE THE HISTORIC CONDITION MAY HAVE ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ALONE DO NOT CONSTITUTE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS FROM BOTH FROM NEIGHBORS WERE RECEIVED SUPPORTING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND STORY AND THEY WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL AS APPLIED I HAVE THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, SOME COLOR RENDERINGS AND PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE, AS WELL AS AERIAL PHOTOS AND A BOATHOUSE INVENTORY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. BUT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. I MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION, MS. CURTIS. THE COMMENTS AND STAFF REPORTS SAID THE PROPERTY CAN CONTINUE TO BE PUT TO REASONABLE USE WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MAY RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING. NON-CONFORMING PORTIONS OF THE BOATHOUSE IN KIND WITH CITY CODE. SO HAS IT BEEN DEMOED? IT'S JUST THAT IT'S BEEN WITHIN 12 MONTHS AND SO WE FOLLOW THAT SAME. THE SECOND STORY HAS BEEN GONE FOR, THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE IS, THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. VERY WELL. THIS IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING. TODAY DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED AND RECONSTRUCTED. SECOND STORY IS OUTSIDE THE TIME FRAME. OF COURSE. ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WITHOUT A SECOND STORY IN THE PROPOSAL, WOULD THE APPLICANT NEED TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST? IF THEY WERE REPLACING IT IN KIND. RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. JUST QUICK ON THE IN KIND FOR THE HEIGHT, WOULD IT GO TO THE TOP OF THAT FORMER EXISTING RAILING? OR A RAILING. FOR RAILING, OKAY. FOR SURE, YEAH. AND THE STRUCTURE WOULD... THE PITCH THERE CAN BE REPLACED. THEY CAN'T ENCLOSE THAT. THEY CAN'T RAISE THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF OF THE INSIDE OF THAT LOWER LEVEL TO THE HEIGHT OF THE RAILING. YEAH, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS WHEN YOU'RE REPLACING IN-KIND, YOU CAN'T EVEN CHANGE THE ROOF LINE STAYING THE SAME. YOU COULDN'T CHANGE THE PITCH. YOU COULDN'T CHANGE THE HEIGHT. IN-KIND IS VERY RESTRICTIVE. SO IF IT'S A FLAT TOP LIKE THAT, YOU COULD DO A FLAT TOP WITH A RAILING. WOULD BE, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ARE YOU REFERRING TO IN KIND AS ITS CURRENT HEIGHT, CURRENT HEIGHT? THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE TODAY, THE PLANS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED, UM, HAVEN'T BEEN VERIFIED, BUT I, UM, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THERE. AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, WHAT IS THERE TODAY? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICATION IS. CORRECT. THEY DON'T NEED A VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT IT. IT'S THERE TODAY. SO THEY COULD TECHNICALLY REBUILD A BOATHOUSE IN THAT VOLUME OF SPACE. THEY COULD USE IT AS A BOATHOUSE WITH A DECK ON TOP OF IT THAT THEY COULD USE AS A DECK ON TOP OF IT WITHOUT HAVING TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE. TRUE. MAYBE A QUESTION BEFORE WE'RE DONE IS JUST THE LANGUAGE IN THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE... LAWFUL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CAN BE REPLACED IN KIND WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF INVOLUNTARY DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OR VOLUNTARY OR INTENTIONAL REMOVAL. DO WE HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ON THE BACKGROUND BEHIND THE 12 MONTHS? STATE. STATE STATUTE. SO THAT'S JUST WHAT WE APPLIED TO IT. THERE'S NO OTHER REASONING NECESSARILY. I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THERE WAS A HISTORICAL REASON BEHIND WHY IT WAS IMPLEMENTED. THANK YOU. IF I'M CORRECT, IS PART OF IT NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW SOMEBODY TO COME FOUR DECADES LATER TO TRY AND REBUILD SOMETHING THAT DISAPPEARED? YES. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REPLACE WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, ESSENTIALLY. YEAH, AND THAT'S EVOLVED TOO. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE USED TO BE A BACK NOT TOO LONG AGO WHERE YOU HAD TO GET SILLY, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT KIND OF COMES FROM. 12 MONTHS HAS GIVEN YOU A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DOES THAT SAME THOUGHT APPLY TO A RETAINING WALL THAT'S HALFWAY FALLEN? THEY CAN ONLY REBUILD WHAT'S THERE? IF IT'S NONCONFORMING. IF IT'S IN A SPOT WHERE IT'S NOT PERMITTED BY CURRENT CODE, YES. THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUILD THE ENTIRE WALL? NOT WITHOUT VARIANCES OR OTHER APPROVALS THAT ARE REQUIRED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THERE A PERCENTAGE [01:20:01] OF DAMAGE TO A STRUCTURE? SO ANY DAMAGE IF... NO, IT CAN BE REMOVED ENTIRELY. CORRECT. I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE STATUTE AND TRYING TO INTERPRET THE CODE THE CORRECT WAY. IF A SMALL PORTION OF THIS BUILDING FALLS OFF AND IT'S A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, I WOULD ONLY HAVE 12 MONTHS TO REPLACE THAT PIECE. THE BUILDING? YEAH. YES. BECAUSE, OKAY. THERE ARE SOME OTHER NUANCES IN THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS, YOU KNOW, IN RELATION TO VALUATION AND PERCENTAGE, BUT THIS... THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. SO HOW DOES THE BASE OF THIS CURRENT STRUCTURE SIT TO THE FLOOD? IS IT ABOVE THE FLOOD OR IS IT BELOW? DOES IT NEED TO BE LIFTED? IT CAN BE BUILT. OTHERWISE, WE'D HAVE ANOTHER... ONLY IF THEY WANTED TO RAISE THE ROOF INSIDE THE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THE SAME FLOOR VOLUME. THANK YOU. TO ROOF TO CEILING SPACE. ASK AGAIN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, IF THE APPLICANT HERE WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. HI, I'M SVEN GUSTAFSON WITH STONEWOOD, 153 LAKE STREET. KEVIN GILLIS, 1555 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE. I'LL KEEP IT SHORT BECAUSE IT'S A LONG NIGHT, BUT IT'S A UNIQUE REQUEST. WE'RE ASKING FOR IT, I THINK IT'S CLEAR, JUST TO PUT BACK WHAT WAS THERE QUITE A LONG TIME AGO. SOMETHING I THINK THAT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER PICTURE. ROUGHLY AT THE SAME ELEVATION OF THE UPPER LEVEL. THAT REDUCES SOME OF THE LAKE ZERO TO 75 FOOT THREE SQUARE FEET. I THINK IT'S ABOUT 20% OF IT. IT'S UNIQUE AND WE UNDERSTAND HOW THE RULES ARE. THAT'S AN ASPECT THAT MAKES IT. I HAVE NEIGHBOR SUPPORT AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY CLEAR FROM THESE PICTURES HERE AS WELL. YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THIS FROM EITHER. IF IT ISN'T BUILT, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF... IF YOU COULD GO TO THE... THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT IS THERE NOW WAS BUILT WITH THE UPPER LEVEL RETAINING THAT HILLSIDE. IT'S A RATHER THAT'S A DIFFICULTY OF SORTS THAT IT DRAINS DOWN ON TO WHAT YEAH, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE OUT OF MIND HERE BUT MY TWO CENTS A BIT WOULD BE KIND OF INVOLVED WITH SAYING WITH WE CURRENTLY LIVE OVER ON A SMALL 50 FOOT LOT AND I KNOW ANYTHING SOMEONE DOES ON A 50 FOOT LOT, YOU'RE GOING TO, IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN YOUR VIEW. THIS IS A FAIRLY WIDE LOT OF US, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY BE AFFECTING THEIR VISION THAT I COULD, YOU KNOW, TELL FROM ANYWHERE. AND THEN THE OTHER THING, I THINK IT MATCHES THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU GO, IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOME OF THE HOUSES. A FEW, SO THERE'S, THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF US, AND THEN THERE'S, I THINK, A FEW MORE AS YOU KIND OF GO DOWN THE ROW. FAIRLY LARGE BOATHOUSES, SO I THINK IT'S PROFILE, STREET. TRYING TO RETURN IT TO A LITTLE BIT OF ITS GRANDEUR, STATE THAT IT'S IN. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE THEY WERE DONE, SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE PAUSE ON THAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY HISTORY ON HOW IT GOT [01:25:01] TO ITS CURRENT STATE? WAS IT DAMAGED? WAS IT DECONSTRUCTED? WAS IT REMODELED THAT WAY? FORMER OWNER, I UNDERSTAND IT WAS IN THE FAMILY FOR, I WANT TO SAY, AT LEAST 60 YEARS. AND I THINK SHE LIVED TO 103 OR 104 YEARS OLD, THE WOMAN THAT WE PURCHASED IT FROM. SO IT PROBABLY JUST CAUGHT UP WITH HER. YOU KNOW EXPENSES YOU KNOW EVERYTHING RISES AND HER MAY HAVE STAYED STATIC SO IT PROBABLY JUST HAPPENED WHERE SHE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT YEAH QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS THAT DURING DISCUSSION. THAT'D BE GREAT. YOU DON'T MIND HE'S THE EXPERT ASK HIM VERY WELL ON HIM THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE TOPIC, PLEASE COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. LES DELTON, 1535 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE. I HAVE THE PROPERTY JUST NORTH OF THIS PLACE HERE. I CAN GIVE YOU THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED. I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1963. MY DAD BOUGHT THE... PROPERTY FROM THE PEOPLE HE BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY FROM. SO I REMEMBER THAT BOATHOUSE WHEN I WAS A KID. I FULLY, FULLY SUPPORT BRINGING IT BACK. IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL BOATHOUSE ALONG WITH THE OTHER BOATHOUSES ON THE LAKE. WHAT HAPPENED IS, I THINK IT WAS THE EARLY 70S, A STORM, A TREE FELL ON IT. DAMAGED IT. NOT EVERYBODY HAS MONEY ON THE LAKE, YOU KNOW. BACK THEN OR EVEN NOW, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO REBUILD IT. AND IT'S JUST SLOWLY DETERIORATED SINCE THEN. IT'S BOTHERED ALL OF US, WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THAT BOATHOUSE. SO WHEN KEVIN BOUGHT IT AND WANTS TO BRING IT BACK, I MEAN, COME ON. IT'S OBVIOUS IT SHOULD BE DONE. LOOK AT THE OTHER BOATHOUSE ON THE LAKE. HOW'S HE? 63-YEAR RESIDENT OF ORONO IN THE LAKE AREA, WE'RE LOSING THE HISTORY OF OUR LAKE. AND IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEND THE MONEY TO BRING IT BACK, LET THEM BRING IT BACK. I MEAN, IT TALKS ABOUT THE VIEW THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT. YEAH, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT. I WISH I COULD. I WISH THEY'D BUILD THIS HOUSE REALLY LOW SO I COULD STILL HAVE MY VIEW AND SEE THE BOWEN HOUSE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. YOU KNOW, YOU SAW THE PICTURE OF THE BONE HOUSE IS NEXT TO IT. WE'VE GOT TO BRING IT BACK. I MEAN, PAT LIVED TO BE 103. I KNEW HER. MY WIFE AND I, WE WEREN'T HER CAREGIVER, BUT WE TOOK CARE OF HER FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS. IT BOTHERED ALL OF US. WAS THAT WAY. SHE TALKED ABOUT THE WAY IT WAS. WE REMEMBER WHEN I WAS A KID, WE'D SLEEP IN IT AT NIGHT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO AIR CONDITIONING. SO IT WASN'T REBUILT NOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO, THERE WAS JUST NOT THE MONEY TO DO IT. THEY WANTED IT REBUILT. EVERYBODY WANTED IT REBUILT. AS A PERSON WHO WOULD BE REALLY AFFECTED BY THIS, I FULLY SUPPORT IT AND I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU OKAY THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE HEARD ON THE APPLICATION? PLEASE COME ON UP. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. SO I MEAN, A COUPLE THINGS I'M JUST GOING TO SUMMARIZE. I MEAN, I EMPATHIZE WITH THE APPLICATION, THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE BOATHOUSE. HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, IT DOES A CAN OF WORMS WHEN YOU HAVE A RESTRICTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO VOTE HOUSES. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY IS THE FUN OF YOU GO BACK TO WHERE STRUCTURES WERE BUILT. ON THIS ONE, I'M PUTTING UP SOME VULNERABILITIES TO WHERE STRUCTURES WERE BUILT. IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME, I WOULD EXPAND AND EXPRESS MORE EMPATHY, BUT I THINK THE HARDEST PART HERE IS THAT WE JUST... HAVE BEEN REALLY RESTRICTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO VOTE HOUSES AND BILLS. [01:30:05] I THINK I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THOSE IN THE GALLERY THAT I'M GUESSING THAT NO ONE UP HERE THINKS THAT THE CURRENT STATE OF THE BOATHOUSE AND THE DISREPAIR THAT IT IS CURRENTLY IN SHOULDN'T BE REMEDIATED. I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S A ONE-STORY BOATHOUSE WITH A DECK ON THE TOP. AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS A TWO-STORY BOATHOUSE WITH A DECK ON THE TOP, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT HAS GONE BY WITHOUT THAT SECOND STORY, THE PRECEDENT, IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO INCREASE THE MASSING OF THAT BOATHOUSE. SO MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT IT SHOULD CERTAINLY BE REMODELED AND BROUGHT BACK TO A GOOD USE AND MAKE IT BEAUTIFUL BUT I STRUGGLE WITH INCREASED MASSING OF ADDING A SECOND STORY AND I WANT TO REMIND THOSE THAT WERE NOT ONLY CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORS CAN SEE BUT ALSO THE VIEW FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND AND AND THOSE WHO USE THE LAKE OF THE MASSING AND THAT'S OFTEN WHAT WE TALK ABOUT. YEAH, I AGREE WITH VERY MUCH A LOT OF I THINK WHERE I STRUGGLE YOU LOOK AT IT DISREPAIR TO ME WHEN IT CLEARLY REPURPOSED STRUGGLE TO CREATE A PRECEDENCE THAT SAYS YEP WE'RE GONNA LET 40 YEARS GO BY AND GO BACK AND TEARS ME APART TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT I FEEL BECAUSE THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL DESIGN AND I BUILT I JUST KNOW I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD COMEDY I MEAN AGAIN AND THE STATUS AND THE USE CHANGES AND WE CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'D JUMP IN JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. I COULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU GUYS MORE. I THINK IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, WE'RE A SIDE YARD VARIANCE, WHICH WE'RE NOT CHANGING AT ALL. THERE'S A 75-FOOT BACK SETBACK. WE'RE NOT CHANGING AT ALL. AND THERE'S AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, WHICH IS A VISUAL, WHICH YOU COULD ARGUE WE'RE CHANGING. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL ELEMENT OF WHAT WAS THERE, IT ISN'T BEING CHANGED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A STATE STATUTE THAT'S IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY REGARDING THE 12-MONTH RECREATING THAT STRUCTURE IN KIND. AND I THINK AS A PROPERTY OWNER, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT, AND THAT'S NOT THAT. THAT CHANGE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, I GUESS, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STRUGGLE ON IF THIS PROPERTY OWNER WAS LIVING THERE AT THE TIME, IT WOULD BE BUILT IN WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT. AND I HEAR YOU GUYS IN IMPLEMENTING WHAT THE CITY IS ABOUT IS KIND OF HOW I HEAR YOU GUYS SAY IT, BUT THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ABOUT PRESERVING THE WATER QUALITY, WHICH WE'RE NOT AFFECTING HERE. PRESERVING THE NATURAL SHORELINE, WHICH IS NOT BEING AFFECTED HERE. WE ARE LIMITING IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT, WHICH, AGAIN, FROM A MASSING PERSPECTIVE, YOU COULD ARGUE. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE LAST BULLET IS JUST MAINTAINING CHARACTER. AND AS SOME OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS SAID, THIS IS WHAT LAKE MINNETONKA IS ABOUT. AND I THINK AS A RESIDENT FROM ORONO, I SURELY WOULD BE. COULD GET BEHIND HAVING THIS ON THE LAKE. I THINK IT'S BEAUTIFUL. I THINK IT INCREASES THE PROPERTY VALUE OF NOT ONLY THAT PROPERTY, BUT THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT, AS SEEN BY THE IMAGES SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT NEARBY. AND I JUST REALLY THINK WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND MAYBE IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO REVISE THE CODE. AND I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ON THAT TOPIC THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT ANY PROPERTY OWNER CAN GO [01:35:01] AND FIND A STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT ON THEIR PROPERTY IN 1920 OR 1940. THIS STRUCTURE IS INTACT, AND THEY ARE NOT CHANGING THE FOUNDATION OF IT. AND SO THAT'S WHY I JUST, GOING THROUGH ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE CITY CARES ABOUT, I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE BEING IMPACTED AND WHY I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. SO I'LL LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE AND JUST... HERE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS GIVE THEIR INPUT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. MR. BARNIFER I THINK I APPRECIATE THE STATEMENT THAT I DON'T TAKE ANY OFFENSE AT ALL TO THE PERSPECTIVE THAT'S WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT HAVING THIS PANEL. EVERYBODY HAS THEIR VOTE. I PERSONALLY DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATELY THAT ORNO IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER CITY ON LAKE MINNETONKA WE HAVE MORE LAKESHORE THAN ANY OTHER CITY, BUT BOTH HOUSES WHEN YOU'RE SET BACK IS TWO FEET FROM THE LAKESHORE YOU'RE NOW PUTTING IT INTO A DIFFICULT SITUATION AND THAT GOES TO THE NEIGHBORS IF THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT OR THEY'RE NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT, THEN THAT'S NOT A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. SO YOU HAVE TO PUT IT INTO A BOX OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, IF THIS MEETS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR NOT. AND CONVENIENCE IS THE NATURE IS WE DO LOOK AT DIFFERENTLY AND AGAINST YOU BECAUSE I DON'T DISAGREE, BUT IT ALSO IS IT IS IT DOES CREATE A PROBLEM BECAUSE IF NOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION FROM A NEIGHBOR THAT. IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEIGHBORLY AND THEY WANT TO BUILD TALL. IF YOU THINK OF SOME OF THESE LONGER, VERY BIG FANNING AREAS OF VIEWPOINT, YOU COULD CONSIDER. FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT I THINK IT JUST CREATES, IT WOULD BE A... IT'D BE A BOLD CHANGE FOR OUR CITY THAT I'M SURE THE COUNCIL'S PAYING ATTENTION TO, AND THEY WOULD BE ENTERTAINING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. THAT WOULD BE A BOLD ONE. BUT THE LAST 30 YEARS, WE'VE MADE SOME REALLY NICE EVOLUTION OF HOW WE VIEW ADJUDICATE THAT. SO ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE. SO I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? PLEASE. I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRANDEBURG ON THIS ONE. I THINK THIS IS UP FOR INTERPRETATION IN HOW WE LOOK AT THE CODE. I KNOW WE HAVE TO BE READING THIS CODE AS A LIVING. IT ACTUALLY SPEAKS ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF REMODELING AND RECONSTRUCTION AND WHAT THE TIMEFRAMES ARE. JUST BECAUSE THIS FELL UNDER DISREPAIR DOES NOT TRIGGER A 120-DAY THING. THE ACTUAL BOATHOUSE STILL EXISTS THERE. IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND SOMEONE'S TRYING TO REBUILD SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THERE TODAY. IT'S THERE. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS SHOW THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE AND HOW BIG IT WAS, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, ALL THAT. IN READING THE CODE AND LOOKING AT IT, IF THIS IS A REMODEL AND RECONSTRUCTION AND SOMEONE DECIDES TO MODIFY STUFF, YES, THAT WOULD TRIGGER SOMETHING. JUST BECAUSE IT FALLS UNDER DISREPAIR DOES NOT TRIGGER A 120-DAY NOTICE TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T REPAIR THE ROOF PER SE OR REPAIR A WINDOW THAT BROKE. THAT'S NOT REASONABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ANY TYPE OF BUILDING. SO I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THE LEGAL NONCONFORMITY OF THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE STILL EXISTS TODAY. IT'S THERE ON THE PROPERTY. PART OF IT HAS FALLEN DOWN, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT TRIGGERS 120-DAY. OR NOT THE 120-DAY. IS IT... THE 12-MONTH, SORRY, IN MY OPINION. SO I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE HERE FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A VARIANCE. I THINK THEY CAN REBUILD IT IN KIND. AND I GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID. I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY ALREADY REMODELED IT TO PUT RAILINGS. AND THAT WAS WHERE SOMEBODY CLEARLY LEVELED OFF THE FLOOR OF IT. REMODEL TO SOMEBODY MADE IT USABLE AS A THAT'S WHERE I GET THE STRUGGLE RIGHT YOU'VE NOW REMODELED IT INTO A SMALLER VOLUME OF SPACE AT SOME POINT HISTORICALLY HOWEVER IT GOT THERE BUT THE PICTURES CLEARLY SHOW THE RAILINGS THAT ARE ON THE SECOND CAN I ASK SURE BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION AND UM UH MY BIGGEST CONCERN OR QUESTION WOULD GO TO, AND AGAIN, IT'S RELATED TO PRECEDENT, IF THERE HAD BEEN A STRUCTURE ON A PROPERTY AND THAT STRUCTURE HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN FOR WHATEVER REASON AND WAS NOW JUST A SMALL PORTION OF A DECK, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE IN TERMS OF THERE IS EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE? WELL... [01:40:02] THERE'S NO SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE IN THE CODE. IT DOESN'T SAY IF 10% OF THIS IS DAMAGED OR IF 10% FALLS UNDER DISREPAIR THAT YOU HAVE TO APPLY TO FIX THAT WITHIN A MONTH. THERE'S NO PERCENTAGE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THAT BOATHOUSE EXISTS TODAY. IT'S THERE. IF THE STRUCTURE WASN'T THERE, IT WOULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING. AND SOMEONE'S SAYING, HEY, I WANT TO PUT A BOATHOUSE WHERE THERE USED TO BE ONE. SORRY, IT'S GONE. IT'S NOT THERE. BUT THE STRUCTURE IS THERE. AGAIN, THOUGH, MY QUESTION IS IF THERE WAS LIKE A SMALL PORTION OF, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENT THAT IT COULD SET. THAT'S THE POINT I'M MAKING. THERE'S NO POINT. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE CODE. UNLESS IT'S A COMPLETE REMODEL, RECONSTRUCTION, THAT DOES SPEAK TO THAT. BUT IN THIS CASE, A TREE FELL ON IT. IT WAS DAMAGED. IT FELL UNDER DISREPAIR. SO YOU THINK THIS IS DISREPAIR AND NOT RECONSTRUCTION? WELL, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTOS OF IT, IT'S DEFINITELY IN DISREPAIR. IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THEY STARTED USING THE SECOND, WHAT USED TO BE THE MAIN FLOOR. AT WHAT POINT DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AND SAY, WHEN THOSE CRACKS HAPPENED IN THE BRICK, CLEARLY THAT HAPPENED OVER A YEAR AGO, NOW THEY CAN'T REBUILD THIS? NO, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY CAN REBUILD WHAT IS. I'M JUST SAYING, I'M PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE AND SAYING, WELL, WHY DON'T WE APPLY IT TO THAT AS WELL? AND NOW THE WHOLE STRUCTURE HAS TO BE DONE. AND THAT'S WHERE I GO TO MY POINT. THE STRUCTURE IS STILL THERE, I THINK. EXACTLY. EXACTLY MY POINT. BUT THE HEIGHT IS NOT. THAT CAN REBUILD WHAT'S THERE. BUT THE HEIGHT WAS THERE. THE HEIGHT WAS THERE. THAT IS THE STRUCTURE. I DON'T THINK THAT CODE... IF I MAY, I'VE GOT TO TAKE ORDER HERE FOR A SECOND. IF I MAY. SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OVER AND WE CAN... JUST ONE... IF I CAN MAKE ONE POINT. YES, PLEASE. CODE THAT THE STAFF IS REFERRING TO TALKS ABOUT PERMIT TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE, NOT PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE. SO THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE, IS THAT THIS PERCENTAGE PIECE IS MISSING FROM THE CODE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S WRITTEN TO SAY THAT IF A PIECE OF YOUR STRUCTURE BREAKS... AND YOU HAVE AN ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, YOU HAVE TO REPAIR THAT IN ONE YEAR OR... AND THAT'S WHERE I'D GO. IF I KNEW NO BACK HISTORY OF THIS BUILDING, NOTHING. TRY AND BLANK OUT THAT. MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THIS IS A ONE-STORY BUILDING THAT'S BEEN REMODELED. IF THEY NEVER BUILT THAT DECK AND I COULD SEE FRAGMENTS OF... THE SECOND STORY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEN I WOULD SAY, YES, IT'S FALLEN IN DISREPAIR. NOBODY'S TOUCHED IT FOR 40 YEARS. CLEARLY, LIKE I SAID, I WOULD BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT IF FRAGMENTS OF THOSE WALLS WERE STILL THERE. BUT IF SOMEBODY WENT THROUGH AND SAID, I'M GOING TO REMODEL THIS TO PUT A DECK IN, THAT'S WHERE I START TO SAY WE'RE BACK TO HER POINT THAT IF SOMEBODY DEMOLISHED A BOATHOUSE, PUT A DECK THERE IN ITS PLACE, ARE YOU GOING TO LET THEM PUT A BOATHOUSE AGAIN? THE ANSWER IS NO. YEAH, I'VE BEEN PRETTY MUCH ON THE MIDDLE ON THIS ONE, BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOUR POINT. HAD THEY NOT REPAIRED THE BOATHOUSE AS IS, I COULD BE FULLY BEHIND REBUILDING IT TO BE TWO-STORY LIKE THE ORIGINAL. BUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS REMODELED, REBUILT, IN MY MIND, WE HAVE TO STICK TO WHAT'S THERE. I'LL QUICKLY JUMP IN, AND I THINK CHAIR VOSS MADE AN INTERESTING POINT THAT I AGREE WITH. IN MY OPINION, THIS APPLICATION REALLY SHOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT AT ADMITTING THAT THIS STRUCTURE WAS THERE, BUT WE'RE DEBATING ABOUT HOW MUCH OF IT THEY CAN BUILD BACK. TO ME, WE HAVE NO LEGAL STANDPOINT TO TELL THEM HOW MUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDING THEY CAN RECONSTRUCT. SO I JUST STRUGGLE WITH THAT POINT AND WHY, IN MY OPINION, BASED ON CITY AND STATE CODE, THAT THIS STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE REBUILT AS IT WAS. HISTORICALLY AND AS IT IS IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT WHAT I TRIED TO ARTICULATE WITH WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US IS THAT I COULD GET BEHIND THE VARIANCE. IF WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS ITS CURRENT STATE AND THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN REBUILD, AS THE CITY IS INTERPRETING, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE OF THE POINTS I LAID OUT, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE VARIANCES IN FRONT OF US. HOPEFULLY, I PROVIDED A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY IN TERMS OF WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US AND WHERE I STAND, I GUESS. STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THANK YOU. PART OF MY UNDERSTANDING, AS I'VE INTERPRETED, PART OF THESE RESTRICTIONS AND THE [01:45:04] 12 MONTHS AND ALL THAT, THE GOAL IS TO, THROUGH ATTRITION, RIGHT? THE GOAL IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS. CORRECT. NOW YOU'RE DONE. YOU'VE MADE A CHANGE. YOU'RE DONE. SO TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THE GOAL ISN'T TO SAY YOU'VE HAD THIS, YOU GET TO KEEP IT FOREVER. THE REAL GOAL OF ALL THE CODES IS THAT EVENTUALLY OVER TIME. TIME CHANGES ARE GOING TO HAPPEN AND THIS IS ALL GOING TO GET THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT CAN BE MAINTAINED AND KEPT FOREVER IF IT'S MAINTAINED YEP BUT THE GOAL IS TO PUT LIMITS ON IT SO THAT AS YOU GET RID OF IT IT NEVER COMES CORRECT JUST JUST TO ADD ONE POINT OF CLARITY BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT ON THE LAKE SHORE AND WE NORMALLY WOULDN'T ALLOW SOMEONE TO BUILD RIGHT ON THE LAKE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COMMISSIONER WILSON. WE'RE NOT SAYING WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE BUILDING BOATHOUSES OR BUILDING STRUCTURES OR IMPROVING THEIR LAND. IT'S THE FACT THAT THIS IS RIGHT ON THE LAKE SHORE AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT TODAY. SO WE GENERALLY DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO ADD TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT TODAY. I GUESS... I STRUGGLED TO THAT POINT OF IT DOES EXIST TODAY, AND ADDING THE SECOND STORY ON DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE WATER, THE SHORELINE. YOU CAN ARGUE IT AFFECTS THE MASSING, BUT THAT'S WHERE I TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS HISTORICALLY THERE AND WHAT WAS MEANT TO BE ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT I AM IN SUPPORT OF. I GET THAT'S A DEBATABLE TOPIC, BUT, AGAIN, I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REBUILDING THE STRUCTURE, IT IS THERE, AND WHETHER THEY REBUILD IT, AS IS IN KIND TODAY, OR ADDING ANOTHER STORY, THERE'S NO FURTHER IMPACT ON THE LAKESHORE OR THE WATERWAY, AND THAT'S WHERE I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S A FALSE PIVOT THAT US TRYING TO PRESERVE THE LAKE ALWAYS GO TO. I WOULD PROVIDE A POINT OF DISSENSION AGAINST THAT BECAUSE INCREASING MAPPING, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL STORY... FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T ARGUE THAT IT COULD BE INCREASING MASSING. IT IS. IF YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER STORY, IT IS INCREASING MASSING. AND IT'S INCREASING THE USE OF THAT SPACE AND THAT IT IS INCREASING MASSING FOR THE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE LAKE. SO THOSE ARE FACTS THAT ADDING A SECOND STORY TO THIS WOULD BE DOING. OKAY. GOOD POINTS OF DISCUSSION. AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PERSPECTIVE AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE. TO ME IT ISN'T WHAT IT DOESN'T HAVE STATE AND ADOPTED CITY STATUTE THAT SAY THE CLOCK IS 12 MONTHS FOR WHAT EXISTS. IF THIS WAS A BARN THAT HAD BEEN IT'S ADOPTED AS HEIGHT AND MASSING THAT IS THERE AND WHAT WE CAN ONLY DO FOR THAT REASON THE FACT THAT WE CAN GOOD DISCUSSION, GOOD POINTS. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE VOTE, AND THAT'S WHY CITIES CHANGE PERSPECTIVES. AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DENY THE... MR. CHAIR, PLEASE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF THIS... SORRY, LA 26-25, IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY. IF WE ULTIMATELY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION, IN STAFF'S OPINION, IS THIS STRUCTURE AS IT SITS TODAY, CAN THEY COME IN AND GET A PERMIT TO REBUILD THIS IN KIND, OR DO THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY AGAIN? THEY CAN REBUILD WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON THAT SCREEN. BUILDING THE FLOOR TODAY CAN BE RECONSTRUCTED. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT [01:50:01] THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM. AND YOUR OPINION IS THAT THE BUILDING IN THE DISTRICT WHERE IT'S IN RIGHT NOW IS ALLOWED TO BE REBUILT. IT STILL IS A BUILDING KIND OF. THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE THE SECOND STORY DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS, I HAVE A ONE-STORY BOATHOUSE. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN ADDITION ON TOP OF IT. I THINK IT WAS THERE IN THE PAST. IT'S GONE. BUT I'D LIKE A VARIANCE TO PUT THAT SECOND STORY ON. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. THEY CAN BUILD THAT STRUCTURE, REBUILD THAT STRUCTURE. I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS, BECAUSE THE CODE TALKS ABOUT THE DISREPAIR AND DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE THAT STRUCTURE IS IN DISREPAIR. THEY CAN REBUILD THAT BUILDING. OKAY. IF THE STRUCTURE STILL EXISTS, WHAT IS EXISTING CAN BE REBUILT TO THE DIMENSIONS THAT EXIST, AND WHAT IS NOT THERE CANNOT BE ADDED ON BY OUR... DEFINITION OF UNLESS IT WAS THERE WITHIN THE LAST STATE CODE AND CITY ADOPTED. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S IN DISREPAIR OR NOT. CORRECT. I MEAN IF IT WAS IF IT EXISTED WITHIN 12 MONTHS IN DISREPAIR OR NOT LIKE THAT IT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE THE CODE SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THAT AND THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT SO THAT THEY CAN COME BACK IN AND GET THE GET THE PERMIT TO REBUILD THIS. YEAH BECAUSE IT'S AN OPINION NOW THAT IT'S THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REBUILT BASED ON ITS CURRENT CONDITION. BUT I DON'T THINK THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THEY CAN'T. NO, WE ROUTINELY, I MEAN, WE LOOK AT THEM VERY CLOSELY TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT EXPANDING, AND WE LOOK AT THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO PROHIBIT THEM FROM THE FEMA AND THE DNR STANDARDS, AND BUILDING PERMITS ARE WHAT WE TYPICALLY WILL HANDLE. CORRECT, YEAH. NOT MAINTAINING IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN'T REBUILD. I'D LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE. MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO, AND I KNOW I'VE SAID IT, BUT I WANT TO SAY IT AGAIN. IF THE APPLICANT COULD SHOW THAT THERE ARE REMNANTS OF THE SECOND STORY STILL THERE, I COULD SUPPORT IT. IT'S THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN WIPED CLEAN TO A RAILING. THAT'S WHERE, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE, I KNOW I'M REPEATING MYSELF. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE OF THE MOTION IS TO SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE AYES AND BOLLIS. BRANDABUR, NOT THAT GOOD? THANK YOU GUYS. GOT THROUGH IT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP 5.4 LA 26-26. THREE RIVERS CONTRACTING 2055 SPADES AVENUE. VARIANCE APPLICATION WITH MR. CARNEY. ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR. IF I MAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS A REQUEST JUST FOR A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND FOR FIVE MINUTES, 8 O'CLOCK SHARP. [5.4) LA26-000026, Three Rivers Contracting, 2055 Spates Avenue, Variances (Matthew Karney)] ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GAVEL BACK IN HERE AFTER RECESS. THANKS, EVERYONE. WE'RE PICKING UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. I BELIEVE WHERE WE DID LEAVE OFF WAS MR. CARNEY'S PRESENTATION ON LA 26-26, WHICH IS 2055 SPADES AVENUE. SIR, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS WILL BE ANOTHER VARIANCE REQUEST LOCATED AT 2055 SPATES AVENUE. AND ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A REQUEST TO ADD ON TO A SINGLE-STORY HOME WITHIN THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS, SIMILAR TO A VARIANCE WE HAD LAST MONTH, I BELIEVE, A SIMILAR LR1A TWO-ACRE ZONED PROPERTY FOR A PROPERTY IN THIS CASE THAT IS A FOURTH. OR LESS THAN A FOURTH OF THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE FOR THE ZONE DISTRICT I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AS WELL AND ONE POINT OF THIS REQUEST I'LL MENTION RIGHT NOW IS THAT THERE WILL BE A UTILIZATION OF EXISTING HARDCOVER BUT CHANGING THE NATURE OF IT FROM A DRIVEWAY TO THE ADDITION SO THE AREA OF THIS PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE GOING ON A PLACE OF EXISTING HARDCOVER ALBEIT A DRIVEWAY IN TERMS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, I JUST HAVE AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE SURVEY THAT IS PRESENT. AGAIN, A SINGLE-STORY HOME, [01:55:01] LOOKING TO PROVIDE AN ADDITION, REALLY TO FILL IN THE GAPS, I GUESS, IN THIS AREA BY THE GARAGE AS WELL. BUT WITH THE MAIN DIFFICULTY BEING THE INWARD JOG OR THIS CONCAVE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY, PRETTY MUCH BRINGING THIS PROPERTY CORNER IN FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE HOUSE. THROW A 50 FOOT SETBACK FROM THIS REAR PROPERTY LINE AND 30 FROM THESE SIDES AS WELL. IT MAKES IT CHALLENGING FOR A CONFORMING ADDITION TO BE PLANNED ON HERE WHEN QUITE LITERALLY THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS CONFINED TO THIS VERY SMALL AREA. THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS. CURRENTLY NO SECOND STORY AND THEN THIS PORTION OF THE HOUSE IS NOT EXISTING. IN TERMS OF PROPOSED, THE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE IS ABOUT 60 FEET, GOING UP A SECOND STORY AS WELL. STAYING WITHIN THE ALLOWED HEIGHT OF 30 FEET, I BELIEVE IT COMES OUT TO ABOUT 22 OR 23 FEET. REALLY NO CHANGE UP OTHER THAN THE FIRST STORY FROM THE STREET LEVEL. THERE WON'T BE ANY MASSING REALLY TO THE SIDES OF THE HOUSE FROM THE STREET LEVEL. AND JUST FLOOR PLANS OF THE BUILDING SHOWING HOW THAT WILL ULTIMATELY COME TOGETHER ON BOTH THE FIRST AND THE SECOND LEVEL. AND THE SURVEYED REALLY SIX SQUARE FEET ALSO INCLUDING THIS OVERHANG DECK OVER THE DRIVEWAY AS WELL SO IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE REVIEW THIS WAS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD VARIANCE FOR STAFF IN GENERAL IT DOES MEET ALL THE APPLICABLE VARIANCE CRITERIA PRIMARILY QUALIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING THAT THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE AND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS VERY CHALLENGING TO LOCATE A REASONABLE ADDITION ON THIS HOME AND OR EXPAND THE GARAGE. THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF BRINGS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IN CLOSER TO THE HOUSE MAKING IT CHALLENGING TO REALLY UTILIZE THAT GARAGE SPACE THAT IS REALLY CLOSE TO THAT INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE. ADDITIONALLY, IN TERMS OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE AREA OR COHESIVENESS, I SUPPOSE SECOND STORIES ARE FAIRLY COMMON IN THIS AREA AS WELL AND IS WHAT STAFF WOULD CONSIDER A REASONABLE USE. IN TERMS OF A SUMMARY, THIS IS A SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PRINCIPAL BUILDING ADDITION LOOKING AT A 17.2 SIDE SETBACK WHEN 30 FEET IS REQUIRED AND ALSO A 35 FOOT REAR SETBACK WHERE 50 FEET IS REQUIRED IN THE WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CARNEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, APPRECIATE IT. IF THE APPLICANTS HERE WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. TERRY MORSE, 2080 SPATES AVENUE. HELLO. WE LIVE IN THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET AND WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1980. OUR HOUSE IN 1980 WAS BUILT IN 1855 AND HAD BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT IN 1980 AND WE BELIEVE IN IMPROVING WHAT'S THERE VERSUS TEARING DOWN. AND SO THIS SINGLE CAR GARAGE A SMALL RAMBLER IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE WHO REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CHILDREN. WE'VE HAD IT IN OUR FAMILY SINCE 1988. OUR CHILDREN HAVE USED IT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. ONE OF THEM WOULD LIKE TO BE THERE. SO WE'D REALLY LIKE TO MAKE IT SO A GROWING FAMILY CAN HAVE THAT LOCATION. WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 47 YEARS AND WE JUST LOVE IT. FOX BATES AVENUE AND EVERY HOMEOWNER THERE HAS BEEN FANTASTIC IN IMPROVING THE PROPERTIES AND THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE HE STEPS AWAY? I JUST MIGHT HAVE ONE. WHENEVER WE HAVE A VARIANCE, WE HAVE THREE TRAFFICATIONS. THE REAR SETBACK IS THREE FEET. THING IS 35.1 FEET PROPOSES 35 FEET SO IT'S 0.1 FURTHER THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW THE REASON NEEDED THE EXTRA CAN YOU SHOW I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT AND I THINK IT'S REALLY THE THE REAR [02:00:03] PROPERTY LINE AND THE REAR SIDE OF THE HOUSE AREN'T PARALLEL SO BY EXTRA EXTENDING THE FACE OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE AREN'T PARALLEL IT'S MOVING EVER SO SLIGHTLY TOWARDS THE PROPERTY LINE. GREAT, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. ANYONE ELSE? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHAT'S THE CURRENT FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE? DO YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW. SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE IS GOING TO BE? IT'LL BASICALLY BE DOUBLE BUT DO YOU HAVE THAT? YEAH, I HAVE THE FOOTPRINT. THE FOOTPRINT IS IN THE 1900 RANGE. THE ADDITION IS ABOUT 320 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL AND 2200. BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE SECOND. THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU MIGHT MAKE YOURSELF AVAILABLE DURING DISCUSSION. IF WE HAVE ANY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE OF WHICH BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, VARIANCE APPLICATION. MR. CARNEY DID A NICE JOB OF GETTING INTO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, WHICH IS GENERALLY THE TOOLS THAT WE USE TO ENTERTAIN THESE VARIANCE APPLICATIONS. DO WE HAVE FEEDBACK, PERSPECTIVES, DISCERNMENT, ANYTHING? I'LL SUMMARIZE IT THEN. I THINK IT'S REASONABLE. I DO UNDERSTAND THE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE. LIMITATIONS TO WHERE ELSE YOU CAN GO WITH THIS. IT'S IN AN AREA THAT WE GENERALLY HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN, AND I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO THE LOCATION IS ONE THAT'S RIGHT. SO NOT THAT WE WANT TO BRING VARIANCES FOR IS WHERE IT IS AND WHAT IT IS. SECOND. WAS THERE A MOTION? I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION, BUT I'M MAKING A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT. DID WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING? DID WE OPEN IT? YES, I CLOSED IT. OKAY, THANK YOU. I WOULD ADD THAT IN THE PAST WHEN VARIANCES THAT ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD LIKE THIS INCLUDE ESSENTIALLY FILLING IN THE EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE, I TEND TO BE MORE EASILY SUPPORTIVE OF THEM BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT... ENCROACHING BEYOND THE EXISTING KIND OF SHAPE OF THE THE BUILDING YEAH I'LL JUST ADD THAT I APPRECIATE THE DESIGN UM YOU KNOW USING EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME UH USING THE DRYWAYS SO WE'RE NOT COMPLETELY CHANGING HARDCOVER UM AND MAKING IT A MORE DIFFICULT DISCUSSION SO I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THIS UH SUPPLIED ANYONE WANT TO MAKE THEM MAKE A MOTION TO A SECOND APPLICATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. [5.5) LA26-000027, Nick Taintor o/b/o Orono Ice Arena Inc. & Orono School District No. 278, 2885 6th Avenue North, Easement Vacation, Public Hearing (Staff: Melanie Curtis)] WE'RE MOVING ON TO 5.5 LE 26-27. WE HAVE ORONO ICE ARENA, SCHOOL DISTRICT 278, 28856 AVENUE NORTH, EASEMENT VACATION. PUBLIC HEARING, MS. CURTIS. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF A DEDICATED PERIMETER DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT IMPACTING 2885 6TH AVENUE NORTH TO SUPPORT A COMBINATION OF THAT PROPERTY WITH THE LARGER ADJACENT SCHOOL CAMPUS TO FACILITATE A FORTHCOMING EXPANSION OF THE ICE ARENA. YOU REVIEWED THE ICE ARENA EXPANSION APPLICATION A COUPLE MONTHS AGO UNDER APPLICATION LA 2600020. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS OVER OR ACROSS A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IS NOT PERMITTED. DEDICATION OF PERIMETER DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PLATTED LOTS. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST INCLUDES THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE EXISTING EASEMENTS ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES WILL BE RETAINED. FOR CONTINUITY. THE CITY RECEIVED SEVERAL INQUIRIES REGARDING THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS APPLICATION. NONE OF THE INQUIRIES RESULTED IN FORMAL COMMENTS, MORE JUST QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE VACATION WAS FOR AND KNOWING THAT IT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARENA APPLICATION. [02:05:01] SO NO ONE SUBMITTED ANY COMMENTS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED VACATION AS APPLIED. FOLLOWING VACATION APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY WILL BE COMBINED WITH 795 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH AND WILL BE OWNED BY THE ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT AT SHORT NOTICE DUE TO A FAMILY EMERGENCY. I CAN TRY TO HANDLE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE REGARDING THAT, AND THE EXHIBIT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY, BUT I CAN ALSO EXPLAIN THOSE TO YOU. MS. CURTIS, SO I MEAN, MY ONLY QUESTION IS JUST MORE OF A CLARIFICATION FOR RECORD. WE'RE DOING A VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BUT THAT STILL MEANS THAT THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE AND IMPROVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. MORE JUST A VEHICLE OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS. CORRECT. ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THOSE THINGS. YEAH. THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY ARE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE ACCESS, AND COMBINING IT WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY KIND OF ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR THAT. WE CHANGE THOSE PERIMETERS, YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I APPRECIATE THAT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE CLARIFICATION? QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS OTHERWISE THAT'S PRETTY EASY FOR ME. THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL IT OUT. THIS IS NOT THE APPLICATION AT ALL. THE APPLICATION JUST FOR THE VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND AS STAFF MISS CURTIS CLARIFIED THAT WHEN YOU CHANGE THE PERIMETER YOU'RE CHANGING THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SO I I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DISCUSSION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE OTHERWISE PLEASE MAKE A MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED BY PURKLE IN A SECOND BY WELTON ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE CARRIES [5.6) LA26-000028, Jesse & Kelly Sater, 3895 Shoreline Drive, Variances (Matthew Karney)] UNANIMOUSLY, NUMBER ONE. MOVING ON TO LA-26-28, WE HAVE 3895 SHORELINE DRIVE, ANOTHER VARIANCE APPLICATION, MR. CARNEY. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. THIS IS A SEPARATE VARIANCE FOR 3895 SHORELINE DRIVE. THIS IS ULTIMATELY AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FOR A FENCE THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE LAKE SETBACK, THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, AND INCLUDES A HEIGHT INCREASE BEYOND WHAT IS ALLOWED. THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS ZONED LR1C AND IS ON THE SMALLER SIDE AT ABOUT 06,000 SQUARE FEET. IN TERMS OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, STAFF BECAME AWARE OF THIS, I WANT TO SAY IN MARCH OR APRIL, WITH A ZONING COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF A FENCE BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE LAKESHORE. FOLLOWING OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE, WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A NEW FENCE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, BUT USING AERIAL IMAGERY, IT WAS VERY HARD TO TELL WHETHER OR NOT A FENCE HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE. IMAGERY REALLY SHOWING WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY, WHICH IS MORE OF A SOLID WHITE VINYL FENCE, KIND OF AS WE'RE SEEING HERE. WITH THAT NOT BEING PRESENT IN AERIAL IMAGERY, STAFF WENT FORWARD WITH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR AN IMPROVEMENT BEING PLACED WITHIN THE LAKESHORE, ULTIMATELY WITHOUT PROPER APPROVALS. I WILL NOTE RIGHT NOW THAT ORDINARILY, THE CITY DOESN'T TAKE FENCE PERMITS, ONLY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AREN'T BEING MET. SO THE AVERAGE PERSON COULD REPLACE THEIR FENCE, ASSUMING IT MEETS ZONING STANDARDS, AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN MOST OF THE TIME. STAFF IS NOT REVIEWING THESE PERMITS REGULARLY. BUT WITH INFORMATION BEING PRESENT THAT A SIX-FOOT FENCE WAS NOT PRESENT ON THIS PROPERTY PRIOR IN THE LOCATION OF THE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AS WELL AS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE, WE PROCEEDED WITH THE LETTER AND ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT SOME MORE INFORMATION. THE APPLICANTS AND THE OWNERS HAVE BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE TO STAFF SINCE THAT LETTER WAS RECEIVED, PROVIDING REALLY AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY CAN TO SHED LIGHT AS TO WHAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TALLER FENCE. I THINK WHAT WAS DETERMINED IS THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF A FOUR-FOOT-TALL FENCE EXISTED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES AS HIGHLIGHTED [02:10:01] ON THIS IMAGE HERE. SO MORE OR LESS, THE PROPOSED CONDITION IS... THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE THAT IS PRESENT THERE TODAY. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE TYPE OF GRAPHIC THAT WE WILL SHARE OR CREATE FOR HOMEOWNERS OR CONTRACTORS THAT ARE LOOKING FOR HOW OUR FENCE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THEIR PROPERTY. WE HAVE DIFFERENT HEIGHT ALLOWANCES BASED ON IF YOU'RE LOCATED ON A COUNTY ROAD OR A STREET, IF YOU'RE ON A SIDE TO STREET YARD, AN INTERIOR SIDE LOT OR IN THESE CASES THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK HAS ITS OWN HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, AND THE LAKE SETBACK FENCES ARE PROHIBITED OUTRIGHT. SO MORE OR LESS, I CREATED A GRAPHIC SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WOULD DO WHEN FOLKS WOULD COME IN AND INQUIRE ABOUT THE FENCING ON THEIR PROPERTY, WITH REALLY THE ALLOWANCES THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS. WITH THE WAKE SETBACK GOING... ALMOST HALFWAY INTO THE HOUSE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE FENCE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WAS LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACKS, WITH THE HEIGHT INCREASE ALSO TRIGGERING THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AS WELL. IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE REVIEW, HARDCOVER ISN'T TRIGGERED WITH THE FENCING. IT'S A MATTER OF THE HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE LOCATION IN AND OF ITSELF. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH KIND OF THE BIG PICTURE FINDINGS FROM THE STAFF VARIANCE REVIEW. ULTIMATELY, THE INCREASING OF THE SIZE OF A NON-CONFORMING FENCE IS AGAINST THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS WHEN THEY ARE OUTRIGHT PROHIBITED IN THIS SPACE. SIMILAR TO THE APPLICATION WE HEARD EARLIER THIS EVENING, THE IN-KIND REPLACEMENT IS ALWAYS AN OPTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE. A FOUR-FOOT TALL FENCE COULD BE RECONSTRUCTED IN THIS AREA AND WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENT BASED ON WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE FLEXIBILITIES ON A PROPERTY LIKE THIS ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROADS THAT COULD ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE NEAR SHORELINE DRIVE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE BIGGEST DRIVER OF THE NOISE IN THIS AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED ON THIS TINY STRETCH OF SHORELINE ON THE EDGE OF SPRING PARK AND BEFORE DUNWOODY AVENUE HAVE SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZES. BUT NON-CONFORMING FENCES AREN'T A CONDITION ON EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY IN THE AREA. THERE'S NOTHING IN SOME CASES, ARBORVITAE, LANDSCAPING AND SUCH FOR OTHERS, BUT IT'S NOT A UNIFORM CONDITION IN THIS AREA. IT'S A ONE-OFF MORE OR LESS FOR THREE, MAYBE FOUR PROPERTIES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT ADDITIONALLY, WALKING THROUGH MY SUMMARY HERE, THIS IS REALLY FOR THAT TWO-FOOT INCREASE FROM THAT FOUR FEET THAT WAS PRESENT THERE PREVIOUSLY TO GET TO THAT SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED CONTACT TO THEIR NEIGHBORS AND RECEIVED THREE LETTERS BACK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. THOSE ARE PART OF THE MATERIALS THAT I PROVIDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ALL THREE LETTERS SHOULD BE IN YOUR POSSESSION, EITHER SUBMITTED WITH THE PACKET OR PROVIDED BY PAPER. AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL PHOTO FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST AS WELL I HAVE ACCESS TO AERIAL VIEWS AND OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL AND I CAN PUT THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN AS NEEDED TO HELP PAINT THE PICTURE AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE THANK YOU MR CARNEY ANY QUESTIONS FOR UH STAFF I'VE GOT A QUESTION YEAH MR BOLLIS UM CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE THOUGHT PROCESS YOU MENTIONED THAT A FOUR-FOOT FENCE COULD BE BUILT THERE IN KIND. YOU WALKED ME THROUGH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS ON WHY YOU'VE DETERMINED THAT. BECAUSE A FENCE EXISTED THERE BEFORE, AND THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPHS AND EVIDENCE THAT A FENCE WAS PRESENT WITHIN THE LANDSCAPING PREVIOUSLY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE THAT THERE'S PHOTOGRAPHS OF, BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY, BUT IT CAN BE REBUILT IN KIND. YES. IT WAS WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS. THE FENCE... THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE. DO WE KNOW THAT? I BELIEVE BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY AND... AND THIS IS WHAT MAKES IT CHALLENGING BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A DOCUMENTED RECORD OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE BECAUSE THE CITY ISN'T REQUIRING PERMITS IN THIS SITUATION. THERE ISN'T REALLY A PAPER TRAIL THAT WE CAN DO. THIS IS WHAT THE KITCHEN WAS. BASED ON THE PHOTOS THAT I'VE SEEN, THE DATE STAMPS, THE INVOICES I'VE SEEN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW FENCE EVEN, I BELIEVE THAT IN-KIND REPLACEMENT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS JUST [02:15:03] TO CLARIFY. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE ON THESE PICTURES, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE ORIGINALLY THERE WAS A FOUR-FOOT PICKET FENCE THAT WAS SEE-THROUGH AND WAS SCREENED WITH BUSHES AND PLANTS. AND IT'S BEEN REPLACED WITH A SIX-FOOT-TALL SOLID WHITE FENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, THANK YOU. MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, WOULD THE IN-KIND FENCE HAVE REQUIRED THE BRUSH TO SHIELD IT FROM THE LAKE SO YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS BRIGHT, GIGANTIC FENCE, OR COULD THEY HAVE CLEAR-CUT THE BRUSH AND PUT A FOUR-FOOT FENCE? THERE'S NO PROHIBITIONS ON THE BRUSH IN THERE. WOULD THE IN-KIND FENCE HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN PICKETED WITH... MORE VISIBILITY THROUGH IT OR COULD THEY HAVE PUT A SOLID FENCE? WE WOULD HAVE. SO WE DON'T REQUIRE PERMITTING FOR FENCING, SO WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD DOCUMENTATION. BUT AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE WHAT YOU HAVE. WE HAVE THE MATERIAL CHANGE OUT, SO A PICKET TO A CHAIN LINK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT HASN'T BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE MANAGED. IT'S BEEN THE HEIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF FENCING THAT WE HAVE A REGULATED ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND JUST QUICK PLACEMENT IS THE EXACT SAME PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE. IT'S JUST STRICTLY THE HEIGHT THAT'S CHANGED CORRECT. YES, OKAY THANK YOU MR. CARNEY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS HERE WISH TO BE HEARD PLEASE COME ON UP STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HI, GOOD EVENING. I'M KELLY SATER. WE LIVE AT 3895 SHORELINE DRIVE. WE MOVED OUT TO THE PROPERTY IN APRIL OF 2016, SO WE'VE BEEN OUT HERE ABOUT 10 YEARS. WE WERE NEWLYWEDS WHEN WE MOVED IN. WE REALLY LOVE THE PROPERTY. IT WAS BUILT IN 1920. THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY UNIQUE FEATURES ABOUT IT. IT'S A REALLY COOL LOT. WE PURCHASED IT. THE OWNERS WHO HAD BEEN THERE PRIOR WERE THERE FOR LIKE 30 YEARS AND HAD RAISED THEIR FAMILY THERE, PART OF THE REASON THEY WERE SELLING. WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE GETTING TO AN AGE WHERE IT WAS BECOMING DIFFICULT TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY. AND SO WHEN WE MOVED IN, THAT FENCE THAT YOU SAW WAS THERE. THERE ARE ALSO, AND IT WAS DETERIORATING, IT WAS PRETTY DILAPIDATED. AND THERE WAS ALSO MATURE LILAC BUSHES THAT RAN THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES AS WELL. AND SO WE'VE BEEN ACTUALLY TALKING TO NEIGHBORS FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT REPLACING THE FENCE AND IMPROVING THE LOOK OF IT. AND THEN OUR NEIGHBORS ON 3905, WHICH IS TWO DOORS DOWN TO THE WEST OF US, THEY REPLACED THEIR FENCE AND HAVE A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN THERE. YARD AND SO WE LIKED IT AND THOUGHT WE WOULD DO THE SAME. WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES RELATED TO TRAFFIC NOISE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY AND SO WE WERE ON BOARD WITH KIND OF DOING THE SAME THING THAT OUR NEIGHBORS WERE DOING. WE HAD TALKED TO THEM ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT LIKE WE NEEDED A PERMIT OR A VARIANCE. THEY TOLD US THAT THEY DIDN'T GET ONE OR DIDN'T NEED ONE. WE REVIEWED THE ORDINANCES AND WE REALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS JUST A LIKE KIND. WE ALSO HAD THE BUILDER, THE INSTALLER OF THE FENCE, TAKE A LOOK. AND SO I GUESS THE POINT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IS THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO DO AND THEN GET AWAY WITH OR ANYTHING. WE REALLY WERE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND IF WE HAD KNOWN THIS PRIOR, THAT WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, COME AND ASKED FOR THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED. SO HERE WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT. I THINK JESSE'S GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFICS RELATED TO THE REASONS THAT THIS IS, WE FEEL LIKE, NECESSARY. I KNOW IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A BIG CHANGE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE RULES IT IS, AND I THINK THERE'S REALLY GOOD REASONS FOR THE TWO-FOOT INCREASE. SO HE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. JESSE SATER, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY. ONE ADDITIONAL THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT WE DO, IT WAS A 3915 THAT WENT IN. IT'S A TALL PRIVACY FENCE THAT WE TALKED WITH. BARELY MAKE IT OUT ON THE CHAIR THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. BUT THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ALSO HAVE TALL PRIVACY FENCING THERE. AND SO IF YOU KIND OF COUNT IT, I THINK ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN PROPERTIES TOTAL THAT ARE RIGHT ON SHORELINE DRIVE BETWEEN SPRING PARK AND DUNWOODY AVENUE. AND FOUR NOW OF THE SEVEN, INCLUDING US. HAVE SIX FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCING. AND SO THE ONE PROPERTY THAT WAS RECENTLY REMODELED, I THINK IT'S 386 THERE, DOES HAVE AT, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE JUST, I WOULD BE SOUTH ACTUALLY, OF THE RED GARAGE THAT YOU SEE THERE. [02:20:02] THEY'VE GOT A SIX FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCE THAT RUNS TO A... MAYBE HALFWAY OF THE LAKESIDE PART OF THE STRUCTURE THERE THAT THEN GOES OUT TO SHORELINE AND THEN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO DUNWOODY AVENUE. THEY SHARE THAT FENCE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR. AND SO THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THAT FENCE LINE ALL THE WAY ACROSS SHORELINE THAT WE DON'T HAVE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR DRIVEWAY IS SET UP WITH OUR NEIGHBORS THERE. SO THAT WASN'T AN OPTION TO US. SO OUR REALLY ONLY OPTION WAS TO REPLACE THE FENCE THAT WE HAD THERE. SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO COME AS A SURPRISE, SHORELINE DRIVE, PARTICULARLY WHERE WE'RE AT, SEES THE MOST TRAFFIC OUT OF ANY ROAD IN THE CITY. WE HAVE OVER 17,000 CARS PER DAY. ACTUALLY THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE PART OF THE APPLICATION, YOU CAN SEE MULTIPLE CARS IN EACH OF THOSE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT'S 17,000 AVERAGE OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY. OF COURSE THAT'S GOING TO BE FAR HIGHER DURING THE DAYTIME HOURS WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY IN THE BACKYARD USING OUR YARD AND TRYING TO ENJOY IT. I ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE DECIBEL METER THAT I GOT ON MY PHONE. TOOK READINGS ON THE STREET SIDE AND ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE FENCE NOW. ON THE STREET SIDE IT'S AS LOUD AS A BLENDER. THAT'S ACTUALLY TO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN GET HEARING DAMAGE WITH EXTENDED. ON THE FENCE SIDE IT REDUCES DOWN TO 70 DECIBELS WHICH IS ABOUT THE LOUDNESS LEVEL OF A HAIR DRYER. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE HEARING DAMAGE, BUT IT'S STILL QUITE LOUD. BUT THE THING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 80 AND 70 DECIBELS IS A PERCEIVED HALVING OF THE LEVEL OF NOISE, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW DECIBELS WORK. AND SO WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD FRIENDS OVER RECENTLY WHO HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE THE FENCE AND AFTER THE FENCE. AND BEFORE THE FENCE, WE WOULD BE HAVING A CONVERSATION. WE'D BE TRYING TO ENJOY OURSELVES, AND WE WERE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO SAY, WHAT WAS THAT? I'M SORRY. A MOTORCYCLE JUST WENT BY OUR TRUCK OR WHATEVER IT WAS. AND WHEN THEY WERE THERE, COMPLETELY UNPROMPTED, PEOPLE WERE LIKE, I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW MUCH MORE PEACEFUL IT IS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE EXPERIENCED AND IT'S BEEN REALLY, TRULY LIKE A RELIEF FOR US TO HAVE THAT LITTLE MORE PEACE IN OUR BACK AND TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE LAKE. WE ALSO LIVE REALLY CLOSE TO A NUMBER OF PUBLIC FACILITIES. WE'VE GOT THE BOAT LAUNCH RIGHT THERE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE STREET TRAVELING NORTH-SOUTH INTO THE LARGE LOT. IS THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY WHICH SERVES AS THE OVERFLOW LOT FOR THE BOAT LAUNCH. AND THEN WE HAVE THE FIRE STATION THAT'S RIGHT THERE AS WELL. AND WE HAVE A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, TOO, AND CITY VEHICLE TRAFFIC. AND THE SHERIFF'S STATION IS RIGHT THERE AND THE FIRE STATION IS RIGHT THERE. SO WE HAVE EMERGENCY VEHICLES MANY TIMES A DAY, TOO, WITH THEIR SIRENS BLARING AND ACCELERATING AND DECELERATING. THE STOPLIGHT RIGHT THERE. AND SO... IT TRULY IS INCESSANT NOISE. AND DURING THE DAY, YOU KNOW, THE DAY DURING THE SUMMER WHEN PEOPLE ARE USING THE BOAT LAUNCH AND GOING TO THE OVERFLOW PARKING LOT, WE HAVE CONSTANT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE TOO. AND PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO JUST, I MEAN, OUR LOT SIZE IS VERY SMALL FROM THE STREET TO OUR BACKYARD. I THINK ON THE ONE SIDE IS LIKE 30 FEET, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, MAYBE ABOUT 50. AND SO PEOPLE WERE LOOKING. WE'RE ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LOWER ELEVATION TO THE BACKYARD FROM THE STREET, AND SO PEOPLE ARE LOOKING RIGHT DOWN BACK INTO OUR BACKYARD WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO BE THERE ENJOYING OURSELVES. SO WE DO HAVE PRIVACY AND SECURITY IMPACTS, TOO, WITH ALL THAT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. THE HOUSE AT 3877 IS A RENTAL CURRENTLY. THEY'VE HAD THREE DIFFERENT RENTERS IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. AND SO WE JUST KIND OF HAVE THIS CAROUSEL OF PEOPLE MOVING IN NEXT DOOR. AND SO THE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY WITH THAT BEING A RENTAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN REALLY NICE TO HAVE. AS MR. CARNEY MENTIONED, WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM OUR NEIGHBORS AT 3915, 3905, AND 3865. THE OWNER OF THE 3877 RENTAL PROPERTY LIVES OUT OF STATE. WE GOT HER. HER PHONE NUMBER, TEXTED HER, AND DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING. SO IT'S AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY, AND IT'S NOT TERRIBLY SURPRISING. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE REASONS. I THINK THEY REALLY DO FIT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. I AM A LAWYER. I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE FACTORS, YOU KNOW, LIKE I MIGHT DO FOR A CLIENT IF I WERE IN FRONT OF A COURT. [02:25:01] BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A CERTAIN FACTOR IS MET. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND KIND OF GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I JUST MIGHT HAVE ONE. SO ONE THING THAT WE DO CALL OUT IS, I MEAN, THERE'S THE AFTER THE FACT VERSUS NOT. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WE REALLY NEED TO CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER INTENT HOW THAT ENDS. MORE SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ARE RIGID WITH THE 75 FEET, THEN IT'S THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. UNDER ALL THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, REGARDLESS, YOUR LIMITATION IS A HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES, AND YOU'RE AT 72. IS 42 INCHES AGREEABLE TO YOU TO AT LEAST MEET THOSE CRITERIA OR NOT? CAN YOU COMMENT ABOUT THAT? WE KIND OF GO INTO OUR SIDE OF THINGS. YEAH, THANK YOU. YOU'RE REMINDING ME OF A REALLY IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT I DIDN'T MENTION. BUT TO DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, 42 INCHES IS GOING TO BE BELOW THE STREET LEVEL. AND SO ALL OF THAT NOISE, ALL OF PEOPLE'S VIEWS, EVERYTHING, THE 42-INCH FENCE HAS NO IMPACT ON THAT. WE'RE IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE THAT WE WERE. AND SO ALL THE BENEFIT THAT WE'RE HOPING TO GET FROM THE FENCE AS IT IS. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD MENTION IS THE... PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FENCE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. WE HAVE A DENSE ROW OF LILAC BUSHES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND SO IN THERE WAS A YEAH THAT COMPOSITE SO HERE THIS BOTTOM PICTURE THERE IS FROM OUR BACKYARD AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE FENCE BECAUSE OF HOW DENSE THOSE LILAC BUSHES ARE AND THEY EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. I MEAN YOU CAN BARELY MAKE IT OUT LEFT-HAND SIDE GOT A BIG OAK TREE, BUT THE BUSHES ARE AS DENSE ON THE OTHER SIDE THERE TOO. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT THE BUSHES EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE FENCE IS NOT IMPACTING LAKE VIEWS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A QUESTION BECAUSE I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET IT WRONG. THE WAY I'M READING THE SITE NARRATIVE IS... AND THE PACKET IS IN GREEN IS WHERE THE FENCE EXISTS AND THAT FENCE DOESN'T BEGIN UNTIL YOU GET TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE RIGHT. YES, IT STARTS AT THE BACK CORNER OF THE HOUSE. SO IN MY OPINION, I GUESS I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STREET-LEVEL VIEWS BUT IT'S THE LAKE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE THE FENCE IS BEING BUILT OR WAS BUILT? YES. BUT THE WAY OUR DRIVEWAY IS SITUATED, THERE'S A HOUSE DOESN'T BLOCK BECAUSE OF THE KIND OF PIE-SHAPED BLOCK, RIGHT? AND SO ALL OF THAT IS OPEN. BUT THE HOUSE ISN'T THERE TO BLOCK ANY OF THE VIEWS OR BLOCK ANY OF THE NOISE COMPLETELY, RIGHT? IT'LL BE THERE. MR. CHAIR, MR. CARNEY, COULD YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE? I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS HERE AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. CAN YOU ILLUSTRATE WHAT I PUT ON HERE? WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER IS THE VIEW FROM 3877, WHICH WOULD BE THE PROPERTY FROM THE EAST. AND THEN THE SMALLER SNIP, YOU ONLY GET A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE FENCE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, BUT IT'S... THAT'S FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY AT 3905 SHORELINE IS THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT, AND THEN THE SATER'S BACKYARD IS THE LOWER IMAGE. THANKS. A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT THERE. I STOOD IN THE THRESHOLD OF MY NEIGHBOR'S, YOU KNOW, I ASKED HIM IF I COULD TAKE A PICTURE FOR THIS, AND STOOD IN THE THRESHOLD OF THEIR BACK DOOR WITH, LIKE, NO ZOOM OR ANYTHING ON THE CAMERA. SO THAT'S THE VIEW THAT YOU GET FROM THE BACK. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. CAN I FURTHER CLARIFY? SO THE LILAC BUSHES THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WERE THERE BEFORE, THEY REMAIN COMPLETELY AS BEFORE? YEP. SURE. OKAY. AND THEN THE VERY CLEAR WHITE FENCE THAT WE CAN SEE WITHOUT? THE LILAC BUSHES, THOSE ARE FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDES, AND THOSE NEIGHBORS BOTH WROTE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, OR THE ONE IS THE RENTAL, AND SEEMINGLY YOU DIDN'T HEAR NEGATIVELY FROM THEM. GOT IT. YEAH, I TALKED TO HIM RIGHT [02:30:06] BEFORE I CAME DOWN HERE TONIGHT, AND HE'S LIKE, GOOD LUCK. I REALLY HOPE WE CAN KEEP THE FENCE. I MEAN, I KNOW THIS ISN'T A FACTOR YOU CAN CONSIDER, BUT THEY'VE GOT A DOG AND A YOUNG CHILD, AND THEY SEE IT AS KIND OF A NICE SAFETY ADDITION FOR THEM TO KEEP THEIR, YOU KNOW, BOTH FURRY AND NOT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE DURING DISCUSSION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE OF WHICH BE HEARD, COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD PREEMPT A LITTLE BIT. ONE THING I DID HEAR YOU SAY IN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT WAS A REDUCTION TO 42 INCHES. ONE THING I DO WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THAT IF IT IS A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, THAT... THE ALLOWED HEIGHT WOULD BE FOUR FEET, AS THAT WAS WHAT WE DETERMINED TO BE THE IN-KIND CONDITION. SURE. ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE THAT. MAY I ASK ONE OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION? PLEASE. THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT, I THINK IT WAS THREE OR FOUR OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE TALLER FENCES. DO WE KNOW, LIKE, ARE THOSE ALLOWED? IS THAT, LIKE, SUPPOSED TO BE THERE? WE DON'T HAVE ANY. THE OTHER PROPERTIES AS WE HANDLE THESE CASES. IF THERE'S AN UNPERMITTED FENCE CLAIMED, THEN WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE COMPLAINT. BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE VARIANCES PREVIOUSLY GRANTED ON THIS STREET FOR HIGHER FENCES? CORRECT. OR, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S NOT A COMPLAINT, THEN WE'RE NOT GOING SEEKING OUT WHERE FENCES WERE BUILT. UNDERSTOOD. I'M JUST ASKING IF THERE WERE... VARIANCES FOR HIGHER FENCES THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED IF WE KNEW THAT. NOT IN THE LAST THREE YEARS THAT I WOULD KNOW OF. I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S BEEN TIMES WHERE WE'VE ALLOWED FENCES IF YOU, LIKE... AND DO WE HAVE ANYWHERE IN THE CODE, WHETHER IT'S IN THIS AREA OR OTHER AREAS OF CODE, THAT DEFINE... ALLOWING TALLER FENCES WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM BUSY ROADWAYS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YEAH, WE DO HAVE THE ALLOTMENT FOR UP TO SIX FEET TALL FENCING ON THE REAR STREET YARD IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR I GUESS ANY COUNTY ROAD FOR THAT MATTER, IF YOU HAVE THAT FRONTAGE. SO IT'S DEFINED IF IT'S IN FRONT OR BEHIND THE HOUSE, NOT NECESSARILY HOW CLOSE. LIKE IF THE LOT IS TINY, IT'S STILL FRONT OR BACK OF HOUSE, NOT HOW FAR FROM THE ROAD IT IS. YEAH, OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S FOR LAKESHORE LOTS. WE HAVE THAT EXCEPTION. FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE, THAT ABUTS LIKE A COUNTY ROAD, WHERE TYPICALLY 42 IS ONLY ALLOWED ALONG A STREET. BUT FOR A COUNTY ROAD ON LAKESHORE LOTS, WE ALLOW IT TO SIX. AND JUST TO KICK OFF THE CONVERSATION. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHAT I KIND OF LOOK AT ON THIS IS THE REASON WHY I ASK MY QUESTIONS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REALLY SMALL LOT. AND SO, LIKE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND PRIVACY, SMALL LOTS. IT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND PRIVACY IN THAT LOCATION. I HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. PROBABLY WOULD SUPPORT SIX FEET ALL THE WAY TO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK AND THEN FROM THERE IT WOULD BE 42 INCHES BUT BECAUSE OF STAFF'S FEEDBACK WHICH I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING I WOULD SUPPORT AND AGREE WITH YOU KNOW FOUR FEET IF THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THAT AGAIN IF THAT'S ANY SORT OF A CATALYST FOR STARTING CONVERSATION FEET TO TO THAT SAME NO SEE FROM THE NIGHT I THINK PART OF ME PUTS PAUSE BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMPLAINT. [02:35:17] AND THIS IS A VERY VISIBLE LOT THAT'S RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS PROBABLY SOMEBODY WHO'S LIKE, WHY IS THERE? LIKE, YOU CAN SEE IT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. I LIVE DOWN THE LOT. I'VE LAUNCHED ON THAT. IT'S EITHER ALL THE ONLY OTHER HOUSE TO ME BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE. THEIR SIDE, IT'S VERY THIN FEEDBACK. I WOULD UNDERSTAND REPLACING WHAT'S THERE WITH WHAT'S THERE. I STRUGGLE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF THE NOISE FEEDBACK THREE FEET FROM THE LAKE. LIKE I CAN UNDERSTAND USING THAT, BUT TO YOUR POINT, FROM THE AVERAGE LAKE SOURCE SHUT BACK TO THE SEA, I CAN SEE THAT BLOCKING NOISE, THE REST OF IT. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT ADDITIONAL SCREENING ON THE OTHER SIDE TO MAKE IT LESS VISIBLE? I CAN'T GET BEHIND SIX FEET TO GET REASONABLE TO WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN EYESORE TO EVERY RESIDENT WHO GOES AND USES THAT BOAT LAUNCH 50, 75 FEET FROM THIS HOUSE. EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN PLANT LILACS THAT ARE 10 FEET TALL? I'M JUST GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH WHAT IT DOES TO THE SHORELINE TO PEOPLE. OKAY. RIGHT, THAT'S WHERE THE COMPLAINT MOST LIKELY CAME FROM, JUST COMPLAINING THAT IT WAS SOMEBODY AT THE BOAT LAUNCH WHO'S LIKE, MM-HMM, SEES THE SHORELINE NOW. YEAH, I MEAN, AND... MY BIGGEST CHALLENGE, I THINK THERE ARE SOME WEAKNESSES IN THE CODE THAT WE CAN TALK THROUGH. AND TO ME, THE WAY I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS IS IT'S SIMILAR WHEN WE HAVE VERY RURAL, WE'VE TALKED IN THE PAST ABOUT WHEN WE HAVE VERY RURAL LOTS, AND WE TALK ABOUT CAN YOU PUT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, THE CODE, YOU CAN'T PUT ANY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, STREETWARD OF THE HOUSE, EVEN IF THEY'RE 200 YARDS, YOU KNOW, AWAY FROM THE ROAD, THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT'S A WEAKNESS IN THE CODE, AND THIS IS A... STRIKING ME AS POTENTIALLY SIMILAR WHERE WHEN YOU HAVE VERY SMALL LOTS ALONG A VERY BUSY ROAD, THERE MAY BE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME NOISE AND PRIVACY FENCING ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE VERY BUSY ROAD, REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S IN FRONT OF OR BEHIND THE HOUSE. THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I'M THINKING THROUGH, AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT GIVES US ANYTHING TO DO TODAY, BUT JUST AS WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. COMMISSIONER PERGEL, DO YOU THINK THAT GIVING AND AFFORDING THAT HIGHER FENCE FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT PERFECT, THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE GONE ON RECORD SAYING, BUT IT DOES GIVE SOME TOOL TO PROVIDE A HIGHER FENCE, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK DOES ALLOW SOME... DEFINITELY HELPS. I ALSO THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE THE FENCING THERE, BUT YOU SCREEN IT ON BOTH SIDES WITH ENOUGH GREENERY, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE FROM A VISIBILITY STANDPOINT, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY A BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY. JUST MY THOUGHTS. I'LL ADD MY COMMENTS. THIS ONE'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX. I MEAN, YOU'RE DEALING WITH A FENCE, SO MOST PEOPLE, LIKE WE STATED, AREN'T GOING TO COME LOOK FOR A PERMIT TO PUT UP A FENCE. THEY'RE GOING TO PUT UP THE FENCE AND GO ON WITH THEIR DAY. IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE A FENCE INSTALLER PUTTING IT UP. YOU'D ASSUME A PROFESSIONAL WOULD KIND OF INSTRUCT YOU ON, LIKE, HEY, CERTAIN THINGS, YOU'VE GOT TO GO DO A VARIANCE. SO IF I'M THE APPLICANT, I'D FEEL FRUSTRATED THAT, HEY, [02:40:02] I TRIED TO DO WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. I JUST WANTED TO REBUILD MY FENCE IN THE SAME SPOT. SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME I NEEDED A VARIANCE. THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE CAME FORWARD WITH THE VARIANCE. WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT, DISCUSSED SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS. THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE A DECISION ON IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT OR NOT. SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THE STICKY SPOT NOW OF THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH US ON THE APPLICATION. THE FENCE IS ALREADY INSTALLED. IT'S ADDING VALUE. THERE'S SOME NEIGHBOR SUPPORT. WE HAVE SOME EXISTING VEGETATION IN PLACE SHIELDING THE FENCE AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO ADDITIONAL SO I'M LEANING TOWARDS PROBABLY GETTING BEHIND THIS APPLICATION JUST BASED ON THE HISTORIC LAYOUT OF HOW IT'S PLAYED OUT I GUESS ONE ONE COMMENT FOR STAFF IS IF THE COMMISSIONERS WERE TO DECLINE THE APPLICATION THEY COULD BRING THE APPLICATION FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN AND HAVE THE FINAL SAY OR THEIR OPTION IS REMOVE, LET ME UNDERSTAND THIS, REMOVE IT TO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, BRING THAT TO FOUR FEET AND KEEP THE SIX FOOT TO THE HOUSE? IT WOULD BE REMOVING FOUR FEET. NO FENCES ALLOWED WITHIN THE SHORE SETBACK ZONE. SO THE IN-KIND REPEAT, THAT IS WHAT WE COULD APPROVE WITHOUT EVEN A PERMIT, IS A FOUR FOOT HEIGHT. OR WE COULD DO APPROVAL WITH CONDITION THAT WE WOULD ALLOW THE SIX FOOT FROM THE HOUSE TO AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK. THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED FROM AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK TO THE SHORE TO FOUR FEET, CORRECT? IF CONDITIONED APPROPRIATELY, YES. AND SO GOING BACK TO, I THINK, THE FIRST APPLICATION, THAT'S WHY I, OF COURSE, ASKED THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO READ WHAT THEY COULD DO. TO PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK, IT WOULD BE A DENIAL BECAUSE THE DECISION TO MAKE BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK OR... MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, A QUESTION FOR STAFF, I GUESS. DO WE HAVE A SURVEY OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING FENCE? NOT THE EXISTING CONDITION. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A MARKED UP SURVEY OF FENCE WAS AND WHERE THEY PLACED IT. DO WE KNOW IF THIS NEW FENCE IS WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS US THAT? THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION OF THAT. DO WE KNOW IF THIS FENCE IS IN THE SAME SPOT THAT THE PREVIOUS FENCE WAS IN? YEAH, IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, THAT FENCE IS DIRECTLY INSIDE OF THE BUSHES. I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT, IS THIS IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT? BECAUSE THE BUSHES NOW ARE ON THIS SIDE OF THE FENCE VERSUS THE FENCE BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUSH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRING THE APPLICANT UP? YES. ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN WE HAD THE FENCE COMPANY COME UP, THEY CAME OUT AND DID A SURVEY, MARKED THE PROPERTY LINES, AND I ACTUALLY CUT BACK SOME OF THE BUSHES BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT IN ORDER TO INSTALL THE FENCE, SOME OF THE BUSHES WERE IN THE WAY, AND SO THEY HAD TO MAKE SURE THE FENCE WAS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PROPERTY. IF I MIGHT JUST MAKE TWO, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE COMPLAINT. THE COMPLAINT WAS, AND MR. CARNEY CAN, IF I GET IT A LITTLE WRONG, BUT IT WAS FENCE WAS RECENTLY INSTALLED DOWN TO THE LAKE SHORE THAT MAY BLOCK SOMEBODY'S LAKE VIEWS. SO THAT WAS THE COMPLAINT. AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE BUSHES THERE THAT ALREADY BLOCKED LAKE VIEWS. SO IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS DISINTERESTED, AT LEAST WASN'T ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE TALKED TO OUR NEIGHBORS. NONE OF THEM SAID THAT THEY MADE THE COMPLAINT. IT WAS EXPRESSING A HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT HOW LAKE VIEWS MIGHT BE IMPACTED. THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS JUST THE SIX-FOOT FENCE BEING INSTALLED BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL AND A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I KNOW THEY'RE NOT ZONED DIFFERENTLY, BUT THE RENTAL IS NEXT DOOR. AND IN A SENSE, THAT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IT'S BEING USED FOR INVESTMENT AND FOR INCOME. WHILE YOU'RE UP, IF I CAN ASK YOU. IF THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR YOU TO LOWER YOUR FENCE TO FOUR FEET FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LAKE, WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE [02:45:01] TO YOU? SO I WOULD SAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR NEIGHBOR TO OUR EAST, THE 3877, BECAUSE OF ALL OF SHORELINE DRIVE BEING OPEN TO OUR BACKYARD THERE, WE LOSE THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE... NOISE REDUCTION THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE FENCE. AND SO I WOULD MUCH PREFER IF IT'S AN OPTION TO INSTALL WHATEVER LANDSCAPING WOULD OBSCURE THE FENCE AS OPPOSED TO REDUCING THE FENCE BECAUSE WE LOSE OUT ON THAT BENEFIT. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT SIDE WHERE OUR SUGGESTION IS YOU COULD KEEP SIX FEET FROM THE ROAD TO THE AVERAGE LIKE HER SETBACK. MY CONCERN IS NOT BLOCKING THE TRAFFIC FROM SEEING YOUR HOUSE FROM THE ROAD. MY CONCERN IS WHAT PEOPLE ON THE LAKE SEE, NOT NECESSARILY YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT SOME GUY WHO LIVES IN LONG LAKE AND IS ON THEIR BOAT AND THEY'RE DRIVING BY, WHAT'S IMPACTING THEIR VIEWS OF THE LAKE SHORE? BECAUSE THAT FIRST 75 FEET IS KIND OF WHAT WE LOOK AT AS PROTECTING THE BEAUTY OF THE LAKE FROM THE LAKE. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS JUST THAT LAKE SIDE STILL GIVING YOU THE ABILITY TO BLOCK THE TRAFFIC. BUT JUST REDUCING THE HEIGHT ON THE LAKESIDE. SURE. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS TWO THINGS. ONE, I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS OR REMEDY WHATEVER ISSUE THROUGH LANDSCAPING, THROUGH PLANTING SOME TREES OR A TRELLIS OR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I THINK THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER, TOO, IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT. SO YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A FOUR-FOOT FENCE THERE. SO WE'RE TALKING ONLY ABOUT TWO FEET. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT THAT MAKES, ESPECIALLY WITH HOW MUCH OF A BENEFIT. WE GET FROM THE NORTH REDUCTION. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN WAS THIS FENCE CONSTRUCTED? I BELIEVE MARCH. MARCH. THIS YEAR? THIS YEAR. THREE MONTHS WE HAD A COMPLAINT. WAS IT CONSTRUCTED IN THE EXACT SPOT THAT THIS FOUR-FOOT FENCE WAS IN? YES, IT IS IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. AND YOU HAVE A SURVEY, BUT YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE THE SURVEY. WE DO NOT HAVE A SURVEY. THERE WAS A PRIOR SURVEY OR SITE PLAN ON FILE THAT WE USED. I THINK HE SAID SURVEY, BUT I THINK HE MEANT THEY IDENTIFIED THE BOUNDARY BOUNDARIES. OH, RIGHT. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND YOU DON'T HAVE, WHAT DOCUMENTATION DO YOU HAVE OF THE PREVIOUS FENCE? WAS THAT ON THE SURVEY? SO WE SUBMITTED THE PICTURES OF THE PREVIOUS FENCE AND THEN WE SUBMITTED THE INVOICE FROM THE FENCING COMPANY THAT INCLUDED A LINE ITEM FOR REMOVAL OF ALL THE OLD FENCING THAT EXISTS IN THE SAME LOCATION. SUBMITTED PICTURES OF THE FOOTINGS BECAUSE THEY JUST CHOPPED THEM OFF AND THEN PUT THE NEW FENCE RIGHT OVER THE TOP AND SO THERE'S PICTURES OF THE NEW FENCE WITH THE OLD FOOTINGS AND I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE, BUT THIS FENCE DOESN'T HAVE CONCRETE FOOTINGS THEY'RE JUST LIKE PIPES THAT ARE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT DO IT IN MARCH. YEAH, RIGHT. OKAY, BUT I GUESS I'M WAS THERE ACTUALLY A SURVEY COMPANY THAT CAME OUT AND SURVEYED THE LOT AND THEY JUST DIDN'T PUT THE FENCE ON IT? OR WAS THERE JUST THE FENCE COMPANY DID THEIR OWN PERSONAL SURVEY THEMSELVES? THE FENCE COMPANY HIRED A DIFFERENT COMPANY TO COME OUT AND MARK THE PROPERTY LOSSES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. COMMISSIONER BALLS, JUST ON THAT NOTE, THERE WAS A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON SURVEYS VERSUS NOT. DO YOU FEEL LIKE A SURVEY WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THIS APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATE? WELL, YOU'RE READING MY MIND A LITTLE BIT. I CAN'T THINK OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE THAT WE HAVEN'T REQUIRED A SURVEY ON. I MEAN, WE JUST HAD ONE FOR A RETAINING WALL THAT THEY REQUIRED A SURVEY SO WE COULD SEE WHERE THAT RETAINING WALL IS. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, OTHER THAN THE SKETCH FROM THE APPLICANT, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT FENCE IS. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WITHIN HIS PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OR NOT. OR THE RIGHTS. EXACTLY. I LOOK AT THIS LIKE THE FENCE LOOKS BEAUTIFUL FROM THEIR PROPERTY LOOKING OUT BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE IT. BUT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND FROM THE LAKE, YOU SEE A BIG WHITE PRIVACY FENCE. AND IF YOU WERE TRYING TO SCREEN THAT, YOU'RE PUTTING THAT SCREENING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. AND IT'S KIND OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE THERE BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TAKING, IT'S ALREADY NARROW LOTS NEXT TO YOU AND YOU'RE EXPECTING THESE NEIGHBORS TO PUT ARBORVITAE TO BLOCK OUT THIS OTHER FENCE. WHICH THEY CAN. THEY CAN DO. THEY CAN DO. [02:50:01] IN LIEU OF A FENCE. THEY CAN, BUT WE CAN'T REALLY SAY TO THE APPLICANT, WE CAN GET BEHIND THIS AND WE'RE REQUIRING YOU TO PUT PLANTS ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. BECAUSE THERE'S NO, WITH THIS BEING RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, OR AT LEAST IT APPEARS TO BE, THERE'S NO WAY TO SCREEN IT WITHOUT GOING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND PUTTING SCREENING. SO IT'S INTERESTING, AND THAT'S WHY THESE AFTER THE FACTS ARE TRICKY. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS DIDN'T PURPOSELY TRY TO DO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ALLOWED. I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT OF IT. BUT TYPICALLY... CAN'T THINK OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE THAT WE HAVEN'T AT LEAST REQUIRED A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY WITH WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EVEN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AT LEAST SURVEY THAT PROPERTY LINE AND AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE WE PROBABLY WOULD AGAIN DEPENDING ON THIS LANDS YOU WOULD FORMALLY IT WOULD BE BETTER TO THINK VARIANCES. WE USUALLY HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE NEIGHBOR A SCENT ONE THE SURVEY, MY FEEDBACK WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF YOURS IF YOU FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SURVEY AT LEAST IDENTIFYING THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY LINE, VERIFY THAT WE'RE WEIGHING IN ON, BUT THEN THE APPLICATION IS NOT FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. YEAH, SOMETHING, AND I GUESS WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS I WAS... I WAS CONCERNED THAT, I MEAN, LOOKING AT IT, I DIDN'T THINK THAT THIS WOULD REALLY AFFECT THE ROAD NOISE, BUT AFTER SEEING THE AERIAL AND HEARING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANTS, IT SEEMS LIKE IT REALLY WILL HELP WITH THAT ROAD NOISE. SO I CAN SEE A NEED FOR A TALLER THAN EVIDENCE, BUT I DON'T SEE A NEED OF THAT GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE SHORELINE. I CAN'T GET BEHIND THAT, BUT I COULD GET BEHIND IT TO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AT LEAST. AND THEN I'M STILL REALLY CONFUSED HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE PREVIOUS FENCE THAT WAS THERE, AND THE LOCATION OF IT FOR THAT MATTER, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT EXISTED OR NOT. WE JUST HAD AN APPLICATION WHERE THERE WERE HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF A BUILDING, AND WE COULDN'T COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THIS COULD BE REBUILT IN KIND. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. WELL, I MEAN, IT'S... YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FENCE? THERE'S A PICTURE OF A FENCE. I DON'T THINK IT'S A FOUR-FOOT FENCE. TYPICALLY, THOSE PICKET FENCES ARE ABOUT 36 INCHES TALL. IT'S NOT... I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A 48-INCH FENCE THERE. I'M JUST... THAT'S JUST MY VISUAL LOOKING AT THE PHOTO, AND I DON'T KNOW... WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US SAYING THAT IT WAS. WE DO. OH, NOT NECESSARILY THE HEIGHT, BUT... RIGHT. THERE WAS DEFINITELY A FENCE THERE. I COULD SEE PHOTOS OF A PICKET FENCE, BUT... THERE'S NOTHING THAT DICTATES WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THAT IS. ALL RIGHT, SO TO CLEAN THAT UP, I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD SAY WOULD BE... THEN YOU WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF 48 INCHES. YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF 42 INCHES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR GUIDELINE CALLS FOR, WHICH IS OKAY. BUT TO TRY TO CLEAN THIS UP, I THINK I DON'T WANT TO BRING UP ANOTHER APPLICATION. I KNOW WHERE YOUR HEAD'S AT ON THAT. I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY RIGHT NOW... PROVIDE SOME QUICK FEEDBACK THAT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED IN THE 9 APPLICATION. I STRUGGLE WITH 6 FEET ALL THE WAY TO THE LAKE. I COULD GET BEHIND A SHORTER FENCE, WHATEVER STAFF DECIDES THEY BELIEVE WAS THERE AND CAN REBUILD BEYOND THE LAKESHORE. BUT I'D ALSO MENTION I WOULD BE PROPOSED TO AN 8-FOOT FENCE. BEYOND THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK UP TOWARDS THE ROAD. I WOULD BE I NEVER GOT THE APPLICANTS IT WAS A QUESTION I THOUGHT OF AFTER THE FACT THEIR INSIGHT ON HAVING WHY IS THE FENCE STOP WHERE IT DOES IS THEIR ABILITY FOR IT TO GO FURTHER UP THE ROAD TO ACTUALLY PREVENT THE NOISE COMING FROM THE ROAD. I'D BE OPEN TO THAT FOR SURE BUT I WOULD BASICALLY AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD. I JUST THINK THE BIG WHITE FENCE DOWN BY THE LAKE I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT'S GREAT LOOK. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A GREAT PRIVACY BENEFIT AND A LITTLE BIT MORE SECLUSION TO THE LOT, BUT I WOULD ALSO [02:55:03] SAY THE PROPERTY IS PRICED WHERE IT IS BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS IN THE MARKET, AND SO I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THE FENCE DOWN BY THE LAKE REALLY IS OKAY WITH ME. YEAH, JUST TO GO ON THE RECORD HERE BEFORE WE VOTE, COMPLETELY AGREE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE WITH IT AS SAID. I THINK I STRUGGLE WITH ANYTHING WITHIN THAT AVERAGE, LIKE, SHORT SETBACK NOT BEING IN-KIND. WE DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION RIGHT NOW TO ESTABLISH THAT IT IS. IF IT CAN BE, THEN BY ALL MEANS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A SECOND PASS AT THIS. I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT FOR STAFF. SO IN THIS EXAMPLE, HAD THERE NOT BEEN A COMPLAINT WITH THIS FENCE, 12 MONTHS GOES BY, 16 MONTHS GOES BY, WHEN DOES THIS BECOME AN IN-KIND FENCE? WELL, WE'RE ALLOWED FOR REPLACEMENT WITHIN 12 MONTHS. SO THERE WAS DOCUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE THAT THE FENCE EXISTED WITHIN 12 MONTHS BASED ON THE REMOVAL INVOICE AND THE WORK THAT WAS IN THE PICTURES THAT WE HAVE. SO WE, STAFF, MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE FENCE WAS IN EXISTENCE WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS AND WE COULD HONOR THE IN-KIND WHEN IT'S BEYOND 12 MONTHS. AND IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, IT'S OUTSIDE OUR SCOPE OF ALLOWING. AND WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS... YOU KNOW, THE OTHER EXAMPLES ON THE LAKE WITH FENCES AT THE SAME HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, THERE HASN'T BEEN A COMPLAINT ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, SO THEY END UP GETTING GRANDFATHERED IN. YEAH, I MEAN, OUR ATTENTION IS BASED ON, WHEN IT COMES TO OUR ATTENTION, WE MAKE THE TIME. WE AREN'T PROACTIVELY GOING OUT FOR VIOLATION TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. SO IS THE 12-MONTH... REFERENCE SOMEWHERE IN THE CODE. YES, YEP, I BELIEVE IT'S UNDER LEGAL NONCONFORMING, BUT IT IS ALSO REFERENCED AND DICTATED BY STATE STATUTE. I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION. IF THEY DIDN'T GET A COMPLAINT UNTIL FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WOULD WE BE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW? NO, IT WOULD NOT. WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THE IN-KIND REPLACEMENT IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE FENCE WAS REMOVED FIVE YEARS AGO. WE WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS A BRAND-NEW FENCE. NO, I APOLOGIZE. THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THE FENCE WAS TORN DOWN AND REBUILT HAS A COMPLAINT. CAN WE BE SITTING HERE? IT WOULD STILL NEED A VARIANCE. IT WOULD NEED A FULL VARIANCE TO ALLOW ANY FENCING THEN BECAUSE THIS DISCUSSION OF AN IN-TIME REPLACEMENT WOULD NO LONGER APPLY. IT WOULD BE BEYOND A YEAR. ARE YOU ASKING IF WE NEVER SAW THE FENCE? WHEN DID WE REALIZE? YEAH, WHAT I'M ASKING IS LIKE... THEY CAN PROVE IT WAS AN IN-KIND REPLACEMENT, BUT THE COMPLAINT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL SIX YEARS. RIGHT, AND THAT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT. WE DO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF REALLY, REALLY GOOD AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND OTHER... BUT I MEAN, LIKE, WHICH GETS HARDER TO DO LOOKING BACK. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO REPLACE THIS FENCE AND WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WASN'T THERE, IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE, THEN WE'D HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GO. BUT YEAH, WE'D HAVE SEVEN YEARS. WE'LL TRY TO BE AS ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT AS WE CAN BE. BUT IF WE DIDN'T KNOW, NO ONE COMPLAINED. WE'D BE THERE. AND I THINK TO THE... WELL, HOW DO WE ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION? RIGHT. NO, THAT IS DIFFICULT IF THERE WASN'T A COMPLAINT. THAT'S WHY WHEN WE KNOW THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN EXISTENCE, AND IT GETS HARD WHEN YOU SAY IT'S A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY OR IT'S AN ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY. IF WE HAVE EVIDENCE AND WE KNOW FROM A SURVEY OR ANOTHER PERMIT OR SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION, IT'S EASIER FOR US TO KIND OF DO THAT WORK AND LOOK BACK TO SEE WHAT'S THERE. IT IS DIFFICULT. I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IS, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE IF WE APPROVE IT, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A TON OF VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR HIGHER FENCES TO THE LAKE? HOWEVER, IF WE DENY IT AND THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE FENCE, ARE WE GOING TO GET A BUNCH OF REPORTS NOW ABOUT OTHER FENCES ON THE LAKE? SO IT'S KIND OF A CATCH-22. I GUESS WHERE MY HEAD IS AT THIS ONE, I THINK THEY'VE PROVEN WITH ENOUGH INTENT THAT THEY WERE JUST GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. NOW IT BECAME A HEADACHE. THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK. WITH US ON SCREENINGS. THEY'VE GOT NEIGHBOR VOICE, THINGS WE CONSIDER. IT'S ALREADY EXISTING, AND THEY WOULD REALLY LOSE THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY WANT FOR THE VARIANCE IF THEY HAD TO DROP HALF OF THE FENCE DOWN TO FOUR FEET. SO I GUESS THIS IS A HARD ONE. IT'S REALLY, REALLY HARD TO SAY YES OR NO, BUT I THINK I'M LEANING TOWARDS APPROVING THIS ONE. CLYDE? QUESTION FOR STAFF. [03:00:07] HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH THAT THE SUPPOSED EXISTING FENCE THAT WAS THERE THAT WAS TAKING DOWN WAS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING FENCE VERSUS A FENCE THAT WAS PUT IN ILLEGALLY AT 48 INCHES VERSUS 42? HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH THAT? IF THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT FOR NO ONE HAS EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT PREVIOUS FENCE. I THINK GENERALLY IN THE PAST WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AS LEGAL. UNLESS WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IT ISN'T. YEAH, SO IF WE'VE DETERMINED IN THE PAST OF AN ILLEGAL IMPROVEMENT OR SOMETHING, LOTS OF TIMES WE HAVE THAT ON FILE. IF THAT DETERMINATION HASN'T BEEN MADE, SOMEONE, YOU'RE ASKING, WHEN IS IT, OH, THERE'S A FENCE THERE, IS THIS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL? WE CAN GET AS MUCH HISTORY ON THAT PROPERTY AS WE CAN THROUGH AERIAL IMAGING THROUGH EVIDENCE OF THE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THINGS BUT OFTENTIMES WE DEEM IT AS LEGAL NON-CONFORMING AS LONG AS THERE HASN'T BEEN A DETERMINATION THAT IS ILLEGAL YEAH WE GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF IT IF I MAY IT'S NINE O'CLOCK UM I COULD WITHDRAW MY MOTION APPLIED I'M OFF IF WE CAN GET LEGS AND IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO MAKE I JUST CLARIFY ONE THING FOR THE APPLICANTS JUST BECAUSE I'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND I KNOW IT CAN BE CONFUSING. IF WE DENY AS APPLIED, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IF WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL, THIS WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO IF WE DENY, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND YOUR APPLICATION TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT YOU THINK IS MORE LIKELY TO BE APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL. SO JUST KIND OF CLARIFYING THE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANTS, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GET BEHIND A FULL APPROVAL AS APPLIED. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET... JUST FOR MYSELF. I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO HELP US GET SOMEWHERE. I'M JUST, I'M MAKING MY STANCE ON... APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I WILL NOTE AS WELL, BECAUSE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DENIAL, IF IT IS FOR APPROVAL, WE WOULD NEED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES STATED AS TO WHY IT MEETS THE VARIANCE CRITERIA OR THE... SO WHERE WE'RE AT IS WE HAVE A... EMOTION BY YEAH. CHAIR RESSLER. OH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. BUT NO SECOND. DID YOU OFFICIALLY WITHDRAW IT? YOU SAID YOU COULD. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU DID. IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO RE-MOTION, I WOULD SECOND IT. WELL, I WAS GOING TO SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A QUESTION. AND THIS IS, WOULD ANYONE'S OPINION OF THIS CHANGE, IF THEY WERE TO PROVIDE A SURVEY THAT SHOWED THAT THE FENCE WAS WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES? NO. NO. OKAY, SO THEN. I DON'T THINK I WOULD MOVE I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY OR OR SECOND THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE AND IF YOU'RE THE FIRST ALL SECOND ALL RIGHT, I'LL FORMALIZE THIS I WITHDREW MY MOTION IT SOUNDS LIKE COMMISSIONER BOLLIS IS FORMALLY MOTION TO DENY BASED ON THE FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION WHICH I DO APPRECIATE EVERYONE AGREE YOU GARNEY GOOD FEEDBACK, OKAY AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY WELTON, FORMALLY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE. [5.7) LA26-000029, NIH Homes, 3125 Casco Circle, Variance (Matthew Karney)] ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX AYES, AND ONE NAY IS JARNOT. GOOD? THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. 5.7. NEXT UP IS LA26-29. IT'S NIH HOME 125 CASCO CIRCLE. ANOTHER VARIANCE APPLICATION, AND MR. CARNEY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT. THIS IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR... 3125 CASCO CIRCLE. I WILL PREFACE IT THAT THIS IS AN AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATION THAT IS ROOTED IN A STAFF ERROR [03:05:01] THAT I MYSELF MADE, THAT THIS PROJECT CAME IN, LET'S SAY IN 2025, FOR A NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION BY NO FAULT OF THE BUILDER, RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THEIR HOME PERMIT, RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THEIR POOL PERMIT. IT WAS BROUGHT TO STAFF'S ATTENTION THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT SHOULD BE APPROVED. UPON REVIEWING THE PLANS THAT WERE ON ALL THE FILES, I ACCEPTED THE EXISTING GRADE THAT THE NEW HOME PERMIT ESTABLISHED AND THEN 42-INCH IMPROVEMENTS WENT ON ON TOP OF THAT. IN SOME CASES, WE'RE LOOKING AT A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE UPWARDS OF EIGHT FEET WHERE SOME OF THE WALLS ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. OTHER PORTIONS, NOT AS MUCH, BUT I MARKED UP A PART OF THE SURVEY THAT REALLY ILLUSTRATES WHERE I SEE CHANGES BEING IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING GRADE. I WILL HIGHLIGHT FOR THE HARDCOVER, BECAUSE THIS IS AFTER THE FACT, THE HARDCOVER IS COMPLIANT AS THEY HAD PROPOSED WITH THEIR NEW HOME PERMIT AND CONFIRMED WITH THEIR POOL PERMIT AS WELL. HARDCOVER IS NOT A PART OF THE REQUEST. IT'S STRICTLY FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AS THE GRADE CAN BE INCREASED, BUT THE PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES SUCH AS A POOL, SUCH AS A PATIO, SUCH AS RETAINING WALLS WOULD TRIGGER THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. SO THE GRAPHIC THAT I'LL SHOW YOU IN A FEW SLIDES HERE WILL SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS OPPOSED TO THE CONTOURS OR THE GRADING ITSELF. SO IN TERMS OF THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS RIGHT NOW THAT THERE IS SOME IN-KIND RECAPTURE ON THIS PROPERTY AS WELL. THE HOME THAT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY DEFINITELY FAVORED THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND HAD MORE OF THIS SEMI-CIRCLE TYPE PATIO SPACE. AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK REMAINED UNCHANGED FROM THE CLOSEST LAKEWARD PROTRUSIONS, WHICH ARE THE DECKS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND THIS ELEVATION OF 9 FEET IS THE ELEVATION IN WHICH THE POOL IS AND THE PATIO AS WELL AS THE WALKOUT OF THE NEW HOUSE. IN TERMS OF THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, I THANK ONE OF THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS FOR PROVIDING THIS PHOTO. THIS PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT AS TO WHAT THAT YARD AND THAT PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE DEVELOPER. AND THIS AERIAL IMAGE, I WENT BACK A COUPLE YEARS TO TRY TO FIND IT MOSTLY UNDISTURBED AND WITHOUT VEGETATION OBSTRUCTING SO WE CAN SEE HOW IT LOOKS. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, A LITTLE BIT HIGHER TO THE SOUTH GOING DOWN TO THE NORTH. AS IT GOES THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO IN TERMS OF APPROVED CONDITIONS, I INCLUDED THE MOST RECENT SURVEY THAT I HAD APPROVED FOR THE POOL, THE PATIO, AND THE RETAINING WALLS, WITH THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE STILL BEING SHOWN HERE AND A NUMBER OF GRADE INCREASES IN THIS LAKE YARD OUTSIDE OF THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK. IN TERMS OF PROJECT CONFORMANCE, THIS IS MY ATTEMPT AT BEING AN ARTIST. REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW HERE IS IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PRE-EXISTING GRADE WAS, HOW IT WENT UP, AND WHAT'S THE DELTA. SO IN TERMS OF WHAT I HIGHLIGHTED GREEN, THIS IS WHAT, USING THE CONTOURED INFORMATION ON THE PRE-EXISTING SURVEY, I BELIEVE TO CONFORM WITH THE CITY CODE IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT INCREASE STAYING WITHIN THAT 42 INCHES. IN THESE CASES WITH THE WALLS, THAT'S THE BASE OF THE WALLS PRETTY MUCH AT THE EXISTING GRADE AT THE TIME THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR. BLUE, I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT PROBABLY YOUR MINOR CHANGES. THERE ARE SOME AREAS, INCLUDING THAT ON THE NORTH SIDE, THAT IS SIX INCHES BEYOND CONFORMANCE, SO 48 INCHES ABOVE THE PRE-EXISTING GRADE, OPPOSED TO 42. AND THEN ORANGE AND PINK ARE SOME OF THE MORE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES. ORANGE, I'M SAYING WITHIN THREE FEET OF CONFORMANCE, AND PINK BEING GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN CONFORMANCE, CALLING OUT THIS CORNER HERE THAT IS EIGHT FEET HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS EXISTING PREVIOUSLY. IN TERMS OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF YOU VISITED THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT THIS MORE OR LESS COULD BE THE AS-BUILT SURVEY THAT THE BUILDER COULD SUBMIT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE HOME. ULTIMATELY, WE HAVE MOST OF THE PATIO INSTALLED. YOU CAN REALLY SEE HERE WHERE THE SEMICIRCLE OF THE PREVIOUS PATIO IS LOCATED. SO MOST OF THE POOL IS COVERED, BUT NOT ALL. AND THE WALLS, WE HAVE ONE SET THAT'S ALONGSIDE THE EDGE OF THE PATIO AND ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN, BUT THIS TENDS TO CONFORM MORE WITH THE GRADES. BUT CONFORMANCE APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE EASIER ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, GIVEN THE EXISTING GRADE WAS HIGHER. A LITTLE BIT LOWER ON THIS END TOWARDS THE NORTHERN SIDE. [03:10:03] AND PROVIDING SOME PHOTOS AS WELL, I TOOK APPROXIMATELY 40 PHOTOS THAT I CAN RIFLE THROUGH IF ABSOLUTELY NEEDED. GOT JUST ABOUT EVERY ANGLE FROM BOTH ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE SHORE AND EVERYWHERE IN BETWEEN IT SEEMS. SO HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE AS NEEDED BUT JUST A BEGINNING COLLAGE FROM THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH LOOKING NORTH. THIS IS FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH LOOKING SOUTH, PERHAPS SOUTHWEST, AND THIS IS KIND OF AT THE EXISTING GRADE LOOKING AT THE WALLS AS SEEN TODAY. IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE REVIEW, TAKING A COUPLE STEPS BACK BECAUSE OF THE AFTER-THE-FACT NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, THE BUILDER WAS ABLE TO SUPPORT... SUPPLY AT LEAST SOME JUSTIFICATION, SOME WRITING BEHIND THEIR DECISION MAKING AND THEIR DESIGN OF THE SITE ALTOGETHER WHEN THE HOUSE WAS PROPOSED. I DO WANT TO IDENTIFY THAT IT IS CLOSE TO A 50 FEET, 50 FOOT DROP FROM THE STREET LEVEL DOWN TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL. FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT GRADE INCREASE WITH MOST OF WHICH OCCURRING BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE STREET ITSELF WITH RELOCATING SOME OF THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE FEATURES AROUND THE HOUSE THAT THE BUILDER WAS ABLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR GRADE IN THAT PERSPECTIVE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, STAFF FINDS THAT THE SIGHT LINES OF THE LAKE ARE MINIMALLY IMPACTED BY THIS INCREASE OVERALL. AND REALLY, I PAINT TO THE DEPTH THERE. WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PATIO AND THE POOL AREA, WE'RE MORE THAN 150, I'D SAY CLOSER TO 160 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL. PERHAPS A BROAD VIEW MIGHT BE OBSTRUCTED, BUT THE DIRECT VIEWS OF THE LAKE AREN'T IMPEDED, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE IMPROVEMENTS, LIKE I SAID, ARE OUTSIDE OF THE LAKESHORE, INCLUDING THE WALLS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT LOWER AND CLOSER TO THE LAKE AS WELL. WE ARTICULATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS AREN'T ALTERING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PERHAPS IF THIS WAS IN THE LAKESHORE, STAFF MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT THIS IS IN AN OTHERWISE CONFORMING LOCATION EXCEPT FOR THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. I THINK STAFF AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT THAT GRADING IS NECESSARY IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM TO PRESERVE A WALKOUT TO THE HOUSE. OTHERWISE, HAVING IT HOWEVER MANY FEET LOWER TO ALLOW FOR ENOUGH SPACE FOR A POOL OR A PATIO IMPROVEMENT WOULD EITHER HAVE THE IMPROVEMENT EITHER WAY TOO HIGH OR WAY TOO LOW WITH DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. ADDITIONALLY, THE PLAN THAT STAFF HAD APPROVED FOR THE POOL INDICATED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE ARBORVITAE OR LANDSCAPING KIND OF ON THE SIDE, SCREENING THAT PATIO AREA AS WELL. STAFF DEALS WITH THAT INCLUDED WITH THE REQUEST THAT THAT WILL BENEFIT THE SIGHT LINES FOR OTHER PROPERTIES. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS AN AFTER-THE-FACT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MORE BROADLY, BUT THAT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY FOR POOL, PATIO, AND RETAINING WALLS. HAPPY TO GO BACK TO THE VISUAL WHERE IT SPELLS IT OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, I SUPPOSE. AND IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU'VE RECEIVED A HANDFUL OF LETTERS, I BELIEVE BOTH FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, MR. RITCHIE, AND TO THE SOUTH, MS. MARKS. I THINK THERE WAS SOME ISSUES WITH GETTING ALL THE PHOTOS PROVIDED WITH THOSE LETTERS, BUT WHAT I HAD PROVIDED YOU BEFORE THE MEETING SHOULD CORRECT THAT RECORD AND GET ALL OF MR. RITCHIE'S PHOTOS INCLUDED WITH HIS LETTER AND ANY MISCELLANEOUS THINGS THAT WERE MISSED BEFORE THE WEEKEND. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE, AND IT WOULD BE PRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL NEXT MONDAY ON JULY 27TH. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CARNEY. ONE QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFY AND UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. WE APPROVE THE PLANS. WE JUST MISREAD THEM OR WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO IT AS. AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M SAYING IT OUT LOUD IS WE HAVE TO STAND BEHIND WHAT STANDS UNDER ANY OF THEM. PROVE SOMETHING THAT'S AN ECONOMIC IMPACT. CITY MISTAKES HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE TO STAND BY IT GOES SO I DON'T KNOW BE SURPRISED WITH THE COMMISSION FEELS OTHERWISE BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK ALL THE OTHER MERITS ARE GOOD I PRE INSTEAD WE'LL GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE PHONES OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE YOU WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION DID THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL APPROVE THESE BEFORE THESE PLANS THIS WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PERMIT AN ADMINISTRATIVE POOL PERMIT THAT WERE APPROVED BY STAFF THAT DID NOT NECESSITATE VARIANCES BASED ON AND IT WAS SAMPLE OF APPROVAL ALL THE ELEVATIONS AND EVERYTHING [03:15:01] IN HERE WERE CLEARLY VISIBLE TO STAFF AND ALL OF THE LAKE SHORE SETBACKS WERE IN THE PLANS AND THIS I JUST CAN I ASK ONE FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION? NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES ARE SUPPORTIVE OR NOT SUPPORTIVE? NOT SUPPORTIVE. NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE. BECAUSE IT IMPACTS THEIR CHARACTER OF THE LAKE. WE'LL GO THROUGH THE APPLICATION. ALL RIGHT, SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH SPIRIT, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. BRIAN BENSON WITH COMPASS REAL ESTATE, 401 EAST LAKE STREET IN WAYZATA, MINNESOTA. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE HOMELESS AND WITH NIH. THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO REVIEW THIS. AS STAFF MENTIONED, THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL. FOR THIS VARIANCE, ALL THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET FOR AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE APPROVAL. SO I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD SOME CONTEXT WITH A FEW POINTS. FIRST, WE HAD NO INTENT TO SKIRT THE PROCESS. WE WOULD HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE HERE FROM DAY ONE, 18 MONTHS AGO, IF WE KNEW ONE WAS NEEDED. WE WORK IN DOZENS OF CITIES WITH DIFFERENT ORDINANCES AND RELY ON STAFF REVIEW. AT SUBMITTAL TO CATCH SUCH ITEMS. SO IT WAS MISSED BY US AND WAS MISSED BY THE CITY REVIEW. EVERYTHING'S BEEN BUILT TO THE SPECS PER THE APPROVED PLANS ASIDE FROM THE UNFINISHED GRADING AND LANDSCAPING. AND I THINK SOME OF THOSE PHOTOS SHOWED SOME WALLS WHERE WE HAVEN'T DONE THE GRADING YET SO THEY LOOK A LITTLE HIGHER. TO BE UNDER THE 42 INCHES NEW GRADES. THE SITE WAS, THE GRADE WAS DICTATED BY THE SITE. THERE'S A 50 FOOT DROP FROM THE STREET TO THE LAKESHORE, WHICH LIMITED ROOM FOR REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS NEAR THE HOUSE WHILE MAINTAINING DRAINAGE. AND THAT WAS KEY IN THIS DESIGN. THIS IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION HOUSE, BUT IT'S NOT A NEW OR UNUSUAL GRADE. THE 950 WALKOUT GRADE MATCHES THE ELEVATION THAT EXISTED ON THIS LOT BEFORE THE DEMOLITION. WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING A NEW CONDITION TO THE SITE. AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS GO, ON THE LOT ANALYSIS, THE SOUTHERN SIDE PATIO MOVED FROM 14 FEET TO 18 FEET FROM THE LINE. IT'S FARTHER AWAY. ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, IT WAS MOVED CLOSER. IT WAS 52 FEET. NOW IT'S 36 FEET, BUT STILL A GOOD DISTANCE AWAY. AND THAT'S AT THE 950 ELEVATION WHERE THE PRIOR PATIO WAS. SO SOME OF THE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS WOULD BE THE VIEW IMPACTS. THE UPPER LEVEL POOL WALL, WHICH IS... AFFIRMED BY STAFF, DOES NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR'S VIEWS OF THE LAKE. ARE THERE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES LAKEWARD OF THE HOUSE? STAFF FOUND THAT NONE EXISTED GIVEN THE GRADE. WOULD REDUCING THE WALL BE AN IMPROVEMENT? NO. WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IN SIGNIFICANT FILL TO EASE THE GRADE, AND THAT WOULD RESTRICT VIEWS. THESE ARE NEW HOMEOWNERS IN ORONO. THEY DESIGNED AND BUILT THEIR FOREVER HOME. THEY MADE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT. LANDSCAPING WAS ON SCHEDULE. THEY'RE MOVING IN ON FRIDAY WITH TWO DOGS WHO NEED A YARD. WE FOLLOWED THE NORMAL BUILD PROCESS. I KNOW THIS AVERAGE SETBACK, LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE HAS GENERATED A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE... CITY'S VARIANCE REQUEST FOR YEARS. THE CITY ITSELF HAS BEEN STUDYING WHETHER TO MODIFY OR [03:20:01] ELIMINATE THE ALS RULE FOR EXACTLY THIS REASON. THIS APPLICATION IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF CASE DRIVING THAT REVIEW. THIS IS NOT AN OUTLIER ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT. SO IN CLOSING, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. ALL CRITERIA ARE MET. WE HAD EVERYTHING APPROVED. WE'RE HOPING FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED AND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO FOR THE APPLICANT JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY HOW MANY HOMES HAVE YOU GUYS THIRD ONE OH YEAH, ALL THE RULES. WE HAD NO VARIANCES. WE BILLED WITH THE INTENTION OF NOT HAVING TO GET A VARIANCE. WE HAD TO GET A VARIANCE 3600 CASCO AVENUE BECAUSE THAT WAS A... POINT PROPERTY AND ALSO SUPER LONG. WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE, COULD YOU JUST COMMENT ON ANY SCREENING THAT IS IN PLACE THAT WAS ALREADY PLANNED THAT IS ADDITIONALLY PROPOSED POTENTIALLY OR ANY INSIGHT FROM THE NEIGHBORS ON IF ANY SCREENING WAS WANTED? I'M GOING TO INVITE JEREMY PRESIDENT OF NIH HOMES, MAYBE TELL A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. HI, MY NAME IS JEREMY. I'M AT 6840 213TH AVENUE IN ELK RIVER. HE'S GOT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN UP HERE RIGHT NOW. SO THE NORTH RETAINING WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE, THERE'S PLANNING FOR SCREENING THERE TO SCREEN IT FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH. AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL, THERE'S SOME MORE SCREENING THERE TO SCREEN FROM THE SOUTH SIDE ON TOP OF THOSE RETAINING WALLS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IN THE EVENT AT A DELIBERATE RATE, THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE WHICH BE HEARD, PLEASE COME OUT AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. MY NAME IS KENT RITCHIE. I'M AT 3105 CASCO POINT ROAD, WAYSETTER, MINNESOTA. 55391. AND I'M SORT OF EMBARRASSED TO BE HERE BECAUSE I STARTED THIS AS I SAW THESE WALLS GOING UP. AND I SAW ALL OF A SUDDEN, EIGHT FEET ABOVE MY PROPERTY, I'VE GOT A POOL. IT'S A NICE LOOKING POOL AND THE HOUSE IS FABULOUS. IT REALLY IS A FABULOUS HOUSE. AND THE POOL LOOKS NICE. BUT I GO OUT ON MY PATIO, AND I LOOK UP, AND IT'S EIGHT FEET TALL. AND SO I PUT IN A CALL TO LAURA AND ENDED UP WITH MATTHEW. AND THEN I STARTED DOING RESEARCH. OLD HABITS DIE HARD. AND REALIZED, YEAH, THERE WAS THE AVERAGE SETBACK FROM THE LAKE SHORE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN A CITY MAKES AN ERROR, THEY ARE STILL TO ENFORCE THEIR CODE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ERROR. SO THAT'S LIKE THIS IS A BRAND NEW APPLICATION. THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE SEEN. NOT SUPPORTING STAFF, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT SAYS. OKAY? SO, ANYWAY, HERE'S THE DEAL. SOUND LIKE THE POLITICIANS. A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT WE'VE GOT THREE NEIGHBORS HERE, AND WE ALL HAVE THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THIS PROPERTY. WE START AT CASCO POINT ROAD, WHICH TURNS INTO CASCO CIRCLE. WE'RE ALL AT THAT LEVEL, AND GUESS WHAT? THE LAKE AT THE BOTTOM IS ALL AT THAT LEVEL, AND WE'RE ALL ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. SAME DISTANCE FROM ROAD TO LAKE. SO AGAIN, OLD HABITS DIE HARD. SO I LOOKED AT THE LAW. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT BRINGING IN THE BOMBSHELL. [03:25:03] AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, OH, MY GOSH, WE GOT A STATUTE. AND NOW YOU GUYS, ORONO HAS DONE A GREAT JOB AND HAS ADOPTED 12 POINTS TO ELABORATE ON WHAT THE... MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT SAYS, AND EVEN WHAT THE MINNESOTA STATUTE SAYS. SO WHAT I DID, OLD HABITS, I WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND TRIED TO, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF YOU FAIL ONE OF THE POINTS, YOU ARE TO DENY THE VARIANCE. OKAY, SO LET'S FIRST OF ALL NOTE THAT THE GRADE WAS NECESSARY. TO ACCOMMODATE THE POOL. SO WE START OFF WITH THE POOL, WHICH WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACTION OF THE OWNER. AND THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE THE GRADING. NOW THIS ALSO SAYS THAT THE NEIGHBOR'S SIGHT LINES ARE NOT IMPACTED. AND THIS IS MY PERSONAL VIEW, AND I'M THE ONE THAT'S NEXT DOOR, SO I GET TO LOOK. AND IT IS IMPACTED. NOW, IT IS NOT IMPACTED AS WE LOOK STRAIGHT AT THE LAKE, OKAY? AND THE PICTURE SHOWS THAT. BUT WHAT IS THE AVERAGE SETBACK SUPPOSED TO DO? IT DOESN'T SAVE THE FRONT OF YOUR LOT. IT GIVES YOU THE BROAD VIEW OF THE LAKE. AND I WILL TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT MY VIEW, THE BROAD VIEW, IS IMPACTED, AND I CANNOT SEE PARTS OF THE LAKE. BECAUSE I GOT EIGHT FEET. I MEAN, JUST THINK ABOUT IT. YOU LOOK TO THE SIDE AND YOU'VE GOT EIGHT FEET. AND NOW THE PLANS CALL FOR PUTTING ARBORVITAE ON TOP OF THAT EIGHT-FOOT RAISED PLATFORM. THAT CLEARLY IMPACTS MY VIEW. AND I'VE GOT NEIGHBORS THAT CAN TESTIFY TO THE RIGHT AND TO THE LEFT AS WE LOOK AT THE LAKE ANYWAY. SO LET'S GO DOWN TO THOSE. EXCUSE ME. IF I CAN JUST REMIND YOU, WE ASKED FOR ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THROUGH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, ECONOMICS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED. VIEWS OF THE LAKE, AS I JUST TESTIFIED, ARE IMPACTED. THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT TO BE CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, AND YET THEY WERE, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION. WE'VE GOT CONDITIONS CREATED BECAUSE OF A POOL. THE VARIANCE DOES ALTER THE CHARACTER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOTS, WE BASICALLY HAD A PARKLAND. AS WE LOOKED OUT, WE HAVE A PARKLAND. NOW WE SEE WALLS, OKAY? AND ONE OF THE WALLS IS 8 FEET TALL. THAT WALL IS 55, 54 INCHES TALL, AND THAT IS WAY, WAY. LAKEWARD PAST THE SETBACK LINE. I MEAN, THAT'S BASICALLY IT. THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS LOT. AND ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING SOLVED WERE CAUSED BY THE OWNER. AND AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M ACCUSING THEM OF SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT. I'VE MET THEM, TREY'S BACK THERE, NICE GUY, NICE WIFE. BUT AS I SAID, THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS EIGHT-FOOT MOUND OF DIRT WITH A POOL AND WALLS. THAT'S IT. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE TO BE HEARD? BEATTIE? STACY MARKS, 3127 CASCO CIRCLE. WHY IS THAT A? I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS ALSO WITH TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THE WALKOUT AND HOW THEY HAD A STEEPER GRADE ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT THE ELEVATED LAKEWARD OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSE WAS STEEPER THAN THAT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND I HAVE SEVERAL PHOTOS THAT I'VE SHARED WITH MATTHEW THAT DEMONSTRATE THE EXACT OPPOSITE. AND ON PAGE 238, YOU'LL SEE... THE EXISTING, THE OLD WALKOUT PATIO, AND THAT WAS THE WALKOUT OF THAT. I DO SEE THAT. YOU CAN VERY CLEARLY SEE, AND THEY HAD A REALLY NICE, JUST GENTLE WALK DOWN. IT WASN'T A STEEP GRADE. SO THAT IS, IN MY OPINION, AND BACKED UP BY THE PHOTOS, [03:30:02] YOU CAN SEE THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY FOUR OR FIVE STEPS. ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, AND THAT CAME DOWN TO THIS NICE LEVEL AREA AND WALKED STRAIGHT DOWN TO THE LAKE. THERE WERE NO IMPEDIMENTS AT THAT POINT. ALSO, WHICH IS INTERESTING, ONE OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS WAS IF WE WOULD CHANGE THE GRADE, IT WOULD MAINTAIN A DRAINAGE COURSE THROUGH AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION WHILE NOT IMPACTING LAKE VIEWS. WELL, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THERE. I'VE HAD MY YARD IS COVERED IN MUD OVER THE SILT, WHICH HAS KIND OF BEEN PROPPED UP. BUT EVEN LAST NIGHT, I TURNED MY FLOODLIGHTS ON. I STILL HAVE MUD RUNNING DOWN. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR NINE YEARS WITH THIS PREVIOUS HOUSE. I'VE NEVER HAD WATER COMING ONTO MY PROPERTY WITH THE EXISTING GRADE OF THE FORMER HOUSE. SO THAT WOULD ALSO BE AN ERROR. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS CLOSELY. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN I'M WALKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FENCES BEING, YOU KNOW, A PROBLEM. CAN YOU IMAGINE? THIS IS A WALL OF DIRT FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. THE IMPACT HAS BEEN HUGE, AND I JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU. IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. HI THERE, PHIL WHIPPLE, 3095 CASCO POINT ROAD. MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 24 YEARS. WE LIVE ONE HOUSE TO THE NORTH OF THE RIVER. I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS. THE QUESTION IS, ON SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE SITE PLANS, IS THAT SECOND FORWARD LAKE-FACING RETAINING WALL, I DON'T SEE ANY MENTION IN THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS OF THE FORWARD RETAINING WALL, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE PHOTO THAT I'VE SEEN IS 54 INCHES ABOVE THE CURRENT GRADE, AND SINCE THERE'S ADDED FILL FORWARD OF THE CURRENT GRADE, IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE QUITE A BIT MORE THAN THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL EXISTING GRADE. OTHER THAN THE NEED TO ADD ADDITIONAL STEPS, FROM A HIGHER POOL PATIO RETAINING WALL TO THE LAWN. HOW DO YOU RATIONALIZE THAT FORWARD WALL IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. THERE'S CERTAINLY A NUMBER OF HOMES BUILT ON LAKE MANITONKA THAT MANAGE A VERTICAL DROP WITH ADDITIONAL STEPS, NOT REPEATED TERRACING WITH SUBSEQUENT RETAINING WALLS AS THIS PROJECT IS DONE, AND AS YOU SAW IN AN EARLIER PHOTO, ON A LOT THAT HAD MINIMAL SLOPE. ADDITIONALLY, ON THE SITE PLANS, THERE'S A LOWER RETAINING WALL NEAR THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE UP THERE ON THE PICTURE AND IN SOME OF THE ONES THAT SHOW THE TREES THAT SHOWS IT NOT EXTENDING BEYOND THE LINE OF THE FRONT LEADING EDGE OF THE POOL. BUT IN REALITY, THAT LOWER RETAINING WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE EXTENDS QUITE A BIT CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE SITE PLAN SHOWS. IT'S BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AGENDA DOCUMENTS THE PERCEIVED LACK OF IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS BY THE RAISED ELEVATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS. AS AN ADDITIONAL NEIGHBOR WHO STOOD NEAR THOSE WALLS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE VIEWPOINTS WERE ACHIEVED. ADDITIONALLY, A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, LIKE MR. RITCHIE HAD SAID, HAD SIMILAR CHALLENGES IN THEIR TOPOGRAPHY, YET THEY MANAGED TO BUILD THEIR HOMES WITHOUT IMPACTING THE OTHER NEIGHBORS NEARLY TO THE EXTENT AS THIS PROJECT IS DONE. DONE. IF THE CITY ISN'T GOING TO ENFORCE ITS EXISTING ZONING CODES WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERNS OF THIS PROJECT, WHERE DOES IT END? THIS WILL JUST SET A PRECEDENT, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, FOR THE NEXT PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE CITY WHO WANTS MORE SIMILAR FAVORABLE TREATMENT, IF NOT EVEN MORE. FINALLY, IT'S MY SINCERE HOPE THAT THE CITY HAS NOT PUT ITSELF INTO A POSITION ITS ONLY OPTION IS TO APPROVE A PROJECT THAT CLEARLY VIOLATES THE CITY ZONING CODES, BUT WILL ALLOW IT TO RATIONALIZE AND PROVIDE COVER TO STAFF'S PREVIOUSLY STATED ERRORS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISH THIS TO BE HEARD, PLEASE? COME ON UP, [03:35:02] STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC. I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. I'M SORRY. STAFF. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED? I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT. OKAY. CAN THE APPLICANT SHARE WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED? WAS THE PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH THESE PLANS ALREADY DRAWN UP? OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO FOR OUR DISCUSSION, I JUST WANTED TO START OUT WITH SAYING THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION. I THINK I DON'T WANT TO COME TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THINGS. THAT CERTAINLY ISN'T HOW I WANT. AT THE SAME TIME, THE STRUGGLE IS NOT ENTIRELY, BUT CERTAINLY LARGELY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AN BUT I THINK THAT IF I WERE IN THE SHOES OF THE NEIGHBORS, I'D BE UPSET. AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE. IT WAS APPROVED. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS AN ERROR, IN MY OPINION. I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE. SO DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS DONE MALICIOUSLY OR INTENTIONALLY. I DON'T THINK THE, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS BUILDER. THEY'RE FOR TRYING TO, HEY, I WILL SAY THAT. IF I CAN PAY A COMPLIMENT TO OUR STAFF, I THINK THEY DO A NICE JOB, BUT THEY'RE NOT PERFECT. WE LIVE IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD. WHERE I STAND ON THIS APPLICATION, UNFORTUNATELY OR FORTUNATELY, IS WE HAVE TO STAND BY WHAT WE'VE DONE BECAUSE THERE ARE MERITS TO THIS APPLICATION. IT CHANGED HOW IT GOT HERE, BUT I THINK THE WORD LAKESHORE SETBACK IS IMPERFECT. LAKESHORE SETBACK IS IMPERFECT. IT EXISTS TO GIVE DISCRETION. DISCRETION CAN HAVE MANY COMPLEMENTARY VARIABLES. ONE OF THEM IS CHANGES OF GRADE. WE GET MORE STRICT WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER THINGS LIKE THE 75 FEET SETBACK AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS ONE WHERE WE PRIDE. I CAN'T SPEAK NOR CAN ANYONE AT THIS PANEL SPEAK TO THE GRADING AND AND HOW THAT BECAUSE OUR JOB IS NOT TO BE THE ONES TO DISCERN WHETHER SPEAK TO THAT AND COMMISSIONERS YOU CERTAINLY IF YOU HAVE MORE INTELLIGENCE ABOUT THAT I CANNOT WE RELY ON IT IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHEN DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY. I'M BEING BUILT THERE IN WHAT HAS BEEN DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE SEEN OUT THERE. THE IMMEDIATE AREA AS WELL AS THE DAY THOUGH, MAKES THIS A SHORTER CONVERSATION AND MY DELIBERATE PRECEDENT WAS USED. IN THE EIGHT YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I HAVE NOT HAD AN APPLICATION WHERE STAFF HAS MADE AN ERROR. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT MAKES THIS A SHORTER CONVERSATION FOR ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE ARE MERITS OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. WE HAVE TO STAND BY THE CITY'S DECISION THAT APPROVED IT, AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. BUT I WANTED TO START OUT THAT WAY, SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT IS THE OPINION OF THE WHOLE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE LAST THREE HOURS AND 45 MINUTES. I WELCOME IT UP FOR OTHER DISCUSSION. I'LL GIVE A PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE [03:40:02] I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. PLEASE. I THINK, AND SOMEBODY BROUGHT IT UP AND WE RESEARCHED IT, THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT DOES SAY THAT AN ERROR ON THE CITY STAFF IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE USED AS A JUSTIFICATION. THAT CAN'T CLEAR IT. OUR OPINION ON ANY OF THE OTHER STUFF THAT IS IT, THIS IS A BUILDER WHO CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGES HE UNDERSTANDS THE IVERGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK. HE BUILDS MULTIPLE HOMES ON CASCO POINT. HE'S DEALT WITH THIS THING. I CAN'T PUT A PERSPECTIVE OUT THERE, BUT I ALSO COULD STRUGGLE TO SEE THAT THEY DIDN'T RECOGNIZE IT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS APPLICATION AS A WHOLE, LIKE YOU HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME TODAY LIKE THIS, WOULD I APPROVE IT? THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. I DON'T SEE A CLEAR YES TO THE 12 THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED. MY OPINIONS, THAT ISN'T WHAT I'M HERE TO ASK. I'M HERE TO SAY, DOES THIS MEET THOSE 12 DEFINITIONS TO GET IT APPROVED? TO THE POINT THAT ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS SAID, IT DOESN'T MEET ALL 12. THERE'S AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT, SAY THAT THIS... DOESN'T HAPPEN TO GIVE THEM AN ADJUNCT. I LEAVE IT TO A BUILDER WHO'S IN ORONO AND HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY TRYING NOT TO GET A VARIANCE. YOU CLEARLY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CODE IS, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE. HOW A BUILDER WHO IS THAT EDUCATED TO NOT HAVE A VARIANCE WHEN HE BUYS LOTS IN ORONO TO SIT ON THEM TO SELL THEM. REALLY BAFFLES ME AS A PERSONAL OPINION. I FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS. I WALK THIS LOOP EVERY SINGLE DAY. I LIVE ON CASCO POINT. WHEN I SAW THIS HAPPENING, I DID THE SAME THING, BUT I ASSUMED THAT NIH KNEW BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE IS AN NIH LOT ON POINT WHERE THEY HAVE LOTS. YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT YOU HAVE MULTIPLE LOTS ON CASCO POINT AND YOU DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CODE. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. THAT'S RIGHT, BUT THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY. SOMETHING HAPPENING. AND THAT'S MY OPINION, RIGHT? I LOOK AT THIS, AS YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, IF THIS HAD NEVER BEEN BUILT AND THIS APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED TO ME, WOULD I APPROVE IT? JUST LIKE OTHER ONES THAT HAVE COME UP TODAY AND IN THE PAST, I WOULD BE FIRMLY AGAINST AN EIGHT-FOOT WALL OVER A NEIGHBOR WHO KNOWS IF IT'S RUNNING OFF. BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN FROM THAT, RIGHT? WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SAID LOWER THE GRADE, HAVE LOWER BASEMENT OUT INTO A PATIO OR REDESIGN BUT THAT'S MY OPINION I WOULD SAY NO BECAUSE IF THIS WAS PRESENTED TODAY I WOULD HAVE THANK YOU. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SHARE IS THAT THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM THE LOW POINT OR THE HIGH POINT, THERE SHOULD BE AN EIGHT POINT DIFFERENCE. I DON'T DISAGREE. WHEN YOU HAVE THREE RECENTLY BUILT AND OTHER LOTS AVAILABLE ON THE SAME CASCO POINT, YOU CAN'T TELL ME. I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT. I THINK WE ARE THE HARBOR PILOTS. WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE LOW POINT IS. WE ARE THE EXPERTS. CONSUMERS, BUYERS, HOMEOWNERS COME TO US AS THE EXPERTS. AND IF WE'RE NOT THE EXPERTS, THEN WE ASSIGN EXPERTS FOR THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE WAY IT GOES. THAT I UNDERSTAND. I DON'T, I DON'T. THE DIFFICULTY. THE STAFF, THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL 12 TO BE APPROVED, RIGHT? WE DON'T NEED 12 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. YEAH. ALL CRITERIA MUST BE MET. BUT TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, IT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. IT NEEDS TO BE MET. ALL 12 OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES NEED TO BE MET. ALL 12 OF THEM NOW. IT DOESN'T NEED 12 DIFFERENT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. NO, I'M SAYING LIKE THE 12 QUESTIONS, ALL 12 OF THEM, YOU CAN'T BE. THERE HAS TO BE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. IN OUR DEFINITION, A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HAS TO BE MET TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. AGAIN, IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT AGAIN, I DO UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I ALSO DO HAVE TO [03:45:03] UNDERSTAND THAT CITY AND HAVE THEM WEIGH IN ON THAT THIS WAS DONE. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I'LL ADD MY COMMENTS HERE. YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT'S ANOTHER DIFFICULT ONE, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HONOR THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT BURDEN BACK ON THE APPLICANT, TIME, MONEY, ETC. I THINK IT'S JUST A TOUGH ONE HAD IT BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AS A VARIANCE UP FRONT. WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON WHETHER WE APPROVE IT OR NOT, OR THEY MAY HAVE JUST DESIGNED IT DIFFERENTLY HAD THEY KNOWN OR BEEN GIVEN THE CORRECT INFORMATION SO I THINK IN THIS CASE I'D BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED ANY OTHER COMMENTS SO UM YEAH I GUESS WHENEVER I LOOK AT IT AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE WE HAD TONIGHT OR MONTHS AGO OR WHATEVER WE HAVE A BUNCH OF THEM YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO JUST LOOK AT IT AS OKAY IF WE WENT BACK IN TIME, WOULD WE APPROVE THIS OR WOULD WE NOT? LOOKING AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS, IT'S CLEAR THAT IT MEETS ALL THE 12 CHECKPOINTS. I DON'T SEE THAT WE WOULDN'T APPROVE THIS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ALS SIGHTLINE VIEW THAT'S 160 FEET FROM THE LAKE. THE LOT IS LONG, AND I WILL SAY IT PROBABLY HAS SOME OF THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORING LOTS HAVE. I KNOW WE'VE APPROVED. ALS VARIANCES ON CASCO POINT MULTIPLE TIMES BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTREMELY LONG AND NARROW LOTS. THIS IS, ALS IS A HUGE, CAN BE A HUGE PROBLEM FOR US FOR VARIANCES BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IT'S DESIGNED FOR AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S SUBJECTIVE AS FAR AS THE VIEW SHED, HOW WE'RE INTERPRETING THAT. I THINK IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT THE VIEW. I KNOW A NEIGHBOR HAS SAID IT WILL IMPACT HIS VIEW OF THE LAKE, BUT THAT WOULD BE DEFINITELY LOOKING HORIZONTALLY ACROSS THIS PERSON'S PROPERTY TO LOOK AT THE VIEW FROM THE LAKE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH ALS, RIGHT? IT IS REALLY HARD TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, SHOULD WE BE PROTECTING SOMEONE'S VIEW OVER MULTIPLE LOTS? BUT I THINK IF THIS WERE BEFORE US, WHEN THIS APPLICATION BEFORE WAS BUILT, I THINK WE WOULD APPROVE THIS. WE'D HAVE A LONG DISCUSSION ON IT, AND I THINK IT MEETS THE CRITERIA, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO HANG MY HAT ON. REGARDLESS OF, I CAN'T EVEN LOOK AT WHETHER A MISTAKE WAS MADE OR NOT. THIS WAS BEFORE US, AND IT MEETS THE CRITERIA. I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAVE... I DON'T NEED TO CALL ON IT. IF THERE'S AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT, I'D... I'M REALLY STRUGGLING. I'M REALLY STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT IF I WOULD SUPPORT THIS VARIANCE IF IT WAS IN FRONT OF ME AS A NEW VARIANCE TODAY. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT COMMISSIONER BOLLIS IS SAYING, THAT HE BELIEVES IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS' VOICE CONCERNS WEIGH A GREAT DEAL WITH ME. AND I THINK IF THIS WAS IN FRONT OF ME AS A NEW PROJECT TODAY, I WOULD WANT TO URGE THE APPLICANT TO... MAKE CHANGES TO MAKE IT MORE AGREEABLE AND TO MINIMIZE THE HEIGHT OF SOME OF THOSE WALLS. AND I JUST WANT TO, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT, AND I SAY WHAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS OF THE 12 CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET. I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN SIT HERE AND SAY THAT THIS VARIANCE DOESN'T ALTER. THE NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS, THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, IT CAN'T ALTER IT. THE OTHER THING, WE CAN'T TAKE AN [03:50:01] ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION. SO ALL THINGS SAID, IT CAN'T BE ABOUT THE ECONOMICS. I THINK PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING AND EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ABOUT DOES THIS HAVE ANY JUSTIFICATION. ANOTHER THING IS NUMBER EIGHT, IT HAS TO BE PARTICULAR TO THIS LOT THAT CAUSES THEM TO NEED. THE VARIANCE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING PARTICULAR TO THIS LOT THAT REQUIRES THEM TO SEEK THE VARIANCE, SO I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA PIECE AS WELL. AND THOSE ARE THE TWO MAIN ONES, RIGHT? AND I ONLY NEED ONE OF THOSE. THE ROLE AS A PSEUDO-JURY IS TO DENY IT. IT HAS TO MEET ALL 12 OF THOSE CRITERIA. AND I KNOW YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD, BUT I'LL LOOK TO STAFF TO SAY THAT, YES, IT DOES HAVE TO MEET ALL CRITERIA. I'LL JUST CLARIFY MY COMMENT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO CARRY. I'M SAYING IT DOESN'T MEET. IT MEETS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, AND I DISAGREE HOW YOU'RE DEPICTING IT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK IT DOES MEET IT. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO, I THINK THAT THIS IS CLEARLY SOMETHING, A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CREATED BY THE... TRYING TO CREATE THIS SCENARIO. OKAY, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BECAUSE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE CASE. I MEAN, THERE'S LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT WE CAN RESCIND APPROVAL IF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR WAS MADE. I WOULD BE CURIOUS FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, TO THAT POINT ABOUT THE CRITERIA ACROSS THE 12 NOT BEING MET. WHY WOULD THIS LOT UNIQUELY REQUIRE THIS? I MEAN, I JUST DON'T, I GUESS I'M IN, UNLESS I CAN BE PERSUADED OTHERWISE, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT HAS BEEN MET. WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. I THINK I'LL SPEAK ON MY PERSPECTIVE OF IT. AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS NOT A PERFECT MEASUREMENT. WE'VE BEEN IN THOSE MEETINGS AND IT IS NOT PERFECT. IT GETS DEFINED IN MANY, MANY... WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LENGTH OF AN APPLICATION, THAT POINT, THAT PERSON HAS THIS PURVIEW. WE'RE TALKING 170 FEET. IS THAT HOW MANY FEET WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? IS THE SETBACK FROM THAT STRUCTURE? 70 FEET? OKAY, SO THAT'S MORE THAN THREE OF THOSE LOTS IN THEIR WIDTH, AND THAT IS THE FLAW OF A DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO STAMP AND APPROVE IT? NO, CERTAINLY NOT. DOES IT MEAN THAT THAT GRADING, THE WAY THE GRADING WAS CREATED, A LARGER? AGAIN, ALL OF MY COMMENTS MEET A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. I THINK IT DOES. I THINK THAT... I DON'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME DELIBERATING. IT CERTAINLY ISN'T A MATTER OF JUST SUPPORTING STAFF AND THEIR AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS THE ONLY, YOU KNOW, PROBLEM IN THE APPLICATION. AND WE HAVE APPROVED AVERAGE LAKE CHANGE. NOT IGNORE THAT NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M RIGHT AS ME THAT NOT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS BUT IT'S BEEN A LOT I WOULD LOVE TO FEEDBACK OF OCEAN ONE WAY OR TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE IT IF THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION I'LL BE PRETTY SPLIT ON THIS ONE, BUT I'LL TAKE A STAB AT MAKING A MOTION ON LA 26-29 TO APPROVE AS APPLIED. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY JARNOT TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY BRANDABUR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. WE HAVE FOUR AYES AND THREE NAYS. TIFT, WILSON. [6) Other Items] AND PERCOL. DID I GET THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT, [03:55:04] MOVING ON TO OTHER ITEMS. I DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE TONIGHT. OKAY, THAT'S GOOD NEWS. MOTION NUMBER SEVEN IS FOR ADJOURNMENT, IF WE MAY. MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY TIP. SECOND IS A RANDOM ORDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.