[0:00] The AV catheter.

[0:09] I see.

[0:14] How do you spell that?

[0:16] No, I've got it. So I'm gonna, uh, once we get down there, just put the boys up and

[0:23] say I'm gonna have. Uh, a member, member, it, uh, introduce yourselves, OK, and then

[0:31] I'm gonna do the same thing, OK, OK, cool.

[0:40] Do we need to use the mic or the automatic? I thought, I thought this would be they're

[0:46] all gone.

[0:48] Yes, they're they're not automatic. They're gone. They're gone and applicant.

[0:55] No, no, just participating, we're,

[0:58] we, we own the lot next to work.

[1:03] OK. Our study commission just in the water. I yeah we are. We have been there he

[1:05] is. OK, that's fine. And then I come in

[1:10] that test. They were like, so no one asked why just for recording sheet I didn't

[1:14] know what they told recording in progress.

[1:20] No, I did it for her. I'll that's a picture. That's a good thing because they don't

[1:27] arguably could be the best looking guy here at 6 o'clock. They can minimize it a

[1:31] little bit. And then I didn't last thing, always make sure to ask for public comment.

[1:40] I don't know if you're gonna be the chairman. It looks like. Just make sure to ask.

[1:41] You can stop recording. Just click is the same color as mine man. the recording stops.

[1:47] It's one of those things that complies with Montana law, OK, um, so you're gonna

[1:51] have to make it little so you can grab it and put it over here.

[2:03] So if we have questions let our people in. Yeah,

[2:07] OK, OK. Is this supposed to also be on uh AMD?

[2:13] Yeah, AB is on. It's recording. It's on, yeah, and we'll just kind of go over on

[2:16] the day. Ok.

[2:21] Yeah

[2:24] I think you got it. Um, you're ready for me to go to my, let's take notes feedback.

[2:32] I don't know. You ready?

[2:37] I think we're just trying to let some people in. Yeah.

[2:45] OK.

[2:48] Hello, Roger. I did.

[2:53] Hey Roger. Hey, exit full screen. There you go. Now you better.

[3:06] Testing. You're on.

[3:11] Very good. First, um, who would like copies of the, um, staff report?

[3:25] Since she went through the effort of doing it. Um I wanted to raise.

[3:31] There you go. This is

[3:36] for. It's right. Yes. Uh, with you. And you're good. And, unless you have a copy.

[3:39] I do. Why not? Yeah.

[3:48] Yeah. Right, you guys are good. Yeah.

[4:02] Paper. Yeah. Yeah. That's fine.

[4:18] Let me start.

[4:28] Yeah.

[4:33] I'd like to call to order the Board of Adjustment public hearing, uh, April 7th,

[4:41] 2026 at a little after 6 o'clock. If you would please stand and join me in the court.

[4:51] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic

[4:57] for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[5:03] for all. Thank you.

[5:10] So. If you have the agenda, we'd like to move

[5:18] two things from the agenda. Number would be 5 on public comment. I'd

[5:26] like to move that to right after 4.

[5:33] And also with that, uh, staff, um, Rod Eddington would,

[5:41] uh, give us a little talk on. AV capture. If, uh If

[5:49] that is OK with everybody. Yes. Yeah, um-hum. The motion to approve that to approve

[5:56] the agenda of revised agenda. OK. All in favor. Aye, aye opposed,

[6:03] carried. OK. Uh, I guess we'll do is we'll just go right into,

[6:12] um. Well first of all, uh, before we do that, I'd like to welcome everybody. um,

[6:18] if you'd like to, uh, introduce yourself, uh. Board members. Oh, Dale Store.

[6:26] Jim Reistetter, I'm Larry Ashcraft. Pete Ridgeway, and we have, uh, on Zoom.

[6:36] Roger Roger Redford. No, can they hear us? Can you folks on Zoom hear us?

[6:44] OK, um, I have you turned down so the the mic's not super loud, but I'll turn you

[6:51] up, uh. For public comment, um. And or during discussion.

[6:59] OK, so, uh. Ex parte communications with uh City Attorney Dave

[7:06] Mickey. Good afternoon commissioners. um, thank you for being part of the board of

[7:13] adjustments. So I'm just going to elaborate a little bit on ex parte communications

[7:17] given the fact that you are in a quasi-judicial, uh, position. So ex parte communications

[7:24] is basically one-sided communications given to you that were intended to affect your

[7:30] decision and as a judge, you should be hearing everything here and it's presented

[7:35] in the packet, uh, and all that information can be included, right? So we're trying

[7:39] to prevent the one-sided communications. We don't want any secret communications.

[7:44] Um, and what, what, what happens is here is what do, what do you do if you have spontaneous

[7:49] communications? What we're trying to do with spontaneous communications are those

[7:53] people who say, hey, I want to tell you my side of the story. I don't think it was

[7:56] included in the packet. I have a public comment. I don't think it was included, or

[7:59] I want to discuss something or let you know about something. And what we want to

[8:02] try to do in that situation, right, because that may. or may not sway your case,

[8:07] you may hold it factory base, you know, it might be a factual basis in which does

[8:11] affect your decision, um, is that we try to funnel it back to the city clerk, so

[8:16] we can include it in the packet, or so we include that we received some public comments

[8:19] along this line, so that everyone is aware of it. So everyone gets that information.

[8:25] And so you guys can all make a decision based on all the available information that

[8:30] is available. And so what we're trying to do is make it as fair as possible for all

[8:35] parties involved. When they come to bring this information to you so you don't feel

[8:39] it's too one-sided. Right, so expert target communications is usually communications

[8:47] from one party that the other party does not receive in the hopes that they may make,

[8:52] you know, may affect your, um, their, your judgment to their either to their benefit

[8:57] or not. So, and what we're trying to do is stay away from ex parte communications.

[9:02] So I would say about 1 week or 2 weeks ago the email chain went around with regards

[9:07] to emails and arguments with ex parte communications and why we should stay away

[9:12] from emails because that may raise ex parte communications which then becomes subject

[9:17] to whether or not there's a fair process, you know, uh, fair and due process that's

[9:22] occurring. So when we do receive those spontaneous communications or email public

[9:26] comments, we should file them back to the city clerk who's authorized to receive

[9:29] those comments and try to include them in this packet, and if we can't include them

[9:33] in the packet by the deadline, to at least bring them into the meeting so we can

[9:36] let them know we received this public comment, this public comment, and this public

[9:40] comment that will be included in the next packet

[9:44] or be available at the within the next time frame of the meeting.

[9:50] You know, I, I talked about ex parte communications. I'm the city attorney. I know

[9:54] about it. I've been dealing with ex parte communications for 10 years, um, and I

[9:59] guess what I ask, do you have any. You know what I mean, any questions, right?

[10:05] Yeah, yeah, Any participation that we might have that we, during the

[10:13] Talks here that somebody got up and said things that weren't in the packet. How do

[10:19] we handle that? That is perfectly fine, not an ex parte communication because this

[10:23] is the form where it gets decided. This is when it, this is when it matters, right?

[10:29] People are free to say anything here. It's not on you're actually holding proceedings

[10:33] not considered ex parte communications because it's in a public form. It was noticed.

[10:37] This is the hearing date. This is where you're gonna either make a decision. Um,

[10:42] down ex parte communication here, what we have to worry about is those, you know,

[10:46] 7 o'clock phone calls or emails, letters that get slid under the door. Um, we just

[10:53] try to wanna if any of that happens, we note it and just try to funnel it back to

[10:55] the city clerk so that everyone has a chance to hear it. So and then just so that

[11:01] we can be we follow the, you know, the very due process of this quasi-judicial board.

[11:07] OK.

[11:09] Thank you. Any, any questions? No questions? OK. My members on Zoom?

[11:21] Any questions on Zoom?

[11:24] No questions. All right. OK. Any, any public comment?

[11:29] No, OK. Thanks, thanks, uh, Dave. So Rob, you're on, yeah,

[11:37] OK, so I asked to put this item on the agenda. This is a non-action item, so it doesn't

[11:43] need to be, uh, noticed, etc. um. What I'm going to do is just give a real brief

[11:50] presentation on a recapture. Um, this is what you see here. This serves as our official,

[11:58] um, minutes for, uh, city meetings. So this includes the city commission, the board

[12:05] of adjustment, the planning board, some of the other boards, um, and it is available

[12:11] on our website, and this is how we, uh, distribute our staff. Um, reports to our

[12:17] city commission, board of adjustment, etc. So anyway, I'll start with a, a, uh, a,

[12:24] a blank web page.

[12:27] Um,

[12:30] And currently this based on the city of Polson's current size, we're only required

[12:36] to do the audio minutes, um, but at some point in time cities of an additional size,

[12:43] um, when they come form a class too if I understand correctly. Um, they're also required

[12:49] to have video and so we're not required to have video yet, but we're transitioning

[12:54] so you can see both audio and video. So here's the City of Polson's website. This

[12:58] is cityof Polson.com. You'll notice under meetings, there's several ways to get there,

[13:04] but usually I click on the meetings tab. And so what you'll have here, welcome to

[13:10] the city of Polson meeting page. And what you'll see is you'll see past meetings,

[13:16] um, this, these, these are past meetings since, um, the city's transitioned to,

[13:24] uh, so you'll see past, uh, commission meetings, etc. so you'll be able to see last

[13:29] night's meeting, for example, workshops when we, I believe this was with with the

[13:33] golf, etc. so you'll be able to see. Um, past meetings on here you'll see today's

[13:39] meetings as well as upcoming meetings and so for the board of adjustment a week prior

[13:46] what we did is under upcoming you could go to the board of adjustment and click on

[13:50] it. Um, there's both the agenda. As well as the agenda packet, so I'll go back to

[13:57] today's. So here we see. Um, the agenda, we click on it, it downloads as a PDF and

[14:05] so here you'll be able to see, um, the agenda that was posted online, um, and we

[14:12] did make the change where we moved the public comment on items not on the agenda

[14:17] up in front as well as adding this item, so you can see the agenda. And then, uh,

[14:24] as well as this button here is the agenda packet.

[14:30] Which allows you to uh download the packet as a PDF view and print. Um, if you so

[14:38] desire. Um, also, then when the meeting is live, um, this is just for your information,

[14:46] uh, for your commission meeting if you're not able to make the meeting and you still

[14:49] want to attend, for example, you can click on the meeting and so this is, uh. This

[14:56] is the live meeting, so, uh, AD capture does not allow you to uh.

[15:04] Participate and provide public comment. So this is basically read read only if you

[15:10] will. So if somebody was interested but weren't, they didn't want to participate,

[15:15] they just wanted to follow, you can go and you can see here I am live, um. Uh, I'm

[15:21] gonna mute this so there's no feedback, but you can download and then as well as

[15:26] when it's live, you can also, um, switch between the various application requests,

[15:32] etc. so all the documents are here and this is what you'll see following when you

[15:37] go you could actually go and also rewatch.

[15:42] Rewatch the recordings, etc. So, um, are there any questions in regards to AD capture

[15:49] at this point in time? No, thanks. You're welcome.

[16:01] Any public comment? Do you have any, any questions? OK.

[16:08] Thanks, Ron. You're welcome. OK, um. We now entertain the zoning

[16:16] variants for the Orton Family Trust. And uh with the proposed detached, detached

[16:22] garage, which will be located in their front yard. And do we have Mr. Orkland on?

[16:29] Yes, we do.

[16:33] Um, So Rod, are you ready to make your presentation? Yes, and I just want

[16:41] to confirm, um. Are we pronouncing Ortland correctly?

[16:49] Uh, Portlandt Portland Port wine wine Pt wine, OK.

[16:58] Yes, thank you. You're welcome.

[17:06] The Ortwein Family Trust represented by Jeff and Sherry Ortwein of Tulsa, Montana.

[17:12] is requesting a variance to the requirement that accessory building shall be located

[17:17] in rear yards but not in front yards. The request is associated with a proposed two-car

[17:24] garage to be located in the front of the property. The subject property is currently

[17:29] developed with a single family dwelling zoned low density residential. And located

[17:36] at 372 Hawk Drive and legally described as lot one of Brown Lakeview Tracks.

[17:48] Um In the staff report, there's a staff recommendation um at the kind of beginning

[17:56] here so after the review of the variance request, staff has provided findings and

[18:00] recommendation of denial of the variance request. If the board of adjustment chooses

[18:06] to approve the variants, the board shall provide findings of fact in support of their

[18:13] of their decision. Here you'll see recommended findings, um. And whether

[18:20] in support or denial, the, the board has the ability to add to these or modify it,

[18:28] so choose, um, based on your decisions and or public comment, etc. Um,

[18:36] there, with each variance request, there's a number of criteria. The need for the

[18:42] variance results from physical limitations or unique circumstances related to the

[18:46] lot or parcel on which the variance is requested. The failure to approve the variants

[18:52] will result in undue hardship. Because without the variant, strict compliance with

[18:57] the terms of these regulations will limit the reasonable use of the property and

[19:01] deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties similarly situated. It's

[19:08] not the hardship is not created by the applicant. Um, it will not have a substantial.

[19:16] Adverse impact upon neighboring properties, um, it's necessary to permit a reasonable

[19:22] conforming use. Granting of the variants will. Observe the spirit of these regulations.

[19:30] And the final two, which we don't see that often, additional findings may be required,

[19:36] um. For Uh, airport overlay and shoreline buffers. Um, one

[19:43] other item to note is that conditions of approval, um, may be assigned if the, uh,

[19:51] board chooses to approve the variants.

[19:55] There's a discussion on the review process, um, there's also a discussion of the,

[20:01] uh. Uh, the subject property, um.

[20:22] Here's a vicinity map. The subject property, it's located on Hawk Drive, um, at the

[20:29] intersection you'll see um into Pheasant Ridge here, um, it's. The residence located

[20:37] at kind of the top of the hill. Um, The applicants included as part of their application,

[20:45] a number of the required documents. There's a narrative. There's some technical drawings.

[20:52] You'll also see, um, there's a description here they've provided, um. Uh,

[20:59] proposed, uh, findings in support of the variants, um, as the requestee, so here

[21:06] you'll see. The applicants address the various review criteria. It's part of Lakeview

[21:12] Tracks, um, which was, uh, constructed. Um,

[21:20] Uh, which was created in 1960 as part of Brown's Lakeview track, so this predates.

[21:28] Mission Bay and Mission Bay Preserve Communities. The lot is 1.35 acres.

[21:36] It's an average of 170 ft wide by 357 ft deep. It

[21:43] was one of 17 original lots, which ranged from half an acre to, it looks like it's

[21:49] the largest acre, um, and the existing single family. Dwelling was constructed

[21:57] in 1978.

[22:02] So here you'll see, um, here's a picture of the lot, it's part of the application

[22:06] package. Um, here's a drawing of which shows the existing residence, kind of the

[22:14] driveway that comes in, um, the proposed location of the garage, and some other additional

[22:21] information. Um, here's some measurements showing the location. You'll also see Plans

[22:29] of the garage.

[22:35] So here's another, um, here's an aerial showing the proposed location. um in the

[22:42] application materials, you'll see a discussion of the. The slopes. Um, Um,

[22:51] the limited area plus the. Ability to, um, if they were the required

[22:58] garage was constructed in their rear yard as required by the regulations they would

[23:05] impact their views. Um, there's also a photo of the residence itself.

[23:16] Excuse me

[23:23] The adjacent neighboring properties were notified per the application materials include

[23:30] a certified list of the adjacent neighbors and so you'll see the neighbors that were

[23:35] notified, um, and the item was legally noticed in the paper and certified mailings

[23:42] were mailed to the adjacent neighboring. Um, property owners.

[23:49] Under staff analysis and you'll see this um. Throughout each finding, recommended

[23:57] finding. Uh, but this kind of summarizes it. The need for the variance is

[24:04] associated with the location of the existing single family dwelling being constructed

[24:09] in 1978 on the highest point on the lot, topography or steeper slopes of the rear

[24:15] yard, and impact the structure will have on the applicant's view, in particular of

[24:20] the lake and insufficient area on the side yards. However, there are no physical

[24:27] limitations or unique circumstances related to the lot that would prohibit a 2-car

[24:32] garage to be attached to an existing single family dwelling without the need for

[24:37] a variance in compliance with the Pulse and Development code. There are numerous

[24:41] other similarly sized garages and shops within Browns Lake View tracks and neighboring

[24:48] subdivisions um attached on the front door street side of single family dwellings,

[24:54] um, as a result. Um, The, uh, the city of Polson has recommended

[25:01] denial. Prop is that what does the code say about court cry just can be placed. Um,

[25:09] the code requires that accessory buildings are not located in setbacks and they must

[25:14] be located in the rear of the. Um, the rear of the house, or

[25:22] is there exception to that? Can you ask, um Dave to speak up.

[25:27] They

[25:33] So just to benefit the board from, so Rob is responsible for reviewing the regulations

[25:40] with regards to this. He tries to do it in neutral balance and so just as we get

[25:45] more familiar with that regulation with accessory dwelling units, including garages,

[25:50] is that garages are supposed to exist in the backyard. However, there is an exception

[25:54] that garages can exist in the front yard if you're attached to the property. That

[25:58] attach may be a tunnel of sorts. Uh, it can be directly connected. It can be,

[26:06] you know, you could have an entryway legging and as we're because we look at some

[26:11] crutches here that they would be considered in the front yard. Um, they are attached

[26:16] or right here where they just have a kind of a pathway overhead, you know, with a,

[26:21] um, over the head or enclosed pathway, you know, a form of attachment that's up to

[26:27] the developer. Uh, and then, so going with Rob's findings in the staff report and

[26:33] that. You know, I mean, there, without he can accomplish this if he attaches the

[26:38] golf. Attaches the garage to the, the main residence.

[26:45] You have a question. So would a breezeway be considered an attachment it was covered?

[26:53] Yeah, that, uh, we would consider, um. looking at this definition, we encountered

[26:59] this on a similar, similar situation um or similar type of scenario, different

[27:07] circumstances, but they um. They ended up modifying their plans, so it became kind

[27:13] of a, a, a moot point in that scenario, but generally speaking, it would be some

[27:20] sort of enclosed entry or some sort of inside space um that would attach.

[27:28] It's a little bit of a stretch if it's just a roof only um. All these others have

[27:34] some sort of inside space, like an entry um I've seen them where you go in and you

[27:38] can go to the left of the garage, right into the house um. I realized there may be

[27:44] some. Inconveniences to that, um, based on what they desire, maybe I don't know about

[27:51] infrastructure, those sorts of things, but for strict adherence to our code, um,

[27:57] that if it were attached it was something that could be permitted without a variance

[28:01] and so. Um, So for that reason, um. The,

[28:09] uh, we would require a variance.

[28:15] Could be a problem. Um, Yeah, there's 2 cars parked in that slot next to the house.

[28:24] If the garage were stationed where that those cars are at. Would that require any

[28:31] variances, um, is provided there was they would meet the definition of being attached.

[28:39] So this comes back down again to our regulations is where is considered the front

[28:44] yard and the property is addressed off Hawk Drive and so Hawk Drive is considered

[28:48] the front yard. So that portion of the property that's connected to the Hawk drives

[28:52] to the front yard. So in this case, it would still be anything in front of that building

[28:58] right there going towards off Drive would be considered the front yard. And anything

[29:03] behind that building is considered the rear yard, and between it is the side yards,

[29:08] right? And then we have setbacks along those. So does that have to be even? The garage

[29:12] have to be even with the front of the house. Then does not have to be even. It just

[29:15] has to be connected. And as we go back, if you go back and move to those other houses,

[29:19] as we can kind of see some of the examples, some of the other properties that have

[29:22] been complying with this garage in the front yard is that those houses are complied

[29:27] and as you can see, not we do not hold up.

[29:45] I mean those, some of them, some of them are a little bit behind the house, but considered

[29:49] the front yard. Some of them are in front of the house and still in the front yard,

[29:53] but they, they get that exception because they're attached. And so just to inform

[29:58] you what the code says, sure, if, if it's attached, it's allowed in the front yard.

[30:02] If it's not attached, it's considered a detached accessory building and it has to

[30:05] be in the backyard and the here is, is the backyard has the views and the front yard.

[30:11] So, in your opinion. The, the corner of the house and the corner of the garage coming

[30:16] together is not enough. A Join what I'm looking at is trying to preserve the integrity

[30:22] of the deck while still allowing the garage. I mean not having to require knees.

[30:29] How far do you think, yeah. Without receiving a formal application for that that

[30:35] aspect, right, to render an opinion on it would be difficult, but I mean at some

[30:39] point if there is an attachment, then it would accomplish the exception, right? But

[30:45] I don't know unless we were until the difficulty of reviewing agencies as a city

[30:49] is that we have to receive the plans and render an opinion on that review and sometimes

[30:54] when we are dealing with other properties we go through multiple. Plan every review

[30:59] editions until they find something that works for what they want. That,

[31:07] oh, I had one other item to note, um. I know we've interpreted this before, if there's

[31:13] some sort of inside space, um, whether it's uh. That, that's enclosed

[31:21] connecting the two, whether it's a, a hall or um some way where they can leave

[31:29] the the garage with um with groceries or whatever, make your way without going outside,

[31:36] that would be interpreted as being attached, whatever that would, that would look

[31:40] like, provided it, it met building code requirements, so. And and they have requirements

[31:46] zoning such as setbacks, maximum lot coverage, um, most of those other requirements

[31:53] based on the size of the lot are um can be easily addressed.

[32:01] I just have a question. I've driven by that house 1000 times, probably because I

[32:06] live down in the preserve. There's always kind of a curiosity to me that the front

[32:10] of that house. Is the most attractive side of the house is the side that looks at

[32:15] the lake. To me, the other side of the house that we're calling the front would be

[32:21] the back and, if it was my house. Uh, probably a long time ago, I'd have probably

[32:26] had the address changed to Pheasants. Instead of Hawk. So is there a mechanism to

[32:32] change this person's address from Hawk Drive to Pheasant Ridge? That would solve

[32:38] his problem. It doesn't necessarily solve the aesthetics of having a standalone garage,

[32:45] but, uh, I don't know what the regulation would be on that. It's curiosity. Um, if

[32:50] they were. Accessed, physically accessed off of. Um

[32:58] Pheasant Ridge, um, that would. And access through the preserve and were part of

[33:04] that community or granted legal access then that would be a a consideration but like

[33:10] as Dave mentioned we would, we would need an application and, and, and to be able

[33:14] to ensure you know that there's maybe no covenants that prohibit access or I, I.

[33:22] Um, there's a lot of times there's unknowns. I've seen a scenario where there's like

[33:27] a 1 ft no access easement. Yeah and so and so, uh, so the

[33:34] applicants were, were, um, forced by a legal document to access from a, from a

[33:42] designated. Location when, when that uh. When the lot was created. So

[33:50] if we had a uh situation where they decided they want to be in compliance, so they're

[33:56] going to put a breezeway, or they're going to do something. That takes it away from

[34:00] here and they're gonna have to then bring that all up again. They would just submit

[34:07] a, a revised plan, um, and we could, uh, approve that it assuming it would meet building

[34:14] codes, um, uh, it would be no different than our standard single family residential,

[34:21] uh, where we have like our one hour, you know, our fire rating between a garage and

[34:26] a. Attached garage in a house, which is typical, um, you would see with all the other

[34:32] residents, uh, surrounding residents have all those same requirements. So if they

[34:37] came in with building plans revising that, um, they would require, um, no, no board

[34:43] approval. So Rob, the, uh, there's two lots down. There's an

[34:50] empty lot next door to the line, and then there's a house with the, the turnaround,

[34:54] right? Not the one over to the, I guess that would be to the west. Up the street,

[35:00] right there, yeah. They have similar to Dale, they have a, I've driven by that. Piece

[35:08] of properties many times and it appears that house has a uh an accessory building

[35:15] whether it's attached or not attached, I don't know, but it's right on the left hand

[35:21] side of the home. Yes, we considered that as not being in the front yard because

[35:26] it was behind the front of the, the key is, oh, right, the point if it's behind it,

[35:31] OK, I mean it doesn't have to be in the rear it can be I'm at the side of the building,

[35:38] um, yep, and so that, uh. That garage was permitted this last fall. OK, and, and

[35:46] so it's just when it's in the, the front, um, I think the challenges, uh, with.

[35:55] This particular application is based on slopes and I think it might block some of

[35:59] their views as well. The desired location is on. Um, from the, the applicant's

[36:06] perspective, but would be on this side if, if they can, um. If they were able to

[36:13] obtain approval. But it could go on the left. Potentially on where that shit is right

[36:19] now. There's a sewer over there. Oh, you can move that. Well, I, I think they're

[36:24] also getting closer to the set probably you go to the plans which shows the outlines.

[36:29] So you actually see the property outline.

[36:34] Go up.

[36:40] I think equation.

[36:44] We wanted to go back to that. Yeah Like right there? I'm

[36:52] not sure what time you need to be, but.

[36:59] That's what that Which is less than And Um, and, um, whenever the board has,

[37:07] is done with questions with me, um, there's the ability to, um, you can ask the applicant

[37:15] to expand and, and, and any comments that they might have as well, and so, and that

[37:21] might answer some of your questions.

[37:24] Um I'll go ahead and turn

[37:33] So with the entertain the, uh, if, if we're OK here, any more questions, we'll uh

[37:39] entertain the hard line. Family? Um, are you, you talk with him? Well, I,

[37:46] I appreciate all the, uh, the conversation. Um, I'm not sure, I don't think there's

[37:50] anything I'm gonna say that's gonna change anything. We felt we had a pretty, uh,

[37:55] compelling, uh, application for the variants. Um, we feel pretty strongly about the

[38:01] fact that. There's no doubt if you walk that property, the best location is where

[38:06] we had it going, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's gonna get approved,

[38:10] uh, um, I we would wanna have some clarification in regards to, you know, what would

[38:16] be it. Deducted we talked about the breezeway, um, so I'd like just to make sure

[38:23] at some point, since we're still kind of, this is kind of the top of your your list

[38:27] today, um, we just don't want to lose the momentum and, and try to get some sense

[38:32] from, from staff, um, what would be OK for us not to go, to go forward with the variants

[38:39] because we understand as long as it's attached, whether it's in the front or not,

[38:43] um. They do not have to apply for guns, so. I think that's kind of

[38:51] where. Where we are right now and uh so I think we could get the staff in the near

[38:57] term. Um, if, if in fact this variance is going to be, um, declined that you. We

[39:04] would like to move forward with that. The.

[39:10] Did you turn that up or. Yeah, it's kind of hard to follow.

[39:19] We want to be good neighbors. This is sort of preservation Day, so we're, I'm sorry,

[39:23] how much did you guys here and not here? That's better. Yeah. Were you able to hear

[39:28] most of what I said? Uh, Half of it, kind of, yeah, about half, yeah, I was just

[39:32] saying I thought, I thought we had, yeah, yeah, I just, we felt that a compelling,

[39:36] um, application. We spent a lot of time and money on it, but that was our decision

[39:41] to do it, and Yes. If, if it's gonna be denied, we're just gonna wanna make sure

[39:47] we get, you know, clarification from staff what would be accepted, uh, because I

[39:53] can't see anywhere else where this, you know, we can't take, take apart our deck,

[39:59] we can't put something in the back, block our, our yard, we have a, um.

[40:05] Sewage down there too and then um so anyway.

[40:11] And I don't need to go through our all of our list of key things that we did. We

[40:15] lined up the criteria similar to the staff and again felt we ate, we had a pretty

[40:19] compelling argument, but.

[40:23] I don't really have anything else to discuss. And I appreciate it. Questions?

[40:31] I'm not sure exactly what just happened. He said he's kind of staff report said,

[40:38] and he'd like to know the way I understand it that we'd like to know where he can

[40:42] go from here and what recommendations we can our staff could give him that he could.

[40:50] Do whatever he, what other options there might be. So essentially modifying what

[40:55] he originally that we're discussing right now, is, is that right, Mr. Is that, is

[41:00] that correct, Mr. Hartwine?

[41:03] Yes Yes,

[41:09] Hm

[41:13] I think he needs an attach a cruise. So, The way I kind of see it, unless there was

[41:20] some modification, um, it kind of, uh, sets a precedent if we were to have the garage

[41:28] in the, in the front yard the way it's prescribed. Uh, it's a fairly big building,

[41:35] um. I, I'd like to see if there was some other way that you could put, put your garage,

[41:42] you know, where, I don't know if it would work in the back. I know that it's steep

[41:48] way back, but it may be in the northwest corner. Um, And I don't know about uh

[41:57] then uh the other one would be to a little bit to the southeast.

[42:04] Um, I think before you guys move into the next stage, you probably should ask for

[42:09] public comment. It's a good time to ask for your public if there's any public comment.

[42:13] Well, I said that you had anything, Mac. Do you want to comment too? You can go ahead

[42:21] and go. OK. Would you just state your name and address right here. Come up here.

[42:27] And that way you have to put a comment so when you guys do your discussion and the

[42:31] next thing you move to your vote, you have, you, you've done that procedurally.

[42:36] My name is Max Swan. My wife Karen is in the room. We own lot 2 to the northwest

[42:43] of Wetwein's house. So, um, we went out and looked at what was staked out on the

[42:50] ground, and Jeff, thank you for having that done and for the detailed

[42:58] drawing so that we could understand your proposal. Um, and we understand, um,

[43:07] your desire to have a garage up top rather than down under that tuck under garage

[43:16] on your home. We understand that, um. We I think you'd say that we're,

[43:24] we appreciate the um staff's recommendation. Um, the, the project as

[43:31] it's proposed, um, First of all, I don't know if it's a good idea to.

[43:40] Um, issue of variance when

[43:44] there's probably another solution or solutions that might. Land inside the general

[43:51] zoning conditions. Um, it may help you to understand where we're coming from, um,

[43:59] when I tell you about the purchase of that lot. So, uh, we owned a lot down in the

[44:06] preserve, uh, lot 212, and, um, when Karen and I walked out onto this lot, lot 2

[44:14] of the Brown's edition, uh, we just fell in love with it. It has extraordinary views

[44:19] north, but also it has incredible views from about Moss Peak all the way out

[44:27] into the missions. And we live in a south facing lot. We own 20 acres out west of

[44:35] town, and that's our view. Our view that we've enjoyed for 45 years is across Polson

[44:41] Bay and we see the big mountains to the south. So when, when, uh, we walked out on

[44:46] this lot, uh, Karen and I both fell in love with that, that view to the south as

[44:53] well as the view of the lake.

[44:57] As proposed, that garage 16 ft back from the, the

[45:05] house, there's a 16 ft gap, and then there's a wall, and that wall will take out

[45:13] a considerable percentage of that view from where we're looking at possibly building

[45:19] should we, should we want to do that. We're still trying to figure out, I think,

[45:24] our future for that lot. Um, but. Whether we build or not, it would still,

[45:32] in our opinion, um, devalue that lot. So, um, it,

[45:40] it, you can't quantify, I don't think what the devaluation would be to have that

[45:47] garage sitting out 16 ft away from the house in the view corridor, but, um.

[45:55] I'm certain that it would devalue the lot. I just don't know to what degree. It was

[46:02] an expensive lot. We stretched to buy it because of its qualities, and we'd like

[46:08] to maintain those qualities as much as possible, and, um, uh, that's really all I

[46:15] have to say. So I appreciate your time and your thoroughness and. And the staff's

[46:22] look, look hard. Look, can I appreciate Jeff's have, have Rob point out where your,

[46:27] where your lot's at. Um, well, we're a lot, lot two. That's the lot right there.

[46:33] So if you look at the If you build on the on the crown of that lot, which

[46:41] is what we have envisioned. Um, with Uh, windows taking

[46:49] advantage of that view up Park Drive. Into the South missions and back

[46:56] along to the north of the mission range really behind um Ortwein's house.

[47:05] Um, If you put that large of a structure in that location, it will

[47:12] significantly alter that view of the mission range. It's just, there's no, no doubt

[47:17] about it, so, um. I think you can get compliance to the zoning regulations by

[47:25] tucking the garage closer to the house, either on the northwest corner. Or the south

[47:32] southwest corner or the southeast corners of the house possibly I mean there I, I

[47:37] think what was proposed was sort of your, your contractor's vision of how do I

[47:45] construct a two car garage. I'm gonna pour a slab I'm gonna. Build the walls up.

[47:52] The walls are higher than the. May be necessary, um, uh, all that's a judgment call.

[47:59] my whole mind is safe. So anyway, um, I appreciate your time and your and your thoughts.

[48:05] Yeah, thank you.

[48:09] Are there any height restrictions on Hawk Drive addresses? Although that property

[48:15] doesn't belong to the HOA. Um, I think your HOA up there does have some roof.

[48:23] Uh, regulations? That, that house wouldn't be in, or isn't involved in the HOA. No.

[48:33] But the city doesn't have any height restrictions except for they do. They do airports,

[48:38] etc. Yeah. Uh, 35 ft. 35? Yeah. All right.

[48:47] I have no questions. My only last comment was in the presentation that showed the

[48:54] south facing elevation as a just a blank wall. Which, in looking at the size of

[49:02] the house and the size of the garage, I think it's just gonna be a, a blob sitting

[49:06] on top of that hill. And it's not going to look good.

[49:13] Um,

[49:15] My, my comment to it is uh back to there seems to be some other options, um. And

[49:23] I don't see that there is a, uh, an example of really undue hardship,

[49:31] which is one of the qualifying things, um. And

[49:39] It's too bad that the inconvenience and the additional money that it might do to

[49:47] bring a property up isn't is not adequate to issue a variance.

[49:55] Um,

[49:59] And I guess that that the, the two-car garage, um, to me, that's a pretty massive

[50:05] two-car garage to start with, um, and I'm kind of with Pete as far as that

[50:12] property of all the beautiful places there are coming down Hawk Drive and in there

[50:17] and to see this huge garage that halfway up the hillside, um, I, I, I think it's

[50:24] not. It, it doesn't add to the uh looks of the uh coming

[50:32] into Mission Bay or looking off to the, to the east on uh, on the preserve.

[50:43] So, any, any other comments? Um, no, I agree with you about that. Uh, excuse me,

[50:50] so I guess at this time I entertain any emotion. To, um,

[51:02] So you take and entertain the motion to approve if I, if I can help assist you with

[51:07] this, you can entertain a motion to adopt the findings in the staff report. You can

[51:13] entertain entertain a motion to adopt the findings plus or minus something in the

[51:17] staff report, and, you know, in addition to it, um, or you can find, take a motion

[51:23] to grant and with adopt, adopt additional findings why the reason to grant. Um, based

[51:30] on the conversation going, it looks like you may want to adapt, uh, to a motion to,

[51:35] uh, deny with the for the same reasons as the staff report. OK, that's I, I,

[51:43] I've entertained them. I'd like a motion to, um, Accept the staff's

[51:50] findings. With modifications or just to accept the staff findings? I was just going

[51:55] to say staff findings. OK. I, I, I, you make that motion. I make that motion. OK.

[52:01] And, in a second. OK, I second that. 2. Yeah. OK, second. We have a motion, we have

[52:07] a second. Any discussion

[52:12] Public comment?

[52:15] All in favor? Aye, aye, aye.

[52:22] Is that

[52:25] That I Yeah, and I, sorry, with 4 votes, it, uh, passed.

[52:39] So, um, The item number 6

[52:46] would be the zoning variants for Rocky Wisman and irrevocable

[52:54] Trust and propose a single family dwelling extending into the setbacks.

[53:05] And Staff report.

[53:12] Good evening again, uh. Board of adjustment members. This is the Rocky Allen Wisman

[53:19] revocable Trust.

[53:24] Rocky Allen Wisman Revocable Trust, represented by Rocky Wisman of Tulsa, Montana

[53:29] is requesting a variance to front and or rear yard setbacks. The request is associated

[53:36] with a proposed single family dwelling with an attached garage. The subject property

[53:41] is currently undeveloped, zoned, uh, low density residential, located at

[53:48] 296 Bayview Drive and legally described as lot 12 of Fairway

[53:55] Properties. Um, staff have provided findings and recommendation of denial, um. And

[54:02] again, if the board chooses to approve the variants, the board shall. Provide required

[54:08] findings of fact in support of their decision. You'll see the similar, same layout

[54:13] as the last variance request. and You'll see.

[54:22] The conditions of approval. Or sorry, my apologies, the standards of evaluation.

[54:31] And then you'll see staff analysis.

[54:39] Here you'll see um. The location of the lot. It is

[54:52] It's the last lot, if I understand to be developed here of Fairwave Properties.

[55:22] Um, you'll see here on, uh, A strain, um, these are the Fairway Properties

[55:30] lots, um, the remaining lot. Is here. So this is the proposed subject

[55:38] property.

[55:48] Um,

[55:52] In summary, the need for the variants is a result of the applicant's proposed building

[55:56] plans. The application materials state that the applicant would like to upgrade to

[56:01] a newer version of the same house that he currently lives in a few doors down, but

[56:07] did not realize when he purchased the lot that his house plans that he had prepared

[56:14] that the proposed plans as currently drawn would not fit onto the lot without extending

[56:20] 4 ft into the front and or rear yard setbacks. Her records on file with Lake County,

[56:28] the 0.26 acre or 11,433 square feet subject property is approximately

[56:36] 110 ft wide by 104 ft deep and was created in 1998. It's part of.

[56:44] Fairway properties consisting of 16 lots. The configuration of the lot within

[56:51] LRZD can accommodate other similarly sized single family dwellings exceeding 1500

[56:57] square feet with attached garages outside of setbacks. Um, Unfortunately,

[57:06] um, When the applicant purchased the property, um, he didn't realize that his, um,

[57:13] garage would extend. Here, you'll see a site plan. It's part of the application,

[57:18] so the way it's sized here extends slightly, um, well, it's not a large house, just

[57:24] based on the configuration, um, unfortunately, it would extend either way, just based

[57:30] on, because it's slot, it's a little bit shallower, but it's a little, also a little

[57:35] bit wider. So, um, Rob, can I ask you a question? Why you have that piece up?

[57:43] What's that? While you have that part up, could I ask you a question? Sure. In the

[57:49] uh plans, it shows a deck coming off the back of that house. What is the, um, does

[57:57] the deck have to be so far off the back property line um if the deck, um, were to.

[58:06] Setbacks apply to above grade extensions and so like if it were uh you

[58:14] know. We would, you would need to demonstrate that it would be, it'd be more like

[58:20] a patio versus a deck and so if it was. Above grade, and so.

[58:29] It was during the staff um.

[58:34] Uh, staff analysis, actually writing the report, it, it came to my attention, and

[58:40] that would be, um, my response. The setbacks, um. That

[58:47] are measured to the foundation walls. Typically speaking, and so you can have a,

[58:54] a, an eave or a roof extended into setbacks provided it's not greater than 4 ft,

[59:00] and you can also have um at grade, so if the deck could qualify as an at-grade

[59:08] extension, then it would be allowed, but that would be something he would need to

[59:13] address, um, as, as part of the building plan review, um. So,

[59:21] so having the deck doesn't necessarily encroach onto the setbacks, yeah, if, if the,

[59:29] the deck were at grade or could be considered at grade, um, and it was wood material

[59:37] or composite versus, um, paper stones or something like that, um, but that would

[59:43] be something that they would need to address as part of their application. Um, in

[59:47] which we would probably encourage them just to do like a, a patio, like an aggregate

[59:53] or something similar that would. That would, um. Would be easier to comply. So that

[1:00:00] would be at grade then, right? Yeah. OK. But that, when I, when I look at that, I

[1:00:05] mean, if he, say you did, and he's asking for a 4 ft setback or a 2 ft and a 2 ft,

[1:00:14] If you did the 2 ft, Um, you're still gonna be over the property line.

[1:00:22] Over the set down the property line you set the setback this yeah so now you're even

[1:00:29] closer. OK, all right.

[1:00:36] Yeah, and, and staff can can understand why they would like the desired for a plan

[1:00:44] in the way out, um, unfortunately for the. Again, the standards of evaluation,

[1:00:52] um, they, there's other properties that can comply with setbacks, um, you know, it's

[1:00:59] unfortunate this is the plan they like, um.

[1:01:04] But, uh, zoning doesn't really, uh, there's other alternatives, and one of the reasons

[1:01:09] I included the 1500 square feet is that was a requirement of um. Of their

[1:01:17] Uh, covenants. Um, It was a minimum of 1500 square feet, um,

[1:01:25] but if we look at.

[1:01:39] What's the amount of lot coverage uh for, say, that home? Uh, uh, 40%.

[1:01:48] And, and code says. 40%. 40%. How many square footage is it considered wrong, um,

[1:01:57] as designed, uh.

[1:02:01] You're talking the square footage. It would be 40% of the 11,000. So you've been

[1:02:07] able to work, you know, over way over 4000 square footage to work with, um, for a

[1:02:12] lot of coverage aspect and this issue really arises with. We have setbacks

[1:02:20] at 30 ft in the front yard and how many feet in the backyard, Rob? 1515. And then

[1:02:26] his house because of the shape of the lot is a little bit, uh, is wider than it is

[1:02:32] longer than some of the other lots that are adjacent and this is based on, I think

[1:02:35] the design is based on the house that exists another lot that is longer than it is

[1:02:39] wider which allows it to comply and so we get into this position where the city has

[1:02:44] regulate to follow the review of the regulations it can't meet the regulations without

[1:02:48] being without.

[1:02:51] Um, Oh hold on a second. Um, And there's uh.

[1:02:59] Um, there's one other item I need to address before concluding the staff report.

[1:03:04] Let me finish that. Um, the item was, uh, legally noticed, so we met the legal noticing

[1:03:10] requirements. Certified adjacent neighbors were or adjacent neighbors were also notified

[1:03:17] via certified mail. There is one comment, um, you can see in the packet.

[1:03:24] From one of the neighbors and we also received verbal comment from. The

[1:03:32] adjacent neighbor across um Bayview. Um,

[1:03:39] and with concerns that their HOA was not notified, um, and maybe Dave may want to

[1:03:47] address this as well, but per our notifications, we go off the certified list provided

[1:03:53] by, um, provided by the applicant and the HOA, uh, this particular lady, I

[1:04:01] believe was a member if I understand correctly. Um, of the HOA and so they received,

[1:04:07] um, prescriptive, um, notes regarding the request. And, and this is a different

[1:04:14] HOA, right? Yeah. Yes, that's. There's no HOA on that side. Yeah, there's, it's at

[1:04:19] the HOA, um, with thick wood subdivision. Yeah. So, how, how, how far down, OK, so

[1:04:27] you have, uh, you have lot 12 is the lot we're talking about. Um-hum. Lot 13 is next.

[1:04:32] OK, they got notified. The next lot up, the next home up. Did not. Did not. Um, there

[1:04:40] is. I didn't know how far you go out. Staff report. Um, we notified the neighbor

[1:04:46] to the north, south, uh, this neighbor here, and then, um, OK. This neighbor there.

[1:04:52] OK. All right. Which was the one that had the issue about not being. Uh, it's the,

[1:04:58] it's the one on, one on one. Yeah, that's OK. One delay. Development is close. Oh,

[1:05:03] yeah. OK. OK. OK.

[1:05:09] Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Are, are we good to go?

[1:05:16] Yes, I'm not gonna comment. No comments. Um, I believe, um.

[1:05:23] Uh, Mr. Redford may have had, had a question or comment too. Yeah, the microphone

[1:05:30] has been turned off during the whole presentation, so I didn't get a word of it.

[1:05:35] Oh no, um.

[1:05:40] Let me see here, um.

[1:05:49] I can, uh, As soon as you started speaking, you, I watched it. You turned your microphone

[1:05:55] off. Yeah, I meant to turn off the background noise. Um, good, good, do it again.

[1:06:01] Yeah, I can do that, um. So, uh, Rocky Allen Wisman.

[1:06:10] Representing the Rocky Allen Wisman revocable Trust is requesting a variance to front

[1:06:16] and or rear yard setback requirements. The request is associated with a proposed

[1:06:22] single family dwelling with attached garage. The subject property is currently undeveloped,

[1:06:28] zoned low density residential, located at 296 Bayview Drive and legally described

[1:06:35] as Lot 12 of. Fairview Properties. After review of the variance request, staff

[1:06:42] has provided findings and recommendation of denial of the variance request. If the

[1:06:47] Board of Adjustment chooses to approve the variants, the board shall provide required

[1:06:52] findings of fact in support of their decision. Uh, similar to the last variance request.

[1:07:01] Uh, staff have provided recommended findings of fact and have addressed each of,

[1:07:07] um, the criteria outlined in the Polsa municipal code. Um, a summary.

[1:07:16] Um, probably the best Um,

[1:07:23] Uh, review is under staff analysis.

[1:07:29] In summary, the need for the variants is the result of the applicant's proposed building

[1:07:34] plans. The application materials state that the applicant would like to upgrade to

[1:07:40] a newer version of the same house. That he currently lives in a few doors down. It

[1:07:47] did not realize when he purchased the lot and had his house plans prepared. That

[1:07:52] the proposed plans as currently drawn would not fit onto the lot without extending

[1:07:58] in 4 ft into the front and or rear yard setbacks. Her records on

[1:08:05] file with the Lake County clerk and recorder, the property is 0.26 acres or

[1:08:12] 11,433 ft. The board did have a question on what coverage and

[1:08:19] so. Uh, he could cover up to 40% of the 11,433 ft.

[1:08:29] The is 110 ft wide by 104 ft deep and was created in

[1:08:35] 1988. Uh, the issue with the current house or the applicant's current house, which

[1:08:42] he wants to build a newer version of, is that this particular lot is a little bit

[1:08:48] wider and a little bit narrower, even though I think it's out of all of the uh. The

[1:08:55] uh 18 lots or 16 lots in that division, it's uh. One of the larger,

[1:09:03] it's not the largest, it's about 60-70% somewhere in there and size-wise, and so

[1:09:08] even though they have the size of the lot, the configuration is what creates a little

[1:09:15] bit of the challenge there. And um you'll see the. The

[1:09:22] applicant's narrative. Um, Explaining he, he bought the lot and then

[1:09:29] didn't realize. Um, that, He, uh That his

[1:09:37] house plans wouldn't fit on there. Um, there's also a discussion that he overpaid.

[1:09:44] And, and now has a slot and doesn't know. If he um, he might lose money on it, etc.

[1:09:51] that sort of thing, uh, variances, uh, uh, hard financial hardship is not a

[1:09:59] valid hardship in the wholesome development code. Um, you'll also. Um,

[1:10:07] note in the, uh,

[1:10:11] The application materials, you'll see a copy of the plat. The size, you'll see a

[1:10:16] copy of the floor plan. And then you'll see where it extends. There was also a discussion

[1:10:24] of. Uh, whether or not the proposed deck, uh, in the setback would,

[1:10:33] or whether or not the proposed deck would require, um, to meet setback requirements

[1:10:41] would be required here you'll see here which so this deck will be located in the

[1:10:45] back here. Staff would interpret any above grade improvements

[1:10:52] as being required to meet setback requirements. Um, what's allowed is eaves up

[1:11:00] to 4 ft to extend into the pharynx, but that's the only provision. Normally setbacks

[1:11:06] are measured to the foundation wall. And so things like patios would.

[1:11:14] Um, could extend into setbacks. Raised decks.

[1:11:21] Cannot if the deck could be interpreted as being at grade. Then, uh, there are some

[1:11:29] scenarios where we've had at-grade decks, and that's maybe a little bit less than

[1:11:34] ideal. Um, But that was, is part of the original proposal. It did not come

[1:11:42] to staff's attention of the deck until um after the item had been noticed, etc.

[1:11:53] And has there been any complaint by the golf course if that 4 ft triangle extends

[1:11:58] close to the golf course, uh.

[1:12:01] Uh, at this point, no.

[1:12:04] So we're talking about a, a 4 ft triangle. That does not abut any neighbor except

[1:12:12] the golf course. So it's a triangle-shaped four-piece that just goes into open space.

[1:12:21] That is correct.

[1:12:27] Well I'll just, having missed most of the discussion, I'll just say that. I don't

[1:12:33] see a problem with this. That's just my two cents' worth.

[1:12:47] Um, what I guess the discussion, yeah. Any discussion? But any discussion with

[1:12:54] us about that presentation? Uh, questions, I guess in the city's standpoint, we just

[1:13:02] try to invoice the regulations with regards to. We have setbacks, the 15 yards, and

[1:13:07] so we're stuck enforcing it within that that frame and, and then the city looks at

[1:13:12] it is this, you know, I mean, can it just your plans be adjusted to fit within that

[1:13:16] frame and that's, that's kind of the city's standpoint with regards to our financial

[1:13:19] hardship isn't really one of the qualifying hardships for city reviews. It's all

[1:13:24] about the physical, you know, limitations of the property, uh, and that's where the

[1:13:28] city's coming from, the point, right? And then they, they're asking you whether or

[1:13:32] not that regulation needs to be. You know, a variance from that regulation. Um-hum.

[1:13:37] So. So,

[1:13:40] OK, that's OK. Yeah, yeah, uh, putting aside that he didn't think it through, uh,

[1:13:46] his plans to fit in the property, which Are we going to have any comments from Mr.

[1:13:54] Woodman? Uh, to my knowledge, um. Yeah, he's not chat, um,

[1:14:01] let me see here.

[1:14:05] All right, well, he had indicated he was not going to join on via Zoom, that he was

[1:14:11] going to use our, um, AV capture and watch it live. Oh, OK, OK, OK. So putting aside

[1:14:19] that oversight on his part, uh, to me, the, the, it's.

[1:14:26] One option could be, you know, agreed to 2 ft and 2 ft in the front. B change his

[1:14:33] plans, have the deck in a different place, or have, like Rob pointed out, a at grade

[1:14:39] patio.

[1:14:44] So, um, so at, at this, uh, junction, the only issue here is just the surrounding

[1:14:50] of the building. The patio, more information we need in regards to the, you're right.

[1:14:55] Thank you. It could be a additional condition if based on a grant of variance, right,

[1:15:00] on the board can didn't do. But at this point, the variances with regards to the

[1:15:05] four corners of the building. I say four corners, there's more than 4 corners on

[1:15:09] that building, but if you get my Didn't I read when I was looking at the packet the

[1:15:16] idea of the 2 ft and 2 ft and moving the whole thing a little bit? Can you go to

[1:15:23] the um Um, south, I believe. Can you go to the plans with that one? It would basically

[1:15:28] fit.

[1:15:33] Just go.

[1:15:36] You need, you needed a, you need a variance for 2 to 2 2 ft. That would be a separate

[1:15:40] one, right? Uh, it would be a front yard variance and a rear yard variance, but that

[1:15:46] would be a separate variance of what he's asking for now. Um, the way it's worded

[1:15:52] is to front and or rear yard. Setbacks the way it's

[1:16:00] noticed, um. So, So, I, Uh, let

[1:16:08] me see here.

[1:16:12] Is requesting a variance to the front and or rear yard setback requirements. I, I

[1:16:18] noticed it as such. He wanted the front yard. But he could live with

[1:16:26] the rear yard or maybe half and half and A challenge of planners is if we notice

[1:16:33] it one way too strict and then during the meeting the board wants to grant it other

[1:16:38] then we would have to go through and re-notice it come back the next month, and you,

[1:16:44] you would, it creates a. A, uh,

[1:16:51] That kind of a out of control so scenario trying to get all the noticing. I'm just

[1:16:57] trying to be clear on this because I was, so if he if if we went in the OK with 2

[1:17:04] and 2, then Mr. Wissman would have to resubmit, is that what you're saying? No, he

[1:17:12] would be granted the variance of the setbacks by 2 ft from the rear setback and by

[1:17:16] 2 ft feet from the front yard setback. Got it. OK. And then we'd have to have finding

[1:17:21] as to why you granted that variant. And one other item to note just so we're clear

[1:17:25] is that setback is not for above grade deck, um. It, it's not counting

[1:17:33] that this is the actual structure of the house, etc. So assuming he could

[1:17:40] comply, I didn't notice the deck until later on when I was looking at the plans and

[1:17:45] everything had been noticed, um, he could do a patio and that would comply, right?

[1:17:51] Yeah, I got that part. Yeah, to me that would be the easiest, so the, so the variances

[1:17:55] does not include the, uh, the, the patio.

[1:18:01] Or um or deck. I, I noticed that he said he'd like to move forward 4 ft.

[1:18:10] The problem is by moving 4 ft, you encroach into the front, you know. Correct. Or

[1:18:15] if you move it, he said he would also move it more to the north. It looks to me like

[1:18:19] if he stayed on point, he would further encroach by the design of the piece of property.

[1:18:25] Can, can we go back to that one? You're talking about so this is just an example

[1:18:30] of this is with a 4 point, but just like what Pete had mentioned, if he moves 4 ft

[1:18:34] this way and to meet, make sure that meets back there along that line because the

[1:18:38] pro it's a, you know, ride the way the trap iszoid property, right? It's not 100%

[1:18:43] perfectly squared, um, it probably wouldn't move the garage would be more towards

[1:18:48] the front yard, um, if you did the full 4 ft in the front if they any of this board

[1:18:53] is. Is geared towards moving it closer to the front yard, um, there may be more finding

[1:19:00] of facts that allow it to the front. Than it is to out to the rear, so. Dave, if

[1:19:07] we granted these variants, even if it's a 2 and 2 or something like that, we'd have

[1:19:12] to, to, we have to say, here's why. So if we, Rob, if you can go back to the whole

[1:19:18] neighborhood, the, um, and then with the satellite map look in that neighborhood.

[1:19:24] You know what I mean, we look from the road to the properties to where the garages

[1:19:27] are. I don't. Everybody's online.

[1:19:42] So, everybody on that side of Bayview Drive is in compliance and in line. Is everyone

[1:19:49] in compliance with when you say in line, what do you mean by that? Their garages

[1:19:53] are no sticking out. They're all, you can look down the line you can see if they're

[1:19:57] all lined up. Got it. OK. And, I, I guess the other thing I just want to bring up,

[1:20:04] when talking about the, the setback to the rear, to the golf course. That is kind

[1:20:09] of a no no. Um, the golf course is, uh, Basically saying we don't want

[1:20:17] anything any closer to the golf course. We're going to cut some trees down, those

[1:20:22] big trees right there, right behind the property. No, they're actually up the, up

[1:20:27] the road as you're coming down, maybe it'll be the first amount of trees. There's

[1:20:31] gonna be some of those trees that are going to come down. That's going to make a

[1:20:35] landing area. In that lot and already the golf course has been faced with potential

[1:20:42] lawsuits of golf balls coming into somebody's property and that happened on the old

[1:20:48] 9, so. The golf course does not want to have any more, Exposure than they have to

[1:20:55] have. And my other thought about being on the lake on the, on the roadside if you

[1:21:02] pull that thing out any further, that you're coming around a curve there and by the

[1:21:08] time your driveway is there, um. I, I think you're going to, I just don't think it's

[1:21:14] a real safe thing to be any closer to the road there. It's a narrow road. Um-hum.

[1:21:21] Yeah, I'm it's quite familiar with that. It's got potholes everywhere. But anyway,

[1:21:26] it's. Well, that's another. It's just one of those things. I, I kind of, I wish there

[1:21:31] was a way to, That, for me, it could make that fit, but, uh. Without modifying his

[1:21:38] plans. But, and maybe modifying the plans. I mean, if, if that's what it takes. Um,

[1:21:44] I'm, uh, I'm kind of with the, I, I talked about the setbacks and the compliance

[1:21:49] and traffic, uh, the golf balls, big time, and, uh.

[1:21:56] And I think you, you go back up to again and uh inconvenience and additional money

[1:22:02] is not adequate and I talked to put the money in the plans and things like that.

[1:22:07] I feel for that fact, but uh I have a question with regards to our position. If we

[1:22:14] say, OK, we're gonna grant a variance on this, and we're gonna allow it to uh

[1:22:21] extend into or out of the boundaries. Are we setting a precedent

[1:22:29] for future referencing so that if we get the same scenario six months from now, are

[1:22:36] we exposed to have to say, OK, well we're going to have to let this one pass too,

[1:22:41] because we, we let the last one go? I would defer that to the.

[1:22:47] Well done in your,

[1:22:50] in your quasi-judicial position that is true, right? So your, your past rulings will

[1:22:55] have some, will have some effect on future rulings. Um, and then we try to focus

[1:22:59] on that, that, you know, layout of the land and the car, you know, all land is considered

[1:23:04] unique, but there are some which are get, get quite similar and run into a similar

[1:23:09] situation, and then that would have an effect. So that would lead to my second question

[1:23:14] then in the past. Has there ever been a variance for the same reasons?

[1:23:22] That we're being asked to consider. Um, not that I recall. Um, Oftentimes,

[1:23:29] based on our criteria. A lot of times we recommend denial. It's hard for

[1:23:36] staff, uh, you know, I personally like to help people try to find a solution, um,

[1:23:42] and so it's like a lot of times, I mean, I can understand. Why they would want the

[1:23:50] variants and I would like for them to be able to build their project as they want,

[1:23:56] um, it just, it didn't meet the standards of evaluation and so that unfortunately

[1:24:02] we we weren't able to recommend approval so. Um, I don't know if that answered your

[1:24:07] question, but I don't know, like, a lot of times where we grant variants to setback

[1:24:14] requirements, um, I have recommended approval for, um, variances

[1:24:21] previously. Um, one example was. The way the road circled the property,

[1:24:29] it created like a big front yard and then there they had a big lot, but the lot was

[1:24:35] super steep and so in order to meet. Um, Meat, uh.

[1:24:43] The standards of, uh, to meet that requirement, they would have to do like a 20 ft

[1:24:48] retaining wall in the shape of the lot because it wasn't a nice flat lot that can

[1:24:53] be developed and so like in this scenario, um. Based on the size of the lot. It's

[1:25:01] a little bit wider, a little bit narrower. They're sufficient that he could develop

[1:25:05] it, um, with a reasonable sized house. Unfortunately, the financial hardship or he

[1:25:12] liked this plan doesn't constitute, um, recommendation of approval because there's

[1:25:19] other solutions, and that's, that's the, um. You know, the, the hard part about this

[1:25:24] is, at least as a planner, is, you know, we, we wanna help people, uh, we, we don't

[1:25:29] object to the house they wanna build. It just doesn't fit on the slot. He needs just

[1:25:34] a, a, a different, different layout unfortunately.

[1:25:39] Yeah, so when you were speaking about the golf course, that's in kind of in your

[1:25:43] capacity as the golf court, right, based on your experience board and, yeah, and,

[1:25:47] and the superintendent, OK, yeah.

[1:25:51] So that would be considered a relation, you know, an observation. It is experience

[1:25:56] observation you can bring in on that one that is allowable to have to um it is or

[1:26:03] not allowable yeah your observations is allowable how you view the property and the

[1:26:08] concerns you know of. Well, he has some experience with the Gulf War because that

[1:26:13] area and it's adjacent to the it is true it's adjacent to the. The golf course. OK.

[1:26:18] All right. And, um, I'll, and Dave, if you need to correct me on this, but you know

[1:26:24] that could be added to a finding of fact is um that it could increase potential liability,

[1:26:31] um, due to the nature of close proximity, and that could be an additional finding

[1:26:37] is while you're not objecting to him building a house, increasing, reducing the setback

[1:26:44] in the rear. To the golf course, um, is problematic, you know, for whatever reasons.

[1:26:52] I mean, I, I personally would love to make this work. He's a neighbor of mine. Right.

[1:26:57] And I live on the street and, uh, I would love to make this thing work. Uh, it just,

[1:27:02] it just seemed that there's just too many little things that maybe could, maybe you

[1:27:07] could change a little bit and still put it on there. But I'm thinking to worry about

[1:27:11] the traffic. I, I hear from the, the neighbor to the south is one of them that made

[1:27:16] comments, and that was one of their concerns was everybody's been in compliance for

[1:27:22] years down the street, um, and it does would. It

[1:27:30] would Obscure their view a little bit too, which they didn't really talk about that

[1:27:36] much. They're, they being the, the other folks down the street at number 2 green

[1:27:40] or number 1 green. Oh, OK. So that, that they didn't really make it their, their

[1:27:46] point was more to the traffic on the road and that if they put it out to the front,

[1:27:52] um. And I don't know. I mean, that, that, say the driveway going into the house,

[1:27:58] um, I don't know what that distance is to the road, but it looks like it could be

[1:28:03] very close if you put it, you came back out 4 ft or you can, you know, in the 2 ft,

[1:28:10] yeah. But even if you put a patio in something at ground level, I, I, I agree that

[1:28:17] would still be a, a, uh. You still have issues with the things you brought

[1:28:24] up before, uh, the potential liability, the golf balls coming in. That's what I'm

[1:28:29] thinking too at that time. It seems to me that the, the best answer for you to plan

[1:28:34] is to bring that car garage off from. What would be the south side of the house and.

[1:28:43] Do some movement of the entryway. Yeah, well, that's something that, you know, I'm

[1:28:49] gonna go back to the building. Yeah, that's the only way you can then everything

[1:28:52] fits. But because you build a house that looks just exactly like this, on a lot that

[1:29:00] doesn't look exactly like this, it's, it's like saying, I actually wear a size 11

[1:29:06] shoe, but I'm going to wear these size 8.5s all day long. You know, it just doesn't

[1:29:11] fit them a lot. So, that's the problem. Is there any more comment from Zoom, um.

[1:29:17] No, no, I think if you can ask for public comment. I know there's no one here to

[1:29:22] give it, but just in case someone's hiding in the public comment. See none hearing

[1:29:27] none. Um, OK. Any more comments, 1 more. Concussion. Um,

[1:29:36] somebody like to entertain emotion. I entertain a motion to, uh, Dave, help me out

[1:29:42] on this one. So entertain a motion to adopt the staff report. I entertain a motion

[1:29:46] to adopt the staff report. Can I second that motion. OK, we have a motion to adopt

[1:29:52] the staff report, and we have a second. In the discussion.

[1:29:58] Roger. Well, yeah, Roger, all in favor. Roger doesn't have anything.

[1:30:08] I

[1:30:10] I just don't want to leave Roger out. Roger. OK, all right, no, I, I, I, Jim, I'm

[1:30:16] OK with it. I voted aye.

[1:30:21] All right, all right, all right, OK.

[1:30:25] David, can I ask you a quick question, please? So, two of us up here known.

[1:30:34] Mr. Weissman. Casually, I know him more casually than Larry does. If we're approached

[1:30:41] by this individual about the decision he's made. What do we do? You can just say

[1:30:48] see the staff report. We adopt the staff report's finding. Right, if it's a public

[1:30:53] comment, I mean, given the, the, the hearing's over, right, you get, they have so

[1:30:59] much time to go through the appeal process, uh, you know what I mean? So I would

[1:31:03] say, you know, look at the staff report or address your comments or the city, city

[1:31:06] of things. Just don't get into it. Try not, try not to get into on that side, talk

[1:31:11] to him about anything else, right? Non, non, uh, BOA, you know, board of adjustment.

[1:31:17] Issues right until he gets past that everything is done that may change his plans

[1:31:22] as I'm done with it and you're fine. You're out of the appeal zone time period because

[1:31:26] Rob will submit a letter saying you're denying your request as part of that letter

[1:31:29] includes, you know, the process to appeal if you desire to appeal. And then, um,

[1:31:34] you know, right now we're in a public meeting, but we don't really talk about it

[1:31:37] in case it becomes evident, evidential, right, the preceding aspect, um. And you

[1:31:43] may know people and as long as you feel that it doesn't affect you like it's not

[1:31:47] going to, so if it's like your daughter's house or your son's house or somebody your

[1:31:51] brother's house, probably should abstain from a vote and say, you know, this is relative's

[1:31:55] house, um. You sustain, uh, sustained from the boat, not necessarily discussion because

[1:32:02] discussion has overreaching broad implications, but you probably should stain from

[1:32:07] the boat in that case. But if you run run from after I can just say I can't talk

[1:32:11] about it right now. It's a. Can be part of the board of adjustments until it's good

[1:32:15] and dead and done and then you know if you guys want to mention why, right, you can

[1:32:20] always point to the staff report this is the the part of the variance right is that.

[1:32:26] Some people will come in and say I'm just gonna ask for a variance because if I did

[1:32:29] it in a different jurisdiction. But each jurisdiction is different. Some are, some

[1:32:33] jurisdictions are so restrictive, the only way to get through is variants, and some

[1:32:39] other jurisdictions aren't as restrictive. Um, I wouldn't say Polson is the most

[1:32:43] restrictive, and I wouldn't say it's the least restrictive jurisdiction. It's not

[1:32:46] counting. We have some standards, um, but we do try to work with people to try to

[1:32:51] get around and building and letting them know that, you know, there are alternatives.

[1:32:55] I mean, we had one guy come in with his garage that was 2 ft over, and we just told

[1:32:58] him, Is there any way you can just cut the garage 2 ft? And they said, yeah, we'll

[1:33:02] just got the garage 2 ft, you know, it's a compact car garage now and not, you know,

[1:33:06] a big, a diesel truck garage. So, I mean, It's where it's possible. There's lots

[1:33:12] of possibilities there and the developer has an unlimited amount of possibilities

[1:33:15] to develop their property for the better or worse and uh to meet regulations. But

[1:33:22] to Pete's point though, uh, Mr. Weissman could certainly listen to the whole recording.

[1:33:29] Um, yeah, mhm. OK, yeah,

[1:33:33] on, on the, well, it's, it's there for. Austerity too, yeah, that too so he could

[1:33:40] pick up hints of what we're thinking about to give him some ideas. So just like the

[1:33:46] last applicants, that's where I'm going, Dale. It's like we talked about different

[1:33:50] options and yeah and a lot, and a lot of times that that happens sometimes, uh, some

[1:33:57] claimants will jump right into a variance request without going into additional options.

[1:34:01] Some people will go through. Additional options, uh, right off the bat, and so we'll

[1:34:06] get 3 or 4 iterations of this of plans, similar, different changing up to fit to

[1:34:10] it, uh, and you'll, so you'll get a lot of it where they, you know, like they'll,

[1:34:15] and the story they'll come in is like I'm trying everything to fit this, and it may

[1:34:19] not necessarily comply, right, and they'll have a better, better status, but this

[1:34:23] one seems to be, you know, preexisting plans to fit a new size lot that don't comply

[1:34:28] and then. we would hope that we would comply and we're not against the house. It

[1:34:33] just doesn't comply with the setbacks. We have to force the regulations, um, and

[1:34:38] you're the only ones who can grant a variance that regulation based on some finding

[1:34:42] of facts that you believe allows them to get a variance.

[1:34:50] To entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:34:56] So, uh, motion to adjourn, adjourn 2nd, 2nd. All right,

[1:35:02] all right. OK, recording stopped.

[1:35:07] Bye, Roger. Thank you. Yeah, bye, Roger. Um,

Board of Adjustments

Agenda

Transcript