1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,980
Next, show you planning commission meeting. I am Craig John. I am the chair of the planning commission. Please note that the meeting is streaming live on the city's website as well as broadcast on TV Channel 16.

2
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:22,840
Applicants will be, I remember the public will be able to testify in person during the appropriate agenda item. The first item tonight is roll call.

3
00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:27,880
I will note that Commissioner Helgen is not present at this time.

4
00:00:28,520 --> 00:00:30,820
So six of the seven commissioners are here today.

5
00:00:33,970 --> 00:00:36,490
So let's move on to the approval of the agenda.

6
00:00:37,390 --> 00:00:41,030
In case someone in our audience does not have a copy of our agenda.

7
00:00:41,170 --> 00:00:43,050
We have three items of new business tonight.

8
00:00:43,570 --> 00:00:47,630
We have a fence height variance request for 75 sunset courts.

9
00:00:47,630 --> 00:00:54,610
By Mark Palm Quest, we have a residential design review and variance request for our 559 harbor court.

10
00:00:55,690 --> 00:00:57,670
By 580, sure of ULLC.

11
00:00:58,330 --> 00:01:02,750
And we also have a variance request for 804, Kanye Road, I West by Robert Fried.

12
00:01:03,810 --> 00:01:05,690
Are there any changes to the agenda?

13
00:01:07,210 --> 00:01:07,690
Mr. Chair.

14
00:01:08,550 --> 00:01:09,130
Mr. Solinson.

15
00:01:09,310 --> 00:01:12,820
I'd like to make a motion to prove the agenda for August 22nd as presented.

16
00:01:13,290 --> 00:01:13,760
I can't.

17
00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:18,020
been moved in second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

18
00:01:18,020 --> 00:01:24,340
We'll same sign. We have unanimous approval of the agenda.

19
00:01:25,820 --> 00:01:30,720
So let's move on to the minutes from the July 28th, 206 Plan Ecommission.

20
00:01:31,860 --> 00:01:34,920
Does any commissioner wish to recommend changes to the minutes?

21
00:01:40,410 --> 00:01:43,350
Commissioner Rusted. I moved to approve the minutes as presented.

22
00:01:44,370 --> 00:01:45,710
So moved. Second.

23
00:01:45,710 --> 00:01:49,810
It's been moved in second all those in favor say aye aye aye.

24
00:01:49,810 --> 00:01:52,710
Those same sign once again, unanimous.

25
00:01:54,270 --> 00:01:54,630
Okay.

26
00:01:55,830 --> 00:01:58,270
Item five, report on city council action.

27
00:01:59,570 --> 00:02:02,470
We need development director assistant community development director.

28
00:02:02,630 --> 00:02:05,350
I think he held would you please report on city council's action.

29
00:02:05,530 --> 00:02:06,710
That is affected the commission.

30
00:02:07,110 --> 00:02:07,830
It's past month.

31
00:02:08,170 --> 00:02:09,030
Thank you chair.

32
00:02:09,550 --> 00:02:14,410
At the August 17th city council meeting the Chipotle comprehensive sign plan

33
00:02:14,410 --> 00:02:18,850
at 3333 Rice Street was approved, and that was the only action.

34
00:02:19,470 --> 00:02:20,710
Well, got that.

35
00:02:21,050 --> 00:02:21,970
Thank you, Ms. Hill.

36
00:02:23,470 --> 00:02:28,030
All right, so before we start our items of new business, I'm just going to provide a brief

37
00:02:28,030 --> 00:02:29,890
description of our meeting process.

38
00:02:30,590 --> 00:02:35,910
For our three items of business tonight, staff will first give a presentation at the conclusion

39
00:02:35,910 --> 00:02:40,030
of the presentation, the commission will be able to ask staff questions.

40
00:02:41,410 --> 00:02:50,630
Then we will ask for the applicant to come up and make comments, and the commission will then ask questions of the applicant.

41
00:02:51,350 --> 00:02:57,030
And then we will have any members of the public that wish to speak on that particular item to come up.

42
00:02:57,850 --> 00:03:07,290
And after hearing all those comments and responding to our questions, we will bring it back to the commission to debrief and together for a proposal.

43
00:03:08,050 --> 00:03:12,230
For applicants and the public, whenever making a comment is important that you step up to

44
00:03:12,230 --> 00:03:18,870
the mic to be heard over the recording, we ask that you give your full name and your address

45
00:03:18,870 --> 00:03:23,050
for the record, and we ask that you, we concise and stay on topic.

46
00:03:24,050 --> 00:03:26,150
If you need to use the screen, you can do so.

47
00:03:26,290 --> 00:03:30,750
There's a mouse, okay, right next to the computer, we prefer you do that rather than turn

48
00:03:30,750 --> 00:03:32,250
it point to away from the microphone.

49
00:03:35,290 --> 00:03:39,010
Please direct all your comments and questions to the Planning Commission as a general rule we

50
00:03:39,010 --> 00:03:42,510
don't want to give into back and forth debates.

51
00:03:44,150 --> 00:03:49,990
We also only allow one time to testify we don't want multiple hearing the same thing

52
00:03:49,990 --> 00:03:50,730
over and over again.

53
00:03:52,350 --> 00:03:57,010
I will note that decisions on variances and residential design reviews are final decisions

54
00:03:57,010 --> 00:04:00,170
by the Planning Commission this will move on to the City Council.

55
00:04:00,990 --> 00:04:13,010
So, with that, let's move on to new business item 7A's offense height, variance request by Mark Paul and Quest, the location is 675 Sunset Court, and associate pass planner.

56
00:04:13,270 --> 00:04:14,450
Well, Harris, you have the presentation.

57
00:04:15,270 --> 00:04:16,010
Thank you, Chair John.

58
00:04:16,610 --> 00:04:27,330
One item of clarification, the city had noticed for a variance request at 5803 Church Hill, for a driveway with variance.

59
00:04:27,330 --> 00:04:32,130
if any of the members of the public are here to speak on behalf of that, that application was

60
00:04:32,130 --> 00:04:37,630
pulled after the notice had already been sent out. So, just wanted to provide clarification

61
00:04:37,630 --> 00:04:44,050
to anybody who is here to speak on behalf of that. And with that, I will get into the request

62
00:04:44,050 --> 00:04:57,310
for 675 Sunset Court. As stated, this is a fence height variance request for the location on the

63
00:04:57,310 --> 00:04:59,350
a city rate of weight easement.

64
00:05:00,050 --> 00:05:25,530
Orienting ourselves, the property is going to be located on the eastern side of Turtle Lake with access off of sunset court, with the northernmost portion of the property, also having a budding, a city right-of-way easement that is currently undeveloped.

65
00:05:26,570 --> 00:05:31,390
The property is located within the R1 zoning district.

66
00:05:32,070 --> 00:05:38,830
It is a substandard repairion lot due to the lot width of 36.65 feet along Sunset Court.

67
00:05:39,630 --> 00:05:48,970
As you can see here in the lower corner of the property, the total lot area is 43,221 square

68
00:05:48,970 --> 00:05:53,890
feet with an additional width of 83.69 feet along Turtle Lake.

69
00:05:53,890 --> 00:06:11,210
The home was constructed in 2019, it is 3772 total square feet with a attached garage and as a part of that development it did go through residential design review and variants request in 2017.

70
00:06:13,190 --> 00:06:21,850
that variance was approved for a lakeside setback variance due to the unique

71
00:06:21,850 --> 00:06:30,130
lot shape of the property. The variance request and the staff reports that was

72
00:06:30,130 --> 00:06:38,530
attached noted that the setback averaging requirements for the two adjacent

73
00:06:38,530 --> 00:06:47,230
properties included this standard non-repairion lot that is located to the east of the property.

74
00:06:48,090 --> 00:06:56,090
And therefore, the setback range for the front setback would have been at about 135 to 150 feet

75
00:06:56,090 --> 00:07:05,470
thus locating the home up in this northern corner. And thus would have required a setback

76
00:07:05,470 --> 00:07:12,230
from the lakeside setback. So, it was a picture poison moment between the front and the lakeside.

77
00:07:12,730 --> 00:07:17,310
Ultimately, the homeowners did decide to go with the lakeside variants, which was approved by the Planning Commission.

78
00:07:19,310 --> 00:07:27,610
As stated, the lot does border a city right of way easements located on that northern side.

79
00:07:27,750 --> 00:07:34,850
A little bit of history with that. This easement is commonly known as domes alley.

80
00:07:34,850 --> 00:07:41,170
It was originally plated back in 1916 with a width of 15.5 feet.

81
00:07:41,830 --> 00:07:48,030
The city previously had been maintaining and plowing this area, but during the preparation

82
00:07:48,030 --> 00:07:52,430
of this report, the streets department and the public works department of the city uncovered

83
00:07:52,430 --> 00:08:03,090
a resolution that was passed in 2001, which affected the western 450 feet of this alleyway

84
00:08:03,090 --> 00:08:09,070
along this side here. So this resolution was authorized by the property owners of

85
00:08:12,710 --> 00:08:18,910
the northern property here and two of the properties up here will get into the specific

86
00:08:18,910 --> 00:08:26,030
addresses a little bit later for the visuals, but it's 5059 Lameda 690, Birch Lane South,

87
00:08:26,250 --> 00:08:32,990
and 688 Birch Lane South had signed a shared access agreement to maintain this portion of the

88
00:08:32,990 --> 00:08:40,330
way, including street repairs and street plowing. So this was done in exchange for the right to use

89
00:08:40,330 --> 00:08:45,650
the alleyway for ingress and egress to some detached garages that are located on the southern

90
00:08:45,650 --> 00:08:51,910
sides of those properties. Moving forward, the City Public Works Superintendent stated that

91
00:08:51,910 --> 00:08:57,630
the residents in this area had been receiving technically free plowing based off of that 2001 agreement.

92
00:08:57,630 --> 00:09:09,790
And so the city moving forward will be deferring maintenance to those property owners and no longer be maintaining that area moving forward.

93
00:09:10,330 --> 00:09:17,350
So ultimately that stretch of domes alley is going to be maintained to five of those property owners and not the city.

94
00:09:19,850 --> 00:09:26,870
the remaining homes along Birch and Sunset to the north up here.

95
00:09:27,790 --> 00:09:37,930
Use this lot be or the eastern side of Dolm's alley for kind of a rear yard areas.

96
00:09:38,190 --> 00:09:39,270
You standardly would.

97
00:09:40,010 --> 00:09:44,570
There's accessories, structures, and landscaping areas that are in close proximity to it.

98
00:09:44,570 --> 00:09:54,910
So if this were to be developed at a future date into a city right of way, the width of

99
00:09:54,910 --> 00:09:59,970
the easement and some serious impacts to those homeowner.

100
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:08,040
Members would need to be considered if that were to take place. But since 1916, there has been no thought

101
00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:13,260
of development past that 450 feet from the agreement that was previously noted.

102
00:10:15,590 --> 00:10:16,310
So the proposal

103
00:10:16,310 --> 00:10:24,710
from the applicant is to construct a four foot fence along a portion of the property and a six foot fence along

104
00:10:24,710 --> 00:10:30,790
that northernmost property that does about the city right of way easement. Currently there is no fence in that

105
00:10:30,790 --> 00:10:36,770
area, however the four-foot fence fence of section of fence could be approved

106
00:10:36,770 --> 00:10:40,930
administratively and a four-foot fence could be approved administratively

107
00:10:40,930 --> 00:10:47,430
in the proposed location of the six-foot fence. However due to section 10765

108
00:10:47,430 --> 00:10:56,290
subsection D7B1, any fence that is in any yard adjacent to a public road

109
00:10:56,290 --> 00:11:00,410
right of way or road easements may not exceed that four foot height.

110
00:11:02,250 --> 00:11:09,290
And so, as you can see on the screen here, this gives a nice visual of what the applicant is looking for.

111
00:11:09,870 --> 00:11:16,350
The area in yellow here is going to be where they're proposing the four foot fence.

112
00:11:16,870 --> 00:11:23,070
And the six foot fence is going to be as stated located along that easement on the northernmost portion of the property.

113
00:11:23,070 --> 00:11:24,110
The

114
00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:30,200
variance criteria must meet the three following items.

115
00:11:30,560 --> 00:11:32,460
It must be requested in a reasonable manner.

116
00:11:33,260 --> 00:11:37,440
The unique circumstance is the property.

117
00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:41,620
The play of the property is due to the circumstances that are unique,

118
00:11:41,940 --> 00:11:43,140
not created by the homeowner.

119
00:11:44,120 --> 00:11:46,940
And the request must maintain the character of the neighborhood.

120
00:11:48,560 --> 00:11:53,100
Staff believes that a practical difficulty is present for this request.

121
00:11:53,100 --> 00:12:05,660
Six foot fences are permitted within the R1 residential area, and the applicant's desire to have a fence in that location is a reasonable request.

122
00:12:05,660 --> 00:12:12,780
Staff believes that the owner faces a unique circumstance in this situation, the unutilized

123
00:12:12,780 --> 00:12:18,800
easement does create that unique circumstance that inhibits the owner from constructing that

124
00:12:18,800 --> 00:12:24,360
six foot fence that would otherwise be allowed in this proposed location should the easement

125
00:12:24,360 --> 00:12:35,400
not be located there, and the variants if granted would not alter the the character of the

126
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:43,680
straightively, but the due to the location of the six-foot fence being nearly 200 feet from

127
00:12:43,680 --> 00:12:50,840
Sunset Court and about 200 feet from Alameda Street. It wouldn't really negatively impact the

128
00:12:50,840 --> 00:12:55,840
neighborhood because it would be very hidden from other surrounding properties as well.

129
00:12:58,340 --> 00:13:06,020
Staff sent notice to property owners within 150 feet of the property. One comment was received

130
00:13:06,020 --> 00:13:09,720
in opposition, and that comment was included in your packets this evening.

131
00:13:12,250 --> 00:13:18,430
But ultimately, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26-66,

132
00:13:19,330 --> 00:13:25,110
proving the variance submitted by Mark Pompquist for this six foot privacy fence that

133
00:13:25,110 --> 00:13:29,750
abuts a city right of way, easement subject to the conditions outlined in the resolution.

134
00:13:30,310 --> 00:13:31,750
And with that, I will stand for questions.

135
00:13:32,290 --> 00:13:33,190
Thank you, Mr. Harris.

136
00:13:33,750 --> 00:13:33,830
Commissioner.

137
00:13:34,830 --> 00:13:36,170
What's your homeathon?

138
00:13:36,790 --> 00:13:36,950
Thanks.

139
00:13:37,850 --> 00:13:43,210
So, when I'm looking at the picture with the orange outline of the property,

140
00:13:45,370 --> 00:13:46,110
yeah, that one worked.

141
00:13:49,570 --> 00:14:00,030
So, Alameda Avenue, where Alameda Street behind it, there comes out and then that turns into the future shared alleyway, essentially.

142
00:14:00,030 --> 00:14:11,230
correct. So, Alameda Street provides access to there's three homes that are located. Let's go back to the aerial.

143
00:14:12,670 --> 00:14:27,030
So, Alameda Street provides access to about three to four homes if you count 59, even though that one is technically one of those homes that had signed the maintenance agreement.

144
00:14:27,890 --> 00:14:37,970
And then that small portion right here that starts going eastward off of Elameda, that is the alleyway.

145
00:14:38,150 --> 00:14:38,690
That's in question.

146
00:14:39,030 --> 00:14:44,450
And then those houses there, their driveways come out to that alleyway?

147
00:14:45,070 --> 00:14:45,110
Yes.

148
00:14:45,350 --> 00:14:51,670
So there are three properties that

149
00:14:54,230 --> 00:14:55,230
are visual of it.

150
00:14:55,550 --> 00:14:59,310
But yes, there are three properties, two of which that are along.

151
00:14:59,310 --> 00:14:59,970
virtually insane.

152
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:07,660
Now here, that have rear garages that receive access off of that alleyway.

153
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:13,980
Do we know if there are, there are driveways go out to bird street by chance or no, just

154
00:15:13,980 --> 00:15:20,560
had a curiosity? Like a, like a path through, if you will, driveway. All the way through

155
00:15:20,560 --> 00:15:27,460
the property, that I do not believe so and go. However, I'm not sure if they have an additional

156
00:15:27,460 --> 00:15:32,880
front facing garage where they can have access off of birch and off of Dylan's

157
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:33,820
out of the way.

158
00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:36,760
Mr. Sonson?

159
00:15:37,040 --> 00:15:37,640
Mr. Chair.

160
00:15:39,680 --> 00:15:45,900
I guess the question I have is with Dylan's alley, the 450 feet, in terms of the proximity

161
00:15:45,900 --> 00:15:51,180
of the drawing, where the four foot and the six foot fence are being proposed, how far does

162
00:15:51,180 --> 00:15:54,780
that go right? 450 feet that you were talking about early?

163
00:15:54,780 --> 00:16:00,880
How many does it go basically to the edge of the six foot fence, the corner of the property?

164
00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:07,080
Yes, that alleyway is going to extend to right about.

165
00:16:07,980 --> 00:16:16,520
I would say it would probably be like 15 feet in of where that six foot fence is proposed, so just slightly in there.

166
00:16:18,060 --> 00:16:29,940
But it's not going to be the alleyway does not extend all the way to the edge of where the six foot fence is proposed on the eastern side.

167
00:16:30,640 --> 00:16:32,880
And then could you comment some more about the snow removal?

168
00:16:33,280 --> 00:16:40,180
So the part that the city's not going to be removing is 450 feet, but were they actually maintaining the alleyway?

169
00:16:40,180 --> 00:16:46,260
So the city had been the public works department had been maintaining and plowing this area

170
00:16:46,260 --> 00:16:53,720
and after speaking with our public works director about some concerns with putting

171
00:16:53,720 --> 00:17:01,360
events along such a small portion of alley and some potential liability that the city

172
00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:04,640
would have with plowing in that area and whatnot.

173
00:17:05,820 --> 00:17:15,680
There was some comments made about that, but the city engineer was the one who originally

174
00:17:16,460 --> 00:17:23,060
was sent this document by the public works superintendent that just states that the city

175
00:17:23,060 --> 00:17:30,440
is not responsible for the snow maintenance for this area, so that it takes liability away

176
00:17:30,440 --> 00:17:35,040
from the city to potentially damage a fence in this location

177
00:17:36,220 --> 00:17:40,260
and that potential is now kind of the onus is placed

178
00:17:40,260 --> 00:17:41,520
along for those homeowners.

179
00:17:41,660 --> 00:17:44,900
I guess I'm seeing the whole alleyway all the way out to the east

180
00:17:44,900 --> 00:17:47,120
is not going to be correct.

181
00:17:47,860 --> 00:17:50,440
The alleyway don'ts alleys not going to be

182
00:17:50,440 --> 00:17:51,340
allowed by the city.

183
00:17:51,780 --> 00:17:52,720
The whole thing.

184
00:17:54,020 --> 00:17:57,720
And are there any other fences on don'ts alleys?

185
00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:14,880
currently. To my knowledge, no, I do not believe that 59 has one and I do not believe because

186
00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:21,140
of the access that these properties receive off of the alleyway on the backside that either

187
00:18:21,140 --> 00:18:29,120
six, nine, zero or six, eight, eight have an offense, but that might be a question for the

188
00:18:29,120 --> 00:18:34,620
homeowner as well to see if there are any adjacent fences in the area.

189
00:18:36,060 --> 00:18:36,780
Okay, thanks.

190
00:18:37,220 --> 00:18:37,660
I'm sure I understand.

191
00:18:38,120 --> 00:18:38,780
Thank you.

192
00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:39,600
Just a couple of questions.

193
00:18:39,740 --> 00:18:40,660
If I might.

194
00:18:41,020 --> 00:18:47,600
Just for clarification purposes, the Jones Alley ends effectively, the paid service ends,

195
00:18:48,580 --> 00:18:53,200
where we see the kind of salt denorth shedding, right there, correction.

196
00:18:53,580 --> 00:18:59,440
So the easement continues, but there is no improved alley per se pass that point.

197
00:18:59,700 --> 00:19:01,600
And then if you could just sort of reason the same page here.

198
00:19:01,700 --> 00:19:07,060
If you could speak to fence placement requirements along property lines, just in general,

199
00:19:07,100 --> 00:19:10,580
and if they differ at all from being along an easement.

200
00:19:10,580 --> 00:19:17,480
they would not. The fence needs to be located wholly within the homeowner's property lines.

201
00:19:18,280 --> 00:19:23,700
And that would be inspected by city staff after the permit and installation had taken place.

202
00:19:24,040 --> 00:19:24,580
Thank you.

203
00:19:28,060 --> 00:19:28,880
Any other questions?

204
00:19:29,980 --> 00:19:31,100
Thank you, Mr. Harris.

205
00:19:31,560 --> 00:19:32,280
Thank you.

206
00:19:32,560 --> 00:19:38,080
And if the property owner applicant is in the audience if they like to come up and address the commission.

207
00:19:39,160 --> 00:19:42,640
Please remember to state your name and address once again.

208
00:19:45,810 --> 00:19:56,490
My name is Mark Pompquist and I reside at 675 since I've caught the application variants.

209
00:19:56,490 --> 00:19:58,890
I don't have a lot to add to it.

210
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:23,580
Outside of the facts of what we experienced, we believe there are about a year and a half, we had multiple, both careers, and we're assuming personal vehicles that when they come up to the end of the alleyway, then they pull into our turnaround and then go back out.

211
00:20:23,580 --> 00:20:32,620
And we've even had two circumstances of vehicles actually driving all the way across our yard to go to Sunset Court.

212
00:20:33,880 --> 00:20:38,960
And we have multiple e-bikes bicycles that come across.

213
00:20:40,440 --> 00:20:49,120
And I should mention we've had to replace multiple sprinkler heads as a result of the turnaround going on by vehicles that are driving across the yard.

214
00:20:49,860 --> 00:20:56,100
This is a property you had mentioned that was the home was built in 2019.

215
00:20:57,340 --> 00:21:08,360
It was a former resort area that had been, I'm not going to say abandoned, but was bought.

216
00:21:08,700 --> 00:21:15,340
And so it was an open property that I think a lot of people started to just use it as an

217
00:21:15,340 --> 00:21:17,920
access to get across to sunset court.

218
00:21:17,920 --> 00:21:33,100
And so we're trying to help define the border lines of our property and also stop the direct access going across the property.

219
00:21:33,300 --> 00:21:35,220
That's one of the main things we want to do.

220
00:21:35,820 --> 00:21:43,920
The reason for this six-foot variance is there is that alleyway actually goes up a hill.

221
00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:57,960
And with a four-foot fence, we don't think that's noticeable on tell you get all the way up where the six-foot helps give better clarity in terms of the definition of the property lines that are there.

222
00:21:58,440 --> 00:22:08,880
Are there concerns of four-foot fences a little bit easier for people just to hop over the top or six-foot becomes a little more definitive in terms of what it is?

223
00:22:08,880 --> 00:22:17,000
And the six-foot fence also, because it is kind of a strange lot having an alley run up on the side of your house.

224
00:22:18,020 --> 00:22:27,120
Certainly gives more privacy to the people that have the garages and their driveways on the back.

225
00:22:27,740 --> 00:22:32,540
That that extra two feet we just won't be able to see that and vice versa.

226
00:22:32,540 --> 00:22:41,680
They wouldn't be showing in our property as well as the headlights as they're driving in and driving back out.

227
00:22:42,420 --> 00:22:49,020
But the main issue is just trying to kind of define their property lines so we don't have vehicles going into our property.

228
00:22:51,100 --> 00:22:57,680
I'm just going to say that Commissioner Helogen has joined us as a note.

229
00:22:58,420 --> 00:23:26,740
Would you mind grabbing the mouse and kind of pointing out where that typography issue or the changes that you said it's obvious this he'll actually once you turn the corner it's the elevation starts almost immediately so it's probably maybe 1012 feet or it's flat and then it starts going up and it's gradual on the front and then it starts to have a little bit more but he'll

230
00:23:26,740 --> 00:23:33,340
that comes up and peaks right about let's say I look at that home this next

231
00:23:33,340 --> 00:23:39,580
may probably peaks right about here is where that peaks and so being able at

232
00:23:39,580 --> 00:23:45,560
that point they they've come up this close and a little bit before they hit

233
00:23:45,560 --> 00:23:51,580
the other two properties here because there they are up on top and so then

234
00:23:51,580 --> 00:23:57,820
would stop them from coming up all the way up here. And that's the reason we're having that six

235
00:23:57,820 --> 00:24:08,500
foot fence. The alleyway itself ends, sorry, I keep hitting the right click. The property or the

236
00:24:08,500 --> 00:24:11,860
alleyway ends right about here,

237
00:24:14,440 --> 00:24:19,860
right about here, right along that property line of the between

238
00:24:19,860 --> 00:24:26,340
to different homes and so what they're doing is they're coming in and they're turning around

239
00:24:26,340 --> 00:24:33,800
here or they're coming in and then driving across to get the sunset court or in the case

240
00:24:33,800 --> 00:24:39,980
of the e-bikes. They're and my neighbor that lives back here they're coming down his driveway

241
00:24:39,980 --> 00:24:48,140
and then driving across and on to my property and then on to sunset court. Thank you. Does anybody

242
00:24:48,140 --> 00:24:55,760
any questions for Mr. Paul and Quest? Mr. Chair. Mr. Paul and Quest. Could you comment about

243
00:24:55,760 --> 00:24:59,960
when I look at it? It sounds like I bet.

244
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:08,000
Anything you're trying to actually discourage is cut through of traffic or pedestrians, bikes, things like that.

245
00:25:08,540 --> 00:25:16,160
And I think there's a four foot adjacent, that diagonal next to 5059 and six foot and you'd say on Bill and Sally.

246
00:25:17,020 --> 00:25:27,880
And one of my questions is, with the four foot work, as well as a six foot, I'm kind of trying to rationalize, because there's a four foot proposed in one area in a six and another.

247
00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:29,780
Could you explain why?

248
00:25:30,360 --> 00:25:34,200
Yeah, so the forefoot, we're putting on the diagonal right here.

249
00:25:34,620 --> 00:25:34,680
Yes.

250
00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:37,220
Now it's really more acknowledgment for our neighbor.

251
00:25:37,340 --> 00:25:37,700
Okay.

252
00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:40,020
Behind is really what that was.

253
00:25:41,280 --> 00:25:44,880
And most of the traffic that we're getting is once people come up the hill

254
00:25:44,880 --> 00:25:46,060
and they're that far.

255
00:25:46,800 --> 00:25:51,460
Then they're coming across actually where the six foot fence would come in.

256
00:25:51,460 --> 00:26:01,320
And we're also seeing more, more of the e-bikes coming across farther up, even past the alleyway.

257
00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:03,060
That vents in crescent.

258
00:26:03,720 --> 00:26:10,940
So the forefoot was really more about consideration for the neighbor that has a home.

259
00:26:11,520 --> 00:26:15,140
Very difficult to see it, but he actually has a home right down.

260
00:26:15,140 --> 00:26:23,300
right up next to our property, this is his home and he comes right right up here and you can

261
00:26:23,300 --> 00:26:33,000
see he parks his boat two boats that he has right there but that sits because he's flattened it.

262
00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:41,500
It sits lower than where that hill comes up and so we just put a four foot in there because it

263
00:26:41,500 --> 00:26:50,320
Realistically is like a six foot at that point because it's about two feet down as retained while and then our four forefork goes up

264
00:26:50,320 --> 00:26:54,360
One quick follow-up question is what the forefoot on don's Ellie accomplish

265
00:26:55,200 --> 00:26:57,380
The goal that you're looking for

266
00:26:57,380 --> 00:27:00,160
Well, it will accomplish part

267
00:27:00,160 --> 00:27:00,960
Okay

268
00:27:02,060 --> 00:27:08,640
What part wanted accomplish? Well, I think a four foot fence is gonna just you'll make a pretty easy people a lot to fence and

269
00:27:09,260 --> 00:27:09,800
Thanks

270
00:27:12,560 --> 00:27:16,600
Anybody else have a question, Mr. PalmQuest? Thank you, Mr. PalmQuest.

271
00:27:16,920 --> 00:27:23,360
You're welcome. I would now like to invite member to any member of the public that wishes to speak on this item to come to the podium.

272
00:27:25,910 --> 00:27:29,930
Okay, seeing none. Let's bring this back to the Planning Commission.

273
00:27:31,110 --> 00:27:32,930
Comments. Mr. Chair.

274
00:27:33,270 --> 00:27:33,890
Mr. Sonson.

275
00:27:34,450 --> 00:27:41,510
I believe staff correct me if I'm wrong, but a four foot fence could be placed here with administrative approval.

276
00:27:41,510 --> 00:27:48,660
I believe without a variance request or obviously with the four-foot's being proposed and along the six-foot area.

277
00:27:49,310 --> 00:27:49,750
Correct.

278
00:27:54,170 --> 00:27:55,230
I'm kind of wrestling.

279
00:27:56,050 --> 00:27:59,190
I understand the concern.

280
00:27:59,550 --> 00:28:02,170
It's unfortunate that traffic kind of gets dead ended.

281
00:28:02,230 --> 00:28:07,790
I'm not sure what it does when someone's kind of going up that area and the driveway.

282
00:28:07,790 --> 00:28:13,770
I mean, it's pretty narrow, so I would think be kind of difficult for traffic or someone

283
00:28:13,770 --> 00:28:17,010
that kind of got lost in a neighborhood, how to figure out how to turn around.

284
00:28:21,110 --> 00:28:26,710
I think just from a standpoint, I think it's reasonable to try and minimize cut-through traffic.

285
00:28:26,730 --> 00:28:28,250
I think that makes sense.

286
00:28:29,310 --> 00:28:33,710
I think there were some letters we got though that there were some concerns about access to the driveway

287
00:28:33,710 --> 00:28:41,750
if the fence is too tall and too close to a very narrow alleyway. So I do have concerns about that,

288
00:28:41,850 --> 00:28:47,590
but at the same time, four foot could go in there without any decision from us right on that line.

289
00:28:49,400 --> 00:28:51,500
I would agree with that commissioner Anderson.

290
00:28:51,520 --> 00:28:54,780
Yeah, I'm torn too, I guess. On the one hand,

291
00:28:57,040 --> 00:29:00,140
four foot's allowable. I get the point

292
00:29:00,140 --> 00:29:04,140
to the six-foot fence, it's easy to hop a four-foot fence theoretically.

293
00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:10,080
I struggle a little bit with the fact that I'm not sure that, is it a body that we should

294
00:29:12,160 --> 00:29:19,760
be dictating or helping prevent trespassing that's more of a criminal offense or

295
00:29:19,760 --> 00:29:23,320
it's more of a police situation than anything else I would imagine,

296
00:29:25,700 --> 00:29:26,780
but part of me goes back

297
00:29:26,780 --> 00:29:30,460
fourth on it though when you have a four foot fence that's adjacent to the six foot fence

298
00:29:30,460 --> 00:29:35,340
dude just walk over and hop the four foot portion of the fence and I get the fact that

299
00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:42,160
probably kids, kids will do what they're going to do, right? But to Commissioner Salmond since

300
00:29:42,160 --> 00:29:47,200
point though whether it's four or six feet as far as the comment that we received,

301
00:29:47,260 --> 00:29:52,820
it doesn't make really any difference the fence can go in there. So although it could make that

302
00:29:52,820 --> 00:29:59,200
way tight, I don't see the height being a difference or an issue, but the part that I struggle

303
00:29:59,200 --> 00:29:59,980
with is I.

304
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:16,240
Although we've got what's ported to be, you know, unique circumstances here. I'm not sure that I've gotten fully comfortable with unique circumstances. Really did the six foot height of this fence, other than maybe the slope with a property.

305
00:30:17,500 --> 00:30:28,680
But at the point at which it really slopes, at the point at which it goes to six feet, there's really no, there's no really no alleyway any longer at that point. So, that's where I'm struggling particularly,

306
00:30:28,680 --> 00:30:36,920
because if there were if the easement wasn't there these would be back yards more or less and nobody would care about a six foot fence

307
00:30:36,920 --> 00:30:42,720
So but head if this easement were to go further down that or if they're all ready to go further down the easement

308
00:30:42,720 --> 00:30:47,320
Do you have an issue where now you got a six foot fence next to something that's been improved?

309
00:30:48,020 --> 00:30:48,340
So

310
00:30:51,120 --> 00:30:52,160
Commissioner Cortis

311
00:30:53,400 --> 00:30:56,740
So I think the one you know, because

312
00:30:56,740 --> 00:30:58,600
whether it's

313
00:30:58,600 --> 00:31:00,940
six or four feet I mean I a I certainly

314
00:31:02,560 --> 00:31:08,740
hope the applicant will have a conversation with with the people who back out into that

315
00:31:08,740 --> 00:31:12,180
alleying and see if there is a way to make sure that they can leave their garage.

316
00:31:12,420 --> 00:31:17,960
I don't know if the city council can do anything about that in requirements here or not.

317
00:31:18,040 --> 00:31:25,040
I don't think we can. I'm aware of but I certainly think if this is fence four or six is going

318
00:31:25,040 --> 00:31:28,120
bar people from entering or exiting their garages,

319
00:31:30,400 --> 00:31:33,340
that would make for very bad neighbors in

320
00:31:33,340 --> 00:31:38,560
your backyard that I would not want to have and I would strongly hope some conversations

321
00:31:38,560 --> 00:31:44,340
could be had that could maybe fix that. The part I struggle with on this variance is actually

322
00:31:44,340 --> 00:31:48,380
criterion number three the character of the neighborhood because nobody else has a fence there.

323
00:31:48,380 --> 00:31:56,460
This is used for this road, these houses have this access, and suddenly, whether it's a forefoot

324
00:31:56,460 --> 00:32:02,680
fence is what's allowable, but then going another two feet at the top of the hill, so the neighbor's house

325
00:32:02,680 --> 00:32:08,040
goes from seeing some of it at forefeet to now seeing nothing at six feet. The house is across the street,

326
00:32:08,360 --> 00:32:16,300
blocked by the six foot. It seems to change the neighborhood to go even in other two feet.

327
00:32:16,300 --> 00:32:22,820
especially if it is, in fact, the top of a hill as it's going up. So I think there's some

328
00:32:24,080 --> 00:32:28,500
consideration there. I don't know that I'm going to vote no just based on that, frankly,

329
00:32:29,000 --> 00:32:34,480
but it is the one section where I am kind of concerned about drawing that line.

330
00:32:35,240 --> 00:32:39,380
I'm sure I'm on. So I'm going to sort of, of course, bring up some

331
00:32:39,380 --> 00:32:47,420
good points. I would say where I stand is, like, well, have said already, it's a four or six

332
00:32:47,420 --> 00:32:50,380
what's fence is not going to prevent someone from backing out of the driveway, although

333
00:32:50,380 --> 00:32:55,600
I recognize the concern of the other homeowner. I think if the applicant wants to have

334
00:32:55,600 --> 00:33:03,460
a six foot fence there, I think he's provided reasonable burden, in my opinion, someone's driving

335
00:33:03,460 --> 00:33:08,960
through my yard to get to the other side of the street or e-bikes going through. I would

336
00:33:08,960 --> 00:33:16,620
like that myself. So I'm inclined to vote, yes, on this. Mr. Chair.

337
00:33:16,920 --> 00:33:20,880
Mr. Salmond, I have another question for staff. The easement that was

338
00:33:20,880 --> 00:33:26,440
what? Plattered in 1915, a long time ago. Are there any, is there anything

339
00:33:26,440 --> 00:33:28,620
of city interest in that easement currently?

340
00:33:32,840 --> 00:33:34,220
And could I think that what's

341
00:33:34,220 --> 00:33:38,920
it before is the fact that the six foot fence is required because it's next to it.

342
00:33:38,920 --> 00:33:43,520
I mean, it can't be more in for because it's next to a right away.

343
00:33:43,980 --> 00:33:44,100
Yes.

344
00:33:44,100 --> 00:33:44,200
Yes.

345
00:33:44,540 --> 00:33:51,480
And so if that easement, if that right away wasn't there, they could put a six-foot fence up

346
00:33:51,480 --> 00:33:59,140
right and I was just kind of curious if anyone's ever thought about abandoning the right

347
00:33:59,140 --> 00:34:00,080
away.

348
00:34:01,380 --> 00:34:04,200
Because it's functioning basically as a driveway currently.

349
00:34:05,860 --> 00:34:06,160
Yes.

350
00:34:06,160 --> 00:34:13,020
And I think that goes back to the maintenance agreement that was signed in 2001.

351
00:34:14,640 --> 00:34:22,920
The city doesn't want to accept the liability for plowing and maintaining such a small stretch of alleyway.

352
00:34:24,240 --> 00:34:32,940
And with the width of the easement as well, there just isn't really potential to develop it into a right-of-way or a private road.

353
00:34:32,940 --> 00:34:42,400
So, with that, I would say no, there really isn't a desire for the city to pursue that at this moment.

354
00:34:44,460 --> 00:34:48,960
It was just a thought as to a way that would remedy that, because in a six-foot fence would be allowed.

355
00:34:51,200 --> 00:34:53,720
Can you show us that when it comes to shares?

356
00:34:54,080 --> 00:34:57,360
I'm in favor of the six-foot fence.

357
00:34:57,360 --> 00:34:59,960
The reasons I believe that this...

358
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:16,260
This should be granted is because typically, alleys are only around this size and with anyways, older neighborhoods like this one, the alley width would actually be less than when it currently is.

359
00:35:16,600 --> 00:35:20,420
Does not seem that there's any desire to have.

360
00:35:20,420 --> 00:35:36,400
This become a full alley all the way through because all the properties to the East do not have rear access and are currently using it as part of their yard, which would create a lot of controversy with folks going forward.

361
00:35:36,400 --> 00:35:43,620
typical alley fences are six feet high so I feel that this is within

362
00:35:43,620 --> 00:35:50,540
reason and both of the properties on birch do have parking aka turning around

363
00:35:50,540 --> 00:35:55,840
areas in the front of their houses so there's I don't really understand why

364
00:35:55,840 --> 00:36:01,400
there's any vehicle going down that far to deliver a package or anything

365
00:36:01,400 --> 00:36:06,240
anyways so I feel this is a reasonable request it meets the three criteria in my

366
00:36:07,040 --> 00:36:09,300
And I'll be voting yes.

367
00:36:09,440 --> 00:36:10,740
Mr. Anderson.

368
00:36:11,120 --> 00:36:11,140
Yeah.

369
00:36:11,160 --> 00:36:11,500
Thank you.

370
00:36:11,580 --> 00:36:13,000
I'm just going to thank you Mr. Chairman.

371
00:36:13,180 --> 00:36:13,520
I'll pick you back.

372
00:36:13,720 --> 00:36:17,320
Maybe just a question on Mr. Solamitz's question.

373
00:36:19,380 --> 00:36:22,580
So the portion of the easement that is unimproved.

374
00:36:22,920 --> 00:36:26,480
Is there a process by which and I guess would it be the city that would

375
00:36:26,480 --> 00:36:29,720
initiate it? Would it be homeowners would initiate it to actually

376
00:36:30,560 --> 00:36:34,480
request the vacation of that or of an amendment of that easement?

377
00:36:35,540 --> 00:36:41,860
Yeah, Commissioner Anderson, so adjacent property owners are an adjacent property owner,

378
00:36:41,880 --> 00:36:53,700
a petition for a vacation of the easement that requires a petition of at least 50% of the adjacent property owners to consent to it or agree with it.

379
00:36:53,800 --> 00:37:02,480
And then there's a public hearing process along that where the city would need to make a finding that it's in the public interest to vacate these minutes self.

380
00:37:02,480 --> 00:37:06,880
Right. And I guess we're going with as if that a lot of ifs and thens, but if that were to happen,

381
00:37:07,800 --> 00:37:13,040
that was vacated became property owned by those property owners along that that easement.

382
00:37:13,400 --> 00:37:19,160
A six foot fence would be permissible on the unapproved portion of this. That's correct.

383
00:37:19,180 --> 00:37:20,240
Correct. Okay. Thank you.

384
00:37:21,400 --> 00:37:22,660
I'm just going to court this.

385
00:37:24,700 --> 00:37:28,240
I'm not going to. I don't think we need to dive into these hypothetical things further.

386
00:37:29,840 --> 00:37:32,700
I'm going to make the motion. Thank you.

387
00:37:34,240 --> 00:37:38,340
Actually, if somebody else could, because closed on me by accident, sorry.

388
00:37:38,380 --> 00:37:39,160
I will.

389
00:37:39,360 --> 00:37:40,380
You should rest up.

390
00:37:40,560 --> 00:37:41,420
You can help me out.

391
00:37:41,560 --> 00:37:43,380
The second part of their court is okay.

392
00:37:43,580 --> 00:37:49,440
To adopt motion to adopt resolution 2666 approving the variance application submitted by Mark

393
00:37:49,440 --> 00:37:50,080
Palmquist.

394
00:37:50,700 --> 00:37:56,400
675 sunset court for six foot tall privacy fence that abuts a city road easement.

395
00:37:56,640 --> 00:38:00,280
Set approval a subject to the three conditions listed in the report.

396
00:38:01,140 --> 00:38:24,900
Second. So it has been moved in second. Any further discussion on this topic? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Same sign. Motion carries seven zero. So thank you Mr. Paul and Quest. Let's move on to item seven be a residential design review and variance request by five 80.

397
00:38:29,520 --> 00:38:30,660
Thank you,

398
00:38:34,480 --> 00:38:36,100
Mr. Chair.

399
00:38:36,160 --> 00:38:45,180
Members of the question is the chair noted tonight for your review and consideration will be a residential design review and variance request for 559 Harbor Court.

400
00:38:45,780 --> 00:38:54,880
The applicant, 580 LLC joins us along with members of Wooddale Builders to speak on the request for the applicant.

401
00:38:54,880 --> 00:39:03,920
So just to get our bearings here, we're looking at the 559 Harbour Court property that's located within the harbour shores development.

402
00:39:05,740 --> 00:39:14,220
It's one of the first repairing lots or lake lots on the north of the curve of harbour court.

403
00:39:14,700 --> 00:39:20,140
This is just to the south of the joint access beach lot.

404
00:39:20,140 --> 00:39:26,740
And it's the, from the time of the development's construction, this is the second repairing

405
00:39:26,740 --> 00:39:33,980
lot that the city has received building plans for. So, it is located within the R1 detached

406
00:39:33,980 --> 00:39:39,760
residential zoning district. So, members of the commission that were here at the time will recall

407
00:39:39,760 --> 00:39:45,180
portion of the harbour shores development was located within a PUD, the interior lots,

408
00:39:45,180 --> 00:39:53,380
the northern portion of the development and that interior and loop of Harbor Court along with some properties that used to

409
00:39:53,380 --> 00:39:59,980
Harbor Court. The lake lots were straight R1 zoning within the city shore.

410
00:40:01,440 --> 00:40:26,420
For minimum, lots of sizes and standards. So this lot is considered a substandard, repairing lots, due to reduced front line width, less than 100 feet. It does have a lot area of 25,000 square feet, which is about 10,000 square feet over the minimum, along with an average depth of 236 feet.

411
00:40:26,420 --> 00:40:34,180
Again, it was plated with the harbour shore's development at the time of its consideration and the plats consideration.

412
00:40:34,940 --> 00:40:42,260
This is one of two lots that was considered with a variance request to permit that reduced front line width.

413
00:40:43,060 --> 00:40:49,180
So at that time, the Plain of Commission considered it, there was a denial.

414
00:40:49,180 --> 00:41:19,160
This is going to appeal. The city council approved the reduced line with the finding that there was a practical difficulty in meeting that minimum dimensional requirement in large part because of kind of the push pull effect of the location of the

415
00:41:19,160 --> 00:41:23,520
the city and DNR defines a bluff, but it does contain a steep slope.

416
00:41:24,500 --> 00:41:33,380
So the concern at that time was if the roadway was pushed to the west with the platt that

417
00:41:33,380 --> 00:41:40,100
the billable area and the location of that road would be located on a steeper slope requiring

418
00:41:40,100 --> 00:41:45,180
more site impacts and there's a practical difficulty in actually constructing it.

419
00:41:45,180 --> 00:42:10,800
Along with that, there is a common development retaining wall that was constructed following the plant approval that runs through this property, and I'll show the location of a subsequent slide, further to the south through three additional planted lots that are common joint retaining walls to accommodate greed and slope stabilization within the development.

420
00:42:12,050 --> 00:42:22,590
So, just on the screen here, again, a substandard, a lot means a lot of record that does not meet the minimum standards for the zoning district, which is located within.

421
00:42:22,710 --> 00:42:32,990
So, this property is located within the shore land district in the R1 district. It's within a general development water slick snail lake.

422
00:42:32,990 --> 00:42:42,430
So, what we're referring to here is it is standard and it's with as measured at the ordinary

423
00:42:42,430 --> 00:42:50,270
high water line of snail lake. So it's 110 feet. There's a three width requirements of the location

424
00:42:50,270 --> 00:42:56,250
at the lake. The buildable pad, which is approximately here, is a 50 feet off of snail lake.

425
00:42:56,270 --> 00:43:02,670
That ordinary high water line setback, where it's just over 100 feet. And then again,

426
00:43:02,670 --> 00:43:07,630
the curvature of the road where that front property line meets the harbour court right of

427
00:43:07,630 --> 00:43:10,190
way that 82.24 feet.

428
00:43:13,000 --> 00:43:16,000
So the applicants this evening are proposing to construct a

429
00:43:16,000 --> 00:43:23,680
2,922 square foot single-family home on the lot containing, you know, a touch garage,

430
00:43:23,680 --> 00:43:32,460
a standard home layout on the property. The commission knows that residential design or a view

431
00:43:32,460 --> 00:43:35,760
is required for the construction of new homes on substandard

432
00:43:35,760 --> 00:43:39,080
repairing lots, and through the proposal,

433
00:43:39,280 --> 00:43:47,200
there is a variance-deception 115-15-15-B3B for height of 43 feet,

434
00:43:47,200 --> 00:43:49,920
10 inches, which is greater than the 35th,

435
00:43:50,080 --> 00:43:52,620
but height maximum permitted, which is measured

436
00:43:52,620 --> 00:43:55,000
from the lowest finish grade to the highest peak of the roof.

437
00:43:56,640 --> 00:44:01,340
So on the screen here is the kind of elevation plan

438
00:44:01,340 --> 00:44:03,700
of the proposed house along with a rendering.

439
00:44:04,340 --> 00:44:06,460
So you can see on the front side of the property

440
00:44:06,460 --> 00:44:12,460
it is a two-story walkout home, with access to our record,

441
00:44:13,320 --> 00:44:18,240
and then the half walkout basement at the lower level

442
00:44:18,240 --> 00:44:21,140
of the rear basing snail lake.

443
00:44:24,320 --> 00:44:26,600
The proposed location of the house

444
00:44:26,600 --> 00:44:30,860
is centered off the curvature of our record here.

445
00:44:30,860 --> 00:44:40,800
So, the front setback is about just over 36 or just under 36 feet from the front property line.

446
00:44:41,520 --> 00:44:52,720
The rear setback from the lake, which is typically the concern on a lot of repair and builds, is well in excess of the minimum of 50 feet.

447
00:44:53,440 --> 00:44:59,000
There is no setback averaging, which has been a conversation through many of our substandard reviews.

448
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:07,840
In recent months, simply, by fact, that there's no adjacent homes here. In fact, that outlaw A was

449
00:45:07,840 --> 00:45:16,800
planted as a joint access lot for shared access for the interior property owners to have shared

450
00:45:16,800 --> 00:45:28,140
access to snail lake. In terms of our typical requirements within a substandard lot, the application

451
00:45:28,140 --> 00:45:34,100
and the proposal does meet and exceed those standards in most aspects, in terms of lock coverage.

452
00:45:35,080 --> 00:45:44,360
It's underneath the 25% maximum requirement. They're proposing 17.9% of the lot area.

453
00:45:44,980 --> 00:45:52,560
In terms of foundation area, it is well below the maximum. It's a large part because it is a larger lot.

454
00:45:52,560 --> 00:45:57,340
and and exceeds our or minimums and in that regard.

455
00:45:58,120 --> 00:46:03,120
The proposed attach garage is under the 1,000 square feet permitted.

456
00:46:03,460 --> 00:46:09,200
Then again, the front set backs are met and exceeded on all all sides.

457
00:46:10,020 --> 00:46:18,340
The building height is shown at 43 feet, 10 inches, what is permitted on the property is 35 feet.

458
00:46:20,700 --> 00:46:29,240
Going through that, so the city code does provide a two-part definition for building height.

459
00:46:29,740 --> 00:46:40,940
I'll spare you the full reading of the first height requirement, but it effectively says for the measurement requirement for different roof types.

460
00:46:41,720 --> 00:46:49,520
In most cases, in the city of Shoreview, we're talking about a pitch to roof on most residential properties.

461
00:46:50,280 --> 00:46:58,940
And the general requirement is from the front, you know, right-of-way side, front property line side of the finish grade for standard lot.

462
00:46:59,540 --> 00:47:09,200
The height requirement is effective from that front finish grade to the median height of a pitch to roof.

463
00:47:09,200 --> 00:47:17,560
So, shown in the, some of the application material, this is accurate. It's on a typical height review for a building permit.

464
00:47:17,780 --> 00:47:23,360
We're looking from the front elevation to the midpoint of the highest roof pitch.

465
00:47:24,780 --> 00:47:37,680
For sub-standard lat, the requirement is that roof height or building height is measured from the lowest finish grade to the tallest peak of the top tallest pitch of the roof effectively.

466
00:47:37,680 --> 00:47:44,460
So, in most cases, on a lake property that lowest finished grade, just by virtue of grade

467
00:47:44,460 --> 00:47:46,900
towards a lake, this is going on the lake side.

468
00:47:51,520 --> 00:47:55,120
It should know the application does propose to exceed that, so you can kind of see that

469
00:47:55,120 --> 00:48:03,760
difference of what would be a standard measurement at 28 feet or just over on the front elevation.

470
00:48:04,060 --> 00:48:09,900
And then again, 43 feet, 10 inches from that lowest finished grade on the rear lake side of

471
00:48:09,900 --> 00:48:11,660
property of the tallest picture of the roof.

472
00:48:12,820 --> 00:48:17,940
There's a plan of commission is aware when reviewing variance applications, the three

473
00:48:17,940 --> 00:48:22,360
part tests that the property owner uses to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted

474
00:48:22,360 --> 00:48:27,800
by code, that there are unique circumstances and the plate of the property owner's due to

475
00:48:27,800 --> 00:48:32,820
circumstances unique to the property not created by the property previous property owner's

476
00:48:32,820 --> 00:48:37,080
And lastly, the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted.

477
00:48:39,840 --> 00:48:46,660
When reviewing the request, staff took a long look at this application.

478
00:48:47,140 --> 00:48:51,720
So in terms of reasonable manner, staff does believe that the proposed use of the property

479
00:48:51,720 --> 00:48:54,960
is a reasonable use of the site.

480
00:48:55,680 --> 00:49:01,000
The application does propose the constructing of family home, which is permitted within the district.

481
00:49:01,000 --> 00:49:18,280
Additionally, the proposed roof building height is consistent with the hydrochloroments elsewhere outlined by code and below that maximum of 35 feet on the front elevation of the property.

482
00:49:18,280 --> 00:49:20,720
In terms of unique circumstances,

483
00:49:22,760 --> 00:49:28,680
when looking at the slope and the grade of the site and

484
00:49:28,680 --> 00:49:35,760
that interplay with the required front setback zone, which is a 25 foot minimum and 40 foot

485
00:49:35,760 --> 00:49:42,220
maximum, the property does contain a steep slope, which is consistent with the historic

486
00:49:42,220 --> 00:49:54,000
grade of the property. The the the Herbert court portion of the grade is is very similar to what was present

487
00:49:54,000 --> 00:49:59,000
previously. In fact, this lot contained the Northern.

488
00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:08,780
Foundation, extent of the Union Gospel, mission building itself. So that largely remained unchanged. The installation of the wall

489
00:50:11,100 --> 00:50:18,280
raised the elevation a bit, but as you can see from the Herbert Court right of way, almost instantly,

490
00:50:18,660 --> 00:50:25,020
in just outside of that front setback zone, the gray drops eight to ten feet rather rapidly

491
00:50:25,020 --> 00:50:28,260
towards the buildable pad of the house.

492
00:50:29,480 --> 00:50:33,860
So, that grade change and drop is really proportional

493
00:50:33,860 --> 00:50:37,940
to the request that the applicant is proposing this evening,

494
00:50:39,140 --> 00:50:44,380
where they're in excess just over 8 feet or 8.86 feet,

495
00:50:45,220 --> 00:50:48,780
which is proportional to the grade change observed on the site.

496
00:50:48,780 --> 00:51:01,800
There has been evaluation of alternatives in part, whether great could be adjusted or altered through

497
00:51:01,800 --> 00:51:10,140
reduced rup height or stories, either way there would have to be there is some degree of fill that is required.

498
00:51:11,060 --> 00:51:19,380
In staff's review, the proposed application seeks to introduce the least amount of fill,

499
00:51:19,380 --> 00:51:26,160
lakeside of the house or kind of within those sensitive shoreland areas. So alternatively the

500
00:51:26,160 --> 00:51:33,020
application applicant has considered filling and leveling the site to achieve a similar house form

501
00:51:33,020 --> 00:51:42,080
that would require about 1,500 cubic yards of fill and additional retaining wall for largely a

502
00:51:42,080 --> 00:51:48,880
similar product. One of the kind of push pulls and the minimum grading or fill that would be

503
00:51:48,880 --> 00:51:56,040
required on the site, we'd be to raise the foundation, particularly the driveway, to have

504
00:51:56,040 --> 00:52:05,740
a pitch away from the entrance to the garage and from house to street to, you know,

505
00:52:05,780 --> 00:52:10,140
since storm water in large part from the front of the house towards the storm water system,

506
00:52:10,140 --> 00:52:12,200
that was installed with the development.

507
00:52:12,200 --> 00:52:33,320
And so staff believes that that filling to accommodate and meet the height requirement for the house is well in excess of a typical grading plan that would be considered for a building application of the sort of this type.

508
00:52:34,500 --> 00:52:39,360
And that there would largely be additional impacts resulting from that to adjacent properties.

509
00:52:40,140 --> 00:53:02,980
In terms of character, the neighborhood, the applicant did provide precedent examples, which is consistent with staff's review of building permits throughout the development where throughout the development, the proposed house is consistent with building heights that are under construction right now or have been constructed.

510
00:53:02,980 --> 00:53:13,680
You know most fall within that 26 to 29 feet standard lot height measurement and are around

511
00:53:13,680 --> 00:53:18,600
40 to 44 feet if they were measured from the rear of the house.

512
00:53:18,980 --> 00:53:24,460
So the proposed elevation plans do not appear as though they would be outside of the character

513
00:53:24,460 --> 00:53:27,700
of the neighborhood within the Harvard Schroer's development.

514
00:53:27,700 --> 00:53:38,700
In terms of public comment, notice was distributed to property owners within 150 feet of the site currently no staff hasn't received any public comment.

515
00:53:40,900 --> 00:53:57,160
Staff would recommend given the practical difficulty outlined approval or adoption of Resolution 26-67, which would grant the variance to increase the maximum permitted building height from 35 feet to 43 feet.

516
00:53:57,160 --> 00:54:01,500
and inches with conditions as outlined within my report.

517
00:54:01,840 --> 00:54:04,340
And with that, Mr. Chair, I will stand for questions.

518
00:54:05,280 --> 00:54:07,040
Thank you, Mr. Petersen.

519
00:54:07,160 --> 00:54:08,320
Mr. Salmondson?

520
00:54:08,360 --> 00:54:09,040
Mr. Chair.

521
00:54:10,300 --> 00:54:13,360
Mr. Petersen, could you comment?

522
00:54:13,620 --> 00:54:15,660
I know it's been a while, I should remember this,

523
00:54:17,320 --> 00:54:20,460
but are there other substandard preparing lots

524
00:54:21,000 --> 00:54:22,380
along in this development?

525
00:54:22,380 --> 00:54:30,540
There is one additional substandard repairing a lot within the development that had a similar

526
00:54:30,540 --> 00:54:41,080
condition that's of 548 Harbor Court, sort of a lot of 5, I believe, so that does have the same

527
00:54:41,080 --> 00:54:47,000
restriction imposed, I would say, and I have to speak for the applicant that there is concern

528
00:54:47,000 --> 00:54:53,480
about the viability of achieving the height requirement on that lot, and there's some discussion

529
00:54:53,480 --> 00:54:59,880
on whether the commission would consider a request for that, staff's response was that.

530
00:55:00,000 --> 00:55:29,980
You know, we don't want to discuss or consider awareness or press without looking at plans. Mr. Peterson, I guess my question is, because it's substandard, that's where the height definition changes, where you have the top of the roof to the lowest point, whereas if it was a standard lot, it would essentially be the front yard, and it'd be half a roof, a fight, which takes, okay, and then so the reason I asked that question, and from the lakeside, you're going to have houses probably with walkouts, that would probably be the right amount of money.

531
00:55:30,000 --> 00:55:33,240
I looked similar adjacent to it, I would have think.

532
00:55:33,620 --> 00:55:35,100
That is correct, Commissioner Salman.

533
00:55:35,520 --> 00:55:38,140
So this is the other repairing lot

534
00:55:38,140 --> 00:55:40,860
that is a standard lot that is under construction

535
00:55:40,860 --> 00:55:43,240
and has had a building permit issued.

536
00:55:43,860 --> 00:55:44,860
OK, thanks.

537
00:55:46,180 --> 00:55:46,760
Commissioner Anderson.

538
00:55:46,920 --> 00:55:47,680
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

539
00:55:48,260 --> 00:55:51,220
Mr. President, so if you could pull the diagram back up

540
00:55:51,220 --> 00:55:56,040
of the fill example, just fully understanding this.

541
00:55:56,440 --> 00:55:58,500
So in that fill example, effectively, what we're saying

542
00:55:58,500 --> 00:56:00,720
is the back side of the house, the lakes side of the house,

543
00:56:01,020 --> 00:56:02,600
would no longer have a walk out.

544
00:56:03,180 --> 00:56:04,260
In that example, is that correct?

545
00:56:04,740 --> 00:56:07,040
But otherwise, would be designed similarly.

546
00:56:08,140 --> 00:56:13,220
So more or less, choosing a home design that meets this lot.

547
00:56:13,720 --> 00:56:16,780
So it would be a look out home rather than any walk out.

548
00:56:17,080 --> 00:56:17,480
All right.

549
00:56:17,640 --> 00:56:19,260
Thank you.

550
00:56:19,580 --> 00:56:20,580
Commissioner, I'm in bond.

551
00:56:20,780 --> 00:56:22,560
One clarification, I'm going to make sure

552
00:56:22,560 --> 00:56:34,260
But the top one, that wouldn't be at the 43 feet, 10 inches. Correct? Or would it?

553
00:56:34,480 --> 00:56:42,780
Yes. Commissioner, I'm about to, what's really being conveyed here is if you look at kind of the elevation on the left side here.

554
00:56:42,780 --> 00:56:59,500
So the peak of the roof is effectively still at, let's say, at a 9.50 elevation, whereas the peak of the roof currently is just over that 9.50 elevation.

555
00:56:59,500 --> 00:57:04,360
And so, very similar in style and overall height,

556
00:57:06,920 --> 00:57:09,980
but as a result of raising the grade with

557
00:57:09,980 --> 00:57:14,860
fill, that measurement of the back would be within that.

558
00:57:18,590 --> 00:57:23,370
Mr. Chair, you sure saw a follow up question, so the geometry, maybe it's just because

559
00:57:23,370 --> 00:57:28,230
it's not a square, it's hard to really tell, but it's the width of this lot, changing is

560
00:57:28,230 --> 00:57:34,870
gets towards the lake and at what point what is considered a legal with and so what part

561
00:57:34,870 --> 00:57:40,530
of the house would probably be and what I would call the proper with. What would there be

562
00:57:40,530 --> 00:57:46,450
a part of the house that would be and what I would call an approved with for a standard lot.

563
00:57:46,910 --> 00:57:51,490
Yeah, so a Christian Commissioner of Solvents and so the geometry of the lie, if you look

564
00:57:51,490 --> 00:57:54,910
from this northern point and the southern point,

565
00:57:55,350 --> 00:57:59,130
it flares out and gets wider a little bit as it goes

566
00:57:59,130 --> 00:58:01,570
from here to here,

567
00:58:01,610 --> 00:58:04,230
and the applicant provided a diagram.

568
00:58:04,550 --> 00:58:07,330
It's a hundred feet right here,

569
00:58:07,330 --> 00:58:10,530
effectively at the building pad for the house.

570
00:58:10,910 --> 00:58:14,650
It's that location right on Harbor Court

571
00:58:14,650 --> 00:58:16,810
where there's a reduced width.

572
00:58:17,950 --> 00:58:20,210
At that time of the development consideration,

573
00:58:20,210 --> 00:58:25,170
And there is, there's thought given to do you pull that

574
00:58:25,170 --> 00:58:29,270
Harbor Court curvature for their inward into the property,

575
00:58:29,430 --> 00:58:32,290
to achieve the minimum width or not.

576
00:58:32,330 --> 00:58:34,890
Of variants was considered and ultimately approved

577
00:58:35,490 --> 00:58:39,390
that favored pulling it away from the steepness

578
00:58:39,390 --> 00:58:43,970
of the property as a result of the grade,

579
00:58:45,010 --> 00:58:48,070
instead of having a standard lot right there.

580
00:58:48,130 --> 00:58:49,570
So that's why the lot was created

581
00:58:49,570 --> 00:58:55,530
as it is as it exists today. So maybe clarify, where is the restriction restrictive with?

582
00:58:55,710 --> 00:58:59,970
I just want to make sure I understand that. It's just this front property. Just that area there,

583
00:59:00,110 --> 00:59:06,630
but the width of the lot in general, is much wider. Great. Okay. That helps. Thanks.

584
00:59:09,270 --> 00:59:14,630
Anybody else have any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

585
00:59:15,230 --> 00:59:20,090
If the applicant's audience would like to end up

586
00:59:22,140 --> 00:59:24,380
and address the commission, please remember

587
00:59:24,380 --> 00:59:27,160
to give your name and address the record.

588
00:59:29,400 --> 00:59:33,100
Thank you chair and members of the commission for evaluating this request.

589
00:59:33,300 --> 00:59:34,140
My name is Bob Mozier.

590
00:59:34,760 --> 00:59:41,240
My address is 1986 pre-stirling Hudson, Wisconsin, although long time sure we residents, my

591
00:59:41,240 --> 00:59:44,420
younger years and currently office in sure of you, so I'm very familiar with the area

592
00:59:44,420 --> 00:59:45,720
and appreciate how you've done.

593
00:59:47,560 --> 00:59:56,740
After review of the staff report and after hearing the presentation tonight, I feel as though things were very thoroughly covered by happy to answer any questions you might have.

594
00:59:57,900 --> 00:59:59,960
I have a question for you. Why not just lower the rate?

595
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:11,990
The character of the neighborhood is the primary reason for that. I don't know. There are some other examples here of things that are being done in the neighborhood.

596
01:00:12,750 --> 01:00:16,330
But just so you know, would deal builders is the it's was a builder in this neighborhood.

597
01:00:17,070 --> 01:00:24,310
And one reason, an individual builder was selected was their equality builder who build

598
01:00:27,070 --> 01:00:31,650
consistently architecturally consistent structure with the neighborhood to make it very attractive.

599
01:00:33,410 --> 01:00:39,810
As an example of that, I will go through and show some of the things that

600
01:00:39,810 --> 01:00:41,690
that's written for some perspective drawings here.

601
01:00:41,910 --> 01:00:42,470
Here we go.

602
01:00:45,700 --> 01:00:47,020
Okay, I guess here is one here.

603
01:00:47,620 --> 01:00:52,840
Maybe I'll answer that in two ways. Number one is there is a steeper pitch on the front

604
01:00:52,840 --> 01:00:58,520
to make it architecturally consistent with others in the neighborhood, but this pitch for the

605
01:00:58,520 --> 01:01:04,140
second story here is reduced substantially to try to keep the height down as much as possible.

606
01:01:05,420 --> 01:01:10,780
So, you aesthetically, and achieve the look of any herewood with a front gavels, but on the main

607
01:01:10,780 --> 01:01:16,280
part of the house, it has been reduced, but it's somewhat obscured by the architectural design here.

608
01:01:16,280 --> 01:01:21,620
So now if you were to go to a home built on,

609
01:01:25,470 --> 01:01:26,230
let's see here,

610
01:01:26,350 --> 01:01:28,670
I'll get my, here we go.

611
01:01:29,890 --> 01:01:33,370
This is a home built currently being built on lot seven, right?

612
01:01:33,370 --> 01:01:35,690
Next door, the subject properties on lot eight.

613
01:01:36,190 --> 01:01:38,570
And this is actually a one story home.

614
01:01:38,750 --> 01:01:43,310
And as you will see, the, on the next page,

615
01:01:44,850 --> 01:01:48,570
if the height for this structure were determined based on the same criteria

616
01:01:48,570 --> 01:01:52,670
is being used by the home proposed for a lot of eight.

617
01:01:52,990 --> 01:01:54,990
This home would be 42 feet high.

618
01:01:55,550 --> 01:01:58,510
It's compared to just over 43 feet for the subject property.

619
01:01:59,290 --> 01:02:02,210
And there again, that's due in large part to the architecture

620
01:02:03,150 --> 01:02:06,490
that's being integrated into all the designs

621
01:02:06,490 --> 01:02:08,050
for the homes in the neighborhood.

622
01:02:09,030 --> 01:02:10,650
Even the villa is in that neighborhood.

623
01:02:11,950 --> 01:02:13,110
And I have an example here.

624
01:02:16,640 --> 01:02:20,160
So here's a villa here that's built on one of the

625
01:02:20,160 --> 01:02:26,940
interior lots. There again if you look at the height calculation for that one is 41 and

626
01:02:26,940 --> 01:02:34,740
93 quarter inches. From a standard lot calculation, it's only 21 feet tall. But there

627
01:02:34,740 --> 01:02:39,920
again that I get the important aspect of bringing this up is that for the villas and the

628
01:02:39,920 --> 01:02:45,500
single family homes to all be consistent in nature, which as I know is something very important

629
01:02:45,500 --> 01:02:50,740
part of any exclusive development like this, that's exactly why we're also, we don't want

630
01:02:50,740 --> 01:02:56,500
to come to one lot of potentially two and have something that's totally architecturally inconsistent.

631
01:02:57,340 --> 01:03:03,980
So there again is the character that a neighborhood criteria that we feel justifies asking for

632
01:03:03,980 --> 01:03:09,260
this variance. Thank you. Any other questions from Mr. Mosher?

633
01:03:12,620 --> 01:03:13,920
Thank you. Thank you very much.

634
01:03:14,980 --> 01:03:20,460
Let's move to the public, if in the public has any comments or questions, please come to the podium.

635
01:03:22,640 --> 01:03:24,460
Your name and address for the record.

636
01:03:26,120 --> 01:03:39,240
Hi, my name is Jane Friedman and my partner and I live at 4455 Harbor Place Court, which is just slightly down the road from this development and it is a riparian lot.

637
01:03:41,340 --> 01:03:55,560
And when my house was built in about 1992, it required no trees to be cut down, no retaining walls to be built, and it is mainly protected bluff.

638
01:03:55,980 --> 01:04:05,440
So the protected bluff is a huge chunk of the property, and yet still they were able to build a house with reasonable size.

639
01:04:05,440 --> 01:04:19,280
our house is 3700 square feet without requesting height variance. Instead with this property,

640
01:04:19,620 --> 01:04:29,880
this particular parcel, alterations have been constantly requested for this. So first they

641
01:04:29,880 --> 01:04:38,220
You've made it a sub-standard lot because otherwise, they'd have to remove one lot from

642
01:04:38,220 --> 01:04:45,800
the mix, and that would not be financially profitable.

643
01:04:47,440 --> 01:04:54,540
So they got that variance approved, understanding that there are things that go along

644
01:04:54,540 --> 01:04:59,960
with having a substandard lot, that might not make it easy for them to.

645
01:05:00,000 --> 01:05:13,100
To build on that. The second thing was Bob Moser asked the city for permission to put in the retaining wall. And he said, I quote,

646
01:05:13,460 --> 01:05:27,460
So that we can establish building paths and end up with a reasonably sized backyard. So the idea was to have a very high retaining wall and fill it in with fill. And then there would be this nice

647
01:05:27,460 --> 01:05:44,220
Nice backyard for those three properties the height of the wall was did not get up to that high amount, but they still were allowed to have the retaining wall and at the same time they

648
01:05:44,980 --> 01:05:55,560
cut down all 29 trees on the lot between where the retaining wall is and the upper

649
01:05:56,540 --> 01:05:59,780
and the roadway, the circle roadway.

650
01:06:00,040 --> 01:06:01,540
So all those trees went away.

651
01:06:02,360 --> 01:06:07,360
So now, of course, they have this strange cross section.

652
01:06:10,320 --> 01:06:16,880
And for no good reason at all, they want to have this really tall house.

653
01:06:16,920 --> 01:06:23,480
And they say, well, on the front, it would blend in with the rest of the neighborhood.

654
01:06:23,480 --> 01:06:37,360
and that is the case. But on the public water side, this is like the same visual impact as a

655
01:06:37,360 --> 01:06:44,540
four-story high home with a flat roof. It's massive, and because they remove the trees,

656
01:06:45,700 --> 01:06:51,730
there are only some trees down by the water, which is quite a bit down the slope. And so

657
01:06:51,730 --> 01:06:56,930
So much of that house is going to be visible to people

658
01:06:56,930 --> 01:06:59,250
recreating on the public lake.

659
01:06:59,710 --> 01:07:03,510
And it's out of character with the rest of the homes

660
01:07:03,510 --> 01:07:05,750
on the lake in that respect.

661
01:07:07,470 --> 01:07:10,450
And all these things are caused by the property owner.

662
01:07:10,650 --> 01:07:12,450
These aren't unusual circumstances

663
01:07:13,590 --> 01:07:19,470
that made the property owner a victim of circumstances.

664
01:07:19,470 --> 01:07:40,030
And so it's just, I believe that the property owner should work within the confines of the law and build a house on their property.

665
01:07:40,670 --> 01:07:48,790
The setbacks are large on the front setbacks and the side setbacks are much more than the minimum.

666
01:07:48,790 --> 01:07:56,630
And so they could move the house forward and then they wouldn't have to deal as much with the slope in the back.

667
01:07:57,030 --> 01:08:06,530
They can plant more trees to deal with any erosion issues that might be on this slope that they, you know, so badly messed up.

668
01:08:07,310 --> 01:08:16,070
So I think that it doesn't meet all the criteria that is required for to allow a variance.

669
01:08:18,030 --> 01:08:25,810
especially that out of character view that people will see from the lake side.

670
01:08:26,230 --> 01:08:30,850
And for that reason, I would ask you to not allow this variance,

671
01:08:31,090 --> 01:08:36,710
and have the builder go back and figure something else out.

672
01:08:37,610 --> 01:08:38,070
Thank you.

673
01:08:38,170 --> 01:08:39,550
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

674
01:08:40,450 --> 01:08:41,230
Anybody else?

675
01:08:41,230 --> 01:08:41,990
I,

676
01:08:49,380 --> 01:08:50,860
my name is Lee Erksen.

677
01:08:51,440 --> 01:08:55,320
I live at 260, Westerwood Heights Drive in New Brighton,

678
01:08:55,900 --> 01:08:57,620
soon to be a homeowner in this development.

679
01:08:58,940 --> 01:09:05,300
In fact, I think that top picture may be the home that's being built for me right now at 588 Harbor Court.

680
01:09:06,180 --> 01:09:18,400
And so I'm just here to say that, you know, I've seen the pictures of the proposed house and I think it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood and I'd be pleased to be

681
01:09:18,400 --> 01:09:23,260
have that house in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

682
01:09:32,620 --> 01:09:33,520
Good evening, everybody.

683
01:09:34,020 --> 01:09:39,550
My name is Steve Walsh. I live currently live at 18 Make-and-Lane in North Oaks. I am also

684
01:09:40,940 --> 01:09:47,420
the future homeowner of the adjacent lot to the various requested lot of seven that

685
01:09:47,420 --> 01:09:54,720
or so be 555 Harbor Court, originally a short-view resident back in the 70s, when my

686
01:09:54,720 --> 01:09:59,960
parents moved to South Birch Lane, and I bring back Dome's Alley that was a lot of...

687
01:10:00,000 --> 01:10:28,660
I'm going to listen for me, right, and I'm running around that alley in the neighborhood. But ironically enough, also along with her Brooks, I endorsed this community center years ago, as an athlete that played college football down at the University of Miami. I would imagine it was your your commission that asked me to endorse that. And obviously a beautiful community center that we have here in Sharp U. I'll just say this.

688
01:10:28,660 --> 01:10:34,040
You know, one of the things that attracted me to the community, as you look at a, you know,

689
01:10:34,240 --> 01:10:41,820
Metro Lake and, and, you know, obviously, a high demand for those types of properties, you know,

690
01:10:42,020 --> 01:10:48,200
typically you'd go into a community and maybe tear down a lot and build something new, but this community

691
01:10:48,200 --> 01:10:59,280
offered brand new home sites beautiful, you know, homes. Obviously very good builder. And the

692
01:10:59,280 --> 01:11:06,260
steep roofs that lead to the height of these buildings certainly aesthetically pleasing and

693
01:11:06,260 --> 01:11:18,180
modern construction and for me and my wife looking at a community of homes like this of

694
01:11:18,180 --> 01:11:22,420
is certainly something that we wanted to be part of.

695
01:11:22,620 --> 01:11:28,600
You know, I tell all I'll say, and I would certainly support the variance as it was shown on the slide.

696
01:11:29,100 --> 01:11:35,800
My home is basically with a standard lot at that 42 to 43 foot height.

697
01:11:36,600 --> 01:11:43,080
So I don't want to have a neighbor necessarily with the architectural design that's dramatically different than mine.

698
01:11:43,440 --> 01:11:44,300
Thank you for your time.

699
01:11:44,560 --> 01:11:45,320
Thank you, Ms. Rush.

700
01:11:45,320 --> 01:11:45,880
And

701
01:11:55,420 --> 01:12:08,520
it was dubbed Jones, I recited at 550 Harbor Court and one of my contention is when I decided to move in there was the type of architecture that was going to be built by Wooddale.

702
01:12:09,400 --> 01:12:20,240
And I think the consistency of the product and the homes that are being built there should all fall in and put that type of architecture.

703
01:12:21,100 --> 01:12:23,100
So I really have to say thanks.

704
01:12:23,100 --> 01:12:24,260
Thank you, Mr. Jones.

705
01:12:28,180 --> 01:12:28,420
Okay.

706
01:12:29,380 --> 01:12:32,880
Well, seeing nobody else, let's bring it back to the commission.

707
01:12:35,250 --> 01:12:36,210
Commissioner Salmondson.

708
01:12:36,270 --> 01:12:38,350
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I...

709
01:12:38,990 --> 01:12:43,070
When I look at this, at least when I just consider the lake view,

710
01:12:43,390 --> 01:12:46,270
and no one's going to see how narrow the street is,

711
01:12:46,350 --> 01:12:48,350
and we're talking with 100 feet with a lot of,

712
01:12:49,450 --> 01:12:51,490
essentially 25,000 square feet.

713
01:12:51,510 --> 01:12:53,010
It's a half an acre, it's generous.

714
01:12:53,410 --> 01:12:56,950
And the width, the only time it really comes into play,

715
01:12:56,950 --> 01:13:04,770
is on the street side, otherwise the width is empty, pretty much more than exceeding the standard

716
01:13:04,770 --> 01:13:11,350
lot. So from the lake side, I do tend to agree that the character of the neighborhood you could have.

717
01:13:13,430 --> 01:13:19,490
I think from the lake and having the houses be similar is a reasonable request and I think the

718
01:13:20,070 --> 01:13:24,710
uniqueness here is because of that little piece of strip on the front of the street and seems to

719
01:13:27,090 --> 01:13:30,950
It's hard to use that as a reason to deny this kind of request.

720
01:13:30,990 --> 01:13:37,910
I think it's more important to have consistent houses from the Lakeview next to each other.

721
01:13:38,670 --> 01:13:40,490
And like I said, these lots aren't small.

722
01:13:40,790 --> 01:13:43,690
This is a big lot, 25,000 square feet.

723
01:13:44,230 --> 01:13:49,290
So I'd say that basically I think this is a realistic request.

724
01:13:50,510 --> 01:13:53,090
And it's kind of, it's one of those things with math problems,

725
01:13:53,090 --> 01:13:58,150
because you have a front edge that basically goes up and cuts over and that little hundred foot

726
01:13:58,150 --> 01:14:05,330
makes it a non-meats the definition of non-standard. But when I look at this lot, it sure looks

727
01:14:05,330 --> 01:14:12,050
standard to me in terms of size and scope. And when you put in that definition of determining height

728
01:14:12,050 --> 01:14:20,270
half full row-fight versus half, it's kind of a, it's definitely a disadvantage to apply that standard

729
01:14:20,270 --> 01:14:21,330
to this lot.

730
01:14:23,030 --> 01:14:24,610
So I would be in support of the variance?

731
01:14:25,650 --> 01:14:26,590
Commissioner Anderson.

732
01:14:27,150 --> 01:14:27,790
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

733
01:14:28,190 --> 01:14:31,090
Yeah, so I apparently am conflicted with everything tonight.

734
01:14:32,750 --> 01:14:37,470
So I was a part of the process of this original proposal as a planning

735
01:14:37,470 --> 01:14:44,470
commission member, and to Ms. Friedman's point, you know, part of what Bob is

736
01:14:44,470 --> 01:14:51,490
a little bit here is that there was a request basically to have an extra lot around this loop.

737
01:14:52,330 --> 01:14:56,770
And now because of that we have a substandard lot and because of that we've got kind of

738
01:14:56,770 --> 01:14:59,530
what's before us here to Commissioner Solomon's point.

739
01:15:00,050 --> 01:15:09,410
Yes, there's very little distinction between these lots, as far as just really at the street there is the only difference, not far back, in street, you're meeting that requirement.

740
01:15:10,830 --> 01:15:19,950
If it were the house next door, the house to the south, from the lakeside, you're going to have exactly the same view of this house as you would have the adjacent house.

741
01:15:19,950 --> 01:15:27,210
So I think what we're seeing on paper, to me is a distinction, but I think in actuality,

742
01:15:28,110 --> 01:15:28,790
there is no distinction.

743
01:15:29,450 --> 01:15:33,750
But on the flip side of the coin, this is the cards that were dealt, these are the cards

744
01:15:33,750 --> 01:15:34,390
that were dealt,

745
01:15:36,590 --> 01:15:42,910
and to Chair John's question, there is a different design that would work

746
01:15:42,910 --> 01:15:43,210
here.

747
01:15:45,150 --> 01:15:49,710
Now, there is maybe some value to the fact that there's a single builder and you know,

748
01:15:49,710 --> 01:15:54,570
trying to achieve a look in this neighborhood. But I'm on the fence still. I just I honestly don't

749
01:15:56,730 --> 01:16:05,880
know neither answer seems a hundred percent good to me. Thank you Commissioner Cortis.

750
01:16:07,020 --> 01:16:13,060
Yeah, I'm a hundred percent with Commissioner Anderson on the extreme frustration. I have on this one.

751
01:16:13,100 --> 01:16:18,600
I mean, I voted no on this development specifically for this reason. I said they were going to come back.

752
01:16:18,600 --> 01:16:22,180
They're going to ask us for more variants because they weren't doing this properly.

753
01:16:22,320 --> 01:16:28,320
They were squeezing things in improperly to make the most money as opposed to doing what was right and within our code.

754
01:16:29,120 --> 01:16:32,100
And now we're back here doing the same thing.

755
01:16:32,920 --> 01:16:40,880
And I hope maybe the city council will think about that when the planning commission has some thoughts about that.

756
01:16:40,900 --> 01:16:43,760
And then they don't take those into consideration.

757
01:16:44,540 --> 01:16:45,860
We have to deal with this again.

758
01:16:45,860 --> 01:16:56,000
Taking this property however individually, I think it does technically meet the requirements of the variance rules that we have here.

759
01:16:56,920 --> 01:17:12,880
And as frustrated as I am with that they're back here, when we said this would happen, I don't think I can treat the property or the property owner differently because we already approved it and said they could do this.

760
01:17:14,100 --> 01:17:29,960
And if it were any other development and any other lot, I don't know, Commissioner Anderson, if you'd be struggling as much as I feel like I am with it because of the background of this development. So I will probably be voting I, but I don't feel good about it.

761
01:17:34,770 --> 01:17:37,070
Anybody else have any comments, questions or concerns?

762
01:17:44,880 --> 01:18:06,560
I'd like to move to adopt resolution 2667 granting a variance to increase the maximum permitted building height on a substandard repair and lot from 35 feet to 43 feet 10 inches for the property located at 55 59 Harbor court subject to the six conditions in the report and based on the three findings effect.

763
01:18:06,560 --> 01:18:17,560
Second. It has been moved in seconds. Any further discussion on the matter? I'll just throw my two cents in there. This is more of a design problem than I.

764
01:18:18,460 --> 01:18:31,180
A variance issue. So I would agree with what Commissioner Cortis and Commissioner Anderson had brought up. So just wanted to point that out before we take the vote. All those in favor.

765
01:18:31,180 --> 01:18:33,220
Naked by saying aye.

766
01:18:33,340 --> 01:18:33,980
Aye.

767
01:18:34,260 --> 01:18:34,780
Opposed.

768
01:18:34,940 --> 01:18:35,440
Same sign.

769
01:18:37,360 --> 01:18:38,140
Motion passes.

770
01:18:38,900 --> 01:18:39,680
Six to one.

771
01:18:44,260 --> 01:18:44,340
Okay.

772
01:18:44,640 --> 01:18:45,960
So we moved to items.

773
01:18:46,300 --> 01:18:47,160
Seven C.

774
01:18:48,380 --> 01:18:50,980
This is a variance request by Robert Fried.

775
01:18:51,060 --> 01:18:52,980
Location is 804 county road.

776
01:18:53,120 --> 01:18:53,660
I list.

777
01:18:54,420 --> 01:18:55,580
Associate planner will Harris.

778
01:18:55,920 --> 01:18:57,480
You have the presentation.

779
01:19:03,910 --> 01:19:04,930
Thank you chair.

780
01:19:06,210 --> 01:19:10,110
One item of note related to my previous presentation for

781
01:19:10,110 --> 01:19:16,750
675 sunset, that item is subject to a five day appeal period that was not stated.

782
01:19:17,190 --> 01:19:23,230
So just wanted to clarify, if there's anybody out there who wish to, there's that option.

783
01:19:24,010 --> 01:19:30,770
And with that, we will get into the variance request, variance is requested and the residential

784
01:19:30,770 --> 01:19:34,730
designer view for 804 County Road, I West,

785
01:19:37,480 --> 01:19:38,460
orienting ourselves.

786
01:19:38,460 --> 01:19:43,760
this property is located along the northern side of Turtle Lake.

787
01:19:45,940 --> 01:19:48,520
Access is provided off of

788
01:19:48,520 --> 01:19:49,740
county road I.

789
01:19:54,380 --> 01:19:59,620
The property is a located within the R1 detached residential zoning district.

790
01:20:00,000 --> 01:20:29,780
It is a sub-standard repair and lot for lot width. According to the most recent survey that we have of the property, the lot is 9,896 square feet with a width of 75 feet along County Road Eye and depths of 119 feet on the western side and 129 feet along the eastern side. There is an existing single-family home that was originally developed on the site in 1972, however, that

791
01:20:30,000 --> 01:20:37,700
property went through a residential design review in 2003 that included the approval of the following items.

792
01:20:38,200 --> 01:20:47,340
An additional 300 square feet of living area that was constructed above the garage base located here.

793
01:20:49,070 --> 01:21:00,830
A maximum allowed impervious surface coverage of 35.6% with the conditions of a sign mitigation affidavid and no lakeside accessory structures constructed.

794
01:21:01,890 --> 01:21:10,170
And a lakeside setback of the existing deck not to be changed, which was a 19.5 feet.

795
01:21:11,350 --> 01:21:21,030
a little bit of property history for you with that residential design review in 2003 as stated

796
01:21:21,030 --> 01:21:27,590
there was an attached deck that was included within the survey and the building plans for

797
01:21:27,590 --> 01:21:35,790
that RDR that showed a 19.5 foot set back from the ordinary high water line that was approved

798
01:21:35,790 --> 01:21:39,190
because that was the existing conditions,

799
01:21:39,290 --> 01:21:41,110
and there were going to be any alterations

800
01:21:41,110 --> 01:21:42,830
to that existing setback.

801
01:21:44,190 --> 01:21:46,770
After that was approved,

802
01:21:48,730 --> 01:21:53,390
the homeowners at that time had actually constructed

803
01:21:53,390 --> 01:21:58,110
a different deck that according to the most recent survey

804
01:21:58,110 --> 01:22:02,450
that we have currently six sits at 17.9 feet

805
01:22:02,450 --> 01:22:04,330
from the ordinary high water line,

806
01:22:04,330 --> 01:22:14,050
thus encroaching a little bit further into that setback. Later on in 2022, a different homeowner

807
01:22:14,050 --> 01:22:24,410
of the property constructed a few different alterations to the property including an illegal water-oriented

808
01:22:24,410 --> 01:22:35,370
accessory structure which is going to be the patio scene on the left image here, as well as

809
01:22:35,370 --> 01:22:44,070
a gravel parking pad addition located on the northeastern side of the driveway here.

810
01:22:46,920 --> 01:22:52,700
That brings us to today where the current owners and the applicants today purchased the property

811
01:22:52,700 --> 01:22:59,920
in September of 2025. They had installed an additional unpermitted water-oriented

812
01:22:59,920 --> 01:23:05,380
accessories structure, which is going to be shown as the blue square,

813
01:23:05,980 --> 01:23:12,400
giving just a general location of where that is since it was not included in that 2022

814
01:23:12,400 --> 01:23:19,300
screen shot shown on the screen. That was installed between the purchase of the home in

815
01:23:19,300 --> 01:23:28,280
September and the spring of 2026. It is important to note that the existing home currently

816
01:23:28,280 --> 01:23:31,460
does operate as a licensed short-term rental within the city.

817
01:23:34,120 --> 01:23:37,920
So, as you can see on the screen,

818
01:23:38,760 --> 01:23:44,100
there are two images. One is going to be the most recent aerial image that was taken of the

819
01:23:44,100 --> 01:23:52,640
property on the right hand side, as well as the most recent survey that we have of the property located on the left hand side.

820
01:23:53,500 --> 01:24:05,180
As it currently sits, there are six violations of city code with regards to the existing property and the deck.

821
01:24:05,180 --> 01:24:12,160
The first of which is the amount of water-oriented accessory structures.

822
01:24:12,800 --> 01:24:20,800
Currently, there are two with the hot tub and the patio both located between the ordinary

823
01:24:20,800 --> 01:24:23,880
high water level and the required structure setback.

824
01:24:24,880 --> 01:24:32,960
The second is the maximum area of a water-oriented accessory structure at 250 square feet.

825
01:24:32,960 --> 01:24:45,700
The current patio is 350, 314 square feet, and the existing hot tub, I don't have it on screen, but I believe it is 62 square feet.

826
01:24:46,980 --> 01:24:55,180
The third is the side yard setback for a water oriented accessory structure.

827
01:24:56,080 --> 01:24:59,960
The current patio sits at 10 feet from the eastern...

828
01:25:00,000 --> 01:25:06,560
Inside of the eastern property line, the required setback is 20 feet for that structure.

829
01:25:08,460 --> 01:25:17,360
The fourth is that any water-oriented accessory structure may not be located within the short impact zone.

830
01:25:18,200 --> 01:25:29,480
That distance is 25 feet from the ordinary high water line. The current patio is located 10 feet and 9 inches from the ordinary high water line.

831
01:25:29,480 --> 01:25:35,540
It is important to note that code does permit that this setback can be waived by the planning

832
01:25:35,540 --> 01:25:43,700
commission, but not reduced to less than 10 feet from the ordinary high water line, if the planning

833
01:25:43,700 --> 01:25:49,080
commission determines that there is a practical difficulty that would prohibit strict compliance

834
01:25:49,080 --> 01:25:56,660
with this code provision. The code specifically calls out that this usage of practical difficulty

835
01:25:56,660 --> 01:26:02,600
is due to topography or other circumstances that are acceptable to the city.

836
01:26:04,360 --> 01:26:10,720
The fifth item is the total maximum impervious surface coverage on the site.

837
01:26:11,640 --> 01:26:19,960
As it sits today, it is hovering around 41.5% impervious surface coverage.

838
01:26:19,960 --> 01:26:29,390
Even though the residential design review from 2023 had approved the property at 35.6%

839
01:26:30,120 --> 01:26:37,740
that criteria has been altered with the introduction of a water-oriented accessory structure.

840
01:26:38,700 --> 01:26:45,960
With that introduced to the property, the total impervious surface coverage is then restricted to 25%.

841
01:26:45,960 --> 01:26:47,780
And lastly,

842
01:26:49,900 --> 01:27:01,680
the deck addition or newly constructed deck further encroachment is a violation

843
01:27:01,680 --> 01:27:09,140
of the structure setback from the Ordinary High Waterline code requires that this is

844
01:27:09,140 --> 01:27:14,520
standard 50 feet, however, because it was a non-conformity,

845
01:27:15,560 --> 01:27:19,360
it was subject to that 19.5 feet that was approved

846
01:27:19,360 --> 01:27:22,720
as a part of that residential designer view from 2003.

847
01:27:26,200 --> 01:27:31,540
As you can see on screen, this is going to be reiterating

848
01:27:31,540 --> 01:27:36,300
the existing conditions of the property, as long or along with

849
01:27:36,300 --> 01:27:41,300
the proposals from the applicant to bring the property

850
01:27:41,300 --> 01:27:48,260
into compliance with city code, whether that be alterations or through the variances that are presented

851
01:27:48,260 --> 01:27:57,760
to you tonight. To reduce to correct the first violation, the applicants are proposing to remove

852
01:27:57,760 --> 01:28:03,100
the existing hot tub thus reducing the amount of water oriented accessory structures to a number

853
01:28:03,100 --> 01:28:11,040
permitted by code. Secondly, they are proposing to reduce the total square footage

854
01:28:11,040 --> 01:28:23,740
of the accessory structures to a total of 200 square feet thus by reducing the total patio size and also getting rid of the hot tub of the square footage.

855
01:28:25,830 --> 01:28:41,890
The final four items, the applicants are requesting variances for the applicant is requesting a variance to the side yard setback on the eastern side to maintain the current 10 foot setback that the patio is currently sitting at

856
01:28:42,950 --> 01:28:53,190
The second variance requested is to maintain the patio at 17.6 feet from the ordinary high

857
01:28:53,190 --> 01:29:00,110
water line. They would be reducing the size of the patio in the area that is between

858
01:29:00,110 --> 01:29:03,850
the lake and the home to try to mitigate that.

859
01:29:06,180 --> 01:29:09,900
Thirdly is a variance request for the maximum

860
01:29:09,900 --> 01:29:16,040
impervious surface coverage of the home. As stated earlier, they are now subject to the 25 percent

861
01:29:16,040 --> 01:29:25,200
with the introduction of the water-oriented accessory structure. The applicants are proposing a 35.6

862
01:29:25,200 --> 01:29:31,880
percent impervious surface coverage, which, as important to note, is the amount that was

863
01:29:31,880 --> 01:29:38,440
approved as a part of that residential design review in 2003, but would require an additional variance

864
01:29:38,440 --> 01:29:41,680
today because of that water oriented infrastructure.

865
01:29:43,840 --> 01:29:46,820
And lastly, they were requesting a variance

866
01:29:48,000 --> 01:29:55,500
to the foothee foot setback from the ordinary high water line for the structure to maintain that

867
01:29:55,500 --> 01:29:59,700
17.9 foot set back for the existing deck on the site.

868
01:30:02,380 --> 01:30:19,400
So, this is just another visualization of the proposed variances this evening, along with a survey that was sent to staff with some visuals as to how they're reducing the impervious surface coverage.

869
01:30:19,920 --> 01:30:30,880
As you can see on the northern side of the property, they're planning on removing that illegally installed gravel portion along here.

870
01:30:30,880 --> 01:30:41,020
They're also proposing to remove a small portion of a turnaround area that was permitted just to reduce some additional impervious surface coverage on the site.

871
01:30:43,320 --> 01:30:50,800
The items that are circled are going to be the ones that the applicant is requesting variances for.

872
01:30:50,800 --> 01:31:01,200
and I think the one to note would be the removal of some of that patio area to one get it down to that 200

873
01:31:01,200 --> 01:31:11,600
and square foot mark, but also visualizing the reduction of the setback from the ordinary high

874
01:31:11,600 --> 01:31:15,660
water line or that.

875
01:31:20,510 --> 01:31:21,270
But, yes.

876
01:31:26,190 --> 01:31:30,030
Again, because this is a sub-sandered lot, it's as require

877
01:31:30,030 --> 01:31:38,850
residential design review. The four columns that are shown on screen are going to include

878
01:31:38,850 --> 01:31:49,410
the allowed amounts by code, the permitted amounts that were approved as a part of that

879
01:31:49,410 --> 01:31:57,050
2003 residential design review, the current conditions of the property and what is being

880
01:31:57,050 --> 01:32:04,030
proposed for you this evening. And as you can see, the four variances are embold on the right

881
01:32:04,030 --> 01:32:04,450
side.

882
01:32:07,740 --> 01:32:16,260
As you are familiar, the variance criteria are subject to the three items shown on screen.

883
01:32:17,520 --> 01:32:25,680
The reasonable manner the property owner is proposing to use the applicant is proposing something

884
01:32:25,680 --> 01:32:36,600
that is reasonable within the property. There's a unique circumstance that is unique to the

885
01:32:36,600 --> 01:32:44,040
or a previous one and lastly, the character, the neighborhood that the proposed work would not

886
01:32:44,040 --> 01:32:45,960
alter the essential character.

887
01:32:48,260 --> 01:32:55,980
So for the three variances requested regarding the patio and its

888
01:32:55,980 --> 01:33:04,000
location, staff believes that a practical difficulty is not present for these three items due to

889
01:33:04,000 --> 01:33:07,120
the unique circumstance, not being met.

890
01:33:07,780 --> 01:33:11,300
While the patio is a reasonable request,

891
01:33:12,240 --> 01:33:14,380
both within the R1 zoning district,

892
01:33:14,660 --> 01:33:19,760
as well as for a riparian lot along Turtle Lake

893
01:33:20,620 --> 01:33:23,700
and staff believes that this application

894
01:33:23,700 --> 01:33:26,520
would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,

895
01:33:27,700 --> 01:33:31,360
given that, again, many other properties along Turtle Lake

896
01:33:31,360 --> 01:33:42,080
have like side patios, some of which are kind of close closer than standard ones, but the

897
01:33:42,080 --> 01:33:50,200
unique circumstance, staff believes just isn't present. One due to the total amount of impervious

898
01:33:50,200 --> 01:33:54,000
surface coverage that is being requested by the applicant,

899
01:33:56,040 --> 01:33:59,380
the deviation is for an additional

900
01:33:59,380 --> 01:34:08,360
10.6% of impervious service coverage on the site, which is a fairly substantial amount given

901
01:34:08,360 --> 01:34:16,200
the location of where a lot of that is. The staff received comments from our engineering

902
01:34:16,200 --> 01:34:23,160
department about the importance of the impervious service coverage requirements and code

903
01:34:23,160 --> 01:34:31,040
typically, because they don't want that water draining towards water sources and given that a lot

904
01:34:31,040 --> 01:34:39,060
of that improved or additional impervious is going to be lakeside. It's going to be a substantial

905
01:34:39,060 --> 01:34:46,620
impact on the body of water, turn a lake. Secondly, the site does allow for the homeowners

906
01:34:46,620 --> 01:34:53,140
to reduce and or alter the patio to conform to that side yard setback. It would reduce the

907
01:34:53,140 --> 01:34:59,940
to a little bit less than 150 square feet, but it would be an additional variance.

908
01:35:00,000 --> 01:35:17,240
That would not be in front of you tonight if that were to be have been proposed. And then lastly, staff believes that the definition for a practical difficulty involving the setback from the ordinary high water line is not present for the proposed application.

909
01:35:18,920 --> 01:35:25,760
For the variance that is requested regarding the deck, staff does believe that a practical

910
01:35:25,760 --> 01:35:28,780
difficulty is present for this variance request.

911
01:35:29,900 --> 01:35:37,460
Again, the staff believes that the application for a lakeside deck is, again, a permitted

912
01:35:37,460 --> 01:35:42,720
use and something that is very common with many of these properties along County Rhode

913
01:35:42,720 --> 01:35:44,180
I and on Turtle Lake.

914
01:35:44,180 --> 01:36:11,620
The unique circumstance in this situation is, again, you'll be fairly familiar with this given that a variance was requested and approved for another property on County Road Eye for a very similar situation that the ordinary high water line for when the original 2003 residential design review was approved has thus changed to now.

915
01:36:11,620 --> 01:36:22,000
The property has eroded along that western edge and turtle lake has come up a little bit

916
01:36:22,000 --> 01:36:29,500
thus reducing that distance between the current deck and where that ordinary high waterline

917
01:36:29,500 --> 01:36:36,240
sits. So staff believes that this reduction in the set back is a result of natural changes,

918
01:36:37,140 --> 01:36:43,100
But not, well, caused by the owner, but not caused by the owner, if that makes sense.

919
01:36:43,820 --> 01:36:49,640
And lastly, staff believes that the proposed setback would not alter the character of the neighborhood.

920
01:36:51,760 --> 01:37:02,340
There are similar, again, variances that have been requested and granted for similar distances for decks setback at this distance.

921
01:37:03,840 --> 01:37:11,960
And important to note that the neighbor to the west is less than a foot from turn to lake for a deck.

922
01:37:13,020 --> 01:37:16,680
So staff does not believe that this request would alter the character of the neighborhood.

923
01:37:19,300 --> 01:37:25,880
On screen is just a visualization of the unique circumstances that were stated,

924
01:37:25,880 --> 01:37:47,680
showing the distances from the proposed deck from 2003 on the right hand side with a reduced elevation of Turtle Lake and an increased western property line as well as the existing conditions on the left hand side with where Turtle Lake currently sits.

925
01:37:47,680 --> 01:37:58,620
where the deck currently is set back from that ordinary high water line as well as the reduction in the Western property line and the reduction of that.

926
01:38:01,720 --> 01:38:02,480
Comments.

927
01:38:03,700 --> 01:38:05,820
Staff did receive one.

928
01:38:05,820 --> 01:38:16,980
Well, one written public comment from two different homeowners that was submitted expressing disapproval of the variance request that item was included in your packets this evening.

929
01:38:16,980 --> 01:38:23,220
As stated, staff did receive a comment from engineering regarding the importance of

930
01:38:23,220 --> 01:38:29,360
short views in pervious surface coverage and the cumulative negative impacts of runoff

931
01:38:29,360 --> 01:38:35,240
towards the body of water. And lastly, staff received comment from the race group watershed

932
01:38:35,240 --> 01:38:44,380
district, providing comments about their permitting specifications and their notification requirements

933
01:38:44,380 --> 01:38:54,360
for potential fill, whether any alteration to the existing patio would be impacted this evening.

934
01:38:56,180 --> 01:39:01,900
So staff recommends that the planning commission deny three variances submitted by

935
01:39:01,900 --> 01:39:09,720
Robert Fried regarding the property at 804 County Road Eye, each of which involves the patio

936
01:39:09,720 --> 01:39:17,780
structure, the first being to exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage, the second to

937
01:39:17,780 --> 01:39:25,700
allow the water oriented accessory structure to encroach within the short impact zone. And lastly,

938
01:39:25,840 --> 01:39:32,520
to reduce the water oriented side set back to 10 feet. However, staff does recommend that the planning

939
01:39:32,520 --> 01:39:41,520
commission adopt resolution 26-68 proving the 17.9 foot structure set back for the existing deck

940
01:39:41,520 --> 01:39:46,160
that is on the property subject to the conditions outlined in your packets. And with that,

941
01:39:46,160 --> 01:39:50,680
I will stand for questions. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Any questions? Mr. Chair.

942
01:39:50,900 --> 01:39:55,800
Mr. Salmanson. I guess the question is, there's a number of variances here and there's a lot of

943
01:39:57,520 --> 01:39:59,980
So the question is if...

944
01:40:00,000 --> 01:40:07,260
The variance note passes, is the, is a city trying to get the hot tub and the patio removed.

945
01:40:08,360 --> 01:40:29,980
So you should have come by and yes. So the original, how this all started, I guess, when the property owners had applied for their short term rental license, staff had gone through and done an inspection of the property, they had approved their rental license and issued that.

946
01:40:30,920 --> 01:40:34,180
as a part of our code enforcement and rental program

947
01:40:34,180 --> 01:40:38,520
staff did receive a couple of complaints from surrounding property owners,

948
01:40:39,180 --> 01:40:41,840
which as a part of those complaints included,

949
01:40:42,960 --> 01:40:47,580
parking issues on that gravel patch on that eastern portion.

950
01:40:48,380 --> 01:40:51,240
And so once we looked at that,

951
01:40:51,360 --> 01:40:54,140
we started doing a little bit deeper of a dive into the property,

952
01:40:54,820 --> 01:40:56,380
found numerous other violations,

953
01:40:56,380 --> 01:41:01,160
and actually issued the property owners a letter

954
01:41:01,160 --> 01:41:05,800
both for rental code violations and property violations.

955
01:41:06,300 --> 01:41:10,240
What you are seeing tonight is the property violations

956
01:41:10,240 --> 01:41:14,200
and the request of the homeowner to maintain something

957
01:41:14,200 --> 01:41:17,200
that they kind of walked into without knowing.

958
01:41:18,420 --> 01:41:21,580
And since then, the rental code violations,

959
01:41:22,880 --> 01:41:26,620
excluding the parking violations have thus been corrected.

960
01:41:28,360 --> 01:41:33,020
And a follow-up question is, the parking, there's no variance request for that.

961
01:41:33,220 --> 01:41:38,500
That's being eliminated the gravel parking pad, I guess, or?

962
01:41:41,120 --> 01:41:41,680
Mr. Curtis?

963
01:41:43,160 --> 01:41:43,540
Yes.

964
01:41:43,540 --> 01:41:50,580
So I just trying to understand more about what happened in the RDR with the 35.6%.

965
01:41:50,580 --> 01:41:59,520
percent. So, in the staff report, it talks about how there was a no-lake-side accessory

966
01:41:59,520 --> 01:42:06,160
structure period as part of that or how was that passed as part of the variance because we

967
01:42:06,160 --> 01:42:14,160
don't have those minutes or whatever from 2003. Yeah. So, as a part of that residential design

968
01:42:14,160 --> 01:42:22,720
review, the homeowners were, they were actually exceeding the impervious surface coverage

969
01:42:22,720 --> 01:42:30,940
again on the site and a part of that residential design review and a request by staff was

970
01:42:30,940 --> 01:42:40,620
to mitigate or to reduce that impervious surface coverage back to the 35.6 and that was

971
01:42:40,620 --> 01:42:42,640
proved as a part of that, RDR.

972
01:42:44,040 --> 01:42:48,640
And so as part of the conditions in that approval

973
01:42:48,640 --> 01:42:51,880
was the no-lake-side accessory structures,

974
01:42:52,240 --> 01:42:57,240
or it was not specifically outlined within those conditions,

975
01:42:57,540 --> 01:43:04,000
however, as a part of all of our memos

976
01:43:05,160 --> 01:43:10,280
There are already our procedures, so to speak.

977
01:43:11,280 --> 01:43:16,640
There is a provision in there that states that any significant alteration to the property

978
01:43:16,640 --> 01:43:23,760
would require the approval of the Planning Commission, and with a significant alteration

979
01:43:23,760 --> 01:43:30,020
such as the addition of a lakeside accessory structure, which would then, again, put them

980
01:43:30,020 --> 01:43:34,660
down into that 25% in pervious surface coverage, bucket,

981
01:43:36,920 --> 01:43:38,840
they violated the terms of that

982
01:43:38,840 --> 01:43:41,900
RDR with that addition.

983
01:43:42,360 --> 01:44:00,000
And so with, sorry, with that RDR, they already built up to the 35.6, or was it the

984
01:44:00,000 --> 01:44:07,460
more now but but and some of that's the hot tub. What was the 35.6 at that time is my question.

985
01:44:09,160 --> 01:44:13,920
So if I may commissioner court as when that property went through that residential

986
01:44:13,920 --> 01:44:21,660
design review in 2003 they were as will stated higher they were at 37 and point something

987
01:44:21,660 --> 01:44:26,840
I don't recall the number off the top of my head but as part of their mitigation to do those improvements

988
01:44:26,840 --> 01:44:32,540
to the property, that is when they brought it down to that 35.6. So they removed some

989
01:44:32,540 --> 01:44:37,420
imprevious surface coverage that had been on the property, likely prior to our shoreline

990
01:44:37,420 --> 01:44:42,640
regulations changing in 1992. And so this was a way for the city to get them to bring it closer

991
01:44:42,640 --> 01:44:49,360
to compliance. And so, at that point, they were allowed to keep 35.6%. But that,

992
01:44:50,880 --> 01:44:59,660
As was stated, did not include any lakeside structures, so there are maximum at that point would have been 30%.

993
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:04,640
We're still above it, but they were still reducing it to what the property had historically helped.

994
01:45:05,000 --> 01:45:06,640
So the city was happy to see that reduction.

995
01:45:07,240 --> 01:45:14,280
Okay. And I guess I'm just trying to figure out what was the, at that time, the 35.6 essentially,

996
01:45:14,620 --> 01:45:17,720
like what was there when they reached that agreement?

997
01:45:23,020 --> 01:45:29,080
The survey from the original submission is shown on screen on the right hand side.

998
01:45:29,080 --> 01:45:36,920
I think that a lot of that is going to come back to a lot of this concrete that runs along

999
01:45:36,920 --> 01:45:40,400
the side and along the rear of the home back here.

1000
01:45:42,580 --> 01:45:47,060
But again, a small portion of that to

1001
01:45:48,020 --> 01:45:53,140
could be related to the change in the ordinary hot water line too.

1002
01:45:55,540 --> 01:45:56,300
Okay. And so

1003
01:45:57,420 --> 01:45:59,920
So just so I understand what I'm looking at then that.

1004
01:46:00,140 --> 01:46:04,560
So there's this kind of ring of concrete around the existing house, like a sidewalk or something.

1005
01:46:05,460 --> 01:46:10,940
And then it says deck and does that mean above ground deck or is that a patio ground patio

1006
01:46:10,940 --> 01:46:11,640
at the time?

1007
01:46:11,760 --> 01:46:12,580
Above ground deck.

1008
01:46:17,700 --> 01:46:18,980
I don't have anything else.

1009
01:46:22,040 --> 01:46:22,200
Yeah.

1010
01:46:22,340 --> 01:46:22,700
The comments?

1011
01:46:22,840 --> 01:46:23,300
Questions?

1012
01:46:23,960 --> 01:46:24,780
Thank you, Mr. Harris.

1013
01:46:25,160 --> 01:46:25,920
Thank you.

1014
01:46:26,160 --> 01:46:31,240
If the applicant is in the audience and like to address the commission, I'd invite you to come

1015
01:46:31,240 --> 01:46:31,540
up.

1016
01:46:32,860 --> 01:46:35,580
teacher name and address for the record,

1017
01:46:40,320 --> 01:46:42,560
two people are allowed, yes, wouldn't be the first time.

1018
01:46:47,740 --> 01:46:54,560
On Robert Fried, I live at 49 South Deep Lake Road in North Oaks, and this is my daughter-in-law,

1019
01:46:54,580 --> 01:46:55,740
Alley Fried,

1020
01:46:57,880 --> 01:46:59,500
and you live at...

1021
01:46:59,500 --> 01:47:02,620
Yes, I live at 6583 in Lionel Lake, Minnesota.

1022
01:47:08,030 --> 01:47:15,410
So, my wife and I, my wife is in here, she not feeling well, but my wife and I have

1023
01:47:15,410 --> 01:47:29,250
lived in the show of you, the larger show of you community. Since 1987 we moved away for a short

1024
01:47:29,250 --> 01:47:42,890
period of time and moved back in 1995 and have lived in North Oaks for 30 years. I'm active

1025
01:47:42,890 --> 01:47:50,310
and the Sharp U community and my wife and our both members of the Rotary Club.

1026
01:47:51,210 --> 01:47:58,410
We were active creating the Polynator Garden at Maccola Park.

1027
01:47:59,690 --> 01:48:09,570
And we contribute to the Sharp U Foundation for a regular basis.

1028
01:48:10,990 --> 01:48:12,010
It's

1029
01:48:17,030 --> 01:48:23,810
been difficult to us for us to realize that there are a lot of issues with this property.

1030
01:48:24,930 --> 01:48:37,710
There are two prior owners and we don't know exactly what either prior owner did.

1031
01:48:37,710 --> 01:48:49,510
But thanks to the planning staff, we've come to realize that there's some issues and we've

1032
01:48:49,510 --> 01:49:00,450
been working hard to come up with a plan and perhaps we need to do more work in that

1033
01:49:00,450 --> 01:49:10,210
guard, but in any case, Halley, you are going to have some open remarks. I'll stay here to answer

1034
01:49:10,210 --> 01:49:10,890
questions.

1035
01:49:11,650 --> 01:49:18,150
Horace, see if I go into labor, I think. Well, good evening. My name is Halley Freed. My

1036
01:49:18,150 --> 01:49:23,330
father-in-law and mother-in-law, Robert and Miriam, on the home at 8-4 County Road Eye. They

1037
01:49:23,330 --> 01:49:28,630
purchased it nearly a year ago in September of 2025. The first and only cabin they've

1038
01:49:28,630 --> 01:49:32,650
own a dream realized after more than 40 years of diligent saving.

1039
01:49:33,510 --> 01:49:37,310
My enloss of called the Mounds, you school district home for decades and are both active

1040
01:49:37,310 --> 01:49:39,750
members of the Shoreview and Arden Hill's Rotary Club.

1041
01:49:40,450 --> 01:49:41,970
They've asked me to speak on there we have tonight.

1042
01:49:43,090 --> 01:49:47,250
Thank you for your time and genuinely thank you will for all that you've put into this.

1043
01:49:47,510 --> 01:49:51,110
Five months is a long time to work through something like this, but we've had a laundry

1044
01:49:51,110 --> 01:49:54,490
list to get through, and we've felt a effort from your side.

1045
01:49:55,290 --> 01:49:57,930
I want to start with something that we actually agree with step-on.

1046
01:49:57,930 --> 01:49:59,950
They brought the mandate of proving the duck with it.

1047
01:50:00,000 --> 01:50:15,900
And their reasoning makes sense to us. The setback problem goes back to something nobody could control. The shoreline eroding into the slot since 2003, not anything my enlisted. We're grateful that the planning staff saw this clearly because it's the case.

1048
01:50:16,760 --> 01:50:29,980
We think the patio deserves the same conclusion and here's why. My enlaz didn't build the patio. They didn't rebuild the deck either. Both were already there exactly as can be seen now when they bought this house last year.

1049
01:50:29,980 --> 01:50:35,360
September. They walked into this situation and didn't create it. And there's a piece of this

1050
01:50:35,360 --> 01:50:40,900
lot's history that matters here too. This property has been recognized by the city as a substandard

1051
01:50:40,900 --> 01:50:49,000
lot since long before my in-laws owned it. Just 9,896 square feet, well under the 15,000 square foot

1052
01:50:49,000 --> 01:50:56,800
standard, on a lot only 75 feet wide. That's exactly why in 2003, this commission granted this

1053
01:50:56,800 --> 01:51:00,980
additional flexibility on impervious coverage in the first place.

1054
01:51:01,760 --> 01:51:05,000
The physical constraints of this slide aren't something my in-laws created.

1055
01:51:05,620 --> 01:51:09,380
There's something the city itself already recognized as unique to this property.

1056
01:51:10,280 --> 01:51:15,100
The structure 25% limit we're asking you to look past isn't about preference.

1057
01:51:15,680 --> 01:51:21,180
It's what happens when two code provisions, the substandard law allowance, and the

1058
01:51:21,180 --> 01:51:25,560
Lakeside Accessories structure cap, collide on a lot this size and shape.

1059
01:51:25,560 --> 01:51:30,500
That collision is a unique circumstance, and it has nothing to do with any choice my

1060
01:51:30,500 --> 01:51:31,180
Amazon made.

1061
01:51:32,220 --> 01:51:35,840
We'd ask you to consider just how tight that collision really is.

1062
01:51:36,320 --> 01:51:41,700
Our surveyor, who has been an amazing help, his calculations show that even if every

1063
01:51:41,700 --> 01:51:47,060
accessory feature on this property were removed entirely, the hot tub, the patio and

1064
01:51:47,060 --> 01:51:52,080
full, the gravel area next to the driveway, and the driveway trimmed down to its simplest

1065
01:51:52,080 --> 01:51:52,600
form.

1066
01:51:52,600 --> 01:52:00,620
This law would still sit at 32.5% impervious coverage, well above the 25% threshold.

1067
01:52:01,580 --> 01:52:09,320
In other words, the home itself and the minimum access it requires already exceed that number before a patio even enters the picture.

1068
01:52:10,000 --> 01:52:12,120
That's not a result of how we use this property.

1069
01:52:12,700 --> 01:52:17,320
It's a function of this lot's size and the house that stood on it since 1972.

1070
01:52:17,980 --> 01:52:22,820
We'd ask the commission to weigh whether a standard this lot cannot reasonably meet

1071
01:52:22,820 --> 01:52:27,180
under any configuration, is one that should stand in the way of a modest,

1072
01:52:27,500 --> 01:52:29,720
substantially reduced accessory structure.

1073
01:52:31,640 --> 01:52:35,440
And I want to address one phrase directly because I don't think it reflects

1074
01:52:35,440 --> 01:52:36,780
or actually asking.

1075
01:52:37,480 --> 01:52:41,820
Staff's recommendation describes this as maintaining the patio as a matter of

1076
01:52:41,820 --> 01:52:44,080
preference rather than a unique circumstance.

1077
01:52:44,080 --> 01:52:51,100
For specifically, we're not asking to maintain anything as it stands when this home was purchased a year ago.

1078
01:52:51,600 --> 01:52:56,880
We're proposing to cut the patio nearly in half, 314 square feet down to 200.

1079
01:52:57,780 --> 01:53:06,200
Remove the hot tub outright and bring total impervious surface coverage down from 41.5 to 35.6%.

1080
01:53:06,200 --> 01:53:09,880
The same figure this commission approved for this lot in 2003.

1081
01:53:10,920 --> 01:53:13,200
A preference would be leaving it alone.

1082
01:53:13,200 --> 01:53:17,720
We're asking for the chance to shrink it substantially and keep what's left.

1083
01:53:18,680 --> 01:53:23,620
And on the neighborhood, SAS Owner Report says granting this wouldn't change the character

1084
01:53:23,620 --> 01:53:28,720
of the area and the other homes on County Road Eye already have paddios of their own.

1085
01:53:29,160 --> 01:53:30,860
This isn't out of place here.

1086
01:53:32,080 --> 01:53:36,340
And there's one more thing we want to address directly because we suspect it may come up tonight.

1087
01:53:36,340 --> 01:53:47,120
This home is a family gathering place that also operates on a limited basis as a short term rental, fully licensed and approved by the city.

1088
01:53:47,780 --> 01:53:52,380
Whatever tonight's comments touch on, we'd ask the commission to hold on to one distinction.

1089
01:53:53,180 --> 01:53:58,440
These four variances are about the physical dimensions of a deck and a patio.

1090
01:53:58,440 --> 01:54:01,860
A setback, a size, in a percentage of coverage.

1091
01:54:02,620 --> 01:54:06,160
None of that turns on who is standing on the property or how often.

1092
01:54:06,720 --> 01:54:11,140
In fact, the three-part test, your own staff report lays out for tonight.

1093
01:54:11,900 --> 01:54:15,480
Reasonable manner, unique circumstance, and neighborhood character.

1094
01:54:16,220 --> 01:54:19,700
Doesn't ask anywhere who occupies this home or how often.

1095
01:54:20,300 --> 01:54:21,480
And that's not an oversight.

1096
01:54:22,300 --> 01:54:25,320
Those criteria are about the land, not the use.

1097
01:54:25,320 --> 01:54:28,000
and we'd ask you to apply them exactly as written.

1098
01:54:28,820 --> 01:54:31,880
It is our belief that comments about short-term rentals used tonight,

1099
01:54:32,200 --> 01:54:37,680
however sincere, have no bearing on these four variances and shouldn't factor into your decision.

1100
01:54:38,580 --> 01:54:42,960
Tonight, we're asking you to rule on the dimensions in front of you and nothing more.

1101
01:54:44,120 --> 01:54:49,460
We are participating in this process in good faith. We've hired a licensed surveying company to assist

1102
01:54:49,460 --> 01:54:52,380
us, we propose less and not more.

1103
01:54:52,980 --> 01:54:57,760
Engaging in this process has already met real financial costs for my in-laws, and it will

1104
01:54:57,760 --> 01:54:59,720
likely need more before this is resolved.

1105
01:55:00,000 --> 01:55:09,420
Costs they never expected when they bought their first and only cabin last year, for conditions that existed on this property long before they ever saw it.

1106
01:55:09,760 --> 01:55:19,880
All we're asking is that the Commission applied the same logic to the patio that staff already applied to the deck, and approve all four of our variances, including resolution 2668.

1107
01:55:21,000 --> 01:55:23,800
Thank you. We're able to answer any questions you have.

1108
01:55:23,800 --> 01:55:27,240
Thank you. Anybody have any questions for the freeze?

1109
01:55:29,700 --> 01:55:32,940
Seeing them? Thank you for your information.

1110
01:55:33,560 --> 01:55:39,580
Appreciate your time. Any members of the public that wish to come up and have

1111
01:55:42,430 --> 01:55:42,790
anything

1112
01:55:42,790 --> 01:55:45,630
about this property? Anything to say?

1113
01:55:53,090 --> 01:55:54,670
I think most of them are going to be in the package.

1114
01:55:55,610 --> 01:56:00,470
That chance is not an end all the time. Can you say your name and your address so we can know if it's

1115
01:56:00,470 --> 01:56:04,310
Yeah, from Mark Lard, 800, 10-year-old I.

1116
01:56:07,210 --> 01:56:09,730
Oh, you guys have a difficult job.

1117
01:56:12,150 --> 01:56:12,850
So, you know, it's funny.

1118
01:56:12,970 --> 01:56:15,650
Preparing for this, both Mr. Peter Smith's hair

1119
01:56:15,650 --> 01:56:18,210
have actually met Mr. Peter Smith about three years ago

1120
01:56:18,210 --> 01:56:20,050
when I called him about a project on a different house

1121
01:56:20,050 --> 01:56:21,630
because I believe in proactive planning

1122
01:56:21,630 --> 01:56:23,230
and like, hey, can I build a position on my house

1123
01:56:23,630 --> 01:56:25,110
and he informed me, no.

1124
01:56:25,550 --> 01:56:27,050
So, that was my first interaction

1125
01:56:27,050 --> 01:56:32,890
out with the puns that. It's amazing. These means are recorded. Whoever set that up, thank

1126
01:56:32,890 --> 01:56:37,010
you, allow us to go back and see the debate you have. And I think as a committee, it's

1127
01:56:37,010 --> 01:56:42,090
clearly a healthy committee. You guys disagree. The meeting I watched was not unanimous, even

1128
01:56:42,090 --> 01:56:48,550
tonight was not. And I think that's a great something. So as a neighbor, it's been interesting

1129
01:56:48,550 --> 01:56:53,230
to read through the regional manner, unique circumstance, and character of the neighborhood.

1130
01:56:53,230 --> 01:56:58,910
And I'm just going to zoom in on unique circumstance that this is not an unique circumstance.

1131
01:56:59,990 --> 01:57:01,310
This is a luxury amenity.

1132
01:57:01,630 --> 01:57:06,730
So when I talk about the whole of our experiences, I think spoke specifically on the patio.

1133
01:57:07,010 --> 01:57:09,330
The patio is 10 feet from my property on it.

1134
01:57:10,630 --> 01:57:15,350
And it's a luxury amenity that has fostered large gatherings all summer long.

1135
01:57:16,150 --> 01:57:19,370
Hundreds of people had moved through the property last weekend.

1136
01:57:19,370 --> 01:57:23,530
There was a private bachelet party with a chef and dance party.

1137
01:57:24,030 --> 01:57:26,650
It's great. It's a beautiful property, it's a beautiful spot.

1138
01:57:27,170 --> 01:57:29,590
And I think the challenge for the planning commission is,

1139
01:57:29,770 --> 01:57:31,190
you can't look at us or the free family.

1140
01:57:31,370 --> 01:57:33,010
You have to look at the overall vision of Sharpie.

1141
01:57:33,130 --> 01:57:34,730
What does this look like as a community?

1142
01:57:34,930 --> 01:57:36,510
Not just us as owners now.

1143
01:57:37,050 --> 01:57:39,150
Anything but what's the long term water quality effect?

1144
01:57:39,250 --> 01:57:42,470
What does it look like to prove this structure as is?

1145
01:57:43,110 --> 01:57:44,990
And when you think about inheriting this,

1146
01:57:45,150 --> 01:57:48,450
it is unfortunate that the prior owner didn't resolve this.

1147
01:57:48,450 --> 01:57:52,230
It's unfortunate in the buying process that they didn't sort it out.

1148
01:57:53,250 --> 01:57:56,350
We have highly, you know, clearly alleys and incredibly are great people.

1149
01:57:56,470 --> 01:58:00,970
I do enjoy them, and it's a good speaker, Bob's an attorney, these are very sharp folks.

1150
01:58:01,430 --> 01:58:04,530
It's unfortunate that this wasn't resolved during the purchase process.

1151
01:58:04,790 --> 01:58:07,770
But now, as a member of the community of Sharp U,

1152
01:58:08,010 --> 01:58:10,070
who values the parks, the lakes, all the things we love,

1153
01:58:10,590 --> 01:58:15,210
I really encourage you to support the talent's recommendations to deny the

1154
01:58:15,210 --> 01:58:24,580
answer twice as as proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McCarton. Anyone else wish to address

1155
01:58:24,580 --> 01:58:26,620
the commission on this subject?

1156
01:58:30,190 --> 01:58:32,770
Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the commission.

1157
01:58:33,670 --> 01:58:40,150
Commissioner Amavan. Mr. Chair. Mr. Go ahead. Commissioner Salmondson. Okay.

1158
01:58:41,350 --> 01:58:47,270
Yes, I always I know sure of you typically has a complaint in urban system and I always hate when

1159
01:58:47,970 --> 01:58:52,750
It's always frustrating when things come to us after the fact, and I do have a lot of respect

1160
01:58:53,350 --> 01:58:56,830
for previous planning commission decisions and things like that.

1161
01:58:57,370 --> 01:59:02,090
So I have to put a different hat on tonight, and I have to put the hat on that says,

1162
01:59:02,250 --> 01:59:07,730
if this were to come before me, and they would have asked for a hot tub for a patio,

1163
01:59:08,690 --> 01:59:12,270
would I be inclined to support it?

1164
01:59:12,950 --> 01:59:22,490
And, you know, at the same time, we've had a lot of discussions, our goal is to try and preserve the character of the lake, to preserve the setback, the drainages.

1165
01:59:23,130 --> 01:59:29,990
And a lot of these things go against a lot of the things we've been trying to do, at least I've been trying to do, when I've been on the planning commission.

1166
01:59:32,790 --> 01:59:35,310
It's a very small lot.

1167
01:59:35,850 --> 01:59:39,490
There's not really a lot of space between the house and the lake,

1168
01:59:40,550 --> 01:59:42,350
so when you start talking about drainage,

1169
01:59:44,290 --> 01:59:46,870
the chance for the water to not go into the lake,

1170
01:59:47,010 --> 01:59:48,250
there's not much of an opportunity.

1171
01:59:50,270 --> 01:59:54,410
So from a standpoint of when I first looked at this,

1172
01:59:54,690 --> 01:59:57,450
I was kind of disappointed, you know,

1173
01:59:57,450 --> 01:59:59,970
that some of these things went into the patio, the hot tub.

1174
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:11,940
So we get at the same time when I look at this, I think you can, you know, people that are on the lakes, they want to sit towards the lakeside, it kind of commonsense, patio makes sense, but you also have a deck.

1175
02:00:12,660 --> 02:00:19,580
So you do have a way to actually look at the lake, I guess if you're on the deck.

1176
02:00:19,580 --> 02:00:41,500
And so basically when I look at this, I'm having a hard time supporting the variance as an agreeing with I tend to agree with staff that in a way I think in a perfect world the non-conformities would be removed and I just don't support the variance as the three of the four variances. I do support the deck variance as staff set.

1177
02:00:50,390 --> 02:00:54,670
I'll just wait on with my two sets on this to I'm kind of probably a lot of the same lines as Commissioner Solmensen.

1178
02:00:55,930 --> 02:01:00,670
You know when you think about unique circumstances, it's not created by a property owner, right?

1179
02:01:01,090 --> 02:01:06,390
And although I have huge sympathy for the fact that you didn't create this unique circumstances,

1180
02:01:07,690 --> 02:01:13,650
it was they were created by the property owner, right? So that's kind of the conundrum here.

1181
02:01:16,450 --> 02:01:22,890
I do recognize and appreciate the point that there is really no effect of way to get this

1182
02:01:22,890 --> 02:01:23,770
25 percent.

1183
02:01:23,950 --> 02:01:29,370
And I don't think that was the spirit of the intent or even the mandate of the previous

1184
02:01:29,930 --> 02:01:35,670
planning commission decision to allow for 35 percent because it was recognized that is probably

1185
02:01:35,670 --> 02:01:40,750
a number that needs to exist on this property to allow for a driveway in a house and things

1186
02:01:40,750 --> 02:01:43,870
than a smaller nature, or to accommodate a smaller,

1187
02:01:44,030 --> 02:01:45,830
a smaller, a smaller lot, I should say.

1188
02:01:47,570 --> 02:01:51,170
So to me, getting it back to that 35% is reasonable.

1189
02:01:51,190 --> 02:01:54,570
I think the problem that I have is there is a bit of a preference

1190
02:01:55,310 --> 02:01:58,950
in where that impervious surface lies.

1191
02:02:02,190 --> 02:02:03,930
Previously, it was not late-side.

1192
02:02:03,950 --> 02:02:04,890
Now it's late-side.

1193
02:02:05,050 --> 02:02:10,790
We've heard from a city engineer, or I think it was the engineer

1194
02:02:10,790 --> 02:02:15,890
that it has spoken to the impervious runoff like side and that that that does make a difference

1195
02:02:15,890 --> 02:02:25,910
and we are sensitive to that. I will say also that the short-term rental is a relevant to me.

1196
02:02:26,190 --> 02:02:31,790
I've been up here long enough and heard enough of this. You said proceedings that please know

1197
02:02:31,790 --> 02:02:36,370
that that doesn't really weigh into any of our decisions in regards to what's before us tonight.

1198
02:02:37,410 --> 02:02:53,410
With all of that said, again, I come back to that not created by a property owner and I just don't see how although I appreciate it and again I'm very sympathetic and feel bad for the situation.

1199
02:02:53,870 --> 02:03:00,670
I can only imagine how frustrating it is to buy into something coming to find out after the fact that there's a problem there and it has to be rectified.

1200
02:03:00,670 --> 02:03:28,350
We've had permitting issues come before us when there are existing homeowners that don't do things properly, and that's hard enough, and so I do apologize for the situation that you're in, but that being said, that unique circumstance is kind of, it's one of the three pillars, and we have to be in my opinion, very true to it.

1201
02:03:28,350 --> 02:03:33,210
And so for those reasons, I would support the staff's recommendations as a person and tonight.

1202
02:03:35,230 --> 02:03:36,230
Mr. Horses.

1203
02:03:36,790 --> 02:03:40,210
So I guess I'm just curious.

1204
02:03:43,610 --> 02:03:50,330
They've come and said if we get rid of everything and tear up, we still aren't going to be at that 30% coverage.

1205
02:03:50,330 --> 02:03:59,830
I know we're in year 25, I mean, if we pass 25% as it seems like 25 with late side access,

1206
02:03:59,990 --> 02:04:05,390
30% with no late side accessories structure, I mean, what else are they tearing up or are

1207
02:04:05,390 --> 02:04:11,750
those numbers wrong, where are we kind of, what's the result of that based on what they're

1208
02:04:11,750 --> 02:04:15,290
telling us versus what's in the recommendations from staff?

1209
02:04:17,150 --> 02:04:41,610
So just to clarify, with the removal of the Lakeside Accessories structure, they would be subject to the previously approved impervious surface coverage percentage from 2003, so they would be required to, or they would be held to that because that structure is no longer present on the property.

1210
02:04:43,880 --> 02:04:50,820
But is that the patio and the hot tub or just the hot tub both?

1211
02:04:54,600 --> 02:04:58,840
So if we do the 25% they have to tear out the entire patio.

1212
02:05:00,000 --> 02:05:27,000
No, so the with the introduction of a lakeside accessory structure, that puts them at the 25 percent. So, because they're already present, they would need a variance, because they're asking for an additional 10 point whatever percent above that 25 percent.

1213
02:05:27,000 --> 02:05:42,040
So if they get rid of those, then they're going to be put back into that category that they were already approved at in 2003, and they're going to be subject to the 35.6%.

1214
02:05:44,980 --> 02:05:55,960
Okay, so the staff's recommendation is essentially they have to tear out the entirety of the patio, and I think the hot tub's gone either way, but is that correct?

1215
02:05:56,500 --> 02:05:57,120
Okay,

1216
02:06:01,320 --> 02:06:02,000
Commissioner Logan.

1217
02:06:04,840 --> 02:06:07,460
When you buy a lake property, you want to be able to enjoy the lake.

1218
02:06:08,480 --> 02:06:09,700
I would want to enjoy the lake.

1219
02:06:10,540 --> 02:06:11,820
I'm okay with having a patio,

1220
02:06:12,680 --> 02:06:14,540
and I think they made a good faith effort to comply.

1221
02:06:20,430 --> 02:06:21,070
What else?

1222
02:06:27,320 --> 02:06:27,940
I wish I was dead.

1223
02:06:28,160 --> 02:06:28,980
I get my two cents.

1224
02:06:30,100 --> 02:06:31,680
I concur with what,

1225
02:06:32,020 --> 02:06:34,560
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Commissioner Solven said,

1226
02:06:35,900 --> 02:06:37,580
not a good result,

1227
02:06:38,280 --> 02:06:40,360
but sounds like people are intelligent enough.

1228
02:06:40,360 --> 02:06:43,400
they should have known better to check these types of things.

1229
02:06:43,760 --> 02:06:44,500
If you're going to be a homeowner,

1230
02:06:44,660 --> 02:06:46,860
you need to be the responsibility of a homeowner.

1231
02:06:47,900 --> 02:06:49,640
So I would go with the staff's report.

1232
02:06:50,640 --> 02:06:51,160
Recommendations.

1233
02:06:59,380 --> 02:07:00,920
I'll just say I concur with staff.

1234
02:07:01,600 --> 02:07:02,200
Thank you.

1235
02:07:04,560 --> 02:07:05,280
We have a motion,

1236
02:07:08,100 --> 02:07:08,100
then.

1237
02:07:08,360 --> 02:07:09,060
Mission West Ed.

1238
02:07:09,600 --> 02:07:11,780
Let me get my right screen here.

1239
02:07:12,480 --> 02:07:13,180
All right.

1240
02:07:13,880 --> 02:07:15,860
Do you want us to do these all as one

1241
02:07:15,860 --> 02:07:18,580
with the, as presented in the packet?

1242
02:07:18,580 --> 02:07:21,500
Or do you want us to split the denial and the approval?

1243
02:07:27,400 --> 02:07:28,520
That's a good question.

1244
02:07:29,600 --> 02:07:31,140
Mr. Chair, Mr. Westead.

1245
02:07:32,580 --> 02:07:35,020
I think we can go ahead and try it as stated.

1246
02:07:35,760 --> 02:07:38,060
And if that's not confusing, we can move forward with that.

1247
02:07:38,160 --> 02:07:40,660
If it's confusing, we can break them up if that makes sense.

1248
02:07:40,660 --> 02:07:41,620
But let's try that first.

1249
02:07:42,040 --> 02:07:44,600
I actually kind of request we break them up.

1250
02:07:45,360 --> 02:07:47,100
Because I have different votes for.

1251
02:07:49,180 --> 02:07:52,620
I think that's fine too as long as it's clear what we're voting on.

1252
02:07:52,620 --> 02:07:54,100
You can, we can split them on.

1253
02:07:55,240 --> 02:08:00,680
So I will move to deny the following three

1254
02:08:00,680 --> 02:08:03,680
variances submitted by Robert Fried regarding the property

1255
02:08:03,680 --> 02:08:07,840
at 804 County Road Eye, each to maintain a patio, water,

1256
02:08:07,840 --> 02:08:10,640
oriented accessory structure.

1257
02:08:11,140 --> 02:08:17,740
One variance to development code section 115-15-155B3A2

1258
02:08:17,740 --> 02:08:28,020
to exceed the allowed impervious service of 25% to variance to the development code section 115-149C.

1259
02:08:28,280 --> 02:08:32,680
A water oriented accessory structure may exist between the ordinary high water

1260
02:08:32,680 --> 02:08:41,220
and the required structure setbacks along as it does not encroach into the shore impact zone 25 feet from the ordinary high water line.

1261
02:08:41,220 --> 02:08:52,080
The existing patio is within the shore impact zone and three variants to development code 115-149C3D.

1262
02:08:52,260 --> 02:08:59,520
The patio has a side set back that is 10 feet rather than 20 required for the water oriented structure.

1263
02:09:00,160 --> 02:09:04,220
This action is based on the finding that practical difficulty is not present.

1264
02:09:04,220 --> 02:09:10,820
the patio was not lawfully established by the previous owner, thereby making an illegal non-conforming.

1265
02:09:11,580 --> 02:09:18,440
And the desire to maintain the patio at its current size and location, a matter of preference, rather than a unique circumstance.

1266
02:09:20,300 --> 02:09:21,380
It's been moved.

1267
02:09:23,920 --> 02:09:25,640
It's been moved in second commissioner.

1268
02:09:26,120 --> 02:09:26,520
Yes.

1269
02:09:27,140 --> 02:09:30,180
I didn't ask some questions, but I didn't give my two cents.

1270
02:09:31,620 --> 02:09:40,420
I'm in support of everything other than the impervious service request here and having

1271
02:09:40,420 --> 02:09:46,600
them narrow the patio down. I think that's reasonable looking at what was improved. Approved

1272
02:09:46,600 --> 02:09:56,260
in 2003, there is a portion of that concrete that is in the back that is there and

1273
02:09:56,260 --> 02:09:59,960
Council's impervious surface underneath there going around the house.

1274
02:10:01,260 --> 02:10:23,100
And, you know, if the only difference between that 35 percent and what we're looking at today is some of the concrete in the front and side of the house being shifted proportionally to a bigger driveway and to the patio deck, I think it's disingenuous of us to say that that portion in the back doesn't get to count anymore.

1275
02:10:23,100 --> 02:10:28,000
and that they have to entirely remove something in the back when a prior commission approved

1276
02:10:28,000 --> 02:10:34,380
up to 35.6% so I think we're kind of splitting some hairs here by saying you could

1277
02:10:34,380 --> 02:10:39,060
have had that, but you can't have a portion of your deck back there.

1278
02:10:39,500 --> 02:10:43,820
So that's why I will vote against that one, but in favor of the others.

1279
02:10:44,180 --> 02:10:44,740
Thank you.

1280
02:10:44,920 --> 02:10:46,840
Miss Phil, you read something, Mr. Harris.

1281
02:10:47,580 --> 02:10:55,900
Yes, just to clarify, the image shown on screen on the right-hand side, those were the existing

1282
02:10:55,900 --> 02:10:59,800
conditions prior to the mitigation affidated.

1283
02:11:00,080 --> 02:11:07,360
So the impervious surface coverage that existed at the time of that survey along the southern

1284
02:11:07,360 --> 02:11:14,280
portion of the existing home, the left-hand side of the existing home, that concrete path,

1285
02:11:14,280 --> 02:11:25,280
that was removed as a part of that mitigation after David. So the 35.6% approved coverage

1286
02:11:27,100 --> 02:11:32,560
that does not include what is shown on screen on the right hand side.

1287
02:11:35,180 --> 02:11:35,680
Okay, then I still

1288
02:11:35,680 --> 02:11:39,820
don't get how we get to in your math. I mean,

1289
02:11:42,240 --> 02:11:44,920
they made the current house makes the driveway bigger

1290
02:11:44,920 --> 02:11:46,560
And the patio,

1291
02:11:48,600 --> 02:11:54,130
I don't get how you get down to 25% even with that based upon this.

1292
02:11:56,660 --> 02:12:05,060
I mean, that's the problem is like, I mean, then you also are saying they have to take out portion of their driveway and that side-based correct.

1293
02:12:06,900 --> 02:12:16,360
The regulation is made to help protect the lakeside property and protect just scale of development on a property.

1294
02:12:17,020 --> 02:12:21,620
So the 25% in pervious surface coverage is meant to scale to the size of a property.

1295
02:12:22,640 --> 02:12:26,420
And as was mentioned, this property is smaller.

1296
02:12:27,200 --> 02:12:32,200
What is there now is scaled larger so even if they were to remove, you know, put the driveway down proportionally,

1297
02:12:32,200 --> 02:12:39,980
it was mentioned that they could get down to 32%, the 25% may not be a realistic goal just based

1298
02:12:39,980 --> 02:12:44,040
on what is on the property and what the size of the property is, but that doesn't change

1299
02:12:44,040 --> 02:12:47,920
what our regulations are and what they're meant to protect either. But that is why they're going

1300
02:12:47,920 --> 02:12:53,140
through the variance process so you can see if that meets that unique definition,

1301
02:12:54,140 --> 02:13:00,980
unique circumstances definition or not. But it could be that they reasonably can't get to 25%.

1302
02:13:00,980 --> 02:13:06,000
are is what they're doing enough and are the reasons you need enough. That's that for the commission

1303
02:13:06,000 --> 02:13:11,140
to determine. Right, but I mean my problem is I don't see how they even get to 30 percent.

1304
02:13:13,100 --> 02:13:16,700
Permitted. That's that's the math I don't understand here.

1305
02:13:16,700 --> 02:13:23,620
Your court is if I might they don't get there. So like for example, so if you're looking at the

1306
02:13:23,620 --> 02:13:30,380
existing right now on the left hand side, if you take away the patio and the hot tub pieces,

1307
02:13:30,380 --> 02:13:35,020
you'll be at that 36.5, which is what was allowed in 2003.

1308
02:13:35,900 --> 02:13:38,520
Because those items were added without the approval,

1309
02:13:38,980 --> 02:13:39,780
they went over.

1310
02:13:39,980 --> 02:13:43,100
So what we're trying to do is get back to that 2003 approval,

1311
02:13:44,460 --> 02:13:46,540
because that is what was given

1312
02:13:46,540 --> 02:13:49,840
because of the realization of the planning commission at that time

1313
02:13:49,840 --> 02:13:52,240
that 25% just wasn't feasible.

1314
02:13:53,340 --> 02:13:56,300
So we're essentially saying here,

1315
02:13:56,360 --> 02:13:59,020
they need to go back to that 36, whatever,

1316
02:13:59,740 --> 02:14:00,540
I'm out.

1317
02:14:00,920 --> 02:14:01,280
Sure, John.

1318
02:14:01,540 --> 02:14:05,280
We had a motion and we had a second.

1319
02:14:05,620 --> 02:14:06,460
Do we have a second?

1320
02:14:06,660 --> 02:14:07,140
It's a second.

1321
02:14:07,260 --> 02:14:08,060
We should record it.

1322
02:14:08,820 --> 02:14:11,920
I think we go to vote.

1323
02:14:12,260 --> 02:14:14,220
Mr. Chair, where the second is for clarification?

1324
02:14:15,180 --> 02:14:15,800
It was the second.

1325
02:14:16,200 --> 02:14:17,680
Who did the second?

1326
02:14:18,080 --> 02:14:18,700
I did.

1327
02:14:18,780 --> 02:14:19,560
You took me as a second.

1328
02:14:20,240 --> 02:14:21,380
Because you quickly went to court.

1329
02:14:21,580 --> 02:14:22,320
That's why it wasn't sure.

1330
02:14:22,820 --> 02:14:24,260
You scared me by saying that.

1331
02:14:24,680 --> 02:14:27,200
I wanted to make sure I was the second.

1332
02:14:27,200 --> 02:14:33,800
You were the second. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Chair. Oh, I'll just, I'll just, no more comments. Okay.

1333
02:14:34,340 --> 02:14:38,240
The motion in front of us is to deny those three very.

1334
02:14:39,280 --> 02:14:43,280
We just put up right now. Chair John, I asked for a roll call vote on that.

1335
02:14:43,340 --> 02:14:44,880
Let's do it. Roll call.

1336
02:14:47,260 --> 02:14:47,740
Please

1337
02:14:52,570 --> 02:14:53,710
commissioner, I'm about.

1338
02:14:56,490 --> 02:14:56,970
I

1339
02:14:59,210 --> 02:14:59,950
point point.

1340
02:15:00,000 --> 02:15:06,320
Order, are we doing these by individual 1, 2, and 3, that is now motion that was on the table.

1341
02:15:06,720 --> 02:15:10,500
Now the motion is all three of those items.

1342
02:15:11,720 --> 02:15:13,020
Okay. Commissioner Anderson.

1343
02:15:14,220 --> 02:15:16,320
Aye. Commissioner Cortes.

1344
02:15:16,760 --> 02:15:18,540
Aye. Commissioner Helgen.

1345
02:15:18,920 --> 02:15:23,640
No. Commissioner Solomonson. Aye. Commissioner Westette.

1346
02:15:24,240 --> 02:15:27,100
Aye. Chair John. Aye.

1347
02:15:28,700 --> 02:15:32,760
So motion passes, five to two, two kilos.

1348
02:15:33,500 --> 02:15:35,800
So we still are sitting on one last motion.

1349
02:15:35,980 --> 02:15:36,900
So I'm going to mention a question.

1350
02:15:37,460 --> 02:15:37,880
Yes, thank you.

1351
02:15:38,080 --> 02:15:41,640
I'd like to move to adopt resolution 26, 68,

1352
02:15:41,980 --> 02:15:45,000
approving the 17.9 foot structure setbacks

1353
02:15:45,000 --> 02:15:47,780
admitted by Robert Friedet 804 County Road Eye West

1354
02:15:47,780 --> 02:15:50,620
for the existing deck setback on the property.

1355
02:15:50,840 --> 02:15:53,920
So I'd approval a subject to the four conditions listed

1356
02:15:53,920 --> 02:15:55,120
in the staff report.

1357
02:15:56,380 --> 02:16:02,320
Second, it has been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on this motion?

1358
02:16:02,960 --> 02:16:03,940
Commissioner Helgen.

1359
02:16:04,620 --> 02:16:06,600
This allows the deck for me.

1360
02:16:07,140 --> 02:16:10,520
Yes, that's the intent.

1361
02:16:13,230 --> 02:16:14,750
Seeing no other discussion.

1362
02:16:16,170 --> 02:16:17,090
All those in favor.

1363
02:16:17,570 --> 02:16:19,850
Well, let's just do a roll since we do it.

1364
02:16:21,990 --> 02:16:23,030
Commissioner, are you all about?

1365
02:16:23,210 --> 02:16:24,470
Aye. Commissioner Anderson.

1366
02:16:24,910 --> 02:16:25,090
Aye.

1367
02:16:25,550 --> 02:16:26,190
Commissioner Curtis?

1368
02:16:26,470 --> 02:16:26,770
Aye.

1369
02:16:26,970 --> 02:16:27,590
Commissioner Helgen.

1370
02:16:27,590 --> 02:16:38,910
I. Commissioner of Salonson. I. Commissioner Westett. I. And chair John. I. Motion carries seven zero. Again decisions.

1371
02:16:39,930 --> 02:16:43,770
Bearing it's as our final decisions through the planning commission, but there is a.

1372
02:16:44,270 --> 02:16:48,690
Appeal process of the city council within five business days, if you wish to appeal our decision.

1373
02:16:49,830 --> 02:16:50,990
Thank you.

1374
02:16:50,990 --> 02:17:01,630
So if you wouldn't mind just staying after and addressing with staff on that, we'll just finish up the meeting and then go from there.

1375
02:17:02,890 --> 02:17:07,690
So that takes us to item eight on the agenda. City.

1376
02:17:12,730 --> 02:17:20,530
I was going to wait till miscellaneous for that one.

1377
02:17:21,550 --> 02:17:23,450
Sorry, it's definitely a touchdown call.

1378
02:17:25,110 --> 02:17:30,770
But for the city council assignments, September 8th, which would be a Tuesday would be commissioner

1379
02:17:30,770 --> 02:17:33,570
solimence. And so if there were any appeals to the variances,

1380
02:17:36,470 --> 02:17:37,370
it would either be the eighth

1381
02:17:37,370 --> 02:17:42,250
or the 21st, which would be you. Chair John, we will follow up accordingly, depending on

1382
02:17:42,250 --> 02:17:47,170
notification period on which one we can hit if there is an appeal. Okay.

1383
02:17:50,430 --> 02:17:52,050
And then yes,

1384
02:17:52,650 --> 02:18:00,150
there under miscellaneous, we do have a commissioner who is resigning because they're moving out

1385
02:18:00,150 --> 02:18:11,570
review, so this is their last meeting. And so I do want to take a moment to recognize Commissioner Anderson and thank him for his eight years of service in the planning commission.

1386
02:18:12,630 --> 02:18:16,870
He has been a thoughtful, steady and incredibly valuable number of this commission.

1387
02:18:17,490 --> 02:18:23,470
And he has always brought a calm perspective to discussions as thoughtful questions and genuinely cared about making sure of you a great place.

1388
02:18:23,470 --> 02:18:25,450
his guidance to the conference of planning

1389
02:18:25,450 --> 02:18:28,490
prophesies previously in particular was greatly appreciated.

1390
02:18:28,790 --> 02:18:31,310
And we won't miss him during this upcoming round.

1391
02:18:32,110 --> 02:18:33,810
But we are excited for you in your next chapter.

1392
02:18:35,130 --> 02:18:37,910
And hopefully you do make that curtain call back.

1393
02:18:38,490 --> 02:18:39,470
Yeah, I appreciate that.

1394
02:18:40,130 --> 02:18:40,670
If I may.

1395
02:18:41,390 --> 02:18:45,530
Yeah, so having spent 27 years of my life in this community

1396
02:18:45,530 --> 02:18:46,870
I grew up here.

1397
02:18:47,130 --> 02:18:49,090
As I like to say, and I said many times,

1398
02:18:49,290 --> 02:18:53,410
played in the woods that are now the city city hall.

1399
02:18:53,410 --> 02:18:58,530
and the wonderful park we have over there, probably a lot more engaging than the woods that I played in,

1400
02:18:59,210 --> 02:19:01,670
work with whatever kind of forts we made up back in the day.

1401
02:19:02,790 --> 02:19:09,960
Just really appreciate the professionalism of city staff. I mean, I think you come to

1402
02:19:11,530 --> 02:19:16,430
take it for granted, maybe sometimes, but if you ever have a chance, and I know what we've got

1403
02:19:16,430 --> 02:19:21,810
commissioners that have served in other cities too, take a look at some other cities preceding

1404
02:19:21,810 --> 02:19:27,930
sometimes and just how things are handled and just the, again, the level of detail and just

1405
02:19:27,930 --> 02:19:32,290
skill that we have working within our city here, I really appreciate all that you guys have

1406
02:19:32,290 --> 02:19:37,230
done over the years that I've been on the, on the commission. And the challenge that I had was,

1407
02:19:37,350 --> 02:19:41,130
I said, yeah, obviously, I think one of the, one of the best parts of being on the planning

1408
02:19:41,130 --> 02:19:46,850
commission is going through that compound process. Commissioner Solmensen's been through this will

1409
02:19:46,850 --> 02:19:57,350
of fourth, third. Okay, not quite that far yet. You're apologised for leaving you as the the soul

1410
02:19:58,770 --> 02:19:59,970
person that's been through.

1411
02:20:00,000 --> 02:20:04,100
That process before, but that is, but I really do think that's the fun of seeing on this commission.

1412
02:20:04,240 --> 02:20:08,060
It's really getting to have a see and what this, what this great city looks like in the future.

1413
02:20:09,680 --> 02:20:14,120
And I will miss being a part of that process. I was really looking forward to it.

1414
02:20:15,960 --> 02:20:23,600
Unfortunately, something came up that you could say doomsgrowing real estate sites as a negative consequence.

1415
02:20:24,660 --> 02:20:30,040
sometimes, and this is where I'm feeling that, and by the time the next meeting

1416
02:20:30,040 --> 02:20:34,680
worlds are out, I will no longer be a shortly resident, so I've got to step away and

1417
02:20:34,680 --> 02:20:42,020
what the next great person's up here, and I think all of you for your service, and it's

1418
02:20:42,020 --> 02:20:48,160
been fun to kind of see the commission grow and change over the years, and I think I'm

1419
02:20:48,160 --> 02:20:57,320
walking away with the, with the, with the, with the good hands feeling that, uh, they can come back and retire in place or, uh, not retire in place, uh,

1420
02:20:58,340 --> 02:21:02,160
what's our, what's our, what's our term that we, we've used, uh, agent place.

1421
02:21:03,120 --> 02:21:09,320
Commissioner Dillon will appreciate that. He's always a champion for the agent place. So, you're not commissioner City Council member Dillon.

1422
02:21:09,800 --> 02:21:14,080
But anyways, thank you for all that you've done, and I, uh, it's been a pleasure to serve.

1423
02:21:14,820 --> 02:21:20,340
I just want to say one of the greatest challenges I have sitting in this chair is who I followed.

1424
02:21:21,040 --> 02:21:26,080
I thought you did a really good job sharing the commission and it's been hard to live up to that.

1425
02:21:27,020 --> 02:21:30,100
Not to get too emotional or anything like that, but you're doing a fine job.

1426
02:21:30,360 --> 02:21:32,220
I appreciate you.

1427
02:21:32,760 --> 02:21:34,500
Anybody else have any comments question?

1428
02:21:36,140 --> 02:21:39,700
So that brings us to the end of the meeting.

1429
02:21:40,580 --> 02:21:41,260
Commissioner Westead.

1430
02:21:41,260 --> 02:21:45,140
I moved we adjourned at 921 p.a.

1431
02:21:45,140 --> 02:21:48,680
Second it's been moved in second all in favor say aye.

1432
02:21:48,680 --> 02:21:49,300
Aye. Aye.

1433
02:21:49,760 --> 02:21:50,880
Bose same sign.

1434
02:21:51,920 --> 02:21:52,160
See you now.

1435
02:21:52,420 --> 02:21:54,580
We are adjourned.

1436
02:21:56,040 --> 02:21:56,680
Aye.

1437
02:21:57,080 --> 02:21:57,860
He's beckled.

1438
02:21:58,320 --> 02:21:59,180
That's hard away.

1439
02:21:59,540 --> 02:22:00,640
It's a little ways of it.

1440
02:22:00,960 --> 02:22:01,440
It's a little way.

1441
02:22:01,500 --> 02:22:01,800
It's a little way of it.

1442
02:22:01,800 --> 02:22:02,320
It's a little way of it.

1443
02:22:02,400 --> 02:22:03,760
It's a little way of it.

1444
02:22:05,000 --> 02:22:06,700
It's a little way of it.