[0:00] 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.

[0:13] 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.

[0:22] I will note that Commissioner Helgen is not present at this time.

[0:28] So six of the seven commissioners are here today.

[0:33] So let's move on to the approval of the agenda.

[0:37] In case someone in our audience does not have a copy of our agenda.

[0:41] We have three items of new business tonight.

[0:43] We have a fence height variance request for 75 sunset courts.

[0:47] By Mark Palm Quest, we have a residential design review and variance request for our 559 harbor court.

[0:55] By 580, sure of ULLC.

[0:58] And we also have a variance request for 804, Kanye Road, I West by Robert Fried.

[1:03] Are there any changes to the agenda?

[1:07] Mr. Chair.

[1:08] Mr. Solinson.

[1:09] I'd like to make a motion to prove the agenda for August 22nd as presented.

[1:13] I can't.

[1:13] been moved in second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:18] We'll same sign. We have unanimous approval of the agenda.

[1:25] So let's move on to the minutes from the July 28th, 206 Plan Ecommission.

[1:31] Does any commissioner wish to recommend changes to the minutes?

[1:40] Commissioner Rusted. I moved to approve the minutes as presented.

[1:44] So moved. Second.

[1:45] It's been moved in second all those in favor say aye aye aye.

[1:49] Those same sign once again, unanimous.

[1:54] Okay.

[1:55] Item five, report on city council action.

[1:59] We need development director assistant community development director.

[2:02] I think he held would you please report on city council's action.

[2:05] That is affected the commission.

[2:07] It's past month.

[2:08] Thank you chair.

[2:09] At the August 17th city council meeting the Chipotle comprehensive sign plan

[2:14] at 3333 Rice Street was approved, and that was the only action.

[2:19] Well, got that.

[2:21] Thank you, Ms. Hill.

[2:23] All right, so before we start our items of new business, I'm just going to provide a brief

[2:28] description of our meeting process.

[2:30] For our three items of business tonight, staff will first give a presentation at the conclusion

[2:35] of the presentation, the commission will be able to ask staff questions.

[2:41] Then we will ask for the applicant to come up and make comments, and the commission will then ask questions of the applicant.

[2:51] And then we will have any members of the public that wish to speak on that particular item to come up.

[2:57] 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.

[3:08] For applicants and the public, whenever making a comment is important that you step up to

[3:12] the mic to be heard over the recording, we ask that you give your full name and your address

[3:18] for the record, and we ask that you, we concise and stay on topic.

[3:24] If you need to use the screen, you can do so.

[3:26] There's a mouse, okay, right next to the computer, we prefer you do that rather than turn

[3:30] it point to away from the microphone.

[3:35] Please direct all your comments and questions to the Planning Commission as a general rule we

[3:39] don't want to give into back and forth debates.

[3:44] We also only allow one time to testify we don't want multiple hearing the same thing

[3:49] over and over again.

[3:52] I will note that decisions on variances and residential design reviews are final decisions

[3:57] by the Planning Commission this will move on to the City Council.

[4:00] 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.

[4:13] Well, Harris, you have the presentation.

[4:15] Thank you, Chair John.

[4:16] One item of clarification, the city had noticed for a variance request at 5803 Church Hill, for a driveway with variance.

[4:27] if any of the members of the public are here to speak on behalf of that, that application was

[4:32] pulled after the notice had already been sent out. So, just wanted to provide clarification

[4:37] to anybody who is here to speak on behalf of that. And with that, I will get into the request

[4:44] for 675 Sunset Court. As stated, this is a fence height variance request for the location on the

[4:57] a city rate of weight easement.

[5:00] 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.

[5:26] The property is located within the R1 zoning district.

[5:32] It is a substandard repairion lot due to the lot width of 36.65 feet along Sunset Court.

[5:39] As you can see here in the lower corner of the property, the total lot area is 43,221 square

[5:48] feet with an additional width of 83.69 feet along Turtle Lake.

[5:53] 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.

[6:13] that variance was approved for a lakeside setback variance due to the unique

[6:21] lot shape of the property. The variance request and the staff reports that was

[6:30] attached noted that the setback averaging requirements for the two adjacent

[6:38] properties included this standard non-repairion lot that is located to the east of the property.

[6:48] And therefore, the setback range for the front setback would have been at about 135 to 150 feet

[6:56] thus locating the home up in this northern corner. And thus would have required a setback

[7:05] from the lakeside setback. So, it was a picture poison moment between the front and the lakeside.

[7:12] Ultimately, the homeowners did decide to go with the lakeside variants, which was approved by the Planning Commission.

[7:19] As stated, the lot does border a city right of way easements located on that northern side.

[7:27] A little bit of history with that. This easement is commonly known as domes alley.

[7:34] It was originally plated back in 1916 with a width of 15.5 feet.

[7:41] The city previously had been maintaining and plowing this area, but during the preparation

[7:48] of this report, the streets department and the public works department of the city uncovered

[7:52] a resolution that was passed in 2001, which affected the western 450 feet of this alleyway

[8:03] along this side here. So this resolution was authorized by the property owners of

[8:12] the northern property here and two of the properties up here will get into the specific

[8:18] addresses a little bit later for the visuals, but it's 5059 Lameda 690, Birch Lane South,

[8:26] and 688 Birch Lane South had signed a shared access agreement to maintain this portion of the

[8:32] way, including street repairs and street plowing. So this was done in exchange for the right to use

[8:40] the alleyway for ingress and egress to some detached garages that are located on the southern

[8:45] sides of those properties. Moving forward, the City Public Works Superintendent stated that

[8:51] the residents in this area had been receiving technically free plowing based off of that 2001 agreement.

[8:57] And so the city moving forward will be deferring maintenance to those property owners and no longer be maintaining that area moving forward.

[9:10] So ultimately that stretch of domes alley is going to be maintained to five of those property owners and not the city.

[9:19] the remaining homes along Birch and Sunset to the north up here.

[9:27] Use this lot be or the eastern side of Dolm's alley for kind of a rear yard areas.

[9:38] You standardly would.

[9:40] There's accessories, structures, and landscaping areas that are in close proximity to it.

[9:44] So if this were to be developed at a future date into a city right of way, the width of

[9:54] the easement and some serious impacts to those homeowner.

[10:00] Members would need to be considered if that were to take place. But since 1916, there has been no thought

[10:08] of development past that 450 feet from the agreement that was previously noted.

[10:15] So the proposal

[10:16] from the applicant is to construct a four foot fence along a portion of the property and a six foot fence along

[10:24] that northernmost property that does about the city right of way easement. Currently there is no fence in that

[10:30] area, however the four-foot fence fence of section of fence could be approved

[10:36] administratively and a four-foot fence could be approved administratively

[10:40] in the proposed location of the six-foot fence. However due to section 10765

[10:47] subsection D7B1, any fence that is in any yard adjacent to a public road

[10:56] right of way or road easements may not exceed that four foot height.

[11:02] And so, as you can see on the screen here, this gives a nice visual of what the applicant is looking for.

[11:09] The area in yellow here is going to be where they're proposing the four foot fence.

[11:16] And the six foot fence is going to be as stated located along that easement on the northernmost portion of the property.

[11:23] The

[11:26] variance criteria must meet the three following items.

[11:30] It must be requested in a reasonable manner.

[11:33] The unique circumstance is the property.

[11:37] The play of the property is due to the circumstances that are unique,

[11:41] not created by the homeowner.

[11:44] And the request must maintain the character of the neighborhood.

[11:48] Staff believes that a practical difficulty is present for this request.

[11:53] 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.

[12:05] Staff believes that the owner faces a unique circumstance in this situation, the unutilized

[12:12] easement does create that unique circumstance that inhibits the owner from constructing that

[12:18] six foot fence that would otherwise be allowed in this proposed location should the easement

[12:24] not be located there, and the variants if granted would not alter the the character of the

[12:35] straightively, but the due to the location of the six-foot fence being nearly 200 feet from

[12:43] Sunset Court and about 200 feet from Alameda Street. It wouldn't really negatively impact the

[12:50] neighborhood because it would be very hidden from other surrounding properties as well.

[12:58] Staff sent notice to property owners within 150 feet of the property. One comment was received

[13:06] in opposition, and that comment was included in your packets this evening.

[13:12] But ultimately, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26-66,

[13:19] proving the variance submitted by Mark Pompquist for this six foot privacy fence that

[13:25] abuts a city right of way, easement subject to the conditions outlined in the resolution.

[13:30] And with that, I will stand for questions.

[13:32] Thank you, Mr. Harris.

[13:33] Commissioner.

[13:34] What's your homeathon?

[13:36] Thanks.

[13:37] So, when I'm looking at the picture with the orange outline of the property,

[13:45] yeah, that one worked.

[13:49] So, Alameda Avenue, where Alameda Street behind it, there comes out and then that turns into the future shared alleyway, essentially.

[14:00] correct. So, Alameda Street provides access to there's three homes that are located. Let's go back to the aerial.

[14:12] 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.

[14:27] And then that small portion right here that starts going eastward off of Elameda, that is the alleyway.

[14:38] That's in question.

[14:39] And then those houses there, their driveways come out to that alleyway?

[14:45] Yes.

[14:45] So there are three properties that

[14:54] are visual of it.

[14:55] But yes, there are three properties, two of which that are along.

[14:59] virtually insane.

[15:00] Now here, that have rear garages that receive access off of that alleyway.

[15:07] Do we know if there are, there are driveways go out to bird street by chance or no, just

[15:13] had a curiosity? Like a, like a path through, if you will, driveway. All the way through

[15:20] the property, that I do not believe so and go. However, I'm not sure if they have an additional

[15:27] front facing garage where they can have access off of birch and off of Dylan's

[15:32] out of the way.

[15:35] Mr. Sonson?

[15:37] Mr. Chair.

[15:39] I guess the question I have is with Dylan's alley, the 450 feet, in terms of the proximity

[15:45] of the drawing, where the four foot and the six foot fence are being proposed, how far does

[15:51] that go right? 450 feet that you were talking about early?

[15:54] How many does it go basically to the edge of the six foot fence, the corner of the property?

[16:02] Yes, that alleyway is going to extend to right about.

[16:07] I would say it would probably be like 15 feet in of where that six foot fence is proposed, so just slightly in there.

[16:18] 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.

[16:30] And then could you comment some more about the snow removal?

[16:33] So the part that the city's not going to be removing is 450 feet, but were they actually maintaining the alleyway?

[16:40] So the city had been the public works department had been maintaining and plowing this area

[16:46] and after speaking with our public works director about some concerns with putting

[16:53] events along such a small portion of alley and some potential liability that the city

[17:01] would have with plowing in that area and whatnot.

[17:05] There was some comments made about that, but the city engineer was the one who originally

[17:16] was sent this document by the public works superintendent that just states that the city

[17:23] is not responsible for the snow maintenance for this area, so that it takes liability away

[17:30] from the city to potentially damage a fence in this location

[17:36] and that potential is now kind of the onus is placed

[17:40] along for those homeowners.

[17:41] I guess I'm seeing the whole alleyway all the way out to the east

[17:44] is not going to be correct.

[17:47] The alleyway don'ts alleys not going to be

[17:50] allowed by the city.

[17:51] The whole thing.

[17:54] And are there any other fences on don'ts alleys?

[17:57] currently. To my knowledge, no, I do not believe that 59 has one and I do not believe because

[18:14] of the access that these properties receive off of the alleyway on the backside that either

[18:21] six, nine, zero or six, eight, eight have an offense, but that might be a question for the

[18:29] homeowner as well to see if there are any adjacent fences in the area.

[18:36] Okay, thanks.

[18:37] I'm sure I understand.

[18:38] Thank you.

[18:39] Just a couple of questions.

[18:39] If I might.

[18:41] Just for clarification purposes, the Jones Alley ends effectively, the paid service ends,

[18:48] where we see the kind of salt denorth shedding, right there, correction.

[18:53] So the easement continues, but there is no improved alley per se pass that point.

[18:59] And then if you could just sort of reason the same page here.

[19:01] If you could speak to fence placement requirements along property lines, just in general,

[19:07] and if they differ at all from being along an easement.

[19:10] they would not. The fence needs to be located wholly within the homeowner's property lines.

[19:18] And that would be inspected by city staff after the permit and installation had taken place.

[19:24] Thank you.

[19:28] Any other questions?

[19:29] Thank you, Mr. Harris.

[19:31] Thank you.

[19:32] And if the property owner applicant is in the audience if they like to come up and address the commission.

[19:39] Please remember to state your name and address once again.

[19:45] My name is Mark Pompquist and I reside at 675 since I've caught the application variants.

[19:56] I don't have a lot to add to it.

[20:00] 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.

[20:23] And we've even had two circumstances of vehicles actually driving all the way across our yard to go to Sunset Court.

[20:33] And we have multiple e-bikes bicycles that come across.

[20:40] 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.

[20:49] This is a property you had mentioned that was the home was built in 2019.

[20:57] It was a former resort area that had been, I'm not going to say abandoned, but was bought.

[21:08] And so it was an open property that I think a lot of people started to just use it as an

[21:15] access to get across to sunset court.

[21:17] And so we're trying to help define the border lines of our property and also stop the direct access going across the property.

[21:33] That's one of the main things we want to do.

[21:35] The reason for this six-foot variance is there is that alleyway actually goes up a hill.

[21:43] 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.

[21:58] 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?

[22:08] 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.

[22:18] Certainly gives more privacy to the people that have the garages and their driveways on the back.

[22:27] That that extra two feet we just won't be able to see that and vice versa.

[22:32] They wouldn't be showing in our property as well as the headlights as they're driving in and driving back out.

[22:42] But the main issue is just trying to kind of define their property lines so we don't have vehicles going into our property.

[22:51] I'm just going to say that Commissioner Helogen has joined us as a note.

[22:58] 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

[23:26] that comes up and peaks right about let's say I look at that home this next

[23:33] may probably peaks right about here is where that peaks and so being able at

[23:39] that point they they've come up this close and a little bit before they hit

[23:45] the other two properties here because there they are up on top and so then

[23:51] would stop them from coming up all the way up here. And that's the reason we're having that six

[23:57] foot fence. The alleyway itself ends, sorry, I keep hitting the right click. The property or the

[24:08] alleyway ends right about here,

[24:14] right about here, right along that property line of the between

[24:19] to different homes and so what they're doing is they're coming in and they're turning around

[24:26] here or they're coming in and then driving across to get the sunset court or in the case

[24:33] of the e-bikes. They're and my neighbor that lives back here they're coming down his driveway

[24:39] and then driving across and on to my property and then on to sunset court. Thank you. Does anybody

[24:48] any questions for Mr. Paul and Quest? Mr. Chair. Mr. Paul and Quest. Could you comment about

[24:55] when I look at it? It sounds like I bet.

[25:00] Anything you're trying to actually discourage is cut through of traffic or pedestrians, bikes, things like that.

[25:08] 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.

[25:17] 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.

[25:27] Could you explain why?

[25:30] Yeah, so the forefoot, we're putting on the diagonal right here.

[25:34] Yes.

[25:34] Now it's really more acknowledgment for our neighbor.

[25:37] Okay.

[25:37] Behind is really what that was.

[25:41] And most of the traffic that we're getting is once people come up the hill

[25:44] and they're that far.

[25:46] Then they're coming across actually where the six foot fence would come in.

[25:51] And we're also seeing more, more of the e-bikes coming across farther up, even past the alleyway.

[26:01] That vents in crescent.

[26:03] So the forefoot was really more about consideration for the neighbor that has a home.

[26:11] Very difficult to see it, but he actually has a home right down.

[26:15] right up next to our property, this is his home and he comes right right up here and you can

[26:23] see he parks his boat two boats that he has right there but that sits because he's flattened it.

[26:33] It sits lower than where that hill comes up and so we just put a four foot in there because it

[26:41] 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

[26:50] One quick follow-up question is what the forefoot on don's Ellie accomplish

[26:55] The goal that you're looking for

[26:57] Well, it will accomplish part

[27:00] Okay

[27:02] 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

[27:09] Thanks

[27:12] Anybody else have a question, Mr. PalmQuest? Thank you, Mr. PalmQuest.

[27:16] 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.

[27:25] Okay, seeing none. Let's bring this back to the Planning Commission.

[27:31] Comments. Mr. Chair.

[27:33] Mr. Sonson.

[27:34] I believe staff correct me if I'm wrong, but a four foot fence could be placed here with administrative approval.

[27:41] I believe without a variance request or obviously with the four-foot's being proposed and along the six-foot area.

[27:49] Correct.

[27:54] I'm kind of wrestling.

[27:56] I understand the concern.

[27:59] It's unfortunate that traffic kind of gets dead ended.

[28:02] I'm not sure what it does when someone's kind of going up that area and the driveway.

[28:07] I mean, it's pretty narrow, so I would think be kind of difficult for traffic or someone

[28:13] that kind of got lost in a neighborhood, how to figure out how to turn around.

[28:21] I think just from a standpoint, I think it's reasonable to try and minimize cut-through traffic.

[28:26] I think that makes sense.

[28:29] I think there were some letters we got though that there were some concerns about access to the driveway

[28:33] if the fence is too tall and too close to a very narrow alleyway. So I do have concerns about that,

[28:41] but at the same time, four foot could go in there without any decision from us right on that line.

[28:49] I would agree with that commissioner Anderson.

[28:51] Yeah, I'm torn too, I guess. On the one hand,

[28:57] four foot's allowable. I get the point

[29:00] to the six-foot fence, it's easy to hop a four-foot fence theoretically.

[29:05] I struggle a little bit with the fact that I'm not sure that, is it a body that we should

[29:12] be dictating or helping prevent trespassing that's more of a criminal offense or

[29:19] it's more of a police situation than anything else I would imagine,

[29:25] but part of me goes back

[29:26] fourth on it though when you have a four foot fence that's adjacent to the six foot fence

[29:30] dude just walk over and hop the four foot portion of the fence and I get the fact that

[29:36] probably kids, kids will do what they're going to do, right? But to Commissioner Salmond since

[29:42] point though whether it's four or six feet as far as the comment that we received,

[29:47] it doesn't make really any difference the fence can go in there. So although it could make that

[29:52] way tight, I don't see the height being a difference or an issue, but the part that I struggle

[29:59] with is I.

[30:00] 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.

[30:17] 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,

[30:28] 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

[30:36] So but head if this easement were to go further down that or if they're all ready to go further down the easement

[30:42] Do you have an issue where now you got a six foot fence next to something that's been improved?

[30:48] So

[30:51] Commissioner Cortis

[30:53] So I think the one you know, because

[30:56] whether it's

[30:58] six or four feet I mean I a I certainly

[31:02] hope the applicant will have a conversation with with the people who back out into that

[31:08] alleying and see if there is a way to make sure that they can leave their garage.

[31:12] I don't know if the city council can do anything about that in requirements here or not.

[31:18] I don't think we can. I'm aware of but I certainly think if this is fence four or six is going

[31:25] bar people from entering or exiting their garages,

[31:30] that would make for very bad neighbors in

[31:33] your backyard that I would not want to have and I would strongly hope some conversations

[31:38] could be had that could maybe fix that. The part I struggle with on this variance is actually

[31:44] criterion number three the character of the neighborhood because nobody else has a fence there.

[31:48] This is used for this road, these houses have this access, and suddenly, whether it's a forefoot

[31:56] fence is what's allowable, but then going another two feet at the top of the hill, so the neighbor's house

[32:02] goes from seeing some of it at forefeet to now seeing nothing at six feet. The house is across the street,

[32:08] blocked by the six foot. It seems to change the neighborhood to go even in other two feet.

[32:16] especially if it is, in fact, the top of a hill as it's going up. So I think there's some

[32:24] consideration there. I don't know that I'm going to vote no just based on that, frankly,

[32:29] but it is the one section where I am kind of concerned about drawing that line.

[32:35] I'm sure I'm on. So I'm going to sort of, of course, bring up some

[32:39] good points. I would say where I stand is, like, well, have said already, it's a four or six

[32:47] what's fence is not going to prevent someone from backing out of the driveway, although

[32:50] I recognize the concern of the other homeowner. I think if the applicant wants to have

[32:55] a six foot fence there, I think he's provided reasonable burden, in my opinion, someone's driving

[33:03] through my yard to get to the other side of the street or e-bikes going through. I would

[33:08] like that myself. So I'm inclined to vote, yes, on this. Mr. Chair.

[33:16] Mr. Salmond, I have another question for staff. The easement that was

[33:20] what? Plattered in 1915, a long time ago. Are there any, is there anything

[33:26] of city interest in that easement currently?

[33:32] And could I think that what's

[33:34] it before is the fact that the six foot fence is required because it's next to it.

[33:38] I mean, it can't be more in for because it's next to a right away.

[33:43] Yes.

[33:44] Yes.

[33:44] And so if that easement, if that right away wasn't there, they could put a six-foot fence up

[33:51] right and I was just kind of curious if anyone's ever thought about abandoning the right

[33:59] away.

[34:01] Because it's functioning basically as a driveway currently.

[34:05] Yes.

[34:06] And I think that goes back to the maintenance agreement that was signed in 2001.

[34:14] The city doesn't want to accept the liability for plowing and maintaining such a small stretch of alleyway.

[34:24] 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.

[34:32] So, with that, I would say no, there really isn't a desire for the city to pursue that at this moment.

[34:44] It was just a thought as to a way that would remedy that, because in a six-foot fence would be allowed.

[34:51] Can you show us that when it comes to shares?

[34:54] I'm in favor of the six-foot fence.

[34:57] The reasons I believe that this...

[35:00] 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.

[35:16] Does not seem that there's any desire to have.

[35:20] 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.

[35:36] typical alley fences are six feet high so I feel that this is within

[35:43] reason and both of the properties on birch do have parking aka turning around

[35:50] areas in the front of their houses so there's I don't really understand why

[35:55] there's any vehicle going down that far to deliver a package or anything

[36:01] anyways so I feel this is a reasonable request it meets the three criteria in my

[36:07] And I'll be voting yes.

[36:09] Mr. Anderson.

[36:11] Yeah.

[36:11] Thank you.

[36:11] I'm just going to thank you Mr. Chairman.

[36:13] I'll pick you back.

[36:13] Maybe just a question on Mr. Solamitz's question.

[36:19] So the portion of the easement that is unimproved.

[36:22] Is there a process by which and I guess would it be the city that would

[36:26] initiate it? Would it be homeowners would initiate it to actually

[36:30] request the vacation of that or of an amendment of that easement?

[36:35] Yeah, Commissioner Anderson, so adjacent property owners are an adjacent property owner,

[36:41] 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.

[36:53] 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.

[37:02] Right. And I guess we're going with as if that a lot of ifs and thens, but if that were to happen,

[37:07] that was vacated became property owned by those property owners along that that easement.

[37:13] A six foot fence would be permissible on the unapproved portion of this. That's correct.

[37:19] Correct. Okay. Thank you.

[37:21] I'm just going to court this.

[37:24] I'm not going to. I don't think we need to dive into these hypothetical things further.

[37:29] I'm going to make the motion. Thank you.

[37:34] Actually, if somebody else could, because closed on me by accident, sorry.

[37:38] I will.

[37:39] You should rest up.

[37:40] You can help me out.

[37:41] The second part of their court is okay.

[37:43] To adopt motion to adopt resolution 2666 approving the variance application submitted by Mark

[37:49] Palmquist.

[37:50] 675 sunset court for six foot tall privacy fence that abuts a city road easement.

[37:56] Set approval a subject to the three conditions listed in the report.

[38:01] 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.

[38:29] Thank you,

[38:34] Mr. Chair.

[38:36] 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.

[38:45] The applicant, 580 LLC joins us along with members of Wooddale Builders to speak on the request for the applicant.

[38:54] So just to get our bearings here, we're looking at the 559 Harbour Court property that's located within the harbour shores development.

[39:05] It's one of the first repairing lots or lake lots on the north of the curve of harbour court.

[39:14] This is just to the south of the joint access beach lot.

[39:20] And it's the, from the time of the development's construction, this is the second repairing

[39:26] lot that the city has received building plans for. So, it is located within the R1 detached

[39:33] residential zoning district. So, members of the commission that were here at the time will recall

[39:39] portion of the harbour shores development was located within a PUD, the interior lots,

[39:45] the northern portion of the development and that interior and loop of Harbor Court along with some properties that used to

[39:53] Harbor Court. The lake lots were straight R1 zoning within the city shore.

[40:01] 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.

[40:26] Again, it was plated with the harbour shore's development at the time of its consideration and the plats consideration.

[40:34] This is one of two lots that was considered with a variance request to permit that reduced front line width.

[40:43] So at that time, the Plain of Commission considered it, there was a denial.

[40:49] 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

[41:19] the city and DNR defines a bluff, but it does contain a steep slope.

[41:24] So the concern at that time was if the roadway was pushed to the west with the platt that

[41:33] the billable area and the location of that road would be located on a steeper slope requiring

[41:40] more site impacts and there's a practical difficulty in actually constructing it.

[41:45] 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.

[42:12] 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.

[42:22] So, this property is located within the shore land district in the R1 district. It's within a general development water slick snail lake.

[42:32] So, what we're referring to here is it is standard and it's with as measured at the ordinary

[42:42] high water line of snail lake. So it's 110 feet. There's a three width requirements of the location

[42:50] at the lake. The buildable pad, which is approximately here, is a 50 feet off of snail lake.

[42:56] That ordinary high water line setback, where it's just over 100 feet. And then again,

[43:02] the curvature of the road where that front property line meets the harbour court right of

[43:07] way that 82.24 feet.

[43:13] So the applicants this evening are proposing to construct a

[43:16] 2,922 square foot single-family home on the lot containing, you know, a touch garage,

[43:23] a standard home layout on the property. The commission knows that residential design or a view

[43:32] is required for the construction of new homes on substandard

[43:35] repairing lots, and through the proposal,

[43:39] there is a variance-deception 115-15-15-B3B for height of 43 feet,

[43:47] 10 inches, which is greater than the 35th,

[43:50] but height maximum permitted, which is measured

[43:52] from the lowest finish grade to the highest peak of the roof.

[43:56] So on the screen here is the kind of elevation plan

[44:01] of the proposed house along with a rendering.

[44:04] So you can see on the front side of the property

[44:06] it is a two-story walkout home, with access to our record,

[44:13] and then the half walkout basement at the lower level

[44:18] of the rear basing snail lake.

[44:24] The proposed location of the house

[44:26] is centered off the curvature of our record here.

[44:30] So, the front setback is about just over 36 or just under 36 feet from the front property line.

[44:41] 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.

[44:53] There is no setback averaging, which has been a conversation through many of our substandard reviews.

[45:00] In recent months, simply, by fact, that there's no adjacent homes here. In fact, that outlaw A was

[45:07] planted as a joint access lot for shared access for the interior property owners to have shared

[45:16] access to snail lake. In terms of our typical requirements within a substandard lot, the application

[45:28] and the proposal does meet and exceed those standards in most aspects, in terms of lock coverage.

[45:35] It's underneath the 25% maximum requirement. They're proposing 17.9% of the lot area.

[45:44] In terms of foundation area, it is well below the maximum. It's a large part because it is a larger lot.

[45:52] and and exceeds our or minimums and in that regard.

[45:58] The proposed attach garage is under the 1,000 square feet permitted.

[46:03] Then again, the front set backs are met and exceeded on all all sides.

[46:10] The building height is shown at 43 feet, 10 inches, what is permitted on the property is 35 feet.

[46:20] Going through that, so the city code does provide a two-part definition for building height.

[46:29] I'll spare you the full reading of the first height requirement, but it effectively says for the measurement requirement for different roof types.

[46:41] In most cases, in the city of Shoreview, we're talking about a pitch to roof on most residential properties.

[46:50] 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.

[46:59] The height requirement is effective from that front finish grade to the median height of a pitch to roof.

[47:09] So, shown in the, some of the application material, this is accurate. It's on a typical height review for a building permit.

[47:17] We're looking from the front elevation to the midpoint of the highest roof pitch.

[47:24] 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.

[47:37] So, in most cases, on a lake property that lowest finished grade, just by virtue of grade

[47:44] towards a lake, this is going on the lake side.

[47:51] It should know the application does propose to exceed that, so you can kind of see that

[47:55] difference of what would be a standard measurement at 28 feet or just over on the front elevation.

[48:04] And then again, 43 feet, 10 inches from that lowest finished grade on the rear lake side of

[48:09] property of the tallest picture of the roof.

[48:12] There's a plan of commission is aware when reviewing variance applications, the three

[48:17] part tests that the property owner uses to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted

[48:22] by code, that there are unique circumstances and the plate of the property owner's due to

[48:27] circumstances unique to the property not created by the property previous property owner's

[48:32] And lastly, the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely impacted.

[48:39] When reviewing the request, staff took a long look at this application.

[48:47] So in terms of reasonable manner, staff does believe that the proposed use of the property

[48:51] is a reasonable use of the site.

[48:55] The application does propose the constructing of family home, which is permitted within the district.

[49:01] 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.

[49:18] In terms of unique circumstances,

[49:22] when looking at the slope and the grade of the site and

[49:28] that interplay with the required front setback zone, which is a 25 foot minimum and 40 foot

[49:35] maximum, the property does contain a steep slope, which is consistent with the historic

[49:42] grade of the property. The the the Herbert court portion of the grade is is very similar to what was present

[49:54] previously. In fact, this lot contained the Northern.

[50:00] Foundation, extent of the Union Gospel, mission building itself. So that largely remained unchanged. The installation of the wall

[50:11] raised the elevation a bit, but as you can see from the Herbert Court right of way, almost instantly,

[50:18] in just outside of that front setback zone, the gray drops eight to ten feet rather rapidly

[50:25] towards the buildable pad of the house.

[50:29] So, that grade change and drop is really proportional

[50:33] to the request that the applicant is proposing this evening,

[50:39] where they're in excess just over 8 feet or 8.86 feet,

[50:45] which is proportional to the grade change observed on the site.

[50:48] There has been evaluation of alternatives in part, whether great could be adjusted or altered through

[51:01] reduced rup height or stories, either way there would have to be there is some degree of fill that is required.

[51:11] In staff's review, the proposed application seeks to introduce the least amount of fill,

[51:19] lakeside of the house or kind of within those sensitive shoreland areas. So alternatively the

[51:26] application applicant has considered filling and leveling the site to achieve a similar house form

[51:33] that would require about 1,500 cubic yards of fill and additional retaining wall for largely a

[51:42] similar product. One of the kind of push pulls and the minimum grading or fill that would be

[51:48] required on the site, we'd be to raise the foundation, particularly the driveway, to have

[51:56] a pitch away from the entrance to the garage and from house to street to, you know,

[52:05] since storm water in large part from the front of the house towards the storm water system,

[52:10] that was installed with the development.

[52:12] 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.

[52:34] And that there would largely be additional impacts resulting from that to adjacent properties.

[52:40] 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.

[53:02] You know most fall within that 26 to 29 feet standard lot height measurement and are around

[53:13] 40 to 44 feet if they were measured from the rear of the house.

[53:18] So the proposed elevation plans do not appear as though they would be outside of the character

[53:24] of the neighborhood within the Harvard Schroer's development.

[53:27] 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.

[53:40] 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.

[53:57] and inches with conditions as outlined within my report.

[54:01] And with that, Mr. Chair, I will stand for questions.

[54:05] Thank you, Mr. Petersen.

[54:07] Mr. Salmondson?

[54:08] Mr. Chair.

[54:10] Mr. Petersen, could you comment?

[54:13] I know it's been a while, I should remember this,

[54:17] but are there other substandard preparing lots

[54:21] along in this development?

[54:22] There is one additional substandard repairing a lot within the development that had a similar

[54:30] condition that's of 548 Harbor Court, sort of a lot of 5, I believe, so that does have the same

[54:41] restriction imposed, I would say, and I have to speak for the applicant that there is concern

[54:47] about the viability of achieving the height requirement on that lot, and there's some discussion

[54:53] on whether the commission would consider a request for that, staff's response was that.

[55:00] 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.

[55:30] I looked similar adjacent to it, I would have think.

[55:33] That is correct, Commissioner Salman.

[55:35] So this is the other repairing lot

[55:38] that is a standard lot that is under construction

[55:40] and has had a building permit issued.

[55:43] OK, thanks.

[55:46] Commissioner Anderson.

[55:46] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[55:48] Mr. President, so if you could pull the diagram back up

[55:51] of the fill example, just fully understanding this.

[55:56] So in that fill example, effectively, what we're saying

[55:58] is the back side of the house, the lakes side of the house,

[56:01] would no longer have a walk out.

[56:03] In that example, is that correct?

[56:04] But otherwise, would be designed similarly.

[56:08] So more or less, choosing a home design that meets this lot.

[56:13] So it would be a look out home rather than any walk out.

[56:17] All right.

[56:17] Thank you.

[56:19] Commissioner, I'm in bond.

[56:20] One clarification, I'm going to make sure

[56:22] But the top one, that wouldn't be at the 43 feet, 10 inches. Correct? Or would it?

[56:34] 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.

[56:42] 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.

[56:59] And so, very similar in style and overall height,

[57:06] but as a result of raising the grade with

[57:09] fill, that measurement of the back would be within that.

[57:18] Mr. Chair, you sure saw a follow up question, so the geometry, maybe it's just because

[57:23] it's not a square, it's hard to really tell, but it's the width of this lot, changing is

[57:28] gets towards the lake and at what point what is considered a legal with and so what part

[57:34] of the house would probably be and what I would call the proper with. What would there be

[57:40] a part of the house that would be and what I would call an approved with for a standard lot.

[57:46] Yeah, so a Christian Commissioner of Solvents and so the geometry of the lie, if you look

[57:51] from this northern point and the southern point,

[57:55] it flares out and gets wider a little bit as it goes

[57:59] from here to here,

[58:01] and the applicant provided a diagram.

[58:04] It's a hundred feet right here,

[58:07] effectively at the building pad for the house.

[58:10] It's that location right on Harbor Court

[58:14] where there's a reduced width.

[58:17] At that time of the development consideration,

[58:20] And there is, there's thought given to do you pull that

[58:25] Harbor Court curvature for their inward into the property,

[58:29] to achieve the minimum width or not.

[58:32] Of variants was considered and ultimately approved

[58:35] that favored pulling it away from the steepness

[58:39] of the property as a result of the grade,

[58:45] instead of having a standard lot right there.

[58:48] So that's why the lot was created

[58:49] as it is as it exists today. So maybe clarify, where is the restriction restrictive with?

[58:55] I just want to make sure I understand that. It's just this front property. Just that area there,

[59:00] but the width of the lot in general, is much wider. Great. Okay. That helps. Thanks.

[59:09] Anybody else have any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

[59:15] If the applicant's audience would like to end up

[59:22] and address the commission, please remember

[59:24] to give your name and address the record.

[59:29] Thank you chair and members of the commission for evaluating this request.

[59:33] My name is Bob Mozier.

[59:34] My address is 1986 pre-stirling Hudson, Wisconsin, although long time sure we residents, my

[59:41] younger years and currently office in sure of you, so I'm very familiar with the area

[59:44] and appreciate how you've done.

[59:47] 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.

[59:57] I have a question for you. Why not just lower the rate?

[1:00:00] 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.

[1:00:12] But just so you know, would deal builders is the it's was a builder in this neighborhood.

[1:00:17] And one reason, an individual builder was selected was their equality builder who build

[1:00:27] consistently architecturally consistent structure with the neighborhood to make it very attractive.

[1:00:33] As an example of that, I will go through and show some of the things that

[1:00:39] that's written for some perspective drawings here.

[1:00:41] Here we go.

[1:00:45] Okay, I guess here is one here.

[1:00:47] Maybe I'll answer that in two ways. Number one is there is a steeper pitch on the front

[1:00:52] to make it architecturally consistent with others in the neighborhood, but this pitch for the

[1:00:58] second story here is reduced substantially to try to keep the height down as much as possible.

[1:01:05] So, you aesthetically, and achieve the look of any herewood with a front gavels, but on the main

[1:01:10] part of the house, it has been reduced, but it's somewhat obscured by the architectural design here.

[1:01:16] So now if you were to go to a home built on,

[1:01:25] let's see here,

[1:01:26] I'll get my, here we go.

[1:01:29] This is a home built currently being built on lot seven, right?

[1:01:33] Next door, the subject properties on lot eight.

[1:01:36] And this is actually a one story home.

[1:01:38] And as you will see, the, on the next page,

[1:01:44] if the height for this structure were determined based on the same criteria

[1:01:48] is being used by the home proposed for a lot of eight.

[1:01:52] This home would be 42 feet high.

[1:01:55] It's compared to just over 43 feet for the subject property.

[1:01:59] And there again, that's due in large part to the architecture

[1:02:03] that's being integrated into all the designs

[1:02:06] for the homes in the neighborhood.

[1:02:09] Even the villa is in that neighborhood.

[1:02:11] And I have an example here.

[1:02:16] So here's a villa here that's built on one of the

[1:02:20] interior lots. There again if you look at the height calculation for that one is 41 and

[1:02:26] 93 quarter inches. From a standard lot calculation, it's only 21 feet tall. But there

[1:02:34] again that I get the important aspect of bringing this up is that for the villas and the

[1:02:39] single family homes to all be consistent in nature, which as I know is something very important

[1:02:45] part of any exclusive development like this, that's exactly why we're also, we don't want

[1:02:50] to come to one lot of potentially two and have something that's totally architecturally inconsistent.

[1:02:57] So there again is the character that a neighborhood criteria that we feel justifies asking for

[1:03:03] this variance. Thank you. Any other questions from Mr. Mosher?

[1:03:12] Thank you. Thank you very much.

[1:03:14] Let's move to the public, if in the public has any comments or questions, please come to the podium.

[1:03:22] Your name and address for the record.

[1:03:26] 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.

[1:03:41] 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.

[1:03:55] So the protected bluff is a huge chunk of the property, and yet still they were able to build a house with reasonable size.

[1:04:05] our house is 3700 square feet without requesting height variance. Instead with this property,

[1:04:19] this particular parcel, alterations have been constantly requested for this. So first they

[1:04:29] You've made it a sub-standard lot because otherwise, they'd have to remove one lot from

[1:04:38] the mix, and that would not be financially profitable.

[1:04:47] So they got that variance approved, understanding that there are things that go along

[1:04:54] with having a substandard lot, that might not make it easy for them to.

[1:05:00] 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,

[1:05:13] 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

[1:05:27] 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

[1:05:44] cut down all 29 trees on the lot between where the retaining wall is and the upper

[1:05:56] and the roadway, the circle roadway.

[1:06:00] So all those trees went away.

[1:06:02] So now, of course, they have this strange cross section.

[1:06:10] And for no good reason at all, they want to have this really tall house.

[1:06:16] And they say, well, on the front, it would blend in with the rest of the neighborhood.

[1:06:23] and that is the case. But on the public water side, this is like the same visual impact as a

[1:06:37] four-story high home with a flat roof. It's massive, and because they remove the trees,

[1:06:45] there are only some trees down by the water, which is quite a bit down the slope. And so

[1:06:51] So much of that house is going to be visible to people

[1:06:56] recreating on the public lake.

[1:06:59] And it's out of character with the rest of the homes

[1:07:03] on the lake in that respect.

[1:07:07] And all these things are caused by the property owner.

[1:07:10] These aren't unusual circumstances

[1:07:13] that made the property owner a victim of circumstances.

[1:07:19] 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.

[1:07:40] The setbacks are large on the front setbacks and the side setbacks are much more than the minimum.

[1:07:48] And so they could move the house forward and then they wouldn't have to deal as much with the slope in the back.

[1:07:57] 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.

[1:08:07] So I think that it doesn't meet all the criteria that is required for to allow a variance.

[1:08:18] especially that out of character view that people will see from the lake side.

[1:08:26] And for that reason, I would ask you to not allow this variance,

[1:08:31] and have the builder go back and figure something else out.

[1:08:37] Thank you.

[1:08:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:08:40] Anybody else?

[1:08:41] I,

[1:08:49] my name is Lee Erksen.

[1:08:51] I live at 260, Westerwood Heights Drive in New Brighton,

[1:08:55] soon to be a homeowner in this development.

[1:08:58] In fact, I think that top picture may be the home that's being built for me right now at 588 Harbor Court.

[1:09:06] 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

[1:09:18] have that house in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harrison.

[1:09:32] Good evening, everybody.

[1:09:34] My name is Steve Walsh. I live currently live at 18 Make-and-Lane in North Oaks. I am also

[1:09:40] the future homeowner of the adjacent lot to the various requested lot of seven that

[1:09:47] or so be 555 Harbor Court, originally a short-view resident back in the 70s, when my

[1:09:54] parents moved to South Birch Lane, and I bring back Dome's Alley that was a lot of...

[1:10:00] 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.

[1:10:28] You know, one of the things that attracted me to the community, as you look at a, you know,

[1:10:34] Metro Lake and, and, you know, obviously, a high demand for those types of properties, you know,

[1:10:42] typically you'd go into a community and maybe tear down a lot and build something new, but this community

[1:10:48] offered brand new home sites beautiful, you know, homes. Obviously very good builder. And the

[1:10:59] steep roofs that lead to the height of these buildings certainly aesthetically pleasing and

[1:11:06] modern construction and for me and my wife looking at a community of homes like this of

[1:11:18] is certainly something that we wanted to be part of.

[1:11:22] You know, I tell all I'll say, and I would certainly support the variance as it was shown on the slide.

[1:11:29] My home is basically with a standard lot at that 42 to 43 foot height.

[1:11:36] So I don't want to have a neighbor necessarily with the architectural design that's dramatically different than mine.

[1:11:43] Thank you for your time.

[1:11:44] Thank you, Ms. Rush.

[1:11:45] And

[1:11:55] 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.

[1:12:09] 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.

[1:12:21] So I really have to say thanks.

[1:12:23] Thank you, Mr. Jones.

[1:12:28] Okay.

[1:12:29] Well, seeing nobody else, let's bring it back to the commission.

[1:12:35] Commissioner Salmondson.

[1:12:36] Yeah, Mr. Chair, I...

[1:12:38] When I look at this, at least when I just consider the lake view,

[1:12:43] and no one's going to see how narrow the street is,

[1:12:46] and we're talking with 100 feet with a lot of,

[1:12:49] essentially 25,000 square feet.

[1:12:51] It's a half an acre, it's generous.

[1:12:53] And the width, the only time it really comes into play,

[1:12:56] is on the street side, otherwise the width is empty, pretty much more than exceeding the standard

[1:13:04] lot. So from the lake side, I do tend to agree that the character of the neighborhood you could have.

[1:13:13] I think from the lake and having the houses be similar is a reasonable request and I think the

[1:13:20] uniqueness here is because of that little piece of strip on the front of the street and seems to

[1:13:27] It's hard to use that as a reason to deny this kind of request.

[1:13:30] I think it's more important to have consistent houses from the Lakeview next to each other.

[1:13:38] And like I said, these lots aren't small.

[1:13:40] This is a big lot, 25,000 square feet.

[1:13:44] So I'd say that basically I think this is a realistic request.

[1:13:50] And it's kind of, it's one of those things with math problems,

[1:13:53] because you have a front edge that basically goes up and cuts over and that little hundred foot

[1:13:58] makes it a non-meats the definition of non-standard. But when I look at this lot, it sure looks

[1:14:05] standard to me in terms of size and scope. And when you put in that definition of determining height

[1:14:12] half full row-fight versus half, it's kind of a, it's definitely a disadvantage to apply that standard

[1:14:20] to this lot.

[1:14:23] So I would be in support of the variance?

[1:14:25] Commissioner Anderson.

[1:14:27] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:14:28] Yeah, so I apparently am conflicted with everything tonight.

[1:14:32] So I was a part of the process of this original proposal as a planning

[1:14:37] commission member, and to Ms. Friedman's point, you know, part of what Bob is

[1:14:44] a little bit here is that there was a request basically to have an extra lot around this loop.

[1:14:52] And now because of that we have a substandard lot and because of that we've got kind of

[1:14:56] what's before us here to Commissioner Solomon's point.

[1:15:00] 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.

[1:15:10] 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.

[1:15:19] So I think what we're seeing on paper, to me is a distinction, but I think in actuality,

[1:15:28] there is no distinction.

[1:15:29] But on the flip side of the coin, this is the cards that were dealt, these are the cards

[1:15:33] that were dealt,

[1:15:36] and to Chair John's question, there is a different design that would work

[1:15:42] here.

[1:15:45] Now, there is maybe some value to the fact that there's a single builder and you know,

[1:15:49] trying to achieve a look in this neighborhood. But I'm on the fence still. I just I honestly don't

[1:15:56] know neither answer seems a hundred percent good to me. Thank you Commissioner Cortis.

[1:16:07] Yeah, I'm a hundred percent with Commissioner Anderson on the extreme frustration. I have on this one.

[1:16:13] I mean, I voted no on this development specifically for this reason. I said they were going to come back.

[1:16:18] They're going to ask us for more variants because they weren't doing this properly.

[1:16:22] They were squeezing things in improperly to make the most money as opposed to doing what was right and within our code.

[1:16:29] And now we're back here doing the same thing.

[1:16:32] And I hope maybe the city council will think about that when the planning commission has some thoughts about that.

[1:16:40] And then they don't take those into consideration.

[1:16:44] We have to deal with this again.

[1:16:45] Taking this property however individually, I think it does technically meet the requirements of the variance rules that we have here.

[1:16:56] 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.

[1:17:14] 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.

[1:17:34] Anybody else have any comments, questions or concerns?

[1:17:44] 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.

[1:18:06] 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.

[1:18:18] 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.

[1:18:31] Naked by saying aye.

[1:18:33] Aye.

[1:18:34] Opposed.

[1:18:34] Same sign.

[1:18:37] Motion passes.

[1:18:38] Six to one.

[1:18:44] Okay.

[1:18:44] So we moved to items.

[1:18:46] Seven C.

[1:18:48] This is a variance request by Robert Fried.

[1:18:51] Location is 804 county road.

[1:18:53] I list.

[1:18:54] Associate planner will Harris.

[1:18:55] You have the presentation.

[1:19:03] Thank you chair.

[1:19:06] One item of note related to my previous presentation for

[1:19:10] 675 sunset, that item is subject to a five day appeal period that was not stated.

[1:19:17] So just wanted to clarify, if there's anybody out there who wish to, there's that option.

[1:19:24] And with that, we will get into the variance request, variance is requested and the residential

[1:19:30] designer view for 804 County Road, I West,

[1:19:37] orienting ourselves.

[1:19:38] this property is located along the northern side of Turtle Lake.

[1:19:45] Access is provided off of

[1:19:48] county road I.

[1:19:54] The property is a located within the R1 detached residential zoning district.

[1:20:00] 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

[1:20:30] property went through a residential design review in 2003 that included the approval of the following items.

[1:20:38] An additional 300 square feet of living area that was constructed above the garage base located here.

[1:20:49] A maximum allowed impervious surface coverage of 35.6% with the conditions of a sign mitigation affidavid and no lakeside accessory structures constructed.

[1:21:01] And a lakeside setback of the existing deck not to be changed, which was a 19.5 feet.

[1:21:11] a little bit of property history for you with that residential design review in 2003 as stated

[1:21:21] there was an attached deck that was included within the survey and the building plans for

[1:21:27] that RDR that showed a 19.5 foot set back from the ordinary high water line that was approved

[1:21:35] because that was the existing conditions,

[1:21:39] and there were going to be any alterations

[1:21:41] to that existing setback.

[1:21:44] After that was approved,

[1:21:48] the homeowners at that time had actually constructed

[1:21:53] a different deck that according to the most recent survey

[1:21:58] that we have currently six sits at 17.9 feet

[1:22:02] from the ordinary high water line,

[1:22:04] thus encroaching a little bit further into that setback. Later on in 2022, a different homeowner

[1:22:14] of the property constructed a few different alterations to the property including an illegal water-oriented

[1:22:24] accessory structure which is going to be the patio scene on the left image here, as well as

[1:22:35] a gravel parking pad addition located on the northeastern side of the driveway here.

[1:22:46] That brings us to today where the current owners and the applicants today purchased the property

[1:22:52] in September of 2025. They had installed an additional unpermitted water-oriented

[1:22:59] accessories structure, which is going to be shown as the blue square,

[1:23:05] giving just a general location of where that is since it was not included in that 2022

[1:23:12] screen shot shown on the screen. That was installed between the purchase of the home in

[1:23:19] September and the spring of 2026. It is important to note that the existing home currently

[1:23:28] does operate as a licensed short-term rental within the city.

[1:23:34] So, as you can see on the screen,

[1:23:38] there are two images. One is going to be the most recent aerial image that was taken of the

[1:23:44] 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.

[1:23:53] As it currently sits, there are six violations of city code with regards to the existing property and the deck.

[1:24:05] The first of which is the amount of water-oriented accessory structures.

[1:24:12] Currently, there are two with the hot tub and the patio both located between the ordinary

[1:24:20] high water level and the required structure setback.

[1:24:24] The second is the maximum area of a water-oriented accessory structure at 250 square feet.

[1:24:32] 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.

[1:24:46] The third is the side yard setback for a water oriented accessory structure.

[1:24:56] The current patio sits at 10 feet from the eastern...

[1:25:00] Inside of the eastern property line, the required setback is 20 feet for that structure.

[1:25:08] The fourth is that any water-oriented accessory structure may not be located within the short impact zone.

[1:25:18] 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.

[1:25:29] It is important to note that code does permit that this setback can be waived by the planning

[1:25:35] commission, but not reduced to less than 10 feet from the ordinary high water line, if the planning

[1:25:43] commission determines that there is a practical difficulty that would prohibit strict compliance

[1:25:49] with this code provision. The code specifically calls out that this usage of practical difficulty

[1:25:56] is due to topography or other circumstances that are acceptable to the city.

[1:26:04] The fifth item is the total maximum impervious surface coverage on the site.

[1:26:11] As it sits today, it is hovering around 41.5% impervious surface coverage.

[1:26:19] Even though the residential design review from 2023 had approved the property at 35.6%

[1:26:30] that criteria has been altered with the introduction of a water-oriented accessory structure.

[1:26:38] With that introduced to the property, the total impervious surface coverage is then restricted to 25%.

[1:26:45] And lastly,

[1:26:49] the deck addition or newly constructed deck further encroachment is a violation

[1:27:01] of the structure setback from the Ordinary High Waterline code requires that this is

[1:27:09] standard 50 feet, however, because it was a non-conformity,

[1:27:15] it was subject to that 19.5 feet that was approved

[1:27:19] as a part of that residential designer view from 2003.

[1:27:26] As you can see on screen, this is going to be reiterating

[1:27:31] the existing conditions of the property, as long or along with

[1:27:36] the proposals from the applicant to bring the property

[1:27:41] into compliance with city code, whether that be alterations or through the variances that are presented

[1:27:48] to you tonight. To reduce to correct the first violation, the applicants are proposing to remove

[1:27:57] the existing hot tub thus reducing the amount of water oriented accessory structures to a number

[1:28:03] permitted by code. Secondly, they are proposing to reduce the total square footage

[1:28:11] 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.

[1:28:25] 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

[1:28:42] The second variance requested is to maintain the patio at 17.6 feet from the ordinary high

[1:28:53] water line. They would be reducing the size of the patio in the area that is between

[1:29:00] the lake and the home to try to mitigate that.

[1:29:06] Thirdly is a variance request for the maximum

[1:29:09] impervious surface coverage of the home. As stated earlier, they are now subject to the 25 percent

[1:29:16] with the introduction of the water-oriented accessory structure. The applicants are proposing a 35.6

[1:29:25] percent impervious surface coverage, which, as important to note, is the amount that was

[1:29:31] approved as a part of that residential design review in 2003, but would require an additional variance

[1:29:38] today because of that water oriented infrastructure.

[1:29:43] And lastly, they were requesting a variance

[1:29:48] to the foothee foot setback from the ordinary high water line for the structure to maintain that

[1:29:55] 17.9 foot set back for the existing deck on the site.

[1:30:02] 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.

[1:30:19] As you can see on the northern side of the property, they're planning on removing that illegally installed gravel portion along here.

[1:30:30] 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.

[1:30:43] The items that are circled are going to be the ones that the applicant is requesting variances for.

[1:30:50] 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

[1:31:01] and square foot mark, but also visualizing the reduction of the setback from the ordinary high

[1:31:11] water line or that.

[1:31:20] But, yes.

[1:31:26] Again, because this is a sub-sandered lot, it's as require

[1:31:30] residential design review. The four columns that are shown on screen are going to include

[1:31:38] the allowed amounts by code, the permitted amounts that were approved as a part of that

[1:31:49] 2003 residential design review, the current conditions of the property and what is being

[1:31:57] proposed for you this evening. And as you can see, the four variances are embold on the right

[1:32:04] side.

[1:32:07] As you are familiar, the variance criteria are subject to the three items shown on screen.

[1:32:17] The reasonable manner the property owner is proposing to use the applicant is proposing something

[1:32:25] that is reasonable within the property. There's a unique circumstance that is unique to the

[1:32:36] or a previous one and lastly, the character, the neighborhood that the proposed work would not

[1:32:44] alter the essential character.

[1:32:48] So for the three variances requested regarding the patio and its

[1:32:55] location, staff believes that a practical difficulty is not present for these three items due to

[1:33:04] the unique circumstance, not being met.

[1:33:07] While the patio is a reasonable request,

[1:33:12] both within the R1 zoning district,

[1:33:14] as well as for a riparian lot along Turtle Lake

[1:33:20] and staff believes that this application

[1:33:23] would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,

[1:33:27] given that, again, many other properties along Turtle Lake

[1:33:31] have like side patios, some of which are kind of close closer than standard ones, but the

[1:33:42] unique circumstance, staff believes just isn't present. One due to the total amount of impervious

[1:33:50] surface coverage that is being requested by the applicant,

[1:33:56] the deviation is for an additional

[1:33:59] 10.6% of impervious service coverage on the site, which is a fairly substantial amount given

[1:34:08] the location of where a lot of that is. The staff received comments from our engineering

[1:34:16] department about the importance of the impervious service coverage requirements and code

[1:34:23] typically, because they don't want that water draining towards water sources and given that a lot

[1:34:31] of that improved or additional impervious is going to be lakeside. It's going to be a substantial

[1:34:39] impact on the body of water, turn a lake. Secondly, the site does allow for the homeowners

[1:34:46] to reduce and or alter the patio to conform to that side yard setback. It would reduce the

[1:34:53] to a little bit less than 150 square feet, but it would be an additional variance.

[1:35:00] 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.

[1:35:18] For the variance that is requested regarding the deck, staff does believe that a practical

[1:35:25] difficulty is present for this variance request.

[1:35:29] Again, the staff believes that the application for a lakeside deck is, again, a permitted

[1:35:37] use and something that is very common with many of these properties along County Rhode

[1:35:42] I and on Turtle Lake.

[1:35:44] 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.

[1:36:11] The property has eroded along that western edge and turtle lake has come up a little bit

[1:36:22] thus reducing that distance between the current deck and where that ordinary high waterline

[1:36:29] sits. So staff believes that this reduction in the set back is a result of natural changes,

[1:36:37] But not, well, caused by the owner, but not caused by the owner, if that makes sense.

[1:36:43] And lastly, staff believes that the proposed setback would not alter the character of the neighborhood.

[1:36:51] There are similar, again, variances that have been requested and granted for similar distances for decks setback at this distance.

[1:37:03] And important to note that the neighbor to the west is less than a foot from turn to lake for a deck.

[1:37:13] So staff does not believe that this request would alter the character of the neighborhood.

[1:37:19] On screen is just a visualization of the unique circumstances that were stated,

[1:37:25] 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.

[1:37:47] 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.

[1:38:01] Comments.

[1:38:03] Staff did receive one.

[1:38:05] 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.

[1:38:16] As stated, staff did receive a comment from engineering regarding the importance of

[1:38:23] short views in pervious surface coverage and the cumulative negative impacts of runoff

[1:38:29] towards the body of water. And lastly, staff received comment from the race group watershed

[1:38:35] district, providing comments about their permitting specifications and their notification requirements

[1:38:44] for potential fill, whether any alteration to the existing patio would be impacted this evening.

[1:38:56] So staff recommends that the planning commission deny three variances submitted by

[1:39:01] Robert Fried regarding the property at 804 County Road Eye, each of which involves the patio

[1:39:09] structure, the first being to exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage, the second to

[1:39:17] allow the water oriented accessory structure to encroach within the short impact zone. And lastly,

[1:39:25] to reduce the water oriented side set back to 10 feet. However, staff does recommend that the planning

[1:39:32] commission adopt resolution 26-68 proving the 17.9 foot structure set back for the existing deck

[1:39:41] that is on the property subject to the conditions outlined in your packets. And with that,

[1:39:46] I will stand for questions. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Any questions? Mr. Chair.

[1:39:50] Mr. Salmanson. I guess the question is, there's a number of variances here and there's a lot of

[1:39:57] So the question is if...

[1:40:00] The variance note passes, is the, is a city trying to get the hot tub and the patio removed.

[1:40:08] 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.

[1:40:30] as a part of our code enforcement and rental program

[1:40:34] staff did receive a couple of complaints from surrounding property owners,

[1:40:39] which as a part of those complaints included,

[1:40:42] parking issues on that gravel patch on that eastern portion.

[1:40:48] And so once we looked at that,

[1:40:51] we started doing a little bit deeper of a dive into the property,

[1:40:54] found numerous other violations,

[1:40:56] and actually issued the property owners a letter

[1:41:01] both for rental code violations and property violations.

[1:41:06] What you are seeing tonight is the property violations

[1:41:10] and the request of the homeowner to maintain something

[1:41:14] that they kind of walked into without knowing.

[1:41:18] And since then, the rental code violations,

[1:41:22] excluding the parking violations have thus been corrected.

[1:41:28] And a follow-up question is, the parking, there's no variance request for that.

[1:41:33] That's being eliminated the gravel parking pad, I guess, or?

[1:41:41] Mr. Curtis?

[1:41:43] Yes.

[1:41:43] So I just trying to understand more about what happened in the RDR with the 35.6%.

[1:41:50] percent. So, in the staff report, it talks about how there was a no-lake-side accessory

[1:41:59] structure period as part of that or how was that passed as part of the variance because we

[1:42:06] don't have those minutes or whatever from 2003. Yeah. So, as a part of that residential design

[1:42:14] review, the homeowners were, they were actually exceeding the impervious surface coverage

[1:42:22] again on the site and a part of that residential design review and a request by staff was

[1:42:30] to mitigate or to reduce that impervious surface coverage back to the 35.6 and that was

[1:42:40] proved as a part of that, RDR.

[1:42:44] And so as part of the conditions in that approval

[1:42:48] was the no-lake-side accessory structures,

[1:42:52] or it was not specifically outlined within those conditions,

[1:42:57] however, as a part of all of our memos

[1:43:05] There are already our procedures, so to speak.

[1:43:11] There is a provision in there that states that any significant alteration to the property

[1:43:16] would require the approval of the Planning Commission, and with a significant alteration

[1:43:23] such as the addition of a lakeside accessory structure, which would then, again, put them

[1:43:30] down into that 25% in pervious surface coverage, bucket,

[1:43:36] they violated the terms of that

[1:43:38] RDR with that addition.

[1:43:42] And so with, sorry, with that RDR, they already built up to the 35.6, or was it the

[1:44:00] more now but but and some of that's the hot tub. What was the 35.6 at that time is my question.

[1:44:09] So if I may commissioner court as when that property went through that residential

[1:44:13] design review in 2003 they were as will stated higher they were at 37 and point something

[1:44:21] I don't recall the number off the top of my head but as part of their mitigation to do those improvements

[1:44:26] to the property, that is when they brought it down to that 35.6. So they removed some

[1:44:32] imprevious surface coverage that had been on the property, likely prior to our shoreline

[1:44:37] regulations changing in 1992. And so this was a way for the city to get them to bring it closer

[1:44:42] to compliance. And so, at that point, they were allowed to keep 35.6%. But that,

[1:44:50] As was stated, did not include any lakeside structures, so there are maximum at that point would have been 30%.

[1:45:00] We're still above it, but they were still reducing it to what the property had historically helped.

[1:45:05] So the city was happy to see that reduction.

[1:45:07] Okay. And I guess I'm just trying to figure out what was the, at that time, the 35.6 essentially,

[1:45:14] like what was there when they reached that agreement?

[1:45:23] The survey from the original submission is shown on screen on the right hand side.

[1:45:29] I think that a lot of that is going to come back to a lot of this concrete that runs along

[1:45:36] the side and along the rear of the home back here.

[1:45:42] But again, a small portion of that to

[1:45:48] could be related to the change in the ordinary hot water line too.

[1:45:55] Okay. And so

[1:45:57] So just so I understand what I'm looking at then that.

[1:46:00] So there's this kind of ring of concrete around the existing house, like a sidewalk or something.

[1:46:05] And then it says deck and does that mean above ground deck or is that a patio ground patio

[1:46:10] at the time?

[1:46:11] Above ground deck.

[1:46:17] I don't have anything else.

[1:46:22] Yeah.

[1:46:22] The comments?

[1:46:22] Questions?

[1:46:23] Thank you, Mr. Harris.

[1:46:25] Thank you.

[1:46:26] If the applicant is in the audience and like to address the commission, I'd invite you to come

[1:46:31] up.

[1:46:32] teacher name and address for the record,

[1:46:40] two people are allowed, yes, wouldn't be the first time.

[1:46:47] On Robert Fried, I live at 49 South Deep Lake Road in North Oaks, and this is my daughter-in-law,

[1:46:54] Alley Fried,

[1:46:57] and you live at...

[1:46:59] Yes, I live at 6583 in Lionel Lake, Minnesota.

[1:47:08] So, my wife and I, my wife is in here, she not feeling well, but my wife and I have

[1:47:15] lived in the show of you, the larger show of you community. Since 1987 we moved away for a short

[1:47:29] period of time and moved back in 1995 and have lived in North Oaks for 30 years. I'm active

[1:47:42] and the Sharp U community and my wife and our both members of the Rotary Club.

[1:47:51] We were active creating the Polynator Garden at Maccola Park.

[1:47:59] And we contribute to the Sharp U Foundation for a regular basis.

[1:48:10] It's

[1:48:17] been difficult to us for us to realize that there are a lot of issues with this property.

[1:48:24] There are two prior owners and we don't know exactly what either prior owner did.

[1:48:37] But thanks to the planning staff, we've come to realize that there's some issues and we've

[1:48:49] been working hard to come up with a plan and perhaps we need to do more work in that

[1:49:00] guard, but in any case, Halley, you are going to have some open remarks. I'll stay here to answer

[1:49:10] questions.

[1:49:11] Horace, see if I go into labor, I think. Well, good evening. My name is Halley Freed. My

[1:49:18] father-in-law and mother-in-law, Robert and Miriam, on the home at 8-4 County Road Eye. They

[1:49:23] purchased it nearly a year ago in September of 2025. The first and only cabin they've

[1:49:28] own a dream realized after more than 40 years of diligent saving.

[1:49:33] My enloss of called the Mounds, you school district home for decades and are both active

[1:49:37] members of the Shoreview and Arden Hill's Rotary Club.

[1:49:40] They've asked me to speak on there we have tonight.

[1:49:43] Thank you for your time and genuinely thank you will for all that you've put into this.

[1:49:47] Five months is a long time to work through something like this, but we've had a laundry

[1:49:51] list to get through, and we've felt a effort from your side.

[1:49:55] I want to start with something that we actually agree with step-on.

[1:49:57] They brought the mandate of proving the duck with it.

[1:50:00] 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.

[1:50:16] 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.

[1:50:29] September. They walked into this situation and didn't create it. And there's a piece of this

[1:50:35] lot's history that matters here too. This property has been recognized by the city as a substandard

[1:50:40] lot since long before my in-laws owned it. Just 9,896 square feet, well under the 15,000 square foot

[1:50:49] standard, on a lot only 75 feet wide. That's exactly why in 2003, this commission granted this

[1:50:56] additional flexibility on impervious coverage in the first place.

[1:51:01] The physical constraints of this slide aren't something my in-laws created.

[1:51:05] There's something the city itself already recognized as unique to this property.

[1:51:10] The structure 25% limit we're asking you to look past isn't about preference.

[1:51:15] It's what happens when two code provisions, the substandard law allowance, and the

[1:51:21] Lakeside Accessories structure cap, collide on a lot this size and shape.

[1:51:25] That collision is a unique circumstance, and it has nothing to do with any choice my

[1:51:30] Amazon made.

[1:51:32] We'd ask you to consider just how tight that collision really is.

[1:51:36] Our surveyor, who has been an amazing help, his calculations show that even if every

[1:51:41] accessory feature on this property were removed entirely, the hot tub, the patio and

[1:51:47] full, the gravel area next to the driveway, and the driveway trimmed down to its simplest

[1:51:52] form.

[1:51:52] This law would still sit at 32.5% impervious coverage, well above the 25% threshold.

[1:52:01] In other words, the home itself and the minimum access it requires already exceed that number before a patio even enters the picture.

[1:52:10] That's not a result of how we use this property.

[1:52:12] It's a function of this lot's size and the house that stood on it since 1972.

[1:52:17] We'd ask the commission to weigh whether a standard this lot cannot reasonably meet

[1:52:22] under any configuration, is one that should stand in the way of a modest,

[1:52:27] substantially reduced accessory structure.

[1:52:31] And I want to address one phrase directly because I don't think it reflects

[1:52:35] or actually asking.

[1:52:37] Staff's recommendation describes this as maintaining the patio as a matter of

[1:52:41] preference rather than a unique circumstance.

[1:52:44] For specifically, we're not asking to maintain anything as it stands when this home was purchased a year ago.

[1:52:51] We're proposing to cut the patio nearly in half, 314 square feet down to 200.

[1:52:57] Remove the hot tub outright and bring total impervious surface coverage down from 41.5 to 35.6%.

[1:53:06] The same figure this commission approved for this lot in 2003.

[1:53:10] A preference would be leaving it alone.

[1:53:13] We're asking for the chance to shrink it substantially and keep what's left.

[1:53:18] And on the neighborhood, SAS Owner Report says granting this wouldn't change the character

[1:53:23] of the area and the other homes on County Road Eye already have paddios of their own.

[1:53:29] This isn't out of place here.

[1:53:32] And there's one more thing we want to address directly because we suspect it may come up tonight.

[1:53:36] 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.

[1:53:47] Whatever tonight's comments touch on, we'd ask the commission to hold on to one distinction.

[1:53:53] These four variances are about the physical dimensions of a deck and a patio.

[1:53:58] A setback, a size, in a percentage of coverage.

[1:54:02] None of that turns on who is standing on the property or how often.

[1:54:06] In fact, the three-part test, your own staff report lays out for tonight.

[1:54:11] Reasonable manner, unique circumstance, and neighborhood character.

[1:54:16] Doesn't ask anywhere who occupies this home or how often.

[1:54:20] And that's not an oversight.

[1:54:22] Those criteria are about the land, not the use.

[1:54:25] and we'd ask you to apply them exactly as written.

[1:54:28] It is our belief that comments about short-term rentals used tonight,

[1:54:32] however sincere, have no bearing on these four variances and shouldn't factor into your decision.

[1:54:38] Tonight, we're asking you to rule on the dimensions in front of you and nothing more.

[1:54:44] We are participating in this process in good faith. We've hired a licensed surveying company to assist

[1:54:49] us, we propose less and not more.

[1:54:52] Engaging in this process has already met real financial costs for my in-laws, and it will

[1:54:57] likely need more before this is resolved.

[1:55:00] 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.

[1:55:09] 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.

[1:55:21] Thank you. We're able to answer any questions you have.

[1:55:23] Thank you. Anybody have any questions for the freeze?

[1:55:29] Seeing them? Thank you for your information.

[1:55:33] Appreciate your time. Any members of the public that wish to come up and have

[1:55:42] anything

[1:55:42] about this property? Anything to say?

[1:55:53] I think most of them are going to be in the package.

[1:55:55] That chance is not an end all the time. Can you say your name and your address so we can know if it's

[1:56:00] Yeah, from Mark Lard, 800, 10-year-old I.

[1:56:07] Oh, you guys have a difficult job.

[1:56:12] So, you know, it's funny.

[1:56:12] Preparing for this, both Mr. Peter Smith's hair

[1:56:15] have actually met Mr. Peter Smith about three years ago

[1:56:18] when I called him about a project on a different house

[1:56:20] because I believe in proactive planning

[1:56:21] and like, hey, can I build a position on my house

[1:56:23] and he informed me, no.

[1:56:25] So, that was my first interaction

[1:56:27] out with the puns that. It's amazing. These means are recorded. Whoever set that up, thank

[1:56:32] you, allow us to go back and see the debate you have. And I think as a committee, it's

[1:56:37] clearly a healthy committee. You guys disagree. The meeting I watched was not unanimous, even

[1:56:42] tonight was not. And I think that's a great something. So as a neighbor, it's been interesting

[1:56:48] to read through the regional manner, unique circumstance, and character of the neighborhood.

[1:56:53] And I'm just going to zoom in on unique circumstance that this is not an unique circumstance.

[1:56:59] This is a luxury amenity.

[1:57:01] So when I talk about the whole of our experiences, I think spoke specifically on the patio.

[1:57:07] The patio is 10 feet from my property on it.

[1:57:10] And it's a luxury amenity that has fostered large gatherings all summer long.

[1:57:16] Hundreds of people had moved through the property last weekend.

[1:57:19] There was a private bachelet party with a chef and dance party.

[1:57:24] It's great. It's a beautiful property, it's a beautiful spot.

[1:57:27] And I think the challenge for the planning commission is,

[1:57:29] you can't look at us or the free family.

[1:57:31] You have to look at the overall vision of Sharpie.

[1:57:33] What does this look like as a community?

[1:57:34] Not just us as owners now.

[1:57:37] Anything but what's the long term water quality effect?

[1:57:39] What does it look like to prove this structure as is?

[1:57:43] And when you think about inheriting this,

[1:57:45] it is unfortunate that the prior owner didn't resolve this.

[1:57:48] It's unfortunate in the buying process that they didn't sort it out.

[1:57:53] We have highly, you know, clearly alleys and incredibly are great people.

[1:57:56] I do enjoy them, and it's a good speaker, Bob's an attorney, these are very sharp folks.

[1:58:01] It's unfortunate that this wasn't resolved during the purchase process.

[1:58:04] But now, as a member of the community of Sharp U,

[1:58:08] who values the parks, the lakes, all the things we love,

[1:58:10] I really encourage you to support the talent's recommendations to deny the

[1:58:15] answer twice as as proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McCarton. Anyone else wish to address

[1:58:24] the commission on this subject?

[1:58:30] Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the commission.

[1:58:33] Commissioner Amavan. Mr. Chair. Mr. Go ahead. Commissioner Salmondson. Okay.

[1:58:41] Yes, I always I know sure of you typically has a complaint in urban system and I always hate when

[1:58:47] It's always frustrating when things come to us after the fact, and I do have a lot of respect

[1:58:53] for previous planning commission decisions and things like that.

[1:58:57] So I have to put a different hat on tonight, and I have to put the hat on that says,

[1:59:02] if this were to come before me, and they would have asked for a hot tub for a patio,

[1:59:08] would I be inclined to support it?

[1:59:12] 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.

[1:59:23] 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.

[1:59:32] It's a very small lot.

[1:59:35] There's not really a lot of space between the house and the lake,

[1:59:40] so when you start talking about drainage,

[1:59:44] the chance for the water to not go into the lake,

[1:59:47] there's not much of an opportunity.

[1:59:50] So from a standpoint of when I first looked at this,

[1:59:54] I was kind of disappointed, you know,

[1:59:57] that some of these things went into the patio, the hot tub.

[2:00:00] 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.

[2:00:12] So you do have a way to actually look at the lake, I guess if you're on the deck.

[2:00:19] 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.

[2:00:50] 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.

[2:00:55] You know when you think about unique circumstances, it's not created by a property owner, right?

[2:01:01] And although I have huge sympathy for the fact that you didn't create this unique circumstances,

[2:01:07] it was they were created by the property owner, right? So that's kind of the conundrum here.

[2:01:16] I do recognize and appreciate the point that there is really no effect of way to get this

[2:01:22] 25 percent.

[2:01:23] And I don't think that was the spirit of the intent or even the mandate of the previous

[2:01:29] planning commission decision to allow for 35 percent because it was recognized that is probably

[2:01:35] a number that needs to exist on this property to allow for a driveway in a house and things

[2:01:40] than a smaller nature, or to accommodate a smaller,

[2:01:44] a smaller, a smaller lot, I should say.

[2:01:47] So to me, getting it back to that 35% is reasonable.

[2:01:51] I think the problem that I have is there is a bit of a preference

[2:01:55] in where that impervious surface lies.

[2:02:02] Previously, it was not late-side.

[2:02:03] Now it's late-side.

[2:02:05] We've heard from a city engineer, or I think it was the engineer

[2:02:10] that it has spoken to the impervious runoff like side and that that that does make a difference

[2:02:15] and we are sensitive to that. I will say also that the short-term rental is a relevant to me.

[2:02:26] I've been up here long enough and heard enough of this. You said proceedings that please know

[2:02:31] that that doesn't really weigh into any of our decisions in regards to what's before us tonight.

[2:02:37] 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.

[2:02:53] 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.

[2:03:00] 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.

[2:03:28] And so for those reasons, I would support the staff's recommendations as a person and tonight.

[2:03:35] Mr. Horses.

[2:03:36] So I guess I'm just curious.

[2:03:43] 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.

[2:03:50] I know we're in year 25, I mean, if we pass 25% as it seems like 25 with late side access,

[2:03:59] 30% with no late side accessories structure, I mean, what else are they tearing up or are

[2:04:05] those numbers wrong, where are we kind of, what's the result of that based on what they're

[2:04:11] telling us versus what's in the recommendations from staff?

[2:04:17] 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.

[2:04:43] But is that the patio and the hot tub or just the hot tub both?

[2:04:54] So if we do the 25% they have to tear out the entire patio.

[2:05:00] 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.

[2:05:27] 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%.

[2:05:44] 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?

[2:05:56] Okay,

[2:06:01] Commissioner Logan.

[2:06:04] When you buy a lake property, you want to be able to enjoy the lake.

[2:06:08] I would want to enjoy the lake.

[2:06:10] I'm okay with having a patio,

[2:06:12] and I think they made a good faith effort to comply.

[2:06:20] What else?

[2:06:27] I wish I was dead.

[2:06:28] I get my two cents.

[2:06:30] I concur with what,

[2:06:32] Mr. Anderson and Mr. Commissioner Solven said,

[2:06:35] not a good result,

[2:06:38] but sounds like people are intelligent enough.

[2:06:40] they should have known better to check these types of things.

[2:06:43] If you're going to be a homeowner,

[2:06:44] you need to be the responsibility of a homeowner.

[2:06:47] So I would go with the staff's report.

[2:06:50] Recommendations.

[2:06:59] I'll just say I concur with staff.

[2:07:01] Thank you.

[2:07:04] We have a motion,

[2:07:08] then.

[2:07:08] Mission West Ed.

[2:07:09] Let me get my right screen here.

[2:07:12] All right.

[2:07:13] Do you want us to do these all as one

[2:07:15] with the, as presented in the packet?

[2:07:18] Or do you want us to split the denial and the approval?

[2:07:27] That's a good question.

[2:07:29] Mr. Chair, Mr. Westead.

[2:07:32] I think we can go ahead and try it as stated.

[2:07:35] And if that's not confusing, we can move forward with that.

[2:07:38] If it's confusing, we can break them up if that makes sense.

[2:07:40] But let's try that first.

[2:07:42] I actually kind of request we break them up.

[2:07:45] Because I have different votes for.

[2:07:49] I think that's fine too as long as it's clear what we're voting on.

[2:07:52] You can, we can split them on.

[2:07:55] So I will move to deny the following three

[2:08:00] variances submitted by Robert Fried regarding the property

[2:08:03] at 804 County Road Eye, each to maintain a patio, water,

[2:08:07] oriented accessory structure.

[2:08:11] One variance to development code section 115-15-155B3A2

[2:08:17] to exceed the allowed impervious service of 25% to variance to the development code section 115-149C.

[2:08:28] A water oriented accessory structure may exist between the ordinary high water

[2:08:32] and the required structure setbacks along as it does not encroach into the shore impact zone 25 feet from the ordinary high water line.

[2:08:41] The existing patio is within the shore impact zone and three variants to development code 115-149C3D.

[2:08:52] The patio has a side set back that is 10 feet rather than 20 required for the water oriented structure.

[2:09:00] This action is based on the finding that practical difficulty is not present.

[2:09:04] the patio was not lawfully established by the previous owner, thereby making an illegal non-conforming.

[2:09:11] And the desire to maintain the patio at its current size and location, a matter of preference, rather than a unique circumstance.

[2:09:20] It's been moved.

[2:09:23] It's been moved in second commissioner.

[2:09:26] Yes.

[2:09:27] I didn't ask some questions, but I didn't give my two cents.

[2:09:31] I'm in support of everything other than the impervious service request here and having

[2:09:40] them narrow the patio down. I think that's reasonable looking at what was improved. Approved

[2:09:46] in 2003, there is a portion of that concrete that is in the back that is there and

[2:09:56] Council's impervious surface underneath there going around the house.

[2:10:01] 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.

[2:10:23] and that they have to entirely remove something in the back when a prior commission approved

[2:10:28] up to 35.6% so I think we're kind of splitting some hairs here by saying you could

[2:10:34] have had that, but you can't have a portion of your deck back there.

[2:10:39] So that's why I will vote against that one, but in favor of the others.

[2:10:44] Thank you.

[2:10:44] Miss Phil, you read something, Mr. Harris.

[2:10:47] Yes, just to clarify, the image shown on screen on the right-hand side, those were the existing

[2:10:55] conditions prior to the mitigation affidated.

[2:11:00] So the impervious surface coverage that existed at the time of that survey along the southern

[2:11:07] portion of the existing home, the left-hand side of the existing home, that concrete path,

[2:11:14] that was removed as a part of that mitigation after David. So the 35.6% approved coverage

[2:11:27] that does not include what is shown on screen on the right hand side.

[2:11:35] Okay, then I still

[2:11:35] don't get how we get to in your math. I mean,

[2:11:42] they made the current house makes the driveway bigger

[2:11:44] And the patio,

[2:11:48] I don't get how you get down to 25% even with that based upon this.

[2:11:56] 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.

[2:12:06] The regulation is made to help protect the lakeside property and protect just scale of development on a property.

[2:12:17] So the 25% in pervious surface coverage is meant to scale to the size of a property.

[2:12:22] And as was mentioned, this property is smaller.

[2:12:27] What is there now is scaled larger so even if they were to remove, you know, put the driveway down proportionally,

[2:12:32] it was mentioned that they could get down to 32%, the 25% may not be a realistic goal just based

[2:12:39] on what is on the property and what the size of the property is, but that doesn't change

[2:12:44] what our regulations are and what they're meant to protect either. But that is why they're going

[2:12:47] through the variance process so you can see if that meets that unique definition,

[2:12:54] unique circumstances definition or not. But it could be that they reasonably can't get to 25%.

[2:13:00] are is what they're doing enough and are the reasons you need enough. That's that for the commission

[2:13:06] to determine. Right, but I mean my problem is I don't see how they even get to 30 percent.

[2:13:13] Permitted. That's that's the math I don't understand here.

[2:13:16] Your court is if I might they don't get there. So like for example, so if you're looking at the

[2:13:23] existing right now on the left hand side, if you take away the patio and the hot tub pieces,

[2:13:30] you'll be at that 36.5, which is what was allowed in 2003.

[2:13:35] Because those items were added without the approval,

[2:13:38] they went over.

[2:13:39] So what we're trying to do is get back to that 2003 approval,

[2:13:44] because that is what was given

[2:13:46] because of the realization of the planning commission at that time

[2:13:49] that 25% just wasn't feasible.

[2:13:53] So we're essentially saying here,

[2:13:56] they need to go back to that 36, whatever,

[2:13:59] I'm out.

[2:14:00] Sure, John.

[2:14:01] We had a motion and we had a second.

[2:14:05] Do we have a second?

[2:14:06] It's a second.

[2:14:07] We should record it.

[2:14:08] I think we go to vote.

[2:14:12] Mr. Chair, where the second is for clarification?

[2:14:15] It was the second.

[2:14:16] Who did the second?

[2:14:18] I did.

[2:14:18] You took me as a second.

[2:14:20] Because you quickly went to court.

[2:14:21] That's why it wasn't sure.

[2:14:22] You scared me by saying that.

[2:14:24] I wanted to make sure I was the second.

[2:14:27] You were the second. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Chair. Oh, I'll just, I'll just, no more comments. Okay.

[2:14:34] The motion in front of us is to deny those three very.

[2:14:39] We just put up right now. Chair John, I asked for a roll call vote on that.

[2:14:43] Let's do it. Roll call.

[2:14:47] Please

[2:14:52] commissioner, I'm about.

[2:14:56] I

[2:14:59] point point.

[2:15:00] Order, are we doing these by individual 1, 2, and 3, that is now motion that was on the table.

[2:15:06] Now the motion is all three of those items.

[2:15:11] Okay. Commissioner Anderson.

[2:15:14] Aye. Commissioner Cortes.

[2:15:16] Aye. Commissioner Helgen.

[2:15:18] No. Commissioner Solomonson. Aye. Commissioner Westette.

[2:15:24] Aye. Chair John. Aye.

[2:15:28] So motion passes, five to two, two kilos.

[2:15:33] So we still are sitting on one last motion.

[2:15:35] So I'm going to mention a question.

[2:15:37] Yes, thank you.

[2:15:38] I'd like to move to adopt resolution 26, 68,

[2:15:41] approving the 17.9 foot structure setbacks

[2:15:45] admitted by Robert Friedet 804 County Road Eye West

[2:15:47] for the existing deck setback on the property.

[2:15:50] So I'd approval a subject to the four conditions listed

[2:15:53] in the staff report.

[2:15:56] Second, it has been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on this motion?

[2:16:02] Commissioner Helgen.

[2:16:04] This allows the deck for me.

[2:16:07] Yes, that's the intent.

[2:16:13] Seeing no other discussion.

[2:16:16] All those in favor.

[2:16:17] Well, let's just do a roll since we do it.

[2:16:21] Commissioner, are you all about?

[2:16:23] Aye. Commissioner Anderson.

[2:16:24] Aye.

[2:16:25] Commissioner Curtis?

[2:16:26] Aye.

[2:16:26] Commissioner Helgen.

[2:16:27] I. Commissioner of Salonson. I. Commissioner Westett. I. And chair John. I. Motion carries seven zero. Again decisions.

[2:16:39] Bearing it's as our final decisions through the planning commission, but there is a.

[2:16:44] Appeal process of the city council within five business days, if you wish to appeal our decision.

[2:16:49] Thank you.

[2:16:50] 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.

[2:17:02] So that takes us to item eight on the agenda. City.

[2:17:12] I was going to wait till miscellaneous for that one.

[2:17:21] Sorry, it's definitely a touchdown call.

[2:17:25] But for the city council assignments, September 8th, which would be a Tuesday would be commissioner

[2:17:30] solimence. And so if there were any appeals to the variances,

[2:17:36] it would either be the eighth

[2:17:37] or the 21st, which would be you. Chair John, we will follow up accordingly, depending on

[2:17:42] notification period on which one we can hit if there is an appeal. Okay.

[2:17:50] And then yes,

[2:17:52] there under miscellaneous, we do have a commissioner who is resigning because they're moving out

[2:18:00] 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.

[2:18:12] He has been a thoughtful, steady and incredibly valuable number of this commission.

[2:18:17] And he has always brought a calm perspective to discussions as thoughtful questions and genuinely cared about making sure of you a great place.

[2:18:23] his guidance to the conference of planning

[2:18:25] prophesies previously in particular was greatly appreciated.

[2:18:28] And we won't miss him during this upcoming round.

[2:18:32] But we are excited for you in your next chapter.

[2:18:35] And hopefully you do make that curtain call back.

[2:18:38] Yeah, I appreciate that.

[2:18:40] If I may.

[2:18:41] Yeah, so having spent 27 years of my life in this community

[2:18:45] I grew up here.

[2:18:47] As I like to say, and I said many times,

[2:18:49] played in the woods that are now the city city hall.

[2:18:53] and the wonderful park we have over there, probably a lot more engaging than the woods that I played in,

[2:18:59] work with whatever kind of forts we made up back in the day.

[2:19:02] Just really appreciate the professionalism of city staff. I mean, I think you come to

[2:19:11] take it for granted, maybe sometimes, but if you ever have a chance, and I know what we've got

[2:19:16] commissioners that have served in other cities too, take a look at some other cities preceding

[2:19:21] sometimes and just how things are handled and just the, again, the level of detail and just

[2:19:27] skill that we have working within our city here, I really appreciate all that you guys have

[2:19:32] done over the years that I've been on the, on the commission. And the challenge that I had was,

[2:19:37] I said, yeah, obviously, I think one of the, one of the best parts of being on the planning

[2:19:41] commission is going through that compound process. Commissioner Solmensen's been through this will

[2:19:46] of fourth, third. Okay, not quite that far yet. You're apologised for leaving you as the the soul

[2:19:58] person that's been through.

[2:20:00] That process before, but that is, but I really do think that's the fun of seeing on this commission.

[2:20:04] It's really getting to have a see and what this, what this great city looks like in the future.

[2:20:09] And I will miss being a part of that process. I was really looking forward to it.

[2:20:15] Unfortunately, something came up that you could say doomsgrowing real estate sites as a negative consequence.

[2:20:24] sometimes, and this is where I'm feeling that, and by the time the next meeting

[2:20:30] worlds are out, I will no longer be a shortly resident, so I've got to step away and

[2:20:34] what the next great person's up here, and I think all of you for your service, and it's

[2:20:42] been fun to kind of see the commission grow and change over the years, and I think I'm

[2:20:48] 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,

[2:20:58] what's our, what's our, what's our term that we, we've used, uh, agent place.

[2:21:03] Commissioner Dillon will appreciate that. He's always a champion for the agent place. So, you're not commissioner City Council member Dillon.

[2:21:09] But anyways, thank you for all that you've done, and I, uh, it's been a pleasure to serve.

[2:21:14] I just want to say one of the greatest challenges I have sitting in this chair is who I followed.

[2:21:21] I thought you did a really good job sharing the commission and it's been hard to live up to that.

[2:21:27] Not to get too emotional or anything like that, but you're doing a fine job.

[2:21:30] I appreciate you.

[2:21:32] Anybody else have any comments question?

[2:21:36] So that brings us to the end of the meeting.

[2:21:40] Commissioner Westead.

[2:21:41] I moved we adjourned at 921 p.a.

[2:21:45] Second it's been moved in second all in favor say aye.

[2:21:48] Aye. Aye.

[2:21:49] Bose same sign.

[2:21:51] See you now.

[2:21:52] We are adjourned.

[2:21:56] Aye.

[2:21:57] He's beckled.

[2:21:58] That's hard away.

[2:21:59] It's a little ways of it.

[2:22:00] It's a little way.

[2:22:01] It's a little way of it.

[2:22:02] It's a little way of it.

[2:22:05] It's a little way of it.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript