[0:26] all right all right all right how's everybody doing [0:32] tonight it's a nice summer night for a change right and we're in here while everyone else is at the fair enjoying [0:39] something maybe a little better but welcome everybody to the Wednesday [0:44] August 28th 2024 City vidina Planning Commission meeting on behalf of the rest [0:50] of the commission we are grateful you are here especially those who are in [0:55] person in attendance uh but also those tuning in remotely say it every time your curiosity your [1:03] participation and your feedback is crucial as we navigate change together here any Dina specifically regarding the [1:11] ways in which we'd like to use our [1:17] land I'm hearing some feedback over here but it's good um so tonight we got three [1:23] public hearings and I'll go through kind of the process of what to expect for [1:28] each public hearing later uh but it's important for you to know [1:33] that we take all feedback seriously here the city the Planning Commission so any [1:40] way in which you have provided it whether it's through email or through the city's engagement website betterto [1:47] together.org it has gotten its way to us and we will consider it as we make our [1:53] recommendations tonight uh in addition to the three public hearings we have two reports and [2:00] recommendations so it will be a busier meeting I will provide uh some info [2:06] later for you to call uh if you're tuning in remotely to [2:13] testify uh as we move along just to get you up to speed with what the agenda is [2:20] we'll do a call to order a roll call then we'll do an approval of the meeting agenda as well as the prior meeting's [2:28] minutes after that we our community comment period and that's your chance to speak about a matter not on tonight's [2:36] agenda uh you have three minutes to do so after that we have our public hearings and we got three of those as I [2:43] mentioned then we got two reports and recommendations followed by chair and [2:48] member comments and staff comments then we adjourn one cool thing that the city [2:54] does uh in addition to us we're a nine member uh resident volunteer body that [3:02] uh represents the city on land use matters but we uh the city has a cool [3:09] thing where we have two student Commissioners so Tonight is the last evening for one of our fellow student [3:16] Commissioners and it's a pretty cool experience and a really cool commitment uh that they come here and participate [3:23] would you like to say anything after like serving a full year two years two years um my favorite [3:32] meetings are the ones that go until 12 which cuz I don't have anything better to do with my time and then my least [3:39] favorite meetings are when we end at 8 but that might be a little [3:44] controversial well it's really cool the city does it and we have students that step up I I don't know it's really cool [3:51] yeah commissioner elare I just want to pile on a little bit and thank Sarah for her work on the kill group also so that [3:56] was extra extraordinary service in addition to being a planning commissioner that's pretty impressive I [4:03] I I don't know many students in high school that I can think back to that had this kind of Direction and commitment [4:09] figured out it's really cool so thank you all right without further Ado we will get into the meeting so call to [4:18] order and then roll call commissioner elire here commissioner Miranda here commissioner [4:24] Padia here commissioner Smith here commissioner who here commissioner day [4:30] here commissioner Bornstein here commissioner felt here commissioner hanaman here chair Bennett [4:37] here now we have the approval of tonight's meeting agenda welcome a motion to approve if there's no proposed [4:44] changes motion to approve the meeting agenda second all those in favor say I I [4:52] so moved next we have the approval of the prior meeting minutes on July 24th [4:59] to approved meeting minutes second all those in favor say I so moved next as I [5:07] mentioned we have the community comment period so this is your chance uh for anyone who's here in person to come up [5:13] you can come up to a Podium you have 3 minutes to testify say uh your full name [5:18] address when the light turns green the 3 minutes start when it's Amber you have 30 seconds when it's read your time's up [5:27] please come forward if you are here for this [5:35] thank you either one hi David Frankl 4510 Lake View Drive [5:45] uh a couple weeks ago I was down in De Mo for other reasons but I went to What's called the Harkin Institute if [5:50] you're familiar Tom Harkin Senator Tom Harkin was a co-author of the Americans Disability Act of 1990 and there's an [5:58] Institute named after him it has a very interesting background on Ada law and [6:03] why it was passed uh why bring that up uh I was behind complaining about the [6:09] pedestrian bridge that was built over in Grand View as you probably all know uh my concern is uh Ada needs to be top of [6:16] the list for all planning shouldn't be just saying we're ADA Compliant should [6:21] be in writing should have details I'm not an architect I'm not an expert but [6:26] there are people in the community who are and know the details of those when the prop proposed Grand View Bridge [6:33] was talked about I asked for a rendering how that bridge is going to be ada8 compliant I never received a rendering [6:40] when I look at the renderings for the proposed projects on France Avenue they all say we'll be ADA Compliant that's [6:47] not good enough none of those proposed renderings have any Bridge or underpass [6:52] or whatever you want to call it over France Avenue none of them have a rendering that includes that again it [7:00] should be more than just words I don't think the developers understand these [7:05] Ada Bridges underpasses whatever are very large structures it's not something [7:10] you just slide right in and I want to be confident that they are abiding by Ada [7:15] not just saying they are the other issue is the city on the proposed CIP has $2.2 [7:23] million to make the Grand View Bridge ada8 compliant out the Gus Gus Young [7:29] Lane I don't know where that came from that's essentially saying we're admitting that [7:34] bridge over there and Grand View is not ADA Compliant even though it's under investigation by US Department of [7:40] Justice and also there's currently waiting and I've requested it a INF a [7:46] structural uh report on the uh Grand View parking ramp so why are we getting [7:53] ahead of ourselves proposing $2 million to make it ada8 compliant when we don't know if that structure is going to be [7:59] around in a year I I don't understand the planning behind this and I don't understand any of the Ada issues behind [8:05] this if this is going to be ad compliant the way it stands now where's a [8:11] rendering I don't I I just don't understand this whole lack of planning I can't say anymore there's no planning [8:17] going on thank you thank you very [8:24] much thank you for the your comments the last meeting too if you have anything [8:29] that you can share with us please send it to planner Teague and he'll distribute it to us cuz we want to be [8:35] just as informed as you sometimes we don't find out you know earlier than you [8:40] find out on things too so sometimes other people are in the know more than we are regarding matters that are [8:47] planning too anyone else that is here for Community [8:54] comment all right seeing none we will move to the public hearing we have three [9:00] of them the first one is a 45.8 ft setback variance from Lake [9:05] Cornelia for a patio at 6612 Cornelia drive so the process for our public [9:12] hearings and what you can expect for the next three is uh an applicant puts in a [9:19] formal uh sub a submitt submission to the city and the city puts together a [9:26] staff report the planning department and with that report they create this [9:31] presentation for us they present this to us we have a back and forth [9:37] questions then we give the applicant an opportunity to provide their own presentation or answer questions and [9:46] then we open it to the public hearing and that's your chance as someone who's here in person or someone tuning in [9:51] remotely to testify about this matter and you have similar to the [9:57] community comment period 3 minutes to do so after that we close the public [10:04] hearing and we take it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate and we make our recommendation for approval or [10:11] denial so for those who might be tuning in just so you can get ready to [10:17] participate we'll want you to get in the virtual queue so you'll have to pay attention to a bunch of numbers here so [10:24] call the following number 312 53581 [10:30] 110 enter access code 2632 [10:35] 661 6813 and the password is [10:42] 5454 and you'll press star three on your keypad to get in the qest speak but you [10:47] don't have to do that quite yet as I mentioned we'll have a couple of back uh presentations and back and forths here [10:54] without further Ado planner AER thank you thank you uh chair members of the plan commission the request is for a [11:02] 45.8 ft setback variance from the 75- Ft Lake setback requirement to locate a new [11:09] patio 29.2 ft from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Cornelia all [11:14] improvements with the exception of sidewalks and retaining walls are subject to the required Lake setback the [11:21] property is located immediately adjacent to single family homes and backs up to Lake Cornelia the original 1955 ramble [11:30] on the site has been torn down and in 20 2018 a new twostory home replaced it [11:38] this is the home uh before it was torn down and this is a survey of the property um P prior to um [11:47] demolition uh what you'll notice on the back wall of the house there's a setback of [11:53] approximately 53 ft from the back wall of that original house that was built in [11:58] the 1950s s this is a photo of the new home it's a [12:03] two-story home with a two-car garage uh the new home received a variance in 2018 [12:09] from the basement requirement to build a slab on grade um to lift it above the [12:14] designated flood elevation and a 29.1 ft setback variance from the ordinary high [12:20] water elevation of Lake Cornelia to position the new home in approximately the same location as the original home [12:27] so this is the proposed survey when uh they submitted for variance application [12:33] and also um for building permit the property consists of a newly [12:39] built two-story home um it has been raised out of the flood elevation or flood zone um and it should be noted [12:47] that the ordinance was amended after this home was built so there's no longer a requirement to have a basement so they [12:54] would not have required um currently a variance from the basement requirement only the setback requirement and [13:01] highlighted in yellow here you'll see that there's a 75 ft setback showing uh [13:06] where that line is it it bcts the home so it's it was a difficult lot obviously [13:13] needed a variance uh to rebuild on this is a slide of the asilt survey [13:21] that was done after the home was complete um the build the home had a [13:28] paper patio installed in the rear yard immediately after the home was completed uh City [13:35] staff had to order the removal of the patio upon engineering's final inspection that was based on the [13:41] approved grading plan for a new home which did not include the patio and also a patio was not included in the variance [13:48] package because the p patio would have is much closer to the lake than um 75 ft [13:55] and all improvements uh are required to Main main the [14:01] setback so this is actually the request um is for a patio it's a little [14:06] different configuration but they would like to have a patio in their rear yard the homeowners are now requesting a [14:14] variance for a new 467 ft patio design that is 29.2 Ft from [14:21] the lake this uh these are photos of the [14:27] home before it was torn down there were no improvements in the back of the home [14:32] um no patios no decks and this is a a little different [14:38] shot of um the area between the old house and the [14:49] shoreline so I did some measurements off of an aerial photograph and these are [14:54] approximate estimates um they're not you know concrete [15:00] uh of where some of the improvements around that east side of Lake Cornelia are from the lake and they do vary um [15:07] and you can see that they're you know a variety of lot depths so um there is more opportunity in some Lots than [15:14] others uh the closest one was about 32 feet 36 feet 34 33 feet and those are [15:22] the lots that were the shallowest including uh the subject lot which is here and then some of the Lots get [15:29] deeper and the setbacks from any rear yard Improvement like a deck or a patio [15:35] um you know are obviously further away give you an idea of the homes on [15:41] either side there's a deck Improvement on the house at 6608 and that's a little [15:47] over 32 feet from measuring off the aerial photo um and then the one that's [15:53] adjacent on the other side is about 36 feet [15:59] so um a case can be made for both approval and denial [16:06] um oh I guess I should mention to in the early 1990s the DNR mandated a Statewide [16:12] change for setbacks from water bodies with all subex increasing for the purpose of protecting Shoreland for [16:19] future improvements most homes backing up to the lake were built in the 1950s [16:24] with many homes um and other backyard improvements becoming non-conforming [16:30] given the increase it jumped from 25 ft to 75 ft so um that was a significant [16:37] change for a lot of the uh properties that are along Lake Cornelia um making uh causing a lot of [16:45] them to be non-conforming so a case can be made for denial and approval um to deny the [16:52] request for 45.8 foot setback variance from the 75 foot Lake setback requirement to locate [17:00] the patio 29.2 ft from Lake Cornelia at 6612 Cornelia Drive can be based on the [17:06] following findings that the proposal does not meet the standards for a variance with no circumstances unique [17:13] and specific to the lot many of the homes on the east side of the lake are similarly non-conforming to the lake [17:19] setback due to the proposed reduction in setback the patio conflicts with the goals and policies set by the DNR [17:26] originally when the change was made and setback and supported by the city to [17:32] increase protection of Shoreline areas allowing the variants to locate an [17:38] improvement closer than ever before on the lot May set a precedent given other properties along Cornelia Shoreline [17:43] require the same setback and would need variances for similar improvements uh the property is also [17:50] currently um built and has reasonable use with the new [17:57] home so a case can also be made for approval uh approval of the request for [18:03] the 45.8 foot setback variance could be based on the following the Practical [18:08] difficulty is caused by the existing 75 foot setback required from Lake carnelia the setback was changed in 1992 from 25 [18:16] to 75 ft requiring variances for nearly all improvements for many homes on the [18:22] adjacent lot and it becomes a I guess a a comfort level as to you know how close [18:28] to the lake um the Planning Commission feels is appropriate uh a unique [18:34] circumstance includes the shallow lot depth as compared with nearby Lake Properties so there is less opportunity [18:41] for improvements on the subject property The Proposal would not aler the essential character of the neighborhood [18:47] a patio at ground level will not be seen from the lake there are other homes around Lake Cornelia with improvements [18:54] in the rear yard closer than 75 ft any approval should be subject to the following conditions subject to the [19:00] plans and Survey dates stamp July 9th 2024 subject to the compliance with [19:06] engineering memo dated July 30th 2024 staff is not supportive of the [19:12] request and does recommend denial and with that I will stop and answer any questions you have I believe the [19:18] homeowners Ron and Stephanie rosley are here as [19:24] well thank you Chris any questions fellow the shures yeah [19:34] well you got it um I'm just wondering Chris if you're [19:39] aware that uh there was something in the materials about the DNR possibly changing the rules again or or that um [19:48] are you aware of any coming change to this yeah I'm not aware of any coming change at all just that they it changed [19:56] in um 1992 for us our ordinance was amended based on what the DNR had [20:03] mandated earlier right there's no chatter at that level about additional changes and you know the trend has been [20:11] moving deeper not closer okay thank [20:19] you Chris um there is talk in the application materials about the property [20:25] being designated by FEMA as out of the flood plan L is there something with [20:31] that that we should understand when we consider this um it doesn't affect a patio installation the house itself had [20:38] to be elevated and pulled up out of the flood zone um the basement at that time [20:43] it was a walk out and it was below the flood elevation and so um at the time [20:50] they decided not to have a basement because actually where they would have had to put their basement is where the [20:56] slab is currently which was pretty much pry much where the grade is and the house would have been if that was the [21:02] basement it would have been much taller so um in terms of the FEMA flood plane a [21:08] patio isn't going to be [21:16] affected planner AER a question about the process here and just how it's I [21:21] guess presented um to us in the packet a little bit so just in terms of you know [21:29] all the criteria that have to be met uh we have listed in here I think [21:34] one two three and then you know part three has three parts to it um in those [21:41] first two the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and the variance [21:46] would be consistent with the comprehensive plan is that newer that we include some [21:53] of that so I mean it seems to me a lot of times when we get these variances um that these criteria that [21:59] are listed off have changed so I was just looking back this reminds me a lot of a um proposal for a variance or [22:08] variance request that we reviewed back in September of 2023 and I looked back at that agenda um [22:14] and it that that started with the basically part three of what's in this packet today so the relieve the [22:20] Practical difficulties circumstances unique to the property Etc um so I'm just wondering what the introduction of [22:26] the variance would be consistent with with the comprehensive plan and then the um variance would be in harmony with the [22:32] general purposes intent of the ordinance and if that's new or if that's chosen [22:37] just for this prop particular proposal not chosen for this particular proposal it's actually language we're [22:44] going to update our um variance application that's statutory language it [22:49] actually isn't we did have our City attorney years ago and and the statutary [22:56] language is the same um and they came up he came up with uh the language that's [23:02] in the application but to be more precise to be exactly how the statute [23:07] reads we're changing that language so no it doesn't it's not specific to this [23:12] particular it's just going forward you will see a change in the language it really from a substance standpoint [23:19] really doesn't change all that much in terms of the is it consistent with the comprehensive plan is it a is it a [23:25] single dwelling unit and is that what the comprehensive plan for that area prescribes yes so this is a change [23:34] like this is the first time this meeting is the first time we're seeing this additional right I'm trying to just [23:41] clarify that and then if it's if it's part of the application now or if it's going to be introduced the application [23:47] just working out that timing sure it's going to be introduced in the application has it our current [23:52] application has not been updated on our web page but it will be changed okay be more specific spefic and clarify um to [24:01] be in line with the state statutes it is it is currently but this will be um more [24:07] ver beta okay so this applicant wouldn't have seen this language on their [24:12] application currently or when they applied no [24:17] okay [24:22] it m felt um planner AER I [24:29] hey this um 75t setback it's for all [24:34] built structures like if this was a deck or [Music] [24:40] a um okay so it doesn't matter what [24:47] materials any kind of patio or deck or whatever would be on the back corre the [24:54] 75 foot set back would apply to everything well it does not apply to [24:59] sidewalks steps we we have to provide access yeah and so that's an exception [25:05] rip wrap um retaining walls if somebody has to retain uh ground um those are the [25:12] exceptions but patios decks gazebos uh fire pits all of that uh should maintain [25:20] the required setback um any kind of permanent [25:26] structure when you say fire p you're talking about fire pit they could have like a solo stove and chairs back there [25:32] yeah we there'd be no way we could okay thank [25:42] you I just want to dig a Little Deeper on that what commissioner felt was um [25:47] talking about there so hypothetically if I'm not saying the [25:53] applicant would want to do this but if they wanted to create with some EDG and [25:58] gravel for example something a permeable gravel of the same shape as the patio that's being [26:06] applied for now would that be applicable could they do that engineering would [26:12] have to review it because we've had some applications that engineering has deemed you know counts as hard surface so [26:20] therefore would count as a patio I mean it has to be uh permeable and you know [26:27] not compacted to the degree that they would consider that um okay so permeability [26:35] matters yeah it does okay so maybe gravel maybe [26:40] mulch maybe mulch should be fine uh and certainly if they wanted to well I [26:45] shouldn't say that it's a question if they were to want to say just flatten out the grade of that part of their yard [26:53] replant the turf so it was a perfectly flat area open area it would be permeable still be Turf would that [27:00] require a permit it would require a grading permit okay because there was a grading plan that was approved at the [27:07] time the house was built um they also have a retention um [27:12] area um that was built to address yeah I mentioned I S I read about that yeah and [27:19] so if they are going to make a change I'm not saying they can't it just would have to go through engineering's review [27:25] and it probably would require a grading permit they'd have to update whatever was approved when the house was [27:31] originally built okay so it sounds like there are some things that they could do that would be permissible in that space [27:38] that would allow them to enjoy their yard differently but the patio would [27:43] require a variance corre okay great thank you commissioner day just wanted to [27:51] point out that back in May when we had a variance request it did have that uh language about the essential character [27:57] as well [28:08] La scene so you showed a map of all the or most of the properties around Lake [28:14] Cornelia do you mind just pulling that back [28:24] up and the measurements are off of an aerial photograph so I don't what anyone do you think that they are you know [28:30] these are approximate very approximate okay so how close would this Improvement [28:36] be to the lake was it 29 ft or what did you say roughly 29 ft yes okay and that [28:42] is to the ordinary high water elevation and I'm measuring off the edge of the water I don't know if those are the same [28:53] elevations but the I you know the three where they're located where it's located [28:58] those are pretty much the closest over here to the lake and then they you know [29:05] widen out the Lots get deeper I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if if [29:10] if the variants were granted would that make this property the one with the [29:16] Improvement that was closest to the relevant boundar closer [29:22] to the relevant boundary than any other property probably I don't know for sure [29:28] a lot of those improvements I I was looking at Old surveys and most of those surveys are from 1955 and it's just a [29:33] box on a lot and there isn't any patios or decks or anything showing on there so [29:39] it's difficult to know [29:45] okay Miranda so um other setback ordinances the city has [29:52] um are typically created entirely within the city itself and just due to you know [29:59] neighborhood character or whatever right so but this is actually a state ordinance that required the city to [30:06] change its ordinance is that yes okay so the city changed its ordinance so the [30:12] the state ordinance presumably exists to protect water quality or I'm sure that's [30:18] part of it yeah um and also to protect the the shoreline you know there's a movement away from having manicured [30:25] Lawns up to shorelines and all of that I mean this happened quite a long time ago [30:31] and it was quite a shock for a lot of people that had property that had the there are some properties where it's a [30:37] 50 foot setback from a lake Ponder stream but we do have some Arrowhead [30:43] Indian Head lake lake corelia miror Lakes those are all 75 ft and that is a [30:48] the the setback tripled for those properties so it is you know it is um [30:54] can be really obviously with this one it was a real challenge okay thank you and then [31:00] the so what's the water quality for corn Lake Cornelia I'm probably not the expert to [31:08] answer that I mean it seems like there's a lot of complaints about it was my understanding but I don't live there [31:15] um okay thank [31:22] you thank you uh Planet AER just a couple questions on the variance for new [31:28] construction so do you have any sense of how many homes have been upgraded or new [31:33] construction that occurred on that Lake since I guess [31:39] 1992 um hard to say I know there was one that was taken down to the foundation [31:45] and literally rebuilt on the foundation with very limited improvements but they wanted a newer home obvious obviously a [31:53] much nicer home um and that sort of that one and another one well more than a few [32:01] uh prompted an ordinance change that now we Define what uh a tear down is what a [32:07] new home is you know we have this 50% exterior wall area removal that so um [32:14] that one wasn't subjected to the scrutiny for [32:20] a new home because it was considered you know a remodel and it was [32:27] not out of the envelope of what was there currently um now that would have been [32:33] considered a new home and it would have had to get a variance from the 75 foot set back [32:38] um there really haven't been I think I I there's a vacant lot [32:43] 6708 um you can see um I don't know why that hasn't been rebuilt on you know [32:50] there may be some challenges I don't know um there are newer homes on the [32:55] west side but again they're much deeper further [33:00] away you um just think into this a little bit more here uh so you kind of mention if [33:08] it was a new construction let's just say it falls within the definition of new construction this is a new house yeah [33:14] this would be a new a new home absolutely then any new [33:20] construction would more than likely just looking at the distances from the lake line to the to the end of the home would [33:28] probably need a variance to meet the requirement for the 75t setb yes well a [33:34] lot of the most of the homes on the east side of Lake carnelia are very impacted [33:39] by that and would require a variance I mean that um survey that I showed [33:45] previously showed that the current home and the previous home on that lot was bisected I me right through the middle [33:51] of the house where that 75t setback is um it's a shallower lot but even if you [33:58] you know have a little bit deeper lot it's still going to be impacted yeah and even like just looking at the front of [34:05] the home I think the code says that we would look at the average of the [34:10] distances from the street correct to the front of the home they were lucky enough [34:15] to be able to pull their house a little bit forward I don't know you know that could happen in every [34:20] instance like I guess like where I'm going with this one is just to understand like where on the property [34:26] could you position a home that you wouldn't require variance but what it seems like more than likely here any new [34:32] home any new construction would more than likely need a variance to exist on this property a lot of them would this [34:39] particular property couldn't rebuild a house on that lot without getting a variance it just there's no footprint [34:47] that you could build a house thank [34:54] you there's a question when does a statute of limitations run [35:00] out after new construction right because I mean anyone [35:06] can modify a portion of their property without needing a permit depending on [35:12] what it is correct so like what what is that Magic Window you don't need a permit for a [35:19] patio correct if it's like at all right it depends if it [35:25] requires grading a certain amount of grading and yes it would require a grading permit but you're also correct [35:32] that if it doesn't need a grading permit it's not something that um the city has any record of or that we would review [35:39] and it it's put upon the property owner to know the rules and to make sure that they comply um that's why I'm saying [35:45] there's all kinds of stuff in the back yards of you know these along the east side that I have I don't know we don't [35:52] have any record of in terms of your it's a fiveyear look back for uh engineering to look at so [36:00] five years yeah for their uh review I know yeah it's basically if you [36:06] don't move more than 10 cubic yards of soil or 2500 square ft which this [36:13] wouldn't be doing and if it were more than 5 [36:19] years they technically could do this as far as I understand our [36:24] code well no they would need a variance and they should come in and have that [36:29] addressed because it would not meet the setback um and if it did need [36:35] a grading permit you know we wouldn't be able to issue a grading permit for it [36:40] but you don't need so but you don't need a permit for a patio right so I I'm just trying to put myself like in a [36:47] sympathetic shoes of like a a homeowner or someone like say you owned a house here for like 10 years and you want to [36:53] put in a patio I mean I guess if if you went to the city's resources How would [37:00] how would you know if it's if there's not a permit [37:07] required for a patio right I mean we wouldn't unless there was a complaint correct right and we've had those and [37:15] we've had to enforce the ordinance okay yeah [37:20] I'm you just like you look at this map too and just from a sympathetic standpoint is like like this is probably [37:29] one of the closest houses to the lake too which just limits what you can do around [37:34] it it would seem reasonable to put something you could sit at that doesn't seem to be quite a big impact especially [37:42] if there isn't a permit required for a patio [37:47] um it it just seems like one of those unfortunate gray areas until there might [37:52] be a complaint you wouldn't know so I'm I don't think there's like fall play I [37:58] think when people build a house they don't have some landscape improvements planned and it's not like they were [38:05] intending to sneak this in later it's just like hey we built the house usually see a house without a deck then they add [38:11] a deck later or they add a patio later so uh just trying to reconcile what is [38:17] required and what isn't and what that statue of limitations is you know if this were 5 years [38:23] later would this even come before us if there weren't a [38:30] complaint probably not well if they were if the property owner is aware of the ordinances and it's not it needs a [38:36] variance then it should come in front of the Planning Commission I I do want to raise one more issue that you know and [38:44] this is a pretty new issue we have a hard surface or impervious surface maximum as well this project meets that [38:53] requirement you know that's also something that becomes an is issue if people don't get permits for things and [39:01] you know we do have that in place as well so um you know I just see it's [39:07] tough cuz like there isn't a permit for a patio necessarily so like if you went to the city's website like I don't know [39:14] I mean I I could see why why would you keep digging isn't it kind of like when [39:19] you put a fence on your property line that maybe is a buts the street I'm thinking of like my house is on a corner [39:25] lot if I didn't do what I do and know I could think I could put the fence there [39:31] but it's technically part of the easement of the city and someone could I wouldn't had to have pulled a permit but [39:36] it would still be violating the setback yeah and you might not know until there's a complaint I'm just trying to [39:43] understand timing and like let's say this this was 75 ft away and they didn't [39:49] move more than 10 cubic yards or 2500 square fet I mean they they could do [39:54] that it's just because this is a in place and it's encroaching I get it I [40:00] just I'm just trying to understand like why it might be tough to [40:05] try to do something right and maybe you just don't know and then you're stuck [40:11] so yeah but aren't the regulations around every body of [40:18] water yeah so it sounds like 50 ft for some 75 ft for others but like if you [40:26] see your neighbor that has a deck pretty close to the water like you might just not know so yeah like you should look into [40:33] it and you should follow the rules but like let's say that they have a [40:39] pervious patio right I mean would there be an issue here like if it were 100% [40:46] pervious or most of it was drained and contained there wouldn't be an issue right that's included in um hard surface [40:55] coverage and prvious surface coverage that whether it's permeable or not um because [41:01] if it's permeable at some point you have to maintain it and so um when it I [41:07] wasn't part of that group that decided um what would be included in that but [41:13] literally every hard surface even if it's permeable is counted in the [41:20] 50% maximum yeah because engineering's [41:26] report I mean it it's assuming it's a 100% impervious surface [41:33] so I mean I it just sounds like I mean what commissioner El mentioned too like [41:38] there could be some practical Alternatives that could be explored that achieve maybe the same [41:46] thing um just trying to help find a solution if there is [41:51] one but yeah that's all I got for questions anyone else [41:59] all right thank you give the chance for the uh applicant if you'd like to say [42:04] any say anything provide a presentation or ask answer any questions you got [42:10] questions for us uh no questions uh but we do have some context associated with sort of what you all have heard um first [42:18] of all uh Chris and her team have been great to work with u they allowed us to [42:24] take a property that was very difficult to try and fit in and we were able to [42:30] get a a wonderful house I I travel a lot for work and I was telling my wife this when I came home today um beautiful [42:38] sunset I said man I am lucky to live in this house it's too bad I can't go outside [42:46] and sit on a patio to enjoy the outdoors lovely view but we just can't at this [42:53] point have a patio out in that area um so this started a long time ago uh [43:01] probably late 2017 early 2018 there was an existing [43:07] home there that you saw uh our goal was we were going to [43:12] keep the house and we were going to remodel it and as we uh applied for a variance [43:19] for a 3-foot extension on the garage we were told hey um you can't do that [43:26] because your home is was in a flood plane and in order to do that you you're only allowed to do certain amount of [43:32] improvements to the property and when we had submitted for the 3ot variants we had submitted our whole entire plan to [43:38] remodel that home well that was going to be basically taking it down to the studs and starting from scratch and trying to [43:46] make that H work uh for us as it existed once we found out that you know you can [43:52] only improve the property so much because you don't want to have property being improved a lot in a flood plane we [43:57] understand that concept was going to take us about 6 years to do everything that we wanted to do to that house to [44:05] get it to the point to where you know that's what the house we wanted to live in um we didn't want to live in [44:11] construction for six years and so working with Chris and her team they [44:17] came up with a plan and supported a variance for us to build this home which [44:23] we were very thankful to have that opportunity having said that I got to say we were [44:29] pretty focused after a year and a half of trying to trying to negotiate to get this home put on to just build the home [44:37] we hadn't thought about Landscaping yet we hadn't thought about uh you know whether we're going to have a patio I [44:44] will say that during the course of our discussions with the Planning Group we had talked about the possibility of [44:49] having uh a deck put on the second level of the home on the backside so that we [44:55] could have some sort of A View to the lake and we were told that that was not permitted because it was going to be too [45:01] close to the lake okay um we decided to build the home differently and we do not [45:07] we do not have any sort of an overhang or a a patio uh or a deck on the on the [45:13] property so it's just the back end of the home um I wish I would have known that we could have applied for a for a [45:19] patio at the time but we didn't we didn't think about it so having said all that uh we built we got the house built [45:27] long story longer and we finally got to the Landscaping portion of we had a landscaping contract that was going to [45:34] help us do that we said hey here's the patio configuration we'd already negotiated where the house was going to [45:40] sit and this is kind of what we want to do and I said you know worked in the Dina a lot um do we have any issues with [45:49] making sure that we're all set NOP should be good build build the [45:54] patio well then we then we began negotiations with the city of Adina the [46:01] 9M Watershed district and FEMA to make sure that this home was actually out of [46:09] the flood plane so that required us to work with the city and the grading plan so they [46:15] they helped us with that they they helped us with the with negotiating with FEMA which took almost four and a half [46:21] years to negotiate with them for various things that they wanted to actually lift [46:28] the home out of the flood plane um a lot of time and a lot of [46:33] money spent to try and negotiate with FEMA to make that happen having said all [46:40] that this also relates to the permeability of the backyard so with the [46:47] city they said hey because you're so close to the to the lake we need you to [46:52] have a a large rain Garden put in which we did we also have a [46:57] containment uh we have a containment uh tank that sits underneath that rain [47:03] Garden that captures water and slowly releases it out into the um area so we [47:12] worked with the city on everything that they wanted to have that put in to to make sure that we have good water [47:18] quality that is coming off of our property the other thing that we did and [47:25] and we did this almost immediately once we got on to the property is that we we negotiated uh with 9mile water creek [47:32] District to make sure that the house met their requirements for it being out of their jurisdiction and then we applied [47:40] for uh a grant uh which we received a $5,000 Grant from The Watershed District [47:47] to do plantings to separate our lawn from the [47:53] shoreline and so we have done that and then they have come I guess the last probably last 3 years to ensure that [48:00] that has remained consistent so I'm not sure you can see it from the picture but there is a buffer of oh I guess probably [48:07] a couple feet at least that have planting native plants that have been put in place to secure the the boundary [48:15] of where our property meets the the lake it's also got a um an ex there was an [48:21] existing Rock bed there as well on the shoreline that we were allowed to keep [48:26] and and we have um restored that to sort of the a more pristine condition because [48:32] it was really overgrown and that sort of thing the other issue that we dealt with [48:38] the city on the permeability on flat surfaces for concrete was um that the [48:46] way the house is situated is that when you back out of your driveway you're backing right onto a Cornelia Drive [48:52] which is a pretty busy roadway and we're right near a corner so we thought hey is [48:58] there some way that we can put in a pull through driveway so we negotiated we negotiated [49:05] with Chris's team to say yes you can put in a you can put in a a half circular [49:10] driveway but it is a permeable it's we went to the Watershed district and say [49:17] we got out and we looked in their parking lot and it's like wow how do we do that cuz it's a permeable driveway [49:23] that they have when you go park at their facility so we we negotiated that so we put in a a very extensive system to [49:32] allow us to have uh at least half of our driveway is permeable so you can actually drive over it and yet it's [49:39] covered it looks like it's part of your lawn so we've we've tried to [49:45] address as many of these concerns as the three governmental entities that we've [49:51] been negotiating with over the last four and a half five years to try and meet these requirements so having said all [49:58] that at the end of the day um we have certainly enjoyed working with Chris and our team and we love our house uh We've [50:05] submitted statements as to why we believe that um we meet all the criteria for an acceptance versus a denial more [50:13] than happy to take any questions that you might have um and see where your thoughts [50:20] are thank you for the context very helpful commissioner pH [50:27] so you have you have no basement you just in the main level explain that that is a great question uh so we have a [50:35] crawl space we have a crawl space that's 3 and 1/2 ft high so you have to get [50:41] down real low you have to get down real low we actually have little carts that we move around so it's a full floor [50:46] plate 3 and 1/2 ft below the first level of her house but as Chris said in her [50:53] presentation that lowest level is 6 Ines above the flood [51:00] plane and so we designed it that way specifically so that when we negotiated [51:07] with femma that we would be at least several inches above the flood plane at [51:12] because they consider that the lowest livable area of the of the [51:18] property thank you commissioner Miranda so you talked [51:26] about the rain garden and the um holding tank yes so presumably that's size was a [51:33] specific size that you had to build yes sir so presumably the size is based on the size of the property the size of the [51:39] backyard I suppose and the the break or angle of the property you know so how [51:46] much so that was all that was all we worked with the city to uh meet their [51:52] grading plan and So eventually um you know we got to the point to where uh our [51:58] grading plan was approved and the underground tank was installed per the specifications right but I guess the [52:05] question I'm asking is that that's that's sized for a particular um the volume of it is sized [52:10] for a particular dimensions of the property the angle that it's reaching correct you know towards the property [52:16] and then its permeability also right correct yes so basically so maybe more [52:22] than you want to know about this but basically you had to dig you know Dig Down dig the the dirt up they place the tank and then [52:30] there's a a gravel uh field over the top of that and then there's some other um [52:36] items associated with that and then we we have it covered with chips and then we actually have done some plantings um [52:43] that we were allowed to to put in in the rain Garden yeah right so the the reason I asked the question is because [52:49] presumably a hardscaped patio would change the permeability and the runoff [52:55] and so I think the size of that would have to change it could the other the other issue that we were just talking [53:01] about is you know we're not married to the fact that this has to be a a impermeable surface like if it's a [53:08] permeable surface we could probably be okay with something like that we just [53:13] didn't really think about it until we were just talking about it right now as far as hey you know we just want [53:19] something that we can have some chairs out there on um and even if it's a even [53:25] if it's a um you know gravel still sounds like we'd have to [53:31] um get a grading permit and all the rest of that so right now the that we the [53:37] application we have is for the pavers that we want to use so great thank [53:48] you so the patio for you is to watch a [53:55] sunset really just to sit outside and and we have U my wife has family that lives here in the cities and we'd like [54:02] to have some people over and sit outside and enjoy the outdoors um we have a we do have a dock [54:08] I don't want maybe I'm getting Beyond Myself here but we do have a dock that we you know it's a smaller dock that we [54:15] have some kayaks on and so sometimes we'll go out and stand out on the dock because then you can you can see [54:21] everything but it's not it's not a place where you could set chairs or anything like that so that's what we're looking for [54:27] thank [54:32] you so I just want to clarify something real quick about the permeable versus [54:38] impermeable surface right so gravel and or mulch in my from my [54:44] understanding is that that would not need a permit I'm not the expert on that I have [54:51] to defer to Chris's team on that yeah so that's that's you know so planer AR shaking her head no that would not [54:56] require a permit if we were if you were to do something like that so I just wanted to make that because that the gr [55:02] if you were doing a certain amount of grading yes but then that's separate from the patio surface itself so yeah I [55:07] mean so it's the difference between a hard surface here like where I can set my chair on it's always going to be [55:12] level Surface versus when I go out and I'm going to sit on some mulch um you know how much is my chair [55:19] going to rock back and forth now having said that you know there's a difference between a want and a need [55:27] and so right now our application for the pavers now you know if we would want to [55:33] look at something else that's a possibility but you know we're our application says [55:39] pavers yeah understood I just wanted to clarify that point that you wouldn't need that permit if there was yeah I [55:45] mean the the other thing I will say about that is you talked about pavers is that [55:51] um we know we may differ on this but I don't believe that we're going to be the closest thing to the lake our the house [55:58] one of the houses 6608 which is right next to us I guess it would be to [56:05] the to the north of us yeah they have a they have they have a deck that's [56:12] extends out from the house but they also have a large patio that extends out past [56:18] the deck so the deck is like a certain distance from the lake but underneath [56:24] that deck and when I was looking on the picture you can't really see it there but there's a there's a patio that [56:30] extends out I would say several feet from the from the from the [56:36] deck and so I get it you know those those houses were all built before this [56:41] all came into existence and so we we take the kayaks out and we see there's a [56:48] group of probably about five to six homes that are in this one area near our house anyone who is going to buy those [56:56] homes or want to do anything with them we'll have to deal with the flood plane and they'll have to come and hopefully [57:04] have Chris help them be able to rebuild out of the flood plane and that's what we did is we wanted to take that home we [57:11] did not want to be in the flood plane we did it um it was a lot of work but I [57:18] will say having a a variance for a patio was kind of the [57:23] last thing that we ever thought of so I wish we would have done it in 2018 [57:29] but we're here [57:34] tonight any other questions thank you okay thanks a [57:43] lot this is a public hearing so we will open it to that portion of the [57:48] meeting yeah [57:54] yeah hi hi I'm Stephanie rasley I know it's late and I wanted to thank everyone [58:00] for your time because you're all volunteers so really appreciate you being here and thanks Chris for putting [58:05] the package together um I just wanted to say just in addition to what my husband [58:11] said that um The Patio having the papers I feel is important not just for our [58:18] family but for subsequent residents of the home um I had an older family member [58:25] come to the house in June we were not able to sit outside this person has [58:30] mobility issues and has since died and has not been able to sit on the patio at [58:36] our house which um is unfortunate and I feel that's a a hardship um in addition I just wanted to [58:43] say that um our family is really committed to the health of Lake Cornelia [58:48] and making it a healthy body of water my husband sits on the um lake carnelia [58:54] Lake Association and I'm doing volunteer work for the Watershed and baiting the fish traps to [59:01] get the invasive fish out of the lake so we would really really appreciate your [59:06] help with getting this experience passed thank [59:13] you thank you for that all right so public hearing uh for [59:20] those who are tuning in remotely uh for you to jump in the queue again [59:26] call the following number 312 53581 one0 enter access code [59:35] 2632 661 6813 the password is [59:42] 5454 and then press star three on your keypad to get in the queue to speak [59:48] while you do that we're going to open it up to those who are here in person that would like to testify uh please come [59:56] forward to the podium you have 3 minutes to do [1:00:08] so David Frankle again I have no skin in the game on this side is here for another reason [1:00:14] but historically the DNR doesn't allow what they call grandfathering on lakes Shore properties essentially using if [1:00:21] somebody wants to come in and rebuild a house like the this couple did if there would have been an exist listing patio [1:00:26] like they mentioned there are quite a few older ones as long as a DNR approves it for future use keep in mind [1:00:33] grandfathering given they have you know rules that's something to look at when [1:00:39] people buy properties I can tell you from my own experience when you buy Lakefront I never have but plenty of [1:00:44] friends who have you know you're you're going to face some rules especially the DNR so it's people got to be aware of [1:00:51] that and most and usually Realtors will clue people in but but I would have the city look into the grandfathering issue [1:00:57] since there are a lot of properties around lakes here to try to you know solve some of these issues we just [1:01:03] talked about today if if it's appol thank you thank you very [1:01:08] much anyone else here in person thenone we'll move over to the [1:01:15] virtual queue do we have anyone in there no we don't it's been probably a minute so far yep so I think we're safe to [1:01:22] close the public hearing and I'd welcome a motion to do so motion to close public [1:01:29] hearing all those in favor say I I so moved public hearing is closed so now we [1:01:34] take it back to the Planning Commission to deliberate over this [1:01:41] one anyone want to kick it off yeah commissioner [1:01:50] felt um I work with first of all I [1:01:55] appreciate you're being good stewards of this land and everything that you've done up to this point and learning about [1:02:02] this when you built your house and continuing to learn about it and your um [1:02:07] work with the um the Watershed District [1:02:12] um I am an architect and I do a lot of remodels and additions in the [1:02:17] neighborhood and um I did one up on Branson these [1:02:23] houses aren't on lakes but I went up on Branson and we did small addition we could not do a basement underneath it [1:02:28] because it was in a landlock basin um my house is in a landlock basin [1:02:34] and I can't build out to the back I can build another like 10 ft out but I can't build out to the back and I can't build [1:02:41] beyond the um 100-year um flood elevation and I'm now doing another [1:02:48] project on Scott Terrace it's also in a landlock basin and I remember the first time it happened I was like oh I didn't [1:02:55] realize that was a land unlock base and the second time it happened I was like oh I guess this is and then now it's [1:03:00] like okay this is the new normal um we have to deal [1:03:06] with um greater Reigns and we have to start taking care of each other um right [1:03:13] I can't do something that's going to affect my neighbor um to the South or the North or the um west of [1:03:23] me um so I mean I know I know this is you know [1:03:31] not what you want necessarily but I think that there's other ways that you might be able to have your view of the [1:03:39] sunset um you know so I think kind of affecting that Shoreline that's [1:03:46] important to all of us in the department of the DNR and this is a state issue I [1:03:53] think if there's a way that you could do this with um wood chips or gravel or [1:03:58] some other thing or you just like cutting the grass really low and throwing out a rug out there for the [1:04:04] evening so you can have a place to put some chairs and a solo stove um I think [1:04:09] it's going to have to be more a a more temporary kind of thing and that's [1:04:15] that's my feeling on it thank [1:04:23] you thoughts I'm sure there's some commissioner day all right so thank you again for [1:04:31] being here tonight and for uh coming and answering our questions and we appreciate the testimony it these [1:04:38] variance requests ones like this are probably my least favorite parts of being on the Planning [1:04:44] Commission uh you know it's to me it's you're asking for something pretty you know at least reasonable use and I [1:04:52] understand you know your desire to have the patio to watch the sunset and to accommodate you know to have a hard [1:04:58] surface to accommodate those disabilities um none of us come come [1:05:05] here at night and say you know we anxious to deny a variance request like this right um but what what I I guess [1:05:13] just struggling with is the different criteria that have to be met um in terms of the you know the purpose and intent [1:05:20] of the ordinance the timing aspect here I know you know at hindsight's 2020 you wish you would have applied for it back [1:05:26] in 2018 um but it wasn't and you know now we're asking for even you know [1:05:32] encroaching on the lake even further when this 75t setback um requirement is [1:05:37] in place and you know as far as a uh circumstance unique to the [1:05:46] property or you know using this in basically applying [1:05:53] um meeting the co meeting the spirit of the Ordnance I I just I don't see anything unique to the property that [1:05:59] would mandate us you know give us reasoning finding a fact to say that this patio should be allowed um although [1:06:06] that's we in the spirit with the ordinance you know for your for your sake I wish the ordinance wasn't in [1:06:12] place um but it is and we're charged with with enforcing it and I can't see [1:06:18] um enough reason here to to justify um granting this variance as it's written [1:06:29] commissioner alar so Echo other Commissioners thanks for coming in and for all that you do to [1:06:36] manage your Lakeshore Pro property responsibly I don't I think it'll make [1:06:41] you feel much better but maybe it will the just to reduce your regret there's [1:06:49] no assurance that you would have gotten this variance in 2018 either um if they [1:06:55] were I mean you can never tell every Planning Commission is different like two years from now will be different but if they [1:07:01] were objecting to a deck they probably would have known as to patio too I mean you can never be sure but don't regret [1:07:07] that too much um as as commissioner day said we like [1:07:14] to say yes and allow people to use the land the way they want to use the land [1:07:20] but for me in this case I just can't find a way to not uh honor the [1:07:26] intentions of the DNR in this case and I and I hope you can find an [1:07:32] alternative solution to be able to use the land the way you want to um with [1:07:39] some other uh with some other plan but thanks again for coming in [1:07:48] tonight commissioner B yeah I agree with what everybody said [1:07:56] um just wanted to make a couple extra points for the record as we think about these things because they're individual [1:08:03] decisions but they do have broader impact and they set precedent for other people so if we were to Grant this [1:08:08] variance for example uh we'd be sort of uh hard pressed to um say no to [1:08:14] everybody else around some of these Lakes who wanted to build a similar patio or similar deck uh far into the [1:08:20] The Zone prohibited by the applicable state law and we so we I think we think [1:08:25] about that broader precedent as well when we make these decisions but um it is unique to have a state law that that [1:08:32] puts a requirement on something and I think for that reason I'm I'm also inclined to to not vote for it I'm less [1:08:38] comfortable using the variance mechanism to override or make exceptions to state law especially ones that that kind of [1:08:44] sound in Environmental Protection concerns um one other point I just wanted to make other than noting that [1:08:51] after a careful review I just don't think that the required legal criteria are met based on the fact ta is that the [1:08:56] city sort of laid out um if we wanted to approve it we would we could you could use this alternative rationale and I've [1:09:02] seen this come up a few times in our meetings where where one thing we could have done is find that the Practical [1:09:08] difficulty of complying with the with the law is the requirement of the law [1:09:15] itself which I think is a is not logical and is like sort of a circular problem [1:09:21] and if we did sort start trending that direction I would say we want find a different diff sorry a different [1:09:27] practical difficulty I think everybody realizes if that were true if that were a permissible practical there would be a [1:09:32] practical difficulty associate with every law because every law would prohibit something so um so I just [1:09:38] wanted to kind of throw that out there as we think about these things that keep coming at us in different forms um and [1:09:45] thank you for your your efforts and encourage you it sounds like you're open to finding a potentially alternative [1:09:50] solution that lets you use the land kind of how you want but also compl IES with [1:09:55] some of these more strict requirements and um appreciate you being open to thinking about those Alternatives so [1:10:02] thanks thank you commissioner hman I just wanted to Echo commissioner [1:10:09] Bornstein and what everyone has said this is not the fun part of our job um [1:10:16] but if you guys are open to alternate ways permeability to configure something [1:10:23] that might work and suit your needs um I certainly would be open to reconsidering my decision on on this [1:10:29] particular item [1:10:37] morand um yeah so um kind of echo what uh other Commissioners have said but [1:10:43] also I'd like to point out you know a couple things um one I asked uh planner Aker about you know this particular [1:10:51] ordinance um in respect to when you know we have setback requirements and we're [1:10:58] we're looking at especially where a house has been before you know um if [1:11:03] it's something that's you know just done for you know the way the neighborhood [1:11:08] looks or whatever if the house exists before then generally I feel that it's [1:11:13] something that you know could could violate that that ordinance [1:11:20] um but this isn't just an ordinance about you know how people feel it's an ordinance you know from the DNR that um [1:11:28] want to protect you know the lake itself and so um I feel that that's a really [1:11:34] important reason and I I mean I feel your pain for dealing with all these government entities but you know in this [1:11:40] case they're all trying to either protect the lake or protect your house from being you know flooded um so this [1:11:47] is all for for your benefit as well as your neighbors so um for all these reasons I think you know this um [1:11:55] requirement and you know we already gave a a variance for the house itself because you know the lot would be [1:12:01] unbuildable we you know we understand that but this is something that's more of a want and I think the [1:12:08] um you know the DNR has very good reasons for what they do and I think it would be a mistake to uh to go against [1:12:14] those so thank [1:12:20] you just very simply I agree with my fellow Commissioners for all the different reasons stated so I can't [1:12:27] support that anyone else all [1:12:35] right just want to share some you know we've had things in the past you know [1:12:41] where either around lakes or the creek where homes are closer than the 75 ft [1:12:47] and like commissioner or planner arer mentioned you know it is okay to E has [1:12:55] ordinance to build closer than the DNR setback and you don't need DNR permission to do so [1:13:03] correct so just because that's in place doesn't mean that is The Binding rule [1:13:09] currently in our city so like if there were a good reason and it's within that [1:13:14] 75 ft and it's in within the city's perview within say the 50 ft then this [1:13:20] is good so we do have Provisions in place to go beyond or [1:13:26] closer I was just mentioning the other things cuz I'm just trying to understand you know process like uh commissioner [1:13:32] day mentioned too like it it helps us to understand the process of a homeowner [1:13:38] who wants to do something and if they look up permit for a patio and don't see anything like they probably think they [1:13:46] might be able to do that because structurally you're not creating any risk uh that needs to be inspected [1:13:53] by a building inspector uh and yes you could be adding uh you [1:13:58] know impervious surface but you might not know that requirement or you might just logically see that you're well [1:14:04] below the 50% threshold so knowing that this is closer [1:14:10] here I I also I can support this because I I feel like there there are some Alternatives [1:14:16] you can do um and and that's just where my mind goes of like what Solutions can [1:14:23] you do to achieve the same thing and I think it's you know doing some light additional earth work to grade either [1:14:31] for some turf or some gravel or maybe it's further conversation with the city [1:14:38] to have some imperious um patio pavers or a patio system that is [1:14:45] self-contained um you do have that infiltration area really close to it [1:14:51] maybe you can go below your patio to get extra storage cuz when it comes to being [1:14:57] around water and flood planes it's about flood storage so as you get up the slope [1:15:03] you can't build new structure that impacts flood storage that's really their main concern with at least the [1:15:11] flood plane not really what happens with runoff it's flood storage so if you [1:15:18] provide a way I'm sure that provide a way to store that water otherwise or let [1:15:24] it infiltrate naturally I think you could achieve what you'd want to it just won't be the exact [1:15:30] look you'd want but I'm just trying to help you get what makes sense practically it seems like there wants to [1:15:36] be something back there as all the neighbors seem to have an area to sit I think there's a way to get there but I [1:15:43] also don't support this current way and apologize for maybe if the process [1:15:49] weren't so clear that's what we're trying to help with so it really helps your you sharing your context so we can [1:15:54] help steer the process to be a clear one for others um after this so any other [1:16:03] comments so to welcome a motion motion to close the public [1:16:08] hearing oh well we already had that [1:16:15] one approval or [1:16:21] denial motion to deny the setback variance request second all those in favor say I I I [1:16:31] oppose so the motion carries the variance was [1:16:37] denied apologize it's not the result you'd want but think you'll find a [1:16:42] different type of solution that you can enjoy out there and hope the city can help some more to get you [1:16:49] there thank you very much all right we're on to our next public he [1:16:56] an Adu variance and we have Addison Lewis the ad Adu [1:17:03] extraordinaire here to provide a presentation similar process to the previous one so if you're tuning in [1:17:09] before I will not go through that again take it [1:17:18] away okay good evening chair Commissioners uh this is a variance request at 401 monter Vue to use an [1:17:25] existing detach garage as an accessory dwelling unit um the property is located in the morning Side neighborhood at the [1:17:32] corner of montere Avenue in 40th Street West uh it's a single family property um [1:17:38] single family home and a detached garage uh located in the rear yard that has access off of 40th [1:17:45] Street um here's a look at the garage as it is today uh it was permitted in 2003 [1:17:51] and included a second story in 2015 the Second Story was a remodel to [1:17:56] accommodate a home office um and that remodel included connecting the structure to sewer and water uh and [1:18:03] installing a bathroom uh there was also a stove or an oven uh that was installed after the fact that was not [1:18:10] permitted there's a look at the bathroom there with the [Music] shower um here's a look at the original [1:18:16] plans from from the garage um that were submitted and drawn up in 2003 um the [1:18:23] this garage was permitted prior to the change in 2013 where we changed how we measure structure height um which now we [1:18:29] measure just to the highest point on a structure so um under the current ordinance this structure measures um 21 [1:18:35] ft in height so it is non-conforming with respect to to Building height and here's just a look at the [1:18:41] floor plans uh this the Upper Floor there is on the left so it's about uh 225 square ft would be the space for the [1:18:50] U um setbacks are applied differently depending on the use of the structure [1:18:55] and also the height of a structure so um for a detached garage located fully within the rear rear yard um it can be [1:19:03] set back uh just 3 feet from an interior sidey yard uh lot line and uh 3 ft from [1:19:08] a rear lot line uh but for a detached accessory dwelling unit over 18 ft in height the interior sidey yard setback [1:19:15] is the same as would be required for the principal building so in in this case that's that's based on the lot width [1:19:22] this lot is 49 ft wide so it has a 5T foot side yard setback uh and a 12T rear [1:19:28] yard setback um so looking at the property survey uh here's the existing garage over here on the right um the [1:19:35] garage is located just 4.1 ft from the rear lot line uh and 4.3 ft from the [1:19:42] interior side Lot line um so therefore in order to accommodate the request for for the change in use um a 7 foot side [1:19:49] yard setback variance and a 7.9t rear yard setback variance would be required [1:19:55] uh just for the change in use um so like I said there's no other changes proposed to this structure it's not changing the [1:20:01] footprint or the height there's no site work proposed so engineering doesn't have any concerns um there are a few uh [1:20:08] minor things that the property owner would have to do to bring the structure into compliance with building code to be [1:20:13] uh able to be used as a dwelling unit um those are listed um in the memo that uh [1:20:19] I I emailed to you today and it's included in the packet so that would be adding insulation sheetrocking the garage and installing an e [1:20:28] window um so Minnesota statute and dast city code require that a variant shall not be granted unless the following uh [1:20:35] findings are made um So based on the information provided and review of the circumstances it is staff's opinion uh [1:20:41] that some but not all of the criteria have been met so um analysis on all the criterias provided in your report but [1:20:47] I'll just Briefly summarize uh the two items in red here uh where staff does not believe that the criteria has been [1:20:53] met so uh the first being that the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance um so although the structure [1:21:00] is already there um there's clearly an intent in the code to have uh different setbacks uh for different uses with the [1:21:06] thought being that different uses can have different impacts on neighboring property and so um when the city adopted [1:21:12] the Adu ordinance uh it made uh a decision on what the appropriate setback is for an Adu uh and decided that this [1:21:19] was different from a garage so um the the basis for the the variance seems be [1:21:24] solely based on the fact that the structure is already there um but it was permitted as a garage and meets the [1:21:30] setbacks for a garage so um without some other kind of unique circumstance um the [1:21:35] request does not appear to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance um so that brings us to to the [1:21:41] other issue or the other criteria that in staff's opinion does not appear to be met and that is that uh the plight of of [1:21:47] the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner so um in this case [1:21:54] there's nothing particularly unique about the property there are no uh unique geographic [1:21:59] features or anything like that um as I said the basis for the variance [1:22:04] is based on the fact that the structure is already there um there are many properties in Idina that have an existing detach garage at 3 ft um or con [1:22:12] could construct a new detach garage at at 3 feet um and so it doesn't seem logical that we would you know not [1:22:18] permit a new Adu at that same setc but then say well if you if you build it as a garage first then you can um have an [1:22:24] Adu by by going through the variance process so I think the hard thing about this one is that it's it's already done [1:22:30] it's already there um but I think if we're looking at this and feeling like it's okay then it would really be the [1:22:35] ordinance that should change um you know rather than making people continue to go through this Varian process um but if if [1:22:42] we feel that that different setback is appropriate then um you know that's why staff's recommendation ultimately is is [1:22:49] to deny the requested variants so um if the Planning Commission does wish to approve the variants um you should [1:22:55] identify findings and support um uh findings that that meet that criteria uh [1:23:01] those should be identified with your motion um and so the city has until September 27th to take action on this [1:23:07] request and with that I'd be happy to take any questions and the applicant is here as well commissioner [1:23:14] hman has somebody been occupying living in that space since [1:23:21] 2003 um to knowledge no if the applicant in 2003 had said to [1:23:30] the city hey I want my mom son somebody to live in that garage that was [1:23:36] permitted as a garage and had the bathroom and maybe the stove's a little questionable but [1:23:43] um it's a possible residence what in 2003 would they have had to do [1:23:49] differently or was there an option all all the remodeling the bathroom hooking it up to soon that was done in [1:23:55] 2015 um and so you know yeah prior to the Adu ordinance we would look at these and say okay um does it have all of the [1:24:04] components to be a dwelling unit if it did we'd say you have to take something out so maybe that's a shower maybe that's a kitchen um in this case I [1:24:11] believe the planning department um told the property owner uh that he needed to take out the stove um before they would [1:24:17] sign off on closing out his building permit in 2015 in 2015 right so he made [1:24:22] it disappear and it's reappeared Ally correct so in in [1:24:30] 2015 it no no no no stuff happens um the [1:24:36] in 2015 there was no way for this space to be habitable according to the city is [1:24:44] that right correct we wouldn't allow have allowed you know someone to be living up there um if we had gotten a [1:24:49] complaint about that we would have followed up with the property owner and said you can't have someone you know staying up there [1:24:55] got it thank you [1:25:01] B I might have another question later but if you mind pulling oh you've got your pictures up there there you go um [1:25:09] so I was relooking at the memo you you wrote and then I think on the first so [1:25:16] on the first page and you just said it and you said in 2015 the second story of the garage was remodeled to accommodate [1:25:24] a home office right that's kind of the premise of the remodel correct I'm I so [1:25:30] I see the bathro I see the shower the kitchenet where's the office can you [1:25:36] just point it like where in the pictures I'm assuming I'm seeing the entire space like is there can you point to the [1:25:41] office um you know when the permit was pulled it was that that's how it was described was to do this for an office [1:25:48] um so you know how people how people use the space in the meantime um we don't really have a lot of control over once [1:25:55] it crosses that threshold of being a dwelling unit that's where we would you know draw the line and say you can't [1:26:00] have a dwelling unit you can't have someone living there um but you know when someone builds a garage once we [1:26:06] permit that garage we don't have a lot of control on how it gets used right I mean people could put couches and television in their garage and use it [1:26:11] for parties um we don't police that or have any control over that um so you [1:26:16] know whether the property owner is just you know going up here to you know watch television or or or work from a laptop [1:26:23] that that's not something we have a lot of control over but um you know the the stove really at the time was where I [1:26:31] think the planning department had drawn the line in 2015 saying now it's a dwelling unit you can't have that you [1:26:37] need to take it out before we'll close out this permit um and then unrelatedly has any [1:26:45] so we just implemented the Adu ordinance has any Adu [1:26:51] been how many adus have been permitted so far we have not permitted any adus at this point okay so if if this variance [1:26:58] were granted this would be the very first Adu permitted in the city of udina [1:27:04] that's correct and the first Adu permitted would be one that required a substantial variance that's correct [1:27:12] okay following up on that I think those are my questions for now sorry how how many applications or inquiries have we [1:27:20] gotten for adus you know we probably had 10 and phone conversations with people [1:27:26] that are interested and just call and ask questions um there's another one that they are probably putting things [1:27:34] together to actually submit um but no other applications have been [1:27:44] submitted any other question oh yeah here we go we'll go down commissioner [1:27:50] Smith thank you uh for this I I know we spent a lot of time working through the [1:27:56] ad ordinance uh and part of it too is to learn from these variances to think [1:28:02] about what we could do in the future uh my question is um with regards to the [1:28:08] garages uh do garages need to be 5 ft from the rear yard uh lot line or three [1:28:16] cuz I thought it was going to be five if a if a detach garage is fully within the [1:28:21] rear yard it can be 3T if it was in the side side yard so to the side of the house um well then it would be a 3ot [1:28:28] from the side but okay so yeah I can go back to [1:28:37] the gotcha so it's 5et for not for for detach garages tool [1:28:43] sheds green houses and garden houses not entirely within the rear yard then it's 5T and it doesn't matter if it's like a [1:28:49] 1ft garage or a twft garage or it's just any kind of garage Ure essentially okay [1:28:57] or shed all right thank you so [1:29:07] much so I just want to dig into this a little bit I I I get what you're saying [1:29:14] about there's a difference between a freestanding garage and an Adu different uses can have different setbacks totally [1:29:21] totally get that and that's what the team has has been working on for so long but I think I heard you say that if we [1:29:29] were to Grant a variance here then we should might as well go ahead and change [1:29:34] the ordinance rather than have people come in for variances is that [1:29:41] what you said yeah I guess I I would saying you know if if the feeling amongst the commission was you know well this is [1:29:47] fine it's already there we're indifferent whether it's a garage or an Adu then really that's telling us like [1:29:53] we we should go back and change the code okay you know if that if that's how we feel right like I I guess that gets [1:30:00] back to like the intent of the ordinance the intent of the ordinance is that an Adu even though the structures could be [1:30:07] the same size it's not about the size it's about the use and the activity so when we made the ordinance there was [1:30:13] intent behind that that an Adu has a setback and and a garage has a different [1:30:18] setback and that they weren't they weren't the same right I think do you think someone could agree with that [1:30:24] but also um perceive a situation where a variance could still be acceptable for [1:30:31] example if this garage seems to be mostly surrounded by garages well that's where I said um barring some other [1:30:38] unique circumstance so if this commission identifies unique circum like you feel [1:30:43] there are unique circumstances to this request that I guess make you feel comfortable granting it then then you [1:30:51] could do that okay thank you [1:30:58] so the the purpose of this ordinance was to provide more housing options in the [1:31:04] city of Adina yes the overall ad ORD yes yes [1:31:09] okay um and one of the things [1:31:16] um we debated about or talked about exceptional conditions was a different [1:31:21] lot sizes right and that was part of our discussion discussions was like morning side has much smaller Lots than you know [1:31:27] so so a garage that's 5T from the or 3 ft from the lot line in morning side is [1:31:34] a very different thing than one in you know Southwest ad that's that close to [1:31:39] the lot line right so there's certain [1:31:45] expectations and and this although the lot faces the side street the it is on a [1:31:51] corner it is a corner lot right so that's so the lot it's not you know we [1:31:59] talked about lots that were wider than they were deep and it's not that but but the way the garage faces it sort of does [1:32:04] meet that that thing so okay so I'm just clarifying all these little conditions here um and so it's 4 [1:32:13] feet No 7 foot variance from the side yard up back correct yep should be five [1:32:20] here it should be 12 along the rear L line so it's 7 ft in the back and point or for9 yeah okay and 7 [1:32:29] on the side okay thank you [1:32:34] yep I don't recall seeing in the packet that we got any information on Better [1:32:40] Together din from the neighbors did we hear anything from the neighbors um we include a link to the Better Together [1:32:45] website but there were no comments submitted so yeah we got I looked at that I did not see anything okay [1:32:57] I want to follow up on commissioner Miranda's um talk about the lot and keep [1:33:03] the lot up here if this right this is a small [1:33:12] lot what's the do you have the lot Dimensions 50 ft by by