11-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«03-2866a November 14,2003 Page 2 Staff reviewed the zoning file and the PC and Council minutes to determine whether any documentation therein would support or refute the Zoschke’s position. The initial conclusion reached wm that the square footage to be removed was not documented in either set of minutes, but the Council memo of 2-20-03 clearly indicates a 681 s.f removal, which was reflected in the attached resolution adopted by Council on 2-24-03. Staff has confirmed that the diagram. Exhibit A, was attached to the resolution at the time it was presented to Council, as it appears in the official record packet for that meeting. Therefore, tfie Zoschke’s had opportunity to review the resolution and exhibit prior to its adoption, and had further opportunity to review it between its adoption and the time they individually signed it more than a month later. The Council did place this item on its Consent Agenda, so no discussion was held at the Council level for this item. In order to give the Zoschke’s the benefit of the doubt, I discussed this application in July with Jennifer Chaput Zierke who was the Orono staff person responsible for the Zoschke application. Jennifer is currently the City Planner for Long Lake. Jennifer advised me that the resolution, exhibit and memo accurately reflected w hat she believed to be the required removals. I then requested that Planning Commissioner Jeanne Mabusth review the audio tape of the meeting to determine w hether any new information could be gleaned from the tape. After reviewing the tape she indicated that she could reach no conclusion as to the exact extent of removals required. She did indicate that there was discussion that occurred in relation to my (Gaffron ’s) drawing the potential removals on an overhead transparency at the PC meeting. It would be useful if that transparency was available. However, as is our standard practice, transparencies and duplicate copies of documents are discarded from the zoning files at the end of the review process, and that transoarenev is unfortunately, long gone. ^ ’ To further the review 1 brought the matter intormally before the Planning Commission after their August or September meeting, and the few members present who were part of the February review did not have a clear recollection of the details of the required removals. The inability to reach a concensus generated my September 25 letter to the Zoschke’s suggesting they could file an appeal. I did not offer the Zoschke’s the option of filing for a new variance application, although that option was perhaps available; this could still be an option depending on the outcome of this appeal, but also puts them at risk of re-openina the entire hardcover issue and an even more negative result, fi-om their perspective. Applicant ’s Request Please review the applicants ’ letter of request. Their position is that they have removed all but a 2.5 ’ strip of the lower patio, w hich stnp was retained to support the retaining wall. They believe the stairway leading to the upper patio, and its adjoining spillway, need to be retained for drainage purposes and to reatin access to the lower yard. They further want to keep the upper patio as it is accessible to family members who cannot traverse stairw ays.