12-08-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«03*2866a N»ven:ber 14.2003 Page 2 Staff rjviswed the zoning file and the PC and Council minutes to determine whether any docur.er/.ation therein would support or refute the Zoschke’s position. The initial conclusion reached was that the square footage to be removed was not documented in either set of minutes, but the Ccur.cil 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, w as attached to the resolution at the time it was presented to Council, as it appears in the official record packet for that meeting. Therefore, the Zoschke s had opportunity to review the resolution and exhibit prior to its adoption, and had further oppor-nity to review it benveen its adoption and the time they individually signed it more than a month .c.er. The Council did place this item on its Consent Agenda, so no discussion was held at the Cc.r.cil level for this item. In ord:r 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 ZoschV«- application, Jennifer is currently the City Planner for Long Lake. Jennifer advised me that the resoluuon, exhibit and irer.o accurately reflected what she believed to be the required removals. I then rec/jested that Planning Commissioner Jeanne Mabusth review the audio tape of the meeting to dctsrrir.e w hether any new information could be gleaned from the tape. After reviewing the tape she ir,c::ated that she could reach no conclusion as to the exact extent of removals required. She did indicate *nat there was discussion that occurred in relation to my (Gaffron’s) drawing the potential remov3.L' on an overhead transparency at the PC meeting. It would be useful if that transparency was availar.e. 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 transparency is, unforrcr.a:ely, long gone. To firier the review I brought the matter informally before the Planning Commission after their Augus. September meeting, and the few members present who were part of the February review did nc: have a clear recollection of the details of the required removals. The inability to reach a concensus generated my September 25 lener to the Zoschke’s suggesting they cc-Id file an appeal. I did not offer the Zoschke’s the option of filing for a new variance applicatio.n, although that option was perhaps available; this could still be an option depending on the ou.ccme of this appeal, but also puts them at risk of re-opening the entire hardcover issue and an ever, more negative result, from their perspective. Applicant ’s Request Please review the applicants ’ lener of request. Their position is that they have removed all buta2.5' strip o: L".e lower patio, which strip 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 >-ard. They further want to keep the upper patio as it is accessible to family members who cannot traverse stairw ays.