11-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•03*2M<a Novtmbtr 14.2M3 Pate 2 Suff reviewed ihe zoning file and ihc PC and Council minuics to determine whether any documentation therein would support or refute the Zoschke’s position. The initial conclusion reached was that the square footage to be removed w as 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 Ihc attached resolution adopted by CoufKil 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, the Zoschke’s had opportunity to rc\ icw ilic resolution and exhibit prior to its adoption, and had further opportunity to review- it betw een its adoption and the time ihev individually signed it more than a month later. The Council did place this item on iii 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 w-ho w as Ihe Orono staff person responsible for the Zoschke application. Jennifer is currently the City Planner for Long Lake. Jenni fer advised me that the resolution, exhibit and memo accurately reflected what she believed to be the required removals. I then requested that Planning Commissioner Jeanne Mabusth review the audio tape of the meeting to dctciminc whether any new iniormaiion could be gleaned from the tape. After reviewing the tape she indicated that she could reach no conclusion as to the e.xact extent of removals required. She did indicate that there w as discussion that occurred in relation to my (Gaffron’s) draw ing the potential removals on an overhead transparency at the PC meeting. It w ould be useful if that transparency was available. How ever, as is our standard practice, transparencies and duplicate copies of documents arc discarded from the zoning files at the end of the rc\ iew process, and that transparency is, unfortunately, long gone. To further the review I brought the matter informally before the Planning Commission after their August or September meeting, and the few members present w ho w ere part of the Februarv 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 Ihc 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 rc-opening the entire hardcover issue and an even more negative result, from their perspective. Applicant’s Request Please review the applicants’ lener of request. Their position is that they have remov cd all but a 2,5 ’ strip of the lower patio, which strip was retained to support Ihe retaining wall. They believe Ihc stairway leading to the upper patio, and its adjoining spillw ay, need to be retained for drainage puipo^ 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 stairways.