Posts
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Michael Basford asks about the new language. [Wow, its one thing when Hammes hands out last minute information without copies for staff and the public, but its another when the Alders do it! They should definitely know better. Why wouldn't you just make more copies?] Would this language that refers to having more than one non-residential principal building apply apply to Mendota Mental health?
For the record the new language adds these sentences:
In the first paragraph add the line - This provision shall not apply to development lots where the principal use is not residential and more than one principal building exists on the lot.
For 2aterfront development less than 500 square feet add the line – This provision shall not apply to development lots where the principal use is not residential and more than one principal building exists on the lot.
Matt Tucker, the Zoning Administrator, tries to answer the questions but there is confusion due to the double negative, I think the final answer was, yes, Mendota Mental Health would be treated the same as the Edgewater. There is a comment about how this is a "bomb shell" for all of us and apologies for putting people on the spot. They try to figure out where else it might apply. They asked where else it would apply and Tucker says it wouldn't apply to Edgewood College because it isn't on the water. Kerr corrects him, but Tucker says it did not apply to the recent dorm that was built. It was all kind of awkward.
Basford says this question will be easier. Asks if projects come before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and the plan commission.
Tucker says yes, happens regularly.
Basford asks if it is mostly Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)? Or PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) as well?
Tucker says he is not familiar with PUDs and lot area, setbacks, etc.
Basford asks Tucker to walk them through what happens when an applicant comes before ZBA with a setback issue – walk us through the application. Why a setback, what standards that apply and how board approves them?
Tucker says each depends upon the facts, person comes to office, staff looks at how zoning relates to development, staff look goes over it with them, they go through the application process, get detailed info on the project – sometimes a high level detail site plan is required with floor plans and building elevations, etc. and they tell them about the hearing process.
Basford says ZBA meets twice a month when it has applications, is it fair to say that they hear hundreds of applications per year.
Tucker says a little less than 100.
Basford asks if a legal standard to overturn ZBA appeal could be that they don’t agree with the decision or that ZBA didn’t apply the standard properly.
Kitty Noonan, Assistant City Attorney says it is a certiori appeal, has to be based on one of four different categories such as not having sufficient evidence or the wrong application of the law.
Basford asks if saying "I disagree" would be enough?
Noonan says the court looks at one or more of the categories that serve as the basis for the appeal. There are different standard they look at if it is a question of law or if looking at facts. She says on the facts more deference is given to ZBA, the nature of appeal decides what they look at.
Basford asks how often set back variance application get appealed in circuit court in last 10 years?
Noonan doesn’t know. She says there was a ZBA appeal several years ago, but it might have been about a setback, it was about a neighbor impinging on solar access. A year and a half ago a case where an individual who got a variance to build a garage, but she thinks that is an area exception. That was challenged, don’t recall a variance one, not while she was here. One of reasons it that ZBA has not turned a lot of them down, ZBA is careful about not getting wild about variances, they try hard to address concerns raised.
Basford asks if anybody could take city to court, if a PUD is passed by the Common Council could a neighbor file in circuit court?
Noonan says yes, the standard to overturn legislative body is very heigh. To challenge a rezoning, something would have to be really extreme, its a separation of powers issue.
Basford asks if an ordnance amendment could be submitted to exempt properties from all setback requirements.
Noonann says if the Common Council thought it was good policy they could. Of course, its all a policy decision.
Jame Boll asks how the setback issue was handled for Monona Terrace.
Brad Murphy, the Planning Unit Director and Secretary of the Plan Commission says that before the permitting process they changed the ordinance to exempt civic auditorium complexes.
Judy Olson says questions have not beenn at a 30,000 foot level, she wants to back up. How is it that the Zoning Code Review Advisory Committee (ZCRAC affectionately known as Z-crack) had this separated out from the shoreline setback requirement.
Tucker says they didn't. [Claims have been made to the contrary, so it needs to be pointed out, again, that ZCRAC did not recommend this. It was not discussed.] He says it was part of looking at the code rewrite, the consultant and staff said consideration should be included that properties that are not home sites, meaning parks, institutional lands, agricultural lands and other lands that abut the water bodies were not included. The focus was on houses. How do you get houses in line, prevent continuous march to the lake?
Brad Murphy says that there was a significant amount of effort on residential and single family homes on lakes, as well as the size of buildings being built, staff spent a lot of time on that methodology to address concerns expressed by neighborhood representatives, not any discussion on part of committee on how to deal with no-residential development. Ordinance drafted for residential, leaving commercial out. [He drives the point home for us!]
Olson asks if they weren’t able to develop standards or they were passing it on to plan commission?
Murphy says it was just never discussed. Draft presented and never discussed. He says he didn’t attend all the meetings, so he might have missed something.
Tucker says it was never discussed. Focus of effort was on residential because vast majority of proposals on lakes are single family homes. That was the focus of the effort. Also recommendation that a lot of non-residential development was different than other development (UW, institutions , parks) that is the best explanation of how got here.
[I'm not sure how many different ways they could say it, but the ZCRAC never discussed this, not at all, not ever. Despite what the sponsor and others say. This was not recommended by them. This is a really good example about why we should all be concerned about the fact they are not meeting and getting their concerns addressed and why we need to have someone carefully reviewing their work for other issues like this that got changed without discussion.]
Olson says that need to develop, even if admitting they do it case by case, need to develop some standard to apply appropriate setbacks, could we do that? Could we develop that standards and put them in the code?
Murphy says new zoning code not adopted, plan commission is still working on it, did review it last Thursday evening. Certainly opportunity to deal with non-residential properties within the code. He points out that while this deal with a predetermined setback calculation using the average setback on either side, the yard requirements still do apply. Minimum rear yard requirements and conditional use standards still apply.
Tim Gruber asks about the practical effect of the substitute. Does it applies to fewer properties because it requires more than one principal building for PUDs and others?
Murphy says he doesn’t know how many properties it would apply to, they don’t know at this point. [I think people in the room were getting really uncomfortable for putting staff on the spot with this last minute amendment they clearly hadn't seen or had time to consider. They comment on it later.] He says there is also the notion that the ordinance says that multiple principle buildings on the lot for the project to be exempted and the way Edgewater is proposed, there is a connection between the buildings beneath the stairs and a building is defined in the ordinance and he is not sure that the project as proposed would quality as having multiple buildings, something that they zoning administrator has talked about.
Tucker says it is one building. This doesn't work as drafted. [OOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSS! Nevermind.]
Julia Kerr asks why variances treated differently than other city government decisions, why is it appealed to court?
Noonan says it is state statute that requires it. Plan commission decisions are not in the statutes in this way. [It is probably worth pointing out here, if you hear that the "system is broken" argument, well, it happens this way all over Wisconsin by state statute. ]
Kerr asks Murphy who applies the Zoning Board of Appeals standards if this ordinance is changed.
Murphy says if this ordinance is adopted as originally introduced, this project would not have to be considered and the standards would not apply.
Kerr asks if it would still apply to homeowners?
Murphy says yes.
Kerr asks Tucker about question 10, increased commercial development on the lake, there is no reason to expect this will increase commercial development. What is your basis for that?
Muphy jumps in and there is VERY LONG, very uncomfortable somewhat dramatic silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . he finally says all I can tell you is that to develop commercial has to be zoned to allow it and if its residential . . . well, um . . . er . . . Murphy says he doesn’t know if would or would not. [That was pretty stunning to me, I don't know what was going on, but typically, Murphy has a answer for everything. I've rarely seen him at a loss for words, but that is twice in a matter of a few days, both over the Edgewater project. This whole thing just feels icky. I wonder who made them put that in their staff report.]
Tucker says when look to see trends, and look back at approvals that they use to predict, he expects to see something jump off the page, something like lots of variance requests for commercial development, and he didn't see it, there is not much going on.
Kerr says that the memo was quite clear. It says that 2.1% of the lakeshore is currently commercial, she asks what is leading you to the conclusion in the frequently asked questions that this change would not result in increased requests to rezone from res to commercial? [Wow, she is not letting this go. I don't blame her, they have to rely on the staff reports and this is the kind of thing that really shakes your confidence. And its already shaken just because this whole project has been so unorthodox.]
Tucker says this won't flip a switch on the lakes, there would be something besides on a high profile project in the last few years – it’s his opinion it will not lead to a flood of rezoning requests – each one would be handled on its own merits.
Noonan says that if they remove the calculation, still has a rear yard setback and if not controlled by more specific ordinance then typical setback would apply, not true that can just build to the lake. When a commercial property wants a conditional use, plan commission cannot tell it that it could build on lake, it has to meet underlying zoning. Plan commission can say it has a minimum setback for district and ask that the building be placed 10 feet behind it, this is where we want you to put your building. [Wow, that is just going to muddy the waters, as she failed to disclose an important piece of information. She may be able to bullshit the alders with that, but I don't think its getting by the plan commission.]
Lauren Cnare asks if you could allow it closer to the lake but require something in exchange.
Noonan says that should still have to fit with underlying zoning setbacks or do mitigating factors, plan commission can’t allow it closer without a variance.
Cnare concludes from the non-answer that it should be done during conditional use.
Cnare asks Greg Fries, one of the city engineers, about what body of knowledge is out there about where to put buildings to protect the water.
Freis says that generally setback from a water body has less to do with water run off. The reason the DNR did what it did with NR115 was to limit complete building out on northern Wisconsin lakes. In urban area, whether we are well served by the code is a question. They were trying to avoid clear cutting of existing woodland and replacing it with turf grass and riprap, trying to keep it natural. He says that water that runs over the setback from the roofline is generally clean, no dirtier than water that falls in lake, more roofs are clean, not so much what water runs across it. It is supposed to create habitat for critters that use the shoreline, so for mitigation, that NR115 code has limits on what can be clear cut, in most cases, shoreline severely impacted already, tradeoff between what type of critters trying to support. Monona Terrace was a concern that it would become a dead zone, but if you look at all the fisherman there, that hasn't happened. He does note that amphibians can’t get out of the water.
Cnare asks a question I didn't catch, again, with the talking . . . :) Me, this time . . .
Cnare asks Murphy, doesn’t this mean everyone builds to waterfront, but we do start with an underlying number? She says most likely they will all be PUD applications and they would come in with proposal and the staff report would say what the set back is, then plan commission would asked for it to be changed. If approved, PUD would change the yard requirements to whatever the PUD says. So we could have a big discussion on every PUD.
Murphy says, yes, I would expect you would. [Which is the complete opposite of what the business community has been asking for with the zoning code rewrite. It was supposed to provide certainty and create less opportunities for the political process to be invoked.]
Eric Sundquist asks about what peer cities have for setbacks.
Tucker says he is not aware.
Sundquist asks what about Middleton and others in the area.
Tucker still not sure.
Sundquist asks about PUDs and underlying zoning and what Murphy just said and asks why that doesn’t match what Noonan said for PUDs and the underlying setback.
Murphy says there is a setback in the existing zoning district but if proposal is to rezone, you change the yard requirement, so you could build to the edge of lake theoretically - but it would be a conditional use and reviewed against waterfront development standards, but no staring number. [Sigh, you know if that happens, they can always just come and change the law for the next business that wants to do whatever it wants . . . but, it would be nice if the city attorney had not misled the plan commission on this issue. Like I said, they are too smart to let that bullshit fly.]
Schumacher asks a question that, I apologize, I missed. I think he asked if staff was talking about the old or new code when talking about yard requirements defined by underlying zoning and how it applied to non-residential property or institutional yard requirements and if it would need a conditional use in the new code. I think staff said that they owe them a recommendation on that and that the zoning code rewrite is not the final perfect product.
Kerr says that there is not a lot of information in Legistar about why Commission on the Environment decided what they did, can someone characterize the conversation and the concerns. What was their basis to reject?
Freis says that they did not discuss much, they asked several questions and to summarize their approach, they said if existing code is not broken, not to change it just for one project. [Those damn unelected officials, using logic and reason to make their decisions instead of bowing to political pressure, yeah, I can see how this is a problem and people would be shouting from the roof tops that only elected officials should be making the decisions. They are, after all, more easily swayed by campaign donations.]
Tucker says that they also said they wanted the process of the entire zoning code rewrite go forward together, and not take this out of there for one project. [Again, logic.]
Kerr asks Noonan about when she said that for commercial zoned set back would be defacto defined by rear yard setback.
Noonan doesn't answer the question and jumps in to clarify that it might be something other than a rear yard setback depending upon how the lot is configured, usually the most typical way that properties are oriented it is the rear yard setback, but it could be the side yard.
Kerr clarifies that the rear (or side) yard setback requirements would not go away fi the calculation is changed.
Noonan admits that it would change if there was a PUD, but if not, still conditional use requirement.
Kerr asks Noonan about Tucker’s report – what if no rear yard on site. How does that impact this?
Noonan says that when talking about lakefront, if do not have a calculation, you use the district requirements, if using lakefront, then don’t use rear yard setback. Some are not subject to that section, ordinance says if residental property that is built and constructing an addition less than 500 square feet, doesn’t apply. Property has to follow district requirement.
Kerr says absent change to zoning ordinance, the setback requirement under current zoning code is 138 to 145 feet?
Staff agree that is correct.
Kerr refers to something they just handed out and not available to the public. She says it says 140 feet without a variance. She says it is 16.5 feet setback for the current building and the proposed addition is 35 feet setback. 16.5 is narrowest number. Is the 140 feet the setback required?
Staff says yes, for any new bulk proposed it has to to meet the minimum setback and then it would not need a variance.
Kerr asks with the zoning change, what would be the requirement be given that no rear yard, then what would be the required setback?
Tucker says required rear yard for R6H and OR zoning.
Kerr says on both R6H and OR the required setback is 30 feet, but not a rear yard and same for OR. So, how would they know?
Tucker says mixing and matching reports. If R6H or OR, they are rezoning to PUD so, it is difficult.
There is lots of talking trying to clarify . . . .
Michael Heifitz says setback is what it is today, appreciates the debate, sensing from body discomfort with current proposal so he asks Noonan – and says he prefers a yes or no answer, and apologizes for being rude – but hypothetically speaking, is there a way to draft something like Clear did to make the change and solidly restrict it to the project at hand – can we do that with reasonable legalities in place and it not get tossed out. Understands changes we had why applicant would not want to go further into the city process given where it has already gone. Hopefully a simple answer, whether or not they are going to vote for it or not.
Noonan says yes, but qualifies, Common Council needs to be clear what the public interest is that it is basing its determination on. No inherent problem with restrictive ordinance like that.
Heifitz notes he is "at the kids table" and can’t make a motion because he is an alternate and they have everyone there. He notes the discomfort at getting at this project.
MOTION AND DISCUSSION
Boll makes a motion that the plan commission supports that council review the issue. He says we always deal with standards to be consistent. What are the standards to change the ordinance? That is not for us, it’s for the Common Council to do. He is not advocating removing setbacks, but have it reviewed by council, ZBA shouldn’t be by-passed, should be reviewed. Some comment that we are reworking on the zoning code rewrite will take this issue and others to the council to resolve. Moves it to the council. Not recommending an exception to a particular development. That determination may be more or less restrictive – what we got ourselves into, trying to deal with singularly on the issues, would like council to do it. Willing to give more direction to council through friendly amendment. [That sounded a little crazy to me, they make recommendations on ordinance changes on a regular basis, and they have no standards, in fact, many times they are changing the standards. I know he was trying to just take a pass on it, but that was uncharacteristically just unsound logic and disappointing from one of my favorite guys in a tie.]
Basford says that if we started asking for friendly amendments we will certainly be here all night without getting to the public hearing. He votes against it, hopes others join him. Strange process, no on will deny that. He says there was a landmarks decision, rather than deal with it, the council kicked it to UDC (Urban Design Commission) and Plan Commission. UDC kicked it to Plan. Boll is suggesting we send to Common Council to make decision. Someone has to make a decision, we are running out of tall grass to kick this ball into, he urges they defeat Boll’s motion and move on with making a recommendation.
Gruber is also an alternate, he's also at the "little kids table", can’t make motion or vote but he can participate, would suggest that as former Council member, that the Council looks to plan for recommendation, they will make final decision, but generally we do make a recommendation. There is an opportunity to move the project ahead and protect the lakes. Suggests that under this substitute that Clear suggested that won’t work that they remove language and say that it does not apply to PUD zoning approval, the PUD may consider the average 5 lots on each side and require mitigation of lake impacts as part of PUD, and in no situation can they build further than the principal buildings or 35 feet. Wants to set a higher bar that comes forward in the future, rather than open up the floodgates to development closer to the lake.
Bowser supports Boll’s argument. This discussion should have taken place at ZCRAC committee, we put staff on the spot, questions for which they just recently saw documentation, sorry about that. Don’t like to see that. ZCRAC needs to take this up and plan commission should report it back. [Except they were told that they couldn't and the meeting was cancelled. I wonder if plan commission was informed about that?]
Cnare says it is ok to put this back on the council, willing to take Grubers words back and she is jotting down her own thoughts. This is keeping it (the Edgewater?) in play, makes good policy sense. People are elected to make these policies, to make the big decision, what we have before us isn’t quite right, hopefully not open up to shorelines to any development but allow us to look at projects.
Olson, supports motion, on assumption that what council will refer to ZCRAC and we’ll be developing the language as we would have otherwise.
Kerr not in favor, it is her feeling that, as former alder Gruber said, the ultimate decision is theirs one way or another, they have ultimate authority, what we are doing with this motion is depriving them of our expertise or declining to give them any sense of the context and give them guidance. We sit here every other week and see proposals and we are not doing a good service if we pass this. Understands what Boll is trying to do, but just saying not going to give you any guidance isn't right, whatever we do is just a recommendation. We are kicking the ball into the high grass and depriving them of context. That being said, think we are skirting our responsibility. We could be adding to discussion. Can’t support the ordinance change, on a policy basis. She’s been clear, this is special purpose legislation, no matter how you shoe horn it in and whatever special conditions you try to use, this discussion showed it even more, its designed to benefit only one project. We are trying to make sure that we are benefiting only one project, Arntesen says if significant or commercial project on one project but Joe homeowner will have other standards, we don’t govern our city like that, can’t take two similarly situated properties, put on coach moving slowly and one express, two classes of applicants. She doesn’t support, urges you not to support. Edgewater has merits, but feels that strongly we can’t do this as a city.
Schumacher says that they are not passing the buck, if a specific project then should recommend, this is about policy and given that other committees have passed the buck, this is at a level below the pay grade of our body. He says alders lowest paid and they should have put that in the paper when they did the story on salaries. ZCRAC the city attorney determined it was outside their jurisdiction and their meeting to discuss this was cancelled. [Take a look at the memo linked above. That is just an absurd outcome. They can recommend the entire zoning code, but can't give the council advice on a narrow issue?] No one is saying we need more info, takes a political body to cut to the chase and make a final decision.[Barf, my eyes hurt from rolling in my head . . . I wonder if the council and Mayor are aware of how arrogant they sound. They are denying people will expertise the opportunity to weigh in and substituting their political judgement, is that really how we want the city to function?]
Sundquist says Basford and Kerr said it best, seems odd to avoid policy matter so central to what they are disigned to do, we are designed to do policy, that is what the rewrite is. Don’t know why this is too hot to handle, what is the downside to having a recommendation. Doesn’t understand that.
Heifetz, says he is a citizen member, not going to council tomorrow, says it is incredibly unlikely he would run after this experience, he is soured by this debate, would not support this motion, understands the discussion, but why is this in front of us in the first place? They punted to us, this process so tortuous. If I was watching this, I would even want to build a shed to cover my lawn mower, you would be nuts. We have gone back and forth, if we don’t like the project vote it down, if you want to project the properties impacted amend it but lets go from there. He lived in Madison his whole life, took forever for Monona Terrace to be built and then we built it on a landfill. That is humorous. One should take a step forward and say what we think they need certainty, the city needs certainty and the people need to make sure the process works. He would if he could, suggest a friendly amendment, suggesting that staff provide zoning regulations from other communities in Wisconsin that are similar to ours and look somewhere relevant if going to look.
Olson feels compelled to say change vote to no, agree with others who want to vote against this special interest legislation, thinks way for council to address it if they want to, plan commission needs to create consistent guidelines for others to follow – thinks that can be done with another motion, but wants to join those making the stronger statement.
Rummel says on UDC and would disagree with Schumacher, we didn’t pass the buck, asked you to help us set the footprint. If you don’t set the footprin it could be 30 to 140 feet. She is working to get a project that can be approved, but you would open a sink hole if you punt. We didn’t send it to you so we didn’t have to decide. We want to know one setback. If you want, add something about protecting our lakes but agrees with Kerr, we are setting up two standards. If you leave it as restricted to a PUD that fits every description on 600 block of Willy St, could be something other than what it is, are we going to be consistent, if you find a way to write it narrowly you would help this project.
Maniaci says that echo Rummel, sat thorough many committees, they are struggling, looking to see what plan does tonight. UDC commissioners don’t know where to put the building and until they know where the building is supposed to be they can't decide the design. She differs with Rummel that some of the suggestions are useful, narrowly crafted sub would do well here, but UDC looking to you guys to be able to move forward with initial recommendation, yes could go to council, then UDC could start, but important to try to take a stab at it tonight to facilitate other committee process going on.
SECOND SUBSTITUTE
[I don't think anyone made Clear's motion and he isn't on plan and couldn't have, so I think she is just making a substitute motion for Boll's motion, but it was a little confusing.]
Cnare makes a substitute motion to replace the underlying text that says for development lots where principal use is non-residential there is an existing building any new or redevelopment may not be sited less than the current water front setback of existing principal building. New buildings with no residential principle uses on residental lots shall comply with the current calculations based on the 5 properties on each side.
Cnare explains that they have to acknowledge that there is an existing building, allows it to be developed where it is now, protects Mendota Mental Health and UW dividing off lots, so doesn’t want to open floodgates. Says it is a reality check.
Sundquist asks if it is friendly to target building additions. This will be all one building. This is an addition to an existing building. It would tailor it even more.
Cnare says redevelopment vs. addition to existing building, whatever is more clear would be considered friendly. No objections noted.
Clear appreciates Cnare but says second sentence is redundant.
Murphy says if intent is clear, if it is redundant, they won’t include it. Murphy wants to make sure the intent and clarifies the language.
Murphy notes that Tucker suggests to use language of "alteration, addition and expansion".
It's 9:05, there are 40 people waiting to testify on the PUD, and its a mess trying to draft this on the floor. They are all talking and trying to figure it out. A couple people muttered it doesn't really matter because the council will likely change it anyways.
They vote on the substitute.
Basford, Olson, Bowser vote no on substitute. Kerr is out of the room. The rest vote aye.
DISCUSSION ON MAIN MOTION
Basford says that wants to speak to main motion, tho they tried to vote. He thanks the public for being patient. Wanted to discuss ZBA because motion as it now stands will still take this away from ZBA for a decision. Let me tell you what we do, he serves as acting chair and this is an important issue for him and he has been following it keenly. He has heard it will take three votes taken to kill it, well, there are 5 members, a real estate agent, an architect, a lawyer who specializes in zoning law, a political appointee (him) and a business owner and over the years – he has served 7 years – they have seen hundreds of setback variance applications and dozens of lakefront setback. He has seen many of Clear's constituent who have had to comply to the ordinance, some applications are just fine, some have had the room packed with neighbors with practically pitchforks and torches. We do a lot of things differently, we apply the standards, there are rather technical and we apply them in such a way that if not on the prevailing side, may not be happy, but being able to overturn is a high hurdle to clear. Our process is not a broken process. We have made changes to zoning code that have affected applications that come before us, changes in conditional or permitted uses, to say that what we are doing here is apple to apple comparison is simply not true, this is an apple to an orchard, not an exception, but an exemption for a single project, a single private project unlike Monona Terrace, which was submitted to voters in a referendum, but when listening to people speculating about what the city wants perhaps we should go to referendum. He notes, that is not a serious statement. If we do this, where does it end, if think not clear ZBA, where do we go next, front, side or rear year setbacks, if we start here, this is a profoundly sad day for Madison, lets send a message agree with the Committee on the Environment and not take this out of ZBAs hand.
Kerr asks Tucker, and apologizes for putting him on spot and offers that he can call her in the morning and tell her she was out of line, but what is the affect of the motion now? If we do nothing or kept ordinance as it is now, setback without a variance would be 140 feet, if we go with Canre’s main motion, what would be the practical effect would be on the set back?
Tucker says 16 feet is waht the building is set back. They could build as close as 16 feet.
Kerr asks given that language where else would it apply? How do they get passed the argument that this seems like spot zoning?
Tucker punts to city attorney.
Noonan says spot zoning isn’t illegal in Wisconsin. [I get the feeling that answer might have been a little different if they were in closed session.]
Sundquist is opposed for the exemption for reasons Basford and Kerr were thinking, he thinks this doesn’t take ZBA out of the picture, NGL would have to come for a variance if 150 feet back. It changes how you calculate the set back. This is an ad hoc way to come at it in a way more equitable way. It is a different setback, not a full exemption. Would hate for something to go through for one private development, but it addresses in real time an issue for this one development to benefit from it, but don’t impact others.
Basford says that if we pass this, theoretically, the entire application of the Edgewater to go through the process without going to ZBA but if NGL wants to build a rear or front side addition, even if further back, would still have to go to ZBA.
Sundquist says setbacks vary now, and they will based on this. That is the big change. This is 20 feet from lake and want to build an addition and they can cuz building is at 16 feet, but if 100 foot setback and want to build to 90 have to go to ZBA.
Maniaci asks about NGL and the parcel of land with boat house, is this accurate?
Tucker that is part of the NGL site, lot lining may have been done for assessments, but it is all one property, it is accessory to the NGL.
[Clear and Maniaci clearly disagree with Tucker's answer..]
With that . . . they vote!
AYE: Boll, Schumacher, Sundquist and Cnare
NO: Kerr, Olson, Bowser and Basford.
ON TO THE PUD
At this point, they have 30 speakers to speak. They hear public testimony until about 11;30 and then do nothing except make some requests for additional information. Meanwhile, this whole evening, there were 4 of the top 20 paid staff people sitting in that room. Two of them Olinger and Zellhofer never even spoke. In addition to those folks there were another 6 or 7 staff people there all night. Seemed like a waste of their time that the commission didn't answer their questions and incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.
Read more!
