The primary focus of the meeting was the variance request for a swimming pool installation on Aster Trail. The applicants aimed to encroach into the 100-foot Shoreland setback, reducing it to 76 feet, due to the lot’s unique characteristics, such as its irregular shape and elevation changes. This proposal was a modification of a previous request, altered after new findings post the initial public hearing. Associate Planner Travis Beerley presented the staff’s findings, emphasizing that the property was unusually shaped, affecting the placement of a pool.

The applicants argued that the front yard was unsuitable for pool installation, and the south side required extensive retaining walls due to steep slopes. They proposed the pool’s west side placement, where the land was flatter and easier to manage for stormwater control. However, the north side posed significant stormwater issues, necessitating costly engineered retaining walls and complicating pool feasibility. Precedent cases from 2023 and 2024, where variances were granted for similar reasons, were cited to support their application.

Discussion among commission members revolved around the concept of “practical difficulty,” a criterion for variance approval. It was questioned whether the inability to place a pool in the desired location constituted true hardship, as the lot’s condition remained unchanged since its purchase. Some members expressed concern that routinely granting variances could undermine zoning codes. The debate also touched on whether the variance was specific to the proposed encroachment or if it implied moving the entire setback line.

John Stockman, representing the applicants, argued that the pool installation would not alter the neighborhood’s character, as several nearby properties already had pools within the setback. He emphasized the practical difficulties imposed by the property’s characteristics and the expert opinion supporting their hardship claim. However, the commission’s consensus leaned towards denying the variance, citing that the applicants failed to demonstrate inherent practical difficulties related to the property itself.

The meeting also addressed a proposed development for townhomes on Creekside Lane, where discussions focused on street design, sidewalks, and density. The developer, Josh Metzer, outlined modifications to the original plan, reducing the number of townhomes from 156 to 148 to accommodate stormwater treatment needs and address density concerns. The proposal included private streets to be managed by the homeowners’ association, raising questions about emergency vehicle access and parking.

The commission debated the practicality of private versus public streets, with concerns about parking availability on narrow streets. Each unit was to have two-car garages and paved driveways, but the limited space between driveways could restrict practical parking options.

Sidewalk and trail connections also garnered attention, with deliberations on whether to install sidewalks on both sides of streets within the development. The city preferred dual sidewalks for safety, especially in dense areas, but logistical concerns about snow removal and costs for the homeowners’ association were raised. A consensus emerged favoring a single sidewalk to mitigate these issues.

The commission further examined the necessity of trail connections between neighborhoods, balancing safety and access with future development needs. A full-length trail on the south side was favored, accommodating safe access to parks and facilitating future connectivity. Concerns about lot sizes and impervious surfaces were also discussed, with emphasis on ensuring adequate space for backyards and patios within zoning constraints.