[00:00:03]
>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE TUESDAY. [OVERLAPPING]
[1. Call to Order]
>> FIRING AT SIX O'CLOCK. [LAUGHTER]
>> WONDERFUL. WELCOME TO THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20TH, 2024 CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE START EVERY MEETING WITH A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[LAUGHTER]IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[3. Approval of Agenda]
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT?>> MOTION BY LIBBY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> OKAY. MOTION BY LIBBY. SECOND BY ERICKSON.
FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4.
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2024]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 16TH, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT?
>> MOTION BY LIBBY. SECONDED BY KRAMER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 5, PUBLIC HEARING.
[5.1. LA24-000005, Recodification - Phase 1, Text Amendment]
WE'RE GOING TO GO LA 24-000005 RE-CODIFICATION PHASE 1 TEXT AMENDMENT.>> YES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
TONIGHT IS OUR FIRST ENTRANCE INTO OUR RE-CODIFICATION PROJECT, PHASE 1.
MELANIE, IF YOU'D GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
JUST TO INTRODUCE YOU TO THE RE-CODIFICATION.
THIS IS A PROCESS THAT INCLUDES A FULL LEGAL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CODE TO ENSURE THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE COMPREHENSIVE, THEY'RE ENFORCEABLE, THEY MAKE SENSE, CLEANING UP MAYBE SOME REORGANIZATION STUFF, CLEANING UP SOME TYPOS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IT IS DONE EVERY 10-15 YEARS, SO WE ARE DUE.
TONIGHT, STAFF IS BRINGING FORWARD WHAT WE'RE CALLING PHASE 1 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOSTLY REGARDING THE CHAPTER 78 AMENDMENTS.
ONLY AMENDMENTS IN CHAPTER 78 AND 82 REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO ANY ITEMS IN THAT SECTION WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOU FOR A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING.
AS A DEPARTMENT THOUGH, FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WE DO OVERSEE OTHER CHAPTERS IN THE OVERALL CITY CODE, INCLUDING CHAPTER 90, AND WE WORK WITH SOME ENFORCEMENT STUFF IN CHAPTER 58.
SO YOU MIGHT SEE SOME AMENDMENTS IN THERE, TOO, JUST TO GET YOU INTRODUCED AND BRIEFED IN WHAT WE REFERENCED, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, YOUR FOCUS WILL BE CHAPTER 78 AND 82.
THIS IS JUST THE LIFE-CYCLE OF A RE-CODIFICATION.
IN 2022, THE COUNCIL APPROVED A RE-CODIFICATION PROJECT TO START MUNICODE, WHICH IS OUR VENDOR THAT PUBLISHES OUR CITY CODE DID A INITIAL REVIEW, JUST CROSS CHECKING STATE STATUTE REFERENCES, OTHER CITY CODE REFERENCES, AND CALLED OUT SOME COMMENTS OF INCONSISTENCIES.
STAFF TOOK THOSE COMMENTS AS WELL AS WHAT WE HAVE FOUND THROUGH INTERPRETATION AND USE OF THE CODE FOR INCONSISTENCIES.
DRAFTED SOME AMENDMENTS AND SENT IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW.
THEN STAFF TOOK ALL THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, MUNICODE, AND STAFF AND RECONCILED THEM INTO ONE LARGE AMENDMENT PROJECT.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE PUBLISHED TO THE WEBSITE.
THAT IS A WORKING PAGE AS WE RECONCILE ALL OF THOSE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
BUT THAT IS ON THE CITY WEBSITE UNDER RE-CODIFICATION, SO IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THEN EDIT OUT OF THE CHAPTER 78 AND 82 WILL COME TO YOU FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
AS I NOTED, YOU WILL HOLD THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL STEP OF ADOPTING ANY ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, BOTH IN CHAPTER 78, 82 AND THEN ALL THE OTHER CHAPTERS OF THE CITY CODE.
>> TONIGHT, INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET I INCLUDED A FEW SECTION CALL OUTS OUT OF CHAPTER 58, 78, 86, AND 90, AND I CAN GO OVER WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS MOSTLY ON CHAPTER 78 FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PURPOSE, SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THAT.
TONIGHT, IN YOUR PACKET WITH THE AMENDMENTS PUT WITHIN CHAPTER 78, I'VE INCLUDED SECTION 78-5.
THIS IS A LONG LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
[00:05:02]
UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS WITHIN OUR CODE THAT'S OUT OF DATE AS IT'S HARD TO UPDATE EVERY TIME WE DO A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND UPDATE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO WE ARE REFERENCING JUST THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL INSTEAD OF INCLUDING EVERY AMENDMENT DATE THAT'S HAPPENED SINCE WE ADOPTED IT, I THINK IN LIKE THE '80S.SECTION 78-230 THROUGH 42, THOSE ARE CLARIFYING A HANDFUL OF TYPOS.
WE'RE MISSING SOME WORDS LIKE THE IN THIS FOR JUST READING PURPOSES OF THE CODE.
I THINK WE HAD LIKE THE WORD LESSOR WITH L-E-S-S-O-R INSTEAD OF LESSER, E-R, SO JUST TYPO STUFF AND CLARIFYING THOSE SETBACKS, THAT'S MOSTLY OUR SETBACKS WITHIN OUR DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.
SECTION 78-511, THIS IS CLARIFYING A SECTION THAT HELPS WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, MOSTLY OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT WHEN YOU PARK, IT'S CONSIDERED HARD SURFACE FOR OUR DEFINITIONS OF HARDCOVER, AND SO JUST CLARIFYING THAT AND HELPS WITH A SECTION WE COMMONLY REFERENCE WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, SO THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THAT LANGUAGE.
THEN SECTION 1431 THROUGH 1440, THIS IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT REFERENCES OUR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN 2022 WHEN THE COUNCIL ADOPTED OUR ADU LANGUAGE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND MADE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN OUR EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION NOT REALLY PERTAIN ANY LONGER AND NOT IN LINE WITH OUR NEWEST ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2022, SO JUST CLEANING UP SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY KNOW WE'RE CALLING OUT THE REMOVAL FOR A COVENANT FOR OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDING.
CURRENTLY WE REQUIRE A COVENANT BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
WE ALSO REQUIRE A COVENANT TO BE REQUIRED FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THAT HAVE PLUMBING IN THEM, SO THIS IS TAKING OUT THE NEED FOR A COVENANT JUST FOR OVERSIZED BUILDINGS AND ONLY REQUIRE THEM FOR AD USE AND FOR PLUMBING AND AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
JUST MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OUR NEWEST CODE ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE ADOPTED.
THEN JUST REORGANIZING AND RENUMBERING SOME OF THIS SECTION.
IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE WACKY OVER THE YEARS, SO JUST CLEANING THAT UP.
I HAVE ALL THE RED LINE LANGUAGE, I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING THAT UP IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE AS WELL.
THEN LASTLY, I WANT TO JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO TALK ABOUT SECTION 78-1405.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE SECTION WHERE WE'RE ADDING THE MOST CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR FENCE MONUMENTS TO HELP CLARIFY OUR EXISTING FENCE REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS WE'RE GOING TO BE SOME RENUMBERING AND REORGANIZING OF THIS SECTION.
BUT CURRENTLY THE CITY CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT TO INSTALL A FENCE, AND IT HAS A ZERO-FOOT SETBACK TO INSTALL A FENCE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE SOME HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ABOUT WHERE A SIX FOOT FENCE CAN GO AND WHERE A 42 INCH FENCE CAN GO.
BUT AS FAR AS SETBACKS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS NO SETBACKS.
IT CAN BE RIGHT ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE.
SOME ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OFFENSES WITH THESE LARGE FENCE MONUMENTS WE HAVE FOUND IS A MORE INTENSIVE USE FOR A FENCE.
IT OFTEN REQUIRES A FOOTING IS OFTEN A BIGGER BUMP OUT THAN JUST A TYPICAL FENCE THAT YOU WOULD SEE.
IT'S MADE OF MASONRY STONE AND MORE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT THAN JUST A NORMAL FENCE POST.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO ADD A DEFINITION OF THE FENCE MONUMENTS AND THEN ALSO TO REQUIRE A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE OF THAT FOOTING THAT'S OFTEN REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL FOOTPRINT THAT THESE ARE COMPARED TO A FENCE LINE ON A PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE SUGGESTING A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK, A FOOTPRINT SIZE OF SIX SQUARE FEET PER MONUMENT, THAT IT SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME HEIGHT REGULATIONS AS THE FENCE THAT'S ALLOWED TO BE THERE AND THAT A PERMIT BE REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE LOCATION AND THE FOOTING DETAIL.
BECAUSE ANY TIME YOU INSTALL A FOOTING, IT DOES REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT ANYWAYS, SINCE BY STATE STATUTE OR BY THE STATE BUILDING CODE THAT OUR OFFICIAL NEEDS TO SEE THAT FOOTING DETAIL.
TONIGHT, ACTION THAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF YOU, THE FIRST IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THOSE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
COMMISSIONER SHOULD REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THOSE CHANGES AND THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
AGAIN, I CAN GO BACK THROUGH THOSE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WANT TO SEE THE RED LINES, WANT SOME MORE EXAMPLES, I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS FURTHER. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.
>> LOTS OF CHANGES. HOPEFULLY,
[00:10:02]
MOST OF THEM ARE TYPO IN CLARIFICATION BUT YEAH, IT'S A LOT OF CHANGES. IT'S A BIG PROJECT.>> IN PARTICULAR, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BIGGEST ONE THAT WE'RE CLARIFYING WOULD BE THE FENCE WHERE WE START TO INCLUDE FOOTINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO, I'M CLEAR ON THAT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD INVITE ANYBODY ELSE IF THERE WAS QUESTIONS FOR MS. OAKTON ON THAT TOPIC OR ANY OF THE OTHERS WHILE WE'VE GOT THE FLOOR FOR HER.
BUT TO CLARIFY, WE'RE CLEANING UP ALL THE LANGUAGE, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY IS CHAPTER 78 AND 82, OR WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, FEEDBACK WE'LL BE DOING, THE PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
OTHERWISE, MOSTLY EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL?
WELL, NOT TO BE VIEWING THE CITY COUNCIL'S SANCTIMONIOUS TO US, BUT WE'LL JUST FOCUS ON 78 AND 82 BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANOTHER CHAPTER THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING ON.
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ALL GOT A COPY OF THAT AND THEN THAT'S GOING IN THE RECORD, CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I SHOULD CLARIFY PUBLIC COMMENT WAS ATTACHED TO YOUR LAST EXHIBIT OF PART OF THE PUBLISHED PACKET.
THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT COMMENT THAT CAME THROUGH HERE JUST THIS AFTERNOON, SO I PRINTED IT FOR YOU IN FRONT OF YOU.
I BELIEVE IT'S A SUMMARY OF THAT SAME PUBLIC COMMENT THAT CAME THROUGH EARLIER THAT WAS PUBLISHED BUT THIS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET WHEN WE PUT IT INTO THE CITY'S REPOSITORY.
>> GOT IT. THAT'S REGARDING CHAPTER 18. VERY WELL.
I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN BACK TO YOU BEFORE I CLOSE AND OPEN IT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAD MANY QUESTIONS THIS AFTERNOON AND STAFF ANSWERED THEM ALL.
>> WELL, THAT'S GOOD. NO OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS THEN FOR THAT MATTER? NO?
>> MY ONLY COMMENT IS THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACK ON THOSE MONUMENTS. SEEMS LIKE A LOT.
I WOULD IMAGINE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE SOME VARIANCES ON THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
WE'LL SEE I WOULD THINK MAYBE EVEN JUST AS SIMPLE AS 2.5 OR THREE FEET WOULD PROBABLY DO THE JOB.
BUT YEAH, I MIGHT HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT AFTER WE GET THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING AND WE GO BACK FOR DISCUSSION I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT TOO, THAT GOOD TO HAVE A BUILDER AROUND HERE, WHAT THEY'RE DOING BUT.
>> WELL, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE PHONE UP STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> COMMISSIONER WRESTLER, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS DAN GUSTAFSON.
I LIVE AT 1040 EAST CIRCLE DRIVE IN ZETA.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN ORONO TONIGHT AND HAVE YOUR EAR FOR JUST A MOMENT.
I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY OTHER THAN I'VE SUBMITTED A LETTER TO YOU.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TAKING ANY ACTION ON THAT TONIGHT, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH AND GREAT TO BE HERE IN ORONO AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
LIKE I SAID, I IN MY REVIEW OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS FOR US, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS TOO GLARING OTHER THAN WHAT MS. OAKTON ALREADY COVERED.
I DID HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE FOOTING FOR DISCUSSION.
MY QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE FOR YOU, MS. OAKTON, WAS THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACKS IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING GENERALLY WITH NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES FOR THINGS LIKE THAT OR ARE WE KIND OF GOING ROGUE?
>> WHAT STAFF IS RUNNING INTO OFTENTIMES IS FENCE REGULATIONS.
WE HAVE A ZERO-FOOT SETBACK TODAY SO PEOPLE BUILD THESE FENCE MONUMENTS AND SAY, OH, IT'S PART OF THE FENCE AND THEN THEY WANT TO PUT THESE MONUMENTS WITH THIS FOOTING ITS MASONRY HAS BUMP OUTS THAT PROTRUDES BEYOND A FENCE LINE RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND STAFF WAS HAVING A HARD TIME POINTING TO THE CODE TO TELL THEM THEY COULDN'T DO THAT AND ALSO WHEN PEOPLE CALL AND ASK WHERE CAN I PUT MY FENCE, WHAT'S MY GUIDANCE DIRECTING THEM BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY ARCHITECTURAL FENCE STYLES OUT THERE.
WE PICKED FIVE FEET BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD ENCAPSULATE ANY GROUNDWORK.
USUALLY A FOOTING KIND OF GOES DOWN WELL, WAS IT FOUR FEET AND THEN TWO FEET OUT, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE FOOTING TWO FEET AROUND AND THEN IF YOU NEED TO DIG OUT AND THEN REPOUR IN AND ALL THE GRADING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WE THOUGHT FIVE FEET WAS MINIMAL TO INSTALL A FOOTING.
I THINK OUR SMALLEST SETBACK IN THE CITY FOR IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR SOMETHING THERE'S A 7.5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK.
IT'S OUR SMALLEST SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T INTERFERE IF THEY
[00:15:04]
STILL WANTED TO PUT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT CAN SOLVE A FENCE AROUND IT.IT'S WITHIN THAT SETBACK SPACE FOR A BUILDING OR A STRUCTURE.
BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF THE MINIMUM NEEDED TO INSTALL A FOOTING WITHOUT GOING ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY OR GETTING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PERMISSION TO INSTALL OR ENCROACH THERE BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS TO ALLOW SOMETHING AND THEN NEED YOU TO ASK YOUR NEIGHBOR TO GO ON THEIR PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN IT, TO INSTALL IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND FIVE FEET BUT WE'RE DEFINITELY OPEN FOR CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> THE OTHER REASON THAT SUPPORTS THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS A FIVE FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IS COMMON ALONG INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE AND WHILE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE MAY NOT BE IMPACTFUL TO THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURES LIKE THESE STONE MONUMENTS ARE.
>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO GET THESE TO THE POINT WHERE THEY NEED TO BE INSPECTED AND ON THE PICTURES YOU SHOWED IT WOULD HAVE SERIOUS SPLITTINGS UNDERNEATH THEM, SO THOSE SHOULD BE INSPECTED.
>> I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT OR IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THE OTHER CODE AND CHAPTER UPDATES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING FEEDBACK ON 78 AND 82 IN PARTICULAR? NO? PRETTY QUIET TODAY, BOYS.
WHERE ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE IT BE THEN? DISCUSSION, ANY OTHER FEEDBACK THAT WE'D LIKE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION ON.
>> YOU MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING I'M OPPOSED TO AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, NO. ANYONE ELSE? THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PROPOSED. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO.
IF ANYONE TAKES UMBRAGE TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS, PLEASE SHARE NOW.
OTHERWISE, I'LL TAKE THAT MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
[BACKGROUND] I'LL PULL IT OUT OF YOU. SECOND?
>> LET ME GIVE YOU KRAMER ON THAT ONE THIS TIME.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY ERICKSON, SECONDED BY MR. KRAMER TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OR PROPOSED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> CLOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. JUST A REMINDER, THERE'LL BE MORE RECODIFICATION PHASES COMING YOUR WAY AS WELL SO THIS WAS A GOOD ENTRY.
WE'RE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. IT IS ON THE WEBSITE.
>> THANKS FOR MAKING IT EASY ON US.
[6.1. LA24-000003, Brett Larson, 2480 Carman Street, Sketch Plan]
IT'S A SKETCH PLAN., 6-1LA24-0000003.BRETT LARSON 2480 PARMA STREET.
>> GOOD EVENING, BRETT LARSON 2480 CARMEN.
I WAS HERE ABOUT A YEAR AGO WITH MARK BROUNBERG AND WE TALKED ABOUT A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS TO DEAL WITH THIS STRANGE LOT SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE.
ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO, MARK AND I MET WITH CITY STAFF AND PROPOSED A FLAG LOT IDEA THAT WOULD TECHNICALLY COMPLY WITH ZONING CODE.
THERE IT IS. THAT'S A LOT SAMPLE PORTION OF THE POLE PORTION OF THE FLAG WOULD GO UP THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE NORTHERN PART OF THE LOT TO MEET THAT ONE-ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION.
WHEN WE MET WITH STAFF, I SAID, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN'T REALLY WHAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
IT'S ANOTHER ODDLY SHAPED LOT NEAR THE LAKE AND HE SAID WE'RE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN IF THERE'S A MORE PALATABLE SOLUTION TO THIS, WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
I THINK MISS CURTIS POINTED OUT AND MS. OAKTON, THAT WHAT MIGHT BE MORE PALATABLE WOULD BE TO REZONE THE FOUR LOTS THAT YOU SEE HERE TO BE LR1C.
BASICALLY THE MAIN CHANGES WOULD BE THAT YOU'D BE GOING FROM 140 FOOT WIDTH TO 101 ACRE MINIMUM TO HALF AN ACRE MINIMUM.
[00:20:02]
2470 IS ABOUT 0.7 ACRES, AND THEN 2474, THAT SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT WOULD BE ABOUT 0.8 ACRES.OUR LOT 2480, THAT SOUTHERN PORTION WOULD BE ABOUT 0.9 ACRES.
WE'VE CONSTRUCTED A NEW HOME THAT YOU DON'T SEE THERE ON THAT PICTURE AND WE'VE MADE SURE IN DOING THE SURVEY WORK THAT WE WOULD MEET THE HARDCOVER MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS, EVEN IF WE SEPARATED THE LOT SO THAT WON'T BE AN ISSUE.
IN EXPLORING THIS, WE'VE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, TALKED TO THE 2490, 2470, AND 2474 NEIGHBORS.
THEY'RE ALL IN SUPPORT OF OUR DOING THIS.
WE HAVE A CALL ACTUALLY SCHEDULED.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET EVERYONE TOGETHER.
EVERYONE HAS BEEN TRAVELING A LOT RIGHT OVER THE WINTER AND THE ONLY ISSUE, THE QUESTION, I GUESS, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MR. MERCER, THE OWNER OF 2490.
HE JUST ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THE USE THAT HE CURRENTLY HAS WOULD BE ALLOWED IF WE WERE TO MAKE THIS ZONING CHANGE.
I FOLLOWED UP WITH CITY STAFF, AND CITY STAFF CONFIRMED THAT ACTUALLY, IF WE MADE THIS CHANGE, THAT LOT IN ALL FOUR OF THESE LOTS THAT YOU SEE WOULD BE CONFORMING WITH THE CODE.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS TO HAVE THIS STRANGE SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A LOT SEPARATED BY WATER THAT DIDN'T USED TO BE SEPARATED BY WATER THAT IS REALLY UNUSABLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
I GUESS I'LL STOP THERE TO SEE IF PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY COMMENTS.
>> DOING GOOD SO FAR. [LAUGHTER] A LOT OF US ARE REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARCEL.
>> PAINFULLY FAMILIAR, I'M SURE.
BUT NO, YOU CAN CARRY ON IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> OKAY. SO IN LOOKING AT THIS, WE LOOKED AT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE WEST ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BAY.
THAT IS ALL LRC1, THAT'S ALL A HALF ACRE MINIMUM.
A LOT OF THOSE LOTS ARE LESS THAN A HALF AN ACRE, SO THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SOME VARIANCE GRANTED.
IF YOU LOOK TO THE EAST, MOST OF THESE LOTS OFF OF KELLY, I WENT THROUGH EACH OF THEM, AND ABOUT SEVEN OUT OF 10 OF THOSE LOTS ARE UNDER AN ACRE.
YOU LOOK AT THAT. YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE EXISTING USE IS.
THIS WOULD BE CONFORMING WITH THE EXISTING USE.
THERE WAS A STUDY DONE FOR THE 2040 COMP PLAN IN 2018.
THEY CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT THE EXISTING USE AT THAT TIME OF THE LAKE LOTS SURROUNDING CARMAN'S BAY ARE REALLY A HALF ACRE MINIMUM.
WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY DENSITY TO THESE LOTS.
THEY'RE LESS THAN AN ACRE, SO THERE COULD NEVER BE ANOTHER HOME PUT ON THOSE LOTS AND I THINK 2490 AND 2470 ARE PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IN TERMS OF COVERAGE IS REALLY ALL YOU'RE EVER GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE UNLESS THERE'S SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE ZONING CODE.
I KNOW THAT THE COMP PLAN CERTAINLY ISN'T BINDING ON ANYBODY HERE AND MET COUNCIL GENERALLY IS PUSHING FOR MORE DENSITY THAN WE WANT OUT HERE IN ORONO, RIGHT?
>> THE COMP PLAN IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THAT EXISTING USE OF HAVING A HALF ACRE MINIMUM AROUND CARMAN'S BAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE HE GOES ALL THE WAY IN SITTING DOWN? NO QUESTIONS?
SINCE WE HAD OUR LIVELY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY, WHICH WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS AGREE, WHICH I THINK IS A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR US TO EXCHANGE IDEAS.
THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE FOCUS ON ACCESS AND WHERE THAT WOULD COME FROM.
I REMEMBER TALKING TO MR. GROUNDBERG ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN ANY APPROACH TO THE ADJOINING, I SHOULDN'T SAY, ADJOINING, THE CLOSELY LOCATED RETAIL THAT COMES IN FROM KELLY.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, NONE HAD BEEN DISCUSSED, THERE HAD NOT BEEN AN APPROACH TO ANY OF THOSE RETAIL CUSTOMERS TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE THAT COULD POSSIBLY GAIN EGRESS OR ACCESS TO THESE LOTS.
[00:25:06]
SO HAS ANYTHING BEEN DONE IN THE INTERIM SINCE WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE?>> THANK YOU. SO THERE IS A CURB CUT RIGHT OFF OF SHORELINE DRIVE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE NORTHERN PORTION OF 2480.
WE HAVEN'T HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE I GUESS THAT'D BE 3423 AND 3465, IT SEEMS A BIT IMPRACTICAL TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY CUT THROUGH THE BACK OF A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
>> SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT AND WITH THE CURB CUT THERE, THE IDEA WOULD BE BEFORE WE COULD DO ANYTHING WITH THAT LOT, BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE DEVELOPED, THERE'D HAVE TO BE SOME SAFETY OR TRAFFIC STUDY DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SAFE.
BUT REALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACCESS FROM CARMAN, IT'S REALLY NO DIFFERENT.
YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE SAME CHALLENGES OF CUTTING ON A SHORELINE, ANYBODY TURNING ON A SHORELINE DRIVE HAS.
>> SO THE CURB CUT IS ONE COMPONENT OF SAFETY ISSUES AND THEN THERE HAS TO BE DETERMINED RADIUS, FOR TURNOUT AND SO ON.
SO SINCE WE DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHO REGULATES AND CONTROLS HOW THAT TRAFFIC WOULD ENTER AND EXIT?
>> NO, I KNOW MARK WHO IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT, HE'S IN FLORIDA, WHICH WE ALL SHOULD BE IN FLORIDA RIGHT NOW.
HE HAS HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT THAT AND HOW THAT WOULD BE AND WE'D BE PREPARED WHEN WE MEET WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO TOUCH ON THOSE ISSUES.
>> I THINK THE EXISTENCE OF THE CURB CUT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN AWARE OF FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.
EVEN BACK WHEN THE REAL ESTATE AGENT THAT WAS MARKETING THIS TWO YEARS AGO CAME IN AND WE HAD LIVELY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF AND I WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING.
I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. I DON'T REALLY QUITE RECALL WHO WAS IN FAVOR AND WHO WAS NOT, BUT I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE NOT THAT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE NON CONFORMING LOTS, BUT YOUR POINT IS VALID AND WITH THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE THERE.
I'M SO FAMILIAR WITH THIS LITTLE CORNER OVER HERE AND SOLD HOUSES IN THERE, AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE LOT SIZES AND THE HOUSE SIZES, AND WHAT AN AMAZING DIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE AND HOMES IN THERE.
IT'S A VERY INTERESTING LITTLE CORNER OF OUR CITY.
I THINK STILL, THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF CONCERN ABOUT SAFETY ON COUNTY ROAD 15 BECAUSE THEY HAVE HEAVY THE TRAFFIC IS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE TO WORK REALLY HARD TO PUT A COUNTER OUT THERE AND FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THERE IS ON A DAILY BASIS.
THAT IDEA OF EGRESS AND ACCESS WITH TURNOUTS, LEAVING AND ENTERING.
THE OTHER THING THAT STILL HAS TO BE CONTENDED WITH IS THE FACT YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION CHANGE THERE.
MOVING DIRT IS EXPENSIVE BUT SOMETIMES THAT CAN SOLVE A PROBLEM.
BUT I'M WONDERING WITH THE SEVERITY OF THAT DROP, HOW THAT WOULD BE.
WOULD THEY DEAL WITH A SWITCH BACK? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA AT ALL AT THIS POINT WHERE THAT REMEDY OF THAT PROBLEM COULD GO?
>> WELL, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT IN THAT IT'S A MATTER OF MOVING SOME DIRT AND LEVELING OFF THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY AS IT WERE RIGHT ENTERING ONTO SHORELINE SO YOU'RE NOT COMING UP HILL.
I'VE MADE THIS DRIVE A FEW TIMES, LIKE LAST YEAR NOW, GOING UP THE DRIVEWAY, OVER THE CURB CUT AND ONTO SHORELINE DRIVE.
IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THE DRIVEWAY LEVELED OFF A BIT BEFORE YOU GET TO SHORELINE.
I THINK YOU'D WANT PROBABLY THREE, FOUR MORE FEET OF.
>> LOOK, I'M NOT TRYING TO MODIFY WHATEVER YOUR PLAN IS.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THOSE SAFETY CONCERNS I THINK ARE A REALITY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. AFTER THAT, THAT ISSUE WITH THE ELEVATION IS ADDRESSED.
I THINK YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE SAME SAFETY CONCERNS HERE AS YOU REALLY ARE ABOUT 150 FEET TO THE WEST, AND COMING ENTERING ONTO SHORELINE DRIVE FROM CARMAN STREET, WHICH WE DO DAILY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, IF WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS WHEN WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSION.
>> SURE, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. MISS OREN, I DIDN'T GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO SUMMARIZE BEFORE WE BROUGHT THE APPLICANT UP.
[00:30:03]
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE WE HAD DISCUSSION?>> I'LL LET NATALIE GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS ONE.
SHE'S DONE A LITTLE INFORMATION.
I WILL KNOW, COMMISSIONER LIBBY, YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESS.
WE WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL GRADING AND INFORMATION REGARDING ACCESS IF THIS MOVES TO A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IN MORE DETAIL WE WOULD LOOK AT AND REVIEW WITH ENGINEERS AND WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WITH THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT.
BUT I'LL PASS IT TO NATALIE TO FILL IN A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT DID A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING, SO I WON'T TRY AND REPEAT TOO MUCH.
I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT I DID REACH OUT TO LMCD JUST WITH THE POTENTIAL OF THIS BEING A LOT SPLIT AND ADDING TWO MORE LAKE LOTS HERE AND DOCKS.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WEREN'T ANY HUGE RED FLAGS.
LMCD SEEMED CONFIDENT THAT THEY COULD MEET THE SETBACKS FOR THE DOCKS, SO DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THERE WAS AN ISSUE THERE. SO THAT WAS GOOD.
WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AS STAFF THAT WE WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT JUST IN CASE.
STAFF ALSO MENTIONED, WHICH I MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WHILE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, I THINK WE DID RECOMMEND GETTING SOME LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR SOME SORT OF FEEDBACK.
THE APPLICANT DID MENTION THAT HE'S HOPING TO DO THAT HERE SOON, BUT I THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ON BOARD WITH THIS PROPOSED REZONING.
AS FAR AS STAFF IS CONCERNED, LIKE THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, THE REZONING IT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO THE WEST, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY BRING ALL OF THESE LOTS INTO CONFORMANCE WITH NOT ONLY LOT SIZE, BUT ALSO LOT WIDTH.
SO THAT'S A POSITIVE IN STAFF'S OPINION.
THE APPLICANT ISN'T PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE NORTHERN PORTIONS OF THE LOT, THIS LR 1C1.
ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE LOTS WOULD NEED TO FULLY CONFORM TO THAT.
THE LR 1C1 DISTRICT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE LR 1C.
THEY HAVE SIMILAR SETBACKS AND THINGS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE I'D LIKE TO ADD, BUT I'M HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MS. NAT. MISS, IF YOU DON'T MIND EDUCATING ME ON WHAT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE BETWEEN LR 1C1 AND LR 1C.
>> GREAT QUESTION. THE LOT SIZES AND THE LOT WIDTHS, IT'S THE SAME.
IT'S A HALF ACRE AND A 100 FOOT WIDTH.
I THINK LR 1C1 HAS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED.
BUT AS FAR AS SETBACKS FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENCE WILL BE THE SAME. CORRECT ME IF.
>> I THINK SHE COVERED IT FAIRLY WELL.
YEAH, SO LR1C1 IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, SO IT'S INTENDED TO BE USED RESIDENTIALLY.
LIKE NATALIE SAID, IT HAS THE SAME SETBACKS.
I DO BELIEVE THERE'S A FEW MORE ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USES THAT ARE ALLOWED, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT WIDER RANGE AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT A DENSITY CONFIGURATION WITH MAYBE ALLOWING LIKE A TWIN HOME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH DIFFERENTIATES THAN THE LR1C AND THE LR 1B.
BUT OVERALL, THE LR 1C AND THE LR 1C1 ARE VERY SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS.
>> THIS IS A SKETCH. DO WE DO PUBLIC HEARING FOR THESE?
>> NO. THIS IS INFORMAL FEEDBACK.
>> OKAY. NO PUBLIC HEARINGS, NO MOTIONS?
>> GREAT. WHAT I'M HEARING SO FAR, AT LEAST FROM STAFF INCLUSIVE, IS IF THIS DOES COME FORWARD AS A MOTION, HOPEFULLY THE APPLICANT'S HEARING THAT SUPPORTING LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS IS HELPFUL.
I'M HEARING A LITTLE BIT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THUS FAR THAT PROPOSED USE AND FUNCTION, HOW THE EGRESS, IT WOULD WORK FOR THE DRIVEWAY PLAN WITH THE AREA THAT'S BEING USED IN MAKING SURE THAT IT'S NOT MAKING A PROBLEM WORSE THAN ALREADY EXISTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A UBIQUITOUS AMOUNT OF ENTRANCES AND EXITS ON THAT ROAD ALREADY BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT GOING THERE EITHER, SO I HEAR THAT.
ANY OTHER FEEDBACK, GENTLEMEN? THE ONLY THING I'LL SHARE IS I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK WE'VE SEEN THIS ONE ABOUT THREE TIMES IN MY TIME HERE,
[00:35:03]
I ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE SAME THING, WHICH I THINK WE'RE AS A CITY RELUCTANT TO ADD DENSITY WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO.BUT WE SOMETIMES HAVE SOME EXTERIOR INFLUENCES THAT CAUSE US TO NEED TO, AND JUST HISTORICALLY, I BELIEVE THE DESIRE JUST DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THERE WITH THE CITY UNTIL WE ARE IN POSITION THAT WE NEED TO.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A NATURAL EVOLUTION FOR THAT TO BE HERE.
I'VE SAID BEFORE I'LL STAY AND I THINK IT WOULD BE IT DOES FIT TO BE THE SAME ZONING AS YOU SEE TO THE WEST, BUT I THINK THE HANG UP IS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, OUR CITY HAS, NOT WANTED TO ADD DENSITY IN AREAS THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO.
BUT PERHAPS THE NEXT TIME WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE WOULD ADD DENSITY AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR CITY TO DO THAT.
BUT I COULD BE WRONG. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I KNOW MR. LIBBY, IF NOT, MR. LIBBY AND COMMISSIONER ERICKSON WERE INVOLVED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
DO YOU ANY COMMENTS AT ALL FROM THAT SIDE OF THINGS? MAYBE I'M WRONG. I THOUGHT YOU GUYS DID.
>> OKAY. I'M NOT MAKING STUFF UP?
>> YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
I THINK THE OVERALL PLAN IS A EXCELLENT COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO GEOGRAPHIC SETTING THAT WE HAVE TO MOVE WITH AND THE BRINGING IN OF THE NEIGHBORS ALONG WITH THE REZONING IS AN EXCELLENT PLAN AND ALSO THE SEPARATION FROM THE NORTHERN PART IS OBVIOUS, AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE HAD EARLIER PLANS THAT HAVE FALLEN SHORT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND I'M PLEASED TO SEE THIS ONE.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANY WAY THAT IT COULD BE BETTER THAN IT IS.
OF COURSE, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS AREA, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC ON COUNTY 15, AND THEN WE SHOULD WORK CLOSELY WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO HELP ASSURE THAT THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR ACCESS IS ACHIEVED.
BUT THAT'S PERHAPS IN A FUTURE STEP.
BUT FOR WHAT WE HAVE NOW, THIS IS THE BEST IT COULD BE, AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT HAPPENING AS I HAVE AND A FEW OTHER PROJECTS TOO WHERE WE'VE HAD EARLY SUBMISSIONS THAT DIDN'T GET OFF THE GROUND BUT NOW WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE, LIKE ONE THAT COMES TO MY MIND IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF [INAUDIBLE] BOULEVARD AND WILLOW.
THAT PIECE OF LAND SAT THERE FOR YEARS AND HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SUBMISSIONS AND THEN NONE OF THEM CAME TO BE UNTIL NOW WE HAVE THE WEEKLY TOWN HOMES IN THERE, AND THEN I ENJOY SEEING THEM BEING FINISHED AND MAKING THE LAND PRODUCTIVE, USEFUL THING THAT WORKS FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THIS IS NOT AS BIG A PROJECT AS THAT BUT NONETHELESS, IT IS GOOD TO SEE IT AS BIG AS IT IS, BECAUSE WITH JUST ONE PROPERTY OWNER, IT'S HARDER TO JUSTIFY.
BUT WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS BEING INVOLVED, THAT GOES A LONG WAY TOWARDS HELPING IT.
>> WELL SAID, AND THAT'S A NICE THING ABOUT US ALL HAVING OUR OWN OPINIONS TOO.
NOT EVERYONE'S GOING TO AGREE BUT THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF IT.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER ERICKSON USED THE RIGHT TERM WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I THINK THIS CHANGE BRINGS A UNIFORMITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT REALLY STARTS TO LOOK MORE LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE VARIETY OF THE LOTS BEING VERY SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THE ZONING CHANGE IS THE REMEDY TO THE ODDNESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOT THAT WE DON'T LIKE INTERESTING AND DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD.
[00:40:02]
I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME UNIFORMITY THAT'S BROUGHT WITH THIS.I KNOW THERE MAY BE CONCERN, I NEVER WANT TO SPEAK FOR COUNCIL, BUT THERE MAY BE CONCERN AT A COUNCIL LEVEL, ULTIMATELY, ABOUT THE ADDED DOCKAGE IN THE LAKESHORE.
I KNOW THAT THAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE AND WE'LL HAVE TO JUST SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT, BUT I'VE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THIS A CHANGE TO REMEDY THE ISSUES BOTH FOR THE OWNERS AND I THINK FOR THE ODD IRREGULARITIES OF THE ZONING.
I DON'T REMEMBER OR RECALL WHEN THIS WAS PLOTTED, BUT IT IS AN ODDBALL AND IT WILL NOT SO MUCH BE THAT WAY NOW IF THIS IS ADOPTED, SO I'M STILL LEANING VERY HEAVILY TO THE SIDE OF FAVORING THIS AND THINKING IT'S A GOOD CHANGE.
>> WELL, ON A TASK AND SOLUTION OBSTACLE ELIMINATION PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS THE ONLY FEEDBACK THAT I HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD BE FINDING A WAY TO NOT FURTHER INTRUDE ON CONVINCING PEOPLE OF ADDING ACCESS DIRECTLY ONTO A BUSY ROAD THAT HAS SOME PROBLEMS. THAT CLEARLY IS TAKING DOWN ONE MAJOR BOULDER THAT'S IN THE WAY OF GETTING SUPPORT FOR IT.
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE, OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY THAT ALLOWED IT TO TIE INTO THE ROAD WITHOUT HAVING IT TO DUMP ONTO SHORELINE, I THINK A LOT OF US WOULD FIND THAT TO BE AN EASIER PATH.
BUT OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT SIMPLY DONE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO ACROSS OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, SO EASY FOR ME TO SAY, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY NOTHING'S EVER GOTTEN DONE HERE, BUT IF IT EVER WOULD, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD DEFINITELY SPEED UP THE ABILITY TO GET IT DONE.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? WELL, WE DON'T VOTE ON THIS OR MAKE A MOTION.
HOPEFULLY THAT'S HELPFUL BACK FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> I LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
MOVING ON. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT. IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION.
>> A MOTION BY KRAMER WITH A SECOND BY LIBBY TO ADJOURN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.