[00:00:01]
>> WELCOME, EVERYONE TO THE OCTOBER 21 MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
[1. Call to Order]
WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.>> FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
[3. Approval of Agenda]
>> I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY KIRSHNER, A SECOND BY KRAMER. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? THERE ARE NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
SECOND ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 16,
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2024]
PLANNING COMMISSION. DO I HAVE A MOTION?>> I HAVE A MOTION BY SCHULTZ. DO I HAVE?
>> SECOND BY KIRSHNER. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? THERE ARE NONE.
MOTION CARRIES. BRING US RIGHT TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[5.1. LA24-000046, John Erickson, 865 Partenwood Road, Variances, Public Hearing]
FIRST ONE, LA 24-46 JOHN ERICKSON, 865 PARTON WOOD ROAD.THIS IS FOR VARIANCES AND HERE.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
TONIGHT, WE HAVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR A NEW DECK IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK ALONG WITH HARD COVER IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A HOME THAT'S EXISTING TODAY AND GOING THROUGH A REMODEL PROJECT.
THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE SITS ON A PENINSULA WITH A 75 FOOT SETBACK APPLYING TO THREE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE 75 FOOT SETBACK IN YELLOW, SO YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE WITHIN THAT YELLOW HIGHLIGHT.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN AT GRADE PANAMA AND THEN LANDSCAPING AREAS WITH PLASTIC BASE AROUND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME.
THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REPLACE THIS WITH A 55 BY 16 FOOT DECK STRUCTURE THAT IS ROUGHLY 14" ABOVE GRADE.
THIS IS A CHANGING CHARACTER OF THE HARD COVER FROM THE PATIO STRUCTURE OR FROM PATIO TO A STRUCTURE AS WELL AS BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THE PROPOSED DECK IS SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS.
THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPOSED SIZE AND THE REASONABLE USE OF THAT DECK WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROPERTY'S LAKE FRONTAGE ON THE PENINSULA IS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS AN OVERALL DECREASE IN HARD COVER COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DECK IS IN A SIMILAR SETBACK AS THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TODAY, IT WILL BE 1 FT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE ON THE NORTH SIDE AND MAINTAINING A SIMILAR SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE.
STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SITE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT, THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE PARCEL, AND THE AMOUNT OF LAKESHORE ON THE PARCEL DECREASES A REASONABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE EXISTING PATIO BEING AT GRADE LIMITS THE MASSING IMPACT AND SO A PROPOSED DECK AT A SIMILAR LEVEL OF ONLY 14" ABOVE GRADE MAINTAINS THAT MASSING ELEMENT OR IS NOT PROPOSING REALLY ANY ADDITIONAL MASSING.
THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICATION DUE TO THE DECREASE IN OVERALL HARDCOVER WITHIN THE LAKE, AS WELL AS THEIR PROPOSAL TO MAINTAIN THE SAME SETBACKS AND THE LOW MASSING FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT.
THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AT 88815, PARTON WOOD HAD PROVIDED PROPERTY ACKNOWLEDGMENT SIGNATURES INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I WOULD STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> SCOTT MAYER, REPRESENTING JOHN ERICKSON AT 865 PARTON WOOD.
ANY QUESTIONS? I'M JUST HERE TO SAY HELLO.
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE AT THIS POINT.
[00:05:04]
WELL, SHALL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION FIRST AND THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.>> YOU DO THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
>> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. LET'S DO THAT.
PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT HERE FOR DISCUSSION. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START?
>> THEY SHOW THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THE STAFF HAS FOR IT, AND THEY'RE REDUCING HARD COVER SO I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
>> I DON'T HAVE MUCH ELSE TO ADD OTHER THAN IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO ENCROACH ANY FURTHER, TO SOME DEGREE THAN THE EXISTING CORNERS OF THE HOUSE THERE, WHERE THE HOUSE ANGLES OFF TO THE LEFT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER THERE, AS WELL AS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S EXTENDING BEYOND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, AND THOSE DIRECTIONS ARE JUST FILLING IN THAT AREA THERE.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES CERTAINLY ESTABLISHED BY A NARROW BUILDING ENVELOPE AND, PENINSULA ON THREE SIDES SO I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ.
>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME, I THINK YOU GUYS HIT THE POINTS THAT IT IS ON A PENINSULA.
VERY NARROW BUILDING ENVELOPE.
WE'RE GETTING BETTER IN HARDCOVER, AND THE SETBACKS ARE IMPROVING AND YOU CAN SEE THAT INCREDIBLY NARROW BUILDING ENVELOPE THERE.
SO I'M IN FAVOR. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> BASED ON THAT, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-46 AT 865 PARTON ROAD AS APPLIED.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KIRSHNER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAMER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HARRY NUN, WILL VOTE.
>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HARRY NUN, MOTION CARRIES.
THAT'LL BRING US TO LA 24-52, OUTDOOR ESCAPES,
[5.2. LA24-000052, Outdoor Excapes o/b/o Gregory and Maria â€oeMia†Swenson, 875 Forest Arms Ln, ALS Variance, Public Hearing]
ON BEHALF OF MARIA MIA SWENSON, 875 FORREST ARMS LANE.THIS IS FOR AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THANK YOU. ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, OUTDOOR ESCAPES REQUESTS AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RECONFIGURED LAKESIDE DECK ON THE HOME.
THE EXISTING DECK ENCROACHES APPROXIMATELY 11 FEET LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK LINE.
PROPOSED DECK IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE EXISTING.
IT WILL ENCROACH ABOUT 16.5 FEET LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK LINE BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE SHORELINE AND THE LOCATION OF THE DECK EXPANSIONS, THE RESULTING LAKE SETBACK OF APPROXIMATELY 268 FEET REMAINS UNCHANGED.
THERE IS NO LOCATION ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE HOME TO CONSTRUCT ANY CONFORMING STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY VIEWS OF THE LAKE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THESE DECK CHANGES.
THE PATIO AND PROPOSED LOWER DECK ON THE SIDES OF THE NEW DECK ARE LESS THAN 42" FROM GRADE AND THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE STEP BACK LINE.
REGARDING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED LOCATION OF THE HOME, THE EXTREME SETBACK OF THE EXISTING HOME AND THE NEIGHBORING HOMES ON THIS ROADWAY AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCE.
THEY HAVE SUBMITTED AN ANALYSIS AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
THEY SHOULD BE ASKED TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.
PROPERTY FRONTS ON A LONG CHANNEL AND IS SOMEWHAT DISCONNECTED FROM THE LAKE.
THE CHANNEL CREATES A UNIQUE SITUATION REGARDING LAKE VIEW.
IT'S TECHNICALLY A LAKE SETBACK, BUT THE LAKE IS A LITTLE OFFSET FROM WHERE YOU FROM TO WHERE THE HOME AND THE CHANNEL ARE LOCATED.
THE DEEP LAKE YARDS COMBINED WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE CHANNEL SHORELINE RESULT IN DIFFICULTIES FOR IDENTIFYING A CONFORMING LOCATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
STAFF DOES FIND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXIST SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCE.
LAKE SHORE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, AND I CAN SHOW YOU THE DECK PLANS IF YOU'RE INTERESTED
[00:10:02]
OR LOOK AT SOME OF THESE OTHER EXHIBITS THAT I HAVE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO? SO THERE'S AN UPPER DECK IN FRONT OF THAT BANK OF WINDOWS THAT'S DISAPPEARING.
IS THE NEW DECK GOING TO STICK OUT TO THE SAME DISTANCE AS THAT?
>> IT IS COMING OUT TO THAT POINT, BUT IT'S EXPANDING WHERE THERE WASN'T THAT PREVIOUSLY.
>> I HAD THAT SAME QUESTION, SO THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. IF THE APPLICANTS HERE WHO WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. WE'D LIKE TO START.
>> I THINK PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES HAVE CLEARLY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY BOTH CITY STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.
THE FACT THAT THE DECK IN FRONT OF THE WINDOWS THAT I HAD ASKED QUESTION ABOUT IS BEING REMOVED AND THE NEW DECK IS NOT COMING ANY FURTHER FORWARD THAN THAT.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S IN A DIFFERENT PLACEMENT ON THE HOME AND ON THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, TO ME, IT'S AN IMMATERIAL FACT THAT THE DECK EXPANSION ISN'T COMING ANY FURTHER LAKEWARD, IN MY OPINION.
BASED ON ALL THAT, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES BEING ESTABLISHED AND DOCUMENTED, AND, WHAT IS REALLY JUST MOVING ONE SPACE TO ANOTHER SPACE WITHOUT COMING ANY FURTHER LAKEWARD, I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT, ANOTHER PLUS IS THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE ALSO FOR IT.
I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS. COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ?
>> I AGREE. I THINK THIS NEW DECK CONFIGURATION COULD ACTUALLY HELP IMPROVE THE SIGHT LINES FROM THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL INTENT OF THE ALS AS WELL.
BEYOND THAT THERE IS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ESTABLISHED, I'M IN FAVOR.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-52.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER KRAMER.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KIRSHNER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
[5.3. LA24-000053 Lecy Brothers Homes & Remodeling, o/b/o Ken Levitt, 700 North Arm Drive, Variances, Public Hearing]
LES BROTHERS HOMES AND REMODELING ON BEHALF OF KEVIN LEVITT, 700 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES AND PUBLIC HEARING.>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING HOME IS A WALKOUT RAMBLER ENCROACHING APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET INTO THE 75 FOOT LAKE SETBACK.
THE PROPERTY IS SHALLOW AND THE BUILDABLE AREA IS REDUCED BY THE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON THE STREET SIDE AND THE 75 FOOT SETBACK ON THE LAKESIDE.
THE HOME MEETS THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY HOME, UTILIZING THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING HOMES FOOTPRINT.
THEY ARE REQUESTING A LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE NEW EXPANDED HOME TO BE SITUATED 68.4 FEET FROM THE LAKE.
THE PROPOSED DECK IS 61.4 FEET FROM THE LAKE WHERE 75 IS REQUIRED.
THE EXISTING HOME IS 62.9 FEET FROM THE LAKE.
THE LAKESIDE PORCH ON THE EXISTING HOME, IS BEING REPLACED IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT WITH THE DECK ALTHOUGH THE DECK IS GOING TO EXPAND CLOSER TO THE LAKE.
ALSO REQUESTED AS A VARIANCE TO PERMIT 871 SQUARE FEET OF HARD COVER WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK WHERE HARD COVER IS NOT PERMITTED.
THIS IS A REDUCTION OF 346 SQUARE FEET, 01,217 SQUARE FEET EXISTS CURRENTLY.
LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES ARE ALSO NECESSARY DUE TO THE NON CONFORMING SIZE OF THE LOT.
AS SUBMITTED, THE PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS DO REFLECT THREE TENTHS OF A PERCENT OVER THE 25% MAXIMUM.
IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN INTENDED AN INTENDED VARIANCE THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING.
[00:15:01]
THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING REVISED CALCULATIONS THAT REFLECT A CONFORMING 25%.THE PROPOSAL DOES REFLECT AN EXPANDED FOOTPRINT ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WIDTH OF THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE.
INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME IS ALSO BEING DONE WITH A SECOND STORY.
THE EXPANSIONS IN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A NICE EXHIBIT SHOWING THE VOLUME EXPANSIONS AS THE SETBACK IS CUT THROUGH.
THE SETBACK IS SHOWN IN RED, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT.
THE PROPOSED HOME IS GREEN IN THIS EXHIBIT.
IN THIS DRAWING HERE, YOU CAN SEE AS THEY'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE OVER THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
THE DECK THAT'S PROPOSED IS NOT SHOWN, BUT THIS OVER THIS AREA HERE ON FOR THE PORCHES.
THEIR REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES RESULTS IN THE PROPERTIES INABILITY TO CONFORM TO THE LOT OF RECORD ALLOWANCE TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTIES.
THOSE LOT AREA AND LOT WITH VARIANCES NEED TO BE PROCESSED.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PROPOSED LAKESIDE DECK WILL INCREASE 1.5 FEET CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINTS.
LETS SEE. REGARDING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE SHALLOW ALLOWED BUILDING PAD RESTRICTED BY THE STREET, SETBACK STREET AND SETBACKS AND THE SEWER EASEMENT.
THEIR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
STAFF DOES AGREE WITH THEIR ASSESSMENT OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND SUPPORTS THE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR THE NEW HOME.
NEIGHBORS HAVE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS FOR THE APPLICATION.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR THE HOME CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICANT REVISING THE DECK, SO THERE IS NO NEW ENCROACHMENT AND CORRECTING THAT TOTAL SITE HARDCOVER.
THE CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED BEFORE PLACEMENT ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.
THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND I HAVE THE OTHER EXHIBITS OF THE HOUSE PLANS AND YOU CAN GO INTO SOME AERIAL PHOTOS IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WHEN YOU SPEAK TO THAT TOTAL HARDCOVER, THAT'S THE 25%?
>> THIS THREE-TENTHS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CORRECTING?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT LAST POINT THAT YOU WERE JUST MAKING, YOU SAID THREE-TENTHS.
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S MAYBE A CALCULATION ERROR OR SOMETHING THAT THE 25% IS NOT MET BECAUSE IT'S 3/10 OVER THAT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ERROR.
I'LL JUST LOOK AT [INAUDIBLE] ADDITIONAL HARD COVER THAT DIDN'T CALCULATE.
THEY CAN EXPLAIN THAT WITH [INAUDIBLE] SO TO SPEAK.
>> ON THE SURVEY DOCUMENT WHERE IT SHOWS PATIO, AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IS THE NEW ENCROACHMENT DECK, IS THAT PATIO EXISTING OR WHAT'S EXISTING THERE TODAY?
>> RIGHT THERE TODAY DUE TO THE SHADOW HERE, THAT'S WHERE THE DECK IS TODAY ON THE PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING SURVEY MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE THAT IT'S IN THIS LOCATION.
THERE IS A CONCRETE PATIO HERE AND SOME OTHER RETAIN WALLS AND OTHER HARD COVER IN THAT AREA.
THEY'RE IN SOME OF THAT AND JUST HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
THEY'RE REARRANGING THE HARD COVER THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO CREATE THE ACCESS TO THE LAKES STARE.
>> THAT PIECE IS PART OF THAT 346 HARD COVER REDUCING TO EIGHT. WHAT WAS IT?
>> DO I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAWING HERE OF THE REAR OF THE HOME OR THE PART OF THE FACE OF THE LAKE IS THAT THERE WILL NOT BE AN ADDITIONAL PATIO IN THERE? IS THAT WHAT YOU WENT WITH?
>> THEY ARE PROPOSING A PATIO IN THE LOCATION WHERE THE PREVIOUS DECK WAS.
I COULD SHOW YOU THE EXISTING SURVEY.
THIS IS THAT DECK IN THIS LOCATION.
PHOTOS MIGHT MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.
SO THERE'S THE DECK IN THIS LOCATION.
BUT THEY ARE REMOVING THAT DECK AND CONSTRUCTING THIS SMALLER DECK HERE, BUT PUTTING THE PATIO IN THAT LOCATION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WHERE IS THE SEWER EASEMENT THAT YOU'RE SAYING AS PART OF THE HARD TRIP?
[00:20:04]
OR THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY?>> THE SEWER EASEMENT, I'M SORRY. SO THE LINE IS HERE.
THERE'S A 10 FOOT EASEMENT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ACTUAL LINE.
REALLY, IT PINCHES WITH THE STREET SETBACK RIGHT IN THIS LOCATION.
>> SO THAT'S A SEWER MAIN THEN THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY?
>> IF THAT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WERE NOT THERE, WHAT IS THE SETBACK FROM THE ROAD? COULD THE HOUSE BE PULLED BACK?
>> THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS AREA HERE.
BUT THIS AREA IS ENCUMBERED WITH THAT EASEMENT.
THEY ARE THE DRIVEWAY THERE, WHICH IS GENERALLY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> HI, I'M KEN LEVITT, 700 NORTH ARM.
WITH ME THIS EVENING IS MY WIFE, CHRISTINA.
ALSO, ANY JOHNS [INAUDIBLE] FROM ALYSSA BROTHERS.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] EXCEPT FOR ME.
VERY WELL. IT'S ALMOST HALLOWEEN.
FIRST, PLANNER CURTIS, THANK YOU FOR THE DETAILED ANALYSIS.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I THINK PLANNER CURTIS HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING THE CHALLENGES WE'VE HAD WITH THE LOT.
OUR WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE A ONE STORY LIVING.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT AS WE WORK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS ON THE LOT WITH ANDY.
YOU'VE GOT THE SEWER EASEMENT IN FRONT.
YOU'VE GOT THE STREET SETBACK IN FRONT.
IT ALL REALLY CONSTRICTS THE BUILDING SPACE.
SO WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS TO CONFORM AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO THE CITY REQUIREMENTS.
THE EXTERIOR WALL ON THE HOUSE ON THE SIDE THAT FACES THE LAKE IS ACTUALLY MOSTLY CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CURRENT WALL.
WE ARE REMOVING A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS CLOSER TO THE LAKE.
IF YOU LOOK AND YOU SEE WHERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE SAYS NEW ENCROACHMENT DECK AND THAT IT POINTS TO DECK.
THAT'S ACTUALLY A PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT WITH FOUNDATION STICKS OUT, AND THERE'S AN AREA IN THE BASEMENT THAT'S FINISHED, AND THEN THERE'S A BEDROOM UP ABOVE, AND WE'RE MOVING THAT BACK AND PROPOSING JUST TO PUT A DECK THERE.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE NOT REBUILDING THE DECK THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL DECK.
BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE PROPOSED DECK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, WHILE IT STICKS OUT A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THE HOUSE DOES NOW, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME AS THE EXISTING DECK.
SO IT'S NOT STICKING OUT ANY FARTHER.
IT ACTUALLY HELPS THE SIGHT LINES FOR THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE BIG DECK, AND WE'RE TURNING THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS TOWARD THE LAKE.
WE'RE TURNING THAT INTO A DECK RATHER THAN REBUILDING HOUSE THERE.
AND SO WE HOPE YOU'LL SEE THAT AS A MODEST REQUEST.
THE THREE TENTHS PERCENT HARD COVER ISSUE.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.
I YOU WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR TIME, ESPECIAL PLANNER CURTIS WORKING THROUGH THIS.
IF THERE'S QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER HIM OR I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DRAG ANDY UP HERE AND LET HIM ANSWER THEM.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU ON THE NEW ENCROACHMENT DECK.
DO WE HAVE A SLIDE THAT ILLUSTRATES THAT IT'S CURRENTLY STRUCTURE? THAT GOT LOST ON ME?
>> IF YOU GO TO ANNIE JOHN LESTER SOME.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. IF YOU GO TO THAT PICTURE YOU HAD THE PACK THAT WAS SO GRAIN ON THE SIDE.
YEAH, THERE'S ONE MORE PHOTO, I BELIEVE. THERE YOU GO.
SO THERE'S THE DECK RIGHT THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE AND THEN THE CURRENT DECK AND THAT'S WHAT MY CLIENT'S SAYING IS THAT RIGHT NOW THAT DECK COMES OUT ABOUT 99.5 FEET.
THAT PORCH THAT YOU SEE STICKING OUT WITH THE GABLE THERE, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING AWAY.
SO WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THIS, THAT DECK IS ONLY 99.5 FEET AND SO WE DID A CAN LEVER TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THAT SETBACK.
THEN WE TRIED TO LINE THAT UP TO TRY TO MAKE THAT CONFORMING.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WHAT THAT IS.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. YEAH.
>> I ALSO HAVE A SURVEY HERE THAT CAN MENTION YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT I MADE COPIES JUST SO THAT THERE'S SO MANY LINES ON THE SURVEY.
I WENT TO KINDERGARTEN YEARS AGO AND GOT THE COLOR TODAY.
SO I JUST COLORED THIS DRAWING FOR YOU GUYS BECAUSE I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT INITIALLY.
[00:25:03]
SO THAT DIAGRAM, THE PURPLE LINES THAT YOU SEE, THE VIKINGS DID LOSE, BUT THEY WERE CLOSE TO BEING UNDEFEATED.THAT IS THE SEWER EASEMENT LINE OF THE FRONT, AND THEN OUR LAKE SETBACK IN THE BACK.
THE BRIGHT YELLOW LINE YOU SEE IS WHERE THE EXISTING DECK, IN ADDITION IS WHERE WE COULD HAVE EXPANDED, BUT WE DIDN'T.
THE PATIO, MR. KERCHER WAS ASKING ABOUT, THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT.
THAT'S SHOWN IN THE AREA THAT'S IN THE YELLOW.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND STORY OF ROOF LINES.
THE OTHER THING THAT I'LL JUST POINT OUT, MEL DID A FANTASTIC JOB WORKING WITH US ON THIS, AND WE BUGGED HER A LOT.
THE EXISTING HOME THAT'S THERE TODAY, AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THIS SURVEY, BUT THE EXISTING HOMES THERE TODAY IS 62.9 FEET.
YEAH, RIGHT THERE, 62.9 FEET OFF THE PORCH AND THEN THE FAR END IS 68.4.
THOSE ARE THE TWO DIMENSIONS THAT WE'RE WORKING FROM.
NOW WE'RE 70.4 FEET TO OUR HOME STRUCTURE.
SO WE'RE ABOUT EIGHT FEET OR 7.5 FEET TO THE GOOD AWAY FROM THE LAKE SETBACK, AND WE'RE EXACTLY THE SAME AS 68.4.
SO THAT'S THE NEGOTIATING WE WERE DOING OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK.
WE TOOK AWAY A TWO STORY STRUCTURE AND JUST MADE IT A DECK.
WE ARE ASKING FOR A FOOT AND A HALF TO MAKE THAT DECK 9.5 FEET.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS.
BUT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF WITH MELANIE AND I THINK SHE'S GLAD TO FINALLY SEE US HERE.
I HAD TO MAKE THIS COME TO THE COUNCIL.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION THERE.
IT HELPS MAKE SENSE AS TO WHY I COULD SEE THE GIVE AND TAKE THERE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD.
>> IS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL STILL A 25.3 HARD COVER OR HAS IT BEEN REVISED?
>> COMMISSIONER ERICKSON, THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE.
MELANIE GOT IN HER INBOX, A NEW SURVEY THE SURVEYOR MADE 0.3 ERROR AND SO THAT'S A NON-ISSUE, NOT AT ALL.
ACTUALLY THE SURVEY I GAVE YOU ACTUALLY SAYS THAT 25.
>> THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL START. THIS ONE'S GOT A LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO IT.
I THINK IT'S A VERY THOUGHTFUL APPLICATION.
CERTAINLY THAT SLIDE WITH THE SLICES GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE TO EXPLAIN THE NEW MASSING.
THAT REALLY HELPED ME WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT, AND YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD HAVE.
I THINK PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ESTABLISHED HERE.
THEY CAN'T MOVE TOWARDS THE STREET ANY BECAUSE OF THAT SEWER LINE AND THE SEWER EASEMENT.
ORIGINALLY WHEN I ORIGINALLY SAW THIS, I WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE FOOT AND A HALF FOR THE NEW DECK.
BUT NOW I UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT USED TO BE STRUCTURE.
THAT USED TO BE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, IT'S GOING AWAY, SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE ROOM FOR THAT MASSING THAT'S BEHIND THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT EXISTED TODAY.
THEN THEY'RE REPLACING THAT WITH A DECK AND THAT DECK DOES NOT GO ANY FARTHER LAKEWARD THAN THE PREVIOUS DECK ON THE OTHER SIDE.
IT REMINDS ME OF ONE OF THE PREVIOUS ONES WE HAD TONIGHT WHERE THE DECK WAS SHALLOWER IN ONE SPOT, BUT GOT BIGGER THAN THE OTHER.
SO TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED HERE, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE. ANYONE ELSE?
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THE ONLY THING I'D ADD IS THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT I'M REALLY HONING IN ON IS THAT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THAT TRULY PINCHES THIS HOUSE, AND I'M SURE THE APPLICANTS WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO PUSH THE HOUSE BACK THAT 18" THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT THEY CAN'T DO TO THE EASEMENT, AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN EASEMENT RUNNING UNDER YOUR STRUCTURE OR YOUR HOME.
EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID, PLUS THE PINCH POINT THAT THAT CLEARLY CREATES,
[00:30:02]
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE NEW ENCROACHMENT TO THE DECK THERE, AND I'D BE IN SUPPORT.>> YEAH, I'M IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
IT SEEMS WELL THOUGHT OUT, WELL DESIGNED, AND MELANIE WAS SMILING.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OTHERWISE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-53 AT 700 NORTH ARM DRIVE AS APPLIED.
WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE MAKE THE 25% HARD COVER, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL BE TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE IT'S IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE BY KIRSHNER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ.
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NOTING THAT THE HARD COVER WOULD BE AT THE 25%.
I THINK IS THAT ENOUGH FOR STAFF WITH THAT INFORMATION AT THE END OF THE MOTION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL VOTE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
IT BRINGS US TO OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING, LA 24-55.
[5.4. LA24-0000055, City of Orono Text Amendment, Cannabis, Public Hearing]
THIS IS A CITY OF ORNO TEXT AMENDMENT FOR CANNABIS AND PUBLIC HEARING.>> YES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
TONIGHT IS A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT FOR DRAFT LANGUAGE, FOR ALLOWING CANNABIS BUSINESSES AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
I DO HAVE THAT PROPOSED LANGUAGE UP.
SOME DEFINITIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.
SO THROUGHOUT 2024, THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH STATE GUIDELINES AND HAMAN COUNTY LICENSING PROGRAM TO DEVELOP APPROPRIATE LOCAL REGULATIONS FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES.
THE STATE WILL BEGIN ISSUING CANNABIS LICENSES OR IT'S ANTICIPATED FOR HIGH POTENCY CANNABIS BUSINESSES BEGINNING OF 2025.
PER STATE STATUTE, LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES CAN IMPLEMENT REGULATIONS, INSPECTIONS, REGISTRATIONS, AND ZONING BUFFERS FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES.
AT THE AUGUST 12TH, A WORK SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY REVIEWED THE RULES AND POLICIES OF THE CITY.
THE COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF TO WORK WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.
THEY ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO DEVELOP ZONING AMENDMENTS TO APPLY THE BUFFERS ALLOWED BY STATE LEGISLATION AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CITY CODE.
SO FOLLOWING THE STATE STATUTE, WHAT IT ALLOWS FOR MUNICIPALITIES IS, IT WOULD ALLOW US TO IMPLEMENT 1,000 SQUARE FEET BUFFER FROM SCHOOLS AND 500 FEET FROM DAYCARES, PARKS WITH AMENITIES FOR MINORS AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES.
SO CURRENTLY, UNDER TODAY'S CODE, IF NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED, HIGH POTENCY CANNABIS BUSINESSES, IF THEY WERE TO GO THROUGH A LICENSING AND REGISTRATION PROCESS, THEY WOULD NEED TO MEET THE CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS IF IT'S A RETAIL STOREFRONT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A RETAIL STOREFRONT AND A BUSINESS DISTRICT.
IF IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE BUSINESS, LIKE DISTRIBUTION, PACKAGING, SOMETHING, IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING IS TO AMEND AND LIST A CANNABIS BUSINESSES AS PERMITTED USES.
PERMITTED WITH MEETING THESE BUFFERS.
FOR THAT REASON, IT'S TYPICAL MORE THAT THIS WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE THAT YOU LIST THIS, AND THEN THE CONDITIONS BE THAT YOU MEET THESE BUFFERS.
HOWEVER, WE CANNOT USE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS DUE TO THE TIMING IMPLEMENTED BY STATE STATUTE WHEN AN APPLICATION IS MADE.
THE MUNICIPALITY OR THE REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY HAS 30 DAYS TO ACT.
A CUP PROCESS TAKES ROUGHLY 60 DAYS TO ACT.
SO WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACT AND REACT WHEN APPLICATIONS OR REGISTRATIONS COME THROUGH WITHIN 30 DAYS.
ONCE A BUSINESS REGISTRATION APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE LET THEM KNOW IF THEY MEET OUR CODE OR NOT WITHIN THAT TIMELINE, WHICH DOES NOT MATCH A CP.
STAFF IS PERMITTING PER LEGAL COUNSEL AFTER CONSULTING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PERMIT CANNABIS BUSINESSES AND APPLY THE APPROPRIATE BUFFERS AS A LISTED PERMITTED USE.
[00:35:01]
MELANIE, DO YOU WANT TO SCROLL DOWN HERE SO WE CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE? SO EVERY ZONING SECTION WOULD BE AMENDED TO LIST THIS IN EACH, NOT EVERY ZONING SECTION.EVERY BUSINESS ZONE AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE WOULD LIST IT TO SAY A CANNABIS RETAIL BUSINESS LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN 1,000 FEET FROM SCHOOLS AND 500 FEET FROM DAYCARE, RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES, OR AN ATTRACTION WITHIN A PUBLIC PARK REGULARLY USED BY MINORS.
SO THAT'S STATE STATUTE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO IMPLEMENT BUFFERS FROM.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN EVERY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO AMEND OUR CODE.
THAT WAY WHEN A LICENSE COMES IN, WE CAN SAY IT MEETS THIS AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE BUFFER.
MELANIE, DO YOU WANT TO JUMP OVER TO THE MAP?
>> THIS IS A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE MAP.
IT'S NOT 100% ACCURATE AT THIS POINT.
THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN GOING ON.
THE STATE STATUTE LANGUAGE SAYS THE BUFFERS, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM PARKS ARE NOT FROM THE PARK BOUNDARIES.
THEY ARE FROM THE AMENITIES FOR MINERS WITHIN THE PARK.
IT'S NOT FROM THE EDGE OF THE PARK PARCEL, IT'S FROM THE EDGE OF THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
IT'S NOT FROM THE PARCEL BOUNDARY ITSELF.
THERE'S A LITTLE NUANCE THERE THAT WE'RE REFINING WITHIN THIS MAP.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE ARE THE BUFFERS AS IT PERTAINS TO DAYCARES, TO SCHOOLS, AND TO PARKS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY.
MELANIE, WILL YOU OPEN UP THE WORK SESSION PDF AND THEN JUMP DOWN.
I THINK IT'S I HAVE THIS MAP, AND THEN I ANNOTATED IT.
I ANNOTATED THIS WITH SOME YELLOW NODES.
IN THE GREEN CALL OUT IS THE YELLOW NODE, RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S OUR BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD HAVE SOME PARCELS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
THEN IF YOU BACK OUT, THERE'S A YELLOW SECTION, THAT'S THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, THAT'S OUTSIDE THE BUFFER.
IT DOES LIMIT THE BUFFERS WHERE THIS COULD BE APPLIED.
BUT THE AMENDMENT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE TO REACT IN THE TIME REQUIRED AND PUT THOSE BUFFERS IN PLACE AS GUIDED, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY STATE STATUTE AND GUIDED FROM THE COUNCIL.
TO PERMIT CANNABIS BUSINESSES AND APPLY THE APPROPRIATE BUFFERS FOLLOWING COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, STAFF HAS DRAFTED THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO REVIEW THE LISTED CANNABIS BUSINESSES AS PERMITTED USES WHEN THEY MEET THE BUFFER STANDARDS WITHIN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
WE ALSO ARE PROPOSING TO ADD DEFINITIONS INTO OUR ZONING CODE.
THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE ALSO THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT FROM STATE STATUTE LANGUAGE OF WHAT THE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES ARE.
TODAY, I'VE RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
MY QUESTION TO YOU, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS YOU HAVE? I WILL BE GETTING THIS MAP REFINED MORE SPECIFICALLY.
BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED, WE'LL GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THESE BUFFERS EXACTLY TO APPLY.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE ARE THE AREAS WE'RE LOOKING AT. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YES. I FIND THE BUFFER AS DEFINED FROM A PARK.
IT'S FROM THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON A PARK OR A BALL FIELD? WHAT ARE THE EXTREMES OF A BALL FIELD? THAT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER IF IT JUST SAID THE PERIMETER OF THE PARK.
>> YEAH. UNFORTUNATELY, PER STATE STATUTE, WE CANNOT.
WE CANNOT SAY THE PERIMETER OF THE PARK.
THAT GOES BEYOND RESTRICTING WHAT STATE STATUTE ALLOWS US TO RESTRICT.
WE CAN ONLY PUT THE BUFFER IN FROM THE AMENITIES, AND IT'S ONLY AMENITIES THAT ARE MINERS, FOR EXAMPLE.
IF IT'S JUST A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT TYPE PARK, THOSE MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED IN THIS MAP, BUT THOSE MIGHT NOT QUALIFY FOR AN ACTUAL BUFFER.
IT'S THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
IT'S THE BALL FIELDS, I WOULD ASSUME WOULD WORK AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RESTRICTED TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THIS BUFFER PER STATE STATUTE.
>> I MYSELF AM HUNG UP ON SOME OF THE BUFFER STUFF AS WELL.
THAT BRINGS ME TO MY QUESTION.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR VERIFYING AND VALIDATING THAT A BUSINESS IS NOT WITHIN THAT BUFFER? SAY THAT SOMEONE COMES IN AND WANTS TO OPEN, AN ESTABLISHMENT LIKE THIS AND BE REGISTERED AS A BUSINESS IN ONE OF THESE DISTRICTS, DO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE WITH THEIR APPLICATION A SURVEY THAT SHOWS WHERE THAT BUFFER ENDS OR HOW ARE WE VALIDATING THAT INFORMATION.
WE HAVE A MAP TODAY, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS BEING REFINED AND NOT FINALIZED.
BUT ONCE IT'S FINALIZED, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR KEEPING UP WITH UPDATES,
[00:40:02]
IF WE REDO A PLAYGROUND OR A PARK AND RIP OUT OLD EQUIPMENT AND PUT IN NEW EQUIPMENT, HOW DO WE KEEP UP WITH THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUFFER HAS NOT CHANGED.>> I BELIEVE WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS USING HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR OUR REGISTRATION.
THAT'S WHAT BOTH THE POLICE CHIEF AND OUR CITY CLERK ARE RECOMMENDING.
THE APPLICATION FOR A BUSINESS WOULD ACTUALLY GO THROUGH HENNEPIN COUNTY, AND THEN THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO US CONFIRMING THE LOCATION OR THE PROPOSED LOCATION REQUEST.
I BELIEVE AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION, THEY WOULD NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT THEY MEET THE CITY CODE.
YES, THEY WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE SOME OF THEIR RESEARCH OR INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT THEY NEED IT, BUT IT WOULD BE STAFF'S JOB TO VERIFY THAT THE CODE IS MET BEFORE SIGNING OFF OR ACKNOWLEDGING AT THAT REGISTRATION.
WE AS STAFF HAVE A CHECK IN BALANCE WHEN A BUSINESS WOULD COME IN, THE COUNTY WOULD NOTIFY US TO SAY, THEY'RE SAYING THEY MADE IT, DO YOU CONFIRM? WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO DO OUR OWN SITE PLAN REVIEW, JUST LIKE WE DO WITH A NEW HOUSE OR A DECK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE WOULD THEN TURN ON THIS LAYER OF OUR MAPPING AND THEN VERIFY WITH THE INFORMATION WE KNOW THAT THE BUFFER IS MET.
>> BUT IF WE'RE TURNING ON THIS LAYER, AGAIN, THAT DOES DOES THIS KEEP UP WITH, A NEW PARK PLAYGROUND BEING INSTALLED AND ITEMS BEING MOVED WITHIN THAT PARK AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> IT WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED AS WE MADE CHANGES.
WHENEVER WE MADE A CHANGE TO A PARK, EITHER ADDED A PLAYGROUND, AMENDED A PLAYGROUND, CHANGE THE LOCATION, WE WOULD THEN NEED TO ALSO AMEND THIS MAP.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME, IT MENTIONS PARK AREAS FREQUENTED BY MINORS.
BUT I'M NOT AWARE THAT WE HAVE ANY PARK AREAS THAT ARE LIMITED TO ADULTS ONLY.
ALL OF OUR PARKS ARE INTENDED AND USED ON A FAMILY BASIS OF PEOPLE OF ALL AGES.
I DON'T SEE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THAT.
BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, AND I REALIZE THERE'S TIME PRESSURE WITH THIS 30 DAY THING, WHICH I'M NOT HAPPY WITH EITHER BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THESE TYPES OF USES SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SCRUTINY THAT WE TYPICALLY USE FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
IN 30 DAYS, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN, BUT, MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT THERE ARE SO MANY ZONING CATEGORIES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED FOR PERMITTED USES.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT FOR MOST OF THE OTHER ZONING CATEGORIES, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE EXISTING PERMITTED USES ARE, AND EVEN WHAT MANY OF THE CONDITIONAL USES PERMIT IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS, THE INTRUSION OF THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS IN THOSE AREAS WOULD REALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF MANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
IF I FEEL IN THIS, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE LIMITED TO LEGISLATION, BUT IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT WE COULD CREATE OR MODIFY A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE, WHICH IS SOMEHOW DONE IN 30 DAYS RATHER THAN TYPICAL 60? PERHAPS ONE WAY TO DO THAT MIGHT BE IF WE HAD A JOINT MEETING OF BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL TO EITHER OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME OR MAYBE A WORK SESSION WHERE YOU HAVE ONE AN HOUR AHEAD OF THE OTHER.
PERHAPS, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE MORE DESIRABLE, I THINK, FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT IN TERMS OF GIVING HIM MORE CONTROL OVER IT GOING FORWARD, WHICH WE REALLY DESERVE TO HAVE BECAUSE, THE STATE AND THE COUNTY GET 80% OF THE FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE TAXES AND SO ON.
BUT THE CITY GETS ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
[00:45:01]
ENFORCEMENT AND RESPONSE TO PUBLIC SAFETY.OTHER STATES THAT HAVE LEGALIZED MARIJUANA IN EARLIER TIMES, LIKE COLORADO, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN CRIME, SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.
THAT COMBINED WITH ALTERATION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS.
I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING IN IT FOR ORONO AND YET IT'S A STATE LAW, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.
BUT I THINK TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS AND THEIR PROPERTY VALUE, I THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO LIMIT IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITHOUT BEING IN VIOLATION.
IF WE COULD LIMIT, I LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES.
NOW, THE B1 RETAIL, DOES PERMIT LIQUOR STORES.
SO YOU MIGHT SAY THAT'S SIMILAR.
THE B5 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESSES PERMITS TOBACCO SHOPS AND COFFEE SHOPS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
THAT MIGHT ALSO HAVE SOME SIMILARITY.
BUT THE OTHER ONES DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING EVEN VAGUELY CLOSE.
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THEM PERMITTED USES IN THOSE OTHER ZONES, THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT.
THEN, IF WE CAN SOMEHOW, LIKE I SAY, WORK WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE. MAYBE TO PUT THOSE INTO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, IF ARE THESE THE STRICTEST BUFFERS WERE ALLOWED?
>> IF WE DON'T PUT THESE IN PARTICULAR BUSINESS DISTRICTS IN ALL OF THEM, B1, B3, B4 UP TO SIX, DOES THAT MEAN SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND PUT ONE IN B4 WITH ZERO RESTRICTIONS?
>> IF IT QUALIFY. YES, TECHNICALLY, IF THEY'RE ARE HIGH POTENT.
THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CANNABIS BUSINESSES.
SOME MIGHT BE MORE OFFICE AND BUSINESS ORIENTED, SOME MIGHT BE MORE INDUSTRIAL ORIENTED.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, WHERE WE ALLOW RETAIL, CANNABIS RETAIL CAN GO CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT CLASSIFIED CANNABIS AS A SEPARATE BUSINESS.
WE JUST HAVE RETAIL AS A PERMITTED USE.
SIMILAR, WE HAVE OFFICE AS A PERMITTED USE.
IF THERE'S A CANNABIS BUSINESS THAT OPERATES MORE, INTERNALLY OFFICE NO CUSTOMER FACING, IT COULD GO THERE.
IF IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS THAT DOES MORE MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCT, GROW HOUSE OR WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, THAT TECHNICALLY COULD GO IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TODAY AS PERMITTED USES WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
BY AMENDING THE CODE, WE ARE PUTTING THEM AS PERMITTED USES, BUT WITH THE CAVEAT OF APPLYING THESE BUFFERS IN PLACE.
WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THESE BUFFERS, WHERE TODAY WE DO NOT HAVE.
>> ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE BEING PROACTIVE HERE AND BEING AS STRICT AS POSSIBLE WITH WHERE OUR HANDS ARE TIED WITH THE STATE STATUTE, ETC.
>> YEAH. STATE STATUTE HAS NOTED, AND OUR ATTORNEY HAS SPOKEN TO THIS, BUT WE HAVE TO APPLY THE BUFFERS IN A WAY THAT STILL ALLOWS FOR A BUSINESS TO COME INTO THE CITY.
WE CAN'T APPLY ZONING RULES THAT ELIMINATE EVERY SINGLE PARCEL OUT OF THE CITY AND ESSENTIALLY EXILES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A CANNABIS BUSINESS.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO APPLY BUFFERS, BUT STILL ALLOW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS BUSINESS TO COME IN IN SOME WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
BY APPLYING THE BUFFERS THE WAY WE HAVE, WHICH ARE THE MAXIMUM BUFFERS THE STATE STATUTE ALLOWS WITH 100 FOOT FROM SCHOOL AND 500 FROM THOSE OTHER LISTED, WE STILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS TO COME IN THROUGH A SMALL AREA IN NARVAR AND ONE PARCEL THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
THAT MIGHT SHIFT SLIGHTLY AS I GET MORE REFINED MAPS.
[00:50:02]
BUT THESE ARE THE STRICTEST BUFFERS THAT WE CAN APPLY.>> QUESTION. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS IS AIMED AT ANY ESTABLISHMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE, IT'S CALLED A RETAIL CUSTOMER COMING IN.
IF IT'S AN OFFICE, A WAREHOUSE, A GROWING PLACE AT THAT FACTORY, THAT'S ANOTHER USE.
WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHERE WOULD A CUSTOMER WOULD COME IN THE FRONT DOOR.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT ALL CANNABIS THAT PERTAINS TO HIGH POTENCY CANNABIS.
IF IT'S HIGH POTENCY CANNABIS USE, IF YOU SCROLL UP, I THINK IT'S THE SECOND OR THIRD SLIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUSINESSES.
I GUESS, GO DOWN TO CANNABIS PRODUCTS.
PLEASE. WE HAD MEDICAL CANNABIS THAT WAS APPROVED FIVE YEARS AGO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THROUGH THE STATE.
THEN WE HAVE HEMP DERIVED CBD, WHICH IS NOT A HEMP DERIVED PRODUCT, NOT NECESSARILY CANNABIS.
WE HAVE LOW POTENCY CANNABIS OR THC.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN STORES TODAY.
LOTS OF TIMES THERE'S NOT, LIKE A LOW POTENCY STORE.
IT'S THE DRINK SOLD AT LIQUOR STORES.
IT'S THE GUMMIES AND TOBACCO STORES.
IT'S THOSE TYPES OF LOW POTENCIES THAT HAVE A MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE.
NOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REGULATING YES, IT'S THE RETAIL CANNABIS, BUT IT'S ALL THE CANNABIS THAT'S CONSIDERED HIGH POTENCY.
IT'S STUFF THAT HAS TO DO WITH GROWING, PACKAGING, DISTRIBUTION, ANY TYPE OF RETAIL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATED TO HIGH POTENCY CANNABIS TYPE BUSINESS.
IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT, MELANIE, I ALSO HAVE THE DEFINITIONS IN THERE. MAYBE THAT WILL HELP.
CANNABIS PRODUCER, CANNABIS RETAIL.
IF YOUR BUSINESS QUALIFIES UNDER THOSE DEFINITIONS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT YOU UNDER FOR THIS PERMITTED USE CATEGORY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> I HAD A THOUGHT REGARDING DEFINITIONS.
I NOTICED THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT GIVES, AND THIS IS AS IT RELATES TO BUFFERS.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT RELATES TO CHURCHES IN ANY WAY.
YET, OUR CHURCHES DO HAVE SUNDAY SCHOOLS.
IF OUR DEFINITION COULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THOSE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A WORTHWHILE CHANGE.
WE HAVE THREE CHURCHES WITH SUNDAY SCHOOLS, ST. EDWARDS, AND TRINITY AND CALVIN, PRESBYTERIAN.
I THINK ALL OF THOSE ARE WORTHY OF PROTECTION.
>> IF THEY HAVE A DAYCARE LICENSE, LOTS OF CHURCHES OFFER NOT JUST SUNDAY SCHOOL BUT DAYCARE SERVICES.
THAT WOULD QUALIFY UNDER DAYCARE.
I WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY THROUGH THE STATE STATUTE REGARDING IF WE CAN PUT A BUFFER ON CHURCHES THAT SERVE SUNDAY SCHOOL OR SCHOOL EFFORTS IF WE CAN APPLY IT IN THAT WAY, BUT YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOTED AND I'LL DEFINITELY BRING THOSE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL AND HAVE AN ANSWER OUT THERE ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN APPLY THAT OR NOT.
>> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT MANY CHURCHES HAVE SUNDAY SCHOOLS, WHICH INCLUDE PEOPLE OF MORE THAN JUST DAYCARE AGE, BUT FREQUENTLY, HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE OR EVEN ADULTS.
THAT SHOULD WORK IN MY MIND, AT LEAST AS FAR AS SCHOOLS ARE CONCERNED.
>> GREAT POINT. COULD YOU SPEAK ON THE IDEA OF SOME MODIFIED CUP PROCESS RATHER THAN AMENDING THE CODE?
>> STATE STATUTE IS PRETTY RIGID ON HOW WE PROCESS CUPS.
WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS THROUGH A CUP PROCESS.
IN ORDER TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO 10 DAYS NOTICE AHEAD OF TIME, WHICH IS THAT A PUBLISHING 10 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME, AND EVEN 10 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME, WE NEED ANOTHER WEEK BEFORE THAT TO BE ABLE TO GET IT TO THE PAPER FOLLOWING THAT REQUIREMENT.
IT INSTANTLY JUST TO MEET THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR A MEETING TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, WE NEED AN APPLICATION 10, 17 OR 18 DAYS AT MINIMUM BEFORE, AT THE VERY MINIMUM.
[00:55:03]
THAT WOULD ALLOW STAFF TO NOT NECESSARILY DO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW, BUT JUST GET AN APPLICATION TO THE PAPER FOR PUBLICATION.THAT ELIMINATES A LOT OF TIME.
WITH THAT, AS WELL, OUR CITY CODE IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS BE HELD AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION'S A RECOMMENDING BODY TO THE COUNCIL.
IT WOULD TAKE A COUNCIL ACTION POTENTIALLY A TEXT AMENDMENT OR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO OUR CODE.
THEN COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING ANY JOINT TYPE OF MEETINGS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK IT'S A CREATIVE IDEA, AND IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WILL NOTE AS A COMMENT OR AN IDEA COMING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BUT IN TIME FOR THE 2025 IMPLEMENTATION, WHEN LICENSES ARE POTENTIALLY BEING APPROVED, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AMEND THE CODE IN TIME TO MEET THAT.
THE GOAL FOR STAFF, AND I'LL SPEAK FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT COUNCIL WAS TO IMPLEMENT SOME LANGUAGE INTO THE CODE BEFORE ANY LICENSES GET ISSUED.
THAT WAY IF LICENSES WERE ISSUED, NOTHING WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
WE'D HAVE OUR REGULATIONS IN PLACE.
>> DO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE'RE BEING PRESSURED INTO THIS TIME FRAME BY THE STATE STATUTE?
>> I WOULDN'T SAY WE'RE BEING PRESSURED, BUT STATE HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEIR GOAL IS TO ISSUE LICENSES BY 2025.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN LICENSES WILL BE ISSUED OR WHEN THEY'RE NOT.
JUST DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE WANT TO GET OUR DUCKS IN ORDER AND HAVE REGULATIONS IN PLACE FOR IF AND WHEN APPLICATIONS WERE TO BE OUT OUT IN THIS AREA.
>> OKAY. IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED SOMETIME IN 2025, NOT IN JANUARY 2025.
>> WE DON'T KNOW WHEN A LICENSE WILL BE ISSUED THROUGH THE STATE.
THEY'RE MANAGING APPLICATIONS, SO I DON'T THINK THEY COULD ISSUE LICENSES AS EARLY AS JANUARY OF 2025, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE DEMAND FOR THE AREA IF PEOPLE ARE APPLYING TO PUT ONE IN THIS AREA.
I THINK PER STATE STATUTE, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF CITY POPULATIONS OF, LIKE, 12,000 OR LESS OR SOMETHING, MUST BE ABLE TO TAKE IN AT LEAST ONE HIGH-DENSITY CANNABIS BUSINESS.
THAT'S ONLY IF ONE APPLIES FOR THE AREA.
WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GO OUT AND MARKET AND ADVERTISE AND ASK FOR ONE TO COME IN.
BUT IF ONE APPLIES, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.
THE INTENTION BY THE COUNCIL TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT WAS TO HAVE SOME REGULATIONS IN PLACE FOR WHEN AND IF AN APPLICATION CAME IN.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I MEAN, THIS IS ALL NEW FOR EVERYBODY.
THE STATES STILL REFINING WHAT THEY MEAN BY MINOR AMENITIES IN A PARK.
STILL DEFINING THEIR LICENSE REQUIREMENT.
I WOULD 100% ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL BE AMENDING THIS CODE AND CHANGING IT OVER THE NEXT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS AS WE SEE HOW THIS DEVELOPS.
I THINK THIS IS MORE JUST HAVING SOMETHING IN PLACE WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO MANAGE ALL THE OTHERS.
>> I THINK THIS IS REALLY GOOD FORESIGHT BY STAFF AND WHAT'S CLEAR IS SOMETIME IN 2025, PROBABLY EARLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMEBODY STANDING AT THE DESK WANTING TO APPLY FOR THIS.
I THINK WE'RE PUTTING WHAT MAXIMUMLY CAN BE PUT IN BY THE STATE, AND THEY ARE DEFINITELY THE HIGHER AUTHORITY HERE.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD JOB OF LOOKING FORWARD AND ARMING YOU GUYS WITH THE TOOLS THAT WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN, YOU KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THIS.
IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A LOT LESS PROBLEMS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.
YOU'RE RIGHT, IT MAY HAVE TO GET AMENDED BASED ON SOMEBODY FINDING A WAY AROUND SOMETHING.
>> I DEFINITELY AGREE BEING PROACTIVE AND PUTTING THE MAXIMUM BUFFERS ON AT THIS POINT.
IT'S A MOVING TARGET AS STUFF CHANGES.
MAYBE WE AMEND IT. WE DO HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU HAVE?
>> YEAH, I HAD A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
WOULD IT BE STAFF'S PREFERENCE OR THE CITY'S PREFERENCE TO HANDLE THIS PREFERABLY AS A CUP? HOWEVER, STATE STATUTE HAS ESSENTIALLY REMOVED THAT ABILITY AND THAT DISCRETION FROM US BY FORCING A 30 DAY INSTEAD OF 60 DAY TIMELINE.
>> I THINK BEST PRACTICE, WHENEVER YOU'RE APPLYING CONDITIONS TO A PERMITTED USE, WE WOULD FOLLOW THAT UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE.
[01:00:02]
THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE SOME PRETTY CLEAR BUFFERS THROUGH THE STATE STATUTE.IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO WRITE IT AS A PERMITTED USE WHEN MEETING THESE BUFFERS.
IT'S NOT OVERLY COMPLICATED OR CONFUSING IN THAT MANNER.
BUT BEST PRACTICE IS WHEN YOU HAVE A USE AND YOU HAVE CONDITIONS, YOU'D WANT TO [INAUDIBLE].
I DON'T THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO MAKE IT PERMITTED BECAUSE IT REMOVES ANY BIT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT IS GOING TO RECEIVE THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS.
THAT'S MY FRUSTRATION POINT IS THE STATE HAS ESSENTIALLY CUT THE LEGS OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THEIR CITIZENS TO HAVE THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE THEIR CONCERNS HEARD.
ALTHOUGH WE NEED TO RECEIVE APPLICATIONS, THE STATE HAS MADE THAT CLEAR, COULD WE RECEIVE APPLICATIONS IN ONLY EVEN NUMBERED OR ODD NUMBER MONTHS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US A 60-DAY PERIOD THAT WE THEN COULD HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND SAY, WE'RE OPEN TO RECEIVING THESE, AND WE WILL RECEIVE THEM FEBRUARY, APRIL, JUNE, AND SO ON, AND THEREFORE, WE HAVE THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PUBLIC HEARING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE'RE NOT SAYING NO, BUT WE'RE DOING IT ON OURS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATE STATUTE SAYS.
I HAVEN'T READ IT IN DEPTH, BUT THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR FOLLOW UP FOR CITY ATTORNEY AND AND THE COUNCIL.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE STATUTE IS APPLICATION CAN BE RECEIVED AT ANY TIME, AND WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO ACT.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING THOSE APPLICATIONS.
HENNEPIN COUNTY WILL ALSO BE PROCESSING THOSE REGISTRATIONS, THOSE PRODUCT INFORMATION ON LIKE THE LABELING AND THE INSPECTIONS, AND THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND ALL THOSE THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REGISTRATION.
WE'LL BE COORDINATING WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY, AND THAT'S WHERE THE APPLICATIONS WILL ACTUALLY BE APPLIED TO, NOT NECESSARILY CITY HALL.
I THINK IT WILL BE UP TO HENNEPIN COUNTY TO DICTATE WHEN AND HOW THEY RECEIVE THE APPLICATIONS.
BUT I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING, AND IT'S A FAIR POINT.
I WILL DEFINITELY BRING IT UP FOR OUR COUNSEL TO CLARIFY AT THE COUNCIL FOR CITY ATTORNEY TO CLARIFY AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL REGARDING AN APPLICATION DEADLINE OR A PROCESS LIKE THAT TO ALLOW US ADDITIONAL TIME.
>> VERY GOOD. WOULD IN HERE IT TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A GREENHOUSE.
WOULD A GREENHOUSE STILL GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING OR NO, BASED ON THIS?
>> THAT'S SOMETHING I'M STILL WORKING THROUGH WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
CURRENTLY IN OUR RURAL ZONES, RR1A AND RR1B, WE ALLOW GREENHOUSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I KNOW WE CAN PROCESS THOSE APPLICATIONS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
NOW WHEN WE ADD CANNABIS TO THAT, HOW DOES THAT SPEAK TO THAT 30-DAY TIMELINE? IT'S SOMETHING I'M WORKING WITH OUR ATTORNEY ON BECAUSE EVERYTHING FROM STATE STATUTE, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, HAS BEEN A FOCUS ON THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, AND THIS IS IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
HOPEFULLY, WE'LL HAVE SOME CLARITY TO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> VERY GOOD. MY LAST QUESTION THEN IS AROUND LIQUOR LICENSES, TOBACCO LICENSES.
DOES OUR CITY CURRENTLY LICENSE LIQUOR LICENSES AND TOBACCO LICENSES? TO BE A LIQUOR STORE AND SELL ALCOHOL IN THE CITY OF ORONO, ARE THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS AROUND THAT OR LICENSING THAT THE CITY COULD IN TURN REVOKE OR ANYTHING?
>> YEAH. WE HAVE LICENSES THAT WE MANAGE.
I BELIEVE WE DEFER TO A STATE PROCESS ON THOSE, BUT WE ACCEPT AN APPLICATION.
I THINK OUR PD CONDUCTS SOME BACKGROUND CHECK.
WE VERIFY THAT THE LOCATION MEETS WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, FORMALLY APPROVES ALL LIQUOR LICENSES OR RENEWALS.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT TOBACCO, BUT I KNOW FOR LIQUOR, THEY DO.
>> OKAY. WOULD THIS BE A SIMILAR PROCESS THEN?
>> NO. AT THIS TIME, AGAIN, THE COUNCIL WAS DISCUSSING USING HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THAT PROCESS VERSUS THE COUNCIL THEMSELVES.
PUTTING ALL OF THAT DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE EVER CHANGING MODELS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THESE LICENSES OR IT'S NOT A LICENSE.
BECAUSE OF THE DEMANDS OF WHAT ARE THESE REGISTRATIONS, IT'S VERY MUCH A MOVING TARGET RIGHT NOW OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS, WHAT DOES THAT INTAKE FORM LOOK LIKE, WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS REQUIRE? BECAUSE IT IS SO UNCLEAR COMING OUT OF THE STATE, AND HENNEPIN COUNTY HAS A ROBUST DEPARTMENT AND HAS STAFF DEDICATING TO PROCESS CANNABIS REGULATIONS AND COORDINATING WITH THE STATE.
OUR COUNCIL AT THE WORK SESSION HAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO WORK WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO DO THAT PROCESS.
>> CIRCLING BACK TO A LIQUOR LICENSE IN THE CITY OF ORONO,
[01:05:03]
IF THE COUNCIL ISSUES THAT OR REGISTRATION, WHATEVER THE TERM MAY BE, DOES OUR CITY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVOKE OR SUSPEND A LIQUOR REGISTRATION OR LICENSE TO SELL LIQUOR IN OUR CITIES?>> I BELIEVE WE DO, BUT THERE'S STANDARDS THAT CERTAIN VIOLATIONS WOULD GIVE US THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE IT.
I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE REVOKED JUST WITHOUT MEETING THOSE CERTAIN STANDARDS?
>> NO, AND I WOULDN'T WANT IT TO, BUT WHAT I'M GETTING TO THEN IS IF WE ARE DELEGATING THIS OUTSIDE OF OUR OWN CITY STAFF, CITY COUNCIL, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, DO WE THEN LOSE ANY ABILITY IF SOME OF THOSE SIMILAR VIOLATIONS THAT THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE PUT ON A LIQUOR STORE, THE THINGS THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE HAPPENING AT THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS.
BY PUSHING THIS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, DO WE THEN LOSE OUR ABILITY TO HAVE THOSE CONSEQUENCES IN PLACE AND BE ABLE TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS SIMILARLY TO A LIQUOR STORE IN OUR CITY?
>> YEAH. THIS IS THE EXACT DISCUSSION POINT I POLICE CHIEF HAD.
IF WE BRING THIS UP TO THE COUNTY, DO WE LOSE THAT ABILITY? BECAUSE, WELL, YES, WE ISSUE LICENSES, WE REALLY FOLLOW THE STATE STATUTE OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE MET FOR A LICENSE, AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE MET IF WE REVOKE A LICENSE.
HIS CONCERN SPECIFICALLY WAS RIGHT NOW, THEY DO COMPLIANCE CHECKS OR RANDOM COMPLIANCE CHECKS OF THESE LIQUOR-ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES OR TOBACCO-SELLING BUSINESSES, MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE HURTING PEOPLE.
MAKE SURE IT'S THE RIGHT PEOPLE SELLING THE PRODUCT, THAT TYPE OF THING.
TO MY UNDERSTANDING, HE WILL BE COORDINATING WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY, AND IT'S HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WILL RETAIN THAT POWER AS A POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE AND DO COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS, DEAL WITH COMPLAINTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BUT IT WILL TAKE A JOINT EFFORT WITH COMMUNICATING IF WE NEED TO.
IF WE'RE HAVING ISSUES, WHETHER THAT'S COMPLAINTS OR WE'RE FINDING VIOLATIONS, WE WILL BE COORDINATING WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING THEIR REGISTRATION.
>> OKAY. I HAVE MORE TO DISCUSS ON THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION UP HERE, HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
ASSUMING YOU GUYS AREN'T HERE FOR THIS BUT I SEE NOBODY.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
WE DEFINITELY COVERED A LOT OF POINTS HERE.
I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE BEING PROACTIVE.
I'M FRUSTRATED ALONG WITH I THINK EVERYBODY UP HERE THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED WITH THE STATE STATUTE, ETC.
I THINK MY BIG CONCERN IS WITH COMMISSIONER KIRSHNER, WHETHER IF WE HAND OVER THE LICENSING TO HENNEPIN COUNTY, IF WE LOSE SOME CONTROL THERE.
MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY EITHER WAY IS GOING TO SAY, HERE'S THE GUIDELINES FOR THE LICENSE, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT.
OR IS THAT THE PARAMETERS FOR THAT LICENSE, ARE THOSE MADE UP BY THE STATE.
WHO DECIDES THE PARAMETERS, OR IF THAT COMES IN HOUSE, ARE WE ABLE TO MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS ON THOSE?
>> YEAH, SO I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS.
>> I VERY MUCH BELIEVE THAT THE STATE WILL BE ISSUING LICENSES, BUT THEY WILL REQUIRE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE REGISTRATIONS.
THERE'S A NUANCE THERE THAT THE STATE HAS IDENTIFIED.
SO IT'S NOT A LICENSE LIKE A LIQUOR LICENSE AND TOBACCO LICENSE LIKE WE ISSUE TODAY.
IT'S ALMOST MORE OF A REGISTRATION, WHICH IS LESS, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF DEGREE OF ENFORCEMENT AND REQUIREMENTS OR POWER THAT WE HAVE WITH THE LICENSE IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
THE STATE ISSUES THE LICENSE, BUT THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, TO THEIR EXTENT, OR THE COUNTY WILL ISSUE THE REGISTRATION.
HENNEPIN COUNTY IS OFFERED TO DO THE REGISTRATION PROCESS, AND IT WILL BE AT THE GUIDELINES OF STATE STATUTE.
THERE'S ONLY CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO COLLECT, DELIBERATE, OR DENY A REGISTRATION ON.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS, ARE YOU IN A CONFORMING LOCATION? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY WILL COORDINATE WITH THE CITY ON TO VERIFY THAT THE LOCATION MEETS WITH ZONING AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE.
THAT'S THE FOCUS OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT TONIGHT.
REGARDING THE REGISTRATION PROCESS, THAT'S SOMETHING OUR CITY CLERK IS VERY MUCH WORKING THROUGH, AND THE HENNEPIN COUNTY IS WORKING THROUGH AS MORE INFORMATION IS COMING FROM THE STATE.
IT'S JUST NOT DEVELOPED TO THE POINT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING YET,
[01:10:03]
WHICH IS WHY I BELIEVE OUR CITY CLERK HAS RECOMMENDED USING HENNEPIN COUNTY JUST WITH THEIR RESOURCES AND THEIR STAFFING ABILITY TO UNDERTAKE THIS TYPE OF BRAND NEW FIELD OF BUSINESS.>> I CAN SUMMARIZE MY THOUGHTS.
I THINK MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS FROM A POLICE DEPARTMENT ASPECT, I UNDERSTAND WE CAN DO COMPLIANCE CHECKS AND THINGS ON WHATEVER WE WANT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT OUR OWN MUNICIPALITY HAS THE ABILITY TO MANAGE ISSUES SIMILARLY TO A LIQUOR STORE, AND WHETHER IT'S A LICENSE OR A REGISTRATION OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED, THAT WE MAINTAIN ANY ABILITIES TO IMPLEMENT PUNITIVE ACTIONS AGAINST ESTABLISHMENTS IF WE'RE STARTING TO HAVE ISSUES AND CALLS FOR POLICE SERVICE AND OTHER ISSUES LIKE THAT.
MUCH LIKE WE WOULD WITH A LIQUOR STORE, THAT IF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OCCUR OR A CERTAIN NUMBER WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE AS THE CITY OF ORONO ARE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT HAVING TO WAIT FOR AND COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T LIKE OUTSOURCING THINGS TO A COUNTY, ESPECIALLY ONE THE SIZE OF HENNEPIN.
THAT IT SHARES DIFFERENT VALUES AND BELIEFS ACROSS MANY DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE MILES OF SPACE.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY BIGGER CONCERNS AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS OVER A GREENHOUSE IN A RURAL AREA IF THAT WOULD OR WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CITY TO HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING BECAUSE, WITHOUT THAT IN 30 DAYS, THAT WOULD JUST POTENTIALLY HAPPEN AND IT COMPLETELY VOIDS THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEIGHBORS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD FOR COLLECTIVE THOUGHT PROCESS AND DEBATE AND DELIBERATION TO OCCUR AMONGST, CITY STAFF, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND OURSELVES, AS WELL.
I HAVE SOME CONCERN OF THAT AS WELL, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THE STATE HAS TIED OUR HANDS AND THEY'VE TIED OUR HANDS.
ASIDE FROM THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT IT.
I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN THE KISS PRINCIPLE.
KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. THIS ISN'T SIMPLE. THIS BOTHERS ME.
THERE'S TOO MANY MOVING PARTS TO IT.
TONIGHT IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE LOOKED AT THIS THING AND THE MORE I HEAR, THE MORE I'M CONFUSED BY IT, AND I DON'T LIKE BEING CONFUSED.
MAYBE IT'S MY AGE, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK WE NEED TO, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, CONTROL OUR PART OF THE PROCESS AND IF WE DISAGREE WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY IN SOME AREAS, THEN LET'S DISAGREE, BUT WE NEED TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR ORONO, AND TO HECK WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY.
THIS HASN'T GOTTEN OFF TO AN AUSPICIOUS START AT THE STATE LEVEL, AS WE WERE WELL AWARE, THEY HIRED THE LADY WHO THEY PUT HER UP FOR THIS JOB AND NO ONE ELSE DISCOVERED SHE WAS SELLING STUFF ILLEGALLY THE DATE BEFORE.
[LAUGHTER] JUST MY OUT OF SENSE OF HUMOR, PLEASE. [LAUGHTER] I'M DONE.
>> SO YOU ARE ASKING FOR US TO HAVE A MOTION ON THIS TEXT AMENDMENT TONIGHT, CORRECT? IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT, ARE WE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT HENNEPIN COUNTY IS HANDLING THE LICENSE OR?
>> NO. IN FRONT OF YOU, TONIGHT IS JUST THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR AMENDING OUR ZONING DISTRICT.
THE DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS JUST FOR IMPLEMENTING THE BUFFERS, WHERE WE CAN IMPLEMENT THE BUFFERS AND LISTING CANNABIS AS A PERMITTED USE WITH THOSE BUFFERS IN PLACE.
IT'S JUST THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING.
IT WILL BE A COUNCIL, AND IT WILL GO BACK IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, AND FORMAL RESOLUTIONS WILL NEED TO BE HAPPENING IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO USE HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR REGISTRATION, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN PLACE AT THIS TIME.
THAT'S JUST BEEN A DISCUSSION LEVEL, BUT IF THEY DECIDE TO MOVE AND USE HENNEPIN COUNTY'S RESOURCES WITH THAT, THAT WOULD TAKE AN ACT BY COUNCIL.
SO THAT WILL COME IN FRONT OF YOU.
>> WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS THE TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH HIGHLIGHTS US PUTTING ON THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ALLOWED-BY-STATE BUFFERS FOR THIS TYPE OF USE IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
>> I KNOW WE ALL WISH WE COULD HAVE MORE OVERSIGHT ON IT, BUT WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE, AND I PERSONALLY THINK THIS IS THE BEST WE CAN DO AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
[01:15:01]
>> THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO IT, BUT I THINK IT WILL PROBABLY CHANGE, BUT I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY DILIGENT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS LOOKED THIS OVER AND IS GUIDING US, I THINK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.
I THINK THAT MOST OF THE CHURCHES COULD BE CONSIDERED AS SCHOOLS IF THEY HAVE SOME TEACHING ELEMENT THERE, SO THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
BUT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> I'LL MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-55 AS WRITTEN.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER KRAMER. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, OBVIOUSLY, OUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK WILL BE BROUGHT FORTH TO THE COUNCIL, AS THEY ALWAYS ARE.
>> I'LL SUMMARIZE THE DISCUSSION EXPLICITLY IN THE MEMO.
>> THEY'LL GET OUR FEEDBACK ON THE CHURCHES AND.
>> MORE THAN JUST ATTACHING MINUTES, I'LL TRY AND SUMMARIZE SOME OF IT IN THE FRONT PAGE OF THE MEMO FOR THEM TO REVIEW.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
ORONO IS THE LAKE SHORE COMMUNITY AND ONE OF THE LARGER PARKS IS BIG ISLAND PARK.
SO IF THERE'S A 1,000 FOOT BUFFER AROUND BIG ISLAND PARK, THEN, DOES THAT LIMIT THE ACTIVITIES OF PEOPLE ANCHORED ON THE SHORELINE?
>> OUR GOVERNING ABILITY IS ONLY FOR THE LAND.
THE PUBLIC WATERS. SO I CANNOT PUT REGULATIONS BEYOND THE LAND.
>> WELL, THIS WOULD JUST BE ON DISPENSARIES OR BUSINESSES.
THIS WOULDN'T BE ON THE USE OF THE PRODUCTS, RIGHT?
>> YEAH. THIS WOULD BE FOR BUSINESSES, NOT FOR PERSONAL BOATING.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE THE WHOLE LAKE WILL BE OPEN FOR BUSINESS ON THAT ONE.
THAT WOULD BE LMCD TWO IF THEY WERE TO LICENSE A FLOATING CANNABIS.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
>> ONE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
THAT BRINGS US TO NEW BUSINESS.
[6.1. LA24-000054, Rob Page, 430 Old Crystal Bay Rd, Site Plan Review]
LA 24-54.THIS IS ROB PAGE FROM 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
IN FRONT OF YOU IS A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 85-UNIT GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AN APPLICATION TO REVIEW A NEW BUSINESS AT 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, AND THEN, THERE WE GO.
I THINK IT'S OUR ONLY MAKE IT INDUSTRIAL LOT STILL IN THE DISTRICT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S WEDGED IN OFF OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TO THE WEST, HIGHWAY 12 TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN THERE'S INDUSTRIAL ON THE NORTH AND EAST, AND THEN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.
SO FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS STILL OUTSTANDING WORK, WHICH REQUIRES THE INSTALLATION OF ORONO INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD, INCLUDING UTILITIES AND POTENTIAL TURNAROUND OF SOME TYPE.
YOU CAN SEE THE ROAD IS UNFINISHED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCESS ORONO INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON THE WEST ACROSS FROM OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, AND THEN INDUSTRIAL SURROUNDING IT.
THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT.
IT WILL CONTAIN INDIVIDUAL STORAGE UNITS FOR CARS, BOATS, AND RVS, AND THEN AN UPSTAIRS MEZZANINE IN EACH UNIT.
THE STORAGE UNITS WILL BE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED AND FOR INDIVIDUAL USE, AND IS CUSTOMIZABLE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL AMENITIES AND BUILDOUT THAT COULD INCLUDE BATHROOMS, KITCHENS, WASHERS, DRYERS.
THE COMMON SPACE IS THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE.
MELANIE DU PULP, LIKE A SITE PLAN FOR ME, PLEASE.
WILL BE DRAINAGE AREAS, THE CIRCULATION, AND THE ROAD, AND THE EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDINGS.
SO RIGHT THERE IS A GENERAL SITE PLAN.
THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT HAVE CUSTOMER-FACING RETAIL ASPECT OUTSIDE OF THE SALE OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT, SIMILAR TO A CONDO BUSINESS PLAN.
THE APPLICANT SITE PLAN REQUIRES A REVIEW FOR THE GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT.
[01:20:05]
THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR A USE OF INSIDE STORAGE OR WAREHOUSING, WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.BUT THE PROPOSED GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER, IS INTENDED TO USE AS A PRIVATE GARAGE SPACE FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND THEN A SHARED COMMON AREA THAT DO NOT FIT WITHIN THE LISTED PERMITTED USE.
THE GARAGE UNITS WOULD ESSENTIALLY CONVERT THE CITY'S DESIGNATION OF GARAGES, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY ACCESSORY USE INTO A PERMITTED USE FOR THE DISTRICT, WHICH DOES NOT MATCH THE CITY CODE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE INDIVIDUAL GARAGE UNITS HAVE SIGNIFICANT BUILDOUT CAPABILITIES, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR UNITS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES BEYOND INSIDE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING.
CUSTOMIZATION COULD INCLUDE FULL KITCHENS, FULL BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY FACILITIES, LIVING ROOMS, GENERAL LIVING, OR EVEN SLEEPING AREAS.
CONSIDERING A POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSIVE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF THE UNITS, WHICH DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THE CUSTOMARY SCOPE AND USAGE OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED WITH THE LISTED USE OF INSIDE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT'S CLASSIFICATION.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED USE COULD ALIGN WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IF AN ADEQUATE CONDITIONS ARE PLACED ON THE USE TO MITIGATE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION.
IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, STAFF WOULD PROPOSE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO LIST GARAGE CONDOS AS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE DISTRICT WITH APPROPRIATE DEFINITIONS MATCHING AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR CONDITIONS TO BE LISTED ON A BUSINESS LIKE THIS, TO PREVENT RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, TO ADDRESS IF THERE'S COMMUNITY EVENTS, TO MANAGE HOURS OF OPERATION, AND TO THEN REQUIRE ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SPACE WHERE THE CITY IS A PARTY TO.
THERE'S A FEW OTHER CITIES WHICH HAVE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS.
CITY OF EAGAN DID A REZONING WITH A PUD TOOL FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL GARAGE UNIT.
BIG LAKE DID BIG LAKE CAR CONDOS AS A TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT WITH A CLUBHOUSE AND AN OUTLAW THAT GOVERNS THE ASSOCIATION.
I DIDN'T DIG A LOT INTO THAT ONE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S INDIVIDUAL PLATTING, MORE LIKE A TOWN HOME.
THEN MEDINA DID LIFESTYLE AUTO CONDOS, WHICH WAS ALSO APPROVED FOR REZONING OF A PUD, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, IF THE APPLICANT WISH TO PROCEED, STAFF, AGAIN, WOULD ENTERTAIN A TEXT AMENDMENT TO LIST THIS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN WHICH THEN WE COULD LIST THOSE CONDITIONS AND HAVE MORE OF A STANDARD FOR IMPLEMENTING THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS.
A SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS COMPLETED.
LA AREA WITH SETBACKS STRUCTURE AND HARDCOVER STANDARDS ARE MET AS PROPOSED WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
THE SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS.
THERE ARE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THAT REQUIRE THE USE OF HIGH QUALITY FACING ON THE BUILDING, STONE, STUCCO, THAT TYPE OF THING, AND A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDING PHASE, AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, I BELIEVE AS PROPOSED, THEY'RE REQUIRED 192 TREES ON THE SITE, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MEET THAT.
SO THE ARCHITECTURAL AND THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS MEET THE STANDARD IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE.
THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE FIRE CHIEF ARE STILL REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION, BUT THERE'S NO BIG RED FLAGS OR MAJOR CONCERNS AT THIS POINT.
WHEN THOSE COMMENTS COME IN, I'LL SHARE THEM WITH THE APPLICANT, AND THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.
TONIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
DOES THE COMMISSION FIND THAT PROPOSED USE MATCHES THE INSIDE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING PERMITTED USE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT? THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED GARAGE CONDOS.
DOES THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THAT LONG-FACING FACADE ALONG CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IS ACCEPTABLE? AND IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS? THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO REQUEST ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT HOURS OF OPERATION, SECURITY, AND THE GENERAL NARRATIVE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
ONE NOTE OUT OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS THERE WAS NO SIGNAGE PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SO IF THAT'S A QUESTION PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE INTERESTED IN, YOU CAN ASK THAT TONIGHT.
ALSO, ONE THING THAT STAFF IDENTIFIED WOULD BE THE NEED FOR A VEHICLE CIRCULATION AND MANEUVERABILITY PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO SHOW IF THERE WAS PARKING OR TURNAROUND SPACE OR SNOW STORAGE MANAGEMENT,
[01:25:05]
HOW THAT WOULD WORK WITHIN THE SITE.AGAIN, FOR RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE INSIDE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING PERMITTED USE CLASSIFIED WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TODAY, UNDER THIS CODE TODAY.
FOR FUTURE, STAFF WOULD SUPPORT A TEXT AMENDMENT IN THE CITY CODE TO LIST GARAGE CONDOS AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND DEFINE IT, SO IT CAN INCLUDE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUCH AS GARAGE CONDOS COULD ADDRESS ANY PARKING AVAILABLE, THE PROHIBITION OF LIVING DWELLING IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, COMMUNITY EVENTS, HOURS OF OPERATION, AND THEN ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, A COMMISSION WOULD SEE FIT, AND THEY WOULD GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
SO AT THIS TIME, STAFFS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
I HAVE MORE PLANS TO SHOW YOU IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL TO SPEAK TO THE PROJECT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE?
ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU BROUGHT UP SIMILAR ONES WERE PERMITTED UNDER A PUD PROCESS.
WHY IS IT MORE FAVORABLE FOR STAFF TO DO A CUP VERSUS THE PUD?
>> I THINK ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GETTING A SIMILAR TYPE OF OUTCOME WITH IT.
A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS HAVE PUDS OVER THEIR ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL PARK OR OVER MULTIPLE PARCELS.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUR PRACTICE TO DO A PUD FOR ONE SINGLE PARCEL.
THAT BEING SAID, WE THINK WE COULD HIT THE CONTROLS AND MEASURES WE WANT FROM STAFF THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE A CLEANER AND MORE SUCCINCT PROCESS IN OUR MIND FOR THE DISTRICT.
A PUD IS ON THE TABLE, BUT WE DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A PUD THAT FITS GREAT WITHIN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
WE HAVE A PRD A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SOME CLUSTERING.
A LOT OF OUR PUDS ARE WRITTEN IN WAYS TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NOT NECESSARILY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
EVEN IF WE WENT THROUGH A PUD ROUTE, WE STILL MIGHT BE LOOKING AT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO GET THAT TO FIT IN THERE.
>> IF WE DO A TEXT AMENDMENT, THEN THAT OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS TO BE ANYWHERE IN THAT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, OR A SIMILAR PROJECT, ANY GARAGE CONDO UNDER THE CUP APPLICATION.
>> I BELIEVE CURRENTLY, WE HAVE MINI STORAGE AS A CUP IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
IF WE DO A TEXT AMENDMENT TO LIST THIS AS A CUP, IT WOULD APPLY TO ANYWHERE IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS, BUT I THINK OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IS LIKE EIGHT PARCELS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S RELATIVELY SMALL AND BUILT OUT WITH THIS BEING THE ONLY VACANT ONE.
BUT YES, IN THE FUTURE, IF ONE TO BE REDEVELOPED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD LIST IT AS A CUP.
>> THIS SITE IS ALSO ONE OF THE CANNABIS SITES, CORRECT? POTENTIAL ONE.
>> NO. I THOUGHT I SAW THAT ON THE [OVERLAPPING] CANNABIS MAP.
>> ONE RIGHT NEXT DOOR IS A LARGER PARCEL.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S OUTSIDE THE BUFFERS FOR CANNABIS.
THIS ONE TECHNICALLY IS STILL WITHIN THE BUFFER.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE APPLICANT IS HERE. YOU WISH TO SPEAK.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> ROB PAGE DAVE RAMSEY, 430 LL CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
I JUST PREPARED A FEW NOTES HERE.
AS LAURA MENTIONED, PROJECT IS BEING DESIGNED FOR S FOR SALE GARAGE CONDOS, WE ANTICIPATE MOST BUYERS WE'LL USE THEM GET MY DISTANCE RIGHT HERE.
FOR YEAR ROUND, HIGHER-END STORAGE OF PERSONAL VEHICLES, BOATS, JET SKIS, RVS, AND ALSO CONDUCT MINOR ASSOCIATED MAINTENANCE ON SET ITEMS, AKA, WINTERIZATION, SPRING START-UP, ETC.
THEY'D ALSO BE A GOOD OPTION FOR SOLE PROPRIETORS, ELECTRICIANS, PLUMBERS, AS WELL AS FOR LOGISTICS, AND WAREHOUSES AS THEY HAVE CLIMATE-CONTROLLED SPACE, HISTORY INVENTORY, AND OR THEIR VEHICLES.
DAVID MY PARTNER, LIZ MARY, LIVES IN ONO AND DRIVE.
SHE WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT, BUT OBVIOUSLY WANTS WHAT'S BEST FOR HER CITY AS WE DO.
[01:30:02]
WE'RE THEREFORE SEEKING TO MATCH THE AESTHETIC OF AND BLEND TO THE CITY, WHETHER IT BE BY YOUR CHOICES OF LANDSCAPING, BUILDING ORIENTATION, REMODELING OUR AESTHETIC AFTER THE EXTERIOR OF THE RECENTLY COMPLETED PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY WITH OUR CHARCOAL STUCCO PANELS.I LIKE TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS THAT THIS PROJECT HAS NO COMMON AREAS OR AMENITIES, IEA CLUBHOUSE.
IT REALLY DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANY PLACE TO CONGREGATE AS EVERYTHING YOU SEE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, IS JUST CIRCULATION.
THEREFORE, WE DO NOT ALLOW FOR BECAUSE THERE'S NO SPACE TO PUT IT ANY COMMUNITY-BASED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CAR CONDOS, AUTOPLEX, AS YOU SEE IN MEDINA, CHANHASSEN, AND EAGAN.
WE'RE MOST SIMILAR TO WHAT'S BEING BUILT IN MINNETRISTA CURRENTLY, WHICH IS UNDER INDUSTRIAL ZONING AS WELL.
ADDITIONALLY, WE'LL HAVE AN ASSOCIATION WITH COVENANTS AND BYLAWS THAT PROHIBIT ANY DWELLING, RESIDENTIAL HABITATION.
WE DON'T REALLY ANTICIPATE OR WANT ANY.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT FITS WITH OUR USE.
IN TERMS OF SECURITY, WE IDEALLY DO A FENCE WITH AN ENTRY GATE AS YOU SEE AT OTHER PLACES TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR OUR BUYERS.
I THINK THIS PROJECT BE A GREAT USE FOR THE LAST INDUSTRIAL POT IN ONO.
I'LL BE A NET POSITIVE FOR THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF OUR SITE PLAN, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HOW TO APPROACH THIS USE CASE THAT WORKS BEST FOR THE CITY, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I HAVE SOME.
WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS MORE IT'S NOT LIKE WHAT WE SEE UP IN MEDINA.
THIS IS MORE OF LIKE PRIVATE STORAGE UNITS ESSENTIALLY.
WITH PLUMBING AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO BUILDOUTS ON THE INSIDE.
>> YOU MENTIONED LIKE, CERTAIN BUSINESS TRADES BEING ABLE TO HAVE SPACE THERE.
I GUESS IT MAYBE MORE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME GUIDANCE IN THAT ZONING OR THAT?
>> NO. I MEAN, BECAUSE THESE ARE CONDO WHERE THEY'RE BEING SOLD OFF AND INDIVIDUALLY OPERATED AND OWNED AND MANAGED.
I MEAN, WE'RE TREATING THIS BUSINESS AS IF THESE ARE GARAGES FOR PRIVATE USE.
THERE MIGHT BE SOMEONE WHO USES IT FOR A BUSINESS.
BUT OVERALL, THE DEVELOPMENT ISN'T NECESSARILY A CUSTOMER FACING BUSINESS.
IT'S NOT LIKE A WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER WHERE EMPLOYEES COME AND 9 - 5 OPERATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WHILE WE DO STAFF NOTED THAT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT SEEMS TO FIT WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, THERE'S JUST SOME CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO APPLY WHERE WE DON'T THINK THAT IT REALLY FITS WITH THE INSIDE STORAGE WAREHOUSING THAT'S CURRENTLY [INAUDIBLE] IS PERMITTED USE.
>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC HOURS OF OPERATION THAT YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE USED DURING?
>> I MEAN, I THINK THE INTERESTING PART ABOUT IT IS OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE POTENTIAL USE CASES FOR SOLE PROPRIETORS.
THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT HOURS.
PERSONAL USE, THEY'RE USUALLY WORKING DURING BUSINESS HOURS.
THEY'D BE USING THIS AFTER HOURS.
IF THERE WAS SOLE PROPRIETORS, IT'S PROBABLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE USED DURING THE DAY.
>> WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC HOURS THAT WE'VE LAID OUT, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME OUR REGULATIONS AROUND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE GATE, SECURITY KEYPAD, AND ALL THAT, EARLY MORNING TO NIGHTTIME, BUT OVERNIGHT WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
>> DO YOU HAVE A STORMWATER PLAN AT THIS POINT?
>> YES. I MISS THAT IN THE PACKET?
>> MELANIE, WILL YOU BRING UP, I BELIEVE IT'S THE EXHIBIT FOR STORMWATER.
I THINK I PUT IT IN THERE. YES. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A STORMWATER PLAN.
I BELIEVE I HAVE IT AS EXHIBIT G DRAINAGE REPORT.
OTHERWISE, IN THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY'VE IDENTIFIED SOME GRADING IN THERE.
THE ENGINEER HAS DONE A HIGH LEVEL AND DOESN'T SEE ANY MAJOR CONCERNS,
[01:35:01]
AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH MINNEHAHA CREEK.>> REGARDING THE DRAINAGE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE.
THEY DO HAVE A DRAINAGE REPORT AND A MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THERE'S BEEN NO RED FLAGS OR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT, BUT THE ENGINEER STILL LOOKING AT IT, BUT THERE WERE NO RED FLAGS FROM HIS CURSORY ROOM.
>> JUST HIGH LEVEL, IS IT BEING MANAGED ON SITE, OR IS IT GOING OFF SITE OR HOW'S.
>> IT FLOWS EAST AND SOUTH SO THAT THE RETENTION POND EAST TO THE EAST BUILDING.
>> ON THE SITE, THERE ARE RETENTION PONDS ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.
IT'S LIKE AN L SHAPE FROM THE NORTH CORNER DOWN.
>> WHAT I'M SEEING DRAFTED THERE IS NOT THE WHOLE PROPERTY. CORRECT?
>> WHERE'S THE RETENTION POND?
>> IT'S LIKE THIS ELBOW IN THE TOP RIGHT MELANIE OF THE CORNER.
>> IT GOES UP ALL THE WAY DOWN.
THEY DO HAVE A RETENTION POND ON SITE, AND I BELIEVE YOU GUYS DO HAVE STORM SEWER PLANNED AND SOME DRAINAGE PLAN.
OVERALL, THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, ALL OF OUR INDUSTRIAL PARCELS, I BELIEVE, WERE DESIGNED TO DRAIN OVER TOWARDS THE NOBI POND, WHICH IS JUST OFF THE AERIAL.
AS A LARGER DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE DESIGNED TO DRAIN TO THAT POND, BUT THE SITE IS PROPOSED TO MANAGE SOME STORM PONDING NON-SITE.
>> GREAT. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> JUST A COMMENT, BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED, IT MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN 24/7 CAN GO IN THERE ANYTIME THEY WANT.
>> THERE WOULD BE A SECURITY GATE.
>> YES I UNDERSTAND THERE WOULD BE A SECURITY GATE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE.
>> THEY'LL PROBABLY LOCK IT, SO THAT THOSE CODES DON'T WORK OTHER THAN FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EMERGENCY USE CASES.
YOU PHYSICALLY COULDN'T ENTER AFTER A CERTAIN TIME ON THE EXIT [INAUDIBLE].
>> HOW'S YOUR CARRIER CUSTOMERS GOING TO LIKE THAT? THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. [LAUGHTER]
>> THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING GOOD THE PAST A CERTAIN HOUR.
IT'S NOT OUR INTENT FOR THEM TO BE THERE.
IT'S GOING TO BE IN OUR COVENANTS BY LAWS.
WE DON'T IN ANY WAY WANT THEM TO BE THERE.
>> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, YOUR KEY MARKET IS FOR PEOPLE FOR THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLES.
THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK YOU BIG MARKET IS.
>> THE BIG ONES ARE RVS, BOATS.
CARS, JESKYS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT OBVIOUSLY, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME ROUGH IDEA, 06:00 AM - 10:00 PM. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AGAIN, AFTER 10:00 PM I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'D BE DOING THERE.
BUT ENOUGH TIME SO THAT IN THE EVENING IF YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING, GRAB SOMETHING, TAKE AWAY SOMETHING, WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO, GIVES YOU ENOUGH TIME WITHIN A REASONABLE SCOPE.
BUT YEAH, IT'S TIME LIKE TWO IN THE MORNING [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU NEVER KNOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? I ASSUME THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING IS YOU WOULD START WITH ONE BUILDING, AND THEN AS IT SELLS, THEN YOU WOULD BUILD UP THE OTHER BUILDINGS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> EXACTLY. IT'D BE A PHASE PROJECT.
PROBABLY THREE PHASES IS A ROUGH ESTIMATE FOR THAT.
>> IF IT'S BEING POTENTIAL TO FINISH OUT AS CONDOS, I MEAN, IT'S I THINK THE NAME OF YOUR LLC IS LITERALLY ONO GARAGE CONDOS.
I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE 10:00 PM CUTOFF AND THAT ACTUALLY EFFECTIVELY HAPPENING IF PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE BATHROOMS, KITCHENS AND SLEEPING QUARTERS WITHIN WHAT'S BEING DESCRIBED AS A CONDO.
>> I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY ON THE FIXTURES.
THE WAY THAT WE'LL BE BUILDING IT WILL BE PRETTY MUCH JUST THE BOX.
ANYTHING FROM THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE PULLED PERMIT ALREADY COMPLY WITH USE CASES.
THERE WILL BE NO SLEEPING QUARTERS.
THAT'S NOT A FIXTURE OR ANYTHING WE WOULD BE DOING.
THE KITCHENS WOULD BE MORE KITCHENETTE STYLE.
CABINETS AND A MICROWAVE AND, BURNER.
BATHROOMS WOULD BE JUST TOILET SHOWER.
PRETTY STANDARD AMENITIES WITHIN I WOULD SAY, MOST INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL.
BUT YEAH, THERE WON'T BE ANY SILO-OUT SLEEPING QUARTERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE CONDO PART IS MORE OF THE HOA MANAGEMENT PART OF IT.
THAT'S WHY THE WORD CONDO FALLS INTO THAT.
>> MORE THE CAC, THE COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY.
>> EXACTLY. WHICH WE MIGHT CALL AN IOA, AN INDUSTRIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED THINGS LIKE PLOWING, AND ALL THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SOMEONE NEEDS TO MANAGE THAT PART OF IT.
THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE CONDO DESIGNATION COMES FROM, NOT SO MUCH THE INTERNAL ASPECT OF IT.
>> BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMEONE.
I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS IN THE APPLICATION THAT PEOPLE COULD BUILD IT OUT.
[01:40:02]
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS ARE BUILDING THE SHELL OF IT, BUT SOMEONE STILL COULD BUILD IT OUT WITH LIVING QUARTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.OBVIOUSLY, THEY NEED A PERMIT, BUT YEAH.
>> I THINK THE BIGGEST THING FOR US IS JUST AND WE'VE BEEN FIGURING OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO WORD THIS OF IN AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, A BREAK ROOM.
YOU CALL IT A KITCHEN, CALLED BREAK ROOM.
HAVING A COUPLE OF TABLES AND SOME COUCHES IN AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IS COMMUNAL SPACE, BUT IN A CONDO, IT'S LIVING SPACE.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT DISTINCTION OF HOW THE FIXTURES WILL BE AGAINST, BASIC WITHIN PERMITTED USE, AND HOW TO DEFINE THOSE CORRECTLY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE ZERO INTENTION OF ANY DWELLING, ANY LIVING, ANY FULL-TIME OR EVEN SHORT-TERM DAYS OR WEEKS.
THIS IS PURELY FOR THE OPERATING HOURS TO MOVE IN AND OUT OF THIS THING.
>> WHICH WILL BE PROHIBITED IN OUR DOCUMENTS.
I MEAN, ADDITIONALLY, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING THESE, THIS IS AN ANCILLARY USE FOR THEM TO STORE THINGS.
THEY CAN'T STORE THEIR BOAT AT THEIR HOUSE.
THEY'VE PROBABLY A PRETTY BIG BOAT.
THIS IS THEIR NEAREST CLOSEST GRADE OPTION FOR THEM, SO THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO.
ADDITIONALLY, OUR PLACE WE TOURED A BUNCH OF THESE AND, I RECOMMEND GO SEEING THEM TOO, THEY'RE JUST OPEN SPACES FOR STORING STUFF.
PEOPLE HAVE BOATS, PEOPLE HAVE RVS.
IT'S JUST SPOTS FOR THEIR DISPOSAL.
WE DO NOT, IN ANY WAY WANT PEOPLE TO BE STAYING HERE, PERIOD.
WE WILL TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T WANT IT.
WE ACTUALLY THINK IT'S GOOD FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT, SO WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT THERE.
>> WE'LL PROBABLY MANAGE THE HOA OURSELVES, SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN HAVING TO SHOW UP AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND, REGULATE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REGULATED THERE.
I DO THINK THAT IS THE ONE DIFFERENCE AMONGST THE PRODUCTS IS IF YOU DO GO LOOK AT EAGAN AT MEDINA AT CHANHASSEN, THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT USE CASE.
THOSE ARE DESIGNED FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS.
THEY'VE PUT COMMUNITY STRUCTURES IN THEIR PONDS THAT HAVE SEATING AREAS AND PICKING TABLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
PARK PLACE IS OF THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, WHICH IS MORE STANDARD GARAGE CONDOS, AND THEN IT'S MORE OF WHAT WE'RE MODELING OURSELVES AFTER.
I WOULD JUST SAY WE'RE PROBABLY A HIGHER-END PARK PLACE OUT IN MINNETRISTA [INAUDIBLE].
THEY'RE ALL PRETTY STANDARD COOKIE-CUTTER, PLAIN VANILLA.
OUR GOAL HERE WAS TO TRY AND FIT INTO THE CITY OF ONO, AND AS MENTIONED, LIKE WE ACTUALLY MODELED AFTER THE PUBLIC WORKS, BUILDING OF THE COLOR SCHEME AND THE DESIGN IN GENERAL TO JUST BRING A LITTLE BIT OF THAT HIGHER AESTHETIC.
BUT OUR GOAL OR OUR INTENDED USE CASE IS TO LIMIT THIS MORE TO THE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING AS OPPOSED TO THE AUTO PLEXUS, WHICH ARE CLEARLY MORE DESIGNED FOR AGAIN, COMMUNAL AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO SPEND TIME OR LIVE IN THOSE.
BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT STYLE, WHEN WE VISITED THEM, IT IS NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR GOAL IS.
THEY'RE GREAT. THEY'RE COOL TO GO SEE THE EVENTS AND ALL THAT STUFF, BUT WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN THAT TYPE OF STUFF.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS?
>> THANKS, GUYS. APPRECIATE IT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I'VE GOT MAYBE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THAT CAME TO MIND.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THEY'RE DESCRIBING OUR INDUSTRIAL CONDOS.
NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WAS PRESENTED AS A GARAGE CONDO COMPLEX.
IF THIS GETS APPROVED, EITHER BY COP PUD, HOWEVER, IT GETS APPROVED.
AND, LET'S SAY, I'M AN END OWNER OF ONE OF THOSE UNITS.
NOW, WHAT'S THERE TO REGULATE MY USE OF THAT UNIT? DO I JUST FALL UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
SO I COULD RUN AN INDUSTRIAL THING OUT OF THERE.
[01:45:03]
>> CURRENTLY, TODAY, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU, IT WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE, AND THERE'S NOT ANY CONTROLS REALLY ABOUT HOW SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY'RE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED, WHILE THERE MIGHT BE A ASSOCIATION ABOUT THE GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND SNOW REMOVAL, THE UNITS THEMSELVES ARE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED.
SO THE BUILD OUT OF THEM WOULD BE THEIR OWN BUILDING PERMITS, THEY'RE PULLING, AND INTERIOR REMODEL PERMITS ARE JUST MANAGED THROUGH THE BUILDING.
AS LONG AS THEY MEET STATE BUILDING CODE, THEY GET PROCESSED THAT WAY.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ZONING REVIEW ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
SO THAT BUILD OUT CAPABILITY AND THIS GETS INTO STATE STATE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS.
BUT AFTER YOU PUT IN A SANITATION PROCESS, WHICH IS A BATHROOM AND A MINIMUM KITCHEN AND A MINIMUM SEPARATION FOR LIVING SPACE, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND THAT'S A DWELLING PER.
SO WHILE THESE AMENITIES MIGHT BE USED MORE FOR PERSONAL HANGOUT, GARAGE, STORAGE, THE THRESHOLD TO TURN IT INTO A DWELLING IS FAIRLY LOW.
>> I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO LIVING IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA, THAT'S PART OF THE CODE, RIGHT?
>> YES, IT'S NOT PERMITTED IN THE CODE.
BUT BY PUTTING IT THROUGH THE TEXT AMENDMENT IN THE CUP, THE CITY CAN HAVE MORE CONTROLS ABOUT REVIEWING THOSE BUILDOUT PERMITS, REVIEWING THOSE REGULATIONS, AND STAFF CAN BE MUCH CLEARER ABOUT WHEN WHEN TO DENY SOMETHING OR APPROVE SOMETHING AS A BUILDOUT OR THAT REGULATION BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE CUP ABOUT WHAT'S ALLOWED AND WHAT'S NOT.
VERSUS IF WE QUALIFY IT AS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE APPLICATION TODAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE SAME CONTROLS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR DISCUSSION UP HERE?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I CAN SUMMARIZE MY THOUGHTS.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THIS CONCEPT.
I'D SAY I'M OPPOSED TO THIS PLAN ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY UNKNOWNS.
I THINK TO ECHO CITY STAFFS CONCERNS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME THROUGH AS A CUP, SO WE CAN THINK THROUGH AND DELIBERATE ON SOME OF THOSE, THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE THE COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY, BY LAWS AND COVENANTS OF ITS OWN OWNERSHIP GROUP.
BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME LARGER STUFF THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO CONSIDER BEFORE WE SAY, YES, TO THIS SUCH AS EVENTS.
PERSONALLY, I'VE BEEN TO ONE OF THESE AND ATTENDED A GRADUATION PARTY AT ONE OF THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS.
SO EVENTS AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS, AND THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE LEFT UNANSWERED, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE WERE TO SAY YES TONIGHT AND IT WERE TO GO TO COUNCIL AND SAY YES, THE BALL IS TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD FOR ANY OF US THEN IN THE CITY TO GO BACKWARDS TO SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS, THIS AND THIS BEFORE THIS WAS APPROVED.
SO THE IDEA AND THE CONCEPT AND EVERYTHING, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO AT ALL.
I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THIS TO ALLOW FOR THOSE CONSIDERATIONS TO HAPPEN, AND THAT'S PROBABLY A CUP PROCESS OR A PUD PROCESS, WHICHEVER THE CITY FINDS MORE FAVORABLE.
GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, IT'D PROBABLY REQUIRE A VARIANCE BASED ON LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND STUFF.
BUT THAT CORNER DOWN BY 12 AND OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, THAT'S A MORE NARROW ROADWAY THAN THE OTHER THREE STRIPS OF ROADWAY THAT RUN THROUGH THE SITE PLAN.
AND I'D JUST BE CONCERNED ON TURNING RADIUS AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR YOU'VE GOT TALL GARAGES HERE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IF SOMEONE'S HAUL ON THEIR 34 FOOT BOAT AND THEY'RE ON A TRAILER, JUST BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN AS WELL AS FIRE DEPARTMENT AND STUFF.
DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT LINES UP WITH WITH HIGHWAY 12 AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I'D MAYBE BE WILLING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO PUSH THAT AND MAKE THAT ROAD ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, TWO FEET WIDER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO ALLOW FOR A BETTER TURNING RADIUS IF IT'S NOT AFFECTING RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER DOWN THE ROAD.
>> I THINK THE STAFF IS MAKING THE RIGHT APPROACH HERE.
WE SHOULD DENY IT, I THINK TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING THE PENALTY FOR BEING THE FIRST DEVELOPER IN ONO TO SUGGEST THIS TYPE OF THING, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST IN THE AREA.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER ONES AROUND.
THE ONES IN MEDINA EXECUTIVE STYLE.
THEN THERE ARE SOME OTHER ONES SOMEWHAT MORE AFFORDABLE IN MAPLE PLAIN AND CORPORATE AND PLACES NOT TOO FAR AWAY.
ALSO, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE IS THE CORRECT PLACE TO DO IT.
[01:50:08]
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE AHEAD, I THINK IT DOES NOT DRASTICALLY ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD.BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE A COMFORT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE WILL NEED A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SPECIFY WHAT GOES IN THERE OR WHAT CAN GO IN THERE, AND MAKE IT WORKABLE FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WHICH I WOULD SUPPORT BOTH ASPECTS OF THAT POSITION.
>> I'M EASY WITH THE WATER SANITARY, THAT TYPE OF THING BEING ALLOWED IN THERE, WHICH CAN LEAD TO AN ABUSE OF WHAT I THINK IS AN INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION.
IT'S INTENDED TO BE IN EFFECT, A WAREHOUSE THAT SOMEBODY CAN OWN.
I HEAR ABOUT WATER AND SEWER AND EVERYTHING ELSE, I'M SAYING LEADS MYSELF TO SOME OTHER USES THAT OTHER THAN INTENDED. THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>> I'D ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER KIRSHNER SAID, PROBABLY WORD FOR WORD EARLIER, SO I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT ALL THAT.
>> I THINK THE CONCEPT DEFINITELY COULD WORK IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
I THINK I AGREE WITH STAFF THAT INSIDE STORAGE WAREHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE APPLICATION WE'RE SEEING.
I AGREE WITH STAFF, IT DOESN'T FIT UNDER THE CURRENT CODE.
I WOULD BE LOOKING AT VOTING AGAINST THIS TONIGHT.
NOT SAYING THAT THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT SPOT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS., I THINK THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE THE RIGHT VEHICLE TO MOVE IT FORWARD IF THAT'S THE WISH OF THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC.
I AM STILL STRUGGLING IF THAT'S A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THIS IN ALL THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE, OR IF THIS IS A PUD, SO IT WOULD JUST BE TIED JUST TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.
I DON'T LOVE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD JUST BE BLANKET FOR EVERYTHING, BECAUSE I LIKE HAVING THAT OVERSIGHT WHEN THIS IS SOMETHING BRAND NEW THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.
I GUESS I AGREE WITH STAFF THAT GARAGE USE IS AN ACCESSORY USE, AND IT'S NOT THIS IS CERTAINLY THE PRIMARY USE AS THE GARAGE.
THE PATH FORWARD WOULD BE MOST LIKELY A DENIAL TONIGHT AND THEN WORKING ON SOME VEHICLE THAT COULD MOVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS FORWARD WITH THE PROPER OVERS SO THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO CONCERNS, ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AND, BASICALLY, ANY OF THE PUBLIC, THAT THEY CAN COME AND COMMENT ON IT THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING, ET CETERA.
>> BASED ON THAT, UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY LA 24-54 AT 4:30 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ BEAT YOU.
I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY COMMISSIONER KIRSHNER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZ.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I BASED ON WHATEVER OUR VOTE TONIGHT, IS THIS MOVING TO COUNSEL OR IS THIS MOVING TO A DIFFERENT.
>> SO THIS IS AN ACTIVE APPLICATION.
TECHNICALLY, IT WOULD BE ON TRACK TO MOVE TO COUNSEL.
HOWEVER, I KNOW I'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANTS ABOUT THEIR NEXT STEPS, AND IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN A TEXT AMENDMENT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION AND THEN WORK WITH STAFF ON WHAT THAT TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHICH THEY'RE VERY AWARE OF.
IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM HOW THEY WANTED TO PROCEED WITH A DENIAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, OR IF THEY WANT TO WITHDRAW AT THIS TIME.
>> WOULD THE TEXT AMENDMENT THEN FOLLOW THIS APPLICATION TO COUNSEL AT THE NEXT MEETING? OR WOULD THAT BE THIS WOULD BE WITHDRAWN.
THERE'D BE A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THERE'D BE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, THERE'D BE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT?
>> ONE OF THE PATHS FORWARD WOULD BE IF THEY WANTED TO WITHDRAW, WE COULD THEN WORK WITH THEM ON LANGUAGE.
THE SOONEST WE COULD DO IT MEETING THE PUBLIC HEARING STANDARDS WOULD BE TO COME BACK WITH A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT AT YOUR NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT WOULD BE THE SOONEST TURNAROUND.
THAT TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH, COUNSEL, BEFORE THEY COULD MAKE A CUP APPLICATION OR BEFORE YOU COULD REVIEW A CUP APPLICATION.
[01:55:06]
BUT YOU POTENTIALLY IF THAT'S THE AVENUE THEY CHOSE, YOU POTENTIALLY WOULDN'T SEE A CUP UNTIL EARLY IN THE WINTERTIME NEXT YEAR, 2025.THAT BEING SAID, AS WE WORK ON DRAFT LANGUAGE AND EVERYTHING, THAT TIMELINE CAN BE EXTENDED.
THERE'S NO PLANNING COMMISSION IN DECEMBER.
IF THEY DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, AND A DENIAL HAPPENS, I BELIEVE OUR CODE DOES HAVE A TIMELINE BEFORE A NEW APPLICATION CAN BE MADE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO.
SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR WHEN AN APPLICATION IS DENIED.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WOULD OUTWEIGH.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IF THEY WANT TO BRING THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND THEN LOOK AT A TEXT AMENDMENT.
THEY HAVE A FEW BALLS IN THEIR COURT, BUT TECHNICALLY, THIS IS AN ACTIVE APPLICATION, AND IT WOULD BE SET TO GO TO NOVEMBER'S COUNCIL MEETING.
IF THEY CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW, THEN WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM ON A TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, AND THAT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU BEFORE A FORMAL APPLICATION WOULD HIT.
>> IF THEY DID A TEXT AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO THEN COME BACK FOR A CUP, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> WOULD IT BE MORE EFFICIENT FOR THEM THEN JUST TO PRESENT THIS AS A PUD?
>> POTENTIALLY, THERE'D BE MORE FRONT-END WORK, AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT REALLY MATCHES OUR PUD STANDARDS.
WE STILL MIGHT BE LOOKING AT A TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND OUR PUD STANDARDS BECAUSE OUR PDD STANDARDS ARE REALLY WRITTEN IN A WAY TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT THERE REGARDING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
THAT WOULD TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH, BUT POTENTIALLY THAT COULD BE AN AVENUE WE COULD EXPLORE.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOLLARS, I DON'T LOVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEN IT'S A BLANKET FOR THE WHOLE ZONING DISTRICT AND STUFF.
I'D RATHER JUST SEE IT AS A ONE OFF PUD, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S ALSO COMPLICATED BY THE TEXT AS WELL.
>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS.
>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TWO OTHER ITEMS.
[7. Other Items]
>> TONIGHT, WE HAVE A NEW FACE.
AS A STAFF MEMBER, WE HAVE MATT CARNEY HERE.
HE IS OUR NEWEST CITY PLANNER.
HE IS HERE JUST TO OBSERVE TONIGHT.
HE COMES TO US FROM COLORADO, WHERE HE HAD MAJORITY OF HIS EXPERIENCE.
BEFORE THEN, HE DID SOME WORK IN MISSOURI.
I BELIEVE YOU GOT YOUR MASTERS IN COLORADO, AS WELL, RIGHT? COLORADO.
>> WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE A NEW PLANNER, TO HAVE OUR STAFF BACK WITH ALL THREE OF US, HOPEFULLY MANAGING SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS, AND I'M SURE HE'LL BE READY TO PRESENT AT OUR NEXT MEETING WITH SOME FUN APPLICATIONS FOR YOU, BUT FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND GET TO KNOW HIM AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS.
THIS WAS HIS FIRST MEETING, AND WE'RE VERY EXCITED THAT HE'S JOINED OUR TEAM.
AS WE KNOW, COMMISSIONER LIBBY HAS PUT IN HIS NOTICE, AND SO I DO HAVE ONE APPLICANT WHO WILL BE GOING TO A WORK SESSION BY THE COUNCIL FOR INTERVIEW, HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE YEAR HERE.
HOPEFULLY BY 2025, WE'LL HAVE A REPLACEMENT COMMISSIONER THERE.
THEN LASTLY, I JUST HAVE SOME GENERAL UPDATES OF THINGS THAT WENT TO COUNCIL.
THE LAST ROUND AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ON BRIAR STREET THAT WAS APPROVED.
THERE WAS ALSO AN IUP FOR THE ONO PARK GUN CLUB REGARDING THEIR MINING OF THEIR SOILS, AND THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED.
THEN 1760 SHADY WOOD WAS A REMODEL PROJECT AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION TO YOU.
WE WEREN'T SURE IF IT WAS A RECONSTRUCTION OR A REMODEL, BUT IT WAS A SMALL ONE STORY HOUSE.
THEY WERE PROPOSING A SECOND STORY BEING ADDED.
STAFF HAD GIVEN A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION ON THAT APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE LAKE INSIDE YOUR PATRUSIONS ON THE SECOND STORY.
PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED FULL APPROVAL.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GAME REGARDING THE FOUNDATION INFORMATION, AND IT DID TURN OUT TO BE A REMODEL PRESENTED AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL.
THE COUNCIL DID FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PULL BACK THE SECOND STORY TO MEET
[02:00:01]
THE LAKE YARD SETBACK AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THAT APPLICATION.I THINK THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT WENT TO THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.
THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. THANKS, EVERYBODY.
DOES ANYONE WHO WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.