[00:00:03]
>> WELCOME, EVERYBODY TO THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
[1. Call to Order]
WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE JOIN US.
>> THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
[3. Approval of Agenda]
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
SECOND ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 21ST PLANNING COMMISSION.
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2024]
>> MOTION TO APPROVE MEETINGS MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21ST, 2024.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.
THAT BRINGS US RIGHT TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, LA 24-40.
[5.1. #LA24-000040, Eva Kotilinek o/b/o Barry & Robin ORourke, 2300 6th Avenue N, Preliminary Plat, (Melanie Curtis)]
THIS IS EVA COTA LINICK ON BEHALF OF BARRY AND ROBIN O'ROK, 2306TH AVENUE NORTH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT. MS. CURTIS.>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DIVIDE THE 8.5 ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS, MAINTAINING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF OF SIXTH AVENUE.
LOT 1 IS THE WESTERN LOT, AND THAT LOT IS PROPOSED TO BE THREE ACRES IN AREA.
LOT 2 WILL HAVE ABOUT 5.4 ACRES IN AREA.
THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLAIN GUIDING OF ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRES AT 0.23 UNITS PER ACRE.
IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS AND THE WIDTH AND AREA REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS OR BLUFFS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING PROPERTY DOES CONTAIN A 3,200 SQUARE FOOT BARN AND A 414 SQUARE FOOT SHED, BOTH SUPPORTED THE OWNERS HORSES IN THE PAST.
THEY NO LONGER KEEP HORSES ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE SMALL SHED, 414 SQUARE FOOT SHED IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM LOT 1 AS THE SEPTIC SITE WILL NEED TO ENCROACH ON THAT AREA, BUT THEY DO WISH TO KEEP THE LARGER BARN THAT'S EXISTING.
HOWEVER, WITH THE SUBDIVISION, THE SIZE OF THE LOT WILL NO LONGER BE CONFORMING FOR THAT SIZE BUILDING.
THE THREE ACRE PROPERTY WOULD BE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM OF A 2,800 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING.
IF THIS WAS APPROVED, THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS UNLESS THAT BARN IS REMOVED OR REDUCED TO A CONFORMING SIZE.
LOT 2, HAVING 5.4 ACRES WOULD BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF 4,400 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY BUILDING, IF THEY WISH.
THE PROPERTY SUBDIVISION DOES NOT TRIGGER CONSERVATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
IT IS NOT LOCATED IN THE MUSA AND WILL NOT BE SERVED WITH CITY SEWER.
PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR LOT 1, THE EXISTING SYSTEMS ON LOT 2, I BELIEVE, ARE ADEQUATE.
AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS, THEY ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE AN EASEMENT TO COVER THE SMALL PORTION OF DRIVEWAY TO SERVE LOT 1 THAT COMES FROM THE EXISTING AND HENNEPIN COUNTY SHOULD BE CONSULTED AS FAR AS THE SUBDIVISION AND ANY REQUIREMENTS THEY MAY HAVE.
THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO PARK DEDICATION FEE FOR ONE NEW LOT.
THERE IS NO PARK NEEDED AS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMP PLAN IN THIS LOCATION.
THERE'S EXISTING ON STREET TRAIL ALONG COUNTY ROAD SIX, SO THE CITY IS NOT ASKING FOR A DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES.
THE PARK FEE WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT.
THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSOR WILL BE CONSULTED TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE TO SET THE PARK FEE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
A STORMWATER DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE FOR ONE LOT WILL BE REQUIRED.
[00:05:03]
THE FEE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE FEE SCHEDULE AT THE TIME OF THE PLATTING LIKELY IN 2025.THOSE ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT.
THE ENGINEER DOES NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT, HE WILL CONDUCT A GRADING REVIEW AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR LOT 1. EXCUSE ME.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS ON THIS APPLICATION.
IN CLOSING, THE APPLICATION DOES CONTEMPLATE A SIMPLE LOT SPLIT.
THERE IS NO SIMPLIFIED PROCESS IN THE CODE, SO THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A FINAL PLAT FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO ENACT THE SUBDIVISION.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITHOUT MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING BARN.
ONCE THE PROPERTY IS SPLIT, THE BARN WILL BECOME A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE MODIFIED TO EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT, HEIGHT, OR VOLUME OF THE BUILDING WITHOUT VARIANCES GRANTED BY THE CITY.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO PRESENT.
>> QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE BARN.
IT SITS WITHIN THE PROPOSED NEW SETBACKS, CORRECT?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANTS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?
>> HERE BUT I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS.
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HI. MY NAME IS AL CRANE, I LIVE ON 1310 PHILLIPS DRIVE AND I GUESS I'M HERE REPRESENTING SIX PEOPLE THAT HAD JUST SOME QUESTIONS, I DON'T THINK THEY ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT, THE LOT 1 IS THE WEST, AND LOT 2 IS THE LEFT.
>> A BIG QUESTION FOR THE FIRST TWO HOMES THAT ARE OUT ON PHILLIPS DRIVE WAS, WHEN THEY SELL US OR WHATEVER, AND I DON'T KNOW WHOSE PROPERTY IT IS, IF IT'S, WE OWN THE ROAD AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LOWER, BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WOODS AND TREES THAT SEPARATED MADE IT VERY PRIVATE.
>> THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT TREES BE PROTECTED IN THIS AREA.
IT'S NOT WITHIN 75 FEET OF A LAKE OR A TRIBUTARY.
YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT THAT CONCERN IF YOU DO HAVE IT.
>> WELL, DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR FROM WHERE THE ROAD IS? WHAT WE HAVE OR JUST WHERE THE BLACKTOP IS OR?
>> YOUR ROAD IS WITHIN AN OUTLET.
>> JUST TO THE WEST. OH, THIS ONE? GOOD. THE ROAD EDGE IS HERE. WE CAN MEASURE IT.
IT'S ACCURATE-ISH FROM THIS AERIAL PHOTO.
>> I'M ASKING THIS, I WOULD ASSUME AND MAYBE THE PERSON WHOEVER BUILDS ON THAT.
PROBABLY HOMES THERE. I DON'T KNOW.
>> THAT WAS JUST YEAH, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE TREES, FOR THE MOST PART ARE ON THAT LOT, NOT ON YOUR OUT LOT FOR THE ROAD.
THEY WOULD BE THE DISCRETION OF WHOEVER LIVES THERE.
I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT OWNER PLANS TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY.
>> I BELIEVE A FAMILY MEMBER IS GOING TO BUILD ON THE NEW LOT.
>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR A DISCUSSION.
SINCE THE APPLICANT IS HERE, DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE TREES?
[00:10:02]
>> WITH THAT PIECE WE HAVE NO ONE BUT PROBABLY DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
[INAUDIBLE] HE HAS NO INTENTIONS TO BUILD.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. WHO WANTS TO START?
>> STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I THINK THE BARN IS THE ONLY PIECE THAT IS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BARN IS NOT CONFORMING AT THIS TIME.
IF AT ANY TIME THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT BARN, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS.
IT WOULD BE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING WITH THE CREATION OF LOT 1, I BELIEVE.
IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE CHANGED.
>> YEAH, I AGREE. I THINK STAFF DID A NICE JOB OF CALLING OUT WHAT IT IS.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO SIMPLE PROCESS OF A SPLIT.
AS NOTED, THE I THINK THE APPLICANT IS NOTIFIED AND AWARE THAT WITH THE SPLIT, THE BURDEN BECOMES NON-CONFORMING AND CANNOT BE MODIFIED TO EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT LIGHTER VOLUME.
ALL THAT IS NOTED AND CALLED OUT.
I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION IF UNLESS THERE'D BE OTHERWISE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-40 AS APPLIED.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SAYING NONE, WILL VOTE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THAT'LL BRING US TO LA 24-50 RLA FAMILY LP 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE.
[5.2. LA24-000050, RLA Family LP, 1449 Shoreline Drive, Variance and Commercial Site Plan Review (Laura Oakden)]
THIS IS VARIANCE AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, MISS OAKDEN.>> YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, APPLICANTS REQUESTING HARDCOVER FENCING, PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCES IN ADDITION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW RELATING TO AN ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW PARKING LOT ON AN EXISTING MARINA BUSINESS.
THE APPLICANT MADE A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TO ALLOW THIS PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION AT 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE.
THE PARCEL HAS FRONTAGE ON THREE SIDES ACTING AS A PENINSULA WITH A COUNTY ROAD THAT BISECTS THE PARCEL RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE.
THE EXISTING MARINA HAS BOAT SLIPS AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO DOCKS LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COUNTY ROAD.
THE PROPERTY WAS IMPACTED BY HEITMAN COUNTY'S TANNER BRIDGE PROJECT.
AS PART OF THAT BRIDGE PROJECT, THE COUNTY USED THIS SUBJECT AREA IN QUESTION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND STAGING.
EVENTUALLY, IN 2023, THIS AREA OR PART OF THAT PROJECT WENT THROUGH A VACATION PROCESS WITH THE COUNTY AND TO REALIGN THE RIGHT OF WAY, LEAVING THIS PARCEL OF LAND WITH THE AFFECTED OR SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE IN THIS ORIENTATION OF THE SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS IMAGE.
THE ORIENTATION IS ACTUALLY THIS IS THE WEST SIDE OR TO THE TANNER LAKE SIDE OF THE BAY.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT SOUTHERN ONE, BUT IN ORIENTATION, MY MEMO REFERENCES AS THE WEST PARKING LOT.
AS I SAID, THIS AREA WAS USED FOR STAGING.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOW UTILIZED THE AREA FOR PARKING TO SUPPORT THEIR EXISTING MARINA BUSINESS.
THE MARINA BUSINESS WAS GRANTED APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL BOAT SLIPS BY THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024.
WITH THE ADDITION OF THE BOAT SLIPS AND THE HIGH TRAFFIC AREA WITH THE COUNTY ROAD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE NEW PARKING LOT HARDCOVER AND FENCING WITHIN THE 75 LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT HAD IDENTIFIED THE CHALLENGES WITH THIS PARCEL BEING THE PENINSULA SHAPE, THE LACK OF CONFORMING BUILDING ENVELOPE, THE BISECTING, COUNTY ROAD, AS WELL AS THE FENCING NEEDED FOR SAFETY AND PREVENTING ENCROACHMENT OF THAT PARKING LOT INTO THE LANDSCAPING AREAS OF THE BUSINESS.
STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THE SAFE CONSTRAINTS AND THE LIMITED BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
THE MARINA IS A WATER ORIENTED BUSINESS, WHICH IS PERMITTED IN THE B2 DISTRICT.
THERE ARE VERY FEW LOCATIONS WHERE MARINA BUSINESSES ARE PERMITTED ON LAKE MINNETONKA, IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT MARINA BUSINESS WOULD REQUIRE SOME IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LAKE YARD TO SUPPORT THEIR ACCESSIBILITY, MANEUVERABILITY AND SAFETY TO THE SITE.
ALLOWING A PARKING LOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE MARINA WOULD LIKELY IMPROVE SAFETY FOR CUSTOMERS ACCESSING DOCKS AS IT WILL REDUCE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ACROSS THE COUNTY ROAD.
[00:15:04]
ADDITIONALLY, IT'S OUTLINED IN THE CITY CODE THAT PARKING FOR ACCESS TO DOCKS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC ROADWAY.THIS APPLICATION WOULD CORRECT THAT CURRENT NON-CONFORMITY ON THE SITE, AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION AS PROPOSED.
ANY ADDITIONAL INTENSIFICATION BEYOND THE SCOPE IDENTIFIED WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVALS.
EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, STAFF RECEIVED ONE EMAIL WITH SOME QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS AN EMAIL, ADDITIONAL COMMENT FROM THE POLICE CHIEF.
I PUT THAT PRINT AS HARD COPY IN FRONT OF YOU.
I WILL ADD THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED TO REACH OUT TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED TO VERIFY THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS MEET THOSE STANDARDS BY THE WATERSHED.
AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO THE PROJECT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. COULD YOU REPEAT QUICKLY THE NON-CONFORMITY WITH PARKING BEING SEPARATED BY.
>> YEAH, SO IN THE CITY CODE, UNDER MARINA BUSINESSES AND PARKING, IT'S OUTLINED THAT PARKING SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED BY A RIGHT OF WAY FOR ACCESS TO BOAT SLIPS AND BOAT DOCKS? THIS WAS AN EXISTING MARINA THAT WAS OPERATING UNDER THAT NON-CONFORMITY.
THIS PROPOSED PARKING LOT WOULD RESOLVE THAT AND PUT IT INTO CONFORMANCE ON THAT STANDARD.
THAT BEING SAID, IT IS IN A LOCATION WITHIN THE 75.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR THE VARIANCES.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SAYING NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU. TRAVIS ANDERSON, 3260 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
SHE HELPED ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN TRYING TO GET THINGS FIGURED OUT, AND IT WAS A PLEASURE WORKING WITH HER, SO I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THAT.
A COUPLE OF YOU GUYS CAME OUT TO VIEW THE SITE AND TO SEE THE EFFECTS FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY.
WHEN THEY DID THE TANAGER BRIDGE, THEY MADE THIS AS A STAGING AREA, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN A LETTER FROM JOHN EKOLA WHO WAS THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR THAT BRIDGE PROJECT.
IN THAT LETTER, IT STATES THAT THEY WENT THROUGH, GOT ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO APPROVE THAT WHAT THEY CREATED THERE AS THEIR WORKING AREA FOR THAT BRIDGE PROJECT.
WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH AND DID THAT, THEY CREATED A BEAUTIFUL SWALE SYSTEM.
THAT WHOLE PROPERTY SLOPES TO THE EAST, IF YOU WILL, TOWARDS THE ROAD, GOES INTO A SWALE SYSTEM BEFORE IT GOES INTO LAKE.
PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER SETUPS AROUND THE LAKE, IF YOU WILL, FOR MAKING SURE THAT WATER IS FILTERED BEFORE IT GOES INTO LAKE, SO PRETTY NEAT OPERATION.
THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, ON THE BROWNS BAY SIDE, THERE'S A POND THERE, AND THAT'S A SILT POND.
ALL THAT PARKING RUNS INTO THAT AND THEN GOES INTO LAKE FROM THERE.
A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU'LL SEE IN HERE, THERE'S A EMAIL FROM COREY FARNAK WITH THE ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THEY ACTUALLY USE THIS AREA FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY USE THAT.
IT'S A NICE LITTLE SPOT FOR THEIR DEPUTIES TO HANG OUT AND GET PEOPLE COME IN EITHER DIRECTION.
THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THEY USE THAT FOR THAT NOT REAL PRIVY TO SAY ON RECORD, BUT THEY DO APPRECIATE US WORKING WITH THEM AND [INAUDIBLE].
THIS BECAME WHAT IT IS BECAUSE OF THE TANAGER BRIDGE PROJECT, AND THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THE PIECES OF THAT. THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> I LIKE WHAT SHIRT I'M WEARING NOTHING.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. ANYBODY LIKE TO START?
MS. OAKDEN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I APPRECIATED THE CLARIFICATION ON THE PARKING NONCONFORMITY, IMPROVING THE CONDITION TO MAKE IT CONFORMING.
HOW DOES THAT TIE INTO THE PARKING LOT SETBACK PART OF THE APPLICATION AS FAR AS WHAT'S DEFINED IN THERE IF YOU DON'T MIND?
>> OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AND OUR PARKING LOT SETBACKS ARE A LAYERED EFFECT IN OUR CITY CODE.
[00:20:02]
IT'S BEEN, OVER TIME, OUR COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW IN OUR CITY CODE IS A LITTLE ANTIQUATED.THERE ARE PARTS IN OUR CODE THAT SEEM TO LAYER UPON AND AT TIMES CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.
IN OUR CITY CODE, THERE'S SOME CALL OUTS REGARDING REQUIRED YARD, REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AREAS, REQUIRED SETBACKS.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A CODE THAT SAYS, YOU CAN'T PUT PARKING IN THE REQUIRED YARD.
A PARKING LOT'S ALLOWED TO BE 10 FEET.
THEN ALSO THERE'S AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS A PARKING WITHIN A 50 FOOT OF A COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE'S ALL THESE FUNNY SETBACKS AND LAYERS.
IT LEADS TO CONFUSION AND A CUMBERSOME INTERPRETATION.
WITH THAT, WE USED THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING YARD WITHIN THIS DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WERE ALL PROTECTED.
ALL THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING YARDS ARE OUTLINED AND OUTLINED AS I SHOULD SAY, ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE ENCUMBERED WITH THIS SITE PLAN.
THEY'RE MAINTAINING A 30-FOOT REQUIRED YARD GREEN SPACE AROUND THE EDGE OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER, WHICH IS, I THINK THE REQUIREMENTS 10% OF THE AVERAGE LOT DEPTH.
WELL, THE AVERAGE LOT DEPTH ON A LOT LIKE THIS IS CRAZY BECAUSE OF THE PENINSULA SHAPE, AND THEN ALSO, THERE'S A REQUIRED YARD OF A 10-FOOT REQUIRED LANDSCAPING YARD BETWEEN A ROAD AND THE EDGE OF THE PARKING LOT, WHICH THIS ALSO MEETS.
WITH STAFF'S INTERPRETATION, WE BELIEVE IT MEETS ALL THOSE SETBACKS.
BUT JUST NOTING IN MY MEMO, I NOTED THE CUMBERSOME LAYERS OF THOSE COMMERCIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
>> THANK YOU. ONE FOLLOW UP ON THE HARDCOVER COMPONENT OF THE APPLICATION.
I WAS ABLE TO GO AND VISIT THE SITE.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE DRIVE-BY ABOUT THREE OR FOUR TIMES A DAY, BUT THERE'S GRAVEL THERE, THERE'S A ROAD, DO WE HAVE RECORDS WHEN HENNEPIN COUNTY WAS USING IT FOR STAGING? OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT THAT WAS DONE THERE AS FAR AS RECORDS OF WHAT WAS BROUGHT IN, WHAT WAS TAKEN OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE RECORDS OF THAT.
I'M SURE HENNEPIN COUNTY COULD SPEAK TO THAT IF WE REQUESTED THAT INFORMATION.
I BELIEVE THEIR PROJECT STARTED IN, I WANT TO SAY 2020 OR 2021, AND WRAPPED UP IN 2023 SO IT'S BEEN DISTURBED FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS OR SO.
THAT AREA IS PART OF THE TANAGER BRIDGE PROJECT, BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO.
I KNOW THERE WAS SOME WOODED AREA THERE BEFORE, BUT WHETHER WHERE THAT LINE WAS, OR WHERE THE PREVIOUS ROAD WAS, AND WHERE THE WOODS AND THE ACTUAL TECHNIQUES OF THEIR STAGING AREA WOULD HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY.
THEN LAST, THE FENCING COMPONENT, THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE SETBACK OF TECHNICALLY HAVING A FENCE BECAUSE OF THE PENINSULA TRIGGERING IN THAT?
>> YEAH, SO IT'S OUTLINED IN OUR [INAUDIBLE] ALSO THAT A PARKING AREA SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF EDGE, AND IT SAYS A BERM, OR A FENCE, OR SOME WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PARKING DOES NOT ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPED AREAS.
THE FENCING WOULD BE OUTLINED AS A REQUIREMENT, TYPICALLY ON A PARKING, SOME SORT OF EDGING LIKE THAT, AND PART OF A FENCING AS A LISTED APPROVABLE TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT.
BUT BEING THAT IT'S IN THE 75, AGAIN, THAT CONFLICTS WITH OUR CODE OF NOT PERMITTING STRUCTURES IN THE THE 75.
WE FOUND THE FENCING TO BE REASONABLE TO MORE PROTECT THE GREEN SPACE AND PREVENT ANY PARKING ENCROACHMENT INTO THOSE REQUIRED GREEN SPACES.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG SLOPE TOO.
>> IT IS. I DON'T HAVE GRADING HERE.
I DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS, BUT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TOPOGRAPHY BETWEEN THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER AND THIS PARKING SPACE.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT THIS ONE? ANY ADDITIONAL.
>> I SHOULD SAY COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO THE SITE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T [INAUDIBLE] ALL.
>> YEAH. FOR ME, I DO TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF ON THIS ONE, AND MY MIND GOES TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ONE OF THE PARAMOUNT THINGS THAT WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON HERE.
THIS IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE SPOT FOR PARKING ON THAT SIDE OF TANAGER ON THIS PROPERTY THAT THEY CAN USE TO SAFELY ACCESS THAT.
[00:25:04]
I LIKE THAT WE'RE TAKING A PROPERTY AND BRINGING IT CLOSER TO CONFORMING BY RESOLVING SOME OF THESE NON-CONFORMITIES BY NOT HAVING PARKING ON THAT SIDE.IF WE CAN SAVE ONE PERSON FROM CROSSING THAT, THAT SOME ACCIDENT HAVING TO CROSS THAT CROSSWALK, I THINK IS A GREAT THING.
WE ALL KNOW HOW BUSY THIS INTERSECTION CAN BE.
ALL THAT SAID, I THINK WE GOING TO TAKE A MOTION.
>> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS APPROVED, AS SUBMITTED, I SHOULD SAY.
>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NOON, WE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[5.3. LA24-000058, Tim Brown, PHI Decks, 975 Wildhurst Trail, Variances (Matthew Karney)]
THIS IS TIM BROWN, PHI DECKS 975 WILDHURST TRAIL.THIS IS FOR MULTIPLE VARIANCES. MR. KARNEY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] SCREEN. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION, CHAIR BOLLIS.
HAPPY TO PRESENT TO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY EMPLOYMENT HERE WITH THE CITY OF ORONO.
I PRESENT TO YOU THE CASE, LA24-58.
THIS IS A REQUEST AT 975 WILDHURST TRAIL FOR WHAT I'LL DESCRIBE AS A DECK EDITION.
CURRENTLY, AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF ANNOTATIONS UP ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
ULTIMATELY, A JULIET STYLE DECK THAT WE HAVE LOCATED ON THE TOP PORTION EXISTING JULIET DECK.
WILL BE EXTENDED TO THE LENGTH OF THE LOWER DECK, AND THE LOWER DECK WILL BE ENCLOSED AS WE SEE RIGHT HERE.
A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS ARE GOING ON HERE.
TO DEVELOP THIS SITE ALTOGETHER, WE'RE HAVING A BIT OF AN IMPACT FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK THAT WE HAVE PROTRUDING THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.
THIS MAY BE DESCRIBED AS A PENINSULA.
I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE A CORNER LAKE LOT, BUT EITHER WAY, THERE ARE TWO HOMES THAT ARE BEHIND THIS ONE, THAT WOULD MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THIS SITE TO BE DEVELOPED.
ADDITIONALLY, WE ALSO HAVE THE LAKESHORE THAT IS IMPACTING THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
THE 75-FOOT SETBACK THAT WE HAVE COMING IN FROM THERE FURTHER LIMITS THE DEVELOPABLE AREA.
THIS AREA WOULD BE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE WITH JUST THE 75-FOOT SETBACK, AND IF WE PUT IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, WE HAVE THIS TRIANGLE.
ULTIMATELY, THE REQUEST IS TO EXPAND THE UPPER PORTION OF THE DECK, WHICH DOES HAVE A STRUCTURAL MASSING COMPONENT, WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON SHORTLY.
THE THREE MAIN THINGS THAT STAFF IS LOOKING AT AND THAT THE APPLICANT IS ARTICULATING ARE OF ISSUE AND CAUSING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND THE 75-FOOT SETBACK AS WELL, ARE MAKING IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP THIS LOT ALTOGETHER.
ADDITIONALLY, WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE IS REDUCTIONS IN A COUPLE OF THOSE SETBACKS AND THE IMPACTS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS A REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
AS WE HAVE RIGHT HERE, THIS BLACK PORTION WILL BE REMOVED, WHICH IS ENCROACHING ON THE LAKESHORE AT THIS PORTION AT THE DETRIMENT OF STAIRS BEING ADDED AS NEW HARD COVER.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S A REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER ALTOGETHER.
SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN OUR ARGUMENT FOR SUPPORT.
ADDITIONALLY, WITH THIS CORNER GOING OUT, WE ARE NOT EXTENDING BEYOND THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ANY FURTHER THAN WE ALREADY ARE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE ADDITION OF THE STAIRS DOESN'T COME AS A FURTHER ENCROACHMENT TO THE LAKESHORE OR THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE HERE TO THE SOUTH.
ALL IN ALL, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OR INTEREST IN THIS CASE AT ALL.
I'LL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION BY STATING THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE, ALL THREE.
I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> GREAT, HAVING YOU. WHAT CLARIFICATION, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S NOTHING BUT IMPROVEMENTS HAPPENING HERE.
WE'RE GOING AN IMPROVEMENT IN HARDCOVER FROM 729 TO THE 711.
[00:30:02]
THERE'S NO ENCROACHMENTS THAT ARE FURTHER WORSENING THE POSITION.JUST IF I WERE TO PUT THIS IN A BOX, THAT'S PRETTY SIMPLE WAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> JUST MAKING SURE I'M NOT MISSING SOMETHING THERE.
>> YEAH. REALLY FOR A MATTER OF THINGS, THIS BLUE IMAGE KIND OF DESCRIBES HOW THE MASSING WILL BE INCREASED.
REALLY WHEN THAT FOOTPRINT IS EXPANDING AND WE'RE ENCLOSING THAT AREA, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AS AN INCREASE IN THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE, TO THE BENEFIT OF THE LAND OWNER HERE, THEY'RE ALLOWED SOMEWHERE AROUND 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF THAT STRUCTURAL COVERAGE.
THE ADDITION OF THIS DECK BEING ENCLOSED MAYBE GETS THEM TO 2,300.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF FEELS IS A FAIRLY REASONABLE OFFSET FOR THE INCREASE IN THAT DECK SIZE.
>> GREAT. THAT'S GREAT CLARIFICATION.
I APPRECIATE THAT FROM [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH HE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GREAT. FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT NOTHING AT THIS TIME.
IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
NOBODY WANTS TO SPEAK. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. I'LL START WITH THIS ONE.
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE ON THERE IT'D BE HELPFUL.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DARK YELLOW, THAT'S THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE LOT.
YOU CAN SEE HOW EXTREMELY SMALL THAT IS.
I LIKE THAT THE REDUCTION OF THE HARDCOVER IS WITHIN THE 75.
I THINK THAT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL ON THIS, AND THE NEW STAIRS THAT ARE BEING ADDED ARE ACTUALLY FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE THAN THAT PREVIOUS HARDCOVER THAT'S BEING REMOVED.
THIS CHECKS ALL THE BOXES FOR ME.
THERE'S DEFINITELY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE.
I CANNOT BUILD THIS WITHIN THAT TRIANGLE.
>> I'D LOOK UP OF WHAT A JULIET.
>> I DID NOT KNOW IDEA WHAT THAT MEANT. SHAKESPEARE.
>> YES. THAT'S WHAT I FOUND OUT.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. I AGREE.
MANY OF THESE LAKESHORE PROPERTIES, THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE VARIANCES, AND THERE'S NO REAL WAY TO AVOID LOOKING AT THEM AND SEEING IF THEY'RE REASONABLE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE GRANT VARIANCES IN THE PAST.
I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF MAKING A MOTION UNLESS I HEAR OTHERWISE.
>> I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR SURE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-58 AS APPLIED.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHULTZE.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THAT WILL BRING US TO LA 24-59, BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE.
[5.4. LA24-000059, Blue Pencil Collective/Kelsey Johnson (Developer) o/b/o Bradley Pass, 215 North Arm Lane (incl. PIDs 06-117-23-24-0002 and 06-117-23-23-0021), Preliminary Plat: Idyllvale Shores (Melanie Curtis)]
SLASH KASEY JOHNSON, ON BEHALF OF BRADLEY PASS, 215 NORTH ARM LANE.THIS IS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT. MS. CURTIS.
>> THANK YOU. THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES THREE EXISTING PARCELS, AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THEM INTO TWO FIVE TWO-PLUS ACRE LOTS, AN OPEN SPACE OUTLOT AND NEW PRIVATE ROADS.
ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ARE PROPOSED TO BE SERVED BY PRIVATE WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT THE NORTH END OF THE DEAD-END ROAD OF NORTH ARM LANE.
IT IS COMPRISED OF WOODEN SLOPES OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY WETLANDS, AND LAKE MINNETONKA IS ON THE BOUNDARY ON THE EAST SIDE.
THE COMP PLAN GUIDES THESE PROPERTIES FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, WHICH ALLOWS ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRES.
AS PROPOSED, THE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY IS CALCULATED AT 0.19 UNITS PER ACRE, WELL BELOW THE DENSITY GUIDANCE OF 0.5 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE LR1B, TWO-ACRE LAKESHORE DISTRICT AND RR1B, THE TWO-ACRE RURAL DISTRICT, IT CUTS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S A SPLIT BETWEEN THE LAKESHORE AND THE RURAL ZONE.
>> THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE STAFF REPORT WHERE IT SAID ALL OF THE NEWLY CREATED PARCELS CONFORM TO THE ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS, FOUR OF THE FIVE LOTS CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE TWO ACRE DISTRICT.
STAFF PREPARED A LOT ANALYSIS EXHIBIT FOR REVIEW,
[00:35:04]
AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS.THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO CONNECT THE DEVELOPMENT TO NORTH ARM LANE WITH THE NEW PRIVATE ROAD WITHIN AN OUTLOT SPLIT INTO TWO ROADS EACH TERMINATING IN CUL-DE-SAC.
THE NEW PRIVATE ROADS RESULTS IN A TOTAL ROAD LENGTH OF THE 1,385 FEET TO REACH THE NORTHERN CUL-DE-SAC AND 1,592 FEET FOR THE WESTERN EXTENSION.
ALTHOUGH CITY STANDARDS LIMIT DEAD END ROADS TO 1,000 LINEAR FEET, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS THAT WOULD CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT.
THE NORTHERLY ROAD LENGTH COULD BE REDUCED SOMEWHAT BY CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION OF THE ROAD AND/OR THE PROPOSED LOT 4 TO PULL THE CUL-DE-SAC FURTHER SOUTH.
THAT'S ONE SUGGESTION STAFF NOTED DURING THE REVIEW.
THE DEVELOPERS PROPOSED THE NEW ROADS TO BE PRIVATE.
HOWEVER, DUE TO THE DEAD AND NATURE OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC ROADWAY NORTH ARM LANE, WITHOUT A PROPER CUL-DE-SAC OR TURNAROUND, THE CITY'S WINTER MAINTENANCE AND SNOW REMOVAL ARE VERY CHALLENGING.
THE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL AND MAINTENANCE BURDENS OF ACCEPTING NEW CITY ROADS MAY BE OFFSET BY THE LOGISTICAL IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING IN BETTER MANEUVERABILITY FOR SNOW PLOWS IN THE TWO CUL-DE-SACS IF THESE ROADS WERE MADE PUBLIC.
THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER PREPARED A CONSERVATION DESIGN MASTER PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE CODE.
THEIR PLANS PRIORITIZE THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING WOODLAND AND WETLAND AREAS AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING NATURAL ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS.
THE SITE IS PARTIALLY LOCATED WITHIN AN IDENTIFIED GREENWAY CORRIDOR AND CONTAINS AREAS OF MAPLE-BASSWOOD AND OAK FORESTS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO CONTAIN RARE SPECIES.
THEY DID NOT SURVEY THE RARE SPECIES SPECIFICALLY, BUT THE DEVELOPER WILL ENSURE PROTECTIVE MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN IF RARE SPECIES ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED A PLAN FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL, IDENTIFYING 1,206 TOTAL TREES ON THE PROPERTY, 419 TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED DUE TO THEIR CONDITION OR THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
A BOULEVARD PLANTING PLAN WAS ALSO PROVIDED WHICH SHOWS THEY PLAN TO PLANT 55 TREES MIX OF HONEY LOCUST, OAK, AND MAPLE IN THE BOULEVARD, MEETING THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
LOTS 1-4 APPEAR TO MEET THE MINIMUM AREA AND WID STANDARDS FOR THE TWO ACRE DISTRICT.
I'VE LABELED THEM ON THE SCREEN STARTING FROM THE WEST SIDE, LOT 1 AND 2, 3 IN CENTER, LOT 4 IS ON THE NORTH SIDE.
LOT 5 IS PROPOSED AS A LAKE SHORE LOT, AND IT IS DOWN ON THE SOUTHERN PART HERE THAT I CAN'T MAKE MY MOUSE. THERE WE GO.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLAT BE UPDATED TO ADDRESS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREAS AND ANY OTHER MISSING OR AMBIGUOUS INFORMATION IDENTIFIED BY STAFF WITHIN THE REPORT.
AS SUBMITTED, THE LAKE SHORE LOT, LOT 5, DOES NOT MEET THE 200 FOOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT AT THE LAKE OR AT THE REQUIRED SETBACK OR DOES NOT HAVE THE MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES DRY CONTIGUOUS BUILDABLE AREA.
IT MUST BE RECONFIGURED TO MEET THE CITY STANDARDS.
THEY ALSO SHOW A PROPOSED LOT 6, WHICH IS JUST NORTH OF LOT 5.
IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED A BUILDABLE LOT.
HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO CREATE AN OUT LOT FOR LAKE ACCESS OR COMMON PRIVATE OPEN SPACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE STANDARDS IN THE CODE TO CREATE AN OUT LOT FOR LAKE ACCESS TO PROVIDE OFF LAKE LOTS WITH ACCESS TO THE LAKE.
HOWEVER, THIS LOT IS PROPOSED DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS WAY.
THE DEVELOPER SHOULD DISCUSS WHAT THEIR INTENT IS FOR THIS PROPERTY AND REVISIONS MAY BE NECESSARY.
THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, REFLECTING GRADING AND PROPOSING THREE STORMWATER INFILTRATION BASINS TO ADDRESS STORMWATER RESULTING FROM NEW HARD COVER WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADJUST THEIR PLANS IF DIRECTED BY THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR THE CITY'S ENGINEER.
FINAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND GRADING PLANS WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.
THE PONDS INFILTRATION BASINS ARE SHOWN IN THIS ORANGE COLOR ON THESE THREE LOTS, LOTS 5, 3, AND 4, ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY FOR LOT 3 UP WITHIN THE LOT ON LOT 4 AND IN THE SOUTHERN AREA HERE FOR LOT 5.
SEPTIC DESIGNS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED LOTS.
INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE NEW HOMES.
OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL IS REVIEWING THOSE SEPTIC DESIGNS CURRENTLY.
[00:40:02]
A PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELLS WILL ALSO BE CITED WITH BUILDING PERMITS.THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO STORMWATER DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE AND PARK DEDICATION FEES.
THEY WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL PLAT.
THE PARK OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL PLAN IN THE COMP PLAN DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NEED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IN THIS LOCATION.
THE DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES IS THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED.
ALTERNATIVELY, A PARK DEDICATION FEE WILL BE APPLIED.
THE COUNTY ASSESSOR WILL ASSIST IN DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT FEE.
COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WERE RECEIVED AND WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
I BELIEVE SOME OF THOSE NEIGHBORS TO BE PRESENT THIS EVENING AND MAY WISH TO SPEAK.
YOU KNOW, IN CLOSING, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW THEM AT 8:00 OR SO ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION PROVIDED WITHIN THE PACKET AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE FEEDBACK TO THE DEVELOPER REGARDING THOSE ISSUES.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO RESPOND TO THE FEEDBACK AND TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING.
COMMENTS FROM THE CITY'S ENGINEER WILL BE PROVIDED UPON RECEIPT OF A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
I CAN TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, AND THE APPLICANTS IS HERE.
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, I'LL NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON IS ARRIVING.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT LOT 6, THE OUTLOT/LOT 6, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OR A LAKE ACCESS OUTLOT OR AN OUTLOT?
THE PURPOSE OF A LAKE ACCESS OUTLOT IS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE LAKE FOR A NON-LAKE SHORE LOT WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STANDARDS OUTLINED WITHIN THE SHORE LAND, OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE THAT ALLOW FOR CREATION OF A LOT LIKE THIS.
SPECIFICALLY, THE WIDTH OF THE LOT MUST BE THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PER LOT SERVED.
SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT THIS LOT COULD SERVE ONE OFF LAKE SHORE PROPERTY.
IN THAT CASE, IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE IN STAFF'S OPINION TO JUST COMBINE IT AS THAT LOT, IF THAT'S THE CASE.
THIS LOT WAS CONSIDERED FOR A BUILDABLE LOT, AND THEY BEGAN AN APPLICATION WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT TO FILL THIS PART OF THE WETLAND HERE ON THIS NORTHERN EDGE TO CREATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS, TO GET TO THE REAR PART, THE LAKE SHORE PART FOR BUILDABILITY.
I DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT, BUT THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, AND NOW THIS IS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.
>> THIS WIDTH YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MEASURED WHERE ON THAT LOT?
>> AT THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL IN A STRAIGHT LINE.
ALTHOUGH IT HAS THIS LINEAR FRONTAGE HERE, IT WOULD BE MEASURED POINT TO POINT, AND THEN BACK AT THE 75 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH IS HERE.
FROM THE WIDTH STANDPOINT, IT MAY BE ABLE TO SERVE ONE LOT AS A LAKE SHORE LOT, BUT NOT THE DEVELOPMENT.
QUITE FRANKLY, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THAT LOT.
>> THE NON-CONFORMITY IN LOT 5 IS WITH AND CONTIGUOUS.
>> WITH AND CONTIGUOUS BUILDABLE AREA.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> QUESTION HERE, LOT 5, THIS LOT MUST BE RECONFIGURED TO CONFORM.
CAN YOU HELP ME OUT WITH WHAT THE RECONFIGURATION MIGHT BE?
>> I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE BECAUSE OF THE LARGE WETLAND THAT SEPARATES THE BUILDABLE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE OVER HERE TO THIS BUILDABLE AREA.
THE WIDTH MEASUREMENT ON A LAKE SHORE LOT IS DONE AT THE LAKE.
THIS DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD AT THE LAKE CURRENTLY.
THE BIGGER CHALLENGE, I BELIEVE, IS THE CONTIGUITY.
THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HERE IS THE BUILDING AREA.
IT'S VERY TIGHT, IT'S SMALL, IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD IN AND OF ITSELF.
THIS PART HERE IS NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH THAT PIECE.
[00:45:03]
>> MS. CURTIS, DO WE HAVE THE PROPOSED ACREAGE OF LOT 5 AS IT IS CONTIGUOUS, NOT COUNTING THE SEPARATED PART OF IT? DO WE HAVE THAT IN THE SURVEY? JUST THAT CURIOSITY.
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
>> LOT 5, WHERE IT ACTUALLY IS MARKED LOT 5, NOT COUNTING THE ONE ACROSS THE WETLAND, IF WE'RE IGNORING THE OTHER ONE THAT'S NOT CONTIGUOUS, DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS?
>> YOU WANT TO WHAT THE AREA IS RIGHT AT THE BUILDING SITE?
>> I WAS TRYING TO FIND IT QUICKLY.
WAS THAT ONE OF THE POINTS WAS THAT THE DRY LAND WAS CALLED OUT FOR THE LOTS, BUT THE CONTIGUOUS DRY CALCULATION WAS MISSING PARTS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I DID A ROUGH CALCULATION JUST USING THE ADOBE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I NOTED THAT.
IT'S 1.7 ACRES POTENTIALLY AS I'VE ESTIMATED.
>> THAT'S LR 1A, SO TWO ACRES CONTIGUOUS, JUST TO RESTATE, CORRECT?
>> AGAIN, I THINK THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE BUFFER, BUT IT'S STILL NOT MEETING THE STANDARD.
>> THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, IF THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> I'M GABRIEL PASS, AND I'LL START US OFF BY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CASEY, WHO'S ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT.
>> YEAH, JUST ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> 2536 18TH AVENUE, SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY.
I'M THE SON OF CAROL PASS, WHO RECENTLY PASSED AWAY, AND BRAD PASS, WHO IS RIGHT HERE.
THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT NORTH ARM LANE.
AS THE NEIGHBORS HAVE MENTIONED IN THEIR LETTERS, CAROL PASS, MY MOTHER, WAS MOST CERTAINLY A CONSERVATIONIST, AND SHE LOVED HER FAMILY FARM DEARLY.
IN FACT, SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SOME OF THE WETLANDS.
MY BROTHER AND I, AS WELL AS OUR COUSINS, AND OUR CHILDREN, ALSO GREW UP SPENDING COUNTLESS HOURS ON THAT LAND, AND WE ALSO CARE FOR IT DEARLY.
OVER THE YEARS, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT OUR FAMILY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP THIS PROPERTY FOREVER.
OUR LIVES KEEP US BUSY IN OTHER CITIES WORKING ON OTHER PROJECTS.
SO MY MOTHER WANTED TO CREATE A PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAINTAIN THE FAMILY'S ABILITY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND AND THE WETLANDS AND CARE FOR THE NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT WHILE ALLOWING THE LAND TO PASS ON TO OTHER FAMILIES RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR IT.
TO THAT END, CAROL AND MY FAMILY MET WITH BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE ARCHITECTS AND DC CARLSON CONTRACTOR.
AT THE PROPERTY LAST FALL AND BEGAN A PLAN FOR ITS RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
CAROL WAS DELIGHTED TO FIND BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE, AN ARCHITECTURE COMPANY WITH CONSERVATION AND AN ECOLOGICAL RESPONSIBILITY AS THEIR PRIMARY FOCUS.
WE SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT A BETTER TEAM TO WORK WITH US ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY THAN THE ONE THAT WE HAVE FORMED.
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER PEOPLE THAT CARE MORE DEEPLY ABOUT HOW THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS THAN WE DO.
UNDERSTANDING THAT EVENTUALLY THIS LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED FROM THE START, OUR PLAN HAS BEEN TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND TO MANAGE THE DEVELOPMENT IN AN ECOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY, TO HONOR THE LAND AND OUR FAMILIES LEGACY THERE, AND FINALLY, TO PASS IT TO INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL VALUE ITS STEWARDSHIP IN THE FUTURE.
TO THAT END, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR TEAM AND THE CITY OF ORONO TO CREATE THE PLAN THAT WE'RE WORKING ON BRINGING BEFORE YOU.
OUR ARCHITECT CASEY IS HERE TOO.
>> THANK YOU, GAB FOR SHARING ABOUT YOUR FAMILY AND THE LEGACY OF YOUR MOTHER.
[00:50:02]
MY NAME IS KASEY JOHNSON.I AM WITH BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE.
OUR ADDRESS IS 21 53RD STREET, WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA.
MY TEAM AND I, AS GAB SAID, WERE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT IN TO THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF OUR ENTHUSIASM AND CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY.
BPC HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE PRIVILEGE TO MEET CAROL IN PERSON AT THE PROPERTY LAST FALL, 2023.
SHE WAS ONE OF THOSE RARE PEOPLE THAT RADIATED PASSION, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS PROPERTY IN WHICH SHE GREW UP.
CAROL SHARED STORIES OF HER CHILDHOOD, LIVING WITH NATURE ON A BEAUTIFUL HOMESTEAD, TALKED OF HER FAMILY GARDEN, AND EVEN THE PRECIOUS MEMORIES EXPLORING THE RARE FEN, AS WELL AS HER JOURNEY IN PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS PROPERTY.
CAROL CHOSE THIS TEAM TO HONOR HER WISHES IN PRESERVING WHILE PROVIDING TO OTHERS THAT SHARE THE SAME VALUES IN CONNECTING WITH NATURE AND THE FUTURE OF THE HOME'S SURROUNDINGS.
IN ADDITION, THE TEAM WILL ALSO BE CREATING COVENANTS TO CLEARLY PROVIDE PARAMETERS ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING.
BUILDING AREAS WILL BE IDENTIFIED LIMITATIONS OF MANICURED GRASS AREAS AND PRESCRIBED NATIVE SPECIES TO BE INCLUDED.
OUR TEAM'S INTENT IS TO TAKE THE MOST RESPONSIBLE PATH FORWARD WITH THE LEAST IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS.
WE ARE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND CAROL'S WISHES, CONTINUING HER LEGACY AS LAND AMBASSADORS, LOVING THE LAND SHE CHERISHED SO DEEPLY.
WE ARE PREPARED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS WITH FURTHER EXPLORATION TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS NOTED IN THE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE CITY.
WE HAVE NO PLANS TO PROVIDE LAKE ACCESS FOR LOT 6 AND OUR GOAL IS TO PRESERVE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FOR ALL TO ENJOY.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I DO. CAN YOU ADDRESS LOT 5 CONFORMING, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE DON'T ISSUE SUBDIVISIONS FOR NON CONFORMING LOTS.
HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT FEEDBACK FROM STAFF, AND HAVE YOU FOUND A WAY TO MAKE THAT CONFORMING?
>> WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPLORING THAT.
WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LOT 5 AND LOT 6 TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> MAYBE I MISSED SOMETHING, [LAUGHTER] WHICH HAPPENS.
BUT THE APPLICATION INDICATES LOT 5 AS BEING 2.9 ACRES DRY.
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS HERE, AT LEAST FROM STAFF SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE, WHERE DID THE ACREAGE GO?
>> I THINK IT'S THE CONTIGUOUS DRY.
IF YOU LOOK AT LOT 5, IT'S SEPARATED BY THE WETLAND, AND IT'S THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODES AS IT NEEDS TO BE CONTIGUOUS DRY SLED.
>> BOB LOOK AT THE SCREEN RIGHT THERE.
SEE WHERE SHE'S HIGHLIGHTING? ON THE SCREEN OR THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED, THAT'S THE PART THAT IS CONNECTED.
>> THEN THIS PART HERE IS THE OTHER PIECE THAT MAKES UP THE ACREAGE, BUT IT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING, EXCUSE ME, IS THAT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS LOT 5 THERE, THAT'S SOMETHING UNDER TWO ACRES RIGHT NOW. I UNDERSTAND?
>> THAT ZONED TWO ACRES PLUS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WE REQUIRE TWO DRY CONTIGUOUS ACRES PER LOT, SO YES.
>> IT'S NOT CONTIGUOUS THE WAY IT'S PLOTTED HERE.
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> EVERYBODY HERE, NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK?
[00:55:02]
>> MANDY LITTLE, 4620 NORTH ARM DRIVE.
WE HAVE PROBABLY LIVED THERE THE LEAST OF MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE.
BUT WHEN WE MOVED, WE HEARD SO MANY STORIES ABOUT CAROL WANTING TO KEEP THIS NATURAL.
OF THE PEOPLE, WE ARE GOING TO BE HUGELY IMPACTED WITH A CUL-DE-SAC, 50 FEET OR SO FROM OUR ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT AND LISTEN TO SOME OF THIS.
I HAVE READ YOUR 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH STATES FUTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE GUIDED SO AS TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE LAND OR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND CARE WILL BE EXERCISED TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW DEVELOPMENT ENCROACHES UPON ITS NEIGHBORS OPEN SPACES.
I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT.
A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THE ONLY WAY WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS IS IN JUNE, A HUNTER CAME ONTO OUR LAND AND ASKED IF HE COULD BOW HUNT BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND OUR NEIGHBORS.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO COME AND BOW HUNT ON MY LAND? THEN HE EXPLAINED THAT THE 20 ACRES THAT HE PREVIOUSLY HUNTED ON WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORS OR KEEPING US IN MIND, I'M HAVING A REAL HARD TIME.
>> TIM PRATT, 185 BAY SIDE TRAIL.
THAT'S MY HOUSE, YOU SEE WITH THE POOL IN THE BACKYARD.
THE FIRST I HEARD OF THIS WAS A CARD IN THE MAIL, SO I'M GRATEFUL THAT I GOT THAT.
I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE NUMBER 1, PROPOSING THAT THEY BE CITY STREETS.
WE PAY FOR THE SNOW REMOVAL, THE UPKEEP OF THE STREET, RESURFACING IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY I SHOULD BE GRANTED CITY STREET STATUS.
THEN LOT NUMBER 4 I BELIEVE, I COULDN'T TELL ON THE DRAWING, IS THERE A BRIDGE OVER THE DRAIN HERE?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS. IT MIGHT BE A CULVERT.
IT DOESN'T INDICATE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE USING TO CROSS THAT STREAM.
>> YEARS AGO, YOU COULD GET TO THE LAKE FROM THE LOT THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY SINCE GROWN IN AND REBUILT.
BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY WATER THAT FLOWS THROUGH THERE. THAT'S ALL.
>> HELLO. I'M STEPHANIE BURNS.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A VERY QUIET STREET.
WE HAVE SMALL CHILDREN, AND TO HAVE TWO BIG CUL-DE-SACS, WHICH ARE OVER THE CITY'S SIZE LIMIT IN LENGTH, COMING IN AND RUNNING THROUGH EVERYONE'S PROPERTIES ON THEIR LINES OF THEIR PROPERTIES IS CONCERNING FOR US.
ALSO, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHY WE MOVED HERE, WE MOVED HERE FROM THE CITY A FEW YEARS AGO, AND WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE OF THE QUIET, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE, BECAUSE OF WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO SEE DEVELOPMENTS, AND WE SEE IT IN LAKE VIEW.
I STARTED ALL AROUND US AND TO SEE OUR LITTLE STREET, WHICH IS SO NARROW THAT YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN AND PULL OVER FOR TWO CARS TO PASS EACH OTHER, WHICH WE DO BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER, AND WE DO THAT, AND WE STOP AND TALK, AND THEY TALK TO OUR KIDS WHO ARE WALKING IN THE STREETS A ON THEIR BIKES.
TO HAVE TWO CUL-DE-SACS NOW WITH ALL THESE HOUSES, 10 PLUS MORE CARS COMING THROUGH IS DISAPPOINTING AND NOT WHAT WE ENVISION FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I REMEMBER I SAW ONE OF THE THINGS FROM ORONO WHEN WE MOVED OUT HERE WAS THAT ORONO WILL RETAIN ITS OWN SPECIAL IDENTITY THROUGH CAREFUL GROWTH MANAGEMENT, IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE NATURAL RESOURCES, THE WATERSHED OF LAKE MANATAKA, AND THE COMMUNITY OF CITIZENS, BOTH PRESENT AND FUTURE.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THIS IS DISRUPTING NATURE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A WATERSHED ISSUE. IT'S ALL WETLANDS.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WHEN YOU'RE THROWING FIVE MANSIONS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT'S CUL-DE-SACS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
[01:00:05]
>> EVENING. I'M JEFF TOOLE, AND YOU HAVE MY COMMENTS ALREADY.
BUT IN THE CONVERSATIONS THIS EVENING, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD A MAJOR CONCERN ECHOING WHAT SHE JUST SPOKE ABOUT.
PUTTING THOSE TWO LARGE ROADWAYS INTO, IF YOU SEPARATE OUT THE FIRST THREE LOTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WOODLANDS, THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THAT.
THEN I KNOW YOU PROBABLY CAN'T, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE LARGER AREA OF IDOWOD FARM THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED.
WE HAVE THE LOT DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF ONE, WHICH IS THREE ACRES, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE LOT TO THE WEST OF THAT, WHICH IS ABOUT SIX.
THE POINT, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU CONSIDER IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE DENSITY OF THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IS PUTTING FIVE HOMES INTO THAT MIGHT BE 10 ACRES VERSUS THE SEVEN OR NINE HOMES THAT ARE IN, AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER, BUT I'M GUESSING IT'S CLOSER TO PROBABLY 50 ACRES.
THAT DENSITY THAT WE ALL MOVED TO WITH ORONO DOESN'T SEEM TO BE BEING RETAINED RATHER SHOE HONING THOSE FIVE LOTS INTO A VERY SMALL AREA.
THEN TO TOP IT OFF, ADDING, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR ACREAGE IS OF THE ROADWAY, BUT IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE OVERKILL FOR THE AESTHETICS OF THE AREA. THANK YOU.
>> I'M MARK LARSON, 366, NORTH ARM LANE.
A LOT OF WHAT I SAID, I THINK MOST OF PEOPLE COVERED THAT.
MY WIFE AND I RAISED OUR FAMILY IN NORTH ARM LANE.
WE'VE WE'RE PROBABLY OLDER AND HAVE LIVED THERE LONGER THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AREA.
WE'RE JUST GOING ON 40 YEARS, AND WE LIVE IN THE ORIGINAL FARMHOUSE ON NORTH ARM LANE.
BUT IT CAME TO ME IN LISTENING TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND THE ARCHITECTS AND THINGS.
JIM NIELSON, ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WHO LIVES ADJOINING LOT 5. CAN'T BE HERE.
UNFORTUNATELY, HE'S IN FLORIDA FIXING UP HIS HOUSE DOWN THERE THAT GOT DESTROYED.
BUT I KNOW JIM HAS GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT LOT BEING SHOEHORNED IN NEXT TO HIS HOUSE.
MAYBE YOU COULD COMMENT TONIGHT, WE'RE FINDING OUT IT'S A NON CONFORMING LOT, I GUESS, IS WHAT YOU CALL IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENT.
THE MAPS AND DRAWINGS DON'T SHOW JIM'S HOUSE, SO YOU CAN SEE IT.
[OVERLAPPING] MAYBE YOU CAN COMMENT ON AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT THE DISTANCES ARE.
I KNOW HE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE KNOWING WHY IS THAT BEING SHOVED INTO A NON CONFORMING LOT? LITERALLY, I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR APART, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE SO CLOSE TO HIS HOME.
MAYBE YOU CAN COMMENT THAT DISTANCE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR APART THAT IS OR IF IT MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
>> IT DOES MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
>> I MEAN, BIG LOTS. JIM'S GOT FOUR PLUS ACRES THERE, AND NOW THIS HOUSE IS BEING PUT DOWN RIGHT NEXT TO HIS HOUSE IN ONE CORNER OF HIS ACREAGE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN FIT THAT HOUSE INTO THAT SPOT.
IT APPEARS TO ME. ANYWAY, I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO YOU THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT PARTICULAR LOT IS PROBLEMATIC IN A LOT OF WAYS. THANK YOU.
>> SINCE YOU'RE RIGHT THERE, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE HISTORY OF THE DEPTH OF THE WATER AND ACCESS THERE, THAT SMALL CHANNEL?
>> MY WIFE AND I IN THAT ORIGINAL FARMHOUSE DON'T HAVE LAKE ACCESS, BUT WE'RE RIGHT THERE, AND MY KIDS GREW UP THERE, THEY FISHED IT.
WE'VE BEEN DOWN THERE MILLION TIMES.
[01:05:02]
THE GENTLEMAN BEHIND ME WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK AND PROBABLY COMMENT THAT BETTER.I JUST REMEMBER FROM PAST EXPERIENCE IN DRY YEARS, DRY SUMMERS, THAT CIRCLE DOWN THERE PROBABLY HASN'T BEEN DREDGED IN, I WANT TO SAY 30 YEARS, MAYBE.
IT'S LITERALLY EVERYONE, I THINK, THAT STARTS DOWN THAT END, INCLUDING JIM NIELSON.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR PROPS LITERALLY UP OUT OF THE WATER TO GET OUT OF THE CHANNEL, AND IT GETS BETTER, I THINK, AS YOU GO TOWARDS THE LAKE.
BUT THAT END IS JUST A SILT COLLECTOR.
IN DRY YEARS, IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S PASSABLE, HONESTLY.
TO CALL THAT LAKE SHORE, YES, LAKE SHORE, BUT IT'S MORE OF A SWAMP SETTING.
SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE LAKE ACCESS ON THE CHANNEL PROBABLY CAN COMMENT BETTER THAN I CAN.
>> THANK YOU. IF YOU DON'T MIND APPROACHING THE PODIUM, SORRY.
>> WE'RE CLOSER TOWARDS THE LAKE.
I WOULD SAY, LIKE TWO SUMMERS AGO, WE COULD BARELY GET OUR BOAT OUT AT THE END BECAUSE WE WERE SITTING IN MUD.
AS YOU GO UP FURTHER, IT GETS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO GET OUT, SO JUST CONFIRMING WHAT HE SAID. THANK.
I LIVE AT 350 NORTH ARM LANE, WHICH IS ALSO ON THE CHANNEL.
I GUESS I'LL START OUT WITH A QUESTION, IF THE COUNCIL TAKES THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE PLANS CAN BE REDRAWN TO BE FULLY CONFORMING, WOULD THERE BE A SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND ABILITY TO SEE THE REVISED PLANS BEFORE THEN?
>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. TYPICALLY, WE DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY, BUT I WOULD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THIS WERE TO BE TABLED JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH PUBLIC INTEREST IN IT.
>> ASSUMING THAT IF IT IS TABLED, THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERABLE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN.
>> MY CONCERN, ONE OF THEM DOES REVOLVE AROUND THAT NON CONFORMING LOT 5, I BELIEVE IT IS.
THEN JUST GENERALLY, I'M NOT SURE THAT I BELIEVE THE CLAIM THAT THE MAIN GOAL ON THIS IS PRESERVATION WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SHOVE AS MANY LOTS AS YOU CAN IN THERE AND EVEN ON LOTS THAT ARE TOO SMALL.
THEN THE OTHER EVIDENCE OF THAT IS HAVING A DEAD END ROAD THAT ONLY SERVES ONE HOUSE.
THAT'S JUST SO MUCH HARDSCAPE FOR ONE HOUSE.
THOSE ARE MY ONLY COMMENTS FOR RIGHT NOW.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO ECHO STEPHANIE'S OPINION ON THAT ROAD.
I WOULD CALL IT A ONE LADE ROAD.
YOU DO NEED TO GET OFF OF THE ROAD IF THERE'S ANOTHER CAR COMING AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS JUST DAILY LIVING AFTER THAT.
THERE'S A LITTLE HILL AND WE END UP GOING DOWN THAT, AND I'M ALWAYS A LITTLE WORRIED THAT SOMEBODY'S COMING OVER IT.
THE EXISTING PROPERTY THAT WAS THERE, I DON'T THINK HAD MUCH CAR ACTIVITY.
THE ROAD IS PRETTY QUIET, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE HOW IT CURRENTLY IS.
I THINK IF YOU INCREASE THE ROAD TRAFFIC BY IT'S EXPONENTIAL INCREASES, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IF IT GETS DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION, WHO REPLACES THAT AS WELL AS JUST THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC SITUATION?
>> THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE REPAIRING THE ROAD IF THERE WAS DAMAGE. I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK THE ROAD CURRENTLY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THAT MUCH TRAFFIC.
>> HI. MELISSA DEMIS, 350 NORTH ERMINE.
I WOULD JUST ALSO EMPHASIZE THAT WITHIN THAT LANE JUST IN TERMS OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, ALSO THE FOLLOW ON ACTIVITY FOR SERVICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'M MAKING A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS, BUT THEY WILL BE MAINTAINING A LOT OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY, AND SO JUST THE INS AND OUTS OF THE ACTIVITY FROM SERVICES, WHETHER IT'S LAWN APPLICATIONS,
[01:10:01]
LANDSCAPING, THINGS LIKE THAT.I JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT THE LANE IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THIS RIGHT HERE, THAT IT'S VERY SMALL.
IT'S VERY CONDUCIVE TO WHAT EXISTS TODAY, AND SO JUST MAKING ANOTHER POINT THAT THERE IS A MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT JUST TRAFFIC.
NOT JUST THE HOUSES, BUT JUST THE GENERAL ACTIVITY BECAUSE THERE WILL BE ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
>> I'M GABRIEL PASS, 2536 18TH AVENUE.
IT IS THE CASE THAT MY FAMILY HAS BEEN BY NOT DEVELOPING THAT LAND, PROVIDING A WILDERNESS TO THE NEIGHBORS FOR 20+ YEARS AND PAYING THE TAXES FOR THAT AND PROVIDING THAT.
IT'S BEEN GREAT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
WE'VE ENJOYED THE LAND AS WELL, BUT IT'S NOT IN PERPETUITY OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT.
TO THE FIRST COMMENT JUST IN ORDER OF COMMENTS, THE TIME THAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE FIRST COMMENTER WAS REFERRING TO, THAT INSTANCE WAS FIVE MONTHS AGO THAT THE BO HUNTER CAME ON THE LAND.
THE CARD IN THE MAIL WAS GIVEN MUCH MORE RECENTLY.
THAT'S TRUE. WE HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO NOTIFY.
RESPECTFULLY, THE COLDER SACK IS REQUIRED.
FOR THE OTHER COMMENTERS, THE COLDER SACK WAS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
WE DID ASK FOR PRIVATE DRIVES, BUT THAT WAS A CITY REQUIREMENT.
ADDRESSING THE ROADS AND THEN THE COST OF SNOW REMOVAL, THAT'S A COUNTER TO THE DESIRE FOR PRIVATE DRIVES.
IN THAT REGARD, WE'RE TAKING ONE FOR THE TEAM BY REDUCING THE COST OF SNOW REMOVAL BY ADDING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
UNDERSTANDING THEN THAT THIS PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD AND DEVELOPED EVENTUALLY, WE'RE SURE THAT WE CAN WORK PRODUCTIVELY WITH ALL OF YOU AND ALL THE COMMENTERS HERE TO FORWARD OUR COMMON GOALS.
REGARDLESS OF HOW WE VOTED, WE'RE LIVING IN A TIME OF STRONG DEREGULATION.
IF IT CAME TO SEVERAL YEARS FROM NOW AND OTHER HANDS THAN OURS THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED, THE NEIGHBORS AND THE CITY OF ORONO WOULD HAVE MUCH LESS ASSURANCE OF THE BEST OUTCOMES THAT WE CARE ABOUT AND THAT PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM CARE ABOUT TOO, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THOSE RIGHTS.
ESPECIALLY, IF A FUTURE DEVELOPER DOESN'T SHARE OUR VALUES.
IF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE CITY OF ORONO WANT TO ASSURE THAT THE BEST OUTCOMES OCCUR HERE AND HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE LAND, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ARE YOUR PEOPLE TO DEVELOP THIS LAND AND THAT THE TIME IS NOW.
>> [INAUDIBLE] 366 NORTHAM LANE.
I HAVE ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE ARMSTRONG FAMILY AT ALL, AND NEIGHBORS HAVE WONDERED FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THAT PARCEL OF LAND.
OF COURSE, IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
BUT MY QUESTIONS ARE, THE ONE LANE ROAD, THE LANE THAT ALL THE PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN UP LIVE ON IS PRETTY NARROW.
I'M ASSUMING IF A ROAD GOES IN, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE PROPERTY FROM HOMES ON THAT LANE TO ACCOMMODATE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC OR FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET DOWN THERE OR FIRE TRUCKS.
>> THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENT PROPOSED FOR NORTHERN LANE ITSELF AT THIS TIME, OTHER THAN THE LITTLE WIDENING PIECE AT THE END THAT WILL COME FROM THEIR PROPERTY THAT'S SHOWN.
[01:15:02]
>> IT APPEARS THAT ANY ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
>> WELL, I'M REALLY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE A COUPLE OF THE PEOPLE WHO'VE GOTTEN UP AND SPOKEN HAVE HOMES THAT ARE RIGHT ON THE LANE, AND SO IT WILL BE A REALLY BIG GAME CHANGER FOR THEM TO HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING AND GOING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] 4620 NORTH ARM LANE. TWO POINTS.
ONE, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT BLUE POINT, ELIMINATE THE BUFFER ZONE FROM OUR PROPERTY.
THE BUFFER ZONE IS TWO INCH TREES.
THERE'S NOBODY IN THIS ROOM, THIS CAN BE ALIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THE MATURITY OF TWO INCH TREE.
>> CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR?
>> IF HE'D INVESTIGATED HIS NEIGHBORS, HE COULD HAVE PROBABLY SOLVED THE NATURALNESS OF THE LAND AND GOT HIS MONEY OUT OF THE PROPERTY, HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS MESSAGE BELT.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
THESE CAME UP FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WHO OWNS NORTH ARM LANE, THE CURRENT ROAD?
>> CITY STREET. FAIR TO SAY, THE CITY PAYS FOR THE PLOWING ON THAT STREET, THE MAINTENANCE?
>> LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF AND I'M CALLING IT THE LAKE ACCESS LOT, BUT THE DEVELOPER IS CALLING IT JUST AN OUT LOT.
IT'S NOT CONFORMING FOR A LAKE ACCESS LOT, AS IT'S POTENTIALLY BEING PLATTED.
IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THIS PLAT TODAY AND HAVE THAT LOT BE THERE, WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR USE IN THE FUTURE? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SAY THIS CANNOT BE BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONFORMING?
>> IT WOULD BE PLOTTED AS AN OUT LOT.
IT CAN BE AN OUT LOT FOR OPEN SPACE, IT'S JUST NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE THE FOUR OFF LAKE LOTS AS A LAKE SHORE ACCESS POINT.
AGAIN, IT COULD PROBABLY SERVE ONE LOT.
IT COULD BE COMBINED WITH LOT FOUR, FOR EXAMPLE.
THE LAKESIDE PORTION OF IT IS NOT DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACCESS TO IT, BUT IT CAN BE A LAKE SHORE LOT IF THERE'S ENOUGH LAND CONTIGUOUS TO CREATE A LOT.
IF THEY WERE TO RECONFIGURE FIVE AND SIX TO MAKE FIVE CONFORMING SIX KNOT, WE COULD ACCEPT IT AS AN OUT LOT, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT SOME CONDITION ON IT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE USED FOR ACCESS.
>> AS AN OUT LOT, IT'S NOT BUILDABLE.
YOU COULD CERTAINLY MAKE THAT CONDITION.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROPOSED AS A LAKE SHORE ACCESS LOT WITH A PLAN FOR THAT.
WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW HOW THE ACCESS WOULD HAPPEN OVER THAT WETLAND, SO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE IMPROVEMENTS, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT.
IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY PROHIBIT IF THIS WAS AN OPEN SPACE OUT LOT FROM PEOPLE ACCESSING IT AND USING IT IN DRIER SEASONS, YOU CAN PROBABLY GET OVER THAT WETLAND.
>> I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS TO PROPOSE IT NON-CONFORMING FOR ACCESS POTENTIAL FOR LOTS.
IF WHATEVER THE NEW CONFIGURATION STILL HAS A NON-CONFORMING OUT LOT FOR THAT, WHAT'S TO STOP THOSE OWNERS OF THOSE LOTS IN THE FUTURE TO GO AHEAD AND APPLY FOR A DOCK THROUGH LMCD OR WHATEVER AND USE THAT SPACE?
>> IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE TO HAVE A DOCK BECAUSE IT ISN'T CLASSIFIED BY THE CITY AS A LAKE SHORE ACCESS LOT, AND IT'S NOT A BUILDABLE LOT.
YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A VACANT LOT UNLESS IT IS DEVELOPED OR PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED THAT WAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT'S TO STOP THEM FROM USING IT TO GET TO THE LAKE?
>> I GUESS WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, MY MIND ALWAYS GOES TO THE FUTURE, AND THIS DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE THERE, THESE ARE GOING TO BE FIVE NEW HOMEOWNERS.
[01:20:03]
THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THAT ACCESS POINT, AND MY GUESS IS THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO USE IT.WELL, NOW WE'VE JUST CREATED A NON-CONFORMING ACCESS POINT.
THEN WHO KNOWS WHAT THESE NEW PEOPLE DECIDE TO DO?
>> THERE IS AN OPTION 2 TO PUT EASEMENTS OVER THE PROPERTY TO PREVENT ANY SPECIFIC USES THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO USE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE.
I WOULD JUST CAUTION LOOKING INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE WE GO RIGHT TO THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE AS AN OUT LOT, IT IS NOT DEVELOPABLE.
>> ONCE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEVELOPER'S INTENT AND IF A RECONFIGURATION IS HAPPENING, IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAT REGARDING THE OUT LOT OF WHAT IT CAN BE USED OR NOT USED FOR, LOTS OF TIMES WE CAN PUT THOSE PARAMETERS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CREATION OF THE OUT LOT.
>> I THINK THAT WAS MY QUESTION TO FOR OUT OR LOT 6, WHATEVER YOU LIKE TO CALL IT BECAUSE THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT BUILDABLE BUT ARE ACCESSIBLE, AND THEY'RE VALUABLE FOR THAT REASON.
IT'S GOOD TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE NOT THERE YET, SOUNDS LIKE, BUT THERE CAN BE SOME LANGUAGE AND CONTINGENCIES THAT CALL OUT ITS USE AND PURPOSE FOR FUTURE USE, AS WELL.
I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF.
>> I'VE GOT AN IDEA. LET'S BREAK THIS DOWN INTO THE PIECES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING FOR DISCUSSION.
LOOKING AT THIS, I KNOW, IT'S VERY EXTREMELY RARE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EVEN BEEN DONE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE A NON-CONFORMING LOT IN A SUBDIVISION.
LOT FIVE, I'M LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION ON THAT NOT BEING CONFORMING.
WHAT'S THE OPINION HERE OF THE COMMISSIONERS? THIS INFORMAL PULL OF HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE NON-CONFORMING PIECES OF THIS.
>> SORRY, I GOT DISTRACTED BY LOOKING AT THE ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, YOUR LIST FROM MY LIST.
>> LOT 5, THE CONTIGUOUS TWO ACRES, AND IT ALSO HAS A WIDTH ISSUE AT THE LAKE.
>> I'LL START. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'RE AS A CITY, NOT FAVORABLE FOR GRANTING NON-CONFORMING LOTS.
USUALLY THE FEEDBACK HAS GOT TO BE, MAKE IT CONFORMING SO WE CAN MAKE IT APPROVED.
FROM LOOKING AT IT, AND THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION STARTED WITH MS. CURTIS WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE WE WORKING WITH THAT IS CONTIGUOUS? SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ROUGHLY 1.7.
SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE OFF BY QUITE A BIT, BUT PERHAPS THERE'S A WAY. I DON'T KNOW.
BUT THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD WAS GOING FOR THE SAME REASON IS, CAN IT BE REDESIGNED TO MEET THAT? THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAD FOR THE APPLICANT.
HOPEFULLY THAT QUESTION GETS ANSWERED BECAUSE I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW WHAT THE CITY GENERALLY BELIEVES, NO, OR WE'RE GOING TO WANT THAT TO BE CONFORMING.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE UP HERE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON LOT 5 SPECIFICALLY? I THINK THE OTHER LOTS ARE CONFORMING TO THOSE STANDARDS.
>> LOT 6 IS CONFORMING AS AN OUT LOT.
IT'S NOT CONFORMING AS ACCESS OUT LOT.
>> LET ME JUST SAY THIS AS SOMEBODY WHO LIVED IN MY HOME FOR 30 SOME YEARS, AND WE HAD A BIG 21 ACRES NEXT TO US, AND WE NEVER HAD ANY RAPES ON OUR BEDROOM WINDOW OR ANYTHING ELSE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT WAS DEVELOPED.
WE WOULD NOT GET A HOUSE IF YOU GOT AWAY FROM MY HOUSE.
I UNDERSTAND THE EMOTIONAL THINGS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH YOUR HEAD AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THAT.
IT'S A TOUGH THING TO SWALLOW, BUT I'VE BEEN THERE GOING THROUGH THAT RIGHT NOW.
MY NEW NEIGHBOR IS GO TO BE MOVING IN HERE IN A SHORT TIME.
THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THAT PROPERTY HAVE A RIGHT TO, UNDER THE PROPER CIRCUMSTANCE, DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH IT THAT CONFORMS TO THEIR CODE.
IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH A WAY THAT CONFORMS, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE ANY REGULATION.
THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD.
>> FAIR TO SAY, YOU'RE NOT IN SUPPORT OF A NON-CONFORMING APPLICATION?
>> NO. LOT NUMBER 5 IS NON-CONFORMING, TO ME THAT IT HAS TO BE CHANGED.
[01:25:01]
>> IS ANYONE UP HERE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THE CREATING A OUT LOT BECAUSE OUT LOTS CAN BE ANY SIZE, BUT THIS ONE HAS A POTENTIAL FUTURE USE, BUT WE'RE CREATING A NON-CONFORMITY IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME IN THE FUTURE TO TRY TO USE THAT.
DOES ANYONE FEEL STRONGLY ON THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
>> WELL, I THINK AS STAFF MENTIONED, AND I APPRECIATE, MR. CHAIR, YOU BRINGING IT UP.
I FEEL COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT IT IS LANGUAGE WE CAN PUT AS A CAVEAT WHEN WE DO SEE THE REVISION OF THIS BECAUSE I CLEARLY SEE THIS IS GOING TOWARDS BEING TABLED.
BUT I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WAITING TO FIND OUT THIS BEING ADDRESSED FOR WHAT ITS FUTURE USE IS, AND THEN AS LONG AS THAT IS REASONABLE, WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONTINGENCIES AND STIPULATIONS IN PLACE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION AT THE SAME TIME.
I AGREE, IF IT'S NOT STIPULATED, THEN WE CERTAINLY HAVE SOME VULNERABILITIES TO THAT LOT TURNING INTO A SMALL MARINA SERVING THESE LOTS, AND THAT, PERHAPS IS NOT THE INTENT, BUT TO ADDRESS IT, THEN AT LEAST WE CAN ADDRESS IT.
THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE ON THAT.
>> I GUESS I THINK IT WAS TOUGH FOR THIS ONE.
I MEAN, YOU COULD GO BY THE LAKE.
THIS SERVES A PURPOSE AS A WETLANDS.
SO I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF IT AT ALL.
THE WETLANDS WE HAVE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN AND THEY ACT AS A PURPOSE.
EVEN IF YOU SUBDIVIDE THIS AND WE DO OUR BEST CARE AND PUT EASEMENT LOTS AND STUFF, I JUST FEAR THAT WE'LL CHIP AWAY AT THE WETLANDS.
SO I REALLY LIKE, I'D REALLY LIKE US TO STUDY THE WETLAND, WHEN IT GOES TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, LOOK AT REAL TOUGH LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE TRULY BUILDABLE LOTS AND CONFORMING LOTS.
SO YEAH, THE ONES THAT ARE NOT NON-CONFORMING, I'M NOT ALL.
BUT I JUST WANT TO EVEN CROSSING THAT WETLAND LOT FOR, I WANT TO SEE THE PLAN OF HOW THAT'S DONE CAUSE WE'VE BEEN KIND OF IN A DROUGHT.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE HIGH WATER YEARS, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS THING FLOWS AND ACTS LIKE A WETLAND AND GETS, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T WANT TO DISTURB THE PURPOSE OF THE WETLAND.
SO THAT'S THE CARE THAT I WANT US TO BE REAL CAREFUL OF IN THIS SUBDIVISION.
THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S LIKE YOU'RE GOING FROM LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
ROUGHLY 20% DENSITY TO 70% DENSITY IN THIS ONE LITTLE SPOT, AND IT'S CLOSEST TO THE LAKE.
THAT'S A BIG DISTURBANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE ARE SO I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE, BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF NOT CONFORMING A LOT.
>> GREAT. YEAH, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IT IS FIVE POTENTIAL HOUSES IN OVER 25 ACRES.
SO, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T, TO ME, IT DOESN'T STAND OUT AS EXTREMELY DENSE.
MOST OF THESE LOTS ARE OVER THE TWO-ACRE ZONING.
IT DOES APPEAR THAT THEY'VE HAD THOSE ALL DELINEATED, AND THE PROPER BUFFERS APPLIED, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
BUT I DO AGREE THAT YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE OVERSIGHT FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK ON THE WETLANDS AND HOW THIS SITE DRAINS.
IT'S ALL GOING TO BE PART OF ANY FUTURE APPROVALS ON IT.
SO THAT'S A GOOD THING WE DON'T HAVE TO WEAR THOSE HATS.
AS WE HAVE ANOTHER AGENCY TO LOOK AT IT TO GO FORWARD ON THAT.
I CAN SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBORS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ROAD AND NORTH ARM LANE AND HOW IT IS NARROW.
AND THEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE THIS WIDER LANE THAT'S HAPPENED A LOT IN ORONO, BECAUSE WHEN NORTH ARM LANE WAS THERE, THE CODE DIDN'T REQUIRE, WHAT IS IT 24 FEET NOW OF WIDTH? YEAH. SO IT'S KIND OF MEETING THE NEW WITH THE OLD.
I THINK IT THE SAME ISSUES ON HERITAGE LANE.
IT ALWAYS LOOKS FUNNY ON PAPER.
IN REALITY, IT DOESN'T WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY NAVIGATING THOSE ROADS, IT DOESN'T REALLY YOU DON'T REALLY NOTICE IT, BUT IT ALWAYS LOOKS STRANGE IN A DESIGN WHERE YOU HAVE A SKINNY ROAD THAT WAS PUT IN 50 YEARS AGO, GOING TO A NEW ROAD, THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS TO HAVE A WIDER ROAD THERE.
IT IS BECAUSE IT'S OVER WHAT BECAUSE IT'S OVER TEN ACRES, IT'S REQUIRED TO BE A CONSERVATION DESIGN, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS A CONSERVATION DESIGN.
SO THEY TAKE IN CONSIDERATION ALL OF THE NATURAL FEATURES OF THE LAND TO DESIGN THIS TO BE LEAST OBTRUSIVE BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY TO HAVE EXERCISE, CUL DE SAC, EXERCISE,
[01:30:01]
ROAD, ALL THESE THINGS THAT ARE JUST THERE.THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE NONCONFORMITIES, I THINK THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS TABLE, AND I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT.
IF ANYONE'S WILLING TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, I'M EVENTUALLY GOING TO GET THERE.
I THINK INSTEAD OF SOMETIMES WE'LL HAVE A SKETCH WHERE WE GIVE THIS FEEDBACK, AND THEN WE CIRCLE THE RUNWAY A COUPLE OF TIMES.
WE'RE DOING THIS ALL AT ONCE ON THE FLY.
SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE DIALOGUE IF WE BEFORE WE DO MOTION IF WE CAN GET SOME OF THIS STUFF UNPACKED AT THE RISK OF HAVING IT FIGURED OUT AFTERWARDS, IF THIS DOES COME BACK.
SO, I MEAN, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I ECHO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE ROAD TYPES AND REQUIREMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S RIGHT ALONG THE SAME LINES OF WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE SUBDIVISIONS, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT, REQUIREMENTS, BUILDABLE ACREAGE, VERSUS WETLANDS.
ALL OF THAT WOULD BE A CONTINGENCY JUST SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS, THAT WOULD BE A CONTINGENCY OF ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ENVELOPE AND USAGE AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
WE DO HAVE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, BUT NOT ALL OF IT, BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONTINGENCY.
AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP LAND, OF COURSE, IF YOU OWN IT, THAT'S ONE RIGHT YOU HAVE AS A LAND OWNER IS DEVELOP IT, BUT IT HAS TO BE.
AS FAR AS THE ROAD ACCESS BEING NARROW, THAT IS A CONCERN THAT I RECOGNIZE AND EMPATHIZE FOR.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW YOU ACCESS THAT PROPERTY ANY OTHER WAY, AND THAT'S THE PART THAT I THINK IS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.
BUT WHETHER IT WAS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, I THINK THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD REMAIN THE SAME AS FAR AS SIZE AND DIMENSIONS GO.
THE APPLICANTS RATE. I MEAN, TO SERVE THOSE PROPERTIES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CUL DE SAC, ALTHOUGH PRIVATE ROADS WOULD BE MORE CONDUCIVE, BUT THAT IS A REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN PRETTY HARD AND FAST AS A CITY TO RULE ON.
I KNOW A LOT OF APPLICANTS THAT WOULD RATHER NOT DO THAT, TOO.
BUT THE PREMISE IN THAT IS BECAUSE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES, DELIVERIES.
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THAT THEY'RE HAPPENING, AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THOSE RULES FOR C DE SAC INSTEAD. IT'S NOT PRETTY.
NOBODY WANTS THAT MUCH PAVEMENT AROUND, BUT THAT'S WHERE THOSE RULES COME FROM, AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THE CITY SEEMS TO BE THAT WAY.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HERE IS A LIST OF ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION IF WE MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS THEM, AGAIN, IN SUPPORT AND HELP.
NUMBER 1, THE CITY ENGINEER SUGGEST DEVELOPMENT ROAD WOULD BE FLOODED AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC ROAD VERSUS A PRIVATE.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS A RECOMMENDATION WITH THE DEVELOPER OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS FOR ROADS.
GOOD SEGUE, I GUESS FROM WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING.
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MAYBE SEEK SOME FEEDBACK AS FAR AS HOW THOSE ROADS THAT WE'RE CONNECTING TO.
IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS AND COME BACK, IT'D BE GOOD TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT.
THE WIDTH OF THE CURRENT ROAD, A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> WELL, JUST NUMBER 1 ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, THEY'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE DEVELOPER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ROADS.
>> SO I THINK JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARITY FOR THAT COMMENT.
SO I THINK THE CITY ENGINEER WAS COMMENTING THAT RIGHT NOW THAT NORTHRM LANE IS A PRIVATE I'M SORRY, IT IS A PUBLIC ROAD THAT WE THAT THE CITY PLOWS.
AND BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A C DE SAC OR A BULB, LOGISTICALLY, IT'S CHALLENGING FOR THE PLOWS AND WHAT OTHER SERVICES TO TURN AROUND.
WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF A BULB C DE SAC ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, THOSE BULB CUL DE SACS WOULD SERVE AS AN EASIER ACCESS.
SINCE WE'RE ALREADY PLOWING NORTH ARM LANE, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE JUST TO PLOW THE REST OF IT AS ONE EXAMPLE OF LOGISTICS FOR THE CITY FOR MANAGEMENT.
SURE. WHICH IS WHY HE WAS SUGGESTING POTENTIALLY MAKING A PUBLIC ROAD, WHICH HAS THE SAME STANDARDS FOR SIZE AS AS MAKING IT A PRIVATE ROAD.
SO THERE'S NO SIZING DIFFERENCES.
HAVE TAKE IT OVER FOR THOSE LOGISTICAL REASONS.
>> OKAY. YEAH, AND THAT'S HELPFUL.
[01:35:02]
>> TYPICALLY, IF I THINK BACK TO THE LAST 20-SOME YEARS, WE HAVE NOT APPROVED A PUBLIC ROAD.
I MEAN, THERE ARE DEFINITELY PRIVATE ROADS WITH PUBLIC ACCESS.
>> THERE'S THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE.
A LOT OF TIMES, DEVELOPERS, IT'S AT THEIR DISCRETION, HOW THEY WANT TO PROPOSE IT.
WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENTS, THEY COMMONLY IN ORONO, HAVE BEEN PROPOSING THEM AS PRIVATE AND THEN HAVE ASSOCIATIONS MANAGE IT.
WELL, AT THIS TIME, SINCE IT'S GOING IN, AND IT WILL BE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS, I WOULD MAKE SENSE PER THE CITY ENGINEERS REFLECTION THAT IT GET TURNED OVER TO THE CITY BECAUSE LOGISTICALLY WE HAVE TO PLOW AND MAINTAIN AND PROVIDE GARBAGE SERVICES FOR NORTH ARM AS IT EXISTS TODAY, TO THEN TAKE OVER THAT CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE RIGHT WHEN THE ROADS ARE BUILT.
SO WE ARE TAKING OVER THE NEW ROADS, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE LOGISTICALLY BETTER SERVICES FOR THE NEW AREA.
I THINK THAT'S THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT THAT THE CITY ENGINEER WAS PROPOSING, MAKING IT A PUBLIC ROAD.
>> SO MY ONLY THOUGHT FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT IS THEN THE ENTIRE TAX BASE OF ORONO HAS TO COVER THE PLOWING FOR FIVE ROAD THAT SERVES FIVE PEOPLE.
NO, ARGUMENT, THERE IS A BENEFIT BECAUSE THERE'S A CALL THE SAC, AND NOW A TURNAROUND FOR THE PUBLIC.
YEAH. BUT IT'S A CONSIDERATION.
>> YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT, BESIDES, I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE.
YEAH, SO THE OTHER ONE IS THE STATUS OF THE PROPOSED LAKE ACCESS OUT LOT 6 IS UNCLEAR.
AS THE DEVELOPER DESCRIBED THEIR INTENT FOR THIS LOT AGAIN, SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT HERE, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SITUATION IN THAT IN THAT ASK, AS FAR AS WHAT IS ASKED OF US, AS MORE SO PERHAPS FOR THE APPLICANT FOR FATION REASONS TO ADDRESS THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK.
NUMBER 3 IS THE DEVELOPERS PLANS SHOW BUILDING PADS, THEY SHOULD CONFIRM IS THEIR INTENT TO CREATE BUILDING PADS TO ESTABLISH A NEW EXISTING GRADE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT DETERMINATION AS PART OF THE PLAT, WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION GRADING.
AGAIN, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ASK FOR US, BUT I'M JUST PROVIDING THAT AS FEEDBACK FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THAT DOES DICTATE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT'S PROBABLY STAFF FEEDBACK.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY'D LIKE PROPOSED IS TO BE TABLED.
>> I THINK THAT THAT'S ALREADY BEING ADDRESSED, AND THAT'S AN ASK OF THE APPLICANT, SO HOPEFULLY THEY CAN ADDRESS THAT.
FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT CALCULATES THE WET VERSUS DRY AREAS.
AS COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON MENTIONED, AS WELL.
I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT OF WET LINES HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS A DETERMINATION BETWEEN WET AND DRY BUILDABLE.
IF EACH LOT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE CONTIGUOUS DRY AREA REQUIRED BY THE CITY CODE.
ADDITIONALLY, IT IS UNCLEAR IF THE STEEP SLOPES AND BLUFFS HAVE BEEN ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS AND SUBSEQUENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE LOT AREA CALCULATIONS DEVELOPER SHOULD SUBMIT UPDATED PLANS TO REFLECT THE CALCULATIONS IN THE FORMAT REQUIRED BY CITY CODE.
SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS OKAY WITH BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WHEN WE CIRCLE THE RUNWAY AGAIN.
LOT 5 DOES NOT MEET CITY'S STANDARDS FOR LOT WITH OR AREA WITH LOT FIVE SHOULD BE REVISED TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS.
I THINK WE'VE BEATEN THAT HORSE TO DEATH.
DOES THE COMMISSION FIND THE PROPOSED PLAN PRESERVES THE EXISTING RURAL CHARACTER IN THE AREA? YEAH. THAT MAY BE ONE FOR US TO MAYBE HAVE SOME COMMENTS THAT I DON'T THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED.
WE'VE GOT SOME REQUIREMENTS AS A CITY FOR PRESERVATION.
THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, AS FAR AS THE DIMENSION DIAMETER OF TREES THAT IS PART OF HOW WE DEFINE AS A CITY, WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND NOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION AS FAR AS HOW THE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOW THE REPLANTING IS GOING TO WORK, BUT HOPEFULLY, THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT CAN MAYBE ALSO ADDRESS, BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> WELL, I GUESS MY THOUGHT ON IT.
A LOT OF THAT'S ADDRESSED IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN.
RIGHT. BUT IF THIS HAS SOME CONSIDERABLE CHANGES, BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT TIME WE SEE IT, ASSUMING IT GETS TABLED.
THAT'S PROBABLY A DISCUSSION THAT SHOULD BE AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE'D BE DISCUSSING STUFF THAT WE DON'T KNOW EXISTS, RIGHT IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO GO AHEAD.
[01:40:03]
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY THAT THE REQUIRED TREES ARE BOULEVARD TREES, AND THEY'RE NOT LIKE LOOKING AT THEY'RE NOT RELATED TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THE CALIPER OF THE TREES REQUIRED THE MINIMUM CALIPER IS QUITE SMALL COMPARED TO WHAT IS PROBABLY OUT THERE, BUT THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT WE APPLY TO SUBDIVISION BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING.
>> SO I MEAN, THE WAY OUR RULES ARE IN PLACE FOR OUR CITY, IN A WAY, THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SUBDIVISION, SO THE DIAMETER CALLING OUT FOR TWO INCHES, IF THAT'S BEING MET, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO ASK FOR MORE.
PERHAPS THAT COULD BE AN OLIVE BRANCH OF DISCUSSION.
>> I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED PLAN AND WHETHER IT PRESERVES THE EXISTING RURAL CHARACTER.
IT GOES BEYOND JUST THE BOULEVARD TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
YEAH, CODE AND MORE LIKE THE OVERALL LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN AND WHETHER IT PRESERVES THAT CHARACTER, AND MOST OF THAT GETS ADDRESSED IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN DOCUMENT, WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY CHANGE IF THE LAYOUT CHANGES.
I DO BELIEVE THERE'S FLEXIBILITY ON THE BOULEVARD TREES.
I KNOW THAT'S COME UP MANY TIMES BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CODE.
IT SAYS X AMOUNT OF TREES PER FOOT OF ROAD.
THEY'RE CALLED OUT AS BOULEVARD TREES, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD FLEXIBILITY ON THAT TO PUT THEM IN A MORE NATURAL SPACING VERSUS JUST BOULEVARD TREES RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER.
SOMETIMES THAT WORKS, AND SOMETIMES IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HAVE IT MORE OF BUFFER TREES OR A MORE NATURAL LOOK.
>> SO WE WANT TO HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THAT OR DO WE HAVE NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION?
>> IS ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON ON THAT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE? WELL, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF ENTERTAINING A MOTION.
I THINK THERE'S SO MUCH STUFF THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE SEE THIS AGAIN.
ASSUMING THAT MOTION IS TO TABLE, BUT IF THERE'S OTHER MOTIONS, I'D ENTERTAIN THOSE AS WELL.
>> WELL, I MEAN, IT GETS THROUGH OUR LIST, SO AT LEAST THAT ACCOMPLISHES THE FIRST PART WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DELIBERATING IF EVERYTHING'S HERE, SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES GOOD FEEDBACK FOR THE APPLICANT ON A HIT LIST IF YOU WILL.
IF THERE'S NOT FURTHER DISUSSION, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOTION TO.
>> I'LL JUST GOT ONE CON, PLEASE.
SO I THINK IN ORDER, THIS IS A DRASTIC CHANGE, BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBDIVIDE IT RIGHT.
I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT LANGUAGE REALLY YOU'VE SEEN THIS ONE THE ORONO GOLF COURSE, NOT THE ORNEL GOLF COURSE.
I FORGET THE NAME OF IT. LAKE LAKE VIEW.
YOU SEE THAT BIG BUFFER ZONE OFF THE ROAD THERE.
THERE'S SOME COMPROMISES THERE.
SO I THINK WITH THESE OUTLAWS WHERE THEY'RE NOT BUILDABLE, DEFINITELY GET A GOOD LANGUAGE IN THEIR CONSERVATION EASEMENT, SO THOSE JUST STAY NATURAL, I THINK WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION. GREAT POINT.
>> ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> SURE. MOTION TO TABLE LA24-59.
>> I THINK MARK BEAT YOU TO THAT ONE.
I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON.
WOULD YOU LIKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN THIS COMES BEFORE US AGAIN. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?
>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
I'M SURE COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON WOULD SECOND THAT AS WELL.
>> A MOTION TO TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> IT'LL BE UP TO WHEN THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AMENDED PLANS, BUT WE COULD ANTICIPATE THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
LET ME GET YOU THE DATE JUST SO IT'S NOTED.
>> TUESDAY, JANUARY 21ST IS OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> I ALREADY HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
[01:45:03]
ACTUALLY, BEFORE I START THIS ONE, DOES ANYONE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK AT ALL?OUR NEXT APPLICANT HERE IS LA24-60,
[5.5. LA24-000060, TVL Studios, 755 Tonkawa Rd, Conditional Use Permit for Retaining Walls (Matthew Karney)]
TVL STUDIOS, 755 TONKAWA ROAD.THIS IS A CUP FOR RETAINING WALLS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR BOLLIS, PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS A CASE, LA24-60, 755 TONKAWA ROAD.
THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A REPLACEMENT OF A DECK AND RETAINING WALLS ON THE LAKE SHORE.
ACCORDING TO OUR REGULATIONS, A WALL IN THE SHORE SETBACK ZONE WITHIN A DEFINED BLUFF AND BLUFF SETBACK, A REPLACEMENT WALL FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT OR GREATER, OR ANY NEW WALLS SHALL REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
EXISTING WALLS ARE UP TO SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT A SLIGHT REDUCTION HERE AT APPROXIMATELY 5', 6 " AT THE END OF THE DAY.
BUT REALLY, WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, ARE THEY DESIGNED TO CORRECT AND ESTABLISH EROSION PROBLEM? THIS HOUSE, WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1960S, ALSO CAME WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DECK AND LAKEFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MOST PART.
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DECADES HERE WHERE WE'VE HAD SLOPE STABILITY PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WE SEE RIGHT HERE.
ULTIMATELY, WE HAVE SEEN A DEMONSTRATED AND ESTABLISHED EROSION PROBLEM IN THE AREA, AND BASED ON WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED THAT WE HAVE IN THIS LOWER IMAGE HERE, WE DO FIND THAT THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR SLOPE STABILITY ALONG THIS LAKEFRONT.
ADDITIONALLY, WE DO ASK THAT IT'S PREPARED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, WHICH IT IS.
ADDITIONALLY, THAT IS DESIGNED TO THE MINIMUM SIZE NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION PROBLEM.
AT THIS POINT, I'D ALLUDE TO THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN HARD COVER AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSAL.
THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS OVER 200 SQUARE FEET, BUT THE PROPOSED IS GOING DOWN ROUGHLY TO, I WANT TO SAY, IT REDUCES BY ABOUT 133 SQUARE FEET WITH THIS PROPOSAL, SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE REALLY WITH A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS.
ADDITIONALLY, AS WE GET INTO SOME OF THE FURTHER CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AS WELL, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT AT THE END OF THE DAY TO FIND CONFORMANCE WITH VISUAL IMPACT, AND REALLY THAT COMES INTO PLAY WITH SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING.
THE IMAGE I HAVE DOWN HERE SHOWS SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING THAT IS PROPOSED.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TWO OPTIONS FOR LANDSCAPING, WHICH WERE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PACKET.
HOWEVER, I'M CHOOSING TO HIGHLIGHT OPTION NUMBER 2, AS THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED IT.
IT HAS A MORE PERMANENT PERMANENCE, I GUESS, TO THE LANDSCAPING FEATURES THAT WE HAVE HERE FOR SCREENING THE RETAINING WALLS AT THE LOWER LEVEL HERE.
REALLY, THE ONLY THING I ASK OF YOU, PLANNING COMMISSION, IN YOUR DISCUSSION IS THE SUFFICIENT SCREENING FOR THESE RETAINING WALLS AS THEY'RE BEING PROPOSED HERE.
IS THERE MORE THAT COULD BE DONE TO ACHIEVE BETTER SCREENING FROM LAKE MINNETONKA? ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SIGNATURES FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL.
WITH THAT, ASSUMING THAT WE OPERATE WITH THE OPTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE AS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING PROVIDED TO SCREEN THESE RETAINING WALLS, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, 3255 GARFIELD AVENUE, SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.
WE'RE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF RECORD DESIGNING THIS FOR OUR CLIENT MS. ANDREW NELSON.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR ABOUT FOUR MONTHS NOW.
IT'S PART OF A GREATER LANDSCAPE PROJECT, WHICH IS LOOKING TO ENHANCE THE PROPERTY AS THE HOME WAS PREVIOUSLY BUILT IN 1960, AND IT'S PRETTY FAMOUS.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR, BUT IT WAS DONE BY JOHN HOWE, THE FAMOUS ARCHITECT THAT WAS DRAFTSMAN FOR FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT.
HE'S NOTORIOUS FOR A BUNCH OF HOUSES IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA AREA, AND THIS IS ONE OF HIS CLASSICS.
[01:50:01]
IT'S GOT SOME HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHARACTERISTICS, AND WE'VE BEEN TAILORED TO ASSIST WITH RESTORING THE LANDSCAPE TO ITS CURRENT STANDARDS AND ENHANCE THEM TO MATCH THE PREVIOUS DESIGN THAT WAS PUT FORTH BACK IN 1960.I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND TALK THROUGH THE DESIGN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE. THANK YOU. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF 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 UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> I'M NOT A FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT GURU, BUT I DO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM, AND I JUST LOVE JUST THE NATURAL USE OF STONE AND WOOD.
I THINK IT'S A REALLY CLEVER DESIGN.
AS FAR AS THE SCREENING, IT IS SUCH A STEEP SPOT WHERE IF YOU PUT ANY BIG TREES THERE, IT WOULD JUST FALL OVER.
I THINK IT FITS IN WELL WITH THE ARCHITECTURE, AND IT'S REDUCING THE FOOTPRINT, WHICH WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF BY 70 SQUARE FEET.
SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GET INTO A BLUFF AND YOU GET RETAINING WALLS, YOU'D BE SURPRISED WHAT WE SEE HERE.
THIS LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY GOOD PLAN AND A GOOD SOLUTION, SO I'D BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> YEAH, I LIKE THAT. THERE'S DECADES OF HISTORY HERE WITH THE SLOPE, AND WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE.
I LIKE THAT IT'S APPARENTLY THE MINIMUM TO RETAIN THIS AND MAKE IT LOOK PLEASING.
REDUCING THE HARD COVER, REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE WALLS, I THINK IT'S A GREAT DESIGN.
I DO LIKE THAT OPTION TOO FOR THE LANDSCAPING AS WELL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA24-60 AS APPLIED.
I ALREADY HAVE A SECOND BY RESSLER. YOU MISSED IT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
DO WE NEED TO PICK OPTION 2? IS THAT PART OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN THIS MOTION?
>> I THINK THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION WRITTEN IS THAT YOU AGREE THAT THE LANDSCAPING PROVIDED IS SUFFICIENT.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY ACCEPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS PROVIDED.
>> PERFECT. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[5.6. LA24-000062, Text Amendment: Sections 78-1 and 78-823 Industrial Uses (Laura Oakden)]
THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 78-1 AND 78-823.THIS IS THE INDUSTRIAL USES. MS. OAKDEN.
>> YES. TONIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU IS A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT.
OCTOBER OF 2024, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION, REVIEWED AN APPLICATION FOR A GARAGE CONDO BUSINESS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
AT THAT TIME, GARAGE CONDOS ARE NOT LISTED AS A USE IN THAT DISTRICT.
AS A RESULT, FOLLOWING STAFF'S GUIDANCE, THE COMMISSION GAVE DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO PURSUE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER A GARAGE CONDOS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
SINCE THEN, THAT APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AS WE ARE PURSUING THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.
TODAY, THE CITY CODE LISTS INSIDE STORAGE OR WAREHOUSING AS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS DISTRICT, IT ALSO LISTS WAREHOUSE CONVERSION TO MINI STORAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THIS DISTRICT.
STAFF IS SUGGESTING GARAGE CONDOS BE CONSIDERED AN INTENSIFICATION OF STORAGE OR WAREHOUSING.
GARAGE CONDOS ARE PROPOSED TO BE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED AND ARE DESIGNED TO ALLOW OWNERS TO CUSTOMIZE AND FULLY BUILD OUT THESE UNITS TO INCLUDE POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES WITH HEATED FLOORS, SEWER, WATER IN EACH UNIT.
RESIDENTIAL USE IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND IS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN THIS DISTRICT WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE THE UNITS WILL BE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AN ASSOCIATION IS DEVELOPED TO SET EXPECTATIONS OF USE AND ADDRESS MAINTENANCE IN THE COMMON AND SHARED IMPROVEMENT AREAS, SUCH AS DRIVE AISLE, SIDING, ROOFING, LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWATER AREAS.
ADDITIONALLY, GARAGE CONDOS AND OTHER CITIES HAVE BEEN USED FOR GATHERINGS AND/OR LOCATIONS FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS.
ORONO'S INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT HAS LIMITED SPACE AND ACCESSIBILITY,
[01:55:04]
WHICH WOULD MAKE LARGE EVENTS OR GATHERINGS LOGISTICALLY CHALLENGING.THE COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THE LISTED CONDITIONS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
I THINK I HAVE SEVEN CONDITIONS.
I'M HAPPY TO READ THOSE OR GO OVER THOSE, AS WELL AS A DRAFT DEFINITION, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO LIST GARAGE CONDOS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
THEN THE CONDITIONS I HAVE WRITTEN ARE NO EXTERIOR PARKING OR STORAGE IS PERMITTED FOR LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.
A PARKING PLAN MUST BE PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE ACCESSIBILITY.
THE PREMISE SHALL NOT BE USED OR CUSTOMIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING PURPOSES OR COMMUNITY GATHERINGS OR EVENTS.
THE PREMISE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OPERATION OF A BUSINESS OR FOR RETAIL PURPOSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR.
THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT MINOR MAINTENANCE, CARE, UPKEEP OF MOTOR VEHICLES, BOATS, TRAILERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITHIN THE STORAGE UNITS.
MANAGEMENT, USE, AND CUSTOMIZATION OF THE GARAGE CONDOS, INCLUDING COMMON AREAS AND INDIVIDUAL UNITS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH ASSOCIATION RULES SHALL BE PLACED ADEQUATE CONTROLS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE.
THE PREMISE SHALL MAINTAIN ADEQUATE ACCESS TO INDIVIDUAL UNITS IN ANY COMMON AREAS OR OFFICE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SNOW REMOVAL AND STORAGE.
THE PREMISE SHALL CONTAIN SUFFICIENT LIGHTING AND OR SECURITY MEASURES TO DETER, MITIGATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND ENSURE ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE.
THEN ANY INDIVIDUAL UNITS THAT IS CONNECTED TO SEWER AND WATER SHALL BE INDIVIDUALLY METERED.
THOSE ARE THE TOP CONDITIONS I HAVE IDENTIFIED WITH THIS TYPE OF USE.
THERE WAS ONE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT CAME IN THAT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I GOT ONE. MAYBE WE CAN'T ANSWER.
NOW THAT YOU'RE BLURRING, FOR BUILDING CODE AROUND IT, YOU JUST GOT [INAUDIBLE] PASSED BY ENGINEERING.
I ASSUME THAT WHEN WE CALL A GARAGE CONDO, THAT IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME BUILDING CODE AS IF YOU WERE GOING TO BUILD A LIVABLE STRUCTURE WITH THE FOOTINGS AND EVERYTHING.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN'T PUT IT LIKE ON A SLAB.
>> THIS STRUCTURE, WELL, IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, THAT WILL HAVE TO MEET STATE BUILDING CODE FOR HOW IT'S CONSTRUCTED.
THERE'S SOME NUANCE IN THE BUILDING CODE WHEN IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUILDING VERSUS INDUSTRIAL BUILDING VERSUS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
AT THIS TIME, WE'RE CLASSIFIED.
THIS IS OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONE, THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE, AND WE WOULD REVIEW THIS AS AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
>> YOU SAID THIS IS VIEWED AS AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NOBODY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE CAN BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I GUESS I HEARD SEVEN CONDITIONS BEING PROPOSED.
MY THOUGHTS ON THOSE SEVEN, I THINK THEY'RE REASONABLE.
THERE IS ONE, I'M TRYING TO READ IT FROM THIS FAR AWAY.
>> MELANIE, DO YOU WANT TO ZOOM IN ON LETTER C, JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER?
>> THIS IS ALSO THE ONE THAT WE HAD THE SINGLE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT.
I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS BECAUSE, I GUESS, IF I REMEMBER THE APPLICATION THAT WE RECENTLY HAD, THE IDEA WAS THAT, LET'S SAY, THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL GARAGES FOR USE, BUT A BUSINESS COULD ALSO HAVE A GARAGE THAT USES IT TO STORE THEIR PLUMBING TRUCKS OR SO ON AND SO FORTH.
ITEM C IS EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED UNDER ITEM C. BUT I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T WANT THESE TO BE COMMERCIAL SALES FRONTS.
I'M LOOKING AT THAT, AND THINK, IT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE.
BUT THERE'S THAT FINE LINE WHERE IF YOU AREN'T THIS RESTRICTIVE, IT COULD BECOME SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT IT TO BECOME.
ANY OPINIONS FROM THE COMMISSION ABOUT BUSINESS USE?
>> WELL, I THINK WE'VE SEEN THE GARAGE CONDOS OPERATE BOTH WAYS LOCALLY.
[02:00:01]
THERE'S BEEN GOOD AND BAD OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT'S IN THERE IS CONCERNS OVER PARKING. CORRECT?>> YEAH, SO IT'S IN THERE FOR A FEW REASONS.
ONE RETAIL AND HAVING CUSTOMERS ACCESS THIS SITE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NECESSARILY WANT TO ENCOURAGE OR ALLOW.
THIS IS A PRIVATELY OWNED FACILITY, PRIVATELY OWNED ROADS, AND INDIVIDUALLY OWNED UNITS MANAGED BY AN ASSOCIATION.
HAVING A RETAIL FRONT IS COUNTER TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS TYPE OF USE.
GOING THE ONE STEP FURTHER THAT THIS CONDITION LIST IS USED FOR OPERATION OF A BUSINESS.
STAFFS THINKING BEHIND THAT WAS WE DON'T WANT NECESSARILY SOMEONE OPERATING THEIR BUSINESS, HAVING THEIR MAILING ADDRESS.
THERE MIGHT BE CONCERNS WITH MAYBE DELIVERIES, WHETHER THAT'S UNLOADING LARGE TRUCKS OR THOSE TYPES OF SEMI ACCESSIBILITY TYPE THING.
SO THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF A BUSINESS IS WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO MAYBE I MEAN, LIKE COMMISSIONER BALLAS NOTED, IT'S A FINE LINE ON HOW TO DESCRIBE THIS.
WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE INTENSIFIED AND OVERCOMERED, THE INTENTS OF A GARAGE CONDO OR WE BELIEVE THE INTENT OF A GARAGE CONDO IS PERSONAL USE, STORAGE, MAINTENANCE OF YOUR PRIVATE.
AMENITIES, YOUR PRIVATE VEHICLES, AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
IF PEOPLE WANT TO BUY IT AND HAVE STORAGE THERE, THAT SEEMS REASONABLE, BUT TO OPERATE A BUSINESS OUT OF IT IS COUNTER TO WHAT THE DESCRIBED USE IS.
THAT BEING SAID, IF A BUSINESS BOUGHT IT AND JUST STORED, THINGS THERE AND CAME AND PICK IT UP AND HAULED IT AWAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY TOO INTENSIVE A USE, BUT TO OPERATE A BUSINESS SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A NEXT LEVEL IN STAFF'S MIND, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR KIND OF DISCRETION WAS WITH THAT LANGUAGE.
>> QUESTION, IF I MAY. I'M READING THIS ITEM NUMBER C HERE.
IT SAYS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR.
THAT ALMOST TO ME SOUNDS LIKE YOU COULD DO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR THERE.
I WONDER IF THAT SHOULD BE EITHER DELETED?
>> THE PREMISE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OPERATIONAL BUSINESS OR FOR RETAIL PURPOSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR.
SO THE PREMISE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR.
THAT'S WHAT THAT SENTENCE IS SAYING.
IT'S SAYING INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO BECAUSE THERE'S A WIDE RANGE.
WHAT'S AUTO REPAIR? THERE'S MINOR, THERE'S MAJOR, THERE'S CAR PAINTING, THERE'S FIXING.
I MEAN, THERE'S BODYWORK, THERE'S A WIDE RANGE.
I THINK THAT'S JUST COMING FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY AS A COMMON TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT POPS UP IN THESE GARAGE IN GARAGE CONDOS, IS INSTEAD OF GOING TO AN ACTUAL AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SHOP IN RENTING A BAY TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS.
THEY PURCHASE ONE OF THESE AND START OPERATING THEIR BUSINESS OUT OF HERE.
>> TO ME, IT WOULD BE CLEAR IF YOU WOULD SAY RETAIL PURPOSES PERIOD AND DELETE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AUTO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR.
>> I THINK THE POINT WAS TO SPECIFICALLY LIST THAT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A COMMON BUSINESS THAT IS SEEN IN THIS.
>> I THINK THE PART THAT I STRUGGLE WITH IS HOW DO YOU DEFINE OPERATING A BUSINESS.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A CENTRALIZED PLACE FOR FLEET, I THINK OF, LIKE, AN ELECTRICIAN.
WE'VE GOT THREE VANS THAT THEY MAYBE HAVE INVENTORY.
THAT'S THEIR PLACE OF THEIR STARTING POINT EVERY SINGLE DAY BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT EMPLOYEES THAT ARE COMING AND GOING OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
TO ME, IS THAT OPERATING A BUSINESS? YEP. ARE THEY MEETING CLIENTS THERE? NO. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING TO OPERATE A BUSINESS WHERE YOU'RE HOSTING CLIENTS THERE AND REQUIRING AN ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THAT, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THE CONCERN COMES FROM, BUT IF THERE IS A MENTION OF DELIVERIES, THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
BUT I JUST WONDER IF WE NEED TO DEFINE OPERATING A BUSINESS OUT OF THERE, TOO.
>> BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD GOES TO.
THIS ITEM C BASICALLY ELIMINATES ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE AT ALL, AND ANYONE THAT WOULD BE IN THERE IN A BUSINESS WOULD BE FLYING UNDER THE RADAR.
I DON'T THINK I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THIS WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE TO SOMEONE THAT HAS A BUSINESS TO USE IT FOR GARAGE SPACE, BUT THIS WOULD PROHIBIT THAT BECAUSE THEY'D BE OPERATING A BUSINESS OUT OF THERE.
NOT NECESSARILY. ALL OPERATIONS ARE COMING YOUR STORAGE IS PART OF YOUR OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS.
SO THAT'S WHERE I JUST I STRUGGLE WITH THAT ONE.
[02:05:03]
I GUESS THE THOUGHT IS, IS THE THOUGHT TO HAVE ZERO BUSINESS OPERATION OUT OF THERE? THEN THIS WORKS.IF THE THOUGHT IS THAT IT WOULD BE A PLUMBER COULD BUY ONE OF THESE UNITS AND STORES ADVANCE THERE OR A LAWN CARRIER COULD STORE MOWERS THERE.
I GUESS IT'S IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
>> THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE. BECAUSE WE'RE PRETTY LIMITED IN THAT SPACE IN THE FIRST PLACE, ELIMINATING THE WHOLE CONDUCTION OF BUSINESS IN AN INDUSTRIAL SPACE.
STARTS MAKING ME LEAN THAT THAT'S NOT PROBABLY FOR WHAT SHOULD BE ZONED INDUSTRIAL.
IT'S ALMOST RESIDENTIAL AT THAT POINT, IF IT'S NO BUSINESS OPERATION AT ALL.
I'M NOT SAYING I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE OPEN THIS UP TO INDUSTRIAL ZONING OR MAKING THIS SOMETHING THAT'S ACCEPTABLE IN THE INDUSTRIAL I'M SORRY, IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SEEMS TO BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE THAT WE'RE THAT WE WOULD BE ELIMINATING BUSINESS IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE AREA.
THEY'RE SO LIMITED. THAT AGAIN, I'M JUST THINKING THIS THROUGH OUT LOUD A LITTLE BIT.
>> I GUESS THE OTHER ARGUMENT TO THAT IS, IT'S WHAT IS THE DESIGN FOR? THIS IS DESIGNED FOR SMALLER USE, NOT AS INTENSE AS THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE THAT IT'S IN.
IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE SITE PLAN OF THAT.
LIKE CAN THERE BE CARS GOING IN AND OUT EVERY SINGLE DAY VERSUS LIKE A SECONDARY GARAGE FOR SOMEBODY? I'M FULLY IN FAVOR OF THE LIKE, OPERATING A BUSINESS OUT OF THERE THAT'S PRIMARY OPERATION OF A BUSINESS OR RETAIL OR B TO C? I DON'T THINK THAT I DON'T THINK THIS WORKS FOR THAT AT ALL.
BUT I COULD GET BEHIND JOE THE PLUMBER HAVING HIS VANS.
>> AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I'M IMAGINING THINGS.
I MEAN, SO IS THERE LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN CONSTRUCT THAT TALKS ABOUT, OPERATING A BUSINESS FOR EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEES ONLY, IF YOU WILL.
AT LEAST YOU'RE CALLING OUT THAT IT'S NOT A PLACE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS, BUT IT'S A PLACE FOR YOU TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH YOUR EMPLOYEES OPERATIONALLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE, BUT I MEAN, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE DEFINING MOMENT, WOULDN'T IT?
>> SO JUST TO JUMP IN ON THE DISCUSSION.
I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS REALLY CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR SUGGESTION WAS THE PREMISE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OPERATION OF A BUSINESS FOR RETAIL PURPOSE, JUST DELETING THE WORD OR IN THAT.
MEANING BUSINESS CAN OPERATE JUST NOT FOR RETAIL.
MEAN NO CUSTOMERS, NO SHOW ROOMS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT WOULD SIMPLIFY THIS CODE AND OPEN IT UP FOR SOME BUSINESS.
WE COULD ALSO THEN TALK ABOUT MAYBE LISTING SOMETHING THAT IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS, WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH? SOUNDS LIKE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING IS SOMETHING YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH OR WANTING TO ALLOW.
THE PREMISE MAY BE USED FOR BUSINESSES FOR STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING, BUT NOT BE USED FOR OTHER OPERATIONS, AND INCLUDING, BUT LIMITED TO RETAIL PURPOSES AND CONTINUE ON WITH OUR SENTENCE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I COULD INCLUDE THE WORD STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING AS MAY BE PERMITTED OR MAY BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THIS CON I MEAN, THESE ARE CONDITIONS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
IT'S NOT JUST SAYING REVOCABLE PERMITTED EVERY SINGLE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT.
I CAN DEFINITELY PUT IN LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS BUSINESS FOR STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH AN APPROPRIATE SITE PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO DO A SITE PLAN REVIEW EVERY TIME YOU DO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
>> A PARKING PLAN IS PART OF YOUR.
>> I LISTED UP THERE. A PARKING PLAN IS REQUIRED, A LIGHTING PLAN IS REQUIRED.
ALL THESE THINGS ARE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I DEFINITELY CAN ADD A SENTENCE IN THERE.
IF STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING IS WHERE WE'RE LIMITED.
I MEAN, WE SEE THAT THAT'S A PERMITTED USE IN THE IN THE DISTRICT.
THAT SEEMS LIKE AN OPEN EASY DOOR TO OPEN.
IF THERE'S OTHER USES, I'M OPEN TO OTHER SUGGESTIONS, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY ADD A SENTENCE LIKE THAT IN THERE FOR COUNSEL TO CONSIDER OR FOR YOU TO RE-LOOK AT, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANT TO DO THIS.
I'M A BELIEVER IN THE KISS PIP.
I'M KEEPING IT SIMPLE, STUPID.
WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE FACT WHAT YOU HAVE HERE SO FAR IS IT SAYS THERE'S NO BUSINESS ALLOWED PERIOD.
THE MINUTE YOU BRING OTHER OPTIONS IN MAKES PEOPLE THINK MORE ABOUT WHAT OTHER THINGS THEY CAN THEY DO.
SO BY HAVING THE WAIT IS IT'S DEAD SIMPLE.
[02:10:01]
THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS ALLOWED.>> I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO INTENT.
WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PIECE OF THE CODE, AND IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE EXTREMELY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL USE? BECAUSE THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL USE, THEY ALLOW STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING.
THIS WOULD THEN SAY, YOU CAN CREATE SMALLER STORAGE SPACES AND SMALLER GARAGES, BUT WE WON'T LET YOU USE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSE.
WHICH I THINK IS KIND OF A STEP BACKWARDS.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT THESE CHANGING THIS CODE AND LOOKING AT A FUTURE PROJECT, YOU WANT THAT PROJECT TO BE SUCCESSFUL, AND YOU DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T SELL NECESSARILY AND DOESN'T FIT THE USE.
THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, HAVE STUFF FLYING UNDER THE RADAR SO THAT USE CAN HAPPEN.
BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT OPERATING A BUSINESS IF IT WERE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING, I THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE IN A DISTRICT THAT WE ALREADY ACCEPT STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING.
SO I'D BE FOR THOSE CHANGES THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING.
BUT I WOULD STILL ELIMINATE LIKE THE B TO C, THE RETAIL PIECE OF IT, THE AUTOMOBILE REPAIR AS A BUSINESS VERSUS, JOE BLOW THAT HAS HIS CAR IN THERE AND HE'S DOING SOME MAINTENANCE ON HIS VEHICLE.
I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY FINE IN HIS OWN GARAGE.
>> I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU FOR I THOUGHT YOU MEANT YOU ELIMINATING THE LANGUAGE PROHIBITING IT.
>> NO. I DEFINITELY THINK THOSE TYPES SHOULD BE PROHIBITED BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DESIGNED TO THOSE STANDARDS.
>> JUST AN OVERALL CONCEPT OF WHICH I RAISE A PROBLEM WITHOUT A SOLUTION.
BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I THINK OF THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT TO RELATE THE USE TO THE AVAILABLE PARKING.
I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE NOT TO HAVE RETAIL GOING ON BECAUSE IF YOU DID HAVE RETAIL GOING ON, YOU'D NEED A LOT OF PARKING.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING MORE THAN WHAT THE DEVELOPERS HAVE IN MIND.
BUT SIMILARLY, THE NEED FOR PARKING IS GRADATION AMONG VARIOUS USES.
THE NEXT STEP DOWN WOULD BE OFFICE USE.
IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO USE SPACE FOR OFFICE AND PUT AS MANY DESKS IN THERE AS THEY COULD FIT, AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING.
WELL, THEN YOU NEED ALMOST AS MUCH PARKING AS RETAIL.
THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO INDUSTRIAL USES, THEN YOU CAN GET BY WITH LESS, BUT YOU STILL NEED SOME, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT EMPLOYEES AND SO ON.
THEN, OF COURSE, THE MINIMAL STORE PARKING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE JUST FOR PURE STORAGE.
SOMEBODY PUTS THEIR RV IN THERE FOR.
SOMETIMES IT COULD BE A YEAR OR MORE, AND THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN SEE IT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THEY DECIDE TO GO SOMEPLACE.
BUT SO HOW YOU MANAGE ALL OF THAT IN AN ORDINANCE IS REALLY CHALLENGING.
ALSO TO THAT, YOU ADD THE VARIABLE OF SOME MIGHT BE OWNED, SOME MIGHT BE LEASED, BUT EVEN IF THEY'RE OWNED, THEY MIGHT BE OWNED FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN THEY SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
THEN THE NEXT USER HAS GOT A DIFFERENT USE IN MIND THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE.
THEN EVEN IF YOU GO ON THE HIGH SIDE FOR PARKING, RIGHT, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE COVERED.
WELL, THERE COULD BE A DANGER IN HAVING TOO MUCH.
DANGER IN HAVING TOO MUCH WOULD BE THAT THEN PEOPLE WILL START USING THE OUTSIDE PARKING FOR STORAGE.
THEY'VE GOT AN OLD CAR THAT DOESN'T RUN, AND THEY JUST LEAVE IN THERE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
BUT THAT THING, WHICH IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF SPACE AVAILABLE, THAT GETS TO BE TIPPING.
[02:15:02]
BUT MY QUANDARY THAT HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WITH MORE TIME TO SPEND ON IT THAN ME WILL BE ABLE TO, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE THAT TIE-IN.I THINK MAYBE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION SHOULD COME FROM THE DEVELOPER TOO AS TO WHAT EXACT WHAT HAVE YOU GOT IN MIND FOR YOUR BALANCE OF WHO YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO BE AND THAT THING.
>> THANK YOU. YOU BRING UP SOME GOOD POINTS.
YOU DO TOUCH ON PARKING, NO OVERNIGHT PARKING.
I'M ASSUMING THAT IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME WITH AN APPLICATION, STAFF WOULD HAVE A METRIC TO APPLY TO THE PARKING FOR THIS TYPE OF USE, OR SHOULD WE BE CALLING OUT A METRIC IN THIS.
>> WE'RE IDENTIFYING THIS AS A SEPARATE USE.
WE DO NOT HAVE A STANDALONE METRIC.
WE IDENTIFY THAT A PARKING PLAN NEEDS TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE DEVELOPER, AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF THAT PARKING PLAN IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED USE.
THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A SO WE HAVE A DIFFERENT OFF-STREET PARKING SECTION IN OUR CITY CODE.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A METRIC.
I'M NOT PROPOSING A METRIC FOR THIS, BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE, THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU JUST SAW LAST MONTH, THEY WERE ANTICIPATING THAT ALL PARKING WOULD BE DONE WITHIN EVERY UNIT AND WE WERE ABLE TO PARK AND ACCESS IT.
INDIVIDUAL OWNERS WERE ABLE TO ACCESS AND PROVIDE A PARKING STALL WITHIN EACH UNIT.
SO NO OFF UNITS OR COMMUNITY PARKING SPACES WERE NECESSARY.
A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT, IF THAT ONE DOESN'T COME TO FRUITION, MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION, MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT PLAN.
SO I TRIED TO LEAVE IT MORE OPEN-ENDED AND LISTED AS A CONDITION WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED BASED ON THE SITE PLANS FORWARD.
>> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE DISCRETION WHEN THEY'RE APPLYING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WE CAN, WE I THINK OF THE DOGGIE DAYCARE APPLICATION THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHERE THEY WERE CALLING OUT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE MULTIPLE VEHICLES COMING IN AND GOING AND WE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE INTEREST IN WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH PARKING AND AVAILABILITY.
SO THAT'S GOOD, COMFORTING TO KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE THAT ADDRESSED WHEN SOMEBODY HAS A CUPE, AND THEN IT GETS IN FRONT OF US, AND THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO US HOW THEY'RE GONNA BILL IT.
SO COOL. IS THAT GOOD FEEDBACK? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION ON THIS.
I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION, IF ANYONE'S WILLING TO MAKE ONE OR READY TO MAKE ONE, I GUESS.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE OF THE TEXT AMEND BASED ON DISCUSSION, OR HOW DO WE DO?
WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN HERE IS THAT ITEM C, YOU'D LIKE TO ADD A CAVEAT TO ALLOW FOR STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING OF A PROPOSED BUSINESS USE.
SO I HAVE IT IN HERE TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT WOULD OPEN THAT UP.
SO I WOULD SAY MOTION TO APPROVE FOLLOWING THE DRAFTED ORDINANCE WITH THE PROVIDED AMENDMENT REGARDING STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING FOR A BUSINESS.
>> AND THE ONLY OTHER THING JUST TO CLARIFY, MY OWN COMMENT WOULD BE, WHEN I THINK OF WAREHOUSING, I THINK OF NOBODY AROUND, I THINK YOU RECOGNIZE THE INTENT, YOU'RE PROBABLY BETTER AT WORD SMITHING, BUT OPERATING AS A HUB OR OPERATING AS A BASE IS WHAT I WAS THINKING WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF AS LONG AS IT'S NOT CUSTOMER FACING OR CUSTOMER MEETING OPERATIONS.
>> YEAH AND I WOULD KEEP THE LANGUAGE IN LETTER C, BASICALLY LIKE IT IS, BUT FOLLOWING THAT THE OPERATION CANNOT BE USED FOR RETAIL PURPOSES AND I'D LEAVE THE LANGUAGE THERE AND THEN I WOULD PROBABLY ADD A SENTENCE INTO THAT REGARDING BUSINESS OPERATION MAY BE PERMITTED FOR STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, FOLLOWING A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN FOR MANEUVERABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY.
IS A RANGE OF THE LANGUAGE I WAS CONSIDERING? I WOULD ALSO RUN THAT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LANGUAGE THAT'S USED THROUGHOUT OUR CODE AND THEN I COULD BRING THAT DRAFT TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IF THAT'S YOUR NEXT MOVE.
>> I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I THINK IT WOULD I THINK IT'S ENOUGH CLARIFICATION FOR SOMEBODY TO APPROACH AND SAY, CAN WE OPERATE AS A HUB AND THAT ALLOWS US TO AGAIN, ENTERTAIN IT.
SO WE'RE NOT OPENING IT UP THE FLOODGATES.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR IT AND LISTEN TO IT.
ABOUT THEIR INTENDED USE, SO I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
SO IS THIS A SITUATION THAT WE'VE GOT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR?
[02:20:03]
>> YEAH, I GUESS WE COULD MAKE WHATEVER MOTION YOU'D LIKE ON IT.
>> YOU CAN MOVE TO APPROVE IT, YOU CAN MOVE TO DENY IT, YOU CAN MOVE TO APPROVE IT BASED ON THE FEEDBACK OF THE BUSINESS.
>> I THINK I ALWAYS LIKE USE AN EXAMPLE.
SO THE SITUATION YOU HAVE A BUSINESS OWNER COMES IN EVERY MORNING AND FILLS UP HIS TRUCK, BUT IT'S WINTERTIME.
AND SO HE GETS HIS TRUCK, STARTS IT UP, IT'S WARMING UP FOR AN HOUR AS HE FILLS IT UP EVERY DAY.
AND THEN HE FILLS UP HIS TRUCK AND LEAVES, COMES BACK AT FIVE, PUTS HIS TRUCK BACK IN.
WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. THAT'S AN INTENDED USE.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK TOO. I JUST WANT.
SOMETIMES IT JUST HELPS. THAT'S WHY I SEE THIS THE MOST.
IF A BUSINESS OPERATOR WANTS TO USE THIS, THAT'S HOW I'D SEE THEM, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THIS BIG TRUCK.
I LIVE IN A CUL DE SAC IN A TOWN HOME OR WHEREVER.
I DON'T HAVE A SPOT. IF WE GET A BUSINESS TO USE THIS, THAT'S WHAT THEY'D USE IT FOR.
>>IT'D BE A PRETTY LOW IMPACT FOR STORAGE.
>> WELL, THEN I TAKE I TAKE A STAB AT IT?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH THE FEEDBACK THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH DIRECTION WITH FEEDBACK BY WESTLER, AND A SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NONE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
LET'S BRING US TO ANOTHER TEXT AMENDMENT, LE 24-64.
[5.7. LA24-0000064, Text Amendment: Driveway, Road, and Tree Alteration Standards within the Shoreland Overlay District (Laura Oakden)]
THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR DRIVEWAY, ROAD AND TREE ALTERATION STANDARDS WITHIN THE SHORE LAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. MISS OAKDEN.I THINK I LEFT SOMETHING ON THE PICTURE.
SO IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, DO YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR DRIVEWAY SPECIFICALLY? WE'LL START WITH THAT.
SO IN THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS ALMOST ACTS AS A CLEAN UP ORDINANCE.
IN A SENSE, I'M TOUCHING THREE DIFFERENT CITY CODE SECTIONS HERE.
PAGE 2 ON THAT IS A LITTLE CLEANER COPY.
SO THE FIRST ONE IN FRONT OF YOU IS 78-1282.
THIS IS A DRIVEWAY PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CHANGE.
SO RIGHT NOW, THIS IS FOR DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK.
THEY'RE LIMITED TO EIGHT FEET IN WIDTH.
THIS WAS A VARIANCE WE SAW EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT WHERE SOMEONE WAS ASKING FOR A WIDER DRIVEWAY WITHIN A CREEK SETBACK.
FROM THE DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DISCUSSION AT THE CITY COUNCIL, IT WAS DIRECTED TO STAFF TO AMEND THIS CODE TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY.
SO STAFF WENT TO THE DNR MODEL ORDINANCE, WHERE IT GAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT SAID, DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THESE AREAS.
HOWEVER, IF THEY CAN'T BE AVOIDED THEN YOU HAVE TO PLEASE BUILD THEM AT MINIMUM STANDARDS NECESSARY IS THE LANGUAGE, ESSENTIALLY, THE DNR MODEL ORDINANCE IS USING.
WE WANT TO THEN ADOPT THAT LANGUAGE TO ALLOW STAFF SOME DISCRETION.
SPECIFICALLY, SO WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE NATURAL VEGETATION, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THESE DRIVEWAYS.
WE STILL HAVE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY STANDARDS OUTLINED IN OUR CITY CODE FOR STAFF TO USE AND TO REFERENCE.
SO THAT IS STILL STAFFS GOAL IS TO FOLLOW THOSE MINIMUM STANDARDS AND TO ALLOW THE MINIMAL MODEST IMPACT AS NECESSARY FOR ACCESS TO A SITE.
HOWEVER, THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM STAFF TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WITH THE APPLICANTS SURVEYOR AND INFORMATION TO ALLOW FOR A NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY OR MAYBE A LEVELED AREA BASED ON, THE CULVERTS TO GET AROUND A CULVERT LIKE WE SAW LAST TIME.
SO THIS IS REALLY CODE CHANGE AS A RESULT OF ONE OF OUR VARIANCES, BUT THAT IS FOLLOWING AN ADOPTING DNR MODEL ORDINANCE.
AS WE WERE REVIEWING THIS, A SECTION BELOW 78-1268 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS, THAT ALSO IS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, SORRY, WITHIN A SHORE SETBACK.
I FOUND IN THAT LANGUAGE, FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROAD DESCRIPTIONS, IT WAS ALSO LISTING DRIVEWAY STANDARDS WHICH IS COUNTER TO OUR DRIVEWAY MINIMUM STANDARDS.
SO I'M PROPOSING TO JUST REMOVE THE WORD DRIVEWAY OUT OF THAT SECTION.
THIS SECTION TALKS ABOUT DRIVEWAYS UNDER LETTER A, THAT SECTION CAN TALK ABOUT ROADS AND PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ROADS.
SO THAT'S JUST A DELETION OF THE WORD DRIVEWAY IN THAT OTHER SECTION.
SO WE'RE ONLY USING THIS SECTION AS A REFERENCE.
LASTLY, THE OTHER CHANGE I'M PROPOSING IS IN 78-1275 VEGETATION ALTERATIONS.
MELANIE, IF YOU WANT TO BRING THAT ONE UP,
[02:25:02]
THAT ONE ALSO HAS A PAGE TWO THAT CLEANS UP A LITTLE BIT.SO THIS ONE IS FOR THE TREE REMOVALS IN THE SHORE SETBACK ZONE.
SPECIFICALLY IN LETTER A, WE FOUND A DOUBLE NEGATIVE IN OUR LANGUAGE WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO IMPLEMENT.
SO RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS NO TREES WITHIN THE 75 FEET OR SHORELINE OF A PUBLIC WATERS MAY NOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT.
SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE WORD NOT SO THAT TREES REQUIRE A PERMIT TO BE REMOVED WITH THAT NEGATIVE.
ALSO, YOU CAN SEE IN THE ABOVE SECTION.
BUT THE WAY THIS WAS LAID OUT HAD A BUNCH OF WASN'T IN A NATURAL FORMAT OF OUR CITY CODE.
IT WASN'T FOLLOWING THE FIRST, THE LETTER A OUTLINE AND THEN TAB IN TO THE 1, 02, 3 OUTLINE.
IT HAD SOME FUNNY PARAGRAPHS IN THERE.
SO WHEN WE'RE REFERENCING SENTENCES, IT WAS HARD FOR US TO SAY, OH, UNDER LETTER A, SECOND PARAGRAPH TAB IN TO B, IT WAS ALL FUNNY.
SO REALLY WHAT I'M PROPOSING HERE IS JUST NOT REMOVE ANYTHING, BUT JUST ORGANIZE IT IN A FORMATTING ISSUE.
REPLACEMENT TREES SHALL BE AT LEAST 1.5 INCHES.
THAT'S UP IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE CODE FOR REPLACEMENT TREE STANDARDS.
USING THE DNR LIST THAT I'M MOVING AT THE BOTTOM, I'M MOVING THAT UNDER THE REPLACEMENT TREE STANDARDS AND THEN I'M JUST CLARIFYING SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE, SO IT'S AN ACTUAL SENTENCE.
NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL IS BEING DONE TO THIS MORE, JUST A LAYOUT CLEANUP FIX.
SO IT'S EASIER TO IMPLEMENT AND EASIER TO REFERENCE.
HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH EVERY LINE ITEM CHANGE ON THAT, BUT JUST THIS ONE OVERALL THIS ORDINANCE IS PROPOSED MORE IS KIND OF A CLEANUP ORDINANCE.
THE BIG CHANGE IN REGULATION I'M DOING OR I'M PROPOSING IS THE DRIVEWAY AND THE SHORE SETBACK TO FOLLOW THE DNR MODEL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO ONE'S I JUST GOOD.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY MEMBER OF 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.
BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
THIS ONE MAKES COMPLETE SENSE TO ME, THE VEGETATION ALTERATION, A CLEANUP TO MAKE IT FIT AND ACTUALLY REMOVING ONE WORD TO MAKE IT, SO IT'S ENFORCEABLE.
MAKES SENSE, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS STAYING THE SAME, JUST GETTING REORGANIZED ON THERE.
AND THE DRIVEWAY PIECE, I THINK IT'S GOOD WHEN WE CAN UPDATE AND MIRROR THE DNR EXISTING ORDINANCE SO THAT WE HAVE SOME ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE THERE FOR THOSE DRIVEWAY WIDTHS.
I THINK I REMEMBER THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THAT WHERE THEY NEEDED A WIDER DRIVEWAY, BUT THE CODE WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM MORE THAN EIGHT FEET TO ACCESS WHICH IS BY TODAY'S STANDARDS AND PRETTY NARROW FOR ANY TYPE OF DELIVERY VAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR JUST REGULAR ACCESS BY AN SUV.
>> WE JUST HAD AN APPLICATION FOR SIMILAR.
>> IT ESSENTIALLY JUST MIRRORS THE DNR ORDINANCE AND ALLOW US TO USE THE SMALLEST DRIVEWAY THAT WE COULD. I'M IN FAVOR.
>> YEAH, I'M FAVOR. I DON'T HAVE ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES BUT I'D MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED IF EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH IT.
I'M DOING IT. TO APPROVE L 24-64 IS APPLIED. SECOND.
>> GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY WESTLER.
MIKE SHULTZ. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I HAVE ONE MORE POINT THERE.
>> SO YOU'RE AWARE. I DID SUBMIT THIS TO DNR AND WE HAVE HAD SOME COMMENTS BACK AND FORTH, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ME THAT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER AT THIS TIME.
I DO ANTICIPATE IT BEFORE THIS GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
YOU RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS CONDITIONED ON THAT DNR ADOPTION AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR.
>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
MOTION CARRIES. BRINGS US TO OTHER ITEMS.
[6. Other Items]
>> THAT'S ME. TONIGHT, JUST A RECAP OF THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH WAS I'M SORRY, 865 PARTON WOOD AND 785 FOREST ARMS LANE.
THERE WERE VARIANCES. THOSE WERE BOTH APPROVED ON CONSENT.
[02:30:03]
WAS A PROJECT OF A HOUSE THAT WAS BEING REBUILT WHERE STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING SPLIT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT HAD A DECK THAT HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN ENCROACHMENT ON IT AND SOME HARD COVER CALCULATIONS THAT WERE NOT QUITE REFLECTIVE.THAT WENT IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT ADJUSTING THEIR HARD COVER.
THEY DID NOT ADJUST THE DECK ENCROACHMENT AND THE COUNCIL AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, DID END UP FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WHICH WAS TO APPROVE AS APPLY.
AND THEN LASTLY, THE CANNABIS ORDINANCE ALSO WENT IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION ON THAT, BUT OVERALL THEY ADOPTED THAT ORDINANCE AS WELL.
WE ALSO LAST UPDATE JUST YEAH.
SO THAT ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTING JUST A SETBACKS FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES.
>> I MEAN, BUT THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE DISCUSSION WAS THE STATE LAWS WERE SO AMBIGUOUS, WE COULDN'T REALLY FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY MEANT.
>> SO REGARDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, THAT'S STILL BEING WORKED OUT, SO THAT WAS A LOT OF YOUR DISCUSSION.
BUT IMPLEMENTING THE SETBACKS FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS PROPOSING, AND THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTED, AND IT IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE SETBACKS THAT THE STATE ALLOWS US TO IMPLEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WAS ADOPTED AT THIS TIME.
WITH A NOTE THAT HAPPENED AT COUNCIL WAS THAT THIS IS EVER EVOLVING SINCE IT'S A BRAND NEW FIELD AND I WOULD ANTICIPATE AMENDMENTS TO THAT ORDINANCE TO COME THROUGH AGAIN AS WE KNOW MORE.
>> REMIND ME AGAIN WE VOTED, WAS IT UNANIMOUS FOR APPROVAL?
>> YEAH, I BELIEVE IT WAS BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE ITSELF WAS JUST FOR SETBACK IMPLEMENTATION.
BUT I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION REGARDING LICENSING, REGISTRATION, USING THE COUNTY RESOURCES AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
AND ALL OF THAT COMMENT DID GET PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
WE DO HAVE A CURRENT OPEN PLANNING COMMISSION SEAT.
I HAVE ONE APPLICATION RIGHT NOW, BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, WE ARE ALWAYS ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS OR IF NOT FOR A PERMANENT SEAT, MORE ALTERNATE SEATS AS WELL.
SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. MOTION TO ADJOURN. ON FAVOR?
>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.