6.1. LA24-000054, Rob Page, 430 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat (Laura Oakden)

[6.2. LA24-000059, Blue Pencil Collective o/b/o Bradley Pass, 215 North Arm Lane, Preliminary Plat: "Idyllvale Shores", Public Hearing, Review #2 (Melanie Curtis)]

THAT'S LA 24-59, BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE, ON BEHALF OF BRADLEY PASS, 215 NORTH ARM LANE.

THIS IS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF IDLE VALE SHORES AND A PUBLIC HEARING. MS. CURTIS.

>> THANK YOU. THIS APPLICATION WAS TABLED AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING WHERE THE DEVELOPER WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE REVISIONS BASED ON STAFF FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A REVISED PLAN THAT ADDRESSES THE MAJORITY OF THOSE COMMENTS.

YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY'VE REVISED THE ROAD SO THAT IT IS JUST ONE BRANCH.

IT PREVIOUSLY WENT NORTH AND WEST.

THE ROAD DOES EXTEND NORTH ARM LANE TERMINATES IN A CUL DE SAC IN FRONT OF LOT 1. AS SHOWN.

THE PLANS REFLECT A 50 FOOT WIDE CORRIDOR WITH A 24 FOOT WIDE PAVED CURBED ROAD.

THE REVISED ROAD WILL EXTEND TO A TOTAL LENGTH OF APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET.

THE CITY STANDARDS DO LIMIT DEAD END ROADS TO 1,000 LINEAR FEET.

HOWEVER, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATE ACCESS THAT WOULD CONFORM.

THIS PLAN TECHNICALLY WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM THE 1,000 FOOT LIMIT STANDARD, WHICH STAFF WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF.

THE RADIUS OF THE REVISED ROADWAY CURVE DOES NOT MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS.

THE DEVELOPER DID PROVIDE A TURNING RADIUS EXHIBIT FOR THE FIRE APPARATUS AT THE REQUEST OF THE ENGINEER.

I HAVE THAT TO SHOW YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE, THIS IS A LOW VOLUME LOW SPEED ROAD.

THE CITY CAN ACCEPT A 90 DEGREE TURN AS LONG AS THE VEHICLES CAN MAKE THAT TURN.

IF THE VEHICLES CAN'T MAKE THE TURN, WE RECOMMEND A CUL DE SAC AT THAT TURNING POSITION.

THE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE PLAN REFLECTS 33 NEW TREES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE WESTERN ROAD, INTERMIXED WITH THE EXISTING VEGETATION.

[01:15:03]

THEY EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR PLANTING.

IN THE STAFF REPORT, I WANT TO NOTE THAT IT WAS INCORRECTLY NOTED THAT LOT ONE DID NOT MEET THE 200 FOOT WIDTH.

THAT WAS INCORRECT.

ALL OF THE PROPOSED LOTS DO MEET THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS.

TO ADDRESS PREVIOUS CONCERNS WITH LOT DIMENSIONS.

LOT 4 HAS BEEN REARRANGED AS A LAKE SHORE LOT.

LOT 4 AND FIVE ARE BOTH LAKE SHORE LOTS.

A REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND GRADING PLAN WERE SUBMITTED.

THEY'VE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PLAN OR THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.

COMMENTS FROM BOTH OF THOSE BODIES ARE IN THE PACKET, AND THERE ARE STILL SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES TO RESOLVE.

THE DEVELOPER DID PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE PRELIMINARY SEPTIC DESIGNS FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED LOTS.

AGAIN, AS BEFORE, THEY WILL BE SERVED BY PRIVATE WELLS.

ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT FEES WERE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT FEE AMOUNTS WILL BE CONFIRMED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL.

I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT ONE NEW PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED, AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS AS EXHIBIT J, ALONG WITH THE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED COMMENTS.

THE STAFF REPORT DID INDICATE THAT TABLING WAS RECOMMENDED.

ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPER IS STILL WORKING THROUGH THE COMMENTS FROM THE ENGINEER AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT STAFF DOES FIND THE REVISED PROPOSAL MEETING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, AND IT CAN BE APPROVED, CONDITIONED UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE CITY'S ENGINEER.

TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION HAS TWO OPTIONS.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAT, CONDITIONED UPON THE REVISED PLANS, ADDRESSING ALL THE COMMENTS BEFORE PLACEMENT ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION, OR THE COMMISSION COULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, PROVIDING THE DEVELOPER WITH SPECIFIC FEEDBACK TO ADDRESS COMMENTS, AND AS WELL AS THE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS FROM THE WATERSHED AND THE CITY'S ENGINEER.

I HAVE THE REVISED PLANS AVAILABLE FOR YOU.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

I HAVE OTHER EXHIBITS THAT I CAN PUT UP FROM THE PACKET IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, BUT THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> MR. CHAIR, MS. CURTIS, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST ON A HIGH LEVEL, THE BIGGEST AMENDMENTS.

I SEE THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE LOT THAT WASN'T CONFORMING AS FAR AS CONTIGUOUS LAND.

WOULD YOU MIND JUST SUMMARIZING WHERE WE'VE BEEN SINCE NOVEMBER, SOME OF THOSE THINGS, 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THAT WAS A BIG ONE, JUST TO HELP US RECALIBRATE.

AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS PLAN, THEY DID HAVE SIX LOTS PROPOSED.

I THINK ONE OF THOSE LOTS WAS INTENDED TO BE AN OUT LOT.

THE DEVELOPMENT DID HAVE A ROADWAY EXTENDING NORTH TO SERVE THIS LOT HERE, PRIMARILY, AS WELL AS THIS WESTERN DIRECTIONAL ROADWAY.

WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND OUR CITY ENGINEER AND HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THOSE OUTSTANDING ISSUES AFTER THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

AT THE END DIRECTION OR ADVICE FROM OUR ENGINEER, THEY'VE REVISED LOT 4 SO THAT THEY'VE REMOVED THAT OTHER NORTH SOUTH ROADWAY EXTENSION AND JUST HAVE A NARROW CORRIDOR ACCESSING THE ROADWAY FROM LOT 4.

THAT LOT YOU THE BULK OF LOT FOUR WHERE THE BUILDING SITE IS IS IN THIS AREA, AND THEN IT DOES EXTEND OVER HERE AS A LAKE SHORE LOT.

THIS IS THE LAKE SHORE PIECE HERE.

THE INITIAL REVIEW DID HAVE CALLED OUT SOME DIMENSIONAL ISSUES THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS REVISED AND CORRECTED.

I BELIEVE EVERYTHING, CURRENTLY MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS.

WHAT WE HAD CALLED OUT ON LOT 5, WHICH IS THIS LOT HERE.

IT'S THE LARGER BULK OF THE WETLAND, AND IT ENDS UP BEING QUITE A LIMITED BUILDING AREA ONCE THE SEPTIC SITES, THE WETLAND BUFFER, THE STORMWATER POND, AND THAT THING, ARE SITUATED ON THE PROPERTY.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGING LOT FOR THE BUYER.

JUST DEVELOPING THAT LOT IS GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PRETTY STRICT IN HOW WE INTERPRET OR HOW WE REVIEW THAT PLAN, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE SOME BUYER EDUCATION FROM THE DEVELOPER WITH THE LIMITATIONS ON THAT LOT.

[01:20:01]

BUT OTHERWISE, I THINK THERE'S ADEQUATE BUILDING AREA ON THE OTHER LOTS.

>> COOL. I APPRECIATE THAT.

PART OF IT, JUST KIND OF LEADING THE APPLICANT HOPEFULLY AND GIVING US SOME OF THAT ILLUSTRATION TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF YOUR COMMENTS AND CLARIFICATION, SO THANK YOU.

I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO LAYOUT? I DON'T SEE IT. IT'S NOT COMING UP IN MY POCKET.

>> YEP, JUST GIVE ME A SECOND AND I'LL PULL IT UP HERE.

>> I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT I. OH, IT COMES UP, BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW THE DEPICTION OF IT.

>> IT'S OBVIOUSLY SHAPED THE SAME, BUT IT'S REFLECTING LOT ONE, LOT TWO, LOT THREE, LOT FOUR HERE WITH THE ROADWAY.

THIS WAS THAT OUT LOT THAT WAS IN QUESTION PREVIOUSLY, AND THEN LOT 6 DOWN HERE.

>> FAIR TO SAY, THE BIG CHANGES ARE ELIMINATING THAT ROADWAY TO THE NORTH AND ADDING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOTS.

>> YEAH, MEETING THE DIMENSIONS.

>> I GUESS, THEN I HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THE NEW LAYOUT.

DOES THIS TURN MEET THE MINIMUM RADIUS?

>> THAT HAS YET TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE CITY'S ENGINEER, BUT THEY HAVE PROVIDED A PLAN.

I'M NOT SUPER AWESOME AT READING THIS.

I CAN SEE THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED AN EXHIBIT FOR A FIRE APPARATUS HERE.

IT'S A 40 FOOT TOTAL LENGTH, AND IT'S GOT THE WHEELBASE HERE CALLED OUT.

I DID SEND THIS OVER TO THE ENGINEER WHEN I RECEIVED IT, AND I HAVE NOT GOTTEN COMMENTS BACK YET, BUT THEY'RE SHOWING THAT THEY CAN MEET THAT RADIUS.

THEY DO HAVE ROOM IN THIS AREA TO BE DEDICATED AS RIGHT OF WAY.

I MEAN, THE PAVED WIDTH OF THE ROAD AND THE ORIENTATION AREN'T IDEAL.

BUT IF THEY CAN MAKE THAT TURN SUCCESSFULLY, I THINK OUR ENGINEER WOULD BE ACCEPTING OF IT.

I LOOK AT THIS, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO READ IT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT UTILIZES THE THE EASTBOUND LANE TO MAKE THE TURN, SO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING YET TO BE WORKED OUT.

WE HAVE ROOM IN THE AREA THAT THEY'RE DEDICATING FOR THE ROAD TO MAKE THAT.

THEY'RE SHOWING THAT THEY CAN MAKE THE TURN, BUT THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE CODE OF THE MINIMUM RADIUS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THE EASTERNMOST LAKE SHORE FOR THAT FOURTH LOT.

THAT APPEARS TO CUT THROUGH WETLAND, AND THEN HOW WOULD THE LAKE SHORE ACTUALLY BE ACCESSED?

>> THE SAME CONDITION APPLIES FOR LOT 5 AS WELL.

ONE OF THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION WHEN WE MET WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT WAS THAT ACCESS TO THE LAKE SHORE, AND THERE IS PROVISIONS IN THE WATERSHED DISTRICT'S RULES FOR BOARDWALKS OR OTHER CROSSING OF WETLAND AREAS TO ACCESS THE OPEN WATER OF LAKE SHORE ON LAKE SHORE LOTS.

THE DEVELOPERS WAS ENCOURAGED TO START THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT LOOKS LIKE AS FAR AS THEIR PROGRESS, THEY CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT WHEN THEY COME UP, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, A BUYER EDUCATION THING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.

WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPER WORKS THROUGH THAT PROCESS OR STARTS THAT PROCESS OR LEAVES IT TO FUTURE BUYERS, I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE TOP QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS HOW IS THAT WHAT IS THAT GO TO LOOK LIKE AND WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?

>> THOSE PROVISIONS AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, ARE PEDESTRIAN ONLY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>>> THANK YOU.

>> ONE QUICK QUESTION ON LOT 5.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL BUILDING SITE OR HOUSE PROPOSAL THERE, BUT JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT IS THE LENGTH TIMES WIDTH OF THAT BUILDABLE AREA THERE SHOWN ON LOT 5?

>> WHAT IS THE BUILDING PAD AREA?

>> THE RECTANGLE THAT WOULD PRESUMABLY BE WHERE A HOUSE WOULD LAND.

>> I CAN MEASURE IT. I HAD ANALYZED THE SEE IF I'VE GOT IT HERE IN THE LOT EXHIBIT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE COMPLETELY CALLED IT OUT.

I DON'T THE BUILDING THE DEVELOPER CAN CLARIFY THE FOOTPRINTS THAT THEY'RE DISPLAYING THERE, BUT YEAH, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY A HALF ACRE AREA TO PLAY WITH.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME?

>> THE ROADWAY THAT'S PROPOSED THAT HAS BEEN REVISED ALREADY ONCE.

[01:25:05]

IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BY ANY MEANS, OTHER THAN THE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS AND ABILITY TO TURN AROUND DOWN THERE?

>> IS THE ROADWAY A REQUIREMENT?

>> WIDTH, I THINK.

>> THE LENGTH GOING ALL THE WAY ALONG THE WESTERN, YOU KNOW, THE SOUTHERN SOUTHWESTERN MOST BORDER OF THE SITE ITSELF, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT?

>> EVERY LOT HAS TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A ROADWAY, LAKE SHORE LOTS, WHICH THIS NUMBER 4.

IT'S AS A LAKE SHORE LOT, WE LOOK AT CONFIRMING THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WIDTH AT THE LAKE AT THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL AND AT THE BUILDING SETBACK.

BUILDING SITES THAT BUILDING LOTS THAT ARE NOT LAKE SHORE LOTS NEED TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT AT THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK, AND THEY NEED TO BE ON THE FRONT EDGE.

THAT'S A LONG WAY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

IF THEY WANT THAT LOT THERE, YES, THEY NEED TO HAVE A ROAD THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THIS TIME? NONE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> CASEY JOHNSON. I'M WITH BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE, AND WE'RE AT 2150 THIRD STREET IN WIPER LAKE.

>> KENT BRANDER, 2150 VERMILION BAY IN WOODBURY.

>> AS I SAID, MY NAME IS CASEY JOHNSON.

I'M HERE WITH BLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE.

I'M REPRESENTING THE LAND OWNER OF IDOVILL SHORES.

I'M ALSO HERE WITH KENT WITH CIVIL METHODS, OUR ENGINEER PARTNER ON THE PROJECT.

HE'S HERE TO HELP ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC ENGINEERING QUESTIONS.

IN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE FEEDBACK, WE'VE REVIEWED ALL COMMENTS INCLUDED IN THE MEMO, BOTH COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE WATERSHED.

AS A TEAM, WE ARE AMENABLE TO MAKING CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION WHILE WORKING WITH MELANIE DIRECTLY ON ANY DETAILS PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SINCE OUR LAST COMMISSION MEETING, WE HAVE AS A TEAM MADE UPDATES TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, RESULTING IN ALL CONFORMING LOTS PER THE CITY REQUIREMENTS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> I HAVE SOME LATER.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> MURI LARSON, 366 NORTH ARM LANE.

ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IT'S A ONE CAR WITH, IS THE ROAD GOING TO BE WIDENED, GOING BY THE EXISTING HOUSES ON THE LANE?

>> THIS QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT MY KNOWLEDGE IS THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING LANE.

>> THE DEVELOPER ISN'T PROPOSING THAT AT THIS TIME, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE CITY'S PLAN TO THE EXISTING ROADWAY, I THINK IS IN THE PLANS FOR WAS IT RESURFACING, OR THERE WAS SOME WORK TO BE DONE ON THE ROAD.

I THINK THE CITY ENGINEER WAS LOOKING AT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES SERVED ON THIS ROAD, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL WIDTH PAVING WISE ON THE ROADWAY.

>> WHICH WOULD TAKE PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.

>> THERE'S A RIGHT OF WAY THERE, THOUGH, THAT I THINK THAT WOULDN'T TAKE PROPERTY.

[OVERLAPPING] I THINK IDEALLY, IT WOULD WIDEN THE ROAD WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S THERE RATHER THAN GOING INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT WIDTH, WHICH IS PROBABLY A CHALLENGE.

WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT YET.

>> SIX HOMES ARE NOW PART OF THE?

>> FIVE.

>> FIVE NEW LOTS.

>> THE LOT RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAST HOME ON THE LAKE HAS BEEN OKAYED.

IT WAS IN QUESTION LAST TIME, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED, AND THE THING WAS THERE WASN'T ENOUGH CONTIGUOUS.

>> CORRECT. THE WAY THAT IT WAS PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY TO HAVE SIX LOTS DIDN'T WORK.

[01:30:06]

THERE WASN'T ENOUGH DRY BUILDABLE AREA CONTIGUOUS AND THAT IT JUST DIDN'T MEET THE STANDARD SO THEY DID LOSE THAT LOT.

>> IN TERMS OF SITUATING THE HOUSE ON THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED LAKE SHORE?

>> THERE'S TWO LAKE SHORE LOTS, BUT THIS ONE DOWN HERE THAT'S CLOSEST TO IS THAT THE ONE.

>> TO THE LAST HOUSE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE LANE.

THAT SOUNDED LIKE IT WOULD PUT A HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXISTING, IT'S THERE.

>> IT WOULDN'T BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXISTING HOUSE, BUT IT WOULD MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH ADMITTEDLY, THE EXISTING HOME ON THAT LOT IS LOCATED.

THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 30 FEET FROM THE SIDE AND I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY BOTH CLOSE TO 30 FEET.

THERE'S AN EXISTING SHED ON THAT LOT TOO, ALSO, IN ADDITION TO THE HOME AS THIS DOES WRAP AROUND THAT NEW PROPOSED LOT, SO THAT THAT LOT 5 THERE'S A LOT PACKED INTO THAT SMALL AREA.

>> THANK YOU.

>> HI, MY NAME IS MIKE DE MISE.

I LIVE AT 350 NORTH ARM LANE, AND I'D LIKE TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS PERCEPTION THAT EXCEPTION SHOULD BE MADE TO MAXIMIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE PARCELS IN ORONO.

SPECIFICALLY, I'M REFERRING TO THE CITY STANDARD LIMITING DEAD END ROADS TO 1,000 FEET.

THE STAFF PROPOSED THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT THIS DOES HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ON THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT THOSE COULD BE.

THE WETLANDS WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO THE CHANNEL ON NORTH ARM BAY THROUGH MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS ABOUT 200 FEET SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH WATER THAT CIRCULATES THROUGH THE CHANNEL, AS YOU MAY WOULD HAVE EXPECT.

ANY CHEMICALS OR PESTICIDES OR FERTILIZERS THAT ARE COMING OFF OF THESE PROPERTIES WOULD LIKELY SIT IN THAT CHANNEL AND HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DO HARM AND I REALIZED THAT THERE ARE FILTRATION PONDS AND THAT THING TO TRY AND MITIGATE THAT, BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE ELEVATIONS, IT'S CLEAR THAT A LOT OF THE GRASSLAND AREA WOULD DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO THE WETLANDS RATHER THAN SOME OF THOSE FILTRATION BASINS.

MOST OF THE HOUSES ON THE CHANNEL ENJOY DOCKS AND OTHER USES OF THE LAKE.

THE CHANNEL IS A BREEDING GROUND FOR SEVERAL FISH SPECIES IN THE SPRING, AND THE CHANNEL ALREADY EXHIBITS SOME VEGETATIVE OVERGROWTH SEASONALLY.

THIS REALLY ISN'T A THEORETICAL CONCERN THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

ADDITIONALLY, AS MENTIONED BY THE PREVIOUS NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE STREET, NOT BEING WIDE ENOUGH FOR TWO CARS, SO THAT ONE HAS TO GO ONTO THE SHOULDER IF TWO CARS ARE TO PASS OR SOMETIMES YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL THE OTHER CAR GOES INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY.

BUT ON A LONGER ROAD, YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY DO THAT BECAUSE THOSE CARS DO NEED TO PASS SO THEN SOMEONE HAS TO BACK UP A NEW DRIVEWAY.

IF THERE'S LIKE A DELIVERY VEHICLE OR OTHER LARGE VEHICLE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THEM BACKING UP.

IT'S GOING TO BE THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE TO MAKE WAY FOR THOSE LARGER VEHICLES.

IN REGARDING TO THE PROPOSAL TO WIDEN THE STREET, THAT DOES HAVE ITS OWN NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.

IT REDUCES THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL.

IT ALSO HAS UNKNOWN COST AND TIMING.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF ELEVATION CHANGE ON THAT ROAD, SO IT WOULD BE A COSTLY THING TO DO.

I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS OVER DEVELOPMENT, USING EXCEPTIONS THAT, IN MY OPINION, CREATE UNNECESSARY BURDEN AND IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MANDY LITTLE, 4620 NORTH ARM DRIVE.

OUR PROPERTY IS THE ONE THAT WILL HAVE CUL DE SAC, THE WHOLE LENGTH OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH WE DON'T SUPPORT.

I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ORONO,

[01:35:01]

WHICH TALKS ABOUT FUTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE GUIDED SO AS TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE LAND OR AN EXISTING RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

CARE WILL BE EXERCISED TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW DEVELOPMENT ENCROACHES UPON ITS NEIGHBORS OPEN SPACE ACTIVITIES.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CUL DE SAC DOES ENCROACH ON OUR PROPERTY LINE AND OPEN SPACE ACTIVITIES.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT OR GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WOULD BE THE DEFINITION OF THIS STATEMENT AND WHAT STRUCTURES OR GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WOULD ENCROACH ON OUR SPACE.

>> I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT I CAN ADDRESS IT WITH STAFF AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS RANDALL NORD.

I LIVE AT 100 BAYSIDE TRAIL.

I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

WITH THE ROAD THAT GOES NORTH SOUTH UP TO THAT LOT 4, USED TO BE A CUL DE SAC THERE.

IS THAT STILL A PAVED ROAD THAT GOES UP TO THAT LOT LINE AND WHO OWNS THAT ACCESS?

>> IT'S A DRIVEWAY.

>> IT'S A DRIVEWAY, BUT IS IT PART OF THE LOT 4?

>> YEAH.

>> YEAH, IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING SHAPE.

>> THAT LOT 4 CONCERNS ME, THE ELEVATION OF THE HOME AND THE GRADING AWAY FROM IT, CONCERNED ABOUT RUNOFF OF FERTILIZER AND OTHER THINGS DOWN INTO THE WETLAND.

I LOOKED AT THE ELEVATIONS AROUND THERE, THAT LITTLE ROUNDABOUT THAT YOU'VE PUT IN THE CIRCLE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE YOU NEEDED A TURNAROUND.

THAT DROPS 10, 12 FEET, I THINK, ITSELF, AND THEN IT'S ANOTHER 35 FEET OR SO DROP DOWN TO THE WETLAND IN A PRETTY NARROW AREA.

THAT CONCERNS ME.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE WATERSHED DISTRICT HAS CONSIDERED THAT OR NOT.

>> YOU MEAN THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY HERE?

>> YEAH, THAT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY AND THEN THE SLOPE DOWN TO THE WETLAND BELOW IT.

THAT'S PRETTY STEEP AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT RUNOFF DOWN INTO THE WETLAND FROM THE HOME WHEN THEY FERTILIZE AND WATER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THEN THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I HAVE IS OR TWO OTHER COMMENTS, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF BLACKTOP OR WHATEVER THE PAVEMENT IS TO GET UP TO THAT LOT 4.

VERY, VERY LONG DRIVEWAY FOR ONE LOT AND LOT OF HARD SURFACE.

PROBABLY MEET YOUR HARD SERVICE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT STILL, BUT IT'S JUST A LOT OF A LOT OF CONCRETE OR BLACKTOP TO GET UP THERE.

I'M CONCERNED TOO FOR THE OWNER FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS UP THERE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE FOR THEM AND THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY, I SUPPOSE.

THE OTHER THING THAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE ACCESS NOW FOR LOT 4 TO THE LAKE AND LOT 5 TO THE LAKE AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW THEM OR THE WATERSHED WILL POSSIBLY ALLOW IT SOUNDS LIKE TO BUILD BOARDWALK DOCKS OVER THE WETLANDS.

THAT'S A VERY NICE BENEFIT FOR A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T SEE IN WETLANDS ANYWHERE THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC CAN USE THAT OFTEN AND I THINK THAT'S JUST AN EYESORE AND A POTENTIAL PROBLEM AS THOSE THINGS ROT AND DON'T GET REPLACED OR MAYBE DO GET REPLACED AND GET REPLACED BIGGER AND MORE EXOTIC THAN THEY STARTED OUT WITH.

I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ALL THIS ACTIVITY IN THIS BEAUTIFUL WETLAND AND BUILDING A BRIDGE OVER THE LITTLE CHANNEL OR A CULVERT OVER THE LITTLE CHANNEL, ETC.

THAT'S MORE COMMENTS THAN I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MELISSA DAMIS, 350 NORTH ARM LANE. I'M JUST CURIOUS.

HAS THE GROUP BEEN OUT TO THE PROPERTY AND SEEN IT IN PERSON? I JUST WANT TO HAVE THAT VISUAL IN MIND SO THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF IT IS A WETLANDS VERSUS HOW MUCH IS DEVELOPED OR HAS THE CAPACITY TO BE DEVELOPED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I WILL TAKE THIS TIME TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC AND HOPEFULLY GET SOME ANSWERS TO THEM, AND POSSIBLY STAFF WILL HAVE SOME ANSWERS AS WELL.

LOT 5 SETBACKS ARE CONFORMING TO WHERE THE HOUSE PAD IS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> A LOT OF WHAT I'M HEARING IS ABOUT WATERSHED.

WE AS A COMMISSION AND WE AS A CITY DO NOT REGULATE THE WATER SHED.

THAT'S THROUGH MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED.

SIMPLY WE PUT THAT ON THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT TO GET THOSE APPROVALS FROM THAT AGENCY AS A CONDITION OF WHATEVER WE APPROVE OR DENY OR WHEREVER THIS APPLICATION GOES.

I DO KNOW FIRSTHAND THERE'S PROVISIONS AND THEREFORE ACCESS OVER WETLANDS.

[01:40:03]

I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE DIMENSIONS OF THE BOARDWALKS, ETC, BUT IF THIS IS PLOTTED, THE STATE HAS TO ALLOW YOU USE OF YOUR PROPERTY, AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD AN APPROPRIATE SYSTEM OVER THE WETLAND TO REACH PORTIONS OF YOUR LOT THAT YOU NEED TO.

IT'S INCREDIBLY RESTRICTIVE, THOUGH.

THIS WILL BE A VERY INTENSE REVIEW BY WATERSHED.

THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING YOUR CONCERNS FORWARD TO THE WATERSHED FOR THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.

THE OPEN SPACE ACTIVITIES AS HOW IT CONFORMS TO THE 2040 PLAN AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THERE'S NO CURRENT OPEN SPACE ACTIVITIES HAPPENING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING I COULD WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IS SOMEONE USING THIS PROPERTY FOR THEIR OWN USE, AND HOW WOULD THIS POSSIBLY AFFECT THEIR OPEN SPACE ACTIVITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT IN THE 2040.

>> LAURA MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT I THINK WHAT IT'S INFERRING IS INFRINGING ON THE OPEN SPACE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

YOU'RE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THAT THAT NEIGHBOR'S OPEN SPACE.

THE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, THEY'RE SHOWING CONFORMING BUILDING SITES WHERE THEY'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON SETBACKS.

THE PROPOSED ROADWAY, THE DEVELOPER CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS I THINK MISS LITTLE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME WAS THAT THAT CUL DE SAC AND ITS PROXIMITY TO HER HOME, AND I THINK THE WAY THEY'RE PROPOSING IT IS ALLOWING FOR EXISTING VEGETATION, WHICH THEY'RE SHOWING GRADING, BUT THEY'RE PLANTING SCREENING THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THAT ROADWAY TO SCREEN, THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT THAT ROADWAY DOES ABUT.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO FILL IN THERE.

>> I THINK PART OF THAT SECTION IS JUST TALKING ABOUT MAINTAINING THE RURAL NATURE AND THE RURAL COMPONENT, THAT THIS AREA OF OUR CITY IS RURAL IN NATURE AND THAT WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR DEVELOPMENT IS SIMILAR IN THAT KIND THAT WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING SOMETHING THAT IS INFRINGING ON THE OPEN SPACE, THE LIGHT, THE NOISE THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAT, AND IT IS MORE KEEPING IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT AREA OF THE CHAPTER THAT SHE'S SPEAKING ON.

>> PLEASE REMIND US AGAIN THE OVERALL ACREAGE HERE IS.

>> OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY?

>> THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

>> LET ME SEE. SORRY.

>> I THINK IT'S 25.35 ACRES.

I JUST DEPICTED ON THE PLAT.

SO 25.35 IS THE OVERALL AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS 0.5 LOTS.

LAST TIME IT WAS SIX.

>> CORRECT.

>> THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THIS RURAL AREA IS TWO ACRES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ONE LOT IS PROPOSED AT TWO ACRES.

THE REST EXCEED THAT.

LOT ONE IS 2.19.

LOT 2 IS TWO ACRES.

LOT 3 IS SHOWN TO BE 3.2.

LOT 4 IS 9.2, AND LOT 5 IS 7.6 ACRES.

>> THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT ELEVATION OUR STEEP SLOPES? THEY ARE RECOGNIZED ON THIS.

>> CORRECT.

>> THEY ARE FIGURED OUT OF THE DRY BUILDABLE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> LASTLY, I'VE GOT THE ROAD WITH DISCREPANCY WHERE IT COMES TO THE EXISTING LANE AND WHERE THIS CONNECTS.

DO WE KNOW THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING LANE, THE PAVEMENT?

>> THE REQUIREMENT IS I THINK IS [OVERLAPPING].

>> THE REQUIREMENT IS 24.

THEY'RE PROPOSING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING LANE.

>> THAT'S OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY, CORRECT?

>> YEAH. I CAN MEASURE IT FROM THE AERIAL PHOTO.

I THINK IT'S LIKE 16 OR 18 FEET WIDE, THE CURRENT NORTH ARM DRIVE ROAD.

>> THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

IT'S FAIRLY NARROW.

>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN YOUR LAST MEETING ABOUT IT BEING CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING, WHICH IS, I THINK, AN IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTE.

>> THIS AERIAL PHOTO FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY IT'S SHOWING THE PROPERTY LINES IN YELLOW, SO THE RIGHT OF WAY AREA IS WIDE ENOUGH FOR SOME WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS OF THE EXISTING ROADWAY WITHOUT INFRINGING INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

PERCEPTION WISE, IT WILL FEEL THAT WAY,

[01:45:01]

BUT THE LOT ITSELF WILL NOT BE IMPACTED.

I THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO LOOK AT WIDENING THAT.

HOW MANY THE CONCERNS THAT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE RAISED ABOUT PASSING VEHICLES AND JUST INCREASED TRAFFIC.

>> I NOTICED A PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS IN OUR PACKET ABOUT ANY ISSUES THAT MAY HAPPEN TO THAT ROAD IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD AND THIS DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED, AND I'M ASSUMING, LIKE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS, IF THE DEVELOPER WRECKS THE EXISTING ROAD, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING OR REPAIRING IT BACK TO PRIOR CONDITIONS, CORRECT?

>> YEAH. THE PUBLIC WORKS AS A CITY ENGINEER.

THEY OFTEN WILL GO OUT AND DO A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD AND MAKE A RECORD OF THAT WITH PHOTOGRAPHS AND NOTES.

I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE THIS ROAD IS SCHEDULED FOR SOME UPDATE, I APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT IS, BUT IT IS SCHEDULED FOR SOME UPDATE.

THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TO HAPPEN IN THIS AREA ON THIS ROADWAY, AND THEN WHEN THAT IS COMPLETED, IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE REPAIRED OR RECONSTRUCTED TO A NEW NEW CONDITION.

>> THANK YOU. ANY DAMAGE, THOUGH, THAT WERE TO HAPPEN TO THAT EXISTING ROAD WOULD BE COVERED BY THE DEVELOPER?

>> TYPICALLY, YES, THAT'S HOW WE WOULD OPERATE.

>> WHO WANTS TO START UP HERE? COMMISSIONER KIRCHNER.

>> I CAN START. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF CONCERNS, AND I'LL SUMMARIZE QUICKLY HERE.

THE TURNING RADIUS ISSUE WITH THE MINIMUM NOT BEING MET IS CONCERNING TO ME.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE TOTALLY SOLVED THAT DILEMMA.

I HAVE CONCERNS OVER PRIMARILY LOT 5, PARTIALLY LOT 4.

WHILE, I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR ORDINANCE SPEAKS TO DRY BUILDABLE, IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND FACTOR IN THE LOCATION OF WETLANDS AND WHAT SUBSEQUENT IMPLICATIONS OCCUR OF WHERE THAT DRY BUILDABLE IS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, MY CONCERNS WITH LOT 5 PRIMARILY WOULD BE THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR A DRIVEWAY TWO SEPTIC SITES, THAT STORMWATER BASIN AND A POTENTIAL HOUSE.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HAVE SOMEONE BACK HERE SIX MONTHS LATER WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT 5 BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PUT A BIGGER HOME THERE THAN WHAT'S GOING TO FIT.

LOT 5 CONCERNS ME IN THAT REGARD.

THE SECOND CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT LOT 5 IS THAT THE SECONDARY SEPTIC SITE DOES DRAIN INTO OR TOUCH INTO THE GREEN WETLAND BUFFER.

IF YOU WERE TO ZOOM IN VERY TIGHTLY, YOU DO SEE ONE OR TWO ROWS OF THOSE CIRCLES INTO THAT WETLAND BUFFER.

OVERALL, COMING BACK TO THE DENSITY THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE FIRST APPLICATION, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY.

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE DRY BUILDABLE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF WETLANDS TO FACTOR IN HERE, AND I FIND MYSELF PONDERING, ARE WE TRYING TO DO TOO MUCH WITH THE SPACE HERE AND CAUSING ISSUES FOR US DOWN THE ROAD? BASED ON THAT, GENERALLY I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF IT TO SUMMARIZE MY THOUGHTS, PRIMARILY JUST BASED ON LOT 5 AND LOT 4, AS WELL AS THE TURNING RADIUS ISSUE.

THAT'S MY THOUGHTS THERE.

>> I'M HAPPY TO GO NEXT.

I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER KIRCHNER'S COMMENTS.

I FEEL LIKE LOTS 4 AND LOT 5 BOTH HAVE TWO SEPARATE DRY ACREAGE LOCATIONS, AND I THINK THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.

MY CONCERNS ARE FOR THE WETLANDS WE TALK ABOUT IN THE IN THE OVERALL PLANS FOR ORONO AND WHAT WE ARE TO FOCUS ON AND CARE ABOUT, AND THE HEALTH OF THE LAKE IS PRIMARY.

WE ARE NOT THE WATERSHED, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT THE AMOUNT OF WETLANDS HERE AND FORCING THE ISSUE WITH THE SCALE AND LAYOUT OF THESE LOTS HAS BEEN VERY CONCERNED AND GENERALLY NOT VERY SUPPORTIVE.

>> I'LL GO NEXT. I'M PRETTY HUNG UP ON LOT 4.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATION DROP, YOU EITHER HAVE RETAINING WALLS, OR SOME PRETTY CREATIVE GRADING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE WATER BASIN, IT'S PRETTY FAR FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDABLE SITE.

USUALLY, ON THE NEWER HOMES THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING, THEY'RE ACTUALLY RUNNING THE GUTTER DOWNFLOW THROUGH THE BOTTOM OF THE FOUNDATION OUT TO THE WATER BASINS,

[01:50:01]

SO THAT WOULD BE QUITE A LONG RUN TO DO THAT.

I THINK YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES FROM LOT 4, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ON 5, I THINK ANY DECENT-SIZED HOUSE IS JUST NOT GOING TO LOOK RIGHT WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THAT SECTION THERE.

>> MY COMMENTS. I THINK THIS IS A VERY CREATIVE LAYOUT.

I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS REASONABLY MET THE LOT REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE SET FORTH AS A CITY, SO I DON'T SEE A REASON TO DENY IT BASED ON THAT.

I DO NOT LIKE THAT THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE RADIUS OF THE ROAD.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THING THAT, LOOKING AT THIS, IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S A WAY TO MEET THAT RADIUS.

I THINK THE REASON THAT IT'S A 90 DEGREE TURN IS SO THAT WE CAN GET FRONTAGE FOR LOTS 1, 2, AND 3.

I DON'T FEEL THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB MEETING THAT PORTION OF THE CODE.

IN GENERAL, I DON'T LOVE THE CONFIGURATION OF LOTS.

I THINK IT'S CREATIVE, AND IT WORKS.

IT FITS WITHIN THE METRICS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THEM TO BUILD ON.

I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE LAYOUT BECAUSE IT FITS, BUT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE ROAD LAYOUT.

>> LET'S SEE. I GO NEXT.

I WASN'T A BIG FAN OF THIS WHEN IT CAME IN, AND, NORMALLY WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS, IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO SUBDIVIDE IT AND HAVE CONFORMING LOTS.

BUT I KEEP COMING BACK TO OUR BIGGEST ASSET IN ORONO IS LAKE MINNETONKA, AND THIS IS A WETLAND THAT IS FEET AWAY FROM LAKE MINNETONKA, AND SO DENSITY OF HAVING THE LOTS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY CREATIVE, AND THE BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE SMALL, AND THERE'S BIG BUFFER ZONES.

WE ARE PUTTING A DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A WETLAND, AND WE'RE BEING CREATIVE, AND WE'VE GOT A ROAD AND A BRIDGE, AND I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO A WETLAND, AND I SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT WHEN YOU HAVE DRY SEASONS AND WET SEASONS, I SEE THAT IT'S A NATURAL FILTER, AND HAVING FORCING THESE HOMES, AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO MAXIMIZE THEIR YARD BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TOUCH THE WETLAND IN THE BUFFER ZONE, SO THEY'RE GOING TO WANT A LAWN AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE FERTILIZERS, AND IT'S RIGHT INTO THE LAKE.

THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

RESPONSIBILITY AS A PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROTECTING OUR OPEN SPACE AND GREEN SPACE.

I JUST THINK WITH MINNETONKA BE AND OUR BIGGEST ASSET.

I'M NOT A FAN, ESPECIALLY OF THESE MINI LOTS.

I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE CONFORMING LOTS, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THE MONEY FOR A LAKE LOT, LAKE MINNETONKA AND HAVE A SMALL HOUSE LIKE THAT, IT'S A VARIANCE WAITING TO HAPPEN, AND SO I JUST SEE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.

>> FIRST OFF, KUDOS TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMING OUT AND GIVING THEIR INPUT BOTH IN NOVEMBER AND TODAY, AND ALSO TO THE DEVELOPER FOR MAKING THE REQUESTED CHANGES, AS WAS LAID OUT BACK IN NOVEMBER.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I GUESS I'LL REITERATE A QUICK FEW POINTS.

IT'S THE OWNER'S RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH A LOT OF THE CONSENSUS AND THAT IT'S OVERKILL FOR THE SITE, ALTHOUGH THE CREATIVITY WAS MET.

UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT JUST POINTS OUT THE POOR NATURE OF BUILDING CODE TODAY, BECAUSE, AGAIN, ALTHOUGH THE LOTS ARE CONFORMANT, I DON'T THINK IT'S WHAT'S BEST FOR THE SITE, AND I'LL LEAVE IT THERE.

>> COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS TO NOTE.

SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF IS, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS THIS GUIDED TO HAVE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT, AS COMMISSIONER PIRKLE POINTED OUT, A TWO-ACRE MINIMUM LOT AREA.

THIS IS 25 ACRES.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN PUT 12 LOTS HERE.

BUT IT DOES GIVE US SOME PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT AREA WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

WHAT'S PROPOSED IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH LESS THAN THAT.

BUT THE ZONING AND THE ORDINANCES AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE, ARE OFTEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DRY BUILDABLE VERSUS WHAT'S NOT BUILDABLE, AND THE SETBACKS ARE BUILT AROUND THAT SAME ZONING AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO SATISFY THOSE THINGS WITH SOME THINGS THAT ARE STILL MAYBE UNKEPT.

BUT AS NOTED, THEY WOULD BE A CONDITION

[01:55:01]

TO BE MET BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REVIEWING A VARIANCE APPLICATION.

THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, AND SO IF THEY CANNOT DEMONSTRATE CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CUL-DE-SAC WITH ROADWAY LENGTH, WHICH THE LAST ONE, I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, THEN THIS ISN'T GOING TO DEVELOP, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THE COUNCIL OR US APPROVING ANY VARIANCES FOR THIS APPLICATION.

BUT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THEY MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE CAN'T APPROVE.

BECAUSE IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE, THEN WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THE RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

IF THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE SHORT-SIGHTED WITH OUR GUIDANCE AND SETBACKS AND THOSE THINGS, THEN WE SHOULD BRING THEM UP, AND WE CAN HAVE STAFF EXAMINE THEM TO SEE IF THERE'S REVISIONS TO MAKE TO OUR GUIDELINES AND CODE.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, ONE THING THAT I'M NOT CLEAR ON, BUT I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO, IS THERE WAS A QUESTION BY THE COMMENT BY THE PUBLIC ABOUT PUTTING A DOCK OVER WETLANDS.

MR. CHAIR BOLLIS MENTIONED, THERE'S A STRICT GUIDELINES TO THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT BECOMES OUR JURISDICTION.

I THINK THAT'S LMCD, SO ANYTHING FROM RIPRAP OUT WOULD BE THEIR CALL AS TO WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE FROM RIPRAP IN WOULD BE OURS.

BUT YES, IT STILL WOULD BE PRETTY STRICT GUIDELINES.

THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT DOES A NICE JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE STRICT RULES AND BECOME THE EXPERTS ON HOW STORMWATER IS MANAGED, AND A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS TO BE MET, AND IF IT CANNOT, THEN IT WILL NOT.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE COGNIZANT OF.

THE GREAT THING ABOUT WHERE WE LIVE IS WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THE EXPERTS, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ARBORISTS, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ENGINEERS.

THERE IS CONDITIONS THAT ARE BAKED INTO EVERY ONE OF OUR APPROVALS THAT ALLOW THE EXPERTS TO TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY'RE MEETING A PLAN THAT SUPPORTS THE RUNOFF AND THOSE ASPECTS.

NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT IS PERFECT, OR THE LMCD IS PERFECT? NO. CERTAINLY NOT.

I THINK THE PUBLIC'S INPUT CAN HELP WITH THOSE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO LET THEM BE THE EXPERTS.

WE CAN'T BE THE EXPERT, AND MY OPINION IS WE CAN'T DENY AN APPLICATION WITH THE CONCERNS IF THE WATERSHED DISTRICT FEELS LIKE THEY'RE MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS, IS MY PERSPECTIVE THERE.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, AS IT'S WRITTEN, I DON'T SEE THIS AS AN APPROVABLE SUBDIVISION BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS ROADWAY IS STILL FAR AND EXCEEDING 1,000 FEET.

IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, IT'S CLOSER TO 1,500.

MAXIMUM IS 1,000.

THAT'S EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE AREA TO PUT THAT ROADWAY HAS ENOUGH ALLOCATED TO MAKE IT THE REQUIRED WIDTH THAT IT HAS TO BE IT MIGHT NOT BE DEMONSTRATING AS SUCH, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALLOCATING IT.

THEY PROBABLY COULD, BASED ON THIS DESIGN, BUT THE CUL-DE-SAC UNKNOWN.

BUT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT I'VE JUST MENTIONED.

WE CAN LOOK AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

IF THEY'RE MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, YES, THEY PROBABLY WILL BE COMING BACK HERE WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE NOT ILLUSTRATING IT.

BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE ROADWAY AS JUST ONE EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT THAT'S EXCEEDING IT, AND SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE, SO THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY A MOTION TO DENY BASED ON THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE APPLICATION.

I'LL STAND BEHIND MY COMMENTS FROM NOVEMBER, WHICH IS, IF THEY CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISIONS FOR THIS ZONING, INCLUDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE COMMENTS WERE OF THE ROADWAY ABUTTING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, IF THEY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THEY CAN TASTEFULLY PROVIDE SOME GOOD SCREENING AT SETBACKS, AND THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.

>> THANK YOU. JOHN, YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE ROADWAY. QUESTION FOR STAFF.

ARE WE MEASURING THE ROADWAY FROM THE EXISTING LANE ALL THE WAY TO THIS NEW CUL-DE-SAC.

ARE WE MEASURING JUST THE PORTION ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> NO. WE'RE MEASURING IT FROM THE DEAD END ROAD, SO WE'RE MEASURING IT FROM HERE.

>> OKAY. THEN ZOOM UP ON THAT AERIAL TO BAYSIDE TRAIL?

[02:00:10]

SORRY. THE OTHER WAY? THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A OVER LENGTH CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S BEEN APPROVED IN ORONO.

>> IT ISN'T UNCOMMON FOR DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN OUR RURAL AREAS TO RESULT IN THESE DEAD END ROADWAYS, EXCEEDING 1,000 LINEAR FEET.

I THINK THAT JUST BY THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING CONDITION OF NORTH ARM LANE, I THINK IT'S ALMOST +600 FEET ON ITS OWN.

JUST TO SERVE THE PROPERTY, THERE IS NO OTHER ACCESS POINT TO TO SERVE IT, SO THE LENGTH OF THE ADDITIONAL ROADWAY IS SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, STAFF WOULD SUPPORT, OUR ENGINEER WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

IT IS A VARIANCE, BUT IT'S A VARIANCE THAT CAN BE BUILT INTO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, AND HAS BEEN FOR MANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.

>> IS THE INTENT BEHIND THAT PIECE OF CODE, 1,000 FOOT, SO THAT THE APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO TAKE INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING A ROADWAY THAT DEAD ENDS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO PUSH IT OUT TO ANOTHER CONNECTOR ROAD?

>> NO, IT'S PRIMARILY THINKING OF EMERGENCY ACCESS, AND THE LENGTH OF DISTANCE THAT IT TAKES TO GET THERE.

I THINK THESE SITES, THE CIRCLE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING THERE IS SOLVING THE ISSUE WITH.

TAKING THAT AWAY TO GET UP TO THAT PROPERTY, IT'S EITHER A DRIVEWAY OR A ROAD.

THEY'RE COVERING BOTH BASES WITH THEIR TURNAROUND OF THEIR DRIVEWAY.

THEY'RE SAVING HARD COVER BY MINIMIZING THE EFFECT OF WHAT WOULD BE A 24 FOOT WIDE PAVED ROADWAY WITH A CUL-DE-SAC, FOLLOWING THAT SAME DISTANCE.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

>> MR. CHAIR.

>> YES.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

ON THE TOPIC OF THE ROADWAYS, IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT, WOULD THAT VARIANCE BECOME AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE OR WOULD THAT BE A WHOLE NEW VARIANCE APPLICATION?

>> NO, IT'S PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

>> RIGHT, SO THEY'RE NOT MEETING IT RIGHT NOW?

>> TRUE.

>> IT APPEARS THAT THE TWO VARIANCES THEY'RE ASKING FOR ARE THE RADIUS AND THE LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.

THOSE ARE WHAT WOULD BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THEY'RE COMING OFF OF A ROAD THAT'S ALREADY 600 OR 700 FEET LONG.

THEY HAVE NO OTHER PRACTICAL WAY TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY.

>> WHAT'S GOING TO BE OVER LENGTH.

WE'VE APPROVED THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, ALMOST EVERY APPLICATION.

THAT HAS A CUL-DE-SAC ROAD.

THE OTHER VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS THE RADIUS OF THE SAID ROAD.

>> I DON'T THINK THE RADIUS IS BEING CALLED OUT CURRENTLY, SO ARE THEY ASKING FOR IT OR?

>> IT'S STILL PART OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND ME.

>> GOT YOU. WELL, THEN LET ME CLEAN UP MY COMMENTS.

I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO REDUCING THE REQUIRED RADIUS FOR A TURNAROUND, MY POSITION.

I'M NOT HERE TO REDESIGN A PROJECT.

I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE A WAY TO SERVE PROPERTY LOT 1 SHORTENING THAT ROAD WITHOUT DOING TOO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING, I'M NOT HERE TO RESIGN, LIKE I SAID, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE DONE.

>> IT NEEDS TO MEET THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT ON ROAD.

>> OKAY.

>> ON THAT NOTE, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY? AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE VERY END OF THE CURRENT NORTH ARM LANE AND HAVE VARIANCES BE PART OF OUR APPROVAL TO GET ACCESS TO THOSE PROPERTIES AND THE VARIANCE BEING THAT THEY WOULD BE UNDER 200 FEET OF FRONTAGE?

>> NO. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY HAS SUPPORTED IN THE PAST.

>> THANK YOU.

>> OUR DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICALLY A STANDARD WE HOLD TO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MAY I ASK ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION? THE DRY BUILDABLE LOT ON LOT 5, DO WE KNOW THE ACREAGE OF THAT DRY BUILDABLE SECTION?

>> THE CONTIGUOUS DRY BUILDABLE.

YES. IT'S BEEN CALLED OUT.

[02:05:01]

>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS ABOUT HALF AN ACRE.

>> NO, THAT'S WHAT REMAINS.

IT HAS 2.2 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS DRY BUILDABLE IN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.

IT'S AWKWARDLY SHAPED.

THE WETLAND BUFFER COUNTS AS DRY BUILDABLE.

THE GREEN IS WETLAND BUFFER.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR SOME OF THIS.

THE HOUSE PADS THAT YOU HAVE DEPICTED ON HERE.

CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE SIZE OF THOSE? I'LL HAVE TO HAVE YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN.

>> CASEY JOHNSON, 2150, 3RD STREET, SUITE 5, WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA.

>> KENT BRANDER, 21 50 VERMILION BAY, WOODBURY.

>> I WOULD HAVE TO MEASURE THE EXACT DIMENSIONS OF EACH OF THOSE BUILDING PADS, BUT OUR INTENTION IS TO CONTROL EACH OF THOSE CUSTOM BUILT HOMES WITHIN A SIZE-ABLE LIMIT FOR EACH OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

>> WELL, ACTUALLY I JUST TEXTED MY PARTNER TO ASK WHEN THAT QUESTION CAME ABOUT LOT 5.

HE LOOKED AT IT QUICKLY, AND IT'S ABOUT 6,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THAT PAD. THEY'RE ALL PRETTY CALM.

>> THE FOOTPRINT IS 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

>> YEAH, THE FOOTPRINT.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WHILE THEY'RE UP HERE?

>> NO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANKS.

>> I THINK IT HELPS TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS WITH [OVERLAPPING] NO IDEA OF SCALE, WHEN WE DO, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT COMPARED TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE ON THE SOUTHERLY LOT, PERSONALLY, I THINK THEY'RE SHOWING APPROPRIATE SIZE FOOTPRINTS OR POTENTIAL TO HAVE A FOOTPRINT OF A HOUSE THAT YOU'D EXPECT.

>> I WOULD AGREE.

>> ON A LAKE SHORE A LOT LIKE THAT.

THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD, SEEING THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE APPLICATION.

>> SAY AGAIN.

>> THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD, I THINK NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

I STILL THINK THE TURNAROUND NEEDS TO BE THAT THAT'S AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE PROBLEM THAT WILL NEVER GO AWAY.

I THINK WE NEED TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BEND ON THE ROAD WIDTH, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF IT'S SERVING THREE LOTS, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT, I SUPPOSE.

BUT I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE A MITIGANT.

A LOT OF TIMES WE LOOK AT VARIANCES WITH MITIGANTS.

THAT MEANS, DO WE CONSIDER INCREASING THE BUFFER OF THE SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FROM THE MINIMUM TO A DIFFERENT PROPOSED.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD MITIGANT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE ROAD WIDTH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR ANY OTHER MITIGANT WOULD BE ONE AS WELL.

BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT CUL-DE-SAC BACK BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THE REQUIRED FRONTAGE.

THAT MEANS TO ME THAT THEY'RE DEMONSTRATING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO MAKE THIS WORK. I APPRECIATE THAT.

IT JUST NOW IT COMES DOWN TO, CAN WE GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE WIDTH AND THE TURNAROUND, AND WHERE I'M STICKING MY FLAG IN THE GROUND IS THE TURNAROUND IS WHERE I PROBABLY HAVE THE BIGGEST CONCERN.

>> I THINK THEY'RE MEETING THE WIDTH OF 24 FEET.

[OVERLAPPING] ARE YOU SAYING LENGTH? [OVERLAPPING] THE CUL-DE-SAC [OVERLAPPING] MINIMUM TURNAROUND?

>> I THINK THE MINIMUM TURNAROUND THAT THEY'RE NOT MEETING IS THE 90 DEGREE TURN.

>> OH, THAT. THEY ARE MEETING AT THE CUL-DE-SAC? YEAH. IS THAT 30 FEET?

>> FORTY FIVE.

>> FORTY FIVE FEET?

>> IT'S 40. THEY'RE MEETING IT AT 45.

THE SIMPLE SOLUTION IS TO MOVE THE CUL-DE-SAC BACK TO WHERE THE 90 DEGREE TURN IS.

THEN INSTEAD OF GIVING THE VARIANCE FOR THE EXTRA LONG ROAD, GIVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT TO NOT HAVE THE FRONTAGE.

BUT WE TYPICALLY GIVE VARIANCES FOR NOT ENOUGH FRONTAGE ON THE LOTS.

I THINK THE ROAD IS PUSHING THE DESIGN HERE, AND THEY'RE PUSHING WHAT I THINK IS ACCEPTABLE IN OUR EYES AS FAR AS THE VARIANCES THAT ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THIS ROAD.

IF IT'S ALREADY OVER LENGTH, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE A 90 DEGREE TURN THAT DOESN'T MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

>> YEAH.

>> I DO THINK THAT THEY'RE LACKING IN THAT.

DOES THAT HELP WITH YOUR THOUGHT?

>> TREMENDOUSLY. YEAH, NO.

THAT'S GREAT. I WOULD AGREE.

I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE MORE PROOF BEING GIVEN THROUGH THE ENGINEER ON HOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I THINK I CAN GET COMFORTABLE MAKING IT SUBJECT TO, MAKING THE ENGINEER COMFORTABLE WITH IT, GOING BACK TO RELYING ON PEOPLE THAT ARE EXPERTS THAT ARE SMARTER THAN I AM.

[02:10:03]

I THINK IT'S GOOD TO NOTATE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE EXISTING ROAD THAT'S THERE.

RIGHT AWAY IS WHAT IT'S THERE FOR. IT'S A RIGHT AWAY.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING LAND, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING RIGHT AWAY THAT'S ALLOCATED.

PEOPLE ARE RESISTANT TO CHANGE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY'RE ENTITLED TO.

I THINK THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.

BUT THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ENDEAVOR, NOT NECESSARILY APPLICANT.

>> I WOULD SAY IN MY OPINION, IT HAS CHANGED.

HEARING THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT CERTAINLY MANAGED ANY OF MY CONCERNS THAT I HAD.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT LOT 5 BACK HERE FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD THE HOUSE THERE.

I FEEL LIKE THAT'S BEEN ANSWERED, BUT MUCH LIKE COMMISSIONER RESSLER, I I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH US NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS OF A ROADWAY.

THAT'S A KEY COMPONENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND SOMETHING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FOR MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS AND MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

EVEN IF YOU HAD SOMEONE WHO HAD AN ISSUE ON LAKE MINNETONKA RIGHT THERE IN NORTHAM BAIN EXITED ON A PRIVATE DOCK THERE AND NEEDED TO GET PICKED UP BY FIRE AMBULANCE OR SOMETHING, IT COULD COMPLICATE ISSUES.

I STILL HAVE THAT ISSUE WITH THE MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS, SO THE ROADWAY NOT BEING MET.

>> THERE'S SOME OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER IN THE REPORT ABOUT THIS ROAD BEING A PUBLIC ROAD.

TRADITIONALLY, WHEN IT'S A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S BEEN A PRIVATE ROAD.

THE BURDEN IS ON THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT ROAD, WHETHER IT BE IN THE WINTERTIME FOR SNOW REMOVAL OR REPLACEMENT, REPAVING, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK THE CITY ENGINEER IS SEES THE BENEFIT OF A POTENTIAL TURNAROUND AT THE END OF THIS ROAD TO SERVICE THE EXISTING COMMUNITY THAT'S THERE.

I'M CURIOUS HOW THE COMMISSION FEELS ABOUT WHAT THE CITY ENGINEER IS PROPOSING ON THAT.

I KNOW THAT THINGS MIGHT CHANGE, THIS MIGHT GET TABLED, IT MIGHT NOT MOVE FORWARD.

IT MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, SHOULD THIS BE A PUBLIC ROAD? IS ANYONE SEE THE BENEFIT TO THAT THAT WOULD PUT THE BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER FOR SNOW REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT, MAINTENANCE, ETC.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A THOUGHT ONE WAY OR THE ON THAT?

>> I MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE ON THAT ROAD IF THEY WOULD SEE A BENEFIT TO HAVING A TURNAROUND ON THAT ROAD THAT'S A PUBLIC ROAD.

IF ANYONE WAS INTERESTED IN SHARING THEIR OPINION ON THAT.

>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

>> OH, SORRY.

>> YEAH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, BUT I THINK THE APPROPRIATE THING WOULD BE TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO THE CITY IN WRITING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SEE THAT'S A BENEFIT OR NOT.

CLEARLY, THE CITY ENGINEER SEES THAT.

I KNOW THERE'S OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CITY WHERE WE'VE SPECIFICALLY REARRANGED PROPERTY SO THAT WE COULD PUT THESE CUL-DE-SACS AT THE ENDS OF ROADS.

I THINK IT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THAT ROAD'S A PUBLIC.

I DRIVE DOWN THAT ROAD. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A TURN AROUND.

>> ONE EXAMPLE I CAN THINK OF IS AT THE END OF THE ROAD I LIVE ON, WHICH IS TANIGE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THREE LOTS AT THE END OF HERITAGE LANE, AND THERE WAS AN EXISTING CUL-DE-SAC BULB AT THE END OF HERITAGE LANE THAT IS STILL THERE, AND THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL ROADWAY.

HERITAGE LANE WAS THEN EXTENDED INTO TANIGE ESTATES, AND THREE LOTS WERE BUILT WERE A CONFORMING CUL-DE-SAC BULB, BECAUSE THE ONE THAT'S EXISTING ON HERITAGE LANE IS NON CONFORMING.

THE ONE THAT WAS THEN PLACED IN WHERE THOSE THREE LOTS ARE IS NOW CONFORMING, AND SO IT INCREASE THE USABILITY OF THAT FOR THE SCHOOL BUS THAT CAN'T TURN AROUND ON THE EXISTING BULB.

BUT THAT IS A PUBLIC ROADWAY.

THAT HERITAGE LANE WAS A PUBLIC ROADWAY AND WAS EXTENDED AS A CONTINUED PUBLIC ROADWAY.

I SEE THIS AS A SIMILAR SITUATION.

>> ANYONE ELSE FEEL STRONGLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE.

>> WELL, DO WE WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF THERE WAS ANY REASON WHY THEY COULDN'T MAKE THAT ROAD CONFORMING? MAYBE THERE'S A HARDCOVER PERCENTAGE OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A CAUSE TO THAT? BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT WOULD SOLVE SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.

>> ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE RADIUS OF THE ROAD OR THE LENGTH?

>> WELL, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WIDTH AS WELL AS THE RADIUS.

>> THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED ROAD IS CONFORMING.

>> NOW IT'S JUST THE RADIUS.

>> IT'S JUST THE TURN.

>> THE FIRST INITIAL 90 DEGREE TURN.

>> THAT'S IT AND THE LENGTH OBVIOUSLY. WHAT WE'VE ADDRESSED ALREADY.

>> YOU'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WHAT'S PROPOSED CAN'T BE MET? WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING IS NOT MET OR IS IT JUST THAT WE'RE STILL TALKING WITH THE ENGINEER?

>> YES. THEIR COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED I DON'T KNOW, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

I SENT THEM TO THE APPLICANT.

THEY RESPONDED WITH THE COMMENT LETTER THAT'S IN THE PACKET, ADDRESSING EACH OF THOSE COMMENTS, AS WELL AS THAT TURNING RADIUS EXHIBIT.

[02:15:02]

THE ENGINEER HAS NOT REVIEWED OR COMMENTED ON THAT EXHIBIT.

I THINK OUR POSITION IS IS WE WANT THAT, RADIUS TO BE CONFORMING.

IF IT ISN'T CONFORMING, THE ENGINEER DID SAY THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET AT A MINIMUM, ALLOW THOSE VEHICLES TO MANEUVER IN THAT TURN, IT IS A LOW TRAFFIC ROADWAY IN THAT PLACE, AND HE DID NOT INDICATE THAT IT WAS A STOPPING POINT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, AS LONG AS THAT RADIUS WOULD ACCOMMODATE THAT VEHICLE, MANEUVERABILITY.

IT APPEARS IT DOES, BUT I'M NOT A EXPERT ON THAT, SO I NEED TO GET HIS FEEDBACK ON THAT.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPLICANT'S DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO DO.

>> TO THIS POINT, YES.

>> THAT'S MEANINGFUL. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT ALL THAT WORK INTO MAKING EVERYTHING CONFORM, EXCEPT FOR THAT FIRST TURN, I THINK IT'S A SHOW STOPPER.

IT'S LIKE THEY COULD CARVE OUT MORE OF THE ENTRY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER YOU TAKE MORE PROPERTY FROM FIVE AND THREE TO MAKE A MORE ACCESSIBLE ROAD.

>> THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS A PRIVATE ROAD.

BASED ON OUR ENGINEERS COMMENTS, THEY HAVE AGREED TO A PUBLIC ROAD DEDICATION.

THIS CORRIDOR HERE IS WHAT IS BEING DEDICATED AS PUBLIC.

THERE IS SPACE IN THIS CORRIDOR TO MAKE THAT TURN MANEUVER.

I THINK JUST A COMMENT IN PROCESS WITH THE ENGINEER.

>> THIS VISUALLY LOOKS WEIRD THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.

>> WELL, THEN IN THAT CASE, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE WOULD TABLE THIS BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ABLE TO SATISFY WITH THE ENGINEER HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK.

IN SUMMARY, I REALLY FEEL LIKE THIS APPLICANT HAS DONE EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE ASKING OF THEM.

THE MINIMUM CONTIGUOUS LOTS, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE BUILDABLE LOTS, THE TURNAROUND OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

CLEARLY, THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT ROADWAY IS EXCEEDING 10,000 FEET.

IT JUST HAS TO, TO MAKE ALL THIS WORK. I SEE THE EFFORT.

I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT.

BASED UPON THAT, I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS.

I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION CONTINGENT UPON THEM SATISFYING THE CITY ENGINEER WITH THE ROADS.

>> IS THERE ANYONE UP HERE THAT WOULD ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.

>> WAS THAT A MOTION, MR. RESSLER OR NOT?

>> WAS IT OUT THERE? IT WAS ALMOST A MOTION.

>> I'M NOT READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS, BUT I'M AT LEAST GIVING A POSITION THAT MAYBE WE CAN FIND A WAY TO GET BEHIND.

>> NO, I WOULD RESONATE WITH YOU ON THAT THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A WORKABLE SOLUTION HERE AND BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S HISTORY OF HOW THEY'VE WORKED WITH THE CITY AND THE ENGINEER AND PLANNING STAFF ON THIS, I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WON'T WORK TO SOLVE THIS DILEMMA THAT SEEM TO HAVE AN EASY SOLUTION IN FRONT OF US? I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF IT AS WELL, CONTINGENT UPON THE TURNING RADIUS BEING SOLVED.

LIKE I SAID, MY CONCERNS OF LOT 5 AND STUFF HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S CONCERN THERE ANYMORE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, COMMISSIONERS THIS.

THAT'S A 25-FOOT TURNING RADIUS.

DO YOU SEE A WAY TO MAKE THAT CONFORMING AT 275 FEET WITHOUT REDESIGNING? THE BIGGEST VARIANCE IN THIS IS THAT TURN, AND THAT TURN ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON ONE AND TWO.

I DON'T REMEMBER A TIME THAT WE'VE APPROVED A 25-FOOT RADIUS, WHETHER THEY SHOW THAT IT COULD WORK OR NOT, BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE 275 FEET.

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 25-FOOT TURNING RADIUS AT THE TURN THERE?

>> YES, AT THE 90 DEGREE TURN.

>> THE 90 DEGREE.

>> WELL, I I'M NOT CERTAINLY A HISTORIAN ON WHAT WE'VE APPROVED ON THE TURNING RADIUSES, BUT IF THE CITY ENGINEER SUPPORTS IT, THAT CERTAINLY MEANS SOMETHING TO ME BECAUSE THEY'RE CERTAINLY WELL AWARE OF OUR HISTORICAL APPROVAL.

>> THEY'RE SUPPORTING IT BASED ON THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE SHOWING ENGINEERING THAT IT CAN BE NAVIGABLE, BUT THEY'RE CALLING IT OUT AS A VARIANCE THAT WE HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED OF.

DOES THAT FIT WHAT WE WANT IN A DEVELOPMENT? IF THE MOTION WAS TO MOVE IT FORWARD BASED ON MEETING THE CITY ENGINEERS REQUIREMENTS, ARE YOU FINE WITH IT JUST LIKE IT IS RIGHT THERE? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT MEETS IT, ALTHOUGH THAT IS A BIG VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

[02:20:01]

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THAT THE ENGINEER WOULD BE SOLELY BASING THEIR OPINION ON THE HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND WE WOULD BE LEANING ON THEIR GUIDANCE FOR THAT, MORE SO THAN THEM LEANING ON US FOR THAT.

MAYBE I'M WRONG. MELANIE, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION FOR THAT?

>> WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION?

>> WELL, GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIR.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE STANDARD THAT THE ENGINEER WOULD BE USING TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT TERM WOULD BE APPROPRIATE OR NOT? IS IT SPECIFICALLY JUST ON USE OR IS IT ON THE OVERALL DESIGN OF IT AND HOW IT FITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ETC.?

>> WE START WITH THE STANDARD, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE VOLUME AND THE TRAFFIC ON THE ROADWAY AS FAR AS WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT.

THE COMMENTS IN THE PACKET WERE DRAFTED BY BOLTON AND MANK, OUR CONSULTING ENGINEER.

IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, ADAM EDWARDS, HIS COMMENT TO ME JUST ANECDOTALLY WAS THAT, ISN'T THAT DIFFERENT FROM AN INTERSECTION WITH A STOP AND A TURN TO 90 DEGREES? HIS LEVEL OF COMFORT WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN WAS A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THE VEHICULAR RADIUS COULD BE MET WHEN THEY TURN AND GET INTO THAT SITE.

THE VEHICLE WOULD STAY ON THE ROAD AND MAKE THE TURN.

I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT THEY'VE PROVIDED IS DOING THAT.

AS I SAID, IT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES INTO THE OTHER LANE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, BUT WE WILL GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM AND IF IT'S STILL UNACCEPTABLE, THEY'LL EITHER NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE OR THAT PIECE OF IT GETS PRESENTED TO COUNSEL AS AN EXCEPTION AS WELL.

>> IS IT TRUE THAT TYPICALLY IN THE PAST, WE'VE SEEN THIS AND A SOLUTION IS TO PUT A CUL-DE-SAC THERE, AND THAT CREATES THE END OF THAT ROAD, AND NOW YOU'VE GOT THE ROAD CONTINUING TO THE LEFT TO THE ADJACENT CUL-DE-SAC.

>> THAT'S AN OPTION.

OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE AN INTERSECTION.

>> CORRECT.

>> LET ME PUT IT OUT THERE.

>> THE HARD COVER RESULTING FROM A CUL-DE-SAC IN THAT LOCATION IN THE PROXIMITY OF THAT.

THIS MIGHT BE THE ALTERNATIVE THAT OFFSETS THAT.

PULLING THE MORE OF THE HARD COVER AWAY.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> YEAH, AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT LOT 4, YOU CAN'T MAKE WATER BEND.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE WATER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS GOING TO GO INTO THAT HOLDING POND.

THAT'S A LONG DISTANCE FOR WATER TO GO.

TO ME, THE WATER IS GOING RIGHT INTO THE WETLAND.

I GET THE BUFFER, BUT THERE'S A STEEP GRADIENT THERE, AND THAT WATER'S GOING TO BE RUNNING DOWN THAT HILL.

THAT'S MY BIG THING IS LIKE, IF THIS WAS A WETLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WOODS, FINE. GO FOR.

WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE, BUT THIS IS A WETLAND THAT'S FEET FROM MINNETONKA.

THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

I GET IT. IT'S CONFORMING LOTS, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ONE BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY VARIABLES HERE.

THE WATER GOING DOWN THE HILL AND TRYING TO CATCH IT ALL ON THAT HOLDING POD. BUT GUESS WHAT? THE WATER IS GOING RIGHT DOWN THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE ASPHALT MOST LIKELY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE DUMPING INTO THE WETLAND.

THEN BUILDING FIVE, THE ONLY WAY YOU REALLY MAKE THAT DRIVEWAY TO PROVE A LEFT ANGLES, THAT DRIVEWAYS GOT TO TAKE A MORE MEANDERING PATH.

THEN THAT'S GOING TO LET FIVE MOVE THAT SEPTIC TANK OVER TO THE RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT SUPPORT OF IT THAT WAY, BUT YOU DON'T NEED MY VOTE TO GET THIS GOING.

BUT THAT SAID, I THINK THE ROAD IS A REALLY GOOD POINT.

WHY HAVE A ENTRANCE INTO A DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU NEED BASIC "IT'S JUST LIKE A STOP SIGN WHERE YOU TAKE A LEFT." WELL, YOU DON'T WANT TO STOP WHEN YOU'RE GOING HOME EVERY DAY.

I WOULD SAY IT'S JUST LINES ON A PAPER RIGHT NOW.

BRING IT BACK, COME BACK WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION.

YOU UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND JUST WORK THE ISSUE.

>> THE GRADING THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING AND THE STORMWATER POND, ISSUES THAT THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS STILL CONTEMPLATING THE APPLICANT.

>> I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN.

>> WE ANTICIPATE A RESOLUTION.

>> WELL, YEAH, WOULD LOVE TO GET A RESOLUTION.

>> COMMISSIONER, MCCUTCHEON, TO ASK YOU A DIFFERENT WAY, IF THE WATERSHED DISTRICT SIGNS OFF ON IT IN AGREEMENT THAT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE STORMWATER IS BEING MANAGED APPROPRIATELY, WOULD YOU STILL BE OPPOSED TO IT?

>> IF THE CATCH BASIN CATCHES ALL THE STORMWATER IN THE WATERSHED DISTRICTS BEHIND IT, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING HERE.

YEAH, I GET AT THE WATERSHED DISTRICTS, THEY'RE COMPETENT BUT TO ME,

[02:25:01]

I'M LOOKING AT IT, LIKE THIS DOESN'T WORK.

>> I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS.

>>IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT PART OF THE SLANT.

>> TRUE.

>> IT WOULD BE A CONDITION REGARDLESS.

>> IF IT MOVES FORWARD AND IT DIDN'T GET APPROVAL FROM WATERSHED, IT WOULD DEFINITELY COME BACK HERE BECAUSE THEY'RE MOST LIKELY IT'S NOT AN APPROVAL.

UNLESS THEY WERE JUST ABLE TO REDESIGN THE SWALING, AND IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE LAYOUT OF THE LOTS.

>> THAT'S WHAT IT IS. WHAT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU IS IF THERE WAS A CHANGE IN ANY OF THE LOT DIMENSIONAL.

IT WOULDN'T BE JUST THE GRADING IN THE STORMWATER PLAN, PUSHING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> I GUESS THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING MY QUESTION.

>> I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT STORMWATER AND RUNOFF AND ALL OF THIS, WHICH IS A HOT TOPIC HERE, AND I REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS ON THAT.

THE LMCD AND AND MINNEHAHA CREEK DOES, BUT ELIMINATING THAT NORTHERN ROAD EXTENSION WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC, ITS EASILY REMOVES A TON OF HARD COVER FROM THE SITE, BASED ON WHAT THEY HAD PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY, WHERE THAT DRIVEWAY WAS A ROAD WITH A GIANT CUL-DE-SAC, AT THE END FOR ONE LOT, ESSENTIALLY.

I THINK THAT'S A PLUS FOR THE DEVELOPER.

IT'S HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

IT SOUNDS LIKE, MR. MCCUTCHEON, YOU WERE ON THE TIP OF MAKING A MOTION.

>> I WAS MAKING A MOTION TO DENY.

[LAUGHTER] I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AS APPLIED, WITH THE FEEDBACK THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SUMMARIZE IT HERE, WITH THE ROAD RESTRICTION NOT BEING MET.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO KEEP ADDING TO IT, BUT DEFINITELY I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT IT'S GOT TO PASS THE WATERSHED DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.

>> GOT A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

TO DENY AS APPLIED. TO HAVE A SECOND.

>> I WILL SECOND.

>> I HAVE A SECOND.

THE MOTION IS TO DENY BY COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PIRKLE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YES. IT'S REDUNDANT TO MAKE A CONDITION ON THE WATERSHED.

THE WATERSHED IS A CONDITION OF IT.

IF IT WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD BE STILL CONDITION ON THE WATERSHED.

>> BUT, BUT WE'RE DENYING IT.

>> NO. EXACTLY. THE MOTION IS TO DENY.

>> WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR DENIED, IT STILL HAS TO PASS THE WATERSHED MUSTER AND THEIR PERMITTING PROCESS TO BEGIN AT SOME POINT.

>> THIS HAS BEEN TABLED SINCE NOVEMBER, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE HAVE AN ABILITY.

AGAIN, APPROVED DENY, STILL CAN GO TO COUNSEL.

>> THE MOTION IS TO DENY, IF IT GETS DENIED, IT'LL STILL MOVE ON TO COUNSEL.

THEY WILL HAVE OUR FEEDBACK ON WHY WE'RE DENYING IT, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE TURN OF THIS ROAD AND IT'S IN THE CODE. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

>> WE'RE STUCK ON THE ROAD, AND I HIGHLIGHTED THE POINT EARLIER ABOUT WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR THE ROAD BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK A BETTER SOLUTION BASED ON PUBLIC INPUT IS TO HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC IF ENGINEERING ALLOWED AT THE END OF NORTH ARM LANE AND MAKING THE 200-FOOT LOT REQUIREMENT OUR VARIANCE.

I THINK THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY BASED ON THEIR PUBLIC FEEDBACK TO DATE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN PROVIDE COMMENT ON THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN ANOTHER WHOLE, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HUNG UP ON AS THAT TURN RADIUS ON THE ROAD, I THINK REDUCING THE PAVEMENT, AND I THINK, AGAIN, THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PRESERVING THE LAND BACK THERE.

>> I THINK I WOULD FALL BACK TO TRY NOT TO BE THE ENGINEERING EXPERT AND STICK WITH THE MOTION PARTICULARLY THAT THE ROADWAY WITH GET WORKED OUT WITH ENGINEERING.

AS FAR AS THE WATERSHED AND STUFF GOES, I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RESSLER, THAT THAT'S NOT OUR PLACE, AND IT'S REDUNDANT AND REPETITIVE.

IF THE MOTION WERE JUST DENIAL BASED ON THE ROADWAY WITH, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE ENTIRELY IN SUPPORTIVE OF.

>> YEAH. I THINK TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS, COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR, IT'S BEEN A HARD NO IN ORONO AS FAR AS LOT WIDTH, AND WE'RE TRADING ONE VARIANCE FOR THE OTHER.

[02:30:02]

IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THE SLIPPERY SLOPE YOU'D GO DOWN IF YOU STARTED GIVING LOT WIDTH CONCESSIONS AS THEN EVERYBODY WOULD BE APPLYING FOR A SUBDIVISION OF THEIR LOT.

I'VE GOT 50 FEET WIDE HERE.

IF YOU WERE TO PUT THIS CUL-DE-SAC, AT THE END OF THE EXISTING ROAD, NOT WITHIN THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY, YOU WOULD BE HAVING TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING ROADWAY, AND SO YOU'D HAVE TO BE TAKING PROPERTY TO DO THAT.

BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S ROOM TO PUT IT IN THE EXISTING PROPERTY OR IN THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

I THINK THAT SOME COMBINATION OF THAT WOULD BE THE PATH FORWARD.

>> THAT WAS MY IDEA, I GUESS TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON MY SOLUTION.

AGAIN, MY PERSPECTIVE, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND GOING DOWN THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE OF IMPROVING THAT FOR EVERYONE, THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, I THINK THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST.

TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY.

>> YEAH. YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT WITH THAT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY BASED ON THIS ROAD TURNING RADIUS RIGHT NOW.

IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, LET'S PUT A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED?

>> NAY.

>> I THINK FOR THE RECORD RECORDER, I THINK WE NEED TO CALL OUR VOTES BY NAME.

>> SURE.

>> WE KNOW WHO'S VOTING.

>> SHOULD WE RE-VOTE THAT? IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IT WAS SPLIT.

>> IF YOU WANT TO IDENTIFY THAT WHO SAID AYE AND WHO SAID NAY.

>> I CAN JUST START AND WE'LL GO DOWN.

KIRCHNER WAS A NAY.

>> NAY TO DENY.

>> KIRCHNER WAS A NAY TO DENY. CORRECT.

>> PIRKLE, AYE.

>> JARNOT, AYE.

>> BOLLIS WAS AN AYE.

>> MCCUTCHEON WAS TO DENY, APPROVE A DENY.

>> BRANDER BREW WAS TO DENY?

>> I WAS A NAY.

>> [LAUGHTER] WHO VOTED TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO DENY? RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE.

>> FIVE TO TWO.

>> MISS OAKTON, DO YOU HAVE THAT?

WE'RE GOING TO DO A SHORT BREAK.

[NOISE]

>> FEBRUARY 18, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS BACK IN SESSION.

WE ARE ON PUBLIC HEARING LA 24-65,

[6.3. LA24-000065, Hartman Companies, 980 Heritage Lane, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]

HARTMAN COMPANY'S 980 HERITAGE LANE.

THIS IS FOR CUP. MR. CARNEY.

>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR BOLLIS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

>> [BACKGROUND]

>> I'LL BE WITH YOU FOR THE NEXT THREE HERE, SO PARDON ME AS I GET STARTED.

WE HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HERE FOR 980 HERITAGE LANE.

THIS IS A PROPERTY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A SLOPE GOING DOWN TO TANAGER LAKE, WHERE WE HAVE A LAKE STAIR SHOWN IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER.

WHERE THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING A RETAINING WALL RIGHT BEFORE THAT STAIR PORTION.

WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME I WOULD SAY, SOFT-COLORED BRICKS, GRAY MUTED COLORS THAT WOULD GO IN JUST BEFORE THERE.

A GRAPHIC THAT WOULD BE NEW FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS BETWEEN THE TIME THE PACKET WAS SUBMITTED AND TODAY IS THE APPLICANT PROVIDED SOME LANDSCAPE.

THEY WERE INTERESTED IN PUTTING IN FRONT OF THE WALLS TO MEET THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THAT WILL BE SHOWN IN THE MIDDLE THERE BELOW THE BRICK AND ABOVE THE CROSS SECTION.

ULTIMATELY, THERE WILL ONLY BE 17 SQUARE FEET OF HARDCOVER BEING ADDED.

BUT GENERALLY, WE'RE ABOUT 28 OR SO FEET AWAY FROM THE LAKE OVERALL.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR THE NEW COMMISSIONERS, ANYTIME THAT THERE IS A NEW RETAINING WALL PROPOSED WITHIN THE LAKE SETBACK, IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE 75 FEET.

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE LOOK FOR THE MINIMUM DESIGN IN ORDER TO CORRECT A SLOPE STABILITY ISSUE.

I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, NOT NECESSARILY SEEING GREAT SLOPE STABILITY.

IF YOU HAVE A LAKE STAIR AND GENERAL LAKE ACCESS, YOU WILL HAVE FOOT TRAFFIC GOING TO THAT STAIRWAY WHERE IT MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE RIGHT NOW, BUT IT MAY BE IN THE FUTURE.

THIS COULD BE A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE IN ORDER TO STOP THAT, SOMETHING THAT STAFF GENERALLY SEES AND SUPPORTS.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> MR. CARNEY, THE COMMISSIONER USE PERMIT PREDOMINANTLY IS IN PLACE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUPERVISE AND

[02:35:02]

MONITOR THAT IS BEING MAINTAINED TO THE STANDARDS OR REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> ARE WE IN CHARGE OF APPROVING THE DECK OR THE DOCK ITSELF, OR IS THAT THE LAKE?

>> THAT WOULD BE THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE DOCK IS THERE.

IT'S APPROVED ALREADY.

>> IT JUST LOOKS NEW, SO I GUESS I'M SURPRISED THAT THIS IS COMING IN AFTER THE FACT, SO HONOR TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE DIFFERENT BODIES THAT ARE GOVERNING IT?

>> YEAH. IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES, THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT FOR YOU.

>> IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> SETH EGGERT 15585 HALSEY AVENUE, CARVER.

STAFF DID A GOOD JOB DOING THE PROJECT.

>> [BACKGROUND] ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NOBODY.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

THIS ONE I WILL START IT OFF.

THIS ONE IN MY ASSESSMENT APPEARS TO ME ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE CUP, AND I AGREE WITH STAFF, AND I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF APPROVAL.

>> YEAH, I'LL SKIP AHEAD ON THIS ONE, TOO.

AS NOTED ALREADY IN DISCUSSION, IT'S NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION, PERHAPS, SO THAT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER FOR US TO DELIBERATE THIS.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION FOR STAFF EXISTS.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NOT ANY EGREGIOUS CHANGES MADE AFTER THE FACT.

BECAUSE WE CAN REVOKE THOSE PRIVILEGES AT ANY TIME.

FOR THAT REASON, AS LONG AS THEY'RE MEETING THAT, I SEE NO REASON TO DENY.

I WOULD BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE UNLESS THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION TO YOU.

>> CHAIR BOLLIS, IF I MAY.

>> YES.

>> WITH THE INCLUSION OF THAT NEW IMAGE I HAVE WITH THE LANDSCAPING PROPOSED, YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT IN YOUR MOTION AS WELL.

IF THAT LANDSCAPING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SCREENING OF THOSE WALLS, THAT IS A DESIGN THAT YOU CAN HAVE ADOPTED.

I WOULD BELIEVE, GOING FORWARD, TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

OTHERWISE, IF YOU FEEL THE IMPACTS ARE LESSER WHERE SCREENING MAY NOT BE NECESSARY.

THAT'S ALSO AN OPTION, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE THE APPLICANTS HAVE PREPARED SOMETHING THAT WOULD BETTER MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE SCREENING OF THE WALL.

>> WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS ON THIS SKETCH RIGHT HERE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THE DROP SEED AND THE BLUE STREP. OKAY.

>> ESSENTIALLY, TO SWAP OUT THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR THE NEW IMAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO ME THIS WEEK.

>> GREAT POINT. THANK YOU. JUST SO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AWARE, THAT THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FOR APPROVALS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OTHERWISE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-6 X AS APPLIED.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER KIRCHNER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER [OVERLAPPING]

>> ONE CORRECTION.

L A 24-65, NOT 66.

>> GOT IT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MOTION TO APPROVE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

THAT'LL BRING US TO LA 24-66.

[6.4. LA24-000066, Dean & Susan Thomson, 430 East Long Lake Road, Conditional Use Permit & Variances (Matthew Karney)]

DEAN AND SUSAN THOMPSON, 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD.

THIS IS FOR A CUP AND VARIANCES. MR. CARNEY.

>> YES. FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, CHAIR BOLLIS AND PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A FEW VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE KEEPING OF FARM ANIMALS.

IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THE APPLICANTS, ON BEHALF OF THEIR TENANTS, APPLICANTS BEING THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD, ARE REQUESTING FOR UP TO 30 PIGEONS TO BE KEPT ON THE PROPERTY.

IN STAFF INTERPRETATION, JUST BASED ON HOW WE LOOK AT FARM ANIMALS AND THE ANIMALS THAT ARE COVERED THERE IN TERMS OF, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT PIGEONS ARE FOWL, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY ARE FEATHERED ANIMALS THAT WOULD BE KEPT IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THAT OF FARM ANIMALS.

THE BIG POINT OF CONTENTION THAT WE HAVE IS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS FOR LAKE SHORE RESIDENTIAL REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACRE FOR THE DWELLING OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS ONE ACRE FOR EACH ANIMAL UNIT.

[02:40:03]

THIS PROPERTY IS ONLY, LET'S SAY, THREE-QUARTERS OF AN ACRE, ABOUT 0.77 TO BE, SO THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DEFICIENT IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS ASK FOR A SEPARATION OF AT LEAST 75 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANIMALS AND THE NEAREST LOT LINE, AS WELL AS 150 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTS, BASED ON THE AREA THAT IT'S LOCATED.

PARDON ME. I DON'T HAVE MY GRAPHIC UP.

JUST LOOKING HERE, WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED UP AGAINST WOOD-RILL IN THE BACK, LARGE UNDEVELOPED NATURAL AREA, FOR THE MOST PART.

THERE'S A COOP LOCATION THAT WE HAVE THAT IS NOT 75 FEET AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINES, AS CLOSE AS 35 BACKING UP TO WOOD-RILL OVER HERE.

AGAIN, THE CONDITIONS I WAS COVERING LOOKING FOR A LESS THAN 200 SQUARE-FOOT COOP.

[BACKGROUND] GENERALLY SPEAKING, A NUMBER OF THOSE CONDITIONS CAN'T BE MET, AND GENERALLY, WHEN STAFF WOULD LOOK AT ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS TYPE OF INSTANCE, WE'RE LOOKING AT NON-CONFORMING USES THAT ARE PRIMARY, OPPOSED TO ACCESSORY OR, IN THIS CASE, CONDITIONAL.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A HOUSE ON THERE, IT'S BEING USED RESIDENTIALLY.

TO HAVE THAT CONDITIONAL USE, THE PROPERTY DOESN'T MEET THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE DON'T SEE THAT AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN TERMS OF MEETING THE BURDEN OF THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS TO KEEP FARM ANIMALS IN THIS DISTRICT.

I DO SEE A COUNTERPOINT THAT WITH THAT LARGE NATURAL AREA THAT YOU HAVE IN THE REAR AIR, YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER FROM OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT THAT ISN'T A PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THIS CONFINED RELATIVELY THREE-QUARTERS OF AN ACRE PROPERTY AND THE IMPACTS OF FARM ANIMALS ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA POTENTIALLY.

I CAN HAVE THE APPLICANTS SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ABOUT THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.

I WON'T PASS COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT 30 IS AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OR NOT.

HOWEVER, WE DO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF AN ANIMAL UNIT, WHICH WE DO LOOK FOR THAT ACRE SIZE FOR FOWL OR FEATHERED BIRDS LIKE CHICKENS WOULD BE LIMITED TO 25 PER ANIMAL UNIT.

THAT'S A FRAME OF REFERENCE THAT WE GO OFF.

AS STAFF ISN'T SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION, I WILL NOT COMMENT ON IF 30 IS A FAIR NUMBER OR NOT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE?

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE CODE THAT SOME ANIMALS ARE DEFINED AND GIVEN AN ANIMAL UNIT, AND OTHERS ARE NOT.

CAN YOU CONFIRM PIGEONS WERE NOT DEFINED IN THE CODE?

>> PIGEONS ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE CODE.

AND TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC, MUNICODE, WHICH IS THE SERVICE THAT ORONO USES FOR OUR REGULATIONS AND HOUSING, OUR CITY CODE, HAS RELATIVELY EASY ACCESS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

PART OF MY RESEARCH INCLUDED A NUMBER OF OTHER CITIES THAT, INCLUDED ANOKA, CHASKA, ELSIER, AND CHANHASSEN, TO NAME A FEW.

THE ONLY ONE THAT I FOUND THAT HAD ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING PIGEONS WAS CHAMPLIN, AND IT WAS JUST AN ANNUAL PERMIT.

I BELIEVE I COVERED THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE ARE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN THEIR APPLICATION THAT THESE ARE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

I WON'T CONFIRM NOR DENY THAT.

BUT THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE AND GENERALLY WITHIN OTHER COMMUNITIES DO NOT ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE DOMESTICATED OR FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF FARM ANIMALS OR THINGS OF THE LIKE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, PIGEONS AREN'T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT WITHIN OUR REGULATIONS OR ANY OF THAT I WAS RESEARCHING, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE ANOMALY WITH CHAMPLIN.

>> REMIND ME AGAIN AND MAYBE GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DEPTH ON WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING THESE TO BE FOWL AND DEFINED THAT WAY.

>> I THINK, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WITH THE QUANTITY THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, FALLING IN LINE WITH THAT ANIMAL UNIT QUANTITY IS PART OF IT.

I THINK ADDITIONALLY, HOW THEY'RE PLANNING ON KEEPING IT IN A SMALL COOP, GENERALLY SPEAKING, HOW THEY INTEND ON USING THE ANIMALS, I WOULD SAY, IS ALMOST AKIN TO A NUMBER OF THE FARM ANIMALS THAT WE DO HAVE CALLED OUT WITH ON OUR DEFINITION THAT INCLUDE DUCKS, GEESE, TURKEYS, CHICKENS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THERE MIGHT BE OTHER IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE THAT DIFFER FROM PIGEONS THEMSELVES, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, HOW THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROPOSED TO HANDLE THEM ON THEIR PROPERTY.

[02:45:02]

WE FIND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF FARM ANIMALS.

>> OKAY. ONE MORE QUESTION, IF THIS WASN'T A LIVESTOCK SITUATION, WOULD THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPOSED COOP MEET SETBACKS?

>> IT GENERALLY MEETS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS.

HOWEVER, THE 75-FOOT SETBACK, AS STIPULATED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS, ARE NOT BEING MET.

STAFF DOES AGREE WITH THE RATIONALE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE, THAT THERE IS RATIONALE TO HAVE THAT IN A BETTER SCREEN LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT MEET THE ACTUAL SETBACK STIPULATED BY THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS, THOUGH.

>> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> HELLO, I'M DEAN THOMPSON. I'M HERE WITH MY WIFE, SUSAN THOMPSON.

WE LIVE AT 685 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD.

WE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE AT 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD, ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM US.

WE ARE CURRENTLY RENTING IT TO THE MYRNA AND VASHTI FAMILY, WHO ARE UKRAINIAN WAR REFUGEES.

THEY'RE RELIEVED TO BE HERE. WE'RE SUPPORTING THEM.

BUT VICKI MYRNA IS HERE, ALONG WITH HER FATHER, ANATOLI.

ANATOLI, SINCE HE WAS TEN IN UKRAINE, RAISED PIGEONS.

HE RAISES THEM AS PETS AND TO TRADE THEM.

APPARENTLY, THERE'S A VERY LARGE PIGEON HOBBY COMMUNITY IN EUROPE.

THERE IS ACTUALLY IN MINNESOTA AS WELL, TO MY SURPRISE, BUT THERE IS.

HE RAISES THEM AS PETS AND TWO FOR SHOW AND TRADING AMONG THE OTHER PIGEON FARMERS.

TO RELIEVE THE STRESS OF COMING TO A NEW COUNTRY AND NOT SPEAKING THE LANGUAGE, IT WOULD HELP HIM TO CONTINUE HIS OLD HOBBY, WHICH IS WHY WE APPLIED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO BECAUSE THESE WERE CONSIDERED TO BE FARM ANIMALS.

BUT AS I THINK HAS BEEN STATED, SECTION 78.303, WHICH REQUIRES ONE ACRE FOR THE LOT AND ONE ACRE FOR EACH UNIT OF FARM ANIMALS, APPLIES ONLY TO FARM ANIMALS.

ACCORDING TO SECTION 621, PIGEONS ARE NOT LISTED AS FARM ANIMALS.

FARM ANIMALS ARE, LET ME SEE HERE.

CATTLE, HORSES, MES, SHEEP, GOATS, SWINE, PONIES, DUCKS, GEESE, TURKEYS, CHICKENS, GUINEA HENS, AND HONEYBEES. NOT PIGEONS.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF SAYING, WELL, THEY HAVE FEATHERS, THEY ARE SIMILAR TO FOWL, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY TRUE THAT YOU DON'T RAISE THESE TYPES OF PIGEONS LIKE CHICKENS TO EAT OR GUINEA HENS TO EAT OR COWS AND PIGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THESE PIGEONS WILL STAY WITHIN THIS COOP.

IT'S A NINE-BY-SIX COOP.

IT'S 54 SQUARE FEET.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FLY IN AND OUT.

THAT'S WHERE THEY WILL STAY.

IT'S TRUE THAT PIGEONS ARE DEFINED AS AN ANIMAL IN THE CODE, BUT THE DEFINITION OF AN ANIMAL DOESN'T REQUIRE CONFORMANCE WITH THIS ONE ACRE AND ONE ACRE PER UNIT.

IN FACT, THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL SAYS THAT I'LL FIND IT.

>> WELL, I JUST CAN'T FIND IT ANYMORE, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT INTERIOR-CAGED BIRDS AREN'T EVEN CONSIDERED ANIMALS.

THEY'RE LIKE DOGS AND CATS.

YOU COULD ACTUALLY KEEP THESE PIGEONS WITHIN THE GARAGE, AND THEY'D BE A CAGED INTERIOR BIRD, BUT BE BETTER FOR THEM TO BE KEPT OUTSIDE IN THE FRESH AIR.

THAT'S WHY WE REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO CONSIDER THEM TO BE FARM ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING PRODUCED FOR CONSUMPTION BY ANYBODY ELSE.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL VIEW HERE, IT'S SURROUNDED ON THE WEST SIDE BY WOOD-RILL, ON THE SOUTH SIDE BY WOOD-RILL.

THE SENSE OF SIZE IS PRACTICALLY IRRELEVANT, ALTHOUGH I DO TAKE MATT'S POINT THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT LOT IN QUESTION, BUT SURROUNDING THE LOT, THERE'S NOTHING GOING TO BE THERE.

ON THE WEST SIDE, WE'VE GOT EAST LONG LAKE ROAD, SO THERE'S ONLY ONE HOUSE TO THE NORTH THAT COULD BE POSSIBLY AFFECTED BY THIS.

[02:50:02]

WE THINK BECAUSE THE PIGEONS ARE BEING KEPT AS PETS INSIDE THIS INTERIOR UNIT EVEN IF THEY'RE CONSIDERED FARM ANIMALS, THE TYPE OF FARM ANIMALS THEY ARE ARE NOT THE TYPE THAT NEED ONE ACRE PER HEAD.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE STRUTTING AROUND IN THE YARD.

THEY'RE GOING TO STAY HERE.

WE THINK THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BE GRANTED.

WE PUT THE COOP WHERE IT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE ROAD OR ANY OTHER NEIGHBORS.

IF YOU WANT US TO PUT IT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LOT LINE, WE CAN.

IF FOR SOME REASON, YOU THINK 30 PIGEONS ARE TOO MUCH, WE CAN REDUCE IT TO 25 PIGEONS.

WE JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A HOBBY FOR OUR NEIGHBOR WHO WE THINK DESERVES IT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION YOU MENTIONED.

THESE ARE TRADED AMONGST OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT RAISE PIGEONS, ARE THEY SOLD OR BARTERED OR WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?

>> I THINK THEY'RE TRADED AND SOLD AND BARTERED TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO RAISE SHOW PIGEONS LIKE, I SUPPOSE, DOGS WOULD BE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY GOOD WIFE, I'M GOING TO ADD A LITTLE BIT.

MY NAME IS SUSAN THOMPSON.

WE'VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY 25 YEARS.

WE ABSOLUTELY LOVE OUR COMMUNITY.

THE FAMILY THAT WE'VE BROUGHT OVER FROM UKRAINE THAT'S LIVING HERE ARE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE.

THEY ENRICH OUR COMMUNITY.

I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IN A WAY THAT WILL SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

>> THEIR SON IS IN FIFTH GRADE ORONO.

VICKI HERE WORKS IN THE ORONO SCHOOL KITCHEN, AND HER GRANDPARENT ANATOLE DOES ODD JOBS AROUND.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? GOT NONE.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> HELLO. I APOLOGIZE.

I'VE LOST MY VOICE.

I'M KIM SIMONSON.

I'M ACTUALLY AN ANTACA RESIDENT, BUT I AM THE REASON THAT THIS IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO COME.

GOOD FRIENDS OF THE THOMPSONS AND THE MYRNAS WERE AT MY HOME.

THEY SAW MY CHICKEN COOP IN THE BACKYARD.

IT JUST SPARKED ANATOLE.

I STARTED RAISING CHICKENS DURING COVID.

I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THE POINT ABOUT FARM ANIMALS.

CHICKENS ARE FARM ANIMALS.

I DO HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNETONKA.

BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO STAFF THAT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PREDATORS.

THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN SPEAK TO.

IN OUR CASE, WE HAVE A PROTECTED PREDATOR-PROOF AREA, AND I'VE BEEN IN OUR HOME FOR OVER 35 YEARS.

IN THE FOUR YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD THE CHICKENS, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY ADDITIONAL PREDATORS IN OUR HEAVILY WOODED AREA.

WE HAVE FOX, COYOTE, HAWKS, AND AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE CHICKENS ARE THERE, I'VE NOT HAD ANY DAMAGE OR CONCERNS.

I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS FOR STAFF, THE CONCERN THAT ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD WAS THAT THIS WOULD SOMEHOW ATTRACT MORE PREDATORS, AND I WOULD SAY FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER THIS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL GIFT TO THE COMMUNITY.

THE LAST POINT I'LL MAKE AS I RESEARCHED THIS BECAUSE I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT PIGEONS IS THAT IT IS AN INCREDIBLE SPORT IN EUROPE.

IF WE WERE IN BELGIUM TONIGHT, WE MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THE CHINESE GENTLEMAN WHO SPENT 1.9 MILLION ON A SINGLE ELITE ATHLETE PIGEON.

[LAUGHTER] IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

AND BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT THE TRADING.

ACTUALLY, THE MINNESOTA PIGEON ASSOCIATION HAS THEIR NOVEMBER EVENT EVERY YEAR.

IT'S A BIG GATHERING.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE, BUT IF HE WERE RACING PIGEONS, THEY HAVE THESE RACES THAT START ALL OVER.

THE WCCO HAS RECENTLY DONE SOME COVERAGE OF THIS.

AGAIN, I THINK IT IS AN EMERGING HOBBY, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER THIS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

>> I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST KICK IT OUT I THINK.

[02:55:03]

THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE JUST DON'T COME ACROSS IT VERY OFTEN.

I THINK CULTURALLY, IT JUST ISN'T SOMETHING THAT COMES ACROSS VERY OFTEN.

AS I'M LEADING A LITTLE BIT.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ARE THINGS I'M MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH BECAUSE THEY CAN BE REVOKABLE.

IT'S NOT FOREVER. VARIANCES ARE FOREVER.

THOSE ARE HARDER TO DELIBERATE.

IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS CREATED THAT'S UNSEEN AT THE TIME OF INITIAL APPROVAL, IT CAN BE REVOKED LATER ON, WHETHER THERE IS AN INCREASE IN PREDATE OR ANIMALS OR IF THEY'RE NOISY OR THERE'S POLLUTION OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

IT'S INTERESTING. I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN DOWN THIS PATH ABOUT HONEY BEES BEFORE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

GOTTEN A GOOD EDUCATION ON THOSE THINGS.

I THINK CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS WHERE YOU JUST DON'T ADDRESS IT UNTIL YOU SEE IT.

MY PERSPECTIVE IS ON THIS ONE, I THINK PIGEONS ARE PRETTY HARMLESS.

I THINK THAT BEING IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS A DIFFERENT STORY.

THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST TO PROVIDE A BUFFER.

ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE CONSIDERATION, I THINK THE PRESENTATION BY THE THOMPSONS ARE PRETTY COMPELLING.

I THINK THEY'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.

BUT REALLY APPRECIATE AS WELL SAID AND WELL PUT, AND I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION.

I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REFERENCE OF THE NUMBER OF 25 FROM STAFF, AND IF THAT MIGHT BE AGREEABLE TO THE APPLICANT.

I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF 25 IF THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD POINT.

UNLESS THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT IN THAT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 25, IF THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO AMEND AS AN APPLICATION.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FOR DISCUSSION UP HERE? HAVE THOUGHTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?

>> I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT AND THE COMPARATIVE COMMISSIONER RESSLER AND I'M PROBABLY GETTING INTO THE WEEDS HERE ON A MATTER OF SEMANTICS, BUT I'VE HEARD HIM REFERENCED BY THE APPLICANTS AS RELEVANT TO A HOUSEHOLD PET THAT OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE KEPT OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT'S MORE BENEFICIAL FOR IT TO BE OUT IN THE FRESH AIR AND THINGS.

BUT TO HEAR THAT THEY'RE BEING TRADED AND THINGS LIKE THAT, TO ME, IT'S ALMOST MORE OF BREEDING TO SOME DEGREE, YOU'RE NOT HATCHING THEM AND RAISING THEM, SO IT'S NOT FULL-ON BREEDING, BUT WHEN THERE'S POSSIBILITY FOR BARTERING AND SALES AND TRANSACTIONS TO OCCUR FROM THEM, I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY RELATE THEM TO A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL, AND I WOULD AGREE IT'S A FEATHERED BIRD, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN OUR ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS.

>> ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS CHICKENS.

THE PIGEONS OR DOVES, EVEN, WHICH I KNOW SOME BIRD HUNTERS WILL RAISE TO TRAIN THEIR DOGS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE THEY'RE ROOSTING AND NOT WALKING AROUND THE GROUND, I DO THINK THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER TYPES OF FOWL THAT WE ARE CALLING OUT IN THE CODE.

VERY DIFFERENT FROM CHICKENS OR TURKEYS OR GEESE OR DUCKS IN THAT WAY, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ROOSTING.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER DARN, ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE?

>> THE STRUCTURE YOU'D KEEP THEM IN, THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> I GUESS I'M MORE FOCUSED ON WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

YOU COULD LOOK AT, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE 10 BIRDS, 20 BIRDS? BUT IF WE HAVE A BIG STRUCTURE, AND SOMEONE CAN SEE, LET'S SAY A NEIGHBOR.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE SURROUNDING IT.

I'D BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU DON'T HAVE THE NOISE LIKE A CHICKEN WOOD OR A ROOSTER.

IT'S MORE OF A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT TO ME, IS WHAT WOULD CAUSE CONCERN TO MAKE SURE THAT FITS IN.

>> I AGREE. THAT'S WHY MY PERSPECTIVE WAS IT MEETS THE SETBACK AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

MR. CARNEY, IT MEETS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

IT'S NINE BY SIX, AND I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS TOO EGREGIOUS.

>> IF THEY WERE BUILDING A SHED TO PUT GARDEN TOOLS IN, IT WOULD MEET THE CODE.

>> JUST LIKE THE EXISTING SHED, THAT'S ON THE PART OF THE DRAWING THERE.

>> YES.

>> YES. OR IF THEY WERE RAISING PIGEONS WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND NOBODY EVER KNEW TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY.

>> THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS BENEFICIAL BECAUSE WE CAN KEEP TRACK.

I APPRECIATE THAT, AS WELL.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON.

>> UNITED STATES, ALANA THE FREE, EXCEPT FOR ORONO.

[LAUGHTER] NO, I'M I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

I THINK TO ME, IT'S A SHED, AND THEY'RE NOT LIKE THEY'RE INCREDIBLY NOISY, BUT IF THEY TURN OUT TO BE THERE'S PROVISIONS IN PLACE TO GET RID OF IT.

I'M FINE GOING FORWARD WITH IT. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

[03:00:08]

>> I'M CONFLICTED ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE PIGEONS.

MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, I THINK YOU COULD PUT THE SHED UP AND HAVE THE PIGEONS IN THERE WITHOUT BEING HERE LOOKING FOR ANY APPROVALS FROM US BECAUSE I DON'T CONSIDER THEM FARM ANIMALS.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S OPINION ON THAT.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE AND THERE'S A CUP IN FRONT OF US, AND YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUP, I FEEL LIKE I CAN'T GET BEHIND SOMEONE APPLYING FOR A CUP AND NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE FARM ANIMALS.

I WOULD BE A VOTE TO DENY, BUT IF I DON'T THINK THEY'RE DEFINED AS FARM ANIMALS.

I THINK WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE NEIGHBORS WERE UPSET THAT OTHER NEIGHBORS HAD HONEY BEES.

THEY WENT THROUGH CODE PROCESS TO ADD HONEY BEES TO FARM ANIMALS SO THAT THEY COULD REGULATE THEM.

RIGHT NOW, I DON'T CONSIDER THESE FOWL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT EATING THEM.

YOU'RE NOT RAISING THEM FOR THE EGGS.

FOR ME, I FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE DENYING THE CUP BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF IT, BUT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF YOU HAVING IT.

I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE SPOT TO PUT THE COOP THERE OR THE SHED THAT'S GOING TO HOUSE THESE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

YOU'RE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LIKE A DOG HOUSE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO REVIEW A DOG HOUSE CONSTRUCTION.

YOU HAVE A DOG IN. CORRECT. INTERESTING TAKE.

THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE SPOT FOR IT TO BETTER MEET THE CUP.

YOU COULD MOVE THAT 75 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD STICK IT UP CLOSER TO THE HOUSE WHERE MORE NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO SEE IT.

BUT THEY'VE PUT IT IN A SPOT WHERE ONLY THE WOODS IS GOING TO SEE IT.

I THINK THE SPOT IS THERE, BUT IT'S A BIT OF A CONUNDRUM FOR ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT PROCESS AND GETTING APPROVALS FOR THIS THE RIGHT WAY, BUT I THINK THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR CODE THAT ADDRESSES THIS, SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE EVEN MAKING A DECISION ON.

>> IT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M IN SUPPORTIVE OF, AND IF I LET MY KIDS ANYWHERE NEAR A FEED STORE IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, THEY'LL BUY 100 CHICKENS.

IT'S SOMETHING I'M IN SUPPORT OF, AND I WOULD AGREE, YOU CAN PUT A SHED THERE.

IT IS A SHED. IT'S NINE BY SIX.

IT'S EFFECTIVELY A SHED, ALTHOUGH IT'S A COOP.

I JUST MUCH LIKE YOU, I'M HUNG UP ON.

WE DON'T CLEARLY HAVE DEFINITIONS AND PAST PRECEDENTS AROUND THIS, AND SO I'M A LITTLE HUNG UP ON THAT PART OF IT.

>> DOES ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL THAT THESE DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE FARM IS, THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN?

>> I DON'T.

>> YOU DON'T THINK THEY MEET THE DEFINITION.

>> I DON'T. NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T EAT THEM, BUT I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CHICKENS ARE DIFFERENT.

THEY NEED TO WALK AROUND AND I GO BACK TO THE SAME THING WHERE IN A WOODED AREA, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT THERE'S PIGEONS IN THERE.

IT'S JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AGAIN, IT'S A CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING, AS WELL.

IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT'S UNSEEN HERE THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT, AND AGAIN, I THINK, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS MAYBE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO TEXT FOR THE FUTURE.

BUT WHETHER WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THAT AMENDMENT TO BE MADE BEFORE WE WOULD APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY'S IN SUPPORT OF THIS, SO IT WOULD BE, WELL, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IN THE PAST, WE'VE DENIED KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE LATER ON, BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY CALLING OUT THAT PIGEONS ARE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE.

IT'S MORE SO JUST SAYING WE DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE HAVING TO PICK ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, SO WE'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S THE OTHER.

I'M SAYING I THINK WE'LL GET THE BENEFIT OUT THE OTHER WAY, AND THEN MAYBE WE SEE IF STAFF WANTS TO CONSIDER REVISING TEXT IN THE FUTURE.

>> I THINK YOU BRING UP SOME GOOD POINTS.

I THINK WHERE MY MIND GOES IS IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS BASED ON THE THOUGHT THAT WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE PIGEONS, BUT THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUP FOR FARM ANIMALS.

THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE BECAUSE THEN SOMEONE COULD COME IN.

WELL, YOU APPROVED PIGEONS AS FARM ANIMALS OVER HERE, AND YOU SAID THEY DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE THE TWO-ACRE MINIMUM.

>> WELL, CONVERSELY, IF WE DO NOTHING IN YOUR APPROACH, WHAT IF IT WAS FULL OF SHOW SNAKES?

>> SHOW SNAKES YOU DON'T CARE.

WE JUST ARE NOT FARM ANIMALS.

WE CAN'T REGULATE EVERYTHING.

WE HAVE TO LET PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT WITHIN REASON ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

>> WELL, PART OF THE ORDINANCE TEXTS SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN CHAPTER 62 STATES, FARM ANIMALS AND ALL OTHER ANIMALS, REPTILES, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR SNAKES AND FEATHERED BIRDS.

[03:05:04]

I THINK WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP ON THE DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMALS BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER TEXTS THAT SPEAKS TO FEATHERED BIRDS.

MR. RESSLER IS GOING TO ASK YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT FARM ANIMALS.

MY RESPONSE IS, DO THEY HAVE FEATHERS, AND ARE THEY A BIRD? THEY ARE A FEATHERED BIRD.

THEY FALL UNDER THIS DEFINITION, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO CALL THEM A FARM ANIMAL OR NOT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING HERE THAT RELATES TO FEATHERED BIRDS, AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE MAYBE THAT THESE ARE FEATHERED BIRDS.

>> I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOT THE ACTUAL DEFINITION, THOUGH, BUT YOU REFERRING TO THE TITLE OF THE SECTION?

>> IT'S CHAPTER 62 HERE.

IT SPEAKS TO FARM ANIMALS, ALL OTHER ANIMALS.

I BELIEVE IT'S CHAPTER 78 THAT DEFINES FARM ANIMALS AS CATTLE, HORSES, MULES, SHEEP, GOATS, PONIES, DUCK SKIS, TURKEYS, AND CHICKENS.

THERE'S TWO CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.

THERE'S TWO DEFINITIONS IN OUR CITY CODE THAT REFERENCE BIRDS OF THE LIKE.

THERE'S FARM ANIMALS, WHICH WE'VE NOTED.

WE ALSO HAVE THE DEFINITION OF ANIMALS, WHICH MEANS FARM ANIMALS, AND ALL OTHER ANIMALS, REPTILES, FEATHERED BIRDS OR FOWL.

THEN IT GIVES EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIFIC ANIMALS WE SEE AS DOMESTICATED, WHICH ARE CATS, GERBILS, HAMSTERS, ENCAGED HOUSEHOLD BIRDS.

IT IDENTIFIES ANIMALS VERSUS DOMESTICATED ANIMALS BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIFIC CITY CODES RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, THE NUMBER OF DOGS, THE NUMBER OF CATS YOU CAN HIT.

WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF GENERIC ANIMALS FOR KEEPING OF ANIMALS AND THEN DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

AS I'M LOOKING AT THE CITY CODE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A SEPARATE DEFINITION FOR ANIMALS, WHICH INCLUDES THE FEATHERED BIRDS AND THE REPTILES THAT I JUST QUOTED AND THERE IS A SEPARATE ONE FOR FARM ANIMALS.

MY QUESTION TO STAFF WOULD BE THE ORDINANCE THAT RELATES TO ANIMAL HEAD PER ACRES, IS THAT SPECIFIC TO ANIMALS OR FARM ANIMALS? IT'S SPECIFIC IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WE REFERENCE FARM ANIMALS, BUT IN THE CITY CODE, WE TALK ABOUT FARM ANIMALS AND ANIMALS INTERCHANGEABLY.

STAFF WAS LOOKING AT BOTH DEFINITIONS WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT INTERPRETING THIS REQUEST.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE CUP THAT THEY'RE HERE FOR THE APPLICATION IS SPECIFICALLY TO FARM ANIMALS.

YES, THE CUP IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IS REGULATION OF FARM ANIMALS.

WHEN THE REQUEST CAME IN, STAFF DID AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WE DEFINE AS ANIMALS AND FARM ANIMALS THROUGHOUT THE CITY CODE.

IS THERE OTHER REGULATION FOR THE OTHER ANIMALS? WE DO HAVE OTHER REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

NUMBER OF CATS, NUMBER OF DOGS YOU CAN KEEP WITHIN YOUR HOUSEHOLD.

ARE THEY PROPOSING IS THIS IN ACCORDANCE TO ANY OF THOSE? NO. THOSE ARE IN YOUR HOUSE, AND THEY ARE DOMESTICATED CATS, GERBILS, HAMSTERS, DOGS, AND THEN HOUSEHOLD BIRDS.

THE KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED HOUSEHOLD BIRDS HAS TO BE WITHIN YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENTS.

WE'VE REFERENCED FARM ANIMALS AND DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, AND THEN ANIMALS, OTHER ANIMALS.

THERE'S NO ORDINANCE SPECIFIC TO THOSE OTHER ANIMALS.

OTHER ANIMALS MEANS IN THE DEFINITION, IT SAYS ANIMALS MEANS FARM ANIMALS AND OTHER ANIMALS WE TOOK THOSE AS CORRELATED.

THOSE DEFINITIONS AS RELATABLE.

WHEN IS IT APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT I DO THINK SOME CLARIFICATION IN THAT LANGUAGE COULD BE HELPFUL IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE, LIKE, 25 TURKEYS OR 25 PEACOCKS, THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM HAVING 25 CHICKENS OR ALSO VERY DIFFERENT FROM HAVING 25 OTHER TYPES OF FLYING BIRDS FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH? I BELIEVE FOR THE ANIMAL UNITS, THERE ARE DIFFERENT RATIOS.

FOR CHICKENS, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS 25, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S DIFFERENT FOR TURKEYS, DIFFERENT FOR ALPACAS, DIFFERENT FOR COWS, DIFFERENT THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

IS ALL KING ALL THE BIRDS WERE THE SAME.

THEY'RE DIFFERENT, AND I BELIEVE WE FOLLOW THE I THINK THE STATE PUTS OUT SOME GUIDELINES THAT WE FOLLOW ON THAT.

THANKS FOR THE CLARITY AND ALL THAT.

I STILL DON'T THINK IT CHANGES MY MIND THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THESE ARE CLASSIFIED AS FARM ANIMALS.

LET ME ASK STAFF THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T COME ACROSS THIS YET.

BUT IF WE FEEL AS A COMMISSION THAT THIS IS BEING ASSESSED WRONG,

[03:10:06]

THAT WE DON'T FEEL THESE ARE FARM ANIMALS, RATHER THAN APPROVE A CUP FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE IS APPLIED FOR CORRECTLY.

HOW DOES THAT LOOK? OH, I THINK WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GETTING AT IS FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, IS YOU'RE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEING BECAUSE THE MITIGATING FACTORS OF THE LOCATION, THE FOOTPRINT, THE NOISE, THE SOUND ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC USE.

I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, STATING THOSE PURPOSES OF WHY YOU THINK IT IS REASONABLE TO APPROVE IT.

THEN ADDITIONALLY MAKE COMMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER A TEXT AMENDMENT, WHERE THEN WE CAN CLARIFY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WE CAN HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSS DIRECTING STAFF TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY OUR ANIMAL UNITS VERSUS FARM ANIMALS, ANIMALS, DEFINITIONS, KEEPING OF FOWL VERSUS KEEPING OF FEATHERED BIRDS AND THINGS OF THE LIKE.

THEN THAT WILL CREATE A STREAMLINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL TO CITY STAFF FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THESE AREN'T CONSIDERED FARM ANIMALS, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE REFERENCES FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS, I DO AGREE AND WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CUP BECAUSE IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE CODE IS NOT SPECIFIC TO FARM ANIMALS.

IT SAYS FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS, SO I BELIEVE THESE WOULD GET CUT UP IN THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON IT BECAUSE THE CUP IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FARM ANIMALS, NOT THE FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS.

I THINK THE CODE IS CALLING OUT OTHER ANIMALS, BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC CODE THAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR OR IN VIOLATION OF IF THEY WERE TO JUST ERECT THE STRUCTURE TODAY AND FILL IT WITH BIRDS.

THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT.

I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

I LOVE WHAT LAURA SAID 'CAUSE SHE AGREED WITH ME. I'M GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS APPLIED WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AGREEABLE TO MAKE THAT NUMBER OF 25.

KNOWING AND REALLY RESTING MOSTLY ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT IT BECOMES REVOCABLE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T SEE HERE.

ALSO BASED ON THE FACT THAT I THINK STAFF CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, PERHAPS A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT CAN HAVE SOME CLARIFYING SOME DEFINING LANGUAGE IN THE FUTURE IN THAT SAME VEIN.

I'M MOTIONING TO APPROVE AS APPLIED WITH THE NUMBER TO 25.

I SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

I HAVE PUT THE MAD BY COMMISSIONER.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL VOTE ALL IN FAVORITE.

OPPOSED, BOTH CARRIES.

GOOD DISCUSSION. EVERYBODY.

LA 24-67, NORTH STAR RENOVATIONS LLC 2691 FL AVENUE.

[6.5. LA24-000067, Northstar Renovations LLC, 2691 Ethel Avenue, Variances (Matthew Karney)]

MULTIPLE VARIANCES, MR. CARNEY.

CHAIR BOLLIS, PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE LOCATED AT 2691 FL AVENUE.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, LET'S SAY, TWO YEARS AGO, AT THIS POINT FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT I HAVE COVERED IN THIS GRAPHIC PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT.

WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS PROPOSED CHANGES ON TOP OF THE APPROVED EXHIBIT FROM THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE IN 2023 THAT INCLUDES THE PROPOSED STOOP AND THE DECK IN BLUE.

THE RED COLOR THAT YOU HAVE GOING OVER IS THE NEW DECK CONFIGURATION, WHICH INVOLVES THE SOFTENING OF THE EDGES OF THE DECK AND THE MOVING OF THE STAIRCASE AND A SLIGHT PROTRUSION TO THE SOUTHEAST.

ALSO, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON HERE IS A GENERAL SET OF CHANGES TO THE OVERALL PROJECT THAT INCLUDE A WIDE VARIETY OF LANDSCAPING, WHICH IS ALSO PUT IN THE PACKET, BUT NOT SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCE HERE.

THIS IS AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK CASE WHERE THE ADJACENT HOMES ARE LOCATED BEHIND THE RESIDENTS.

ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE TO THE BOX THAT THIS HOUSE LIVES IN, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE PORTION OF THE DECK THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE,

[03:15:03]

ANY MODIFICATION OUTSIDE OF THAT IMAGINARY BOX THAT WE HAVE WOULD NECESSITATE AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE.

BASED ON STAFF'S OPINION, LOOKING AT THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK WINE WELL BEHIND THE HOUSE THERE.

GENERALLY, THE CHANGES, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DARKER SHADING OF RED IN TERMS OF THE HARD COVER THAT WOULD BE CHANGING BETWEEN THE DECKS, MAINLY THE STAIRS AND THAT PROTRUSION DOWN TO THE SOUTH.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY AREAS THAT ARE REALLY CHANGING AND IN LINE WITH OUR STAFF'S GUIDANCE TWO YEARS AGO, WE ARE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

MY NAME IS ERIC BRANT, 8445 MISSION HILLS LANE, CHANHASSEN.

DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO MENTION.

MATTHEW DID A GOOD JOB.

WE'RE ESSENTIALLY JUST APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING ANY MODIFICATION AT ALL.

IF ANYTHING, IN OUR OPINION, AND TALKING TO MELANIE EARLY ON, MOVING THE STAIRS INTO THE POSITION THAT WE DID IMPROVES THE LINE OF SIGHT FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL HOMEOWNER FOR WHAT THEIR PURPOSES ARE BELOW.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SAYING NOBODY.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

FOR THE NEW COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE HERE, THIS WAS A PREVIOUS APPROVAL, AS MR. CARNEY POINTED OUT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THAT.

AT THAT TIME, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE HOUSE IS BASICALLY IN FRONT OF THIS AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, WHICH MAKES IT EXTREMELY IMPRACTICAL FOR THEM TO PUT ANY IMPROVEMENTS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY.

AFTER REVIEW OF THIS, I AGREE WITH STAFF ON THIS ONE, AND I ALSO LIKE THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ACTUALLY LESS VISIBLE THAN BEFORE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE INTENT OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS A SIGHTLINE VARIANCE OR A SIGHTLINE SETBACK.

I'M IN FAVOR OF IT, IF ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I'M NOT AT ALL OPPOSED. I HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE IF THERE WASN'T ANY DISAGREEMENT.

WOULD SECOND THAT IF THERE WASN'T ANY DISAGREEMENT? WAS IT A MOTION OR PUT MYSELF OUT THERE ALREADY, SCOTT, I THINK YOU.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER KIRCHNER.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HONESTLY, IF ANYONE BACK. NOW'S THE TIME.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE IN MOTION CARRIES.

LA 24-70 TOM RYAN, 2195 WATERTOWN ROAD.

IT'S FOR THE EASEMENT VACATION, MS. CURTIS.

[6.6. LA24-000070, Tom Ryan, 2195 Watertown Road, Easement Vacation (Melanie Curtis)]

THE COMMISSION MAY REMEMBER IN 2024, THE CITY GRANTED PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE AND REARRANGE FIVE EXISTING PIDS INTO THE TWO BUILDABLE LOTS THAT ARE EXISTING TODAY.

AS PART OF THAT EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH WAS REORIENTED, THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, WHICH WERE DEDICATED OVER THE DRAINAGE DITCH AS PART OF THE PLATTING PROCESS ARE SHOWN IN THE BLACK DASH LINE.

AFTER THE DITCH WAS CONSTRUCTED OR FINAL, A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH SHOWN IN BLUE, WILL YOU TURN THE DOWN? THANK YOU.

IS NOT WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA AS CONTEMPLATED.

IT'S HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT HERE.

I'M GOING TO MOVE THE WHOLE THING. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT IN THIS AREA.

TONIGHT, YOU ARE REVIEWING A REQUEST FOR VACATION OF THE UNNECESSARY PORTION OF THE EASEMENT SHOWN IN GREEN, AND DEDICATION OF A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT OVER THE DITCH.

NO WITH THAT ISN'T EXISTING CURRENTLY, AND THE EASEMENT IS GOING TO BE DEDICATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE APPLICANT WAS HERE, HE HAD TO LEAVE, HE WAS UNABLE TO STAY, BUT I CAN TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON HIS BEHALF.

[03:20:04]

THE APPLICANT DID AGREE TO ESTABLISH THIS NEW EASEMENT TO ENCOMPASS THE DRAINAGE, NOT CURRENTLY COVERED.

WE DID RECEIVE QUITE A FEW INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, REALLY JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.

NONE OF WHICH EXCEPT FOR ONE RESULTED IN ANY COMMENTS BEING SUBMITTED.

THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FROM A DOWNSTREAM NEIGHBOR WHO HAD ONGOING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA.

THE DRAINAGE AND THE DITCH CONFIGURATION WERE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE MINNEHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE.

SHE WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT, SO HER COMMENTS OUR EMAIL CHAIN WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW.

PLANNING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION AS APPLIED, CONDITIONED UPON DEDICATION OF A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT, THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT, I GUESS, 'CAUSE STAFF IS THE APPLICANT.

I CAN DO THAT.

IS THERE A REASON THE DITCH IS NOT WASN'T DEVELOPED IN THE EASEMENT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED? IT WAS A PROCESS THAT HAPPENED CONCURRENTLY.

THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AREA DURING THE PLANTING, AND IT GOT FINALIZED AFTERWARDS.

THE PLAN THAT WAS BUILT WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED, IS JUST THE DESCRIPTION DIDN'T LINE UP.

GOT IT.

WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THAT LITTLE YELLOW TRIANGLE THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE EASEMENT AREA, CORRECT? YES. WE'RE SO WE NOTICED THIS DISCREPANCY WHEN WE WERE FINALING THE PERMIT FOR THE GRADING WORK.

THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT WAS TO VACATE THE REMAINING PIECE THAT WASN'T NEEDED, BUT THE NEW EASEMENT IS HE'S WILLING TO GIVE US THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAD ASKED HIM FOR INITIALLY TO CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING OR ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? BEFORE WE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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 NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I GUESS I'VE GOT COMMENTS AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

I SEE THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH MAKING THAT EASEMENT BIGGER TO INCLUDE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WAS BUILT.

I THINK WHAT WAS BUILT IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED IS JUST MISSED THE MARK A LITTLE BIT ON LOCATION.

I DO POTENTIALLY SEE AN ISSUE WITH VACATING THE OTHER PORTION OF THE EASEMENT AREA.

I'M ASSUMING THERE WAS A REASON WHY THE EASEMENT WAS INITIALLY PLATTED THE SIZE THAT IT WAS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S TWICE OR THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF THE DITCH.

I'M GUESSING THAT'S FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF IT OR IF IT NEEDS TO BE WIDENED AT ANY POINT, ET CETERA.

I'M A LITTLE HESITANT TO VACATE THAT PORTION OF THE CURRENT EASEMENT.

IN CASE THAT DITCH, AT SOME POINT WOULD NEED TO BE ACCESSED DIFFERENTLY OR WIDENED OR WHATEVER THE PURPOSE OF THAT EASEMENT.

>> IS THIS CONSISTENT TO SEE SOMETHING BUILT WITHIN THE EASEMENT AND THEN ASK FOR THE VACATION OF THE EASEMENT TO MAKE IT SMALLER?

>> THIS APPLICATION ISN'T NORMAL AT ALL.

THE FIRST REQUEST WITH HOW THE DRAINAGE DITCH WAS BEING RE-ROUTED, STARTED WITHOUT PERMITS.

IT WAS A SMALLER PROJECT TO ADDRESS EROSION COMING FROM THE OUTLET HERE AT THE ROADWAY, WHICH MOST OF THE WATER THAT ENTERS THIS AREA IS FROM LONG LAKE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS TRYING TO JUST KEEP SOIL FROM ERODING.

HE WAS PUTTING IN RIPRAP AND TRYING TO MOVE THINGS, AND I THINK THE PROJECT JUST BECAME TOO LARGE AND SHOULD HAVE HAD A PERMIT.

WE WERE WORKING WITH HIM, AND HE WAS COOPERATIVE WITH US TO WORK THROUGH ALL THE APPROVALS.

HE DID NOT INTEND TO DO THIS WORK WITHOUT PERMITS.

THE REARRANGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY LINES WAS JUST A STRAIGHTFORWARD BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT.

THIS DRAINAGE DITCH WHEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF PERMIT FINALIZATION,

[03:25:02]

HE AGREED THAT GREEN PORTION SHOWN IS NOT NEEDED AND SUPPORTS THE VACATION OF IT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A REAL PURPOSE TO ENCUMBER MORE LAND THAN IS NEEDED.

>> THANK YOU. IF YOU DRIVE BY IT, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PROCESS, BUT I THINK IT'S DESIGN WAVE.

THE WATER'S GOING TO GO WHERE THEY HAVE THAT STONE, ALL THAT.

THE WATER IS NOT MOVING TO THAT VACATION, SO I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I JUST CAN'T HELP MYSELF.

THE IRONY HERE IS LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT APPROVED A PLAN, OUR ENGINEERS APPROVED IT, AND THE WATER DIDN'T DRAIN WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO.

I JUST CAN'T HELP WITH THE NORTH ARM.

THAT'S WHY MY HESITANCY IS.

I JUST HAVE NO FAITH. [LAUGHTER] WATER IS GOING TO GO WHERE WATER IS GOING TO GO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ENTIRELY TRUE, THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK IT WASN'T COMPLETED BY THAT POINT, RIGHT?

>> TRUE.

>> BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE MOVING BOUNDARY LINES BECAUSE WHERE THE WATER IS.

>> I THINK IT'S WHERE THE IMPROVEMENT WAS PUT.

I THINK THEY ACCIDENTALLY PUT THE IMPROVEMENT OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT.

>> THAT'S ACCURATE.

>> OR INTENTIONALLY TO GET A LARGER BUILDING AREA.

I GUESS THAT WAS MY QUESTION EARLIER.

WERE THEY MALICIOUSLY MOVING THE LINE AND NOW VACATING EASEMENT TO INCREASE THEIR BUILDING AREA?

>> DITCH WAS CONSTRUCTED AS APPROVED.

>> THAT'S WHAT I HAD HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER, WHICH SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT OF IT.

>> I THINK THEY WERE JUST OVERLY GENEROUS IN DEDICATING THAT EASEMENT AS PART OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE REARRANGEMENT.

I HONESTLY DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY MALICIOUS INTENT IN THAT.

>> SOUNDS LIKE THEY WERE WILLING TO MAKE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT BUT THE PARTIES DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE GOING TO END UP WITH UNTIL IT WAS ALL PUT IN PLACE, AND THEN IT WAS GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO RE-REVIEW IT.

I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID THERE'S NO REASON TO ENCUMBER LAND UNNECESSARILY.

I'M GOING TO REST MY HEAD ON, IF THERE'S ANY CONCERN OVER FUTURE RUNOFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT THEN IT DOES FALL INTO OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR, HELP ME WITH THIS.

HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT CAN BE MOVED AT ONE TIME WITHOUT TRIGGERING A PERMIT APPLICATION?

>> FIFTY.

>> FIFTY CUBIC YARD, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> ONE CUBIC YARD.

>> PRETTY SMALL AMOUNTS. [LAUGHTER] THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF PROTECTIONS THAT ARE GIVEN AND AFFORDED TO US IF THEY CREATE THEIR OWN NEED FOR ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS BY CHANGING THE GRADING, THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO US.

>> THAT LOT ON THE EAST SIDE IS NOT DEVELOPED.

WHEN IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A NEW HOME, THE GRADING PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THIS DRAINAGE DITCH SIZED IN MIND, AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED.

>> PROBABLY VACATED AT THAT TIME, WHATEVER.

NO, THERE'S MORE OF IT.

[INAUDIBLE].

>> THE QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE ONLY PORTION OF THE NEW EASEMENT IS THIS YELLOW AREA.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PROPOSE TO HAVE ANY NEW EASEMENT ON THE REST OF IT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT AREA?

>> THAT'S I THINK MY HIGHLIGHTING.

>> FURTHER DOWN, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S ANOTHER PORTION THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT AREA.

>> I THINK YOU MOVED IT.

>> I THINK I'VE BEEN CLICKING AROUND, AND I THINK SOME OF THE SHAPES MOVED.

>> WE WILL ASSURE THAT ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EXISTING EASEMENT BE DEDICATED.

>> WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE CITY ENGINEER BASED ON WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AND I PUT A LOT ON THAT ALONG WITH WATERSHED.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.

>> I AGREE.

>> I'M DOING IT. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 24-70 AS APPLIED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING].

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT PAPER. LA 25-1.

[6.7. #LA25-000001, Tom Bray o/b/o Edward H. Hamm Jr., Trustee, 485 Orono Orchard Road South, Preliminary Plat: Sky Blue Waters and Termination of Covenant, (Melanie Curtis)]

TOM BRAY, ON BEHALF OF EDWARD HAMM JUNIOR TRUSTEE, 485 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD.

THIS IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND TERMINATION OF COVENANT. MS. CURTIS.

>> THANK YOU. TONIGHT, WE ARE DISCUSSING

[03:30:03]

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE ONE NEW BUILDABLE LOT.

THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 21.3 ACRES OVER 17 ACRES IS DRY, BUILDABLE, AND IT IS SITUATED ALONG ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH.

THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY SITS NORTH OF FOX STREET.

PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SERVED BY CITY SEWER.

ALL OF THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN.

WETLAND DELINEATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND THE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN DEPICTED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE APPROPRIATE BUFFERS.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED, RR1B, ONE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL REQUIRING A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES PER LOT.

THE NEWLY CREATED PUZZLES WILL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR SIZE AND WIDTH.