Mar 17, 2025 Planning Commission

NOW IT'S ON.

[00:00:01]

[1. Call to Order]

ASK THAT YOU PLEASE JOIN US.

THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[3. Approval of Agenda]

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY RESSLER.

SECOND BY JARN.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM

[4.1. Planning Commission Worksession and Regular Minutes of February 18, 2025]

MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 2025.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY RESSLER, A SECOND BY BRANDEBER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. JUST A BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING.

I'LL MAKE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON IS PRESENT. LATE AS USUAL.

YES.

FAILING THE CITY OF ORONO, I APOLOGIZE.

JUMP RIGHT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[5.1. LA25-000007, Matt Jasper, 4745 North Shore Drive, After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit Amendment (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]

THIS IS AFTER THE FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, MS. CURTIS.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AFTER THE FACT AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED IN 2024.

THE 24 APPROVALS INCLUDED THE BOULDER RETAINING WALLS AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, SURROUNDING TWO OF THE NEW STAIR LANDINGS AND ONE WALL JUST UP SLOPE FROM THE NEWLY INSTALLED RIP WRAP TO STABILIZE THE LOWER PART OF THAT SLOPE.

WHEN THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED, THE CITY'S INSPECTOR OBSERVED ADDITIONAL WALLS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THE APPROVED PLAN.

THE ADDITIONAL WALLS ARE SHOWN IN BLUE ON THE SCREEN.

THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THAT HE INSTALLED THOSE WALLS BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE ORIGINAL PLAN WOULD NOT WORK.

A STATEMENT FROM HIS ENGINEER REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL WALLS WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, AND TODAY WE RECEIVED AN UPDATED ENGINEERED PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY'S ENGINEER.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT FROM THE PUBLIC.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT SHOULD REVIEW THE ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITIONAL UNPERMITTED WALLS, WAS A VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PERMIT.

DOES THE COMMISSION FIND THE ADDITIONAL WALLS ARE APPROPRIATE, OR SHOULD THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE ADDITIONAL WALLS AND RESTORE THE SITE FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLAN? ARE THERE CONDITIONS THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO PLACE ON THIS PROJECT TO MITIGATE IMPACTS CREATED BY ADDITIONAL WALLS OR ANY OTHER ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH THE APPLICATION? YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS FOR A MOTION THIS EVENING.

DENY THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO CORRECT THE SITE FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLAN OR TABLE THE APPLICATION AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS DETERMINED TONIGHT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW ON YOUR APRIL AGENDA.

MOVE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS CONSTRUCTED AND AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AFTER THE FACT.

A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SCREEN THE ADDITIONAL BOULDER WALLS SHOULD BE PROVIDED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS THE APPLICATION IF THIS IS YOUR MOTION.

TONIGHT, YOU SHOULD DETERMINE IF THE ADDITIONAL WALLS CONSTRUCTED MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

IF YOU FIND THAT CUP CRITERIA HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL MAY BE APPROPRIATE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE COMMISSION DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE AN UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN, SCREENING THE WALLS FROM THE LAKE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT ON THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA.

I'VE GOT PHOTOS OF THE SITE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

HE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S ADDITIONAL HARD COVER WITH THESE ADDITIONAL WALLS.

ARE WE STILL UNDER HARD COVER? IT APPEARS THAT WAY? WE ARE AND RETAINING WALLS, WHILE THEY ARE A STRUCTURE, THEY ARE SUBTRACTED FROM YOUR HARD COVER CALCULATION.

I THINK I'M AT 13 OR 14% HARD COVERAGE OUT THERE? IT WAS LISTED IN THE PACKET.

[00:05:02]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

MATT JASPER 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.

GREAT.

IS THIS PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? IT IS, BUT NOT YET.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION.

IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT'S FINE, OTHERWISE.

I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS IN THERE.

SO ALONG THE STAIRS THAT GO UP THE HILL, THE BLUE IN THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S CONSIDERED RETAINING WALL AND WHAT'S NOT.

THERE'S ROCKS NEXT TO THE STAIRS, JUST AS A MEASURE TO, I GUESS, SECURE THE STAIRS.

IT'S NOT A RETAINING WALL UP THERE.

I UPLOADED SOME PICTURES INTO THE PORTAL, SO IT SHOULD SHOW THAT.

BUT IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THAT SURVEY THAT WE HAD HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.

AND THEN THE ONE ON THE VERY BOTTOM LEFT ALONG THE LAKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

THERE'S NO WALL THERE. NO. THAT'S RIP REP.

THERE'S NO RETAINING WALL THERE.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT ONE IS, BUT THE RETAINING WALL ABOVE THAT ONE, MELANIE, WHERE YOU HAD THE CURSOR. BACK.

THIS ONE? THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN I CAME IN HERE, THAT WAS QUITE A WHILE AGO NOW AT THIS POINT LAST SUMMER.

THERE WAS THAT BOATHOUSE THAT WAS THERE, AND I TOLD THE LONG STORY ABOUT HOW IT WAS TAKEN DOWN WITH THE VA LOAN AND ALL THAT STUFF.

SO WHEN THAT WAS TAKEN DOWN AND WE STARTED DOING THE WORK DOWN THERE, AND I UPLOADED THOSE PICTURES IN THERE AS WELL THAT SHOWED THERE WAS A LITTLE WALL BEHIND THERE.

AND IN A PREVIOUS SURVEY, THERE WAS SOME STUFF MARKED TOO WHERE THERE'S RETAINING WALL THERE.

SO REALLY ON THAT SIDE, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, I DID PUT A WALL THERE, BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE BEFORE.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OLDER SURVEY.

BUT REALLY, THE REASON FOR THOSE, I DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING MORE, BUT IN THOSE SPOTS ALONG THE STAIRS RIGHT THERE, IT'S SO STEEP THAT EVEN THE TREES THAT WERE THERE, THE ROOTS, YOU CAN SEE UNDERNEATH THE TREE.

AND WITH THE ENGINEER AND THE GUYS THAT WERE WORKING OUT THERE WITH HOW STEEP THAT IS, THEY'RE WORRIED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO SLIDE AND CAUSE AN ISSUE.

AND SO WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE WORKING, I CAN'T REMEMBER IT WAS THIS GUY'S NAME JERRY. WHAT'S THAT? GARY.

GARY. SO GARY CAME OUT TO DO THE INITIAL, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? EROSION CONTROL.

EROSION CONTROL. AND WHEN HE IS OUT THERE, THEY'RE WORKING ON THOSE WALLS DOWN THERE AND I SAID, HEY, WE'RE RUNNING INTO SOME ISSUES HERE.

AND THIS IS WHAT MY ENGINEER THINKS WE SHOULD DO.

AND HE SAID, THAT'S FINE.

I'M NOT OUT HERE TO CHECK THAT. I'M LOOKING AT THE WORK ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT.

SO I GUESS I REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THAT BIG OF A DEAL, AND AT THAT POINT, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME PICTURES WITH HIM OR DONE SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT THERE'S SOME THERE.

THE ONE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STAIRS, THERE WAS NO WALL THERE, THOUGH.

THAT ONE WAS ADDED IN JUST BECAUSE OF HOW STEEP IT WAS.

I DIDN'T WANT THAT STUFF RUNNING DOWN.

AND THEN THAT LITTLE THING DOWN THERE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, THAT'S JUST SOME BOULDER SITTING THERE.

IF YOU GUYS DON'T WANT THOSE THERE, I CAN TAKE THOSE OUT, THAT DOESN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSE.

THEY'RE JUST SET THERE AFTER THE WORK FROM HAGEN.

BUT I TOOK SOME PICTURES WHERE IT SITS OUT AND LOOKS BACK AT THE PROPERTY TOO.

I UNDERSTAND WHY I'M HERE BECAUSE THERE'S WALLS THAT WERE NOT PERMITTED, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG THERE, FOR ONE, I'VE ONLY HAD PEOPLE COME UP AND SAY, HEY, WE REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE.

IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD. BUT THE AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS AND BOULDERS THAT ARE DOWN THERE, MINE IS PRETTY INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO A LOT OF THEM.

I DON'T THINK THAT LOOKS TERRIBLE AT ALL.

I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY CLEAN LOOK IN MY OPINION.

I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.

YES, SIR.

I REMEMBER THE APPLICATION WHEN YOU CAME IN ORIGINALLY.

AND THE ORIGINAL ENGINEER THAT DESIGNED WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, WAS HE EVER ON SITE? HE WAS? BECAUSE HE HAD TO COME OUT THERE AND DO SOIL TESTINGS, TOO.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST ENGINEERED FROM THE LINES ON THE PAPER OR WHAT NOT.

SO I THINK CHANGE IN THE LAND BEFORE YOU BUILT THIS OR WAS IT MAYBE A MISTAKE ON HIS PART INITIALLY? IT COULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE.

I THINK IT WAS PARTLY, WE HAVE THE ENGINEER, AND THEN THE CONTRACTORS ARE OUT THERE.

THE CONTRACTORS, THEY DIDN'T LIKE HOW STEEP THAT WAS RIGHT THERE WITH THOSE STAIRS ABOVE IT, AND THEY SAW THAT AS IT COULD BE A POTENTIAL FAILURE JUST BECAUSE EVEN THE TREES THAT NO VEGETATION CAN EVEN GROW IN THERE WITH HOW STEEP IT IS.

[00:10:01]

LIKE I SAID, THE ROOTS WERE EXPOSED AND IT WAS UNDERNEATH THEM.

SO THEY BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY CAN'T REALLY WARRANTY THAT WORK UNLESS IT WAS DONE LIKE THAT.

AND THEN THAT'S WHERE I WENT BACK TO THE ENGINEER AND THEY ALL WORKED TOGETHER AND THAT AND THAT'S THE CONCLUSION THEY CAME TO.

AND I TALKED TO GARY.

I GUESS THAT WAS MY EFFORT TO TALK THAT PIECE TO THE CITY AND I KNOW AFTER TALKING WITH MELANIE, I SHOULD HAVE CAME BACK HERE AND TALKED TO THE OFFICE ON THAT, BUT THAT WASN'T TO TRY AND HOODWINK ANYBODY OR DO ANYTHING CRAZY.

IT'S JUST I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY BACK THERE AND I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THE STUFF FAIL.

SO I WENT WITH WHAT THE ENGINEER AND THE PROFESSIONALS WERE THAT WERE DOING IT.

AND THEN I KNOW THE OTHER THING TOO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO COME UP, BUT I KNOW IT WAS MENTIONED THAT I CREATED A FLAT AREA OR A PATH.

I UPLOADED A PICTURE ON THERE, TOO THAT SHOWS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN FLAT RIGHT THERE.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM THAT I CREATED THAT.

THAT WAS BEFORE THE WORK STARTED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO.

YES, SIR.

RONALD VICKERY, IS THAT THE ENGINEER THAT WAS THE ONE THAT INITIALLY HAD THE PLAN TO MITIGATE AND DO THE REVISIONS? AND ALSO THE ENGINEER THAT CAME BACK OUT AND SAID THAT HE WOULDN'T GUARANTEE THE DESIGN.

SAME ENGINEER, OR IS IT DIFFERENT ENGINEER? NO, IT'S THE SAME ENGINEER.

AND IT WASN'T THE ENGINEER, IT WAS THE LANDSCAPERS THAT SAID THAT.

AND THEN WHEN THEY ALL TALKED TOGETHER AND WORKED TOGETHER THAT THEY SAID, THIS IS FAR TOO STEP.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT YELLOW EROSION BLANKET IS RIGHT THERE.

IT'S BRUTAL STEEP. IT JUST WOULD HAVE KEPT SLIDING DOWN CAUSE THAT'S WHERE THAT SHED USED TO PREVIOUSLY BE, AND THAT'S HALF THE REASON WHY IN SOME OF THE OLD PHOTOS, IT WAS A DROP OFF WHERE I PULLED THAT SHED OUT.

THE HILLSIDE JUST KEPT ERODING DOWN TO IT, SO IT WAS JUST A FLAT DROP OFF.

SO I EITHER HAD THE CHOICE TO LEAVE IT KNOWING THAT THAT WOULD ERODE OR PUT WALLS THERE TO TRY AND PROTECT IT, AND BELIEVE ME WITH HOW MUCH THIS COST, IF I COULD HAVE GOT AWAY WITH NOT DOING THAT, I WOULD HAVE LOVED THAT.

AND SO THIS RONALD VICKERY ENGINEER THAT INITIALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS PLAN WOULD WORK, HE AGREED WITH THE LANDSCAPER THAT NO LONGER WOULD WORK? CAN YOU RESTATE THAT? I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT.

WELL, I'M JUST CONFUSED THAT THE ENGINEER, USUALLY WILL PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO PROTECT IT FROM FURTHER EROSION, THINGS LIKE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT HERE BECAUSE, FIRST, WE DON'T REALLY TO COME BACK OUT AND WE APPROVE IT IN A CERTAIN WAY.

UNDERSTOOD. SO REALLY, WITH THE HILL, THEY TRY TO DO IT AS GOOD AS THEY CAN TO SCALE, BUT WHEN THEY'RE GOING UP THE HILL LIKE THAT, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY DO ALL THE TWISTS AND TURNS AND THE PITCHES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SLOPE OF THE HILLSIDE.

SO I THINK STUFF WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT THE PLANS WERE, BUT SOME OF THE STUFF, JUST THE ANGLES AND WHATNOT CHANGED.

SO WHEN YOU'RE WORKING ON A HILLSIDE SOME AREAS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE STEP, SOME AREN'T.

I KNOW IT SHOULD BE CAUGHT IN A SURVEY, BUT IT GETS TOUGH WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY IN THE FIELD DOING IT.

THE ENGINEERED PLAN THAT YOU HAD SENT TODAY, WHEN COMPARING IT TO WHAT'S ON SITE, IT STILL DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OR THE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT.

WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER A WALL? ANYTHING THAT'S RETAINING SOIL.

THE ONES ALONG THE STAIRS AREN'T RETAINING SOIL.

THEY'RE JUST THERE TO BORDER THE STAIR.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? JUST AN EDGE FOR THE STAIRS.

SOIL BACK FROM PULLING ONTO THE STAIR? I DON'T THINK IT'S SERVING A PURPOSE AT ALL.

IT MAY BE REMOVED? I DON'T WANT TO.

IT WOULDN'T BE SMART. WELL, THEN I'LL SAY NO. THEY CAN'T.

BUT THE ONE DOWN THERE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT THAT YOU'RE SAYING WASN'T ON THERE, LIKE I SAID, I CAN TAKE THAT OUT.

IT'S JUST THE AMOUNT OF TIMES THERE IS BACK AND FORTH WITH YOU AND MY SURVEYOR.

HE REDID THIS THING PROBABLY 30 TIMES, AND HE JUST GOT TIRED OF IT, AND WE PUT LITERALLY EVERYTHING ON THERE WE COULD.

SO THOSE ARE LABELED AS RETAINING WALLS AND BLEW UP THE STAIRS, BUT THEY'RE NOT RETAINING WALLS.

AND IT'S THOSE ROCKS ALONG THERE.

IF IT'S EASIER JUST TO SAY IT SERVES A PURPOSE, THEN THAT'S FINE.

BUT THE PEOPLE THAT I PAID TO DO IT THAT DO THIS EVERY DAY,

[00:15:03]

SO I GUESS, MR. JASPER, THE BIGGEST THING HERE IS THAT WHAT A RETAINING WALL IS IS IT RETAINS.

AND SO I THINK WHERE STAFF IS GOING WITH THIS IS IF IT'S NOT NEEDED TO RETAIN SOIL, THEN YOU'RE RIGHT, THEN IT'S NOT A RETAINING WALL, BUT THEN IT CAN BE REMOVED.

BUT IF IT CAN'T BE REMOVED BECAUSE IT'S RETAINING SOIL, THEN THAT'S A RETAINING WALL.

WELL, IT'S TO RETAIN THE STAIRS.

YOU PUT THEM THERE SO THAT WHEN IT RAINS, THE STAIRS RUN WITH THE HILLSIDE.

SO THERE'S SOME SPOTS WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THE GROUND.

THERE'S SOME SPOTS WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPOSED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO RIP UP THE HILLSIDE AND DAMAGE IT.

SO WHAT YOU DO IS WHEN IT RAINS, THAT RAIN OBVIOUSLY RUNS OFF THE SIDE AND IT WILL ERODE SAND.

SO THOSE ARE THERE JUST TO PROTECT THAT.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY HOLDING DIRT. YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S NOT HOLDING DIRT, IT'S MORE PROTECTING THE STAIRWAY.

YOU CAN SEE HOW LITTLE THEY ARE.

I SENT IN SOME OTHER PICTURES I THOUGHT THAT EARLIER ON THAT WOULD HAVE SHOWED THOSE.

BUT THEN, LIKE, THAT ONE DOWN THE BOTTOM RIGHT THAT STUFF JUST SITTING THERE JUST TO HELP.

THOSE CAN BE TAKEN OUT. I DON'T CARE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE BORDER IS JUST A ONE COURSE ROW OF BOULDER.

SO MAYBE 12-16 " TALL, IS THAT CORRECT? IF THAT, PROBABLY NOT EVEN THAT.

AND THEN IN THIS PICTURE HERE WHERE THEY GRADED, WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR BETWEEN THE RIP WRAP AND THEN THE FIRST RETAINING WALL? IS THAT LIKE A FESCUE? IS THAT LIKE A GRAVEL OR WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE? I WAS GOING TO SOD IT.

SOD IT.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT WAS NOT ALTERED.

THAT WAS ALWAYS LIKE THAT.

IT'S WAS CLEANED UP.

ALL THE GARBAGE AND MESS THAT WAS SITTING ON THERE WAS CLEANED UP.

>> IN THEORY, LOOKING FROM THE LAKE, YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO REALLY SEE THE MAJORITY IS THAT FIRST TWO STEP WALL.

IF YOU HAD SOME PLANTINGS IN FRONT OF IT, IT MIGHT CUT IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THEN FOLLOWING UP THROUGH THE STAIRCASE, MAJORITY OF THAT IS A SINGLE ROW BORDER UNTIL YOU GET TO THE CURVE ON THE STEEP POINT, CORRECT?

>> YEP.

>> THEN ON THAT STEEP POINT, IS THAT A FESCUE SEED BLANKET OR WHAT IS THAT?

>> YEAH. I'M GOING TO REDO ALL THAT IN THE SPRING.

BY THE TIME THEY GOT DONE WITH THIS IN THE FALL, IT DIDN'T REALLY TICK, SO MY PLAN IS TO SEED THAT WHOLE.

>> THAT'S MOSTLY EROSION CONTROL IN THE MEANTIME?

>> 100%. YEP, JUST TO KEEP IT FROM ERODING.

>> HAVE YOU NOTICED ANY WATER RUNOFF THAT'S INTERESTING, THE SPRING?

>> NO. EVEN IN SOME OF THE RAINS IN THE SUMMERTIME, NO.

TO BE HONEST HERE, I THINK THAT HAD THOSE WALLS NOT BEEN THERE, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE GOT RUNOFF.

THOSE ONES IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT THERE, IT FOR SURE WOULD HAVE CREATED A RUNOFF.

I THINK THAT THAT REALLY SLOWED THE STUFF DOWN AS KEEPING THE POLLUTANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE HILL FROM GOING DOWN IN THE LAKE.

>> BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO THINK WE'VE DONE SOME RETAINING WELLS TOO AT OUR HOUSE, AND I THINK USUALLY THE REAL THUMB IS FOR EVERY FOUR FEET, YOU GO UP, SIX FEET BACK, FOUR FEET UP TO KEEP THAT RUN.

IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S PROBABLY 6-8 FEET IN BETWEEN THERE?

>> YEAH, AT LEAST.

>> I THINK JUST MY OPINION LOOKING AT THIS IS I'M NOT TERRIBLY WORRIED ABOUT THE BORDER AROUND YOUR STAIRS BECAUSE THAT DOES HAPPEN IF IT'S A SINGLE COURSE ROW OF ROCK.

BUT THE 2-3 BOULDER HIGH WALLS, I THINK IF THERE'S A NICE BLUE STEM FESCUE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU COULD CAMOUFLAGE A LOT IN THAT.

>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING THAT WITH THE PLANTS ALONG THERE.

>> YOU HAVE THE SPACE WITH THAT GRADED AREA TO DO SO?

>> YEP. THIS UNFORTUNATELY A MOVING TARGET THIS THING HAS BEEN, BUT THAT IS MY PLAN TO PUT A BUNCH OF BUSHES OUT THERE AND PLANTS.

EVEN LIKE I'M SAYING, THOUGH, BEFORE THE LAKE THAW, I WALKED OUT THERE AND LOOKED.

THIS IS MARBLES COMPARED TO WHAT HOUSES HAVE FOR RETAINING WALLS OUT THERE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT STANDS OUT AS ONE PROPERTY THAT'S WILD.

THERE'S A HOUSE TWO DOORS DOWN.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE OLD MAYOR'S HOUSE OR WHAT, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS ROCKS.

THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE USING ROCKS FOR DECORATION PURPOSES, AND THESE ARE NOT FOR DECORATION.

THIS IS TO SERVE A PURPOSE TO KEEP STUFF OUT OF THE LAKE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO. THANK YOU.

>> WELCOME.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

[00:20:03]

SEEING NOBODY, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

NOW, YOU CAN SIT DOWN.

WE MIGHT CALL UPON YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION IF WE NEED IT.

>> ORDER IN FOR SAME [INAUDIBLE].

>> [LAUGHTER] I'LL START. I WAS OUT AT THE SITE TODAY LOOKING AT THIS.

I AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT, THE STUFF ALONG THE STAIRS IS PRETTY MINOR, BUT I GUESS I AGREE, BUT I DISAGREE.

I THINK SOME OF THAT IS TO RETAIN THE DIRT FROM GOING ON TOP OF THE STAIRS, AND THE OTHER SIDE IS TO RETAIN THE STAIRS, THE UPSLOPE VERSUS THE DOWNSLOPE.

I THINK THERE'S SOME RETAINING THAT'S HAPPENING THERE, BUT IT'S PRETTY MINOR.

I DON'T SEE HOW THE SYSTEM WOULD WORK WITHOUT IT QUITE FRANKLY.

WHOEVER DID THE INSTALLATION THERE, I THINK DID AN AMAZING JOB BECAUSE IT'S INCREDIBLY SOLID.

I THINK LOOKING AT IT, THE BIG CHANGE FOR ME IS SEEING THAT RIP RAP, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS CREATING THIS ARTIFICIAL RISE WHERE IT LOOKS MORE LEVELED DOWN THERE, BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN THEY'RE SETTING THAT RIP RAP, THEY HAVE TO SET IT AT THE HIGH WATERMARK AND THEY'RE PRETTY DILIGENT ABOUT THAT.

I DO THINK THAT DID CREATE A LITTLE ALTERATION AT THE SHORELINE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS DONE BY THE RETAINING WALL PER SE.

I GUESS MY OPINION ON THIS IS LOOKING AT IT IN PERSON, I THINK IT IS ACTUALLY LESS OBTRUSIVE THAN A WOOD STAIR SYSTEM THAT'S OVER THE TOP.

I THINK THE OVERALL GOAL STILL ACHIEVED WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK THERE'S SOME SPOTS WHERE YOU COULD LANDSCAPE TO MITIGATE THOSE ADDITIONAL WALLS, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.

I AGREE WITH STAFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS, SEE WHAT THEIR TAKE ON THIS ONE IS.

>> CAN I GET MAYBE A CLARITY? [NOISE] EXCUSE ME.

ON THE HARD COVER CALCULATIONS, WITHIN THE 75 FOOT, IT IS CONSIDERED APPLICABLE.

IF BASED ON HIS HARD COVER CALCULATIONS, IT'S BASICALLY STATING THAT THE RETAINING WALL WITHIN 75 FEET DOES COUNT TOWARDS A HARD COVER CALCULATION, IS THAT NOT TRUE?

>> NO. THE APPLICANT'S HARD COVER SHEETS INCORRECTLY REFLECT THAT.

RETAINING WALLS WHILE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE PUT ON THE CALCULATION WORKSHEET FOR JUST THE ACCOUNTING, THEIRS EXCLUDED ALL OF THEM.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD SAY MY THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DOING SOME SORT OF LANDSCAPING PATTERN.

THAT NOT ONLY SERVES AS EROSION PROTECTION, BUT ADDS A LITTLE VOLUME TO THAT FRONT RETAINING WALL.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I GUESS I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND THE APPLICANTS HAS BEEN UP HERE BEFORE.

I WAS NOT PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, BUT HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND THE IDEA THAT HE WAS HERE WORKING WITH THE CITY AND THEN PROCEEDED TO GO OUTSIDE OF THOSE BOUNDARIES BY A WIDE MARGIN, I WOULD SAY.

JUST HAVING THE EMAIL FROM THE ENGINEER STATING THAT IT'S NECESSARY SEEMS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A LOW BALL PLAY, AND IF IT WORKS, I GUESS THAT'S MORE TO YOU.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THE OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE AND HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH THIS APPLICATION THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TOO EGREGIOUS.

I ALSO WOULD AGREE THAT SOME FORM OF PLANTINGS, SCREENING, IF YOU WILL, WOULD GO A LONG WAY.

I THINK IF YOU'RE SITTING ON A BOAT AT EYE LEVEL, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF ROCKAGE TO YOUR POINT.

OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MORE, OTHER PEOPLE HAVE LESS.

I THINK IT'S MORE JUST ABOUT SCREENING THEM.

THAT'S WHERE MY MIND'S AT RIGHT NOW, I GUESS, BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THESE COPS AND WHEN THEY'RE VIOLATED WHAT THAT MEANS.

BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD GO ABOVE AND BEYOND ANYTHING THAT I GOT APPROVED AND THEN TAKE IT AFTER THE FACT, I GUESS.

THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT.

>> I THINK THAT'S WELL SAID, COMMISSIONER BRANDEBER.

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONDITIONAL, I THINK VERSUS A VARIANCE, THAT IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ONGOING SUPERVISION OF IT.

I THINK THAT HELPS.

I THINK ON THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, THE PROJECT AS IT IS AND HOW IT'S ENDING UP SEEMS REASONABLE.

[00:25:04]

THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT AS WELL.

MEMORIALIZING THIS PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD PRETTY STRONG DIRECTION AS FAR AS WHAT WE WERE IN FAVOR OF AND WHAT WE WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF, THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

IF THE ENGINEER HAD A CHANGE OF HEART BASED ON FEEDBACK OF THE LANDSCAPING, THE ENGINEER SHOULD KNOW THIS RON VICKERY, GENTLEMAN SHOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO WHEN THAT HAPPENS.

I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE ENGINEER PROVIDE A BETTER EXPLANATION AS TO HOW WE GOT HERE BECAUSE THERE'S SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT WHO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RULES ARE, AND THERE WAS COMMENTS BY THE APPLICANT THAT MENTIONED THAT PERHAPS THE ENGINEER WAS EXHAUSTED OR FATIGUED FROM FEEDBACK FROM THE STAFF.

I DON'T WANT ANY MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE APPLICANT, IF I CAN ON THIS ONE.

I JUST THINK THAT THE BIG THING IS HOW WE GOT HERE IS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING.

I THINK MY MOTION WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT HERE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS BEING DONE AFTER THE FACT IS CLEAR, WHETHER THAT'S THAT WALKWAY IS GOING TO BE HARD COVER OR IT IS GOING TO BE VEGETATION SIDE.

EVERYTHING THAT WAS LOOSE BEFORE IS GOING TO GET TIGHTENED UP BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIGHTENED UP BECAME SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT STRONGER AND WITH MORE RIGIDITY THAN BEFORE.

BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF WE GET A COMPLETED SKETCH THAT SATISFIES THE STAFF BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S COMPLETE, THEN I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS APPLICATION, BUT I DO WANT THE ENGINEER TO WEIGH IN AND DO HIS WORK TO SATISFY WHAT THE STAFF IS REQUESTING. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

>> MCCUTCHEON?

>> I AGREE THE STEPS WERE IN THE WRONG ORDER HERE, ESPECIALLY, ANY CONTRACTOR THAT'S WORKED NEAR THE LAKE KNOWS THAT.

ONE ROLE BLOCK NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.

I GET IT, THEY'RE THERE, THE CREW IS THERE, TIME IS MONEY.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE LANDSCAPER DIDN'T JUST STOP AND LIKE, "WELL, THIS NEEDS TO BE A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE ENGINEER IS LOOKING AT IT AND SAYS THAT IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE." IF THE LANDSCAPER WOULD HAVE DONE A DIFFERENT WAY, IT COULD HAVE TURNED INTO A BIG NIGHTMARE.

I THINK WE'RE FORTUNATE THAT THE LANDSCAPER WAS SKILLED AND KNEW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PHYSICS INVOLVED IN RETAINING THAT MUCH LAND.

BUT I AGREE. I DON'T KNOW.

IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE ANALYSIS.

I THINK THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT AND SET UP JUST AN EMAIL, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY CALCULATIONS WHERE WE JUST NEED ALL THE ROCKS OR RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE THERE, ARE THEY SUFFICIENT? I DIDN'T GO OUT TO THE SITE, SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THE CHAIR DID.

ACTUALLY, I HURT MY BACK, AND I'VE GOT A LOT OF ISSUES, BUT THERE'S NO WAY I'M WALKING DOWN THAT THING RIGHT NOW IN MY CONDITION.

BUT THAT SAID, I GUESS MY OPINION ON IT WOULD BE, I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THE ENGINEER.

WHETHER WE CAN GET THAT DONE BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL OR WE TABLE IT, MAYBE TABLING IT'S A SAFE WAY, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL CONCERNS YOU'RE RIGHT BECAUSE WHAT IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE COMPACTED SOIL, WHAT'S GOING TO BE GRASS, CAN THERE BE SOME SHRUBBERY INVOLVED TO GET A ROOT SYSTEM THERE TO HELP RETAIN? I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS HELP.

MAYBE I AGREE AT TABLING IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE FEEDBACK IS SENT TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE.

>> INSTEAD OF SAYING IT AND HAVING IT IN THE APPLICATION, I THINK AT THIS POINT, AND AFTER THE FACT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE LOOKED AT A LOT STRICTER THAN A BEFORE THE FACT.

I THINK THAT'S MY REASONING FOR IT PERSONALLY.

WE DO HAVE A ENGINEERING REPORT THAT WAS EMAILED TODAY, I BELIEVE, BUT OUR CITY ENGINEER HAS NOT LOOKED AT IT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE RECEIVED THE ENGINEER'S UPDATED PLAN SET TODAY.

>> IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, SARA?

>> THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. THE HEAVY BLACK LINES REPRESENT THE WALLS THAT ARE DISCUSSED IN THIS PACKET.

THE ENGINEER WAS PROVIDED THIS EARLIER TODAY AND I HAVEN'T HAD A FEEDBACK FROM HIM YET.

[00:30:01]

MY QUESTION IS THAT, IT DOESN'T REPRESENT ALL OF THE BOULDERS THAT ARE SHOWN ALONG THAT STAIR AND ON THE EAST SIDE.

>> THAT REPRESENTS THE RETAINING WALLS.

>> I KNOW THAT WE HAVE, AND I KNOW I WAS PRESENT FOR IT.

WE HAD DEFINED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS.

THAT'S IN THE COAT, CORRECT? IT WAS ONE OR MORE BOULDERS TOGETHER THAT RETAINS DIRT, OR THERE WAS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

>> I DON'T HAVE IT THOUGH.

>> I'D HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP.

>> I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK WE'RE OVERLOOKING HERE IS WHEN THE ENGINEER INITIALLY DESIGNED SOMETHING, MAYBE THEY WERE OUT AT THE SITE, BUT I'M GUESSING THEY DIDN'T GO ALONG AND CONFIRM EVERY SINGLE CONTOUR LINE THAT'S ON THAT SURVEY BECAUSE THOSE ARE TAKEN OFF THE LIDAR.

THERE PROBABLY IS VARIATIONS IN THERE, AND I GUESS WE HAVE A STRUCTURE IN THE CODE WHERE IF THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING AND THEY RUN INTO SOME ISSUES, THEY CAN COME IN THE STAFF AND GET SOME CORRECTED WORK RIGHT AWAY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> YEAH, EMERGENCY. WE'VE HAD THAT BEFORE.

>> MISS OAKTON.

>> YES. IF THERE WAS CHANGES IN THE FIELD, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD COME AND BRING THAT TO US, AND THEN WE CAN WORK WITH THEM ON WHAT DEGREE OF REVIEW OR WHAT'S NECESSARY FOR THAT.

IF THAT'S EITHER AN AMENDMENT, IF IT'S SOMETHING WITHIN, STAFF CAN HANDLE ADMINISTRATIVELY.

IF IT'S A MINOR AMENDMENT, WE COULD JUST BRING TO COUNCIL FOR A QUICK APPROVAL PROCESS.

IF IT'S A LARGER AMENDMENT, IT WOULD GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT EMERGENCY REPAIR FOR ADDRESSING, LIKE A BLUFF FAILURE OR FAILING OF A SLOPE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT AVENUES WE WOULD EXPLORE DEPENDING ON WHAT THOSE PAGES AT THAT TIME WERE PRESENTED TO US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MAYBE THERE'S A REASON TO GET A LITTLE BIT, THANK YOU. IS THAT THE DEFINITION?

>> YEAH. I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT BIGGER, SORRY.

>> RETAINING WALL MEANS A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO HOLD BACK AND PREVENT LATERAL MOVEMENT OF EARTH, TWO OR MORE ABUTTING BOULDERS, 24 INCHES DIAMETER OF CRATER PLACED TO HOLD BACK THE EARTH ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A RETAINING WALL.

LANDSCAPE EDGING LESS THAN SIX INCHES TALL, IS NOT CONSIDERED A RETAINING WALL.

I REMEMBER US ENTERTAINING THIS.

>> I THINK THAT'S KEY WITH THIS PROJECT BECAUSE AFTER WALKING THOSE STAIRS, I DIDN'T BRING A TAPE MEASURE, BUT I DO NOT THINK THE ONES ALONG THE STAIRS ARE 24 INCHES IN DIAMETER.

IF YOU CONSIDER THEM EDGING, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE OVER SIX INCHES TALL AS WELL.

THE MAJORITY OF IT.

THE MAJORITY OF WHAT'S SHOWING UP ON THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, THAT IS NOT RETAINING WALLS, BUT STAFF IS CONSIDERING RETAINING WALLS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ACTUALLY QUALIFY AS RETAINING WALLS OR NOT.

>> COMMISSIONER BOLLIS, MR. CHAIR.

>> I COULD SEE THIS GO TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.

WE COULD BE CONTINGENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE COMPLETE SURVEY, MEASURING THE DIAMETER OF THE BOULDERS, IDENTIFYING WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T RETAINING WALL.

BUT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS A RETAINING WALL OR NOT, THE ENGINEER STILL NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE REVISIONS.

>> WELL, I THINK IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ENGINEER'S REPORT ISN'T SHOWING ALL THE RETAINING WALLS, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ENGINEER AND THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THE RETAINING WALLS, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

THEY HAVE THAT DEFINITION AND POTENTIALLY HE USED THAT DEFINITION TO DRAW THIS OR TO MARKET.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF ME TODAY THAT SHOWS ME ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT OTHER THAN THE AS-BUILT SURVEY THAT SHOWS THEM AS RETAINING.

THIS ONE, I AGREE WITH STAPH ON IT.

ANYTIME THESE AFTER THE FACT VARIANCES COME, I ALWAYS HAVE TO PUT MY HEAD ON AND THINK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ONE.

WOULD WE HAVE APPROVED THIS WITHOUT A LANDSCAPE PLAN? PROBABLY NOT.

>> NO.

>> THAT'S WHY I FEEL LIKE THE REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT STAPH IS SUGGESTING IS KEY TO THIS.

BUT IF WE APPROVE BASED ON AN REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THIS MOVES ON TO COUNCIL, WE DON'T GET TO SEE THE PLAN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS.

WE HAVE NO IDEA UP HERE.

THAT'S WHY I'M LEANING TOWARDS TABLING THIS APPLICATION.

I THINK IN GENERAL, I'M IN FAVOR OF WHAT'S THERE.

I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPACE.

I THINK THERE PROBABLY WAS SOME FIELD CONDITIONS THAT THIS IS WHAT HAD TO BE INSTALLED.

BUT I'M FLIPPING, I'M THINKING I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

I'D WANT TO SEE THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN TO MAKE SURE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT'S THERE NOW.

[00:35:06]

>> NO, I DON'T AGREE.

>> I'D HATE TO SAY, BUT THE ENGINEER SHOULD GET OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE HE'S USING THE RIGHT DEFINITION WHEN HE'S RECORDING WHAT'S A RETAINING WALL AND WHAT ISN'T.

>> JUST I THINK WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS IF THIS ENGINEER HAS FATIGUE FROM BEING ABLE TO SATISFY WHAT STAPH IS TRYING TO GET TO, MAYBE YOU NEED A DIFFERENT ENGINEER.

HE FAILED THE FIRST TIME, LET'S FACE IT, THAT ENGINEER.

>> COMMISSIONER.

>> THAT WAS THE SURVEYOR NOT THE ENGINEER.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YES, THE SURVEYOR AND I HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS.

I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SPOKEN TO MR. VICKERY.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> IF YOU WANT IT TO BE ON THE RECORD, YOU HAVE TO BE AT THE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> SORRY.

>> THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN.

>> MATT JASPER 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE.

TO JUST CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.

THE GUY THAT WAS WORN OUT WAS THE SURVEYOR.

>> DID THE SURVEYOR, WAS HE AWARE OF WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A RETAINING WALL WAS WHEN IT COMES TO BOULDERS? HE WAS.

>> THAT'S WHY WE WENT BACK AND FORTH, WE WEREN'T TRYING TO LABEL STUFF AS A RETAINING WALL IN THERE WHEN IT'S NOT A RETAINING WALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT.

I WOULD SAY THAT THAT ENGINEER'S REPORT IS ACCURATE.

WHERE IT'S LABELED AS WALLS IN THERE, IT'S IN FACT A WALL.

THE SPOTS THAT ARE NOT.

>> WAIT. THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DEFINITION WITH THE.

>> NO, THEY BOTH WERE. I'D SAY THEY BOTH WERE.

>> THE SURVEYOR MARKED HIM AS WALLS, AND THE ENGINEER MARKED HIM AS NONEXISTENT.

>> WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIMES HE HAD TO CHANGE STUFF.

HE'S JUST LIKE, I'M PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THERE, BECAUSE IT WAS, BACK AND FORTH WITH EVERYBODY.

>> THE SURVEYOR MARKED EVERY SINGLE PEBBLE?

>> EVERY PEBBLE, BECAUSE HE WAS TIRED OF GOING BACK AND REDOING IT.

BUT LIKE WHAT I WAS SAYING I TRIED TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITH THE CITY INSPECTOR.

I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE, MAYBE THAT'S A NOTE TO TAKE BACK TO THE CITY INSPECTOR THAT HEY, IF SOMEONE BRINGS THIS STUFF UP, NO, YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE THAT DEFINITELY WASN'T SAID.

>> WAS HE OUT THERE INSPECTING THE WALLS OR WAS HE INSPECTING SOMETHING ELSE?

>> EROSION CONTROL. HE WAS OUT THERE TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF THE SITE.

>> THOSE THINGS WERE ALREADY DONE WHILE THEY'RE THEY'RE WORKING ON HIM.

THAT'S WHERE I SHOWED HIM, I SAID, HEY, THERE'S SOME BOULDERS IN THE DIRT THAT WE UNCOVERED, WE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS A WALL THERE.

WE FIXED THAT WALL.

HAD I KNOWN THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE, WE COULD HAVE, DONE PHOTOS AND EVERYTHING THAT DAY.

THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO SAY HALF THESE WALLS OUT THERE OR STUFF THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM GOING BACK AND CLARIFYING WHATEVER I NEED TO CLARIFY, BUT, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT ENGINEER DID ANYTHING WRONG HERE.

AN ENGINEER AND A BUILDER, STUFF'S GOING TO CHANGE A BIT.

>> THANK YOU. I GUESS I'D ASK STAPH THIS.

WE HAVE THE NEW ENGINEERING REPORT.

IT DOESN'T SHOW WHAT WE THINK COULD BE WALLS.

IS THAT THEN VERIFIED BY OUR ENGINEER ON SITE, OR HOW DOES THAT GET VERIFIED?

>> FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THE AS-BUILT AND ON-SITE.

THIS WALL THAT MR. JASPER SAYS CAN BE TAKEN OUT.

THAT'S NOT SHOWN ON THE ENGINEER'S DESIGN.

TAKE IT OUT IF IT CAN COME OUT OR HAVE THE ENGINEER ADDRESS IT.

THE CITY'S ENGINEER DOESN'T GO ON SITE TO VERIFY THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEERING.

HE VERIFIES THAT THEY'VE FOLLOWED ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES, THEY'VE SIGNED IT.

AFTER THE FACT SITUATION, HE'S GOING TO COMPARE THAT DESIGN TO WHAT THE AS-BUILT SURVEY IS DEPICTING.

WE HAVE PHOTOS, AND HE WILL GO OUT TO THE SITE IF IT'S NECESSARY.

BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, I THINK WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO IS LOOK AT THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED AND PROVIDE A COMMENT.

IF THERE'S DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE CORRECTIONS, BEFORE OUR ENGINEER DOES HIS REVIEW, THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

>> I THINK A GOOD POINT TO BE MADE HERE IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN RIGHT NOW IS NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE BASED ON ESPECIALLY THE CHANGES.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ALL AGREE UPON.

I THINK PART OF THAT IS WHETHER THAT'S DETERMINED AS A RETAINING WALL OR NOT, AND WE CAN REVIEW THE TEXT AMENDMENT AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED ON THERE, BUT I GUESS THAT'S A MOOT POINT BECAUSE REGARDLESS, WE STILL WANT THE ENGINEER TO EXPLAIN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN INCLUSIVE OF THAT, WHETHER IT'S THAT AS A DECORATIVE WALL OR A SOIL RETAINING WALL.

[00:40:04]

I THINK MAYBE THAT'S WHAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE DONE.

ALSO, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT JUST VERY MUCH SO CLARIFYING IN WRITING WHAT THE UNFINISHED AREAS ARE GOING TO BE AND CALLING OUT, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SATURDAY OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, CLASS 5, WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE GOING THERE.

WE ALL HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AT THAT POINT.

THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING AND NO CREWS THERE DOING WORK THAT HAVE TO GO BACK BECAUSE IT WAS MISUNDERSTANDINGS, I GUESS THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE.

WHETHER WE HAVE TO TABLE IT, OR ALLOW IT JUST TO GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL, I THINK, IS UP TO THE COMMISSION.

>> WELL, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE ONE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE TABLED, IS WHAT I'M THINKING UP HERE.

BUT ANYONE CAN TAKE A STAB AT WHAT THEY FEEL.

>> I JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH ANY WAY, IT COULD BE, I SUPPOSE WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE CONTINGENT UPON FEEDBACK FROM THE ENGINEER AND SUPPORT FROM THE ENGINEER, SATISFACTORY LANDSCAPING PLANS, ETC.

THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT.

>> IS THAT A MOTION?

>> NO. I'M TRYING TO COME UP WITH ANY IDEAS OF ANYBODY TO COME UP WITH WAYS.

>> THEN IT'S UP TO FOLLOWING THAT SCENARIO, AND IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL TO SAY THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN ACCEPTABLE.

>> I GUESS THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.

I'M GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT AN ENGINEER PLAN IS, AND IF OUR CITY ENGINEER IS OKAY WITH IT, AND THE ENGINEER SIGNS OFF ON IT, THEN, HOW WE GOT HERE IS NOT GREAT.

BUT, I DON'T THINK THAT WHAT ENDED UP AS WRONG TO BE THERE.

I THINK IT LOOKS NICE.

>> I THINK WE MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER.

IT'S MORE OF A SUBJECTIVE COSMETIC PIECE TO THIS.

DOES THIS GIVE ADEQUATE SCREENING TO THE ADDITIONAL WALLS? IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE COUNCIL FIGURING OUT.

MUST WE WANT TO SIT UP HERE AND REVIEW THE LANDSCAPING.

>> THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO. HONESTLY.

>> I THINK THE INTENT HERE FROM EVERYBODY IS THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOULD BE COMPLETE DOWN TO EVERY BLADE OF GRASS.

FOLLOWED, BUT IT SHOULD BE COMPLETE ENOUGH THAT IT SCREENS THE ADDITIONAL WALLS.

>> I THINK THE FEEDBACK FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TOO, IS WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE HARD COVER AND THE WATER RUNOFF, ANY SHRUBBERIES, OR ANYTHING YOU CAN DO COMING AROUND A CORNER.

WE WANT TO STABILIZE THAT SOIL AND ROOTS AND VEGETATION THEY DO THAT.

IT'S A LITTLE SUBJECTIVE, BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT GETS DONE AND THAT SKIP BECAUSE, THIS CLASS 5 WORKS GREAT BECAUSE I CAN GEAR UP AND DOWN BACK AND FORTH BETTER. WE DON'T WANT THAT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR RESOURCES, AND IT'S WELL THOUGHT OUT.

I GUESS I'M FINE, WITH THAT APPROACH IS TO HAVE THE ENGINEER GET THE APPROVED SIGN OFF ON THE PLAN AND THEN PROPOSE A EDUCATION PLAN FOR COUNCIL.

>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE A MOTION.

>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE A MOTION.

>> ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE THAT?

>> LET'S SEE IF I CAN REARTICULATE THAT.

I MOVE TO AS APPLIED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER OF THE EXISTING OR AS IT IS TODAY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS IT IS TODAY.

THANK YOU. IS EASY WAY TO SAY IT.

WITH ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT SHOWS THE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF RUNOFF.

>> I WOULD SECOND THAT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE WITH STAPH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ENGINEERING REPORT.

>> CAN I JUST OBJECT JUST A COUPLE.

WHEN YOU SAID THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO STABILIZE AND, PREVENT THE RUNOFF, ARE YOU ALSO LOOKING FOR THE WALLS TO BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE LAKE, WHICH IS GENERALLY PART OF OUR CONDITION?

>> I'M THINKING BACK, WE HAD ONE SIMILAR TO THIS WITH A WOOD 1, AND WE DID YOU NEED TO SCREEN THAT.

I THINK THAT TO BE CONSISTENT, ADD SCREENING TO SHIELD OR I DON'T KNOW, TO MAKE THE WALL SO NOT AS INTRUSIVE AND IT PREVENT RUNOFF IS THE MAIN THING.

>> THEN I DID WANT TO CLARIFY ANY WALKWAY THAT IS HARD SURFACE IS NOT APPROVED.

[00:45:03]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE WAS BY MCCUTCHEON, A SECOND BY JARNOT.

WOULD YOU GUYS BE WILLING TO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION? THE APPLICANT HAS SAID HE'S WILLING TO REMOVE THAT WALL DOWN TO THE SOUTH.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD PUT IN YOUR MOTION? THE OUTLYING WHAT'S CONSIDERED A WALL THAT'S DOWN THERE.

>> DR. CHER, COULD WE JUST ILLUSTRATE WHICH WALL THAT IS?

>> STAPH, COULD YOU CURSOR THAT?

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THIS?

>> CORRECT.

>> IT SOUNDED LIKE THAT WAS A SET OF FOUR OR FIVE BOULDERS SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER?

>> I'M NOT SURE HOW BIG IT IS.

>> IT DEFINITELY LOOKS LIKE RETAINED WALL FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE IMAGES BASED ON ITS SIZE AND THE DEFINITION WE LOOKED AT.

THAT'S WHERE FROM MY STANDPOINT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE ENGINEERED PLANS THAT SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT WHAT IS RETAINED.

I'M FINE WITH THAT BEING THERE, ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S HOLDING UP DIRT AND EROSION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

I'M NOT ENGINEERED BY ANY MEANS.

THAT'S WHY I THINK PART OF MY APPROVAL OF THIS WOULD BE DETAILED ENGINEER PLANS THAT ARE ACCURATELY CALLING OUT TO THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I THINK THAT WAS PART OF YOUR MOTION.

>> I GUESS WHEN I PUT THE MOTION TOGETHER.

PAINFULLY. I WAS THINKING THAT ANY ROCK OVER THERE WOULD BE LABELED IS THIS RETAINING WALL OR NOT.

I WOULD ASSUME THAT AFTER THE ENGINEER LOOKS AT IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS MISSING, AS STAPH POINTED OUT, THAT THEY WOULD PUT THAT BACK IN THE PLANS AND LABEL IT AS A RETAINING WALL.

>> CORRECT. I THINK IT WILL BE SURVEYED CORRECTLY AS A RETAINING WALL.

I GUESS MY ASK TO YOU IS, WOULD YOU ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE TO THE APPLICANT HAS STATED SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT THAT HE'D BE HAPPY TO REMOVE THAT SECTION OF THE WALL? THAT BECAUSE IT'S UNNECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT.

>> THAT'S MY HESITATION. I JUST WANT THE ENGINEER TO BE OKAY WITH THEM REMOVING IT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

>> NO AMENDMENT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> NO, I'M GOOD.

>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

I'LL BRING US TO LA 25-9.

[5.2. LA25-000009, Midco, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West, Interim Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]

THIS IS AN INTERIM USE PERMIT.

>> [INAUDIBLE] WITH YOU.

>> MR. PARNIE.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR BOLLIS PLANNING COMMISSION.

PERFECT. THAT'S JUST THE IMAGE.

WE HAVE A INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST LOCATED AT 3245 WEST WAYZATA OF BOULEVARD.

THAT WOULD BE THAT LITTLE SQUARE OUTSIDE OF THAT BLUE LINE.

AS THE ADDRESSED PARCEL.

I DID PROVIDE THE ID OF THE UNADDRESSED PARCEL, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE REQUEST HERE.

I MAY HAVE SEEN THIS LAST YEAR FOR A SEPARATE INTERIM USE PERMIT, SPECIFICALLY FOR SOME REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES WITH SOME OF THE CONTAMINANTS THAT WERE ON THE SITE, BUT THIS IS ULTIMATELY A SEPARATE REQUEST THAT WOULD FALL AS AN INTERIM USE.

ALLOWED WITHIN THE R1B ZONE DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY FOR TEMPORARY FACILITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE, MATERIALS RECYCLING WHEN SUCH FACILITIES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADJACENT PUBLIC ROAD CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF ORONO.

THIS PROJECT ESSENTIALLY MEETS THAT USE CATEGORY WITHIN R1B AS A UTILITY FIBER PROJECT THAT WILL BE BEGINNING UPON IUP APPROVAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND WE'LL GO UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2026.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE THERE WITH THE R1B IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE SITE REVERTED TO ITS PRESENT CONDITION WITHIN SIX MONTHS, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DONE AROUND, LET'S SAY, JUNE OF 2027.

WITH THAT AL IN MIND, THE APPLICANTS ALLOWED TO, PROPOSE THE TIME IN WHICH THE INTERIM USE WILL GO FOR.

ULTIMATELY, JUST AS LONG AS WE GET IT BACK TO THE CONDITION THAT IT'S IN.

ULTIMATELY, THERE ARE SOME WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN PRETTY WELL SEE WITH THE IMAGE UP THERE, SOME OF THE BROWNER AREAS.

MELANIE, IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

[00:50:02]

I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE HERE AND CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO WHAT WILL HERE AND SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS REGARDING THE PROJECT, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING IN IUP FOR STORAGE AND STAGING.

HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

>> GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAPH? NONE. IF THE APPLICANTS HERE WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> I'M IAN HEINZ, 3245, WAS THAT A BOULEVARD.

I DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY. BASICALLY, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'RE DOING THE FIBER PROJECT.

THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR MAIN BASICALLY STORAGE YARD FOR ALL THE MATERIALS.

THINGS THAT WILL BE HERE THEY'LL BE 10 SHIPPING CONTAINERS WITH THINGS THAT WILL GO INSIDE THE SHIPPING CONTAINER.

OUTSIDE STORAGE WILL BE FIBER REELS ON PALETTES, CONDUIT REELS AND PALETTES WITH PEDESTALS AND VAULTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE DID APPLY FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY PERMIT THROUGH THE COUNTY.

ADDITIONALLY, WE LOOKED INTO THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THEY HAVE A SCREENING TOOL ON THEIR WEBSITE AND NOTHING THAT WE DO APPLIES TO ANY PERMITS WE WOULD NEED FROM THEM.

ADDITIONALLY, ON THERE, YOU CAN PULL UP A LAYER FOR THE WATERSHED, THE ACTUAL WATER AREA, AND NONE OF THAT AREA IS INSIDE THE BLUE BOUNDARY.

WE DON'T FEEL WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A WATERSHED PERMIT.

HOWEVER, WE WILL PUT BASICALLY A U AROUND IT, A SILT FENCE JUST TO AVOID ANYTHING BLOWING INTO THE WETLAND GARBAGE OR ANY PLASTIC OR ANYTHING SHOULD HIT THAT FENCE BEFORE IT GETS DOWN INTO THE TREE LINE AREA THERE.

>> IT MENTIONED THIS IS ABOUT A YEAR PROJECT.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE ALL OF THIS YEAR.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING TWO YEARS, ALL OF NEXT YEAR FOR SURE.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, WE'D HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR THIS IN DECEMBER.

IS THAT TRUE OR WE GET IT TO ONE?

>> YOU WOULD GET IT TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, DECEMBER 26TH, I BELIEVE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> ONCE THE PROJECT'S DONE, IT'S JUST LEAVING AFTER THAT?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING THE GUY THAT OWNS THAT RELEASING THE LAND FROM LAKE NORTHWEST, LLC.

HE HAD PLANS OF BUILDING SOMETHING A MULTI UNIT ON TOP OF THAT SAME STRUCTURE, THE SAME LAND.

BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO MOW IT, BASICALLY JUST GET IT BACK TO ORIGINAL FLATLAND, AND HE'S FINE WITH THAT.

WE ARE GOING TO PUT A LITTLE BIT OF GRAVEL AT THE ENTRANCE JUST TO AVOID ANY DIRT COMING ON INTO THE COUNTY ROAD.

THE COUNTY ROADS ARE 10 TONS PER AXLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION, SO NOTHING WE HAVE IS GOING TO GO OVER THAT AT ALL.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S A BUSY ROAD, AS YOU KNOW, AND SO ANYTHING YOU DO TO MINIMIZE THAT COMBAT AND ALL THAT THE WEATHER BE APPRECIATED.

>> WHAT TYPE OF EQUIPMENT ARE YOU GOING TO BE USING ON SITE TO LOAD AND UNLOAD THINGS, ETC.?

>> OUR CONTRACTOR DAVES CONSTRUCTION.

WELL, THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT YARD AND HAMEL IS ALL THEY COULD FIND AT THE TIME.

THEY HAVE FIVE, AT HANOVER, SORRY.

THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP ALL THEIR BIG TRUCKS AND THEIR DRILLS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

TYPICALLY, LIKE, WORKING WITH DJ, THEY'LL HAVE THE DRILLS, AND THEN HE'S OKAY IF THEY'RE INSIDE THE RIGHT AWAY, AND THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, LIKE A FRIDAY OR WHATEVER, THEY'LL BRING THEM BACK TO THEIR YARD.

AT MOST, THERE MIGHT BE SOME TRAILERS AND MAYBE A FEW TRUCKS THERE, BUT NOTHING MAJOR, MAINLY JUST STORAGE FOR OUR MATERIALS.

THE CONTRACTOR WILL COME WITH THEIR STUFF, PICK IT UP FROM THIS YARD AND THEN DISPERSE INTO THE TOWN FROM THERE.

>> JUST TYPICAL SKID STEERS OR SOMETHING FOR MOVING [OVERLAPPING]

>> PURCHASED A SKID STEER FOR JUST THIS LOT.

WE'LL HAVE A SKID STEER THERE WITH THE FORKS ON IT ON A BUCKET.

PART OF OUR LEASE AGREEMENT IS WE HAVE TO MOW.

NOT ONLY THAT SITE, BUT WE HAVE TO MOW UP AROUND THE HOUSE AS WELL.

THAT'S JUST PART OF OUR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER.

THEN WE'LL HAVE A SWEEPER TO SEE IF WE HAVE TO GET ANYTHING UP THE COUNTY ROAD.

>> WHAT ABOUT WINTER SNOW SNOW REMOVAL?

>> WE WON'T BE AFTER THE CONTRACTORS ARE DONE, WE WON'T EVER COME IN THERE UNTIL SPRING.

[00:55:01]

THAT'S AT THEIR PUBLIC WORKS, BUT WE DON'T GO THERE IN THE WINTERTIME AT ALL.

BASICALLY, FROM DECEMBER UNTIL RIGHT ABOUT NOW. IT'S PRETTY MUCH SHUT DOWN.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> JUST ONE QUESTION AND I APOLOGIZE IF IT'S NOT RELEVANT.

I'M JUST MORE SO CURIOUS ON THE PROJECT.

THIS WOULD BRING THEM TO DECEMBER, CORRECT.

THEN WE REVIEW WHETHER THAT WOULD BE A RENEWAL OR NOT.

HOW MUCH MORE TIME WOULD YOU BE IN THE AREA?

>> WE'RE DOING THE ENTIRE CITY LIMITS.

THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS AT PLAY.

IT'S HOW GOOD IS THE GROUND? WE GOT TO GET THE LOCATES.

THERE'S A LOT OF GROUND TO DRILL.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING ALL OF THIS YEAR AND THEN ALL OF NEXT YEAR, FOR SURE TO GET IT ALL DRILLED.

>> SURE.

>> BUT THAT'S BEST CASE SCENARIO.

THERE ARE TIMES WHERE USAC OR LOCATORS, YOU CAN'T JUST MOVE FAST AND GET THE GROUNDS BAD OR WHATEVER IT IS.

THEN IT GETS EXTENDED, BUT THAT'S ANTICIPATED IS TO DO THE ENTIRE CITY LIMITS BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR.

>> SURE.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> NO.

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

ANYONE FROM PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS. PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NOBODY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. ANYONE WHO LIKE TO START?

>> I THINK IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THE NICE THING ABOUT THAT LAND IS IT IS SO CLOSE TO MAJOR CORRIDORS.

YOU'RE NOT, RUNNING THROUGH RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT LOCATION FOR IT.

WE LOOK WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS PARCEL QUITE A BIT, AS FAR AS MULTIFAMILY, I THINK, INEVITABLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT PERHAPS IT'S GOING TO BE GUIDED FOR.

THIS IS A GREAT USE OF THE PROPERTY, PERHAPS THE LANDOWNER TO BE ABLE TO OFFSET SOME COSTS, AND I'D BE SUPPORTIVE IT AS ESPECIALLY BEING IN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THIS IS THROUGH DECEMBER.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IT'S A GOOD LOCATION FOR THIS.

>> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOTION IT UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION.

LA 25-9 MICO 3245 WAYS THAT A BOULEVARD HAS APPLIED.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MCCUTCHEON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

THAT BRINGS US TO LA 25-2.

[5.3. LA25-000002, City of Orono Text Amendment: City Code Section 78-1279(6) - Average Lakeshore Setback (Laura Oakden)]

>> YES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

CITY OF ORONO IS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK AND TO FIX TYPOGRAPHIC ERRORS THROUGHOUT THE TEXT.

THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, IS WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

THE PURPOSE OF THE AVERAGE LECTURE SETBACK IS TO PROTECT VIEWS OF THE LAKE OR SIGHT LINES TO THE LAKE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES.

THE CODE ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE A SETBACK LINE BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING PRINCIPAL RESIDENTS BUILDINGS ON NEIGHBORING LAKE SHORE LOTS.

THE AVERAGE LECTURE SETBACK PROHIBITS BUILDINGS, PRINCIPAL, AND ACCESSORY.

CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BEING LOCATED WARD OF THE SETBACK LINE.

SOME ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UNDER A HEIGHT LIMIT UNDER 42 INCHES ARE PERMITTED, THINGS LIKE PATIOS, POOLS THAT ARE LOW THAT WOULDN'T BE OBSTRUCTIVE TO A SIGHT LINE.

THERE'S A FEW EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN HERE, BUT GENERALLY, THIS IS A SIGHTLINE SETBACK FOR LAKE VIEWS.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR REGULATIONS TO BE AMENDED OR MODIFIED OVER TIME.

THE AVERAGE LAKURE SETBACK CODE HAS BEEN AMENDED NUMEROUS TIMES SINCE ITS ADOPTION IN 1992.

DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS TO REORIENT THE LINE AND SET EXCEPTIONS TO THE LINE HAVE BEEN CREATED.

AS A RESULT OF A RECENT AMENDMENT, THERE HAS BEEN A TYPO IN THE LANGUAGE TODAY, WHICH CREATES SOME CONFUSION.

ADDITIONALLY, AS STAFF WAS REVIEWING THAT TYPO.

THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME INCONSISTENT TERMS BEING USED.

WE WANTED TO UPDATE SOME REFERENCE SECTIONS AND THEN MOVE A SENTENCE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE PARAGRAPH UP TO THE TOP.

THE PURPOSE OF THE AVERAGE LECTURE SETBACK IS NOT CHANGING,

[01:00:04]

NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THIS PROPOSAL.

WE DID SEND IT TO THE DNR FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL LETTER WAS SUBMITTED TO US BY THE DNR FOR THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE.

I ALSO HAVE A CLEAN COPY IF THAT'S EASIER TO READ.

THEN ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME NEW COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE SOME PICTURES OF WHAT AN AVERAGE LECTURE SETBACK LINE IS TO USE ABILITY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

[LAUGHTER] I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK THAT OR PRESENT THOSE AS WELL.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU AND AGAIN, THE INTENT IS NOT TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.

IT'S JUST TO CLARIFY.

>> TRUE.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I JUST HAD ONE. I KNOW THAT WE USUALLY GET INTO DEFINING TERMS HERE, BUT NO PRINCIPLE OR ACCESSORY BUILDING OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE?

>> A BUILDING IS DEFINED IN OUR CODE ESSENTIALLY WITH A ROOF, WHERE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS AN IMPROVEMENT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A ROOF.

A POOL IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THERE ARE TALLER PERGOLAS AND OTHER FENCING.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NOT BUILDINGS ARE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN OUR DEFINITION.

>> PERFECT. THANK YOU.

OTHERWISE, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL. I THINK IT'S GOOD.

>> I HAD A QUESTION FROM A CITIZEN ABOUT HOW THIS APPLIES TO TRIBUTARIES AND IT'S CORRECT THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO TRIBUTARY AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK, CORRECT?

>> TRUE. IT IS A LAKE SHORE.

>> PERFECT.

>> SETBACK.

>> IS THERE DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE CODE FOR TRIBUTARIES?

>> I BELIEVE THERE ARE.

YES, AND IT'S TRIBUTARIES, CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES ARE PROTECTED WITHIN OUR SHORE LAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, AS WELL.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL BEYOND DESCRIPTION OF SOME OF OUR TRIBUTARIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY REGARDING TOP OF BLUFF AND PROTECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, THAT ARE UNIQUE, SEPARATE FROM LAKE SHORE.

>> PERFECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. NO ONE'S HERE FOR US.

I SEE NOBODY. WELL AS A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME.

>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

TRIBUTARIES CHANNELS VERSUS TRIBUTARIES, OUT OF CURIOSITY.

I KNOW, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T EVEN ASK.

>> THE SCHORE LINE CODE DEFINES PROTECTED TRIBUTARIES BASED ON THE DNR.

WE DO HAVE CREEKS AND OTHER WATER FLOWAGES THAT ARE IN THE CITY.

YOU CAN CALL THEM WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT THE PROTECTED TRIBUTARIES ARE IDENTIFIED.

>> GOT IT. MORE SO IS WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS CHANNELS BECAUSE IT'S BEING IDENTIFIED AS LAKE SHORE NOT A TRIBUTARY.

>> A CHANNEL BETWEEN THE [OVERLAPPING] YES. THAT'S PART OF THE LAKE.

>> WITH ALL THE VARIANCES WE'VE SEEN, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE LA 25-2 AT LARGE.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

THIS BRINGS US TO OLD BUSINESS.

[6.1. LA24-000054, Rob Page, 430 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review (Laura Oakden)]

ROB PAGE 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, MISS OPTIN.

>> TO FIND A GOOD PLAN HERE TO PRESENT OR TO HAVE UP.

IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A PRELIMINARY PLANT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AT 4300 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FOR A GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A SECOND REVIEW FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS WAS BROUGHT TO YOU AT YOUR LAST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED APPROVAL OF A NEW GARAGE CONDO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

THE GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT IS ON ROUGHLY A FIVE ACRE PARCEL AND WILL

[01:05:03]

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A NARRATIVE DESCRIBING A PROPOSED 85 UNIT GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT.

THE UNITS WILL RANGE IN SIZE 750 SQUARE FEET TO 1,450 SQUARE FEET FOR GARAGE STORAGE.

THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED AS A CONDO FORMAT WITH A DEVELOPER OR HOA OWNING THE LAND AND THE UNITS BEING INDIVIDUALLY OWNED FOR PERSONAL USE FOR EACH OWNER.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT HAVE CUSTOMER FACING RETAIL, AND THE APPLICANT ALSO NOTES THAT IT WILL OPERATE WITHIN AN ESTIMATED BUSINESS HOURS OF 6:00 AM-10:00 PM.

SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, AND THE SITE WILL BE SECURED WITH A FENCE AND A GATE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AT THE FEBRUARY 18 MEETING WHERE A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD.

TWO LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC WERE SUBMITTED FOR YOUR REVIEW AT THAT TIME.

I INCLUDED THOSE IN YOUR PACKET AGAIN.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NEW PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROJECT.

THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PROPOSAL AND REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF THE SITE, MANEUVERABILITY PLAN, PARKING PLAN, TIMELINE, CONSTRUCTION PHASING.

THE PROJECT WAS ULTIMATELY TABLED BY THE COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THE MISSING INFORMATION.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED UPDATED INFORMATION.

THEY INCLUDED PHOTOS OF OTHER GARAGE CONDOS IN THE TWIN CITIES AREA FOR COMPARISON, CONSTRUCTION PLANS, CIVIL PLANS, RENDERINGS OF LANDSCAPING AND STREET VIEWS, AND A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE SITE ON ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC.

THE UPDATED PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE FIRE CHIEF.

THEY ARE STILL BEING REVIEWED AS THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THE PREVIOUS LIST OF COMMENTS.

THE APPLICANT DOES NOTE THOUGH THAT THE AMENDED PLANS SHOULD ADDRESS THE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

AT THE FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY ENGINEER NOTED THAT THERE WERE NO HIGH LEVEL CONCERNS AT THAT TIME, REGARDING THE DRAINAGE OR STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS.

THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO BEEN WORKING WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED TO OBTAIN PROPER EROSION CONTROL AND STORM WATER PERMITTING FOR THE SITE.

THE PROJECT WILL CONNECT TO CITY'S WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE.

A STORM WATER PLAN, INCLUDING STORM WATER PONDS, IS PROPOSED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR A SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEFINE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF INSTALLATION ON THE UTILITY STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS.

EASEMENTS WILL BE DEDICATED FOR DRAINAGE UTILITY AND ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT FEES WILL BE REQUIRED WITH THIS PROJECT.

AS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICANT STAFF FEELS THAT APPLICANT DOES MEET THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS.

A SEPARATE EXHIBIT OF AN ANALYSIS WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

STAFF IDENTIFIED SIX CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD RUN WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE MOTION OF APPROVAL OR AS PART OF THE MOTION FOR THE APPLICATION.

PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THE IDENTIFIED ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE MEMO AND DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSED USE MEETS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS.

IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ACT ON THIS APPLICATION.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

I HAVE RENDERINGS AND PARKING PLANS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I CAN SHARE.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS SOME IMAGES THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE, BUT I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. IF THE APPLICANTS HERE IN WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.

>> ROB PAGE 5840, CLUB VILE ROAD, SHOREWOOD.

I ALSO HAVE A PARTNER IN THIS PROJECT, LIZ MARY, WHO LIVES ON 500 WILLOW DRIVE.

>> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF.

WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AGAIN TO DISCUSS OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATIONS.

WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS A UNIQUE PROJECT FOR THE CITY, AND WE VALUE THE COMMISSION'S ROLE IN ENSURING THAT ALL DEVELOPMENTS ALIGNED WITH THE ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES IN THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, YOU PROVIDED FEEDBACK AND ASKED FOR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION.

WE'VE SUBMITTED THOSE TO STAFF.

WE'VE INCLUDED THEM AS ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS TO OUR SUBMISSION, SPECIFICALLY, EXHIBIT E, THE DECLARATION FOR THE ORONO GARAGE CONDOS.

IN THERE, YOU SEE THAT WE UPDATED OUR HOURS OF OPERATION.

CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE PUNITIVE POLICIES FOR VIOLATIONS, PROHIBIT ALL GATHERINGS AND EVENTS AND SHOW OCCUPANCY LIMITS CONSISTENT WITH CODE.

EXHIBIT H, WE HAVE A CHIP GENERATION MEMO.

WE PAID OR CONTRACTED, PAID THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO COMPLETE A FORMAL STUDY ON OUR PROJECT AND USE, WHICH DEMONSTRATES NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, PARTICULARLY WHEN COMPARED TO A PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL USE.

THIS USE IS ANTICIPATED TO AVERAGE 15 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS OR ONE NEW VEHICLE TRIP EVERY 30 MINUTES DURING THE PEAK HOUR.

[01:10:05]

WE HOPE THIS ALLEVIATES ANY CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ACCESSIBILITY, AND DENSITY.

EXHIBIT I, WE ADDED A MANEUVERABILITY AND CIRCULATION PLAN.

HERE TO WITH US TONIGHT, WE HAVE MATT HAGSTROM OF HAGSTROM ENGINEERING, WHO CAN TOUCH ON THESE ITEMS.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. EXCUSE ME.

MY NAME IS MATT HAGSTROM WITH HAGSTROM ENGINEERING, 219 6TH AVENUE EAST, ALEXANDRIA, MINNESOTA.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE THE LAST TIME.

I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE THESE EXHIBITS TO YOU BEFORE TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS AND I APPRECIATE THOSE.

I JUST WANT TO DIVE INTO THAT REAL QUICK.

I DID LISTEN TO THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION SO I JOTTED DOWN SOME KEY ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, ALONG WITH THE ROUTING PLAN.

BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY START WITH THE ROUTING PLAN HERE AS IT ADDRESSES TO THE FIRE CONCERN THAT WAS ADDRESSED AND I THINK WHAT THIS EXHIBIT REALLY HELPS ILLUSTRATE TOO IS SOME OF THE SCALE TO SHOW JUST EXACTLY HOW MUCH ROOM THERE IS BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND SO THIS IS USING AN AUTO TURN PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR CAD SOFTWARE THAT YOU LITERALLY DRIVE AROUND A FIRE TRUCK THROUGH THERE.

THAT'S WHAT THE EXHIBIT OR THE FIRE TRUCK ON THE BOTTOM LEFT IS THAT, EXCUSE ME, PUMPER FIRE TRUCKS, THAT WAS THE LARGEST FIRE TRUCK I COULD FIND A DRIVE THROUGH THERE.

YOU CAN SEE COMING IN, AND I'VE DONE SEVERAL EXHIBITS HERE SHOWING JUST HOW IF THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF THE FACILITIES, BUT WE PREPARED A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS HERE JUST TO DEMONSTRATE IN A WORST CASE SCENARIO, IF THESE GUYS HAD ALL THESE CARS PARKED SIDE TO SIDE, AS WE STILL MAINTAINED ENOUGH EMERGENCY SPACE IN BETWEEN FOR A FIRE TRUCK TO GET IN BETWEEN.

THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN, JUST TO ADDRESS THAT AGAIN.

THAT'S NOT IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE OF THE HOA HERE, EXCUSE ME, THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND, BUT WORST CASE SCENARIO.

THEN WE ALSO PUT TOGETHER THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE USE WAS COMPATIBLE WITH, SAY, A CAMPER.

NOW, I KNOW IT LOOKS RIDICULOUS WITH THAT CAR, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT THE SOFTWARE PUTS IN THERE, BUT IT'D BE THE SAME WHEELBASE AS A TRUCK.

BUT THIS WOULD BE, I BELIEVE THAT'S A 20 FOOT CAMPER.

THAT'S THE SIZE OF MY CAMPER IS, AND THAT JUST SHOWS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, 27 THEREABOUTS.

THERE'S LIMITATIONS WITH THE SOFTWARE HERE FOR THE TURNING.

IF YOU CAN GET IT TO WORK ON THE COMPUTER, THERE'S CERTAINLY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE BETTER DRIVERS THAN I'M ON THE COMPUTER.

UNDERSTAND IF IT WORKS HERE, SO I JUST TRIED TO FIND A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO GET IN AND OUT JUST TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ACTUALLY WORKED.

IF WE KEEP GOING DOWN TO EXHIBIT 4, SO HERE'S A BOAT GOING INTO THE SMALLER UNITS, SHOWING HOW THOSE WOULD WORK, GETTING INTO THE CORNER SPACES AND TIGHT, JUST JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THAT ACTUALLY DOES IN FACT WORK.

THEN I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE THAT WAS SHOWING.

THIS WAS ANOTHER THING JUST REQUESTED.

IF THERE WAS RANDOM CARS PARKED INTERMITTENTLY THROUGH, HOW COULD A FIRE TRUCK GET THROUGH AND THIS JUST SHOWS ROUTING GOING ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SITE? WE PROVIDED THAT ACCESS LOOPING AND EVERYTHING GOING AROUND THROUGH THERE.

WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE FIRE, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I DID SPEAK WITH JAMES VAN TODAY, AND HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE ROUTING THAT WE'VE SHOWN AND THAT HE THOUGHT THAT WAS ADEQUATE FOR CITY FIRE AND EVERYTHING GOING IN AND WE HAD ALSO DISCUSSED BECAUSE WE HAD CHANGED HOW WE'RE PROVIDING UTILITIES TO THE SERVICES.

HE DOES WANT THAT HYDRANT BACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SITE BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE THING HE AND I DISCUSSED ABOUT A MONTH AGO WAS BECAUSE THESE ARE FULLY SPRINKLED BUILDINGS WITH A SIX INCH FIRE LINE RUNNING IN LIKE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD NEED THAT ADDITIONAL HYDRANT, AND HE HAS COME BACK AND SINCE REQUESTED THAT, SO THAT WILL BE ILLUSTRATED ON OUR FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.

ALSO, IN REGARDS TO HIS ORIGINAL COMMENT WITH THE IFC TURNAROUND IN THE NORTH DRIVE THERE, YES.

THAT'S BEEN FLIPPED OVER THE OTHER WAY TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING ACCESS TO THE NORTH PROPERTY, AND THAT WAS COORDINATED WITH THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, TOO, THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

THAT WOULD BE AN EASEMENT, THAT WOULD BE RECORDED ON THAT PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THERE IS AN ADEQUATE IFC PROVIDED THERE.

>> ON THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THEIR DOCK DOOR THERE, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO.

>> WHEN THAT NEW STREET COMES IN, THEY WOULD HAVE A CURB CUT THERE NATURALLY FOR THAT, ANYWAYS.

[01:15:01]

I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE.

>> YOU WANT ME TO PULL IT UP OR?

>> I THINK YOU I SAW YOU GO THROUGH ONE OF THE SHEETS ON HERE THAT HAD SHOWN IT.

IT MIGHT BE THE VERY NEXT SHEET.

YES, RIGHT THERE. NO. THERE YOU GO.

PERFECT. ON THIS, YOU CAN SEE, WE DID WORK WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, AND WE WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT HAVING INDIVIDUAL SERVICES GOING TO EACH UNIT.

WE WENT TO A MASTER SERVICE FOR EACH UNIT, SO THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE LINE COMING IN, AND THE CITY ENGINEER WAS IN FAVOR OF THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING MULTIPLE STREET CONNECTIONS, JUST LESS ACCESS POINTS FOR AIR.

THAT WAS SOMETHING WE CHANGED.

THAT PLAN WILL HAVE A LINE COMING DOWN TO THE SOUTH WITH A HYDROD IN IT.

THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THEY'LL CHANGE JUST BASED ON WORKING WITH THE FIRE CHIEF.

THERE WILL BE, LIKE I SAID, A SIX INCH FIRE SERVICE FOR EACH BUILDING TO GO IN, SO THEY WILL BE FULLY SPRINKLED THROUGH THE WHOLE UNIT, AND THERE'LL BE A SEPARATE LINE GOING IN FOR THE DOMESTIC WITH ONE MASTER METER PER BUILDING AND A SIX SANITARY SEWER PER BUILDING.

YEAH, THAT'S IT.

WITH DRAINAGE ENGINEERING, JUST TO RECAP WHAT LAURA HAD ALREADY SAID, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AND MINNEHAHA CREEK, AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED OUR DRAINAGE REPORT AND EVERYTHING TO THEM FOR A PRELIMINARY REVIEW, HOPING TO GET SOME FEEDBACK AND THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOT IS NOTHING SAYING THAT IT'S APPROVED, BUT THAT EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE IT'S AN ORDER THAT WE CAN SUBMIT FOR PERMIT WHEN WE'RE READY, IF AND WHEN WE GET APPROVAL THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND SAME WITH THE CITY.

WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING OUR MODEL WITH THEM BASED ON THE ORIGINAL DRAINAGE MAP AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD TALK ABOUT, TOO, I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE MASTER PLAN, NOW, LAURA, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THAT PLAN THE PDF BROUGHT UP THAT I HAD EMAILED YOU?

>> THE PDF OR THE ANIMATION?

>> WELL, YOU CAN SHOW I MADE AN ANIMATED MOVIE OF THE FIRE TRUCK DRIVE AROUND THROUGH THERE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE THAT, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO GIVE IT.

I THOUGHT IT WAS COOL. I WAS NERDED OUT.

I HAVEN'T USED THIS PROGRAM IN A WHILE THOUGH.

BUT JUST SHOWS DRIVING AROUND SO YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOW ALL THAT UNLESS YOU GUYS REALLY WANT TO FALL ASLEEP.

>> THIS WAS THE SLIDES YOU SET.

>> OH, PERFECT. YEAH. IF WE COULD GO DOWN SOUTH OR BELOW THE CDS.

WHEN DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THE DRAINAGE REPORT, KEEP GOING.

I JUST CONDENSED ALL OF OUR STUFF. ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO.

GO RIGHT. THIS WAS THE MASTER DRAINAGE REPORT THAT WAS SHOWN OR THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS AREA THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SHOWN.

THIS JUST ILLUSTRATES HERE, AND IT DOESN'T SHOW UP GREAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE MASTER PLAN HAD SHOWN FOR THIS LOT, WHICH WAS A PRETTY LARGE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND I BELIEVE THEY HAD 193 PARKING SPOT SHOWN WITH THAT.

THAT ALIGNS WITH WHAT THEY WERE INDICATING WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY THERE WITH THE TRIPS PER DAY COMING IN FOR THAT INDUSTRIAL USE.

IF THAT WENT FORWARD AS THE STRAIGHT ZONING CODE, WHICH WOULD BE A STRAIGHT SUBMITTAL TO CITY STAFF FOR APPROVAL WITHOUT ANY REVIEW THROUGH FOR PLAN COMMISSIONER OR CITY COUNCIL.

THAT HAS THAT 623 TRIPS PER DAY AND SO THE ADT COMING UP FOR A GARAGE CONDOS IS 15.

THAT'S A 97.6% REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT AREA.

I THINK THAT CERTAINLY WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE AS THE STRAIGHT ZONING USE.

EVEN LOOKING AT A SCENARIO WHERE YOU SAY, WELL, WHAT IF THERE'S A BIG EVENT, AND IF ALL 85 UNITS HAD SOMEBODY COME ONCE A DAY, THAT WOULD BE 170 ADT, AND THAT WOULD STILL BE A 73% REDUCTION IF EVERYBODY CAME IN ONE DAY OVER THE EXISTING ZONING USE.

I THOUGHT THAT JUST HELPED INDICATE THAT THIS WOULD DEFINITELY RELIEVE SOME OF THAT STRESS ON THE TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE NEW ELEVATION EXHIBITS SHOWN.

I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN MY PACKET. I THINK THEY'D BE IN THE OTHER ONE.

THAT INTEGRATES IN SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT WE PUT TOGETHER WAS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY CODE, INCLUDING THE TYPE OF TREES AND WHATNOT FOR THE SHADING AND I THOUGHT THAT THE PLAN THAT CB DESIGNS HERE PUT TOGETHER WAS A REALLY GOOD REPRESENTATION OF HOW THAT WOULD SOFTEN THAT LOOK FROM THE ROAD.

IN THE EXISTING USE, IT WOULD BE TYPICALLY PROBABLY A TILTED CONCRETE PANEL BUILDING SURROUNDED BY A PARKING LOT, AND I FEEL LIKE THIS AESTHETICALLY WOULD BE PRETTY PLEASING IF I WAS LIVING ACROSS THE STREET AS OPPOSED TO AN INDUSTRIAL USE, BUT THOSE WERE ALL MY NOTES I HAD FROM THE ORIGINAL MEETING.

[01:20:03]

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ON THAT INDUSTRIAL USE BUILDING THAT SHOWED, I GUESS THAT WASN'T PRE APPROVED, BUT THAT WAS IN MASTER PLAN.

>> YEAH.

>> WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT?

>> DOES THAT SAY ON THERE, LAURA? ROB ASKED ME THAT EARLIER, AND I WAS LIKE I WAS JUST LOOKING AT PARKING COUNTS, AND I DIDN'T LOOK HOW BIG. IT'S PRETTY BIG.

>> YEAH, WE KNOW BASED ON THE ALLOWED PERCENTAGES FOR A SINGLE BUILDING PER CODE WOULD BE ROUGHLY AROUND 127,000 SQUARE FEET. I DON'T KNOW.

>> IT SAYS 63,000 SQUARE FEET.

>> YEAH.

>> WHAT IS YOUR TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE?

>> WE WERE AT 96.

>> NINETY FIVE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED.

>> NINETY FIVE THOUSAND.

>> BUT I THINK PER CODE, IF IT'S A SINGLE BUILDING, IT CAN COVER 60%, WHICH WOULD BE 127,500 IS WHAT DAVE WAS SAYING.

>> YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A GRASP ON THE MASSING COMPARED TO WHAT THIS COULD BE.

>> IMPERVIOUS WISE, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

>> OR A LITTLE LESS.

>> STRUCTURE WISE. THE ONE WE'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF US IS MORE THAN WHAT THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE WAREHOUSE WOULD BE.

>> SURE.

>> I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THE MANEUVERABILITY AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS 50 FEET BETWEEN THE TWO, CORRECT?

>> YEAH.

>> THEN 40 EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST LANE ON THE LEFT WAS 40 BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE SMALLER UNITS OVER THERE SO THAT'S WHY WE SHOWED LIKE A BOAT TRAILER ON THOSE ONES.

BUT IT STILL HAS ADEQUATE ROUTING FOR THE FIRE TRUCK.

>> THEN I WAS GOING TO ASK, TOO, WHAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE LIGHTING PLAN FOR THE BUILDING, WILL THERE BE SOME LIGHTING CHANGE AFTER OPERATIONS, OR IS IT GOING TO STAY THE SAME LIT THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT VERSUS THE DAY OR?

>> THE THOUGHT WAS TO HAVE A PHOTO CELL WITH WALL PACKS ON IT THAT WOULD STAY ON FOR THE NIGHT FOR SECURITY PURPOSES.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE THINKING AT THIS POINT.

>> MR. CHAIR.

>> YES.

>> I HAD A QUESTION. ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT RIGHT ENDS WAS ABOUT SCREENING AND PRESERVATION OF NOISE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I WAS TRYING TO LOOK REALLY QUICKLY, AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET IT WRONG.

ON YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN, LARGE DECIDUOUS TREES, JUST WHAT THE HEIGHT AND COUNT THAT YOU'RE PLANNING FOR? I SEE THE DRAWINGS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS ALL THE COMMENTS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

>> SURE. I'M NOT SURE IF WE CALLED OUT THE HEIGHTS AND STUFF ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

WE COULD PULL THAT UP. I THINK IT SAYS 2-4'.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S STRAIGHT OUT OF THE LANDSCAPE CODE SO WE PULLED THOSE FOR THE DIFFERENT TREES AND SO I KNOW I WORKED WITH A NURSERY ON THE SPECIFIC SPECIES OF TREES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS USE.

EVERY ONE OF THOSE TREES THAT WOULD BE PLACED IN THERE WOULD BE PER THE CITY CODE.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN WE DID THAT PLAN ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO.

I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT.

>> GOT IT. THEN NOT ANY BIGGER THAN WHAT THE CITY CODE'S CALLING.

>> EVENTUALLY, I THINK THOSE PINES COULD GROW A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK THEY SET A MINIMUM STANDARD FOR WHAT CAN BE PLANTED.

I THINK OVER TIME I KNOW, LIKE MY PINES THAT I'VE CREATED, NOW THEY'VE STARTED TO GET BIGGER, THEY START TO GROW ABOUT A FOOT A YEAR SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE THEY WOULD GET BIGGER OVER TIME, AND THE DECIDUOUS WOULD STAY SO YOU'D SEE MORE OF THE CANOPY BEHIND THE PINE TREE.

I ENVISION THAT LIKE THE THREE ROW WIND BLOCKER THAT YOU WOULD SEE OFF A FARM FIELD BETWEEN LIKE A FARM FIELD OR SEPARATING THE TWO.

THAT WAS THE INTENT, ANYWAYS, IS THAT THEY WOULD GROW AND OVER TIME, THEY WOULD PROVIDE MORE SCREENING.

>> SURE.

>> THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF MORE THAN THE APPLICANT, JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MOTOPLEXES TO COMPARE TO IN THE CITY.

NOT SITE, BUT THE ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 30 FEET FROM THE HALFWAY PEAK ARE? BECAUSE I LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS AND THEY LOOK QUITE TALL.

>> IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SO WE MEASURE BUILDINGS FROM UNGABLE BUILDINGS MIDPOINT OF THE ROOFLINE.

THAT'S UNIFORM AROUND THE CITY.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, WE ALLOW BUILDINGS TO BE 40 FEET TALL BY DEFINED HEIGHT.

BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MUCH GRADING NEEDED, I BELIEVE THEIR DEFINED HEIGHT IS COMING IN RIGHT AROUND 31.

BELOW THE INDUSTRIAL SIMILAR TO A TALL HOUSE AT THIS POINT, BY DEFINED HEIGHT.

[01:25:06]

>> WOULD YOU GUYS AGREE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A CONCEPT.

>> YEAH. I ACTUALLY THINK ON THE MIDPOINT I WAS TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE MIDPOINT AND IF THAT'S HOW YOU'RE MEASURING IT.

I THINK THE BUILDING ONE IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 20 FEET MIDPOINT AND THEN BUILDING TWO, MIDPOINT, I HAVE AT ABOUT 25.

>> THAT SHOWS IT PRETTY WELL THERE.

>> GOT WHAT THE GARAGE DOORS BE?.

>> FOURTEEN.

>> FOURTEEN FEET HIGH.

>> ALL OF THEM. THE ROOF LINES START AT 16.

I HAD BUILDING ONE, THE MAX IS A LITTLE OVER 24 AND THEN BUILDING TWO, THE MAX IS JUST SHY OF 134.

I KEEP SAYING 134 BECAUSE IT STARTS AT 100.

ANYWAY, 34 FEET.

THEN SLOPES UP, SO I JUST TOOK THE AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO.

>> SURE. APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION ON THAT.

>> IN THE LIGHTING PLAN, SO YOU MUST BE HAVING EXTERIOR LIGHTING.

I LIKE THE IDEA THAT THEY'LL SHUT OFF IF THERE'S NO ACTIVITY.

BECUASE THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

ONCE DUST FALLS UPON US, AND THERE'S NO MOVEMENT, THE ONLY LIGHT YOU SHOULD SEE IS THE LIGHT INSIDE IF SOMEONE'S USING THEIR GARAGE.

>> WELL, TECHNICALLY, THE PHOTO CELL WILL BE ON AS SOON AS SUNSET GOES DOWN.

BUT, AND WE'RE OPEN TO THIS.

WE WANT TO BE OBVIOUSLY RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS, IS THE NICE PART, THOUGH, THEY CAN ONLY SEE PROBABLY THE VERY EAST SIDE OF THAT FIRST DRIVE LANE FROM SCREENING.

BUT I GUESS, IN GENERAL, WE ARE OPEN TO IT.

IDEALLY WE'D HAVE SOME LIGHTING THOUGH FOR SECURITY PURPOSES FOR OUR OWN OWNERS JUST TO FEEL.

BUT THEY CAN. IF THEY'RE ON A TIMER.

PHOTO CELL CAN ALSO BE A TIMER, SO YOU COULD ALSO JUST TURN THEM OFF AT A CERTAIN TIME, EVEN AFTER SUNSET, IF THAT MAKES SENSE?

>> YEAH, THE TWO CONSIDERATIONS THERE ARE THE SECURITY AND THEN ALSO EMERGENCY OF THERE DOES NEED TO BE 24/7 ACCESS FOR FIRE OR, POLICE OR SOMETHING.

OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S NO LIGHTING AT ALL DURING THOSE TIMES, IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE ACTIVITY SENSE WHERE THEY TURN ON IF IT DETECTED SOMETHING.

>> JUST THE PHOTO.

>> JUST THE PHOTO?

>> YEAH. THEN WE JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY TOUCH UPON THE OTHER TWO EXHIBITS THAT WE PROVIDED.

EXHIBIT J WAS JUST PICTURES AND EXAMPLES OF OTHER UNITS, AS WE HAD MENTIONED LAST MEETING.

WE ARE NOT THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO PROVIDE OTHER EXAMPLES TO SHOW THE VARIETY OF THESE TYPES OF UNITS.

I THINK THAT THE MEDINA AUTO PLEX GETS A LOT OF ATTENTION.

HOWEVER, THAT IS JUST ONE OF PROBABLY 30 OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, AND IT'S ALSO A VERY UNIQUE ONE.

WE'VE SHOWED SOME FROM PARK PLACE THAT ARE MUCH MORE INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE.

THESE ARE ALL PARK PLACE RELATED UNITS.

JUST AGAIN, GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW THEY'RE STRUCTURED TO SHOW THE NO EXTERNAL PARKING, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

DRIVE LANES, WIDTHS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO JUST SHOW YOU SOME COMPARABLES THERE.

THEN THERE WAS A SPECIFIC ON DRIVE LANES, I BELIEVE.

>> YEAH.

>> THIS IS OUT IN GLENCOE.

>> DO YOU KNOW ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO RIGHT THERE?

>> THESE UNITS ARE 54 FEET ACROSS.

>> THAT HELPS.

>> AGAIN, JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU PERSPECTIVE.

>> DEFINITELY HELPS SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRING THE CAPTURES.

>> SCALE ON THE INSIDE. IT'S ACTUALLY MY UNIT WHERE THAT TRUCK IS PARKED.

THEN, FOR EXHIBIT L, THE SITE RENDERINGS, PROVIDED THESE SITE RENDERINGS.

WE PULLED IT UP A LITTLE BIT AGO.

PULL IT UP AGAIN IF YOU WANT. BUT JUST TO SHOW ALL THINGS, THE CHARACTER AND CONSISTENCY COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

WE ACTUALLY REALLY LIKED HOW THESE CAME OUT.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONCEPT TO OUR RENDERING TEAM, BUT HADN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THE FINAL RENDERINGS DONE, AND ACTUALLY, WE WERE QUITE PROUD OF HOW THIS LOOKS AND FEELS WITHIN THE CITY OF ORO.

JUST OF NOTE, THE BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE.

OF THE SINGLE BUILDING, THE HARD COVER EXTERIOR PARKING.

IT'S ALL LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FOR THIS SPACE.

OUR GOAL THERE IS JUST TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT BY NOT MAXING OUT EVERY POSSIBLE THING WE COULD DO, LIKE, THE HEIGHTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

MATT ALLUDED TO THIS, BUT JUST WHEN COMPARED TO,

[01:30:01]

THINK ABOUT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

BLAND TIP UP WALLS, AND THIS PROPERTY COULD HAVE 319 PARKING SPACES PER CODE IF YOU MAXIMIZE THE BUILDING.

A LIMITED AESTHETIC OF A INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, AND EVEN COMPARED TO, I THINK SOME OF THE OTHER GARAGE DEVELOPMENTS, WE THINK THIS FITS QUITE WELL AND CAME OUT QUITE NICELY, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THIS IS THE LAST UNDEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY IN ONO, AND WHAT OTHER POTENTIAL USES COULD GO IN HERE AND HOW THOSE COULD LOOK.

WE THOUGHT THESE RENDERINGS REALLY REPRESENTED.

THIS IS A PROBABLY VERY GOOD USE FOR THIS SITE, SO WE WERE PROUD OF HOW THOSE CAME OUT.

>> I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS IF YOU.

YOU MENTIONED PARKING.

I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE CONCEPT.

I UNDERSTAND THE USE THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT USE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

I DISAGREE WITH STAFF AS FAR AS THE PARKING METRIC BEING APPLIED TO THE INDOOR SPACES HERE.

I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND WHY THE PARKING IS INSIDE EACH UNIT, THREE SPACES OR FOUR SPACES, SOMETIMES, TAKING UP THE ENTIRE UNIT, AND THERE'S NO PARKING OUTSIDE.

HOW DOES THIS DIFFER THEN THE PARK PLACE, WHICH SOME OF THOSE HAVE OUTDOOR PARKING. SOME OF THEM DON'T.

HOW IS THE USE DIFFERENCE? I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT BECAUSE I WANT THIS TO WORK, BUT I DON'T SEE IT WORKING WITH THE PARKING METRIC BEING APPLIED INSIDE WHERE THE STORAGE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HAPPENING?

>> MAYBE MEDINA HAS SOME, BUT I DON'T THINK PARK PLACE WOULD GO BACK TO THOSE SITE PLANS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY.

THAT'S PARK PLACE.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME DESIGNATED SPOTS FOR PARKING MORE WIDTH BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

THEY HAVE HANDICAPPED PARKING, ETC.

>> THE MAIN DIFFERENCE, THE PARKING ON THE LEFT THERE IS FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

THE MEDINA AUTOPLEX ACTUALLY HAS COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON THE OUTSIDE.

INSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY, THERE'S NO DESIGNATED PARKING.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY TELL THOSE CARS ON THE BOTTOM ARE JUST PARKED DOWN RANDOMLY ON THE STREET.

IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN THIS LIST.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO DESIGNATED PARKING.

THIS IS, I BELIEVE THERE'S 450 UNITS HERE.

>> JUST A MINUTE, THOUGH. ARE THESE STORAGE CONDOS OR GARAGE CONDOS? THERE'S NO AMENITIES INSIDE OF THE PARK PLACE ONES, CORRECT?

>> THERE ARE. THEY HAVE BATHROOMS, MEZZANINE, SAME AMENITIES OFFERING IN THERE.

THERE ARE PUBLIC STORAGE UNITS, WHICH ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

THAT WOULD BE MORE MINI STORAGE USE.

PARK PLACE IS EXACTLY SAME AMENITIES THAT WE WOULD BE OFFERING SIMILAR TO MEDINA.

IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN, THAT LOT TO THE LEFT IS ACTUALLY A PARKING RIDE.

THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY A PARK PART OF THIS.

IT IS THE COMMON PRACTICE TO NOT HAVE DESIGNATED PARKING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THESE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE STORAGE RELATED, SIMILAR TO HOW MOST MINI STORAGE PLACES ALSO DO NOT HAVE DESIGNATED PARKING.

IF YOU GO DOWN MINING GLENCOE AS WELL, DOES NOT HAVE ANY DESIGNATED PARKING.

IT'D ACTUALLY BE VERY RARE TO HAVE DESIGNATED OUT EXTERIOR PARKING UNLESS THERE'S A MAIN OFFICE, WHICH, MINI STORAGE, THINGS LIKE THAT HAVE THOSE.

GARAGE CONDOS TEND TO NOT HAVE A CENTRAL OFFICE FOR FAILS OR WHATEVER.

JUST PROVIDE THAT CONCEPT.

>> IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE PARKING SLIDES, THE MANEUVERABILITY PLAN, IF YOU HAVE THAT.

MY CONCERN IS THE "WORST CASE SCENARIO." WHERE WE HAVE CARS PARKED DOWN THE MAIN DRIVE.

I FEEL LIKE THAT TO ME IS NOT A WORST CASE.

THAT COULD BE AN EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE.

I THINK A WORST CASE WOULD BE OCCUPANCY IS 3-4 PER UNIT.

WORST CASE WOULD BE 255 CARS THERE BECAUSE IT'S 85.

I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS SLIDE REPRESENTS WORST CASE SCENARIO.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS ONE WOULD BE WORST CASE SCENARIO?

>> WE'RE MERGING A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WE DID, THE EXPECTED TOTAL TRIPS PER DAY IS 15, THAT'D BE SEVEN PEOPLE VISITING ON ANY GIVEN DAY.

[01:35:01]

THE LIKELIHOOD OF THERE BEING SIGNIFICANT LIKE THIS, IT IS QUITE LOW.

OUR DECLARATIONS DO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY OUT EXTERIOR PARKING, AS LONG AS IT'S WHILE THE OWNER IS OCCUPIED, IT'S WITHIN BUSINESS HOURS, AND USUALLY FOR UNLOADING AND LOADING PURPOSES.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE DRIVE LANES AND THINGS WERE CONSISTENT WITH EVEN IF THERE ARE TWO CARS PARKED, THERE STILL IS A TEN FOOT WIDE DRIVE LANE DOWN THE MIDDLE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, TRAILERS, BOTH, PEOPLE TO DRIVE THROUGH.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT STUDY, THINKING THROUGH JUST THE ACTUAL VOLUME OF USAGE HERE.

EVEN THOUGH THERE IS STILL, IT'S LOW LIKELIHOOD, WE STILL DO HAVE THE ABILITY IF PEOPLE ARE TEMPORARILY PARKED OUTSIDE PER OUR DECLARATION TO AT LEAST MAKE THIS ACCESSIBLE.

>> BEN TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT.

THESE ARE ALL PARKED PERFECTLY PERPENDICULAR ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER, AS OPPOSED TO JUST BEING AND PARK PARALLEL RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR UNIT.

THIS WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, EXTREMELY RARE.

>> CAN YOU PULL UP THE THE GLENCOE ONE? THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF MOST PEOPLE WOULD PARK THEIR CAR PARALLEL TO THE DOOR IF THEY WERE LOADING OR UNLOADING.

BUT IF THERE WERE PEOPLE PARKED PERPENDICULAR, STILL IS SPACE FOR A DRIVE LANE FOR A CAR TO GO THROUGH.

BUT USUALLY THIS IS HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT.

AGAIN, THE OWNER HAS TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER TO PARK OUTSIDE THE UNIT FOR THE DECLARATIONS.

IF THERE WAS SOME SITUATION EMERGENCY, IT IS EASY FOR SOMETHING TO MANEUVER THROUGH THERE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A PRETTY LOW LIKELIHOOD, GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR VOLUME.

>> YOU THINK THAT SLIDE REPRESENTS WORST CASE SCENARIO? 18 CARS THERE?

>> I THINK THAT SLIDE IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

I DON'T FORESEE WHY 18 PEOPLE OR WHATEVER THAT IS, WOULD COME AND PARK PERFECTLY PERPENDICULAR ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER AT THE SAME TIME.

>> WE'VE TOURED THESE OTHER SITES AS WELL, AND THERE'S ALMOST NEVER ANYONE THERE.

I THINK THAT THE PARK PLACE ONE EVEN SHOWS IT. HOW MANY UNITS IS THAT ONE?

>> FOUR HUNDRED.

>> FOUR HUNDRED. I THINK WE SAW, LIKE, TWO, THREE VEHICLES THERE.

IT'S IN THE ODDS THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME WOULD BE EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

>> I GUESS IT ALL DEPENDS ON USE.

WHAT THE FINAL CUSTOMER, WHO THEY ARE, WHAT THEY'RE USING THE UNIT FOR, ETC.

>> YEAH. DAVES MENTIONED THAT WE ARE SIMILAR TO PARK PLACES THAT WE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT USE.

THEY ARE VERY RARELY TRAFFICKED.

>> COULD YOU GO TO THE BOTTOM SLIDE ON THIS ONE, THE BOTTOM PARKING SLIDE? THIS ONE.

THIS IS ILLUSTRATING THE PARKING INSIDE THE UNITS CORRECT?THAT IS TO MEET THE METRIC FOR THE CODE, TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THE COMPLEX, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT IT PRIMARILY RENDERS THE STORAGE OF THESE USELESS IF THE THREE VEHICLES HAVE TO PARK INSIDE.

IF YOU LOOK FURTHER DOWN ON THAT PAGE, THERE'S AN ASTERIX THAT SHOWS THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE, AND EACH OWNER WILL MANAGE THE PARKING SPACE FOR THEIR SPACE.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS TO MEET THE CODE.

BUT I THINK WORST CASE SCENARIO, IF WE ARE APPLYING A METRIC TO THE CODE, WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STORAGE UNITS, 2.7.

IT'S ROUGHLY 2.7 PARKING LOTS, PARKING SPACES PER UNIT HERE.

THE WORST CASE SCENARIO WOULD BE ALL OF THOSE CARS PARKED OUTSIDE AT ONE TIME.

>> SORRY, I'M I NOT FOLLOWING THE COT. CAN YOU ASK THAT AGAIN?

>> TO MEET THE CODE, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING STANDARD?

>> YEP. WHICH IN THIS PROJECT IS 2.7 CARS PER UNIT.

IT'S BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IT'S BASED ON OUR CODE FOR THE MINI STORAGE. RIGHT?

>> A MULTI TENANT INDUSTRIAL.

>> MULTI TENANT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO LIKE THE BUILDING AT LONG LAKE BEHIND MCDONALD'S, CORRECT?

>> POTENTIALLY, I THINK WE APPLY THIS CODE SIMILAR TO, LET ME PULL UP AN AERIAL. THERE'S ANOTHER BUILDING.

[01:40:05]

>> I GUESS MY QUESTION HERE IS, AND I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND HOW THAT IS GOING TO WORK WHEN THE REQUIRED PARKING IS ALL WITHIN THE UNIT WHERE ALL THE STORAGE IS.

100% OF THE PARKING FOR THE SPACE IS ALL WITH INSIDE THE UNIT, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THESE UNITS IS TO HAVE THEM FOR STORAGE.

IF ALL OF THE PARKING IS INSIDE, WHERE PEOPLE GOING TO STORE EVERYTHING.

ALSO, THE ASTERIX SAYING, EACH PERSON THAT OWNS A UNIT DOESN'T HAVE TO COMPLY BY THIS PARKING REGULATION, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DESIGNATE THOSE SPOTS IN THEIR UNIT FOR PARKING.

IT BASICALLY ELIMINATES THE PARKING METRIC THAT IS REQUIRED.

>> IT'S FOR THEIR OWN USE.

THERE'S NO OUTSIDE. THEY OWN IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT WITHIN EACH UNIT, ARE THERE GOING TO BE STRIPED PARKING THAT THEY CAN'T PUT ANYTHING ELSE THERE? I'M JUST REALLY CONFUSED.

>> IT'S JUST SHOWING HOW WE WOULD COMPLY WITH WHAT A SPOT IS.

WELL, INCLUDING THE STORAGE AS A GARAGE, IT WOULD HOUSE A CAR AND CAN SHOW HOW MANY CARS IT WOULD HOUSE BY THE DIMENSIONS OF A STANDARD CITY SPOT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE OR IN THIS SCENARIO, I GUESS, EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE ALL THE PARKING FOR THE ENTIRE SITE WITHIN THE UNITS, IT MAKES THE UNITS UNUSABLE.

>> HEY, LAURA, CAN YOU SHARE WHAT YOU WROTE ABOUT THAT, I FORGET YOUR LANGUAGE I WAS TRYING TO FIND HERE.

ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT THE USE, IT'S NOT A STANDARD USE?

>> YES.

>> I CAN ZOOM IN HERE.

STAFF, THE PROPOSED USE FOR GARAGE CONDOS, THE APPLICANT'S NOT PROPOSING OUTDOOR PARKING.

BECAUSE THE USE IS SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED INTERIOR PARKING SPACE, STAFF APPLIED THE FOLLOWING PROVISION, WHICH WE NOTED, IS NOT 100% APPLICABLE AS IT'S MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

THIS IS A DIFFERENT USE.

WHEN WE ADOPTED THE GARAGE CONDO USE AS A TEXT AMENDMENT LAST YEAR, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT WITH THAT UNIQUE USE.

PARKING WILL BE REVIEWED AS APPLICATIONS COME THROUGH AS IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

I THINK PROBABLY SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON GARAGE CONDOS AND YOUR TENANTS AND HOW THAT WILL BE APPLIED MIGHT BE HELPFUL WITH WHERE WE'RE FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

BUT FOR GARAGE CONDOS BEING INDIVIDUALLY OWNED, STAFF APPLIED THAT THESE PARKING SPACES OR THE PARKING NECESSARY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TENANTS COULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHIN EACH UNIT.

THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS LIMITED USES OF THIS SITE WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THERE'S NO RETAIL FACING.

THERE'S NO CUSTOMER FACING OF THIS.

THEY ARE FOR OWN PERSONAL STORAGE OF EITHER SUPPLIES, WHETHER IT'S A SMALL BUSINESS.

I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT, LIKE A WINDOW COMPANY STORING WINDOWS THERE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, OR IT'S A PERSONAL PERSON STORING THEIR CAMPER THERE OR THEIR BOAT OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS IS THE INTENT FOR THIS USE.

I THINK FURTHER DISCUSSION MIGHT BE HELPFUL ON WHO'S USING THESE SPACES? HOW WILL THEY USE IT? THEN WHAT'S THE WORST CASE FOR PARKING? BUT STAFF ESSENTIALLY APPLIED THIS MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AS A BASE FOR SOME METRIC FOR APPLYING PARKING NECESSITIES WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

AS A RESULT, WE CAME UP WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF ROUGHLY 290 INDOOR SPACES.

THE PARKING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DOES SHOW THAT IT MEETS THAT NUMBER FOR NUMBER OF PARKING.

ADDITIONALLY, THEN THE APPLICANTS ASKED TO ADDRESS THAT LOADING, UNLOADING, TEMPORARY PARKING IN FRONT OF UNITS AND WHATNOT.

STAFF'S ANALYSIS REALLY IS TO ADDRESS THE INDOOR PARKING NECESSARY FOR THE USE OF THE UNIT, BUT ALSO THEN MAKING SURE THERE'S MANEUVERABILITY AND ACCESS TO THE SITE WHEN THERE IS PEOPLE VISITING, UNLOADING, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

STAFF DID USE AN ANALYSIS WITH OUR BEST CASE OF WHAT'S IN THE CODE, BUT IT REALLY IS UNIQUE FOR THIS USE AND HOW THIS USE WILL BE APPLIED.

>> THANK YOU. I STILL HAVE CONCERNS OF THE PARKING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE ALL THE PARKING METRIC MET WITH INTERIOR PARKING THAT IS NOT ENFORCED BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER OF EACH UNIT CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PARKING SCHEME FOR THE INTERIOR.

[01:45:04]

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PARKED INSIDE. CORRECT?

>> IF YOU HAD UNIT.

>> BECAUSE IF IN ORDER FOR ME TO PARK INSIDE MY UNIT, I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE NOTHING IN THAT UNIT TO PARK IN THERE.

>> THE GARAGE INCLUDES STORAGE OF VEHICLES.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> BUT IF THEY HAD A TRAILER OR A BOAT OR ANYTHING ELSE, THAT WOULD INNATELY TAKE UP ANOTHER SPOT.

IT'S SHOWING HOW IT COULD ACCOMMODATE.

WE'VE DEMONSTRATED HOW IT CAN ACCOMMODATE ALL THE CODE-REQUIRED PARKING SPOTS.

>> AT THE INTERIOR USE OF THE BUILDING, IS IT TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THE THREE RESIDENTS PER UNIT, OR IS IT TO PROVIDE STORAGE FOR THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE BUILDING?

>> THE LATTER, INCLUDING VEHICLES.

>> IT CAN'T DO BOTH?

>> JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

ARE YOU BASICALLY OVERLAYING THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS THAT WE HAVE LISTED, 3, 4, 5 IN THE CODE, WITH THE REQUIRED PARKING PER OCCUPANT? YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT IF THERE'S A LIMIT OF THREE OCCUPANTS PER UNIT, THEREFORE, THERE'S ONE PARKING SPACE PER OCCUPANT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE OVERLAYING?

>> WHAT I'M OVERLAYING IS, I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET DUAL USE OUT OF EACH UNIT TO MEET THE PARKING METRIC AND HAVE THAT UNIT DESIGNATED FOR STORAGE.

IF THE USE OF THE UNIT IS FOR STORAGE, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ALLOWING THE PARKING METRIC TO BE MET WITH INTERIOR PARKING. AM I MAKING SENSE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I SHOULD CHIME IN SECOND, PLEASE.

YOU'VE BEEN EXPLAINING IT, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IT'S LIKE, WHAT IS THIS THING? FOR PARKING CARS INSIDE, WELL, THEN IT'S NOT STORAGE.

BUT TO ME, I DON'T SEE THE USE, AND THAT'S WHERE I YOU GUYS NEED TO HELP US HERE IS LIKE, I SEE PEOPLE HAVING ONE OR TWO CARS AND DOING A PROJECT, AND IF I'M BRINGING MY CAR, I'M NOT PARKING MY CAR IN THE GARAGE UNIT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S WINTERTIME AND IT'S WET.

I'M THINKING THIS IS MOST TIME, AND CORRECT US IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF I'M COMING ON A SATURDAY, AND BY THE WAY, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO COME ON SATURDAY AROUND NOON, THE THINGS TO BE PACKED, WHERE AM I PARKING? I DON'T WANT TO PARK IN GARAGE CAUSE IT'S ALL CLEAN AND NICE, AND HOW IS THIS THING GOING TO BE USED? HOW DO PEOPLE NORMALLY DRIVE UP TO THE UNIT? THEY ALL OPEN IN THE GARAGE DOOR AND THEY'LL PARK THE CAR INSIDE?

>> I CAN TELL YOU ANECDOTALLY SINCE I OWN ONE OF THESE.

I ONLY PARK MY VEHICLE INSIDE, WHETHER IT'S WINTER, SUMMER, DIRTY, WHATEVER.

I'VE GOT A BROOM IN THERE.

I SWEEP IT OUT. I'M GOOD TO GO.

I HAVE AN RV IN THERE, TWO MOTORCYCLES.

I'VE ALSO GOT ANOTHER CAR IN THERE.

I JUST BRING MY CAR AND SHUT THE DOOR, MOSTLY BECAUSE I JUST DON'T WANT IT SITTING OUTSIDE.

THAT'S JUST ANECDOTAL.

WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS HARD, WE CAN'T.

THERE'S NO STUDIES OR SURVEYS DONE.

I THINK THAT THE BEST ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE WE CAN GIVE YOU AS WELL, IS IF YOU DO LOOK AT THOSE AERIAL SHOTS OF ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT GARAGE CONDOS, THOSE ARE TAKEN AT RANDOM TIMES.

YOU CAN LOOK AT HOW FEW CARS ARE PARKED OUTSIDE OF THESE UNITS.

THERE'S MAYBE A COUPLE 2, 3, 4.

AGAIN, JUST EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT FIRST OF ALL, THE VOLUME IS INCREDIBLY LOW IN THESE THINGS, MOST PEOPLE WILL BE PARKING INSIDE UNLESS THEY ARE LOADING, UNLOADING.

AGAIN, WE WANT TO ALLOW SOME TEMPORARY PARKING OUTSIDE FOR THAT REASON OR IF YOU'RE LOADING BOXES OR WHATEVER.

AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH ANY, AGAIN, STUDY OTHER THAN OUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THESE.

I THINK THE OTHER THING JUST TO MENTION, AND THIS IS WHERE MAYBE WE HAVE TO DIVE INTO THIS MORE TO PROVIDE THIS, BUT WE WOULD BE THE ONLY GARAGE CONDO THAT WOULD HAVE EXTERNAL PARKING IF WE'RE GOING TO CALL THESE STORAGE.

EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT HAS MET INDUSTRIAL CODES, WHICH WOULD HAVE SOME REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING WITHOUT EXTERNAL PARKING.

WE'RE DOING THIS WITH ARCHITECTS, GENERAL CONTRACTORS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILT THESE ALL OVER.

THIS IS THE STANDARD.

PERHAPS USING MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL AS A PARKING METRIC IS INCORRECT FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE BECAUSE IT IS STORAGE.

[01:50:07]

NONE OF THOSE ALSO HAVE ANY EXTERIOR PARKING OTHER THAN BY THE MAIN OFFICE.

CLEARLY SOMETHING IS MISSING HERE, IN THAT, IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE 240 PARKING SPACES BECAUSE WE'RE APPLYING A MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL, BUT THIS ISN'T MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL, THEN PERHAPS WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS.

WE USE MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH STAFF.

THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE TOLD TO SHOW, AND WE SHOWED THAT, THEORETICALLY, YOU CAN GET THAT MANY PARKING SPACES.

BUT THE ODDS ARE, IT'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE LIKE ME.

IT'S JUST ONE PERSON WHO SHOWS UP TO STORE THEIR CAR AND PULL THE THING IN THERE AND TINKER ON THEIR RV OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

THERE IS THEORETICAL BUSINESS USE.

THERE THEORETICALLY COULD BE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT OWN THESE TOGETHER, UNLIKELY.

BUT IN THOSE SCENARIOS, AGAIN, THE PARKING IS COVERED IN THE TEMPORARY OUTSIDE PLUS THE SPACE ON THE INSIDE.

ANYWAY, THAT, TO ME, MAY BE THE DISCONNECT HERE IS THAT WE'RE APPLYING A DIFFERENT USE MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL FOR GARAGE CONDO USE, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT METRIC.

>> COMMISSIONER CHAIR.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THEIR APPLICANT SUPPLIED A DEFINITION OF EVENTS AS PART OF THEIR DECLARATION, AND IS RECOMMENDING TO INCLUDE THAT AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS.

I THINK THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT IF YOU'RE HAVING SOMEONE COME HELP WORK ON YOUR CAR AND TWO PEOPLE COME WITH YOU OR SOMETHING, AND THERE'S MULTIPLE CARS THAT NEED TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE UNIT CAUSING CONGESTION, AS YOU DESCRIBED.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT AS A CONDITION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, THE PREMISE NOT BE USED FOR CUSTOMIZATION FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING PURPOSES, OR GATHERINGS AND EVENTS.

EVENTS IN THIS CONTEXT, MEANS OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS PROMOTIONAL EVENTS.

GATHERINGS, DEMONSTRATIONS, DISPLAYS, OR OTHER ACTIVITIES WHICH AFFECT THE EASEMENT OR USE OF RIGHT, OBSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAYS, ACCESS ROADS OR COMMON ELEMENT.

THE WHOLE DRIVE LANES ARE OVER A COMMON ELEMENT EASEMENT, MEANING THAT I KNOW THE DECLARATION ALLOWS FOR TEMPORARY PARKING WHILE PEOPLE ARE THERE.

BUT IF THE CITY WERE TO BE GETTING COMPLAINTS ON CONGESTION OR ACCESSIBILITY OR SOMETHING, IT IS IDENTIFIED AS A CONDITION IN THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT THERE CAN'T BE OBSTRUCTIONS IN THAT DRIVE LANE CAUSING IN ACCESSIBILITY AS A REQUIREMENT OF THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

>> THAT'S WHERE I'M JUST TRYING TO AVOID A PROBLEM.

IF WE JUST CARVE OUT SOME SPOTS FOR DEDICATED PARKING, JUST TO MINIMIZE CITY BURDEN OF, HERE WE GOT SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE BLOCKING UP A CERTAIN WAY.

BECAUSE WHEN THE FIRST TIME YOU GUYS CAME, WE SAID, WELL, I LIKE THE IDEA.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT USE OF THE SPACE.

IT JUST FEELS A LITTLE TOO DENSE.

YOU COME BACK AND IT'S THE SAME DENSITY.

I GET WE HAVE DIAGRAMS, BUT STILL, IT'S LIKE RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON LINES ON THE PAPER NOW.

IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME COMMON PARKING TO MAKE THIS THING FEASIBLE?

>> IT WOULD BE VERY RARE FOR THIS USE TO DO THAT.

>> NO, IT DOESN'T.

>> THEORETICALLY, BUT THEN THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU GUYS ARE WORRIED ABOUT EXCESSIVE, ARE WE TALKING 85 SPACES, ARE WE TALKING THREE SPACES LIKE THE ONE IMAGE YOU HAVE?

>> WELL, I THINK THE STAFF HAS ALREADY COME UP WITH THE METRIC FOR THE PARKING.

>> SORRY TO JUMP IN, BUT TO BE HONEST, LOOKING, I'D LIKE TO KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE UNITS PER APARTMENT ARE IN THE CITY OR A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT, WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE? DO YOU KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD?

>> FOR A SINGLE FAMILY, I BELIEVE WE REQUIRE TWO OFF STREET PARKING.

THEN FOR APARTMENTS, I BELIEVE IT'S A BREAKDOWN.

I TYPICALLY BY RULE OF THUMB, WE USUALLY SAY TWO PARKING CELLS, BUT ONE HAS TO BE COVERED AND ONE CAN BE OPEN.

SOMETHING IN THAT RATIO, BUT USUALLY FOR A DWELLING, A RESIDENCE, THE MINIMUM IS TWO.

>> I JUST ASKED BECAUSE I THINK THE METRIC WE ARE USING IS REALLY FLAWED TO BE HONEST.

THERE WILL NEVER BE 285 PEOPLE IN THERE.

I THINK USING THAT WORST CASE LOGIC IS VERY UN-APPLICABLE FOR THIS USE CASE.

THESE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS. I WANTED TO VOCALIZE THEM QUICK.

I ALSO THINK, ALTHOUGH THEY DIDN'T REDUCE DENSITY, LIKE WE INITIALLY ASKED, IF THE FIRE CHIEF HAS SEEN THIS AND THINKS THAT THERE ISN'T AN ISSUE, THEN IT ALLEVIATES A LOT OF MY CONCERN.

[01:55:03]

I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IF PARKING WAS ADDED, SAY YOU CUT OFF TWO OF THE UNITS ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND ADDED PARKING, IF I LIVE AT THE TOP UNIT, I'M NOT GOING TO GO PARK DOWN THERE AND THEN WALK BACK TO MY UNIT.

I THINK WE HAVE TO THINK THROUGH WHAT WE'RE ASKING.

ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF THE PARKING.

THE REALITY OF ITS USE, I THINK, NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH BEFORE WE JUST DEMAND THAT PARKING BE ADDED.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GO ABOUT DEFINING THE 2.7 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, BUT I REALLY BELIEVE THERE'S SOME FLAW IN THAT.

TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY SHOWED THAT THE UNITS CAN SUPPORT THAT, AND IT WAS A GOOD CATCH BY YOU, WELL, IS THAT REALISTIC, THEIR STORAGE UNITS? I GUESS THAT'S WHERE MY THOUGHTS ARE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THIS PARKING POINT WE CAN'T GET PAST.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO ADD ONE THOUGHT ON THIS.

I CAN ONLY THINK THROUGH HOW I WOULD USE THE GARAGE IF I OWN ONE.

FOR ME, I'M GOING TO KEEP A FOUR PLACE SNOWMOBILE TRAILER IN THERE.

I HAVE RIDING BUDDIES AROUND THE STATE THAT MEET UP WHERE I KEEP MY UNITS.

I'M THINKING, HERE I AM, I PULL IN, I HOOK UP MY TRAILER.

THEY HAVE TO PARK SOMEWHERE WHILE I PULL IT OUT, AND THEN IF YOU PUT IT IN THE COVENANTS, YOU SAY, PARK IT IN THE GARAGE NOW THAT THERE'S SPACE.

WE'RE OUT OF HERE FOR THE DAY.

BUT IF YOU HAD, I DON'T KNOW, 10 SPOTS, MAYBE.

YOU'D HAVE AT LEAST SOMEWHERE WHERE PEOPLE COULD PARK WHILE THIS REARRANGEMENTS GOING ON, AND EVERYONE'S GOT DIFFERENT USE CASE.

BUT I'M JUST THINKING THAT'S HOW I WOULD USE IT.

IT MIGHT JUST BE A SMALL AMOUNT.

IT COULD BE FIVE PARKING SPOTS OUTSIDE 10, BUT IT ELIMINATES SOME OF THAT TRANSITIONAL ACTION, DEPENDING HOW PEOPLE USE IT.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO KEEP TRAILERS, CAMPERS.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MEET UP WITH THEM TO RIDE TOGETHER.

THERE'S GOING TO BE THAT CONGESTION WHILE THEY'RE PULLING STUFF OUT AND REPURPOSING THEIR PARKING SPOTS, THAT MAYBE EVEN 5-10 SPOTS, HARD SURFACE OUTSIDE WOULD ACCOMMODATE GETTING THE CONGESTION OUT OF THE WAY.

>> MR. CHAIR?

>> YES. I THINK I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK, AND I THINK YOU'VE BEEN CAREFULLY TRYING TO GIVE AS MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND SHOW HOW THIS COULD WORK.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING BACK TO, AT LEAST IN MY PERSPECTIVE, IS THIS IS A MAXIMIZATION, AND AS AN INVESTOR, IT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE TO MAXIMIZE IT.

BUT WHEN WE GO BACK TO WHEN WE WERE IMPLEMENTING THE TEXTS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ARRIVE AT, IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY TO ENVISION THIS.

I THINK WHEN WE WERE GOING OVER THE USE, IT WAS MORE SO LIKE AN HVAC BUSINESS WHERE THEY'VE GOT THEIR VANS INSIDE.

THEY'RE TAKING THE VANS OUT.

THE PEOPLE THAT MET THERE TO START THEIR DAY, PUT THEIR VEHICLES INSIDE, AND IT WAS MINDING ITS OWN BUSINESS.

I CERTAINLY WASN'T WHAT I HAD IN MIND FOR THAT.

I THINK REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS IT'S NOT REALISTIC.

I'M JUST GOING TO BE BOLD AND SAY, IT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC TO ASSUME THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE VEHICLES PARKED OUTSIDE AND MY PERSPECTIVE.

I'M JUST GOING TO GET TO THE POINT AND BE BLUNT THAT I WOULD ELIMINATE ONE OF THOSE THREE METAL BUILDINGS.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE.

I WAS ALLUDING TO THAT BEFORE.

THERE'S 10 UNITS ALL THE WAY DOWN THERE WITH NO BRAKE.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN A PERFECT SCENARIO FOR IT NOT TO BE A PROBLEM.

IF SOMEBODY'S VEHICLE IS LONGER THAN 19 FEET THAT'S USED IN THAT STUDY, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

IF THE PERSON IS NOT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE BUILDING, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES LIKE FIRE TRUCKS, BECAUSE I HONESTLY DON'T THINK THAT PROVING FIRE TRUCKS IS.

I APPRECIATE THAT YOU DID IT, BECAUSE THAT'S GOT TO BE OUR STARTING POINT. THAT'S OUR FOUNDATION.

IT'S PROVING EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN COME IN AND OUT OF THERE.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE END.

IT HAS TO BE FEASIBLE BECAUSE ENFORCEMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THIS BECOMES EVERYBODY'S PROBLEM AT THE END.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS MUCH DENSITY THERE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE MY MIND ON THAT, BUT I'M JUST ONE VOTE.

I'M JUST BEING COMPLETELY HONEST.

I WOULD ELIMINATE ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS, GIVE IT MORE SPACE.

THEN IT DOESN'T CREATE A PROBLEM, NOT ONLY FOR YOU, BUT ALSO THE CITY.

[02:00:01]

>> PEOPLE COULD THEN PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR UNITS OR OUTSIDE.

YOU COULD ACCOMMODATE THE PARK.

>> LET ME MAKE A STATEMENT REAL QUICK.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS HERE AND YOUR PASSION AND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD GO BACK TO IS THE CONFINES OF OUR I'M ENGINEER.

SO I LOOK AT EVERYTHING IS, HERE'S THE STANDARD.

HERE'S WHAT THE CRITERIA THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US.

WE HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF, ENGINEERING, ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS HERE TO ESTABLISH THAT BASE CRITERIA OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO MEET.

PER CODE OF WHAT THE CODE HAS BEEN SET AND ESTABLISHED, THAT'S WHAT THIS PLAN MEETS THAT.

TO THAT, THERE'S NO DENSITY SPECIFICATION.

IT'S A BUILDING COVERAGE PER SQUARE FEET.

WE MEET THE CODE FOR THAT.

WE'VE MET THE CODE FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS BEING ALLOWED.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR PASSION FOR THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME.

WE CAN'T PREVENT EVERY CRITERIA.

AS WE CAN DO IS WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CODE THAT'S PROVIDED TO US.

WE FEEL LIKE NOT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE OR ANYTHING.

THAT'S IF WE KEEP MOVING THE TARGET, IT'S HARD FOR US TO COME IN WHEN WE'VE BEEN TOLD, IF YOU CAN DO THIS, THEN WE'RE WITHIN THE CODE.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THAT.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING IN RETURN IS IF WE FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

>> YEAH. I APPRECIATE IT THEN.

I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO BE REALLY DIRECT BECAUSE I WAS HINTING AT THAT I WAS NOT SUPPORTED.

>> TO THAT. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

GO BACK TO OUR WORST CASE SCENARIO SLIDE, PLEASE.

WE WERE TOLD AT THIS PRESENTATION THAT THIS IS WORST CASE SCENARIO WOULD AND FOR PARKING, ETC.

>> I MEANT THAT, AND I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY.

THIS WAS FOR THE JUST PURPOSES OF SHOWING HOW A FIRE TRUCK COULD GET THROUGH IF THERE WAS A HEAD TO HEAD.

I SHOULDN'T USE A WORST CASE SCENARIO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE, AND I SPOKE OUT OF LINE. I APOLOGIZE.

>> BUT I GUESS, TO MY POINT, THOSE ARE BOTH IN THE 50 FOOT WIDE STALL.

PUT THEM IN THE 40 FOOT WIDE.

WORST CASE SCENARIO HERE, IN MY MIND IS TWO CARS PARKED AT ONE AND 13, COMPLETELY ELIMINATING ANYONE FROM GETTING THROUGH THERE, ANY FIRE EMERGENCY, ANYTHING.

AS AN ENGINEER, WHY WOULDN'T THAT BE PRESENTED TO THE FIRE CHIEF?

>> SURE. I USED THIS ONE HERE WITHOUT THINKING.

I THINK I SHOWED AN ALTERNATE ONE.

IF YOU GO TO FIVE, WHERE THERE WAS INTERMITTENT CARS PARKED IN THAT SIDE.

NO, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DECEPTIVE.

I JUST THREW THEM ON THERE AND IF THAT ONE SHOWS, INTERMITTENT PARKING THROUGH THERE AND STILL SHOWING.

YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOESN'T SHOW A HEAD-TO-HEAD SCENARIO IN THAT 40-FOOT LANE. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT SHOW HEAD-TO-HEAD.

IF THOSE TWO CARS WERE PARKED 10 FEET CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, A TRUCK WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE IT THROUGH THERE.

MY NUMBER 1 CONCERN HERE IS SAFETY FOR EVERYBODY IN THERE, SAFETY FOR EVERYBODY AROUND IT.

IF IT CAN'T BE ACCESSED PROPERLY BY THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT, I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COPS.

>> I WOULD TO WHAT THE COMMISSIONER SAID HERE EARLIER.

I DID CALL THE FIRE CHIEF.

I PRESENTED THIS TO HIM, AND I SAID, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE CIRCULATION PLAN, BECAUSE WHEN I COME BEFORE YOU, I SAID, I DON'T WANT TO TALK OUT OF LINE AND SAY, WE HAVE YOUR SUPPORT AND YOUR BLESSING ON THIS.

HE SAID HIS ONLY COMMENT FOR THIS WAS THE FIRE HYDRANT.

I'VE BEEN TOTALLY TRANSPARENT WITH THE FIRE CHIEF ABOUT THAT, AS WELL.

HE WAS THE GUY I WAS LEANING ON FOR DIRECTION IF HE SAW AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

>> IN FAIRNESS, YOU'RE SHOWING HIM A PLAN THAT DOES NOT SHOW PEOPLE PARKING WHERE THEY COULD BE PARKING.

YOU CLEARLY CAN'T NAVIGATE IT, IF THAT WERE THE CASE.

HE DOESN'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE DESIGNATED PARKING SPOTS.

IF I'M A FIRE CHIEF IN REVIEWING THAT, I LOOK AT THAT.

YES, IT SNEAKS THROUGH.

IT'S UP TO US AS A COMMISSION TO DECIDE IF STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THE PARKING APPROPRIATELY AND THINKS THAT INSIDE THE UNIT IS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THE PARKING, AND IF THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY BE REAL-WORLD SCENARIO HERE.

TELLING US THAT IT MEETS THE CODE IS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE IT'S A CUP.

WE HAVE DISCRETION OVER WHETHER IT MEETS THESE CRITERIA.

>> RIGHT. OTHERWISE, IF THE DENSITY LIKE THIS HAS TO BE THERE TO BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, THEN WE'LL JUST SAY NO PARKING INSIDE.

YOU HAVE TO PARK ALL. ANYTIME YOU COME INTO THE FACILITY YOU PARK INSIDE YOUR GARAGE.

>> OR DESIGNATE NO PARKING OUTSIDE AT ALL.

>> EXACTLY.

>> YEAH, EXACTLY. HAVE IT BOTH BE A FIRE LANE, NO PARKING OUTSIDE AT ALL.

>> YES. IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

IT'S HARD TO PLAY BOTH SIDES.

WE PARKING INSIDE OR WE PARKING OUTSIDE? FOR PARKING OUTSIDE, LET'S HAVE SOME DESIGNATED PARKING AREAS.

>> I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S FEASIBLE TO HAVE ZERO PRICKING OUTSIDE.

THAT'S NOT REASONABLE.

[02:05:02]

>> IF YOU TAKE THIS PLAN AND CUT OFF THE FIRST UNITS ON THE TOP AND CREATE 10 PARKING SPOTS, YOU STILL HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FIRST TWO BUILDINGS BEING TOO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL PARK ACROSS FROM THEIR UNIT BECAUSE WAY MORE CONVENIENT, AND NOW YOU CAN'T GET A FIRE TRUCK THROUGH.

>> RIGHT.

>> OR POTENTIALLY NOT.

THE SLIDE YOU SHOWED WITH ONE PARALLEL AND ONE LIKE THIS, YOU CANNOT GET A FIRE TRUCK THROUGH ON THAT FIRST LANE. IT'S TOO NARROW.

AGAIN, I WANT THIS PROJECT TO WORK.

I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD FIT FOR THE SITE, BUT I DON'T THINK WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE COP AS FAR AS THE MANEUVERABILITY AND THE PARKING STANDARDS.

>> WELL, WHAT I'M TRYING TO ALSO GET TO IS AND AGAIN, I THINK THE FIRE TRUCK IS WHERE WE START, BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE FINISH.

IF THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU'VE GOT DELIVERY VEHICLES.

YOU'VE GOT A FLATBED, TRUCKS AND TRAILERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF IT'S A IF IT'S A STORAGE COMPLEX, THEN THERE COULD BE EXOTIC CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE BEING DELIVERED AND PICKED UP AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I I'M TRYING TO BE SUPER CANDID, THAT I DON'T SEE SUPPORTING THIS MUCH DENSITY.

I JUST DON'T. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE SPACE IN THERE.

IT SEEMS TO BE WAY TOO TIGHT. YEAH.

>> I HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION THE COMMISSION COULD DISCUSS, PLEASE.

YOU GUYS HAVE DISCUSSED THE PARKING DYNAMICS, WHICH IS GREAT FEEDBACK AND GOOD INSIGHT.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PICTURES FROM GLENCOE, AND THAT WE SEE COMMON WITH MINI STORAGE IS PEOPLE PULLING PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE DOORS VERSUS THAT 90 DEGREE.

IF THE SPOTS WERE DESIGNATED, STRIPED, IDENTIFIED THAT PARALLEL PARKING IN FRONTIER GARAGE DOOR ONLY WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH THE DRIVE LINES.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSIONS WOULD POTENTIALLY SEE AS FEASIBLE OR WANT TO EXPLORE, OR IS JUST PARKING OUTSIDE THE UNITS IS WHERE YOU THINK IS NECESSARY FOR THIS DENSITY? JUST TRYING TO GET A GAUGE ON.

>> PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME SORT OF COMBINATION.

YOU COULD DESIGNATE ONE SPOT INSIDE THE UNIT AND ONE PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE UNIT.

IT CAN'T ALL BE INSIDE THE UNIT.

I DON'T KNOW IF 2.7 IS THE CORRECT METRIC.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF.

IT'S TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK WITH THAT NUMBER.

>> IF WE DID A PARALLEL SPOT ON EVEN THIS 40-FOOT LANE, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A 24-FOOT MINIMUM EMERGENCY DRIVE LANE DOWN THE MIDDLE.

IF WE STRIPPED THOSE IN FRONT AND THEN DID ONE IN AND ONE OUT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE.

>> BUT WE'LL MAKE THE CORNER.

IF YOU LOOK AT ONE AND 13, ANY OF THE PARALLEL PARKED RIGHT IN FRONT.

I THINK THE KEY, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER RESSLER IS RIGHT ON POINT WITH IT, AND NONE OF US WANT TO REDESIGN YOUR PROJECT, BUT I THINK IT'S TOO DENSE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, EVEN A MODIFIED PARKING REQUIREMENT.

NOW WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE OUTDOOR SPACE PER UNIT.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FIT TWO PARALLEL PARKED IN FRONT OF THEM.

I THINK IT'S TOO DENSE.

I DON'T SEE A WAY TO REWORK IT.

BUT IF YOU PUT PARALLEL PARKING IN FRONT OF ONE AND 13 OR ANY OF THOSE, YOUR TRUCK ISN'T GOING TO MAKE THE CORNER.

>> I THINK IF WE COULD GO BACK AND I COULD DRAW A CAR ON EACH ONE OF THOSE AND DRIVE IT THROUGH THERE.

THAT'S THE BEST I CAN TELL YOU AND GIVE IT A TRY.

BUT I THINK THOSE DRIVE LANES ARE 50 FOOT BETWEEN THEM IS A REALLY BIG DRIVE LANE.

>> I THINK I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 40.

>> SURE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT.

I CAN'T ANSWER THAT RIGHT OFF TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> MR. CHAIR.

>> YES.

>> THE OTHER THING, AGAIN, IS IT'S NOT ALWAYS CUT AND DRY.

THERE'S A LOT OF SCENARIOS AND FACTORS.

AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE REALLY CANDID BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOU GUYS KEEP COMING BACK GUESSING AS TO WHAT IT IS THAT EACH OF US THINK.

BUT THE OTHER COMPLEX IS MEDINA, CORCORAN.

I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN TO ALL OF THEM, AND I COULD BE WRONG.

I KNOW THAT MEDINA IS THE ONE THAT IS PROBABLY VISIT THE MOST.

THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO IT.

THERE MIGHT BE SOMEDAY, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A VERY NICE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD, AND I UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S ZONED AND HOW IT'S GUIDED.

BUT THERE IS A LOT OF DENSITY THAT'S GOING RIGHT NEXT TO IT.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING OR HOW IT WAS GOT WITH 65,000 SQUARE FEET.

THIS WAS A TOTAL OF 95,000.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE 65,000.

I'M JUST SAYING LIKE 95,000 IS A LOT.

IF WE'RE DOING THE MAXIMUM, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET THE MAXIMUM,

[02:10:03]

IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE TO FIX MISTAKES IF YOU HAVE THEM.

I THINK THE MAXIMUM IS NOT THE ANSWER.

FOR THIS PROPERTY FOR THOSE REASONS?

>> YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. I THINK, AGAIN, I JUST WILL CLARIFY IF THIS WAS A SINGLE BUILDING, THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE 127,000 SQUARE FEET WITH 320 PARKING SPACES MOST LIKELY OUT FRONT.

IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF WHAT POSSIBLE USES COULD BE ON HERE, THIS IS TECHNICALLY A SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN WHAT IS THEORETICALLY ALLOWED IF WE WERE TO HAVE DONE A ONE-BUILDING INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND ALSO THE PARKING AREAS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE SITE PLAN FROM BEFORE WAS 60 WHATEVER THOUSAND.

>> BUT THAT BUILDING WOULD NOT HAVE LANES GOING FOR FOUR DIFFERENT LANES RIGHT THROUGH IT BECAUSE THAT'S TAKING UP A LOT OF AREA.

IT'S WORTH NOTING, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT TO ME IN MY PERSPECTIVE HERE.

>> WELL, WE ALSO HAVE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER SAYING THERE'D BE ON AVERAGE SEVEN PEOPLE COMING HERE A DAY.

>> BUT THOSE BUILDINGS ARE THERE 24 HOURS A DAY.

>> WHAT'S THAT?

>> THOSE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE THERE 24 HOURS A DAY.

>> THE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE THERE, CORRECT? WITH NO ONE.

>> BECAUSE WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT'S A LOT OF DENSITY.

IT'S NOT JUST DEMONSTRATING SAFETY TO ME.

I THINK THE AREA THAT IT'S OCCUPYING IS A LOT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

AND I THINK THAT THIS IS CLEARLY A DEMONSTRATION OF MAXIMIZING IT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE BEST USE TO USE.

>> YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PARKING, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING COVERAGE.

>> PARDON ME.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING LOT COVERAGE OF THE BUILDINGS.

>> MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP ON THE SPACE THAT YOU'RE GIVEN.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD JUST WANT TO SAY, I MEAN, SO MUCH THOUGHT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US.

THESE COULD RUN EAST-WEST, THEN ON OLD CRYSTAL BALL, YOU'RE STARING DOWN A MUCH LONGER THE FIRST BUILDING SCREENS THIS FROM THE NEIGHBORS ALMOST COMPLETELY AS THE RENDERING SHOW.

THE SETBACKS ARE NOT EVEN MINIMIZED.

IT'S ALREADY A SETBACK. THE BUILDINGS AREN'T AS HIGH.

COMPARED TO WHAT COULD GO HERE, IT IS A FRACTION OF THE DENSITY AND THE TRAFFIC THAT IS ALLOWED HERE WITHOUT VARIANCE, NOTHING.

THIS COULDN'T BE A MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING MINIMAL USE CASE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND I THINK WE APPRECIATE THAT WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BE WOULD BE ULTIMATELY BRING LESS DENSITY TO THAT AREA.

BUT WE WANT IT TO WORK AND WE WANT IT TO FUNCTION.

WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING IT, PUBLIC SAFETY IS A HUGE PIECE TO OUR JOB HERE AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS ACTUALLY NOT WORST CASE SCENARIO, BUT WE HAVE TO SEE THAT IT FUNCTIONS WITH THE OUTDOOR PARKING AND JUST PUSHING ALL THE PARKING TO THE INSIDE CREATES A HUGE PROBLEM FOR THIS SITE WHEN PEOPLE PARK OUTSIDE.

THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK WE UNDERSTAND, BLUNTLY THIS WAS A CONFUSING POINT FOR US WHEN WE WERE TALKING WITH STAFF.

THIS ISN'T MULTI TENANT INDUSTRIAL.

THIS IS A DIFFERENT USE.

WE HAD A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THAT SPECIFIC THING.

I KNOW WE'RE GOING HERE, BUT THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO IS, AGAIN, THIS IS THE STANDARD FOR GARAGE CONDOS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED IN EVERY MUNICIPALITY, SHAKOPEE, BURNSVILLE, NEW HOPE, DENSE CITIES, NOT JUST CORCO AND METRISTA, ETC.

EGAN, ANYWAY, THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THESE THAT ARE RIGHT IN CITIES, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

NONE OF THEM HAVE OUTDOOR PARKING. THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING.

THEY DO HAVE WIDER DRIVE LANES.

THEY HAVE 54 FOOT DRIVE LANES, NOT 40.

GLANCO HAS 54, PARK PLACE HAS 50 FOR THE MOST PART.

THEY'RE ALL A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BASES.

NO, I DOUBT ANY OF THEM HAVE A 40 THAT YOU CAN PARK IN, PARK IN FRONT OF.

THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE ALL 20 FOOT WIDE UNITS.

MEANING A SMALLER UNIT IS SMALLER USES.

I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT CAR BEING PARKED OUTSIDE AND ACCESSIBILITY. THAT'S ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT.

UNDERSTOOD. I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO, WE CAN GO AND FIGURE OUT BECAUSE, ORONO IS NOT THE ONLY CITY THAT'S GOING TO HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT.

IMAGINE ALL OF THEM DO.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHEN WE HAVE OUR GENERAL CONTRACTORS, ARCHITECTS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILT THESE BEFORE, THEY ARE USING BEST PRACTICES FROM EVERY OTHER CITY THAT THEY'VE DONE THESE IN.

[02:15:04]

TO YOUR POINT IN THE 40 FOOT DRIVE LANE, WE CAN ALSO LOOK INTO THAT OF IS 40 FOOT ACCEPTABLE OR NOT.

BUT I THINK FROM THE PARKING PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL ON THIS.

I THINK WE CAN GO TO ANOTHER CITY OR ALL THESE CITIES AND SAY, HOW DID YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS? THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS WITH MINI STORAGE AS WELL.

PUBLIC STORAGE, ALL OF THOSE. SAME DEAL.

THERE'S A TON OF UNITS, THERE'S A TON OF SQUARE FOOTAGE? THERE'S NO PARKING.

IT SEEMS COMMON PRACTICE THAT FOR STORAGE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, WHETHER IT'S GARAGE CONDOS, PUBLIC STORAGE, SELF STORAGE, WHATEVER THOSE THINGS ARE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS JUST DIFFERENT.

IT'S NOT MULTI TENANT INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S NOT USED FOR THIS HIGH DENSITY, 9-5, 300 PLUS EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO BE AT THIS SITE.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT USE.

I THINK THE BEST WE CAN DO IS TRY AND SEE WHAT THESE OTHER TOWNS HAVE DONE, BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS, AGAIN, REINVENT THE WHEEL IF WE'RE NOW THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT AND THE ONLY PROJECT THAT'S EVER BEEN BUILT IN THE TWIN CITIES AREA FOR GARAGE CONDOS THAT HAS 235 OUTDOOR SPACES OR 80, I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH.

I DON'T EVEN SEE ONE. YOU'RE GOING TO 80.

I DON'T SEE ONE PARKING THE SPOT.

I THINK THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION HERE IS AT THE LAST MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT OUTDOOR PARKING AND NEEDING IT.

WE GET A PLAN. IT STILL HAS ALL THE INTERIOR PARKING.

STAFF FEELS THAT IT MEETS THE METRICS.

BUT THAT'S STAFF'S OPINION.

THEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF IT MEETS THE METRICS OR NOT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT MEETS IT.

WE CAN TALK ALL NIGHT ABOUT THE PARKING.

I THINK THE PARKING IS A BIG DEAL BECAUSE IT DRIVES THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I FEEL LIKE TO MAKE OUTDOOR PARKING, I THINK I AGREE.

IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS TO HAVE TO HAVE THE 250 SOME PIECE PARKING HERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BE THAT WOULD BE A RIDICULOUS NUMBER.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR OUTDOOR PARKING.

THEN IT'S A LITTLE ONE IN THE UNIT.

THE REST OUTSIDE, IF WE'RE GOING WITH THE 27 PER UNIT.

AN EASY WAY TO GAIN MORE PARKING IS TO ELIMINATE A BUILDING, AND THEN YOU DON'T NEED AS MUCH PARKING.

DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY BASED ON WHAT I'M SAYING OF THE OTHER STANDARDS OF, AND I KNOW ORONO IS DIFFERENT. EVERY CITY IS DIFFERENT.

BUT IF 14 OTHER CITIES HAVE NOT REQUIRED OUTSIDE PARKING, IS THE PLAN OF GETTING WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND TRYING TO APPLY IT HERE REASONABLE, OR IS ORONO BASICALLY SAYING.

I THINK EVERY PROJECT IS UNIQUE TO ITS OWN SITE.

EVERY CITY IS DIFFERENT.

OTHER CITIES, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE A LOT OF THESE ARE, BUT SOME OF IF THEY'RE IN A RURAL SPACE, THEY DON'T HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT.

THEY JUST HAVE TO MEET THE DRIVE WIDTH, SO THEY'LL SHOW A CAR IN FRONT OF THE UNIT PARKED SIDEWAYS AND ANOTHER ONE HERE, AND IT HAS TO CIRCULATE. RIGHT? YEP.

YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THAT WITH THIS.

WE'RE IN A DENSE INTERIOR OF THE CITY, NOT OUT ON OUTSKIRTS OF A HIGHWAY OR SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE SOME OF THESE OTHER PLACES ARE ACTUALLY LOCATED.

ONES THAT ARE WATERTOWNS, RIGHT IN DOWNTOWN, BURNSVILLE, SHAKOPEE, NEW HOPE.

THOSE ARE BIGGER CITIES IN ORONO, IF WE WERE TO AT LEAST LOOK INTO AND ADOPT HOW THEY'VE ACCOMPLISHED THIS. SAME WITH THE MINI STORY.

I THINK IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN INTERESTING INFORMATION TO SEE WHAT THEIR PARKING METRIC IS FOR THESE.

IF THEY EVEN HAVE ONE, OR IF THEY JUST NEED TO SHOW MANEUVERABILITY.

YEP.

WERE THOSE DONE UNDER A CUP? WERE THEY JUST, HOW WERE THOSE DONE, BUT IT STILL, IT'S A DIFFERENT THING FOR THIS SITE.

IT JUST HAS TO WORK AND WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING, I DON'T THINK WORKS.

I THINK THE PROBLEM IS, IT'S HARD TO GIVE GUIDANCE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE.

WHAT WE NORMALLY DO AND WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE AS WE CREATE IT BY STUDYING WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING AND COMPARING TO HOW THAT RELATES TO OUR CITY AND WE DIDN'T FINISH THAT.

IS REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

WE DON'T REALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT EXACTLY IS BUILT FOR THIS.

AGAIN, I CAN SPEAK. I WAS THERE.

I WAS PART OF THAT TEXT AMENDMENT WHEN WE PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN PLACE.

THIS WAS NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND WHEN WE WERE PUTTING THAT IN PLACE, AND I WAS PROVIDING THE FEEDBACK FOR HOW WE'D LIKE THAT TEXT TO BE.

AS FAR AS, LIKE, I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY? THIS WAS THE SAME TYPE PLAN WE SUBMITTED IN IT.

I KNOW YOU DID. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE WERE USING AS THE BASELINE FOR TERMINOLOGY,

[02:20:01]

IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO ALLOW CARS TO PARK OUTSIDE AND TO ALLOW CARS AND TRAFFIC TO COME IN AND OUT OF THERE.

IT JUST GOES BACK TO THE SAME THING, WHICH IS WE'RE GOING TO COMPARE TO OTHER CITIES FOR SURE.

BUT AS CHAIRMAN BALLA SAID, EVERY SITE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.

I DON'T THINK WATERTOWN IS MORE OF A URBANIZED AREA THAN THIS.

I DISAGREE, BUT I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO BE WATERTOWN EITHER.

I THINK WE'RE ORONO, WE WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT WE'RE PUTTING THERE.

WE WANT THE PROJECT TO BE THERE.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD REALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT, AND I THINK IT'LL BE GREAT, BUT IT'S GOT TO WORK.

IT'S GOT TO WORK WELL.

YES.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT TOO IN THIS DEVELOP.

I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING, WHICH IS WE ALSO WANT IT TO WORK.

WE'RE GOING TO BE THE HOA MANAGER.

WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE A NIGHTMARE.

BLUNTLY, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT NONE OF US IN THIS GROUP HAVE EXPERIENCE PHYSICALLY BUILDING, DESIGNING THESE THINGS.

WE ARE TRYING TO LEVERAGE IS EXPERIENCE OF 40 PLUS YEARS OF THESE EXISTING THAT HAVE PROVEN THE SAFETY OF THE TENANTS, OR THE OWNERS, WHATEVER, THAT HAVE PROVEN OUT HOW THESE WORK WELL.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LEVERAGE.

WE'RE TRYING TO LEVERAGE BUILDERS WHO HAVE BUILT THESE ARCHITECTS WHO HAVE DONE THESE, ENGINEERS WHO HAVE DONE THEM, LAWYERS WHO HAVE WRITTEN CICS.

WE'RE TRYING TO LEVERAGE THIS KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THESE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST AND WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS IF WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD, WE COULD BE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS THAT MAKES THIS ACTUALLY NOT WORK.

THAT'S WHY I WANT TO GET AS MUCH DATA FROM THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL.

NEW HOPE PARK PLACE HAS BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS, I BELIEVE.

IT'S 35 OR 40 YEARS AT THIS POINT.

IT HAS BEEN A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IN NEW HOPE.

SHAKOPEE HAS BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME AS WELL.

THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BUILT VERY SIMILAR DENSITIES, VERY SIMILAR APPROACHES TO HOW THEY'RE DESIGNING THEIR PLOTS, THEIR PLANS, ETC.

IF YOU GO LOOK AT THOSE AREAS, YOU CAN SEE THE DENSITIES ARE TIGHT, BUT THEY'RE BUILT WITH THAT EXPERIENCE THAT PROVES THIS IS HOW THESE WORK WELL.

AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE HAS DONE BECAUSE WE THINK AS A GROUP HERE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A BETTER USE, WHEN WE COULD LEVERAGE THESE OTHER TOWNS AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK AS SUCCESSFULLY AS THEY ALL HAVE WORKED IN THESE OTHER TOWNS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I DON'T WANT TO JUMP TO SOMETHING NOW AND TELL YOU WE'RE GOING TO DO X OR WE'RE GOING TO DO Y JUST IN THIS MOMENT.

I'D RATHER GO AND LEVERAGE THE 40 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

THAT'S PROVEN HOW THESE THINGS ACTUALLY WORK SUCCESSFULLY, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPERS THAT WE'VE HIRED IN THE ARCHITECTS.

THEY'VE BEEN PART OF ALL THOSE PROJECTS.

THIS IS SIMILAR TO HOW THE OTHERS ARE DESIGNED.

HOW THE PARKING IS HANDLED.

AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW THOSE SPECIFIC DETAILS.

WE HAVEN'T GONE INTO THE CITY CODES OF SHOKAPEE YET, BUT WE CAN GO AND DO THAT AND SEE WHAT THE STAIR IS.

WE JUST KNOW HOW THEY WERE BUILT AND HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SUCCESSFULLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S ALL AND WHEN WE KNOW OUR CITY, AND WE SIT HERE AND WE HEAR ABOUT PEOPLE PARKING BOAT TRAILERS IN THEIR YARDS.

IT'S A LAKE SHORE CITY.

THIS PLACE WILL HAVE MORE BOATS THAN ANY OTHER CITY THAT HAS THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

WE JUST KNOW OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT.

EVERY ONE OF THOSE WILL PROBABLY HAVE AT LEAST ONE BOAT TRAILER IN IT.

I GUESS IT'S A LITTLE BIT AMBIGUOUS WITH THE PARKING IS LIKE, ARE WE PARKING INSIDE? ARE WE ALLOWING PARKING? I THINK WE NEED A PARKING PLAN THAT'S EXECUTABLE THAT WE HAVE SOME GOVERNANCE AROUND.

WHEN IT'S AMBIGUOUS, WE DON'T KNOW.

I AGREE THAT THE DENSITY, THE PARKING SPACES PER SQUARE FOOT IS PROBABLY RIDICULOUS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE JUST KNOW THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME PARKING FOR SOME COMMON PARKING FOR PEOPLE COMING IN WITH THEIR BOAT.

MAYBE, THEY HAVE A TRAILER, AND MAYBE THEY'RE DROPPING IT OFF, AND THEY'RE PUTTING ON JACKS AND PUTTING THE BOAT AND THEY'RE USING THEIR FRIENDS TRAILER.

THERE'S SO MANY SCENARIOS HERE THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH.

WE'RE JUST, LIKE, IT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE A COMMON PARKING SPOT FOR ALL THAT ACTIVITY TO GO ON.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT SEEING, AND YOU GUYS DON'T SEEM TO BUDGE ON THAT.

[02:25:01]

YOU MAKE GREAT POINTS. I COULD GET BEHIND A PLAN THAT WOULD HAVE THE BARE MINIMUM, ONE PARKING SPOT PER UNIT OUTSIDE.

I COULD GET BEHIND A PLAN LIKE THAT, AND THAT COULD BE PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE UNIT TO MAKE IT WORK.

THIS DOESN'T EVEN GIVE US THAT.

AND SO I AGREE THAT, I THINK THE 2.7 IS METRIC.

WELL, AND I THINK WE'RE JUST ENVISIONING THAT THE PARALLEL PARKING WOULD JUST BE IN FRONT OF THE UNITS ONLY.

WE COULD FIT A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS ON THESE END UNITS TO MAKE THAT TURN POSSIBLE.

I THINK ON THESE CORNER UNITS.

I THINK IF WE'RE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A PLAN, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, IF YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT, WHERE WE COULD PROVIDE ONE UNIT EXTERIOR AND SHOW THAT WE CAN STILL GET A FIRE TRUCK AROUND THERE.

THERE'S SPOTS ON BUILDING ONE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THAT BUILDING.

WE COULD PUT SOME EXTERNAL PARKING IF WE NEEDED TO MOVE ONE OF THOSE PARKING SPACES FROM IN FRONT OF IT TO THE SIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MAKE THOSE RADIUSES WORK.

THAT'S A POTENTIAL WE COULD EXPLORE.

I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST BE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT BEFORE WE RULE THAT OUT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T PROVED THAT THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT.

IF YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT, IF WE COULD PROVIDE ONE EXTERNAL SPOT, I WOULD LOVE TO BE GIVEN THAT CHANCE TO TRY TO DO THAT.

ASSUMING WE CAN'T MAKE IT WITH THE PARALLEL ON THE 40 FOOT SIDE.

I'M JUST DOING THE MATH IN MY HEAD 40 MINUS NINE MINUS NINE IS 22.

THERE'S STILL BE PLENTY.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT TURN RAM, WHICH MATT WILL CONFIRM.

BUT IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.

THERE STILL BE 22 FEET OF SPACE FOR.

AGAIN, I THINK FOR THE USE, THAT IS, A REASONABLE NUMBER OF SPOTS.

I THINK AGAIN, THAT WAS OUR ISSUE WAS THIS 2.7 NUMBER.

WE DID IT TO MEET WHAT WE WERE TOLD.

BUT YES, THESE ARE GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED ONE PARKING SPACE ON THE EXTERIOR PLUS THE SPACE ON THE INSIDE.

BECAUSE AGAIN, ANECDOTALLY, I CAN TELL YOU, I HAVE BARELY PARKED OUTSIDE OF MINE.

THE COMBO OF THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THIS.

I THINK IF MATT CAN TAKE A SHOT AT JUST PUTTING THE PARALLEL SPOTS, ALL OF THE UNITS ARE WIDE ENOUGH TO FIT A PARALLEL SPOT IN FRONT OF.

WE CAN GO THAT ROUTE TO SHOW THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING TO THE JUST THE SPACE THAT IS INSIDE OF.

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO UPDATE THE DECLARATION TO LIMIT THE PARKING TO INSIDE THE UNIT AND THE ONE PARALLEL SPOT ON FRONT PER UNIT.

IF I OWNED A UNIT 35, I COULD ONLY PARK INSIDE OR MY PARALLEL PARK IN FRONT.

I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S UNIT.

YES. I FORGET.

SORRY, I FORGET THE EXACT VERBIAGE THAT WE USED.

I DO BELIEVE WE TRIED TO CLARIFY IT NEEDS TO BE WITHIN THE WIDTH OF YOUR UNIT IS WHERE YOU CAN TEMPORARILY PARK BECAUSE, YEAH, YOU CAN'T ENCROACH ON SOMEONE ELSE'S DIVIDED WALL, ESSENTIALLY.

I THINK, YES, FROM OUR OWN PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO MAKE IT SPECIFIC IN THE DECLARATIONS THAT YOU CAN ONLY PARK ONE CAR.

I THINK BLUNTLY, OUR ASSUMPTION WAS THERE ONLY WOULD BE ONE EXTERNAL CAR FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING PURPOSES.

THAT'S WHAT THE DECLARATION WAS INTENDED TO BE.

WE DIDN'T CALL OUT ONE SPECIFICALLY.

I THINK WE JUST ASSUMED THAT THAT WAS HOW IT WOULD BE USED, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE UNLOADING A BOAT TRAILER OR SOMETHING, IT'S YOUR CARS OUT FRONT.

YOU USUALLY DON'T HAVE THREE CARS THERE.

AND SO I THINK WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH CLARIFYING SPECIFICALLY, IT IS JUST ONE PARKING ON THE OUTSIDE PLUS THE INSIDE OF YOUR UNIT.

WITHIN THE CONFINES OF YOUR WIDTH.

WITHIN THE CONFINES OF YOUR WIDTH. RIGHT.

ELSE YOU ENCUMBERING SOMEONE ELSE'S USE.

RIGHT. YOU WOULD STRIPE THAT SPOT, SO YOU'D HAVE A PARALLEL SPOT IN FRONT, FIRE LANE DESIGNATION DOWN THE MIDDLE.

PEOPLE WON'T JUST COME IN AND PARK STRAIGHT.

YES, I THINK THE ONLY JUST TO CALL THIS OUT, AND AGAIN, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S SPECIFIC, IF YOU ARE UNLOADING A BOAT TRAILER, YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION, BUT TO PARALLEL BACK INTO THE UNIT WHILE YOU ARE UNHOOKING THE UNIT, YOUR CAR WILL MOST LIKELY BE OUTSIDE OF YOUR UNIT, ESPECIALLY WITH A LARGER BOAT.

THAT IS THE ONLY TIME I COULD SEE SOMEONE PARKING FOR MAYBE 5 MINUTES WHILE THEY DETACHED THEIR BOAT FROM THE VEHICLE.

YOU'D BE IN THE ACT OF MANEUVERING.

YES.

YEAH.

YEAH. NOW, IF I HAD SOMEONE COME TO MY UNIT AND I WAS THERE AND THERE'S NO PARKING IN THE UNIT, WHERE IS THAT OTHER PERSON GOING TO PARK? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S UNIT.

[02:30:02]

THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE POLICY FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO ASSESS THE VIOLATIONS OF THESE THINGS, THEY GET QUITE PUNITIVE QUITE QUICKLY BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S A PAIN ON US, AS WELL AS THE HOAS.

THERE'S FINES, LIENS, AND THEN FORECLOSURE.

>> BLUNTLY, THAT IS THEM TO MEET THE HOA REQUIREMENTS OF IF THERE'S ONE PARKING SPACE OUTSIDE, AND THAT'S IT, AND SOMEONE HAS TWO.

THOSE ARE THE MEANS OF POLICING THAT, AND I THINK IT GETS PRETTY SERIOUS PRETTY QUICKLY.

MOST HOAS OPERATE PRETTY STRICTLY ON THOSE RULES.

BUT THAT WOULD BE HOW THOSE ARE HANDLED, AND AGAIN, ANECDOTALLY, THAT'S WHEN I HAD ONE OUT IN COLORADO FOR MY BUSINESS, WE WERE ALLOWED TWO PARKING SPACES.

SOMETIMES WE HAD FOUR.

WE LITERALLY CAR POOLED IN TWO SPACES.

THAT'S ALL WE HAD. WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE.

>> I'LL JUST ADD ONE COMMENT TO THAT.

I'VE HAD A CASE IN THE PAST WHERE I MET UP AT A GARAGE COMPLEX.

THERE WASN'T ENOUGH PARKING, SO I PARKED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

JUST DOWN THE ROAD, THEY PICKED ME UP.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ACROSS FROM THE COMPLEX, THAT'S WHY I KEEP GOING BACK TO HAVING SOME ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR PARKING CAUSE IT BECOMES, AGAIN, I'M USING MY USE CASE, HOW I WOULD USE THE GARAGE.

MY BUDDY'S COMING DOWN FROM SAINT CLAUDE.

HE'S NOT GOING TO GO TO MY HOUSE AND I PICK HIM UP.

HE'S GOING TO MEET ME THERE.

IF I DON'T HAVE ROOM TO PARK IT IN THE GARAGE, HE'S GOING TO BE SAYING, HEY, CAN I PARK IT DOWN THE STREET SOMEWHERE? IT'S GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE.

>> AGAIN, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN'T CONTROL IF THERE'S LEGAL PARKING ELSEWHERE IN LONG LAKE, ORONO.

WHY IS THAT A [INAUDIBLE]? THEY CAN PARK WHEREVER THEY WANT LEGALLY.

>> BUT A CONDITION OF THE CUP IS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOES NOT CAUSE THAT PROBLEM.

THAT'S A CONDITION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

DESIGNING IT, SO THERE IS NO SAFETY NET.

>> YOU DON'T CREATE THAT PROBLEM.

>> THAT HAS TO BE PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION.

I APPRECIATE THE WANT TO CREATE PARALLEL PARKING IN FRONT OF THE UNITS.

BUT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSIONERS IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING ON SITE FOR THAT OVERFLOW THING.

I'M SORRY IF IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER GARAGE CONDOS OR STORAGE CONDOS THAT ARE ELSEWHERE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHERE THIS IS POSITIONED IN THE CITY.

THOSE OTHER ONES IF PEOPLE CAN GO AND PARK IN THE PARKING RIDE, RIGHT NEXT DOOR, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PARKING ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CUP SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO DESIGN THIS SO THAT IT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS OR THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE A DESIGN THAT MEETS THOSE STANDARDS.

WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH SAYING, HEY, JUST GO USE THE PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> YES, CHAIR, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

A COMMON CONDITION AS PART OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IS SOMETHING SOMETIMES WE MIGHT PERMIT A PARKING PLAN OR SOMETHING.

IF WE SEE IT'S NOT WORKING OR ISSUES THAT IT IS IMPACTING NEIGHBORING SITES, WE CAN REQUIRE THE CUP TO COME BACK AND BE REVISITED AND BE RE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT IS A CONDITION IF YOU FEEL THE PARKING PLAN, WHATEVER GETS DEVELOPED OUT OF THIS, IF YOU FEEL THAT THAT MEETS THE NEEDS AS WE ANTICIPATE IT, BUT THEN THE USE OR WE SEE THAT THE DEMANDS ARE ULTIMATELY DIFFERENT WE CAN PUT A CONDITION IN THERE THAT SAYS, IF THIS PARKING STARTS HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THE SITE OR PUTS A DEMAND ON THE STREET, THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE CUP TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU TO BE REVIEWED, OR SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING BE CREATED ON THE SITE TO ADDRESS THOSE TYPES OF SOLUTIONS.

JUST AS A NOTE, THAT THAT IS A COMMON CONDITION WITH A BRAND NEW USE.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PLAN THAT WE SEE BEFORE US, IF WE PUT THAT CONDITION ON HERE AND IT WAS A TAX ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S NO PLACE ON THIS FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING.

>> I THINK IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE OPPOSITE WHERE YOU HAVE MAYBE AN OPTION IS YOU HAVE THE PARKING SPACES, AND IF THEY DON'T GET USED, I GOT A FEELING EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY, I'LL PROBABLY SEE SOME CARS IN THE COMMON PARKING AREA.

BUT IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN MAYBE YOU CAN EXPAND AND ADD ANOTHER UNIT THERE.

>> FORGIVE ME. I'M MOSTLY JUST ASKING A QUESTION.

THERE ARE 1,000 CORNER CASES THAT COULD COME UP, ALL THESE POTENTIALS IF SOMEONE COULD COME DOWN FROM SAINT CLAUDE, AND TECHNICALLY, YOUR UNIT IS FILLED UP AND THE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT.

THERE'S 1,000 OF THESE POTENTIAL SCENARIOS.

[02:35:04]

I JUST DON'T WANT TO START MAKING, AGAIN, A BUNCH OF DECISIONS ON A CORNER CASE THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, MIGHT NOT HAPPEN.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, I COULD COME UP WITH 100 MORE THAT WOULD MAKE THIS LOOK GOOD OR BAD.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STICKING TO THE LIKELY SCENARIOS AND USES OF WHAT THIS IS INTENDED FOR, WHICH IS MOSTLY STORAGE.

IT'S MOSTLY SINGLE PEOPLE WILL BE OWNING IT.

YES, THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT COULD BUY THIS.

JUST, AGAIN, ANECDOTALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT WHO ACTUALLY OWNS GARAGE CONDOS, IT IS MOSTLY INDIVIDUALS.

>> YOU KEEP SAYING THAT, BUT WE KNOW OUR CITY, AND WE'RE ON A LAKE SHORE COMMUNITY.

SORRY, BUT TO REITERATE THIS AGAIN.

THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THEIR BOAT EVERY WEEKEND, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN THE WATER.

IT'S MUCH MORE THAN STORAGE.

WE ALREADY ARE A STEP AHEAD OF YOU AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO SEE IN OUR COMMUNITY HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS.

WE KEEP SAYING THERE SHOULD BE SOME COMMON PARKING, AND YOU KEEP FIGHTING US ON IT.

I THINK WE'VE BEATEN TO THE GROUND.

I REALLY FEEL IF YOU WANT THIS PLAN APPROVED, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME COMMON PARKING, BOTTOM LINE, OR A PARKING PLAN THAT'S REALLY ARTICULATE WHERE IT CAN BE GOVERNED.

>> I THINK WHERE WE STAND ON THE PARKING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT DRIVES THE WHOLE PROJECT.

A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT I'M LOOKING AT.

I NOTICED YOU MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE DECLARATION.

WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH ADDING NO RETAIL OR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR WITHIN THE COVENANT AND RESTRICTIONS THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED BY THE BOARD?

>> DOES IT ALREADY SAY THAT IN THERE?

>> NO. IN HERE, IT LEAVES LANGUAGE SO THAT THE BOARD CAN CHANGE AT ANY TIME THE USES SO LONG AS THE CITY APPROVES IT.

EXCEPT FOR ADULT AMUSEMENT, SELLING, ETC.

TO THAT LIST, CAN YOU ADD THE CONDITIONS FROM THE CUP THAT WOULD BE NOT LIMITED TO AUTO REPAIR, VEHICLE REPAIR OR RETAIL PURPOSES?

>> THE CITY WOULDN'T ALLOW IT, RIGHT?

>> WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

IF WE APPROVE THIS THING WITH NO PARKING, AND LET'S SAY 30, 40 YEARS FROM NOW, SOMEONE SAYS, HEY, I WANT TO OPEN JOE'S CAR REPAIR IN HERE, GOES TO THE CITY, GETS APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD, WHICH YOUR DECLARATIONS ALLOW, AND THEN WHO'S EVER RUNNING THE CITY AT THE TIME IS, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD.

IDEA APPROVE THIS. THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED.

CAN YOU ADD IT TO THIS SO IT CAN NEVER BE ADDED?

>> YOU'RE SAYING THE ONES THAT WERE IN THE CUP FOR RESTRICTED USE.

WE PUT THAT THE DECLARATIONS AND MAKE THEM IN THAT SECTION.

>> IN THE SECTION THAT IS THE ONES THAT THE BOARD CANNOT CHANGE, AND THE CITY CANNOT CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

>> YES. BECAUSE YOU'RE REFERRING TO RETAIL AUTO REPAIR.

LIKE AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP.

>> RETAIL OPERATION SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OPERATION OF BUSINESS FOR RETAIL PURPOSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR.

>> YEAH, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY JUST MAKE SURE IT'S CLARIFIED CLEARLY YOU CAN TINKER ON YOUR CAR.

>> I THINK THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. [OVERLAPPING].

>> SO PROPRIETARY.

>> I'M JUST WONDERING. [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE CAN ADD THAT.

>> ADD THAT TO THE ADULT USES.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S PERFECT.

>> ONE THING WE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME WAS THE TRASH. SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

JUST WONDERING IF YOU GUYS ADDRESSED ANY OF THE TRASH OR PLANS OR IF YOU HAVE NOT, COULD YOU AT LEAST TRY AND EXPLAIN WHAT.

>> NO TRASH.

>> I HAD BEATERS DO I JUST TAKE IT OUT WITH ME IN MY CAR, AND IS THAT STANDARD PRACTICE IN THE OTHER UNIT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THE TYPICAL ONE IT GETS VERY CONVOLUTED WITH USE AND GENERAL USE.

MOST OF THEM ARE TAKE OUT YOUR OWN THINGS IN YOUR CAR AND BRING THEM TO YOUR OWN.

WE WON'T HAVE GARBAGE.

>> OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC.

>> THERE'S NO PUBLIC BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HAD IT.

I'M TRYING TO THINK WHERE THAT LEAVES US UP HERE.

WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. WE COULD APPROVE IT.

WE COULD STRAIGHT DENY IT.

WE COULD APPROVE IT WITH COMMENTS OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE.

WE COULD TABLE AGAIN.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M STANDING ON IT.

[02:40:02]

IT SEEMS LIKE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING THAT WE FEEL IS NEEDED THERE HAS TO BE SOME DESIGN REVISIONS.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.

WE PROBABLY SOUND UNFAIR, BUT IF YOU DON'T GET TO A PUBLIC LAUNCH BY 9:00 AM ON A SATURDAY, YOU'RE NOT GOING IN THE LAKE.

I CAN SEE A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE WHERE, I DON'T NEED TO PARK AT THE PUBLIC LAUNCH.

I GOT MY OWN GARAGE.

I'M JUST SEEING A DIFFERENT USE HERE, AND I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK OR COMMUNITIES PARKING IS AT A PREMIUM HERE.

I CAN SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE PUTTING THEIR BOAT IN THE WATER AND THEN COMING BACK AND THEN BRINGING THEIR BOAT TRAILER OR THEIR TRAILER HERE, AND THEIR FRIENDS ARE COMING WITH THEM, AND THEY'RE MEETING.

I JUST SEE THIS NEED FOR A COMMON AREA.

I DON'T SEE IT IN THIS PLAN. I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ON SPECIAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I DO THINK THAT HAVING SOME COMMON AREA, NOT A LOT OF SPACES, BUT JUST SOME WOULD JUST REALLY HELP THIS THING GET THROUGH.

>> AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE GOAL OF THIS IS TO TRY AND THINK THROUGH HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BE USING THESE CAUSE THE ONES I HAVE IN COLORADO ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES WE HAVE HERE.

THE GOAL OF THE SIZE OF THE SPACES IS TO ALLOW YOU TO MANEUVER WITHIN 1,400 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS SIZE VERY LARGE GARAGE OF BEING ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THE INTERIOR USE.

THESE ARE DESIGNED FOR THAT, AND SO THE BOAT TRAILER AND ALL THAT.

BUT WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS IS GOING TO BE THAT'S WHY WE'RE INTERESTED IN THIS PROJECT, AND WHY WE THINK IT IS A GOOD USE FOR ORONO IS THE BOAT USAGE AND SO IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE ARE AWARE OF.

WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL WAY OF DOING THIS TO MAKE THIS.

ONLY THE CONCEPT OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE, AND YES, MAYBE THE COMMUNITIES ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT'S BRAND NEW THAT IN 10 YEARS, WE'RE ALL GOING TO LOOK AT AND BE, WHY DID WE DO THAT HOLISTICALLY? NOT JUST FROM OUR SIDE OF IT, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE REINVENTING THE WHEEL, ESSENTIALLY, AND NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE THIS, THAT'S OUR ONLY PUSH-BACK OR WHY WE'RE HAVING THE BACK AND FORTH.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS VALID, 100%.

THAT'S AGAIN, WHY WE'RE BUILDING THIS IN ORONO AS WE THINK THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A NEED FOR BOAT STORAGE, PARTICULARLY DURING THE WINTER.

GET THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR OF WHY WE'RE PUSHING BACK BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T WANT TO JUMP TO SOMETHING AND PUT YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT AS A COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPER.

>> MR. CHAIR.

>> YES.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LOOK BACK AND SAY, GOSH, I WISH WE WOULD HAVE PUT MORE BUILDINGS THERE.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SCREENINGS, AND WE GO, THAT WAS TASTEFULLY DONE.

YOU PROBABLY ARE GOING TO RAISE THE COST OF THE UNITS, TOO BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SO DENSE.

I DON'T IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO REGRET NOT GIVING YOU ENOUGH UNITS. JUST BEING HONEST.

I DON'T HEAR A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THIS DENSITY.

IF YOU WANT US TO CLARIFY, WE CAN GO DOWN AND MAKE SURE, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO RE-CLARIFY THAT WE NEED LESS AS FAR AS WHAT I'M CONSIDERING.

I DON'T THINK 40 FEET IS ENOUGH.

I DON'T THINK 20 FEET ON THE ENDS IS ENOUGH.

I THINK THE ILLUSTRATIONS THAT YOU'VE HAD OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IS HELPFUL, BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING MORE THAN JUST HEARSAY AS FAR AS WHAT THOSE ARE, AS FAR AS TELLING US WHAT THOSE, I THINK YOU SAID 45 IS ONE AND HERD 50 ON ANOTHER.

I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE FACTS ON THAT, AND I THINK THE PICTURES TELL US SOMETHING, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE US EVERYTHING.

AGAIN, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVE IT BECAUSE EVERY SITE'S DIFFERENT.

>> I'LL JUST ADD. LOOKING AT THE RENDERINGS, I THINK THE STYLE AND THE COLORS AND THE GABLE ROOFS, IT'S NICE LOOKING COMPARED TO A LOT OF UNITS OUT THERE.

I THINK IT'S ALMOST A WIN WIN IF YOU WERE TO SHRINK THE ORIGINAL BUILD, THINK PHASE 1, PHASE 2.

THAT REALLY PROVES YOUR BUSINESS CASE OF, WHO'S USING IT? IT'S ALWAYS EASIER TO ADD MORE.

YOU CAN NEVER ADD LESS ONCE IT'S BUILT.

I JUST THINK THERE MIGHT BE A STEPPED APPROACH TO THIS THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

BUT I DO THINK WITH THE SCREENINGS YOU HAVE AROUND IT, THOSE LOOK GREAT.

[02:45:06]

THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHT PUT INTO THE STATICS, AND I LIKE IT.

BUT I JUST THINK KNOWING HOW PEOPLE USE BOATS, HOW PEOPLE USE CAMPERS, SNOWBALL, TRAILERS, WHATEVER.

YOU GOT TO HAVE THE PARKING, AND I THINK YOU COULD OBVIOUSLY BUILD SMALLER, AND IF YOU PROVE IT OVER TIME, IT'D BE EASY TO SAY, HEY, WE CAN ADD ANOTHER BUILDING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT USING THE PARKING OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

>> I JUST WANT TO JUST TO MAKE SURE WHAT METRICS ARE WE NOT MEETING? THEN WHAT ARE WE BEING ASKED TO DO BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO REDUCE SPECIFICALLY? [OVERLAPPING] TRYING TO WRITE THIS ALL DOWN.

>> YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE 2.7 PER UNIT.

>> WE'RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE EXTERNAL OF THE UNIT, OR SOME COMBINATION OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL, BUT NOT ALL INTERNAL.

>> WE DON'T THINK THAT'S [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT'S A CONDITION OF THE CODE.

AT THIS POINT, YOU'RE NOT MEETING THAT THE PREMISES SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OPERATION OF BUSINESS FOR RETAIL PURPOSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AUTOMO REPAIR.

YOU'RE AMENDING YOUR DECLARATION TO DO THAT, BUT AT THIS CURRENT TIME, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE MEETING THAT TO THE STANDARD THAT YOU COULD BE.

BECAUSE YOU SAY IT, BUT THEN YOU SAY IT CAN BE CHANGED BY THE BOARD.

>> PER CITY CODE. APPROVAL OF THE CITY.

>> CORRECT. BUT WE'RE SAYING AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT NEEDS TO BE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT IS NOT AMENDABLE BY THAT.

BECAUSE IT READS, "PERMITTED USES AND RESTRICTIONS, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE USED FOR VEHICLE STORAGE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES, MOTORCYCLES, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ALL TRAIN VEHICLES, SNOWMOBILES, BUSINESS RELATED STORAGE AND RELATED TO OFFICE USES PERMITTED BY THE CITY ORDINANCE, OR BY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES PERMITTED BY THE CITY ORDINANCES OR BY AGREEMENT, THE CITY, APPROVED BY THE BOARD." YOU'RE LEAVING YOURSELF OPEN TO CHANGE THAT AT ANY TIME BY COMING TO THE CITY AND REQUESTING IT, OR SOMEONE GOING TO THE BOARD AND REQUESTING IT.

THEN IT SAYS, "PROVIDED THAT NONE OF THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES, TRADES, OCCUPATIONS, OR PROFESSIONS, WHETHER CARRIED FOR-PROFIT OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE CONDUCTED, MAINTAINED, OR PERMITTED ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY." THESE ARE ONES THAT THE CITY AND THE BOARD CANNOT CHANGE, AND THOSE ARE ADULT THEATER, ADULT AMUSEMENT FACILITY, ADULT-ORIENTED PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS, LIQUIDATION, HOUSE, FLEA MARKETS, ETC, BUT I DO NOT SEE RETAIL OR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR LISTED UNDER THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD BE SO THAT IT'S A CONDITION OF NOT ONLY THE CUP, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GUARDING IT, BUT IT'S A CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED.

BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING THE SITE PLAN BASED ON THAT, SO IF IT WOULD EVER BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME.

LET'S SAY THIS GOES THROUGH AND YOU CAN'T SELL ANY UNITS, UNLESS YOU GET JOE'S AUTO REPAIR IN THERE, AND THEN YOU'RE COMING TO THE CITY ASKING FOR THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

>> WE HAD DISCUSSED BRIEFLY EARLIER WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE METRIC FOR THE PARKING, WHERE THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE PROPER.

WHETHER WE REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF BUILDING SPACE OR THE SIZE OF THE UNITS TO MAKE ROOM FOR PARKING, WOULD THERE ALSO BE A ROOM TO ENTERTAIN IF THERE WAS ONE PARKING SPACE OUTSIDE AND ONE INSIDE FOR EACH UNIT, WHERE THE METRIC WAS TWO PARKING SPACES, ONE INDOOR, ONE OUTDOOR, FOR THE OVERALL COUNT? IF WE'RE MAKING A TARGET TO REDUCE THE BUILDING OR ADJUST THE SITE PLAN, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING [NOISE] THAT YOU WOULD ALL ENTERTAIN OR JUST ADJUST THAT METRIC?

>> I THINK THE METRIC'S BEEN SET AT THE 2.7.

I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THAT, BUT I THINK SHOWING US THAT WE'VE GOT 2.7 AS THE METRIC, WE'VE GOT ONE OUTSIDE, TWO INSIDE, OR ONE OUTSIDE, ONE INSIDE AND THESE ADDITIONALS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT.

BUT REDUCING THE BUILDING IS ALSO GOING TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF SPACE.

IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR ADDING PARKING IF YOU REDUCE SOME.

>> LAURA, WHERE ARE THEY IN DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU ON THE 2.7? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M NOT FOLLOWING.

CAN WE SHOW MORE THAN 2.7?

>> STAFF MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE INTERIOR PARKING WOULD BE OKAY.

[02:50:01]

STAFF LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID, BECAUSE OF THE RANGE OF THE SIZING OF THE UNITS, SOME UNITS MIGHT HOLD TWO INTERIOR PARKING, SOME UNITS MIGHT HOLD UP TO FOUR INTERIOR PARKING.

WITH THAT, THE OVERALL SITE CAN MEET THE 235 PARKING STANDARD IDENTIFIED BY THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CODE.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION IS THAT THEY DISAGREE AND BELIEVE THAT SOME EXTERIOR PARKING NEEDS TO BE SHOWN ON THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE.

IT CAN'T BE ALL INTERIOR.

THEN THE 2.7, I THINK WE ALL KNOW, WAS MAYBE NOT A DIRECT COMPARISON, BUT THE COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THE LENIENCY OF THE SMALLER UNITS BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO VERSUS THE LARGER UNITS BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE MORE.

THAT WAS STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.

DOES THE COMMISSION FEEL THAT THAT'S AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON, OR SHOULD THEY HOLD TIGHT TO 2.7 PER UNIT, WHICH IS ANOTHER METRIC?

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, MISS OAKTON.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS, YOU'RE MEETING THE CRITERIA BY YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT VERSIONS.

THERE'S THE INDOOR PARKING, THERE'S THE OUTDOOR PARKING.

WHAT BECOMES OF IT IS THIS.

THAT'S WHERE WE LOOK AT THIS AND GO, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AND THE REASON WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IS BECAUSE ALL THE PARKING THAT'S BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IS INDOORS.

IF YOU START ACCOUNTING FOR PARKING OUTDOORS, THEN YOU LOSE MASSING, AND THEN IT STARTS MAKING MORE SENSE.

WITHOUT REDESIGNING YOUR PLAN, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO GIVE YOU THE FEEDBACK, IS THAT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING OR PART OF THE 2.7 TO INCLUDE EXTERIOR PARKING IS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE MORE SENSE.

IF WE MOTION TO DENY THIS, IT ALLOWS YOU TO GO TO COUNSEL PERHAPS WITH MORE INFORMATION AND PERHAPS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT PLAN, AND MAYBE THEY'LL HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.

BUT IF WE DO THAT, THEN IT DOESN'T GO BACK HERE, AND THAT'S OKAY.

IF WE TABLE IT, IT COMES BACK HERE, AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT.

>> JUST FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE COMMISSION, THIS APPLICATION IS ON 120-DAY REVIEW REQUIREMENT.

THAT WOULD BRING US TO MAY 4TH FOR FINAL ACTION THAT'S NEEDED.

THAT MEANS THE COUNCIL WILL NEED TO REVIEW THIS IN APRIL BECAUSE THAT'S BEFORE ANY MAY MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU MOVE THIS APPLICATION ALONG TONIGHT, SO THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW THIS APPLICATION AT THEIR FIRST MEETING IN APRIL, AS TABLEING IT WILL BRING YOU TO MID-APRIL, AND IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING TO TRY AND GET THIS ON THE SECOND MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

TWO DAYS AFTER YOU GUYS ACT, WE'D HAVE TO PUBLISH FOR THAT COUNCIL MEETING.

LOGISTICALLY, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING.

STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU MOVE ON THIS TONIGHT TO ALLOW IT TO GO TO COUNCIL WITH YOUR CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS NOTED.

>> MISS OAKTON, THEN COUNCIL CAN DIRECT THIS BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION IF THEY WOULD LIKE.

>> THE COUNCIL WILL BE REQUIRED TO ACT WITHIN 120 DAYS.

IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO WAIVE THE REVIEW TIME PERIOD, THEN YES.

IF THEY'RE WILLING TO STATE THAT TONIGHT OR PUT IT IN WRITING TONIGHT, YOU COULD ENTERTAIN TABLEING.

IF THEY ARE NOT, THIS SHOULD GO TO COUNCIL.

IF THEY WAIVE THEIR REVIEW TIMELINE ON THIS APPLICATION, THE COUNCIL COULD THEN DIRECT IT BACK TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW IT.

BUT WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE OF THE CUP TO ACT WITHIN 120 DAYS, OTHERWISE, A DEFAULT IS APPROVED.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ACT ON THIS TONIGHT TO GET IT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, SO COUNCIL THEN HAS THE ABILITY TO ACT WITHIN OUR APPROPRIATE TIMELINE.

>> IF WE TABLED TONIGHT, IT CAME BACK, WHAT MEETING WOULD IT COME TO FOR US?

>> LET ME JUST BRING A CALENDAR UP SO WE CAN ALL TACKLE THIS HERE.

THE CALENDAR DOESN'T WANT TO BE DISPLAYED.

IF YOU TABLED IT TONIGHT, IT WOULD GO TO THE APRIL 21ST PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU APRIL 21ST, THEN APRIL 28TH, THE FOLLOWING MONDAY, IS COUNCIL.

THAT IS THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE THIS APPLICATION WOULD EXPIRE.

THAT MEANS YOU GUYS WOULD ACT MONDAY NIGHT, THE APPLICANT, ANY AMENDMENTS, AND IT WOULD GIVE US TWO DAYS TO TURN THAT APPLICATION AROUND TO GET IT TO THE APRIL 28TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

KNOWING HOW THOUGHTFUL AND DELIBERATE,

[02:55:03]

FROM A TIMELINE PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU TABLED IT, IT WOULD GO TO APRIL 21ST PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO TRY AND TURN IT AROUND FOR THE APRIL 28TH CITY COUNCIL.

>> CORRECT. APRIL 28TH AT THE CITY COUNCIL, IF THEY DECIDED TO TABLE IT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO.

>> THEY COULD NOT TABLE IT.

>> ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO TABLE IS NOW, AND WE CAN STILL MAKE THE DEADLINE.

>> YOU COULD TABLE IT NOW.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY TIGHT TO GET IT ON THE APRIL 28TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR PUBLICATION.

YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY YOU DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION ON THE TABLE, YOU DO.

IT WOULD JUST BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING FOR STAFF AND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL THEN TO BE ABLE TO DIGEST AND REVIEW THE APPLICATION FOR THE 28TH.

>> I'LL GO BACK TO MY QUESTION.

IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES THEY WANT TO EXTEND, AND THE COUNCIL THEN THEREFORE CHOOSES, THAT'S IF THEY WANT TO, THEY CAN SEND THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR COMMENT.

>> IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO EXTEND THEIR REVIEW PERIOD, THE COUNCIL, YES, WOULD HAVE THAT OPTION TO SEND THIS APPLICATION BACK TO YOU.

>> IF THEY WANTED TO.

>> YES.

>> ON IF THEY WANTED TO, SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU CAN CONVINCE THE COUNCIL WITHOUT IT GOING BACK TO US, THAT ALLOWS YOU TO KEEP THIS MOVING.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

I THINK THE RIGHT THING TO DO THEN WOULD BE TO TAKE ACTION RATHER THAN TO TABLE, AND THE COUNCIL, LET THEM DECIDE, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.

>> YOU RUN THE RISK OF THE COUNCIL LOOKING AT IT BASED ON OUR FEEDBACK, THINKING THAT ALL 235 SPOTS SHOULD BE OUTSIDE, AND THEN DENYING IT AS IS, AND THEN IT STARTS OVER.

>> OR GOING BACK TO US, IF THEY HAD AGREED TO EXTENT.

NOW, IN OUR OPINION, JUST TO BE DIRECT ON FEEDBACK, IS WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE PARKING OUTSIDE.

>> LET'S ASK THE APPLICANT.

WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE US DENY THIS BASED ON THE PARKING AND THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE AND SEND TO COUNCIL, OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE US TABLE IT, BRING IT BACK TO US, CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SHOWING US, HERE'S WHERE WE DECIDED WHERE THE PARKING CAN GO, AND THEN SENDING IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH AN APPROVAL.

>> LOOK, IF I MAY, BEFORE YOU ANSWER.

MR. CHAIR, AND I AM [INAUDIBLE], IF IF WE MOVE TO DENY, THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNSEL ABOUT IT.

>> CORRECT.

>> BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN CONVINCED, ALLOWS THEM TO TRY TO CONVINCE THE COUNCIL OTHERWISE, WHETHER IT'S THIS PLAN OR AN AMENDED ONE.

IF THEY DO SO, THEN THEY HAVE TO BUILD [LAUGHTER] THEIR UNITS ON WHOEVER THEY ARE CONVINCED TO DO SO.

BUT IF THE COUNCIL IS NOT CONVINCED, THEN THEY CAN HAVE IT COME BACK TO US, AS IT'S BEEN TWICE NOW, IF THEY SO CHOOSE, BUT THEN AT LEAST IT ALLOWS IT TO GO TO COUNCIL, WHERE IF A TABLES, IT STILL COMES BACK TO US BEFORE COUMCIL HAS HEARD.

I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M LEANING TOWARDS MOTIONING TO DENY, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO PRESENT THIS PLAN OR ANOTHER PLAN TO COUNCIL AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK.

I'M NOT SAYING IT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT WAS MY PERSONAL.

>> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, I THINK WE'RE ALL SUPPORTED BY THIS.

GIVEN WHERE THIS LOT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS ISN'T SOME LOUD INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

I THINK THIS IS PERFECT. WE'RE VERY CLOSE.

I THINK I WOULD TEND TO AGREE IF WE DENIED, THEN THEY BRING THIS TO COUNCIL.

MAYBE THEY HAVE A NEW PLAN, AND THEN THEY CAN GET DONE, AND GET THIS THING GOING.

OR COUNCIL IS NOW STUCK AGAINST THEIR TIMELINE.

THERE'S NO CHANCE TO TABLE OR REDESIGN, AND THEY DENY IT.

THAT COULD BE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

HAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO THINK, IF WE ALL LIKE THIS AND WE LIKE THE WAY IT'S GOING, THE IDEA TO TABLE IT, GO AHEAD.

>>SORRY.

>> YES.

>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. JUST TO REITERATE, IF YOU ACT TONIGHT WITH YOUR COMMENTS, IT WOULD GO TO THE APRIL 14TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THEIR REVIEW ON EITHER THIS PLAN OR AMENDED PLANS BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS.

THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO THEN EITHER ACT ON A MOST LIKELY, STAFF WOULD NOT BRING A RESOLUTION ON THE 14TH AT THIS POINT.

IF YOU WERE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL AS WE'D WANT THE COUNCIL TO DELIBERATE ON EITHER AMENDED PLANS,

[03:00:02]

>> THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TABLE.

>> THE COUNCIL WOULD. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER YOU.

IF COUNCIL WERE TO DENY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HEARD ALL THIS FEEDBACK, THEN ALSO GET BACK TO SQUARE 1.

>> IF YOU ACT OUTSIDE, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY GIVING THE COUNCIL TWO MEETINGS.

YOU'RE GIVING THEM ONE MEETING TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION, GIVE FEEDBACK, CONSIDER [NOISE] AND THEN A SECOND MEETING TO TAKE FINAL ACTION, IF YOU ACT TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF ENCOURAGE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE IS READY.

>> QUICKLY, FOR CLARITY, MAYBE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND AND I'M JUST CONFUSED.

ARE YOU GUYS ASKING THEM TO JUST SHOW THE SAME 2.7 UNITS PARKING PER UNIT AND SHOW IT OUTSIDE ON THE MAP AND DESIGNATED SPOTS? ARE YOU ASKING THEM TO ALSO ADD PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE.

"COMMON" AREAS TO THE PLAN? I'M UNCLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM, SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR [OVERLAPPING] APPRECIATE THEIR CITY.

>> I'M UNCLEAR AS WELL.

>> I CAN BE CLEAR. THAT'S REALLY BEING SUPER CLEAR.

I WANT LESS BUILDING THERE.

MORE PARKING OUTSIDE, LESS BUILDING, OUTSIDE.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SEE. I DON'T SEE ADEQUATE EXTERIOR PARKING, LESS BUILDING.

>> I THINK WAS DO WE GET SPECIFIC NUMBERS?

>> NO, THAT WE DON'T HAVE UNDERSTOOD.

>> THE 2.7 IS THE NUMBER RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT STAFF'S PREPARED.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

IN MY MIND, IT'S SOME COMBINATION OF EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR, IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE.

AND THE EXTERIOR SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FIRE LANES, SO IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

I THINK WE'RE BEING VERY CLEAR AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FOR THE PARKING.

>> ZERO COMMON SPACES THEN? THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE 2.7?

>> WELL, IT'S ALL THE SAME.

IT'S 2.7 PER UNIT.

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME THAT IF UNIT A BRINGS A PERSON THERE AND THEY CAN'T PARK IN FRONT OF ANOTHER UNIT, THERE HAS TO BE A SPOT FOR THEM.

THAT COULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE 2.7. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> AN AGGREGATE?

>> YES. AN,AGGREGATE FOR THE WHOLE PLACE.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, BUR IT'S I MEAN, I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AS WELL AS FAR.

IF YOU WANT TO FINISH, GO AHEAD.

>> NO. I JUST WANTED CLARITY, BECAUSE I THINK AT FIRST, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOUR-UGUYS A REQUEST IS JUST TO BASICALLY SHOW PARKING OUTSIDE OF EACH UNIT? BUT I THINK WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET AT IS THERE SHOULD BE ALSO ADDITIONAL PARKING JUST OUTSIDE OF THE ONE PARKING STALL OUTSIDE OF EACH UNIT.

THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED CLARITY ON.

I THINK YOU GUYS WERE OF THE LATER, WHERE YOU WANT PARKING IN FRONT OF EACH UNIT DESIGNATED, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PARKING ELSEWHERE.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON. THANK YOU.

>> THE OTHER THING, COMMISSIONER BRANDEBER, IS THEY CAN AMEND THEIR APPLICATION.

IF IT WERE GOING TO COUNSEL AFTER THIS, THEY CAN AMEND THEIR APPLICATION BASED ON OUR FEEDBACK AHEAD OF TIME.

>> ABSOLUTELY.N I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT, AS I WAS WONDERING IF WE JUST DO WE SHOW A PARALLEL IN FRONT OF EVERYONE THAT'S 85.

WE GET TO THE 2.7 IS WHAT? 235, 230?

>> SOMEWHERE IN THERE. IT'S 150 ISH.

YOU'RE SAYING TO SHOW INSIDE?

>> YEAH. ONE IS INSIDE AND ONE PARALLELS ON THE OUTSIDE, THAT'S 170 PARKING STALLS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?

>> YEAH, BUT, WE CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE.

WE HAVE 30 UNITS THAT ARE 31 FEET WIDE AND 30 THAT ARE 24 FEET WIDE, THAT CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE TWO INSIDE.

>> I THINK THE COMMISSION IS ASKING FOR MORE PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS BEYOND THE ONE STALL IN FRONT OF EACH UNIT.

I THINK THAT'S THE CONSENSUS THAT AT A MINIMUM, WE'RE ASKING FOR.

>> THE TRIBUNAL AND SPOT FOR UNITS.

>> THE OVERALL PARKING METRIC IS AN AGGREGATE, SO YOU CAN'T RESTRICT PEOPLE FROM PARKING IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S UNIT, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO AND STILL COUNT IT TOWARDS THE AGGREGATE.

THERE HAS TO BE A SPOT THAT THOSE OTHER PEOPLE CAN GO TO THAT AREN'T PART OF OWNING ONE OF THE UNITS.

IN ORDER FOR US TO CONSIDER IT AS PART OF THE AGGREGATE.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO PRESENT TO US WHAT YOU FEEL IS GOING TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

[03:05:04]

>> I DON'T KNOW. SOMEONE CAME LIKE YOU WENT TO YOUR BUDDIES, YOU WENT IN, YOU PARKED IN ONE, ONE'S OUTSIDE.

>> WHAT IF THERE'S NO PARKING INSIDE?

>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT TO ACCOMMODATE, YOU JUST CAN'T.

>> EXACTLY. THEN PUT NO PARKING OUTSIDE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

IF YOUR UNIT IS FULL OF TOYS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN THERE, SO YOU HAVE TO PARK OUTSIDE.

>> IT'S EITHER WE SHOW NO PARKING OUTSIDE OR WE SHOW A COMBINATION.

>> NOT NECESSARILY SHOW NO PARKING OUTSIDE, WHAT I'M HEARING THE COMMISSION SAY IS PUTTING IT AS A REGULATION THAT NO PARKING IS ALLOWED OUTSIDE.

>> PERIOD, NOT EVEN TEMPORARY BECAUSE EVERYTHING WOULD BE A FIRE LANE.

>> TO REQUIRE INTERIOR PARKING.

IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THAT REGULATION IN AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE SOME PARKING, EVEN IF IT'S TEMPORARY OUTSIDE, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME BUT ONE PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE SPACES VERSUS 90 DEGREE, AND THEN SOME SHARED COMMON SPACE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO LOAD UNLOAD IN A SHARED OF SHARED PARKING, NOT IN FRONT OF THE UNIT. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?

>> THEN WE CAN STILL HAVE INTERIOR PARKING?

>> IF YOU STRIKE THE SPOTS INSIDE AND SAY, YOU CAN'T STORE IN THERE AND YOU CAN ONLY USE IT FOR PARKING, AND THEN LET ME PARK IN SOMEONE ELSE'S UNIT IF I HAVE SOMEONE COMING THERE.

DO YOU SEE THE CONVOLUTED PIECE WHEN YOU'RE USING AN AGGREGATE PARKING? IT'S NOT A REALITY THAT'S GOING TO GO ANYWHERE?

>> THIS IS SUPER COMPLICATED, BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF YOU'RE ALLOCATING INDOOR PARKING THAT'S PRIVATE, THAT MEANS THAT THAT PERSON CAN'T USE THAT PARKING SPOT, BUT YOU'RE USING YOUR ACCOUNT BASED ON PARKING INSIDE A PRIVATE UNIT.

>> OR SOMEONE ELSE.

JUST TO CALL OUT WHAT WE HAD TALKED THROUGH A SIMILAR POINT, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOW GOING BACK TO THIS.

BUT YOU CAN USE A PARKING SPACE FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO USE IT FOR.

>> NOT IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT TO COUNT TOWARDS YOUR AGGREGATE, BECAUSE, THINK OF AN OFFICE BUILDING, AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHATEVER IT IS PER SQUARE FOOT AND THE PARKING IS OUTSIDE.

>> CORRECT.

>> IF YOU LIMIT THOSE SPACES AND DON'T LET CROSSOVER OF PEOPLE USE THOSE SPACES, YOU'RE NO LONGER MEETING THE AGGREGATE.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, COULD YOU PARK A MOTORCYCLE IN THOSE SPACES? COULD YOU PARK A TRAILER IN THOSE SPACES? COULD YOU PARK A BOAT IN THOSE SPACES AT A INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY?

>> NO, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

YOU CAN'T HAVE THE INDOOR PARKING COUNT 100% TOWARDS YOUR AGGREGATE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO OUTDOOR PARKING ON THE SITE, BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.

>> I'M JUST SAYING GENUINELY ASKING THE QUESTION.

THESE PARKING SPACES OUT HERE, WHAT ARE YOU ALLOWED TO PARK IN THOSE? YOU CAN PARK A MOTORCYCLE, YOU CAN PARK A CAR?

>> CORRECT, YES.

>> COULD SOMEONE PUT A BOAT TRAILER IN THERE AND LEAVE IT FOR THE DAY AND PULL IT LATER? WHAT'S ALLOWED IN A PARKING SPACE? I COULD SOMEONE PUT A BOX OUT THERE FOR AN HOUR.

>> NOW, I THINK WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE.

NOW WE'RE GETTING YOUR INSIGHT.

YOU'RE WORRIED THAT IF WE HAVE COMMON PARKING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME CLIENTS KEEP THEIR CAMPER PARK THERE.

>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE INTERIOR OF THEIR DESIGNATED PARKING SPACE ON THE INTERIOR, BUT YOU COULD USE A PARKING SPACE.

>> NOW WE'RE BACK TO STORAGE VERSION.

>> WE'VE GONE DOWN THIS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES AT THIS MEETING.

I'M STARTING TO GET FRUSTRATED WITH IT.

THE IDEA THAT ALL THE INTERIOR PARKING IS GOING TO WORK ON THIS SITE, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT PAST THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET PAST THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE IT'S AN AGGREGATE COUNT FOR THE BUILDING.

IT'S NOT PER UNIT.

WE'VE JUST BROKE IT DOWN INTO 2.7 PER UNIT, BUT IT'S AGGREGATE BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

>> THIS UNIT OR THE WHOLE PROJECT?

>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND IF I OWN NUMBER 35, AND I DECIDED TO USE ALL OF MY FOUR SPOTS IN THERE FOR STORAGE, AND I NEED TO COME TO MY UNIT TO USE IT, AND I'VE GOT THREE HELPERS OR FOUR HELPERS BECAUSE I HAVE OCCUPANCY OF FOUR.

WHERE DO THOSE FOUR CARS PARK? THEY CAN'T GO IN SOMEONE ELSE'S UNIT AND USE THOSE SPOTS THAT HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THE AGGREGATE PARKING.

THAT'S WHY IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

YOU NEED AN AGGREGATE OF 2.7 PER UNIT.

I'M OKAY WITH GETTING BEHIND SOME INSIDE.

USING AN IDEA THAT THERE'D BE ONE INSIDE OR WHATEVER THE CASE IS, AND THEN SHOWING THEM PARALLEL PARKED OUTSIDE, MAKING THE MANEUVERABILITY WORK FOR PUBLIC SAFETY,

[03:10:01]

HAVING THAT SPOT, SO THE EXTERIOR SPOTS FOR PEOPLE CAN PARK THERE SO THEY DON'T WANT TO OVERFLOW INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE OF THE DEADLINE AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS HERE THAT WE HAVE THIS, BECAUSE SO FAR WE'VE COME BACK, WE THOUGHT WE'VE DONE WHAT WE DID, AND THEN IT'S ANOTHER MONTH, AND IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME.

APOLOGIES THAT WE ARE LABORING THIS.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT TOO, IS HOW DOES IT WORK WHEN SOMEONE WHO OWNS THIS PROPERTY HAS TO MEET WHATEVER CODE THEY HAVE TO MEET, CORRECT? IF THEY HAVE FOUR COLLECTOR CARS THAT ARE INSIDE THE UNIT AND THEY WANT TO SHOW UP AT THEIR UNIT, THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM IF THEY'RE NOT MEETING.

>> IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY PROBLEM IF THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE CONDITION.

YOU CAN GO THERE AND FIND THEM AS MUCH AS YOU WANT, BUT WHEN WE'RE CREATING AN ISSUE BY A 40 FOOT LANE AND SOMEONE PARKING IN FRONT OF IT AND NOW BLOCKING THE FIRE LANE, AND YOU DON'T HAVE A DESIGNATED SPOT FOR THEM, THAT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FIND THEM OR HOW MANY TIMES THEY DO IT.

THEY COULD DO IT EVERY DAY FOR A YEAR AND NO ONE MIGHT SEE IT HAPPEN.

BUT IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONE TIME OR EMERGENCY VEHICLE CAN'T GET THROUGH.

>> THAT'S HELPFUL. THIS IT'S MISUSE.

IT'S GOING AGAINST THE DECLARATION.

THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF SOMEONE GOES AGAINST WHAT WE'RE DECLARING.

>> IF THE DECLARATION IS JUST THE DECLARATION, IT HAS TO BE ENFORCED.

IT SOUNDS WITH NO ONE STAFFED THERE, WHO'S GOING TO ENFORCE THE DECLARATION? IT'S GOING TO FALL. THE CITY HAS TO ENFORCE THE CUP BASED ON COMPLAINTS, AND THE DECLARATION IS ENFORCED BY WHO?

>> THE ASSOCIATION.

>> IF I PARK THERE FOR A DAY AND NOBODY SEES ME, IT'S FINE RIGHT?

>> NO, IT'S NOT.

>> IF I BLOCK THE FIRE LINE FOR A DAY, AND NO ONE SEES ME, WHAT HAPPENS? NOTHING. BUT IF I DO IT AND SOMETHING HAPPENS AND AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE NEEDS TO GET THROUGH, AND I'M BLOCKING ACCESS.

>> THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY STREET.

>> EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT HAS DESIGNATED PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE STRIPED, AND THEY GO THROUGH A MANEUVERABILITY STANDARD.

>> IF WE CAN SHOW THAT WE MEET THAT, WOULD THAT NOT SUFFICE?

>> IF YOU CAN MEET THE 2.7 PER UNIT EXTERIOR, THEN WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO APPROVE, CORRECT?

>> YES, 2.7 EXTERIOR PARKING SPOTS.

>>> AGAIN, I JUST I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN OUR DECLARATIONS THAT WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T DO ACROSS THE BOARD.

ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE COULD DO.

SOMEONE COULD DISCONNECT THEIR SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

>> YES.

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

ALL WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF IS THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO HERE.

WE HAVE THESE DECLARATIONS FOR A REASON PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THEM.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FORECLOSE ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES IF THEY DON'T MEET OUR DECLARATIONS.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN A USE CASE WHERE IF SOMEONE DOESN'T ACCOMMODATE THIS PARKING, THEY HAVE FOUR SPACES IN THERE, THEY'VE MAXED OUT THEIR PARKING.

THEY ARE THEN GOING TO BREAK OUR RULES, PARK OUTSIDE.

WE'RE TRYING TO DESIGN AROUND THEM BREAKING A RULE. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

I'M SAYING THAT'S A DANGEROUS THING TO START GOING DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF RULES THAT CAN BE BROKEN.

IF WE START DESIGNING THE PROPERTY TO CALL FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE BROKEN IN WHAT WE WROTE IN OUR DECLARATIONS, AND WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING, WELL, YOU CAN ACTUALLY ENFORCE YOUR DECLARATION.

THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT-.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING. I'M NOT TRYING TO DESIGN AROUND THAT.

>> BUT YOU JUST SAID, IF OUR CURRENT THINGS IS ALL INDOOR SPACES ARE WHERE THE SPACES ARE, THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS.

ALL OF OUR SPACES ARE INSIDE.

YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT IF SOMEONE DOESN'T APPLY THAT, AND THEY JUST HAPPEN TO PARK OUTSIDE?

>> IT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC.

>> MR. CHAIR?

>> YES.

>> IF I MAY, I'M GOING TO TURN THIS A DIFFERENT WAY.

I'M GOING TO SAY THAT IT'S MY INTERPRETATION THAT WE NEED TO DEMONSTRATE 2.7 PER UNIT EXTERIOR PARKING SPOTS.

IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU WILL BE APPROVED, IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO DO LESS THAN 2.7 WITH A PROPOSED PLAN, WE WOULD ENTERTAIN IT, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

INSTEAD OF SAYING A NUMBER LESS THAN 2.7, INSTEAD, I'M GOING TO MOTION TO DENY BECAUSE WE CANNOT DEMONSTRATE 2.7 EXTERIOR PARKING SPOTS FOR LA 24-54.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE 2.7 EXTERIOR STALLS ON

[03:15:03]

>> THE GARAGE I CAN'T HAVE INTERIOR PARKINGS.

>> I'M SORRY. NOT INTERIOR PARKING.

>> HERE IS WHAT A GARAGE DOES, ACCOMMODATES CARS, VEHICLES, TRAILERS.

IT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS.

>> THAT'S FINE. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONVINCE THE CITY COUNCIL OTHERWISE, BUT WE'VE GONE IN CIRCLE FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.

I SENSE YOUR FRUSTRATION, AND I HOPE I'M SURE YOU SENSE OURS AS WELL.

AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO JUST UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN SUPPORT AND I DON'T HEAR ANYBODY ELSE FEELING ANY DIFFERENT.

>> WE DID A TAX AMENDMENT FOR CUP.

BECAUSE IT WAS INCLUDED, PROBABLY BECAUSE IT'S INHERENT IN THE IDEA THAT IS A GARAGE FOR PARKING.

IF IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE.

THE USE IS VERY MINIMAL AS WE'VE PROVED IN TONIGHT WITH A TRAFFIC ENGINEER SAYING AS SUCH.

TO TREAT US THE SAME WAY YOU TREAT ANY OTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN HERE AFTER DOING AN AMENDMENT TO CREATE THIS USE, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

>> I THINK THE CUP REQUIRES THE PARKING TO BE LOOKED AT AS A CASE BY CASE SCENARIO. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YEAH. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, WE ARE REVIEWING THE SITE AS THEY ARE DEVELOPED AND APPLIED.

THEY ARE CASE BY CASE, AND I THINK WE'VE NOTED THAT THE MULTI USE TENANT IS WHAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED IN OUR CODE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S CASE BY CASE, BUT HOW YOU GUYS FEEL THE DEMAND AND HOW THE APPLICANT SUPPLIES INFORMATION ON HOW THE DEMAND OF THE SITE WILL BE USED.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REVIEWING THIS CASE BY CASE.

YOU'RE GIVING US A PLAN WITH ZERO EXTERIOR PARKING DESIGNATED.

IF YOU SHOW EXTERIOR PARKING IN FRONT OF SPOTS, YOU CAN'T GET THE MANEUVERABILITY TO HAPPEN.

>> WE LIKELY CAN SHOW IT.

WE'VE ALSO PROVEN WE CAN GO IN EXCESS OF 2.7 INTERIOR.

WHICH IS STAFF ALREADY HAS SAID, I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'VE GONE AROUND [INAUDIBLE]

>> I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION, IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE ONE.

>> I'LL REINSTATE MY MOTION TO DENY LA24-54 AS APPLIED.

>> THE MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY.

>> SECOND.

>> A SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED?

>> AYE.

>> MOTION CARRIES 4-1.

>> I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU TOMORROW.

THE APPLICATION WILL BE MOVING TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

>> OTHER ITEMS, 7.1 IS APPOINT OF VICE CHAIR.

[7. Other Items]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

I LEFT MY PRINTOUT.

THE ONE PAPER I LEFT ON THE PRINTER.

IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, YOU ARE ASKED TO APPOINT A VICE CHAIR.

AT THE BEGINNING OF 2025, THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPOINT CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS FOR ALL THE COMMISSIONS.

THEY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER BOLLIS AS THE CHAIR FOR 2025.

COMMISSIONER KIRCHNER WAS THE VICE CHAIR.

HE HAS SUBMITTED HIS RESIGNATION AS OF IMMEDIATELY, AND THAT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO, AND SO HE NO LONGER WILL BE NO LONGER COMMISSIONER.

THAT LEAVES AN EMPTY SPOT FOR VICE CHAIR FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2025.

TONIGHT, YOU GUYS ARE ASKED TO DISCUSS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A VICE CHAIR APPOINTMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY INTERESTED IN NOMINATING ANYBODY?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> I WOULD SECOND THAT. IS THAT A FORMAL MOTION THAT YOU HAVE?

>> I MOVED TO COMMISSIONER RESSLER TO BE THE VICE CHAIR.

>> I WOULD SECOND. A DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED?

>> I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN.

>> I WAS WAITING FOR THAT. MOTION CARRIES.

I ALSO JUST LEARNED THAT TONIGHT IS COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON LAST NIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

[03:20:03]

>> I'VE BEEN RUNNING LATE TO THESE MEETINGS JUST BECAUSE MY RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE CHANGED.

I LOVE TO HELP SERVE MY COMMUNITY.

FOR THE NEW COMMISSIONERS COMING IN SOMETIMES IT MIGHT FEEL THANKLESS, BUT IS REALLY APPRECIATED.

A LOT OF THE CITIZENS. YOU'LL HEAR THAT AS YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR MEETINGS AND YOU GO THROUGH, AND YOU HAVE DEBATES THIS.

YOU'LL ACTUALLY HEAR SECOND HAND CITIZENS THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I'M GOING TO MISS THAT PART OF IT, BUT LEAVE IT IN GOOD HANDS, SO THANK YOU.

>> IF I MAY ADD, COMMISSIONER MCCUTCHEON, I AGREE EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

I ALSO JUST APPRECIATE.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, A LOT OF YEARS, AND IT'S A LOT OF WORK, AND IT'S A TOUGH JOB, TRYING TO GET THROUGH THINGS.

I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I APPRECIATE SERVING WITH YOU, SO THANK YOU.

>> CONGRATS AND LEAVE THEM SOME BIG SHOES FOR US TO FILL.

>> YOU GUYS ARE GOOD SHE BETTER WITHOUT ME.

>> WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE OTHER APPLICATION OF THE STORM WATER AND [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE WATERSHED.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. ANYWAY, THANK YOU SIR.

>> THAT'S IT. A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> SECOND.

>> DID YOU MOTION?

>> I'M ASKING FOR IT.

>> A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> READY TO GET HERE?

>> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> MEETING ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.