6.1. LA25-000010, Ashley Mehbod, 2625 North Shore Drive, Lake Setback and Hardcover Variances (Melanie Curtis)

[6.3. LA25-000012, PKA Architecture, 1205 Tonkawa Road, Average Lakeshore Setback, Lake Setback Variances & Plumbing in an Accessory Building. (Melanie Curtis)]

THIS IS PKA ARCHITECTURE, 1205, TONKAWA ROAD, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE, PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, MRS. CURTIS.

>> THANK YOU. LET ME JUST GET THE PLANS UP HERE.

>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND 75-FOOT SETBACK VARIANCES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING ELEVATED ON FILL TO MEET FEMA'S FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

PLUMBING FIXTURES, INCLUDING A TOILET AND SHOWER ARE ALSO PROPOSED IN THE BUILDING.

THEIR REQUEST INCLUDES CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE APPROVALS TO RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING, WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET FROM THE HIGH WATER LEVEL OF THE LAKE AND WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

THEY PROPOSE TO ADD FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN TO ELEVATE THE BUILDING ONE FOOT TO MEET MINIMUM LOW FLOOR REQUIREMENTS AS THE CODE STATES.

THE FILL PROPOSED IN THE FLOODPLAIN DOES RESULT IN A ONE FOOT VERTICAL EXPANSION, WHICH MEANS THE BUILDING AS IT'S BUILT IN KIND ON THAT ADDITIONAL FOOT OF FILL WILL BE ONE FOOT TALLER IN THE SETBACK AREA.

THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A VARIANCE FROM THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATION REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A 15-FOOT WIDE RESCUE BENCH OF FILL AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE ELEVATED BUILDING.

THE GRADE ELEVATION IN THE BUILDING LOCATION WILL NOT ALLOW A 15-FOOT BENCH AT THAT ELEVATION ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, SO A VARIANCE IS NECESSARY.

AS STATED BEFORE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL PLUMBING FIXTURES IN THE NEW REBUILD BUILDING.

THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATION, THE SITE'S UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCES.

THEIR WRITTEN ANALYSIS IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, AND THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION WHEN I'M DONE.

STAFF AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S ASSESSMENT THAT THE PROPERTY'S TOPOGRAPHY AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, AND THE FLOODPLAIN CREATE DIFFICULTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

BECAUSE THE POT HOUSE DOESN'T MEET THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS, THE IN-KIND REBUILD AT AN EXISTING ELEVATION IS NOT AN OPTION FOR THEM.

THE REPLACEMENT BUILDING IS PROPOSED ON THE ONE FOOT OF FILL, WHICH RESULTS IN THAT VERTICAL EXPANSION.

THE VOLUME EXPANSION PROPOSED WOULD BE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO RECONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AND MEET THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

EXCEPT FOR THE ONE FOOT INCREASE, THE BUILDING WOULD BE RECONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT TO THE SAME VOLUME AS THE EXISTING BUILDING.

THE OVERALL HARD COVER WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK WILL DECREASE.

THEIR GRADING PLAN PROVIDES THE REQUIRED RESCUE BENCH ON THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, BUT IT CAN ONLY ACCOMMODATE THAT ELEVATION FOR ABOUT 8.5 FEET ON THE LAKE SIDE FROM THE COVERED PORCH PORTION OF THE BUILDING.

HOWEVER, IT WILL ME OR EXCEED THE 15-FOOT REQUIREMENT AS MEASURED FROM THE ENCLOSED PORTION OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND COVERED PORCH AREAS WILL BE FLIP FLOPPED FROM THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION, YET THE FOOTPRINT, AS WE DETERMINE IT IS STILL THE SAME AND THE VOLUME OF THE BUILDING AS IT'S BUT WILL BE THE SAME.

THE CITY CODE ALLOWS FOR PLUMBING FACILITIES,

[00:30:02]

INCLUDING BATHTUBS OR SHOWERS WITHIN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, SUBJECT TO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH WOULD DICTATE THE USE OF THE BUILDING OR RESTRICT THE USE MORE OR LESS OF THE BUILDING.

THE OWNERS HAVE AGREED TO RECORD A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGAINST THE PROPERTY, LIMITING THE USE OF THIS BUILDING FROM DWELLING PURPOSES, LIKE OVERNIGHT GUESTS OR LIVING PURPOSES, AS WELL AS FOR USE WITH AS A HOME OCCUPATION OR ANY OTHER NON-ANCILLARY RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE CITY DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE DNR, WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT, EMAIL WAS RECEIVED OVER THE WEEKEND AND PRINTED FOR YOUR REVIEW SHOULD BE ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AS APPLIED, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

I HAVE THE EXHIBITS FROM THE PACKET TO PRESENT ON THE SCREEN IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, AND THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY, IS THERE A CURRENT EXISTING STRUCTURE OR WAS THERE ONE?

>> THERE WAS ONE.

>> IT'S NOT CURRENT NOW?

>> CORRECT.

>> DEMOLISHED ALREADY.

>> THEY'VE DOCUMENTED THE BUILDING AND HAVE 12 MONTHS TO REBUILD IT ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE.

>> DO WE KNOW WHEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED?

>> I CAN FIND THE DATE OF THE DEMOLITION BUT WE'RE STILL WITHIN THAT WINDOW.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION AS TO THE DNR LETTER.

THEY'RE REFERRING TO THIS AS A WOAS, WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY BUILDING.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE, OR IS THAT [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE DO HAVE THAT DEFINITION IN OUR CODE, AND WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE LANDINGS, LIFTS, STAIRS, LOCK BOXES, PUMP HOUSES, AND FLAGPOLES, I BELIEVE.

>> THANKS FOR THAT.

>> WE CONSIDER IT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.

>> THEY REFERENCED A CODE THAT SAID, NO, WATER IS SANITARY WITHIN 50 FEET OF BLAKE FROM MINNESOTA STATE.

IS THAT NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS?

>> THAT'S THE DNR, THE SHORELND REGULATION FOR THE DNR.

THE CITY'S PRACTICE HAS BEEN, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF ZONING APPROVAL FOR CONNECTING PLUMBING TO A BUILDING OTHER THAN THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

THAT IS HOW WE'VE VIEWED THIS.

>> THIS ISN'T A GUEST HOUSE BECAUSE OVERNIGHT GUESTS.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BUILDING IS FOR RECREATIONAL USE.

DO WE KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THE PLUMBING? WHY IS IT NECESSARY?

>> WELL, THERE IS QUITE A TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE BUILDING IS LOCATED NO, IT'S A SPOT BETWEEN THE LAKE AND THE HOME FOR SHOWERING OFF AFTER THE LAKE OR USING THE RESTROOM, AND THEN JUST GENERAL ENTERTAINING. THAT'S WHAT.

>> KITCHEN AND BATHROOM, ESSENTIALLY?

>> THERE'S KITCHEN FACILITIES, BUT THE KITCHEN FACILITIES, THE SHOWER OR THE BATHTUB TRIGGERS A COVENANT BECAUSE IT OFFERS THAT HIGHER POTENTIAL FOR DWELLING USE.

THAT'S WHERE OUR THRESHOLD IS FOR THAT PLUMBING COVENANT.

>> YOUR ORIGINAL FUNCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS A STORAGE UNIT, THOUGH, CORRECT?

>> YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE A PAN.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS THE TIME OR NOT.

WHEN WE SAY IN KIND OR SAME FOOTPRINT, DO WE CONSIDER THIS TO BE THAT? I ASK BECAUSE THE BOATHOUSE IS BASICALLY FLIPPING.

TO ME, IT'S NOT THE SAME FOOTPRINT, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT'S WITHIN THE SAME HARD COVER THAT IT'S BEING TAKEN UP, SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER?

>> WE CONSIDER THE OUTER PERIMETER OF THE SUPPORTED ROOF AREA OF THE PORCH, PART OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

IF THERE'S A ROOF OVER IT, IT'S PART OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

IF IT'S A DECK, THEN IT ISN'T.

THAT ROOFED AREA IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

>> WHEN WE MEASURE THE HEIGHT OR, WE MEASURING IT FROM THE AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL.

>> WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS OF MEASURING HEIGHT.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

BUT THERE'S AN EXAMPLE IN THE PACKET ABOUT THE OVERLAY AS FAR AS LIKE THE ACTUAL IN.

BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT DEFINED HEIGHT, WE HAVE A WAY OF MEASURING DEFINED HEIGHT, IS BASED ON GRADE.

>> MY QUESTION IS, THE GRADE LEVEL THAT WAS LISTED ON HERE WAS 931, I BELIEVE.

THE MEASURED A DISTANCE OF 932, IS THAT FROM THE 931, OR IS THAT FROM 931.5, OR 932?

>> WHAT MEASURED DISTANCE, IN THE PLANS?

>> IN THE PERMIT REQUEST THAT THEY SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 9TH.

>> ARE YOU LOOKING AT SOMETHING I PROVIDED OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT SOMETHING I DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW?

>> I WENT TO GO LOOK AT THE BUILDING BECAUSE I GET AN IDEA OF WHAT IT WAS.

[00:35:02]

WE'RE REPLACING THAT. IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN TORN DOWN.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS A PERMIT REQUEST ON 109 THAT HAD FOOTAGE AND PICTURES OF IT ALONG WITH THE BUILDING.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE PICTURES, IT'S GOT DIMENSIONS ON IT AND IT SHOWS 9.2, BUT IT SHOWS 9.2 FROM A LOWER POINT.

>> I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, BUT ARE YOU LOOKING AT A STAFF ANNOTATED PICTURE FROM OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION PLANS FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> I AM LOOKING, I BELIEVE IT'S A STAFF ANNOTATED, THAT WAS BASED ON A PERMIT THAT WAS DENIED PERMIT.

>> OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR MEASURED THE BUILDING.

WHAT HE COULD ACCESS, THE PIECES OF IT, SO NOT ANYTHING BELOW GRADE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FROM THE GRADE AT THE POINT HE MEASURED?

>> AT THE POINT THAT HE MEASURED.

AT THE POINT THAT HE WAS ABLE TO MEASURE IT.

THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENT IN THAT PICTURE FOR GRADE.

>> THEN THE LAST QUESTION, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THE DNR LETTER REFERENCES THAT THE STRUCTURE IS 14 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.

I BELIEVE SOMETHING ELSE SAID 20.

>> I WAS MEASURING IT AS 20.

I THINK THEY'RE MEASURING IT FROM THE SAME EXISTING SURVEY VERSUS THE PROPOSED SURVEY.

THEY HAVE THE SAME PLAN THAT I HAVE.

IF THERE'S A DISCREPANCY IN THE REPORTING OF THE DISTANCE, THAT'S WHAT IT IS, AND IT CAN BE CLARIFIED.

THEY'VE GOT MEASUREMENT FROM THE BOAT HOUSE, THE ENCLOSED PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL, AND THAT'S 35.7 FEET.

WE COULD MEASURE. I'D HAVE TO ADJUST TO MEASURE FROM IT, BUT THE LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH.

IF THE NUMBER IS NOT CORRECT, I CAN CLARIFY THE NUMBER, BUT THE PLANS THEY REVIEWED ARE THE SAME.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS ANDREW EDWINS WITH PKA ARCHITECTURE.

OUR OFFICE ADDRESS IS 2919, JAMES AVENUE, SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.

HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, JOAN CRYSTAL AT 1205 TONGA.

I DID PUT TOGETHER A SMALL PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK THAT SINCE MELANIE DID SUCH A GREAT JOB.

WE CAN BRIEF THROUGH THAT.

THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDING, SO WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE.

AS IT WAS, UP UNTIL THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED, THAT WAS LATE SEPTEMBER OR EARLY OCTOBER.

WE CAN GET THE NEEDED.

THEN THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION WAS JUST ESSENTIALLY A SUMMARY OF WHAT MELANIE HAD ALREADY GOT THE RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSED.

ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> MAYBE ONE. IS THERE WATER CURRENTLY TO THAT BUILDING?

>> THERE IS NONE.

>> NONE. THANK YOU.

>> AS FAR AS THE SPACE IS FLIP FLOPPING, FOR GO BACK TO THAT OTHER ONE ON THERE.

THE PHYSICALLY ENCLOSED STRUCTURE IS JUST MOVING FARTHER FROM THE LAKE AND THE ROOF STRUCTURE IS CLOSER TO THE LAKE BUT THE SAME FONT, REALLY ENCLOSED PATIO STRUCTURE WITH SCREEN PORCH.

>> WHAT'S THAT?

>> THIS IS A PHANTOM SHADE ENCLOSED PATIO?

>> YES.

>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY A FULLY CLOSED PATIO.

>> WHEN THE SCREENS ARE DOWN, IT WOULD BE ENCLOSED.

>> I'M JUST ASKING BECAUSE IF I WAS AT THE ROAD DRIVING BY, I WOULD NOT SEE THROUGH IT BECAUSE THE SCREENS WOULD BE CLOSED.

>> YES. TO YOUR POINT, THE MAIN BULK OF THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY MOVING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BUILDING.

>> IS THERE ANY LIGHTING FIXTURES OR ANYTHING CHANGING THAT WAY, THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED?

>> THERE WILL BE LIGHT FIXTURES UNDERNEATH THAT OVERHANG, THERE WILL BE REQUIRED BY CODE JUST NEAR THE DOORS.

BUT BESIDES THAT, NO, THERE WON'T BE ANY ADDITIONAL LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE BUILDING, BESIDES THOSE REQUIRED BY CODE.

>> ENTIRE STRUCTURE WILL BE IN KIND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ELEVATION CHANGE OF ONE?

>> YES. IN OUR APPLICATION, THIS ONE STEP BACK.

>> THAT ONE?

>> YEAH, THAT ONE. THAT ONE SHOWS, THE PURPLE AREA IS THE AREA THAT WOULD BE CONFORMING, NO MATTER IF WE NEED TO RAISE THE BUILDING 14 OR NOT.

THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN WAS TO MEET THE ORONO ZONING CODE.

THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FROM THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OF RAISING THE BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL FOOT TO MEET THEIR FEMA GUIDELINES, WE WOULD HAVE MET THE IN KIND VOLUME, BUT NOW BECAUSE OF THAT EXTRA FOOT.

THAT GRAY AREA THAT, ALMOST SHOWS UP ON THE SCREEN? IS THE AREA OF THE TOTAL VOLUME OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IS NOW TECHNICALLY NOT CONFORMING OR ACQUIRING VARIANCE.

[00:40:02]

>> DOES THE AREA BECOME UNUSABLE IF IT DOESN'T RECEIVE THE VARIANCE?

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

>> WOULD THEY NOT BE ABLE TO USE IT AS A PATIO IF YOU DID NOT GET THE ONE FEET VARIANCE?

>> THE CEILING HEIGHTS WOULD BE SO LOW, THEY WOULD BE SACRIFICING WAY MORE SPACE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD.

THEY'VE ALREADY HAD TO RAISE FROM 931.4, I BELIEVE, OR 931.2 UP TO 933.5.

WITHOUT THE VARIANCE THEY'RE LOSING UP TO, I THINK I CAN'T DO MY MATH VERY FAST, BUT [OVERLAPPING].

>> THEY GOING FROM 9.2-8.2 FOR THE ROOF HEIGHT.

>> EXACTLY.

>> THAT WOULD BECOME USABLE INSIDE?

>> YES. WELL, IT WOULD BECOME PROHIBITIVELY SHORT, LET'S SAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

SEEING NOBODY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

>> HEY.

I FEEL THAT THE LETTER WE RECEIVED FROM THE DNR, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE PLUMBING, I FIND CONCERNING, GIVEN THEIR DIRECTION TO PROTECT OUR PRIMARY RESOURCE, THE LAKE.

THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME THE MOST PAUSE HERE.

>> I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS I'VE LOOKED AT WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY HAS DONE OVER THE YEARS, THEY'VE BEEN VERY, WHAT'S THE RIGHT WORD? VERY OPPOSED TO VARIANCES FOR HEIGHT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT AREN'T A SEVERE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT AN EIGHT FOOT CEILING IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT'S NINE FOOT CEILING.

I LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED JUST A MONTH AGO WHERE SOMEBODY ELSE WAS ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY, I WOULD REALLY LIKE THIS TO BE TALLER.

BUT IT'S REALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY, THIS WAS A STORAGE UNIT.

WOULD A SEVEN FOOT INTERIOR STORAGE UNIT BE NON FUNCTIONAL? I DON'T THINK SO.

BUT IF YOU'RE CONVERTING IT INTO WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A LIVING SPACE WITH AN INDOOR KITCHEN, AN INDOOR BATHROOM, AN OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE.

I'M GUESSING IT'S GOING TO HAVE OUTDOOR HEATERS IN IT, SO IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A MULTI LONG UNIT, WHICH IS COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO A STORAGE UNIT THAT THIS STARTED.

IT HAS. I CAN'T SEE IT NOT FUNCTIONING WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.

I CAN'T SEE IT BEING AN ISSUE FUNCTIONING WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.

>> AS A STORAGE UNIT.

>> WHAT IF THEY FOR, OTHER THAN STORAGE?

>> I STILL THINK THAT A SHORTER CEILING THAT COULD STILL FUNCTION AS A OUTDOOR SPACE.

I THINK UNLESS YOU WANTED TO HAVE FANS OR SOMETHING IN THERE WHERE YOU NEEDED THAT EXTRA HEIGHT, YOU COULD MAKE IT WORK WITH A ONE FEET SHORTER CEILING.

AGAIN, I GO BACK TO WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM US DOING WITH OTHER INSTANCES WHERE SOMEBODY ASKED FOR A SLIGHTLY HEIGHT FROM WHAT WAS REALLY AN AESTHETIC PIECE VERSUS A FUNCTIONALITY PIECE.

>> I GUESS WHEN I LOOK AT IT, THE DNR LETTER AND THE WORDING IS CONCERNING.

BUT THEN I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE HISTORICS OF WE HAD A STRUCTURE THERE.

IT WAS THERE FOR SOME TIME.

WAS THERE CAUSE FOR CONCERN WHEN THE STRUCTURE WAS EXISTING? EG, DID WE HAVE LETTERS FROM THE DNR? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS NEW?

>> I THINK THAT'S FOR ME, WHY THE PLUMBING ISSUE BEING NEW IS WHAT'S GIVING ME THE MOST PUMPS HERE.

>> WHEN I READ, SORRY.

>> NO, BECAUSE THE PLUMBING IS THE NEW PART, AND THE PLUMBING IN THE LETTER FROM THE DNR APPEARS TO BE, I THINK, WHAT'S CAUSING THE MOST CONCERN.

YOU HAVE A BATHROOM.

IT'S NOT JUST THAT THERE'S A HOSE THERE THAT COULD BE USED TO WASH OFF YOUR FEET OR YOUR GEAR, BUT THERE'S A FULL RESTROOM.

>> THE WAY I READ THE DNR LETTER WAS IT WAS ABOUT THE CHANGE IN USE FROM SOMETHING THAT'S SELDOMLY BEING USED AS A STORAGE UNIT TO SOMETHING THAT NOW HAS WATER, AND IT'S GOING TO BE USED ON A CONSISTENT OR REGULAR BASIS.

>> IF I REMEMBER THE LETTER CORRECTLY, I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN THERE WAS THE PLUMBING.

>> YES.

>> NOT ALLOWED IN A WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY BUILDING.

I LOOK AT THIS ONE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT, WHERE WE DO HAVE THAT TERM IN OUR CODE.

THIS IS BEING LOOKED AT AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, NOT A WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY BUILDING, BECAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE DEFINED IN OUR CODE AS LIKE A LOCK BOX, AND ETC, SMALLER THINGS.

TO ME, THE DIFFERENT USE DOESN'T REALLY BOTHER ME.

[00:45:02]

THEY COULD USE THAT. NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT THE EXISTING USE WAS.

I THINK BRINGING SOMETHING INTO CONFORMITY, I THINK IS USUALLY A PLUS.

THAT'S WHY I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE ELEVATION CHANGE AND RAISING THE ELEVATION SO THAT IT DOESN'T FLOOD OUT.

I LOOK AT THE PLUMBING AS SOMETHING THAT'S A BONUS THAT NOW YOU'RE TAKING A STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR ENTERTAINING AND RECREATING DOWN BY THE LAKE, AND YOU'RE ADDING A FUNCTION TO IT THAT WILL ACTUALLY SERVE A PURPOSE RATHER THAN SOMEBODY NOT DOING THAT AND HAVING WATER DOWN THERE ANYWAYS.

THEN WE KNOW ALL THE RUNOFF FROM THAT WATER IS GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE LAKE VERSUS GOING INTO THE SEWER WHERE IT PROBABLY SHOULD GO.

I DO AGREE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD IN KIND, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE FLIPPING THE SPACES OR NOT.

IF YOU INTERPRET THE CODE AND LOOK AT IF THAT COVERED SPACE IS DEFINED AS A STRUCTURE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY'RE USING THE SPACE INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS AS THEY APPLIED FOR THOSE REASONS.

I THINK IT'S BRINGING IT INTO CONFORMITY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE USE OR THE SITE OR ANYTHING.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GOING TO NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY OR WHAT WAS THERE, TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

>> MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THE PLUMBING IS HOW CLOSE TO THE WATER IT IS, AND THE DNRS ROLE IN PROTECTING AS THEY SAY, THE SCENIC CHARACTER, AQUATIC, AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION HABITAT, AND REDUCING THE FLOW OF NUTRIENTS INTO SURFACE WATERS.

>> THAT'S MY BIGGEST CHALLENGE FROM A ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT, PUTTING A FULL USE BATHROOM IN AN AREA THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

I FIND CONCERNING.

>> I WOULD CONCUR. I THINK THE DNR REGULATIONS THERE ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE SHORELINE.

I THINK A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION ARE POSITIVE.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT TO THE VIEW SHORE FOR EVERYONE LIVING THERE.

BUT I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT THE DNR LETTER HIGHLIGHTS GIVES ME PAUSE WITH THIS APPLICATION.

>> I'M STUCK ON THIS ONE.

I GUESS PROBABLY THE PLUMBING IS WHAT HAS ME HUNG UP THE MOST JUST BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ADDING.

I THINK RAISING THE BUILDING UP TO BECOME UP TO CODE IS WORTHY.

THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING TO MAKE THAT APPEASABLE FOR EVERYONE.

I ALSO JUST STRUGGLE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF WHY PLUMBING NEEDS TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PART.

I GET IT'S A LITTLE TREK UP THE HILL, BUT THERE'S A REASON WHY OLD PEOPLE BUY VILLAS.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO GET UP THE STAIRS DAY IN AND DAY OUT.

IF THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE HOUSE WAS THAT, THEN MAYBE IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE OR ISN'T FOR THIS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO ARTICULATE MY THOUGHTS ON IT.

AGAIN, I THINK OVERALL, IT'S NOT BAD, BUT I DO HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING ON BOARD WITH THE PLUMBING REQUEST, THAT VARIANCE.

>> ON THAT POINT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE PLUMBING ISN'T A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

THAT'S JUST A APPLICATION FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING TO ADD PLUMBING, CORRECT?

>> THE CONVERSATION THAT STAFF HAD WITH THE DNR INITIALLY ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS AND BUILDING, JUST GETTING SOME QUESTIONS, THEY REVIEWED THE BUILDING.

WITH THEIR ANALYSIS, THEY'RE CALLING THAT PLUMBING AN EXPANSION OF THE USE.

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF JUST BEING CONSISTENT, STAFF ADDED THAT EXPANDED USE TO THIS BUILDING.

IT'S A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING.

AGAIN, THE PRACTICE UP UNTIL THIS POINT HAS BEEN PLUMBING BY PERMIT AND COVENANT.

IT WASN'T A PART OF THE ANALYSIS, BUT LAURA CAN.

>> THE PLUMBING IS DRIVING THE ELEVATION CHANGE.

>> NO.

>> NO, THE FLOODPLAIN IS DRIVING THE ELEVATION CHANGE.

THE FILLING IN THE FLOODPLAIN IS DRIVING THE ELEVATION CHANGE.

[00:50:03]

WE CALLED OUT THE PLUMBING AND THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AS BASED ON A CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH THE DNR AND THEIR QUESTIONS AND WANTING TO BRING CLARITY TO THE APPLICATION.

JUST TO GIVE A NOTE, THIS APPLICATION, IF THEY WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING WITH THIS BUILDING, IF IT WAS JUST AS IT TODAY AND THEY CAME THROUGH WITH A BUILDING PERMIT TO ADD PLUMBING, IT WOULD BE PROCESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ISN'T NECESSARILY A TRIGGER FOR A VARIANCE.

BUT WE WANTED TO BRING THAT TRANSPARENCY INTO THIS APPLICATION THAT THEY ARE ADDING PLUMBING WHEN THERE ISN'T PLUMBING TODAY IN THAT BUILDING.

THE VARIANCES THAT ARE REALLY TRIGGERED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FILL TO ELEVATE THE BUILDING OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS REQUIRING THAT VERTICAL EXPANSION OF THE ROOF BY ONE FOOT.

BECAUSE OF THOSE VARIANCES, THEN WE'VE STARTED CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DNR ABOUT THEIR INTERPRETATION OF FLOODPLAIN AND HOW TO APPLY IT WITH THE BENCHING REQUIRED WITH THIS BUILDING, AND THEN THEIR QUESTIONS CAME IN REGARDING THE PLUMBING.

>> THANKS FOR THAT CLARITY. I THOUGHT THE PLUMBING WAS DRIVING THE NEED TO MOVE IT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE IS CAUSING THE NEED TO MOVE IT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, AND WHAT IS THAT?

>> BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS BEING COMPLETELY REBUILT, IT'S A COMPLETE TEAR DOWN.

THE SCOPE OF NOT BRINGING THE BUILDING UP TO CODE IS VERY TIGHT.

THE VALUATION NEEDS TO BE 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES VALUE AND IT'S A CINDER BLOCK BUILDING.

ALMOST ANY STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT TO THE BUILDING IS GOING TO VALUE IT OUT OF BEING ABLE TO STAY WHERE IT IS.

A NEW BUILDING NEEDS TO MEET THAT LOW FLOOR.

>> IF I MAY, AND LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION UP HERE, ARE YOU GUYS UPSET ABOUT RAISING THE ELEVATION OR IS IT MORE THE PLUMBING ISSUE?

>> FOR ME, IT WAS THE PLUMBING, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING WITH STAFF.

IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS WITHOUT THE PLUMBING AND THEY BUILD THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THEN ADDING PLUMBING WOULD JUST BE PERMITTED AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE GOING IN THE FUTURE?

>> YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE?

>> [LAUGHTER] TYPICALLY, WE ALLOW PLUMBING IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.

ONCE THEY HIT A CERTAIN THRESHOLD WITH NUMBER OF FIXTURES AND FAUCETS, THEN IT REQUIRES A COVENANT TO BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY THAT IT CANNOT BE USED FOR DWELLING AND IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SECONDARY HOME KIND OF THING.

IT MUST STAY ACCESSORY TO THE PRINCIPAL.

BUT THAT'S [OVERLAPPING] ADMINISTRATIVELY.

>> THERE'S NO CODE REQUIREMENTS TO BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET AWAY FROM THE LAKE OR WETLANDS OR ANYTHING FOR PLUMBING TO BE ALLOWED?

>> NO, WE REGULATE PLUMBING AS PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, WHEREVER THAT ACCESSORY BUILDING.

>> THE DNR'S LETTER REFERENCED A VERY SPECIFIC MINNESOTA STATE CODE.

DOES THAT NOT APPLY TO THE CITY BECAUSE IT'S A STATE CODE?

>> THEY'RE APPLYING THAT TO A WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

WHICH WE DO NOT CLASSIFY THIS AS A WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

>> WHY DOES THE DNR THINK THAT OUR CODE SAYS IT'S A WATER BECAUSE THEY REFERENCED PART OF OUR CODE?

>> THEY'RE APPLYING THEIR COMMON USAGE OF THAT, AND WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR ATTORNEY, AND THE WAY THE COMMENTS FROM THE DNR WERE WRITTEN, THEY ALSO APPEAR TO BE WRITTEN, NOT FOR ANALYSIS FOR A REPLACEMENT BUILDING, BUT FOR A BRAND NEW BUILDING, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT APPLIES TO THIS SITUATION.

>> A BIG PART OF WHAT THEIR COMPLAINT WAS IS THEIR VIEW WAS THAT BUILDING WAS DOUBLING IN FOOTPRINT.

IF I REMEMBER, THEY REFERENCED IT WAS GOING TO 720 FROM A 300 AND SOME.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.

>> I THINK THEY'RE INTERPRETING THE CHARGE OF THE INTERNALS, BUT OUR CODE LOOKS AT IT DIFFERENTLY.

>> GETTING BACK TO WHAT'S REALLY HERE, IT'S BEING RAISED BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN FILL REQUIRES A ONE TO ONE MITIGATION, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> IS THERE A ONE TO ONE MITIGATION PLAN PRESENTED WITH THIS? > YES. THAT PERMIT IS BEING HANDLED BY THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.

>> THANKS FOR CLARIFYING.

WITH THAT SAID, I WONDER IF THERE WAS A RESPONSE TO THE DNR IF THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR MESSAGING BASED ON WHAT WE BELIEVE THE STRUCTURE'S USE WOULD BE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ILL INTENT IN USING IT FOR ANY OTHER FORM THAN WHAT'S PRESENTED.

I THINK WITH THAT CLARIFICATION,

[00:55:01]

I'D PROBABLY BE IN FAVOR OF THIS WITH THE PLUMBING, BUT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS A REPLY TO THE DNR, IF THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR OR AGAINST.

>> I THINK AS IT SITS FOR TONIGHT, THIS IS THE DNR'S COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION.

IT WILL GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL WHEN YOU MOVE IT FORWARD.

THIS WON'T BE THE LAST CONVERSATION THAT WE AS CITY HAVE WITH THE DNR ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

NOW THAT THEY'VE RAISED THIS TOPIC, WE NEED TO GET CLARITY FROM BOTH SIDES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO MOVING FORWARD.

>> IN THEIR LETTER, THE DNR DEFINES A WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE BOAT HOUSES, GAZEBOS, FISH HOUSES, PUMP HOUSE.

IT'S NOT JUST A PUMP HOUSE OR A FLAGPOLE.

THEY'RE SAYING THEIR DEFINITION INCLUDES THIS TYPE OF BUILDING BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF ITS USE TO A SURFACE WATER FEATURE.

THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DEFINING A WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE APPEARS TO ME TO APPLY TO THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS NEAR THE WATER TO BE USED FOR WATER-RELATED ACTIVITIES.

I'D BE INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT COMMISSIONERS.

>> DEFINITELY WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO AND LOOKING AT THIS IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD APPLY.

OUR CODE DOES NOT HAVE THAT, THOUGH.

OUR CODE SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AS SMALL.

>> BUT DOES NOT STATE STATUTE STILL APPLY?

>> I GUESS THAT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR ME.

THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEYS.

THERE'S MORE OF A GUIDANCE BECAUSE OF THE DNR.

>> OUR SHORELAND REGULATIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE DNR.

THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE STATE.

THE DEFINITION THAT YOU QUOTED THAT WAS IN THE LETTER, THAT IS THE CITY'S DEFINITION FOR WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

FURTHER IN THE CODE, IT LISTS WHAT IS A WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE STAIRS, LIFTS, LANDINGS.

>> LOCK BOX.

>> LOCK BOX AND PUMP HOUSE.

>> WE HAVE A MUCH MORE RESTRICTED SCOPE OF WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH ONLY LISTING THOSE CERTAIN ITEMS. THE DNR'S GUIDANCE OR BEST PRACTICE FOR SHORELAND REGULATIONS HAS A MUCH BROADER SCOPE WHERE THEY DO ALLOW SOME BUILDINGS, BUT OURS IS MUCH.

WE'VE TAKEN IT UPON OURSELVES TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN WHAT WE ALLOW AS WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY ONLY ALLOWING THOSE LOCK BOXES AND FLAGPOLES.

THEY ARE USING THEIR GUIDANCE, THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE AND GUIDANCE AS THEY'RE REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION.

BUT WE DON'T SPEAK TO WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN OUR CITY CODE.

WE'VE ALWAYS MANAGED THESE AS ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.

>> BUT WE LIVE IN THE CITY OF ORONO IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THIS BUILDING WITH THE DNR.

OUR ATTORNEY HAS ADVISED US AS WE'VE PROCEEDED WITH THIS AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BECAUSE OUR CODE DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF BUILDING AS AN ALLOWED WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

WE DON'T ALLOW NEW BUILDINGS TO BE BUILT IN THIS AREA.

THE STATUTE ALSO PROTECTS THIS STRUCTURE, THIS VALUE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS IN THIS FOOTPRINT AND VOLUME.

>> AS OF TODAY RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING, AND THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS A COMMISSION AND HOW OUR CODE APPLIES TO THAT.

>> THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTING PLUMBING AS A VARIANCE.

WHAT I'M HEARING IS THEY DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF I MISSPOKE EARLIER, BUT I THINK WHAT I HEARD FROM YOU GUYS IS THAT THERE IS NOT A VARIANCE FOR ANY PLUMBING ON THE SITE.

YOU GUYS JUST NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO INSTALL PLUMBING FIXTURES IN THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPANSION OF USE, BUT THERE IS NO VARIANCE RELATED TO THE PLUMBING, IS THAT TRUE?

>> THAT'S HOW WE'RE REVIEWING IT.

>> THANK YOU. I MAY BE MISSPOKE EARLIER BECAUSE FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY THIS BASED ON US NOT LIKING OR WANTING PLUMBING DOWN THERE.

THAT WOULD BE THE DNR HAVING TO DO THAT.

YOU GUYS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S HOW I'M UNDERSTANDING AS I REREAD THE APPLICATION HERE.

>> I THINK THAT'S WHY I READ IT TOO UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING IN OUR CODE ABOUT SEWER BEING BELOW FLOODPLAIN,

[01:00:01]

WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS.

I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE FOR US TO ADDRESS IS THE HEIGHT.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THEN THAT THE AGENDA ITEM, WHICH SAYS ALLOW PLUMBING TO BE INSTALLED IN THE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING IS ADDING TO THE CONFUSION HERE.

>> I THINK WITH THAT SAID, AS MUCH AS I SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT.

I THINK PART OF MY CONCERN IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN OTHER BUILDINGS RECENTLY THAT HE HEIGHT REQUESTS THAT WERE DENIED.

>> I KNOW WHICH ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND I THINK THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE ELEVATION CHANGE.

THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE ISSUE WITH BEING IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

>> [OVERLAPPING] APOLOGIES. PART OF THEIR CONVERSATION WAS THEY WERE RAISING IT BECAUSE THERE WAS WATER COMING IN BECAUSE IT WAS RECESSED INTO THIS.

>> I THINK THE GROUND LEVEL WAS GOING TO BE THE SAME.

I THINK THEY WERE DOING SOME FOOTING CHANGES.

>> THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME FOOTING CHANGES, BUT THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY.

>> IT DOES SEEM SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS DIFFERENT BECAUSE WHAT THEY JUST WANTED A TALLER CEILING IN A STRUCTURE, AND THAT WAS CREATING A HIGHER STRUCTURE, IT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT BEING BELOW THE FLOODPLAIN.

THIS ONE, TRIGGERING THAT RULE THAT IF IT'S BEING REBUILT, IT HAS TO BE BUILT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD THING OVERALL.

I THINK IT'LL BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO DO IT CORRECTLY.

>> CAN WE LOOK AT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION TOGETHER?

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

>> THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.

>> THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES? THE CRITERIA?

>> DO YOU MEAN THIS?

>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

JUST LOOKING DOWN AT THE INCLUSION OF NUMBER 3.

>> PAGE 4.

>> WHICH EXHIBIT ARE WE ON?

>> THIS IS EXHIBIT A.

>> EXHIBIT B.

>> B. I'M SORRY.

>> JUST THAT IT SHOWS AS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED CLARITY ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING [OVERLAPPING] APPLIED FOR.

>> I AGREE IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE OF THE AD OF PLUMBING AND WHETHER THAT'S CONSIDERED A VARIANCE APPLICATION OR NOT.

I THINK IT'S A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.

IF THEY WEREN'T PROPOSING TO PUT A SHOWER IN, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE SEEING IT.

BECAUSE THERE'S A TRIGGER FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PLUMBING.

>> I THINK THE CONFUSION COMES BECAUSE IN N3, IT SAYS, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOW REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DNR DEEMS THE INCLUSION OF PLUMBING.

>> RIGHT. AGAIN, WHAT YOU'RE READING IS THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL AND THEIR BACKGROUND AND DEFENSE OF THEIR APPLICATION.

AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE DNR VERBALLY WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEN THE DATE OF THE COMMENTS WERE THURSDAY, I THINK, THEY JUST SUBMITTED THEM TO US TO GET THE FORMAL COMMENTS TO REACT TO.

WHAT WE PREPARED THE APPLICANT FOR WAS THIS DISCUSSION AND THE FACT THAT THIS PLUMBING WAS VIEWED BY THE DNR AS AN EXPANSION.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THESE DETAILS THAT THE DNR IS PROVIDED CURRENTLY, AS FAR AS, WHAT THEY'RE REFERENCING AND WHAT THEIR REASONING WAS.

THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, THEY CAN ANSWER THIS TOO, BUT I THINK THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WAS THEIR REASONING FOR INCLUDING IT IN THE PROJECT AND JUST MAKING THEIR APPLICATION COMPLETE.

MAKING SURE THAT THEY'VE COVERED EVERYTHING.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, IF ANY MOTIONS GO FORWARD, THAT THEY ARE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE BASED ON WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO SO THAT WE ARE NOT COMMENTING ON PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT WE DON'T HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER OR THAT SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE.

NOT THAT THEY CAN'T BE DONE, BUT THAT THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

[01:05:03]

WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS THE VARIANCE BEING ASKED FOR AND WHAT VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED.

>> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR POINT.

ONE THING I DO WANT TO MENTION, SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE COMING CLOSER TO THE END, IS JUST THE IDEA OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE BENCH THAT THEY HAVE DEFINED IN OUR CITY CODE.

I THINK THE 15 FOOT BENCH, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS JUST ENGINEERING TO MAKE SURE THE BOAT HOUSE ITSELF HAS A GOOD FOUNDATION.

THE 15 FOOT IS NOT BEING MET DUE TO THE CURRENT EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE HISTORICAL EXISTING STRUCTURE AND WHERE THE RIP RAP IS.

DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR JUST WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.

INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT VARIANCE, CAN'T WE BE STATING THAT WE DON'T WANT THAT VARIANCE, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THE EXTERIOR FOOTPRINT OF THAT SCREENED IN PORCH TO MEET CODE?

>> I BELIEVE WE COULD.

>> THE PURPOSE FOR THAT 15 FOOT BENCH IS JUST THAT IT'S A RESCUE BENCH SO YOU CAN LEAVE THE BUILDING IN THE SITUATION OF FLOODING.

WHEN THEY'RE SHOWING A DEFICIENCY ON THE PRIMARY LAKE SIDE AND THEY'RE MEETING IT ELSEWHERE, STAFF DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH CONCERN AND IT'S NOT A PRINCIPAL DWELLING RESIDENTS BUILDING.

BUT YEAH, YOU CAN CERTAINLY USE WHATEVER ANALYSIS YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

>> NO, I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT IS WORTHY OF OTHER THOUGHT OR NOT.

>> IT'S INTERESTING YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

WE'VE HAD ONES IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE APPROVED A VARIANCE TO THAT 15 FOOT BENCH. I KNOW THAT.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE PROXIMITY OF THE LAKE OR ANYTHING, BUT EACH LOT HAS ITS OWN NUANCES WHERE THERE'S SIMILAR TO OTHER VARIANCES.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT IF IT'S CLOSER THAN 15 FEET OF THE LAKE.

YOU WANT TO PUSH THAT AND HAVE [OVERLAPPING] SIDE SETBACKS.

WE'VE APPROVED THAT VARIANCE IN OTHER PLACES IN ORONO, SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T APPROVE IT HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH IT NOT BEING A PRIMARY DWELLING AS WELL.

BUT IT'S A GREAT POINT TO BRING UP.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE SCOPE OF THIS DECISION REALLY JUST CONCERNS HEIGHT, IT CERTAINLY ADDRESSES WHAT I RAISED EARLIER AND I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATION.

>> THAT'S FAIR.

THERE'S BEEN SOME PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT SINCE THEY'RE HERE OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION UP HERE BEFORE WE FOR A MOTION.

ALL THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL DO A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND.

>> CAN I ASK THAT WE BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, PLEASE?

>> YEAH. IS THAT MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.

>> TO APPROVE WHAT VARIANCE?

>> THE VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT.

THE VARIANCE FOR THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.

THOSE WERE THE TWO, CORRECT? OR THE FLOODPLAIN.

>> YEAH, THE FLOODPLAIN BENCH?

>> THE HEIGHT.

>> THOSE ARE THE TWO VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER, CORRECT?

>> PLUMBING IS NOT BEING DISCUSSED IN THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE VARIANCE.

>> PLUMBING ISN'T A VARIANCE, NO.

>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

>> THANKS. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

APPROVE AS APPLIED BY COMMISSIONER WELTZIN.

I HEARD TWO SECONDS.

WHO WANTS IT? WE'LL GIVE IT TO TIFT.

[LAUGHTER] ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NON, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

BRINGS US TO LA 25-13 ANDERSON ENGINEERING,

[6.4. LA25-000013, Anderson Engineering, 200 Woodhill Road, Interim Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]

200 WOOD HILL ROAD, INTERIM USE PERMIT. MR. CARNEY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, PLANNING COMMISSION. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.

AGAIN, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, I HAVE AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR 200 WOODHILL ROAD IN ORONO.

THIS IS A PECULIAR PROPERTY IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S SPLIT WITH WAYZATA AND IS THE PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB.

WE HAVE ABOUT 120 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR THIS GOLF COURSE WITHIN THE CITY OF ORONO AND THE OTHER PORTION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF WAYZATA.

[01:10:06]

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROPOSED A LARGER STORM SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE GOLF COURSE.

INCLUDES A VARIETY OF DETAILS.

I'LL COVER ON A LATER SLIDE.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT'S OVER FIVE ACRES IN SIZE, ANY LAND DISTURBANCE IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET WILL TRIGGER AN INTERIM USE PERMIT, AS WE HAVE HERE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY ARE PROPOSING CLOSE TO FIVE ACRES OF LAND DISTURBANCE AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

I WILL TOUCH ON THAT.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RR-1B AND GOLF COURSES ARE ALLOWED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH THEY HAVE.

IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL DETAILS, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT I HAVE HERE.

ABOUT A MONTH AGO, THE LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT.

WE DIRECTED THEM AFTER FINDING OUT THE QUANTITIES OF LAND DISTURBANCE WITHIN OUR CITY TO GO THROUGH THIS INTERIM USE PERMIT PROCESS.

IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND IS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS WITH MINNEHAHA CREEK.

MY ATTEMPTS TO GET A HOLD OF THEM TODAY WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL, SO I DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE ON THEIR END.

IF THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT DURING THEIR TESTIMONY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

OTHERWISE, I DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THAT OTHER THAN THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A CONCURRENT REVIEW PROCESS.

IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CITY ENGINEER REVIEWED, HE HAD THE FULL PLAN SET FOR BOTH CITIES AND APPROVED THAT PROJECT WITH A GENERAL LIST OF CONDITIONS HE WOULD HAVE FOR LAND DISTURBANCE PROJECTS, SUCH AS PUTTING IN SOIL FENCING ALONG PROJECT AREAS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT ARE GENERALLY REWORKING THE GREENS AND BUNKERS, A NEW BITUMINOUS CART PATH AND NEW T BOXES AND THE FILLING OF TWO MAN-MADE PONDS THAT WERE NOT FOR NATURAL DRAINAGE PURPOSES, BUT WERE INSTEAD GETTING IN THE WAY OF NATURAL DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY, AS IT WAS DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR INTERIM USE PERMITS, WE WANT TO GET AN IDEA OF WHEN THE WORK IS OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS WILL GO APPROXIMATELY UNTIL MAY 1ST OF NEXT YEAR.

I DO BELIEVE THAT DATE IS PUT OUT A LITTLE BIT IN CASE OF SOME SEASONAL DELAYS OR THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, MAY 1ST WILL BE THE CUTOFF DAY, WITH WORK ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED BETWEEN 7:00 AM AND 6:00 PM, WITH A BALLPARK OF ABOUT 20 VEHICLES GOING TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY EACH DAY FOR THIS WORK.

JUST COVER SOME OF THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE HERE.

IN TERMS OF THE DEMO PLAN, WE HAVE THE WAYZATA PORTION THAT'S CARVED OFF HERE AND JUST THE ORONO PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S SPECIFIC TO OUR CITY.

SOME OF THE REWORKING OF THE CART PASS, SOME OF THE MOVING OF THE PIPING BETWEEN THE PONDS AND GENERALLY WHERE THE STORM SEWER IS LOCATED THAT WILL BE REPLACED.

COVERING THE IMPROVEMENTS, I DO HAVE THE FILL CALCULATIONS THAT THERE WILL BE ABOUT 2,700 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL BROUGHT IN TO AID IN THIS PROJECT.

I CAN ZOOM IN ON ANY PARTICULAR AREAS OF THE PLAN AS NEEDED DURING YOUR QUESTIONS.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE WORK IS RELATIVELY ALL OVER THE PROPERTY WITH THEIR STORM SEWER ON SITE.

TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I WALK THROUGH HERE.

THE INTERIM USE PERMIT IS FOR GRADING ACTIVITIES REQUIRED FOR THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE THAT THEY'RE DOING ON PROPERTY GREATER THAN FIVE ACRES.

WE DID RECEIVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH I DISTRIBUTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU ALL WERE COPIED ON THIS MORNING, GENERALLY ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE PROJECT SPECIFIC TO VEHICLES ENTERING THE PROPERTY AS THERE IS A SECONDARY ENTRANCE THAT, I BELIEVE MAY IMPACT SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS THERE.

GETTING SOME OF THAT CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANTS WOULD BE HELPFUL.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS I HAVE LISTED ON THE SLIDE AS WELL, THAT THE INTERIM USE PERMIT WOULD GO TO MAY 1ST OF NEXT YEAR, THAT THE GRADING WORK ON THE PROPERTY WILL COMPLY WITH THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND BEGUN ITS REVIEW WITH THE CITY AND ADDITIONALLY, THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD GET THE APPROVAL OF THAT GRADING PERMIT, AS WELL AS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT PRIOR TO ANY WORK GETTING STARTED ON THE PROPERTY.

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

>> MAYBE I MISSED IT IN THE APPLICATION, BUT DID THEY HAVE A HALL ROUTE FOR THE INCOMING FILL?

>> I DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE ROUTE, NO.

[01:15:01]

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT, IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> KYLE STEBBING, ANDERSON ENGINEERING, 13605 FIRST AVENUE NORTH, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA.

I GUESS I'LL JUST TOUCH BASE ON THE FILL.

WE'RE NOT BRINGING IN ANY FILL.

WE'RE ACTUALLY EXCAVATING OUT A POND THAT'S ON THE [INAUDIBLE] SIDE TO PROVIDE MORE STORAGE AND THAT FILL WILL BE USED TO FILL IN THESE TWO MAN-MADE PONDS THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN.

>> DID I MISS THE 2,700 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL COMING IN?

>> IT'S JUST WHAT'S CALCULATED ENTERING THE CITY OF ORONO.

>> IT'S COMING FROM THE WAYZATA SIDE, [LAUGHTER] ON SITE, THOUGH.

>> GOT IT. THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO APOLOGIES FOR MY LACK OF VERIFICATION.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

>> YOU DID REFERENCE AROUND 20 CONTRACTOR VEHICLES COMING DAILY.

WHICH ENTRANCE WOULD BE USED?

>> CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?

>> YEAH, SURE. [INAUDIBLE] 200 WOODHILL ROAD.

THE ENTRANCE WOULD BE USED FOR THOSE CONTRACTOR VEHICLES OFF COUNTY ROAD 15, THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE [INAUDIBLE]

>> IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THROUGH THAT ENTRANCE AND WE'D WANT TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON USING THE COUNTY ROAD 15 ENTRANCE EXCLUSIVELY, THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

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

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I SEE NO ISSUE WITH THIS.

I LIKE THAT NEIGHBORS HAVE WRITTEN IN, AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE ADDRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND WHERE THAT CAN BE COMING IN.

I BELIEVE I'LL ASK STAFF THIS.

DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT A CONDITION ON AN IUP THAT WOULD ELIMINATE ANY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC COMING IN THAT OTHER.

>> THAT'D BE CORRECT.

>> THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND I THINK IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE STORM WATER AND EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE SITE, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.

>> I AGREE. I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC WILL EXCLUSIVELY USE THE COUNTY ROAD 15 ENTRANCE. THANK YOU.

>> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL.

APPROVE AS APPLIED WITH ONE CONDITION ON THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BEING THE 15 ENTRANCE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELTZIN.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

THAT'S GOING TO BRING US TO NEW BUSINESS.

[7.1. LA25-000014, Revisions to City Code regarding the Keeping of Animals in Residential Districts (Matthew Karney)]

LA 25-14, REVISIONS TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. MR. CARNEY.

>> CHRIS BOLLIS, AND PLANNING COMMISSION, I WAS INSTRUCTED BY YOU ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO WITH THE DISCUSSION REGARDING LA24-000066 430 EAST LONG LAKE ROAD, WHERE WE CONTEMPLATED PIGEONS AS FARM ANIMALS.

THIS GENERATED A LENGTHY AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION, BUT ALSO BROUGHT TO LIGHT A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR ANIMAL REGULATIONS OVERALL.

I THINK THERE WAS A NUMBER OF AREAS OF CONCERN THAT STAFF HAD WHEN PROCESSING THAT APPLICATION, BUT ALSO WHEN DISCUSSING IT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE REGULATIONS THAT BEST FIT WHAT WE WANT TO DO AS A CITY.

WHAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN A MEMO IS A WIDE VARIETY OF INFORMATION.

[01:20:01]

REALLY, MY TASK, SINCE THOSE APPLICANTS HAD COME IN IN OCTOBER WHEN I STARTED WITH THE CITY AS WELL, WAS TO FIND A PATH FORWARD AND GET AN IDEA OF ALSO WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING TO ADDRESS SOME MORE PECULIAR SITUATIONS.

PIGEONS WERE A FIRST FOR THE CITY OF ORONO, BUT AS IN SOME CITY CODES THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN MY RESEARCH, PIGEONS ARE A FAMILIAR FACE.

ULTIMATELY, JUST OUTLINING SOME OF THE ITEMS I JUST TOUCHED ON WITH YOU.

IT'S REALLY WITH TWO SECTIONS THAT WE HAVE CHAPTER 62 ANIMALS, WHICH IS IN PUBLIC PROTECTIONS, AND THEN THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR LAND USE SECTION OF THE CITY CODE.

ULTIMATELY, I LOOKED AT SEVERAL DOZEN CITIES, I'LL SAY 20 OF WHICH THAT I READ IN SOME DETAIL AT ONE POINT IN TIME, AND ULTIMATELY DECIDED ON FIVE THAT I THOUGHT WERE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUNCH.

I THINK THAT WE GOT A WIDE VARIETY OF CITY SIZES AND DENSITIES WHERE REALLY, I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A BLUEPRINT OF THIS IS WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.

THIS IS WHAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY CONTEMPLATE, AND THIS IS WHAT SHOULD POTENTIALLY SERVE AS A BASIS FOR ANY FUTURE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO OUR ZONING CODE.

THE FIVE QUESTIONS THAT I PROVIDED IN MY STAFF MEMO ARE ULTIMATELY WHERE I WOULD LIKE THIS DISCUSSION TO GO, I THINK IN TERMS OF GETTING HIGH LEVEL FEEDBACK FOR ANY TEXT AMENDMENTS WE MAY CONSIDER FOR THIS IN THE FUTURE.

WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE QUESTIONS AND PUT THE BALL IN YOUR COURT FOR HOW YOU'RE FEELING ABOUT A NUMBER OF THOSE ITEMS. I DO HAVE ALL MY REFERENCES HERE AND CAN VOLLEY BACK AS NEEDED.

THIS BEING MY FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM HERE WITH THE CITY AS WELL, I'M GETTING MY FEET WET IS.

>> MOST OF US. [LAUGHTER]

>> LET THIS BE A GREAT EXPERIENCE TOGETHER.

REALLY TO LEAD BEFORE THE QUESTIONS, I WANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH OUR DEFINITIONS REGARDING ANIMALS.

YOU CAN SEE PRETTY PLAINLY ON THE FIRST PAGE THAT WE TEND TO DEFINE FARM ANIMALS JUST EVER SO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.

WHEN WE HAVE APPLICATIONS, ESPECIALLY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS COMING THROUGH WHERE, THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC REQUEST AT, WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT WE'RE APPLYING, ESPECIALLY WHEN A NUMBER OF OUR APPROVAL CRITERIA ARE PULLING YOU TO A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE CITY CODE AND SAYING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING.

I WON'T SAY COMPLETELY, BUT ENOUGH WHERE OUR ANALYSIS AND OUR FINDINGS MAY BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON, HOW WE LOOK AT IT.

ULTIMATELY, I WANT TO LEAD YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT COMES TO MY MIND HAVING BEEN IN SCHOOL RECENTLY AND REVIEWED CASE LAW REGARDING ACCESSORY USES IS THE IDEA BETWEEN PERMISSIBILITY AND PROHIBITIVE REGULATIONS.

ULTIMATELY, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONTENTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESSORY USES WHEN YOU THINK OF, NAMING A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS THAT MAY BE ALLOWED, BUT NATURALLY THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE EXCLUDED.

THERE IS THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SPECTRUM WHERE YOU SPECIFICALLY SAY WHAT IS EXCLUDED, AND IT'S PRESUMED THAT WHATEVER IS NOT MENTIONED AS PROHIBITED WOULD BE ALLOWED.

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A PERMISSIVE REGULATION.

NOW, THIS IS WHAT WE ALLOW.

WE DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE.

WHEN IT COMES TO CRAFTING REGULATIONS, AND I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO YOU ALL.

WHERE WOULD WE LIKE TO GO WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS? IS THERE A CHARGE TO CONSIDER THIS IS WHAT WE DON'T WANT, LISTING THEM OUT, OR IS IT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD GENERALLY ACCEPT? I'VE OUTLINED HOW WE SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE TWO PARTICULAR TERMS, AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU MAY THINK ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD START WITH THESE TERMS OF REGULATIONS, KNOWING THAT WE'RE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

>> THE WAY THE CODE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, YOU WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S PERMISSIVE OR PROHIBITIVE?

>> I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S PERMISSIVE.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY I THINK A PERMISSIVE STRUCTURE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

THE CODE WOULD HAVE TO BE PRETTY EXPANSIVE IN TERT DEGREE OF LISTING ALL OF THE ANIMALS THAT I THINK WE WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE SEEING IN ORONO.

IF THERE ARE ANIMALS THAT WE SEE OURSELVES GRANTING A LOT OF VARIANCES AROUND LIKE PIGEONS.

MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WORTH REVISITING AS SOMETHING NOT DEFINED AS A FARM ANIMAL, BUT AN ANIMAL, SO FOLKS DON'T HAVE TO COME HERE EVERY TIME TO START A PIGEON COOP.

BUT I THINK THE PERMISSIVE STRUCTURE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

[01:25:03]

>> I WOULD AGREE. THE ONE THAT I PROVIDED THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF A CONTRARY VIEW WOULD BE THE CITY OF WILMER, WHICH WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE THEY JUST FLAT OUT LIST A LEVEL OF EXCLUSIONS WHERE, THESE ANIMALS ARE PERMITTED UNLESS IT MEETS THE PERMITTED EXCLUSIONS.

I TEND TO THINK THAT THAT STRUCTURE HAS ITS BENEFITS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE GOING FROM ONE SECTION OF THE CODE TO ANOTHER.

YOU'RE LISTING OUT ANOTHER, SET OF STANDARDS THAT NEEDS TO BE ADHERED TO FOR VERY PARTICULAR THINGS.

THERE IS SOME CONFLICT THERE, I DO FEEL LIKE, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TIFT'S THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER.

IT'S A LOT EASIER TO JUST LIST, THIS IS WHAT WE ALLOW.

IF IT'S NOT COVERED, THEN, WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT WITHIN THE CITY.

>> THEY COME HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT?

>> I THINK THAT'S SORRY, COMMISSIONER BOLLIS.

>> NO, I THINK I RESPECT THAT POINT OF VIEW.

I FEEL THAT THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE SOME PROHIBITIVE. IT IS.

ASPECTS TO IT. MY THOUGHT WOULD BE, WHY NOT GO THE PROHIBITIVE ROUTE AND NAME THESE CERTAIN ANIMALS THAT WE DON'T WANT VERSUS HAVING TO NAME ALL THE ANIMALS THAT WE DO WANT.

>> YES.

>> THERE'S A LOT. YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT ARGUMENT BOTH WAYS, AND IT'S HARD TO, I DO FEEL IT'S A BIT OF A KNEE JERK BECAUSE SOMEONE WANTED PIGEONS.

MAYBE WE MODIFY THE CURRENT DEFINITION TO INCLUDE PIGEONS AND DOVES.

THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A BABY STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION RATHER THAN REINVENTING THE ENTIRE CODE THAT'S WORKED FOR, 70 SOME YEARS. THAT'S JUST MY.

>> I WORRY ABOUT DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD BY SIGNIFICANTLY REWRITING ANY CODE LANGUAGE.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

I DO THINK THAT IT CAN BE A TEST HOW MANY VARIANCES OR HOW MANY REQUESTS ARE WE GETTING IF A PARTICULAR ANIMAL IS NOT LISTED.

I WORRY ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO THINK THROUGH AND KNOW, FOR A PROHIBITIVE APPROACH? I AGREE MINIMIZING THE CHANGE TO THE CODE I THINK MAKES THE MOST SENSE HERE.

>> I AGREE WITH EVERYONE.

IF YOU GO PROHIBITIVE, IT'S LIKE, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE I GOT YOU.

UNLESS YOU'RE A ZOOLOGIST, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT RIGHT.

[LAUGHTER] BUT, I'M CURIOUS, IN THE RESEARCH YOU DID, DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE LIST OF WHERE A CITY USE A PROHIBITIVE APPROACH? IS IT LISTING OUT, WILMER TYPES OF CATS THAT ARE.

>> WILMER LOOKS LIKE, BUT THEY DO.

>> THEY HAVE A PRETTY FOR IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE FOR DEFINING WHAT THE PROHIBITIVE ANIMALS ARE.

THEY ALSO LIST THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO, QUANTITIES OF CATS AND DOGS, FOR EXAMPLE.

I THINK THEIR STRUCTURE IN MANY SENSES COULD EFFECTIVELY APPLY WELL HERE, WHERE WE DEFINE ANIMALS, AND PERHAPS I'LL JUST PULL THAT.

DO HAVE IT UP AT SOME POINT HERE.

ANIMAL MEANS ANY LIVING ANIMAL, DOMESTICATED, SEMI-DOMESTICATED, CAPTIVE WILD, OR WILD, WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY NAMED OR HAVING BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MEETING ONE OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED WITHIN A SPECIFIC SECTION.

THAT SECTION, LET ME GET THAT OUT.

THAT ESSENTIALLY IDENTIFIES THE EXCLUSIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE KEEPING OF THEM, SPECIFICALLY, CALLING OUT FISH, REPTILES, EXOTIC BIRDS, SPIDERS, RATS, MICE, HEDGEHOGS, GUINEA PIGS, HAMSTERS, AND THEN LIST THE RESTRICTIONS FOR THEM.

IF THEY'RE NOT COVERED, THEN THEY'RE INHERENTLY PROHIBITIVE.

IN THAT CASE, THEY HAVE A PERMISSIVE SENSE TO A PORTION OF THIS REGULATION, RABBITS AND PIGEONS, ALSO HAVE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS IN THERE AS WELL.

AS I READ IT, IF THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T MENTIONED IN THERE, I DO SEE THEM AS PERMISSIVE ON SECOND READING.

>> IT'S HARD. DO WE I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AGAIN BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT ANIMALS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT CITIES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT HERE? DO WE CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, RABBITS?

[01:30:03]

THERE ARE DOMESTICATED RABBITS, AND THEN THERE ARE FARMED RABBITS.

DO WE HAVE CODE THAT SPEAKS TO BOTH OF THOSE?

>> NOT NECESSARILY THAT I FOUND, BUT THE BIGGEST POINT OF RESEARCH THAT I FOUND WAS ESSENTIALLY ASKING THE QUESTION, ARE YOU KEEPING IT AS A PET OR WHEN DOES IT RISE TO YOUR KEEPING A COLLECTION OF ANIMALS THAT CONSTITUTES LAND USE? I THINK AT A CERTAIN POINT, IT GOES BEYOND JUST A HOBBY OR A PET OR A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL, AND IT BECOMES SOMETHING ELSE INHERENT TO AN ACCESSORY LAND USE.

THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHERE I STRUGGLE THE MOST WITH THIS BECAUSE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, YOU COULD CONSIDER THEM FARM, YOU COULD CONSIDER THEM DOMESTICATED.

IT'S DEPENDENT ON HOW WE WANT TO SET THE BAR ULTIMATELY, AND EACH CITY CAN ELECT TO DO THAT, HOW THEY CHOOSE.

>> I THINK MY PERCEPTION OF THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO CAME TO ASK ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE CODE TO SEE IF THE PIGEONS COULD BE ALLOWED VERSUS HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE ENFORCED IT BECAUSE SOMEBODY EVEN LOOK AT THE CODE TO THINK OF IT.

IF WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ISSUE WITH PEOPLE, LIKE DUCKS, IF THAT'S ON OUR LIST.

I GUARANTEE SOMEBODY'S GOT DUCKS, IF IT'S NOT HERE, AND HAVE WE HEARD ABOUT IT? ARE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT? I'M WORRIED THAT WE'RE BEING TOO PROHIBITED OF ANIMALS AND DIFFERENT TYPES FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

PEOPLE ARE KEEPING THEM ALREADY, AND THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE BREAKING THE LAW, AND WE'RE MORE PENALIZING SOMEBODY WHO TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK AT PIGEONS, CAME IN HERE TO APPLY FOR PIGEONS, AND WE COULD HAVE JUST SAID, HEY, LET'S DRAW BACK TO WHAT ARE REALLY THE NUISANCE ANIMALS AND START WITH THE NUISANCE ANIMALS AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE REALLY DON'T WANT HERE.

WE REALLY DON'T WANT A HORSE ON A HALF ACRE LOT.

JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, AND GO A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE.

I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THEIR LAND FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO USE IT FOR, AND IF IT'S NOT REALLY A NUISANCE TO THEIR NEIGHBOR OR SOMEBODY ELSE, THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE TELLING THEM, NO, THEY CAN'T DO IT.

>> I DO APPRECIATE THE MINNESOTA STATUTES DEFINING ANIMAL UNIT, AND I THINK IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THEY BASICALLY SAY FOR ANIMALS NOT LISTED, THE CALCULATION IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE WEIGHT OF THE ANIMAL.

THE THING THAT GIVES ME PAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, I LIKE IT.

THE THING THAT GIVES ME PAUSE ABOUT THAT IS IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, DOVES OR PIGEONS, THAT WEIGH, VERY LITTLE.

HAVING 20 OR 30 OF THOSE ANIMALS ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN HAVING, LIKE 20 OR 30 MINK, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THE PROBLEMS THAT COULD BE CAUSED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AS A PERSON WITH CHICKENS [LAUGHTER] THAT ARE ALLOWED.

YOU KNOW, MINK VERSUS DOVES, LIKE COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THEY BOTH WEIGH VERY LITTLE, THEY STILL COULD HAVE VERY DIFFERENT CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, I GUESS, OR NUISANCE ASSOCIATED.

>> THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER CONSIDERATION.

THE REASON WHY PUTTING ANIMAL UNITS IN HERE, I THINK IS A VALUE IS BECAUSE WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE PERMITTED ANIMALS THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE DEFINING A NEW ANIMAL UNIT.

WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUANTITIES THAT WOULD BE GOING ON ANY GIVEN PROPERTY WITH AGRICULTURE OR EVEN DOMESTICATED FOR THAT MATTER.

THROUGH MY LEARNING EXPERIENCE WITH MELANIE AND LAURA, OUR REGULATION IS ALMOST STRICTLY BASED ON WHAT THE STATE STATUTE IS, AND GIVES US THE CALCULATION THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HERE.

ME IN ADDRESSING THE ANIMAL UNITS IS JUST WHATEVER CHANGES THAT WE DO MAKE TO ANY PERMITTED ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY, WE WOULD HAVE TO VISIT OR ADDRESS ANIMAL UNITS IN A COMPLIMENTARY FASHION.

>> AS WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE TYPES OF LANGUAGE THAT WE THINK MAKES SENSE, I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT IF WE WERE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ABOUT ANIMALS THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN ORONO, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE CAPTIVE CERVIDS.

CAPTIVE, DEER, ELK, ETC., BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES AROUND CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE AND THE RISK THAT THAT WOULD POSE.

>> SURE. WITHIN A FEW OF THE CODE SECTIONS I PROVIDE AS WELL.

FIND THOSE WILD ANIMALS, AT LEAST WITHIN THE BLOOMINGTON AND CHAMPLIN EXAMPLES, I GAVE DEFINED WILD ANIMALS AND DEFINED THEM ESSENTIALLY AS,

[01:35:04]

PROHIBITIVE IN THAT SENSE.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE.

THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY AND SUCH.

I THINK THAT'S SOMEWHERE THAT WE CAN AT LEAST START WITH THIS JUST SO THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING ANIMALS LIKE THAT.

I DO THINK THAT WE ALSO HAVE REGULATIONS ALREADY ABOUT WATER FOWL ABOUT NOT FEEDING THEM, FOR EXAMPLE.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF PERHAPS THREE BULLETS THAT WE HAVE ON IT, BUT IT COULD BE DONE IN SIMILAR FASHION WHERE WE, PUT IN SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT ARE FOR WILD ANIMALS OR PROHIBITED IN THAT SENSE.

>> WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE THOSE WHO DO FARM FOR VENISON, THEY DON'T CONSIDER THEM TO BE WILD.

THEY'RE CAPTIVE. WE JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH.

>> [OVERLAPPING] THE TERMINOLOGY.

>> LANGUAGE.

>> YOUR QUESTION NUMBER 2 ON THERE.

>> CURRENTLY, THE CODE LOOKS AT ZONING AND PROPERTY SIZE TO DECIDE WHAT'S ALLOWED.

>> YES.

>> WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING TO CHANGE THAT, ARE YOU ASKING FOR INPUT ON THAT?

>> I'M ASKING FOR INPUT ON THAT.

COMING FROM SOMEBODY WHO FIELDED A QUESTION ON HAVING CHICKENS TODAY ON A SUB TWO-ACRE PROPERTY.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT REALLY A ROUTE THERE SHORT OF DOING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS A VERY EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE URBAN AGRICULTURE.

I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S APPETITE TO CHANGE WHAT IS THERE CURRENTLY IN REGARDS TO LOT SIZE, KNOWING THAT WE NEED AT LEAST ONE ACRE FOR A DWELLING AND ONE ACRE FOR THE ANIMALS OR THE ANIMAL UNIT.

>> WELL, I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.

I LIKE THE IDEA ALSO OF DEREGULATING, I GUESS, SOME OF THE SMALLER LOTS TO ALLOW CERTAIN TYPES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE, CHICKENS, ETC.

I THINK WHAT IS MINNETONKA, 10 CHICKENS PER ACRE, I THINK.

THEN IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER THAN AN ACRE, IT JUST CALCULATES THROUGH.

THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN NOW.

I THINK PEOPLE LIKE TO HAVE URBAN AGRICULTURE.

I THINK IF WE CAN LIGHTEN THE CODE UP A LITTLE BIT TO ALLOW THAT, I THINK THAT'S GREAT, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T KNOW.

>> YOU COULD HAVE RESTRICTIONS AROUND FREE RANGING OR NOT ON THOSE SMALLER LOTS THAT COULD.

>> THERE WOULD DEFINITELY BE RESTRICTIONS, I THINK THAT YOU COULD HAVE, BUT TO ALLOW IT SO THIS PERSON THAT WANTS IT CAN HAVE IT.

WE LIVE IN A RURAL COMMUNITY MAJORLY IT.

>> AGREE.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

>> WILL YOU REMIND US FOR BEES?

>> FARM ANIMALS.

>> THEY'RE CONSIDERED FARM ANIMALS, OKAY.

>> THAT WAS A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT HAPPENED A FEW YEARS AGO, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT AND KEEPING OF BEES, AND IT WAS DECIDED TO GROUP THEM IN WITH THE KEEPING FARM ANIMALS BECAUSE OF THE SPACE SCENE AND NOT ABUTTING A NEIGHBOR WAS THE BEST FIT.

THEN IT RESULTED IN RURAL DISTRICTS, IT'S ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE.

THEN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS LIKE ALL FARM ANIMALS IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS, IT FALLS UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

>> THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. I KNOW OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN VERY URBAN ENVIRONMENTS WHO KEEP BEES ON THE ROOF OF THEIR APARTMENT.

[LAUGHTER] VERY DIFFERENT APPLICATION, BUT I DO AGREE THERE MAY BE SOME APPLICATIONS FOR LESS THAN TWO-ACRE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE.

>> I THINK WHEN WE WERE FIRST ADDRESSING YOU TO COME UP WITH A CODE CHANGE, THAT WAS FRESH IN MY MIND BECAUSE THAT WAS MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO, THE BEE THING.

THAT'S MORE WHERE MY HEAD WAS GOING AS FAR AS LET'S AMEND THIS A LITTLE BIT TO ALLOW DOVES AND PIGEONS RATHER THAN CHANGE THE WHOLE THING.

I THINK THERE'S VALUE TO REVIEWING IT ALL THOUGH, AND SAYING, LOOK, DOES THIS STILL MAKE SENSE? MAYBE WE COULD ADOPT SOME DIFFERENT CODE THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

BUT I THINK IN GENERAL, WE DON'T WANT TO BE TOO RESTRICTIVE OF URBAN ANIMAL KEEPING.

>> JUST ANOTHER NOTE, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.

I BELIEVE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT BEES AND THE TEXT AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH BEES, WE EXPANDED FARM ANIMALS TO BE LISTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE.

BEFORE THAT, NO FARM ANIMALS OR KEEPING OF ANIMALS WAS ALLOWED EVEN IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS, EVEN IF YOU HAD TWO ACRES, FIVE ACRES, 10 ACRES.

IT WAS JUST NOT ALLOWED IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS.

IT WAS EXPANDED TO ALLOW THESE FARM ANIMALS TO BE KEPT IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS, AS LONG AS YOU'RE MINDFUL NOT ON THE LAKE SHORE WAS THE BIG HIGHLIGHT.

>> IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.

[01:40:02]

>> THEN LISTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THAT SPECIFIC REVIEW. [OVERLAPPING]

>> YOU HAVE TO APPLY AND PRESENT IT.

>> IT WAS EXPANDED TO ALLOW FARM ANIMALS IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICT AS A CONDITIONAL USE WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THE BEES SPECIFICALLY.

>> I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT CHICKENS AS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, I THINK THERE'S MUCH MORE INTEREST IN PEOPLE ON SMALLER PROPERTIES HAVING A HANDFUL OF HENS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD PROHIBIT ROOSTERS IN TIGHTER, LESS RURAL AREAS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> DID WE CHANGE THE NEED FOR ONE ACRE? I FORGET WHAT THE CONDITIONS WERE FOR THAT.

>> FROM MEMORY, I BELIEVE WE HAD BEES FALL UNDER JUST THE FARM ANIMALS.

FOR HORSES, YOU NEED ONE ACRE OF A HOUSE AND LIKE TWO ACRES OF PASTURE FOR ONE HORSE.

BUT FARM ANIMALS, YOU NEED ONE ACRE FOR THE HOUSE AND ONE ACRE OF ADDITIONAL LAND TO SUPPORT ONE ANIMAL UNIT, WHETHER THAT'S TWO PIGS OR 25 CHICKENS OR WHATEVER THAT EQUATION WORKED OUT TO BE.

IN THE LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS, SPECIFICALLY, WHEN WE EXPANDED THE CUP, IT WAS JUST TO NOTE THEY STILL HAD TO MEET THE LOT SIZING, WHICH IS THAT TWO-ACRE MINIMUM TO SUPPORT A FARM ANIMAL, BUT IT WAS ALLOWED IN THE LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS.

SPECIFICALLY, WHEN WE DID THAT TEXT AMENDMENT, IT WASN'T A CHANGE TO THAT EQUATION.

>> GOT IT. THAT DIDN'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE CHICKENS UNDER A CUP. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IF THEY WERE IN THE LAKE SHORE DISTRICT AND THEY HAD TWO ACRES OF LAND, THEY NOW COULD HAVE CHICKENS, WHERE PREVIOUSLY, NO FARM ANIMALS WERE PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS.

>> I GUESS, THEY STILL HAD TO QUALIFY WITH THE TWO ACRES.

MY MIND IS GOING, AND I'D BE OKAY WITH PEOPLE QUALIFYING WITH LESS LAND, SPECIFICALLY FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF FARM ANIMALS, LIKE CHICKENS, ETC.

>> ANOTHER CONTENTION THAT I WANT TO PUT IN THERE, SPECIFICALLY, TO THE TWO EXAMPLES I'VE CITED WITH THE PIGEON APPLICATION THAT YOU VIEWED, AND JUST A RATHER PLAIN INQUIRY I RECEIVED IN THE LAST WEEK ABOUT HAVING CHICKENS.

BOTH PROPERTIES WERE, I WANT TO SAY, AT LEAST A HALF MILE AWAY FROM ANY LAKE SHORE, BUT WERE ZONED LAKE SHORE RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S THE QUIRK THAT WE HAVE WITH IN OUR ZONING WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE A SEEMINGLY RURAL PROPERTY MIGHT BE UNDER SIZE, BUT IS REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, BUT THEY ESSENTIALLY CAN'T GO ANYWHERE BECAUSE THE LOT SIZE IS SUBSTANDARD.

>> WE REGULATED IT BASED ON ZONING DISTRICT, NOT ABUTTING THE LAKE.

THERE ARE MANY PROPERTIES IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOT ON THE LAKE SHORE.

THEY'RE JUST REGULATED THAT WAY DUE TO STORMWATER AND LOT SIZING REQUIREMENTS, AND WITH THAT SIMILAR ZONING STANDARDS OF SETBACKS AND LOT SIZES, BUT THAT WE REGULATED IT THAT WAY.

THERE'S MANY PROPERTIES IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LAKE SHORE, BUT STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CUP PROCESS IF THEY WANT A FARM ANIMAL AND HAVE ADEQUATE LAND.

>> RIGHT NOW, THAT'S THE ONLY THING.

>> RIGHT NOW, YOU NEED TO QUALIFY FOR ANY TYPE OF FARM ANIMAL OR A ACCESSORY ANIMAL THAT'S NOT LIVING INSIDE YOUR HOUSE AND THAT TYPE OF THING, FOR A FARM ANIMAL, YOU NEED ACCESS A CUP, EVEN IF YOU MEET THE LAND STANDARDS.

>> BUT IF I HAD A HALF-ACRE WITH A LOT OF CHICKENS.

>> TRUE.

>> THE FIRST ACRES FOR THE HOUSE, AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT ACREAGE IS PER ANIMAL UNIT.

>> YES.

>> DO WE ALLOW FOR HALF? IF YOU HAD ONE AND A HALF ACRES, YOU COULDN'T HAVE 12 CHICKENS?

>> NO. NOT RIGHT NOW.

NO. THE MINIMUM IS YOU NEED TO MEET THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD.

>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE WITH THE CHANGING TIMES TO HAVE A ROUTE FOR SOMEBODY LIKE ME WHO HAS A HALF-ACRE LOT, AND I'M SURE AND I HAVE [INAUDIBLE]

>> I THINK IT'S ALMOST TOO RESTRICTIVE RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE CAN DO TO BROADEN THAT, I THINK WOULD BE BETTER.

>> I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN RESIDENT FEEDBACK AROUND INTEREST IN CHICKENS OR IF THERE WOULD BE ANY OTHER TYPES OF ANIMALS THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN SMALLER QUANTITIES ON SMALLER PROPERTIES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT INTEREST THERE IS IN THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING.

>> YOU'D ALSO BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW MANY COMPLAINTS WE'VE HAD ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD ANIMALS THAT WERE IN VIOLATION.

>> HAVING ANIMALS IN VIOLATION ISN'T NECESSARILY A COMMON COMPLAINT THAT WE SEE,

[01:45:05]

ESPECIALLY A FORMAL COMPLAINT.

WE GET A LOT OF PHONE CALLS ABOUT INQUIRIES ABOUT, CAN I HAVE THIS, CAN I HAVE THAT? BUT, FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY KEEPING ANIMALS IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE ISN'T A COMMON COMPLAINT WE RECEIVE.

I WOULD SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE HAD ONE SINCE I'VE STARTED HERE.

>> I'VE HEARD ABOUT MORE HOAS BEING RESTRICTIVE THAT BLOCK PEOPLE WHO DO QUALIFY BASED ON OUR TWO PLUS ACRE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEIR HOA WON'T ALLOW THEM TO HAVE CHICKENS.

NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

>> AN IDEA OR A POINT OF DISCUSSION.

TYPICALLY, WE FIND WE GET A GOOD AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK, WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY, OVERLY GENERAL.

BUT USUALLY, PEOPLE LIKE TO REACT TO SOMETHING.

WITH THE GUIDANCE YOU GIVE TONIGHT, WE COULD DRAFT SOMETHING AS CLEARLY AS WE COULD REGARDING DRAFT OR RESEARCH OR IF YOU WANT US TO COME BACK WITH SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR YOU TO WORK THROUGH, THEN WE WOULD PUBLISH FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AS WE NORMALLY DO WHEN WE'RE ADOPTING TEXT AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ZONING CODE, BUT WE COULD DO A LITTLE BIT MORE MAYBE ADVERTISING FOR IT REGARDING PUTTING IN OUR FACEBOOK OR ASKING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO TRY AND GARNER SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN THE CREATION OF THIS POLICY.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS CAN DISCUSS ABOUT HOW THAT LOOKS, OR WE CAN TAKE ACTION AS STAFF.

WE ALWAYS WITH TEXT AMENDMENTS, PUT IT IN THE LEGAL, PUT IT IN THE PAPER, PUT IT ON OUR WEBSITE.

BUT WE COULD PUT IT ON FACEBOOK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO TRY AND GARNER SOME MORE PUBLIC COMMENT OR ON THE POLICY TO TRY AND GET SOME COMMENTS IN.

>> I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

EVEN IF YOU CAME OUT OF THE GATE, AND YOU'RE PRETTY AGGRESSIVE AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE REQUIREMENT FROM TWO ACRES DOWN TO A QUARTER ACRE, JUST TO SEE IF IT DRUMS UP SOME NOISE. YOU CAN ALWAYS MEET IN THE MIDDLE.

[LAUGHTER] NO, SERIOUSLY, I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS A LITTLE MORE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT CHICKENS, BUT I WONDER IF THE REASON WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMPLAINTS IS THEY'RE ON RURAL SPOTS TWO ACRES PLUS, FOR THE MOST PART.

ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU START PUTTING THEM IN SMALLER CITY TYPE LOTS.

ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE WHOLE BLOCK COMING SAYING, I'M HEARING THESE THINGS EVERY MORNING OR WHATEVER.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT CHICKENS, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THERE.

>> YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT I KNOW A LOT ABOUT CHICKENS.

A LOT OF CITIES IN THIS MORE URBAN FEEL, THEY WILL ALLOW CHICKENS, BUT NO ROOSTERS.

TRADITIONALLY, THE THE HENS DON'T MAKE ANY SOUNDS THAT YOU CAN HEAR OUTSIDE OF FIVE FEET FROM THE COOP SO THAT COULD BE AN INTERESTING ONE TO LOOK AT.

IF WE'RE TIPTOEING INTO THIS DON'T ALLOW ROOSTERS IN [OVERLAPPING] HENS ONLY IN THIS CERTAIN AREA.

>> THEN, AGAIN, YOU COULD RESTRICT ALLOWING FREE RANGING.

>> IF YOU WERE ON A HALF ACRE LOT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE CHICKENS IF THEY WERE FREE RANGING.

[LAUGHTER] THEY'D BE GONE. THEY WOULDN'T LAST LONG.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I ALSO THINK THAT GIVEN WHERE WE STARTED WITH THIS, DEFINING AN ANIMAL UNIT FOR PIGEONS AND DOVES WOULD BE SOMETHING HELPFUL THAT WE COULD DO.

THAT WOULD STILL FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL TWO PLUS ACRE ZONING UNLESS WE CHOOSE TO AMEND THAT, BUT AT LEAST WE COULD GET AN ANIMAL UNIT DEFINED FOR CHICKENS AND DOVES.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE IT FOR RABBITS, BUT IF NOT, I THINK WE SHOULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.

>> I GUESS, THE DIRECTION WOULD BE TO ADD PIGEONS AND DOVES TO THE CURRENT LIST OF ALLOWED.

THEN LOOSEN THE REGULATIONS FOR SMALLER LOTS HOWEVER, THAT LOOKS.

>> BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THINGS LIKE CHICKENS OR RABBITS OR DOVES OR PIGEONS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOT NECESSARILY FARM ANIMALS ARE FARM ANIMALS, BUT CALLING OUT SPECIFIC ANIMALS, THAT CAN BE KEPT ON SMALLER LOTS.

>> HOOFED ANIMALS MIGHT BE A NICE WAY TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THE FOUR THAT YOU JUST NAMED ARE ALL COOPED.

AGAIN, WITH CHICKENS, HENS ONLY FOR THOSE SMALLER LOT SIZES, I THINK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

>> I THINK ALSO, JUST AS A NOTE, AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS, THERE IS SOME CLEANUP THAT STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON TO RECONCILE SOME DEFINITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT SO YOU'LL SEE THAT IN SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS.

>> MAKING SURE THERE'S NO CONFLICTING CODE RIGHT NOW.

[01:50:01]

>> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS SOME DIRECTION TO ADD INTO THE FARM ANIMALS, PIGEONS, AND RABBITS AND THEN CREATE A FARM ANIMAL UNIT RATIO FOR THEM.

THEN ADDITIONALLY, MAYBE PROPOSING SOME LANGUAGE FOR SMALL LOT KEEPING OF ANIMALS OR LIMITED ANIMALS OR A NEW ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SMALL LOT KEEPING OF ANIMALS.

>> YES, I WOULD SAY PIGEONS AND DOVES, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DO KEEP DOVES FOR SIMILAR PURPOSES TO PIGEONS.

>> WE REALLY WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE FARM ANIMALS, OR WOULD THEY FALL MORE INTO A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL [INAUDIBLE]

>> THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO START CONSIDERING SPLITTING UP THE DEFINITION OR BEING SPECIFIC TO THE USE WHICH CATEGORY THE ANIMALS FALL IN AND WHICH REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THEM.

>> I THINK WE LOOKED AT THAT PREVIOUS APPLICATION AS THEY WERE FARM ANIMALS, THAT'S I THINK THE EASY SPOT TO START FOR THAT PARTICULAR ANIMAL.

>> I WAS JUST WONDERING BECAUSE MY THOUGHT WAS GOING AROUND TAKING AS WE HAVE ANIMALS DEFINED AS MAYBE WE BROUGHT IN IT INTO A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL AS DEFINED.

THEN BEING MORE SPECIFIC ON THE FARM ANIMALS THAT WERE BEING [INAUDIBLE].

>> YOU'RE RIGHT, BECAUSE WE HAVE ANIMALS [OVERLAPPING] AND WE HAVE FARM ANIMALS.

>> DOMESTICATED. BUT I'M UNDER THE PREFERENCE THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT NOT JUST DOMESTICATED CATS, BUT DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, SIMILAR TO WHAT WILMER HAS AND SAYING THAT THOSE ARE ACCEPTED.

IF THEY'RE A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL THAT ISN'T CALLED OUT AS A FARM ANIMAL, WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE LENIENT.

MY THOUGHT IS, IF WE LOOKED AT THE PIGEONS ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT MAYBE PIGEONS WOULD HAVE FALLEN INTO A DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

>> THAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS AS LOOKED AT THAT ONE.

>> DOES SEEM OUR DEFINITION OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN OTHER CITIES I THINK I SAW THE SAME WITH EXCELS HERE.

WE ONLY LIST A HANDFUL.

>> I DON'T THINK WE EVEN DEFINE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

IT'S EITHER ANIMALS, FARM ANIMALS, OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS AS OUR ANIMAL SECTION READS.

>> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> GOOD. I THINK THE ODD CONSIDERATION THAT WE HAVE IS THAT WE DON'T CONSIDER DOGS OR CATS ANIMALS BASED ON OUR OWN CODE.

I THINK WE GO DOWN THE DIRECTION OF CONSIDERING A SEPARATE DOMESTICATED ANIMAL, BUT THAT IDEA ISN'T FULLY FLESHED OUT WHATSOEVER.

I THINK PART OF MY POINT FOR PUTTING IN THE BLOOMINGTON CODE IS THAT THEY GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, WHAT SPECIES THAT ENTAILS, AND WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS.

I THINK THEY DID A GOOD JOB IN RELATING THEM TO PETS TO DESCRIBE THEM THAT THIS IS A ORDINARILY ACCESSORY USE TO A RESIDENTS AND THAT'S A WAY THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY GO TO PERHAPS CREATE SOME SEPARATION TO HAVE IT BE MORE OF AN ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USE FOR MORE PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

NOT AT THE POINT WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NECESSARILY NEED TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT IF YOU MEET THIS AND THIS STANDARDS, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP THIS DOMESTICATED ANIMAL.

I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY IT WOULD NEED TO BE IN OVER THE COUNTER PERMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO FLESH OUT.

>> RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, CAN SOMEONE KEEP A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL THAT'S NOT ON THE LIST? ARE THERE LIMITS TO THAT?

>> IF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KEEPING THEM IN THEIR HOUSE OR IN THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WE HAVEN'T MADE THEM GO THROUGH A FARM ANIMAL ANALYSIS.

>> IF YOU'RE KEEPING A DOG, A CAT, A RABBIT, AND YOU DON'T NEED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A COUP, A BARN, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN THAT NEXT LEVEL OF INTERPRETATION.

AGAIN, PEOPLE DON'T CALL AND SAY, I WANT TO KEEP A PIG IN MY HOUSE.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

THAT QUESTION HASN'T BEEN ASKED TO US.

BUT I KNOW IT IS A THING OUT IN THE WORLD.

>> THE PIGS.

>> PEOPLE HAVE KEPT THEM FOR DOMESTICATED REASONS.

THIS IS THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO HAVE DOMESTICATED PIGS AND DOMESTICATED THINGS.

WHERE WE WOULD JUST SAY A PIG, IT'S LISTED AS FARM ANIMAL.

IT IS A FARM ANIMAL, MOST LIKELY, IF SOMEONE CALLED AND ASKED THAT.

BUT TENTATIVELY, IF PEOPLE HAVE KEPT ANIMALS IN THEIR HOUSES, WE HAVEN'T MADE THEM GO THROUGH A FARM ANIMAL PROCESS.

>> I GUESS, HELP ME UNDERSTAND.

WHEN I READ THIS RIGHT HERE, THAT IF IT'S NOT A DOG, DOMESTICATED CAT, GERBIL, HAMSTER, A CAGED HOUSEHOLD BIRD, IT FALLS INTO A SOMETHING.

THAT'S WHERE I'M SAYING WHERE MY THOUGHT IS.

THAT NEEDS TO JUST BE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

>> YEAH. I WOULD SAY CHAPTER 62 IS OUR PUBLIC PROTECTIONS CHAPTER, SO THAT'S THE CHAPTER OFTENTIMES THE POLICE WILL USE WHEN ENFORCING KEEPING

[01:55:06]

OF ANIMALS OR OUR KENNEL LICENSES AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT FALLS UNDER THAT PUBLIC PROTECTIONS.

WE, IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORLD, USUALLY MANAGE THINGS UNDER CHAPTER 78.

WE'RE CALLING THIS OUT TO SHOW THAT THERE'S DISCREPANCIES IN THESE DEFINITIONS, AND WE NEED TO RECONCILE THAT THESE ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN SOME MEANINGFUL WAYS.

WE WOULD LIKE TO RECONCILE THESE DEFINITIONS SO THEY'RE COHESIVE.

>> I AGREE THEN, THAT CALLING OUT DOMESTICATED ANIMALS WOULD BE HELPFUL, BECAUSE SOMEONE HAVING A DOMESTICATED POT BELLY PIG THAT'S SMALLER THAN MOST DOGS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN HAVING PIGS THAT YOU'RE RAISING FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, IF IT'S FOR MEAT OR JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE FUN TO HAVE, BUT THEY'RE OUTSIDE, IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF KEEPING OF THOSE ANIMALS.

EVEN IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING THEM PETS, THEY'RE STILL FARM ANIMALS IF THEY'RE BEING KEPT OUTSIDE IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU WOULD RAISE THEM FOR PRODUCTION.

>> YEAH. I THINK THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT THERE CALLS IT OUT PRETTY WELL.

REALLY, THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A PROFIT, YOU'RE RAISING IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE ENJOYMENT OF THE ANIMAL IN YOUR HOME AND YOUR RESIDENTS.

>> YEAH, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE, WELL, HORSES ARE FOR THEIR ENJOYMENT, BUT WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM A FARM ANIMAL.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COWS AND GOATS FOR ENJOYMENT.

THEY'RE NOT RAISING THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRODUCING ANYTHING.

IT'S MORE ABOUT THE WAY THAT THEY'RE KEPT, I THINK, THAN THE PURPOSE THAT THEY'RE BEING KEPT FOR, BECAUSE WHO ARE WE TO DEFINE WHAT SOMEONE'S ENJOYMENT OF THEIR ANIMALS IS?

>> YEAH. I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS A BROADER DOMESTICATED FARM ANIMALS AS A CATEGORY.

I THINK AS YOU BRING UP THE BLOOMINGTON COURT, LOOK AT, I THINK, TO SOLVE SOME OF OUR PIGEONS AND CHICKENS, WE CAN GET A THIRD CATEGORY THAT'S FARM POULTRY, AND GIVE THAT A SEPARATE SECTION OF LOT REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE.

THAT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE TEDIOUS TO SMALLER AREAS.

WE CAN STILL HAVE A SPECIFIC CATEGORY FOR FARM ANIMALS THAT ARE THE BIGGER; HORSES, COWS, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEN JUST PUT CHICKENS AND PIGEONS AND THESE SMALL POULTRY ANIMALS IN SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE LESS RESTRICTIVE.

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO THE COOPED ANIMALS, BECAUSE I WOULD SAY RABBITS ARE VERY SIMILAR IN KEEPING RABBITS AND CHICKENS OUTDOORS.

THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN A DOMESTIC OR TWO RABBIT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE INSIDE.

IT'S THE WAY THAT YOU'RE KEEPING THOSE ANIMALS THAT SEPARATES THEM.

>> YEAH. I THINK YOU MORE THAN COVERED WHAT I HAD FOR THE THIRD QUESTION, REALLY COVERING THE ACCESSORY USES AND GENERALLY THE KEEPING OF HOUSEHOLD VERSUS DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD IN TERMS OF JUST LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF ANIMALS AND HAVING REGULATIONS THAT MAKE SENSE AND COVER WHAT WE HAVE IN ORONO, I THINK TO TAKE A STEP BACK SINCE WE HAVE CITED THEM IN PLACES HERE TONIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER TAKEAWAYS OTHER THAN THE HANDFUL OF BULLETS I GAVE YOU FROM MY TAKEAWAYS WHEN WRITING THE MEMO FROM THE FIVE ZONING CODES, ANYTHING THAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED FOR COVERING.

JUST KNOWING THAT FULL WELL, THE POINT OF GRABBING ALL THOSE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES WAS IT REPRESENTS MORE OR LESS DIFFERENT LAND USAGES, DENSITIES, POPULATIONS.

YOU THINK OF EVEN IN A CITY LIKE EXCELSIOR, WHERE IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE VERY CLOSE TO HOME, BUT THEY'RE ALMOST ENTIRELY URBAN.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY LARGE LOTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND UNDERSTANDABLY, THEY DON'T PERMIT FARM ANIMALS.

>> DID YOU LOOK AT MINNETONKA?

>> I DID AT ONE POINT IN TIME.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE THAT, I WOULD SAY, HAS A MORE SIMILAR VARIATION TO WHAT WE HAVE.

YOU HAVE LAKE PROPERTIES, YOU HAVE SOME MORE URBAN PROPERTIES, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME MORE RURAL PROPERTIES.

>> BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC TO OUR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, KNOWING FULL WELL WE'RE ALL FOLLOWING, TO SOME EXTENT, THE STATE STATUTES AND OTHER CITIES.

WILMER WAS ONE THAT I KEPT CIRCLING BACK TO, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT NEAR US, IT HAS A LOT OF REGULATIONS THAT I FELT STOOD OUT COMPARED TO A LOT OF

[02:00:01]

THE OTHER COMMUNITIES I REVIEWED IN THE WAY THAT THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR EXCLUSIONS, I FELT WAS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR IN TERMS OF EVERY CITY HAS GONE LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM AND THEN JUST COVERED THE EXCLUSIONS RIGHT OFF THE BAT, AND GIVE REGULATIONS RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THINGS THAT YOU SAW THAT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO CARRY OVER OR OTHER AREAS OF RESEARCH THAT I CAN LOOK FOR AS STAFF.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS EXACT RESEARCH THAT YOU DID. IT'S VERY HELPFUL.

>> STILL TRYING TO MEMORIZE OUR CODE AND TRYING TO KEEP TRACK OF IT.

>> WELL, YES, I WON'T MAKE IT EASIER NOW.

>> YEAH. I WOULD JUST AGREE WITH THE EARLIER COMMENTS MADE.

I THINK COMING UP WITH THOSE THREE DISTINCT CATEGORIES AND MOVING AWAY FROM THAT BROAD ANIMAL DEFINITION, WHICH I THINK COULD BE VERY CONFUSING IF YOU WERE COMING IN FROM THE ABSOLUTE PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT WOULD ADD A LOT OF CLARITY IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING BUILDING OUT A CHICKEN COOP OR WHAT HAVE YOU, JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> YEAH. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I KNOW IT WAS DISCUSSED AT ONE POINT, GETTING PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON THERE.

IS THERE APPETITE OR A DESIRE TO HAVE THAT BE A CORE COMPONENT OF THIS? IN MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO GO THAT ROUTE AND GET INPUT.

I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OPENING UP THE DOOR TO POTENTIALLY SMALLER LOT SIZES.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE A PLACE SAYING WHAT THAT LOT SIZE SHOULD BE.

I THINK I HAVE PLENTY OF ZONING CODES THAT TELL ME WHAT AN APPROPRIATE LOT SIZE COULD BE, BUT I THINK NOBODY MIGHT KNOW BETTER THAN OUR OWN RESIDENTS.

IS THAT A COMMON SENTIMENT THAT WE HAVE?

>> YEAH.

>> WELL, I THINK ANYTIME YOU CAN GET PUBLIC INPUT, IT'S A GOOD THING, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST MAKING SOME LITTLE NUANCED CHANGES TO THE CODE, ADDING PIGEONS, ET CETERA.

THAT COMMENT CAN COME DURING THE PROCESS, WHEN THAT'S PUBLISHED, AND HEY, HERE'S A CODE REVIEW OR A CODE CHANGE PROPOSED, AND THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING, ET CETERA.

I THINK IT COULD BE SMART TO GET OPINIONS ONTO WHAT LOT SIZE WOULD BE THE CORRECT SIZE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> AM I [INAUDIBLE]. GO AHEAD.

>> CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I THINK, MOVING FORWARD, WHAT I'M HEARING IS SOME TEXT AMENDMENT TO RECONCILE SOME OF OUR DEFINITIONS AND TO MAYBE CREATE THAT THIRD DEFINITION OF ANIMALS, FARM ANIMALS, AND DOMESTICATED ANIMALS, AND BRINGING CLARITY TO OUR CODE IN ANIMAL UNITS AND TRY AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE GAPS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

IN ADDITION, CREATING A NEW POLICY, TO ALLOW FOR KEEPING OF SOME LIMITED FARM ANIMALS, THINGS THAT ARE COOPED; RABBITS AND CHICKENS, TO ALLOW THEM ON SMALLER LOT SIZES.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RECENT CODE CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE TWIN CITIES THAT HAVE ADDRESSED HOW KEEPING OF ANIMALS CAN BE DONE, AND WE CAN REACH OUT AND FIGURE OUT THE BEST PRACTICES FOR KEEPING OF CHICKENS AND KEEPING OF COOPED ANIMALS ON MORE SUBURBAN LOTS OR SMALLER LOTS.

I THINK FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT, WE CAN WITH THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED TONIGHT, CAN BRING BACK SOME PROPOSED REDLINE CHANGES AND SOME PROPOSED POLICY FOR YOU TO REACT TO FIRST AND GET FEEDBACK TO FIRST.

I MEAN, WE ARE IN A PUBLIC MEETING, PEOPLE ARE OPEN TO SEE OUR COMMENTS, WE MIGHT GET COMMENTS.

BUT ONCE WE GET YOUR REACTION ON SOME TEXT AMENDMENT, THEN WE CAN PROCEED MAYBE WITH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WHERE WE THEN REACH OUT AND GET PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I MEAN, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC RUSH NECESSARILY, BUT WE COULD HOLD MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO A DEGREE.

BUT BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP AND SEEK PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME PROPOSED TEXT IN FRONT OF YOU ALL FIRST, IF THAT'S ADEQUATE FOR A PROCESS STANDPOINT.

>> YEAH. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

I ALSO WOULD ASK THAT WE VERY CLEARLY DEFINE THAT FOR ANY REQUESTS THAT DON'T FALL WITHIN WHAT WE CLEARLY ALLOW, THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE SOMETHING THAT RESIDENTS CAN STILL PURSUE.

I'M THINKING BACK TO THE PIGEON EXAMPLE, THAT PROPERTY WAS, I WANT TO SAY THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE, BUT IT BACKED UP TO A LARGE PARK, AND SO THE EFFECTIVE SIZE OF THE LOT OR THE PROXIMAL LOT IS MUCH BIGGER.

I WOULD LIKE TO STILL ALLOW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BE APPLIED FOR.

>> THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION, SHOULD STAFF DRAFT SOMETHING THAT REFLECTS THAT IF KEEPING A FARM ANIMALS IN LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS, AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE TWO ACRES IN SIZE, IT NO LONGER REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,

[02:05:02]

AND THAT IF YOU DON'T MEET THOSE STANDARDS, THEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS TRIGGERED? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?

>> PERSONALLY, I'LL JUST SPEAK UP QUICK.

I THINK A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS GOOD.

I WILL SAY THAT BEFORE WE GO AND MAKE A BUNCH OF CODE CHANGES LIKE THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST GET SOME PUBLIC INPUT.

I THINK WE'RE STEPPING OUTSIDE OF OUR BOUNDS WHEN WE JUST START CHANGING CODES WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT.

THAT'S MY OPINION, AND I HONESTLY THINK THE PIGEON EXPERIENCE WASN'T ALL THAT TERRIBLE, MAYBE TOOK HIM TWO OR THREE MONTHS, BUT THERE WASN'T THAT MUCH PUSH BACK.

IT WAS PRETTY CLEARLY ARTICULATED.

I DO THINK SOME OF THE CHANGES WE'RE MAKING ARE GOOD RESULTS OF THAT DISCUSSION, BUT TO ME, I THINK WE'RE STEPPING OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE RIGHT NOW, I GUESS, IN MY OPINION.

>> WELL, I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING DRAFTED.

>> YEAH.

>> FOR REACTION. THAT'S ALL SHE'S SAID. [INAUDIBLE] AROUND.

>> SOME OF THE STUFF YOU GUYS SAID WITH ADDING THE PIGEONS IN THE CHICKENS IN SOME FORM OF IT.

>> EXPANDING THE POLICY.

>> BEFORE WE ADD A BUNCH OF THINGS ABOUT ADDING HORSES TO LAKE SHORE LOTS, WE WILL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE.

I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT SMALLER IN SCOPE ORIGINALLY, AND PUT THAT OUT FOR PUBLIC INPUT. I GUESS THAT'S [OVERLAPPING].

>> I AGREE. LAURA ASKED A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ANSWER HER.

I DO NOT THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU MEET THE TWO-ACRE MINIMUM, THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE FOREIGN ANIMALS WITHIN THAT LAKE SHORE DISTRICT, BECAUSE THERE ARE VERY GOOD REASONS AROUND RUNOFF AND MANURING THINGS THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO JUST APPROVE THAT.

I THINK THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS EXISTS FOR THAT DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY.

I THINK WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THAT.

I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER, TO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT PROCESS, NOTHING'S GOING TO BE CHANGED TONIGHT.

THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR DIRECTION IN IT.

THEN THEY'LL GIVE US SOMETHING THAT, HEY, THIS IS A PROPOSED RED LINE, AND THERE'LL BE A CHANCE FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON EVERYTHING.

BUT I DO AGREE, WHEN WE LOOK AT ONE TINY THING, THE PIGEON SCENARIO, AND WE DECIDE TO REDRAFT THE ENTIRE CODE ON THIS, IT MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS.

IT GIVES US THE TIME TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES IN THE CODE, BUT IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO MISS IN THIS REDRAFT THAT WE HAD BEFORE? NOW SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE NON CONFORMING THAT WERE CONFORMING BEFORE, ET CETERA.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF THIS IS, IN MY OPINION, JUST TIPTOEING THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AND SO I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS THERE.

BUT I THINK, HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION FROM US.

PIGEONS AND DOVES SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE FARM TO BEGIN WITH.

THEN WE SHOULD LOOK AT TRYING TO LOOSEN THE REGULATIONS ON THESE SMALLER LOTS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SOME DEVICE THAT COULD DO THAT.

>> YEAH. I THINK YOU ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.

>> YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING ANY ACTION FROM US ON THAT?

>> NO. THAT WAS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT I HAVE BEEN READING FOR THE LAST MONTH OR TWO.

I HAVE SOME GOOD DIRECTION GOING FORWARD, SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ANYBODY YOU WANT TO MOTION TO ADJOURN? THAT'S IT.

>> I'LL MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> SECOND THAT.

>> SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE.

>> THANK YOU, BOTH.

>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

>> MEETING ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Apr 21, 2025 Planning Commission

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item