[00:00:04]
>> WELCOME, EVERYBODY TO THE MAY 19 MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
[1. Call to Order]
WE LIKE TO START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.>> THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. YOU HAVE A MOTION?
[3. Approval of Agenda]
>> MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA FOR MONDAY, MAY 19, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER RESSLER, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 21,
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of April 21, 2025]
2025. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 21, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2025.
>> MOTION TO APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOANNA.
>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
THAT WILL BRING US TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING LA 25-16,
[5.1. LA25-000016, Charles Cudd Co LLC, 2545 Dunwoody Avenue, Variances (Matthew Karney)]
CHARLES CUDD LLC, 2545 DUNWOOD AVENUE.THIS IS FOR VARIANCE, MR. CARNEY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, BOLLIS GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.
I'VE PREPARED A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 2545 DUNWOOD AVENUE.
I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE WITH THE POSTING FOR IT.
IT IS NOT VARIANCE. IT'S JUST A CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS.
TO COVER THIS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
THE GENERAL LOCATION ON THE SOUTH END OF THE CITY NEAR CASCO POINT.
THERE ARE NEW RETAINING WALLS BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THE 75-FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK.
I'LL TOUCH ON IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE RETAINING WALLS OVERALL, THERE HAVE BEEN RETAINING WALLS ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THERE IS A BIT OF AN INCREASE IN THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS AND JUST A GENERAL EXTENSION OF THE SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY.
OVERALL, WE'RE JUST UNDER AN ACRE IN SIZE, AND WE ARE LOCATED IN THE TIER 1 OF THE STORMWATER QUALITY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
NORMALLY, WE'LL DO A FULL BREAKOUT ON A HARDCOVER FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT THERE IS CURRENTLY A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BEING BUILT ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE A LITTLE OUT OF WHACK UNTIL THAT HOUSE GETS BUILT.
GOING FROM ABOUT 22% TO JUST UNDER 25%, BUT NO NEW HARDCOVER WITHIN THE 75, EXCEPT FOR THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS.
THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT ON THE TOP.
THAT IS WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE WITH THE LAKESHORE AND THE EXISTING STAIRS GOING OVER THE SLOPE WITH SOME LIGHTER RETAINING WALLS ON THE SIDES OF THAT.
I CAN TRY TO GET YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A ZOOM HERE.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE SCALING OF THE WALLS IN RELATION TO THE STAIRWAY AND THE SLOPE THAT WE HAVE HERE.
THEN JUST A MORE GENERAL AERIAL VIEW IF WE NEED TO COME BACK TO IT AS WELL.
IN TERMS OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS, THE WALLS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE ARE TWO FEET WIDE AND ARE LINING A STAIR ACCESS AND TRAM ACCESS TO THE LAKE WITHIN SOME VARYING WALL HEIGHTS ALONG ITS DURATION.
IN SOME PLACES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME FAIRLY MINIMAL WALL INCREASES PERHAPS THREE FEET RIGHT HERE, 4.5, FIVE OR SO OVER HERE AS WELL.
THE WALL HEIGHTS WILL BE GOING UP IN COMPARISON TO THE EXISTING WALLS.
WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD STATED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS THAT WITH THE EXISTING WALLS, THERE HAD BEEN SOME SEDIMENT AND SUCH COMING THROUGH THE EXISTING STONES THERE.
BUT I'LL HAVE HIM SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ABOUT THE SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL IMPACT WITH THE CURRENT SLOPE THERE AND HOW THE NEW PROPOSED WALLS WILL CORRECT THAT PROBLEM.
TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I'VE COVERED HERE, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT UNLESS A DIFFERENT ACTION IS TAKEN TONIGHT, WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 9.
TO SUMMARIZE STAFF'S CONCERNS WITH THE APPLICATION ON ITS FACE.
[00:05:03]
STAFF DID NOT FEEL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCREASE IN THE WALL SIZE.STAFF FELT BASED ON THE VISIBILITY OF THE STAIRWAY AND THE WALLS OVERALL TO THE WAKE, THAT THERE'S LITTLE ABILITY TO SCREEN AT LEAST THAT PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL.
I THINK THERE'S A REASONABLE EXPECTATION FOR THE WALLS AS THEY ARE PARALLEL TO THE LAKE THAT CAN BE ADEQUATELY SCREENED, BUT THE STAIRS THEMSELVES STAFF HAS CONCERN WITH.
IN GENERAL, WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED, STAFF FELT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO STATE THAT THE SLOPE IS FAILING ON THE LAKE SHORE.
IN GENERAL, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THAT WOULD SUPPORT OR BE IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPLICATION.
WITH ALL THE FACTS CONSIDERED, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THERE IS AN OPTION TO TABLE THIS AS WELL IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO PERHAPS REVISE THE APPLICATION OR SEE WHAT TYPES OF GUIDANCE COULD PUT TOGETHER A BETTER PRODUCT FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.
WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? NO. 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 JOHN SONNEK WITH CHARLES CUDD, 25340 DOWNLOAD.
I HAD SOME RENDERING DONE SO WE COULD BETTER SEE THIS VERSUS JUST LOOKING AT A SURVEY.
THEN I HAD A COUPLE OF EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT I TOOK THE OTHER DAY ON [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT.
AS FAR AS THE RETAINING WALL AND THE STAIRWAY, IF YOU GO TO OUR EXISTING CONDITION.
>> WE HAVE A STAIRWAY THAT GOES UP OVER THE RETAINING WALL THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. I HAVE AN OLDER CLIENT.
HE'S GOT OLDER BROTHERS AND SISTERS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A STAIRWAY THAT THEY CAN HANDLE GOING UP.
THEN HE'S GOT 16 GRANDKIDS AND FOUR KIDS.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE THAT STAIRWAY A MORE USABLE STAIRWAY FOR THE OLDER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME TO VISIT AND THE GRANDKIDS TO RUN UP AND DOWN.
I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S THE SITUATION OF GOING IN IN THE LOCATION THAT THE CURRENT WALL IS IN VERSUS RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT IT MOVED BACK A LITTLE BIT.
AS FAR AS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THICKNESS OF WALL, THESE LITTLE ROCKS OR LITTLE LIMESTONES THAT ARE ABOUT A FOOT THICK.
IF WE USE NORMAL BOULDERS, THAT'S WHY IT GENERALLY LOOKED LIKE IT'S TWO FEET THICK JUST BECAUSE ROUND ROCKS ARE ROUND ROCKS AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
WE'RE PLANNING ON USING THE SAME TYPE OF ROCKS THAT THE RIP RAP IS MADE OUT OF.
VARIEGATED IN-SIZED FIELDSTONE BOULDERS.
THIS WAS THE BEST WE COULD DO IN THE COMPUTER TODAY QUICK TO TRY AND EMULATE WHAT IT WOULD BE.
THEN COVERING THE WALL WITH A BUSH.
WE SEED THEM INSIDE THE CRACKS OF THE BOULDERS, VINES GROWING DOWN OVER THE TOP AND THEN SOME TYPE OF A YEAR-ROUND GREEN BUSH GROWING UP FROM THE BOTTOM TO TRY AND MITIGATE THE SIDE OF THE WALL.
WE COULD BRING THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE AND JUST DO A LITTLE BIT MORE GRADING.
I CAN GET DOWN CLOSE TO SIMILAR IN HEIGHT OF THE OLD WALL ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, THE WALL IS ABOUT FOUR FEET HIGH.
WE COULD PROBABLY GET DOWN TO THAT FOUR FEET OR UNDER WALL AND THEN JUST DO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE GRADING WITH IT.
THEN WE WERE LOOKING AT, I GUESS, IF YOU POP BACK TO THE EXISTING STAIRWAY, FOLIAGE ON TOP.
THE SLOPE THAT'S LEFT UP ABOVE WOULD BE A FOLIAGE-TYPE SITUATION LIKE THAT, GOING UP TO WHERE THEY IF YOU COULD SEE THE ADIRONDACK CHAIRS UP AT THE TOP, THAT'S WHERE THE YARD IS FLAT.
THAT SITUATION WOULDN'T CHANGE.
IF YOU GO TO THE OTHER PICTURE, MY CLIENT'S QUESTION IS, HOW IS THE NEIGHBOR ABLE TO BUILD A BRAND NEW WALL RIGHT NEXT DOOR, BUT YET HE CAN'T HAVE IT ON? THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY.
BECAUSE THEY'RE SITTING THERE GOING, WELL, THIS JUST GOT DONE, THEY HAVE A PATH TO THE LAKE.
THEY HAVE A BRAND NEW RETAINING WALL, AND IT'S GOT LITTLE BUSHES IN FRONT OF IT THAT DOESN'T COVER THE WALL.
[00:10:03]
AT THAT POINT, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES.>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION AGAIN FOR PUSHING THE WALL THREE OR FOUR FEET BACK INTO THE FROM THE LAKE?
>> WELL, WE HAVE A PERMIT FROM MINNEHAHA WATERSHED THAT'S ALREADY DONE AND FORMALIZED, WE PUT IN TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A SAND AREA FOR THE GRANDKIDS TO PLAY IN.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE SURVEY HERE, YOU'LL SEE IT RIGHT THERE.
BASICALLY A SMALL 12 FEET BACK FROM THE WATER, AND IT JUST WAS PUSHING IT FAR ENOUGH BACK SO THEY COULD WALK BETWEEN THE BACK OF THAT SAND AREA AND THE RETAINING WALL.
>> BUT THAT'S A HARDSHIP THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN, YOU COULD TECHNICALLY REBUILD IT EXACTLY AS IT IS, CORRECT?
>> I COULD GO BACK INTO THE LOCATION WHERE IT IS, YES.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AT THIS POINT, WHAT ARE THE BEST WAYS TO MANAGE THIS SITUATION AND TAKE HAVE MY CLIENT BE HAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBOR GOT A NEW WALL, AND HE CAN HAVE A NEW WALL AS FAR AS THE LIMESTONE THAT'S DISINTEGRATING, BUT HE CAN'T HAVE A NEW WALL.
AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE THERE'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE IN THERE ENOUGH THAT WE COULD ROUND THE EDGES OF THE STAND PIT OFF AS FAR AS THE SAND BLANKET AREA TO MAKE THE ROOM TO GET AROUND THERE.
YES, IF WE WENT BACK IN WHERE THE WALLS WERE, AND KEPT THEM AT FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT OR UNDER WHICH IS ABOUT WHERE THEY'RE AT RIGHT NOW, THEN THE ONLY REAL THING THAT WE'D BE LOOKING FOR IS CAN WE GET THAT STAIRWAY STRETCHED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE SO THAT THE OLDER PEOPLE CAN TAKE TWO STEPS IN THAT AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
THE REASON WE WERE LOOKING AT THE TRAMWAY SITUATION IS TWO OF THEM ALREADY HAVE HIPS, KNEE AND THIS WHOLE STAIR THING IS NOT AN EASY SITUATION TO THEM.
I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT'S NOT IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'D RATHER SEE THE TRAM GO SIDEWAYS OR WHATEVER, TRY AND HELP BUCK THE VIEW FROM THE LAKE.
>> COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT TRAMWAY A LITTLE MORE? WHAT WE JUST SEE IS AN OPEN AREA OF GRASS DOWN TO THE LAKE.
IS THIS SUPPOSED TO HOUSE SOME EQUIPMENT THAT ELECTRIC IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S AN ELECTRIC TRAM.
>> THE POINT OF THEY CAN'T MAKE IT DOWN THERE AND THAT THERE ARE THE TRAMS THAT WE SEE ALL AROUND THE LAKE.
IT'S JUST ENOUGH EXTRA SPACE TO GET ONE OF THOSE IN NEXT TO THE STAIRWAY.
AGAIN, IT MIGHT LOOK BIGGER THAN IT IS OR NEEDS TO BE.
I NEED ABOUT FIVE FEET TO GET THAT TRAM.
THE RAILS ON THE TRAM AND TWO MOM AND DAD HERE AND THE KIDS OVER THERE.
IT'S A TWO AND TWO TRAM THING.
YOU STEP IN AND TWO PEOPLE SIT HERE, TWO PEOPLE.
>> BUT THE INTENT IS NOT TO PUT THAT IN RIGHT AWAY, IT'S 'CAUSE YOU'RE KEEPING THE SPACE FOR IT?
>> AT THIS POINT, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE SPACE FOR IT.
I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND BEST FROM YOU GUYS WITH YOUR RULES THAT YOU ARE CREATING AND STUFF, IS THIS A PROBLEM IN THE SITUATION? WHAT ARE THE BEST WAYS TO MANAGE THE SITUATION TO FIT INTO THE CRITERIA?
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> THE NEIGHBORS RUNS DIAGONALLY.
THEIR PATHWAY AND AGAIN, WE COULD START AT ONE END AND COME IN AND COVER WITH FOLIAGE AND GO DIAGONAL BACK AND FORTH AS FAR AS A CORNER ACROSS THE LOT.
WE COULD ACCOMPLISH. WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT FROM THE LAKE, THEN YOU WOULD JUST SEE FOLIAGE AND AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF WALL HERE AND A LITTLE BIT OF WALL THERE AND TRY AND COVER IT THAT WAY AS FAR AS SEEING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A PATH FOR THAT TO BE USED.
>> ARE THERE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES TO MOVE YOUR WALL, I BELIEVE IT'D BE FURTHER EAST.
>> NO. WE'RE KEEPING. GO TO MY PICTURE.
THERE'S AN EVERGREEN RIGHT THERE BY HIS MOUSE.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE TO KEEP.
THEN THERE'S AN OAK TREE TO THE RIGHT OVER THERE, WHICH IS A KEEPER.
THE ONLY TREE THAT'S EVER GOING TO BE IN JEOPARDY IS THE BIG ONE IN THE MIDDLE IS ACTUALLY AN ASH TREE.
[00:15:01]
IT'S GOING TO STAY THERE AS LONG AS IT IS STILL ALIVE.I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE OAK TREE IN THE MIDDLE VERSUS THE ASH TREE IN THE MIDDLE.
IT'S LITERALLY A 48-INCH ASH TREE.
IT'S GOT THE ADVANTAGE OF YEARS.
IT'S LIVED THROUGH A LOT OF DISEASES AND STUFF AND THAT, SO WE'RE GOING TO HOPE FOR THE BEST THAT IT STAYS THERE.
BUT OTHERWISE, WE'RE NOT TAKING OUT ANY.
>> THE WIDTH OF THE STAIRS, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? YOU SAID THE TRAM IS ABOUT FIVE.
I THINK EACH SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL WAS TWO GOING UP.
>> AGAIN, IT'S NOT A BIG THICK.
THE STAIRWAY THEY'RE LIKE FOUR FOOT WIDE, LANDSCAPE STEPPERS THAT YOU BUY IT.
THEY'RE GRANITE STEPS THAT ARE PRE-MADE THAT WE CAN JUST BUY.
>> YOU'RE NOT BUILDING A FULL STAIRWAY NECESSARILY ON THE RIGHT SIDE FROM OUR VIEW HERE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE STAIR STEPPERS AND GRASS, DIRT, IS THAT TRUE?
>> YEAH. THE STAIRWAY GOING UP IS LANDSCAPE STEPS.
>> EACH ONE IS ONLY 6 " TALL, BUT IT'S ABOUT A TWO STEP STEP FOR THE PERSON STEPPING ON IT.
THEY CAN MAKE A SHUFFLE STEP DOWN.
>> I THINK MY LAST QUESTION MAYBE IT'S QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT YOUR PERMIT FROM THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, WAS IT NECESSARY TO DO ANY OF THIS WORK OR DOES THIS COVER THAT APPROVAL? DO YOU NEED SEPARATE APPROVAL FOR THAT? I GUESS IT SAID THAT THERE WERE PLANS SUBMITTED TO THEM? ARE THESE STAIRWAYS AND THE RETAINING WALL PART OF THAT PLAN?
>> NO, IT'S WITH MINNEHAHA, AND STAFF SAID WE NEEDED TO HAVE THAT DONE AND APPROVED AND DONE BEFORE WE CAME IN, IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE SAND BLANKET ON THIS PICTURE.
>> WE DID THAT PROCESS, GOT IT DONE, GAVE THEM THE BOND.
THAT'S ALL DONE. EVEN IF WE DID NOTHING ELSE, THE LITTLE BIT OF SAND BLANKET IS STILL APPROVED.
>> JUST ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAID YOU COULD LOWER IT FOUR FEET, I THINK YOU SAID, WOULD THAT REDUCE THE SURFACE COVERAGE BY REDUCING THE RUN OF THE STAIRS?
>> IF THE HEIGHT WENT FROM FOUR-AND-A-HALF TO FIVE FEET TALL DOWN TO LESS THAN FOUR, NO, IT WOULD JUST CREATE THE SLOPE THAT WE HAVE GOING FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL UP THE HILL, THAT SLOPE WOULD GET A LITTLE STEEPER.
AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SLOPE THAT WE'RE MOWING, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MATTERS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, I HAVE THE FOLIAGE, LIKE YOU SAW IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN [INAUDIBLE] AND ALL OVER THE PLACE WHERE THAT TYPE OF FOLIAGE CAN SUPPORT A SLOPE UP TO ONE, AND WITHOUT EROSION ON IT AND STUFF.
IT'S JUST THE RIGHT KIND OF BUSHES WITH THE RIGHT ROAD STRUCTURES.
>> CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE FAILING CONDITION THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE AND EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT?
>> DO YOU KNOW OLD LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL STONES? THEY COME OUT FOUR INCHES THICK.
THESE HAVE DETERIORATED SO BAD THAT WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE PICTURE, THEY'RE DOWN TO COBBLE.
WHAT HAPPENS WITH LIMESTONE IS THEY GET WET IN THE FALL, WINTER COMES, IT FREEZES, AND IT CRACKS.
THAT'S WHY MOST OF ALL THESE LIMESTONE RETAINING WALLS ARE MAYBE GO TO MAKE IT 25, MAYBE THESE ARE 50, WHATEVER YEARS OLD.
THAT'S WHY THEY LOOK IN SUCH BAD SHAPE.
THEY WERE A REALLY NICE LOOKING STRAIGHT LIMESTONE WALL WHEN THEY PUT IN 50 YEARS AGO, AND AS MOISTURE GETS IN THEM EVERY YEAR, THEY GET WET, WINTER FREEZES, BREAKS THEM INTO PIECES.
THEY'RE LITERALLY A PILE OF RUBBLE SITTING THERE RIGHT NOW.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> ONE LAST QUESTION. THE HARD COVER THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IS REALLY CLOSE TO 25%, WHICH I THINK IS THE LIMIT IN THAT AREA.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THAT?
>> POTENTIALLY HAVING CHANGES TO YOUR PROJECT OF THE HOUSE AFFECTING THAT.
>> NO, WE'RE STAYING UNDER WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND ON THE HOUSE.
>> BECAUSE WE BRING ALL OUR WATER, WE'LL FUNNEL IT INTO AN UNDERGROUND SYSTEM ON THE WAY TO THE LAKE.
I'M NOT JUST RUNNING OFF THE TOP OF THE GROUND, AND THAT UP IN THE FRONT DRIVEWAY, I DON'T NEED IT FOR THE WATERSHED OR ANYTHING OR HYDROLOGY-WISE.
IT JUST DOES A BETTER JOB IF I BRING IT IN AND SLOWLY LET IT OUT AND DEAL WITH IT THAT WAY.
>> COULD STAFF CLARIFY WHY THE EROSION OF THE LIMESTONES ISN'T
[00:20:02]
ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THIS PER THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE INITIAL REPORT? WHY DOESN'T THIS MEET THE CITY'S STANDARDS?>> I THINK IT'S GENERALLY WHEN THE SIZE INCREASES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE JUSTIFICATION CLEARLY STATING WHY THE SIZE INCREASE IS WARRANTED.
BASED ON THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION THAT STAFF RECEIVED FOR THE APPLICATION, WE WEREN'T OVERLY CONVINCED THAT THAT SIZE INCREASE WAS REALLY WARRANTED.
I DO THINK THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN GREAT TESTIMONY TONIGHT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T THINK A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION OR A LOT OF THAT BACKGROUND WAS NECESSARILY PRESENT WITHIN THE WRITTEN APPLICATION.
>> I BELIEVE THE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE NEW WALL IS THE MINIMUM SIZE.
>> NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EROSION CONTROL.
>> TO CONTROL THE EROSION. TYPICALLY, THAT WE'LL HAVE AN ENGINEERING REPORT WITH IT SAYING THAT WE NEED TO BUILD THIS WALL FOUR FEET BIGGER, WIDER, EXTEND IT TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE EROSION THAT'S HAPPENING.
>> THE EROSION, IN OTHER WORDS, IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY A PROJECT, BUT THE PROPOSAL, AS IT'S CURRENTLY STATED, THE WALLS ARE TOO HIGH.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SAYING, WE'LL BE WILLING TO GET THIS DOWN.
>> I'M WILLING TO SAY, LET'S BRING IT DOWN SIMILAR TO THE HEIGHT ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE STAIRWAY, WHICH IS ABOUT FOUR FEET HIGH.
>> I APOLOGIZE. YOU MAY HAVE SAID IT, BUT WHAT IS THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE NEW WALL?
>> ON THE SURVEY, IT'S ABOUT FIVE-AND-A-HALF AT THE HIGHEST BECAUSE AS IT GETS CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, THERE'S SOME TREES THERE.
WE WERE STAYING A LITTLE HIGHER.
CLOSEST TO THE CORNER RIGHT NOW, IS IT FIVE-AND-A-HALF IN THE MATH? RIGHT AT THE STAIRWAY CORNER 38.
>> WE WOULD BRING IT BACK DOWN TO BEING AT FOUR FEET TALL, WHICH IS ABOUT HOW TALL THE LIMESTONE WALL IS.
YOU COULD SEE THE OUTLINE OF THE LIMESTONE WALL DOWN BELOW DOWN THERE.
THAT'S THE STAIRWAY, BUT GO TO THE HOOK TO THE LEFT.
THERE YOU GO. THAT'S WHERE THE LIMESTONE WALL IS.
ARE WE SAYING IN THE SITUATION THE WALL WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK WHERE THE WALL WAS?
>> YEAH. I BELIEVE MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND POSSIBLY SAME WITH THE NEIGHBOR, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THAT, BUT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BUILD ANYTHING BIGGER THAN WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE AND THEY BUILT IT IN THE SAME SPOT, THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM.
OUR CHALLENGE HERE IS YOU'RE CREATING MORE LAKE FRONT BY PUSHING THE WALL BACK FARTHER AND THEN YOU'RE RAISING THE WALL HIGHER, WHICH TRIGGERS THE ENGINEERING AND SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S REQUIRED WITH IT.
>> PROBABLY THE TOP OF THE WALL DOESN'T CHANGE HEIGHT AS THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL BECAUSE AS WE PUSHED IT BACK AND HAVE A LEVEL GRADE AT THE RIP RAP HEIGHT, THE WALL WAS HIGHER.
>> CORRECT. THE WALL IS HIGHER, AND THEN YOU'RE CREATING MORE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE TOP OF THE WALL IS NOT HIGHER, THE BOTTOM IS LOWER.
IS THAT THE BETTER WAY TO PUT IT? IF I PUSH IT BACK, THE TOP STAYS THE SAME, BUT THE BOTTOM GOT LOWER.
>> THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP IS THE SAME, BUT EFFECTIVE MEASUREMENT IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT I THINK THE CHALLENGES THERE IS THAT TRIGGERS SOME ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS ONCE YOU HIT A CERTAIN THRESHOLD IN WALL HEIGHT, THAT WASN'T ALSO PRESENTED.
HERE'S THE ENGINEERING THAT SAYS, WE HAVE TO MOVE THE WALL BACK.
WE HAVE TO MAKE THE WALL TALLER.
>> IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW, I'D OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE CAN MOVE ON WITH THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 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 A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ON IT RIGHT AWAY.
I ALREADY HAVE, BUT I KNOW THE CODE SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE THE MINIMUM TO FIX THE FAILING SITUATION.
I THINK THERE PROBABLY IS A FAILING SITUATION THERE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS EVEN STATED THAT THIS IS NOT THE MINIMUM TO REPLACE THAT.
I THINK, FROM THE TESTIMONY, IT WAS THAT THE SAND BLANKET IS CAUSING THAT WALL TO BE PUSHED BACK, WHICH IS BY THEIR OWN ACCORD, THEY'RE PUTTING THE SAND BLANKET IT IN.
THEREFORE, TO ME, IT DOESN'T FALL UNDER SOMETHING THAT WE CAN APPROVE AS APPLIED.
I THINK WE NEED SOME MORE ENGINEERING ON IT.
I THINK IF THIS WAS BEFORE US TODAY AND IT WAS TO SIMPLY REPLACE THE STEPS AND THE WALLS THAT WERE EXISTING, EITHER IN KIND OR A TAD BIT BIGGER TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
I THINK WE COULD APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT WITHOUT ENGINEERING BEHIND IT, THIS PROPOSAL, I DON'T THINK I CAN GET BEHIND IT.
I CAN'T GET BEHIND PRODUCING A SPOT FOR A TRAMWAY THAT ISN'T BEING INSTALLED.
[00:25:06]
I DO KNOW THOSE TRAMWAYS DO NOT NEED A FLAT LEVEL GRASS TO PUT THEM ON.THEY CAN PUT THEM DIRECTLY OVER THE EXISTING CONDITION THAT'S THERE.
I THINK THIS IS MORE PUSHING, TRYING TO CREATE MORE FLAT LEVEL LAKE SHORE, WHICH I THINK WE ALL WANT IF WE HAVE LAKE PLACES, BUT I DON'T THINK IT FALLS WITHIN OUR CURRENT CODE OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN IMPROVE.
I CERTAINLY LIKE TO HEAR OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR THOUGHTS ON IT.
>> SURE. I GUESS I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE MISSING A LITTLE BIT MORE DEPTH FROM ENGINEERING THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY REGARDLESS, BUT REMISS OF THAT, I DID HEAR A COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY COULD AMEND THEIR DESIGN TO MEET THE FOUR-FOOT MAXIMUM.
IF THAT WERE TO BE MET, AND THE DESIGN PLAN FROM ENGINEERING WERE TO BE PROVIDED, WOULD THE STAFF CHANGE THEIR OPINION TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AT THAT POINT?
>> I BELIEVE SO, IF THERE'S SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED FOR THE WALLS.
>> A CLEAR LANDSCAPE PLAN AS WELL.
THIS IS A GREAT DEPICTION, BUT AN IDENTIFIED LANDSCAPE PLAN OF WHERE THE PLANTINGS ARE AND THE TYPES OF PLANTINGS TO VERIFY SHIELDING FROM THE LAKE VIEW.
>> I'M HEARING LANDSCAPING, ENGINEERING, AND FOUR FOOT.
I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT UNLESS WE'RE WILLING TO GO ABOVE FOUR, THAT THEY COULD MAKE THIS WORK AT FOUR.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD NOTED THAT THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY PROBABLY COULD ILLUSTRATE IS THAT THE GRADING IS DIFFERENT, IT'S A STEEPER GRADE, AND YOU'VE GOT TO MAINTAIN THE EROSION OF THAT PROPERTY, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING AND YOUR APPLICANT WOULD NOT, BUT MORE SO, I FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REPLACE THIS WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE FOUR FEET.
I'M PLEASED TO HEAR THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT CAN BE DONE.
I AGREE. I THINK IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A TRAMWAY THAT'S GOING THERE, A TRAMWAY SHOULD GO THERE.
IF THERE'S FUTURE PLANS FOR A TRAMWAY, THEN COME BACK FOR ANOTHER PERMIT TO APPLY TO PUT A TRAMWAY IN WHEN YOU'RE READY, BUT I THINK FOR NOW, IF THE APPLICANT CAN INDEED GET TO THE FOUR-FOOT MAXIMUM, WE'RE PRETTY SENSITIVE IN THE LAKE SHORE AREA.
I THINK THAT'S BEEN ILLUSTRATED FOR MANY YEARS, AND OBVIOUSLY, IMPROVED THEIR LANDSCAPING PLAN TO MEET STAFF'S REQUESTS, AS WELL AS GET SOME ENGINEERING IN THERE THAT JUST PROVIDES PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS TO HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE MANAGED.
THEREFORE, IF IT'S NOT THE CURRENT APPLICATION ON THE TABLE, I WOULD BE A MOTION TO DENY WITH THE FEEDBACK AS SUCH.
>> COMMISSIONER RESSLER, WOULD YOU CLARIFY, WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF THE WALL? I UNDERSTAND THE HEIGHT, BEING IN FAVOR OF SIMILAR TO WHERE IT IS PLUS ENGINEERING, BUT ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF MOVING THAT WALL BACKWARDS TO ACCOMMODATE A SAND BLANKET?
>> I DON'T SEE ENOUGH CLARIFICATION.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WATERSHED, AND I DON'T KNOW.
AGAIN, THAT PROBABLY GOES BACK TO AN ENGINEER'S OPINION THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
I THINK IF WE CAN GET A DEMONSTRATION SLASH ILLUSTRATION, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE, BUT I THINK THE IDEA MAKES SENSE, BUT IT'S PRETTY RARE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AT THE LAKE TOO.
I DON'T SEE A HARDSHIP FOR DOING IT.
>> JUST WITH THOSE COMMENTS, DO YOU THINK WE'D BE BETTER OFF TABLING IT AND HAVING THESE THREE ITEMS BUILT INTO THE PLAN, OR ARE WE BETTER DENYING AND THEN REAPPLYING?
>> MY OPINION ON THAT WOULD BE, I GENERALLY DON'T LIKE TO TABLE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD AS LONG AS WE CAN HAVE AN AGREEABLE FEEDBACK THAT COULDN'T STOP IT FROM DOING WHAT IT'S DOING.
MR. CHAIR, YOU CERTAINLY CAN WEIGH ON THAT.
>> PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE WITH THIS APPLICATION AND THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO ADJUST THE PLAN TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPROVE, IF WE DENY IT, AND IT GOES TO COUNCIL THIS WAY OR WITH SOME CHANGES, THEN WE HAVE ZERO FEEDBACK ON THOSE CHANGES.
PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE A TABLE IS MORE APPROPRIATE HERE, SO THEY CAN BRING IT BACK TO US, HERE'S THE CHANGES WE MADE, AND THEN IT CAN PASS HERE AND GET APPROVED AT COUNCIL IF WE APPROVE IT HERE.
[00:30:07]
I THINK THAT, TO ME, IS A BETTER PROCESS TO STICK TO THE PROCESS THAT WAY.COMMISSIONER RESSLER BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.
IT'S A LOT QUICKER FOR THE APPLICANT IF WE DENY AND THEY MAKE THOSE CHANGES AT COUNCIL, BUT THEN WE DON'T GET TO SEE IT AGAIN.
>> I'M GUESSING THERE'S PROBABLY NOT A TIME SENSITIVITY OTHER THAN OUR REQUIRED TIMELINES.
THEY HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED OUT ON THE HOUSE. I LIVE ON [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
THERE WAS NO PRESSING TIME ON THIS APPLICATION.
>> WE'VE ALREADY ADMINISTRATIVELY EXTENDED IT 60 DAYS, SO WE'RE GOOD UNTIL MID-AUGUST.
>> GIVEN THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING BODY TO THE COUNCIL, I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN'S THOUGHTS ON TABLING IT, GETTING AN AMENDED PLAN, MAXIMUM FOUR FEET WITH AN ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE IDEALLY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE.
>> GUESS I'LL JUST ADD MY THOUGHTS.
I THINK THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A FAILING WALL IN ORDER TO FIX IT, TO ME, DOESN'T REALLY SEEM ADEQUATE.
I KNOW THAT'S MAYBE A LARGER DISCUSSION, BUT I SEE HOMEOWNERS TRYING TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION.
ARE THEY STEPPING A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR WITH THE NEW SAND BEACH THEY'RE DOING AND THEN PUSHING THE STAIRS BACK? MAYBE, BUT TO ME, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT AS IS.
HOWEVER, IT IS GOOD TO HEAR THE APPLICANT STATE THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO REDUCE THE SIZE A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK THE RENDERINGS YOU PROVIDED WERE A GOOD START, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I THINK IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO DO THE RENDERINGS WITH THAT, WHAT PLAN IT IS THAT WAS GOING TO COME OVER THE TOP.
I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A LITTLE BIT TOO.
AS YOU CAN SEE, FROM THE NEIGHBORS, I GUESS, WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED VEGETATION, THOSE BIG PINE TREES YOU HAD, SURE, ONE DAY WE WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY, BUT IF YOU PLANT SMALL ONES LIKE THAT TOO, THAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF OUR APPROVAL PROCESS, I THINK, BUT THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS MAINLY.
>> WE TRY TO RENDER [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS WHAT THE HOUSE IS IN.
WE WILL RENDER IT A DIFFERENT SOFTWARE NEXT TIME, WHICH WE COULDN'T EVEN FIND A BUSH IN REVIT, SO WE HAD TO TAKE A TREE AND SHRINK IT.
THEY MAKE A MODEL FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT NO LANDSCAPING IN THAT.
WHEN YOU SEE IT THE NEXT TIME, IT'LL HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND IT'LL HAVE THE BUSH THERE NEXT TO THE WALL.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT BECAUSE THE WALLS WERE DONE IN KIND.
>> CORRECT. TO COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR, YOUR QUESTION, IF THEY WERE REPLACING THESE WALLS IN KIND, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT THE FAILING EROSION?
>> IF THEY WANT TO UPGRADE THE WALLS TO A DIFFERENT MATERIAL AND HAVE IT IN KIND, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF US.
THERE IS AN EASIER PATHWAY ALSO.
>> THANK YOU. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I THINK I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE'S READY TO MAKE ONE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE WITH THE FEEDBACK PROVIDED MAXIMUM FOUR FEET AND THEN ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPE REPORT, PLEASE.
>> DID YOU HAVE QUESTION, OR WAS IT A SECOND DOWN THE END?
>> I WAS QUESTIONING WHETHER WE WERE INCLUDING KEEPING THE WALLS IN THE SAME SPACE AND NOT ADDING EXTRA THREE OR FOUR FEET TO LAKE SHORE.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE FEEDBACK OF THE ENGINEERING REPORT WAS GOING TO DRIVE THAT DISCUSSION.
>> YES, BUT WE SHOULD NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY SAID THE INTENT OF MOVING THEM BACK WAS BECAUSE OF THE SAND BLANKET, SO THE ENGINEERING WOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
>> I JUST WOULD LIKE TO VOICE, BEFORE WE MAKE THE MOTION OR MAYBE IT'S ALREADY BEEN SECONDED, BUT COULD WE FIRST MAKE A MOTION TO DENY IT WITH THE REVISIONS THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO MAKE? I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TIMELY PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.
>> BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE, THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL, THERE IS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JARNOT, AND WE DO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE AN ACTIVE MOTION, SO WE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT FIRST.
>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
[00:35:03]
HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.>> ONE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
>> THAT'LL BRING US TO NEW BUSINESS,
[6.1. LA25-000019, Darryn Beckstrom, 245 Ferndale Rd N, RPUD Concept Plan Review (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]
LA 25-19 DARREN BECHTROM, 245 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH FOR AN RPUD CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW. MISS CURTIS.THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY FROM R1A TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR RPUD, TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION OF THE ONE ACRE PROPERTY.
REVIEWING A CONCEPT PLAN IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE RPUD PROCESS.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVIEW THE PROPOSAL THIS EVENING AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT.
THE ONE ACRE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE R1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE ONE ACRE MINIMUM.
THE PROPERTY IS GUIDED IN THE COMP PLAN FOR URBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CALLING FOR 3-8 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED BETWEEN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, NORTHGATE 2 IN BLUE ON THE AERIAL PHOTO AND HILL O WAY MANOR OR THE CHEVY CHASE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS PEOPLE CALL IT, WHICH IS ZONED R1A AS WELL.
AN RPUD IS A REZONING PROCESS CREATED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DENSITIES AND TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED IN THE COMP PLAN.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE ONE ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO HALF ACRE LOTS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
HOWEVER, AFTER REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT, THEY PROVIDED A REVISED PLAN FOR DISCUSSION.
IN ORDER TO APPROVE AN RPUD, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FOR AN RPUD MUST FALL WITHIN THE GUIDANCE FROM THE COMP PLAN.
AS PROPOSED, IT IS TWO UNITS PER ACRE.
THREE UNITS PER ACRE IS THE MINIMUM THAT IS ALLOWED.
IN YOUR PACKETS, EXHIBIT H CONTAINS AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AGAINST THE RPUD REQUIREMENTS, HIGHLIGHTING THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES FALL SHORT IN MEETING SOME KEY REQUIREMENTS, LOT SIZE, DENSITY, AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION.
THEY DID BEGIN TO ADDRESS THIS WITH THEIR REVISED PLANS.
FURTHER ANALYSIS DOES REQUIRE A MORE DEVELOPED APPLICATION.
AT THE CONCEPT REVIEW LEVEL, THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOCUS ON THE IDENTIFIED ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH DIRECTION REGARDING THEIR NEXT STEPS.
THE PLAN PRESENTED IN THE PACKET THAT YOU REVIEWED OVER THE WEEKEND IS ON THE SCREEN.
THAT'S THE TWO HALF ACRE LOTS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THEY PROVIDED TWO ALTERNATIVE PLANS TODAY.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE ONE I WILL SHOW.
I HAVE COLORIZED IT JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO LOOK AT.
THE GREEN IS MORE OF A COMMON SPACE.
THE WHITE PADS WOULD BE HOUSE PADS.
ANY KIND OF HOUSE THAT WOULD FIT INTO THAT PAD WOULD BE PERMITTED AS LONG AS IT MET OUR LIKE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
THERE'S NO SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON THESE PAD SITES.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE NORTHGATE 2 DEVELOPMENT.
I GUESS I'LL PUT THE PHOTO BACK UP.
THAT SHOWS THE COMMON SPACE, THE ROAD, AND THEN THESE PAD BUILDING PAD SITES.
THERE WERE ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS THAT TONIGHT, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE PROJECT'S ELIGIBILITY TO BE DEVELOPED AS AN RPUD.
DOES THE PROPERTIES PROXIMITY AND PROPOSED DESIGN MEET THE EXCEPTION CRITERIA FOR LOTS THAT ARE NOT FIVE ACRES AND AREA IN THE RPUD DISTRICT, SITUATED NEXT TO NORTHGATE 2 AS A RPUD? WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO AMEND THE DENSITY GUIDANCE FOR THIS ONE ACRE PROPERTY, OR WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO PROVIDE RELIEF OR FLEXIBILITY FROM THE RPUD SINGLE FAMILY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, WHICH ARE LIKE THE LOT SIZES, THE SETBACKS, AND THAT KIND OF THING FOR THIS TYPE OF REZONING? THE RPUD PROCESS IS A DEVELOPMENT TOOL USED TO MEET CITY'S GOALS FOR DENSITY, HOUSING DIVERSITY, ENERGY CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER GOALS.
DOES THE APPLICANT'S PLAN MEET THOSE GOALS? DOES IT COME CLOSE TO MEETING THOSE GOALS? HAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IDENTIFIED ANY OTHER ISSUES FOR CONCERN OR TOPICS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY WANT TO DISCUSS TONIGHT? STAFF WOULD NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED DENSITY, ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, WAS BELOW THE GUIDANCE FOR THE PROPERTY.
A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE DENSITY OF
[00:40:04]
A SINGLE ONE ACRE PROPERTY AND IN DOING SO MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GOALS.THE PROPERTY CAN BE REDEVELOPED UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AS A SINGLE LOT WITH ONE HOME, OR THE COMMISSION CAN PROVIDE FURTHER GUIDANCE CREATING A THIRD LOT FOR THREE UNITS PER ACRE FOLLOWING THE NORTHGATE 2 LAYOUT OR ADDITIONAL DENSITY.
TONIGHT, YOU SHOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE THAT DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT. THEY ARE HERE.
I CAN TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, AND I HAVE SOME OTHER EXHIBIT EXAMPLES, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, SOME PHOTOS AND THAT KIND OF THING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> DARREN BECHTROM, 610 BROCKTON LANE, NORTH AND PLYMOUTH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY JUST TO LOOK AT THIS CONCEPT PLAN.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN ACRE LOT.
IT BELONGS TO WELL, RATHER MY LATE FATHER AND MY MOM.
THEY HAD LIVED THERE FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS, AND MY DAD UNFORTUNATELY PASSED AWAY VERY SUDDENLY LAST YEAR OF CANCER.
IT WAS ALWAYS THEIR GOAL TO LIVE IN THIS LOT FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS NOT THEIR PLANS HAPPENED.
WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO NOW, MY MOM IS REALLY REDEVELOP THIS LOT, REIMAGINE IT TO SOMETHING THAT SHE COULD EITHER LIVE IN AND HAVE OTHER HIGHER DENSITY AROUND HER.
BUT WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE IS IT TO BE JUST DEVELOPED AS ANOTHER FAMILY LOT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO LIVE ON.
ALSO, I LIVE OFF OF FERNDALE ROAD, AND IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO ALWAYS PULL OUT OF FERNDALE AND JUST SEE IT AS SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSE.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY PARENTS' HOUSE.
FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDES IT TO 3-8 UNITS PER ACRE IN THAT HIGHER DENSITY.
WE WERE THINKING, MAYBE WE WOULD DO IT AS TWO JUST BECAUSE THIS IDEA OF OBVIOUSLY, ORONO'S DESIRE TO HAVE LOWER DENSITY.
WE TRIED FOR THAT, BUT KNOWING THAT IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT THE STAFF WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE MORE THAN WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THREE ON THAT LOT.
NOW WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR GUIDANCE ON FEEDBACK ON HOW CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS TO MEET THE DENSITY GOAL 3-8 UNITS.
RIGHT NOW WE'VE PROPOSED THREE UNITS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL FOR THE APPLICANT? I MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE AS WE DISCUSS THIS.
I JUST WANTED TO FRIT A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT THERE, BUT OTHERWISE, I'LL JUST TAKE A SEAT IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
>> WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PADS IN THIS?
>> THAT'S THE THING. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK FOR FEEDBACK IS, RIGHT NOW, FIRST OF ALL, WE NEED A ROAD IN THERE.
WITH THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS IN ORONO, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FIRST OF ALL, MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH WHAT WE NEED FOR A PRIVATE ROAD, AND THEN ONCE WE CAN ESTABLISH THAT, WORK AROUND THEN THE BUILDING PAD SIZES AND WHAT ORONO WOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM THOSE BUILDING SIZES.
>> DID YOU CONSIDER, GIVEN YOUR PREVIOUS THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WITH TWO LOTS ON IT TO MAKE THOSE TWO DUPLEXES IN ORDER TO MEET THE COMP PLAN GOALS AND HAVE FOUR?
>> WE DID, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MY MOM WOULD RATHER HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
WE FELT THAT ALSO IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS IN WORKING WITH STAFF TRY TO KEEP IT CLOSE TO NORTHGATE 2 BECAUSE NORTHGATE 2 IS SINGLE FAMILY, AND THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER DUPLEXES IN THE AREA.
IT WOULD LOOK PROBABLY MORE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AREA TO HAVE DUPLEXES RATHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
>> IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO IDENTIFY WITH THOSE BUILDING PADS.
IT'D BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO GET A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT'S BUILDABLE ON THOSE TO UNDERSTAND.
>> THINKING RIGHT NOW IN THOSE BUILDABLE PADS, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ONES WE THREW IN THERE RIGHT NOW WOULD BE ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET FOUNDATION SIZE, WHICH IS INCLUSIVE AS WELL AS THE GARAGE.
THEN SOMEBODY COULD BUILD MORE RAMBLERS ON THERE, SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE IN THESE BILL STYLE HOMES THAT YOU'RE SEEING GOING UP.
SOMETHING SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO SHADYWOOD CIRCLE,
[00:45:01]
WHICH CHARLES DID ON THERE.WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR BIG EXTRAVAGANT HOMES, BUT SOMETHING MORE IN THAT THE FINAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE ABOUT 33, 3,700 SQUARE FEET.
>> SORRY. IT'S FAIRLY FLAT, CORRECT? THE ELEVATION ON THE LOT?
>> IT IS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE ELEVATED AS YOU GO UP WHERE THAT CORNER ONE IS.
YOU MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF RETAINING WALL, BUT OTHERWISE, IT SLOPES UP GRADUALLY FROM THE ROAD, BUT IT'S STILL PRETTY FLAT.
ALSO, WE DID HAVE WETLAND ANALYSIS DONE ON IT. THERE'S NO WETLAND.
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY APPEAR FROM ABOVE, THERE'S NO WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH WETLAND SETBACKS.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD TO COMMISSIONER PRCHAL'S COMMENT.
FOR A DUPLEX OR A TWO FAMILY DWELLING, THE DISTRICT DOES PROVIDE A CONDITIONAL USE OPTION FOR THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME PARAMETERS.
PUBLIC SANITARY SERVICE IS AVAILABLE THAT PROPERTY DOES HAVE.
THE LOT MUST BE ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PARCEL.
THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PARCEL, AND THEN JUST COMPATIBILITY IN STYLE OF THE DWELLING.
I THINK WITH THE PROXIMITY REQUIREMENT, I THINK THAT OUT RULES OUT THE CUP.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR ANYBODY OR WE CAN BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION? REALLY HIGH LEVEL ON THIS ONE.
THE RPUD, AND I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC ELEMENT, TOO?
>> THERE'S A NUMBER OF LISTED CRITERIA IN THE RPUD DISTRICT THAT PRIVATE RECREATION IS REQUIRED.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE SETBACK AND LOT MINIMUM SIZE CRITERIA FOR THE RPUD SINGLE FAMILY.
AN RPUD CAN ALSO BE USED TO DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE TWO PATHS.
BUT YES, THERE IS DEFINITELY A PRIVATE RECREATION ELEMENT OR OPEN SPACE OR SOME PRESERVATION.
>> IT'S A PRIVATE. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ELEMENT?
>> PRIVATE FOR THE RESIDENTS THERE.
THEN THE SETBACK STANDARDS, DO YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THE THREE LOT OR THE THREE UNIT CONFIGURATION MEETING THOSE SETBACK STANDARDS?
>> NO. NOT WITH THE BUILDING PAD CONFIGURATION PRESERVING THAT OPEN OUT LOT.
TYPICALLY, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE NORTHGATE DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THE BUILDING PADS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE SIZED WHERE THE HOME DOESN'T GO FROM LOT LINE TO LOT LINE.
BUT IN OUR STONE BAY DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY ARE.
THEY'RE VERY MUCH RIGHT ON THAT BUILDING PAD.
THE QUESTION OF WHAT SIZE BUILDING PAD, I THINK THAT IS A CRITICAL QUESTION.
BUT THEN THE OPEN SPACE TAKES THE PLACE OF THE SETBACKS FROM LOT LINES BECAUSE IT'S FUNCTIONING IN THAT SAME WAY, BUT IT'S MORE COMMONLY MANAGED.
>> IS THE OPEN SPACE THEN MANAGED THROUGH AN ASSOCIATION?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT HELPS.
WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE QUESTIONS THAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED FOR US, TO HAVE THIS WORK UNDER AN RPUD, IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE ACRES OR MEET ONE OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS.
IF WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT CHECKING THE BOXES, WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE FIVE.
THE OTHER CONDITION IT HAS TO MEET IS THAT IT HAS TO BE ADJACENT TO, WELL, I GUESS THE ACTUAL ACROSS THE STREET, I THINK, EXHIBIT H.
>> IT NEEDS TO BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET.
>> ACROSS PUBLIC STREET FROM A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY ON RPUD OR PRD.
BOTH OF THESE OTHER HILL O WAY MANOR AND NORTHGATE, WERE DONE UNDER?
>> HILL O WAY IS A STANDARD ONE ACRE.
>> HILL O WAY. THE ONE REALLY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS NORTHGATE, ISN'T IT?
IT CHECKS THAT BOX, BUT IT HAS TO BE PERCEIVED AND FUNCTION AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
[00:50:06]
>> THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT UP HERE.
IS THE PROPOSED PLAN, IS IT PERCEIVED AS AN EXTENSION AND WILL IT FUNCTION AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> IS DOES THIS PAD ALLOW FOR A SIMILAR SQUARE FOOTAGE HOUSE IS WHAT WOULD BE IN NORTHGATE? BECAUSE IN MY PERSPECTIVE, IF THE LOT PAD ALLOWS THE SAME SIZE HOUSE, THE RATIO OF HOUSE TO OPEN SPACE IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, THEN I WOULD HAVE ASSUMED FROM A MAP THAT THAT'S THE EXACT SAME. THAT'S PART OF NORTHGATE.
>> LOOKING AT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NORTHGATE LOTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER IF YOU WERE TO DIVIDE 245 INTO THREE.
>> CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.
I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THOSE HOUSES IS, IF WE HAVE A WAY TO FIND THAT.
>> WE COULD MEASURE SOME OF THE FOOTPRINTS FROM THE AERIAL PHOTO, BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT AND PUT IT IN THE STRUCTURE OF GUIDANCE, THAT'S OVERLOOKING.
>> I GUESS, WHAT DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THIS MAKE IT FUNCTION AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT.
BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T MEET THAT, THEN RPUD ISN'T POSSIBLE HERE.
>> I THINK MY GUIDANCE ON THAT WOULD BE THEN THAT A HOUSE BUILT ON THAT PAD COULD BE THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE AS THE HOUSE IN NORTHGATE.
>> IS THAT A OUTLAW IN AN HOA FOR NORTHGATE 2? IS THAT A SIMILAR CHARISTIC THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE THEM CARRY OVER INTO THEIR SUBJECT PROPERTY? IS THAT WHAT'S DEPICTED AS WELL THERE, AND THAT IMAGE, IS THAT POTENTIALLY THREE PRIVATE LOTS IN AN HOA AREA, OR IS THAT NOT NECESSARILY DEFINED YET?
>> WELL, I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THAT, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WAS CREATED TO MIRROR WHAT NORTHGATE WAS.
WHILE THE DETAIL MIGHT NOT BE QUITE FLESHED OUT IN THE SKETCH, I THINK THAT WAS THEIR INTENT TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, PRIVATE ROAD, AND THEN THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD ALSO BE CUTTING THROUGH THAT PRIVATE OUTLET.
>> MISS CURTIS, DO YOU KNOW THE TOTAL PROPERTY SIZE OF NORTHGATE 2?
>> I THINK IT WAS ROUGHLY SEVEN ACRES WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT.
>> THERE ARE SEVEN PROPERTIES ON IT.
>> THE OTHER RECTANGLES THAT YOU SEE ARE CREATED IN THE OUTLET. THESE AREN'T BUILDING SITES.
THIS ONE HAS A TENNIS COURT ON IT, AND THE OTHER ONE, I THINK HAS NOT BEEN IMPROVED, BUT THOSE WERE SPECIFICALLY CREATED AS PART OF THAT RECREATION SPACE WHEN THAT WAS DEVELOPED.
>> THERE'S NO PUBLIC EASEMENTS FOR THOSE?
>> THOSE ARE ONLY FOR NORTHGATE?
>> OR IF YOU'RE A FRIEND OF SOMEONE IN NORTHGATE, MAYBE THEN.
>> ONE THING I JUST WANT TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON IS, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE ON IS WE'RE NOT STUCK ON THE RPUD NECESSARILY.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THIS, BUT IS IT THE PRD OR THE RPUD? WHATEVER PROCESS GETS US TO BEING ABLE TO GET THIS TO HIGHER DENSITY IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE ON.
ONE THING I THINK I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE'S SEVERAL AREAS IN THE CITY OF ORONO THAT ARE GUIDED TOWARDS A HIGHER DENSITY, TO MEET THOSE MET COUNCIL GOALS SO 3-8.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT, I THINK SOME WAY HOW TO GET THAT HIGHER DENSITY OR ELSE THESE GOALS FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD BECOME A LITTLE LOUSY.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS JUST ANY GUIDANCE ON HOW TO GET THAT TO THREE, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH THE PRD PROCESS OR THE RPUD.
I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME IF WE'RE NEGLECTING ONE PROCESS THAT MAY BE BETTER THAN ANOTHER IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> I THINK THE PROCESS THAT YOU'RE IN IS THE PROCESS THAT YOU CAN BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR IF THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITIES IN THOSE LOT STANDARDS.
THE WAY THAT THE CITY'S CODE BREAKS OUT THESE DIFFERENT ZONING TOOLS FOR THESE DISTRICTS IS REALLY SPECIFIC.
OUR CODE WAS, IF YOU READ EACH OF THESE PRD, RPUD AND PUD SECTIONS,
[00:55:03]
THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC TRIGGERS AND THEY'RE VERY LIMITING.THIS ONE, THE RPUD PROCESS DOES SEEM TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE TO TAKE THIS PATH WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DEFERENCE OR EXCEPTION TO MAKE FROM THE RULES.
>> PERFECT. I APPRECIATE THAT.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME IF YOU ALL ARE CONSIDERING ONE PATH THAN ANOTHER ONES.
>> WHATEVER, IF THEY WERE TO GUIDE YOU FOR A CERTAIN PATH, I THINK WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS JUST CONCEPT AND WHERE YOUR PUSHING POLL IS FOR THE PROJECT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. NO. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> I THINK IN YOUR REPORT, MELANIE, I THINK YOU HAVE SHOWN THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE FOR THIS.
IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS EVEN A PATH.
>> IF I MAY, JUST LOOKING AT HENNEPIN COUNTY MAP.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE UPPER DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S NOT RPUD.
WHAT'S THAT ONE CALLED? HILLAWAY, THAT'S PLATTED.
THOSE FOUR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THAT NEIGHBORING THOSE FOUR ARE ALL 0.47 ACRES, 0.34 ACRES, 0.34 ACRES AND 0.39 ACRES.
MY HEAD GOES IS, I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THAT LANGUAGE SEEMS TO CALL FOR IT BEING CONTINUOUS TO A NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONTINUATION, EVERYBODY WANTS IT TO BE NEIGHBORING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REDESIGN THE ROUTING OF THE ROADS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OF COURSE, THAT WOULD BE SILLY.
BUT YOU COULD ALSO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT SAYS, ONE BIG SINGLE FAMILY HOME DOESN'T REALLY FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER.
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ROADS ARE ALREADY PLATTED AND PLACED, THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO DUMP OUT ONTO FERNDALE ANYHOW.
I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, I FEEL UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE ABOVE.
THEY'RE RIGHT IN THAT RANGE FOR SIZE AS IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS A THREE PROPERTY DIVISION VERSUS A SPLIT.
I THINK I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF BOTH FOR THAT REASON.
I AGREE THAT THE BEST VEHICLE IS THE RPUD FOR THE SAME PREMISE.
IT JUST ALLOWS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT TO STILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BECAUSE THE SETBACKS ARE NOT GOING TO WORK IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT THAT WAY.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD TO A HALF ACRE LOTS.
THESE ARE NOT SMALL, AND THEY'RE ALL BUILDABLE USABLE LOTS.
I THINK THIS FITS TO THE SPIRIT OF BOTH OF THOSE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTS.
YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT PLATTING THEM WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE, BUT THE RPID MAKES IT MORE SUITABLE TO ACCOMPLISH IT, AS MISS CURTIS MENTIONED.
FOR THAT REASON, I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN THAT THAT BE MY POSITION ON IT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M STILL STRUGGLING TYING IT TO NORTHGATE 2, WHICH IS THE ONE WE HAVE TO TIE IT TO.
I SEE YOUR POINT ON THE OTHER LOTS THAT WERE SUBDIVIDED BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT DONE WITH A SIMILAR PROCESS.
BUT THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THIS HAS TO FUNCTION AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS.
I COULD GET BEHIND THE THREE IF THERE'S SOME DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS FUNCTION AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT.
I'M JUST GOING BY THE LETTER OF THE CODE.
>> THE TWO RECTANGLES, THE BOTTOM ONE'S A TENNIS COURT, THE TOP ONE ISN'T BUILT YET.
IS THERE A WAY TO TIE INTO THE DRIVEWAY THROUGH THAT LOCATION AND THEN LITERALLY MAKE IT AN EXTENSION OF NORTHGATE SO THE ASSOCIATION WOULD TAKE ON THESE NEW THREE DWELLINGS?
>> THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD INVOLVE THAT OTHER PROPERTY, THOUGH.
HINGE THAT ON THEIR APPROVAL IF THEY WERE TO DESIGN IT TO BE SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE OR FUNCTIONALITY, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO JOIN INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT OR BE ACCEPTED INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT AND MAKE THEIR IMPROVEMENTS.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER PRCHAL MAKES A REALLY CLEAR COMMENT THERE THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT FUNCTION WORSE JUST TO MEET THAT.
IN OTHER WORDS, I FEEL LIKE, INSTEAD OF DOING SOMETHING TO FRANKENSTEIN THIS THING TOGETHER AND MAKE IT PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK YOU'RE BETTER OFF MAKING IT FUNCTION THE BEST WAY THAT IT CAN.
I GUESS THAT'S WHY MR. BOLLIS,
[01:00:05]
I RESPECTFULLY FEEL LIKE IT'S MEETING IT SIMPLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT FUNCTIONS BEST BY NOT TRYING TO TIE IT INTO THAT ROAD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.I THINK I PERSONALLY UNDERSTAND THAT LANGUAGE TO TRY TO NOT PLACE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT THERE, AND I THINK IT FITS THERE, BY DENSITY, PROPERTY SIZES, HOME SIZES, AT LEAST FROM THE SKETCH THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT FURTHER TO GO.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT GETTING CREATIVE WITH TYING IT INTO THE ROADWAY WOULD BE A CONTINGENCY FOR ME TO SUPPORT IT. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THE THREE LOT CONFIGURATION, THERE IS DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THAT THAT COULD MAKE IT FUNCTION AS AN EXTENSION OF NORTHGATE 2.
I'M HEARING, THERE'S SOME WILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT THAT SO IT WOULD CHECK THE FIRST TWO BOXES, I GUESS, OF WHETHER WE COULD EVEN USE THE RPUD.
NOW, ONCE WE SAY, THIS PROPERTY, WE COULD LOOK AT DOING THE RPUD HERE, CAN THE COMMISSION GET BEHIND IT NOT MEETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RPUDS? WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE TRADITIONALLY DON'T GET BEHIND ON ANY SUBDIVISIONS OR ANY RECLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTIES IS THAT THERE'S HARD STANDARDS THERE THAT HAVE TO BE MET.
ARE THERE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT MAKE IT SO THAT THEY CAN'T MEET THOSE, AND THEN WE HAVE TO APPROVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS? THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO GET OUR HEADS BEHIND, AND WE WANT TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANTS, SO THEY KNOW WHICH WAY TO PROCEED.
>> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? IS THAT FERNDALE? DIRECTLY ACROSS THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE LIKE THE HUB AND SPOKE MODEL.
>> THAT'S NOT ORONO, I BELIEVE.
>> GOT IT. IT DOES HAVE A SIMILAR LOOK AND FEEL.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TYING IN, I THINK THAT CONTRIBUTES DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT ORONO, IT FITS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
>> MR. CHAIR? STAFF, YOU PROBABLY CAN CORRECT ME ON THIS, MISS CURTIS.
>> UD. THANK YOU. RPUD. THAT IT GIVES IT THE FLEXIBILITY AS FAR AS THIS MINIMUM FRONTAGE SETBACKS, ALL THOSE THINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PLATTING IT, IT'S A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
OR CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IF THIS IS TRIGGERING A VARIANCE, HOW WE'RE PROPOSING IT, THEN OF COURSE, THAT'S HARDER.
>> I KNOW THAT I WOULD PHRASE IT AS A VARIANCE.
I THINK IT'S THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S PART.
IT'S INTEGRAL TO THE PUD PROCESS, THE FLEXIBILITY, BUT WE DO HAVE SPECIFIC DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IN CONCEPT [OVERLAPPING]
>> RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T SEE THAT.
IF WE CAN GET BEHIND IT, WE'RE JUST ASSUMING THAT IT WOULDN'T MEET IT.
BUT IF IT MEETS IT, AND WE ALL THINK THAT IT CHECKS THE FIRST TWO BOXES THAT WE CAN USE THIS PIECE OF THE CODE TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY, THEN THAT MAKES SENSE.
BUT IF THEY CAN'T, AND THEY CAN'T MEET THOSE SETBACKS, THEN THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS GIVE THE APPLICANT THE RIGHT DIRECTION ON HOW TO PROCEED BECAUSE IT'S A PATHWAY THAT WE'VE SEEN TIME AND TIME BEFORE WHERE WE'LL HAVE THESE SKETCH PLAN CONVERSATIONS.
THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH SPENDING MONEY ON ENGINEERING AND SO AND SO FORTH, AND IT COMES BACK BEFORE US, AND I'VE SEEN THE COMMISSION LOOK AT IT, LIKE THEY'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE.
WE DON'T WANT THE APPLICANT TO BE IN THAT SITUATION, HAVE THEM SPEND TIME, ENERGY, MONEY, EVERYTHING ELSE, AND GOING DOWN THIS PATH, AND THEN WELL, THIS DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS.
I WANT TO HAVE AS CLEAR OF GUIDANCE AS WE CAN.
>> I THINK THAT'S WELL SAID. I WOULD AGREE IF IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE OTHER STANDARDS, THAT'S A LOT TALLER MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB.
HOPEFULLY STAFF GIVES THEM GOOD FEEDBACK ON THAT TOO TO PREPARE THEM FOR IT.
THEY USUALLY DO A REALLY NICE JOB.
WHETHER THE APPLICANTS USUALLY WANT TO FOLLOW THAT GUIDANCE IS DIFFERENT.
>> NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU. WE'VE SPOKE A LOT ABOUT THE THREE LOT PIECE.
WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THE ONE THAT WAS IN THE APPLICATION, WHICH WAS THE TWO LOT.
IS ANYBODY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT UNDER
[01:05:03]
THE RPUD BEING THAT IT'S NOT THE CORRECT DENSITY THAT IT'S GUIDED FOR?>> I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THAT.
DOES THE COMP PLAN SUPERSEDE ANY ZONING? BECAUSE, I GUESS, JUST TO VOCALIZE MY OPINION, THREE HOME SITES ON THERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THAT PRIVATE ROADWAY, YOU'RE TAKING UP A QUARTER OF AN ACRE, MAYBE 10% AT A BEST CASE SCENARIO WITH THAT PRIVATE ROAD, THEN YOUR LOTS ARE EVEN SMALLER.
IF YOU LOOK AT 240 AND 220 OF NORTHGATE 2 THERE, THOSE TWO BARELY FIT INTO 245.
I GUESS, I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD, BUT JUST MY PERSPECTIVE, FITTING TWO LOTS ON THERE SEEMS A LOT.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I THINK TAKING A STEP BACK, HAVING ACCESS OFF OF FERNDALE IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
I DO LIKE THE ASPECT OF THAT PRIVATE DRIVE FOR THAT, GETTING A UPS DRIVER ROADWAY OFF OF FERNDALE.
COULD YOU DO THAT WITH THE TWO LOT THAT THEY ORIGINALLY HAD PROPOSED WITH THE LOOP? I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WORKS.
BUT I GUESS, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS, HOW WE GO ABOUT THAT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A CONCEPT POINT OF VIEW, I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, NOW IS THE TIME TO PROVIDE THAT DIRECTION, IF THAT'S EVEN A POSSIBILITY WITH OUR COMP PLAN AS IS.
>> IT'S BELOW THE DENSITY, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS WE CAN'T APPROVE IT.
IF IT'S DEVELOPED AS IT IS ZONED, IT CAN BE AT ONE ACRE.
JUST TO GO BACK TO THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, WITH THESE LITTLE LOTS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
IN EXHIBIT H, 8B THROUGH 8J ARE THOSE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, AND IT'S CALLING FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WITH THESE PUD SITES IS ALREADY DIFFICULT OR NOT POSSIBLE.
THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF THE SETBACK LINE OF 90 FEET LOT DEPTH REQUIRED WOULD BE 125, FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT THREE LOT PUD PLAN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO VARY THOSE OR FLEX THOSE STANDARDS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING.
IT'S JUST NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU'RE NORMALLY SEEING, BUT IT'S THE ONLY REAL FUNCTIONAL TOOL THAT WE HAVE IS THE RPUD.
>> JUST TO ADD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR.
CURRENTLY IT'S ZONED IN A ONE ACRE ZONE.
IF THEY WANTED TO JUST REBUILD OR MAINTAIN ON THE SITE, THEY CAN DO THAT.
WHEN WE START TAKING THE COM PLAN INTO CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THEY'RE PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE AND TO SPLIT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MEETING OUR GUIDANCE OR MEETING WHAT WE HAVE PROJECTED FOR THE CITY.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN LEVEL OF OVERALL DENSITY IN THE CITY IN OUR SEWERED AREAS.
WE ACCOUNT FOR HOW MUCH ACREAGE AND HOW THOSE DENSITY RANGES AND GET ACCOUNT FOR HOW MANY UNITS COULD BE ANTICIPATED.
IF WE GIVE GUIDANCE OR PROCEED WITH A PROJECT THAT IS SUBSTANDARD TO OUR LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, THAT WOULD TRIGGER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIREMENT, AND THEN WE WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKING AT ADDING DENSITY SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LACK OF DENSITY WE WANT TO APPROVE ON THE SITE, FOR EXAMPLE.
IF IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ALLOW THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE GUIDANCE THAT WE WANT TO HEAR TONIGHT BOTH FOR OR AGAINST.
BUT THEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER FOLLOW UP APPLICATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO PROCEED WITH.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION SEEMED REASONABLE, THAT WOULD THEN TRIGGER A CONFLICT AMENDMENT WHEN THEY'RE READY TO SUBMIT FOR FORMAL APPLICATION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN WOULD NEED TO ANTICIPATE ADDING DENSITY SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY TO COMPENSATE FOR DECREASING THE DENSITY HERE.
IT'S ALL A BALANCING ACT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS SPECIFICALLY IN THE MUSA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
>> MR. CHAIR? QUESTION FOR STAFF.
MS. OAKDEN JUST A FOLLOW UP TO THAT.
IF WE DO THREE INSTEAD OF TWO, DOES THAT STILL TRIGGER THE SAME THING WHERE YOU'D HAVE TO FIND AN EXCHANGE?
>> NO. THIS IS GUIDED FOR 3-8 UNITS PER ACRE.
YOU COULD HAVE UP TO EIGHT UNITS IN AN ACRE IN THIS LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
THREE HOUSES ON THIS ACRE LOT MEETS THAT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND GETS US THERE TO OUR DENSITY, WHAT WE HAVE GUIDED FOR OUR CITY.
[01:10:02]
>> THANK YOU. THAT ACTUALLY WAS WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS, MR. CHAIR, FROM OUR DISCUSSION, YOU AND I JUST A LITTLE BIT AGO.
OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IF WE'RE GOING TO MEET THAT.
I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SUPPORT THAT WE'VE JUST UNFOLDED.
CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SWAPPING DENSITY CODE AND CALLING.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HELP ANYTHING.
I'M GOING TO GET VERY COMPLICATED.
I THINK FOR THAT REASON, I'M GOING TO HANG MY HAT ON THE THREE, INSTEAD OF THE TWO, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S SIMPLE.
OF COURSE, YOU STILL NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT FITS AND IT'S NOT CAUSING PROBLEMS, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A SKETCH PLAN.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR OUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF.
IF I'M GOING TO PUT THAT INTO A BOX, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THREE PROPERTIES, JUST DEMONSTRATING THAT IT FITS.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE GOING OFF ROAD WITH THE RPUD.
>> I THINK THEY'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH THE THREE PROPERTIES.
I THINK IT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THAT ONE OF THE BIG IFS OF THE SKETCH PLAN.
I PERSONALLY FEEL THE SAME WAY.
IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN THE SAME, THEN AT LEAST GIVES THEM SOME THOUGHTS AS TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY TO PURSUE THIS FURTHER.
>> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RESSLER ON ALL OF HIS POINTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION GIVEN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AROUND CONCERNS ABOUT BRINGING FORWARD A MORE COMPLETE PLAN THAT THEN SOMEHOW DOESN'T MEET OUR EXPECTATIONS.
MY QUESTION IS AROUND THE GUIDANCE OR REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT SHARED RECREATIONAL SPACE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY PURSUE THIS OPTION WITH THE THREE PADS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO FIT IN WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SHARED SPACE.
MY QUESTION IS, IS, SHARED LANDSCAPING ENOUGH OR DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A RECREATIONAL ELEMENT THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO FIT IN? IS THERE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE THAT WE CAN GIVE TO THEM AS THEY'RE PURSUING THAT PLAN?
>> I THINK THEY CAN COME TO US WITH WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THAT OPEN SPACE, RECREATIONAL ELEMENT.
THERE'S DIFFERENT SIZE DEVELOPMENTS, OBVIOUSLY HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS.
BUT THAT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROPOSE.
>> THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF SOME SPECIFIC ELEMENT, SHARED LANDSCAPING OR JUST.
>> PLAYGROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> JUST TO CONVINCE US THAT IT'S A SHARED RECREATION GARDEN.
>> IT CAN'T BE THE BUILDING PLAN.
>> I THING EVERYBODY CAN USE IT.
I'LL JUST ADD THAT I AGREE WITH BOTH COMMISSIONERS.
I'M GENERALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE THREE PLOT PROPOSAL.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M MISSING RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE NEXT PHASE IS JUST A COMPARISON OF WHAT THE NEW HOMES WOULD BE IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.
HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT IN NORTHGATE 2? IS IT IN THE SAME RANGE? I THINK IT WOULD ALSO JUST BE HELPFUL TO SEE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO PLOT SIZE.
IF WE COULD JUST LOOK AT NORTHGATE'S 2 PLOTS, I THINK WE'VE APPROXIMATED THAT EXERCISE HERE TONIGHT.
BUT IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE APPLICATION, I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE HELPFUL TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS COMPARED TO ENSURE WE ARE MATCHING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> I WOULD AGREE. THAT'S THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE LOTS IN NORTHGATE HOUSE SIZE IS ABOUT 35-40 SQUARE FEET 3.5-4,000 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT YOU SAID SEEMS TO BE WITHIN RANGE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS WHAT A HOUSE SKETCH WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT FITS INTO THAT SO THAT WE CAN SAY.
ALSO, JUST THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN THE SAME RANGE AS THOSE HOUSES.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THAT'S A $2 MILLION HOUSE NEXT TO AHA.
>> COMMISSIONER WELSON, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
THERE'D BE AN EXCHANGE THERE POTENTIALLY, BECAUSE IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A MASSING OR STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT IN THAT SIZE, THERE COULD BE AN EXCHANGE OF, ENCROACHING ON PROPERTY AREAS OR LINES.
OF COURSE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PROPOSED.
[01:15:02]
BUT MAYBE JUST WEIGH IN ON THAT.I MEAN, BECAUSE I PERSONALLY WOULD RATHER SEE IT FIT BETTER THAN NECESSARILY MATCH UP, WITHIN A CERTAIN TOLERANCE OF FOOTPRINT, TO MY OPINION, PERSONALLY.
>> I WOULD CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER RESSLER THERE.
I COULD EVEN GET MY HEAD BEHIND THESE BEING MORE LIKE A VILLA STYLE LIKE THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING, I'M STILL TRYING TO TIE IT TO THE DESIGN ELEMENT THAT WORKS WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT'S AN ELEMENT THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT BECAUSE THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IS MISSING THAT.
IN A WEIRD WAY, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THAT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY PROVIDING SOMETHING FOR THAT AREA.
I'M NOT AS HUNG UP ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE BEING THE SAME SIZE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO STILL CREATE THAT COMMON LAND, COMMON ELEMENT THAT THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD HAS.
>> I THINK, JUST WITH THOSE COMMENTS RIGHT THERE, YOU EITHER HAVE THE OPTION OF SELLING IT TO SOMEONE TO BUILD A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, WHICH DOESN'T FIT.
THEN YOU GO THE THREE HOUSE ROUTE.
YOU DO SOME MAIN FLOOR LIVING.
IT'S GOT A SMALL COMMUNITY FEEL.
I THINK FOR THIS ZONE, IT MATCHES WELL.
I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD WORK IN MOST AREAS, OR NOT.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IS SPEND THE TIME, SPEND THE MONEY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THEN WE GET HUNG UP ON SOMETHING ELSE, OR WE OPEN A CAN OF WORMS FOR DOWNSTREAM DISCUSSIONS IN THE FUTURE.
>> WELL, WITH THE SKETCH PLAN, THERE'S NO NOTICE TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
IF A PLAN COMES BEFORE US, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR CONSIDERABLE DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT PER LOT FOR THESE THREE.
I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF HEADWAY, I THINK.
I THINK I WANT TO GIVE CAUTION TO THE APPLICANT THAT WITH THIS MANY NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY CONTIGUOUS WITH THIS, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN, NEIGHBORS AREN'T REALLY HAPPY WHEN PEOPLE SUBDIVIDE OR DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY.
THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF HEADWIND ON IT.
I'M STILL NOT 100% ON HAVING TO GIVE VARIANCE FROM THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COUNCIL WOULD BE.
SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF SUPPORT.
FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON IT.
>> I THINK IT'S NOT LOST ON US AS A CITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR DENSITY.
WE'VE GOT TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF AREAS WHERE WE CAN DO THAT.
PUBLIC OPINION IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO BE NOTED, BUT IT REALLY SHOULD NOT BE WHAT WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS UPON, PUBLIC OR NOT.
THAT'S THE FACTS, UNFORTUNATELY.
WE WANT TO APPEASE, IF POSSIBLE, THE NEIGHBORS,.
>> BUT THERE STILL HAS TO BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO GIVE THE VARIANT TO THE STANDARD, THOUGH.
>> I DON'T AGREE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT AN PUD DOES IS IT ALLOWS THE FLEXIBILITY TO TO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS.
>> THE STANDARDS ARE 15,000 PER PIECE.
YOU CAN SEE IT CAN GET HEIRY, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, THOUGH.
>> THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BAIL OUT TO FERNDALE ROAD WOULD PROBABLY BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL.
AS DISRUPTIVE AND INVASIVE AND SO I GUESS, IF I CAN JUST AMEND MY FEEDBACK FROM BEFORE, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OVER TWO LOTS AS STRANGE AS THAT SOUNDS BECAUSE IT JUST CREATES A PROBLEM FOR US FOR REZONING.
IT'S BIZARRE THAT WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION WHERE WE NEED TO ADD DENSITY, BUT WE'RE NOT MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT.
IT'S VERY TELLING OF WHAT WE'RE FACING HERE IS THAT'S GOING TO BE FLEXIBILITY. IT HAS TO WORK.
BUT IN THIS CASE, WE NEEDED TO BE THREE.
IT JUST NEEDS TO WORK. I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
>> ALL THAT BEING SAID, I HOPE THAT'S ENOUGH GUIDANCE FOR THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY FORMAL VOTE OR ANYTHING WE HAVE TO DO ON IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> THIS WILL ALSO BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE FIRST MEETING IN JUNE.
>> THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM 7 ON THE AGENDA,
[7.1. LA25-000014, Revisions to City Code regarding the Keeping of Animals in Residential Districts (Matthew Karney)]
OLD BUSINESS, LA 25-14.THIS IS ABOUT PREVIOUS REVISIONS TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, MR. CARNEY.
[01:20:05]
TO PIGGYBACK FROM LAST MONTH'S ADVENTURE INTO THE ANIMAL REGULATIONS, WE ARE CONTINUING WITH OUR THIRD PART IN THE SERIES.HAVING STARTED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WHEN WE SAW A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR THE KEEPING OF PIGEONS, AT LEAST SOME OF YOU REMEMBER.
THAT WAS REALLY THE START OF THE PROCESS WHERE I THINK WE IDENTIFIED THAT THE REGULATIONS COULD USE SOME REVAMPING TO BETTER FIT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
I THINK LAST MONTH'S MEETING ON APRIL 21ST WAS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY THINK OF WHAT EXACTLY WE WANTED TO CHANGE AND REALLY WHAT COULD BE ADDRESSED, I GUESS.
REALLY HOW I SAW THIS MEETING WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THAT FEEDBACK INTO ACCOUNT AND PROPOSE THE BIG PICTURE CHANGES THAT WE COULD IMAGINE TO SEE WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT HERE.
ONE THING THAT I'LL NOTE RIGHT OFF THE BAT IS THAT THERE'S NOT REALLY A TEXT CLEANUP WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
THIS IS JUST THE BIG PICTURE CHANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE CHAPTER 62 ANIMALS LIVES WITHIN PUBLIC PROTECTIONS, AND WITH THE POLICE, FOR EXAMPLE, AS WE GO THROUGH THE TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS WITH THEM, WE'LL LOOP THEM IN FOR SOME OF THOSE BROADER CHANGES THAT WE WANT TO DO.
BUT IN TERMS OF CHANGES TO HOW WE DEFINE ANIMALS AND HOW WE WANT TO LOOK TO RECLASSIFY THEM IN A ZONING CONTEXT.
THAT'S REALLY THE PURPOSE OF WHAT I'M BRINGING YOU TO TODAY WITH SOME NEW DEFINITIONS AND PERHAPS SOME REWORKINGS OF SOME EXISTING ZONE DISTRICTS AND ACCESSORY USES OVERALL.
MAINLY WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU IS FOUR NEW DEFINITIONS.
THEY'RE ALL FOR ANIMALS, MENTIONING OF KEEPING ANIMALS AS ACCESSORY USES WITHIN OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THEN INSTEAD OF HAVING THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS LIVING WITHIN ACCESSORY OR CONDITIONAL USES AS THEY ARE NOW, CREATING A SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENT PORTION OF OUR SECTION, SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS TO DICTATE HOW ANIMALS ARE REGULATED WITHIN THE CITY.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL JUST WALK YOU THROUGH THE CHANGES THAT WE CAME UP WITH.
FOUR MAIN DEFINITIONS HERE, AND THIS WAS PUT TOGETHER WITH A LITTLE BIT OF CARE AND CONCERN FROM SOME OF THE MULTIPLE ZONING CODES THAT WE HAD REVIEWED FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, JUST TO TRY TO ENCOMPASS THE BROADER POSITION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN AS I NOT CONSIDERING CATS AND DOGS ANIMALS.
WE'RE STARTING FROM ONE PLACE, AND I THINK WE'RE GETTING TO A BETTER PLACE WITH THESE DEFINITIONS.
ULTIMATELY WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT ANIMALS CAN BE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ANIMAL DEFINITIONS.
I THINK THAT WAS A BIG THING LEARNED FROM VIEWING AND RESEARCHING THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AND THEIR ZONING CODES, REVAMPING THE FARM ANIMALS DEFINITION TO NOT BE FULLY RESTRICTIVE, BUT LEAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR SOME MORE UNIQUER NICHE CASES, BUT ALSO HOW WE STRUCTURED DOMESTIC POULTRY TO BRANCH OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE FARM ANIMALS DEFINITION SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THERE WITH SMALLER LOTS, WHICH I THINK WAS PROBABLY ONE OF MY BIGGER SURPRISING TAKEAWAYS FROM OUR LAST MEETING, OPENING UP SOME OF THOSE SMALLER LOTS FOR PERHAPS SMALLER POULTRY.
I THINK IT WAS MOSTLY CAGED BIRDS AND SUCH THAT WAS OF INTEREST BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SOMETHING I WANTED TO FIND A WAY TO INCORPORATE.
I THINK BY DOING IT THIS WAY, WE CAN I GUESS, CODIFY A SHIFT TO HAVE ANIMALS REGULATED BY LOT SIZE OPPOSED TO BY ZONING DISTRICT.
I'LL JUMP INTO THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
BUT I THINK FOR DOMESTIC POULTRY, DID NOT WANT TO GO TOO FAR OFF THE GRAIN BY PROPOSING ANY NEW ANIMALS USING THE EXISTING LIST, BUT WHILE ADDING THE DOVES AND THE PIGEONS, BUT ALSO BEING CLEAR TO DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HENS AND ROOSTERS AS THAT IS A BIG POINT OF CONTENTION IN MANY OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE'VE RESEARCHED, AND ALSO FROM THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED IN THE LAST MEETING.
GOING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN TERMS OF ZONING REGULATIONS.
WE JUST FLAT-OUT PROPOSE THAT FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, THAT THE KEEPING OF FARM ANIMALS AND DOMESTIC POULTRY IS ALLOWED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WE CALLED OUT BELOW IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS.
ULTIMATELY, I'LL JUST CALL OUT FIRST OFF.
WE'RE NOT REALLY PROPOSING TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE TO FARM ANIMALS AS IT IS.
THE PROPERTIES WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO BE TWO ACRES IN SIZE.
WE DO HAVE SOME RURAL DISTRICTS THAT TWO ACRES ISN'T NECESSARILY POSSIBLE.
[01:25:01]
I THINK THE BIG THING THAT WE LEARNED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS IS THAT LOT SIZE IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.ZONE DISTRICT, MAYBE NOT AS MUCH.
AS WE CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME PERHAPS LAKE SHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT HAVE MORE THAN TWO ACRES, MAYBE AREN'T LOCATED NEXT TO THE LAKE SHORE.
WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT PROPERTY FROM A RURAL PROPERTY ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE CITY.
I THINK THAT WAS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION OF OURS, BUT ALSO TO SPECIFY DOMESTIC POULTRY AS AN OPTION FOR SMALLER LOT, PERHAPS URBAN AGRICULTURE, REALLY TO COVER THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN A HALF ACRE AND TWO ACRES, ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY FOR UP TO FIVE BIRDS.
I THINK THAT'S THE BALLPARK I'M SEEING IS 4-6.
I'VE SEEN OTHER COMMUNITIES LIKE MINNEHAHA THAT ARE PERHAPS BASED ON 0.1 ACRE, SO 10 BIRDS FOR ONE ACRE, FIVE BIRDS FOR A HALF ACRE, 20 BIRDS FOR TWO ACRES.
I THINK THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT THIS JUST COVERS YOUR HALF ACRE TO TWO ACRE INSTANCES.
ONCE WE GET TO TWO ACRES, WE'RE COUNTING ANIMAL UNITS, AND THEN IT WOULD DEFAULT TO THE 25 BIRDS OR SUCH AS WE ALREADY HAVE STIPULATED, BECAUSE AT WHICH POINT, THE DOMESTIC POULTRY WOULD JUST BE DEFINED AS A FARM ANIMAL AT THAT RATE.
THIS IS JUST A SUBSET OF THE DEFINITION THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR THOSE SMALLER LOTS.
I THINK THE DEFINITIONS ALLOW FOR THIS MECHANISM TO BE REGULATED IN AN EVEN WAY MORE OR LESS.
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS I ULTIMATELY PROPOSED IN THE STAFF REPORT, REALLY LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK, IF THESE DEFINITIONS ARE FITTING, IF SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING WITH PERHAPS REDUCING THE CUP REQUIREMENTS TO BE MORE OF AN ACCESSORY, YOU SHOULD CERTAIN CONDITIONS BE MET, AND REALLY JUST OVERALL TO GAUGE YOUR FEEDBACK AND SEE IF THIS IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK TO BE CONSIDERED A FORMAL TEXT AMENDMENT AS WE GO FORWARD HERE.
REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK TO SEE IF THOSE DEFINITIONS AND SLIGHT REWORKS CAPTURE YOUR INTENT FROM THE LAST MEETING. THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
>> THE DEFINITION SIDE. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
GOT YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE A WHAT IF? WHAT IF I HAVE A 20 ACRE FARM, AND I HAVE DOMESTIC POULTRY THERE, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ROOSTERS NOW.
>> YEAH. THAT WAS ONE ADDITIONAL POINT I WAS GOING TO MENTION WAS UNDER FARM ANIMALS, YOU COULD ADD MALE POULTRY.
>> WHICH IT'S NOT LISTED THERE?
>> DOMESTIC POULTRY MAKES SENSE FOR THE SMALL ACREAGE?
>> MALE POULTRY WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR, BUT I WOULD EVEN SAY THAT GUINEA HANS WOULD NOT WORK AS DOMESTIC POULTRY IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWING ROOSTERS BECAUSE THEY'RE LOUDER THAN ROOSTERS.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF REWORKING HERE BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE RIGHT AWAY.
THIS IS MAKING THINGS MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IT'S OPENING UP TO SMALLER LOTS, BUT IT'S MAKING THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THEY USED TO BE IN CERTAIN AREAS.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION AT ALL.
ACTUALLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS TO MAKE A TINY CHANGE TO ALLOW PIGEONS AND DOVES AND THEN ADJUST IT SO THAT IT COULD BE ALLOWED ON SMALLER ACREAGE.
>> COMMISSIONER, I WILL JUST NOTE THAT UNDER FARM ANIMALS, WE DID ADJUST SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE.
TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION TO THE DEFINITION.
CURRENTLY, IT JUST LISTS ANIMALS, WHERE WE SAY IT CAN BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL, NONCOMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE, FARM ANIMALS INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO.
WE CAN'T LIST EVERY ANIMAL, BUT IF YOU'RE USING IT FOR COMMERCIAL OR NONCOMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE.
>> A ROOSTER WOULD FALL UNDER THAT?
>> NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE EXCLUDE IT.
I THINK THE POINT OF LISTING MALE POULTRY MAKE SENSE ADDED TO THAT DEFINITION.
I THINK THAT IS CLEAR, BUT JUST NOTING THAT WE DID TRY TO WIDEN THAT DEFINITION.
>> I THINK THE PURPOSE AND INTENT WAS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC WITH THE DOMESTIC POULTRY.
AND, PERHAPS THAT'S MY LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH EACH OF THE BIRDS THEMSELVES, BUT I THINK THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT DOMESTIC POULTRY, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A MORE DIALED IN DEFINITION.
IT CAN BE THESE FIVE OR SIX BIRDS OR WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING.
BUT IF THAT'S A HONED IN DEFINITION, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE CAN ALLOW FOR THE SMALLER LOTS, WHERE WE NATURALLY WOULD LIKE TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE ANYWAYS.
[01:30:02]
>> WE WANTED TO ADD THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR FARM ANIMALS OVERALL, SO THAT ONE, THE LARGER LOTS WHERE IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE PERHAPS LARGER ANIMALS AND THOSE WITH MORE IMPACT THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY CHANGING THAT STATUS QUO.
WE'RE JUST ADDING A DEFINITION TO ALLOW FOR THAT FLEXIBILITY ON THE SMALLER LOTS.
>> A QUESTION JUST THAT MIGHT CLARIFY IT.
IF YOU REMOVED DOMESTIC POULTRY FROM FARM ANIMALS, IT WOULD STILL BE INCLUDED AS A LIVESTOCK OR ANIMAL THAT'S KEPT FOR COMMERCIAL, I WOULD JUST MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT THAT'S A VERY BROAD CATEGORY THAT COVERS CHICKENS AND HENS AND GUINEA, MAYBE IT COULD SAY ALL POULTRY AND BIRDS OR SOMETHING.
INSTEAD OF INCLUDING DOMESTIC POULTRY INSIDE OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> UNDER ANIMALS BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE PEACOCKS AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DOMESTIC POULTRY.
I THINK IF THE INTENT IS TO BE LESS RESTRICTIVE ON THE LARGER LOTS OR THE FARM ANIMALS, I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY HAVE THAT INTENT THERE SO IT'S NOT CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER HERE. THAT WAS A POINT THAT.
>> YEAH. HOWEVER WE DO THAT, I JUST NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT DOING THAT.
>> THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
LET'S FIRST JUST TOUCH ON DOMESTIC POULTRY.
WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH BEING DOMESTIC POULTRY, I THINK THE LIST THAT'S THERE IS TOO BROAD BECAUSE DUCKS, GEESE, TURKEYS, AND GUINEA HENS, THEY CAN BE MORE DISRUPTIVE THAN DOVES, PIGEONS, AND HENS.
I WOULD PROPOSE RESTRICTING IT TO DOVES, PIGEONS, AND FEMALE CHICKENS OR HENS ONLY.
THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN HERE MAKES ME CONCERNED THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS FEMALE OF ALL OF THE THINGS LISTED AFTER IT, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE INTENT.
I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS IF THE DOVES AND PIGEONS ARE MALE OR FEMALE.
BUT THE CHICKENS ARE WHERE WE CARE THAT IT'S THE FEMALE HEN ONLY.
IF WE RESTRICT IT TO THOSE THREE AND REMOVE THE DUCK, GEESE, TURKEYS, GUINEA HENS, AND THE REST OF THOSE FOWL CAN BE INCLUDED IN FARM ANIMALS, THEN I THINK THAT HELPS.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE RESTRICTING FARM ANIMALS TO NOT INCLUDE OTHER TYPES OF POULTRY THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DOMESTIC POULTRY DEFINITION.
I ALSO WANT TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS THAT WE DON'T OPEN OURSELVES UP BY THE PHRASEOLOGY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO BECAUSE, AGAIN, I WORRY THAT WE WOULD OPEN OURSELVES UP TO SOMEONE ON A LARGER LOT, HAVING AN INTEREST IN KEEPING AN ANIMAL THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES THAT WE WOULD APPROVE.
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT AS I GAVE LAST TIME WOULD BE CAPTIVE CERVIDS.
IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE WANTING TO KEEP ELK OR DEER FOR VENISON FARMING.
WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE ISSUE IN MINNESOTA THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF AND KEEPING CAPTIVE CERVIDS WOULD BE GOING AGAINST THE WORK BEING DONE TO PREVENT THAT.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY EXPLICIT THE TYPES OF ANIMALS THAT ARE ALLOWED OR ARE NOT ALLOWED.
IF I LIVE ON A HALF AN ACRE LOT, AND THEN I READ THESE DEFINITIONS, COULD I TECHNICALLY HAVE ONE OF EACH BIRD? COULD I HAVE TO MAKE FIVE BIRDS? THEN IF I WANTED TO DO THAT, COULD I HAVE A HOLDING PEN OR CAGE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE BIRDS?
>> CONCEIVABLY. AS LONG AS YOU FALL WITHIN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND MEET THE SETBACKS AS PROPOSED.
>> I THINK THE INTENT WAS WELL, FIVE DOVES IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN FIVE HENS.
THOSE NUMBERS, I THINK, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT.
WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UP TO I THINK IT WAS 25 DOVES OR PIGEONS.
[01:35:03]
THAT THAT THEY FIT IN A COOP DIFFERENTLY THAN 20 HENS, FOR EXAMPLE.I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH FIVE HENS, CHICKENS, BUT A HIGHER NUMBER OF DOVES AND PIGEONS FROM A DOMESTIC COOP STANDPOINT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
THIS IS JUST CALLING OUT AND IDENTIFYING AND CATEGORIZING WOULD STILL TRIGGER A PLANNED PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE OTHER [INAUDIBLE] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SORRY, TOO MANY ACRONYMS, TOO LONG OF A DAY.
IT STILL WOULD TRIGGER THAT OR NO, WOULD NOT, OKAY?
>> CURRENTLY, IT'S PROPOSED TO MOVE THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS AS AN ACCESSORY USE WITH THE DISTRICT.
IT WILL BE AN ACCESSORY USE AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING.
IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU'D BE LOOKING AT VARIANCES OR SOMETHING, BUT IT WOULD BE JUST A LISTED ACCESSORY USE.
>> FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS, WHEN YOU GET TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WHERE WE'RE IDENTIFYING THOSE DIFFERENT ONES, AS CALLED OUT ABOUT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A SPECIES OF ANIMAL THAT IS NOT INCLUDED, BUT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO THOSE FARM ANIMALS? WOULD THAT BE A SEPARATE PERMIT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE HEARD BECAUSE IT'S NOT CALLED OUT, OR HOW DOES THAT GET TREATED?
>> TODAY, IF SOMEONE CALLS AND THIS DOES HAPPEN, PEOPLE SAY, I WANT A LLAMA.
I WOULD LIKE LLAMAS ON MY FARM? I HAVE 10 ACRES OF LAND. I'D WANT A LLAMA.
WE GO THROUGH AN ANALYSIS THAT LLAMA IS SIMILAR TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE LISTED, AND WE TRY AND WORK WITHIN SOMETHING SIMILAR.
WE'RE TRYING TO ENCAPSULATE THAT ANALYSIS IN THE DEFINITION.
IT'S MORE CLEAR THAT THERE'S SOME LENIENCY.
THIS IS NOT AN ALL INCLUSIVE LIST, BECAUSE IT IS A MOVING TARGET OF TRYING TO LIST EVERY ANIMAL THAT PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP.
PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP UNIQUE THINGS ON THEIR PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY LARGE PROPERTIES WHERE THEY HAVE THE SPACE AND CAN SUPPORT IT.
I WOULD CAUTION ON TRYING TO THINK THAT AS A COMMISSIONER, AS A CITY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A LIST THAT'S ALL ENCOMPASSING OF EVERY ANIMAL.
INSTEAD TRYING TO THEN ADDRESS THE DEFINITION BY SAYING THE THINGS THAT EITHER WE WANT TO OR BY GUIDANCE, WHAT IS OKAY, OR THE IDEA OF LISTING, NOT I THINK YOU SAID, CAPTIVE CERVID ANIMALS? SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO MAYBE LIST EXCLUSIVELY WHAT WE DON'T WANT? MIGHT GET THERE IN A DEFINITION, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S NECESSARILY A WAY TO GET A LIST OF ALL ENCOMPASSING OF THE ANIMALS.
>> NO. THEN THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT IS, WHERE DOES THIS GO? WHO ADJUDICATES IT IF IT DOESN'T FIT THESE THINGS IN THE BOX? DOES THAT GO TO US? DOES THAT GO TO STAFF? DOES THAT COUNSEL?
>> WELL, IF SOMEONE CAME AND SAID, I'D LIKE TO KEEP ZEBRAS, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WOULD WE WANT THAT TO JUST BE CONSIDERED NOT LIMITED TO, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'D LIKE TO COME TO A BODY LIKE THIS TO WRESTLE WITH THAT QUESTION.
>> I AGREE. THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION.
THAT'S WHERE I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DOES THAT COME BACK TO US [INAUDIBLE].
>> YEAH, SO I WILL NOTE THAT IF SOMEONE'S ASKING TO KEEP TIGERS OR ZEBRAS OR SOMETHING BEYOND THE KEEPING OF A FARM ANIMAL, IF STAFF'S UNCOMFORTABLE MAKING THE INTERPRETATION THAT THIS FITS WITHIN, IT WOULD COME THROUGH A PROCESS OF MAKING A DETERMINATION.
IT WOULD COME THROUGH A PLANNING COMMISSION AND A CITY COUNCIL PROCESS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.
MIGHT NOT BE A VARIANCE, BUT THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT.
LOTS OF TIMES PEOPLE WANT PEACOCKS OR LLAMAS OR SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE LISTED, BUT WILL KEEP.
BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING MORE EXTREME ELK, THAT'S PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP THINGS THAT ARE ON THE LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES OR ZOOM SPECIES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, STAFF WOULDN'T MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THEN THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE LANGUAGE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO? THAT JUST KEEPS THE DOOR OPEN FOR RESIDENTS TO COME HERE AND SAY, WHAT ABOUT THIS IF THEY COME HERE?
>> YEAH. ARE THEY REQUIRED TO ASK THAT QUESTION OR IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A CAMEL, THEY CAN JUST HAVE A CAMEL?
IF SOMEONE CALLED AND SAID, I WANT TO KEEP FARM ANIMALS, I WANT TO KEEP CAMELS, STAFF WOULD WANT TO MAKE THAT INTERPRETATION.
THAT'S A PRETTY FAR STRETCH INTERPRETATION OF CALLING A CAMEL A FARM ANIMAL.
WE WOULD COME AND BRING THAT THROUGH A PROCESS, BUT THERE IS AN IDEA THAT IF YOU WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THE TYPES OF ANIMALS,
[01:40:04]
THEN LISTING THEM EXPLICITLY OR AMENDING THAT LANGUAGE IS SOMETHING WE A STAFF WANT TO HEAR OR WANT TO HEAR YOU DELIBERATE ON ON HOW YOU WANT THAT PROCESS TO LOOK.>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IF PEOPLE ARE READING THE CODE, AND IT SAYS ARE NOT LIMITED TO, ARE THEY MAKING THE INTERPRETATION THAT THEY'RE NOT LIMITED? THEY CAN CHOOSE TO FARM SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED AS NOT ALLOWABLE? A TIGER IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING, BUT I COULD SEE SOMEONE SAYING A ZEBRA IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM A HORSE.
I DO KNOW THERE IS A CAMEL THAT IN MAPLE LAKE OR MAPLE PLAIN.
BECAUSE THERE ARE PETTING ZOOS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
PEOPLE DO KEEP STRANGE ANIMALS.
THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH IS, DOES THE LANGUAGE NOT LIMITED TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC INTERPRETATION, AND ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? OR IS THERE A PROCESS THAT WE'D RATHER THEY COME TO IF THE ANIMALS NOT LISTED? IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULD SAY WE DO NEED TO EXPAND THAT LIST BECAUSE ALPACA AND LLAMAS, AND SOME OF THESE ARE VERY COMMON.
>> WOULD FURTHER DEFINING LIVESTOCK BE HELPFUL IN LIVESTOCK COULD BE PRETTY SPECIFIC AS FAR AS IT'S PROVIDING A PRODUCT OR A SERVICE?
>> COMMERCIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL?
>> NO. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT LIVESTOCK.
A ZEBRA IS NOT NECESSARILY LIVESTOCK.
WE LIST HORSES, AND THEN WE SAY LIVESTOCK, SO LIKE SHEEP, COWS THE OTHER ANIMALS THAT PROVIDE SOMETHING.
>> WELL, I THINK YOU'RE ON TO SOMETHING BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE INTENT OF THAT DEFINITION IS GOING.
I'M SAYING LIVESTOCK OR ANIMALS THAT ARE KEPT FOR COMMERCIAL OR NONCOMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.
I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY THAT YOU'RE KEEPING A ZEBRA FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR A TIGER.
>> BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CONSIDER IT A PET, I DON'T THINK OR A DOMESTICATED ANIMAL, THAT NECESSARILY WOULDN'T MEET THAT DEFINITION.
>> CORRECT. I'M FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT DEFINITION THE WAY IT READS.
THERE'S SOME TEETH BEHIND THAT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO HOLD KEEP A TIGER.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO COME UP HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
BUT THERE PROBABLY ARE A FEW MORE ANIMALS THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THERE, SO THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, LIKE LLAMA, ALPACA, THAT KIND OF THING.
PEOPLE JUST DON'T HAVE THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE KEEPING THAT OR NOT.
>> I DID NOT ADD ANY OTHER WORDS OTHER THAN DOVES AND PIGEONS.
I DID NOT WANT TO ADD MUCH MORE THAN WHAT WAS EXISTING, BUT MAYBE THAT'S MY LACK OF FAMILIARITY THAT HAD THEM WITH POULTRY, PERHAPS, INSTEAD OF WITH FARM ANIMALS.
I TOOK THAT PORTION OF YOUR DISCUSSION LAST MEETING LITERALLY.
I'M NOT GOING TO THROW ANY NEW THINGS IN THERE UNLESS DIRECTED.
>> MAYBE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IN THERE CURRENTLY FARM ANIMALS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO.
MAYBE OUR ATTORNEY CAN OFFER SOME BETTER.
>> AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ADDING MALE POULTRY AND OTHER OTHER POULTRY THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE MORE LIMITED DOMESTIC DEFINITION? HOW DO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC POULTRY FOR THOSE SMALLER ACREAGE LOTS.
ARE YOU OKAY LIMITING TO DOVES, PIGEONS, AND HENS, OR DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW A BROADER RANGE?
>> WELL, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THIS COMES UP A TON.
WHEN IT DOES, WHAT STARTED THIS, IN MY OPINION WAS REALLY PRETTY VAGUE.
THAT CONVERSATION CAN RUN AFOUL. SORRY.
>> WITH THAT BEING SAID, THOUGH, THIS DOES GIVE US BETTER DIRECTION AND CLARIFICATION, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT ON WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.
I'M GOING TO USE THE EXAMPLE OF WHEN WE GOT INTO OUR DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE AND THEIR SIZES, HOW WHEN WE MADE CHANGES, WE SAID, LET'S GO WITH THIS CHANGE, AND UNLESS WE SEE THAT MAYBE WE CAN TURN THE VOLUME UP A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND WE CAN ADD ON TO IT, BUT LET'S SAFELY ADJUST IF WE NEED TO, I THINK IN THE SAME ASPECT, CAN WE KEEP THIS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? BUT THEN, AT LEAST THERE'S MORE GUIDANCE AND DEFINITION WHEN IT DOES COME UP.
[01:45:01]
THEN WE CAN SEE, WE KEEP ON SEEING CHICKEN APPLICATIONS.CAN WE GIVE CHICKENS A BREAK AND MAKE THAT NON-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT'D BE GREAT IF WE WERE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
>> YOU WANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALL DOMESTIC POULTRY?
>> BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT IN THE CODE.
>> IS THAT WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW?
>> FARM ANIMALS ARE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN LAKESHORE DISTRICTS.
IN RURAL DISTRICTS, THEY'RE AN ACCESSORY.
THEY'RE JUST ALLOWED IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
IN LAKESHORE DISTRICTS, IT'S LISTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT IS BEING DEFINED AND CALLING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RIGHT NOW, USING THE PIGEONS AS THE EXAMPLE AS AN APPLICATION BEFORE, I'D LOVE TO STILL HAVE THOSE SITUATIONS COME IN FRONT OF US AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHILE STILL HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH TO WHAT'S DEFINING THESE ANIMALS IS MY OPINION, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO HAVE MORE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
IF THEY'RE NOT BEING TRIGGERED RIGHT NOW, THEN LET'S NOT ADD THAT, BUT IF THERE ARE ONES THAT ARE TRIGGERING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, I THINK THIS LANGUAGE IS GREAT BECAUSE IT HELPS DEFINE, BUT I'D LIKE TO STILL HAVE IT COME BACK HERE.
>> I'M SORRY. FROM A CONDITIONAL USE STANDPOINT, ARE YOU HOPING THAT IN THE LAKESHORE DISTRICTS AND WITH DOMESTIC POULTRY, THAT IT WOULD JUST BE BASICALLY FOR NOTIFICATION PURPOSES, OR ARE YOU LOOKING TO ADD CONDITIONS?
>> I'M SORRY. I THINK YOU NOTED THAT DOMESTIC POULTRY WOULD JUST BE ADMINISTRATIVE, OR DID YOU WANT DOMESTIC POULTRY AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST REGULATED ALL AS FARM ANIMALS.
YOU GUYS ARE TOSSING THE IDEA AROUND OF LETTING CHICKENS IN SMALLER LOTS.
>> RIGHT NOW, IF I'M NOT IN THE LAKESHORE DISTRICT, AND I WANT FARM ANIMALS, IT'S JUST AN ACCESSORY PERMIT.
>> IF YOU HAVE FIVE ACRES OR MORE.
>> IT'S LOT SIZE-DEPENDENT, BUT YES, IT'S JUST ALLOWED IF YOU MEET THE TWO ACRES AND EVERYTHING IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE'S A LOT OF LOTS CONSIDERED LAKESHORE LOTS THAT REALLY ARE NOT LAKESHORE LOTS, BUT MORE OF BECAUSE OF HOW THEY'RE PLANNED.
THE POINT THAT WE HAD ASKED AT THE LAST ONE WAS TO SAY, LET'S DO AWAY WITH THE CUIDS FOR THE LAKESHORE LOTS FOR DOMESTICATED.
>> I WOULD BE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, THOUGH, BECAUSE THE MAP WITH LAKESHORE DISTRICT, I STILL THINK WE NEED A ADDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS SOMEONE WITH A LARGE LOT THAT IS ON THE LAKE KEEPING A LARGE NUMBER OF POULTRY BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT RUN OFF CONCERNS.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION WASN'T THE LARGE LOTS.
THE CHALLENGE WAS THE SMALLER LOTS, THE HALF ACRE LOTS.
>> BUT RIGHT NOW ANYONE ON LAKESHORE DISTRICT WOULD NEED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO KEEP ANY KIND OF FARM ANIMALS.
>> RIGHT NOW FARM ANIMALS, YOU NEED TWO ACRES.
NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, YOU NEED TWO ACRES.
IF YOU'RE IN A RURAL DISTRICT, IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE.
IF YOU'RE IN A LAKESHORE DISTRICT, IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE TWO ACRES, IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO KEEP FARM ANIMALS.
>> YES. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO GIVE ACCESS TO WAS SMALLER LAKESHORE OR NON LAKESHORE LOTS THE ABILITY TO HAVE DOMESTICATED POULTRY BY GETTING RID OF THE CUID FOR THOSE.
>> THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE. >> BUT IT WOULD STILL BE A CONDITION IF THEY WANTED FARM ANIMALS.
IT WOULD STILL BE A CUP IF THEY WANTED, BUT IF THEY HAD A 10-ACRE LOT ON THE LAKE AND WANTED HORSES OR ANYTHING, THEY'D HAVE TO COME AND APPLY FOR A CUP, BUT IF THEY WANT TO HAVE FIVE CHICKENS, THEY CAN.
>> FIVE CHICKENS, BUT NOT MORE IF THEY HAVE OVER TWO ACRES.
>> CORRECT. BECAUSE THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THE FARM ANIMAL DEFINITION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RURAL-RESIDENTIAL, THEY'RE LAKESHORE.
>> THEN WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL HOW WE DEFINE DOMESTIC POULTRY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY A MAXIMUM OF FIVE IF YOU'RE OVER TWO ACRES.
WE COULD END UP IN A CONDITION WHERE SOMEONE WHO HAS TWO ACRES, BUT IS IN A LAKESHORE DISTRICT WANTS TO KEEP DOMESTIC POULTRY, BUT THEY LEGALLY CAN HAVE A 100.
>> IT'S WRITTEN, THEY CAN'T. IF I MAY.
THE INTENT IS WITH THE FARM ANIMALS THAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE ANIMAL UNITS.
BY HAVING DOMESTIC POULTRY BE A SUBSET, IT'S STILL TECHNICALLY A FARM ANIMAL, BUT THERE'S ESSENTIALLY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WITHIN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR THOSE IN VERY SPECIFIC INSTANCES SO THAT ONCE YOU'RE STARTING TO MEET THE CONDITION OF A FARM ANIMAL OPPOSED TO DOMESTIC POULTRY, YOU JUST HAVE TO MEET THE ANIMAL UNITS FOR THE ACREAGE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
[01:50:02]
THAT WAS THE INTENT OF STRUCTURING THE DEFINITIONS IN THAT WAY, SO THAT REALLY, DOMESTIC POULTRY ONLY WORKS FROM THAT HALF ACRE TO TWO-ACRE SIZE.ONCE YOU HIT TWO ACRES, WE'RE LOOKING AT ANIMAL UNITS AS FARM ANIMALS.
>> THEN THERE ARE NO FARM ANIMALS ON LAKESHORE DISTRICT PROPERTIES.
>> WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THERE WOULD BE, UNLESS THEY'RE TWO ACRES IN SIZE.
>> IT'S A REAL CONCERN, BUT I THINK THE WAY HE'S PROPOSING THAT BE STRUCTURED, I THINK THAT COVERS THAT CONCERN.
>> JUST TO RESET HERE MY ORGANIZED THOUGHTS HERE IS I DON'T WANT TO ADD ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTING.
IN OTHER WORDS, I ALMOST WOULD RATHER THIS AS A TEXT AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT GIVES US MORE GUIDANCE AS IT DOES GET APPLIED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE NOW WE'VE GOT MORE GOVERNING TEXTS TO GIVE US GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT IT IS, BUT IF IT WAS BEFORE GOING TO TRIGGER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, I STILL WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
IF IT WAS NOT TRIGGERING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS IT IS, I WOULDN'T HAD IT.
THE ONLY THING WOULD BE JUST I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAN UP A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE, WHICH I THINK WE'RE DOING.
THAT'S A GOOD THING, BUT STILL, BECOME A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RATHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE.
>> ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH SOMEONE WITH A ONE-ACRE PROPERTY OR A HALF-ACRE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT ON LAKESHORE DISTRICT HAVING FIVE HENS WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT?
>> IS THAT WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW?
>> NO. IT'S TWO ACRES ONLY OVER.
I THINK THE GOAL WAS FOR MORE ORONO RESIDENTS WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN HAVING A SMALL NUMBER OF HENS TO HAVE THAT ABILITY WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A CUP?
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THAT ONE RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION, I THINK.
>> I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THIS DISCUSSION, WAS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE A SMALL NUMBER OF HENS ON SMALLER PROPERTIES.
WE ARE TRYING TO ACTUALLY INTENSIFY CODE TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE INCREASED ACCOUNTS OF SOME SPECIES THAN WHAT'S ALLOCATED RIGHT NOW.
>> ALLOWING THEM WHERE THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
>> IT'S A VERY SMALL NUMBER TO KEEP IN YOUR BACKYARD.
>> YOUR COOP AND EVERYTHING STILL HAS TO MEET ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE STILL SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE A HALF ACRE IN SIZE THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE FIVE HENS IF THEY CAN'T FIT THE COOP IN THE RIGHT SPOT.
THEN WE'D BE SEEING IT AS SOME SORT OF A VARIANCE REQUEST OR SOMETHING.
>> WE ARE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE SOME LENIENCY TO THOSE SETBACKS.
CURRENTLY, THE CODE HAS SOME PRETTY STRICT SETBACKS.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO JUST HAVE THE COOPS OR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS HAVE TO MATCH PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS FOR THE SITE, INSTEAD OF THE 150 FEET FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR AND 75 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE ARE RELAXING THAT SETBACK UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.
>> SIMILAR TO WHAT WE APPROVED FOR THE DOVES.
>> ACCESSORY DWELLING WAS PROBABLY THE MOST LENIENT, BUT YOU'RE CHANGING IT TO PRIMARY AND STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
MORE STRICT THAN ACCESSORY BUILDING, BUT LESS STRICT THAN WHAT WE HAD MAYBE IDENTIFIED BEFORE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IN THE HALF-ACRE DISTRICT, YOUR SETBACK'S 10 OR SEVEN-AND-A-HALF IS THE SMALLER WITH THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE NARROW LOTS, THAT WOULD BE THE SETBACK.
WHATEVER THE HOUSE COULD BE AT, WHICH IS MORE FLEXIBLE IN THAT HALF ACRE DISTRICT.
>> WE SHOULD CLARIFY IN THE LANGUAGE FOR THE SMALLER ACRES IF WE'RE REQUIRING THAT THE POULTRY REMAIN COOPED OR CAN FREE RANGE.
OR MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE IT'LL BE CIRCUMSTANTIAL, BUT IF WE GET COMPLAINTS, THEN WE CLARIFY IT.
>> THE CURRENT DEFINITION HAS IT WITHIN A COOP, THOUGH?
>> TO BE IN A COOP, CORRECT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHICH CURRENTLY IS 150 FEET SETBACK REQUIREMENT?
>> WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE IT TO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
CURRENTLY, IT'S 150 FEET FROM YOUR NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS AND 75 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> BUT IT'S NOT A FREE RANGE, IT'D BE IN A COOP?
>> THE BUILDING THAT THE ANIMALS [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT THE DEFINITION DEFINES THEM AS BEING KEPT IN A COOP.
>> I JUST DON'T SEE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO ANY THINGS
[01:55:01]
STRICTER WITH HENS THAN WE DO WITH DOGS.OR WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT.
>> ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THEY COULD FREE RANGE THEM ON THE HALF-ACRE LOT?
>> AS LONG AS THEY STAYED ON THEIR PROPERTY, I DON'T SEE WHY YOU WOULD WANT.
>> THERE'S NO WAY TO REQUIRE THAT OF HENS.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HENS AND DOGS.
>> WITH THE COYOTE PROBLEM, I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ISSUE.
>> I THINK WE TAKE BABY STEPS WITH THIS CHANGE.
I LIKE THE WAY THE DEFINITION IS RIGHT NOW.
NO ONE'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE BEING CHICKEN POLICE AND WHATEVER, BUT IF I WAS ON A HALF-ACRE LOT AND MY NEIGHBOR HAD CHICKENS, AND I DIDN'T, AND THEY WERE OVER IN MY LANDSCAPING ALL THE TIME, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT FIRST, AND IF THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING, I'D LIKE TO TALK TO THE CITY AND SAY, YOU GOT TO KEEP THE BIRDS IN THE COOP.
BECAUSE THEY WILL GO TO THE BRAND NEW MULCH THAT WAS JUST INSTALLED AND START EATING IT, WHETHER IT'S ON YOUR HOUSE OR THE OTHER HOUSE.
I THINK THAT DEFINITION GIVES THE CITY A LITTLE BIT OF TEETH TO GET BEHIND IF SOMEONE DOES HAVE FIVE BIRDS THAT'S A NUISANCE TO SOMEBODY.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE CONSISTENCY THAT WE SEE WITH A LOT OF THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER CITIES AS WELL, THAT THEY WANT TO SEE A DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE'S LODGING FOR THE BIRDS MORE OR LESS.
I THINK THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED AS A CONTROL THAT ADEQUATELY CAN KEEP DOWN CITIZEN COMPLAINTS, AND GENERALLY, KEEP A MORE ORDERLY LAND USE MORE OR LESS.
I AT LEAST WANTED TO START AT THAT POINT.
I'M THROWING THAT UP THERE AS THE BEST CONTROL THAT I'VE SEEN AS A ZONING MECHANISM STARTING FROM THERE.
REALLY, IF THERE WAS APPETITE TO PERHAPS ROLL IT BACK AND GO IN THAT DIRECTION FOR FREE RANGE, SURE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD START.
>> CERTAINLY WITHOUT A PERMIT.
I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO THE EARLIER COMMENTS, THOUGH, AROUND THE INCLUSION OF GEESE FOR DOMESTIC POULTRY.
I THINK TURKEYS, GUINEA HENS FOR UP DISCUSSION TOO, BUT FOR ME, I THINK GEESE ALMOST FALL MORE INTO THAT LANE OF ROOSTERS.
>> THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. I MORE OR LESS MOVED ALL BIRDS FROM FARM ANIMALS INTO DOMESTIC POULTRY.
>> I THINK WE'RE TAKING JUST HENS, DOVES AND PIGEONS, OR DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ARGUMENT FOR ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT?
>> HENS, DOVES, AND FEMALE CHICKENS, CORRECT?
>> HENS, DOVES, AND PIGEONS, YEAH.
>> HENS, DOVES, PIGEONS, AND FEMALE CHICKENS?
>> I AGREE. DUCKS, GEESE, TURKEYS, GUINEA HENS, THEY'RE TOO PROBLEMATIC.
>> THOSE ARE PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE TO LIVE WITHIN THE FARM ANIMALS DEFINITION.
>> I THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE NEXT SLIDE WHERE HAD THE ACREAGE LIMITS, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT PERTAINED TO THE HORSES, ETC?
>> NOTHING IS PROPOSED TO CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
FARM ANIMALS STILL CANNOT HAVE THEM BELOW TWO ACRES.
I THINK THAT'S THE THING THAT'S IMPRESSED UPON US THE MOST.
ADDITIONALLY, FOR THE HORSES, AT LEAST THREE ACRES.
AGAIN, EVERYTHING THAT IS UNDERLINED IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING THAT IS JUST THERE, THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.
NOT A LOT OF CHANGES WITH THE FARM ANIMALS, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WE'D WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM 150 FEET FROM RESIDENCES AND 75 FEET FROM LOT LINE TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPAL SETBACKS.
WHEREAS THE DOMESTIC POULTRY WOULD BE WHITTLED DOWN TO THAT HALF ACRE TO TWO-ACRE SIZE.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. THE CURRENT RESTRICTION ON HORSES ISN'T GETTING MORE RESTRICTIVE AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
>> NO CHANGES THERE. THEN I ACTUALLY WOULD PROPOSE A CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THE WETLAND BUFFER OUT OF THAT CALCULATION BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE WETLAND BUFFERS CAN BE USED FOR ANIMALS ACCORDING TO THE WATERSHED.
IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU WOULDN'T USE THE WETLAND ITSELF IN THE CALCULATION, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE WETLAND BUFFER COULD BE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. THAT'S JUST AN EXISTING REGULATION THAT WE'VE HAD AS A STANDARD FOR THAT.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE TEXT IN THE WETLAND SECTION.
>> DOES IT TIES BACK TO THAT AS WELL?
>> BECAUSE IT REQUIRES YOU TO FENCE AND HERDING GRAZING ANIMALS OUT OF THE WEATHER.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHANGING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM 150 FEET OR 75 FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY,
[02:00:03]
65 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, IF I SAID THAT RIGHT.THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT. BUT IF WE'RE CHANGING IT TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS, DEPENDING ON THE ZONING, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT A CHICKEN COOP THAT COULD BE 7.5 FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE?
SOAK IN THE HOUSE, SOAK IN THE GARAGE.
>> THEN THIS ALSO CHANGES THE RURAL DISTRICTS TO 50 OR 100 FOOT.
THERE IS THE SHRINKING OF THAT.
>> I'M JUST DIGESTING THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
7.5 FEET TO A PROPERTY LINE WITH A CHICKEN COOP SEEMS LIKE A LOT.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHICKEN COOP SPECIFICALLY.
FOR A FARM ANIMAL, THAT 7.5 FOOT IS A FLEXIBILITY ON NARROW LOTS.
YOU STILL WOULD NEED TO HAVE A TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT FOR FARM ANIMALS.
IT'S JUST THE COOPS REALLY, THAT WOULD BE THAT CLOSE.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOTS THAT ARE MAYBE 50 FEET WIDE? THAT'S REALLY THE SPIRIT BEHIND THAT, BECAUSE IMPLYING EVEN A 75 FOOT SETBACK ON PERHAPS THE PROPERTY THAT WE SAW THE PIGEON APPLICATION ON, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT DOING 150 FEET OFF THERE WAS HALFWAY PAST THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THERE WAS NO REASONABLE WAY TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, AND THAT WAS THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE.
>> THAT ONE BACKED UP TO A PARK TOO.
IT WASN'T BACKING UP TO A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
>> THIS PROPOSAL ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY FOR THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS AT THE COST POTENTIALLY OF PERHAPS LARGER LOTS THAT YOU DO END UP HAVING CLOSER SEPARATION BETWEEN SOME OF THOSE STRUCTURES.
>> THEY'D STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE COOP, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO HAVE A SITE PLAN, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO HAVE HARDCOVER.
THERE'S A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS THAT SOME PROPERTIES STILL WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO HAVE THESE COOP BIRDS.
>> THE EXPECTATION IS THAT WE WOULD SEE AN APPLICANT IN THOSE SITUATIONS FOR A ZONING PERMIT OR A BUILDING PERMIT TO VERIFY THAT THOSE LOCATIONS ARE BEING MET.
ULTIMATELY, THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING ON FILE THAT IF WE DO END UP HEARING SOMETHING FROM NEIGHBORS, WE CAN TURN TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO FALL BACK ON WHEN CITING THOSE INSTANCES, SHOULD THEY OCCUR.
>> RIGHT NOW, THE CODE CALLS FOR TWO DEFINING MOMENTS.
ONE IS THE PROPERTY LINE, ONE IS THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE.
WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO ALSO INCLUDE SOME LIMITATION TO A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE IN ADDITION TO SETBACKS?
>> I'D HAVE TO GET PRETTY CREATIVE ON FINDING A MECHANISM THAT IS ONE SIZE FITS ALL FOR A LOT OF THE UNIQUE PROPERTY SIZES AND SHAPES THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK THAT WAS JUST ME DIALING THAT BACK OFF THE GET GO.
PRINCIPAL SETBACKS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE CAN APPLY THEM FAIRLY UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
BUT I DO THINK WE'D NEED A PRETTY COMPLEX STANDARD IN PLACE THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, EQUITABLE FOR ALL LOTS, IF THAT'S EVEN THE RIGHT WORD.
I DO THINK IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAN BE UNIFORMLY ENACTED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
>> THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT'S 150 FEET.
WE HAVE THAT SAME STANDARD RIGHT NOW, EQUALLY COMPLEX, IS IT NOT?
>> WELL, BUT THAT'S ONLY FOR THE LOTS THAT QUALIFY IN THE TWO ACRES PLUS.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE 4, 5, 600 BY 4, 5, 600 FEET VERSUS A LOT THAT'S 50 FEET.
>> SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD DISCUSS IS, SORRY, IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE HAVING A LARGER SETBACK TO NEIGHBORING ADJACENT, YOU COULD DO A PERCENTAGE, 150% OF THE SETBACKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE CAN THINK OF A MECHANISM OR PROPOSE SOME MECHANISMS, BUT THE IDEA OF HAVING A SETBACK FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD REVIEW.
>> THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A SETBACK TO A NEIGHBOR'S BUILDING, CORRECT?
>> HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET UNDER THE CURRENT CODE.
>> I THINK WHAT JOHN IS SUGGESTING IS JUST AS SIMPLE AS WHAT WE HAVE.
WE'RE REDUCING THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND THEN [OVERLAPPING] REDUCE THE STRUCTURE SETBACK AS WELL.
>> HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET TO SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN PAINT YOUR HEAD ON.
>> THERE ARE THREE TRIGGERS FOR WHERE THAT COOP COULD BE. I DON'T KNOW.
>> BABY STEPS, EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> YOU COULDN'T HAVE IT SO RESTRICTIVE THAT NOBODY ON A HALF ACRE LOT COULD HAVE THEM.
[02:05:01]
>> I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THAT, THOUGH, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE SETBACK ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS AT LEAST 10 FEET, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SETBACK ON YOUR PROPERTY.
WE COULD SAY IT'S 20 FEET AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE BECAUSE OF THE TWO SETBACKS.
>> OR 200% OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK.
>> TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT'S THE NUMBER I HAD IN MY HEAD WHEN I WAS HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH MYSELF.
IT'S LIKE, HOW ABOUT WHAT'S DOUBLE THE SETBACK?
>> BECAUSE THEN IT'S 15 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 7.5.
IS THERE A CHANCE FOR THE SMALL?
>> WE CAN STILL HAVE DOMESTIC POULTRY ON A LARGE LOT?
>> FARM ANIMALS, WHATEVER. ARE YOU UNIFORMLY APPLYING A 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM?
>> TWO HUNDRED PERCENT SETBACKS, SORRY.
>> NO. ONLY ON THE SMALLER LOTS THAT CAN HAVE JUST DOMESTIC POULTRY.
CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING?
WHERE MY MIND GOES, THOUGH, IS IF YOU IMAGINE ONE OF THESE REALLY DEEP LOTS THAT ARE PRETTY NARROW AND YOU'VE GOT, I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS, 10 [NOISE] FEET FROM THE VERY FAR BACK, AND IT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD, YOUR BACKYARD, AND YOU WANT TO PUT A CHICKEN COOP BACK THERE, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PERSON THAT SUED THEIR NEIGHBOR FOR PLAYING BASKETBALL OUTSIDE WHERE THEY WERE WASHING DISHES.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEAL. BUT YOU COULD SEE THAT TURNING INTO A PROBLEM POTENTIALLY.
WHAT'S IN COMMON THERE IS THERE'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S REALLY CLOSE BY VERSUS NOT.
IF WE HAVE THAT MECHANISM THAT STILL CALLS OUT DISTANCE FROM STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS PRINCIPAL SETBACK, IT AT LEAST PROVIDES A MECHANISM THAT AVOIDS THAT RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD NOT.
>> ONE B, WOULD SAY ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH FARM ANIMALS THAT IS TWO ACRES OR MORE MUST MEET PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT FOR THOSE TWO ACRES OR LESS MUST MEET 200% OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK?
>> IT'S NOT SILLY WHAT YOU'RE KEEPING, BUT IT'S LOT DEPENDENT, IT'S LOT SIZE DEPENDENT.
>> WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THOSE SMALLER ACREAGE, THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT 7.5 FEET FROM IT.
>> NO LESS THAN WOULD WORK AS WELL.
>> I JUST WORRY ABOUT THOSE SMALL LOTS WHERE WE CREATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT SAYS THAT MY CHICKEN COOP CAN ONLY BE TWO FEET WIDE BECAUSE I CAN'T MEET IT ON EITHER SIDE.
>> BUT THEN THAT PROPERTY JUST WOULDN'T QUALIFY.
THE COOP WOULDN'T WORK FOR THAT PROPERTY.
>> WHICH IT WOULDN'T RIGHT NOW, CORRECT?
WE DON'T WANT TO KICK IT OPEN.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MORE PEOPLE CAN HAVE CHICKEN COOPS, BUT MAYBE EVERY PROPERTY STILL DOESN'T FIT BECAUSE YOU STILL NEED IT TO WORK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMUNITY.
>> I KNOW, I GET THAT. I WORRY THAT WE'RE CREATING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE SO CONVOLUTED.
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE CHICKENS ARE GOING TO BE LIKE, WHAT IS MY, WAIT. CRAP. I CAN'T HAVE IT.
WE'RE DOING SOMETHING TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HAVE CHICKENS.
WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT IT'S GOT ALL THE THINGS SO THEY'RE NOT LOUD AND OBNOXIOUS AND ANNOYING THEIR NEIGHBORS.
NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MINUTE IT INTO A POINT WHERE IT'S LIKE, CRAP, I JUST CAN'T DO IT. THAT'S MY WORRY.
BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE NARROW LOTS, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO OPEN THIS UP FOR ARE ALL OF THOSE NARROW LOTS.
WE'RE ALREADY CUTTING OUT THE CHUNK OF THEM THAT ARE LESS THAN A HALF AN ACRE, SO THE ANNOYING MY NEIGHBOR PIECE IS CUT OUT BECAUSE WE CUT OUT THOSE SUPER TINY LOTS.
>> I'VE GOT A PROPOSAL TO SUGGEST.
IT HAS TO BE IN THE REAR YARD AND NOT FRONT YARD.
THIS IS UP FOR DEBATE, BUT IT HAS TO BE WHATEVER THE STANDARD SETBACK FOR BUILDING REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND THEN 40 FEET FROM A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE.
>> FOR THOSE UNDER TWO ACRES ONLY?
>> THAT GOES BACK TO MY POINT, IF I GOT A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT, NOW I CAN'T HAVE ONE. IT'S PRETTY RESTRICTIVE.
>> NOT IF IT'S IN THE BACKYARD, BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO STRUCTURE THAT'S BACK THERE, THEN YOU'RE NOT NEIGHBORING ANOTHER STRUCTURE, AND YOU'RE NOT DISRUPTING THAT OTHER.
>> WHO DEFINES THE BACKYARD IN OUR GOOFY LOT?
>> THAT WOULD CROSS REAR YARD WITH ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
>> IF YOU HAD LAKE SHORE DISTRICT, THAT WOULD PUT THEM ON THE STREET SIDE, CORRECT?
>> YOUR REAR STREET. THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER THOUGHT.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT 1B.
IS THAT MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS THAN FOR FARM ANIMALS?
[02:10:07]
>> WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS, DIDN'T WE? [LAUGHTER]
>> IT BECOMES LESS RESTRICTIVE.
>> IT'S LESS RESTRICTIVE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW FOR FARM ANIMALS, IT HAS THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SEVENTY FIVE FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE, 150 FEET FROM NEIGHBORS.
WE'RE MAKING THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE [OVERLAPPING] FOR FARM ANIMALS.
>> ACCESSORY BUILDING WOULD BE EVEN MORE LESS RESTRICTIVE THEN?
>> YEAH. ACCESSORY BUILDING HAS ITS OWN SET OF SETBACKS THAT ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THE PRINCIPAL.
>> WE COULD CHOOSE TO START WITH ONE ACRE PROPERTIES AND LARGER TO ALLOW THESE DOMESTICATED POULTRY COOPS, THAT MIGHT MITIGATE THE FEAR OF HAVING THE COOP FAR TOO CLOSE TO ANOTHER PROPERTY.
WE'RE OPENING IT UP, BUT NOT QUITE AS WIDE AS IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
>> THEN YOU CUT OUT TOO MANY PEOPLE.
>> WELL, THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY CUT OUT RIGHT NOW.
>> THEN IT GOES BACK TO THEN WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
>> WE'RE DOING IT TO LOOSEN IT, BUT NOT TOO LOOSE WHERE WE'RE MAKING A MISTAKE, IS MY OPINION. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IT.
>> BUT I THINK WE'RE BEING WORRIED ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.
IF WE HAD ROOSTERS IN THERE, THEN SURE, WE GOT TO BE REALLY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LOUD THESE THINGS GET.
>> JUST TO BE SUPER CLEAR, HENS CLUCK FAIRLY LOUDLY WHEN THEY LAY THEIR EGG.
THEY DO MAKE SOME NOISE FOR 10 MINUTES OR SO TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THEY'VE LAID THEIR EGG. IT'S FUN.
MOST PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN RURAL DISTRICTS LIKE IT.
THOSE WHO LIVE ON VERY SMALL TIGHT LOTS MAY NOT APPRECIATE THAT.
IT'S DURING THE DAY, NOT AT NIGHT.
>> THAT'S WHERE I COME BACK TO. IT'S LIKE, IF IT'S NOT LOUDER THAN A DOG, IT'S NOT LOUDER THAN THE OTHER ANIMALS THAT WE HAVE, IF WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP, LET'S OPEN IT UP, STAY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE WITH OTHER ANIMALS.
>> I KEEP COMING BACK TO, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR? I THINK WE CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD A BUNCH OF APPLICANTS SHOWING UP SAYING, HEY, I LIVE IN A HALF AN ACRE LOT.
>> ESPECIALLY WITH THE EGG PRICES RIGHT NOW.
>> CALL ABOUT IT, BUT NO ONE'S MADE APPLICATIONS, NO ONE'S POST TEXT AMENDMENTS OR ANYTHING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE GETTING ACCESS TO MORE OF ORONO AS A COMMUNITY.
I THINK WE KEEP IT AT HALF AN ACRE.
BECAUSE IF YOU GOT AN ACRE, MOST PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN ACRE USUALLY HAVE TWO OR THREE.
IT'S LIKE EITHER ON THE SMALLER SIDE OR QUITE A BIT. IT FEELS LIKE.
I THINK YOU HAVE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEIGHBOR IN PLACE BY SAYING, HEY, NO ROOSTER.
THEN IF YOU GET BACK TO SETBACKS, IF YOU'RE 7.5 FEET OR EVEN 20 FEET, IT'S NOT GOING TO BREAK SOUND OF A BIRD.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE AS SIMPLE AS YOU LEAVE THE WORDAGE THAT YOU HAVE HERE.
MAKE SURE THAT ROOSTERS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
THAT'S YOUR CONSIDERATION TO YOUR NEAR NEIGHBORS.
MAYBE IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
>> WELL, RIGHT NOW, THE ROOSTERS ARE NOT BEING CALLED OUT.
THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE INCLUDES IT, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE BEING ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTED IF WE DID IT THAT WAY.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LEAVING THE LANGUAGE IN THERE, WE'RE LEAVING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN THERE.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, A LOT OF THIS IS TO TRY TO LOOSEN UP SOME OF THESE THINGS AND PROVIDE MORE ACCOMMODATION FOR APPLICANTS.
BUT IF WE START PUTTING SOME OF THOSE LIMITATIONS IN THERE, WE ACTUALLY MIGHT BE MAKING IT MORE RESTRICTIVE.
>> MORE CONFUSING. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE OTHER END GOAL HERE, WHICH IS TO MAKE THE CODE JUST EASIER TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE NOT SOMEONE WHO'S POURED OVER.
>> COMMISSIONER WELTZIN'S COMMENT IS GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEN THAT 50 FOOT OR 40 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK IN ADDITION TO THE SIDE SETBACK, DOES THAT CAUSE A PROBLEM? YES. BUT IT ALSO IS A SAFEGUARD TO SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROVED AT ALL CURRENTLY.
THEN YOUR DELIBERATION BECOMES, DO WE ELIMINATE IT ALTOGETHER FOR THAT SIZE LOT, WHERE IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE, TWO ACRE, WHATEVER WE DECIDE, OR DO WE AT LEAST PUT SOME SAFE BLOCK IN THERE THAT SAYS, THOSE SMALLER PLATS CAN HAVE THAT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE 50 FEET FROM A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE.
>> IS IT 50 OR 15 JUST TO CLARIFY.
>> IT'S AN ARBITRARY NUMBER. WHEN I CALLED IT OUT, I THINK I SAID 40, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS.
BUT IF WE HAVE IN ADDITION TO.
>> BUT YOU'RE ALSO X-ING OUT ALL THE CORNER LOTS.
[02:15:02]
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THEM AT ALL.BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPOSAL IS SAY NO TO IT ALTOGETHER.
>> I KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I GOT. I HAVE A CORNER LOT.
IF YOU PUT THOSE IN, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET IT, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE 0.68 ACRES.
IT WOULD BE BECAUSE I HAVE A CORNER LOT, AND I HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S 20 FEET OFF HERE AND 15 FEET OFF HERE AND A HOUSE THAT'S HERE, IT WOULD BE ON MY BACK PORCH, EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULDN'T CARE IF IT WAS IN THE BACK CORNER HIDDEN BEHIND THE SHED.
THAT'S WHERE I'M SAYING, WE GOT TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT'S TANGIBLE AND USABLE FOR PEOPLE AND NOT BE LIKE, MAN, I HAVE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT AND ALL THIS STUFF.
I GET THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO PEOPLE, BUT REALITY IS WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE.
THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY DO MUCH, AND THEY'RE STILL GETTING THE CALLS OF THE PEOPLE ASKING THEM FOR IT, AND THEY HAVE TO TELL THEM, NO.
I THINK TO MY POINT ABOUT DOGS OR OTHER ANIMALS, IF WE'RE ALREADY ALLOWING THOSE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THIS IS CONSIDERED THE SAME.
IF SOMEBODY CALLS AND COMPLAINS, WE'RE LIKE, WELL, ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DOG DOWN THE STREET THAT'S PARKING NONSTOP TOO, OR ARE YOU JUST PICKING ON YOUR NEIGHBOR?
>> WHEN YOU SAID FRONT YARD, NOT IN THE FRONT YARD, DO YOU MEAN IN THE DEFINED FRONT YARD, LIKE THE 50-FOOT FEET SIDE YARD OR FORWARD OF THE HOUSE?
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN FORWARD OF THE?
>> I'M THINKING OF WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
GOING BACK TO THAT CONVERSATION WHERE YOU DON'T WANT THAT ON THE STREET SIDE.
DO YOU WANT IT TO BE TUCKED AWAY OUT BACK? BECAUSE, AGAIN, I'M THINKING ABOUT NEIGHBORS GETTING [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT THAT ALL FALLS IN THE ACCESSORY.
>> NO, ACCESSORY WAS A CONVERSATION, SO THAT'S WHY I'M MEMORIALIZING.
>> WELL, AND A COOP ISN'T A BUILDING, IF IT'S NOT A BUILDING.
>> YOU CAN HAVE MOBILE CHICKEN.
>> YEAH. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A BUILDING WITH A ROOF LIKE WE WOULD DEFINE IT.
CALLING IT WHAT IT IS AND MAKING SURE WE KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT.
>> WELL, THAT'S JUST ME, FIRST OF ALL, SECOND OF ALL, CLEARLY, MORE SO, I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT IS I JUST.
>> YEAH. I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE TO SEE A CHICKEN COOP AS THEY DRIVE BY.
NOT ALL OF THEM WOULD. IN A RURAL DISTRICT, ABSOLUTELY, COOL.
>> CURRENTLY, I BELIEVE THE RURAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE STILL REQUIRED, AT LEAST A COOP HAS TO BE BEHIND IN THE BACK YARD.
I DON'T KNOW. WE COULD DISCUSS THAT AS WELL BECAUSE ON THOSE MUCH LARGER PROPERTIES, I DO THINK THERE'S SOME AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE THERE, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE SMALLER PROPERTIES.
HAVING A CHICKEN COOP TO THE SIDE OR BEHIND OF THE HOUSE IS PROBABLY MORE IDEAL.
>> I ALSO JUST AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT MAYBE WE SIMPLIFY IT TO A NO LESS THAN REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE BUILDING SETBACKS IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT, THAT JUST MIGHT MAKE IT MORE CLEAR TO SOMEONE READING THE CODE WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS.
WHEREAS AS IT CURRENT READS, THEY'D HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER PART OF THE CODE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE.
WHICH IS DOABLE, BUT I THINK WE'RE JUST PUTTING MORE AND MORE ON THE APPLICANT TO REALLY GO THROUGH DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY CODE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
I THINK IN REALITY, PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY SKIPPING THAT STEP.
IF WE COULD SIMPLIFY IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE IN FINDING WHATEVER THAT RIGHT NUMBER IS, THAT JUST MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE APPLICANTS.
>> YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, BUT I THINK THAT ISN'T, I GUESS, EQUITABLE TO ALL THE PROPERTIES BECAUSE AS THEY'RE SMALLER IN SIZE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SMALLER SETBACK.
THAT'S TYPICALLY [OVERLAPPING]. IT'S WHY IT'S THERE.
>> THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP COULD BE A LINK IN THERE AND THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT.
>> BUT IF YOU REMOVE THAT AND YOU SAY 100 FEET FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR'S STRUCTURE [OVERLAPPING] LOT LINES, NO.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE WILL HAVE THEM.
>> THAT'S WHY I THINK WE'RE BETTER THAN 150 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW.
WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? IS IT 40? IS IT 50? IS IT 30? IS IT 20?
>> DOES IT MATTER IF IT'S WITHIN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK, WHETHER IT'S A COOP OR A HOUSE OR A GARAGE OR WHATEVER IT IS? IT'S A BUILDING. IT'S IN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK.
WHO CARES IF THEY HAVE FIVE CHICKENS IN THERE OR NOT?
>> YEAH. THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING A DOG FROM GOING TO A PROPERTY LINE AND BARKING.
WE'VE AT LEAST GIVEN MORE SPACE THAN A DOG WOULD HAVE.
>> I CAN'T IMAGINE SOMEONE PUTTING THIS IN THEIR FRONT YARD.
MOST HOUSES ARE AT THE PRINCIPAL SETBACK ON THE FRONT.
[02:20:02]
ONLY ONES THAT AREN'T ON BIG ACREAGE.>> YEAH. THAT'S THE ONLY FACILITY THAT WE HAVE IS ON THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A STRUCTURE FORWARD OF THE PRIMARY.
>> I'M NOT SCREAMING AT YOU. SORRY.
>> PARDON ME. REALLY, THAT WAS THE DISTINCTION WITH USING THE PRINCIPAL SETBACKS.
THERE WASN'T REALLY A GOOD NUMBER I COULD COME UP WITH, AND THAT'S ME AND MY KINDERGARTEN EXERCISE OF SMASHING ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROPERTY SHAPES TOGETHER TO SEE WHAT MEASUREMENTS MAKE THE MOST SENSE, REALISTICALLY, THERE ISN'T REALLY A STRONG CORRELATION.
I CAN SEE WHERE THERE'S A NUMBER LIKE 30 FEET OR 50 FEET THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
>> I DO AGREE THAT IF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUT A DOG KENNEL THERE TODAY.
>> YOU SHOULD PROBABLY BE ALLOWED TO PUT A CHICKEN COOP WITH FIVE HENS IN THERE.
>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD PARALLEL.
WHAT'S OUR DEFINITION FOR IT? IS THAT CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING?
>> WELL, HOW MUCH DO WE GET FOR COMPLAINTS FOR THAT?
>> WHEN YOU SAY ACCESSORY DWELLING, DO YOU JUST MEAN ACCESSORY BUILDING?
>> LIVES IN THE DOGHOUSE A COUPLE OF NIGHTS.
>> I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT I NOTICED, AND IF EVERYONE SAYS, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I NOTICED AS I WAS READING THIS CODE, SPEAKING OF KENNELS, THAT OUR CURRENT CODE FOR DOGS SAYS THAT IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO DOGS IN ORONO, YOU HAVE TO REGISTER AS A KENNEL.
THE NUMBER 2 SEEMS REALLY SMALL TO ME.
I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE HAVE THREE DOGS, AND THAT'S NOT ABNORMAL.
IT DOES SPECIFY OVER AGE OF SIX MONTHS, SO IF YOU HAVE TODAY TWO DOGS AND THEY HAVE A LITTER OF PUPPIES, YOU'RE NOT OUT OF COMPLIANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THREE DOGS IS A KENNEL.
I WOULD PROPOSE INCREASING THAT NUMBER TO THREE OR FOUR, AND I WOULD OPEN THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION IF THAT'S OF INTEREST.
> JUST A NOTE, THIS IS A LITTLE OUTSIDE MY WHEELHOUSE OR EXPERTISE, BUT THIS WAS HEAVILY, I BELIEVE, DEBATED AND CRAFTED THE KENNEL LICENSE LANGUAGE 10 YEARS AGO, MELANIE, PROBABLY.
IT REALLY LANDED WITH THE PUBLIC PROTECTIONS AND HOW THE POLICE REGULATE COMMERCIAL KENNELS AND MANAGEMENT.
HAPPY TO TAKE SOME OF THAT RESEARCH AND BRING IT FORWARD AND GET SOME INPUT FROM THEM ON WHY THAT NUMBER IS THE WAY IT IS AND HOW THEY REGULATE IT.
>> YEAH, I THINK THERE WAS A PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER THAT LIVED IN ORONO THAT HAD A NUMBER OF THEM AND HAD TO APPLY FOR A KENNEL PERMIT, SO IT MADE THE NEWSPAPER.
I THINK IT FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF IF YOU'RE NOT DISRUPTIVE, THEN NOBODY'S GOING TO DISRUPT IT KIND OF A THING, BUT IT GIVES THE CITY THE RIGHTS TO REGULATE IT IF IT IS DISRUPTIVE.
>> THREE DOGS IS A PRETTY NORMAL NUMBER OF DOGS.
>> PEOPLE LOOK THE SAME. [LAUGHTER]
>> HAS THIS CONVERSATION BEEN HELPFUL? WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY MOTION OR ANYTHING ON THIS.
THIS IS JUST DISCUSSION TO HELP CONTINUE TO REFINE THE LANGUAGE, CORRECT?
>> I DO HAVE ONE POINT OF CLARITY.
WE TOUCHED ON THE DISCUSSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND KEEPING FARM ANIMALS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
NOW THAT WE'RE OPEN IN THE LAKE SHORE DISTRICT, DID WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS ABOUT KEEPING OF THIS DOMESTIC POULTRY IN THE LAKE SHORE DISTRICTS AND WANTING THAT AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR WANTING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AS ACCESSORY? JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE LANDED ON THAT.
>> I FEEL LIKE IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S WILL THAT IT WAS JUST TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE COMMISSIONER WHO FEELS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A CP.
>> BUT IT SEEMS LIKE HE'S FINE WITH THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON IT.
>> THEN I THINK WE HAD THE CONCERN ABOUT THE DEFINITION BEING TOO BROAD FOR DOMESTIC POULTRY AND MAYBE NOT BROAD ENOUGH FOR FARM ANIMALS.
WE JUMP BACK TO FARM ANIMAL DEFINITION.
>> I THINK WE HAVE SOME NOTES THERE.
>> WASN'T IT JUST TO SAY TAKE OUT THE WORD DOMESTIC?
>> YEAH. WE NEEDED TO ADD IN OTHER TYPES OF.
>> ALL POULTRY AND BIRDS UNDER FARM ANIMALS, AND THEN REMOVE SKINNY HENS, AND TURKEYS OUT OF DOMESTIC POULTRY.
>> THEN ADD ALPACA AND LLAMAS.
>> AND COWS OR YOU HAVE CATTLE IN THERE ALREADY. NEVER MIND.
>> THEN ALSO TOUCHING BASE WITH LEGAL
[02:25:02]
REGARDING MAYBE SOME DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF NOT LIMITED TO, BUT LOOKING AT THAT TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME BETTER SUGGESTIONS TO ADDRESS THAT.>> ALSO ANOTHER AVENUE FOR STAFF TO EXPLORE IS THE DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK OR CLARIFYING MAYBE WHAT LIVESTOCK MEANS.
MAYBE THAT'S A WAY TO ADDRESS THIS.
>> YEAH. I STILL WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO FARM DEER OR ELK.
>> I THINK YOU SHOULD PUT THAT IN AS A RESTRICTED FARM ANIMAL.
>> COULD YOU JUST MAKE THAT NOT A CATEGORY ALLOWING FOR COMMERCIAL LIVESTOCK? I SUPPOSE NOT, BECAUSE YOU'RE LAYING EGGS.
>> WE'RE GOING DOWN TO A RABBIT.
>> WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, THOUGH.
>> IS THERE ANY TIME OF PUBLIC INPUT ON EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING? I UNDERSTOOD WHERE WE STARTED FROM AND WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND I THINK THE INTENTION IS GOOD, BUT DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE ARE MAKING A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS? I HAD A GREAT CASE.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAD OUTLINED FOR NEXT STEPS, WAS ASKING, IF YOU'RE WITH THE FEEDBACK TONIGHT, TO DO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, WE WILL NEED TO ACTUALLY SHOW RED LINE STRIKE THROUGH LANGUAGE, AS WELL AS HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ASKING, I GUESS, DIRECTION FROM COMMISSION TONIGHT, DO YOU FEEL YOU'VE HONED IN ON THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE, AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED WITH DOING THAT STRIKE THROUGH LANGUAGE AND HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE NEXT MONTH, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THIS AGAIN AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BEFORE OPENING UP FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS, ASKING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.
>> SOUNDS LIKE A SKETCH PLAN. WE'RE NOT READY FOR LIVE PUBLIC FEEDBACK BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR, BUT THEN IT BECOMES PUBLIC FEEDBACK ONCE WE GET FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, LIKE THE SKETCH PLAN WE DO.
>> I'M ASSUMING THE NEXT DRAFT OF THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE READY FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT.
POTENTIALLY A PUBLIC HEARING, OR YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.
YOU COULD JUST HAVE IT COME BACK AS OLD BUSINESS AGAIN.
THEN AT THAT POINT, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. I THINK IT'S VIRTUALLY READY WITH THESE CHANGES.
>> I DO AS WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER.
>> EARLIER IN PUBLIC INPUT MATTER, MAYBE.
>> BUT I THINK YOU GUYS' DISCUSSION HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD, AND I THINK ALTHOUGH WE'RE ADDING TEXT TO THE CODE, WHICH I DON'T ENJOY THAT MUCH, I THINK WE'RE HAVING A CUT OUT, WE'RE OPENING IT UP, MAKING IT MORE FAVORABLE FOR PEOPLE, SO I DO ENJOY THAT PART OF IT.
>> IF WE PUSH THROUGH RED LINES AND WE START GETTING QUITE A BIT OF COMMENTARY FROM THE PUBLIC, WHAT'S THE PROCESS THEN?
>> YOU CAN EDIT IT AGAIN. THERE'S NO TIMELINE.
THIS IS A STAFF OR COUNCIL OR COMMISSION INITIATED APPLICATION.
MEANING IF WE HEAR A BUNCH OF PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE SCOPE, CHANGE THE PARAMETERS, THE STANDARDS.
YOU CAN GIVE THAT DIRECTION AND BRING IT BACK, AND WE COULD PUBLISH FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING OR WE COULD JUST REVIEW IT AS EDITED TEXT, BUT IT COULD STAY WITH YOU STILL FOR A FEW TIMES UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO TAKE ACTION ON EITHER APPROVAL OR A DENIAL UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> YEAH. THEN I'D VOTE TO PUSH IT THROUGH AS WELL.
>> DO WE NEED TO GIVE DIRECTION ON IF WE THINK OUR FEEDBACK HAS BEEN SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR RED LINES, WOULD WE WELCOME THE RED LINES AND THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT MEETING? IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
>> I AM. I THINK THE RED LINES TO ME SEEM FAIRLY SIMPLE.
DO YOU THINK THE DIRECTION FROM US IS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO COME UP WITH RED LINES OF THAT?
>> FOR THE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, YES.
I DO THINK FOR I GUESS, THE REST OF CHAPTER 62, WHERE WE STILL HAVE A NUMBER OF INCONSISTENCIES, JUST TERMS BEING USED VERY LOOSELY.
I DO THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO NOT GUT IT, BUT TAKE A SIGNIFICANT LOOK AT A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE.
I THINK THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED JUST FROM A CODE CLEANUP STANDPOINT THAT WOULD BE PACKAGED IN WITH THIS AS WELL.
I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE TO GET INPUT FROM PERHAPS POLICE BECAUSE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THEIR SECTION OF CODE, BUT I HAVE A FEELING THEY'LL BE LOOPED IN ON THAT PROCESS REGARDLESS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE CHANGES ARE FAIR FOR EVERYBODY.
>> ARE WE ABLE TO MAKE THE CODE CHANGES FOR
[02:30:02]
THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE IN PARTICULAR WITH THE SMALLER LOT SIZES ALLOWING HENS.AS WE'RE GOING INTO SUMMER, IF PEOPLE WANT TO DO THAT, THIS IS THE TIME.
>> EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU, CHAPTER 78 KEEPING OF ANIMALS REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IS WITHIN OUR WHEELHOUSE.
RECONCILING THE CLEANUP OUT OF CHAPTER 62 ABOUT THEIR DEFINITION OF ANIMALS, THEIR DEFINITION OF KENNELS AND THINGS, THE COORDINATION STAFF WILL DO, BUT THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WE CAN SHOW YOU SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT THAT MIGHT TAKE, LIKE MATT SAID, A MEETING OR TWO TO RECONCILE WITH THE PD.
WE'LL HAVE SAMPLES TO SHOW YOU, BUT IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE YOUR WHEELHOUSE TO MOTION ON THAT.
>> DOES IT ALL HAVE TO DONE THOUGH BEFORE THIS GOES INTO PRACTICE?
>> YEAH. WE COULD CHANGE ALL OF THIS CODE, AND THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNCIL TO RECONCILE CHAPTER 62.
TECHNICALLY TO EDIT CHAPTER 62, YOU GUYS WOULD NEVER NEED TO SEE.
>> REALISTICALLY, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T EXIST CURRENTLY WITHIN THE ZONING REGULATIONS, ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS, DOMESTIC POULTRY, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, WE CAN HAVE THAT LIVE WITHIN CHAPTER 78.
I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
CURRENTLY, THEY'RE JUST WITHIN THE ANIMAL SECTION, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY HARM OR FOWL IN PUTTING IT IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS. JUST GO BACK THERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.
>> NO. I JUST HAVE SOME UPDATES.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS VERY BUSY FOLLOWING UP ON ALL THE APPLICATIONS YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN REVIEWING OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
OVERALL, THEY HAVE APPROVED THEM AND HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
TWO PROJECTS TO NOTE IS THE GARAGE CONDO PROJECT.
DID GET APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT, SO THEY'RE COORDINATING WITH THEIR FINAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS AND BUILDING PERMITS AT THIS TIME.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS AN AFTER THE FACT CUP FOR RETAINING WALLS ON NORTH SHORE DRIVE.
THAT HAS BEEN TABLED A SECOND TIME WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, JUST FOLLOWING YOUR SAME RECOMMENDATION OF CLARIFYING ENGINEERING AND THEN CLARIFYING HIS LANDSCAPE PLAN.
THAT'S LOOKING LIKE IT'S GETTING CLOSER TO MEETING THOSE CONDITIONS, BUT IT'S STILL WITH THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.
BUT OVERALL, CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
MEETING ADJOURNED. THANKS, GUYS.
>> THANKS TO YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.