Jun 16, 2025 Planning Commission

[1. Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE JUNE 16TH MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE LIKE TO START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE JOIN US.

THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[3. Approval of Agenda]

MOTION TO APPROVE BY A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. SECOND ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 19TH, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of May 19, 2025]

MINUTES OF MAY 19TH, 2025. I'LL SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JARNOT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THAT WILL BRING US TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.

[5.1. LA25-000033, Revision LLC o/b/o Michael + Mary Rusinko, 2565 Dunwoody Avenue, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]

THIS IS FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE. MISS CURTIS.

THANK YOU. ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT THE LAKESIDE DECK WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FOOTPRINT. CHANGING THE LAYOUT.

TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE FUNCTIONAL. LET ME PUT THE PLANS UP HERE.

THE AVERAGE SETBACK IS DETERMINED BY THE HOME ON THE LOT TO THE SOUTH AND THE NEW HOME THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT TO THE NORTH.

THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE RUNS. BASED ON THAT, THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE RUNS THROUGH A PORTION OF THE HOME. THE SURVEY IS A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING. THERE WERE SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHERE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WAS BECAUSE OF THE HOME UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE PLANS WERE APPROVED AND IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT LINE IS NOW ESTABLISHED.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND THE NEED TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DECK AND THE SITE AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCE. THEY'VE ALSO PROPOSED OR PRESENTED A NARRATIVE AND SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

REGARDING PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPERTY'S ALIGNMENT WITH NEIGHBORS AND ORIENTATION TO THE LAKE DO CREATE DIFFICULTIES IN EXPANDING THE HOME OR CONSTRUCTING A FUNCTIONALLY SIZED DECK ON THE LAKE SIDE.

THE PROPOSED MINIMAL DECK EXPANSION DOES NOT APPEAR TO IMPACT VIEWS OF THE LAKE FROM EITHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS APPLIED.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

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

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. THE SECOND.

JOHN DALY, WITH REVISION 1538 EAST LAKE STREET IN IN WAYZATA.

THANKS FOR TAKING CONSIDERATION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE. IF JUST IN DOING THIS OR DEFINING THIS, SOME CLARITY TO THE PLAN IS THAT THERE IS A CURRENT DECK STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE THAT IS ACTUALLY CLOSE TO THE LAKE.

IT GOT IDENTIFIED ON THE SURVEY. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE OVERALL LAKESHORE SETBACK FROM WHERE THE CURRENT ONE THERE IS TODAY.

IF YOU I CAN POINT TO--YOU HAVE LIKE A LASER POINTER OR SOMETHING WITH YOU.

I GOT ONE. WHICH SCREEN DO YOU GUYS WANT? IT DOESN'T MATTER.

RIGHT. SO I'LL USE THIS ONE FOR THE SAKE OF. EVERYONE CAN SEE IT.

OH, NO. IT WON'T. IT'S A TV. SO IF YOU LOOK. SO THIS IS OUR DECK HERE, AND THE EXISTING DECK COMES ALL THE WAY OUT TO THIS POINT, RIGHT? THAT DOTTED LINE RIGHT THERE. SO THAT IS GETTING REMOVED.

HAS A HOT TUB THAT SAT IN THAT AREA. SO IT'S DECK COMES OFF.

YOU GO DOWN ABOUT 4 OR 5 STEPS, HAS A BIG HOT TUB DECK AREA, AND THEN IT COMES OUT AGAIN FURTHER.

SO PROPOSED PLAN IS TO REMOVE ALL OF THIS BIG SECTION OF DECK OVER ON THIS SIDE, AND THEN TAKE THE EXISTING DECK, AND ALL WE'RE REALLY DOING IS STRAIGHTENING OUT.

SORRY. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. ALL WE'RE REALLY DOING IS THE DECK CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT HAS THIS BIG DECK THAT STICKS OUT HERE AS WELL.

[00:05:06]

SO TRYING TO BE REASONABLE REQUEST, WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING TO WHAT IS THERE CURRENTLY.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF A PROCESS BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF WHERE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS RELATIVE TO THE OLD HOUSE NEXT DOOR, WHEN WE STARTED THE DESIGN OF THIS TO NO HOUSE AT ALL, TO A NEW HOUSE THAT'S THERE, HAS MOVED OUR LINE A FEW TIMES.

ALSO, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WHEN THAT HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED WAS ON DUNWOODY AVENUE.

IT'S NOW IT'S A CORNER LOT HOUSE AND IT ACTUALLY IS ON CASCO POINT ROAD, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE.

IF I IF THERE'S SOME UNIQUENESS TO THE PROPERTY, IT'S THE FACT THAT ONE HOUSE ON THE SOUTH IS ON A SEPARATE STREET, A SEPARATE CORNER, THE OTHER HOUSE, DEPENDING ON WHAT DAY IT WAS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT WAS, AND ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CLEAN THIS UP AND MAKE IT ESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND A LITTLE BIT PRETTIER FOR THE PROPERTY IN THE HOUSE AND THE USE OF IT FOR [INAUDIBLE]. SO MIKE [INAUDIBLE] IS THE PROPERTY OWNER. HE'S SITTING HERE BEHIND ME. HE'S HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. SO I HAVE A I HAVE A QUESTION.

IS THAT MORE CLARITY? I HAVE A WELL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE PORTION THAT'S BEING REMOVED.

THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA ON THIS SLIDE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, ARE YOU SAYING IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT.

SO THE PORTION SO THE HIGHLIGHTED. YEAH. YEAH, SO YOU CAN SEE THE DOTTED LINES THERE.

THAT IS ALL AN EXISTING DECK RIGHT NOW. OKAY, AND ALL WE'RE DOING WE'RE TAKING THAT PART OFF AND ACTUALLY TAKING A LIKE THE AREA WHERE THIS HOT TUB IS ALL DECK RIGHT NOW. THIS ENTIRE THING IS ONE BIG DECK, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE DECK TO JUST BUILD OUT OVER THE EXISTING DECK.

THIS, AND AS WE'RE DOING THAT, WE ARE REQUESTING TO SQUARE IT OFF THOSE TWO AREAS, AND I THINK JUST THE AREA OVER WHERE THE HOT TUB IS IS SHOWN ON THEIR PLAN.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFERENT. IT LOOKS DIFFERENT BUT OKAY.

YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT CLARITY. THE HOT TUB IS NOW GOING TO BE AT GROUND PATIO LEVEL, SO PROPOSED HOT TUB IS GOING IN, BUT IT'S DOWN LOW AND NOT AT DECK LEVEL, AND DO YOU SEE ANY OF THESE THE ADDITIONAL SPOTS, THE YELLOW SPOTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, DO YOU SEE THOSE AFFECTING ANYBODY'S VIEW? SHED OF THE NEIGHBORS. NO. NONE AT ALL. A BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE HOUSE OF THE SOUTH, THERE'S QUITE A BIG BERM HILL, ACTUALLY. I THINK IF AND MIKE, YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT IF YOU'RE AT YOUR DECK AND THEY'RE AT THEIR DECK, YOU DON'T EVEN YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THEIR HOUSE. YEAH EITHER HOUSE , AND THEN THE OTHER HOUSE.

WELL, THERE'S NO HOUSE THERE NOW, SO WE'RE NOT REALLY QUITE SURE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE WHEN, I MEAN, THE FOUNDATIONS GOING IN AS WE SPEAK. THEY WERE DIGGING IT LAST WEEK AT LEAST. SO A BIG HOLE. SO WE DON'T REALLY WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THAT, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE HOUSE NEXT, FURTHER TO THE NORTH IS QUITE A BIT CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN EVERYBODY, AND THAT'S AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT'S BEEN UNDER A FAIRLY LARGE RENOVATION PROJECT OVER THE LAST YEAR, I THINK. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.

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

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY COMING UP.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION. I CAN START WITH THIS ONE.

I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS TO PROTECT THE VIEW SHED OF THE NEIGHBORS.

I DON'T SEE AT ALL HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT ANY VIEW SHED OF ANY NEIGHBOR, BECAUSE IT IS SO CENTRAL TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I AGREE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS.

IT'S THEIR PROPOSING TO USE THIS IN A REASONABLE MANNER, AND THIS CERTAINLY DOESN'T ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT AS APPLIED. I'D LOVE TO HEAR SOME COMMISSIONERS.

I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIR, AS WELL AS WITH STAFF.

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MAKING AN IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE ALWAYS LIKE TO SEE.

IT'S NOT AN EGREGIOUS ASK, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPAIR ANY OF THE VIEW SHED OF THE NEIGHBORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF VARIANCES OR WHAT THESE ARE FOR.

SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION JUST TO SKIP AHEAD, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.

I PERSONALLY AM IN FAVOR OF APPROVING AS WELL, SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

I THINK YOU GUYS ARTICULATED WHAT'S NEEDED HERE.

AGREED. MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION LA25-33.

AS APPLIED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER TIFT WAS FIRST ON THE SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

LET'S VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[00:10:04]

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

MR. CARNEY, ONE MOMENT, CHAIR.

GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR BOLLIS.

I AM COMING BACK TO YOU FOR THE THIRD TIME NOW REGARDING ANIMALS AND A NOW TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE ZONING REGULATIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO ANIMALS. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS TO NOT READ IF YOU PUSH IT UP A LITTLE.

MATT. YEAH. TRY THAT. OKAY. WANT TO FIND THE RIGHT VOLUME BALANCE HERE? WITHOUT FURTHER ADO. AGAIN, JUST SLOWLY ADDING TO OUR BACKGROUND HERE ON THIS PROJECT THAT WE HEARD IN FEBRUARY AT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE KEEPING OF PIGEONS AND LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S WHERE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO POTENTIAL TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS, BASED ON THE APPLICATION THAT WAS REVIEWED AT THAT TIME.

THE LAST TWO MEETINGS. APRIL 21ST AND MAY 19TH STARTED WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT OUR POTENTIAL REGULATIONS COULD BE LOOKED AT A COUPLE CITY CODES THAT WERE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THAT WE COULD USE TO START RESEARCHING OUR EVENTUAL OUR EVENTUAL TEXT FOR THE APPLICATION, AND ULTIMATELY, LAST MONTH, WE PROVIDED SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES WITH ULTIMATELY SOME IDEAS AS TO WHERE WE BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE SHOULD GO. ULTIMATELY FOR THIS MEETING, STAFF HAS PREPARED A FORMAL TEXT RED LINES FOR THE FORMAL TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS AS A PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WE ARE HOLDING TONIGHT.

IN TERMS OF PROPOSED DEFINITIONS, WE HAVEN'T SEEN TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE HERE SINCE THE LAST MEETING.

TO WALK YOU THROUGH IT AGAIN. JUST A MINOR TWEAKING TO DOMESTICATED ANIMALS TO IDENTIFY THEM AS ANIMALS FIRST.

NO, MAJOR, I DON'T THINK ANY CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL NOR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

REGARDS TO ANIMAL UNITS. STAFF FELT THAT THE ITALICIZED SENTENCE.

THE SECOND SENTENCE WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE ANIMALS THAT DO NOT FIT THE CITY'S ANIMAL UNIT.

DEFINITION BY USING SPECIES WEIGHT DIVIDED BY 1000, WHICH IS BASED ON THE STATE OF MINNESOTA'S GUIDELINES, WHICH WE HAD PROVIDED AS ONE OF THE RESOURCES WITH THE PACKET.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAD CHANGED DOMESTICATED POULTRY.

YOU KEEP PRESENTING. WE'RE GOING TO PLAY WITH THE MIX. WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE YOUR WATER BOTTLE. IS IT THAT? NO, THERE'S A WHOLE CONTROL PANEL. SORRY. DOMESTICATED POULTRY.

CHANGED THE DEFINITION TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT SPECIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I HAD ULTIMATELY USED ALL OF THE BIRDS THAT WE HAD REFLECTED IN OUR FARM ANIMALS DEFINITION FOR DOMESTICATED POULTRY.

BASED ON THE GUIDANCE I RECEIVED IN THE LAST MEETING, WE TRIMMED THAT DOWN TO BE JUST FEMALE CHICKENS OR HENS.

PIGEONS AND DOVES, AND AS FOR FARM ANIMALS, JUST SOME MINOR TEXT CHANGES THERE AS WELL, AND GETTING SOME OF THOSE BIRDS THAT I HAD INCLUDED WITH DOMESTICATED POULTRY. BACK WITH THE DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMALS, WITH THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ONE OF MY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS, WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON IN A LITTLE BIT IS ASKING ABOUT EXCLUSIONS THAT WE MIGHT WANT THIS DEFINITION.

I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER PRCHAL HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT CAPTIVE CERVIDS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD SOME TEXT THAT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED CERTAIN ANIMALS FROM THIS FARM ANIMALS DEFINITION.

ULTIMATELY, THROUGH STAFF'S DISCUSSION, WE FELT THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR ULTIMATELY PROHIBITING THOSE TYPES OF ANIMALS, BUT ALAS, I THINK DISCUSSING THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BEFORE WE'VE ULTIMATELY APPROVED A TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

KIND OF MOVING DOWN THE LINE HERE. ULTIMATELY WHAT WE DECIDED ON AND I'LL ACTUALLY GO TO THE BOTTOM BULLET POINT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE KEEPING OF FARM ANIMALS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ITEMS THAT CAME OUT OF OUR LAST HEARING IN MAY WAS NOT ADJUSTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT

[00:15:01]

SOME OF THOSE MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE, BUT PROVIDING OUR STANDARDS IN THAT AREA FOR FARM ANIMALS AND DOMESTICATED POULTRY, WE FELT WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE LOCATION TO HOUSE THOSE STANDARDS, AND REALLY, THE LOWDOWN THERE IS THAT DOMESTICATED POULTRY WOULD BE ALLOWED ON ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF AT LEAST A HALF ACRE IN SIZE, GOING UP TO TWO ACRES.

I DID HEAR SOME CONFUSION IN THE LAST MEETING.

OVER WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HIT TWO ACRES? I DON'T THINK IT WAS EXPRESSLY STATED AT THAT TIME THAT, WELL, ANIMAL UNITS WOULD APPLY IN THOSE SITUATIONS.

THEN WE WOULD CONSIDER DOMESTICATED POULTRY FARM ANIMALS.

WE ADDED A SENTENCE IN THERE JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT 'S WHAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE.

WHEN THE PROPERTY GETS OVER TWO ACRES, THEY WOULDN'T BE DOMESTICATED POULTRY, THEY WOULD BE A FARM ANIMAL AND THEN SUBJECT TO ANIMAL UNITS.

SO ULTIMATELY, THAT WAS THE MAIN TWEAK THAT WE HAVE THERE, AND A LOT OF THE RED LINE LANGUAGE THAT YOU ARE SEEING IS JUST THOSE MISCELLANEOUS ZONE DISTRICTS AND JUST CONDENSING THE SENTENCE THAT WE HAVE IN THERE SAYING THAT, PLEASE SEE THE SUPPLEMENTARY STANDARDS FOR THE KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED POULTRY AND FARM ANIMALS.

AS FOR QUESTIONS THESE I POSED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND REALLY, IT'S JUST MORE OF A GLOBAL VIEW OF ARE WE GETTING THE DESIRED AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR WHEN WE EMBARKED DOWN THIS ROAD AND ARE THERE ANY CHANGES THAT WE FEEL WOULD BE NECESSARY TO NOT GO TOO FAR IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, POTENTIALLY? AGAIN, TO THE SECOND BULLET POINT, SHOULD WE HAVE PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE WITHIN OUR FARM ANIMALS DEFINITION THAT EXCLUDES CERTAIN SPECIES OR CERTAIN TYPES OF ANIMALS FROM BEING KEPT? IF THE DEFINITION PROVIDED IS NOT EXPLICIT ENOUGH? I'D LIKE TO BRING UP FOR A DISCUSSION POINT. REALLY SHOULD THE WEIGHT CALCULATION THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED IN THAT SECONDARY SENTENCE WITHIN THE ANIMAL UNITS DEFINITION, IS THAT A GOOD WAY TO CAPTURE, KIND OF ALL THE ONE OFF ANIMALS THAT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THAT DEFINITION? AND ADDITIONALLY ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO GOING FORWARD, AND IF SO, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'D LIKE TO IMPOSE IN THAT SITUATION OR IN LIEU OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT AND FLATTEN THAT OUT AS WELL.

IN SUMMARY, AND BEFORE I GET TO THIS, I DID RECEIVE, FOLLOWING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, A PUBLIC COMMENT AND SUPPORT OF THE TEXT CHANGE.

I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRINT IT, BUT I CAN READ IT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT IT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FROM MORE OR LESS ONE OF THE INQUIRIES I'VE RECEIVED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS ABOUT THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS ON A TWO ACRE LOT.

SO IN SUMMARY, I PROVIDED A COUPLE MOTIONS THAT YOU CAN MAKE TONIGHT.

STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS DRAFTED, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE POSED HERE THAT MIGHT CHANGE THE TEXT THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT AMENDMENT TABLED FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH OR DIFFERENT TEXTS TO BE PROPOSED, THAT IS ANOTHER OPTION AS WELL AS IF YOU BELIEVE A ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING FOR YOUR JULY MEETING WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO GET POTENTIALLY MORE PUBLIC INPUT ON THE MATTER. YOU CAN ALSO GO DOWN THAT ROAD AS WELL.

SO THOSE WOULD BE THE THREE MOTIONS THAT YOU CAN MAKE, AND I STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION RIGHT OFF THE BAT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I MISSED IT, BUT LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DOMESTIC POULTRY.

IT'S STILL UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE, OR IT'S BY LOT SIZE.

DOMESTICATED POULTRY WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY USE BASED ON THAT HALF ACRE LOT SIZE.

IT'S JUST THE FARM ANIMALS. WOULD STILL REQUIRE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF THEY'RE AT TWO ACRES IN SIZE OR MORE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? I HAVE A QUESTION. I LIKE THE WEIGHT BASED GUIDELINE FOR ANIMALS THAT AREN'T COMMENTED ON.

I THINK THAT GIVES SOME NICE FLEXIBILITY, AND GIVEN THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, I THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. DO THE CURRENT ANIMAL UNITS GENERALLY ALIGN WITH THAT STANDARD?

[00:20:01]

WOULD THAT RESULT IN THE SAME NUMBER OF ANIMALS BEING ALLOWED IN EACH ANIMAL UNIT? SO I CAN HELP A LITTLE BIT. SO NOT EXACTLY OUR ANIMAL UNITS RIGHT NOW ARE KIND OF EXTRAPOLATED, BUT FROM THE STATE STATUTE OF WHAT THEY USE FOR FEEDLOTS.

RIGHT. IS THAT THE REFERENCE STATE STATUTE HAD SOME GUIDELINES ON NUMBERING OF ANIMALS FOR FEEDLOTS AND THINGS, AND SO THEY CALL OUT SOME SPECIFIC ANIMALS COWS, PIGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WE KIND OF EXTRAPOLATE FROM TO USE FOR OUR UNITS AND OTHER CITIES DO AS WELL. MY MIC IS BAD TOO. OH, DON'T TOUCH IT.

SO AND THEN THEY HAVE A CALL OUT AT THE BOTTOM THAT SAYS IF THERE'S ANIMALS THAT ARE NOT COVERED, WE USE THIS EQUATION, WHICH WE FOUND OTHER CITIES TO USE THAT EQUATION AS WELL, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING SUGGESTING TO INCLUDE IT.

IT'S NOT EXACTLY A WEIGHT FOR WEIGHT, BUT I DO THINK THERE'S FLEXIBILITY IN THE ANIMAL UNITS FOR STAFF TO USE SOME DISCRETION.

LIKE YOU SAID, ALPACAS AND LLAMAS ARE ALMOST VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE AND HOW THEIR WASTE IS PRODUCED AND THEIR SIZING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A FAR FOR STAFF TO USE THEIR DISCRETION FOR THAT COMPARISON.

OKAY. I THINK WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING BEING SUGGESTED THAT'S COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE LIST, THAT WE COULD USE THAT CALCULATION. THEN AS A RESULT, THEN JUST BECAUSE ALPACA ARE ACTUALLY LIGHTER THAN I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THEY ARE.

SO IF YOU'RE USING THE STATE'S DEFINITION, YOU MIGHT END UP WITH MORE ALPACA PER ANIMAL UNIT THAN LLAMAS.

I MIGHT SUGGEST ADDING ALPACA JUST SO THAT WE'RE COMMENTING ON TWO VERY SIMILAR ANIMALS SINCE PEOPLE ARE KEEPING ALPACA MORE FREQUENTLY NOW. I ALSO DID SEE THAT WE COMMENT ON FOR DOMESTICATED POULTRY, FIVE HENS, BUT I THINK WE WANT TO APPROVE A LARGER NUMBER OF DOVES AND PIGEONS.

MORE THAN FIVE OR THAT WOULD BE UP FOR DISCUSSION, BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE INITIAL CUP THAT BROUGHT UP THIS TOPIC, I THINK WE APPROVED 25 DOVES AND PIGEONS.

THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY MUCH SMALLER THAN HENS, AND SO I WOULD I WOULD PROPOSE THAT A LARGER NUMBER OF DOVES OR PIGEONS WOULD BE REASONABLE AS COMPARED TO FIVE HENS CHICKENS.

YEAH. I THINK I AGREE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, IT WAS 25, RIGHT? NOT 20. IT WAS 25. YEAH. I THINK THAT'D BE ONE CHANGE.

YEAH. I THINK FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THE NUMBER FIVE HAD BEEN FLOATED OUT AS THE BLANKET NUMBER FOR THE NUMBER OF BIRDS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE SPECIFIED A NUMBER HIGHER FOR THOSE DOVES AND PIGEONS.

SO WE CAN ADJUST THAT NUMBER AS NEEDED OR BASED ON GUIDANCE TONIGHT.

COMMISSIONERS, I WILL NOTE THAT THE NUMBER FOR PIGEONS FROM THE PREVIOUS CUP CAME FROM A COMPARISON OF FARM ANIMAL UNITS.

WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO DISCUSS WHAT'S REASONABLE, WE REGULATE 25 CHICKENS IN FARM ANIMALS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CODE WE HAD FOR CODE.

SO THAT WAS WHERE THAT 25 REFERENCE WAS COMING FROM.

UNDER DOMESTICATED POULTRY, WE'RE SUGGESTING A SMALLER AMOUNT OF FIVE HENS INSTEAD OF 25 CHICKENS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO JUST SOMETHING TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER WHEN DOMESTICATED VERSUS THE FARM ANIMAL COMPARISON.

COMMISSIONER, JUST DOING SOME QUICK CALCULATIONS ON THE ANIMAL UNITS.

IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN WE'RE CALLING OUT LIKE A LLAMA AS ONE ANIMAL UNIT.

CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. ANIMAL UNIT IS ONE LLAMA.

IF YOU USE THE STATE STANDARD, IT WOULD BE THREE, APPROXIMATELY THREE.

SO I THINK WE'RE I FEEL LIKE IT'S ALMOST TOO RESTRICTIVE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT AT THAT, I WOULD THINK A LLAMA, YOU COULD HAVE MORE THAN ONE LLAMA WHERE YOU COULD HAVE ONE HORSE, LIKE AN ANIMAL UNIT OF ONE HORSE.

I WOULD THINK THAT LLAMAS OR ALPACAS, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE 2 OR 3.

SO THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME. RIGHT S O I FEEL LIKE I GUESS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.

I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING TOO RESTRICTIVE ON THE, ON ANIMAL UNITS.

ONE NOTE IN COMPARISON TO HORSES, WE DO NEED MORE LAND FOR HORSES THAN JUST FOR FARM ANIMALS.

SO FARM ANIMALS, YOU NEED TWO ACRES, HORSES YOU NEED AN ACRE FOR THE DWELLING, AND I THINK TWO ACRES FOR PASTURE.

SO A THREE ACRE LOT COULD SUPPORT A HORSE, A THREE ACRE LOT THAT WOULD SUPPORT 2 OR 3 LLAMAS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[00:25:02]

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS JUST USING A WEIGHT CRITERIA.

I DO LIKE THE CONCEPT THOUGH THAT WHERE THE ORIGINAL ANIMAL UNITS CAME FROM IS BASED ON FEED AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT A LOT OF RESEARCH PROBABLY WENT INTO THOSE, AND SO CHANGING THOSE WITHOUT SPENDING MORE TIME ON THAT FEELS RISKIER THAN SOMETHING I WANT TO DO TONIGHT.

I JUST MY POINT WAS WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LLAMAS, WE SHOULD ADD ALPACA.

ALPACA ALREADY IN HERE? NO. DONKEY ALPACA, IS THAT A SPECIFIC ANIMAL? OH, IS IT WITHIN THE FARM ANIMAL DEFINITION, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WITH THE ANIMAL UNIT DEFINITION.

ANIMAL UNIT MEANS ONE OF MANY UNIT EQUIVALENCY.

ONE COW OR STEER, ONE HORSE. ONE DONKEY. ALPACA OR LLAMA? WELL, MAYBE WE'RE JUST MISSING A COMMA. WE'RE MISSING A COMMA. SO IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T.

YES. ALPACA HYBRID. REALLY COOL. HYBRID. REALLY COOL.

YES. PERFECT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S ALREADY IN THERE, AND THEN HOW DO THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL ABOUT IF WE'RE ALLOWING FIVE HENS ON THE SMALLER ACREAGE? AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING THOSE TO KEEP DOVES OR PIGEONS BASED ON THE PRESENTATION THAT THE GENTLEMAN WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE PIGEONS FOR SHOWING THEM A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, IT SOUNDS LIKE I THINK IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FIVE WOULD BE A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF THESE TYPES OF BIRDS TO KEEP TOGETHER THAT THERE'S ENOUGH FLOCK.

THERE'S USUALLY MORE. I BELIEVE HE WAS REQUESTING 30.

WE CAME DOWN TO 25, IF I RECALL. SO GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 5TH MAY JUST MAKE IT NOT USEFUL FOR THOSE WHO LIKE TO KEEP THESE TYPES OF BIRDS.

SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT I THINK THEY'RE GENERALLY COOPED AND THEY'RE VERY SMALL BIRDS I WOULD THINK THAT FIVE HENS WOULD BE AN EQUIVALENT TO A LARGER NUMBER OF DOVES OR PIGEONS. I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU BASED OFF ALL THE KNOWLEDGE I HAVE IS BASED OFF THAT OTHER APPLICATION.

SO, I MEAN, I'VE SEEN PEOPLE KEEP DOVES, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR LIKE TRAINING DOGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEY THERE'S DEFINITELY MORE THAN 5 IN 1 VERY SMALL COOP.

A FLOCK OF BIRDS IS CERTAINLY MORE I THINK IT'D BE WORTHWHILE TO HAVE SOME RESEARCH INTO SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM. JUST QUICK. GOOGLE SAYS IT'S LIKE TEN PIGEONS PER EIGHT BY EIGHT SQUARE FOOT AREA.

SO THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR CASE OF HAVING A HIGHER NUMBER OF PIGEONS OVER HENS.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER NEARBY SUBURBAN LIKE MINNETONKA OR ANYONE ELSE THAT ALLOWS ON SMALLER ACREAGE? DOVES AND PIGEONS AND THE NUMBER THAT THEY EQUATE TO THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

YES, I CAN LOOK INTO THAT. MATT, IT'S WORTH NOTING, I THINK WE DID A BUNCH OF THAT RESEARCH WITH THE PREVIOUS CUP IN THE CITY OF CHAMPLIN WAS THE ONLY CITY THAT REGULATED PIGEONS AND ANY DOMESTICATED FASHION THROUGH PERMITTING AND THINGS.

SO WE CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION OR SOME OF THEIR THEIR REGULATIONS.

IT DOES SEEM LIKE A SENSIBLE METHOD TO GET TO WHAT THAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE FOR PIGEONS VERSUS CHICKENS, THOUGH. WHAT IF YOU'RE DOING THIS PROPERLY? WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE SPACE THAT YOU NEED FOR EACH? I MEAN, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE YOU START WITH FIVE CHICKENS.

WHAT'S THE SPACE? FIVE CHICKENS, AND HOW MANY PIGEONS AND HOW MANY DOVES? AND WE SAY THAT'S THE HALF ACRE TO TWO ACRE STANDARD.

RIGHT THERE. ABOVE THAT, WE USE THE FORMULAS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ANYWAYS.

I AGREE, THAT'S VERY REASONABLE. GOT IT. HOW'S EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT DO WE WANT TO CALL OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS? I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE EXCLUSIONS.

I DON'T I GUESS I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT IT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE EXCLUDING SOMETHING.

THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY ELSE FEELS.

[00:30:07]

I THINK IT'S A LOT OF CONJECTURE AND OPINION. THAT'S THE HARD PART IS I RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS CERTAINLY HAS A LOT MORE DEPTH THAN WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY.

SO I ALWAYS LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND IF WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO TURN THE VOLUME UP, WE CAN, BUT I GOT A SNEAKING SUSPICION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY RARE THAT IT DOES COME UP.

I GUESS I GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF UNDER THE CURRENT CODE.

AM I ALLOWED TO KEEP A DEER IF I WANT TO? I DON'T THINK SO.

KEEPING IT WOULD BE THE PIGEON APPLICATION, ESSENTIALLY.

SO MATT AND I DID DO SOME RESEARCH, AND THE STATE AS WELL AS THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE'S ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY REGULATES, LIKE THE FARMING AND THE KEEPING OF THOSE TYPES OF ANIMALS, AND IF YOU DO, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS, NOT BY STATE STATUTE, BUT ALSO THROUGH THIS OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT I CANNOT RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

IT'S NOT THE DNR, BUT YOU HAVE TO OBTAIN SPECIAL PERMITTING AND LICENSING FOR THINGS LIKE DEER AND ELK AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THAT FAMILY OF SPECIES, BECAUSE EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER PRCHAL BROUGHT UP OF SPREADING DISEASE AND ALL THOSE THINGS.

SO THEY CANNOT BE KEPT IN ANY FARMED OR DOMESTICATED NATURE BECAUSE OF THAT.

I THINK THAT COVERS ALL NATIVE SPECIES TO THE STATE, IF I REMEMBER, BECAUSE I THINK I'VE SEEN THAT BEFORE, AND I THINK IT'S PARKS AND REC FOR SOME WEIRD REASON BUT IT COVERS EVERYTHING FROM FISH TO BIRDS THAT ARE NATIVE IN THE STATE.

YEAH. THERE'S A WHOLE PERMITTING AND REGULATORY PROCESS OUTLINED BY STATE STATUTE THROUGH ONE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REGARDING THE KEEPING OF A CAPTIVES OR THE FAMILY SPECIES THAT THOSE ALL THOSE TYPES OF ANIMALS LIVE IN.

YEAH. SO I GUESS MY, MY TAKE WOULD BE THAT IF IT'S REGULATED BY THE STATE BUT NOT NECESSARILY. PREVENTED BY OUR STATUTE. I WOULD HATE TO LEARN THAT WE'RE CONTRIBUTING TO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDING TO CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE CHALLENGES FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. GIVEN THAT IT'S THERE'S SOME GOVERNANCE BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

THAT DEFINITELY HELPS. I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WOULD BE IF SOMEONE WANTED TO HAVE DEER OR ELK OR OTHER CAPTIVE CERVIDS ON THEIR PROPERTY IN ORONO, HOW WOULD WE KNOW ABOUT THAT? AND IF WE EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT IT, CAN THAT BE HELPFUL TO ENSURING THAT WE'RE NOT. RUNNING THE RISK OF MISSING. MISSING IT IF IT WERE TO OCCUR.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR TO CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN PARTS OF THE STATE AND TRYING TO PREVENT THAT FROM OTHERS. I GUESS, I GUESS THE MORE WE TALK ABOUT IT, IN MY OPINION, ON IT IT'S KIND OF CHANGING A LITTLE BIT.

I'M NOT AWARE OF IT ANYWHERE RIGHT NOW IN ORONO, AND IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN ORONO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT CODE.

SO MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE IT WRITTEN IN HERE THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED.

I WILL NOTE, LIKE I SAID, I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.

FOR THERE IS A STATE STATUTE REGARDING KEEPING OF CERVIDS OF ANIMALS AND IT'S REGULATED THROUGH THE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH, AND IT DOES REQUIRE ANYONE WHO HAS POSSESSION OF SERVICE ANIMALS IN THEIR FARM OR INTO THEIR POSSESSION TO REQUIRE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH AND REQUIRE PERMITTING, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT--MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO BE ALLOWED IN ORONO? WHY WOULDN'T IT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMAL? I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT LISTED UNDER THAT DEFINITION, BUT ISN'T THAT KIND OF A CATCH ALL FOR ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T? PEOPLE DO FARM VENISON. THAT'S MY CONCERN, RIGHT? BUT WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS TO.

NOT IN THE NOT IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF YOU'RE IN THE LAKESHORE DISTRICTS, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE FARM ANIMAL DEFINITION AND THE WEIGHT, ETCETERA.

[00:35:06]

IF THEY OBTAIN THE PERMIT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THE STATE OWNS ALL THOSE ANIMALS.

YEAH. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A BOARD HAVE TO DON'T WANT OR WANT TO DISCOURAGE, IT WOULD BE WORTH ADDING. YOU COULD SUGGEST TO ADD THAT TEXT AS PROHIBITIVE OF ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, ANIMALS OF THE CERVID FAMILY OR SOMETHING. WE CAN ADD TEXT LIKE THAT.

WOULD THAT BE A CONFLICT THEN? IF SOMEBODY WENT TO THE STATE AND THE STATE APPROVED IT AND THEN WE NO, NO, WE'RE ALLOWED TO REGULATE WHAT HAPPENS IN ORONO.

YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE RESTRICTING THAT UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE CITY IS ASKING US TO.

I GUESS THAT'S MY OPINION. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE MAKING UP REGULATIONS WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT.

THAT WOULD BE MY INSIGHT ON THAT, I GUESS. IF THE STATE IS REGULATING IT, TO ME, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.

I GUESS I'M JUST SAYING IN THE SENSE OF I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH ADDING. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE ORONO HAS MORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. UNDERSTOOD. BECAUSE WE GET TO DECIDE WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNITY WE WANT TO HAVE AND LIVE IN.

I THINK SO THEN WE JUST HAVE TO DECIDE WHERE WE WANT TO STICK OUR FLAG IN THE GROUND. IN THOSE INSTANCES, RIGHT WHERE WHERE WE DO WANT TO BE MORE STRICT THAN PERHAPS THE STATE'S GUIDELINES ARE.

RIGHT. I, I GUESS WHERE MY HEAD GOES IS KIND OF SIMILAR, WHERE I THINK WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN IT TO BE A PROBLEM NECESSARILY YET. I MEAN, WHAT KIND OF TRIGGERED THIS DISCUSSION WAS THE APPLICATION, AND I CAN PERSONALLY SAY THAT IN HINDSIGHT, I DON'T FEEL REGRETFUL ABOUT APPROVING AND ADVOCATING FOR 25.

SO SO THEN BY DEFAULT, MY HEAD GOES TO NOT FEELING LIKE WE NEED TO TURN THE VOLUME UP ON RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THAT YET, BUT BY DEFAULT, I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THIS TEXT LANGUAGE IS HELPFUL, BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, I JUST MY POSITION ON IT IS I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NECESSARILY NEED TO BE MORE STRICT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN INSTANCES THAT IF THERE WERE RULES IN PLACE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER.

SO I THE REST OF IT IS GETTING INTO THE DETAILS.

I DON'T KNOW THE BEHAVIORS OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT SPECIES AND THEIR SIZES AND ALL THOSE THINGS.

IT GETS TO BE OVER MY HEAD, WHICH KIND OF LEADS TO ALSO THE DIFFICULTY OF REGULATING THOSE THINGS, TOO, BUT BEYOND THAT, THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY PERSONAL OPINION, I GUESS.

IF WE DON'T MIND, I'LL CHANGE GEARS HERE, AND I WANT TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING JUST SO I DON'T FORGET ABOUT IT, BUT WE'VE HAD SOME GREAT DISCUSSION. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY HERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE MR. CARNEY HAS A PUBLIC COMMENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THAT? I DO I WILL ENTER THIS INTO THE RECORD FOR KATIE DUNHAM, 1060 NORTH BROWN ROAD.

PROVIDED ME THIS COMMENT THIS EVENING AS SHE STATES IN PLYMOUTH, MINNETONKA, HOPKINS, SAINT LOUIS, PARK, MEDINA, AND EVEN OUR NEIGHBORS IN LONG LAKE, SMALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP CHICKENS WITH APPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONS ON NUMBER, TYPE, ETC.. OUR FAMILY IS HOPING THAT ORONO WILL JOIN THOSE THRIVING COMMUNITIES AND GIVING THIS OPTION TO THEIR RESIDENTS.

OUR HOME SITS ON ALMOST TWO ACRES AND IS THE PERFECT SITUATION TO HAVE A FEW CHICKENS, TO GIVE OUR KIDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK HARD AND LEARN TO TAKE CARE OF THESE UNIQUE ANIMALS. WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE 4 TO 5 EGG LAYING HENS.

WE WOULD HOUSE THEM IN A GOOD LOOKING CHICKEN COOP AND THEY WOULD HAVE A GOOD SIZE AND FENCED IN RUN.

WE APPRECIATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MODERNIZING THE REGULATIONS IN THIS MANNER.

END OF QUOTE. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

BRING IT BACK HERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF POINTS HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE NUMBER OF DOVES TO, TO BE HIGHER THAN FIVE PIGEONS AS WELL.

I HEAR DOVES AND PIGEONS. RIGHT. NO, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF SUPPORT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO IT AT THIS TIME.

BEFORE WE'RE MAKING ANY CHANGES TO IT, DO WE DO WE WANT TO PROPOSE THESE CHANGES AND HOLD ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING,

[00:40:01]

I PERSONALLY THINK WE SHOULD OPEN IT UP FOR ANOTHER MONTH OF FEEDBACK.

THE AGENDA IS ONLY POSTED FRIDAY, I BELIEVE. SO TECHNICALLY THE PUBLIC'S REALLY ONLY HAD 3 OR 4 DAYS TO COMMENT ON IT.

WE PUBLISHED THE LEGAL NOTICE TEN DAYS, AND REALLY, IT'S MORE LIKE 14 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING THAT'S PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, ON OUR WEBSITE AND SENT OUT ON OUR LISTSERV ANNOUNCING THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD.

SO NOTICE WENT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THIS TOPIC.

THE PACKET DID GET PUBLISHED ON THURSDAY THIS WEEK, BUT KNOWING THAT WITH YOUR DIRECTION WE CAN DO AN ADDITIONAL MAYBE LIKE A SOCIAL MEDIA OR CONNECTED TO THE WEB PAGE AND THAT TYPE OF THING, IF THAT'S AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. YES. I GUESS THE MORE I THINK ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, IF WE WENT AHEAD AND APPROVED IT, ADDING THE AMENDMENT FOR THE 25 CAGE BIRD BULLET POINT, IF SOMETHING POPPED UP, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THROUGH APPLICATION, WE COULD REOPEN THE TEXT AND MAKE FURTHER AMENDMENTS.

RIGHT. YEAH. YOU CAN ALWAYS FOR ANY TEXT AMENDMENT, YOU CAN GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO AMEND OR BRING BACK THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS.

SO IF YOU ENACT SOMETHING, SEE IT'S NOT WORKING OR SEE THE REACTION.

WE CAN ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, BRING IT BACK IN A FEW MONTHS AND REEDIT.

THE NEXT STEP, IF WE APPROVED IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER NOTICE TO THE REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO.

IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO IT'S NOT A NOTICE THAT WAY, BUT WE CAN STILL PUT OUT INFORMATION THAT IT WILL BE HELD AT THE PLANNING OR IT WILL BE HELD AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IT WOULD BE SET FOR THE JULY 14TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO THERE WOULD BE SOME TIME TO DO SOME MAYBE SOME INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE AND IT WOULD BE HEARD IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND ANY PUBLIC COMMENT WE'D RECEIVE WOULD BE PRESENTED AT THAT TIME.

OKAY. WELL, ALL THAT BEING SAID I'M OPEN TO ANY OF THOSE CHOICES. I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE SHOULD APPROVE WITH THE SMALL CHANGE TO PIGEONS AND DOVES, AND THEN IF THERE IS MORE INFORMATION TO COME, WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A HUGE BENEFIT FOR THESE PEOPLE THAT WANT THE CHICKENS TO GET THIS MOVING. I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT BECAUSE OF THE TIMING IN PARTICULAR, IF PEOPLE STILL WANT TO GET SOME CHICKENS THIS SUMMER, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.

YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK IT FEELS LIKE THAT KEEPS US WITHIN OUR INITIAL SCOPE OF WHY WE OPEN UP THIS CONVERSATION, AND NOT GETTING INTO OTHER TYPES OF ANIMALS WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER RESTRICTING.

THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. THAT'S A GOOD START, RIGHT? I MEAN, BECAUSE WE ALL CAN GET BEHIND THAT, THEN THAT AT LEAST IS MAKING PROGRESS, AND , YOU KNOW, THEN WE CAN DECIDE DIGGING DEEPER AFTER THAT.

I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, TO BE CLEAR. SO DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION FOR ME? I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO THIS. SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA ITEM WITH THE ADDITION OF 25 DOVES AND PIGEONS. SPECIFICALLY TO DOMESTIC FOWL.

THE DOMESTIC FOWL, POULTRY. YES, I ALSO DO HAVE DOWN IN MY NOTES BEFORE WE HAVE SOMETHING FINAL HERE.

ARE WE STRIKING THE DIRECTION TO GO FOR PROHIBITING THE CERVIDS? YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT AS MUCH SUPPORT FOR THAT AT THIS TIME, AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MOTION COVERS THE TEXT, AS PROPOSED WITH THE ONE CHANGE FOR THE DOVES AND PIGEON NUMBER TO GO TO 25 AND NO CHANGES TO ANIMAL UNITS BASED ON GUT NOTED. HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WELTZIN WITH A SMALL CHANGE TO THE NUMBER OF PIGEONS AND DOVES FROM 5 TO 25, AND I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL MOVE US TO LA25- 22.

[5.3. LA25-000022, Text Amendment: Section 78-823 Garage Condo Parking Standards (Laura Oakden)]

[00:45:01]

CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. JUMPED OVER HERE SO I COULD DRIVE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.

MAYBE A LITTLE BIT EASIER. OKAY. SO IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO REVIEW AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT FOR PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH GARAGE CONDO USE IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. SO IN 2024, THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDED THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW GARAGE CONDO AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF A RECENT APPLICATION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH INTO PARKING STANDARDS FOR GARAGE CONDO USES AND TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR GUESTS ON THE SITE, BETTER MANEUVERABILITY, AND TO PREVENT OFF SITE PARKING IMPACTS FOR NEARBY STREETS.

STAFF HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION FROM OTHER CITIES WITH GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENTS.

ADDITIONALLY, STAFF DID SOME RESEARCH FOR PARKING STANDARDS OF A SIMILAR USE, SUCH AS MINI STORAGE AND SELF STORAGE, JUST FOR COMPARISON. EXCUSE ME. RESEARCH SHOWED THAT MOST CITIES DO NOT HAVE AN OFF STREET PARKING STANDARD SPECIFIC TO GARAGE CONDO USES IN SITUATIONS WHERE OFF STREET PARKING WAS REQUIRED.

IT SEEMED TO BE DUE TO A MORE MORE INTENSIVE USE OR AMENITY WITH THE GARAGE CONDO SUCH AS AN OFFICE, A CLUBHOUSE, OR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SPACE DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE SITE.

STAFF CONDUCTED RESEARCH THROUGH THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATED WITH MINI STORAGE AND SELF STORAGE AND I'VE PROVIDED SOME OF THE SUMMARY AS WELL AS THE RESEARCH BOOK IN YOUR PACKET FOR YOUR REFERENCE.

THE PROVIDED INFORMATION SHOWS THAT THE USES HAVE RELATIVELY LOW DEMAND ON OFF STREET PARKING GENERALLY DUE TO NO EMPLOYEES AND NO COMMERCIAL SPACE AS PART OF A STORAGE USE. SO STAFF ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE CITY OF ORONO.

PARKING STALL STANDARD SIZING AS WELL AS TRAFFIC DRIVE AISLE STANDARDS.

ALSO OF NOTE IS THE CURRENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS WITHIN THE CITY CODE FOR GARAGE CONDO USE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IMPLEMENTING OFF STREET PARKING STANDARDS. THESE CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT IMPACT PARKING OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN LOOKING AT IMPLEMENT PARKING, INCLUDING THE CONDITION OF NO DWELLING USES PERMITTED ON THE SITE.

NO EVENTS ARE PERMITTED ON THE SITE. NO EXTERIOR OVERNIGHT PARKING IS PERMITTED, AND NO EXTERIOR STORAGE IS PERMITTED AS PART OF A GARAGE.

CONDO USE WITHIN THE CITY OF ORONO, CREATE ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS ON THE SITE COULD INCREASE HARDCOVER, AS WELL AS MAY ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE SITE IN WAYS THAT ARE COUNTER TO THE INTENDED OR ALLOWED USE LISTED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR FUTURE GARAGE CONDO USES, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND REQUIRING A LIMITED NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING STALLS TO SUPPORT TEMPORARY GUEST PARKING.

I'VE INCLUDED SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER WHICH IS LETTER H, WHICH WHICH ALSO IDENTIFIES SOME PARKING AND DRIVING STANDARDS.

EACH UNIT WITHIN A GARAGE CONDO DEVELOPMENT MUST PROVIDE AN EIGHT BY 21FT PARALLEL PARKING SPOT IN FRONT OF EACH UNIT.

THE OVERALL SITE MUST MAINTAIN A 20 A 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE FOR MANEUVERABILITY AND ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY TEN UNITS FOR TEMPORARY GUEST PARKING. THIS IS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.

OBVIOUSLY, THROUGH YOUR DISCUSSION, YOU CAN GIVE DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, YOU SHOULD DISCUSS WHAT THE INTENDED GOAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND DOES THE COMMISSION FIND THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO BE REASONABLE? IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT OFF STREET PARKING STANDARD IS NECESSARY FOR GARAGE USE.

STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ADOPTING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ASSIST OR PROVIDE.

I HAVE SOME OTHER IMAGES OR REFERENCE POINTS I'M HAPPY TO SHOW, DEPENDING ON AT YOUR DIRECTION.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO, I WAS WONDERING I UNDERSTAND IN THE GARAGE CONDO THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.

THEY ENDED UP ADDING THE PARALLEL PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF EACH UNIT, BUT IN THIS LANGUAGE FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL GARAGE CONDOS. WHY WOULD THE PARKING SPACE BE REQUIRED TO BE PARALLEL? IF THEY HAD MORE ROOM FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND MANEUVERABILITY BETWEEN THE UNITS, COULD THE SPACE NET NOT BE

[00:50:01]

IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE PARALLEL. PARALLEL SEEMS TO BE A TYPE OF PARKING THAT'S KIND OF ASSOCIATED WITH SELF STORAGE, AS HOW PEOPLE PULL UP AND USE THEIR UNITS, AND IT HAS A DIFFERENT SIZING STANDARD THAN A STRAIGHTFORWARD PULL IN PARKING SPACE. SO THIS PARKING SIZING WAS ASSOCIATED WITH PARALLEL, BUT YEAH, AS THE COMMISSION DISCUSSES THAT CAN BE THAT CAN BE CHANGED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NOBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU STAFF FOR DOING A LOT OF HOMEWORK ON THIS.

JUST IF FOR EVERYBODY THAT REMEMBERS THE GARAGE CONDO, THAT WAS KIND OF THE MISSING PIECE IN THE STANDARDS FOR THAT AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT PARKING WOULD GO. I HAVE A STRONG OPINION ONE WAY ON THIS, AND I GUESS I'LL START WITH IT.

I HAVE ONE OF THESE SPACES IN A DIFFERENT CITY.

IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 50 FOOT WIDE CORRIDOR. IT SHOWS NO PARKING AND EVERY TIME I'M THERE, PEOPLE ARE PARKED NOT PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE UNITS, BUT NOSE IN IN FRONT OF THE UNITS.

SO YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT HAPPENS TO A 50 FOOT WIDE AISLE WHEN YOU HAVE TWO 24 FOOT, 22 FOOT TRUCKS? THAT NOW BECOMES WAY LESS THAN 12. RIGHT. WE'RE LOOKING AT A SEVEN FOOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PULLING ALL THE WAY TO UP TO THE BUILDING.

SO I GUESS I CAN GET BEHIND THE IDEA OF THE PARALLEL STUFF, BUT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT OF HAVING THOSE SPACES STRIPED SO THAT PEOPLE DO UNDERSTAND WHERE TO PARK. I'LL ALSO STATE FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, EVERY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT'S NOT ALLOWED THAT WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED, AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED AT THE OTHER PLACE.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS HAPPENS ON A DAILY BASIS, WEEKLY BASIS.

SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE DEFINITELY WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE A STANDARD IN CASE THERE'S SOME OTHER PROPERTIES HERE IN ORONO THAT WANT TO BE REDEVELOPED INTO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF HAVING A STANDARD.

I THINK THIS IS A GOOD START. I'M NOT SURE IF THE PARALLEL MAKES SENSE IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE DOORS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED PRIMARILY, THOSE ARE USED FOR BRINGING VEHICLES IN AND OUT, SO IT REALLY MAKES A CUMBERSOME SITUATION.

I DO LIKE THE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY TEN UNITS FOR GUEST PARKING.

I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE METRIC. I THINK THAT CAN WORK REALLY WELL, BUT I'M STILL CONFLICTED ON THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT EACH UNIT WOULD NEED, AND FOR WHATEVER THAT WHATEVER THAT PARKING IS, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IN THERE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY STRIPED PARKING SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO USE IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE WITH THE CURRENT PLACES THAT I SEE.

I DO LIKE THE COMPARISON TO THE OTHER STORAGE CONDOS.

GARAGE CONDOS, BUT MOST OF THOSE ARE NOT LOCATED WITHIN A CITY LIKE ORONO, AND SO I DO FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE A STANDARD THAT FITS FOR US, AND THE CLEAR DRIVE FOR ME IS PUBLIC SAFETY. IF YOU GET PEOPLE PARKING WRONG IN ONE OF THESE THINGS, THERE'S ZERO CHANCE TO GET AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE THROUGH.

SO THAT'S REALLY MY BIGGEST CONCERN. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME IF PEOPLE ARE PARKED WEIRD AND THEY CAN'T GET THEIR BOAT IN THERE OR NOT.

THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM. SO THAT WAS WHY THAT WORD PARALLEL STRUCK ME, BECAUSE I HAVE, LIKE YOU, SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME AT THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE PARALLEL PARKED IN FRONT OF A UNIT.

SO I WOULD RATHER REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE A PARKING SPOT IN FRONT OF THE UNIT, WHICH WOULD, I THINK, MAKE THE LANE BETWEEN THOSE PARKING SPOTS LARGER.

IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN PEOPLE PARK THAT WAY, REGARDLESS OF IF THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.

THERE IS ROOM FOR EMERGENCY MANEUVERABILITY. MR. CHAIR, I AGREE WITH THE ONE THING AT A TIME. I AGREE WITH THE STRIPING.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I THINK I'M READING THE PARALLEL PARKING AS A MINIMUM STANDARD, WHICH I APPRECIATE. I DON'T SO THAT MEANS THAT THEY CAN HAVE PERPENDICULAR PARKING IF THEY WANT TO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM STANDARD.

THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, AND MAYBE I'M NOT SEEING IN HERE, WOULD BE A MINIMUM WIDTH, WHICH I THINK COMMISSIONER PRCHAL MENTIONED MINIMUM WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS FROM 50 TO JUST AS A NUMBER 60.

[00:55:04]

IF TWO ARE NOSE TO NOSE TO EACH OTHER. SO I CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE INSIGHT.

THE WAY THIS WOULD BE WRITTEN NOW, IF IT WAS PARALLEL, WE WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM, RIGHT? PEOPLE CAN DESIGN IT AND IT CAN ALWAYS BE BIGGER.

MINIMUM EIGHT FEET WIDE. A 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE AND THEN EIGHT FEET WIDE BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

IT WOULD RESULT IN DON'T MATH ME 28FT BETWEEN BUILDINGS WOULD BE THE MINIMUM IN THIS SCENARIO, AND IT WOULD BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT.

12 PLUS EIGHT PLUS 828. IN THIS SCENARIO, WE SAW THROUGH RESEARCH OF OTHER CITIES, A 30 FOOT DRIVE AISLE ON A FEW SITE PLANS FOR GARAGE CONDOS, USE THE GARAGE CONDO, AND OUR CITY HAD 40 FOOT WIDE AT THEIR SMALLEST AND 50 FOOT WIDE AT THEIR LARGEST FOR DRIVE AISLES. I BELIEVE IN THE CITY OF ORONO.

TEXT A PART A PARALLEL OR NOT PARALLEL. A NOSE IN PARKING SPACE HAS TO BE NINE FEET WIDE, I THINK BY 20 FOOT DEEP.

SO IF YOU USE THAT SAME MATH, IF WE REQUIRED A NOSE IN, IT WOULD BE 20FT PLUS A 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, AND 20FT WOULD RESULT IN 52 BETWEEN BUILDINGS, BECAUSE WE WOULD THEN REQUIRE THAT MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AS A RESULT OF THESE PARKING STANDARDS, IS HOW WE WOULD SEE IT BE IMPLEMENTED BY AN APPLICANT.

JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IF I MAY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KIND OF RESONATED IS THE WHEN WE WERE POLLING THE OTHER CITIES AND THE CODES DID DID IT SEEM THAT PERHAPS THAT THE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PARALLEL PARKING STANDARDS COULD THAT HAVE BEEN MAYBE WRITTEN FOR MINI STORAGE? BECAUSE I THINK MINI STORAGE AND AGAIN, OPENING A CAN OF WORMS HERE, BUT MINI STORES, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE NOT MOVING VEHICLES TYPICALLY IN AND OUT, YOU'RE MOVING BELONGINGS, AND IF YOU'RE MOVING VEHICLES IN AND OUT, THEN THAT COULD BE AN INTENSIFICATION OF GUESTS, CARS, VEHICLES AND THE NEED FOR MORE SPACE, AND SO I JUST WONDER IF PERHAPS SOME OF THE SPIRIT OF SOME OF THE CITY CODES WERE MAYBE GEARED MORE TOWARDS MINI STORAGE? DO WE HAVE DO WE WANT TO HAVE DIFFERENT STORAGE FOR DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS? IF IT'S I THINK, A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE. OH GO AHEAD.

I THINK THAT'S MY STRUGGLE WITH THIS IS I'VE OUTFITTED A TON OF THESE CAR GARAGES, AND I'VE BEEN TO PARTIES AND ALL THE ONES I'VE OUTFITTED WITH MOVIE THEATERS AND GUITAR OR GOLF SIMULATORS AND I KNOW THAT THE ONE THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN HERE IS GOING TO HAVE A MOVIE THEATER AND A GOLF SIMULATOR IN IT, AND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT THIS CODE DOES COME FROM MINI STORAGE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE EVEN TRYING TO PITCH IT AS THIS KIND OF A TEMPORARY WE'RE GOING TO SHOW UP, MOVE A CAR, LEAVE REALITY. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT 'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO CREATE THE PARKING FOR IT BY FORCING IT TO A NOSE IN, WHICH GIVES YOU THAT REQUIREMENT FOR 12, 20. RIGHT. TO FORCE THE BUILDING TO BE FARTHER APART, TO MAKE IT SO THAT THERE IS PARKING, BECAUSE THOSE EVENTS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RULES SAY. DO WE, DO WE FEEL THAT ONE SPOT IS ENOUGH? ONE PARKING SPOT IS ENOUGH PER UNIT. THEY THEORETICALLY SHOULD ALSO HAVE IDEALLY SPACE IF THEY'RE MOVING CARS IN THE UNIT. I GUESS EVERY GARAGE CONDO I'VE SEEN, YOU'D HAVE AT LEAST TWO SIDE BY SIDE NOSE IN, AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PARALLEL SPOT, PARALLEL WOULD BE 20FT WIDE.

SO I WOULD IMAGINE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE TWO NOS IN, IN THAT SAME WIDTH.

I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THE PARALLEL, AT LEAST WHAT THEY HAD PROPOSED IN THEIRS, IT WAS ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF THE UNITS DOORS AND EVERYTHING.

SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RIGHT ACCOUNT FOR ANY OF THAT.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT EQUATION, IS YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PARKING, WHETHER IT'S PARALLEL OR NOSE IN, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF IT WOULDN'T BE PARKING.

THAT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THE METRIC IF IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE ACTIVE DOOR USE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I THINK THROUGH THAT. I THINK PART OF THE CHALLENGE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR IS WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A VENT AND A NEED FOR PARKING IN THESE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 3 OR 4 TIMES WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE FOUR PARTIES HAPPENING IN A GARAGE TO ACQUIRE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THIS, THIS CURRENT THE GARAGE CONDO THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING BUILT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS

[01:00:06]

I'M CONCERNED THEY'RE GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, AND THE CUP IS CONTINGENT ON THE PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY. ALIGNING WITH THE CODE AND THAT CUP THAT IT'S BEEN GRANTED, WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S NOT PERMANENT AND CAN BE REVOKED IF THE IF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT COMPLY, WHICH IS WHY WE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE REGULATIONS WITHIN THE PROPERTY WOULD BE IT ENFORCED BECAUSE OF THOSE CONCERNS AND CHALLENGES, THOUGH, THE CUP THAT'S BEEN GRANTED TO THAT PROPERTY EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS EVENTS. IF THERE ARE MOVIE THEATERS AND GOLF SIMULATORS GOING IN THERE, THE FAMILY THAT OWNS THE UNIT CAN USE CAN WATCH A MOVIE AND USE THEIR GOLF SIMULATOR BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT INVITING MANY OTHER GUESTS OVER TO HAVE AN EVENT AT A MOVIE THEATER OR GOLF SIMULATOR WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY THE CUP .

UNDER THE CURRENT, UNDER THEIR PROPOSAL OR THEIR SITE PLAN.

IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN AND YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE COME OVER, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PARALLEL PARK IN FRONT OF SOMEONE ELSE'S UNIT, AND SO THAT WILL BE HAPPENING, BUT WHATEVER DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY WON'T AFFECT THAT PROJECT BECAUSE THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

IT'S TO PREVENT IT'S TO IT'S JUST COMING. WE REALLY HAVE TO FIND A REAL PARKING STANDARD FOR ANY OF THESE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT COME THROUGH, AND I DO AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE IT SHOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE KIND OF GIVING THEM PARKING BY SAYING EIGHT BY 24 FOOT PARALLEL PARK SPACE, LIKE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT STANDARD, BUT IT ALSO HAS TO BE NAVIGABLE BY AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TIE IT TO THIS PARKING STANDARD. I KNOW WE SAY IT IN A DIFFERENT PIECE, AND THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT SHOWED US A MANEUVERABILITY STUDY THAT DIDN'T SHOW THE CARS, ALL THE CARS PARKED THERE. SO IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE IT NEEDS TO FIT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ADD THAT TO THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT.

COULD WE ADD SOMETHING ABOUT A ROUNDABOUT TYPE OF END TO IT? WELL, IT JUST HAS TO. THAT WAS THE ISSUE I WAS TURNING AT THE END.

YEAH, AND THERE ALSO HAS TO BE WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE PARKING STANDARD, THERE HAS TO BE ROOM TO PUT SNOW, AND THAT OTHER PROJECT HAD NO PLACE TO PUT SNOW.

THEY DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT IN THEIR MANEUVERABILITY STUDY. SO IF WE COULD TIE ADDITIONAL MANEUVERABILITY TO THIS PARKING STANDARD, YOU KNOW, IT NEEDS TWO STRIPED PARKING SPOTS PER UNIT, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL ONE PARKING UNIT FOR GUESTS FOR EVERY TEN UNITS.

I GUESS I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE--I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE PARALLEL OR NOT, BUT THEY CAN'T BE BLOCKING ANY DOORS.

WELL, IF YOU REQUIRE TWO, IT'S KIND OF A SQUARE.

SO WHICHEVER DIRECTION THEY FACE IT SHOULDN'T MATTER.

RIGHT, BUT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS IT SHOULDN'T. IT CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THE DOOR. YOU WOULDN'T PARK A RIGHT. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PARKING SPOT IN THE FRONT DOOR HERE. AGREED. OR IN FRONT OF ANY GARAGE DOOR FOR THAT MATTER.

SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THAT REQUIREMENT, AND I DON'T I GUESS I'D ASK STAFF AS FAR AS THE 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE.

THAT MAKES SENSE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WORKS WITH MANEUVERABILITY.

SO IF YOU HAVE A 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, BUT YOU HAVE A 90 DEGREE TURN AND IT STILL MEASURES 12FT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN. CORRECT. SO JUST LIKE WE DID THAT EXERCISE WITH THE PREVIOUS GARAGE CONDO, THERE ARE STATE BUILDING CODES, AND WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING IN AN INTERNAL ROAD PATH YOU DO HAVE TO PROVIDE AND MEET THE STANDARD OF ALLOWING EMERGENCY ACCESSIBILITY TO EACH UNIT.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE WERE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS OF MANEUVERABILITY, WHERE IT DIDN'T WHERE I THINK SOME DISCUSSION WAS COMING OUT OF WAS HOW MUCH PARKING DO WE NEED TO SHOW VERSUS HOW MUCH MANEUVERABILITY DO WE NEED TO SHOW BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED MANEUVERABILITY PLANS AND WE HAVE ROADS RIGHT

[01:05:04]

24FT IS OUR STANDARD FOR A TWO LANE ROAD IN OUR CITY.

IF SOMEONE CAME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SAID, I NEED TO PUT IN A ROAD, WE'D SAY 24 IS THE MINIMUM.

SO FOR THAT'S A TWO LANE ROAD. SO WE WILL BE TAKING MANEUVERABILITY AND EMERGENCY ACCESS INTO ACCOUNT WHENEVER THERE'S AN INTERNAL PATH PROCESS. IT'S MORE ABOUT MAINTAINING A CLEAR DRIVE AISLE WHERE THE STANDARD WAS SPEAKING TO, BUT WE CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC IF THERE'S A CONCERN OR A REASON TO SUPPORT THAT ADDING THAT CONDITION.

YEAH, I GUESS I THINK JUST THINKING BACK TO THAT PREVIOUS ONE, I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THEY MET THE MANEUVERABILITY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SHOW EVERYTHING ON THERE AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, WE NEED TO TIE IT TO THE PARKING. IF YOU NEED TO HAVE THE PARKING AND SHOW ALL THE PARKING AND THEN DO THE MANEUVERABILITY WITH THE PARKING STANDARD.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD BE TIED DIRECTLY TO THAT.

I THINK THE 12 IS GOOD. IT'S CLEAR DIRECTION, 12 FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO SHOW THAT YOU CAN MANEUVER IT.

ASKING FOR LIKE AN EMERGENCY MANEUVERABILITY PLAN OR SOMETHING AS PART OF THAT CONDITION.

YEAH. IS THAT NOT WHAT THEY HAD PROVIDED BEFORE? THEY PROVIDED IT, BUT THEY DID NOT SHOW THE PARKING.

THEY THEN LATER THEY CAME AND PROPOSED A PARKING PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT THEY DID NOT UPDATE THE MANEUVERABILITY PLAN ON TOP OF THE NEW PARKING PLAN.

THEY KEPT THE OLD MANEUVERABILITY PLAN, AND IT'S NOT REQUIRED RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MAKING SURE THAT IS REQUIRED, MAKING SURE THAT IT'S REQUIRED.

SO IT IS TIED TO THIS SO THAT WE'RE THAT THERE'S CLEAR STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPERS.

THERE'S CLEAR STANDARDS FOR THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC.

THE SAFETY ASPECT OF IT, THERE NEEDS TO BE. YEAH.

I THINK MAYBE ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS IF THEY'RE MEETING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, THEN THE MANEUVERABILITY NEEDS TO PASS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, WHICH MEANS EVERY SPACE IS OCCUPIED, AND YES.

YES, AND THAT WASN'T DONE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY IF THEY'RE MEETING, IF THEY'RE DEMONSTRATING, MEETING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE MANEUVERABILITY WHILE THOSE SPACES OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE OCCUPIED. YES. YEAH I GUESS WELL, SO IN THEIR EXAMPLE, THEY DIDN'T SHOW THEM AS PARALLEL, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY BECAUSE IF THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THEM AS PARALLEL, THEN THE EIGHT AND THE EIGHT AND THEIR DRIVE LANE, BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT THEIR SMALLEST GAP WAS 40FT, AND WE'RE SAYING THAT THE PARALLELS EIGHT, 12 AND EIGHT IS ONLY 28.

TO ME, THEY WOULD HAVE MET THE MANEUVERABILITY STUDY, THE IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR MANEUVERABILITY, THEY DON'T SHOW CARS PARKED IN THE LAST STALLS, AND THEY SHOW THE TRAIL GOING OVER WHERE THAT CAR WOULD PARK TO MAKE THE CORNER BECAUSE IT'S THE CORNER, NOT THE CORNER. IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS THIS WIDE BETWEEN, AND THEN IT WAS THIS WIDE AT THE END.

SO THAT'S WHY I WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR CALLING OUT A 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE.

WE HAVE TO ALSO CALL OUT THAT WE'RE EXPECTING THAT TO BE FOR MANEUVERABILITY PURPOSES.

THAT'S GOING TO WORK. YEAH. WITH CARS IN THE PARKING SPOTS AND REQUIRING THOSE PARKING SPOTS TO BE STRIPED, I THINK IS A REALLY KEY PIECE TO THIS, BECAUSE WE CAN PUT ALL THE THOUGHT IN THE WORLD AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME AND PARK WHERE IT'S CONVENIENT IF THERE'S NO STRIPES, AND THEN THAT MESSES UP THE WHOLE SAFETY ASPECT OF IT.

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST WANT TO ADD QUICKLY MY THOUGHTS THAT YOU HAD MADE A COMMENT ABOUT TWO MAYBE POTENTIALLY PER UNIT.

PLUS I BELIEVE YOU WERE ASSUMING ALSO THE ADDITIONAL ONE PER TEN UNITS, AND TO ME, THAT'S EXTREMELY OVERKILL AND KIND OF GETS US BACK TO MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT WHERE I THINK WE'RE OVER EXAGGERATING THE NECESSARY PARKING.

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, BUT DOING TWO PLUS THE ONE PER TEN IS GETTING US CLOSE TO 181 70, I THINK, AND THEY ORIGINALLY WERE SUPPOSED TO MEET 235, AND SO I PERSONALLY DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH HAVING TWO PER UNIT. I UNDERSTAND THE MANEUVERABILITY CONCERN AND I DON'T HAVE A GREAT ANSWER.

I THINK WE'VE TALKED THROUGH ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE END UNITS AND TURNING RADIUS IS KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE THE ISSUE THAT THEY DIDN'T ARTICULATE THE WAY WE WANT THEM TO PROVIDE THE SAFETY ACCESS, BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO VOICE MY CONCERN WITH EVERYTHING THAT STAFF HAS SEEN IN TERMS OF THESE FACILITIES DON'T REQUIRE THIS MUCH PARKING, BUT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO REQUIRE OVERKILL PARKING F ROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

[01:10:01]

I THINK WE'RE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE DESIGNATED PARKING, RIGHT.

LIKE, I BET WE NEVER HAVE MORE THAN 10% OF THOSE PAINTED PARKING SPOTS FULL BUT IF YOU DID THE PAINTED SPOTS, THEN DID THE FEASIBILITY STUDY, YOU'D CUT OUT THE CORNERS SO YOU'D RESTRICT YOUR PAIN POINTS, YOUR CORNERS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST TO PROTECT YOUR TRAFFIC FLOW, BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK ANY OF US REALLY EXPECT EVERY ONE OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS TO EVER BE FULL, BUT THEN THERE'S JUST NO QUESTION OF WHEN PEOPLE COME.

THERE MIGHT BE SIX PEOPLE DOWN AT THE END AND NOBODY ACROSS THE OTHER TWO LANES, BUT YOU'D KEEP THEM OUT OF THE PAIN POINT AREAS.

SO THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT IT. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, I DO HAVE SOME SITE PLANS FROM A FEW OTHER GARAGE CONDOS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL JUST TO SEE SOME DIFFERENT LAYOUTS. JUST AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION, THIS WAS THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE.

I BELIEVE THIS WAS JUST ADOPTED EARLIER THIS YEAR.

THEY HAD SOME COMMERCIAL SPACE UP HERE WHICH REQUIRED A NORMAL PARKING LOT, AND THEN THEY HAD 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLES HERE CONNECTING THE BUILDINGS. THEY HAD A 32 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, KIND OF ON THE BOOKEND AND THEN 48 WITH NO PARKING STANDARD ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ONE, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE THE CITY OF EAGAN. REALLY QUICKLY, JUST FOR CONTEXT, THAT CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, YES. DO THEY ALLOW EVENTS OR NOT? NO. EVENTS.

BECAUSE THE USE OF THESE GARAGE CONDOS IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY DRIVE AND IMPACT THE NEED FOR PARKING.

YEAH. SO I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY IF THEY SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT HOW THEY USE EVENTS.

I WILL NOTE THAT THEY CALLED OUT PERIMETER PARKING OF ROUGHLY 97 PARKING STALLS, 150, AND THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT THEY'RE COUNTING, JUST THE CURBING AROUND THE PERIMETER AS PARALLEL SPOTS AROUND THE FACILITY, BUT THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO STRIPE OR INSTALL THEM, PER SE.

HOW MANY? SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. HOW MANY UNITS ARE THERE? 20. 100. I CAN GIVE YOU A BETTER NUMBER ON THAT ONE.

IT IS LARGER THAN US. LET'S SEE HERE. 18. 18.

16. I THINK ROUGHLY 100 WITHOUT DOING WITH DOING QUICK MATH AND THEN BUILDINGS. LET'S SEE HERE, BUILDING TWO THROUGH FIVE HAD 72 AUTO CONDO UNITS, AND THEY SAID THAT WOULD SUPPORT 150 PARKING STALLS AROUND THE PERIMETER, AND THEN BUILDING SIX THROUGH NINE WAS WAS 48 UNITS HAD 97. SO THAT'S MORE THAN TWO PER CONDO.

YES. OKAY. YEP, BUT THEY DID NOT. JUST AS A NOTE, THEY DID NOT.

I KNOW THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE THE ACTUAL STRIPING OR INSTALLATION, BUT THEY DID REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO SHOW OR TO CALCULATE WHAT PARKING COULD HAPPEN, AND IT IS WITHIN THEY WERE ANTICIPATING AROUND THE CURBING OF THE PERIMETER THROUGH THE, ALONG THE DRIVE AISLES ESSENTIALLY, BUT NOTHING. NOTHING IN THE DRIVE AISLES BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

THEY DID NOT SPECIFY, AND WHAT IS THAT WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS? IT'S 32 KIND OF ON THE BOOK END HERE. 32, 32 AND THEN 48 BETWEEN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

IT'S ACTUALLY VERY THAT PLAN IS ACTUALLY VERY THOUGHTFUL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PARKING BETWEEN THE DRIVE AISLES OF THE BUILDINGS.

SO YOU CAN MANEUVER VEHICLES, BOATS, TRAILERS, EVERYTHING IN AND OUT OF THERE, AND THE PARKING IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE PARALLEL ALONG THE CURB, WHERE IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH ANYTHING, AND SO AND WE KEEP, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE KEEP OH YEAH AROUND TWO PER UNIT. SO JUST KIND OF GOING BACK TO MY COMMENT WHERE I THINK A LOT OF THIS, THE STANDARDS, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE TALK ABOUT PER UNIT, AND I THINK JUST SOMETIMES PER UNIT, LIKE IF IT'S A 20 BY TEN UNIT, THAT'S A MINI STORAGE, RIGHT. NOT GOING TO HAVE PROBABLY NEARLY THE TRAFFIC OR POTENTIAL FOR MORE GUESTS.

OR IF YOU HAVE A 40 BY 60 UNIT, THAT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT SCENARIO.

YOU'RE ALMOST DEFINITELY GOING TO BE TAKING VEHICLES IN AND OUT OF THERE, AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE INTENT AS WELL, AND SO I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE, AND AGAIN, THE ONLY REASON WHY I FEEL LIKE WE ARE GOING OR WHY I

[01:15:08]

MUCH MORE APT THAN INDEPENDENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE BOATS AND TRAILERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I JUST SPENT THE WEEKEND UP NORTH, AND IF YOU GO BY AROUND LAKE MILLE LACS AND BRAINERD AND ALL THOSE LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, THERE'S A LOT OF STORAGE THAT ARE LARGE BUILDINGS THAT ARE DEDICATED FOR STORING BOATS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE BOATS GET STORED.

SO TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO EMERGENCY VEHICLE MANEUVERABILITY, BUT IN MORE REALISTIC TERMINOLOGY, IT'S TOWING A 24 FOOT TRAILER BEHIND IT AND MANEUVERABILITY OF THAT AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THAT MANEUVERABILITY STANDARD, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE USING AS A LENGTH OF A VEHICLE.

YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A FULL SIZE PICKUP TRUCK WITH AN 8.5FT BED THAT'S 22FT LONG, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE FOUR FEET INTO THE DRIVING LANE IF IT'S PARKED PERPENDICULAR RATHER THAN PARALLEL.

SO I MEAN, I GUESS MY POINT IS IF WE ALL DO AGREE, OR IF THE MAJORITY OF US DO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE STRICTER STANDARDS BASED UPON WHAT I MENTIONED, AND WE THEN THEN WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT NEEDS TO BE, BUT IF WE DON'T AGREE, THEN WE SHOULD DEFAULT TO THE STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORING, YOU KNOW, CITIES.

MY OPINION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU KNOW, I LIKE THAT WE HAVE A PARKING STANDARD BECAUSE IT ALLOWS IT TO BE. I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICANT. THEY WERE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY WANTED A NUMBER AND I DIDN'T HAVE A NUMBER. I WANTED TO SEE MORE SPACE FOR MANEUVERABILITY, BUT THE BUT THE SPACE CREATES THE MANEUVERABILITY, AND SO THAT SOMETIMES ALLOWS SOMEBODY TO FIT IT INTO A BOX BUT STILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO THE END OF MY RAMBLE IS THAT, I MEAN, WE NEED TO PROBABLY DETERMINE IF WE FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE MORE SPACE BASED ON OUR COMMUNITY, IF WE FEEL LIKE THAT ISN'T NECESSARY, AND THEN MAYBE WE BUILD OFF OF IT.

I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE IN MORE SPACE GIVEN THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

I AGREE. I IT FEELS LIKE THE STANDARDS SHOULD REFLECT THE REALITY OF HOW THE SPACE IS GOING TO BE USED.

I THINK WE KNOW A DEVELOPER WILL GET, YOU KNOW, MORE GARAGES IN THERE IF THEY CAN, AND THOSE MINIMUMS REALLY MATTER, AND THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE USED IN ORONO JUST LOOKS DIFFERENT THAN, THAN OTHER CITIES, AND I THINK THAT THE STANDARDS THAT WE SHOULD, SHOULD REFLECT THAT AND ENSURE THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND EVERYTHING CAN, CAN GET THROUGH JUST FINE.

I AGREE. I THINK WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING THAT'S A MIX BETWEEN A STORAGE UNIT AND A COMMERCIAL SPACE.

RIGHT. EVEN THE APPLICANT THAT GOT APPROVED HERE SAID THESE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR WORK, WHICH MAY NOT BE AN EVENT, BUT MAY HAVE 5 OR 6 WORK VEHICLES THERE.

IF THESE UNITS ARE NOT A TRADITIONAL STORAGE WHERE I STOP, DROP OFF, PICK UP AND LEAVE, BUT SOMETHING WHERE THAT SPACE INSIDE MIGHT BE USED FOR ALL KINDS OF OTHER STUFF AND THERE'S NOWHERE TO PARK IN THERE. IT'S GOT TO BE A BLEND.

YEAH. EVEN OUR MINI STORAGE IS A LOT MORE STRICT THAN THIS AS FAR AS NUMBER OF UNITS, ETCETERA, AND THOSE ARE BEING USED PRIMARILY LIKE NO ONE'S ACTUALLY STAYING AND WORKING IN THE MINI-STORAGE OR IN THERE PLAYING GOLF OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR BIG HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE ONE HERE IS THIS IS GOING TO BE A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK, RIGHT? WELL, THE ONE IN INDEPENDENCE SHOWS SOMEWHERE AROUND TWO PER UNIT.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE THAT FAR OFF. ONE AND A HALF PER UNIT, TWO PER UNIT, ONE PER UNIT.

DO WE WANT TO USE PER UNIT IS KIND OF GOING BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING IS IF IT'S A TEN BY 15 FOOT UNIT, DOES THAT, DOES THAT NEED TO BE THE SAME STANDARD AS A 40 BY 60? WELL, IF YOU USE A SQUARE FOOT, IT'S HARDER TO FIGURE OUT THAT METRIC AS FAR AS BECAUSE YOU COULD ARGUE THAT A 20 BY 20 UNIT IS GOING TO GET A SAME AMOUNT OF USE AS A 20 BY 60 UNIT. WHAT ABOUT THE FRONTAGE FOOTAGE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

LIKE, HOWEVER WIDE THE UNIT IS. I ALSO REALLY QUICKLY JUST WANT TO.

I DON'T WANT TO LET GO OF THE CONCEPT OF THE MANEUVERABILITY STUDY NEEDING TO INCLUDE THE PARKING, BUT ALSO SNOW. YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T FORGET ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE.

I THINK WE'VE SEEN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THE WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS IS AROUND 50FT, AND AGAIN KNOWING THAT

[01:20:03]

A LOT OF DEVELOPERS DO AS WELL WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE LENGTH OF DRIVEWAYS FOR THEIR RESIDENTIAL, AND THERE'S MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CITIES FOR THAT AS WELL, BUT IF YOU'RE USING THAT STANDARD THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM OF 20FT IF YOU ARE LIKE TOUCHING THE UNIT PERPENDICULAR, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE THAT 'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE MEASURED OR THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE USED THAT'S FINE, BUT IF PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO, THEN THAT'S FINE TOO, BUT AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO LIKE IF YOU HAVE A PARKING STANDARD OR A NUMBER OF SPACES, THEN WHETHER THAT IS DEFINED BY THE SPACE BETWEEN BUILDINGS AS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET AND THEN THEY'LL BE PARKED PERPENDICULAR OR PARKED PARALLEL. IT'S UP TO THEM DEPENDING ON THE NEEDS ON THE DAY, BUT IF YOU HAVE A STANDARD AMOUNT OF SPACE BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACKING A TRAILER IN, AND THEY NEED TO HAVE THE SPACE TO DO SO, AND IF THEIR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE WAY IS PARKED PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO MOVE BUT THE MINIMUM STANDARD IS BEING MET.

ASSUMING THAT THERE'S MORE SPACE BEING ACCOMMODATED THAN MAYBE WE'RE ON TO SOMETHING. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I CAME UP WITH 60 INSTEAD OF 50, JUST CREATING JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE FOR TRAILER MANEUVERABILITY AND JUST THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGS GOING THROUGH IN AND OUT OF THERE THAN PERHAPS THE MEDINA MOTORPLEX AS AN EXAMPLE.

COMMISSIONER RESSLER, JUST AS A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH ANOTHER CITY OFFICIAL WHEN REVIEWING THESE PLANS AND DOING THE RESEARCH ASKING THEM ABOUT THEIR PERMIT OR THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THEY NOTED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY, BUT THEY DID REQUIRE A MINIMUM 50 FOOT DRIVE AISLE FOR THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE POINTS THAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO INSTEAD OF A PARKING PER UNIT CALCULATION, IT WAS JUST A MINIMUM OF 50 FOOT AISLES BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO THEN ACCOMMODATE ALL PARKING, MANEUVERABILITY, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND THINGS.

YEAH, THAT SEEMS I MEAN, THE ONE THAT WE WERE GOING BACK TO, I THINK THERE WAS SPOTS WHERE THERE WAS 40 AND I FELT LIKE 50 BEING A MINIMUM.

RIGHT. NOT NECESSARILY THE PREFERENCE, AND THAT'S WHY THAT SOUNDS RIGHT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, I'VE SEEN THE 50 BEFORE. I THINK 60 IS MORE REASONABLE FOR THE USE.

ARE WE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 50FT ON TOP OF THE PARKING? NO, IT WAS BUILDING THE BUILDING. IT WAS A 50 FOOT BETWEEN BUILDINGS, FOUR DRIVE AISLES TO SUPPORT MANEUVERABILITY, PARKING AND THROUGHOUT THE SITE. SO THEY DID NOT HAVE A PER UNIT PARKING STANDARD.

INSTEAD, THEY JUST REQUIRED A MINIMUM 50FT BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS.

ONE ONE IS SMALLER THAN THAT. ONE IS 40. YEAH, BUT I THINK WE CAN SHOW THE MANEUVERABILITY IS LOOKS DOES NOT LOOK FEASIBLE, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD STANDARD TO USE.

IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY HERE. I THINK IF YOU ADDED 50FT TO THE, TO THE PARKING STANDARD OR TO THE NO, TO THE END OF THE UNITS BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE, THE GRASS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE, THE MANEUVERABILITY RAN, BECAUSE IT WAS GOING FROM 50FT WIDE TO 12FT.

IF THAT JUMPED TO 50 ON THE END, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THOSE MANEUVERABILITY ISSUES, AND I THINK THAT WOULD SATISFY A LOT OF THOSE OTHER ISSUES IF WE.

ME. SURE, I HEARD COMMISSIONER RESSLER STATE THAT HE WAS THINKING 60 FEET WAS MORE APPROPRIATE, GIVEN PICKUP TRUCKS WON'T BE PARKED EXACTLY AT NOSE TO THE BUILDING THOUGH.

SEVERAL FEET, USUALLY FROM THERE. SO ADDING AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET FEELS MORE REASONABLE, AND I THINK THAT THE FAR RIGHT CORNER HIGHLIGHTS MY ISSUE WITH THE MANEUVERABILITY.

RIGHT. THAT'S SHOWING IT GOING OFF THE ROAD WITH NO CARS PARKED, AND IMAGINE IF THERE WAS WHERE'S THE SNOW GOING.

IT'S GOING AT THE END OF THAT. ALL THOSE UNITS, THEY'RE NOT PUSHING IT THAT WAY.

IT'S ALL GOING HERE. I THINK MAYBE IF WE SAID 60FT BETWEEN BUILDINGS, 40FT AT THE ENDS, THAT WOULD COVER PARKING, COVER A LOT OF THE OTHER STUFF AND GIVE ROOM FOR SNOW AT THE ENDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO BUILD UP.

RIGHT? THEY'RE GOING TO PUSH IT ALL DOWN TO THE END. IT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED MORE THAN A PARKING STANDARD HERE.

I WAS GOING TO SAY I DON'T. I FEEL LIKE HAVING A PARKING STANDARD IS IS NOT NECESSARY.

I GUESS IN THE MANEUVERABILITY IS THE FOCUS, BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS WERE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THE 235 PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY PUTTING THEM INSIDE. NOW, MAYBE THE CUP WASN'T WRITTEN PROPERLY AND THAT WE ALLOWED THEM TO PUT THEM ALL INSIDE, AND TO ME, IT JUST MADE ME THINK THAT THE WAY THAT CODE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW OR THE CUP THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ARTICULATE, THAT THEY CAN'T ALL BE WITHIN THE UNIT LIKE WE RAN INTO BEFORE.

RIGHT? AND THAT WAS PART OF THE ISSUE. WE'RE MAKING THEM PUT THEM OUTSIDE OF THE UNIT ONE,

[01:25:05]

WELL, THOSE COULD ALL JUST BE SHOWN AS PROOF OF PARKING WITHIN THE BUILDINGS.

I THINK I THINK WHAT HAS COME UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN AT THIS LEVEL AND AT COUNCIL LEVEL IS THAT THEY NEED TO BE OUTSIDE UNITS OUTSIDE OF THE UNIT, BECAUSE I GUESS I WOULD JUST MAKE A NOTE THAT CURRENTLY THAT'S NOT ARTICULATED AND WHY THEY'RE CALLED GARAGE CONDOS.

WHY ARE WE LIMITING? LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO PARK MY CAR OUTSIDE, I WANT TO PARK IT INSIDE.

SO I JUST I STILL PUSH BACK AGAINST IT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPT.

WELL, MANY PEOPLE DRIVE ONE CAR THERE TO DO SOMETHING AT THEIR GARAGE, CONDO, SWITCH CARS, DROP OFF A TRAILER. SO I THINK THAT'S THE CONCERN.

I AM REALLY VERY MUCH IN FAVOR WITH SPECIFYING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE REQUIRED BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

I WOULD ALSO THEN BRING UP FOR CONSIDERATION STRIPING AN AISLE WITHIN THAT CAN'T BE PARKED IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. THE 12FT DRIVE AISLE AND THEN PARK HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE JUST OUT OF THE LANE.

I'M KIND OF LEANING AWAY FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND MORE TO THE ROAD WIDTH DESIGNATED, WHICH SOUNDS REALLY GOOD. WIDENING THE ENDS AND KIND OF GETTING US OUT OF THIS MUCK ABOUT HOW MANY VEHICLES CAN YOU PARK? WHY DO I NEED TO PARK SO MANY VEHICLES THERE? IT KIND OF MUTES ITSELF OUT THEN I DO. MY LAST POINT, THEN I'LL BE QUIET WAS JUST THE IDEA OF STRIPING.

TO ME, I WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO WANT TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAD PAINT ALL OVER THE DRIVE AISLES AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IT AT SOME MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AND WHATNOT. MAYBE IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD, WHETHER IT'S A FIRE LANE OR A STANDARD PARKING LOT, BUT TO ME IT KIND OF RUINS THE ESTHETIC, AND TO ME, I WOULDN'T WANT SOMETHING IN OUR COMMUNITY TO BE THAT, THAT WE DEMANDED THEM PAINT ALL OVER THE TARMAC.

I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD LOOK, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY IN TERMS OF THE STRIPING.

IF WE ARE IN FAVOR OF JUST THE FOCUS ON MANEUVERABILITY AND THE WIDTH IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS, IS IT A REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY FOR PARKING SPACES TO BE STRIPED IN COMMERCIALS? I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT AN AERIAL, ALL OF THEM ARE STRIPED.

YEP, AND OUR OFF STREET PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO BE STRIPED.

THERE IS AN ELEMENT THERE OF A PROOF OF PARKING WHERE WE DON'T REQUIRE YOU TO INSTALL THEM, BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOU HAVE THE SPACE IF THERE'S A DEMAND OR AN ISSUE.

SO THERE IS A PATH THERE FOR SOME INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES TO OFFER A PROOF OF PARKING, BUT THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST I THINK IT'S LIKE 50% AT MINIMUM OF THE REQUIRED PARKING.

SO YEAH, ALL OFF STREET PARKING IN OUR STANDARDS WOULD NEED TO BE STRIPED.

SO I'M VERY FIRM ON THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A METRIC, AN ACTUAL NUMBER FOR THE PARKING, AND IF WE THINK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CODE CHANGE, AND I WAS HERE AND COMMISSIONER RESSLER WAS HERE, AND IF WE LOOK BACK AT THE ORIGINAL CODE IT ACTUALLY TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PARKING, BUT CAN YOU COULD YOU FIND THAT, PLEASE? THE ORIGINAL. THE ORIGINAL ONE. WE THINK BACK TO JANUARY.

WAS IT JANUARY THAT WE CAME UP WITH THAT? WHAT WAS IN THE STAFF MEMO? NO.

I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS IN THE ACTUAL CODE NOW FOR GARAGE CONDOS AS FAR AS THE PARKING.

THIS IS WHAT'S IN THE CODE NOW FOR GARAGE CONDO, AND THEN THIS IS WHAT WAS IS THE SUGGESTED FOR TONIGHT, BUT I GUESS. WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING? NO, THERE WAS THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT PARKING IN THE ORIGINAL ONE AND ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SPACES AND ABOUT THE MANEUVERABILITY.

IT SHOULD SHOW A PARKING AND MANEUVERABILITY PLAN.

CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT IT SAID? SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S THE SITE PLAN. IT'S THE SITE PLAN STANDARDS.

SITE PLAN STANDARDS FOR EVERY. SO A PARKING PLAN MUST BE PROVIDED RIGHT HERE AS A CUP AND SO AND THIS IS WHERE WE GOT THIS WRONG, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PUT A STANDARD IN THERE AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTAND, OR AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING THAT GAVE US MORE FLEXIBILITY ABOUT THE PARKING PLAN FOR THE SITE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT STANDARD, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY OPPOSITE. IF WE DON'T HAVE A NUMBER IN THERE THEY CAN COME TO, A DEVELOPER CAN COME TO US WITH TWO BUILDINGS 12FT WIDE BETWEEN THEM AND NO PARKING AND SAY, THAT'S MY PARKING PLAN, I DON'T HAVE A PARKING PLAN, AND YOU GET IT APPROVED AND THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

SO THE COUNCIL IS ASKING US TO GET THIS RIGHT AND CREATE A PARKING METRIC AND A PLAN FOR ONE OF THESE.

WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBORING CITY. CITY INDEPENDENCE JUST APPROVED ONE THAT HAS TWO SPOTS PER UNIT AND 50 FOOT WIDE SPACING AND 50 FOOT WIDE SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS, AND THEY'RE NOT COUNTING ANY OF THAT SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS FOR PARKING,

[01:30:04]

YEAH. I THINK I SHOULD CLARIFY THE INDEPENDENT STUFF.

SO HERE'S THEIR PARKING. THAT I NOTED. SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT, IT'S 120 UNITS FOR THE OVERALL SITE.

THEY ARE OFFERING BUILDINGS THROUGH THROUGH 10 72 AUTO CONDO UNITS WITH 151 PARKING.

THEY HAVE 1700 LINEAR FEET OF PARKING, AND THEN THEIR CALCULATION OF ONE STALL PER 25 LINEAR FEET RESULTS IN 86 AND THEN 2000, JUST OVER 2000 LINEAR FEET OF BUILDING FACE AND THEN ONE STALL FOR 25FT.

SO THEY ARE COUNTING THE SPACE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS.

THEY'RE COUNTING THE, THE BUILDING THE, THE BUILDING FACE LINEAR FOOT, WHICH RESULTS IN THIS 151 FOR THESE BUILDING CLUSTERS AND THIS 48 BUILDING CLUSTERS, BUILDINGS FOR SIX THROUGH NINE, THERE'S 97 STALLS AND THEY COUNT THE LINEAR FOOT, AND THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE COUNTING EVERY 25 LINEAR FOOT EQUALS ONE PARKING SPACE, WHICH WOULD BE A PARALLEL SPACE.

EFFECTIVELY, IF WE ARE COUNTING 21FT AS A PARALLEL SPACE, AND I'M ASSUMING THEY HAVE A MANEUVERABILITY PLAN THAT SHOWS THOSE PARKING SPOTS.

THEY DID NOT GIVE UP. THEY DID NOT TELL ME THEY DID, BUT THEY THIS IS THE ONLY PART OF THEIR PLAN THAT TALKS TO PARKING, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE A MINIMUM PARKING STANDARD AND THEY DID NOT HAVE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRING THEM TO STRIPE OR IMPLEMENT THE PARKING.

THEY JUST HAVE THIS PARKING CALCULATION THROUGHOUT THE SITE.

SO THEY HAVE THIS LINEAR FOOTAGE, WHICH IS THE CURBSIDE AND THEN THE BUILDING FOOTAGE AS WELL.

THAT'S RESULTING IN THIS NUMBER OF PARKING BASICALLY LOOKING AT EASY MATH.

OUR PLAN COULD ONLY HAVE MAYBE ONE ONE PARKING SPOT PER UNIT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE OUTER PERIMETER.

SO. RIGHT. THEY WOULD COUNT. THEY WOULD COUNT THIS NORTH SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE FOR LINEAR FOOT.

I MEAN THAT IF INDEPENDENCE IS WITH THEIR 20 FOOT, 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLES AND 32 FOOT DRIVE AISLES.

I'M ASSUMING APPLYING THE SAME MATH WOULD COUNT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS, BUT YEAH, THERE'S NO SIDES. THERE'S NO EAST OR WEST COURBAGE TO COUNT FOR THAT.

SO WE KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS TWO UNITS PER.

I MEAN, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY TWO UNITS PER UNIT.

SO ARE WE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A T EXT CHANGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS? THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED TO US TONIGHT. WE COULD CERTAINLY MAKE THAT CHANGE IF WE WANTED TO, AND STAFF WOULD PUT IT ELSEWHERE POTENTIALLY IN THE IN THE CODE.

CORRECT. YEAH. IF YOU GAVE DIRECTION TO CHANGE THE PARKING CALCULATION AND THEN ALSO A DRIVE AISLE OR A WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS OR SOMETHING, THAT ALL CAN BE ADAPTED. MR. CHAIR. I'M JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME PLACE TO ORGANIZE.

I TRIED TO COME UP WITH, LIKE, RESEARCHING, LIKE THE AVERAGE MINI STORAGE SIZE, LIKE A ONE CAR GARAGE.

TEN BY TEN IS KIND OF YOUR, YOU KNOW, VERY SMALL UNIT, TEN BY 30 BEING THE LARGEST OF MINI STORAGE.

SO IF IT'S TEN BY 20, AS AN EXAMPLE, MAYBE THAT'S OUR DEMARCATION POINT.

THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING UP WITH MY NUMBERS. TEN BY 20 IS 200FT².

IF IT'S 200FT² OR LESS, ONE PARKING SPOT PER UNIT, IF IT'S MORE THAN 200FT².

IT'S TWO PARKING SPOTS, EXTERIOR CLARIFIED. PER UNIT WITH A 60 FOOT WIDTH MINIMUM BETWEEN ENTRANCES OF EACH BUILDING, AND IDENTIFIED 12 FOOT DRIVING LANE. STRIPED.

I COULD TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, BUT 60FT I CAME UP WITH BECAUSE IF YOU THINK OF ARGUABLY THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, YOU'VE. GOT A 22 FOOT PICKUP TRUCK, AND IT'S PARKED LESS THAN ONE FOOT FROM THE BUILDING PERPENDICULAR, AND THEIR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE WAY IS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, RIGHT? DO THE MATH. YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM. BUT KNOWING THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PARK DIRECTLY INTO THAT LANE YOU MIGHT ANGLE IN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A 12 FOOT DRIVING LANE, AND COMMON SENSE WOULD ALLOW THAT 12 FOOT DRIVING LANE TO BE MAINTAINED WITH TWO BIG PICKUP TRUCK CREW CABS PARKED ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER,

[01:35:03]

SO I'M THROWING IT OUT THERE. 60 FOOT WIDTH, TWO EXTERIOR IDENTIFIED SPACES FOR UNITS THAT ARE LARGER THAN 200 SQUARE FOOT, ONE FOR UNITS THAT ARE LESS WITH A 12 FOOT LINING 12 FOOT WIDE DRIVING LANE, AND THEN WHAT ABOUT ON THE ENDS? I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S WHERE , YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE PARAMETERS AND SEE HOW THAT FITS IN.

SO IF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE TWO PARKING SPOTS, DOES THAT NEED TO BE ON IN FRONT OF EACH UNIT.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE ACCOMMODATING THE PROVING THAT YOU CAN PUT THOSE ON THE CURB, WHICH CREATES MORE SPACE IN THE PERIMETER.

THEN, AND HOPEFULLY THAT TAKES CARE OF IT WITH THE MANEUVERABILITY STUDY.

SO THAT REQUIREMENT OKAY. SO MAYBE THERE'S TWO TWO SPOTS CURBSIDE AROUND THAT TURN THAT ARE NOT PAINTED FOR PARKING PUBLICLY.

FROM HEARING MS. OAKDEN. SOUNDS LIKE THERE HAVE BEEN STRIPED PUBLIC PARKING SPOTS, SO I THINK THAT'S FINE. THIS IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL AREA R IGHT, AND YOU, I'VE SEEN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS FOR GARAGE CONDOS WHERE THEY STRIPED THE DRIVING LANE. I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE YELLOW. THEY CAN BE WHITE, BUT EITHER WAY, AT LEAST GIVES EVERYBODY, WHETHER IT'S A GUEST THAT'S NEVER BEEN THERE BEFORE OR SOMEBODY, AT LEAST SOME GUIDELINES, SAYS, HEY, PROBABLY CAN'T PARK HERE.

YEAH, AND AGAIN, I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE CONVICTION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO THROW OUT THERE AS AN OPINION, BECAUSE WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.

YEAH. I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. THERE'S A LOT OF BULLET POINTS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE PARKING PIECE, AND I LIKE SEPARATING THEM OUT. I DO FEEL WITH THE STRIPED I DO FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE STRIPED AS A REQUIREMENT. JUST FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I'M AT ONE OF THESE PLACES.

I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE. I CAME INTO IT REALLY LATE, SO I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE AT THE CITY LEVEL.

SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PARK, BECAUSE WITHOUT GOING TO THE CITY AND PULLING THE PLANS AND PULLING THEIR OLD SITE PLAN, THERE IS ZERO. THERE IS ZERO STRIPES AND NOBODY KNOWS WHERE TO PARK AND IT'S NOT A GOOD SITUATION.

SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF THESE SPOTS, AND IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT THE SPOTS COULD BE ANGLED OR PERPENDICULAR.

I THINK THEY COULD BEST FIT THE MANEUVERABILITY PLAN.

I AGREE. I JUST HAVE A FEELING OR I HAVE A STRONG FEELING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE BLOCKING THE DOORS TO THE UNITS THAT SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS A PARKING SPOT. THE PEDESTRIAN DOOR OR THE VEHICLE OVERHEAD DOOR? THE OVERHEAD DOOR TO THE UNITS. THE VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO THE UNITS.

I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE COUNTING PARKING SPOTS IN FRONT OF THOSE DOORS.

WELL CHAIR CAN I JUST CLARIFY, IS THAT UNDER THE KIND OF DISCUSSION POINT THAT THE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE UNITS IS OPEN FOR EVERYONE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, SO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T OWN THAT UNIT MIGHT BE PARKING IN FRONT OF A UNIT THEY DON'T OWN.

SO YOUR AVERSION TO PARKING IN FRONT OF THE UNIT IS TO PREVENT BLOCKAGE OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S UNIT.

CORRECT. BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING WITH AN OVERALL PARKING METRIC FOR THE PLACE AND SAYING IT'S LIKE, I DON'T TYPICALLY IF YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND YOU HAVE LIKE MULTI-TENANT USE OR WHATEVER, YOU'RE NOT OUT IN THE PARKING LOT DESIGNATING WHO CAN PARK IN WHAT SPACE, SO WE COULD DESIGNATE THAT.

AS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD SAY THAT THE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE UNITS ARE FOR THE OWNER OF THE UNIT.

YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S WITHIN THE POWER IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GO.

YEAH, I THINK THAT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT OVERALL AND YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO PICK A METRIC FOR HOW MANY, HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS SHOULD THIS SITE HAVE BASED ON, I THINK I THINK IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE UNITS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ONE UNIT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE TEN PEOPLE OVER THERE AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK? EVEN IF THERE'S TWO AVAILABLE, THEY'RE GOING TO PARK IN STRIPED SPOTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE OUT THERE, AND THEY'LL BE PARKING IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S UNITS. NOW, DO I CARE? NO I DON'T. I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD THAT WOULD FALL UNDER AN EVENT THOUGH, BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE HAVING AN EVENT INSIDE YOUR BUILDING.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF EVENT IS IN THEIR ACTUAL HOA DOCUMENTS.

[01:40:01]

OPENING THE DOORS AND SHOWING. SO JUST AS A BALANCE, I THINK I WROTE THAT IN MY MEMO OF OFF STREET PARKING WILL AND EXTERIOR STORAGE, OVERNIGHT PARKING, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE LISTED AS PROHIBITIVE, BUT OFFERING MORE OFF STREET PARKING OR MORE PARKING SPACE WILL ALSO KIND OF FACILITATE THAT, THOSE TYPES OF GATHERINGS AND THINGS. SO IT IS A BALANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD THING IF THE PARKING IS THERE FOR IT.

IT'S ALL DEFINED AT WHAT'S AN EVENT? IF I HAVE TEN PEOPLE OVER THERE AND WE'RE WORKING ON CARS, IS THAT AN EVENT? NOT IN MY BOOK, AND WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK? I BELIEVE IN THIS SPECIFIC AND LIKE THE CUP THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.

THERE WAS A CLEAR DEFINITION OF EVENT THAT WAS INCLUDED.

IT'S NOT IN THE CITY CODE, BUT IT WAS ADDED AS A CONDITION FOR THAT ONE, BUT SURE.

YEAH. WAS IT BASED ON NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS? WAS IT BASED ON WHAT DO WE REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS? I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH TIME OF DAY, NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS.

I CAN BRING IT UP BUT AGAIN, MY PREFERENCE. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH AN EVENT IN A PARKING GARAGE AS LONG AS THERE'S PARKING, RIGHT? IF AS LONG AS THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING SPOTS IN THE COMPLEX.

IT DEPENDS ON THE AREA TOO. IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH LITTLE KIDS ON THE SIDEWALKS.

I WOULD HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH A CAR SHOW AND DRAG RACING COMING OUT OF THERE.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED EVENT IN THE CONTEXT, THIS IS WRITTEN INTO THE RESOLUTION AS A CONDITION AS WELL AS, I THINK, MIRRORED IN THEIR DECLARATION. EVENT IN THIS CONTEXT MEANS OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, GATHERINGS, DEMONSTRATIONS, DISPLAYS OR OTHER ACTIVITIES WHICH AFFECT ANY EASEMENT OR USE RIGHT, OBSTRUCT, OBSTRUCT, DRIVEWAYS, ACCESS ROADS OR COMMON ELEMENTS.

SO IF IT WERE TO IF YOU REMEMBER IN THIS PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE DRIVE AISLES ARE IN COMMON ELEMENT, WHICH IS THE EASEMENT SPACE FOR ACCESS AND MANEUVERABILITY.

SO IF AN EVENT WERE TO ENCROACH IN THOSE SPACES, THAT WOULD BE THE DEFINITION OF BUT THERE IS NO LIMIT ON NUMBER OF PEOPLE OR ANYTHING.

NO, IT WAS MORE ENCROACHMENT GATHERINGS IN THE COMMON ELEMENT SPACE.

YEAH. SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR GATHERING INDOORS AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN EVENT AS FAR AS THAT.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT SAYS AN EVENT IS DEFINED AS OUTDOORS.

YEAH. BECAUSE ALL THE. YEP. BECAUSE IT WAS ALL IN THE DRIVE AISLES.

IF IT WERE TO ENCROACH IN THAT EASEMENT SPACE OR IN THE COMMON ELEMENT SPACE, IF IT WERE TO ENCROACH IN THE DRIVE AISLE SPACES.

SO IN THE CONDOS THAT ARE GOING UP, IF I BUST IN 50 PEOPLE TO DO A GOLF TOURNAMENT IN MY UNIT AND THEY WERE ALL IN THE UNIT THAT WENT VIOLATE THEIR TERMS, CORRECT? YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE VEHICLES BLOCKING THE OTHERS.

MY CONCERN WITH NOT ALLOWING PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE UNITS IS THAT THE UNIT DOORS ARE BASICALLY THE WIDTH OF THE SPACES OF THE UNITS.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE DOOR SIZE TO ALLOW FOR THE FLEXIBILITY AND MANEUVERABILITY WITHIN THE WITHIN THE CONDOS THEMSELVES. SO IF THE DOOR IS THE MAJORITY OF THE SPACE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF IT.

OR THEY CAN MAKE THE UNIT BIGGER AND LESS UNITS, LESS MASSING, LESS EVERYTHING TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING, BUT IF WE COME UP WITH A MATRIX, THEN THAT TAKES CARE OF ITSELF IN A WAY, TOO.

THAT'S MY POINT, IS, LIKE AS LONG AS THE DRIVING LANE IS BEING MAINTAINED, I DON'T REALLY CARE HOW YOU PARK IT, BUT IF BUT IF FOR INSTANCE, HIS UNIT, HE'S GOT 50 PEOPLE COMING OVER TO PLAY GOLF, AND THEY HAVE TO USE ALL THE OTHER PARKING THAT'S ALREADY IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY ELSE'S DOORS, AN ISSUE. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY JUST SHOULDN'T, BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THAT'S.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO THINK THAT 'S ALREADY BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S COME ABOUT.

I MEAN, AGAIN, SO IF YOU HAVE A METRIC FOR PUBLIC PARKING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT TALKING JUST IN FRONT OF THE UNITS AS YOUR, AS YOUR COUNT. RIGHT. BECAUSE IF WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT WILLING TO COUNT SPOTS IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE DOOR, THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST INCREASE THE COUNT THAT YOU'RE REQUIRING BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING, AND AT LEAST IT DOESN'T MAKE IT COMPLICATED WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, OKAY, IF I COME PARK IN FRONT OF MY GARAGE DOOR.

I CAN'T DO THAT NOW BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU CAN'T PARK, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT'S LIKE, WELL, LET'S JUST SIMPLIFY IT AND EITHER INCREASE THE ACCOUNT AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR GARAGE DOOR.

BECAUSE IF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE PEOPLE OVER THERE, WHETHER THEY'RE ALLOWED TO OR NOT, AGAIN, DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS POINT. IT'S MORE SO IF THAT'S HAPPENING, THEN YOU CAN GET PERMISSION TO DO SO,

[01:45:04]

THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO JUST MAKE IT SIMPLE AND JUST BE LIKE, OKAY, WELL COME UP WITH A CERTAIN NUMBER OF EXTERIOR SPACES PER UNIT, IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY USE IT FOR.

IF IT WAS MINI STORAGE IS GOING TO BE LESS. SO, I MEAN, I THINK WE GOT TO START SOMEWHERE AND THEN BUILD OFF OF THAT 60FT WAS COMING. I WAS COMING UP WITH THAT. LIKE IF YOU USE IN THE CONDITIONAL USES SECTION H, EACH UNIT WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT MUST PROVIDE AN EIGHT BY 21FT PARALLEL PARKING, PARALLEL OR NOT? IF WE'RE SAYING EIGHT BY 21 IS AN IDENTIFIED PARKING SPOT, THEN IF THEY WERE PARKING PARKING PERPENDICULAR, THAT WOULD BE 42FT, AND YOU'VE GOT A 12 FOOT DRIVING LANE MINIMUM.

THAT'S 54FT, AND IF WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE BUFFER BECAUSE OF MANEUVERABILITY OF TRAILERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEN 60 IS HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER AND THAT DRIVING LANE MUST BE MAINTAINED AS A MINIMUM, BUT IF MY FRIEND BILL COMES OVER WITH HIS 24 FOOT BOX CREW CAB, HE'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PARK PERPENDICULAR.

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PARK PARALLEL, BUT GOOD NEWS I GOT A 25 FOOT WIDE UNIT THAT'S GOING TO PARK PARALLEL, YOU KNOW, AND THEN COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR MADE A GOOD POINT.

LIKE YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A TON OF STRIPES IF YOU DON'T NEED TO LET PEOPLE USE THEIR SPACE ALL THEY WANT TO THE SPACE COUNT ALLOWS US TO COME UP WITH THAT SPACING BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MEET THAT EXTERIOR COUNT AND IDENTIFY THE DRIVING LANE WHICH WE'VE SEEN OTHER CITIES DO.

THAT'S I THINK THAT ALSO IS NOT PUNISHING. YOU THINK OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HAVE MINI STORAGE.

STORAGE IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE. YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A, YOU KNOW, I USE 200FT².

IF IT'S A TEN BY 20 MINI STORAGE, THEY'RE DEFINITELY NOT HOST HOSTING HOSTING PEOPLE THERE, BUT THEN YOU'RE NOT PUNISHING SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO START A MINI STORAGE.

YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO HAVE MINI STORAGE AND THERE'S A REASON FOR IT, AND THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT FINDS THE NEED TO DO IT. THEN WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO COME UP WITH AN EGREGIOUS PARKING PLAN. THAT'S WHY MY OPINION, EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY SEEM COMPLICATED, I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE SIMPLIFIED BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE HAVING THAT AS YOUR MATRIX ALLOWS THINGS TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES FOR THE REST, MY OPINION BUT A 20 FOOT WIDE BUILDING PERPENDICULAR GIVES TWO SPACES IN FRONT. I'M JUST TRYING TO.

AGAIN, I'VE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I WAS FRUSTRATED AS THE APPLICANT WAS, BECAUSE I COULDN'T GIVE THEM A NUMBER, AND I CAN SEE HOW FRUSTRATING THAT WOULD BE, AND AFTER MONTHS OF THINKING ABOUT IT, THAT'S HOW I CAME UP WITH IT, YOU KNOW? SO, COMMISSIONER RESSLER, I'VE HEARD TWO PER UNIT OR YOU WANT TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO UNIT SIZE AS WELL.

I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE A BUFFER OR I WOULD HAVE A BREAKDOWN BASED ON SIZE IF IT WAS UNDER 200.

IT'S ONE OVER 200. IT'S TWO E XTERIOR PARKING MINIMUM WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS 60FT.

WHAT'S YOUR MINIMUM DRIVE WIDTH? I PROPOSED 12 BUT, I MEAN, I, I DON'T I GUESS I PROPOSED 12 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

THAT'S WHAT THE STATE IDENTIFIES FOR A DRIVE AISLE FOR A ONE WAY DRIVE AISLE IS 12 FOOT WIDE M INIMUM.

YEAH AND THEN STRIPED OR STRIPED? WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? I MEAN, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRANDABUR ON, YOU KNOW, NOT GOING CRAZY WITH STRIPES, AND AGAIN, IF IT'S YOUR SPACE IN FRONT OF YOUR UNIT AND YOU'RE NOT IN THE DRIVE LANE, THEN YOU WANT TO STAY OUT OF THE WAY.

DO YOU STRIPE THE DRIVE LANE? THE 12 FOOT WIDE? I WOULD. OKAY. WHAT IF YOU JUST STRIPE THE NO PARKING ZONES LIKE THE CORNERS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY STRIPE, THE STRIPE, THE DRIVE WIDTH, AND THAT MAKES SURE EVERYBODY STAYS OUT OF THAT.

SO THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN SIMILAR TO INDEPENDENCE PLAN, THEY CAN SHOW THE PROOF OF PARKING.

LOOK, WE'VE GOT 200 POTENTIAL SPOTS FOR 100 UNITS, BUT HERE'S OUR DRIVE LINE, AND NO ONE'S GOING TO MESS WITH THAT. NO ONE'S GOING WITH A REQUIRED MANEUVERABILITY STUDY THAT TAKES NO INTO ACCOUNT.

TAKES PARKING AND SNOW AND SNOW INTO ACCOUNT.

YEP. OKAY. I MEAN, JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT OUT LOUD.

IF WE HAVE THAT KIND OF WIDTH OF BUILDINGS AGAIN, THIS IS WHY THEY HAVE PARKING NUMBER ACCOUNTS, RIGHT? IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, THEN THEY'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE TWO SPOTS IN FRONT OF EACH UNIT JUST BY THAT.

[01:50:05]

AS LONG AS YOU'RE WILLING TO COUNT PARKING IN FRONT OF YOUR GARAGE DOOR, WHICH, AGAIN, IF I OWN THE UNIT AND I WANT TO PARK IN FRONT OF MY GARAGE DOOR, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PARK FOR MY GARAGE, AND I WOULD SAY THE COMPLEX CAN HAVE THEIR OWN REGULATIONS AROUND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN PARK IN FRONT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S, THAT'S FOR THEM TO OR DESIGNATED GUEST PARKING JUST OFF TO THE SIDE ALONG CURB.

RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE I'M TRYING TO JUST START .

RIGHT, AND THEN IN LIEU OF THE WHAT WAS IT ONE PER TEN FOR ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING.

ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT A METRIC OF TWO PER UNIT AND THEN SKIP THE ONE PER UNITS UNDER 200.

IF WE THINK ABOUT MINI STORAGE. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THINGS GET A LITTLE PRECARIOUS.

RIGHT. BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO PER UNIT FOR SOMEBODY THAT WANTS MINI STORAGE, AND IF THEY'VE GOT. WELL, I'M NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT OUR MINI STORAGE STANDARD IS A LOT MORE THAN TWO PER UNIT, RIGHT. NO. SO WE DO NOT THIS SPECIFIC. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT WAS SUGGESTED ONLY FOR THE GARAGE RIGHT.

MINI STORAGE. WE DO ALSO DO NOT HAVE A CLEAR STANDARD ON MINI STORAGE USE.

WE HAVE AN EXISTING MINI STORAGE FACILITY THAT DOES OFFER OFF STREET PARKING.

THAT WAS A RETROFITTED FACILITY, BUT WE HAVE APPLIED A METRIC IN THE PAST WHICH WAS STORAGE WAREHOUSE.

YEAH, WE'VE APPLIED LIKE A STORAGE WAREHOUSE.

WHAT IS THAT METRIC? THAT'S PER SQUARE FOOT. SO IT MIGHT NOT IT MIGHT NOT TRANSLATE EXACTLY, BUT IT'S MORE THAN WE DON'T HAVE AN OFF STREET PARKING FOR MINI STORAGE USE.

SPECIFICALLY, WE'VE APPLIED--I'M ASSUMING WE'VE APPLIED A STORAGE WAREHOUSE, BUT THE PREVIOUS MINI STORAGE DID HAVE EXISTING OFF STREET PARKING WHEN THE FACILITY WAS WHEN THE PARCEL WAS RETROFITTED FOR MINI STORAGE, WE THAT OFF STREET PARKING SPACE THAT EXISTS TODAY IS ENCUMBERED BY A LARGE STORMWATER EASEMENT AND THE PART THAT'S NOT ENCUMBERED BY THAT EASEMENT EXTENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS GRANTED FOR EXTERIOR PARKING IN THAT SPOT.

DOES THE DEFINITION OF GARAGE CONDO WITHIN ORONO CODE HAVE A MINIMUM PER UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGE, OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM MINI STORAGE, OR A SMALLER VERSION OF GARAGE CONDOS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT? I THINK THE ONLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THESE ARE OWNED PRIVATELY AS A CONDO UNIT VERSUS MINI STORAGE, WHICH ARE RENTAL. SO TECHNICALLY, SOMEONE COULD COME FOR A GARAGE CONDO APPLICATION WITH A MUCH SMALLER PER UNIT SIZE, WHICH IS WHAT COMMISSIONER RESSLER I THINK IS TRYING TO AVOID IN, IN MAKING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT EXCESSIVE FOR THAT TYPE OF USE. IF THERE WERE A SMALLER SCALE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE ECONOMICAL.

SO I'M JUST THINKING A NUMBER PER UNIT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE HERE BECAUSE YOU COULD GET IN THE YOU COULD GET IN THE WEEDS WHERE SOMEONE BUYS TWO OF THESE SMALL UNITS AND THEN TAKES THE WALL DOWN BETWEEN THEM. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT RECONFIGURATIONS YOU CAN DO, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SO UNIT YOU'RE PARKING PER UNIT HAS CHANGED AND NO ONE IS THE WISER.

SO THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, COMMISSIONER BOLLIS SAID, IF WE'RE IDENTIFYING 200FT² AGAIN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 20FT DEEP, WHICH IS PRETTY DARN SHALLOW.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIT VERY MANY VEHICLES IN A 20 FOOT DEEP SPOT TEN FOOT WIDE.

THAT'S ONE PARKING SPOT. THAT'S A REALLY TIGHT GARAGE.

YEAH, AND SO IF YOU HAVE A 50 FOOT, 60 FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION ON TOP OF THAT, NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO UNITS THAT HAVE GOT TO FIT BETWEEN A ONE, A ONE CAR WIDE UNIT THAT, YOU KNOW.

SO IF YOU'RE YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. SO YOU'VE GOT SOME PRETTY GOOD SPACE THAT WAS MEANT FOR BACKING UP TRAILERS.

YOU'RE NOT BACKING UP TRAILERS IN A BUILDING UNIT THAT SMALL.

SO THEN YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY, HOPEFULLY NOT NEEDING THAT MUCH MANEUVERABILITY TO BACK A TRAILER UP, AND SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAKE MAKE IT REASONABLE, WHERE IF SOMEBODY SAID, OKAY, WELL, WE'LL ON THE PERIMETER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SMALLER UNITS THAT ARE NOT AS DEEP BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PARKING PERPENDICULAR OR THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAVING AS MANY PARKING GUESTS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WHICH THEN RELIEVES PRESSURE ON THOSE PERIMETERS.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO GUESS EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE IF IT'S MINI STORAGE, YOU'RE VERY LIKELY TO HAVE NO MORE THAN 1 OR 2 PEOPLE THERE, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S TO MOVE A DRESSER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[01:55:06]

I THINK THE ISSUE IS AGAIN AROUND WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THE SAME PLACE.

I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR MANEUVERABILITY. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

IT'S THE PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE ADDING ON TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT IS SO FAR BEYOND ANYTHING THAT'S THAT IS EXPERIENCED AT THESE AT THESE BUILDINGS, AND AGAIN, WANT TO WANT TO RAISE THAT CONCERN.

PART OF IT IS O NE OF THESE UNITS IS GOING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF AN INDOOR EVENT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CARS THERE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE PARKING AROUND THAT UNIT FOR IT.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S EVER GOING TO BE 160 PARKING SPOTS FILLED.

IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THIS UNIT. THERE'S 30 CARS PARKED AROUND THE END OF THAT UNIT, AND I'VE SEEN IT COUNTLESS TIMES, AND ALL THE DIFFERENT STORAGE UNITS THAT 'S WHAT HAPPENS, RIGHT? THE GUY AT THE END UNIT HAS AN EVENT. THEN THE GUY OVER HERE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPOTS SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SPACE.

SO WHEN THAT EVENT HAPPENS, THEY'RE GOING TO PARK THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PARK WAY OVER HERE AND THEN WALK ACROSS THE UNIT. THEY'RE GOING TO PARK ON THE SHOULDER.

THEY'RE GOING TO PARK. COMMISSIONERS, AS A NOTE THAT'S EXACTLY I THINK THE DISCUSSION POINT OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN THAT WE DO PROHIBIT GATHERINGS, AND WHILE I KNOW THE SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF GATHERINGS WE IMPOSED ON THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT, THE DEFINITION IS WHEN IT ENCUMBERS THE EASEMENT SPACE, THE IDEA IS, IS TO DISCOURAGE THOSE GATHERINGS IN THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE IT MORE STORAGE FOCUSED AND NOT NECESSARILY PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES TO ALLOW THOSE GATHERINGS AND THOSE FACILITIES AND THAT TYPE OF MEET UP SPACE. SO THAT IS, I THINK WHEN WE THE DISCUSSION OF ALLOWING GARAGE CONDOS INTO THE CITY OF ORONO, THAT WAS A DISCUSSION POINT OF HOW CAN WE TRY AND DISCOURAGE IT FROM TURNING INTO THE MEDINA COMPLEX, WHERE THERE'S CARS AND COFFEES AND GATHERINGS AND COMMUNITY EVENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AS THAT WASN'T THE INTENTION FOR THE USE IN OUR CITY.

SO THERE'S JUST SOMETHING TO BE BALANCED THERE ON.

WELL, PEOPLE MIGHT GATHER AND MIGHT USE IT TO GATHER.

DO WE WANT TO OFFER SPACE AND SUPPORT THAT THOSE TYPES OF GATHERINGS? I JUST I GO BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER RESSLER WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH TWO PICKUPS WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE ACROSS FROM ONE ANOTHER. I'M AT THE AIRPORT A LOT, AND I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT WHEN TWO PICKUP TRUCKS ARE ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER IN THAT PARKING RAMP, IT IS REALLY HARD TO PARK ANYWHERE NEAR THEM AND SOMETIMES EVEN HARD TO GET THROUGH, AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SATURDAY MORNING, WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL DAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE LARGE VEHICLES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME AND VERY LIKELY ACROSS FROM ONE ANOTHER AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE MANEUVERABILITY FOR THE OCCUPANTS, BUT ALSO FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. RIGHT, AND I FEEL LIKE THESE STANDARDS NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE SATURDAYS IN THE SUMMER.

THIS IS PRETTY EASY TO BUILD AROUND WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WEEKDAYS IN THE WINTER, BUT IT'S THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MOST TRAFFIC, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE TWO PICKUPS, ONE STANDARDS THAT STILL ALLOW FOR MANEUVERABILITY EVEN ON THOSE SATURDAYS.

YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M WILLING TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO PUT MORE SPACE THERE, BECAUSE PEOPLE MIGHT USE IT TO HAVE EVENTS THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANYWAY.

I THINK THE POINT IS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPACE IS SAFE AND MANEUVERABLE AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF NO EVENTS.

IT'S NOT GUIDED BY THE FACT THAT THERE'S SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS THAT ALLOW FOR, FOR PICKUPS TO, TO PARK ACROSS FROM ONE ANOTHER. SO I'M HEARING SUPPORT FOR TWO PER UNIT.

IF IT'S OVER 200FT², ONE PER UNIT, IF IT'S UNDER 200FT².

I'M HEARING SUPPORT FOR A GREATER WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS OF 60, WHEN RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT, AND WE'VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM 40 TO 50. I'M HEARING SUPPORT FOR LEAVING THE PARKING KIND OF OPEN TO THE PLAN, BUT HAVING IT TIED TO A MANEUVERABILITY STUDY THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL THE PARKING AND ANY SNOW POTENTIAL SNOW THAT WOULD BE IN THE LANES AND THEN I'M HEARING THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF SUPPORT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL

[02:00:10]

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIKE CORRECT ACROSS. YES.

I THINK ALL OF THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE. FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE, I THINK I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD BENEFIT TO THE CITY TO HAVE. I WOULD AGREE TO HAVE THESE METRICS THERE.

THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN TO REFLECT THAT.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO HANDLE THIS? DO YOU WANT US TO TABLE IT WITH THOSE INSTRUCTIONS AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S IF YOU GUYS ARE CONFIDENT, I'LL READ YOU BACK WHAT I HEAR, AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN FORM A MOTION ON IT, BUT IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE STANDARDS, I THINK YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND HOW THIS WORKS.

YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MOVE IT ALONG AND I CAN DRAFT THAT LANGUAGE.

SO IT'S AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL. OR IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE LANGUAGE WRITTEN, I CAN BRING IT BACK.

SO IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION ON THAT, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS TWO UNIT OR TWO STALLS PER UNIT ON UNITS OVER 200FT², ONE STALL PER UNIT ON UNITS UNDER 200FT² MUST BE EXTERIOR STALLS 60 FOOT 60 FOOT DROP AISLES BETWEEN BUILDINGS, A MANEUVERABILITY PLAN THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF PARKING AND SNOW STORAGE, AND A STRIPED NO PARKING DRIVE LANE OF 12 FOOT WIDE THROUGHOUT THE SITE M INIMUM 12 FOOT WIDE THROUGHOUT THE SITE.

THAT'S WHAT I JUST HAD IN THE CODE. I CAN THAT NUMBERS YOU CAN KEEP DISCUSSING, BUT THOSE ARE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. I HAVE THOSE FIVE POINTS. THE ONLY EDIT I WOULD SAY IS WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ABOVE AND BELOW ONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE INCLUDING.

OH YEAH OKAY I'LL DO I LIKE ALL THE POINTS. WOULD YOU GUYS BE OPEN TO ACCEPTING ONE PARKING STALL INSIDE OF THE UNIT REPRESENTED AND ONE OUTSIDE? IF THE UNIT IS OVER 200 AND IT'S REQUIRING 2 TO 2 PARKING SPOTS FOR THE UNIT.

WELL, I GUESS WE'RE IN MY OPINION WAS IS IT TAKES CARE OF ITSELF BECAUSE IF IT'S 16 FOOT WIDE AND THAT IS THE ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE A PERPENDICULAR TWO SPOTS. RIGHT.

BECAUSE IF IT'S IF IT'S A BUILDING SPACING OF 60FT AND WE'RE COUNTING 20 PARKING SPACES, THEN YOU'RE BASICALLY GUARANTEEING THAT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A 16 FOOT WIDE UNIT OR MORE THAN YOU ARE ACCOMMODATING AT LEAST TWO SPOTS FOR THAT UNIT.

SO IT'S GIVING THE PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO MEET THAT.

BY I MEAN, IT'S CALLING IT OUT BECAUSE THE WIDTH OF 60FT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO PARK PERPENDICULAR, GIVES US THAT BUFFER FOR PARKING, AND PROBABLY ALLOWS THEM TO EXCEED THE TWO FOOT, BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE BLOCKS WILL BE MORE THAN, YOU KNOW. THE ONLY UNITS THAT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT PERPENDICULAR PARKING WOULD BE THE END UNITS BECAUSE THEY'D BE INTO THE 12 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, BUT THEY COULD CERTAINLY HAVE ONE POTENTIALLY, AND THEN BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING TO SOLVE FOR EVERYTHING WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR. RIGHT. WELL, AND AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO THE WHOLE POINT, WHICH IS IT CREATES THE SPACE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH AS A MATRIX. SO, SO IF IT'S A JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE, IF IT'S A 20 FOOT WIDE UNIT, YOU HAVE TWO AND A HALF SPACES, YOU'RE ACCOMMODATING, AND NOW NEIGHBORS ARE GETTING ALONG AND PLAYING WELL IN THE SANDBOX, AND THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE MORE INTENSIFICATION OPTIONS.

YOU KNOW, AND GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BECAUSE WE'RE COMING UP WITH A NUMBER OR IT COULD LOOK COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND IT COULD BE PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE SPOTS.

RIGHT. USE IT HOWEVER YOU WANT. USE IT HOW YOU WANT, BUT THEN, THEN THE OTHER ONES COULD GO AROUND THE PERIMETER TOO, AND THEN THAT PERIMETER JUST GETS A LITTLE WIDER. SO IT GIVES FLEXIBILITY I LIKE THAT.

WE FEEL ABOUT THAT. CAN WE. WELL I THINK WE HAVE HAVE LEGS ON THAT.

I THINK I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR ALL THOSE CONDITIONS EXCEPT FOR WITH ONE COMMISSIONER, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO COME TO A COMPLETE SOLUTION THERE.

YEAH, BUT I FEEL LIKE. THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN OR HAVE IT GO STRAIGHT? WELL, I WOULD PREFER TO TABLE IT AND SEE THE LANGUAGE, MAKE SURE IT MAKES SENSE AND THEN AND PUT OUR STAMP ON IT FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE.

[02:05:07]

WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT AGAIN IF WE HAVE AN AFTERTHOUGHT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.

IF WE CAN START HERE, THEN AT LEAST IT ALLOWS THE SHOW TO GO ON THE ROAD AND WE CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS IF IT IF THERE'S AN OVERSIGHT OR MISS OAKDEN THAN WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. MISS OAKDEN, DO YOU THINK WE WOULD NEED TO WEIGH IN ON WHATEVER LANGUAGE YOU PUT TOGETHER BASED ON OUR BULLET POINTS? I REITERATED THOSE FIVE BULLET POINTS, AND I'LL DO ONE UNIT 200FT² OR LESS PER THE DIRECTION.

SO I HAVE THOSE FIVE POINTS. IF YOU GUYS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE YOU I'M HAPPY DRAFTING THEM.

THEY'RE PRETTY SPECIFIC. SO I'M HAPPY BRINGING THOSE UP TO COUNCIL, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU WANT TO SEE THEM AGAIN, YOU DEFINITELY, AND THEN WE STILL WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO REVIEW THOSE BEFORE THEY GO TO COUNCIL AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE COUNCIL.

IF WE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED CLARIFICATION.

SO CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT YEAH, WE'RE ALWAYS ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO IF I DRAFTED PER THE DIRECTION YOU GUYS HAVE STATED, AND THEN YOU WENT HOME AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND WE'LL PUBLISH IT TO THE WEBSITE SO IT WILL BE VISIBLE BEFORE THE PACKETS PUBLISHED. WE'LL PROBABLY GET IT ON THE WEBSITE HERE IDEALLY NEXT WEEK.

SO IF YOU WENT BACK AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT, YOU CAN PROVIDE COMMENT.

I WILL NOTE THAT YOUR COMMENT WOULD BE TO THE SAME AS LIKE IF A PUBLIC PROVIDED A PIECE OF COMMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, WADE, BECAUSE YOU'RE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I WOULD CALL IT OUT IN THAT SENSE SINCE YOU'RE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, BUT BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, IT WOULDN'T BE TAKEN AS A COMMISSION DIRECTION.

IT WOULD BE JUST, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER RESSLER ALSO WANTED TO ANNOTATE THIS KEY POINT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I CAN DO THAT. OR HOWEVER YOU GUYS FEEL COMFORTABLE.

WELL, I 'D BE COMFORTABLE SENDING THIS ALONG AS A COMPLETE PACKAGE AND COMFORTABLE WITH MISS OAKDEN DRAFTING THAT.

SO IS THERE A MOTION? SURE. I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED A FEW TIMES. 60 FOOT WIDTH, TWO EXTERIOR PARKING SPOTS FOR EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 200FT².

I'M SORRY, MORE THAN 200FT². EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 200 IS ONE EXTERIOR PARKING SPOT.

GOT IT. 12 FOOT DRIVING LANE, STRIPED AS IS. THAT'S MY MOTION.

OH. I'M SORRY. MANEUVERABILITY STUDY, AND I THINK I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. NO MANEUVERABILITY THAT ACCOMMODATES PARKING AND SNOW AND I AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE MANEUVERABILITY STUDY ACCOMMODATING EMERGENCY VEHICLES FOR PARKING AND SNOW 60 FOOT WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS, 60 FOOT WIDTH BETWEEN BUILDINGS. DO WE WANT TO IDENTIFY A STANDARD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE DIMENSIONS? BECAUSE IF IT'S AN EMERGENCY, IF IT'S AN AMBULANCE VERSUS A FIRE ENGINE, I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OUT LOUD HERE.

I WANT TO DO THIS ONCE. HOPEFULLY. I THINK JUST AS A NOTE, IF AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE PLAN IS PROVIDED, THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED BY OUR POLICE AND OUR FIRE AND THEY WOULD PROVIDE COMMENT.

GREAT. SO THEN THAT'S MY MOTION AS AS STATED.

SECONDED. PARDON? I SECOND. OH THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELTZIN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. WE WILL VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE . ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THAT'S IT FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. ONTO OTHER ITEMS.

[6. Other Items]

THERE WAS ONE APPLICATION THAT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IT WAS THE AFTER THE FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALLS OFF NORTH SHORE DRIVE.

THEY SUBMITTED SOME ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING AND SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE PLANS THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

AT THIS LAST MEETING THROUGH DISCUSSION. SO THAT DID GO AHEAD AND PROCEED AS A NOTE.

YOU GUYS ALSO PREVIOUSLY SAW AN APPLICATION ON DUNWOODY FOR RETAINING WALLS.

THAT APPLICATION JUST HAD TO BE TABLED FOR A MINUTE AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.

SO THAT WILL BE GOING FORWARD HERE IN ANOTHER MONTH OR SO, RIGHT? IS THAT AUGUST? [INAUDIBLE] ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THAT FIRST ONE TO THEIR PLAN, OR JUST MORE

[02:10:03]

I BELIEVE THEY WERE TRYING TO RECONCILE SOME COMMENTS THAT YOU GUYS HAD MADE REGARDING THE SCREENING AND THE TRAFFIC SYSTEM AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THEY WERE WORKING TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR GUYS' DIRECTION WITH THAT.

OKAY, BUT THEY HAVE NOT RESUBMITTED THEIR AMENDED PLANS AS THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THAT.

SO THEY'RE HOLDING OFF FOR ANOTHER MEETING BEFORE GOING TO COUNCIL.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. GREAT. COOL. DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.