[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
>> WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE OCTOBER 20 MEETING OF THE ONO PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'D LIKE TO START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE JOIN US.
>> NEXT UP IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[3. Approval of Agenda]
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE CHANGE TO THE AGENDA AND POSSIBLY MOVE ITEM SIX, OTHER ITEMS UP TO THE FRONT 4-5.THERE'S A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, AND WE DON'T HAVE APPROPRIATE THING IN THE AGENDA.
I WAS HOPING TO USE. OTHER ITEMS FOR THAT.
>> I'LL SECOND IF THAT WAS A MOTION.
SECOND BY BRANDEBER. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
NEXT STEP IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM
[4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of September 15, 2025]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2025.>> MOTION TO APPROVE. APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER PERCOL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JARNOTT. ALL IN FAVOR?
MOTION CARRIES. THAT'LL BRING US TO OUR FIRST ITEM. OTHER ITEMS.
[6. Other Items]
>> YES. GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION AND COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER CHAIR.
USUALLY, UNDER OTHER ITEMS, I GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON ACTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ACTED ON.
THE LAST APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU WAS BOULDER PARK.
THAT APPLICATION IS STILL UNDER REVIEW WITH STAFF, AS THE APPLICANTS WORKING TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY AND AMENDMENTS FROM WHEN YOU SAW IT.
THAT'S STILL PLANNING TO GO TO COUNCIL HERE IN THE FUTURE.
ADDITIONALLY, UNDER OTHER ITEMS, I UNDERSTAND FROM COMMUNICATION WITH THE CHAIR THAT YOU'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THIS AGENDA TONIGHT TO BE HEARD IN FRONT OF YOU.
THAT'S UPDATES FOR ME, AND I WILL HAND IT BACK TO THE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT? IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> GABRIEL GABOR 985 TACO ROAD, ON OF MINNESOTA.
I AM GRATEFUL TO BE GIVEN A FEW MINUTES OR MAYBE A FEW SECONDS TO TALK TO THE BOARD.
I HAVE NO INTENTION TO GET IN ANY ISSUES THIS MEETING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT THE COUNTY IS EMBARKING ON A PROJECT WHICH WAS SCHEDULED FOR YOU TODAY.
AND I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PARACHUTE INTO YOUR MEETING AND TRY TO GIVE YOU THAT DATA THAT TAKEN ME YEARS ACCUMULATE IN ONE MEETINGS.
WHAT I THOUGHT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS NOT TALK ABOUT ANYTHING, BUT YOU ENVELOPES TAKE HOME WITH YOU, AND IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY, AND I DID NOT WANT TO COME TO EACH INDIVIDUAL HOME AND LEAVE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE PHOTOS.
THOSE ARE MINOR ISSUES THAT I'M SHOWING YOU, AND I WILL FLY BACK TO THE MEETING IF I'M OUT OF TOWN TO ADDRESS YOU ON THIS ISSUE.
IF I'M MISSING ANYBODY, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE KNOWING ABOUT IT.
YOU COULD CALL ME ANYTIME, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS US ON SOMETHING NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THAT. WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[5.1. LA25-000041, Stonewood LLC o/b/o Wyatt & Nicole Pannhoff, 850 Windjammer Lane, ALS Variance (Melanie Curtis)]
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS LA 25-41, STONEWD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF WYATT AND NICOLE AN HOF.>> THANK YOU. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS A WOODED SLOPE BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE LAKE.
THE SLOPE IS NOT DEFINED AS A BLUFF.
HOWEVER, BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE EXISTING FLAT DRIVEWAY AREA, THE SLOPE DOES RANGE 17-20%, AND IT IS HEAVILY TREE.
[00:05:02]
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME IN THE SAME GENERAL LOCATION AS THE EXISTING HOME, WHILE ELIMINATING THE EXISTING LAKE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT AND IMPROVING THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK ENCROACH.THE LAKE SETBACK, 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK, IS DEPICTED IN YELLOW, AND THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK IS SHOWN IN RED ON THE ABOVE SURVEY.
THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE STEEP TOPOGRAPHY, THE VEGETATION AND WOODED SLOPE, AND THE LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING HOMES AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR VARIANCE.
THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
THEY SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY TONIGHT REGARDING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
STAFF AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S FINDINGS THAT THE EXISTING VEGETATED SLOPE, THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE DEEP LAKE YARD SETBACKS OF NEIGHBORING HOMES DO CREATE DIFFICULTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING HOME IS LOCATED PARTIALLY.
SORRY. THE EXISTING HOME IS LOCATED PARTIALLY WITHIN THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK.
THE NEW HOME ELIMINATES THE LAKE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT.
>> I'M GOING TO PUT IT REALLY BE TO SEE A PERSON.
>> EXISTING HOME [INAUDIBLE] IS HOME.
>> THE LAKESIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME ENCROACHES 68-85 FT INTO THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
THE PROPOSED HOME'S LOCATION WILL IMPROVE THE SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS BY APPROXIMATELY 49 FEET ON THE NORTH AND 5.5 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBOR ON THE NORTH.
THE APPLICANT'S CONSTRUCTION IN THE CONFORMING BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THE SLOPE WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF GRADING AND DISTURBANCE OF THE SLOPE, AS WELL AS THE REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TREES.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A TREE REMOVAL COMPARISON WITH AN INVENTORY THAT I CAN PUT ON THE SCREEN IF YOU'D LIKE.
SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS FROM THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
THERE WAS ONE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTER WHO WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCES.
THOSE COMMENTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AS EXHIBIT J.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS APPLIED.
HAVE THE HOME PLANS, SOME RENDERINGS, A LARGE NUMBER OF PHOTOS FROM THE SITE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT I CAN PUT ON THE SCREEN FOR YOUR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOURSELF.
THE NEW PROPOSED HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE 75, OR THE EXISTING IS WITHIN THE 75?
>> THE SLOPED AREA THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE, THE WOODED SLOPE.
YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A BLUFF, BUT IS IT CONSIDERED A STEEP SLOPE?
>> IS DEFINED AS A STEEP SLOPE IN THE COAL.
>> THE BLUFF IS JUST PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE.
THAT'S HOW THE DEFINITION HOW WE DEFINE THEM.
>> IS 30%. TO BE A BLUFF, IT WOULD NEED TO BE 30%.
>> BUT THAT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE A CERTAIN DISTANCE TO THE LAKE.
>> WOULD BE WITHIN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT THE SLOPE PERCENTAGE, BUT IT IS ESSENTIALLY IN THE SAME CATEGORY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> IN EXHIBIT J, THE LAST NOTE FROM THE NEIGHBOR OR FROM SOMEONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S UNCLEAR IF THIS IS A NEIGHBOR THAT HAS VISIBILITY TO THIS PROPERTY OR IF THEY JUST ARE WITHIN A RADIUS AND RECEIVE.
>> THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
>> THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? A NONE, IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> FEN GUSTSON, 153 LAKE STREET.
THAT? REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. SUM IT UP WELL, BUT I DON'T HAVE A HAND.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT.
NO QUESTIONS. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING? ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
NOBODY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'LL CLOSE THAT.
BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO START ON THIS ONE.
>> I'LL START. I'M TYPICALLY THE MOST STRINGENT WHEN IT COMES TO THESE SETBACKS.
[00:10:01]
BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE PICTURES, I REALLY STRUGGLED TO FIND A FLAW IN THE LOCATION AND THE SELECTION OF IT, AND I THINK IT REALLY ADDS TO THE LAKE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE.I THINK THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS THE ELEVATION INCREASE WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
BUT EVEN WHEN I LOOKED AT ANGLED SHOTS, I STRUGGLED TO SEE THAT THAT WOULD EVER IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
IN GENERAL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE LOOK AT THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK AS A VIEWPOINT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT ENCROACHMENT ON THE VIEW FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
WAS THE 75-FOOT SETBACK IS MORE FOCUSED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, GIVEN THE FACT THAT MOVING THIS DWELLING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF TREES? BECAUSE THIS IS BEHIND THE 75-FOOT SETBACK, WHEREAS THE EXISTING DWELLING IS NOT, I THINK THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HERE.
THE NEIGHBORS HAVE VOICED THEIR SUPPORT AS WELL, SO I'M IN SUPPORT.
>> JUST ADD MY QUICK COMMENTS ON IT.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY CONSIDERATE PLAN.
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU'RE IMPACTING A LOT OF THE NATIVE TREE STRUCTURES AND JUST OVERALL SCENERY, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE THOUGHT THROUGH THAT AS WELL.
IT JUST SEEMS VERY COMMON SENSE, AND I AGREE WITH BOTH COMMISSIONERS; IT SEEMS TO MAKE IT BETTER, SO I WOULD ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COMMISSIONER.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOWS FOR ASSISTED LIVING AROUND, PRESERVING THOSE TREES.
OTHER THAN PLACING THE FURTHER BACK.
I DON'T THINK WOULD BE A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE FROM A CONSERVATION STANDPOINT.
TENDS TO KEEP IN THERE. IT MOVES THE HOUSE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SETBACK AS WELL.
I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM A CONSERVATION STANDPOINT, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THIS BEING SET VARIANCE.
SEEMS TO ME GIVE EVERYTHING IS MENTIONED IN EVERY COMMISSIONER'S SEEMS.
>> I WOULD CONCUR. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS, I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT PROPOSING THE DWELLING TO ELIMINATE APPROACHING ON THE 75 FEET.
WE'RE ALWAYS HERE TO TRY TO IMPROVE POSITIONS, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THIS SENTIMENTS ABOUT.
MOVING IT BACK ANY FURTHER WOULD BE TAKING AWAY TREES, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR CITY IS ABOUT.
I BE PREPARED TO MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.
>> I DON'T THINK I HAVE MUCH TO ADD.
I THINK IT'S IN THE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT.
I THINK IT'S A LONG-TERM PLAN.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA 25-41 AS APPLIED.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRANDEBER TO APPROVE.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
THE FURTHER DISCUSSION I WILL ADD.
I DIDN'T GIVE YOU MUCH TIME TO ADD ANY COMMENTS.
>> I'LL ADD A COMMENT, AND I THINK CONTRARY TO EVERYBODY ELSE HERE.
I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'VE MOVED THE STRUCTURE BACK. AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.
I REALIZE THERE IS AN EXISTING DWELLING THERE WITHIN THE 75 AND WITHIN THE ALS.
HOWEVER, I LOOK AT THIS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE CODE PROTECTING THE STEEP SLOPE OR THE TREES.
LOOKING AT THAT, THERE'S A BUILDING SPACE.
JUST LOOKING AT IT AT FACE VALUE.
I OPPOSE IT, BUT THERE'S THERE'S A MOTION SECOND. THAT'S MY COMMENT.
>> ANY MORE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHERE YOU WOULD OPPOSE IT, JUST FOR THE RECORD? WE HAVE IT?
>> WELL, I'M NOT HERE TO REDESIGN IT.
I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S AMPLE SPACE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALS.
I'M IN A PROTECTED AREA. I REALIZE THEY WANT TO PROTECT.
BUT IT'S NOT A BLUFF AREA THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT.
THERE'S NOT A CODE THAT SAYS THAT.
TYPICALLY, WHEN WE ALLOW STUFF BEYOND THE ALS, IT'S WHEN THERE'S NO BUILDABLE SPACE ON THE SIDE. IS JUST MY THOUGHT.
[00:15:01]
NO. IT DOES MAKE SENSE. I WILL SAY THAT.IF I WERE BUILDING IT, I WOULD TRY TO PLACE IT THERE AS WELL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE APPROVED.
IT'S JUST MAYBE A THOUGHT THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT POSSIBLY. IF IT'S SOMETHING WORTH.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO KNOW IT.
YOU ALWAYS LOOK AT THOSE THINGS.
THE ONLY REASON JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A GOOD DISCUSSION, ALS.
THE ONLY THING THAT I ALSO WANTED TO JUST POINT OUT IS, WHENEVER THERE'S THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, IT'S NOTED THAT THEY COULD REBUILD THERE WITHOUT GOING FOR THERE IN KIND; THEY'RE IMPROVING THEIR POSITION, SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT.
I GUESS, BUT I DO RECOGNIZE YOUR EFFORT.
>> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, I THINK THE PROPOSED IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT THERE.
>> I'M JUST GETTING TECHNICAL ON IT.
BUT THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL HAVE A VOTE.
>> MOTION CARRIES. THAT'LL BRING US TO LA 25-42,
[5.2. LA25-000042, Scott + Ingrid Erickson, 1840 Shadywood Road, Hardcover, Lot Area, and Lot Width Variances (Melanie Curtis)]
INGRID ERICKSON, 1840 SHADYWOOD ROAD.THIS IS FOR A HARD-COVER LOT AREA, A LOT WITH VARIANCES.
>> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO PERMIT 32.5% HARDCOVER WHERE 32.5% EXISTS, AND 25% IS ALLOWED.
IT DOES REFLECT A TWO-SQUARE-FOOT REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER.
ALSO REQUESTED AS A LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCES TO DEVELOP THE EXISTING SUBSTANDARD LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS IDENTIFYING THE LOT SHAPE AND LONG DRIVEWAY, THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, AND TOPOGRAPHY AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUESTED VARIANCES.
WE HAVE PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES NARRATIVE IN THE PACKET, AND ARE HERE THIS EVENING.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE NON-CONFORMING SIZE AND WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS MAY CREATE DIFFICULTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT.
THE LOT IS LONG AND NARROW, SLIGHTLY RESTRICTING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE WILL HAVE A LARGER FOOTPRINT THAN THE EXISTING HOME AND THE DETACHED GARAGE PROPOSED TO REMAIN.
HOWEVER, STAFF IS SUGGESTING THAT THE APPLICANTS PROVIDE A GREATER REDUCTION OF THE HARD COVER ON THE PROPERTY THAN IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
ZONING CODE PROVIDES OPTIONS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF NON-CONFORMING-SIZED LOTS WITHOUT VARIANCES.
PROPERTIES MAY BE REDEVELOPED WITHOUT VARIANCES FROM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS IF THE LOT OF RECORD STANDARDS ARE MET.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A HARD COVER VARIANCE ELIMINATES THE OPTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES FOR A LOT OF RECORDS.
THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE LIMITED IF THE LOT WIDTH AND LOT VARIANCES ARE NOT GRANTED.
WHEN REDEVELOPING PROPERTIES, THE APPLICANTS ARE GUIDED BY STAFF TO DESIGN THE PLAN TO BE AS CONFORMING AS POSSIBLE TO THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE EXISTING HARD COVER LEVEL OF 32.5% EXCEEDS THE ALLOWED 25% BY 1,477 SQUARE FEET.
THE PLAN REFLECTS A TWO SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION IN HARD COVER, BRINGING THE AMOUNT FROM 6,427 SQUARE FEET TO 6,425.
STAFF, AGAIN, ENCOURAGES A GREATER REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER.
THE EXISTING PLAN IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
I PUT THE POST UP, AND I DO HAVE HOUSE PLANS ON THE ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE, SCENES, AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SHADYWOOD ROAD, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 8 BY 12 BACKUP APRON.
IN THE DRIVEWAY FOR A TURNAROUND, WE WANT VEHICLES TO BE ABLE TO FRONT OUT ONTO COUNTY ROADS.
THE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW A TURNAROUND; HOWEVER, IT DOES SHOW AN APPROXIMATE 10.5 BY 17.5 FOOT CONCRETE SIDEWALK OFF OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH MAY ALSO FUNCTION AS A TURNAROUND.
STAFF SUGGESTS THAT A REDUCTION IN THIS CONCRETE WALK TO SERVE AS THE MINIMUM TURNAROUND SIZE WOULD REDUCE THE PROPOSED HARD COVER BY 87 SQUARE FEET.
STAFF IS ALSO SUGGESTING A REDUCTION IN THE LAKESIDE TERRACE AND SIDEWALK TO MOVE THEM OUT OF THE SIDE YARD TO ALSO IMPROVE THE PROPOSED HARD COVER.
[INAUDIBLE] THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE WITHIN EXISTING CONDITION IMPROVEMENTS, AND SETBACK VARIANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THEM.
HOWEVER, THEY COULD OFFER A HARDCOVER REDUCTION
[00:20:01]
HARD COVER BY MODIFYING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS WERE SUBMITTED TODAY.
HOWEVER, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON THIS APPLICATION.
THERE IS A TYPO IN THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE SETBACK OF THE PROPOSED HOME FROM THE ROAD.
IT IS NOT 7.5 FEET, AS NOTED IN THE PACKET; IT IS 128 FEET, SO THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOT AREA AND LOT WITH VARIANCES.
HOWEVER, WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE APPLICANTS SHOULD PROVIDE A MORE SIGNIFICANT HARD COVER REDUCTION THAN THE EXISTING PROPOSED PLAN.
AS APPLIED, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE OVERALL APPLICATION.
QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS, EXHIBITS IF YOU LIKE.
>> JUST TO HELP US WITH THE MATH, TO GET DOWN TO THE 25%, WHICH IS ALLOWED, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET OF HARDCOVER DOES IT NEED TO REMOVE?
WE HAVE A LOT OF REQUIRED HARDCOVER WITH ALL HOMES, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS.
>> THE REQUIRED MINIMUM [INAUDIBLE]
>> REQUIRED MINIMUMS. LOOKING AT THESE AND SOME OF THE PAST ONES, I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND HOW 5% ALLOWS FOR ANY PROPERTY TO GET THOSE REQUIRED?
>> IT'S A BALANCE BETWEEN THE ALLOWED 20% BUILDING COVERAGE AND THE 25% STRUCTURAL OR 20% HARD COVERAGE THAT'S ALLOWED ON THE LAKE SHORE LOT.
IT IS A BALANCE, SO YOU DO NEED TO MAKE CHOICES.
IN EVERY SITUATION, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD TO THE MAXIMUM 20%, AS THE SITE DOES NOT ALLOW.
BUT THAT IS PART OF THE PUSH-PULL OF THESE APPLICATIONS
>> WHAT DID THE EXISTING HOUSE START AT?
>> EXISTING HOUSE THAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
>> WHAT WAS THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE LEVEL OF THE EXISTING HOME?
.>> OVERALL HARD COVER- [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS THE SAME STRUCTURAL HARD COVER THEY [OVERLAPPING]
>> 405 IS THE STRUCTURAL COVERAGE OF- [OVERLAPPING]
>>IT WAS 12%, AND NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING 17%.
>> IF THEY SHRANK AT 5%, THEY WOULD BE UNDER 30, CLOSER TO 25.
>> I'M ASKING, BECAUSE I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES [INAUDIBLE] FOR LR1C, THE LOTS NON-CONFORMING CONFORMING THAT ARE UNDER AN ACRE.
WHEN I DO THE MATH,, [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR STAFF OR, THE CHAIR WHETHER WE NEED TO DO A REVIEW OF OUR CODE BECAUSE WE SHOULDN'T [INAUDIBLE] BE FORCING RESIDENTS WHO WANT TO, 20% WHICH ALLOW THEM TO SEEK A VARIANCE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE COUNCIL MADE A CHANGE SIX YEARS AGO.
>> 2017, THEY MADE- [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY WENT FROM 15% BUILDING COVERAGE TO ALLOWING 20% COVERAGE.
THIS WAS A CONCERN STAFF [INAUDIBLE]
>> YEAH. IT WAS A CONCERN BECAUSE WHEN I READ THROUGH THE NOTES FOR THE FOUR, WE'VE HAD FOUR MONTHS, IT FEELS LIKE THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
THE CHANGE WAS TO AVOID VARIANCE [INAUDIBLE] RAISED OR VARIANCE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THEY WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH IT AS A CHOICE.
WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU HOW TO ALLOCATE THAT. OFTENTIMES, IT ISN'T.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.
IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW SPECIFICALLY?
>> I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING WHENEVER YOU SET A NUMBER.
>> IT'S GOING TO GET PUSHED. I GET THAT'S GOING TO BE PUSHED.
ALMOST EVERY VARIANCE WE ARE SEEING IS GOING TO A TIER 3.
[INAUDIBLE] IT'S LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TIER 3 BECAUSE TO GET TO 20% OR 70%.
[INAUDIBLE] NOW, ARE WE JUST FORCING A WHOLE LOT OF WORK ON STAFF AND RESIDENTS? DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORS WHO DON'TN'T HAVE [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT NOW, IT'S A CRUTCH TO DRIVE.
THIS IS PROBABLY A HEAD [INAUDIBLE] ASKING, IS IT THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE TO BUILD TO 20% AND MEET OUR?
>> NOT ON EVERY LOT? NO. THIS DRIVEWAY IS PART OF THE ADDITIONAL HARD COVER, WHERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT ON A SHALLOWER LINE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ARCHITECTS SAYING THE SAME THING.
WE WERE FORCING OUR RESIDENTS TO DO THAT.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT 25%, MAYBE 25% IS FEASIBLE FOR HARDCOVER ON TIER 1 LOTS.
>> I THINK IT'S A FUTURE DISCUSSION.
CERTAINLY, I THINK I SEE HOW IT PERTAINS TO THIS,
[00:25:03]
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND HAVE STAFF LOOK INTO IT.MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DIRECT THE COUNCIL AT SOME POINT TO DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK INTO THESE TIERS OF HARD COVER AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR MODERN USE, WHAT PEOPLE WANT FOR A BUILDING.
COMMISSIONER RESSLER, DID YOU HAVE?
>> YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO REMIND US THAT BASED ON THE SCHEDULE OF HOW WE HEAR THESE THINGS, THIS IS FOR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, AND THEN IF WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, MAYBE AFTER THE INVITATION IS TO FOLLOW FORUM, THAT'S PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE JUST TO STAY ON TASK IF YOU CAN, AND THEN COME BACK TO IT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY RELEVANT - [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THAT, THAT'S REALLY THE TIME WE SHOULD.
>> YEAH. I WILL GET ON THE PAGE.
>> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR STAFF IS BECAUSE IT'S A BIG THING OF MINE.
THIS HOUSE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IN 1990, IT HAD THAT LONG DRIVEWAY.
THAT DRIVEWAY, ANYTIME AFTER 1950, WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VARIANCE.
THEY PURCHASED THIS HOUSE AND DID A TITLE SHARE.
THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE VARIANCES.
I KNOW IT REQUIRES SOMEBODY TO COMPLAIN, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE WERE NO VARIANCES PRESENT TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL HARDCOVER OVER 25.
>> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS [INAUDIBLE] THE HARD COVER PERMITS ARE RELATIVELY RECENT REQUIREMENT.
>> BUT I MEAN, 25% HARDCOVER HAS BEEN A HARD SET.
>> YOU'RE CORRECT. BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR SOMEONE TO GET A PERMIT TO INSTALL JUST A HARDCOVER IS A RELATIVELY RECENT OCCURRENCE, SO ANYTHING THAT HAS DEVELOPED- [OVERLAPPING]
>> I APOLOGIZE, MAYBE I'M USING THE WRONG [INAUDIBLE] THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A REQUIREMENT FOR PERIODS.
>> THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PERMIT TO TRIGGER OUR REVIEW OF THIS.
I KNOW THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO BRING UP ON THESE APPLICATIONS, AS FAR AS HISTORICAL APPROVALS, AND THERE ISN'T A [INAUDIBLE]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF?
>> STAFF, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT THERE'S NO VARIANCE OR ANYTHING CALLING OUT THE SETBACKS, AND SPECIFICALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE TERRACE PATIO.
CURRENTLY, IT SEEMS LIKE THE PATIO EXTENDS INTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, POTENTIALLY OR AT LEAST UP AGAINST THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINE.
THEY'RE GOING TO A 4.5-FOOT SETBACK.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE THE TERRACE IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE. IS THAT THE REASON WHY?
>> THERE'S AN IMPROVEMENT THERE CURRENTLY.
THERE'S A HOME AND A DECK IN THAT LOCATION CURRENTLY, AND THEY'RE REUSING THAT SPACE.
>>THAT'S WHERE YOUR IN-KIND LANGUAGE COMES IN. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF?
>> CAN STAFF JUST CLARIFY WITH THIS PLAN, WE MOVE TO 32.5 [INAUDIBLE] IF RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ADOPTED IN TERMS OF REDUCING AROUND AREA PATIO APPROXIMATELY [INAUDIBLE]
>> [INAUDIBLE] EVERYTHING INCLUDED. IT WAS A 1.2% REDUCTION.
>> 212/FT, 1.2% WITH THOSE TWO AREAS.
>> SPEAKING OF THOSE TWO ITEMS, COULD YOU USE YOUR CURSOR ON THEM AND SHOW US WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND, THE CONCRETE WALK, AND HOW YOU'RE MEASURING THAT REDUCTION.
>> MEASURING? I'M MEASURING JUST THE CONCRETE PORTION OF IT.
[INAUDIBLE] I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE INCLUDING THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE POINT.
>> NO, I WAS STRICTLY JUST INCLUDING THE CONCRETE AREA.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF?
>> LAST QUESTION REGARDING THE COUNTY ROAD OR SHADYWOOD ROAD.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND BEING 8 BY 12.
IS THAT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, OR IS THAT ONLY AT THE- [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S JUST ON THE ROADWAY, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY MEETS THE SHADYWOOD?
ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WORKS FOR THAT.
>> IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH A PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
MY WIFE, INGRID, AND I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY OVER 20 YEARS AGO, IN 1840 SHADYWOOD ROAD.
AT THAT TIME, WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO LIVE HERE THIS LONG.
TWO OF OUR BOYS ARE 13 AND 15.
[00:30:01]
WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORS. WE LOVE THE LOCATION, [INAUDIBLE] WHO LOOK AT REBUILDING THIS HOUSE.AS FAR AS REMODELING THIS HOUSE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FILL THE LOT OR SOMETHING SUPER BIG AND FANCY.
REALLY JUST WANTED SOMETHING THAT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE, BUT WITH A TWO-CAR GARAGE.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE IT DOWN THE ROAD.
LOOKING AT THIS PLAN, HERE IN YOU GUYS, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE GIVING UP MUCH, LIKE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, LIKE, OH, THEY JUST WANT THE SAME HARDCOVER.
BUT 32.5, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, IT'S TOUGH TO TRY TO PUT THAT HOUSE WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE IS ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE.
THE NEW DESIGN IS WHAT OUR EXISTING HOUSE.
OUR EXISTING HOUSE IS, PLUS THE TWO-CAR GARAGE.
WE'RE REALLY NOT GAINING ANY MAIN-FLOOR LIVABLE SPACE, AND THEN WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING A HOUSE 7 FEET NARROWER.
I MEAN, WE ARE GIVING UP AND WE'RE LYING ON OUR SIDE, SETBACKS.
OUR HOUSE IS GETTING NARROWER, WHICH IS LONGER, AND THAT ACTUALLY SQUEEZES UP INTO OUR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE WHICH IS ALREADY HARD TO ACCESS.
WE'RE GOING OVER AND THEN WE'RE NOT, IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE SACRIFICING IF IT DOESN'T GAIN ANYTHING OUT OF THE HARD COVER.
WE'RE ALSO LOSING OUR TWO-CAR TURN.
WE USED TO BE ABLE TO PARK TWO CARS IN OUR TURNAROUND UP AT THE TOP OF THE HOUSE, AND NOW IT'S LIMITED TO ONE.
WE WORKED REALLY HARD TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A HOUSE THAT HIT THE LOT, THAT WASN'T, AND KEPT IT TASTEFUL.
IT'S RESPECTFUL TO OUR NEIGHBORS.
I'M WHERE WE CAN NARROW THE HOUSE ALREADY, IT'S GOING TOO TALL TWO STORY. [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE'VE LOOKED AT REBUILDING, LIKE I SAID THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.
THE STRUCTURE DOESN'T SUPPORT REMODEL.
TWO BY FOURS, THAT THE BASES AND CRAWL SPACE HAVE THE DIRT, THERE'S MOISTURE ISSUES.
WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT WE COULD JUST REMODEL THIS.
WE TALKED FOR TWO YEARS [INAUDIBLE] WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO MOVE, SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THOSE OPTIONS TOO.
WE DID GET BOTH OUR NEIGHBORS' SUPPORT, WE DID TALK TO BOTH OF THEM.
WE HAVE GREAT NEIGHBORS IN THE LOCATION.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I MIGHT HAVE ONE, MR. CARLIE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE PAPER DOESN'T TELL US THE WHOLE STORY.
YOU WERE MENTIONING THAT YOU, PROPOSED STRUCTURE WAS NOT VERY MUCH DIFFERENCE FROM THE EXISTING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE ARE INPUT IN ERRORS, BUT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE 3,393 SQUARE FEET STRUCTURE.
IT'S A 1,000 SQUARE FEET DIFFERENCE.
>> DO YOU HAVE A GARAGE? THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE THOUSAND GARAGE.
>> IT'S SEVEN FEET ERROR, SO THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T HAVE CURRENTLY.
>> THE 1000 SQUARE FEET IS JUST THE REPRESENTATION OF THE ADDED GARAGE?
>> IT'S 900 OR SOMETHING LIKE 954.
>> JUST BECAUSE THE CURRENT HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE A GARAGE ATTACHED TO IT.
>> THEN THE DETACHED GARAGE ALSO WOULD STAY?
>> I'D LIKE TO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.
I'D LIKE NOT TO TOUCH THE GARAGE OR THE DRIVEWAY.
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE SIDEWALK TO THE PROPOSED TERRACE? IS THERE A REASON THAT IT'S ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE EXISTING?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING HOUSE, THE SIDEWALK ACTUALLY TOUCHES THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY LINE, AND WE HAVE A SIDEWALK TO WALK AROUND THAT SIDE.
WE BASICALLY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET ACCESS TO SIDE DOOR THAT WE CAN GET TO THE GRILL AND GET TO THE PATH, AND IT'S REALLY JUST JUST SO WE DON'T HAVE ROCK PEBBLES AND STUFF THE HOUSE TWO FEET ISN'T WIDE, BUT IT'S JUST WIDE ENOUGH.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I HAVE ONE. I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I JUST WANT TO ASK IT ANYWAY SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN SEE THE VASCO RIGHT.
I ASSUME IF YOU MOVED THIS HOUSE ALL THE WAY UP SLAM TO THE STREET, YOU COULD PROBABLY GET WITHIN THE HARD COVER.
[00:35:02]
BUT YOU'D LOSE YOUR ENTIRE LAKE, CORRECT?>> YES, WE'D BE LOOKING AT OUR NEIGHBORS HOUSES THAT'S JUST IT.
IF WE GO BACK AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THE ONLY NICE TREE WE HAVE ON OUR PROPERTY, SO WE HAVE A REALLY GREAT MAPLE TREE.
THAT SHOWS THAT 36 INCH NEXT TO THE.
WE MOVED BACK. I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT, AND REALLY I DON'T KNOW.
>> DO WE HAVE A PLAN THAT WHERE WE CAN SEE THE STRUCTURES?
>> IF YOU MOVE ME BACK FURTHER, LOOK AT WHERE WE'D BE.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT APPS HOMES, LIKE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOW [OVERLAPPING] CAROLL WITH THEM.
>> PETER ASCOKI, 18318 IN TONKA BOULEVARD IN DEP HAVEN.
I'M THE ARCHITECT WORKING WITH SCOTT AND INGRID, AND JUST AT A 50,000 FOOT LEVEL, MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW ORDINANCES, YOU FIND AN UNUSUAL PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON A VARIANCE REALLY WORKS IS BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A LONG SKINNY, THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
THERE'S VERY FEW ON THE STREET THAT ARE THAT LONG AND THAT NARROW, AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE FOR THE REASON FOR A VARIANCE WHEN YOU HAVE AN OUTLIER PROPERTY.
>> ACTUALLY, JAMIE IS ON THE SIDE. I BELIEVE I JAMIE AND NOT [INAUDIBLE] THERE.
>> YOU HAD MENTIONED NEIGHBOR SUPPORT.
MAYBE THAT'S A STAFF QUESTION, I GUESS, IS THAT INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET?
>> I DIDN'T GET ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THEM.
>> IF YOU JUST HAVE THAT TO INCLUDE THAT THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AT LEAST, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION, BUT JUST HAVING THE NEIGHBOR SUPPORT, IT GOES A LONG WAY.
PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF OUR BIGGEST RESPONSIBILITIES IS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST AFFECTED BY THINGS ARE IN AGREEMENT OR APPROVAL OR THEY'VE AT LEAST SEEN THE PLANS.
I THINK, ESPECIALLY BEFORE COUNCIL, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO INCLUDE.
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS AND WALKING THROUGH ALL YOU GUYS GOT TO WE ARE TO DO.
I THINK THAT WAS HELPFUL FOR US, SO THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE? THANK YOU.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANY ONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NOBODY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
START ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM. MR. RESSLER?
>> I APPRECIATED THE APPLICANT'S CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I WAS MISSING, I THINK WE SEE A LOT OF THESE LONG LAURE LOTS LIKE OFTEN ON CASCO POINT, SER DRIVE.
YOU DO RUN INTO THESE THINGS AND YOU LOOK AT IT AND GO, WHAT ARE WE MISSING HERE? YOU CAN RUN INTO IT WHEN YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A WIDE ENOUGH DRIVEWAY FOR IT TO BE USABLE, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A NARROW ENOUGH LOT AND YOU CAN'T CREATE A NEW LOT WITH IT.
I THINK THE MOST GLARING THING THAT'S COMPARATIVE TO THOSE THAT IS WITH THIS ONE IS YOU HAVE ALMOST 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE EXISTING GARAGE THAT'S BUMPING UP TO SHADYWOOD ROAD, AND I DON'T THINK THE OTHER ONES REALLY DO.
THAT IS WHERE I GET LOST A LITTLE BIT ON THE DOING A CAN TO MAKE THIS WORK BECAUSE YOU ARE ADDING DOUBLING GARAGE, WHICH, OF COURSE, I RESPECT TO, I'D LOVE TO HAVE GARAGE SPACE TOO.
BUT TO ME, I THINK THAT'S THE PART THAT I THINK I'M STRUGGLING EVEN IF YOU WERE MAKING THE GARAGE ON THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE LARGER AND ELIMINATING THAT GARAGE FOR ONE THING, YOUR CONDENSING STRUCTURE, WHICH IS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
YOU'RE ALSO ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR QUITE A BIT OF HARD COVER, AND WHEN WE'RE STRUGGLING TO MAKE IT ALL WORK, THAT IS THE FIRST PLACE THAT I LOOK.
I GUESS THAT'S MY INITIAL FEE.
>> I DO WANT TO ADD, PLANNER, YOU GAVE US SAD PLANER KEARNEY.
YOU THINK YOU DID HAND OUT THE SHEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS APPROVAL, I BELIEVE, SO THANK YOU.
[00:40:02]
THAT WAS GIVEN TO US THOUGH.>> IF THAT'S THE ONE THE APPLICATION?
>> YEP, SO WE DO HAVE THAT. THANK YOU.
REGARDING THE NEIGHBORS ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
I STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT.
MAINLY THE HARD COVER, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AERIALS AND YOU LOOK AT THE NEIGHBOR'S POOL AND THEIR DRIVEWAY, AND I THINK THEY HAVE MORE LAND, MAYBE THE CALCULATIONS DON'T SHOW THE SAME NUMBERS THESE DO, BUT I JUST THINK WHEN WE'RE FIGHTING OVER A COUPLE OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF HARD COVER, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO SAY NO TO THINGS.
I ALSO THINK JAIR RESSLER POINT, THERE'S MAYBE WAYS TO REDESIGN IT.
YOU COULD MAYBE TAKE THE DRIVEWAY AND RUN IT UP THE WHOLE RIGHT SIDE AND GET RID OF THE CURRENT GARAGE STRUCTURE NEAR THE ROAD.
THAT WOULD ELIMINATE SOME HARD COVER POTENTIALLY, BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF WORK FOR MINIMAL IMPROVEMENT.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY TO BURDEN THE LAND OWNER.
I THINK THIS IS ALL WITHIN THE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, I THINK THEY'RE IMPROVING.
BY POINTING OFF SETBACKS ON BOTH SIDES.
I'D BE IN APPROVAL AS IS TO SUM UP MY COMMENTS AND I'VE FOR YOU GUYS.
>> JUST GOING TO ADD IF YOU LOOK AT THE 1,400 THAT THEY'D HAVE TO TAKE OUT, YOU'D HAVE TO CREATE BASICALLY A TINY HOUSE ON THAT TO GET THERE.
EVEN IF YOU TOOK DOWN THE DETACHED GARAGE, I DON'T THINK IT GETS YOU TO THAT CALCULATION, SO YOU DO A LOT OF CHANGE FOR NOT A LOT OF BENEFIT.
THEN YOU START THINKING OF DECISIONS WE CAN MAKE, SO WE COULD TABLE IT.
BUT THEN THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT I CAN SEE THAT CAN BE CHANGED TO COME BACK AND PRESENT.
WE COULD DENY IT, IT COULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
JUST FOR A SECOND SET OF EYES AND SEE WHERE THAT LANDS, OR WE COULD SWITCH AND THEN SAY THIS IS A TRUE CASE FOR A VARIANCE.
THEN WE COULD MAYBE MAKE A COUPLE OF SMALL TWEAKS OR ACCEPT IT AS IS, SO I DON'T SEE A LOT THAT CAN BE CHANGED IF WE TABLE IT.
I COULD GET BEHIND MAYBE A DENIAL AND GOING TO CITY COUNCIL TO GET A SECOND SET OF OPINIONS ON IT.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE YES REVISITING LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION.
IS 25%, IF THAT FEELS APPROPRIATE, JUST GIVEN THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES WE SEE IN THE LOT TYPES OF FEELS APPROPRIATE.
I AM INCLINED TO MAYBE TABLE THIS BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE LOT HERE, IT DOES SEEM THAT THE TWO GARAGE OUTCOME DOES CREATE SOME PRETTY LOW HANGING FRUIT, WHAT CAN WE CHANGE IN THIS PLAN IN TERMS OF HOW WE REDUCE HEART COVER.
NOW, IF WE'RE GRANTING VARIANCES ABOVE 25% CONSISTENT, THAT'S WHY I HAVE AS HERE AS WE BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN THESE VARIANCES.
OTHERWISE, BUT I THINK IN THOSE CASES, THERE WAS A BIT MORE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ESTABLISHED.
WHEREAS WITH THIS ONE, IT SEEMS THERE COULD BE A REDUCTION TO HARD COVER WITHOUT A MEANINGFUL LONG-TERM A NEGATIVE OUTCOME FOR THE [INAUDIBLE].
NOW, IF THE APPLICANT DISAGREES AND THERE'S A CONTEXT BEHIND WHY THE TWO GARAGES ARE IMPORTANT LONG-TERM TO THE PROPERTY MOLLER.
BUT I THINK NOT SEEING THAT CLEAR USE CASE THAT GIVES YOU.
HOW MUCH THIS IS OVER THE 25%, IF IT WAS A 26 OR 27%? I THINK I'D HAVE LESSER RESERVATIONS, BUT MORE FULL SEVEN POINTS OVER. MR. CHAIR.
>> I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS, I THINK AGAIN, THAT'S ALWAYS A LEAD HORSE WHERE YOU GO, WHAT AM I MISSING.
IF YOU ELIMINATE THAT, YOU'RE AT THAT 27% THEREABOUTS. THERE YOU GO.
YOU ALWAYS TRY TO SEE IF EVERYBODY'S DOING WHAT THEY CAN, I ALWAYS THINK OF THE CAST LIKE I SAID.
YOU RUN INTO THAT ON THOSE NARROW LOTS, AND YOU GO YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT THOSE THE PARKING ON THE STREETS.
THAT'S NOT EVEN POSSIBLE ON SHADYWOOD ROAD.
BUT YOU KNOW, CASCO IS AND NOW YOU'RE CREATING A PROP FOR THE PUBLIC.
THAT'S A DIFFICULTY FOR THE PUBLIC, JUST AS WELL AS IT IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK USUALLY WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY VARIANCES, THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S A DEMONSTRATION THAT THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN.
[00:45:01]
IT IS GIVEN TAKE, YOU MAKE CHOICES ON WHAT PERSON DOESN'T WORK IF YOU'RE CHOOSING NARROW DRIVEWAY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KEEP A SEPARATE ACCELERATE GARAGE.YOU CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE, BUT WE GOT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE IT WORK. THANK YOU.
>> I CONCUR. THE PURPOSE OF THE HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS IS TO PROTECT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THERE IS SOME LOW HANGING FRUIT HERE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU GUYS ARE UP AGAINST, BUT CHOICES HAVE TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO AT LEAST GET CLOSER.
>> I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I LIVE ON CASCOS, SO I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S NOWHERE TO PARK OF STREET.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU CAN'T DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD TO GET TO YOUR HOUSE THAT'S WHAT GOT ME TO THE POINT OF LOOKING AT THE CALCULATIONS AND REALIZING, MAN WE'VE SEEN SO MANY OF THESE.
WE'VE SEEN THIS. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE I WOULD NEVER CHALLENGE THEM TO MOVE THEIR HOUSE CLOSER TO THE STREET, EVEN THOUGH THAT TO THE POINT ABOUT THE LAST ONE IF IT WAS MOVED UP IN THE YARD, YOU'RE ALL COMPLAINING.
I STRUGGLE WITH THE REMOVING THE GARAGE.
MY BIGGEST RED FLAG WITH JUST JUMPS IT COMES TO THE 13, AND IT'S A REAL STRUGGLE FOR ME TO THINK THAT RENTING SO MANY VARIANCES FOR TIER 1 LOTS THAT WE WENT TIER 2 LOT, AND THAT'S A TIER 3 LOT.
[INAUDIBLE] WHICH IS WHAT REALLY GOT ME DOWN THAT WHOLE PHASE.
I STRUGGLE WITH THIS AND I REALLY CAN'T BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY YOU HAVE TO GET RID OF A SPARE GARAGE BECAUSE THAT'S ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY YOU HAVE TO GET RID OF THE ATTACHED GARAGE AND JUST HAVE A SIDEWALK TO GET DOWN SIDE.
I'M REALLY STRUGGLING ON THIS ONE, AND UNDERSTAND.
>> I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE AS WELL.
LOOKING AT IT ON THE SURFACE ON PAPER? IT CHECKS MOST OF THE BOXES.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO MOVE IT CLOSER TO LAKE, BEHIND THE ALS OR BEHIND THE 75.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING HARD COVER.
IT'S RARE THAT WE SEE THAT. I LIKE IT.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, SAY, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT OTHER GARAGE? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL THESE THINGS? BECAUSE YOU GET X AMOUNT OF HARD COVER, IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO DECIDE WHERE THEY PREFER THAT HARD COVER.
IS THERE A NECESSITY YOU NEED FOUR CARD? DO YOU NEED FOUR CARS? FOUR CAR GARAGE.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP US UNDERSTAND.
THIS HARD COVER IS NEEDED FOR THE SITE.
I ALREADY LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, OKAY, CITY IS REQUIRING AN EIGHT BY 12, TURNAROUND.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED FOR THAT ON ANY OF THESE LINES SO WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT HARD COVER THAT WAY, LIKE THIS IS REQUIRED.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SAYING FOR SAFETY BENEFITS, WE SHOULD RIGHT AWAY BE ABLE TO THAT OFF OF THE HARD COVER EQUATION.
I KNOW WE CAN'T, BUT IN OUR MINDS, THAT'S WHERE I'M LOOKING AT THESE TEARS.
YOU KNOW, I CAN GET BEHIND THIS BECAUSE IT'S LESS HARD COVER THAN THERE IS TODAY.
COULD THEY IMPROVE? I THINK THEY COULD, UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC REASONS THAT THOSE OTHER ITEMS NEED TO BE THERE AND THEN THERE COULD BE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEHIND.
THE LOT IS LONG. IT'S A LONG NARROW LOT, BUT IT DOESN'T TAPER OR IT'S ONE END OR THE OTHER, WHERE IT'S MAKING THAT HARD TO BUILD IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE PUTTING THE HOUSE ON THE CURRENT HOUSE I THINK THERE IS BENEFIT TO THAT.
I LIKE THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE USING THIS TURNAROUND LANGUAGE, AND THEY'RE CREATING A WALKWAY AS WELL, SO IT'S NOT JUST A DRIVEWAY SPACE.
CONCRETE WALKWAY IS SERVING AS THIS TURNAROUND.
BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE ALLOWED X AMOUNT OF HARD COVER.
IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS WHERE TO PUT THAT AND THEN PRESENT TO US, AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S HARD TO GET BEHIND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF LOOKING AT THIS SAYING, WELL, YOU COULD ELIMINATE THE GARAGE, AND YOU MIGHT GET IT RIGHT DOWN TO THE T WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OR ELIMINATE THE LAKESIDE DECK OR THE LAKESIDE TERRACE. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
>> MR. CHRIS YOU WERE TO TABLE THIS.
WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT SUCH A YOU COULD SAY, WITH A GOAL OF GETTING UNDER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT.
IS THAT HOW WE WOULD NORMALLY TABLE SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
>> WE COULD TABLE IT WITH DIRECTION, WITHOUT DIRECTION.
YEAH. I THINK DIRECTION IS IDEAL.
I WOULD CAUTION JUST COMING IN AND SAYING A BLANKET.
[00:50:03]
I'D LIKE TO SEE IT BELOW 30 BECAUSE I THINK ULTIMATELY, WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT MEET THE 25.THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE AND IT'S UP TO THEM TO SHOW WHY THEY CAME WITH THE AMENITIES THAT THEY NEED.
>> YES. IN SPIRIT OF THAT, I HAVE TWO THINGS THAT I WOULD COMMENT ON FOR ONE, IF WE CAN GET BEHIND WHAT WE FEEL IS COMFORTABLE.
RATHER THAN TABLEING IT, THAT DOES KICK THE AND THE ROAD ANOTHER MONTH, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED TO NECESSARILY SEE IT AGAIN.
AS LONG AS THAT FEEDBACK IS TAKEN TO THE COUNCIL WITH WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT TAKES IT ALLOWS THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR APPLICATION, HOW THEY SEE FIT WITH WHATEVER AMENDMENTS THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE REGARDLESS OF THE UPCOMING COURSE.
BUT I ALWAYS WANT TO PUT IT INTO A BOX BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, IT'S NOT VERY GOOD FEEDBACK TO JUST SAY I DON'T LIKE IT THIS WAY BECAUSE OF THAT.
I'D RATHER SAY, LIKE, WELL, WHAT DOES.
FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED NARROW LOT, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CHALLENGES WITH HARD COVER BECAUSE OF THAT, AND HOW OUR CODES WRITTEN.
IF IT'S NOT A LONG LOT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LESS HARD COVER, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PULL IT BACK BECAUSE IF YOU LOSE VIEW, THAT'S AN EXCHANGE.
GOING BACK AND PUTTING MY THOUGHTS INTO A BOX IS, IF I'M ENVISIONING THIS IS AN APPLICATION THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE AND YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU GO, IT DRIVEWAY, I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE WHERE THEY CAN TAKE AWAY HARD COVER.
I GUESS FOR ME, FOR THAT REASON, IT'S THE GARAGE.
IF YOU DETACHED GARAGE IS WHERE I GET LOST.
IF THEY'RE WILLING TO MOVE THEIR MOVE BACK, SACRIFICE YOU TO KEEP THE EXTERIOR GARAGE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE CHOICE TO DO THAT.
BUT I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M LANDING AT FOR MY RECOMMENDATION.
BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 940 ODD SQUARE FEET FROM WHAT'S PROPOSED OF 64, 25, THAT'D BE SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF 150, 500 SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OVER 25%, BUT IT'S REASONABLE TO ME BECAUSE IF THAT WASN'T THERE, I WOULDN'T HAVE A SUGGESTION AS TO WHERE ELSE THEY COULD TAKE AWAY FROM.
AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT THIS INTO A BOX AND SAY, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF 5,500 SQUARE FEET, KNOWING THAT WHETHER THAT'S THEM MOVING IT BACK OR REDUCING THEIR HARD COVER SOMEWHERE ELSE WOULD BE A CHOICE THAT THEY WOULD BE GIVEN INSTEAD OF US REDESIGNING IT, OF COURSE.
I WOULD MOTION TO DENY IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE TO REDESIGN IT, BUT I WOULD MOTION TO DENY BASED ON MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE IF WE CAN GET IT DOWN TO 5,500 BASED ON THAT. THAT'S HEALTH.
>> NEAR 5,500 EQUALS WHAT PERCENT, JOHN?
>> IT'S LIKE 27%, I BELIEVE SOME MORE IN THERE. I'LL TELL YOU THE SAME.
>> I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT HIM. MAYBE ONCE HE HAS THAT CALCULATION, I'LL GO.
I THINK I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT I'M STRUGGLING HEARING FROM THE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VARIANCE, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO REDESIGN THEIR VARIANCE TO GET IT JUST ABOVE WHAT IS REQUIRING A VARIANCE, I STRUGGLE WITH THAT CONCEPT.
IF THEY WERE AND I GUESS, THE COMMISSIONER RESSLERS IDEA THAT HE THREW OUT IF THEY WERE BUILDING, THE DETACHED GARAGE DOWN BY THE ROAD? I I WOULD TOTALLY AGREE THAT THAT'S ONE WAY TO ELIMINATE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT THAT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SO I JUST I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THAT.
WE'RE TRYING TO APPROVE A VARIANCE BY REDUCING IT SLIGHTLY.
TO ME, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND I WOULD JUST ADD THAT WE TALKED ABOUT HOW IT SEEMS LIKE A THOUGHT THROUGH PLAN.
IF THEIR PROPOSED STRUCTURAL COVERAGE WAS AT THE MAXIMUM OF 20%, I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEM BEING OVER THE HARD COVER LIMIT.
BUT BEING THAT THEIR PROPOSED STRUCTURAL COVERAGE IS ONLY AT 17 OF THEIR 20% ALLOWED.
THAT'S WHERE I REALLY REST MY CASE IN TERMS OF APPROVING THE VARIANCE AS APPLIED.
YEAH. THEY'RE NOT MAXIMIZING EVERY ALLOTTED SPACE ON THE PROPERTY AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M APPROVING IT.
I'D BE AN APPROVAL AS IS RATHER THAN TRYING TO RESTRUCTURE THE VARIANCE TO MAKE IT SLIGHTLY OVER.
>> I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WASN'T SURE WHETHER THERE WAS A GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE OR NOT.
WHEN I HEARD THERE WAS NO GARAGE, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, THAT DRIVEWAY IS SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENED OVER TIME AS PEOPLE WERE DRAGGED INTO THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT WASN'T A NECESSITARY DRIVEWAY.
WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND REALIZE THAT, THEY'RE ADDING A GARAGE TO THE HOUSE.
THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE WITH THE TWO GARAGES.
[00:55:02]
WHICH THEY WOULD NEED THE FOUR GARAGES.>> I WOULD ALSO JUST ADD THAT THE PURPOSE OF MANAGING HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS IS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE.
THEN REDUCING IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE DOES ACTUALLY HELP.
>> TO THAT POINT, I THINK THE REASON WORTH EVENTUALLY REVISITING THIS IS MOVING IT FORWARD WITH THAT DIRECTION.
TWENTY SEVEN WOULD INVOLVE LAST [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK 27% BEING BETTER IS THE SAME REASON YOU DON'T GET PULLED OVER GOING A FEW MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT, BUT YOU DO GET PULLED OUT.
I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT WILL BE FAR BETTER IF THIS WAS MAYBE JUST A FEW POINTS OVER THAT DAY.
>> COMMISSIONER BRANDEBER WHAT YOU HAD SAID RESONATED WITH ME ON THIS AND REALLY, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT HARDCOVER, I CAN GET BEHIND THIS, LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURAL HARD COVER.
I ASSUME THERE'S AN INTENT AND A REASON FOR PRESERVING THE OTHER GARAGE. THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT.
THERE'S A NEED TO HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE HOUSE AS WELL.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT HARD COVER HAS A PERCENT OF LOT SIZE.
THAT NUMBER IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE HIGH AND THEY'RE NOT MAXING OUT.
I THINK THAT MORE ALLIANCE WITH COMMISSIONER RUNDBERG, YOU SAID ALIGNS WITH STAFFS VIEW OF THIS PROJECT WITH A COUPLE OF TWEAKS AND JUST REDUCING SOME EXCESSIVE STUFF WITH THE PATIO AND POTENTIALLY THE TURN AROUND.
I GUESS I'M CHANGING MY THOUGHT ON THIS AND LOOKING AT IT.
THROUGH THAT LIGHT, IT DEFINITELY MAKES SENSE.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHTFUL THINGS HERE.
>> YES. GETTING BACK TO CALCULATIONS, IF WE WERE TO THROW 28% AS A MARKER HERE, 28% WOULD BE 5,543.
IT'S AN 882 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE EXISTING GARAGE, BUT AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO WHERE I WAS SAYING BEFORE.
I'D BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF STRUCTURE IF THAT WAS ELIMINATED BECAUSE LOOK, I MEAN, WHERE I STRUGGLE IS THERE IS A PLACE TO BUILD THIS AND MAKE THIS COMFORT.
WHEN IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE GOING, WHERE ELSE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO PUT IT OR HOW ELSE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO THIS.
THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS NOT LOSING VIEW OF THE LAKE, IT'S AN EXCHANGE.
AGAIN, I EMPATHIZE, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S WORK THAT COULD BE DONE THAT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE REFORMING AND SO IF THEY WANTED TO KEEP THAT, THEY COULD MAKE A SACRIFICE TO KEEP THAT.
I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF 28% AS A MARKER.
BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK, AND OF COURSE, IF COUNSEL HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR JUST TO GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IF COUNSEL SUPPORTS IT AS APPLIED, AND YOU CAN DO THAT.
I WOULD BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL, BUT I WOULD BE TO NOTATE THAT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORTIVE OF 28% HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS BASED ON DISCUSSION.
>> IS THAT A MOTION, FIVE SECOND [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T WANT TO FURTHER DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS REALLY GOOD.
I MEAN, IT'S A GOOD HELPFUL CONVERSATION AND LOOK, EVERYBODY, LIKE, WE'RE NOT HERE TO BE UNANIMOUS WITH OUR DECISIONS.
WE'RE ALL HERE. WE HAVE A JOB TO DO AND HAVE PERSPECTIVE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> JUST FOR CONTEXT, WOULD YOU RE-EXPLAIN THE 28%, WHY YOU'RE COMING TO THAT?
>> SURE. YEAH. AGAIN, HOW I DIGESTED THIS WOULD BE LIKE, IF THAT WASN'T THERE, AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE NUMBERS AND SAYING, WE STILL HAVE A HARDCOVER PROBLEM, I WOULD SAY, SEE WHERE ELSE THEY CAN PULL THIS FROM WITHOUT MAKING THEM PULL IT BACK, AND THAT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE EXISTING IS ALREADY THERE, AND SO MY MINDSET WAS IF THAT WAS ELIMINATED, THAT HARD COVER WOULD BE ELIMINATED.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF EXCEEDING THE 25% BY ALMOST THE AMOUNT THAT THAT EXISTED BECAUSE I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF ADDING ONTO THE STRUCTURE OR EVEN MORE SO.
BUT BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE AN EXCHANGE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES, AND THERE IS MORE THAT COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THIS,
[01:00:01]
WHETHER IT'S PUSHING IT BACK OR ELIMINATING A GARAGE, SO 882 SQUARE FOOT OF AN IMPROVEMENT IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE LEEWAY THAT I'M COMING UP WITH FOR THAT REASON, 28% IS REASONABLE.>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THROW OUT AND ASK THE QUESTION IF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN AND THE APPLICANT INCORPORATING STORMWATER BMPS, GARDENS, OR ANY OTHER METHODS TO TREAT THE EXCESS STORMWATER RESULTING FROM THE EXCESS HARD COVER.
>> I WOULD NOT, I THINK THAT THAT JUST CREATES MORE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE TO TRY AND LEVERAGE IT TO JUSTIFY THINGS AND IT JUST CONTINUES TO PUSH THE BOUNDARIES AND PUSH THE BOUNDARIES.
I THINK IT'S A VALID OPTION, BUT I I THINK WE'RE ALREADY PUSHING BOUNDARIES HERE, AND IF WE JUST GIVE MORE WAYS TO PUSH BOUNDARIES, MR. JERRY.
>> YES. I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE CONDITIONAL TO EVERYTHING.
NORMALLY, I DON'T GET INTO THAT, JUST KNOWING THAT THEY'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ANYHOW IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE, JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU CAN CLARIFY EXPANDER.
>> WELL, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A GRADING PLAN THAT DOESN'T IMPACT THEIR NEIGHBORS ADVERSELY FROM A STORMWATER STANDPOINT, BUT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM TO TREAT ANY OF THE STORMWATER ON SITE?
>> JUST SUGGESTING THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR HAVING MATERIALS THAT WOULD OFFER INFILTRATION THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ON A ONE FOR ONCE OFFSET THE HARDCOVER, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR VARIANCES, IF THERE WAS SOME BEST MANAGAL PRACTICE THAT YOU WOULD FIND THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE LOT IF YOU ARE GRANTING HARD COVER VARIANCES AS A CONDITION OF THERE.
>> SURE. THAT'S HOPEFUL, I APPRECIATE.
I'LL GIVE YOU MY TAKE ON THAT BEING, I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT MITIGANT FOR ASKING FOR EXCEEDING HARD COVER PROACTIVELY, AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO THE COUNSEL.
THEY INEVITABLY MAKE THIS DECISION.
I WON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S REQUIRED, SOMETHING THAT I WOULD MAKE AS A REQUIREMENT, SIMPLY BECAUSE, PERHAPS WE CAN ENTERTAIN THAT IN THE FUTURE AS A PRACTICAL WAY TO JUSTIFY AND PERHAPS WE CAN ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS AHEAD OF TIME TO PROVIDE THAT AS A MITIGANT FOR EXCEEDING HARD COVER AND EVEN MORE SO IS MAYBE THEY COULD PREPARE AN AMENDMENT IF THEY SO WERE INCLINED BEFORE MEETING WITH COUNSEL AS TO HELPING COUNSEL DETERMINE IF THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE BASED ON THAT? COMMISSIONER RESLER, PLEASE. I HAD AN IDEA.
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE A PROPOSED MOTION, AND I'LL PROPOSE ONE. THIS ISN'T A MOTION.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE STUCK ON THE HARD COVER.
THE OTHER THINGS, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF AND IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME, IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO GIVE PARTIAL APPROVAL, AND THEN NOTE THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THE HARD COVER.
THAT GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO BRING IT TO COUNSEL WITH SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE HARDCOVER.
I WOULD PROPOSE NOT THROWING A NUMBER OUT THERE ON THE HARD COVER, BUT WE HAVE PLENTY OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH AND THAT'S UP TO.
THEY COME UP WITH REASONS WHY THESE OTHER ITEMS NEED TO BE THERE AND OR ADJUST THE HARD COVER.
BUT IT WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD WITH APPROVAL PARTIAL APPROVAL.
>> I'M NOT SURE. FORGIVE ME, MR. CHAIR. I ALWAYS FELT LIKE WE NEED TO EITHER APPROVE IT OR DENY IT.
>> THERE'S MULTIPLE VARIANCES SO WE CAN APPROVE.
>> THE OTHER ONES CAN NOT APPROVE, JUST NOT APPROVE THE HARD COVER THAT GIVES THEM TIME TO MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES OR BRING WHATEVER MISSING INFORMATION TO COUNSEL.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> SURE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO LINE BY LINE, MAYBE POLL, IF ANYBODY'S POSED OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE OTHER VARIANCE ITEMS, SO IT GOES ON RECORD AND WE CAN MOTION.
>> WELL, I THINK I'LL JUST MAKE A MOTION AND IF I HAVE A SECOND DISCUSSION SO I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE LA 25-42.
ALL THE VARIANCES EXCEPT FOR THE COVER VARIANCE.
>> THAT'S MY MOTION. THEN WOULD WE BE MOTIONING AT THE SAME TIME TO DENY THE HARDCOVER VARIANCE REQUEST?
>> THEN WE WOULD SAY ALL'S THOSE FAVOR SAY I WOULD BE.
YES, I APPLY VARIANCES EXCEPT FOR HARDCOVER.
[01:05:01]
CORRECT. JUST MAKING SURE BECAUSE IT GETS COMPLICATED. I WOULD SECOND THAT.>> PROCEDURALLY. APPLICATION HAD WOULD GO TO CITY.
APPROVED INCLUDING THE HARD COVER VARIANCES.
APPROVE OR DENY CITY COUNCIL WAY MORE OR LESS ON EVERYTHING.
>> THE APPLICATION WILL MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION, IF IT FOLLOWS THIS MOTION, IT WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE LOT AREA A LOT WITH, DENY THE HARD COVER AS APPLIED.
THEN IF THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS IN THE MEANTIME, COUNCIL, THEN AGAIN, WOULD SEE ANY AMENDMENTS AS WELL.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY SO COMMISSIONER RESSLER, WAS THAT A SECOND?
>> IT IS A SECOND, BUT I WOULD WELCOME ANY OTHER CLARIFYING PERSPECTIVE ON IF ANYBODY HAS HARD COVER.
YOU KNOW, I CAME UP WITH A NUMBER JUST TO YOU KNOW, MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE RECORD.
WE'RE NOT THERE. I GUESS, I WOULD SECOND THAT IF THERE'S NOT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> IS A MOTION TO APPROVE? A VARIANCES EXCEPT TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR THE HARD COVER.
AND A SECOND THAT MOTION WAS BY MYSELF, COMMISSIONER WALLACE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, RECORD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I GOING TO VOTE ALONG APPROVING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE APPLICATION, BUT YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE'RE KIND OF TRIPPING OVER OURSELVES HERE.
I'M ONLY ADVANCING IT FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT TO GET TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND HAVE THEIR OPINION.
BUT I THINK THE DECISION WE'RE MAKING IS WE'RE DENYING A VARIANCE THAT WE'RE IN APPROVAL OF.
THAT'S WHERE I STROVE. WE'RE IN APPROVAL OF THE HARDCOVER VARIANCE, BUT NOT TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY'RE SUBMITTED AT.
THAT'S WHERE I STROVE. AND I JUST WANT I JUST WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE COUNSEL WHEN THEY'RE REVIEWING THE APPLICATION.
>> POINT TAKEN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
[5.3. LA25-000043, Takka Day Design o/b/o John Erickson, 865 Partenwood Rd, Variances & Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]
25-43 HAKA DAY DESIGN ON BEHALF OF JOHN ERICKSON, 865 PARTENWOOD ROAD.>> ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR, PLANNING COMMISSION, MATTHEW KARNEY WITH PLANNING, PRESENTING THE VARIANCE IN CONDITIONALLY USED PERMIT APPLICATION, GREAT 865 PARTENWOOD ROAD.
JUST TO GENERALLY WALK YOU THROUGH, IT'S REALLY A THREE PRONGED REQUEST THAT WE HAVE HERE FOR A MULTI STEP RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT 865 PART WOOD ROAD, PRIMARILY FOR HARDCOVER WITHIN THE LAKESHORE BUILDING WITHIN THE LAKESHORE AND A NEW RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE LAKESHORE.
LR-1B ZONING OVER AN ACRE IN SIZE, 25% MAXIMUM.
IN TERMS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, WE CAN SCROLL BACK TO THIS AS NEEDED AS A POINT OF COMPARISON, BUT GENERALLY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE HOUSE IS THERE.
CURRENTLY, THE APPLICANT, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING DIFFERENT WAYS TO REMODEL THIS HOME TO THE DESIRE OF THE HOME OWNER.
THE MOST RECENT DESIGNS HAVE STARTED TO COME THROUGH OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO TO RE ENVISION THIS SPACE AND GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCESSES TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE 75 FOOT SETBACK IS IN A VERY UNIQUE LOCATION AS A PENINSULAR PROPERTY.
IT'S GOT WATER ON THREE SIDES, 75 FEET FROM THE LAKESHORE IN ALL CORNERS THERE, BUT CENTERED AROUND THE HOUSE, GENERALLY.
IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSED HARD COVER FOR THE HARD COVER VARIANCE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE, GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, GENERALLY SHOWING THE MOVING OF THE DRIVEWAY.
THIS WILL BE SHIFTED SLIGHTLY INLAND AWAY FROM THE LAKESHORE, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION OF A SIDEWALK FROM A PATIO POOL AREA AND A DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND COMING IN THROUGH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
I'LL NOTE THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE REQUEST AREN'T SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCES.
THOSE ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE LAKESHORE, BUT ARE GENERALLY A PART OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AS IT PERTAINS TO THE OVERALL CHANGES IN HARD COVER ONS.
[01:10:04]
I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS A DECENT AMOUNT OF PAVER PATIO AND RIVER ROCK OVER PLASTIC THAT'S BEING REMOVED ON THE PROPERTY TO GENERALLY OFFSET SOME OF THE HARD COVER CHANGES THAT WE HAVE HERE.REALLY THE BIG SELLING POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO AMOUNT TO OVER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF HARD COVER REDUCTION.
GENERALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT A TOTAL OF 17% TOTAL HARD COVER ON THE SITE.
LESS THAN A PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE IN USES CONDITIONS.AND THOSE.IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS, I MIGHT HAVE THE APPLICANT SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ABOUT THE SPECIFICS REGARDING THESE, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE VARIANCE, IT'S REALLY THREE MAIN ITEMS, GENERALLY AN EXPANSION OF THE ROOF ADDITIONS TO THE KITCHEN AND DINING AREAS, AS WELL AS THE BEDROOM AND BATHROOM ON THE SECOND LEVEL.
I HAVE REALLY SEE HERE OFF THE SIDE ON THIS ELEVATION VIEW AND THE AS WELL.
I WILL POINT OUT THAT THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF ITEMS THAT ARE WITHIN THE CURRENT ROOF LINE OF THE HOUSE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCES, THE CHIMNEY AND THE BALCONY AND BRICK COLUMNS THAT WE HAVE OVER HERE AS ABOUT.
IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE NEW WALL.
THERE'S AN EXISTING FAILING TIMBER WALL LOCATED WITHIN THE LAKESHORE.
INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS ONE IS THAT THE SLOPE AS IT COMES UP FROM THE CHANNEL, REACHES A HIGH POINT AND THEN SLOPES BACK DOWN TOWARDS THE HOUSE.
ULTIMATELY, THERE'S AN ENGINEERING LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT INDICATED RUNOFF IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.
YOU'RE DOCUMENTED WITHIN SOME OF THEIR DOCUMENTS AS WELL.
SOME OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPACT FROM WATER COMING BACK DOWN TOWARDS THE HOUSE.
THE PROPOSAL IS A CHANGE OF MATERIAL FROM TIMBER TO LIMESTONE AND THE EXTENSION OF ABOUT 2.5 FEET WILL INCREASE THE SIZE OF THAT WALL, ESSENTIALLY MAKING SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE ENGINEERING LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED AND THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THIS WILL SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THIS PORTION OF THE HOUSE.
IN SUMMARY, WE'RE LOOKING AT VARIANCES SPECIFICALLY FOR BUILDING AND HARDCOVER WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE AS WELL AS A CONDITIONS PERMIT FOR ALL.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THIS APPLICATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH VARIANCES.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE HANDOUT? ARE THESE CHANGES FROM WHAT THE.
>> AFTER THE PACKET WAS PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY, THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF SHEETS THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY SWAPPED OUT BY THE APPLICANT.
IT DID NOT MAKE IT IN TIME FOR THE PACKET, BUT HE WANTED THOSE ELEVATION VIEWS PROVIDED.
THIS IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE CLIPS THAT I GOT FROM THERE THAT HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE CALL THE WORK OFF THE TOP OF OFFICE. WE'LL CALL IT IT SF.
>> BUT THERE'S NO CALCULATION CHANGES, NO FOOTPRINT CHANGES, NOTHING.
>> I THINK I AGAIN I MIGHT HAVE HIM DESCRIBE IT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS JUST SHOWN AS THE ROOF WARRANT PLEASE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK.
PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> MARCO VINCENT, 85 PINEHURST AVENUE IN ST. PAUL.
DOC DESIGN, BUT I'M REPRESENTING MUNICIPAL DESIGNERS AND YOU BUS HERE. LICENSED ARCHITECTS.
IT'S ALWAYS A JOY WHEN YOU HAVE A CLIENT THAT'S INTERESTED IN RETAINING PROPERTY PARTICULARLY BY AN ARCHITECT LIKE JOHN HOWE.
JOHN HOWE IS ON THE RIGHT HAND A DRAFTS PERSON OF FRANK, PRAIRIE STYLE.
CARRY FORWARD PRES STYLE ARCHITECTURE AND SEEING FRANK RIGHT, PRAIRIE STYLE HOMES GET TORN DOWN ON THE MIDWEST.
EACH YEAR IS SOMETHING YOU DON'T LOVE TO SEE.
AGAIN, WITH THE CLIENT LEADING INTO OUR DEVELOPING THIS WITH PRAIRIE STYLE VISION, AND SOMETHING THAT, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE EXISTING VIEW FROM THE STREET.
THE HOME IS DESIGNED WITH A PRAIRIE STYLE AND LOVELY PRAIRIE STYLE AESTHETIC, BUT ONLY FROM THE ROACH. BY THE WAY.
WITH OWNER JOHN ERICKSON'S WORK HERE, WHO'S LISTED DECIDED TO MAKE IT MORE LOVELY AND MORE IN AND THE AESTHETIC OF JOE PALETTE TO BOTH LAKESHORE SIDES.
[01:15:01]
FROM AN AESTHETIC VISION PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAINTAINING THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING.BUT IN ASSESSING THE PROJECT WITH HER BRILLIANT CONTRACTOR, SCOTT MAYER, RETAINING THE EXISTING OF FROM 1976, ENERGY COMFORT AND HVAC, JUST DID RE FEASIBLE.
WHILE WE WERE GOING TO PROPOSE TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THE ROOF, SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND ACCOMMODATING ELECTRICAL.
WE ADDED THOSE LOVELY UPLAS TO PROVIDE SOME NEAREST TO THE HOME, SOME CENTER DESIGN, THE LIGHTING IS WITHOUT THE EXISTING ELEVATION SITE TOO SUBSTANTIALLY PAST THE EXISTING [INAUDIBLE].
WITHIN THE SITE, WE WERE VERY PROUD HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE CITY.
WE HAD A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN THAT WE TALKED THROUGH WITH MATTHEW AND WITH ME.
WE TOOK RECOMMENDATIONS TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND REDUCE HARD COVER WITHIN THE SETBACK LIKE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED ABOUT 17%.
WITHIN THE WITHIN THE SETBACK.
I SUPPOSING TO DRIVE AWAY FOR SHORT WHILE INCLUDING A TURNAROUND THAT IS NOT [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL FOR THE.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE ROUNDABOUT THERE? YOU'RE SEEING ONE OF THE RENDERINGS.
IS THAT PART OF THE TURNAROUND TO MEET CODE, OR IS THAT JUST AN ADDITIONAL FEATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE HOUSE ITSELF?
>> THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL FEATURE.
WE ARE REDUCING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AS IT EXISTS AT LARGE, BUT WE ARE ADDING [INAUDIBLE].
>> [INAUDIBLE] VEHICLES COME TO THAT POINT THAT HELP REDUCE [INAUDIBLE] DRIVEWAY JUST VEHICLES VERSUS TRUCKS OR ANYTHING ELSE, AS THINGS [INAUDIBLE] AND AGAIN, REDUCING IT UP TO THE SOUTHEAST DRIVEWAY.
SO YES, WE'RE ADDING DRIVEWAY OVERALL LOT.
BUT THAT PURPOSE MORE REASONABLE ACCESS. YES.
>> YOU JUST SPEAK TO THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL?
>> I THINK I FIRST IS NECESSARY.
IT IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, JUST JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER FOUR FEET.
WE'RE WE LOOK TO THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT TIMBER SITUATION.
IT WAS NOT ONLY SOMETHING THAT AN ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEER RECOMMENDED WATER COMING TOWARD HOME.
BUT ALSO AS WE OBSERVED THE HOME AT THE TIME, PHOTOS 22 YOU COULD SEE THE WATER COMING IN COMING IN ALSO IN DRIVEN RAIN AND SNOW OFF LIMITED OVERHEAD COMING IN THE HOME SO THAT HEIGHT WAS WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE EXISTING RATE AND MOVING NOT JUST AWAY FROM THE HOUSE, BUT AWAY FROM WITH THE DECK AREA, WHICH IS WE PLACE THAT.
>> I THINK THE CHANNEL, WE JUST HELP RIGHT THERE.
SO THAT'S HIGH POINT THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE OTHER FACET FOR SOME OF THAT DISPLACEMENT IS BETS THAT WALK THROUGH FROM GARAGE TO THERE CURRENTLY IS NOT A CLEAN IT'S NOT SEVEN FEET, SO EXISTING STAIRS IS COMFORTABLE, NOT SATISFACTORY CONDITION.
SO IN ORDER TO DISPLACE THAT THAT ALSO BUILD UP.
WE TRIED TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION [INAUDIBLE] PERFECTLY REASONABLE. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.
>>THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS ANNE TYSON, AND I AM AT 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD, THE LOT.
[01:20:03]
I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD GET ONE OF THOSE.>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PLANS YOU COULD DISCUSS, SUCH AS THE ADJACENT LOT?
>> ADJACENT LOT SO WE JUST WANT WE HAD A CONCERN.
WE HAVE AN EASEMENT WITH THAT PROPERTY.
THERE'S AN ADDITION TO THE DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO IT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T AFFECT OUR PROPERTY IN ANY WAY, AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGE.
>> YEAH. THEN, THE EASEMENT, I GOT THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT MEASUREMENTS, AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE ARCHITECTURE COMMITTEE OR SURVEYOR GO OUT AND PLOT IT AND LOOK, AND MAKE SURE THAT ADDITION IS WITHIN THE EXISTING INVESTMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> JUST SO I MAKE SURE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO HEAR YOU, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CAPTURED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
THE REQUEST IS THAT YOU HAVE AN EASEMENT ON YOUR PROPERTY ON A SMALL PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY TO THIS PROPERTY, AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL TURNAROUND DRIVEWAY BEING ADDED, YOU WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IT DOESN'T IMPACT YOUR PROPERTY'S HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS OR PUT YOU OVER A LIMIT OF SOME SORT AND THAT THE TOTAL MEASUREMENT OF THE ADDITION IS WITHIN THE CURRENT GUIDELINES? WITHIN THE EASEMENT, WE'RE NOT ADDING TO THE EASEMENT. THANK YOU.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THERE'S 224 [INAUDIBLE]
>> IF YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE PART OF THE COMMENTS, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. THANK YOU.
>> I GUESS IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY IF WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING IS APPROVED BY.
WE WERE ASKED WE WERE ENCOURAGED BY THE CITY PLAYERS TO BRING FORWARD ALL OF THE SITE WORK AND HOUSEWORK AT ONCE.
WE ASKED IF WE COULD SEPARATE THE HOUSE FROM THIS ANSWER WE ENCOURAGED IT.
THIS WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL, THOUGH, OF COURSE, WITH THE LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHN, THAT WOULD NOT PROCEED WITH [INAUDIBLE]
>> THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED?
>> IT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO OR AN [INAUDIBLE].
>> IF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DOESN'T APPROVE OF THAT, THEN WHO WOULD HAVE TO REDESIGN WITHIN THE EXISTING EASEMENT?
>> THAT'S THE ONE, AND THEN I WASN'T SURE IF WE COULD HEAR HIM, BUT WE HAD CONVERSATIONS TODAY ON THE CONCERN THAT 220 SQUARE FEET WOULD NOT COUNT, SAGE WOULD IMPACT ANGEL'S EFFORTS TO DEFINE [INAUDIBLE].
>> QUESTION FOR STAFF, THEN, DOES IT ADD THE HARDCOVER TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION? NO. IT'S JUST AN ERASED HARDCOVER..
>> THIS WOULD ALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DRIVEWAY OR THOSE THAT ARE COVERED.
>> STAFF, I ASSUME THE PREFERENCES OF THE EASEMENT VERSUS ADDING TO THE DRIVEWAY BEING ON THE LOT, BUT WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK?
>> THIS IS ARGUABLY THE BEST OUTCOME TO MANAGE AND COVER ON THE PROPERTY.
THAT IS A CONFORMING LOCATION ON THEIR SIDE, AND THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THAT ADJACENT.
>> CAN WE GET CLARITY FROM THE NEIGHBOR?
[01:25:02]
AGAIN, WHETHER THIS PROPOSED PLAN WHETHER IT LOOKS LIKE AN ADDITIONAL SMALL SECTION OF DRIVEWAY THROUGH THAT EASEMENT.IS THIS SOMETHING YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF?
>> IF IT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING EASEMENT.
IT'S THAT SMALL PINK. CAN YOU POINT TO IT? YEAH
>> THE GRAY THAT'S ALREADY THERE.
THAT'S AT LEAST FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
>> WE ARE IN SUPPORT IF IT'S WITHIN THE EASEMENT.
>> IF IT IS WITHIN THE EASEMENT.
THEY STILL NEED TO GET CLARITY ON IT.
>> WE'RE APPROVING THE PLANS IN FRONT OF US.
THE NEIGHBORS NEED TO WORK THAT OUT BETWEEN EACH OTHER.
WHETHER THAT WORKS, IF IT DOESN'T, WE'RE GOING TO SEE AN AMENDED PLAN.
>> THIS IS STILL A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> MY NAME IS SCOTT MAYER, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
[INAUDIBLE] TO CLARIFY THE EASEMENT UP HERE, THE EASEMENT CARRIES FROM THE VERY WESTERN LOWER LEFT CORNER, THAT CORNER, AND IT GOES UP AT ABOUT A 45 DEGREES TO THAT UPPER, IF YOU WENT UP TO THE RIGHT, GO UP AND GO STRAIGHT NORTH.
IRON THERE FROM THAT IRON TO THAT LOWER CORNER IS THE EASEMENT.
>> WE WERE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THAT INFORMATION AND PASS THE PUBLIC RECORD, AND WENT TO THE COUNTY, TRY TO FIND IT.
I CALLED THE OWNER HERE, AND WE WILL IDENTIFY THAT INFORMATION.
>> THAT MUST BE RECORDED SOMEWHERE.
>> THE 45-DEGREE SLICE OFF THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? PUBLIC COMMENT IS STILL OPEN. SEE NOBODY.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.
ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM. [LAUGHTER]
I THINK IT LOOKS WELL, IT LOOKS GOOD TO ME.
I APPRECIATE THE REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER WITHIN THE SETBACK.
I CAN'T SEE HOW YOU COULD DO ANYTHING INSIDE OF THAT BUILDABLE AREA, AND THE FACT THAT THEY'VE GOT A POOL AND A ROUNDABOUT INSIDE OF THERE THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE WITHIN THE HARDCOVER TO BEGIN WITH, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
>> I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS OF THE PLAN AND THE WORK DONE TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND MAKE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS MOVING HARDCOVER AWAY FROM THE LAKE SHORE.
>> I'LL JUST ADD MY COMMENTS HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, PROTECTING THE LAKE SHORE IS IMPORTANT, AND YOU GUYS DID A REALLY NICE JOB OF THAT.
I THINK IT'S A VERY CREATIVE PLAN AS WELL, AND I DON'T SEE ANY GLARING ISSUES WITH IT. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> I DO AGREE. ALSO, I WANT TO POINT OUT THE RETAINING WALL, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ABOVE THE FOUR FOOT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CUP LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE MINIMUM SIZE THAT THE ENGINEER DESIGNED IT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, SO HAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE LIKE THOSE LETTERS FROM THE ENGINEERS. I'M IN FAVOR.
>> I AGREE. I THINK THE APPLICATION SHOWS TREMENDOUS CARE FOR THE PROPERTY, THE HOUSE ITSELF AND SERVING THAT CHARACTER AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND IT.
I DID PAUSE A MINUTE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT 200 OR SO FEET OF HARDCOVER DISAPPEARING, BUT CONSIDERING THE NET PRODUCTION OF HARDCOVER HERE, IT SEEMS THIS IS, THAT'S WHY.
[INAUDIBLE] BUT THE IDEA THAT THE HARD COVER DOESN'T BELONG TO US, IT'S A LITTLE FUNNY WITH ME, JUST BECAUSE IT'S STILL THERE.
IT'S STILL HAVING THE EFFECT OF, BUT YEAH. [INAUDIBLE]
>> PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THERE IS ACTUALLY AN INCREASE IN PROPOSED OVERALL HARDCOVER, NOT INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL ROCK.
>> THE REDUCTION IS IN THE LAKE YARD.
>> THE REASON WHY I WOULD GET BEHIND THE APPLICATION IS THAT THERE'S A LARGER REDUCTION IN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK.
I GUESS I JUST LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAD THE SAME OPINION.
[01:30:02]
I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, YES, THERE IS AN INCREASE IN TOTAL HARDCOVER.WE'RE STILL WELL BELOW THE 25% ALLOWED HERE.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING WHY THIS IS IN FRONT OF US IS JUST BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY WATER, SO IT IS ONE GIANT SETBACK OF LAKE SHORE, SO YOU CAN'T REALLY PUT IT ANYWHERE.
QUITE SIMPLY, I ALWAYS LIKE TO DRAW CONTRAST BECAUSE I THINK THAT HELPS OTHER PEOPLE.
I'M DECIDING WHAT THEY THINK THEY CAN APPLY FOR IN THE FUTURE, AS WELL AS WHAT WE REALLY FEEL.
6.4% TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE, I THINK, IS THE MOST GLARING HERE.
THAT'S ALMOST A QUARTER OF WHAT THEY COULD HAVE FOR TOTAL STRUCTURAL COVERAGE; THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
AS IT'S BEEN SAID, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE DONE DIFFERENTLY.
A LOT OF TIMES, I'D LIKE TO SEE AN IMPROVEMENT IN, REQUIRED FROM WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, VERSUS WHAT IS EXISTING.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A GLARING DIFFERENCE IN WHAT PERCENTAGE OF STRUCTURE THAT'S EXISTING, AS WELL AS, AS IT'S BEEN NOTED, WE'RE GETTING ABOUT A 17% IMPROVEMENT ON HARDCOVER IN THE 75 OF, WHICH I THINK WE'RE MOST SENSITIVE TO.
I'D BE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED.
>> I'LL BE FORMAL WITH THAT, IF I MAY.
ALLOW FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I'LL MAKE THE MOTION FORMALLY.
MOTION TO APPROVE LA 25-43 AS APPLIED.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER, I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TIFT. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> OPPOSED? ARE NONE IN MOTION.
LA 25-000045 THE FAITH CONTRACTING ON BEHALF OF WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB,
[5.4. LA25-000045, Keep The Faith Contracting o/b/o Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard West, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney)]
200 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST.THIS IS FOR A CUP. MR. CARNEY.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION, HAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEFORE YOU FOR THE WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB AT 200 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST.
AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, GENERALLY, FOR CONDITIONAL USES AND INTENSIFICATION OR AN INCREASE IN BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL NECESSITATE A NEW OR AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING USE.
THE WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB IS FAIRLY LARGE AND SPANS TWO CITIES, BOTH OURS AND WAYZATA.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ORONO PORTION OF THE COUNTRY CLUB.
JUST BRIEFLY FOR PROJECT DETAILS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW PAVILION BUILDING, ESSENTIALLY JUST FOR MEMBER EVENTS.
IT'S CLOSE TO A NEW PUTTING GREEN THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN.
GENERALLY, THE BUILDING IS LOCATED FAIRLY CENTRALLY ON THE SITE.
>> ARE THERE ROOMS RIGHT OUT HERE?
>> GENERALLY, TO BE USED FOR EVENTS, ACCESS FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE, AND SUCH, REALLY A STOPGAP FOR FOLKS THAT ARE OUT ON THE GREEN THAT DON'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE GENERAL CLUBHOUSE, AND ALSO TO PROVIDE RESTROOMS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM THE APPLICANT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE ALREADY A NUMBER OF EXISTING EVENTS OUTDOORS.
THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE THOSE EVENTS OR TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY ACROSS SEASONS.
AS I TOUCHED ON BEFORE, THIS LOCATION IS FAIRLY INTERNAL TO THE SITE.
ABOUT 300 FEET FROM LONG LAKE ROAD.
WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT HERE AND THEN 700 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR GOLF COURSES AND COUNTRY CLUBS WITHIN RR-1B ZONING THAT THEY'RE I WANT TO SAY 100 FEET FROM RESIDENCES.
THIS ONE IS QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY FAR AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENCES.
PART OF THE APPLICANT'S COVER LETTER AND TESTIMONY HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AMENITY FOR EXISTING MEMBERS OF THE COUNTRY CLUB.
THAT THIS ISN'T A MEANS TO HAVE A NEW FEATURE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE COMING TO THE SITE.
THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD ALREADY BE VISITING OR USING THE COUNTRY CLUB ON A REGULAR BASIS.
GENERALLY, A PART OF A LARGER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT THE COUNTRY IS UNDERGOING.
IN TERMS OF SCREENING, WE TYPICALLY WANT TO SEE HOW A BUILDING LIKE THIS WOULD BE SCREENED.
BUT GIVEN THE LOCATION OF IT AND SOME OF THE EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION WE HAVE THERE, STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THE SCREENING OF THIS BUILDING, ESPECIALLY NOTING THE EXISTING VEGETATION.
[01:35:01]
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS GOING TO BE EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROPOSED, BUT THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT; HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO ENSURE THAT THE LIGHTING IS DOWN.YES, AND COST CASES FLARE ON PROPERTIES. SIDE OF THE COUNTRY CLUB.
IN SUMMARY, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR THE GOLF COURSE AND FOR COUNTRY CLUB USE IN RR-1B ZONING.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS REQUEST, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORAL PERMIT.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISHES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE, APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I'M SAM LEMKE, OWNER OF KEEP THE FAITH CONTRACTING, ACTUALLY ST. MICHAEL, MINNESOTA, AT 565 SUMERLIN CIR NORTH WEST.
I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE CLUB.
THE GENERAL MANAGER HAS JOINED AS WELL, IN CASE YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
AT THIS POINT, WE'RE READY TO PUT IN AN INFRASTRUCTURE, AND I THINK OF THIS IN TERMS OF THE COURSE.
>> CHRIS CARDI, I'M THE CEO OF OTHERWISE AT A COUNTRY CLUB.
MY ADDRESS IS 1552557 IN PLYMOUTH.
I WOULD JUST ECHO WHAT MATTHEW SAID, AND I'LL TAKE A QUICK STEP BACK TO THANK PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE CITY OF ORONO FOR ALL THE HELP THAT YOU'VE GIVEN THE CLUB OVER THE YEARS.
I THINK WE JUST ARE COMPLETING A PHENOMENAL RENOVATION TO OUR GOLF COURSE.
AS MATTHEW MENTIONED, PART OF IT IS A VERY LARGE PUTTING COURSE SO WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE RESTROOMS, FOOD AND BEVERAGE.
WE ALSO DO A LOT OF EVENTS OUT THERE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
WE DO MEMBERS WEDDING CEREMONIES.
WE DO OCTOBER FEST, WE DO GOLF EVENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
WE JUST WOULD LIKE A PLACE WHERE WE COULD SERVE FOOD AND BEVERAGE.
WE'LL HAVE A CLOSE SETUP FOR COOKING, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE RESTROOMS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
WE THINK IT'LL JUST BE FOR US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I CAN START. ONE LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO MYSELF.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING.
I THINK THE LOCATION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF IT'S PRETTY INTERIOR OF THE SITE.
DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO ANY OF THE SETBACKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS BUILDING.
I LOOK AT IT, NOT REALLY AS AN INTENSIFICATION.
IT IS BECAUSE IT'S ADDITIONAL BUILDING, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE USED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.
>> I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, MR. CARNEY FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THIS, VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT.
>> CHAIR BALLIS, I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE CAN STILL DISCUSS IT AND THEN HAVE.
>> THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE FOR THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SEEING NOBODY? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
>> I'LL STILL SAY, THANK YOU, MR. CARNEY FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THIS.
[LAUGHTER] EVEN THOUGH IT MADE US LOOK A LITTLE SILLY.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS SEEMS IT'S MORE OF A FORMALITY.
WE HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT APPEARS GLARING IN THE SUMMARY OR IN THE PRESENTATION, SO IN THE SPIRIT OF IT, THE MEETING BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
I WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE UNLESS THERE WOULD BE ANY DISSENTING OPS.
MOTION TO APPROVE A 25-45 AS A PLAN.
>> MOTION TO APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.
A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ARNO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
DOES ANYBODY NEED A SHORT BREAK BEFORE WE GET TO NEXT AGENDA? NEXT IS LA 25-39.
[5.5. LA25-000039, Text Amendments regarding Retaining Walls (Laura Oakden)]
THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RETAINING WALLS, MS. OKTON.>> YES. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU.
IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE TO REVIEW REGARDING RETAINING WALLS, PERTAINING TO THE SHORELAND OVERLAY, AS WELL AS THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT SECTIONS.
THE CITY OF ARNO REGULATES RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE REQUIRED YARDS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS,
[01:40:03]
AND WE LIST THEM IN OUR PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS, MEANING THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO BEYOND THE REGULAR YARD SETBACK.ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK WITHIN THE 75, WHICH YOU LOOKED AT EARLIER TONIGHT UNDER AN APPLICATION.
EARLIER THIS SUMMER, CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO CLARIFY THE CONDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS FOR RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE SHORELAND AND BLUFF AREAS.
DURING THE REVIEW OF THE CITY CODE, STAFF ALSO IDENTIFIED SOME AREAS WITHIN THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT SECTIONS THAT COULD USE SOME CLARIFICATION PERTAINING TO RETAINING WALLS AS WELL, SO I'VE INCLUDED A TABLE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
I COULD ALSO BRING UP THE LANGUAGE.
MELANIE. UNDER THE MY PRESENTATION FOLDER, I HAVE A DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT RETAINING WALLS.
YOU COULD BRING UP, I HAVE THE MAJORITY IN THE SHORELINE SECTION HIGHLIGHTED DOWN A FEW PAGES.
IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THE FIRST CHANGES TO THE DEFINITIONS.
THAT SECTION, WE JUST INCLUDED SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW WE MEASURE A RETAINING WALL.
WE'RE NOT DESCRIBING IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT INSTEAD ADDING SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT TIERED RETAINING WALL DEFINITION.
YES, RIGHT HERE. IT'S THE SECOND SENTENCE ABOUT TIERED RETAINING WALLS ARE CONSIDERED A SINGLE WALL, WHICH IS HOW THEY ARE MEASURED FOLLOWING THE BUILDING STEVE BUILDING CODE, SO WE'RE JUST ADOPTING THAT INTO OUR RESOLUTION OR INTO OUR DEFINITION.
A LITTLE BIT LOWER IN OUR SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, WE HAVE TWO TIERS OF RETAINING WALLS, ONE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, AND ONE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, I BELIEVE IT BUMPED OUT AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE.
IT SHOULD BE BUMPED IN TO BE NUMBER FOUR UNDER LETTER B. NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. GO DOWN.
6B123. YES, IT NEEDS TO BE INDENTED, SO I WILL FIX THAT TYPO, MY APOLOGIES, BUT IT SHOULD BE NUMBER 4.
THAT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MEANT TO BE FOR AN IN REPLACEMENT IN THE LAKESHORE, BUT SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S FAIRLY STANDARD, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE AS EXPECTED WITH APPLICATIONS, BUT IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN OUR CODE.
WE ARE ASKING FOR IT TO BE ADOPTED INTO OUR CODE AS A STANDARD FOR A LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND WE USE THAT SAME LANGUAGE UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TRIGGERS.
UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS, WE'VE PROVIDED CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE, MODIFIED THE EXISTING STANDARDS TO BE CLEAR AND MORE ENFORCEABLE AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING TO ENFORCE.
WE'RE MAINTAINING THAT WALLS MUST BE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY, BOTH IN NUMBER OF WALLS AND IN SIZE.
THE WALLS MUST CORRECT AN EXISTING EROSION OR STABILITY ISSUE.
WE ARE REQUIRING A LANDSCAPE PLAN TO INCLUDE NATIVE VEGETATION SCREENING TO SCREEN THE WALLS FROM THE LAKE AND TO REPLACE ANY DISTURBED VEGETATION IN THE AREA THAT'S BEING DISTURBED TO INSTALL THE WALLS.
WE WANT REPLACED WITH NATIVE DEEP ROOTED VEGETATION AS WELL TO ADDRESS ANY SLOPE CONCERNS AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND FILTRATION IS THE LAKE.
WE HAVE TWO LANDSCAPING STANDARDS IN THERE.
ONE, TWO THE OVERALL DISTURBED AREAS NEED TO BE REPLACED IN A LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE PROVIDED, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, A SCREENING ELEMENT MUST BE INCLUDED FOR WALLS WITHIN THE 752 SCREEN FROM THE LAKE VIEW.
THOSE ARE STANDARDS THAT ARE ASSUMED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND HOW CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND IN THE PAST VARIANCES ALWAYS REQUIRED, BUT IT WASN'T LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADOPTED PREVIOUSLY.
WE'RE ASKING TO PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR EVERYONE WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING.
THEN IN THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT SECTIONS, THIS ALLOWS THE RETAINING WALLS TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE REQUIRED YARD, THINK IN THE STREET YARD, SIDE YARD, MAYBE A NON-LAKESHORE LOT, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WHEN WE RECODIFIED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, SOME LANGUAGE GOT A LITTLE JUMBLED IN THERE, SO WE'RE LOOKING TO CLARIFY THAT.
IT CLARIFIES HOW MUCH AND WHERE THESE WALLS ARE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH, BOTH IN THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR YARDS.
THEN WE ADD A REFERENCE TO THE 42 INCH HEIGHT LIMITATION, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR AVERAGE LAKE SURREY SETBACK CODE.
MEANING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOME GRADING OR PUT SOME WALLS IN, WE DON'T WANT THEM TALLER THAN ABOVE THE 42 INCH HEIGHT LIMITATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE AVERAGE LAKE SURREY SETBACK POSES.
THEN AS WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH THIS, WE NOTICED THE FENCES SECTION OF THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS ALSO HAD SOME CHALLENGING LANGUAGE ABOUT IMPLEMENTING FENCES WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
WE'RE LOOKING TO CLEAN THAT UP TO FOLLOW THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AS WE HAVE IT DEFINED.
[01:45:03]
INSTEAD, PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS A UNIQUELY DEFINED FENCE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK WITH DEPENDENT ON YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND WE WANT TO MAKE IT MORE UNIFORM JUST WITH HOW WE DEFINE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND HOW WE APPLY IT WITH BUILDING.WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD THAT REFERENCE FOR WHEN PEOPLE WANT FENCES IN THEIR YARD AS WELL.
IDEALLY, NONE OF THESE WILL BE NEW OR CREATED ADDITIONAL STANDARDS, BUT MORE JUST CLARIFYING, MAKING THEM MORE ENFORCEABLE, AND PUTTING INTO THE PUTTING IN LANGUAGE OF WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING OUT OF THESE RETAINING MORE PERMITS.
I WILL NOTE WITH THE VEGETATION LANGUAGE.
THE VEGETATIVE LANDSCAPING LANGUAGE WOULD REQUIRE VEGETATION STANDARDS ON AREAS, WHICH ARE UNIQUE IN OUR CITY CODE, AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
OUR CODE, BUT IN THIS AREA, WE ARE ASKING TO IMPLEMENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, AND THIS COULD IMPACT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT WANT TO PUT STANDARD LAWN, GRASS, OR SOD IN THESE AREAS.
IF YOU NEED A RETAINING WALL OR YOU'RE IN THE 75, AND YOU NEED TO ADDRESS SOME SLOPE DISTURBANCES TO INSTALL A RETAINING WALL, WE ARE NOW ASKING YOU TO PUT IN NATIVE PLANTINGS AND DEEP ROOTED NATIVE PLANTINGS TO ALSO STABILIZE THE SLOPE.
THAT IS A HIGHER STANDARD THAT WE ARE ASKING OUR RESIDENTS TO MEET WHEN THEY ARE ASKING FOR RETAINING MORE WORK IN THE LAKE YARD.
JUST AS A SPECIFIC CALL OUT, THAT'S SOMETHING UNIQUE FOR THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR CODE, BUT IS A PRIORITY.
SO WE WANT TO BRING THAT FORWARD.
WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH CHANGES OR QUESTIONS.
THEY DID PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO REVIEW ALL CODES THAT IMPACTS OUR SHORT LAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THEY HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT OUR VEGETATION AND NOTED THAT ANY ALTERATIONS SOME ALTERATIONS TO THE LAND ARE NECESSARY TO INSTALL RETAINING WALLS AND TO BE MINDFUL ABOUT WHAT WE REPLACE IT WITH, WHICH IS PART OF THIS WHERE THIS CONVERSATION CAME ABOUT OUR LANDSCAPING PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
THEY PROVIDED A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL APPROVAL LETTER, WHICH IS STANDARD, AND I'VE INCLUDED THAT IN YOUR PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW AS WELL. HOPE I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS GIVEN ME A LITTLE PAUSE BECAUSE AS YOU MENTIONED, IS WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE'VE REQUIRED?
>> THE PAST AND IS THERE I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER CODE THAT IS REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANS OTHER THAN IF SOMEONE WERE TO PROPOSE A SUBDIVISION, THERE IS SOME STANDARDS LANDSCAPE.
>> YEAH, SO SOME VERY HIGH LEVEL IN OUR SUBDIVISION CODE, WE DO REQUIRE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, WE REQUIRE, LIKE A CONSERVATION DESIGN OF LARGE AREAS BEING SUBDIVIDED AND DEVELOPED IN THAT SENSE.
WE HAVE A PRETTY HIGH BAR FOR A STUDY OF LAND AND PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE AREAS WHEN IT COMES TO A SUBDIVISION.
WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE JUST REDEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTIES, THERE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENTS WHERE WE DO WANT LANDSCAPE PLANS.
WE WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU'RE PROTECTING EROSION FROM EROSION, WHETHER YOU'RE SODDING, SEEDING, HYDROSEEDING, IF YOU'RE IMPLEMENTING.
I THINK WE NOTED EARLIER, LIKE STORM WATER BEST PRACTICES, IF YOU'RE PUTTING IN RING GARDENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND DITCH SWALES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THOSE ARE STANDARDS THAT WE ARE ASKING APPLICANTS JUST TO SHOW US WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO DO TO COVER YOUR PROPERTY IN THAT SENSE.
WE DO NOT HAVE A LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO PLANT THESE PLANTS IN THIS CERTAIN AREA, OR YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PLANT CERTAIN PLANTS IN OTHER AREAS.
IT WAS A DISCUSSION FROM EARLIER THIS SUMMER, BOTH AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AT COUNCIL ABOUT REQUESTING DEEP ROOTED PLANTINGS, NATIVE PLANTINGS PROHIBITED, SPECIFICALLY CALLING OUT THE PROHIBITION OF INVASIVE PLANTINGS.
A AS ELEMENTS AS PART OF THIS LAKESHORE CON RETAINING DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD EARLIER THIS SUMMER.
THIS LANGUAGE THAT STAFFS PULLED TOGETHER IS FROM THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BUT IT'S WORTH FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE IS THIS REASONABLE.
>> ARE THESE GOING TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, THE LANDSCAPE PLANS?
>> ON WALLS THAT TRIGGER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, YES, THE LANDSCAPE PLANS WOULD GET DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
ON WALLS THAT TRIGGER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, THEY WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOR YOU TO REVIEW.
>> STAFF IS PREPARED TO ASSESS THOSE PLANS, MAKE SURE THAT THE REMOVAL IS LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF THE WALLS, AND DEEP ROOTED, ETC. I'M PUTTING THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE.
>> TODAY, EVEN FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENTS,
[01:50:04]
WE STILL ASK FOR ENGINEERING LETTERS TO PROVE THAT IT'S MINIMUM NECESSARY, SO THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT ON THEM.>> THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS TO BE DONE BY AN ENGINEER?
>> NO. APPROVING THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR THE WALL SIDE.
>> BUT I'M SAYING WHO DECIDES THE MINIMUM NECESSARY? IF I I'M AN APPLICANT, AND I HAVE A FAILING WALL, I NEED TO REPLACE IT.
I NEED TO MEET ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS, AND I DON'T WANT TO SET THE BAR TOO HIGH.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT SCREEN THE STUFF.
DO I NEED A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO DESIGN THIS? CAN MY SON DESIGN IT? CAN I DESIGN IT?
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE QUESTION HERE. TAKING A STEP BACK.
CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN? LIKE WHAT IS THAT? I GO ON WORD, DROP THE WALL, INPUT GOOGLE IMAGES.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE WHAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING TO? DO I HAVE TO GO PAY THE GUY WHO'S ENGINEERING MY WALL 400 BUCKS TO ALSO PRODUCE AN ARCHITECTURE OR A LANDSCAPE PLAN SORRY. THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.
>> NO. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS A SITE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE TYPE AND PLACEMENT OF THOSE PLANTS.
THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS THE PLANT? WILL IT SCREEN THIS HEIGHT OF THE WALL, SO IT'S PRETTY BASIC, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, WHICH WE'VE BEEN ASKING THIS APPLICANTS FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT SOMETHING TO POINT TO.
>> I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THAT.
YOU'RE BEING PRETTY SPECIFIC OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
LOOKING FOR A STANDARD MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION, WHOSE EYES IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY.
I FEEL LIKE I'D HAVE TO GET AN ENGINEER'S LETTER.
IT'S GOING TO COST ME $2,000 TO HAVE AN ENGINEER DECIDE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AND JUST FOR HIS STATEMENT SAYING, THIS IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE.
I GUESS I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT HAS SCREENING THAT HAS NATIVE PLANTINGS. I JUST FEEL LIKE.
>> I THINK WE'RE READING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE WHEN I READ IT, IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, IT JUST SAYS A WELL SCREENED BY DEEP ROOTED NATIVE VEGETATION, WHICH SEEMS PRETTY THINK IF THAT'S WHAT THAT PLAN IS.
>> THERE'S MULTIPLE SPOTS WHERE IT'S REFERENCING.
THERE'S TWO LANDSCAPE PLANS YOU MINE, ONE FOR THE WALL ITSELF, FOR SCREENING.
THEN ONE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL.
IF I HAVE A LAKE SHORE PROPERTY THAT'S ALL GRASS AND I HAVE A FAILING SLOPE, AND COME AND PROPOSE A WALL.
NOW TO ACCESS THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO COME THROUGH MY GRASS TO GET TO THAT POINT.
NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PUT NATIVE PLANTS THERE.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOING A LITTLE ABOVE AND BEYOND.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR ASKING FOR THIS PLAN, BUT.
>> FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, SO RETAINING WALLS THAT WE LOOK AT ADMINISTRATIVELY ARE REALLY MOSTLY ANY REPLACEMENT.
STILL STAFF REALLY HAS LENIENCY ON SMALLER WALLS, AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE CHANGING THE MATERIAL, IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE FROM A TIMBER TO A BOULDER WALL, AND THEY'RE THREE FEET HIGH, AND WE CAN SEE THE TIMBERS ARE FAILING.
STAFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT.
WE WANT TO SEE THAT YOU'RE NOT MINIMUM NECESSARY WOULD BE DEEMED AS, WHAT'S YOUR WORK AREA FOR THIS? IS THAT REASONABLE FOR TO COMPLETE THIS JOB? WHERE WE SEE THIS MINIMUM NECESSARY ELEMENTS COMING INTO PLAY IS BECAUSE WHEN WE SEE PEOPLE OR PROJECTS, I SHOULD SAY, THEY COME AND THEY NEED SOME RETAINING WALLS, AND THEY CLEAR THEIR WHOLE LAKE YARD TO PUT IN A TWO FOOT RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT, AND THEY CLEAR 50 FEET UP AND ALL ACROSS IT.
IT'S TRYING TO GET AT THAT WE ONLY WANT YOU TO WORK IN THE AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE DISTURBED FOR SUPPORT OF THE WALL.
THIS ISN'T AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR CUT A HILLSIDE TO UNDER THE GUISE OF A SLOPE FAILURE.
WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT YOU'RE WORKING IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
YOU IDENTIFY YOUR PROJECT AREA, AND WE HAVE TO AGREE OR YOU HAVE TO SHOW US THAT THIS IS YOUR PROJECT AREA, AND THIS IS REASONABLE.
ANOTHER ELEMENT WE SEE IS SOMETIMES PEOPLE NEED TO REPLACE A WALL, AND IT MIGHT BE JUST A FEW FEET UP OFF THE RIP WRAP OR SOMETHING.
BUT IF IT'S ON A STEEP SLOPE, THERE'S DISCUSSIONS, LOTS OF TIMES ABOUT HOW TO ACCESS THAT LOWER WALL, AND PEOPLE SOMETIMES WANT TO COME FROM THE STREET AND MAKE A WHOLE SWITCHBACK DRIVING PATH TO GET EQUIPMENT DOWN TO THIS LOWER WALL.
[01:55:03]
WHEREAS OTHER MODES OR ELEMENTS MAY BE POSSIBLE TO GET TO THAT LOWER WALL FROM THE WATER OR MAYBE FROM AROUND A DIFFERENT ANGLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.WHAT STAFF WAS LOOKING FOR IS FOR A TOOL TO SAY, THIS IS YOUR PROJECT AREA.
THIS IS THE AREA WE ANTICIPATE BEING DISTURBED.
YOU'VE IDENTIFIED IT IN YOUR PLAN, AND THIS IS WEB WE SEE IS REASONABLE, NOT JUST CLEAR CUTTING A WHOLE HILL.
>> WHY DON'T WE JUST ASK FOR THAT THEN VERSUS.
>> A PROJECT AREA. SHOWING POTENTIAL DISTURBED AREAS TO ACCESS.
VERSUS PUTTING IT ON EVERYBODY WHO HAS I JUST FEEL LIKE YOU'RE SETTING THE BAR SO HIGH FOR SOMEBODY THAT JUST HAS A WALL THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
I DON'T WANT IS CODE THAT'S SO CUMBERSOME AND LIKE HOW MANY PAGES IS THIS? WE NEED CODE THAT'S ENFORCEABLE.
WE DON'T WANT SOMETHING SO CUMBERSOME THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE JUST LIKE WHAT? I'M JUST GOING TO BUILD MY WALL.
NOT EVEN TRY LIKE, LOOK AT THIS, AND THEIR EYES GLAZE OVER, AND THEN WE GET ILLEGAL WALLS. I DON'T KNOW.
>> SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO THAT REGARDLESS.
WHAT THE CODE IS. I THINK WE'VE SEEN.
BUT NATURAL VEGETATION IS NATIVE VEGETATION IS SPECIFIED BECAUSE THAT DOES A BETTER JOB REDUCING RIGHT DEEP ROOTED AS OPPOSED TO SHALLOW ROOTED, SOMETHING NOT FROM THE REGION.
WE'RE ALREADY REQUIRING FOLKS PUT SHRUBBERY OR SOMETHING, VEGETATION OF SOME IN FRONT OF THE RETAINING WALLS.
NOW WE WOULD JUST BE SAYING I CAN'T JUST BE ANYTHING.
IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S DOING A GOOD ENOUGH JOB AND LIMITING THE RUNOFF, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS THE RATIONALE FOR THE RETAINING WALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE COMPLIMENTARY FEATURES. STAFF TO YOU, IS THAT WHY THAT CLARIFICATION ON VEGETATION IS NECESSARY?
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE ARE HIGHLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
YOU'RE WITHIN 75 FEET OF THE LAKE, AND WE WANT TO TRY AND PUT A GOAL OF PUTTING THE NATIVE PLANTAINS, DEEP ROOTED NATIVE PLANTAINS THAT WILL BOTH COMPLEMENT THE RETAINING WALL AND SUPPORT THE LAKE YARD AND PROMOTE SCREENING FROM LAKE VIEWS.
WAS THE INTENT OR THE IDEA, AT LEAST BEHIND PUTTING THAT HIGHER STANDARD OF VEGETATION IN THOSE AREAS.
HOWEVER, AS I NOTED, THAT IS A HIGHER STANDARD OF VEGETATION THAT IS UNIQUE TO THIS REQUIREMENT THAT'S NOT.
>> HOPEFULLY, WHAT IT WILL DO IS ENCOURAGE LIMITED FOR THAT TO PLACE.
WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS WHERE SOMEONE'S GOING TO CLEAR BUCKTHORN IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
IF THEY'RE CHOOSING TO DO THAT, WE ALREADY REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO REPLACE THAT BUCKTHORN AS PART OF THE WORK 075.
IT'S HOPEFULLY ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING EXCESSIVE REMOVALS AND PUTTING STANDARDS IN AS TO WHAT WE WOULD PREFER BUT THE DNR WANTS TO SEE REPLACED IN THOSE SLOPE BARRIERS.
I THINK BUT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THAT THERE'S INEVITABLY WOULD BE FALLING ON STAFF TO HAVE THE DISCRETION ON WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE OR SCREENING AND, REPLACEMENT IF WE'RE DOING SO.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SURVISE ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LANGUAGE ON THAT.
THAT'S I THINK WHAT WRONG IN THAT IS IS LANDSCAPING PLANT SPECIFYING ENOUGH? OR ARE WE JUST SAYING, WE WANT TO INCLUDE THAT STAFF OR CITY ENGINEER APPROVAL OF PLANTINGS TO PROVIDE SCREENING.
I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE THE LANGUAGE AT THIS TIME OF NIGHT, BUT I'M ALSO JUST TRYING TO LAND THE PLANE HERE.
>> WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FROM THE DNR?
>> WE HAD A ELEMENT IN THERE THAT JUST REFERENCED THAT CLEAR CUTTING IS PROHIBITED.
AS A CONDITION AS A NOTE THAT MUST BE MEANT THAT CLEAR CUTTING IS PROHIBITED.
THEN WE HAVE THAT CURRENTLY IN OUR CITY CODE.
IN OUR CITY CODE, THAT SAYS, IF CLEAR CUTTING IS NECESSARY, THAT A REPLACEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED.
WE HAVE AN OUT IN OUR CODE ABOUT, LIKE, IF YOU HAVE TO CLEAR CUT, LIKE BUCK REMOVAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN A REPLACEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED.
THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN OUR CODE.
WE WERE REFERENCING THAT SECTION OF CODE IN THIS ELEMENT.
THE DNR SAID THAT, IN ORDER TO PUT IN RETAINING WALLS,
[02:00:03]
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME REMOVALS OR DISTURBANCES IN THAT AREA.THIS CODE IS REALLY COUNTER TO THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DISTURBANCES IN THIS AREA.
YOU SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC TO DISTURBANCES IN THIS AREA IN SUBJECT AREA IS ALLOWED OR MINIMUM NECESSARY IS ALLOWED WITH THESE CONDITIONS WAS THEIR FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC ELEMENT.
THAT'S WHERE THIS LANGUAGE OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY, AND MAYBE PROJECT AREA IS THE BETTER REFERENCE TO THAT.
THEN TO REPLACE THAT VEGETATION WITH THE DEEP ROOT OF NATIVE PLANTINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA OR THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE RETAINING WALLS.
I WILL NOTE FOR CLARIFY THAT WITHIN THE SHORELAND, THERE'S TWO TIERS.
LIKE I NOTED, THERE'S ADMINISTRATIVE RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENTS, WHICH ARE REALLY MOSTLY IN KIND, BESIDES MAYBE A MATERIAL CHANGE OUT.
ANYTHING THAT'S OVER FOUR FEET, ANYTHING THAT'S NEW OR AN EXPANSION IN FOOTPRINT, THAT WILL ALL STILL COME TO YOU AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO BREAK DOWN THAT THAT DIRECTIVE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE STANDARDS THAT YOU, ELSE WOULD REVIEW IT AGAINST.
>> CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? IF SOD IS DISTURBED OR RUINED DURING THE PROCESS OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT MOVING TO A PROJECT AREA, THE SOD CAN STILL BE REPLACED OR ANYTHING THAT GETS DISTURBED HAS TO.
LIKE, ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU HAVE A PATHWAY OF NATIVE PLANTS COMING THROUGH YOUR LAWN BECAUSE HEAVY EQUIPMENT ROLLED OVER THE SOD AND THE SOD NEEDS TO BE REPLACED?
>> I THINK A STAFF'S INTENTION IS TO ADDRESS THE DISTURBED AREA OR THE AREA FOR THE RETAINING WALL MARK.
BUT WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO BUILD IN OR MAKE A BIG CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO GET DOWN TO THE PROJECT AREA, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THAT DISTURBANCE AS WELL? THAT'S WHERE THIS LANGUAGE STARTS TO GET.
YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC SCENARIO IN YOUR HEAD.
YOU SHOULD WRITING CITY CODE AS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ART. I SEEING SOME OF THIS?
>> I THINK THE CONCERN FOR MYSELF IS, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, AND I AGREE WITH IT.
I THINK IT GETS TRICKY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENFORCEMENT AND APPROVALS AND WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE AND THOSE APPLYING UNDERSTANDING WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE.
IF YOU WERE TO SAY THAT WITHIN THE AREA, OF THE ACTUAL RETAINING WALLS, LIKE BETWEEN THE WALLS IN FRONT OF THE WALL, ALL OF THAT, WHICH I DO THINK WE SAY REQUIRES THESE NATIVE PLANTS AND SCREENING AND ALL THAT.
YOU CAN'T JUST PUT SOD IN BETWEEN THE TWO RETAINING WALLS. THAT WORKS.
I THINK THE CHALLENGE COMES AROUND HOW TO MANAGE THE BUILDING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE TAKE IT TOO FAR, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE A PATH AND IT'S NOT ON THE SLOPE, AND IT IS JUST PART OF THE PATHWAY TO GET MACHINERY WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE THAT SOD SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE REPLACED.
MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING RELATED TO THE GRADING OR THE SLOPE I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, THERE'S TOO MUCH LEFT TO DISCRETION, AND IT DOESN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH CLARITY TO THE APPLICANTS AROUND WHAT PLANS THEY WOULD NEED. I HAVE THAT.
>> ON THAT QUICKLY. I'D JUST SAY THE IDEA OF THE PLANTS IS TO SCREEN THE WALL.
>> THERE'S TWO ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR PLANTINGS.
NUMBER ONE IS SCREENING OF THE WALLS.
YES. THAT'S A STANDARD THAT WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED FOR MANY YEARS, BUT WASN'T NECESSARILY HIGHLIGHTED WELL IN THE TEXT.
YES, SCREENING OF THE WALLS IS ONE BIG ELEMENT.
I THINK, LIKE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT'S LETTER C NUMBER TWO, SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT THAT THAT'S A STANDALONE REQUIREMENT.
THEN LETTER C NUMBER FOUR, A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED, WHERE WE'RE SPECIFICALLY ASKING, WHERE, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DISTURB THIS AREA, WE WANT YOU TO REVEGETATE THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA WITH NATIVE DEEP ROOTED PLANTS.
THAT'S A HIGHER BAR THAN MAYBE WE'VE ASKED IN THE PAST OR ASK FOR EXAMPLES OF,
[02:05:07]
WHICH IS WHY IT'S BEING YOU DON'T DISCUSS TONIGHT AND ASK FOR BE BACK ON.>> I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT NOW, NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S WRITTEN THIS WAY.
I STILL THINK IT'S CONFUSING TO AN APPLICANT.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND WHERE IT'S WIRED AND MAYBE IT'S MORE OF A SET A LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN.
DISTURBANCE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IF THAT'S THE REAL INTENT BEHIND IT, IF PEOPLE ARE CLEAR CUTTING THEIR SLOPE SO THEY CAN PUT A WALL IN DOWN BELOW.
THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY AND THEN REST A DIFFERENT FACE.
>> WE'RE ASKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY THE REMOVALS IN THE LOCATION OF THE NEW REPLACEMENT WALL.
WE WANT YOU TO IDENTIFY WHAT YOU'RE REMOVING IN SOD AND PLAN, WHAT FAT.
YOU'RE THINKING LIKE A GREATER SLOPE AREA.
>> IF THE INTENT I THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO SCREEN THE WALL, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING.
IF THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO KEEP SOMEONE FROM CLEAR CUTTING THERE.
NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN NOW SO THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT.
>> THEY'RE READY HAVE REGULATIONS R [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE WAY I READ THE FOUR THERE.
SECOND FROM THE BOTTOM IS THAT IN THIS, I'LL CALL IT A DISTURBANCE PLAN OF TRYING TO GO AND DO RETAIN, WHILE NOW WHATEVER PATH I USED, IF I CHOSE THE MORE AFFORDABLE OPTION OF DRIVING MY BULLDOZER THROUGH MY YARD, I HAVE TO NOW REPLANT POTENTIALLY SOD WITH NATIVE DEEP ROOTED VEGETATION.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF US ARE THROWN OFF BY A LITTLE BIT VERSUS IF I HAD MORE MONEY AND I COULD TAKE A BULLDOZER ACROSS THE BOAT AND GET TO MY SHORELINE THAT WAY AND REPLACE RETAINING WALL.
WELL, I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT REPLACING THE SOD WITH THIS DEEP ROOTED VEGETATION.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF OUR CONCERN.
>> I THINK, MY RECOMMENDATION THAT MAY HELP ADDRESS THAT AS IF THAT POINT JUST SAID, EITHER IN VEGETATION OR DEEP ROOTED? BECAUSE YOU'RE AT LEAST SAYING, HEY, I'M GOING TO GET WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
IF IT WAS SOD BEFORE, I'M GETTING WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE, OR.
>> I THINK THOUGH THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISTURB HALF OF THE HILL, YOU CAN'T JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT SOD BACK ON THE HILL.
>> ACTUALLY IF YOU DIDN'T OF AN EROSION.
IF IT'S ON A SLOPE, IS IS IF IT'S FLAT, IT MIGHT NEED.
>> BUT THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT IF IT WAS WRITTEN SO THAT IF YOU REMOVED VEGETATION THAT WASN'T SOD, YOU'D HAVE TO PUT VEGETATION BACK.
IF YOUR BULLDOZER RAN OVER SOD, THEN YOU COULD PUT SOD BACK.
>> BUT IF YOU'RE BULLDOZING A HILL OF SOD, THEN THERE PROBABLY IS A NEED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL VEGETATION IN ORDER TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE EROSION ISSUES.
I GET WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
I JUST THINK THAT IT'S NEEDS WORK.
>> MELANIE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. I'M SO SORRY, JOHN.
IN THE PRESENTATION FOLDER, I HAVE A FOLDER CALLED EXAMPLES, AND THEN PHOTOS OF NORTHSHORE DRIVE AT SW, WILL YOU JUST SCROLL THROUGH THOSE? WITH, JOHN, YOU PROVIDE YOUR COMMENT, JUST TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE WE SEE GO AHEAD JOHN.
>> THAT'S OKAY. THE IN KIND PART OF THE THING IS THAT YOUR LOTT YOU'RE REMOVING BUCKTHORN AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO REPLACE WITH BUCKTHORN, THE ITEM NUMBER TWO, I THINK, ON THAT LIST, WAS IDENTIFYING SCREENING FOR RETAINING.
IT'S VERY CLEAR, IF WE WERE TO PUT THAT INTO A BOX AND JUST NOT GO BACK TO IT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF ON THAT SECTION ON ITS OWN.
THEN WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT PROVIDE ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT FOR DISRUPTED SOILS BECAUSE THE SCREENING FOR THE RETAINING WELL IS STILL GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IN NO.
THEN THEREFORE, IT'S NOT CALLING OUT THAT DEEP ROOTED SOILS FOR ANY DISRUPTED SOILS HAS TO BE REPLACED WITH NATIVE DE SPECIES.
>> IT'S DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU HAVE REPAIRED ANY DISRUPTED SOILS.
>> YES. WITH ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF.
THEN, AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO ITEM 2, WHICH WE ARE NOT TOUCHING, THAT STILL CALLS OUT THE RIGHT FOR US TO SAY YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE SCREENING FOR THE RETAINING WALLS WITH THE.
>> I THINK AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE REST OF THAT THAT SAYS IT'S TAKING INVENTORY OF WHAT IS REMOVED JUST SO STAFF AND US CAN LOOK AT WHAT WAS REMOVED AS A TOOL TO SAY,
[02:10:04]
HEY, WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THAT? AND WE KEEP THE LANGUAGE ABOUT REMOVING THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO TRY AND GIVE STAFF SOME LEVERAGE OVER CLEAR CUTTING THAT SOLVES ALL THOSE PROBLEMS.>> DO YOU SEE HOW I'M SAYING THAT THERE'S A REDUNDANCY THERE? BECAUSE DEEP ROOT IS MENTIONED.
>> YEAH, I THINK YOUR POINT, YOU REMOVE THE LAST PART, THE REDUNDANCY, BUT YOU KEEP THE REST.
>> BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT IT IS IN THE RETAINING WALL.
>> TO BE PICKY THOUGH, LANDSCAPING OF THE RETAINING WALL IS STRICTLY VISUAL.
THE RETAINING WALL ITSELF IS HELPING THE RUNOFF IN THE EROSION.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR GUYS' POINT THAT THE PLANT IS POTENTIALLY DEEPER TO PLANT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL RUNOFF SUPPORT, BUT THE RETAINING WALL IS WHAT'S DOING THAT.
THE LANDSCAPING IS VISUAL AESTHETIC.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO USE THE WORD DEEP-ROOTED FOR THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE LIMITING THE APPLICANT OR WHOEVER'S DOING THAT WITH RESTRICTED NUMBER OF PLANTED OPT.
>> PART OF THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO CONCEAL THE WALL.
>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY FUNCTIONAL, AND IT'S A PRETTY COMMON THING THAT YOU SEE AROUND TO PREVENT EROSION THROUGH PLANTINGS, AS WELL AS THE STRUCTURAL WALLS.
>> CERTAINLY NOT DEBATING THAT, BUT I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA, IF WE TAKE A STEP BACK AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE SCREENING.
>> NOT ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, EROSION SUPPORT.
>> SEPARATE ISSUES, BUT BOTH ARE VALID, AND LIMITED TO THE RETAINING WALLS.
>> DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATION WON'T HELP THE EROSION, BUT THE SWAP FUNCTION OF THE RETAINING WALL IS TO HELP WITH EROSION.
THE PLANTINGS THAT WE'RE REQUIRING OUR SCREENING.
WE SHOULDN'T LIMIT THEM TO DEEP-ROOTED PLANT.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY'S STANDARD.
>> BUT ON THIS PICTURE, SCREENING THE WALLS IS ONE THING.
WHAT ARE WE PUTTING BACK ON THE DISTURBED SLOPE AREA? UP HERE.
>> I LIKE COMMISSIONER RUSTLER'S POINT ABOUT DISTURBED EROSION GROUND COVER, IT'S ADDRESSED.
IF YOU LEFT IT A LITTLE MORE VAGUE, WE'RE STILL GOING TO GET TO SEE THE APPLICATIONS.
I LIKED WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT COMMISSIONER RUSTLER.
BASICALLY, IF THERE'S A DISTURBANCE, THERE'S A PLAN TO REPAIR, MAKE IT AS GOOD OR BETTER.
THEN WE STILL GET TO SEE IT AND MAKE A DECISION ON IT.
>> BUT WE MIGHT NOT SEE IT, AS IT MIGHT GO ADMINISTRATIVELY, THEN IT'S UP TO.
THAT'S WHY I DO LIKE THE IN KIND PIECE FOR THE DISTURBED AREAS.
CLEARLY, IF THAT WAS TREES BEFORE, IT SHOULD BE TREES AGAIN.
DISTURBED AREAS TO BUILD THE WALL.
>> BUT WOULDN'T THAT COUNT AS DEEP-ROOTED IF YOU'RE REPLACING IT WITH TREES?
>> COMMISSIONER BRANDBER HAS BROUGHT UP A SEPARATE ITEM, AND THAT'S JUST THE SCREENING.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.
I THINK THAT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE, WE'RE SAYING THE WALLS MUST BE SCREENED BY DEEP-ROOTED NATIVE VEGETATION SO NOT TO HAVE THE VISIBLE FROM THE WATER BODY IN YEAR ROUND CONDITIONS.
THAT'S BASICALLY, YOU HAVE TO PUT EVERGREENS THERE.
YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING ELSE THERE BECAUSE IT HAS TO SCREEN THE WALL IN YEAR ROUND CONDITION, IT HAS TO BE DEEP-ROOTED.
>> THERE MIGHT BE, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT CONSIDERED DEEP-ROOTED BECAUSE THE GRASSES.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK IT COULD DEPEND ON THAT, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OPTIONS, BUT WE'RE REALLY LIMITING THE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE FOR SCREENING.
IF SOMEONE PUT DEEP-ROOTED TREES IN FRONT OF A RETAINING WALL, IT COULD ACTUALLY DAMAGE THE WALL.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WALL IS THE ENGINEERED SOLUTION FOR THE SLOPE FAILURE.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? IS OUR DIFFICULTY ABOUT THE TERMINOLOGY OF DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATION, AND IF SO, DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT EXAMPLES THAT WOULD BE? WELL, TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TERMINOLOGY?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE LIMITING THE SCREENING VEGETATION, SO SPECIFIC.
I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ADEQUATELY SCREENED WITH A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT CAN BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
BUT TO REQUIRE DEEP ROOTED SCREENING YEAR ROUND FROM THE LAKE, YOU'RE REALLY LIMITING.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME GRASSES THAT TURNING AROUND, BUT THERE'S NOT A LOT.
WHAT MY MIND GOES TO SOME EVERGREEN.
>> WHERE MY MIND GOES WITH THAT AS YOU SAID, THIS MIGHT NOT COME BACK TO US.
THIS MIGHT BE HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
IF ADMINISTRATIVELY, THE PERSPECTIVE IS DEEP-ROOTED, PLANTS IS THE SUGGESTION IS HOW YOU WOULD SCREEN THAT.
AT LEAST IT'S GIVING DIRECTION TO AN APPLICANT OF WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING TO SEE.
[02:15:01]
THEY'RE NEEDING. IF IT'S NOT, THEN I SUPPOSE THAT.>> YEAR ROUND, DEEP-ROOTED NATIVE VEGETATION IS ALL YOU CAN PUT THERE.
IT WILL BE PRETTY LIMITING TO AN APPLICANT WHAT THEY CAN SCREEN THE WALL WITH.
>> BUT IT'S NOT JUST EVERGREENS.
IT CAN BE PARA GRASS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I THINK IF WE PROVIDE YEAR ROUND SCREENING AND IF IT'S DEEP ROOTED AND IF IT'S NATIVE.
>> I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE DEEP-ROOTED ON IT, BUT I ALSO DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S A GOTCHA, EITHER.
I KNOW WHERE YOUR HEAD'S AT, AND I THINK MAYBE IF NOTHING ELSE, WE JUST NEED TO GET SOME BETTER EXAMPLE.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTIONS TO STAFF, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING BY THE DEEP-ROOTED? WHAT'S SOMETHING THAT ISN'T DEEP-ROOTED THAT SOMEONE WOULD SCREEN A WALL WITH?
>> PLANTER CURTIS, YOU HAD THE PICTURE UP BEFORE SAYING ON THE SLOPE THAT WAS I WANT TO SAY UNSTABILIZED, BUT THAT WAS DISTURBED ABOVE THE RETAIN WALL.
I'M IN AGREEMENT THERE WHERE TO ME THAT'S NOT WHERE IT'S BEING SCREENED.
THAT'S WHERE DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATION PLACE HELPING EROSION.
>> THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN REPLACE.
>> REPLACED. AGAIN, I GUESS I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE A POINT EARLIER ABOUT THE SCREENING, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON WE NEED TO BE LIMITING THEM BY SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE DEEP-ROOTED.
I THINK WE'RE WELL INTO THAT TOPIC, BUT MAYBE THAT YOU GUYS CAN EXPAND ON THAT.
>> I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING BACK EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF VEGETATION.
THERE'S DEEP-ROOTED, LIKE WE'VE NOTED, DIFFERENT GRASSES, NATIVE GRASSES.
THERE'S BUSH OR SMALL LOW FESCUE TYPE STUFF.
THERE'S ALSO LILY OR LARGER TYPE THINGS.
THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT SIZES OF CATEGORIES, SHRUBS, LOW TREES, HIGH TREES, GRASSES THAT ALL WONDER A NATIVE VEGETATION SCREENING, OFFER A MORE DEEP-ROOTED SYSTEM COMPARED TO THINGS LIKE SOD AND SOME OTHER TYPES OF ORNAMENTAL TYPE PLANTINGS, WHERE WE SEE PEOPLE WANTING TO COME THROUGH AND PUT THESE MAYBE NICE ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS, BUT THEY AREN'T PROVIDING THE SOIL STRUCTURE.
AS AN EXAMPLE, WHEN PEOPLE COME THROUGH AND WANT TO DO SEER CUTTING, THEY'RE DOING BUCKS WORN REMOVAL.
FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, THE REPLACEMENT PLAN IS YOU'RE REMOVING SHRUBS.
WE EXPECT YOU TO REPLACE IT WITH A SHRUB, A SIMILAR TYPE VEGETATIVE REPLACEMENT.
IF YOU'RE IN A SLOPED AREA THAT'S VERY SHADY, THERE'S A LOT OF EXAMPLES OUT THERE ABOUT BEST GROWN NATIVE PLANTINGS FOR SHADED AREAS OR WATER AREAS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHAT STAFF WOULD RELY ON.
THERE'S STUFF THAT'S OUT OF THE DNR.
THERE'S STUFF OUT OF BOWSER, THERE'S STUFF OUT OF EVEN HENMAN COUNTY, MINNEHAHA CREEK THAT WE WOULD REFERENCE AS EXAMPLES BACK AND FORTH.
BUT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT AS EDUCATION INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
WE CAN OFFER THAT ON OUR WEBSITE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF SCREENING OR REPLACEMENT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS IF YOU WANT GRASSES, WE WANT YOU TO HAVE NATIVE GRASSES OR GRASSES THAT ARE GOING TO HELP SUPPORT AND GRAB THAT SOIL.
IF YOU NEED TO DO SCREENING OF WALLS, IF IT'S A THREE-FOOT WALL, WE EXPECT TO SEE SOME SORT OF LOWER TALLGRASS, LOW BUSH TO COVER THAT.
IF YOU HAVE A EIGHT FOOT WALL, WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT A MORE SUBSTANTIAL TYPE PLANTING TO COVER THAT. THOSE ARE THE TYPES.
IT'S ALL RELATIVE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UNDER THE GUISE OF, WE'RE LOOKING FOR NATIVE DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATION THAT'S MORE THAN JUST MAYBE ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS AND THE SOD.
>> YOU ALSO EXPLAINED THE RATIONAL LINE YEAR ROUND BECAUSE DEEP-ROOTED IS GOING TO ABSORB WATER.
WHAT SORT OF RATIONAL LINE YEAR ROUND IS IT?
>> THAT CAME THE IDEA OF YEAR ROUND SCREENING FROM THE LAKE.
PEOPLE ENJOY THE LAKE YEAR ROUND FOR DIFFERENT ELEMENTS.
IT'S BEEN EXPECTED OUT OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANTS TO SCREEN THE WALLS FROM VIEWS OF THE LAKE YEAR ROUND.
LIKE I SAID, THERE'S BUSHES THAT DO THAT.
THERE'S LARGER SHRUBS THAT DO THAT.
THERE'S GRASSES THAT OFFER YEAR ROUND SCREENING.
BUT THE IDEA IS THE WALLS ARE SCREENED YEAR ROUND FROM THE LAKE VIEW.
NO MATTER THE SEASON, THOSE WALLS ARE COVERED, AND THAT IMPROVEMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE ISN'T OBSCURING THE NATURAL SCENIC ELEMENT OF THE SHORELINE.
>> IT'S A DNR STANDARD AS WELL.
>> WELL, I WILL ORGANIZE MY OPINION, JUST TO SIMPLY SAY THAT I'M OKAY WITH DEEP-ROOTED AS IT IS RIGHT NOW UNLESS WE FIND THAT THERE'S
[02:20:02]
SOME LIMITATIONS THAT WE'RE FINDING THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO MAYBE MAKE AN AMENDMENT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.IF WE IDENTIFY AS DEEP-ROOTED AND WE FIND THAT SOMEBODY HAS AN ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD LOVE FOR STAFF TO BRING THAT UP.
I THINK THIS IS A BLIND SPOT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLE AND NOW WE'RE NOT.
I ALSO THINK THAT DEEP ROOTED VEGETATION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN NOTED THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS GOING TO RETAIN THE SOIL AND EROSION AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT DEEP-ROOTED IS GOING TO ALLOW IT TO BE MORE HARDY AND SUSTAINABLE IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS SOME MARTIAL FAILURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I CAN SEE THAT MAYBE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES ARE USING THAT TERMINOLOGY.
IF EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH AT LEAST STARTING WITH THIS, MEAN WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
WE CAN PULL IT BACK, FINDING THAT WE MISSED SOMETHING.
BUT I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE START IN MY OPINION, IF YOU HAVE LEGS ON THAT, MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.
>> I THINK THAT'S MORE THAN FAIR.
I THINK STAFF IS GOING TO KNOW RIGHT AWAY IF IT CAUSES ISSUES WITH APPLICATIONS COMING DOWN THE LINE, AND YOU'LL LET US KNOW IF WE NEED TO REVISE IT.
>> I THINK EROSION IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT.
ANY WALL WILL HELP PLAN WILL SPEAK TO HOW WILL HELP.
BUT TO CLEAR CUT EVERYTHING ELSE ON THAT SLOPE WITH AN ESTABLISHED ERUPTION.
THAT'S A REALLY UNDERSTANDABLE THINGS.
>> JUST TO SUMMARIZE, I WOULD TAKE ITEM NUMBER 4, AND I PROBABLY WOULDN'T RESTATE DEEP-ROOTED PLANTS.
I WOULD JUST SAY REPAIR OR REPLACE DISRUPTED SOILS.
>> THE LAST SENTENCE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT?
>> I WOULD REWRITE NUMBER 4 TO TALK ABOUT RATHER THAN A LANDSCAPING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY VEGETATIVE REMOVALS IN THE LOCATION OF THE OR REPLACEMENT WALLS.
BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE ALREADY DISCUSSING REPLACEMENT WALLS AND THE TYPE OF VEGETATION AS ACCEPTABLE IN ITEM NUMBER 2.
I WOULD RATHER JUST SAY AN ACCEPTABLE REPLANTING OF DISRUPTED SOILS FOR ANY DISRUPTED SOILS IN PART OF A REPAIR OR INSTALLMENT OF A RETAINING WALL AND LEAVE IT, AND IF YOU WANTED TO ADD IN THEIR ACCEPTABLE PLAN OR ACCEPTABLE REPLANTING PLAN THAT HE DISRUPTED.
MAYBE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS INTIMIDATING THAN A LANDSCAPING PLAN.
>> THE ONE THING I WANT TO POINT TO THAT, I THINK PART OF THAT, THOUGH, WAS TO GIVE STAFF AND US A VIEW THAT SAID MINIMUM DISRUPTED.
IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU'RE GIVING SOMEBODY FREE REIGN TO GO AS BIG AS THEY WANT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SAY, HEY, YOU HAD TO GIVE ME A PLAN THAT SHOWS WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY DISRUPTING.
>> THAT WOULDN'T ELIMINATE THEM. I'M MORE SO TRYING TO GET AFTER WHAT WE'RE.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP SOMETHING IN THERE THAT GIVES.
>> IT MIGHT SEEM LIKE SEMANTICS, BUT I AGREE SAYING A PLAN FOR MITIGATING OR A PLAN FOR [OVERLAPPING] FEELS DIFFERENT THAN A LANDSCAPING PLAN BECAUSE THAT FEELS LIKE SOMETHING MORE FORMAL THAT HAS TO BE PROCURED.
A PLAN FOR VERSUS A LANDSCAPING PLAN.
IT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ON THAT.
>> WE'RE JUST TELLING THEM WHAT WE WANT THEM TO SHOW US ON THE PLAN.
WOULD WE ASK FOR PLANS FOR AN ENGINEER SAVINGS PROFESSIONAL? THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS YOU HIRE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
YOU CAN PUT THE PLAN TOGETHER.
WE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE YOU'RE REMOVING A LANDSCAPE PLAN REPLACEMENT PLAN? IT IS SEMANTICS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SCARY.
>> NO, BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A PATIO YOURSELF IN YOUR BACKYARD, YOU'D HAVE TO GIVE YOU A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
THAT'S IN THAT. IF I'M GOING TO PUT A PATIO MYSELF, I GOT TO GIVE YOU A PLAN FOR WHAT IT IS.
>> STAFF, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT OR JUST GENERAL FEEDBACK TO MEN?
>> I'M LOOKING FOR SOME ACTION TONIGHT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE LANGUAGE, AND YOU WANT TO MOVE IT UP TO COUNSEL FOR REVIEW, THAT'S FINE.
IF YOU LIKE MOST OF THE LANGUAGE, WANT TO MAKE A FEW TWEAKS AND MOVE IT UP TO COUNSEL, YOU CAN DO THAT.
OR IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WANT TO KEEP WORKING THROUGH, YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION, YOU WANT EXAMPLES OF THINGS, AND YOU WANT TO TABLE IT, YOU CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
THIS IS A STAFF AND COUNSEL DRIVEN TEXT AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOT AN APPLICANT DRIVEN TEXT AMENDMENT, SO IT'S AT YOUR TIMELINE FOR REVIEW.
[02:25:02]
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD NEED TO SEE THIS AGAIN, AS LONG AS WE CAN HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT GENERALLY WE NEED TO SEE.
I WOULD SAY THAT WHETHER WE CALL IT A LANDSCAPING PLAN, I'M NOT GOING TO LOSE SLEEP OVER IT, BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY IS, IF THEY'RE CALLING OUT THAT THE APPLICANT IS DEMONSTRATING THE ABILITY TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DISRUPTED SOILS TO SOME LEVEL, AND THEN CALLING OUT TO ENSURE REMOVALS ARE LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION.
THEN WE CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, THE REST OF THAT SENTENCE GOES BACK TO NUMBER 2, WHICH COVERS IT, AND AGAIN, I LIKE TO CHANGE DEEP ROOTED TO SOMETHING ELSE.
>> I THINK NUMBER 4 IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SCREENING.
I THINK NUMBER 4 SHOULD TALK ABOUT REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS MUST BE IN KIND RATHER THAN NATIVE DEEP ROOTED BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AREAS THAT ARE BEING DISTURBED AND WE JUST SPOKE DISTURBING A WHOLE SLOPE OF SOD.
NOW YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PUT IN NATIVE PLANTINGS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
>> IT'S SPECIFICALLY CALLING OUT THE WALLS ALREADY ON ITEM NUMBER 2.
>> THAT'S FOR SCREENING THE WALL.
NUMBER 4 IS FOR THE SPOT THAT'S BEING DISTURBED TO CREATE THE WALL.
>> THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES BECAUSE WHERE DO YOU IDENTIFY THAT FROM THE LAWN THAT YOU HAD TO BRING YOUR BOBCAT DOWN TO DISRUPT THAT SOIL?
>> THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THIS PLAN BUT THEN THEY'RE NOT CALLING OUT THE SCREENING IN THAT.
THEY'RE CALLING [NOISE] THE SCREENING IN A DIFFERENT SPOT.
>> ARE WE SUGGESTING THAT WE WANT SCREENING IN OTHER AREAS THAN THE [OVERLAPPING] WALL IS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE I FEEL EVERYBODY IS ONLY WANTING SCREENING FOR WHERE ANY RETAINING WALLS BEING PLACED.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT SCREENING ANYWHERE ELSE.
>> IT'S ALREADY CALLED OUT IN TWO SPOTS.
I THINK IF WE DON'T WANT GRASS TO HAVE TO BE REPLACED WITH NATIVE PLANTINGS, WE NEED TO KEEP IT IN TWO SEPARATE SPOTS, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE SCREENING OF THE WALLS, WE WANT DEEP ROOTED NATIVE VEGETATION TO SCREEN THE WALLS.
THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWING THE DISTURBED AREAS AND STUFF NEEDS TO BE THE REPLACEMENT PIECES NEED TO BE IN KIND.
>> I WOULD ADD CLARIFYING THAT BECAUSE IN KIND IT DOESN'T REALLY SOLVE IT IN EVERY SITUATION.
WHAT YOU REMOVE WHEN YOU CLEAR CUT OR YOU HAVE THESE ISSUES, WE WANT A SIMILAR AESTHETIC FROM LAKE, WHAT YOU REMOVE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR IN KIND, BUT I THINK WE NEED [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE HAD JUST SOUGHT BEFORE IF SOMEONE TAKES OUT BUCK FUN THORN ESSENTIALLY A BUSH OR A SHRUB, THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING A SHRUB AND IT'S REPLACE.
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN BY IN-KIND.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DEFINE IN-KIND LIKE THE CODE AS BEING VERY LITERAL BECAUSE OF OUR BUILDING REPLACEMENT.
>> WE NEED A DIFFERENT TERM THAT MEANS THE SAME TYPE OF PLANTING.
>> YOU GET BEHIND THAT? BECAUSE IN-KIND YOU CAN'T BE EXACT.
WE DON'T PUT IT DON'T WANT TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> PEOPLE ARE REPLANTING COT WOOD TREES EVERYWHERE.
>> I THINK THEY GET INTERPRETATION WHAT IN-KIND MEANS.
>> I THINK I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CHANGES. SUGGESTED?
>> WE'RE NOT THROUGH IT YET. [LAUGHTER] I HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT.
IF WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THIS, WE WILL BE CLEAR.
>> IF WE CAN. I JUST HAD ON THE FENCES.
>> AGAIN, FORGIVE ME IF IT'S SEMANTICS, AND I'M JUST TIRED.
BUT THE ITEM D THAT'S RETAINING WALLS AGAIN.
>> THAT ONE B2. I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE EITHER WAY.
FENCES, B2 FENCES WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE ARE OF LAKESHORE SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
FENCES LOCATED LAKEWOOD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 " IN HEIGHT.
I THINK LAKEWOOD IS WHERE I GOT CONFUSED.
I THINK IF WE WERE JUST TO SAY WITHIN THE LAKESHORE SETBACK?
>> NO. LAKESHORE SETBACK IS 75 FEET, WE DO NOT ALLOW FENCE.
>> I'M SORRY, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, SO IT'S AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BEING CALLED OUT?
>> LOCATE. YES, SO FENCE IS LOCATED LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
>> WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING WAS, I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO READ IF IT WAS READING AS WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.
[02:30:02]
DOES [INAUDIBLE] JUST PUBLIC EDUCATION MAKES ME SEE THAT WORD, SO THAT WAS THE ONLY FEEDBACK I HAD.I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY THINKS THAT I'M CRAZY, WHICH MIGHT BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THIS TOPIC, TOO, BUT I THINK THE YEAH, REMOVING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IN D 60 FURTHER UP, AS WELL.
TRAINING WALLS 42 SHALL NOT BE LOCATED LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, AND THEN IT'S AGAIN IN TWO LAKEWARD OF.
>> LAKEWOOD JUST MEAN ON THE SIDE OF THE LAKE?
>> EXACTLY. WE DON'T KNOW IT'S.
>> IT'S LIKE FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK TOWARDS SHORE IS WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO. YES, THAT IS WHAT WE NEED LAKEWARD.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN. PRETTY SNOW.
PRETTY STANDARD. WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING A? IT'S SAY WITHIN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.
LAKEWOOD, I THINK IS MORE APPROPRIATE HERE.
>> COULD YOU SAY IN THE DIRECTION OF THE LAKE RATHER THAN LAKEWOOD?
>> IT MEANS IT'S A WORD THAT MEANS IN THE DIRECTION OF THE LAKE, SO I THINK WE CAN LEAVE THE WORD LAKEWOOD BECAUSE IT HAS A STANDARD DEFINITION THAT MEANS.
>> AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING I'M RIGHT.
>> NO, IT'S FAIR. I LOOK AT IT, WHEN WE USE OUR LANGUAGE, OUR LANGUAGE IS ALWAYS IS THIS WITHIN THE SETBACK, IS IT WITHIN THE SET?
>> PEOPLE USE THAT DIFFERENTLY.
ARE YOU IN THE SETBACK? ARE YOU OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK? WHEN WE TALK TO RESIDENTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE DOING THE SETBACK WISE, THERE'S NO WHEN THEY SAY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE, THEY DON'T KNOW.
BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, LIKE THE PARTON WOOD PROJECT, THE POOL IS INSIDE IS OUTSIDE OF THE 75.
THE RETAINING WALLS ARE INSIDE THE 75.
LIKE, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE IMPROVEMENT THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IN THE DIRECTION YOU'RE COMING.
LAKEWOOD IS HOW STAFF HAS THROUGHOUT THE CODE, REFERENCED THAT FROM THIS SETBACK IN THE DIRECTION OF THE LAKE IS THE ZONE WE'RE TRYING TO REGULATE.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOES CAUSE FOR PAUSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE NORMAL WAY YOU DESCRIBE SOMETHING AS A RESIDENT OR A PROJECT MANAGER.
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY THING I HAD ON THAT THAT I'M DONE.
>> WHERE WE WERE BEFORE WITH THE LANDSCAPING. YOU JUST GO THERE? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED FOUR NEED TO BE INDENTED.
THERE'S FOURS DUPLICATED AS WELL, I JUST TO MAKE SURE WE CORRECT IT.
YES. MAYBE THAT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
>> B4 AND C4 ARE THE SAME LANGUAGE BECAUSE ONE'S ADDRESSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE'S ADDRESSING THE CP STANDARD.
BUT THAT B4 IS MEANT TO BE INDENTED ONE, SO IT FOLLOWS 123, SO THAT'S A TYPO ON MY SIDE. I'LL CLARIFY THAT.
>> LET'S THINK. DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME A SIDE PART THAT SAYS ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO DEEP ROOTED, JUST TO GIVE IT OUT? I DON'T KNOW. NO?
>> ARE YOU OVERTHINKING THIS? I DON'T KNOW.
MR. CABALS HAS GOTTEN ME DOUBTING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MEAT ON THE BONE THAT WE'RE LEAVING OUT HERE.
>> NO, THAT'S FOR APPLICATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH THE COUNCIL.
THEY'VE USED NATIVE PLANTS AS GUIDANCE.
THEY'VE ACTUALLY REMOVED PLANTS FROM A LANDSCAPE PLANT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT DEEP ROOTED.
>> PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH NATIVE PLAN PLANTINGS.
I THINK I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO RESTRICTIVE ON PEOPLE, AND DEEP ROOTED, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SCREEN A WALL WITH PANSIESERS.
I MEAN, SO I THINK A LIST OF DEEP ROOTED PLANTS ARE PROBABLY PRETTY LONG.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE LIKE YEAH.
THAT'S WHAT I'M COMING IN TO SO AN ARBORIST.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LIST OF DEEP ROOTED AND NON DEEP ROOTED ARE, BUT TO ME, WE'RE JUST LIMITING THEM, AND FOR THAT REASON, I WAS OPPOSED TO IT EARLIER.
THAT'S WHERE I CAME FROM, BUT IF EVERYONE'S NOT IN AGREEMENT, I'M I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
I LOOKED AT HALF OF RECOMMENDING IT, THEY CAME FROM A PLACE, AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
MAYBE THEY CAN I CONSIDER ADDING OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.
YES. IF LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM.
IF THE INTENT OF FOUR, WHETHER WE'RE USING NATIVE, DEEP ROOTED, WHATEVER WE'RE USING.
IF THE INTENT IS TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM ESSENTIALLY CLEAR CUTTING A PATH TO GET TO THAT SPACE.
>> OR THE LAKESHORE, I DON'T THINK THE WORDING IS CORRECT.
I STRUGGLE WITH THE WORDING BECAUSE IF YOU READ IT, LITERALLY, IT'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE WALL IS.
[02:35:03]
IT'S TALKING ABOUT A LAND A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY NATIVE REMOVALS IN THE LOCATION OF THE NEW WALL OR REPLACEMENT WALL.IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT STUFF OUTSIDE OF THAT, AND THAT'S THE INTENT.
WE NEEDED TO BE A SITE PLAN SHOWING THAT.
>> I THINK THAT THE MOTION THAT WAS BROUGHT INCLUDES ADAPTATIONS TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT MITIGATE THOSE ISSUES AND THEN THAT THE COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER.
>> YES, HOW WAS THAT? I DIDN'T REALIZE WE WERE STILL IN CONVERSATION, SO I HAD MADE A FORMAL MOTION TO APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN WITH THE CHANGES.
I DO HAVE A FORMAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELSON AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PERKEL.
COULD YOU RESTATE THAT MOTION, PLEASE?
>> APPROVAL OF THE CODE AS WRITTEN WITH CHANGES AS ADVISED INNING COMMISSION TO NUMBER 4 IN BOTH SECTIONS.
>> AS SUMMARIZED BY COMMISSIONER WELSON.
>> CAN I REITERATE THE LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE TRACKED FROM YOUR PROPOSED CHANGES PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE NUMBER 4, INSTEAD OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE NOW, WHAT I GOT WAS A PLANTING PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE DISTURBED SOILS WITH SAME OR SIMILAR PLANTINGS TO ENSURE THE AREA IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY AREA FOR THE RETAINING WATER PROJECT.
ROUGH LANGUAGE, BUT THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT I WAS HEARING YOU GUYS DISCUSS VERSUS THE LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE UP THERE.
>> THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD CALL OUT AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WOULD FIT IN IS REPAIR, REPLACE DISRUPTED SOILS THE BIGGEST OF THAT.
>> THEN I HAVE THE CHANGE FROM SAME OR SIMILAR PLANT TO BE REPLACED WITH SAME OR SIMILAR PLANTAINS VERSUS THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE THERE IS THE DEEP ROOTED NATIVE VEGETATION PLANTAINS, AND YOU GUYS FEEL THAT WHAT I GOT WAS TO LOOSEN THAT WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF THAT STANDARD IN THE REPLACEMENT PLAN?
>> SOMEONE'S TAKING DOWN NATIVE MAPLE TREES TO REPLACE THEM WITH A MAPLE TREES.
YOU'RE TAKING DOWN GRASS TO GET THERE THEY REPLACE IT WITH GRASS.
>> I WILL JUST SAY SAME OR SIMILAR REPLACEMENT WOULDN'T ALLOW PLANNING COMMISSION OR STAFF TO SAY, YOU'RE REPLACING YOU HAVE AN AREA THAT'S VEGETATED, AND WE WANT YOU TO PUT NATIVE PLANTINGS IN THERE, THAT LANGUAGE WOULDN'T ALLOW STAFF TO REQUIRE THAT ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.
WHEN THEY COME IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, YOU GUYS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADD THOSE TYPES OF CONDITIONS.
BUT FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY, WHICH IS FINE.
I JUST TO NOTE WHEN YOU BROUGHT IN THE LANGUAGE, THAT'S WHAT.
IF THE LANGUAGE WAS SAME OR SIMILAR NATIVE PLANTS, WOULD THAT THEN BUT IF THE CURRENT PLANTS AREN'T NEEDED.
IF THEY HAVE SOD NOW, AND THEY HAVE AN EROSION CONTROL PROBLEM, OR IF THEY HAVE A FAILING RETAINING WALL WITH A BUNCH OF SOD AROUND IT, THAT WOULDN'T GIVE STAFF THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE THAT DISTURBED AREA.
IT WOULD JUST SAY YOU CAN HAVE SOD BACK.
>> WE STILL HAVE THE VEGETATION SECTION?
>> THIS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PATH.. WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO THE VEGETATION ALTERATION SECTION IN THE SHORELAND THAT EXISTS TODAY.
THIS THIS BRINGS IT TO A DISTURBED AREA FOR THE PROJECT AREA.
THIS DOESN'T ALLOW FOR CLEAR CUTTING UP A HILLSIDE.
THIS REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY THE PROJECT AREA AND THEIR VEGETATION IN THAT REMOVAL IN THAT SUBJECT AREA, THE DISTURBED AREA SPACE.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED HAS GUIDELINES OF WHAT WE WANT THOSE PLANTINGS REPLACED WITH.
THE LANGUAGE DISCUSSED BY COMMISSION IS SAME OR SIMILAR, WHICH WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR STAFF TO PUT THAT HIGHER THRESHOLD ON THERE, WHICH IS FINE IF THE GOAL OF THE COMMISSION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EASIER FOR THAT VEGETATION REPLACEMENT.
>> I THINK PART OF IT I LOOK AT IT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT TO SOME EXTENT, AND I WOULD LOOK TO YOU TO TELL US IF THIS NEW LANGUAGE DOESN'T SATISFY WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WE COULD READDRESS IT.
I'M IN FAVOR OF LESS RESTRICTIVE, I GUESS, THAT'S WHERE I WAS COMING FROM EARLIER, THAT'S MY STANCE.
THE REASON YOU WOULD BE HELPFUL TO POTENTIALLY HAVE THAT DISCRETION ARE FOR CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED AN EROSION, AND THEY HAVE A SLOPE WITH SOD, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT DOING A GOOD JOB, EMBEDDING EROSION.
YOU'RE SAYING WITHOUT THE TOOLS, THE CITY REALLY CAN'T PUSH BACK ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN PUT IN FRONT OF THE RETAINING WALL.
[02:40:05]
>> THE ESSENCE OF PUTTING IN THE RETAINING ANY MORE.
>> THE CONDITION IN THERE SAYS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE THE SCREENING IN FRONT OF THE WALLS NEEDS TO BE DEEP ROOTED VEGETATION.
BUT THE PLANTING PLAN FOR THE DISTURBED AREA, YOU'RE IDENTIFYING THE MINIMUM NECESSARY DISTURBED AREA FOR YOUR PROJECT, WHICH IS GOOD.
WE WANT TO KEEP YOU IN THAT BUBBLE.
WE DON'T WANT YOU EXPANDING BEYOND AND WORKING IN AREAS THAT ARE UNNECESSARY JUST FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES.
WE WANT TO KEEP YOU TIGHT IN A PROJECT AREA, DISTURBED AREA.
BUT THEN WE SAY IT'S SAME OR SIMILAR REPLACEMENT, SO IF YOU HAVE A FAILING TWO FOOT WALL, YOU WANT TO REPLACE THAT TWO FOOT WALL, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE, AND YOU HAVE SAWED ALL AROUND IT, YOU'VE GIVEN US YOUR DISTURBED AREA, BUT YOU'RE REPLACING IT A SAD.
IT WOULD SAY STAFF WOULD BE OKAY, AND THAT IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION AND THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION.
NOTING THAT THAT'S THE TRADE OFF.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT IF WE CAN FURTHER CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE, WHERE IT SAYS SAME OR SIMILAR, WHICH MEETS THE MINIMUM EROSION NEEDS OF THE SPACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL SO THAT YOU COULD POINT TO IT AND SAY, LISTEN, YOU HAVE CURRENT EROSION NEEDS.
SAD DOES NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
IN ORDER TO MEET THE MINIMUM EROSION NEEDS OF THIS AREA, YOU'RE GOING TO BE BETTER OFF PLANTING A DEEPER ROOTED NATIVE PLANTS.
>> I GUESS I'M GETTING AT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POLICY AND THE INTENT OF WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS OUT OF THIS LANGUAGE.
RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE GAPS IN THESE REGULATIONS THAT DON'T ALLOW US TO ENFORCE IT TO THE STANDARD THAT WE WANT.
WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR IN THESE DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE HAVING ISSUES, WHETHER IT'S AN OLD WALL THAT'S DETERIORATING OR AN ACTIVE EROSION PROBLEM THAT'S CAUSING IT TO FAIL.
LIKE, WHATEVER IS HAPPENING, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE IS A REPLACEMENT IN THESE AREAS?
>> I THINK THE ISSUE FOR ME IS THE DISTURBED AREAS IS BEYOND THE AREA THAT'S HAVING THE EROSION PROBLEM.
BECAUSE YOU IN BUILDING AND MOVING EQUIPMENT IN MAY DISTURB AREAS THAT HAS NO EROSION PROBLEM.
WHERE THERE'S EROSION ISSUES, WE SHOULD REQUIRE PLANTS THAT CAN HELP ASSIST WITH THAT TO PREVENT FUTURE EROSION ISSUES.
BUT AT THE TOP COMING OFF THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE BULLDOZER AND THEIR SOD, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MAKE A RIVER OF PLANTS THROUGH THE LAWN.
IT'S SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO EXTREMES.
>> THAT'S WHERE I THINK I LIKED THE REPAIR SLASH REPLACED BECAUSE REPAIR IS VERY CLEARLY SAYING THIS IS S'S BEEN DISRUPTED.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO REPAIR THE SOD.
I THINK I'M HEARING STAFF SAYING THAT THEY LIKE TO HAVE DEEP ROOTED CALLED OUT, BUT THAT STILL GIVES THEM THE DISCRETION ADMINISTRATIVELY TO SAY, THIS IS FLAT LAND.
YOU WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT DEEP ROOTED.
THEY'RE THEN GIVING THE DISCRETION TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THAT.
>> BUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT IN THERE AS DEEP ROOTED, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE IT WHEN THEY DO FEEL THIS LAND.
IF I'M HEARING IT THAT WAY, THEN I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF LEAVING IT IN THERE.
AGAIN, WE RUN INTO HEAD WINS ON IT, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT I THINK WHERE WE GOT MISSED WAS WE'RE NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE THAT WAY OF STAFF HAS DISCRETION TO SAY IT.
>> THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. YES. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL SUPPORT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION.
I THINK IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO IT THAT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE DEEP ROOTED IN THAT LANGUAGE THOUGH, CURRENTLY, CORRECT?
>> WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE PATH OF DISTURBANCE.
>> IT'S DEEP ROOTED IS REQUIRED.
THE PATH OF DISTURBANCE, DEEP ROOTED IS REQUIRED.
>> WE CHANGED THAT IN REPAIR OR REPLACE?
>> CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSED LAURA WAS SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT YOUR NOTES FROM WHAT YOU WANT CHANGED IN SECTION 4.
>> THE NOTES THAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION ARE A PLANTING PLAN FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF PLANTINGS, OF THE DISTURBED AREAS TO ENSURE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE RETAINING WELL PROJECT WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR PLANTING IS WHERE I LEFT OFF WITH MY NOTES.
[02:45:02]
THAT'S WHERE I POSED THE QUESTION TO YOU ON POLICY WISE, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT IN THESE AREAS? BECAUSE IF IT'S SAME OR SIMILAR IS THE LANGUAGE WE'RE USING, THEN THAT JUST ALLOWS THEM TO REPLACE IT WITH SOD, WHICH IS FINE.>> I THINK I THINK WE'VE HAD CONVERSATION SINCE THEN, AND IT'S ADDED THE CONCEPT OF WHERE ADDRESS EROSION ISSUE.
NATIVE DEEP ROOTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING ISSUES OF EROSION OR SOMETHING THAT GUESS IT HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER.
>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AREAS THAT HAVE EROSION THAT ARE BEING FIXED.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PATH OF DISTURBANCE TO GO AND REPLACE THE WALL.
>> NO, BUT THERE'S EROSION ABOVE THE RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS ADDING TO THE FAILURE OF THE RETAINING WALL.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS GIVE STAFF TOOLS SO THAT WHEN THEY LOOK AT A PLAN AND THEY SEE AN ERODED RETAINING WALL, A RETAINING WALL THAT NEEDS REPLACEMENT, AND THEY'RE SOD ABOVE IT, THEY NEED TOOLS, WHAT I'M HEARING, TO BE ABLE TO SAY, REPLACING IT WITH SOD IS GOING TO FAIL AGAIN, AND WE'RE NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
>> I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T REGULATE.
PEOPLE CAN PUT SOD RIGHT UP TO IT, BESIDES THE ELEMENT THAT WE WANT FOR SCREENING, WHICH IS ALWAYS A CONDITIONAL USE.
THE QUESTION I'M FACING BACK IS, WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU AND FROM COUNSEL THAT WE WANT MORE NATIVE PLANTINGS TO SUPPORT BOTH HILLSIDES, SLOPES, PROTECT EROSION, ENCOURAGE THESE NATURAL PLANTINGS AND PROMOTE THESE SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS IN THIS AREA.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ELEMENTS, AND WE'VE ALSO HEARD IT FROM COUNCIL.
THE QUESTION OF MAYBE THE WORD DEEP ROOTED IS TOO SPECIFIC, AND WE JUST WANT NATIVE PLANTINGS OR SOMETHING TO SOFTEN THE REQUIREMENT.
BUT CURRENTLY, IF THEY COME THROUGH WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARD, YOU CAN STILL ASK FOR THE HIGHER STANDARD.
MOST OF THE TIME YOU GUYS WILL SEE THOSE AD USE APPLICATIONS FOR ENLARGING THE WALL, WALLS OVER FOUR FEET, BRAND NEW WALLS IN THE LAKE SHORE, THOSE ALL COME TO YOU.
BUT WHEN IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT, STAFF HAS TO ONLY HAS THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS.
IF THE LANGUAGE JUST SAYS THE SAME OR SIMILAR REPLACEMENT, THAT ALLOWS SOD TO BE REPLACED.
IF PLANNING COMMISSION'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, IF THAT'S FINE WITH THE INTENDED GOAL BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY REQUIRING SCREENING OF THE WALLS.
JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR GOAL IS FOR THESE DISTURBED AREAS BEYOND JUST THE SCREENING OF THE WALLS, BOTH ABOVE THE WALL, BELOW THE WALL, HOW YOU GET TO THE WALL.
>> I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF US THAT WE SUPPORT DEEP ROOTED NATIVE PLANTS AND YOUR ABILITY TO REQUIRE THOSE WHERE EROSION CONTROLS ARE NEEDED, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO ALSO MITIGATE THE RISK OF REQUIRING A RIVER OF PLANTS THROUGH THE SOD, WHERE AT THE TOP OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE BULLDOZER CAME IN.
I THINK WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS.
I THINK THE WAY TO END IT IS PLACEMENT OF PLANTS WAS SAME OR SIMILAR, INCLUDING DEEP ROOTED PLANTS TO PROTECT AGAINST EROSION. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> IT GIVES YOU THE TOOL, BUT DOESN'T REQUIRE.
IT'S AS IF SOMEBODY COMES TO YOU WITH A SIDE, YOU CAN SAY YOU [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK WE TAKE IT OUT OF BULLET 4 HERE BECAUSE BULLET 4 POINT DEALS MORE WITH THE DISTURBANCE OF THE PROJECT FOR PUTTING IN THE RETAINING WALLS.
HOW TO REPLACE THAT AFFECTED LAND, YOU THINK THIS IS SAYING THERE MIGHT BE AREAS OUTSIDE OF IN FRONT OF THE RETAINING WALL THAT STAFF MIGHT NEED TO WEIGH IN ON AND EVERYWHERE ABOVE RETAINING WALL.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DISTURBED AREAS, PEOPLE ARE DISTURBING THOSE AREAS BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY.
>> IT WOULD QUALIFY AS A DISTURBED AREA IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT MOTION WAS HAPPENING THERE?
>> I HAVE AN IDEA. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE NEED TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
>> I TRIED TO DRAFT TO SOME QUICK LANGUAGE THAT COVERS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTO HERE.
REPAIR AND REPLACE DISRUPTED SOILS AND REPLANTING OF DEEP ROOTED PLANTS IN AREAS OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES IN AREAS STAFF DETERMINES AS AREAS OF EROSION VULNERABLE.
>> I WOULD JUST ADD THE WORD NATIVE.
[02:50:03]
>> YEAH. WHATEVER I SEE THERE, BUT THAT'S IT, AND MAINTAIN MINIMUM.
IF STAFF IS DETERMINING THE AREA TO BE AN EROSION OF VULNERABILITY GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO CLAW BACK WITH MORE DICTATION AS TO WHAT TO PEOPLE.
>> THEN WE STILL HAVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AND ALL OF THAT IN THERE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THOUGH, THAT'S THE JOB OF THE ENGINEER THAT'S DESIGNING THE RETAINING WALL TO PREVENT THE EROSION, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE MAKING STAFF.
I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM TOOL TO UTILIZE.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU GUYS IS THAT STAFF CAN TAKE MY ENGINEERS PLANS OF LANDSCAPING AND WALLS AND OUR STAFF CAN WITH THIS LANGUAGE, SAY, NOPE, YOU NEED TO USE DEEP ROOTED NATIVE PLAN IN THIS AREA BECAUSE YOU'VE DETERMINED THERE IS AN EROSION PROBLEM HERE.
DESPITE YOUR ENGINEER BUILDING RETAINING WALLS IN A PLAN, THAT THAT'S MITIGATING THAT AND SOLVING THAT.
IF WE GO BACK TO STAFF'S GOAL, WITH THE LANGUAGE, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET AHEAD OF THESE TIER TWO QUESTIONS, SO WE SEE AN APPLICANT, YOU GUYS PRESENT THEM TO US.
WE ASK FOR THE SAME THING EACH TIME.
THEY MIGHT GET TABLE. THEY GO BACK, BRING IT BACK.
I THINK THE GOAL IS WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET ALL INFORMATION AT THE FRONT. FIRST IS 75%.
I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE, THE KEY CHANGE IS DISTURBED SOILS ARE REPAIRED AT A SIMILAR, BETTER STATE, AND THEN IF WE WANT TO USE NATIVE PLANTS, WE COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE NATIVE AND OR DEEP ROOTED PLANTS THAT PROVIDE SCREENING.
BUT AGAIN, THE GOAL OF THE LANGUAGE IS TO GET BACK TO GETTING INFORMATION DIED UP AT THE BEGINNING OF THE APPLICATION RATHER THAN GETTING IN FRONT OF US OR COUNSEL AND BEING SENT BACK TO COLLECT IT AND REPRESENTED TO US.
>> BUT I ALSO THINK PART OF IT IS ALSO TO AS LAURA STATED.
COME FROM US, IT'S COME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO GO TO AN ENGINEER AND DESIGN A SIX FOOT WALL WHEN A FOUR FOOT WALL AND NATIVE PLANTS COULD DO THE SAME THING.
IF WE DON'T GIVE THE STAFF AND WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING IN THAT IT SAYS, HEY, WE WOULD RATHER HAVE A FOUR FOOT WALL WITH VEGETATION INSTEAD OF A SIX.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SAYING.
>> NO, AND I DON'T THINK STAFF WOULD DISAGREE WITH AN ENGINEER, EITHER.
IF THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOUR LANDSCAPING ENGINEER AND STAFF SAYS, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT, WE WOULD DEFER TO OUR CITY ENGINEER TO WEIGH IN ON THAT IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WOULD JUST SAY [INAUDIBLE].
>> CRISA RESSLER, THAT'S A GREAT POINT, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT TO MAKE THE WALL SMALLER.
THIS IS JUST A LANDSCAPE PLAN OR AN ENGINEERED WALL, SO IF THAT WALL SIX FEET, THESE REQUIREMENTS OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT WALL FOUR FEET.
THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE ENGINEERED WALL, WHICH I ALIGN WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER BRANDEBER THAT WE'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND, BECAUSE THE WALL IS THE ENGINEER SOLUTION HERE.
ANY SOILS OR ANYTHING GETTING DISRUPTED TO BUILD THAT WALL, NEED TO BE PUT BACK, HOW THEY WERE, AND APPROPRIATE THINGS PLANTED THERE.
IF I ENVISION THIS, YOU ASKED WHAT THE GOAL WAS.
YOU'VE GOT THIS WOODED WOODED HILLSIDE, AND THERE'S A SLOPE FAILURE, AND YOU NEED TO INSTALL A WALL DOWN THERE.
YOU NEED TO PRESENT A PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET DOWN THERE, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO REPLACE IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT, AND THEN ONCE THE WALLS IN, THE SCREENING FOR THE WALL, WHICH IS THE NATIVE.
WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE AREAS ON THE WAY DOWN TO GET TO THE WALL, AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM 30,000 FEET UP, THAT COULD, IN MY MIND, CAN BE REPLACED WITH WHATEVER WAS THERE BECAUSE IT WASN'T FAILING.
IF IT WAS FAILING, THEY'D BE APPLYING FOR WALL WOULDN'T BE APPLYING TO LACE A SLOPE WITHOUT THE WALL BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING.
>> IT'S GIVING THEM THE DISCRETION TO SAY THIS IS GOING TO FAIL AGAIN, SO I THINK WE'RE GIVING THE TOOLS TO STAFF AND ALLOWING THEM TO SEE THAT CAN'T REPLACE WHAT WAS ALREADY FAILING THERE, BECAUSE IF WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT STAFF OR CITY ENGINEER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, STAFF IS INCLUSIVE OF CITY ENGINEER HAS DETERMINED THAT AREA TO BE AN EROSION VULNERABILITY, IT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO DICTATE FURTHER STRICT GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT GETS PLANTED THERE.
I THINK WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH IS IN AREAS THAT ARE NOT AN EROSION VULNERABILITY, REPLACE IT WITH BRASS OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU HAD THERE BEFORE.
REPAIR IT. IN OTHER WORDS, AND SO IF WE ARE GIVING THE STAFF THE ABILITY TO HAVE A CLAW BACK WHERE THERE IS VULNERABILITY TO EROSION AND EVEN IF WE WANT TO ADD A MORE ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE,
[02:55:01]
DO DEEP ROOTED NATIVE PRAIRIE, ANYTHING ELSE, THEN I THINK WE'RE GETTING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THAT.>> IT'S NOT LIKE STAFF HAS THE GOAL TO, LIKE, REPLACE ALL THE LAWNS WITH NATIVE EVERYWHERE WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THE TOOLS.
>> TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE REQUIREMENTS.
>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE WE'RE HAVING FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> IS THAT MOTION INCLUDE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING?
>> YES. THE MOTION INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED.
>> ALTHOUGH, I APOLOGIZE, I DO HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.
>> IT'S ABOUT HARDCOVER. I'M OUT THOUGH.
[LAUGHTER] THE RETAINING WALLS THAT COME TO YOU, DO THEY REQUIRE AN ENGINEER IN THIS CODE?
>> THIS COULD BE A LANDSCAPER WHO JUST SAID, I'M GOING TO PUT THIS WALL HERE BECAUSE IT'S REPLACED.
>> NOT NEW WALLS DON'T COME TO YOU.
WE ONLY DEAL WITH REPLACEMENT WALLS, AND REALLY THEY NEED TO BE MOSTLY IN KIND AND UNDER FOUR FEET.
THE ONLY TIME THEY'RE ALLOWED TO REALLY EXPAND IS IF YOU'RE CHANGING MATERIAL, TIMBER WALL TO BOULDER WALLS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT IF YOU'RE MAKING IT LONGER, IF YOU'RE CHANGING IT TO A TIERED WALL, CHANGING THE LOCATION?
>> THEY CAN REPLACE A FAILING WALL WITH ANOTHER WALL THAT WILL FAIL.
>> BUT I'M JUST GETTING TO THE OTHER COMMISSIONER'S POINT BUT ALL OF THESE WALLS WERE ENGINEERED.
THE ONES THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHERE STAFF ARE GOING TO DO ALL THE APPROVAL.
DO NOT HAVE AN ENGINEER LOOKING AT IT, SO THIS WASN'T A LICENSED ENGINEER DID IT.
THIS IS ABOUT GIVING STAFF TO GO, AND JIMMY JOHN BUILT HIS WALL THAT WAS REPLACING ANOTHER ONE.
HE DIDN'T HAVE A LICENSED ENGINEER DOING IT, THE ONLY PERSON WHO'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY, IS THIS WALL GOING TO BE SATISFACTORY IS STAFF? WE NEED TO HAVE THE TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO SAY IT'S GOING TO BE SATISFACTORY.
>> IN WALLS UNDER FOUR FEET, OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL IS ABLE DOES REVIEW FOLLOWING STATE BUILDING CODE, AND OUR CITY ENGINEER DOES REVIEW THE PLAN FOR GRADING, SO IT'S NOT JUST THE PLANNER.
WE DO REVIEW THESE PLANS WITH THE OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN THE OFFICE.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES SIX TO ONE. MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION ADJOURN.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.