[00:00:02] ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 20TH, 2026. WE START EACH MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [3. Approval of Agenda] IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PRCHAL AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOLLIS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT ON THE AGENDA. [4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of October 20, 2025 and November 17, 2025] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 AND NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE. AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. [5.1. LA25-000050, Price Homes, 2420 Fox Street, Preliminary Plat (Matthew Karney)] ALL RIGHT. CARRYING ON PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'RE GOING TO START OUT WITH A 5.1 THAT IS DEFINED LA25-000050 PRICE HOMES PROPERTY ADDRESS 2420 FOX STREET. MR. KARNEY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M MATT WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE ON 2420 FOX STREET. TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT, THIS IS LOCATED IN A FAIRLY CENTRAL LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY, OFF OF FOX STREET AND JUST A LITTLE BIT TO THE WEST OF WILLOW DRIVE. THE SUBDIVISION NAME IS FOX HILL, AND I'LL NOTE THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGN STANDARDS. I'LL TOUCH ON THAT IN A LITTLE BIT. BUT THERE WAS A PRETTY LENGTHY REPORT SUBMITTED FOR THIS APPLICATION. I'LL NOTE THAT THERE'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF ACRES OF WETLAND ON THE APPROXIMATELY 8.4 ACRE PROPERTY. AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS A FRONT AND BACK LOT SUBDIVISION, WHICH GENERALLY MEANS THE BACK LOT IS SUBJECT TO 150% OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING STANDARD. IF YOU HAVE A 30 FOOT SIDE SETBACK, IT WOULD BE 45 IN THIS CASE. JUST TO TOUCH ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED RESIDENTIALLY. IN THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING HOME SITE AND SOME ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. I WILL NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME OPEN POND RIGHT ABOUT HERE AND THEN SOME WETLAND AREAS IN THE IN THE NORTH PART OF THE PROPERTY. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE AREA WHERE THE SECOND HOME SITE IS PROPOSED, I'LL GET TO THAT IN THE NEXT SLIDE IS RELATIVELY UNDEVELOPED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. IN TERMS OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A SUBDIVISION IN THE FIRST PLACE CONFORMING LOTS WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL R ONE ZONING MUST BE MET, WHICH REQUIRES AT LEAST TWO ACRES OF DRY, BUILDABLE LAND. SO ONCE YOU SUBTRACT OUT THE WETLAND AREA THAT IS TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, ULTIMATELY BOTH LOTS AND THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TWO CONFORMING LOT SIZES. I WILL NOTE OVER HERE THAT THERE WILL BE A APPROXIMATELY HALF ACRE. SORRY, THERE. THERE'S AN APPROXIMATELY HALF ACRE OUTLOT OVER HERE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WILL PROVIDE A SHARED ACCESS DRIVE TO BOTH PROPOSED HOME SITES. AND ADDITIONALLY, TO ENSURE THAT THERE WOULD BE ZONING CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROPOSAL THE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO A PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE SEPTIC SITE FOR EACH PROPERTY AS WELL, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY ONE OF THE CAVEATS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPERTY. AND I WILL NOTE THAT THE DRIVEWAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS IN RELATIVELY THE SAME POSITION AS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AS IT IS TODAY. AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN GRAY WILL BE THE NEW CONDITIONS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. [00:05:03] SO IN TERMS OF PLAN CONFORMANCE, WE'RE LOOKING AT RURAL RESIDENTIAL HERE, WHICH GENERALLY SPEAKING ARE R1-B ZONING, MEETS THAT GENERAL LAND USE PLAN FOR THE MOST PART. IN MY REVIEW, I DIDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THIS PROPOSAL ULTIMATELY DOESN'T MEET. THERE IS A HEAVY ASK IN SUBMITTING THAT CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THOSE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET WITH THE SUBMITTAL OF THAT REPORT IN THE AREAS OF CONCERN THAT THE REPORT WILL GENERALLY TACKLE. AND SPEAKING OF THE CONSERVATION DESIGN THERE'S ULTIMATELY A TRIGGER WHENEVER YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S STARTING WITH GREATER THAN SEVEN ACRES AND CREATING A DENSITY OF TWO ACRES OR LESS. SO THIS REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND PROPOSAL. ULTIMATELY, THE CODE STIPULATES A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND I COVERED THEM IN A HANDFUL OF BULLET POINTS HERE THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE ECOLOGY OF THE AREA AND HOW THIS PROPOSAL FITS IN WITH THAT. I AM BLANKING FOR THE LIFE OF ME ON MLCCSS GENERALLY A CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND COVER THAT WE HAVE ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A TREE SURVEY THAT WOULD INCLUDE NOT ONLY AN INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING TREES ON SITE, BUT HOW THE DEVELOPMENT WILL ULTIMATELY CHANGE THE SITE, THE REMOVAL OF TREES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND HOW WILL THAT BE REVEGETATED ULTIMATELY, AS WELL AS ANALYZING THE STORMWATER ON THE SITE AND MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPOSAL IS MINIMIZING THOSE IMPACTS, AND IF THERE ARE LANDMARKS IN THE PROPERTY OR VICINITY THAT THOSE CAN BE PRESERVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, TO SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THE TREES, THIS WAS PERHAPS THE ONLY CONCERN THAT STAFF HAD DURING THIS REVIEW. A TREE SURVEY AND TREE PROTECTION REPLACEMENT PLAN WAS PROVIDED AS A PART OF THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT. THERE ARE 177 TREES THAT ARE CALLED OUT IN THESE HATCHED AREAS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE AREAS OF DISTURBANCE ON THE PROPERTIES FOR THE NEW HOME CONSTRUCTIONS. JUST THE ONLY THING THAT STAFF NOTED WAS THERE WASN'T A FORMAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWING EXACTLY HOW THE SITE WOULD BE REVEGETATED. ONE OF THE IMAGES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON THE BOTTOM SHOWS THE RENDERINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THE CONSERVATION REPORT FOR HOW THEY PLAN ON REVEGETATING AROUND THE HOMES. BUT SPECIFICALLY, I BELIEVE THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT SHOULD ALSO SHOW HOW DRIVEWAYS AND OTHER ACCESSES WOULD BE SCREENED AS WELL. SO STAFF IS LOOKING FOR A FORMAL LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT JUST CODIFIES MORE OR LESS WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE RENDERINGS. AND TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ON WETLANDS. THE DELINEATION WAS COMPLETED IN 2024. I HATE TO SAY TWO YEARS AGO, BUT WE ARE AT THAT POINT. I WILL SAY THAT THE WETLAND BUFFERS WHEN APPLIED HERE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BUILDING SITES AT 25FT AND THEN FOR SEPTIC SITES AT 50FT, THAT THOSE SETBACKS CAN BE MET WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND ENGINEERING REVIEW LETTER WAS COMPLETED BY THE CITY'S CONSULTANT WITH BOLTON AND MENKE, AND OUTLINED A NUMBER OF THE EASEMENTS THAT WILL NEED TO BE DEDICATED AS A PART OF THE PROJECT, AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTIONS OF THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. IN SUMMARY, THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION IS A TWO LOT FRONT BACK LOT SUBDIVISION WITH AN ACCESS OUTLOT THAT GENERALLY MEETS THE ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE AND SCALE. TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FORMALLY IN WRITING. AND I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH AT LEAST TWO OTHER PROXIMATE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE VOICED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL GENERALLY CITING COMMUNITY CHARACTER CONCERNS AND INCREASE IN DENSITY TO THE AREA IN GENERAL STAFF, BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE GENERAL GUIDELINES IN FRONT OF US AS IT PERTAINS TO THE COMP PLAN, ZONING STANDARDS AND ZONING CONFORMANCE, AS WELL AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH CONDITIONS, NAMELY, TO HIGHLIGHT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ITEM THAT I TOUCHED ON A FEW MINUTES AGO, AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS STATED WITHIN THE ENGINEERING REVIEW LETTER THAT WAS ATTACHED AS A PART OF THE AGENDA ITEM. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS APPLICATION, ASSUMING THERE ARE NO SNAGS HERE, WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. KARNEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE. YOU MENTIONED YOU TOUCHED ON THE WETLANDS AND THE DELINEATION, AND THAT IS IT'S CURRENT OR IT'S OUT OF DATE. [00:10:03] IT'S CURRENT. OKAY. THOSE WILL BE ACTIVE WITHIN FIVE YEARS. AND THAT WAS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED WITH A NOTICE OF DECISION BY THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IN 2024. GREAT. AND IN YOUR OPINION, THIS THIS MEETS THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE FRONT LOT. BACK LOT? YES. AND EVEN THOUGH WE'RE AT THE BACK LOT HAS TO BE 150% OF THE FRONT LOT. YOU GET YOU CAN INCLUDE WETLANDS IN THAT. CORRECT? THE DRY BUILDABLE? TRUE GOT IT. YEP. PERFECT. SO JUST A SUMMARY HERE BEFORE AS I SHOULD HAVE BEFORE. I'M OPENING IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CONSERVATION DESIGN, THE R1-B ZONING APPEARS TO BE CONFORMING. WE DON'T SEE I DON'T SEE ANY NOTATION OF ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE COMPLIANCE FOR THAT. IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER TRUNK FEE, $8,060. PARK DEDICATION FEE $16,789. AND THE NOTATIONS, PRIVATE SEWER AND WELL, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY AN IMPACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS FAR AS THE MUSIC GOES THAT LOOKS LIKE THE TWO FLAGGED THINGS THAT I'M HEARING IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IS INCOMPLETE. AND CONSERVATION DESIGN IS IS IN BOTH BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO. IS THAT. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL OPEN IT BACK UP FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE MY NOTES CORRECT. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE REPLANTATION. WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS THAT WE TYPICALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF THE PERCENT OF THE TREES THAT ARE REMOVED FOR THE REPLANTATION STANDARDS? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY STANDARDS. YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE A QUANTIFIABLE STANDARD FOR LANDSCAPING WITHIN A SUBDIVISION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A ROADWAY. OKAY. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT, I BELIEVE, IN A FRONT BACK LOT SITUATION TO HAVE SCREENING BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, NOT NOT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE LANDSCAPING. I MEAN, IF IF YOU FIND THAT THERE ARE THAT THE AMOUNT OF TREES BEING REMOVED OR SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED IS CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, I MEAN, YOU CERTAINLY CAN SUGGEST. SURE. REPLACEMENT. YEAH. WE ALSO REVIEW TREE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE CONSERVATION DESIGN THAT'S SUBMITTED AS WELL THAT CAN IDENTIFY MAYBE TREE GROVES OR DIFFERENT AREAS THAT WE WANT TO IDENTIFY AS PROTECTION. SO THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY ON MAYBE A LARGER TYPE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, BUT IT'S NOT A ONE TREE REPLACEMENT FOR EVERY TREE REMOVED TYPE OF CALCULATION LIKE YOU SEE IN THE SHORELAND. JUST ONE QUESTION ON THE TREES. SO I THINK YOU CALLED OUT 177 WITHIN THE IMPACT ZONE. DOES THAT INCLUDE ONLY LIVING OR CAN IT INCLUDE LIKE A DEAD ASH TREE? I BELIEVE IT INCLUDES ALL TREES, REGARDLESS OF CONDITION. YEAH, AND THAT WAS JUST THE POINT OF REQUESTING THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN. ALTHOUGH THE TREE SURVEY AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED IS HELPFUL, THERE'S JUST A HANDFUL OF INFORMATIONAL TIDBITS THAT WE'RE MISSING, LIKE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES ON SITE. BUT WE GET TO A POINT WHERE IT'S A VERY HEAVILY WOODED PROPERTY WHERE AT A CERTAIN POINT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER CALIPER REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE DOCUMENTING EVERYTHING APPROPRIATELY. SO THIS IS A FAIRLY CHALLENGING SITE TO DOCUMENT GIVEN HOW WOODED IT IS. JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT. MR. KARNEY, THE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TREE COUNT WITH APPROXIMATE MEASUREMENTS OF, OF DIAMETER. AND BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE THE TREE COUNT TO BE REPLACED OF IN KIND, OR CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO WHAT SPECIFIC TREES NEED TO BE REPLANTED. AS IF IT'S A ONE FOR ONE CALIPER REPLACEMENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY STANDARDS I'M AWARE OF FOR A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS, FOR IF YOU TAKE OUT A 20 INCH DIAMETER TREE, YOU MUST REPLACE IT WITH 50% OF THAT, OR A ONE FOR ONE. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT STANDARD IN PLACE. FOR WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD BE REPLACED IN THESE SITUATIONS. GOT IT. GOSH, I THOUGHT WE DID. BUT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF LOTS YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING OR. I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER. SO WE HAVE A TREE REPLACEMENT FOR TREES BEING REMOVED IN THE 75 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK. THAT'S IN OUR CODE AS THE ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT OR A CALIPER INCHES FOR INCHES REPLACEMENT, DEPENDING ON IF IT'S HEALTHY OR DISEASED. TREE IN OUR SUBDIVISION SECTIONS. WE DO NOT HAVE A ONE FOR ONE CALIBRATION LIKE THAT, BUT WE DO USE THE, WE HAVE A TREE PLANTING STANDARD WHEN ROADWAYS ARE GOING IN FOR EVERY [00:15:10] SO MANY FEET OF ROADWAY. WE WANT A RIGHT OF WAY TREE. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THE CONSERVATION DESIGN WOULD IDENTIFY ANY PROTECTED AREAS OR OR UNIQUE AREAS THAT WE SHOULD THEN CONSIDER FOR MAYBE EASEMENTS OR REPLACEMENT OR SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. SO I BELIEVE MR. KARNEY WAS IDENTIFYING THAT SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE PLAN COULD BE ENTERTAINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL FOR THIS SUBDIVISION, SINCE THEY ARE REMOVING SOME FOR THE HOUSE, BUT I BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT CLEARING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF TREES. THEY'RE KEEPING IT RELATIVELY VEGETATED. AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT COULD SPEAK TO. YEAH, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND WE'LL PROBABLY GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT DURING THE DELIBERATION PORTION. WE'RE JUST IN THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I GUESS QUICKLY, ON THAT NOTE, YOU MENTIONED WE WOULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE REPLACEMENT FOR ROADWAY BECAUSE THIS IS PRIVATE. DOES THAT NOT REQUIRE THAT SAME DOES IT NOT MEET THAT SAME REQUIREMENT ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS THAT? IT'S A DRIVEWAY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE LANDSCAPING STANDARD OTHER THAN SCREENING THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FROM THE DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU. MY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE I'M GOING HERE REGARDING THE ZONING CONFORMANCE AND THE FRONT BACK LOT SUBDIVISION, IT TALKS ABOUT THE BACK LOT BEING 150% OF THE SETBACKS ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WE WERE PROVIDED. THERE'S A I BELIEVE IT'S SBL WOULD BE THE SETBACK LINE. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S AT THOSE MEASUREMENTS YET. THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE IT'S WITHIN THE REQUIRED. IS THAT ACCURATE? I'D SAY SO. GOT IT. AND THEN ON THE SAME KIND OF LINE IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK YOU MENTIONED, IT'S THE APPLICATIONS MEETING A 50 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK. COULD YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE IN TERMS OF THE LOT LINES? AND I ASSUME IT'S MEETING THAT I SEE IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK LINES. I DON'T THINK THE SEPTIC IS REQUIRED TO MEET THAT. BUT WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR SEPTIC? THE THE SEPTIC TREATMENT AREA MUST BE 20FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR NOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK. IF IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISH TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. HI, I'M ADAM PRICE. PRICE HOMES. WE'RE ACTUALLY OUT OF ELK RIVER. YEAH. AS FAR AS THE TREES WE ARE PLANNING, TRYING TO KEEP AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. AND WE CAN GET YOU A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING. BUT, YEAH, THE THE TWO HOME SITES ARE WHERE THE EXISTING HOME IS NOW. THAT HOME WILL BE DEMOED, SO WOULD GO RIGHT THERE AND THEN THE OTHER HOME SITE IS KIND OF IN THAT OPEN AREA. SO IT'S OUR BEST INTEREST ALSO TO KEEP AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN. SO. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE QUICK WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE. SORRY. WE HAD HAD SOME COMMENTS BACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS. HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH THEM OR HAVE YOU HAD ANY DIALOG WITH THE NEIGHBORS? I HAVE NOT. NO EFFORT ON PRICE HOMES AND TO TRY AND RESOLVE ANY DISCREPANCIES OR ISSUES THEY'VE RAISED. I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ANY. GOT IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF YOU JUST MIGHT BE AVAILABLE, JUST IN CASE, WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT OUR DELIBERATION. THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE TOPIC, PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. GREAT. SO MY REMARKS ARE ABOUT FOUR MINUTES. JUST A LITTLE OVER FOUR MINUTES. OKAY, THANKS. SO, JAMIE MARKS, 2580 FOX STREET AT THIS HOUSE FOR ABOUT 18 YEARS. SO WITH MY WIFE MARIA AND FAMILY, WE ARE THE MOST ADJACENT PROPERTY BOTH TO THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. SO FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE HERE OR WHOSE INTERESTS WE'RE SERVING SUCH THAT I CAN TELL EVERY SURROUNDING OR IMPACTED NEIGHBOR IS OPPOSED TO THIS PLAN. YOU HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS. SEVERAL OF US ARE HERE TODAY. DOES OUR OPPOSITION MATTER? SEVERAL FAMILIES THAT HAVE BEEN HERE PAYING THE TAXES IN EXCESS OF 20 YEARS, OR ARE WE MORE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING A SPECULATIVE DEVELOPER WITH NO DISCERNIBLE CONNECTION TO ORONO, WHO IS PROPOSING TO BUILD AN ATYPICAL SUBDIVISION OVER A SENSITIVE LAND PARCEL THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT LONG STANDING TREE CANOPY, [00:20:09] EXISTING POSITIVE VIEWS TO NEIGHBORS, AND ALONG FOX STREET WITH NATURAL FILTERS FOR IMPORTANT AQUIFERS AND STREAMS. DID YOU KNOW THAT 17 MATURE TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. I'M KIDDING. IT'S 177 177 TREES. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN A LOCAL DEVELOPER WAS FINED 5 MILLION FOR REMOVING 54 TREES ON THE DAYTON ESTATE, RECEIVING SIGNIFICANT LOCAL REPORTING IN THE STAR TRIBUNE? THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO TRIPLE TRIPLE THAT TREE REMOVAL. AND AS STAFF INDICATED, THERE IS NO LANDSCAPE PLAN. THESE ARE MATURE NATIVE SPECIES, NOT JUNK TREES. THE WETLAND REPORT CALLS THIS OUT, NOTING THE SCOTCH PINE, ELM, OAK, ASPEN, AND SO ON THAT THIS AREA IS WELL KNOWN FOR THE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS I SPOKE OF. WE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE IMPACTED. THE REMOVAL OF THIS MANY IRREPLACEABLE TREES AND EXISTING CANOPY WILL COMPLETELY ALTER THE SIGHTLINES, POSITIVE VIEWS AND DAILY LIVING OF EVERY SURROUNDING PROPERTY. I HAVE SEEN NO MENTION OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THIS REALITY IN ANY OF THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS, YOU CAN SAY, WELL, THE DEVELOPER WILL PLANT TREES. REALLY, HOW DO YOU REPLACE 177 MATURE TREES WITH LIKELY SITE INAPPROPRIATE YOUNG SAPLINGS? THE ARGUMENT MAY WELL ALSO BE WELL, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT CONCLUDED THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE IMPACT OF THE TREE REMOVAL AND LIKELY IMPACT TO OUR STREAMS, WETLANDS, AQUIFERS AND MARSHES WILL BE MINIMAL. I AM UNCERTAIN HOW THAT TYPE OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS CAN BE MADE. AND PLEASE ALSO, THOUGH GUYS CONSIDER THE BROADER CONTEXT WE FIND OURSELVES IN TONIGHT, IT'S 177 TREES TOMORROW. IS IT 150 TREES THE NEXT DAY? IS IT 30 TREES? LET'S JUST BUILD OVER A WETLAND. LET'S BUILD THROUGH A WETLAND. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY, TO CONCLUDE THAT ALL THESE IMPACTS ADD UP. THEY ARE NOT ISOLATED EVENTS. THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS A COMMUNITY THAT EITHER WE WANT OR THAT WE MOVE TO AND SHOULD BE PROTECTING? ONCE THESE NATURAL AREAS ARE GONE, THEY AIN'T COMING BACK. AND AS OF THIS PAST FRIDAY, TO OUR INQUIRIES TO THE MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT, THEY STATE TO US THERE HAS BEEN THEY HAVE NO AWARENESS TO THE FULL SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT INTENT THAT IS DOCUMENTED HERE. AND CLEARLY THEY HAVE NOT DONE A PRE AND POST IMPACT ASSESSMENT TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU COULD ALSO SAY, WELL, WE'RE GETTING PRESSURE FROM THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION TO BUILD MORE HOUSES IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS. IT'S AN ARGUMENT. BUT AS OF THIS MORNING, BEFORE THE SPRING LISTING EVEN BEGINS, I COUNTED THAT IN ORONO THERE ARE BETWEEN 50 TO 60 FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR LAND PARCELS FOR SALE, NOT INCLUDING APARTMENTS. IF YOU EXPAND THE SCOPE TO ORONO OR TO NEIGHBORING TOWNS, THERE ARE OVER 130 OF THESE PROPERTIES FOR SALE, NOT INCLUDING APARTMENTS, AND THIS IS THE DEAD OF WINTER BEFORE THE LISTING SEASON EVEN BEGINS. SO WHAT'S THE IMPERATIVE HERE? WHY GO FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN? AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE MUST BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS. ON THE ONE HAND, THERE IS THE INTEREST OF AN OUT OF TOWN SPECULATIVE DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL IN AN ATYPICAL FRONT BACK PROCESS IN A LAND WITH TWO WETLANDS, A STREAM AND A CREEK, AND BUILD A NEW DRIVEWAY. I GET IT. THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF IS IT REPAIRING THIS NEW DRIVEWAY, WE BELIEVE IT'S BUILDING A NEW DRIVEWAY, CERTAINLY WITH BLACKTOP ADJACENT TO A CREEK THAT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO DISCHARGE CONTAMINANTS TO OUR MARSHLANDS AND AQUIFERS, ALL LIKELY WITHOUT THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND TRANSPARENCY PROVIDED TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. ALL THIS TO MAXIMIZE A DOLLAR INVESTMENT IN OUR AREA AT MY, MY NEIGHBORS AND ALL OF OUR EXPENSE. OR YOU CAN REJECT OR MODIFY THE PROPOSAL LISTENING TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, FUTURE GENERATIONS WHO WILL BE MOST IMPACTED AND WHO WOULD RIGHTFULLY QUESTION WHY WOULD YOU EVER APPROVE THIS POTENTIALLY IMPACTING OUR WETLANDS, STREAMS, MARSHES, 177 TREES, AND THE BROADER QUALITY OF LIFE IN ORONO. AS A REMINDER, AS OUR CITY MISSION CLEARLY STATES, ORONO IS TO BE THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF CHOICE, REMAIN WIDELY RECOGNIZED FOR ITS PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RURAL BEAUTY, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND RECREATIONAL ASSETS. THANKS FOR YOUR VOLUNTEER WORK HERE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. IF ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. [00:25:02] OKAY. SO DURING QUESTIONS STAFF PRESENTATION TO KIND OF GET SOME OF THE CLARIFICATION OUT OF THE WAY. I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN. HISTORICALLY, IT HASN'T BEEN SOMETHING THAT I'VE SEEN THE COMMISSION NECESSARILY GETTING INVOLVED IN. PART OF MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD, I THINK PRIOR TO THAT, BECAUSE TYPICALLY I DEFER TO EXPERTS AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING PLANS GO. AND SURPRISE TO ME, WE DON'T GET A LOT OF THESE. AND WHEN WE DO, THERE APPEAR TO BE IN LAKESHORE. SO AFTER EIGHT YEARS, I'M LEARNING THAT THE LAKESHORE DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT FOR THE REPLANTING. SO I THINK I THINK THE BIG SUMMARY HERE IS A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS THERE WAS A REFERENCE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HOUSING. UNFORTUNATELY, DENSITY IS AN EXPECTATION FOR MUNICIPALITIES IN THAT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REGION. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MET WITH SOME RESISTANCE BY THOSE CITIES BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE INFLUENCED IN THAT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE WISHES OF THE CITY, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR FUNDING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND STAFF, PLEASE INTERJECT IF I'M NOT CORRECT ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS. BUT THEY DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HOMES FOR SALE IN THAT DELIBERATION AND REQUIREMENTS. IN THE NEXT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE WILL GET FORMAL NOTIFICATION AS FAR AS WHAT THEY EXPECT OF US AS A CITY FOR THAT EXPANSION OF WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY AN EXPECTATION OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY. SO I'M GRATEFUL TO HEAR THAT. BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD JUST MAKE COMMENT ABOUT IT BEING IT WAS REFERENCED. IT IS A HOT TOPIC AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. AS FAR AS I THINK OUR DELIBERATION HERE, FOLKS, IS IT IS COMPLIANT, IT IS COMPLIANT AND CONFORMING AS A SUBDIVISION AND YOU KNOW, FOLKS, THE PEOPLE THAT OWN LAND, IF THEY CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO DO SUBDIVISIONS, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DO WITHIN THE GUIDELINES AND RULES OF, OF OUR CITY. AND I THINK ONE DELIBERATION HERE IS, IS GOING TO BE WHETHER OR NOT WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO REVIEW A LANDSCAPING PLAN, BECAUSE THEN THE DECISION WOULD BE WHETHER WE WANT TO TABLE UNTIL THERE IS ONE, PRIVATE SEWER AND, WELL, DON'T IMPACT THE MUSA. SO I DON'T SEE AN IMPACT FOR THERE. AND SPEAKING OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT SO FAR. SO WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT BASED UPON THAT CIRCLE? YEAH, I, I WOULD JUST HAVING LOOKED THROUGH THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M REALLY FOCUSED ON. GIVEN THE FACT THAT 177 TREES ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, I, I GUESS I'D LIKE SOME CLARITY AROUND IF IT'S 177 MATURE TREES, IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE IN GOOD HEALTH SOME CLARITY AROUND THAT I THINK WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. THE, THE TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT IT STATES THAT THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT IS LIMITED IN SCOPE, NOT ANTICIPATED TO SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER EXISTING LAND COVER OR ECOLOGICAL CONDITION. DEVELOPMENT IS CONCENTRATED IN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED OR MANAGED AREAS, AND FOREST AREAS ARE PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH NO DIRECT IMPACT TO EXISTING WETLANDS. ANOTHER POINT THAT I FOUND HERE THAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING AS I WAS REVIEWING THIS WAS THE IF I CAN FIND IT. THE SITE CONTAINS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF MATURE RED AND WHITE PINE TREES, ALONG WITH MIXED DECIDUOUS SPECIES. THE SURVEY INFORMED THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECT HIGH QUALITY SPECIMENS WHERE FEASIBLE. SO I DO THINK THAT HAVING SOME CLARITY AROUND WHAT TREES ARE PLANNED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED, AND IF THE THE QUALITY OF THE TREES THAT ARE ARE MAKE UP THAT 177. TO ME WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION. JUST PUT YOUR COMMENT INTO CLARIFICATION. THAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. WELL, TO ME THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IS FORWARD LOOKING. I GUESS I WOULD APPRECIATE MORE CLARITY AROUND THE TREE REMOVAL AND AND WHAT THOSE 177 TREES LOOK LIKE. I DO AGREE THAT IT'S CHALLENGING FOR US AS A BODY TO TO [00:30:10] HOLD UP A DEVELOPMENT FROM, FROM 1 TO 2 HOUSES. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TEN. BUT BUT STILL A DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES MEET THE MANY REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR CITY HAS. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND THE, THE ONE PIECE THAT IS MISSING IS BOTH THE IS MORE DETAIL AROUND THE LANDSCAPING, BOTH THE TREE REMOVAL AND THE PROPOSED PLANTINGS. WHICH I AGREE, THE NUMBER 177 SOUNDS LARGE AND CONCERNING, I DON'T KNOW IF. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL MATURE TREES. AND AND WOULD LIKE CLARITY AROUND THAT. OKAY. IS THAT I GUESS I GUESS THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST OR REQUIRE A TREE SURVEY OR REPLANTING REQUIREMENTS? TO KNOW WHAT WHAT TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED? DO WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE THAT IF IT IF IT MEETS? IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT, THERE'S A LISTING OF EVERY TREE THAT'S BEING REMOVED. I THINK THE CLARITY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS THE CONDITION OF EACH OF THOSE TREES. BUT THEN WHAT END ARE WE ASKING THAT INFORMATION? SO ARE WE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN TREES OR CERTAIN TREES REMOVED FOR CERTAIN CONDITIONS? IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT, I THINK IT'S PAGE 16. 16. THERE'S THE IMAGE THAT MATT SHOWED OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THERE'S A TABLE WITH A COUNT OF THE TREES AND WHAT THEY ARE. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE CONDITION OR THE AT LEAST LISTED THERE. I MEAN, THEY MAY HAVE THAT INFORMATION, JUST NOT IN EASILY. SURE. MISS, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU'RE MAYBE LOOKING FOR ON THAT FRONT? NO, THAT IS HELPFUL. YEAH. CAN I JUST ASK ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE] I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY. DID I HEAR THAT? TENTATIVELY. SO IF WE DECIDED TO TABLE IT AND SAY WE WANT TO REVIEW A LANDSCAPE PLAN. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL? WE WOULD JUST SCHEDULE THE COUNCIL MEETING ONCE YOU HAVE MOVED THE APPLICATION FORWARD. SO IF IT COMES BACK IN FEBRUARY, THEN MORE THAN LIKELY IT WOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. MR BRANDABUR. SORRY TO JUMP IN. I GUESS JUST A QUESTION TO STAFF. IS IT NORMAL FOR A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO RECEIVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN, OR IS THAT MORE FORMAL DOCUMENTATION PART OF A PERMIT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION? IF BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REPORT AND WHAT THEIR PLAN IS FOR REMOVAL, IF YOU FEEL THAT IF YOU FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME REPLACEMENT OF THOSE TREES, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WOULD HELP. PROBABLY BETTER INFORM YOU IF WE WERE ABLE TO SEE REALISTICALLY WHAT THAT 177 TREES LOOKS LIKE WITH THE EXISTING REMAINING TREES ON THE SITE, BECAUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, REPLACING LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE A 1 TO 1 REPLACEMENT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO BE FEASIBLE. BUT JUST IF WE'RE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO BE REMAINING AND WHAT THEY'RE PUTTING BACK I THINK THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE, THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM FOR THAT. IT WOULD BE GOOD AT THIS JUNCTURE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT DIRECTION FOR THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES ARE GOING TO BE CLEARED IN AN AREA AND YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THERE OR A SCREENING AREA OR SOME CONTINUITY IN THE CORRIDOR, THE GREEN CORRIDOR THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WOULD GIVE TO THE APPLICANT FOR THAT. MR. CHAIR? YES, PLEASE. QUESTION FOR STAFF. THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE. IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN A REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBDIVISION THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS? I KNOW IT IS FOR ONE WITH A ROAD VERY FAMILIAR WITH THOSE. WE RARELY GET A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A DRIVEWAY. IS IT A REQUIREMENT FROM THE CITY? IT'S A COMPONENT OF THAT CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS. BUT THE OTHER ONE CALLS OUT SPECIFICALLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. [00:35:03] THIS DOES NOT. THIS APPLICATION WOULD NOT. THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. THE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT IS A COMPONENT OF THAT ANALYSIS THAT IS PRESENTED WITH THAT CONSERVATION DESIGN PLAN. SO I MEAN, IF WE DO REQUIRE LANDSCAPE PLANS AS PART OF THE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS, IT'S MARKED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, LIKE THE APPLICATION THAT WE PUT OUT. AND USUALLY IT IS A COMPONENT. IT'S EMBEDDED WITHIN A CONSERVATION DESIGN IS HOW WE OFTEN SEE IT. IT'S NOT TYPICAL THAT WE SEE IT AS A SEPARATE, SEPARATE PIECE LIKE SURVEY DOCUMENT. IT'S NORMALLY A ANOTHER PAGE EMBEDDED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN. THANK YOU. I THINK ONE THING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE UNCOVERED HERE IS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT IN AND SUBDIVISIONS FOR ZONING ARE ONE. BUT WE DO IN LAKESHORE. WHY DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION OF AMENDING OUR TEXT OR NOT? AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SUGGESTING OR NOT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF IT'S IN LAKESHORE THERE'S A REASON. SO AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DELIBERATE. OF COURSE, WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS BASED ON OUR CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS. BUT IN THE FUTURE, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE TEETH TO SUBDIVISION, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE MORE APPLICATIONS LIKE THIS FOR SUBDIVISION. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AN ABANDONED PARKING LOT AND TURN IT INTO TWO HOMES. SO I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT AS WELL. AGAIN, I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT I HAVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT RIGHT THIS MOMENT, BUT IF IT'S IN THE LAKESHORE DISTRICT, WE NEED TO PROBABLY DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO, OTHER ZONES LIKE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS, TREE SURVEYS, ANY OF THOSE THINGS. BUT FOR THIS APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR I THINK THE QUESTION BECOMES IF WE TABLE THIS, THEN THAT STOPS THE STOPS THE PROGRESS BY 30 DAYS. BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE OUTCOME, BUT JUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE DECIDE IF WE WANT TO PAUSE AND HAVE INPUT ON A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED OR DEFER THAT BASED ON OUR FEEDBACK OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE AND MAYBE THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE IT ON THEIR PERSPECTIVE. I'M SURE IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD AS WELL. ANY OPINIONS ON THAT? I, IF I MAY I HAVE THE CONSERVATION PLAN OPEN RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S TO THE SECTION OF THE TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION PLAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF IT'S UP THERE. IT TALKS ABOUT THE 177 TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE RED AND WHITE PINES. AND IT SAYS THESE WILL BE REPLACED BY ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THE BOULEVARD OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS AND TREES PLANTED ON AND AROUND THE PROPOSED HOUSES. AN EXAMPLE IS SHOWN IN THE SKETCH PLAN. AND IF YOU MOVE DOWN TO PAGE 13, THERE'S A SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE WITH THE TREES, THE PROPOSED TREES. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN PRIOR WITH LANDSCAPE PLANS WITHIN CONSERVATION DESIGN. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD NEED TO HOLD A SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY DESIGNED BY A CONSERVATION EXPERT. OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, THAT THIS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE. EXACTLY. THAT'S THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT IT. IT'S KIND OF BLACK AND WHITE. WE'VE GOT A SUBDIVISION THAT THE WATERSHED HAS APPROVED. THE WETLANDS ON THE SITE, THEY APPROVED THAT IN 24 WITH ON SITE. THERE'S NO DISTURBANCE OF THE WETLANDS. IT'S CONFORMING TO ALL THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF OUR OF WHAT WE SET. AND YEAH, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS RIGHT RIGHT BEFORE US, I BELIEVE IN THE, IN THIS CONSERVATION DESIGN. IN, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE WATERSHED NOT APPROVING THE WETLAND DELINEATIONS. THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF HERE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. WHEN WE'RE THROUGH OUR. WE. YEAH. I MIGHT ASK STAFF IF THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION EITHER IN SESSION OR OUT. WE TRIED TO KEEP DECORUM OF THE THE ORDER THAT WE'RE IN. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT I'M SURE STAFF CAN GIVE YOU CLARIFICATION ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS. AND REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF HOW THIS VOTE GOES IT STILL HAS TO GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL. SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK, BUT WE JUST NEED TO MAINTAIN THE DECORUM OF THE, THE MEETING. UNFORTUNATELY. BUT IF I MAY RESUME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION, MR. BOLLIS BEING YOU'RE ALREADY JUST DISCUSSING ABOUT IT AND FINDING THE, THE CONSERVATION DESIGN REFERENCING, [00:40:09] YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WHAT THEY ARE COMMITTED TO DOING AS FAR AS REPLANTING GOES AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR CURRENT GUIDELINES CALL FOR. DO YOU HAVE FEEDBACK ON WHETHER YOU FEEL LIKE THAT'S SUFFICIENT OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES? IN THE EVENT THAT WE DECIDE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE, NOT FOR THIS APPLICATION, BUT FOR THE CODE. I, WHAT I SEE BEFORE US IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN WITHIN THIS CONSERVATION DESIGN. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE WATERSHED HAS APPROVED THE WETLANDS. AND THAT'S IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN IN IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS IT WAS APPROVED ON 7/18/24. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THE WETLAND DELINEATION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE WATERSHED DISTRICT ON THAT DATE. OKAY. THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO THIS THIS PLAN WOULD STILL BE CONTINGENT ON OVERALL APPROVAL FOR THE SITE. YEAH. ULTIMATELY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBDIVIDING FOR TWO LOTS, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT DOESN'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS. THE DELINEATION IS COMPLETE. AND THOSE DETAILS, THE LOCATION OF THE WETLANDS AND SUCH HAVE BEEN MAPPED AND INCLUDED WITHIN THE PLAT DRAWINGS, WHERE WE'VE FOUND THAT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING ULTIMATELY MEETS REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME THAT PERHAPS THE DRIVEWAY IS BEING BUILT OR THE INDIVIDUAL HOMES THEMSELVES, THE CERTAIN EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS THAT THE DISTRICT HAS WILL BE TRIGGERED WHERE EACH OF THOSE NEW LOTS WOULD NEED TO GET EROSION CONTROL PERMITS FROM THE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTIES. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, AT THIS TIME, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A WATERSHED REQUIREMENT FOR SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY. YEAH, A SUBDIVISION OR SUB STORMWATER REGULATIONS COME IN WHEN THERE'S THREE LOTS. GOT IT. I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION OR DISTURBANCE OF THE WETLANDS, WHICH THERE IS NONE HERE. AND THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN SUBDIVISION REVIEW OR STORMWATER. I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE THEIR TRIGGERS COME IN. I THINK I THINK WHERE A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE COMING FROM IS UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCES, BECAUSE WE DO SEE WATERSHED WEIGHING IN ON CERTAIN THINGS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS. WE JUST DON'T SEE A LOT OF LOT SPLITS AND ORONO. AND SO I THINK THIS JUST IS I'M JUST SEEING THAT THERE'S SOME DIFFERENCES. SO I THINK SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ALSO TO FIND OUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL WE WOULD WANT TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, IF IT WHETHER IT'S ONE FOR TWO OR 5 OR 3. BUT ALSO TO MAKE A NOTE OF YOU KNOW, THAT WE DO DEFER TO EXPERTS LIKE THE MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT TO HELP US UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE CAN'T BE EXPERTS AND WE CAN'T HIRE OUR OWN EXPERTS WITHIN OUR BUDGET OF THE CITY. SO THE METRO AREA, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED, WE RELY ON WATERSHED DISTRICT AS THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY FOR THAT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT OF ORDER JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION. AND WE WE THAT THAT IS, THAT IS OUR, OUR FALLBACK IS, IS THEM AS THE EXPERTS AS WELL AS ENGINEERING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S SUBJECT TO CAN MEET THE ENGINEERING AND THE REQUIREMENTS WHENEVER THOSE THINGS COME ABOUT. WE ARE NOT THE EXPERTS TO DELIBERATE. WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T, WE DEFER TO THEIR EXPERTISE AND ALLOWS US TO GO INTO THE THINGS THAT WE CAN WEIGH IN ON. WHICH I THINK WE'RE DOING A GOOD JOB OF. I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME COMMENTS IN THERE TO SEE IF THERE'S, LEGS FOR CHANGES, FOR HOW WE LOOK AT THIS IN THE ZONING THAT WE'RE IN. SO BACK TO THE BEGINNING ON THIS IN PARTICULAR APPLICATION WITH THE RULES, REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW AND THE NOTATIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE FILE I THINK THE NUMBER ONE THING FOR US IS DO WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ENOUGH FEEDBACK AND INFORMATION AS SUBMITTED ESPECIALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGN THAT WE HAVE LOCATED HERE TO WEIGH IN WITH EMOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OR DO WE NEED MUST BE TABLE IT. AND IF SO, I WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I CAN SUMMARIZE IT A DIFFERENT WAY. I DON'T SEE A I DON'T SEE ANY GROUNDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION IN THE IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TODAY. FOR THAT REASON IT MAKES IT REALLY CLEAR I DO NOT FEEL LIKE A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO BE REVIEWED BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN IN THE, IN THE PACKET WOULD HELP ME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BECAUSE IT AGAIN, THERE'S A PRECEDENCE THAT HAS BEEN MET OF THIS LANDSCAPING PLAN FROM WHAT IS PROPOSED VERSUS WHAT IS HISTORICALLY BEEN ACCEPTABLE. [00:45:03] SO FOR THAT REASON, I GUESS I'LL POST, I'LL CAST MY VOTE AND SAY, NO, I DO NOT NEED A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON THE APPLICATION BECAUSE ALL THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET. SO I WILL, I GUESS THROWING MY HAT OUT THERE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE LA25-000050 AS APPLIED. OR WOULD ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER MOTION. I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION AND I WOULD JUST ADD, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK. ALL THE BOXES HAVE BEEN MET HERE. I COULD POTENTIALLY GET BEHIND SOME LANDSCAPE PLAN TO HELP QUANTIFY AND CLARIFY WHAT TREES ARE BEING REPLACED HERE. LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THIS CONSERVATION REPORT, THERE ARE SOME LARGER TREES AND SOME SMALLER TREES BEING REMOVED IN THAT PATH OF THAT DRIVEWAY. SO MAYBE PROVIDING THAT CLARITY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORS. BUT AGAIN, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, ALL THE BOXES HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO US. SO I WOULD SECOND YOUR MOTION. ALL RIGHT. PERHAPS I WILL ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CAST OUR VOTE. AND I WILL REMEMBER THAT WE WILL MAKE A VOTE ON THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS JUST ONE MORE COMMENT. PUBLIC INPUT IS IMPORTANT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO ALLOW PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY IF THEY MEET REQUIREMENTS TO SUBDIVIDE THAT. WE HAVE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN IN VARIOUS APPLICATIONS WHERE THERE IS A REQUEST TO DO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES. PUBLIC INPUT CAN BE CONSIDERED BUT STILL DOES NOT PROVIDE THE END ALL, BE ALL OF THE DECISION OF THAT DELIBERATION. THERE NEEDS TO BE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THOSE THINGS. THE CITY IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING AND AMENDING TEXT LANGUAGE BASED ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT A LOT OF TIMES IN RETROSPECT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. AND WE HAVE A WORK SESSION COMING UP, AND PERHAPS THAT CAN BE ONE OF THE TOPICS OF IT. BUT AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE BECAUSE IT DOES MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. MR.. BOLLIS. I'M CURIOUS IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT TO INCLUDE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION, THE DEVELOPMENT MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENGINEERING REVIEW LETTER. I GUESS, YEAH, I MEAN, IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO IT, ALTHOUGH I DO. IS THAT REDUNDANT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS? YES. OKAY. SO SHORT ANSWER IS YES, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S ALREADY A CONDITION OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE STAFF. AND, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, PLEASE. I KNOW THIS WAS A POINT OF DISCUSSION AND ULTIMATELY WHY I LEFT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. THIS PLAN I HEARD IN THE DISCUSSION. SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF REVEGETATING THE SITE. WOULD YOU LIKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO BE USED IN REFERENCE AS A LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, AND AS I INTERACT WITH THE APPLICANT AS THE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, IS THIS HOW YOU WOULD GENERALLY LIKE THE SITE TO BE REVEGETATED? I THINK GENERALLY WHEN WE GET STAFF PRESENTATION, IT'S NICE TO EVEN ON A SUMMARY BASIS, JUST TO SAY THAT THERE'S A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED THAT SEEMS TO BE ON TRACK WITH HISTORICALLY OTHER APPLICATIONS, JUST ON A 30,000 FOOT VIEW. SOMETIMES THAT AT LEAST GETS US ON THE RIGHT PATH. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER. IF I COULD ADD IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS ARE AROUND THE THE TREE REMOVAL AND AND CONSERVATION CONCERNS. SO I, I GUESS I WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT TO INCLUDE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE TO HELP MITIGATE AND POSSIBLY REPAIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH NEIGHBORS AND FOCUS ON LINE OF SIGHT IF ANY OF THAT KIND OF IF ANY LINE OF SITE PLANS OR PROJECTIONS WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO BE INCLUDED. IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL. YEAH. YEAH, I THINK IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. BUT I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK FOR DIPLOMACY, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO START SOME CORRESPONDENCE TO JUST SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, JUST TO GIVE THEM AN FYI ON ON YOUR INTENT. AND SOMETIMES THAT PROVIDES CLARIFICATION TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO BLOCK AND TACKLE AND YOU KNOW, EVEN HOURS OF OPERATION, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST GOODWILL THAT WE'VE SEEN IN ORONO THAT SEEMS TO GO A LONG WAY. SO JUST MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AS WELL. REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME, APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE MOTION IT WOULD GO IN FRONT OF THE CITY [00:50:09] COUNCIL FOR THEIR DELIBERATION BASED ON THE FEEDBACK OF THE PUBLIC OPINION ON RECORD, AS WELL AS OUR OWN AS WELL AS STAFF. WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? JUST QUICKLY. I BELIEVE IT'S A PAGE AFTER THIS THAT SHOWS THE TREE REMOVAL, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. MAYBE IT'S DOWN TWO MORE RIGHT THERE WITH THE TABLE ON THE LEFT THAT'S CALLING OUT THE SIZE OF THE TREES. WHAT TYPE OF TREES? THAT KIND OF I THINK WOULD HELP. THE IMAGE IS GREAT. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'RE PUTTING IN A THREE FOOT TALL TREE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE 50, 60 YEARS TO GROW, THAT'S NOT PROVIDING MUCH COVERAGE, WHICH I THINK IS A PRIMARY FOCUS. SO HAVING THAT TABLE HELPING DEFINE WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING REPLANTED, I THINK THAT ALONG WITH THE VISUAL REPRESENTATION, IS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. NOTED. YEAH. SO IN THE PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL, I SUPPOSE I WOULD DRILL DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO THE TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING PLAN. ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? AND THANK YOU BY THE WAY. THAT'S VERY GOOD FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HEARD ON THIS APPLICATION. ALL RIGHT. IF I IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? JUST TO SUMMARIZE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS APPLIED BASED ON THE FEEDBACK PROVIDED. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND SO CAN YOU CLARIFY AGAIN WHERE THIS WOULD BE HEARD AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? WHAT DATE? I BELIEVE WE WOULD BE TRACKING FOR THE FEBRUARY 9TH. FEBRUARY 9TH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING ON TO 5.2. THAT'S LA25-000054 NOTED AS [5.2. LA25-000054, Revision LLC, 2697 Kelly Avenue, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance, Public Hearing] 2697 KELLY AVENUE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T KNOW, DOESN'T CALL OUT WHICH STAFF MEMBERS CARRY. MISS. CURTIS. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 1000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE HOME, INCLUDING CHANGES TO ROOF HEIGHTS WHICH WILL ENCROACH ABOUT 12FT LAKEWARD OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. ALL THE OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET. THE LYDIARD BEACH ACCESS IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. THE ADDITION IS ALSO PROPOSED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME, WHICH IS OPPOSITE THE ONLY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR. THE PURPOSE OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE VIEWS OF THE LAKE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORING HOMES. DUE TO THE LOCATION AND ORIENTATION OF THE HOMES AND THE LAKE, THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND CHANGES TO THE ROOFLINES WILL RESULT IN NO IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS LAKE VIEWS. WITHIN THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS, THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED THE LOT SHAPE, THE LOT SHAPE, THE CORNER LOT ORIENTATION, THE EXISTING HOME, AND THE POSITION OF THE NEIGHBORING HOME AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THEY'RE PRESENT TONIGHT AND SHOULD BE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE APPLICATION. STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IDENTIFYING SEVERAL OBSTACLES WITH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTING THE BUILDABLE AREA ON THE PROPERTY. WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION. I I'VE GOT SOME PHOTOS IN THE THE PACKET, KIND OF JUST ILLUSTRATING WHAT THE SITE LOOKS LIKE NOW. AND I'VE GOT THE PLANS FOR THE PROJECT. BUT IN SUMMARY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS APPLIED. WE'RE ASKING THAT BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING THE APPLICANT CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE 75 FOOT SETBACK WILL BE IMPACTED AS PART OF THE PROJECT OR IMPACT TO TREES WHICH SEPARATE THE PROPERTY FROM THE BEACH ACCESS. THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, MISS CURTIS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO KEEP THOSE TREES, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE QUESTION. JUST BECAUSE IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY? NO. WITHIN 75 FOOT SETBACK, WE WOULD HAVE THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, BUT. NOT NECESSARILY SCREENING FROM THE ACCESS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR THE APPLICANT. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISHES TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE STAND AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION REAL QUICK. I'M DAVID GIGERICH. MY WIFE KELLY, AT 2697 KELLY AVENUE. WE'RE DEFINITELY KEEPING ALL THOSE ARBS. REALLY IMPORTANT TO US TO TO KEEP THE KIND OF BUFFER FROM THE DIRT ROAD RIGHT THERE. SO WE'RE BEING VERY CAREFUL THAT IT DON'T TAKE IT OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE HARD TO REPLACE. [00:55:04] JOHN TAYLOR WITH REVISION 153 EAST LAKE STREET. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATION THIS EVENING. JUST, YOU KNOW, WE WE WORKED WITH THE GIGERICH'S OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO CREATE A DESIGN IN WHICH ACCOMMODATES MAIN FLOOR OWNER'S SUITE FOR THEM. THEY'RE THEY'RE CREATING THIS AS A HOME FOR THEM, AS COMBINED FAMILIES AND ADDITIONAL KIDS AND, AND RESIDENTS. SO TRYING TO CREATE SOME MORE, SOME SPACE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE ANOTHER BEDROOM ON THE PROPERTY AND REALIZE KIND OF WHAT THE BEST USE OF THE LAND AND THE SPACE WAS. SO TO ADD AN ADDITION OFF TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT WAS THE LEAST IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS WE HAVE. WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE KEEPERS WHO ARE ON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK THEY SENT ANYTHING, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE HAPPY TO SEND SOMETHING TO BE SUPPORTIVE. THEY'RE GREAT FOLKS TO, TO WORK WITH. AND ALSO THE FACT THAT IT'S A UNIQUE LOT IN WHICH IT'S, LYDIARD ROAD IS KIND OF UNIQUE. IF YOU'VE BEEN DOWN ON LYDIARD AVENUE AND SO IT'S A CORNER LOT. SO YOU WERE A NEIGHBOR OF ONE IN TERMS OF THE AVERAGE AS WELL AS THE UNIQUENESS OF JUST THE COVE IN WHICH THAT LAKESHORE IS AND THE CURVATURE THAT IT IS. SO IN THE DESIGN, WE WERE TRYING TO OBVIOUSLY STAY BEHIND THE 75 FOOT SETBACK WITH ANY ADDITION. WE'RE MEETING ALL THE FRONT YARD SETBACK KNOWING THAT THAT WAS AN IMPACT JUST TO THE ROAD, BOTH ON THE FRONT AS WELL AS IN THE SIDE YARD PACK. AND THEN TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHERE THE HOUSE SITS AND THE DECK AND THE REST OF THE STRUCTURES. TO THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, MINIMIZING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE TO THE NORTH TO DEFINITION. SO FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT THAT'S HOW WE THAT'S HOW OUR INTENTIONS CAME TO BE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THAT. IS THERE ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. IS THERE ANY HEIGHT CHANGES WHEN THERE IS. SO THERE'S SOME HEIGHT CHANGES. THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE PUTTING ON THE HOME IS SO THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY A TWO STORY. THE ADDITION THAT WE WERE PUTTING ON A HOME IS A ONE STORY. AND THEN WE ARE MODIFYING AND REDOING SOME ROOF LINES OVER THE EXISTING PART OF THE HOME, JUST TO REALLY CHANGE THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE HOME. IF YOU SEE FROM SOME OF THE PHOTOS, IT'S RELATIVELY SIMPLE. THAT'S A NICE WAY OF USING IT. AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CURRENT. WHAT IS HIP ROOF LINES TO CREATE SOME MORE GABLE ROOF LINES? NOT INTENTIONALLY GOING HIGHER, BUT BUILDING CHANGING THE MASSING AS I'LL DEFINE IT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEP. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. IF YOU MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. HAPPY TO. VERY WELL, VERY WELL. OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE WHO WISH TO BE HEARD. PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT, SO I MEAN, REALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE HEARING THIS FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE IT IS TECHNICALLY A VARIANCE WHENEVER YOU ARE ADDING IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. BUT LOOKING AT THE STAFF PRESENTATION, WE ARE MEETING HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS. ALTHOUGH IT IS AN INCREASE, IT IS STILL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HARDCOVER. THE SETBACK IS NOT INTENSIFYING. WE DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYTHING IN THE PACKET OF OPPOSITION WHEN, YOU KNOW, FROM NEIGHBORS OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. SO YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, AS LONG AS THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HARDCOVER STRUCTURE, HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, SETBACKS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS GENERALLY SEEM LIKE WE'VE BEEN ACCEPTING OF IT. THIS IS NOT INTENSIFYING ANY OF THOSE THINGS. ANY ANY FEEDBACK, MISS PRCHAL? LOOKS LIKE YOU THOUGHT YOU. YEAH, I, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY FOR RESIDENTS YOU KNOW, WHO MAY BE WATCHING AT HOME NOW OR AT A LATER DATE? I HAVE HEARD SOME CONCERNS OR FEEDBACK AROUND APPROVING ANY VARIANCES OF ANY KIND. WHEN IT COMES TO BOTH 75 FOOT AND AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK FROM A NATURE CONSERVANCY STANDPOINT. AND I THINK I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE MOMENT TO CLARIFY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE OF EACH OF THOSE SETBACKS. THE 75 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE LAKE. THE PURPOSE FOR THAT IS REALLY FOCUSED ON PROTECTING THE LAKE AND PROTECTING THE LAKESHORE AND ENSURING THAT WE'RE VERY CAREFUL WITH ANY BUILDING OR MODIFICATIONS THAT HAPPEN WITHIN THAT FIRST 75FT FROM THE LAKESHORE THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS REALLY FOCUSED ON PRESERVING SIGHT LINES AND THE [01:00:03] MINIMIZING DISTURBANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS TO KIND OF PROTECT EACH OTHER. AS WE MAKE CHANGES TO PROPERTIES ON THE LAKE. AND AND IT'S NOT REALLY FOCUSED ON ON AN ECOLOGICAL BASIS OR NEED. AND SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SCENARIO WHERE YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR ON ONE SIDE WHO IS WHO THEIR SIGHT LINES ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THIS BUILD. AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE REALLY IS A CITY OWNED RIGHT OF WAY. AND AND THAT KIND OF SKEWS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE IN A, IN A WAY THAT IS UNIQUE AND AND A HARDSHIP, IF YOU WILL. AND SO JUST WANTED TO JUST TO TAKE THE MOMENT TO KIND OF CLARIFY THOSE TWO AND WHY I'M VERY COMFORTABLE AS LONG AS THE THE CHANGES ARE BEHIND THAT 75 FOOT SETBACK AND THE SINGLE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS SUPPORTIVE. AND WE HAVE KIND OF THAT UNIQUE SCENARIO THAT'S IMPACTING THE DIRECTION OF THAT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THESE CURRENT PLANS. I APPRECIATE THAT. I DO BELIEVE IT'S AGAIN, MOST OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE DELIBERATING ARE INVOLVED. LAKESHORE AND THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IN THE 75FT ARE SOME, ARE MORE SENSITIVE THAN OTHERS, BUT IT GIVES US THE TOOLS. I THINK GOING TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. IF WE HAVE TOOLS THAT CAN ALLOW TO HAVE DISCRETION THAT ARE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR. I THINK, I THINK THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS A SITUATION WHERE IF THEY HAVE LAND THERE THAT THEY CAN ADD ON TO WITHOUT INTENSIFYING MASSING TOWARDS THE LAKESHORE. THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THOSE THOSE RULES TO BE. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. ANYONE ELSE? MR.. MR.. JARNOT? YEAH. I'LL JUST ADD THAT I THINK IT'S A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. I THINK IT'D BE A DIFFERENT STORY IF WE'RE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, A LARGE WRAP AROUND DECK WITH IT AND EXTENDING OUT TOWARDS THE THE LAKE. SO I THINK IT WAS THOUGHT THROUGH, OBVIOUSLY. LOOK AT SIGHT LINES. THEY LOOK GOOD WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST HERE. YEAH. I THINK THEY THOUGHT THROUGH IT ALL CAREFULLY AND PRESENTED PROBABLY THE BEST PLAN YOU COULD PUT TOGETHER FOR IT. SO I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME NOT APPROVING THIS ONE. YEAH. SORRY TO BORE YOU PEOPLE. STAFF, CAN YOU JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE FROM THE DECK? I THOUGHT IT WAS FROM, LIKE, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE WEST, I BELIEVE, WESTERNMOST HOUSE. IT SHOWS IT FROM THE DECK AND I, I THOUGHT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS FROM THE ACTUAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SO I JUST WANTED THAT CLARITY. SO THE DECK IS ELEVATED IN THE MASSING OF THAT DECK IS PART OF THE HOME, NOT A GRADE LEVEL OR A PATIO LEVEL DECK. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, MISS CURTIS WE COUNT THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AS LONG AS IT'S ABOVE GRADE. IF IT'S AT GRADE, LIKE A PATIO, IT DOESN'T GET COUNTED TOWARDS THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE. SO THE THE ALLOWED ENCROACHMENTS IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ARE 42IN ABOVE GRADE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FROM A BUILDING SETBACK. YEAH. PART OF THE PART OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. YEAH. IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING. SO I ALWAYS LIKE TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU. AGAIN, I WOULD JUST ADD TO MY QUESTION, I, I HAVE LARGER ISSUES WITH THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AT THE SIGHT LINE. WE'RE NOT OBSTRUCTING ANY SIGHT LINES HERE. SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IT. YEAH. I GUESS THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IS, OF COURSE, ENCROACHMENT. WHICH WE HAVE THOSE THINGS CALLED OUT WITH AVERAGE LAKESHORE AND 75, THERE'S ALSO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. AND THAT'S WHY WE WE DICTATE THE HARDCOVER IN OUR DELIBERATION. THIS IS WELL WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT LOT. I THINK IF IT WAS IF IT WAS NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HARDCOVER, I WOULD HAVE A MUCH HARDER TIME LOOKING AT THIS MORE FAVORABLY, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE AND YOU SAY, WELL, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? THE ADDITION IN THEIR DRIVEWAY? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU KNOW SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS IF THERE UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS APPLIED SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER PRCHAL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JARNOT. ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [01:05:04] VERY NICE, MISS CURTIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX. OTHER ITEMS 6.1 2025 RECAP AND WORK SESSION DISCUSSION. [6. Other Items] MISS OAKDEN. YES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. I PREPARED ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKET AND PRINTED OUT IN FRONT OF YOU. JUST A 2025 RECAP THAT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE WORK AND APPLICATIONS THAT YOU GUYS REVIEWED. I'D LIKE TO GIVE A KIND OF JUST A SUMMARY OF THAT. AND THEN I HAVE A DISCUSSION QUESTION ABOUT WORK SESSIONS. SO FOR 2025, FOR YOUR RECAP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE WAS FIVE NEW COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE APPOINTED AND ONBOARDED THIS YEAR. SO THAT WAS A BIG LIFT. AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION ON THE BOARD. THE JANUARY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CANCELED, WHICH RESULTED IN TEN MEETINGS FOR THE 2025 CALENDAR. AS A COMMITTEE YOU GUYS REVIEWED FOUR PRELIMINARY PLANS LAST YEAR THREE FINAL PLATS AND TWO SKETCH PLANS. YOU REVIEWED TEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND TWO INTERIM USE PERMITS. YOU REVIEWED FIVE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE, AND SOME OF THEM WERE QUITE LARGE AND DETAIL ORIENTED, WHICH INCLUDED LIKE RETAINING WALLS. YOU REVIEWED POULTRY AND FARM ANIMAL REGULATIONS, GARAGE CONDO PARKING, SO A LOT OF VARIETY OF TOPICS THAT YOU GUYS COVERED. FOR VARIANCES, YOU GUYS DID A TOTAL OF 46 DIFFERENT VARIANCE REQUEST REVIEWS. I DID A LITTLE BREAKDOWN OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF REQUESTS. 16 OF THOSE REQUESTS, WHICH WAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER WAS AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT WAS EIGHT DIFFERENT HARDCOVER VARIATION VARIANCES, NINE EITHER FRONT OR LAKE YARD DEPENDING ON THE LOT. THREE REAR YARD SETBACKS, ONE SIDE YARD AND THEN THREE LOT AREA, THREE LOT WIDTH, AND THEN THREE OTHER TYPES OF CATEGORIES. ADDITIONALLY, YOU ALSO LOOKED AT AN APPEAL OF A CITY CODE DETERMINATION, AND YOU ALSO LOOKED AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. SO QUITE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS YOU GUYS HANDLED THIS YEAR. AND THEN JUST A CONGRATULATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE ADOPTED CODE OF CONDUCT ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS YEAR AND HELD OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MEETINGS. SO JUST A CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION ON THE COMMISSION. THAT'S FOR YOU. YOU GUYS CAN KEEP THAT. HANG IT, FRAME IT ON YOUR WALL. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK YOU GUYS DID. FOR, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING AS A COMMISSION A FUTURE WORK SESSION. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PLAN THAT IN FRONT OF THE FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THAT WOULD RESULT AT A 5:00 WORK SESSION FOR A 6:00 REGULAR MEETING. SO WE'D HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR TO DO A WORK SESSION IN FEBRUARY. THERE'S BEEN A HANDFUL OF DIFFERENT TOPICS THAT WE'VE KIND OF TOUCHED ON OR SUGGESTED A REVIEW OF OVER THE LAST YEAR. MELANIE, WILL YOU OPEN UP JUST MY MEMO SO THEY CAN SEE THE LIST? I IDENTIFIED JUST FOUR OF THE TOPICS FOR THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE DIRECTION ON. THERE'S IS NOT NECESSARILY ALL ENCOMPASSING. THERE CAN BE ADDITIONAL TOPICS. WE CAN SCHEDULE MORE WORK SESSIONS, BUT FOR NOW, STAFF IDENTIFIED KIND OF FOUR ITEMS FOR THE FEBRUARY WORK SESSION. AND WE'D LIKE DIRECTION AS FOUR ITEMS IS PROBABLY TOO MUCH TO COVER IN ONE HOUR. PROBABLY 1 TO 2 ITEMS, IDEALLY PER WORK SESSION IS MUCH MORE REASONABLE TO HAVE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ON. SO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK STANDARD IS AN ONGOING DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL HAS HAD FOR A YEAR OR TWO, BUT WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO AT THIS TIME, BROUGHT IT BACK AS A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO BRINGING THAT FORWARD TO YOU GUYS. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK AND STANDARDS. OVER THE PAST REVIEW OF DIFFERENT VARIANCE REQUESTS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS COMING UP KICKOFF PROBABLY THIS YEAR INTO 2027. SO A PROGRESS REPORT OR UPDATE ON THAT PROCESS AND HOW PLANNING COMMISSION CAN BE INCORPORATED OR WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THAT. DISCUSSION ON THE DIFFERENCE OF BUILDING STRUCTURE AND HARD COVER STANDARDS AS STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS AND HARD COVER ALL HAVE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS, BUT CAN EASILY BE INTERCHANGEABLE WORDS AS WE'RE REVIEWING. SO JUST TRYING TO OBTAIN SOME CLARITY AND DEFINITION BETWEEN THOSE. AND THEN TONIGHT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION ABOUT SUBDIVISION AND OR TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I HEARD THAT BEING REVIEWED AT YOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF IS ALSO SUGGESTING A WORK SESSION IN THE SPRING, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO WHEN I HAVE AN ESTIMATED DATE, I'LL BRING THAT FORWARD. BUT RIGHT NOW I'M TRACKING KIND OF TWO BIG TOPICS, WHICH IS VARIANCES AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDARD REVISITED AND THEN LEGAL NONCONFORMING DEFINITIONS AND EXISTING CONDITION DEFINITIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. [01:10:02] SO I'D LIKE TO BRING THOSE TOPICS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT IN THE SPRING. BUT FOR FEBRUARY, WE IDENTIFIED KIND OF THE FOUR BIG TOPICS, AND WE'D LIKE DIRECTION ON MAYBE 1 OR 2 FOR THAT WORK SESSION MEETING. OR IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS, BE HAPPY TO TAKE THAT INPUT AT THIS TIME. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOME FEEDBACK. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION IF I CAN. FOR FEBRUARY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE ABUTTING PRESIDENT'S DAY. SO IT WILL BE A TUESDAY TUESDAY WORK SESSION AND A TUESDAY MEETING. YES. YEP. IT'S A TUESDAY WORK SESSION AND A TUESDAY MEETING. SO A 5:00 SO I CAN GET YOU THE DATE. 5:00 ON FEBRUARY 17TH, WHICH IS TUESDAY. YEP. SO, 5:00 WORK SESSION HERE IN THIS ROOM. WORK SESSIONS ARE PUBLIC MEETINGS SO THE PUBLIC CAN ATTEND, BUT THEY'RE NOT STREAMED. SO WE'RE USUALLY KIND OF INFORMAL AT A ROUND TABLE TO DISCUSS. AND THEN THE MEETING IMMEDIATELY AFTER. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, SO I GUESS WE'LL CALL THAT. DULY NOTED. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORK SESSION AT 5 P.M. ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH. YES. 6 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. YES. IN LIEU OF THE MONDAY DUE TO THE HOLIDAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK OR DISCUSSION AROUND WHICH TOPICS. I, I WOULD IF I HAD TO VOTE, I WOULD VOTE FOR NUMBER TWO, THE ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK IN STANDARDS. I SAW I FEEL LIKE WE HAD QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST YEAR AND SOME CONFUSION AT TIMES AROUND WHAT WE CALL AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. VERSUS WHAT? I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS THE WATERSHED OR SOME OTHER AGENCIES CONSIDERED TO BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AND THE DISCUSSION AROUND, YOU KNOW, PLUMBING AND WHATNOT. ARE YOU ALLOWED. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AND WHAT THE HOW THE DNR KIND OF VIEWS. YEAH. OKAY. I AND I MAY BE CONFUSED, BUT I RECALLED LOOKING AT THE DNR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LIST AND IT WAS VERY LIMITED. YES, YES. AND SO JUST I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS CLARIFYING OUR LANGUAGE WOULD BE HELPFUL AROUND THAT. AND AND OUR VIEWPOINT AROUND ARE WE REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH ALLOWING ANYONE WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE CLOSE, YOU KNOW, IN PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE TO ADD PLUMBING AND THINGS LIKE THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THE THE ORDER ORIENTED CODE. YEAH. AND YEAH. AND, AND THEN DISCUSS WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. OTHERWISE I WOULD, I WOULD BE CONCERNED WE WOULD GET A LARGE NUMBER OF REVISIONS GOING FORWARD. YEAH. AND I GUESS YOU KNOW, JUST WITH SO MANY NEW COMMISSIONERS, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOOD. I THINK YOU ALREADY MENTIONED BRINGING IN COUNCIL JUST TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN AND CANNOT HOLD ON TO IN OUR CONSIDERATIONS ON APPLICATIONS. AND WHEN THERE IS DISCRETION, WHEN THERE ISN'T, IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET THROUGH IT AND KIND OF READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS WITHOUT JUST KIND OF HAVING TO HAVE IT CALLED OUT. AND SO SOMETIMES I GUESS I'LL ASK A STAFF TO MAYBE JUST GIVE US SOME OF THAT DIRECTION FOR CLARIFICATION, TOO. BUT IF WE'RE HAVING A WORK SESSION, IT DOESN'T HURT TO MAYBE JUST RUN THROUGH SOME OF THOSE LEGALITIES AND WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A POSITION AND NOT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S A THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ALWAYS EASILY IDENTIFIED. IS THAT BETTER SUITED FOR THE SPRING MEETING, THOUGH? I MEAN, I GUESS IF I WERE PUTTING IN A REQUEST, I THINK BETTER SOONER THAN LATER. IF THERE'S IF THERE'S TIME AVAILABLE IN THE WORK SESSION, I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD GENERALLY BRING IT UP IN EVERY WORK SESSION JUST BECAUSE THERE ALWAYS IS THINGS THAT COME UP. AND IT'S GOOD TO HAVE EXAMPLES THAT ARE FRESH. YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT A MEMORY OF A HAMSTER. SO 30 DAYS IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO SOMETIMES FORGET WHAT THE HECK I TALKED ABOUT. BUT I'M JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS IS HELPFUL FOR ME BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO PAINT YOURSELF INTO A CORNER. YEAH, THAT DOES SOUND LIKE THE NUMBER TWO OF LAURA'S CITY ATTORNEY WORK SESSION. BUT THAT'S IN THE SPRING, RIGHT? YEP. SO I JUST WAS SAYING, LIKE I WOULD IF WE HAVE IF WE COULD TOUCH ON IT A LITTLE BIT. OVERVIEW OF. YEAH. EXISTING CONDITIONS, I WOULD LET ME PUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY. [01:15:01] I WOULD PUT IT IN EVERY ONE OF OUR WORK SESSIONS. IF THERE'S, THERE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS TO HAVE TO HAVE TO EXPAND ON BECAUSE IT'S A MOVING TARGET AND THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN AND DON'T HAPPEN. AND AND IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE THOSE EXAMPLES MORE RECENT THAN NOT TO HELP UNDERSTAND IT. YEAH. AND IF YOU'RE WANTING MORE REFERENCE TO LIKE, LEGAL NON-CONFORMITIES AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, MAYBE THERE'S SOME WAY MAYBE I CAN BRING IT UP IN THE WORK SESSION, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S SOME LITERATURE OR SOME ARTICLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I CAN ALSO SHARE WITH YOU GUYS AS TO HAVE THEM AS A REFERENCE POINT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AS FAR AS FEBRUARY GOES, I WOULD SUGGEST NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER FOUR. SO ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK STANDARDS AND BUILDING STRUCTURE, HARD COVER STANDARDS. I FEEL LIKE I KNOW I VOICED IT BEFORE ABOUT THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND WE HAVE THAT WEIRD PIECE IN THE CODE WHERE IF THIS IS CONSIDERED AN OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDING, THEN IT'S GOT A DIFFERENT SETBACK THAN THE REST. AND WE HAD SOMEONE TRYING TO CONVERT HIS GARAGE, BUT IT WAS LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE LOT LINE, ETC. I THINK I TEND TO THINK THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS OVER RESTRICTIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY WE LIVE IN, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE RURAL AREAS, LIKE. SO I WOULD I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TOPIC FOR THAT ONE. AND THEN ALSO THE SAME WITH BUILDING STRUCTURE AND HARD COVER STANDARDS. IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT. MAKE SURE WE'RE WITHIN WHERE WE SHOULD BE. I KNOW THAT'S THE LAST 15 YEARS. I KNOW IT'S CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THE STRUCTURE AND HARD COVER HAS GONE UP. THE ALLOWABLE HAS GONE UP. BE NICE TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT. ARE WE CONSISTENT WITH, LIKE, OTHER COMMUNITIES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I WON'T BE AT THAT WORK SESSION, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. I WOULD LOVE TO WEIGH IN ON THOSE TOPICS. SO WHAT A BOATHOUSE WOULD THAT FALL UNDER, NUMBER TWO OR NUMBER ONE? THEN THAT WOULD BE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITHIN THE LAKE LAKESHORE. MOST LIKELY BOATHOUSE WOULD FALL MORE. WE'D REVIEW IT AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, BUT IF A BOATHOUSE, IT WOULD BE IN THE 75, IT WOULD BE IN THE LAKE YARD. IT MOST LIKELY WOULD BE IN THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. BOATHOUSE WOULD TRIGGER MULTIPLE VARIANCES. SO I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO REGULAR OR WHAT YOU WANT TO REVIEW ON THE CITY CODE. I KNOW, LIKE COMMISSIONER BOLLIS NOTED, THE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACCESSORY BUILDING AND OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDING IS A DISCUSSION IN AND OF ITSELF REGARDING NEW SETBACKS OR HOW WE WANT TO REGULATE AND VIEW THOSE THOSE DIFFERENCES WHERE WATER ORIENTED BUILDINGS, WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THAT'S A DIFFERENT SECTION IN OUR CODE THAT RELATES MORE INTO OUR SHORELINE AND COMPARABLE TO LIKE DNR STANDARDS. SO IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT BOATHOUSES EXCLUSIVELY, THAT COULD BE A TOPIC IN AND OF ITSELF AS WELL. PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S COME UP A FEW TIMES AND WE'VE GOTTEN STUCK ON HEIGHTS, BUILDING IN KIND, ADDING PLUMBING, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. SO FOR ME, THAT'S THAT'S ONE I FEEL GRAY ON YET. YEAH. NO, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF IN THE SAME VEIN OF WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHERE THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE'RE PRETTY STRICT ABOUT AND THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT. AND IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A A HEADS UP ON THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THE STAFF IN THEIR PRESENTATION TO HELP TIP US OFF A LITTLE BIT. JUST AGAIN, IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE BECAUSE ADDING HEIGHT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE LAKESHORE IS VERY STRICTLY ENFORCED. VERY ALMOST NEVER IS GOING TO BE APPROVED. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A PART OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND THEY'RE DOING AN ADDITION ABOVE AND IT MEETS THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF A OF A DWELLING, THEN THAT SOMETIMES IS A LITTLE BIT MORE FAVORABLE. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, BOATHOUSES IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE IT'S A HARD LINE. SO BUT YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY KIND OF WHAT I'M KIND OF GETTING AT IS THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WERE REASONABLE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND SOME THINGS THAT WERE PRETTY WE DRAW PRETTY HARD LINE HISTORICALLY ON. SO I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO TALK ABOUT. AND SORRY. AND JUST TO TO CLARIFY, THE GOAL OF THE WORK SESSION IS NOT JUST EDUCATION, BUT TO REVIEW IF THERE ARE ANY TOPICS THAT WE THINK MAY NEED FURTHER DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL REVIEW FOR CHANGE. CHANGES TO THE CODE. YEAH. SO IDEALLY AT THE WORK SESSION WE WOULD BRIEF YOU ON WHAT OUR CURRENT CODE IS. MAYBE ON SOME EXAMPLES OF VARIANCES OR REQUESTS THAT WE'VE SEEN THAT IMPACT THAT CODE, OR EVEN MAYBE WHAT OTHER CITIES DO SIMILAR TO THIS TYPE OF CODE, AND THEN WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IF YOU'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR WRONG DIRECTION, WE WANT A TEXT AMENDMENT OR NO, THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO. NOW WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE OF MAKING SURE THIS IS HOW THIS IS INTERPRETED, THAT TYPE OF THING. GREAT. GOOD FEEDBACK. SO WHAT I HAVE TRACKING FOR THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 5TH. [01:20:07] AND WE CAN HAVE MORE WORK SESSIONS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION. BUT IS A DISCUSSION ON ACCESSORY BUILDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AND THEN KIND OF THE DEFINITION OF IN-KIND. AND KIND OF LEGAL NONCONFORMITIES ARE KIND OF THE THE BIG FEBRUARY 17TH, I'M SORRY. FEBRUARY 17TH WORK SESSION AT 5:00. TUESDAY AT 5:00. I KIND OF HAVE THOSE TWO AS THE LEADING TOPICS, BUT WE'LL PREPARE SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THAT, ON OUR CURRENT STANDARDS, HOW THEY'RE APPLIED, SOME VARIANCES THAT WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY THAT IMPACT THAT. AND THEN WE'LL POSE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO WORK THROUGH. DOES THAT SOUND, ARE THERE OTHER TOPICS OR. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S PLENTY. YEAH. I THINK EVENTUALLY WE SHOULD GET TO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. IT WAS 35% OF THE VARIANCES WE LOOKED AT LAST YEAR. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY TO IT. AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE KIND OF BENEFICIAL TO SOME OF US THAT HAVEN'T BEEN HERE SO LONG. YEAH, YEAH. AT LEAST TOUCH ON IT. BUT I UNDERSTAND IF IT NEEDS TO GET MOVED TO A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM OR AGENDA DE WHATEVER. I WILL NOTE REGARDING AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK. THAT IS SOMETHING THE COUNCIL HAS TALKED ABOUT FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, ON AND OFF AT DIFFERENT WORK SESSIONS AND HAVE HAD SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION. I BELIEVE IT'S SET FOR ANOTHER ONE OF THEIR WORK SESSIONS COMING UP LATER THIS YEAR. WHEN I HAVE THAT DATE, I'LL SHARE WITH YOU ALL AS WELL SO YOU CAN BE IN ATTENDANCE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ATTEND THEN. YEAH. YEP, YEP. SO WHEN I HAVE THAT DATE, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE WORK SESSIONS CALENDAR, BUT I CAN EMAIL THAT OUT TO YOU GUYS. YEAH. AND IN THAT SAME VEIN, HISTORICALLY, WHEN WE SEE THAT IS WHETHER IT'S AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING WHERE YOU'RE ADDING PLUMBING THAT TRIGGERS A CUP IN THE PAST, AND THEN WE CHANGE THE TEXT THAT SAID, OKAY, WELL, WE NEED WE EVER NOT APPROVE THIS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEN THEN IT BECOMES TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND SLOW THE PROCESS FIND THOSE MOMENTS, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT. SO IT'S ALWAYS GOOD. THAT'S WHY I'M ALWAYS LIKE, WE SHOULD ALWAYS TALK ABOUT AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S SO MANY OF THEM. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY SINGLE TIME WE TRY TO DRILL DOWN INTO MAKING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NO BRAINERS, THERE'S ALWAYS A SCENARIO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T, RIGHT? BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT PLACES THAT WE CAN IMPROVE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY NOT SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS OF AN APPLICANT THAT IS MEETING, YOU KNOW, COMMON SENSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE ANYWAY. MR. BOLLIS. QUESTION FOR STAFF OUT OF THE 16 ALS VARIANCES, HOW MANY OF THOSE DID WE DENY? ONE. REALLY? OKAY. WELL, BUT THAT'S ONE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED. RIGHT. THE HAD TO HAVE BEEN THE BOATHOUSE. HE WANTED TO RAISE. THAT WAS THE BOATHOUSE ON THE PROBABLY 250 FOOT DEEP LAKE YARD. AND I THINK IT WAS SITUATED PROBABLY 140FT FROM THE LAKE, AND THEY WERE GOING UP ABOUT ONE FOOT. AND THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE WITH THE ALS. IT'S A SIGHT LINE. AND IT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT SITE, TO ME, IT WASN'T IN THE SIGHT LINE. YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE DECIDED TO DRAW THE LINE. BUT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A GOOD WORK SESSION TOPIC. THEN LET'S LET'S KEEP IT ON FEBRUARY. I THINK SOMEDAY WE'LL CRACK THAT CODE. WE'LL FIGURE OUT THE ALS. THAT'LL BE. THAT'S A THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S HILARIOUS. NO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IMPROVED. WE'LL GO FROM THERE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD FEEDBACK. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED ON THAT TOPIC, MISS OAKDEN? NOPE, I HAVE DIRECTION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND ON THAT SAME NOTE ON THAT RECAP, I JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME KUDOS TO STAFF. YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED WITH STAFF AT OTHER CITIES AND JURISDICTIONS, AND I CAN SAY THAT EVERY TIME I DO, I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE HERE. YOU GUYS ARE INFORMATIVE. YOU'RE HELPFUL. YOU DO EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN TO YOU KNOW, HELP APPLICANTS ALONG. AND THAT'S NOT EASY. AND ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T GET VIEWED THAT WAY. I HEAR FEEDBACK FROM THE CITIZENS THAT THAT AGREE ALONG THOSE SAME LINES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS. AND I THINK WE'RE WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU GUYS. SO THANK YOU. AGREED. THANK YOU. SECOND. [LAUGHS] MOTION. MOTION TO APPRECIATE STAFF. OKAY. SO THAT ENDS THE END OF ALL OF OUR ITEMS. SO NUMBER SEVEN WOULD BE ADJOURNMENT. IF THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ELSE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. MOTION BY BOLLIS TO ADJOURN. SECOND BY BRANDABUR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MOTION TO ADJOURN. WELL, I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO MAKE THE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [01:25:01] AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.