i'm calling to order the city of shorewood planning commission meeting uh tuesday december 1st of 2020. um we'll just jump right into things let's see here at 702 call to order we'll move on to the agenda are there any uh additions or uh changes to the agenda all right seeing none let's uh somebody make a motion to prove the agenda and we'll move them roll call vote i move to approve the agenda mark reedle i'll second all right the motion uh to approve the agenda was made by commissioner riedel and seconded by commissioner gorham move into a role called vote commissioner gorham aye commissioner einberger aye commissioner galt aye commissioner riedel aye and chair maddie also votes in the eye motion passes uh unanimously on to our approval of minutes of our november's 17th meeting are there any additions or corrections to our november 17th meeting move we approve the minutes yeah okay so that was a motion by commissioner eggenberger seconded by commissioner galt we'll move right into a roll call vote commissioner gorham aye mr eggenberger aye commissioner galt aye riedel aye chair maddie also votes i motion passes unanimously and right now we'll move on to matters from the floor i know rick is our only guest right now um and i think you know how this works we're all volunteers that make recommendations of the council anything uh we we make a motion on tonight we'll be taking uh an advisement to the council and uh they will make the final call so uh are they matters from the floor anyone like to speak all right seeing none move into our first public hearing which is uh planned unit development amendment for the minnesota country club development at 5920 club valley road how this works again i'm talking to the choir here but um that director darling will give a presentation maybe well we'll see who gives a presentation today um and uh then uh commissioners will have questions we'll give the applicant a chance to talk and then any public that would also like to um add to the record and then uh if all goes well we'll make a recommendation so director darling please proceed thank you just a few minutes as i arrange the multiple and many screens i've got open so thank you chair and members of the commission the application before you this evening is a request by ghania homes for the property located at 5920 club valley road the proposal um includes an amendment to the pud to allow a proposed home to be taller than the allowed maximum height to allow for a taller rough height in 2018 uh the two builders in the minnetonka country club lennar and gagne requested a pud amendment to allow 40 of the walk-out lots in the development to allow for taller homes to increase the variety of home styles throughout the development this lot wasn't part of the request as it was under contract for purchase at the time and as you can see many of the other homes are are already constructed however the original buyers have walked away from that purchase and the applicant would like to have more flexibility in the roof designs that they can offer the applicant has provided the attached graphics showing what like they'd like to propose versus what they would have to propose under the current coordinates so here you can see the home from two different sides with um the maximum roof height that they're allowed under our current ordnance just look at it right here and what they would be allowed to build under the um the current code and if you're looking at it from a side view you can see the lower roof height here and the the taller riff height that would be allowed under the under the revision that they're requesting pod amendments are reviewed subject to the same four standards as the original pud the amendment must be considered consistent with the specific policies and provisions of the comp plan it has to be compatible with the present and future land uses in the area that must be considered in terms of the likelihood to depreciate the area and be able to be accommodated by existing public services i included a discussion of each in the memo before you this evening staff were originally concerned as changing the rules after the adjacent homes are constructed is generally frowned upon so we took a very close look at the position of the property um in the particular subdivision and specifically in relation to the home to the north because we wanted to make sure that allowing a taller structure next to a shorter structure on the north side could has the real potential to block solar access director darling which in this slide which which position is north north is uh towards the top of the screen okay up in this area where the laser pointer is um let's see um but because of the um the angle of the lots the distance between the proposed and the existing home and the use of a hip roof instead of a gabled roof we believe that the solar access for the home to the north would not be affected by the increase in height and as a result conclude that the impact of the change would be lessened uh staff can therefore recommend approval of the request we did receive one letter in opposition to the request and that letter was emailed to the commissioners earlier today and is now part of the record and that letter was written by darcy heild from two four five two five niblock avenue or l cove i'm sorry nibblic alpo and that is now part of the public record and with that i would stand for or await any questions you may have yeah i have a few questions actually could you go back to the uh elevation drawing of the home that's being proposed sure uh actually actually i don't think that's that's it i think that's the is that the home that's being proposed yes okay and uh is to the right the north north side i assume it is okay uh a couple of questions i was thinking about this on the way out how many watts uh in this development were approved for uh 40 feet of height versus 35 uh it would be 40 homes 40 homes and where are they at relative to this lot let me pull up a larger map of the area so thank you for your patience and sorry for the delay here no that's okay i didn't okay so i off the top of my head i don't know where all of the lots are that are affected but i can tell you where the majority of them are all of the ones on prestrict court were included in the development we have several along bent grass over here and there were two on the west side of club valley road lot three and lot nine up in here i have to just scooch in a little bit to see those yeah this one up here and lot three which would have been great in here so we have another and is that open lot uh just to the south of the right where your mouse is just south of there is one of the one of those the lot that's we're talking about today yes okay so it's so there are two lots along that street that are approved for additional height yes and were they constructed to that additional height um i believe so almost all of them were that that were allowed to i did not look that up though before the meeting started i guess my other question and marie i'm not sure whether you're the right person to ask but uh how many of the lots that were approved for the 40-foot have been sold and construction completed i keep track of that on a map that i have in my office and i don't have it at home i don't know maybe that maybe the developer yeah i think the applicant might be able to answer that that's it okay all right any more questions for staff yeah uh so director darling um in the letter from the applicant uh they reference the section of the code that we've recently discussed where there's the possible ambiguity regarding the average land grade meaning the lowest land grade um could you explain how that impacts this application for a pud amendment it's not clear to me from the letter that there was that the developer actually was um ever misinterpreted that but i could you just comment on that uh because here um the this is a pud and so the rules are specific to the pud and was that language about the lowest average and grade in or is it still in the pud for this application the um application was approved based on the um the language in the code at the time which said the lowest it would be based on the average land grade the definition in code um called um the average land grade the the definition was called the average land grade but when you measured it out it was actually the lowest grade within five feet of the home correct that's where the trouble came about because when we asked them if they had gone through the definitions and they understood how we measured height in the city of shorewood they said yes but they didn't realize that average land grade didn't meet average land grade it meant lower slack grade so they did propose to allow the walk-out lots um 40 of them were the hardest hit by that ordinance by that regulation so that's why they proposed to have 40 of them um essentially would use the average land grade instead of the the lowest land grade to measure their height i understand now the history of this so there was initial confusion that initial confusion led to their application for 40 of the homes to have taller than would be allowed by the pd or the code and that was approved uh this was not one of those homes um but now they would like it to become one of those homes after the fact is that a fair summary yes okay got it i'm straight on that and and they excluded ones that were under contract already the deal fell through on this one so had this one not been under contract can i make the assumption that it would have been part of women 41 maybe that's a question for the applicant yeah yeah rick i have been trying to unmute you i just haven't been successful at it i don't know what i've done i think the host has to unmute uh are you the host i am let's uh any more questions for staff or can we let the applicants start talking i i have a question mr director darling the gentleman that sent us the letter that you've forwarded out to us mr heild is he across the street and to the left is he bad house he is oops they're not being kind today in that other slide you showed us 24 525 nibblic alcohol 24 uh i've got five forty five five twenty five can you see the highlighted parcel yes so that's that's him right there i just wanna see where he was in relation to this lot okay uh director darley yeah it's probably she i think it was darcy that wrote the letter but go ahead i'm sorry if you're do you mind the there's a line here in the recommendation where you say changing the rules after the adjacent homes are constructed is problematic are you saying um that it's problematic because of the way that solar panels are affected or is there are there neighborly concerns that are there could be concerns and there could be an issue when you put in a taller house next to a shorter one and the shorter one is on the north side of the home and both of you are kind of you know they face east and back up to the west there's a real potential to block the solar access so i had to be very cautious before i made my recommendation on how this would impact it because it's not just for solar panels it also i mean if you're casting the next house into a permanent shadow because of a separate a separate approval that you've given that's a that's a tougher and less defendable position for the city yeah i i guess you know if i was the neighbors who had been told that uh the building height along this stretch of the street was limited to 35 feet uh and so i built my house with that in mind i would be more than a little upset to find out that my next door neighbor who is now building a house was allowed to exceed that uh just simply because they wanted uh extra height roofline uh that's the only difference that's being proposed here you know the the basement and ceiling heights are the same as the 35 foot homes it's just that somebody decided they want an excessively tall roof dr darling did i hear you correctly when you said that the 40 40 homes previously were um they wanted more diversity is that is that the term you used when presenting more diversity of housing styles okay so more more market marketability right okay all right so any more commission questions or shall we let the applicant speak i have one more director darlene uh in the third bullet point underneath your graph of the three homes um in what you said is it says the the type of roof and the applicant is proposing a hip roof which allows for greater sun access that had the applicant propose a gable roof up to the setback greater sun access to who greater sun access for the house to the north okay okay yeah if if the a gable roof let's go back down here um i'm gonna switch screens again so here is the proposed house and you can see it's got a gable over on this side now if they were proposing um here we go here's a gable house so if they were proposing this gable right up to the the setback so that like the opposite layout of this particular house right up to that setback nope the sun has a harder time getting around the uh the gable than it than it does with the hip even though it's a lower roof well if they were both the same height um you would see a difference in the the afternoon sun as it um as it shines to the house on the north you can see a difference from a hip roof to a gable roof and how much actually reaches the adjacent homes and i probably am not describing that perfectly but um it's something interesting to take a look at when you're out walking yeah i'm i'm curious there's uh there are different elevation drawings shown here uh we've got one elevation drawing that shows that uh hip roof modified hip roof i'd say but then further down uh it's a pull gable to the end so i'm that's uh yeah um there's an address so there's three separate house designs that i i sent you 5900 which is the home to the north 5920 and 59.40 oh okay okay i didn't catch that i'm having a look at the pdf but because i don't haven't seen the paper didn't show up yet oh sorry about that no it's not funny because we mailed those out last wednesday so it had even more time to get to you one of my neighbors may have gotten that's happened more than once okay i'm actually going to move this to my other screen so i can make it bigger all right i think we are uh we're good with commissioner questions right now so let's go to the applicant mr packer is there anything you'd like to add to um the report uh mr chair i've been unmuted now yeah i can hear you now there you go all right mr chair members of the commission uh i'd like to you know thank you first for uh considering this uh i think that marie has done a good job summarizing it uh the only reason this lot wasn't included in our original request the original request was made by ghania and lennar was that this house was under contract for a different style of house that didn't have these height problems on every lot that we have in minnetonka country club that is a walkout we're faced with this with this prop where uh i think marie put it well but where average height is really her average land grade is actually the lowest land grade so we don't have this problem on either a lookout lot or on a flat lot because the definition then it doesn't interfere if you look at the houses next to this one and you just we're talking about those elevations um if we were to design a roof uh similar to what's up on the screen only at the line that marie's that we've drawn across there that would really look silly um you know a lot you know would be not as compatible as putting in uh the same type of roof pitches as the homes next door them um i understand the the solar access problem i think we've we've addressed that um through both the hip design and the setbacks uh it's just that we need to we would like to as well as the owner would like to put on a roof that more closely resembles what's being built out there rather than something less than even a 412 pitch roof if you have any questions and i'm happy to answer them yeah yeah rick uh maybe you can answer the question that i had asked marie that she didn't uh of the 40 laws that were after i think it was 40 laws that were approved for a 40-foot roof how many of those have been sold uh well some of them are lennar so i don't know that but all of ours have been sold okay so this i think this is the last one that that didn't have the uh the amendment how many are left that you're going to have that same situation none i i believe it's done well which is it i am told there are none and if our architecture department changes its mind uh i'll have to grovel but i don't believe there are any others so uh we won't be forced to consider another one-off in the future yes for economic reasons which by the way is the only reason i see for this uh amendment is uh it's 100 economic and we're just talking about ghana right lennar might make a couple of requests well i mean i understand that that it's it would be gone yeah we uh mr chair we we tried to get all of the lots that we hadn't sold or had didn't have plans for or that weren't on walkout lots you know we tried to get those all in the first time but but it was odd because they uh earned a one-off because the uh buyer walked away from the deal all right are there any more questions for the applicants yeah uh could you please comment a bit on um the change in design so the application in the application you state that uh the property was originally under contract uh for a house with a given design that met all the requirements uh but that contract fell through and now the is it the new owner or the proposed uh the proposed new owner um wants uh this new design with a taller roof um but um the the former design worked well for that lot and presumably the neighbors may have expected a house with that size can you comment why uh you can't just stick with that original design or the broad outlines of that design why it's necessary is it as i think it was commissioner gold stated simply that um you want to sell the uh the house for a higher price or that the former design just wasn't selling well and and what is the status uh is the property sold are you under contract to build uh can you comment on all of those aspects please yes we're in the same uh position that we thought we were in uh two years ago we have a contract uh the house plan is what you see before you um and so it's it's a a request mainly from well it's a request from daniel holmes but this is what the buyer wants to build and it's a difference between a rambler home and a two-story home with your current uh ordinance saying that the average average land height is actually the lowest land height we've had some real problems trying to earlier had problems bringing bringing those houses in at that at that height i and i described in my letter that you know the basement uh people the market now is a nine foot basement the main floor is a ten foot uh you know ten foot ceiling height and then the second floor is a nine foot ceiling height and you can see from this diagram that's on the screen what kind of roof that generates uh the only way to make a roof you know more with the market and and i'm just going to say greater than a 412 which very few people build anymore the only way to do that then it's to shrink the height of of all the floors making the basement the second and the first floor uh less than that 28 feet excuse me 29 feet okay uh i'm confused because the chart that is in the document we have the ceiling height is exactly the same on all three properties and i guess i i guess i can to answer that but what we're looking at here is the roof height and we're showing you the plan that has those same heights inside and then we have a lot you know the line that goes across with that uh 312 pitch roof i you know i i have to say that previous to us getting this amendment uh back in 2018 and we were you know kind of trying to figure out ways to work around the code and it ended up with some really weird uh spaces inside the home just just to clarify i'm looking at um it was at 5900 club valley that's eight nine and seven foot so there there's a good three feet uh less head space than that one i think that charge is off that's so i'm looking at uh yeah you've got you've got eight 810 on the upper and basement on your drawing and and your plans and 10-1 so they you know your your plans show a different height than the chart does so so just actually this might be a let's finish questioning the applicant and go back to staff any more questions for the applicant okay seeing none will um mr packer thank you we might call you back we'll see how the discussion goes i'm here all right um director darling just one quick question off the top of my head we're trying to be equitable to everybody in the neighborhood and to be clear 40 people have gotten the same 40 40 properties have gotten the same leniency on the code right yes and then the other 90 some however many houses didn't so i guess just let's have that in mind when we're talking about fairness um any other commissioners want to want to comment or ask any more questions if i could so director darling um a question here so when it comes to variances variances are not supposed to be granted based upon economic considerations only but this is a pud amendment and there is no legal guidance of that sort for pud amendments is that correct only the the criteria that are in the ordinance for a um a rezoning or a pud so those are the criteria that i put into your staff reports that would be that the amendment has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan it has to be compatible and not tend to depreciate the neighborhood i forget exactly the wording but um that's approximately it and then it has to be able to be served by the existing public services in the area so um i don't see where it would be incompatible with the comprehensive plan uh the roof height has no impact on public services as i mentioned in the staff report the only thing i did look at is what would the impact be on the city's trail because of the distance between this house and the trail i don't think there is any so really what i looked at for the majority of my review was is this home compatible with the area and would it tend to depreciate any other lander uses in the area and that's why i spent the time on the solar access to the house to the north just to make sure that by approving more height we aren't impacting that home i i really appreciate that diligence because i think it all turns on that question um of you know whether as a chairman is saying um this is broadly consistent with many of the other homes in the neighborhood the question is um how does uh the amount of shade that this would cast impact the immediate neighbors and the diligence here to argue that not much um that it's less than one might think for the variety for the reasons that you outline director darling um so um this is not an easy one in in my view um but i i think that is the clearly in terms of the property value the neighborhood it's consistent in every sense the question is is it unfair to the immediate and this would be the neighbor to the north much more than the neighbor to the south is it unfair because suddenly a home is being built that could cast more of a shadow on their property than they were expecting or not and so i think that uh you know i i'm again re-reading and your report director darling the the solar impact um it does seem like it's minimal and that's your opinion also that um for the four and a half feet that it adds because of the angle and the hip roof um the impact is very small the amount of shadow that it casts that was my conclusion sir and um i did look at several different things first the hip roof versus the gable roof which i thought was quite important um towards assisting that plus if you look at the two lots where the houses are you can see that the home to the north is not directly north of the um of the subject lot it's off a little bit to the northwest which means it has a better sun capture even when the home is constructed plus there is um more distance between the homes here than there typically would be because there is a storm sewer line or you can even see the little um the outlet over here behind the houses so there's a storm sewer line that runs through here so these homes are going to be 40 feet apart which is twice as much as is required for other lots so i think those three factors do mitigate any impact on of that of that height okay thank you all right any more questions or a discussion all right does someone want to make a motion i'll go for it i'm not sure if we're all in agreement here but uh i move that we recommend approval of the pub amendment allowing the height of the building to exceed the 35 feet in the existing pud at 5920 club valley road all right before anybody seconds that i just realized this is a public hearing let's open this up to the public 7 39 we'll open it is there anyone here who would like to speak to this item all right seeing none and especially since the applicant is the only one in the public who's attending right now no no sorry well i guess we got a couple well we have one all right but anyhow they they didn't raise their hand uh if you do want to speak to this just go ahead and raise your hand through the participant button and we'll let you speak other than that we will close the public input portion at 7 40 tonight and um commissioner riedel would you like to continue with your motion thank you thank you um no conditions suggested by staff here so i move that we recommend uh approval of the pewdie amendment allow the height of the building to exceed 35 feet at 5920 club valley road a second all right the motion was made by commissioner riedel and segmented by commissioner hagenberger uh any discussion on the motion yeah uh chairman i would just add that um i'm glad that um director darling did do a pretty thorough review of the fairness of the neighbors sun access i think for me i think it's fair to say that if this were presented earlier would have been part of the uh the earlier amendment so i'm kind of balancing the fairness of the neighbors with the fairness of um having a second bite at this apple as a uh you know a trailing animal you know separated from its pack that kind of thing so i'm just trying to balance that fairness myself and i think i think it's also uh pretty telling that neither of the two adjacent neighbors submitted any comments with regard to this yeah and i was thinking in a perfect world we would take into account hip roofs and setbacks and height restrictions because uh with a big setback and a hip roof i'm not worried about this one especially the the 40 feet uh separating the two that like overwhelms uh that the four-foot difference in terms of the angle the sun and the shadow uh that really makes a big difference perhaps the biggest difference of all here in terms of the impact all right any more comments on the motion should we move into a vote sing none move into all called votes commissioner gorham aye commissioner eigenberger aye commissioner galt aye commissioner riedel aye chair maddie also votes in the eye the motion passes unanimously to recommend approval for the pd amendment all right thank you mr packer all right thank you all have a nice all evening we'll move on to a conditional use permits and share before we move on i would point out that this will likely be going to the december 14th city council meeting okay thank you all right moving on to the condition news permit for special purpose fence at 5730 club lane i think we've got a couple of new guests so i'll just reiterate that we're uh appointed by the city council to make recommendations kind of do the homework for the council on land use issues what we recommend tonight will just be a recommendation to the council they will make the final decision in coming weeks with that we'll let director darling give a report and ask her a bunch of questions so whenever you're ready director darling nice to get me again tonight i'm gonna call you tech tech notreman are you giving the uh presentation today yes okay well whenever you're ready perfect um good evening tonight we have a request for a conditional use permit for a special purpose fence at 5730 club lane the request is for a six foot privacy fence for the purpose of enclosing the rear yard for the new residents being built on this lot it would be considered a special purpose fence and require conditional use permit because it varies in height design and location from the residential boundary fence regulations currently in the city code the fence in question will be located as shown on the attached plans that you should see on your screen now extending across the north side of the applicant's property back from the right of way of smithtown road along the length of their rear property line and then along a portion of the south property line back to the house the applicant is proposing the fence to increase privacy in the backyard specifically they would like to give their dog some additional shielding from both smithtown road and the pedestrian path that runs along on the north side of the property between their home and smithtown road the shorewood city code does not allow a six foot boundary fence to be placed on residential properties that flood a public street the code would allow for a four foot fence to be in this location but because it is a six foot fence that is where it varies from that regulation and again proposing the six-foot fence to just give them a little bit more shielding in their backyard to kind of keep their dogs from barking at anybody that might be walking on the path or driving by and also a little bit more security for the dogs i understand that they are quite large and could possibly jump a four foot fence so that would be the request for height the variance on the setback is a six foot tall fence would be required per code to be set back 35 feet from the property line and they are proposing about 10 feet back from the property line that abut smithtown road and then additionally any six foot total privacy fence would need to be eight feet from an interior side lot line or a rear lot line and they are proposing to be directly on the property line i will note that we do allow fences to be placed directly on the property line with the written consent of the neighbors in a situation where a conditional use permit is not needed and then on the final aspect in which the fence varies from the code is in the design that it is being requested to be a total privacy fence versus the 25 percent open from the ground to the top of the fence that this that city code would require we would allow 25 percent of the rear yard to be enclosed with the total privacy fence without a conditional usb permit but again because this is pretty much the entirety of their rear yard we would require the conditional use permit for this type of fence staff would find that the proposed fence doesn't cause any adverse effects on the general welfare public health or safety um and with that if you have any questions i would be happy to answer uh tech notreman you said the setbacks would be um or can be amended with letters from their neighbors is that is that what you said um so in a situation where a conditional use permit is not required for offense we do allow people to construct fences on the property line if they get the written consent of the neighbor so in this instance you could approve it we could approve that okay yeah to be on the property line without the written consent of the neighbors i do believe that um the applicants have spoken to their neighbors on both sides and that they are fine with it being on the property line but well actually uh they only have a neighbor on one side uh to the south uh and that's a new home that is currently under construction as well uh north side is smith down road there is a house to the um to the west as well okay and typically that's a four foot fence that's allowed to be on the property line is that correct um no it can be a six foot fence with the written consent of the name so yeah okay so currently the written consent has not been provided well it's not necessarily needed but how would we know the spirit of it is that the neighbors would consent to it well i thought it was i thought if if you don't need a conditional use permit you need it if you're just building it right and you're you're just doing it and letting the city know so okay but okay this doesn't make any sense if you need a conditional use permit are you saying you need less agreement from your neighbor than you do if you don't need one that doesn't make any sense to me i would assume you'd need the agreement from the neighbors with a conditional use permit as well well in this instance the neighbors were notified that this was coming in front of you with the details of the request and we did not receive any comment from them however they also did not provide written consent so their inaction would imply they don't agree with it well we just said that for the last for the last one we just did we said we didn't hear from them and that's a good sign someone said that i think not hearing but hearing from them is different than them giving permission yeah i i i would agree with that this is a solid wood fence that's being proposed here which by the way condition of approval you could certainly require the consent of the property owners to put it on the property line well yeah i definitely that's definitely something that i would want added in in any motion the other is uh i drive smith town road daily multiple times i drove it tonight on the way home in the whole stretch of smithtown road within the shorewood boundary there is one very old privacy fence which is maybe it's west of this property and is just runs along the street but there's some greenery there everybody else that has done anything with for privacy shielding has done it with shrubbery this is out of character with that whole stretch of road can i just say one thing um hold on one second let's uh let's make sure we've all exhausted our questions to staff and we'll get the applicants in there any more questions for staff not to prolong this but so i'm pulling up the code uh just to summarize um the applicants are applying for a conditional use permit for a special purpose fence and um so tech notreman can you clarify um with conditional use permits other conditional use permits there are specific requirements that have to be met uh are any of those listed in our code for special purpose fencing or is it simply that if you want a fence that is higher than four is taller than four feet with more than twenty five percent et cetera et cetera you need a conditional use permit um so are there further conditions under which the cup would normally be granted or is that just left up to the planning commission and the council um so there our fence regulations are extensive um we went through every every single piece making sure that um you know they were meeting those and then it says if um if someone wants a fence that varies in any way from the above regulations they should follow the conditional use permit process to construct such offense so i listed out just the criteria that we have for considering conditional use permits and the findings and recommendations um but that would be it okay no specific ones for yeah that's what i'm saying too so uh i agree the requirements on fencing are um very specific but um if you want to exceed those it's simply a conditional use permit and it's not as though the conditional use permit would normally be granted under specific conditions it is at the discretion ultimately of the council to grant um offense that um exceeds regulations for which the applicant is uh proposing or applying for a cup there are no specific conditions for the cup okay i think i got it all right any more questions for staff yes go ahead uh commissioner check norderman under uh your analysis under the setback the last paragraph said uh the fence would be set back approximately 10 feet from the property line which would make it set back approximately 30 feet from the edge of the road the requirement is 35 feet right so they came back just far enough so that they avoid obstructing the view from the driveway of 24905 is that correct uh yes so the setback is 35 feet from their property line um would be the required setback and they it's we measured the setback from the actual road considering that the pedestrian path is there um and so that is what's 30 feet so it will be 10 feet from their property line but which makes it 30 feet from the road so is the required center from from the road is the required setback measured yes the reason that uh tech noderman is measuring it from the street is so that you have an idea of how far back that's going to be from smithtown road itself and so you have a better idea that they would not the fence would not be obstructing the visibility from the neighbor's driveway okay all right any more questions for staff uh if not we'll move to uh the applicants i believe the applicants are here actually sorry sorry i was waiting for the others uh the code indicates a landscape plan uh for the setback be provided that we've seen a landscaping plan that is just for um arterial streets and smithtown is not an arterial street it is a collector it's a collector i don't know what it collects from flex from county road 19 all the way over to a highway anybody that's driving it knows it's an arterial street regardless of how it's designated yeah i would agree i would also agree with that right now um any last commissioner questions we'll move to the applicants all right and i believe the applicants are here the ransoms would you like to add to uh what we've already uh discussed thank you for considering our proposal um i just wanted to say so we did speak to our neighbor that is to the um east the west um and he is in agreement for a privacy fence there um he has no problem with it we did not get in writing but could certainly do that easily and the owner of the property to the south is also an agreement to a privacy fence currently it's owned by the builder but the people who are purchasing the lot have dogs and so they would also like a privacy fence there and have no no objection um you know part of the thing too with our dogs is if they don't see people there they don't bark we just don't want it to be an annoyance to other people or cause problems when people are walking on the sidewalk all right thank you and if you you're willing to take any questions we might have some questions for you sure you're back all right any any commissioner questions to the applicants uh could couldn't you provide blockage of the view from the dogs to the sidewalk with a four foot fence if you move the fence in i don't think so we have a golden doodle who's 80 pounds um and it we're going to put shrubbery there as well it's just that it's not quite tall enough we've purchased um five foot arbor vita um to also shield that but you know it'll take a few years for those to grow and that was as tall as we could really kind of afford to put in um the the grade of the lot itself is reasonably flat that even to push the fence in a little bit any you know anybody over five foot tall would certainly be visible and um just the our doodle is just a more protective dog and yeah when you see people you have the tendency to bark um and you know trying to minimize that for ourselves but also for all the people walking down the street and there's a lot of bikers and i wouldn't want someone to get startled and by some big dog you know coming up to a four-foot fence and them wondering what's going to happen and god forbid veering into the street or something i thought a six foot fence would allow us to get around all that and i think the walkers would have a more enjoyable time and i'm sure the dogs would bark a lot less all right any more questions for the applicants it's seeing none we will open this up to public testimony it is eight o'clock is there anyone here who would like to speak uh you can either unmute yourself and start talking or go into the chat function and raise your hand surprisingly since there's no one else in the meeting no one's raising their hand but somebody does want to say something raise your hand we will um recognize you because we're doing this digitally and sometimes things go slower than we want with that we'll move it right back to the commissioners and one thing i've got a burning question for director darling is reviewing the code on the who is our horse inspector i don't recall what a horse is because she issues the uh permits to have a horse so okay i had no idea that we had a horse inspector title in the city but um i think since we only have one horse maybe it's not such a big position and all right that was a job in city hall to inspect that one horse all right so moving forward back to the fences we'll go to the commissioners uh any discussion on this um so it seems to me this is an instance where uh the code is written to allow for a lot of flexibility i'm with commissioner gold that this doesn't seem like a special purpose fence but another hand that specific line of code says that special purpose fences are either fences for special purposes okay that's redundant but and fences differing in construction hider length so there's an end there which means that the conditional use permit may be granted by the council for any fence that differs in construction higher length than what the code prescribes it does seem that unless i'm missing something it's really up to the discretion of planning commission to recommend and then counsel to approve um any fence that someone asks for under a conditional use permit i i would yeah i i read that too uh although i would say that if it would i i interpret it as it's all offense for special purposes if it was special purpose fence or fences differing in construction not and so i think it's a special purpose fence that also differs in construction height not a non-special purpose fence but i probably have it i was going to ask this is what is that what defines it as a special purpose fence keeping dogs from barking or shielding property from the street or visibility i don't see a special purpose uh particularly since it was pretty obvious uh when the aronson's purchases this property you know what was going to happen in fact i i got it yeah i often i wonder why the patio was on the north side facing the street rather than the south side facing uh the sun but um yeah that's so i guess you know i view that whole section there given that it's subtitled special purpose fences applies only to special purpose fences well is there a section in the code that speaks to just fences differing in construction height or length how they're dealt with or is this it for if you want to build a taller fence this is where you go to and uh director darling and tech notreman correct me if i'm wrong but this is all that i'm finding so either you so everybody who builds defense of any kind always needs a permit and there is uh you know quite an extensive set of requirements but if you want a fence that doesn't this is uh you have to apply for this conditional use permit is that correct that's correct yeah okay so this is a natural if somebody wants a fence for a different purpose i remember a long time ago a long time ago being three or four years there was discussion whether hockey rinks put up in the winter are a form of fence uh i don't know if we ever addressed that in code but that might be an example they're only four feet high i know but still yeah the boards are only four feet high i'm i'm reading the residential district fences which this is yeah uh it's not a special purpose fence is uh i see it as a residential district and it clearly states 25 percent openness and and that you can't do 100 percent coverage or a boundary of the property so i agree this is the that's the equivalent of applying for a variance but it's a conditional use permit and the question is um it does hinge on whether this is a specialty purpose fence and whether that language uh i don't know it's just this is english grammar it's a little bit ambiguous it's fences for special purposes well they're they repeat fences twice correct if they didn't then commissioner gold's interpretation would nearly be correct but since they repeat it twice it could be that what are specialty purpose fences these are fences that are for special purposes and it also includes fences the different construction heights so the and becomes an or if you repeat the word fence in a sense i i don't know maybe well the title but the title is special purpose fences i agree yeah i mean i i see that paragraph as applying only to special purpose fences i agree i'm tending in that direction too i have a question um the fact that our dog is tall you know tall enough to jump over a four-foot fence onto the you know smithtown would that be considered something for special purpose just so that it would be the safety of the vehicle the safety of our cat uh that's what invisible fences are for yeah the fact that your dog is too big doesn't mean you cannot follow the rules yeah um just stuff off the top when i go further west on smithtown on virginia cove there was a home there that probably would have loved to have had a six-foot 100 privacy defense because their pool is clearly visible from the sidewalk and the street uh they have a four foot open iron fence and they're addressing the visibility with uh with shrubbery is actually privacy component is it the privacy component that is what's bothering people the most or because initially we had looked at whether we did you know a six foot fence with 25 sort of lattice at the top and then we thought well if you know as we go through the process if a privacy works that's even better but does that make any big difference if it goes from privacy to 25 open well it's 25 open from ground to to top okay well then that that's what that's what the code reads the intent of the code i believe is to keep the neighborhoods our community open let's not build big walls along everyone's property line and so and the board on board would be fine too um you know and then we can supplement with you know shrubbery for you know for additional kind of barrier well that's the big loophole in our fence code is arborvitaes are not mentioned which which side of the fence did you plan on planting those arborvitaes on the inside of the yard on the inside okay because i mean once those get mature they'll probably provide all the the uh privacy you're desiring without violating any city codes i just just thought why on the inside well we're planting a number of trees but just we like the trees and the greenery and it sort of softens the fence and it doesn't interfere with the sidewalk or anything the distance between the where they propose the fence and their property line is all drainage and utility easement and when people ask my opinion i usually suggest that they not plant trees and drainage and utility incidents or the public right away simply because the second it becomes mature that's when a project comes through and wipes it out that's a good point director darling which would indicate that uh you could move the fence back to for live as a city resident i would appreciate a softening of a hard walled fence on the outside we were concerned as it grows bigger it would encroach on the sidewalk so we thought keeping it as far into our property would be the most respectful way director darling um if a conditional use permit isn't the route could the applicants apply for a variance it could it would be my interpretation that the um that section of the code though does allow does allow an application for a cup for any fence that varies from the height design or location yeah that's the way i directed them yeah um i i tend to agree with that um just from the way that it's written um i know we're not supposed to take into consideration precedent um in planning commission deliberations but um i don't recall a cop being issued for this but uh can you comment well i guess we're not supposed to take into consideration i shouldn't ask if cops have been granted for such uh offenses in the past or not so let me i haven't seen any in the three years that i have worked with the city um or in any recent years before that i found some traces of i mean some very early conditional use permits um but right now i would say that most of the people that i've talked to when they asked if they could do if they could get a taller sign or a taller fence or a fence that's a full privacy fence and i tell them about the conditional use permit process frankly the application fees and the weight is usually enough that they don't go through the process i see okay that's helpful all right um should we move into motions or do you have more questions to be answered let's see no more questions so does somebody have a motion no pun intended but i'm on the fence with this one you intended that pun you know i i'm not a dog person but i did have to research um the difference between a four foot and a six foot fence and i know they're the ones taller uh but in terms of um um hindering dog um you know a dog jumping over it and i do get why the taller fence would be better i don't necessarily and i get i get why you want to i mean my my neighborhood is totally open um um but i don't necessarily understand going all the way around with it that doesn't make sense to me and i don't get this the front side setback um so if i if i were to to agree to it i want at least some version of this i'd want to discuss what that motion looks like i don't think i'd want the design like why does why did we go from how do we go from 25 to 100 does it have to be 100 percent all the way around um because we're only talking like we're only justifying it for uh smithtown so if i were to if i were to agree to something i think i'd want the design to be the privacy part of the design to be paired down to uh smithtown i would agree with that sure and um like why how did you choose where the where the um what side is at the front the part that abuts um smithtown it seems like you kind of you're kind of going for it as as as wide as you can make it is this a question for the applicants no it's more rhetorical i guess it's more yeah i appreciate that if you know we can get a letter from the app from the neighbors that i think that helps with the rear side and the interior i just don't understand why that by the front side of butting a public street section i don't know what direction that is why that has to be so well i think the uh you know the the whole privacy thing sort of it becomes a dog containment you know i mean if you want to keep the dogs in the yard without using an invisible fence you're going to need something to keep them from getting out so sure the privacy along smithtown in fact the the one fence that does exist uh is on the north side of smithtown and it just runs parallel to smithtown looks like it's been there a while it's pretty weathered but it i didn't see anything that indicated that it wrapped around the yard in total it just screened the street you know our old house we had invisible fence and you know i think it's a very different experience for anyone on the street if they see a dog running across the front yard barking at them and they're kind of assuming or hoping that it's going to stop at wherever the invisible fence is i think it's our goal with this privacy on the front would be so people wouldn't wonder like what's happening with this dog we're yeah we're certainly familiar with invisible fences but given the layout of smith on the sidewalk that was our desire to say let's see if we could have something that's going to struck that view more not only for the dogs but also just for the people for their experience walking along the what sidewalk going around in my mind is special use permit and and it seems like we're we're doing this because they have dogs and you know if everybody in the city who had a dog wanted a special use permit to build a fence um i don't know just doesn't make sense to me i agree with that on a higher level i'm really not happy with that code language in there it sounds like neither am i i'd say if you don't follow the rules with a cup why not just call it variance yeah or at the very least director darling could we put this on the slate that we should debate whether that's an and or an ore there so are these special purpose fences or is it a fence that differs in construction um in the future we should perhaps clean up that language make it clear if it's any help um many cities so well all the ones that i've worked for always have some kind of an out so that you can apply by conditional use permit for a different type of fence and i would agree with that this could this could be a 30-foot fence based on that language well but it's a conditional use permit so uh the commission and the council don't have to grant it uh you know so it's not as though a cop gives you whatever offense you want it simply means it's up for discussion if you apply for it i can tell you the engineering designs for a 30-foot tall fence would be prohibitively expensive i think we're good we've got a border wall that's 30 people it's already been designed okay i i don't have any more questions or comments on it i think what would the conditional use be is as long as the dog is there as long as the you know if something happens to the dog then do they have to take the fence down what's the conditional use i don't think that conditional use the label refers to it as a use that's conditioned you know for a time period rather it's uh simply a process that requires it's not you're on not automatically granted permission to do it without the planning commission and council approving the cup correctly conditional use permits are a permanent approval and they run with the land so once this fence is approved the way it is it does not have to be taken down after um at the demise of the pet or after the erinson's move okay it's it's simply a mechanism to you know allow a little bit of flexibility in aspects of the code thank you this particular proposal is a lot of flexibility as opposed to a little perhaps i'm sympathetic to this because i have a big dog and right from the beginning i've been thinking well four feet i i would actually be worried about the dog you know if the dog really had to clearing four feet a big dog actually could in some circumstances i think for the owners uh that that is their motivation right right otherwise i think that as director darling indicated you know the cost and expense of applying for this you would have been persuaded to either provide shrubs or put a four foot fence but this is just concerned the dog can get over that fence somehow well i think at four feet he can just put his front legs up and bark at people from the fence all day that's true a lot of people on the fence on this one to use your pun again so i i can record uh emotion uh but before doing it let's discuss what i'll propose it's that we recommend approval but subject to the two conditions that i think uh commissioners have raised one that the uh opacity the you know um not having the 25 percent openness that only applies to smithtown road and secondly that they provide a written agreement for the neighbors uh to have that uh fence right on property line sure i'll say written consent maybe i don't think we've we call written consent what did i call it a written agreement or written consent yeah they just like in other words before it's issued the neighbors have to say yes we agree to it in writing um i don't know if everybody agrees on the commission um on this one this one is difficult because i think commissioner gold made a lot of valid points that um you know there aren't other people live on smithtown road which is a busy road but you know everybody's not putting up a big fence um and so it comes down to whether having in my mind whether having a big dog justifies this or not and perhaps i'm sympathetic to it because i do have a big dog if we approve this six foot privacy fancy we have to approve others what kind of dog do you have how heavy is it how agile is it let's see it jump you know i i've honestly wondered this myself because we're thinking um of a fence where the dog could play and i've been looking at fences and looking at the dog and trying to figure out if four feet is enough or not um i think it is i think it'd be very hard for a dog to scramble over and to the owners i can say what i've been thinking that a fence and it doesn't have to be a set of you know jagged pickets on the top but the dog clear no dog can clearly clear it in the leap so they can only scramble over it and if you have a top edge that's not closed then the dog can't scramble so this would be a way to have a four foot fence that a dog simply can't get over um maybe that's tangential at this point it's getting late to discussion yeah i have a my concern on this is that it is a is a it's a walled backyard i mean let's let's face it it's a walled backyard it's it's a solid wood that is going to be completely exposed to the exterior and as the applicant stated likes the idea of softening the fence by putting uh the arbor of id on the inside um that's uh the issue with that is uh you know the exterior is a solid set of wood planks it's certainly at least in with target both of our neighbors to the south and to the west it wasn't a matter of them feeling like it's okay to put a fence up they were both strongly in favor of i like the idea they want to the south they want a fence up and bryant to the west was excited about the idea that we have put a fence up he's like yeah i'm good so it wasn't it wasn't that they were acquiescing to us they were they both were on board with like they liked the idea so you see are you implying that we should expect to see your neighbors to the south asking for the same thing no i don't think they're asking for the same thing um and certainly the you know we can do the board on board for the other three sides of the of the um lot and leaving smithtown as more of the privacy but i think probably our biggest priority is really just the six foot size for the dogs we had one dog in the past who got hit by a car and it was really traumatic um and that's just one thing we worry about um so that's really our biggest concern and i don't it doesn't matter really if it makes the council feel better to do um the 25 open um you know it would it would i would like to see that smithtown would be more of a privacy but i would be happy if it's able to be a six foot fence just for the security of the dog and and also for people walking by you know i just don't want it to be where people are like oh that dog or you know every time i walk by their house it barks and you know well i think uh you know you i mean you have the issue if it's if you have the gaps in the fence um what is the 25 i mean i i think you're talking when you're talking board on board you're talking alternating but still no visibility through my question to uh to director darling is the 25 percent meant to be a visibility 25 of the fence you can see through from one side to the other yes and there are some specs that we have and we can certainly send those to the aronsons um for how far apart those boards have to be in order to qualify for the 25 percent so maybe maybe my perspective on board on board is different than the applicants but uh i see that as you still can't see through the fence you've got the air gaps because it's but you still can't see through because there's no line of sight through the fence you can see through it by getting you're at an angle yes it does that qualifying qualify is that does that meet the criteria i can bring up this back here what about people walking down the street that the the dog heaters you got to see people walking down the street they don't bark then they only they only bark when they see somebody know it's obviously degrees of of how excited they get about anything but seeing someone there certainly gets their attention a lot more than you know they're going to hear people all around the house that's something that bothers them less than the visual so just um just to the spec that director darling put up that is is that a 25 transparent defense right there that is what was drawn up for 25 that doesn't look like 25 to me unless you've got your nose right up against the board you know looking through it sideways or at a very sharp angle well you know i guess the question is uh this is an approved design correct yes okay it's been one that's in place for many years another design would be to put lattice at the top a lot of people do that too right but i thought that didn't uh i thought the openness needed to be from the ground to the height maybe i'm going to spread something well that's an interior yard fence boundary line fences have a different criteria that doesn't surprise me defense regulations are very complicated well i no it's so all right well we're kind of slowing down here let's uh let's try to figure out a motion so i don't know if we're all in agreement with this and that's okay but i'll propose um just before we leave this though this design does not meet the uh i don't i don't see how that meets uh the residential district fence requirement of 25 percent if it if it i guess if it does it does but it it wouldn't be something that i would uh my engineering background would tell me that's not meeting that requirement we're talking about but any fence erected within any portion of the required i guess that's front yard hold on no all boundary line fences in residential districts shall be constructed in a manner that at least 25 percent of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open uh yeah i think i might take issue with our administrative decision on a double slotted fence and here's the expenses and yards of budding an intermediate arterial or minor arterial street which we were told smith down is not i1 may be constructed to a height of six feet in a front or side yard of budding the artillery street by conditional use permit uh so the conditional use permit is i would see being applied more to uh this viii section as opposed to special purpose however uh tech notreman and director darling smithtown road is not either one of those designations so it's a it's a normal normal residential street in that case which says you can't get a conditional use permit to do a six-foot fence let's dig into this what's the difference between an arterial street and a collector i don't have the language in front of me in my mind it does meet the definition of an arterial roadway but the comprehensive plan has it designated as a major collector the answer to the question is because the plan says so this is a very dangerous statement because the intent of the code might actually work out here right because even though it's not specific um an arterial and a collector are pretty much the same thing yeah i think it's i think that that section of code uh is there to allow people who have a busy street to gain some privacy from that busy street but it's only the side yard that the sixth foot would be allowed the side yard of budding smithtown yeah right exactly but having four feet on the other three sides won't help against the dog escaping problem that's true but i think the concern that's been expressed is the dog rushing people that are walking along the sidewalk and you know that's where they're going to be that's also where they're going to have their attention from yeah so okay yeah i'm actually based upon the discussion now leaning in that direction i don't know how the owners would feel um i think a conditional use permit can certainly be justified this is a busy road and the code does allow for a six-foot fence however loosely or no the code is very specific but the arterial um versus collector but as tiramati is saying the intent is look if you live on a busy road you can have a six-foot fence on that road and a conditional use permit gives the commission and the council discretion here so perhaps allow that but then recommend to the owners that for the other three sides um they uh consider options for four feet fence uh four feet fences that would deter the dog from jumping over it thank you yeah and we've still got the 25 percent open requirement there but but the problem there's a problem there with usage that if this is an approved design and i know neighbors of mine have just had a very similar identical fence to that put up those fences are being approved the board on board with the gap yeah yeah no that's what i say if it's a pr if it's improved design then we we have no grounds to object to it so how do people feel about the about such emotion i know it would disappoint the owners somewhat because they want the six foot fence all around but correct me if i'm wrong but they are allowed by code to have the six foot fence on the south property line without any approval except administrative if i'm where is that at residential district fences 25 open yeah yes if it's 25 open but it can be six feet tall oh okay require an eight foot setback um it says boundary line fences in all parts of shorewood which are zoned residential no boundary line fence shall exceed four feet in height and then if you go down to the fourth bullet point there fences may be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side property line from the rear lot line to the required front yard setback line that would be their south property line okay so then i just want to make sure we're not restricting something that they are allowed so they got it right to that six foot 25 fence on the south side we're talking about the other three sides right now is that clear yep thank you for that clarification well this is okay this is really strange then fences along any rear property line shall not exceed six feet in height what i don't understand uh but that's not also the rear property line of the budding lot so that doesn't even qualify there because that's the sideline of the next your neighbor yeah the way i would interpret that is that they could also have a six foot fence up to the setback line the front setback line of smithtown road which would be 35 feet back okay because that makes it qualified to be their rear lot even though it's kind of their side lot if you look at it okay so the only thing that does if i read this the only thing the conditional use permit is needed for is along the street the rest of it there's no permit required or no conditional use permit required but that's why it's 25 transparent yeah they they proposed solid wall yeah we would be fine with the 25 percent i mean we've all we've already i guess for you in the conversation have sort of i saw it as we were reaching the conclusion that the six foot height along the street made sense i think some of our concern was the six foot all around but based on the code there's no reason to deny the additional well in fairness i think the spirit of the code is to not have it doesn't allow six foot boundary line fences on up that above public streets the spirit is that they don't really want these things and so you've got to get a conditional unused permit to to get the basically the council's consent on based on how they feel what the city should look like yeah yeah so it's only along the street that there's any variance from what's allowed well it's it's not only the six foot height it's the setback also right well now the fences can be right on the property line along the street no not along the street but the other yeah along the street it's supposed to be 35 feet 35 feet back right um so what they're what they had originally asked for is to have a six foot fence that's full privacy along their property line on the two sides and then 10 feet back from their property line on the north side those that all of that request required a conditional use permit if you are essentially saying that you would approve a board on board fence on some or all of the fence at the six foot height you could you could write that condition in okay so um yeah because they're ten feet from the property line as opposed to the uh required eight uh they're ten feet where the code currently requires 35 feet well on that north property line uh no the code i'm reading says the fence shall be located no closer than eight feet to the property line along an arterial street if we're going to consider this an arterial well right yeah so if it's ten feet from the property line they're they're back an additional two feet uh i would like to see you uh director darling you mentioned that uh there's utilities running along there uh but i you know i would like to see a landscape plan on the exterior of the fence so it's not just i mean that is a requirement you could certainly make that part of a condition yeah so if if we're going with the plank on plank then we don't have that 25 percent of the yard requirement anymore is that correct director darling or um technoman say that again the um if it if it's 25 um open um then do we have that 25 restriction on full privacy fence anymore is that not required that would meet the 25 openness requirement and that would no longer be part of this thank you for that clarification i want to throw something out for for concept for people to consider it you know i would i would suggest a motion that we approve uh the conditional use permit that with the stipulation that 100 of the fence be bored on board that uh written agreement from the two neighboring properties is provided and that a landscape plan uh for um the smith down road uh section of the fence uh be submitted i would agree with all of that he submitted and what well submitted and approved simply require that uh there be landscaping that there be shrubs planted in front of that fence without uh requiring a plan uh simply require that there be a screening of the fence so the idea is that the code intentionally doesn't have big fences along roads because of i don't know we don't like that in short i guess but we don't want the shrubs too big because it's utility easement but we want them big enough to cover the fence i just want to make sure we're specific about this correct correct um just break up the monotonous look of the fence which i think the intent of uh as has been discussed of this entire ordinance is so you just don't have a wall of fences as you drive down a nice street um and having shrubs in front really does help yeah i think there is a a section of the code that uh the landscape plan needs to be compliant with i don't know where that's i don't think it's part of this uh what we have here 2g wherever 2g is so 2g was that the traffic one no that's uh 2g is what defines the subsection 2 2g of this uh chapter uh has the specifications for the landscape plan okay yeah so kind of well you know rather than us trying to define what would be required the code already has something that defines it all right um are we getting closer to emotion wait did i open the public hearing unless you yet i think i did oh you did director drawing do you remember i did that i don't better just to open it up again okay let's just hate to chase people we used to run run after people in the city hall but um we're digital now uh we'll just open this up to a public hearing i compiled for the second time would anyone else in attendance like to attend raise their hand 8 47 seeing no one else wanting to speak we'll close the public input portion of the hearing just to make sure we dotted all of our eyes and crossed our t's is there uh anyone who'd like to try to make a motion commissioner adults i suggest you go for it oh i suggest that uh we recommend the council approval of you move move to i move that do we recommend the council the uh backing up here uh the conditional use permit uh for uh 5730 club lane uh with the stipulation that uh 100 of the fence be bored on board that the neighbor to the west and the neighbor to the south provide written agreement for the fence being on the property line and that the applicant submits a landscaping plan in compliance with regulation one two zero one point zero three subdivision two g and um we'd like to see some screening on the public street side of that fence well that is what that landscape plan is whatever the i don't i i'm not comfortable in in us trying to specify what it should be or requiring more than what the code requires i think if they meet the code requirements uh there shouldn't be any issues but we could simply say a landscaping plan to be approved by uh staff but to do that too as long as so section g required screening and landscaping i agree it seems to spell out exactly what we need but are we really uh confident that i think that's okay because sometimes exactly it's part of conditional use permits or permits in general you require screening and landscaping it seems to spell out what's needed so okay let's just leave it to that section commissioner darling is are you comfortable with that wording on with regard to the landscaping i am yes emma i'll second the motion all right the motion to recommend approval with conditions has been made by uh commissioner galton seconded by commissioner riedel uh any discussion on the motion all right seeing none we'll move into a roll call votes again this is to recommend approval with conditions uh for the conditional use permit at 5730 club lane we'll start with commissioner gorham hi commissioner egenberger hey commissioner gaults aye commissioner riedel hi and chair matty votes in the negative and the motion passes three to two to recommend approval of the cop all right thank you everybody thank you very much for your time thank you move on to our next uh item of business is uh council meeting report now who did we throw under the bus for the last council meeting that was um commissioner ragenberger right yes how'd that go good we had no questions oh so i i guess that's good i don't know all right director darling are there anything you want to add about that last meeting yes um i would add a few things from that last meeting the first is um at the work we had a work session uh at the last meeting and it was um entirely on the comprehensive plan so azure aware the met council had sent back our comprehensive plan with a number of items that we had to meet including um that we needed to show more properties in the city that could be developed at a density of five units or more per acre to to allow for the construction of the 150 155 dwelling units that is our allocation for the reason regional demand and also that we needed to provide 48 units of affordable housing based on our size and the number of new dwelling units that we should be providing so um uh the consultants put together um a list of properties that we um could identify we had after having a a work session with the city council and um we've incorporated those into the land use map so what we were asking the council at the work session was you know did we show enough properties did we show their proper properties and then also how would they like us to involve the public in this discussion so what they did ask is that we refer this all back to the planning commission we hold a public meeting to discuss the changes we're going to be doing some notifications for the next meeting and so that is one item that will be on your next agenda uh those land use can i can i ask the who's who's asking this of us is this met council met council yeah okay and do they know that our average land value is over half a million dollars per house and we don't have access to public transportation yes all right i will discuss it later i guess all right thank you for that anything else yes at the main meeting um we did have um someone come to matters from the floor to um uh with concerns about uh whether the dredging company was or um was not in violation of their conditional use permit one of the issues was they had taken down a screening fence between the two properties during the construction of reconstruction of a road within the city of excelsior so the fences back up now although they have not gotten the gate up yet on that fence and then um so i just thought i'd give you a quick overview of that of that issue and then um let's see you didn't have any other park issues or planning issues on that on that meeting so that's pretty much it all right thank you and i can report that your uh your crew that's been working over at freeman park with that new culvert they've they're hitting it hard this week right in my backyard so uh it looks like they're just maybe all all done yeah should be done uh by the end of uh next week i think okay all right any questions for dr darling about other city issues i just uh not on city issues but you mentioned the planning uh have we set a date yet when we're going to try and get together with the planning or with the parks commission on the violins yes uh that will be um i might as well hit your next agenda so um because of the number of items on your next agenda including the comprehensive plan um a pud development stage plan and a preliminary plot for a 14 watt subdivision uh and two variances um for sync for some uh details on single family homes and a conditional use permit for telecommunication antennas at a site in shorewood here um we were not able to host the um joint planning commission park commission fire lane discussion uh at the planning commission meeting so um it'll work out better on the um the january park commission meeting which will be on the 12th of january so i'm hoping that we can have a quorum of planning commissioners at that meeting all right january 12th i mean we could have just had it on christmas day i'm not doing anything let's do a new year's day yeah it's not like i'm visiting my family i'm just stuck at home 12th of january and that's the seven o'clock meeting yes seven o'clock meeting okay i should be able to make that to them okay no problem for me all right um thank you for that anything else for our next meeting agenda uh well the other things that i just made for you in january so cup2 variances the pud development plan and preliminary plot for the property at eureka and highway 7. oh that one came back okay well that's not the 14 yes that's the 14. okay but that doesn't include the yellow house yet right that's still all right okay he's all that must be able to go all right yeah that will be a fairly big agenda so i can't guarantee that every one of those items will stay on that agenda um i'll be going through them to look through their completeness all the the new applications this week dr darling if you if you put fewer items on there we just talk about it for longer so there is that yeah if we can't get them to all of them we just push them back to the next media game we're a thorough commission uh director darling did you mention that the count met council wants shorewood to provide in addition to 48 affordable housing uh 165 additional 155 housing units yes in addition to the 48 i know those 48 could be part of it okay do we have that much undeveloped land at shorewood well there's always potential do they know about the country club yet we could just claim that yeah i tried that yeah well like maybe freeman park becomes a development you know don't joke about that no that can't have that happen that's that's the only large open piece of land i can think of in the city the old strawberry fields where are they all right um anything before we uh a jordan that i've forgotten any last moments we do have a couple of communities all right and i was always like we do have a couple of commissioners which terms are expiring so i have sent out applications to renew their um for another term so please submit those what's the deadline for that yes i can't make the meeting on the 12th then we might kick you out before that i mailed mine off to sandy already what what is the cycle for that director darling your terms expire in february okay i was gonna wait until someone else gets assigned march and then i was gonna put my march is my birthday month so i'm not doing anything on march well i plan on being in florida so no coffee you're not getting out that easy there's still internet in florida yeah that's right and we don't want to see a beach behind you we're only traveling so so the two things on the uh council meeting uh on the 14th that i'll be presenting are the the two uh two we did tonight right and the two from last night so the zoning ordinance text amendments and the um there was no nobody will have to present this particular meeting i'm sorry you only have to present from this meeting okay but there will be four items for planning related items agenda director darling i can do march no i was just joking i'm not going to be in i was just that was a covey joke i'll be able to do march okay i wish i wish i could go to florida in my mind i'm in florida right now all right so do we just hear this right we assigned march to um commissioner gorham yeah i mean i'll have to be i'll have to be graciously reappointed by the council but good lord willing things will work out i'll put in a good word for you glutton for pirates if you can get through sandy no it's on my list of things to do okay thank you i look forward to let's any any last last items or should we call this a wrap i move during the meeting all right uh the motion was made by commissioner galtz did commissioner riedel second that yes i second it okay and since there's no discussion on that i will thank all of you for a very thorough discussion and try to write by the citizens of shorewood moving into a vote to adjourn commissioner gorham aye aye commissioner eigenberger aye commissioner galt hi commissioner riedel aye chair maddie also votes in the affirmative uh and we are adjourned at 903. thanks again everybody good night all right thanks for manny hang in there mark thank you take care everyone thanks son bye for now you