[Music] good evening 7 o' we'll call the meeting in order Ken would you take the roll please yes I will Mr chair uh commissioner Wagner here commissioner young here commission sender here commiss Miller here Cher Gerard here thank you we ask if you're able please stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance of Al to the FL of United States of America stand chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes so moved I have a motion do I have a second I second motion a second it's a non-debatable motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed abstentions motion carries we have come to our part which is the open form we ask if anyone wishes to uh talk about anything about the city you're more than welcome to come up if you have specific questions on the two public hearings there will be a time at that point to also speak um so this would be for I would say more General concerns you may have does anyone wish to speak at this time all right seeing no one come forward we'll move on to the consent agenda chair is looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda I have a motion I have a second second I have a motion and a second any discussion any discussion on a motion hearing none all those in favor of by signify by saying I I I opposed extensions I item 7 a it's a public caran for fiance for a side yard setback at 518 8 Avenue Northwest Kathy Benfield bz 24-290 and resolution number number 0 [Music] 1-22-2018 518 8 Avenue Northwest the map of that property is on the screen click click on a couple other maps for that's a very enlarged one let this one this map then shows a little more this is the entire property of which the variance request is made for variance is regarding a proposed deck on this west side of the home the request is to build the deck with a 5- foot setback from this side property line line here this line uh instead of the 10 ft that's normally required by the zoning code one more image I will pull up this is a survey of the property showing the proposed deck again with the 5 foot setback here at its closest point and actually angles down to a 10 foot setback or a little more here in this location the uh request is in part I'm click to another image this will we'll get to it here to replace a crumbling patio that's on that side of the home going get to the photos here that were part of the submitt these are in your packet this shows it existing patio door here uh down two steps to a Crum crumbling concrete patio and again the request is to build a deck that would be at the level of the patio doors and come out so it would be 5 feet from the side property line instead or excuse me yeah 5et from the side property line these pictures that are included in the packet also show some deck construction that started last summer unfortunately it was started before they uh got a building permit and that was explained in the narrative but in short the uh City put a stop worker order on the project and said need to get a building permit they applied for the building permit and through that process of reviewing setbacks we determined that it was going to be too close to the property line thus they have revised their plan to this plan now to reduce the size of the deck to meet this have a 5 foot set back and then wrap it around to the rear of the home the city and as commissioner was well aware for the members of the audience has several criteria for approving variances of any type in the city of forest lake and in particular the one important phrase that is in our code it says that the Planning Commission shall not recommend approval of any variance application unless it finds failure to Grant the variance will result in Practical difficulties for the applicant and then there's several things that or items that we look at as part of a variance request doesn't meet those criteria or not uh one of the primary reasons for this dech proposal according to the applicant is again to have it at the same level as the floor of the home and then allow one of the members of the home to easily get to the rear of the property uh as she noted that this person I believe is either using crutches or a wheelchair or both and so having not having steps and having a deck at that level will make their life clearly easier and more mobile to get out to the rear yard rather than stepping down to a patio that's crumbling in reviewing the rest of the criteria we look at would the proposal have a negative effect on the neighbors is there something that would have F cause economic or excuse me not economic uh are there problems that it would create for the neighboring property and in short I didn't find any and that's included in my uh report that you've had to read one of the other criteria we look at is the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and as the applicant noted they bought the property with the patio door in place and where the prop where and where the home was situated on the lot is a situation they did not create uh and I'll point this out there's this triangular piece of land here and this also shows up on one of the other on this line this line here this triangular piece of land is owned by this neighbor here my guess is looking at the situation as the original lot line was this one that's further to the west but at some point a problem was discovered with where this home was built or the Builder of this home decided they wanted more property to go with this lot and essentially cut this piece off of this lot so the side setback is even worse reduced further because now there's a strip of land that probably was with this lot that no longer is I don't know the history of it but that's my best guess looking at what I see compared to all the other lot lines are nice and straight and more or less parallel north south it just seems odd that there's that little triangular piece that's probably was with this lot again a situation these current owners did not create and creates more of a hardship for them so with all that said uh staff's recommendation that the city City plan commission excuse me adopt the resolution of the packet it's resolution 01 22253 I think that's the correct number it might be 01 excuse me 011 y yeah the staff report so I had an error there and that's allowing recommending approval of the variance that would allow the deck as shown here to be installed with the 5 foot setback to the site property line the one condition on this approval is we're suggesting that it be subject to the applicant or contractor getting all the necessary permits from the city before starting construction on the new deck I know the applicant owner is out of town I believe possibly in Arizona but Joshua the contractor working on the project with Kathy the owner I believe came in he's I would assume be available to answer questions if there are any but first of all I'd be happy to answer your questions questions to staff hearing now the applicant can you just give me a couple minutes okay thank you is the contractor here would you like to add anything thank you very much this is a public hearing the way this works we ask if you wish to speak to this issue please step up to the Lector excuse me state your name and address for the record spent a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on this application once we have heard from everyone we will close the public hearing it'll come back for a decision by the Planning Commission then we're the immediate neighbors my name is Janet rondle and we're really good friends of Kathy and we would love to have them have a beautiful deck my question is when they redo it how wide is it coming outside of the door there so Ken before it goes to the back can you explode that up a little further Ken yep s so it shows s half 7.5 feet here I'm going to guess it's five maybe six feet wide at its narrowest Point here coming out of the door okay all right because when I was texting with her you know she wanted to make sure that there was enough area to safely walk and like you say transport somebody in a wheelchair so I was just curious and then right now unfortunately the deck that's sitting there doesn't go to the back but now this new one will correct just what's showing in yellow here is the proposed plan okay all right thank thank you thank you Mr chair did you get her address no uh 5 5 524 thank you by the way I open the public hearing at 711 p.m. I apologize for that sir um my name is Bruce wolf Bower my wife Kathy live across the street just a door or two down we also would like to see them the address please uh 607 8th Avenue Northwest thank you we'd also like to see them improve the property with this deck out there because of the way condition of the uh the other cement and the step down was out of the kitchen before and I do have a little bit of back history we've been there since day one in that development concerning that house that's tipped the next door neighbor's house that uh Jan and DNE live in that was actually the realtor selling the property that moved into that house and bought that property and I believe that they positioned that house so he could get a bigger house on that lot and they turned it so that it wouldn't be too close to the property line and the easements back then so that's just some history that I'm kind of aware of back in 1994 so that's all I have to say thank you thank you Joshua showen uh 507 eth Avenue I'm actually a neighbor as well uh and I just wanted to touch base with you about so so her that existing patio she has it'll actually be 3T more towards her house and we else in done with the back for the be it'll it'll give you more green grass in between then you had before the back so it's Nar than exis right this wi the patio is wider but the deck will be narrower correct exact J have a question J um Josh are you the one that constructed this deck at the point it's at right now I am yep were you unaware that you needed permits in the city of forest lake to do that no um we just thought we would do it try to get away with it not g to lie to you how's that working for you not good not good at all thank you my husband is concerned about the property line so I I know there's been people out there doing the surveying and stuff right so when you talk about this little V thing does that belong to us legally then yes okay for which part this because at some point we're going to sell our house you know as we get older and we want to make sure that the new owner would be are there two separate PS on that okay yeah see right screen line on the so which owner owns the triangle this the home immediately to the West yeah so she doesn't own a triangle yeah no they do she doesn't 14 not okay not the applicant not the applicant and like I say you know there's there's no animosity between us now but you know you always got to look to the Future because the next person down the road you know has to be Happ too if they're going to buy your house so I appreciate it thank you thank you anyone else wish to speak to this application I've got a couple of questions was the patio removed before installing the deck or was it left underneath it was left it was left and then I don't see stairs uh accessing the new deck where will the stairs go there will be two around the corner Josh do you want to come up use the mic please so basically there'll be one up against the house going out South that is and then one coming out she hasn't quite settled on her locations yet but I believe one up against the house coming out but there's a window there so it might get goofy but oh in here we definitely have those on the final plans when we in here Josh um so you see where the cursor's moving yep exactly yep one right there is what she's thinking and then one yep up top there okay and it's 14 in about off the ground so anyone else wish to speak to this application Ken do we have anyone online or uh anything that needs to be read into the minutes uh no and no thank you uh last call for anyone who wish to speak to this application seeing no one come up we will close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the Comm excuse me to the Commissioners for a decision can I have one question for you on the uh and this picture is just perfect so we're five feet on the one corner and 10 feet on the other do we attach this to the resolu so we're by granting a five feet we really they could straighten that out and make it five feet all the way down but do we attach the drawing that to the resolution so what the intent is um Mr chair ma'am or members of the commission the resolution doesn't specifically say that if you want to say to allow the five foot setback and and condition it to follow the site plan as included with the staff report that certainly be a fine addition I appreciate that okay just let me know where you want it in there other comments questions concern hearing none the chair is entertaining a motion to approve deny or table this application commissioner young Mr chair I would move approval of resolution number 01- 22-25 d01 um with the amendment that the one two three four five six 78th whereas says after much discussion and review the force Lake Planning Commission moved to approve a five foot side yard setback variance to allow the proposed deck addition as um as shown in the attached drawing from the side property line I have a motion do I have a second I'll second it had a motion in a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed abstentions motion carries we are the final decision unless someone wants to uh challenge the decision that we made otherwise in a week time the decision will stand as is so good luck on your project down she in Arizona good luck down in Arizona The Neighbors har we're all the neighbors yeah maybe it's snowing in there too and it's really nice to see such supportive neighbors yes very nice you're welcome to stay or you can go home we're a pretty exciting group so I have one minute Mr chair yes sir I out where we're at let the throng clear out of are we good yes thank you such a rambun this crowd item 7B it's also a public hearing variant for a lot size 18323 Forest Boulevard North Dan Emory pc24 -1 1295 resolution number 01-22-18 can I assume you're presenting yes sir thank you Mr chair you're welcome as you introduced Mr Daniel Emory has made an application to the city for a lot area variance excuse me for the property at 18323 Forest Boulevard on this map that is this lot here I'm going to put up a bunch of other Maps here also shown here property currently is 5.09 of five 5.09 acres yeah that's it for this site here Mr Amry is proposing to buy this property and Justin Bowser owns this property and owns all this property around it and Mr emry has been working with him to buy additional property when he buys the home and the five acres to create a larger lot and the minimum lot size in this area in our Zing District our egg district is 20 acres so he had two initial choices let me get another map here okay here's our agricultural zoning showing the whole area uh a 20 acre lot would have been to so another 15 Acres possibly widening it out on Highway 61 Forest Boulevard and then going way back back in here someplace I don't matter the exact layout or if he could have just over 10 acres which gives him clearly more room and let's see if I can find so now that doesn't it I know I've got the plan here somebody hang on now here's another view let's go with this the so again the properties here this is the gross acreage and the 10 acre plan comes back right about to this point here which is a 60 foot wide access r or access piece of property out to 184th and 20 acres he would not have needed a variance go through a minor subdivision been through the process but the advantage of having a 10 acre lot is well it's not as much acreage but it allows Mr Bowser to keep more property for future potential development on the remainder of his site so that was the requ or that's what they settled on again is reviewing he's requesting the 10 acre piece uh I know it's included in your report I apologize I can't find it right now so he they've applied he's applied for the variance they have a smaller lot size again as the previous application we have their various criteria one thing I looked at and a little bit different with this case is the zoning of the area and our land use designation again egg zoning these are all two to three acre maybe one five acre property all have an egg zoning across the highway to the West are all egg zoning and I did some math on the properties along 184th they run from 2.51 acres to 3.35 acres and the pro properties across the highway range in size from 10 acres to 41.5 acres in my opinion having a 10 acre property is certainly characteristic of the area uh even a 5 acre property is not out of character with these properties on 184th although it fronts on has a driveway on Forest Boulevard I think what happened again I didn't do a deep dive into the history I think all this was probably one property and then the subdivision went in and then they left the house by itself and this all got platted because this is all part of a plat and this is an outlot reserve for future development uh touching on go back to our comprehensive [Music] plan now this shows our sewer staging this is a good talking point the comprehensive plan has sewer staging when we have City expect San Square to eventually get to properties and and the corridor right along Highway 61 is shown here in blue It generally follows this NSP power line easement in this area this area is according to this is our showing development stage three here in the blue which means sewer by 2040 and the brown area is post 2040 sanitary sewer so a long way to say I don't expect and I don't think the city expects sanitary sewer to get to this area anytime soon why that's important is the comprehensive plan is shown the same Corridor for mixed use development and this is shown in the comprehensive plan for uh medium Debs City Residential I believe which I've got that in the comp plan yeah both of those both of those types of development would need sanitary Shore and City Water neither of which are going to be in that area anytime soon having a 10 acre piece again here will help preserve the remainder or more of this area have it available for development again when sanitary sewer and water get there if they ever do I don't I'm long way to get to a point I don't see a a problem with this request it's from any of these neighbors they will not know the difference whether it's a 5 acre or 10 acre piece it reserves again a larger part of this for future development provides it gives Mr Bowser more options if and when he wants to sell the property that uh is kind of a summary of my overview of the report the one thing to point out is uh the applicant was wanted more acreage in part so he could have more potentially have more accessory buildings and Miss Young pointed out and we reviewed the code that the 10 acre uh more than 10 acre property you're allowed two detach accessory buildings if you wanted to have more then you would need a 20 acre piece so just to make sure you're clear about that uh so I guess with that I will stop my talking we the applicant is here answer questions and I will take your questions from the commissioner Commissioners questions Kev Kevin um Canen can you tell me how many I I can't really see in the picture are there accessory buildings on the property currently yes there's a detach garage up in here and then a pole barn so that's two yes so you would say is Max currently CED that's all I have excuse me name and address please um Dan Emery and I currently live at 51 Clarence Avenue Southeast in Minneapolis um I just want to make sure that you you understand that as things set now those two accessory buildings are the maximum for the 10 acres correct and and I just noticed in the application that you were thinking about putting additional buildings on there I was thinking about it yes if I bought the 20 acres but I don't see that's an issue it's got a big building on it now okay so um and you realize how much of the property is wetland yes okay yeah that's those are just the questions that that I have sort of eyes wide open sort of thing we're in a wide open meeting tonight any other comments you would like to add um no I just um we looked at going to 20 acres and it just it didn't make sense with the future layout and development of the property with the mix use zoning in the front in the future and then if I did the 20 acres there's also a tentative plan for a road to come through there in their comp plan so we didn't want to use too much Road Frontage up and then if I went back it would be taken away that access point from the other neighborhood so that's when I went over over it with Ken and he said you're right it does make sense with the 10 acres so in the event I don't get the 10 acres we'll just switch and go with the 20 acres it's we just think it makes more sense this way okay agree and I can always do the 20 acres later I would assume so buy another 10 yeah I do know the seller we've been friends for 20 years so that's part of the drive to get the land is he owns all the land next to it and I have two kids so it's a good fit so good thank you any other questions of Staff this is a public hearing we ask if anyone wishes to speak to this application please step up to the Elum state your name and address for the record you spend a couple minutes uh giving us your thoughts once we've heard from all parties we will close the public hearing so we'll open the public hearing at 7:30 do anyone wish to speak to this application Ken do we have anyone online or is there anything to read in no and no again all right I'll ask one more time does anyone wish to speak to this application seeing no one come forward we'll close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Commissioners your thoughts and before we start I will give my two cents here this would create a non-conforming lotto CU of the egg in all of my years on the commission I've never seen someone with 10 acres be non-conforming so I don't really have any problem with this it brings it closer to conforming correct it's Unique so that's my two cents anyone wish to make a motion I'll make a motion to approve the lot area variance uh request to allow the creation of a 10.1 acre parcel for the property located at 18323 Forest Boulevard North I have a motion do I have a second second it I have a motion and a second any discussion Mr chair that for adoption of the resolution that does that that was that the intent of the motion there is an actual resolution yes to adopt the resolution thank you I didn't want to assume anything but any discussion hearing none all those in favor by signify saying I I I opposed abstentions motion carries so this will move forward and and you're good to go if no one um challenges our decision the Planning Commission is the final decision typically in this unless someone wishes to challenge it but if no one does within the next seven days and our uh our motional stand so welcome to the neighborhood and you're free to go if you [Music] wish well we're gonna talk landscaping that's gonna be yeah this would be right up there with signs all right item eight a discussion on landscape ordinance revisions Ken since I I don't see anybody else in here I assume you're given a presentation I'm getting my money's worth or you're getting my your money's worth out of me tonight however you want to put it thank you Mr chair uh as a commission is where we've been working on updating zoning code almost for a year now the first big accomplishment was the reorganization of the code which was adopted in April of 2024 that called it the architecture of the code and laid it out so it made more sense and flowed together in a more and a better organization we believe we hope in December last year then we had a review of and discuss changes to definitions in the zoning code we uh also at that time at least had included some information I believe on Landscaping but we didn't get to that at that meeting so here we are we're going to talk about landscape code when so the goal of when we we staff Claire and myself started looking at the landscape code as the commission's well aware there's one section that often gives us problems about how many plants need to be planted on a commercial industrial site it's the 30 is based on the linear footage of the property one tree for every 30 linear feet foot and one shrub or ornamental tree for every 10 feet and I think it was even brought up during the interstate project about how many trees how many shrubs can they really get on our property does this make sense so that was one of our Focus points we're trying to improve the ordinance our goal both for Claire and myself when we started looking at it we thought this landscape ordinance is is pretty involved there's a lot of elements there might there be a shorter more condensed version that will still serve the city that we could just do a re repeal and replace we're just going to get rid of everything we have and try to boil it down to something that would be more manageable and she looked at several ordinances I looked at a few ordinances from other cities in the area and as I summarized in the report the simple what I would call the simple landscape ordinances were one page and really didn't cover enough didn't do enough and then there were some that were even more complex than the Forest Lake code and we thought boy we don't we don't want to go there but in reviewing those codes we did find some language that we thought would be helpful uh including some proposed language is which is in the draft ordance about how to better handle in our opinion the number of trees and shrubs that need to be planted on a site and that is on page 47 and 48 in your packet which is also in the ordinance and we did find language in these other ordinances that's talk about the landscape requirement being based on an area calculation rather than the perimeter of the property and the way these other ordinances did it they calculate they would have the applicant calculate the landscape area of a site in other words the areas that are not building or pavement or existing natural areas are going to be preserved calculate how many square footage how many square feet that is the area area and then use that as a determining factor for how many trees shrubs ornamental trees would need to be planted so what I have proposed again towards the bottom of page 47 on page 48 of your packet is says the minimum number of required overstory trees and minimum number of required understory trees and shrubs on a project site shall be determined as follows total square footage of All Landscape areas on the site shall be calculated landscape areas include anywhere on the site that is not building and pavement existing natural areas or existing natural areas such as Wetlands then goes on to say the proposed landscape PL shall show one plant unit which means one tree or shrub or ornamental for every 3,000 squ ft of landscape area or open space on a project site and then item C and there's a typo there it says no less that and it should be no less than 30% of the required number of plantings may be overstory trees and No More than 70% of the required plantings may be ornamental or trees or shrubs so in other words we didn't want somebody to just say well I got to do a whole bunch of plantings I'm just going to do all trees and shrubs or conversely we don't want to sever penalized and say well you got to just plant all Big Trees either we're trying trying to strike a balance there have some minimum some Maximum so I did a little math as an example if a site had 2,000 squ feet of landscape area that we use as a calculation uh 10% oh excuse me and under the old formula uh if we divided that by 10 that' be 200 shrubs uh and if you divide it by 30 that would have been 67 trees which would be 267 plants and if I did my math right that would be 75% of those would be shrubs 25% would be trees just as an example of how that should work uh where am I this right so that that's just that's that's probably the biggest change in the ordinance that and again trying to resolve what I would call the most Troublesome part of our landscape code that we've dealt with in recent since my time here the rest of the ordinance so the entire landscape ordinance is in your packet starting on page 49 did I do my math wrong no you did your math right but I'm okay I I I did some math too so I okay I was just making sure that my math was right so the entire landscape ape ordinance existing ordinance is in the packet again starting on page 49 we have we have proposed new language with bold and underline and striking out sections I'm happy to walk through that if you wish I can highlight some of the most important changes uh let let me highlight a couple of the important changes if I will if I may so on would be page 49 landscape plan a added in the the use of institutional uses the code didn't specifically say the institutional uses which are churches schools public facilities had to have a landscape plan it was always kind of assumed I think so it added that as another type of use that has to have a landscape plan and Jesse was asking for the meeting uh these are for everything except single family homes and Twin Homes every other type of development is required to have a landscape plan so that's why it's important to call out institutional uses there uh second probably most important change is going over onto page 50 item C kind of in the middle towards the bottom the language talked about minor changes and major changes I'm proposing at the end that major changes shall only be approved by the Planning Commission it doesn't make sense to me that if the Planning Commission approved the original landscape plan that a major revision go to the city council if they never were a part of the review process we'll see what the council thinks about that but I think makes made sense to me uh so that that it's it's a policy change but I think it makes made sense to me page 51 then uh in the middle has the strike out of number two the existing language and then the proposed language that I went through uh we can talk about that more if we need to uh top towards the top of page 52 item D we added in some minimum sizes for potted shrubs and for planting Evergreens they they weren't there weren't specifics standards in the code so wanted to add those in added in omor Maple as a species not to be planted or to not be planted uh added language about traffic visibility intersections to make sure that that is correct and so that Landscaping does not cause a problem uh item D do towards the bottom of page 53 we expanded the language about the USD USDA zone three hard uh some of you may be aware our hardiness zones have changed Through The Years so we made it just a more general term that plantings have to be uous to the appropriate hardiness Zone and physical characteristics of the site so a little hopefully a little more flexible but a little clearer at the same time uh and then on page 55 if you recall the last time we looked at this we proposed to bring in all the landscape section all the landscape language from all the districts and put them into this landscape ordinance so items h i j and k they're all bold those are all existing words we're just moving them now so all Landscaping is in one place and this this is the same that you saw the last time none of these words have changed they're just moved to a different spot uh one thing then on page 56 item M we're proposing item m is m is new language it says all areas should be all areas area typo not otherwise improved in accordance with the approved site plan shall be SED exceptions are as follows seeding of future expansion areas as is shown unapproved plans undisturbed areas containing existing viable natural vegetation that can be maintained free of foreign or noxious plant materials the use of mulch materials such as rock or wood ships and support of shrubs or Foundation plantings I think all that was probably again assumed when somebody put a landscape plan together especially the the area where future expansion areas are showing on plans it doesn't make sense to have those planted with trees or SED or irrigated if they're showing an expansion now the risk is if it the expansion expansion never occurs well it's green grass hopefully and that's fine but I think it again that just shows plan for the future and you don't have to plant in those areas we're still going to require the same number of trees and shrubs rest of the site you can kind of leave open space for maybe it's a parking lot maybe it's a building addition those kind of things that's the intent of that um while I was reading through this again this afternoon for building Foundation Landscaping I I going to propose they add the word institutional in there in the beginning I don't have it's it's not in there now so that would be a change I'd be recommending that wasn't shown just like have institution at the beginning uh page 57 we add in some language about Native plantings are native plantings are allowed again making sure that that's clear uh and I think those are the those are probably the major changes again the the most important one the most challenging one is the language about the number of trees and shrubs to plant so rather again summary rather than replacing the ordinance it in my opinion and cla's opinion it was better to work with what we had because as you can see a lot of the language was good but we're not recommending changes to all of it but we're changing enough of it to hopefully make it more consistent with current practices and serve the city and developers better going forward and with that I'll take questions Susan I gotta believe you got one if it's Landscaping well I have I have several but other folks may want to go further Kevin I just have one uh Ken when you were talking about uh M item M where there are areas not otherwise improved in accordance with the approved site plans and you allow seating and we're allowing seating and things like that is there something in place to uh do we still have to mitigate erosion do they still have to leave up erosion fences and things like that until that takes hold yes how is that maintained yeah that's that's both a city standard and a watershed District standard okay I got a question on page 59 under landscape guarantee it says that all new plants will be guaranteed for one full year yes so if they do a building and all the trees die after two years we don't require them to replant them well me I no I think we've add now I'm going to take that back because I reading that you'd say no we don't but I think we've added language to say let me find it that they have to I think they have to page 58 I thought we had a language saying you got to maintain your Landscaping page 58d number two and and I saw that I to me it's kind of wishy-washy but let's see if that is what you were looking for yeah yeah I guess that does kind kind of cover it there right the trouble is it's notification by the city and we are not really good usually TR looking at noticing those things correct so do we need stronger language in our suggestion or more staff that that's for other uh other people that's up at the de I understand and and actually that if if I may if we got I would imagine if we got a complaint that XY XYZ businesses over there all their PL Landscaping has died we we would investigate as a staff and say by the way you got to take care of this but that would be on a complaint basis I got an address for that Canon um uh irrigation which has always been a kind of a sore spot up in 153 135 B9 what what page are you am Paul uh I'm on my notes which have no page number 153 153 136 135 being prob be early on5 location and prelim preliminary design of all inground irrigation system needs to be systems for those landscape areas the designer determined will need irrigation to survive which is page 50 hold that thought for a second that's one that I so but then we get up to 136 number F and it says we require sprinklers so do we is it always a requirement I just want them to match I prefer the stuff to be alive also but I'd like them to match from an ordinance standpoint the so to to the first first part on nine the goal with that is if they can plant materials that don't need irrigating so I don't prairie grasses or other Natural Things that or again don't need irrigation I don't it doesn't make sense to irrigate everything if if not everything needs irrigation so they are a little bit inconsistent I'll I'll grant you that well but aren't we you know letting the you know the designer is going to get squeezed by the developer for nickel so that's my fear of leaving it strictly up to the designer well and and so we could certainly drop the last part of that in nine as they dro the designer determines we'll need uh irrigation to survive and even even natives need to be irrigated the first year and usually the first three years well I I'm I'm okay with that if you prefer to change to make it stronger well I just to me if if like I say the developers will squeeze their subs and I'm sure this is one area they'd be more than happy to so if I may number nine could read the location and preliminary design of inground irrigation system for landscape areas yeah I'm happy and then I think the the only other thing is you know we have sizes on these trees yes um and you want them bald so we want trees Spade them out so you know I'm replacing trees because I have emerald ashb and the nursery is telling me don't put in the Big Trees because after three years the smaller trees will exceed the growth of the bigger trees now I don't know if this is completely true a one and a half inch caliper is a trunk that is that big we're two and a half though yeah we're two and a half on the in item still what do we where's a caliber inch measured usually six feet above the ground I usually have have taken it as chest high five that's where it's four feet from my height well yeah but it's not going to change all that much in the that seems like a pretty big it's not really all right is that like a 10 gallon pot then or 20 gallon pot or we have to get it spaded for that they want them spaded here and this is my well those would seem to be really big trees I just helped a neighbor put in a red maple and it was about that big round all right and it was in a a little bit bigger because I could I could not quite get around it and it was in a 20-gallon pot so we we specifically stay you got to Spade them yeah and we're not out checking what they get put in the ground if they come in a pot we're more concerned about the caliper inches where are you seting the spading please in item D top of page 52 y Oh by Tre SP it says or shall be bald and burlapped or removed from the growing site by a tree span so they can just be a BAL to burlap and quite frankly container grown trees should be fine I would be tempted to give them a diameter inch and no I I would delete that first I been tempted to delete the first sentence all right and then just go with the minimum caliper size and and the Conifer and the conifers being six feet um and then however they are purchased from the nursery you know so you if I may you're you're not concerned if they come ball ball and Burl or Spade nope I don't is is I don't even think there's any other way to get a tree is there yeah container grown or both mine came in containers okay yeah so I would be tempted to delete the first that first sentence okay um I would concur is that a consensus to the commission yes we got at least 50% I'm not sure I can see Kevin's really do matter okay this yeah it's okay first sentence is gone PA did you have any others uh no I think I'm done whining on it so Susan what do you got left okay what this says is do we need to go back to the beginning yes please okay what page we on um we're on page 49 under landscape plan yes it says in here major subdivisions and to me this includes the landscape plans if it's the landscape plans for the major subdivision it's the landscape plans for each lot in those subdivisions and I need to know how you are defining one plant unit because I too did the math and what we had last week proposed was that 45x 45 foot loot which is 2,25 Ft which would then be required to have a shrub or a tree and I don't think that that is sufficient what district was it in single family it was the the one Tanner Brook last week that came in mxr so that's not uh detached single family or two family residenti yeah he had detached on 45 by 4 foot 5 foot so our next section says detached single family is four trees per lot and can I jump in for oh absolutely I don't again been a little a little more than two years I don't ever remember seeing a landscape plan for a major subdivision we always again my time here so far we just check that make sure that four trees get planted per lot with the building permits now the one thing with the major subdivisions we do require Boulevard tree planting and that's laid laid out in the code too but when we've gotten some sub divisions in I don't remember and it hasn't been many I don't remember reviewing unless our Engineers review them the tree planting plan for the boulevard trees in those subdivisions so that's that's something that's something I need to clarify right if I'm a developer and I'm reading this it's like okay well here's my major subdivision plan and and here are all my lots and and for every 3,000 ft of on building and the 45 by 45 that was the total lot that that assumed no no how nothing yeah just the straight lot that's one plant unit and so I I want to make sure that that's not what we're going to be getting because especially as we are starting to talk about being able to um shade houses in the summer to reduce the the air conditioning load um and and we're talking about air quality issues and we're talking about sustainability trees are an important piece of that and so um so if if we can jump to page 51 minimum landscape requirements so item A is for detach single family two family residential it's four Lots or four trees per residential lot Item B then goes on to say other than detach single family two family residential so Item B then covers every other kind of development that will happen in town and so that's where we get into the lot or the the landscape areas on Commercial sites institutional sites those kind of things what else will we condo complexes or townhouse complex yep then I might take out the major subdivision I'm I'm I'm I've got a question mark by that I want to check that but I think that's a possibility yes okay um but we still want to make sure we're getting the and we have another standard in here about I think Boulevard trees every 30 or 40 feet some place are required if it's not in our landscape ordinance I know it's in our engineering design standards for subdivisions sorry I need to get back to where I to where I started my notes um someplace we need to Dei Define what a plant unit is I mean I'm used to animal units you know animal units per acre I I know what that is and it's all defined Two Goats is one animal unit one horse is two animal units da da da da I don't know what a plant unit is where yeah I agree we we can clarify that the way I was treating if you look at or working it item D at the top of page 52 where we talk about the minimum sizes we just talked about I was taking one one deciduous tree any one of those things is a plant unit whether there one deciduous tree one coniferous tree one shrub one Evergreen each of those would be one plant unit in my mind so going back to my original on a 55 by 55 foot lot that actually has a house on it they if it's a part of the subdivision Landscaping they could have one shrub on the lot because there's a conflict between saying you got four trees per lot or one plant unit but we take the most restrictive remorse we would require require the more restrict then you need to say that in here somewhere because one of the things that we've we've heard is well I don't know what what the rules are and and and I I I looked what you had in your code and now you're coming I come to you with a plan and and you want me to change that plan um um on page 50 I love love love that you've got in there on page 50 item six that the mature sizes of the plant materials shall be drawn to scale um because so many times we end up with something that is wrong-sized for the lot I think that's awesome and great um the on the irrigation on number nine I think that this is really vague is it design of the inground irrigation system for to get through one year or is it for the long-term viability of the plantings and so um I think that we need more information or or we need to to think a little bit further how we want irrigation required um and for so long on C I really like that it's the Planning Commission [Music] um D me just make sense um on page 51 establishing permanent grass or ground cover within six months I real after the certificate of occupancy that means that looking at the properties that are being built across the road from me um the entire time that they are building those it's all be ground and it's all eroding like a son of a gun and then they've got an additional six months and then they're going to come in and say well you know the ground was frozen or now it's too wet or now it's too whatever um I'd like to to think about a way to get ground to get surface covered even with a temporary spray on in sooner than six months you know and if it's if it's you you throw down the the spray on almost immediately and then come back in Cedar whatever but having with Hydro seed yeah but having that be ground all during construction and for the next six months all that that really does is it fills up our Retention Ponds and the developer goes away and we have to to to suck we have to redig those Retention Ponds to give us the depth that we need for storm water protection may I please the Watershed district has all sorts of rules on these and they are our partner in monitoring erosion control whether it's a commercial site or home sites and they do inspections and are supposed to be notifying the builders when there's an erosion control problem and getting on them to stabilize sites even on a temporary basis I don't know that we need to include any of that in our ordinance because well we have other sections the codee talks about erosion control whether it's in the landscape ordinance or not uh so that's why I don't I think with the the role that the Watershed District does by monitoring sites that we can hopefully rely on them to ensure that the ponds and ditches are not filling up that the erosion control whether it's s fences or hay bales or bi logs are being maintained and if they're not the actually the watered district has the authority to shut down job sites if they need to I wasn't real impressed with the performance on 202nd this fall which by the way is sort of continuing under the snow um again on on um page 51 I'm I'm I'm I still want to have some more clarification around be there um one plant unit for every 3,000 squ ft of landscape area open space um love the addition of G on page 52 also the getting rid of the AMR Maple um um I like the addition on the traffic visibility um again it's because of of areas um on Lake Street if where the the Mexican food truck is um on the west side of of Lake Street there's that really low planting supposed to be low but it it really affects visibility if you're trying to turn out on the lake from that road um and that's so I I really like the way that this is worded again since they're going to have to use the mature height of things um under D if you say it has to be indigenous then that means that it has to be a true native that was never improved and so I think that oh you're on DM page all right yeah so I think that you need to use a different word that would either be um compatible or um Hardy in the appropriate uh um I just use the word compatible but indigenous is a really specific word and so an improved Carl Forester grass wouldn't be allowed or an improved little blue stem or or something like that wouldn't be allowed and I think that there are some good sort of improved but but still native plants so if we change a word indigenous to compatible then I think yes please okay the next one I've got on 55 what is an objectionable view because in other places we required that dumpsters for instance be enclosed with a fence M are we saying now that dumpsters would be enclosed by Landscaping which wouldn't hurt my feelings in some ways but I guess I I I I want to figure out what it is that we're going to call objectionable views right I hey this is this is a this is a draft this is this is well again that's existing language we just moved around yeah so if we took out two buffer objectional views and just said use Landscaping to break up the apparent because you're right what are objectional and it's up there in a too it's kind of like well you know it when you see it well yeah it it it's in all these and and I just I didn't Circle them all but I I don't know what it if you can't would be objectionable to Paul might be cool with me on something that I consider is well I I think that you could just remove that buffer object and just have it use Landscaping to break up the appearent size monotony and the screen service areas mechanical equipment Etc or something yeah and then we can lump everything else in Etc that we don't know y like I agree I like that we'll strike objectional views not that we're for them but we don't know what they are what I understand I know them when I see them exactly yeah yeah famous last words I think there's a Supreme Court case about that yeah on page 56 L that first sentence doesn't make sense landscaping for sustainability requirements for all business commercial industrial mixed use non-residential in a residential district there's no verb that's a hell of a sentence isn't it it it truly is but I'm not sure what it I think it once upon a time was a header yeah you're probably right we I think that that's what it was but right now it doesn't make any sense y I will uh I will check that and I wonder if we need the word institutional in there too I believe you do got it we will check that um I do like the the leaving undisturbed areas alone that as long as they're maintained free of foreign and noxious um I think that's that's going to be helpful to a lot of folks where you that is on page 56m um kenid mentioned that piece earlier um tonight uh M subsection B and I and I think Ken that when you do this the first paragraph in from M should be a number and not the letters oh yeah yep one two three y just like all above yeah gotcha the next one is on page 58 number six I have multiple exclamation points and yes in big bold letters so is that you're supportive yes really really really supportive and that's it okay thank you thank you my absolute pleasure have we answered all your questions and You' been able to provide all your comments adequately yes sir did Tim or Kevin have anything after she everything good Jesse Jesse I'm good we're good so with that discussion we'll clar and I will be putting our heads together sorting through whatever changes need to be done my goal is with this and the definitions that we went through work through those changes try to get the definitions in a final form get this in a final form then schedule a public hearing I don't these I think are manageable that I don't think you need to review them again before a public hearing that's my goal and maybe in a month soul we'll have that public hearing to try to get these moving towards the city council so thank you for all your good comments and review all right very helpful thank you so we'll move on to our updates tonight we have our new Council liaison uh council member Larson uh we always start with uh our lay on if they're there so the honorable I got a little trouble still with that but we at thank you commissioner chair uh and members of our commission um our Monday meeting on the 13th we had pretty light agenda we just approved uh some liquor licenses and things like that just normal business and uh thanked some of our donors and stuff from the uh Christmas event that we had at Lakeside Park which we had numerous uh charitable donations for that so we thank our local folks and businesses for being so generous and supporting our community in that um the only other thing I really have is uh they just put an email out here today to myself and chairman Gerard next week we're looking at uh interviewing two candidates possible for my open seat here on the commission so that's forthcoming other than that it's been relatively quiet so any questions yeah with that thank you thank you very much Ken uh a couple things Jeff am I remembering right that Mark our new city administrator should start the 18th of February that is correct yeah he was they were going to try to have him come in a little earlier but uh the city of Centerville was not really quite ready to release him yet so uh and he had some training I think beforehand so and so far he's still coming so it's he's he's watching he uh was watching our city council meeting and made some comments I guess to the mayor about things and stuff like that so he's he's watching our meetings and taking notes and I think things are moving along so we'll look forward to seeing him soon perfect thank you thank you I did have a couple other things I just wanted to make sure I had my information correct on that thank you uh next schedule Planning Commission is February 12th at this point we don't have any new applications pretty good chance we'll see I we might have the night off is where I'm going so just I know you'll mddle through if we don't me but I just want to let that let you know uh Council next week the the two concept plans that you reviewed at the last meeting the Serene property and the scha on Fenway with the little townhouse lots are going to the council for their concept review comments you you remember both of those Jeff and we'll see what the council thinks um just and then the developers will decide what they want to do I think the Serene one the one off a good view is I think they want to they're pretty excited I think we'll see that come in as a preliminary plat pretty quickly the other one I well we we know there was not support here staff isn't supportive of it I don't know what the council will think of it but that's that's why we go through the concept review they get feedback that's why we have a lay on yes I was fortunate he was here for the plan commission meeting for that item so they'll they'll be hearing that Monday at their regular council meeting um uh I don't have any other updates of plus commission has any questions of me questions for Ken Kevin yep just uh to to to our our new council member Jeff over there um you know when mayor Roberts uh was at our meeting last time and we talked about the uh plat over off of good viiew uh he did make comments about budget and not having enough money in the budget for parks and how they would prefer maybe taking that into consideration money more than Park dedication with that piece of property the reason that I was in favor of it because I know the property well is it would make a great natural park you know not ball fields not tennis courts not pickleball courts any of that sort of stuff but it would make a great natural park with a nice Boardwalk through it it's got beautiful Wildlife out there ponds and trees and wild flowers that's what I was thinking when he talked about hey I'll dedicate this whole land you know for Park dedication in my mind right away I thought what a beautiful natural park so if you could relay that to uh the council and the mayor I will do that I had the same uh concept idea I think that you did it since it's wooded and and stuff leave it natural if you throw down some wood chips or whatever and have walking trails or whatever so be it um I know that with the the budget with Park stuff and I know that they just were looking at a $400,000 equipment replacement to a park and I don't know how much younger family stuff is in that development to still use it so I don't know I think he's just making sure that we just don't throw equipment in every little park because it would get extremely expensive Rel heavely fast and the trail that he referred to that is a private development the roads in that area are private roads and when several of us were around on that particular development that he referred to that they did their own chips and it was talked about by the Planning Commission that those Trails would have to be maintained by the HOA because they were not city property correct and so I I'm sure he probably just didn't remember that um but there's a lot of information coming through now um about the value of parks and open space and the way that you sort of build community and build cohesion among among neighbors um and and help knowing folks to help each other out when you notice that something is wrong because you've met them in a park or you've you've met them on you know sidewalks and things like that and I think that if if we are really wanting Forest Lake to be a community and not a whole collection of residential and Commercial properties those things are important and as as we look at some of what we consider our competing cities for for residential they have prioritized Parks not everybody lives on a lake y I understand that and and I I I get that that Forest Lake is is known for forest and Clear Lake and and and Bone Etc but none of our housing developments are on lakes that we're we're bringing in correct if I could have one other point to that even if the sea doesn't have the money to develop it or do anything with the land if we don't get it now it it we could very well lose an opportunity even if it just sits there for 10 years is at least preserved and a plan could be figured out how to use it later even if it's just the corridor to get the utilities through there it this is an opportunity I I'm sure most of the council understand and I I took Mayor Robert's comments more to just be aware that parks cost money and it's one thing to get the land but as you say develop veloping them with $400,000 playgrounds that's a whole another thing but at least getting the land in public ownership is a huge step in the right direction and I remember helping to construct two of the playgrounds in the city and they are still used heavily now and um the the the dragon Park you know leveraging that dragon from a community business um has been a great amenity and and we can be creative and there are an incredible number of grand opportunities now to pursue that we have some parks folks that are that are understanding that because of the importance from a health perspective that outdoor space and outdoor play or Recreation yeah there's there's movement also in that again as far as bringing back the Parks Commission and there's uh some people that were on it before that are interested in coming back so um hopefully we can build that up and and get that moving along again as well are those applications open now I'm not sure I know there just some of the past folks that I know have seen have and have had contact with they mentioned that you know I know uh Blake has mentioned something about that um and I suppose he's probably talked to a few people from past and expressed a interest in coming back so good to get that back up and moving again too thank you thank you Tim good Susan yeah Jesse good and I have nothing so with that the chair is looking for a motion to adjourn so moved I have a motion do I have a second I'll second it g to go really it's a non-debatable motion all those in favor signif by saying I I oppose extensions motion carries thank you all very much for coming out on this cold evening [Music]