okay yes that's true I turned to Michael all right and mystery chair it is seven o'clock I'd like to uh call tonight's uh planning uh commission uh meeting to order we do have a quorum uh it's good to be back in the same room uh with everyone so thank you it's good to see everyone um I'll take roll call commissioner brummond here commissioner Jacobs here and uh chair lanterman present please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all foreign so um I'd like to start off by uh greeting our newly appointed planning commissioner uh welcome I know I speak for even those of us who are not here I look forward to uh to working with you if you would please feel free to introduce yourself to everyone else here and to the folks watching yeah awesome them well very honored to be working with the city of Corcoran and representing um everyone in the city for our better interests I'm Lindsay I am a local resident of Corcoran as of this past may but I was born and raised in Corcoran as well went to the local Buffalo school district and I work in the tech industry I work from home and so I'm building a family here and appreciate the agricultural lifestyle that it offers but I think I also offer an interesting perspective having my prior home was in St Paul I lived in an urban area so really just kind of can see different perspectives and really felt compelled to be involved given that I have a vested interest in the the growth of this said yes I'm going to be here for a while and have grown up in the city of Corcoran and so I've been around the Planning Commission my family's been involved in the past so really look forward to getting involved you mentioned that your family's been involved in the past please give give my best to your father he was uh I I greatly enjoyed my my time with him when he served as chair of this commission so welcome I will thank you so much um Commissioners and staff does anyone have any amendments or additions to tonight's agenda chair no okay I would like to propose a change um if we could I would propose that we move Mr sherber's application for the one-year cup extension to the from the third to the second item on the agenda tonight do we know will Mr Sherbert be attending or is he attending I never heard from him I haven't heard we did meet with him last week and did encourage him to attend this meeting online Mr chair I bet he could join us later okay well let's just keep the agenda as is then uh so as a new tradition of the Planning Commission I would like to welcome our our newest commissioner and uh invite a motion to approve uh the agenda so I was thinking that Lindsay could do the honors for the first time would you like to make that motion I like to make the motion to approve the agenda now second and we have a second thank you vote official oh although okay I I accept that I vote Yes too so okay um I'd like to open the floor to the public to participate in the open Forum this is for members of the public to address the commission on any items not already on tonight's uh agenda in-person comments will be taken first and then raise your hand either by the reactions menu on the bottom bar or Star nine if you're on a phone and Mr chair no one's raising their hand at this time okay thank you um I'd like to ask the commission if there are any questions or comments in the uh in the minutes or about the minutes no I do not okay could I get a motion to approve the uh December 2022 Planning Commission meeting minutes I'll make that motion a second all in favor say aye aye aye opposed all right I remembered that time perfect okay um let's see uh I I do just want to say and I don't know that this will be an issue but uh I do just want to say up front that we will be enforcing a five minute time limit for all speakers just due to the length of tonight's uh agenda [Applause] uh let's see Natalie yes we are having some slight technical difficulties but I am honest ly you wanted to duplicate okay thank you for your patience Mr chair I'm Planning Commission our first item tonight is a public hearing for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit the applicant is George germock he is in the audience here tonight with us and he's requesting the cup for an Adu of just over 1100 square feet at 22 600 Oakdale Drive my voice is not great so I'm going to Breeze through this real quick so this is the site plan that he provided just kind of carving out the areas where improvements will be including the additional parking spots expansion of a pathway to the accessory structure and an expansion on the accessory structure that exists today that will turn it into an Adu there really are very few concerns as far as meeting the standards that we updated back in December of last year it meets all of them and this is just another plan to kind of show those improvements again really the only conditions of approval that I have currently called out in the draft resolution is the addition needs to be slightly revised on the building plans to show an overhang of 12 inches where nine inches is currently shown he's not expected to change that on the rest this existing structure as it predates uh the zoning ordinance and then he will need to confirm the roofing material if he does move forward with a metal roof we will deal with a certificate of compliance with the building permit and right now there's a condition that the principal structure would also need to be re-ruffed which he had indicated he is open to doing oh this again just goes oh there's are some additional conditions of approval just to confirm ongoing compliance with standards such as the owner of the property must reside in the principal dwelling or the Adu it cannot be separated out in terms of allowing different ownership of the Ado then the principal structure and that we will take care of the addressing app building permit it's something that I've worked through now with Public Safety and the county so the recommendation is to open the public hearing and staff recommends approval with conditions discussed in the draft resolution thank you thank you I'd like to open the floor to any commission members who'd like to share their thoughts on this application oh yes it might help if I start the public hearing so um members of the public online if you'd like to participate in the public hearing please raise your hand Now using the function in the reactions menu and Mr chair no one is raising their hand at this time and my apologies I'd like to offer you the opportunity Mr and I'm sorry how do I pronounce your name it's good to see you here tonight do you have any comments that you would like to make to the Planning Commission tonight otherwise it's a pretty straightforward application okay thank you well thank you hey I haven't I haven't been here since a few months Let's uh can I get a motion to close the public hearing I will make that motion I apologize online um Mr Jacobs go ahead and unmute yourself and you can state your name and address for the record of your comments there you go Mr Jacobs um of course I'm not hearing him but we should be we haven't I I don't know there's nothing I can do to stress this let's see here unfortunately Mr Jacobs I'm not um there appears to be a sound issue on your end as my speakers are working if you'd like you could I don't have my work cell phone on me if you'd like you could call my work computer and we could try to and take your comments that way my phone number I'll put in the chat here too so you can do that that way a second he could call me here oh he could call my number oh or I'll call him right now okay clear very Camp is going to give you a call Mr Jacob but if he doesn't actually have comments related to this okay I'm good Dean you're gonna need to turn I believe your sound down on your computer got it um you know actually so I took my mute off yes um my computer I I guess I can't explain uh why it's it's not working but so be it um good to see you all again um and I do have a I do have a question or a comment um I know that I know that um as we've dealt with this issue in the past um it was somewhat fluid um as we were trying to develop you know standards and whatnot around the Adu um and I understand that there's been some finalization of some of those um uh rules as I think uh the chair uh mentioned in December of last year of which uh I I'm not aware of what those were but my only question is this I was a little surprised to hear that the Adu has to be occupied either by the principal owner or or the principal residence so I'm just kind of wondering was that one of the new rules because I don't remember us volleying the you know I think the intent as as I remember it was that the Adu was for like family members and things like that under special circumstances in which it was necessary to have a parent or a child you know live on the property and you know to give them Independence to live in the Adu um is there any concern from the county and this is no reflection on on Mr demac who you know I know I I certainly know uh in this ain't relative to his particular project but does is the city at all concerned about you know people just start building adus all over the place and then I don't know living in them and renting out the house and it just becomes you know single-family residential neighborhoods all of a sudden I've got a bunch of adus where they're they're renting that out over the main house or should we close the public hearing and then dress the question fair enough okay can I get a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion second all in favor say aye aye aye opposed thanks Dean take care thank you it is a yeah it is a topic I was thinking about as well was and I I'm not familiar with the rental ordinance and not for current property owner but in the future is there a parameter around if it can be rented or not the Adu or the home I don't know the answer I guess I wanted to know that one too and I'm happy to speak to that message please okay so uh yes the the standard that the homeowner live and either the principal residence or the Adu was in the original ordinance that was not a change that we made in the December um that and I that is standard for other cities as well to have that requirement so if even if the house were to be rented out um at least the property owner is on site you're not renting up both that's usually generally the concern is when they're both rented out the idea being that as a homeowner ages they might want something that's a single level they might want something smaller more contained and then they're able to offset some other living expenses in retirement by renting out the house um it's and it also is the idea is that the Adu can also be as he said used for aging parents or a handicapped child or also used as a ability to offset some expenses and wealth a generation as well so those are all positive aspects that the edus tend to that's why they're attractive to people that's why they get built are we concerned about um them popping up all over the place this is the third application that we've seen since the Adu ordinance was a first adopted back in I want to say 2013 or so sooner than that yeah so um we're not horribly concerned about it uh conversations that we have with most people there are a lot of Standards to comply with even with the administrative permit process that we've put in place for smaller adus that there there's a lot of Standards so a lot of people when they come and talk to me it does slow them down and it's really something that they have to want it's not just something that they do on a whim and it's usually that they have other circumstances they're not usually doing it just to rent it out my understanding is it's there are so many finances that go into it that if that's your primary purpose it's going to be a long time before you actually start making a profit so that is my experience with it so far as far as the rental ordinance that is being drafted not currently adopted I'll just add but as far as it's drafted if either the house is rented out or the edu is rented out that would require a rental license it would be considered a rental dwelling and there would be inspections and Property Maintenance expectations that would need to that would probably offset that's some of the concerns as far as it being turning into a problem and may I also add that if we began as a city to see a ton of them a city has the option to limit or prevent any further licenses for rental properties to be issued um I believe that that is something that the city can decide to do or the council could decide to do uh yeah Maple Grove did uh issue a moratorium when they started seeing an influx of rental licenses so if it became a problem so much that we feel like we have to slow things down and reevaluate things we certainly can do that as a city so just add the comment so we acknowledge that technically it is possible to rent out the Adu yes correct not saying you're going to do that and but and I know that in your briefing it said you weren't but just a future property owner it's just good to know what these type of adus it's not a cost-effective somebody who's building an Adu simply for people you'd have a hard time getting enough rent to make it you know pay back it just what's more likely to happen in the future is as the property changes hands maybe 10 15 30 years down the line future owners who really only need one place to live the other one exactly that's my that's why I'm asking it yeah so at that time there would be oversight as part of our rental draft or as part of the drafted rental ordinance there would still be oversight it wouldn't just be a free pass because the owner lives on the property they would be expected to go through the rental licensing process okay thank you do you have any ideas you yes please chair thanks um so I just wanted to outline that the three conditions because the recommendation was to approve the draft and it was a very thorough draft and I know this is also our second pass because you were here in December as well and I just have to commend you for the work that you've done ahead of time because it it is um this has been involved process for you and we appreciate the effort you've put into it I just wanted to make sure the three conditions were the height of the principal structure the revise the overhang and then the roof matching the material and I was curious mostly about the third because there are a number of other properties where that is not a requirement say a barn or a pole barn or something being matched to the principal structure and so I guess um I would want to be curious why that's a requirement first of all but then also just indicate like my opinion would be that it isn't necessary it does not need to match I would hate to see a fairly a great roof on your principal structure having to be re-roofed just so that the two match um yes so the the standard that we created was that it needed to be the materials of the Adu needed to be similar to the house um and so as staff I I am airing on the technical side and saying well is it similar um but I believe I said in my staff report that the commission and council could decide the spirit of the standard is met and it doesn't need to be a hundred percent exact and we can certainly um we could certainly remove that requirement in the or um or remove that requirement and the resolution and that could be forwarded to council as a recommendation and I believe in this case because it is that you're adding on to an existing structure so I feel like it isn't a brand new Adu that's being built right where you get to select material and so in that case I feel like that makes this even all the more like I appreciate the airing on outside but all the more of the reason why we don't need to require it to be I would say it satisfies the um matching unless of course you wanted to change that for yourself which you can certainly do if I could comment steel roofs are superior to basketball hoops they're more expensive at some point in time you know probably would prefer to have a steel roof but we're going to have to re-roof the entire building in order to make everything match so the Adu is going to have new new rough whether it's asphalt or whether it's it's Steel if the steel on the house is more expensive we might want to wait on that in which case we just simply go with the asphalt I will say that if there was a time when we looked at accessory or accessory buildings uh having a color match at least but not nest exactly this cereal for the roof and you know the siding and I think that's still the case if we're looking at accessory building that is not a use so the AMU has a higher standard this was this building was originally built to match the house it was using the same materials as the house and so I think you know looking at something that looks more like a compounded than a farm that's kind of what you want so chances okay I just think that that both that option sounds like uh it meets the standards so I would recommend removing it as a requirement on the resolution okay and then my last question because you just briefly mentioned it you said that at the time of building permit you would address it because that is now something that you've been able to get from Hennepin County what did they decide is the method they want it to be addressed the address they basically said we don't have a way to do what you what you want to do and we don't have a wave for you so we worked it out with so they said basically do it do it is what you want to do until we come up with a better solution because their system is going to go as it is so uh speaking with our building permits and PD and our emergency team he will be expected to basically add a to the house address it'll be 22 600 a and he'll just have to add an A on the address and then the accessory dwelling unit will be B and then they'll just have to know that if there if they need medical attention specifically in the Adu you'll want to say Unit B um so that the police or emergency responders are able to respond to that in an effective manner they don't go to the house yeah yeah so there'll be it will add a letter to the so no yeah and the 800 Oakdale sure you'll just add signage that's on to the affix to the residences let's say A and B and that will be the best that we can do at this time it IT addresses emergency the emergency responders concerns with the other two that were addressed so that is what that's where we're going for now great great that's all I had any further so uh in my opinion I think that the condition that the roofing materials of the primary residents and this building should be removed I think that the ordinance use of the word similar is instructive there's nothing that says it needs to be an exact match therefore I think that the condition could be changed to not require the same material but could be conditioned upon it being a similar color to the principal structure does anyone have any feedback on that or any comments about that I think I would agree completely okay so in my opinion I think that this application can be approved I thought that the applicant was very thorough thank you and after reading the report prepared by staff I'm satisfied that the applicable requirements are met so I would like to make an emotion I would like to make a motion to approve uh on the condition that the language pertaining to the uh re-roofing of the main house be removed um so I would like to make that motion could I get a second I'll second this teacher is just to clarify I apologize the motion is to change it to materials must be a similar color similar yeah all right thank you and aesthetically similar fair enough and I'm sorry did I guess I'll second okay uh all in favor say aye aye opposed all right thank you very much thank you congratulations have a good night out to the woods thank you for coming tonight um I'd like to open our discussion related to the buffer yard ordinance City file 22-034 um I think you have a report for us thank you Mr chair I do have a couple of slides this is a public hearing for an ordinance amendment to adopt new buffer yard standards and um the city council identified buffer yard requirements as one of their 2022 priorities related to natural resource protection and they directed staff to research other communities and provide options for buffer yards intended to provide transitions between developments particularly from new developments to existing developments and we provide we held three work sessions with the council to discuss the buffer yards and prepare the draft ordinance that's being considered this evening the um sorry that's right that's the wrong slide skip ahead sorry somehow that got mixed up with sherbert uh sorry I apologize a buffer yard is a land area as defined in this draft ordinance containing Landscaping berms fences or some combination to promote an elderly transition between developments and minimize the impacts and they'll be preserved in perpetuity by an easement or outlaw we can talk a little bit more about that really with the council there were five main issues that we focus on ownership the basis for the standard how do we establish a framework for the buffers what are those buffer yard standards what uses are permitted and then how do we enforce it so the ownership options really there were three things we found cities do if you go to the next slide uh the landowner meaning the person upon whom the buffer the person's land upon whom the buffer is placed uh would um that land a second option would be a homeowners association would own that land and in in one city they had an option where there's a buffer that's split between the development and the existing landowner and the council really felt like that was ripe with problems that was right no problem excuse me so they've suggested we have two ownership options either there's an easement over the land that the landowner is responsible for or outlot that an HOA owns both scenarios require an easement that would protect that buffer in perpetuity that easement would be similar to the tree conservation easement that we adopted as part of Tavera so it has standards for what can happen in that easement how it needs to be maintained Etc the second item the basis for the standards different cities handle it differently either using the land use designation from the comprehensive plan or the zoning and as the council discussed it they felt that the zoning had more Nuance better reflected the uses and the differences between potential uses so this is based on zoning districts and the buffering levels are based on the zoning of the development property compared to the property next door the standards in the ordinance provide options for the buffer yard using distance fences or berms as a physical structure and Landscaping and those vary depending on the mix of those three items that you use credit can be given for existing streets that separate a new development from existing development or natural features that exist but that is as written at the council's discretion depending on how thick that natural um feature is or high so for example a buffer yard B is required between a proposed rsf-3 development an rsf3 development allows single-family homes and Twin Homes a budding in a property zoned rural residential which is what the bulk of property in Corcoran is so in this table which is pulled from the report you can see there's five different ways to meet that buffer depending on the width of the buffer 10 to 30 feet the amount of landscaping required varies and that's impacted by whether or not there's a fence or a berm included in that buffer um this is required like our reduced setback every hundred feet so for every 100 feet if you had a 10 foot wide buffer you need to have a four foot fence the entire length of the buffer a minimum four foot high fence and then you'd need one overstory tree four understory trees and six shrubs for every hundred feet for example in the buffer the council had a lot of discussion back and forth about what should be allowed in the buffer and ultimately recommended only temporary structures like benches um decorative items but not permanent items like sheds or raised beds The Only Exception being that storm water ponds would be allowed to I'm sorry encroach encourage encroach up to 10 feet into that buffer they were concerned about how we would enforce this and we reached out to different cities that do have this type of buffer ordinance and um all cities noted that enforcement can be challenging enforcement of any zoning violation is challenging but they have deed restrictions that protect it and so it is like any other code violation we would need to go out there if we got a complaint as a city that some somebody violated the conditions of this easement for example cut down trees that were supposed to be preserved the city would have to go out and enforce that I included in your packet an example of a deed restriction or an easement with deed restrictions from Ramsey but we would create our own if this ordinance passed working with the City attorney so as an exam sample this was in the packet this just kind of shows how this oh I'm using I'm pointing like I have the screen but the black line on the top of your screen is showing this conceptual development up against an urban Reserve area and so that black line is a Class D buffer which needs to be 30 to 50 feet wide shown here is 40 feet what I wanted to point out is the council did include an exemption that said if it's if there's existing development that's not being expanded that's part of a plot they would not need to provide the buffer so for that purple area that's an existing development and that would not need the buffer if they expanded in the future they would be subject to those buffer requirements um the plan shows on the um upper left the buffer along this future local Street that's one of those things where the council has discretion we're showing the full buffer here the council could say that a street is going to provide buffer and they could allow a smaller buffer if they wished I uh tonight it is a public hearing we should open that and take testimony of Mr chair I'm happy to answer any detailed questions about the ordinance uh in front of you this evening but we do recommend uh that the Planning Commission move to recommend approval of both the ordinance and the resolution approving findings of fat great thank you with that I'd like to open the public hearing I would like to note that we have uh no in-person uh attendees here Natalie do we have anyone on Zoom public hearing please raise your hand now via the reactions menu on the bottom of your screen or Star nine if you're joining us by phone we do have one hand raise Mr Jacobs um I believe we will need Aaron Camp's help again so he'll give you a call here one second [Music] hello Dean how are you wonderful nothing's changed man okay um I you know it hold on yep turn your computer off or don't okay this was on the agenda and as some of you know I I don't know if this is exactly what I was talking about prior to my exit from the city um but uh or I had talked about the idea of increasing buffers between and and I'm going to choose a different set of terminology and and Kendra please tell me if I'm talking about the same thing but when you talk about rural you know RR or Urban Reserve um I was more focused on creating in our ordinance standards a buffer zone when you've got and let's just call it you know Simplicity you know when when you've got uh Lennar coming in and building a a sewer and water development and I'll call it high density and I only say that in reference to say then a legacy rural residential and that meaning everybody that had a lot prior to this where they had to have acreage so you've got high density new residential coming in and building right against the back of a property line of a neighborhood that's rural residential um like the property I had and my daughter owns now and and everything else and and I thought that the city council at least people that I discussed it with had had some interest in that is so my first question is is this kind of along that line um as to addressing this issue between a new development and a and an existing rural residential my second concern here is I don't think the example putting an rsf three along the back side of any rural residential Legacy neighborhood is is fair appropriate at all I think that the the the that there needs to be some zoning requirements that you are going to have single family homes and not even went as far as to suggest that the minimum what the lot widths on those be about 80 feet uh versus 40 feet because if you've got a if you've got a property you know the self-border of my old home has a 600 foot you know um Line running East and West well at 40 houses per or 40 feet per house imagine all the houses the rooftops that you're looking over versus if they're 80 or 100 um and so I think that far more than just saying well we're going to put in a 10-foot barrier you know a a a setback 10 feet and four trees every 100 feet far far inadequate or protecting the lifestyles that people who moved out there and built in a rural residential area for the ruralness and the quietness of it to think that that's going to do anything at all that's a joke um you need to give serious consideration to the property type the lot widths that those property types that border those those property lines between the new neighborhood and the and the Legacy neighborhood have and I think that that needs to be much farther than 10 feet or 20 feet um so those are my comments and and if I've kind of hit on this or if I'm completely off base I apologize but um um if this is it I I don't think that you know I'm I'm glad maybe I don't have a house there anymore to have to deal with this in the future but I think that that's I think that that's that's really the wrong idea it does nothing to protect people who have have put their money in their years into you know living a lifestyle only to have it completely destroyed by a a new developer a new neighborhood and and thinking that a 10 or 20 foot thing with four trees and some understories is going to do anything at all to alleviate that problem so those are my thoughts I thank you all very much I don't think we have we have careful name and address officially for the record if you could please provide that for the minutes okay Dean Jacobs 38 21 West Lake Street Pequot Lakes Minnesota and and for the record I am still a landowner so I do have a vested interest in this topic um so I don't I'm not just wearing off here uh because I feel like it I I am I have a vested interest in where this goes so thank you thank you thanks Dean do we have anyone else on Zoom Mr chair no one else is raising their hand at this time um could I get a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion could I get a second a second all in favor say aye aye all opposed oh I'm an eye too I'll oppose thank you that'll close the uh public hearing um I'd like to open up the floor to uh the Commissioners who would like to share their thoughts on this topic that's a good question so you said you compared to multiple other cities um the scenario of exactly what Mr Jacobs is talking about right and in agricultural property and then a Development coming in next to it are you seeing 40 feet maximum buffer in these other cities was there any commentary as to those existing residents and the sentiment around that size I'm just curious if you gathered any information in regards to that oh please okay uh this is uh the standards these um levels of buffer and width are very consistent what we found in other cities including Medina who has exactly the same issue as Corcoran does with new development up against rural areas and in that City 40 feet was also the maximum depth and what we need to be careful of is a taking so we still have to give landowners the ability to use their land and we had this conversation when we updated our um I want to say churches but I know that's not what we call them but our places of worship and assembly standards with the attorney there is a limit to how big of a buffer you can take from people from a legal standpoint but also we talked with the council the larger that buffer gets the smaller the Lots in the development get and the council felt like looking at other cities this was consistent with what other cities did accomplished more than we have today and was a step forward it does not deal it is not intended to deal with lot sizes that's a different discussion but this does require buffers that are consistent with what we see in other cities who have the same issue of Urban Development up against rural development but they were also as concerned to be honest with the transition between you know lennar's development is here and now there's a Development coming next to them uh on what was large lot land and protecting even those landowners so it's a balancing act to protect landowners rights both who are here today and who are developing their land okay um so I just wanted to clarify first of all in the table two the determination of buffering level I wanted to to clarify some of the codes just to make sure I was understanding them because we don't have all of these necessarily in our zoning map right now I mean or maybe we do but is M does MP stand for master plan manufacturing could she address answer I'm sorry please okay MP is manufactured home park okay so that's sure Maple Hill Estates and then could you also just clarify what the TCR one is sure TCR is um transitional rural commercial so that's in the County Road 10 and 19 area most of that is zoned rural commercial but there were a number of existing homes in that area that are guided for Rural commercial but our Zone transitional rural commercial kind of like our Urban Reserve as a holding zone until development is proposed okay and then um thank you so much I appreciate that and then am I uh understanding it correctly when the different buffer yard classes say a minimum of a four foot fence does that mean that that fence is a requirement because I am just seeing like fences pop up everywhere in my mind yes yeah it does but that's why each of the different classes have options that don't have a fence okay so someone could select one of the options that did not require a fence and okay and then just meet the requirements in terms of the plantings and the width requirement for that particular one correct I guess taking from personal I am concerned with the amount of I with the amount of fencing that could potentially go up as a result of this um I think that the intent originally when it was discussed was sort of this natural resource preservation appearance and I just think that if if fencing and it becomes an option I think it is more obstructive to sight lines perhaps and I think that there is maybe a time and a place where a fence would be a good thing um so that is just a concern I guess I don't necessarily have a suggestion or a comment other than that um the other takeaway is or other question would be when we allow a existing natural resource to take the place of a buffer so I think when you talked about Sherbert I think about that uh the nice trees that they were able to leave up they don't have to do a tree requirement in that case obviously they don't have to meet the plantings because they're leaving up a natural resource so at that point are they just meeting a width requirement oh yeah uh yes if the council could say for example you have a 60 foot wide Forest you're required to have a 30-foot buffer we will accept that 60 foot forested area or they could say preserve 50 feet of it in in lieu of planting new buffering they still have to meet all the other land standard landscape requirements but that is something the council could approve based on the particular circumstances okay that's the reason I ask those questions is because I believe the intent is to create an area of transition that has natural a preservation appearance and so I just want to make sure that in our requirements we're not actually doing the opposite of what we wanted to do and so you know um and ending up with sort of these uh neatly planned planted areas that just kind of create a little bit more space between things I guess I was a little bit disappointed to see that like more maybe tall natural prairie grasses weren't like those Open Spaces weren't maybe a part of a transition from a neighborhood you know I think that would also um be appropriate in some um areas instead of just planting a number of understory and overstory trees um I think in terms of the management um I would agree with what the council has found I do have some concern it was discussed that it could potentially like if the HOA could choose not to maintain the area then the city would come in and need to do maintenance and um and this is not in disrespect to the city but this City's goal is not the rhythms of nature right and so a lot of times some of that occurs when they have the ability to schedule it and so I'm thinking trimming of trees or um what have you I'm still waiting for tree stumps to be removed from my property line after the trees were whacked down because it fit with this schedule in terms of making projects happen I understand and appreciate that um but I just don't want like that is a concern that that I would have is that all of a sudden it just becomes another area of maintaining that actually kind of creates a burden on the community versus what you know putting it in the hands of a landowner who then has the personal responsibility to take care of it so I appreciate the intent but that's just a concern that I would have um I'm gonna flip through my notes here and see if I have any um the other so I guess I would make a recommendation that um that and I guess I don't know how people would feel like it would fit but um instead of just requiring over story understory and shrubs which again do not necessarily have to be native plants so they could be non-native plants you know if something um if someone is willing to put in some tall grasses uh that are native I would be willing to accept that maybe that's just something that needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis um and then I would also look at just removing maybe some of the fencing requirements or minimizing the fencing requirements four foot six foot fences that's a lot of fences and I just don't necessarily want to see all of those fences I do appreciate the work and the effort but I have some concerns in terms of the um you know adoption of such a process that's what I have okay now do you have something I want to Echo a couple notes I had I had the same thoughts around fencing of where are we determining when it happens if there's options what's the characteristics between determining if it doesn't if it does or doesn't happen you know because there's expense cons there's expense considerations to it I agree you know the fences can be good in certain situations noise barrier et cetera and and others it just seems like it's a little too flexible Maybe um I could have missed this but and this might be in the same vein you're in but thinking about the wildlife characteristics of the property and what we're planting that Fosters that those characteristics if that makes sense right so it's it's how are we going to Foster that those Wildlife those insects those things that were there before um are are we categorizing it or classifying it and are we considering what what should be there to match it and to keep those those things going and to the comments around the rural agricultural properties um it this might be wild but you know is it possible it can vary so much when we have a water buffer we have a property sitting on a hill we have a property not sitting on a hill we have you know trees we have forests we don't I mean these agricultural properties can vary so much and these buffers are so rigid that it can make a huge difference from one property to another are we seeing any type of or is there any consideration to some type of variance or case-by-case basis where it's discussed between the property the new property the old and it's determined of what's appropriate based on certain characteristics I'm just thinking about how do we how do we accommodate for the fact that there is such a variance between properties of those size and of those kind of agricultural Lifestyles and what might fit the best need does that make any sense I feel like you're making a lot of sense because it is the Tran right so what you were talking about in terms of like so I think of Mr gamache's property right he lives in a section of the Big Woods if all of a sudden we had somebody come in there and say oh let me plant a bunch of tall prairie grasses as a transition from my development into this property that wouldn't make a lot of sense but like leaving you know trees on the the area that's to be developed would be a natural appearance transition but you take a different one where it's low-lying grasses and you try to you know plant a number of evergreen trees that's not necessarily going to give the natural transition and I think the natural transition would actually create the better intent of the buffer than throwing something in there that then looks unnatural if that makes any sense right I feel like I don't know are we making sense because we feel like we're we're understanding each other but I don't know that we're getting through Mr chair please is the comment that if it's a farm field today an unforested area that you would prefer to see this new buffer be native grasses rather than a more formal planting of trees and shrubs it that's a very specific example I guess I'm thinking about it more thematically of how do we in in certain zones that are Rural and agricultural how do we look at and perhaps categorize them right um to determine the different buffer size characteristics and what should be there because they can all be so different and and that might be more taking a look a closer look at it it does your example is specific but yes that is the that's what we're getting at and then then on the broader scale across the city because not everything would be existing Farmland but then take another property where you're creating a transition between two areas the greater goal than just sticking a bunch of plantings in there to meet the requirement would to be how do you keep a more natural looking transition I guess is so so where there is a wetland creating the buffer that looks like the native Wetland area where it's Big Woods keeping whatever that transition is in theme with the Big Woods where it's Farmland you're not sticking a bunch of things that look out of place in terms of a transition and so we're wondering is that even possible as you create an ordinance because it is so varied but an ordinance has to be so um it has to be so standard I think the challenge comes back in part to the taking you absolutely could say in lieu of the trees you could plant native plantings tall grasses and things like that but I think the council wanted a physical visual barrier between the new development and the existing development and so it's sort of a different intent intent I think because I hear you I think Native grasses can be a great transition it's less of a buffer and I think when the council talked about this they really were we did talk about the difference between what our Transitions and what our buffers and so what I would say is a transition is more what you're talking about in my specific example whereas a buffer is more of a visual uh barrier you know at the sight line and I think that's where they did have some discussion about that is it possible to do that absolutely um but again I think you could not say for example you should have a hundred foot native Plantation Zone yeah um May I just I think from what they're both saying to what I'm also Gathering is they would like some consideration into the existing plantings already in the area so I guess is the is the question like is there a way to add a requirement that the existing vegetation of the area be considered in terms of what species get planted is that is that I feel like that was that was one of the points for sure for sure thank you so much I don't know if it's possible or not well we can certainly say that right you probably commissioner know better than anyone right a lot of the existing vegetation is not stuff you want to see no it's not not at all no and especially if you're buffering a a farm farm field um you know so okay so perhaps it's not about take consideration of the vegetation but rather the inhabitants that you know wildlife and the you know the overall like conservation purpose um and so maybe that's it's not necessarily about the vegetation itself but rather like what it houses yeah so again this is not a Greenway Corridor this is really in an urban area an area that is planned to get sewer and water and develop at a minimum of three units an acre to allow that density to develop while still providing a buffer um and so I think one of the things maybe we could add into this section is for this buffer it needs to be native plantings um we could say look at the plant materials in the area when planting that buffer zone I fear because I know what some of the plantings are that would not be what we'd want to see versus native plantings might get more of what you're talking about in terms of Wildlife and and maintaining habitat for wildlife but it's not going to be a wildlife Corridor in the sense of it's going to be the path for the deer to get north to south through town for example I would also add if the Commissioners are open to it maybe it should be compatible with Native plantings just because there may be some changes in the coming decades as to what actually can grow and so I think there's going to be a lot of species that are going to be basically hybrids of what we are used to seeing to try to retain our wild our forest to stay at us as a state so I think having that flexibility of not necessarily having to be native but something that works with the native yeah I would I would I would recommend having some a little a little bit of flexibility in what's considered native of what we'll work long term I also just I keep looking at like that the definition in the first sentence buffer yards our landscaped area long lot lines provided to separate or buffer adjacent land uses so then you get to the question and you know Mr Jacobs raised at is like at what point is it an effective buffer and at one point is it not and I'm just I I just that's something I'm thinking about and I'd ask my fellow Commissioners what they think well I think that it is complicated because there are density standards that have to be met that are set by the Met Council and then there are a number of other requirements so I think like Kendra had said earlier it's a step towards something that we don't have now um to to give something so in that regard it's good my concern is that it feels like a lot of um uh of consideration a lot of code to be implemented and I'm wondering if it's really going to give the impact that we're looking for um because I think even looking after ahead so say then when the when or if the adjacent property which at one point in time one development is being transitioned to or or buffered against develops like is that buffer zone still gonna make any sense and yet we're putting it into perpetuity um forever and I think that's something that is difficult to plan for when one area is developed likely to be a way but something else could happen on the other side those are my thoughts very good thank you I have a quick question and a couple of comments uh question per staff is will this change to our ordinance affect puds that have not reached the final plotting stage in other words will buffer yards be required only for puds moving forward Mr chair uh it would not affect anything that's already received a preliminary approval everything that's in a concept stage right now um that Council we've had two concepts that are one for sure that's moving forward at this time it would affect them but anything that's received a preliminary approval it would not affect because they already have their entitlements the final plot is more of meeting the standards of approval that were outlined in the resolution thank you as per ownership I agree with staff joint ownership I think would be a mess and should not be considered it should be off the table it sounds uh messy to me uh titling in the contract between the two landowners which I do not know would buy new owners unless it was done as an easement um I agree that this should be left open as it is in the draft by providing flexibility for ownership ownership either landowners or an HOA ultimately I think that buffer yard should be owned by the property owners and HOAs would have the restrictive covenants with homeowners to not remove trees or vegetation where HOAs are applicable in the HOA context when someone buys a home there they know what their restrictive covenants are likewise when a developer asks for a PUD I think that this can be a condition uh does anyone have any do you have any comments about that or thoughts on that I agree I think if you were doing a PUD or I just didn't even have to be a PD a project that had an HOA you absolutely could put the easement on the owner's property and also include covenants in the HOA thank you now in other circumstances where there is no HOA could staff explain to me where we would see this I guess to be more clear how would um an existing or future homeowner not in an HOA be required to have a buffer yard sure for example when we spoke to the city of Ramsey they had several examples where they were single-family developments that were not part of an HOA a developer came in and said I want to plot 20 lots and I'm gonna sell them to builders or I'm going to build them myself no HOA because there was no common open space or anything like that in those cases that easement ran along the back lot line of those eight Lots whatever it was and they had that restrictive covenant in their backyards so they as homeowners have that filed against their property there's no HOA to maintain it okay um so could there be a recorded restrictive preservation Covenant that is added as a condition if there is for you know just as an example a cup or variance requested or is it only when a new lot is created as drafted would apply only to newly plotted lives thank you I'd like to learn more about the challenges that Ramsey has seen I I do not like adding an enforcement provision that includes a misdemeanor criminal penalty if someone removes a tree from a buffer that they own um you know a penalty for a misdemeanor crime is up to 365 days in jail I think that's pretty serious for cutting down a tree and just added maybe I'm I'm thinking you know too much in the Box ideally I think that in a in practice a violation would be a civil matter for an HOA to pursue or perhaps we should consider dropping that from a misdemeanor to a non-crime petty misdemeanor nothing more serious than a speeding ticket my concern is that I know of a couple of residents here in Corcoran who are employed because they have secret or top secret clearances that they could potentially lose with a misdemeanor conviction and I just think that that's just not appropriate um so to be clear this would not apply to current Lots only those that are newly created from like a subdivision correct correct okay okay and uh you know because I and I Kendra I think you make a very important point you know I wouldn't want to see this getting into a fifth amendment taking territory I wouldn't want to see us getting into that and paying compensation to the homeowners so um I guess at the end of the day I like the proposal I'm generally in favor of it I could be swayed by some of the arguments made or in comments made by my my colleagues my main concern and my hesitancy to fully supporting this though is is not fully understanding how this would apply to non-hoa circumstances and I guess um I would ask my final question is has this draft been reviewed by the City attorney Mr chair it has in fact he suggested the misdemeanor language but we can certainly revisit that uh to a petty misdemeanor do you do you know why the the level of misdemeanor was recommended I I don't but I suspect as I looked through our code before the meeting um almost all of our misdemeanor references in the code are misdemeanors and the only Petty misdemeanors are in the auto violation section oh okay uh that just need to be something that needs to get cleaned up but it's certainly happy to talk with the city attorney before the council meeting I don't know as much about that okay all right thank you um may I ask a follow-up question and then I believe Lindsay would like to ask a question as well um when when you were talking about newly planted I came to mind is the bechtold Farms as an example because it's a rural residential development in a rural residential area um can we just look at the chart and see is that going to require a buffer if so what is the buffer because I do have a concern that in that type of an environment the land should be owned by the landowner with the land owner able to do to the land on their property so I just can you help me understand using the table what that would look like please I'm sure thank you um so Buck told Farms is surrounded it's zoned rural residential and surrounded by rural residential so if you go to table two and you look at the proposed development as RR and you go down to the zoning of the existing neighborhood is our you see an asterisk and what that means is no buffer plantings are required however along the perimeter of the development all lot are all structure setbacks must be the equivalent of the rear setback requirement so even if the Lots were oriented and I don't know that they have any that do this where a side Lot was against your backyard of the existing neighbors backyard it wouldn't it would need to meet the rear yards that back not the side yard setback which is deeper so it pushes those back a little bit but does not require buffers uh buffer plantings because the idea is it's like like thank you so much that's helpful please my question yes sorry yeah okay sorry I didn't know if we wanted to bring that up because that seems to be I apologize no it wouldn't in this okay so Natalie's question just said we're Whispering over here was uh would that be similar to the tree preservation easement that is on the west side of bechtold farms in if this were coming in now it would not have a uh conservation he's been around the perimeter of the site because they aren't required to plant a new buffer it just would have to have that larger setback okay I was trying to get out with that lover wanted to do and that we worked through with them so as an example of um while there is an HOA the HOA does not own those easements but those Halls those Property Owners do own that and that's part of some restrictions they have as they are working through building permit so I do think we have examples of that would be similar to how we would apply it to a buffer easement I guess okay so so though it's not required you have something like it that you guys are working through at the city level that's kind of giving you a taste for what this would look like okay foreign so big picture I appreciate like the fact that this we're looking to implement this this was a goal of the city and and you know the standards and we need to start somewhere right I'm thinking about [Music] if we the definition of the intent of and the purpose behind the buffer if there is and and I mentioned earlier the variance between properties can be so significant and there's already a barrier due to the height or the makeup or the you know the the habitat there is there anything for us a resident to if they see a significant variance between the existing land use and the adjacent land use and the buffer not being effective are they able to come to the city and say this isn't going to work for me or can we rethink this the sizing or I'm just wondering are there special circumstances or instances where there's consideration given beyond the standards I'm curious about that question if someone comes in with a standard subdivision they have a right to develop their property and if they comply with the ordinance they comply with the ordinance and they're allowed to proceed most of our all of our Urban developments have been puds and certainly as part of a PUD we have worked to negotiate larger buffers the Tavera example I use they they were not required we don't have a tree preservation they were not required to preserve any trees and staff worked hard to preserve that tree buffer on the west side of the property which was identified as a significant natural resource in our comprehensive plan and we can do that with a PUD but landowners have rights and if they comply with the ordinance no the adjacent landowner does not have the right to over turn what the code says may I just on the heels of that the because um commissioner Jacobs is just sitting with us there is something in the works to potentially the Pud categories is what I'm thinking of and so what they're doing is in order for a developer to request a PUD having to meet a certain percentage of categories and um so one of the categories is working with um neighboring landlord like they have to have a meeting with the neighborhood to talk about and present their idea that's a requirement in order for a PUD application to be um fit completed and go before the council and so one of the categories is an effort to work with those landowners and so I see that as being a potential to bridge the gap between yes both the individual has the rights to develop and also an opportunity to say I you know would like to make it cohesive um so I just wanted to mention that because that's helpful not necessarily something that you were aware of yet so thank you puds do give us a lot of discretion today to negotiate that transition or buffer and I think if we change the ordinance it will continue to do that it if we have that discretion with a PUD um why do we need to add this language at all are aren't we yes if we already have if the city council already has discretion to require this as part of a negotiated PUD approval why would we remove discretion from the city council by adding this code so what I would say is this would be the standard for a standard subdivision and when we have a PUD we start with our Baseline regulations first as the framework for the negotiation so I think it makes it I think it makes it easier for the council to say buffers are important to us we have it in our code and if it's a PUD we want a bigger buffer for example so that's where I think it's helpful it is theoretically possible to do a subdivision that's not a PUD it's very difficult with our current ordinance but it's theoretically possible and so this would help in those circumstances it also helps it is much easier to do a commercial or Industrial Development that's not a PUD and we are going to start to see those and so many of those will come in under what I would say are standard zoning subject to the C2 this requires buffers for them that don't exist today and if I may share the goal is to eventually have the code as such that it's reflective so there's less of a need for puds and so perhaps this is an opportunity where it's updating it to at least a standard that people are com like um people desire right that the city desires and then in that case perhaps then a PUD for that as a benefit isn't necessarily uh you know what I mean like we wouldn't have to rely on those puds quite as much because it's written in the code yeah and I and I I agree with you on that my my only concern and I think you know I'm no fan of puds but my my only concern is the um inadvertent removal of discretion from the hands of City Council and by putting this into code that removes the council's discretion to make different requirements that they would rather see in the future and it would bind not only our current Council but all future councils so that's um it's that fine line between you know the it's it's kind of like dealing with the devil you know and not the one you don't know so um would you like to oh I'm sorry well I just have one final question I guess and that is is today say that uh uh subdivision was developed per standard there is no requirement for a buffer zone as it is right now so at a minimum even though yes because I have some concerns as well that it's actually going to be far more rigid um than than and create something that we don't necessarily want not because the intent of it is bad but because the uh it's because it's going to be rigid enough in order to say I did this I did this I did this so that it's not going to actually give the appearance of what we want in the intent like it's not going to externally represent the the intent so I have that concern as well um but if we at least adopted it then if someone were to come in and to your point the commercial or the industrial the other areas that aren't necessarily pursued by PUD then at least there would be a minimum standard that's required yeah okay I guess the my and thank you for all of the comments tonight I guess my my only hesitation or I guess my only request is I I would ask the City attorney to give this some additional attention with respect to the enforceability of such a condition on Developers and how this could be accomplished in non-hoa contexts so I I would ask of that and uh and you may have covered under your first language but I'm just not up to to par but that will work you are requesting that to be considered a petty misdemeanor and not a misdemeanor because yes as well I don't necessarily believe that somebody should be penalized to that extent well just coming out of law enforcement I know the difference between paying a speeding ticket and getting a misdemeanor conviction on your record and I wouldn't want to impact someone's employment because they cut down a tree on land that they own so yes that that would be my um could I oh I'm sorry go ahead may I ask one more question or have we exhausted go ahead no no is there any possibility of or have you seen ever a a city have buffering ordinances for certain zones in certain zones being up to city council discretion with Beauty right so because I understand the intent of the scale and having a standard to go by but I also understand your point too around the double you know and having a lot of those PUD discussions and having the value of the council's perspective I'm just wondering about how do you accomplish movie both and in those instances where we do need to cover and have a requirement in those areas um I I just I don't know I wanted to put that first but idea out there so in a PUD everything's up for discussion if PUD is a negotiated zoning District so certainly in those circumstances absolutely the council can expand beyond what this says yep um but um you you could I don't I have not seen where under standard zoning you negotiate standards so if you come in with a compliant plat in the district whether it's commercial or residential as a developer or a landowner you want to know what the rules are before you spend money on civil engineering drawings and so we need to establish minimum standards for standard subdivisions but if there's a variance the city can attach conditions to offset the impact of that variance if there's a PUD we can negotiate standards that way but it but you couldn't adopt a buffer ordinance that said I don't believe you could adopt a buffer ordinance that said we want a buffer and we'll tell you what it should be once we see your plot yeah I agree with that yeah okay all right I don't I'm I don't think I articulated my point well because that wasn't it um so I apologize if I come back to it I'll let you know but I it was more of you know in in if it's like for like maybe there's not an issue in a rural residential area there may be an issue with this buffer right that we heard passion earlier so how do we have instances where it's up to council discretion and maybe it's the Pud but it sounds like there might there still is technically a loophole or a gap there is what I'm hearing so how I I'm just thinking through it live and I should have processed it before saying it but how do we set it up for scale in those areas where we feel comfortable that it's going to serve the intent that it needs to it covers the city's bases but leave the opportunity for Council um perspective and and maybe that is through the Pud and we're good but it just sounded like there still was a gap because a PUD if there still is a gap there well there's a gap because a PUD is a request from the developer so if the developer if so say somebody buys a plot of land adjacent to you know something else and they wanted develop it uh per all of the standards then they don't go through the Pud process at all so then whatever the code is is how they would develop it and so today if they were to develop it there's no buffer yard at all this at least sets a standard for saying what we would have I think your earlier question was perhaps just more about the table two where it talked about uh different areas um because the table two is what indicates the required buffer yard class and so um there is not a place on table two where it says rural residential butts up to rsf3 therefore there's no standard you just have to ask the the council and that is to your point then no we can't do that that's exactly it yeah and like does the entire city need to be zoned and applied to this ordinance right or do we look at certain you know density areas and say okay this makes sense like an ordinance protects these residents the buffer does what he needs to do but in these instances we have to have more discussions around what what the buffer is going to be that that's what I was wondering is does the ordinance apply does it need to apply to the entire city in all zones that was my question I should have asked it way more simply than that please yeah yeah it does okay because um I I don't think you everybody is well many people are concerned about uh development next to them whether you live on a 10 acre lot or on a quarter acre lot yeah um yeah you know I've lived through it the farm field next to me is gone and there's now a bunch of houses none of us you know we're all concerned about that and this is attempting to provide another layer to provide some protection uh as development occurs around us because we are in the urban service area the council has adopted a comprehensive plan that says you know these things are going to change and it's a big change uh you know when I started here we didn't have sewer and water all large lot sewer came in and things are different so we're trying to put things in place and it will be continue to be difficult as people see their neighbor sell their property and develop and so this is a way to try to provide a tool it's going to be difficult to find something that is will satisfy the person I think next to that development it's hard and so this is a tool that other cities have used again they've felt that it was pretty effective uh but everybody has a different opinion so the the Ramsay planner loves fences you get immediate screening loves them easy to enforce the trees are hard and he's a tree guy the trees are hard because um you know trees die and then you got to deal with how you manage that so it's so personal it's challenging that's why it's hard to find a one-size-fits all and we tried to put some flexibility in here but it does have to apply consistently so people know what the rules are when they like sell up their land yeah yeah thank you so on that note if we feel like we've asked all our questions I would be willing to I we have to come to a what are we making a um resolution for or what are we voting on and I have heard you bring some things up so I'm asking with the things that chair landerman has brought up do we still proceed with actually making a motion to approve the resolution with those kind of conditions attached to it [Applause] yes um I'll add gender chicken I don't know why I talked that's fine no you can absolutely um make a motion to approve with changes um one change would be and and these would be things that we would present to the council and we would certainly review with appropriate staff so for example change from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor um and I don't know I'm trying to look in the other no well another another natural planting yeah thank you I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt keep going no you but those things you absolutely can say change these things about the native plantings the petty misdemeanor the fencing um yeah I'm not sure how we reduce the fencing options but yes okay and then chair landerman ear concerns or you wanted to see where it worked more in an ho or with a setting that was not an HOA you wanted some more information on that so I'm curious because that was something that chair lanterman had asked for and because we only have three tonight so um so we have to we have one shot at this is that possible to attach as a as a condition um for like so I approve or make a motion to approve with the condition that we are you know that how this impacts non-hoa um neighborhoods or does that have to be a whole separate like we're just not approving this right now until we get that additional information you have several options so that would not be a change to the ordinance sure that's uh I'd like some more information about how this works um you would if you were going to approve with change as it would be a change to Petty misdemeanor add language to allow tall native grasses in lieu of shrubs or whatever the things are um the um question about how does it work when there isn't an HOA um you know we can talk more about that tonight it can give you the Ramsay staff person and you can talk with them I mean how it works is through that easement gets applied to the property deeded against the property and then it is like any zoning violation against the homeowner cuts down trees the city goes out there and says you have these 17 trees in your backyard in this conservation easement you're going to need to replace those trees and it's not with whips and that's where Ramsay said that's not fun yeah and I hear you I guess my I guess I'm I'm hesitant because I don't know how this is going to be enforced with a developer and how this is going to be accomplished in non-hoa settings I I think perhaps we consider uh shelving this pending further uh further research by the City attorney or at least getting answers to these questions I think that I think that it's important that all questions be answered when we're talking about city code basically our law and I would like to get it right I'd rather get it I would rather get it right than get it done fast any feedback on that or it feels right to me I uh yes I would agree because I feel like the the strength of democracy is the slow speed at which things change right because the idea is to Think Through implications um I'm curious though um if there are the specific questions regarding how this is enforced in non-hoa areas are they legal questions in terms of a particular situation down the road um because Kendra explained how it would work in terms of the practice like the specifics of it being an easement and then not being able to cut down those trees unless it's you know replanted that falling on them so I'm then I'm curious what additional questions would satiate the the desire to know more well I guess really what I'm looking for is what you just described to actually be in the code I don't see that specificity of what would happen in a when when uh when enforcing this code with the non-hoa this is how it's going to work oh the explain of an easement conservation easement right I mean I want I I mean because this is the law everything has to be considered to the best of everyone's ability here and I've read this a number of times and for the life of me I can't figure out how a non-hoa landowner homeowner would be held to enforcement on this and what that enforcement would look like so I I think I you know I'm generally okay with this I would like to see some additional details documenting the impacted non-hoa situations so if I may ask a question if if we were to make a resolution suggesting that as a change it would not come back to us if that change was implemented is that correct so say do you know what I mean yeah you have you have the option to table it if you choose to table it I I I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna need some more I'm not sure what else I can provide other than this example easement from Ramsey which is private landowners that are responsible and the language in j and k um uh so I just need some you know more clear Direction about what to bring back if if you want to table and see it again happy to do that I'm just not entirely sure what else sure so yeah maybe I can help so what I would like to know is how does the city enforce this ordinance on a developer and or in a non-hoa context how how does the city enforce this what does that look like so specifically are you asking like the the code enforcement process so the developer would be so we have Landscaping inspections that's just typical that just has to happen so this would be the buffers if they're planting anything would it have to be a part of the Landscaping plan and then we go out several times for properties to confirm that they are complying with the Landscaping plan they provide us and then we have to go out again after a warranty period to make sure everything's still alive so that would just be a part of the process we already have and then as far as code enforcement we are complaint driven at this time eventually we could be um that could change at the direction of the council but right now we're complaint driven so if we received a complaint from the neighbor that hey they're cutting down trees that are supposed to be the buffer we will go out we'll compare it to the Landscaping plan and be able to be no this is a violation and then we would at that point refer back to the easement document recorded against the property and then they would if there'd be a violation provided so our code enforcement process we usually give a warning letter work through it I I imagine well the the ultimate goal is compliance really is not to punish so um we'd probably be like you know you need to plant a tree with an X date and we'll go from there um if they refuse to plan a tree then I would assume we would at that point move towards you know the petty mystery I mean that's how I mean compared that's our current process is to First work with them and if they won't comply then we forward the violation to City attorney for prosecution with the courts okay all right and then at that point in time uh the requirement in terms of the size of those trees just falls back to that original table correct like it would be whatever so they you know something was cut down and then someone's given the opportunity to make it right it just goes back to the original size requirements not necessarily one oh sorry Mr chair oh I'm sorry go ahead okay um one of the things we talked about you know Ramsay's example doesn't talk about um what happens one of the things we've talked about adopting um as a condition of puds which we can do as puds is to say if you remove a tree that was supposed to be preserved you need to replace those same caliper inches and so I think the council may wish to incorporate something like that into our draft conservation easement if they adopt the ordinance The Next Step would be to draft the language of the conservation easement um the challenge um I don't want to get too far on the weeds but the Ramsey guy's a tree guy Chris is very much a tree guy and one of the challenges is uh if a large tree gets cut down and you want to replace those caliber inches of a 26 inch oak you're going to plant that in multiple smaller trees and you run the risk of choking out the vegetation and so that's one of the challenges they've experienced in a couple of instances so we just want to be thoughtful about how we do that and still maintain the Integrity of the buffer right if the buffer was an existing landscape buffer that was being preserved for example and people cut down trees that are large we don't want them replacing them with whip trees right we want something that immediately again provides that buffer back we hope that doesn't happen and you know tell you we're Dusty and Medina it doesn't happen a lot Rochester claims they've never had a violation I'm skeptical I think they might not know why so that though that and not only that when the winds fall down it comes with costs so when that's in a conservation easement in a home that's not an HOA the responsibility of that falls on the land owner to to assume the cost of of cutting up that tree or getting rid of it there's no requirement in that scenario to replant a tree yeah I think that's part of what the discussion would need to be um you know I think uh the cities we spoke to are silent about that none of them have a good tool today for how they deal with violations of the buffer um or even not a violation but an act of God so to speak and so when I spoke to Ramsay they sort of work with homeowners on a case-by-case basis in those circumstances but for example in the conservation easements that we do have for tree buffers we've talked about a couple of them tonight those have language that talks about what happens if trees come down and frankly in in those it is just if they come down and they're unsafe you need to remove them but trees provide habitat when they go down so we don't always necessarily if it's not causing a safety issue want to remove them so it sort of depends and that I guess that sort of illustrates what a what an underlying concern of mine is because I think what we want to do or what what it feels like we're attempting to do is to legislate care for an area between two developments and that is tricky because ideally if people just individually decided that uh they were going to do what was in the best interest of you know I mean and even answering that question but anyway that is why this feels a little bit convoluted um but overall I can see a benefit to moving forward with it so if you feel like you're questions were or do you I I guess I would be curious for you to make a motion just so that you can add in my only concern for a change at this point in time would be to see it move from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor um but if you have additional language you would like to request being attached to it that's where I'm at consideration chair of a change or recommendation or edit would be around the fencing my interpretation of the way it's written right now is that there's not specific how and when and how much fencing and there's options and well the how would be if like someone was in buffer well right okay and they picked 10 feet then the minimum four foot fence is a requirement is that correct so but if they were in B and didn't want to build the fence then they could say okay I'll do a 20-foot buffer with these plantings and then no fence okay we thought we were thinking about how do we maintain control or aesthetic of where fences are going up and how much fencing and it sounds like it's up to the discretion of the person putting up the buffer right now and do we want to have a recommendation around more structure around that that's my thought and Mr chair we do have a fence ordinance that establishes maintenance standards and where they can be located on the property line you need to survey and to put it on the property line and the finished face needs to face out and they do have to be maintained so we do have a fence standard that in terms of Maintenance at least accomplishes and that doesn't necessarily accomplish whether we think it should be used or not right because it goes back to some people like fences some people like fences I don't really like fences so I feel like that is so I can appreciate that there are both in here but I also see to your point it is the selection of the person um doing the developing which again a landowner has the right to do I think it's just unique when the land owner is not the person who will reside there and so that is a unique situation what if they really like fences and they're selecting fences all the time but both people who will end up residing on either side of that fence are not fence people and they can't take the fence down so anyway thank you any other comments questions my only comment is that was a really a lot longer discussion but hey a good one but longer than I thought Ramen uh could I get a motion [Applause] um I would be willing to make a motion uh to recommend approval of this ordinance with a change from the misdemeanor being under k in the new language from it being a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor and then I would just add additionally that the native plantings be taken into consideration for the transitions over and then additionally I I would like to see the option of native um and you had used language about a vegetation that's compatible with vegetation that is compatible with Native wildlife in lieu of shrubs can I just clarify that absolutely allow native plantings or compatible plantings in so is that so to me when I hear native plantings it includes trees but do you mean trees or do you I just want to understand nope that's good because I also feel like they got put together so I would like to add to the um the trees and the shrubs the plantings be compatible with Native wildlife but then as a separate the additional thing I would like to see is the um willingness to accept tall prairie grasses or tall native grasses in lieu of shrubs in some buffer zones let's make sure I got that um so change to from misdemeanor to Petty misdemeanor encourage native plantings or compatible plantings in the buffer and encourage plantings that are compatible with uh I wrote Native plantings allow plantings to be compatible with Native plantings I think but yeah and I think we could even strike the language Native and just go with compatible because to Natalie's point that native may change in time like over time allow plantings to be compatible with Native Wildlife yes okay one more time change to Petty misdemeanor allow plantings to be encourage plantings to be compatible with Native wildlife and allow tall native grasses in lieu of shrubs encourage or require the strength of that word huh uh I don't know where we can go with that in terms of encourage or require I don't know either I don't know what plantings are compatible with nail native Wildlife specifically I think there's well so understory trees for example there are specific understory trees that are absolutely compatible and they generally are not the ones selected by large-scale development but um Nanny berries um uh no I'm going to blank on all of the ones um so what I'm hearing is we need to temporarily upgrade an internship for commissioner Berman to come and create a tree list for our buffers yeah I mean I hear what you're saying I'm just trying to think about when they come in to those of us Natalie's not a landscape architect so when she reviews it we know what native plants are but I'm not sure staff or Council knows what plantings are compatible with Native Wildlife do you see what I'm saying I do yeah and I think the reason we changed the language because native planting is pretty standard but the concern was that if native what is native today is not native in 15 years does that still so does it make more sense to would it make more sense native at the time of application sure require a native PCS to be used in the buffer plantings how about we do that and and Native can change over time I think if we talk to my Landscape Architects there are trees that were not native or that were Native excuse me that are no longer thriving here yeah that was my point of using compatible in case that changes and I'll see if he has suggested language I've never heard compatible but yeah no I um I just know there's a lot of studies being done and there's a lot of hybrid species that would not be considered native but may be able to better fit the habitat with the current climate conditions so that's my concerns trying to make sure we have a carve out for that commissioner would you be okay if I look worked with my landscape architect to come up with language to accomplish that yes especially because a lot of even as I think what was proposed for the Northeast District design standards in terms of the Landscaping I feel like that is what we're trying to accomplish or ask in here so maybe there's even some just information we can pull from that maybe we could just reference yeah fair enough commissioner would you like to make a motion I did oh okay complex waiting out there to see if there's a second I'll second that motion I just want to make sure Kendra has everything typed up yep I got it right now and I'm happy to read it again if you want me to try it one more time but but I'm okay are you I trust I I think we're fine so we have a motion we have a second all in favor say aye aye aye all opposed okay motion carries thank you that was a good discussion Kendra yakata yeah Mr chair would you like a presentation on the Sherbert yes please uh this is can we take a 10-minute break of course no no no no no no here we'll take a five minute break sorry [Music] like we were taking a five minute recess the meeting will resume at 9 00 pm thank you so it's more like how many people are online uh three is yeah do we have the applicant online I want things he has a representative I'm like okay great discussion you guys are you Mr Schultz today and Mr Schultz I was confused are they switching who is the liaison no we are we're mixing it up Burns oh okay I stopped because I didn't read everything so I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be here or not council member council member yes is not yours I know that was actually a concern a little bit yeah yeah I was on my way home from work and this is on the way and I stopped and oh appreciate it I thought you saw the email from counselor Schultz let's say he's like oh he's a girl no I can't I I don't have the as Jared landerman said I'm one of those people that have security clearance and all that stuff and I can't have my private emails at work or anything and oh it's crazy do you mind me asking what you do I manufacture silicone Wafers and chips okay for a company down in Bloomington oh you drive all the way down to Bloomington yep four days a week four times this week three times next week it goes back and forth in the whole hour days but we make Wafers and chips for the defense department yeah so um Detroit domestic Automobiles and oh apple and Google and all kinds of companies so you're actually manufacturing are you over you oversee it we're manufacturing Wafers I'm one of the Productions you're a production editor okay so the the most talked about thing in the government today is that chips Act we have the ability to get a significant amount of that for specific purchases related to equipment in those kinds we just don't get money to do so it's a huge application process and it's kind of yeah it's been fun maybe a year here a couple of weeks yeah it's flown by crazy you need to put cover on that silly Little Pony out there no Corrine we lost our 35. did yeah I'm sorry I had to put him down Tuesday did you what did you did you opt for rendering or did you dig uh uh uh close okay no problem but the reason I ask is that we actually just watched a uh Audrey and I did a zoom training with a vet from Piper hospital and they did a study at the St Paul campus on composting and they actually had no coyotes they had night vision cameras out and um they didn't have any any issues with coyotes doing the composting you know what um we are recording on this not on Zoom I didn't think about that I would hold off yeah yeah but I'm really sorry that that was hard yeah I remember going to pick him up from a farm that didn't want him he was neglected then he was a year old and picked him up like a calf and put him in the Nordstrom wow wow 34 years you guys had him back that was a long time never kicked one of them never been one of them wow never never I'm sorry it was Leslie's solving so yeah you get gearing up for a show season yes she's getting ready for uh with her five-year-old so that would be fun to watch okay so it's 8 57 so we have a few more minutes um since I said nine o'clock just because I wanted to round it up just trying to find um the U of M studies that are going into hybrid plants that just because I feel like this has come up before and for Kendra doesn't know what to do when I bring it up to you writing it online good because I don't think that the exact term that they're using but it it's a term of art it's evolving [Music] winter this is winter we had back in 80s but you know what it's so we also took a pasture management class from the University of Minnesota extension because I just don't have enough to do then the thing that we learned is that um the most recent Winters have what's actually hard on your pasture because when you get those extreme swings in temperature and it's not covered with the insulation layer then it'll end up with those uh bare spots yeah so I'm actually looking forward to what it'll look like coming back this year after the winter we've had I mean once the snow eventually all goes away by May oh all right we're gonna go back on the record uh are we recording all right [Music] ready to go oh I go ahead I apologize hmm and I've lost my mouth the next item is a request for an extension to a conditional use permit and site plan approval for t-shirt or Roloff the uh well Natalie gets it up I don't have a lot of Graphics so the site plan and conditional use permit was approved at 23240 County Road 30. that's at County Road 30 and 19 on the northeast corner the approval was granted in May of 2021 to allow contractors Opera