This transcript appears to be from a **Planning Commission** meeting for the City of Cottage Grove. While the provided list focuses on the City Council and Department Directors, I have identified the Planning Commissioners and staff presenters based on the dialogue and official city context. [00:00:00] **Chair:** Motion to approve? I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Britton. Do I have a second? [00:00:05] **Commissioner Wright:** Second. [00:00:07] **Chair:** Second from Commissioner Wright. All those in favor say aye. [00:00:10] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:00:11] **Chair:** Oppose say no. Motion carries four-zero. Move on to item four, which is Open Forum. This is a chance for anyone who's in the audience tonight to speak on something that's not on tonight's agenda. So if there's something you'd like to approach and speak to the Commission about that's not on the agenda tonight, please step up to the podium, state your name and address. So we'll open Open Forum at this time. All right, seeing none, we’ll close Open Forum. Move on to item five: Chair's explanation of the hearing process. The Planning Commission is a volunteer advisory group to the City Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and zoning matters. The purpose of these public hearings is to provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information, ask questions, and express opinions. Since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record, anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium and give their name and address before addressing the Commission. Staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. The first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report. The applicant will then have the opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comments. Anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard. Upon completion of the testimony, the hearing will be closed to the public comment. The Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table; please do not remove these items. The City Council will act on agenda item 6.1, RJ Schinner Company, at their meeting on Wednesday, January 18, 2023, at 7:00 PM. Agenda item 6.2 will be at their meeting on Wednesday, December 21st, which also starts at 7:00 PM. And with that, we'll move on to item 6. 6.1 is RJ Schinner Company, case PP2022-067 and SP2022-068, with Emily Schmitz presenting. [00:02:45] **Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. First item before you this evening is an app—of two applications actually: RJ Schinner, but Opus Development on behalf of the applicant. First application is a preliminary plat; second application is a site plan review. The preliminary plat is proposed to create one developable parcel and one outlot, which will be a future developable parcel—we'll talk more about that as we move along—and then a site plan to review a proposed approximate 126,000-square-foot building to use for distribution. But before we get into the details, I thought it was helpful to talk a little bit about the background. Some of you might recall back in 2016, Hillcrest and Opus worked together to work through a concept plan, which was typically called the Southeast Industrial Park. At that time, it included two buildings. Fast forward to 2018: Northstar Sheets purchased a portion of the proposed development area and constructed their 161,000-square-foot building, and they've been operating since that time. They did come back before you just about a year ago—year and a half into 2021—to expand their building and also expand, I'll call it, across the privately maintained street to have some additional parking stalls as well. So they worked through that and did some construction over the summer, this last summer. So if you do head out there, you do see that additional infrastructure that's out there. What remained was Outlot A of that preliminary plan. So, Lot A of that Southeast Industrial Park Second Addition is what we're looking at with these two applications. So it will create Lot 1, Block 1, which would be the proposed development lot. It also creates an outlot, which could be some potential future development. And then up here—we'll talk a little bit later about this—but that's Outlot B. So it's the storm pond that supports this entire Southeast Industrial Park that this proposed user, RJ Schinner, would own and maintain with Northstar Sheets, as that pond does support the water from all of this development. As I mentioned, the applicant is proposing a 126,000-square-foot building to start. They are a distribution company, so a lot of coming and going. Meeting all of the required setbacks on this particular parcel, specifically related to the building and parking. I know it's important to call out the larger setback that is required from that adjacent residential district, which is the Hamlet Park to the west, so they are meeting that access and parking. The applicant is proposing 39 parking stalls to be constructed, but I want you to recognize that 63 are required as we do the math per our code. The applicant, though, has provided proof of parking in several different areas, not only to meet the parking required for the 126,000-square-foot building but also a future potential expansion of 78,000 square feet. So they're ensuring that they do have the room on the site to support that automobile parking but have verified they don't need all those parking stalls at this time. But we do have a condition in the approval that says if there's ever an issue where we've got parking overflowing onto Hemingway or something crazier than that, that we would work with that applicant to install that additional parking. And then we'll work through making sure that that shared access, 91st Street Alcove—it is public right-of-way, but the agreement at the time of the concept plan was that it would be privately owned and maintained. So Northstar Sheets and RJ Schinner will enter into an agreement to ensure that that roadway is maintained to City standards. And finally, I wanted to make note that the sidewalk along 91st Street Alcove will be required to be extended to that property line, and then a pedestrian connection from that sidewalk along the right-of-way to the building to be sure that those folks have access, of course, to our extensive sidewalk and trail system out in our business park. Tree preservation plan is required as a part of this proposed development. As you can see, the applicant is proposing to remove under the maximum permitted removal rate on the site; therefore, no additional mitigation is required. However, it's important to talk about the 2018—and I call it 2018-2021—tree mitigation agreement. So it started in 2018; there was a handful of trees that needed to be replanted as a part of the first part of development on this entire site. The agreement outlined if those trees aren't planted, this fee will be paid per developer as this area develops. In 2021, given the small portion that was developed for parking, we understood that maybe not the entirety of the $64,000 needed to be paid at that time, but we kind of deferred and amended that agreement with Hillcrest, the property owner, to say the remainder of that can be paid at such time this final outlot does develop. And on this note, I also wanted to mention the landscape plan, as we worked closely with the developer to ensure that we had—I'll rephrase that—to focus their efforts of the landscaping on that west side to ensure that we're creating the best buffer that we can from Hamlet Park, as we recognize there's a lot of activity over there. So they've concentrated a lot of their trees specifically to that west side. Not only are there existing trees there, which is also helpful, but they're going to fill those gaps to ensure that we're keeping that buffer. And then, of course, they're proposing landscape plantings all the way around their building, and then as a part of their future expansion, they would do the same. The architecture: as you've seen in other buildings within the business park, we're looking at a precast panel, breaking that facade up with different textures and, in this case, different colors as well, and some additional glazing. So, breaking that up across those long wall spans, and then also some additional canopies proposed at the entrance as well. So with that, I will leave the recommendation before you. I do have Hillcrest, Opus, and I believe RJ Schinner is here as well—no? Well, Hillcrest and Opus are more than capable to answer any questions that you might have as well. [00:08:50] **Chair:** Any questions for staff? All right, at this time, if the applicant or either of the applicants would like to approach and add anything additional. If you just state your names and addresses, please. [00:09:02] **Christina Smitten (Hillcrest Development):** Thank you. Christina Smitten with Hillcrest Development at 2424 Kennedy Street Northeast, Minneapolis. [00:09:09] **Joe Mahoney (Opus Development):** And Joe Mahoney with Opus Development, 10350 Bren Road West, Minnetonka, Minnesota. And I'm really going to let Joe answer most of the detailed questions. [00:09:18] **Christina Smitten:** I just wanted to thank Ms. Schmitz and other staff, and Mr. Chair and the Commission. We've been marketing the property for a few years now wanting to find a compatible fit within the Southeast Industrial Park as well as within Cottage Grove, and it's been a great experience. If this does move forward and we transact the property, then we won't have property in Cottage Grove any longer or have the opportunity to work with folks, but we would be interested in looking for more because it's certainly been a very positive experience. And we think the addition of RJ Schinner in your community will also add to that positivity. So I'm again here and available, and my colleague Charlie Nestor with Hillcrest as well, available to answer any questions on the ownership side, but I'll let Mr. Mahoney take over on the details of the development. [00:09:59] **Joe Mahoney:** Yeah, I echo a lot of what Christina had to say. Between Northstar Sheets and his subsequent expansion, Renewed by Andersen and their current expansion, as well as the CAP Industries, you know, the Opus team has really enjoyed working with the city and the community here. So we're excited to move forward with this next project here. I think Emily did a great job talking about the project overview, but if there's any specific questions that I can help answer, I'm here, as well as Phil Cattanach with Opus. [00:10:30] **Chair:** Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? [00:10:33] **Commissioner:** I'll just ask—and you may not be able to answer this because I think it's probably more of an RJ Schinner question—but it's about the parking just because we brought it up. Obviously, code requires 63 spots. The proposal is to build 39 now, but I saw in the application materials that the staff that would be on-site at any given time is fairly low. I think it was 15 to 25 people at a time, is that right? [00:11:00] **Joe Mahoney:** Yeah, I believe it's 15 to 20 in the warehouse and about 10 drivers. [00:11:04] **Commissioner:** Okay. And so that's kind of the basis for—at this point, we don't believe that they need that extra parking that would be required under the code? [00:11:11] **Joe Mahoney:** Yeah, exactly. They deliver mainly toilet paper and other paper supplies, and so they don't really have any visitors. So they're very comfortable with what they're looking for, but obviously we do have that proof of parking to expand that should that need arise in the future. [00:11:27] **Chair:** All right, thank you. Any other questions? All right, thank you very much. At this time, I'll open public hearing on this application. Again, anyone wishing to speak for or against this application can approach the podium, state their name and address for the record. And seeing that, I’ll close public hearing on this application. Any further discussion by the Commission? All right, seeing that, I would look for a motion. [00:11:58] **Commissioner Britton:** Motion to approve the preliminary plat and the site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. [00:12:05] **Chair:** All right, I have a motion from Commissioner Britton. Do I have a second? [00:12:08] **Commissioner Wright:** Second. [00:12:09] **Chair:** Second from Commissioner Wright. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. [00:12:14] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:12:15] **Chair:** Opposed say no. Motion carries 4-0. We'll move on to item 6.2, which is amendment of zoning code, case TA2022-070, with Amanda Johnson presenting. [00:12:28] **Amanda Johnson (Senior Planner):** Good evening, Commission. So just to remind where we've been, we've obviously had multiple work sessions with you and with Council to walk through the changes to the City code. Tonight is the opportunity for me, frankly, to put a lot of what you've already heard on the public record so we can do that there. There probably isn't a whole lot of things that you haven't seen, but certainly feel free to speak up if there's a question that you have as we go along. And then at the end of the presentation, we'll be looking for a couple motions, and I can walk you through what we're looking for at that time. Okay, so just a reminder of how the last almost two years have been going. We started with a database where we dumped all of the old code in there. We spent months and months and months fighting through every single word of the zoning code, and then we presented the changes in various pieces to both you and the Council for feedback and additional modifications. And up until Friday, we were still making some changes; some of it was just going back and forth, and finally, we had to make a judgment call. [00:13:30] **Amanda Johnson:** Okay, so what we're here for tonight—tonight's presentation is primarily for the public, the opportunity to hear what we're doing, to ask questions, to speak their concerns, that kind of thing. Just a reminder: we're in Title 11, which is the zoning ordinance. One of the biggest things that we are changing with this entire repeal and replace is a completely new zoning map. And so the steps for that to do a city-wide rezoning are: the Council had to authorize that we could do this city-wide rezoning (they did do that); they also authorized the waving of mailing the notice requirements because we would be mailing that to every single person in the city and it's kind of complicated. But we did engage in a public awareness campaign. So we had multiple open houses, we put it on all of our websites, we created a webpage for it where it was an interactive map that people could see "here's what I was, here's what I am." And then we also had a flyer in your quarterly newsletter—I notice about that in the newsletter. And so right now we're at step two, where you will be holding a public hearing on the zoning amendment as well, and then on Wednesday, the Council will vote on this rezoning amendment and map. [00:14:45] **Amanda Johnson:** So this is the current map as it shows right now. It's maybe a little bit hard to see, but the areas that are hashed out, those are districts that would be moved to a different district in the new map. This is what the new map looks like. As you recall, we got rid of our R2.5, which was this sort of middle residential district that didn't make a whole lot of sense. We also got rid of the R2A through F, I believe was the letter, and the Urban Reserve. So we just sort of condensed. As you can see, it's cleaner, right? So if this is the old map and this is the new map, we've really tried to recognize and group things more appropriately. So for all of the uses that will experience a zoning map change—so if you're one of the properties that was R2 before and now you’re R3—generally speaking, you got an upgrade. So if you were allowed to have an accessory structure that was X size, now it's a little bit bigger. Or if you were required to have a setback size that was seven feet, now it's five feet. So any place where there was a discrepancy, basically the more lenient rule won. So we didn't create a lot of non-conformities. That said, certainly somewhere in the city, a non-conformity may have been created, and what that means is if there is a non-conforming use, they're allowed to continue as they currently sit, but they cannot expand. Should something come up with that, we would obviously look at that at a staff level and see what we can do to solve that problem or potentially, depending upon what it is, that was intentional and we wanted to phase that out. If you're talking about a use that has an underlying conditional use permit, they would continue as a legal use; they are not a non-conforming use. [00:16:30] **Amanda Johnson:** Okay, so as I said, the R2.5 and the R3, we combined those. R3 no longer allows the multi-family housing; that was a really big change to protect our single-family properties. Spent a lot of time talking about the importance of: if you're a single-family property today, we didn't want you to be able to turn into a duplex tomorrow. R4 existed in the current code, but we're now calling it transitional, and the idea is that it's the first district where we will be allowing multi-family properties. We also removed those R2A through F and then the Urban Reserve R3. These are the changes that went with R3—what it currently is versus what it's going to be. So as you can see, that's what I had spoke about earlier: where there was a benefit, they got the benefit. And part of this is because we were trying to combine some of our smaller lot sizes, and so to make sure that our newer developments that generally have smaller lot sizes aren't all non-conforming, that was one of the other reasons why we dropped these numbers. This is the R4—the current standards and then the new standards—and that's pretty much the significant changes that we made in the residential districts. [00:17:45] **Amanda Johnson:** Moving to the business and industrial: In the commercial districts, we removed the neighborhood business district—we didn't use it—and we cleaned up the use table so it's a little more user-friendly and a little more generic. In our old use table, it got really specific into, you know, "plumber versus construction trades," and so some of those types of things where we were trying to be a little broader in our terminology. In our industrial districts, we combined our I1 and our I2 district and made that the new I1 district. We combined the I3 and the I5; that's now our heavy. And what was I-4 before is now I3, and that's the commercial excavation on the island. Same thing in industrial: we cleaned up the use table again to reflect more modern terminology and just sort of trying to create broader terms that are easier to use for staff. [00:18:40] **Amanda Johnson:** Okay, so then we have our chapters three, four, and six under the old zoning code, and those were our special zoning provisions, our general zoning provisions, and our performance standards. And there was a lot of "why is it in this chapter not in that chapter?" that we maybe couldn't always answer. So we've now gotten rid of chapter six; we just have chapter three and chapter four. Chapter three is our general zoning provisions; chapter four is our special zoning provisions. The idea being: general zoning provisions applies to every single lot in the city—so that's going to be your parking, that's going to be your landscape, that's going to be glare; everybody has to follow those rules. And then in chapter four, that's your special zoning provisions, and so those will be rules that apply if you're a specific use or if you have some other you meet some other requirements. So that's going to be your outdoor dining rules, your drive-through rules, things like that. And so those are the two differences and those are the two chapters. [00:19:30] **Amanda Johnson:** A couple high-level changes to some of these—again, absolute Commission, I realize that you guys have put in a ton of work and you know this, but to get it on the record. Parking: we did add a proof of parking option. So when an applicant comes in, they do have the ability to demonstrate that they don't believe that their use needs this parking, so they're not maybe going to pave the entire parking lot area, but they have to demonstrate that if they're wrong, they have the ability to add in parking later if needed. That just gives them a little bit of flexibility. We also changed how we calculate gross floor area for what we determine for our parking stall requirements, because our parking stalls are based off of your square footage. And so on the left side, you can see the old math was just "here's your floor, all of it, we're calculating all of it." On the right side, we've broken it down by use. So if you're required to have, say, three stalls per thousand square feet for retail, that number does not make sense for storage because you're not having people back there; that's not really contributing to your parking. So we tried to reflect more accurately how the building is being used and then allow them to calculate their parking based on that. We'll probably see a reduction in the total number of parking required based on this new math. [00:20:45] **Amanda Johnson:** Accessory structures: we now are recognizing that your principal structure can be either an attached or a detached garage, and that does not count towards your accessory structure count. Swimming pools and one accessory structure less than 200 feet also do not count towards your accessory structure count. We increased the maximum garage area to 1,200 square feet—it used to be a thousand. And if you want to have a small shed in your backyard, now you can have that up to 200 square feet without having to go through the permit process. Architectural design: single-family does not currently have architectural design standards, and that is the same; we've continued that. Real quickly, we did make some changes to our classes of materials. This—I don't know how in-depth we talked about this, but this is your bread and butter on your applications moving forward. So yes, public hearing, but I also wanted to make sure that the Commission had this in their mind for the applications coming up in the next year. [00:21:40] **Amanda Johnson:** We kind of tweaked our classes of materials. Class 1 is now brick, stone, and glass. Class 2 is cement brick, stucco, tile, and specialty concrete block. Class 3 is going to be your architectural metal panels, vinyl siding, the cement board or engineered wood product, and then precast the tip-up panels and then EIFS. And then Class 4 is glass block, smooth or scored concrete blocks, steel or aluminum siding, and wood. And the classes sort of go in obviously order of desirability. If you're looking at a multi-family building—so that's going to be a building with more than six units—that's when they're going to trigger these standards and that's when they have to have 65% Class 1 or Class 2 materials, and they have to use at least three types of Class 1 materials on the building. Business districts are required to do 65% of Class 1 materials, and they must use—I think this is a typo—they should be using 65% of Class 1 or 2 materials, and they must use three types of Class 1 or 2 materials. So multi-family, you have to use at least three of Class 1; business, you have to use at least three of either Class 1 or Class 2. The difference is your planned business is allowed to use the industrial district standards because it's intended to be sort of a quasi-industrial area. And then finally, our architectural design standards for an industrial district: 65% of Class 1 or 2 materials, but then in industrial, we are recognizing that the tip-up panels (Grade A or B) are considered a Class 1 or 2 material. [00:23:25] **Amanda Johnson:** Landscaping: so before, we didn't recognize differences in lot sizes, so everybody had the same tree requirements regardless of if you were a three-acre lot or a 55-foot wide lot. As we have grown into a city, we've realized that's not really working, and some of our lots actually, especially along the boulevard, can have too many trees. So this is recognizing that we need to have some adjustment for that. We talked a bit about this buffer from major roadways, and previously it was 75 feet. That's not—we would have some issues with that from a legal perspective because potentially that could eliminate a lot of usability on a parcel. So after some research and some negotiations, we are averaging a 50-foot buffer, but nowhere along the buffer can it be less than 30 feet. [00:24:15] **Amanda Johnson:** We've moved a few sections out of the zoning code, so in the future, these items won't come before you anymore. Specifically, the Historical Preservation Committee: that has been moved out of zoning. There is a chapter in the code for committees and commissions, so it's moving there along with all of the things that it has to do. Chapter five was in the zoning code, and that was our adult uses; actually, when we got into it, we realized we license all of our adult uses—it's really just a licensing thing. So that moved into Title 3, Licensing. Then it's just with all the rest of the licensing thing. We also did go through and update that for modern terminology since it was not updated since like the 1970s. Connections to public services: this is where we require you to connect to public sewer or water; we moved that to the chapter that talks about sewer and water. And then we also moved grading-related rules to Title 9 under building regulations; that just seemed to fit a little bit better with that. In Chapter 2, that's where we talked about administration and enforcement. We added two new tools there: the conditional administrative use permit (that was the permit where you don't have to go through the public process to get a permit, but you do have to be able to check all these boxes on kind of preforms). This is going to be for things like essential services structures, things of that nature. Anything that requires discretion absolutely still has to come through the Planning Commission and Council. We're also allowing an administrative site plan approval; again, that's going to be for things that have no discretion or are so minor that it's not something that would be worth the expense and the time for everybody to run it through the public process. Chapter 12 was the planned—I don't remember what it was called before, but now it's called the Planned Unit Development (PUD) chapter. PUDs are no longer going to be considered an actual zoning district; they're just an overlay that goes over whatever the underlying zoning is. [00:26:05] **Amanda Johnson:** Finish line. Okay, so the plan is, barring some sort of crazy thing, the zoning code and the rest of your city code will be adopted on December 21st and it will be effective January 1 of 2023. So what I'm looking for tonight is we need to hold a public hearing on that zoning map amendment and the zoning ordinance, and then if I can get two recommendations from you: one is a recommendation for adoption of the zoning map amendment, and one is to recommend adoption of the zoning ordinance recodification. If you want to make changes—I know that there was about 200 pages' worth of the actual documents in the packet as well—if you read through that and there are changes that you want to make recommendations to, I would ask that you still recommend adoption with whatever the amendments are that you would want to see, and we will bring that to Council on Wednesday. Thank you. [00:26:55] **Chair:** All right, thank you. Any questions for staff? [00:26:58] **Commissioner Britton:** So I know that we've had a lot of discussions and, you know, staff has done a great job of getting this to where it is, considering that this was an ancient document to begin with and kind of morphed over time. So thank you for all that hard work. The one change in here that I see that I have a problem with is the R3 side yard attached garage. And we talked about this in our workshops, where on the living side of the yard it was a 10-foot setback and on the garage side it was a five-foot setback; so effectively you could end up with 15 feet between houses. And over the last 15 years or so, I've seen a lot of developments come through where some of that has changed, and what it ended up being is seven and a half and seven and a half so that you still ended up with 15 feet between houses. So the question that I would have is: does staff have a significant reason on why to keep that at five feet instead of balancing it at seven and a half and seven and a half? [00:28:00] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Britton. We have worked through a lot of residential development over the last handful of years, and the discussions that we have at each are working through those setbacks as we work through the market and each developer comes to us and we navigate that, which in turn has shown you five feet and 10 feet being the setbacks. Now, with that being said, typically those approvals require that if you have a five-foot setback, the adjacent home has to be flip-flopped, so you're seeing that 10-foot setback retaining that 15-foot all the way around. And so as staff, we found that that was a cleaner way to work through the approvals. Now, that doesn't mean that a developer might not come in with seven and a half, seven and a half—so you're still getting that 15 feet—but we're recognizing the market and working through that. [00:28:55] **Commissioner Britton:** Okay. [00:28:56] **Chair:** Any further questions? [00:28:58] **Commissioner Wright:** Yeah, I just wanted to seriously like say thank you for you guys' work into this. I know it's a lot of information; it's like an information dump. You kind of showed your poker face with this here, "finish line." But yeah, this—I mean, we recognize a lot of hours put into this. You know, this little minutia here and there that might not come to terms with it all the time, but I do again—I do appreciate you guys' work into it. [00:29:25] **Chair:** All right, thank you. At this time, we'll open public hearing on the application. So anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can step to the podium, state their name and address for the record. All right, seeing none, we’ll close public hearing on the application. Any further comments or discussion by Commission? [00:29:48] **Commissioner Britton:** So again, great job—99.9% I'm totally with you. The R3 came down from 75 feet to 65 feet, so lots are 10 feet smaller to begin with. I'm just not comfortable with the five-foot and the ten-foot. You take a look at these homes that you could reach out and touch the house next to you. You know, two and a half feet doesn't seem like much, but if you take a look at what we do for water management, a lot of these developments are terraced where you've got a house here and the next one steps down and the next one steps down just to get the water to flow away. Well, with the five-foot side yard setback and all of this terracing, you end up with a pretty significant slope that has to be maintained, and you know, some of the landscaping is problematic where I feel that the seven and a half feet is a better compromise. So while I will say that again, 99.9% in favor of this, you know, I would feel more comfortable if we had a recommendation that included changing that side yard garage side to seven and a half feet so that you had at least 15 feet between homes. [00:31:00] **Chair:** Any other discussion, comments? I guess this probably won't come as a shock either for the people who were at the workshop when we talked about this, but I agree with Commissioner Britton. My concern is just—yeah, and I'm happy that we've had the relationship with developers in the past where they've been willing to work with us on making sure the homes are flipped properly so we have adequate spacing in between. But this is setting the rules for zoning—it's kind of like, "here is the base minimum rule that they have to abide by." And that's what I want to make sure of: that we don't run into a situation where we run into a developer who says, "I'm going to make more money if I can put the houses this way." Yeah, it would probably look nicer if I could agree with the City and set it up a way that works best, but I only have to comply with the rule, and the rule says I only have to put them five feet apart. So that's my concern, if there was a way that we could write—and I know this is more work and this is going to Council on Wednesday—but if there was a way that we could write it or word it so that we can make sure that there's at least 15 feet between the houses no matter how you want to set that up. Is that 10 and five, or seven and a half by seven and a half? I'd be fine with that. My concern is just yeah, that if we're going to get down to 10 feet between these houses on what is supposed to be a single-family lot, that we've now made the vast majority of the properties in this city be required to be under this code. So I would agree that I would support that change to the proposal we have in front of us. Do we know what the sentiments of the Council on all that have been reviewed? Any of this reflecting these changes or... [00:32:50] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wright. The Council has seen everything you have seen. So no direct discussion related to this particular topic, but they've seen the same information you have. [00:33:05] **Amanda Johnson:** Commission, one other just question, maybe clarification for what you would want to see. Is it something where you would want language in there that it's a different rule for new construction versus existing? So if you're building something versus, I may be adding onto my garage, you know what I mean? These are setbacks that will apply to every property, not just to-be-built, but what's existing there now. So we're also kind of trying to think of—we were thinking of a couple things: one is the inevitable expansions that people will do, additions, those kinds of things, as larger garages become... well, they're in demand. But then also looking at new construction. So there are a few options. I mean, yes, we could put something in here that says for new construction they have to do an average of 15 feet between houses—who cares how they get there, that's their math—but then we do have to be thinking about 10 years, 15, 20 years down the road. Or for our existing, do we have a different—is it different for them? Can they have the five feet, or is that...? I guess could you give a little bit of guidance on that perspective? [00:34:25] **Commissioner Britton:** Sure. You know, I'd have some concerns there of if one neighbor gets to expand and they used up the average of 15 feet before the other one does, and now they're kind of stuck. This—my intention here would be for new construction. So, you know, existing homes, you're going to have a problem anyway because you're going to have some with the five-foot yard setback, so they'd be non-conforming, which I recognize can be a pain. So I would have thought that the easiest thing to do would just be seven and a half, seven and a half, and you're guaranteed to end up with 15 that way. If there is some other way that you can come up with, seems like that would be more complicated to implement, but you guys are the experts. So if there is something along those lines, then definitely I'd be open to that. But I was just assuming the easiest thing—with the intention of new construction being the target, not penalizing someone that has a five-foot yard setback—would just be to change that side yard to seven and a half, and then you're guaranteed that you've got 15 feet between new homes. Does that help? [00:35:40] **Amanda Johnson:** Yeah, I think so. Thank you. [00:35:42] **Mike (Staff):** Commission, if I can add one comment. Existing R3 ordinance has it—or existing R3 zoning district has it at 10-foot setback for side yard. That can be an easy answer too: just increase it from 7.5 to 10. There's numerous developments throughout the community currently that have the 10 and 5 and they have the 5 and 5 garage setbacks, like Emily said. So that would be my recommendation is to move it, you know, just saying this kind of go back to the existing code where it's 10 and 5, because there is numerous newer developments throughout the community that currently have that standard. [00:36:20] **Commissioner Britton:** I think that would be reasonable. I mean, it meets the intention of not having homes too close. The seven and a half would have been nice because for some of these sloped yards, it gives them a little buffer, but I feel that the challenges that that presents itself in potential non-conformance with existing homes well outweighs the benefits you would get out of that. So I would be comfortable with just changing the side yard back to 10 for the garage side—or the living area, living dwelling. I understand that the developers are coming in and saying, "Hey, I want these smaller setbacks." So as long as there's not a "low-hanging fruit, we'll just change it later" type thing, I'd be all right with that—just changing it back to 10 and that part's the same. If you wanted to have the smaller setbacks, you go to the R4; you've got them in the R4. I don't have a problem with that; R4 is higher density, you're going to have more house, they're going to be closer together—it's not going to be that big deal. But these are the majority of the homes in the community, and you know, to give us I think a little bit more of a gem to not stack them too close together is a benefit. [00:37:35] **Chair:** Any additional comments? All right, seeing none, I would look for a motion at this time. [00:37:42] **Commissioner Britton:** Well, go ahead. Did you have something else? I would move to approve with the change of either the garage side setback to seven and a half or the living dwelling area to 10, at the discretion of staff, to give us that 15 feet between homes, subject to all the other changes that staff has made here—which has been a phenomenal job and I appreciate all your hard work. [00:38:05] **Chair:** All right, so just to clarify: we have a motion to approve the zoning ordinance recodification with the amendment that either the side yard dwelling side go back up to 10, or the side yard garage go up to seven and a half, at the discretion of staff, correct? [00:38:20] **Commissioner Britton:** Correct. [00:38:21] **Chair:** Do I have a second on that? [00:38:23] **Commissioner Wright:** Second. [00:38:24] **Chair:** I have a second from Commissioner Wright. Any further discussion on that motion? All those in favor say aye. [00:38:29] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:38:30] **Chair:** Opposed say no. That motion on the zoning ordinance recodification passes 4-0. And then I’d look for a second motion as to the map amendment. [00:38:42] **Commissioner Stevens:** I can motion to approve the zoning map amendment. [00:38:45] **Commissioner Britton:** Second. [00:38:46] **Chair:** All right, I have a motion from Commissioner Stevens. And I have a second from Commissioner Britton. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. [00:38:55] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:38:56] **Chair:** Opposed say no. Motion carries 4-0. All right, sigh of relief out there. We'll move on to item seven, which is approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes from November 28th, 2022, unless there is an amendment. I look for a motion to approve. [00:39:15] **Commissioner Wright:** Motion to approve. [00:39:16] **Chair:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Wright. Do I have a second? [00:39:20] **Commissioner Stevens:** Second. [00:39:21] **Chair:** Second from Commissioner Stevens. All those in favor say aye. [00:39:24] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:39:25] **Chair:** Oppose say no. Motion carries 4-0. Move onto reports. 8.1 is recap of December City Council meetings from Emily Schmitz. [00:39:35] **Emily Schmitz:** All right, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Now that that craziness is all done, we'll talk about something that was a little bit more fun. So just the December 7th Council meeting—just given the holiday, we're all a little wonky here, but the Preserve at Prairie Dunes final plat that you saw before you in November, which was at—is it 40?—it's a preliminary plat you saw quite some time ago. Working through four potentially developable parcels there, that was approved at Council. The minor subdivision over on Hadley Avenue—Tanucci as the property owner, working through creating another potentially developable lot—so that was approved as well. And then we had some minor mapping and text amendments worked through as well by Mr. Morosa; so that was approved by the Council at that December 7th meeting. And then finally, I thought it was important to make note: the daycare application that you saw before you that you did continue—just an update there. They have actually withdrawn their application, but they're continuing to work on that site. Some unique features there, especially specific to the access and sight lines given the curve. So they're working very closely with our engineering and planning staff to make a site plan that works the best. So they'll be back before you after the first of the year, but I just wanted to make sure that you had an update on where things were with that particular application. So I'll turn it over to Councilmember Thiede if he has anything additional to share with you this evening, but otherwise, I think probably the things that you guys had looked at pretty much covered it. I think it was the park naming that probably didn't come before you guys, if I remember correctly. [00:41:30] **Councilmember Dave Thiede:** So, but other than that, thanks for your recommendation on the recodification. Actually, I'd like to also make sure that we're prepared to discuss that a little bit more of the pros and cons at the Council meeting, maybe just to understand. And also the fact that if somebody just had an absolute fantastic reason to have a different [setback], I suppose they could always apply for a variance also. I personally, as one-fifth of [the Council], would agree with what Commissioner Britton has put forward, and such concerns the whole Commission, actually. So, let's see... anything else? You guys have any questions for me? [00:42:15] **Chair:** Questions or comments for Councilman Thiede? I don't think so. All right then, thank you. Move on to 8.2, which was response to Planning Commission inquiries; we didn't have any from last meeting. 8.3 is Planning Commission requests. Do we have any requests? No? All right. With that, we'll move on to item nine, which is adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn? [00:42:42] **Commissioner Wright:** Motion to adjourn. [00:42:43] **Chair:** I have a motion to adjourn from Commissioner Wright. Do I have a second? [00:42:46] **Commissioner Britton:** Second. [00:42:47] **Chair:** Second from Commissioner Britton. All those in favor say aye. [00:42:50] **Commissioners:** Aye. [00:42:51] **Chair:** Oppose say no. Motion carries 4-0. We are adjourned. All right.