This transcript is for a **Planning Commission** meeting. While the context provided includes City Council members, the speakers in this transcript are Planning Commission members (Commissioner Bush, Commissioner Ray-Camp, and Commissioner Geffrey), City Staff (Sophia Bellia), and the applicants. [07:00] **Chair**: All right, it is now 7:00. Let's go and call to order the City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting for Monday, March 25th, 2024. Uh, first item is to please rise for 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. Thank you much. Uh, second item is to approve this evening's agenda, which includes approval of uh previous meeting minutes, two public hearings, as well as some communication updates. [07:01] **Commissioner Bush**: I move to approve the agenda of March 25th, 2024. [07:01] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: Second. [07:01] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Bush, seconded by Commissioner Ray-Camp to approve the agenda. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Third item is uh approval of minutes from our previous meeting of March 11th, 2024. Any edits, alters, comments? Cool. Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion to approve. [07:02] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Motion to approve the minutes. [07:02] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: I'll second. [07:02] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Geffrey, second by Commissioner Ray-Camp to approve the minutes from March 11th, 2024. All in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. Uh, moving into the fourth uh item for this evening, we have two public hearings. The first is the Chavez Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. We'll hear from City Staff, Sophia, first. For the applicant, we'll open up for a public hearing. [07:03] **Sophia Bellia (City Planner)**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The applicant for application is Joe and Joan Chavez. The property is an unaddressed parcel within Sunfish Lake. The property area is 11.2 acres; 1.21 acres of that is above the ordinary high water level. The property is currently zoned rural residential with a Shoreland overlay and guided in the city's comp plan as rural area development. The property has been landlocked for many years. The property would be receiving access through the Northstar second edition final plat. This is the first step of a two-step process for the app to develop and sell the property. So there are are a few requests before you tonight. The first two are for the comprehensive plan amendment. They'd be looking to reguide the parcel from rural area development to Village low density residential and then adjust the MUSA boundary, which is the city's sewer boundary, and then rezone the parcel from rural residential to Village low density residential. And then I do have the—the bottom picture here shows that outlot that they'd be getting from the Northstar development. The purple dash line was the original layout and then the solid purple is the adjustment that the applicant and developer came to. So then I have a visual of the first request for the comprehensive plan amendment, the land use guidance. So the first change would be uh from green to yellow with black dots; that's reguiding the parcel from rural area development to Village low density residential and then changing that black dash line, which is the MUSA boundary, to include this parcel and it would be included in the current phasing plan. The second visual is for the zoning map amendment and this would be from rural residential, that light tan color, to Village low density residential, which is the yellow with black dots. So reviewing this proposal, again, comprehensive plan amendments and zoning map amendments are legislative decisions by the City Council and Planning Commission. Any change to the comprehensive plan should be based on findings and criteria that show the change would be consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the city. The city's zoning map should be consistent with the future land use map, so if we're changing one we should change the other to be consistent. Staff would also like to note that due to the ordinary high water level setback and bluffs of the property, there's almost no buildable area. If the project moves forward, the applicants will need variances to Shoreland and bluff standards. The applicant could purchase additional property from the Northstar second edition since it has not yet been final platted and they've revised the outlot once already; acquisition could increase buildable area and allow them to relocate the home outside of the ordinary high water level setback and bluff setback. Generally, staff is supportive of the comp plan amendment and zoning map amendment so the applicant can combine that existing lot with the future outlot and then they would not have split zoning between the two of them when they're combined. Um, approval of these requests tonight would not constitute a buildable lot. So then I do have a visual from the application here. The city-defined steep slopes is 18% or greater. The yellow on the map is 18%, green is 20, and then there's in between the—the green areas 25% or more. This application was sent out for agency review on March 15th. The city received comments from the fire department; most of their comments would relate to if this project moves forward regarding building addressing, access and connections. The city engineer provided comments regarding impervious surface, water connection, grading and storm water; they'd also like to see more detailed plans if this project moves forward. The county provided comments that they do not oppose the comprehensive plan amendment and then kind of made a general blanket statement about MPCA regulations. And then the Watershed indicated no permits would be required but they would want to review this project as it moves forward, and the DNR did not provide any comments. Staff has four findings and one condition of approval for these two applications. The first finding is outlining what the comprehensive plan amendment is for, which is the reguidance and MUSA adjustment. The second is outlining what the zoning map amendment is for from Rural Residential to Village Low Density Residential. The third is outlining that the request is consistent with the city's comp plan and the fourth is that is that it is consistent with the surrounding area and there is one recommended condition of approval and that would be contingent on Met Council's approval of the comp plan amendment. So this application was sent out for a public hearing, was sent to surrounding property owners on March 13th and published in the local paper on March 14th. Staff received a comment response from the applicant and then we received one comment in support of the requests. And with that, I have two recommended motions for you. The first one is the comp plan amendment that would need to go before the zoning map amendment um and they should either both be approved or both be denied since they are contingent upon each other. I can stand for any questions. We do have the applicant here tonight. [07:07] **Chair**: Thanks Sophia. Uh, just for clarification, for what's going in front of the Met Council, is it because we're changing the MUSA that—that changes the comp plan that they have to approve, or the reguidance and MUSA would both need Met Council approval because it's within the city's comp plan? [07:07] **Sophia Bellia**: Okay, so right now that the lot is not buildable? The parcel is not; it would likely need variances and it also doesn't have access currently. [07:08] **Chair**: Okay. And with the zoning change, that doesn't increase—right now if we made it Village Low Density Residential, is it—is the parcel only big enough for one? [07:08] **Sophia Bellia**: Correct. [07:08] **Chair**: Okay. And either way it's just one? All right. And then if we do change the MUSA, who becomes responsible for the sewer and water connections? Is that the property owner then? [07:08] **Sophia Bellia**: Correct. I believe Northstar would be putting the stub-in, okay, in some sort of agreement between the property owner and the developer, and then the actual connection would come the time of the building permit. [07:09] **Chair**: Okay. All right. Additional questions? Thanks, Sophia. Uh, we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant. You want to come up? As always, if you don't mind, just name and address for the record, please. [07:10] **Joe Chavez (Applicant)**: My name is Joe Chavez, 3505 Kelvin Avenue North, Lake Elmo. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to come and say a few words about the—about the proposal and pleased that, you know, the recommendations to go forward with the plan amendment and the comp plan. But um, I wrote some comments that I circulated in the letter uh last week, and I think it was important to note that what was left out of that was that this is a lot of record and the lot was created back in 1980. And basically uh we—we feel that in regards to, you know, the comments about it's not a buildable lot, you know, it's 1.2—1.21 acres above the ordinary high water mark, and that does not include the outlot that the developer is going to provide. So working with the developer initially with the outlot, it didn't give us the best access to the lot, so he was kind enough to make some accommodations and move some lines from one lot to the other lot and so forth so we could be able to more easily access uh a—a footprint uh for the house because it's only going to be a single family home. Um, the other thing I want to note too in—in terms of the fact that comments made that it's not—there isn't enough for a buildable lot is that there's also a handout in terms of what I submitted of an overview of the map of—of Sunfish Lake. Now most of the homes on Sunfish Lake uh were all built on bluffs and slopes. The last house that was built on the north end was built in 1993; that house did require a variance that was granted. My house was built in 1981 and in essence my home uh lot almost mirrors exactly the property that's being proposed to uh in—in this—in this uh presentation. And uh so it's—it's kind of like essentially that all these homes have had access and were granted uh one—granted variance that I'm aware of, and the other ones, you know, as far as I know, were not—not granted—weren't required. And the homes that were built, the first one that I'm aware was built in 1972 which is right next door to me; the other homes were built in 1990 uh 19—mine was built in 1981; uh the house on the southern port or southern part of Sunfish Lake was started in 1986 and finished in 1988; the house next to it is an old farmhouse that was there before we built our house in 1981. And so they basically very similar in terms of configuration, sitting on slopes and sitting on—on a bluff overlooking the lake. And so I mean that's why we uh decided to submit reasons in terms of, I guess, why the variance—variances at the appropriate time would be granted even though language says currently that it's not buildable and that I would be required to purchase more land. In—in—in essence, in terms of requiring to purchase more land, you know, the—the uh developer has been gracious enough to accommodate us in—in terms of reconfiguring the outlot for access and so forth, and I think it would probably dilute the value of his lots and I wouldn't suspect that he would not be open, you know, to giving up more of his property in order so we could have a lot to build on. And uh the contention that, you know, uh it's not a buildable lot and—and you not have to buy land to—to have a buildable lot wouldn't make sense, otherwise I wouldn't need a variance to build—to have a—a property that's buildable. So um, those were some of my comments in terms of uh the comments regarding um not enough buildable land for—for one single family dwelling. Are there any questions I can answer? [07:11] **Chair**: Any questions? I just for a clarification, maybe Sophia, this is directed at you. We're not saying that he would be required to buy additional lot, but that additional land purchase would make it so it's less likely to request variances at further stage, right? Okay, thank you. Perfect. Uh, anything else from the Commissioners? Thank you. [07:12] **Joe Chavez**: Thanks so much, appreciate it. [07:12] **Chair**: Thank you. Thanks. Um, and this is a public hearing uh and again, as Sophia mentioned, there was one public comment that we received. Was that the only one that was in our packet? Correct. Uh from uh James and James Gibbons, I believe. That looks like it is in support if I read correctly? Correct. No objection to the property being developed. Yeah, perfect. Um, did we have anybody from the audience that does wish to speak on this? Just as a reminder for public hearings, there's a form at the back that we ask you to fill out if you do wish to speak. Okay, perfect. Um, with that then, since this is a public hearing, we'll need a motion to go ahead and open up the public hearing. [07:13] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Motion to open the public hearing. [07:13] **Commissioner Bush**: I have second. [07:13] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Geffrey, seconded by Commissioner Bush to open the public hearing. All those in favor? (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. The public hearing is now open at 7:13 p.m. And then, did you have the form filled out there if you wish to speak? Do we have one form? I'll grab one. Okay, thank you. And then yeah, you're welcome to go ahead and come up uh to the microphone. Uh, Dennis? [07:14] **Dennis Milowski (Public Speaker)**: Yeah, so if you want to speak the two parcels over... Sorry, do you mind coming up to the—to the microphone and then just for the record uh name and address? I'm Dennis, Dennis Milowski, 4138 Kindred Way, Lake Elmo. And I just had a question: you had a picture up there of two—two parcels, one showing with current conditions and another one with proposed conditions. I was wondering why the dotted line goes out into the lake there on that second one? [07:15] **Chair**: So uh, during a public hearing we can't do a back and forth Q&A, but I can address it once we—we close the public hearing to answer that for you. [07:15] **Dennis Milowski**: Okay, thank you. [07:15] **Chair**: You're welcome. Right, I don't think we had anybody else uh for the public hearing, so we can entertain a motion to close. [07:16] **Commissioner Bush**: I move to close the public hearing. [07:16] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: I'll second. [07:16] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Bush, seconded by Commissioner Ray-Camp to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously and the public hearing is closed at 7:16 p.m. Sophia, do you—oh, on top of it, would you mind answering? [07:17] **Sophia Bellia**: The black dash line is the MUSA boundary, so the property would be then included in the MUSA. So that black dash line should be outlining the property lines, because the property line covers out into the lake. Correct. [07:17] **Chair**: Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right, at this time with the public hearing closed, it's back to the Commissioners here. There are two uh motions that have been provided as guidance. We'll start with the top one there regarding the uh comp plan uh and change to VLDR. [07:18] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: Move to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment for PID 14-29-21-24-0004 from rural area development to Village low density residential and amend the MUSA boundary based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. [07:18] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Second. [07:18] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Ray-Camp, second by Commissioner Geffrey uh to recommend approval. We'll start with discussion. Commissioner Ray-Camp? [07:19] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: Sure. Um, it's an—going to be an island out into itself based upon the development that's going on around it with the lake being the natural border, and so it makes sense that the uh comprehensive plan and the MUSA would match what it is next door and again, the lake being the boundary. [07:19] **Chair**: All right, thank you. Additional comments? [07:20] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Um, there's just really no good reason not to allow it. Uh, and obviously there's construction and building and things like that going on, you know, immediately around it, so uh and staff is in agreement as well. So, yeah. [07:20] **Chair**: Agreed. Based off the—the facts and findings on it and again, I think the—the biggest thing is understanding the idea for development on this, understanding that, you know, based off of current code and—and how we have things set up on it for—for Mr. Chavez, um, you know, the possible variances based off the bluff are consideration there for—for development of it. But in terms of what this particular motion is calling for, the—the realignment makes sense and is consistent with, I think you said, surrounding areas. Additional comments? All right, hearing none, again there's a motion on the table to recommend approval of the comp plan amendment for the PID... and rural area development to Village low density residential and to amend the MUSA boundary based on the findings uh listed in the staff report. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, uh the first motion passes unanimously. Uh, we then have the second motion on the zoning map amendment. [07:21] **Commissioner Geffrey**: I move to recommend approval of zoning map amendment for PID 14.29.21.24.4 from rural residential to Village low density residential based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. [07:21] **Commissioner Bush**: Second. [07:21] **Chair**: Okay. Uh, motion by Commissioner Geffrey, second by Commissioner Bush to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment. Uh, additional discussion? No reason not to, and uh they—they go hand in hand with each other, so. [07:22] **Chair**: Agreed. The staff findings uh I think listed out again building consistency with the first, so in approval. All right, hearing no further discussion, uh again the motion is to recommend approval. All those in favor please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously and this will now go to City Council. Do we have a date? May 7th? [07:23] **Sophia Bellia**: May 7th. [07:23] **Chair**: And anybody—that concludes item 4A. Uh, Joe or anybody else, you're welcome to—to leave if you want; obviously you're more than welcome to stay as well. Uh, with that though, we will move to our second public hearing uh this evening. This is item 4B, the Animal Inn Pet Spa and Resorts. Again, we'll hear from City Staff first, uh then the applicant before opening the public hearing. [07:24] **Sophia Bellia**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The applicant for tonight's applications are Corwin and Katie Chang; they are the owners of Animal Inn. The property is located 8611 34th Street, just south of Stillwater Boulevard. The property is roughly 14.39 acres. It is currently zoned limited commercial and guided limited business in the city's comp plan. The property has been operating as a commercial kennel since 1970 and possibly earlier. In 2019, the prior owner pursued a comp plan amendment or a conditional use permit amendment and cleaned up the property uh for future sale, which included rezoning, lot consolidation, and then again that CUP amendment. So the requests before you tonight are twofold. The first is to amend the conditional use permit to expand the facility. The second is for variances to the limited commercial setbacks and off-street parking regulations for commercial kennels. So the applicants are proposing three site improvements with these applications. The first is expanding the kennel facility, which would be that top picture; adding—adding a new animal daycare, which would be that bottom photo; and then amending the fence location, which we'll—we'll dive into on the next slide. So again on the left side you'll see the building areas and that fencing location, and then on the right that shows the kennel addition and animal daycare on the property. We're reviewing the variance requests. The first is to the limited commercial setback: so structures are required to be 50 feet from the property line; uh the applicant is proposing 25 feet for those new additions. And then off-street parking regulations for commercial kennels requires one space per six animals and one space per employee on the largest shift. So that would put them at 63 stalls with their expansion. The site currently has 38 stalls and they're proposing to keep the 38 stalls. The site currently has a conditional use permit again from 2019 that uh manages the property. They're looking to amend that conditional use permit specifically condition one and two of the existing CUP which regulate how many dogs and cats they can have on the site. So it would increase the capacity from 160 animals to 330. The fourth—fourth condition of the 2019 CUP was to consolidate the parcels into one; uh three of those five parcels were Torrens, so they were not able to consolidate those, so it'd just be getting it on the record that those three parcels would maintain as is and then a restrictive covenants would be signed that all three properties stay under common ownership. The eighth condition—or condition eight—is uh relocating fencing; the current CUP requires uh any changes to fencing beyond maintenance uh which would trigger a CUP amendment. So that is one of their requests tonight. And condition nine would be outlining that there are now four primary buildings instead of three, and the accessory buildings would remain as is. So moving on to the variance criteria findings. So we'll just go through each criteria and then break down each request within that. Practical difficulties would mean that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. So for the setback variance, the property has constraints with the septic location, pet cemetery and flood plane. The proposed location is the only feasible location for the addition. The practical difficulties for off-street parking: the applicant is not proposing to add any additional parking with the addition; the property has significant slopes that are not suitable for parking and adding impervious surface. Moving on to unique circumstances, uh which is plight of the landowner is due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner. For setbacks, the applicant is not responsible for the current layout of the facility expansion; expansion is not viable in areas uh due to steep slopes, grades, wetlands, septic location, and the pet cemetery. And then off-street parking finding: the applicant does not utilize all of the parking currently in place due to the drop-off and pick-up structure of the business; grading of the property is not conducive to additional parking and parking is not permitted in the fire lane; additional parking would cause increased runoff and flooding of the structures. Moving on to the third criteria, character of locality: that the request is consistent and would not alter the essential character of the area. The setback request um generally would meet the overall design intent of the area and the use would be remaining the same with this—with this request. And then off-street parking should not impact character since it would be staying exactly the same. And the final criteria is adjacent properties and traffic and this is that it would not impair adjacent properties or in significantly increase uh traffic. The setback finding: the request should not negatively impair adjacent properties or increase congestion on a public street. The area has natural buffers from residential; the south buffer would be the railroad tracks, the north buffer would be Stillwater Boulevard. And then the off-street parking finding: the variance would not impair adjacent properties or increase congestion; the parking again would remain as it currently sits. So I have 12 CUP findings for you. Uh, we can dive into these in more detail if we have questions that come up, but in general they're related to health, safety, and welfare, consistency with the comp plan, consistency with the geographic location and site area, consistent with the zoning district, permitted use in the flood zone, compatible with general vicinity uh buffering and nuisance compliance, adequate uh city services, public cost, traffic and environmental impacts. And this application was sent out for agency review on March 15th. We received comments back from the fire department; one of their big comments was water connection for fire suppression, so that condition has been added. Um, they also discussed building addressing, gates, locks, uh and drive lanes. The city engineer provided comments regarding impervious surface, water connection, grading and storm water; they would want to see more detailed plans if this project moves forward. The county provided comments regarding future intersection improvements, and then the Watershed and DNR did not provide comments. So then I have 15 recommended conditions of approval. Uh, this is a similar format to the last resolution that this site had. So the first one is related to number of dogs increasing from 160 to 300, number of cats going from 10 to 30. Um, the third one—the second one—is that the old CUP would be void and this CUP would now be the guiding document for the property. Three is related to the Torrens and restrictive covenants. Five and six are related to water connection. Seven is that general condition that all necessary permits must be obtained uh and eight is related to the septic capacity. Nine is related to building addressing. 10 is related specifically to the buildings that could do boarding. 11 is related to outdoor kenneling and that is the same condition that was from their 2019 CUP. 12 is regarding fencing. 13 is outlining primary and accessory buildings; again this would go from three to four primary buildings and then would keep its two accessory buildings. Uh, 14 is from the 2019 resolution regarding the caretaker's suite and 15 is also from the 2019 resolution which is the—the terms defined. And then a public hearing was sent to surrounding property owners on March 13th, published in the local paper on March 15th, and staff has not received any public comments regarding this application. So I have a motion before you and then I can stand for any questions, and we do have the applicants here. [07:30] **Chair**: Thanks. Questions? How is the parking requirement determined? [07:30] **Sophia Bellia**: That is a good question. It's—it's existing in code. I don't know exactly when it was adopted for—for this particular business type for commercial kennels. [07:31] **Chair**: Correct. Okay. I don't know, it's just as you—they currently apparently don't use all the parks they had, so I was trying to understand how that came about. Was it one per six animals or something like that? [07:31] **Sophia Bellia**: Something like that, yeah. It seems fitting for a smaller operation where you might only have 12 animals and you'd have two spots, but the larger scale, I don't know that you—you'd use it as much in the drop-off pick-up nature of the business. If they are parking, they're not staying for very long. [07:32] **Chair**: Okay. Additional questions? Thanks, Sophia. Uh, yeah, and if the applicant would like to come up and, same as I've repeated, name and address, please. [07:33] **Katie Chang (Applicant)**: Hi. Um, do you need my home address or the business? Business, perfect. So I'm Katie Chang and the business address is 8611 34th Street North, Lake Elmo. And we really appreciate uh you guys hearing us tonight. Uh, Sophia has worked with us a lot on uh this proposal and trying to get things together. Um, first thing I'd like to address: I know the parking—I don't know if you guys received the full parking study we actually did, but we actually went during spring break week uh over—over a week where we every 15 minutes took photos and counted the cars in the lot—employees versus clients, things like that. Um, even though for example one day we had 130 dogs there, there was the average of two car—two uh people in the lot um was the high point for the day. Uh, our staff high point was 12. So we really don't utilize a lot of that parking, particularly with how we are looking to expand the business is really for the need of dog daycare, which didn't exist 50 years ago, right? Like that's definitely a newer service that is being provided. So really where we want to expand is our dog daycare availability for the growing area and that is a very much drop-off and pick-up business, and people do not want to be late for work. If you are not quick, they are not going to be very happy with you. Um, so that's really the big thing. Um, with the parking also as Sophia did address, we really unfortunately uh just with how the buildings are set up don't have a ton of buildable space. We do have the wetlands uh two different wetlands on the property, they're connected by a little pathway, uh about a 5-acre pet cemetery and then um various septic systems we have between the buildings. So we really have very limited space we would be able to expand. Uh, one other thing that is very uh important for us with this expansion is also uh, again, dog daycare—dogs, groups, playings together—was not a big thing 50 years ago when our existing buildings were built. They did not build indoor play space. That is a huge problem for dog daycares in Minnesota. Um, the—the very first thing we did upon purchasing the business was build it with one of the—the um former vet building, but that area is very small and it does really constrain uh what we're able to do. Um, also I'd like to address the amount of dogs too. I can see where that would—people would be like "Wow, that's a big change." Right now where we're running into is our daycare is where, again, we want to primarily expand a lot of our services. We do want to expand our suites and some of our boarding, but daycare is really the primary driver for this type—type of expansion. The daycare pups, one, are Monday to Friday; our primary boarding dogs are Friday to Sunday, or they might, like over spring break, stay a week, something like that. Where we run into trouble building our daycare base is we can build our daycare up when travel times are low, but then we have to turn a lot of our clients away just because on Friday at 4:00 someone is checking in and I don't know when those daycare dogs are going home. So we really have to drop our daycare amount down. So what we would like to do is be able to have a high enough number where we can safely have, you know, our regular daycare clients not have to turn those people away um, upset them, not have the service available and still maintain our boarding services that we have, if that makes sense. Um, and I think those were kind of the biggest concerns we were kind of anticipating people having. Uh, do you guys have any questions for me? [07:34] **Chair**: Questions? Have you talked to your neighboring—the neighboring property owners? [07:34] **Katie Chang**: Yes. Um, the build—the one that I feel would be the most likely, really the one up the hill um, the owner kind of—they recently sold so we haven't been able to contact them. Um, but they—they receive the public notice and they use it for storage or not really around; they rent it out to a bus depot and then it was formerly a carpentry shop, so that is—is one area. Uh, the training school is on the other side and I've definitely—we have a good relationship, talk to her. Very similar names, very confusing, but they're awesome. Like, we—we've reached out to them, offered to share plans, things like that as well. [07:34] **Chair**: You're talking about the property that's just North, like 8603? [07:35] **Katie Chang**: Yeah so, or yeah, is it 86—it's 86—what is it, 8633? Yeah, so they're literally like the training school. You drive down—thank you. Um, so—so if you look at the map, when you're driving down that long road, if you hang a left, that is that—that little building over there is the training school just outside of our parking lot. Uh, they're called Animal Inn Training School. They are a completely unaffiliated business. Um, they used to—long story—they—but uh friends purchased things together and then sold their pieces essentially. But they um have their own parking, their own everything; they're not really anything to do with us. [07:35] **Chair**: Perfect. Thank you. Additional questions? Perfect. Okay, thank you. [07:35] **Katie Chang**: Thanks much, appreciate it. [07:35] **Chair**: All right, this is a public hearing, so we'll need a motion to open. [07:35] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: Move to open the public hearing. [07:35] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Second. [07:35] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Ray-Camp, seconded by Commissioner Geffrey to open the public hearing. All those in favor? (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. Public hearing is now open at 7:35 p.m. They said we received no prior comment, and just to confirm, was there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak? Perfect. Uh, seeing none then, we can go ahead and make a motion to close. [07:36] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Motion to close the public hearing. [07:36] **Commissioner Ray-Camp**: Second. [07:36] **Chair**: Motion by Commissioner Geffrey, second by Commissioner Ray-Camp to close the public hearing. All those in favor? (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. The public hearing is now closed at 7:36 p.m. Uh, we do have a motion provided by City Staff there. Uh, we can start with to open up discussion. [07:37] **Commissioner Bush**: Move to recommend approval of the variances and conditional use permit amendment with conditions from Katie and Corwin Chang for the Animal Inn Pet Resort and Spa located at 8611 34th Street North, based on the findings listed in the staff report. [07:37] **Commissioner Geffrey**: Second. [07:37] **Chair**: Thank you. Uh, motion by Commissioner Bush, second by Commissioner Geffrey uh to recommend approval. Let's start with discussion. Commissioner Bush? [07:38] **Commissioner Bush**: I am guessing—but I don't know, but I'm guessing—that COVID had a lot to do with the need for expansion with more and more pets um and the area growing, so I could see the need—need for an expansion. Yeah. Um, staff's looked into it, has their support. Uh, looks like a mainly commercial area anyways. Um, there's freeway on one side and train tracks on the other. Um, sounds like business is good so I'd like to support that. [07:39] **Chair**: Perfect. Uh, yeah, I think I'm in agreeance. My—my two call-outs were addressed by uh the applicant with the parking and the—the number of animals there. Um, understanding the variance requests given—it has some very weird property lines that we have to find uh ways to make things square peg, round hole to fit. Um, so understanding the variance on the conditional use permit, I think it's, you know, something I'm sure the City Council will address as well. So just as a—as a heads up. Um, in terms of the overall expansion in terms of numbers, appreciate kind of doing the early traffic—traffic study if you will, parking study, um, because that's always a thing with added traffic coming and going under 36. We know it, uh high—high volume and continuing to increase, so just something to be aware of. Um, but overall yeah, I'm in uh favor of the variance and the CUP amendments. Anything additional? All right, hearing no more, uh again the motion on the table is to recommend—recommend approval of the variance and CUP uh amendment with the conditions based off the findings list in the staff report. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed? Hearing none, uh the motion passes unanimously and this will also go to City Council May 7th? [07:39] **Sophia Bellia**: May 7th. Big meeting. [07:39] **Chair**: Perfect. Thank you very much. Uh, that concludes item four for this uh evening. Sam, you're welcome to take off, welcome to stay. Uh, as we move on to our next item in the agenda, uh we have no new or unfinished—finished business, so we'll move to item six which are the communication updates. Uh, back to Sophia. [07:40] **Sophia Bellia**: For sure. We have had no planning items go before City Council between now and the last meeting. And then we do have two upcoming Planning Commission meetings on April 8th and April 22nd. I did send an email regarding Planning Commission training; it looks like that'll probably be in a May meeting, maybe the first—first meeting in May. We have planned items for both April meetings already. [07:40] **Chair**: We do? Okay, perfect. Easy enough. Any additional questions or clarification from Sophia? [07:40] **Sophia Bellia**: If you're going to be missing a meeting, let me know. [07:40] **Chair**: Yes, perfect. All right, with that uh we have gotten to the end of our agenda uh so we'll be able to adjourn for the evening. Again, as always, uh thanks for citizens for coming out, staying around for this evening. Commission members coming out and City Staff, always appreciate the—the work that goes into getting all this prepped and taken care of. Uh, with that we will go ahead and close the meeting at 7:40 p.m. I hope everybody has a good night. Thank you.