all right Mr chair we it is 7 o'cl and we are recording we'll call to order uh today's meeting we have a recording in progress so sorry go ahead I'll try that again here I'll tap it again there calling tonight's uh city of corkran Planning Commission meeting uh to order uh roll call brummond here manman here Lind here uh not present will be uh Commissioners horn and Van deny but we do have a quorum uh I would uh ask you all to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance 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 thank you um do the Commissioners or Commissioners and staff are there any amendment to uh any amendments to tonight's uh agenda uh I do not have any changes Mr chair no any no okay uh I'll make a motion to approve the agenda could I get a second all seconds thank you and that oh uh I need to vote too don't I so all in favor say I I opposed thank you uh I will uh I'd like to now open the floor to the public to participate in our open Forum this is an opportunity for members of the public to um uh address uh items of concern or just items uh on uh on things that are not already on tonight's agenda um is there anything that you would like to address at this point okay Natalie do we have anyone online Mr Cherry do not have anyone online okay uh let me see here and I don't need to officially close that do I there's nothing for us to close Okay um I'd like to uh or could I have someone make a motion to approve the uh agenda or is that the meeting minutes from September 7th chair I don't believe those were in the packet they were not okay oh my goodness well that was an error but I didn't catch it prior to tonight so I apologize like oh um so I don't know if we want to wait and try to do that next month can can we just um slip that in on next month's yeah meeting and Y we can definitely do that okay awesome so uh I'll make a motion to just postpone the approval of those uh minutes until our next uh meeting if I could get a second second uh all in favor say I I opposed okay that passes okay new business uh Natalie yes thank you Mr chair so our first item tonight is a public hearing for a zoning ordinance Amendment to accessor the accessor structure section in 10302 slide so city council directed staff recently to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to regarding Eve and overhang flexibility for certain accessory structures U so just a little bit of background EES and overhangs are a specific requirement for our accessory structures and we don't really Define those but historically staff has interpreted e interpreted EES to mean the underside along the side or the sopit and then the overhang is the edge of the roof that extends over the front or rear elevation so we found this nice graphic that uh we feel really represents that well next slide currently the section in question provides the minimum required dimensions of ease and overhangs based on the sidewall height of the newly proposed building and is believed by staff that these requirements were initially adopted to ensure accessory structures have a residential aesthetic so this is what it currently reads as in code next slide so a resident asked the city council to consider changing this regulation to allow for a new accessory structure to have a 12in overhang or 18 in would otherwise be required there were a couple reasons why this was requested including that his existing accessory structures were built before this ordinance was adopted and he preferred to have the overhangs of the new building match his existing structures so counc directed staff to add a clause to the section that allows for this flexibility next slide So based on Council Direction staff prepared an amendment that would include the diagram found so that uh we run into less confusion with even overhang as that is something that constantly is addressed as a condition of approval that's handled on the back end um never seems to get quite right on the plans and then the zoning administrator oh and then the additional Clause would be the zoning administrator provide flexibility from this requirement in situations where the new accessory structure matches an existing legal non-conforming accessory structure located on the same property next slide so there are some small concerns from staff part about this Clause just because it may be really difficult if plans aren't on file to confirm the dimensions and confirm that it's a legal building um and we do think that a 12 inch overhang and or Eve would accomplish the residential aesthetic um don't necessarily see a need to continue having additional overhang based on the sidewall increases so staff would also recommend to for consideration that we just kind of simplify the whole section and just change it to all accessory structures shall be constructed with EES and overhangs that are minimum of 12 in in length with this we don't necessarily need to include the diagram because it longer really is relevant what is what um but we still could if that would be preferred by the Planning Commission just for ease of understanding next slide so recommendation is to open the public hearing and take testimony the Planning Commission has the following options recommend approval of the draft ordinance a resolution with findings of fact as prepared based on Council Direction recommend of approval of the drafts uh utilizing the staff prepared language or other desired changes and then recommend denial of the draft ordinance and resolution that's what I have okay thank you um I'd like to open up the uh public hearing on this now uh inperson comments will be taken first followed by those joining us uh online tonight sir do you have any comments on this is it required for is a 12in overhang currently required for the main structure no there is no overhang part department no it's only for accessory structures and I'm so sorry if you have any additional comments if you could approach the podium yeah we just want to be able to make sure that those online can hear your your name and address my name is Joel 1934 Second Avenue North guess my question is there are of the main structure in a residential that you're saying there is no minimum requirement correct overhang correct but you're proposing one for an accessory structure yeah there already is an ease and over requirement for accessory structures specifically um again I believe it's typical for residential structures to have EES and overhang so I I think that that's why we don't have a requirement per se um there are structures in our development without ease or overhangs in in the new development and so I'm just find it interesting that you're requiring it for an accessory structure if you don't have the requirement for the main structure say not fair enough we don't have have that reement do we or we do not but what tonight's action would do if the council approved it would reduce the current standards for accessory structures it is unusual uh not to have EES and overhangs on residential homes but what used to be very common I see it less but if you think about old a buildings there's no ever overhang the wall literally comes to the roof and this was adopted because corkran in about 2000 I think this was adopted wanted to have a more res residential aesthetic to those buildings so that's the history I'm not entirely sure um um in terms of residential structures why there's not an eve overhang requirement except that it's very rare not to have it but yeah in his development yeah well I get I get your point I get your point so the purpose of even overhangs there's a couple reasons why you have them one of them being it diverts water from the structure um so I yeah there there is a purpose for it and um we certainly look at adding it if it's something that we wanted um or a recommendation could be to remove this requirement but then it the residential aesthetic that it was trying to accomplish we would be changing that goal um and that wasn't the direction from Council so that's just where that's at did did Council were were they aware of this kind of inconsistency between outbuildings and the residential buildings like did that come up in that I wasn't here for that meeting um I I was not at that meeting either I was at in my was in Hawaii so the um I don't know if exactly that question came up we have talked about minimum residential standards before and there are no overhang requirements and that has been something that we've looked at with the council I was I should we close the public hearing first okay unless there's other people and then we can continue this riveting discussion I agree we're hold that thought sir do we have anyone online uh members of the public online if you'd like to participate in the public hearing for the zoning ordinance Amendment related to accessory structures please utilize the raise your hand function in the reactions menu um Mr chair no one's raising their hand okay thank you uh I'll make a motion to close the public hearing if I could get a second I'll second all in favor say I I opposed okay and that closes the uh public hearing I I would mention I was at the meeting the council meeting when this was discussed and the resident made this comment it did not come up the inconsistency between a primary residence and the accessory building but what did come up was the most important priority being that whatever happens with an accessory structure match what is existing on the property home or another accessory building and that being the priority and I'm not going to quote exactly but a member of city council said we just built a building with no e overhang um Mr chair I apologize Kendra and I stand corrected we do have a requirement that all residential dwellings shall have roof overhangs which extend a minimum of one foot from the exterior wall or the structure so I don't know what what development are you in R oh yeah yeah I didn't write his address I mean the web Bell weather development and there are several structures that do not have the overhang and they were all built in the last three years and they I'm assuming they pass City inspection yeah I we I suppose we would need to take a look going be able um that surprises me cuz uh um our Construction Services specialist is pretty good at confirming everything um but we would need to take a look so if there are addresses you're able to send me of what structures we're talking about if we're talking about like specific homes uh is it your homes it doesn't have okay so we could look at your home and the building plans and see if it was built to the building plan my home has yours they do have overhangs okay I'm sorry is five or six in in your neighborhood in the development okay all right are are you comfortable sharing addresses with us you share them right now but not now but I can look them up feel free to email me and we could certainly take a look to make sure the buildings were built per plan yeah because you know he raises a good point and if we're concerned about the Aesthetics of an accessory building and we're requiring um requiring these then it would it would just seem to me that we would also need language requiring them on the primary buildings but it sounds like we have that yes we do so it sounds like some buildings may be out of con out of conform uh or out of compliance yes then we can address that as a separate issue if they weren't built for the plan um so we can take a look at that and research that a bit more okay um but yeah as far as consistency it's a it's a minimum 12 in overhanging Eve for residential structures elsewhere I went of the primary building um so that would again be consistent with staff's recommendation versus the okay first proposal so the the code that you just referenced is that the is that's not the same code that we're currently entertaining edits to correct no that section Mr chair is 106.5 excuse me subdivision B5 I'm sorry 106.5 yes sub five uh B5 oh B5 okay it's the residential design stand so would it let me ask you you know not not that it really matters but would it make sense to take the edits that we're currently discussing and kind of wrap them into the code chapter referencing the home uh uh overhangs wouldn't it make sense to kind of cover homes and out buildings on or accessory buildings under the same code or do am I just overthinking this um I I do think we are overdue for a very comprehensive overhaul uh but the the change in front of us tonight addresses the situation that Council asked staff to move forward with okay um and that could definitely be something that we look at incorpor differently right now we have an accessory section and then we have like an architectural we have a building performance standards um and I I'm tentative to have this be a part of that because a we' have to republ rece the public hearing and B um what the point she's talking about is specific to um it's not accessory structures necessarily it's talking about primary building so I think it'd be better to have it called out within the accessory structures section I um if the 12 in matches a primary residence that seems to make sense to me that that seemed like a very simplified option the question that I found myself asking while reviewing this was is our priority to have 12 in or is our priority for something to match the existing structure on the residence like how are we trusting residents to match what already exists whether it's 12 in or not do we want to prioritize things matching or do we want to prioritize them being 12 Ines that was the question I found myself asking I feel like if I could uh Natalie that there is that's what she's talking about when there's the Clause so we can decide that we want the Clause correct in the ordinance where it says the zoning administrator May provide flexibility in situations where new accessory structure matches and existing legal non-conforming accessory structure located on the same property I think that the reason why the proposal was maybe to just go to 12 Ines and not have that on there is for the Simplicity of what it would take if permit for sure and I think I understand um you know uh matching but I would think that if you're building something under new like current standards um you know like I think our barn doesn't have overhang on two sides and then it's got you know but it was built in like the 70s right I I I don't know for us to put up an accessory structure and then have uh overhangs on all sides to me it just is it if it simplifies the process and it maintains a standard um I don't think it's a significant difference um in aesthetic to have a 12in overhang if somebody wanted to go for more I'm assuming they can do more if they want to it's just we can't drop below um uh that 12 12 in but but you rais a great point is like if you have an existing historical structure that looks great and does not have 12 in and you want to build something that matches at your property in this ordinance you would have to have 12 inches and what if you don't want to I think aesthetically there would be ways to tie the two accessory structures together um with still meeting the 12in overhang and if for some reason you were intent on not doing it then the process would be to uh apply for well and that's a great Point commissioner Lind I when writing this I'm assuming a 12in minimum and that did not come clear with this language currently proposed uh but the the property owner that requested this to be re-evaluated uh was committing to a 12in overhang um so I don't think the intent was to go below 12 in so if we were were to proceed with the first option from the council Direction I would recommend um adding not to R not to be reduced Under 12 in even it with the Clause yes accessory structures that are used for agricultural purposes are exempt from the EES and overhangs role um so uh but yeah the accessory structures that are residential in nature are supposed to have those e and overhangs so if you were putting up an egg building and you wanted to match your other egg buildings then then you are welcome to do that but if you're putting up a shed then it needs to have a minimum of 12in overhangs where is the market headed on overhangs as part of I did not being aesthetically I don't mean to cuse that as a challenging question I'm just wondering like does it serve a functional purpose it does it keeps water away and Mr chair honestly in 20 years this is the first time it's come up as an issue so most people are building them um and it just doesn't come up a lot but it seemed to make sense to the council in this case he had gotten a approval through a different method in about 2004 was that right for a smaller Eve and it just made sense with this Council to modify the ordinance rather than going through the I think it was a conditional use process last time that the city used to approve it if I remember right not a variant I irrelevant but but he had gotten approval for an addition with a smaller Eve to match an existing building previously so but he's still saying 12 in 12 in y I would make a motion to move forward with the language and standardizing 12 in in length could I ask you to just hit pause on that I have I have a couple of additional question questions and uh no no no no that's okay so I'm I'm concerned about what what I've heard tonight as you know aside from this that we have some homes that may not be in compliance uh do we I mean I assume that that this commission can ask for you know one of our inspectors to go out and maybe get an explanation why we have an inconsistency between our code and what this G gentleman reported to us tonight is that is there someone that we could I'm I'm just curious as to how that by yeah that's something you could definitely work with our Construction Services Specialists to see uh just take a look at the building permits in the area and see if there's something that's not complying with the okay a the plans and the not intending to try to stir up for for this gentleman's neighbors but I I think fair is fair because if if it was his home home there there there could be some enforcement action you know so I get what he's saying and I'm I'm just curious to find out why why this slipped through so but you know that I'm not tying that to this at all that I don't think that that would be appropriate but I I would be curious so I would respectfully ask that someone um be given that task and maybe get back to us at the next meeting yes if um we can try to take a look to see if it's immediate OB immediately obvious I'm a little concerned not knowing the addresses beforehand committing to uh that before the next meeting okay because there are several homes in that development so I I would like to have at least at least the general area before um I work with Mr Pritchard on that okay all right perfect thank you is that does that address your concern you know and maybe there's a waiver they could have applied for I'm not yeah who knows well we'll figure it out but we do appreciate you bringing this to our attention uh commissioner I think you have a motion yes I have a motion to approve the language on a 12 inch standard for overhangs as a minimum moving forward may I ask in the motion that she's making uh do we need to make an indication about whether or not we feel like the graphic needs to be included or no if you'd like to go yeah I would say if you want the graphic then make that clear okay I am willing to second the motion I do not have a uh feeling one way or the other about Eaves and overhangs I am an like whether the graphic is in there I'm an individual where if I don't understand something I would look it up however I could see if it feels beneficial to staff because you get so many questions about it on the back end then feel free to retain the graphic in the code if that feels like it's beneficial of just discretion on the graphic requirement okay can I get a second I seconded I'll third it um all all in favor say I I all oppos okay thank you that was a good discussion thank you for your input sir okay are we already at the staff report yeah okay Natalie whenever you're ready thank you all right so the second item is uh a bit more involved uh in terms of length but should be fairly easy the 6B public hearing is for minor subdivision and zoning ordinance edits go ahead city council authorized staff in September to prepare a code Amendment for several updates to the subdivision and zoning ordinances the goal of the update was to address staff identified typos and inconsistencies found throughout the ordinance additionally some minor revisions that were not expected to be controversial were included such as increasing the public hearing radius from 350t to 500 feet which has been an ongoing goal of the council so staff has provided a working list not lot working list of subdivision and zoning ordinance edits to the council for at least the last three years that has continued to grow this is the list I'm not going to go over all of this cuz a lot of it is numbers um so next Slide the enclosed draft ordinance to address these items is 32 pages with 77 sections of code updates the updates include a few minor top typographical errors such as adding a period here removing a duplicate b in a list um and then a lot of it of the focus is on clarifications and handling some inconsistencies so Revis several definitions including building line setback daycare structure what we consider to be major roadways upend we removed a term that is no longer used anywhere in the ordinances Greenway Corridor land and then updated multiple family apartment and town home definitions to uh now be consistent with our rental dwelling ordinance adopted this year additional clarifications inconsistencies uh we updated um the rural commercial architectural standards the way it was worded suggested that uh they could only do one building material which wasn't quite what was meant um and then also clarified that how the wall facade was calculated in terms of their ability to use a specific material uh updated all 2030 comprehensive plan references to 2040 we still had a couple of places of worship SL assembly references when we updated that to places of worship a couple years ago so to clean that up um we had some confusion over daycare facilities um for example the way that we had used daycare facilities in residential districts uh and in one commercial District uh we have clarified that commercial dayc daycares were allowed but then in other commercial districts we were relying on language used in our residential districts so it suggested that a commercial daycare facility wouldn't be allowed but a home daycare would be in a commercial District so we cleaned that up so it's consistent uh and now matches with our definition that kind of broke these two out uh so then we also replaced a random interim use permit reference regarding accessory dwelling unit approvals uh and we changed that to the applicable review process because if you recall it could not be an administrative permit or Cup in some districts or in the rural residential district and then provided consistent language regarding loot Dimension deviations in the use of planned unit developments in our open space and preservation plots and updated call Tock length requirements to refer to our corkrin engineering design standards uh because the previous language suggested that there wasn't a limit which is does not align with our design standards and a limited length I should clarify and then we had some ly uh bigger changes we still considered them minor uh but the changes were intended to align with City practices goals or provide consistent processes so this included specifically adding a wetland and topographic survey waiver requirement this is something we already do it's already a land use application type um but it's nowhere in code uh so we've we've now codified that process and actually have a um a request in it to be an administrative process to save time in processing costs um as it's usually something that our Engineers can take a look at and get a good idea if we really need to know this information and Council does not typically deviate from this engineering recommendation uh allowing decorative fence elements such as a spade cap on structural posts to not count towards the height while clarifying Fen Toppers do count towards height um increase in public hearing radius to 500 ft providing consistent processes for if I could interrupt what does that mean the increased public hearing radius to 500 public hearing notice radius I apologize but yes it's the um so anytime there's a public hearing so land applications that require public hearing which is our our plats or conditional use permits um interim use permits they have a 350 fot radius that's what's required by state law Council has wanted to increase that to 500 for at least the last year okay so we're just making that change now okay thank you um providing consistent processes for extension requests for land use approvals allow a atg grade improvements such as deck and patios to encroach up to six feet into setbacks as long as they are not in a drainage and utility easement this was something that we already allow for wetland setbacks but it was not specifically allowed for required setbacks just again making that consistent if we're going to allow it for wetland setbacks why wouldn't we allow that for a rear setback um provide city council with more discretion to determine when a subdivision may or may not be deemed premature again this is something they already tend to use their discretion with and so I get it's just clarifying that they have discretion with that um and then added standards for private drives and urban residential districts as deemed appropriate right now our code only allows private drives in the rural residential specifically um however our Urban Reserve District that um can be a holding zone for the next 20 years and potentially Beyond uh they still can rely on private drives if they were to subdivide for their limited options um as well as Town Homes rely on private drive so we are seeing people want to use these and we have approved them as part of puds this just allows it certainty so that it don't have to go through a PUD process especially for urban Reserve subdivision that wouldn't make sense um and it would again still be to the discretion of the city to determine when it's appropriate but providing clear standards for these private drives next slide and then I'm sorry to do this to you but as you will see there is a slightly revised ordinance on your on the DI um as I was looking at the Pud ordinance for something else I realized that we made an update earlier this year that included 350 ft so that needs to get corrected to 500 so I inserted it as section 61 um because the just so that it was continuous the way that I had formatted this um so it kind of had to insert and then um also just clarifying that as part of the neighborhood meeting held prior to an application submitt um I minutes simply need to be provided that go over who attended and the feedback received um and yes the Planning Commission should open the public hearing and take testimony the Planning Commission uh has the option to recommend approval of the draft ordinance and resolution with findings effect as prepared um what is considered prepared is the new ordinance at your diet that would include the revision um or you can make additional changes or you can recommend denial of the draft ordinance and resolution uh feel free to let me know anything that I went over too quickly if there was questions I know some of it was a bit more involved than I may have suggested I'm assuming You' read the the staff report to give a bit more context I'm happy to answer questions well uh thank you Natalie with that I'd like to open the uh public hearing uh inperson comments will be taken first followed by those of you joining us via Zoom sir do you have any comments anyone online questions comments members of the public online if you'd like to participate in the public hearing for the zoning and subdivision amendments for minor cleanup please raise your hand now utilizing the function in the reactions menu no one is okay with that I'd like to I'll make a motion to close the public hearing could I get a second I'll second all in favor I I I oppose okay public hearing is closed I I do have a couple of questions um let's see on uh I oh could you pull your slides back up is that possible if you could go back one slide okay so here uh this may sound funny but do we have a definition of exactly what qualifies as a neighborhood meeting what if I have one person does that qualify as a neighborhood as long as yeah as long as they do the notice to 500 500 ft no one could attend and that would still be the neighborhood meeting requirement okay they can't force people to attend a meeting oh they can't those Rogues and then um could you go back to let's see back there's another analysis slide and it states that um we're going to get well let me see it's the one that says City Council will have more discretion mhm where is that yeah to determine when a subdivision may or may not be deemed premature what what does that mean what discretion do they have now and how does this increase that level of discretion yes so right now I'm trying to find specific section here oh first one awesome yeah it's right on the front um I'm looking at the staff report that wasn't helpful so basically right code that' be awesomee thank you right now it says any proposed subdivision deemed premature shall not be approved by the city council a subdivision shall be deemed premature if the council determines that any of the following conditions exist it's the burden on the applicant uh to show that it is not premature and so it provides why is that not showing oh um what do I need to do here I okay I'm going to stop this and see that might help there we go so it provides oh um these standards that's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan inconsistent with their Capital Improvement program lack of adequate water supply um so is this our current code or the propos yes this is our current code this is what they're supposed to look at okay however we have had several variance requests for uh property specifically in the urban Reserve where it uh theoretically could be said that they uh are premature because they wouldn't meet these standards because it's within the mus but water is not available but the reality is they won't need water because they're going to use Wells and they don't necessarily need those services for what we're looking to propose um so we've granted variances to bypass that and so this is simply a saying correct me if I'm wrong but this is simply saying that the council has the ability to say that um they're the ones that ultimately can say um if it doesn't meet these standards it is premature or they can say well because of X Y and Z this is not a premature development so it gives them a little bit more say with the use of May instead of shall to be able to come to that conclusion based on the development okay so the main language change is from from shall to May correct y all right and then it strikes the burden of proof that last sentence okay got you thank you because that subdivision 8 um it was just a repetition so that is also here that they have to prove yeah okay that's it for my questions any discussion I do have a couple and again it's probably more just for clarification rather than like an issue with it um the notification for the radius the only reason the only reason because obviously it always sounds better to notify more people but there is an additional cost associated with that to widen the radius and I just think that we need to be aware of that because it could be fruitless we could be widening the radius to 500 paying extra money to notify individuals and then not finding that individuals are attending just because we've widened the radius and I think it it's it might be pennies right it might be dollars but I think that because it is our the taxpayers of corkran who are going to be paying for that it just needs to be noted um and so maybe if we um I don't know how we're going to gauge whether that is successful or even if it's worth tracking the additional cost what does that make for us over time in terms of someone's time M you know commissioner Rond I I will say a few items um regarding that so our application fee is theoretically supposed to cover the costs go towards costs such as the public hearing notices the publication to papers so applicants should be paying for that however you're right if the fee isn't properly capturing the fee uh the um the fees associated with that process then it would end up being funded by a taxpayers basically an overage um okay one thing that I'm planning on doing because I'm a person that likes to make decisions from data is to better track how much we're spending for public hearing notices to see if we need to reevaluate our fees okay I can't really do that until I have some concrete data but that might be a part of either our 2024 fee schedule update or potentially the following year once we have some I think we'll have all of one month of data before we adopt our 2024 Fe schedule so it might be 20 25 more likely okay um but yeah and then it could also be a change in process uh when I was at Brooklyn Park this was something that just got charged to the escrow that you went to something else entirely so then it was dependent upon the project okay um so uh there are different ways we could handle if we're finding that it's no longer working as a flappy okay as far as measuring how beneficial like it's impactful I would say we have a very involved community and they're all paying attention and put up development signs as well in most instances um one of like the only exceptions off the top of my head is for plats less than three lots there might not be a sign posted but there would still be a public hearing notice sent to surrounding properties so uh depend again depending on the application there are some processes that don't require a public hearing uh but if if a public hearing is requiring they should if there's no sign they should still at least hear the public see the public hearing notice but it requires them to look in their mail and and sometimes people see something from the city and they kind of just pass it right but there's also word of mouth so I would say that we do have fairly good attendance with our public hearings um and so I it's hard to say if this will improve it or not but one of the complaints is that people fall just outside of that radius um and so this is kind of hopefully a way to there's always going to be someone outside of the radius but basically expanded just a little bit to an even 500 I think was the idea follow-up question then on that so is the context of this change based on citizen feedback uh Citizen and I think a council desire to um make sure that more people are getting notified yes but I I believe it's ultimately their desire is stemming from uh citizen feedback okay or resident feedback I should thank you any further discussion no I would just say at like that I obviously I don't have a problem with it but I would not want to charge develop like even people who are in charge of the project if it isn't fruitful so if it's something where we can collect data over time to be like w we've seen so much interaction because we changed that radius and it's beneficial but you know it feels like even those folks who are paying those escro fees or paying those fees just something to watch for to see if if it's worth it because the information really is out there and available even if they're not within that 350t notification radius anyway just something just a thought but obviously you know it's it's a something that I can get behind at this point in time uh and then my other question was the one about the extension where we're just removing the commission and I'm not trying to give us more work because sometimes the best thing to do is to streamline the process but sometimes the best thing to do is to is to let the process play out slow because the more more people you have look at something then sometimes the more checks and balances are in place right so that was my only question is like can you give me an example like is this the property that we had on 30 and 19 would this be an example of that of this type of um a extension request and is that the type of scenario that we're dealing with I just wanted to understand better before I was like sure we don't sure no I commissioner bremond um happy to explain a bit more of the thinking there so the the item being added to the list had nothing to do with 309 this was added to the list long before that extension request was um in the mix however you're you're correct but that's the type of is the type um so one inconsistency we are finding it was there was a couple of application types that the council typically I'm sorry commission typically reviews and goes to council that didn't require the commission to read or to review the extension request and so um just trying to make it all application types fairly consistent the only one that's treated a little different is the administrative approval since that's typically handled administratively um but still trying to make it as consistent as possible and then some of the other concerns are it's a 30-day right now it's 30 days before the end of the expiration that they're supposed to submit this request and that makes it very difficult to plan with the Planning Commission to get it on both and I would say I would rather they focus on getting the work going than submitting a an extension request when they still have time to get the work done or at least started um so that's I think I think the 30 days is correct I would rather wait till the last possible minute to do an extension request and the hopes that they can get their project completed started get it started yes um uh or um and then just trying to make the process easier uh your feedback I know is always appreciated on things like this um in terms of land use but it's one of those things that the commission tends to vary from the council decision and so it's just kind of is it is it worth our time to review this we we have other things that we would like to review as a commission um however if you just want that in your discretion still then I would just recommend all um non-administrative applications continue to have the Planning Commission and just make it again consistent over um having some that go to the council and some that go to commission and councel because that can be very it's hard to keep track of the staff sure and so what would what applications would that so would that mean that you know when you're say when you say if you decide to go that rate which I'm not necessarily saying that we should I just think that sometimes uh but at this point in time if if a if a project has already been approved it has come before both bodies uh the discussion has been had now it's just taking into consideration whether an extension to the project because the work has not been started is appropriate um and that's after the first administrative approval if I'm understanding correctly right okay and so if this is the only one that is remaining where it's going before the commission and not just the council or are there other when you say make it consistent if we do this and say okay yep the commission doesn't review it need to review then everything is consistent it would just go for before the council yes so it' be all everything that's in your purview that requires an extension so that' be the um I want to to get the exact ones out but the like variances are the ones that are in your perview that don't require you um currently or as a board or a commission to review before it goes to council but then cups for example right now the language it goes before the commission and the Council so that's one of that's the one of the inconsistency examples so if we're going to keep it in the commission then I would say anything that's under your purview to begin with should then you should also be part of the extension or if you don't want the extension to be in your purview just for ease of process um then let's just make it so that they're anything that's all treated the same as much as possible sure okay I appreciate that uh explanation I understand now and then the last question was just um regarding that six feet into the the setback um and and again I'm asking because like I know that there has been uh a couple deck um scenarios that have come up but is this an aside from those particular issues as well like we're saying that we allow build into the Wetland setback why would we not also into other can you just clarify that yeah so I don't think there is a specific application that we've looked at uh that was requesting this as a variance there was a variance that had a not at grade deck so it was a it was it was above grade oh y it's a little different but an above grade deck where staff they were requesting to go into the setback and staff had offered the six-foot encroachment as a potential solution if the council wanted to grant them a variance so that's I think maybe what you probibly talking about um but the the idea behind this is again if we do allow this already for acrade so when it's an acrade deck or patio we allow them to encroach up to six feet into the Wetland setback um and I think the biggest thinking is okay well if we're going to allow it for wetland setback why wouldn't we allow that for a in a 30 foot rear setback okay uh especially if it's not going to conflict with the drainage and utility easement so it's just allowing it to the same deviation drives try to treat all setbacks consistently as much as possible and as part of that in the when we talk about that encroachment in the Wetland section we've added that to clarify that it can't go into the dam utility for that one as well so they're being treated consistently throughout the ordinance okay and it's then allowing uh the home owners or the the to utilize more of their lawn space or their yard space as well is kind of what the intent is okay and I think those were all of my questions I believe um I I get you know and and thank you I appreciate all all you know that discussion um one one thing that was just discussed is some of the inconsistencies I I would prefer that anything that comes under the the purview of this commission I would like coming before for the commission okay if if possible for the extension request cuz that that was also so if if if a cup application we get or whatever and then they just don't begin the work then they submit an extension request that's that's the coming back part yes and there are times where there are slight amendments to a small small minor amendments to things that have been before the um commission that staff has authority to approve um um so I guess I would like some clarification exactly that there changes do happen um that are not necessarily it has to be under a certain footprint and then I believe major cup changes I don't remember if those was go to the Planning Commission or just city council let me just say this I guess just kind of General guidance if you know and I I would like to discuss this further at a at another time once I've researched the the topic a little bit better but I I guess I would just say if there are items that you would like this commission to consider don't be shy I think that we have a a pretty smart commission I'm I'm I I'm proud of my colleagues and we have some brain power here and we're happy to look at whatever it is you think we should we should look at but um you know don't be shy in sending us work okay oh definitely uh I think it's but I I don't think that staff would shy away from that at all okay yeah thank you if it could somehow be be to staff discretion of a minor or major change and if it requires commission approval yeah and to be clear that that's something already in C that there's a minor uh and that's what I'm just I was just trying to point out that U just because it was originally in youreview doesn't mean that everything has tends to come back um in certain there certain thresholds okay can I get a motion yeah I'll make a motion to approve um the um ordinance number 2023 with all of the changes I don't have any um any amendments that I feel like need to be proposed at this time okay do I need to read this into uh you know Title Nine and title 10 no we know what this is right I don't need to make a additional record of it do I I don't yeah no I think Mr chair your motion could be the uh draft resolution and findings of fact prepared by staff okay all right well um then you can make we have a pending motion recommending approval of the ordinance amending the text of Title 9 and title 10 of the Corran city code relating or related to minor code updates and I will second that motion if we could get uh a vote all in favor I I all opposed okay that carries thank you thank you for the discussion too uh other business I'm told there is none is that still correct Mr chair I do have a couple of items we did not receive any applications for November um so I would like to officially cancel the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting okay and then um I have a conflict on December 7th and I believe there is a chance that we could have a December meeting okay um wondering if we could potent if we would have a quorum if we were to move that meeting to Tuesday December 5th December 5th at 7 p.m. I would be able to make that work yeah good commissioner would that suit your calendar December 5th I will take a look yep okay perfect um I will send out an official reminder um let's plan on that and then if for some reason it were to get Cel canceled I'll let you know as soon as possible okay thank you planning project update I do not have anything uh but if you have questions on the update feel free to let me know I do not any questions no it look good no okay uh I'm I'm sorry that we could not be joined by uh Council leaon Schultz but rest assure he was here in spirit um the liaison calendar uh commissioner brummond are you still available to cover the uh October 12th city council yes okay thank you for doing that commissioner Lind are you still available to cover the November 9th city council um chairman commissioner horn and I have switched I will be covering October 26th okay and he will be covering November 9th and Natalie has been notified of that via an email so then I'll amend my question are you still available to cover the October 26th meeting thank you uh I am still available for November 20th um and commissioner brummond I know it's far far off but as it stands tonight are you still available for the January 11th city council yes and uh as always if you um do have a scheduling conflict please give me a call um I'm usually available to cover so no Panic if some something in your life comes up very well uh with that said uh I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting at 756 I would like to know 756 thank you all all right thank you thank you for coming out tonight sir we appreciate it