can be added on at a second in the progress so this is the initial I think it's like 60 by 90. it we're going to be starting back up folks [Music] you can close the doors too is that okay yeah I'm trying to figure out where I am I jostled my paperwork [Applause] six where am I oh no I'm trying to I lost my spot okay yeah just 6B can you show me where right here oh thank you oh I didn't have my glasses on that might help okay uh we're gonna open the public hearing there's no public here no public here it's already already happened but if there is someone that would like to speak if the chair is open to it we can do that okay all right uh are you just gonna assert them with the staff report yeah all right please proceed Okay so so this is again not a public hearing it's for a variance requested by Gideon and Heather slavaugh at 9925 Evert Road the request is to allow for the expansion of a footprint of two non-conforming decks to allow for an upgraded wraparound porch on their residential or on their residential home the original home on the property was built back in 1943 so long predates many of our standards and our code and several aspects of it are considered legal non-conforming including the setback of the house and the setback of from the Ebert as well as the side setback to the northern property line Additionally the original home included a roughly 12 by 12 wooden deck along the Eastern facade and a second wooden deck on the south House South elevation of the House of a similar size and both of these were placed within what is now the 50-foot setback for uh from eburg Road as of today the house is being rebuilt after a fire a few months ago for the most part the original footprint will remain the applicants would like to add a wraparound deck that would go around the east south and west sides of the house the city updated the non-conformity section of the code last year and clarified the definition for expansion which would prohibit staff from administratively approving this specific request even though the setback line from Ebert Road would actually be slightly reduced with the applicant's plants so the image on the screen shows the red areas where the setback is not met the 50-foot setback is not met in the non-conforming deck you can or kind of outlined where uh the red lines basically are around the non-conforming deck that would be approved today I could administratively approve a porch an upgrade from a deck to a porch because it's vertical but with the new definition of expansion which includes any increase and any structure that wasn't there before in any addition to a deck or porch I'm not I have spoken with a few people and they agree with me that I do not have the ability to administratively prove this and again this is the expansion enlargement definition which is causing um that limitation so any increase in a dimension or other size volume any increase in the area of use any placement of a structure or part thereof were none existed before any addition of a site feature such as a deck and patio so those are the specific words that I feel that I cannot improve this administratively so staff report contemplates the arguments for and against each standard of the variance um I going through this I will be honest that I did not think I was going to recommend approval of the variance standards but going through the process and evaluating everything I found many more reasons to prove it than not um so I do find that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and the variants will allow for reasonable Improvement of the site including getting the deck and set back further from Ebert road than it is today so staff recommends approval of the variants the Planning Commission should decide whether they believe the variance standards for practical difficulties are satisfied if the commission believes there are difficulties they can recommend draft resolution 2022a which approves the variance if they disagree they should recommend approval of draft resolution 2022 B which denies the variance and that is all I have for you okay uh so this is not a public hearing no you could ask applicant if you'd like to speak or okay is the applicant here oh my it guy okay this is a stand down up there and put your hand on that microphone yeah this is my white feather that's your your child is an unfair advantage she tells me I don't need a mic to speak so it just comes out loud well if you could please stand behind there because we have people attending via zoom and without the microphone they can't hear you okay so my name is Gideon Heather hello here in Corcoran and uh we had a house fire um last year and uh it had to do with winter storms it had to do his winter storms they came through it was actually the night that they were talking about 80 mile an hour winds in a nice storm just to give a little bit of a recap and uh at three o'clock in the morning the wind took a huge pine tree down and went out across the road snapped off two power poles took the lines down pulled the power line off the corner of our house and started the house on fire that's how the fire you know saw the fire started and so um we've been rebuilding you know since and and uh I guess at one point in time in the process we were actually looking at building a brand new house just completely going away from this and uh the neighbor was going to sell us some land to be able to push things further back and uh there were some things and variances that were triggered to that that made the process way too long that it would push things out we didn't have to time you know to to do that so we were forced to go back to plan B which is we built the old house so we made up on you know we changed a few things on it and this porch is one of them that would um accommodate what we're you know trying to do so we are a family of six and um this house prior to the fair was 940 square feet we've gained a little bit we've changed the roof line and so we have to give a little bit more but we are looking for more obviously to um more beautify the neighborhood you know I liked my little house but it certainly wasn't for looks and um we're quite excited with um what we've come up with and we hope that it you know obviously helps the property values ours our neighbors the cities and so if that was one reason and we do have the picture of what it would look like if we were not able to do the full deck and we kept the just the one on the side I'm sorry I did not include that in the slides I would not okay but yeah the deck would be right here and there would be stairs that oops sorry let me get my laser pointer back so the deck so this is the current wooden deck right here correct and then they are proposing stairs down um and then this is the other existing deck footprint and then there'd be stairs this way um it does certainly have a more typical rural feel with the wraparound porch right but with the things that were changed in a house there's no longer a doorway going out even on that side so that deck that is currently there anymore that's that's been removed the only access we have is here and then now we have a sliding door here going into but if we were to kind of keep this and then have that our contractor doesn't believe that that would even and I don't know if somebody but that wouldn't even pass code because you'd have stairs going down and then Sears going up and it's they're almost like a budding right at each other so we don't know if that you know that was a concern for him as well so um what what are the changes that we made on the house in the rebuilding is the house had a half upstairs on it and the roof line was going east and west and now we it's now going north and south but was the half upstairs and was everything pretty much a hole upstairs everything had to be done at the roof had to be replaced so we ended up just because it was you know one of those half half upstairs where you know the walls are moved in was you know they just took everything off and placed a pole so now it has a full 24 by 24 um usable space in the upstairs that occurred you know that it didn't have before right so those are you know if you look at the pictures those are the changes that were made you know in the you know in the rebuild trying to rebuild everything so okay sure does your child have anything to add okay girl number four congratulations sure houses where a lot of people tell me I know your house it's right on the hill and you take that curve right to get I know exactly where you live it it it does kind of sit up and you know the thing is is like there's not really anything you know we can't put a garage to the house there's there's no there's no option for doing that sure you know and about the only thing we can do is put the wrap around porch on it okay well thank you for your comments thank you well let's discuss would you like to I am willing to go first uh the only hang up when I went through the report the only hang up was what you had mentioned was some of that definition or that language around expansion and I feel like this is a situation we've encountered it a couple times before where the language is restrictive more restrictive than the intent and here I don't see that the intent is to be um excessive in nature I don't feel like the intent is to expand to an amount that I in excess of what would be considered an expansion so in that regard I feel like the language is restrictive but the intent that they actually meet the intended so therefore I would be um in favor of uh passing the resolution yeah I I mean the idea that it's even again it's an older house but then it was uh it's actually further I mean it's more in compliance even though it's longer ports it's actually more in compliance so to me this seems logical as well so I would also be supportive okay well I have some comments and um and I spoke with Natalie and I came away uh from that conversation realizing that smart Minds can agree to disagree um you you explained to me that the definition of the word expansion changed the analysis and the way that I see it I do not think that the change to the definition means that a variance here is even required the change to the definition is just that it does not contain any prohibitions it just says expansion now includes adding something where nothing existed before that's what we have here and I do not see that an administrative approval still would not apply I believe that this should be approved administratively administrative approvals are in fact allowed because our city code says quote expansion of buildings found to be non-conforming only by reason of height yard setback which I think is important or lot coverage area may be permitted provided the structural non-conformity is not increased and the expansion complies with the performance standards of the zoning ordinance now um staff you you take issue with the word increased but the word increased is not defined by the new definition the word is used in the definition but is it is not the term being defined it's the word expansion that is defined and it makes me think that the analysis is the same the non-conformity was and still is the setback that has not changed the footprint of the porch has changed but the non-conformity has not staff's example was the 15-foot setback if there is a legal non-conformity with a structure at 15 feet that can expand up and down as long as it doesn't cross that 15 feet think of it this way you have a house that's higher than allowed and the owner wants to put an addition on that's the same height that's putting something where nothing existed once it's an expansion there the non-conformity is the height it's not increased in that case I would think it could be approved administratively so no doubt this meets the definition of an expansion but expansion is actually okay and can be approved at administratively so long as the non-conformity is not expanded the non-conformity in this case is the setback the non-conformity is not the square footage of the deck or the porch therefore I think that this can and should be approved as administratively um as long as staff finds that there will be no external negative impact so um you know I would like to hear you know everyone else's thoughts on this so I do think that this should be approved but I'm hesitant to approve it as a variance I think that the city should just approve it without it's interesting yeah I would just point to the wording that in the expansion and we just you just said that it is an expansion complies with the performance standards and the expansion does not comply with the setbacks and that is why the variance is needed okay expansion does not comply with the setback I I so I I non-conformity is not increased so I can I can get on board with that and but where I get lost is the expansion and this the expanded porch does it is an expansion complies with the performance standards of the zoning margin and those include the setback and it doesn't comply with the setback so they would be able to expand their non-conforming structure to the West no problem but to wrap around the porch and add those areas is an expansion so that as is my piece with that Mr chair um concern I I don't believe I have the power to administratively approve this and that's why the variants will be required for something like that we're kind of far along in the process at this point probably well I also feel like it's the end how we get there is a matter maybe between us but ultimately the getting there is what's important because these folks want to get back to their home and so well I agree with you I think that we're all coming to the same conclusion my concern is this is not going to be the last time this comes up okay so what I would like I would like an opportunity to speak with the city attorney about this uh at a later date well we can always revive look at revising we could we could put a work plan together as a commission for next year and we could have this on there to make sure that something like this could be approved administratively going forward uh I don't know if we need a workshop let's just do it let's have a conversation with the attorney a work plan would be something like so your guys's priorities may get forwarded to council and the council can help us to get so then staff resources can be put towards projects like this so that would be a zoning ordinance amendment that we could say just something we're interested in doing next year so I think that's definitely a discussion we could do add it to the list yeah exactly but we but with the planning commissions it it would probably be taken by city council pretty seriously so that's something we could definitely start doing we haven't really had a chance to do that um with all the turnover that we've had but we're starting to get a pretty good team so I think that that's something we could do for 2023 definitely awesome and I think that you did a nice job on this all entertain a motion to approve I'll make that motion to approve resolution number 2022a second I second uh take a boat all in favor aye aye opposed passes congrats oh where are you oh there you are congratulations come back you'll see me good to see you again thank you thank you thank you very much take care thank you thanks for waiting by the way and your microphone assistant oh yeah you can't leave we need you for the rest of the night where are you going approval is contingent upon your continued service yeah thank you sir uh you're welcome and let's see okay okay and see darp that is a public hearing correct correct okay so our next item is a request by Sean Tharp for a conditional use permit to out an accessory structure footprint of up to 7530 square feet with a sidewall height of 14 feet 8 inches to be used for personal storage of recreational vehicles and equipment needed to service a apple orchard he has on as well as just general maintenance so it is about at 10 acre lot or over 10 acre lot so they are able to request to exceed the buy right Square footprint limit and the applicant also requests flexibility to allow the building to be constructed in two phases over five years so phase one would be 60 feet by 96 feet plus approximately 330 square foot lean to that would also count towards the footprint so that's a little over probably more like six thousand 90 square feet total and then 60 phase two would be 60 by 120 as shown on his plans so that would be uh 7 200 square feet plus the 330 square foot lean too which gets us to that number of 7530. this is a rendering of the building my understanding is this rendering reflects phase two after the building has been completely built out below is the approximate location I definitely was probably a little liberal with it but that is where it is located um between some two properties where the property has Frontage on Daphne Drive these are some revised site plans that the applicant submitted today to try to better show the phasing he would like so on the left shows the 60 by 96 footprint and the there would be a driveway that goes to the south side of the building and also wraps around on the East to the north he does have several Overhead Doors my understanding means he has an RV a boat several other personal wreck vehicles that he would be storing and then the expansion for phase two is shown in that black box on the right so it would be building further south I'll talk about this further these plans I did a measurement on Adobe and it looks like they have more than enough room to comply with the side setback for both the drive aisle and the structure I would like to see those clearly dimensioned and shown on a plan so that I would like to add that as a condition of approval that was not in the drafters illusion so um I talk about that a little bit further so we have specific standards to exceed the sidewall height we use our general standards for the expansion of the accessory structure footprint overall Steph found that all cup standards seemed to be met for both the sidewall height and the accessory structure footprint conditions of approval that I've identified as the property cannot be used for commercial purposes and when I say property I'm talking about the accessory structure cannot be used for commercial purposes unless a separate approval is requested and granted by the city revised plans must be submitted to satisfy the overhand minimum of 24 feet that's fairly easy quality they'll be able to fix the certification of the applicant's Wetland boundary must be complete before a building permit will be issued uh and then the revised plans must be submitted that reflect removal of the second driveway access onto Duffy Circle that exists today that second driveway will need to be closed and removed and then that he will be allowed an additional driveway access on Daphne drive he meets all the requirements for that and there are no traffic concerns to prevent that staff recommends adding the following conditions based on the plans we see today so as I said I would like to have clear dimensions for that reflect phase two uh setbacks and then the applicant must also submit revised building plans for the building permit that clearly show phase one so like the floor plan and the um elevations those are all right now for phase two and so it's not really something we have to add it's just speaking with our Construction Services specialist when it goes to building permit they will only be able to approve phase one um so phase two well that's helpful for us to see what it would look like eventually they need phase one so we need clear plans for them uh so no public comments were received prior to the public hearing however staff was made aware of some informal comments and the Planning Commission could choose to discuss and address the following topics the location of the structure and visibility from Daphne drive and if there's any conditions we can attach to address that rental of the property or portions thereof for example should we add a condition that it can't be rented out for storage to others specifically impacts to Wetlands the engineering memo did not identify any concerns other than because they're grading pretty much up to that Wetland boundary we need to certify that Wetland boundary and so that's already a condition of approval and then the impact of a metal steel structure of the size and the context of the surrounding neighborhood so do we want to look at the architectural elements the commission should keep in mind that the building location and the materials comply with the code however landscaping and architecture is up for discussion but if we're going to add conditions we just need to tie it back to the impact of the granting the cup so recommendation is to open the public hearing staff recommends approval with the conditions discussed if the commission disagrees or believe the plans need to be finalized further they can recommend denial of the application and that's all I have for you thank you okay we're going to open the uh public hearing to the public is there anyone here that would like to speak on this application question of the applicant is online with us oh okay is there anyone here in person that would like to comment on this application no okay please step up to the mic please state your name and address uh Mike Patterson I am at uh 2400 W Circle the property directly to the south of the building uh that's the total height of the structure okay 14 foot sidewalk what does the total have the structure uh that's a great question I don't know if they've done mention that in the plan so maybe the applicants would have that information on the top of his head one second oh public hearing we can um we can ask the applicant to address that after the public hearing okay we'll ask that question overlooks the property and that's I'm going to be seated I didn't realize it was going to do that large okay okay thank you sir would anyone else like to comment no canned either by pressing star nine on your phone or using the raise your hand function under the reaction tab to be able to participate in the public hearing I see Sherry's hand up please go ahead and unmute yourself provide your full name and address thank you what's up good evening this is Sherry Bergs and Michael Catlett we are the owners at 9530 Daphne Drive thank you we have concerns of of the size we actually what you can't see is our driveway goes right down to where that where he's going to build his building um so I think 7 200 square feet is a large building not only that the hike we have concerns like uh Mike had pointed out not that we do have concerns from a wetland perspective which you guys are taking care of from my understanding so I guess that's our you know our concern also they're I mean 7 200 square feet seems like quite a bit and it's not really going to be I mean we live up on a hill and there's no there's no plan to put trees in front or anything like that so all we're going to see is the building yeah right now our view from our front porch is just the wetlands and a lot of trees um but I would imagine in order to put the size of a building there a lot of those trees where it's going to go are going to have to come down so all we will see is this building and my other concern is how it doesn't really fit in with the aesthetic of this neighborhood we bought this house about two and a half years ago and um beautiful beautiful area a lot of beautiful homes beautiful landscaping the the look of this building doesn't fit in with the look of all the other homes and buildings that are here so those are our concerns thank you Mr chair I don't see anyone else raising their hands at this time other than the applicant but we could close the public hearing and ask him to speak or we could have him speak now too okay um I'll make a motion to close the public hearing can I have a second or I'm sorry do you have well I was just going to say that to be consistent it might be best to allow him to speak during the public hearing to be consistent with our other items this evening it's not generally how we recommend it to applicants oh okay so I had a brief discussion okay just to make it clear going forward but that but we could do that tonight if you'd like again it's up to the chair no if that is not typically how we do it then I think we should proceed with how we typically do it and I will second closely okay we have a second uh can I uh get a vote on uh closing the public hearing all in favor say aye aye aye opposed [Music] okay uh Sean go ahead and unmute yourself if you'd like to address the commission um and maybe answer the question about how tall the actual roof line will be of the building one second I don't know if you're having trouble there it is Sean I and if you're talking I can't hear you can you unmute yourself I don't know I apologize he's not I can't unmute him directly I've asked him to unmute so I don't know if he's running into technical difficulties I can try to see if I can pull up the plans that might show the roof line well I was just looking at that two in here and I am not as well versed in Reading plans as you are yeah no no but I can't I can't nothing jumps out at me no it's got um thank you yeah it measures the sidewalk oh 412 412. yeah 412. 50 60 is the width 90 is the initial length yeah in accessory structures we have a sidewall height as the limitation so that's what's dimensioned on my plan okay let's see if there's something else maybe in some of the other plans that I've submitted but the elevation seem to only dimension ah Dimension the sidewall height that's all I have right there is in the pitch yeah and the pitch yeah I think that's it I don't have total heights yeah we can certainly ask for that to be addressed and I can follow up with the uh the neighbor that made his comments but I don't have anything tonight that has that definitively oh Sean is joining us again [Music] okay no expense thank you can we proceed with oh deliberations go ahead I I don't know what's happening okay who would like to take this first no I I didn't have any real strong opinions on it I I do find that you know that is an interesting point from the neighbor's perspective but you know it's it's part of their lot and and they're allowed a second driveway so I don't know that that's a they could always you know they could put one that was within the accessory structures there this is really ASMR about this larger size one I think is the question so I didn't have any real strong opinions I like the idea of of restricting from a commercial perspective so I like I support that as well to be fair if there were to be any renting of the space that should technically be an application for like an interim use permit oh um commissioner Brahman the so yeah the rental so renting the single family home is there's no problem with that and I it's when the rental question got brought up it was not clear to me what they meant by renting out the property whether they meant the house or if they're meanting the structure sure I would say renting the structure out for storage to other people that don't live or have a interest in the property would definitely be a commercial use our home occupation licenses have not been used to approve that type of use to my understanding so I don't believe it's something they could do it is our storage units are all located in industrial districts so I would say that that would not be appropriate and we could make a condition so that's very specific that it can't be rented out commercially okay and then I did like so I guess in my only other question perhaps for staff is that is there a similar to when we um have to an app applicant like on the last uh variants they meet certain standards in this case for something that's above and beyond the granted within the it's 3969 square feet that if they were making at 3969 square feet it wouldn't be here right so is there are there requirements that we can use to guide us in that process or is it is it just sorry I don't quite understand to determine if a variance in terms of approving like almost double the size or square footage right when you consider the lean tour at 7 500 square feet and that's just up to the discretion in terms of will it be in fitting with the neighborhood those are the sorts of criteria that you would like us to look at does it meet the code is it in fitting with the area those are the sorts of things that we're using to guide our decision correct okay so um you can certainly tie somebody so if you feel that the structure view from the street is has a great impact a mitigating thing that you could proposes more Landscaping you could theoretically propose different architectural materials to address that so it's a conditional use so sometimes additional conditions are attached but if it meets the standards you should approve it so I guess I mean I do feel like it seems quite large so the consideration giving to the additional Landscaping if that is something ordinarily we wouldn't necessarily require for somebody putting up an accessory structure but this is the size arguably of a very large home and so in that regard as I was reading through it and trying to determine I don't often like to necessarily um create more obstacles for for homeowners who just want to use their homes but in this situation considering that if it is approved the applicant is receiving nearly twice as much uh square footage in an accessory structure I do feel like it would be fair for us to ask for some Landscaping requirements especially in regard to where it borders Daphne drive and then potentially also um you know maybe to the neighboring property so that those were the things that I was given that I was considering if you have comments they had to be great thank you um I think that this application should be approved with the conditions outlined in the resolution I do have one issue and that is uh it's open for five years and half a decade is an awfully long time and I think that we should Grant this with a modification that the time limit is two years and prior to the expiration of that second year the applicant May apply for one and only one additional year thank you chair for bringing that up I did actually have uh I mean I understand the applicant's reasoning for that but in terms of uh the way that the the process would happen if that extension or that open allowance is there is that just something where it's kept in City Records and then when the application or the building permit is requested for phase one then it's approved and then regardless with assuming no changes have been made then they just are given a second um approval of the the secondary permit yeah so a building the size is going to trigger red flags when our construction service specials is looking at it so he would have to go back to the conditional use permit to see what was approved so we traditionally use permit records are permanent they need to be kept on file forever um even if the property were to disappear I believe the statute still requires us to keep everything so um that would be something that we would refer to um and I try to outline it is unusual we don't usually see a phasing approach to an accessory instructor but I couldn't find anything that says he couldn't request it so here we are sure okay yeah for what's 24 feet you know it's an extra 24 feet yeah I know he's running into a lot of difficulties securing materials and things like that right now and then it is with the condition that nothing has changed from the original approval of this the the plan so if something changes it is not an automatic approval of that expansion uh second phase what do you mean by something to like he wants to in terms of Dimensions or so if you want something bigger for phase two you'll have to come right back for a comprehensive plan Amendment okay we will have to finalize the plans and that will be what he so that's um the the plans I have reflecting phase two that's what can be built okay and if he wants to change that we'll have to do a comprehensive plan okay and then does staff have any uh insight as to the recommendation from chair lanterman in terms of it uh changing the process at all to just reduce the time from five years to two that is certainly up for an option yeah we can ask he's raising his hand again so I think he's trying to speak we could certainly ask him why he believes five years is what he needs again I do know he's running into significant problems with securing materials oh I think that's it go ahead Sean hey I'm sorry I didn't have my um on my iPhone it didn't have uh access Zoom didn't have access to my microphone so it took me a little bit to figure that out I apologize um are you can you hear me yes yes we can hear you go ahead as far as the size I just wanted to have access so that if the 14 foot so I could get a motorhome or an RV I'm now getting into my retirement phase and I've got a pontoon I've got a fishing boat I'd like to store those inside and want to be able to drive in a motorhome and you really need a 14-foot side walls in order to get a motorhome in there and that's why the height is that size um I didn't I missed a few minutes of your discussion um as far as the screening I'm kind of bound by the high power lines to the north and I don't know if you discussed that and I apologize if you did um you know you build anything or put anything on the north side of the building and the power line companies will come in and they rip it all out um or you know cut it down so uh about the only thing you know um you know and I've and I understand um you know um you know those are some of the reasons you know and I I did try to make it initially Natalie and you can attest to this tried to make it so that the the back of the building once uh uh the roof line went north south and so that it didn't uh appear you know kind of like deceptively like didn't look as big as it actually was I really tried to work with uh but due to the Wetland um the mitigate the Wetland uh studies that I've had done uh of which now the final report should be done and should be to Natalie here very very soon uh spend thousands of dollars to make sure I could you know stay out of the wetlands and stay out of the power line easements and I'm just trying to you know um I don't know just trying to make a building that I can use for my personal enjoyment and uh uh you know I'm hoping to put a few more apple trees in in the back and you know get my John Deere tractor back home and uh uh get my classic cars back into my own garages where they where I'd like them so that's my hopes for this project [Music] [Music] well in an Ideal World I would have gone you know my wife didn't really want me to build one this big anyways to begin with and uh you know with the rising prices of lumber costs going through the roof and I know they've come down a little bit um uh but you know uh I had to scale back the size of it so that I could you know keep my wife happy uh and um still meet my you know my my hopes for this building um you know am I going to do the expansion in two years uh two years five years I just there's a lot of um a lot of you know process in which you know thousands of dollars to have because it was the way it was explained to me is the Wetland delineation lines have to be all redone again and so not only did I have to pay another uh 2000 of the Wetland delineator another 2200 to the city to validate those delineations and then pay another you know so it's it's another ten thousand dollar process just to get a small expansion so I don't know I was just simply asking the question uh you know uh my wife and I haven't been on on board with expanding it so will it ever happen I was just I just thought you know if we could get an approval for it and if I ever did decide to do it I had the option uh within the five five year time frame that's what we discussed um you know and um so I don't know um did you have other questions no I appreciate it I'll let you know if there's some oh um was 26 feet to the roof line sounding right for the building height of the structure does that I thought Ruth the sidewall height maybe I'm incorrect it's Morton construction is building the building Morton construction is building the building and my understanding is the sidewall height is at 14. if you if it's joining 14 8 it probably is uh as far as we did not as to make so that the roof not go up any higher we're doing I believe a 412 pitch roof which is pretty standard uh uh for uh or I don't think I'm at a 512 I think I'm at a 412 Pitch Brook I tried to make the building look attractive so that I didn't have an eyesore I tried to you know I tried to do um I've had many revisions with Morton and you know as I said originally we were trying to do it north south facing and then put some solar on it but then to put to do it north south facing and to put solar on the roof of the building then the um uh 50 60 80 000 in additional uh uh supports for um beefing up the trusses to putting uh plywood down to support the weight of the solar panels and then to uh you know to have the women's snow load ratings it was just like oh my goodness that's just not gonna you know so um this is where we ended up I you know I tried to work with the city as best as I could to make sure I met all your setbacks uh from the Wetland from the you know uh oh he dropped off okay um I will add because you had asked about staff Insight on the request I will say that our Wetland deline agent and our property surveys are good for five years okay so it does align with that okay well I'm gonna make a motion to recommend approval with conditions the conditions being those uh commissioner uh bruman did you have conditions that you wanted to see on this with respect to landscaping or did I misunderstand well my request was just along Daphne drive and I think it's it's in a one because of the size of the structure being as large as it is and then I think it's a it's a way to be be neighborly since that was some of the neighbor concerns um I never felt like it needed to be done along the north side of the structure um so in particular I think the Daphne Drive is where and then yeah okay so what are you um recommending uh trees what I heard from the neighbor uh who made comments during the public comment time was just that everything else in the neighborhood which I've been into this neighborhood everything is very nicely landscaped and so I think it doesn't need to be initially um I I guess overall just having a finished shrubs um you know I don't know ask your neighbor what they want what they would really feel uh feel good about having um so I don't necessarily have a specific set of requirements in terms of number of trees so I don't know how specific you need to get I think being Broad and just saying kind of finished Landscaping in that front area along the Daphne Drive side would be suffice staff can work with the Apple okay well uh with that I'll make a motion to recommend approval with the conditions of uh finished landscaping and my condition of two years and prior to the expiration of that second year the applicant May apply for only one one-year extension uh can I get a second I know there's a motion on the floor and so we're not supposed to supposed to discuss but is it would you deviate for a moment chair and allow me to ask you a question please staff gave their uh the um understanding of why like a five-year would line up with that Wetland delineation can you just give a little bit of insight into why you're requesting the two-year uh because five years is an awful long time and I think if you're gonna do it do it and if you need more than two years maybe your application was a little premature so I think that two years is uh adequate we're giving or I'm recommending giving the applicant an opportunity to extend one more year and if this still isn't done after year three I think he made a mistake and probably should start over thank you is it possible for me to ask staff one follow-up question before we please do okay my follow-up question would be if those Wetland delineations still stand and for some reason this is the resolution is passed with the two-year limitation and then the one-year extension if the application the applicant decides in year four that that's the point in time and they come before uh commission at that point in time asking for a variance do they have to go through the whole process of a wetland delineation again uh commissioner Bremen so they would ask for a conditional use permit just so that um sorry thank you definitely different standards um but so if they if we were to if the city were to approved two years for the one-year extension and he comes back at year four then yes we would have to go through the public hearing and final approval but the Wetland delineation would be good for five years so the everything that he has invested into this project at this point would still be good okay I just wanted to make sure that we weren't putting him in a spot but he would still have to pay like the fees and for the app and some of the costs he quoted were escrow deposits that sure I'm doing my best to be very wise with my time spent on this application to try to get something back so I'm hopefully it won't be ten thousand dollars worth of City fees when we're all said and done um so that but there is escrow deposits required for that Wetland delineation with the city and then the cup um so again we do our due diligence to try to get a refund and I think with this simple somewhat simple case um he'll be pleasantly surprised to see some of that return so oh Lantern you put me in a spot can I get a second are you meaning to I I I I I I don't have a strong opinion on that two to one I mean obviously he's got his own uh personal stuff to to navigate there uh with that so I I know you put the motion out there um do we have a second I that's what we're I I you and I are I I it probably doesn't matter I mean I'm kind of at the point where maybe it doesn't matter he basically has three years instead of five years in a sense well three years instead of six because it would have been five years with the ability to do a one-time extension for one year oh I understand okay which under normal circumstances I I do empathize with the fact that supplies really are difficult to get and so that is where I'm torn I understand that you would like to um under normal circumstances it is a really long time so I can't is there is there a friendly action under this time but I um what hey I'm friendly no no but the other time when we got to say like hey I would second but with a friendly to leave it at five oh you'd usually second it and then make an amendment okay so well as it dies for like one second I'll I'll withdraw my motion and what do you propose see that's friendly I was not implying you weren't friendly but I would propose a passing of the resolution with the uh request for um some finished Landscaping along Daphne drive and I guess you know I mean if you want to split the difference maybe that feels because I understand your concerns so then I would say you know let's give the applicant three years with an option of extending one time um so that where we are seeing you know I personally do not feel like there's an issue with the five but if it's not something that we typically do um I I appreciate your concern and would like to split the difference okay so if I understand you what you're saying is um approve with the conditions of finished Landscaping and three years before the expiration of that three-year period the applicant May apply for a one and only one one-year extension yes that would be correct and is that your motion yes with the finished Landscaping only being required on that Daphne Drive I will second that very can I can can I get a vote all in favor say aye aye aye opposed there you go I'm ready moving right along oh okay six D okay so where am I here we have a staff report correct okay Sheriff Commissioners this is the preliminary flat side plan of variants for a new water tower site uh at uh 19951 Oswald Road this is currently the lot where Hope Church resides north of County Road 30 and west of County Road 116 next slide the city of Corcoran is the applicant along with the landowner as part of the application and they're requesting the approval to allow a new water tower the property is guided public semi-public and zoned public institutional which is what all of our places of worship in in the city are zoned and guided there are no significant natural features on the site identified in the comprehensive plan so this is the land use map it's very hard to see my little red stars at this scale but there's the site on the north side of town this is in the Northeast District just direct like I said directly west of 116 and north of County Road 30 next slide the bulk of the property will be retained by Hope Ministries Lot 1 will be 28.93 acres and Lot 2 which the city would buy thank you Natalie right there is 1.2 Acres that would be the water tower site the city is requesting a variance from the 10 acre i-1 standard which also has implications for the essential services and I'll just discuss the variants later in the report I thought that was a 15 acre it is it's i1 is 10 and gonna go into that okay I've got to watch these people don't let them sneak anything by you I do expand on that a bit the i-1 district typically has a 10 acre standard Park dedication is not required the because there's an existing use on lot one and when you plot if there's an existing parcel you do not and lot two is a public use which does not pay Park dedication City use which does not pay Park dedication next slide the water tower is defined as an essential service which is allowed in all districts subject to a number of Standards the plans are for a 750 000 gallon water tower Natalie if you can kind of point to the water tower it is a little hard to see but it's that Circle there it is 156 feet high it at the top the bulb of the tower is 62 feet in diameter the council who's been working with a city engineer on this design is also going to be considering a one million dollar Gallant 1 million gallon option which the site plan does not change so the approval would be for either the 750 or 1 million and the Landscaping which is in your packet it's not very readable on this screen but the Landscaping does comply with both the zoning ordinance standard standard zoning ordinance standards and the Northeast District standards in this case I'll land six foot screening fence is provided to screen the three foot high Transformer um the water tower colors and Logo this is the design of the tower but the color the logo or whatever Imaging goes on there will be approved at a later date by the council so there are three variances requested the first is to allow a 1.2 acre lot in the pi district and so the pi District does have a 10 acre minimum lot size but because it's an essential service the essential Services ordinance requires that essential Services be on a one acre lot in Agricultural and residential districts but in all other districts needs to be one and a half times the minimum lot size of that district and so in this case in the pi District it's a 15 acre minimum lot size um If This Were zoned residential again it would be a one acre or the mixed use that's directly to the South but because it's Pi it is a 15 acre minimum lot size for essential surfaces the property could be rezoned to residential as an alternative you find that the variance standards are not met for the minimum lot size the alternative would be to rezone the lot that the water tower is on re-guide and rezone it from public institutional to a residential and then it would comply the second variance is to allow an Overhead Door visible from County Road 30. next on your agenda is some consideration for some changes to that but right now it would be visible it is separated from 30 by a developable parcel and another road right-of-way and so once those are developed it would no longer be visible but at the time of construction it would be so a variance is required in the staff report I did provide findings effect for approval and findings uh if you find the variance standards are not met some of those findings and the the result would be to turn the tower and Orient the overhead door towards the church um it cannot go to the east or to the West because there's residential property there so it could go North to the church the third variance is for a dry vial setback all parking and dry vials must be 50 feet from the front line in the public institutional District the parking does comply but the drive aisle which is really a fire lane Hammerhead turnaround does not comply it is a 37-foot setback where 50 feet is required again I provided some findings if you find that it's not met the end result would be to push that Tower closer to the church next slide so this is a public hearing the applicant our city Engineers or city engineer and the landowner are both here there are two actions tonight to review the preliminary plot and the second resolution uh proving or denying the site plan and one or more of the variances could I ask you a quick uh clarification question please I and maybe I misunderstood earlier tonight but when we heard the proposal for the Corcoran Farms project I thought I thought I heard talk about a piece of land that was going to go toward a water tower did I oh well oh well water's water I'm sorry thank you uh with that I will open the uh public hearing we'll uh we'll take uh in-person comments first is there anyone present that would like to speak on this topic yeah please and please state your name and address is it working is it green or no no sometimes it turned off because of the um feedback it was giving you know yeah yeah yeah didn't this city just buy this system it's on now I want to refund it there you go my name is Peter smeal I live at 20041 Hunters Ridge so I live in the development right next to the church and so you know I guess my questions are related to kind of bigger picture about City Planning and placement and that the seams again kind of far down the road that if this is a location I question that it's it's an attractive situation a very very busy you know intersection to put a water tower um my understanding is it was planned to be farther east and was moved for other reasons that I don't know and obviously as a homeowner I'm concerned about property values being able to see 156 foot tower out in my backyard it's obviously I don't think anybody wants to sign up here to live next to a water tower so thank you thanks for coming out anyone else yes sir please state your name and address John close right behalf of a mother's Farm which is directly west of this property sixth generation Farm our concerns is this properties being developed we heard Water Tower and assisted living and also what are we doing at the water because right now everything on that farm we're half of that farm drains in the last which hands up on our property so is there going to be city sewer curb gutter to hold up the water from this property on their property and not on ours because our plans is 18 requirements would you like to respond to that or do we have a respond you want to wait till the end yeah we usually go to the public hearing and then staff can respond sure okay I guess we'll get an answer for you the same thing is what he mentioned is the water tower was proposed to be off of Stig Road and as that development got built that contractor made the homeowners sign paperwork stating that this is there is going to be a water tower in the neighborhood and then we heard that all of a sudden these neighbors got together came back to the city and said hey we don't want this water tower in our neighborhood all my mom will look right out her front door Water Tower and do you want a water tower in your front yard does he look out or any of you guys because I know she doesn't so it's all it gets all right thank you for coming out does anyone else have any comments uh the applicant oh I'm sorry you wanna comment I'm Brian lother I passed her Hope Community Church which is the site for the water tower and we've been working with the city for many years to try and bring city services here to the city we have an appropriate spot for the water tower to go on the western side of our property I understand that nobody probably ever wants a water tower in their backyard I think the future would indicate that not only is there a a cell tower on the kothritis property Which is higher than any other structure in the in the area but this water tower will obviously make the vision for development not only to the west of us but to the South and this this whole this whole intersection and so um what is proposed to be developed on the site is commercial to the south of the water tower and seniors housing to the east of it and possibly a thousand feet away from the water tower would be to the north but the the residents of the north are protected by a very old growth tree lines that are over 80 feet tall and most of those homes a butt right up to the tree lines and the water tower will not be visible for them thank you okay thank you is there anyone else here that would like to comment on this application no yet uh yes sir could you could you please stand up to the microphone we have people online okay the biggest concern we have is the water because in back when that farm was originally sold where the houses are where you know where he lives we still got to stay away from the property line because it's always wet can open the water draining for that housing development onto our property you know and then like where the cemetery went in for the church there's supposed to be a drainage easement along there and screening at the end of it well none of that's been done I mean if the water comes off that Cemetery it's right onto our properties and this whale a Swale is a Swale and it's something that should be a foot and a half two feet deep diverted right down the property line all their Bank comes right down to the property line so what happens it comes right on ours in the city had never been back out there to address it or you know inspect it to make sure it's done properly [Music] so we just want to make sure the water stays you know on their side and we really don't have anything against you know developing but we want to continue farming and not lose you know acreage along along the property lines that's our biggest concern and as like I say as Brian developsis you know we're all for it you know humble Builder myself so I get it but let's just make sure it's done right and very tired you know are we going to bring sewer to the project you know hopefully someday you know and contain that water or you read it you know storm water curb and gutter you know right now it isn't so it's a big concern you know for us sure okay thank you sir pastor I appreciate you know your comments about the water the drain off right now that seems to come not only from the cemetery but also uh the fields I've already got a call into Glenn and I've talked with him a couple times Glenn is marvelous is one of Mars's sons and we have a meeting I proposed a meeting with Glenn so that we can look at the overall grading plans for putting the water tower in and and do some finishing grading on our Cemetery so that no water actually does run typical throttle property and we're committed to doing that and we've had a great relationship with the co-thritis they actually lease all of our agricultural fields and you know they are are very good neighbors and there's no reason why that main ability can't continue into the future but I'm committed to making sure that uh the grading that would need to be done on this site will take into consideration the whole throttle property as well thank you is there anyone else here that would like to comment you know anyone online you'd like to to pay in the public hearing please raise your hand now it looks like you're all on either a computer or mobile device so that would be through the raise your hand function under the reactions menu and at this time there is no hands raised Mr chair okay thank you I'll make a motion to close the public hearing can I have a second oh second uh and uh all in favor say aye aye aye opposed okay and we'll open up uh discussion before we get into our Commons would staff be able to respond to the two questions that were proposed sure Mr chair Commissioners first I just want to clarify that the application in front of you tonight is just for the water tower certainly the there is plant future plans for more development but right now it's just the water tower and as part of the water tower site there is it is not required to do a stormwater treatment pun but we do have a bio retention soil that is planned as part of this project I think that was one of the questions regarding grading so there's a minimal amount of grading but there is a bio retention Pond planned as part of this site when the rest of the development comes forward though obviously there's a much larger drainage analysis they will need to comply with state and local regulations and the city engineer will review that when that comes in um I think the second question was about why the water tower site was moved from where it was originally East yeah yeah I I can't answer that question um I don't know um oh okay so you can't answer because you don't know yeah I don't know I wasn't at those Council meetings but I think um Steve um our engineer that's been the project manager for this was at the council meeting it may have answers or Council liaison I just I'm not sure how this site was selected Bueller feeler I'm if you'd like I can shed some light yes um correct me if I'm wrong I seldom or I sell them in right um there is an identified water tower site in the Amberly Bellwether neighborhood there is I believe it's about seven acres still exists that is part of city property now and that'll be well number two or well number one while number two will be at the water treatments site but in my mind as a council member I do not want to lose that realization that there could be a water tower there too the folks in the neighborhood absolutely as Mr cartwrighty spoke there was documents that were out there that they all signed and they understood that that was a possible water tower site okay it came to the council I did not I don't remember how I voted but I did not I did not like moving it because that land was identified the water tower was there it is a water tower in this general area is more specific to the entire Northeast area which we've had our design plan and all those things so the council as a whole decided to look for another location for a possible Water Tower and see what we can do and Hope Church came in with this site being in an area where they've got a church right there Granite Farmland to the east excuse me to the West Farmland to the South and those kind of things and we agreed that that would this would be a another alternate site for that water tower without giving up those seven acres still in the Amberly Bellwether area but that that will be a site of a second well your comments about a well in the corporate Farms deal that would be a third well or a another well that's needed to obviously pump enough water as this city grows over many many years did I answer it okay I think so if I could just clarify so it was originally proposed that water tower was originally proposed on the Seven Acres city council decided we may want to keep this seven acres very well just in case the well is going to be there those seven acres are the city or the well land I don't think it's it's an open space I don't think it's a park okay all right thank you but again in the in the grand scheme of we need elevation for our first well or our first Tower if you know of the I always called it an underground water tower up uh on Bass Lake Road across from the cemetery there's a million gallon it's actually over a million gallon water reservoir there and that that serves lower line land but again in Maple Grove there's many water towers with that natural elevation and gravity feed to give us 60 to 80 pounds per square inch to residential Boston Center City so that's the reason for an elevated water tower if we did put a water tower there one of the options we were talking about was putting a ground Tower which I believe the elevation was about 40 feet tall but then we'd have to pay money to pressurize our system if we didn't have a water tower what am I doing if I got it okay it's not the first time I did this that's impressive being part of what I did in the neighboring City and then coming here I retained some but uh and then in a nutshell that land is still there and if we need another water reservoir and stuff I'll be the first one insisting that we've got seven acres we can put something there okay so but a lot of our residents seem to forget some of the documents they may or may not sign read and that was the troubles that we had when it came to the council that location and stuff the council as a whole decided to let's look for another location and again I've already spoke to it the the Hope Church the Luther Group whatever we call them and such came up with this 1.2 acre parcel and it's a good fit right okay very it's very hard for the Neighbors as far as farmland and stuff and I respect the co-thritis a lot but I think we can come up with something that'll work other than we'll be looking at 165 foot water tower sure thank you for your comments you bet uh I need to close the public hearing correct or did I do that okay I'm trying to stay on track question okay all right uh discussion well the last question had been about curb and gutter um and so I believe when I look at this is not a slide that was in the staff report but if you um in our packet there did contain uh sort of a markup showing the extension of that cul-de-sac and it does appear that around the area that is going to be the bitmus drive that there is curb and gutter am I correct in saying that foreign sorry I pronounced that incorrectly so Steve haglin I'm the engineer on the project so yeah for our code we have to have harmful curving gutter around the two minutes Drive in the parking lot so within this Improvement it'll have it um some of it will be flat we'll still convey water in the same way it is going so we'll have it there but generally the water still can go west onto the cutrati from our property as it goes today as we talked about occurs the Northeast design standards there is a bio filtration Basin so kind of a small rain Garden kind of pond help treat some of that before you go to that thank you that was and does that answer your question earlier about curb and gutter sir yeah our way so to Kendra's comp for it who has this thing we're talking about the one piece here as this thing comes in with the larger development they'll go through the entire storm water Master Okay that gets reviewed by the city the same as any other development that ensures that there's no negative storm water effects off-site so we look at all those things both through the city through the Watershed and make sure they're complying with all those standards so that's really a part of yes it's done here but it's really a part of that larger Master development that comes later this is really just carving out that one piece okay thank you all right discussion I didn't have much on this I mean it seems you know hard to pick one up a place for something like this it seems like it's I mean it's getting close to their property but it just seems like it's kind of leads to the edge of our Northeast District it seems you know I always enjoy driving into towns and seeing the water I mean you know it just seems like them or maybe a little bit more of a city I don't know it's kind of a weird thing my wife and we saw and we're like oh wow it's like a real City uh and I made that seem silly maybe but it's it's pretty close I live real close to where these guys are just on Cane road but um yeah it seems logical all in all I didn't have anything on it on it uh I didn't have any um concern I felt like to have to reorient the building either closer to the church or to turn it um felt considering that a larger Development Area would come in uh felt like it wasn't necessarily um the best and so I felt like what we were given was the best and then that was why there were a requests in particular for those two variances so I was in support of those two variances and then the third as well which seems to fit that an essential service would be on just a one acre plot of land and not necessarily needing to be in a larger area so in regard to all of the variances I didn't see an issue with them and would be in support of um passing the resolution my daughters their only request so I know that this is going to be determined at another time but they really want a mural of running horses on the city of Portland Water Tower so I told them it's a little too late for them to be up but sounds like a good competition running horses title we've got all kinds of suggestions so uh there are three variances associated with the application we have lot size overhead door and a drive lane setback now for the lot size variance the code would require 15 Acres this is about one and a half acres now unfortunately the property is surrounded by a church and a cemetery uh the city notes that it could simply rezone the property instead to get around this if it wanted I would vote to recommend approval because these conditions were not created by the landowner and are unique to this parcel second it is amusing to me that the overhead door which we will deal with in the next agenda item is back yet again I will reserve my commentary for that time but I think that this can be approved and for the drive lane uh I think that this can be approved so with that I would make a motion to approve let's see what's the right language here I make a motion uh to approve uh the draft resolution approving the preliminary pla final plat site plan and variance for the Corcoran water tower at 19951 Oswald Farm Road can I get a second I'll second that uh all in favor say aye aye opposed [Music] and there we go do we have a different like we're phone aware of it very difficult oh yeah you have a lot more public hearing I'm gonna leave it on for the final public hearing oh yeah I think we can turn it off and if someone wants to speak we'll just turn it background okay would you like me to start the presentation sure yeah all right so our last item tonight thank you for pairing with those Commissioners I'm almost done uh is a one last public hearing for a zoning ordinance Amendment to the Northeast District plan and design guidelines um so City staff recommends a zoning ordinance Amendment to the Northeast District plan to address variances that have come up in processing our plans for the water treatment plant and water tower we've realized that um especially smaller properties are going to have some restrictions that might not make sense in all cases as well as concerns about requiring screening in excess of the height of equipment so we'll go ahead and the first one is the loading docks and overhead doors as alluded to by our chair right now they cannot be visible from County Roads or residential property at all the proposed change would be that loading docks or Overhead Doors every effort should be to orient them away from County Road as a residential property whenever reasonable and we as the city would be able to determine what is reasonable if it's found not to be reasonable and the loading docks or overhead doors are visible then our 80 opacity year-round screening rule elsewhere in the code would apply uh the next amendment is due to it's for the utility service structures uh screening right now would be is has to be done with a fence or wall at least six feet in height and chain link fence with slats will not be accepted as screening um while I think there will be instances where we want this type of screening when something is only three feet of height this seems very excessive and will be burdensome to applicants so um staff is proposing that we rewrite this so that ground mounted mechanical equipment can use a combination of landscaping privacy fence or wall at the same height as the equipment it is screening or six feet tall whichever is less the idea is we can't if it's like something like right hand a pen which is probably where the strict language came from in the first place when it's 15 feet tall we cannot require a 15 foot wall so we cap it at six feet um with the idea when the equipment exceeds six feet in height coniferous trees must be used to provide additional screening loading areas must be screened as required by an existing section we have in our code that has actually stricter than what the Northeast District standards are so we just recommend relying on this section of code1060.060 and kind of simplifying it there but also requiring the higher standard for screening and then utility service structures must be screened from off-site views utilizing a double rolled Landscaping a privacy fence or wall that is the same height as the structure it is screening or six feet whichever is less and again chain link fence chain link fence with slats will not be accepted one last Small Change is within our Landscaping standards someone provided their professional opinion that the use of a full complement of suggested that different that a an applicant would have to provide one or at least one of each type of category for landscaping so you know some overstory some ornamental some Evergreen some Shrubbery and so now staff is recommending the use of a mix of to make make it clear that we want to see you mixed and it should be complementary but it doesn't necessarily need to be something from each category it could be a mix that makes sense for the site uh so the recommendation at this time is to open the public hearing and staff recommends approval of the draft ordinance and draft resolution improving findings effect thank you thank you we'll open the public hearing uh you guys have anything else to say no do we have anyone online no one that would participate in the public hearing no and I will say that that Steve hates our Northeast District design well in that case uh I will make a motion to close the public hearing I'll say seconds uh take a vote all in favor aye aye opposed the public hearing has been closed uh discussion I would like to start on this as I've shared before and I'm not going to rehash it all tonight I think that we added 22 pages of code without very careful consideration of each material point here we are less than six months later rewriting it and rewriting it primarily for the benefit of the city's own applications staff states that as to the overhead doors staff believes this requirement is doable and makes sense for large properties guided for industrial Business Park and mixed use as these Parcels will have space to orient Overhead Doors internally however smaller sites along County roads will likely need to request a variance from this requirement I think that if we move to a reasonable uh reasonableness standard it will become too squishy uh is that can I use that here squishy yes because applicants where this becomes an issue will invariably state that it is unreasonable there will be no facts to rebut that assertion and it's up to the city to decide whether the answer is satisfactory with only one side of the story it's just the way the application process is it seems like we are taking a tried and true standard the variance requirement and supplanting with a shorter hurdle that completely guts the entire purpose of the ordinance in the first place I think that the language should be kept as is as to garage doors for the screening requirement I would vote to recommend the change so that Landscaping can be used to screen not only is this consistent with other areas of our code it is also I think or it it also I think has a higher potential to be better looking I would jettison the park that part that allows the fence screening to be the same height as the appliance I don't think that does us any good for that we could uh remove the reference to fencing altogether or require fencing to be at least four to six feet those are my comments I have no um I'm in support of the changes to the language I think I understand that there's a concern that in changing the language regarding garage doors it would become too vague and I feel and this is one where right like I'm constantly in amazement at the Constitution I just am because the language both permits and prohibits and I feel like we can either way that we could go on this one could be more restrictive or too flexible and I feel like it's all just an opportunity where we have to step into trust that staff is going to do their due diligence to um to uh sense the burden is on staff to determine the reasonableness rather than the applicants I think that that's just a a time when we're going to have to either accept that we'll be getting variance requests as Northeast development continues or we would have to trust that staff would do their due diligence in supporting the reasonableness or unreasonableness of that fitting on that particular application um so all that to say I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on changing the language of the garage doors if staff feels like it would be a a smoothing out of the process creating less hurdles um without being taken advantage of like I would be willing to accept that staff deals with that far more regularly and would speak to that reasonable to whom to the city to the city which is they reasonably oriented they're so I'm trying to think of an example right now but for us to have reasonably there was no way for us to have reasonably oriented the water treatment plant and that would be the significant contemplation we would have to do the same thing for a variant standard but as you said the it's best practice when you know that your code is going to require variances to fix your code that's just a bad best practice in planning and so trying to add some flexibility for that built into the code is just proper planning additionally it would allow for Less hurdles it would allow for one less application fee one less application s girl so when it's a small site already and it might be a small property owner a small business owner that does reduce a significant hurdle so I think that having having someone to be able to come in under a straight flat under a straight application without having to do an additional variance does smooth out the process so that's where that's where staff's coming from but we can definitely forward a recommendation to not include that part with other it sounds like there may be some support for landscaping so we can definitely afford whatever recommendation that you guys come out with tonight based on that and the fact that there is a separate application fee for it and the fact that it does seem to be a better I understand your frustration because I understand that you were not in support of the adoption necessarily of all of those pages of code and it is disheartening that here we are um just figuring out that the implementation isn't quite working um but I also feel like we have a responsibility that when an issue arises because it isn't working that we need to fix it and so I would be in support of passing all of the um changes that staff has proposed tonight I'm just curious is there any connection with this this stuff we were talking about with the Corcoran Business Park loading docks and the modifications because this is Northeast and will we have these giant I can't remember how that's all Zone I mean could we potentially have some giant like yep I'm gonna build here and I want to build a giant building like this and and now we don't loading docks can be visible well the loading docks the proposed language for the loading document I guess it's reasonable so it's actually we're requiring on the same here let me just pull this up for you so for the loading areas they must be screened as required by a section we already have that is more strict than what the Northeast District would have otherwise been and that was the same standard that we reviewed Corcoran Farms again I think it's a previous slide oh yeah that's screaming that's why I wasn't sure I misunderstood the loading areas so the loading docks yeah because we're I know we're talking about overhead doors that part but this also includes loading docks that's why I was just like yeah yeah so no loading docks or over her doors shall be visible from County Roads so with the so let's say Corcoran Farms moved to an industrial parcel those industrial Parcels are the parcels this was written for yeah and they would be required to do internal overhead doors when you're talking about multiple buildings from a plat from an 80 acre parcel or bigger what this would be targeted to is for your like your much smaller Parcels most likely less than 10 acres that have no way to uh like it might be for a gas station and on a Four Acre parcel who has a car wash and each the surrounding properties are residential and it's on a county road that that would there's no way for them to comply that so that that would be what this is for as far as big Parcels that are coming in for a business park they would be expected to internally Orient the overhead doors unless there's a gas line running down it's just really it's not reasonable I mean this is slippery slope you're talking about a little bit is the well I'm just saying I mean the the language if you look is clear no loading docks or Overhead Doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property we accepted this we just added this and now here we are in in in just over what 30 days 60 days whatever it is now we're taking that very easy to understand single sentence you know sometimes less is more and and we turn it into uh you know a half of a half of a brochure that just comes down to well now we're just gonna you know Orient it away you know wherever it's possible otherwise you know whatever and I I just think that this is wrong I mean I see your point that it's very the one is very clear yes we've hit two instances in both City runs where we did have to submit variances in the end was no big deal we did it you know we both well and the thing is again wherever reasonable I'll tell you what so I'm I'm building a great big loading dock okay and I want my doors uh this way I'm just going to come in here and say look you know it's not reasonable and yes I have confidence and staff but what I am saying is now it is subjective okay now it's like well whatever's reasonable well what is reasonable that first that first sentence that's very clear and you don't need interpretation as to what that means but it's too restrictive and it's not working it's exactly it's not working for the city who accepted money in order to add this very language to our City's code sure but it made our bed and we should follow our own rules okay but it's not working so if you do not like what is proposed do you have other language to suggest that would meet uh would would allow such things as the water tower to work on smaller plants that is not as restrictive you know do you have an uh suggestion to me in the middle because we can't go back because it would it's not working the the code we if we stay with it why isn't it working well we may not have any more of it this has only been our code for 60 days there are several properties along that would mean that would be better problematically smaller that it could there could be a problem yeah so you could keep it as as as short and you could just change it no loading decks or overhead door shall be visible from County Roads and then put your period there and then you've solved the problem now they can face Residential Properties and it's still just short and clear but I feel like the second one allows more possibilities that actually benefit surrounding areas even though it does I understand it feels less vague but um well the bottom one is very vague so then if you were going to make a suggestion since the first one is currently not working what would you recommend I I made my recommendation and that's to keep the current language written as is that's my recommendation okay well I would make them using the variance processes using the variance process it's a separate well I understand and stuff and the same thing we see variances every time we we come here we do but to stick it to to to recognize an error that then says well we just need to stick with it that requires additional Financial contributions by applicants feels like to me that we're just not willing to humbly say we made a mistake and we're going to fix it so I would be willing to make a motion to pass the resolution let me get the proper language that would allow a change to the text of do I have to say that whole thing so you could here let me get to uh so it's the draft ordinance and draft resolution of Province findings effect that's what I would make a motion to approve the draft ordinance and the draft resolution with findings effect of a second I'm thinking about it I will second it foreign all in favor say aye aye all opposed say nay nay [Music] slippery slope I know [Music] planning project update Jenna's necessarily sailing there may have been any either was the city council for the planning project update that some reason didn't make it to the packets um but any questions on upcoming Projects please let me know okay thank you uh Council Baron Camp yes sir uh do you have any questions or updates or you guys have questions of what's happened in the past and those kind of things I we're getting busy I just haven't seen a lot yet our staff keeps telling us it's going to be busy crazy and stuff and uh if I had something to give you I would a lot of the information that is uh happening and stuff is in Natalie's report as far as all of the things we've done in the past and stuff but if you've got specific questions you guys have usually had specific thank you for letting me talk tonight about the water tower um my feelings on that I would have rather have gone with that one on site on Bellwether it was planned it was whatever um again the cost to take a water tower and make it a reservoir to turn in the pumps to get the pressure tremendous amount of Maintenance costs and it was probably a bad decision but to elevate it again it I would have rather had an elevated water tower at that existing site right next to the uh to the well we still would have to put the water treatment plant in a different place and I think that was um on a 116 area and stuff so pipe out from the well to the treatment and back to the Tower it just creates all kinds of things but again the the neighborhood pushed and [Music] the council mayor decided to find a different site but I won't forget that site as long as I'm on the council that will be here that will be an option thank you and thank you for taking the time uh to to be with us tonight um you guys if I may again I've always said it tremendous amount of mindset put towards all of these things thank you much staff great information in front of you guys and your openness honesty and those kind of things are are good to hear well you guys put a lot of time in and I appreciate it very much well we and we appreciate your your very kind uh comments uh since you opened that door may I ask you a question please any question so uh and you know I am I'm very proud of my colleagues and the preparation that they put into uh projects and I guess my question is I would like to know if the council if they um if they do not accept a recommendation from this Commission meaning that if they if they go in a different direction than what we have recommended I I would ask that we receive from Council some reasoning as to why they did not understood go with our decisions because I think it was it was something that I always wondered but I would spend time coming to the council meeting and listening to the reason and stuff not everybody can do that not everybody is crazy as me but I think some type of explanation and stuff I'll I'll bring that up I would appreciate that because because I know uh I know that my colleagues spend a lot of time preparing for these meetings as you know they're they're not paid a dollar they're here volunteering their time and they do very good job I can make a recommendation on a dollar pay no that would help no but my point is when I got seven bucks in my pocket I just my point is if if this commission is putting in that kind of leg work and if the city council ignores our recommendation I would like to know why could we get that included as part of the notes maybe as part of the I'd very much respect that the council puts in tremendous hours to the the Corcoran Farms that subject how many time what I want to say Kendra I don't even know what I want to say that proposal that application proposal came to us we had no idea I had no idea this size I had no idea of all of those things I knew that there would be some we want this I think that was asked they're asking for the everything they can get and it'll be one of those things that it's gonna be is it we want it that big do we want it looking like that me personally I that's not what I was thinking was going to end up being it is uh it is a difficult thing um I spoke with the neighborhood and stuff like that and told them they didn't hear that for that rezoning back in 2017 18 I think there was 20 plus meetings for the neighborhood and we never got the notice we never got that I said straight back to them a lot of residents a lot of people that is what they always say they got some from the city open it up I don't care and then all of a sudden something like that comes but to your point our reply back on why we decided different than what the recommendation was I think that's a very respectful request and thank you I think it's something we can do thank you I appreciate that because I as I hope you've seen in your attendance of our meetings we have Lively passionate debates here but as I said earlier great minds can agree to disagree yes sir and I just think that when you have smart people putting a lot of time into something and making thoughtful recommendations uh you know I know that I heard uh you know some discussion and our research was ignored because someone was not cutting down a few trees and I I don't get it and I want to know that if I put work into something I want it considered other than someone just say well you know the trees let's say it this just feels right well we should be basing our decisions on on the law on the code I do I'd love to give you I'm not going to discuss that in a in a public form but I'm happy to talk to you about it outside afterward yeah but I just think you know if I if I ground one of my kids they're gonna ask me why and I think I need to explain them because otherwise they're not going to learn anything and we're not going to learn anything if we're just ignored and then not told why I have seen a tremendous amount of evolution in the Planning Commission from when I was on it while I was on it change out all of these things and then console changing too I've seen an evolution that it's more we listen more we spend more time on the subjects and I think it has been in the past um administrator or administrative folks might not like how much we all push back and question and those kind of things but they're still here I just as long as we're respectful open and honest and give good input that's the main thing we're not always going to agree but and you are absolutely right the amount of time spent is crazy I did it when I was there I still do it I go off talk to even more people you know in the council and stuff listen to concerns and stuff but you guys need answers back why I acknowledge city council you have the discretion okay you're the elected officials yep and I get that I just want to know how I love it you know how long after this for a few minutes too you know so I've understood all right thank you we'll ask for it thank you I appreciate it you're welcome um do any of my colleagues uh have anything that you would like to add or discuss under other business Noah contained in the packet was not the schedule of our liaison to the council meetings but I have that I thought it was oh maybe I just don't yeah I mean it had it in the online on the back page there you go never mind and I stand corrected so I was just gonna say I know I'm on for next week Beyond that I don't know but I think we have a request to change yes so commissioner horned right now is on for October 27th which is the meeting where all of our planning items tonight are going to go um since he's not here tonight he was wondering if anyone else would have availability to switch with him um if not that's totally fine he will take it but he just thinks it might be better if someone um a little more involved in the discussion will be there and you can be online of course you can put me down as a maybe I need to clear one um one item from my calendar but if I if I can do that I will know by Monday I hope that's not too late so I will reach out to you with a yes or no on on Monday perfect and then is there a reason shulak is in red with an m Monday night meeting oh perfect okay all right Thanksgiving wait that's right oh okay okay I got she's in trouble that's why okay uh I think that's it I think so is that it picture do you is there anything else that anyone would like to add I would make a motion to adjourn I will second and I will third it okay all in favor say aye aye aye uh post excellent thank you now now thanks guys recording stopped