and we are now recording okay uh well we will call the june 3rd planning commission uh meeting to order and we will do our roll call uh jacobs here uh commissioner landerman here commissioner shellack here okay commissioner varenkamp all right and he may show up later and commissioner wu here [Music] okay very good so we uh we have a quorum uh i am too pledge of allegiance for all those who would please join us in the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay thank you everybody okay uh item number three appoint vice chair um who was our previous vice chair i think it was you wasn't it jim so i had it on record that commissioner dickman was the vice chair and we never appointed anyone since him yeah you're right you're right so um does anybody openly want to be vice chair i would be glad to serve in that capacity okay anybody else all right well i'll uh i'll make a motion to nominate uh commissioner sholak for vice chair i'll second all right thank you mark and uh all those in favor uh say aye by roll call vote uh jacobs i commissioner landerman aye fisher schulack hi commissioner wu hi okay thank you jim you're welcome okay item four uh agenda approval um does anybody have any changes or corrections or i that i you know it looks like uh you know as far as the order of our public hearings i think they're going to be okay so i don't have any recommended changes myself anybody else none from me all right i'll take a motion to approve the agenda i'll make that movie i'll make a motion to approve the agenda okay um mark do you want to make that a second i'll second that okay very good thank you all right all those in favor approving the agenda signified by saying i jacobs i commissioner landerman aye mr shellac aye mr wu hi all right thank you very much mr chair dean sign dean how are you doing well all right very good all right sorry i'm late that's quite all right i know the horses need feeding and the grass needs mowing and um all right we are uh on open uh item five uh dean open forum uh if there's anyone if there's anyone that is interested in speaking and addressing the commission on any item that is not already on the agenda uh please signify and natalie will give you instructions on how to do that thank you mr chair if you would like to participate in the open forum if you're joining us by a computer you should be able to access the raise your hand function via the toolbar on the bottom of your screen using the reactions feature in some tablets you may find this under the participants tab we do ask that all comments are kept at a five minute time limit and at this time mr chair no one is raising their hand okay all right uh at that as long as it appears that no one's going to address us in open forum we'll move on to item six uh the minutes from may 6th um again i was not uh in that meeting and so i will abstain from any comment on the minutes but for those that were commissioners landerman varenkamp and wu um do the minutes look okay would you like to make any changes or corrections additions mr chair i'll make a motion to approve the minutes okay do we have a second second all right thank you all right all those uh commissioners um and i don't believe uh i don't believe uh me and gm will vote since uh we weren't there so uh we'll take a roll call vote to approve them uh commissioner landerman uh aye and commissioner beringkamp all right and commissioner wu hi okay the minutes are approved that was written all right item seven new business um again this is very much like open forum if there's anybody interested in speaking on new business that is not already part of a public hearing uh natalie walk you through the process thank you mr share so the only item that is not a public hearing tonight is a request to table the amberly and bellwether application if anyone would like to speak to that this would be your opportunity to raise your hand if you're joining us by phone you'll press star 9 and if you are joining us by computer it's that reaction it's under the reactions menu on the bottom of your screen and tablets may see this under the participants tab and at this time i do not oh we have one hand raised i just have the name read as ipad and you can go ahead and unmute and i will lower your hand hi my name is joel cadillac and i'm at 10510 robert lane in corcoran and we're adjacent to the van blair comp property so i the um that item on the agenda so that's being tabled until the next month's meeting is that what you're saying correct it will be tabled to july 1st at this time okay thank you all right thank you commissioner lanterman you raise your hand yes sir yeah so i'm fine tabling this issue until such a time as additional information becomes available you know we wouldn't have a lot to talk about without that information but i would like to ask though if staff could contextualize the reason for the delay a little more i just want to be mindful of the september deadline especially with this being such a big proposal uh mr chair would you like me to respond now or wait until we get to that item well i mean um we sense uh there is no public comment um yeah let's go on to seven eight so do you would you like to give a report you have a report to give us um i don't i don't have a report per se but i can give a little bit of us of a summary as requested so um the applicant did submit a complete application uh for the application uh which is a rezoning of preliminary platinum planned unit development application for two properties the van blair com and the showboat properties these are um adjacent just west of the existing bellwether project and as part of the application the city did a feasibility study and provided a copy of the feasibility study to the applicant and the feasibility study is something we do for most big applications and it looks at infrastructure needs and the responsibility of the developer for those infrastructure needs a feasibility study was prepared and identified a number of significant and expensive improvements tied to this project and the developer after reviewing that asked to meet with the city and talk about those costs in particular transportation costs as you know the state of minnesota doesn't give cities a tool to apply area charges like we do for other utilities and so developers are responsible for all road improvements and so they wanted more time to work with the city to try to see they had some questions about the feasibility study facts and wanted to meet it is my understanding that there was a meeting today with the city administrator the public works director and the applicant so i'm hopeful coming out of that we'll be able to come back at the july meeting with clear agreement on the infrastructure improvements and the project itself is that helpful mark i think you're muted mark i think you're muted there you go yeah you know at the at the command of my wife i try to stay muted so i get i guess what i would ask were there were there any other additional specific concerns about this infrastructure issue or just kind of generally they wanted more time yeah i mean specifically um there was a uh the discu discussion i think was focused on the transportation improvements and what their fair share of the improvements are and whether it included improvements um in front of their property or improvements uh beyond that including improvements to county road 116. i think that everyone's aware they did make improvements on stig road out to 101 added some turn lanes and the feasibility study said they needed to make some turn lanes on 116 pave it out to 116 and turn lanes at robert and there's a question about whether this they had questions about whether the traffic study that led to those recommendations um accurately reflected this project's impact on that road so that really was the focus was transportation and so we felt it was important to speak with them go through that with them and make sure the staff position really hasn't changed i don't think it will likely change coming out of today's meeting but the developer can then decide whether they can financially uh move forward with the project thank you [Music] kendra i see on there amberley and bellwether so is this a an extension of bellwether is polti the the developer or is this a completely different autonomous development yes it's both it's actually um part of it is an extension of bellwether with new homes that will be part of the bellwether hoa and part of that community there's a western portion of the van blair column property though that will be a traditional single-family neighborhood not part of the hoa for bell weather they won't have access to the amenities center those would just be traditional single-family homes and that subdivision would be called amberly and is amberly then asking for a pud or are we going to finally get a development without a pud no it's a pud for the entire they're treating the project as a single project but in terms of how the hoa will work they'll be separate okay all right and so we'll probably see that in july yes we're asking you this evening mr chair to table this to the july 1st meeting okay all right commissioners any other discussion or questions all right if there are none um we'll take a motion to uh table 7a until july 1st i'll make that motion no second shoelace all right all right roll call vote uh jacobs i uh commissioner landerman aye commissioner shulac aye commissioner of erin camp aye and commissioner wu hi [Music] okay we'll uh we'll address that july 1st thank you all right uh item um seven b public hearing request from west side wholesale tire for a zoning ordinance text amendment to the light industrial standards and kendra you have a a report for us presentation please proceed thank you mr chair this is uh something the city's been working with west side wholesale tire to resolve some ongoing code enforcement issues for some time we had made some progress and then covet hit and it got put on hold and so early this year the mayor reached out again to the landowner the landowner came back to the council on march 11 with a proposal and as a result of that discussion the council provided direction as follows come in and apply for a text amendment to allow parking and storage as a principal use and then if that gets approved the second step will be to apply for a site plan and what would likely be an interim use permit based on what staff's recommending and the request it's a little difficult i know um to separate but this is not a request for the west side site alone this is a request that could apply to any of the light purple uh properties which are the light industrial zoning districts so up in the area where nelson was just approved uh a number of properties in the downtown near west side and then of course in that southwest corner of the city so these standards were written um in a way that would apply to all the i1 properties that meet the standards in the draft ordinance the council direction was to narrowly write the standards however so it is unlikely that anyone else will meet the standards and be able to do this um so that's how we've drafted the ordinance and the applicant as part of their application also provided a concept plan to show what they would like to do and that provided some guidelines for staff to prepare the ordinance and where we are recommending something different from what their concept plan shows i tried to call that out in the staff report and i'll try to do so this evening as well as i said we are recommending this be done by an interim use permit or an iup and an iup is like a conditional use permit in terms of process but as you know a conditional use permit runs with the land in perpetuity whereas an iup has a sunset clause so for example if this is related to a use across the street if the use across the street cease to exist you could say that this iup ceases to be valid or you could have a number of years that it's valid so those are things that's part of an application review that you could attach to an iup and we think in this case that is important because it's very much tied to an adjacent use so the request is to allow a 25-foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required and as i noted in the staff report this is consistent with commercial standards and the new napa which was recently approved for the old liquor store site a kitty corner from this parcel that west side would like to develop does have a 25-foot setback but the a number of districts in the city including the light industrial do have a 50-foot setback and that i think was intended for to mitigate the impact of larger buildings that you would see in the industrial district or some of these other districts and maintain rural character uh in industrial district perhaps but also in some of the other zoning districts so i think the planning commission will want to think about whether that 50-foot setback is important um in the in the i-1 district to maintain but but we have drafted it as a 25-foot setback consistent with the commercial standards and that would apply across the board to all industrial properties we would require though all outside storage fencing and parking to meet the parking setback requirements we used that standard um when we did the rocks and blocks or blocks and rocks next door and this satellite project on the other side of them in that in this case under the draft ordinance that would mean there's a 25 foot front yard setback and 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks for parking and fencing related to the outside storage that would require that the concept plan be adjusted slightly to move what westside is proposing as a gravel storage area that would need to move back to meet the setbacks but that's the only thing that appears to not comply with those standards i just note in the ordinance that the current landscaping standards required required across the city which require screening of parking lots and require screening related to new development do apply on this property as well we did not recommend any changes to those standards and simply just reference those standards in the ordinance to be applied here outside storage must meet current standards for outside storage meaning we don't recommend changing the outside storage standards that currently apply in the i1 district and other zoning districts which requires uh that they be fully screened from public streets and adjacent properties we went through this last week with her last month with a couple of applications and so to do that it could be fencing with slats landscaping or a combination of that and we like the physical barrier of the fence with slats because it does stop the outside storage creep but it also does a nice job of screening however either fences with slats or landscaping could be used i would note and this is not a discussion for tonight because we're just talking about the ordinance but the concept plan provided by west side does not show screening on the west side of the outside storage area they did discuss this with the council and asked that they'd be able to basically use the rocks and blocks fence for screening because they were concerned that if the outside storage was screened they wouldn't be able to get snow storage anywhere so they wanted to be able to open up to that west property line use that for snow storage and take advantage of the screen fence that's already installed on the west side property so that's something you would look at with the site plan but i wanted to make note that wouldn't comply and the council would need to provide flexibility for that the plans also show an extraordinarily wide curb cut that's that's much larger than the engineering design standards would allow and so we are saying you need to comply with the design standards in the city code uh the current plans would need to be revised to to comply uh it requires a paved curb and gutter access with maximum widths as outlined in the ordinance and this comes up on every commercial and industrial use but it is an industry standard used across the board and engineering feels very strongly for the safety of access on that public street that that standard be held so that's included in the in the ordinance the summary and again i'm happy to talk about any of the conditions individually we did break it out into two interim use permits and outside storage as a principal use uh where the parcel is accessory to an allowed use but separated from that use by a public street which prevents the parcels from being combined as a single parcel subject to a number of conditions and then a second interim use permit which would allow parking as a principal use for the same situation so while it would affect all properties in the i-1 district the nature of that first condition is unlikely to apply to many other properties in the industrial district i'm not aware of one today where that would apply that could change in the future but today i'm not aware of one approval of the ordinance amendment then would allow westside to apply for an interim use permit in a site plan to bring that vacant lot where there's outside storage and parking occurring and the west side lot where outside storage is occurring in violation of the approvals it would allow them to bring both of those parcels into compliance with the zoning ordinance and the council has indicated support to for the ordinancing principle to uh allow this to move forward so with that we do recommend that you open the public hearing and take any public comments and then we do recommend that you move to recommend approval of two items the ordinance draft ordinance language as you may amend and the resolution approving findings of fact for that ordinance amendment great thank you kendra um okay uh at this point uh in time we'll open the public hearing and natalie if you would so instruct um our our online visitors the process for uh entering the public hearing that would be much appreciated thank you mr chair if you would like to participate in the public hearing please utilize the raise your hand function if you're joining us by phone you'll be able to do this by pressing star nine those of you using your computers there should be a reactions menu on the bottom toolbar and some tablets and mobile devices will have a raise your hand function under the participants tab we do ask that all comments are kept to a five minute time limit and currently i do not see any hands raised okay we'll give it a few seconds okay last call for public hearing anybody all right it doesn't appear to be anybody uh out there uh to uh participate so uh we'll take a motion to close the public hearing i'll make that make a motion to close the public hearing okay first uh commissioner landerman second commissioner wu uh we'll take a roll call vote commissioner jacobs i commissioner lanternman aye mr shellac aye mr varenkamp aye and commissioner wu hi all right the public hearing is now closed all right planning commission discussion um commissioner landerman i don't know how many meetings maybe you've seen in the past what we've been doing since we've gone into the zoom uh for expediency and i think it's actually worked out pretty well so we'll just kind of go through a rotation we'll give you the floor to make comments ask questions of our professionals uh and whatnot and we'll go down through the list of commissioners and then we'll go through it one more time because now you might have another follow-up question or something based on those discussions um and then uh then after we've gone through that twice or we'll do as many times as needed but then we'll take uh then we'll take a vote so um commissioner landerman you're more than welcome to go first if you would great thank you just a couple of comments so i think in in principle i think that this is okay i'm comfortable with it being uh on an interim use i just don't know how comfortable i am with sending the language as it's currently drafted to the council uh could staff explain why the language and i'm quoting here as a principal use is there for the interim permit essentially to me this seems to be saying a parking lot or outside storage is the primary use of the property but the city is only allowing it temporarily and this seems contradictory and then my second comment is also with respect to uh subdivision b1 the language seems uh a little clunky and meaning i i don't have any idea what it means and what it reads the way it reads now is the parcel is accessory to an allowed use but is separated from that use by a public street which prohibits the parcels from being combined as a single parcel i just think that this language should be uh more clear and to that specific section too uh i just wanna and i think kendra addressed this already but rewriting the code is for uh all of the properties in the light industrial zone correct it's not really only for an exception for this sole um you know i i get the importance of being narrow but this seems um almost going too far with it so um that's it for for my comments okay kendra natalie yeah i i think um there were two a question and a comment maybe a principal use um is a term defined by the zoning ordinance meaning the primary use on the lot which is why we say that normally we have principal uses and accessory uses and that's and we don't allow in the city outside storage as a principal use anywhere it's only allowed accessory to an auto dealer or a tire shop or something like that um in this case so that's the the use of bad term which is consistent throughout the existing ordinance um in rereading b1 and c1 i see the clunkiness and you know i wonder if we revised it to say the use is accessory to an allowed use um if that eliminating that first parcel might make it more readable well i took it to mean that the allowed use was westside tire as a principal use it existing use already across the street right i kind of noted the same the same concern that mark had i just kind of went and even along his first point so we have item c parking as a principal use and then we have b outside storage as a principal use but westside tire is going to use this site both as parking and storage so can we can we actually have two principal uses or does one have to be subordinate to the other i know it's kind of weird but you you can have two principal uses we frequently have lots with multiple buildings on one lawn shopping centers as an example or apartment complexes as another example it's one lot with two buildings on it so you can um you know it's probably not critical principle use is a word we use in our in our code today um and that's why i'm using that language um but i hear you and i'm trying to think about another i'm open to suggestions about how to do that um um you know i mean i guess it probably you could just say um outside storage subject to the following i guess you don't really need as a principal use i think i was trying to distinguish well you do need it because um outside storage is allowed right now as an accessory to an allowed use in the i1 district that's why i wrote it that way so subdivision 4e of the i1 standard say outside storage is accessory to and allowed use so i want to distinguish this from that language okay i mean i i kind of get it um so i guess you know if there's anything that you guys want to change before it goes to the or mark i i understand you have quite a background in law uh by all means if you've got some suggested language um you know feel free to you know pass that on or suggestion yeah i get you know normally i i like to have a solution before i point out issues and in this case i'm you know i'm the new guy here and i don't want to pretend like i know the best way to move forward with this language just as a as a again as a new member the language scene you know i think our goal is to make this uh this language as clear as possible for the city council to vote on and just my my reading of this i i was i was just confused by it um you know i'm i'm sure that kendra is is in a much better position to to to come up with some clarifying uh language um i wish i had thought to uh to do that myself but i've not and we certainly you certainly could move to um direct staff to prepare better clearer language for those items moving forward i do think i would recommend if nothing else that in b1 and a1 the sentence start out as the use is an accessory to an allowed use um because parcel is not the right word um but we could maybe even find something better okay sound fair mark i i do and i and i think that that would be a good solution instead of trying to wordsmith something on the fly maybe we should just take a little bit of time and get it right okay okay anything else commissioner any other comments or questions no nothing from me okay commissioner sholak thank you mr chair um my my main concern here uh when i was reading this was to i was wondering if there's anything in this that could come back to haunt us with um other businesses down the line or whatever it sounds as though um the way i understand it is that this exception if you will is is being made for the uh neighborhood commercial area in the downtown um so does it does it cover any other neighborhood commercial or any other businesses elsewhere in corcoran mr chair commissioner shulock it does apply to all properties zoned i1 light industrial so most of that historic downtown is i1 interestingly westside tire is not and napa is not but most of that downtown along 75th and as you round the corner is so would apply to all of those there's additional industrial land up where nelson was approved up on 101 and then down in the south west part of the city so it could theoretically apply which is why that item one is so critical i think to narrowly define when you can have parking or outside storage as a principal use because i don't think the council or or the commission want that as a general rule as the principal use but that tied to an existing business perhaps it's more palatable so if in the future another business wanted wanted to explore a different use or a new use for their uh part of their parcel or in the rare occurrence that it would the parcel is is not physically connected to its other parcel that it's divided somehow um would would those future incidents have to be the businesses would bring those those needs before this commission and then we would vote on them individually that's correct if there was just like west side so this doesn't approve anything for west side if you approve the ordinance they can come back and apply for an interim use permit and a psych plan approval and you compare it against these standards and so if there were another situation where something like that existed they too could come in through that same interim used permanent site plan process okay okay i'm thank you for your your time thank you [Music] as long as i can remember them uh to the to commissioner wu and varing camp i'm gonna i'm gonna take my turn now um so kendra let's just hypothetically say that the that the old liquor store which is not going to be napa let's say that was a restaurant or did well did the store did the city council approve the building as it was presented to the commission with the two retail you know sites or uh the two retail uh storefronts on the end no the they revised their application and came back with something different they still plan to add those in the future but the current request was just for a napa store okay so let's assume that that business does great there and they decide that they need more parking um and let's just assume maybe they bought that vacant lot directly across from them could they then convert that to a parking lot they could that parcel on the southwest corner of 75th and 116 is zoned light industrial okay so assuming that okay and that would be then if this is approved if this is not approved by the city council could that still happen no i mean parking isn't parking is not allowed as a principal use in the iowan district today okay so as we look at all of the industrial sections within the city as you as you pointed out and stuff um there is an opportunity for for for businesses to buy multiple lots on different sides of the street for for this kind of arrangement it would that would that be a fair statement if this is approved as such it is that is accurate there are not very many vacant lots separated um by a street that is the one there there are a couple of vacant lots at the end of 75th down at the end of the cul-de-sac um that i suppose in theory there might be a scenario where that could apply um so you need to be aware of it it seems unlikely but it's something to be aware of okay um with regard to then this ordinance being throughout the industrial light industrial zoned areas why can it not be more specific to just west side tire and just that one lot you can't just that's how you you do that with a variance and they can't meet the very you can't do a use variance so you can't uh you can't create a single zoning district for a single parcel that's called spot zoning and that's not allowed use so you have to create these weird ordinances we have a couple of coordinate sections that are the mr so and so section of the ordinance um it's not great practice but in this case in talking with the city attorney we felt like that this was the best way to solve a long-term issue for this existing business okay and the only other thing i had then is the 25 foot setback that seems to be a fairly significant change now would would this would have had basically no effect on for example the napa because they were already asking for a variance to 25 feet correct no so a couple things napa is zone commercial and so along 75th they have a 25-foot setback as does west side those are the two commercial properties along 75th but everybody else on 75th that exists today is industrial and would be today subject to a 50-foot setback if this were adopted every one of them could do an addition on the front of the building or a parking lot addition to a 25-foot setback okay and and and what kind of issues do you think or what kind of likelihood i mean it's hard to gauge but is that really is that really somewhere we want to go you know it is a challenging issue a 50-foot setback in an urban area is unusual but it was i believe intentional by corcoran's council when they adopted it because they wanted to preserve green space as one of the ways that bigger setback was something they noted as a way to preserve rural character and one could argue whether a larger setback in an industrial park really does that but that was part of the thought process and so when you look at the existing businesses in the business park that 50-foot setback's been in place for quite some time it appears in terms of building setbacks um and immediately on the south side of um 75th those buildings all exceed that however um and i know i get this backwards every time but rocks and blocks are blocks and rocks the person directly to the west their parking is at about 10 feet today uh they're building a back but their parking is not um when you look at um satellite which is the next one over they do meet both the building and the parking setback requirements and it seems to continue but when you get to the cul-de-sac again there's some parking lots that are closer so i feel like the building setback did vary over the the years but was generally in that 50-foot but parking seemed to have been allowed much closer and again the adjacent parcels are about 10 feet west sides parking that was approved for them was was closer than 50 feet so i don't think it's going to change the character in this neighborhood particularly if you look at the aerials that of the park today i mean if a business has an opportunity and they need more space and you know if it works as a means to re retain some companies that need more space they could without the need of any planning commission review or anything else they could go and add another 25 feet to their building in theory they could if you take a look this is the site that westside wants this application to apply to so you can see that we have a 50-foot setback here for the outside storage on the neighboring property so it would allow their parking to encroach closer than this outside storage is but once you get past their outside storage their buildings at about a 70 or 75 foot setback but the parking is at about 10. and then you come over to um satellite and that's again at that 50-foot setback for this outside storage and the parking in the building that all complies but around the corner on the cul-de-sac and this is about a 15-foot parking setback and uh lithgow certainly complies um the uh ballistics place does not comply with the 50 foot step back today i think that's the ballistics place and neither does this or west side and then this is napa which has a 25 25-foot setback so in theory buildings could change but i don't think the parking is going to change a lot even if you round up commerce here uh uh uh concrete science is at about a 15-foot setback for parking so yeah well of course if you expand the size of your building then your parking requirement becomes greater and that would also have to meet you know just in volume and size of parking and that might pose a problem with expanding your business that's right these are small industrial lots today and so i think they still need city approval there's a 10 rule a parking lot expansion of 10 or less can be administratively approved expansions that are larger than that do have to go to the city council um and occasionally do come to the planning commission as well depending on the nature of the change okay well then as it pertains then to the southwest quadrant the highway 55 corridor down there how many of those lots are vacant so let me let me just throw this out there you know when we've got small lots like we're talking about in the downtown area okay i could see where this is both an opportunity and a limitation right um but if we have large vacant industrial lots down in the corridor do you know if if somebody's going to put up you know 200 000 square feet of industrial space and you know they're going to put it 25 feet from the from the lot it could we could we put language in this that would that would pertain to say you know industrial light industrial developments that are under certain you know one acre you know the as far as the setback you know so that if we get a larger industrial development we would probably want that to be at the 50 feet at a minimum right is that is that possible does anybody is anybody following me on that absolutely i i i that sounds like a good idea dean any other comments on it or kendra what do you what do you think i just want to make sure i understand it you want to tie the set back to the size of a lot in the industrial district well i you know i mean that right i'm just i guess yeah i'm i'm just i'm just toying with the idea so that we don't get every industrial in these areas putting it 25 feet from the from the street mr chair yeah um kendra my thoughts on this whole thing are this is the only existing issue that we have right now in the industrial side of the business is west side owns the property to the north and then they own this parcel to the south correct correct there's there's there's no other current businesses that own property like this correct not that i am aware of currently if we design uh another industrial park someplace else obviously we could have separation from a with a public street if i'm if i'm reading this all right correct yeah i think i think the wording that you have um well commissioner landerman called it clunky i i agree but it's kind of clunky for a reason and it's because of it's a one-time deal it's a one thing that's going on that we are trying to assist one of our businesses to and i think if i'm if i'm wrong let me know we are trying to get their outside storage off of their current property and into something a little bit more organized is that correct that's fair yeah and they're they're the only outside storage they're gonna be allowed um is gonna be on the parcel across the street otherwise everything will get cleaned up next to their building is that correct well that that is the goal and that would have to be part of the iup yes but that's the goal so i think dean commissioner chair jacobs and stuff i understand his concern about the 50-foot setback and all that stuff but we're doing a setback in this case for the conditional use of a parking lot and off sites or uh in outside storage correct so i think the clunkiness and the wording covers that specifically for west side and i don't think we're we were intending on writing the whole ordinance for every parcel out there right the other existing ordinances are already gonna are gonna stay the way they are the 50-foot set back on any new development industrial all of those things correct no this the as dress now you could do that no go go ahead kendra oh um you could do that but the way i've drafted it does actually change at all to the 25 foot all industrial and my thought was it doesn't seem reasonable to say these folks can have a 25 foot setback but rocks and blocks and satellite can't they have a problem that a code enforcement problem they're trying to fix and so they get the benefit of a smaller setback didn't really i understand that now okay that right so we said across the board on local streets 25 foot step back the 100 foot setback still remains along highway 55 and 19 and um 162 101 so is rocks and blocks going to have an issue with that 10-foot setback for their parking no lot going to present a different ordinance they are a conforming use i just don't know the timing of when everybody came in but remember dean might be the only one who was here when rocks and blocks got had a code enforcement issue and had to come back in and get a permit to screen that outside storage and we required them to use a 50-foot setback yeah i remember rocks and blocks coming in it was a long time ago though yeah yeah so i mean dean i the way i just look at this it's it it'll and and it's not just for existing and it's not just for that downtown and it's not just for west side it would be for any business located in any one of these these zoning things any building could be 25 feet from the road and my and my concern is if somebody comes and develops a you know a a 50 acre site and puts up a big giant warehouse 25 feet from the road i'd rather see it 50 feet from the road but with this zoning there's nothing we could do about it yeah that's true i would not reckon i would recommend if you are not comfortable with a 25 foot setback that you would not approve a 25 foot setback i don't think you want to write it into the principal use standards to have a 25 foot setback just for this property i just don't think that's good planning practice no um and so you could say you know what there's room here you need to just shift that back west side and meet the 50-foot setback that's our industrial setback you do not have to recommend approval of that 25-foot setback reduction that's what they asked for and that's what we drafted but you absolutely could recommend it stay at 50 feet well beyond the fence they're not going to use they've got tree tree line and everything else but it's not measured out here but okay so what you're saying is they could move that another 25 feet back they could i think if you look um when they were at the council they said they wanted to keep it there for two reasons they wanted to preserve that tree line but they also wanted to try to preserve the existing location of the snowmobile trail if you see that mr chair on the south side of the fence but they absolutely have room on the site to slide it back it would impact their outside storage though it would either shrink the outside storage which frankly is pretty minimal given the amount of storage they have so really what it would mean is they would have to shift that and into this what's now the snowmobile trail which is a private it's not a city trail it's a private trail and that snowmobile trail would need to move which would require tree removal i i believe i've never ridden on the trail i'm not exactly sure how you know what it looks like back there but that's the reason i think they wanted to stop the fence there but again there's a lot of space back there and they absolutely could slide it back i've got other questions but i'll wait my turn thanks mr or mr chair for letting me talk quick melissa i think you still have no he uh i i had it um that's all i had was those those issues so by all means dean go ahead okay um so whatever the setback is once we get done talking here and such um kendra is there going to be no gate or fence on the north side of this property facing the road at one point i saw plans i saw plans for a gate in the fence and stuff has that been removed well we the again we're not reviewing the plan tonight their plan does show a fence with a gate on it and then we also require landscaping to screen that parking lot we require fencing or landscaping to screen the outside storage but we also require landscaping around the parking lot and that's not shown and we don't have details of the fence but there is a gate sort of on the east side of the parking lot to get back into that storage area okay um and then you had talked that staff wants curb and gutter on this property yes for the parking uh we do require carpet water for all parking just parking not not uh not 75th avenue right uh parking and gutter on the road well the curb and gutter no they connect to the existing road yeah they don't have to redo the road no but what i'm saying is no no curb and gutter on the road the road doesn't have any curb and gather on either side it's all um tired road and it just dumps into a ditch right i believe that's true but now you're making me question myself but i believe that's true i'm i'm certain it is i just wanted to make sure curb and gutter in the parking lot but we're not making just them do that one section of road when we don't have curb and gutter all the way down 70 feet there's none on either side they're not okay and that that's it i think uh i think the wording i agree with uh commissioner landerman um not to make it quite so mumble jumbled clunky um i think uh i think staff you and kendra um can word it better for the council to make it make more sense because it is going to be some that pertains to all industrial areas and such so that's all i have for now thanks uh chair jacobs okay commissioner wu you are you're uh you have the floor please i am i also feel that the 50 foot set back should be maintained i think that i i just have a concern out down at the highway 55 area that a large building could be 25 foot set back and it just doesn't allow for much screening and just seeing a fence 25 feet back i mean i think it says the way it's written it says three feet high as a barrier for vehicle headlights but it just seems a little ominous when you drive along and you're seeing just fencing um probably better than what you could be seeing but i just think it should be the 50 feet i think it's going to give a lot more space for for screening and um and not the primary thing that you see as you experience that you have along the streetscape um so i i don't support the 25 foot setback and then all the other questions i had have been answered in discussion thanks okay thank you meredith all right round two commissioner landerman any other follow-up questions or comments i do not thank you okay commissioner sherlock none for me thank you okay uh i myself i ain't doing i'm sorry my dog wants a little little love in here um i i don't have any other follow-up questions uh commissioner varenkamp i'm good thank you all right commissioner wu no i have no further questions okay um okay so murphy put out um let me get the ordinance okay so um before we have motions then we have suggested changes for staff to work on item b1 of the new language correct i believe it was b1 and c1 it's the same language so we'd want to fix both so b1 and c1 okay yep you're right i'm sorry okay anything else anybody okay um all right well if there are no other changes um anybody wish to make a motion to approve a recommendation for excuse me here amending the text of title 9 of city code related to i1 district standards anybody want to make that motion i'll make the motion to to approve it as amended anybody want a second okay all right um we'll do uh the roll call vote um jacobs um i'm gonna vote uh nay uh i i believe we need to keep the 50 foot um in this particular case i'm a snowmobile i'd like to preserve that trail just as much as anybody else but we're losing our trail system at a rapid rate that's never going to last forever down there and given that there is room i don't see opening up that that setback just for this one particular instance if there was no other way uh that might be a different story but i'm not willing to put all of all of our industrial i1 uh zoning parcels to a 25-foot setback so i'm going to vote nay uh commissioner lanterman hi okay commissioner shellac nate commissioner camp uh i'm uh torn i'm gonna say nay i i agree commissioner chair the chair mr chair on the 50-foot we need to stay consistent so nate please okay commissioner wu hey okay so um the recommendation then on that is to not approve rec we are suggesting not recommending that to the city council would that be correct your motion to approve failed so you should make an alternate motion um and the motion could be to modify the ordinance to keep the 50 keep the 50 foot so you'd have two changes revised b1 and c1 and keep the 50 foot set back okay so with that being said commissioners do we those that voted nay at least would that would that uh give us a yea vote if we made that change in addition to b1 and c1 language uh this is shulac um yes it would change my vote okay commissioner berenkamp you would change mine uh including the wordsmithing to make it not so complicated okay and commissioner wu yes i i it would change my vote all right so now um we'll take a motion to approve uh we would want to recommend approval with it with keeping the 50-foot setback and the wordsmithing that we've talked about yep so the so recommending approval of the ordinance amending i1 district zoning uh changing or keeping the 50 feet uh as currently in place and changing the wording in b1 and c1 so i'll take a motion to um approve that recommendation i i make that motion okay george shellac second anybody second that one two hey thank you all right um roll call vote jacobs i uh commissioner lanternman aye commissioner sholak aye uh commissioner of erin camp bye and commissioner wu all right now we need then to uh make uh we need to take a vote then on the findings of fact anybody have any changes or corrections on the findings of fact all right not hearing any now i have a motion to approve the findings of fact i'll make a motion to approve them anybody want a second it i'll second it thank you mark okay all right roll call vote jacob's eye mr landerman aye mr sholak aye mr berenkamp aye and commissioner wu hi okay the findings of factor past okay thank you everybody okay all right we will move on now to item 7c and that is a public hearing for condition use permit for dave dornclock and the property located at 6805 rolling hill road rolling hills road i apologize all right kendra your report please um i just see that landon's hand is up on on west side and i just wonder mr chair if we should move on or did you want to stop for that i'm sorry who the applicant's engineer's hand is up from west side do you want to the public hearing is closed so it's your discretion mr chair well i i mean if he if he's got a comment that's fine we we've already voted on anything so we're not going to go back and reopen anything but if he if he has something to say i i'll give i'll give him i'll give him the microphone hey hello can you hear me yes sir i i appreciate you doing that uh commissioner uh i guess i just wanted to point out one of the reasons why uh there's there's no questions asked of of why the why west side tire was seeking the 25 foot setback versus the 50 foot and as as was discussed on the call there's the snowmobile trail back there along with a pretty defined drainage drainage way on the southern end of that property or southern end of that lot and the intent is to uh not disturb that tree line or that drainage ditch uh wank went out and performed i don't believe it was a full delineation but just kind of a desktop study uh that was then sent to the city and it came back and and said i mean their their response was if you're not disturbing that area meaning the tree line and that drainage ditch then that would be that would be all the better as far as wetlands are concerned so the the the intent with the 25-foot setback is that we bring everything closer to the road 275th versus expanding to the south so i i completely understand it uh everyone the everything's been voted on i just wanted to make the planning commission aware of that was one of the reasons why that it wasn't stretched out to that 50 foot we tried to keep everything further north just to prevent disturbance to wetlands and the tree line and that drainage drainage way on that southern end of the site so that was all i had okay uh thank you mr paul and and i uh and i can't i don't want to speak for everybody but for me personally it this wasn't you know that voting to recommend to the city council to not change it wasn't wasn't because of your site specifically my concern is that we're we're changing a setback for the entire district all over the city and that was really you know if there's a way around it to give you a variance like everybody else gets and stuff like that maybe that's an option um so it wasn't you know but i was just saying you know there there's as long as there are still options uh that maybe can be can be pursued here so that we're not changing it for the whole entire city um that was my one concern but i'll leave it at that if if any of the other commissioners want to speak you know and of course the city council uh they they they may you know they they they've been a little bit more involved in this uh you know from um some certain aspects of it and so it's just a recommendation but it's really up to them they may want to keep the 25 feet so fair enough i again appreciate you letting me kind of speak somewhat out of turn there so okay hey not a problem um okay so item 7c uh public hearing for conditional use permit for mr groensbach uh kendra please proceed yes thank you mr chair this is a conditional use permit to allow 16 foot sidewalls on an accessory building where 13 and a half foot sidewalls are allowed for accessory buildings inside or rear yards like this the property's guided ag residential and zone rural residential and a new 20 241 square foot accessory building is proposed all of the existing accessory structures uh would be removed so the property has a house and attached garage in the northwest portion of the property a barn other structure here and then the new building would be in about this location between the existing barn and this the new building would be constructed off of rolling hills road and again in terms of where in the city this is down in the southwest corner of the city just east of lake dubert it is outside of the shoreland overlay district the property does about a natural resource area for a flood plain forest along the west lot line and you can sort of see the edge of that forest line on this survey which shows the tree line here we did receive two letters that were emailed out to the commission this week they came in after the packet went out and those have been entered into the record as if they were read into the record one of those questioned whether the attached garage was in fact an attached garage and staff has reviewed this with the city a building official and the city attorney and uh we have the house here with a covered roof line that connects to this garage under the building code it would not necessarily be considered an attached garage however a our zoning ordinance does not define attached but says where it's not defined use webster's and webster's means connected and so staff's interpretation is that this breezeway or covered walkway does in fact make this an attached garage the commission could disagree but because it's an attached garage he is allowed that uh square footage for the new garage in this location the survey shows 2 115 square feet of existing detached structures the silo the barn and the chicken coop or whatever this is right here and those will be removed as a condition of any approval to comply with the maximum 2313 square feet that's allowed on a parcel of this size the applicant is requesting approval to build that barn and is asking that the existing barn be allowed to remain during construction to keep materials stored inside of that facility this is the barn the new barn is metal roofs and siding it's got a tan metal with a darker brown metal waynes coating here it is a 16 foot sidewall it does have clear story windows for to bring light in it does not the plants do not have a mezzanine the applicant has provided material samples this is not the barn he's proposing to build i want to be clear that's just an example of what those two colors would look like on a barn taupe and this burnished slate this is not the this is the plan he has uh and this is just an example of how this look in real life the cop for uh increased sidewall height on a building is one you've seen a lot so i know you're familiar with this that it has three standards that the proposed use should be in compliance with the city regulations it does meet all setback and material standards there are very little architectural standards for an accessory building it's really related to the eaves and overhangs that a certificate of survey is provided and that the conditional use permit standards have been met there are seven standards for all conditional uses and staff did review those in the staff report we find that the cup standards have been met if the commission finds that they have not been met you could consider conditions modifications that would be needed to the plan to meet the conditions of the cup standards related to public health safety and comfort and impact on the neighborhood we this is a public hearing as i mentioned we received two letters one in favor one opposed from neighboring property owners uh you did get those via email earlier this week and today again we recommend you open the public hearing take any additional comments and then staff has prepared a resolution for approval with a number of conditions several of those conditions do address some of the concerns raised by one of the letter writers in particular prohibiting commercial use of that building unless a separate home occupation permit were proposed and it does allow the old barn to remain during construction provided it's removed from the site within 30 days or excuse me there's 30 days of completion of the new accessory building and in order to ensure that happens we do recommend some middle of a 5 000 escrow um until that building is removed so with that mr chair we recommend that you open the public hearing take comments and then act on the request all right thank you kendra much appreciated all right at this point uh we'll open up the public hearing uh those uh in the public uh that would like to address the the issue and this commission um natalie will give you instructions as to how to go about doing that natalie thank you mr chair if you'd like to participate in the public hearing please utilize the raise your hand function if you if you're joining us by phone this can be done by pressing star 9 through your computer you'll find a reactions menu on the bottom toolbar of your screen and on tablets and mobile mobile devices you will find a raise your hand function under the participants tab or you may find it there we get contradicting information we do ask that all comments are kept to a five minute time limit and at this time i don't see any hands raised mr chair i believe the applicant is online um mr dornsbach yes sir okay if you wish to address the commission now you're more than welcome to speak uh you don't have to um but um when we close the public hearing and we have our discussion if any of the commission members have a question would you be willing to answer at that time absolutely absolutely okay very good thank you is there anything you'd like to say before we begin or close the public hearing i don't i think i met all the other requirements um that i needed um trying to do the right thing here so i i don't have any questions or any concerns at the moment unless somebody else can okay all right natalie anybody raise your hand yet no no hands are raised okay good all right at this point i'll rick uh um i'll take a motion to close the public hearing so move there i'll second lanternman thank you all right chair jacobs i there's a vote to close the public hearing uh commissioner landerman aye commissioner sholak aye aye commissioner varenkamp aye and commissioner wu hi all right public hearing is now closed um all right commission uh discussion and recommend uh discussion and uh questions um anybody want to start us off i'll start okay commissioner landerman the floor is yours thank you mr chair uh at first blush this seemed to me to be more like a variance request masquerading as a conditional use permit application uh unless i'm mistaken i don't believe building height is a is a use i did read the ordinance that staff cited in its report and it's the ordinance that authorizes a conditional use permit for non-ag outbuilding specifically the ordinance is 1030.020 sub 4g and this ordinance reads and i'm quoting non-agriculture accessory buildings that would result in more than 3969 square feet or with greater sidewalls than allowed in subdivision 5 of this section which talks about building heights shall only be permitted on parcels located in the ur or rr district and 10 acres or more in size with a conditional use permit and subject to the following criteria and it goes on to list the the factors that staff analyzed this section at least to me uh says that yes conditional use permits are the proper application but it also limits the situations in which uh they can be used only for you are or are our districts check you know this is rr if i'm not mistaken but the code goes on to read quote shall only be permitted on parcels 10 acres or more in size uh the lot here is only 4.64 acres so for this reason i don't think that a conditional use permit should be granted i think our ordinance is clear but i would like to hear the other commissioner's feedback on this thank you mr chair could i jump in by all means kendra my sincere apologies that i did not catch the reference error commissioner lantern is 100 correct about what subdivision 4g says the section that actually applies is subdivision 5 d and 5 d is uh section 5 is building height and 5 d says and that's where we've got the 13 and a half foot sidewall height and the side and rear yard and d is any building that does not meet the standards above may be permitted to exceed the allowable building height with a conditional use permit subject to the following criteria and i apologize for that error it does allow you to if you have your code it's it is subdivision 5d any building that doesn't meet that building height standards may be permitted to exceed the allowable building height with a conditional use permit i sincerely apologize for that right so are we talking about um on page three under conditional use permit uh section 1030.020 subdivision 4g correct okay a mistake and you're saying it should be 4d 5d 5d because you're right it would not be eligible under section 4g because it's not 10 acres looks like mark is reading it over yeah could i ask a follow-up the floor is yours mark okay thank you um is this building a non-agricultural accessory building with sidewalls greater than allowed in subdivision five of this section yes then according to our ordinance this should not be approved nothing further mr chair okay thank you mark i think kendra's kind of oh no i i mean that's certainly his opinion um reading the ordinance i think we have applied subdivision 5g to numerous cups in the past believing that that you can still vary the sidewall height even outside of ag buildings but it does require cup under 5 subdivision 5d okay so because he doesn't have 10 acres he doesn't qualify as farm there's no farm activity or income so is it basically then because it's not a farm he can't exceed the 13-5 is that basically the what you're saying mark no what i'm saying is that uh according to uh the ordinance the building cannot be that height because it's on a parcel smaller than 10 acres right because he doesn't have 10 acres that's correct the 10 acres is a clear condition based on the city ordinance okay so if that were the case how many buildings you suppose were built in the city than it shouldn't have been if if that if that's if that's the if that's the the legality of it you know we we've been we've been allowing people you know i don't have i mean my primary home site is less than five acres but i've built a building all my neighbors have well i understand your question i prefer to follow the rules and follow the law and in this city our ordinance says the building cannot be that height on a parcel of land less than 10 acres so other errors made in the past i can't comment on i just have to go by what the city code says again mr chair i disagree that that's what it says um and you know we could certainly table this and have the city attorney opine on it but but i believe that my mistake is referencing the wrong section which maybe led us down this path because 4g in my opinion does not apply to this i agree with commissioner lanternman but that five d does apply and does allow approval under that section okay well i you know here's the thing um um if mark's point is right and correct then obviously we have some housework to do in cleaning up the ordinance in and of itself um but in trying to now i met with the uh owner yesterday i went and walked the site with them um i even have some work that i need to have done in my poll building and and uh here's the thing about pole buildings right now just like with everything cost of lumber is creating all kinds of havoc it's hard to get people on the schedule there's already been money that's been put down a further delay until we get the legality of this worked out it could put his project in some serious jeopardy it's just my opinion the owner can certainly talk to that so given that we have followed this practice up until now um i think it would be unfair to the applicant for us to not approve or recommend approval but i certainly will will heed to mr commissioner landerman's point that um it sounds like we it sounds like maybe we've we've got an issue that we need to get cleaned up here so i'll leave that as said i um you know i i'll take my turn here um on um on on the uh question and discussion um i i certainly didn't have uh anything uh to add to it i i know that the letter talked about you know 16 feet uh sidewalls for a ice house and uh i was told by um mr dornsbach that he does have a fifth wheel uh camper and it does and i know those that that require the the higher ceiling height or the wall height so i don't have any further comment um mr varenkamp commissioner varenkamp what about yourself i'm concerned with uh with what uh commissioner landerman has brought up uh we do have some housekeeping to do but um the way this is written and everything that's happened in the city um as far as accessory buildings those kind of things i can uh i'm i'm all for this as far as granting the approval and such but that's up to the five of us my question is uh kendra right now he's got an old barn with his silo and such is that correct that's correct so it was part of a farm initially and such i'm assuming that barn is uh significantly taller than 16 feet sidewalls just just speaking on experience with mine i've got 14 acres and i've got a turn of the century barn with a 35 foot silo and dean using my barn too it's it's a big piece and such but limited as far as things i can put in there and those kind of things but uh um to to be able to take down that barn that is on this property along with all the other accessory buildings and condensed down to a more reasonable building and look and those kind of things i would be for it as long as the legalities align as written in the staff report i'm saying all of that right so that's where i stand right now but we do need to clean this up but i know we've had numerous times where we've had things confusing and it's great to have commissioner landerman on board and his expertise at our disposal so thank you for the time okay uh commissioner wu yeah i'm reading the um zoning ordinance now in these sections and um i am a little bit you know i'm reading it in china the one i've got the it's a an updated one from a while back and so it's got some language that is has is lined out as it was updated but um the way i'm reading it it appears that what commissioner angelman is saying i'm reading 5 5d um what he's saying is correct but i think we've talked about that enough it's obviously something that's going to be looked into so i think what i would like to ask is in the report staff encourages the applicant to adjust the building location to protect the floodplain forest is that possible that the proposed building whatever its height is can be moved out of the floodplain forest is that a possibility and my question is to the applicant here okay um let me just make a comment on that um before um mr dornsbach responds one most of that forest especially in the south end is not going to be impacted at all as it pertains to the northern part or the western part most of that is on the adjoining neighbor property and so unless they decide that they want to tear down i i don't see that that that's going to happen but mr dornsbach has already cleared uh some of the trees for the building site and i looked at it yesterday i didn't notice any of course i i don't know what it looked like beforehand but um uh he didn't he certainly didn't go and clear-cut everything it's in his own best interest to keep it as well so i i think whatever was cut down was cut down minimum enough to to to successfully build the building so um mr dornsbach would you okay well i'm looking i'm looking at the um survey and it's just you know they they just depict the forest area the building encroaching into the forest area but you i have not been out on site so um if you've been out on site and you've seen that um i don't have any other questions okay all right commissioner sherlock yes sir thank you um i find myself uh first of all thankful that uh we have commissioner lantern uh in our midst and being able to point out things uh that that we don't often we don't always see um but i i also uh feel myself leaning toward commissioner varenkamp and commissioner wu as um as in the respect that we have some cleaning up to do of our uh our wording and some of our laws concerning this so um with that i have no other questions or comments okay mr chair yes if i could just have just one final comment round two you can start well we we do have a city code and ordinances for a reason and i think just making decisions based on the way we've always done them and ignoring the code is just bad form i don't recommend it and i just wanted to point that out thank you okay you know mark i i appreciate your comment but you have to realize that we haven't been ignoring the city code the zoning ordinance i think that today has been an unusual event in that we've seen two language issues and maybe they've existed in the past but i can tell you that i've been on the commission for for a while now and and definitely um dean has even been on longer and uh gee dean do you think that we make decisions against the zoning ordinance ignoring the zoning ordinance i don't think so i think that's why our meetings go so long yeah uh and you know again i i don't want to downplay this and turn a blind eye the policy you know correcting this or saying well you know yeah it's bad form but the intent of our zoning ordinances have always been to allow people with small acreage to build buildings and this meets all of the criterias that we've had in place for years and years and years now if there's some sort of legal glitch in that i say we fix it but i don't think it's fair to the homeowner or any other taxpayer in this city or homeowner that that we put their whole project on hold because of a legal glitch that we've come up with when we've always had this as the intent of our zoning is to allow this building with the with the condition use permits for the for the increased wall heights um the recommendation what whatever we individually vote i know that obviously um we have the mayor we have uh councillor nichols online so they've heard this um and you know maybe this is something that obviously we need to get our city attorney involved in i you know we're we're more willing to do it but at the end of the day this is never going to change i don't believe the policy that we allow people to build these buildings and upon a conditional use permit to have higher ceiling heights than what does current zoning says so in the spirit of that i'm going to vote to recommend approval of this um but you know it ultimately again everything comes and that's the beauty of being on the commission the planning commission everything is really up to the city council and because they are the legal uh votes that take place here they might have to they might have to look at this issue a little bit more seriously uh than what we do not to downplay it again um but um yeah i mean this never was this never came to us in in light of this before so i agree with meredith i our intentions are always good even though maybe some of our language uh gets a little mr chair yeah may i briefly respond to commissioner wu you're certain again i mean this is discussion so please commissioner wu i i meant no disrespect to my comment i was simply uh responding to the chair's question of me as to how many buildings have been illegally built in this city and all that i'm saying is just because we may have skirted this issue in the past is no justification for continuing to skirt it moving forward so i i did not mean to imply that this commission or this committee has been acting in in in any way other than honorable i was simply pointing out that just because we've made mistakes that's no justification for continuing to make mistakes the way we get better is by improving and learning from our mistakes thank you okay yeah mark i absolutely get that um in total agreement with you i certainly didn't um take it i didn't mean think that you were attacking the committee as uh the planning commission personally um i agree with both you and what what and what dean's saying um certainly if we need to clean things up language wise we should but um i think we actually had a similar application on cane road not too long ago within the last year where they had a sidewall height and i think they did it through a conditional use permit so it was pretty recent you know in the last year or so maybe it was two years that we had a similar application um i could be remembering that wrong but i think i don't think i am so yeah certainly people more qualified than i will take a look at this discussion and uh and fix up the language if it needs to be uh fixed up and i look forward to hearing the outcome from what we've what we've found out this evening but i i like dean i'm going to uh vote for approval of this application okay well honestly i wonder why we even have a height restriction um there doesn't seem to be any issues other than things that um you know to interpret injury you know injuries to neighbors and this and that when we're talking about acreage sites um it's it would be hard to find any justification not to approve somebody's request to go above the 13 and a half feet um so from a wall heights wall height standpoint um you know i mean people want if they want to put a second story on that building they would need a higher wall height and that would be all the justification they would need to apply for it and we would have no findings of fact really to to deny it and in that case this is kind of a mute issue me personally um i could i could see getting away i can see just eliminating it and and the whole need to get the condition use permit we wouldn't be having this discussion right now if that were the case mr chair yes sir um and your point is well taken and i and i understand why you would feel that way the the my point is that the code specifically says accessory buildings so if someone wanted to build a second floor on a home that's a different issue this is an accessory building violating the height restriction in the code not building a second floor on a home well that's what i meant this is a second story on in a building so when i when i saw the applicants you know plan the elevations i thought the windows were second floor i thought clearly that that's what they were building and there's no restriction because the the size of the building as measured in square feet is of the imprint only now as a real estate person i look at gross building area as the total square footage of a building in in this in this realm we only look at the footprint and we don't have any restrictions for second floor um all my neighbors here my little in my neighborhood they all have second floors i don't my building but um so if somebody wanted to have a second floor they could just say well i you know i can't build a second floor with 13 and a half foot wall height i need 16. and what legal justification or you know out of the criteria would we have assuming that everything was legal uh in our wording what justification would we have to deny anybody mr chair for the sake of brevity i'll make a motion to approve as written [Music] i i i apologize mark may my dog want to go outside oh sure yeah i said for the sake of brevity i'll make a motion to approve as submitted oh okay i'll second that woo okay um mr chair yeah mr bearing camp i i have no concerns or anything but i think us as a commission again i think the the letter of the law is what we need to do our best to follow um i don't think it can be black and white commissioner rue referenced a property on kane road as far as a a building height and i think we even had to approve a mistake that someone made because the building that was already there did not fit the 20-foot setback um i think it was at 16 feet 7 inches if i remember exactly so there's been a tremendous number of uh anomalies i'm going to call them instead of mistakes i don't want to be quite so negative but i think it's up to us to recommend the council legal number one and what makes sense number two but i think with all of the comments we've had and everything we've done i think staff has got some work to do to dot some more eyes and cross the t's and and wordsmith our ordinances and such so they don't step on each other as much so um with that i i don't have any more comments um it's great that we are going down the road for approval and such and i'll be quiet thanks all right thank you commissioner berenkamp all right so um all right so as it pertains then to um the resolution is there any specific language in the resolution that we wish to change so um uh the the word does it talk about mr chair i think you've already got a motion in a second to prove as written right now and i think if there's anything to add to it it's it's go back and reviewing the specific uh ordinances that we've noted in the conversation that needs to be looked at and corrected is that a good way of saying it kendra well let's do that separate from the motion related to this i think um i think we we should talk a little bit about that after this motion i think you should act on this request all right yeah i don't even see anything in the resolution that needs to change okay i was just double checking with everybody um okay so um we'll do a roll call vote to recommend to the council approval of the resolution for condition use permit for accessory building chair jacobs i uh commissioner lanterman no commissioner sholak nay commissioner varenkan aye and commissioner wu hi okay so the recommendation is uh approved on a three to two uh vote and uh kendra you mr chairman um again i'm not an attorney i i believe that it is allowed under 5d but i will get our attorney to provide a written opinion with the council packet and then we will share that with the planning commission specific to what exists today but with that said natalie and i have five pages of ordinance amendments that we're trying to get through as uh time and budget allow and in fact this section is on there uh for many of the reasons we've discussed tonight um so i wholeheartedly agree it can be better and we'll get the city of attorney's opinion about whether the council can act on this and approve it under 5 d okay very good all right thank you everybody um all right let's move on to uh item eight uh reports and information planning project update does anybody have any questions on the memo um i kendra i wasn't at the the meeting on the 27th i see it's in the city council update or memo but item one cook lake highlands so i see the applicant because because the city council denied their application they have they have to wait six months for a resubmittal but they have asked to take resubmittal ahead of six months would that be right it is right and i suspect council member nichols will have that in his report okay um and then uh so and i was looking at number two then napa um i wasn't uh at that one but so the city council approved that but it was not the sixteen thousand four hundred square foot building as they originally had like 12 800 is that is that about right well it changed pretty dramatically and i would encourage you to look at the council packet uh so it was a very different building than what you saw but at the end of the day the request was simply for the napa building which was 12 000 something and the council did approve that reduced setback of uh 16 feet where 25 was required okay great that's all i had any other commissioners got questions on the planning memo okay uh not seeing any uh let's move on then to uh i'm sorry i got my stuff all over the place you know we'll move on to uh the commission training session did you all have a chance to look at that memo there's three dates that are being proposed for some uh planning commission uh a training work session um kendra natalie um all dates worked for me uh july 7th would probably be if i had to rank them that'd be that'd be that'd be third rank um that one june 23rd and july 21st either one of those would work best any other commissioners and i am probably going to be traveling go ahead the week of june 23rd so i i'm not sure about wednesday june 23rd for me but the other dates look fine mr lantern do you do you travel quite a bit uh i do but any of these days work for me okay mr shellac any of the dates work for me and mr varenkamp any of the dates are fine for me so it looks like maybe then our most assuredly best day would be july 21st perfect that sounds great um and what do we think for a start time well i have to feed my dog at 5 pm no i know uh five five thirty either one works whatever works best for you folks um because you know whether you're at city hall or or not it will we will we be doing it at city hall or online yes this will be in person i'm actually very excited i did not want to do training online so good 5 30 would be great for me 5 30. okay all right so we have 5 30 july 21st for a training session okay very good uh what is are we really going to play jeopardy i was thinking about it just to make it a little more interactive unless there's some objections to that format i thought it'd be kind of a fun way to tie some things in um because i i was actually looking at some other training sessions cities have done and that looked like one of the more fun fun ways to do it okay all right um moving right along um item 8c city council report our council lies on councillor nichols the floor is yours please good evening everyone thank you for the detailed dive into the ordinances today i appreciate the level of rigor uh the council i think will be very interested and open to proposals to change this section of the code to make it a little clearer i know in particular counselor thomas has spoken repeatedly about his desire to simplify the code and make it easier for people to understand what they can and can't do and this i think both of these areas really dovetail nicely with that overall ambition so i i look forward kendra to seeing the five pages of updates that you're working on whenever they are ready in terms of hot button items that i anticipate there being significant interest within the planning commission for i think commissioner jacobs you spoke to the cook lake project and that being approved to come back to the council for review i personally wasn't actually at the may 27th meeting myself so i can't speak to the details of the conversation but i know that prior to that meeting there were a number of residents who reached out and expressed support for the council to reconsider the application i know counselor bottom uh went out and toured the site um with the applicant and several homeowners and they they did some work to try to better communicate what the scope of the building would be and therefore the impact that it would have on those neighbors um so i think many of us were willing to consider the same proposal or a substantially similar not the same proposal i believe there were modifications that are going to be uh discussed at that second review along with better documentation showing uh how much screening there will be between the existing neighborhood and the largest of the buildings that's being proposed to be constructed um i think the i really commend what the planning commission has done with that project and the the level of feedback you've given to the developer i feel like she's done a lot to try to accommodate some of that feedback uh and it appears that at least some of the residents are more on board now um in light of some of those changes with removal of the apartment building the addition of additional screening between the existing homes and the new site so it will be i think um interesting to see how that proposal shakes out when council gets a chance to review it in more detail as a group in terms of other sorry is there a question there no no no i i was just saying yeah okay i agree with you uh other items that i think might be of interest to you uh as as we mentioned the the napa plan was also voted that same meeting and it was substantially modified from what was originally proposed in the elimination of the drive-through and the the phasing of the operation of the use of those additional retail spaces we've had some additional uh planning items that have been approved um i don't think with any significant changes from like review so overall i'm very pleased with how your feedback has informed the council's decisions and helped us to shape development in a productive way if there are other specific topics that you would like me to open on i would be happy to do so okay any questions i um counselor nichols um i the dnd service site plan this is the uh this is the one up on uh 19 and and 10 correct i don't remember the address exactly but i believe so yes is that it and and these guys have come in and and purchased the site are they going to uh i i know i had the packet uh i didn't i didn't look at it unfortunately that much because i i wasn't i wasn't well um but uh um they look like they're gonna have something a little bit smaller in scale than than what the original electric company was gonna have would that be would that be fair i i can't respond let me tale again because i wasn't at the march sorry the may 27th meeting maybe kendra could speak to any modifications that were made between when i think interviewed it and council approved okay mr chair the council did approve dnd um as recommended by the planning commission okay all right all right any other questions uh for councillor nichols yeah i have a question about the vacation of cane road is this the is this a part of cane road that is actually a right-of-way south of county road 10. where is cane road being vacated so it is not currently a road it is a road right of weight that they're looking to vacate um it i don't have it pulled up i i've looked at it a couple times now and i have not written the report quite yet but they're basically they're looking to just vacate the northern portion of this right-of-way right now it's just a dead end i think on i want to say wheel lock if i'm remembering correctly i apologize and they're just looking to vacate the northern portion adjacent to their lot so it would still allow for a road connection to the east or south oh it's meredith you remember where where ryan built mount ryan a few years ago and then the city accepted that land as parkland it's off of um larkin road uh 70th avenue extends east and there's a stub street for cane road and the stuff okay that would lead right into that new city park piece for commissioners who know where that is off of old south okay yep now i know i keep thinking of the camera and where i am rather than further down so yeah that surprised me but now that you've told me where it is i okay yep that's all i had thanks okay thank you meredith anyone else i i don't have a question but i would like to make a comment please do thank you i i just want to thank uh mayor mckee and councillor nichols for joining us i mean with the number of hours that you already put in it's nice to log into a zoom meeting and seeing you attend here so i know that it's a lot of time away from your families uh but i i as a resident i appreciate it thank you we also appreciate the time that the planning commission is putting into all of these reviews also i know that this is not a trivial commitment for any of you either so thank you for your dedication as well absolutely thank you all guys great all right well uh counselor nichols thank you so much uh for your report um we'll move on to uh item a d other business anything out there mr chair i do just want to add we spoke earlier about the joint work session on july 10th and i want to clarify that that is at 5 30 pm and it will be a virtual meeting you said july 10th or is that oh my gosh june 10th next thursday i am so sorry it's apparently late for me okay all right um all right great well i because i didn't want to put that in my calendar wrong um anything else your chair yes sir when when does city hall open up natalie when do we start meeting at city hall and get off virtual stuff so i i the last meeting they started talking about moving to a hybrid format so meetings kind of being partially on the line in terms of people who have voting ability being able to be partially online but i think the idea is by the end of june we should be fully in person so i fully anticipate that we will be in person for our july 1st meeting okay and and that would include the public so the public will still be able to participate we have we are setting up the technology so they can still participate via zoom if they so choose but they could also come in person as well we will have space uh between our council chambers and the lobby so there will be we we are getting it set up to try to make it as friendly as possible for however people want to participate i i am i would i be wrong in assuming that the city hall um improvements are are finished do we have a chamber to conduct this meeting and in a moment so we have chambers we are still working on the technology aspect uh we are getting super close uh but we are the chambers are fairly much ready to go yes well technology wise you don't have to put me on camera i don't even need a microphone well actually we do we have to record by uh have a recording of the meeting so we do all right great natalie will will you be disseminating a zoom link for next uh next thursday's meeting or will that link just be on the city's web page to find uh commissioner linderman it will be online on the city's website but i will be sending an email tomorrow as long as it's ready to go by four um i know that sometimes that with all those things that get added to the council packets they don't necessarily get up by four so i'll either be sending an email tomorrow afternoon tomorrow evening or it'll be monday morning right away thank you and thank you for the work that you're doing well thank you i appreciate that now let me so next week's meeting is our is our our work session with the city council right um i remember that wasn't there going to be like a packet of information coming out for that meeting beforehand are we still anticipating and receiving something yes i believe kendrick can speak to that more which he's providing but i believe there will be some information so i will i will keeping that in mind i will do my best to just keep checking until that's posted and then i can send a link out to everybody so expect something from me tomorrow okay all right um kendra um i think you and i spoke so mayor mckee sent me uh a video a while back about that that dayton uh meeting between their city council and their planning commission remember we had that discussion about i said it was fascinating that that they talked about certain things as mayor mckee had pointed out about puds and everything like that and i thought it was interesting some of the developments that they had and and whatnot and we talked about the slide deck were you able to ever get your hands on that slide deck um no uh i do not have that um and i can follow up with the city and i um if you forward me what that was do you still have that email because i don't i'm not sure i know exactly what you're doing that sounds vaguely familiar though mr chair and i'd be happy to follow up yeah i still have the email and um i don't remember who was i talking to but i found out that that she i'm sorry i don't remember her name but she was uh i think i was told she was she wasn't she part of our city council or city planning process here tina goodroad is the city administrator in dayton and she wrote the 2030 comp plan or led the efforts to write the 2030 comp plan when she was at uh bonastro so yeah oh okay yeah well maybe you told me that yeah okay all right well i'll i'll send you uh i'll send you that that email from mayor mckee and there's a link to it and i don't know maybe i could print it too but it's a video yeah it's like three hours long so i mean they spent quite a bit of time uh uh on their joint session but um i look forward question next week is very focused mr chair uh yeah specifically reviewing the urban cluster ordinance [Music] and that's our work effort there may be time for other business at the end but it's very specific whereas i think there's may have been more like a training session but please send it to natalie and i and we'll follow up okay all right good um all right any other business all right uh see uh commissioner liaison calendar so i'm on for next week next thursday uh after our meeting on the 10th um commissioner lanternman you have been slotted for the 24th and then uh as you can see uh commissioner sherlock friend of vern camp wu and then jacobs again back in at the end of august does anybody have any changes that they that they can see that they'll need to be made now or anytime in the future no are we all good then with that that schedule so far okay good yep all right well uh if uh there's nothing else i'll take a motion to adjourn this meeting i'll make a motion to adjourn okay have a second i'll second shula all right great um all right roll call vote uh jacobs i uh commissioner landerman aye mr scholak aye varian kam i'll do an eye with uh with the compliments to commissioner lanternman on the catch on uh on that all that writing related to the the new building that the gentleman wants so good job great to have you on board thank you i appreciate that yeah and then commissioner wu hi okay uh this meeting is adjourned uh thank you again uh kendra natalie and to our uh council members uh for showing up and to everybody in at large in the public for attending this meeting and i wish you all a great uh weekend stay cool my dog doesn't even want to go outside it's a labrador and he's just like listen girl let's go inside she's like she just sat there and looked at me like no i'm not going out there so theological tractor pull on saturday night hey are you going i'm working it as a reserve officer oh yeah well i'll see you there but when i start doing donuts in the grass you're not gonna you're not gonna chase after me are you oh no if they're going to have donuts that's what a police officer loves anyhow donuts hey watch it watch it all right everybody well thanks again and and we'll see you soon all right take care thanks everyone okay