Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. **Note on Speakers:** * **The Chair:** The presiding official of the Planning Commission (not explicitly named in the provided City Council list). * **Leslie:** Identified by the Chair as the staff member giving the presentation (Planning/Staff). * **Commissioners:** Identified by first names used by the Chair (Tina, Mike, Sam, Bart, Ed, Steve). * **Harry:** A staff member addressed by the Chair regarding procedural findings. * **Applicants/Public:** Identified by their self-introductions. *** [0:05] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Vote meeting to order. It's our planning commission meeting Monday, November 3rd. Item one on our agenda is the approval of the minutes. The last time we gathered on October 6th motion's got a motion to approve the minutes as presented to us. Is there a second? [0:25] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Tina's got the second on the minutes. All those in favor say I. >> I. No. Done with the minutes. Public hearing this evening. It's a big long complicated agenda. We're going [clears throat] to kind of just we're going to navigate our way through it. First one on the agenda tonight is the Ivy Hill senior center facility. What's going to happen is city staff's going to give us a presentation and then when that is done, we will ask them any clarifying questions. You know, just to make sure we understand it. Then we go out and open up public hearing. [0:56] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We're the ones that do the public hearing in this process. So, if the applicant's here, I you know, usually we let the applicant go first just out of a courtesy, but everybody that wants to come up and talk, just come to that podium, tell us what you got to say. When public hearing's done, then we're going to shut that down. We don't interrupt you during public hearing. If you've got questions, we'll take notes and we'll answer them later. Uh but when public hearing is done, then we then we're done with public hearing and then we come back up here. Where it's complicated is there's going to be five separate motions. So we've got an ordinance on a resoning. We've got a resolution on the preliminary and final plat resolution on the CUP. And then there's the one resolution for the uh variance on parking and accessory structure, another resolution for variance on the landscaping. So there'll be five motions and we'll vote on all those. Somebody make a motion, somebody will second and we'll talk about it for a while. Eventually, we'll vote on it. All of this is a recommendation. We're a recommending body that goes to the city council. They're the ones that'll take final action on it and then whatever we do gets forwarded to them and then they have the final say on it. Everything on the agenda, trust me, we've been doing it for years. We follow the same basic format. It's just when there's five different motions, it can get kind of confusing. That's what it is. Also, if there is anyone here for the Jazzy first edition, just to kind of leap forward a bit, they've asked that that just get referred to the next meeting. So, we're not going to talk about that anyway. [2:27] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We're just going to take anybody's here for that one. We're going to save you time so you don't sit and listen to us. That all said, we are going to talk about the Ivy Hill Senior Center facility and we are looking at Leslie. [2:39] **Leslie (City Staff):** Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I'm pleased to be here this evening to present to you the Ivy Hill senior care facility which has applied for a zoning map amendment preliminary plat and final plat conditional use permit and applicant is with us today along with business partner McKenzie Ramsey Ivy Hill Senior Care along with their consultant did the majority of the drawings and can answer question is 6077 West here which bit north and west and north of highway property can contain four separate parcels. Um the primary one that noted seven is [cough] existing [clears throat] zoning. Um designation is a medium density R3 all of the properties and to for the purpose. So requests are as follows. zoning to change of zoning property from R3 to R. [4:07] **Leslie (City Staff):** Combine and replat all properties into one parcel R4 zoning district which is proposed to facilitate expanding existing residential care facility to more patients but this would be residents. Um planning commission should the variances. Oops. So zoning map amendment. So the existing R3 there's quite a of R3 surrounding it along with echling of other the proposed R4 um will take up predominantly almost half of of the city block. There is a little bit more of that the greater map surrounding area and I can pull up the beacon mapinary and final plats are shown there is an existing structure where the primary or I guess the operating portion of Ivy Hill is now in that corner there was a former was recently demolished also residential care facility to the east in this parcel. There was a garage that we relocate further north and west. [5:41] **Leslie (City Staff):** The parking lot itself was a standalone parcel. Now, as you are aware, there longer have building proposals that cross property line. So, this is uh for the project. This this is organization of the lot lines is proposed. Um and uh the accessory structures are allowed um on parking lot as pre-existing remain um the conditional use permit as proposed. Um, and shows the little bit of an existing it's kind of a little collaboration here where you see existing conditions and the proposal of the the new structure is this area. So it's the area the bulk of the building which is north in that central the area that shows in the parking lot as the hatch permit is required again having occupants greater than 17. [7:00] **Leslie (City Staff):** [clears throat] This is um some of the uh illustrations provided by the applicant for the predominant uh of a residential neighbor residential roof line. There's a little bit unique character on the existing building that the materials with spacing are compliment. So the variance requested are two. Um we combined one with the building setback and the proposed relocation of the garage. Um attempts to build into the existing parking lot while also not causing an obstruction with the drive. So the applicant has uh responded to some of our public comments that have occurred and have submitted a couple of revisions which I feel is a credit to their application process. [8:06] **Leslie (City Staff):** Ultimately the garage has landed in this location. the 10 foot or excuse me, yeah, 10 foot setback building setback has been the variance is requiring it at this location where it's I think um so a little bit less than required and due to its location um wishes the base of the new parking to line up with the new location of the rear wall of the garage which doesn't meet the foot parking lot setback. However, it does I like the I like the term that some the former planner here used to say about moving the needle closer to compliance and I feel that this does that. It was um less than three feet before if you can where the arrow head is of that line and so it's moved it out a little bit more to give a little bit more green space. [9:07] **Leslie (City Staff):** was one variance. Second one. Oh, and but and to support that previous variance. I need to point this out too with staff and uh especially our emergency responders. We were a little concerned that the positioning of the garage in the parking lot might create a little bit of difficulty with large vehicles maneuvering in and out and it was concern of of the of the public as well. So the applicant uh graciously provided this turning movement diagram which shows like that while it's not you know a straight shot it is doable. Um and further our fire chief did go out and with a tape measure and measure it out and he feels second variance is for uh also tell you. So the findings and motions the previous resolution um in front of you that was handed out at during the meeting that is the supporting findings for building setback and parking setback variance. We have also updated and made more language a little bit more concise for this request. Um this was a little bit diffic difficult one to sort of navigate the it was originally thought. [10:31] **Leslie (City Staff):** I will just say that the application did not had a reduced standard of landscape material but that's actually not to be the case once the calculations were bare out borne out but however landscape and the transitional areas which is that area between a higher and lower density are supposed to be evenly spaced. the many um important the many important discussions we've had with adjoining neighbors back and forth um it was very much desired that there create some a little bit more intensity of screening between the parking lot areas and the adjoining neighbors. So the applicant responded to that by concentrating a lot of the landscape plantings to the east parking lot under the word variance where you see the darker green garage. [11:24] **Leslie (City Staff):** So, what this means is there is a screen fence along the most northern property line, a six-foot screen fence, but there is not a distribution of any upper story or screening material. However, saying that this does not preclude them from adding some down the road. So the variance request is to allow modifications from the location of the the transitional areas. Very minor engagement with the neighbors. Summary zoning is met for the resoning from R3 to R4. High-density residential is compatible with the area and limitations of density will prevent incompatible residential densities. The criteria is met for preliminary and final PL approval is met for granting the condition and increased. The overall look and the impact of will be compatible variances that we felt the criteria is met for granting the both difficulty in order to facilitate the property redevelopment. [12:58] **Leslie (City Staff):** And so as mentioned we have received public changes were made to the site plans meetings to planning department which are reflected with what's in front of now the sequence staff has had a little bit of disagreement in the order as or we it's evolved as as things have gone on. So um we have uh provided a table for you within the staff. The order of approvals go as follows that the zoning map amendment to R4 first. Second would be the preliminary and final plat. Third would be the CU. Fourth would be the resolution for the variance for building and parking based on the updated documents before you today. Not in the staff five. The so the applicant is here. Should you have any and [14:15] **Chair (Planning Commission):** got it? So the sequencing you laid out is what is in the agenda. So [14:21] **Leslie (City Staff):** the plan flatten the zoning amendment in the staff report. [14:23] **Harry (City Staff):** Mr. Chair, just to jump in very quickly, the answer to your question is yes. So what is in the agenda is what— [14:31] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Yeah. Okay, then I'll just repeat it again for sequencing. So it's the resoning preliminary and final cup variance on parking and building variance on landscape. Okay. All right. So questions and I've already had one. I jumped the gun. So now I know what's equal. Do [clears throat] we have questions for them before we do anything? And then it's Tina. [14:48] **Commissioner Tina:** Just uh real briefly. I was um the landscaping the trees that are shown in the boulevard between the side street are going to stay. Right. [15:08] **Leslie (City Staff):** Correct. Those are they're not losing those. They're maintaining the—that's the city boulevard and that is to be retained. [15:23] **Commissioner Tina:** I just wanted to make sure that that they were— [15:26] **Chair (Planning Commission):** other questions. Yes, Mike. [15:27] **Commissioner Mike:** Mike, look at the parking layout. [clears throat] the area where they're trying to push the uh faces to the left of the garage pulling those up. Was that request feels that they have met the distance that they wish to maintain to—that for the fire truck to get through? Because it's pretty far back from separation from parking space and parking space could easily pull together. [16:07] **Leslie (City Staff):** I I would have to I think I don't know that I can respond specifically to that to the applicant's preference. We did we did ask the similar question to your point and the response was we have to to back take it back a step. The garage had previous to this been located almost exactly opposite the main entrance on the west side. And the if you recall in back in our work session when we talked about this many many moons ago, the applicant had also determined that they did not wish to um move the parking on the eastern side border at all and it should remain as is as it was existing for so many and should remain existing non-conforming. However, [clears throat] through negotiations um with the neighborhood and the and and ourselves quite frankly being able to move the garage north to be able to demonstrate the location for the screen trash enclosure to be able to enrich and add the green area to the east of the trash enclosure and south of the trash enclosure which didn't exist previously. We felt that that was a very reasonable compromise in the fact that that it was increased marginally if not to the degree of compliance. [17:53] **Commissioner Mike:** Yeah, I think for the most part this is an existing condition. [18:03] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Other questions from anybody public hearing and you said the applicants are here. So again we let the applicants go first and then everybody else wants to come after that. [18:14] **Dave Track (Miller Architects and Builders):** So, I'm Dave Track with Miller Architects and Builders representing as they look at expanding their facility. So, just uh want to make a few brief comments. Uh number one, as uh as their business continues to grow, they you know, great thing. There is a need for senior housing in your community. So, it made sense for them. They have their commercial kitchen on site. They have staff on site. It's far more efficient for them to expand their facility than to look to build another 16 unit somewhere else in the community. So, that is the reason they're expanding. It makes sense to expand. There is the need to expand. That's why they have the property. That's why they tore down building to make room. So, in regards to uh the variances, you know, the the parking lot has been there forever. It was parking lot for the old Parker Cole funeral home. Uh it's been in that condition for decades. Uh so, to answer your question, uh Mr. Salt, uh what Leslie said was about 100% accurate. We're willing to move it somewhat, but it also is, as you can see from our turning radius that she had up there, we are coming into that very slightly. So, we just don't see the advantage of trying to make a full compliance. We are making a better compliance. Uh we are making enough room to allow a landscape buffer from the fence between the fence and the parking lot. So, we do feel that is a good compromise. It still keeps safety as a priority on the site but allows you know some additional landscaping offer that parking lot. So yeah, other than that excited for you to hear this and uh uh thank you for considering the project. [20:30] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Got it. Thank you for the public. If I didn't say it earlier, we just need name, address, etc. Just for the— [20:41] **Perry Star (Public):** Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair, commissioners. My name is Perry Star. My wife Rebecca and I live at uh 121 Street Northwest next to the parking lot. So, ours is the house that would be closest to that relocated. Um, [clears throat] love our house. Really fascinating about the history and how many lives it has touched. Uh, some significant members or historical figures have owned the lot that the house is on, been around for 125 years. Um, through this whole process, it's been fascinating. We've, uh, gotten to know the ordinances really well. I'd like to compliment the city onale that's in those ordinances. We appreciate the city planners working with both us and Ivy Hill, you know, trying to get us closer uh to to alignment. earlier draft of this in particular, it had the uh relocated garage or structure spot where we've just cast shade on our yard. Discussions that's been moved. Um our focus here is really still on the variances. I'd say even [clears throat] though it's better, still don't like the relocated structure. very big. It's kind of like looking at the broadside of a barn. Very oversized, two stories. Um, you know, I mean, anybody wouldn't like to have that. And the, uh, I guess the best argument for, you know, even though our yard is no longer being shaded, less of an issue for us. Even though that's the case, probably the best argument is that new diagram on page eight showing the, you know, unimpeded flow of a tractor trailer going into the lot, which we put that on the screen. [23:02] **Perry Star (Public):** Yeah. And so this is a typical diagram showing a tractor trailer and how it turns, right? So the outer radius is the tractor and the the inner radius is the trailer part. And yeah, you can see that this this one the trailer is entering wide turn and [clears throat] then runs over at least the first two parking lot stalls. And the back of it hits the large tree through which is leased power line. Right. So having gotten into the parking lot, cars on fire, tree down, line, power line sparking. It still manages to hit the corner of the garage. So, this is from, you know, Ivy Hills own architect. There is no place that you can put that garage in the parking lot have it not be in the way. I'd like to move on the um [clears throat] we think about the parking lot setback landscape transition and that's how it works really your question is kind of our question why why can't you move those sts flush with the front of the that would allow for the full 10-ft setback better landscaping really um I don't understand the comments from the city transition is somehow client or increased between our particular my understanding is that when you having that significant of a difference between uses the number of plantings and trees really ought to be double. So we don't really see the tree and that you know if you think about that that difference between uses right here we're going I mean this is the biggest possible difference within the for single family use and so if there were ever a time stick to your guns right? Stand on the ordinances and what it requires. This would be it. Otherwise, what do you have? Your ordinances are just a starting point for negotiation. They don't really mean what they say. So, [clears throat] our our view is that there shouldn't be a compromise setback or the landscape given the—so I I guess I disagree even though we've really enjoyed working. I disagree with lots of those are the main comments I've got. [26:56] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Just come on up. [27:07] **Maryl Plumer (Public):** I just need Maryl Plumer. We were at 1117th Street Northwest. When I inquired of the building department here, uh, they said if you're going to build, you be you build 5 foot from the line from the property lines. He emphatically told me that twice. You build you build five feet from the property lines. Now, can anybody in plain English tell me if five foot is respected on all of the proper lines in the drawing? [27:49] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We'll answer that when we're done. I'll ask that question for you. I'll get an answer for you. [27:54] **Maryl Plumer (Public):** If the if there's five feet allowed in the property lines, we have no problem. And like I said, we've been told that if you build, you build 5 ft from the property lines. That's all. [28:11] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Thank you. I'm not in a big hurry. I never want to shut down public hearing too soon. No good ever comes out of that. Everybody's been hurt. Okay, so we're done with public hearing. Now we're going to start discussing, but I'll start with the question. She was saying she was told it was a five- foot setback, but Leslie, in your presentation, I wrote down 10 foot setback. [28:46] **Leslie (City Staff):** When you So detached accessory structures are a minimum of five feet from the property line. when it becomes a commercial standard, when it's affiliated with this type of conditional use permit, it becomes necessary for it to be 10 ft the variance. So it it is currently positioned five foot from the property line. So to alleviate the the speaker's fears, yes, it is greater than five feet from the property line for all proposed structures locations. it is somewhat less than the ordinance requires meaning which is why a variance is required. [29:33] **Chair (Planning Commission):** And I'll repeat it again that what she's saying is our ordinance says that it's supposed to be 10 ft from the property line and the variance would allow it to be 5'9 in. So more than the five feet you were asking about but less than the 10 feet that's required. So that's why it's a variance to vary away. Good. All right. Now up here to the group. We start with Bart. [30:00] **Commissioner Bart:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, if we approve this in the future or garage space property without— [30:17] **Leslie (City Staff):** it cannot. The application is being proposed to replicate what this illustration on the screen shows you minus the sun. And so should any increase in density, should they want to put a second story on of the new proposal, should they want to put additional garage space, increase in square footage or the perception of a greater intensity would require this conditionally affiliated applications to be amended minus the probably the flats unless they were adding addition [30:57] **Commissioner Sam:** Is the garage structure being moved off of the parcel that's at 1186 6th Street Northwest onto the parking lot? Is that where it's coming from? 1186th Street Northwest. The other parcel of land that Ivy Hill owns that they've torn down a building. Is that garage coming off of? I pulled up Beacon. I just want to know where it's coming from because I don't see it currently on that plat where you see the little walking path. [31:37] **Leslie (City Staff):** Closest I can replicate. Right. So that is almost precisely garage was previously located. [31:43] **Commissioner Sam:** I'm looking at the aerial of where it—the original location of the garage—and now it's getting moved into the parking lot. Just asking you if it's what I'm looking at. [32:00] **Leslie (City Staff):** I I I looked at Beacon many times and you are correct. [32:10] **Commissioner Sam:** All right. So, um then um I I really feel like um No, I think the rest of it is discussion and not question. [32:21] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We can discuss that. Discussing everything. [32:23] **Commissioner Sam:** I trust our fire chief. if he went out and he measured, I'm going to trust his word over a surveyor or a developer because he's the one that's going to be responsible for getting trucks in and out. And so I feel like if the fire chief went in and actually measured it on the ground, I'm going to trust the fire chief because ultimately if something happens, it's on his shoulders. So I just I want to do that. I think that um [sighs and gasps] I don't know about you, but senior housing is sorely needed no matter what community you were in. Um I feel like um that this is a good project to put in. I think that the developer I appreciate the neighbors um they live next to a commercial enterprise. It was a funeral home right before it was a a senior center. Um, I didn't hear anybody say there were any complaints filed against Ivy Hill by the neighbors before this project came into into being. Um, and so I just I feel like um the traffic I mean the senior center all of that I I think it's a good project. I appreciate that the developer um came to a compromise. It's always nice to have a compromise. Nobody wins 100%. But it's nice that that people are willing to step off of the line in the sand that they have drawn to meet somebody partway. And so I appreciate the developer trying to accommodate that. [34:11] **Commissioner (Unspecified):** to kind of piggy tail piggy back. Sorry, not tail. Um so I appreciate that. um did go out there um when he did his calculations or or is it like just enough on a sunny day that the fire truck can [clears throat] get in there? [34:36] **Leslie (City Staff):** I think we can look at it this way. So, let me let me also not to put words in, but I did specifically ask the applicant when I saw the train say, "Are you going to eliminate those two parking stalls? that those the deliveries and that could be monitored where those spaces are off. Did the parking did the fire chief think about accommodating for? No, that wasn't a specific question that was asked. However, the applicant for snow maintenance and snow if it's it is going to be up to them to prevent this type of conflict. [35:15] **Commissioner (Unspecified):** Oh, and I I absolutely understand that. To be fair, I did work in senior living. Love what you guys are doing. Love this project. So, but your your snow plowers can't get there in time. Get a fire truck in there and that's not I'm I'm just trying to some practical issues that do arise. I would say that the that the fire chief, he has abundance of confidence that they can get in there no matter what. And that's quote, but that's very darn close. [36:00] **Commissioner Bart:** Um, I I do love this project. I do think there is a difference though between the semi and a truck turning in here. However, we still come back to that garage. That garage stickler, it was the big stickler. I almost wish we could put it in that so that way it doesn't impede a semi, doesn't impede the neighbor. But I I really really think that that garage sitting eastern side of the park should not be located where structures that are on that for the case. It would potentially be great deal of shade. [clears throat] [37:35] **Chair (Planning Commission):** I'm going to jump in and then it's going to be Tina in the head. I just have a question and a comment. The comment that I'm just going to spit out just ever so fast and Bart took most of it. Uh and I've just been doing this long enough I've seen various fire chiefs come through with this. emergency medical, yes, they would be into the parking lot. The big heavy trucks, if it's a fire, nine times out of 10, 99 out of 100, they're going to stay in the street. Especially if it's aerial truck, they got to put the big heavy things down and they're going to be in the streets. So, I think Bart's point's right on. The drawing is showing semi, which I'm sure they get some deliveries there. Uh, so that's a semi issue. I hear those remarks. I hear the comments on a semi might not be able to navigate. I'm not sure we want a semi throwing their flashers on and just taking up the driving lane on Second Avenue or Seventh Street. That would be kind of hectic. Uh so that's a whole separate kettle of fish. But as far as the fire truck part of it, I can kind of let that go because they're not putting a ladder truck in there. It's the smaller rescue type vehicles. Yeah, they're always going to be in the street. My question, and it was raised just on the on the density issue, uh it's a hypothetical. If this weren't happening at all and I decided to go into this business and went in and bought the now empty lot that was the former old funeral home, could I put in a 16 resident unit? So, you see where I'm going with it? If Ivy Hill is 16 and my new fancy place is 16, it still gets it to 32. It's just two separate systems. [38:50] **Leslie (City Staff):** So, there is a facing standard. So that also was so that was the circumstance actually previously existed. So there were the conditional use for the Ivy Hill in the corner is allowed up to that property adjoining also reflects in your packet by conditional use permit and there is a the variance between the two properties being less than 300 linear feet between. So up was a of approximately 26 residents in location between this proposal with its content 32 which is a net gain of six. [39:55] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Didn't know where I was headed but you got me there. Thank you Tina and then Ed. [40:07] **Commissioner Tina:** Oh, I just think that um I think that it becomes a sight issue. I know about the setbacks if we moved the you lose too many parking spaces. I think it becomes a barrier to turning the oncoming traffic. [40:37] **Commissioner Ed:** Mr. Chair, a question on the semi keeps coming up. Can there be a restriction on the length of the semi from 48 from 52 to 48 or some specific designation to give it just a little more swing on there? [40:53] **Leslie (City Staff):** I mean, I they the owners know what what type of product they're having delivered. So with the public hearing being closed, you would have to for that direct of a question to the operators, you would have to the public hearing to be reopened to ask them directly honestly enforce [41:17] **Chair (Planning Commission):** that was going to be my question other discuss I before we get to the discussion it's just kind of the the gatekeeper in part of it. So the sequencing's important. The discussion can go on as long as we want, but when we get to the sequencing, I'm not hearing any discussion at all on the resoning. I'm not hearing any discussion on the preliminary final plat. I'm not hearing a lot of discussion on the CUP. It all seems so when the time comes, we've just got to do them in those order in that order. [41:43] **Commissioner Sam:** I'd like to make a motion to approve ordinance 2025XX to approve reszoning between 2nd Avenue Northwest 14th Street Northwest or 7th Street Northwest. [42:00] **Commissioner Steve:** We'll second it. [42:01] **Chair (Planning Commission):** I've got a motion and I've got a second on the first part of it that the reasonzoning from R3 to R4. Any discussion on that part of it? So, just for future reference, that's what we do. Once I got a motion in a second, now we're only just talking about resoning. Nobody's got anything on reszoning, then we'll vote. All those in favor say I. I >> oppose. No. Done with the reszoning. Continued discussion. [42:25] **Commissioner Sam:** Mr. Chair. Resolution to approve 2025 approve the preliminary and final plat for Piper Ramsey edition. [42:37] **Commissioner Steve:** I'll second it. [42:38] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Steve's got the second. Sam's got the motion on the preliminary and final plat. Discussion on that specific motion. Not will vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos? No. That carries. Continued discussion. [43:00] **Commissioner Tina:** Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to um forward the resolution 25, excuse me, 2025 to the city council for approval which approves the cup allowing the 17 or more patients in a residential care facility based on the criteria and findings in the ordinance. [43:13] **Commissioner Steve:** Second. [43:16] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Thanks. Got the second. I My hearing is better on my I got a motion. I've got a second. Uh now we're clear on the CUP part of it. Discussion on that vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. No. Now the discussion on the more complicated stuff. Thoughts in the group. [43:35] **Commissioner Sam:** I'll make a motion so we can discuss it. I'll make a motion to uh forward for approval to city council the requested variance for the building and parking setbacks based on the criteria and findings in the resolution. [43:50] **Commissioner Steve:** I'll second it. [44:03] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Steve's got the second. Okay. So, we got the motion in front of us now. Motion and second on the variance for the parking and accessory structures. Thoughts, discussion on that, Steve? [44:10] **Commissioner Steve:** Reason I second it is the location of the the garage to be honest with you is probably the best location for it just given the uh criteria for vision to see where cars are coming when that busy intersection and uh just makes sense. It's it was a parking lot before and I don't know where else you'd put it. So that's basically it. [44:27] **Commissioner Sam:** Mr. Chairman. And part of the reason why I did did the motion is I appreciated them adding the green space in the enclosure around the trash cans. And I can understand maintaining a a a consistent line. When you're doing land, you have to go in and maintain that landscape. It's much easier to do a solid line than to have it with corners and curves and stuff. So, but I appreciated the extra green space that was added in the enclosure around the trash. [44:57] **Commissioner Bart:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am I am just not convinced that we should make variance for the parking for the garage causing way too many problems and we are here to protect neighbors. I I still can't and I I still don't think this is something we should other discussion [45:41] **Commissioner Sam:** So, Mr. Chairman, do you feel like uh potentially that we should separate it into two motions instead of one that we separate the garage versus the parking lot? [46:00] **Chair (Planning Commission):** I had that discussion with Harry and Harry's ready to jump at the that they were because that was actually my question when we did agenda review. The two issues are tied together. The parking variance is tied to the garage and the garage is start. So, Harry fill in the blanks. But there was a reason you wanted that resolution kept [clears throat] together. [46:13] **Harry (City Staff):** Yes, Mr. Chair. So, typically when we are bringing through projects where it's a similar location and it's sort of a similar issue, in this case, we're recommending in in favor of of both variances. We've combined the two, I think, more out of a out of a idea of a of efficiency when we're talking about motion and and moving the project forward. um if we are going to separate them out so that the commissioners can vote on specifically the parking setback and specifically on the building setback that I think at that point we should come back to next planning commission meeting in November with an updated set of resolutions. I don't I if we're if we're going to say uh approve one but deny the other, we currently don't have findings for the criteria to support that. Generally, how we've done it is that we have findings that support criteria that support the motions that we make coming out of planning commission. Uh city council likes to understand that and see. [47:26] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Got it. Thank you. Then for now at least unless the group feels strongly otherwise. We've got a motion in a second in front of us. Bart's got his hand up. Thank you. I kind of just want to remind us of the time when we talked about the graveyard that was looking and then we were talking about the 10- foot setback versus 5 foot setback because of how we did vote and this is I feel in that same again I'm just making my my [48:05] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Thank you, Sam. I hear you. I'll take the floor for a second just to express my feelings because I think we're getting close here. Just so we know. And yeah, these are the classic conundrums on if this was out on the outskirts of town and you were surrounded by cornfields, absolutely, we'd enforce all these setbacks. But when you get closer to the core downtown when you're trying to redevelop an established area, it gets to be I don't want to call it a gray area, but it it gets to be more of a case by case. Want to see the And I'm honestly where Sam's at. I don't know how I'm going to vote on this one. It's just I wanted to articulate where I come down in variances. It's not as simple as the current neighbor doesn't like the garage. I'm thinking of the neighbor two owners from now, three owners. Try to extrapolate out. I'm trying to think about a business who's doing well and wants to expand. There are no bad guys here tonight. I've shared a lot of public hearings. I recognize bad guys. There's no bad guys in this hearing tonight. I understand why the applicant, we are trying to shoehorn this existing building. We don't want to tear it down and build a new one that's three feet smaller. Uh I get that. I understand what the neighbors are saying. I tend [snorts] to take a more strict view on variances than most. I've got to see a pretty good reason. It's real easy when it's this weird zigzag shaped property or there's a spring running through the middle of it. There are some times variances are very clear and easy. This one's not there, but I'm compelled by this is an existing older neighborhood that uh has a reasonable redevelopment request in front. I am open to being [50:11] **Commissioner Tina:** I think when you looking down the road two or three owners um again you have an established business that's been there functioning and you you look at what the need housing studies will be the first thing to tell you there's an extreme need for senior housing and in redevelopment The art of that is is how do you make the best use of existing space and it doesn't always match ordinance. You know what the preset setbacks are. And so that's why they've created the mechanism of a variance is is to allow them to fit the project, redevelop a piece of property to fit a project in in what is a an area that needs the redevelopment, supporting a business. I like the landscaping fence that comes up behind, you know, and there. and they moved the garage to be where the other garage is across the park so they're not shading the backyard and the compromises that the developer has made to to meet the the comments of the neighbors. I I think they've gone a lot farther than some developers that I've seen and I think it's just part of of us looking down the road in in how do we you know we we he made a compromise and he shifted and so that's what the variance is for [51:38] **Commissioner Bart:** just as a reminder the odds being there or the garage—So again, I'm still in favor of the project. I'm Raj because again Raj is is a moot point [52:09] **Commissioner Tina:** other discussion. Oh, I was going to say I don't think I remember anybody explicitly detailing what was going to go in the garage, so I'm not sure. And I mean, there's obviously a need for storage. So, I I don't know if we ever really discuss contents. [52:26] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Yeah, I was going to say honestly, we really can't anyway. We can't go down that path of [52:32] **Commissioner Tina:** There must be a need if they want to preserve it. That's all I'm going to say. [52:36] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Our job is to look at the setbacks and the sizes and right this and that. Steve, [52:51] **Commissioner Steve:** I agree that um this this is redevelopment and we've improved the setback that was there and to me the garage is actually going to be a barrier for their backyard, the people that are living next door to it because nobody's going out the back end of that garage. The business is in the front end of the garage. So to me, they're actually more privatizing the backyard of the people that are living next to this this operation. I'm going to be shielded from people driving into the parking lot off a second. So, I see this is it's time to move on and call the question. [53:13] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We're all done talking. We will vote. We've got a motion. We've got a second on the variance for parking and accessory structure setback. All those in favor of that motion say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed, no. >> No. No. [53:42] **Heather Slechta (City Clerk):** hold on. I think it passed 4-3. Uh, Ed, [53:44] **Commissioner Ed:** I said yes. [53:45] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay, then it passed 4-3. We're all comfortable with that. That I heard that right. Okay, so the motion carries. We're done with that. [53:51] **Heather Slechta (City Clerk):** Who all voted no? [53:53] **Chair (Planning Commission):** I was a no. Bart was a no. Sam was a no. It passed 4-3. Now on to the—Well, we can continue to discuss, but the last one in front of us is landscaping. [54:02] **Commissioner Sam:** Can I just have a note that if that with my vote I would have voted yes if these were split up like can that be passed on to— [54:06] **Chair (Planning Commission):** you had said that earlier. Yeah. Heard it. [54:12] **Commissioner Bart:** I still think that the the whole point of the garage is we could have had them be that way it would affect the back. So again, I'm I'm just I feel like that kept getting missed. [54:38] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Respectfully, we voted and votes down the canal. [54:39] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. I'm moving for approval of the variance for the reduction of the landscape standard. [54:53] **Commissioner Sam:** Second's got the second on the landscaping thing. Anything on the landscaping we want to talk about? [54:58] **Chair (Planning Commission):** All right, we'll vote on that. All those in favor say I. No. No. Thank you. So, that carries. I want to make sure I got it right. It was a 6-1. BART was the no. We're right on that. Okay. Thank you. So, now we're done with that, [55:11] **Harry (City Staff):** Mr. Chair. Uh, just because city council will ask uh reasoning behind a no. C. Could we get reasoning for the no on the landscape reduction? [55:19] **Chair (Planning Commission):** We voted yes on the landscape. Yeah, we voted 6-1, right? But but for the one no I guess commissioner—don't have to articulate you can vote any it was just to go again with setbacks it—okay so where I was going with it is so now we're done our job is done we voted on everything one way or another it goes to the city council next Tuesday night So 8 days from now, do they still do they did they take bubbling input at all on it? Okay. So there'll be a presentation. They'll discuss things and then they'll have a series of motions like this. So thank you for coming down folks. Thanks for participating. [56:11] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Now there's going to be a brief presentation just because we got to cover the Jazzy first. Uh Leslie is going to tell us that they have asked us to defer this for two weeks. [56:21] **Leslie (City Staff):** Yes, Mr. Chairman. The we received communication from the applicant for the Jazzy first edition matter that's on your packet tonight. Um, we still have a few minor details to work out between us. Um, in regards to some of the just some matters on the plat that require a little bit of clarification between the applicant and ourselves. So they have offered they have requested that the matter be tabled until the next planning commission meeting at November 17th 2025. So we request you respect the request and table it to that date certain [57:01] **Chair (Planning Commission):** table date specific. Got it. Right. And we that with that date certain we will not be—Got it. So if anybody is in the audience they can. Thank you. [57:15] **Commissioner Tina:** So Mr. Chairman, I did find also a discrepancy between the report and the plat. I don't know if I just want to know if that's part of the clarification. Did I mention that or just happened in my notes? [57:24] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Just Yeah, follow up with Leslie after the VA on that one. Just make sure if the request is to refer I don't want to get into discussion. That sounds like you can straighten that out later. So that the request is for a motion to refer action date specific to our next planning question. [57:42] **Commissioner Tina:** I move we defer action to our next meeting November 17th for item 3B. [57:49] **Commissioner Bart:** Second. [57:51] **Chair (Planning Commission):** I've got a motion. I've got a second. Defer. Date specific. Bart head. The second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Post. No. That carries. That's it for the public hearings. Now we start the speed race. Request to be heard. Nothing. Item for routine business. None. Mr. Chair, any of us on boards and commissions that we want to brag about? Done with that. [58:24] **Commissioner Steve:** Mr. Chair, I I was trying to think of the last time uh what went through city council. I guess the last thing would have been the variance for uh the Eastman building. So, that did go through council. [58:30] **Chair (Planning Commission):** Oh, yeah. Provide an update. Got it. A motion to adjourn. This portion of our meeting would be in order. [58:38] **Commissioner Ed:** I move we adjourn. [58:40] **Commissioner Bart:** Second.