Based on the context provided and the phonetic cues in the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker identifications. Note: This is a **Planning Commission** meeting rather than a City Council meeting. While the City Council members are listed in your context, the speakers here are Planning Commissioners, Staff, and the Applicant. *** [0:04] **[Music/Foreign Language Audio]** [1:35] **[Music/Foreign Language Audio]** [1:47] **Chair:** I call to order the June 15, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [2:14] **Chair:** All right, Miss Morrow, will you please call the roll of members? [2:19] **Miss Morrow (Recording Secretary):** Zuzak? **Commissioner Zuzak:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Colusa? **Commissioner Caloosa:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Lily? **Commissioner Lily:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Here. **Miss Morrow:** Ike? **Commissioner Ike:** Here. [2:28] **Chair:** Agenda item number three: approval of the May 18, 2023, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Fellow Commissioners, any changes? No? Then they will stand. Director Maury, any announcements? [2:45] **Director Maury:** Good evening, Madam Chair. I do not have any announcements for this evening's meeting. [2:49] **Chair:** Thank you. And this is a public hearing, so anyone who is wishing to speak on the public hearing, please make sure that you list your name and address on the appropriate agenda item in the back. And with that, agenda item number five: Schuster. This is a public hearing to consider the application of Donald Schuster for a conditional use permit to allow two detached accessory buildings on a single-family lot in the RS-2 single-family residential district located at 19390 Itiri Avenue. Presenting is Donald Schuster. [3:40] **Donald Schuster (Applicant):** It’s um, kind of new at this, but I'm just asking if I could add a second little storage for miscellaneous yard tools and grandkids' bikes and stuff like that. The garage that we have there—the first or the other garage—is kind of way in the back and it's hard for the kids to get their stuff out of there and stuff like that. So, I'm just asking for a smaller utility shed. [4:15] **Chair:** Okay, thank you. Staff person? [4:17] **Staff Member:** Good evening, Madam Chair and Planning Commissioners. This evening we are considering a conditional use permit from Mr. Donald Schuster. He resides at 19390 Itiri Avenue and his property is located in the RS-2 single-family zoning district. The property is about 2.7 acres and it's part of the Appaloosa Farm subdivision. Most of these parcels, the ones that have not been subdivided, are approximately two and a half plus acres. To the east is single-family residential lots also in the RS-2 district. The property is surrounded by residential development as I mentioned. It’s 2.7 acres with a single-family home off of the front of the street. The existing shed is located in this area, about 150 feet from the house. The proposed shed is 10 by 16; it would be located at about, I think, 30 feet from the house and at least 20 feet from the north property line. You can see in the aerial photo there's woods that are surrounding this property; most of the yard is not visible from the street. The reason for the public hearing is because single-family zoned properties are allowed one detached accessory building. A second one, regardless of size, requires a conditional use permit. Also under consideration with a conditional use permit is the total accessory building square footage. The maximum allowed is 1,500; it is slightly over that if you include the 1,250 square foot garage, the 384 square foot existing shed, plus the 160 square foot accessory building. The building itself is a garden shed. It's approximately 12 feet high at the peak—that's well within the maximum 15 feet. There are certain criteria that are established in the zoning ordinance for consideration of a conditional use permit like this, and primarily it's regarding neighborhood compatibility and compatibility with surrounding properties. Sometimes accessory buildings require screening given the size, the location of the property line, the height, etc. This particular building does not fall under that category, so you'll see that the criteria addressing them are leaning toward the fact that this is compatible with this zoning and the size of the properties. Staff recommends five stipulations/conditions for the conditional use permit, and there's draft findings of fact for your consideration as well. I'll stand for any questions. [7:22] **Chair:** Thank you. This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to come forward can please do that now. [7:32] **Commissioner Zimmer:** Madam Chair, seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public hearing. [7:38] **Commissioner:** Second. [7:39] **Chair:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing please signify by saying aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** All opposed? Right, the public hearing is now closed. [7:49] **Staff Member:** Madam Chair, if I could just add one more thing. I notice on my heading here I have a nine-foot tall shed. I asked Mr. Schuster what the height was and he misunderstood that I was talking about the inside ceiling height of the shed when it was actually 12 feet, and that 12 feet is written on the plan sheet down here. So, just in case there's a clarification about why is that 12 when the header shows nine. [8:15] **Commissioner:** Thank you. Yes, Madam Chair, I went and drove to the property, had a nice visit with Mr. Schuster's son, and it seems like a really reasonable request to be able to have something close to the existing garage and property to put bikes and tools in. I think it's a good addition and will fit in with the neighborhood well, and I would recommend it. [8:44] **Chair:** I think we're ready for a motion. [8:45] **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, I move to recommend approval of the Schuster conditional use permit subject to the five stipulations listed in the June 9, 2023, planning report and approval of the findings of fact dated June 15, 2023. [9:02] **Commissioner:** Second. [9:04] **Chair:** I have a motion and a second. Miss Morrow, please take a roll call vote. [9:07] **Miss Morrow:** Zuzak? **Commissioner Zuzak:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Caloosa? **Commissioner Caloosa:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Lily? **Commissioner Lily:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Hank? **Commissioner Ike:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Swanson? **Commissioner Swanson:** Aye. [9:21] **Chair:** And Director Maury, when will this go in front of City Council? [9:25] **Director Maury:** This is actually going to go on their meeting next week on Tuesday, June 20th. [9:31] **Chair:** All right, thank you. All right, agenda item number six: City of Lakeville. This is a public hearing to consider amendments to Titles 10 and 11 of the Lakeville City Code, and we have Ms. Jensen to present. [9:49] **Ms. Jensen (Staff):** There we go. So, this is round two of our subdivision and zoning ordinance amendments. Just as a reminder, we did round one at our last meeting on May 18th and it was mostly approved by the City Council on June 5th. I will get to that "mostly" bit in a moment. So I'm just going to kind of quickly go through the different items that are included in this round of proposed amendments. The first is in our subdivision ordinance: we currently require that final plats be recorded within 100 days. Extensions to that deadline are required to be approved by City Council. It's not uncommon for developers to request an extension due to their closing on the property or working on their financing. We're just trying to make it a little bit easier for developers to get those things done without having to worry about having an extension required, so we're recommending it be increased to 180 days. Platted and unplatted property: this is where we've now moved into the zoning ordinance. Section 1116 requires that all lots have frontage and access directly onto an abutting improved and City-accepted public street, except by CUP (Conditional Use Permit). You may recall we did a CUP for this several months ago for the New Creations daycare; there was a lot that was being created that did not have frontage or access directly onto an improved public street. This change would just kind of clear that up a little bit. We're separating the frontage and access issues, addressing them a little differently. Frontage items would still require a CUP, but access requirements and exceptions for that could be done by administrative permit. Then we're adding language to ensure that access to the parcel mechanisms, such as easements, are in place. So it's cleaning it up and making it a little simpler to address. Signs within commercial and industrial districts: there is a section of our sign ordinance that permits up to two signs for each access for a commercial or industrial business from a public street. Those signs are limited to 12 square feet for face area and six feet in height. Normally, signs within the city are required to be set back 15 feet from public right-of-way and five feet from side or rear property lines. Businesses typically use these—even though our code is content-neutral, we can say that they typically are used for directional purposes to help customers or visitors to their site. In the industrial district, they use them for the trucks that are visiting the site to know, you know, "trucks go here, customers come here," etc. In an effort to address feedback from businesses that the required 15-foot setback doesn't make them very visible—when you consider that the property line is anywhere from 10 to 15 feet off the edge of the street and then another 15 feet back—they're set back kind of far. So we're proposing moving just these signs to allow them to be moved a little bit closer to be more effective and visible to visitors to their sites. Development density and affordable housing: this one didn't get touched on in my memo; these are just kind of cleanups. We did some of these in the first round and there were a couple of districts that were missed in the public hearing notice, so we added them to this one. The development density language is eliminating the first paragraph just to clarify the language about how we calculate the density within those two zoning districts. And then the changes to the affordable housing language: there were some incorrect references. We allow certain parts of the ordinance requirements to be exempted when a project is doing affordable housing, and some of those references were incorrect; they were relating to areas that wouldn't have an impact on affordable housing, and that was from amendments that were done to those districts being re-lettered and re-numbered. So it's just cleaning up typos; we're not actually impacting the affordable housing language itself. Home occupations: this is one that was referred back to the Planning Commission by City Council. You guys had previously recommended eliminating the language where there was some conflicting language about the number of students at instructional classes. We were going to eliminate the allowance for additional students by IUP (Interim Use Permit). The Council did express concern about whether it would prohibit children from the same family being brought for instructional classes, which certainly wasn't our intent. So the revised language does allow for up to three children from a household to attend instructional classes at the same time. Cosmetic tattooing: this is an issue that the Planning Commission did discuss briefly in a work session earlier this year. We've had some inquiries about allowing cosmetic tattooing or microdermabrasion in barber and beauty salons. The state does license cosmetic tattooing the same as tattoo parlors; however, tattoo parlors are not allowed in all of the same districts as barber and beauty salons. This amendment would permit cosmetic tattooing as an accessory use to barber/beauty salons in the OR, C-1, and CCBD districts, which are the districts that do not permit tattoo parlors. So it allows that through that mechanism. Vehicle rental: we've had some inquiries about allowing vehicle rentals within the C-2 district. Currently, we have language regarding vehicle sales within the C-2 district including performance standards, and this would add to that language allowing for the sale and rental of vehicles and equipment such as cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. Commercial kennel setback: this was an issue that was raised during the Timber Crest at Lakeville 10th edition/Pet Suites project. Currently, the setback requirement is 500 feet from the property line to any residential district. This amendment would change that 500-foot setback to be measured from the outdoor exercise area, not the property line. This change would apply to the C-2, C-3, and OP districts. And then commercial kennels: this is another one that was referred back by the City Council. They raised questions about eliminating it as a use in the OP (Office Park) district given that it is a growing industry, and staff had proposed this elimination feeling that kennels were not the highest and best use of the OP district. So what we came up with was language that would permit kennels as an accessory use in the OP district—accessory to a primary use, similar to what we did with daycare centers in the district. So that was our proposed kind of compromise for that language. And that is the end of our round two zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments. This is a public hearing, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to stand for those. [17:29] **Chair:** All right. Anyone wishing to speak to the public hearing? [17:33] **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, seeing no one in the audience, I move to close the public hearing. [17:38] **Commissioner:** Second. [17:40] **Chair:** I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** All those opposed? All right, public hearing is now closed. Hello, Commissioners... yes? [18:03] **Commissioner:** Can I just ask one question, Ms. Jensen, on that? I think it was the second slide. The frontage requires a CUP, but access you can do with an admin permit? **Ms. Jensen:** Yes. **Commissioner:** And platted and unplatted? Is that like as you're developing something? [18:18] **Ms. Jensen:** "Platted and unplatted property" is from the section in the ordinance. So, the way this would separate it is if there's a lot that doesn't meet the frontage requirements, there's a process to allow that lot by CUP. The access issue would then—if a lot doesn't have direct access to a public street—that could be accomplished by administrative permit, which allows staff to ensure that mechanisms such as an easement for access to the property is in place. So we still get the access to the property; it's just a less cumbersome mechanism for the developer. [18:59] **Commissioner:** Thank you. Yep. [19:02] **Commissioner:** Yep, Madam Chair. Regarding the kennels in the Office Park district... did we recently increase the availability of that use in some other districts besides— [19:14] **Ms. Jensen:** It was about 2019 when we adopted the ordinance that allowed commercial kennels. I just looked it up; I believe it was C-2, C-3, OP, I-1, and I-2. So it's been about four or five years that it's been there. [19:35] **Commissioner:** So from that standpoint, I don't have any issues or concerns with making it an accessory use to other uses in the OP district. I think that's a reasonable compromise to continue to allow that as a potential use in that district. [19:52] **Chair:** Any other comments? [19:53] **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, yes. Thankful to our business community that keeps us on our toes. We work with staff and find what we think is a good solution, and inevitably I'm in agreement that signs that are intended to be directional could be closer to the road and be more helpful. So, thankful that it was brought forward to us that we could make such an adjustment. [20:19] **Ms. Jensen:** And to be clear, because our ordinance is content-neutral, they don't *have* to be [directional], but that is what we see most businesses use them for. [20:29] **Commissioner:** Thank you for the second clarification, appreciated. [20:37] **Chair:** I think we're ready for a motion. [20:38] **Commissioner:** Madam Chair, I move to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendments to Titles 10 and 11 of the Lakeville City Code as presented. [20:49] **Commissioner:** Second. [20:51] **Chair:** I have a motion and a second. Miss Morrow, will you please take a roll call? [20:55] **Miss Morrow:** Caloosa? **Commissioner Caloosa:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Lily? **Commissioner Lily:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Marovich? **Commissioner Marovich:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Zimmer? **Commissioner Zimmer:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Ike? **Commissioner Ike:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Johnson? **Commissioner Johnson:** Aye. **Miss Morrow:** Zuzak? **Commissioner Zuzak:** Aye. [21:10] **Chair:** And Director Maury, when will that go in front of City Council? [21:13] **Director Maury:** Well, interestingly enough, at their July 17th meeting, because the July 3rd meeting has been canceled due to the Fourth of July holiday. So it'll be a few weeks before that one gets to Council. [21:24] **Chair:** All right. And with that, the meeting is adjourned. [22:06] **[Music/Foreign Language Audio]**