Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. Note: While the provided list contains City Council members, the meeting is a **Planning Commission** meeting. The speakers identified as "Mike," "Ed," "Tina," "Sam," "Steve," and "Bart" are members of the Planning Commission, while "Harry Davis" and "Leslie M." are city staff. *** [0:13] **Chair Wilson:** Let's see. For some reason, it's not—it's showing content. We're—we're on. You ready, Carrie? Yep. I'm ready. I'm showing 5:59 in some seconds. Looks like everybody's ready in the room. Let's do this. Call the meeting to order. Planning Commission meeting Monday, May 5. Item one on our agenda is approving our minutes—uh, the last time that we gathered on April 21st. Mike's got the motion on the minutes. Second. [0:46] **Chair Wilson:** Ed's got the motion on the second. Approved. Uh, motion and second on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say I. I. No. That carries. Public hearings this evening. We've got two of them, 3A and then 3B. B is in three different parts. Everything on the agenda tonight is going to follow the same uh process. So, I'll just kind of give you the big picture overview on how this is going to go. Now, we'll have a presentation from city staff. Uh, we are an advisory commission to the city council. So, we're the ones that do the public hearings and there's a very kind of strict formal way that we have to do public hearings to kind of check all the boxes. So there'll be a presentation. [1:25] **Chair Wilson:** Then it comes to us for any questions we'll have for Harry and Leslie just to make sure we've got our ducks in row. We make sure we understand. Once we're done with that, we go out to public hearing. Name, address, company you represent, whatever. Uh, we tend to give the applicant the first chance just out of—out of courtesy. Everyone can come up once, address us. I'm not sitting here with a stopwatch, but try not to filibuster. And you know, if it gets to be 10 minutes, I might—I might do something. But we're not, you know, one at a time. Tell us what you got to tell us. When everyone's been through, then we'll shut down public hearing. Then we back up here, and then we'll discuss it, debate, do whatever. At some point, someone will make a motion to do something. And then we'll talk about [2:12] that motion a little bit more, and then we'll vote on that motion. Once we vote on it, it goes to the city council for final action. So again, we're the advisory board. It's just—it's a very strict way we have to do public hearings. Everything on the agenda is straightforward. Same way. First one up, Mighty Fine Coffee, Comp Plan amendment, zoning amendment, preliminary plat, final plat, CUP. We look to Harry Davis. [2:40] **Harry Davis:** I defer to Leslie M. who's the planner on this. [2:40] **Leslie M.:** Greetings, commissioners. Thank you for your attention. Um, first I'd like to know who would be here for this hearing this evening before we have the applicants before us. So this is a fairly, as you can tell, multi-layered application. We did notice it; but however, due to a staff error, it was incorrectly noticed. So the district would also be in a review process which we omitted in that hearing notice. So due to that and the complexity, we are requesting to defer action to our next planning commission meeting on May 19th. [3:28] **Chair Wilson:** That's the entire staff presentation. Again, we're still going to do—uh, public hearing on it. Everyone's clear up here on what Leslie just explained to us? Public input on this one? We're just coming back two weeks from tonight to have the meeting. No public hearing. No public input. We'll close public hearing. We're back up here to the planning commission. [3:48] **Commissioner:** Uh, just wanted to—uh, let everybody know I do have a conflict of interest. Thank you. So I will not be able—Okay. Thank you. [4:10] **Chair Wilson:** So the remaining six, anyone want to make a motion? Tina's got the motion to defer action to our next, and then Sam's got the second—defer to our next meeting. We're clear on that. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. Done with that. That's 3A. See you guys in two weeks. [4:29] **City Staff:** Commissioner Wilson, would you mind putting your microphone towards yourself? Thank you. [4:29] **Chair Wilson:** So, they're directional, right? They're not omni. It's got to be directional right in front of you. Okay. 3B. Uh, there's actually three action items to this one. Uh, conditional use permit and it's got variances. Uh, so we are going to go and get the big picture overview with Harry. [4:48] **Harry Davis:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the items in front of you are kind of a collection of—uh, one conditional use permit and three variances. Uh, they're all submitted by David Blae. Um, it's for property located 1216 First Street Northeast. Uh, the overall request is for a 4,000 square foot accessory structure on the property. Uh, just to provide some, you know, location mapping, you know, uh, here's kind of a—like a Google Map version of where the property is. Uh, the property is the red star. You know, it's just east of downtown along Highway 60. And here's the property itself. So, it's outlined in kind of the cyan blue color where the applicant is requesting [5:35] this—uh, 4,000 square foot—uh, accessory structure is. Um, if you look at the bottom left of your screen, it's sort of a—sort of a site plan. The big gray box, that's the 4,000 square foot accessory structure. It's a single level building. Um, the applicant has—has—uh, requested it for personal use. Um, it is sitting in front of the—uh, dwelling just by—I think it's like—uh, maybe 40-ish feet, something like that. [6:07] Um, and it's only about 100 feet from the right-of-way where the dwelling itself is about 65 ft farther back from that. So, um, there are kind of a multitude of different things that are involved with this. One is, so this is 4,000 square feet. Our code at a minimum—uh, or I'm sorry, at a maximum, says 864 square feet for a detached accessory structure. Um, there are few mechanisms to get larger than 864. In this case, a conditional use is kind of bringing it up to 1,080 square feet, a 25% increase over what's allowed within the code. And then from there on, the—the—variance is kind of taking into effect. The other variance here is the accessory structure being closer to the street than the [6:53] house or within the front yard. And then the last one is the size of the accessory structures and uses for the property including the detached—or I'm sorry, the attached—garage versus the living space of the actual house. So kind of principal versus accessory uses. And here's just a really quick table just to kind of summarize it all and put it all together. Um, the applicant is stated that the garage is for personal use. Um, and that it's a large lot; uh, the applicant should be able to have a larger accessory structure. Um, you know, looking at it from kind of different points of view here, you know, sort of starting from the conditional use permit side of it. The conditional use permit staff does feel—um, that it—it meets a [7:39] lot of the conditions and—uh, criteria for being granted a conditional use permit. Um, and that would be up to 1,080 square feet. Um, there are with the first variance—uh, that we'll cover which is the location in front of the dwelling closer to the road than the house—um, that staff does see a very practical difficulty or—or—very—uh, apparent practical difficulty with the property. There's a lot of topography on it and really the flattest part of the property is—that, you know, it's—it's in between—uh, the home and the street and so we do see that, you know, there's practical difficulty. There's something unique about the property which is the topography. We do feel like granting that [8:25] variance is—is worth it. Um, the two variances—uh, that are remaining: one for the—uh, I think it was like a 270% increase over what is allowed—allowed in the conditional use permit for 1,080 square feet for the accessory structure, and then also the amount of principal versus accessory use for the property. Um, in those situations—uh, staff is finding it hard to find a practical difficulty. Um, there's really not a whole lot that's unique about the applicant's situation of just using it for personal use. Uh, there's nothing particularly unique about having a large property. There are other large properties that are nearby and they are not asking or don't have a similar situation on them. Um, you know, there are some situations where maybe on the periphery of the city it might be—uh, you know, property might be zoned Agriculture and we do have some allowances for agricultural properties to have some relatively large accessory structures especially compared to principal structures on the property like the house. Um, but this property doesn't [9:36] enjoy that benefit. It's not zoned Agricultural. The applicant's not doing agricultural uses on it. Um, you know, it's really hard to find what the practical difficulty is and why the applicant needs a 4,000 square foot accessory structure. So in summary, staff does support the conditional use permit and the—in the—first variance for—uh, the location of the accessory structure, but not the—uh, requests for the size of the accessory structure as well as the relation between principal and accessory uses. So we do have three items that are in front of you all. So there are three motions that we're looking for tonight. Um, my recommendation is that—uh, those that you—you as a planning commission can quickly find a—yeah, some sort of—uh, come to some sort of conclusion together on that you make those motions first and then perhaps kind of come back and discuss a little bit more the ones that are a little bit stickier for the planning commission and that way we can kind of just be moving things along. Um, but if the planning commission is inclined to recommend in favor of all of the requests in front of the planning commission today—uh, what I would recommend is that we just table all of them and then see if we can come back as staff with a little bit of direction from you all. Uh, come back with some different resolutions that [10:59] sort of reflect what your recommendation is. With that, I'm happy to take questions. [11:21] **Chair Wilson:** Before I ask any questions, I just want to make sure I misunderstood what you just said. You wanted us to take each motion kind of one at a time, discuss, move forward; or discuss all as an umbrella and then do all three motions towards the end? [11:21] **Harry Davis:** Sure. Yeah, Mr. Chair, very good question. So, I think, you know, in a situation like this where maybe staff's—uh, recommendation is—is split between the items, I'm assuming that there are some that there's a good amount of discussion to be had amongst the planning commission. And so if we are finding ourselves in a situation where not everyone is agreeing to the same idea, that maybe it might be worth it in order to kind of help things move along just to make decisions on things to—to find. [11:48] **Chair Wilson:** That was—that was kind of what I was thinking. Okay. And I can live within that. And also just from a public hearing standpoint, there'll be one public hearing that will cover everything in front of us. And I'll be sure to get out there before anybody starts making motions or anything. Questions? [12:04] **Commissioner Tina:** Tina. I—I guess I was assuming the conditional use permit was for to put on the structure, but he needed a variance to put it in the location that he's chosen. And then there's the variance approve or deny regarding the size. Am I misunderstanding? That's not what's written here. I'm trying to read because I thought it was a conditional use to allow the structure, variance to have it closer to the road than setbacks allow, or is that in one document? [12:04] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, I can—I can kind of walk through it. So, the first resolution is the conditional use permit. And so what that grants to the applicant is the initial [12:51] size bump from 864 square feet, which is the maximum allowed within our code, 25% to 1,080 square feet. So that's—that's kind of the first hurdle for the applicant to go through before we even get to a variance. So that's why that's first on the agenda and why I'm recommending that we make a decision on that first, kind of order-wise. Uh, the next resolution is the variance that staff is recommending planning commission recommend forward and city council approve, and that would be the variance to allow the accessory structures placement closer to the street than the principal structure. So accessory structures can't be in a front yard—that is considered the front yard all the way between the street and the principal structure. The very last resolution is staff's recommendation actually to deny the two variances that are left. So the two variances that are left is for the full 4,000 square foot accessory structure. So that's like the 270% increase from 1,080 to 4,000 and then other request—uh, amount of principal structure versus accessory structure. I can kind of go a little bit more into that. So, the principal structure from what we've been able to figure out from Rice County data—uh, in terms of living area is about 2,700 square feet. Um, the amount of accessory structure at the very end is very close to 5,000 square feet. So, um, the increase is 77% over what the principal structure is. So, you know, kind of 177% of what—what the—what the house is. [14:34] **Commissioner Tina:** Got it. [14:34] **Commissioner Steve:** Steve. How are you figuring where the front yard is? [14:34] **Harry Davis:** Yeah. Uh, Mr. Chair, that's a very good question. So, front yard is actually dictated in our code through the definitions. So, the definitions basically say everything from the front lot line that is along the street all the way to where the plane of the principal structure is, all of that would be considered front. Now, that's very different from say a front setback. So, you know, some of our zoning districts say, well, you know, you have to place your principal structure 25 ft back, but if you place your home maybe, you know, 50 feet back, you know, you're—you're—you're meeting the setback. You're kind of doubling the distance away from the front property line, but your front yard is everything between the street and the front of your house. [15:27] **Commissioner Steve:** Keep going. The reason I'm—I'm having this question is because I see a driveway goes into another house beyond this house. So when I look at—if I—I live on a corner lot and I could have had my front yard on either side in my cul-de-sac or in my street in front of my house, but I see this house, I would say their front yard would be off the—the street that's servicing both homes rather than Highway 60 because there's limited access to Highway 60. And I don't see how you'd come up with that being the front yard. That's just my opinion. But got it. Thank you, Steve. [16:13] **Chair Wilson:** Sam's got the floor next. [16:13] **Commissioner Sam:** Okay. So, this is a house property, 7 acres. How is it zoned? You might have said that before, but it's [16:13] R1? And I apologize. I don't think that I mentioned that in the initial. [16:13] **Commissioner Sam:** So R1, 7 acres residential? Then—I mean, I live in an R1. Yeah, R1's the— [16:13] **Commissioner Steve:** Dave, go ahead. The reason I—I don't have a problem with it being seven acres. I—I look at—I don't have this—this type of structure in Woodbury, which is there's lots where they're five acres, they're 10 acres, and I've been to a—a home with—that's probably a half million dollars, but a structure similar to this in Woodbury, [17:00] and it's classified R1. It is and they have city services. Now, just let me finish. Thank you. So, I look at from that standpoint. Um, and I'm trying to figure out when you're telling me 12th Street is the address. I can't understand how we're looking at Highway 60 as the address front yard. [17:23] **Chair Wilson:** Sam was asking a question. I thought you were answering her question. So, let's have Sam finish and then we'll go back. I just want to make sure I'm running the show here. [17:23] **Commissioner Sam:** I don't have a problem with the seven acre property being in R1. residential than seven acres unusual to have seven acres in one at a time. Correct. Yeah. I don't have a problem with it. It's a clarifying question. Okay. So, are you good, Sam? Okay. Now, we're back to Steve. [18:15] **Commissioner Steve:** Okay. Other questions with the group? [18:15] **Commissioner Mike:** Mike. Now, we'll go off. Yep. Mike, go ahead. Just wondering if any of the neighbors had said anything objecting to this being one of it? [18:15] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, the—uh, the only conversation I've had with any neighbors have been just asking about what's going on. Uh, they received the notice and they went... [18:15] **Chair Wilson:** My experience tells me we're about to hear this during public. Are there any other questions? Now, we'll go out for public hearing one at a time. You come on up. And like I said, we're going to address everything globally, but there'll be a series of motions afterwards, but this is public hearing. Sorry, you had your hand up first. That podium right there. [18:51] **Al Betsinger:** Question about this accessory structure. Al Betsinger. We own the property adjacent. Question is: how tall is this pole shed going to be or building going to be? [19:13] **Chair Wilson:** Yeah, Mr. SC—um, Mr. Chair, I can answer that now or we can wait to the end after we tell you what—save it because there'll probably be other questions. We'll be able to answer it, but I'll just get through a public hearing and we'll answer it then. I mean, anything else? [19:13] **Al Betsinger:** Is it going to be from what I saw on—on that picture there? Is it going to be close to Highway 60? Is that where it's going to go or is it going to go closer to his house? [19:13] **Chair Wilson:** It's going to be in front of his house. That's what the presentation said. So, it'll be closer to 60. 100 ft from the right-of-way and the houses is 165 ft from the right-of-way. Right. [19:13] **Al Betsinger:** That's all I have. Thank you. [19:55] **Public Speaker (Hubers Representative):** Hubers. My parents Earl and Charlene Hubers actually own the piece of property kind of postage stamp they have. Um, our largest concern about the development is we want to make sure it's built that it remains in the location stated. Um, one of the things that we've had is the problem with owning them. So we would like to eventually put my parents' home there. Um, they're hoping for is that there'll be no impact their lot beyond that too. Um, if the property is ever going to be used... Got it. Thank you. [21:02] **Deb Mitz:** Next. My name is Mitz. I am the president of Christ Lutheran Church, which is right on the other side of that driveway. We were presented this on Thursday. We discussed it at my council because we couldn't find out if there was going to be like a driveway coming off the driveway from our house. Was it going to be—We didn't get anything like this. We got that very first picture. We didn't know if there was going to be another driveway coming off 60, which was a concern. Um, we didn't know for sure where it was going to be. All of our concerns have been addressed. Um, I met with the congregation yesterday and we fully support this building. Thank you. [21:43] **David Blae (Applicant):** Thank you, Deb. Next up, I'm the property owner. Address—So, can I just kind of explain in your name? David Blae. Okay. Yep. So, Highway 60—I—we—we can't see what you're pointing at. So, yeah, just stay there and—and walk around. So, Highway 60 is going to be running parallel to the building. And the idea is the driveway would wrap where the driveway currently is. It would go right to that ground. Nothing would be changing as far as, you know, affecting anybody else. Yeah, I just—um, you know, we're on a—a rural property. We have our own septic, our well. We really get no amenities from the city for the crazy property taxes we pay. Kind of seems like, you know, we need to treat that as more of a rural property. Um, I would just like a building that size for personal use. I do own a business. I do have commercial property that I rent. There's no intention air. This is just to store—um, toys, side-by-sides, four-wheelers, trailers, that kind of thing, traffic in the area. [22:55] **Chair Wilson:** You can save me a step later. How tall is the proposed building? [22:55] **Harry Davis:** Um, yeah, Mr. Chair, I can jump in there. So, we actually had a lot of back and forth about the size of the structure. So how we measure it is from grade to the midpoint—uh, between the peak and the eaves. Uh, there was some—some initial discussion about, well, it's just slightly too tall, like by inches—uh, getting above 16; but since then we've been able to work through it and it's at that 16ft height. [22:55] **David Blae:** 16 ft. Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. [23:27] **David Blae:** No, you're fine. That's—that's all I had. Thank you, sir. [23:27] **Chair Wilson:** Anyone else on public input? Public hearing. Not in a big hurry to shut it down, but once I shut it down, I can't open it up again. So, is there anybody else that wants to talk to us tonight about this? Public hearing is now closed. So, we're done with public hearing. We're back up here to the planning commission. As Harry laid out, we're looking at a series of motions at some point. Steve's got the first vote. [23:52] **Commissioner Steve:** I'm in favor of this project. Uh, the reason being is it is on an extremely large lot and this is not stepping out of bounds at what we've done before. If you go out on 14th Street to the kind of the end of where the—the city limits are, similar to where this is—I mean, not close by—but they have some very large buildings. We've—and there we just—we just did I think a couple years ago on 14th Street—uh, one gentleman replaced his garage with a higher garage of—it's probably twice as big as what our city code allowed. So—um, I'd rather see his toys inside and he's got the large lot and I've seen similar designs and similar things in Woodbury and that's as upscale as you can get. So with that I just say I—I'd support the project. Thank you. [25:06] **Chair Wilson:** Other discussion with the group. Tina. [25:06] **Commissioner Tina:** Tina, just another question and clarification. Um, just to make sure I understand. So for instance, if we—if—uh, the variance was approved for the 1,080 square ft, the 25%, right? Would he be able to come back in the future and say, "Okay, now I want to build another 1,000 square foot and now I want to build another thousand square foot." And then would they still be within code or is it an accumulative total of square footage that—I guess maybe what I'm saying is if he actually came back four times would he get four 1,000 foot buildings or is it a matter of just approving 4,000 square feet to begin with? I'm just—I just clarified that and then I do have—um, I did have one other question but... [25:54] **Harry Davis:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, the easy answer to that is no. So the question in front of us is to allow one of the two accessory structures that are allowed on any residential property, one of them to be 1,080. So you wouldn't be able to ask for, you know, four conditional use permits to kind of keep bumping that up. That's just not how that works. [26:10] **Commissioner Tina:** And then I think—um, I lost the second question. I'll think about it. I'm sorry. [26:10] **Chair Wilson:** I know how to get a hold of you if it comes back. [26:10] **Commissioner Tina:** I know. Thanks. [26:55] **Commissioner Sam:** So, considering that if this had been a horse barn, it would be taller and neither would be an eyesore neither. So, my personal view is what's being asked for. Well, I'm—I'm in complete approval of all three motions. [26:55] **Commissioner Tina:** I—I—I will have other discussion. Remembered—I remembered my question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I wondered in—um, I know sometimes when—uh, obviously the seven acres is inside—uh, the city limits, but I'm assuming it's not in a platted subdivision. And then with that, when you look at surrounding areas, rural, some rural communities say five acres and more is considered a—or there's a minimum lot size that takes you out of rural and puts you into urban. I'm just wondering if the city code has anything like that. [27:43] **Harry Davis:** Just—the easy answer to that is no. So a lot of how we view land use is dictated by zoning district. So we do have an Open Space/Agricultural zoning district that allows agricultural uses. So that's—you know, if you're going to—if you're going to be looking for an agricultural use on your property, you have to be zoned agricultural to do that use. So that includes horse barn and that includes—you know, keeping cattle—uh, wanted to harvest some sort of crop—all that is covered under agriculture and there's no transitional urban-rural interface mix. [28:30] **Commissioner Tina:** I'm just trying to get it straight—keeping jurisdictions straight in my head so I'm not thinking... [28:30] **Harry Davis:** Sure, yeah. We do have a transitional urban development zoning district. The—the—uh, strange thing about that zoning district is that almost everything in it is a conditional use permit. So it's not by right. The only thing that I could think of off the top of my head or the few things I could think of are parks, agriculture, and I think—uh, I think that those are the—the cemeteries. [28:49] **Chair Wilson:** Cemeteries. All right. Thanks. Thank you for clarification. Appreciate it. Now will be the time for me to jump in. I was—I was kind of waiting for this opportunity. I kind of want to address a couple of things in order and Tina teed it up just perfectly for me. Five or six years ago, there was a conversation. It was part of when we went through the last comp plan that we don't have a zoning district to address exactly what this is in front of us. I've heard several people say, "Hey, it's bigger than 5 acres. The rule should be different." Other communities. The—the transition urban development, what that is, that's how the city of Fairbull uses it is—if we annex property from a township, it comes into the city as TUD until we figure out what we're going to do with it. Truly, it—it stresses the transition. But we don't have the urban reserve zoning district. We don't have the super size. If it's bigger than five lots, here's a set of rules. We don't have those. I argued quite strongly six, seven years ago to have that. And I did not win that discussion. [30:07] **Commissioner Sam:** Let's have that again because you got a vote. [30:07] **Chair Wilson:** Well, so now I'm gonna kind of go where I'm at in this one. Also, the long—long history of—uh, auxiliary accessory buildings being 864 and then a conditional use up to 1,080. Steve will remember this. This has been like this for 20 years. We go from that relatively easily with a pretty straightforward conditional use permit. My—So I'm fine with the CUP. That makes perfect sense. The unique topography of—uh, of the lot. I'm fine with the structure being in front of the house. I'm not usually a fan of that, but in this particular case... Here's my problem with the final one. I agree in theory, of course, it makes sense. It's seven acres. This guy could put up a small city up there and we're not going to see it. My problem is, as a planning commission member, I have to interpret the zoning district we have in front of us. What we have in front of us makes it very hard to grant that variance in my mind. I think the city council may look at it differently, but what we have in front of us, we don't have that bit of flexibility. If someone here can convince me how that can be a variance, I'm open to the discussion. But where I'm at right now is yes on the CUP, yes, and put the building in front, but I'm going to have to vote no on the other one. But that's the history on it is—I had that fight many years ago and I lost. So now is there other discussion from anyone? [31:32] **Commissioner Mike:** Mr. Chair. Mike, go ahead. Go ahead. I see a lot of these buildings on the side of the road that look, you know, they're kind of off on another lot and they're really big just like this one is and they look pretty hideous because they don't treat it in a way that it's residential. My only fear with a building this big is you're going to go by it and see something that's not very attractive because the materials you might use for it are less than stellar. Um, so if this was to take on like a metal panel and a good-looking profile, I wouldn't have that idea in my mind that this is going to be really hideous looking to the neighbors. So for me, that's the fear. This building is going to be big. It's going to be long and at least needs to be attractive because it is R1. [32:18] **Chair Wilson:** Thank you, sir. Discussion, but it's kind of a serious issue. Yep. I appreciate it, Tina. And then Sam. [32:18] **Commissioner Tina:** Sorry, one more question. Um, if the landowner divided this property into two different parcels and put the 4,000 square feet on one parcel that was separate from the house and it then became the principal structure, would it be allowed? [32:35] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, the easy answer to that is no, because a garage cannot be a principal structure, especially within R1. The principal structure in R1 is a single-family home. [33:00] **Commissioner Tina:** But if you separate it into two pieces of property, he can't put a shop out there? There's no—You can't put a shop on it as a—as a piece of property? Can you clarify that just a little bit more? I'm sorry. So, say you split it and you put the house on one side—the parcel is long—and you—and you make the house be a—the—in its own acre, two acres or whatever it is, and you have another five acre and you put a building on it. Whether you called it a shop or a garage, it's a separate piece of property that you are using to put a structure on and it becomes the principal structure. If you put a bathroom in it and it's on a separate piece of property, does that then qual...? I'm just saying that if you would allow it, if they split the property in two and he could put 4,000 square feet on the second piece of property, then why wouldn't you allow him to put it on the one piece of property? That's all I'm—I want to make the point is—that if he could split his property and put it out there, then why not let him just do it without splitting his...? That's—that's my thought. I'm trying to think. Harry, go ahead. I think I know where you're going with it. Yeah. [34:05] **Harry Davis:** Um, Mr. Chair. So accessory structures cannot be on their own lot. [34:05] **Commissioner Tina:** It's not an accessory structure. It's just building a shop. [34:05] **Harry Davis:** It's an accessory structure. So you— [34:22] **Commissioner Tina:** Okay. Because in a residential, the only thing you can put primary structure is a house. Is that what I'm hearing? [34:22] **Harry Davis:** Specifically in R1, it's the only permitted by right use, I think, maybe outside of say a utility. [34:39] **Commissioner Sam:** I'm—I'm in favor of looking at codes again. Sam and then Bart. So this property is unique, but it's not in Fairbull. We have several properties with five-plus. It looks like this issue has come before—before and it's been contentious and you know, we're—we're bound by a certain set of rules even if we don't agree with them. So, what I'm wondering is a possibility—and I don't know what sort of time constraints—but can we just look at five-plus acres and discuss the rules and make a motion and have that go to council and then have this come back to us? [35:18] **Chair Wilson:** You're talking about a zoning...? Well, let—I'll let Harry answer it, but yeah, she's asking about to create a new zoning district, be an ordinance change or just—just something because it seems absurd that somebody can have seven—five-plus acres and they can't build a big old shed. If I bought a bunch of acres, I'—I'd want to be able to build what I could. And it seems silly that we're having this conversation and between you guys before and it sounds like you were in favor of previous things, but now we can't do it because of the rules. Well, let's just change the rules because they're silly. And I think where Harry's going with this is—to create a new zoning district or what you're ask is possible, but it's going to have to have [36:04] a public hearing. It's got—it's an ordinance change, so it's got to go in front of the city council a couple of times. It's got to go in front of us. It's got to go through DRC. The fastest of the fast tracks would be a few months. [36:25] **Harry Davis:** Two months. I was going to say three or four, but okay. Two months. Yeah. But that would be like the fastest you could do it. [36:25] **Chair Wilson:** So, my thoughts are... [36:54] **Commissioner Steve:** That council... for but we would actually be sending this to city council look at it and then start this [37:20] process talk about second variance for the second and then that gives the city council. Okay, I hear—got it. Thank you, Steve. [37:42] **Commissioner Bart:** Commissioner said something that struck me and—and I—I guess I'm still in favor of just saying let's do it, but given the fact that this is this long box and we—we—when you put up an access—an accessory shed in your yard under normal circumstances, we want it to be appealing to the neighborhood. So, I look at if they come back with maybe some architectural changes to the siding and a few things to make it blend in better, it'd be more pebbles because it is going to be by Highway 60. And I think it—I'm not talking about major changes. It's still going to be a big box, but with some accents to it, it would look much—a much better box. And it's not outside the realm because when you put up a shed in your yard, that's—you don't even need the variance. They want it to look similar design to your house. We've even gone to the same part where it's—we like to say the same shingling, the same this, the same siding, the same color. You're giving me a look that I don't understand. [38:50] **Harry Davis:** Uh, Mr. Chair, so I think that maybe I can kind of jump in here. So I have back on screen—uh, some of the plans for that accessory structure. Um, it's a little small. Uh, definitely grant that. But we are looking at the exterior of it and we are looking at materials. So as a part of this review process, we're also making sure that there are no other additional variances needed. The applicant is providing like a—like an LP smart siding product on the side of it just surrounding the entire building and I believe on top is actually architectural shingles. So it's actually pretty close in matching to the principal structure. [39:25] **Harry Davis:** You know, I think at least from—from staff's perspective, I do feel like that the applicant is meeting that compatibility question. Um, so I—I—you know, wouldn't be concerned. [40:11] **Chair Wilson:** Let me jump in now. I'm just going to ask a process question. Bart's going to get the floor next, but I'm pretty good at counting noses. My guess is the CUP is going to pass this group fairly easily. The upsides from 864 to 1,080 is going to pass fairly easily. I don't know how the final one's going to go. It could go either way. Harry, what you said at the beginning—how do you want us to vote on the first two? Do you want us to pull the whole thing back and table for two weeks? What's your direction on navigating—or just continue to plow forward and see how the vote goes on the [40:11] third? I'm fine with any of this. I'm looking for how you want us to pull the sausage out of this now. [40:27] **Harry Davis:** Sure. Um, so reading the room, I think what I'm basically hearing is that the conditional use permit seems immutable. That the—uh, placement of the accessory structure in the front yard seems immutable. It seems like everyone else is—uh, more or less—not everyone, but most people are willing to vote for the 4,000 foot size as well as it being way more than the principal structure. Get some nods. I think that's a reasonable summary. So, if—if we're going that route, my recommendation would actually be to table it because the—the issue that we're running into is that you guys are making a recommendation to city council without a set of findings that match that. So, right now, I don't—I don't have findings for you that are matching the—the—the conclusions that you're coming to. So, you know, kind of this—this whole bit that's at the bottom of the slide here, you know, if planning commission seeks to—kind of grant everything. We don't have this. We don't have that. But that's—I've got a lovely landscape and a mountain lake and it's beautiful. You know, I'm—I'm just trying to make everything a little serene. It calmed me down. I felt better. Serene, calm. Uh, so the—the [41:34] verbs are—the verbiage that's at the bottom of—of the screen. So, if—if it—if it seems like that's the direction that we're going, my recommendation would—would be to table it to the next meeting. Allow me to come back with an amended resolution, make sure that matches up with how you guys are seeing this and then take that entire package and go to city council. We are running into the 60-day clock. We do have the ability to issue an extension for that. So, that is not a concern at this point. [42:21] **Chair Wilson:** Got it. Thank you. Bart had his hand up and then Sam's next. [42:21] **Commissioner Sam:** So I would—I would like to allow Commissioner. All right. Oh, thank you. So I would vote yes one and two, but we are bound by rules and them. We're bound by them. So I would vote no for three. But I also think just because voting no doesn't mean I don't. So I'd like to figure out some sort of way to work around that because I just think it's so silly. [43:08] **Harry Davis:** M—uh, Mr. Chair. I—I think the other part of my recommendation, if I can just add to it, would be: if the—if planning commission sees that there is an issue here that kind of generally seems like that based off of the feedback—um, that they recommend city council to direct staff to sort of look at other options when it comes to larger lots, whether it is a new zoning district or just amending code. That would be my recommendation. Um, I think if we're going to table it to try to rezone it to a different zoning district, that—that—that's—that's not going to solve the issue. It's also not the request in front of us. So I think that's perhaps the cleanest way of doing it. [43:55] **Commissioner Sam:** I'll make that motion right now. [44:17] **Chair Wilson:** Sam just made a motion. I'm trying to process it. [44:17] **Commissioner Steve:** I'll second it. [44:17] **Chair Wilson:** I didn't hear the motion. It's essentially—I'll repeat it in a second. It's essentially in order... is not what I was expecting, but Sam's got a motion. Steve's got a second. What Sam said is to—and correct me if I got any of this wrong—that—uh, we would be asking the city council to direct staff to address lots larger than five acres in an R1 district to try to specifically... [44:17] **Commissioner Sam:** No, but your motion—word—phrase your motion that you just made—to look at properties five acres and above as far as access... Okay, close enough. Got it. [45:01] **Chair Wilson:** Okay, that and then that's Steve's second. Tina, you're good. We've heard the motion. So now all five of us—or all seven of us, excuse me. One, two, three—have heard the motion. The second, we understand what it is. I want to clear that motion out of here before we then get back to our three. That's all I'm doing now is what Sam's motion was. Bart, you have a question. [45:01] **Commissioner Bart:** So, are we saying that we're not going— [45:01] **Chair Wilson:** Sam kind of did a detour on me. This Sam's motion is independent of what's in front of us. We're going to vote on Sam's motion and then we're going to come back to the three that are in front of us. So, that's all I'm doing and it's fine. Sam's got the motion. Steve's got the second. We're clear on what that motion was. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed, no. That passes. Okay. Now to Steve. [45:24] **Commissioner Steve:** Move to table this till the next meeting so that staff can bring this back. [45:24] **Chair Wilson:** I'm—So I was going to count. Yeah, Bart had—Bart was going to get the floor next. That was my mistake. You want to have it? I—Steve, I'm sorry. That was just my mistake. Bart had his hand up first. [45:54] **Commissioner Steve:** Okay. So now Steve has made the motion to table the entire issue to our next meeting. That's the motion. Who's got the second? You have to give a reason. Table it for additional findings. Staff requested that to bring it back to present because the findings don't match if we passed it. Well, the first two match. I need a second. Hang on. Third doesn't. [45:54] **Commissioner Tina:** I'll second it. [45:54] **Chair Wilson:** Tina's seconded. Steve's motion. Sam. [45:54] **Commissioner Sam:** We have finding a fact for one and two. We don't for three. So, we can approve one and two and table number three. [46:15] **Commissioner Steve:** I can withdraw. Hold on. [46:15] **Chair Wilson:** Okay, hang on just a second. Harry, you said you wanted all three tabled instead of voting on one and two. Now, it's going to make your life easier. [46:15] **Harry Davis:** Mr. Chair, I think that that would make it easier. So, here's—here's the thing. If—if you guys pass two of them, two of these resolutions, and you table the third one, it boxes you in a corner is what it does. So, I—I understand why you ask it, and I understand why Steve made the motion the way he did, is that it's better to take this entire topic and table it to our next meeting, defer the action to our next meeting, and then the entire topic comes back to us. If we vote on one and two beforehand, then that's an issue. And that's fine because I'm going to call for a vote and you can vote against tabling and I'm fine with that. I don't care. Um, Steve's got the motion on tabling all three together. Tina's got the second. [47:00] **Commissioner Tina:** I'd love to speak to my second. [47:00] **Chair Wilson:** Speak to your second. [47:00] **Commissioner Tina:** I feel like if we didn't address it all at one time, then it comes to the city council in bits and pieces. I think that this—this particular project, they're all intertwined. We're going to send it to council. We should so that they understand the dilemma—the entire project. [47:45] **Chair Wilson:** Thank you, Tina. I'm looking this way, Bart. [47:45] **Commissioner Bart:** So, I would like us to send this—have them direct to come up forward so we don't have this issue. That's why I feel that we should not table this and all three together and show them why. [48:08] **Commissioner Sam:** Interesting. Okay, I understand. Sam. I would like city council to see our dilemma. I would like them to see that one is—is good. Two is good. Three is where we're having issues out. Let us know. [48:24] **Chair Wilson:** I've got Steve's motion. I've got Tina's second. And I'll repeat it before I call for a vote. Just so we're all on the same page. Motion in Tina's second is to table all three of these. The motion that's in front of us now for a vote—whether that passes or fails. If it passes, we're done. If it fails, we'll keep talking. Call for a roll call. I was probably going to do it anyway because it's going to be close. Yeah. Usually what I do is just call for a voice vote and then do roll call. But fine. I—that's—that's inconsequential to me. So, got the motion. I've got the second. We know what it is. We'll do the roll call vote right out of the gate and we'll start over there. [49:03] **Commissioner:** No. [49:03] **Commissioner:** No. [49:03] **Commissioner:** I. [49:03] **Chair Wilson:** Yes. Carries 4-2. So, the entire package is tabled for two weeks. We'll see you back here in two weeks, sir. Oh, there we go. Now I hit the hammer. Uh, that was it for our public hearings this evening. Uh, request to be heard. Harry, anything fun? [49:30] **Harry Davis:** Uh, no, Mr. Chair. No requests to be heard as far as I know. Items discussion, routine business, boards and commissions. Yeah, council retreat, I see, is something. What's that? Right. Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just a really quick update on the council retreat. So, —uh, we did speak for about two hours on different planning topics. Um, Dave Wandberg, the community development director, put together this really cool like Jeopardy thing. And so we went through a whole bunch of topics: signage, housing. Um, the things that came out of that include—um, potentially in the long term looking at a code overhaul. I think that council understands the predicament that staff's in with our current code and how it's [50:15] really kind of driving a wedge between us and potential developers, uh, citizens, people that are just trying to do various projects across the city. Um, so they do see that there is—there's a need for it. There are some more immediate things that we can try to do in order to help make our current code operate better. Um, one of the major ones to come out of that that is a little bit more short-term than long-term is actually a sign ordinance overhaul. So, we have a lot of issues with our sign ordinance right now where it is not content-neutral and there's probably a lot of discussion to be had about... [50:43] **Chair Wilson:** I just don't know if I have another sign ordinance overhaul in me. I—I've done enough. That was—that was what that heavy sigh was. Okay. I'm sorry. [51:30] **Harry Davis:** Um, so, —uh, sign ordinance overhaul is potentially part of it. I think that council is also interested in the short term trying to take a look at what we have regarding—uh, residential lot sizes, setbacks, lot widths to try to figure out from different perspectives how they might be able to make housing more affordable. Uh, of course, you know, in a code overhaul including a lot of that going forward, but at least short-term fixes to help us in the near term. So there are kind of a various—uh, sort of projects that will be coming up, some of them staff-led—uh, but definitely looking for support from the planning commission to try and see, hey, you know, are we missing something? Are we not including something—uh, that we should be? So just kind of giving you guys an idea about what's... [52:16] **Chair Wilson:** Any discussion of us doing a joint meeting? A change over there—here and—um, I can bring that up to Dave and Dave can talk to Jessica about that. I know—I know that there's a lot of interest I think in zoning issues right now. So to me it would make sense. Uh, we just got to make sure that everyone's on board. That is everything on our agenda. A motion to adjourn would be—Bart's got the motion.