They are there's different levels of stores and some flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> We have a question of the roll call. >> Chair >> here. >> Vice Chair Carroll >> here. >> Mr. Be >> here. >> Mr. Carlson >> here. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Mr. Jorgensson >> here. >> Mr. Buham >> here. >> Planner Nash >> here. Mayor H >> here >> and myself Natalie Johnson. All complete. All >> right. Thank you. We'll move on to item three, approve meeting agenda. Any amendments or comments. >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion by Commissioner Apparel. Second. >> I'll second it. >> Second. Commissioner Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing none, without call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? [clears throat] Motion passes. Now we'll move on to item four. Approve amend meeting minutes from July 28th, 2026 regular meeting. Any comments or amendments? >> I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Motion by Commissioner Bees to approve the meeting minutes as written. >> I'll second. >> Second by Commissioner Carlson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All in favor say I. >> Any oppos? [clears throat] Passes. Now we'll move on to item five public hearing for EMTT editioning preliminary plat have the planner present. >> Thank you. So this is a preliminary plat and final plat together for Emittsburg edition and it is basically taking three existing parcels of land and replotting them as two parcels of land. And the reason it's being applied instead of a minor subdivision is so that lot one here can be less than the 5 acre minimum. So they're we're using that density averaging and that's within the subdivision regulations in order to do that. Show you what this properties looks like today just to give you an idea of what we're we're looking at. So there's one property that is a flag lot here with the house sitting very close to that front part of the property line. another property with a house here and with a accessory structure that is encroaching over the property lines in this location and then the one vacant parcel. So Mr. Fcher owns the property back here and um he saw an opportunity when this all went for sale to purchase this um and clean up some situations. So, it'll give him with the new plat um he'll he'll end up selling this lot that's up front, but um it gives his property more room. Um cleans up that encroachment and just generally um is bettering that situation in that area. There is some rightway that's being dedicated for North Lake Road West at the request of the county. Um and other than that, it's a pretty clean plat. Um he is requesting that because he isn't doing any work on this site and we're not actually trying to find any new buildable sites or anything like that. He's requesting that the council wave well and otherwise it's um standard meets all the ordinances. So um he is here this evening if if you have any questions for him and um >> right. [clears throat] So, uh, the applicant like to present anything. Would you like to present anything on your >> No, no, no. She explained it very well. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, the new lot no longer be a flag. >> Correct. It's no longer a flag. and that and that encroachment where the shed is has been resolved and has enough um site sent back >> to the new lot one. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, on on lot one um being that three it's going to be about 3 acres, do we have any issues with the variance needed for the shed size? Um, no. I can put that silicone. Yes. Any other questions from the commission? We'll open the public hearing 7:05 officially. So, anyone in the public like to comment on this application like comments for the podium and address I'll make a motion to approve as sorry seeing no no public comment or close the public hearing at 7:06 I'd make a motion to approve as written. >> Motion by Commissioner >> to approve as written findings. Second by Commissioner Perl. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. >> I. Motion passes. This will be at the next council meeting. September. All right. and move on to item 5B top second edition conditional use permit and variance they final present. >> Thank you. I will um present very briefly because we did review this last month and are bringing this back for the um adding a conditional use permit and variance request. But generally speaking, this is a mixed industrial and residential plat. The there are seven industrial lots on the western side of the plat um on an extension of 204th Avenue Northwest. There's another seven residential lots on the eastern 40 acres. Um it's proposed that 20 24th Avenue Northwest will be um completed as a pay phone as per ordinance requirements and then they're asking this match. Can you pull it up so they can see? >> I did. Yes. Thank you though. This sharing is not seem to be working. Oh, did I take it off now? Okay, sorry about that. So, continuing on, they are requesting um a conditional use permit to allow Ton Avenue Northwest to not be paved as your ordinance would allow for a conditional use permit for that. And then separately, they've applied for a variance application to request that you also not require them to complete the subgrade and um aggregate base improvements on this. Um and that would leave it in a condition where it would be a cladded right away, but no improvements on it at all. Um, so that's the change from last month. There hasn't been any changes to the plan, so there's nothing to review with you there. The comment letters from myself and the city engineer were the same. Um, as you saw last month, but the the big consideration is what to do with Tonto Avenue Northwest. And we do need to hear [clears throat] on the conditional use per >> okay any questions from anyone commission about this >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes Commissioner. So, you know, in looking at this, the the chance of that uh road going through anytime soon is is probably not going to happen. But when maybe that southern area does develop, if it ever does, how how would it be what would the requirements be to complete that road? Um would there be an escrow or how would that work? >> So, it's not there will be something we would have to come up from the development agreement that talks about conditions under which that might occur. Um, and it's certainly as an unimproved road, not a road that the city would accept. So, it would be a platted rideway um pled right away is open to the public. People could technically go onto it, but um it wouldn't be something that you're owning or accepting or maintaining. Um, and it is a tricky situation when when those type of situations occur. So, usually something will have to be figured out in the future in terms of how that would be extended. It's not really practical to have a letter of credit for right years. So, >> right. Would it be something on the deeds of the homes that they would all share the cost of getting that to the edge of the development or >> I don't know. That's something that I'll have to explore, you know, with the city attorney as we're preparing the development if the CP and the varants were approved. >> Yeah. Because I'm I'm thinking if someone came in wanted to develop the property of the south and they want to connect that road and we want them to connect that road, they're going to say I'm not paying for that. >> That's exactly where my brain was. So was wondering what our options were going to be. >> And you do have another option as well. You could approve the conditional use permit and not do and defer the paving of it and leave it have it be the um the subgrade and the aggregate base be prepared in itself. So that is kind of a middle option. And of course your your third option would be to not approve either of the CP >> Mr. Chair. Yes. >> Just a quick question for you, Mash. Um what is that length of that road of um I can't read the name of it. >> Tonto. What is it? What is the length of that? So if you're talking a cost of paving it at some point, >> it's about 383. [clears throat] >> Yes, these roads to nowhere are somewhat common, would you say? Um, do we have any instances of a road that's unimproved? You can recall. >> Um, so it's really common to require that the roads be improved to the property borders. Um there are situations where um you have as a city not required them to be fully approved that I'm aware of. I can think of a couple off hand where the pavement has been deferred. And um off the top of my head, I'm not thinking immediately of any where they have not been had anything done with them at all, but there very well might be a couple of them out there. They tend in those cases to be quite a bit shorter as well. But um you know for comparison we have a stub road in Viking Estates that was just recently plotted earlier this year and they are completing the road to their border. Um as long as my property >> Mr. J. Yes. So con considering the use of the property itself and the likelihood or unlikely you know extension of that road is is it required? We need to have that stuffed in. >> So both do you need to um that would be up to the city I guess. Um both myself and the city engineer would recommend that you do that that we um both of us have had plenty of circumstances where something seems like it's going to be there for a very long time and it redevelops. Yeah. >> Um, and it's kind of an unusual situation to have seven residences go through an industrial area and have this long of a culde-sac without another means of access to serve it if there's an emergency or anything. So we our recommendation would be to have it set so that someday you can >> if they're going to exist there. If you're going to have seven homes there that long of a culdeac and that road doesn't go through for 20 years what's the difference really right? I mean, I I see where it's a good idea, but it's not going to go through. It almost seems like Yeah, I I'm I'm looking at how do we keep this from being a conditional use of variance and, you know, subject to when the property south is developed. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, Commissioner. I also agree with Mr. And uh I guess I'm curious about maintenance like these road bases. I mean we've got several roads being built now if it sits for 20 years and needs maintenance for a road nowhere. I don't know that I I don't know. I guess I'm trying to keep the right ways, but I think I can open public hearing now. Public hearing at 7:17 while anyone else to comment on this watching Does anyone have a comment related to this project? Come back to the commission. Anyone questions? does seem like there's a lot more upside to the city to have that vote in place for future because like been mentioned. Um we don't know what's going to happen to that property itself. Um it could change hands in quick order and then city will be in a position where there's a road that's not approved and not really a set mechanism to get that road. The recommendations have this financial security clause that could be figured that way open >> Mr. Chair. Yes, >> I understand the need for wanting to remove the not do for the COP for request on Tonto Avenue, but I also see the the reason why we should have it completed to the property's edge. Um, simply because trying to get the money after the fact to create the road when the development's already done doesn't seem like it's going to be an easy thing to do. Um, yes, it could sit for a while, but we also don't want a tar road that has a pillow sack leading to a dirt road that is nowhere. We've got enough of that going on here and it's a mess. So, I don't know that we want to continue that problem. Get ahead of that. Any comments from the public on this? >> Mr. Chair, >> um, >> what about putting a requirement in that? Uh well I mean I guess no it doesn't make sense to do that after the other road is complete. If you're going to do it we're going to require it. It should be done with the whole road. So yeah. Anyone else have a comment? State your name and address. Ken Blazer 18735 clear west. And and I don't know if uh Mrs. Pertner, but I seem to recall that at the last meeting um where this is being discussed, there was some comments from a property owner that owns some property to the immediate south, >> southwest. Yep. >> That said that made a comment that the location of the current location of Tonto Avenue may not necessarily be the best um place for a through road from there. Is am I correct in that? >> Correct. he did um make those comments and I did speak with engineer Shane Nelson about that and he looked at this plant. um if you it doesn't show up and a lot of times it doesn't show up is obviously on an aerial photo um where there's agriculture going on but there is a pretty significant wetland that would have to be sorry I'm trying to get to the site so The suggestion that the property owner here had had at that time is that perhaps the um Tonto could go down basically the quarter quarter section line here and then um also provide the benefit of separating the industrial from the residential properties as well. Um and doesn't show up tremendously well here, but you can see the modeling in the soil in this area. So, the majority of this is also a wetland that would have to be um impacted to go through here. And you can pick up that wetland on the um so that location that he was talking about was um right here. So, you can see that wetland feature again all of this. So this is the one location where you could sneak a road through that falls between wetland features. >> Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name and address. >> Alison Paulson Jr. 20132 St. Franc's office at this area on Highway 47. And my only concern is in the previous July 28th meeting, there was reference made to the antenna tower. There was a 21-year lease on it. Plus, I know the previously the sheriff's county sheriff was using antennas that the lease from the tower itself. You can check that with an office, but it seems that there's an an awful lot of gray opportunity for something to occur that would affect the line of the road. If the sheriff should decide under agreement of purchase in the future to have an ancillary station there for because of the way the county is proceeding that road alignment might not be needed and there might not be any need to carry it all the way through. That's what that's only my comment is that it um who knows what's going to happen after the lease and that antenna goes and someone else takes over the lease. That original antenna was one segment higher, a little bit thinner and they took it down and it went down to another region in the US had refurbished. But that's my only concerns. There's a gray area that's kind of nebulous out there. We may or may not affect road. Thank you. [snorts] >> Thank you. Any additional comments? All right. See, no additional comments. Close the public hearing at 7:24. No little AC. We have some concerns about the financial security of the road and possibility of the road being not built in the future. Looks like the location is the only place it fits plus or minus 10 ft there. wetland on the east and the west side. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Commissioner. >> Um, and I don't want to complicate this any more than, but what about the option of making the road to the uh, antenna site come down Tanto rather than off the county road and then make that like usable. I don't know if it makes sense to go, but >> so the antenna site already has a um established >> driveway there. They >> would not have any incentive to probably spend >> money going through and coming up that way regardless. And we wouldn't have a way to >> short of them coming in with some application for something, we would have a way to cause them to do that. Um, >> I would think the county would be in favor of a less less accesses off the county road, but >> it's already established. So, >> right. And that access would also serve this farm here. >> Oh, sure. [clears throat] >> So, it wouldn't eliminate the access point. So the from the city engineers com it seems like the big benefit for the city to have roads that go through in the long term so they don't have really long sides to maintain service. It doesn't make sense to have that stuff going down without the question whether or not we should have it built now or later that financial security work out. Don't go. Any other comments from the commission? >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Commissioner. Are we separating out a vote on the variance to C and the PL the three >> conditional use terms and varants are written up as one. >> Okay. >> We we'd have to have it rewritten if you want to separate. the other suggestion. >> No, I just was curious if you were to consider them separately. >> No, they are they are written up as the CPM variants are written up as one. Um, I did start drafting an alternative of what it would look like to be different if you were inclined to approve the CU but not the variance. inserted some red lines for for that sort of an option. Um and did not prepare anything related to a denial or I should say. And so if we did the CUP only that would that would allow them not to pay it. They would need to develop the base. >> Correct. And the city would be responsible to maintain the base or it still be owned by >> that is still under it would still be owned by the private property owners. Um and there be a shared driveway agreement basically between the two lots that the way the city's ordinance works with the deferral street. >> Okay. Is there usually a lot limit for street? >> There is up to three lots. I don't remember a case where you have not put in the base frames is not the typical way to do it. So there that I'm aware of there are two plats where the city did a CP process to defer the street paving and those two plats have been reported and are completed and there is one additional flat where the city um did not do a variance process to defer everything else. But um through conditions granted at the city council level, effectively um made some changes to the standard um with the base of what would be required and that was not recorded. Since that wasn't recorded. >> No. So, yeah. Correct. So, there's that is not comments on base or variance. I speak. >> Um, I understand the applicant's reasoning for deferring these items, but I also am really against the idea of not having it completed. Um, we'll get stuck with a dirt road. We accept one part of it, not all of it. And if we just define all of it, then at least we have a to um that's where I said that not to >> Mr. Chair to the south has signed another 20 on that. Is that what I understand? That's what >> Okay. >> I I don't have verification of that, but that was stated. >> I think Yeah. Okay. I don't know if you can rely on that information. Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, I understand that the um public hearing is closed, but ask the primary question pertaining to this. >> Well, just planner, would it be highly comment to place a deed restriction on the main lot where their business is located in the event that they decide to sell that they must do? the street hasn't been approved at that point. It has to be approved before they sell the building. >> That would be pretty uncommon. Um there would be a development agreement associated with the um construction of the of 204th Avenue at the very least and likely something related to Tonto in the development agreement. Um and that would be pretty uncommon. it would be more likely you'd share it with all the lots in the development >> doing a deed restriction. I mean the development agreement is sort of a deep restriction. Um but that what would be particularly uncommon is reporting anything against the existing building that CST occupies because that is not even part of they're owned by separate companies so you can't do that. So um but just to give everybody kind of a visual if this is the flat then their existing building that um that different company owns is here. The light industrial is one by one and the residential is owned by December. So what I can tell you is that if the variances are not approved, the residential will be sold off as one piece and there will be no road. It will be somebody else's problem straightforward. We're not putting a road. I'm not going to spend the money to go to >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Commissioner. Yeah, I guess to address that, I understand. Definitely sympathize. >> That's just a world, >> but it's also the reason that I'm inclined not to allow the road to be pushed down because we've run into that same situation. And uh >> and we're okay with somebody else's problem. >> Yeah. >> Cuz they won't have to put it in. We'll just one res, >> right? Unless they subdivide or try to, right? So, [clears throat] >> they're going to keep it as Yeah. from the longterm interest of the city would be beneficial to have the role. The short term it's not beneficial to the city. decide how to handle that a decision that would be compatible with all those situations. Well, I guess that brings up another question for the planner is if that lot if we deny this and then that lot or they change the plat not to do the individual lots but just the single [clears throat] residential does that bring everything back to the drawing board? >> Um not necessarily. So one option would be that you could um deny the um cup and variance with instructions that um and then in the in the luminary plat it would include that they have to um when they come in for final plat they'd have to include tonto in that. Um you could also as part of that um the final plan conditionary plan condition number 18 right now says that the subject property shall be final plotted in one phase. You could allow for this to be final funded in multiple phases and then they could have the option of um deciding to go and plat the industrial portion and finish up as first as the first phase because that's the first extension of the road anyways and then they could sell that last part off to someone else. that would be not part of the development agreement with the first phase then and um and then that would be kicked off to another date. Maybe somebody would be inclined to develop those lots if um they're all entitled already and approved as part of a preliminary plot. Sometimes that can um you know that that package of that can be sold and have some value to somebody else knowing that they just have to get the final and start building things. Um or they could choose to sell it to one person. >> So what [clears throat] was the reason we have the one phase thing? >> Um just because they had not indicated they would want to add phasing. So that's just a standard thing we put in there. so that um so that we know how long it's going to take to develop. If it's a much larger development, we frequently do them as multiple bases instead, but but this is only a total of 14 months. >> Seeing this as an excuse for all that, it seems like might be okay with that. Got industrial separate Well, I guess with that understanding, I I would go ahead and make a motion for denial of the CU and the variance. um and make the change that uh would allow the plat to be done in multiple phases. >> So, we'll have to take these one at a time. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> Um cuz we do have them set up as two separate actions, the the CP and variance in one. Um We'll handle the preliminary plat. Item six of I guess the motion would just be to recommend denial of the CP invariance. Yes, I am um making some changes to this really quickly so that we can get findings that you can approve um if acceptable. Is it possible to take about a 5m minute recess? >> Would you like to clarify the details on your motion? Well, I guess with the understanding that um you know, we we just I I feel like it'd be kicking the can down the road if we allow that um the the conditional use permanent variance to not pave that road. And uh so I I I guess that's it because that's that's the first part of this, right? So >> yeah, I mean I just so if we come up with if there was a way to have a financial security that would happen I see that. >> Yeah. So, if you obviously I can't print this out for you. Um, the findings page one would be the same as what's in your packet. Page two is the same as what's in your packet. Group condition number 10. Um, we would delete numbers 11, 12, and 13. Um, and then number 14, 15, and 16 to be 11, 12, and 13. And then in the recommendation paragraph changes on the screen that would change to based on foregoing and applicable ordinances. The plaing zone commission recommends denial of one a conditional use permit to deter installation into the 2 minutes workforce and two a varian to also defer the construction of the subgrade prep and aggregate base of tonto street hard west coinciding with the planning and development second edition and then all the conditions are of course they're not needed Commissioner B, does that agree with what the motion is? >> Yes. I mean, my the only alternative I would say is to not require tonto at all and then let them have a long culdeac that I understand outside of that. So with that not being an option, yeah, that would be my motion. >> So we need a second to the motion to continue. Second, commissioner seconds the motion. So any further discussion on the motion? I just want to clarify >> on the funings um number eight and number nine are they >> I believe those are also part of the additional but I don't try and read >> they're regurgitating what the ordinance says so they're and those are facts so they are under part Correct. 10 is fine to say. >> Thank you for any comments from before we approve this. Make sure we don't have a way to keep the financial security long term prove it. It's pretty vague in this recommendation about financial security. Is there a basic you can think of or >> not [cough and clears throat] kept the long term like that? >> So you don't have a method to ensure long-term financial security. >> Is there any I mean the development of the lot this all depends on the development of the lot itself. Is there and there's no other examples of where you had road you know the roads obviously they're going to have to build it when that law is developed extended [clears throat] that I sorry may is there any >> to require the property owner to the south >> correct yeah as part of the you know if that happens >> potentially another issue that you do have is that over time. Um, so what we typically do at the end of a sub road is we'll put this road to be extended someday so that people know it's going to be extended someday. In this case, we have to put it somewhere up here that there's going to be a road here someday. But regardless, um, neighboring property owners tend to start encroaching things into the rightway when they'll sit vacant. And they're they get used to using them. It's really difficult to put in >> 20 years. get base show that it's not a option that's something this motion Now we call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. [clears throat] >> Got three opposed. Four I. The motion passes. >> Were you? >> Yes. Commissioner Lewis, Commissioner Motion passes. We'll move on to item six, old business soft recommendation preliminary plat. Thank you. So the preliminary plan resolution is in your packet. Um for discussion during the previous item, I would recommend that we change number 18 to be that the subject property may be finaled in multiple phases to give them some options there. And then I would also recommend based on your previous action that you add a um a new condition number one. Put it right up at the front that Tonto Avenue Northwest shall be installed in compliance with city standards at the time of development [clears throat] of any phase that includes the residential lots. And so at that point in time, um, even though you don't have the engineering for Tanzo right now, I think that's okay. That could just be developed and submitted with the final F application. The slime was the reason. Commission comments on these two commissioner proposing something like this in your original motion. >> Right. >> Yeah. The main thing is to allow multiple phases so that they can decide to not plant that residential area. >> Mr. Chair, >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Um, if they sell it to one person, the one house can be built there and the driveway will come off of the culdeac on the road coming in through the industrial area. I just wanted to verify. So it would just remain and so if they plat it as multiple phases it would be an outlot because that's how you plat the next phase of a development that's going to continue. An outl lot itself isn't buildable. But then it would be on that person that purchased that out lot to ask the city to plat that out lot into one lot if that was what they wanted to do. And where would the driveway be required to be? >> So the driveway would be off of what would end up being a culdeac at the end there. >> This is currently two Ps. >> Um this is >> P. There is two P today. Yep. So could they modify the plat? >> They could modify the plat only include the first P. They would have to install show on those plans instead and modify it in that way as well. >> Okay. So both. >> Yeah. Just because right now it is all the way at the end if we're assuming that it's one phase. Um so the culide would have to be adjusted and move by motion to accept the um preliminary plan with the changes to the multiple phases if the applicant requires that request. and to the further added for that we discussed to me the transition. >> Yep. So it's a new condition number one. Chicago Avenue Northwest shall be installed in compliance with city standards at the time of planning and development of any phase that includes the residential lots. And um the other one that had the one phase before was old condition 18 gets reumbered to 19. And that now says the subject property may be final plotted in multiple phases. Commissioner Perl. Is that what the motion was? >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Be. Any further discussion? Avenue must be built and if it's still one phase and not there's options second phase or >> in that case they in that what it's not really an option so much as they just wouldn't move on to phase two >> would be built in phase Any other questions or comments on the motion? Seeing none, we'll call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion passes. None opposed. All right. Move on to item 7 A discussion for Thank you. So, we wanted to bring you some preliminary information for your comment and review in advance of us taking um a full draft of the draft zoning ordinance to you next month with um with a public hearing and having it available for public comments as well. So, we wanted to discuss the um the sections of the ordinance that are going to be the most um commonly used but also probably the most impactful changes to residents as well. So there's a few different efforts here with this ordinance update and you know two of those key efforts are that we're trying to make the document much more user friendly for residents to follow and understand and find what they need to find in there in terms of organization. But then we're also trying to find ways to um make the ordinances um less restrictive. if there's something that's optional, we've been trying to pull those those items out of the ordinance if we're not required to have them in for some reason. And just in general to open up possibilities for people because we do have a lot of residents who are um despite having large properties having some trouble developing the properties in ways that they'd like to use them. So the um for while I open up some other documents so we can share them on the screen for anybody that might be watching remotely. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Miss Miss Nash, could you uh just explain a little bit about the subcommittee that helped develop this? Just talk about it from the meetings. Explain some of the intent. Just talk about who was who was a member. >> Correct. Thank you. So, we did have a subcommittee that was working on this as the mayor has mentioned and that subcommittee consisted of um Mayor Hibben and council member Glazer as well as Chair Ha and uh Commissioner Carol on that committee helping to develop this draft, work through different ideas. we would get into some pretty elaborate conversations about what about this, what about that, look at how this affects this type of property and got pretty deep into some maps and um and thought processes on all that. And it was um really good work I think by the committee to work through some of these items. So um to give you some idea though and this these themes kind of carry through the other parts but rather than having pages and pages and pages of verbiage talking about the different dimensional standards we can do you want to share >> not sharing Yeah. [clears throat] So now what we have is we're putting all of these into charts that are easy to follow instead. So for example, so it's just called dimensional standards by district. So rather than trying to find say um [clears throat] if you wanted to get all that information in one cell bite or compare different districts you can but it's also just takes pages of information and it just consolidates it into one or two pages in a lot of these cases per chart. So we have we keep the same zoning districts that you have today. There's nothing new there. There's no changes to the zoning map. Everybody's still zoned exactly what they have been zoned already. But then we're putting all this information into one one place that we can then turn into a handout saying instead and easily convey this information to residents. But this is also showing you some of the changes that we've been making along the way. So, for example, um minimum frontage on a public street um and you need to be directly accessed from that frontage because we don't allow you to be on haven't for a while to be on access ements anymore. So the R zoning district that has been 150 ft 75 ft if you're on a culde-sac we left that alone but you'll see that in the RRT district the committee is proposing to reduce that down to 100 ft of frontage on part of the reason for doing that is you'll see we're also decreasing the minimum lot width of building setback and what that's going to give some people the opportunity for is you won't have as much room on the side of your property to get the same you'll still have to have that same minimum acreage. So your property might have to be have more depth to it. But we do have those situations where somebody has enough property that they could subdivide but they have 550 ft of frontage or width instead of 600 ft for example. So, this gives some people that are that have enough land but not enough frontage some ability to still um potentially subdivide and split off a lot. Or maybe somebody's house is sitting in just the wrong position where that's the item that's keeping them even if they had enough projects from dividing. This might give them might give them an opportunity to go ahead and do that. Um and then there is changes proposed changes to the front yard setbacks as well from local roads. So right now we have 120 ft setback in RA and the proposal is to reduce that to 70 ft from center line or 40 ft from property line. And again, that's to try to give people some more ability to um alter the placement of where their house might be on the lot. We have a lot of lots that have a lot of natural resources that impact their ability to, you know, where you can figure out something new basically. So this opens up some possibilities for what people can do. In some cases, even for people who are already there and has a house today, that might give them the option to say alter a garage and um change that into living space and move a garage forward with that, but they wouldn't have that creative option for it. They were ready to step back. >> Um >> yes. >> So at the very on that on RA, you know, minimum lot is 5 acres, but in a development, it's an average of 5 acres. The [clears throat] minimum could be two and a half there, right? >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that's still in >> that doesn't change anything from that standpoint. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> That's a you know um that's allowed in the subdivision regulations, not in the zoning, but it doesn't change that that's allowed. Um >> Okay. But we could add that clarification. >> I just want to make sure I understood it correctly. [snorts] [clears throat] >> Yeah, I could add that clarification to that part that acres. >> I'll try to come up with something to still put it. Let's still put it in the table. Um Right. Um and then everything that we have somewhere else, you know, the goal is to fit it into this table basically if it's a setback or some dimensional standard. So, um it's hard to find today, but you do have a requirement that you have to be at least 15 ft from the property lines, the side property lines if you for any driveway or parking areas. So putting this right in the table makes it easier to find than in the verbage that it's in in your ordinance right now. Um so that's sort of just the gist of that table. Is there any comments or questions about that? And how are you feeling about this kind of format? We're basically taking a it's like a 270 page ordinance today and it's going to be about 100 pages. It's all [clears throat] seems like driving and parking might apply to LTA also access. >> So, ironically, I didn't put it in there because it's not in that part of the ordinance >> today. Um, >> we add it. >> We can we can add it there. >> We know they go right to the line. >> No, they could go right to the line. Um, I can certainly add it there and there's no harm, no call because you actually have no properties on LTA. >> Be less confusing. >> Yeah, you can put the same thing in. Um, and we can put in the same type maximum as well and maximum coverage. But that's why those are not there at the moment. the um next one, next section that we wanted to share with you now and get some preliminary feedback is the accessory structures ordinance. This one again is probably one of the most used sections of the ordinance today. That's certainly the one that's staff gets the most questions about. I think um we have a really long handout that we do use today, but we get a lot of questions about how to use it as well. Um so what we did here is again we took out a lot of language. So, we took out language related to um structures needing to be that they can't be located nearer to the front lot line than the home unless they are at least 300 ft set back from the center line of the street. So, that has been removed in this proposed draft. Um, if a principal structure is located closer to the front lot line or public road than the required setback, then it must be cited in a location that's not closer to the street than the principal. There's like a lot of things that we just kind of removed as part of this to make it simpler. That will mean that you would get some structures being too towards the front of a house. um that is a you know a positive or a negative depending on the person's viewpoint. There's language in here that um that the architecture of those buildings needs to be aesthetically complimentary with the homes. But at the same time, um, you know, while I recognize a lot of people don't like accessory structures to the front of homes, for a lot of people, that's their only choice as well, just given how their lots configured and how um, you know, past decisions have been made with properties. And it's at least based on the committee's discussion, the um, general feeling of the committee was that it was better to open up opportunities for residents and give more people more opportunities in that regard. So, a lot of that accessory structure language kind of came out in favor of being more flexible and lenient um towards that. Um unfortunately right now this table for this section is going on to two pages but we open up the categories a little more for the acreage um the acreage brackets and then generally speaking increased um in some cases >> ma'am this doesn't reflect the latest change that I took a picture of it before we left that meeting it doesn't reflect the same things. It's like missing some categories and stuff. >> So, maybe you can pull up the other table that we had. Um, it just might be a lot easier to read when it's on two pages. >> Sure, I'll do that. >> Seems like it was shaped, right? These are increments. We're on a 2 acre So, is this matching up with what you took the picture of? >> Okay. >> I just want to make sure. >> I can't quite read it, but I'll tell you in a second. >> So, just show the proposed new on the right is the one she's talking about. Yeah. And I I'll have to double check, but I think some of the change the differences you might be seeing might be because the one table is up to or less than two acres, say for example, >> and the other one is citing it right at that number. >> But this is the one we we agreed on in the subcommittee. >> Yep. >> We can. And it could be updated on this page. >> Yeah. So if it's um >> maybe you could zoom in just a little bit. >> I'm trying to figure out how to do that. Is that removing the the restriction on the number [clears throat] and it goes by total building size or is that just not in this table? >> That's not in this table. So, this one's really focusing on the amount of square feet. >> The zoom in is on the bottom right. Go on the bottom right. >> Ah, thank you. >> I got to help you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, This is not including the number of buildings total, but it is the total proposed, you know, cumulative building size. And what we were spending time doing was kind of comparing as well that um building size amount as a percentage of the acreage of the property just to try to make the taring be fair to as fair as we could make it. recognizing or kind of collapsing things into groups as well. Um, [clears throat] but we would didn't want to see big jumps or dips any more than we had to anyways. So 10 10 and up is unlimited in terms of the amount. That doesn't show up on this version, but >> maybe this should really say like >> it really should. I think that's [clears throat] where the difference is coming in. But on top of this, just you have it to 2.5 acres and then so just some numbers need to be changed. >> Yeah. >> Up to 2.99 >> 1.99 through 2400 >> and then two. It's also 24. >> Oh yeah. 2 2.99 and then 3,000 would be the 500,000 or 3 acres 5,000. So it is a 2.992. >> Did we have 354? >> No, we combined it because we were having issues with too many um gaps in the acreage. So if you've got 8 acres, you can have 10,000, but once you get 10 acres. So we're just trying to bracket things up that have been separations. >> So 7.99 would be 8,000. >> Yes. >> 2.900. >> Yes. >> It was >> 3,200 for two and a half. So he's the only one that actually fell maybe not intentional. >> It wasn't intentional. It was more just kind of >> correct that someone doesn't. >> Yes, we had um two acres to less than 435. >> Well, that that's another one. That's just use this one. Y >> we weren't updating >> on the cross red line. It shows 2 and 12 to 5. >> That's because we only had >> 3200. >> So someone is in the 2 and 12 to 29. Now we're going to go down. >> We had three brackets before and now we're looking at five or six brackets is what we're trying to do here. Just break it up a little bit more. Give more opportunities. Yeah, I guess his point is just that if you're at 2.5 now, [clears throat] >> we could we can discuss that. >> I'll just adjust to make sure nobody's losing. Okay. >> Yeah. that >> well the RTS really are like affect >> well that's that's I guess nobody actually has right up to the limit >> yeah they're we have a lot of old um grandfather lots that are quite small so >> everywhere 2.5 to 2.9 not that big, but there's probably lots. And then related to that, one of the other things that we have included that we've briefly talked about a couple years ago, I think was whether or not to allow accessory dwelling units. And there wasn't a we get a lot of requests for these. Um, and we have a lot of them kind of illegally existing throughout the city um that have just been created at the time, but um there wasn't a desire a couple years ago when um there was some preliminary conversations to do anything about adding it to the ordinance, but we did add it to this one. Um, and I'll point out that the intention is that if you construct an ADU that is a detached accessory structure as opposed to being part of your house, that counts towards those accessory structure limits. So, that's one of the reasons as well that we bumped [clears throat] up the numbers to give people that option to construct those. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> Um, yes. The one thing I want to make sure on this is I I know that there was a house file this year um that was addressing a use that was going to affect any city over 5,000 residents which were kind of at that thing. Are we I mean it didn't pass but I'm assuming we would fall in line with Would we defer to the state guidelines or >> No, just I mean likely anything we would adopt now would meet something that they passed. So not unlike when cannabis was adopted by the state. >> If the state suddenly adopted something like that, we'd have to go in and speak for it. >> Okay. But that may or may not pass as a they're trying to do it as a requirement or as a by right. >> Yes. Yeah. That every >> if you're in a city over 5,000 and your lot size is over.3 acres, you would have to be allowed an ADU. I know Iowa goes into an area where they the state actually gets into some of the minimum square footage and or maximum square footage things like that. So, so this ADU ordinance is relatively simple to um enforce. Everything's based off of gross square feet. So, basically, you figure out how you want to use that and that's fine. If you want some garage space attached to that ADU, you can do that. If you value more space inside the unit and don't mind parking outside, you can do that and have more living space. Um, and that way we're not having to spend as much time reviewing and enforcing related to things like, oh, do we count these hallways? Do we how do we parse this building apart and what pieces do we comp? um just setting an aggregate total maximum limit and letting people choose how they want to use that space and what's important to them. >> How would this go with you know the trend now obviously is is barn dominions or shes however you want to call them where you might have a large barn area and maybe a dwelling unit on each side. How would that how would you count the barn area for a structure if it was all one structure? >> Great question. So, let's start with just being one dwelling unit in there. So there's a provision in the um in the accessory structure part that any um basically as far as the footprint of what's touching the ground, not more than half of it can be garage. >> Okay? >> So half of it has to be livable area. Um, so then if you started to add on another an accessory dwelling unit on top of that, then you would that would just be added separate that that accessory dwelling unit could be an additional up to 15. So that would limit the garage space to 750. >> No, >> no, no. They would they would they would have to have >> Well, the garage space would all be considered with the primary, right? Yeah, >> that was if it was that was if it was the true barnominium where they're >> attached to the house. >> Yeah. >> Right. Yeah. If everything was attached, you could have that that whole barn area be considered garage or whatever space and that would be >> part of the the primary and then AD would just be 1500 feet taped down to that regardless of where it is really. So it requires you to have a large house then a big barn. >> Yeah. Or garage does >> it's really more requiring you to have to have what's normally considered a house as opposed to extremely large accessory building. Teeny teeny tiny living quarters. [clears throat] So this so someone already had this house with a large attached garage. You could put a inside of it. >> You could Yep. >> Or you could attach it to attach it to >> detach. >> Yep. >> No, it doesn't. Um what we do have though right now is that that ADU has to be within so many feet of the principal dwelling. Um that's a pretty common requirement. You can take that out if you prefer. What ends up happening is um some people will put it really far apart and then they'll come in and say they want to subdivide that into two lots, >> which is just harder to do if they're close to each other. And it encourages um it encourages that it's more likely to be say family or someone who's at least watching over what's going on in the ADU unit as opposed to um you know splitting off a whole rental unit. So they split off in a separate lot might not comply with the minimum size or >> correct and a lot of other things or lot size is a lot. >> So that's item four is to try discourage that >> right along with the size to be honest the 1500 ft helps with that too. Um, where you start to have trouble is when you have a accessory needed. It's another 5,000 square ft of home because there's only so many people who can buy a property that has two homes on it and then when they can't sell, they want to split. Any more comments about these items? So, I know some of you may not check your city email as much. So, um we'll be getting out a full draft of everything. So, >> they don't have an assumption there. >> They should. So we will long before the next planning commission meeting we will give you the full draft so that you can start to zoom in detail and feel free if you run across something that's confusing reach out to me with those questions because if there's something that is confusing to one it's probably confusing to others and then I can make some edits as well to clear some things if I'm hearing too much of the same thing. this dimensional standard by district there's going to be a lot of other ordinance that gets cut out and it's not showing >> there is and similarly to that there's um all of the land uses is all put in the table too that takes up a few pages instead of dragging on about 50 pages today feedback question before we this good way to do it. Now we'll move on to our next agenda item. This one we need a motion because it's not going to come up till next meeting. Motion adjourned. Commissioner Carlson second.