okay folks it's 7 o'clock so much I would like to call to order the Tuesday March 19 2024 meeting of the mountain Planning Commission this is a special SL rescheduled meeting and agenda roll call please Jen commissioner AR present Ros preser president s here here here young here council member m here okay addressing the agenda you all received it by email we do have two amendments to the agenda uh the first is the Planning Commission work plan and project list you have that in front of you on your table it was also sent out this afternoon by email and the Second Amendment item is a uh at at request of Staff a discussion of um meeting timing so the chair would entertain a commission to approve the agenda with both amendments motion to approve the agenda with the addition of the work plan and timing second we have a motion the second discussion 3 none all those in favor signify by saying I iose nay motion carries okay we have two sets of minutes to consider the first is the January 2 2024 regular meeting minutes chair would entertain a motion for approval motion to approve the January 2nd minutes as written second we have a second discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries we also have the February 20 20 24 special meeting Workshop minutes chair would entertain a motion to approve those motion to approve the February 20th special uh meeting Workshop minutes as written we have a motion do we have a second second we have a second discussion here caring none all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries moving on the board of adjustment and appeals planning case number 24-3 review recommendation proposed amendments to mixed use regulations in city code section 129-139 consistency with 202 23 amendments to the 2040 comprehensive plan well that's a mouthful is it all right we first I think want to address a discussion regarding acceptance of mixed use development and appropriate building Heights and then once we do that this was preapproved with your boss once we do that we'll get into the bulk of the uh of the issues okay sure miss Rita that was my introduction um so as was stated uh the there was a couple of questions as we were preparing amendments to the code um we were realizing as we were actually working with um some inquiries that because of the recent comp plan amendment that we also needed to adjust the actual mixed juice districts so we started to go through um and try and identify where those standards should be changed and in that we discovered um and felt like there wasn't clear Direction on a couple of items that uh chair good mentioned one being um how we might handle mixed juice development what would be acceptable or not and how we would handle building Heights so I'm just going to give a little context I don't have a presentation or anything um because when we actually get to the code it might be easier to have the code up above um relative to acceptable mixed juice developments um what we were I think it was clear clear in the discussion during the comprehensive plan amendment that we weren't looking for multif family or apartment buildings H so that was kind of clear I think that's what we said when we did the comprehensive plan Amendment however there may be situations where someone may be proposing a commercial on the ground floor and apartments above it and it might be of any size or scale and that's something that I don't think was really clear to us on how we wanted to move forward relative to that for example could you have one of the stores that currently has had previously had an apartment above and they wanted to reestablish that apartment is that okay and we should be clear in the code about that if someone wanted to come in and do um mixed juice in the center and town homes kind of row houses attached to it is that okay if someone did a big apartment building with commercial on the ground floor which is probably not as likely it's hard to get the economics to work but again we want to be as clear as we can be about what you want and what you don't want so that when we're having conversations with folks we have uh the code that clearly says um relative to acceptable building Heights uh the standard pretty much in the community is 35 ft the code originally had both 35t and 50 feet um the reason we wanted to bring it up we could have just dropped it to 35 ft however just as a note uh our test is not going to be 35 ft they're higher they're under 50 fet um around 50 ft with the way it's calculated and so again if we're going to have commercial development or a mixed use development do we want to stick with 35 ft which is about three stories 2 and a half three stories is pushing it do we want to have any more flexibility and so that seemed like not the rest of the code sections that I had seemed a little bit clear to us about where we were headed those two we didn't make any suggestions because I feel like we haven't really had a discussion about that I think does that cover okay just making sure if Sarah had any other points so does that make sense as a context and background of what we want to discuss this evening so we know what changes to make and we don't have any direction there's there's no right or wrong I can't tell you that you should or shouldn't do anything so it's really a community discussion about what you're looking for communicated back towards Sarah and myself okay fire away fire away I think you have to fire away well what do you want to address first the uh I think it's let's talk about uses what acceptable mixed use development yes is mixed use development acceptable is there a limit to what that can look like be um and I just need you to kind of describe it and then I get the challenge of trying to write that down um you know is it we just want a few units we don't want a lot of units if someone came in and proposed I don't know I I we don't really have a site like artessa left but something larger where they assembled something and they were going to build that with commercial on the ground floor is that okay does this sorry does this have to be like the commercial zone or can this be in a residential zone or only talking the mixed juice districts okay it's the only districts we're talking about so Commerce downtown those different districts so has our staff suggested guidance on this what do other cities do need to ask that it's hard because other cities have allowed multif Family Apartments so it's a little clear to me and I'm not that's not a negative that's just a statement right um it seems like at the minimum allowing um smaller scale makes sense especially since we already have mixed juice buildings in town we at least want to have that um I don't know about bigger scale um I don't even know how I'm going to write that if that's what you tell me you don't want but I'll figure it out I'll give you some suggestions um so it's a little bit less clear because of knowing that we don't want the bigger scale Apartments which is totally fine but then does that mean we don't want if someone came in with a project to redevelop something so this would be residential business or a combination of the two well what we're asking about specifically is if you were going to do Residential and Commercial combined oh okay okay very specifically because I think if someone came in and wanted to do an office building we haven't really commented on that that that seems like it fits with what we've been talking about it's very specifically I think we've had you know inquiries over the years obviously we've also had uh we've had you know know reconverting things that had been apartments on the second floor on existing buildings I think I've seen and I haven't seen as much as there I think I've seen one where it was like commercial in the middle like in a building and next to it was the like tow houses row houses you know is that okay is it about scale more so than anything else well if you look at downtown right now out Lot B and like where the old dentist office is yep that's kind of going to have to be something a mix of this and I guess as I've looked at this I'd be comfortable with commercial on the bottom you know with an with an apartment on top and I'm also interested in limiting the height to no more than three story um I think Sarah you've been in a couple of our Council meetings where we've had a couple people get up and talk about the four stories at Essa and there are residents that would love to see it nothing else go that high and that's I'm sorry to be really particular so apologize because obviously I'm going to be writing this so the more questions the better my writing gets closer to what you want so I apologize if it feels like I'm like just nickp picking but so when we say that if you had some places because of the water table you might have to have parking and then residential above you're talking three stories complete so if you had to have parking on the main floor then you'd have two stories above that's what I'm that I'm just making sure cool again not trying to be I'm just trying to make sure I write it correctly so I sometimes I have to ask Claire question and I'm sure everybody has thoughts on that as well I was going to say something similar y okay I think from my end I am in favor of allowing as much flexibility as we can for developers to be able to intermingle um commercial and residential to what they see the market wants um for me especially where the mixed use districts are um this idea of having commercial and residential together makes a really nice walkable downtown experience especially where mixed use is concentrated so um we heard the community guidance that we don't want large apartment multif family um but outside of that allowing the mixture of those two uses is something I be for are there examples from similar Lake communities like excelia and wetta that um are examples that we would want to emulate and those that we wouldn't want to emulate I think then you're looking at design probably in that case but not height rather and height um isn't height in wetta what is it two stories above the commercial along the Lake Street it could be I think there are it feels like there's four Story I mean I know I have a picture in but I'd like to be you know careful not you know we're Mound we're not Cel here and we're not always that is so trying to keep our Mount charm I think is what we're kind of trying to decide here so it sounds like mixed juice makes sense mixed juice on the same side even if it's like an individual commercial building and like tow houses next to it but not necessarily Apartments next to it I'm just going to pose this not because I'm suggesting it but just to help me clarify that someone came in with a building three stories but still the size of our Tesla and it had ground floor retail would that you feel like not be supported in the community do does the comp plan already have a number of units maximum per area that we would want to have guidance for couldn't we enforce it with something like that it has a maximum yes but that would kind of make it that combined with the height could make it but it's clear it's helpful if we can be yeah specifically clear yeah so that there isn't questions that we have to like one but but you are correct there is a maximum density that you can have on a site soita are you asking if there just needs to be a mix of residential and commercial on one site but they don't necessarily need to be stacked so you could have a small town home complex with a small shop yes that's not the question I asked but it sounded like you were headed that direction oh I was trying to restate your question my question was if you had a building the size of Essa but only three stories because I know you don't want that and the first floor was commercial but the size of the building think of it you know it's like oh a block long by a block long is that okay or is that bigger than we want CU that's really apartment feeling and it's just that there's ground floor retail again no right or wrong just that to me is what I'm trying to regulate is say if that's not what we want then I want to be clear right that it doesn't matter that there is a threshold that you tip that we don't want buildings bigger than this size or walls that are longer than I mean I'll have to figure out how to do yeah I don't think we want mcmansions downtown I mean I think I like the idea of a twostory limit but as long as it looks decent I mean I'm sure there can be some architectural designs that we have to approve but long as it looks decent we are a small community and I don't want to have you know three four stories 1 two 3 4 two three you know it just doesn't look good okay so I'm thinking yeah two sounds fine to me 35 ft so that's different you said three now we're down to two well I was I said three based on the 35 ft which you said was two and a half three story yeah so 35t 35 ft5 yeah okay we're going to keep 35 ft I will try and you're going to see the language again so this is just to give me a sense so I know what to actually try and achieve in the writing any other last comments on that but our Tesla is larger than 35 ft correct so would be smaller they would be the they would have to go the height and what I'm feeling like I'm hearing from you is we also don't want the scale yeah we do not want a building that that is that big even if it had ground floor commercial we want smaller structures so that's a oneoff deal that's what I'm hearing is that correct so can you give us an example of what the limitation on sort of footprint would be I have to figure that out the footprint would be limited to aare footage and if you needed to be beyond that you would have to have discret structures right I think it's going to have to be individual buildings can be no whatever I have to figure that out how to write that in such a way that it works but yes that's what I'm hearing you say is that we don't want to have those kinds of things which again there just I just need to understand so I can try and write it okay Mr AR really looks perplexed for a second I'm not that I don't mind going on but look like I'm thinking the DBL are spinning man um I'm having a hard time I guess if we already have limitations on density and if we have limitations on height and then just obvious economic considerations doesn't that already impose a limit on all this like it might I need to think that's that's it might do enough but that's what I want to figure out and so how much how do we even get more explicit than that well I think that sorry to interrupt but I think the the breaking up of a very large structure that that is you know the size of a cruise ship on a large lot would be a way to impose an additional okay uh com constraint on it that would change kind of the architectural feel of a large site so go back to this this property over here that we talked about a few years ago I forget the name of the Commerce Place yeah Commerce Place you could put a remarkably large single structure on that property if everything else was wiped out and so do we want to have a 300t long or 400t long structure because it's probably the most economical way to put in that and then if you have discrete structures and you have to break it up and everyone is you know less than 6,000 square foot footprint or something like that then you end up with separations required by the other building code that would actually limit the use of the site in that manner so it' be an additional constraint over height over density over permeable surface coverage sense that could make sense and I want to it it may be enough one of the things though is sometimes people go straight to the zoning code and don't don't make a stop at the comp plan on their way so it would be nice to uh make sure if we can as much as we can make things clear what we're looking for what we're not so that they you know they when they call staff they will hear it but sometimes we don't always get all the information at the beginning so I think there there might be like an architectural benefit to that idea I hadn't considered that because when I started this line of questioning I did not understand that's where you're going yeah but it probably would make the value the property less valuable because there's additional constraints on it in terms of what could be placed there so I will have more information I just wanted to make sure that my understanding was correct that that's where we were headed and that mixed juice didn't change things in some way um and it also was nice to confirm that apartment in a mixed juice is okay because we hadn't really talked about that before and I know our feeling was we've had it it's just trying to get that scale right so okay do you have enough to go back and formulate some I do suggestive language yes sir other than I do want to make sure we chat about the information starting on page 10 the actual code Provisions that I recommended changing um and you will see that the things we discussed today are not reflected so like the height will have to change because we hadn't had that discussion yet um there are strikeouts are where we're proposing to delete language underlines are where we were proposing um to add language one thing that's a little interesting caveat is we wanted to have Provisions such that if any of the existing multif family structures were wanting to redevelop at some point that we had some mechanism to guide them on like what how they should redevelop in the future so that's why we did not strike multif family in it in complete um which is probably also why I feel like we want to make sure to be as clear as we can and we can restructure these if they're not uh clear um but uh so on the first page we just talked about existing structures and making sure that anything any multif family that's going to be redesigned would have to follow design standards um site design standards I did move around um on the next page page 11 under item D site design the numbering moved around because I didn't want to talk about um any new mixed juice buildings or replacement buildings something the things that are about that at the beginning and then talk about other things at the end people kind of you know may skip those elements so I just moved up screening of ground mounted equipment or outdoor storage um and then we applied new mixed use buildings or replacement buildings should have bicycle storage or private usable open space for those residential units um and then we left everything else the same assuming that you could have potentially mixed juice buildings um needing some of that my one exception might um some of the architectural design if we are only going to three stories I believe there's one of these that maybe we don't need quite so much I'm trying to remember or we could keep them all it's just if you only have three stories you're not as concerned about the bulk of the building anymore because it's not getting very tall um or two and a half stories how many buildings and I don't expect to literally know the answer but how many buildings do we have in mom that are more than three stories is our test literally the only [Music] one not that many just a couple it was originally envisioned that downtown would have more right yeah had the original right kind Harrison Bay parking fire station yeah I don't know how much sh sticks up but it doesn't stick up that one's behind so you don't see that one any other so these aren't too many changes anything that jumped out as folks of concern did did we say that we were simplifying the mixed use districts to one type is that something I remember from the I think we took out all the names of the districts okay so the fact that there are two we might be able to take away you are correct in the fact that we may not need the corridor District anymore because the main distinguishing Factor was height between the two districts so I will take a look at that if we can make it easier by all means we should do it so I will look at that just so I understand on page 11 where you have crossed out number five six three and four that's just a numbering it's just a numbering correct thank you all right so you are you proposing that we address this tonight or do you want to make some changes and bring it back very much Mr good if you wouldn't mind um um well no that can work never mind I was looking at one use that we changed a couple of uses to conditional use permits um but that should be fine I was thinking we had to talk about it but I'm good okay you're good you're going to bring it back yes sir with changes yes sir okay any other questions or issues with this from Council commission excuse me okay thank you Rita yeah mhm we next have Planning Commission work rules you've got those in your packet uh these are work rules that have been in existence uh since the beginning of time U they have been changed uh a little bit little bit here and there uh here and there um one of the amendment items for tonight is uh a topic of interest for uh Sarah regarding timing of meetings which would change the work rule so let's talk about that first sure um uh members of the Planning Commission may be aware but uh that the city council is going to be changing their meeting start time from 7 o' to 6 o' starting soon May April or May and I think yours is done by ordinance I believe um our our our time and and we also may have an ordinance issue as well but in our work rules uh for the Planning Commission uh it outlines all of our uh basis of operation how we have how we start meeting what a forum is what our regular meeting is when things get carried over uh those types of things elections all kinds of uh various activities meeting protocols and uh I think one of the uh topics that we wanted to bring to the Planning Commission uh similar to the council is if the Planning Commission has interest in also considering a time change for your regular meetings again uh that all depends on people's schedules people's commute times uh family commitments um but the because the council is considering those changes we thought that we would bring that to the the Planning Commission as well it also might be going to the other boards as well um so I just I because that is included in the work roles I thought this was an opportune time to talk about that um there's there's no need to change if you are wanting to stay at 7 o' or if you want to move to a time we could certainly entertain that as well um obviously there's commuting uh people have jobs people have children and families and those types of things and and you're volunteering already so whatever your commitment is um you have to be able to get here so everybody's schedule's a little bit different so I just wanted to bring that out uh to see if there's interest if there's not then then we will just set set that aside um with regards to other things in the work rules um if there are other uh topics of discussion or change or evaluation that members want to talk about uh we can sure do that uh this uh project was tabled at our meeting in January to this meeting um to allow a little more time because we had uh a full schedule and we also I think had some folks that were not able to attend so um with that I will uh stand for questions uh or answer any questions or um share comments uh some of the things that we've changed uh in the past on work rules um attendance was talked about a handful of years ago um what happens if the chair and the vice chair are both absent we had that uh happened one to us one time uh we also have uh what to do if we have a lot of applicants which is a really good thing when you have a ton of applicants and how There's an opportunity to kind of um scope those applications down um we uh dealt with how to deal with a uh A current survey uh for an application if we can accept things that aren't fully updated um we we added in that we are now um being videotaped uh for reproduction purposes uh all kinds of little things have uh been added in over the course of the year so um I'll stand for questions I don't know how people feel about the six o'clock time if that's something you're interested interested in talking about or just leaving it the way it is at 7 o' that's fine too um but with that I'll I'll stand for questions okay let's take it in two pieces let's discuss the uh timing of the meeting first thoughts on that I like consistency across the board so like if the the council is doing 7 PM I just think it's easier for staff and for calendaring purposes that all of those boards kind of have that same time but that's me I like consistency so the council is going to 6 they're going to 6 p.m. y yep yep I I'm just saying just generally I don't I don't care you could tell me it's 5:00 and I'd say that's fine we'll go to 5 um it's just I like the consistency of it I think it's easier to remember you know the times than it is oh planning meets at 7 or Council meets at 6 so I I like consistency so and I I mean if I'm going to make a commitment to be on a board even though I'm volunteering I'm still going to adjust to the timing of it so that's that's me personally um but that's easy for me me because I live down the road and I'm always home so so I assume you would keep the three-hour block just shift it down an hour is what you're asking for cuz right now it's 7 to 7 to 10 11 11 11 7 11 it's a 4 hour that's I think the latest yeah I think that would shift accordingly yeah I'm okay I mean other thoughts my preference would be to keep it at seven I have a long commute it would affect my ability to commit to this yeah that's what I was going to say is if we're going to do it for inside this year I I would feel a lot more comfortable if the decision were unanimous instead of just majority since folks have committed to a certain time though I would be open to um doing it for over starting that next year for people who have a next term so if they commit to it that they could do it at that time it also affects my so I get home I have dinner with the family and then I can come here I would actually be more excited about 800m start then a 6 p.m start but no telling you where I'm at ouch that hurt I guess I have some concerns about just Community accessibility and and the ease of citizens who want to partake in this um good point it strikes me that that I guess I think six was probably better from an accessibility standpoint just because we are a community with a lot of young families that that parents have to get home um but if other people have different take on that but I think that should certainly be consideration I thought you were going the other way I was too and I would say that's where I would see it I would think the community would be the 7:00 start time would be better which I may be an anomaly but so my family's all growing o y I'm I'm flexible if me would be work that would be the only issue but I can I kind of don't say make my own schedule but with reason so I'm I mean I'd go to six o'clock could be some more evening time but just one one voice in the choir okay other thoughts on this outside of being really curious now about how that's going to change Council participation I mean I don't know if there's a way for us to say stay to seven see for the rest of the year how it h impacts the community coming in at the council meetings if you say we moved it to six and now we're seeing 30% less people then I would say let's say 7:00 p.m. and and I don't know if we can do something like that but that would kind of be my thought is cu again I really liked the idea of the community being able to make it which I hadn't thought about um although I think I saw it in a little reverse order as you but but I appreciate bringing that up because it made me think about it but that's I I you know so are you suggesting staying at 700 p.m. through the remainder of the calendar year and then address this issue again next fall for a potential change January 1 I yeah I mean I don't know if I got the timelines in my head I'm just saying as a kind of a method to understand how it the community recoils from that time change but using the city council as the example how about we split the baby in 6:30 nobody does anything at 6:30 why not that's really hard to remember or I suppose another approach would be keeping it at seven and then seeing how the effect of the council's time change impacts a variety of issues and then readdress this after a period of time we can always revisit it at the end of the year and see you know see how it goes with the council sir can you share at all the thought process that led the city council to making that change um I can sh on that um a lot of it had to do around family and sports there was much more time getting home from school getting home from work eating and then getting kids out to sports um another consideration definitely was staff because they just sit around in their office until 7 o'clock um we were fortunate that most of us have somewhat flexible schedules and we did we have had this out for about a month and a half that's why it wouldn't happen till May because we've been consistently putting this on our agenda that we're you know so the residents can get used to the idea of this switching and we haven't had any feedback that's negative um so that that's what led us to considering the six o'cl time and it we did bring it up almost two months ago so so the city council didn't have any considerations that wouldn't also apply to us everything you just said I think applies to us as well as the city council well staff I think it's good staff mean invol with the staff too the staff yeah how would you feel I mean do you want I mean does it matter to you whether it's six or seven does from a staff Staffing perspective from an overtime for anything like that doesn't really matter it it doesn't matter I mean I I would say that if you can it makes for maybe a little earlier departure right right you know if if we start start at 6 and then we're a 3-hour meeting you know we're leaving at 9: rather than leaving at 10: right but um but you bring up a good point it will be interesting to see how participation is going with residents when we switch it to six and for better or worse I mean wouldn't look at the decline you don't know the timing could mean more people attend yeah okay are we ready for a motion on this or are we going to let it sit for a while and then re re evaluate so motion to table this topic until October and keep the work RS as are that could be or or a motion to adopt a six o'cl start time I'm just throwing out the Alternatives I'm making that motion you're making the motion I'm making that motion to table the topic until October um okay we have a motion to table this issue until October do we have a second I'll second it okay we have discussion about that what's going to change in October versus now I think we'll have more information on how it's impacting from the city council side plus or minus I mean if they start in may that would give us May June July August SE that's six months of seeing how it's working with them if there is any type of positive or negative shift with participation from the public from the public po I suppose we could argue that having it consistent starting it at the same time as the council M having it more consistent and then if they determine that the 6:00 is wreaking havoc then it would do so with us too and then we would could change it back to S and follow suit with them it is easier it sounds like to do that with the Planning Commission but for the city council it is a longer process so we're trying to avoid you know confusing the public and we've put a lot of thought into this so you know we're hoping it's it's positive for everybody but I agree that we'd be a great guinea pig to watch and see if if it comes up a plus or minus before you know the planning makes their decision okay we have a motion to table until October further discussion I would be I guess I'm a no vote on the motion to table I think we should follow the lead of the city council I think the the reasons that they stated for their changes apply equally to us and we should follow their lead okay so let's take a vote on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I those oppose Nay n n n okay let's revisit the vote all those in favor raise your right hand in favor of table post until October oh dabling till October okay all right those oppos raise your right hand we have a tie oh no I don't feel like I should vote let's see who's the negatives I'm whatever works for everybody well you can't see that come on I think the motion carried with four how three four so let's we can raise your hand if you're in favor of the motion four one two three four if you're your hand is not up okay thank you it was your if you're opposed to the motion raise your hand one two three you're not voting three it passes all right it passes so we wait until October and look at it again all right thank you I feel like it's kind of conflict of interest one one of the things that we do in the commission that we've not had to do a lot is that if individuals who voted against the motion would like to express their reasons for doing so they have the latitude to do that I think we've already talked about it so any further comments in that regard no I don't have any we're good okay no thanks thanks for offering all right let's go back up then to the um Planning Commission work rules um excluding issues regarding time uh you've had the work rules in front of you um are there any particular aspects of the work rules anyone would like to bring up is it formally addressed and that I this sounds like a silly question maybe it is I it's not clear to me I guess whether Consul women MN is a full voting member or not I assume she is she is okay I have always voted on this particular vote I kind of feel like it's a conflict of interest because yeah she's a full V you're abstaining oh on the timing issue you're refusing yeah you're fine that's fine you can abstain yes you can always abstain y but I I think it's a good question I don't know if I've seen is that clear in here that she's not just aaon but a full voting member that's a good point every seated member shall be eligible to vote okay and she's a seated member it it on I mean you don't have to change it but I think your question is is relevant because if you are in another communities that's not always typical that a council person votes which is probably your experience as well but it's it is definitely different from place to place you probably my only one where you actually vote so the suggestion is that the council member be considered a full member with vote got the suggestion well you are doing that it's just clarifying the rules that actually says that I think that's right no I'm talking about an addition to that language to the work I'd be in favor of anything that removes ambiguity because I had yeah a similar question and we have we want to have an even membered body that way for majorities okay are there other work rule issues that anyone would like to raise um chair would entertain a motion to approve the work rules for 2024 to include clarification that the city council member is a full member with vote would someone like to make that motion I will make a motion that we amend the work rules to clarify that the city council Le is on as a full voting member and adopt the remainder of the work rules for 24 correct and adopt the remainder of the work rules as written we have a second second we have a second discussion I will just throw in there I very quickly pulled up city code I think that is made clear in city code section 2- 292 that the city council appoints one of their owned to be a full member of the Planning Commission it's just not in our work rules does it say a full voting member or just full member it says s select an ex-official member of the commission from among from among its own members the said council member to be appointed for one year commencing in January of each year it's not totally clear but I think the implication well it would be a built in suspenders if we include it in our work rules correct yeah yes okay any further concerns about basketball yeah so I think with that then the motion to make that change is unnecessary and we should which I think is what's on the table right now well you can do whatever you want I think it still can be in there I don't know that exic member means voting voting member I was question vo I can clarify let me read the whole thing the Planning Commission shall consist of nine members eight members shall be appointed by the city council and may be removed by forist vote the council shall also select an ex official member of the commission from its own members so eight people are appointed from the community at large the ninth is a member of the city council which would suggest that they are a full member and so it is nine including it is nine including the repres okay we have a vote uh pardon me a motion on the floor um one alternative would be to um vote against the motion and then reconsider a different motion that excludes discussion about the city council member or we can leave the motion the way it is which would in essence just be clarifying for our work rules what the U language in the um uh in in the uh City Rules state so further discussion about that hearing none all those in favor of the motion which is to a clarify that the city council member is indeed a full voting member of the commission and B approving the remainder of the work rules for 2024 all those in favor signify by saying I I those posos nay okay motion carries thank you all right we next have Planning Commission work plan and Staff Pro list that's this document that was in front of you on your table and uh turn it over to sh yes thank you and thank you for your discussion on that last matter as well uh for your review and consideration uh at our meeting this evening uh we have the work plan that was put together and talked about uh cooperatively with the members of the city council at our concurrent special meeting workshop on February 20th and as part of the process the work plan is once it's put together after the concurrent meeting the Planning Commission evaluates it makes sure that it is in good form and then uh makes a recommendation on those activities which is moved or Advanced on to the city council for formal action uh included on the list uh for the Planning Commission work plan is code code up dates uh to various sections and that's been ongoing as well as adus and adus are on our uh structure uh discussion for a little bit later and then on our project list uh we've got three things uh dealing with property maintenance study of environmental initiatives some of which are on our discussion item for tonight uh and then ongoing discussion uh with study to become an age friendly Community these are the topics that were Ros to the top at our meeting on the 20th um if the Planning Commission feels that it's in good form uh a recommendation um from the Planning Commission to the counc to formally adopt the work plan is in order and recommended okay you see the two items under the 2024 Planning Commission work plan updates city code and then evaluation of overnight living quarters that would be a work plan for the commission the request by staff is that we U recommend to the uh city council that this work plan be adopted do I hear a motion to do so can I everybody understand what we're doing here we're just amending if I can just ask a question is the city counc going to expect expect us to have any timelines associated with this or just the approval of those topics um we're already in March so Ian it's December's gonna come up quick so I they didn't give us they didn't give us a directive for schedule okay um this is how we've had it the last couple of years okay thank you Miss Wacker Mr chair further discussion I'm sorry I was going to make a motion so anybody has discussion Please Mr chair I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend city council approval of the the 24 Planning Commission work plan and the 24 staff project list as outlined in the uh adendum to the agenda second motion and a second further discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose nay motion carries thank you thank you now are we going to have any discussion about the project list or not uh that's next that's what I thought wanted to clarify that yes okay Rita looks confused I did because I thought you did both the work plan and project list you only did the work we we approved the topics on the on the work plan okay the the one sheet okay well we approved the project list but we didn't approve the items on the project okay just for clarification I'm so confused with that so I think I think his motion this I think his motion was harmless in that regard should I use that phrase okay all right so we have uh did not staff project list uh and who's going to address that tonight was amended into the that's what I I see this more detail that's the review and recommendation confused on adus solar and electric I think yeah I was ready to stand up you were it was it was you okay she said I could sit but I can't see you I'm just not used to it you could sit when you need to go yeah I'm just so used to seeing all of you faed on it's too weird to sit to the side and not talk to you all right we all ready lots of conversation uh just going to start it um all right so um we thought we would try and keep momentum from our discussion at the last at the Joint meeting um and really work through as much as we can um as you saw in the packet we did not draft up specific regulations because there was some discussion that we need to to have on each of the topics to make sure we were headed in the right direction um the information that I provided um I'm going to walk through and I basically have a slide that mirrors what you have in the packet just so that everybody can see the same words um I did note that there was a numbering thing that got off so that's formatting wise um you'll see on the slides that everything is labeled you know 1 2 3 4 5 and then ABC D so that if you need to reference something it's easy that you can say what it was um I do want to clarify that in many cases um there the choices are not necessarily mutually exclusive and some topics they are you're going to pick something you're not going to pick more than one but some of the topics you can pick multiple within there and we'll have that conversation um and I also did a little bit of math to help us hopefully with some of the conversation because the size question is a hard one um especially since I gave you so many choices and so I did a little bit of math to help just give us some framework for it so you'll see when we get here so we are doing the topics in accessory dwelling solar energy and electrical electric veh vehicle charging um you saw and the conversation will be the biggest in the first topic and it'll shrink down as we move to topics so I know I'm going to wear you out but hopefully that means by the time we get to electrical vehicle charging there just aren't that many choices so it won't be so hard and I apologize there's just a lot to be said about adus and they are a fairly impactful um positive and negative that they can have on property so it is something that we want to carefully talk about um so just a reminder accessory dwelling units means a self-contained residential unit that has a living room kitchen and bathroom um it can have a bedroom it cannot have a bedroom there's not a specific statement when you say Adu that means it has a bedroom or not it can be a studio um they are permanent installations that are part of the property um right now the way you'll see in a second we typically consider them part of a single family home other communities may look at adus differently but I think that's the starting point that most communities start with is that it's related to a single family property lots of different terms that we've used in the past but adus is the common term that we are using the only exception in California they call them Junior Suites but otherwise in the country they generally call them accessory delling um so there's 12 topics some are easier some are harder my thought was to talk about the topics in order and get agreeance and not walk through all 12 and then go back and talk about them because they're they kind of build on each other and if you decide something we can just move on um but some of them you may or may not be able to decide today you may ask for additional information and then I'll come back with that additional information I just wasn't always sure what additional information would be helpful so I assume zoning District wise we just want to allow them where there are single family homes that we don't want to allow them when someone has a duplex or a town house or a row house corre I assume we're going to start small but if you wanted to start differently let me know um that's kind of my assumption based on our last conversation can you just refresh me and read does current city code regulate these at all uh no okay not in this format the the way the current city code is that like if you had a a part of your house that has a bedroom a kitchen they have to be connected so you can like open a door and be connected if you do these the household for the household if you do these you would be actually having like a firewall separation it could be locked it could be a completely separate unit that is is not tied together right now we required them to be tied together as one household unit so we're doing this creating new work from scratch basically could be that's my understanding from our conversation okay I just want to you have the right yeah no but you always have you know there's no guarantees you might go down this path and go yeah no we don't want to do this and that's fine that's what the conversation is about any concerns about the single family sounds right okay see check one down 11 left um my understanding this is the Adu form when we talked last time it sounded like folks were amable to the idea that you could have a basement conversion a converted garage a detached structure an attached structure that all of those things are possible that we didn't want to limit is that correct yes okay two down here's some pictures in case you wanted to see some pretty pictures um so basements on third stories a lot of different on top of a garage different ways you can do it um quantity our assumption is that you just want one you want to limit it to one per single family lot we don't want to have more than one on a lot and this would just be one Adu but not one accessory building one U okay correct Yes actually that's part of the conversation coming up but yes so meaning a shed it feels so to shed a storage unit that's yeah he's saying that can you have a shed and an ad yeah yes I assume so but there's a conversation coming up a few things that are kind of related all right lot size do we care how big of the lot how big the lot is in order to have an Adu so many of the communities I work in we just say you can have a Adu we don't look at lot size it's just but you may have a desire to do that so we gave you some options um a is you would allow them at any lot no matter the lot size which means we wouldn't put this in there we wouldn't have to put a statement that said that we would just say they're allowed um you could have it that they're only allowed which meet the lot size minimum so if it's like the R1 district and it's 10,000 square F feet if you had a lot that was under 10,000 square F feet you couldn't have a Adu or 6,000 square feet note you have a lot of non-conforming lots in Mounds so there would be impacts if you went that route but it is an option or you could say adus are only allowed if you have a lot of a minimum size and pick a number again you'll have lots that can do it and lots that can't do it so it's an option that we wanted to at least have you think about so let's say we don't have a minimum size explicitly what are the other practical constraints that are already in code like hard cover requirements okay all those other things okay that's why I typically don't see this but it is something that other communities do talk about so I didn't want to like leave things off just cuz I didn't have you know this is for you not for me so I I feel like we wouldn't go down this route but if you wanted to we could a is kind of a problem for me because it seems to contradict that other building code that I think we would defer to on everything else so a a seems to contradict it might lead somebody to believe that permeable surface is not I would include that okay right if we do a we won't State anything in the code extra right right I'm it'll it'll just be so my point is I don't I don't like a so you don't like the fact that you can have an Adu no I don't like the wording of that oh yeah I the second one makes concept is fine it's allowed but you have to meet all the other requirements right yeah so you just reference back to all the other code yeah what it'll be in a your code structured a little different but we'll have a section I don't know where that says like accessory dwelling units and it'll list all the standards and so in the use table will indicate the fact that it's permitted but you have to follow the standards that are in that section yes what's the difference between that and B that means that's what I was talking about so if you did B then it would say you can have an Adu as long as you meet the minimum lot size of your District so if you're R1 you'd have to have 10,000 s ft to do it if you're R1 a or R2 you'd have to have 6,000 sare ft and if you were under you aren't allowed to have an Adu well and what would be the risk on that what's the downside you said there would be some you have a lot of lots that are undersized and so then we're saying that don't have any adus on no that don't meet 6,000 square F feet or 10,000 square fet and then we would be saying you just can't have it where whereby if you have a house and you wanted to do an internal Adu do we really care if your lad is undersized or not probably put a second floor yeah or if you're going to put in the basement or basement if you have a garage and you're just going to pop it the barage one's probably kind of hard depending on the pitch of your roof but in that as an existing condition yeah that lot size that would be the existing lot size why would that change I'm I'm not following here this is something you could do okay but you don't have to some cities do want to do it because like they would say oh 6,000 is too small we only want to allow it if they're bigger than 9,000 sare F feet or if they have a big enough lot to me it sounds like because you're not it's not resonating with you we could move on and say we're good but I don't want to move until we're I I think a makes sense I think we're all kind of saying the same thing actually that's what I think it's just I don't want to move on too quickly so someone feels like I'm speeding past and they don't get a chance okay let's moving can everybody see this okay do I need to dim lights or we good I can yeah I can see it fine I'm not sure that I agree with I'm not sure I agree with a prefer B do you want to Let's ignore the language just look at me do you want to have adus on lot do you have a certain size that you think Lots need to be in order to have I think if it's a non-conforming lot we don't want to intensify the non-conformity by adding agree another structure or even by allowing so if it's 5,990 or 5,000 you're allowed to put a garage on a lot that doesn't meet minimum lot size you're allowed to put a garage on a lot that doesn't we generally in M we mostly consider SI lot size an existing condition that isn't the fault of the person that currently owns it because most of the time cre additions to nonon a long time ago yeah that was streamlining back in the have you seen anything where cities say a a percentage of your your lot size so if you have a you know you can't have a have an Adu that's a certain percentage over your we're getting to that part into like the size of the Adu this is just I think that's what you're saying right I don't want um well I'm just again the size of the Adu shouldn't be uh yeah no I am jumping ahead sorry no I'm just making sure because all of a sudden jumping ahead I spoke too quickly maybe you were saying something else well I I said my piece I we can move on okay do we have to make a decision no just move on don't make a decision here or well we're just feedback I thought no I mean I have to write it so if if this is if this is something you're passionate about then you probably need to win your colleagues over so I didn't write it the other way and I'm okay or we can start there and you can see the whole package and then decide if it still bother to use chair Goods language I'm thinking of kind of a built suspenders approach because I probably can't imagine all of the ways that this will be gained but if I think about something that is sort of a non-conformity and then you add in an accessory dwelling unit which presumably comes with other things that are covered in later sections I would like to have all of those kind of layered up so that we aren't making it easy to intensify a non-conformity because we have a lot of things that don't conform and mount so that's that's my position on this okay it's it's a layered approach to try to not have things in the city that we think aren't what we want that's my rationale to some degree some of those other things will limit the intensification someone can that's my point I would like to have a layered approach to that because I I feel like a lot of times these systems are gained and we have seen people try to test the limits of of the code in the past or or the comprehensive plan all right so I will write it that way but recognize you may push back at a at a later meeting okay does that sound good good yes okay find nothing okay setbacks um I'm going to get I debated last time do I do size setbacks but maybe we need to talk about size first and then you can talk about setbacks so I'm going to skip up to to size so this is the one that's the most complicated and I actually have five Lepard slides because it's that complicated size is tough um because there's so many different sizes of houses and so many different things we're talking about so we may get to a point in this conversation that we need to recognize that we want to differentiate between a detach structure that's like an accessory structure on the property versus what's inside a house those are layers different ways we can do it so I just want to put that as a preamble because this is the one that I think I feel like when I'm working with cities that we may struggle the most with because it's hard because some some lot you know some houses are small and we don't want to make it so they can't do it but some anyway there's all that kind of thing so I'm going to walk through these before we come back um just to make sure that we understand the differences so um this one really focuses just on detach adus um she'll meet the structure area requirements for an accessory structure So Below is the existing code it says buildings shall not exceed the lesser of 3,000 square feet or 15% of the lot the table to the right isn't something you don't have in your packet that I added I just did math in Excel so hopefully it worked um that said if a lot is 6,000 square ft then your maximum building is 900 cuz it's the Lesser of 3,000 or the Lesser number so if you have a 6,000 foot lot the biggest size you can have is 900 ft and that's an accessory structure not an Adu specifically but we could just use it and say we want to use the same standards for an accessory structure like a detached garage or a shed as we do in Adu um also in your code today it says an individual building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet so that means even if you are a 10,000 square foot lot the maximum building you can have is500 that's the total area of all accessory structures on a lot only 1,200 of it could be in the first building and the other building would be 300 like you're still Limited in size of structure hopefully that's making sense okay and then the third one is how many you can have on a lot so if you have basically generally the r1a and r2s can have a maximum of two accessory structures or buildings and lots bigger so the R1 District that have 10,000 or bigger can have three these are all existing code Provisions I'm not proposing anything but one option is to just say detach have to follow the general regulations we already have in place as opposed to coming up with new regulations um so that's an approach that we use in many of our communities I'm going to just any questions on that you don't have to wait in on it because I'm going to go to the other ones just to make sure okay so another approach that some people use is that detached adus shall cover no more than some percentage 15% you know I have the numbers you can pick the the reason I did blanks is like I don't know you can pick whatever number you want I've seen 15 I've seen 20 kind of depends on your size of lots so that's fairly straightforward um but doesn't kind of link with your other accessory building um sometimes we do an Adu shall meet a percentage of the principal structure when we use this one typically it's more used for those internal ones where we don't want to have the Adu be so much bigger than the principal structure itself you know we want the principal unit to be the Principal unit and you want the Adu to be a smaller one and so sometimes people use that the one challenge we sometimes have is if you're going to put it into a basement and you have the floor you know the footprint of your basement 50% you like they have to do some convoluted way that it's not all Adu because if they use the basement the first floor and the whole basement is the Adu then if you hit 30% then now you're going to have a problem so we have to be careful if we do that that's just an example that makes hopefully that makes sense with my hands yes just a clarification so is this Adu shall not exceed a percentage yes it could be yes oh okay just you're right I might have dropped the word okay be no more would be another word yes you're right I'm not a realtor but I just have a question do we know how does this impact square footage on homes if it's a detached dwelling can you say can I when I sell my house say it's that's the extra square footage cuz I look at that and I think gosh 900 square feed that's quite a bit so I I just don't know how this I guess I just don't know how it relates to property value I don't have a specific answer to that question I don't think I've ever had it asked quite that way but it makes sense what you're asking not that I'm for or against it I'm just trying to understand right I'm sure it's counted in it like you can acknowledge and as long as it's also permitted by the city that you can do it right um but I don't know specifically and rard these all square feet these are not square feet per floor this is just square feet of the lot or is it square feet per floor this one is square feet of the principal structure I have had cities that talk about it being the footprint and I have talked had cities that talk about being the entire square footage so that's a clarifying point we have to verify the other ones are about the lot so A and B are about Lot C we've moved into the principal structure so that's where it gets confusing because there's different ways of doing it um sometimes cities don't want to deal with any of those percentages and trying to pick the right percentage and they just straight out say an Adu can be between this size and this size because that just felt easier instead of having to figure out because they recognize some houses are bigger some houses are smaller you know they just pick a number so that it's easy um I gave you an example that's just an example um I've seen other numbers the E1 is uh some have said that they shall meet minimum building code standards it's a nice thing to say um when I've been in there it's not like there's a specific number and that number sometimes changes as you go from different building codes so I said it's approximately 250 square F feet that's um at least unless others know differently that's the last time I looked was like a year ago and it wasn't like I could go in and find the specific number and pull it out it was like you had to add together certain things so those are the options I think the kind of the underlying question is first of all do we have a concern about how big they're going to get is our concern about how much space they're going to take up in the lot do we want to use Adu size to regulate it in some way do we want to use setbacks because that's another mechanism to also limit things yes if you have an Adu the same size as the the original structure whether it's above below or to the side what differentiates that from being a duplex that is always a fun question when we do those um one is that the owner of the structure has to be the owner of the Adu it dependent most likely when we get down to that and they have to be there versus a duplex usually can be rented um out both sides can be rented right right I I think I assume we're going down I don't know it's number 11 or 12 talking about how you have to be on site when you have an Adu but that has been a conversation in other communities is what tips you from being an Adu versus a duplex um and that is fairly close on on the minimum side is there a State Building Code guidance on how small you can make a unit that someone lives in in general generally that 250 it's the 250 okay is I had a similar question because I was kind of struck on the previous slide where the table went down to 240 and I'm thinking yeah about what I just did math on that one I understand but um it it it's about 225 to 250 is what it talks about in the building code it it made me think about I think I would like to have a minimum not per the state requirement just but what would maybe represent an odity that would make a structure kind of weird because we have enough weird things in Mountain so um having a 240 square foot dwelling that feels like a a large closet I mean that could be like a garden shed or you're living in or I mean I'm trying to understand too what this Ada is but it could be a garden shed or a tiny house is generally under 400 square feish when you do those and I'm not we're not going down the tiny house route right generally any house kind of when they talk about it it's less than 400 square ft is so and if you we also haven't talked this is where they're all inter related so it's a little hard because we haven't actually talked about occupancy either um and occupancy is tied to square footage yeah also I I don't know if you were done but I kind of like a combination of of D and one of the earlier ones that specified a percentage of the principal structure this is the principal structure one the other ones are lot A and B are Lot C is principal structure D is just a straight out number so we don't have to do the math because one of the challenges of the math on principal structure is then we have to figure out or somebody has to prove to us how big their house is which isn't my favorite I'll be honest and one thing about the the relation to the principal structure though I would potentially be okay with capping it at 100% that it shouldn't be bigger than the principal structure but on the minimum side if you have a smaller house and you want to have a you know aging friendly Adu I wouldn't really want to that that if the house is relatively small it could also make the Adu even more small if we went on the 30% side so I in general I would probably be okay with a perhaps 100% cap relative to the principal structure with respect to footprint um but I would rather see the minimums being in absolute square feet yes yeah so following d a lot easier yeah so I'm hearing a minimum of whatever number we pick 250 300 400 maybe we have to have the occupancy discussion and this is where I can come back and give more information and then a maximum of some sort that's no more than so much of the principal structure footprint is what you said I but yep we have to be careful with footprint or total structure area right we do footprint would be generally smaller if you have multiple FL correct would be the smaller of the two options okay okay um let's just go on unless somebody has a strong opinion percentage of okay because the occupancy May pay until this later anyway um occupancy is also a tough conversation I think I referenced that when we were at the meeting um done in different ways I think the biggest concern that I've had about occupancy I think most people I've worked with end up with some type of occupancy number they're always a little bit concerned though if you have a family because what happens when they uh have a kid and then they're out kind of but that's just no way around that one so just put it on the table gone through this and that usually comes up um Mr Heel look like you you skip parking I skipped stuff yeah oh no I haven't gotten to parking I'm on seven I have to go back to seven she's occupancy I think I owner occupant yeah no I'm on just how many people do we want do we want to limit how many people so one choice is no more than two occupants per bedroom that's just to quantify it that's not literally someone's going to go in and make sure that they don't put that's just if you have a bedroom then you're going to have two people if you have a studio then you'd have two people if you have two bedrooms some people have actually um there should be no more occupants than the number of bedrooms supplied the 80 you should have at least this much per square feet for the first occupant X number Square fet additional occupant on the bedrooms I've actually seen a minimum number of bedrooms in one Community where you had to have a bedroom I'm not advocating that um there are different approaches so and if you're not concerned about it too much then we also don't have to have one all of these you don't have to do these these are just things through our experience we know people typically want to do particularly as it relates to parking later to limit or to not have too many people in us well do you have a suggestion um I think from an Administration perspective it's a lot easier for staff to have so much per bedroom because the idea of having to get exactly square footage is sometimes is harder than you might think you've written down on a on a drawing do we regulate occupancy like this for primary structures homes how about for apartments Apartments what do we regulate for apartments NOP this the building code gets into OCC but not zoning not zoning we generally don't get into it we allow whatever it is that the building code allows like I understand why you might why this might seem attractive but it also seems really hard to enforce in a way that you know footprint and whatnot is not so I as much as I appreciate maybe what it's getting towards that It just strikes me that we can have more effective restrictions we have more effective control in some other areas than trying to regulate occupancy if if that's true and that's outlined in the building code then this then I would be okay striking this there's I will double check it my recollection I haven't looked in a while was that you have to have so many square feet per person within a within a dwelling unit okay so could could we sort of tentatively say that and and get some feedback from you as you come back is that is that okay I'll come back with the information okay I'll clarify it with mpect because that's always the best and then give you that information and then we can decide if you want to do something about it or if that's sufficient sounds good and just one last question is this primarily on the time when you're building or over the life of when something's used that if someone's a neighbor and someone notices that there are four people living in a one better made it's over the time it's used okay be a mechanism it's an easier way for people to know that there's a limit but even then they'd have to call in you'd have to then figure out how big it is before you could figure out if you could have four people so it's not and then they'll move that stuff out and the city comes and says okay you're good and then once the city leaves they'll move back out yes awesome okay is there also any regulation not maybe not in our space but I'm just thinking from an occupancy standpoint uh for the requirement of how do I say this like heat like I mean if we're going to expect to put a structure say it's a separated structure and we're saying yeah it's okay you can go ahead and have up to two people in one bedroom staying in there but would city code or building say yeah you got to have heat in there because you don't want people starting no it'll have to meet building code requirement so it would meet the building code requirements it's a yep it's a per it'll have additional building code standard sprinkling smoke alarms all the things that you we all have to have in ours all right thank you I assumed so I just wanted to make sure because I didn't want to miss anything in here if that was not the case no I appreciate it we're all health safety and Welfare is what zoning codes are to me is what I think is kind of the hardest part is you know I I'm not against these things but I also want to make sure that we don't have a structure that somehow gets used that puts people in harm and so I just want to make sure that that's all in there yeah no I appreciate it that is that is our goal I'm going to go back to setbacks because I skipped it because I kind of wanted to talk about the size of the structure before we talked about setbacks I think um generally it makes sense on B that attached adus would have meet the principal structure setbacks I'm not sure why we would give it relief necessarily I think the detached is where I tend to have a little bit more conversation with cities and they um struggle not struggle but have more thought about how they want them to be so the graphics at the bottom are your current accessory structure setback so detach accessory structure detach garage structure and what these go through is you know um just a second I think it'll be easier I because you probably haven't looked at these Graphics lately uh so like if you have a Lake Shore or a through lot this little is structure is the accessory structure and it's telling you how far you can be based on where you are so if you're in the front yard it's 4 feet if you're in the backyard it's four feet and I think this is six feet um similar if you're on a typical lot if you're next to it you have a you have to be a little bit farther away from the side Lot line and these are detached garages specifically if they're in the front they have to be 20 ft from the street um so some cities talk about um detach adus they often have to meet the accessory structure setback sometimes folks add because they feel like it's a different to have a shed near your rear line or next to your sideline but it's a little different to have someone actually living in that structure next to those so anything's fine I've had cities that are fine and cities that have made adjustments so I know it's something that I at least want to flag for you of if you think about having a detached structure in the backyard or side yard how far should it be away from the side lot lines or the rear lot lines should it be is it fine if it's the same do you want it to be a little farther away um we probably note that building code slf fire code means that if they want to have an opening a window or a door they have to be at least 5 ft away so if if that's a that's a minimum requirement anyar what you said it might be seven building I I don't know if it's five or seven separation for fire one are the other we'll check that with the think it's five but we'll see five for zoning yeah we'll check um so thoughts concerns do we just say that detached can have the same setbacks as accessory structures we have small Lots so I'm not suggesting you to do more but sometimes there's a thought process on having a person in a structure in the rear yard it makes sense to me that you would be more strict about Adu detached adus than accessory structures if my neighbor's garden shed happens to look into my bedroom window or whatever that's a little less offensive to me than if there's somebody living in that shed looking out the window at me I agree and what are the primary setbacks they're different they're different from District to District so that's why I haven't put those an example for single family for example generally six feet for the r1a and the and the r2s uh generally 10 feet for the r1s and one setback may get a reduction based on its lot width from side Lot line to side Lot line minimum of six um or eight so it would go from 4 to 6ish to 6 to 10ish if we went with primary structures I'm good with either to be honest but doesn't seem like a big difference to me so I'm hearing increase it but not go crazy I like for example the rear setback is typic it can be like 15 ft principal structure setback is 15t if we apply that accessory structure is four oh so we might on the sides we might want to use kind of the principle maybe but on the rear we might want to go between the two is what I I'm kind of hearing I think that makes sense because at least conceptually if you've got two lots back to back that each have a 15t set back for the primary structure so even if you do allow an Adu closer to the property line the adjoining property owner still has 15 ft so you're not up against their living quarters right it's a good point in a way that you could be on the side law yes okay does I have one thought but I don't again don't know how to phrase that I don't know what's wrong with me tonight um applying to the the lakefront property so I have a Lakefront home I also am on the commons so I don't know if there's any other Commons rules that this could infringe on or get Complicated by because I'm thinking of my own yard and where I'm going to put my detached structure once we work all this out and again it might be sitting a I know I'm going to have to meet whatever the the setback requirements are for the commons but again Commons to me is a little a little awkward too much foot traffic Lakes Shore you have to be aware of there's the 50 Foot setback for ordinary high water level and this wouldn't be considered a water oriented accessory structure so it's going to have to be 50 it's still going to have to be 50 feet anyways okay that that's none that's great because I think I'm 20 feet from the the lake I sit really I sit a lot closer than the other homes but again Mound is weird so we keep adding more complexity in so yep so I would be in favor of just be zoned out attaching this to the principal structure requirements and I'm not sure if that's what you said prior to the comment or not and I just say that because I think it makes it cleaner and also because of what you said about having I I look at the back of somebody's garage or I look at the back of somebody's dwelling that that would be different to me y the I'm I will write it that way if that's what the consensus is note that that will in and of itself make adus detach Adu is even harder to do which I'm not saying is good B otherwise I don't I'm just that is a fact act because people are at 15t back so yeah well I I I don't disagree and I'm not sure that oh affects my opinion yeah yeah I agree with you I think that's okay if if we're going to create adus it could encourage people to make dedicated things instead of just converting garages all over Mound yeah which I think I stated but just to reiterate converting garages is a multi-step process because they're not built for residential habitation understand so but totally I can start there and then you you can still have a conversation about that and is that the general consensus or is that just a few people and I have a feeling I know a few that don't but generally I'm hitting seeing head knots I'm closer to somewhere in between primary in current accessory but yeah but I I'm not I I don't feel very Mr srom is not going to like me to say this but she's going say you you could even apply for a variant at their special circumstances it I do like that comment because I think if we attach ambiguity to our code then we just invite it but if we have people go through the process that's in place great all right we'll start there okay uh I'm passing through what we already talked about parking um we can do more than I just suggested generally what I found is that um we have required like an additional parking sty for the Adu um some cities don't allow don't require anything additional for the Adu I can come up with something else in between if you have a specific direction that you want I know parking is very much a concern um I ALS yeah there's other is other ways in other communities that I've addressed parking when there's too much too many cars um but uh administration of that rule is also step intensive so so if there's one stall does that limit it to one car for Adu that's just saying that they have to demonstrate on their property where there can be one designated stall it doesn't mean that there's we can't say that they're limited to that many cars it just the concern that we found in other communities is that people were creating adus but no place but providing no place to park and then where do the people Park and so this is just ensuring potentially that that but some cities feel like because of the winter parking restrictions we don't even need to address it cuz they're going to have to figure it out otherwise why would people stay in those units and all well I will say adus are prime for two uh demographics that don't necessarily always have a car being college students and people who are old and needing care and don't drive anymore um so I would actually be for not requiring any additional parking for that reason so I I have two dwellings that are near me that have cars parked in the front yard because there's multiple I don't think they're necessarily accessory dwelling units but they just appear to be kind of multi family M multi-generation no no no multif family homes okay but is that already disallowed I'm not allowed to park on the lawn yeah I not positive I think so you can't park on lawns right you have to park on improved surfaces I don't know that we have anything out C but oh you don't says that that was don't quote me on that it's late well I know no I was laughing because I was like I just read that where did I just read that must not have been here okay I yes parking I knew that was a this is one of those topics okay uh other people weigh in we have Pro I hear maybe I hear we should and I hear we I if you have a home and you put an Adu on it m how does that work you have just well we require two parking spaces for a home right right and it can be in the garage right if you do an Adu then you need to show me where you have room in your two garages plus you have room on your driveway to have three stalls it's not it's just making sure that you have if you have a onecar garage and you put an Adu on and you don't have a driveway that's long enough then you can't really have an Adu so it's that's the reason why maybe you don't need it that's why I've done it in different ways I'm just trying to think of the ramifications here yeah then you're get into the impervious issue correct if you're going to put more concrete down can I put concrete on the side that have the parking lot and all like stuff right but that's part of the layering of does it make sense I my thought is just don't put anything in there and we'll see what happens if people are abusing it we always can change it later MH right but we can't retroactively make people that are short rental conversation thank you um um I would rather put it in because it's easier to take it out than it is to grandfather or to grandfather in the things that we already don't like I mean if we I struggle because if we already require two for one single family home put another one in there if we're going to put another dwelling on it should we require parking or is it or not I don't know I'm okay either way should I'm fine with it I think we should add something I keep my mind again like I said I want to make sure that if we we are allowing these things we're creating positive healthy safe environments and if we're going to have cars parking in the front yard or in crouching on their neighbor's front yard I don't like that either so I would I'm fine putting language in there too yeah to there should be at least one spot okay all right owner occupancy uh the typical one that I see in most communities that are first creating an Adu ordinance is a um that the owner of the property must continue to occupy at least one of the dwelling units on the property as a primary residence except for a Bonafide temporary absence which that does allow some things but it does account for you got sick and you went to the hospital and you had to live in a Transitional Care Facility you we and if you want to put more limits we can that's typically why we use that language um technically or if you look out at National research they generally don't rem recommend this language because it does limit the creation of them I'm just saying I'm not advocating as I said most of the places I work we have this kind of provision well is snowb biring a Bonafide temporary absence that's something that you would want to create uh have direction to staff a policy-wise if that included or not or if you got a job transfer for a year and you were living in Florida and so you couldn't live there is that those are the situations that we've heard about as we've worked in places in my hearing right probably would really discourage renting even the the primary structure because then you couldn't also rent out the secondary structure the idea is that you can only rent one of the two so you always have an owner on site so you you but it doesn't say that you have to live in the primary structure and that's intentional so that if you had an aging individual they could have the smaller of the two and the family or the caretaker could have been the bigger of the two that's the reason it's worded that way is so that it doesn't um it just says one of them it doesn't say which one is the owner occupied part that looks like a reasonable I'm on an HOA board and we use number we use a absolutely you're on what an HOA board ah and we use one it's almost ver Verbatim what we use okay I think that makes sense sounds good yeah you can always change it later y you can always get less restrictive if it all right design considerations this one in particular um is one where it's not an a pick one and the rest don't apply they're all about different types of topics sometimes um some folks are very concerned about the design of an attach a detached Adu that it should match the principal structure and designer material um some folks put limitations on Windows overlooking neighboring properties they say you can't have them within whatever sometimes it doesn't matter based on your setbacks maybe you don't care so that um is a factor some folks require a separate entrance um to the Adu meaning like if you look at a structure there's a separate entrance some of them some people dislike that look and so they say that you can't have that so again um that's the second one you can allow to have two doors you can prevent having two doors um many times we do require some type of walkway to get to the Adu so at least it's safe that's the reason for e um some people prohibit an exterior staircase leading to an upper story Adu sometimes they prohibit it on the front of the structure but it's okay on the rear of the structure um and then minimum percent of Windows facing an alley which doesn't affect you so much or public Street all potentials or you could do none of them because you don't want to have additional regulation that you have to sort through these are just options that we've seen in different places and nobody's had all of these um generally it's a couple of them that really resonate to they're concerned about so and I I don't know any anything that like yes we should do well I think number one I think we've talked a lot about that in other okay to at least have them complement each other okay yeah I agree Mak s agree I I will say generally my own personal feeling on this is I guess I would say I'm generally in favor of pretty heavy regulation of detached structures and much more permissive with um the opposite of drawing a blankets inter attached internal or attached either one um structures it seems to me they require much less regulation so when we talk about things like design in materials limitations on Windows things like that generally I'm in favor of that um just thinking out loud to share my thoughts I think that makes sense to me Y which of two through seven do you like then because some of them are duplicative or slightly different wording of the same topic how would two even work how would two work yeah so some so one of the cities that I worked in it was the ground floor could have Windows but if you had an upper like half story you couldn't have a window that was facing the neighboring property so that you weren't in that half story level looking down into someone's yard or over their fence that was the reason for it or you wouldn't have anything that could face the side Lot line or that kind of thing I guess for me for window if we're looking at moving the setbacks closer to be for the principal structure setbacks then I wouldn't necessarily see the need for two yeah that makes sense do we care about entrances four three or four how many I don't I think five makes sense I think if you're going to have a separate entrance it should be it should have paved there needs to be a right a walkway okay are there Ada related requirements for Access for these in general in building code or should we be thinking about disability accessibility the building code should cover accessibility I think we're going to have it go through building permit process similar all right nobody no takers on six or seven were good without those or do we feel like we really need those awesome right nobody jumped up administrative um Adu should not be split from the property with a principal dwelling Adu may be split from the property the only way that I could see this happening is if you had a very large lot and like a 20,000 or 25,000 which we don't have a lot of those and they built the Adu in just the perfect spot that you could split it otherwise probably most of the time people couldn't meet zoning requirements but many cities specifically say that you can't split the property just to make sure that nobody tries to this this begs a different question though if we're talking about the building code requirements for it is it going to share utilities with the principal structure because I didn't intentionally put utilities on here because I knew that we had to have a conversation that was a technical one and so it will be addressed in here but it it wasn't something I was prepared to have the conversation with you all these are a little entangled though because you can't have two sites sharing utilities correct right well and yes if depending on every so when I've done this in other cities it has to go back to the utility billing and how they do utility building and how to answer that question about separate or and I understand how it's related to this question so that may influence this question but it wasn't one I wanted to have the conversation because it's kind of not really a choice it's kind of a technical how does the city look at utility building and how do they want to prefer you know hottest fire building inspector building official want to do it as opposed to you all getting to weigh in on that okay I think a is the clear way to go where it sets us up for gamification okay you mean for avoiding gamification a is good yes that's what I meant to say yeah I agree we've got a lot of conversation about the weird Lots we have in Mound and how they create a problem I see no reason to encourage that all right last one yay uh procedure can we have an Adu happen through a building permit if so this how this would work is if they meet these standards administratively we can improve them similar to a house or similar to any other structure that you have no involvement with um the second option is that there would have to be a registration process obviously some cities go this route it is more staff intensive um and maybe not a policy decision totally for you but you can weigh in on that and ultimately would be the city council or you could go through a cup process um which would involve more work applic you know fees and costs on top of others so you can see which way I'm leading I guess the way I presented those I think I think if we do this process right then number one should be just fine because we'll have this all ironed out with regulations that are appropriate and staff can use their expertise to implement them regarding to we currently do not have long-term to license your requirements is that correct that's correct okay yeah I think that makes sense right so if you did this it would be difficult because you'd have to work through that as well so we're saying number one number one a are there any other topics related I'm just going to put the pictures up is there anything else that jumps out at you as I didn't cover that you think that we should have covered first round that's the first round anything else that's bothering you you think about having an Adu on your neighbor's property not your own anything there there's a flavor of it where it's a uh backyard office less than a drilling unit is there anything that would be useful for having something that's not necessarily meant for someone to live in but for someone to say work in during the day that would be different than what we have I think if someone would put in like a bathroom facility I assume then they're trigging over if they have a kitchen and a bathroom you're going to even think of them as an Adu at that point we haven't gotten that far so what defines an Adu an Adu is defined is having a living bathroom and kitchen facilities okay so if you would have an office and a lot of times they wouldn't have maybe a stove and that's going to be something we're going to have to clarify but we wouldn't want to use these regulations for just an office because this is very specific to the idea of the living part but you bring up a good point that um what makes it a kitchen is something that we have to Define I see saying I have this office but it's really complicated to get the full Adu so I'm just going to put a Cod up and a hot plate and this is where someone's going to live you know I could see there being some mentalities towards that so I think having the definition of what actually makes it and defines it is helpful yeah that's what I was thinking it was a good question to better Define like what is a kitchen what does it mean by a kitchen does it mean you have to have a stove and so if they don't have the stove they have everything else then it's not an Adu and again the plumbing with the residential I mean if someone's living in there and you know maybe it's okay to have a composting toilet I don't know oh yeah someone asked me about that is said at this meeting that someone asked me that I think it was one of my staff members asked yeah those are regulated under the county right I'm thinking onsite this sorry of the situation of especially Lake Properties of having a bunk house type so they're not really living there but they want a separate facility for you know family for the family to live in when they come for the summerow I think those have been not allowed yeah they're not allowed I want is that something you were advocating for or questioning if they would be well is there um so that wouldn't be allowed because they're not living in it but if they it was designed exactly like that one has a bathroom and a kitchenette cuz they want the teenage boys to keep it out there um that's not an Adu because they don't live there so that wouldn't be allowed but I'm wondering why wouldn't that be allowed no I'm saying if they had the what I'm envisioning of the old school bunk houses with just like a a structure with three bunk beds that's not all Shack or what you think remember like an ice shack no I like on Old Lake prop drop ice shacks on Old properties I've not here but other places where you just have like the place when the all when you have all the family come and you need you need extra beds you have this room basically that's built that basically just has bunk beds in it and that's where everybody stays there's no bathroom there's no kitchen it's just sleeping right and that hasn't been allowed okay got you but if you did an Adu technically if they met all of these requirements you could do it but they'd have to meet all these requirements but they aren't residing in it temporarily they can reside they don't have to be full this is not about saying that someone has to live in it it's just saying if you're going to have a structure that has it has to have these things it has to have these minimum standards I wanted to go back to what you said because I actually didn't hear it and I wanted to make sure if there was oh I I believe well on-site water treatment systems are really complicated and I think they're covered through the cony oh which is different than a composting toilet but yes you are right ists like an individual sewage treatment system is a whole different things yes so I think the city would require to be these would all have to be hooked up to Municipal soore and water yeah but it might be good to CL that's the question is do we clarify that so it's like clear all has to be hooked up to Municipal Water and Sewer just so that we don't have structures questions yes and must have a bathroom yes was okay that's I so I'm just that's my understanding from our previous conversation now that we've gone through all of this is this what we want no that makes sense CU I'm only drafting what I understand you all to want so after all of this are we still good with doing accessory dwelling units they do make sense we want to move forward I guess I was thinking guest house is a better way of looking at it so is a guest house the same as an ad why couldn't it be but why couldn't it be it's got the same criteria it just may not have somebody living in it 12 months over the here if you want I think if you want to build a structure that people can live in just on occasion on weekends you can do that if you want to put the money into it as long as it meets these standards yeah okay right meaning it has a bathroom it has a kitchen yeah because obviously that's what I'm thinking of you know I wouldn't have people living in it but I want to have an option for somebody to stay but I also we have a pool and I wanted to be a part pool space slash plus I don't like people show in my house so I'm shower out in that little Adu but then they can sleep there if they don't want to go and we have a blanket ban on short-term Metals in general right okay that just applies to this good yes that will apply to this Serita had one question about another topic that's probably in in the the ends of the bell curve here but um do we I believe right now we have a requirement of having basically one street entrance per resident we can't have multiple driveways do we want to say anything about sort of retaining that with a detached Adu so that somebody on a corner lot doesn't creating a second driveway think about that I I don't know if we care but because it assum um or it would be a small percentage I would think yeah I fall in that category I'm on the dead end the comment I I hadn't thought about that the question is do we need to specifically state it or is it already covered in the code that we don't I yeah I don't know or maybe it just refers back to the original for the nope current code all right any other thoughts they tell the next one will be better no I have lots of ideas she's designing her all right okay moving on solar the direction that we re Rel U received last time was that you are interested in having specific regulations related to solar um that we would have it as an allowed accessory use um it historically staff has been allowing it on roofs it's just that it's not really in the code so it' be easier and clearer for other folks and ourselves that you specifically allow it um the questions that we wanted to just talk about briefly making sure we're correct that solar how we want to do it the types the zoning districts um some specific standard so you have been allowing you probably have some in the community we don't want to make this overly complicated and I know there's a question on some of these of like do we do it do we really need it could we do without because it just adds complexity but my understanding is solar panels will only be allowed on the rooftops of structures they will not be allowed as part of like canopy shading parking that was what we talked about last time if you have a parking lot and you want to have shade structure over it we don't want solar panels on it you don't have any of those in the community but it's nicer to just put things in proactively now all right um my understanding is we can allow it in any District that we're not going to be limiting where they are we can allow it on any types of structure we're not really interested in whether it's commercial or offices or industrial whoever wants it we're good all right um yeah if we're talking about commercial buildings the requirement of having the same pitch as the roof and the 10inch limitation on a height over the roof might might cause them trouble which is the question of the next one which is that picture on the lower right of whether you can um that's the C and I can look more into the language again just to make sure it's the right language but the idea of flush mounted which is the upper right picture that it can't be more than 10 inches from the roof the C1 tries to get into if you're not going to have a pitch Roof then you can have the panels on there and have some type of angling of the panels to better accommodate um and I can double check if that's enough for a flat roof but that's where that language was intended to address exactly the question that you had of like what happens if it's a flat roof how do you get the pitch that you need for the solar panel and I can double check it because there is a there is a resource here in well they're a national nonprofit and they have a staff member that is from Minnesota that is versed in this area and can verify um so I assume if B makes sense and C makes sense these are just general requirements that we've seen nothing basically you can't get higher um can't exceed 10 inches from the roof if you have to have because you don't have a pitch enough roof you can do something but we don't want them to be very noticeable that's kind of the intent right so this pitch is less than 5% above the pitch of the roof on the bottom so I don't know if that picture is exactly 5% or not cuz that picture came from a different source that see but we will make sure that we get the flat roof um and understand what that will be all right um this one we struggled a little bit with it is something that is talked about um that they should be designed to blend into the building without negatively impacting the performance of the system and to minimize glare on adjacent properties and vehicle traffic the only concern we had is this is a fairly general statement and so maybe opens the door for folks to complain about the solar panels that are installed and how do you how do we measure this how do we decide that it works or it doesn't work um so if that's something that is important to you I can try and see if there's other language that's more specific I think that's going to be challenging but I certainly am welcome to go do a little bit of digging to see if there's others um otherwise if it's not something you're totally concerned about if we are really talking about roof mounted solar then maybe we don't need to have something like this because there's just not that many options is goad I think the idea is important to me anyhow um but I wonder if it's rather than trying to use subjective language like that if it's more effective to use more objective regulations like roof mounted solar panels only with certain height limitations and angles and whatnot that ultimately is going to achieve that Community aesthetic right so that's what I'm saying if we're only going to do roof mounted and we're only going to do those other things on the previous side do we Mo this yeah so I just took what you said use more words to say the same thing I think then no I'm just confirming you are all right so do we know if if glare for neighbors and or traffic is a noted problem with these I don't think it's as note of a problem from roof mounted ones just the height I know that it has been a concern for ground mounted which you all have decided to don't think it's appropriate in right from the last conversation but I have heard that in other communities of that being a concern I'm not now I'm sure that that may just be you know how it is like one example of a bad operator and maybe they're all fine if you do it correctly and that's my only caveat that I don't know so and I think it's hard how do you measure what true distraction is I mean I could I mean it's a very personal thing I might think very different so yep that's why we were thinking this is something but maybe not as necessary given the so the rooftop okay the mounting yeah yep um and then utility this one also um generally it makes sense I'll double check if we're as concerned about it with the roof mounted but the idea that the system should be placed under ground um probably more of an issue if you have uh ground mounted Yes mine is not ground mounted it's mounted on the side of the building y so I have some issues with that okay aren't some of these walls inside structures yeah they can be on the wall ours mine's on the outside it ties into the electrical box so there's a panel there so on side long as it's not you know not ugly and anything like that but yeah so I would the wording is not quite right you're saying if it was no I'm hearing like we need to make sure it's tightened so if you can have the outside of a wall but it's not just hanging out itself in the yard correct and that's the only way there they're install it anyways yep okay I oh did I have one more oh just that abandonment that's good that's fine that's fine yeah okay anything else oh procedure sorry building permit it's a building permit we don't have to come I had to get a building permit yeah I'm good that we can keep doing that yeah that's fine so hey look at that anything that you think we're missing on these that you want to make sure that we regulate is there any relationship to solar panels and adus about them being powered only by solar or anything around that that we want to be looking at or is that just whatever they want to do will allow uh we weren't thinking about linking the two I I actually don't know it's just we're talking about them together so they're both in mind yeah you they're both in your head though they are separate topics but I totally get it like oh you just talked about it no um you could all right yes Mr no no I'm just okay EV Chargers last one yes uh my understanding from our last conversation was that the city was interested in making sure it was clear that they are allowed but we weren't going to take many proactive steps yet related to them meaning um that we weren't going to require them to be installed or require um the installation of the future systems um if that's not correct I can add other language but this is really focusing on will specifically state in the code that vehicle charging stations are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all districts um we could talk about levels or we could not talk about levels doesn't necessarily matter um I'm not saying there's an advantage it just depends on whether those will potentially they could change over time but we can adjust that if necessary um so it depends if you want to be clear or not on that but I think the general idea is that we just allow them yeah I don't know about this so is the city going to have some of these as part of a public public parking spot or is that that that didn't come up I don't think did that come up as part conversation the city has in the past looked at opportunities to pursue it and at the time that they were looking at it the financials didn't work out but I think they were going to revisit that that came out of the work when I remember from that meeting I think that's what we so this is more about one thing is technically if something's not specifically stated in the code it's not allowed now obviously solar panels you know there's like a gray line where you probably wouldn't say no but one idea is if you are going to promote something like this it's good to have it in the code so people can see it and they don't have to question or call staff to see if it's allowed but we don't have to necessarily do a lot we can just include it and then people know so that's one method of advocacy that have has been recommended that's like the first step you know and the second step is to do requirements if you're going to have parking new parking etc etc and then the conversation at the joint meeting was we weren't there yet uh maybe sometime in the future but at this point we weren't ready to have that that conversation have there been requests for public electric charging stations I don't know about that if there have been requests for public charging stations I don't know um myself that I've received any so I I realize I still might I was in the minority on this at the last meeting and I might still be in the minority but I just wanted to clarify one point on the potential for promoting electric vehicle charging if I remember right this this level one two and three was like ready but you don't have the system and then is that this actually one two and three has to do um with the charging capacity and how fast it charge you are correct when I went last time I had like three different levels also they had different terms and I I don't think I brought the slide with but it's like one is to just promote you know allow them the second is to require the installation of all the wiring so that they didn't have to actually put them in but they actually had to get it ready EV ready so that the parking lots were ready the conduit was already in the ground so you didn't have to dig anything up to put it in and the third is to actually require so many charging spaces charging stations per parking spaces that's kind of the that is levels but this is talking about like level three is you can see the DC fast charging so like the Tesla Chargers are those tall ones the level three level two is kind of the more commercial ones they're faster than the smaller ones that you might have in your garage that'll take a long time to charge I think most of the times people are in twos and threes now there's not a lot of ones as much doesn't charge very fast my question is just more of a knowledge Gap and I might still be in the minority so I accept that but for the potential of being ready but not for example for commercial only for redos of parking areas of a certain size and above I is that a move where if someone were to redo a parking area and then they would have to decide later they wanted to addult EV charging do they have to undo work that was done or is it it is it part of it depends on where the electrical system is and how it's coming out so it's a hard one to answer but that's one of the reasons why in communities that I've worked in that have lots of new developments I they're requiring some form of some form of like charging ation and then also EV ready so that when they do all that new construction they're getting things in and they're they're thinking about it they're making sure the electrical systems are designed so that it'll make sense otherwise you may not put things or have everything running the right way but what we talked about at the last meeting was we're not seeing a lot of new construction we're seeing you know is that are we at that point at this stage if we're going to see Redevelopment do we really want to add that on to um where people are going maybe you do that would is the conversation well this is going to change because EVS are coming yeah that's exactly right and just with that clarification has anyone's opinions changed on it am I the minority still or about the potential of requiring say commercial new construction of parking lots over a certain size to have first precs I would agree with that some kind of percentage Yeah that of having actual Chargers or you be ready I bet actual Chargers oh well what do you think so I I would go aggressively I I I didn't think anyone would even the first one but but I'm particularly concerned about this scenario where if you're going to redo a parking lot and then you sell it and the next person is gonna they decide they want to they want to put in EVs and they have to undo and redo a whole bunch of work that you could have done when you did it the first time um if it would have make it easier for that second seller to put an EVS I would be okay with the incremental imposed development cost that's fine I it's totally up to you one option is to look at this part of it and then have additional information that gets at you know what is the market going to be how much does it really cost is it really that much of a cost savings it seems like you're wanting maybe some more information before you decide and we could certainly do this route now and then also add on providing more information to kind of decide if it makes sense or not because you don't have all the information you're asking me how much does it cost I don't have a number maybe that tips it maybe it doesn't tip if I tell you how much a charger is how much it cost maybe those things are helpful information I haven't given you those pieces because at the last meeting it was like not interested yeah my recollect because I I I don't know if I'm quite as aggressive as you are but I I'm on board with you my recollection is that the city council did not share our enthusiasm and so it was just sort of abandoned well challenges would have to go to them next exactly back and any any idea if if that if it would be received is there an advant I'm sorry is there an advantage to promoting it is there some environmental um impact on Mound if we promote it I'm not sure I understand the qu is there an advantage to taking next step yeah should we be promoting the use of EVS saying hey we have we have Park we have charging stations available please consider electric cars and it is does that improve our environment yeah what what are the numbers that's what the government says I feel like I shouldn't weigh in on whether it's just one of those it is generally talked about as the next evolution of cars and where people are going and that do you want to be trying to have that make sure that things that are happening that are new are planning for it is this the right time to do that um yeah I'd rather be proactive than re active and it is within our purview as the between the Planning Commission and the council to raise the bar for what developers are allowed to do in the city and if we collectively decide that we want this to support um uptake of demand of of electric vehicles and we want people who have EVS to feel comfortable living here if this is something we want I think it'd be a great thing but again if it's not going to get accepted by the council it's a mood point maybe we need more information to have the position statement to support why we think it's important for the community yeah I'd be curious to hear from the community if it's even a value that they have if it's you know do you see yourself getting an EV car in the next five years you know so I I mean I guess boy there are a lot of them I don't know I mean yeah maybe there are maybe I'm just not look in your rear view mirror it's probably a Tesla seriously there's another aspect of this that I just want to bring up so if we're talking about putting in infrastructure and then maybe not using it I I would I feel pretty confident saying that there's an order magnitude difference in cost between a one and a three and I don't know that anybody's really going to want to talk about a one even now much less five 10 years from now so that means that we put in substantially more infrastructure that may or may not be used the other trouble I have there is like if we talk about the economic of this if there's a residence if there's somebody that's building a a multif family residence and they want to put this in they would figure that out for themselves and my they may or may not have that be kind of a perk of living there to be able to top off your tank so to speak for free I don't think the economics I don't think the city should be paying for people to charge their batteries without cost so then this would be free that's my point so then if then then any given Comm commercial operation or whatever would have to figure out the economics for themselves about whether or not it's worth putting in that infrastructure instead of requiring to put in the infrastructure and maybe not collect any revenue from it I think you you raised a good point I think we should remember also that the people who because we're not obviously it's going to be permitted in residential construction nobody's suggesting we wouldn't allow people to put EV Chargers in their homes the bigger question is are we going to require commercial properties to take some sort of steps and I think we should remember that the users of EV charging facilities at commercial properties are probably not Mound residents they're people coming from further away because people who live in Mound and have a residential Charter don't need to fill up when they go to the hardware store and return back home right so I recall at our joint sessions I don't remember who it was but somebody talked about users of the trail driving their EVS here parking and charging while they use the trail I think that use scenario makes more sense but those aren't going to be Mound residents at least not primarily probably that are used them I don't know how that changes the calculus but it's something do Roi ex which is not really related to zoning that's related to like if the government if the city was going to take on doing the charging stations but yes well and just to muddy the water there are solar powered EV stations too but are the an acccessory buing units that Costco or something yeah yeah um what I'm hearing is that the idea of Permitting them makes sense and we're still questioning the next level and whether the city goes down that route or not is that something that um it wasn't the charge that was given in the joint meeting so a couple of options I can see are we do investigate some additional information you ask the council once we get to this point of like we're recommending this and we'd like to study this a little bit more is that okay Council before we have staff spend time on it those are some options or we park it until next joint meeting and we get this in place and then we talk about it next year um and I'm happy those are just three options I can see you may come up with other ones just um how do we want to proceed and and council member you probably can give some clarity maybe about how you think the Planning Commission may or may not should move forward I mean we were all in the meeting together I think the council was 100% for getting more in gathering more information um but it didn't see like anybody was in a rush to implement anything at this point I would be most interested in CA okay you know to make any decisions feasibility okay okay yep um before we move on if we with the um in some cities you just allow them and you say that you can have an EV Charger station but some cities do have some Provisions that I thought were were kind of good to think about which is why I included them um one is the idea that if if you have it you should have it if you have particularly in commercial spaces it should be Ada accessible um they should be protected by wheel stops of Ballers so they don't get knocked over hopefully they just do these things so maybe we're overregulation we don't need to we don't need to I'm fine I'm just these are some things that I have that makes sense are um that they should be posted with signage that says that only EV people can park just so that they're actually free all yep and then sight lighting so that people can actually see what they're doing no matter what time they're using it and again these wouldn't be for your residential home this would be if you did it in a in a commercial space um or so if that made sense we can include them we don't have to we can just say they're allowed and let folks do it no we like them okay makes sense all right uh that concludes our moving forward on three of the work plan items I'm very excited um because sometimes we don't uh we have so many other things that we don't get a chance to move forward so the next step to just summarize is I go back and draft the regulations then we come back to you again at some point when it makes sense because we already have a meeting um and you review them and then after that we would go to a public hearing so one difference is we'll probably move the M potentially the mixed use will go to a public hearing next because you kind of were pretty good with it so we'll make the changes and then you'll actually do a public hearing for that this one we'll see you again before we do a public hearing because you'll actually want to see the wording and how it all fits together um but we'll start working on this and okay further questions for Rita well that's with a lot of work and really well put together thank you Rita and Sarah lot digest good I'm glad and thanks for the good direct good direction and debate and discussion okay moving on uh Council liaison report Kathy anything to bring up you know I I really don't I was going to bring up the for the switching of our time to six o'clock and we covered that earlier so okay okay Sarah anything from you um no uh it's busy uh election were busy uh building permits are busy phone calls are busy lots of real estate folks calling um special events are R have been ramping up uh we've got lots of stuff forthcoming uh a couple fishing contests uh the lake nice par Farmers Market will start uh end of end of May so yeah lots of stuff going on okay is there going to be an open house at our Chessa when they're done I would anticipate that but I do not know that for sure we will ask okay all right hearing nothing else thank you for coming chair would entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second we have motion second discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I iose nay motion carries thank you for coming thanks everyone