I wanted to do that before we start. Sorry. Okay. I see by my uh You got to do it, too. I know. Handy dandy telephone that it is 6 o'clock. I would like to call to order the Tuesday, April 1, 2025 regular meeting of the Mound Planning Commission. Roll call, please. Planning Commissioner Council Leaison Kathy Mcani. I Planning Commission Member Sherry Wallace here. Planning Commission Member Jason Baker here. Planning Commission Member Drew Heel here. Planning Commission Member Samantha Wacker here. Planning Commission Member Kristen Young here. Planning Commission Chair David Good here. We do have one amendment to the agenda. Uh if you look down under number six, we have A, B, and B. So the last B is being changed to C. So I would like to make a motion to amend the agenda for today to have the next meeting, Tuesday, May 6, be reflected as 6C. And would that include approval of the agenda and approval of the agenda as distributed? We have a motion. Do we have a second? I second. We have a second. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Next we have minutes of the March 4, 2025 regular meeting of the commission. Does anybody have any suggested changes to those minutes? Hearing none, chair would entertain a motion to approve the March 4, 2025 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve the March 4th meeting minutes as distributed. Have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Board of adjustment and appeals. We have review SLR recommendation one-year extension for expansion permit approved for 4870 Edgewater Drive. This is planning case 24-04. James Barnes is the sponsor. Yes, ma'am. Uh, good evening members of the planning commission, staff, and guests. Uh, I'm Sarah Smith. I'm the development director and I'll be providing a summary overview of the request that we have received from the Barnes family. Uh they are the owners of the property at 4870 Edgewater Drive. And about a year ago, uh, they submitted and received approval, uh, of an expansion permit to allow a house remodel and addition project at 4870 Edgewater Drive and have been making, uh, plans and doing activities to get ready for their project. Uh however they have encountered some unforeseen delays with plan preparation and also procurement with uh general contractor and so they have uh come to the city requesting an extension uh for a one-year period. Uh that activity is allowed under the current regulations as long as it's submitted 30 days before the expiration and they provide reason uh for the extension. Uh Mr. Barnes is here and he did provide us a request uh to staff re requesting that they be granted a one-year extension. Uh they are moving forward and things are coming together, but um not not certain that that could take place before the expiration uh at the uh on in and at the end of May. So he is here um staff has recommended approval of the of the extension. We don't see these that often, but they do come up from time to time. Um, and so, uh, that's why we're here this evening, and Mr. Barnes is kind enough to join us, and he'll be happy to answer any questions or detail, but that allowance is included, uh, in the current regulations for expansion permit, and staff feels that it's a reasonable request based on the scope of their project to request some additional time. So, I'll stand for any questions. Otherwise, I will uh, stand for questions afterwards. Question for Sarah. Looks pretty straightforward. The comments applicants been very nice to work with as well. Comments from the commission. Mr. Barnes, would you like to uh address the commission? I don't have any questions really or anything to address. I'm happy to answer any of your questions. Okay. Our protocol would be sir uh that you uh you don't have to take your jacket. Please state your name and your address. Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. James Barnes, uh 4870 Edgewater Drive. Um I really don't have anything else to add to that, but I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Questions for Mr. Barnes? Hearing none, thank you for coming forward. Back on some things are straight. Okay. On page seven of your agenda, you will note that staff has recommended that the planning commission recommend to the city council that a one-year extension be granted for the expansion permit in question. Chair would entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve the one-year extension for expansion permit for plumbing case number 2404. Have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. We have a second. Further discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, Mr. Bars. Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Thanks for coming in. consent agenda for next Tuesday. Okay. Thank you. Take care. Great to see you again. New slash old business. I guess it's actually old slash new business. The first item is 2025 planning commission work plan review slashd discussion setbacks for corner lots. Miss Rita, give me one second because I just realized that I picked up the wrong PowerPoint. We don't really want to talk about a variance. You want to talk that a different one. All [Music] right. All right. Good evening, members of the commission and public. uh Rita Trap, city's planning consultant. We are working this evening on one of our first elements on the 2025 work plan. Um we as is stated in the packet, we are looking for your input and a good discussion. Uh I don't have any recommended language as you saw. um partly because this has been kind of a confusing element of the code to apply. And so some discussion this evening will help uh me understand kind of what the desire and the vision of the planning commission and potentially the council is and then I can go back and work on drafting changes um and try and figure out how to make it easier. Um while I was putting together your packet materials, I was chuckling to myself when I got to the end because I thought, "Wow, if I'm confused, you're probably confused." And now you see why we needed to talk about it because it was very confusing to apply when we did last year. And this was something we talked about a couple of cases uh last year which is what prompted us to really realize um how it's challenging to apply and very confusing. And so there are some strategies that I'll kind of talk about as I work through. Um they may work for you, they may not. There's just some things that we do see in other communities or we work with other communities on some language that maybe would make it easier. So, that's some of the things we'd like to talk about. Um, so relative to corner lots, what I tried to do is I pulled out any place uh in the code that referenced corner lots. The there are two things I didn't pull out because I felt like we had enough already. And one is fences. Um, and one is the site vision triangle. And I can I can talk about those. I was not thinking we were going to talk about fences. I figured we had enough with just principal structures and potentially accessory structures. Um, and if we get past those and it seems like based on your direction that we would want to revisit them, I'll bring it back up. If not, if it kind of feels like it makes sense, um, then I'll just kind of highlight it later. But I really want to understand where should we go with this, um, because it's it's a lot currently. Um, I would encourage you because this is just a discussion, if you have a question about some of this foundational stuff that I'm going through, please stop me um, and make sure that we all understand. So, I included all the way back to just fundamental definitions um because of the fact that it's a little bit confusing. So, uh corner lot, this is the specific direction uh in your code today. A corner lot is at the intersection of two streets. Uh I included in the packet, you can see in the PowerPoint on the bottom right, just an example of a corner lot. So, the intersection of two streets. Um you also do have something called a through lot. And the only reason I brought it up was to make sure we're all clear is that when we're we're really talking about when two streets intersect at a 90 degree angle. When a lot is between two streets, um, such as a through lot in that picture here, between two streets, that's considered a through lot. That's a whole different conversation, and we're not having that conversation today. There are idiosyncrasies with those as well. We certainly have had them. Sarah and I have had lots of discussion. Today we're only simply talking about corner lots because that's enough in and of itself. Um lot line front. I'm not going to read this whole definition. This definition is fairly long because when you have a corner lot, it had been historically in the past difficult to decide what is the front and what is a side and what is a rear. Um and the city in applying its definitions really wanted to have one front, one rear and then the rest be sides. And so it's that's what the underlying section of for purpose of this chapter, a lot should only have one front setback. Um the intention was that you would only have one rear yard. You wouldn't have two rear yards because most of the time your rear yard setbacks are higher than your sideyard setback. So this was envisioned to try and make sure that we only had one rear yard. So I'm going to go back to here. Um, and this project, this one is actually a pretty good example of currently it says it's the shortest dimension on a street. That's what it says, which would mean this would be the rear, which mean there need to be 15 ft back. But this house is oriented differently. So, we added a provision sometime during Sarah and my tenure at this point. I don't remember anymore. It's been more than a decade probably that allows us to recognize the uniqueness of how a house has been built. Um, and so in this case, we would identify this as the front of the lot. That's really what's acting as the front of the lot. That's where the garage is oriented. That's where the front door is oriented, which means this is the rear of the the lot. So, that's why that statement says for purposes of this chapter, you can only have one front yard. Um, and that's because we want to make sure that we know how to figure out what the rear is so we know where that 15 foot applies. That gets confusing as we get on to the next sections where we say, well, you have to have a front on multiple places. So that seems already that it's in conflict with each other. Um, which is why I brought that up. Um, so corner lots specifically say they shall provide the required front yards along every street. So immediately after saying in the definition, you can only have front one front yard, we immediately say now you have to apply the front yard on multiple streets, which is confusing. Um Sarah and I know how we've applied it in the past, but seems like we could maybe clean that up a little bit. Um, and then we have the exception for lot of records, uh, which say that if you can have a sideyard setback that's based on the lot width rather than the standard. Um, and I provided this table. Um, and then it has a provision that says if in the end you end up with a greater setback, you don't actually need to do that. I will show you how that applies in a second because we have another table that summarizes this, attempts to summarize all in one big table um, to talk through this. So, I'll be there in a sec. Um it also establishes um the front. So this is just an example to help us start working through here. So in case this is the street um so now we have a front yard and we have a front yard and then we have the rear yard. So this is saying that we have to have both of these as front yards and the same width on both. In the R1 in the specific lot of records, we added another layer which is not helpful because not only did we add the layer, now we changed how we measure it. And we added the layer that if you have a front yard that is based on the lot depth, not on the lot width, which is what the other standard says in the other section of the code. So now we use both lot width and lot depth to calculate the front yard setback. But that only applies to R1 and not R1A and R2. I feel like I'm in a movie like the Clue movie where I'm like and then this happens and then you go back and anyway basically my long and short is this is really confusing. It's very confusing to apply and we know what we're doing. So it's very difficult for anybody else to read the code and these sections are all in three different places of the code. So you actually have to know to look for all of those places. So it would be great if we could clean all of that up and make it much more straightforward. And the question is, do we really need to have all of this? That's my fundamental question of all of these exceptions and things. And maybe we do. And if we do, that's great. It'd be just nice to have the conversation. So um this is our attempt. Now I make no promises because this stuff was all confusing. This is our attempt to put everything in one table. So that way we can kind of see things and how it applies. Um so we have the R1 district, the R1 lot of record, the R1A and the R1A lot of record. We did not include R2 and R2A because generally R2 and R2A follows R1 and R1A for a single family home. So that's why I didn't include it because they are virtually the same. Um and this is where you can kind of see where we have depths and widths um and different types of requirements based on different elements. And this is where I crossed this out. That was that provision. This is easier to see here. The provision that says you'd have a smaller setback except for if we require a bigger setback because of your lot width, then you don't have to do it. You can go back to your 20 foot. This is an example of this. Like it requires a 30 so you go down to the 20 and so that it's irrelevant anymore um for those things. So it's so can we make it easier? That's my long and short question to this whole thing. And then just a note this is just about principal structures. We do need to have a separate discussion follow-up discussion on accessory structures because we the case that we dealt with in the past was actually an accessory structure where it was in the rear yard and we have provisions that make it be significantly away from the street. Um but it's in the rear yard of a corner lot where they actually would like some space and they would like to use it. So does it need to be 20t away? Does it really need to be that distance? And that's separate and we'll have that conversation in a bit. I think it's too much if we try and put all of these things in at once. So I'd like to just talk about principal structures and I will go back to the foundation of like why do we even have this? That would probably be helpful. So if we this one is just R1 and R1A. Typically the reason that you have corner yard setbacks are two twofold. One is to make sure that at the street corner itself that you can see that there's a vision and that you don't have anything obstructing your vision. So you can see down the street as you're taking a right turn. You can see down the street as you're taking a left turn off the street. So you kind of want to make sure it's clear. Um I reference slight vision triangle and that's a term that says within um 30 feet of the corner you can't have anything that is too tall. you can generally only have things that are like I have the thing like 4 in um to whatever four feet or something you can have a very short amount. So that's one element of why we do it. We also do this uh idea of maintaining a larger uh yard because if there was a house here they would prefer that you don't have structures that are kind of 10 feet in front of where they are. So if they have to have a 20 foot front side setback, they would they don't really want to have structure. So it looks kind of odd where you'd have all the houses aligned at a certain setback in their front yards and then you get to the corner and everything's kind of scooched over. And that's one of the reasons that communities typically have some sort of language about front yard setback. Now the distance is really dependent from place to place. Sometimes it's the same as the front yard. Sometimes there's other um measurements that people might use. And oftentimes principal and accessory structures are treated slightly different um because of their feel and fences. But that's the reasoning behind it is that you're trying to make it feel similar to the other and you're not bouncing back and forth. Um I know when we had our conversation last year, there was a you know the note of if it's a really busy street then the orientation is a little bit different and how people think about those lots. So that is a part of the conversation whether that applies to principal structures or just accessory structures. We can have that conversation. Um and I did pull from the comprehensive plan because I had mentioned it at the time. Um this map does not work but I just wanted to reference currently today your existing roadway functional class. So functional class is kind of how is that roadway envisioned to be used. Is it a roadway that's intended to move traffic through the community with fewer driveways moving at a faster speed or is it meant to be a local street um that really provides each of us access to our individual properties? Those are kind of the range of the spectrum. The terminology used in the transportation community are u minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. This currently the way the system was set up at the time we did the last comp plan doesn't have as much nuance as we might like. Um, but the future one actually has more nuances and I know you can't see it as well. Um, but at the time there was discussion about new collectors being established. Um, like for example, Three Points would be a minor collector and that was the street um that the corner yard that we dealt with last year was on. Um, and there's other streets that maybe this mechanism is something for us to think about that if you're a corner and your your sideyard, your street sideyard is abuing one of these major streets, then we have a little bit different approach. I'm not advocating. I'm just saying that that is an approach that some communities use. So, I still feel like I didn't do a good job and I didn't make this simple, but I'm not really sure how to make this simple. Um I do think that the foundational question is do we want to treat street sideyards? So these if the house is facing this direction, do we want to we do we want to treat those the exact same as the other front yard? Do we want to provide some some setback or a relief? Does it matter how wide or how deep things are? Because that's the reason that we did that. So, it might be easier rather than looking at these numbers and analyzing them to death, it might be easier to just talk about the foundational things of is it important to you to continue to have this and what what might it look like? And then I can go back and do some more analysis and figure out the numbers. We don't have to debate the numbers tonight. I'm just trying to get a sense at the vision of does in concept, does this make sense? If so, what are you trying to achieve? and then I can figure out how how do we set up the table so they're easier and we don't have this confusion. So, what questions can I answer? What thoughts do people have? Yes. This isn't really a question, but to use your words, since you and Sarah have been dealing with this for decades, and you you take it upon yourselves to take care of it, and I know we've talked about a couple of these in the planning meeting. What would your recommendation be to simplify things? I know you're looking for discussion. No, that's okay. I'm sure you'd really talk about this. One thing I'd really like to see is to stop using the term front yard for the for this. So, one thing we've gone because my firm now does a lot of zoning code updates and one thing we've gone to is the idea of an interior um interior sideyard and a street sideyard. So, that takes the place of having to say, well, you have a front yard on both. If you have a street, if you have something on a street, then you might have a bigger setback. So, that's one thing I think would be helpful so that you truly only have one front yard because I think that is that's the first thing that's confusing. Can I can I ask a question on the when you talk about front yard? You used an example there where it wasn't totally clear and I've seen others that aren't to their front door might be here and their driveway might be here. Do you then default to the front being the shortest like your the shortest width? I think that's a bigger issue for me as well too which is the front which is the front of the house. Yeah. where the front door is. Wouldn't that be logical? Well, like on this example right here, if the front door is facing the long street, right? That would be the front of the house. That's the front of the house, but not by code. It we have the ability to apply either way. You can do that. Oh, that's why we have it written that way is that okay, when when there's no question, it's easy for the applicant to see, oh, it's the shortest dimension on a street. That makes sense. That's my front yard. But when it is in question, we have the ability to turn it uh and make it fit the actual application of the property. So the front yard's where the front door is basically generally start with that but okay I think there's flexibility in that. Gotcha. Okay. I do think that there is I don't know that there's a way of making that easier. I'll be honest. Yeah. Like I otherwise there's going to be so many caveats. I think it's a yeah, we have to kind of come to an agreement that planning staff, planning commission, and council are the ones that can decide and bless that at a certain point. Well, and the other issue we had with that was a lot of the streets and mount in three points, the lakeshore lots, the side is the house, but you have the 50ft setback for the lake, which they consider the front yard, right? But we never Yes. But we've never considered the lakeside the front yard. No. And I had a community that did that and that is the worst because the interior lots like on the island on three points. The people that are not lakes shore, the front of their lot is the part that hits the street. And then if you consider and use the word front to be the lake, then your front yard is constantly backing boopping back and forth. Which is why we went to, you know, you have a lake shore setback of 50 feet. You have a street setback there. We we got rid of front because it was confusing historically. For 50 years they had it. We went with there's a street. That's what your setback is to the street. The street makes sense to me. And I one of the things that I get concerned about is the the sighteline, right? Like you were saying uh around the corner. Yeah. And that's I we don't have to dive too deep into it, but that's what this is about is that there is a distance that you can't put um things that impede the vision. So yeah, that's to some degree that's identified there that deals with fences and landscaping and other kinds of things that would go there. 30 foot triangle, but why is it 43 feet? Yep. that is in your code today and I intend to look at that and fix that. I did not make the drawing. Oh, is it supposed to be 30? Supposed to be 30. It's a weird It's a way of doing the math. Yeah, it's a way of doing the math. And the one thing we'll tighten up is whether that's for you guys it probably needs to be edge of pavement because your right ofways are all wonky. Um, some communities we we are specific about is it edge of rightway or edge of pavement. Um, for you guys knowing everything I do, we're probably edge of pavement. So, side Whoops. Sorry. I like the graphic better. Sideyear interior. Is that what it is? Side yard. Sideyard interior. Sorry. So, the interior sideyard a side year. A sideyear interior. You just have a typo. Oh. Oh, sorry. That's another It's a typo. Sorry. A side yard interior. That is the street, the house inside. Yeah. It's best seen here. Yeah. Okay. Right here. So, you have the interior one and then you have the street one. So, we're not so concerned about the interiors, the exterior. Correct. And even though the street And even though you have the lines that come forward, that whole thing is front. This part, right? Yeah. Yes. What is it now? It's 20 ft. Uh, well, say that again. What is it now? What's the Well, you have 30 feet for non corner non-c corner house. 30. Oh, yeah. It's 30 for R1, but it's 20 for R1 and that's why. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Um, so that are we Let's go to the fundamental. Does it make sense that we have a different or like in increased street setback so that we make sure to push the house back from the street that we wouldn't apply the six foot or the 10 foot which is your traditional side? Yeah, keep it just simple. So yes, we should increase it. Does it make sense that if you have a narrower lot that you may not have to do in like in the R1? I'm gonna um you can see here this was just an example. The one on the right that's just an example of a lot of record that would it make sense that your street would go down to 20 feet because you're not as wide as you are deep. So you wouldn't have as much. Why would they? So like if here if you applied 30 30 this is 30. Yep. Yeah. And 30. Okay. But this one our one lot of record says this is 30 and this is 20. So it gave some relief because it's not very wide. It gives you more buildable area. So the white is how much room you have to build your structure. So that's the relief you have today. And it varies just going back here quickly. It varies based on your lot width. So, if you have a narrower, longer lot, you don't have to have as much as if you have a wider lot. That's how it currently is structured. And if that makes sense to you, do we really need three levels? Um, do you want to have that much? So, basically, if you have a narrow lot that's only 50 feet wide, you only have to have a 10, right? Which might make sense because 50 feet is not very wide to start with. So if you have a 30 foot setback, you're going to be in trouble. Correct. That's why that has been done. Makes sense. But okay. So So I'm hearing Yes. that it makes sense that we provide some relief that they're not as wide. Well, if we're saying lots can be that corner lots can be that size, then these are lots of records. So these are things that have already existed and we we did kind of a sampling and they really vary a lot. And do we have different a different uh rule for new lots as far as So new lots are these lot of records and older Oh, gotcha. So any new lot just you don't have any relief. You're just you are what you are. Most of the lots in the community though are lot of record and so these kinds of standards apply. Gotcha. So I'm hearing yes, it makes sense to have some type of additional setback for a street. It does make sense that we might have some tearing just because it to provide relief so we can provide I'm not asking for the numbers. We'll look at it and say h it's reasonable that we might want to continue to have the taring or maybe we don't have to have the taring. So that makes sense to folks. Um I seem to go back to this because I always I think it makes sense to reterm how you talk about it as far as front a front and a street side and an interior side. Yeah. Okay. I I don't know if I have an answer as to why this provision. So in the R1 section it says lots of records use lot depth to me to well they use that to to determine let me rephrase the statement. I know I I think I finally can explain this. That's the hard part. This provision in your code says that if you don't have as deep of a lot then you can have a shorter front yard setback. So if I go to this diagram oops two. if this is not as deep as traditional because you do have some of these that are wide. They're kind of squat. Let's say they're squat lots. You know, they're really wide and they're not very deep. So, then it's really hard to get 30 feet and then have a reasonable house behind it. So, that's what that extra provision was about. And I think that makes sense. I think where we started to have a challenge was we would because of the other statement that says you have to apply front yard setbacks two corner lots. That means you also have to apply this standard to that. But it sounds like we can make it make sense and we could ignore this for streets if we don't need it that we could use lot with for that. I I don't know that I said that in a way that really makes sense. So I apologize. But what that provision was saying if we look at here if you have a not deep lot then you can reduce this front yard and that's just for R1 though. Yeah just for R1. Yeah. But because of the way that the rest of the code is wording it also meant that we had to apply that standard when we had a street sideyard because it said all the lots have to follow the front yard setback. So that applied that meant we had to apply something a relief for both depth and width simultaneously to that street sideyard. But if we don't need to, we're okay not doing that. We can just make it make sense. I'm assuming like if you have this much then you can do this much. So, I think that's where we have too many overlapping layers, which happens in our code sometimes, and we can pull that one out, and that'll make things a little easier. So, we're okay if we just apply one standard. If we want relief, if we're going to give relief here, it's because this is not as wide as one would want, and we don't have to worry about the depth in that place. All right. So, R1, is there any reason that folks feel like these aren't the right numbers. Let me think about that. Do they seem to be the right numbers to you? These are the numbers you have always had. I don't think that has been a challenge in them. I I think these are a little wonky. 5%. Those I might clean up a little bit. The fact that they're different is a little weird. One is 81. Anyway, those kind of things, but the actual numbers 10 20 30 20 24 30 I felt like we haven't had issues. Do you in the R1? Yeah. So, just looking at just I think the the R2s and the R1's will we have to look at. But the top one's depth and middle one's width. That's difference. What? Oh, they are. They are. But you were saying why the numbers were different. 40 to 50 versus No. What? I I just don't know if these are the right brakes. Yeah. I mean I mean like why 80 is 80 the right number or why the weird part to me is this 81 81 or more. So if it's 80 it doesn't the code today doesn't actually count if you're 80.6 very well because it just says 81 or more and it says 51 to 80. This one accounts better. This one says well 50.5 doesn't work either. Yeah, I know. So we have to clean that part up in the code. So So you're going to clean those up? Yeah, I'll clean those up. So 10 of 50 is what? 20%. And 20 of 80 is more than 20%. Well, why would you just do 50 to 100? Make it easy. Anything and then simple simplify it. Maybe maybe make it 20%. I don't think we want to tie down anything quite yet. Make it like two tier versus three tiers. I don't you've got three tier two tiers. Well, and really this tier isn't a tier because you're hitting 30 again. So, I don't I'm trying to figure out if we even need to state that. You know, if your lot is between this and this, it's 20. If it's between this and this, it's 10. Maybe we don't need to do this. I don't know. Uh, that's the part that you don't have to worry about today. I just want to make sure I'm understanding that we like it. We will clean that part up. That it still makes sense to have relief for these not as wide lots. Y that there's anything else about setbacks that bugs you. This is a great chance if there's anything else that has seem like it doesn't make sense over the years. All right, if that's the case, then let's talk a little bit about accessory structures. Um, I only put the in this diagram, I only put um the accessory front yard setbacks. And we're actually going to probably go back to the other diagram because these diagrams don't work quite well for this, but it says all accessories buildings shall meet the same front yard setbacks as the principal building. So that applies to corner lots. And the question is, is that what you actually want to do? So if you have a house here, do you want the principal or the accessory building, the shed to have to match everything of the principal building, or is there ever a case where an accessory building can be closer to the to the street? Mr. Hill says, "No." Why would Yeah. Why would I ever do that? Yeah. You just approved a variance for it. Yeah. So the one that You have done it. Yeah. So, and I'm okay. I didn't mean it flippantly, but you just literally did it. So, are we defining accessory structures as permanent accessories? A shed. Yeah. Like a shed. But a Yeah, but a shed could be a manufactured shed, but those would count. Same setbacks. Okay. Yep. So, in that case, the one that we just had was on three points and they wanted to be closer to the street, right? Mhm. Um now in that case I think we factored in topography um because there was a hill. We factored in the fact that it was um that street that it was getting closer to was on three points. There was a hill separating that area and the house behind that's the only one we've ever done that I'm aware of. So there was another one on tuxedo or something like that. Okay. But and we can continue to do it and use the variance process. There's there's not a wrong in doing that. But it's good to talk about it at the same time is are there situations where we would allow it closer because I think at the time we talked about well it's a busy street and it's I wish this was almost flipped now because we all have that that property in our heads, right? But it's flipped around. Um you know, but this this corner lot is basically not able to use this entire backyard for purposes. They already have kind of a scrunched yard. So, is it nice that they get a little bit more space? No, just keep it simple. And if they want a bearings, just come in for a bearings. But what would be the practical difficulty? I mean, I I am I'm I'm only asking I'm kind of pushing back a little bit because if they come in and say, "Well, I want to be closer to the street, but the code doesn't allow it." And they say, "Well, I'd like a little bit more yard space." and we say yes, then why do they get the variance and not the person who just follows the code and doesn't go through the process of asking for the variance? Because they went through the process and ask for the variance. But is it does it is it fair? Is it worth the money and the time for you and for them to go through that process if you're going to allow that every time they come in and have that as the reason? Those are just things to think about. I agree. I mean, I I don't know if we would allow it every time they they came through, but I mean, consistency is always good. Well, there have you'd have to assess the reason for wanting to be closer. I mean, Yep. I mean, I'm I'm I'm trying to think about a good reason for it. I mean, for me, having had a corner lot, I would be like, but I'm already having two, you know, a whole side exposed. And wouldn't it be nice if I could put my accessory structure a little bit closer and have a more private yard space? And I know I bought the corner lot. Actually, I didn't. I moved into my spouse's corn. But I understand you get more backyard by doing it. That's the issue. Yeah. Yeah. More sideyard backyard because you right now your whole sideyard your whole your part of your backyard you don't get to use the same way others do. Again, not advocating playing devil's advocate here to make sure that we think through it. Happy with what I have a question regarding the code. Um at what point is a permit required on an accessory structure? What's the size? 200 ft. 200. So that's pretty large. Yeah. But a two but a shed still has to meet the setback requirements even if it's not permit. Even if it even if you don't need a building permit, it still has to be whatever the zoning is based on where it's going. Oh, okay. Even if it's a 4x4 sh. Right. Right. But they might not come to you for that is what I'm saying. They may just Oh yeah, that always happened. I mean that's always a possibility that people and that's more about enforcement then at that point. Yeah. What do others feel like? I know and I'm fine. I'm happy if would it'd be nice to have some consensus so I know which direction. Well, like the one three points bring it back. They already had a fence there. Mhm. Because it was a busy road. Yep. Oh, it was behind. But you can do a fence below a hill. Below a hill and behind a fence. Yeah. Yeah. That was a weird one. and and it wouldn't have made any sense to move it towards the other person's property. Yeah. Even though that was the right argument, but it, you know, sometimes it just makes sense depending on the topography. Right. Right. So, the fence has to meet the principal setback if it's six feet or higher. That's what this diagram is, right? On a corner. You can be four feet in this. Oh yeah. Oh okay. Yes. Within Yeah. That's double frontage. This is four feet. Yes. And then this is six feet. So So within both both frontages of both public streets built, it's you're limited to four feet. Four feet. I'm just asking the question because you brought up the you brought up the fact that they had a fence and that factored in. So if someone built a 4ft fence trees down, would that affect people's perception of whether you could build an accessory structure in that street sideyard or not? Is there a setback on the fence then or is the fence right up on the property line? Nope. You see this dark area? Yeah, that's that's where you can have a sixoot fence. Oh, gotcha. In this area, this is where you can have a 4ft fence. And that again is because of that vision element. And the road is the dark. Yeah. The road is the dark. That's right. Away. And I only mentioned that because how that factors into what you just said. Well, theirs was different because it was down a hill. Yeah. Yeah. Totally. But it is all factored together. That's why all these things are layered. And how does it affect our perception of can do, can't do. Well, and you know with mound everything is most lots are so unique. Which is why we see a lot of variance requests. So for sure I can I totally agree. trying to simplify this would make everybody's life easier. Yes. What I'm hearing clearly from Mr. Hill, which is fine. I just don't know the rest of you. And if that's because said it was easy. Make it easy. She said make it easy. Oh, which would be make sure that they have to meet the that's fine. Is that what everybody thinks that for an accessory structure you should meet the principal setbacks? Well, if we agree with the setbacks, isn't that what we're talking about? here. What if we agree with the setbacks? Aren't we trying to understand if we want to switch the setbacks with this? I think what I heard was we like the concept of the setbacks and we have it today, but they're confusing. So, if we can make them read easier, that's really what we're looking for. Is that what I heard from everybody? Like we're okay with the idea that you'd still have to have 30 feet on the street sideyard if you're an R1 lot similar to the front. If you were a lot of record and you were built not quite so wide then you get a little bit of relief like six feet or 10 feet. That's what I thought I heard. Yeah. Is that we're okay with the concept. It's just our code is convoluted to apply right now and if we could put everything in one place that would make life easier. Does that do you agree with that? 100%. Yeah. Okay. So, I feel like I So, then the question is I think I heard just now that accessory structures, we're going to treat them the same and it's just we need to get the language in the code clearer than we had it today. So, if you have a garage or a shed in the backyard, you're going to have to be inside this white area and you can't be any closer to the street. That's how I vote. Yep. I know what you think. The rest of you I kind of want to make sure before I go down the meetings this morning. I'm good. All right. Do the rest of the commissioners agree with what you just said? I guess I have one question though is if if the house was built in such a way that they're at 15 feet instead of 20 feet and so they're non-conforming already, right? Would we say they can't be closer to the street than the the primary house? I think how I would do it today is that you'd have to follow the setbacks, not where your line is, right? Because if the line But if the house is already in the line at 15 ft. Yeah. But then I would think you'd still have to be 20 ft if that's what the code said, right? For the accessories. But does it make Yeah. Does that make sense? Maybe that doesn't make sense. Do you agree with that? Mm-m. You would put it You would allow them up to 15 for the accessory. No. No. I would I would want to where the setback is. No, you and I said the same thing. Yeah, we said the same thing. Oh, you disagree. I thought we were I thought she said she disagreed with me. She did. But didn't we say the same? I mean, there's there's a there's a part of me That's why we need to clean it up. Tables tables, I tell you. Yes, ma'am. There's a part of me that thinks that if the house is closer that you could go in the same line for the accessory if there's enough room. Part of me was thinking the same thing. That's why I was asking. Yeah, I just told you what we'd apply today. Happy to write it however you think is appropriate. I mean that that was is what my gut says. Additionally, if we were going to give relief, we would have to be really careful not to give any relief or put it any closer on the on the road side, the intersecting roadside, you know, to give them any closer. We don't want it closer this way, like that corner, not to allow any variance into that corner. What do other people think of that? I I was just thinking if it if they're at 18 ft to avoid a variance as long as an accessory structure is at 18 ft too. I wouldn't care versus What do other people think? I disagree. I would think you'd have to do the whatever the new rules and regulations are, you have to follow those. You can't grandfather a new a new building, a new structure into an old grand into an old clause. I I wouldn't do it, but I'm just one vote. one voice in the choir, others. Why would you want the um accessory structure to be different and how would you word that? Oh, I don't know how I would word that. That's not fair. We're not there yet. Um, one thought that had crossed my mind was if there was some way of doing it through the expansion permit process and not strategically in the code. So, there is a way of doing it that doesn't But that part I'm not at. I wasn't I wasn't sure if you guys were getting there yet. I I don't know. The only reason I can see letting the accessory structure do anything different is just the notion of some of the lots are really hard to do stuff on and so the uniqueness of whatever. But that's why you always have the variance process, too. Yep. Right. So, I'm I'm happy either direction. It's just making sure we think through it. That's all I That's all I want. feel like a parent. All I want make sure you think that'll it makes the code harder to write if you try to build all those different I would like to um look at the numbers on the width for the in the in the R1 and the R2 whether or not that's right or wrong. And then we have another provision I don't know if we saw it that said if you live here and I live here and if you're in the middle I know I skipped over that you can you can be that the the interior house. I didn't know. We've I don't know if we've used that, but we But what happens if I live here and this lot's vacant? Do we use that same thing and this is straight? Most cities that have that provision have like it's longer than yours that have a little bit more like here's how you do it with these different situations. Yeah. And we haven't used it very often. Uh we've it's it's come up when we've had a vacant lot and a neighbor. We we have not seen too many vacant lot or or neighbor neighbor vacant lot where you get the average between the two or or that you're not going in front. But it's just yet another thing for us to look at. Yes. And I didn't include that because I didn't want that next layer. Right. Which I'm find that you mentioned. No, I know. I know. I didn't add it here because that's like one more thing that we have to figure out how it fits into the rest of your um maybe the fit in is that it probably just needs to maybe be evaluated whether or not it needs to stay. Maybe that's the first thing. I don't know. Yeah, that's part of that whole section that you and I are also Yeah. I I would say one of the most frustrating things that we've seen is that the rules are in many different areas and we work in it every day and we we almost well I think we did miss it on something that we were looking for something and we're like oh wait a minute is it this one or this one and and because they're not in the correct sections. this one of them's in 197 which is yards and most of them were in the the district requirements and some of them might be in the general provision. So getting that in the same place will be helpful for the users but also looking at what the number breaks are. You know do you do give a a break on one side. Um I don't know if you know if a lot is 50 ft versus if it's 70 ft does that really change whether or not it should be you know the same or reduced. I don't know. I think we have to play with it a little bit based on what the intent is. So this is the provision she was referring to, which is interesting because if you recall, R1 is the one that has 30 feet. R2, R1A and R2 have 20 feet. So this really doesn't do anything for the smaller lots which are R1A and R2. It only really does something. It only hits the really the R1's. Yeah. Um I think we've got some stuff to play. Any other things that folks are thinking that I should incorporate? What I just to summarize I'm writing it down now use the word street slum version setbacks are pretty good right now. We're going to look at the width depth breakdowns just to make sure they make sense. We're going to leave accessory structures the same. um we just need to make that clear how to to handle things and that we think that the relief is a good relief and then we're going to revisit this averaging um provision to see if it makes sense. Fix the wording on the 30 foot corner visibility triangle. Yeah, that's site triangles. We have a diff we have a new diagram too that we use that we can think about overall. We actually are going to revisit this entire section just as a preview for you. Um, it's a it's a it's a heavy section that could use a little bit of clarity and cleanup. So, we've already started it, but Sarah gave me permission to move it around even more than I did. So, I'm going to probably move it around even more than I did um to try and make it a little bit easier for us to apply. So, um, we probably will come back with just this stuff, but then ultimately when we go to the adoption process, it'll be part of a bigger, but just so that we have you remember it, I'll probably I'll try and come back and whatever our next meeting is and have you review it while it's still somewhat fresh instead of waiting a little longer. That's great. Some of these charters that you're up here weren't part of our packet. Correct. They they're kind of interesting. Means charts tables. Yeah, this one with the corner lot, it's easy to identify what the issue is. Where can we access those? I mean, I can we can definitely send you this PowerPoint. Um, okay. Yes, that' be great. I that was you didn't have it because I needed to really figure out how to write these in a way that made sense. Okay. So, yes, sir. And I'm going to fix the spelling thing before we send any other conversation I got. Okay. Further input for reading. Can you go back to that last slide you had up there? Slide or the code language? Code language. I just Sorry, I caught something caught my eye. Highlighted. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which is not but a dedicated approved Nope. It's a double negative. No building shall be Never mind. Doesn't make sense to me, but okay. Basically, you're supposed to be on an actual improved public street. You can't be just on something that has uh on the plat it shows a street, but you really are doing a driveway back to it. You need to be on public street. Okay. Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. It's the concept is standard. The language I don't know. Sorry, I digress. No, that's okay. Double negatives are tough. It's not unusual for double negatives. Okay. For your comments for reading. Thank you, Mr. I just have one quick, it's probably a naive question, but if a property is on a dead end, does that typically align up more with like that typical definition? What? I don't know if I understood the question. Well, like a dead end. So, yeah. No, I understood that part, but what is the next part of So, when we're talking about the definitions of a typical th through corner or lake shore, does a dead end typically does it live in one of those or can it be in a couple? typically. Well, I mean technically it could be in a couple because sometime every it's not very common. Every once I think my house falls in that category and I was trying to figure out where I put a shed. So this is why I was thinking about yeah every once in a while you can have a property that's on a culde-sac like on the bulb part of a culde-sac and then behind it have another street. Every once in a while that does happen. Typically, they're going to be more considered an interior lot or a typical lot because you'll have properties on both sides of you and behind you. They are odd with the way that they come towards the street and they narrow, but there is a provision in the code particularly for the front yard element of like you're supposed to have so many feet uh it's not in here exactly, but so many feet on a right of way in order to have a lot. There's a provision that's how you measure it on a culde-sac bulb. kind of measure it back at the the setback line so that you get that dimension on a street. Yeah. And I think I'm kind of more a true dead end like the road ends and we hit the lake but our house sits with the front yard on the street and our house sits sideways on the lake. So typically what we do on those actually and I was just trying to figure out if that would align more with like a typical or a lake shore or you know just thinking about my own property. Yep. Um well actually I know this one Fair, please. I was going to say you could just go to my house. I'm on I'm on Black Lake. So, I don't really want that, right? True. I think you're over by my house right now. No, it's your house on the dead end. I don't actually know where any of you live. Uhhuh. Sure. That looks kind of like that where the dead end. You just hit the lake like and then we're the house that just sits sideways. When we apply this, we apply this one to be the front yard setback. Okay. And this to be the lakeshore setback and this to be a sideyard setback and this to be a rear yard setback. Okay. Yeah. Because this is essentially the front of the house. And then if you are constructing a new subdivision, you have to make sure there's enough of public frontage on here to allow for that meeting that requirement of how much is on a street. We just had that on the island that Well, then you add Pike Road in there. There were which then dead ends. So you've got an alleyway basically. That's not a That's not a really good one to use. So where is your front? Yeah. How's this one? You like this one better? Same concept. It's just this is right. Because there's the D. Yeah. The whole alleys, fire lanes, all that stuff that we have to set aside because that's a whole different conversation. So all right, further comments for Rita. Thank you. Going once, twice. We'll be back. I'll be back. Thank you. Be back. Thank you. Thank you for trying to make something out of trying to make us confusion. Yeah. Sorry. I couldn't make it any simpler to talk about, but nice job. Thank you very Thank you. Yeah. [Music] Okay. Is that all you have tonight, Rita? Yes, sir. That's all I have. I don't know. Sarah and Miss Mcne might have more stuff. I'm just asking about your section. Yeah. Call him the hammer. Okay. Uh Kath, anything from the city council? Well, I do have a few things. Um to talk about some events coming up and our meeting last week, uh Mayor Holt was on spring break, so it was a really fast, easy agenda. It was beautiful and acting mayor Castellano did a heck of a job, but we agreed that it might have been the fastest meeting ever and that doesn't happen very often. Um there's a lot of events coming up. The um let me get my glasses on so I can read. Um I think everybody knows starting today the hydrant flushing started. Oh yeah. Yep. And that'll go on for about a month. Then a fun fact, if you didn't know it, we mount does have 493 fire hydrants that they have to service. Fun fact. That's why it takes a month. Um the next item is hopefully you all know that Menita cleanup day is Saturday, May 3rd, 8 to 3. One of my favorite days of the year. The Gillespie Center has really ramped up their efforts and events and there are three coming up um this Thursday. bingo at 2 PM. The spring flame, which is kind of a new thing, it really looks fun, is this Saturday with a spaghetti dinner starting at five o'clock from 5 to 8. And then it's going to be featuring music from uh Jeremy and Peter Burke Band. 6 PM is the Bob Dylan show, which they'll be doing Bob Dylan music. And then they'll um transition into popular cover songs at 7:30. Mhm. And that's all on our Facebook page with more information if anybody wants more. It looks like a really nice event. And then they're having bingo again on Sunday at 2 p.m. On April 9th, they're having a paint and sip class. Uh it's $40 for all the painting supplies and you get a glass of wine. And if you want more wine, you can pay for it after that. But that also looks like a fun event. April 9th at 6 pm. Uh, Wednesday, April 16th is coffee with the cop day. Um, to kind of learn what's happening in and around Mound and that's from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. at Caribou and Mount and that's all I've got. Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Anything from you? Um, we have uh permits that were recently approved for Music in the Park concert series in June, July, and August. Uh, we'll anticipate seeing the farmers market uh materials uh come before the council soon. Spirit of the Lakes will be in July. Uh the council also approved fish fry uh event uh in June. So, lots of special events up and coming um in the next couple of months. There's also a couple of fishing contests coming up. Um the public hearing for the Fern Town Homes is scheduled for the Tuesday, April 8th city council meeting. We saw it here at the end of 23, I think. And so that preliminary plat, the conditional use permit, and the vacation are now coming to the council um with addressing uh a lot of the discussion that came from uh the planning commission. So, the hearings will be held at Tuesday's council meeting. So, that's all I have. Okay. Have they made major improvements to that um deferred lane? Uh they they've worked to address some of the comments. Sure. They'll walk through that with the council. Okay. Uh, next meeting, Tuesday, May 6 at 6 PM. Are there any information items? Does anyone have anything they'd like to bring up? Spoken. Hearing none, uh, chair would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. We have a motion. We have a second. Second discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carried. Thanks everyone.