Good evening and there we go. Good evening and welcome to the May 5th, 2025 meeting of the Wesa Planning Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. My name is Blake Cameron and I'm the chair of the planning commission. First item on the agenda is the roll call. Director Sharp, will you please call roll? Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Anen, here. Commissioner Planton here. Commissioner Schwabby here. Commissioner, sorry. Um, I'm very sorry about that. Uh, Commissioner Severson here. Commissioner Elg here. Commissioner Vanl here. Chair Cameron here. Thank you, Director Sharp. Um, next on the agenda is the uh approval of tonight's meeting agenda. Um, does anyone have any questions um or changes proposed changes to the agenda? If not, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabi. Swabby. May I have a second? I'll second. Vanoy. Thank you, Commissioner Vanly. Further discussion? All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Nay. Uh, the motion passes. The eyes have it and the motion passes and the agenda is approved. Up next on the agenda tonight is the approval of the consent agenda which consists of the approval of the meeting minutes from April 7th, 2025 and approval of the uh planning commission report and recommendation for denial of a conditional use permit at 701 Central Avenue North. Uh does anybody have any um questions or comments on the consent agenda or wish to pull an item for further disc? I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Chair. I think uh did did you have the right items on the reports there? That's what it says. But I think we're the ne I think we're the next one. Yeah, they looked Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. I I don't. That is um I was reading off the screen and not the piece of paper. Thank you. I'm sure Director Sharp. I just want to make sure we have the correct Yes. Let me back up and restart that. Uh this evening's consent agenda consists of approval of the meeting minutes from April 7th, 2025, approval of the planning commission report and recommendation for a conditional use permit and design deviation at 1221 Weissto Boulevard East. And approve uh approve a planning commission report and recommendation for denial of a variance at 617 Park Street East. Those are the correct items that are supposed to be on the consent agenda this evening. Um, does anybody have any um questions, comments on the consent agenda or wish to pull an item for separate discussion or action? If not, may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabi. Second. I'll second. Vanly. Thank you, Commissioner Vanly. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I. I. Opposed? Nay. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the consent agenda is approved. Um, next on the agenda is old business. Seeing that there is none, we will roll right into the public hearing items. Um, tonight we have two public hearing items, 323 Wakeliff North and 1407 Holdridge Lane. And we're going to start with uh 323 Wake North. And uh the way this will work is we'll have a staff presentation um of the uh application. Um we'll have some questions for staff. Then we'll have the applicant uh we'll have time to address the planning commission if they'd like. And then we'll have um some time for questions from uh the commission again. And then we'll have a commission discussion. So uh this is I'm sorry this is uh consultant Johnson, correct? All right, it's all yours. Thank you, chair and commission. Um, and thanks for having me here tonight. Uh, this is a request for two variances. Uh, 323 Waycliffe Avenue North and the variances are for lot coverage and for imperous surface. So, you have an applicant um, Satin Touch, Inc. and um, this 120day decision deadline is uh, August 7th of 2025. So the current zoning of this property is R4 medium density uh multif family. Uh you can see that this was uh developed uh I believe in around 2004 2005 and as part of a a duplex or town home neighborhood. Um it has a comprehensive plan designation of medium density residential and uh shoreland uh overlay district. Um you can see uh the the the zoning and the land use on the page. Now you want to move on to the next one. Sorry. You'd think I've never done this before. Uh okay. So um again it was part of the Waycliffe neighborhood of Twin Homes. Uh I guess it was in the 1990s. Uh the existing home has a cantal lever deck on the rear of the building which you can see outlined in red on this presentation. This uh home does share a wall with 313 way cliff. Uh so the required lot coverage in this zoning district is 35% and 45% is uh the impervious surface requirement. The existing uh building coverage on this property is 36.1% and the existing impervious is 51.5%. So you can see that this is a bit over what the normal requirements are. However, this was developed as part of a PUD uh several years ago. So um this is not an uncommon condition throughout the neighborhood. The owners are proposing to construct an addition to their home which is in the exact same location as their uh canal lever deck and the new addition will create the need for additional lot coverage and imperous surfaces. So therefore variances are needed at this time. Um, I know a few years ago that uh we did a development agreement amendment uh that would allow variances in this um this neighborhood to go through instead of PUD amendments. So that's why you're seeing a variance now instead of a PUD amendment. Um that was how things like this were processed prior to that time. Other information about this particular request. The owners are proposing to use this um addition as a meditation room and it's for a personal use and not a home occupation. We do have an email from the homeowners association that states that the plans for this addition have been approved. Um the image on the right of your screen here is what it will look like once it's constructed. And again, a PUD amendment was approved for a similar circumstance in 2005 for 218 Waycliffe Drive, which is really right behind this particular unit or I should say to the west. So they're the back of the homes faces the back of the homes. Uh you can see uh if you happen to look at the aerial through Henipin County, there are several homes within this neighborhood that are closer to the ordinary high water level than this home is. The engineering department has provided comments on this request and essentially um if this variance uh is approved for imperous services, the applicant will be required to enter a formal storm water facilities maintenance agreement with the city. Um and that's something that you should be aware of going forward that if any other future requests come forward for imperous surface variances that this will require the same type of agreement. And that's how we handle storm water uh in neighborhoods such as this. The neighborhood notification and uh was sent um on April 29th, 2025 by the applicant and the city sent a letter on April 22nd. Uh there was no neighborhood meeting required for this request and there have been no public comments received to date. So, as you know, you have several primary questions to consider when you're discussing variances. Uh, is the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan. Is the variance reasonable? Is it unique to the property and not created by the landowner? And does it alter the essential character of the locality? This is a quasi judicial review and decision, meaning that you act similar to a judge in a courtroom and and apply this relevant rules of the zoning ordinance to this particular circumstance. And um the planning commission should recommend approval of the variance request if the commission determines that they meet all criteria for granting a variance in the city code. So after considering these items and holding the public hearing and discussing amongst yourself, um the planning commission should direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation with the appropriate findings reflecting a recommendation on the application for review and adoption at the next planning commission meeting. And that concludes my report. I'll stand by for questions. Thank you, Consultant Johnson. Commissioners, any questions for staff? I have one. So, you said there already is a building that did this already, so there's existing precedent for doing this. Yes, I did look through city records and I found one from uh 2005 or 2004 was the date of the the case number. And again, it was um processed as a PUD amendment at that time, so not a variance, but it was approved by the city council at that time. And essentially, they wanted to do the same thing. They wanted to enclose their existing deck that was situated very similar to what this deck is. And they enclosed it with uh I think they made it a threeseason porch at that time. Maybe not four season, but Thank you. Yes, a question. Commissioner Schwabby. Um, so they are adding on to their deck, right, to make this happen. It It looks like the deck is there but small and they're adding footage onto it. They are adding approximately one one and a half ft to it. It's not much. It looks more we did some measurements today and it looks a little bit more than than that on the drawings, but uh when we scaled the drawing it wasn't as much as you as it looks. It's uh when you cut when it cuts the angle um that that makes it look smaller than it it is. So, and how close will it be then to the pond? Well, a foot or so closer than it is now, but how close is it? There's not a This is a very tight neighborhood. Um I don't know. Let me see if I can find that for you. Hang on. 27 ft. That's the Oh, it's I would imagine that it's between 50 and 60 feet. I don't have Can you see a setback on there? It looks like 27.3 on the Is that what it says up there to the property line? To the property line, which may or may not be the water. I'm not sure. The ordinary high water level. You can see a 27.3 and then a 32.2. It looks like 32.2 is the back of the structure and 27.3 would be to the back of the addition. Okay. Oh, I was looking appears to be accurate. Thank you. Yeah, screen's too small here. So, I utilized our city attorney's screen. That is correct. So, to the proposed addition, it's 27.3 and 32.2. Um, and it does not show on the existing survey what it is to the to the deck. Okay. And it is going to be twotory. Is it twotory now? There's nothing above it now, right? It's Well, it's not It's an elevated deck now and it'll be an elevated addition. So, there will be nothing above it. Sure. Right. There's But there's an is there's an existing patio there now? Yeah. So, there's a patio on the lower level and then an elevated deck above that patio. So, that deck will be replaced with a fourseason edition and that patio down below will remain. Okay. Will it have a basement underneath it or just a fl a slab? It looks like two level. Yeah, chair, if I can correct, the ground floor will be enclo fully enclosed in a four season and it'll be sitting on the ground, not elevated. Correct. Okay. I had a question, Commissioner Severson. So, it's um and I think you I think you already addressed it, but I just want to make sure. Yeah, go back to that slide with the number. go one back or with the Yeah, that one. Um the existing versus proposed. So you said that they're it's on basically the same slab, but it's getting a little bit bigger. So is that why the existing is a tiny bit smaller than the proposed? Uh yes. Um commissioner, it that's correct because you're putting a roof over it. I'll I'll put up the um So having a So putting a roof means you lose some impervious surface. I'm sorry. No, there's a patio there now. Yeah. I'm just trying So there's no roof over it now. I'm just trying to figure out the difference or where the difference is coming in if you go back I think to the next slide. Yeah, that one. I'm just trying to understand how the existing today is 36.1 and going to 38.5% and then the 51 and a half to the 52.1. Just trying to I'm just trying to understand the footprint today versus what what they're asking for. Uh Chair Cameron and Commissioner Severson, the primary reason is right now the deck is not considered an impervious surface. So water can flow through that. Secondarily, it is getting larger as the angles of the deck uh are essentially squared off and so you end up getting additional square footage uh for the entire area of the deck plus squared off area that they are enclosing as uh space whereas the deck follows uh certain angles and then there's that one and a half to and this is where it gets a little bit difficult when staff is looking at this and evaluating this afternoon make sure because we don't have that exact setback from the deck to the high water just how much bigger is it? Um what I'd shared with some uh individuals from the res from the association this afternoon is that it's somewhere between that one and a half 2 and 1/2 3 foot maximum if you want to go as far. It appears to be closer to the one and a half to two foot further out. All in all, you end up with a little bit more or with the impervious surface added up of all those things to get the increase that you're seeing. Okay. Um, I have a question. I'm not sure that any of you know the answer to this, but um, do we know when it was zoned R4? The research uh, that we had done said this was constructed in the '9s. So when was it when was it reszoned into R4? Because at some point after it was constructed, we reszoned it into a non-compliant state, right? I'm not confident whether it was reszoned because it was a PD, but perhaps the impervious surface coverages were not in place when this was initially adopted. I did read that in the notes. I thought Yeah, those were not in place at the time. Yeah. So, I don't believe that it was that it got reszoned, Chair Cameron. I believe that it was the impervious surface coverages, particularly with the shoreland, were adopted at a later date after the PUD had been adopted. So, we as a city created a non-compliant state for all these homeowners. They're grandfathered in, right, Sher Cameron? They would become a legal nonconformity during that um process, but it wouldn't Yes. on the city to answer your question, but also additionally, we were required to pass shorland overlay requirements by the DNR. Yep. We weren't able to choose what those requirements were at the time of adoption. They were set standards. uh while we were able to take some leeway with them, those were not one of the items that we were able to uh choose what we adopted and what we did not. Okay. And I'm assuming if this went before their homeowners association that can we assume that the neighbors were okay with all this? Do we have any information on that? Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabby. Um, that's where there's the discrepancy in where the city becomes involved in uh upholding association requirements. So, I met with the association this afternoon or members uh that are present in the public uh from the association that have informed us that the uh development has not been reviewed by the association. Um, this is why cities don't enforce uh what an association regulates and what they don't. Uh, they can have their own private regulations that are above and beyond where the cities are at. And we don't ultimately uh we are not ultimately in charge of their enforcement or their mechanisms. And so I would look for you to ask that question specifically to the applicant whether the association has uh reviewed this item or not. Can you speak um just real briefly on what a storm water facilities maintenance agreement is and what it entails. Chair Cameron, these are a fairly standard, albeit time consuming agreement. Um they're timeconuming in that staff needs to maintain them in perpetuity. Essentially what they do is set up an agreement with that property owner that's recorded against the subject property regardless of ownership and then it lives with the land and ensures that that storm water feature that is being stalled installed to mitigate the negative impacts from the additional storm water is still functioning in 5 10 20 30 50 years. And so that's what that agreement is for. And that's where it also becomes a ongoing measure for staff to be able to take on to check on these every x number of years to ensure that the function is still uh working as intended years out. Uh they are less common for the city on single family and duplex lots. They are more common in our commercial zones because there is uh additional bandwidth from those property owners to maintain those systems long term for sure. A lot of impervious surface down there. Okay. Thank you. Could I ask a question? Yeah, absolutely. Um Commissioner, I'm sorry if it was in the packet or if I read it and forgot, but do we know how many units there are in this development? Chair Cameron, uh, Commissioner Elg, I believe there were 22 around the pond and then an additional around the lake. There are two phases of the Wake Cliff development. Um, and it appears to be west side of the pond and east side of the pond. Um, I can get that number and get back to you in a moment. That's okay. I'm I mean, I'm just thinking about I guess it sounds like there may be one of these constructed already. This could be the second. And does this mean that every unit could eventually add this addition? And then we'd have uh far greater surface coverage and when are we running up up against oh boy we've overdone it and there's no storm water control here that uh we can mitigate. So I get just a curiosity or concern ongoing. Chair Cameron. Uh Commissioner Elg if I may. This was a uh item that we promised the people that I'd met with this afternoon uh that our city engineer would be able to review and respond back to specifically her assistant city engineer I should state. Uh her review found that be with the storm water maintenance agreements and those that are willing to have those recorded against the property in perpetuity. The intention of those is to essentially offset the treatment of this area. So everybody around that pond could still do that while still maintaining the overall function of the storm water system so long as they were to have their own private systems that essentially are over and above the original design system. Thank you. Anyone else? Perfect. Thank you staff. Appreciate it. Um so next up uh some time for the applicant to present. Uh if the applicant would like to come forward um and uh address the commission, please state your name and address uh for the record. Hi, I'm uh Don CR. I'm at 323 Wakelift Drive North in Weisetta. Uh guess I don't uh really know where to begin. Um I did bring some photographs there. There's a lot of porches that have been enclosed either on the top or the top and the bottom in the area already. It's not just the one. Uh I think I do have have a photo of the not a very good photo of the one that uh was mentioned earlier that's directly across from us. So it's it's not not unusual. Uh we did comply with the homeowners association uh requirements. So, in our bylaws, it says we need to get signatures from the neighbors on each side of us. And uh we did do that. And we did submit a plan to the home homeowners association uh management company, which is where they go, uh last June. So, uh this is this is uh been in the process for quite a while. Are there other questions you would like me to address? And did the management company take it to the board and did the board respond or take action in I don't know. That's that's not part of the process. the processes. You fill out the form. You send it into the management company. They say yes or no or Well, I lived in an association and I think it would be your responsibility to know what the association said or did not say. I'm sorry. I said I lived in an association for 18 years. I think it would be your responsibility to know what the association said in regard to your development. You are part of the community. Oh, I I do know. They they replied back that it was approved. Okay, that was my question. You I'm sorry. I I didn't understand. Okay. Commissioners, anyone anybody else have questions for the applicant? Did the HOA have any concerns that they came back to you with or any qualifications? No. That they approved it as it as it was as it were originally wasn't as it is now? Yes. Okay. Thank you. We just lost our screens up there. Okay. What did we lose? We lost our screens. Oh, that one up there, too. Um I'm good. We're good. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um commissioners, uh any follow-up questions for uh for applicant or staff? I I have one. As a small city that's growing rapidly, I know that there are concerns, you know, about the coverage of the lot, about the impervious service. It comes up every time anybody really wants to make a change in something. But it seems as if we have gotten stricter about it over the years because we are a small community. We are very close to the best lake around and and I guess I have some concerns about that. Um we can only be so tight and this is a very tight neighborhood. I assume everybody's driven through it and knows. Um I just have a question if that is a concern to the city as a whole. um making small changes to many different properties, how that might affect the city going forward. Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabby, I'm not an engineer. I'm not going to pretend to be one, but small cumulative effects are certainly an item of concern. That said, when they are fed into private storm water systems uh such as this one, that does mitigate some of the concern. Eventually, it comes down to the higher level policy direction uh that the planning commission and city council would direct in terms of how to start reviewing those more cumulative impacts rather than the small impacts of a single property. Um, it's something that I'm sure or that I've heard a fair amount about in my short time with the community. Um, it's something that I have spoken with our assistant city engineer and city engineer about. So, it is a topic of discussion. Um, however, typically the primary concern expressed is ensuring that these systems function now and in per perpetuity rather than as a cumulative effect as a whole because these systems do treat the storm water effectively. uh they are of less concern even in that cumulative effect than if they were to all suddenly or not even suddenly if they were not be maintained and then our system would degrade over time because of that lack of maintenance of these private systems. Thank you. Thank you Director Sharp Chair just as a matter because it wasn't included in the original packet. It was submitted with the building permit materials. Uh there are materials that we have available that we can certainly provide from the Wakelift Review Association. Um again, we do not check into the veracity of these. We're not determining uh if these are the official association documents, just as an item of note since it came up with Commissioner Elg. I do want to stress for the commission that it is not a matter of the city planning commission or city council to weigh in on the private matters of the association. However, for sure. Thank you, Commissioners. Anyone else? All right, we're going to turn to the public hearing now. Um uh if you uh if you would like to um speak, please come forward to the podium. Um state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're connected to the applicant in any way. Public hearing is open. Director Sharp, do we have anybody online? Shar, there's no one wishing to speak at this time. Perfect. Thank you, public. Good. All right, we're going to close the public hearing. Um, commissioners, any additional questions for the applicant or staff at this point? So, I just have a question. if this is going to be a known thing and why would they not come back and ask for a PUB amendment to be able to do this or could they do that? Uh, Commissioner, I think that's that was the goal of the development agreement change just a few years ago. They didn't want to have to come back every time they amended the PUD development for small additions like this. So instead they chose to take that parameter out of the development agreement and we have a resolution approving that. So now anything that comes forward in terms of additions or impervious surface variances will be treated as such as variances rather than a PUD amendment. So, um I don't think this would be something that you would amend a PUD development agreement for if they essentially just amended that to take it out a few years ago. But it sounds like a lot of these um properties none of conform already, right? Just by nature of how it was developed. And yeah, I think over time, you know, since this was developed so long ago, chair, um, uh, it essentially has evolved into a legal non-conforming situation for many of the buildings and the properties out there. And this, you know, having impervious surface coverage on lots that are over our requirements or building coverage percentages that are over our requirements is fairly common in this neighborhood. Okay. So, one of the things um as I as I drove through the neighborhood, it's really hard to see the back of these buildings to really know what's going on, right? But I know when uh builders are usually putting these together, if you're the purchaser of one of these, right, they have their laundry list of things that they might add. And I'm wondering if some of these threeseason porches that that the applicant mentioned weren't options that were provided at the time of these being built since there is only one one situation of a request for an add-on afterwards. I'm not sure we'd have line of sight to that. Um, but it seems like we have a a disconnect between uh at least what the applicant indicated was in the neighborhood. Uh, I didn't walk the back of the pond. I didn't think that would be welcomed. Um, but uh I I suspect we don't have any insight, but I thought I would bring it up to see if if uh we possibly had any insights. Chair Chair, Commissioner Vanoy, we do not have knowledge of whether that was an original option on these units. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Sure. Step to the microphone, please, and um introduce yourself. Uh my name is John Zuber. I work for Sat and Touch Construction and I was the uh designer of uh this particular uh project. And before I started the design process, I walked around in the neighborhood and a lot of the enclosed porches to me or some of the enclosed porches um looked like they were done at the time of the original construction. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, John. Yeah. Commissioners, anyone else discussion, thoughts? I kind of would have liked to just see it the same footprint instead of a little bit bigger, but is what it is. From my standpoint, I think it's it's generally the generally the same size. It's not going to not going to be too uh uh uh you know an anything that's that's going to look out of place and as long as the storm water's taken care of uh I think that it uh it's a reasonable request. Yeah. I I I don't really see an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. In fact, I see that this proposal uh or uh or request is generally neutral. Doesn't doesn't have a bad effect or positive. In fact, I think it's very beautiful. So, I think it it could be a positive. I think it's attractive. Um so, I think the variance is reasonable. Um I don't think it will alter the character, as I just said. I I don't think it has impact in either direction. Um uh so I you know I understand the request. I I personally would love a space like that. If I could add that much square footage, I would love to. Um um so yeah, and you know what the plight Yeah. They're they're in a situation where they're a uh in a nonconforming I mean they were already already in a non-conforming situation. So they really don't have much choice. Um, I don't know that a foot and a half in either direction would make that much of a difference with the storm mitigation um agreement, storm water mitigation agreement. Uh, I think I think they're well in line to to make this request and it seems reasonable. I'd be in favor of it. Thank you, Commissioner Hog. I can go next. Um, I'd be in favor of this application as well. Um, I think it does add to the character and livability. So, it does, you know, add um to the the character of the neighborhood. Um, it's consistent with our comprehensive plan. Um, it doesn't alter the essence of locality as we're looking at. Um, and so I would be in favor of this. Thank you, M. Commissioner Blandon. I would agree. I I'm in favor of it as well. I think it is consistent with our comprehensive plan and I think it looks very nice. They've done a nice job. Thank you, Chris Anthony. I tend to agree with all of these comments. I'm a bit reluctant just because just because but I but I would vote for it. Thank you, Commissioner Schwabby. Um I I would agree with um what has been said as well. I I think that um it's I perfectly align with comprehensive plan. I think it makes it makes the residents probably more charming. Um, I I think it's totally reasonable. I personally I I guess my issue is probably more with the fact that we've created this non-conforming situation for them in the first place, but um that's I think the plight of the land owner is right that's unique to the property and um that's not their circumstances um because it was built and I think when I look at what they're doing, I think it it looks great. And when you look at the aerial shot of some of the neighboring town homes, you can see um the the hip roof coming into it. So there's clearly a number of um other units that have something very similar or at least have a roof over the top of something that sticks out very similar to this. So I think it's totally in line. And I don't know if we have to add this on, but depending dependent on them being vigilant about the storm water facilities agreement with the city and and uh our engineering department. It was just in there as a as uh the engineering department suggested this would be a good idea. I think we put it in there as a for sure. It is incumbent that they do that. I think they would anyway, but I think it should be in there. Was that Director Sharp? Was that already in there, Chair Cameron? Uh, it would for projects like this, it would be a standard condition of approval. Okay. Uh, if the planning commission were to recommend it, it certainly would not hurt the motion to have that added as a directive of the planning commission or as a recommended condition, okay, of the planning commission, uh, as an addendum to your motion. Okay. Anyone else? Sounds like we have consensus. Yes. Yes, we have closed the public hearing. Um I'm going to look at you, Commissioner Schwab, since you had the you had the um piece that you wanted to add. Um Commissioner Schwabi. Um Okay. Well, I'd like to find that page. Would you um would you like to create a motion to direct staff to prepare and draft a draft report and recommendation? I would approval. I would like to recommend that the planning commission direct staff to prepare a draft planning commission report and recommendation with appropriate findings reflecting a recommendation of approval of the application um contingent on their um diligent observation of the storm water facilities agreement with the city of Weisetta and that it be reviewed and adopted at the next planning commission meeting. Thank you, Commissioner Schwab. May I have a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Elg. I uh if I may just interject, uh Commissioner Schwelby, I certainly appreciate your sentiments there. Um I think you know my recommendation as city attorney is we just make the condition that they enter into that agreement and we note your admonition to the applicant and staff to make sure that isn't enforced. But we we do that as a policy. So that's probably the way I would recommend articulating it in that draft report. Is that okay with you? How should I change that? Oh, I I think um just a condition that uh the applicant enter into the city's storm water management agreement. If they enter into it, we'll make sure they follow it. So, you'll need to withdraw your first proposal. You know, chair, I I'm fine. Just so long we have that understanding. All right. You could call the question. All right. Okay. I just want to be sure. Do I still have to say something? No, we're good. We have We have a motion. We have a second and we have we have had some discussion. Any further discussion? No. All right. Um all those in favor I opposed. Nay. And the eyes have it. The motion passes and the um draft planning commission report and recommendation uh recommending approval of the variance will be on the consent agenda at our next meeting. All right. Uh I believe um I would like to uh recuse myself uh and step down from the dis since this next item is I'm the applicant. So well I suppose probably be a good thing, right? Yes. Um next on the um next on the agenda then is the public hearing for the uh fence variance at 1407 Holdridge Lane, better known as Commissioner Alex's house. Um staff uh Director Sharp, are you going to lead us off with the presentation? I'm not just going to lead this one. Uh I've actually asked uh and for respect out of the applicant and the discussions that will be occurring out there uh that I be able to take this one in full. So perfect. I'll bring it all the way through. All right, let's do it. So as stated, thank you. This is for a fence variance at 1407 Holdridge Lane. The project location is on the north side of town, just south of Highway 12. Prominent features within the area are the United I'm sorry, Unitarian Universalist Church, Crosby Road, Highway 12, and the dealerships across uh highway 12 as well. I've split this up a little bit bigger so you could actually see the different coloration uh rather than have it on a single slide uh such as my predecessors. Um, I'm also starting with the guiding and land use because that's where we actually start from to get our zoning so that you're aware that um, I'm making some changes to the presentation format as I move along. I am very open to suggestion from the commission as I move through this. So, if you do have any other changes that you have suggestions, please feel free to let me know or if you'd like me to revert back to prior areas that you're a little bit more familiar with as well. Starting with the guiding uh the property is guided for single family uh 0.5 to one unit per acre. It is zoned R1 lowdensity single family residential district. The existing condition survey uh can be a little bit difficult to see so I'm going to end up moving forward. But one item of note is that there is a fence on the north side of the property already. This fence uh ceases at the rear of the home which is where we have our requirements for the maximum fence height. So the variances that are being applied for this evening are a uh opacity variance and a maximum height variance. In the front yard, the maximum height for a fence is allowed to be 4 feet. In the rear yard, it's allowed to be six feet. In the front yard, it's allowed to be 75% opaque. And in the rear yard, it's allowed to be 100% opaque. In this case, the applicant is applying for a variance of 25% to the opacity, allowing for 100% opacity in the front yard and for a six-foot fence in the uh location of the red line shown. It is a 100 foot fence addition. Um, sorry, the red line uh later on in the presentation, apologies. On the survey, we'll show the final location on that actual survey. It does come within a couple of feet of that northern property line. One item of note that you'll see on some additional photo slides coming up is for Highway 12, there's quite a barrier uh and grade change down to Highway 12 where this property actually is above Highway 12. And there'll be some photos that the applicant has provided that uh really show this differentiation. These are two views of where the existing or where the uh fence is proposed today facing north. Uh notably the night photo helps demonstrate the lights from not only Highway 12 but the dealership across uh Highway 12 to the north. Uh and uh the applicant's narrative does mention some of the impact that that uh road and the light plays into their consideration for this fence and their request. The approximate fence location is shown on the lefth hand photo here and then the existing fence location where it will connect up to is shown that is right at the rear of the home. The materials proposed are uh in line with what is present existing. So they are looking at basically expanding what is existing and bringing it along that northern property line into the front yard. This is the sign significant grade change I noted previously. Um, as you can see, it's quite significant towards the back of the property. Does taper off as you move north. However, that also uh means that the grade and the effect that property increases as the grade decreases down to Highway 12. This is the survey that I noted uh previously in the presentation. the red line that can be a little bit difficult to see, but is within uh or runs adjacent to the northern property line and then does a taper down towards the southwest um to further screen the home from the uh presumably car wash or car headlights and the uh light wash that would come across from that lower grade change in that location. The applicant uh has stated and I've taken this from some of their submission materials uh principal reason for the fence is noise and light mitigation. Rather than going through each of these uh at length, I'll provide them for you on the screen. If we have any additional questions, we can uh certainly come back to them or touch on specific points. So, this is an item that we can go back to. The engineering department did not have any additional comments on this item and there were two neighborhood notifications that are sitting on your dis. Uh in my learning of Civic Plus, I did not get them completely attached. My apologies for that. That's why they are on the table for you this evening. Uh well, I may not be able to fully get the technology to work. I'm relatively good at improvising. So, if you do have any questions about these, we did receive these in advance uh of the meeting. Public notice was sent and the applicant did send uh notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This does not uh similar to the prior application, this does not require a neighborhood meeting for single family house variance. And um the summary of these comments are essentially that they were in favor of the project uh dated actually prior to uh significantly prior to this meeting due to the delay of public hearing notice. One of the things you saw that I did a little bit differently in the staff report uh that I will welcome the uh city attorneys uh to opine on and the planning commission to comment on is the definition of practical difficulties. I've left it similar to how the planning commission has seen before. Uh however, I'd like to go into a slightly more traditional sense of the practical difficulties provision as that is what the planning commission and city council uses. These are the same provisions. They're just worded uh a little bit differently in the staff report because they're taken directly from state statute and state code in the presentation format. They're a little bit uh more conducive to your discussion and being able to walk through individual items. Uh the primary pieces are they consistent with the comprehensive plan? Is it a reasonable use of the subject property? uh is the plight of the land over owner not caused by land owner and uh unique to the subject property and then uh economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty with that staff would be able to stand for any questions and uh would seek a report and recommendation with appropriate findings from the planning commission uh for a uh to bring this item back at the next available planning commission for adoption. Thank you, Director Sharp. Commissioners, questions for staff. So, it it actually looks like the fence is in the in on the side of the house. Is that correct? Because I keep hearing you say the front, but I I'm not looking at it properly. Chair Cameron, Commissioner Schwabby, apologies. This should I should have gone in a little bit greater detail on this. uh you'd seen it with uh the other waycliff variances. When fences are adjacent to a roadway within Weisetta's code, they are considered a front and therefore must meet all front requirements. I see. Um because of the commission's familiar familiarity with that item from recent items is the reason why I didn't go to it in the presentation, but it is mentioned briefly in the report. So, can I ask a question? Commissioner Severson. So, does that mean that the current fence there is non-conforming? whatever that current stretch of fence the uh chair Cameron and Commissioner Stevenson that's an interesting nuance that I actually had to speak with our um consultant planner about when it is technically within the full rear of the home and because of the height of this being significantly above it was likely that it was deemed sufficient at the time rather than being adjacent but it is a a worthy nuance of the planning commissioner notice, which is why then it ends at the very end corner. Correct. Interesting. It's why I emphasized it, but it's not. You could interpret this because it's adjacent to Highway 12 is that that could be non-conforming. And I won't state whether that would be a legal nonconformity or not because we don't know the history of the fence. Perfect. Anyone else? So, as viewed from the frontage road, a good deal of this fence is going to be behind that row of trees. Is that right, Chair Cameron? Uh, Commissioner Schwabi, according to this survey, yes. Okay. We can ask that question too when he has his moment. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Perfect. Thank you, Director Sharp. Um, Mr. Al, do you have a presentation that you'd like to share with us? Not really, but I'll say make a few remarks. Uh, Adam El 1407 Holdridge Lane, Y Zetta. Uh, just a couple comments quickly. Um, development director Sharp. Um when I received the permit for the north uh east fence, I was told, if you want to go back to the uh survey, that from the back north corner of the house to the front north corner of the house was considered the sideyard. And that could be 4 feet tall, 100% opaque. and from the front corner to the front property line was considered front yard and could only be uh 75 at the time 50% opaque and four feet tall. So that's a little difference. I don't know if it had so much to do with the street and maybe it's two different interpretations, but um that's what I was told at the time. So when you consider fence stuff, the back corner to the front corner is typically sideyard and from the front corner to the front b uh property line is typically considered front line. Maybe not in the case when it's on a street. But um so I want to thank you for listening to this request. I think the pictures kind of speak for themselves. This has been uh a long time in the making. We've been there six years and been wanting to do this and finally came time. Um, yeah, it's the view is is atrocious. I don't think anybody would want to see that view every time they stepped out of their front door. I will say that not only is that northeast or northwest wind bad in the winter and drifting over our driveway right after I've uh snowplowed it, it also knocks over our um summer raised vegetable gardens. It's that strong. I mean, we have more strong winds than I've ever seen in my lifetime. So, we're hoping for a little bit of uh reduction in in those winds. Um, so with that, oh, and to the question, yeah, there's a row of evergreens and a row of lilacs that will all be facing Highway 12 and Rosetta Boulevard that will block it. Um, you can barely see the the east northeast fence from the highway. You can kind of see it when you're way down like east of the property coming towards the house, but it's barely seen because it's so high up. And uh it will barely be seen uh there as well. The only people that'll see it is us and anybody driving down Holdridge Lane and I don't think they'll mind not seeing the the car dealerships. The only thing I'll add is that uh the design we are uh wanting to do something a little different. Um instead of vertical um cedar as is seen in the back, we want to do horizontal cedar. It's more in keeping with uh mid-century modern architecture. You can see the wide planks on the house. Uh um and you often see horizontal uh fencing in mid-century modern um landscape and architecture. So that would be the only difference uh I did not note um in the proposal but it will be certainly more attractive. There will be shrubbery and um you know flowering uh areas in front of it. We want to attract more bees and uh pollinating insects. So that's going to be an area that'll be planted with flowers. So I think it'll be quite attractive. So, thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Al. Questions for the applicant? Actually, I Well, actually, okay. Yeah, I have to bring it back to mind. Oh, so in terms of the look of the fence, the red part is now going to be horizontal and the black part is going to be vertical. Stay. It'll stay the way it is. Do you have any concerns about mixing those two up? You'll just never see either together you whe from the street or from the home. I mean, do those dealerships keep their lights on all night long? I thought so. That's why we have blinds on the bedroom. Yes. Okay. Do you and Mr. Miller have a design deviation agreement then for the for your fence? No. Does he need one? No. Um I actually have a just a question about um property line to the retaining wall. So is there a significant easement there then behind the fence? It's about 20 almost 20 ft. Okay. Um I don't know if it's an easement. Um, the city used to mow one strip with a riding mower right up against the wall, but they quit doing that after we moved in, which is fine with us because we like the the wild the wild, you know, flowers and things that grow back there. Um, we trim around the trees on the other side of the fence, things like that. But yeah, it just it was I was looking at it. It just looks like there's like a quite a distance to that actual to that chain link, right? And then to the there's a lot of sumac and that just spreads and which is nice too. At least it's not Buckthornne. Yeah. Anyone else commissioners? All right. Any additional questions for staff? Seems like a pretty reasonable request to me. Yes. Karen. Oh, yeah. I guess I do. You're right. Thank you. Public hearing onto that. Um, keeping you honest. Clearly, there's hordes of people. Well, there could be somebody online. Um, I'd like to turn to the public hearing. Um, uh, we're going to, uh, open the public hearing right now. Um, if you'd like to speak, please come forward to the podium. Um, state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're connected to the applicant in any way. People are flocking to the podium. All right. Uh Director Sharp, do we have anybody online? Chair Cameron, not at this time. Perfect. And we did receive, as Director Sharp noted noted, the uh two public comments which are in front of us. Um both of which are in favor of the application. Uh I'm going to close said public hearing. Um discussion, commissioners. I think it looks reasonable. Totally. And I don't see any reason why we wouldn't. I don't think you're even going to see it, right? No, I I would agree. I think it's um and it's totally right. Again, like to connect it out to the comprehensive plan, no issues there, right? Um certainly not the plight of Mr. El or Mr. Miller, right? It's a it's a unique unique to the property. Um I think it actually um enhances the charact the city character um rather than takes away from it. Um, and for sure I think it enhances um, uh, just their enjoyment of their own property. Agreed. Perfect. Sounds like um, we've got a um, consensus. Then uh, can I get a motion um to uh, direct staff to prepare a draft report and recommendation of approval of the variance for 1407 Holdridge Lane. So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Vanly. Second. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Ankenany. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Eyes have it. And the motion passes and the uh draft report of recommendation for approval of the variance at 1407. Holders will be on the consent agenda at the next meeting on May 19th. Commissioner Alec, would you like to rejoin us? Um, that concludes the public hearing section of our meeting. Um, we've got other items left and uh that would be a review of development activities. Director Sharp, take it away. Chair Cameron, thank you for your patience. I wanted to pull up the aerial. Uh, you noted that this site is under construction right now, 150 Broadway Avenue South. Uh they've got a portion of the roadway blocked off as they are digging out foundations. Uh that they did receive their permits uh rightway permits and building permits as this proceeding. It is a uh ground floor office with uh upstairs residential. I don't know the name of the actual development. And then the long looted 641 lake uh has received their demo permits, has received uh their gas disconnect permits, water permits, etc. So you can expect to see that uh coming forward shortly. That will uh was also notified to the planning commission last Thursday when the packet was published. Uh at this time there are no additional development items, but as big items come along like uh 200 lake or any of the others that are in that area, we will certainly keep you apprised. Did I see that um Excel withdrew their application for 701? Uh Chair Cameron, that is correct. uh they have withdrawn their application for the monopole uh that they had applied for. They do intend to resubmit. They have not submitted a timeline for that resubmission. However, when checking with them, uh they anticipated a significant amount of time to put together new materials for submission to try to address some of the concerns expressed by the commission and the public. Cool. Um, Commissioner Sw, did you have a question? I just have a quick comment. Um, I see that they're going to be starting the demolition on Lake Street. It's just unfortunate that there was a a charming young woman who did that mural on the side of the building that says Love Local or Love, is that what it is? Love local. It's too bad we have to lose that after only two years. Chair Cameron, it was discussed briefly uh at the arts steering committee. Uh so it's not a full committee that has been formed by city council yet. Right now they are still establishing their bylaws and what types of items that they would be seeking to participate in and how the community would like to move forward. Uh it was a good discussion. Ultimately it was unsure how would that would be able to be retained as part of it. Um, but they did let the applicant or we have let the applicant know that if there was a way of trying to pay homage to it or be able to replicate it in some way with their new development that that would be encouraged. Good. Thank you. Excellent. Anyone else? Perfect. Um, well, that concludes our agenda for this evening. Um, unless there's uh anything else anyone would like to discuss, um, we can adjourn. Uh, may I have a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjourn. Thank you, Commissioner Stevenson. May I have a second? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Plenton. All in fa uh any discussion? Got a follow process. Sorry. All in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes and the meeting of uh May 5th, 2025 planning commission meeting.