I will call the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all. All right. Any changes to the agenda? No, Madam Chair. Okay. Anyone would like to make approval of the agenda? So moved. All right. Anyone second? All right. All in favor? I public comment. Um so this is the opportunity for anyone in the um public to comment on items not listed on the agenda. So if anyone has anything they'd like to talk about that's not listed on the agenda, please step forward, state your name and address for the record. No. Okay. Announcements. There are no announcements. All right. Um, approval of May 28th, 2024 meeting minutes. I thought they looked good. I didn't see anything um noteworthy. I did notice one correction um after uh the packet had went out and after I had reviewed the minutes as well and it had to do with the mahek concept plan review. Okay. And um the draft minutes uh do contain a condition that he provide a future or the property provide for a future road connection to the north and I don't I thought that you did not recommend that. Is that correct? Yes. Correct. Okay. Yes. So, we'll just um make that one correction. Thank you for catching that. Anyone else? No. Okay. I'll make a recommendation to approve the minutes um with that correction. Anyone want a second? I'll second. Right. All in favor? I. I. All right. And then we have public hearing. Uh consider amendment to title 1118 of city code regarding grading operations. All right. Um are do you want to handle handle this or or I can hand it? Okay. Um the city code uh it was discovered recently um by some residents actually that the city code contains some conflicting information regarding hours of operation um for certain construction related activities. And historically, um, the staff has been using, uh, title 5-5-2 of the city code. This is outside of the zoning ordinance. uh when we uh have developments that are under construction or we meet with uh contractors, we've been citing uh the allowable hours of operation stated in title 5-5-2, which allows um uh construction operations um from 7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. And it was recently discovered that uh title 111-8 which is part of the zoning ordinance and under the purview of the planning commission also contains um information related to ours and uh of operation and they're more restrictive um and they're specific to grading operations. So we brought the uh item before the city council for their input and it was concluded that all of the hours of operation should be contained in one section of the city code in title 5-5. So the um item before you is just simply to remove it the reference to hours of operation in title 1111 of the code to delete it and then it would be um before the city council to amend the other section of the code. So title five is outside of your purview. So, the council is scheduled to discuss that or um hold up uh make decision on that at their next meeting on July 11th or No, I it's at their um is it scheduled? It's scheduled at their July 11th meeting. Yeah. Okay. For discussion. So, um, but because all any, uh, change to the zoning ordinance does require a public hearing by this body, we, uh, have scheduled that for tonight. So, okay. Do you have any questions about that? I don't have any new Okay. So just on a side note for informationational purposes uh the initial feedback that we got from the city council is that they'll probably be restricting the uh hours of operation further from what they are today. Sure. Um so we just need to remove you just need to remove remove one and then they go in and they will adjust it in the other code. Yeah. Okay. Yep. and you're a recommending body, so you'll make a recommendation to the city council and the city council will make the final decision on the zoning ordinance amendment as well. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I will open the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. If anyone would like to comment on the consideration um consider amendment to title 1118 of the city code regarding grading operations, please step up to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Larry Scoffield, 11550 Duce Road, ILO. Uh we live directly across from this development. The construction driveway comes right out at our driveway. Uh, as far as the hours of operation, it's been 7 to 6 and now they want to make it 7 to 7. I'm sure uh Niagara and CHO want to make it later than that, but I don't think any of you would want to be across from this till 10:00 at night. So, that's just our perspective on this. So, when you're discussing it or voting on it, take that into consideration. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask another time um for the public hearing. Uh if anybody wants to cons uh speak about the consideration for the amendment to title 1118 of the city code regarding grading operations, please step forward to the podium. State your name and address for the record. And I have to ask one last time. So if you'd like to speak up on this public hearing consideration of amendment to title 1118 um of the city code regarding grading operations, please step forward, state your name and address for the record. Madam Chair, we do have someone online. Oh, okay. Thank you. And we didn't go over the online protocols, but Janelle, I think you're the only one on there. Or if you have a question, you can raise your hand on Zoom and we can call on you. Oh, she would like to speak. Did you unmute her? Great. Am I unmuted? Yep. Yes. Okay, great. My name is Janelle Kuja. I live at 26775 Grand Avenue. And um just to clarify tonight public hearing is just to remove um the is it say it again is it 111 1111-8 8. So it is not to set the hours. Is that correct? That is correct. Um the hours will be set by the city council. Okay. And it will there be any um will the planning commission being make make a recommendation on ours at all this evening? Uh the planning commission will not um they c they certainly can we have provided the draft language as instructed by the city council um in their packet so they can see I mean I can uh read it. Uh the proposed language would be no person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. on weekdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. on weekends or holidays. And then earth work and hauling operations shall be performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Uh such activity is also prohibited on the following holidays. New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day. The city administrator may upon good cause being shown vary these days and hours in writing. Thank you, Renee. Um I would just like to add uh 7 to 7 would be the absolute uh latest uh that the residents that live in the area um Elco New Market is mainly a residential community at this point and although we're going to be having um uh some industrial parks built um you need to keep in mind that these industrial parks are in this case 100% surrounded by township residents that have lived here for a long time. We live in these homes. We have children. We have families. And we have a right to enjoy our properties. And so the latest that um I I think that the council or the planning commission should consider is 7 pm and the earliest is 7 a.m. Um if I if I do the math um uh it's my understanding that some of the contractors may not like this, but if I do the math on that that if they work Monday through Saturday, that's 72 hours a week that they can get in and work. Even if it's a rain season or you have a few rainy days, um there should be more than enough opportunity to get 40 hours of work in and the remainder of the day should be uh respected for the community members that have homes and families. So, thank you for your time. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments. Okay, I'll ask one more time for good measure. Um, if anybody wants to speak on the consideration for the amend amendment to title 1111-8 of the city code regarding grading operations, please step up to the podium or state your name or raise your hand online. Okay, I will close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. right commissioners. I mean, we can't have two. So, we do need to streamline this, right? Yep. So removal of that and then putting it in section five two and making that under the purview of the council to set the times. Yes. Um I think I think the planning commission should also recommend the hours. I would support these hours. It sounds like the community also supports the 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Nothing later than 7 p.m. I think that's reasonable. I agree. Agree. Okay. So, anyone want to make a recommendation to remove the 1111-8? So, moved. Okay. Uh second. I second it. Okay. And then do you want us to approve that or do you want us to add that recommendation on to that? I can do them both. Okay. So, all in favor to approve removal of the 11 11-8 um to add it to the 55-2 with the recommendation of the 7 a.m. and the 700 p.m. time frame. Okay. All in favor? I I Okay. All right. Thank you. Um then we're moving on to general business. Um, zoning ordinance amendment, detached accessory buildings and accessory dwelling dwellings units discussion. Let's pull it up here. I can get it this time. Why isn't it going to present? Where's the notes? Okay, I don't think I need the notes anyways. Sure. Okay. Thank you for bearing with me. We're uh continuing our discussion on accessory structures um residential accessory structures. On February 27th, the planning commission kind of introduced the topic. staff presented research on similar and surrounding city standards. Uh and the commission requested staff to provide some examples of what these standards would look like on surveys from the community. Um they also recognized that our standards are far more restrictive than surrounding and similar cities and would like to amend the ordinance to allow for larger um accessory use structures. At the May 28th, 2024 planning commission meeting, staff presented those examples that were requested. The commission offered initial recommendations of a,000 square foot total maximum square footage limit for 1 acre and less properties. Um, so you could have, you know, two 500 square foot garages. And then 2,000 would be the total max limit for uh properties that are 1 acre or greater. There's also a recommendation to allow for two structures as opposed to the current one allowed per property. Uh the staff and commission wish to continue these discussions related how they might affect the city's ADU ordinance which is based off of the same um requirements as the accessory structures. Uh also during these discussions with the planning commission uh the commission expressed general agreement the standards for accessory structures in commercial and industrial zones do not require an amendment at this time. The city's current standards for commercial and industrial are comparable or less restrictive than surrounding or similar cities research by staff. Detached accessory structures are currently allowed as an accessory use by right in all commercial and industrial districts as well as in the city's inst institutional district. Um, and that's based off of a percentage of the square footage of the gross floor space of the principal building. Other cities that allow for this, um, typically it's based on 30% of that gross floor space and we're right now at 30 and 50 depending on the zoning district. So, uh, height is something we did not necessarily address. Um, so currently the city allows for a maximum height of these structures of 15 ft for residential accessory use structures. Uh, measured from Renee, do you remember the word? I was going to put it in here and I forgot. It's not midpoint. The midpoint. So, not the peak. It's not measured from the top. It's so 15 foot to the midpoint of the roof. Okay. That's something we can look at changing to um maybe simplify things for people because a lot of people don't understand that. Um, and then increasing structures. Increasing the size of these structures may require additional amendment to the maximum height as well. Uh, depending on garage door height and how that'll all work out. Driveways and access, we also did not discuss at our last meeting. So, currently the city does not require paved access for these structures. Uh, it's likely that residents will be driving campers and trailers and back and forth from the their driveway to the the new garages. So staff is re recommending some feedback and direction on this issue as there may be some potential nuisances in the future uh with dead grass and complaints from neighbors. And accessory dwelling units uh must conform with area limitations contained in section 11-66 of the city code which is the accessory use structure uh section of the ordinance. So currently ADUs must be at least 250 square ft in area and may not exceed the area of the principal dwelling unit. Staff don't recommend any uh specific changes to the current city code relating to 11-5-20 uh covering ADUs. However, staff are seeking feedback and direction if the commission wishes to institute a separate standard for maximum allowable sizes for ADUs as opposed to just saying whatever the accessory use structure is. Uh so we're re recommending that the you consider amendments to the city's detached accessory structure and accessory dwelling unit ordinances. Uh specifically seating feedback on the following. That detached accessory building shall comply with the following area limitations for 1 acre and under 1,000 square foot maximum total floor area allowed without conditional use permit for 1 acre and over 2,000 square foot without conditional use permit. Uh second, there shall be no more than two instead of one detached accessory accessory buildings per lot in residential zones except by conditional use permit. Our reasoning for this was to allow those who already have a a small garden shed to keep it if they do want to build a larger structure. Uh does the commission wish to amend the maximum allowable height of residential accessory structures, which would also include accessory dwelling units? And does the commission wish to enact any access or driveway requirements for certain size structures? Um whether that be an ADU or a just accessory use structure. And finally, does the commission wish to recommend ADUs be considered separately from or included with the potential ordinance amendments relating to total allowable size for these structures? If changes are recommended, staff will draft an ordinance amendment for further discussion at an upcoming meeting and a public hearing. Okay, thank you. Do you mind going to that previous slide that you were just on so I can make sure that we Yeah, thanks. There we go. Thank you. All right. You just want to go one by one. Okay. Um so the recommendation for number one um which we talked about at the previous meeting any changes any further discussion on this one Casey? No. No. Okay. So we're good with number one for that recommendation. Okay. Number two. Uh we also talked about this at the previous meeting as well. Um are there any recommendations for changes? No. No. We're good with the two. I do have a question about um except by conditional use permit. Would there be a reason to allow additional Yeah. conditional use permit? So, as staff, we're going over that section of code. And if we do decide um to go up this far, we could just eliminate the conditional use permits alto together. Um I think it's more than fair the sizes we're allowing. I don't know if we'd really see a need for conditional use permit. I was wondering kind of the same thing like in what situation would someone need a conditional use permit for Yeah. In if we say except by a conditional use permit then we have to define the terms by which we would choose to issue one. And I think I would recommend eliminating the potential for that if we're going that large or if you decide to go that large. Agreed. I think we should remove the except by conditional use permit. That creates too many more potential problems. Great. It creates more gray area, I think. Are you in agreement? I agree. Okay. So, we'll keep number two except for we'll remove the except by conditional use permit. Remove that recommendation. Number three. Um, so does the commission wish to amend the maximum allowable height of the residential accessory structur structures including ADUs? So my current thought is 15 feet from the midpoint that allows you for how high of a garage door would you? That's what I was trying to sketch up here. I can't uh Yeah, I'm trying to picture in my brain too. People from having campers and stuff with AC units on top too. Is there in that like research that was done previously like kind of on the sizes and things was this one of them? No. So height wasn't taken into consideration. Um I can't say off the top of my head what other cities were but I know they weren't too dissimilar from 15. Okay. Um so we can bring that back as well more research if you want to take a look at kind of those other city standards and what everyone else is doing. I would like to make like be more knowledgeable about it um rather than guessing and seeing what makes sense um than just throwing a number out there. I don't know how others feel about that. I agree with you. I'd rather have this done right the first time. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, more info on that. Sorry for more work. No, it's fine. Um, and then number four, does the commission wish to enact access driveway requirements for certain size structures? I think so. After all this rain that we've had too and people then trying to get to their backyard. So, and that was a question I had like did you notice anything like information wise when you were doing your research regarding access standards? No. Um, no. I know currently our city you can only have one driveway, one curb cut, right? Um so we're not talking about another driveway access. We're talking about an extension of people's driveways, right? Um the only thing to consider I would say is um obviously you're adding more pavement. Um they're adding a larger structure in their backyard already. So you might have to think about some drainage issues if you're and I would hope that when they're who's ever building this would take those in consideration considering especially with all the rain we have, right? if that's needed. Well, the vast majority of the newer homes that are being built in town and maybe even the homes that were have been built over the last 20 years, you literally can't get a driveway beside the garage to get to the backyard. And I was thinking that too because of the easements, right? Right. size easements alongside property lines are standard five feet and the homes are being set anywhere between seven and 10 feet off the property line for the most part. Yeah, you probably have a bigger lot than most so maybe you have room beside your garage, but I don't want more tar concrete or anything. But yeah, I yeah, we don't if we put this in place, then we're pretty much saying those folks cannot do this because of that that limitation, right? Potentially, unless they punch a, you know, if they have a flat lot and they put a garage door out the back of their garage or I mean, there are options, but Okay. Yeah, I'm not a fan then of setting up requirements for this then because I feel like we will be limiting people's ability to to be able to do this, right? And that's not the purpose, right? I agree 100%. Okay. Okay. So, no requirement for a driveway or a pad or anything in front of the garage. So, right. Okay. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then number five, does the commission wish to recommend ADUs be considered separately from or included with potential ordinance amendments relating to total allowable size? So yeah, right now the ADU ordinance just references the other ordinance or yeah, the other section of ordinance related to accessory structures um for size. So whatever we decide is going to apply to adus too unless we want to call that out separately. In my brain and I'm just speaking a lot in my brain I consider them two things. Um I think of just in the name itself detached accessory structure or an accessory dwelling unit livable not livable. Um, that's just my thoughts. I don't know what else others feel or think. I agree with you. So, I would rather not see accessory dwelling units like residential live-in to be lumped in with this ordinance. Okay. So, then that section of code would need to be amended and we would have to ident we would be seeking a recommendation on a size limit. So we have for the accessory dwelling units. Okay. So right now the ordinance has a minimum of 250 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit. Um but what do you feel the maximum allowable size should be? Everything smaller larger than the accessory structure. Yeah. I mean I think square feet is plenty for an accessory. It's pretty big. I mean that's like another house. Yeah. the footprint, especially if it's like a mother-in-law suite here pretty much having a studio apartment. That's kind of what I'm thinking of. I'm Yeah, I'm trying to picture it in my brain. Um I think the way it looks right now, I think they should be the same thing under the same thing. Yeah. And not separating them. No. Okay. How many ADUs do we have in the city? How many? Zero. Zero right now. Okay. And I we do have uh a couple of people that have approached us. Yeah. You know, in planning for a child, a special needs child that will probably want to move into a ADU. Yeah. Does this address attached ADUs or We don't allow that. We allow that. We do attach. Okay. Sorry, wrong city. Okay. We do allow it here. Yep. That's what I'm looking at. So, they can either be attached or detached, right? Correct. So if this were to stay as one um it would be so is the maximum size 250 then no the minimum is 250 then it could go up to th00and if it just stays together correct if it's separate then we got to figure out the maximum which okay all right and there is a section in the ADU ordinance that says um you You must you can't have the appearance of two houses. You have to try to kind of hide it behind the house somehow so it appears like it's just still one house for all the neighbors and stuff. Right. To avoid the appearance of two principal structures on the same. Yeah. Correct. I would avoid going too large. Thinking of that then now I'm thinking about keeping it together. I guess I was just stuck on the verbiage. Melissa, thoughts? No, I I agree with you. I think leaving it together makes sense then, at least for the time being, because we have the minimum, we have the maximum, right? It kind of already sets that precedent, right? Okay. So, essentially, they're the same thing, just one is livable and one's not. Yeah. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then yeah, the recommendation to keep them together. Okay. Are you okay with that? I am okay with that. Okay, perfect. Do you know how many square feet the those apartments are? Like a single bedroom. It's like 820. Say it's plenty. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thousand square feet is a lot. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, then moving on to miscellaneous. Um, letter A, cannabis update. Yeah. So, um, as you know, cannabis was legalized in 2023. Um, so we've been kind of waiting on a few key moments, um, before it becomes, uh, legalized for retail and everything, um, on January 1st of next year. So, one thing we were really waiting for was model ordinances to come out, and we finally received those last week. So, um, yeah, you guys will be receiving some stuff in the next few months regarding zoning cannabis. So, um, I guess that's all I've really had to say for an update, but if I I'll field questions if you have any. So, Sure. I I don't have any at this time. I guess I probably will have more when there's more info. I guess I will add that um so the social equity applicants that was a big push reason why Governor Walls um passed it and we were originally expecting them to start getting lensure on the first of next year but the office of cannabis management actually opened that window yesterday. So people are currently applying social equity applicants are applying for their licenses for cultivation um and then retail. So it's all one license but obviously you start with cultivation. So, um, yeah, that's happening right now, too. Okay. Great. Yeah. And so, there will be recommended changes to the zoning ordinance as to, you know, where uh what appropriate zones would be for retail and the manufacturing and like space where it would be allowed. Yeah. Zoning districts. Yeah. Agricultural, tourism. Yeah. I like it. All right. Thank you. Community development updates. Um I don't have any updates. Uh really the biggest um update is the city council will be considering the final plat for the um park interstate 35 industrial park plat at their meeting on t Thursday night. So the day after tomorrow. Okay. And that's it. The city engineer will be giving a presentation at that meeting on the city's water appropriations permit. The city um the city engineer will be giving a presentation on the city's water appropriations permit at that meeting. You're welcome. Okay. Thanks. Any questions? Any other comments from the commission? No. Okay. Anyone want to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. All right. I'll second. All in favor? I I All right. Meetings adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Thank you everyone.