Okay. Uh, we will gave in the NewportPlanning Commission meeting for July 7th at5:36. Can I call the role? Uh,>> Commissioner Ramali >> here.>> Commissioner Kermy's >> here.>> Commissioner Fueling here. Commissioner Bonia>> here. >> Chair Lady>> here. Thank you. Meeting minutes item three on theagenda. Everybody have a chance to look at those?>> I didn't see any changes. If you don't have any changes, I'd be looking for amotion. >> A motion to pass.>> Uh can I get a second? >> Second.>> Okay. I have two motions to pass. Uh all those in favor say I.>> I. >> All those opposed.Meeting minutes approved. Okay. Okay, we'll move right on to number four. Youguys good? >> Yeah.>> As good as we're going to get. Um, go ahead.>> This is uh regarding the public hearing and daily electric expansion. So, commissioner uh planning commission umwe have a presentation tonight by uh Madison and uh we'll get going.>> Yes. Good evening commissioners. Um so today in front of you, Daily Electric isin for their conditional use permit and variance requests. Um you previously sawum the concept planned for this um in December of last year. So they'reofficially back for their official submission.Um this is the agenda in front of you. Um so kind of what we're going to talkabout. We're going to get into their conditional use, their variances, andthen we'll talk about some specifics of the project. We'll get into ourfindings, our staff recommendation. Um and then you'll have your public hearingand a decision hopefully. Um so this is the site on the screen infront of you. If you'll notice, it's just east of city hall to us. So justright across the street. Um the applicant is currently proposing this onthree parcels. So one is the existing the farthest west parcel is the existingparcel and then they're looking to combine it with the two vacant parcelsto the east. Um here's a project overview for you.So, as previously noted, they're here for a conditional use permit. Um, thisis for a contracting use in the MX district. Um, the variances, which we'lldive into in the presentation. It's currently zoned MX3, um, the generalmixeduse district, and then it currently has a future land use ofcommercial/residential, and then there are those PIDs. The acreages, um, totalis about 08. So, it's point4 for the existing parcel and then 0.2 for each ofthe vacant parcels. Um this is the site as it exists today.So you'll see the existing building on the west parceland then this is the proposal in front of you tonight. So they're proposing anew addition about 8600 square ft um as well as a new parking lot to the southand then we'll talk some more about access um and landscaping as we get intoit. But this is kind of just a general highlevel site plan in front of you.Um so the conditional use permit you're looking at. So within the general mixeduse district, it requires a conditional use permit for contracting uses, whichis what this current use falls under. Um, specific criteria for contractinguses for contracting offices um are identified in section 36-308.Um, they include that the parcel must be 1 acre or larger. The applicant hasapplied for a variance to this requirement and then it must front apublic street with a functional classification of a minor collector orminor material. And this is met as proposed.The variance requests in front of you, and we'll dive deeper into these as weget through the um proposal, but generally the contracting offices lessthan one acre that we talked about, they're looking for lot coverage, umbuilding and parking setbacks, window coverage, landscaping, um and then otherstandards if identified through further review. And we'll kind of talk aboutwhat that means through access as well. Um these are the bulk standards in frontof you. Um, these are also in your report. The highlighted blue are theones that the applicant is requesting flexibility through a variance for. Sothat minimum lot area for the cup, they're also requesting a lot coveragevariance. So they're currently on their existing one parcel at about 95%. Um, sothey'll be lessening that, but they will still be slightly above the lot coveragepermitted within the district. Um, additionally, the front yard setback. Ishould note um staff had some conversations about the front yard, whatwe would consider that and kind of looking at what the existing front yardsare on the site, even though they'll be combined. Um we kind of decided that21st Street makes the most sense to be considered the front yard since it hasthree frontages on three different streets. Um it was, you know, there'ssome flexibility in code that permits staff to kind of make a determination onwhat the front yard will be considered. So, moving forward, when we're talkingabout the front yard, we'll be talking about 21st Street to the north. Um, sothey're looking for a setback for their structure. So, they need 10 ft. They'relooking at about 5T. And then the minimum setbacks forparking and drive aisles. Um, they need 5T here. They're looking about 4T and 8in. And it's just a portion of the existing parking lot. I should note theminimum setbacks for parking is currently zero in the front. So, theparking lot goes right up to that property line. um they're not lookingfor a variance to that because it's legally non-conforming. So that's whythat's noted on there as well. Um these are the flexibility standardswe just talked about. Um so you'll see to the north where that new addition isencroaching in that front yard setback. The blue highlighted area is where the10 ft would be. So the portion within that blue highlighted area is what'sencroaching. And then on the south of the site, you'll see that's where theparking setback will be. Um, I know it's kind of hard to see on this drawing, butin the northwestern portion of the site, that parkingwill be um encroaching just just a small portion of that. Um, in terms of the building design thatwe're looking at, this is what the applicant has proposed. Um, they appearto meet all material standards for the building. Um staff has made a note thatthe applicant may look at um updating the building to look a little bit moreoffice and less industrial. Um you know as we see this road redevelop I thinkwe're looking at offices along this corridor more than we are industrialuses. Um looking at the building design I also want to point out the windows. Sothe applicant is seeking a variance to the window requirement. Um, so for theMX3 district, um, in terms of building design, we're looking at 40% windowcoverage for office uses on the first floor fronting a public street. So itwould be for those three sides, the west, the north, and the east. Um,combined, they're at around 23% is kind of what they're currentlylooking at. um staff are supportive of this flexibility um but have added arecommended condition that the applicant look at expanding the windows on thesecond story. So the first floor is only what's considered in that windowcoverage requirement but we think to supplement that it feels appropriate toask the applicant to look at expanding those second story windows kind ofadding to that office feel making it feel a little less industrial on thesite. Um this is that building design. Theseare some renderings the applicant has provided to kind of give you a betteridea of what it'll look like on site. Landscaping and screening. So for thissite um code requires one tree per thousand square feet of non-imperoussurface and then of the trees provided 25% of them need to be overstorydeciduous and 25 need to be coniferous. Um they're currently required nine treeson site. They're proposing 23 trees which meets the requirement, but ofthose 23 um 25% which would be six trees would be required to be deciduous.They're only proposing three. So they're asking for a variance to thisrequirement as well. Staff are supportive of this requirement. Um webelieve it's appropriate based on, you know, the amount of landscaping they'reproposing on site. It, you know, is significantly higher than they'rerequired to do. Um, so we believe that standard is appropriate. In addition,they're required one tree per 50 ft of frontage. This is obviously a threefronted lot, so they have a pretty decent amount of frontage. They will berequired four trees. They're currently proposing zero. They're also requestinga variance to this requirement. Um, regarding their standards, their parkinglot landscaped islands are conforming. Um, they meet all parking landscapingrequirements. And then the screening we're looking at, so all um loadingareas and all parking lots are required to be screened from residential and thenfrom any adjacent roadways. They are, as you'll see on the drawing, um proposingsome pretty significant landscaping on the southern border. However, um lookingat the requirements, it requires um some pretty strict opacity. So staff haveadded a recommended condition that the fencing be 100% opaque along thatsouthern property line. Um, this should help mitigate some of the lighting tothe adjacent residential to the south. Um, parking and loading. So, we'vebroken it down per use. So, for the office use, they would be required 13spaces. They need one space per 250 ft. And then for the storage use, they needone space per 2,000 ft. So, they would need five spaces. They're proposing 24spaces, which is more than the required 18 spaces. So, parking is appropriate.Um, loading. So, they have loading in the front of the site. So, there's anexisting loading bag in the front. Um, this is not screened, but it existsalready. Um, so they're screening it to their best ability from the west. Andthen there will be new load loading bays added to the south off of that newaddition. Um, so they're screening that with the retaining wall and then thatfencing we talked about in the past regarding access and circulation. Sothey currently have three access points, two off of 21st Street and then one offof Second Avenue. They are proposing to keep all three access points. Um staffhave recommended a condition within you know the city engineeringmemo and then staff's recommendation as well that removes one of the 21st streetaccess points um with further consultation with the county. This isalso a requirement the county is requiring and they are recommending thatthe east access be removed of the two. So that's why you'll see that one xedout. Um we are asking that the applicant provide updated civil plans. We're nottotally sure when the one of the access points is removed, what that may do tothe required variances. So, if it'll change any of the variances, we kind ofwant to know the implications of that before we bring it forward fully to citycouncil. So, we're kind of talking to the applicant, getting their feedback onit. Um, but this is kind of a major concern from engineering and, you know,public works perspective and then the county as well having that roadregarding sidewalks. So, the applicant is not currently showing any pedestrianwalkways or connections. Um, they are looking at dedicating this right of way.So, if you'll look just right below those red squares, that black divisionline between the property, that'll all be dedicated right of way. Um, theapplicant will be required to do an easement with the city for anyimprovements within that right of way. Um, but that gives the city some abilityto add a future sidewalk on 21st Street, you know, as development continues tohappen in this area. Um, in terms of the review comments, sothe city engineering city engineer provided a memo. Um, these are some oftheir general comments. So, they're looking for, like I mentionedpreviously, the access configuration on 21st Street. What does thatreconfiguration look like for the city? Um, the three properties will need to becombined. That's staff's requirement as well. They'll need a lot consolidation.That's an administrative application, so they won't need to come back to you forthat, but that is something they'll have to do. Um and then the entitlementsthey'll need to get through that in terms of like easements and agreementswith the city. Um tree plantings will not be permitted over the undergroundstorm water basin. So they'll be looking at potentially looking at um amendingsome of their landscape plan to account for that. Um and then you know I thinkthat engineering will need some more information on grading drainage andstorm water management. Um these are the required findings thatthe city needs to look at when looking at variances and conditional usepermits. I'm sure you all are familiar with these. Um, if you're not, we justput them on the screen just for reference.Um, these should all be met through the application. Um, as noted in your staffreport, they're either met as proposed or met with the conditions.Um, these are some of our recommended conditions of approval. We summarizethese, so this isn't the exact wording you'll see in your staff report. Um, butkind of generally, we're looking for the improvement to conform with thesubmitted plans. Um, property taxes and utility fees. The applicant needs toreceive that lot consolidation we talked about. Um the agreements with the cityfor the right ofway improvement storm water basin easements. Um the windowarea is increased along the second story. Fencing will be 100% opaque andit'll be required to be maintained properly. Um they'll need any citywershed or state permits. Um the vehicle circulation like we talked about. Um andthen exterior lighting or signage needs to be reviewed by city staff. Um nooutdoor storage is permitted. So everything will be kept inside theirbuilding. Um and then within one year of approval, they need to begin the cupinvariance um and record with the county.>> Um this is an example motion >> back in real quick. Number four, is thatalso include the entrance? Is that part of one of those things where theentrance has to be decided upon? How many there are? Whether they shut onedown. >> Yep. So the city engineering memo,>> that's number four on this one. Part of number four.That would not be a part of number four. Um that would be a part of the citywershed and seat permits. Got it. And then we have a specific condition thatthey need to address comments in the city engineering memo.>> Sounds good. >> So it's not as a part of that specificcondition but yet generally >> and then this is an example motion um ifthe planning commission would like to recommend approvalto city council. And then I can flip back to any slidesthat we need to and the applicant is present as well for any>> you for me. Just go back to the satellite picture. Can you zoom into that at all or is thatnot possible on a static slide like this?>> It is a PDF. So, we should be able to zoom in.>> No. Yeah. I just wanted to see how the parking is configured in the back>> once you start to zoom in >> in le of taking a field trip. >> Yeah. Thanks.So currently the parking is already butdded pretty much right up against thehouse in the ex in the rear. >> What types of what types if anycomplaints have the property gotten as from the from residents in their currentdaily operations? No pun intended. >> That's a good question.U chair uh members of the commission I'm not aware of any uh complaints thatwe've received regarding any issues uh as far as>> daily operation times >> zero none. Um but I've only been hereabout four years. >> Although I have some concerns about themuh not waving enough when they get their mail.>> So no >> I bet they do now.>> No. Uh no uh uh very seriously. We we haven't received any complaintsregarding noise, lighting um or uh traffic, anything like that,which are fairly usual things that we kind of, you know, would receivecomplaints on with a business. But um I'm not aware of any complaints.>> Through the information online, it was brought to my attention that one ofthose properties is potentially bankowned behind there.Okay. Yeah. >> Um just curiousum if we know anything about that and if it's the one on the east or west side ofthis >> uh>> lots or single lot and how they would be affected by the increased use of theiryou know the increasing of the use of the property.>> Um so uh chair members of the commission first off it's the property to the east.So it's the property on the right side if you look at the screen there. Um,second off, I am aware it did go through foreclosure. Um,uh, and as far as any impacts there, again, it would be screened. Um, I'm notsure if the bank would have any complaints about this, frankly. Uh, youknow, I have some concerns about how the bank is keeping the property.>> Um, but >> just asked to see what the futureeffects of expanding the use >> on that footprint could be for aresident potentially. >> Sure. Sure. I mean, um, frankly, anyfuture resident that bought that property would buy it potentially withthis expansion, so they'd they'd be aware. And for the property on the westside, you know, frankly, I'm not aware of any complaints or any issue from thatresident in regards to the parking or the current use. Um, not to say that uhthat wouldn't be the case in the future. So>> those are my only questions before the public hearing. Anybody else has it? >> Nope.>> No. >> Okay. So, we're good. We'll go ahead andget the public hearing started. Uh if you'd want to say something, justcome up to the podium, state your name, where you're from, or your address, andwe'd be happy to hear what you have to say. We'll go ahead and open the publichearing at 553. Uh, good evening, Darby Regan, 2550Popular Avenue East, North St. Paul, Minnesota. Uh,thank you for having us and staff. Thank you for the amount of time you've put into put this report together and this presentation. Um, this is now ourofficial application after going through the concept plan this winter. Uh, andagain, we appreciate all the the time and support we've received from staffand as well as the preliminary review from um, planning commission and councilthis winter. So, we're proposing our addition anduh the dailies, Tom and Jackie behind me, um are excited to continue theirinvestment into the city of Newport. We've got uh a number of qu comments andI don't know if the timing would be for us to come in after if there are otherpublic comments maybe for specific terms of condition or if we should do that nowor if you guys have a preference on that but>> chair members of the commission I would recommend that we take additional publiccomments and then close the public hearing. Um, generally I'd say theapplicant would speak prior to the public hearing to present anyinformation and then folks in the audience could uh comment. Um, but withthat said, uh, however the commission would like to do,>> you go ahead and do that now since we didn't do it before the public hearingwas open. So people have a chance after if they want to speak.>> That sounds great. Um, so and just a few comments on theproposed condition as I flip through our lovely staffreport. Uh, first off on thewindows facing 21st Street, we will uh we'll work toincrease the amount of windows there. Currently, if you're able to Madison orJoe, pull up the elevations. Um,not all of those windows serve a second floor mezzanine. We havea partial mezzanine above our office space. Um, I'm not sure if if you guyshave seen the actual floor plan of the project.Um I believe it was part of our application documents.Um but we have a partial mezzanine that uh is limited just due to the fact ofhow much square footage it serves in the storage space behind. But the windowsyou kind of see if you're looking at the floor plan to the right where in theaddition the right side of the addition above the entrance there first fivewindows or so and then there's like a a gap. So that's where we have a wall onthe interior of the building and there's no window there. The windows to theright would be open into the storage space and the windows on the left wouldbe um there's a specific term of glass I'mtrying to talk about that's basically blocked out so that it's not they're notreal windows. They're just giving the illusion that the glass is there becausethey are not really serving a purpose at that height. um and to eliminate thereal you know concept of having windows that look intoyou know storage of boxes. So that's why those windows are short shallower upthere. The windows on the main level um are as low as we can get them withoutcreating water issues along the grade and they're about as high as they can goto the underside of the ceiling on the inside of the floor. And each officealong that floor has windows. So we are doing our best along along that to hitthat 40% mark. Um and those are just some of the challenges. As you can seethe the grade of the site we are about as you work your way east um we lose asignificant amount of building frontage um to just underground to m maintain thein continuous slab elevation. Um that being said we're willing to workwith um you guys to increase the amount of windows. Is therea target you're looking for or if we, you know, we'll do our best to increasethat? I don't know if there's this explicit number we're looking for. Wouldyou just like us to put something together, present it, and go from there?Is >> so we'll we'll the back and forth. We'llwe won't do that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think so. uh chair,members of the commission, generally I think like any design standards oragreements that staff would make with an applicant should be done um you knowwith with the scheduled meeting between staff and applicant. With that said, Ithink uh staff is willing to work with the applicant in regards. I I think thethe code says 40%. We'd certainly be shooting towards that. With that said,uh any information the applicant had that wanted to discuss that, we we'dfeel fine. I think high level uh 21st Avenue is going to see significantdevelopment in the coming years. Um this is a highly visible avenue uh inNewport. It's it's connecting to significant other investments that wehave. Um and this is an entryway to the city. So we want it to look as nice aspossible which is why we have this standard. With that said, you know,there are reasons why there are variances and things like that and staffis willing to work with folks. Um, but I don't think it's appropriate to kind ofhave a back and forth at a planning commission meeting.>> Fair enough. So, brought up your comment, they heard you and so,>> Yep. >> sounds good. Um and then foryou know I guess going through these terms is it an appropriate time staffplanning commission to make adjustments to how these are written on the staffreport at this time or is that >> no I I would assume not and was publiclyput out the staff report and everything was there was ample review>> correct uh chair members of the council I think uh or commission And umI think the the packet went out uh last week and um>> I think last Thursday. >> You know, we've we've frankly we've hadlots in back and forth between the design team and the city. So I don'tthink there should be anything necessarily surprising.>> Public forum really the time for the discussion that happens before thepublic hearing. >> Um no, I'm just trying to explain. No,you're not offending me at all. Um, I just want to make sure that that allfollows its its flow. And so the time for those comments for adjustments tothe approvals that we have in front of us or depro or>> deapprovals >> disapprovals>> disapprovals that we have in front of us, that would have been something to dobefore this public hearing and then have that verbiage changed. That's not to saythat you couldn't have a conversation, but>> we do want to hear your your your >> and chair, members of the uh commission,um this is just a planning commission recommends council makes final decision.So, I think, >> you know, with that said, there's stillgoing to be plenty of opportunity. I think being that there's still a numberof items that are frankly up in the air, we will not bring this item to counciluntil things are settled out and very clear. Um, and staff can always comewith a recommendation and council can decide to either accept that or change,you know, conditions, languages, variances, anything like that. Uh, butthat's kind of just a high level of of what the process looks like.>> 100%. >> Understood. No, I I just was um in theevent that we were going to have a motion to approve based on theseconditions, I wanted to make sure we had terms that we were agreeable to onthere. And if the timing for that comes later, I'm happy to wait for that orhave a conversation offline with staff. >> Yep. Uh chair, members of thecommission, generally uh staff make a recommendation. Now, if there's specificproposals that the applicant would like change, they can they could make thatabsolutely to y'all and then you could um put that in your motion as far as thechanges. So, if there's specific language, I think that would beappropriate. >> Yeah, you can you can bring that stuffup. Yep. >> Yeah. I probably started with the onethat had the least specific language >> the discussion side of it with the city.That's the part that happens after if there's anything else.>> So jumping toum outside storage not permitted. Uh we would like the opportunity to have workvans stored in the back in the event you know daily electric employees take theirwork vans home with them. uh in the event there's an eb and flow in employeecounts and there were say a couple vans that were stored there for a period oftime. Um not that it's the primary use of that space. It is space for employeeparking but if vans were you know excess vans came to be forwhatever reason you know the ability to park vans in the back um would besomething we're asking for. So that's just part of that outdoor storageitem five in the staff report which is different than the recommendedconditions that I'm staring up at the screen. Um>> it's nine I believe >> correct.>> Yep. And like I said these conditions are just summarized for presentationpurposes but yep number five in the staff report. Um trash enclosure, we do plan to storetrash indoors andum the question regarding the fencing along the back. You have 100% opacityfor the fence along the southern property line and then also landscapingscreening. Um currently there is a chainlink fence with slats on thatsouthern property line. And the question would be, you know, would it beacceptable for a landscaping as proposed the landscapingscreening with the chain link fence and slats or would that be something thatyou're looking for 100% opacity and landscaping or would you accept just the100% opacity fence? >> Um, so those are just comments I have.Um and we can pick this up with with staff at another time, but just somethings we're thinking about um for the public hearing.>> Okay. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.>> So that's all I have. >> Thank you. Appreciate your time.>> Thank you very much. >> Hi everybody.>> Hi there. >> Hello. Tom Dailyaly, 2447 TimberviewDrive, Hastings. It's a beautiful quick 18minute drivefrom our house. Love it. Uh, love Newport. I think we've been here since2019, Jackie. Um, you guys have been great to us and Ihope we've been great back and we just want to keep on keeping on.So, yeah. Any questions, comments, concerns? Our door is always open and>> appreciate that. Yeah. Just want to be a good neighbor.>> Yep. >> Thank you.>> Thank you. >> Appreciate it.>> I don't know if there's any Does anybody else want to come up and say something? Just state your name and your addresswhen you get there. >> Dave.Dave. This deal at 2123 Second Avenue. The only concern I have is that could itdo anything to our property any ways or form?I understand the question. I I I don't think anybody here could make that call.Um but I understand the question, >> but nobody knows for sure then, huh?>> I mean, I'm sorry. Uh>> question is is will this property affect his property? And I don't>> I mean, uh chair, members of the commission, I think, um this would be anexpansion of the business. So assuming there would be additional traffic, uh,things like that. >> Yeah, that's fine. I mean, they're notgoing to be, you know, like like a property, you know, somethingthat's going to go wrong with our property. I mean,>> the value and stuff like that or the taxes are going to jump skyhigh orsomething. >> Uh, chair, members of the commission,um, no idea. >> There's really no way. And none of us uphere would be No, that's fine. I was just wondering, you know, I just Are youcurrently I mean, are they currently good neighbors? And this isn't>> Oh, yeah. I got no problem with the people.>> I mean, I think I would >> The only thing, like I said, I wasconcerned if they're going to affect our property by any ways. >> I mean, it could.>> I don't think so. I >> Well, one way or the other, it could. Imean, there's just no way for us to be able to say that. I know that if ithappened and you saw the rendering, it will sure look a lot better than itdoes. >> Oh, yes. No, don't complain about them.>> So, with that, I'm not going to guarantee you anything, but I will sayyou saw what the property looked like. It It looks a lot better than it doesnow. >> No, I agree with that.>> So, that >> the building I don't mind. They can putup the biggest building you want. That's a business, you know.>> I just want to know if they're going to affect our property, that's all.>> Yeah. I I don't think so. >> Okay, that's that's fine. Thank you.>> Yeah, no problem. Thanks for coming up. All right,seeing nobody else, we will close the public hearing at 608.Okay, went a little backwards on that one. My apologies. Um,so I have a couple questions, discussion items.So I think the your summary takes care of his question about the parking,right? because it says except for daily vehicle parking.>> Mhm. >> Right. So, we're good there. Thatquestion, they would be able to park vehicles out there.>> It'd be storage of materials. Is that what we're saying?>> Chair, members of the commission, I think they very specifically said theypotentially could store excess vehicles overnight.>> Okay. So I don't think that uh that would necessarily be allowed with thiscondition >> with the not all outside except dailybecause daily parking meaning it's leaving at some point during the day.It's not being parked for 24 hours. >> That's how I would interpret that.Correct. And Madison, how would you interpret it?>> Yeah, I would agree. I would think that daily parking rate is the usual in andout. um if you're going to have a substantial amount of vehicles, youknow, for more than 24 hours, um even if it's just for a few days, I would saythat does qualify under that outdoor storage.>> Currently, are there any I guess they don't drive by a lot at night. Are therecurrently trucks being parked out front outside the bays? I mean, they onlyhave, I think, one or two, but currently,>> uh chair, members of the commission, I I think there are occasionally vehiclesparked in the back. I don't think I've seen anything in the front. Okay.>> But I only drive by twice a day. >> No. Right. >> Um I saw somewhere where they wereeliminating trees. Don't we usually get asked for funds in lie of stuff likethat? >> Uh potentially, but um>> it was like four. >> Like I I'm not sure. uh at that was thatincluded in the >> there was something in here that saidthey were going to be getting rid of four and not replacing them but I didn'thear anything about >> or instead of the nine they're doingfour >> something like that>> there's like 23 >> I know>> right and they you're supposed to have yeah>> 25% of it being >> oh deciduous versus>> or whatever >> I just heard that and something we talkabout often is that green space >> I don't think they're meeting therequirement like the they're within the amount they're permitted to remove ontheir site without having to replace. >> It's just the type.>> Correct. Okay. >> Is there like do we have a reason likeor that we're >> to have not have what happened in St.Paul when all those elm trees had to get taken out. You have toify so invasivespecies. >> Yeah. You want a variety of trees on thesite. Okay. >> Every single tree.>> Fair. Um, so I got my two main questions was complaints, current complaints.As far as the fencing, I can't imagine wanting to live behindthem without something blocking sight, line of sight. Uh, and I' I've seen wehave other properties in the city that use that chain length with thatstriping, and I've seen how terrible it can be to upkeep. It breaks. It getsbrittle after a year. >> Feel that's just like a putting aband-aid on a problem. >> I agree. So I would put in a proper>> So for me the number six I would want that to remain effective.>> I agree. >> Um because we've seen what that slattedstuff does. It's all over the city and none of it's maintained. Not saying thatthey wouldn't, but um the windows facing 21st. >> So they're willing to work on that one,it sounds like. >> So 40 they're currently with the squarefootage the front facing they're they're required to have 40%.>> Correct. 40% on the first floor >> floor>> facing a public street. Got it. it would just be under. So like for example on the umnorthern elevation just under that orange band about is where their firstfloor um is. So everything under that is required to be 40%. With that they'reabout at 23%. So that's what they're getting the variance for. Um it soundslike the applicant is willing to work with staff. Um, we would be looking to Ithink we understand they're sort of maxed out on that 21st Street. Um, sothose second story windows is what I think we're looking>> and the grading the grading is caused by the street, right? Because there'sactually a hill going up that road. So that's why they have to have that depthtowards the what is this? >> Yeah, I think that's just the naturalgrade of the property, right? >> Okay.>> So, we wouldn't be looking for like a specific percent or anything to change.You would be approving the variance as proposed for the first floor and thenstaff um can work. >> This is all a proposal. You're going tohave continued conversations with the developer and then it's going to bebrought to city council. >> So this is right.>> Correct. >> Uh chair, members of the commission, Ithink uh the intent with the 40% with any um you know building in the MX3 isto make it look nice. >> So at the end of the day, we want thisbuilding to look as nice as possible. And generally glass is considered a highexterior material. So, we would just want something uh some more glass orsome more higher higherend materials on the exterior and you know something thatuh frankly just made this area of the city more attractive. Uh 23% Idefinitely understand why uh you know with uh the explanation tonight and alsothe elevations, but I think we would still you know frankly want moresomewhere. Um and then and then I think staff would be considering to recommenduh you know the the the the plan. But currently, you know, I I think we can dobetter. So, >> okay.>> Where do you go with that? >> Uh my couple comments are uh I believewhen I moved to town it was a car wash, then it was a wood floor business>> and we didn't want to let them expand. So, they moved out of town. I thinkthey're a thriving business. And then there was a supermarket and now dailyelectric which I must say is a very nice looking building and complements thecity coming in and all that. Um I thought our comprehensive plan though wewanted to make this the gateway which would bring people in to come seeNewport. Is this in our vision that we want in the gateway community? I believewe called it the gateway in the comprehensive plan. uh chair, members ofthe commission, um you know, in that comprehensive plan from 2040, the cityhad kind of two decisions to make. One is where is our downtown and uh if yourecall uh uh chair and commission, we did a 2023 area study and the area studyreally identified Hastings Avenue as probably our commercial corridor. Withthat said, I think this is still a gateway of the city. Obviously, part ofthat area study also identified the area across the street from this building asa potential future entertainment/off district. Um, you know, there are fourparcels that the county owns and there's two parcels that the city own across thestreet and we also are focusing on, you know, the city's made a heavy investmenton 7th Avenue. Uh, we did purchase uh uh 2 and a half acres there. um you know wehave the potential uh Red Rock Phillis development and then of course we're youknow managing uh other properties on 7th Avenue. We did identify through that2023 area study that we wanted to be residential between probably Tenucci andand all the way down. Uh so we want to have residential with the market studythat we did in 2023. We identified that uh with additional vehicle trips thatcould push retail and other investments in the community and we're hoping thatwill happen on Hastings. With that said, you know, we have the MWF properties andwe've really pushed them hard with the exterior of those apartment buildingsand they I I think they look pretty good. Um you know, and now this isrounding the curve. Um so this is where a lot of folks come and get to seeNewport. Uh, and so, you know, I do still see it as a gateway. You can seethe large investment that the community made. We're sitting in it right now. Wehave the signs out front. You know, I'm impartial cuz it's where I office, butit looks good. Um, so I think we're we're still trying to encourage that.With that, with all of that said, I think this will be a great addition. Uh,this has been a a a really good business for our community. Uh, I know we wantthem to stay. I meet with them often. I kid when I say they don't wave enough.Uh but no, uh you know, I think I think we're there. I think this will be agreat investment for the community and and I think um it's going to be verycomplimentary to to what we're trying to do in this area. Um again, withdevelopment, I would say, you know, you can always hope and dream, but uh what'swalking in the door and who's willing to invest and I I so I think this is a agood uh a great investment, frankly. So,back to the recommendations real quick. Yeah, keep going, Mike. I just want tohave these up while you're talking. >> No, I I pretty much uh like I said, it'svery nice looking property. Um it's hasn't always been a very nice lookingpiece of property, but it very is now. And you know,>> right, and I think that >> compliment the business,>> the changes, they look good, they look professional. It's not, you know, someof the other properties that we're dealing with. I think it's a good >> means come look at my house right now. Ireally need to do some work. >> Oh, and I'm all for uh you know, theyown the property. They should be able to do what they want on that property also.Just as long as it aligns with our vision that we had.>> Yeah. My only other thing was that 4.7 from 11 ft. That's like that's less thanhalf of that easement. I don't know if it was an easement or what it was, butit was supposed to be 11, but they could only give it get it to 4 pointsomething. >> The parking setbacks, it's five andthey're at like Yeah. 4.11 point something.>> Um Yeah. And the commission and council can approve a variance to theirrequirement. Um which staff are recommending. We believe it'sappropriate to have that parking lot. Um and like I said, that parking lot um isexisting. The reason that's not considered legally non-conforming likethe parking um is because they're expanding that area. So even though theexpansion isn't within that setback area, they are expanding that law. Andso in theory, the city could ask them to come into conformance with that, but webelieve it's appropriate to give a variance to that. I know it is>> kind of silly half an inch. Looking through the packet, I was going to piecethis thing apart, but now hearing it all and hearing from the developer, hearingthe next proc steps of the process, I'm overall okay with one through 13, but Ithought there was going to be lots of changes. I was ner I was like, "Oh,there's so many things on here." But I don't think any of it's unreasonable.And I think that further discussion sounds like needs to be had if that'show they feel. Uh, and you guys are good at what you do. So it will it'sadvantageous just to continue the conversation and I don't know how youguys feel. >> Could you go back to the the slide withthe setbacks? >> So I think I wonder if the one you weretalking about was that minimum setback from the front.>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That 10tnot so much about the back. >> Sure. So that front um is just that umportion of the building um the northeast portion of thebuilding. So and that still leaves room for a possible future sidewalk.>> It should um the possible future sidewalk would likely be um within thatrightway dedication area which is that um black dotted line above it. So itwould be north of that anyway. So it would be definitely 5t away from thebuilding. Okay, that's pretty close. So thatdotted double dotted line would be the proposed bike path.>> The easement for the bike path for >> that's just what the area would berightly dedicated. >> Chair and commission to be clear, Iwould not recommend a bike path. There's not enough room to do it on this side ofthe street. I would recommend a small just walking probably a sidewalk. A lotof folks call them sidewalks. A path is usually eight feet. I think a sidewalkis usually five. So, it would be it would be smaller. And being that thereis a regional trail directly across the street, I think connections from thissidewalk to the other side, uh, you know, we could do some expansion thereto make it um more pedestrian and bicycle, you know, friendly. But withthat said, you know, I think if you're going to really ride your bike, uh,you're probably looking across the street. Additionally, in the future, weare going to put a brand new trail right here. Uh, in 2028, that'll beconstructed going down to Cedar Lane, the park on Cedar Lane. Um, so there'sgoing to be, you know, a loop with that going down 16th Street also, which willbe uh designed specifically for bicycles. Um, and not to say folkscouldn't still ride their bike, but it would just be a little bit more crampedat 5T. >> Okay.>> Some movements. Yeah, >> I'm waiting. Um, if are you guys pull upthe >> Yeah, pull up the recommendations realquick. Does anybody want to change or tweak any or add any? I'm good based onthis discussion that they've covered. >> I'm now that we've discussed it.>> Yes, lots of questions coming. >> My my only one would be with the outsidestorage one if we want to tweak that at all. uh possibly to say, you know,functioning work vehicles can be parked. >> Well, I normally know that electricalvans have a lot of value in them and they don't normally want to leave themoutside. >> Correct.>> So, it's probably going to be something of a car being left overnight or>> I took the van or whatever. Um it's not a very good spot to hidestorage being across from city hall. So I don't think it's going to be muchof an issue. But um I think also we've had problems with storage in the pastand I think it's advantageous for the city to protect ourselves from storingthings anywhere and everywhere. As long as you think somebody can can't see it,right? It's a matter of perception. If I can see it and you can't, it's aneyesore for me not. You know what I mean? Yeah. So, I think leaving it inthere and having them discuss it more is probably good because the city hasgotten burned by not adding storage language in the past. And as you cansee, as you go around town, >> these places will never come intoconformance unless we >> do something about it. So, I'd rathernot talk about it later and do it now than then and pull back if they need to,you know. But, I agree. I I think it's something as a business you want to useyour property however you want to use it. And if you can't store anything, itbecomes asphalt. It's just blank space for a car.>> Yeah. >> So, I I agree, but I think maybe it'sokay to let the city talk with them about that and then whatever they pushon the council, maybe just further discussion. I don't know. I don't wantyou to feel like I'm bulldozing. I just I drive around the town and we've gotexterior storage problems everywhere. Everywhere. I used to have it.I got a letter. I had to move a car. Yeah, me too.>> Um, so if you guys are okay with it, again, you're you guys are part of thistoo. So I just don't want to want to bulldoze anybody. So>> good with one through 13, then I'll look for a motion.>> If not, >> look for changes. Do you want to bringup your recommended motion? >> Thank you.>> And I'm not going to repeat it, so just say it first. >> Okay.>> Okay. I move to recommend the city council approve of the conditional usepermit and variances requests by APRO development for the daily electricproject with the findings of facts and conditions proposed by staff.>> Okay, I have a first motion. Can I get a second?>> I'll second. >> I have two motions. All those in favorof moving this to city council or our recommendation say I.>> I. >> All opposed.>> Motion carries. Anybody else have anything for the evening?No. Okay. Thanks everybody for coming. We'll go ahead to adjurnn.>> Yes. Can I get a second? >> I'll second.>> I have two motions to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I.I........................................ All. Those. Meeting.