Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call the meeting to order. On behalf of the Planning Commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of June 9th, 2026. On tonight's agenda, we have two public hearings and we have one discussion item. Before we get into the public hearings, we have a number of housekeeping items to take care of. We'll do it here at the table. First of all, I'd like to introduce our newest commissioner, Mr. Nate Leemeyer. Nate, thank you for joining the commission and serving the residents of our community.

Pleasure. Happy to be here.

All right. Also, then, we have some organizational planning to do. We need a vice chairman. With that, Commissioner Berg, would you be willing to serve as vice chair for this year?

I would, yes.

With that, then, I'll nominate Commissioner Berg. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the roll, please.

Lee Meyer. Yes. Berg. Yes. Roddy. Yes. Ellis. Yes. Rutherford. Yes.

With that then, we also have an opening for one of our committees that the commission serves on, along with our city council. This is for the Empire Farmington Advisory Planning Committee. Commissioner Lee Meyer, would you serve on that for the commission?

Absolutely.

All right. Tony, do you want a motion for that or not? We do not need. Okay, that's fine. Then we also have minutes, the minutes from our regular meeting of May 12, 2026. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion?

Motion.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Motion and second, all in favor say aye. Aye. They're approved then, thank you. So we'll open up both public hearings at this time. We'll take them in order as shown on the agenda. The first public hearing's a variance request. This request is to exceed the maximum sign area for permitted non-residential use monument sign. The applicant is the Church of St. Michael and the address is 22120 Denmark Avenue. Tony, you're gonna take this.

I am, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, there we go. Yes, before you this evening is a variance request, as Chair Roddy had mentioned, for the maximum sign area allowed for a permitted non-residential use monument sign. This is for the property located at 22120 Denmark Avenue, the Church of St. Michael's. The request is to exceed the maximum size by 16.5 square feet. There are two current existing monument signs on site, one at the Ash Street entrance and then the second on the entrance near Denmark Avenue. The signs were put in place when the church was constructed back in the late 90s. Both signs are currently 38.5 square feet in size with heights of four and a half feet. The sign code does allow for one freestanding monument sign per street frontage if access drives are present. There are access drives at both locations at this site, so both signs meet that requirement. Maximum sign area of 50 square feet and a sign height of 10 feet. So right now the signs are well within those requirements. The church would like to add approximately 28 square feet of signage for electronic message board to each sign. This would increase the sign area to 66.5 square feet and then increase the sign height to 8.5 feet. So the height still is within the regulations. It's just the overall size of the sign that would require the variance of 16.5 feet. This is a picture of what the sign would look like. They wouldn't be extending out with the sign. They would literally be placing the electronic message board on top of the existing signs. As this commission is aware, there are nine criteria for approval of a variance. Um, I will not read all of these. Hopefully you have read through those. Um, but it is staff's recommendation that the criteria have been met and the playing commission should approve the requested variance. Therefore, the action that is requested this evening is to approve the variance requested to exceed the maximum sign area for non-residential use monument sign by 16.5 square feet contingent upon the following. Number one, submittal and approval of a sign permit. And number two, submittal and approval of electrical permit, excuse me.

All right, thank you, Tony. With us tonight representing Church of St. Michael's is Mr. Mark Wood. Mark, did you have anything to add to the staff report?

I think the staff report accurately reflects what we're trying to do. I guess given the nature of our business, which is a church, we see a lot of value to having the electronic signs. And frankly, where we are in that corner, we have minimal neighborhood today, although I think that's going to change. We are going to see increasing traffic on Ash and Denmark. so we'll have an opportunity to post service times and events and that kind of thing on the sign boards. The monuments are set back actually quite a distance from the road itself because of the easements. So it just doesn't seem to us to pose any nuisance or anything for the neighborhood. we would respectfully request your assent to continue.

Thank you, Mark. If you could stay available in case there's any questions, I'd appreciate it. This is a public hearing. At this time, I'll call for any comments or questions regarding this before we bring it back to the commission table. We have a couple people. I don't see any arms raising, so we'll bring it back. Commissioner Berg.

Yeah, Tony, just a couple questions. So this is going to be a video board, which is a different element than what's existing there today. There will obviously be some illumination with this in the messaging that's on the board and that. Is there any precedent around hours of operation? Like, do we say, hey, it has to be shut off by 10 or 11 o'clock at night so we're not displaying light, displaying signs that are near residential, right? They're not immediately in the vicinity, but is there any time constraints around when they can be used?

Typically, we have not done that. I think we may have done that with the dental clinic on the one on Elm Street.

Oh, when it was a dental clinic.

But that's not an electronic message board. That's just an internally lit sign. Okay. But with these in particular, the newest one that has been constructed is one at the Lutheran Church on Elm Street. Aiken Road, and that does not have any of those time restrictions on it, and to my knowledge, we have not had a single complaint regarding it. Okay.

In the event that we did, right, because this one is directly across from residential and potentially some more residential, right, at some point?

We could certainly work with the church to... Because these can be, they're obviously programmable. Yeah.

And I don't anticipate it's going to be like a big flashing Las Vegas billboard, right? But in the event that that would come across, it's just something I wanted to ask about.

Absolutely. That's something we could certainly look at if and when it becomes an issue.

Okay. Other than that, I think I'm good.

Thank you, Andy. Commissioner Ellis.

What's your timing on this? I know you have to get the permits. Are you in process for that, or are you waiting for this?

No, we're waiting on you, and then it goes out to bid. We have our own process then of approvals through the archdiocese. I think I can assure you, as a representative of the Archbishop, there'll be no Las Vegas signage. I think he'd frown on that. But the timing is probably within the next year, certainly. Okay. But it's not something we're gonna do immediately.

Great, that was all I had.

All right, thank you, Lisa. Commissioner Rutherford?

I don't have any questions or concerns, Chair.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Vemeyer?

One of the only things that I was noticing and reading about was how far it is set back, how far the monuments are set back. Has there been any way to go on out there and make sure that the size of the board is going to be sufficient enough for the messaging that you are looking to portray?

That's a great question. So we've consulted with a couple of the vendors that are going to be bidding on the project, and we had a presentation from one of them, and they believe that the sign is the proper size for what we needed to do. I think the only thing we might do We think this is depicted Directly above the sign. So the question is because these are going to be two flat panels against each other Then we might have the out. We have the opportunity to angle them a little bit to see if they could be more visible from the road, but the size is They're telling us the size is going to be plenty Awesome, that's all I had.

Thank you, Nate. I

Number commissioners talked about setbacks. So I understand setbacks are okay So, you know anytime I look at a sign especially a monument sign I always ask about sight lines sight lines 20 it would be and they're already existing So it's not something new already existing and they're set back quite a bit from the actual intersection where the road where the roads meet So I don't foresee that being okay concern I mean and one of the commissioners talked about the light impact which we always try to address and the other one question I had is Mark, how do you anticipate attaching these to the existing sign? Have they told you what would be the best process or way to do it?

Like everything at St. Michael's, it's gonna be an adventure. So what I think we're going to do is, there's a cap, there's a masonry cap on top of that brick. So the first thing we gotta do is pop that cap off, because none of us, exactly how that's constructed Beneath us, you know, we believe it's block. It's probably hollow in the center We know it's got frost footings in it, which we want to take advantage of so our plan is to actually put in Reinforcing bars that will actually mount the sign to and and we're going to use that monument as a firm attachment already frost-proof. So that's really why we want to keep the monuments. Not only do they look good, but we know structurally they'll be better to hang the sign on than if we just put a post in like they did at the Lutheran Church. Okay.

To be determined.

It is to be determined, and obviously we'll go through the permit process and that kind of thing, and we— We know we have some work to do on that. We've got electricity at one of the monuments, but we don't have enough. And the other monument, we only have lighting on, which isn't suitable. So we know we've got some electrical work to do, and that's to be determined.

Well, thank you. Again, just as several people have mentioned, this is not unique to our community. 40 years ago it was, but it's not anymore. And we have some examples that I think look nice out there. So I have no concerns with this variance request. And if there's no more questions or comments from the commission, I'd look for a motion to close a public hearing. So moved. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Motion and second. Call the roll, please.

Berg? Yes. Roddy? Yes. Ellis? Yes. Rutherford? Yes. Neimar?

Yes. The commission then, and this is a commission decision, is a variance request to exceed the maximum sign area for monuments signed by 16 and a half square feet. Mark, there are two conditions. You as a representative of the church, do you agree to those conditions? Yes. All right. With that then, I'd look for a motion for approval. Motion to approve. We have a motion for approval. Is there a second? I'll second. Motion to second, any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please.

Roddy.

Ellis. Yes. Rutherford. Yes. Amar.

Yes. Yes. All right, thank you, Mark, for your time. We'll go on to our second public hearing. This is a conditional use permit request to allow a landscape company to operate a wholesale business, outdoor sales, and supply yard within a B1 zoning district. The applicant is Chippendale HP LLC, and the address is 21034 Chippendale Avenue. Tony, you're busy.

You can take this one too, right? I will. Thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. As Chair Roddy said, the property is 21034 Chippendale Avenue. The applicant and owner is Chippendale HP LLC. Mr. Hunter Stanek is here this evening with us. The property is zone B1, which is highway business. Wholesale business, outdoor sales, and supply yard are all conditional uses within that specific zoning district. The property is guided for commercial in our 2040 comprehensive plan. LNG landscaping has been occupying the space or property since the end of March. Single family houses are to the north, city-owned stormwater pond to the east, auto sales to the south, and trunk highway 3 in the city empire are to the west. The applicant, again, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the landscape company to operate a wholesale business, which the tenant would sell salt for winter ice mitigation to wholesale business customers and to state, county, and local governmental units. The outdoor sales and supply yard, the applicant has indicated that items would be stored on site or are currently being stored on site. related to the tenants landscape design and build services. This is where customers can view and select items for their projects, things such as rock mulch, irrigation pipes, stone pavers, along with the equipment that you could use to install those materials. The site itself is 1.32 acres in size of which 0.29 acres is considered right of way. Access to the site comes directly from trunk highway three in the front. An existing 6,000 square foot building sits towards the south central portion of the site. There's an open non-paved area located on the north and east sides of the site. This area is enclosed with the chain link fence currently. Outside storage of landscaping material, as I had mentioned, is currently occurring on the south side of the lot behind the building. And then the employees use the grass area on the north and east of the building for parking of personal cars and work vehicles and equipment. This is a picture of the site survey showing the location of the building and then the access. So as you can see, there's quite a bit of open space on the north and east side of the site. Section 1064 requires that all parking areas, driveways, and loading areas be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement. If this is approved, the condition of approval should be that all parking and loading areas either be paved or be surfaced with concrete. The applicant will have to submit a parking lot and striping plan that will have to be approved by the building department, engineering department, as well as planning staff. Appropriate screening will also have to be provided in accordance with city code and should consist of either an opaque fencing or landscaping specifically along the northern side of the property adjacent to the existing residential. As I had mentioned to the east, there's a stormwater pond. There's some substantial amount of vegetation around that pond. It's very dense during the summer. However, there could be some concern during the wintertime of visibility, so we may want to look at that as well if this does move forward. The applicant will have to submit a screening plan to the planning division for approval as well. So again, that would be if this commission does move forward with approval of the CUP. Similar to the variance, however, there are fewer. There are six criteria for approval of a conditional use permit. With the conditions that I have outlined, I do feel that it does meet those criteria. Therefore the action that is requested is to approve the conditional use permit request for the property located at 21034 Chippendale Avenue to allow a landscape company to operate a wholesale business, outdoor sales, and supply yard within the B1 zoning district contingent upon the following. Number one, all necessary building permits are obtained. Two, a sign permit shall be submitted and approved for any exterior signage that may be installed on site. Three, a parking lot and striping plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the city. And lastly, number four, an exterior screening plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the city.

All right, thank you, Tony. And Tony, just so that the commission's all on the same page and got a good lay of land, can you go back to one of your first slides? It's the one that shows the whole area in color.

Yeah, right there.

Okay. And I was thinking, you know, with the new Holiday, and I remember, but I wasn't sure of the location, but right behind Holiday, remember, wasn't that future lots?

This is right now an out lot.

Yeah, but I thought that was possibly future development.

Potentially. Okay.

And just so that everybody knows, we do have the car sales just directly to the south, Dr. Nardine's to the north, but houses... residential to the north, residential to the east, and I'll even call it residential to the south and the east a little bit, you know, right there. So I just wanted to see that again. I don't recall, oh, the access was gonna be off the road further east. Okay, that's where they were. I just remember that was possible future development of lots. Okay, I'm sorry about that. All right, just wanted to get everybody, at least myself on that same page. With us tonight is a representative, Mr. Stanek. Do you have anything to add to the staff report?

I do not.

You can stay available. We'd appreciate it. I assume there'll be some questions. With that, then, this is a public hearing. Are there any comments or questions, Beth? Anything from you? Okay, not. All right, Commissioner Ellis.

so can we come on beth um so when we talk about excuse me the screening that we're going to put in play and where we're going to be paving i mean it's not a large it's small i mean it's basically an acre right because it's 1.32 acres and um over a quarter of it is in the right of way so with the you're going to be paving how many employees are parking there now i mean

Yeah, there's an estimated 8 to 12 employees parking there today. It ranges every single day.

Sure, but no more than 12, we can say, probably. So I don't know. And then, Tony, in terms of paving, is there a ratio for this? You know, one per four, four per 1,000 or something? I think it is. I just don't remember.

I think per code it's one per two employees.

Okay. So you'll be able to do that. And then to Dirk's point about, this isn't you, but to that lot that's right behind the Holiday, there's a for sale sign for that, and that's nothing to do with this property. That has nothing to do with this property. Nothing to do with this property. So basically, paving, screening, where will you be storing the salt? How are you gonna store that?

Yeah, as for the salt, you'll actually see on, it would be the northeast side of the building. There used to be an outbuilding that used to exist there. There's a concrete pad already there.

Tony, you had a schematic you could bring up and then I might help the commissioners.

It would definitely help me. Thank you.

Hunter, there you go.

There you go. So you would put a building there or?

There would be three walls and a roof on top of that, yep.

Concrete or masonry or what?

To be determined.

Okay. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Rutherford.

So, as I understand it, you're going to have outdoor retail sales as well, is that correct, Mr. Stanek?

How the process works is when a client comes in and they sit down with the landscaping company, they'll do the design internally with CAD or whatnot. And then once they figured out the materials that they want to use for the project, then they'll go outside and actually tangibly touch materials of what they want to be using there. So they will have access to the materials for their projects, projects outside to purchase.

Okay.

Yep.

That's all I have for now.

Commissioner Berg. If I can turn my mic on.

So with the concept, you'll have folks come inside, do their design, go outside, tangibly touch. Are you going to be storing the large majority of mulch, rock, pavers, those things out in that lot or that area behind the store?

I would say they store it on a kind of a projected project. Like, hey, we got X amount of projects coming in. We need this much available. It's not going to be, hey, we're going to have a mound higher than the building there.

Okay, perfect. That's kind of where my concern is. You're going to have trucks pulling in to deliver semis full of mulch and trying to turn around in there at the same time. I would imagine that would get pretty difficult.

Yeah, not going to work.

Okay, okay. Um, and then on the screening, Tony, I know you mentioned the north side and then potentially the east side as well, depending on vegetation.

I think we'll want to at least look at that specifically during the winter season. Maybe that's something we look at this coming winter, see how it actually works and then maybe revisit that next year.

Okay. Okay. Um, any requirements around types of screening?

Um, well, typically the code requires either fencing or some sort of dense landscaping or a combination of both. Um, at that point we leave it up to the applicant to submit a plan. Then we comment on it, um, to see what would work best from, and I'd also work with our natural resource specialist on that as well. Okay.

Okay. I think the rest of my questions are answered already, so I'm good for now, Dirk.

The one thing I was thinking of was, is there any potential harm with any of this, any of these items that are going to be on the property going into that wastewater area? Like after, after rain, after a heavy wind, something like, is that going to have any impact on that wastewater like pond back there?

Right. We'll want to look at that as part of probably the parking lot and striping plan. We'll want them to provide us some more information as to where those will be located grading wise and things like that to ensure that we're not going to be polluting that pond any more than it should be polluted.

One thing I wanted to bring up on that topic is I know your guys is codes ask for concrete or asphalt. So, what we were thinking for the East side of the building. So if you're looking at the east side of the building and back where the majority of loading takes place, considering like class five or gravel, which would prevent any sort of material moving into that waterway, as you discussed, because it just kind of keeps it there and that soaks into the ground on the property rather than, you know, washing it out elsewhere. Obviously, for the parking on the side of the building where the Employees are parking, you know, we would obviously consider asphalt there, you know, because there's actual vehicle movement there Tony do you want to respond to that?

Well, the code is pretty Precise or very specific as far as parking and loading areas we'd want it to be paved or concrete at least the areas where they're going to be storing things and

And, Commissioner, we have not deviated from that drastically over the last number of years that I can recall. That's why I wanted Tony to do it so that the commissioners understood.

With that wastewater pond back there, Tony, is it just storm runoff or what's the source of that pond? It's a stormwater pond.

That was done as part of the hometown development to the residential development to the east.

Okay. So there's nothing else running in there other than stormwater? Okay. Nate, did you have any more?

I got a few questions for maybe both of you. Hunter, is it a long lease?

As of right now, I have a five-year lease with five-year options.

Significant then, okay. And the reason I ask is that... know some of these conditions as tony mentioned aren't aren't going to be requests they're going to be mandatory you understand that and i just wanted to make sure that the lease was sufficient enough to for the expense okay hours of operation uh normal business hours eight to four eight to five because landscaping can get a little later which i'm fine with i just i hope it's controlled so that it's not you know, bringing in heavy equipment real late, middle of the night type thing, and you assure us it's not.

Yeah. The only arm that may extend is the salt, obviously, in the wintertime when they have, you know, all their entities coming in and buying salt. You might see a little heavier movement during a snowstorm or something.

Well, your plows and tractors are going to have to get out, though, in the middle of the night. Say that again? Your plows and tractors are going to have to get out in the middle of the night.

Yeah, yep.

You're going to want to plow during the night time.

Yep.

Okay. Additional lighting of any kind?

As of right now, no.

You got the one light in the back, and that's no more expected. And the reason I ask is, again, you got residents. I know it's a backyard, but you got at least two residents to the north that could be impacted by any additional lighting. So this time, no more lighting then. Okay. Noise we'll look out for. Tony, in our code, as I read it, And you reminded me that I think 1069 requires six to eight feet tall, maintenance-free fence. The fence in the north is five feet.

Correct.

That's something you'll look at when you get the plan? Correct. I mean, lots of times those, I'll call them slats, were put in the thing, and we've seen that before. But, you know, again, it's a five-foot fence. It's a well-built fence, but still five foot. Correct. Okay. And then the east greening, I guess... If necessary, we're going to have to do something. But right now, you can't see through that at all.

Right.

But in the wintertime, I haven't been out there. I haven't seen it. So you'll have to anticipate or look at that. So just for clarification, because I know a couple of commissioners talked about the different products, the mulch, the things like that. What kind of... I know the equipment and the cars will have to be on either bituminous or concrete. What about mulch, things like that? What kind of surface are you looking for that to be put on?

That doesn't necessarily have to be concrete or pavement. It's more just the loading areas and the driveways and the parking areas that I want to have surfaced as far as the mulch and things like that. In all reality, it could go in the grass.

Okay. Or if they put down class five. You may just have to look at it and work with staff if this was approved, right? And then for the commission on these, I always ask the commission, do you feel this is the right type of business for this lot, this use in this area? And if you feel it is, then we can proceed. I don't hear anybody saying it's not. No, I'm comfortable. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's fine, too. I mean, you got a car dealership. You got residential, though, on what I wanted to point out at the beginning, residential on two sides. And I always tell people, if you're not a good neighbor, staff's going to hear about it, and then they're going to be out there at your door. So, I mean, that's just the way it works around here. That's the way it works in any community. So, anything else from the commission? Hunter, do you have anything else?

I think you touched on it was the five-foot fence. I know you guys are six to eight feet for your wanting to happen. I mean, would you guys consider the five-foot fence, but obviously having some sort of blockade or non-visible material put on it?

You know, we're going to require the screening. I'm going to let staff, they're the experts, I'm going to let them review your screening plan and see if they feel it's adequate. That acceptable, Tony? That's fine. I mean, it's a well-built fence. You know, I know the neighbor to the north. He knows how to get in touch. If there's an issue, he's going to let us know.

He's introduced himself right away. Yeah, I'm sure he will. But he's a great guy. He's a great guy.

Yeah, so I just say that, that he'll watch everything out. So I'm not worried about it. All right, I think we're ready to proceed. You okay? All right. With that, then I look for a motion to close a public hearing. So moved. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion to second. Call the roll, please.

Ellis. Yes. Rutherford. Yes. Nehmeyer. Yes. Berg. Yes. Roddy.

Yes. Before I get into the motion, Hunter, there are four conditions. Do you want me to read them, or are you familiar with them?

If you can read them, that'd be great.

All right. Billing permits are obtained. You got to have that. Not a problem. Signed permits shall be submitted and approved for exterior signage that may be installed. You okay with that? A parking lot and striping plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the city. Okay. That's a big one. An exterior screening plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the city.

Sounds good.

You okay with all of them? Yep. Okay, I got your agreement. With that then, we're in front of the commission then as a condition to use permit request for the property located at 21034 Chippendale to allow a landscape company to operate as a wholesale business, outdoor sales and supply yard within the B1 Highway Business Only District with the four conditions that the applicants agreed upon. Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

A motion for approval. Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please.

Rutherford. Yes. Lee Meyer. Yes. Yes. Roddy. Yes. Ellis. Yes.

All right, thank you. Welcome to the city. Thank you. All right, good luck. All right, well, I don't know if we're going to take a, well, we're not going to take a break. All right, we have a zoning code update. Tony, you're going to start us out, and then Beth's going to take over?

I am yes Mister chair, thank you as the commission is aware we've been working on this. Farmington zoning code update for about a year now in earnest. We've had a couple different meetings with both the playing commission and City Council regarding this. Beth Richmond with H K G I is with us this evening to kind of give you an update as to where we are and to confirm kind of the things that we've talked about in the past because we are getting to the point here relatively soon that this will likely be coming back to this commission as a public hearing. So obviously we want to make sure everybody is on the same page and comfortable with what we are proposing. So with that, I will let Beth take over with her presentation and I will stand by for any questions.

Thanks, Tony. Well, hi, everybody. It's nice to see you again. It's been a few months, probably. All right. So tonight, like Tony said, really just want to kind of give a recap of where we've been, where we are, and kind of next steps moving forward. So as a reminder, this project specifically focuses on Title 10, which is the zoning piece of the city code. Uh, and we were not intending to do a full code rewrite. Uh, there was a full process that was completed back in 2020, which as far as zoning zoning codes go, that wasn't that long ago. Um, and so this update is really intended to be, um, focused on specific areas. Um, so pieces that, um, staff has, has noted over the last few years, um, that we wanted to address. So, uh, mainly those points are, um, really focused on the zoning districts themselves. Making sure that the structure of those districts is something that supports the community's vision moving forward and then also as We're continuing to roll into that 2050 comprehensive plan update That with this code update that we create the framework for the zoning districts to accommodate those anticipated land uses that are coming That we anticipate to come out of that 2050 comp plan. So it's trying to kind of lay that groundwork for the 2050 plan as well and Otherwise, we did some other kind of technical updates relating to the code structure, analyzing the uses themselves to make sure that the city's in line with state statutes, just kind of modern uses. And then we did look at some procedures and development standards as well. So again, mostly what we're focusing on is the zoning district piece of this. So that's where I'll spend most of my time tonight. Like Doni said, we're getting close to completion here. You all saw in your packet that there's a majority of things that are at least drafted. We have a couple more chapters to finish up here. But the intent is that we would have a full draft available for public review, so available online, toward the end of June. And then tentatively thinking about a public hearing for the adoption process in August. So kind of wrapping this up over the course of the summer. So most of these slides you all have seen, but we just wanted to, again, kind of make sure everybody's on the same page as far as the changes, the high level changes that we're looking at. So when it comes to the zoning districts, really we were focusing our attention on downtown and then on Spruce Street. And so that resulted in a few different changes. One is that downtown, we're anticipating that there would be three zoning districts for that area. So it would be DR, which is downtown residential, DC, which is downtown core, and then DE, which is downtown expansion. As part of that, the current B2 district, which is the downtown district, that would be rezoned to DC, downtown core, which means then that the B3 district The name would shift to B2, just to keep your numbering hierarchy as it is today. We would also be rezoning the SSMU, the Spruce Street Mixed Use District, to MUCI, which is a district that you already have today, but we'd be incorporating the Spruce Street Mixed Use into it. And then we're looking at eliminating the Highway 3 and the Spruce Street overlays. And I'll talk a little bit about that, but those standards don't go away, just the overlays themselves do. So downtown, again, this is a big focus that really came out of that 2023-2024 comprehensive plan amendment process. That amendment was never formally approved, but the work that was done as part of that amendment is really what's been informing these next steps with the downtown districts. And then that information will also be moving forward with the 2050 comprehensive plan. So, understanding that, what we were looking at as far as kind of the downtown districts is that we want to have a district, or districts in this case, that provide for flexibility within that core area. We want to still allow the existing residential that's there and incorporate other types of residential, but again allowing that flexibility between the commercial and the residential. So the updates that are proposed as a result of that is keeping the RD, which is the residential downtown district, but it shrinks and it gets renamed. So instead of RD, it's now called DR. And then there's two new downtown districts that are proposed. So that downtown core, which is primarily what B2 is today, and then downtown expansion. And that's the district that, if you remember the last meeting we had, we spent a good amount of time talking about what standards would be appropriate for that area. So that district is really intended to apply to the areas kind of right adjacent to the downtown core, where the city feels that commercial expansion would be appropriate. And even then we would put kind of some bumpers on that so that commercial development that's new is something that can only be located adjacent to existing commercial or on the same intersection as existing commercial. So as far as dimensional standards go, the requirements for the downtown residential and the downtown core, those are staying the same. So they match what's there today as far as RD and B2. And then downtown expansion, what we tried to do is make the requirements consistent with both the DR and the DC. So residential uses would follow the DR standards, and then the non-residential uses would follow the DC standards. So, as we had talked about at the last meeting, we had those test sites to try to understand a little bit more about the dimensional standards. And what we heard with that is, and we really wanted to make sure that any lot area that we establish is based on the existing lot and block pattern of that portion of the city. We also want to make sure that it's a size that's large enough where development can accommodate all the necessary elements. So screening, parking, driveways, all of that. So this is what's proposed for the DE district. So for non-residential district, we're looking at a minimum lot area of 19,000 square feet, which is roughly two of the existing lots that are part of that pattern today. And then for apartment dwellings, it's 30,000 square feet, which is three of those lots. So when we did those test sites, that seemed to be what was working best is about that size. The minimum lot width is related. It's based on the lot width of two lots and then three lots. We're also proposing a build two zone to make sure that any commercial buildings are pulled up to the front or closer to the street. So this is a requirement that a minimum of 60% of the lot frontage needs to include a building that has the front plane within zero to 15 feet of the property line. So trying to make sure that those buildings are pulled to the street as much as we can.

Can I just interject a little bit? For Nate's benefit, and can you explain, and maybe Tony, you might want to do this too. Nate, what they're looking at and what we talked about in our last meeting was kind of an expansion to the south of a district in case there's some change in housing. There are some businesses even south on 3rd Street, if you're familiar with downtown and going south on 3rd. And this is kind of a new zoning district. Tony, you want to explain better than I can?

Yeah, it would be basically a new zoning district that we're looking at that, like Beth said, it can accommodate both the existing residential that's there because we don't want to necessarily kick out those existing residential units that are there, but we want to have flexibility that if... you know, someone wants to maybe buy two or three lots that are adjacent to an existing commercial area, that they can put a commercial building there and that it allows for that potential. And again, that's all this is as of right now is potential. Unless you lay the groundwork, you can't. we'll never we don't have that magic eight ball to you know determine exactly when and if this will happen but what we're trying to do is set that stage so that it can happen if we have someone that wants to do that so that's really what we're trying to do with this if that makes sense yeah no absolutely it does and i was just gonna ask and it sounds like nobody has yet but

Has there been developers or has there been other individuals that have reached out and out that like that area and have seen it and have been asking, hey, can we do something in that area?

Not specifically. As Dirk will remember, back in probably 2000, I think we did a stretch along Elm Street on both the north and south side, maybe a half block, I think it was, on either side as commercial with that comprehensive plan 2020. almost 30 years ago now. And then we went away from that and now we're kind of going back to it and maybe even, well, expanding it even more. But no, we haven't had anybody specifically come and ask about it. We have at least shopped a couple sites to some people more recently, but nothing's in the works or anything like that as of right now.

Thank you for simplifying that, Tony.

I don't know that I simplified it at all.

You did, and just one comment I want to make in case there are residents viewing, and one of the questions I'll have later is when we notice it, who's going to be noticed, but that's a later question. This is no indication that that anybody's gotta do anything with their houses. I just want the residents to know that. This is just for maybe future potential opportunity. Who knows, it may or may not ever come to attrition, but it's at this point an idea. All right, I'm sorry, Beth, go ahead.

No problem at all. Feel free to interject. All right, the next related piece here is about standards for parking in downtown expansion. So as we were doing those test sites, understanding kind of what can and can't fit on a site, one of those pieces that we were exploring was parking and what's appropriate for this district. So I'll start with downtown core would stay the same, which I believe is no parking requirements. Right. Downtown residential requires two per unit. And so those are proposed to stay the same. And so then what we're left with is this downtown expansion district, which is kind of somewhere in the middle of those two. And so what we're proposing is that a minimum of two spaces would be required for all of the uses. At that point, if someone comes in and has an apartment building or a commercial building that they're hoping to put up, they would need to calculate the parking requirement using the parking table in the city code that says, for this use, it's this many parking spaces. If when they calculate that for non-residential uses, if that exceeds five spaces, then we would allow a reduction so that the applicant would only need to provide 50% of the calculated spaces using that parking table. With that, on-street parking spaces along the lot frontage itself would be allowed to be counted as part of that standard. Um, that's, that's what we're proposing right now. Uh, and then as part of that, we also did look at some access questions. Um, so if a lot is adjacent to a developed alley, um, then primary access would need to be off of that alley. They might be able to have a secondary driveway depending on what, uh, depending on the site and what the city engineer thinks. And then if it's a corner lot that's not adjacent to a developed alley, then access would need to be off of the street with the lower functional class, so a local road versus a collector, for example. Questions about parking?

You talk about, do you say developed alley?

Yes.

What is that?

Paved.

Are any of our alleys paved in this community? Some are, I guess, but not a lot.

one I think in downtown that's . But no, I should come up here.

Thank you, I won't get yelled at this weekend.

No, as of right now, the majority of alleys are not paved. The city engineer, John Powell, has mentioned that he would like to at least have a conversation with council about the potential of improving the alleys, specifically in the downtown area where we have an abundance of them. But he's indicated that that conversation likely won't happen until later this year. And we don't know where that conversation will ultimately go, but he would at least like to have that conversation with them.

I understand, Beth, if the main access is gonna be off an alley, it should be developed, but they're just not there yet. Oh, okay.

Yep, and this language was developed in part and had the city engineer kind of reviewing as part of that discussion.

The word just caught me and I wanted to make sure I understood what you were talking about.

All right, so the last piece here related to downtown expansion, I believe, is screening. So we had a nice discussion about this at the last meeting as well. So Uh, screening is required, uh, or proposed to be required when a non-residential use or an apartment building is located adjacent to any residential property, which odds are at least on one side of that property, it would be adjacent to some sort of residential site. Um, so, and part of that discussion that we had, um, was, is there a difference in. the parking lot is closer to the property line versus the building and kind of what does that look like as far as screening needs go and so what we've landed on at least to propose tonight is that parking lots that are located within 15 feet of the shared property line need to be screened by a fence so six foot tall opaque fence If it's reversed, like the image kind of on the bottom there, and the principal buildings are within 30 feet of the shared property line, then we would look at, again, 100% opaque screening. That's six feet in height, but that could be fence, landscaping, or berms, whatever combination makes sense and is proposed. So two different scenarios, trying to address both of them. So does anybody have thoughts or questions about this? I know this is new language. coming out of that discussion.

Beth, I don't remember, and Tony, maybe you can help me out here, too. When we had that joint discussion, there was a question brought up, I believe, around, say, an apartment building were to go in in a scenario like this. Does the height of that apartment building play into this requirement at all, or is it simply based on distance from the resident next to the building?

As it's proposed right now, the height doesn't play into it. I don't believe it's too much taller than the... I'm trying to remember what the height requirements are for these districts.

They are 40, I believe. 40.

So it's not a whole lot taller than your normal requirement for a single family.

The scenario that's playing out in my head is that bottom... example scenario where you've got a pretend it's an apartment building that's three stories right and then now they're looking down into the the resident next to them so i didn't know if that played into it but i i couldn't remember from that meeting if we talked about that or not okay in that instance it may be more appropriate to have a landscape um buffer versus a fence where you can actually get some height from that vegetated buffer makes sense okay thank you both

All right, I'll keep moving. So the last piece here with the downtown districts is that there is currently a downtown overlay district that is intended to remain, and those standards in that overlay district would apply to the downtown core and then downtown expansion districts. And really, these are intended to, you know, encourage integrated site planning, reinforce the architectural traditions and the feel of downtown, create that walkable environment, and then establish any sort of transitions between downtown and then the adjacent neighborhoods. So the standards in here are related to building material and design, awnings and canopies, and then parking. So there were some other standards about screening. Those have been moved to screening. So they now live all in one place. The other two overlay districts, I mentioned them a little bit earlier, so Highway 3 and Spruce Street, those are intended to be eliminated, but the standards that are in those overlays then are going to be moving into what we're calling general building design standards, so a separate chapter. So those standards would apply to all new multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and then non-residential development. So that's the standards you think of when you think of building and site design. So building materials, facade design, transparency, again, awnings and canopies, and then loading docks and utilities. so i did want to touch on this uh we are still kind of working on the zoning map with staff but i did want to just kind of have that discussion tonight so the parcels that are proposed to be rezoned reflect those zoning district updates but they also need to reflect the 2040 comprehensive plan since we haven't moved to the 2050 plan yet. When we're doing those rezonings, we're looking at 2040 comp plan, but updated zoning districts. So it's a little bit of a juggling game. It's a little bit of a mapping exercise for us that we're kind of deep in the middle of right now. But primarily, the big differences here are going to be, again, those Spruce Street mixed-use parcels are all going to be rezoned to MUCI. B2 will be rezoned to And then those B3 parcels are going to be, the name's going to change to B2. Again, there are additional rezonings that we would expect to happen after the comprehensive plan for 2050 is updated. So for example, in the downtown, we don't have a downtown land use yet, a land use category, because that was not ever adopted in that 2023-2024 amendment. And so we really can only rezone the parcels that are consistent with their current 2040 land use. And so we're doing a little bit of juggling with that. So there may be some parcels that don't fully get rezoned until after that 2050 comp plan update. And then there are also some areas, some growth areas in those commercial nodes that, again, were kind of looked at as part of that 2023-2024 update that, again, may not be rezoned because right now they may be guided for ag land or whatever it may be. And so we know that there will be some additional rezonings kind of after the comp plan update goes through.

So, Tony, the process of that then and timing, what are you thinking?

Well, the 2050 update, we have until December of 28 to do it, but I would anticipate us being done well in advance of that, just with the groundwork that we've done with the update from a couple years ago. But we're still probably a year to a year and a half out before the 2050 gets approved.

Are you thinking amendments to the comp plan then or if you need to do something or what are you thinking?

No, it'd be more doing rezoning to be in compliance with the adopted 2050 comprehensive plan. It'd be more rezoning than amendment because right now we have to get the 2050 in place in order to make some of those zoning changes.

So we can't, your zoning needs to be consistent with your comp plan. So your comp plan wins. So right now.

You gotta go 2040.

Right, and because we have to go 2040, some of these zoning district amendment pieces, the mapping.

May have to wait to the 2050.

Okay, so then we're gonna have a discussion in the first part of July. Explain that. How will that work if you're not gonna do an amendment?

Oh, I see where you're going. Yes, we can still do amendments to the comprehensive plan. This is just, that's site-specific, yes.

Well, that's what they're gonna have, are site-specific ones. Right. We just, this commission just talked about three or four of them in the last six months. Right. And that's what I'm talking about. Yes.

No, we can still do amendments to the comprehensive plan as necessary, if you will. But with some of these, it's not necessarily time-dependent.

I'm okay with that. Right. I guess we're on the same page now. Yes.

Sorry, I didn't quite understand where you were going.

I didn't want to give examples, but I just did. Yep. All right.

So I realize these maps are small, but this is kind of the analysis that we are in the process of right now. So on the left, you can see all those red parcels there. Those are the Spruce Street Mixed Use District. So those will be rezoned. I believe there's 11 parcels there. And then on the right, those are the B3 that are going to be changing to B2.

I don't see anything on the right.

I know. It's really... That's okay. It don't matter.

It's my eyesight, not anything you're doing.

It's small. And this zoning, this is the downtown district, so again, this is very rough. We're currently working on this.

Can I ask a question? Because this is where you got me confused when you said about the 2040 and the zoning. Is... If... If we can't do this for the 2050, we really can't send out notices that they're gonna be changed to downtown expansion, can we?

We would only be changing the one, we would only be noticing the ones that are having any kind of change. Yes. So we'll have to identify those.

Okay.

Which is most. So as we've done this comparison, kind of all the parcels with some sort of hatch, which is most of them, those are all able to be It can be. Rezoned at this point.

So that was my question before. And for those people that were at the hearings, what Tony explained 20 years ago or so when we decided to do this along Elm, and the residents were a little uncertain. They came and they said, you know, you're rezoning my property. How can you do that on me? You're kicking me out of my house. That isn't the case at all. Right. And that's what I want to get through because this commission is the one who holds a public hearing. And we're the ones that are gonna have the residents out there. And I just wanna make sure everybody's on the same page. And I will tell the residents, you have nothing to be concerned about. That's what I told them 20 years ago.

We're being very specific with this.

But for those that maybe have a developer that's adjacent to downtown, and I use the Atkins house in our discussion, If somebody wants to put in something there that meets the city codes, they certainly could do that as long as they meet the codes and do the design standards and all that. Absolutely. If somebody that's two blocks down out of the blue can't, they're not going to do it. Correct.

Yep. So I'm going to tie into what you said, Dirk. So in the event that this all goes forward and notices go out to people that are having their property rezoned, it will explicitly explain there is no impact to your property for current use, right? It's potential future use is really what that means to them.

Yes, I want that notice to be as specific as possible.

Okay, perfect.

There's a lot of phone calls otherwise.

It is, and like I told the council, you know, This commission here, this staff here are the ones that are gonna have the residents in front of us. They may also go to the city council, I understand that, but we're gonna be the first body that they're gonna speak with about this. So staff and the commission has to do the best job we can to help relieve their uncertainty and, you know, like that about it. Okay, yeah, I'm on the same page now, sorry. It takes me a lot longer the older I get.

There's no problem with questions, not at all. All right, last little bit here. There are some technical updates. These are based primarily on input from staff and then the findings when we did the zoning code audit as well. So there are some updates related to procedures for land use, use specific standards. So electric vehicles and accessory structures have some changes. And then development standards, so specifically related to screening for industrial properties. There were some conflicting requirements that we're just trying to make them more clear. parking space requirements and then wetland standards, so Again, mostly technical the draft will all be available for you to really dive in if those are topics that you guys are really interested in Thanks, Beth. Yeah, no problem. And then we did propose a reorganization of the code as well So on the left is what you have today you've got six chapters Things are lumped together in kind of large groupings. On the right is what we're proposing. So you've got 12 chapters. The districts are split out by district type. And then the idea is that the information about the districts are things that kind of your average person, property owner or developer would use. Those are higher up in the code. Things that are more technical like procedures, those are further down because staff's really the ones that are using those and they can find them even if they're a little bit further down. With that, that's what I have tonight. So if there are any other questions, otherwise, like I said, we're shooting for a kind of end of June release date for all the drafts to the public, and then whoever wants to comment can comment, and that's great. And then we will incorporate those comments as appropriate, and then hopefully bring the public hearing draft involved.

No, Tony remind me our August meeting might be that'd be on a different night Isn't that isn't that primary?

Yes, that would be on When I think it's the ones I think so, too.

I don't know if that would select with anybody else Timing just think about that, but we're gonna go we'll talk about this now first. We'll start with Commissioner Rutherford.

I Don't have any questions. I'm good.

Okay, Commissioner Berg um My only question Cause we kind of talked about some already is around the public hearing meeting. is thinking through people's opportunity to come and talk. August is sort of when everyone's trying to wrap up their summers and vacations and things like that. Does it have to be in August or could we potentially look at September given that it's more likely that people will be in town because of school has been started at that point. It might give more opportunity for people that are interested and a chance to attend. Maybe we have historical data on that. I don't know.

That's something we can certainly talk with HKGI, because obviously we want them to be available as well. But that's something we can certainly discuss.

Something to consider. Absolutely.

Because we haven't noticed the meeting or anything like that, so it's not that it's set in stone yet.

It's not a bad idea. I guess, you know, think about it. Talk about it with Beth and Rita. Yeah.

I didn't know, Beth, for your timeline, if that was going to cause, you know, a month is a month, right? That's still a good amount of time. So I didn't want to cause any conflict there.

I mean, in all honesty, on our end, I mean, once we have the draft ready, it can sit until all of you are ready to... And it provides for more opportunity for comment and engagement as well.

So that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Yeah. Yeah. Just given... all the conversations we've had recently, I think giving people the opportunity to come and speak and ask questions and all that, the more opportunity we can do that, the better. Absolutely. Okay. Yeah, so that's what I, nope.

Mayor Ellis.

I'm just looking, because we were talking about maximum height. So for residential, the maximum height is 35 feet. It is, yeah. And then I had a question, I wrote this down, and then if you can't answer it now, that's fine. But in section 10.32 and then paragraph E4, there's a legal description. Where is that located? You don't get it all memorized? It's okay. It's just a question I had because it's called out specifically there's a legal description, but it doesn't say where it is.

Maybe if you could email me that. I'll email you and I'll ask you that. Versus trying to answer that.

Okay, no, that's fine because I just wanted to. It was 10.32 paragraph E4. Do you know what page of this? I'll find it because I just was jotting down notes when I was reading this. And my point is you call out specifically a legal description, and then you don't say where it is, right? I mean, like, we can all read it meets and bounds, but where is it? And, like, why are you calling it out is my question. So that was just a question I haven't, you know, if I notice it, other people will notice it too. But it's okay. We can look at it. Yeah, 10-3 to paragraph 4.

um e4 but i'll email you that's fine there you go okay we're on the right page now i'm curious except those okay okay that is what that is is that's basically it's not so much a legal description it is um basically the downtown area it's the section um yeah oh how do i explain this um Each, well, God, how do I explain this?

Well, I mean, people are going to ask you, if I'm asking, people are going to ask you.

What it is is that each community is divided up into sections and then quarter sections. Okay.

And it's a surveying.

It's a surveying.

I get it. I mean, it reads like a legal.

Right.

It reads like a legal.

And that area that they're specifically referring to encompasses basically the downtown area.

Well, maybe you want to add a footnote or something to that.

But that's what that is.

Explain what it is.

Yep, but that's what that is. It's basically, it encompasses the downtown area.

The new district, or the entire downtown?

It encompasses more than just the core. It encompasses basically everything from, I think, Highway 3 to Denmark.

That would be nice, thank you.

But, yes, it does encompass more than the downtown.

Just because we're so focused on it, you know, on downtown and we're changing and all that stuff, I just, I think that was my big question. Thank you. Anything else, Lisa? No, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Leemeyer.

No questions at this time.

All right. Deanna, do you have anything before I get into my last comment on this? You sat through the whole thing. You must have a comment. I know. I'm not saying that. I apologize if I took it the wrong way. They have. Jared, do you have anything to add on this? Nope. This is a big project from staff, commission, council, and really our residents and downtown business folks also. The comment I got, and I made it at the last meeting with the council is, and I appreciate the Expansion district I understand or we're kind of looking at it for future what possibly could happen to our downtown as I said before I think As much opportunity for this community may be in other areas it may be on some of the major arterial roads and intersections and and I just don't want us to get too hyper focused on just the downtown not that it's not important it is we want them to grow and expand and do do well and But as a commission, as a staff, as a council, I hope we're looking a little broader and saying, okay, where do we anticipate the growth? And we can all name the corridors that I'm talking about and the intersections that we think are going to be major intersections, maybe not in my lifetime, in some of you younger people's lifetime, and maybe in your kids' and grandkids'. And I just want this community to set itself up so that it's ready for that.

Absolutely.

So, and then that's just what I said before. And that's, I wanted to repeat it. So, Beth, you did a great job. Thank you. We welcome back, whether it be August or September or another date, you and, and if you want to bring Rita, you can.

I'll let her know she's off the hook if she doesn't want to come.

I mean, I'm just saying, it's up to you. All right.

Thanks all.

All right. Tony, was there anything else from staff?

I have nothing, sir.

Anything else from the commission? If not, I'll remind the viewers the next regular meeting is July 14th, and with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion and second. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Officially adjourned. Thank you, everyone.