Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Now we're live. All right. Roll call. Um, Robertson Robertson here. Garrett Karovski here. Shears here. Baxter is absent. Fountain here. Malloy here. Miller here. And Thompson

here. Okay, we've got a series of um minutes in our packet. I assume everybody has had an opportunity to look at them. So, we'll take them one at a time. Uh it goes back a ways. So, uh if you were not in attendance at that meeting, you may want to consider abstaining, but it's not a requirement. It's up to you. So with that uh the meeting the minutes from May 21st 2025. Do I hear a motion to approve or correct? To approve. Okay. Motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second.

Okay. Motion to approve and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Those opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to the minutes of August 20th, 2025. Any additions, corrections? Is there a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Is there a second? Second. All right. Motion and seconded. All those in favor then, please say I. I.

Those opposed. Motion carries. November 19th, 2025 minutes. Any additions or corrections? Is there a motion to approve? A motion to approve. Okay. And a second. I'll second. Okay. All those in favor then of approving the minutes of November 19th, 2025, please say I. I. I. Those opposed. Motion carries. And finally, uh, the meeting minutes of February 18th, 2026. Any additions or corrections? Is there a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. Okay. It's been motioned and seconded. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. And opposed. All right. Thank you. Um, moving to agenda item or citizens comments. If we have anybody with us this evening that wishes to address the planning commission on items that is not on our agenda tonight, this would be the time to have you come forward and address the planning commission. Seeing no movement, then we will move on with our public hearings. We have two public hearings. I'm going to turn it over to city attorney for our procedures.

Uh thank you. Tonight's hearing will be present to the quasi judicial procedure set out in 1 19797. At the start of each hearing, we would ask commission members to be to disclose any exarty communications, conflict of interest or bias. If you have any questions as to what that means, feel free to ask. The applicable applicable substantive criteria for this hearing will be addressed in the staff report. Testimony may be in oral or written form, but must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the staff report, the comprehensive plan, or the city's land use regulations. Any issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence sufficient enough to allow the commission and the parties an opportunity to respond. Please note that failure to raise an issue, including a constitutional issue, by the close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to land use board of appeals.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Then with that we will open our first public hearing planning file S--22-03 uh request for a three extension to a 28 log subdivision. Is there any exparte contact conflict of interest or bias that needs to be disclosed? No. Seeing none, we'll turn it over to staff for a staff report.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. The first public hearing is planning file S2203, a request for a subdivision extension. The subject site is approximately 4.9 acres located on the south side of B Street between 7th and 9th and the original approval include a 27 lot and one track for storm water detention. It was zero lot line town homes with driveway access and the surrounding zoning is residential mixed density within our urban growth boundary. The applicant is requesting a three-year extension of the subdivision approval excluding the initial staff level administrative review for town homes. That applicant will have the applicant will have to process that separately upon the approval of this extension. that admin review has expired and it does not allow for an extension. The original approval is set to expire expire April 1st, 2026 with the extension request was submitted prior to the deadline and the reason for the request is a change in property ownership and the new owner is restarting project planning. There are no modifications to the previously approved subdivision as proposed. A traffic impact analysis was originally complete in 2022 for this development and the study concluded that all intersections operate within our city's mobility standards and no bindigation is required. A 2026 memo from our traffic engineer um KDson and associate confirms that these findings remain valid and there are no updates as needed. staff has reviewed the request against the applicable criteria. My slide there. There we go. Um the

request was submitted prior to the expiration. There have been no changes to the development code affecting the approval. There have been no significant changes to the surrounding conditions and there are no modifications to be previously approved this to the previously approved subdivision. And based on this findings, the request is eligible for extension. That concludes my staff report. And if you have any um questions, I'll be happy to answer those for you. Okay. Any questions?

Okay. So, with that, then we will open the public testimony portion of our hearing uh and invite the applicant to come forward if they so wish.

Don't think they're here. Okay, seeing no movement, then we will open it up to those that wish to testify in favor of the application for the extension. Seeing no movement, anybody wishing to oppose the application for the extension. Again, no movement. So, with that, we'll close the public testimony portion. Uh, all further discussion will be among staff and planning commissioners. So, any concerns among the planning commissioners to grant the request for a three-year extension? I have no concern.

Just one clarification. Perhaps if there's changes made, then that would come back to us. Correct. If there is any modification to the subdivision proposal, the original, it would have to be a new application. Okay. All right. So, if there's no questions, anybody prepared to make a motion? I move the planning commission deny Oh, I'm sorry. I move the planning commission approve the subdivision extension S-22-03 and adopt a draft order as presented by staff. Okay, I'll second. And there's a second. All right. Any further discussion? All right, then. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I.

And those opposed? Motion carries. All right. With that, then we'll move on to our second public hearing. Uh file number S-26-02 uh plus variance-26-01 and turn it back over to

Thank you. It's the first time resulted in such a spirited response. I'm going to read it again. hearing will be presumed to the quasicial judicial procedure set on 1979 say start of the hearing. Uh commission members should report the same issues sub substantive criteria for this hearing will be addressed in the staff report. Testimony may be an oral written form but must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the staff report, the comprehensive plan or the city's land use regulations. Any issue raised must be accompanied by statements rather than sufficient to allow the commission and parties an opportunity to respond. Please note to raise an issue including a constitutional issue by the close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to the land use. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to turn on my mic. Well, you're sitting right here. I could hear you. Right. With that then uh to the planning commissioners. Is there any expporte contact of interest or bias that needs to be disclosed? I I need to disclose that I live very near here and I received a notice and I have friends who have written letters of opposition that are in the packet. Let me ask you, have you had any conversations or discussions with any of those friends outside of what was submitted in the packet?

Uh there was a text message chain that was sent out and I said I need to remove myself from this text message chain to avoid exparte. issues in the text change. Did I what did you read uh anything of substance in the text uh change uh reflecting this application? Um, I think just an expression of concern was like the initial like is there anything in that text change or any other contact you've had uh that would affect your ability to impartially and pursuant to the uh uh pursuant to the guidelines uh fairly and impartially uh rule on this matter?

No. and is living in the vicinity, which we all know we're in a small town. Um, living in the vicinity, does that prejudice issue in any way as it relates to hearing and deciding this case impartial? No. Okay. Anything else needs to be disclosed from planning commissioners? Okay. Thank you for that, Lori. Uh, with that, then we will turn over staff for a staff report.

All righty. So up next we have planning file S2602 and variance 2601 a subdivision and variance request for Cedar River Estates. And I'll start with the brief overview and the on the site and the proposal. The subject property is approximately 6.39 acres currently undeveloped and located north of Joy Street east of South Fifth. This site is zoned residential mixed density and this property might look very familiar as there was a prior prior subdivision approval for 35 lots which we all approved in 2024. This is a new application revised that is in front of you tonight. The subdivision proposal includes 52 lot residential subdivision which consists of 48 small lot parcels ranging in size from 2,864 square ft to 3,485 feet meeting the lot area and requirements of a minimum of the 25 minimum um lot size to 35 and exceeding the minimum lot width of 30 feet. In addition, there are four standard parcels ranging approximately 5,000 square foot to 16,000 square foot, which are large enough to accommodate standard single family or duplexes, meeting the minimum lot area of 5,000 square foot and a width of 50 ft. Included in this proposal is a new public street which will connect South Fifth extending through the site and connecting to Joy Street, meeting the city's block length standards. A private street is also proposed to serve 16 units within this development. The site is designed to provide both pedestrian and vehicle connections to the surrounding neighborhood.

Oops, there we go. One too many. Sorry. Based on the proposed development, the estimated trips exceeds 300 trips per day, which requires a traffic impact analysis under the development code. The traffic impact analysis analysis was prepared by KDson and Associates, estimating approximately 473 daily trips, including 40 during the AM peak and 53 in the PM peak. The analysis found that all studied intersections are expected to operate within the city's mobility standards at full buildout. The study also recommends stop signs at the access points along Fifth Street and Joy Street. The site includes an existing 27 foot drainage easement and part of the proposal the applicant is requesting to vacate 7 ft of that easement resulting in a reduction um up to a 20ft easement. This smaller easement is intended to maintain a more manageable area for ongoing storm drain maintenance. Due to this easement and drainage constraints, the proposed public streets within the subdivision cannot accommodate the standard 58 foot rideway. Instead, a reduced 50-ft rideway is proposed. And the transportation master plan allows on street parking on one side of the street. In this case, the applicant has elected to remove the landscape strip in order to accommodate on street parking on both sides of the proposed public street. Additionally, the the transportation plan identifies South Fifth as a as a collector requiring a 70 foot 75- ft rideway. However, the subdivision to the south was developed under a pre our previous transportation plan and was constructed with a 60-foot rideway. The transportation plan provides

engineering with the authority to review and approve modifications to roadway standards were appropriate. Engineering has reviewed and approved both of these modifications. finding that they maintain functionality with the existing street section to the south. A half street is still required along the frontage of South Fifth. Along Joy, a modified street section is proposed. This section will not include the standard curb and gutter along the north side in order to allow maintenance access to the drainage ditch. Additional pavement will be provided along Joy which will allow for on street parking along the south side of the roadway. The city's trails master plan identifies trail 11 along the south side of the drainage ditch. But due to these site constraints mentioned already, the trail cannot be accommodated here. Therefore, without and additionally without curb and gutter along Joy Street, the trail would not have adequate separation from the roadway creating safety concerns for a multi-use path. As a result, an alternative trail alignment to the south has been identified. This alignment will provide a safer east west connection and better integrate with our future development. Utilities are available in both South Fifth and Joy Street and will be extended to serve all proposed lots. A 16-in water man and a 24-in sewer line are located in South Fifth. and an 8 inch main and a 10-inch water mane and a 10-inch sewer line are located in Joy. The water system will include a looped main connecting South Fifth to Joy Street, providing adequate service and water quality, and the storm drain system will be designed to to avoid adversely impacting drainage to and from adjacent properties. Storm water will be managed through an on-site detention facility designed to ensure that historical site discharge rates are not exceeded.

This applicant is also requesting a class 3 variant to increase the maximum building height for small lot dwellings from 25 ft to 33 feet. This is intended to allow construction of a typical twostory home with standard roof pitch. For context, the underlining residential mixed density loan zone allows building heights up to 40 feet, but this 25 foot limit applies specifically to small lots development. As a class 3 variance, the planning commission is the decision-making body and must evaluate the request against the variance criteria. To approve the variance, the commission must find that a hardship exists to the physical characteristics of the property such as lot size, shape, or other site constraints. The hardship is not generally applicable to other properties in the same zone. The variance is a minimum necessary to allow reasonable development. The variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties or the neighborhood character. A key consideration for commission is to whether the request reflects a true sightsp specific hardship or a design preference that could apply more broadly to similar development. First also I want to point out in the packets I did have a typo in my staff report. The notice period closed today March 18th not February 18th carryover for my previous staff reports. I apologize.

All right. Any questions for Well, I have one more thing real quick. One written testimony was received after the packet was put and that is on your guys in front of you and each um member should have had a copy for everything and I'll just summarize it is traffic impacts, density and building height, neighborhood character and privacy, parking, sidewalk and fencing is a summary of everybody's um statements that you've all had a chance to read. And that's all I have for you. Great. Thank you. Uh any questions for staff? I have a clarification question I just want on the record here. Is that these are not apartment buildings?

That is correct. They are not three-story apartment buildings. They are single family small lot single unit detached house. Our new housing code that we just implemented. Should the builder want to change their mind after we approve this or not approve it, they would need to come back for another approval to put in apartment buildings. Yes, they are approving to divide the property right now into the small lots and you cannot build an apartment on those small lots. Got it.

Thank you. I'm sorry if I missed it, but I also have a question. When we approved this previously, um, we approved it, I believe, with the contingency that there was privacy fencing or landscape that went along. Yes, I did not address that in the staff report, but in the conditions, it has been conditioned as an engineering requirement. The fence must be on the easement line so that maintenance can still access it. Has to be installed um can be either installed with public improvements or with the building permits, preferably all of the same material. I'm sorry if I It's okay. It's it was just in the in the order. Okay. Thank you.

So with the pri with the prior approval, uh this being a new application, all of the conditions of the prior approval goes away. That is correct. So we need to restate new conditions or whatever is appropriate. Correct. that is in the order that's in the packet um from the other departments, but you are more than welcome to add to that the order and we can So, I was going to actually bring up the same thing, but was you said the fence, is that correct? Yeah. When we originally approved it, it was with the conditional approval that there was fencing that ran along Joy Street. Um, and I I missed it when I read through the report, so I wanted to make sure that was still a condition.

I'll find it and read it to you what it actually said. if you want to add more to it. Okay,

you guys can ask more questions in the meantime or talk one other question. Uh there's actually two variances requested. Uh the width of the street and the height of the building. Are we addressing that as one variance? No, the only variance that you will um work on is the height. The other two are at the TSP and the engineering's discretion and don't need to come to planning commission. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other questions?

Um maybe one thing to just bring up. So if we are considering the privacy privacy fencing along Joy, if there is development on the other side, I'm not off the top of my head. Um, if that is being developed on the other side, would the privacy fencing just be on the joy side or could we make that I think it would be needed along the other side, I guess, is what I'm saying. I think what we talked about is on the north side of the drainage easement. Okay. So, would be on this development side. Okay.

Is that correct? Yes, it would be on the north ement line which is on the north side of the ditch and the actual is I under engineering. A rear yard fence for lots 1 through 20 shall be located on the north line of the drainage ditch easement. The fence shall be constructed of consistent material. Fence construction may occur concurrently with public improvement constructions or at the time of building permit issuance. However, the fence must be complete prior to dwelling occupancy. Fences exceeding seven foot in height shall require a building permit. Okay. So on that not and it's only lots one through 20. That is correct.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is the vacation of the easement part of this and or has that is that a separate It is not part of this. It is all handled through the engineering department. But I wanted to make you aware of what was also part of their proposal because they do address it in their application. So yeah, engineering has elected to allow that because we're going to get parking on both sides of the new proposed street as in in lie of one side only. So we felt that that was a good compromise. I missed that. What was the question?

Okay. Anything else? With that, then we will open the public testimony portion of our hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to come forward, sign in, and address the planning commission, please.

Okay. Okay, I'll take care of that. I won't take up your time. All right. My name is Andrew Rupe. I'm an engineer with UDEL Engineering here in town. Um, I'm the project engineer for this project. Um, with me is Blake, one of the development team, uh, represents the owners of this project. Um, thank you Shana for the overview you did and a lot of the things I would have mentioned have already been covered. So, um, the only thing I want to touch on is that this, uh, or one of the things was that this, uh, subdivision is nearly identical to the one approved in 2024 with the the main difference being that there's an increase in the number of lots. And that's because the zoning um the zoning code changed since then and allowed for these small lot single unit detached dwellings. Um and so it takes advantage of that and results in more lots 52 total with uh smaller lot sizes and uh smaller smaller dwellings as well. Um so the um with the increase in the number of lots that increases the um the way that we calculate the storm water drainage and that basically we assume that that increases the runoff the storm water runoff. And so the detention pond in the southwest corner of the project increased in size also to handle those increased flows and detain the runoff to historic levels. Um so those are really the two main changes. Um we also addressed a few comments uh because we went through one round of plan check uh

with full construction drawings with the last subdivision. We received some comments from engineering um and have addressed some of those with this already. And so we're prepared to submit construction documents within the next few weeks um if this were to be approved tonight. Um, I did want to touch briefly on the the height variance because a lot of folks in the community brought that up. I just wanted to point out that um that this height variance is not what we're requesting is a 33 foot maximum and that's not so that with 33 feet you would assume maybe that's to do three stories and that's not the case. That's because the way that the code defines building height is from a point the lowest point within six feet of the building to the very peak of the roof, the average height. Um, and so it takes into account the pitch of the roof. Um, and also when you have like in our situation where you have drainage behind the building, um, it's sloping away quite a bit from the building back there, especially on the north side. So that's another foot or so. And so the 33 foot request is just so that we can be sure that we have options for roof pitches with a twoft or twostory building without worrying about coming up to that limit and possibly encroaching that limit. And so it's just to to make it easier to construct and not worry that we're in violation. Um but there's no plan to do threetory buildings at all. And um and also the as Shannon mentioned the the height for um mixed density um residential is 40 ft and with the last approval in 2024 we now have um 35 lots uh that they could build up to that

40 foot maximum. So with these small lots we're actually reducing the height that they can build. And so the variance is is allowing for two stories, which I think is the intent of the code, but it's not it doesn't take us up to the 40 ft that is allowed in the overall uh zone. So I just want to point those those things out. And uh with that, I'll just uh leave it to you for for any questions if this is the time for that. Um there's any questions you have for us.

Any questions? So I believe Shana said to approve this variance we have to see that by not approving it would cause some sort of hardship. And so can you tell me how it's hardship that going to 52 lots from 35 because it still seems like a reasonable use of six acres. So I I'm trying to grasp what hardship am I trying to alleviate here. Yeah. Blake, maybe you could speak on that in terms of how that affects the building design.

Yeah. So the two lots because we have the standard six I believe large standard and then the rest are all the small. Four. Yeah. 48 small, four large.

Yeah. And then we have the 48 small. So the major difference is, you know, when you get to the very peak of that roof, you're not able really on a twotory to do say a standard gable or a Dutch. So like all the houses on the south along Joy and more standard in the neighborhood is more of that craftsman look. So what you'd be stuck with is like a flat roof you'd see in like Tucson or Arizona. Think like kind of a southwest really does not fit the architectural character. So, you're either super steep or flat and you can't get that kind of gable look and you can't get kind of that presence that's more typical of the neighborhood. Um, the lots themselves with that drainage. Your major problem is, you know, we don't have the depth as much to accommodate. So, you're in a situation where you build the house, you have the driveway in, now we're hitting a drainage ditch versus a standard house doesn't necessarily have a drainage ditch in the back of it. And so, you know, our request is po is purely designed to align more with the existing architecture of the homes and neighborhoods have something similar so that we're not building a bunch of flat roofs that look awkward and everyone says 20 years from now, what were they thinking?

Question about size. So, what I I think I'm hearing you say is your intent is to build twotory houses, one and two. The a the average house is kind of a split and then as it's going over time, it's you know, whatever the market says to say, do people want the onetory option more the intent is to build both um and apply for building permits as people say what they want and what their favorite floor plans are. But one story wouldn't uh wouldn't really need a variance. No, this is this is only for the two stories so that we can have an architectural feature on the two-story houses that are more comparable to the

Can you give us an idea of what what you're thinking as far as the house itself, square footage, and so forth?

Yeah. I mean, the average home is probably going to end up somewhere around 800 to,500 ft on the big side. Um, so they're all small, modest homes is the intent here. Two to three bedrooms, maybe one fourbedroom option. Um, small, modest homes to allow a more average entry- level person to come into the market. Someone who wants to downsize, wants the backyard, but doesn't, you know, can't afford the $500,000 house or 400. You know, the intent is to provide an alternative for someone in that 300 maybe low $400,000 price point to actually own a home and buy a house and be cheaper than an apartment is in town.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? theoretically uh if the variance was not approved what kind of an impact would that have on your application?

Uh the main is you know we have two paths either we have very awkward architectural two stories or we all stay with kind of a one story. I think it just doesn't fit the character and it starts in my mind degrading the look of a neighborhood because if people say I want the two stories so that we can have a bigger backyard say have 30 ft of a backyard versus a 10-ft backyard a covered patio or something. Um you can't get the bedrooms otherwise and so you know what the major difference is the yard space is further away. the homes are actually closer to all the homes on the south. That's probably more of the reality. So, people are getting closer to their backyard and fence versus, okay, that house, if it's a two-story, you're actually 10 ft, 5t closer because you don't need that extra bedroom snag in the back of it. So, they're further away from the other home. So really the disruption is you kind of have a tale of two stories of either the path is saying we're going to have really weird looking two stories with flat roofs or we're going to have a bunch of singlestory homes and everyone's backyard is nothing and pretty much pushed as close to the road and drainage if you know they want the third bedroom as an option. Um,

you wouldn't go with the original number of homes that you had previously approved for the 35 or Yeah, for the Yeah. Um, is that what you're saying? Well, we're No. So, this isn't contemplating keeping the existing. This is contemplating, I guess, like if the variance was not approved tonight, the applications approved, kind of playing that 52 lot scenario was my answer. Yeah, we wouldn't be able to go back to that approval with this approval. We'd have to submit another application in order to do so. Correct.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody with us tonight that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none, is there anybody with us that wishes to speak in opposition of the application? Okay, come forward. State your name, please. My name is Donna Clark.

And I did uh submit uh information earlier, so you may have that already. Uh give me just a second here. Um, so I am not an expert at all. Okay. Anyway, thanks for having me speak. I'm not an expert, but I do live across from this property. Um, and I had brought up that, you know, we would like to make sure that whatever is approved here, there is the fencing um, on the Joy Street. And I think that we missed the last time. It should extend all the way down because there's four homes that are already built on Joy Street and they should definitely have a retaining fence as well for privacy because they're going to build on the north side but not on you know it'll be so there that should be added in there as well in my opinion because they're going to be impacted by this new development and not have a fence to help block that out. The other thing I was um talking about, I don't think we proposed it on the first one, but um if there could be trees uh planted along the per uh fence along the perimeter to help block the view of these new big homes that are going to be built, small, big, tall homes. Um we in our property, in our subdivision, we had to do that. we had to put in fences in our back lot as well as uh trees to block out the neighbors view of our new builds. So, I think that would be an appropriate thing to also ask to see if privacy and I I listed some trees, but of course, anything that kind of grows quickly and is a screen to block that out um for lighting in the yards and all that's going to be right into our our vision, right? Um the other thing that I heard

uh uh when we were here talking is um I have I don't I'm not sure what the exact rule is but I heard uh the gentleman here say that they want to have the variance of 33 feet because they have to go from the ground level. My understanding is the measurement for the 33 feet is taken from the pouring of the foundation up. So, if someone could get me clarification on that, I'm not sure because if they're mitigating the wetlands, I'm assuming that's going to add more filter in, which is going to raise the level of the property. Then they're going to build these homes. And then, you know, I don't know where the measurement is taken from. Is it from the top of the foundation to the top of the peak of the roof, or is it from the ground level? In which case, it might be more reasonable if it is from the ground level. But that isn't what I was told. So, so 33 feet, I went out and and took one of those things that measures 33 feet tall from where the ground is up is towering. It's as tall as the top tree line of those trees that are still existing on the property. So, all we're going to see is like a San Francisco kind of view of just houses in our face, right? very tightly packed homes, which is not what the surrounding community is. I also heard from the gentleman here that they're trying to meet the aesthetic of the community. Nobody in the community has built 40 foot tall homes in the community. They're all like 25 feet. That's the height they are. So to if they truly want to blend in, they should be trying to meet that 25- ft requirement because that is what's around. They did build some apartments

on the corner of um Maine and um what's the other one that runs along there? They built a huge apartments and from our house, which is on the other end of the subdivision, we can see those huge apartments. So, I'm not looking forward to moving in and seeing that across the street. So, um anyway, and I did do an a an AI search, just put it in and say, if you have a 30 foot wide home, um at 20 foot maximum, could you build a roof? And it came back and said, "Yes, you can." They had the different they had a gable roof, a hip roof, a shed lean roof. So, it came up with options to be able to build a house that wide. I put in the parameters and it said yes, you should be able to build a roof. So, I don't know if they're saying they're trying to meet in with the community. Meeting in a community would be building to 25, not 33 feet tall. Um, let's see what was the other thing I wanted to say here. Um, so again to fill dirt if if it's measuring from you the top of the foundation up for the height then I definitely you know anything we can do to not add any more additional field dirt or anything into the property raising the heights. Um, and if I didn't see any kind of uh prop uh proposed view of what these homes look like. So, it's very difficult, you know, but not understanding how they're going to look, you know, front view, back view, what we're going to be looking at, where are the windows. Um, so that would be very helpful to, you know, help us determine, right, where how are these aligning with the houses with all the windows and and the height going across. Um I think let's see and then uh I think you had said there

was a trail where I didn't see there was a trail on this proposal. So where is the trail going to be? Do you know? Go ahead. Does anybody It's not going to be on this.

There's no trail. So that's the other thing. There's going to be a lot of uh high traffic added to to both Fifth Street and Joy Street. Both of these streets are connected to schools that are in the there's a school on the end of the little kids school which we have already have high traffic. There's other schools that are up on Fifth Street. So the traffic is always is already very high. And then adding another 500 cars per day to the roads, it's a lot. So the original one was a lot less cars. uh the original proposal that was proposed. Um I think I covered everything.

Okay. Sha, do you want to address the uh how the building height is? Yes, I did bring up it's based on building code and it's the grade the ground next to it. Most of the foundation has requirement to be covered as well. So it would be the grade. So, so even though I did do it from the ground up, 33 is like the very peak top of the highest that they can go. So,

of our trees, you know, we're seeing our view when we go out, when I look out my house, the very tippy top of those trees is going to be now solid houses, you know, or peaks of roofs and windows looking into our home. I mean, across the street. So to me, if we can anything to do to reduce the height and then being able to see what they look like might make a difference. I don't know. But anybody have anything for me? Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? Would the applicant like to come forward and rebut the testimony?

I think I'm okay. You're okay. All right. With that, then we will close the public testimony portion of our hearing and all further discussion will be amongst planning commissioners and staff. All right. What are you thinking? Do you want me to clarify the lots for the fencing? Yes, please.

All right, I'll start there. I'll give you a starting point. So, it is lots 1 through 20. There are four existing lots on Joy Street and their backyards will be adjacent to the private street if you want to flip through your um and see the layout. Um so, they should already have backyard fences up for those four existing lots. So I believe that we've encompassed and the main reason for the fence from engineering was to make sure that homeowners didn't put the fence in the wrong location in the easement and we had to remaintain that access. It's very important for drainage for that us to get in there in case there's flooding. Okay. So, let's go one step at a time. Um, let's talk about the variance because that's going to have an impact on the rest of the approval. So, what is your thoughts as far as the variance for the height? Go ahead.

Um, I did not hear anything that I felt met the bar of hardship based on what Shana had kind of laid out in the beginning. it and it may be worth Can you read those to me again? There are like five items I just for the hardship or the for the Yeah. And so I I'm just focusing on have we met that bar.

Um in my um the order as well I identify each criteria for designing variances and approval. So let me pull that up as well. Yeah, for those of you that's got your packet, it's on um I guess I don't see a page number up the top right. It's the last few pages. Um class three variance analysis. The criteria one is the proposed variance will not materially be not be material depre detrimental I can speak to the purpose of this code to any other applicable policies and standards or to any other properties in the same land use zone or vicin vicinity. Criteria two, a hardship to develop exists that is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstance related to the property over which the applicant has no control and that are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity. The use proposed will be will be the same as permitted under this code and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land. Existing physical and natural systems such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development occurred as specifically by the subject standard. The hardship is not self-imposed. The variance request is the minimum variance that would help alleviate the hardship. Those are the the the criteria in awarding a yes to class 3 variance from the planning commission level.

Right. Other comments. So I'll give you my thoughts. Um given the uh six possibilities for a variance. Uh I'm struggling with item number one and item number five. Uh item number one says the proposed variance will not be material detrimental detrimental to the purposes of the code. Uh and if you'll remember when we approved uh the small lot um criteria, the intent of the code was to provide affordable housing, not just density. Uh so obviously the density went up but the intent was to maintain uh an affordability and to do that that was the reason that the height was limited to 25 ft. Now on a small lot um the maximum coverage is 60% of the lot. So I think on this one the average was 2800 square foot give or take

20 25 to 28 if I go back. Okay. So on a 2800 square foot lot. So do you do you mean the minimum maximum of of what's allowed for small lot is 2500 to 3500? No. The average of the lot of these ones. Okay. Y was I think 2860 ft or something. 20 2864 and the the highest is 3,485.

Okay. All right. So, at the average of 2,800 with a 60% coverage, that's still a 1,700 foot house. Um, if you put a second story to that, we're back up to 3,400 for maximum size. That takes away the affordability, which was the intent of the code. So that's where I'm having serious heartburn with the request for the variance thoughts.

Okay. Can't argue with that. Yeah, I agree with you. Sorry, I said I agree with you. All right. So, I guess process-wise, um, do we want to include the variance within a single motion or do we want to go incrementally? I do have in the packet all of the seven options that you have uh at the end of my staff report, but I guess what I'm asking is I have that in there. If you want to approve the subdivision and deny the variance, it's option three.

Oh, okay. All right. Gotcha. If you'd like to approve the application and apply modifications to the draft order, but I think the fence would something that's already added in there that might unless you want to add more to that, I think it's covered. Approve all of it is the first option. Okay, got it. H7. Right. I knew it was in here. I saw it, but I It just got buried. Okay. All right. So, with that then, uh, as far as the subdivision itself, uh, you've heard my thoughts on the variance, unless you got more to talk about on that.

Uh, is there any concerns about the subdivision itself? I have none. Okay. Then with that, if we don't have any concerns as far as the subdivision, we've already talked about the fence. Um, is there anything else that you felt need to be added or talked about? Okay. And uh is anybody prepared to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the subdivision and deny the variance. I move that the planning commission approve the subdivision application S26-02 and deny the class 3 variance application VR26-01 and direct the staff to prepare a final order consistent with the commission's decision. Second. Okay, it's been motioned and seconded. Any other discussion? Okay, then all those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I.

And those opposed. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Uh, moving on. Commission business and comments. SDC committee.

Yes, the SDC committee. We are looking for a volunteer or maybe two volunteers. We are getting ready to uh do uh an update to both wastewater and storm drainage SDC's since we have new master plans. With that, we're going to look at methodology. We're going to look at the project list and set rates for the new SDC's and and where where we're headed in the future. Uh we've got uh three different uh consulting firms that we're looking at and have sent uh uh proposals out to for them to respond to. Uh I don't know the timing on it. Hopefully start it here this spring, but we would like to have at least one member of the planning commission on that committee, be a counselor on that committee, builder, contractor, uh and we're looking for a few other people. But I I like the different perspectives when we when we go into this so that we get a a view from everybody on that. So looking for a volunteer.

Don't jump all at once. We're thinking we can do it in six but and we're not going to completely change the methodology. What I want the consultant to do is look at our existing methodology. Last time this was done was 2004. Mhm. So, we need to look at the methodology, make sure it still uh meets requirements, and then from there, it's just a matter of getting our new projects into that SDC system and looking at, you know, what's growth, what and what those allocations will be and what the new rates would be daytime meetings. You'd get to see me. I mean, what more could you ask for? That's not a draw.

That's not a draw. Okay. I didn't think it would be. Yeah, now they're all back. Any volunteers? I will. Perfect. And if there's any good SDC piece and if there's anybody else I mean more than happy to have more the marrier to to look at it. So just let me know for probably the next six months. Is that what you said? Yeah, I think so. I think we can get it done. Yeah, we may depending on what the consultant schedule is, I may push it and try and get this thing done a little quicker if I can and not stretch it out, but it's just going to depend on what their time frame is. Mike, don't you want to do this with

Does it have to be daytime? Does it have to? They're daytime. They're usually daytime. Daytime like in person meetings. are. So, Microsoft Teams is not an option. I It would get really clunky to to bring in Yeah, I think you need to be there to participate. Maybe next time. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. There's a bunch of like trust exercises and all kinds of stuff. So,

think about it. I don't need to know an answer. Tina, if you'll do it, that'd be great. And if there is anybody else, send me an email. We'd love to have you on it. Um, like I said, the more the marrier. gives a little better perspective on this stuff. So, okay, that's all I got. All right, next meeting. Next is April um meeting um 18th. Um and we need to pick the chair and vice chair at the April meeting. So, he can't get to keep being chair and vice chair. Oh, the campaign the campaign starts.

So, need your your yard signs and I do have a quick question. So, since we approved the subdivision, does that mean they can't revert back to their prior subdivision? Now, uh there's a process, but I'd have to work with Trey. They'd have to withdraw and then the other one we haven't signed the order. I mean, there it doesn't go in effect right away. So, I'm sure there's legal stuff that I'll work with Trey. Um they can appeal as well. So they could withdraw and go back to the other and they could build 40 foot tall but it will be larger lots.

So small lot subdivisions are you guys have just experienced two backtoback meetings and this is part of the new housing production strategy that we are monitoring. So yeah, can you give us um insight into what's on the horizon?

Yes. Did you guys all um in the P in the packet that I sent out email is also a pending agenda table looking and projecting a few months out of what's coming up. So next month we have plan development for the college. Um one of we haven't done a plan development in a while. So let's Yes. And then we have another planned development the following month. So back to back of the concert homes tenatively if the TIA comes back in time. Um and then we have the minor stuff the election of the chair and the vice chair. We need to throw some training in there. Need to talk to Trey about that.

It's for you. But we need to train you, Trey. Yes. Yeah. So, um, I I try to keep that up to date. It's going to be constantly changing, but with such big projects coming, I want you to kind of see what's planning ahead. I mean, I'm trying to move them along quickly, but also space them out so we don't have two large projects at one one night. Okay. Anything else? All right. With that we