Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the March 5th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting starting at 7 o'clock in the morning. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda today, there are speaker request forms to the left of the dis. Please fill out the request with the number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated on that side of the room. At this time, we would also like to ask that if any members of the audience have cell phones or other electronic devices that you either turn it off or turn the ringer to silent. If you need to take a call, please step out to the hallway so the meeting is not disrupted. The public hearing on item number one, the approval of the February 19th, 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened.

I'll second. All right. Karen made the motion to approve and Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Yeah, I can see that. Item number two, and Karen Bowman's going to abstain from item number two on this zoning agenda.

So, good morning. Uh, item number two is to increase the amount of required parking to be provided or a variance request to increase the amount of parking to be provided by a shared parking facility from 50% up to 67%. Um it's to increase the walking distance to a shared parking facility from 300 ft to 533 feet and then to reduce the west front yard setback from 22 ft down to 19.57 ft. So the property is owned general commercial district. It's addressed as 2420 uh Mount Rushmore Road. Uh the applicant has purchased this property and is intending to remove the existing gas station and car wash and redevelop this property with a drive-through coffee stand uh named 7 Brew. So the future land use is mixeduse commercial. This will be the second seven Brew location in the city. The first one is located at 507 North Campbell Street and which was opened in October of 2023. And this property is located adjacent to Mount Rushmore Road, which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. The applicant is currently working on a traffic report for this redevelopment, but that traffic report has not been finalized. So any traffic requirements are going to be addressed uh through the building permit application, which is ongoing at this point. So this is the proposed floor plan. Uh the coffee shop, so the coffee shop uh and the detached storage building. There's not going to be any customer seating and three parking spaces are required for the employees. And then this is the proposed site plan. Uh two of the three required parking spaces are going to be leased from the north adjacent property uh which is owned and operated by uh Albertanos and a minimum of 50% of the parking has to be provided on site and the purpose of that requirement uh is to ensure that this site can function independently if that shared parking agreement is ever dissolved. So we've added a stipulation of approval that the existing lease agreement between 7B and Albertanos be

amended so that the SevenBrew is a party to that agreement. That way the city can ensure that a parking plan is in place for Seven Brew uh before that agreement would ever be dissolved which is one of the aspects to justify approval of this variance request and then that is going to be the this is an exhibit that shows the location of those lease stalls. Uh so this next variance is to increase the walking distance from 300 ft to 533 ft to those leased parking spaces. And the purpose of that 300 ft requirement generally is so that those leased off-site parking spaces, it's a reasonable extension of the primary use. And it also limits shared parking agreements to properties within close proximity to each other, which would be the purpose of that requirement. So those lease parking spaces are on the north side of Albertanos. They're shown in red. Uh they do appear to be a reasonable extension of the primary use which is Seven Brew. Um and there's a defined pedestrian path down Mount Rushmore Road and along Cleveland Street which would justify approval of this request. And then the last variance being requested is to reduce the west front yard setback from 22 ft down to 19.57 ft. Uh that's going to be to the edge of the drive-thru canopy. And the purpose of front yard setback requirements generally is so that we can maintain a uniform uniform street frontage along our commercial corridors. We can allow room for landscaping site amenities and then ultimately the future expansion of public infrastructure. So these are the proposed elevations and I've highlighted that canopy in question. Uh this site does have room there's sufficient room for landscaping. Um and it does not appear to detract from the character of this commercial area. So that would be an aspect to justify approval of this variance request. So this is looking at that existing gas station, existing Sinclair gas station and that's looking north on Mount Rushmore Road. That's looking south down Mount Mount

Rushmore Road. So this is from the northern end of the Al Albertanos parking lot and this is going to be the path that the employees are going to be taking um from those lease stalls to the primary building entrance of 7 Brew. And then this is looking east on Cleveland Street. All ingress and ingress um in and out of this site is going to occur at at this approach. There's not going to be access off Mount Rushman Road. This is looking west along Cleveland Street. And yeah, so staff is recommending uh is bringing forward this application without a recommendation today. If the zoning board of adjustment determines that the variance does not meet the approval criteria, they may choose to deny the request. So we've went over some of those aspects for the or justifications for approval. Uh the justifications for denial is there's not a special circumstance or condition that would warrant approval. Um such as existing building location, uh the lot size or topography. It's pretty standard commercial lot. And then the second the second reason would be that the zoning requirements do not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land. And then the third is it does not appear to be the minimum adjustment necessary. Tech technically that coffee stand could be reduced in size uh to comply with the zoning requirements. So with that I'll stand by for any questions and the applicant and his consultant are in the audience as well. Thank you.

Thank you Mike Quasnney. Thank you Mr. Mr. Chair, um I've got quite a bit of familiarity with this corner. My concern is you got a lot of traffic coming out here. Uh during the rebuild of Mount Rushmore Road, I was able to make it to where there's a right hand, left-hand turn spot on here. Um it just seems like there's a lot of traffic and it sounds like we're doing a traffic uh study, but there's a lot of traffic that comes out here and sometimes that is backed up pretty good. And my concern is that we're putting a drive-th through coffee shop and and I'm assuming they're hoping that they're busy um in this location. I I don't know. I just I struggle. Well, I see some of these coffee shops, whether it's on Fifth Street or whether it's down the road, Mount Rushmore Road, we keep having problems with traffic when we put these in certain locations. We don't put them on a big enough lot and it creates problems. Now, I understand why they want them in a high, you know, location is is important, and this is high visibility, but you got traffic coming down off the the road from Mount Rushmore, from the the hospital, from the a lot of traffic coming down off that road. And that's just a terrible busy intersection. And I just struggle with uh the fact that we're going to put something with this high hopefully high a volume because I I hope it's successful uh in that spot and I think we're going to cause a lot a lot of trouble. Now, I I'm assuming we're only talking about

the parking. Um, but the parking um, as was brought up, the hopefully the restaurant right behind him that's giving them the parking is also successful. I know the one just behind them is fairly successful and so their parking is at a premium. And um that said, uh I struggle with some of the parking cuz even the restaurant behind him is doing uh where they're restricting parking. You know, we have a lot of handicap parking now. We have parking for curbside, we have parking for so we're taking away parking in a lot of cases anyhow. And so if the restaurant behind does the same thing, do they have enough parking? Um, I know that I leased out some parking when I ran the restaurant behind and, um, I was able to get a few parking spots. I know that Colonial House leases some parking down behind this area. Uh, so everybody is fighting for parking as we see see right now. So, I struggle with this location for a lot of reasons. Um, and I I just think we're creating, we discussed with some other restaurants, um, traffic and and I think this one's even a bigger problem than some of the restaurants we've talked recently about. So, um, that's my concern and, uh, I will probably be voting to deny this. Um, just so you know. Thanks, Mike. Vicki,

thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you make some great comments and and um I I want to remind you that while the variances today are not specific to traffic, they're specific to parking. Uh, and for a setback, the issue typically is with any of the restaurants that have a drive up window is the stacking. Uh McDonald's, which I know you know very well, uh Mr. Quasny, it does from time to time stack out into Cleveland. I've been one of those cars sitting there thinking, I should just drive on by, but I'm going to get in line and take my turn until I can get on the property. If that should happen on this location, we would have some significant concerns with uh the impact on Mount Rushmore Road. I will say though uh that there is a seven brew on Campbell Street right now and I would assume and I would expect that the applicant will speak to this that with a second store uh a second facility that maybe that will help the uh stacking issues we're currently having out onto Campell Street at their um existing location. So these are hard. This is a vacant lot. It's level. you had one before you at the last meeting to grant variances when they potentially are overbuilding uh and needing to go off site for employee parking. Um, but at the end of the day, using traffic as the reason for denying it is somewhat problematic when we look at the criteria because even if they could provide all of the parking on site and if they uh did reduce the uh um size of the canopy, it would just be a building permit. We wouldn't see it before the zoning board of adjustment.

Thanks, Vicki. I'm going to hop in here that this graphic shows the no like the hatch no parking area. Why is that? I mean that seems like you could fit two spaces there pretty easily.

So, uh you cannot stack behind cars. Uh if you've gone to Dairy Queen on Campbell Street or Starbucks, um they will stack through those that are parked and then they can't get out until that window uh moves customers through. Um they're required to have seven stacking spaces behind the the window. So you cannot have parking there. However, and I was thinking about this last night, that hatched area, let's say that they should um have an opportunity to hire someone uh that needed ADA parking that could function as ADA parking for that employee because it may be too far to walk from the neighboring property. And I was thinking about that last night that we might want to make an exception to allow an ADA space there.

So even in the case of employee parking, which is I mean I hate to say this, but it's different than um guest parking. They're not allowed to tell their employees, "Hey, if somebody's behind you in the drive-thru, you just have to wait to get out." This is unique. There is no customer parking needed. No one can go inside the kiosk. Um, so the regulations are written that all stacking cannot impede any parking. Gotcha. But again, I think we could grant an exception for the ADA space.

Okay. Thank you, Eric Hikus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, your question was my question and then the comments that there really isn't any seating inside. It's strictly drive-thru. So, we've become kind of a drive-thru centric world, right? So, this is just drive-through patrons. Okay, that clears my question up, too. Thanks, Haven.

Thank you. Uh I noticed that there are two drive lanes. Uh quite a few of these that I'm familiar with uh don't have two drive lanes and the two drive lanes seem to create uh an issue with space and parking. Um I guess my concerns if you didn't have two drive lanes then there would be more of a stacking problem which could uh reach out into the street. Uh any comment on that aspect? Kale, do you want to address that as a agent for the applicant? Correct. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you identify yourself first?

My name is Kale Magnibbo, Long Branch Civil Engineering. I represent the petitioner on this matter. The petitioner is actually in the audience tonight, so he can address any of your additional concerns. But yeah, and I appreciate the work we that we and the interaction we have with Tanner in discussing this layout. um what you see are the two stacking lanes in the outside lane. If you're required to have seven cars in the queue, there's in excess of the seven in the queue even with you in as it's presented now. So our our goal ultimately in the seven brew locations is to have two stacking lanes to get more of the cars on site versus a single lane. If we were to just have a single lane, outside lane, we'd be able to meet all the stacking and have the on-site parking. But what you have in a drive-through coffee shop is need for stacking and queue, not so much employee parking. That's why in our discussion and interaction, we talked about how, you know, our outside Q technically meets the ordinance with both with three on-site stalls. You eliminate the two on-site stalls and we meet the or we exceed the ordinance in stacking. 14 would be the number that would have to happen beyond the immediate service window and we're in excess of the 14 right now. Is that Thank you. I just a comment that's kind of what I was seeing on this is there's tough question here existing gas station that canopy is probably way closer than 19 ft to the property line. Um should could this canopy be 2 feet to the east? Probably. I I mean who knows?

Could they have a single lane with enough stacking to have two more parking spaces on this property? Yeah, I think that would probably be a bigger problem for the street, but it would be a building permit. So, I I mean, this is a really tough one to um weigh those two things because something that follows our written ordinance is maybe not the best answer for this lot. Anyway, any other questions, comments? Mike Quasnney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I think they have a great design. I I think the del the two stacks, the two drive-throughs lanes are a great idea. I will comment on the behind the divider there. They will be lucky to have those people stack up side by side. Uh if you watch I happen to have again firsthand knowledge of this. People don't like to do that. Uh they they they will be a single lane until they get to the point where they have to divide uh most of the time. Now sometimes it won't appear. So, I I don't know if it stacks them out to the street. I don't know what um I I think it's a great idea.

I just am really concerned with this corner. Um I think it's a great corner for visibility. I there there's a lot of great things about it, but at the same time, I just think it's it's going to uh you're going to see Cleveland Street with a lot of problems, which then lead to Mount Rushmore Road Street having a lot of problems. And and again, I I I must we're not really allowed to discuss that because we're talking about parking. Um, in a way we're not loud, but I I think we're creating problems in our community with some of this stuff. That is just a concern for me. I I I just really struggle with it. Um, they are not going to double stack before the drive-thru there before they have to. It's just not going to happen most of the time. So, just some input.

Thanks, Mike. Vince. Oh, thank you, Chair. Uh, will the restaurant have a walk up service if you wanted to walk up and order something once you're at the mic? Just identify yourself for our records. I'm Max Feifer and I'm the applicant and yes, you do have the ability to walk up, but we probably in our other existing locations maybe see it once a month. I mean, it's just not kind of the kind I mean, with nobody be able to go inside, every once in a while, like an ambulance or something might, you know, not be able to fit under a canopy and they might walk in, but it's very, very rare. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yep.

Mike, Mr. Chair, on that, Vince, that was a great comment. I I could see there being more walk up uh for a couple reasons. There's a hotel across the street, a couple of them. Um there is uh uh apartment buildings just down the street. Um there's a motel right across uh from the McDonald's. So I could see more walk up possibility to this um location. And if the drive-thru is busy, I could also see parking right next in the parking lot and then walk up because I can save time. So walk up. I could see that being more here than maybe another location that doesn't have the parking that again are are we causing problems with this? I I I don't know.

Eric Hikus.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh the last meeting we had, we used the term traffic armageddon. I thought that was pretty funny. Um that is always an issue. I think we're having issues, but since and all this is a great conversation, but since the items we're being asked for here are a parking and a setback variance. I know we've had a really good conversation about stacking and flow, but let's let's let's focus on the variances that we're looking at. So, I'm going to throw up a motion to approve the variances. the two being the parking amount with the condition that the that there is another site um and then the the setback distance for the canopy. So um I'm doing this without bias. Thanks.

Second. All right. Eric Iikus made the motion to approve the variancees variances with the stipulations listed. Mr. Chair Vicki,

um the motion maker will have to site criteria for granting those variances and um I think that potentially uh including some language about that uh this will uh have minimal impact because it's employee parking only and that the canopy is not a solid wall and so it too will have a minimum impact on Mount Rushmore Road, but we've got to lean into one of those five criteria. Sorry.

I'll cite the said criteria mentioned by the planning director. All right. And Jeff, I think you seconded that. Does that work for the second on the motion? Okay. All right. Haven, discussion on the motion. I note that uh in the recommendations it it says if the zoning u um board of adjustments determines that u and I I guess I my memory doesn't serve me very clearly u in other words the the department really hasn't made a a recommendation on this and is that the normal process Mr. SH

Vicki.

So, uh, we learn as we go and typically when it's a vacant lot and it's level and someone's coming in to develop it and they need it, uh, variances, those are not um those are not supported. That is not the minimum adjustment necessary. Reasonable use of the property is not being denied. But we learn and uh we uh took heed of the discussion at your last zoning board of adjustment meeting and where you landed on very similar requests. And so we just wanted to lay out the criteria for you and give you your options so that you could number one potentially see both sides and two um be consistent in your actions because remember these do not get appealed to city council. These get appealed to a circuit court of law. So uh we need to be very careful always citing criteria and creating a consistency in our actions.

Mike, thank you Mr. Chair. Not to drag this on the traffic study. Can you explain what's what's going to happen with that, Vicki, please? So, uh, as a part of, uh, the building permit, that is going to just be a traffic report. It's not going to be a full study. Um, that will be submitted and, uh, public works will look at that. Their traffic engineer will review it. Um, and then depending upon what impact on Cleveland it could potentially show, we would then have an opportunity to visit with the applicants or if there's any additional improvements needed to accommodate that impact on Cleveland.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other comments or questions on the motion? The motion on the floor is to approve the variances. All those in favor then please say I. I. Any opposed? I. All right. The variances are passed with Mike Quasnney voting against and Karen abstaining.

All right. That's our only uh major agenda item on zoning board of adjustment. I'd look for a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. All right. Vince made the motion and Eric Hikis seconded his motion to adjurnn. Yeah. All right. Uh all those in favor of adjournment of zoning board of adjustment, please say I.

I. Any opposed? That takes us to the Rapid City Planning Commission meeting for March 5th, 2026 starting at 7:27 in the morning. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the planning commission agenda, please grab a speaker request form on the left side of the room, fill it out with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to, and hand it to the staff seated on that side of the room. Items 1 through 4 have been placed on the consent calendar today and may be approved as a group. Action will be taken on all consent items in accordance with staff's recommendation by a single vote. Any item may be removed from the consent calendar by any planning commissioner, staff member, or audience member for separate consideration. At this time, the findings of the planning commission are recommendations to the city council. The city council will make the final decision. Are there any items one through four that staff would like removed?

No, thank you. Are there any items one through four that any planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration? And are there any items one through four that any audience member would like removed for separate consideration? At this time, the chair would then entertain a motion to approve items 1 through 4 in accordance with staff's recommendation. Motion to approve items one through four in accordance with the staff's recommendations. All right. Vince made the motion to approve those items. Is there a second? Alicia seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I.

I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number five.

All right. Item number five before you. This is a conditional use permit request to allow an oversized garage. This is at property located at 4411 Tall Grass Trail. This property is currently zoned Park Forest District with a future land use of lowdensity neighborhood and access to this property is off Tall Grass Trail which is a culde-sac street um classified as a local street. What the applicant is proposing to construct here is they are proposing to construct a single family dwelling with an attached garage that measures approximately 1,350 ft² and also a detached um garage that measures approximately 1,700 square ft. Um both of those garages will be four stall garages. Um as you can see the detached garage sits in front of the house. It sits about 45 ft in front of the house. Um there is some topography on this property. This property is relatively flat for about the first 200 f feet and then it slopes pretty steeply downhill um descending about 175 ft to the south side of this property. This property is just a little shy of 8 acres in size. So this is a large um estate lot. Um this gives you a little bit clearer view of where that detached garage is going to sit and where this house is going to sit. So when we are looking at sizes of garage space, we are looking at a cumulative total of garage space. If it exceeds 1500 square ft or 30% of the gross square footage of the dwelling, um it is classified as an oversized garage. This dwelling um is over 5,000 square ft. So the cumulative garage space on this property is about 16 1,624 ft. That would be allowed. Between these two garages, they're at about 3 50 square ft. Um, so this is a request to allow an oversized garage that

exceeds that garage allowance by about 87%. Um, one of the things that we look at when we're looking at oversized garages is we are looking at placement on the property. Historically, the planning commission has required that oversized garages be recessed behind a dwelling um in an effort to try to make sure that the oversized garage is not dominant on the property from the street view and also that it is somewhat shielded from the neighboring properties. So, in this regard, the detached garage, which is technically classified as the oversized garage, sits in front of the dwelling for a few different reasons. Um, number one, the topography on the property. If they were to push that garage further south, the applicant has said that that would require some additional grading and some sight stabilization and also some retaining walls um to try to um keep that area of the detached garage stabilized. Um the other reason is that this property um Rapid City sewer and um Rapid City sewer, excuse me, is not available to this property. So they are having to um put in a private septic system which sits right here. Um so in an effort to try to make sure that there's adequate distance between that detached garage and this septic system um they are proposing that this garage be in front of the house. Um the other thing that they are doing um with regard to this is there are some existing trees on the front of that property um that will somewhat shield um the detached garage from the street view and also the east abuing properties. Um the only caveat to that is there is no screening on the west side of the property. The west property is currently undeveloped, the west abudding property, but that property when it gets developed in the future, we'll be able to have a pretty clear view of this detached garage. Um,

I do want to show you one thing that they have done um with regard to the So here on these floor plans, you can see this is the attached fourcar garage and then this is the detached fourcar garage. Um couple things that they have done with this as well is they have positioned the detached garage so that it is sideloading. Um so it faces the west. It does not directly face the street. Um another thing that they have done is they have put like an architectural let me get to the rendering. This architectural um they call it a wing wall. Um so this long architectural wall here this is the detached garage that sits behind it and this is the house over here. Um this is just kind of a rendering. So, they're using this wall as an additional screening method um to try to mitigate some of that street view impact. Um that wall will not necessarily mitigate the visual impact from the adjacent residential properties to the east. Um and that is something that staff did take into consideration when we were looking at this as well. So, here's a couple pictures of this property right now. So, this is looking from Tall Grass Trail. So you can see it's pretty flat in this area where this would be developed and then right past this little these trees right here um it drops off pretty significantly. Um there's another picture looking a little further to the west. So this is looking at the east abuing residential properties. You can see that this is a house right here in between these trees. Um there's also some houses further down um in these trees, but they'd be a little bit more shielded. Here's uh verification that they posted their notice. This is how Tall Grass Trail looks. So, like I said, this is at the end of a Culdeac Street. I do also want to point out that there is a um single family dwelling currently being

constructed on this property over here. I didn't take pictures of it that day cuz they were out there actively working. Um but that house does also include an oversized garage. However, in that case, that oversized garage is an attached garage. Um, it's a two-story garage. You may remember seeing it. It was just approved last year. It's a two-story garage. Um, smaller in size than the one that's being proposed with this request and five total stalls versus eight total stalls. So, I did want to point that out because there are some differences that we did look at. Um, ultimately staff is putting this forward to you with no recommendation as well. um based on the fact that there are mitigation efforts that they are trying to do to um alleviate some of the impacts of the proposed oversized garage, but there are also factors with consideration of how large this garage is and then also sitting in front of the dwelling. Um so it will be primarily dominant um from the street view and also the potential impact to the east abuing residential properties. So I will stand for any questions. The applicant is also um in the audience as well.

Thank you, Eric Hikus. Like to Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we see the site plan, please? Let me get to it. There you go.

Frankly, I like it. I think dividing the the large amount of parking into two structures. This is a this is a very wellthoughtout plan. It kind of looks like the old motor court carriage house of of the English countryside. Um, I think there is the possibility of screening it to the west with landscaping if needed. Is that a is that a possibility? If needed to add to the screen this element to the west, they could add landscaping in the future. Is that I guess that's a question for the applicant. So,

once you're up, can you identify yourself? Yep. Uh morning everybody. I'm Brandon Watts from Aspect Architecture. Thanks for your time. U so yes, we did look at and I think part of the landscape plan is to uh put some trees on the west side of the property uh to shield the uh the adjacent lot. Um as well, we've kind of taken an approach to really lowlying roof lines for all of the the roof forms. Um the app the the lot owner is very very um gracious that he likes his all of his neighbors and wants to work with them. So has kind of all their blessing and and really their input on if we do a very lowlying roof line. Um the view around here is obviously magnificent. So not obstructing their view from their dining room, living room, bedroom uh was a big part of the this design itself. Um so yeah, that's a a very good question and kind of part of the the overall design process. So

thank you Brandon. Yep. Uh the other thing I like about the project is the side loading aspect of the garages. We we all are very familiar with driving up to the McMansions of the world with the big massive garage for voting you as you arrive. So I think the way that this has been handled is pretty comprehensive. So yeah, I think I'm going to be supporting it. Thank you.

I just might add one thing, too. Um something worth thinking about was actually uh the trash on the site. like how does he on a on a weekly basis remove trash from the site from his house to his garage. Um so probably using his his accessory garage as where he's going to uh load and unload trash that he might take out to the street not having to walk a quarter mile every time he wants to take the garbage out is something that we were like how are we going to do that? So uh another reason why the the attached or the detached garage is where it is. So yeah. All right. Thanks Mike Qunny. Oops. Mr. Chair,

I I think it's a great design and I think Eric, you brought up a lot of good points that were whether the how the uh garage doors are facing, etc. I mean, uh it's a great design. I I I'm not sure in looking this over, I didn't see anything. Um commercial parking, they are not allowed any commercial vehicles. Is that correct? Same same rules as everywhere, right? One one commercial truck allowed per house or something like that, Vicki.

You can have one commercial vehicle, but it has to still be of a minimum size. Um, and it's in the ordinance. It tells you what those dimensions are of that vehicle. Okay. I I just may have missed that, but it I just wanted to make sure with this much garage space, it's almost like it could be turned into a commercial uh entity. Uh so, uh but I think it's a beautiful design. So, thank you, Mike. You bring up a good Sorry, Vicki, you bring up a good point. Um I did forget to mention he did indicate that this detached garage would be used to store collectible cars. So, just throwing that out there. Vicki.

So unfortunately we do not have an aerial that is um zoomed in to show the impact on the properties adjacent to tall grass. Uh the one of the things that I I think was mentioned earlier is the to asssure that there is buffering but more importantly I think those property owners are wanting their views to be maintained. So, I appreciate that the comment was made today that they worked with those property owners and try to design the the detached garage so that those that are currently living there still have maintain the majority of the view that they are familiar with or they're currently enjoying. Um, so I'm not sure if we would want any additional trees. I think that would just further block the view

as a suggestion. Haven. Uh, that was my concern on the adjacent properties. I assume that the properties adjacent to this lot would get notice of this application. Correct.

So that would include the lots there on Carriage Hills Drive that are immediately adjoining. And I did notice from the the photos it is a flat terrain behind their houses. So, they would have a very good view, I think, of the of all the improvements on this lot. Uh, but I guess obviously there's been no adverse comments or no comments either way, I guess, from the adjacent lot owners. That that's what I would understand. Correct. Yep. I have not heard.

Kelly, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick buffering, I guess, design question on the rendering. uh it shows that stone wall roughly perpendicular to the radius driveway but on the site plan by my eye it shows that stone wall parallel to the radius driveway I mean people pulling into that culde-sac that would affect sight lines by 90 degrees so can you clarify which direction that that wall actually runs versus the site plan and the rendering yeah would you go back to the site just make sure we don't have who there you go page four yeah

yep so this this stone wall if you see the detached garage uh north there. It runs um Yep. Exactly. That that's that stone wall you're seeing going east west. Um so that rendering is taken right from the approach to Oh, so it's buted up to the edge of the building, right? Okay. Gotcha. Thanks. Yep. Kelly, you might you you might be looking at there's a radius one to the um top of what they're saying. Is that like a shorter landscaping area? Um,

yep. Yeah, we're right there. So, the rendering is a little bit outdated from the site plan where uh this site plan is showing kind of some some gravel swailes where the the actual rendering doesn't quite show those yet. Um, but the retaining wall right where the cursor is uh does remain as part of the garage and the shielding function. Um, so once we got once we update it all, we get a a nice good cohesive rendering, but uh don't quite show the that smaller stone is I can't read the dimensions on it. It's kind of blurry, but it says max height stone wall. Just a little decorative wall that runs parallel.

Yep. Yep. Correct. We kind of identified late that we needed those just to hold the grades coming down the driveway. Um so there's a little bit of a a stone wall that will have likely following the driveway that that tears down from I think from 3 feet down to zero once it once it actually hits the grade. Um so yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Good question. Kelly Alicia.

Whoops. I lost you. Thank you, chair. Um, I think, uh, while it doesn't necessarily seem like the minimum adjustment necessary, that it's not injurious to the neighborhood and actually doing some of these elements that are unusual with the garage in front. Um, I think with the low profile and setting the house back creates view lines for more neighbors. So, I think some of the moves you've done, um, probably improve the neighborhood. Additionally, I think if people have the storage and trash and the cars outside the yard, um, you know, they might be more visible to neighbors than the solution that you came up with with the clients. So, I think that it makes sense to grant this variance.

Could you go back to the rendering? I think I know the answer to this question, but the I'm just going to be mean. the warehouses shown to the on the other property. That's just part of the rendering, but not anything planned, right? Yep. It's probably where we would site a house if we own that lot. So, we're trying to um this is actually with the lot owner saying this is probably where we would put a house if we were to design one here uh to consider their views out. Um so, no, there's there's no current design uh for that lot.

I appreciate that. That's a nice way to design All right. Anything else from the commission? Possibly a motion. Make a motion to approve. All right. Vince made the motion to approve item number five with the stipulation. With stipulation and Karen seconded that motion. Any discussion on that motion to approve? All those in favor, please say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. That takes us to the end of the regular agenda. We'll call it any staff items today. Vicki,

just wanted to let you guys know that we will be bringing forward um amendments to the future land use plan and it will be comprehensive of the city as a total. We're going to go out into neighborhoods, meet with the uh the citizens of the community, see what's working, what's not working, and and we're we see our our majority growth coming forward and ensuring that we are preserving that neighborhood commercial in areas where it's needed. So, uh stay tuned. I I hope that some of you can join us. This will be going on throughout the year. uh and hopefully by the end of the year we'll bring forward a brand spanking new future land use plan.

So this was one of the first things I did way back when I joined the planning commission. Are we going to separate it into neighborhoods again and take comment from particular parts of the city and neighborhoods? Absolutely. All right, that's fun. I I enjoy doing that. Haven.

Uh I was wondering if that uh plan would include u things like um septic. A little surprised that some uh or maybe my question is obviously there must be some properties in the city that are not um uh hooked up to the city sewer. And I know there's been a um an issue that's been raised over the last several years about septics in in and around the city. Uh and we had a property today that was uh it was required to have a its own septic system. I don't know any comments on that and how that would fit into the your proposed plan.

That's a tough one, Vicki. Go for Well, whenever we're putting together our plans, we layer them on top of each other. So, when we're looking at land use, we're looking at where do we have water and sewer and where do the uh uh property owners have private facilities. We look at drainage, we look at access, all of that gets incorporated into it. So, the the short answer is absolutely. um in areas such as this. We've got other areas on the west side of town um that are on private septic as well and uh that mandates how large the lots have to be um because to have those on-site services there are state requirements for that. So, it is a layered approach. Uh, and at the end of the day, I I think that um we're looking for safety and uh ensuring that those that live in these neighborhoods have an enjoyable uh quality of life. I assume that those uh lots on Carriage Hills Drive, which would be adjacent to this one property that was before us today, have city sewer. And I guess maybe then the question is uh it seems like a a fairly small uh problem to extend that into this property into the property adjacent to the west. Todd, you're on the I got to find you though.

Yeah, the nearest sewer is actually close to Corral Drive school. There is no sewer up on Carriage Hills, so those houses that are adjacent to it also are on septics.

All right, Eric Hikus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I need to do a better job of citing criteria. It's just given. Um I I will do better. Um it's in the staff report. It's right there. I I should do better. Um I'm going to try to be a little bit more comprehensive next time I make a motion. Thank you. I I appreciate the directors bailing me out a couple times on this. Thank you. All right. Anything else from the commission? Thank you. Okay. Karen made the motion to adjurnn. Vince seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say I.

I. All right. We are adjourned as of 7:49.

I think the top side has water, but no. Maybe one of the reasons when they ran the back side of their hills water up the