Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e good to go good gave to me to come to order please pledge allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all well secretary please call the role Young is absent Carol here fed here Marl here G here he is absent and the fort's absent staff member of President is Ain um do I have a motion to approve the agenda I'll move to approve as distributed Mr chair second all those in favor I oppos motion passes is there a motion to approve the minutes for January 8th move second all those in favor is it January 8th or February 12th what's the date on the says January 8 oh these are the

draft minutes you're right I'm sorry Mr chairman I have no no uh no objection to the motion just want to make sure we're approving the the the correct date no is there a motion to approve the minutes as of February 12th second all those in favor I oppos motion passes under the open meetings act any Citizen May Come forward at this time and make comments person's requested but not required to State their name and address for the record comments will be limited to three person seeing no one we'll move on public hearing 25-06 ordinance number 876 and ordinance to REM to amend section 2.01 rule applying to text section 2.02 definitions a through b section 2.04 definitions F through K section 2.07 definitions s through W of article two appendix a and section 5.03 accessory structures of Article Five in appendex a of the city of Seline zoning ordinance Mr Atkins so by the time we were putting this together right before we sent it out I realized that the public hearing that was sent out was incorrect um at the time it wasn't these suppor its amendments just GRE and grew and grew and so it was originally only supposed to be for 5.03 then all these other sections were put in so um it's my belief that I would withdraw this from consideration this evening we've already submitted a um another public hearing for the first meeting in

March so no decisions made to in April or April yes sorry so since it was the public hearing was we still had to have the meeting which is good because there's a lot to discuss in here so no decisions will be made but we'll still go through it so excuse me this started out with uh expanding the table in section 5.03 for uh accessory structures uh Beyond uh what was it 16 I can't find my page excuse me for properties over 12,000 Square fet just to keep it consistent and the everything was increased by 90 Square ft uh beyond that so the larger the parcel they can have a larger of an accessory structure um then it went through and was looking at definitions and this goes back a few years when accessory buildings were considered were in one category and garages were in another so it since been Consolidated to accessory buildings and structures but then there's language throughout that interwove the two and so the intent is to eliminate any confusion the difference between accessory building and accessory structure they are interchangeable but I just wanted to be more concise so anything that would be detached from the primary building would be an accessory structure and that includes sheds garages green houses pools um I put the uh solar panels in there also ground mounted solar panels uh in the

definitions and touched on uh roof mounted solar panels as well because that's something that's coming up and some historic districts is a little bit different than what it would be in the normal districts uh also changed uh the definition of the height of the building all other buildings that don't have the standard um gable roof uh was to the highest point of the building or structure and so we just made it consistent across the board the highest point of any building or accessory structure is to the highest point so it was have distance between the tile the wall and the peak and definitions for solar collections there so for Section 5.03 as I mentioned uh just made it a little more uh little easier to understand and to differentiate between principal building and an accessory structure uh that it's calculated into the um black coverage area raise the height of accessory buildings across the board to 15 ft um and then put a a qualifier in there for anything that is in the r three District or two District I believe that's going to be 24 ft the intent behind that was if somebody wanted to put an accessory dwell in unit in one on the second floor of an accessory structure but that wasn't noted in here so the way that we're in its reads now if somebody in that specific District

wanted to build an accessory structure 24 ft they could so now if they want to one that's 24 ft in height in a new building um the accessory dwelling unit has to be built at the same time so they otherwise they could only do the standard height of 15 ft increase the setbacks from 3T to 5 ft for the side and rear yard uh T increase the distance between any accessory structure or between accessory structures or uh accessory buildings to 10 ft that was 8 ft the purpose behind increasing it from 3 to 5 feet from sight rear lot lines it's you may have one an existing building at 3 feet um that with no delineation between properties and if a neighbor puts a fence in there that leaves you a very narrow uh space to get through there uh hopefully increasing at the 5 ft might avoid any issues between Neighbors being on properties other people's property if they have to do maintenance to it mowing over there um I've seen some pretty weird things in the past with structures that are close to lot lines and and neighbors this will put some into non-conformance um in the event of um destruction or fire the foundation's still in good condition or if it's not destroyed Beyond a certain percentage of the overall structure they can rebuild in the same place uh so any new building coming in would need to be

at least 5T from sight and rear and 10 ft from uh all other buildings further down there is uh for Corner lots that it can't be on the secondary front yard the non addressed front yard it can't be Beyond the lot line or the front yard lot line and uh has to be facing that road they could have a secondary driveway and then going back to the adus in the public hearing that was put out uh i' like to address some other um expand on that section A little bit more with adus and how they can be utilized and uh different restrictions that could be that could go in there swimming pools um just Consolidated that and then added a section in there for the solar panels uh mostly ground mounted and I believe that is all for this section yes that's it are there any questions more on uh process and procedure um I I guess a request Mr aen um since this was an issue that was at least in part brought forward by um uh Mr Schneider can we make sure that we are proactively communicating with him and his family that this item will be reconsidered you said at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting which should be the April it should be April 9th April 9th correct yes yes I will reach out to them I have a question if um a property owner wants to build um

within or I'm sorry less than 5T and he has the neighbors okay is that permissible no they would have to get a variance at that point if it's if it's a new build and they want to go 3 feet um under the current one they could right if this is adopted that would have to be 5 ft from the property line why wouldn't just a neighbor's uh okay be good enough because it's a new ordinance and they' have to go in front of the zoning board to get permission to do that it's that's not a a discretionary or a decision we can make administra any more than we could for uh somebody want to put a house a little bit closer to the side Lot line just seems like for accessory structures especially typically they closer to the lot line and uh 5 ft seems um kind of owner some of these are sort of dictated by um fire codes and building codes too aren't they yeah yeah I I I don't recall what the fire code is 8 ft is in my head and right now with if you have two that are on separate lots that are only six feet apart it doesn't meet the fire coat one of the things I was talking with Chris was about my concern about creating a lot of non-conforming concerns because we have buildings that were built with those three-foot setbacks and such the issue ends up being what should drive it is it building codes and safety or is it you know how do we want to handle this because even the other issu is going to come up is when we start talking about density concerns and issues how do you start building things closer but the primary concern on this one was partly the fire because we had some

issues where went to zba and they had to get variances when zba granted some variances that they shouldn't have granted because there were non-conforming uses which were created by the homeowner that were being continued as non-conforming uses after they had already removed it and so when you get into this it's like when should a variant comply and in this situation for the most part it's going to be that issue if a building gets burned down and then it's 3 ft from the lot line and you can't move it or recess it that's when a variance should apply to prove that hardship and everything just asking a neighbor that I want to build it close to your thing isn't really a hardship it's it's been determined by the community that we have these standards so um for me one of the things on this too was we're increasing the height and I think what was the other one oh the definition of what structures are because we used to break out carports and garages so now we're just basically identifying everything as an auxiliary structure corre right the one question I had is what in terms of an auxiliary structure is allowable without necessarily trigging some of this type of stuff so if I want to put up a shed under a certain size if it's under 200 square fet then you wouldn't get a you wouldn't building code or excuse me building permit application would not be required they would still have to meet the setbacks um be it 3et or five feet and generally that would be as if somebody filed a complaint or a concern or you discovered it right but if I mean if if one one party wants to build it within 3 ft and there's nothing on the other side then there shouldn't be any reason not to allow that it it just seems that we're we're adding a lot of U restrictions on especially people that own small

Lots yeah the two feet is not going to make a break something like that I mean the minimum the smallest lot width is 60 ft so to add two feet to that setback is not going to uh be a a big hindrance to anything actually I own two properties with 60 feet and 2 feet is a big hind so I can tell you that is not that's not the case I guess it depends on how big the structures you want to put up to and what it's going to be used for you know if if there's I can't come up with any examples but it suggestion just for safety is is what it comes down to then once we have if somebody wants to put in a um accessory ding unit one of these I'm going to propose that the set bag be even greater no I would no I would definitely agree to that yeah but that doesn't necessarily mean I mean you could put an accessory dwelling unit in a one that's 15 ft tall um I don't know that anybody would want that 3 ft from their property line especially if it's in all right uh any more further comment Mr aen do you want um do you want us to convene the public hearing and then move to postpone or what is your recommendation about the process tonight this public hearing will essentially just die since it was the application since it's by the city is uh withdrawn because the uh public hearing that went out for tonight's meeting was only specific to 5.03 not the

definitions and um other sections that were expanded on so I is the motion to acknowledge the receipt then Mo to postpone consideration till our next regular meeting on April 9th be a postponement or anything it would just die okay and I I kind of Dan and I went back and forth because I I don't want a motion to deny because then I I don't know what that if it would have any repercussions for the next meeting since it was already denied once so it's just kind of the public hearing was put out there get a very large crowd tonight so will there be a different memo so then we could acknowledge this one tonight and then you'll produce a new one that we can yes because next one have the accessory dwelling so we can basically end it with acknowledging your memo and then move to um other business yeah be uh because the item was discussed make sure it's listed on the future agenda as unfinished business there's going to be another in there I guess we could break them out oh okay if there's going to be another it's not if there's going to be another section I think you could probably just well it actually has to have a public hearing doesn't it so it'll be a whole new memo with new information in it so so it just be a new new public okay I I withdraw so I'll move to acknowledge receipt of the report dated March 21st I'll second all those in favor I oppos motion passes Mr chairman noting uh that there's no additional uh action that's that's requested required or recommended and there's no discussion items I would move to excuse the absences of chairperson young and then at llarge members haveon

La for second all those in favor I I opposed motion passes any other business uh couple items uh find them here just to think about I might bring it for discussion at the next meeting uh the adus we talked about a little bit but then structures um those brought up that you know a lot of portable tents are being used softsided structures are being used for to um put vehicles in that is prohibited um and we'll get our zoning compliance officer on that uh prohibited for the storage for storage or vehicle parking um they are permitted for graduation parties or parties in general for up to 72 hours and then another one is for yard use uh right now the in the this situation came up earlier this week or last week I I don't recall um driveway width and if there's setbacks for driveways right now the maximum width of a driveway you can have a residential property is 27 ft that's very wide you can fit yeah four cars acoss that on yeah um and there is no setback distance from property lines for driveway so now um you're looking at issues with runoff and where's that runoff going to go if it's right at the property line knowingly dispersing water onto a

neighboring property um I don't know if it's illegal but it's highly pred upon especially where there're smaller lots and they're offet so I'm going to suggest uh um reducing the driveway width to 20 or 22 feet that way you can still put two cars side by side if necessary and have enough room to get out with a 5 foot set back from property lines get place um to uh the W the runoff sorry to go so know that you'll be proposing those as discussion items or action items on April 7 those will be discussion items got a little more research to do on them see um Chris can we add to that discussion one of the things we've been talking about for the last couple years both Brian and myself are site plan reviews making sure that compliance is happening with the site plans and we've had so much back and forth either from legal supposedly legal opinion and such and you know you brought up even examples which is detention ponds do they need fences or don't they need fences and some of that stuff so if we could talk about that and what we can do in terms of progressing forward with whatever we need to get that under under viw yeah I still haven't found anything about the development we spoke about versus the current development um it it it would have to come down to the the slope the grade is and the depth I mean we're talking at Maple Oaks I can't remember it was three or four ft deep versus the one now that's 9 ft deep and a lot smaller with no fence around with Maple Oaks and I can't find anything I remember having the discussion but

I I don't think that was um something that was required to put a fence around that uh whereas down on at the Heritage there isn't one and that's right close to the road so um I need to speak with the engineering find out if there is some rule for that or if there's a way we can legally do that I don't know why we wouldn't be able to I mean we make people fence outdoor storage so and that's just Statics versus something that could be life-threatening so we also required around pools and things too so this this gets set but but I mean for me that's an example of one of the things that Landscaping um I think there were other things that are on sites that we know have not been complied with fences that kind of stuff that needs to be double checked to make sure they're complying with it since Mr gebau brought it up um one uh um uh bit of lwh hanging fruit if you will um and I've messaged on this before is the fence in front of CBS um so if you um drive along the city's Eastern Corridor um Mr gebau of course made inference to this which is um a number of developments were required to put Gateway features um when they were um when the projects were planned and executed um and if you drive along um us2 um east of of uh an arbor Street or Maple you see that a lot of the properties are actually very wellmaintained with nice fencing uh the exception being um CVS which hasn't put a coat of paint on that fence in several years okay um and that's a requirement of their site plane site plan is to maintain uh an appropriate um safe aesthetically appealing um so I think your predecessor had sent one commun to them um maybe um in the late spring early summer of of 20124 but

that that ought to be done again okay um all right I'll review that see if I can't find any documentation uh otherwise we can send the code compliance officer out there and have him it's a pretty simple code of paint make a world of difference and just one last item um we talked about this a little bit before is an update on the abandoned car wash and what we need to do with that one because it sounds like we just need to take a couple steps I spoke with our uh building inspector about this last late last week and um directed him to move forward with condemning it okay he was going to reach out the consultants and get the process I spoke with the inter city manager about it this morning as if you have any more tangible updates on that particular issue would be beneficial not only to share it with this group but also planning or uh city council yeah uh actually we sent our code guy out last week and um within minutes of him driving the owner showed up so I don't know if that was coincidence or not um local yeah and it was relay to him that there was problems with funding and they're looking into different sources right now I'm not telling you anything we haven't heard for the past number of years yeah so and uh be moving forward and that's when I said let's condemn it sure remember hearing that about six years ago seven years ago

hearing it for 20 years y two decades Coen the other one why you um the update we're moving forward on the thorn Crest um actions too yep yes Thorn Crest uh the it's been filed with the courts um and I got an email from the attorney yesterday or Monday stating that um we're just awaiting a court date now and the Miland who's under the same ownership as uh Thor Crest they got their court date for April 2nd I believe so there her hope is that we get the same same date after good Mr chairman if there's no additional items noting that we've excused the absence of our three abson colleagues I would move to adjourn this regular meeting at 7:26 second all those in favor me J