Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We are still waiting on Brent, I believe, Elliot. Let's see what's on Zoom. I guess he...

Do you want a temporary chair to get up and get going?

We can't. Have we ever elected a vice chair? No. Or is it just whoever I point to?

Whoever you point to. You're closest. Nominate you.

I've done it once before. It wasn't pretty, but we managed.

I thought there was an agenda.

Well, we've got four, so if you'd like to step up and share the meeting for us until if Brent shows up. It's 546.

We'll call the June 22nd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Let's see here. I'm going to Who's your name? I'm sorry. Rachel. Rachel. Okay. Rachel, can you call roll? Okay.

Oh, so should I say his name? Should I say your name last since you're now? Sure.

You can say Steiger last then.

Okay. Thompson. Here. Eaton. Samuelson. Here. Forrest.

Here.

Garrison. Hinders. Steiger.

Here. All right. Next, we have the approval of the minutes of the June 8th Commission meeting. Approval of the agenda. Oh, yeah. We do have the approval of the agenda for tonight. So I think everyone's received the email from Elliot. So are there any questions on the agenda? If not, can we just do an all in favor say aye?

I'll send us a motion to approve the agenda. Thank you, Jessica.

See, that's why. Now, can I get an all in favor say aye? Aye. Opposed? All right. Approval of agenda is complete. Now we'll move on to approve the minutes. Is there any questions on the minutes of the June 8th, 2026 commission meeting? If not, can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the June 8th meeting in a second?

Thompson motions.

Or still second? All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

All right.

I'd like to welcome the guests and public comment. If anyone has a public comment they'd like to share that's not on the agenda, you have three minutes to do so. We just ask you to state your name and address before you start. Is there anyone that would like to speak on a public comment that's not on the agenda today? If you're on Zoom, we'll ask you to do the same thing. OK. Move on to item six. This is a public hearing consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment, regulatory accessory structural reconstruction. And Luke, can you brief us on this, please?

I can, or Elliot, were you planning on doing it? We never talked about that before today.

Oh, hold on. I'm going to open the public hearing at 5.49 p.m.

So what we've got tonight is a zoning ordinance amendment regarding accessory structure reconstruction. You may recall in the past we've done some rezonings to the Founders District of some properties. We did that as a solution to folks that wanted to reconstruct a garage or if a garage or accessory structure happened to get know, demolished for some reason, to let them build it back in the same spot, especially garages that had current paving pads where they've been located. A lot of those spots were not compliant with the current zoning of being five feet off the property line. So Every time we did that, I think a question was brought up was, should we do a bigger change? And staff was kind of like, well, we're just going to fix it like this for now because it seemed to make sense at that point in time. Immediately after we got done doing the last one with the Norwalk-Knowles area, an older area west side of Highway 28, we had another request up in Lakewood for the same type of thing. And Elliot and I thought, well, there's got to be a better way to do this. So we dug into the code a little bit more and found some non-conforming sections that we could modify that would change this rule basically across the city. So the amendment's pretty simple. All it's doing is adding a new subsection B to our non-conforming uses and structures chapter. of the zoning ordinance. And basically that saying is, it's adding the structure was a detached garage. Give me one second. I'm going to pull up the full code language here. We didn't have that in the language there. So I'll be able to show you what the full code looked like. And then you can see we're basically just adding a new section there. So give me a second. So under 175A-16, nonconforming structures and site improvements, there's a second clause that says, should a structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of 60% or more of its replacement costs at the time of its destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. So if you take down a structure, you got to put it back up conforming to the current standard, right? We then give an exception and say that structures may be rebuilt with the same building line as the original structure if they meet certain criteria. Previously that said the structure was a one or two family residential structure and it was located at the time of destruction in an R1 or R2 district. So what this amendment does is it adds a new B to that and then moves B to C. So it'll say structure was one or two family residential structure. The structure was a detached garage. And the structure was located at a time of destruction in the R1 and R2 district. So what that'll do is allow someone to, when we say destruction and destroy, that can be intentionally tearing down your garage to build a new one. That destruction term is kind of all-encompassing. It's not just an act of God or some kind of accidental destruction. So what this does then is let those folks rebuild their garage on that same footprint and building line. They will, with new construction, have to meet other modern standards, primarily our building and fire codes. With a lot of our building and fire codes, we say you have to do a firewall if you're closer than 10 feet to a structure. That's why we have a five foot minimum setback for everything. That's two fives on a property equal to 10.

So that gets you away from that.

So in this scenario, somebody rebuilding their garage would still then have to give us plans, permits to demonstrate that they're following the current building code so that we can make sure we have those kind of life safety elements covered. But other than that, that's the gist of it. It's a rather simple amendment. I wish we would have thought of it a while back, but sometimes you just do the thing you've done before and it makes sense. So happy to take any questions.

Was there a thought of sheds in this situation as well?

We did think through sheds actually more than you might have thought. So on the permitting side, we treat sheds and garages differently. A shed caps out at 150 square feet. And so anything bigger than 150 square feet, even if you're using it for shed purposes or workshop purposes, we permit it like a garage, which means we want full building plans. We want to see everything that's going on in it. Sheds under that tend to be pre-constructed things. Not that you couldn't come in and do a stick built 150 square foot shed, but we don't see them that often. So they tend to be more mobile things, something that somebody brings in and sets down. So we didn't want to put a shed Back and allow that just because the trickiness of ensuring that it met the building and fire codes when, you know, if you can go to Menards and buy a shed kit and it basically brought and set on your property, you know, it seemed unreasonable to... make a lot of review of that scenario's fire rating. Additionally, those tend to not be on concrete pads, so they tend to be on a skid, and it's a little easier to situate it where you need to.

So, but in this situation, like specifically, like we have a shed and it is on a concrete slab and it, so it was not, but our neighbor does have one that you're talking about that's on the palace or whatever. But if it would burn down or whatever on my property, if we tear down, what would we, like, what is the process then? Does it have to go to Board of Adjustment if we want to build something on that same spot?

Right. You could still ask for Board of Adjustment variance. we, I'm sorry to say this, would recommend denial of rent. No offense to you, Elizabeth.

I am re-offended.

So, yeah, there would be some options for that, but likely not real feasible ones. I guess our expectation would be that it get moved and meet a five-foot setback that Sheds would have. So, I mean, certainly if From our thoughts, we didn't think we would run into that scenario very often, and here you brought up that exact scenario. I don't have a heartache one way or another if we include sheds or not. It just introduces another layer of complexity for us that we have to figure out how to deal with, and we can do that.

This is for when you're rebuilding a shed that doesn't meet code currently. It would have to be brought up to code. So if it's already five feet away from the side or rear lot lines, it could get rebuilt in that spot. It's just if it is currently less than that distance from the side or rear, then it would have to observe the required setbacks in today's code, which is five feet.

I don't know what some of the older houses from what 50s, 60s, what they're like. Yeah, I don't know their situations, but my house is from the 80s and

I think it's good practice to have that, if it is built, to have that brought up to code, in my mind. A shed. A shed. If it's within that five-foot property limit, right? Right. Yeah. It's kind of a goofy thing.

Right. The way this code would be written is you couldn't put a shed back within five feet of the property limit. You'd have to be at five feet or three.

So would staff, if somebody came in and say your, what was your dimension of your slab?

Were you within five feet? No, we're further than five feet.

So if somebody had a slab, like within five feet of the property line and they wanted it, whatever, tore down or roof was bad or whatever, and it was just cheaper to replace it. If they built that back with firewalls, would city, and then you went to board adjustment, would city be okay with that?

Yeah, we could probably get behind that. I think that so much of it gets down to just the Frankly, our city attorney brought this up to me this afternoon. You know, we define garage as a structure used to store a vehicle, right? And so that's in zoning. But I know that there are sheds that we permitted as garage that don't store vehicles. So at some point, there's just a reasonableness standard of, you know, yeah, we could maybe permit that 150-square-foot shed as a garage facility. let it go back there. So maybe we need to come back before council have a different language than detached garage there. We can certainly take all your feedback. I think this is fine for this.

Some sheds, like we have our riding lawnmower in our shed. Is that a vehicle?

That's a good question. I don't believe our zoning code gets to... I'm going to guess for a vehicle, it's probably got to be licensed with the state.

It needs to be street legal.

street legal. What about bison? I mean, we can, it's all over the place, right? It's bicycle street legal and you don't license it.

I mean, there could be people that put their, what are those things that are approved? Like the side-by-side?

Oh, yeah.

Put those now in there?

Yeah, that's true. So, I'm confident we can find a way. And if it ended up being a a reasonable, like, well, we still want to take you to Board of Adjustment to get an approval on that. That seems like a reasonable thing where they said we could recommend approval. Like, look, this was a stick-built thing that was functioning more like that, but in the same way, we let you go back.

Luke, if you're going to go back, is there a way that we can make the language simpler so that it's... Is that the generic idea, like, It feels like we're getting into the complexities of what's a vehicle, what's not. And maybe that's just a little bit of, you know, comedy or whatever. But I guess my question would be, is there a way that we can simplify the language so that it's easier in the future? Or does it need to be, this is a garage, this is a shed, this is how these are defined, these are the square footages. The setbacks are not going to change. But is there a simpler way to change the language so we can get faster in the future?

Yeah, you know, we could...

It's defined elsewhere within code, isn't it?

Right. I mean, so we've got, I don't know if we have a definition of shed in the code.

Well, but what Clayton's getting at is more of a building definition thing that our code officials deal with, not so much zoning. Because that 150 comes from the IBC, not from our ordinance. Right. Right.

We don't define shed.

I mean, if the purpose is trying to avoid having to come back every single time somebody wants to have this changed or rebuilt or whatever, and just some of our houses are getting up in age. So if we're trying to make this so we don't constantly have to be dealing with it, let's get it right. Yeah.

I mean, we can simply change it to an accessory structure, and that would be all-encompassing of all accessory structures. But some of them we don't permit at all, so that'd be fine.

And then it would just be up to everyone to come to you to say, this is my accessory structure, and then you could then define it as to if it's something you want to deal with or it's a chicken coop.

There you go. I didn't even think of those things.

I would say permanent accessory structure, right? Rather than just a Because I guess, like those shed you by the lows, I guess I would not have a problem if somebody has an old one of those they want to replace that they need to meet the minimum requirements for that. Right. I think you're the case where, yes, there is a concrete slab that's existing there that is an existing permanent accessory structure. But again, the expectation would be that is built back if it's within the five feet width.

I just don't know some of the older houses if I'm just an exception or if there's...

I grew up with a shed that had a concrete slab. I think that's probably the way it was done in the 70s and 80s before these mobile things started becoming more popular.

So could we have the language be something as easy as permanent accessory structure?

If you motion that when we get to that, I guess we're still in public hearing. Yeah, we can craft that language to come up with something that is like accessory structure that has a foundation or slab. We can come up with some way to memorialize that. I don't know that permanent... Permanent feels like we'd end up with arguments with people about what's permanent and not, right? Because when you buy a shed, then you drag it into your backyard and feel like, well, that's permanent. I wanted that there.

My father-in-law actually has a, I don't say like a Morton building, but he did not want to spend the money on a concrete slab, but it's a giant Morton building just on.

Sure. I mean, that's a different thing, but I mean, the post construction at least has footings from a post. So there'd be some kind of foundation that you would tie it to. So we will figure out the way to make that make sense. I'm like Jim and Elliot do that while I'm on vacation.

Enjoy guys. Right. Does anyone from the public have any comment on this item?

My name is Mike DeMoss with Iowa Contracting Company. I've been working with Elliot probably on the project while you guys are here. I have a client at 4649 Hyperion Drive. They have a garage that the foundation is failing, and so they would like to rebuild it. Currently, I think it's about three foot off the property line. And so that's what talking with Elliot, they felt like this was like the best way to kind of like handle being able to let those guys do what they would like to do. The adjoining property does not have an accessory structure, a garage or anything in the backyard next to it. But I see the point with doing like the firewall, the drywall on the inside area. on that side or the whole thing to accommodate that. That's all I got. Thank you.

Luke, in that situation, would the neighbor have been contacted because it's kind of an abnormal situation? If they had any objection?

Not traditionally with permitting on things. If somebody's allowed to do something, then they're allowed to do it. And since this is kind of a a wholesale change to the whole code. We didn't do like a 200-foot notification. So, yeah, in that scenario, they would not have been notified.

And we're not technically permitting anything new.

Curious. That kind of maybe prompted all this.

I mean, there are like fringe cases where this gets a little weird because like if somebody wants to If somebody has an existing three foot and now another person wants to go to five foot, which our code says would be like the minimum to like meet our code stuff. We would then still tell that person they have to do a firewall because they'd be eight foot from that other structure. Right. So now that property owner is causing their neighbor to have to spend a little bit more on the construction of their stuff. Of course, they could go a little bit farther and then not have to, but that's not what the code minimum would be. There's a little bit of darkness in that, but I think at the end of the day, it's a good change.

Luke, can you clarify the gentleman who presented a public comment? There's an existing garage that was permitted to be built on the original structure that's three feet from the property line, and that was permitted when it was originally constructed. Is that accurate?

No.

You pop up there so they can get you on the mic.

Yeah. That house, if I remember right from what Elliot said, was I think built in the 60s and it was prior to being in city limits. Yeah. Okay. So that would have been a Lakewood house. What was the address on it? 4649 Hyperion Drive. But back from what Elliot said back then, you know, there was no really permitted. It was county. Right. It would have been

would have been allowed to do what you were going to do. Did I get that right? 4649? Or is it this guy?

4648.

4648. There we go. I'll find it. No. This one. There we go. We did it. Yeah, so there you go. So not an uncommon garage. I mean, you can see just right down the street, like same scenario there, same there. Each one of these guys have built their garages in, okay, that guy's got it all the way in the back and sides. So, yeah.

All right.

Is there anyone else from the public that wants to comment on this? We'll close the public hearing at 6.07 and we can continue to discuss. Anything else anyone has?

I'm cool with doing what we're talking about with adding some sort of language that it also addresses kind of more permanent types of accessory structures in general. I'm cool with that.

So Luke, what you need is a motion to approve this with the language that it's any permanent accessory structure.

That's what we need.

And basically what we're talking about is anything that has posts with footings or a concrete pad.

Yeah, that's kind of how we'll probably phrase it. But if your motion is just about permanence, we'll find a way to make it work.

So can I get a motion? First we'll motion. Second?

Second by Garrison.

All right. Rachel, can you call the roll?

Okay. Thompson? Aye. Eaton?

Aye.

Samuelson?

Aye.

Forrest?

Aye.

Garrison?

Aye.

And Stenger?

Aye. I think that's all the items we have. Next is the City Council update, but Andy's not here. He's online. I think he was on Zoom. Is Andy on Zoom?

I don't have any updates this time, though.

And next is an update from you, Luke. Is that right? Or is it Holly next?

Either or. I don't believe Holly's online, though. So I'd be happy on my side. I don't got a lot. I'm leaving to go out of town. So I'm trying to get all my stuff squared away so I can do that. We do have a meeting on July 13th. I don't think I'll be back for that one either. So I'll see you guys later, I guess. Elliot, you got anything to add from your side of stuff?

Just that we do have agenda items coming up for that meeting. I suppose just related to the last item, I think one of the reasons that that piece of code about non-conforming houses being allowed to be rebuilt, uh, was there in the first place is just because of, I think some cost relief, um, in the face of disaster of someone's house, you know, was, uh, destroyed, but the foundation was still usable. Um, like it makes sense to not have to make them do a complete clean scrape. Um, but maybe like a garage or a shed was a little bit more of a reasonable lift. when that code is put in place, I think that the cost of things going up in the last decade or so, construction-wise, that allowing garages to have the same permissions makes a lot of sense. I think from a staff perspective, we just didn't think that getting a shed to comply with code, which frequently sheds contain your flammable chemicals and the dangerous stuff, we didn't think that was too much of a lift initially. So that's just kind of my remarks on that. Otherwise, yeah, a couple items for July, including a public hearing. So expect a quorum check from me, and that's all I have.

Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to adjourn in a second?

I'm to motion.

Simples for a second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Adjourned at 6.11 p.m. Thank you, everyone.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you.