Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of the August 13th, 2026 meeting.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested continuous request as read.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the new continuous request as read.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent docket.

Janice, I want to say something about that same thing, though, is that this being a small development and knowing that they're probably going to have to do a drainage easement through the middle of the property, I think the lot reduction is going to come into play on that. I think it's going to change. And I think it's going to change. And you also have the fire control and the suppression issues. And so you have two things at work that might not, that one's going to affect the other one, and so they might not come together. And I think before we just approve the final plat, and you have to ma

That's kind of what it seems like to me.

I don't have your drainage plans, so I can't tell. Right. Are you saying that you have a drainage channel through the middle of this property already in easement?

It really does sound like you're holding water to the north side because the protesters are saying they're flooding.

But you can't dam up water onto someone else's property. Correct. Yes. So I need to know that that's all solved. It's solved in the plans. Lock configuration is going to stay the same. Yes. And then we can move forward.

And it could possibly even affect the retention. I mean, I don't know. But anyways, I just think we should defer it.

I assume they want it to drain into that detention.

So staff is recommending that they don't allow the half. Don't what? That they don't allow the half to be taken.

If you had any, if not, I move we defer to the September 24th meeting.

And if you could call the name following who's coming next so they can be compared.

Okay, thank you. I do have one quick question on those who have been signed up to speak. How many of these individuals who have been signed up to speak are you representing today?

Peter Schaefer who is not here, I believe but Among others and just the reason for the question is just to make sure that he wasn't serving as the proxy And then listen to it. I'm sure just want to be clear Thank you.

Sure, not a problem. Of course, this has been a spirited debate for quite some time regarding this, and there has been a shift. I've had an opportunity to confer with both councils, but I do want to get the commission's positioning on this from a more seasoned standpoint if there's anyone else that would like to contribute.

I'll jump in. I understand the previous application was seeking to continue the events, and this one does not. I do agree that this is a down zone. But more than anything, I agree that it's been agricultural for decades. That's my position.

I actually live on AA, and I have an organic farm across the street. When I look at this, it kind of reminds me of that. That being said, I keep hearing a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with AA or the neighborhood that I live in. that I wouldn't be happy about. I struggle with this.

I'll just say that for me it's the land use, the existing property, the land use, and we're not here really to legislate who owns it, what they operate it on, and how they operate it. They're supposed to comply by the existing ordinances and laws. When I look at it, in agreement with you, Nate, it's a rural agricultural situation. To rezone this back to AA, to get it to start over, maybe it comes back later with an SPUD or anything else, that's on them. But I have no problem going back to AA on this.

That was one of my thoughts. I would much rather be less apprehensive about this if it was a spud and we had the ability to put guardrails on it. But again, to your point, a lot of the issues that it sounds like they've had are enforcement more than actual zoning itself.

unless it was a possibility of event center and then you would have a pd to limit hours and days of operation and amount of people allowed on the property and to me it seems like the client understands that bus has left the building no different than in my neighborhood if i live on a half acre and 150 homes if i want to have a party and have 80 cars wrapped around my neighborhood i have the right to do that and i also have the right to get in trouble with with the action center for it um I do, but like I said, I believe it's a down zone, and I believe that this does give the neighbor's teeth t

Well, because it's already zoned that, because it's already zoned that, there wouldn't be an ability to even complain about it. But I believe if this case was the opposite way, and this was AA trying to be turned to R1, there'd be more people here to protest, period. Because they can get sewer to this site. Yes, they can.

And if they want to make those changes, they come back with the PUD and SPUD. Sure. And that's exactly where I'm sitting now. If those changes need to come, they will come back and report this body in the correct form and fashion. But if I don't hear anything else from any further commissioners, I'm going to go ahead and move for approval.

Yeah, I'll say something about it. Best I can figure is they've been doing this stuff. It was zoned R1, and they shouldn't have been doing this stuff. Now they're zoning AA, and then some neighbors think they're going to continue doing these things. Either way, they're both not allowed. I don't think that's an issue for us. I think I'm looking at just the land use, and as land use as AA, yes, I think it's fine. Do I think there should be events there? No, I do not. Especially if it's AA or if it's R1. Those should be reported to the Action Center. And I get a feeling that maybe they have been

Mr. Chair. Yeah. I've made my motion. You ready?

All right. I don't have anyone to speak. Okay. Commissars, do you all have any concerns or questions for the applicant?

Just one thing. And so you've taken that C3 into that single-family neighborhood? O2. Or O2, sorry. Yes. It's C3 now. It's C3 now. We're trying to downzone it. reasoning why it's going under there i mean you don't have to tell us but i just want to know say it again i said the reasoning why is that going to be a parking lot i don't i don't know i just know all do you know

I just wanted to know why the single family lot was changing to O2.

And does the applicant have any hardly use they think they're going to see?

Anyone else? And I know this piece of property well, it's just oddly constructive. It's just odd.

I do not have anyone signed up to speak. Okay. It felt like this was pretty appropriate for this area. It's basically kind of an infill project, replacing a church that burnt down. There's already a lot of multifamily, so I didn't really have any issues with it. Did anyone else have any questions or comments? So with that, I'll make a motion to go ahead and approve SPUD 1860. I recommend approval.

I was subject to the T.E. I always forget the T.E.'s. Thank you. What?

I think it could have happened if we had a response a week ago.

So the last one was from August 21st, I believe.

And so we have the letters. I mean, I can make my own decision based on those letters. I don't want to see this go to the fifth month.

Personally, I can get behind all of that, and I can figure all that out, and I know there's six more weeks before this goes to council. Before council. I'm not in favor of deferring it anymore.

He just wants some adjustments to the master design statement about access, about the building. I think we can get there.

That's what I was thinking. I wanted a complication. And it's the existing legal description for the existing...

It's the same existing legal description. There's not going to be an additional structure. The entries and exits are going to go back to originally what they are, and that needs to be added as TE number 7. So if anyone else has anything else, and we don't have anyone else to speak, I'm going to recommend approval. Mr. Box, if you would go ahead and read the tees into the record, please.

That was the final one that Mr. Work said was in the communication we had last. Yesterday they would read a specific way, but I don't think we need it.

I agree with removing T number one, the queuing lane, I think is very important. And I'm good with replacing that stricken T number one with the removal of the gasoline cells 8300.46. Any other commissioners have any other comments regarding this?

With that being said, and with the TEs, as I've just read in, I would like to recommend approval of PUD 2149.

Okay, this is kind of a weird case. Like you said, hodgepodge of strange zoning, but yeah, let's listen to a person sign up to speak.

Will that be added because of this TE, or is that going off existing stuff that's there? Or are you saying if you're adding new stuff, you're going to screen it?

If they're not already fences? I'm sorry? Is there not already fences?

There's buildings now, but I think what Commissioner Powers is saying, if that was to change to storage of outdoor vehicles, would you be amenable to require the screening there as well?

Well, if you pulled a building permit to build something, that's when it would require it. Right now, it wouldn't require anything if you agreed to that.

I mean, I don't think you want them to change what's there today. I think at redevelopment. Or new development. Yeah, that's fine. That's what I said.

What about Shields? What about shields? I mean, there's nothing to be screened there.

He's not that good off the cuff. He can read, though.

I read good. Okay. That it? It felt good to me. Okay, with all those TEs read in, I'll move to recommend approval, TUD 2154.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with the client driven by this property. I do like the exhibit because it shows the existing septic radius on the existing house and the existing water well radius. I understand the smallest lots at the front, it is 1.05 acres. I would like to add a TE that any additional residential homes shall tie onto and must have city water. That'll keep from having aerobic spraying in a well field. You know where you're mixing, you know what. Anyway, I do like that it has a requirement for the paved access 24 foot wide with the fire department turnaround. And you do a

Right. There's no rule that your driveway has to be in the front on this type of situation. So if the front, if the house face check haul, it would be at check haul. Yeah. So I'm good with tying T number one to tie PED 2155 exhibit B to T number one, showing all setbacks for all three lots. T number two is written, and T number three to require any new residential structures to must access and use city water.

The goal of that is not to have two more wells dug with aerobic. Got it. Got it. Got to go.

Because, you know, we've had this precedence that we've kind of set with... Well, that lot's so small, I wouldn't want to...

Right. Right. But DEQ allows three-quarters, what is it, three-quarters of an acre with water. Or half an acre, yeah, that's what I got. So with city water, we're guaranteeing, basically, and I did speak with Brady about... If you guys want to go one step further, lot three is giant. They got all kinds of room. Lot one is the tiny one. We have one as far as requiring a 30-foot spray-filled easement, which would keep a future person from being able to come pull a building permit to put a swimming pool or an accessory dwelling or something where you need to be spraying aerobic, and that easement

No, I don't see a problem with that. Lot 3 is really big.

You're going to have to bring domestic water up the side. You can't even bring a service from there. You have to bring domestic water. So you have to run a six-inch line and a fire hydrant, right, Dustin?

We have the right-of-way also. Okay. With that, anybody have any other comments? Do you believe our TEs are good? Do I need to read them again? You good? Okay, with that I'd like to recommend approval of PUD 2155 with T number one adding exhibit B, PUD 2155 exhibit B being tied to exhibit number one, adding T number three that lots, lot one must access city water. And T number four.

Well, two has a current well. Oh, okay. Yeah, so lot one only for city water. As it's shown on exhibit B, they do show that. And then T number four would be a 30 foot aerobic spray filled radius easement must be shown on the permit drawings, that time of permit.

We've done it several times over the last six months.

And that's kind of why I tied it to a building permit, because if it's written in a PUD, they come in for a building permit, they pull up the PUD, they read that it has a, have a 30-foot spray-filled radius easement shown on the plan.

And if the plan reviewers do their job at the development center, they pull a PUD and read it and enforce it.

that drainage easement so that's what we can do okay i have faith i think we can figure it out um even if it sells to other people and it's not or indoor there's no structure ever built and the spray field easement won't come into play yeah um that's my motion if it sounds good to miss sarah

What's the RTA? Yeah. What about Moore? Nope, Moore didn't want anything to do with it. They couldn't fit it in. Moore didn't want it. Moore didn't want to stop.

Yeah, I was going to say. Has it not happened yet?

I got the email. It was a new person in planning that I didn't recognize their name. When, when, when? A couple, three days ago, two or three days ago. I'll search for Dave.