Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

On an average. Thank you.

are we here yet all right welcome to the august 27 2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting starting at 701 thanks to our technical difficulties 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 dais. Please fill out the request 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. The public hearing on item number one, the approval of the August 6, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened. Karen?

I move approval of the minutes. Second.

All right. Karen made the motion to approve those minutes. Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve the minutes? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two.

Do you remember how to open this presentation?

It appears like it's spreading.

There we go. It's not on. Okay, there we go. So good morning. This item is a variance request to reduce the minimum required north side yard setback from 12 feet down to eight feet for a single story addition at 3119 Flint Drive. So the property is owned low-density residential district one, which does require a 12-foot setback for two-story structures. Future land use is low-density neighborhood. Single-family dwellings are permitted land uses in this district, so this variance does not exclude the use that it's permitted in the district. So the property is located west of Sheridan Lake Road. And then this is the proposed site plan. In 2015, the Zoning Board of Adjustment did approve a 432 square foot addition set back eight feet from the common lot line. That addition has since been completed and constructed and it's labeled as 2015 variance on that site plan. So all the applicant wants to do is expand that addition by 120 square feet and maintain that same eight foot setback that was previously granted by the Zoning Board. And then this is the proposed floor plan. Uh, one of the purposes of those side yard setback requirements is for fire safety as separation between structures reduces the potential for fire spread. So we are acquiring a with this variance that the addition had contained fire sprinklers and be constructed out of fire resistant materials. And this was the same stipulation that was placed on the variance in 2015 when they did that 400 400 square foot addition. And then these are the proposed building elevations. According to our building permit records, there's going to be over 31 feet of separation from the proposed addition to the adjacent dwelling to the north. The setback reduction doesn't appear to cause adverse impacts on that neighboring property and does not appear to be injurious to the neighborhood as well. And then this is looking at that north elevation where that proposed addition will be. It'll go off, I guess, the north side of the home there. And then this is looking at another image of that north elevation, just this time from the street frontage. This is looking north along Flint Drive and looking south along that same street. So staff is recommending that this variance be approved because, one, single family dwellings are permitted in the underlying zoning district. The request, if granted, would allow a limited expansion of the existing residence and maintain that previously granted eight foot setback. The addition is going to have fire sprinklers and be built out of fire resistant materials, which meets the purpose and intent of the zoning requirement. And overall, it does not appear to be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. So with that, I'll stand by for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions on this one? I guess I have one. If you could pull up the dimension plan. I don't have a problem with this request. It seems to fit in with what's existing there. But it looks like the house is set kind of cockeyed to the lot line. Wouldn't that front northeast corner be closer than eight foot? If it's eight foot to that new addition.

Like at the 2015? Yeah, so yeah, there was a variance done for that 2015 addition. It was, the variance at the time was for eight feet.

Then I just was wondering if eight foot was the right number for what we were doing today. I guess that's the second question.

Mr. Chair? Yeah. I believe eight foot is the right number. Perhaps when the previous variance came in, the actual location is slightly within that eight feet. But I think by maintaining for this addition that it stand at an eight foot setback, that should allow the addition and stay with the published request, which you can't grant a variance beyond that request.

OK.

Anything else from the commission?

I'll make a motion to approve.

All right, Vince made the motion. There's a stipulation suggested.

That's outlined in the staff's report. And it doesn't appear to be injurious to the neighborhood. And they added the fire sprinkler system.

OK. All right. Is there a second to Vince's motion? Alicia, thank you. All right, any discussion on the motion to approve this variance? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three.

So this item is another variance to allow gravel servicing in lieu of heart surfacing and to allow a six foot tall chain link fence and move a seven foot tall opaque fence for a contractor storage yard at nine 70 North Valley drive. So the property is owned light industrial district. Um, contractor storage yards are permitted, permitted uses in this district. So this variance will not allow a land use that's otherwise excluded. Future land use is light industrial and mixed use commercial. The property is accessed by North Valley Drive, which is classified as a collector street on the city's major street plan. So this is the proposed site plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a 12,000 square foot warehouse and do a gravel storage yard in the rear of the property. This is to expand his HVAC business that currently operates on that west adjacent property. The zoning code does require that all circulation within that yard be hard surfaced with concrete or asphalt. And then this is just the site plan of the West adjacent property. In 2023, the zoning board did approve this gravel storage area. This property is currently owned and operated by the applicant. So the proposed development will more or less mirror this site. So they're gonna be similar to one another. So this development is currently existing. And then this is the proposed grading plan. Um, the applicant has indicated that heavy equipment circulation is needed within the yard and hard servicing. Those dry vials may lead to damage or deterioration and create an ongoing maintenance issue for the applicant. Um, so staff thought that that factor constituted a special circumstance that would justify approval. Also that gravel storage area is going to have a dust palliative applied annually to it. So that's going to reduce adverse impacts on the neighboring properties. and also reduce the tracking of dirt and dust into the public right of way, which meets the purpose and intent of the zoning requirement. And then this is the proposed landscaping plan. Contractor storage yards also have to be screened with landscaping or a seven foot tall opaque fence. This contractor storage yard is going to be screened on all sides except for the south and west perimeter, so the south and west fence line. The west adjacent property is under common ownership, so that's not really a concern to waive the screening requirement there. And then the south perimeter is over 137 feet away from the street frontage, and the south perimeter contains the gates for the storage yard. So we thought that waiving the screening requirement along the south and west perimeters of the storage yard would have a minimal visual impact on this industrial area that would justify approval. And then this is looking north into the property from North Valley. This is looking at the west adjacent property that's owned by the applicant. It's expanding onto the property that we're talking about today. And then this is looking east along North Valley. and looking west along that same street. So staff is recommending that this variance be approved. The use is permitted in the zoning district. Heavy equipment circulation is needed, and we thought that that constituted a special circumstance. Dust palliative will be applied annually, which means the purpose and intent of the zoning requirement and waiving the screening requirement along the south and west perimeters will, we thought, had a minimal visual impact on this area. So stand by for any questions.

Thank you. Anything from the zoning board on this? Karen?

I'll make a motion to approve this item with the stipulations that's in the staff report based on the fact that there's special circumstances and that there's minimal visual impact on the neighbor.

I'll second.

All right. Thanks, Karen. Vince seconded Karen's motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve this variance with the stipulations listed?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number four.

Good morning. Item number four before you is a variance request to reduce the required stacking from 14 spaces to nine spaces. Um, for a drive through with two stacking lanes. So we are at the property located at five 20 mountain view road. This property is zone general commercial district with a future land use designation of mixed use commercial and access to this property mainly is off of mountain view road, which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. There is also access to this property off of Kirk could be lane. which is not on the city's major street plan, but classified as a commercial street. So this was a former Wendy's location, as most of you are familiar with. Wendy's has since ceased operations. They are proposing to redevelop this property into a Burger King restaurant. As you can see on this screen, this is how this property exists today. So as it currently exists, the building is approximately 2,900 square feet sitting roughly in the center of that property. The remainder of the property is developed with parking and circulation and currently a single drive-through lane. What they are proposing to do with bringing in Burger King, the location of the building will stay the same. The building will remain unchanged except for some facade updates and things like that to go along with Burger King. The parking will largely remain unchanged. The biggest change that they are making is that they are proposing a dual ordering station, which is standard operation for Burger King. You can see it there. So they'll have two ordering stations one here one here and then both ordering stations will merge into a single delivery lane so by code every stacking lane For a fast-food restaurant is required to have seven stacking spaces so by code both of these stacking lanes would be required to have seven spaces in them and Currently, they're proposing nine stacking spaces between both drive through lanes. So when staff was looking at this, what we are looking at is we are looking at this does not grant a land use that is otherwise excluded from the zoning district. These types of restaurant operations are permitted in the general commercial district. This is a 35.7% reduction from the 14 spaces that are required by code. However, the applicant has indicated that this dual ordering system is something that increases the efficiency of the drive-through, reduces queue lengths, and then also mitigates stacked vehicles, from stacking into the parking area so that they're impeding the parking lot and parking stall access, and then also they'd have to stack up pretty far to get out into the right-of-way, but still if you have people in the queue and you're also trying to get into a parking stall, this dual ordering improves that efficiency. I do also want to point out that the applicant has indicated that Doing the configuration of the dual drive-thru lanes so that there are seven stacking spaces in both lanes would require some additional redevelopment on the site that would probably reduce the actual on-site parking so they would lose parking spaces on the property to be able to accommodate a larger drive-thru if the code were applied. Also maintaining the single drive-through lane as it is right now. They would be able to provide seven stacking spaces at best if they maintained it the way that it is right now. So they would just meet the code. That would still decrease the number of stacking spaces that they're proposing right now by two. They're proposing nine. It would go down to seven. And that could also have an impact on queue lengths and adversely impact their internal traffic flow and parking access. Staff also did look at, does this meet the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations? So the purpose and intent of the stacking requirement is to prevent those stacked vehicles that are in the drive-through from impeding circulation, internal traffic flow, access to those parking stalls. And dividing this ordering load ensures that queue lengths do not hopefully adversely impact the internal traffic movement or those adjacent right-of-ways. So that is what staff was looking at when we were looking at whether or not to approve this variance request. When we were looking at whether or not that this variance request could be denied, we're looking at this building was built in 1978. Um, like I said, it occupies about 2,900 square feet in the center of the property. Um, the remainder of the property exists, um, as it is now, it functions pretty well as parking and circulation. So there are no special circumstances that are physical to this property that would support approval of this variance request. This variance request is driven by operational procedures that are standard for burger King versus unique conditions that are physical to the property. The other thing that we looked at is this property previously operated as a Wendy's since 1978 with that single drive through lane. So we looked at this Burger King operation could also operate with a single drive through lane. So reasonable use of the land is not being denied if you were to deny this variance request. So this is the property as it exists today. Most of you are probably familiar with this property. This shows that single drive through lane that exists right now. This shows the south side of this parking lot. Walgreens is just a little bit further south. This is the north side of that parking lot. Here's another view of how that single drive-through lane is. So the dual ordering systems would essentially add another one on the east side over in this location. It would add a second ordering lane. So staff is putting this forward to you without a recommendation. If you do choose to approve the variance request, the criteria that would be applicable are that it does not grant a land use that is otherwise excluded in the district. The dual ordering lanes would increase the efficiency of the drive-through lane. And the request is generally in harmony with the purpose and intent of the stacking requirements because it helps to prevent vehicles from impeding the internal traffic flow and the adjacent right-of-ways. If you were to decide that the variance request does not meet the criteria and you were to choose to deny the request, the criteria there would be that there are no special circumstances that are physical to the property that would warrant support of the variance request and that reasonable use of the land is not deprived by not granting this variance request since they still can continue to operate with a single ordering lane as it exists right now. I will stand for any questions. There is also a representative from the Burger King group in the audience today as well.

Thank you. I'm going to hop in without any lights immediately showing up. You mentioned that there might be, let's call it redevelopment of this site coming up if this is approved. Will the building be changing?

No, the building is not changing. They're just going to revitalize the building. They're going to do some facade changes, and then they're going to restripe the parking lot and then add this second dual ordering, change the drive-thru.

So the restriping of the parking lot would be what drives, you said there was like a future, could be a future reduction in parking?

That would be if they were required to provide all seven stacking lanes in both drive-thrus, they'd have to reconfigure the site and do some more work.

Haven?

Looking at the one photo that you had here with the stacking lanes.

This one? Yeah.

It would seem like, in effect, they've got substantial stacking lanes, but it'll back up into their driving lane to the parking areas. So presumably, if there are more cars than can fit in the photo that you have here, they would still be stacking on the property. Yes. I guess it impedes somewhat the traffic flow in the parking places, but they would have the additional stacking on this property that would more than meet the requirements of the ordinance.

Mr. Chair.

Vicki.

So when we're reviewing these building permits, part of our responsibility is to ensure that the parking is laid out to remove and or reduce to the greatest degree possible any traffic movements on the site itself. So if you happen to be a patron to the business and you're parked in one of the parking stalls because you choose to go in and sit down and eat, the requirement for those seven stacking spaces per lane is to ensure that when you come out, you're not sitting there waiting because the line to get through the drive-through has got you blocked in. And we do have some older fast food sites in town, but that's exactly what happens. And we'll get those phone calls sometimes from angry patrons, Why did you approve this? We sat there for 15, 20 minutes and couldn't get out. I think that what this applicant is indicating is that while they could just do the one order lane and they would easily be able to provide the seven stacking for it, they're proposing a second one to move people through quicker. When we looked at this originally, and Mike, as you glance at this, it probably is gonna be reminiscent of the McDonald's on Cleveland Street. And depending upon what that fast food restaurant is, this may or may not work. I think for Burger King, when we see their traffic volumes, and their traffic movements this might be an acceptable layout there are other fast food that this wouldn't work because they struggle with providing the full seven i know on cleveland there are times where they'll even stack out into the right-of-way so i think that we need to take it into account that what the business is that's coming in here and whether or not having that second order station will move people through quicker.

Well, looking at this diagram, the second stacking lane does increase the stacking from seven to ten. So it would appear they have more stacking with the double lane than they do with the single lane. Just an observation, I guess.

Mike Crosney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This will actually reduce the amount of backup the double lanes normally do anyhow. So this will actually make it more efficient. So I would accept this and make a motion to accept with all the, I don't have the iPad here to all the stipulations that were stated.

I don't think we have any suggested stipulations, but you're making a motion to reduce stacking from 14 to nine spaces based on criteria. That's the big question for you. Which criteria? I'm sorry to call you out.

Mr. Chair. Vicki? If I could assist the motion maker. Sure.

That'd be great.

That it's to allow a use that's permitted in the district, that it maintains harmony with the intent of the ordinance. and that the special circumstance is they're utilizing an existing building and providing the additional stacking is limited based on the location of the existing building.

All the above. All right. Thanks, Mike. So Mike made the motion as stated and assisted. Is there a second to that motion? Pat. Pat Roseland seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion, Alicia? I lost you. I turned you off again. All right.

All right. Thank you. I just have a couple clarifying questions. I'm wondering, do you have a satellite image or just this plan? I wonder what direction do most people arrive on the site, which of those drives from Mountain View Road?

So currently, the way that this property functions right now is this is the entrance. This is an exit. So south entrance, north exit.

On the plan down there in the southeast, there's another spot people could enter off that that road. Yep. I'm just wondering, in terms of sort of both the stacking lanes coming together, is there an ability to dictate, you know, before people branch off if the I guess you can go back to the plan at this at this point thinks I was wondering where people entered from and if these two stacking lanes continued to the west if they were doubled it seems like it would cause an issue for people backing out rather than a single lane is there any way to stipulate some kind of striping so that it's a single lane and then could branch into two that branches back into one lane Again, I don't know how the flow of Burger King, but I could see there potentially being an issue that Vicki mentioned where some people call in because they can't leave their parking space. So that's the only concern I see in terms of how both of these lanes are coming together. If there were more cars than what's shown in this rendering.

Mr. Chair.

Vicki.

So that area behind those on-site parking spaces and at the terminus of the stacking is known as an access aisle. It's a minimum of 26 feet in width. There can be no striping in that aisle other than directional arrows. So we couldn't stripe it any differently. Obviously, if someone can't enter to get to a parking spot, and as you can see, all of that parking is diagonal, so you're going to have to come in off of Mountain View Road to access the parking. If those that come in on the southeast corner, they would primarily be going through the drive-thru lane.

Okay.

So it looks like there it says 19...

just over 19 and a half feet for the width of the aisle coming from Mountain View Road. So if that was doubled up, you wouldn't be able to back out of a parking space? Right.

OK. Vince.

Thank you, Chairman. I just want to follow up on Alicia's point here so that I can understand something as well. Yes, there is another exit entrance On Kimberly, but if somebody was to go all the way around and wanted to reenter the south side lanes there, that area in front, which is on the west side of that building, can a car go through there or do they have to go all the way out to Mount Rushmore Road to reenter?

You mean right here? Can a car go through right here?

Yes.

No.

No. Okay, and obviously if somebody does try to use the Kimberly as an entrance as opposed to just an exit, there's no way that they can enter that line if they're stacked up all the way down to halfway or at least several cars behind on that south side again.

Mr. Chair? Vicki? Maybe Cassie can help using the mouse on the... So if they entered in the southeast corner, there is a through lane in that gray area that would not be impacted by the stacking for the order lanes. And then they could access on-site parking on the north side of the building. And we do have several other similar restaurants in town set up with this same layout.

Okay, thank you.

Karen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My only question is about the number of parking spaces. Currently, is there a number of parking spaces that they're required to have? And if so, I noticed that the east side, they removed those parking spaces for the second line. I'm just curious about the number of spaces.

Yep, they are required to provide, oh, I can't think, 35, I believe, on-site parking spaces. They are meeting that requirement even with 31. Thank you, Vicki. They are meeting that requirement even with taking away those few that were on that east side so that they have their bypass lane. They are still meeting the on-site parking requirement.

Thank you.

Mike Kwasny. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, one of the things that Kirkaby Lane is actually more of a delivery area for the backside of the furniture store more than anything. Whenever I've been over there, I've not seen that used for a lot other than that. So it's not like it's a thoroughfare all the way through. So I think that reduces some of that problem. So I didn't see that as a problem in there. I can't help but ask these questions.

Probably silly questions. The south side parking, isn't there a bailout method on most of those that aren't signed that you can just pull through into the Walgreens parking lot?

Well, it's not signed to allow that, but yes, that's exactly what would happen.

For me personally, just the way this site has been used, That affects my thinking on it. Let's say that it's a unique site and there's a lot of access on and off it, whether it's legal or not.

Jeff? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so I'm very much aware of this location. Since 78, I was quite a frequent fan of Wendy's. I've never seen a stacking issue over the years and don't anticipate there will be one. I do have a question. I said that the representative from Cave Enterprises is here. is in the audience, if I could ask just really quick. There's another Burger King location just off of Mountain View. Again, my observation has been there's not been any stacking or congestion issues over at that location. What is it, two blocks away or something like that? It's really none of my business, but is the intent to have that second store remain or will that operation be?

I'm sorry, sir, if you'd mind coming up to the mic and then offering your name and relationship to the project. We've got to keep minutes of this meeting.

My name is Dieter Maiwald, director of construction for Cave Enterprises, who is doing business with Burger King. And our office is located in Chicago, Illinois. And the answer to that question, sir, is that we would be offsetting that location. This would be our new location that would be closing. Thank you.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, historically, because there was a Burger King right across the street from Mountain View for many years, too, so you're kind of in that neighborhood. And I also recognize that Burger King, nationwide, there's been an upswing in business, but I still don't anticipate a real congestion issue at this location, so I'll be voting in favor of the motion. Thank you.

All right, so the motion on the floor is to approve the variant. Are there further questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the variance, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? All right, the motion carries with Alicia voting no. That's the last item on the Zoning Board of Adjustment agenda. I'd look for a motion to end the Zoning Board of Adjustment so we can move to planning.

Motion to adjourn Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Second. All right, Vince made that motion. Mike Kwasny seconded the motion. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

That takes us to the Rapid City Planning Commission meeting for August 27th, 2026, beginning at 7.34 in the morning. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the Planning Commission agenda, there are speaker request forms on the table along the left wall. Please fill out the request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated on the left side of the room. items one through five 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 this Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision, with the exception of the following item, item 4, 26UR015. The Rapid City Planning Commission's action on this item is final unless any party appeals that decision to the Rapid City Council. All appeals must be submitted in writing to the Department of Community Development by close of business on the 7th full calendar day following action by the Planning Commission. Are there any items one through five that staff would like to remove today for separate consideration?

Number five, please.

Okay. Any items one through four that any planning commissioner would like removed?

Can I get number four?

Okay. Any items one through three that any audience member would like removed for separate consideration? The chair would then entertain a motion to approve items one through three in accordance with the staff's recommendations.

Motion to approve items one through three in accordance with the staff's recommendation.

All right, is there a second to Vince's motion? Second. Karen seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number four. Vince, do you have a comment on this?

Yeah. Yes. I did have a, you know, they want to build some structures in the Greenway track. And I guess I have a couple of questions regarding how often do we need to look at the fact that there's a change in the way that Greenway track was developed?

Mr. Chair, that's exactly why this item is before you. Because of that designation, any structural development or redevelopment, and this is actually an area being redeveloped, it requires that it be brought before the Planning Commission in the form of a conditional use permit. We take great strides to protect our floodway and preserve our greenway tracks. And you'll see that one of the stipulations of approval in this renovation project is that a floodplain development permit be secured before they start construction.

And how long does that normally take for that process to go through?

We just happen to have Justin Nutley in the office and the audience today from Parks and Rec Justin could you come up and share with us how long it takes you to?

Typically review and approve a floodplain development permit And once you open the microphone identify yourself for our records sure, I'm Justin Utley I'm the floodplain manager for the city and It really depends on the complexity of the permit It can take up to 10 days, but for a permit like this where everything's laid out and they've met all the requirements, it's a couple days at most.

And how often do you have to go through this process to get these changes?

It varies, but usually there's three or four floodplain development permits every week.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Justin. Anything else on number four, if any commissioners would request a presentation, we could have one, if not a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve it then.

Okay. Vince made a motion to approve item four with those stipulations.

With the stipulations as outlined in the staff report. Perfect. And permit application and so forth.

Mike seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve item four? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number five. Vicki?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the September 10th Planning Commission meeting, and that would be our recommendation.

Okay, Mike made the motion to continue to September 10th. And Haven seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number six.

All right. Item number six before you, this is a conditional use permit to allow an oversized garage. This item was continued at the applicant's request from the August 6th planning commission meeting. Um, so we are at property located at 3715 Ponderosa trail. This property is zoned low density residential one future land uses low density neighborhood. Access to this property on the west side is from Ponderosa Trail. On the east side, it is from Wonderland Drive. so right now this property currently contains a single family dwelling and an attached garage on the west side of the property on the east side of the property let me go back to the aerial picture here on the east side of the property in this location right here there formerly existed a storage shed that storage shed was removed when they did the reconstruction of wonderland drive which you can see is currently happening in this aerial picture. It is now done. So what they are proposing to do is reconstruct a 30 foot by 30 foot detached garage in that same location. It will have a second story loft. They will have a single stall garage door and take access off of Wonderland Drive. So conditional use permits are required for oversized garages in the low density residential district. This garage is considered an oversized garage because with the addition of this, the cumulative size of garage and storage space on the property between the detached garage and the attached garage that already exists, will be about 1,940 square feet, which exceeds the maximum 1,500 square feet allowed by code by about 440 square feet. So as you are aware, when we are looking at oversized garages, we are looking at whether or not they are in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. So there are several properties in this area that do have detached garages if they are not constrained by lot size or topography. This is an area where there are some topographical challenges on some lots, and then also some lots that are simply too small to add a detached garage, but the ones that do have it available there are detached garages elsewhere within this neighborhood. So this is not something that is uncommon for the area. Also, when we are looking at oversized garages, as you know, we look at whether or not they match the residential character, the building materials, and the color scheme of the existing single family dwelling. This one will. This one actually is going to look a little bit kind of barn-ish. So as you can see, it'll have that single stall garage door, that second story loft, And this will match the color scheme and the construction of the single-family dwelling We do also look when we are looking at over skies garages at screening so to the Let me get back to the aerial picture here and I will show you so to the south here there are several existing mature trees that do shield and The southern view of this this residence right here that will be the closest to the oversized garage That is an approximate 15 foot elevation difference So it's approximately 15 feet higher than where this shed or this detached garage will sit So to reasonably screen that becomes a little bit challenging But with the elevation difference they will look out over the detached garage So staff found that there are sufficient mitigation with the existing landscaping, the existing mature trees, and then the elevation to kind of help buffer that visual impact of this detached garage. It will take direct access off of Wonderland Drive via an existing approach. The first 50 feet of that approach does have to be paved by code, which when I was out on site last week, it is paved. So they are meeting that requirement. up to the garage will be a gravel surface. So looking at the property, this is the backside of it. So this is the property where this will sit. So you can see there's this existing leveled pad area. They did post their signage. This is the house. So you can see that elevation difference between the house and coming down here to where the detached garage is. This is looking on that south side at the existing mature trees. So this is what will provide some of that screening to this southern house that's right in here. And this is looking at that house on the north. So you can see that elevation difference right here. That garage will sit right in here. So that elevation will help with a little bit of that shielding. And you can also see this is the paved 50 feet. This is Wonderland Drive looking north. and Wonderland Drive looking south. So you can see there's a lot of existing mature trees in this area that will help mitigate this oversized garage. So staff is recommending approval with the stipulations noted in the staff report. I will stand for any questions. Mr. Chair.

Vicki. When I first saw the elevation of that garage that looks like a barn, I thought, wow, that's pretty big. But then looking at the dimensions of it, it does not exceed 15 feet. I think that's an important feature to mention. Also, within the stipulations of approval, it does specifically state that this cannot be used for commercial purposes or as a second residence.

All right, Karen Ballman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on the drive. Typically you have one access to a property off of a major street. Now we've got two major streets. Is there a reason why, I mean, is there something we have to do to make that happen or is it just, you can just do it? Mr.

Chair, Todd, correct me if I'm wrong, but we do have several properties in town that have LE access and street access. This one's unique in that these are full streets on two sides of the property. But again, as long as they don't create spacing between approaches or some other traffic conflict, you can have more than one approach to a property when reviewed and approved by Public Works.

OK. I didn't know if there was a, it has to be approved by Public Works. I didn't know if there was a fast rule or something you could manipulate with because of the elevations or something. So it sounds like Public Works can make that exception, basically.

I don't think it's an exception. Todd, could you help me out here?

Todd?

Yeah, it would take an exception for two approaches for over, if you have less than 300 feet of frontage. This was, I believe, negotiated with our project because we needed to use that part of the property as a staging area, and the project put an approach in as a part of the project as part of that negotiation to provide access to the shed and other parts of the property, I guess.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate Karen bringing that up. I was going to just make the observation. For me, that geographic difference, the elevation difference between the house and this part of the property is what drives my support of two approaches. Other properties will not get my support for two approaches to an oversight, you know, a second approach to an oversized garage.

Haven.

I assume since we don't have anything there was no comment from the adjacent owner Probably to the north would be the most likely I've gotten several phone calls from surrounding property owners just asking questions No one has submitted any sort of opposition or support either way just more so questions of what they're doing and

So my question then would be if you could see that an access between the house and this new detached garage would be a possibility. Is that, could they construct that access without any approval from the city? I guess my point is that that would disrupt the aesthetics in the neighborhood if they would make an access between the two.

Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification to Haven. Are you saying that they would extend the driveway up that hill?

Yes.

Yeah. They have not indicated that is their intent at all.

I realize that. It's not their intent today, but in the future, I could see that you know because of the train they're constructing that sort of an access would really disrupt the the aesthetics of the area and I guess my question is presumably then they can construct that access without any approval authorization from the city and

Mr. Chair? Sure, Vicki. So anyone can put a driveway into their backyards from the front yard or from the alley to the front. It may require a grading permit or some other permit from the city when they're disrupting soils. Typically, people have backyards to enjoy the green space. This looks like it would be extremely cost prohibitive to try to build a hard surface roadway from this street to the street adjacent to the single family home. But anyone can put a drive space on their property with the necessary permits.

You lost your mic.

Excuse me. You mentioned hard surface. If they did do that, hard surface would be required for that access between these two buildings?

The first 50 feet coming off of both streets would have to be hard surfaced.

So that would not encompass any of the area that we're Talking about as potentially an access between the two buildings that would be beyond the 50 feet and both sides I Think we're making speculation on a

projected future project that would probably never happen. I see pedestrian access between the two, obviously. But beyond that, it would be very difficult to envision that someone would actually extend a driveway up that hill. And if it did, it's something that we would look at at that time.

Okay, that was really my question, is if they wanted to do that, is there a requirement for authorization from the city to do so?

We can't deny it. Anyone can put a driveway through their yard. It's just where it connects to the street that we have authority over. But we would be looking at erosion and sediment control, ensuring that they're not creating drainage issues, et cetera, as a part of their project.

All right, Chip, fire department.

Mr. Chair, I was out at this location just because I was in the neighborhood, and it would probably be impossible to put an approach between there because that hill is so steep. I don't think it would be doable.

Thank you.

I just can't help myself. This existing pad, if I'm just judging the size of the car and the size of the pad, it's probably not 50 feet in from the sidewalk. But I trust that the building inspection will check that when the project is reviewed.

And that could be what the city provided. Cause remember Cassie in our presentation indicated that the city made improvements to Wonderland drive. And as a part of that, we needed that their shed to go away. And so public works said, okay, In consideration of working with us during the construction of that street, you're going to get another approach because typically, as Todd indicated, that requires an exception. So I would say that's probably what we provided as a part of the street project. Wherever they place the garage, that first 50 feet would have to be hard surfaced.

All right. Anything else on this item? Perhaps a motion, if we're good with that. Karen?

I'll make a motion to approve this item with the stipulations, if there are any. I don't even have it in front.

All right. Karen made the motion to approve item six with the stipulations. Vince seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries. That takes us to the end of the published agenda. Are there any staff or planning commission discussion items?

Just a reminder that terms expire for four of you on October 1st. That would be Karen, Eric, Gary, and Vince. So if you are interested in being considered for reappointment, if you could visit with me after the meeting, and we can get that recommendation to the mayor.

Is that Eric Heikas or Eric Braun? Eric Heikas, sorry.

Just checking. Sorry.

All right, anything from the commission? Look for a motion to adjourn then.

Motion to adjourn.

All right, Vince made the motion. Aye. Pat, second of that motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye.