Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. I will now call this meeting to order. Our first agenda item this evening is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda and not in an application form. will be coming to the commission at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Planning Commission on an item that is not on the agenda and not in an application that will be coming to the commission at a future date? All right, seeing no one, we will now move on to adopting the final agenda. Commissioners, our next item is to adopt the final agenda. May I have a motion to adopt the final agenda?

Make a motion to adopt the final agenda.

Motion made.

Second.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. All right, on to item 4.1. Our first item is 4.1, approve planning commission meeting minutes of June 2nd and June 16th, 2026. May I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes.

Motion made. Any second?

Second.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. We will now move on. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.2, interim use permit for outdoor dining at Vicks Bar and Grill. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak, and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes, and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everybody has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the planning commission and city staff will not engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to community and economic development director Jen Brewington for a staff presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners.

Tonight we do have a public hearing for an interim use permit for an outdoor dining request. I just want to start a little bit by giving you some of the background on the information on the Victoria Dining Program. This is built on the success of the city's Eat Street program that we had during COVID-19. They allowed restaurants and cafes to use public spaces for outdoor dining when the outdoor dining was restricted. The program is designed to support local businesses, activate downtown, and create vibrant outdoor spaces for our local restaurants and residents. And to formalize this program, our screens just went blank. Okay. I will continue. Yes, okay. To formalize this program and why you're seeing this item tonight is to have an interim use permit process which provides the flexibility for allowing the city to review each request and application and establish any conditions and conduct annual reviews. So Vicks Bar and Grill is requesting approval to use four public parking spaces for seasonal outdoor patio dining. Staff has reviewed the proposed layout, including the required barriers and safety measures to ensure it meets public safety ADA accessibility standards. Last year, they did go through this process. However, it was an internal review. We did not have a formal process. So this is why we're doing that this year, and you're seeing it so late into the season. Real quick too, an interim use permit or an IUP will allow the property to be used for a temporary purpose that isn't intended to be permanent. The use must comply with the city's zoning and regulations and the city can establish conditions to ensure it operates safely and minimizes impacts on surrounding properties. And because it is temporary, the permit expires each year and must be reviewed and renewed, giving the city an opportunity to review the use and address any concerns before allowing any permits. The public hearing process provides any neighborhoods or restaurant or I'm sorry, residents or property owners any opportunity to speak to this request and have any conditions or concerns. And with that, I have a sample motion on the screen and I can answer any questions for you.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak?

I do not believe they are here this evening.

Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chamber this evening who wishes to comment on this item? I will ask again if anyone wants to speak on this item this evening. Last call. Hearing no additional public input, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second all those in favor aye any opposed Thank you motion carries and the public hearing is closed I will now open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss commissioners any questions or comments Jim my only question is so it's already set up

Correct. Yes. Thank you for mentioning that, Commissioner. So we did chat with the council. Dana's been doing her 101, the city managers, with the council on if they were to approve this. And because they've had it the last few years, council was okay with it. And, of course, if the conditions based on planning commission and council are not what you would like, they would have to remove that at the time.

Understood.

Got a question. Just in general, if we continue approving these IUPs, at what point does it trigger a definitive need to open up the parking garage question again? I mean, do we have a sense of that as a planning commission? Public outrage comes.

Yeah, I think it's really up to us. It's more for us to take a look at. PERMIT THAT'S BEING SUBMITTED AND WHAT IS THE, IS IT IN LINE WITH THE CITY CODE AND IS IT FOLLOWING THE PROCESS? WE CAN CERTAINLY IN OUR RECOMMENDATION MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT CITY

council take that up and as further action but I don't think it's a good recommendation to make just to look at it cumulatively you know I've got absolutely no qualms about this at all but in aggregate especially as we have the new new restaurants and new facilities opening up we'll see more of these and I think it's I think it's terrific but we need to be aware of that bigger cumulative impact

A question for you, Jen. How's the fee set, and has it changed from year to year?

Good question, Commissioner. The fee is set on our fee schedule that is based every year. We annually review that, and we did some research and reviewed our market cities and what they were charging, so we went off of that. And so it is set for this year and next year. We could go and increase that if we'd like, but that would be something that you would need to discuss in the next season. Thanks.

Okay. No further questions, anyone?

If not, I'll make a motion to approve the interim use permit for Vicks Barn Grill.

Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.3, Conditional Use Permit for Circle K Illuminated Signs. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak, and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes, and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak. Until everyone has had an opportunity, then I will ask our Planning Commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the public commission and city staff will not engage in back-and-forth discussion during the public hearing I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation. I

Thank you, Chair and Commission. As was stated, this is a conditional use permit that's been submitted by Circle K, currently the holiday site. Circle K had purchased it. The reason for the request is that we require a conditional use permit for any type of illuminated signs within our CBD district, which they're in there. We do have a 60-day window to have council take action, which would be August 17th of this year. And then we had properly noticed through multiple mediums of the public hearing tonight So the location is the current Holiday Store at 1793 Arboretum Boulevard. There's a bunch of signs that we're looking at, but the primary things to focus on is that it's two canopy signs, two signs identifying the exit and the exit of the car wash, as well as two signs on the principal structure, one being a smaller totem sign. These are typical signs that you would see at a gas station. A close example of what we have would be any of the quick trips from the area. Basically, they have the same setup for their signs. that is being requested tonight. The one sign that is illuminated is where the gas prices are. That sign currently has a legal non-conforming status, and because it's not changing any dimensions or characteristics of the sign, it is not part of the CUP request and will have a separate status. Looking at proposed conditions, the same conditions that we looked at with blue agave, such as making sure that it doesn't create a hazard, it's not projecting light onto the sidewalk or the other areas. If it becomes inoperable, it gets correct within 30 days. Making sure it's not oscillating or things like that. And then just making sure overall it complies that when the business is closed, the signs are off. With that, I do have a proposed recommendation or proposed motion in front of you.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak?

The applicant is not present.

Perfect. Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? I'll ask again. Last call. All right. Hearing no additional public input, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments?

Sorry. I didn't Travis. I didn't get a chance to drive by. Can you refresh me? So holiday, you said the only eliminated signs of the gas price one right now, it doesn't have it up on the top.

So, uh, the current holiday site commissioner has various limited scientists on the storefront. Um, with this request, that'd be replaced in the storefront with a circle case side. as well as putting two Circle K illuminated signs on the canopy that exists, and then doing illuminated signs for the entrance and the exit of the car wash. These are all backlit signs, so the light's on the inside and it stays on the inside. but the holiday doesn't have those ones, is what you're saying? The holiday, because there's a significant change in the size of the dimensions, that's where the CUP is triggered. Unlike the sign that has the gas prices because the dimensions are staying the same and the design is staying the same, it doesn't have anything that would trigger saying it's a different sign just because you put a different logo on it.

So net... broadly speaking, it's about the same luminaries that are coming out.

Yeah, there shouldn't be any notice of difference. If there is, the Conditioning Use Permit would address that and staff would investigate to find out if there's a violation or not.

Any other questions? All right, commissioners, hearing no more discussion, I will ask for a motion.

Motion to recommend the approval of conditional use permit to the City Council permitting illuminated wall signs circle K project All those in favor aye any opposed aye

Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.4, conditional use permit for Victoria orthodontics illuminated signs. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak, and then I will open the public hearing for those in chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes, and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our Planning Commission for a motion to close public hearing. Please note that the Planning Commission and city staff will not engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to Associate Planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation.

Thank you chair and commission. This is another conditional use permit for an illuminated sign with inside our CBD district. This is a for a backlit halo design sign, which is the same style that we saw for blue agave just a month ago. Like I said, there's a 60 day clock on this, which expires on August 17th for the city to take an action as well as making sure that the public notice went out properly. location is seventy nine rose street also known as the roller world building if you look where the uh... red star is that it's just behind where the blue agave restaurant is the proposed sign is going to be facing highway five they said it's a backlit sign uh... it meets all other national standards that we require with inside the city code the conditions that are being proposed are the same as for blue agave as well as for the circle k that we went through And then yeah, there's I have a proposed motion in front any questions Thank you does the applicant wish to speak and the applicant is not here as well Thank you.

I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item For a second time Third? Last call? All right. Hearing no additional public input, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Second. Okay. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries, and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for Planning Commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? It sounds pretty standard. Commissioners, hearing no more discussion, I'll ask for a motion.

Motion to recommend the approval of conditional use permit to the city council permitting eliminated wall signs at 7980 Arboretum Boulevard for Victoria Orthodontics.

Second.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.5, a zoning text amendment request, front yard fence heights, non-residential streets. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak, and then I will open the public hearing for those in chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes, and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our Planning Commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the Planning Commission and city staff will not engage in back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to Associate Planner Travis Brierley for a staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair and Commission. Tonight, there are actually gonna be three zoning text amendments being brought forward. I do wanna point out they are similar in the request. I would ask that we stay focused just on what's being presented for that specific request. So there's only the first one that we're looking at is looking at fence ice in front yards, which currently sits at a maximum of 4 feet by the city code. That code was recently adopted back in the fall of 2024. The request is that the fence in the front yard be allowed to be 6 feet when it meets. To or 1 of 2 conditions, it's either adjacent to a public or private right away other than a residential street. which basically residential street is the street that's in front of your house and neighborhood. Everything else is generally classified differently. Or it's adjacent to a residential street where there's no driveways between intersections. That's commonly found at the beginning of developments or going into subdivisions. So the proposed language tonight would be adding some exemption language to 18-9, which would state those two things, allowing for a fence to be up to six feet if it meets one or both of those conditions. The total effect is properties will be generally affected where they're on the edge of new developments, so they're backed up, or they have two or three front yards. A lot of times you see that, and it does limit the ability to put up privacy fencing and things like that. This request is only for the fence height. It has nothing to do with any other conditions with inside the fence code. This is specific just to the fence height. And as a reminder, minimum intersection sight line distances. So the safety of your intersection when you're walking or driving. are not exempted by anything being presented tonight. As we pointed out, there's just a couple examples of what this would be. Currently, if you look on the left side of the screen where you have the yellow, that is our current ordinance where you could put a six-foot fence on the property, and this one specific is at Eggate and at Obsidian. By definition, the code of front yard is the distance between or the area between the principal structure, in this case the house, and a street. So this property would have three front yards. What would be requested is, or what's being requested would allow for a six foot fence to be placed in the orange area underneath. There is a setback in there from the trail. That would not be exempted. I just put that in there to point out that that rule still has to apply. But this would allow for more privacy for what the homeowner would consider their backyard or their side yards. In addition to that, this has another effect along Cochia. Just to keep an example, in the area, you have properties of a front and a rear yard, or what you'd consider a rear yard, but by definition, it's still a front yard. So along Cochia, you would be restricted to a four-foot fence. This would allow those residents along Cochia that back up to Cochia to have a six-foot fence, which helps with sound, noise, light, and some privacy. With that, I stand for any questions.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak?

Yes. Largely the biggest things already mentioned by Travis, but I would just say would you please state your name? Oh, Jordan Porteous? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah in terms of what was submitted and kind of what Travis shared is we believe for the generalization of our neighborhood the layout the other homes to be consistent with everything and also the safety and privacy of our family and We feel that that the six-foot fence would just be most appropriate in the situation given it wouldn't interfere with any of the lines of sight for traffic or kind of any of the other general visual characteristics of the neighborhood, so Thank you, thank you, I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item Asking a second time

last call hearing no additional public input commissioners may have a motion to close the public hearing the motion to close the public hearing all those in favor any opposed thank you motion carries and the public hearing is closed i will now open the floor for planning commission to discuss commissioners any questions or comments

Travis, this might get answered later because there's, like you said, a bunch of these are related, but is there a reason we're taking an approach of adding an exemption versus redefining what the front yard is?

Commissioner, that's an excellent question. The purpose of doing a request comparative going through the code and looking at it is because of the number of properties affected. By putting an exemption, we'd limit that number of properties. When we look at... Overall the properties that we affect by this you're talking maybe a couple dozen throughout the entire city That would meet these criteria a lot of times outlaws get put between new development and county roads So therefore they're not adjacent to a road therefore that is by definition a rear yard in these cases these type of properties are adjacent to a minor collector street and and therefore it is considered a front yard. So it's by the limited scope of the properties affected that by doing an overall change you could have inherent effects that aren't necessarily viewed yet or examined yet. It could create problems.

But I guess that's my concern is right now you're adding an exemption just for fences. If instead we took the approach of redefining what a front versus a backyard is, you put the exemption there. Would that not allow for this and potentially other things? Cause like what's going to prevent from the next one coming. Then we have an exemption in four different spots of the code versus. So redefining, you know, you put the exemption in backyard or whatever. I don't, I don't know the technology. You have to talk to the lawyers, but yeah.

Commission. If we look at doing definitional changes to what we define a front yard and a backyard and a rear yard. which is something staff has done and we brought forward last year to the planning commission to take a look at. It was over a year ago, so it's been a while. But even underneath our current code, if we change those type of definitions too much, we start getting affected by properties that abut different types of roads, especially any of our lakeshore properties. Those properties technically have two front yards. as well because the lakeside council is a front yard and then they're adjacent to a road so they get a front yard. So if we expand the definitions too much, we could have unintended consequences with different parts of the zoning code, especially if we look at accessory structures, we look at any type of our shoreland ordinances, bluff ordinances, also get mixed into that. We're going to be able to put a pool different way you can set your driveway up. We would have to look at all those different types of potential impacts And there's just, there's so many of them that I think that it would be, the juice isn't worth the squeeze in my opinion on that.

No, that's fine. As long as you guys explored which version to go down.

How does our definition compare to other cities and municipalities?

Commissioner, our definition is the same as just about everybody else. There's very, very small differences between communities. In a general sense, a front yard is considered the distance between the face of the principal structure or the attachment Accessory structures on the dash garage between that and the right-of-way Your rear yard is considered the opposite adjacent of that and then your side yards are the areas that are in between the front and Defined rear yard in these cases when you have properties that have multiple front yards being being directly adjacent to multiple streets Which is generally two or three what happens is that there's language in there that defines where that is and it defines all those to be front yards and

Travis, does somebody keep track of all the exemptions that are made or the amendments that are approved by the commission? And then can you query that to see how many other people have requested something similar?

Commissioner, we don't have like a spreadsheet that lists off every request that's been submitted. When your request gets submitted, we bring it to the planning commission for public hearing. That recommendation is taken to the city council. This request is to change the ordinance. So it goes into there and then we have a history in within our ordinance it says that it was modified on on certain dates or or in this case with a certain resolution or ordinance and using muni code which is our current provider for ordinance you can actually click on that you can see the red line change that came so you can research a history but we don't have anything where just you can query it at this point that makes sense thanks travis in the event that the

that this recommendation, that the recommendation doesn't go forward. Would the commission be tasked then with dealing with variance requests from every homeowner in a similar situation who wants to put up a fence?

Commissioner, if the City Council chose to deny any requests that came through or make a different decision than what was recommended by the Planning Commission, that's well within the City Council's right. It would be up to them at that point to determine if they want to direct the Planning Commission to perform an investigation. As far as a variance is concerned, This a variance for this type of request would be recommended for denial as it doesn't meet the practical difficulties test Specifically apply to the owner because this was a condition of the property and of the ordinance at the time Of the purchase of the property whether the applicant knew it or not It still exists, so it wouldn't meet the statutory requirements for a variance Any other questions

Commissioners hearing no more discussion, I will ask for a motion.

Make a motion that the city council approve the zoning text amendment request as stated here. So I can read all that.

All right, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, thank you, motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.6, a zoning text amendment request, front yard fence height county roads. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak. Until everyone has had an opportunity, then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close public hearing. Please note that the Planning Commission and city staff will not engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to Associate Planner Travis Briarley for a staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair, Commission. This is a very similar request that's coming forward. This is specific to allowing for a six-foot fence along a county road. Staff looked at it and had a discussion to how that would work, and we looked at a 40-mile-an-hour minimum speed limit to it for this type of exemption. This would be another exemption. This is a zoning tax amendment. It does have an expiration date, which the city needs to act, which is August 17th. In here, as far as the exemption, it would be fences in the front yards adjacent to a county road at a speed limit no less than 40 miles an hour shall be permitted a maximum fence height of six feet. The total effect on that is this is only properties directly adjacent. So if there's an outlot, that falls under a different category. There can be some concerns there, but they would fall under their current ordinances and wouldn't be affected by this. The biggest thing that we look at is the speed limit requirement, and that way we can limit the scope of this amendment to the specific request. This is only to change the height from four feet to six feet in the front yard, and sightline distances, again, are not exempted from this. So the proposed request is everywhere that's on red on the screen in front of you. Those are all the county roads where the speed limit is at least 40 miles an hour and where the properties are adjacent to it. The overall effect for the number of properties that we're looking at is less than two dozen, and a lot of those are commercial properties. As far as residential properties are concerned, you're looking at a half dozen to a dozen residential properties, which would meet the qualification for this exemption. And with that, I stand for any questions.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak?

Yes.

Please come to the podium and state your name.

Hi, I'm Nick Tibisard. This is my wife, Lindsay. We live at 612 Lyman Boulevard, so formerly 612 West 82nd Street, the road that just got paved last year. So in the last year, our property went from getting maybe 50 to 100 cars to thousands of cars. So it has led to a need for us to get a fence for... safety and noise pollution Sanity retention out there with everything happening. So the request is for a six-foot fence To be erected on our property. So we've got an acre and a half. We're significantly set off of the road We're looking for some Protection and relief from the massive amount of traffic that we're seeing now and the additional traffic We're going to be seeing next year when five is closed in earnest Thank you Thank you I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item I

Going once, going twice. All right, hearing no additional public input, commissioners may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

Seconded.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right, any opposed? No, okay. Thank you, motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for Planning Commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments?

Question the 40 mile per hour speed limit kind of exemption. What what analysis was done to arrive at that?

Commissioner we had taken a look at different speed limits on the county roads throughout the city the county road speed limits vary from 35 miles an hour all the way up to 55 miles an hour and and looking at the type of neighborhoods that are directly adjacent to those type of speed limits. The 35 mile an hour zone is your zone from County Road 43, the stoplight on Victoria Drive, to Highway 5. THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SO LOOKING AT KEEPING TRADITIONAL RULES IN PLACE WAS ONE OF THE KEY OBJECTIVES. THE OTHER AREAS WITH HIGH SPEED HAVE EITHER LARGER PARCELS OR HAVE AN OUTLOT SEPARATING THEM. SO WITH ANY TYPE OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST, WE TRY TO KEEP THE REQUEST SPECIFIC TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR IN THE END RESULT. while looking at mitigating any potential adverse effects that are caused by expanding the scope of that.

So we could see future requests to reduce that exemption to 35 miles per hour?

Absolutely. Absolutely, Commissioner. And those requests would go through the same process and be up to the City Council ultimately to determine.

Isn't Highway 5, would that be covered in this? Highway 5 is a state highway, Commissioner. So... This is only going to be county highways. Correct. Over 40 miles an hour.

40 or greater. Yeah, sorry, 40 or greater.

Is Marshall Lake Road, is that a county highway?

Yes, I apologize. That line should have been spaced a little further up because that's a 45 zone.

Uh, yeah, I think some dropped to 35. I think it's 35 part of it, but I can't remember where it turns 45 to 35. I just, I just mentioned it cause I think that's a, that's a future growth area, right? I might just be worth noting.

One, um, one comment I would have on that is the neighborhoods are generally separated by an outlet. Okay, so that way it wouldn't necessarily be affected. There's a hand. There's a couple of properties that could be. But you're you're larger development, especially around tells your ponder.

There's a lot separating and the 1 I was thinking about is like, the corner where Marshall, like, where Marshall lake lake is, there's that new development that's getting finished. I can't remember what it's called something of Marshall lake.

I apologize, Commissioner. Marsh Lake is actually a city road. County 10 is down at the bottom.

Okay.

I couldn't remember if Marsh Lake was or not yet. That's all right. I stumbled, too.

No, it's okay. I was just wondering if... I would imagine those new homes going in, I think that cul-de-sac's getting finished. I can't remember what's that, the Hollows and Marsh Lakes, anyone remember what it's called? I don't remember. Yeah, but that was like last four are getting built there. So would they be able to put fences in? Because I would think they'd want to. I just want to make sure that they would be able to.

That would be an example behind those properties. They're not actually adjacent to the county road. There's an outlot that would be separating that development from the right-of-way for County 43 going through there.

So then by the current law, it wouldn't matter. They would be able to put in six-footers. Correct.

They would not be affected by this request.

Got it.

Commissioners, any other discussions or questions?

You go back to that map. Sorry. Isn't rolling acres up there? Is that?

Rolling acres? That would be separated from outlots too, right? The larger developments are, but there are single-family homes that have direct access, like the properties on Rolling Bluff, or when you look at Swiss Mountain, there's an outlot that separates those spaces.

So they would still be able to put in six-foots?

Correct. They would not be affected by it. Okay.

Okay. I'm just trying to make sure we don't, like, adversely do the opposite for somebody that, like, you know... I would make a motion to recommend the city approve the zoning text amendment as stated here. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.7, zoning text amendment request for yard fence heights driveway gates. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask for the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our Planning Commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the Planning Commission and city staff will not engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to Associate Planner Travis Briarley for staff presentation.

thank you chair commission uh... and others are our last only tax for the class of the night uh... this is for eighty when across the driveway so very specific crossing the driveway and being a gate go to six feet uh... this request has the same expiration or same sixty day date on it being august seventeenth and we did do a vast notice for this well What we're looking at is this is also an exempt language where it says that fences or fence gates and posts when crossing a driveway shall be permitted to a maximum height of six feet when crossing the driveway plus four feet on both sides. So you're able to put the fence in or put your posts in and still get a gate across. The purpose of this request is mainly for privacy. going in because what happens is you can put a four foot fence currently but then you can put arborvitaes or other type of vegetation as tall as you want but then when you get to the driveway you shrink back down to that four feet so that's primarily what it's coming from this does affect every residential property throughout the city because every property would be qualified to be able to put that gate in The reality is that it wouldn't be in our newer subdivisions because you do have your newer traditional subdivisions. A lot of them have HOAs and would likely restrict this. However, It would be something permitted unless restricted at a lower level. This is only to exempt for the gate portion to be from maximum four feet to six feet. The reason that I keep saying gate is because gates are included within the definition of fences. It's inherently included. This would separate gates out from that to be regulated separately than the fence itself. Again, this also doesn't... It still needs to meet all the other parts of the code. This is just the proposed example. I do want to point out this is not an application. This is for illustrative purposes only. But when we look at this, we're looking at a six foot high gate with six foot pillars on both sides. And then on top, if those are ornamental pieces to be added to the post, that count towards the height. If they're lights, they don't, because that's for a different thing. But you get much more privacy off a six foot gate than you would off a four foot gate. when crossing the property. With that, I stand for any questions.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak?

And the applicant is not here tonight.

Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? Seeing as there's no one in the audience, hearing no additional public input, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Motion to close public hearing. Second.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor to Planning Commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments?

I guess the question I had, Travis, was about the lights not counting and the height. Is there any limits to height of light in residential areas?

That is an excellent question. There is not. It depends on what the light is mounted to. If it's mounted to a home, it's regulated by the home height. If it's mounted to a fence, it all comes down to a lot of the design stuff. The reason I point out the difference from ornamental, because ornamental is part of the actual structure, and a light is an attachment to it. But the light would still have to meet different requirements, including light pollution, as well as not creating any type of hazards, especially if it's attached to a fence, a home pole, put it up in a tree, it wouldn't matter.

Travis, have we done any, has the city done any studies on visibility impacts for either traffic or pedestrians regarding which way the gates can swing in required versus out and blocking motorist traffic or other things like that?

uh... commission that's an excellent question there's no official study that's been done however we have taken an approach of establishing intercept sight line distances and those sight line distances are basically saying when you pull up to an intersection from where you're sitting as a driver in the car you need to see x amount of feet down the uh... perpendicular road you're turning onto and that distance is determined by the speed of the road that you're turning onto MnDOT has a standard that works with that. That is something we review when we look at anything, especially at intersections, and we consult with the city engineer to confirm that information as well. So is there a study done? No, it's all done on a case-by-case basis, but it is something that we do follow and try to make sure that there's that safety component put in place.

Is there any requirement to match the aesthetics or materials to the adjacent fencing or the primary structure, anything like that?

So that's an excellent question. You are allowed underneath. There's First Amendment concerns that come up when we start talking about design. Our standard is that the fence has to be one continuous color or design. So a gate would still need to be able to meet that. There would still be some freedom in there to do some expression, but you wouldn't be able to go from having, say, a purple fence and then putting in, bright orange gate just because you like the vikings then you're separating two colors and stuff like that all right commissioners hearing no more discussion i will ask for more questions are there any uh travis are there any requirements around

in this for gate placement, either setback from road or sidewalks, pedestrian walkways? Does that already exist somewhere?

Commissioner, that's a good question. Yes, that already does exist. So this proves Provides for an exemption for the gate, specifically itself. The gate is still part of a fence. Therefore, the fence setbacks all still need to be met. So every other requirement that we would see for any fence would still need to be there. Perfect. Thank you.

What is the setback from a sidewalk?

From a sidewalk, it's six and a half feet. Okay.

Great.

No other questions for me.

Okay. One more, I'm sorry. Does that setback apply to the operation of the gate when it opens?

So the operation of the gate, what we would look at is we would look at if the gate is going to swing open and block the sidewalk. The main reason for the setback is for snow storage. So when you plow a road, the boulevard area between the sidewalk and the road, that's where you put the snow from the road, and then you still need a spot to put the snow from the sidewalk or the trail. But any design that would come to staff where the gate would swing open, if it goes over a sidewalk at that point, it's creating a hazard, and at that point, we would deny the application.

Sorry, Travis, can you clarify something? So this says county roads be limited to 40, but if you go back two slides, you said it affects everybody?

Oh, I apologize, that is the wrong slide. Sorry, that's the wrong slide for this. The proposed motion is incorrect for this.

I just wanted to make sure that, thanks. So this does not have the same county road limitation that the previous one had?

No, this is all residential properties.

Okay. And I guess I'll make a motion. before I can do this, to amend to allow front yard fences for the six feet as written on whatever slide number this is, 27. City Council should adopt that. Probably the worst recommendation ever made.

Botched it. Second.

All right, there we go. Someone understood.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you motion carries. Thank you. We will move on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda any reports from staff Chair and Commission there are no reports from staff Commissioners there are no more items this evening. I'm sorry any reports from Commission Jen you're here.

We gotta ask. How's it looking filling those? retail spaces

Yes, commissioners. Blue Agave is going to be opening on July 13th as their soft opening, which is exciting. Harlan's is hopeful the end of July as well. As you're aware, we have a new orthodontics coming to town, and we've got some movement on a few other spaces that I cannot share quite yet. But I will tell you that downtown West tenants will be announced quickly the next few weeks here, which is really exciting. So hopefully that will create more excitement on some of those vacant spaces that we have right now.

And I missed the meeting, so this might have been covered. I apologize. The DQ was purchased? Correct. Yes. Has that already been started in terms of what the development will look like?

So they have gone through Sketch Plat and we are working with the development team right now, the same group that's doing the Downtown West, same project group and working with design right now and what that looks like on two fast casual drive-through buildings right now. We're not confirmed on the tenants, but we've got some LOIs that hopefully will be signed the next few weeks. So yep, it's been purchased. It will be part of the Downtown West development. It just will be phased a little bit differently.

And then I had someone ask me another question, and I don't think I asked you guys this. So in that downtown west, there's already a small building that's just north of the daycare. What is that?

Yes, commissioners, that is a sales center for the condos that are going to be built. So basically, it is a faux condo building. So it's going to be built out to look like you're walking into a condo. In the condo market, you have to sell a certain percentage or you have to lease a certain percentage of them before you can actually get financing. And so their hope is to be able to bring people into that space, showcase what a condo may look like, and then hopefully get those folks to purchase. It will be open. I think to City Council at the end of July We're gonna be doing a tour so I could ask if if they'd let the public in there or not But I'm sure you'd be able to walk in there if you'd like and then does that building eventually go away Yes future phases to get built got it. Yeah, correct It should be there for about two years as our plan and then we've been told that they are gonna donate to donate it to the city We're not sure what we'll do with that space yet, but we're kind of working internally and what we could utilize that space for Thank you

Perfect. Anything else from commissioners? All right, commissioners, there are no more items this evening. Can I ask for a motion to adjourn?

Make a motion to adjourn the planning commission meeting. Second.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. We are adjourned.