Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Board of Adjustments for July 23rd. Go ahead and get a roll call.

Yes. Case. Here. Kakacek. Here. Albee. Here. Dargis-Johnson. Here. Spire. Here. Tate. Here. And Culhane, Chernus, and Tupper absent. We do have a quorum. We have six members. So for variance requests, it requires that there be five in the affirmative. And for conditional use, it requires four.

Voice votes are okay for board adjustment.

Yep.

Yeah.

Oh Actually, no, let's do roll call.

Sorry And then for the minutes from the last meeting to have a motion to approve those minutes motion second second any discussion or any Minutes Nothing heard on that. I can do a voice vote on those, right? All those in favor of the minutes, aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Okay, minutes are approved. Is there anybody that has any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications related to any of the agenda items for today's board? None? Okay. Anyone have any new business they'd like to disclose that's not on the agenda? And then for any of the participants, either in the room or online, if you would provide that to Brandy, we'll address it at the end of the agenda. Nothing from the board? All right. And then, so we got the regular agenda, two items. Can I get a... Recommendation approve that so moved second a motion a second any discussion Visions nothing heard all those in five favor say aye aye any opposed same sign Okay, that approves Randy if you would please go ahead and lead us through eight alpha and Bravo well start with alpha What's the regular agenda?

Okay, sounds good. So the first request here is a conditional use for storage units in an office in the R3 multifamily residential district that it's currently zoned. The property is 1511 Street Northeast. The request, and actually, IT, if you want to go to my screen, please. Okay. So there's an existing garage on this property. It has been used for storage of materials. What the owner is looking to do is continue, really just continue with what has existed, but wanted to memorialize the conditional use with it being in the R3 district. So with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Any questions from the board for staff? Go ahead, Rhonda.

Randy. It's not going to be lived in. There's no water or sewer in there, is there? Correct. There's not. There's not. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Go ahead and open this up for any public questions or any opponents or proponents. Is there anyone here representing the petition?

I believe there's someone online.

Okay. So you're online. Did you want to go ahead and identify yourself? And then you got anything you would like to add to the request?

Yes. My name is Michael Lawrence. I'm the owner of the property. We have used it for maintenance for many years for me and my father's properties. We now have somebody third party doing our maintenance. And so I wanted to make sure that they're able to do it. We're okay with any stipulations on outside storage. We don't want that either. Parking outside of business hours, we're cool with that too. Yeah, it's pretty much the same use. It's just now a third party is doing it instead of us. And for that to be kosher under the ordinance, I had to go through this process.

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Lawrence from the board? Okay, none. Okay, is there anybody else that wants to speak on behalf of this request? Ain't nothing heard. Are there anyone in opposition? Ain't nothing heard. I'll go ahead and close the open hearing on that. Can I get a motion from the board?

Motion to approve as presented.

Got a motion to approve. Second? Second any further discussion? Mr. Chair, yes, sir.

If the makers of the motions would be so inclined Mr. Lawrence did stipulate that he would be okay to have a condition where there would be no outdoor storage nor parking after normal business hours and If they would be so inclined to make that motion to attach those conditions I think it would be appropriate.

Ms. Kaczek, are you willing to amend your motion?

I will amend my motion to add the additional conditions regarding prohibiting outside storage and after-hours parking.

Second? Second. We've got amended motion and a second. Any further discussion amongst the board? All right. Did you want to elaborate on any justification just for the record on the motion?

It's basically supporting a use that has already been in place and just kind of taking that extra step to ensure that the use is preserved for a contractor instead of an owner.

Can we go ahead and get a roll call, please, Brandy?

Yep. Tate? Yes. Speyer?

Yes.

Dergish-Johnson? Yes. Albee?

Yes.

Vekacek? Yes. Kays?

Yes. Okay, thank you. Moving on to regular agenda item eight, Bravo.

All right. Thank you, Bill. So this is a variance request for the property at 224 8th Street Southeast. It is currently zoned R2A single-family attached residential district. We'll get a... little zoomed in site plan here of What they are proposing so there's the existing house and garage they're requesting to do and it in addition to the attached garage using inline provision following that 15.3 feet to expand Let's go up here So the The addition is 432 square feet, and the existing garage is 690 square feet, so they're not going to be exceeding the allowable size for an attached garage. And the boulevard in this area is 80 foot as well, so they do have a larger boulevard that could help accommodate for the lesser front yard setback. So with that, I'll stand by for questions.

I didn't see it Brandi just real quick with the other frontage setback. What is that? Yeah, because it's dual frontage. So the variance is for one. What's the other setback?

Oh for the side yard?

Yeah, because it's dual frontage, right?

Yeah, but they're only here. Let me pull it up on the GIS here. I think that'll be more helpful.

Okay.

So you mean, so they're only requesting at this?

No, the 8th Street setback, how far is that?

Oh, I mean, it's kind of irrelevant.

It's the other frontage. I'm just curious. So it's well exceeds the setback limit, okay.

Yeah, yep. And the reason for it is, like, obviously it exists there, and they're not doing an addition on that side.

Right, right. It's just we have a lot of these dual frontage requests. And their compliance on the other side, you know, fully, and it's just the one they're not in.

36 feet about, approximately.

Perfect. Yes, sir.

Right, and the reason we could not use in-line provision is because of the driveway access. And then something to note that I alluded to was the right-of-way is 80 feet in this area. It could be 66, which would give them seven feet, which would put them at 22 feet. So that you would have enough space. If this right-of-way would be vacated, which would be a larger project, then they would be looking for a three-foot variance.

Yes, sir. And there are no sidewalks along 3rd Avenue South here?

On the north side.

In front of their property?

Yep.

I couldn't tell if it was.

No.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Brandi, it looks like from the GIS, is there already a concrete pad that's, is that already a concrete pad there? And the garage would encompass that space as well as a little bit more?

The proposed garage. That could be. Then that might be something good for the applicant's agent to be able to elaborate on.

Thank you. Any further questions from the board for staff?

One more. Brandy, with this addition, is there room to put a detached garage off of that alley? Or has all the buildable space been used?

Exhausted. I mean, potentially. But I wouldn't, I mean, what?

Yeah, there could be. Okay. The reason I ask is because of the 3rd Avenue one that we have up here that kind of turned into that complete lot coverage. So that will be a consideration for me is that we still have that potential of covering, you know, so much of that lot, even though we have a beautiful upfront space, you know, then all the way back to the alley could potentially be built on.

Yeah, I mean, they still would have to adhere to the setbacks. So, like, all of that would be limiting. So, if they were opening to the alley, then they still would have to be at least 25 feet back off of...

So, just for curiosity's sake, then, how far are they from the north lot line, then? Just like Bill asked on the front, what is the back lot line just for... from the house to the lot line, approximately?

Approximately 14. Okay, thank you. But you know, the lot itself is 50 foot total. So with the 25 foot front yard setback and a six foot side yard, they wouldn't have, like you'd be looking at a one stall. Like, cause you'd have 25 and then you'd have 19. So you could do a 19 foot wide garage that would open to the alley without a variance. And you know, At least they're still going to have green space. Because otherwise they would have to come to you guys for a variance, and then that's where you could look at it again.

Any other further questions from the board or staff? No more questions. Let's go ahead and open to public hearing. Is the applicant available to talk to this request? Come on forward if you want to identify yourself and then elaborate on the request.

Sam Schrader

And the reason they want to add on this garage Stall is so that way they can shift over the garage space and then utilize a main floor bathroom in the house because currently they don't have a main floor bathroom That's the reason for it being an attached garage and in line with the existing because otherwise then they'd be losing a garage stall It wasn't in line Thank you any questions for the applicants representative here I

Mr. Chair just my same question would be what is there right now? Next to it. Is that just like patio blocks or is that gonna all come up? And now you're gonna lay it all new foundation for the new.

Yep I believe patio pavers and we would be doing a new foundation.

Okay.

Thank you Thank you Is there anyone else? either here in the room or online that wants to speak on behalf of in favor of this request I Nothing heard. Is there any opponents that would like to speak to this request? All right, nothing heard. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Can I get a motion from the board?

I'll make that motion to approve the variance as requested.

I'll take the motion. Second?

Second.

Second. Further discussion amongst the board? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

This board has had a history of allowing in-line extensions of properties. I think the uniqueness of this lot in itself is the large right-of-way space on the south side of the property. I think it makes common sense they still aren't using an excessive amount of property and allowing for green space there in the event there is a subsequent request down the road to add a garage Planning and zoning board can take up at that point further

Old Town small lots, these 100 by 50 lots, is limited what you can do within the permitted square footage. So this seems probably the most effective and efficient way to go about it. If we try to put a detached structure, it becomes problematic. So I don't understand the request as presented. All right. Any further? OK. Go ahead and get a roll call, please, Randy.

Um, Kays. Yes. Kachuk. Yes. Albee.

Yes.

Dargus Johnson. Spire.

Yes.

Tate. Yes.

Okay, that passes. Moving on to agenda item nine, open comment. Do we have any requests for anything? Nope. Okay, so no new business from the board? Okay. Any reason for executive session?

No.

Okay. Go ahead and a motion to adjourn.

Moved. Second. And we are adjourned.

Order the July 23rd City of Watertown Planning Commission and I got the agenda here. Can I get a roll call, Brandi?

Yes. Case? Here. Kakachuk? Here. Albee? Here. Bergus-Johnson? Here. Spire? Here. Tate? Here. And Culhane, Chernus, and Tupper absent. We have a quorum. It is majority in the affirmative.

Minutes from the last meeting to have a motion to approve those Some of any a second second any discussion regarding those minutes Okay, having heard none all those in favor of the minutes aye aye aye any opposed same sign Those minutes are approved any Conflicts of interests or expert take communications related to today's Planning Commission agenda Nothing heard from the commission. Declaration of new business. Does any commissioner have any new business that's not on the agenda? Okay. For the public, if you have anything that you'd like us to consider, please give that to Brandy during the meeting here, and we'll get to that at the back end of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve today's agenda? We've got two items on it. Okay. Motion to second?

Second.

Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Same sign, no. Okay, let's go ahead. Brandy, first agenda item.

Okay, thank you, Bill. So this is an annexation and zoning request for property that is under single ownership adjacent to city limits. Let me pull it up here on the map. So up in the northeast quadrant of the city, the petitioner is requesting to annex about 13,558 square feet of the four acres that he owns there to the south that's outlined in red on the map pulled up on the screen. So his desire is to construct a detached structure. And so he's only bringing in a portion of his property that is parallel and adjacent to the property that is already within city limits. And then he's proposing to zone that R1 single family residential as well. The maximum size the detached structure could be would be 1,600 square feet. And then this way, it lines up with a future conceptual plan of what this property would look like if it were developed in the future as well and subdivided further. So we will do a development lot agreement with the existing lot so that this property is not landlocked. And with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Mr. Chair? Yes, sir.

I'm sorry have we approved when was the concept plan for the remaining acreage that he owns there Actually, it's just one that we have within our records But there actually is not a it's monarch edition is what this was looked at previously and it's again Irrelevant really but this would line up where you could have a right-of-way 66 foot right-of-way and then lots on each side So that's really the the main focus of it other quick question.

Mr. Chair. Yes, sir what trips the Annexation requirement or park requirement when we add a property into the city Is there a certain amount of land that trips it was at the time of the development? How does that work?

Yeah, so it's actually when it's a subdivision itself. So I believe there's an acreage requirement too. But this one does not trigger for that.

So does it compound? I can bring in a 13,000 piece one at a time every time without ever having to deal with parkland dedication? Or is it only when I actually have a preliminary plan approved? It looks like it's piecemeal development to me when we're bringing in one lot at a time for an entire amount of acres. I'm just curious how that works.

Yeah. This one doesn't qualify.

So if he was to bring in the same amount of acreage at 13,558 square feet, it looks like he could do it six more times on an individual case-by-case basis. and we would never reach the level of parkland dedication.

So when it's subdivision exempt, which when you're under five lots, and that's when you don't require the concept plan, but it is also, let me look this up here.

I'm sorry. I don't mean causing. It's just a question when we have acreage and he owns a larger piece of ground and we're bringing in a lot at a time. This one makes sense to me. I understand what the purpose is, but I'm just wanting to make sure I understand the process.

Yeah. No, I will get that for you.

Stand by.

Oh, and otherwise, go ahead with other questions too. That's fine. I just am looking it up on my phone instead of on my computer since I have my computer.

Ms. Brandy, so then I'm going to interrupt you. See, that's why we're waiting for you. But what is the maximum size of a building, 1,600 square foot, that he can put on there? And what are the sidewalls of that then?

They can be...

10-foot sidewalls?

And overall, 24-foot in height, 1,600 square feet. And read, what are the sidewalls? 12-foot. Yeah, there we go.

Okay. So...

If you could bring this up on GSI also, GIS, whatever, GIS, I guess it is not GSI, GIS, please, just to, and they'll leave it kind of scoped out so we can see where it is sitting here. When I did it at home, I'm like,

Okay.

So there, and if it would just stay so you could see whether his current property that's annexed, his residential property.

Right. So those lots to the south that are potentially panned out, that's just if and when, someday, as Todd was implying.

I mean, that's... Yeah, and I didn't find record. And again, like I didn't... This is a concept plan, a conceptual plan of what this could look like in the future. But obviously that would take both property owners wanting to subdivide.

Yes, right. Peterson's there. Thank you.

Brandi, so I understand. The annexations allow for the square footage to build an accessory structure. Is that accessory structure going to be on the existing municipal lot or is it going to be what's currently in the county, the annex portion there?

Yes, it'll be within the annex portion because they actually went to the joint board in 2024 and were denied just because they're adjacent to city limits and they don't have 35 acres.

Manager Hanton, for the benefit of the board, could you show the city limit line so they can see the adjacent county property?

Yeah. Next question.

Yeah, because the properties to the west of them there have just that. They have an accessory structure on the county property, but they have their home on municipal property. I was just curious, why wouldn't that be applicable here, you know?

Fair.

But yeah, it was denied when they went before the board for the Joint Jurisdiction Board.

Good to know.

And it says that my city limit should be showing.

Maybe just change it to a shade. Yeah, if you go down and make that a shade, it would make it pop out.

There you go. Okay, that's helpful. Post up in Green is County. I'll see if we, yeah, there. Yeah, you got a nice basketball court right next door.

Property all used to belong to that.

Ms. Brandy is still researching. Are there any further questions from the Commission?

I'll let Brandy continue to research Commissioner Kaye's question.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

It looks like, I just want to make sure I'm understanding, it looks like they're planning to build an ag structure. Is that still the plan?

It will be a structure that it has to match the primary structure. So with the roofing and siding materials, and I believe that it's for storage of equipment to be able to maintain the four acres.

That makes sense. Thank you.

But the applicant is also online that he could... Speak to it. Yeah. Yeah.

I was just considering if there was going to be big equipment in that ag shed, how would it get anywhere else? It can only be used on that other four acres. And is that the intention?

Yes. Thank you. And I do have the, like, the appropriate or proper answer about the park dedication. So it states that parkland dedication shall be applicable for residential subdivision under Title 24 or annexation that are residentially zoned and are not anticipated to be more intensively Developed or expanded following annexation and so this property is 13,000 square feet So it can't even be subdivided into two separate lots. So that is the reason for the exemption and I see your point of If they were to subdivide or if they were to annex in small portions like this over and over again I Guess we would keep an eye on that

Yeah.

I'm just looking at it. Let's just go to the next parcel, the larger 40-acre parcel to the east of there. If I owned all of that and I was going to start annexing a lot at a time for construction purposes, at what point in time does that trigger the need for a concept plan to be approved? Can I do it one time? Can I do it three times? And I just didn't I just couldn't remember. I remember we had a long conversation several years ago when we were talking about concept plans and when somebody comes into Annex, they own, Bob Fox owns the whole quarter section. We don't ask him to master plan the whole quarter section or concept plan the whole quarter section, but there is some idea that if we're going to be doing stage development, a onesie or twosie is probably not that big of a deal, but when we start having the potential to do more than that, we should figure out when is it that the Planning Commission staff and the City Council becomes more involved in how that property develops and the staging of that development.

Definitely.

That was just where I was at.

Definitely, and that's actually a discussion that staff had with this one of finding it more appropriate to do the 13,000 square foot instead of the four acres because, well, for one, the property to the west is already landlocked today. I mean, if it weren't owned by the same owner that, if it wasn't under the same ownership. So, but we don't want to, we would like to see how that's going to lay out as a subdivision before we would annex further. And then the other, we do have all of that laid out in Title 24 as far as when subdivision is triggered. So all of those concerns we did a deep dive on that as well, would be.

Nope.

Yep, and that's why we wanted to see it only expanded from the back lot, just that portion so that it could be connected to the lot and tied together. Yeah, we found that to be appropriate.

Any further questions from the commission for staff? Okay, go ahead and open it for public hearing. We have the applicant on the line, you said?

Yes, should be.

Identify yourself and then, you know, I've got three to five minutes to talk to the request here.

Eric Martins, 2713th Avenue. I'm the owner of the property and the house just to the north of the property. Intent for me is to to get a structure back there so that I can take care of the property. Before I bought the property, it was extremely overgrown. And I was trying to hay it. Well, that became kind of difficult to do. Rod Wagner was helping me with that. And as age gets a hold of people, he wanted to stop haying the land. And I quickly found out that a 42-inch mower wasn't going to cut it. And so I ended up buying a tractor. Once I got a tractor, I found out that I needed a little bit of a skidster, so I ended up buying a skidster. The tractor parks in my front driveway from time to time. The skidster's in my garage. What I'd like to do is put a structure up there that matches my house, so it's clearly to see that the two are together.

Any questions from the commission for Mr. Martins?

Mr. Martins, is there... Are you going to have horses out there, or horses are not your intent?

I do have horses out there. I've got a 220 foot by 130 foot fenced-in area, and I've got a 125 by 85 fenced-in area out there as well.

How do you remove the waste?

The waste? It's compost. I compost it.

And what is your intentions for the land down the road? As you stated, we're all getting older.

Oh, no, that's Mr. Wagner. He didn't want to hang anymore.

No, no, no, no, no.

I love the land. My intentions are to stay quite a lengthy time.

We're not going anywhere.

Any other questions from the commission for Mr. Martins? Thank You mr. Martin's there is there anybody else either online or present that would like to speak on behalf of this request And nothing heard anyone that was opposed to that wants to say anything Nothing heard go ahead and close the public hearing Can I get a motion from commissioners?

I'll make the motion to approve the Annexation this two-parter annexation they should okay and second Second further discussion regarding the motion First or you want me to well, I'll just start by saying that I have no brothers with them adding on to the size of his lot and being able to construct a building there. It's more, it's not Mr. Martin's issue, I just want to make sure that we as a community don't look at stair-stepping development and not accusing staff of doing that. It's just more for public understanding.

Mr. Chair, I guess my concern comes from future development. We have, now we have this huge, potentially huge building back there. That's why I asked his intention, and the city's intention, for that matter. It's going to be a barn-style Quonset sitting back there in a residential area. And maybe not. Maybe none of us in this room will see that develop to the east. I don't have a crystal ball. But I think that it's just inappropriate. I just do. That is, I mean, we're smack between two sets of potential, you know, we're just not connected. So I'm really struggling with that. I mean, we've got houses to the north and houses to the south. Why are we thinking that that wouldn't fill in? Unless we're, you know, this is going to turn into a Fourth Avenue kind of situation where, you know, it's just row houses there and that's it. You know, the horse is there at this point. Yeah, maybe not a problem. I guess I wouldn't want, I love horses, but I wouldn't want them in my backyard for the other people, for the flies and the waste. I think we need to decide if it's going to be city or if it's going to be county for a very long period of time, not just 10 years.

Mr. Chair, I'm not getting into a debate. The property there that's in the county is being used as agricultural purposes and it will be Uses agricultural purposes as long as it the county the the piece of property that they're adding that they're wanting to do the house or not the house, but the garage on Would conform with all city codes and so I don't view the size of the garage I mean if I have a big lot and I can have It's only have 36 by 42 That's what I'm saying.

I mean it's

If I had a five-acre lot and I had a bigger garage or whatever, I mean, we have a sliding scale on that, but we're not exceeding the size of garages allowed for that property, correct?

Correct. And it has to look like the primary house.

Right, but I'm, again, now, you're putting a residential house to the west of it and, you know, however the streets would get designed once it is, and if it is brought in, as I said, I don't have that crystal ball, but So my house is gonna face south on that, let's just say, you know, because it's kind of a cul-de-sac the other way, so I'm assuming that any development, my house would be facing south, and now I have this. I'm just, I don't know. I'm struggling with it. I guess that's all. I don't know.

This is a good example up by the Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer in River Ridge and Valley View where those two developments came together. You actually, some of these property owners have bought the back lots, and then I know a couple of them, the intention is to do just a garage. So you do run into that, and people do have the right to do that.

Great discussion. Yes, sir. Good. Yeah.

Manager Hanton, if you could clarify the requirements for the type of structure, the material type, and the size that's allowable, just so there's clarity on that.

Yes. So the accessory structure has to be of the same siding type and roofing type as the primary structure. So he could not... It would have to match the existing home, which... it's very residential in nature looking. So yeah, it's going to be a residential property.

But it doesn't necessarily, I mean, it could be a pole barn with a dirt floor just so long as the exterior cladding and roofing matches, right?

If they want to do pole construction, fine. But they would have to, I mean, no one does that because they're going to have to do horizontal siding.

I got you. I'm just what if-ing, you know?

Then why, and same with up at River Ridge up there, why aren't we zoning that as a garage, the garage district? If that's what's only going to be on there and no house, why are we not bringing it in as that?

because every primary structure can have an accessory structure. And this lot isn't egregiously large. It's 25,000 square feet, so it's a half an acre. But he doesn't have any room in his rear yard to have an accessory structure of how it sits today.

I know, but my point is, why didn't we bring it in as garage? Because that's all that's ever going to be on it. That's my question. I mean, why are you banking at R1?

We're at the annexation discussion right now, the zoning attachment. Well, I understand.

But that's not a bad point to explain. It's zoned R1, and we have to do a development lot agreement to tie these two properties together. Otherwise, it would be landlocked, and we cannot have split zoning. Okay.

Randy, has the city received any communication from adjacent landowners for or against?

We only had one reach out, and the general inquiry about the horses within city limits. And we explained that to the inquirer and Mr. Martins and what the city's ordinance requires for that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Community Development Manager Hint. And just to clarify, the lot lines seem to be a bit skewed on the GIS. What is the side yard setback on the lot that the house is on?

So it's 12 foot on the east side and 17 foot at the narrowest part on the west side.

Okay. So with the 12 foot setback, there would be the possibility of accessing the lot via the driveway as well. There is access from the front of the property to the back, purely on the applicant's property.

So considering altogether, I mean, yeah, kind of a catch-22 with the county there in terms of the needs and the utilization of the land. It put them in a little bit of a procurement, and I understand the justification and the hardship as Mr. Martins laid it out. This is fairly unique in terms of we don't get a lot of these asks for the commission. future development wise you know whatever comes comes you know I was debating whether you know in the conditions do we need to have something addressing Commissioner Kays' concerns about the piecemeal you know but I think that's just going to have to be dealt with on a case by case and I think it just it gets too far down a rabbit hole if you try to load you know overload this you know conditional use.

Mr. Chair any response we have we don't have the ability to conditionally annex or conditionally re-property. It's more of all my comments were not Mr.. Martin's request from the public understands onesies and twosies are okay every once in a while, but when we have the opportunity to do things Covered entitled understood it just long, you know short of it.

Yeah, I agree that just it it's fine as presented in my my personal assessment and I drew agree with city manager that yeah, there is a Access from the existing city lot to the annex portion and this is directly contiguous with the existing, you know property line, so Just for further, you know Justification so forth. So I haven't said that is there any further discussion regarding the motions? I Haven't heard none roll call vote this okay?

Case yes, Kaka check. Yes, I'll be yes Dargis Johnson Yes, Spire. Yes, Tate Yes, Darius Johnson will it pass by say no Yes, and no

Go ahead and move on to the next agenda item, please or the zoning or the zoning sorry that was eerie.

Yeah Thank you But they the ordinance

Separate, because the resolution, so you guys just did for the annexation resolution. Now you'll do it for the zoning ordinance.

Right, yeah. And the recommended zoning is going to be matching the existing property, right? Yep, R1. R1. We don't need any further staff discussion on this, right? We just need a motion on it? Yes. Or a public hearing, excuse me.

Well, typically for the annexation zonings, we have been just doing that as one public hearing.

Okay. But I was, in my opinion...

I would I would agree. Yeah, I think that was pretty robust discussion. We've had on the annexation it covered a lot of ground So let's go ahead and I'll entertain a motion for the zoning request For our one So moved Any further discussion on the zoning I

Second by Targus Johnson, just for the record.

Thank you.

For Ashton.

All right.

Can I get a roll call vote, please?

Yes. Tate. Yes. Spire. Yes. Targus Johnson. No. Albee. Yes. Kachak. Yes. Cates.

Yes. Okay, thank you. Now moving on to eight, Bravo. Bravo.

Okay, thank you Bill. So this is a vacation request for an unimproved alley that is between 10th and 9th with the northern and southerly bound and then between 8th and 7th for the eastern westerly bound. Most of these properties, I'll go here, are under single ownership. All right, so here is the old Shopko, Jensen Avenue, and then this is the block that we are looking at, or where the petition for vacation... has come from so it's a 14 foot wide alley there are Municipal utilities has electrical and gas lines within so we need to retain a utility easement But since it is not utilized for access and it is unimproved we feel that for for redevelopment or future development of these properties because they're under single ownership, it would be conducive to vacate the alley but to retain a utility easement and to retain a 20-foot utility easement over the 14-foot wide alley that's there today. So that's in excess of what WMU has for being able to maintain and work within that area. And with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Any questions from the commission? Mr.

Chair, did all of the properties sign the petition to annex or was just half?

Yep, all of them did. Thank you.

And I thought I heard you say that these are all single ownership, all these lots? Most.

Most. So these are under one common ownership. Okay. And then this is under separate. Okay. This is a separate owner, this is a separate owner.

Mistake.

Mr. Chair, Brandi, what triggered this request at this time? Is there a plan for some redevelopment? Is that something they're talking about?

Yes. And the reason was because otherwise they'd be before you for a variance. So we thought this way, we clean it up, we make sure that we are maintaining the area that WMU needs to maintain their infrastructure and just, yeah, clean it up instead of having variances come forward. Thank you.

It looks to me, just in the town drive-by, that there really isn't an alley there.

No.

It's unimproved. Yeah, well, I mean, it's not even being, there's no trafficking happening down between the middle of those lots that I can see.

No. No, so for it being a right-of-way for access, it's not. Not utilized.

Gotcha. Any further questions from the commission? Okay. Having heard none, open it up for any, is there an applicant or anyone? No. Or is this from the city?

No.

Okay. All right. Is there anyone else opposed or in favor that would like to make comment, either online or in the room? Or having heard none, we'll go ahead and close the public portion. Can I get a motion from the Commission? Any further discussion related to this motion?

Mr. Chairman, I just would point out that approximately 160 feet of To the west is the unimproved right-of-way at 7th Street. So we do have a public parcel if, for instance, we ever needed a storm sewer route. We do have something relatively close.

Absolutely. Good point. Thank you. All right. Can I go ahead and get a roll call vote, Randy? Okay.

Did you get the motion? I did. Okay, sorry. Kays?

Yes.

Kachuk? Yes. Albee? Yes. Dargetts-Johnson? Yes. Spire? Yes. Tate?

Yes.

Okay, that passes. Moving on to the next part of the agenda, which is, was there any submissions for further public comment? No. Okay. Any new business? I didn't hear any earlier. So any old business we need to address?

None that I have.

Okay. Any reason for executive session? No. All right. I can just adjourn it, right?

Yep.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, guys.