Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Go ahead and get started. It's 7:00. So, if everyone's ready, I'll call this meeting of April 3rd, 2025 of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. First thing we'll do here is a roll call. Paige, can you help us with that? David Larson here. John Meyer here. Doug Spunter, Stephanie Garner here, David Huser here, Kate Payne here, Kathy Olsson. All right, so we have enough for a quorum. So we'll go ahead and begin. First item on our main agenda here is the approval of tonight's minutes. Oh, we have the agenda first. Uh, that's what I meant to say, but I did not. Very good call. I read it and did not say it. Approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting, April 3rd, 2025. I move that be approved as printed. Second. All right, we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes. Item D on our agenda was what I meant to say. Approval of minutes from our February 6th, 2025 meeting. I do have a question. I think it's a correction on page seven. the very first paragraph talking about pools. The last sentence is uh a 5,000galon pool is typically 5 ft in diameter. Should be if that's the case, it would be very tall. 34t tall. I think that's supposed to be in depth. I think it's 15t diameter is what I can verify that. I Yeah, whatever. Yeah, a 5,000gallon pool. Yeah, it's it's it's not that cuz that, like I said, that's if I cipher correctly, that's a 34T deep. That opens

all kinds. That would be for high diving. Kind of see what that's pretty deep. Yeah, you could I don't know what the pressure would be at the bottom of a 34T pool, but pretty intense. Probably more than what those plastic pools can. Yeah, she just borrow Oh, I guess go straight down. All right. So, 17 minor minor correction there. Okay. Um, so can we you can approve with the correction. Okay. All right. So then, yeah, I would I would ask for a motion with John's request there to be corrected to be made to the commissioner. Actually, I think it's a test to see if we read them. You listen. I even if I'd read him. Uh, I I stopped before I got to page seven. Takes an engineer to make sure it's correct. I'll move it. All right. Second. All right. So, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. That motion also passes. Thank you, John, for your detail there. Yeah, that's very good. All right. So, our next item is item E, which is our public hearing section. So, I'll make uh make an announcement to the group here. We'll open the public hearing, look for any comments from the audience, and uh you if you do have anything to say, please approach the podium, state your name and address, and then we'll move forward uh with discussions and whatever you want to say. So, we'll start with uh opening the public hearing for item one, which is a reasonzoning app application for parcel uh ID 1071027. So, if anyone has any comments to make to the commission, now's the time to do

that. Seeing none. All right. God, the crowd. It is. All right. All right. So, with that, I'll close the public hearing and we'll go ahead and move to commission discussion. Paige, if you could just read through our agenda memo. Yeah. Uh, this resoning, um, as you can see on the zoning map is a mixture of R1, R2, and R4. The proposal is to turn the entire parcel into R2, which would allow for a single family detached and single family attached subdivision. and no public comments were received were okay. So a question I was curious about um so the current zoning map was that part of the plat survey originally or just how did it evolve to be cuz I know future use just says residential right kind of generically was there like a purposeful plan with the R4 R2 R1 at the time it was done. Does anybody know Wes? Wes that was back when John Monahan did it. That was his concept plan, but that's not ours. Okay. Yeah. I was just curious. Thank you. Anything from public comments wise? Okay. Any other discussion? Well, I mean the only comment I'd have is that, you know, it's commercial up along the highway or along Bremer Avenue and, you know, typically they try to do a transition from commercial to dense to less dense. But for the few lots that are in there, I don't see that that's an

issue. You know, I think anything would encourage some to come in and develop would be very good. Well, that's what we had to do up farther east there and that's why we did that to take care of that back in the day. They put the trees or the BM I guess it was. Oh, by the what is the name of that edition back? What's that? What is the name of that edition? Edition. Yeah. Well, yeah. The further east that we had, you know, we had the same commercial items there. Yeah. If you flip your screen that she's showing us right behind like where Del View has stuff and whatever and yeah that's on the residential properties that put in the tree B I think there's no action that has to come out of the public hearing piece is Well, I mean, yes, you're still making a motion to either recommend approval or denial of the resoning of the council. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We [Applause] [Music] just there's no more. I would move planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the reszoning application for this parcel from combined R1 R4 R2 to consistent R2 city council. I'll second that. Uh, I think Kate beat you. I think I did hear that barely.

Yeah. All right. So, we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes. Okay. Close the public hearing. I did. Sorry. No, it was brief, but thank you for asking. All right. Item F. Uh regular business. We have uh an item here to review a PLA survey uh for parcel ZZ which Paige if you can step us through that memo. Uh yeah. So, back in February, uh, a ply survey was brought to you, um, for parcel XX, which was parceling off a little piece from Valer Homes or Tate Nurseries there in the corner with the intent that it would be sold to Croll, and then Croll would clad it together with their property to expand that driveway to make um, an easier access for their trucks. Um, so that is what parcel ZZ is doing. It's now taking that prior approved small one and combining it with their larger lot. Okay. That keeps zoning the same and it just all kind of combines as it is as the larger lot. Yeah, it's going to stay. It's going to have that weird zoning on there for a little bit. Um, I probably should have had them go through the resoning at the same time. Adding the driveway extension doesn't make a difference what zoning it is, but um, when they go to make any changes, we'll have them cuz I think one is commercial and one might be industrial. Okay. And so once they do other activity out there, we'll just have it raise on that little triangle to mix

in with the rest of it. Right. Um, so is the intent, and I know it doesn't really show on anything here, but is the intent that the driveway is the width of the front of that lot? It has to be still at least 5 ft from the new property line. Um, I know Justin McLuan has been working with the um DOT on how wide that permit would be because that permit comes through the DOT for widening it. Okay. Okay. Other discussion, questions from the commission. I move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the plan of survey for parcel ZZ located at 2203 East Beamer Avenue, Wely, Iowa to the city council. Second. All right, we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes as well. All right. Item two in our regular business is review of some amendments to uh the accessory building and breezeway requirements of city code. I think we're all familiar with the agenda memo. Um, is there anything different on this now? Um, I don't think there's probably much of anything different. Um, the main difference I did is I added in a there's two red line versions, one with the fencer requirement and one without. Um I talked with um couple other people that are on some other boards and commissions um to get kind of their thought on it cuz as staff the biggest struggle looking at

the fencing is does it make sense with some of these and if so what are your guidelines for when you need a fence versus not having a fence? Is that in the city's requirements to provide it or is it the insurance company? um talking with others, they've recommended to get rid of the fencing. Um obviously, it's not their decision either. It's still your guys's on what we recommend to um city council. Um after our last meeting, we went and talked with the insurance commissioners. Is that what it was in De Moines? Yep. Right. And then reached out to the Excel group. and then the acceler um and it's kind of left up to their own insurance agents on what they require with fencing. Um did you get any feedback from insurance agents? Do most or all require it or do they have any thing about inflatable seasonals versus semi-permanent permanent installations or anything like that? There were no state requirements from the Iowa Commission, insurance commission at all, but it depends on the carrier. So, the Excel group is a brokerage. That's why we reached out to them because they deal with a lot of different carriers, and a lot of them would have just different requirements. They'd be similar, but um it would either be like a locked gate or a hard pool cover. Um but it just really depended on which carrier, okay, uh you went with. So, So the So what I'm hearing is there didn't seem to be consistency. Okay. So it sounds like it has to be protected in one way, but depending on the pool and the location and the neighborhood, things like that, it would depend on which one best suited that case.

The only question I I you know and I I am I'm kind of torn between them, but the one the the one with fence um the language says a fence measuring at least 5 ft in height shall be established around the perimeter of the swimming pool. If the yard is fenced, does that count? I assume I assume it would something. Yeah, I would say if it's um enclos enclosing the entire yard, backyard where the pools at, then yes, that would count. I mean I I I don't know how the commission would would recommend but if we do go with fence I would say perimeter of the swimming pool or the yard you know but I kind of leaning toward leaving up to the property owner and his insurance company and I mean the reason why you think of that is what if it is a lot on the outskirts of town. I mean, and then do you have to do it for pond kind of things like Whittingers out there? They have that pond or whatever on their yard. Is that different than a pool? We don't require fencing on that. Should there be? Um I don't know because once you get into nitty-gritty trying to finalize something, it's hard cuz there's so many different cases around town where it might make sense here to have a fence, maybe not in another spot. Yeah. Some of them were 4 foot, too. fences. Yeah. And so it's pretty easy for a kid to hop over hop over. So that's why I I struggled with that, you know, cuz um I know there's some existing ones already that are just 4

foot. So yeah, I I think it's difficult for a requirement to be in city code for the fence because it's it's kind of case by case. So, I think it should be the non-fence version is where I feel from a code perspective only, we should be um knowing that there's requirements on whatever you may have in your backyard. If you have a trampoline, do you need a fence? If you have a play set, do you need a fence? Your insurance company might say something, but as a city, I think we should kind of be, you know, land use is space fence requirements really isn't part of that. Sure, it applies in the code for certain reasons, but I think um those reasons should be left up to the homeowner and not the If we approve the fence one, it's not retroactive though. It's only moving forward, right? The other thought I had, do you require them they're going to have it? Do you have require them to have a like a million-doll umbrella on their insurance? It's a possibility. I I that was one thought I had that you know that you could you know if they're going to have a pool you require them to have a million dollar umbrella over above their liability insurance to to cover you know some issues. Yeah. For a life loss that's not enough. Well and I mean what if they get it and then they cancel a week after they Yeah. I mean how do you how do you know Yeah. I I understand. Yeah. Um, I I keep reminding like what Dave just said, it's a land use issue. And really what we're getting at is does the pool

count against the accessory building area. Do we let people put a pool in their backyard to occupy more space than a storage building or garage or something like that? And I think to me that was our kind of our objective as far as safety and that kind of thing. Life safety code is not zoning. So that's building permit or again or life safety code. I don't think Wavely has got a life safety ordinance. Do we? I don't believe we do. And I mean on the permit I think we would if there's a pool it's going to always have the caveat make sure you check with your insurance company on requirements. some of those that they build the deck, a huge deck around the whole Yeah, there's one out there behind the daycare center up by close to me there that Well, he's a policeman and it's a pretty good size deck that's the level with the pool and it goes clear around. My my neighbor did the same thing. He's got a in essence an 8 foot wide deck that's around roughly a third of the pool. It's big enough to have two lounge chairs up there and you can jump off the edge. It's a 4ft pool. I'm trying to imagine if you were a parent and your kid went roaming around the neighborhood and something happened and was let's you know hurt in the pool and

then you have what is your recourse for redemption, right? Do you do you sue the people because they didn't have a fence up? Yep. And then I mean, but if there's no fence requirement, you But like Dave said, if they have a trampoline and that's not required to be fenced in or the place, I mean, they So, it's just your homeowner's liability insurance. It's basically, right? I think there's some insurance companies that won't won't if you have one. Insure them. I've heard of that, too. I'm just trying to think that, you know, app a parent in duress like that is going to reach out in all sorts of different directions and by virtue of the fact that this came across planning and zoning and potentially city council and they said, "We don't need it. It's the homeowner's choice." Does that put this city at a higher risk because they said we don't need it? I don't think so because you basically we contacted the state insurance commissioner. There's nothing in there and we've contacted a a local insurance agency that brokers different companies. It's really whether they can get insurance or not and they're going to be required to have insurance if they have a mortgage. So, it's I I don't know. It's it's going to be it's going to be tough and then let the courts figure it out. That's that's really what's going to come down to is that you know if somebody sues another person it's going to be the court. Well, the question isn't if somebody sues another person that someone decides to sue the city. And I don't think there

are any cases thus far where someone has successfully sued a city for not having a pool ordinance. So, I mean, while that could change in the courts, so far I don't think there's any examples in Iowa at least. I've never heard of one of where people have gone successfully gone after the city for liability for not having a pool ordinance. I have heard of them, you know, suing the neighbor because it wasn't secured, right? Well, it it and I think a swing set is a is a good example. Sure. and and if we recommend approval of this to go to city council without fencing, I can run it by all again and just verify um our concern is is there any liability on the city if something were to happen to somebody now that we've got this in the code without requirements. I just verify with them if they're on board with how we're moving forward, we'll keep moving forward. If they say nope, you need to change something, then I can bring it back to you guys again. But years ago, the Murphy edition had a pool out there. It was nothing but Well, Kate moved out there, too. It was nothing but a headache, you know, because all of a sudden in the middle of night, you could hear that board um banging and they jumped the fence and and it was a high fence. Yeah. And uh Yeah. We got rid of it. Yeah. Even a high fence didn't stop kids from jumping it. No. Uhuh. Our community pool was the same way. I mean, I have to admit I did it a few times as a kid, but yeah, slow you down, though. Slows you down, though. I mean, the lawsuit type things are you that I have heard of have been, you know, where a two or threeyear-old wanders out of the backyard and falls in a pool, right? And that's generally, you know, a

two a three-foot fence or 4ft fence would have stopped it. But that's, you know, then we, you know, you get into a whole lot of things like that. I took care of that pool and I every morning when I went up to I was always, I didn't want to You didn't want to be the first one there in the morning. Find somebody in the pool dead, you know. Oh, you're not making the case there for no offense with that story. No, I know. But I mean, that's that's you know, well, again, I think our our mandate is does it go in the code or not. It we're not saying it's required or non required as a homeowner. We're just saying from a code perspective, a pool doesn't dictate fence. Yeah. Um, I think I guess where I'm I'm leaning is is that really what we were trying to talk about is the swimming pool itself and it's land use point. I think that that's what this was about and we're growing it. Yeah. Without it necessarily being the actual issue. Well, and and maybe to do a little bit of more due diligence is is when somebody goes to get a building permit for a pool that the building official says, "Have you checked with your insurance people?" If they say yes, check that box. Oh, that's a good That's a very good. If they say we haven't yet, well, after you've done that, we'll give you the permit. Then come back and check the office. Then they sue you. No. What's that? Then they sue you. Yeah, it's a That's a tough one. Well, I I'll I would make the motion that we

move the planning and zosing reco planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the amendments uh to the accessory building breezeway requirements. Uh, and it would be for the referencing the clean version with no fencing. I'll second that unless somebody else already did that. No, we we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. I have a very small John type typo catch. I think it's the first sentence um of any version. It says, well, excuse me, of the red lines or the clean, but if you look, it says um where it used to say, but now it says front or yard. I believe that just means front yard. Oh, yeah. Cuz it used to say under a means to catch it. Sorry, John. You used to be front or sideyard. Yeah, we removed the side but not the or front yard. Very minor. But uh I did did see that and had it written that so I thought I'd bring it up. I missed that. Um and the only competition going down. Yeah. The only other minor thing like above number three, you know where it has that little footer. Is that supposed to be there? Is that just a formatting? Yeah. Um that gets added in when they get amended. administration does that goes where it goes or it goes at the end. I'm guessing that'll get dropped and then a new one will get placed at the end. So in the clean version will remove that and I would imagine they'll put one at the very bottom. Yeah, that's typically what I saw. So those are the only two things. Again, we have a motion moved and seconded. Uh I would ask for a vote.

All in favor say I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes. Moving to item number three under regular business discuss housing needs analysis in former Irving school site. Yeah. So first thank you to those who were able to go to that um study session. I was not able to but I did watch back um the discussion that was had um cities there were some specific questions that were asked um by Brian Shu with Interpog and city staff are getting all the answers for those. Um but we wanted to get your thoughts on what are you guys comfortable with um housing on here. I was not part of the discussions back I believe 2021 when it um came through at that time. Um it's zoned R2 right now. Um is that what you would prefer to see it as? Would you rather it go up to an R3 or an R4? Um kind of what density are you guys comfortable with? And if you have any opinions on ideas for that, I'll I'll make one comment here. I have of all the years I've been on here, that one I got the most phone calls on. Okay. By the neighborhood, you know, just mixing those town houses with the old style housing and the people that lived around the edge of that were concerned. Um that they thought, how about just some, you know, three or four lots there and and and uh people could build a house that would fit into the neighborhood. that that was one of the ones I've had more calls on

back at that at that time, you know, and uh and that would be the only thing I would say that I I don't want to go through that again, you know, often we have well self-preservation. But now we have a housing survey that says we need, you know, we need to do 130 units a year for the next 10 years. I question a little bit but you know we need you know 50 to 60 for sure whether it's 130 I don't know I think you know that needs analysis is uh um pretty strong I mean I I I I think it is but you know that is an R2 zone it's 70,000 square ft and an R2 for single and two family would say that you know you can put 10 units on there without any zoning change. Now, whether that fits in that goofy shaped lot or not, that's another story. And I would hope that we would, you know, if someone came in and said, "Yeah, I'd love to develop 10 units." But I got to have a little bit more sideyard or a little less sideyard or something that the board of adjustment would see that as a as a hardship, not speaking for Pete and his group, that yeah, that would work. Um, I guess, you know, my feeling is is that, you know, something that knits into the R2 type zone and, you know, somewhere 10 units or less would certainly work. Um, I think the thing that's going to be tough is to put 7 8 10 units in there and get the parking requirement, you know. Um, the one comment I made about the presentation is

is the guy from Intercog, you know, a whole bunch of the questions he raised have already been answered. You know, I mean, it already went through a request for proposals thing and we got the, you know, I do remember that too. I wasn't on the commission, but I was working, you know, for the city at that time and and it was a little bloody. I agree. Um those were not things that kind of fit into the neighborhood, but um you know it it is all out of the it's in the 500year flood plane. Um, and I am pretty sure that Bill Werner went through the process of making sure there were no conditions on it that it is in the 500y year and it can be built and, you know, so you're looking at probably units that don't have basement because, you know, they're slab units and they're got to be a little bit above the grade. But, um, I guess that's where I would be going. Something that's compatible with R2. The key though is is finding a developer and doing a deal. What does it take? You know, if a developer comes in and says, "Well," and I don't remember how many units it was back then. I think it was 10, I think. Was it just 10? I think that if I remember, you go back and pull this stuff out. I you know, that was the question. I couldn't remember, but they were twostory and and all that. And you know, you're looking at to me the height requirements that are in there as you know, basically kind of story and a half construction and that kind of thing. I mean, you do have a bunch of twotory houses all around it. And that's kind of the question is do you see this? I mean, our comp plan, too. Um, we don't really have the town homes anywhere in town. Um, our comp plan that we renewed, it's

been a couple years ago now. um that says we want the uh different designs of housing mixed in with your neighborhood. So, is this more of that transitional district though because it is right off of um Bremer? Now, I don't think you want a bunch of 10 fplexes in there, but yeah, you kind of hit the key on you're not going to have basements. So, if you are going to do town homes, R3 limits you to two stories. Um, so you wouldn't be able to do much with but I mean for goodness sake we've got on well on both sides of it you've got twotory houses. Yeah. If I remember correctly, the objection that was most prevalent in that last round had a lot to do with the fact that there was a fear of that density being, you know, filled up with college kids. Um, I don't know that that that was one of them. Yeah. it. I mean, I think that architecturally, you know, I don't know why you couldn't put some limitations on the design of what happens there so that it is consistent with the design of the houses in the neighborhood. Um, they're mostly twotory or one and a half story. You know, they are they do have mostly a mid a turn of the last century kind of a look for the most part. Although all of them don't. There's that one on the corner. That's clearly a box. It's a split foil or something. If you used an Iowa Finance Authority type program, typically they require that they owner occupies it for 5 years.

Yeah. So there go there goes your initial problem with students. Mhm. Yeah. If they're going to use that workforce development funding type thing. Yeah. I mean that. And can you put something when they go to develop them whether they're in their covenants or your HOA or something like that that um you can put that they need to be occup. Yeah. You can put in there that they're not that you can't rent them. Yeah. Well, I mean the density issue was definitely real last time. There was a lot of they were pretty dense. I think there might have been more than 10 units, but Oh, it could have been. I don't remember. For somebody that was, but I thought that they did they made a lot of the right gestures of putting cars in the back and entrancing on the front, you know, like So, who do you see as a potential buyer or person occupying that area? Well, if the goal is what's in the housing study, it's to try and keep the cost within the survey and try to stay under 300,000 a unit. And you know, so are you seeing young families? Are you seeing 55 plus? Are you seeing um I Yeah. I mean, who you see is I seem to remember the housing had a lot of what they called the dinks, the double income, no kids. I think that's probably No, it could be. It could be. How many people are there really in Waverly of that? Well, according to the study, that was one of the the areas that we had had need for that will be a higher population in the next 10. I mean, and that that can be people who haven't had kids yet. It can be people whose kids have moved off to college. So, I mean, that kind of or it could be families that only have one kid too that are planning, you know, I mean, that's the kind of a, you know, we're looking at probably 11,200 square ft and, you know, that kind of a thing. Well, I would say you're looking at people who don't want to mow a lawn, who

want, you know, less yard space to take care of people where that's not their goal. I mean, think of a an estates type development for the general population that hopefully you can get for less than 400 grand. Well, and that's going to be the struggle. If you do the single family detach, your price is going to be price. Oh, I mean you're looking at probably twin homes, you know, something like that. But is there any way that the city can plat this and make it be lots so that you can communicate to the public that we're there's a density limit? [Music] Um, we you can, but that would be more on the developer when it gets to that point. But you're going to have to have a purchase agreement when we would sell the land. So, it can be in that agreement. Mhm. I mean, you're talking about giving the land away, aren't you? Yeah. You still have to enter into agreement. I mean, we went through the process to get rid of the lot lines, right? Yeah. It was to make it a parcel that could be developed, you know. open, you know, again, finding someone to do a deal, you know, and like your Anna estate that is an R3. You can have the single family and single family attached in an R3 as a condo version. Yeah. The cluster home development. Well, and we, you know, they just started some of the the what's it called? Maple Maple Hills up there. Yep. Used to be I don't know who owns it now. It was Steve Dera. I don't know. But it was still Crystal Plumbing digging the foundation, but they're starting to put in units up there and those were um were either twin homes or or detached single

family and but they're small and they're slab houses I believe and you know that's the kind of a thing I think we're looking at. But again, it's finding somebody that's that can do the deal and develop something at that at that price point, you know. These units that you have on the screen right now, this is the United States, right? No, that's is you go farther up. Got to go farther up. Probably is not. Those are duplexes and forplexes. They are forplexes. Well, no, there's a couple duplexes. Yeah, there are two duplexes there, too. Clear on the west end. These are single These are single story. They're not even two story units, but you could you could kick them up to a story and a half. So you could get um so that you could get a bedroom or two upstairs and still comply to code, but that might limit your aging population. I not necessarily. No, I agree. See, I I question the whole housing study because I I wonder what they did when they contacted Q or Trust Age. You know, there's hardly anybody left out there and it's all work from home. And if they're counting all those employees as coming in from the outside, but really they're just staying home. They aren't coming in anymore. And I I question whether that is a big chunk of the people because they aren't that a year. You said what's that? 130 new units a year. Yeah. 1300 over the next 10 years. See, and I think that's where part of this problem is. Is this the data that they're starting with is this wrong? Well, they had Yeah. I mean, they had 4,700 people commuting in to Waverly to work. Well, they didn't have distances and I know Brian brought brought that up about people Well, I it would have been nice. I hadn't considered the

telecomuters who like work more than 50 miles who actually don't commute. Yeah, I mean there are people that list here as employment but they don't have to come to town, right? So yeah, were those bit uh taking all those people who are commuting like you know 50 miles you know were they doing it via teleconferencing? I mean see that's where I just question that whole and if they are is it just sometimes it's only one or two days a week or they do have to come in they have to come in like one day a week or something. Exactly. So that is so I yeah I but you know Anna estates are also they're 15-900 ft. Yeah, they're big. And they aren't 300 or less, are they? No, they're an estates. No, they're four 410. Yeah, are in the 290 to 300. You have to be over 55 there for you have to be 55 for all of them. Yeah. And have a dog that weighs less than 50 lbs. If you have a dog, it has to be less than you can move in without a dog. Yeah, you don't have to have a dog. If you have a dog, it has to be less than 50. Okay. So, kind of what I'm hearing is leave it as is or if anything cluster development kind of like the states that you're looking at. I think the R2 is fine. I mean, I think that the piece the issue with the neighbors because I think R2 can be done, right? Yeah. I think I think that if you make it be R1 that I think that's an issue. OneCar garage is what they had come with before. Parking was an issue. You know, garbage truck have to back all the way. So that's a design problem. That's that's not But I'm just those were the issues that came up. I mean, the one neighbor that I know in

that neighborhood, he just wants it left to be a green space. And you know, I told I told him, I said, "That's not an option. You got to get used to this." So, when I did a kind of a drawing out of the the requirements in the R2 require 65 by 100 foot locks and so you could get six of them on there on R2. Yes, they're pretty many. There's six lots facing this. Seven, eight lots facing this. Yeah. So, those six lots, is that two units on each lot or is that a single? Well, you got six 6,500 square foot per unit. Um, and it's because of the triangle with that rear setback. I mean, for attached, a lot of just extra green space with that. For attached in an R2, you can get down to 3500 square ft per unit, but That would be 20 units. So somewhere between and single family attached means yeah 70 by 100 essentially because you're 35 and 35. I think it's a design problem. I don't think that it's a but I do think that there's if a guy comes in with a proposal, we've got to be a little bit more generous with setbacks and things like that in this goofy shaped lot. Yeah, that's yeah, the block is just I think there's going to be developers going to be concerned about are you going to back me if that's I think that's that's the concern I think you're going to find with they're going to spend, you know, 10 grand doing some preliminary planning and putting something together. They got to think that the city is going to support it. And I think we need to I I think the commission needs to say yes, we'll support that kind of development. Do we want to see a 20

unit box multi? No. No. At least I don't. Well, sometimes that would be an R4, correct? Yeah. And I I don't Yeah. I mean, so I mean we can kind of say we're not interested in R4. We we can say, you know, R3 maybe you can convince us, but we want an R2 is our preference, right? So, okay. I just Yeah. Don't need a motion or anything like that tonight. It's just kind of more of a discussion as we bring it back to staff and then we'll have another discussion maybe towards the end of April. And I'm sorry to get seasick with this picture, but she's moving on. And you're just shopping around over that. You're driving me crazy that I can't drive. I got my own Google Earth. So I drive. What was it? The other thing, too, you know, since there's only one car garage and if you have two cars, parking, we were going to have to figure out how to do the parking in front. I still feel like it's a design problem. I agree. But I'm just saying with the issues that came up, bring the issues to the table. I think the issues were that a lot of people had in their mind that we could put single family houses in there that people could buy for $150,000. And I think we needed to be clear that that wasn't an option. And I think that it's not going to work. Right. Exactly. It It was an education thing. I mean, I think like there are lots of people who thought we want houses that look like the houses that are there and we could not Well, you can't build those for $150,000. Exactly. Exactly. And I mean and and to be fair, this was brought up just before the last election when there was a lot of people who were t we had like you know Troy Collins and people who were saying like

we need bless government and government is not responsive. So the city council felt the obligation to really listen to the complaints of the local people because if we didn't then we would have been lambasted for it. So I think it was a question of poor timing for that to be coming up given that there was let's say a slate of nut jobs who are applying for city council jobs and we had to kind of you know you know and if you go up to first home edition you know there's 1100t square foot houses with singlecar garages if they got two cars one goes out on the street they park in the driveway behind the garage. Yeah. I mean, that's the way it goes. And I think, you know, we're very privileged a lot. Yeah. We've we've evolved into something that's, you know, if it doesn't have two and a half bathrooms and threec car garage and, you know, I'm kind of imagining that you've got those sharp corners at either end that could kind of be used for excess parking. You could put like a little parking lot at each each corner where it's like if you got if you have a second car, you can find a place to put it there. And those or even Yeah. But back to the locks. Can you say those are design issues? Couple covered garages separate. Okay. You're a designer. Let's see your tempting exercise. No, I I agree. I didn't have a full-time job. But didn't this job? Okay. Garages are required, are they? Garages aren't required. No. Um off street. Off streetet parking is I think your single is there only two off streetet parking spots? I'd have to verify but there is an off street parking requirement. I mean unless you're any other dense lake city this wouldn't even be a discussion. It would be you could put a car port in the back. Yeah. Yeah.

A detached and all of the cars park underneath the the car thing with solar panels on top of it. Right. You know, but this is not Yeah. So, you have to sell that different. It's a solar panels thing. A sales pitch kind of brings them in. Okay. All right. Culturally, that's the All right. So, we're going to leave it as R2 would be our summary of that discussion, right? Good. Okay. I'm G. Any staff updates? I do not have any updates. We kind of mentioned one earlier, but the Doug is Oh, his term is over in Doug's term is up May one. Um, and he's not renewing. So, we do have an application that I believe the mayor's moving forward with that'll probably be um appointed April 21st to start in May or whatever our next meeting is. Okay. Anything else? Nope. All right. Commission updates next. Uh, the only thing I was going to say is just I was going to acknowledge Doug's service. I know he's not here tonight and my appreciation for the time he was chairperson the time he was on the commission. I had sent him an email separately. So, um, I just wanted to acknowledge his service and my appreciation for it. That is all I had unless anybody else said anything for that section. All right. Moves us to agenda item I I move that we adjourn. We are journal.