21:43The most pressing topic of the meeting was the proposal by David Blae to construct a 4,000 square foot accessory structure on a seven-acre property on First Street Northeast. The property, currently zoned R1, sparked multiple concerns and inquiries from both commission members and local residents. The structure’s proposed size exceeded the zoning code’s maximum allowance of 864 square feet for a detached accessory structure, even when considering a conditional use permit that allows a 25% increase up to 1,080 square feet.

08:43City staff detailed the proposal, noting the unique topographical challenges of the property, which warranted consideration of a variance regarding the structure’s placement closer to the street than the principal dwelling. Despite this, there was considerable skepticism from staff about the necessity for such a large structure, given the property was not used for agricultural purposes, which might justify a larger building under different zoning classifications.

17:43Community members voiced their concerns during the public hearing. A resident questioned the height of the proposed structure, prompting a response that the building would stand 16 feet tall, a point of contention due to existing height regulations. Another resident, who lived adjacent to the proposed site, sought clarification on the building’s proximity to Highway 60 and its potential impact on their property. The president of Christ Lutheran Church, located nearby, expressed initial concerns but later supported the project after discussions with the congregation.

14:32The commissioners engaged in a dialouge about the implications of the conditional use permit and variances, debating the front yard definitions and property lines. This discussion was particularly relevant given the proposed building’s location relative to the street and the existing dwelling. The conversation highlighted the need to possibly revise city codes to better accommodate larger residential properties, as the current regulations do not adequately address properties over five acres.

28:52The commission also considered the possibility of creating a new zoning district for such properties, which would require an ordinance change and public hearings. A participant emphasized the perceived absurdity of prohibiting large structures on expansive properties. However, it was acknowledged that any changes would need to ensure the structures remained aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the neighborhood’s architectural style.

49:22Amid these discussions, the commission decided to table all three proposals related to the accessory structure, including the conditional use permit and variances, to allow for further alignment of findings and to prevent presenting a disjointed recommendation to the city council. This decision was reached after a roll call vote, with the intention to reconvene in two weeks for more comprehensive deliberation.

49:38Following the public hearings, the commission received an update on a recent city council retreat where planning topics were discussed. The need for a code overhaul was identified, particularly regarding the sign ordinance and its issues with content neutrality, as well as residential lot sizes and setbacks to enhance housing affordability.