##VIDEO ID:nt-Tfhm9Z8c## all the order the where are we June uh June let's try again the September 18th meeting of the uh Brainard Planning Commission all right we have a uh roll call Sir Duval pres grunenwald Norwood here Peterson here staying line here gorm here all right David would you like to meet us on theedge ofg States Dave so well done you get the job next month all righty we are looking for an approval of tonight's agenda so move Norwood second any discussion all right all in favor say I I post same sign all right we have a an agenda looking for approval of the minutes from August I'll get that right from the August 21st 2024 meeting we have a motion I'll make the motion to approve them Mr Peterson with the motion second I'm going to take Tiffany on the uh on the second there any discussion if not all in favor say I I both same sign all right we are rolling on we are up to a new business we're going to look at a um a variance request for 1306 Chicago Avenue anybody really know where Chicago Avenue was before the meeting today a little bit took took a minute of that one James could you bring us up to speed on that one please thank you Mr chair so the request is to adjust the property line to split the parcels into two equal Parcels in order to construct a duplex a variance is required as the proposed Parcels would exceed the lot size maximum Frontage of 60 ft and would be under the minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square ft the proposed building would also require variance from the front yard setback to maintain Ain a rear yard uh rear yard setback uh for the tn1 DI dimensional standards the lot size minimum is 5,000 ft the applicants are requesting 4,374 uh the lot Frontage range in the tn1 district is 50 ft to 60 ft the applicants are requesting 62.5 uh the front yard setback range is 20 ft minimum to a 30ft maximum they requesting a 13 ft um this is from kind of that front porch area this was staff's recommendation it would provide a greater distance from the rear rear yard of the house to the neighboring property while ensuring a vehicle could still be parked in the driveway maintaining a a 20ft driveway uh this way that they would not have to request for a rear yard setback so with that variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance the tn1 zoning district is intended to provide a compact pedestrian oriented mix of residential uses uh the zoning ordinance allowed use section allows for duplexes as a permitted use in the tn1 district the consolidation of the unusable parcel of land will help create greater residential density within the neighborhood uh also another criteria is when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan housing goal one provide a diverse mix of housing choices for all stages of Life income ranges and ownership rental preferences policy to expand home ownership and Rental opportunities through a rehabilit rehabilitation and new construction and policy five ensure an adequate supply of quality and affordable housing for current and future residents um by allowing a potential split down the uh I guess two each of the two units there is obviously this going to create uh some Workforce housing opportunities within the neighborhood but then it'll also allow in the future for potential sale for home ownership uh another one of the criteria is appli of the land owners is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner uh so parcel 41250 957 this is the smaller one is 1,750 ft which is unusable for construction the combination of the two Parcels allows for the construction of a single uh level duplex with an attached garage uh the setback variance request as a result of this property being on the corner of a major thoroughfare in Brainard uh the developer originally proposed the driveway coming off of 13th Street Southeast uh when the city engineer did review this did he would not have approved this plan as the driveway would be placed too close the intersection uh the building was then orientated to face Chicago Avenue with the driveway and and in in that location another criteria is a variance of granted will not alter the essential character of the locality this variance of granted will not substantially alter the character of the locality as there are other duplexes on the adjacent properties as noted at the beginning of the findings a fact so with that staff recommends approval of the variance requests with the following conditions contingent upon a property maintenance and party wall agreement provided by the applicant and submitted to the City attorney for his review and comment uh legal review fees incurred by the city are to be paid by the developer and number two staff approves final elevation drawings consistent with Section 5154 General Building Development and design standards prior to issuance of the building permit I can answer any questions um one of the applicants is present and one of them I believe is online very good any questions for James I have one start with Mr Deval then we have Mr pet director crvi can um what's the party wall and so understand what that is and what the agreement would be so so it's a duplex um instead of just having the duplex on the one property there would be um a split of the property right down the middle of the duplex duplex so you can sell one you can sell the other um so because there's a party wall there and they're owned by separate people that's where you need some type of property maintenance agreement if the roof needs to be done if siding needs to be done there's essentially an agreement between the two parties that there's a building maintenance plan so it's like a com a common wall is that exactly yep gotcha okay thank you Mr Peterson um James I think I probably know the answer but CH Chicago does not go through and it's never going to on that road right that's correct uh it's it's Wetland over there so I don't think it would ever go through unless you were to build into a wetland parking's not going to be an issue or traffic on that street anyway okay questions on on that end not I got a couple um just procedurally is it common that we do two variances with one variance fee that just seems like a that's common yeah we typically do that um you know when I went through the procedure in Baxter that's what they did as well when I went through the solar array Farm you can have kind of multiple variances stacking on one and then the same thing with the hearing we can we can do that yep um I was struck by the line talking about uh uh tn1 and walking and things like this that strikes me as one of the ter worst places you could possibly try to go for a walk there on that uh with with 13th Street and everything are there any plans any plans down the line of a trail running on South on 13th or is that the County's domain potentially the county um the city engineer is the one that works on on the trail plans so that's something I'm not aware of okay very good those those are the questions I had uh with that I'll open a public hearing at 607 on the variants and if the petitioner I would invite you to come on up and uh let us know what uh what the plans are you don't have to but it's always helpful we may have a couple questions name and address would be great and don't be nervous come on up my name is Jennifer Petri I'm with festar Home Improvement and um I think James covered most of everything that we wanted to go through on this and I am only a portion of this company and so I'm learning as I go my husband's online and he is the brains so um but otherwise James covered everything so um I don't really have much to say any question question from Miss Petri while long as she's up I just have a just a quick question how many properties do you guys um uh do you own is this like a first duplex or do you own a series of duplexes just our curios um this is actually the first duplex that um we've done we have built multiple homes okay in the area Breezy um and so forth around Brainard bter that's the only question I had very good thank you if we have anything else we'll call you back up thank you and um and your husband's name I should ask Daniel Daniel if you're on line would you like to uh would you like to speak he he needs to whoops I think he did it it out okay I'm in the vehicle at the moment but yes I'm good to say hello H Daniel all right well if you go just stay on in case we have some questions we'll get back to you but uh um but keep your eyes on the road and we'll uh we'll go from there all right no I'm a pastor but I appreciate the time okay very good uh would anybody else like to speak on the U during the public hearing do we have anybody else online or present seeing and hearing none I will close the public hearing at 6:09 and uh I will open discussions James um given the case for the Practical difficulty with the front loading be not being on 13th I I will be in favor of um of granting for approval of the variants um it would be much more congruent to have that be front loaded on 13th especially being in a collector Street kind of a situation with the rest of the other area but it not being possible um I believe that it should be granted very good other comments or questions from the Commissioners I'll just say I think this is a classic example of infill this is good this is what we need um I'm still trying to fix a little bit here so the buildings are connected by the garage is that what the what connects the two buildings is that right cuz the drawing doesn't really tell me but it's they're connected by the garage construction yeah it's the it's connected at the garage at the garage oh okay like like the one up in the upper left hand there yeah okay good that that helps me understand that that's different than what you got there it is kind of well right and that's that's maybe the confusion because I was kind of looking at this earlier plan which doesn't really tell me what's going on until I flip the page and then I see that one and that makes that makes a lot more sense to me now I understand a little more what we're what we're uh what we're doing here very good um well if we're done with discussion I'd be looking for a motion I just want to point out to anybody that makes a motion it'll be important that we include the staff recommendations because there's some very uh specific sta staff recommendations in there so I'll open the floor to uh to a motion either going either which way I'll make a motion to accept it as per staff recommendations very good second and we have a second any discussion hearing no no discussion all in favor say I I oppose Sam sign all right what are the next steps for our applicant James yeah so this will be heard at the next city council meeting I'm going to pull up my calendar here so that will be uh Monday October 7th at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers uh this is our recommending body so the city council will have final approval or denial of the variance requests all right thank you very much and good luck on your project thank you with that we move on to uh unfinished business we are going to discuss building design standards James do you want to bring us up to speed tell us a little bit about what we remind us what we did last time yes thank you Mr chair uh so at the last meeting uh I provided a memo that kind of outlined sections that I thought uh were strengths within the design standard section and then uh took a look at sections that I I thought could be worked on um you know really really worked on that at the last meeting to uh to figure out you know what you guys want wanted me to to to change in here so this is really actually putting numbers to some of those things that we talked about and the recommendations that we made so I figured we kind of go you know one by one through these items and discuss if if uh you think the numbers that I use or some of the language I use kind of hits the Mark um you know if it seems like there's a kind of a divide in it maybe we'd take a um some of a vote on it to actually get direction on it so uh so with that I think we can kind of take a look first at that uh contemporary neighborhood one cn1 District uh so when looking at that uh one of the things and you'll see this kind of throughout some of these zoning districts that I saw was a potential hang up and I've seen um I've seen developers come in or other projects potentially come in that need larger lot sizes um so for instance in a cn1 you could have a a church or a school um and right now we have a 10,000 ft to 21,780 Ft um so if you were you know to to build over it we certainly want to see some of these Consolidated um you have to almost go through a variance request to do something like that um same for like a duplex or Triplex um again if you're exceeding that square footage number you have to go through a variance request to do an apartment so this would allow instead of going through a variance request it would be a c to you know exceed that 21,780 ft um that's these numbers still seemed appropriate um as I was going through the Northtown Association that's kind of a good example of our cn1 districts um you'll see in the lot front is something very similar I went through Northtown and and saw some of the Lots were under 75 squ ft so that's where potentially looked at pulling it back to 70 ft and saw some of them were just a bit over 90 um so that just kind of increased in a Range slightly on that one when looking at Northtown and then when you want to go beyond that 100 foot it would then require that cup um then the last part is a discussion that we had about garages you'll see in the Contemporary neighborhood districts if front loaded must extend no further than 5 ft beyond the facade into the front yard or sidey yard corner so haven't put it to the graphics obviously if this is the route we want to go Graphics will have to be changed as well uh but just wanted to start with this and get kind of a consensus or recommendation from the Planning Commission if if this makes sense all right well to commissioner comments or questions got anything Mike I I do um thank you first of all thanks for the really good discussion you had on this at the last meeting I was able to a lot of my questions as I looked this over were answered by going back to the meeting discussion so I think you covered a lot of that um so this would be you want comment specific to to cn1 is yeah that's correct um you know the generally I have comments on the garage um setback so I don't know if we want to bundle those later or um um or or deal with them on The Upfront of of what the what the development hardship is you know for the CN districts I I think I recall from the discussion last month that you had you'd mentioned Northtown and I think brainer do Ser Pines those are all sort of uh already established under the older ordinance and so they can do that front forward garage do I correctly understand that yeah so they can do um they're under the old ordinance so when when I'm reviewing a building plan for them I'm looking we still have our previous ordinance up uh you do see it in um you know kind of that Gren Avenue area which is maybe 19 50s construction some of the homes in there where right now we have the 5 foot behind um you'll see a lot of Ramblers that are you know right in line with each other some of them the garages are in front as well so again if you're trying to be consistent with the neighborhood I'm not sure if the 5 foot you know behind works for that you do see you know some rear rear garages or I guess 5 foot setbacks or setbacks in some of our older neighborhoods um like along Bluff Avenue that type of thing but from what I saw you know when you kind of take a drive-thru grade and you do see a lot of Ramblers that are you know right in line with each other so I'm not sure if you know the that's how I see you know potentially splitting the Contemporary neighborhoods up from the traditional neighborhoods and having two different design standards whether it's you know contemporary neighborhoods in line and traditionals still 5 foot back or you know my recommendation would be contemporaries 5 foot in front you are seeing a lot of designs like that right now um you know so you're kind of in my opinion potentially hindering development um when developers come and and we'd have this um ordinance in place a lot of the ones that are being built in in Holton by level Contracting the garage is 5 foot in front and it still looks nice they got living quarters above the garage I think uh from the discussion having that you know not that little 5- foot entrance but having porch and nice entryways makes it look nice so in my opinion you know developing the houses that are being developed in Holton are nice homes the garages are 5ot in front and it's really gone away from that you know that 20ft garage in the front where that's all you see when you when you go down the street I don't get that feel when I'm when I'm driving through Holton so that's my staff recommendation on that and and certainly we like to hear comments from the Planning Commission that um if I may follow up then you know I mean for the cn1 um you know I might I might be comfortable I I might be comfortable with with in line or or reducing the 5ot set back to some other measure that gives you a bit of geometry change there I'm I'm uncomfortable with with restoring the ability to put the garage forward in any amount of feed I think that's getting us back to I think our discussions during the the ordinance revision we were we were heading in the opposite direction there was saying let's let's push the the attached accessory structure back so it's the it's not the principal feature the principal feature is the residence so that would be my thoughts on on this one here other else want to weigh in on spe specifically on what mik saying that's the point we got to work out that was actually and and so I want to start by apologizing to James because you asked for this a month ago and I didn't I needed to Stew on it for another month so I'm glad we're coming back back to this um I I think that our zoning code is not just about matching what is there but also building what we want to be there and and that kind of slow progression and then I guess I have a question for right oh we have somebody online oh thank you okay um for commissioner Peterson who builds houses MH does it cost any more to build the garage in line than it does to build the garage in front of the facade it actually probably cost less to build it in line I mean that that was my gut feeling but I don't actually build houses so I wanted to ask your opinion but it it really doesn't to me this is not a design issue I know it's a design and that's what we're looking at but in a practicality issue is we cannot stop the water when it is in line or behind I'd even go for two foot if that's a compromise in front something in front so that you're not dumping all that water in front of a garage door there is no way to get around could you explain the water are you talking off the roof could you explain okay and a gutter system couldn't bring it back or is it to it's too you just get way too much water coming down a valley situation and really the worst times are probably March April you get that slow freeze at you know at night thaws during the day yeah that drips and builds up in front of the garage doors and and then it just feeds back in to me it's more of a practical than a cosmetic and to me it's a matter of trying to find a compromise between the Practical and the Cosmetic I I think we're I think I think we're going to get there James you got anything to weigh in on this one uh a little bit but I'm I'm going to be the again the other one that's on their own little island and so okay well um tell us about your Island it I I would have cided a little bit more liberal with it being more forward not the 20 foot situation but um within our design standards you know being that 1012 but this I believe being a 5 foot is much more of a compromise within the spectrum of more contemporary home design that we see throughout MH zone five Midwest Building okay okay well then we're we're we're getting close folks we're looking at a five foot option I I think we're agreed we're probably not looking at it keeping it in line with this principal structure is do we have a consensus on that or Mike are you still holding out on the keeping it in line what do you think yeah I I you know I'm just strongly feel that it it should not be forward you know and and I I like the way um councilwoman Stang put it that you know designing what we want not replicating what we have um so in line I think you don't create a new Valley I think which is what commissioner Peterson's probably describing you have a valley and focusing water in here if it's in line you're able to travel that down down and across to a corner outward um maybe maybe and apologize for putting words in your mouth that may not be your words um um but I I feel that that again U you know when we when we worked on this ordinance we had extensive discussion on this and thinking that that garage forward look um was was really something that we were trying to get away from and get the attached accessory structure back from the primary structure which is the residence so all right all right Mr Peterson you bet um here's even in a front line and I know everybody's talking about gutters then they do not work well when it freezes in those particular months and that's where the biggest issue be being as a landlord with rentals he being a builder that I follow I don't know a builder in the country that is building them back on purpose unless some zoning place has done it they're all going to be forward that way you can get utility rooms behind behind them just a design standard throughout the house we've just changed our building aspects in the last well 20 years 50 years 100 years things have just changed nobody had Vehicles like that we do today you know so that's where it came the forward stuff has happened um I I I like staff recommendations that's what I would I like that all right very good I I I would think my personal observation here is that CL climate change has affected how we build buildings and I've talked to more than one person in the construction business that says with the change in climate and they're specifically they're talking about rain in the winter and it it's changed the game on it um so at this point um you know we're kind of at a little bit of an impass we can certainly um if somebody wants inform will make a little motion at one and we could take a vote because I I think we're I think we're close unless somebody can wants to thread the needle here with the compromise unless somebody has a way we can kind of kind of do it otherwise I think we need to kind of right now it's looking like about 32 in favor of the uh of the five foot but would we would um with something like 3 foot or two foot 2 and a half ft would that be something people would be open to or is that just going to be just kind of messing around i' I'd like to make a motion to vote on what staff is placed 5 foot all right and uh uh do we have a second uh for uh uh for that uh that motion I will second we have a second very good have we discussed enough or any other discussion uh uh um anybody else like to put out there yes well let's go start with Mike and then we'll go to Tiffany please oh I just this is probably not no I know it's not strictly um in line with parliamentary procedure but I'm again I don't build houses so does the is it that they're offset like do you have the same effect on that water if you bring the garage back as you do if you bring It Forward is it just that it's offset that you need or does the garage have to be in front of the house to have that effect garage has to be in front Okay what you what if the garage is set back you'll have two roof lines and you'll have that V the water is going to rush right down in front of your garage or wherever it could be most places it doesn't really matter matter a whole lot but you don't want all that water rain water icy water coming right down in if it's forward that means no matter if you have a hip roof or gable roof doesn't really matter it's pushing the water away from the garage door both ways it's and that depends on how far you come in up forward so if you come two foot forward it'll be pushing it at least two foot away from the garage door if you come 5 foot it it Still's probably still only going to be 2ot I guess when you come 5 foot but okay on your overs all right uh Mike um you know well my my garage is about 32 I think it's 32 set back from the front facade of the primary structure um I do have some dripping it's not continuous across the opening so it could be simply a maintenance issue of of how well that is addressed you know when how quickly you get through snow removal and those sorts of things I would be willing I would be willing to to to compromise on on on a subtle offset and we can call a subtle Offset you know a forward garage forward if it's if it is something that's that's framable it's a maybe it's a 32 or something like that you know so it's it's a regular stud spacings um i' be I I I could I could land there I'm I'm not in support of of the five- foot motion it it too much exaggerates and makes the garage the feature and not the principal structure I won't I won't be voting in favor of this but I would be willing to to perhaps discuss an alternative that doesn't bring it five feet forward um I would share um commissioner deval's opinion on that uh would you we anything we can do to get away from the what they they term that snout look you know with the uh with the garage out there at the same time we have to acknowledge that there are physical Pro challenges on the construction I probably myself would be more interested in compromise as well um that any other discussion before we take a vote so the reason why I do support it and taking in consideration of the discussion um I'm not expecting or planning given the fact that the you know this would be a maximum kind of a situation but but I don't believe Builders would necessarily utilize a 5 foot but it gives them just a little bit more of a leeway within the situation it might be more towards that 3ot twot situation just so that way they can make things within design standard within the standard that we would be setting they would be able to easily without a whole lot of thought as to how that would impact their design work um the there is a fair amount within cn1 and cn2 that still is open for development that's also part of the the reason why I support the motion is that as we're looking at for the ability and availability for other development to occur making it as feasible for those interested parties to do so um if I can make it easier for them then I believe that it's a worthy cause um and I fully understand the fact that we're trying to you know make sure that in to commissioner deval's Point what we would like or it might have been commissioner St line but it um what we would like to see built in those specific areas the problem that I'm seeing is the fact that the market will dictate what is built and where they will build and I'm I'm trying to make it as easy without it being giant boxes that are just thrown up with no aesthetic points to them whatsoever all right very good may have one more Mr Peters bet um you're you're right as far as the set by it's probably going to be two foot increments that we're going to build in so it's probably going to be a two foot or a 4 foot front rather than the 16 just that's pretty common today for studs the other thing is when we have to warranty houses you know kind of I always think of a car a one-ear bumper to bumper two mechanical 10year major structural um and it doesn't matter on maintenance you know how the how the court systems work and everything works today so therefore if I got water coming into a garage underneath the garage door at times the customer is going to say it's my fault whether I did put gutters on or didn't put gutters on and whether they shoveled the roof or didn't shovel the roof it's still my issue so it falls back on the Builder I personally would not do it build it if if and I've got acreage that we're going to be doing something on and I would not build anything that is straight or set back all right very good one last call for discussion hearing none I think we're going to have a divided votes so if we could get a roll call James Duval no Norwood yes Peterson yes staying line no gorm no all right well that failed so then I would suggest that maybe uh before we take a motion yes um James would there be an option to put a as you are in a andc where a cup rather than a variance could be required for something if there's a if there's a reason on that you know particular thing typically for a dimensional standard you wouldn't see a conditional use permit for that conditional use permits are really to kind of protect neighboring properties yeah um so probably wouldn't recommend it recommend it in that instance you know we do see it every now and then um commercial districts uh you can't build a building under 1,000 square ft without a cup so it's it's possible obviously we're looking at a cup for uh lot sizes so it's possible I haven't seen it done in another code so typically it'd be a Varian variance request and then for staff um fee structure-wise what are we looking at as for application for variants I believe they've gone up take a look here sorry okay so residential is 350 commercial is 500 so this would be a residential very good well then at this point um looking for um I'm to be uh uh exact but looking for a compromise that somebody wants to put out a compromise motion and I think and I'll concede with Mr Peterson saying probably two and four feet may be the numbers we want to look at Mr chair if you would um I would U Move that uh we change the five foot to two foot um in the staff recommendation k for garage all right is there a second for that we have a second from Stang line discussion James I will support the motion very good all right any other discussion before we call a vote not hearing any James could you do one more roll call for us Duval hi Norwood hi Peterson yes Stang line yes gorum yes all right there we go we have worked through um worked through the first page correct and that leads us to James do you want to now we're moving on to um moving on to uh contemporary cn2 so I'm kind of assuming maybe that we were talking about contemporary neighbors there I'm not sure if we need to discuss garages within this one as well certainly could um you take a look at the the lot size range uh really we never in any of the other districts you don't have a zero we have an up to 15,000 square ft so I'm not sure you know the reasoning for that but I in that one I'm recommending at least a lot size minimum of 5,000 ft um up to 15,000 s ft and then the same cup requirement uh and then 50 ft to 80 ft 80 plus requires a cup um this one I did my analysis in the holon area rather than Northtown because a lot of the Holton areas are new cn2 and and saw some some outline Things based on some of our our standards there uh the other one is the sidey yard setback so once holton's created um and fully done they'd be under the new cn2 regulations and some of our other cn2 regulation areas we had 10 foot on this one which is kind of consistent with our old r1a uh not really consistent with our cn2 development that we had in Holton that was smaller smaller lot so here I'm recommending again going back to what maybe should have been would be a 5- foot setback on here so with that I'll open it up to discussion all right discussion or questions for James I do just for clarification Holton neighborhood just for my sub be brainer Oaks okay thank you yep Mr chair Mr Deval um Dr kic you're um I'm trying to do the math and I'm being terrible at it these um these enhanced lot sizes will still achieve or hit the the range of units per acre is that correct if if all of the all of the Lots in a block for example U choose the maximum do we still get four to 12 delling units so this one um didn't increase the 15,000 square ft um so if they were to go go larger you know obviously they'd have to be bringing in um you know duplex or Triplex so we' review that as part of the conditional use permit about them building a bigger lot why are you building bigger lot um so that's where we'd be looking at density ranges then to make sure that they're maintaining those so with a with multifam unit um on a on a 15,000 ft lot you're getting you're getting three dwelling units in a Triplex and got it thank you all right other questions for uh or discussion do we feel like yeah go ahead well I guess this was I think the question you were about to ask is um Mr chair or James do you want to have a motion on the garages again or you're good seems like it's probably contemporary neighborhood was was more the discussion than just the CN one folks are we good on this does anybody want to uh do we proceed with the vote or is there a consensus I think we're we're good one last chance before we move on all right I think do you have a consensus that feels good there for you James got enough information there very good uh then we're moving on to uh um tn1 tn1 changes so the next one tn1 your typical lot sizes are going to be about 50 x 150 uh and about that 7,500 ft uh we did end up going a little bit lower in a new code to allow 5,000 ft Lots uh what I'm seeing you you'll see uh the one that we just looked at tonight you'll have some some kind of odd Parcels that certainly make sense to add on to that uh I know one of the the big things that we didn't want to see was two 7,500 ft Lots combined with each other um cuz a lot of times you'll see maybe a House burn down somebody wants to buy the other lot combine them and then just put a garage there rather than a home so the idea here is not to allow um double that which would be 14 or 15,000 square ft but but create a little bit of leeway so people can make some common sense consolidations and then anything larger than that would require a conditional use permit um so certainly I've seen in tra in our tra traditional neighborhood areas where you'll have a or a small one-bedroom house that's almost on three or four Lots um you know so there it would probably make sense to do a um you know a a fourplex but then also maybe allow somebody to split that in half and then do a duplex instead so it gives you a little bit more flexibility in that um and then the last part would be if front loaded uh must be inline or set back behind principal of facade so we should take a look at the garage standers for this one and see if there should be any any kind of difference should it be the same as contemporary should it be different and with that I can answer any questions all right questions for James I do have a question J go ahead um tn1 and tn2 basically we're looking at infill for these Lots correct there's really no Development Area for not unless you were to actually Zone something to want to see these standards in there typically new zoning is probably going to be contemporary so this is G predominantly in Phill yeah okay all right other questions or discussion Mr chair Mr Deval um if if I'm am I allowed to get a curb cut or to front load if my TN one or two lot is served by an alley you're not all right all right are we feeling good about uh uh TN tn1 here any other question other thoughts changes I I feel good about it got enough information there James yep all right then we're looking at tn2 so tn2 um seemed okay with the garage with TN uh with the tn1 district so the one thing kind of went back and forth in this and obviously um we have the Oak Street Kingwood area some on South 6th it's one of our few districts where we just um don't have a lot size maximum so people could potentially consolidate multiple lots and build one home on it uh you know I was kind of looking at that when we were looking at the my neighbor to love Coalition um you know there's not really a review to to see how many Lots you could potentially consolid or consolidate on something like this and then what could be built on those uh so with that I looked at uh you know maybe three City lots and then beyond that would require a conditional use permit you know I I weighed this one back and forth because it is nice in that tn2 District to to Really allow for a lot of things and and try to attract development in this area so certainly want the Planning Commission to have a discussion on this one and and uh and take your recomend Commendation all right questions discussion points I'm looking what what kind of feedback are you looking for James help me out on this to be more specific what kind of situations are you concerned about so you know again consolidating too many Lots without any type of review um you know for when we want to see this to be a dense Development Area uh and more density certainly than the tn1 so all of a sudden you know consolidate multiple Parcels into one and really not achieve what what we're looking for on that uh so so that's where I thought of putting some type of Maximum here certainly more than the uh traditional neighborhood one CU there are commercial uses mixed into here I don't want to make development too difficult but uh you know so that's that's where I'm at with this one do we have a lot size maximum or don't we are you looking to go we're going down from 21 to 4,000 I'm trying to understand here what we're so right now it's 4,000 and up so it's ,000 is a minimum and then you can have whatever size lot you want beyond that okay and what and you want to replace that with so a lot of our other like General uh General commercial um commercial Corridor they don't have lot size maximums either so that might be appropriate for this one um you know do we want to see a review on it if they want to make a large lot on here when we're looking for density or you know or do we do we want to keep it as kind of a free-for-all once 4,000 ft is a minimum and then you can go however large you want to uh James there again I mean this this is pretty well this is a small area we're talking about and it's almost all along the you know already developed heavily anyway areas I I don't think you're going to have an issue with this I don't think and if it does in my opinion um I'm just looking at the majority of these areas anyway I I I just can't see that happening so the other area that some TN to is kind of down by the be kind of the Arena area where my neighbor to love Coalition is so there's some vacant land in that area still um but a lot of it along our corridors already are is already developed um James I might be striking out on my own little island again um within the lot size and the maximum even moving up towards 25,000 is there any and I should probably preface the why um as we look at some of um with infill and the this cross between commercial and traditional neighborhood where the that's where the some of these things might end up happening and so I'm potentially talking about combining three lots for a different format type of business that would be serving that neighborhood could easily potentially happen um this is a hypothetical work hypotheticals but at the same time looking at you know not just combining two lots but combining three lots if development were advantageous for that you think at the three lot size we'd want to weigh in and uh I would think beyond the three lot size that we would want to weigh in okay so um I can see where staff stopped it at anything of three Lots mhm and I am saying that maybe even making it a little bit more feasible for three lots and Below to be feasible okay uh Mike you got anything there um no I think I'm I'm driving with the with the discussion here on on the three lots you know it's it's it's Kingwood it's Oak it's um u Southwest Northwest Northwest Second and third and then Southwest South 6th Street or something I think those are our spots on the map right so when we think a little bit on M Avenue in in the mil excuse me so we've got these spots and and and the tn2 um we're wanting to we're wanting to have sort of that that neighborhood feeli that serves all of your needs right within a block you know you can walk to the grocery store you can walk to get your hair cut da you know so I mean that kind of development so dropping a Walmart in there doesn't doesn't make it you know or dropping some large kind of a thing that that wipes out a number of properties that could be residences doesn't make it if you want to put a large residential complex in there you may need more room than three you know um and if it and that's that is compatible with the tn2 if I'm correct on that yep that's correct so so I I I think you're getting a compromised spot here that that you grab our attention when you go beyond wanting to to consolidate three lots we want to have a we want to talk and it seems reasonable all right it seems like uh am I hearing in favor of 25,000 that's yeah I I have a kind of a slightly off theall question how big is 20 help me think about 25,000 ft help me think about how big that is like this the lot that the city hall is sitting on anybody have a gander of what we're talking about here any idea again you know way more than that we're talking like 100,000 square F feet yeah okay yeah my my lot in in town is the standard lot 50 by 150 so T essentially taking my house and two of my neighbors so about 6,500 Square ft I'm do by 250 would get you there you know if that's so as you're spreading out all right very good um with that are we good with where we're at on tn2 let the move along so again just summarize what's our number here for the max before you need a cup I I am suggesting 25,000 no two different we we've got 20 we have 21,000 was what James has written uh uh James cranic you're the thinking 25,000 Mike do you have an opinion on where the number needs to go um well I'm just want to be clear on which number we're talking about so so I thought we were talking lots and well and lots are going the lots are going to be 2250 if you take the standard lot so you know what I mean um you know so a 50 foot by 150 is 7500 Square ft and I would recommend probably the the 25,000 so are we all good with that number just just for the common understanding that which number talking about and did you pick the 21,000 to avoid having three lots was there a reason behind the 21 or is that just kind of a number you were thinking of again I guess I took 7,000 I probably should have taken 7,500 there are lots you know depends on if the Alley's been vacated as part of the property some of them are 7,000 ft lot some of them are 7,500 so it probably be better to go with a larger number so we're all good to 25 yes all right very good thank you um then we are moving on to uh Adu moving on to accessory dwell in units James yeah so this one we had a discussion on it didn't seem like there was much of a consensus I did talk about how um the primary people coming in asking about it accessory dwelling units are ones that were licensed rentals and then wanted to potentially create another rental um so certainly would increase housing um you know is it too much density for one site could it be problems if you know the um homeowner isn't actually there and it's just another rental I think that was kind of the thought behind um having it be a homeowner occupied structure um but I know there was some excitement about accessory dwelling units and um staff has not seen any of those come through at this time um so this was just an option to potentially remove that language if the primary structure is owner occupied there are still some conditions that would if it's if it's in the middle of a block it's a conditional use permit if it's on the corner it's not a conditional use permit so there's still would be some review if it's you know an internal lot uh so this is just really up for discussion um you know I don't really have a strong opinion either way but you want to certainly bring it to the attention of the Planning Commission um to to make them aware that that's probably been one of the biggest hindrances to people moving forward with accessory dwelling units all right questions for James Mr chair please um Dr kic the um how I if if you remove the primary structure um owner is owner occupied um we just got done with the short-term rental business and and how does that how does that change that relationship we had a category of some of these these short-term rentals that if the owner occupied something there C does this change any of that or does this bring change the math on any of the SDR stuff I don't think it should change the math on any of that okay so this you know if you if you remove that here um for the accessory d ding unit it's not going to uh upend something with the short-term rentals in my opinion it would not thank you any other thoughts from the group on that if not if you feel like you got the right language there James then let's uh we're going to move along to General Building Development and design does it seem like that there is a consensus that people are agreement to objection I am I am good with striking the primary structure as owner occupied I agree with Steph all right consensus is there consensus there then we're moving along and we are looking at General Building General Building Development and design standards uh starting out with the single family detached residential structure standards James yes thank you Mr chair so a couple items in here first one is uh getting rid of the orientation on L you'll match the orientation of other buildings predominant orientation of other buildings along the block um you know that we've looked at other ones I know we have the one that's um duplex that was built on South 9th that didn't have an entrance and and that picture was shown um last week certainly it maybe adds some Aesthetics if there is there was other Lots on that block that didn't have front entrances so it certainly asked the Aesthetics potentially have that front door on there front entrance whether it's a porch covered entry that type of thing so this would be uh building primary entrance Shelby oriented towards a public street so it wouldn't have to be if it's a corner lot it could be still orientated on on another Street uh the second part showed some pictures of some infield development particularly some some Habitat homes that did a few um did a few things that uh enhanced the facade but probably didn't cost a considerable amount to put on there so staff is recommending some type of of code to enhance the facades within our single family homes and especially when we're looking at these infill projects uh so you'd be looking at doing potentially two of the following could certainly add items to this as well first one would be a porch enclosed or non-enclosed um second one would be a covered entry that's just essentially just a some type of nice covered entry over the door uh window shutters alternative sing patterns or brick and stone so you essentially be selecting two of these and with that I can answer any questions all right Miss members anybody want to weigh in of this one I think it's perfect all right I have a question for clarification so with the building primary entrance sh be oriented towards a public street do we have anything that defines that that then the address of that primary entrance is the address of the structure there's there is a whole lot of language when you're looking at front yards rear yards all that type of stuff it's in subdivision ordinance it's in zoning code you're looking at definitions um so that all gets figured out within that part of it but but being able to just at least require a front entrance to be orientated towards a public Street I think would be an improvement from what we have and the reason why I question is because whatever the street address for that dwelling unit would be is where I would find the front door no matter so typically yeah typically we'd um where your front entrance is garage is that type of thing that's how we'd address it okay and so the the the project on Chicago Avenue we looked at that will have a Chicago but it does obviously 1306 okay that answer my own question here we go I like all these points myself I think uh I think they um they they get after something that's been bothering me for a while they have the houses that uh you see the side of the house in the street so I think uh I I like it Tiffany anything good James you think you have enough on a or do we have a question down there yeah yeah so um yeah I'm good with the um clarifying language and see the the the pick list of of pick two you know I talked to James a bit about this uh you know I I I don't know that I could have made a property that I had that has been there since 1939 meet those criteria you know I could I could put the I could put the shutters back on it which looked goofy because there were you know you had double windows Side by triple windows in instances and then one little narrow shutter on each side and it just you know the shutter was just something there and it just didn't really it wasn't really additive as far as the athetic um some flexibility in these you know if you know a picture can a picture can send somebody in the right direction about what you're talking about you know that we're wanting something that's just not you know a a a a monotone rectangular box or you know trapezoidal box we want something with visual interest and things um and that could be done with with variations in color you know accent trim and those sorts of things that's that's not that's not captured here um there was discussion during last month's meeting that that we were talking about colors and things like that but I think it was in relation to clab birds or vinyl siding or things like that but how you might use color to kind of accent um but also leaving some room for the Builder or for the architect to to bring something different that doesn't necessarily hit hit these things but gets at what we want you know that that visual interest that's different from a a monotone same siding rectangular or trapezoidal box so I don't know how you get there but C can you can you put an item a sub item G sub6 that you know allows a conversation across the counter and you go yeah I mean you got you know you can deal with that on the administrative side without sending somebody here but it it points them there gives them some freedom to give you different options like a wild card option yeah yeah I got thisa a deuce deuce okay all right are you talking colors like two colors or something added to this or whatever you know what what does the Builder come come up with to say to add visual interest um you know and it or or the architect that that breaks that up I mean that's what we're talking about is make it a little little bit I get it different than just a plain box with with fenestrations in it you know well he covers that I I get what you that's where a color might be the other thing or two colors or something is is another way to get there that you can do rephrase it as an alternative option which meets I'm I'm running out of words but James so so I reviewed um the property that that Mike had redone there and and one of the things that I think gives that property interest is the whole front facade isn't you know one one wall and similar to to what what my house is there's a lot of interest because there's it kind of just this way out back up so the walls are staggered there's creating interest through through that it's not just one wall so you know potentially you could have options that uh you know front walls do not ex see 10 ft in length in in any of the walls you could add color patterns to it and maybe there's another one that one of one of them could be essentially that wild card up you know up to the discretion of the the zoning administrator as one of the criteria maybe not both all right and it could you know it could be roof lines as well you know whether it's Gables or some different different lines that don't get super crazy modern design in in our TN ons and TN 2s but I mean kind of get you there we'd have to limit it if we get like a Green Bay Packer planning Comm you know guy down the road he might let a Packers helmet on the front of a king flamingos okay all right so a little off track here but James for the sake of moving it Forward um the the item six being other architectural design elements that would create visual interest I think that I think that that opens the door enough to what to talk to James to say yeah so what do you mean by this because architectural elements that create visual interest is definable it when you look at all the different things I did a Google Search and it starts listing them all and so there there's a lot of them that are in there that you know aren't necessarily encompassed within that situation but the the idea is the fact that if I can Google it well what is a visual interest element we do the same yeah we're looking for wiggle room and I think we're getting close to it here um T any thoughts before we I mean I like the idea of having or something else with consultation from or approval from Community Development in some way what we're looking for is something that is distinct yet harmonious right is that kind what we're and maybe the out on item six would be the fact that it with um Community Development approval of that I can work whatever it is yeah whatever that is because So within those kinds of elements that you might be able to Google it's going to say Landscaping that might be something that we might want to see you know well I'm going to put Landscaping in front of it cool but what exactly does your Landscaping mean because sometimes when you build a ice machine you know that's on the corner lot sorry too soon um you went there um so when you say Landscaping it just giving it it might be more necessary for development Community Development to have a little bit more oversight on what that visual interest piece is it's sticking to the structure myself that's that's but what I would want to stick with on that one James are we giving you anything to work with here you think we're getting close to the I think that would be I think in my opinion that'd be a good six one and then adding alternative siding patterns or color maybe to that one yeah welcome working with that one all right then we're moving on to B we're looking at attached single family residential structures duplex Triplex and fourplex yep so this one is pretty quick here the first one would be going from 500 ft to 400 ft which is the minimum required in our Apartments so this would you could go essentially go down to 400 ft and duplexes triplexes or fourplexes um this is brought up by former commission member Francis did you say former former former yes oh we we accepted his resignation on I did not know about that I'm I'm sad sad to hear that okay um all right so any points anybody want to weigh anything out here are we good with uh with this yes yeah I will say yes right and uh so we the U we're approving here are we uh as entire section to be or we just looking at two right now we're looking at two right now and then the next one would be all conversions shall require a conditional use permit and comply with all standards of the base zoning District um so this would be you know I could see there being some concern in some of our um kind of traditional neighborhood some of our historic homes about kind of halfhazard um you know chopping buildings up maybe things don't look or quite look right in in the neighborhood or fit the neighborhood so staff's recommending a conditional use permit when you're doing a conversion this wouldn't for a new construction I can get behind that anybody any other thoughts uh from the group on that one on four Tiffany I like that I understand the new language better than what we had all right all right so I think we have a consensus that we're good on point four and uh you got enough to work with yeah we're not changing anything so you got enough to work with let's move on to item five so next one would be multif family dwelling unit shall incorporate balconies covered porches or staggered wall patterns you know still looking for potential thoughts from the commission on this one you know maybe the existing language we have is good enough to to figure this you know to to to work with this um you know obviously when when we're looking at the 805 Laurel Street project that's kind of similar to that first picture that I have on there where um their ground level in order to meet setbacks is is kind of one setback but then as you go up they had you know kind of staggered patterns with our um uh the potential 805 Laurel Street project so that's kind of my thought process behind kind of some of the staggered walls the next one you'll see um balconies in there you can staggered walls to kind of create some interest you're not creating one box here so trying to trying to Define before it was a little bit more ambiguous um this one's maybe defining exactly what we're looking for balconies um staggered walls covered porches rather than just trying to find design elements that are in interesting um however this is does go through a conditional use permit process so maybe that's good enough for you know review of the Planning Commission city council to you know see is that you know is there actual visual interest there so just wanted uh the Planning Commission to consider this should we add additional language to require some of this um or do we just kind of leave it up to a cup and when somebody comes in for review Mr chair Mr Peterson my my impression is leave it up as it is up to a cup here that way discussion can be had with depends on the neighborhood and a lot of different things I'm just thinking of different Lots could propose different things upon it to whether you can jut out or not or and and you have complete control of it at that point in okay this thing line um I mean I I hear you I hate pop quizzes though I don't want them to be surprised that we're looking for this right in their C I am wondering if we can take some of the um that idea of we we want to have something like one of these things or and copy that language from above for the Wild Card like or come up with something else um I could maybe incorporate it into kind of our existing language so they know maybe this is what we what we're looking for yeah um so it's not just a create visual interest type thing right I like that but maybe it doesn't say it shall have this yeah okay the menu yeah okay so that was C3 and if we're good with C3 then we're where are we C5 so got just just to if if I could have a summary of what we decided on three here okay just to make sure where where we going that I don't have the existing language in there I probably should have included that but I think what we would end up doing is just adding this to some of our existing language that talks about design elements within multifam and include include this language into it just so developers know that this is again something that the city's looking for but it would still come through that cup process so wouldn't say it shall incorporate these one of these elements okay thank you then uh C5 C5 I'm not sure if I had to misnumber but this kind of goes back to again what we talked about with um single family these would be single family ATT cash dwelling so this would be your duplexes triplexes fourplexes um again creating those same language build uh building common entrance or unit entrances shall be orientated towards a public Street um and then would like to have some discussion on that you know if you have a duplex could you have a front entrance and a rear entrance I could see potential in something like that um you know certainly when we were looking at this uh from an Aesthetics perspective having two front doors and roll houses was kind of something that I know the Planning Commission city council really liked so you know this this would still give you if there's a main entrance and you had you know say a a Triplex or a fourplex they could still have their separate doors but the main entrance would still be facing the street and then again uh incorporating two of those following Design Elements again maybe we just use what we picked on the last one for for single family homes so with that I can answer any questions would we want to add the the wild card to this one or we good with this five any thoughts on that I would say adding what we added to the last one would be my recommendation duplicating it moving on that sounds good um we all good with that and we are on to D we're looking at commercial use design construction standards within the whole pil of districts thank you Mr chair so this one um not having the makers employment in PSP District looking at um adding that to the commercial use design standards for construction um also new buildings constructed didn't have The General commercial or prsp District in there either so um looking as well we talked about different types of metal options uh that we're seeing now not just the uh metal siding with exposed Fasteners but there's some really nice kind of larger metal pieces that they're using for construction of new apartments and and new stores that I think you know could potentially be allowed upon a conditional use permit so adding that language to it but then also adding um metal siding with exposed Fasteners shall be prohibited so no longer even allowing that um within our commercial districts uh they at that point they could use still you know similar similar metal siding that we see out here which would be the non-exposed Fasteners the standing seam metal siding um which I think aesthetically in my opinion does look nicer than the the traditional um kind of that exposed Fasteners with the ripped material for metal siding so with that I can answer any questions Mr Peters any feelings about the exposed Fasteners you know there is but I think it's going nowhere well do you want to let let the group know where you're thinking here it's fair that we all uh I don't have a problem with the F you're okay with that all right no I do have a problem with it but I don't think it's going to matter okay well there we go all right and uh is everybody else good on four are we ready to move along there or pardon me D4 yes and I just want to note that it still would be allow in the industrial district okay yeah very good very good fair enough well that uh if that's the case then we're moving on to Industrial uh use design construction standards anything in there yeah so I I'll kind of cover both things um the first one is any structure in the industrial district within 300 ft of the any adjacent uh business with the some of our major thorough fares got rid of the um within 300 ft and just went to adjacent 2 uh this is staff's recommendation cuz there's at times areas where you wouldn't even see an industrial building from this road it's maybe on the backside of a property um where they'd still then have to meet those commercial design standards so this is really your visual impact as you're driving under major thorough fars have to have the um construction standards of commercial but then you know beyond that they would not have to meet that uh the second one is accessory um building I've seen this in kind of multiple industrial areas and sometimes what people are proposing um a lot of times you'll have obviously your main office or an industrial building but then they need a a large shop so I think the 30% in my opinion um you know is maybe too low and staff's recommendation would be to go to 100% of the size of the principal building you know if you do have to go um you larger you have multiple buildings again too sometimes it could then either require a variance or a PUD um that's kind of a a long process and with our industrial zoning districts trying to create that flexibility where they can have their principal building but then also build a large shop or storage area for them I I think would be appropriate uh so with that I'll open it up to uh discussion thoughts from the group James outdoor storage sorry how does this affect within that part of that situation so this would not affect outdoor storage at all this is just when you're building a structure okay all right good with that one I when the accessory building is as big as the main building it stops it it becomes the main building and I yeah I guess I have I have concerns maybe 30 is too small but I want the accessory building to still be accessory to the main building if they want to Big a build another building the same size they have to go through the process of building up right okay and they they have to go through the process so I guess wonder if I down to Mike wonder if I could um take off from there and and while ago we handled a a building replacement at Anderson Brothers and I don't I don't know how that relates but the building was to was accessory to the business with the offices are in one location and this was a monster building and it was to bring dump trucks and front end loaders and big equipment in and out of the weather so you can work on it did we handle that differently or or would that be an example of how we would handle this this Nuance here or so that was enely different so that was past staff um I did cuz Anderson Brothers did recently um redo their aggregate lab I made them clean that up so now they're separated into two Parcels on the one parcel the shop is the primary building and and uh on the other parcel it's the um the actual office building so i' I've recently cleaned that up but Anderson Brothers you know comes to mind for one of them where you have an office building and then you know you need mechanic shops and and these larger out buildings so that's where I'm recommending the 100% only in the industrial you know certainly in your neighborhoods or commercial areas you don't want some large accessory building but it to me as a a from a staff recommendation it potentially makes sense in industrial use I it's not a great it wasn't a great parallel to to to this then it we handle it differently just flip in is there any other examples you can think of that we've been looking at in industrial areas that where this would have been helpful to a developer or something there's I can't remember the name of it they do like speakers and it's a digital something they ended up connecting it to the building um they were looking to have it you know not connected because it would would have been cheaper um and really wouldn't have changed anything else but then you would have had to go through a longer process so they ended up just connecting to the building okay very good and let's go Mr Peterson then we'll head over well I think what James is getting at and what this is where businesses are and maybe you have an idea and you're going to build you know eight Coke bottles a year and then all of a sudden you get a big contract and you got to do 4,000 so it's an increase of this business it's an industrial partk so they maybe didn't know going in that they needed to grow and I think he's just trying to make it easier for them to grow and and you're right the accessory may very well be bigger than the other because of that reason all right I can see that point uh Tiffany are you what wasn't there like the materials testing or something what oh yeah there was something separate something about that yeah remember that for which one n destructive testing that was down on yeah so we had to do a variance on that because again that accessory building would have exceeded the the size of it so they ended up getting a variance exceeded the 30% another example we tour giovan from the Eda they want to expand I think they're able their storage for their trucks that type of thing and again probably would run into to to issues for the storage of their trucks in in their garage if they did expand okay so could UPS put their trucks inside one of these accessory structures if they built it okay that's that's kind of where I'm heading is is that within the industrial situation there is going to be times where you do need a larger storage facility than what may exist with the primary structure um and it there's countless different variables that could require for that to happen and so I appreciate the fact that you know the main the primary building should be the big building but it within industrial settings there's too many different variables that and right now the code says that it couldn't be larger than the primary building so it's allowed to go up to 100% of the primary building where previous one was it could only be 30% of the primary building yeah and that's I agree with what staff is suggesting for up to 100% anything beyond that would then end up requiring review we have a consensus Tiffany are you ready to assign on this one I want I have one more question let's let's hear it okay when you say industrial accessory buildings or are we talking accessory buildings in the in industrial Zone that that's how that's how it would be so I haven't changed it in the actual table in the industrial but it would have to be changed in there as well okay but and potentially maybe it's just changed I'll take a look at the wording because we wouldn't want an industrial use and a grandfathered one in in some other zoning District but that would still have to meet the base District standards and even like a General commercial so say it's industrial use in a General commercial The General commercial only allows for such a large accessory structur so you have to actually go with a smaller one in that you know if the code language here says it you still have to go with the smaller one in the base District I think my brain fried somewhere in there but I believe you understand what my question was and what I was trying to get to so okay yeah I'll ensure that it it wouldn't apply to other Zing districts I almost think the word accessory it kind of throws us off here because I keep thinking sheds and green houses and things like that and really way we're talking about is just putting another building up and maybe the word accessory isn't the best one but anyhow um I'm good with it person I'm good with e as we as we the staff has proposed without Mr Deval else just again just to summary um point of clarification that um a a a a a larger than 100% gross floor space would be allowed by cup is that is that so the process to exceed is available all we're simply saying is this is what you can do administratively that's correct got it all right I think we're think we've got e Turn the Page we have uh other items yes just other items that uh I I had to look through I'm going to have to look through a few sections of code just to make sure it meets everything so it's not quite in in COD format yet but we talked about it transparency a minimum 75% of the front facade between 2 and 8 ft above the sidewalk must be comprised of transparent non-reflective Windows into the commercial space a minimum 25% of the windows shall have views directly into and out to the ground floor occupied space um I did take a look at Delo zoning code for this one and did like the language on this one so I recommend applying it to the Main Street district and Town Center overlay district and the commercial Corridor District I like that um I think one of the worst things I've ever seen in the downtown areas is when the walls get get put up I know there was a a former bar well maybe it's still current a former bar owner that said people don't want want to be seen when they're drinking during the day and we want to keep those we don't want transparent windows we want to go right up to the very top but I think that really kind of goes against what what you're trying to do in a downtown area and things like this so I I I like it as written personally other thoughts I think that's a great argument for why we should have transparent Windows right there all right there we go well they come out to smok catch them there all right and uh I guess we have item two there have we covered item two yet nope okay with then the last one is allowing the mixed use development in the commercial Corridor District similar to The Main Street District which prohibits ground floor residential units I know we' discussed this a few times and certainly staff is still recommending that strongly in favor I'm on board with that anybody else what was you com I I am strongly in favor and and I am encouraging others to be in favor oh no not just that I'm encouraging all developers hey please please come F to mixed use so um would would allowing M ker I may I'm sorry certainly but would allowing residential use in the back you know say the the some percent of the floor the back half of it is residential we had this discussion for Main Street remember with uh um Teresa with Teresa you know that you maintain the commercial use on the street side but could you use the a the backside of that main level for non-commercial uses in other words residences or things like that um if I'm going to put up a large mixed use building um would there would there be interest in having residential use on that lower level as an example or would you want it all to be to be commercial we're having the same conversations around 805 Laurel right that part of that is going to be commercial yeah so 805 Laurel that one um that one's in the Town Center overlay District so that's where we had that requirement on the kind of the front side you could put potential standards where you know 50% of the front has to be commercial space 50% could be potential residential space you know I'm not sure um not sure how city council would look at it certainly it' probably be easier to pass just the Main Street District standards certainly they could be open to it as well so just to be clear I I I think you know the the the portion that's facing Washington should be all commercial you know so that we don't have residential popping popping out and in there I I think it makes sense to have that all be commercial but on the backside of of that you know so you get your store storefronts all there on on facing Washington parking is someplace behind um but then could we use the residential area as a lower so I I'll just weigh in here I'm a little skeptical on that because I think the if you have a um if if this is the this is your building here this is your street and you're going to have uh your storefront up here every storefront needs a back room and every storefront needs things in the back I also worry a little bit about what the residential experience would be stuck in the back of a store but that's just I don't know not uh just thoughts and concerns and others James within the concept of what is being discussed it the back half doesn't necessarily have to be used for the commercial space of the front side of that situation it could be used for uh bike storage or you know of the residents above it it just can't be a dwelling unit if I'm understanding what is being proposed and so it it could still be amenities allowable for the dwelling units that exist above it but it's it's just not where there would be a dwelling unit be like some of those quirky businesses we have in Washington right by Hardy's over there where have where you go in the back and there's businesses in the back kind of quirky but whatever sure um any thoughts on this does anybody want to put an alternative idea or do we go with what we have uh sitting out here on number two I'll step I'll step back on it I'm not going to die on this one but just you know I I think in another era when with entrepreneurs and storefronts and people like this I think it made a lot of sense that was where the family would live that's certainly not a it's not a new idea that the family would live in the back and uh but I I yeah so I think we're good on two James I think we've worked our way through that um any other questions you have of us anything we've left uh unfinished here uh not from staff I guess if there's anything from the Planning Commission that they'd like to discuss certainly could do that but um from a staff perspective I think we covered everything I would like to discuss that get a chance well is it relevant to this or do you want to do it during the uh um during the committee reports or your it kind of delves into the design let's hear it let's hear it then let's go for it well one of the the projects we're working on right now is uh that that had passed before I was on this from another gentlemen we're doing storage units that we are selling by on Delwood drive by Menards all right so we're in the process now we're right it's a metal building only 50% of the front facing Delwood um can be metal so you've got 50% of one product color 50% of another it is going to be the ugliest building ever so that would be the one thing I would look at in the industrial or really in anywhere 50% is just a bad number 20% 25 so that you've got to mix so what we're going to have is a 20ft wall facing Delwood 20 by 40 okay and we're going to have metal going up 11 foot by 40 and it'll be something different 11 foot by 40 that's not going to look well okay so so you know if you you think of a the metal buildings usually they have W's coating which we're doing around the rest of the building I don't know what my boys figured three or four foot going around I mean it's probably too late for this one but um that is that is not the best number to have 50% cannot exceed is what I would say all right um is this something we want to go with or maybe revisit it on the line what are we thinking here is there other thoughts on the group on on this one I want to hear from James and what all right do you know do you understand and so what I'm seeing we saw it with the cold storage building as well um that the city put up it was kind of just a 50/50 half um where I see there being an impact is when we're looking at larger buildings like a FedEx um the potential crypto Mining facility where there's you know you can design with with a mix on it and in those instances it looked nice so maybe maybe there's some type of standard that if you're a certain number of square footage um or front facade square footage that you have those requirements otherwise you wouldn't so it's the smaller buildings that it tends to look odd we open it up to 7030 6040 more creative splits perhaps yeah I could I could look at I could look at language for it okay it sound good to you Mr yeah I I I think something has got to be okay okay so and then where's our what's our next step are you are we going to have a finished ordinance for a hearing at the next meeting or where we so so next step I believe um I'll bring a finished ordinance but it'll still be in discussion form make sure we because it's such a large ordinance that we'll have here I want to make sure we've doted our eyes cross our teas and and we've gotten a full review of it and then at that point we'll bring it to the meeting after for a public hearing James for clarification on the last item uh for commissioner Peterson this is specific Ally in general industrial zoning that we're talking about the 50% situation yes okay okay all right just want to make sure that it's specifically to that zoning District okay you got something there um James when when we come back and and as part of that can you include some illustrations um you know I love pictures uh I'm thinking that the roof line thing would be good to have pictures on certainly thank you all right very good Mr chair so are we going to pick up this um this metal sliding piece in the next draft that you bring us at our next meeting or are we doing a separate track on that y i I'll just include language on that that you guys can include in it change or just strike yeah because while we get this thing open all right I think we have made our way through uh seven I just want to commend all my fellow Comm members this was a good discussion and very um productive it was good um let's move on to item eight public forum time allocated for Citizens bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission time limits may be imposed do we have anybody on line no do we have anybody in presence who would like to comment no all right then we're moving on to uh I will close that g there and we'll move on to staff reports uh we'll start out with uh James thank you Mr chair so wanted to update a few things here with some of the meetings city council at their last meeting approved both the garage ordinance and the prohibition of crypto Mining and Outdoor Storage uh the Eda held a special meeting last night to discuss uh the redesign of the crypto uh facility on TC Drive uh which is now entirely enclosed within a building before it was outdoor storage uh the Eda approved the revised purchase and development uh agreement and construction drwings contingent upon BPU extending the power agreement um also I noted earlier commissioner Francis resigned uh commissioner grenald also resigned that'll be at the next uh city council meeting uh they did say that they enjoyed working with everybody enjoyed their time on Planning Commission but did have other commitments come up uh and last but not least uh this weekend downtown will have the touch of truck and Flapjack festival for kids to come out and get in the trucks and all you can eat pancakes for $10 and and uh I believe that money goes it's a donation that goes towards the water tower uh relays and uh costume contexts uh costume contest as well as uh pancake eating contest so a lot of fun downtown uh Laurel Street uh in the Laurel Street parking lot then that'll be 10: to noon that's everything thank you um moving on to item 10 commission member reports uh Tiffany what you got uh so commissioner Duval was there um at the oh sorry did I steal the steal your report we were at the Rosen Meer Forum last night on housing and I would recommend um tuning in and and watching the the YouTube version of it because it it should be because CC has a new new person Sean reported to us on Monday yeah yeah learn something yes yes um the uh so if you go and carloo at the flapjack festival and the touch of truck then you can go to the Arbor for the 50th anniversary of it not being our city dump anymore and um so that actually starts at 11: uh but they're going to have some sort of bird of prey they don't know what kind yet is going to be released in the afternoon and there's a medallion hunt scavenger thing it's going to be fun and you can burn off some of the pancakes like a wild bird of prey being released yes whatever they catch well it depends on like it's wild and free is going to release some sort of the the bird of prey is TVA yes the the exact species is TB very good um I'm not done yet um so I went to the Mind do just cuz I think y'all might be people who would find this interesting I went to the Mind do openhouse on the 210 371 project and I have handouts if any body wants to take a look at them including this which is different kinds of interchanges and how you get through them you may look at this but I I I need to keep this okay like this is valuable information here that I am allowing you to look at can't mark it up or anything is that it that's it that was an epic report I like it you should have heard my one on Monday night that was I'll YouTu it James nothing to report nothing to report uh Dave I have nothing to report Mr Deval um I'm looking forward to I think uh comments at last month's meeting to visit crypto data centers um things of that so I'm looking forward to a discussion like that and I hope that we'll be able to figure out where we plug that into our our list of things to do I think we'll be talking about that October I think is our next review of that so sounds good that's all that is all no hand outs very much no handouts though um to go back to the rosenmeier Forum the state has invested 1.x billion dollar in housing and so there's a whole ple of new programs that are going out so these were presented there and how they'll hit the road um and you know dollars coming to the city of brainer dollars coming to the counties and such that that will work towards um in various ways either um uh as as affordable housing options for tenants or revenues to um repair properties and so we'll see some of this turning into and some of it may end up before us here as well in in certain manifestations so that is all all right with the money just quick question would that be coming through um the uh which who locally would be doing that would it be uh the H that would be doing that you think U well Min Minnesota housing will be doing grants that um some of it goes directly to the city some of it will go through um and be administered by the HRA and that money would be going out like as grants and and other other ways of Distributing that to make things happen very good all I have to add is learning that this is the 50th anniversary of the dump being closed I feel old I remember the old dump the old dump was just horrid you guys it was just like the edge of the Earth and we just push things off the edge of the Earth it was it was sad all right with that I'm looking for a motion to adjourn so moveed I hear it do I have a second second all very say I same sign we're adjourned