Okay. Uh, we will gave in the Newport Planning Commission meeting for July 7th at 5:36. Can I call the role? Uh, >> Commissioner Ramali >> here. >> Commissioner Kermy's >> here. >> Commissioner Fueling here.
Commissioner Bonia >> here. >> Chair Lady >> here. Thank you. Meeting minutes item three on the agenda. Everybody have a chance to look at those? >> I didn't see any changes. If you don't have any changes, I'd be looking for a
motion. >> A motion to pass. >> Uh can I get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. I have two motions to pass. Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Meeting minutes approved. Okay. Okay, we'll move right on to number four. You guys good?
>> Yeah. >> As good as we're going to get. Um, go ahead. >> This is uh regarding the public hearing and daily electric expansion. So, commissioner uh planning commission um we have a presentation tonight by uh
Madison and uh we'll get going. >> Yes. Good evening commissioners. Um so today in front of you, Daily Electric is in for their conditional use permit and variance requests. Um you previously saw um the concept planned for this um in December of last year. So they're
officially back for their official submission. Um this is the agenda in front of you. Um so kind of what we're going to talk about. We're going to get into their conditional use, their variances, and then we'll talk about some specifics of the project. We'll get into our findings, our staff recommendation. Um
and then you'll have your public hearing and a decision hopefully. Um so this is the site on the screen in front of you. If you'll notice, it's just east of city hall to us. So just right across the street. Um the applicant is currently proposing this on three parcels. So one is the existing
the farthest west parcel is the existing parcel and then they're looking to combine it with the two vacant parcels to the east. Um here's a project overview for you. So, as previously noted, they're here for a conditional use permit. Um, this is for a contracting use in the MX
district. Um, the variances, which we'll dive into in the presentation. It's currently zoned MX3, um, the general mixeduse district, and then it currently has a future land use of commercial/residential, and then there are those PIDs. The acreages, um, total
is about 08. So, it's point4 for the existing parcel and then 0.2 for each of the vacant parcels. Um this is the site as it exists today. So you'll see the existing building on the west parcel and then this is the proposal in front of you tonight. So they're proposing a
new addition about 8600 square ft um as well as a new parking lot to the south and then we'll talk some more about access um and landscaping as we get into it. But this is kind of just a general highlevel site plan in front of you.
Um so the conditional use permit you're looking at. So within the general mixed use district, it requires a conditional use permit for contracting uses, which is what this current use falls under. Um, specific criteria for contracting uses for contracting offices um are
identified in section 36-308. Um, they include that the parcel must be 1 acre or larger. The applicant has applied for a variance to this requirement and then it must front a public street with a functional classification of a minor collector or minor material. And this is met as proposed.
The variance requests in front of you, and we'll dive deeper into these as we get through the um proposal, but generally the contracting offices less than one acre that we talked about, they're looking for lot coverage, um building and parking setbacks, window coverage, landscaping, um and then other
standards if identified through further review. And we'll kind of talk about what that means through access as well. Um these are the bulk standards in front of you. Um, these are also in your report. The highlighted blue are the ones that the applicant is requesting flexibility through a variance for. So
that minimum lot area for the cup, they're also requesting a lot coverage variance. So they're currently on their existing one parcel at about 95%. Um, so they'll be lessening that, but they will still be slightly above the lot coverage permitted within the district. Um, additionally, the front yard setback. I
should note um staff had some conversations about the front yard, what we would consider that and kind of looking at what the existing front yards are on the site, even though they'll be combined. Um we kind of decided that 21st Street makes the most sense to be considered the front yard since it has
three frontages on three different streets. Um it was, you know, there's some flexibility in code that permits staff to kind of make a determination on what the front yard will be considered. So, moving forward, when we're talking about the front yard, we'll be talking about 21st Street to the north. Um, so
they're looking for a setback for their structure. So, they need 10 ft. They're looking at about 5T. And then the minimum setbacks for parking and drive aisles. Um, they need 5T here. They're looking about 4T and 8 in. And it's just a portion of the
existing parking lot. I should note the minimum setbacks for parking is currently zero in the front. So, the parking lot goes right up to that property line. um they're not looking for a variance to that because it's legally non-conforming. So that's why that's noted on there as well.
Um these are the flexibility standards we just talked about. Um so you'll see to the north where that new addition is encroaching in that front yard setback. The blue highlighted area is where the 10 ft would be. So the portion within that blue highlighted area is what's encroaching. And then on the south of
the site, you'll see that's where the parking setback will be. Um, I know it's kind of hard to see on this drawing, but in the northwestern portion of the site, that parking will be um encroaching just just a small portion of that.
Um, in terms of the building design that we're looking at, this is what the applicant has proposed. Um, they appear to meet all material standards for the building. Um staff has made a note that the applicant may look at um updating the building to look a little bit more
office and less industrial. Um you know as we see this road redevelop I think we're looking at offices along this corridor more than we are industrial uses. Um looking at the building design I also want to point out the windows. So the applicant is seeking a variance to the window requirement. Um, so for the
MX3 district, um, in terms of building design, we're looking at 40% window coverage for office uses on the first floor fronting a public street. So it would be for those three sides, the west, the north, and the east. Um,
combined, they're at around 23% is kind of what they're currently looking at. um staff are supportive of this flexibility um but have added a recommended condition that the applicant look at expanding the windows on the second story. So the first floor is only
what's considered in that window coverage requirement but we think to supplement that it feels appropriate to ask the applicant to look at expanding those second story windows kind of adding to that office feel making it feel a little less industrial on the site. Um this is that building design. These
are some renderings the applicant has provided to kind of give you a better idea of what it'll look like on site. Landscaping and screening. So for this site um code requires one tree per thousand square feet of non-imperous surface and then of the trees provided
25% of them need to be overstory deciduous and 25 need to be coniferous. Um they're currently required nine trees on site. They're proposing 23 trees which meets the requirement, but of those 23 um 25% which would be six trees would be required to be deciduous.
They're only proposing three. So they're asking for a variance to this requirement as well. Staff are supportive of this requirement. Um we believe it's appropriate based on, you know, the amount of landscaping they're proposing on site. It, you know, is significantly higher than they're required to do. Um, so we believe that
standard is appropriate. In addition, they're required one tree per 50 ft of frontage. This is obviously a three fronted lot, so they have a pretty decent amount of frontage. They will be required four trees. They're currently proposing zero. They're also requesting a variance to this requirement. Um, regarding their standards, their parking
lot landscaped islands are conforming. Um, they meet all parking landscaping requirements. And then the screening we're looking at, so all um loading areas and all parking lots are required to be screened from residential and then from any adjacent roadways. They are, as
you'll see on the drawing, um proposing some pretty significant landscaping on the southern border. However, um looking at the requirements, it requires um some pretty strict opacity. So staff have added a recommended condition that the fencing be 100% opaque along that
southern property line. Um, this should help mitigate some of the lighting to the adjacent residential to the south. Um, parking and loading. So, we've broken it down per use. So, for the office use, they would be required 13
spaces. They need one space per 250 ft. And then for the storage use, they need one space per 2,000 ft. So, they would need five spaces. They're proposing 24 spaces, which is more than the required 18 spaces. So, parking is appropriate. Um, loading. So, they have loading in
the front of the site. So, there's an existing loading bag in the front. Um, this is not screened, but it exists already. Um, so they're screening it to their best ability from the west. And then there will be new load loading bays added to the south off of that new addition. Um, so they're screening that
with the retaining wall and then that fencing we talked about in the past regarding access and circulation. So they currently have three access points, two off of 21st Street and then one off of Second Avenue. They are proposing to keep all three access points. Um staff
have recommended a condition within you know the city engineering memo and then staff's recommendation as well that removes one of the 21st street access points um with further consultation with the county. This is also a requirement the county is requiring and they are recommending that
the east access be removed of the two. So that's why you'll see that one xed out. Um we are asking that the applicant provide updated civil plans. We're not totally sure when the one of the access points is removed, what that may do to the required variances. So, if it'll
change any of the variances, we kind of want to know the implications of that before we bring it forward fully to city council. So, we're kind of talking to the applicant, getting their feedback on it. Um, but this is kind of a major concern from engineering and, you know, public works perspective and then the
county as well having that road regarding sidewalks. So, the applicant is not currently showing any pedestrian walkways or connections. Um, they are looking at dedicating this right of way. So, if you'll look just right below those red squares, that black division
line between the property, that'll all be dedicated right of way. Um, the applicant will be required to do an easement with the city for any improvements within that right of way. Um, but that gives the city some ability to add a future sidewalk on 21st Street, you know, as development continues to
happen in this area. Um, in terms of the review comments, so the city engineering city engineer provided a memo. Um, these are some of their general comments. So, they're looking for, like I mentioned previously, the access configuration on 21st Street. What does that reconfiguration look like for the city?
Um, the three properties will need to be combined. That's staff's requirement as well. They'll need a lot consolidation. That's an administrative application, so they won't need to come back to you for that, but that is something they'll have to do. Um and then the entitlements they'll need to get through that in terms of like easements and agreements
with the city. Um tree plantings will not be permitted over the underground storm water basin. So they'll be looking at potentially looking at um amending some of their landscape plan to account for that. Um and then you know I think that engineering will need some more information on grading drainage and
storm water management. Um these are the required findings that the city needs to look at when looking at variances and conditional use permits. I'm sure you all are familiar with these. Um, if you're not, we just put them on the screen just for reference. Um, these should all be met through the application. Um, as noted in your staff
report, they're either met as proposed or met with the conditions. Um, these are some of our recommended conditions of approval. We summarize these, so this isn't the exact wording you'll see in your staff report. Um, but kind of generally, we're looking for the improvement to conform with the
submitted plans. Um, property taxes and utility fees. The applicant needs to receive that lot consolidation we talked about. Um the agreements with the city for the right ofway improvement storm water basin easements. Um the window area is increased along the second story. Fencing will be 100% opaque and
it'll be required to be maintained properly. Um they'll need any city wershed or state permits. Um the vehicle circulation like we talked about. Um and then exterior lighting or signage needs to be reviewed by city staff. Um no outdoor storage is permitted. So everything will be kept inside their
building. Um and then within one year of approval, they need to begin the cup invariance um and record with the county. >> Um this is an example motion >> back in real quick. Number four, is that
also include the entrance? Is that part of one of those things where the entrance has to be decided upon? How many there are? Whether they shut one down. >> Yep. So the city engineering memo, >> that's number four on this one. Part of number four. That would not be a part of number four. Um that would be a part of the city
wershed and seat permits. Got it. And then we have a specific condition that they need to address comments in the city engineering memo. >> Sounds good. >> So it's not as a part of that specific condition but yet generally >> and then this is an example motion um if the planning commission would like to recommend approval
to city council. And then I can flip back to any slides that we need to and the applicant is present as well for any >> you for me. Just go back to the satellite picture. Can you zoom into that at all or is that not possible on a static slide like
this? >> It is a PDF. So, we should be able to zoom in. >> No. Yeah. I just wanted to see how the parking is configured in the back >> once you start to zoom in >> in le of taking a field trip. >> Yeah. Thanks. So currently the parking is already butdded pretty much right up against the
house in the ex in the rear. >> What types of what types if any complaints have the property gotten as from the from residents in their current daily operations? No pun intended. >> That's a good question.
U chair uh members of the commission I'm not aware of any uh complaints that we've received regarding any issues uh as far as >> daily operation times >> zero none. Um but I've only been here about four years.
>> Although I have some concerns about them uh not waving enough when they get their mail. >> So no >> I bet they do now. >> No. Uh no uh uh very seriously. We we haven't received any complaints regarding noise, lighting
um or uh traffic, anything like that, which are fairly usual things that we kind of, you know, would receive complaints on with a business. But um I'm not aware of any complaints. >> Through the information online, it was brought to my attention that one of
those properties is potentially bankowned behind there. Okay. Yeah. >> Um just curious um if we know anything about that and if it's the one on the east or west side of this >> uh
>> lots or single lot and how they would be affected by the increased use of their you know the increasing of the use of the property. >> Um so uh chair members of the commission first off it's the property to the east. So it's the property on the right side
if you look at the screen there. Um, second off, I am aware it did go through foreclosure. Um, uh, and as far as any impacts there, again, it would be screened. Um, I'm not sure if the bank would have any complaints about this, frankly. Uh, you know, I have some concerns about how the
bank is keeping the property. >> Um, but >> just asked to see what the future effects of expanding the use >> on that footprint could be for a resident potentially. >> Sure. Sure. I mean, um, frankly, any future resident that bought that
property would buy it potentially with this expansion, so they'd they'd be aware. And for the property on the west side, you know, frankly, I'm not aware of any complaints or any issue from that resident in regards to the parking or
the current use. Um, not to say that uh that wouldn't be the case in the future. So >> those are my only questions before the public hearing. Anybody else has it? >> Nope. >> No.
>> Okay. So, we're good. We'll go ahead and get the public hearing started. Uh if you'd want to say something, just come up to the podium, state your name, where you're from, or your address, and we'd be happy to hear what you have to say. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing at 553.
Uh, good evening, Darby Regan, 2550 Popular Avenue East, North St. Paul, Minnesota. Uh, thank you for having us and staff. Thank you for the amount of time you've put in to put this report together and this presentation. Um, this is now our
official application after going through the concept plan this winter. Uh, and again, we appreciate all the the time and support we've received from staff and as well as the preliminary review from um, planning commission and council
this winter. So, we're proposing our addition and uh the dailies, Tom and Jackie behind me, um are excited to continue their investment into the city of Newport. We've got uh a number of qu comments and
I don't know if the timing would be for us to come in after if there are other public comments maybe for specific terms of condition or if we should do that now or if you guys have a preference on that but >> chair members of the commission I would recommend that we take additional public
comments and then close the public hearing. Um, generally I'd say the applicant would speak prior to the public hearing to present any information and then folks in the audience could uh comment. Um, but with that said, uh, however the commission would like to do,
>> you go ahead and do that now since we didn't do it before the public hearing was open. So people have a chance after if they want to speak. >> That sounds great. Um, so and just a few comments on the
proposed condition as I flip through our lovely staff report. Uh, first off on the windows facing 21st Street, we will uh
we'll work to increase the amount of windows there. Currently, if you're able to Madison or Joe, pull up the elevations. Um, not all of those windows
serve a second floor mezzanine. We have a partial mezzanine above our office space. Um, I'm not sure if if you guys have seen the actual floor plan of the project. Um I believe it was part of our
application documents. Um but we have a partial mezzanine that uh is limited just due to the fact of how much square footage it serves in the storage space behind. But the windows
you kind of see if you're looking at the floor plan to the right where in the addition the right side of the addition above the entrance there first five windows or so and then there's like a a
gap. So that's where we have a wall on the interior of the building and there's no window there. The windows to the right would be open into the storage space and the windows on the left would be um there's a specific term of glass I'm
trying to talk about that's basically blocked out so that it's not they're not real windows. They're just giving the illusion that the glass is there because they are not really serving a purpose at that height. um and to eliminate the real you know
concept of having windows that look into you know storage of boxes. So that's why those windows are short shallower up there. The windows on the main level um are as low as we can get them without creating water issues along the grade and they're about as high as they can go
to the underside of the ceiling on the inside of the floor. And each office along that floor has windows. So we are doing our best along along that to hit that 40% mark. Um and those are just
some of the challenges. As you can see the the grade of the site we are about as you work your way east um we lose a significant amount of building frontage um to just underground to m maintain the
in continuous slab elevation. Um that being said we're willing to work with um you guys to increase the amount of windows. Is there a target you're looking for or if we, you know, we'll do our best to increase
that? I don't know if there's this explicit number we're looking for. Would you just like us to put something together, present it, and go from there? Is >> so we'll we'll the back and forth. We'll we won't do that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think so. uh chair, members of the commission, generally I
think like any design standards or agreements that staff would make with an applicant should be done um you know with with the scheduled meeting between staff and applicant. With that said, I think uh staff is willing to work with the applicant in regards. I I think the
the code says 40%. We'd certainly be shooting towards that. With that said, uh any information the applicant had that wanted to discuss that, we we'd feel fine. I think high level uh 21st Avenue is going to see significant
development in the coming years. Um this is a highly visible avenue uh in Newport. It's it's connecting to significant other investments that we have. Um and this is an entryway to the city. So we want it to look as nice as
possible which is why we have this standard. With that said, you know, there are reasons why there are variances and things like that and staff is willing to work with folks. Um, but I don't think it's appropriate to kind of have a back and forth at a planning commission meeting. >> Fair enough. So, brought up your
comment, they heard you and so, >> Yep. >> sounds good. Um and then for you know I guess going through these terms is it an appropriate time staff planning commission to make adjustments to how these are written on the staff
report at this time or is that >> no I I would assume not and was publicly put out the staff report and everything was there was ample review >> correct uh chair members of the council
I think uh or commission And um I think the the packet went out uh last week and um >> I think last Thursday. >> You know, we've we've frankly we've had lots in back and forth between the design team and the city. So I don't
think there should be anything necessarily surprising. >> Public forum really the time for the discussion that happens before the public hearing. >> Um no, I'm just trying to explain. No, you're not offending me at all. Um, I just want to make sure that that all
follows its its flow. And so the time for those comments for adjustments to the approvals that we have in front of us or depro or >> deapprovals >> disapprovals >> disapprovals that we have in front of us, that would have been something to do before this public hearing and then have
that verbiage changed. That's not to say that you couldn't have a conversation, but >> we do want to hear your your your >> and chair, members of the uh commission, um this is just a planning commission recommends council makes final decision. So, I think,
>> you know, with that said, there's still going to be plenty of opportunity. I think being that there's still a number of items that are frankly up in the air, we will not bring this item to council until things are settled out and very clear. Um, and staff can always come with a recommendation and council can
decide to either accept that or change, you know, conditions, languages, variances, anything like that. Uh, but that's kind of just a high level of of what the process looks like. >> 100%. >> Understood. No, I I just was um in the event that we were going to have a
motion to approve based on these conditions, I wanted to make sure we had terms that we were agreeable to on there. And if the timing for that comes later, I'm happy to wait for that or have a conversation offline with staff. >> Yep. Uh chair, members of the commission, generally uh staff make a
recommendation. Now, if there's specific proposals that the applicant would like change, they can they could make that absolutely to y'all and then you could um put that in your motion as far as the changes. So, if there's specific language, I think that would be appropriate.
>> Yeah, you can you can bring that stuff up. Yep. >> Yeah. I probably started with the one that had the least specific language >> the discussion side of it with the city. That's the part that happens after if there's anything else. >> So jumping to
um outside storage not permitted. Uh we would like the opportunity to have work vans stored in the back in the event you know daily electric employees take their work vans home with them. uh in the event there's an eb and flow in employee
counts and there were say a couple vans that were stored there for a period of time. Um not that it's the primary use of that space. It is space for employee parking but if vans were you know excess vans came to be for
whatever reason you know the ability to park vans in the back um would be something we're asking for. So that's just part of that outdoor storage item five in the staff report
which is different than the recommended conditions that I'm staring up at the screen. Um >> it's nine I believe >> correct. >> Yep. And like I said these conditions are just summarized for presentation purposes but yep number five in the
staff report. Um trash enclosure, we do plan to store trash indoors and um the question regarding the fencing along the back. You have 100% opacity for the fence along the southern
property line and then also landscaping screening. Um currently there is a chainlink fence with slats on that southern property line. And the question would be, you know, would it be
acceptable for a landscaping as proposed the landscaping screening with the chain link fence and slats or would that be something that you're looking for 100% opacity and landscaping or would you accept just the
100% opacity fence? >> Um, so those are just comments I have. Um and we can pick this up with with staff at another time, but just some things we're thinking about um for the public hearing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> So that's all I have. >> Thank you. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Hi everybody. >> Hi there. >> Hello. Tom Dailyaly, 2447 Timberview Drive, Hastings. It's a beautiful quick 18minute drive
from our house. Love it. Uh, love Newport. I think we've been here since 2019, Jackie. Um, you guys have been great to us and I hope we've been great back and we just want to keep on keeping on.
So, yeah. Any questions, comments, concerns? Our door is always open and >> appreciate that. Yeah. Just want to be a good neighbor. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> I don't know if there's any Does anybody else want to come up and say something?
Just state your name and your address when you get there. >> Dave. Dave. This deal at 2123 Second Avenue. The only concern I have is that could it do anything to our property any ways or form?
I understand the question. I I I don't think anybody here could make that call. Um but I understand the question, >> but nobody knows for sure then, huh? >> I mean, I'm sorry. Uh >> question is is will this property affect his property? And I don't
>> I mean, uh chair, members of the commission, I think, um this would be an expansion of the business. So assuming there would be additional traffic, uh, things like that. >> Yeah, that's fine. I mean, they're not going to be, you know, like
like a property, you know, something that's going to go wrong with our property. I mean, >> the value and stuff like that or the taxes are going to jump skyhigh or something. >> Uh, chair, members of the commission,
um, no idea. >> There's really no way. And none of us up here would be No, that's fine. I was just wondering, you know, I just Are you currently I mean, are they currently good neighbors? And this isn't >> Oh, yeah. I got no problem with the people. >> I mean, I think I would >> The only thing, like I said, I was
concerned if they're going to affect our property by any ways. >> I mean, it could. >> I don't think so. I >> Well, one way or the other, it could. I mean, there's just no way for us to be able to say that. I know that if it happened and you saw the rendering, it will sure look a lot better than it does.
>> Oh, yes. No, don't complain about them. >> So, with that, I'm not going to guarantee you anything, but I will say you saw what the property looked like. It It looks a lot better than it does now. >> No, I agree with that. >> So, that >> the building I don't mind. They can put up the biggest building you want. That's a business, you know.
>> I just want to know if they're going to affect our property, that's all. >> Yeah. I I don't think so. >> Okay, that's that's fine. Thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. Thanks for coming up. All right, seeing nobody else, we will close the
public hearing at 608. Okay, went a little backwards on that one. My apologies. Um, so I have a couple questions, discussion items. So I think the your summary takes care
of his question about the parking, right? because it says except for daily vehicle parking. >> Mhm. >> Right. So, we're good there. That question, they would be able to park vehicles out there. >> It'd be storage of materials. Is that what we're saying? >> Chair, members of the commission, I
think they very specifically said they potentially could store excess vehicles overnight. >> Okay. So I don't think that uh that would necessarily be allowed with this condition
>> with the not all outside except daily because daily parking meaning it's leaving at some point during the day. It's not being parked for 24 hours. >> That's how I would interpret that. Correct. And Madison, how would you interpret it? >> Yeah, I would agree. I would think that daily parking rate is the usual in and
out. um if you're going to have a substantial amount of vehicles, you know, for more than 24 hours, um even if it's just for a few days, I would say that does qualify under that outdoor storage. >> Currently, are there any I guess they don't drive by a lot at night. Are there
currently trucks being parked out front outside the bays? I mean, they only have, I think, one or two, but currently, >> uh chair, members of the commission, I I think there are occasionally vehicles parked in the back. I don't think I've seen anything in the front. Okay.
>> But I only drive by twice a day. >> No. Right. >> Um I saw somewhere where they were eliminating trees. Don't we usually get asked for funds in lie of stuff like that? >> Uh potentially, but um >> it was like four.
>> Like I I'm not sure. uh at that was that included in the >> there was something in here that said they were going to be getting rid of four and not replacing them but I didn't hear anything about >> or instead of the nine they're doing four >> something like that >> there's like 23
>> I know >> right and they you're supposed to have yeah >> 25% of it being >> oh deciduous versus >> or whatever >> I just heard that and something we talk about often is that green space >> I don't think they're meeting the
requirement like the they're within the amount they're permitted to remove on their site without having to replace. >> It's just the type. >> Correct. Okay. >> Is there like do we have a reason like or that we're >> to have not have what happened in St. Paul when all those elm trees had to get
taken out. You have toify so invasive species. >> Yeah. You want a variety of trees on the site. Okay. >> Every single tree. >> Fair. Um, so I got my two main questions was complaints, current complaints. As far as the fencing,
I can't imagine wanting to live behind them without something blocking sight, line of sight. Uh, and I' I've seen we have other properties in the city that use that chain length with that striping, and I've seen how terrible it can be to upkeep. It breaks. It gets
brittle after a year. >> Feel that's just like a putting a band-aid on a problem. >> I agree. So I would put in a proper >> So for me the number six I would want that to remain effective. >> I agree. >> Um because we've seen what that slatted stuff does. It's all over the city and
none of it's maintained. Not saying that they wouldn't, but um the windows facing 21st. >> So they're willing to work on that one, it sounds like. >> So 40 they're currently with the square
footage the front facing they're they're required to have 40%. >> Correct. 40% on the first floor >> floor >> facing a public street. Got it. it would just be under. So like for example on the um northern elevation just under that
orange band about is where their first floor um is. So everything under that is required to be 40%. With that they're about at 23%. So that's what they're getting the variance for. Um it sounds like the applicant is willing to work with staff. Um, we would be looking to I
think we understand they're sort of maxed out on that 21st Street. Um, so those second story windows is what I think we're looking >> and the grading the grading is caused by the street, right? Because there's actually a hill going up that road. So that's why they have to have that depth
towards the what is this? >> Yeah, I think that's just the natural grade of the property, right? >> Okay. >> So, we wouldn't be looking for like a specific percent or anything to change. You would be approving the variance as proposed for the first floor and then staff um can work.
>> This is all a proposal. You're going to have continued conversations with the developer and then it's going to be brought to city council. >> So this is right. >> Correct. >> Uh chair, members of the commission, I think uh the intent with the 40% with any um you know building in the MX3 is to make it look nice.
>> So at the end of the day, we want this building to look as nice as possible. And generally glass is considered a high exterior material. So, we would just want something uh some more glass or some more higher higherend materials on the exterior and you know something that
uh frankly just made this area of the city more attractive. Uh 23% I definitely understand why uh you know with uh the explanation tonight and also the elevations, but I think we would still you know frankly want more
somewhere. Um and then and then I think staff would be considering to recommend uh you know the the the the plan. But currently, you know, I I think we can do better. So, >> okay. >> Where do you go with that?
>> Uh my couple comments are uh I believe when I moved to town it was a car wash, then it was a wood floor business >> and we didn't want to let them expand. So, they moved out of town. I think they're a thriving business. And then there was a supermarket and now daily
electric which I must say is a very nice looking building and complements the city coming in and all that. Um I thought our comprehensive plan though we wanted to make this the gateway which would bring people in to come see Newport. Is this in our vision that we
want in the gateway community? I believe we called it the gateway in the comprehensive plan. uh chair, members of the commission, um you know, in that comprehensive plan from 2040, the city had kind of two decisions to make. One
is where is our downtown and uh if you recall uh uh chair and commission, we did a 2023 area study and the area study really identified Hastings Avenue as probably our commercial corridor. With that said, I think this is still a gateway of the city. Obviously, part of
that area study also identified the area across the street from this building as a potential future entertainment/off district. Um, you know, there are four parcels that the county owns and there's two parcels that the city own across the
street and we also are focusing on, you know, the city's made a heavy investment on 7th Avenue. Uh, we did purchase uh uh 2 and a half acres there. um you know we have the potential uh Red Rock Phillis development and then of course we're you
know managing uh other properties on 7th Avenue. We did identify through that 2023 area study that we wanted to be residential between probably Tenucci and and all the way down. Uh so we want to have residential with the market study
that we did in 2023. We identified that uh with additional vehicle trips that could push retail and other investments in the community and we're hoping that will happen on Hastings. With that said, you know, we have the MWF properties and we've really pushed them hard with the
exterior of those apartment buildings and they I I think they look pretty good. Um you know, and now this is rounding the curve. Um so this is where a lot of folks come and get to see Newport. Uh, and so, you know, I do still see it as a gateway. You can see
the large investment that the community made. We're sitting in it right now. We have the signs out front. You know, I'm impartial cuz it's where I office, but it looks good. Um, so I think we're we're still trying to encourage that. With that, with all of that said, I
think this will be a great addition. Uh, this has been a a a really good business for our community. Uh, I know we want them to stay. I meet with them often. I kid when I say they don't wave enough. Uh but no, uh you know, I think I think
we're there. I think this will be a great investment for the community and and I think um it's going to be very complimentary to to what we're trying to do in this area. Um again, with development, I would say, you know, you can always hope and dream, but uh what's
walking in the door and who's willing to invest and I I so I think this is a a good uh a great investment, frankly. So, back to the recommendations real quick. Yeah, keep going, Mike. I just want to have these up while you're talking. >> No, I I pretty much uh like I said, it's
very nice looking property. Um it's hasn't always been a very nice looking piece of property, but it very is now. And you know, >> right, and I think that >> compliment the business, >> the changes, they look good, they look professional. It's not, you know, some of the other properties that we're
dealing with. I think it's a good >> means come look at my house right now. I really need to do some work. >> Oh, and I'm all for uh you know, they own the property. They should be able to do what they want on that property also. Just as long as it aligns with our vision that we had. >> Yeah. My only other thing was that 4.7
from 11 ft. That's like that's less than half of that easement. I don't know if it was an easement or what it was, but it was supposed to be 11, but they could only give it get it to 4 point something. >> The parking setbacks, it's five and they're at like Yeah. 4.11 point
something. >> Um Yeah. And the commission and council can approve a variance to their requirement. Um which staff are recommending. We believe it's appropriate to have that parking lot. Um and like I said, that parking lot um is existing. The reason that's not
considered legally non-conforming like the parking um is because they're expanding that area. So even though the expansion isn't within that setback area, they are expanding that law. And so in theory, the city could ask them to come into conformance with that, but we
believe it's appropriate to give a variance to that. I know it is >> kind of silly half an inch. Looking through the packet, I was going to piece this thing apart, but now hearing it all and hearing from the developer, hearing the next proc steps of the process, I'm overall okay with one through 13, but I
thought there was going to be lots of changes. I was ner I was like, "Oh, there's so many things on here." But I don't think any of it's unreasonable. And I think that further discussion sounds like needs to be had if that's how they feel. Uh, and you guys are good at what you do. So it will it's
advantageous just to continue the conversation and I don't know how you guys feel. >> Could you go back to the the slide with the setbacks? >> So I think I wonder if the one you were talking about was that minimum setback from the front. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That 10t
not so much about the back. >> Sure. So that front um is just that um portion of the building um the northeast portion of the building. So and that still leaves room for a possible future sidewalk.
>> It should um the possible future sidewalk would likely be um within that rightway dedication area which is that um black dotted line above it. So it would be north of that anyway. So it would be definitely 5t away from the building. Okay, that's pretty close. So that
dotted double dotted line would be the proposed bike path. >> The easement for the bike path for >> that's just what the area would be rightly dedicated. >> Chair and commission to be clear, I would not recommend a bike path. There's not enough room to do it on this side of
the street. I would recommend a small just walking probably a sidewalk. A lot of folks call them sidewalks. A path is usually eight feet. I think a sidewalk is usually five. So, it would be it would be smaller. And being that there is a regional trail directly across the
street, I think connections from this sidewalk to the other side, uh, you know, we could do some expansion there to make it um more pedestrian and bicycle, you know, friendly. But with that said, you know, I think if you're going to really ride your bike, uh, you're probably looking across the
street. Additionally, in the future, we are going to put a brand new trail right here. Uh, in 2028, that'll be constructed going down to Cedar Lane, the park on Cedar Lane. Um, so there's going to be, you know, a loop with that going down 16th Street also, which will
be uh designed specifically for bicycles. Um, and not to say folks couldn't still ride their bike, but it would just be a little bit more cramped at 5T. >> Okay. >> Some movements. Yeah,
>> I'm waiting. Um, if are you guys pull up the >> Yeah, pull up the recommendations real quick. Does anybody want to change or tweak any or add any? I'm good based on this discussion that they've covered. >> I'm now that we've discussed it. >> Yes, lots of questions coming.
>> My my only one would be with the outside storage one if we want to tweak that at all. uh possibly to say, you know, functioning work vehicles can be parked. >> Well, I normally know that electrical vans have a lot of value in them and
they don't normally want to leave them outside. >> Correct. >> So, it's probably going to be something of a car being left overnight or >> I took the van or whatever. Um it's not a very good spot to hide storage being across from city hall.
So I don't think it's going to be much of an issue. But um I think also we've had problems with storage in the past and I think it's advantageous for the city to protect ourselves from storing things anywhere and everywhere. As long as you think somebody can can't see it, right? It's a matter of perception. If I can see it and you can't, it's an
eyesore for me not. You know what I mean? Yeah. So, I think leaving it in there and having them discuss it more is probably good because the city has gotten burned by not adding storage language in the past. And as you can see, as you go around town, >> these places will never come into
conformance unless we >> do something about it. So, I'd rather not talk about it later and do it now than then and pull back if they need to, you know. But, I agree. I I think it's something as a business you want to use your property however you want to use it. And if you can't store anything, it
becomes asphalt. It's just blank space for a car. >> Yeah. >> So, I I agree, but I think maybe it's okay to let the city talk with them about that and then whatever they push on the council, maybe just further discussion. I don't know. I don't want you to feel like I'm bulldozing. I just
I drive around the town and we've got exterior storage problems everywhere. Everywhere. I used to have it. I got a letter. I had to move a car. Yeah, me too. >> Um, so if you guys are okay with it,
again, you're you guys are part of this too. So I just don't want to want to bulldoze anybody. So >> good with one through 13, then I'll look for a motion. >> If not, >> look for changes. Do you want to bring up your recommended motion? >> Thank you. >> And I'm not going to repeat it, so just
say it first. >> Okay. >> Okay. I move to recommend the city council approve of the conditional use permit and variances requests by APRO development for the daily electric project with the findings of facts and
conditions proposed by staff. >> Okay, I have a first motion. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> I have two motions. All those in favor of moving this to city council or our recommendation say I. >> I. >> All opposed.
>> Motion carries. Anybody else have anything for the evening? No. Okay. Thanks everybody for coming. We'll go ahead to adjurnn. >> Yes. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> I have two motions to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. I........................................
All. Those. Meeting.