Um the time is now 5:31 and we'll go ahead and um start the December planning commission meeting. Um first on the agenda, call to order. Uh roll call. Commissioner uh Kermies
>> here. >> Uh Commissioner Fueling >> here, >> Commissioner McMood >> here. >> Uh and co-chair Maria Bonia >> here. >> And uh Chair Lighty is absent tonight. >> Thank you. Um did everybody uh get a
chance to uh review the meetings from October 7th? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Is there any comments on that? >> I didn't see any. >> Okay. I'll take a motion to approve those minutes. approve >> second. >> Thank you. Um, all in favor?
>> I >> I >> Okay. Um, we're going to go ahead and Oh, Nathan, will you uh we've moved one of the agenda items um towards the top. So, we're going to go ahead and um go through the Newport zoning and future
land use maps first. Um could you kind of give us an overview of that, please? >> Yeah. So, I I apologize. I'm just bringing my computer. It's >> okay. Uh, just like traffic this evening, it's taking forever to get everything up up on the screen. So, I apologize for that.
>> No problem. >> Hang on a moment. I think we're just about there. >> Okay. Yeah. So, um, we're just waiting for this. Click share. >> Maybe while we're waiting, we could all start singing Christmas carols.
>> Sounds like a great idea. feeling in the air. >> Yeah, >> it really is. Thank you for your patience. >> Let's see if I can share this with you maybe via email or one drive.
Wait just a moment, folks. We apologize about the delay. Sorry folks, just a little bit longer here as we get things rolling. Of course, it's taking a while. Yep. Almost there.
You'll have to download the presentations to your desk. folder. I would >> almost there everyone. It wasn't fully uploaded here. It should be fully >> catering.
When's the first car? I'll do it in your garage. There we go. >> Yay. Okay. Do you mind advancing slides? >> Okay. Sorry for the delay everyone. Um, this is the presentation for the public hearing regarding the zoning map uh
future land use map and zoning ordinance updates the city has uh been reviewing over the last year. So, this presentation is going to walk us through um what's the process looked like to date? uh what's a summary of the changes
that are occurring and then uh teeing things up for the planning commission to have a discussion here and uh then open up a public hearing for you all to provide comments should you want to do so on this item. >> You're going to really need to speak up. >> So hopefully everyone can hear me. Is
this okay for you? >> Okay. All right. So just like I said, here's the overview of the agenda. We've got uh overview of the process, the map amendments, ordinance amendments, talk about a couple of public comments that have been
received and a recommendation. So, uh what has the process looked like so far? Uh just as background, uh this actually uh has kind of its roots in the um completion of a small area study that
the city started in 2023. Uh that small area study looked really um mo mostly at the 7th Avenue and Hastings Avenue corridors and uh it identified recommendation within it for a zoning code update. That was the top
recommendation uh for a number of different reasons. All right, that uh small area study also contained a a bubble map. We call this a a map that has a generalized um recommendation or um set of
recommendations for different types of land uses that seem to be the most compatible for these uh corridors based on the consultants review uh and a housing study or a market study that was completed uh with this project.
I keep hitting my arrow keys. It's not my computer. Here we go. So um the study also did provide a little bit of information on what it envisioned a zoning code could look like uh the timing of that and of course um this is what has informed or started off uh this
process that we are on now. The city in 2024 successfully applied for grant funding to help it um revisit the zoning map, future land use map and zoning ordinance to update those things. the um
project. So, the project has received some grant funding as well. That's all I'll say about that unless there's questions. We've also processed a number of development requests over the last several years. And in processing these developments, we've had to look at
different parts of the code. and some parts of the code are either challenging to work through um or just don't really work for the type of projects that have been proposed to the city. And so um part of this process has really been informed by some of the developments
that the city has reviewed in recent years. Uh in addition to that, the state statute also does require that the zoning that the city has in place be consistent with its comprehensive plan. The city adopted a comprehensive plan in
uh 2018 and so that comprehensive plan has a future land use map in it. The city's future land use map and its zoning map have to be consistent. And so by state statute, we have to make sure that um these maps are kind of aligned
with each other in terms of the land use guidance they're providing. Generally speaking, the comprehensive plan is going to be more broad and the zoning map is going to be a lot more specific. And so zoning maps and ordinances tend to have all of those specific
requirements where the the highle guidance is provided by the comp plan. So in 2025 we have really focused on a number of different amendments uh to both the zoning and future land use maps in addition to uh the city's subdivision
and zoning ordinances. That's chapter 28 and 36 of the city code. So, in terms of the zoning amendments, what have we focused on? Um, a lot of the zoning amendments have been uh either smaller fixes to address the
conformance between the zoning and the future land use map. Um and in certain cases there are more large changes or um changes that are intended to be um creating compatibility with that area
study the city did in 2023. Uh so we are processing actually a zoning map change as well as a comprehensive plan amendment because uh in some cases the zoning made sense how it was and uh it actually made more sense to just change the comprehensive plan to suit it.
So that's a little bit of a overview of the zoning and future land use maps. The actual ordinances, chapters 28 and 36. We really focused on how do we make these um ordinances just how do we um
reorganize the the sections so that the information is easier for residents and property owners and um proponents of projects to find. How do they uh find where their landscaping requirements might be or where parking standards are?
Uh in some cases, we had found before the amendments that we had two different sets of landscaping or screening requirements or two different sets of parking requirements in different parts of the ordinance. So that's really what informed the the actual structure. Um we
also had I think 14 different sections with definitions in them. And so part of this process has consolidated all of the definitions in code and reviewed where we do have two different definitions that could create confusion. Which one are we going to go with and why? Um
we've also focused on process improvements. So looking at uh different application processes. So uh things as simple as um a site plan review. Someone wants to come in and propose that. What does that entail? uh what is the application uh requirements for someone
to submit? What does the process look like? All the way up to um platting and planned unit developments. Um all of this has been, you know, in conversation with the city attorney to make sure that these are uh things that are, you know, from a legal standpoint make sense and work for the the city with, you know,
statute. Lastly, we uh focused on design and performance standards. And so, uh, through a lot of our reviews, we identified issues with, um, performance standards for different types of
projects from, uh, single family homes that had, you know, we have new homes being proposed and folks are having a hard time, uh, with certain requirements. So, making sure that we're um and we can talk about all of these different things as we move through the presentation and discussion, but ranging from single family structures to all the
way up to uh commercial projects and making sure that we're um just anticipating modern construction materials and um have um requirements that make sense for what our expectations are. So, I'm consolidating a I think two to
300page report into maybe 40 slides. So, I'm trying to do this fast, but there is a lot of content to work through and um you know, I'm sure there's going to be questions and comments and so we can always go back and and talk about things in more detail, but um just a warning and it's before your eyes glaze over too
far. So, here on the screen, these are the existing maps that we have in place. We have a future land use map and a zoning map um currently and those are reflected on the screen. So, we sent out uh mailings to folks
that were impacted with either uh future land use map amendment which you can see on the screen here. I realize that it's going to be almost impossible for most of us to make out any details on the screen here, but this is trying to communicate um that we have made some
future land use map changes and they are shown on the screen here. And we've also made corresponding zoning map amendments like I talked about. So again, um folks that have been um you know that have properties that might be impacted by these changes have received
notices in the mail and those notices were sent to folks that were directly impacted. This is a citywide amendment and so um there have been other you know posts in the city's you know website and the newspaper to make sure that this is um something that people have access to.
And so, uh, here you have the final maps on the screen here, both the future land use and the zoning map. So, um, we can come back to these. I'm sure there's going to be questions. I just want to be really clear about what this process is
not. And so, for folks that do have concern about these changes, um, just a reminder that this is not a requirement for anyone to change a physical their physical property. Um, this is not a requirement to change a land use. If the
land use that's currently there is existing, it can continue in conformance with both the city's uh non-conforming section and the state statute. And lastly, uh this is not a restriction from selling land with a legal
non-conforming use. So, um you know, this is um not really restricting people from using the property how they currently are if if that way if that current use is is legal. Okay. So, I want to talk a little bit about the actual ordinance amendments
that have been proposed. And um when I'm talking about these, I think the planning commission has the benefit of attending five joint work sessions with the the city council and and staff where we've talked about these. Those joint work sessions were public meetings and
folks uh with concern or questions were were able to attend. Um, and so this is more of an update for you and just a little bit of a refresher um, to begin with and then I'll talk about what specifically has changed in the ordinances since we talked about it. So
over the course of uh, 2025 and spring and summer, late summer, uh, the city staff drafted a a proposed new subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance. Uh the idea here again is not necessarily to blow things up and start over, but to really
thoughtfully uh take what's working in code and really try to restructure that in a way that was really accessible and made sense. >> No question. >> Um >> there will be at the end of the presentation >> get so buried >> when we open a fresh question. Now I got
one so >> remember it. So, um, we have draft subdivision and zoning ordinances that are broken up by the chapter and then article and division. And so, um, we also took
inspiration from some of our, you know, what we would consider to be pure communities. I know some of the communities on this list don't really seem like a peer to Newport, but, uh, there might be certain elements of their ordinances that made sense. Um, and so that they were considered as, um, just
other ideas for how ordinances work. Just reminding you again that the key priorities here were to um make sure that ordinance structure makes sense and work on our definitions. Uh to really think about those processes we have for applications and lastly to make sure that our standards that we have in our
code for design meet our expectations and work for folks. So starting with structure land use and and definitions, what were some of the key things that this ordinance does? Uh first and foremost, it reorganizes the
um sections in the code. Not wholesale. Uh things are generally speaking where they where you might have found them before. And if they're not, they've been moved for a good reason typically to make it a little bit easier to find. So that's the that was the first goal. Uh
we've created more reserved quote unquote code sections. So what that means is after each section we have certain uh additional code numbers that are reserved for future use. What that does is it helps to kind of futureroof the code to make sure that if we ever have to go in and amend certain parts of
the ordinance that we can do so a lot more easily because we're not limited by certain section numbers. Um the breaking things down into the scheme of articles and divisions and sections will help to make this a lot
easier to navigate online. So, most folks are accessing the city code now through a computer or a mobile device or something. Uh, they'll have an easier time to scroll through the actual ordinance and find what they're looking for.
Um, yeah, we've also corrected code sections that um just to create a accurate order and listing of sections. So, consolidating definitions. This was actually a pretty big effort. Uh, again, I mentioned 14 different sections had
definitions in them. So, we um use those definitions to have one unified section with new definitions added for land uses that we regulate in our use table but didn't previously have definitions for. So, if someone's coming and asking to do
something, uh we should in theory have a you know a a corresponding definition that says here's what this use means. So, that's that's the second part of that effort with the definitions. Uh lastly, I think it's important to mention that we've consolidated the land
use table. So if people have questions like what can I do on my property instead of having different land land use tables in different parts of our ordinances, uh we have one unified table that will be amended when the city when and if uh land uses are proposed to
change in the city. So that unified table helps to provide just one thing for people to to go find and uh tell whether their use is allowed or not. So just talking about process, what were some of the changes here? Um in the subdivision ordinance, um we've
clarified or created a concept plan review process for projects that aren't planned unit developments. We've found that the planned unit development um concept plan process has really been very helpful with the planning commission and council's review of potential projects. And so we're trying
to uh replicate that for projects that don't need a PUD because we've found it to be really a nice process for the community to review things before final decisions have to be made. We've added a new tool called minor subdivision. This is for people that are
trying to ask for a lot split um that we've previously had a had to con consolidate the preliminary and final plat review process and now that's just one one application in the code. So that should be making it easier for people
that are trying to split their lot. We've also u just modified lot line adjustment and combination procedures uh to add in the ability of the city to require a minor subdivision. I don't anticipate this would be used frequently at all, but um in certain cases it could
be a benefit to have as a as a requirement. And lastly, just making sure the park dedication language is really clear to developers. On the zoning ordinance side, we've worked on the zoning map and text amendment procedures to update them. um
right now they require um a public hearing at the city council as well. That's typically not the case. We typically see public hearings like we're doing here tonight at a planning commission meeting. And so uh that is the one of the key changes. The other key change that will be coming forward
um but it's not in the current ordinance is uh there's a supermajority vote requirement at the city council level for uh zoning text amendments in the code right now. in consultation with the city attorney. We understand that's actually not allowed by state statute. It's only a simple majority to change
the code. So, we will correct that in the code moving forward. Uh we've updated the procedures for site plan review to allow the city to really specify uh application requirements, make sure we have what we need to review. And we've reorganized the planned unit development section to
really help clarify what is the process, what do we need from an applicant and um make sure that the process itself is not a conditional use permit but rather a reszoning. So that was again in in consultation with the city attorney. Okay. Design and performance standards.
I'm almost there, I promise. So um in this section we looked at we first of all created a new specific article for performance standards because this makes it easier for people to find. Uh there are general performance standards for all properties that are in one section.
Uh those things are followed by landscaping uh requirements which have been consolidated into this section. Uh so all um landscaping ordinance requirements are are in one place in addition to lighting standards.
Uh signage is still a separate section within the performance standards um article and we've um removed specific requirements for developments in the MX2 district finding that those requirements were very duplicative with what we already have.
Uh we've also clarified off street parking um ordinance standards and consolidated non-conforming use and structure standards up with our non-conforming uh section in code. Really quickly, uh design and performance standards. I think this is
pretty important. It was definitely an area of focus for us as staff to make sure that this works for everyone and meets the expectations of the community. So single family and two family residential across the city now have the same requirements for how they're
designed. Really that boils down to um needing to have for new buildings. I want to specify new buildings and not existing ones. 15% of windows on front facade. So when new construction comes in that that is a requirement that we already have um west of 61 and now it's
for the whole city. Multif family buildings. So, this is something that was not envisioned or really contemplated by our current design standards. So, we've created new standards across the city for any type of multif family building. I just want to note that your zoning district is
going to specify where multif family can be built. It's not that it can be built any just anywhere, but where it is allowed, we will have these standards. And then in non-residential context, so commercial or industrial, we have very similar material standards, but we have
updated them to think about what are new materials that people continue to ask ask to use. Okay. Um, these are changes just I'm just going to walk through a few changes that we've uh not discussed at our our last joint work session. I just want to make sure that are elevated to you and
I'll try and go quick. In article one, we've updated the definitions to make uh make sure that certain uses are grouped together where it makes sense and update outdated terms that we've identified. Uh we've removed redundant language about moratoriums. In
article 2, uh we've updated the um standards for non-conforming structures. Specifically, there was some language in there that was really duplicative and uh hard to administer for uh mixed use districts in particular. And so now we've got across the board um
simple language on non-conforming structures and when they can be enlarged. Uh site plan review procedures as I mentioned were updated and we've already talked about those zoning map and text amendment pro process uh updates. Um in article three in terms of non-conforming
structures again we've removed that um mixeduse district language and now everyone has that same requirement. The land use table um we have made a couple of updates to that. Uh one of them was just to kind of standardize the
way that we talk about residential uses. So it's easy to find if you have a residential use we're proposing it's going to have dwelling in front of it. So it's like dwelling single family, dwelling multif family, etc. Um, we've had to do a little bit of reworking of our public facilities use and post
offices was was really duplicative. So just a couple of things like that that have been changed in the use table. Performance standards again um made some modifications there that we've already talked about, but we've specified the number of driveways that are allowed for
residential and commercial uses. We get that question a lot and um this is really actually in consultation with the public works department. They wanted that very clear. Um and in terms of design standards, multif family projects above eight units have basically higher
standards for site design. In storm water management, we've worked in the code amendments that have already been approved by the city in November. So there's a couple hundred pages summarized in what I just went through. Um, I know you'll have questions, but
hopefully that was fast enough. Uh, we did get a a number of public comments and questions, and so I wanted to first address some common questions that we've received as staff, and then we can get into a couple of the public comments that folks have provided that were included in the packet. Followed by that, I've got a recommendation and you
can open that public hearing. So, common questions, um, how do the zoning map revisions impact the use of my property? It depends on where you're located and what the nature of the amendment is. And as we talked about, in most cases, we have a legal conforming
use and it's going to be all right to continue. Um, if it's a legal non-conforming use, then it will be allowed to continue uh provided it's not discontinued for a year or more. Uh, when will ordinance amendments be effective? Um, the planning commission
is providing a recommendation obviously this evening to the city council. The city council will review ordinance amendments uh first at a workshop and then again at a more formal meeting. And so at at the time of a formal city council approval would be um when those
ordinance amendments become effective. >> Can you continue to talk in the microphone? >> Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. It just when you when you direct it towards her >> it's tough to hear. >> Sounds good. Thanks for the note. I'll try to talk to the um into the microphone more so you all can hear me.
So who has the final say here? the the city council has the final say. Uh do I have to update my property to meet new performance standards? No. Um people do not have to update their property to meet the new standards that might be um
let's say someone owns a commercial property and we add a new requirement for a a commercial property. Um that existing commercial property is just fine to continue the way it is. If someone proposes to expand their building, u then it might be subject to new requirements, but not until some
pretty significant changes are being proposed. Uh, do I need to do anything? Question. Um, most often the case will be no. Um, we're working on the amendments as a as a city initiative, so people don't need
to necessarily take any action if they don't want to. Uh, how can folks make sure that their comments are are heard or included in the packet? Well, first of all, we we do have a public hearing uh tonight, but also staff are uh happy to take comments and put them into the
the packet moving forward. So, I want to talk about two public comments that we received um with a couple of different requests. One was for the property at 1301 9th Avenue. Um, this property owner requested to have
their property changed back to the R3 zoning, which has not been in the ordinance since, I think, before 2020. Um, in this case, the staff recommendation is to um potentially consider that instead of changing the future land use map um from mixed
residential to single family low density residential uh that we actually keep keep the property at mixed residential and reszone it from R1 to R2 which is the urban residential district. So, I know that was kind of a lot thrown at
you here, but u effectively it would um keep the same future land use that's already on the books now, but change the zoning instead of changing the future land use to meet the match the current zoning. So, that would be the the staff's recommendation for that specific
property. Um we had another comment um from the property owner at 5967th Street. uh they're requesting to to keep the MX3 zoning that currently is on that parcel. So um in this case, the future land use
is not being proposed to change. That would stay the same. The existing zoning is MX3. The proposed zoning is uh B2. The reason for the reasonzoning in in this particular corridor of 7th Avenue is, you know, the currently the future
land use map shows all almost all of the properties uh between 7th Avenue and the rail corridor as um single family. And so to match that, the corresponding zoning change would actually be to change from MX3 to
um R1. And so that's why that's been proposed along that corridor. And in in the particular area that's um for this particular property um this is actually um not single family in the future land use map. It's as I mentioned um
commercial residential. And so in this case, removing the MX3 district helps to um keep the MX3 district a little bit um easy like more constrained to other areas of the city where it reduces the issues that we have with having a such a
broadly used mixeduse zoning district. So that district has been kind of hard to administer because the MX3 district was used very widely across the city on these corridors. And so to kind of tailor the zoning, uh it helps to have
B2 for this property cuz it's similar to those that surround it. In this case, um changing the properties designation from MX3 to B2 would cause it to be non-conforming just from the perspective of the total lot area. So the minimum
lot size in the MX3 is smaller than the minimum lot size in the B2. And so or sorry, it's the B the B2 has a larger minimum lot area. Hopefully that makes sense to you. Um the the proposal from
staff to help in situations like this where a property becomes um non-conforming with respect to the size the area is to introduce some language that clarifies where we have legal lots of record. Um, it would, this is pretty
standard language in other communities. It helps to clarify that um, yes, the the lot is quote unquote too small by by the zoning ordinance, but it only became too small because we reszoned it and they the property owner can continue
their use, can expand their use provided the expansion is isn't like um creating setback issues or impervious surface issues or something like that. So, uh, this language would, I believe, help to, um, help this situation in particular,
this type of situation, uh, by allowing folks to still have a conforming lot, um, and and then therefore continue the their use and, um, be able to expand even in some cases their use.
So um just concluding this has been a long process throughout 2025 as you all know um we're at the final adoption stage but before we adopt obviously there there are there's public hearing and some final revisions that can be made. Ultimately the process
would be for the city to uh from the ordinance side of things repeal the existing chapters and replace with new ones. Just a reminder, those new chapters are very similar to what they would be replacing. Uh the city code does have some criteria
for amendments we can come back to if you need some inspiration in your discussion. Generally speaking, the changes should be uh in the city's best interest. I did post some discussion questions for you in the staff report. We can come
back to these. Um I know we have lots of comments here. And lastly, um staff's recommendation here is to um have the the planning commission discuss the item um and then move to recommend the approval at the city council what's
proposed. Of course, there may be changes based on the discussion. And so the planning commission could always make a recommendation to move something to the city council uh with changes that it discusses. Typically, we're also looking for um some rationale for a
recommendation. So, that's all I have formally prepared, but um you might have questions and so it's time to do that or hold the public hearing. >> Um commissioners, do you have any questions right off the bat? >> No.
>> So, well, the um proposal to switch the to B2 from whatever that gentleman's name was on 7th. I thought our whole purpose when we change things is not to change it so that we have non-conforming use. What?
But we're going to make his property non-conforming. >> It's it's not the uses of the property that are the issue here. It will be the size. So, we have a minimum lot area standard for the MX3 and we have a minimum lot area standard for the B2.
Those are different. And so when we reszone this site um in particular the the difference is is big between the MX3 and and P2. So by introdu staff are proposing to solve this particular issue across across the city and not just for
this property alone. Having a legal lot of record um provision added into the the city code would help to address that problem. >> So you're just going to say this is a legal lot even though it's not. >> Yeah. So, I mean, Newport is it was
platted in the 1800s. We've we've got a lot of lots that you might, you know, in the modern day consider to be too small, and we realize that as staff, and we work with people to um allow them to continue doing the things that they want to do on their property. And in this case, it would help to have some pretty
clear parameters about um when we can do that. >> Okay. And this won't hurt this person's ability to sell the land in any way, shape, or form. No, it would help, I think, to have clarity in the code for people where, yeah, yes, my lot's too small, but you can see here in the code,
we have a provision that allows the future buyer, let's say, to um expand the building in a certain way that doesn't, you know, um cause an issue with setbacks or something that in in that particular type of situation, this language becomes very helpful.
>> Okay. >> Um Nathan, just a clarifying question um before I open the public hearing. Um I just want to double check that the the intent of the public hearing is to take feedback, right? It's not intended to be a back and forth or could you clarify that for me, please?
>> Yes, thanks chair. That that is the idea. Uh the idea with the public hearing is that it's not necessarily a dialogue. It's an opportunity to provide feedback. Um I know that in certain cases the commission will remember some of these questions that folks might ask and staff can help address them after
the hearing is closed. >> Okay. All right. Um so again um when you if you want to make a comment um please come up to the podium, state your name, your address and uh and please provide
your feedback. Um if you have uh very specific questions uh regarding your property, we encourage you to contact uh staff directly. Um, so the time now is 6:10 and um, we invite you I want to open the public hearing and we invite
whoever wants to come up first. Hi, my name is Don Dedrich. I own the property at 682 and 6707th Avenue. So, right down been a neighbor of your guys for over 20 years now. I run a small
engine. I well what I've always done at all the golf courses at uh Mississippi Dunes and over in St. Paul and different Hillrest Country Club I've been an equipment manager in the golf course industry. So I've done every piece of
lawnmowers, weed whips, backpack mowers, fairway mowers, everything you can possibly imagine I basically fix. I was the only mechanic at these golf courses. As I drive by going down to Great Cloud Island to work for Doc
Dolbler at his golf course, I'd pass the property at 6827th and I said, "Boy, that's zoned business residential. Wouldn't it be great to buy that property, fix that old farmhouse there, stick $100,000 into it is which I have.
I've raised the whole foundation, replaced the limestone underneath it, put cement block foundation under it, added all new windows, siding. I mean, I put 100 grand into it, all new roof, and everything. That was a property that was condemned basically, but it never got the condemned stamp. And many times I'd
go down to city hall and ask him, "Is there anything I have to do before I buy this property?" Oh, no. No, not at all. Not at all. The day I bought the property from Kiss, who used to run a shop at that property, I get the packet from Newport and I'm like, "Holy mackerel, you got to do this and you
better not do this and I want a sight plan and I want curbs and I want gutters and I want" and it was just a big packet of stuff. And I went down, I can't remember who the old guys were that were running the city hall at that time, but I went in and I said, "Look, I rebuilt a house. I got a and I wanted to open a
small engine shop and do lawnmower repair for Newport. Um and uh uh do you remember his name? No. The old guys. Uh getting old. We can't remember everything. That's why I kind of wanted to interrupt because if you get too far into the proceedings of a 400page
report, you get lost. And I just wanted to uh keep going. Larry, that was the old guy's name. Larry and the other guy. And they go, "No, no, no, John. It's okay." And I said, "A site plan is going to be if I put a new window in, I'll come I'll get a permit from you." And
that's all you're going to get for a site plan till I remodel this house. I don't know what I'm going to do to it, but my wife and I are going to move in. Then I brought the property next door at 670 and I've remodeled that whole house, stuck a fortune into it. So, I've always
wanted to just run this small engine shop. I'd go down and talk to Larry and those guys. Then Larry disappeared and Deb comes in and I'd go in and talk to Deb. I So, hey, do you want to give me a permit? Uh, small engine shop or something like that. Oh, well, well,
Don, I don't know. No, you don't. I said, well, do you want to just zone me like Kiss's full business? Oh, no. You don't want to do that. You don't have to do that. Because I was getting harassed by city council that I had too much class 5 and there wasn't enough permeable soil. And so it just I've
taken a lot of hard times from Newport attacking my property. Most recently, a year ago, they come in, they go, "You can't have this little sign that says Don Small Engine and Electric Repair. You got to take that out. You got to get rid of all your trailers. You got to get rid of all your garden tractors that you
have and lawnmowers and outboard motors and everything." I scrapped $250,000 worth of engine parts and stuff to comply cuz I said, "You know what? I'm getting old. I'm ready to reduce. No problem. So, I did all that and I kept
on pulling up and I' the trailer was just full with equipment that I was scrapping at the scrapard and I'd go in and I'd go, "I'm complying. You guys like that?" And I'd come right in and show them. I get done with that now. Just last month, I get hit with another
one. You can't have a back hole. I got a small little back hole. It's It's really small. And I read all the important stuff. And so I said, "Okay, I got rid of the backhoe and you can't, you know, it's just you can't you can't." So something's been going on. I'm like, "Yeah, Newport wants to get better and
I'll constantly keep doing whatever they want. It would really be nice instead of paperwork sometimes somebody come and talk to me. Hey, Don, can you get rid of this?" I don't know if you saw my cedars at Newport came in and stripped. They walked up to my 25-year-old Cedars with
a chainsaw and went right on the back of these ornamental cedars right on seventh right across from Kisses. Check it out sometime. You want to see some great Newport activity. I really raised hell about that, but to no avail. I talked to uh different people. Can we save those
cedars? I got that backhoe at that time and I said, hey, I could have moved them. Just tell me. I do it at the golf courses. I want to move those beautiful cedars. Well, the whole thing is now I get the new report. My little teeny piece of property. It's on that side of
7th Avenue. There's nothing. There's railroad. There's the crane company. There's a house and a very poor house. There's a garage that someone changed from a garage into a house. And they were told by uh who's who was our
inspector that we had? >> Bob Leth. Bob Leth would come over all the time and fill me on and what he wanted me to do. Bob was great at in informing, hey, we want you to do this with the seat. We want you to c that. We want you to do this and that. Oh, great, Bob. I love doing it. So, he condemned
that little garage. That's the first thing you run into sitting out in the street. He condemned the barn animals house right next to me after 670 682 the next house they built a barn and the barn dumps you know I've just had so
much problem with that guy the house is condemned it Bob Lebr came over and said Don that house is condemned and the roofs on the the sopets are falling down they're falling my yard the whole place is rotted it's got five different
garages uh roofs on that it it's just horrible. They encroached all of Newport's property, went all the way up to the 25 ft off center of the railroad tracks and just have totally taken over that whole place, fenced it all in. Your
property's fenced in Newport property. I don't really care about them anymore. I just want to get back to me. I just I have plenty. Uh last time I looked, I had six lots at 682. I had four lots when I bought 670. And of those four
lots, two were in the back. So, I paid three separate tax bills for this property. I have lots of property. And for some reason, oh well, back to what they're changing. They want to change seventh street on the railroad side. There's nothing over there because after
my house and my house comes the barn animals house and then comes this blue building that they used to run. I don't know what. But now the fence place is going in there. I have no problem with that. That's okay. Especially if they just run their trucks towards the
refinery and then you have one house and then you have a gigantic towing company where there was a junkyard and the ground's poisoned to death. I mean, this property on that side of 7th, you should leave it alone. Just pretend it burned down. Let everything just dissolve into
the ground. Except my property is going to look pretty good. Drive by. Check out what I've done. I spent a fortune and I'm going to make it better. I got huge plans to make that place gorgeous. So, I'm just extremely upset. I came in and I talked to Nathan and I just asked
him, "Why? Why are you going to change it?" "Well, you got a permit?" I said, "No, I've always asked for a permit, but Newport never would give me a permit." It was just everybody just shut up and left me alone for 20 plus years. And if you guys uh you know, my wife's looking at me, she's very upset. What are we
going to do? I came in to Nathan. I said, "Hey, leave us alone for 10 years. Just grandfather me in like I've heard these words so many times and we'll just go away in 10 years. I ain't going to be able to function in 10 years. I'll be lucky if I can function in five years. Then you guys can do whatever you want
with the property. But for right now, I'm going to fight. And if I can't get you guys to help me, I'm going to go back to every customer in Newport. And I'll bet I have 400 people that'll sign a petition that says, "Why don't you leave Don alone? He's an asset to
Newport. Come get your lawnmower done. I'm going to come in. I'm gonna give you a cup of coffee. We're going to fix your lawnmower. You're going to take it home. Try to get that somewhere. Talk to the mechanic. Watch him work on it." So, I'm always been trying to be a golden spoon in Newport's mouth. So, I need help. I'm
looking for help. Right away, I felt my friend over here who were totally opposites on who should run for president. But, you know, he's even saying, "Don, you should be grandfathered in." And I Nathan told me, "No, you shouldn't be grandfathered." And he said, "You need a permit. Give me
a permit. You know, make it only eligible for 10 years and I'll be gone." So, it was nice meeting you all, my friends. I got a sponsor 35 years ago. He said, "Don, well, from AA, he said, ' Don, don't ever get into politics. You
don't want to go anywhere near that stuff. You got me here." >> So, so what are you zoned right now? >> I think it's MX3, but see, I haven't been paying attention cuz I'm not smart enough to get into the politics. >> Is this the one that we're
>> I'm a new one. You can talk about me yet. >> Okay. What are you looking to change him to? >> All right. So chair, members of the commission, if you'd like me to address that question about what what is what is the property currently and what will it become? Property is currently zoned MX3.
Try and talk into this MX3. Uh the proposal as mentioned in this part of 7th Avenue is to change the properties that are >> um the res >> in this area from MX3 to R1, which is the single family residential district.
And I got 10 lots. >> Okay. So, on the side that the old um city hall was on. >> Yep. Right across. >> North of City Hall. >> Yeah. A couple buildings. >> Yeah. It's on the same side.
>> Kiss. >> Yeah. Right across the street from Kiss. >> Yeah. >> On the railroad side. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> On the loud, noisy, dirty railroad side. >> Okay. >> So, and >> is there a reason we want that to be R1? So the ID the discussion between the
planning commission and council has been uh do we keep the future land use map or sorry do we reszone the properties from MX3 to R1 to make the zoning and future land use maps match or do we change the
future land use map from what's currently single family to mixed commercial residential which would match >> be good >> which would match MX3 >> and the decision vision that was conveyed to staff was let's change this to um from MX3 on the zoning map to R1.
Um part of what I think may have informed that decision is that you know we have as staff heard lots of comments and concern about just commercial uses in the 7th Avenue corridor. Um people are concerned with new businesses being started on the 7th Avenue corridor
specifically south of Glenn >> and um you know the MX3 district is is quite broad. It allows a very wide range of commercial uses and so we hear frequently from the community in this area that they want less commercial businesses and this is the way that you
would do that. >> Yep. >> Depends on who you talk to. H >> MX3, you're going to turn that property into a residential property. Like I told you, it was a junkyard where the towing company was. If you do soil samples, but
you just got lead acid and garbage in that land. And then you got the crane company. I love the crane company, Marc. They're a great company. They don't bother anyone. We don't bother anyone. So, I don't know who's raising the fuss. That's another thing you never get to find out who's complaining. And well, if
they're complaining, hey, why don't you just come up and say, "Don, we don't want you to run. I don't know. I really don't have anything that obnoxious." Oh, I do like chainsawing. I cut logs up for firewood way back by the railroad track, as far away from anybody as I can get. I really try hard not to bother anyone,
and I want to get along with everyone. But yeah, this change of the zoning, uh, I got a friend sitting there and he looks like he has information for me. Did you find something out that I don't know? No, I just Okay. Okay. Um, Don, no. Don,
if you're done with your comment, oh, no talking. Okay. I don't know. I I don't know the rules and regulations. Sorry. No, no problem. I >> I'll quit now, but do you guys Now, tell me this. Do you go and discuss this now? Is it something you talk about amongst yourselves or >> Well, I mean, this this is the forum for it. We want to hear your feedback. Um
like uh Nathan was saying, we do hear a lot from the community a lot that the traffic is a huge problem and you know how how do you like reduce traffic and the way that that it's currently zoned, we're inviting more business in. So I mean I think some of the what our
objective was was trying to mitig mitigate that, right? And so I mean if we're way off obviously this is the form for it and thank you for coming and and and giving us your feedback. >> That's great. You guys should use more names and stuff and talk about who you're talking about when you're talking because the more traffic you're talking
about is the towing company and the place that might have a fence company. And really, there's no more traffic coming. I mean, and if we just made a law and now I just found out, do you guys know that all this work we've done on 7th to slow everybody down that it's
not even a law that they can drive over 10,000lb trucks? I had a police officer. He came. I was going to let him set up raider my yard. He goes, and I and I watch this giant semi go by and he goes, "Don, I can't do nothing about that." I said, "What are you talking about? We got the signs all over the place." He
goes, "It's never been passed as a law. We can't do anything." That's what he told me just last week. >> So, what's that about? You want to stop stuff? He didn't even make it a law. Cops can't even give a ticket to anybody driving a semi-truck, a gas tank, uh
400,000 lb or 80,000 lb semi down our street. Okay. So, >> well, thank you, Don. Thank you for that. Um, going forward, I'm going to just um implement a threeminut rule um just because there's a lot of people that want to give uh comments on this
this uh in this hearing. So, um when you do come up, um 3 minutes to to give your feedback. It's okay, Don. You didn't know. Uh I'd invite the next person up whoever would like to come up. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. I'm sorry. There's a lot of you guys. >> Good evening. My My name is David Cop and my address is 1301 9th Avenue and I'm here just to talk a little bit about uh uh number seven on the zoning change. Uh I had talked to
Nathan a little bit about this already and I think he put some notes in there that you saw uh in your uh packet there. But uh uh just to give you a little brief history on that property there, I bought that back in the early 1990s. And
when I bought that, that was zoned uh I think it was B1 business use, commercial use. And at the time, I was going to put a little building up in the back for my construction business, but I never did. And then uh around 2002 when the highway
uh project was coming through uh I was approached by a city administrator in 2002 to change the zoning to R3 high density. Uh he said that would be a better fit and uh so I kind of went
along with it. I kind of regret it regretted it afterwards, but uh I went along with it. And at that time in 2002, I did do some research on uh what it would take to run water and sewer back into those lots that I have there. I've
got five lots back there. There's no water and sewer back in the end there. And it was uh quite a big cost to do that back then. I can't imagine what it would be now. It' be quite a bit more. Um, so I didn't pursue it at that time.
And then, uh, uh, you know, fast forward to now when I got this notice about this change. Uh, when I went down to city hall, they had said that my property was already changed somewhere in 2020 to R1,
which I was never aware of. uh it should be R3 high density uh on those five lots there but I I couldn't get an explanation from anybody as who changed that. I was never given a notice or
anything about that change to R1 on those lots. So I I I would appreciate some kind of an explanation on that uh why that was changed. But so going going forward on this, I guess I I would like
to see this zoning on these five lots uh kept at uh something similar to the R3 that I was told uh was going to be back in 2002. I mean that that property back in there just isn't suited for just a
single family home or maybe two at the most just because of the cost that it would take to uh uh you know run that water and sewer back in there. Uh, like I said, I researched back in 2002 what I could do with it. And at the time, I was told I could do maybe eight units back
there, you know, some duplexes or something that would make it more, you know, cost effective, you know, for running that water and sewer back there. So, uh, not sure if I'm going to ever get around to developing those five lots,
but, uh, you know, if we sell in the near future, I want that advantage to have that capability of as a selling point for those lots, uh, you know, to sell it as, you know, somebody could develop it, maybe put a small apartment
or, uh, apex or something back in there because I think that's more what it's suited for. If you look on that map, how it's cut out in just that little area. Nathan's seen it there. I've got, you know, I've got Red Rock Manor to the north there, three-story building. I've
got a auto repair to my west along with another threetory apartment building. So, to just put a single family home back there. I mean, you you can see what you got to look at back there. I mean, that's I think it'd be more suited to something
more similar to that R3 zoning. And I'm not sure exactly what that would be. Same zoning as to the north there. What is that? B1 or R2 or something or even uh to the west which what it originally was you
know the the mixed use or business. So >> okay. >> So that's all I got to say. You got any questions for me? If if not thank you for listening. >> Thank you. Good evening everyone. Um Mark McKenzie,
9997th Avenue. I'm just here as a resident and um and a lot of you have kind of seen me around and in my activities and as there's a group called um 7th Avenue Renaissance. Um, so there's a number of
people on the corridor that I've been communicating with, including Don. Um, we've talked from time to time as I've gone door todoor. um 7th Avenue. Uh and well, first off, I want to, you know, really thank all of
you because I know I attended two of the two of the workshop meetings and I know how much work went into this plan and I know from looking at it and also looking at the area study and the comprehensive plan, the efforts that were made to be consistent with that and try to find
something that was comprehensive and um considerate of kind of a long-term plan for for Newport. report as a whole. Um, and 7 Avenue is, and some people have brought it up, it's primarily
residential and and, uh, again, I think you've done a pretty decent job of trying to make it consistent with the area studying a comprehensive plan. uh as a resident and having talked to other residents, I I do believe that residential
um people along the corridor are looking for some consistency and and that's why I appreciate and and there's going to be people who disagree with this. appreciate um going to the more residential zoning
along the corridor and doing something with the MX3 as that opened up a lot of business um activities that aren't consistent with residential living and and um this goes back years with some of you and me.
I know that and looking at your faces, you're still here. Um, so I I I appreciate that. Um, I think the residents are looking for something that's more predictable, both the residents who are currently living there
and wanting a residential life that is is consistent with what they have and not having that change. They're also interested in knowing whether or not they want to make investments in their property. I know of a one person who's thinking of building a home on a lot
that he already owns a smaller home on. Also, I think in terms of the future, people who are thinking of moving on to 7th Avenue, they need to know uh what the future holds in terms of of the types of properties that are going to be
surrounding them and and what type of of of you know um businesses that would be allowed to move into those areas. Now, getting more specific, like Don Small Engine and Abbott Service Company, those those businesses I I've always looked at
as being pretty harmonious with residential life. They're small. Um, they don't have large trucks moving up and down. They don't have large deliveries. Um, so I don't the corridor is not against having certain areas and that's why the B2 seemed appropriate
because it it defines itself in a way that doesn't um necessarily anyway as far as I know uh break with residential life. Um, I do know that that there's some conflict with, you know, in terms of
moving to a B2 with some of these and I think myself and some of the residents what we're worried about if it if you'd stay with the MX3, it's not the current businesses, although there's some issues with some of the we know like absolute
towing, we know there's been issues around um Keller Fence, but for the ones that Dons and and and avid service. There aren't issues with them. There are concerns about if you don't do the zoning properly, what comes next?
What comes next? And then that would maybe, you know, knock over the apple cart, right? Then we're back to looking at another uh absolute towing and that's been a conflict along the road. or we're
looking at um Keller Fence, which which to my understanding had to be allowed in because of of the way it was zoned. You couldn't legally keep them out, even though the residents were questioning whether that was a good fit for the neighborhood. There was no option.
So, I'm hoping that you do come up with a plan for the corridor that's consistent with the majority use that is there and considers the type of lives that those people want to have
that maintains the safety and their property value. Um, that doesn't create any more congestion or traffic. um those sorts of things. So, um I I but I
do want to empathize with any business that's looking at having their zoning changed. Uh I can understand that if I were them, I'd probably feel very different about some of the things you're doing. Um, but I also know that
at least along the Seventh Avenue corridor, um, it's vastly residential and they're looking for some consistency both in the present and the future. Um, thank you. >> Thanks, Mark.
Um, good ne good evening everybody. Uh, my name is Joe Kyle. My wife and I live and work in Newport. We live at 3312nd Avenue. Our business is located at 5967th Avenue. It is Avid Service.
Uh, in 2022, Jeannie, my wife, and I purchased 5967th from the city and moved our business here. We did not need to do this. At that time, we owned the building that housed our business in the Mami area. This was
the decision to invest in the community that we live in. Your proposed changes would change 596 from MX3 to B2. Our lot size at 596 is
7500 square feet and conforms to the MX3 zoning minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square ft. If changed to B2, it will not make the minimum size requirement of 15,000 square foot required for a B2 zone
property, thus changing our conforming property to a non-conforming property. I would like to read to you an excerpt from the article titled the trouble with non-conforming property. It is from the St. Paul legal ledger which is part of Minnesota lawyer a respected source and
I encourage you all to read the entire article if you have already not. I am just going to read the conclusion and interest of not taking too much time. It speaks to problems and limitations of non-conforming properties and concludes with and I quote because of these
limitations land owners may find it difficult to sell non-conforming property. In addition, the value of the property tends to be less after it becomes non-conforming. This will negatively affect the local tax base and it can be particularly hard to find redevelopment opportunities for
non-conforming property. It is critically important to understand how owners of property can be negatively affected by new land use and zoning policies that cause their properties to become non-conforming. Factoring these considerations into the
planning process will help protect important property rights, encourage community investment, and strengthen the local tax base. Okay, so that and end quote. Okay. So, what I am failing
to see here is the large benefit to the community. How by changing my own spot, I'm speaking directly to the property that I own. Um, by doing I cannot see the the benefit
community by changing it from MX to B2. I I I I see a uh argument I could make at the DV value. Um, but I can clearly see how it will damage or could potentially damage the value of that property.
If Jeie and I in 2022 knew the city was planning, I know you weren't in 2022. I know this process started in 2023. Uh, plan, we wouldn't have bought it. I I I will not purchase a non-conforming
property and I have owned more than one property. Um, I a shout out to Joe and Nathan. They are trying to work with me on it. I really appreciate it. I really appreciate it that they are trying to work with me on this, but as it stands
right now, this is my stance. I'm I I'm not sure if I have any recourse if you do move ahead and change our property. I I I don't know that. I haven't I haven't sought any kind of legal advice, but we did buy it knowing
full well what it was and we did our research on it and it's not always going to be the shop that we have there. I mean, nothing lasts forever. We're and I'm actually talking to Joe on this too. We're actually close to being outgrowing
that that spot as it is, but I will stay there till I retire if I can't find a suitable spot in Newport. I I want to stay in Newport. Let me be really clear. Um we're we're really my wife and I have
always been very active in any community we lived in. And we we want to retire here. We want to live here. We want to you know, we're already starting to do some work with the food shelf. Uh but whatever. I mean, will the is I I guess I had some questions here, but I think they were
kind of answered. Um, it is, yeah, it's affecting other property owners. Well, I'm not sure if it's putting anybody else into a non-conforming stance or not, but I just I I mean, I'm not sure when you became
aware that the changes to 596 would make it non-conforming, if you knew that while you were planning this, or if you knew it when I brought it up, or if you just kind of had a broad vision that, yeah, some people it's going to be non-conforming and it'll just kind of wash out. We'll see where it goes. I I I don't know how how much, but I'm sure
you put a ton of effort in into it. Um I I I I'm I'm asking you to leave it as is, you know, short of unless I can we can work some more with Nathan and Joe. And I understand that I'm grandfathered in, but what about the next owner? And I
bought it knowing it was MX, you know, a mixed use. And I read I read this stuff and it's like, okay, well, maybe somebody wants to put in a a a four four condominiums here out of this building, you know, or maybe, you know, somebody
wants to to develop it into into something different, but it's mixed use. It's in a neighborhood with a lot of houses. I think that mixed use is really appropriate. Somebody might want to put a coffee shop in it in the front and and have living quarters in in the back. I mean, I I don't know, you know, but this
does it does concern me and and it boils down to basically what is the future val value of it? But what's my exit then? >> Yeah. >> You know, uh but anyway, um I want to thank you for taking the time to allow me to voice and for you to consider my
wife and I's concerns. We we understand what you do as a planning commission is important service and it's not always and it doesn't always get a lot of recognition. We understand that and we appreciate Genie. I do appreciate and she would be here but she's not feeling well. Um what you do for our city but at
the same time we need to protect our investment. >> I hear you. Thank you. Joe, >> we're talking about the old city hall. Correct. >> Okay. Sorry. >> All right. >> Yeah. Yeah, we are talking about the old city hall. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. We're talking about the old city hall. >> Sorry. I had to Google it.
>> Yeah. No, it and it it it it it has been really pleasant for us to to work out of there. It really has. >> We uh uh >> um at some point we might like to do some stuff to the building. I I don't know. This this this will have a lot of
effect on them. Your decision will have a lot of effect on what we do. >> And and and just so if any of you guys are new, what we do is is we make some uh we make some we service the medical device industry >> and we uh we make a a lot of stuff for and have been for water reclaim systems
for recycling water >> and that kind of thing. And we it's and it's this has just been a great location for us with >> Thank you, Joe. Location >> in the interest of time. Thank you. Yeah. Um Nathan, I'm wondering um could you pull up the maps cuz I think as
folks are talking I think we're having a lot of questions about where they're at. Please. >> Yep. We'll work on getting that map back up. >> Uh whoever wants to come up next. >> Hi, I'm Mike Brazier. Um my wife and I own the property at 88512th Street in
Newport. Um, so it's not really the similar um, just there's obviously some things that mimic some of the the uh, concerns that I've heard from some of the other people here. It's uh, the property itself uh, has my father's business has been in it most of the
time. We recently purchased it. Um, I know I've gone back and forth a little bit with Nathan on a couple things. Um, uh, regarding the mixed use and that's what it was. It's always been it's a metrology shop is what my father's business was and we all kind of cut our teeth in that for over the last 35 years
or so since it's been there. Um it's the mixed use though is key. Uh I'm similar I'm hearing my my biggest struggle is not I wish I was more prepared. I didn't even realize this was in my uh letter. I just got back in town, so I came here uh
as best I could with with uh not enough information uh to be armed to to give you more insight. But I but I would say this is that I'm you know I'm obviously worried about taps uh implications. That's a big one. Uh having to be zoned um into the new is it B2? Is that also I
think it's mix MX3 to B2. Is that correct? Um so I'm worried about the implications of it, but I'm also it already is a mixeduse property. So, I've done uh I've already I've only owned it for a a fairly short time since this uh
spring, early spring. I put a tremendous amount of money into the property. Um with the intention of of course obviously building up the property, building up the community as well, but it's also one of those things where you want it to you want you want you want to be able to if if needed that you want to
be be able to be to if it's sold >> that it's going to be a desirable property. Yeah. and having that mixed use is going to be key to part of that. It's it opens up a a world of doors to potential buyers. >> So, I'm more concerned about the the zoning. It's we're also in a mine's
probably a little bit more um there's there it's there's more mixed use, I would say, in in my area, but I'm I mean, I'm surrounded by homes as well. >> Uh the h the the place that that if you drove by it, you would think it's a house anyway. So other than the fact
that it has a has a parking lot. So and I've already made some concessions even though I didn't want to about reducing some of the pop as I've increased uh a number of things and really helped the it was also fallen into disrepair my father's health. Uh but we've made some
tremendous strides in in really helping the property. I've worked the com uh with the community to take down some of the trees that they said that were were invasive species. I've done I've done a ton of work and it's cost me uh gosh 10 more than 10,000 in trees uh that are
that were on that were on that that weren't they're kind of a combination of the city's property and my own. So I've done a lot to try to write back and forth a little bit only to have this uh there's a big unknown here. So to me this is a big question mark about the
future of it, the tax implications, the obviously the potential for selling um you name it. So, um I I guess this I just want to at least relay my concerns, although I appreciate your ear, that's for sure. And I appreciate that you worked with me on a few things already reducing some of that. We've we've
worked on some things. Um I'd like to continue to work with uh with the city and if there's some things that I can do to to assist you guys, great. But I also would love to keep it in MX3 because I think that that's going to be more useful friendly in the future for me selling the property. Okay. >> Thanks. Thank you, Mike.
Pauline shot Mueller 9710th Street here in Newport. So, uh, three comments and a minute a piece then. Um, the first one is, uh, addresses Mr. kills property there being
switched then to R1, but R1 allows uh home occupancy. You're still allowing that. I understand. And so he could still run his small engine repair with a small
occupancy license and work with city hall in terms of screening equipment and and things like that. Um or is or is that being eliminated? That's you know that >> address sharing members of the
commission. I can address that. Home occupations are being changed. >> Thank you. >> Pauline, I think you're confused. It's not going to residential. It's going to B2. >> Pardon? >> I think you're confused. It's not going to residential. It's going to B2.
>> Joe Kyles. So B2 starts at on 7th Avenue starts at Sixth Street. >> It's further north there. It's right up on the screen there. The proposal is to go from >> Are you confusing? >> Oh yeah, I'm confused. This gentleman
here. >> I'm sorry. Yep. Got the names confused. Yeah. So, he's concerned about R1, but you know, the guy that repairs my lawnmowers is in a residential neighborhood in Cottage Grove. So, just
throwing that out. Then the other one uh is addressing um the issue with uh 596 7th Avenue, the old uh city hall. Um, I mean, I understand the concern where
he now would have a lot that is too small for the B2 designation. And listening to him, I thought, you know, that was very similar when Newport used to have the legal lot width was 75 feet.
It's now 50 feet, but it used to be 75 feet. But we had all these orphan lots that were 50 ft and we still allowed a house, you know, if the lot was in R1 or we still allowed a house to be built there
on these orphan lots. And so my question with that is I understand wanting to do something similar because it's the lot size that makes him out of would make it non-conforming.
My concern is that he would still have to have a B2 use. It's the use that creates problems for the 7th Avenue
neighborhood. Not the lot size, but the use. and my and and that feeds into my biggest concern coming here. You know, I sat on the council that went
with all the mixed use because we were trying to make it possible for houses and businesses to coexist for that. You know, otherwise it was either the houses were non-conforming or the businesses were non-conforming. We
thought MX was an answer to that. And at the time there was a lot of talk about how the caveat was that the businesses that were in these mixeduse districts had to be
compatible with the residences. And we talked about that a lot, but somehow it did not get codified in our comprehensive planning and our zoning maps, which is why, you know, we
wound up with the Keller fence controversy and a neighborhood up in arms because we don't want trucks on 7th Avenue. And so again, you're not going to answer this question tonight, but that's my biggest concern
at the time with that city planner. I was telling Sherry Bus, you know, because she would list this business, this business, and I said, "But we can't always predict a future business. You know, there's businesses that are
going to be 10 years from now that we never thought that there was could be such a business. and that it would be better to put language somewhere that said, you know, we don't want trucks,
we want to limit outdoor storage. talk about those kinds of characteristics, not just say a gardening business, you know, because, you know, a floral shop is a whole lot
different than a fencing business that came under a gardening designation, you know. So, I appreciate all the work. I mean, this has been a really heavy lift for staff and council and the planning commission
to get to where you are right now. But you're not finished if you don't make sure that when land on 7th Avenue transfers hands that that business is compatible with
the neighborhood with someone living across the street. And the council I was on, we failed at that. And I'm hoping that this planning commission and this council and this
planner does not. You need to look at the language somewhere. Limit outdoor storage because they got big outdoor storage. You got trucks. >> You got forklifts. >> You get my point.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Pauline. Anyone else? Okay. Well, I'm going to close the um the public hearing at uh 6:54. Um,
commissioners, >> I got a quick question. Um, >> say we devel or we reszone, let's just use Don's property as residential one. Can he get a conditional use permit to keep operating and when he goes to sell the property, no one can buy it as a
small gas engine shop? Is that not what a conditional use permit could do? >> So, we'll have to understand more specifically what exactly the use is on the property
>> to understand how it's regulated in code. If a use is in an R1 is classifiable as a home occupation, there are criteria that we use to review that. You know, >> okay, >> home occupations need to meet certain things like you don't have signage uh
necessarily. You know, advertising a specific use typically and you don't have tons of commercial traffic coming into home occupations. You know, you think of a classic use like that might be a, you know, someone does an accountant, you know, they do accounting from their home and they help, you know,
folks and you might have a few cars a day. Um, so there's a there's some criteria that we look at in the ordinance to make sure someone can qualify, but certainly if a use qualifies, we're very happy to work with people. >> So, so kind of back to Pauline's, maybe we look more at wording than hard zoning
stops. Um, and then like with Joe, um, I remember when we first kind of looked at 7th Avenue and Hastings, we had a lot of businesses that maybe they wanted to sell their business
to retire. That was their goal of their whole life. But we said, well, nobody can operate an automotive industry business or something. I I don't see Don really looking to sell his small gas engine shop. He just wants to live there until he's can't do it
anymore. I don't know about Joe, but obviously he'd want to sell his business. He'd probably want to sell the building with it, >> but I don't know how we'd get through that one. Um, but back to the kind of the wording of the
>> chair, members of the commission, if if a use is currently legal in the MX3, if someone's currently doing something that they're allowed to do by the ordinance, uh, we have some way to verify that, um, we're very happy to write them a letter saying, "This use is currently
conforming as an MX3 and will become legal non-conforming when the property is reszoned." And what that would mean then is that person can continue to use the property however uh they're currently using it >> until they stop using it that way for a
period of a year or more. So that's on, you know, in a nutshell how the legal non-conforming section works with with uses. >> But but what we're what we're talking about is if he wants to sell his business and that's how he's going to retire. >> Yep.
>> And he's a non conforming Yep. >> business. Yep. Yes, he can continue to use that business as long as he continues what he's doing. But when he goes to sell it, it would be transferable. >> It is it is transferable. The use itself needs to continue. So I have a coffee
shop. Um and it become somehow coffee shop becomes non-conforming. I can sell my coffee shop to Joe. Um and then he can operate the coffee shop. But the the thing is that use can't cease or discontinue for a year or more. That's when the >> nonform um Yeah. I I just wanted to make
sure it was >> transferable. >> Yep. Um and I would just add that, you know, we heard concerns about lot size. Uh, and one thing that I mentioned to you during my presentation and was in the report is um the community could
consider a legal lot of record type um of language in its non-conforming ordinance that says, hey, if there's a property that's rendered to be too small by virtue of us changing the code, that that property can continue to be legal.
um they can expand their use in certain situations like they can't um intensify a non-conformity, they can't violate a setback or do things they're not permitted to do by the ordinance. But that, you know, that would hopefully help to clarify for situations
um like what were pointed out where someone's got concern about, you know, selling their property to the next person. Um hopefully you know having some clear language in the ordinance helps to you know resolve the concern about um >> that.
>> So this is my own personal question because my property has been affected by this. I was MX3 and now I'm B2. And that whole our whole block used to be MX3 and now it looks like we're splitting it. Um, ending at perhaps my house or the the
house next to me um will be B2 and then the rest will be an R2. What is what's the difference between a R2 and the MX3 then? >> Yep. So, the MX3 um you know, again, we kind of talked
about allows a super wide range of different uses from spanning from residential to commercial. You've heard some of the different um you know, thoughts on that this evening. And so, the R2 district is a district that
allows the same residential densities that are allowed in the MX3. So in the MX3, you can propose um you know a forplex depending on the size of your property or you know even potentially a multif family type project. um that's those same types of
residential uses are allowed to be built or continue to stay on R2. And the B2 district is more of a commercial district where you have primarily commercial uses and not necessarily residential uses unless there you know
there could be situations where a property is reszoned from MX3 where you have a single family home to B2 and that residential use can continue. property can be sold to another residential user again providing that the the home isn't used for a commercial purpose or
something. >> Okay. >> But the R2 is still going to allow the the multifamily homes to be on there. >> Correct. The R2 would allow for the same general residential uses to >> I know some of my neighbors are here that are affected by it as well. So I
just wanted to get that clarified for them. >> So thank you. Any other thoughts? >> I just get really concerned about our businesses. >> Yeah. >> Because without businesses,
we you really don't have a city. or we we will have a city, but we're going to pay a lot higher taxes. So, we we need to strike a balance between between residential and businesses because it's very important that we have the
businesses. So, when I hear that we're screwing around with people's livelihood, it really concerns me a lot and I don't really like it that much. But I know we have to change and we have to move. And that's why this is my last meeting because we need to get some new blood in here that
maybe will think about the future differently than I do. I'm old school and I'm a businessman and that's who I tend to uh back all the time. So, >> yeah. >> So, I'm just I hope that we do look at
and listen to what Pauline had to say about wording >> is very important and I hope that we do consider our businesses and moving forward want to help them as much as possible and that's just my kind of I
think we can recommend that because I mean that historical context was really important. So, um, when we give our recommendation to to the council, I mean, that's something that that we can do, right? >> Yep. So, the planning commission, you're you're currently discussing kind of some
of the things you've heard and what you questions you've got about the project and kind of that next that that action that we're we're requesting from you as staff is a recommendation and um, you're welcome to recommend whatever modifications that you would like to see moving forward to the city council.
>> I think you're right. I mean, I don't think we're going to make everybody happy, right? People don't want businesses on 7th. People do want businesses on 7th. But I think that if we look at the wording a little more carefully, maybe we can make it a little easier for everyone to
coexist. >> You guys could structure our businesses, too. Tell us how we can conform to whatever people are complaining about and stop it. If it's traffic, everything heads towards a refinery on Seventh Street. Period. make it a law. Let's pass that
so the cops can enforce it. >> Yeah. Um that I believe looking at the wording is what my recommendation is going to be. Unfortunately, I have to leave in uh about seven minutes, but um >> well, let's chair, members of the commission, are you uh recommending that we just closely review the wording for
non-conforming uses? Is that the area that you're hoping that we take another look at? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, how do you feel about staff's recommendation for the language regarding legal lots of record? You know, allowing for lots that are >> That sounded like it made sense.
>> Too small. >> Mhm. >> Yep. I think that's good. >> That would be one area that we would look to include in future recommendations to the city council would be that type of language >> to allow for properties to, you know, stay conforming. >> Okay.
So, um, well, would anyone want to make a a motion? I could summarize our thoughts here. >> Um, yeah, I would like to make a motion to move it to city council with the fact that they're going to look at
the wording, identify the wording. Um, I guess I don't have the exact wording, how to word it, but uh, yeah, I would make that motion to forward to the city council. Would anyone like to second that? >> I'll second it.
>> All in favor? >> I I >> just ju just just to be clear so we understand you're recommending um the chapters the ordinance language and revisions that staff have proposed in addition to the map amendments and the zoning and future land use map amendments. So that was all in one
motion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Uh the next steps uh commission uh is for this project to move to a city council meeting. We're not going to have a formal meeting in right away. Uh the city council will review this item at a
workshop first before uh it holds a formal meeting to adopt any changes. So Joe, I don't know if you >> Yeah, correct. Uh chair, members of the commission, we are scheduling to have a work session so council can review the recommendation from the planning commission and you know uh just for
folks um who did provide emails and and comments, Nathan is going to provide that in his memo, we'll have a discussion with the council on um December 18th and then tentatively depending on how that discussion goes because things can always take more time
than you think. Um then tentatively we would have another public hearing in front of the city council um on January 8th and um that would be that first meeting in January of 2026. Um usually we have our council meetings on that
first Thursday, first and third Thursday. Uh but we're going to change that because that first Thursday is New Year's Day for 26. So, uh, little bit different, but, um, that'll be coming out, uh, soon. Um, but just wanted to make sure everybody understands exactly
what the next steps will be, when their opportunity, uh, is to engage, continue to engage in the process. Okay. Um, so, and please feel free to reach out to Nathan or myself, and if you have specific concerns about your property, we're happy to meet you, uh, you know,
uh, right here at city hall. We can schedule some time. I'm happy to meet you and uh you know or if you have general comments about this update to the zoning code or proposed update uh feel free to send those you know email them or whatnot to uh staff here at the
city or you know any one of the council members um and I know folks are interested in the feedback so thanks so much. >> Okay. Um, we're going to move on to agenda item number four. Uh, Red Rock Manor.
>> Thank you, Tony. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'll tap dance a little bit. So, I'll let people uh file file. >> Are you going to actually dance? >> No, actually, not literally. >> Oh, darn it. I was just moving my chair
to watch. >> U Okay. So, we've got uh three other items on the agenda tonight. And um the first of those is is um a a variance request for the Red Rock Manor property by the
property owner and and their consultant. So, I'll jump into my presentation. Uh there was a staff report available to you all uh which had a lot of information in it. I'll try and just give a a brief overview of of of the project and tee things up for your discussion. Again, as a reminder, we do
have a public hearing associated with this item as well. I'm seeing that we don't have as many people in attendance for it. So, uh just as an overview of the project, uh Red Rock Manor is located at 1421 10th Avenue. It's owned by Common Bond
Communities. Um the property was impacted by fire damage within the last couple years and they have been um working water damage I apologize water damage. Uh so I got that that detail incorrect but there was damage to the structure that they are uh and have been working
to fix. Um it's resulted in re-evaluation of the actual site as well and some uh proposed reinvestment in the actual uh site itself in terms of upgrades to the parking area uh storm water management and some landscaping upgrades.
So, uh I think most of you are familiar with the location, but you can see the uh location of Red Rock Manor on the screen. As a reminder, the zoning for this property is and will uh is proposed to stay as R2 urban residential. Um, we've
reviewed the site improvements for a number of different uh elements that are regulated by city code, including um landscaping and impervious surface maximums. There are a couple of code constraints here that are um kind of creating issues
as we work through the proposed parking and drive improvements on the property. Um, we have an existing uh drive that's 12 ft wide that enters the property from the primary access. Uh, through this proposed project, they're actually
proposing to pretty significantly widen that drive, which is actually a good thing in terms of meeting the code because it allows be a much better two-way flow of traffic. Um, they're they're getting the drive up to 22 feet wide, but they're not able to hit 24, which is the minimum. So, the whole
reason that they are here tonight and requesting a variance from the city is to allow for a drive that's 22 instead of 24 ft wide. Uh, part of the reason they can't um meet that 24T width is they're constrained by the building and
and property boundaries. And so, um they're also trying to maintain a 5-ft setback from the curb along their two-way drive to the neighboring property. Um, in review of the plans, staff felt it was most important to respect the 5- foot setback to to the
residential property to the north. Um, primarily because five that that setback from the driveway is, uh, used as snow storage when we, you know, we have nights like tonight where we're getting tons of snow, uh, some of the plows are just going to kind of leave snow in that
that area. So, we felt it was really important to keep that setback uh and have a variance instead to the width of the drive. So, here you can see on the screen what I've described. You've got the 22 foot wide uh two-way drive with the 5-ft set
back um to the northern property boundary. Uh here you can see I'm just going to go through a couple of other pictures so you can see some of the improvements that they're making to the parking and drive areas. Um again, these are um largely bringing this site further into
compliance with city code standards for parking. You're seeing um curbing proposed along the drive areas, which is good. That's a requirement along with standard parking stalls. Um they're also proposing to install landscaping. So, we have a landscaping plan that was included in the plan
submitt. Um the landscaping on this site as proposed both with the new stuff that's coming in and with the existing trees that are rema remaining untouched uh that landscaping will meet the city's standards. So through the site design we've determined that they're they're
okay with the number of trees. Uh the um planting plan and and improvement plan also includes some improvements to the patio area. Um, all told, we just wanted to understand when we at, you know, at the end of the day with these improvements, where are we at with impervious? Uh, they're under the
impervious surface maximum. So, uh, they did not need to request a variance to that standard. So, that's pretty straightforward. Uh, what are the criteria that we need to consider for this variance? Uh, one, of course, conformance with the comp plan and zoning. And two, uh, we we have the
variance practical difficulty test. Um staff feel pretty strongly that we can make good findings to support this requested variance. Um it it appears to meet the criteria we need to to review for in code. This includes reasonable use of the property. Um the property
owner at this time isn't making their own hardship. They're trying to fix things up. Um and economic considerations are not part of the the factors for review. So that's kind of a highle overview of of this project. Um staff are recommending approval because
of that and there are a few conditions that staff are recommending if we approve the project. One is just that the improvements meet what's on the plans that have been submitted. Two is that we address any outstanding engineering review comments. Uh we've had a couple iterations of plans be
submitted and so u making sure that just engineering comments are considered and the final plans that are approved. And lastly just getting any permits or paying any fees that might be needed before work starts. So, those are what's recommended. Um, I have an example motion here, which is to recommend city
council approval of the variance um as presented with the conditions. >> Thank you, Nathan. Um, commissioners, any comments before I open the public hearing? >> No. >> Okay. Um, I'd like to open the public hearing at 7:14. Um, is there anyone
that'd like to make a comment? Okay. >> And please state your name and your address, please. >> Yeah, I'm Rodney Hoyer, 1390 10th Avenue. And uh I own or my wife and I, we own uh we we border Red Rock Manor,
just to the south, I own uh all the way to 9inth Avenue, uh bordering Red Rock Manor. Are they going to take care of those trees? >> Those dead trees.
>> Um, >> so >> I think >> let me go back to the landscaping plan. I don't know that we have. >> No, maybe that's included. I wasn't >> Yeah, cuz I think you said something about >> So, uh, I have the landscaping plan up on the screen here. You can see in that
black bold those black bold circles what's proposed in terms of new landscaping. I don't know that I can speak to the specific question, but I'm very happy to talk offline if you have questions. You can get my contact information and we can also ask the
applicant uh if they are uh present. I'm not sure we have Michael in the back. I'm not sure if Michael can speak to to that question. >> Okay. >> Um yeah. Yeah. Come up, please. >> Yeah. I'm Michael Jo with LHB. Um I'm
the civil engineer on the project and I don't know if you're going to pull the map back up, but if you're referring to the trees on the southeast corner, is that of the the Red Rock property? >> No, the everything on 10th Avenue.
>> Um >> I believe we're removing a lot of dead trees on the property. So yeah, >> a lot of standing firewood. >> Yeah. And I'm pretty sure any dead tree is getting removed and replaced. >> Oh, that's going to be part of >> part of the plan. Yeah. >> Okay. And this would be in the
springtime, >> I believe. That's where construction is. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. >> I guess what I was sure. >> Yeah. because the uh uh when I first got
the letter there about what's going on with the uh um the changes that were uh uh suggested or whatever uh for uh for Red Rock Manor. I was thinking that
they were going to put a road all the way around the the building and come out on 9inth Avenue. That's what I thought cuz no, not just widening >> Yeah. the entrance. I thought they were going to make a road all the way around. >> Yep. >> No, but
>> I guess I got clarified that when I got here earlier for the uh before the meeting started, >> you know, so I figured I'd just stay and listen as to what's what's all happening here with the >> Sure. >> Red Rock Manor. >> Thank you. chair and members of the commission, I'll just recommend as a
staff recommendation to the um neighbor and project proposer that they coordinate on any tree removal and >> perfect. >> Okay, >> that'll be our recommendation. >> Great. >> That doesn't have to be a condition. >> Okay. >> No, Mike Brazier, 88512 Street. Um well
I'm we're on the corner of 12th and 9th. So I actually had the same I had heard the same I had heard a rumor that they were making it all the way through and so I was thinking is that going to impact the traffic on 9th because obviously I was sent a letter as well even being a couple blocks away there on
that next corner. So it it's really just as I understand it, it's just bringing a lot of things up to code or as close to code as they can, right? The new code. Yeah. Right. That there's no other consideration for additional traffic other than the the just only the additional traffic through the construction phase. Is that correct?
>> Okay. >> Chair, members of the commission, if you like me to answer the the question that you've been asked, the access for this site's not changing. >> There are no new access points being permitted to a public roadway or any other area. So, uh, the site improvements will basically be improving
what's already there. They're not adding units to the building. Not, you know, traffic patterns from this improvement project should not change. >> Great. >> Yep. >> That would be the expectation. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Any other comments?
Okay. Um, it's 7:19 and I'm closing the public hearing. Um, commissioners, any additional comments or discussions you'd like to have? Otherwise, I'd welcome a motion. Um, I think Can you pull up the
>> the recommend? >> You want me to? I will move to recommend the city council uh approval of the Red Rock Manor variance as proposed by staff. >> Second. All in favor? >> I thought you you second it.
>> Yeah, I was >> sure that >> Yeah. I >> I >> I Okay, awesome. Um, next thing on uh the agenda is uh the 1715 Hastings Avenue.
>> Yes. Uh that's me again. Hello. >> Hi. >> Hi. Okay, I hope you're not tired of me yet. So, um, we have a conditional use permit application that's been submitted for 1750 Hastings Avenue. Um, this comes after some coordination with the
property owner. Um, they're they have an exciting proposal. They're looking to, um, change this property, uh, from its current, I think, vacant use, um, maybe vacant, to a combination of a coffee shop and a wine bar. So, kind of a
exciting thing. you know, we've heard, you know, community comments about stuff like that. >> I thought you were exaggerating when you said exciting. >> No, but it really is. That's the best thing I've heard all day. >> So, uh, associated with that though, of course, is a request to put a drive-thru in. And a drive-thru requires a
conditional use permit by city code. And so, we're going to talk about that here through the presentation. So, again, our location, 1750 Hastings Avenue. Um the the proposal specifically is that drive-thru C cup uh to serve the coffee
shop there would be associated parking and driveway and storm water and uh landscaping requirements or improvements for for that work. So we've reviewed the proposed site plan. The property owner has worked with the um civil engineer or architect to
put together that concept plan for us to review. So, uh, that's been helpful. Uh, just in case you're not familiar with the location of the property, that's where we're referring to along Hastings Avenue. And here's >> the rental shop. >> What was that? >> Right next to the rental shop. >> Correct. Yep. And I believe this was
part of that this was part of that group of parcels that was co co collectively owned >> for that use. >> So, here's a little little bit of an older aerial image >> uh from 24 just to give us a little bit better idea of what the specific uh site
looks like. And then here is your um site plan and what was submitted to the city and put in the staff report. So, we're going to talk through a number of different parts of this site plan, but what you see here, generally speaking, is the
widening of the access to Hastings Avenue to allow for a two-way um two-way access with a drive-thru that would loop around the um to connect with the building. Um and then you've got parking in front of
the building where there's a current parking pad and behind it with a couple of accessory structures. So there would be some um parking and driveway improvements primarily with this project. You can see a signs proposed. Um and there is a tree here on the plan
as well. So uh just looking at an overview of the city code requirements for this property. Uh the zoning here is MX1. It's not going to change as proposed with the um amendments we've just discussed. The land uses here are
classified as restaurant. So that would be the principal use uh restaurant. Both a wine bar and a coffee shop would classify as that type of a use which is permitted by the city's zoning ordinance by right. The only thing that they would need to do, excuse me, is to uh apply
for a change of use permit uh for that. But they do need the cup for the drive-thru and that's why we're here. Um, in terms of the building, it's considered to be legally non-conforming with respect to commercial design requirements. So, it can stay as is. Uh,
impervious surfaces on site are um maximum is of 80%'s allowed and it's looking like we're just over 65% as proposed. Um, setbacks appear to be met for structures in the drive parking areas. Um in terms of parking and
circulation, this is I think where the most most of our review and comments are are going to be. Uh there are 26 spaces required by code based on the occupancy of the use the restaurant use. So the the currently the the number of stalls meets the requirement. Uh there are also
screening and curbing requirements that we have to discuss. Terms of lighting um there is there are lighting standards in the code. Um, I'm not sure if they're actually proposing any uh new exterior lighting on site, which would be for the driveway or anything. Um, I I will
recommend that we have a condition for if lighting is proposed that it meets city code. In terms of noise uh for drive-throughs particularly, we will sometimes see like um speakers outside of the building right where they're going to be taking orders. And so, uh
there are requirements for audio equipment uh limiting the noise impacts on neighboring properties to minimize nuisance conditions. And so we do have um recommended conditions in the list of conditions for you to consider as well for that. In terms of
signage, um freestanding signs are permitted in this area uh for commercial businesses. Uh so a freestanding sign is proposed. Uh it's about 5t from the property line. Um they'll have to have it at least 10 ft away from the property line according to city code. Um, but
there I would note that we're in a a power line easement as well in this area in the front yard. So, if we go back to Sorry, Joe >> site plan. I don't think I can go back on the clicker. Okay, >> I can. Sorry, I just like to reach over.
Um, so the front yard area does have uh a power line easement in it. So, we just have to be cautious of anything going in there. That's more of a coordination issue with Excel Energy, but just noting that, you know, if a sign is proposed in there,
there there could be some limitations. So, uh, site plan review. Um, here's just a review of the, um, we'll call it the the bulk standards. Oops, sorry, went too far. >> Now you're getting excited. >> Yeah, really getting into it here. So,
uh, we've we've kind of inventoried, you know, some of the existing standards for parking and, you know, again, the number of parking stalls meets the requirement. Um, the driveway and parking area setbacks, um, as proposed also meet. Uh,
lot coverage is is meeting as proposed. Um, I will have a a few things here uh to say about conditions and how the site might need to be changed moving forward. Um, but before I do that, I just want to talk about what criteria do we need to consider for conditional use permits.
Um, they're listed here and they're in the staff report. Generally, um, the CUP to be approved has to be consistent with the comp plan. Um, consistent with, you know, trying to protect health and safety and compliance with city standards. Um, not overbearing on public
infrastructure or services. there's adequate screening, architectural um and landscaping included and then um making sure that zoning and traffic continue to be acceptable or meeting zoning code and and not um creating traffic issues. So
on the next uh site plan, this was included in the staff report. This is what I'd call the annotated plan, like where where staff have marked it up and um showing you a few areas where there might need to be some um changes to the the plans. U one thing that we've, you
know, discussed in coordination with the city engineer is just that the um drive lane that is um you can kind of see the cursor hovering in the area of the drive lane that's um going to be the at the order window that that doesn't need to
be a full 18 ft wide. Uh the city engineer is recommending 12 foot width in that area uh because it would be a oneway lane and so that helps you know preserve a little bit of space on the site. Um one thing and we're just talking about the drive-thru here that we're
noticing is just that you know this area where the loop kind of connects with the rear parking is really wide. So staff would propose some type of a bumpout in this area on a revised plan to help um separate the drive-thru from just
general traffic that might be back here turning around. We want to funnel folks that are leaving this back parking area uh to leave, you know, obviously up here instead of trying to go around um people that might be queued up for the for the ordering.
Some of these changes will allow a little bit more green space. you know, in this bumpout area, you might have a little bit more turf. In this area, uh here where you see a rain garden, you could have a little bit of a of a bigger rain garden or some other storm water management feature. I would note that when uh a site is improved beyond a
certain point of impervious surface, they will need to control for storm water. So, moving forward, the expectation would be that the applicant would would work with an engineer or someone to identify what are the storm water requirements for us and how do we meet them.
Um we have in our parking uh code a requirement for curbing around parking areas and so uh staff would propose that the plan just make sure that you know existing parking also meets that standard specifically along the Hastings corridor.
I've noted the sign here. That sign I think is a little too close to the uh front lot line just based on requirements and code being 10 ft. So we've talked about the sign height as well. Um although the city code allows I think a maximum of 25 in this situation for a a freestanding sign um there there
should be some coordination with Excel to make sure that's not going to cause problems. So this is a non like a non inclusive list of just things that are in the conditions. So I'll go to the conditions and we can talk about those other things that we're proposing uh for
consideration. So, we've got 15 recommended conditions for approval. Um, I'm going to go through all of them just so that we all um know what we're talking about. So, one through three are just that the applicant if they move forward obtain the required permits that there might be for their property whether it's from the
city, watershed or state. Um, one four is that there's no outside storage on the on the property. That would be things like trash or you know just stuff related to a use. um except for the you know daily parking of vehicles by patrons or employees.
Uh five is that noise mitigation be required for interior speaker systems to prevent audible detection at the property line of surrounding residential uses. Um this wouldn't be that you know dissimilar to how we might condition other restaurant uses. Um, six is that
exterior speaker systems like those that would be with the drive-through have to be reviewed by staff for conformance with city ordinance. Basically, it's pretty similar. They can't be um sup super loud, right? That to disturb residential uses nearby.
Uh, seven is to um provide noise mitigation of interior speaker systems. I think that might be duplicative. We'll have to review that one for whether it's needed or not. Um, number eight is the parking plan must be revised to provide clear circulation and approved by staff.
So, when I talked about the 12 foot wide lane, the bump out for separating the parking area, those are the things that I'm referring to. I think when some changes start to be made, it might kind of spill into other things. And so at the end of the day, as long as city
planning and engineering staff have an opportunity to make sure that the traffic and safety is there, I think I'm I'm comfortable approving it with that condition or I would recommend considering that parking spaces and surfaces have to be brought into compliance. So just making
sure that the stalls are the appropriate width in the parking area and uh the surfacing is adequate. So meeting code like asphalt or concrete. Uh again, concrete curbing would be required and so I mentioned that we're recommending condition 10 that um
curbing be provided around parking and drive. Uh 11 is talking about exterior lighting needing to be reviewed by staff. Excuse excuse me. And that would be in the event that um exterior lighting is is proposed. So let's say someone wants to
install uh fixtures either on the building or in the parking area, we can review those and make sure they meet. uh signage we've talked about but would have to be reviewed for conformance. Uh 13 is just talking about trash enclosures. So we see trash enclosures
with restaurants quite a bit. Um if a trash enclosure is going to be constructed, it would have to be um meeting the code requirements for such such structures. Basically it would have to be consistent with the principal structure design
and located in in an acceptable spot. Um 14 is to provide a landscaping plan. Um specifically one that's meeting city standards. So one thing I didn't mention is that um the site it requires 10 trees. And if we go back to the aerial
image that we looked at at the very beginning, um we don't have a ton of trees existing on the site. And so um the city's landscaping ordinance requires one tree for every thousand square ft of pvious surface. So like
grass area except for storm water ponds. And so um we would be very very well um able to use existing trees to meet that standard. So I see a few existing trees on site. Um those would be able to meet that requirement for a total of 10. So,
it might be that some additional landscaping is required and there are a couple of areas on the site where that could be um placed. Uh lastly, um improvements need to conform with the submitted plans. So, just making sure that if we have plans that have been submitted that what comes
in after meets them or conforms with requirements that have been um provided. So, those are the conditions. I think it's important just to kind of talk through them. Most of it relates to just changing the um actual site plan itself and not really regulating too much the
actual drive-thru. Um so with that, I do have an example motion to remind you of a public hearing and the applicant is here and I would probably be happy to speak to their request as well. >> I just have one quick question. Um, usually in these type of proposals with
a a food business or a bar or something, there's operational hours in the conditional use permit. I did not see that. Is that something that we don't need to do anymore or is that just an oversight? >> Yeah. No, I think that's a good question. And like we talked about at
the beginning, this cup is for the drive-thru and not for the restaurant use. >> Gotcha. So, if there was interest in saying, you know, hey, um, this drive-thru is really busy and you have to limit it to whatever hours you want to, you know, provide, it would have to
be kind of a reasonable recommendation for what the limitation be. I whatever you guys decide the business can be open to >> I I tend to think that drive-thrus um are popular during peak hours and especially you know with a coffee shop you might expect to have more people in
the morning but >> wine bar >> I don't know that we're going to have a drive-thru for for wine Joe will have to speak to liquor license >> um >> great place to stop right after work >> any other discussion before I open the
public hearing open it up Okay, time is uh 7:35 and I'd like to open the public hearing. Anybody want to have any comments on this one? Quiet. Okay. Um it's 7:36 and I'm closing the
public hearing. Um comm commissioners any um additional discussion? I I feel like uh the recommendations are are very reasonable. >> Great. >> Um I don't know if you guys >> And it's just a conditional use for a
drive-thru. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Great. >> Okay. So, I'd like to open um Does anybody want to make a motion to >> I'll move to recommend the city council approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions proposed by staff. >> I second.
>> All in favor? >> I All right. On to our last agenda item for tonight. Um daily electric Okay. So, um thanks for everyone's patience as we work through all these
items tonight. So, the last one um that's on the agenda is the daily electric concept plan review. Um, typical or um, similar to other concept plans that you've reviewed previously. This is a PUB concept plan review. Um,
so we'll talk about what that means. Bob, I think we're pretty familiar with the Daily Electric property. It's visible. If you're looking out the right window here at City Hall, you will see their building. Um, they're right on 21st Street and, uh, they've got a couple of, uh, additional properties they own next to
their existing structure that they're looking to expand into. And so, um, we've worked with them, uh, the property owners and and their, uh, team to work through some potential ideas about how they might expand their their site or
their building. And so, um, we're at the kind of very first step here, which is to really kind of assess what's proposed and what would it take to, um, from an approval standpoint to to get that across the finish line.
So, just as an overview of the land use, um this site is located at uh 2221st Street with a couple of unaddressed parcels that's near it. Uh the zoning in this area is um MX3 and again that's not proposed to change through our process.
The future land use here commercial residential. The property is 84 acres. Uh that's an important detail that we'll work through um in this discussion. Uh the proposal here is to go from the existing structure up to uh just over
11,000 square foot building addition or the building total would be that that size with associated uh site improvements like parking and landscaping and open space. So uh here is the concept plan that's been shared with the city. uh you'll see
that we have the roughly 4 4,000 ft uh existing building and you'll have to forgive me the addition is a total of just over 11,000 square ft. So we're looking at something in around the neighborhood of about 15,000 ft square u 15,000 square feet in total. Thank you.
uh with associated parking. Uh you'll see that there in addition to the um building addition, there is parking area that would be pushed a little bit further to the east as well to serve the the new area. There would be a new
loading uh bay on the uh south side of the building in this area and a new loading bay on the addition um facing the existing parking area. And so we'll talk about what we're seeing here versus the um city code
requirements. But uh before we do that, just mentioning here that uh the concept plan review process is advisory. This isn't going to we're not asking you to take any formal actions this evening, but really to provide us with feedback and provide the um property owners and
their team with feedback. So, uh, when we get concept plans, we do our best to make sure that we review them for setbacks and lot area. Um, in this case, we're looking at, um, total of84 acres. Um, so we're meeting the the
lot area minimum of 5,400 square ft. Uh, the lot width and depth are also uh exceeding the minimums that we have. uh building setbacks for the for the actual principal structure uh are met with the proposal.
Uh but this does depend on what you consider to be the front or the sideyard. Our front yard setback is 10 ft. Our sideyard setback is five. And uh I'll talk about that um as we go through this this presentation. The height of the existing uh structure is one story
and the proposed addition would be two. So, uh, parking, uh, this is an area where we'll talk about the there would be a potential need for some flexibilities to the ordinance because we have an existing parking area on both the north and the south side of the
existing property that are already uh, what you'd consider to be too close by code. And so, what they would be doing um, by expanding those parking areas is they would need a a variance to to expand them, but they're not getting any closer to the abing property boundaries.
terms of lot coverage, um the existing site is well over the 75% of the um lot co coverage for imperous surfaces maximum. So currently, just eyeballing it, we didn't get an estimate of what's
currently there, but it looks like they're above 90% impervious right now. Um and as proposed, it would be 83% impervious. So the the ratio of of um lot coverage would be going down although they would be um expanding the
the amount of imperous surface. So that would be a need for flexibility as well if this project is going to move forward. We've reviewed for a couple of other standards including you know building materials, parking, uh landscaping, site
access and on. Um, in terms of the building design, we'll just talk about that first. The city's MX3 district does have some design standards for commercial buildings. Uh, generally speaking, you know, we haven't gotten a really super
specific list of materials that are proposed. It it looks as though what's proposed here can meet the city's standards, but again, that would depend on, you know, more precisely what materials are are being proposed as part of the new addition. Um, in terms of window coverage, one thing that I do
want to note in the city code is we have a 40% requirement for new buildings um, facing a public street needing to have windows where there is an office or retail use. So, uh, the portion of this building that's an office would would need to to meet that 40% requirement at
the street level. Okay. So um parking um the existing or requirements rather are are going to be based on is it an office or or a storage use. And so when we apply our parking we kind of just
look at what's proposed in total. And so we can say at the end of the day this is what's required. Um at the end of the day 24 spaces are are proposed which uh is exceeding the eight this their minimum requirement of 18 stalls.
Uh generally uh speaking, loading and service areas should remain positioned to be internal to the site. And so there's not uh any new um loading areas that are proposed like facing a public street that aren't already in a area
that's mostly screened. In terms of uh requirements for landscaping and screening, uh we talked about the city's landscaping requirement. It appears through the concept plan that they should be able to meet the landscaping requirements. Um I will note that when we looked at that
concept, it's it's not showing us any um storm water management. So I think the idea is that there will be underground storm water management. Um if that works, that's that's going to be great. Um, if that's not an option, sometimes bedrock can be a problem. Uh, there
there would need to be some type of a storm water pond, potentially like a surface storm water or infiltration basin that you might need to see on the on the site plan. So, that could uh take away from some of the usable area for landscaping. Uh, let me talk about um the Okay, I
think we've covered this one enough. So, I'll move on to access and circulation. Uh, we have three existing points of access to the property. Um, those ex there will be no new existing points of access to the cities or county roads that are surrounding this site. Um, I
will note that when we um sent this project out to the county for comment, we did get a letter from them. That's in the report. We'll talk about it. Um it requested the initially the closure of all access points along 21st Street. Um we have two driveways that access 21st
Street. So that would be a problem for this site uh for sure. And so uh the city engineering engineer letter is suggesting that we only if we're going to close off any access that only one access point to 21st Street be closed.
Um, if that's the case, the westernmost one would be the the one to close because it would uh create greater separation from an existing access to a intersection. So, here again is the property in case we want to come back to an aerial. Um,
just want to mention uh sidewalks and trails. Um we we we do see a pedestrian connection from the front entrance to the parking lot. Um you know in talking to the city's engineer and public works dire or superintendent um the city does
not have a policy requiring a sidewalk on the south side of 21st Street. So um that would that would factor into whether a sidewalk is is request requested or required along the north property boundary. Uh, I do want to mention that the Washington County
letter um suggested requiring enough space for a trail along the south side of 21st Street. Um, I would note that we have a trail on the north side of 21st Street already. And so I think um staff are going to be looking to coordinate a little bit more with the county on their
letter to make sure we understand um what's coming from that from that suggested requirement and so we can make sure we get on the same page before the uh property owners move forward to their next step. So we would just want to make sure we're providing really clear
feedback to them. Couple of other review comments from the city engineer and public works superintendent. Um you know I mentioned storm water that has to be managed. Um concrete curbing as mentioned before has to be provided in uh parking and drive areas.
Um there are portions of the northern parking lot um that accesses 21st street that are in the city's rightway and so there should be opportunities to um adjust that parking lot uh when that one access is removed to be out of the the
city's rightway. And that's important because, you know, if there are future city projects or county projects along 21st Street, it's important to preserve that area, uh, if work ever does need to take place there and not have to, you know, basically destroy a parking lot and bring it back.
Um, we've talked about the the the west driveway access to 21st Street. And then lastly, um, there is just a suggestion suggestion that the property owners coordinate with the city. There will be improvements, I think, planned next year for Third Avenue.
So, I mentioned Washington County's comment letter is included in the packet. I think we have a little bit more coordination to do with them. Um, but they did recommend a total of 120 ft of rightway along the 21st Street corridor, which would effectively mean
60 ft from the center line. that's still a pretty considerable amount of area that would kind of cut into this site. So, if I go back to the site plan, um you can kind of see that there would be a pretty big impact from that requirement. So, as as city staff were
trying to work through that one with the county, it may be that the city determines that it's it's it's not going to require that, but that that needs more conversation between the city and the county first. Uh we talked about the the trail
uh up south of 21st Street. So we just need to make sure that we're coordinating with them on what that what that one means. Um do we really need another trail corridor here? Uh and then lastly, the closure of both access points onto 21st Street was initially recommended by the county and still is
their their preferred outcome. Um but I think closure of just one might be a a compromise that could work. Um, again, we'll have to make sure we understand from the applicant's point of view as well, um, all of these different requirements. And I know that some of these comments are probably of the
highest concern to the applicant. So, we're very happy to work through these things with the the applicant and the county. And I'll just say we have a little bit more more work to do here. Um, flexibilities, what what do what's ultimately going to be needed for flexibility? Um, so the first thing is
the criteria for this use. This use is classified as a contracting office. So that's that's a type of land use where you've got um offices primarily that help the operations day-to-day of a contracting service. And then um you've
got typically employees coming and going from the site with some amount of warehousing or storage. Um, typically the city requires that this use be um only on lots that are 1 acre or larger.
So, uh, this lot is a total of84 acres. And so, um, flexibility to that standard would be needed for this to be approved. Um, we've talked about the overall lot coverage being at about 83%. Um, 75 is the max. Um, so that that would be
expanding in existing nonconformity, but it wouldn't be at the same level. You know, right now we're looking at like 95% impervious. So wouldn't be as much, but still not um under the maximum. Uh the city has um requirements for
parking and drive setbacks of 5T. And so we've got in the front yard or on the uh 21st Street side, uh the parking is right is actually in the right of way. So, um, we're at 0 ft and then, uh, on the southern property boundary, they're
at 3 ft. And so, um, just keeping that, you know, um, 3T and not reducing it to five would be needing a variance or flexibility. Lastly, um, we have a triple fronted lot and so this is kind of complicated with
how we interpret the front and side yards. Um, right now the existing property would be considered to have a front yard on 21st and 2nd and they're currently meeting the standards there. Um, and so I think we can consider this
to still have the front end a front lot line on 21st and 2nd. Um, but if we don't have any frontage on Third Avenue or access there, it doesn't really make sense to call that the front yard. So depending on how the city approves this project, we just need to be um careful
about making sure that we're we're good with setbacks. So um entitlements, what's going to be required for this property or this project to get approved? Um first of all, they would need to uh receive a conditional use permit for the
contracting office use. so that we'll have a future CUP just like we had for the drive-through but with the full site plan uh for the project. In addition to that, we would either need a variance or separate variances for each of the flexibilities I just talked about or we
could process it through a planned unit development. Uh planned unit developments we you've as the planning commission have reviewed them before um typically need to be on a property that's 10 acres or bigger unless it meets certain goals of the comp plan.
So, there are a few goals in the city's comp plan that, you know, expanding an existing business would meet. So, I think that the city could potentially find that this is, you know, consistent with the comp plan. Um, so I think really the the decision, the feedback
that we're looking for as staff is um when this if this moves forward, would you want to see a conditional use permit and a variance or a conditional use permit and a PUD? There are some people that prefer to to not do PUDs and might say a variance is
better or you might say, you know, it just makes more sense to do it through a PUD. We can make sure we give them the flexibilities they need. Um, we can talk about goals of PUDS if you want to go there. I just made sure to include that. Uh, here again is the site plan. And finally, the staff
recommendation, you know, is just to discuss this and provide feedback to us. Um, what what might you be concerned about? I've got some discussion questions here, but at the end of the day, really what I'm looking for feedback on is, do you have concerns about the site? What's proposed here, the expansion, and what do you think
makes the most sense, variances versus a PUD? So, that's all I have formally ready for you. I know the applicants team has been waiting for a couple of hours to share more about their project. So, I'd recommend that you uh hear from them as well about, you know, why they're proposing to expand and then
have your discussion. >> Okay. Um so 7:54 and I'll open the um public hearing. Um if you'd like to come up and explain a little bit more about the project, you're welcome to. >> Just had some notes here on my phone. Uh
good evening, Jim Connelly with Appro Development, part of the design team that's been working with the dailies to come up with a solution to help them expand at this existing location. So thank you for taking the time to hear us out today. um really they've invested in Newport as a business and they've uh
improved that existing building. They've paved a lot, add a curbon gutter, really try to improve that location and um they've they've started thriving in town. They'd like to stay here in town and and this addition would make a way
for that to happen. And um uh we understand that the zoning of the property isn't completely conformed to the comprehensive plan. Um but with the long-term um um outlook and success of the business, they sure like to stay
here in town and try and expand here. So with the triple-sided lot, as Nathan mentioned, that does um introduce a lot of complexities typically, especially on a smaller city lot, but um staff's been great working with us and kind of
outline all the things that um uh come into approval of a site like this. and we we just hope that we've come forward with a plan that uh is of interest to the planning commission and ultimately the city council to uh help us out here.
I will say the the uh county's uh notes about the additional rideway do um um have as as Nathan mentioned, there's a lot of concern there on our part as to how that's going to play out. um that really encroaches into the site and really would reduce what we could do for
an expansion and what we could do for the parking in the front side of the building, things like that. Um so, as as he mentioned, working that out with the county is is of great interest to us. Uh because if if they're really going to take another 25 ft of of property from
the site, that really does limit what we can do here. and um it it it may just really not make it big enough to to be able to expand here. So, lots of questions about that. Um you know, and not just what it means for us, but development along your entire street.
You know, if it's 25 ft for us and everyone along there, it's making all those lots smaller. It's taking away parking. Um there's just a number of issues that causes not just us, but anyone along that corridor, maybe even the city hall here, honestly. Um
and then um you know just it'll be interesting to see how that plays out because that was really going to weigh in on how we u expand or have the ability to expand. Um and then um yeah ultimately before the significant funds are spent on
engineering um things like that. We're just here to really gauge your interest in the plans that were presented and keeping us here in in the city and helping us to fully utilize the property that they already have now. So, um um and honestly, there
might be more requests for setback variances if if uh the city or the I'm sorry, the county is going to take 25 ft across the front. So, that would be that would that would be a whole another discussion if that uh comes to fruition. So, um, uh, we just look forward to hearing your thoughts on what you think
of our proposal and and what we're trying to do here. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Hi, I'm Jackie Daly, um, part owner of Daily Electric. Um, and I also want to go back to the wine bar and coffee shop conversation.
No. Uh so Tom and I uh opened up uh well we we started our business in 2011 but we moved to Newport in I want to say 2018 beginning in 2019 and we've really had a you know we've really enjoyed being here. It's been a great experience. We love how great the city
of Newport has been to work with us and I'm very happy to say that we're kind of bursting at the seams. You know we're growing and we need some more space and we'd really really like to stay here. We've got the open lot there and we're just very excited. We're very excited about this project. Our employees are excited about it. They want to stay
here. So, um we're just hoping that we can move forward with it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hold on one second. Um so, so this proposal for this expansion is 11,787 feet or something like that.
And it's going to all be offices or there's going to be storage too, right? >> No, it'll be a combination office. Office and storage. Yes. Okay. I want to congratulate you on your your business doing so well. That's awesome. >> Will there be a wine up? >> We're very excited.
>> All right. Well, thank you so much, >> Tom Bailey. Um, I just want to say that we do love being in Newport. Love the city hall. Love the sheriff's department being right here. We have never had any issues with vandalism,
theft, anything like that. It's been great. Um, and yeah, knock on wood. Um, and I just like to add that when we bought that property, it was in tough shape. And the neighbors behind us commented that ever since we moved in,
there hasn't been any rip raft coming in and out of there. And they loved what we did to the place. And I hope you all loved what we did to the place. and um and we just like to keep on continuing on. >> Great. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments?
>> Okay, it's 8:00 and I'll close the public hearing. Um commissioners thoughts, >> discussion? >> I have a few. >> Is this guy? So right now it looked like to me when we were going through this that it was
going to be considered office space. Is that easier and better for the dailies to have it be considered office space or is storage better? >> So the the principal use is a
contracting office. So that is basically both. What we have to review for with structures in commercial areas is if they are office uses, we will need a certain
amount of windows on a street frontage. I think that they're proposing I don't I I will also say I don't have a floor plan yet and I'm not sure if they they do either. It might depend on, you know, the ultimate shape of their building, but um when when there is a floor plan, we'll have a better idea for how much
office versus storage there is. Um generally, I think based on the narrative, we were able to get a certain amount of information about square feet. >> So, if it was storage, they wouldn't have to have 40% windows. >> Not necessarily. Um this is a conditional use permit. I'll remind you.
And I think we've been talking a lot about the 21st and 7th Avenue corridors and making sure that developments are really doing a good job at um having really um a pedestrianfriendly
environment and a place that's nice to be driving down and representing Newport. So, I think there's a room for conversation about the 21st Street frontage, but uh to your point, um the code specifically at present has a
requirement for office and retail uses to have 40%. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Can you just go back to what we're proposing like the There you go. Thank you. >> Yeah. So these are just discussion questions and again I'll just remind the
planning commission that this is a advisory uh advisory and feedback here tonight. >> I think it's great. >> Yeah, I think it's great too. I just had a question because you had asked that you wanted us to consider like a variance versus a PUD. Um and that is in
regards to like the acreage. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So I'll go back to the flexibilities that are needed. you know, that's um one of the flexibilities would be for the expansion of the use on a property that's less than an acre in size. Um certainly they're they're
pretty close. They're at 084 acres. They're an existing site. >> I think if you're weighing a variance versus a planned unit development, you're you're trying to consider >> when I if I approve a variance, am I doing it am I doing it the right way? Do we have findings that are realistic? And
I think in this case with like a with the lot area um the city could try to lean on the fact that we have an existing site that's expanding as opposed to a new new site altogether being developed. A planned unit development would be a different approach. The planned unit
development as you know um doesn't have the same bar of review as a variance. You can have a lot more discretion when you approve a PUD. Um, and you can that that's that's a whole process as you know where there's typically some type
of public benefit. Sometimes the public benefit might just be that we have an expanded business >> in in u in exchange for that. It might be um you know we get good facade frontage along 21st Street and uh we give flexibilities like they are
requesting. >> Yeah. >> So that's just how you might consider the merits of each approach. >> Okay. Thank you. and for us to recommend you you'd like us to recommend one or the other. >> I think you know if you have a strong opinion that would just be helpful to
staff as we move this forward u to the city council. I'm sure they'll have thoughts on you know their preferred approach as well. But um just as we're discussing this it it's helpful to us if you if you do have a feeling about that and want to provide a recommendation that would be very helpful. Uh well I
mean a PUD right now as it sits we're saying that you have to have 10 acres for a PUD. I remember that conversation Marv and I when we were on planning commission together talk about that >> but so but we could do a PUD with this small of a
>> the way the city code reads and I can go to that slide too is that we need to have I think I might be going the wrong direction. We need to have a a property that's um if it's less than 10 acres, there has to be a really clear reason that it's um meeting the goals of the
comp plan, >> which there are there do appear to be a couple of goals that you could really lean on and say, "Hey, look, um expanding an existing business really aligns with our goals." And so I think in if you were to um go the PUD route, you could lean on
that. >> I say we go route. I would I would recommend a PUD would just be cleaner, easier, >> correct, >> for everyone all around than a variance. >> Okay. >> I I think >> sure as feedback. >> Yeah.
>> Y >> the commission generally agrees. >> Yes. Yes. >> It's great to see growth. >> How does the commission feel about flexibilities that are being requested here? >> I think they're reasonable. I do too. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I just hope you can talk the county into >> leaving one open. >> Uh >> chair, commissioners, if they uh took that much right away, uh we'd have to redesign city hall and unfortunately maybe the dailies would be nice enough
to allow me to have my office over on their property cuz actually it it takes more office takes away my office. So I mean I I appreciate and we worked very well with the county. Uh I think the county, you know, they have a lot of uh standard uh things that they ask for
during a um you know, when they when they get a concept plan, they want it to be >> the highest bar. We have a great relationship with them. I'm sure we're going to work this out. Uh I want to give the applicants um >> confidence we're going to work it out
and commissioners, we hear you loud and clear. I mean, it's, you know, we got a nice trail across the street and, you know, again, uh, I think, you know, city hall's here, >> uh, and and just with that much, it it does it's it's too close. >> Yeah. Great. So,
>> but, uh, we appreciate it uh, the comments from the county and we'll work through the process. >> Great. Great. If if I may speak, I just a PUD or a variance, would that be recorded against the property at the county level then? >> Either or, I'm assuming. So, um, if the
city approves a variance that goes to the county records office, gets recorded, um, typically like any other type of resolution based approval. Uh, for um, for a PUD, the city would be effectively making a zoning action. And
so, again, that is an ordinance uh, that the city would have permanently on file. So, >> okay. Okay. >> Thank you. I just to clarify, we do not have a preference on on our side. So, >> great. Okay. Any other feedback, commissioners?
>> No. >> Okay. >> I just wish you guys the best of luck. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Appreciate that. >> So then go ahead and All right. Um motion to adjurnn.
>> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> I I Okay.