All right. Good evening. I will now call this meeting to order. Um, our first aine agenda item this evening is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for anyone to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda and not
in an application form that will be coming to the commission at a future date. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the planning commission on an item that is not on the agenda and not in an application that will be coming to the commission at a
future date? Okay. All right. Seeing no one, we will now move on to adopting the final agenda. Commissioners, our next item is to adopt the final agenda. May I have a motion to
adopt the final agenda? >> Make a motion to adopt the final agenda. >> Motion made. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. All right. On
to item 4.1. Our first item is 4.1. Approve planning commission meeting minutes of June 2nd and June 16th, 2026. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Motion made a second.
>> Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? [clears throat] Thank you. We will now move on. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.2, to interim use permit for outdoor dining
at Vixs Bar and Grill. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening this evening that wish to speak on the request.
Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everybody has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the planning commission and city staff will not
engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to community and economic development director Jen Brewington for a staff presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. Uh tonight we do have a public hearing for an interim use permit for an outdoor dining request. Um
I just want to start a little bit by giving you some of the background on the information on the Victoria dining program. Um this is built on the success of the city's eat street program that we had during CO 19. Um the allowed restaurants and cafes to use public
spaces for outdoor dining when the outdoor dining was restricted. The program is designed to support local businesses, activate downtown and create vibrant outdoor spaces um for our local restaurants and residents. And to formalize this program,
our screens just went blank. Okay, >> good. I will continue. Yes. Okay. To formalize this program um and why you're seeing this item tonight is to uh have an interim use permit process which provides the flexibility for allowing
the city to review each request and application and establish any conditions and conduct annual reviews. So Vix Bar and Grill is requesting approval to use four public parking spaces for seasonal outdoor patio dining. Staff has reviewed the proposed
layout including the required barriers and safety measures to ensure it meets public safety ADA accessibility standards. Last year they did go through this process. However, it was an internal review. We did not have a formal process. So this is why we're doing that this year and you're seeing
it so late into the season. Um real quick to an interim use permit or an IUP will allow the property to be used for a temporary purpose that isn't intended to be permanent. Um, the use must comply with the city's zoning and regulations. And the city can establish conditions to ensure it operates safely
and minimizes impacts on surrounding properties. And because it is temporary, the permit expires each year and must be reviewed and renewed, giving the city an opportunity to review the use and address any concerns before allowing any permits. The public hearing process provides any neighborhoods or restaurant
or I'm sorry, residents um or property owners any opportunity to speak to this request and have any conditions or concerns. And with that, I have a sample motion on the screen and I can answer any questions for you. >> Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? >> I do not believe they are here this evening.
>> Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the chamber this evening who wishes to comment on this item? I will ask again if anyone wants to speak on this item this evening. Last call.
Uh, hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for the planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? Jen, my only question is, so it's already set up.
>> Correct. Yes. Thank you for mentioning that, Commissioner. So, we did chat with the council. Dana's been doing her 101, the city managers with the council, and if they would approve this, and because they've had it the last few years, council was okay with it. And of course, if the conditions based on planning commission and council are not what you
would like, they would have to remove that at the at the time. got a question. Uh just in general, if we continue approving these IUPs, at what point do we does it trigger a definitive need to open up the parking
garage question again? I mean, do do we have a sense of that as a planning commission? >> Public outrage comes. >> Yeah, I think it's really up to us. It's more of for us to take a look at the permit that's being submitted and what
is the is it in line with the city code and is it following the process. We can certainly in our recommendation make a recommendation that city council take that up and as further action but I don't think it's a good recommendation to make just to look at it cumulatively. You know, I've got absolutely no qualms
about this at all, but in aggregate, especially as we have the new uh new restaurants and new facilities opening up, we'll see more of these. And I think it's I think it's terrific, but we need to be aware of that bigger cumulative impact.
>> A question for you, Jen. How's the fee set and is it change from year to year? >> Good question, Commissioner. The fees set on our fee schedule that is based every year. We we annually review that and we um did some research and reviewed our market cities and what they were charging. So we went off that and so it
is set for this year and next year. We could go and increase that if we'd like, but that would be something that you would need to discuss um in the next season. [snorts] >> Okay. No further questions. Anyone? >> Not. I'll make a motion to approve the interim use permit for Vicks Bar and
Grill. Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Uh, our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.3, conditional use permit for
Circle K illuminated signs. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three
minutes and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close a public hearing. Please note that the public commission and city staff will not engage in back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I
will now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brierly for a staff presentation. >> Thank [clears throat] you, chair and commission. Uh, as was stated, this is a conditional use permit that's been submitted by Circle K. Currently, the holiday site, Circle K had purchased it. Um, the reason for the request is that
we require condition use permit for any type of illuminated signs within our CBD district, which they're in there. Um, we do have a 60-day window to to have council take action, which would be August 17th of this year. And then we had properly noticed through multiple mediums of the public hearing tonight.
said the location is the current holiday store at 1793 Arburedum Boulevard. There's a bunch of signs that we're looking at, but the primary things to focus on is that it's two canopy signs, two signs identifying the exit and the exit of the car wash, as well as two
signs on the principal structure, one being a smaller totem sign. Um, these are typical signs that you would see at a gas station. Uh, a close example to what we have would be any of the Quick Trips in the area. Basically, they have the same setup for their signs that is
being requested tonight. The one sign that is illuminated is where the gas prices are. That sign currently has a legal non-conforming status and because it's not changing any dimensions or characteristics of the sign, it is not part of the cup request and will have a separate status.
Um, looking at proposed conditions, the same conditions that we looked at with Blue Agave, such as making sure that it doesn't create a hazard, it's not projecting light on the sidewalk or the other areas. If it becomes inoperable, it's replaced or we it gets correct within 30 days, making sure it's not
oscillating or things like that. And then um just making sure overall it complies that when the business is closed, the signs are off. With that, I do have a proposed recommendation or proposed motion in front of you.
>> Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? >> The applicant is not present. >> Perfect. Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? We'll ask again.
Last call. All right. Uh hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Perfect. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
>> Thank you. Motion carries and public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? >> Sorry, I didn't Travis, I didn't get a chance to drive by. Can you refresh me? So, holiday, you said the only illuminated sign is the gas price one right now. It doesn't have it up on the
top. >> No. So, uh, the current holiday site commissioner has various illuminated signs just on the storefront. Um, with this request, that'd be replacing the storefront with a Circle K sign as well as putting two Circle K illuminated
signs on the canopy that exists. And then doing uh illuminated signs for the entrance and the exit of the car wash. These are all backlit halo or back lit signs. Um, so the lights on the inside and it stays on the inside, >> but the holiday doesn't have those ones
is what you're saying. >> The holiday because there's a significant change in in the size dimensions. That's where the cup is triggered. Unlike the sign that has the gas prices, because the dimensions are staying the same and the design is staying the same, it doesn't have anything that would trigger saying it's
a different sign just because you put a different logo on it. So net broadly speaking it's about the same preliminaries that are coming out. >> Yeah. Whether there shouldn't be any uh notice difference. If there is uh the condition permit would address that and
staff would uh investigate to find out there's a violation or not. >> Any other questions? All right. Commissioners hearing no more discussion. I will ask for a motion. Make a motion to recommend the approval of conditional use permit to the city
council permitting illuminated wall signs for the Circle K project. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item
for discussion tonight is item 4.4, conditional use permit for Victoria Orthodontics Illuminated Signs. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who
wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close public hearing. Please note that the planning commission and city staff will not engage in a back and forth
discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brierly for a staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair and commission. Um, this is another conditional use permit for an illuminated sign with inside our CBD district. This is a for a backlit
halo design sign, which is the same style that we saw for Blue Agave just a month ago. Um, like I said, there's a 60-day clock on this which expires on August 17th for the city to take an action as well as making sure that the public notice went out properly.
Location is 79 Rose Street, also known as the Row building. If you look where the uh red star is, that is just behind where the Blue Agave restaurant is. The proposed sign is going to be facing Highway 5. I said it's a backlit sign.
Um it meets all interdimensional standards that we require with inside the city code. The conditions that are being proposed are the same as for blue agave as well as for the circle K that we went through. Um and then yeah there's I have a proposed motion in
front. Uh any questions? >> Perfect. Uh thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? >> And the applicant is not here as well. >> Yeah. Uh thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item
for a second time? Third. Last call. All right. Um hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? >> It sounds pretty standard. Uh, commissioners, hearing no more
discussion, I'll ask for a motion. >> Motion to recommend the approval of conditional use per permit to the city council permitting eliminated wall signs at 7980 Arbreedom Boulevard for Victoria Orthodontics. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.5, a zoning text amendment request. Front yard fence heights non-residential streets. After a staff presentation, I
will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity.
Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note that the planning commission and city staff will not engage in back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brierly for a staff presentation.
>> Thank you, chair and commission. Um tonight there are actually going to be three zoning text amendments being brought forward. They I do want to point out they are similar in the request. Um I would ask that we stay focused just on what's being presented um for that specific request.
So the zone the first one that we're looking at uh is looking at fence height and front yards which currently sits at a maximum of four feet by the city code. Uh that code was recently adopted back in the fall of 2024. Um the request is that the fence in a front yard be
allowed to be six feet when it meets um two or one of two conditions. It's either adjacent to a public or private rightway other than a residential street which basically residential street is a street that's in front of your house and neighborhood. Everything else is generally classified differently. Um or
it's adjacent to a residential street where there's no driveways between intersections. that's commonly found at the beginning of uh developments or going into subdivisions. So, the proposed language tonight would be uh adding some uh some exemption language to 18-9
uh which would state those two things allowing for fence to be up to six feet if it meets one or both of those conditions. The total effect is um properties will be generally affected uh where they're on the edge of new developments, so they're backed up or they have two or
three front yards. A lot of times you see that and it does limit the ability to put up privacy fencing and things like that. This request is is only for the fence height. It has nothing to do with any other conditions with inside the fence code. This is specific just to the fence height. Um and as a reminder,
minimum in uh intersection sighteline distances. So the safety of your intersection when you're walking or driving um are not exempted by anything being presented tonight. As we pointed out, there's just a couple examples of what this would be currently. If you look on the left side
of the screen where you have the yellow, that is our current ordinance where you could put a 6-ft fence on the property. And this one specific is at a gate and at obsidian. By definition, in the code, a front yard is the distance between or
the area between the principal structure, in this case, the house, and a street. So, this property would have three front yards. What's what would be requested is uh or what's being requested would allow for a sixoot fence to be placed in the orange area underneath. There is a setback in there
from the trail. That's would not be exempted. I just put that in there to point out that that rule still has to apply. Um but this would allow for more privacy for what uh the homeowner would consider their backyard or their sideyards. Um in addition to that, this has another effect along uh Coachia.
Just to keep an example in the area, you have properties of a front and a rear yard or [clears throat] what you'd consider a rear yard, but by definition it's still a front yard. So along Coochia, you would be restricted to a 4ft fence. This would allow those residents along Coochia that back up to
Coochia to have a 6ft fence, which helps with sound, noise, light, and some privacy. >> Um, with that, I stand for any questions. >> Thank you. Uh does the applicant wish to speak?
>> Yeah, I submitted some some notes. Um largely the biggest things were already mentioned by Travis, but I would just say um >> would you please state your name? >> Oh, Jordan Portius. Yeah, >> thank you. >> Yeah. Um, in terms of what was submitted and kind of what Travis shared is we
believe for the the generalization of our neighborhood, the layout, the other homes to be consistent with everything and also the safety and privacy of our family, we feel that that the sixoot fence would just be most appropriate in the situation given it wouldn't interfere with any of the lines of sight for traffic or kind of any of the other
general um visual characteristics of the neighborhood. So, >> yeah, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? Asking a second time.
Last call. All right. Hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Seconded. >> Second. All those in favor? >> Any opposed?
Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? Travis, this might get answered later because there's, like you said, a bunch of these are related, but is there a reason we're taking an approach of
adding an exemption versus redefining what the front yard is? >> Commissioner, that's an excellent question. The purpose of doing a request compared to going through the code and looking at it is because of the number of properties affected. By putting an exemption, we'd limit that number of
properties. When we look at overall the properties that'll be affected by this, you're talking maybe a couple dozen throughout the entire city that would meet these criteria. A lot of times outlaws get put between new development and county roads. So therefore, they're not adjacent to a road. Therefore, that
is by definition a rear yard. In these cases, these type of properties are adjacent to a minor collector street. Um, and therefore, it is considered a front yard. So, it's by it's by the limited scope of the properties affected that by doing an overall change, you
could have inherent effects that aren't necessarily viewed yet or examined yet. It could create problems. But I guess that's my concern is right now [clears throat] you're adding an exemption just for fences. If instead we took the approach of redefining what a front versus a backyard is, you put the exemption
there, would that not allow for this and potentially other things? Because like what's going to prevent from the next one coming then we have an exemption in four different spots of the code versus just redefining, you know, you put the exemption in backyard or whatever. I I don't I don't know the technicals. You
have to talk to lawyers. But >> commission, if we look at doing definitional changes to what we define a front yard and a backyard and a rear yard, which is something staff has done, and we brought forward last year to the planning commission to take a look at, uh, it was over a year ago, so it's been a while, but uh, but even underneath our
current code, if we change those type of definitions too much, we start getting affected by properties that different types of roads, especially any of our lakeshore properties. those properties technically have two front yards uh as well because the lakeside counts as a front yard and then they're adjacent to
a road so they get a front yard. So if we expand the def different definitions too much, uh we could have unintended consequences with different parts of the zoning code, especially look at accessory structures. We look at any type of our our shoreland ordinances,
bluff ordinances also get mixed into that. We're going to be able to put a pool, different way you can set your driveway up. We we would have to look at all those different types of potential impacts. Um, and there's just there's so many of them that I think that it would be um the juice isn't worth the squeeze
in my opinion on that. >> No, that's fine. As long as you guys explored which version to go down. >> How does our definition compared to other cities and municipalities? >> Commissioner, our definition is the same as just about everybody else. There's very very small differences between
communities. Uh, in a general sense, a front yard is considered the distance between the face of the principal structure or the attached accessory structure. So, an attached garage between that and the right of way. Your rear yard is considered the opposite adjacent of that. And then your
sideyards are the areas that are in between the front and defined rear yard. In these cases, when you have properties that [snorts] have multiple front yards being directly adjacent to multiple streets, um, which is generally two or three, uh, what happens is that there's language in there that defines where
that is and it defines all those to be front yards. Travis, does somebody keep track of all the exemptions that are made or the amendments that are approved by the commission? And then can you query that to see how many other people have
requested something similar? >> Uh, commissioner, we don't have like a spreadsheet that lists off every request that's been submitted. When a request gets submitted, we bring it to the planning commission for public hearing. That recommendation is taken to the city council. This request is to change the
ordinance. So it goes into there and then we can we have a history in within our ordinance it says that it was modified on on certain dates or or in this case with a certain resol or ordinance and using MUN code which is our current provider for ordinance you
can actually click on that you can see the red line change that came so you can research a history but we don't have anything where just you can query it at this point >> that makes sense thanks >> Travis in the event that the this recommendation
what that the recommendation doesn't go forward. Would the commission be tasked then with dealing with variance requests from every homeowner in a similar situation who wants to put up a fence? >> Commissioner, if the city council chose to deny any requests that came through
or make a different decision than what was recommended planning commission, that's well within the city council's right. it would be up to them at that point to determine if they want to direct the planning commission to perform an investigation. As far as a variance is concerned, this uh a
variance for this type of request would uh be recommended for denial as it doesn't meet the practical difficulties test specifically apply to the owner because this was a condition of the property and of the ordinance at the time of the purchase of the property. Whether the applicant knew it or not, it still existed. So, it wouldn't meet the
statutory requirements for a variance. Any other questions? Commissioners hearing no more discussion. I will ask for a motion. >> Make a motion that the city council approve the zoning text amendment request
as stated here. So, I'm going to read all that. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.6, a zoning text amendment request front yard fence height county
roads. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask the next individual to speak until everyone has had an opportunity.
Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close public hearing. Please note that the planning commission and city staff will now engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brierly for a staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair, commission. Uh this is
a very similar request that's coming forward. It this is specific to allowing for sixoot fence law of long county road. um staff looked at it and had a discussion to how [snorts] that would work and uh we looked at a 40 mph minimum speed limit to it for this type
of exemption. This would be another exemption. Um this is a a zoning tax amendment. It does have a an expiration date which the city needs to act which is August 17th. Um, in here as far as the exemption, it would be fences in front yards adjacent to a county road with the speed limit no less than 40
miles an hour shall be permitted a maximum uh fence height of six feet. Um, the total effect on that is this is only properties directly adjacent. So, if there's not lot that falls under a different category, um, it there can be
some uh some concerns in there, but they would fall under their current ordinances and wouldn't be affected by this. Um the biggest thing that we look at is the speed limit requirement and that way we can limit the the scope of this amendment to the specific request. Um this is only to change the height
from 4T to 6 feet in the front yard and sighteline distances again are not exempted from this. So the proposed request is everywhere that's on red on on the screen in front of you. Those are all the county roads where the speed limit is at least 40 miles an hour and
where uh it it properties are adjacent to it. The overall effect for the number of properties that we're looking at is less than two dozen and a lot of those are commercial properties. As far as residential properties are concerned, you're looking at a half dozen to a dozen residential properties which would
meet the qualification um for this exemption. Um and with that I stand for any questions. >> Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? >> Yes. >> Please come to the podium and state your name.
Hi, I'm Nick Tibasar. This is my wife Lindsay. Uh we live at 612 Lyman Boulevard. So, formerly 612 West 82nd Street, the road that just got paved last year. So, uh in the last year, our property went from getting maybe 50 to
100 cars to uh thousands of cars. So, it has led to uh a need for us to get a fence for safety, noise pollution, uh sanity retention um out there with everything happening. So, the the
request is for a six-foot fence um to be erected on our property. So, we've got an acre and a half. We're significantly set off of the road. We're looking for some uh protection and relief from the massive amount of traffic that we're seeing now and the additional traffic
we're going to be seeing next year when five is closed in earnest. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Perfect. Thank you. Um I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in
chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? Going once, going twice. All right. Uh, hearing no additional public input. Commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion to close the public hearing.
>> Seconded. >> All those in favor? >> All right. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will now open the floor for planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions
or comments? >> I have a question on the 40 mile per hour speed limit um kind of exemption. What what analysis was done to arrive at that? >> Uh commissioner, we had taken a look at different speed limits on the county roads throughout the city. Uh the county road speed limits vary from 35 miles an
hour all the way up to 55 miles an hour. And looking at the type of neighborhoods that are or directly adjacent to those type of speed limits, the 35 mph zone is your zone from County Road 43, the stop light on Victoria Drive to Highway 5. Uh
that neighborhood is a traditional neighborhood. Uh so looking at keeping traditional rules in place um was one of the key objectives. The other areas with high speed have either larger parcels or have an outlot separating them. So, um,
with any type of zoning text amendment request, we try to keep the request specific to what the applicant is looking for in the end result, uh, while looking at mitigating any potential adverse effects that are caused by expanding the scope of that.
>> So, we could see future requests for to reduce that exemption to 35 miles hour. Absolutely. Absolutely, Commissioner. And those requests would go through the same process and be up to the city council ultimately to determine. >> Isn't Highway five would that be covered
in this? >> Highway five is a state highway commissioner. >> So this is only going to be county highways. >> Correct. >> Over 40 miles hour. Or 40 or greater. Yeah. Over. Sorry. 40 or greater.
is um is Marsh Lake Road. Is that a county highway? >> Uh yeah. >> Yes. I apologize. Uh that line should have been spaced a little further up because that's a 45 zone. >> Uh portions I think are
>> Yeah, I think some drop to 35. >> I think it's 35 part of it. It's but I can't remember where it turns 45 to 35. I just I just mentioned it because I think that's a that's in a future growth area, right? That might just be worth noting. >> Yeah. One um one comment I would have on that is the neighborhoods are generally separated by an outlot.
>> Okay. So that would >> they wouldn't necessarily be affected. There's a hand there's a couple properties that could be but your your larger development especially around Kelzer Ponder there's out separating >> and the one I was thinking about is like the corner where Marsh Lake like right where Marshall Lake is there's that new
development that's getting finished. I can't remember what it's called. Something of Marsh Lake. >> I apologize, Mr. Marsh Lake is actually a city road. County 10 is down at the bottom. >> Okay. I couldn't remember if Marsh Lake was or not. Yeah, >> that that's all right either. Uh I
stumbled, too. So, >> no, it's it's okay. I was just wondering if >> I would imagine those those new homes going in. I think that culde-sacs getting finished. I can't remember what's that the hollows of Marshall Lake. Anyone remember what it's called? I don't remember. Yeah, but that like last four are getting built there.
So, would they be able to put fences in? So, I would think they'd want to. I just want to make sure they would be able to. >> That's uh that would be an example behind that u behind those properties. They're not actually adjacent to the county road. There's an outlot that would be separating that development from the rightway for the county or for
county 43 going through there. >> So then by the current law, it wouldn't matter. They would put a put in sixfooters. >> Correct. They would not be affected by this request. >> Got it. Commissioners, uh, any other discussions or questions?
>> You go back to that map. Sorry. Rolling isn't rolling acres up there is that rolling acres >> that would be separated from outlots too right? um the the larger developments are um but there are single family homes that
are that have direct access like the properties on Rolling Bluff or when you look at Swiss Mountain there's an outlot that separates uh those spaces >> so they would still be able to put in six foots >> right they would not be affected by it >> okay okay I'm just trying to make sure we don't like adversely
>> do the opposite for somebody that like you know [snorts] I would make a motion to recommend the city approve the zoning text amendment as stated here. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Our next item for discussion tonight is item 4.7, zoning text amendment request for yard fence heights driveway gates. After a staff presentation, I will give the applicant an opportunity to speak and then I will open the public hearing
for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request. Anyone who wishes to speak will be allowed three minutes and then I will kindly ask for the next individual to speak until anyone has until everyone has had an opportunity. Then I will ask our planning commission for a motion to close the public hearing. Please note
that the planning commission and city staff will not engage in a back and forth discussion during the public hearing. I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis Brierley for staff presentation. >> Thank you, chair, commission. Uh, another or our last zoning tax amendment request of the night. Um, this is for a
gate when it crosses a driveway. So, very specific crossing the driveway and being a gate to go to six feet. Um, this request has the same expiration or same 60-day date on it being August 17th. And we did do a vast notice for it as well.
What we're looking at is this is also an exempt language uh where it says that fences or fence gates and post when crossing a driveway shall be permitted to a maximum height of six feet when crossing the driveway plus 4 feet on both sides. So you're able to put the
fence in or put the your posts in and still get a gate across. Um the purpose of this request is is mainly for privacy um going in because what happens is you can put a 4ft fence currently but then you can put arbor vites or other type of vegetation as tall as you want but then
when you get to the driveway you shrink back down to that 4T. Um so that's primarily it's coming from this does affect every residential property throughout the city because every property would be qualified to be able to put that gate in. Um the reality is that it would it wouldn't be in our
newer subdivisions because you do have uh your newer traditional subdivisions. A lot of them have HOAs and would likely restrict this. However, it would be something permitted unless restricted at a lower level. Um this is only to exempt for the gate portion to be from maximum
4T to six feet. The reason that I keep saying gate is because gates are included within the definition of fences. It's inherently included. This would separate gates out from that to be regulated separately than the fence itself. Uh again, this also doesn't um it still
needs to meet all the other parts of the code. Uh this is just the proposed example. I do want to point out this is not an application. This is for illustrative purposes only. Um but what's being uh when we look at this, we're looking at a six foot high gate with sixoot pillars on both sides. Um,
and then on top, if those are ornamental pieces to be added to the post, that count towards the height. If they're lights, they don't because that's for a different thing. But you get much more privacy off a sixft fence or a sixft gate than you would off a 4ft gate when crossing the property. Um, with that, I
stand for any questions. >> Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? >> And the applicant is not here tonight. >> Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in chambers this evening who wishes to comment on this item? All right, seeing as there's no one in
the audience, uh, hearing no additional public input, commissioners, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Motion to close public hearing. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> Any opposed? Thank you. Motion carries and the public hearing is closed. I will
now open the floor to planning commission to discuss. Commissioners, any questions or comments? I guess I guess another question I had Travis was about the lights not counting in the height and is there any um limits to light height of light in residential
areas? >> Uh that that is an excellent question. There is not um that depends on what the light is mounted to. If it's mounted to a home, it's regulated by the home height. If it if it's mounted to a fence, it's it's all comes down to a lot of the design stuff. The reason I point
out the difference from ornamental because ornamental is part of the actual structure and a light is an attachment to it. But the light would still have to meet different requirements including light pollution as well as not creating any type of hazards especially if it's attached to a fence, a home, pole, put
it up in a tree, it wouldn't matter. Travis, have we done any has the city done any studies on uh visibility impacts for either traffic or pedestrians regarding, you know, which way the gates can swing in, out in
required versus out and blocking motorist traffic or other things like that? >> Uh, Commissioner, that's an excellent question. There's no official study that's been done. However, we have taken an approach of establishing intersect sighteline distances. And those sight line distances are basically saying when you pull up to an intersection from
where you're sitting as a driver in the car, you need to see x amount of feet down the uh perpendicular road you're turning onto. And that distance is determined by the speed of the road that you're turning onto. Um MDOT has a standard that works with that. uh that is something we review when we look at
anything that especially at intersections and we consult with the city engineer uh to confirm that information as well. So is there a study done? No, it's all done on case by case basis but it is something that we do follow and try and make sure that there's that safety component put in
place. >> Is there any requirement to match the aesthetics or materials to the adjacent fencing or the primary structure like that? >> The So that's an excellent question. the uh you are allowed underneath. There's
first amendment concerns that come up when we start talking about design. Um our standard is the defense has to be one continuous color or design. So a gate would still need to be able to meet that. There would still be some freedom in there to do some expression, but you
wouldn't be able to go from having say a purple fence and then putting in a bright orange gate just because you like the Vikings. Then you're separating two colors and stuff like that. Commissioners hearing no more discussion. I will ask for >> one more question. Are there any uh
Travis are there any requirements around the in this for gate placement either setback from road or sidewalks pedestrian walkways >> already? Does that already exist somewhere? >> Yeah. >> Uh commissioner that's a good question.
Yes, that already does exist. So, this pres pro provides for an exemption for the gate specifically itself. The gate is still part of a fence. Therefore, the fence setbacks all are still need to be met. So, every other requirement that we would see for any fence would still need to be there.
>> Perfect. Thank you. What is the setback from a sidewalk >> from a from a sidewalk at six and a half ft? >> Okay, great. >> No other questions for me. >> One more. Sorry. Is that setback applied to the operation of the gate if it was when it opens?
>> So the operation of the gate, what we would look at is we would look at if the gate is going to swing open and block the sidewalk. The main reason for the setback is for snow storage. >> So because when you plow a road, the boulevard area between the sidewalk and
the road, that's where you put the snow from the road. And then you still need a spot to put the snow from the sidewalk or the trail. But any design that would come to staff where the gate would swing open if it goes over sidewalk at that point is creating a hazard and at that point we would deny the application. But
>> sorry Trevor, can you clarify something? So this says county road speed limit of 40, but if you go back two slides, you said it affects everybody. >> Oh, I I apologize. That is the wrong slide. Sorry. Um that that's the wrong slide
for for this. >> Okay. The proposed motion is incorrect for this. >> I just wanted to make sure that Thanks. So, this this does not have the same county road limitation that the previous one. >> This is this is all residential properties. >> Okay.
>> And I guess I'll make a motion see if I can do this uh to amend to allow um front yard fences for the six feet as written on whatever slide number this is 27.
City council should adopt that. Probably the worst recommendation I've made. botched it. >> Second. >> All right, there we go. Someone understood. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? >> All right. Thank you. Motion carries.
Uh, thank you. We will move on to the miscellaneous section of our agenda. Any reports from staff? >> Uh, chair and commission, there are no reports from staff and no updates to provide at this time. >> Okay. Uh, commissioners, there are no
more items this evening. Um, oh, sorry. Any reports from commission? >> Jen, you're here. We got to ask, how's it looking filling those retail spaces? >> Yes, commissioners. Um, Blue Agave is going to be opening uh July 13th. Is
their soft opening, which is exciting. Um, Harlland's is hopeful, uh, the end of July as well. Um, as you're aware, we have a new orthodontics coming to town. Um, and we've got some movement on a few other spaces that I cannot share quite yet. Um, but I will tell you that
downtown west tenants will be announced quickly um in the next few weeks here which is really exciting. So hopefully that will um create more excitement on some of those vacant spaces that we have right now. >> And I I missed the meeting so this might have been covered. I apologize. The DQ was purchased
>> correct. >> Is there has that already been started in terms of what the development will look like? >> So they have gone through sketchplat and we are working with the development team right now. the same group that's doing the downtown west um same project group and working with design right now and what that looks like on two fast casual
um drive-thru buildings right now. Um we're not confirmed on the tenants, but we've got some LOIs that hopefully will be signed in the next few weeks. So um yep, it's been purchased. It will be part of the downtown west development. It just will be phased a little bit differently. >> And then I had someone ask me one
another question and I I don't think I asked you guys this. So, in that downtown west, there's like already a small building that's just north of the daycare. What What is that? >> Yes, commissioners. That is a sales center for the condos that are going to be built. So, basically, it is a faux condo building. So, it's going to be
built out to look like you're walking into a condo. Um, in the condo market, you have to sell a certain percentage or you have to lease a certain percentage of them before you can actually get financing. And so their hope is to be able to bring people into that space, showcase what a condo may look like, and then hopefully get those folks to
purchase. Um, it will be open, I think, to city council at the end of July. We're going to be doing a tour. Um, so I could ask if if they'd let the public in there or not, but I'm sure you'd be able to walk in there if you'd like. >> And then does that building eventually go away? It's like part of this future phases to get built. Got it.
>> Yeah, correct. It should be there for about two years is our plan. Um, and then we've been told that they are going to donate to donate it to the city. We're not sure what we'll do with that space yet, but we're kind of working internally on what we could utilize that space for. >> Cool. Thank you. >> Perfect. Anything else from
commissioners? All right, commissioners. There are no more items this evening. Can I ask for a motion to adjourn? >> Make a motion to adjourn the planning commission meeting. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion
carries. We are adjourned.