This conference will now be recorded. Make four or five or there's no fence. So you have to basic time of the meeting 5:30. We'll call it the order. The first item of the agenda is the is the agenda. Are there any
additions or changes to the agenda? Uh none from staff, sir. We have a motion to approve the agenda. I make the motion. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor of approving agenda
say I. I. Motion carries 500. Okay. minutes in the last meeting. I move to approve the minutes as is. Second. I'll second. Seconded. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of
approving the minutes as printed say I. I. Post say nay. Motion carries. 50 to the schedule for the public hearing. So, what would you pledge? Should we check into the old business item first? Uh, we can, although that may take a little bit
longer. So, if you want to, we could start early and I can introduce the topic. Right. Let's just review the topic and then we'll open the hearing. Sounds good to me. So, Adam and Jennifer McKini who are here in attendance tonight, uh, they are seeking to reszone
their parcel at 10 Jefferson Drive. They're currently located in industrial 2 and they would like to move into residential. They are a residential house. Um, so they currently pay into industrial 2 taxes and we would like to move them somewhere more suitable. Um,
and staff-wise, we want to put them in residential 2 since that's the closest adjacent zone to them. um since they're kind of on that township line um that the closest residential zone is residential too. So we feel as though that's the most suitable for them um and
we are opening the public hearing tonight and so we can have public input and your consideration to move to council to clarify between residential two and residential one. It's minimal. It's there's really no suitable
differences other than maybe like setbacks and things like that and their property is a little bit unique anyway. So, we're just kind of putting it somewhere where it's closest to where we've already zoned other properties. Um, so it's a little bit cleaner mostly
in my eyes to be honest with you, but sometime Yeah, about time scheduled. So call the public hear the hearing open for public comments. Would you like to say anything in regards to uh my wife and I acquired
the property in 2020 and um as discussed we didn't know that it was industrial too and with increasing taxes and cost of everything um we found out that it was industrial too and for monetary reasons and livability we would like to
uh drop our our taxes and um to our understanding the biggest difference between um industrial two and then it was residential one. I'll be interested to know what residential two is is amount of buildings, size of buildings and then what you can do inside those
buildings and we have no interest in uh turning our property to a business that would require such buildings. So being that it is a residential house that is the reason that we would like to turn the uh have this switched.
It was. Yes. To add on to it as well. I don't I honestly don't know why I was in Industrial 2 in the first place because I have a copy of our ordinance here, but from industrial 2, there's no permitted use for residential zoning whatsoever um
in industrial. So, I don't know. I think it was maybe just grandfathered in. I It should have been in commercial if it was in commercial use, but now it's no longer. So, doesn't really make any logical sense. And in my eyes and staff eyes, it makes a lot more sense to have
them in a residential zone. Comments for the public. We'll call the public hearing closed and open for discussion for the committee members. Sounds logical to me. I guess one question. How many buildings besides the
house are on the property? There is. Um, so yours every structure that is not the house is right. Right. Uh, there's one, two, three, four, five, and then six for the gazebo. No, the gazebo. I
don't think the gazebo would count, but gazebo wouldn't count. Okay. So, it's the barn. Yep. The coupe. Yep. The um gray gray one. And then the old and the detached
garage. I already said that. Oh, the detached garage. I see. Okay. Okay. I guess is this going to come in conflict with like what we had on that human property with the number of other buildings? Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Exactly.
How many how many other buildings there? Over an acre and a quarter. We changed it to three, I believe, wasn't or what was it? That's a good question. Um, I do not know the answer. They don't have that or here with an acre. Couldn't they have four? No. I can't remember what it
I think that's what it was. We are 4.2 acres. Okay. And and how many buildings again? Five. Five. Okay. So, you could take it down to four then. Yep. Now, this zone that we put them in could
change, too. Um, we haven't decided. That could be something that we discuss as well. So that could still change and we could have council talk about that as well. But so it's not set in stone yet. That was more of a staff comment on my end. Just saying put them in a adjacent
zoning. So we can still change that to make it but I think R1 would be more restrictive in that that number of buildings and two ways. Yeah. And as far as I know, I don't know exactly what that would look like. I think the only thing we have is like maximum site
coverage and we had another property that had five six buildings and they wanted to build another one. Have you seen the new Have you seen the new garage? Sorry. But have you seen this new garage? Because of that we changed the ordinance because it used to be just
two buildings in addition to the house and then by sides of the lot we changed it to more and I don't remember what the number Okay, that's good to know because I wasn't aware of that. Yeah, we had talked about four buildings on one acre then.
Yeah, one would be okay there. Any other thoughts or concerns about this? The neighbors expanding at all the Comcast or there any would this make any difference as far as the other businesses next door want to expand? As
far as I know, no. Currently, I believe Comcast has a uh they do have a site plan to redevelop what they're working on right now. I don't know exactly what they're doing, but they haven't approached you and they we we don't have any concerns right now of them trying to Well, I was
thinking setbacks from the industrial too if they did resone or re redevelop it. Yeah, we'll have to watch that. Yep. Did it go through the council? They said four buildings on one acre. I mean, is that passed? And whatever we said it was passed, but I don't remember what it
was. Okay. I I don't know. No, I think we moved it up to four after the Schuman deal. I was thinking also, but that's why I can't remember. Was there any other question to discussion on this?
What is the difference? one and two. Why would you do one versus two? Well, it's more of a matter of like the type of housing that goes in there. So, it's it's usually like the differences. So, like R3 is multifamily housing. So, it's
like you one to eight people, one to eight families on an acre kind of lots. Um, and residential one is a little bit more spaced out. So, it's basically just how large your lots are, how big the houses are, what type of housing is going in there. And there's our zoning is a little bit weird and we were
talking about this earlier is that like there's just a lot of differences and discrepancies between the two and so I don't know how much it matters a ton. Um they all kind of blend together in this different ways. It's just more of sectioning them off so we know what's going where. So like we're not putting
an apartment building right next to you know large lots of acreage and whatnot. Is it a big tax too? It's mostly on the value of the home that we do it based off and it the differences are going to be largely between commercial and industrial. Yeah. Um compared to just
residential regular housing. My understanding R1 is 1.25. R2 is uh not off the top of my head. No. I would have to look and see. And this number can change here. I can pull it up as well. I don't have a
problem resoning something to something that there were already too many buildings in there. Yeah, that don't that I mean then then all a sudden we got to come back. Does it matter though? He's they've got four acres versus the one versus three is a three four
billions per acre or anything. If it was a 1acre lot, then they could have four buildings. Yeah. Right. It had to be It had to be one acre. I mean, minimum, right? That's why I was incremental. It was two buildings or three buildings or
Yeah. The smaller the less buildings, right? Foolish not having checked that. I have nothing in here but want to have a motion that we can put a recommendation to the city council. Okay, floor is open for a motion.
City council. Recommend approving it. Second move second to recommend approving this zoning change to the city council. Is there any other discussion and then you will remove one building? You'll be down to four. That's what's required.
I know you can't have five. Yeah. Well, we'll have that more information when it comes to council, too. So, that'll come into their discussion. To add, I will also speak with our attorney to make sure that we're doing it correctly and put it in the right spot. So, moved and seconded to uh recommend
the city council approving the zoning change. All those in favor say I. Post say nay. Abstain. That would be me. Okay. series 501 or 501 to be proper. Okay. Thank
you. Will that will that go to council tomorrow or Thursday night? It will be on council Thursday night as well. I'm sticking it on the agenda tomorrow. So, I'll have this on council agenda for Thursday. Yep. I'll try to contact you. Thank you so much. Yep.
Okay. The next step, the bold business is a reconsideration of a uh variance for the uh Okay, the city council suggested that we reconsider the variance request and this was uh the fact that we
had already reduced the setbacks to 30 feet from 35 and now they want to go to 25 on this parcel. Yep. Uh same same variance as we considered before last month that they're looking to build a new home at
868 Golf View Avenue. They're calling in they're calling for a coverage in ports to be placed in the rear yard. It'll encroach the setback by 5T. You previously amended it from 35 to 30. Um and we went to public hearing on April 8th and planning commission recommended
denying it. uh city council directed us to reconsider it for a few reasons. One of them being that Councilman Rash was unable to attend and so it would have been a split vote is what they were anticipating and the city attorney recommended that you don't take action
on a variance if it's going to be a split vote. Um and then secondly, one of the council members mentioned that potentially there might be an issue because the property has a slope and that that could be a unique hardship for them and so that legally speaking we may not be able to deny a variance in that
case. However, it's still you know up for consideration is still your choice. Whether council decides how much of a how much is a slope to do with it? I it would be that the property is unique enough or that the way it's it would be
built is on a slope. That was just his two cents couldn't be re situated or could it be could they I I spoke with the developer and of like the house is not built yet so they can still change plans and his thinking was
that we should probably just change the plans but um that's not what the property owner wanted to do. he wants to go through this route and get through this. Whether or not it ends up happening or not is ultimately your choice. Um, but it was just one thing
that council member uh Mson raised was just like potentially because of that it could be considered a hard if you were to press it potentially be considered a hardship if it was because the property would be unique in the sense that you
have to encroach into the setback. You know, it's not really my interpretation. Is this a walk out in the back house? Um, I don't really know for sure. Um, I mean, yeah, the only thing you can do is a
walk out on it. And I don't know what the slope would change. I think if anything if you're measuring on a slope if they measure it this way they're going to have a longer distance than if they measured it flat anyway which and the slope is they cheat it even more I don't know at the last meeting I said at what
point do we say enough is enough right yeah because I know some will say to me says well that's he's a developer and he might not come and build houses and it's like well you know it' been different to me if it was he was asking from 35 to 30 like we
already changed it would now. Mhm. I mean you can make the house 5 foot smaller. Oh, I'm I'm looking at is this a five foot table or is this a sixft table? Six. So it would be five. Okay. So this is it's not like in my mind it's
not that big of a deal. But I understand where you're coming from. I understand you know can't keep moving it. Um, but why did the city bring it back then? I mean, they they have the power to overrule whatever we decide. Yes. But
they they were because you were unfortunately absent. They would have been a split vote is kind of what was seeming Yeah. They were seeming to be going that direction and the city attorney recommended that we shouldn't do that because then it kind of just
goes nowhere. Um, so they it was mostly so they could send it back. They're just delaying tactic kind of. Yeah. And it was just more so maybe we protect ourselves from liability if that were to happen. Um since there was no like resolution finding a fact that was able
to be passed or not. And then our 60-day limit also ended as well. So I had to extend that with the developer anyways to make sure that if we would have passed that and that didn't happen and we didn't vote on it, it would have been automatically approved by state law. So
it's up in if it's an elevated on a slope, if you're encroaching five feet, that's going to look like even more of an encroachment because it is up so high. You know, if they've got that deck level with the house. Yeah. And so it's going to look even worse than it might otherwise. Right. And to be honest with
you, I don't even know how large that slope is. I don't know what it looks like. And I know obviously it butts the golf course, so it might come down into the golf course, but I don't know what that looks like. And I don't know really how significant that is compared to another property that might be on a hill. Let's say there's two houses on
each side of this empty lot that are already I think they know which side it is already built. I'm sure they have the proper setbacks. That's a picture up here on the screen. I'm assuming they have the proper setbacks. I don't think it'd be right.
my my opinion that people I don't know the numbers off my what's the picture show doesn't really show it is pretty sloped if I'm not mistaken but that did not come up with they did
not present it that way to us right presented that way to us and in our plans we didn't see anything that way um to me like I say I think the slope would make it more otherwise but the other ones next to it are sloppy
too correct so I don't see that as real unique to this parcel the issue is also that it would have to pass our you know unique hardship test anyway and one of them is that we can't take economic considerations into factor and so the
fact that the house isn't even built is you know one of the ch one thing I would consider or a unique hardship is if the house is already built. So like when we talked about Arlland Olsen's, the house has been built for decades and has been there for a long time. So it's a unique
property because it was grandfathered into all these laws and these ordinances, but this is brand new, so it could still be changed. And the developer even said that himself as well. So just a question, if you're an architect, so five feet in a room, you
know, is a big deal cutting that out. Five feet on a golf course on a porch on a porch isn't that big of a deal visually. It makes a big difference interior wise to change plans that much. Is that expensive? Is it is it is that
the hardship? I mean, you know, I'm thinking as a homeowner, too, the visual on 5t on a piece of land isn't that big of a deal in your house. As a builder, if the builder wasn't too worried about it, I guess that's a larger developer anyway. So, he
wasn't too concerned to be honest with you. He said he's been working with him for a while now. And he he recommended not going this route, but um the owner just wanted to try. What route? With a variance. The developer did. Developer did, but
the owner I spoke with him uh like about two weeks ago. He came in and I chatted with him a little bit. It's probably to do the extension for the 60-day rule as well. So the proper course of action for us would be that we we we reconsidered it
and I guess we would take another vote to uh enforce or reinstate what our position might be. So the floor would be open for a motion. We did LA and I said this last time we did reduce it once by five feet
and if we do it again what's going to happen next time right I think the discussion kind of leads one way here so we just need a motion about so I understand too if it if it goes into effect then it's good for everybody that wants a variance that it's a 25 ft
variance then or is it condition to the properties it doesn't change the ordinance this is just this is a particular one just that just for because it's unique to the but if there were others however it would have to pass all the criteria to be granted a
var. So it has to meet all of all of what we've talked about basically. So like if one of these things is not unique to the property or a plate of the land owner then it shouldn't be granted legally speaking.
SL next door. I guess I have a hard time of saying it's unique to this particular parcel. So, what did the lawyer say about that with this criteria? He didn't make a recommendation from what I'm remembering, but I think that the staff
recommendation has been denial of this variance because of what our previous actions have already done and that the house isn't built. It would be different if the house was already built and then maybe they wanted to add on this porch and say, "Well, because my lot is
sloped, can I get a variant so I can move in five more feet?" That might be different. Yeah. Under our recommendation, they had built already the house. It's on the or the back of that cult. They had built it with an enclosed porch and
they were too close and they made I remember right you could have you could have a roof over your deck and be that close to the property line but they had it as a room and they had it I think they had to take the walls down. Yep.
And one reason for this encroachment is because it is a screened in porch. So if it was open they wouldn't need to do it. So that's also another piece to consider as well. And that may be fishing here too. But we're by a golf course, we get five foot closer to there. Then the next
people that come in and all the golf balls are hitting. Oh, I guess you have a Yeah, but that's your own problem. That's what I that's what I mean that's what I tell this guy. You want to get close to the golf course. I mean, still quite a ways away really. The owner, you mean the owner? But I mean, when I always look at when they sell it to
people to somebody else, he he knows about it and they'll know about it, too. But I I don't know. I just again I'll call for a motion. I make a motion we deny the request for the variance. Second.
I'll second. Okay. Second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of recommending a denial of the variance say I. I. Do you want a roll call? Yes. Could we get a roll call for that, please?
Roll call. Oh, tonight I I'll Yes. Fred, no. Okay. Kim, hi. Okay. So, the motion
to recommend denial passes 50 or 510. Okay. Next item is the new business. Apparently, BFA is looking for a variance now. Yep. Yes. BFA is seeking a variance. They want to post three signs within the city
right ofway. Um the signs are going to be used for navigation for truck drivers. So when they have when they come in so they can drop off their goods and so they have yeah better navigation. Basically the signs are going to be 5t tall by 3 feet wide. Um, I attached some
building plans for this as well because they gave me some great looking plans to be honest. Um, and staff recommends setting a public hearing for the June 10th uh, planning commission meeting. Yeah, but they're going to go into the
ground. Maybe I maybe I mistyped that. Sign would be five foot here. Top of the sign would be five foot, but the sign itself has 2x3. Okay. So, is the problem that there will be three signs? Is that the problem is that they're going to go in the city
right away? And our ordinance says they have to be at least 10 ft off the city right away. However, when you look at like the picture here, and I there's a better one on the end. They don't have a lot of grass, so they don't really have anywhere to put it. And so, they're basically just wanting
to put it right on the road so the truck drivers see it, but they can't legally do that because it's in the rightway. Um, what does mean the right way? What does that mean? It means that's the area that the city controls so that if we for public infrastructure like if we needed
to access the utility lines, we'd be able to do that because we own the right of way. So the city has access to that. That's why on a property it doesn't go up to the curb that like five feet is that's the city so that we can do public improvements as needed. concern here would be if uh the signs
seem to be blocking the person's view when they're coming out of the the lot. But I guess are the driveways there where they are? Yeah. I guess we would there be a motion to schedule a public hearing for this next month? Yeah. Okay.
Kim move seconded that we schedule a public hearing for probably 5:35 on whatever the date the next month's meeting is. Uh June minutes. Yeah. All those in favor of scheduling the meeting say I
I carries 6. Okay. Is there any other business we brought up? Uh none from staff I believe. I just had one person questioned me about we had uh two months
ago I think the golf course it was mentioned about having a number of small parcels that they wanted to transfer over to adjacent land owners who are using them anyway and it was asked me if we had made any thoughts about that any thoughts about that last I had talked I
guess it's still trying to figure out the legalities of how to do it yes that has been in the works um the golf course is interesting in selling little chunks to all those owners. So, it's selling blue. Yes. However, there's the issue is
that legally we don't know if they can like subdivide all these things at once or how often they can do it um or how many they can do. So, they're kind of figuring that out. However, Kurt has been working on that. It's more of an EDA issue currently right now, but we'll
have more information, I guess, as time goes on. He's also interested, the uh golf course is interested in seeking how many people are interested in actually buying these as well before they make any action on that. There's I'm one of
them. The people before me built a shed on golf course property. So, but um what I understood though, isn't there a statute of limitations where if you're if the building was built seven years beforehand and it's you've been taking care of
it, isn't there something written in? I think you have to pay if you're paying taxes on it and 15 years I believe 15. I mean, I've heard so many different That's that's what I've heard was 15. So, I don't know. I don't know the exact number. That would be a great question for our attorney. So, I can shoot him a
message. like the golf course would have to let you know. It says, "Yes, we know you're on your shed is on our property. You know, we're not going to worry about it right now, but just remind you we know we know about it. They have to." So,
yeah. And it might be weirder just because it is a kind of a private dispute potentially and so it may not be city jurisdiction to get involved. I'll I'll ask our attorney when I have a chance to kind of see what he thinks and as this kind of progresses, we'll have
more information, but right now it's a little bit up liability, you know, and so we thought, you know, again, neighbors talk and that we've just signed something that, you know, if anybody's hurt, you know, there's just been a lot of scuttle putt. I just have to ask Fred on the park when they found
out the park boundaries and there was some buildings or some fences that were on park property, how was that handled? uh 99% of them moved their stuff. Okay. We had one shed that was 10 ft on our property that they had done. So, we put
a thing in there that if he sells, he has to move the shed or if it blows over or something, he cannot rebuild on it. But everybody else, we we did that because there was going to be so much encroachments, you know, cuz this neighbor encroached and then the new neighbor comes in and
say, "Oh, my line must be here." We like we we didn't give an option to sell. We didn't want to sell any property. Just 99% of them are good. So anyway, might be like just existing non-conforming where they're just kind
of there from the city's perspective. Whe whether we could do anything with them or not is kind of up for debate, but I just wanted to make sure it didn't get forgotten. Yep. Yeah. Yep. I haven't noted. I didn't want to say anything just cuz I don't I don't really know. No, I'm curious. We've all been just
what, you know, we got the letter and then, you know, no, nobody says anything and I'll go up to the golf course and I talk to Dan Booker. I'm like, what's going on? Oh, nothing. Don't worry about it. You don't need to worry about it. You know, that's what I keep hearing. Yeah, we don't Yeah, we we heard from him maybe once or twice, but we are also
kind of in the dark. There's a lot of things that we don't really know a ton about. So, people think a lot. I think there's some on the golf course that are for this, the other ones are against. So, I think there's even some internal Well, some people just landscaped it. It looks so much better and people are mowing down there. People are, you know,
so I, you know, Well, and some of them like just down from you. Yeah. They went across the creek and getting into Oh, put a bridge. Yeah. Put a bridge instead of across over there. Over. It's beautiful. I mean, I mean, I can understand both sides, you
know. Yeah. I just wanted to Yeah. No, I'm just like, why would anybody do knowing that they on that too? I I know. the guy that's kind of pushing this big time. I talked to him a lot. You know, they want to sell some all along there. And I said, "Oh, to me that creates a problem. You got every other one that
wants to so you got a line that goes like like this. So once again, then the next people that move in is think, oh, well, those two lines are bad. Mine must be there. So they're not going to get away from my line." You know, to me it's like either you fill it all to make a
straight line there. that that's that's their deal. We have the same thing behind us. They wanted couldn't get everybody to agree to buy their part. So, by the way, okay, if there's no other business to be brought forward or call the meeting to
adjourn at 603. Thank you'all. We'll check and see if there is a, you know, statue. Yeah, I'll check and see. Yeah. And again, we really haven't built in 2005. Yeah. So, yeah, we haven't
really heard about it. Um, so I will check and see what that how how we be talking with terms like that on