[1:28] Mr. Bolton, Mr. Ranson, Patrick, Mr. Con, Mr. Jones, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Towns.

[1:46] Before we begin this afternoon, we want to review with everyone the procedure for public hearing portion of our meeting.

[1:53] At the beginning of any public hearing portion, the applicant of the agenda item will be allowed 10 minutes to present their case.

[2:00] Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the agenda item will be allowed five minutes to speak?

[2:07] When everyone has spoken, the applicant will then be allowed an additional five minutes to speak if they so desire.

[2:14] Throughout the process there may be questions from the commission members, the digital timer here on the podium,

[2:20] let everyone know if and when your time expires.

[2:28] We're starting this afternoon under new business special use permit application PZ2600426 found by Kathy Richardson to allow an accessory structure without a primary structure at parcel ID number 74497 located on east on Avenue.

[2:51] May we have a staff report please.

[2:55] The applicant is requesting to place a 30-foot by 42-foot metal storage building at Parsel 7.

[3:01] Excuse me, 7, 4, 4, 9, 7, East-Lon Avenue for storage of construction materials and

[3:07] accessory structure without a primary structure is permitted by special use permit in the

[3:11] U.R. urban residential zone.

[3:14] Parsel 7, 4, 4, 9, 7 is a vacant corralot located at the intersection of East-Lon Avenue

[3:19] and L would Avenue and is owned U.R. urban residential.

[3:22] The property contains an existing accessory structure near the rear lot line.

[3:27] The East-Lon Avenue frontage is wooded, and neither East-Lon Avenue nor L would have

[3:32] a new includes carbon gutter improvements.

[3:34] Both streets are residential and character and are developed primarily for residential uses.

[3:40] The applicant proposes the construction of a 30-foot by 42-foot metal building for the storage

[3:45] of construction materials.

[3:47] While the applicant has indicated that materials would be stored within the building,

[3:50] The proposed structure and intended use are not compatible with the surrounding residential

[3:54] neighborhood.

[3:56] Additionally, approval of the proposed building could facilitate the future expansion of

[4:00] the use into a construction yard or contractor operation, introducing activities and

[4:04] materials that are not consistent with the residential character of the area.

[4:12] The presence of an existing accessory structure, combined with the proposed 1,260 square

[4:18] foot metal building, could create the appearance of a contractor yard or construction operations

[4:22] within the neighborhood, giving the visibility of the site from two public streets and its

[4:27] location within an established residential area. Staff has that the proposal presents

[4:31] long-term land use compatibility concerns. 25 notices were mailed to property owners

[4:36] within 300 feet of the subject property. Six opposed and one unopposed responses were received.

[4:44] Because of the proposed accessory structures and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood,

[4:48] Plenix staff recommends denial especially use permit application PZ26-00426 file by Kathy Richardson to allow an accessory structure without a primary structure at parcel 744-97 east-long avenue

[5:04] Thank you

[5:06] We will now open the public hearing anyone who would like to comment on this agenda item

[5:10] Please come forward and state your name

[5:18] Yes sir

[5:22] Michael Bradley

[5:23] Bradley

[5:24] Yes.

[5:25] I mean, I was looking at buying the property from the Richardson's and to put the building

[5:31] in question on that property.

[5:35] And the only reason that I wouldn't as far as to pay the permit fee and to bring it before

[5:40] zoning is because right across the street, there is a commercial building already there.

[5:47] And I figured if they would allow one, I mean, they would, you know, possibly allow another.

[5:52] This is an example, this is an example of a commercial, like a zoning change, we're not giving you use of it as for a unattached storage facilities.

[6:08] It still could be considered in residential properties.

[6:15] So what would be the use of the accessory building?

[6:21] It would just be for stories of construction materials.

[6:24] Do you have a contractor?

[6:25] Yes sir.

[6:28] Which commercial building are you talking about?

[6:31] It's already there.

[6:32] Well, there's just a small like 16 by 30, 20, 30 stores bill in the belongs to the present owners, and they would remove that if

[6:45] if this was to move forward.

[6:47] That one is on the original lot with the house though.

[6:50] There is no house.

[6:51] No, he's not.

[6:51] It's just vacant lot.

[6:53] And they, somebody, they don't.

[6:55] But it's building on that.

[6:57] Yes.

[6:57] and they said that that would have to be removed and they said it belonged to somebody and they would remove that if this move forward to allow this.

[7:07] How big is that building?

[7:09] It's 30 foot by 42.

[7:11] No, I mean the one that's already there.

[7:12] I think I haven't actually measured it.

[7:14] It was just on the property.

[7:15] I'm more estimate a 20 by 24 or 16 by 24 or something like that.

[7:21] Much more.

[7:22] Yes.

[7:25] Any other questions, commissions?

[7:26] It's readily due on any property in that area.

[7:32] Thank you very much.

[7:43] Anyone else who'd like to speak behalf of this property or this application, please come forward? If not, we will close the public hearing.

[7:54] I have a question. There's an existing building there, but I wonder if when it was put there,

[8:11] the zoning was different than what it is now or.

[8:16] Uh, potentially it could just be a storage for a lawnmower, um, staff had no way of knowing.

[8:25] We were just aware of the fact that it's located already on the property.

[8:29] But it, but it was an accessory building without a main building, so I did it ever get approved

[8:34] as such.

[8:35] It has not gone through the special use permit process, no.

[8:37] So it was, it might, in fact, be illegal.

[8:42] That is the case, yes.

[8:44] I wrote by there, and the road is so small going down through there, you almost feel like

[8:52] you're on a way yet, for a building this size,

[8:58] that just worries me a lot,

[9:03] that prove

[9:03] one that size, I would hate to see it going any residential neighborhood of that size, is my

[9:12] It's all.

[9:16] Any other comments?

[9:26] Size of the size of the lot itself.

[9:31] I can take a look into that, give me just a moment.

[9:44] Question two tenths of an acre, right?

[10:22] I've got it pulled up, it's just not cooperated somewhere with me.

[10:44] I've got 1.82, I mean, 0.182 acres.

[10:48] Okay.

[10:50] Yeah.

[11:06] I'm not trucker, I'm not a car, I don't think I could have got by me.

[11:37] I

[11:43] don't think the way to the road was concerned was that much of a concern with staff.

[11:48] No, I was just making a comment.

[11:50] It's just very compact area and that's a mighty big building to look at it here.

[11:58] I agree with staff on this one.

[12:04] I just think it's not compatible with the neighborhood.

[12:09] And if we're ready for a motion,

[12:11] I'll move that we recommend to now,

[12:13] a special use permit,

[12:15] ending in 0046.

[12:18] Second.

[12:21] We have a motion by Commissioner Bolton in a second,

[12:26] by Commissioner Ransson.

[12:30] Sorry.

[12:33] That we deny special use permit application, PZ2600426, because the proposed accessory structures

[12:45] in compatibility with surrounding neighborhood, so you further discussion of the motion.

[12:54] If not, Madam Clerk, would you call the roll please?

[12:56] Mr. Klein?

[12:57] No.

[13:00] Patrick?

[13:00] Yes.

[13:03] Yes.

[13:05] Yes.

[13:08] Motion has been adopted, did not deny special use permit application PZ2600426.

[13:15] It will be forwarded to City Council for further consideration that there are October

[13:20] 6 meeting.

[13:31] The second item this afternoon under new business application PZ2600435 requesting an amendment to the

[13:39] Donning map, affecting a portion of parcel, ID number 51359 at 102 North, Woodbury Avenue.

[13:49] From you are a urban residential to HB highway business filed by BirdLLC.

[13:57] We have a Stanford port, please.

[13:59] Yeah, applicant request to rezone approximately 0.182 acres from the north eastern portion

[14:05] of parcel 51359102 Northwoodbury Avenue from U.R. urban residential zone to HB Highway

[14:13] Business Zone.

[14:15] The request is necessary to facilitate a lot of management between parcel 51359 and the

[14:21] adjacent parcel 513240570 Piney Forest Road.

[14:27] The two lots currently have different zoning classifications, consolidation may not occur

[14:32] with differing classifications. With the approval of the request to

[14:36] Resone from UR to HB, the 0.182 acres will be consolidated with

[14:42] parcel 53240, which is currently zone HB and occupied by Ramsi

[14:48] Yates and Associates Realtors. The subdivision and consolidation will

[14:52] result in two conforming lots, parcel 53240, 570 Pony Forest Road, with

[14:58] 0.6.

[15:00] 111 acres, and parcel 51359, with 0.242 acres. 32 notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, one opposed and five unopposed responses were received.

[15:16] Planning staff recommends approval of PZ26-00435 and amendment to the official zoning map affecting

[15:25] a 0.182 acre portion of parcel 51359102 Northwoodbury Avenue to resolve the property

[15:34] from UR urban residential to HB highway business.

[15:40] Thank you.

[15:42] We are now open to public hearing anyone who would like to comment on this agenda item please

[15:46] to come forward, stay true to your name.

[15:59] My wife and I, Becky Yates, I'm Ramsey Yates,

[16:01] I'm Bird LLC, and we have an office building there

[16:06] at 570 Piney Forest Road.

[16:09] We are attempting to more or less square off the lot there

[16:14] for just future sale.

[16:16] We don't really have any use

[16:18] for the extra lot at this point in time.

[16:21] The lot does kind of come up

[16:23] and almost touch a fence that's right behind our building.

[16:27] And so that's one of the reasons why we're

[16:29] requesting the rezoning.

[16:37] Mr. Zinnick, question?

[16:39] You just intend to incorporate that in with a lot already existing.

[16:45] Survey has been preliminary survey.

[16:47] It's been performed by Crane and Survey,

[16:50] which also not only identified our lot going to 0.67,

[16:55] but it also identified the lot that we're taking from

[16:58] on the corner there on Northwoodbury.

[17:01] I believe that ends up being about 0.242, which should be...

[17:07] Certainly, even things up a bit, doesn't it?

[17:13] I'm sorry, I may not have been listening.

[17:16] Did you mention what your intentions are, would you use the extra parking?

[17:21] Well, we also acquired a piece of property on Piney Forest Road several years ago

[17:28] that we combined in, because that property was not being maintained in good shapes.

[17:35] I contacted the property owner in order to purchase that and then raise the building.

[17:42] And we've made that into a gravel parking lot.

[17:45] So we really have adequate parking there with the asphalt that we have in our front parking

[17:51] lot as well as the gravel next door.

[17:53] So, this is just an opportunity by knowing the property owner that has a house on North

[18:00] Woodbury.

[18:01] We've had conversations over the last few years about acquiring some of that to, again,

[18:07] square off the property, but also leave plenty of yard space for the North Woodbury

[18:12] residential property.

[18:14] So we don't have any current plans.

[18:18] It's probably something, you know, long term, if we sell the property, it probably helps with the marketability of it to have a slightly bigger lot with more depth to it.

[18:30] Thank you, Mr. Yates.

[18:32] Thank you.

[18:34] Anyone else like to come forward and speak in favor or against this particular item?

[18:39] If not, we will close the public hearing.

[18:42] Commissioners, do you have any questions, comments to make?

[18:47] Just to comment, I've never seen two lots that he'll drawn up in my life.

[18:55] I think squaring it up makes perfect sense.

[18:57] Yeah, I would move.

[18:59] We recommend approval of amendment to the zoning map.

[19:06] Ending in zero zero four or three five.

[19:10] Motion has been made by Commissioner Bolton.

[19:13] Do I hear a second?

[19:14] Second, have a second by Commissioner Con, that we approve application PC 2600435 requesting

[19:23] an amendment to the zoning map affecting a portion of parts of ID number 1, 3, 5, 1,

[19:29] 3, 5, 9, 102 northwardberry avenue from urban residential to highway business found by

[19:37] bird LLCs, and you further discussion of the motion.

[19:41] If not, Madam Clerk, would you call the roll please?

[19:44] Mr. Ranssen?

[19:46] Yes.

[19:47] Mr. Kahn?

[19:48] Yes.

[19:48] Mr. Patrick?

[19:49] Yes.

[19:50] Mr. Bolton? Yes.

[19:51] Motion has been adopted to approve application,

[19:56] PC2600435.

[19:57] It will be forwarded to City Council

[19:58] for further consideration

[20:00] at their October 6 meeting.

[20:09] Is there a planning director's report this afternoon?

[20:12] Very brief one.

[20:13] We do expect the meeting next month, we have so far one application with the deadline on the 15th.

[20:23] Okay.

[20:25] And that's it.

[20:27] Fuck.

[20:28] Think.

[20:29] I probably won't pay attention.

[20:31] That's Columbus Day on Monday. You probably mentioned that.

[20:34] But are we meeting on that Monday or is it like Labor Day and we're going to meet on Tuesday?

[20:39] If it's a Monday holiday, we'll meet on Tuesday.

[20:42] I don't know if I can have the Tuesday mark your calendars accordingly.

[20:49] Does any other business we need to discuss this after?

[20:55] If not the minutes from the August 10th meeting have been distributed, does anyone have any changes

[20:59] or corrections to be made?

[21:02] If not all in favour of approval say aye, I suppose no, August 10th meetings, minutes have been

[21:09] approved, is any further business to discuss?

[21:14] Since there's no further business this meeting is adjourned.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript