[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[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.