Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Off we go, then here we go. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission. 00:00:00
May 21st, 2004. 00:00:06
We have our city staff, our legal counsel, and all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Prince who sends her regrets. 00:00:10
We do have an opening statement we read at the beginning of all of these meetings and I have asked Commissioner Font if she would 00:00:17
do that for us now. Pleasure. The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review 00:00:24
land use plans and other special studies. Make recommendations to the City Council on proposed. 00:00:32
Map and ordinance changes and approve conditional uses and subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use 00:00:39
applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly 00:00:46
noticed meetings. Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, 00:00:53
existing structures, and uses related to the proposed change are noted. 00:01:01
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff. 00:01:08
The City's general plan, zoning ordinance and other reports by all verbal and written comments and by evidence submitted, all of 00:01:14
which are part of the public record. 00:01:20
Thank you very much, Commissioner Form. 00:01:26
And with that, we have 6 items on our posted agenda this evening, four of which five of which are public hearing items. However, 00:01:29
item number three has been cancelled. So we only have 4 coming before us this evening. And the first of those is at everybody's 00:01:36
favorite former mall site, the Holiday Hills. And it is a concept and preliminary and if we could ask city staff to give us a 00:01:43
quick. 00:01:50
Overview of that item. 00:01:58
Thank you, Chair Roach. Application tonight for a concept level and a preliminary review site plan at Block C within the Royal 00:02:03
Holiday Hills Master Plan subdivision. 00:02:09
This site itself is not for the entire block sees. 00:02:16
Block. It's for 1/4 of it or so, intended to be set aside and used for a bank. 00:02:21
With its own parking lot and its own access. 00:02:28
Elements of the SDMP for the Planning Commission to review are very similar to zoning standards that you would have for a normal 00:02:31
development in like a retail zone, however. 00:02:37
There is a little bit of flexibility in that. 00:02:43
There are no real setbacks. The site plan is kind of very flexible based upon development pressures for the site itself. 00:02:46
The zone gives you permitted uses and conditional uses. 00:02:55
In this case, a financial institution is a permitted use. 00:03:00
It gives you open space landscaping requirements which the applicant is provided to you into some landscaping plans. 00:03:04
As well as some architectural guidelines to review by in the format of a palette of styles. 00:03:13
So the staff TRC has been reviewing this application with the applicant. 00:03:22
In compliance with elements of the SDMP. 00:03:28
And has found that this bank site with the associated parking lot and landscaping for its our chosen vernacular or architecture 00:03:32
and height does comply with those elements that are applicable in the SMP. So staff is recommending an open public hearing on 00:03:40
comment and moderate discussion with the the applicant on site development characteristics as well as. 00:03:48
The architecture chosen for the site. 00:03:59
All right, Commissioners, any questions for city staff? 00:04:02
All right. And with that, we'll go ahead and invite the applicant or their representative to come up and add anything they need 00:04:05
to. 00:04:09
From what the city has already presented. 00:04:13
Do we have a? 00:04:17
Chris Longson representing the owner. 00:04:26
Resident as well. I thought the architect was going to be here, maybe she didn't make it in, but I can answer any of the 00:04:28
questions. We've spent a long time working on this, especially on the architecture to get it upgraded to where we think it meets 00:04:35
the standards of SDMP and and other improvements we're doing in the development. So here to answer any. 00:04:41
Questions you have otherwise. 00:04:48
Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? 00:04:51
Sorry to make you come all the way up for just that, but thank you very much. All right. I don't know if John said, but you know, 00:04:54
asking for you to delegate the final to staff after if you do approve. 00:04:59
Conceptual is that in our motion? Conceptual. 00:05:05
The architecture I'm looking at the building materials, but the. 00:05:13
The materials is really out of focus. So I'm hoping you can kind of tell us what's the brown? Is this stucco with concrete or? 00:05:18
It's, it's, it's, it's not a, it's not a stucco finish. It's a, it's a Remember the name of the material. It's listed in the 00:05:28
material board on the side there it is the cementitious board. 00:05:35
So it's not a stucco finish, OK, It's a painted cementitious. And these are materials within the overall scheme of the 00:05:42
architecture for the site. Yeah. And those are some of those changes we worked on adding the brick and adding that and eliminating 00:05:46
the stucco. 00:05:50
So it looks like they have more parking than they need, and they will. And it's common parking just like everything else. And so 00:05:56
their customers can use the parking. 00:06:01
On the remainder of the property and people from other parts of the property can use that parking. So, but I mean This site is 00:06:06
supposed to be kind of the prototypical. 00:06:10
Transit oriented type of development where there's lots of walking, where there's service from transit and stuff. So why do we 00:06:15
need all the additional parking? 00:06:19
It'll all, we have our parking ratios, it will all blend in with the ratios with the rest of what's built on that block and the 00:06:23
other block. So it, it'll all work out that we won't, we have a minimum and maximum and we won't be exceeding the maximum on the 00:06:29
parking. So it's gonna be a blended ratio. Would it be better to have some additional landscaping? I mean, the, the parking you're 00:06:35
seeing that's on the, it's on the, if you can pull that site plan back up. 00:06:41
Whoever has that. 00:06:49
So the parking that's across the street is something we're putting in for the remainder of Block C just on that side of the road. 00:06:52
That's not part of their lease parcel. That's additional parking that will be utilized in the future. But we're because we're 00:06:57
building the road there right now and because they're going to be a stand alone use, we put it in. So that's not part of the Chase 00:07:03
Ground leased parcel. 00:07:08
I see. OK, thank you. So you need it really just Brian, let's focus on their park using where they are and that meets the minimum 00:07:14
standards for their building. 00:07:18
Thank you. And just a quick question on the parking that is in front of the bank, just immediately I believe to the West of it, 00:07:23
you mentioned that there's common and shared. Is there going to be actual designated, this is bank parking only type? No, there 00:07:28
will be a few signs in there that that call out for like 20 minute parking, but it doesn't, it's not exclusive. We're not having 00:07:33
exclusive parking on site, OK. 00:07:39
So all right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And with that, we'll have you sit down and we will open the public hearing on 00:07:44
this. If anybody is here this evening that wants to make comment on this particular plan, you're welcome to come up and do so. We 00:07:51
just ask that you keep your remarks within 3 minutes or less and not restate any other comments if there's more than one. 00:07:58
And also state your name and address for the record. So with that, is there anybody here in attendance this evening interested in 00:08:06
making comment on this item agenda? 00:08:10
Once, twice. All right, looks like nobody is here for that. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing for this item and turn to 00:08:16
our commissioners to discuss Commissioners questions or any discussion points on this property that have not been covered by staff 00:08:22
or the applicant. 00:08:28
Does not look so all right. I, I just I I have a similar question where I also think that going above the parking minimums is not 00:08:37
helpful for the overall. 00:08:42
Thing that we're trying to go for if we're if we're thinking that this will be a big commercial hub it's either going to bring in 00:08:48
several hundred cars a day or people are gonna take the bus. And right now this is clearly built for people driving their cars 00:08:56
here. There's a drive through ATM there's extra parking I think this is not I I think having the extra parking is not. 00:09:03
Conducive to what holiday is trying to move to? Which is more environmentally sustainable? 00:09:12
The, you know, shifts in future transportation. So, so I would like to see. 00:09:17
I mean, maybe the overall ratio is going to, you know, be accounting for other parking lots, but if the overall ratio is more than 00:09:24
the minimum. 00:09:28
That's something I'd like to actually see changed. I don't think that's helpful to the the way we want to see this, this corner of 00:09:34
holiday movement. 00:09:38
I have a question for staff. Do we have a parking master plan that's kind of. 00:09:42
Determining the overall parking and. 00:09:47
Yes. So how will it kind of be distributed? So you have two pages in the site development master plan that control the parking. 00:09:50
And where those parking areas are designated, this one of these areas in you can kind of see it there. 00:09:59
Is designated as surface parking. 00:10:05
So is it possible that some properties will have no parking and they'll use parking on the adjacent? 00:10:10
Parcels or as we get further along, yes, some of those interior blocks will because the whole block will be built out. We either 00:10:16
have a garage interior to it. 00:10:21
Or be shared parking on the streets, Yes. So in the City Council's approval of the master plan, did they have a maximum number of 00:10:27
parking spaces? Yes. So OK, how close are we to that? 00:10:33
Not anywhere near, you know, it's probably gonna be a lot. 00:10:39
OK. Thank you. 00:10:43
So some discussion around parking and. 00:10:47
Thank you staff for addressing. 00:10:50
With that, any other questions or discussion points on this item? 00:10:53
I maybe I should have asked this at the beginning, but this is only proposed to be 23 1/2 feet. They could have gone up to 90. 00:10:59
Seems actually like an underutilization of the space. Maybe there's some legalities about having residences of bank? 00:11:06
Legalities, I'm sorry I missed that, of having residences above a bank, but it feels like if it's in the open zone, which is the 00:11:16
most flexible of all of the zoning in this entire. 00:11:21
In this entire plan, then, it feels like a little bit of a lost opportunity to build a single function building that's one story 00:11:28
tall. 00:11:32
Instead of something that's a little more dynamic, perhaps more mixed-use. 00:11:37
That could you know that could use the idea that. 00:11:42
Banks have pretty good daytime hours, they end fairly early in the day compared to a lot of other businesses, and they could have 00:11:46
overlapping parking with residences really easily. I don't know it it feels like a. 00:11:52
A little bit of a waste of the open zone since there's so many uses of the open zone. 00:12:00
Well, just as a sidebar comment to that, I will say as someone who was not in favor of the OR the plan that was before City 00:12:09
Council seven years ago, give or take that included a 90 foot tower, I would say that maybe the developers just gone the opposite 00:12:15
direction. 00:12:21
But and it feels like maybe something in between, because 90 foot building on Highland would also be imposing, would really change 00:12:29
the way that feels especially to. 00:12:34
Hopeful pedestrians, but. 00:12:40
That being said, this could potentially one day, hypothetically 1015 years from now, come back and the. 00:12:43
SDMP would allow for consideration of a larger building there if deemed necessary and appropriate, right? 00:12:52
Hypotheticals. Is that what we're talking? 00:13:01
Like, pause it. Like this isn't going to be a bank. That's one story for the rest of eternity. 00:13:03
Depends how long Chase wants to stay there. 00:13:10
All right, all right. Well, with that. 00:13:18
I had just one more question. Do they have to do any kind of environmental buffering since they're close to so close to the Creek? 00:13:25
I know there's a little bit of a thing there, but. 00:13:30
The trail itself acts as the buffer between development and the Creek. 00:13:34
There's an absolute set back that's that was approved in 2007. 00:13:41
That requires an offset. 00:13:47
Carrie, can you on SDMP? Do you have it pulled up? 00:13:51
Toward the very end. 00:13:56
Oh, maybe you've passed it. 00:13:58
Anyway. 00:14:01
Maybe it's at the very. 00:14:05
Adds that letter. Is it 40 feet? 00:14:08
Yeah, 40 feet. 00:14:16
So buildings can't get closer to than 40 feet to the bank. 00:14:20
I'm done. 00:14:27
Commissioner Gong is set. All right, good, good discussion points. Thank you. And with that, I've asked Commissioner Flaunt if she 00:14:28
has any additional discussion points or if she's prepared to make a motion on this to do so if no one else has any comments. 00:14:36
A motion that we approve the concept and preliminary commercial site development plan for Royal Holiday Hills Block C. 00:14:45
In the R MU Zone, located at 4833 S Sunset Blvd. 00:14:54
Lane with final site plan and plat approvals to be delegated to staff. 00:15:01
Finding that the proposed land use of financial of a financial institution is an allowed permitted use access site details and 00:15:06
construction elements are found to be acceptable by by the technical review committee. All development details and all related 00:15:15
components comply with the R-MU zone and. 00:15:23
SDMP as a master planned project. 00:15:32
Conditions for final approval to be submitted to and verified and approved by the Community and Economic Development Director with 00:15:35
a recommendation by the Technical Review Committee. 00:15:42
One to work with city engineering on. Any clarifications? 00:15:48
Regarding submitted stormwater drainage report and that the applicant work with staff on all needed clarifications, if any, made 00:15:54
by Commission during this meeting. 00:16:00
All righty, we have an. 00:16:07
Emotion. Do we have a second this Commissioner Baron? I'll second that. All right. With that, we'll call for a vote. Commissioner 00:16:09
Cunningham Aye, Mr. Wilcinski Aye, Commissioner Fawn Aye, Commissioner Gong aye, and Commissioner Baron Aye. And Chair Roach votes 00:16:15
aye. And therefore it passes unanimously and we look forward to seeing a new bank. 00:16:21
That's not 90 feet. That's not 90 feet tall. Thank you. 00:16:29
All right. And moving on to item number two. This evening we have the Immigration Brewery mixed-use PUD and if staff is prepared 00:16:33
to present on that, we would love to hear more details. 00:16:40
Pardon while we do some shuffling, reconfiguring. 00:16:53
All right, so this is item number two and. 00:17:08
Application for a mixed-use commercial and residential subdivision amendment. 00:17:13
Previously approved in June of 2023 and then a conditional use for a planned unit development. 00:17:19
This is located at 5250 S Highland Dr. location of the Old Roots Nursery. 00:17:28
New plans for a brewery and townhomes on the site. Previously, what was approved was the. 00:17:37
The building with the brewery and restaurant and then the townhome separately. The applicant has come back with a modification to 00:17:46
that to add 6 residential units. 00:17:51
On a third level. 00:17:57
The C2 zone recently was amended to allow a 40 foot height. 00:18:00
So their plans are within that 40 feet height and that allows them to get that third level. 00:18:06
And that was, so that is where they're proposing those six additional units. 00:18:13
The. 00:18:21
So that is the subdivision amendment. Second motion will be required for the conditional use for the planned unit development. 00:18:23
Planned unit developments are conditional. You're looking at modifications typically for setbacks. That is also what is being 00:18:32
presented on this plan, both for a mixed-use development is conditional and planned use. 00:18:40
And the and the setbacks for the residential? 00:18:49
Townhomes and the commercial building currently in the C2 zone. 00:18:55
Buildings that don't contain any residential units require a set back of 20 feet on the corner side and being proposed is a 0 foot 00:19:01
set back next to Arbor Lane, the property line you can see. 00:19:11
Runs straight across in line with the brewery building and through the parking lot. And that property line will be adjusted with 00:19:21
the approval of City Council to vacate a public right of way. So that property line can change, which would then change the 00:19:31
setbacks. But as is the property line is where it's at. So that's what you're looking at is a 0 foot set back on the. 00:19:41
Laneside additional adjustments for the townhomes on Arbor Lane that would require a 20 foot set back. What's being proposed is a 00:19:51
10 foot set back. 00:19:57
With a 12 foot average. 00:20:05
Their rear yard for those townhomes required to be 15 feet in the C2 zone. It's being proposed as a 10 foot set back, 11 foot 00:20:07
average just because they're angled. 00:20:14
And then on the side yard on the South side of the property. 00:20:22
The required set back is again 15 feet and being proposed at 11 feet with a 12 foot average. 00:20:29
Questions for the applicant that we've looked at in the work meeting, is that overhang on the patios on Unit 1 and Unit 4, so you 00:20:37
can question the applicant about that? 00:20:42
With a conditional use on reduced setbacks, commonly what you're looking at is how to mitigate impacts from having a smaller set 00:20:49
back. There's not a landscaping plan that's been submitted by the applicant. 00:20:56
Some of the conditions that the Commission could place is to require specific landscaping elements on those reduced setbacks. 00:21:05
Other notes is just utility service letters are in progress. Staff doesn't foresee an issue with getting those for the use on the 00:21:15
property. And then also the landscape plan they'd be required to replace. It was either five or six trees. So replacing trees that 00:21:21
were removed and then any additional trees that the Planning Commission wants to make condition based on their planning and 00:21:27
development. 00:21:34
And I will have the applicant come up and they can explain the project a little bit more. 00:21:41
All right. Thank you very much. And with that we'd invite the applicant or representative and or representative to come up. 00:21:45
Hi there. I'm Brett Laughlin, the applicant, and Chris Layton. 00:21:58
All right. 00:22:04
So do you have any questions? I got lots of questions. Was there anything you wanted to add to the initial staff report on what 00:22:05
she touched on before we start drilling? 00:22:09
Excellent job. I just want to say that most of this is done to for the economics of the project we're trying to. 00:22:13
You know, make it so you know, can break even at the end of the day. And so getting the the setbacks, the size and stuff is just 00:22:21
helpful for us being able to justify the, you know, the project. 00:22:28
OK. I did have one quick question I wanted to ask. So I noticed that there's the covered parking. I assume that's for the 00:22:36
residents that will be living inside the brewery there on the South side of the lot. I was just curious if there is a reason why 00:22:43
that was chosen on the South instead of the east side of the building? 00:22:49
Yeah, actually, I don't think that's a correct assumption. The reason those were covered is in the nature of the second level. 00:22:56
Extending out over the parking. So that's a balcony. It's part of the restaurant level on the 2nd floor that protrudes out over 00:23:05
the parking it creates. 00:23:11
Covered parking, which is a nice amenity, but those are not designated for the six tenants. However, we did add the appropriate 00:23:17
parking and that's part of the reason we're back here is we had six additional dwelling units and we needed to provide parking for 00:23:24
those dwelling bedrooms and guests. So we've done that with this new site plan layout. OK, that makes sense. Appreciate the 00:23:30
clarification. 00:23:36
And then it was also brought up about the covered patios on Unit 1 and four. 00:23:44
As far as how those set out, are those? 00:23:52
Columnar or those what what's the what's the the cantilever their cantilevered out so they don't require structure that is within 00:23:55
the 10 foot easement or set back. However roof overhangs I believe are allowed to encroach into the setbacks a certain distance. 00:24:04
Three feet, three feet, and that would be the extent of those. 00:24:15
And then as far as a landscaping plan, is there any anticipation of number of trees or anything like that being placed around the 00:24:22
residential units on the east side of the property where the condos is that what they are, condos, townhomes? 00:24:30
Both their their town home architecture sold as individual dwelling units for owners. 00:24:40
Is there any current plan in place on estimated trees per unit or anything like that on there? 00:24:49
Not yet. 00:24:57
OK. 00:24:58
But, but turn us loose and we'll get them for you. I mean, it's with the smaller set back. Obviously you're not going to have a 00:25:00
giant baroque up behind any of those. But I mean, obviously we still have to be in. 00:25:06
In Sync with the holiday city. 00:25:14
Landscaping standards for this zone, so we'll provide whatever we need to provide per the code. 00:25:18
All right, Commissioners, Commissioner Baron, so can you tell me, on the Highland Dr. side of your site, how wide is that 00:25:26
landscaping strip there? 00:25:30
Is that 3 feet? I think no. I think it's four feet at the narrowest point and then it extends to where it's almost 9 feet at the 00:25:37
northern end as it kind of flares. I agree with the chair because I think having some idea of what's going to go in there might 00:25:44
help. 00:25:50
Kind of create a more attractive area long Highland Dr. especially with your neighbor to the north having this large set back 00:25:57
that. 00:26:02
So I'm not sure we need to have the landscaping plan submitted, or well, we would have submitted one if we had to submit one. 00:26:09
We're looking forward to creating that and the amount of nice trees along the frontage and everything will be consistent with 00:26:18
what's required in holiday. 00:26:23
Well, OK. But that I think with the PUD, I think the reason that the smaller setbacks and that type of thing are offered or a part 00:26:29
of any packages that you get to see how the whole site comes together with architecture, I don't, I didn't see any architecture 00:26:37
and landscaping and how it all works together. Do you guys have any elevations? Do you want to speak to that? 00:26:46
We're we have lots of them, but they weren't required for this submittal. So the C2 zone doesn't have architectural requirements. 00:26:55
So the elevations itself and what it looks like is not something that is part of a PUD element. I see you can't really massage 00:27:03
height as you can setbacks. So the architecture is something that the C2 zone doesn't require. 00:27:11
Compliance for. 00:27:21
A landscaping plan, you know, it could be helpful in trying to, if you're trying to determine flexibility and setbacks, how it 00:27:23
would be offsetted by buffering and and that type of landscaping, those type of landscaping elements. 00:27:28
So just tell us or tell me how far I'm supposed to go on these things. So I apologize if I'm asking. You know, parking lot 00:27:35
landscaping requirements do have a certain number of trees per stall. 00:27:41
Camera with it is off off hand so that would be definitely required for a building permit. 00:27:47
Along the street frontage from Highland Dr. St. trees are always a requirement. So I would say would foresee at least, you know, 00:27:52
four or five St. trees along this section around the corner. 00:27:57
And that's something especially along Arbor Lane too. Is this something that you could take a look at as well? 00:28:04
And one last thing. The Council is supposed to approve the land transaction. 00:28:12
Of vacating the parcel that's just north of this. 00:28:17
Is that what vacating right of way? So right now it's all St. 00:28:22
But isn't there supposed to be a vacation of that part of the right of way to these this property owner, the vacation of right 00:28:27
away into a parcel Right now it's being the application path is an encroachment permit for a parking lot in the right of way. So 00:28:35
until the council decides to vacate that right away and create a parcel of itself, it's the path forward is an encroachment 00:28:42
license with the City Council for a parking lot in the right of way. So would that be a condition of approval? 00:28:50
That has to occur before anything else. No, it would be a condition. OK, yeah, because the stalls that cells are counting toward 00:28:57
the total percentage requirement. 00:29:02
OK. One last question. Can you tell me on the east of your property what that looks like a road that goes? 00:29:08
North and South, is that just a driveway? OK. 00:29:14
OK. 00:29:18
Thank you. And then John, just one quick question and I wasn't aware, I don't know because I didn't hang out at City Council, my 00:29:19
apologies. When they approved the 40 foot height for the C2 zone. I know one of the recommendations that the Planning Commission 00:29:26
made for that approval was technical review committee of the architecture to make sure it wasn't going to be a bunch of 40 foot 00:29:32
cement boxes essentially. Did that get included in what was passed? 00:29:39
It was included as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. We brought that up with them. 00:29:46
And they did give us an allowance to look at requiring architectural controls in the C2 zone. 00:29:51
I think it wasn't just C2, I think it was anything that was mixed-use is what the Planning Commission wanted to iterate and that's 00:29:59
what we let them know. 00:30:02
We'll be bringing that back to them with a whole package of amendments in late September. 00:30:06
OK, I just. 00:30:12
That crossed my mind when he brought up architecture, so that that makes sense. All right, thank you for the clarification on 00:30:14
that. Commissioners, Commissioner Funk, go ahead. So. 00:30:18
I apologize if this sounds disrespectful because I don't mean it to, but we're being asked to approve. 00:30:23
Reducing setbacks so that you can build properties. 00:30:32
So that your project pencils out. 00:30:39
Correct. Well that was one description of it. We're we're not asking for anything that most residential to residential properties 00:30:41
are requesting and that is a 10 foot side yard set back on on the side yard to the South, the set back to the rear typically 00:30:50
you're adjoining if you were adjoining another residential. 00:30:58
Project. 00:31:07
And house there you would have a greater set back but what we're. 00:31:09
Adjacent to is a drive, a private driveway. So it's so having it go from 15 to 10 in order it it's, it's not just that we're 00:31:16
trying to get. 00:31:22
Aggressive as much as there's no reason for it to be bigger than that. Well, I guess I'm thinking about the people who are going 00:31:30
to live in these units and my question is instead of our approving a reduced set back. 00:31:37
Have you considered reducing the size of the units that you're building? 00:31:45
We think that would affect the people that are going to live there much more. 00:31:50
Because we need to get a certain size of square footage of product that that is. 00:31:55
Requisite to have. 00:32:02
That quality of a dwelling unit. 00:32:04
My second question is with respect to the six units that are being proposed for the top of the. 00:32:06
The brewing the brew pub Well. 00:32:16
To be clear, there's a brewery component, there's a family restaurant, and there is a 21 and older restaurant bar. 00:32:21
On levels one and two, they're on the third level, principally over kitchen areas and the brewery. 00:32:32
Right. But there are six in their apartments on top of that, correct. Yes. And so my question is, is there any proposal for sound 00:32:42
mitigation there? Oh, absolutely. 00:32:48
Yeah. In fact, I guess that's not something we need to concern. 00:32:55
I mean, we'll, I mean as part of our engineering, we have a sound engineer and acoustical. I mean we're worried about everything 00:32:58
from water mitigation to sound transmission. It's part of the architectural and engineering. 00:33:05
To make sure those are viable dwelling units that aren't. 00:33:12
Otherwise, why would we build them? Because who doesn't want to live above a club? 00:33:18
Well, we're a restaurant which you see all over Europe and all over the East Coast, and it's very common. 00:33:23
Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. No sprinklers on the residential part of the building, even though the other two levels are sprinkled 00:33:33
and have a kitchen. 00:33:38
Is the fire department OK with that? 00:33:43
Code wise, they don't need to be sprinkler the residential units, though certainly the commercial side of it, the restaurant and 00:33:48
without a doubt is sprinkler it is it. 00:33:54
And that's just it. 00:34:02
Thought is that because nobody. 00:34:03
Started building. 00:34:06
Residential units on top of that kind of an operation. Is the code silent intentionally or? 00:34:09
It just had didn't anticipate. Yeah, well, if you're talking about the brewery restaurant, the the mix, the truly mixed-use 00:34:16
building that's fully sprinkled as well as the dwelling units. 00:34:22
All of them are fire sprinkler. If you're talking about the I'm just talking about the ones. 00:34:29
OK, with that building they are fully sprinkled. The whole building is and all of the fire separations and safety along with 00:34:35
acoustical separation. 00:34:40
We're very focused on that. 00:34:46
Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? One more question. It just wasn't clear from what I could see on here. 00:34:52
On the to the South, so along the back, that's a driveway. What's along the South is that or is that a road or is that just up 00:34:58
against other properties? 00:35:03
PUD. 00:35:11
OK, so it's, but it's coming up to their fences, that's what I can tell. 00:35:13
Is it a cement wall? Is that what it is? There should be a closer in vicinity. 00:35:16
Yeah. So it has those townhomes have their fire access turn around on that side of the property. So it also is a 20 foot and then 00:35:29
a side yard for the for the town home, OK. 00:35:37
Thank you. 00:35:44
All righty. Any other questions for the applicants? 00:35:48
All right guys, thanks so much for your help. Go ahead and have a seat. And with that, we will open up the public hearing for 00:35:51
those that wish to make comment on this item this evening. Again, we'd ask that you state your name and address and try and keep 00:35:57
your comments to three minutes or less. And with that, anyone would like to make comments, go ahead and step forward. 00:36:03
Good evening, Sarah Pierce, 2004 Arbor Lane. That is my driveway that is next door. 00:36:15
I've lived at this location pretty much my entire life. I went to 5th and 6th grade in this building. 00:36:24
My parents live next door and that's where where I grew up. We've always known that we live next to a commercial area, but if you 00:36:31
visited the site, we have a. 00:36:36
A traditional holiday piece of property that is very, you know, an acre of land, lots of really big old trees. And right now it's 00:36:42
incredibly exposed, something that we've never lived with before. We've had really good communication with Brett, emailing back 00:36:51
and forth. And I'm quite shocked tonight to find out that 40 feet have been approved. I somehow we missed that. 00:37:00
Planning Commission and City Council approval and I'm really, really disappointed because that is basically looking into our house 00:37:10
in our yard and all of the privacy that we have enjoyed for over 25 years I. 00:37:17
We've been trying to work in good faith with Brett and talking about what we can do on our driveway to protect us. We have a nice 00:37:24
strip that a lot of trees could be planted, which would be on the other side of that. Where that set back is that you're talking 00:37:30
about it. 00:37:36
We need that. We need some big trees to be planted there. And I would just employ or if you're going to move forward on the set 00:37:42
back, which I'm not sure that that's the right decision, but help us make it right by putting some trees back into that space and 00:37:49
giving us back our our holiday home that we've grown up with and enjoyed. 00:37:57
All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 00:38:05
We're going to allow all public comment and then we'll give you a chance to respond, yes. 00:38:08
My name is Patrick Hubley. I'm Sarah's husband. I live at 2004 E Arbor Lane. And I have to say I want to reiterate what you said 00:38:16
about being incredibly disappointed and kind of shocked about this 40 foot, this increase in the height restrictions for this 00:38:23
property. I've been fully supportive of what Brett's been doing here. But when we first discussed it, we talked about 30 feet 00:38:30
being the the height of these buildings, so adding another 10 feet. 00:38:36
Certainly increases the impact it has not only on us, but our neighbors who live just on the other side of that driveway. It's 00:38:43
almost feels like we're going to have people peering in over our trees and fences and seeing what we're going on. So if these 00:38:50
townhomes are currently scheduled to build out 40 feet, I'm not in. 00:38:56
I'm not on board with. I'd like to express my. 00:39:03
I don't think we should approve the template set back. 00:39:10
I think we I'd like to have as much distance from those townhomes as possible from our property. OK, thank you. All right, thank 00:39:13
you. 00:39:16
Any other comments from the public this evening on this? 00:39:23
Welcome back, Chris. 00:39:30
Since I'm here already just on that explanation on that. 00:39:33
The roadway and the zero set back we realigned Arbor Lane and so that's the location of where they're talking about Grant, you 00:39:38
know the City Council working on the on the permit for that. That's the old alignment of our per lane and so we've dedicated the 00:39:44
new property for the current alignment. So maybe that is more a little bit helpful to you to understand why that right away still 00:39:50
exist because. 00:39:56
You know, it was there, we dedicated New South. The old exists and so the city's working with them. 00:40:03
On that because it's adjacent to their property now, not ours because we dedicated property for our lane off of our property. So 00:40:08
just maybe that's helpful. 00:40:13
All right. Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate it. 00:40:18
Any other comments from the public this evening? 00:40:25
On this item. All right. With that, we will go ahead and close the public hearing. Well, we'll invite the applicant back up. 00:40:28
To address any comments. 00:40:35
Come up to the microphone, please. 00:40:38
Apologize for the miscommunication, but. 00:40:41
The 40 foot height was only used for the restaurant and the brewery component, which allowed us to get the six apartments above 00:40:44
it. We made no height increase from the original plan to the townhomes that were going back, even though we felt we probably could 00:40:53
have with that restriction. For the benefit of you and our communication, I did not increase that height. I kept it at the same. 00:41:01
All we were trying to do. 00:41:11
All we're trying to do is get the math to work on this project, and I've told them and. 00:41:13
I'm not a developer, I'm a resident. And I've done this because I run. I've run by this property for 20 years and something needed 00:41:20
to be done with it. And so I'm not making money on this. All I care about is really breaking even and getting a nice restaurant 00:41:27
put in place. So to be able to do that, I need to subsidize it, the cost of it with those apartments and the townhomes. But I'm 00:41:33
going out of my way to make sure that this is. 00:41:40
Architecturally beautiful landscape beautifully. 00:41:48
And not to take advantage of going 40 foot where I could to maximize. There's no profit intention on this. Trust me. It's to get 00:41:51
the restaurant done so that we can have an awesome. 00:41:56
Awesome iconic place for the the community. 00:42:02
Awesome. All right, appreciate it. Thanks for clarifying. And before you run away, I think we might have no question. I'm sorry, 00:42:07
this is a question for staff. Oh, OK. I apologize. Go ahead and sit down staff. So can we stipulate that the residential E 4 units 00:42:13
of maximum of certain height to kind of. 00:42:19
Maybe not, but I'm wondering if there's way that we can introduce language to keep for a planned unit development. One of the 00:42:26
specific things that you cannot make conditional is 1 the graduated height and to the overall height. So that can't be 00:42:32
restrictions that the Planning Commission places on on a planned unit development. That was that was the comment I was going to 00:42:39
make is we. 00:42:46
Recognize that that 35 feet limit in AC2 zone. 00:42:53
We don't need to increase encroach. 00:42:57
Into that 40 feet with this product, That wasn't the reason. That wasn't the. 00:43:00
Idea behind it and so we haven't now how that's qualified in this particular project or not. All I can say is those have not 00:43:06
changed. 00:43:12
Height since they were approved. 00:43:18
Before and there's no intention to let them creep there. That is the height they're designed. That's all they need to be and and 00:43:21
we haven't made them any any higher. And and sorry, what was the current height? You said 3535 was the previous height before the 00:43:27
text amendment. 00:43:33
So that was for the restaurant and the six units above it, correct? Yeah. So we are taking advantage of the new. 00:43:40
Ruling and new text amendment to be 40 feet because it allows three stories. 00:43:50
In a commercial setting to which we needed that extra height, we don't need that. In a really nice REST residential product, still 00:43:56
have three quality levels of. 00:44:03
And stay under the 35 feet. 00:44:09
OK so anyway so staff just helped me or help us, excuse me. 00:44:13
How do we maintain the height so that it kind of is conducive with the adjacent properties without stipulating it as a 00:44:19
requirement? Is there a way to say that in approval or? 00:44:25
Thank you. So this is you're approving the concept plan and their plan is for no more than 35 feet on those. So that's if they 00:44:35
needed to something different than that they would have to come back again. 00:44:41
But we've approved the 40 feet for commercial property. You have not. 00:44:49
You've approved the original plan didn't have, didn't allow for the 40 feet, so that's why the text amendment occurred. What's 00:44:54
before you tonight is kind of the site plan. It's modified to take advantage of that text amendment that happened, but it was 00:44:58
previously approved. 00:45:03
With the original plan based on those 35 foot height limits. And if you recall, they came back and had the the issues. The thing 00:45:09
isn't penciling with the level of finishes that they want to put on the restaurant. And that's the only thing this is gonna be a 00:45:16
function. Yeah. So the the townhomes are being, as far as I understand, the townhomes haven't changed at all. 00:45:23
Thank you for that clarification. So with the setbacks are changing. 00:45:30
The setbacks are changing, but not the building themselves, so they're moving closer. 00:45:36
So what was approved, We didn't approve the planned unit development before. We didn't look specifically at the setbacks. So 00:45:42
that's why the planned unit development is before you tonight, so that you can look at the setbacks, apply appropriate mitigation 00:45:47
for the impacts. 00:45:53
Just to clarify for Brad, I do believe I closed the public hearing, but I want to make sure it's officially closed. So there's no 00:46:01
question on that. And we will move to our Commissioner discussion on this Commissioners, further questions for city staff around 00:46:06
this. 00:46:11
I just want to make sure that I understand on the alignment of Arbor Lane and we do want to put a condition in place correct that 00:46:18
that alignment takes place. 00:46:24
In order to move this through I think. 00:46:30
You want to frame it around the fact that they're using right now. What is public right of way for effectively 7 stalls? 00:46:34
Say that again, they're using public right of way. 00:46:43
For seven stalls. 00:46:47
So the requirement would be either. 00:46:50
Apply for an encroachment license with the City Council. 00:46:54
Or apply for a vacation of right of way so it creates private properties they don't have to have an encroachment license. 00:46:58
So the site plans conditioned upon either one of those paths with City Council, either encroachment license for the stalls and 00:47:06
parking lot, which is not uncommon. 00:47:11
Or, which is what I would much rather prefer, is a vacation of the right of way, because you're going to see this again. 00:47:17
You need to see it for the subdivision plat. 00:47:25
And that subdivision plat is going to have the new property line if it's vacated. 00:47:28
That follows the right of way. 00:47:33
So the conditional approval would be, yes, the parking works. However, six or seven of those stalls are in the public right of 00:47:36
way, and it's conditioned upon getting the approval from the City Council to use the right of way or a vacation of the right of 00:47:42
way to get that back into private property, if that makes sense. 00:47:47
Is the only realignment of Arbor Lane what we're seeing is the little jog to the north? 00:47:55
Yeah, that's that's been completed, that's done. 00:48:03
Previously it ran straight right through that what would have been the parking lot there. 00:48:07
OK, so that's not that. None of that is relevant to these 4 units. 00:48:16
To the east, no. 00:48:21
Can I ask a follow up on the setbacks? 00:48:29
We have requests from the folks on the East. 00:48:34
Umm. 00:48:39
I'd like to kind of follow that up because this is a conditional use right on the set back, so we can contingent make it 00:48:41
contingent on landscaping requirements. 00:48:46
And that and I'd like to follow up and maybe ask them what are they looking for? 00:48:52
And what would fit in a 10 foot set back that it would accomplish that? 00:48:58
And I think that's fair. 00:49:04
And one thing I would ask is what is the minimum required number of trees for example? 00:49:07
Along that back property for those 4 units and maybe increase that as a condition. 00:49:14
So rather than we'll put four back there, require six or eight back there to help and any gate, is there a placement that would be 00:49:22
better? I mean, are, are we screening home? Not screening a whole acre obviously. But you know, depending where the homes are 00:49:28
located that may tell us where that landscaping ought to be. I, I am a little concerned that if you have a 10 foot set back, you 00:49:34
can't put a very big tree. 00:49:40
In there and that you might have to increase the setbacks to create the screening that. 00:49:47
They've asked for, well, I think if you. 00:49:52
Use their calm variety of trees that you can plant near a building that can actually grow quite tall and I think effectively 00:49:55
mitigate, you know what it is you're looking for. But like I said, I think if you go with just the minimums, you're not going to 00:50:02
necessarily accomplish that with two flowering pear trees as opposed to five or six right where you actually have a screen and 00:50:08
foliage there. 00:50:15
I think I don't know that I would want to necessarily. 00:50:23
Put a condition that would be too restrictive. I think the applicant needs to have a little bit of wiggle room to make sure that 00:50:27
it's all going to work with what they need to do, but I think increasing the minimum tree count on the back part of the property. 00:50:34
To help would would offset some of those concerns if that makes sense and I think we would, is that something that we could do 00:50:42
that would be reasonable? 00:50:46
I'm looking to council. 00:50:52
You've got to come back with a landscaping plan anyway, right? 00:50:55
So this is concept and preliminary. 00:50:59
So the question is, so you're approving the PUD? 00:51:01
Or you have it before you do approve the PUD that allows them to change the setbacks. Or they better come back with the 00:51:05
landscaping plan after the fact. 00:51:09
But we are looks like being asked to defer final two staff. 00:51:13
You don't have to. 00:51:19
So right, if there's concerns the Planning Commission can require? 00:51:20
Applicant to come back with the landscaping plan. 00:51:26
And you've kind of already indicated that you want something to mitigate the the proposed setbacks. 00:51:30
So I think. 00:51:37
Chris is competent. 00:51:39
He can come up with. 00:51:41
With the plan that I have lots of faith in the applicant on this. 00:51:42
Decided on something that would work and that would be that on their side of the property during that on that driveway that we 00:51:48
would agree with them that we would plant sufficient sufficient trees that we their privacy needs and our landscaping needs and 00:51:55
then it wouldn't even affect our backyard and not willing to do it's even better. 00:52:02
Between us which? 00:52:11
So we just to clarify, we you can't require the applicant to put trees on their property, but if the applicant wants to bring that 00:52:14
back as part of his landscaping plan. 00:52:19
You know, included in that. 00:52:25
That's a private agreement between them. We're good with that, but we can't require it if that makes sense. Yeah, no, we don't 00:52:29
have any authority to require something on somebody elses property. It's not before the planning. Well, when that property changes 00:52:35
hands, will all those trees on that side get the chainsaw right away anyway? Like we don't know, right. So we we can't do that. 00:52:41
But if they want to have a private agreement that's we're totally good with that. OK. 00:52:48
What we're approving if we approve the PUD. 00:52:55
Is we are you're approving flexibility with the setbacks and this preliminary and concept and preliminary and then they've got to 00:52:59
come back to get final. 00:53:04
So you don't have to delegate it. You could, but you don't have to. 00:53:10
And can I confirm that the setbacks on the back? 00:53:14
It's 15 feet required and the 10 feet is being proposed. Is that correct? So it's a 5 foot difference in what? 00:53:17
Could happen without our without the PUD approval. So 15 feet, yeah, without PUD, 10 feet with PUD, right. And then I guess if I 00:53:26
were better at the Pythagorean theorem or something, I'm just trying to visualize it does was the original brewery and restaurant 00:53:33
going to be close to the 35 and now it's going up to the 40. Is that, is that correct? I'm just, it seems like actually you won't 00:53:41
be able to see that 5 foot difference because it's so far away behind the. 00:53:48
Home. So that's actually not really the issue. The issue is the townhomes just being closer to the set back. Is that my great 00:53:56
understanding? Yeah, yeah. 00:53:59
If I may to one of the primary reasons why. 00:54:03
The staff is recommending approval of flexibility and setbacks here primarily. You have a big problem. 00:54:08
It's a massive power line easement that runs NS that they can't encroach into. 00:54:16
They can't build on the other side of it because it's too small, can't build under it, so everything has to be jammed within this 00:54:22
power line easement here and the right of way. 00:54:27
And we have these other dimensions that can't be changed. A fire line access 20 feet wide. Parking stall depths 18 feet deep. 00:54:33
Parking or sidewalk widths that are kind of these set in stone dimensions that sort of started pushing things out to into areas 00:54:44
that created a little some difficulty. That's one of the primary reasons why we have APUD situations to accommodate weird 00:54:50
scenarios. 00:54:56
Yeah. 00:55:04
I think my thought on this is it sounds like the the height change of the. 00:55:07
Of the restaurant and the six units above there are not the thing that's affecting the privacy of the lot next door. And I like 00:55:13
that it's mixed-use. I think that's really great. 00:55:17
The change in the set back. 00:55:22
Is is a change? 00:55:25
But it doesn't feel like so much of A material change that not changing the set back would preserve their privacy. And then that 00:55:28
extra 5 feet is what's destroying is just sort of the existence altogether. I appreciate that that they've that the developers and 00:55:35
the neighbors have been working together. It feels a little risky to say we're we're hoping that they will continue forward in 00:55:42
good faith. But actually, I also appreciate that they've been doing it so far at least, you know, communicating and working. 00:55:50
So in this instance. 00:55:57
That, you know, saying we can't force them to plant trees, but that sounds like a discussion they're having. 00:56:00
Well, we can't force them to plant trees on the neighbors on their property, right? 00:56:06
But but if that's the discussion they're having, then. 00:56:11
To me, that seems like a good mitigation of the slightly shifted setbacks. 00:56:14
And just to clarify what your concern is, were you comfortable then dedicating the final and not having them come back to Planning 00:56:21
Commission with a landscape plan or would you, I would still like to see the landscaping plan, but but I think in terms of 00:56:27
approving the PUD the the the 40 foot concern sounds like that's not what's happening. 00:56:33
And and then the setbacks would be mitigated through planting the trees on the neighbors property. And, you know, sometimes if you 00:56:40
don't know who's developing, it feels risky to say we're just going to trust them to do the right thing now that we've approved 00:56:45
it. But in this instance, it feels like it would be. 00:56:51
Umm, the history of what's been happening here is they've been talking and communicating, have been working together. 00:56:57
And I believe I've asked chemistry Wilczynski, I didn't realize they gave you a tricky double. So it gets to work on this, but 00:57:07
unless other command commissioners feel differently, I think then probably if we just scratch the. 00:57:13
Last line on the motion for the final to be. 00:57:20
Sent back to staff, but to have that final come back to us so we can see the landscape plan, I think the other. 00:57:26
Requirements as outlined works for me, unless commissioners have any other concerns around the proposed motion. 00:57:32
Chair, just one of their clarifying comments. So the there is no public hearing. 00:57:40
For that final right, So a final plat approval you don't or final concept of final plat approval does not require a public hearing 00:57:45
so. 00:57:49
Right. 00:57:53
This is Commissioner Vilcinski and I move to go ahead and approve the plan unit development conceptual site plan application 00:57:58
submitted by Mr. Brett Laughlin for Immigration Brewery, a mixed-use planned unit development in the C2 zone upon the findings 00:58:05
that. 00:58:11
Umm, the preliminary plat has been reviewed and considered substantially complete. 00:58:19
The proposed land use complies with the allowed uses in the C2 zone. The lot size, coverage and parking requirements meet the 00:58:25
minimum requirements of the C2 zone. 00:58:31
This approval is based upon the following conditions. 00:58:39
First one is that the applicant needs to address civil plan comments by city engineer. 00:58:45
The applicant also needs to submit grading and drainage plan. 00:58:52
The applicant needs to provide utility service letters with approved plans. 00:58:56
And also we need the applicant to submit landscaping plan with a tree canopy protection plan. 00:59:01
And this approval is also conditional upon the alignment of Arbor Lane and gaining permission. 00:59:08
To place those parking stalls, 7 or 6 parking stalls. 00:59:18
On that piece of property. 00:59:23
Yep, we can. We can work with that. OK, thank you. And then. 00:59:27
One concern, I just want to double check on the tree side of things with the landscaping, since it's in there with the landscape 00:59:33
plan, could I make a a amended motion or a motion, amendment, whatever to a? 00:59:40
Ask the applicant to when they present that tree canopy plan increase more than minimum required along the. 00:59:47
East side of the property. 00:59:57
I second that amended. 01:00:05
Motion. All right, we have a motion. It's been second and we'll call for a vote. Commissioner Baron Aye, Commissioner Gong aye. 01:00:07
Commissioner Fault aye. Mr. Wilcinski, Aye. And Commissioner Cunningham, aye. And Chair Roach votes aye. So that one is a check. 01:00:13
And then there is a second motion for the PUD. 01:00:19
This is Commissioner Wilchinski. I move to approve the preliminary plat for Immigration Brewery, a mixed used, mixed-use planned 01:00:26
unit development in the C2 zone upon the findings that here again the preliminary plat has been reviewed and considered 01:00:34
substantially complete. The proposed land use complies with allowed uses in the C2 zone and the lot size, coverage and parking 01:00:41
requirements meet the minimum requirement. 01:00:48
In the C2 zone. 01:00:56
Motion, Do we have a second? 01:00:58
Commissioner Roach will second that. We'll call for a vote. 01:01:02
Commissioner Cunningham aye, Mr. Voltinski Aye, Mr. Flaunt, Mr. Gong hi, Commissioner Baron Aye and Chair Roach votes aye. 01:01:05
All right. Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing you guys again soon. 01:01:14
And before we move into the far down in states, I am assuming this one is going to be a fun one. Everybody okay, Anybody need a 01:01:20
quick recess? Everybody all right, keep going. 01:01:25
All right, so moving forward into item number four, far down state subdivision amendment and extension for Latour St. we'll ask 01:01:32
city staff if they will come up and give us the. 01:01:38
Details on that. 01:01:47
Carrier, John. Flip a Coin. 01:01:50
All right. 01:01:56
OK. Item number four on the agenda. This is an application to amend and extend the Far Down Estate subdivision. 01:01:58
This property has two, well it's two parcels. Currently there's a rear parcel that is zoned as R210 and then a front parcel on the 01:02:09
Tour Street that is zoned as R110I. 01:02:17
The property owner is seeking to adjust the existing property lines between those two parcels. The issue is that the front parcel 01:02:26
is in the Far Down Estate subdivision. The rear parcel is not in a subdivision. So in order to adjust the property lines for that 01:02:35
property that's in the subdivision, we have to or the subdivision has to be amended. 01:02:44
In that amendment, it is easiest to bring in that extra land from the rear parcel, so that's the extension of the subdivision. 01:02:54
So it is. 01:03:02
Bringing more land into an existing subdivision and then adjusting property lines between those two parcels owned by the same 01:03:04
owner. 01:03:08
I think that's pretty straightforward on that one. Both lots will meet the minimum size required per zone. R210 requires a 6250 01:03:13
square foot lot and then R110 requires a 10,000 square foot lot. So the rear lot retains the 6250 square feet. It actually 01:03:21
increases in size from what? 01:03:29
Its existing sizes and there's enough land then left over 11,000 and 809 square feet for the front property. 01:03:38
And I'll have the applicant come up he can add any additional details on this. One thing that is noted. 01:03:48
On the access, so there is a 20 foot access on the side. This plat that's being displayed is not the most updated one. If you 01:03:58
scroll all the way down to the end of the packet, that's where the amendment is. 01:04:04
Got it. 01:04:12
So this accurately shows the distances there will be a 20 foot easement for in favor of the rear parcel. 01:04:14
It the applicant will be applying for a code modification of from fire code to reduce the width of that access. 01:04:25
And not require a turn around. 01:04:34
So on the plat, it is noted that the rear parcel will have a structure that is fire sprinkler. So that's noted on the pile would 01:04:38
be required at a building permit. 01:04:43
And I'll have the applicant come up and he can add any additional details. Thank you very much. With that, do we have Troy Jensen 01:04:48
or representative? 01:04:53
Maybe we can help you guys get caught up on some time. 01:05:01
Should be pretty simple. Troy Jensen I live at 6018 S Latour St. so I live in the home that's on the front parcel I. 01:05:05
Yeah, our proposal is simple. We just. 01:05:15
We were asked by the Planning Commission because the parcel lot, which is labeled Lot 20, wasn't included in any plat map 01:05:19
anywhere, and so the math didn't workout when you tried to put them together. So all they want us to do is. 01:05:25
Get those combined into the existing plat map to make the math workout to where you know everything is connected and recorded 01:05:32
properly. Not a problem. I have talked with the fire Marshall about the right of way and the easement and he he had said that you 01:05:41
know as long as the structure is fire sprinkled we don't have to have that whole 20 width as a paved area or right of way. 01:05:51
We're happy to do that. This is. 01:06:01
Really it's, you know, partial that we're creating to build a home from my parents who are getting older and we just want them to 01:06:04
be able to be close to us to where we can help them out, you know, as they needed a. 01:06:11
But other than that it's pretty straightforward. Any questions? 01:06:19
Commissioner Barron, looking at this, it looks like you have frontage on the Emerald Ridge Cove. 01:06:23
I know that that's a private road, but I don't see a non access easement or any restriction to that, right. So the development 01:06:31
which is I think it's the Highland. 01:06:37
Point Village PUD and along the the portion of that lot there's a block wall that is surrounding on the north side and that 01:06:45
continues down on the West side of our property that divides that. So there is no access the HOA. 01:06:54
We did approach the HOA to find out if we could join and be part of that HOA. They decided that they didn't want to do that, which 01:07:04
is fine, but it is currently bordered by the concrete precast fence so well that would help if you could have gotten the access. 01:07:10
But I. 01:07:16
Well, that's what we thought, but you know, it didn't workout that way. So we're we're fine with this this way as well. So, OK, 01:07:22
other questions for the applicant. 01:07:26
All right, we'll go ahead and have you sit down. Thank you. 01:07:32
And with that, we will open up the public hearing for those that wish to speak on this item tonight. Just as a reminder, state 01:07:35
your name and address when you approach the podium and please keep comments to three minutes or less and try not to restate any 01:07:40
prior made comments if someone has spoken before you. And with that, we will invite any members of the public that want to come up 01:07:45
and speak on this now. 01:07:50
My name is Wayne Benyan. 01:08:00
And my address is 2035 Diamond Hills Lane, so I live. 01:08:02
Adjacent to the. 01:08:08
Vacant property. 01:08:10
And I got to tell you, I have very little, if any confidence. 01:08:13
In this particular gentleman's ability to be straightforward in anything that he proposes. 01:08:19
When he visited with me. 01:08:25
He told me I was gonna, that he was going to build a house on that and that he was going to join our. 01:08:27
HOA and I said I don't think that's going to happen. 01:08:35
And he insisted that that's what was going to happen. And he tried to bully me on my front porch on that same day. 01:08:40
And convince me that he was going to join our HOA and change the zoning. 01:08:49
So that he could be a member of all these homes to the West of him. 01:08:56
And he was very unprofessional. I thought he was very over the top with me. 01:09:02
He has. 01:09:10
A small shed to back your backyard. Shed in the corner. 01:09:12
Corner of the vacant in the north. 01:09:17
West corner of the property that he evidently has placed. 01:09:21
Some repair materials for a for. 01:09:28
Re roofing this the small shed but every day that I wake up in the morning for the past year and currently I look across from 01:09:33
where I live and all I can see is a bunch of material. 01:09:39
Laying on the top of this. 01:09:47
Otherwise normal backyard shed and I've thought I'm going to go over there and ask him to remove. 01:09:49
These materials that I mean it's right. 01:09:58
It's within 15 feet of my front door. 01:10:02
And I have an office in the front of my house that I lookout the window on a nice day and I can enjoy most of what's going on 01:10:05
outside. 01:10:09
But for the past year, he's had this material sitting right at my eye level on the top of his shed. Kind of an irritant? Probably 01:10:14
not. 01:10:20
Terribly considerable in your view, but. 01:10:26
I did have an interaction with him about a year ago about his intentions. 01:10:32
And he made claims that he had already. 01:10:36
Progressed in his attempt to become a part of our HOA, which were completely. 01:10:40
False, and I have little respect or confidence in his ability to. 01:10:47
To be honest with his neighbors or with the council? 01:10:53
Thank you. All right, thank you. 01:10:58
Any other comments from the public? 01:11:05
I apologize, I'm just going to interrupt real quick. One of you with the passcode. I know I'm wearing a jacket, but it's rather 01:11:08
warm up here with the sun. Would you mind just hitting that AC box a couple degrees for me? I'd love it. Go ahead. Sorry, I'm Dina 01:11:16
Robertson. I live at 6008 Ruby Ridge Cove in the HOAI. Just have a couple questions I'd like the the someone to answer. 01:11:23
And I'm very visual. Can I point? Is that acceptable? Yeah, you can point just as long as you speak into the microphone so we know 01:11:32
what you're pointing at and talking about. 01:11:36
Oh, it's right here the white part of the Anderson home that you've listed here on off of Latour. So you're the question is the 01:11:42
driveway will go down past on this. 01:11:47
North side of the current household. 01:11:55
And then? 01:12:00
I can't tell that's an outbuilding or part of their house. So in other words, the access would be right there. And then you said 01:12:02
that this lot in the back here, this small lot is not a part of the subdivision. I'm curious what it is a part of, why it's 01:12:07
needing to be. 01:12:12
Brought in, is that something that our HOA owns and we didn't know it or and then I think the access was made pretty clear that 01:12:17
that's how that's going to be. And I was concerned about the fire truck and it sounds like there was allotment for that with the 01:12:24
sprinklers. So just those two questions would be great. 01:12:30
All righty. Well with that I'll just pause public comment real quick and see if city staff wants to speak to the. 01:12:37
Or reiterate the parcel. 01:12:46
The parcel is a separate parcel. It is owned by the property owner. He owns both of those parcels. 01:12:50
That. 01:13:01
That rear parcel was zoned to the R2 zone when that PUD was created, but it was not incorporated into the PUD. So it wasn't ever 01:13:04
part of this subdivision. And John, if you want to go to the original subdivision plat. 01:13:13
For far down estates. 01:13:24
What was the date that was created? 01:13:29
64 yeah. So 1964 is when far down a state subdivision was created. You can see lot 8 kind of on the border. So lot 9 goes further 01:13:32
out, Lot 8 jogs in. 01:13:39
A significant amount of area there behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 that we're not in the Far Down Estate subdivision originally. So the 01:13:48
application is to bring that area of land into the subdivision so that the lot line can be adjusted between. 01:13:56
The two parcels. 01:14:04
Thank you very much, City. 01:14:06
City staff care. 01:14:09
Um, all right, any other comments from public? 01:14:12
Can I just ask a clarifying question? Yes. Is the HOA those two members of Polk River referring to? Is that the Far Down Estates 01:14:16
HOA? 01:14:20
No, that would be the Diamond Hills. I don't remember what that's the other one village. 01:14:26
OK. So Highland Point Village is that planned unit development, they have smaller lots, smaller setbacks, got it. Everything that 01:14:34
you'd see standard in a planned unit development. So that parcel was not included in their planned unit development. So it's. 01:14:43
Just a regular piece of land. Thank you. 01:14:52
All right, good clarification, I. 01:14:56
Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? 01:14:59
Once, twice. All right. And with that, we'll go ahead and invite the applicant back up if you wants to make any additional 01:15:04
comments based on those given tonight. If not, you can just say no thanks and we can move forward. 01:15:10
Excuse me, just to address a couple of issues. I. 01:15:21
You know, initially when we purchased the property, I had been in touch with the HOA president and, you know, talked with with her 01:15:26
and, and asked her to present to the owners if we could become part of the HOA and she said she would and. 01:15:36
As far as I understand, that's what they did in in one of their HOA meetings and they determined that they they would rather not. 01:15:49
Umm. I think maybe there's some memory issues, maybe with some of the descriptions that have been made about my demands and what 01:15:58
I. 01:16:03
Told one of the property owners in that development as to what was going to happen. 01:16:09
I've, I mean, I've been around a long time and I just, I know that you're not going to tell anybody else what's gonna happen and 01:16:15
have that workout very well. So our initial reaction was. 01:16:21
It was full of bigger, let's say. 01:16:31
From both sides, but I don't intend to make a character assassination or any comments in regard to that. I think what we're doing 01:16:34
is we're using our land as as we see fit and we we comply with all of the requirements as far as the plan and the zone for what 01:16:42
we're doing. So I appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right, thank you for that clarification and I will close the public 01:16:49
hearing and we will turn to commissioners discussion. 01:16:56
In regards to this property, Commissioners, questions, comments. 01:17:05
Commissioner Baron, I guess my comment is I'm glad to see this kind of get cleaned up a little bit. 01:17:12
I think that helps. I'm sorry that maybe there's a disagreement between neighbors, but I don't want to get in the middle of that. 01:17:18
But I think this helps to a degree, so. 01:17:23
Whether that helps anybody up here? 01:17:30
Well, as opposed to having a lot sitting behind you that doesn't really belong to anything. Yeah, the meets and bounds are tough 01:17:34
because you don't get much out of that. So yeah, Commissioner gone. I just want to clarify, it sounds like the Access Rd. can be a 01:17:39
little bit. 01:17:45
Can be smaller because it because the house will be sprinkled and it doesn't have to be that 20 feet. Is that going to be a 01:17:54
problem in terms of future? 01:17:58
Change in ownership or is that fine because it will be sprinkled that's the end of that right access. So since that's noted on the 01:18:04
plat it will be a requirement you know fifty 100 years down the road if somebody. 01:18:09
Purchases that rear property, tears down the house. They would have to then build a new house with fire sprinklers or change the 01:18:15
access to meet fire requirements. OK, but the but the access is fine for just residential use of a driveway right? OK, great. 01:18:22
Anything on this side? 01:18:32
There's a quiet over here. They're having a good time. All right. I believe I picked on Commissioner Baron if he would bring any 01:18:34
final thoughts to this and then offer a motion if prepared to do so. 01:18:40
I have a sorry quick comment too, because utility letters are noted in here as a requirement, part of a conditional approval 01:18:47
possibly if the Commission wanted to go that route, the applicant has submitted a. 01:18:55
For utility service letters, so they have. 01:19:05
A letter that I got tonight from Dominion and I believe from Rocky Mountain as well. Or was it just Dominion? 01:19:09
So just Dominion? 01:19:18
So those will likely be available in seven to 10 days. 01:19:22
So one of the conditions is that they submit all the required utility letters. So would that is that going to cover it? You OK 01:19:27
with that? OK. 01:19:31
This is Commissioner Barrett I motion that we approve. 01:19:36
The preliminary plan application by Troy Jensen Ford. 01:19:40
To amend and extend the Far Down Estate subdivision based upon the findings. 01:19:44
The development complies with the General Plan to the rear. The rear lot complies with the minimum lot standards for a single 01:19:50
family detached unit development in the R-2-10 zone #3 The front lot complies with the minimum lot standards for a single family 01:19:57
unit in the R110 zone 4. Details required for the preliminary and final plat have been submitted with the exception of utility 01:20:05
service Letters 5. 01:20:12
Access and utility utility easements to the river. The property is acceptable pending public utility approval. 01:20:20
And the findings or excuse me, and the fall and the conditions. 01:20:28
They need to submit all required utility service letters with the acceptance of proposed utility easement on the front lot. Submit 01:20:32
code modifications, request to UFA for fire sprinklers, release of access requirements, recording access easement in favor of the 01:20:41
rear lot. Provide CCN Rs specifically detailing maintenance of the access lane. 01:20:49
Also within one year and in accordance with 13.08 point 010 point D5 to defer administrative review and approval of the final plat 01:20:59
by the by the Community and Economic Development Director following a positive written recommendation from the TRC. 01:21:08
Right, outstanding. Thank you for that motion. Do we have a second? 01:21:18
Commissioner, font seconds. With that, we'll call for a vote. Commissioner Cunningham aye, Mr. Wilcinski aye, Commissioner Fallon 01:21:23
Aye, Commissioner Gong aye, and Commissioner Baron Aye and Chair Roach votes aye, and it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. 01:21:29
All right. 01:21:39
And then we have one more item on our agenda for public hearing this evening, which is the Jetty subdivision PUD. Looks like we 01:21:41
still have a couple people here up. Hold on, jumping the gun. Sorry. First thing we're going to do is ask our city staff to give 01:21:48
us a quick rundown and then we will be inviting the applicant to come speak on that. 01:21:55
All right, item number 5, this is a subdivision amendment to add a conditional use planned unit development to this two lot 01:22:07
subdivision. It's the Jetty subdivision created in 2015 at 1873 E Lincoln Lane. It's a 2 lot subdivision, total acreage of .70 01:22:17
acres, which is 30,492 square feet. That's in an R1. 01:22:26
Zone with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. 01:22:36
Holiday city code for flag lots where you have a rear lot that is accessed through a driveway that that goes back to the to the 01:22:44
rear parcel requires that setbacks for the abutting or immediately adjacent parcels match on the flag lot. There's a diagram in 01:22:51
the staff report. 01:22:59
Details what the setbacks would be. 01:23:07
A rear set back on the east side. A rear set back on the South side. 01:23:11
Partial site set back on the Northside and then a partial rear set back on the north side and then a side set back on the West 01:23:17
side. 01:23:23
So with those setbacks. 01:23:30
The the applicant looked at those and wanted to make some modifications on on the set back, specifically to preserve an improved 01:23:33
kind of large open area. 01:23:40
That's on. 01:23:47
The rear portion of the lot on the West side. So in order to preserve that space, make that non buildable space. It then limits 01:23:49
the area for what was previously buildable space for a second structure. 01:23:57
So with the shift to the east side of the property, the applicant is then asking for reduced setbacks from. 01:24:06
12 feet or sorry, from 22 feet to 12 feet on the east side. 01:24:16
From 22 feet to 10 feet on the. 01:24:25
South side The side set back is 10 feet. 01:24:29
That's in line with what a side set back would be and then on the north side. 01:24:36
You'd have they're proposing A10 foot set back, which is larger than what a site set back would be for the east part. And then for 01:24:42
the West part where there's a rear yard, it would have to go jog in 20 to 22 feet. So they're just proposing a standard at 10 01:24:48
feet. 01:24:53
They're identified building area that's shown on that inner. 01:25:01
Square includes the driveway that's driveways aren't typically included on. 01:25:06
On a building area, but it can be that building area gives them flexibility to angle the house or offset it some way. That's kind 01:25:14
of the. 01:25:19
The furthest reaches is what they're proposing there, and. 01:25:25
A couple of they do have some proposed landscaping on the next sheet. 01:25:31
To mitigate some of those smaller impacts or smaller setbacks. 01:25:39
Staff review of this recommendation would be possibly to have some variability in those setbacks. 01:25:45
Specifically on the east side, there's the structure immediately to the east has a portion that comes up closer to the property 01:25:55
and then a part that goes much further back. So maybe to oppose that separate so that. 01:26:03
The part that's closer than is met with a further set back. The part that's further on the neighbors then can have a the closer 01:26:12
proposed set back. So that's that's a condition that the Planning Commission could consider. 01:26:18
Also requiring trees on that east side, there's not any that are proposed there currently. That could be a consideration of 01:26:26
conditions for the Commission. 01:26:32
And I think that is all that I have noted in the staff report, specifically with the planned unit development, the intent is some 01:26:38
flexibility in the land use so that you have. 01:26:46
One of those is open space, unique neighborhoods, high quality housing. By limiting your building areas, you're creating a kind of 01:26:58
a smaller footprint than what? 01:27:03
Possibly would have been there before in exchange for this larger open space. Another recommendation noted in the staff report is 01:27:10
to identify then. 01:27:15
Specific building area that's tied to the house that is existing on lot 1, so that that whole portion of their proposed lot 1 01:27:22
doesn't become buildable space tied into lot 1. So it preserves the open space that is there and ensures that it stays that way. 01:27:30
And I will have the applicant come up and they can talk about their proposal a little bit more. 01:27:40
I have a question, just one SEC yes, on the proposed building envelope. 01:27:45
Is there supposed to be a fire access turn around at the end of that driveway or so similar with that we saw in the last 01:27:51
application they're proposing fire sprinklers OK to in order to not have those access requirements? Thank you. 01:27:58
All right. Thank you, Carrie. And now we'll ask the applicant who's been patiently waiting this whole time to come up and. 01:28:07
Stephanie Vollmer. I am the representative to the property owners, Richard Hadlock and Sylvia Hadlock. My address is 2804 E 2850 01:28:14
S. 01:28:18
We're applying for the PUD conditional use permit primarily so that we can build a single family residence on Lot 2. 01:28:24
The current setbacks are very limiting. The width of the lot is only 88 feet, so with 25 feet rear setbacks, or maybe it was 22. 01:28:31
It just is very limiting to to be able to put a house back there. 01:28:39
So we are proposing a lot line adjustment, flexibility and setbacks, and we're willing to mitigate the impact and we're willing 01:28:48
to, you know, do whatever the city recommends what we do. 01:28:54
So just to confirm with what city staff had recommended where specifically that duplex that kind of abuts up onto the top corner 01:29:02
of the property, you'd be amenable to having that? 01:29:08
Building footprint set back further. 01:29:15
Yeah, yeah. We're open to that. We we're open to like angling the house. We're opening to shifting the house further to the West. 01:29:18
Umm, we're open to making it good for the neighbors, and we want to add many trees in our landscape plan. I added eight new trees, 01:29:27
4 on each lot. But we can do more than that and we we can add trees on that east side too. 01:29:35
OK. And then? 01:29:43
Also. 01:29:45
Changing the sub boundaries of Lot 1 for that open, Yeah, yeah, OK. 01:29:46
All right, cool. Just want to make sure I understand that. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Baron, can 01:29:52
you tell me why we're trying to preserve this little golf course? 01:29:57
I mean, it looks like it's going to be with Lot 1, right? Yes. So we'll be tied into Lot 1 as part of their legal property 01:30:03
boundaries and that's. 01:30:08
With with PUD's, there's a lot of flexibility. Some applicants will choose to just have the structure be owned, some will include 01:30:14
more significant amount of space to be owned privately so that there's. 01:30:20
Comment space. There's not any set standards of you have to have X amount of common space. So for the intensive how they were 01:30:27
envisioning their property, that's it. It made sense to tie that. 01:30:34
Open Space and the improvements there to Lot 1 specifically. 01:30:42
I believe that they considered making it common space, but just. 01:30:47
For ease of their intents, I think it was just easier to make it legally tied to. So there's not a requirement to have open space, 01:30:52
it's just preferred with the PUD in a planned unit development. It's one of the intents is and I the paragraph from the purpose of 01:30:59
a planned unit development in the. 01:31:06
There's not any specific determined by the Planning Commission just how much is appropriate because to me. 01:31:16
Saving that doesn't necessarily add any value to the open space. 01:31:21
And it doesn't. It takes away kind of the flexibility of how you could develop on the lot. 01:31:27
To me moving the house further West. 01:31:32
Away from the house to the east is much more appropriate and then reducing by lengthening it, we could reduce the North and South 01:31:35
setbacks or increase them, excuse me, to make it a little bit more conducive with the surrounding property. But that's why I'm 01:31:41
wondering why the I mean. 01:31:46
And I think that yes, the the golf thing is there currently it, it is still open space. It's not natural vegetation. You could add 01:31:53
requirements to add natural vegetation to that, but on the subdivision plat or the beauty it's still. 01:32:02
Designated as open space. So if a future landowner came in and purchased lot 1, they couldn't build and develop into that area. 01:32:12
Same thing with lot 2. You're not building and developing into that area that. 01:32:18
I think it's .11 acres is just preserved as kind of a park even though it's not natural vegetation currently. So is there any 01:32:26
discussion to actually have lot to extend all the way across? 01:32:32
That's what is on the existing plat. Oh, I'm sorry, maybe that's where I saw my apology. 01:32:40
And just to clarify on that part of it, the Eau, the external accessory dwelling unit couldn't be built on Lot 1 back there unless 01:32:47
they got permission because of the PUD, is that right? Yes, same thing if they so changing those property boundaries on Lot 1, if 01:32:56
you then incorporate the PUD element and restrict the building area, that then eliminates having. 01:33:05
An accessory structure that can be built there. 01:33:15
Or a significant addition onto that house, or addition on to the second house if that were to. 01:33:17
Shift it's it's taking what was a really huge portion of buildable area for a lot 2A house could have extended that full area on 01:33:26
lot 2 and shrinking that down in order to make that dedicated open space non buildable. 01:33:36
One last question. 01:33:46
Why does the driveway go up and around lot 1? 01:33:48
Looks like they're putting trees along the north side. 01:33:53
That was as we revised our plan. OK, sorry, I'm just trying to keep up with all the different exhibits. 01:33:58
Go up one. 01:34:12
It was right there. 01:34:19
So this one doesn't have the trees, but it just shows the proposed setbacks. Just the proposed setbacks, yeah. 01:34:27
There are, there are about 10 trees that line the West side of lot 1. It's a little bit hard to tell that lines that whole 01:34:36
property line. I mean we could do the same thing on the north side, east side. I mean we're open to adding vegetation to create 01:34:43
privacy for the neighbors. Our intention is not to encroach on the neighbors by any means. We just. 01:34:50
The property's owners want to build a retirement home in the back and currently it's too limiting to build anything back there. So 01:34:58
Carrie, can you tell me why the property line, the western property line of Lot 2? 01:35:05
Kind of why does it go there instead of to the green? It has a common shared drive, so property lot. So what's the driveway 01:35:12
accessing? 01:35:17
If you zoom out, is that a parking lot at the north side of the golf course? I think on the. 01:35:22
Vicinity that one that kind of gives the context of the full area as did you want to see. I'm just trying to figure out how 01:35:30
they're choosing where the lot lights are going because again, I'm I'm trying to get back to increasing or reducing the set back 01:35:36
on the West side. 01:35:43
So we can increase it on the east side and then reducing or. 01:35:50
Lose my mind here and increasing the North and South setbacks to be. 01:35:55
Maybe the South isn't quite so bad because you've got just a shed there, but the Northside the house is fairly close so maybe move 01:36:00
the house South and West and give them the additional so that so you've got 3 parcels you're talking about on the north side. 01:36:10
Yeah, I was just trying to give some consideration to the adjacent. 01:36:20
Residential homes. So the first parcel that's on is that 23rd East. 01:36:25
Holiday balloon, a Holiday Blvd. So that first parcel that fronts onto Holiday Blvd. is a side yard set back. So the required side 01:36:32
yard set back for the flag law is 8.8 feet. The subdivision has a 10 foot public utility easement, so they're meeting the side 01:36:41
yard set back for the first part and then it would have to jog down to 22 feet for the next two parcels. 01:36:51
OK, I thought you said that. 01:37:01
The setbacks, and I apologize if I misheard this. The setbacks. 01:37:04
Are consistent with the setbacks on the adjacent properties. Is that what? Yes, so they have to match what's. 01:37:09
As is, if they were to build on the second lot with the standard setbacks, it the set back on that north side would go 8 1/2 feet, 01:37:17
22 feet, so it would drop down for those second two parcels that are on the north side. 01:37:27
John, if you'll scroll to right after the staff report, it's page 4. 01:37:38
That shows. 01:37:44
The adjacent setbacks. 01:37:47
On the existing subdivision plat. 01:37:51
That one. 01:37:55
So yellow is where a side yard set back would be in place and orange is where a rear yard set back would be in place. 01:37:58
So if they were to take that lot too as is, it would be they could go. 01:38:09
Up to the public utility easement line, 10 feet on the West side. 01:38:15
22 feet or let's see since they're. 01:38:22
The 22 feet was based off of a reduced size for a lot too, because they're taking lot 2 down in size. 01:38:26
With the size as is, it would be a 25 foot set back on the east side and on the South side and then for a portion of the north 01:38:34
side. 01:38:40
All the orange parts. So if they are to develop the property as is no PUD, it would be. 01:38:46
Really close, 10 feet from the neighboring property on the West side. 01:38:54
25 feet from the property on the east side. 01:39:00
And then jog on the north sides. 01:39:04
And 25 feet from the property on the on the West side or sorry, South side. 01:39:07
And the 25 is for the pu E. 01:39:14
So the it's a 20 foot PUE that's labeled on there that just extends from the fire access. Without a fire access they wouldn't need 01:39:19
that. 01:39:25
Well, peeling on it, my suggestion is just to try and take advantage where we can and. 01:39:33
Allow the larger setbacks to the adjacent properties, but I'll let the other commissioners make that decision real quick. So 01:39:40
before we get lost too far lost on that, were there any other questions for the applicant who's been standing at the podium 01:39:46
patiently? I don't know if the applicant can answer this or staff, but if the set bar backs are not adjusted, what is the maximum 01:39:53
square footage of a potential house there? 01:39:59
I mean there is some description about it being like a trailer, but that was just a shape. 01:40:08
And that I'm wondering, OK, this all seems to hinge on trying to keep the putting green. 01:40:15
It's really hinging on. We want to build a house and if there's 25 feet, setbacks on most of the sides. 01:40:23
It just makes for a really odd shaped house and the width is only 88 feet. So if you -50 feet, the house can be 30 feet in some 01:40:32
portions, extend in other portions. 01:40:39
The property owners intend to build a small. 01:40:47
Rambler 2500 foot square house will be much smaller than the building envelope the red line we have. 01:40:52
And then that gives us flexibility to angle and shape it. 01:41:01
So that we can create privacy to the neighbors. 01:41:04
It just the setbacks are more just to give us flexibility to build a reasonable house on the back. 01:41:08
The cutting green preserving the putting green is just to preserve open space. 01:41:16
That's it. We can remove the putty green add trees. I mean there's you have no intentions about that if anything the putting 01:41:21
green. 01:41:25
We want to give it to Lot 1 because that house doesn't have a backyard. 01:41:31
Right now very well where the property line sits. So we want to change the property line to give lot 1A better backyard and lot 2 01:41:38
the ability to build a reasonable house. 01:41:44
So you want to build a 2500 square foot? 01:41:54
One story home on lot 2, is that correct? 01:41:59
I'm sorry the property owners intention, OK, OK. 01:42:05
So it would appear that there's enough land there. 01:42:08
Chip build that home. 01:42:13
And Orient it in such a way that it would not encroach on the neighbors. Even by reducing doing the lot line adjustment that I 01:42:17
proposed, Lot 2 still is .25 acres, which is enough space for a single family residence. 01:42:25
110, So it's really just the setbacks are limiting factor back there. 01:42:34
OK, well, I think I think we've got a good handle on where we're at. We still got a public hearing. Yeah, we got people that are 01:42:42
probably one time in. We'll go ahead and have you sit down and then we'll after public comment, we can definitely have the 01:42:48
applicant come back up and address any comments made by the public on this. So with that we'll open the public comment period 01:42:54
again, state name and address. Please try and keep things concise and non repetitive. 01:43:00
Certainly. 01:43:07
My name is Douglas Lund, I live in 1909 Lincoln Lane. I want to just share that I did not get notice of this meeting when my 01:43:08
property immediately abuts that I received notice from. A neighbor just happened to send me something Sunday night so I've had 01:43:14
little time to prepare. 01:43:20
For this, so please take that into account, but I've lived in my home for almost 30 years. I've planted more than 30 trees since 01:43:27
I've lived there. That the whole essence of holiday is very important to me. And when I moved into my house, my house was actually 01:43:35
zoned R28 holiday city change that. R110I embrace that because I love the surroundings around there. I have more than 400 feet of 01:43:42
public frontage because I'm on that corner lot. 01:43:50
So one of the few things that I enjoy about my lot is that back northwest corner. 01:43:57
I love having the large setbacks that come with that. I love the privacy of that backyard. 01:44:03
As I look at R110 and I look at R1 in general to encourage some of the things that that we look at there are low density, 01:44:10
comfortable, healthy, safe, pleasant for new developments, intent for harmonious and compatible with the existing character and 01:44:20
development patterns in the media vicinity including building mass set back lot coverage. 01:44:29
Height and it also talks about graduated height and building envelope in that building. 01:44:39
And I look at the PUD coming out of the ordinances there. It's to preserve existing greenery and existing trees. 01:44:46
Is one of those things and the other thing is must justify why that PUD would be better for the city and by extension the 01:44:57
neighborhood and by extension the neighbors. But as I look at a putting green that is essentially green outdoor carpet. 01:45:05
No trees that they're preserving or protecting. That just seems nonsensical to me that that we would offset that house by that and 01:45:14
reduce these setbacks to just these incredibly low numbers. I. 01:45:21
This PUD or this proposed PUD would impact 6 private back or 8 private backyards including my own. I just don't see how that's 01:45:30
fair at all. And I I do question some of the things on here that suggesting that the rear set back should be 22 feet on a parcel 01:45:40
that's .39 acres. If I look in the in the code book that's suggesting that's a 29 foot set back for the rear. 01:45:50
Back if I look at the width of that yard, which is in the 180 feet wide, that's suggesting that that lot is more than double what 01:46:00
an R110 is, right. So when it's double that it's 30% side setbacks with the minimum being 15% of of that. And so that's suggesting 01:46:10
that E if they wanted to shift the east all the way to the east, that should be at least a 27 foot set back there, but I think. 01:46:20
What you have said here tonight, you respect the setbacks, you respect the neighborhood that's around there, the backyards, the 01:46:30
property owners that like me, are significantly impacted by this. And the reality is when the Hadlocks moved into that home or 01:46:39
bought that property, it was raw dirt. They could, they could put any house on in any way they wanted to. 01:46:47
In either those existing parcels and they chose to do what they chose to do. 01:46:56
If they created a hardship they created that hardship on themselves it shouldn't be the rest of the neighborhood that's taking 01:47:01
that the lickings for that I would also suggest that the existing home does not comply with the building envelope as it as it 01:47:08
appears to me on that West side? 01:47:14
And so I question, you know, given latitude, what kind of latitude are they going to take in addition to what might be here to 01:47:21
given tonight in consideration. I I just don't think it's fair if indeed they are genuine and their intent to want to build a 2500 01:47:31
square foot rambler. There is more than enough adequate space to build a 2500 square foot home in the current setbacks that are. 01:47:41
Required and honor the neighborhood honor the neighbors that have lived there Rick to the east of that property their families 01:47:51
been there for 60 years so that's that is what my plea is here tonight that please take into account the 8 backyards that are 01:47:59
directly impacted by this flag lot subdivision and. 01:48:07
I share that with you and leave that with you tonight to please make those considerations, but. 01:48:16
I strongly oppose the PUD and cutting down setbacks from what is required. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lund. 01:48:22
Again, state name and address. Please don't reiterate too many of the same points. 01:48:34
My name is Chris Jensen. I live at 1878 E Lincoln Lane. I'm directly across the street. 01:48:40
I want to first state, thanks for your service. I did this for eight years sitting up there, so I know what you're going through. 01:48:47
So you know, one of the things about the Planning Commission, though, is it is your requirement to interpret and to follow the 01:48:52
intent and the spirit. 01:48:58
Of the city zoning code that has been established and there's a lot of efforts that go into that zoning code. 01:49:04
And I live on a flag lot, so I think there's a little history here. We ought to think about flag lots. 01:49:12
If you go to the South side of Lincoln Lane, there's probably six or seven flag lots. I live on one of them. When mine was 01:49:19
developed, it was before Holiday City was incorporated was under Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County required a flag lot to own a 01:49:25
road all the way to the public St. 01:49:31
We don't do that. Now we can allow an easement, we can share a private drive, but I own the road all the way to the street. I have 01:49:37
set back set are consistent with the setbacks that are allowed within this zone. They're not reduced And there's mine is across 01:49:45
the street, there's I can count 4:00 to 5:00 to the West of me. I can count 1 to the east of me. 01:49:54
There is several flag lots that are here and not one of them. 01:50:03
Have reduced setbacks. 01:50:09
I think the the purpose of the zoning ordinance under Section 13.01030. 01:50:12
And I think Mr. Lund talked about the aesthetics and the welfare. I think one of the things that is important to understand is 01:50:19
what is that spirit? What is that intent? I think the other thing that is an interesting and in the staff report. 01:50:28
Where they have listed. 01:50:37
Conditional uses. 01:50:40
Under a conditional use, shall not. 01:50:43
Result in the loss of privacy. 01:50:46
How does a 10 foot set back? 01:50:49
Allow privacy for both applicants. 01:50:53
One from the people that it's affecting and also for the person that is building. 01:50:57
I think that that is does not meet the intent. 01:51:04
And the spirit of this ordinance is to reduce a setback that causes the loss of privacy. 01:51:09
I think it's a couple of interesting things that was Mr. Lund brought up, but I'm going to it's a little different point that 01:51:17
existing putting green. If you look at the if you look at the plat Mr. Hadlock built that on adjacent parcel. 01:51:24
He built that on, not even on his own ground. Now he's come back and asked to move it into Lot 1. He's asking to reduce the 01:51:31
setbacks and he sits there and tells you guys that, oh, he's going to build a house. 01:51:38
Yet he's told everyone of our neighbors, no, he's moving to California and this is just a land grab. He's just trying to be able 01:51:46
to negotiate a sale for this property, he's told multiple neighbors. 01:51:53
At many that you probably have records that came in through emails. He's moving to California and he's building a house in 01:52:00
California and moving away. What does he care about our properties and what does he care about what's going on? He doesn't. He's 01:52:06
moving to California. 01:52:12
He wants the maximum value and he's probably got a deal set up to already sell it since his agent is his real estate agent and he 01:52:18
had his house on the market trying to sell it. 01:52:23
So I guess I would say why are why now? Why didn't they do it originally? 01:52:30
Why didn't they had the subdivision? They bought it. It has a fire access lot 2 is plenty size to build a house. He chose not to 01:52:36
do it. 01:52:41
He's now coming back and asking for forgiveness, asking to change it all around for the benefit and the convenience of what he's 01:52:46
trained it wants to do, and then to turn around and move away. 01:52:51
I say no, it does not meet the intent of and the ordinance and the spirit of this zoning ordinance to reduce the setbacks when 01:52:57
there's not one house that's on a flag lot or one house adjacent to this that the setbacks are reduced. Why do it now? The spirit 01:53:06
of this ordinance is for harmonious and to bring everything and be consistent and not reduce it. 01:53:15
The second thing is, is I think the submittals are. 01:53:24
Are pointless. There's no detail in them. There's no plat, there's no plat document, there's no landscape plans. As a design 01:53:28
professional, I can honestly tell you I can't come into a city and go through a city ordinance and a city zoning with these type 01:53:34
of drawings. I would be thrown out. 01:53:41
So in conclusion, this proposal does not meet the intent and the spirit of this code and therefore should not be approved. Thank 01:53:48
you. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. 01:53:53
No, thank you. 01:54:00
Commissioners, my name is Rick Stevenson. I own the property at 4328 Holiday Blvd. 01:54:06
Directly to the east of Doctor Hadlock's property, I want to compliment you sitting we have properties in three different areas 01:54:14
and listening to how this isn't brown nosing. I truly appreciate your approach because you judiciously consider. 01:54:24
The applicants and the arguments against that, so the. 01:54:36
Planner, the commissioners, the chairman. Thank you for that. And in that spirit, I hope you will listen to the two previous 01:54:40
gentlemen. I. 01:54:44
The Hadlocks built this fresh. They tore down a house where their existing house is. So I don't see a hardship here. Twice my wife 01:54:51
and I have granted quitclaim deeds because. 01:54:58
People building homes were, what's a polite way, misled by two different builders and they were unable to access their property. 01:55:05
It was an easy thing to grant them quick claim access or ownership of property because it was indeed hardships in those two cases 01:55:12
and we were happy to do it in this case. 01:55:20
The you know the headlights daughter referred to the applicant as the seller, which I think is telling the Hadlocks. My 01:55:29
understanding is they've either started a home in the Bay Area or. 01:55:36
I think they have property. They may be building the home. Maybe they're going to build a little house on this property and they 01:55:43
don't want it to look like a double wide trailer. Or maybe just maybe they're marketing this, They're posturing this land so they 01:55:50
can better market it. I can't blame them for that. 01:55:57
Because we all want to maximize a believe in property rights, but I'm also I believe in the rule of law when there's a set back, 01:56:04
it's for a reason. And as and may also say, I got no notice from that this hearing was being held no notice. So the only reason I 01:56:11
am ill prepared for this is because Doug, upon hearing it, Doug Lund called me last night and said, oh, do you realize there's a 01:56:18
hearing on this? 01:56:25
So that's unfortunate. I don't see a hardship. 01:56:32
I think you're all very judicious, intelligent people. So I would go one and and really. 01:56:35
Cal's commissioner. 01:56:43
Parent actually stated my point quite well and so I'm just adding on to what he said. I don't I would go on set further and urge 01:56:46
you to reject this because this is a capricious thing done solely solely to market it. Can't blame them for that. I want the most 01:56:53
out of my property. So do you. All the the nonsense we're not talking about an 80 year old oak tree where there's putting green 01:57:01
is. 01:57:08
I mean, I think there's a little smoke and mirrors and again, you're intelligent people, so I think you think that too. You 01:57:16
probably see that too, that that's not the point. We're not preserving a Greenbelt here. We're trying to access property and, and 01:57:21
quite frankly, 10 feet. 01:57:27
From our fence line there. 01:57:33
It's unacceptable. We don't want to turn Holiday into Murray or into Sugar House and neither do you. So I appreciate your time, I 01:57:37
appreciate the opportunity to speak and I really urge you to. 01:57:44
Reject this this petition. Thank you. 01:57:51
Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. 01:57:55
Hi, my name is Doug Herscher. I live at 1874 Lincoln Lane. I'm directly across the street in the front piece of the property on 01:58:04
Lincoln Lane. I appreciate the time to meet and speak to you briefly. I've only been to one other meeting like this, so I tried to 01:58:12
come a little bit prepared and I looked at some of the information on what the purpose of. 01:58:20
Apud is and read briefly some of the. 01:58:28
Things that are already in the sections that applicants apply to the Planning Commission so that they can have better use of 01:58:32
property's. 01:58:38
Keeping in mind the current zoning is what's normal and here we're looking at changing something to make it not normal with 01:58:46
reduced setbacks. And so I have to feel like a neighbor even though I'm not a direct neighbor, that how would I feel if I had to 01:58:54
deal with something that would be placed within 10 feet of my property line. 01:59:02
And what privacy loss would I incur? The other thing too is that it's about the adjacent properties. That building APUD is to 01:59:12
assure that the adjacent properties will not be adversely affected. 01:59:19
And at this point I don't know that there's any other answer that. 01:59:27
Yes, it will adversely affect those properties and in your in your sections that talks about that height and intensity of 01:59:31
buildings and uses shall be arranged around the boundaries of the planned unit development to be compatible with existing adjacent 01:59:38
developments or zones which has already been discussed that that you know is A50 year plus resident of Holiday City. I've seen 01:59:44
things change quite a bit. 01:59:51
And the real estate frenzy is a difficult subject, probably for everybody. 01:59:58
To deal with because everybody's trying to make the best with what they currently have. However, I agree the fact that the. 02:00:04
Property owner bought the piece of grand land and knew what was there and now we're trying to develop it in a different fashion 02:00:14
and and make the. 02:00:20
Properties surrounding it. 02:00:25
Less desirable those owners who have a less desirable piece of property with reduced setbacks. I thank you for your time and 02:00:28
appreciate it. Thank you, thank you. 02:00:33
Do you have any other comments this evening? 02:00:42
All righty. And with that, we will invite the applicant to come back up if she wants to address any of the comments that have been 02:00:46
made. 02:00:50
Just a few clarifying points. The seller, I'm sorry this property owner I'm the realtor that's why I keep speaking. Seller we are 02:00:55
trying to sell lot 1 the property. The property owner does own property in California. 02:01:02
They have six children who live in Holiday and Mill Creek. 02:01:10
Their plan is to temporarily sell Lot 1 temporarily and move to California while they build a house on Lot 2 to return to be with 02:01:14
their children in holiday. 02:01:19
We also have hired a surveyor, Manfred Gula. He was the original surveyor. 02:01:26
He was supposed to have the new survey submitted and unfortunately, unfortunately, he didn't get that in in time. We can get that 02:01:32
submitted no problem. 02:01:37
As soon as he completes it. 02:01:43
Only other note is just there's, there's probably four or five flag lots just to the West of this lot. You can see one in the 02:01:46
picture here. Flag lots are super common in holiday and you just want the right to be able to build something nice back there. 02:01:53
OK. All right. Thank you. Did you have something for the applicant? Yeah, I can address just a couple of comments to you. We'll 02:02:02
look at the notices. You know, we want to make sure that those are sent and property owners are notified. So we'll look at that 02:02:08
and address that if if needs be. 02:02:14
A second note on planned unit developments. It is still a three-step process so you can approve a concept and require the 02:02:21
applicant to come back for a preliminary that would then have more detail. 02:02:28
So concept is this type of an application where here's kind of our, our concept idea will now take feedback from the Planning 02:02:35
Commission, make adjustments and come back with a preliminary plan. So the approval process for a planned unit development is. 02:02:44
Is still a. 02:02:53
Concept Preliminary, final so you can follow that process so that you can get some more detail from the applicant. Have those set 02:02:56
back lines refined further I. 02:03:03
And noting the full definition of the intent on a planned unit development, it does also include facilities, so facilities 02:03:11
compatible with the present living environment in the city. 02:03:18
You'll sometimes there's a lot of people who are doing sport courts, pickleball courts, who may incorporate those into a planned 02:03:27
unit development. If you're planning for a court or a large area of open space, that's really hard to do with a. 02:03:34
Standard lot and fitting that in. So the purpose of it planning development is broad. The intent of permitting flexibility in the 02:03:42
land use. This property does have a significant portion they're over the minimum lot size. 02:03:52
They could adjust lot lines and bring down the second lot so that it's a much smaller lot and then build within setbacks for that. 02:04:03
So there's it would be within their rights to adjust property lines without even doing a planned unit development. 02:04:13
The intent of the planned unit development is just for the flexibilities to have the open space with the improvements there to 02:04:21
reduce setbacks. So. 02:04:25
I don't know if there's any other questions after comments for staff or the applicant, but well, with that, I mean, we, we, we've 02:04:30
heard from the public all officially close the public hearing and then we'll shift gears. And commissioners, do you have other 02:04:36
procedural questions? Yes, Sir. 02:04:42
Is there a way that if they thought that it might be beneficial to go back and maybe refine this to some degree that? 02:04:48
We could. 02:04:57
Postpone or continue this to another meeting. I don't want to tell them what to do, but if they felt like that might be 02:04:59
beneficial, so the applicant at any time can withdraw their application or request and then you know to hey, we'd like rather than 02:05:05
have a vote on it tonight, they could ask for let's refine something like they can do that. I just don't want to have to pay the 02:05:11
application twice. But they can also also force that there is a vote, right? So OK, thank you. If they want to do that, that would 02:05:17
be. 02:05:23
Applicants prerogative and. 02:05:29
You can continue it. 02:05:32
There's certainly you have your authority to do that. You can deny it. You can approve it. You. 02:05:34
You know you can remand it back to staff if you want. 02:05:40
Yeah, you don't. You don't concept. You can approve concept and then. 02:05:52
Not approve the preliminary. 02:05:56
That's. 02:05:59
Unusual. 02:06:00
So as far as just a. 02:06:02
Point of personal opinion here, based on what I see here, I don't think I would support the concept plan with these reduced 02:06:04
setbacks. 02:06:08
If that makes any difference. 02:06:13
We could do the lots, but not the setbacks. 02:06:17
So. 02:06:23
So the concept that we would be approving would be the concept of the PUD, is that correct? 02:06:25
Two lots. They already have two lots. Yeah, there's already 2 lots. The new configuration of the Yeah. So this is a it's a lot 02:06:31
line adjustment and a request for a PUD. 02:06:37
So if they. 02:06:46
So technically they can build another as long as they comply with set back requirements. They can build another house on this 02:06:47
right now. 02:06:50
But they would have to, if they did that, they would have to have 25 foot setbacks, at least from the yeah, I mean, I didn't look 02:06:56
at the setbacks, but they'd have to comply with whatever the setbacks are. 02:07:01
Yes. 02:07:06
So again, as a point of personal preference, I mean, I think I've made it very clear. 02:07:08
I care a lot about the people who already live here, so I'm not in favor of reducing setbacks and, you know, pushing the envelope 02:07:14
and. 02:07:20
Shoving people on top of each other so I would be in favor of. 02:07:27
Doing whatever we have to do to. 02:07:33
Push this back to the drawing board. 02:07:36
One quick question, how big is Lot 2 currently? 02:07:41
Without the adjustments or anything. Is it for? 02:07:45
A lot too I believe is .39 acres. John, if you'll scroll to the plat that I have the setbacks. 02:07:48
So in an R110 which this is, does that mean that they could? 02:08:00
Build a home and then build an accessory dwelling unit, Yes, with that lot size, yeah. So they potentially could have three houses 02:08:06
where this lot is, right? Two houses and then the existing without lot size. 02:08:12
It would it would have to be 1/2 acre lot in order to have a guest house on it, so an external Adu currently on that lot size 02:08:21
wouldn't be permitted. 02:08:27
Internal accessory dwelling unit. I mean, they could build a much larger house and incorporate an accessory dwelling unit inside 02:08:35
of that. 02:08:39
Of that house. 02:08:45
They're they're a lot right now has building rights associated with it, with the setbacks that are outlined on there. So it would 02:08:49
be 10 feet from the West side, 10 feet from the North East side. 02:08:58
The larger set back would apply unless they alter the lot line. They could alter the lot line between these and make lot too much 02:09:08
smaller and have smaller setbacks and then make plot one larger. 02:09:15
Could they build an EADU on lot 2? 02:09:24
If they were to well know that it would be if they increase the size of lot 1 to half an acre, they could build a 1200 square foot 02:09:27
guest house. 02:09:32
And that doesn't. 02:09:41
That doesn't require any sort of public, it's just a lot line adjustment. 02:09:43
Solve their problem. 02:09:48
I don't know if it's yeah, I know. I'm just you, you brought up density. So I just started thinking the long game. You know, like 02:09:50
I said, if if not approved, could this actually be denser? 02:09:55
With homes, that makes sense because they're proposing two homes. It's two homes with a large amount of open space. 02:10:02
Well, any just so public is aware that anybody can have an internal Adu. 02:10:11
Right, I've just been rereading the PUD thing and the more I read it the less I think it applies to this situation. 02:10:25
Because the only thing that arguably would be is additional open space. The open space already exists. 02:10:33
And then I can't find anything in the rest of the PUD that this. 02:10:41
Accomplishes, you know, my personal gap feeling is to say that. 02:10:47
You know. 02:10:53
It doesn't meet the requirements of a PUD, so the only caveat I would add to that is that. 02:10:54
It would permanently require that to be open space rather than like if they put the. 02:11:01
The lot line straight down the back all the way, they can add that. You know if it's a half acre, they can add a 1200 square foot 02:11:09
EADU. You do that same adjustment in a PUD. 02:11:14
That takes that away. It's permanently open space. So that's so there is some way of looking at that. That's open space for two 02:11:19
homes. 02:11:24
Yes. 02:11:29
Well, arguably one if the lot line is there. 02:11:31
It's not because it's not common space. 02:11:34
Yeah. So you couldn't build it. You couldn't build. You're creating the open space, which already exists. And now you're saying, 02:11:36
well, you're permanently designating his open space and now you're permanently. And that's the only advantage. I'm not persuaded 02:11:41
that. 02:11:46
The intent of the PUD is being met at HALT. Sure I. 02:11:52
Just I think as most of you have come to the conclusion that I. 02:11:56
This is a very interesting and intriguing thing and it's dependent on what we think people are going to do and increasing the 02:12:03
value of the property and everything else. And that's everyone's right to do that. And it's our obligation to follow the 02:12:10
ordinance. And, and, and that I think we all feel strongly about the setbacks being preserved that that there are options to do to 02:12:17
build another home there, that the owners have to make decisions about how big the home is. 02:12:23
What the purpose is, which one they live in, and whether they keep the putting greenhouse. 02:12:31
Those, I don't think any of those are Planning Commission issues and then I'm kind of leaning towards a motion that would just say 02:12:35
it doesn't meet the requirements of PUD and vote on that. 02:12:41
Commissioner Gallon. 02:12:50
Yeah. 02:12:56
I think. 02:12:58
What I'm I'm trying to process here is this. 02:12:59
A little bit bizarre situation of building the. 02:13:03
Building the putting green into another lot before the lot lines are changed but you know they on both of them so. 02:13:07
One thing I'm I'm thinking about is, is there a way to change the setbacks on one side? 02:13:15
For example, the South against the neighbor who has a pretty big backyard and already some trees there without changing the the 02:13:21
setbacks to the other sides. 02:13:26
With the PUD, yes. 02:13:37
Right. Without it, no, right. So not approving the PUD with the proposed setbacks, but saying? 02:13:39
Here's another set that I would consider. Make this one small, but leave those. 02:13:45
The large ones that they are, I mean, you know, they're inconsistent, but it would mean that a lot, most of the house would have 02:13:50
to be 22 feet away from that bank. Well, and one thing that's just important for the planning, which understand once you once you 02:13:54
approve the PUD. 02:13:58
The lot line can be adjusted independent of that approval. So if you approve a lot line today. 02:14:03
A lot line could be changed again later within the PUD and both would still be in the I think the intent unless you go below 02:14:09
10,000 square feet. 02:14:13
With planned unit developments you can reduce a lot sites below the minimum that's required in the zone. 02:14:18
So if that's the case and you set the lot line less than the minimum, that's the condition that's approved and that can be moved. 02:14:23
Without your subsequent approval. 02:14:31
If that makes sense. But we're not proving that what's proposed is not reducing it below the that would be the only that would be 02:14:35
only situation that. 02:14:38
It could be moved, right? 02:14:42
Excuse me, but there's a list of individuals notified in our packet. 02:14:46
It's a long list. That is the applicant's required submission of who is notified of a neighborhood meeting. So the applicant held 02:14:52
a neighborhood meeting it's required for. 02:14:57
A subdivision amendment I. 02:15:05
So that is the list of who they notified and then included minutes from the neighborhood meeting and who attended. But do we 02:15:08
didn't we have Douglas Lund? 02:15:14
I don't have the my notification list in there. It's separate list that was what the applicant sent. The neighborhood was from the 02:15:21
public sent. 02:15:27
So that's where I need to look at the list of addresses that we sent and make sure that the city's public notice a reason to 02:15:33
continue this discussion to verify whether or not the city's noticing requirements were made. And that would also give. 02:15:41
The owner sell or whatever a chance to discuss what their options are and if they want to continue this approach or a different 02:15:51
approach. 02:15:55
Yeah, this doesn't seem right. 02:16:01
You can ask a question, but like the. 02:16:06
Public hearings closed at this point, so you can throw it out in space and we can randomly answer a thought. 02:16:08
Neighborhood meeting before they come. 02:16:23
Open dialogue. 02:16:29
Between the neighbors and I don't think we can. They may choose to yeah, if the applicant want to do that, we don't. 02:16:32
We only have one require one neighborhood meeting and they've had it right. 02:16:42
And just to clarify if there was. 02:16:47
A motion to deny that was a. 02:16:51
Passed by the Planning Commission. They could reapply in the future right? Like or is this done forever? They can never have a PUD 02:16:56
that's settled. It's done. 02:17:00
No. They can reapply, but it would have to be a different application, right? Or they'd have to wait one year? 02:17:04
For example with adjusted setbacks. 02:17:10
With different, well, I don't know if it was just setbacks with a different. 02:17:12
An altered proposal. It would have to be different in some way. It would be need to be a different proposal. 02:17:18
So it could be a PUD, but it would have to be, for example a. 02:17:24
Different lot size on lot one and two. 02:17:28
The line would need to be different somewhere. 02:17:31
It can't be the same application. 02:17:34
Now we have the applicants hand up. Did you have a question? 02:17:38
Yeah. But I think that speaks to why we shouldn't do that today. We should continue it and let you have formally make a proposal 02:17:50
so that the neighbors can respond to what the change is to see if there's there's their objections are the same or that satisfies 02:17:59
some of them. 02:18:07
I just think it's not anyone's interest to resolve this today. I don't think anyone will be happy. 02:18:16
Just to clarify, Brett, if we were to continue today and the public hearings had and over right, you already opened that and had 02:18:23
it. So there's not new notices that would go out, but there's a public notice, you know, and the Planning Commission puts up a 02:18:29
notice for every meeting, right. But the neighbors would be it would be on a burden, their burden and their responsibility to be 02:18:36
here if they wanted to be. But again, it we're not taking any more public comment on it. They could speak to it during. 02:18:42
Well, isn't we don't even do that at the beginning of the Planning Commission meetings, so. 02:18:49
Well, so This is why I ask is if we were to continue it and the applicant was to say, well, hey, hold on, we want to withdraw our 02:18:53
request. We want to change our request, we want to modify and then bring it back. And they want to go through the process of, OK, 02:18:59
we're going to do another neighborhood meeting or we're going to do another public meeting on that because we've modified it. Is 02:19:04
that an option that they would have if we were to continue it? 02:19:10
Rather than deny, if the applicant wants to hold another neighborhood meeting, they could do that. We don't. We wouldn't require 02:19:16
it. If they wanted to monitor, we wouldn't require it, but we wouldn't prevent them if they with a new public hearing would be 02:19:20
required if they modified their original proposal. 02:19:25
Arguably, it depends on how big, I mean, if you have the public hearing and they're incorporating feedback that they had in 02:19:31
modifying their proposal. 02:19:36
I don't think there's a new public hearing required they change their set, but if it doesn't change their lot lines for a PUD. But 02:19:41
isn't, isn't that the point of the public hearing? They got the public feedback and they've modified it. 02:19:47
And then come back and then it's not, it's not. You don't start the process over, is my point. 02:19:53
So I mean they could do that, but there's not a requirement to reopen the public hearing if. 02:19:58
I guess here's where I'm at is it feels like, and I don't want to speak for the Commission, but it feels like this is on a fast 02:20:04
track to denial based on just the pulse I'm getting from everyone as what's been presented to us today. And I'm not interested in 02:20:10
trying to dig in and figure out all the subtle adjustments that could be happening to it and say here, we'll we'll prove it with, 02:20:16
you know, these 27 different suggested, you know. 02:20:22
Amendments and you know, to what's been proposed because like, quite frankly, it's 830 like I'm I'm spent. 02:20:29
Reapplying a very similar application with different setbacks, I mean. 02:21:05
I don't know what the Planning Commission is going to vote on it. You know, I don't, there's not a pending motion. I don't know 02:21:10
how that's going to turn out. 02:21:13
But if you if the applicant said, gosh, you know what? 02:21:18
I kind of think I know where this is going. For example, hypothetically, I don't want to vote because I don't want to have to wait 02:21:22
a year. Let me let me take some of this feedback that I've got from the public tonight and I'll reapply something substantially 02:21:27
similar, but different enough that it applies some of this and then they don't have to wait the year, but if there's a vote held 02:21:32
on it. 02:21:37
That application can't be refiled for a year in its same form, right? There has to be something different to it. 02:21:43
So would I be out of step if I just ask the applicant right now if they have any interest in withdrawing at this time? You're the 02:21:50
chair. 02:21:53
OK. 02:22:00
So the applicant has withdrawn their application tonight. So there's no need for a vote to call on that and we can consider this 02:22:01
closed until further notice and that would, on a subsequent application result in a new public hearing with new notices. 02:22:09
Perfect. All right. I like it. 02:22:18
You guys have some good feedback to work on, look forward to. 02:22:20
The next steps from there for you. But thank you very much everyone appreciate it. And we will now move into the final portion of 02:22:25
our evening which is item. 02:22:29
Number six, the approval of minutes from 1:23 and 4:00. Two, I'm not going to lie to anyone on the Commission, I didn't read 02:22:35
these. And the reason I didn't read them is because I thought there was only 220 on there and I thought that's what I saw on the 02:22:40
original agenda that was sent to me. So these other ones added in there like I didn't even bother going down to the bottom of the 02:22:46
packet because they removed the 220 and so I thought there wasn't going to be an approval minutes so. 02:22:52
For a meeting that was held. 02:23:00
Right, but that is the the personal meeting from the applicant that is not the city notified. I understand that, but. 02:23:03
I don't get it. I don't know like that. 02:23:11
They're they're going to, they're going to figure it out. It's going to work great for them. So on the approval of minutes, I just 02:23:14
wanted to suggest if, if everybody read them and they felt like, gosh, I was here for both those meetings and it looks blood on to 02:23:20
me and I'm good with it. I'm happy to approve. I read all of them. Yeah. And I make a motion that we approve them all. 02:23:26
All right. We have seconded. All in favor of approving minutes say aye, aye. All right, so minutes are approved and that it takes 02:23:34
us to the conclusion of our evening. Thank you very much. Can we get a motion to adjourn? All in favor, Aye. Done. They noted that 02:23:40
we didn't make a second that's in our minutes, so we probably ought to take. 02:23:46
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
Off we go, then here we go. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission. 00:00:00
May 21st, 2004. 00:00:06
We have our city staff, our legal counsel, and all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Prince who sends her regrets. 00:00:10
We do have an opening statement we read at the beginning of all of these meetings and I have asked Commissioner Font if she would 00:00:17
do that for us now. Pleasure. The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review 00:00:24
land use plans and other special studies. Make recommendations to the City Council on proposed. 00:00:32
Map and ordinance changes and approve conditional uses and subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use 00:00:39
applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly 00:00:46
noticed meetings. Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, 00:00:53
existing structures, and uses related to the proposed change are noted. 00:01:01
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff. 00:01:08
The City's general plan, zoning ordinance and other reports by all verbal and written comments and by evidence submitted, all of 00:01:14
which are part of the public record. 00:01:20
Thank you very much, Commissioner Form. 00:01:26
And with that, we have 6 items on our posted agenda this evening, four of which five of which are public hearing items. However, 00:01:29
item number three has been cancelled. So we only have 4 coming before us this evening. And the first of those is at everybody's 00:01:36
favorite former mall site, the Holiday Hills. And it is a concept and preliminary and if we could ask city staff to give us a 00:01:43
quick. 00:01:50
Overview of that item. 00:01:58
Thank you, Chair Roach. Application tonight for a concept level and a preliminary review site plan at Block C within the Royal 00:02:03
Holiday Hills Master Plan subdivision. 00:02:09
This site itself is not for the entire block sees. 00:02:16
Block. It's for 1/4 of it or so, intended to be set aside and used for a bank. 00:02:21
With its own parking lot and its own access. 00:02:28
Elements of the SDMP for the Planning Commission to review are very similar to zoning standards that you would have for a normal 00:02:31
development in like a retail zone, however. 00:02:37
There is a little bit of flexibility in that. 00:02:43
There are no real setbacks. The site plan is kind of very flexible based upon development pressures for the site itself. 00:02:46
The zone gives you permitted uses and conditional uses. 00:02:55
In this case, a financial institution is a permitted use. 00:03:00
It gives you open space landscaping requirements which the applicant is provided to you into some landscaping plans. 00:03:04
As well as some architectural guidelines to review by in the format of a palette of styles. 00:03:13
So the staff TRC has been reviewing this application with the applicant. 00:03:22
In compliance with elements of the SDMP. 00:03:28
And has found that this bank site with the associated parking lot and landscaping for its our chosen vernacular or architecture 00:03:32
and height does comply with those elements that are applicable in the SMP. So staff is recommending an open public hearing on 00:03:40
comment and moderate discussion with the the applicant on site development characteristics as well as. 00:03:48
The architecture chosen for the site. 00:03:59
All right, Commissioners, any questions for city staff? 00:04:02
All right. And with that, we'll go ahead and invite the applicant or their representative to come up and add anything they need 00:04:05
to. 00:04:09
From what the city has already presented. 00:04:13
Do we have a? 00:04:17
Chris Longson representing the owner. 00:04:26
Resident as well. I thought the architect was going to be here, maybe she didn't make it in, but I can answer any of the 00:04:28
questions. We've spent a long time working on this, especially on the architecture to get it upgraded to where we think it meets 00:04:35
the standards of SDMP and and other improvements we're doing in the development. So here to answer any. 00:04:41
Questions you have otherwise. 00:04:48
Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? 00:04:51
Sorry to make you come all the way up for just that, but thank you very much. All right. I don't know if John said, but you know, 00:04:54
asking for you to delegate the final to staff after if you do approve. 00:04:59
Conceptual is that in our motion? Conceptual. 00:05:05
The architecture I'm looking at the building materials, but the. 00:05:13
The materials is really out of focus. So I'm hoping you can kind of tell us what's the brown? Is this stucco with concrete or? 00:05:18
It's, it's, it's, it's not a, it's not a stucco finish. It's a, it's a Remember the name of the material. It's listed in the 00:05:28
material board on the side there it is the cementitious board. 00:05:35
So it's not a stucco finish, OK, It's a painted cementitious. And these are materials within the overall scheme of the 00:05:42
architecture for the site. Yeah. And those are some of those changes we worked on adding the brick and adding that and eliminating 00:05:46
the stucco. 00:05:50
So it looks like they have more parking than they need, and they will. And it's common parking just like everything else. And so 00:05:56
their customers can use the parking. 00:06:01
On the remainder of the property and people from other parts of the property can use that parking. So, but I mean This site is 00:06:06
supposed to be kind of the prototypical. 00:06:10
Transit oriented type of development where there's lots of walking, where there's service from transit and stuff. So why do we 00:06:15
need all the additional parking? 00:06:19
It'll all, we have our parking ratios, it will all blend in with the ratios with the rest of what's built on that block and the 00:06:23
other block. So it, it'll all work out that we won't, we have a minimum and maximum and we won't be exceeding the maximum on the 00:06:29
parking. So it's gonna be a blended ratio. Would it be better to have some additional landscaping? I mean, the, the parking you're 00:06:35
seeing that's on the, it's on the, if you can pull that site plan back up. 00:06:41
Whoever has that. 00:06:49
So the parking that's across the street is something we're putting in for the remainder of Block C just on that side of the road. 00:06:52
That's not part of their lease parcel. That's additional parking that will be utilized in the future. But we're because we're 00:06:57
building the road there right now and because they're going to be a stand alone use, we put it in. So that's not part of the Chase 00:07:03
Ground leased parcel. 00:07:08
I see. OK, thank you. So you need it really just Brian, let's focus on their park using where they are and that meets the minimum 00:07:14
standards for their building. 00:07:18
Thank you. And just a quick question on the parking that is in front of the bank, just immediately I believe to the West of it, 00:07:23
you mentioned that there's common and shared. Is there going to be actual designated, this is bank parking only type? No, there 00:07:28
will be a few signs in there that that call out for like 20 minute parking, but it doesn't, it's not exclusive. We're not having 00:07:33
exclusive parking on site, OK. 00:07:39
So all right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And with that, we'll have you sit down and we will open the public hearing on 00:07:44
this. If anybody is here this evening that wants to make comment on this particular plan, you're welcome to come up and do so. We 00:07:51
just ask that you keep your remarks within 3 minutes or less and not restate any other comments if there's more than one. 00:07:58
And also state your name and address for the record. So with that, is there anybody here in attendance this evening interested in 00:08:06
making comment on this item agenda? 00:08:10
Once, twice. All right, looks like nobody is here for that. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing for this item and turn to 00:08:16
our commissioners to discuss Commissioners questions or any discussion points on this property that have not been covered by staff 00:08:22
or the applicant. 00:08:28
Does not look so all right. I, I just I I have a similar question where I also think that going above the parking minimums is not 00:08:37
helpful for the overall. 00:08:42
Thing that we're trying to go for if we're if we're thinking that this will be a big commercial hub it's either going to bring in 00:08:48
several hundred cars a day or people are gonna take the bus. And right now this is clearly built for people driving their cars 00:08:56
here. There's a drive through ATM there's extra parking I think this is not I I think having the extra parking is not. 00:09:03
Conducive to what holiday is trying to move to? Which is more environmentally sustainable? 00:09:12
The, you know, shifts in future transportation. So, so I would like to see. 00:09:17
I mean, maybe the overall ratio is going to, you know, be accounting for other parking lots, but if the overall ratio is more than 00:09:24
the minimum. 00:09:28
That's something I'd like to actually see changed. I don't think that's helpful to the the way we want to see this, this corner of 00:09:34
holiday movement. 00:09:38
I have a question for staff. Do we have a parking master plan that's kind of. 00:09:42
Determining the overall parking and. 00:09:47
Yes. So how will it kind of be distributed? So you have two pages in the site development master plan that control the parking. 00:09:50
And where those parking areas are designated, this one of these areas in you can kind of see it there. 00:09:59
Is designated as surface parking. 00:10:05
So is it possible that some properties will have no parking and they'll use parking on the adjacent? 00:10:10
Parcels or as we get further along, yes, some of those interior blocks will because the whole block will be built out. We either 00:10:16
have a garage interior to it. 00:10:21
Or be shared parking on the streets, Yes. So in the City Council's approval of the master plan, did they have a maximum number of 00:10:27
parking spaces? Yes. So OK, how close are we to that? 00:10:33
Not anywhere near, you know, it's probably gonna be a lot. 00:10:39
OK. Thank you. 00:10:43
So some discussion around parking and. 00:10:47
Thank you staff for addressing. 00:10:50
With that, any other questions or discussion points on this item? 00:10:53
I maybe I should have asked this at the beginning, but this is only proposed to be 23 1/2 feet. They could have gone up to 90. 00:10:59
Seems actually like an underutilization of the space. Maybe there's some legalities about having residences of bank? 00:11:06
Legalities, I'm sorry I missed that, of having residences above a bank, but it feels like if it's in the open zone, which is the 00:11:16
most flexible of all of the zoning in this entire. 00:11:21
In this entire plan, then, it feels like a little bit of a lost opportunity to build a single function building that's one story 00:11:28
tall. 00:11:32
Instead of something that's a little more dynamic, perhaps more mixed-use. 00:11:37
That could you know that could use the idea that. 00:11:42
Banks have pretty good daytime hours, they end fairly early in the day compared to a lot of other businesses, and they could have 00:11:46
overlapping parking with residences really easily. I don't know it it feels like a. 00:11:52
A little bit of a waste of the open zone since there's so many uses of the open zone. 00:12:00
Well, just as a sidebar comment to that, I will say as someone who was not in favor of the OR the plan that was before City 00:12:09
Council seven years ago, give or take that included a 90 foot tower, I would say that maybe the developers just gone the opposite 00:12:15
direction. 00:12:21
But and it feels like maybe something in between, because 90 foot building on Highland would also be imposing, would really change 00:12:29
the way that feels especially to. 00:12:34
Hopeful pedestrians, but. 00:12:40
That being said, this could potentially one day, hypothetically 1015 years from now, come back and the. 00:12:43
SDMP would allow for consideration of a larger building there if deemed necessary and appropriate, right? 00:12:52
Hypotheticals. Is that what we're talking? 00:13:01
Like, pause it. Like this isn't going to be a bank. That's one story for the rest of eternity. 00:13:03
Depends how long Chase wants to stay there. 00:13:10
All right, all right. Well, with that. 00:13:18
I had just one more question. Do they have to do any kind of environmental buffering since they're close to so close to the Creek? 00:13:25
I know there's a little bit of a thing there, but. 00:13:30
The trail itself acts as the buffer between development and the Creek. 00:13:34
There's an absolute set back that's that was approved in 2007. 00:13:41
That requires an offset. 00:13:47
Carrie, can you on SDMP? Do you have it pulled up? 00:13:51
Toward the very end. 00:13:56
Oh, maybe you've passed it. 00:13:58
Anyway. 00:14:01