[00:00:08]
CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND START WITH ROLL CALL PLEASE. CHAIR. WILLIAM. HERE. VICE CHAIR. MANUEL HERE. COMMISSIONER BALKOVEC HERE. COMMISSIONER. MINER HERE.
COMMISSIONER RYAN HERE. COMMISSIONER WENHAM HERE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HERE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND, DIRECTOR PAGAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR STAFF WITH YOU TODAY? CERTAINLY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR WILLIAM WITH US TODAY PRESENTING WILL BE ASSOCIATE PLANNER DANNY CASTRO. WE'LL BE PRESENTING OUR ITEM THIS AFTERNOON UP HERE ON THE DAIS WITH ME, AS USUAL IS PLANNING MANAGER LILY TOY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JOSH ANTHONY. WE ALSO HAVE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY MARY WAGNER ON THE LINE. I HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT SITTING HERE RIGHT NEXT TO ME. AND THEN CLERK IN OUR MEETING IS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT JENNIFER GANNON AND ASSISTANT PLANNER MICHELLE YANG. THANK YOU. OKAY.
[ 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ITEM TWO APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 25TH, 2026 MEETING. DO I HAVE A MOTION ALSO MOVE. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. NUMBER THREE ANNOUNCEMENTS. NONE FROM STAFF.[ 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS]
OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE ITEM FOUR. A ONE IS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION SDD-2025-00869. REZONING APPLICATION RZ2025-00867 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS GPA-202500868 BY ERIC BULLOCK TO INSTALL A CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD REZONE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 25, 20 AND 2530 LOCKHEED DRIVE FROM A GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO A G GENERAL INDUSTRY AND AMEND THE DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRY AND ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED STORAGE YARD. THE PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND WE HAVE. PRESENTING TO US TODAY IS MR. CASTRO. THANK YOU CHAIR. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. GOOD AFTERNOON. EVENING. TOMATO.TOMATO. SO YES WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE BULLARD CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD. WHERE IS THIS. SO WE ARE LOCATED AT 7005 20 AND 7530 LOCKHEED DRIVE. THAT'S OUT BY THE AIRPORT. JUST TO ORIENT FOLKS, WE'VE GOT THE RUNWAY RIGHT HERE TO REDDING REGIONAL RTD. AND THEN WE'RE RIGHT HERE TO THE SOUTHWEST IN THESE THESE TWO PROPERTIES RIGHT HERE. THE LAND IS ZONED GC FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AND IT ALSO HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THEY ARE CONSISTENT. SO A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THAT'S THE WHERE THE WHY. SO THE BUSINESS TO THE SOUTH THIS IS BULLARD ELECTRIC HERE. THIS BUSINESS RIGHT HERE. THEY WISH TO EXPAND THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA. THEY WANT TO EXPAND SOME OF THIS STORAGE OUT ONTO THESE TWO PARCELS. AND YOU CAN SEE THEY'VE KIND OF GOT SOME STUFF OUT HERE. THEY WANT TO EXPAND NORTHWARD AS THEIR BUSINESS GROWS. THAT USE WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN OUR CODE, A CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARD. AND THAT USE IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT THAT THESE TWO PARCELS CURRENTLY HAVE. HOWEVER, IT IS OKAY WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, A DIRECTOR LEVEL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. MIND YOU, IN THE GI, WHICH IS GENERAL INDUSTRY. SO TYPICALLY THIS. THEIR SITE RIGHT NOW IS ACTUALLY IN THE IN THE IN THE GI AND IN THAT GENERAL INDUSTRY ZONE. IN ORDER TO DO A CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD IS A PERMIT THAT'S WELL, WE WOULD CALL IT QUICK. THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T, BUT IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL PERMIT THAT WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO GO BEFORE A HEARING BODY. IT WOULD JUST BE A SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL IN-HOUSE PERMIT. SO IN THIS CASE THOUGH, AS WE'RE GOING TO UNPACK THE SITUATIONS JUST A LITTLE, A LITTLE MORE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY COMPLICATED GROWN UP. OH, AND I DID WANT TO SHOW YOU THAT'S THE THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING THERE IS THE ORANGE. AND THEN DOWN HERE WE HAVE THE GENERAL INDUSTRY ZONING IN THE PURPLE. SO THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. SO THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REZONE THOSE TWO PARCELS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TO GI TO FACILITATE THAT DIRECTOR LEVEL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD. THE REZONING WOULD NECESSITATE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
[00:05:05]
GENERAL INDUSTRY, BECAUSE OF COURSE, THERE'S TWO LAYERS, RIGHT? YOU HAVE THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR THEIR LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS. IN THIS CASE, BOTH ARE GENERAL COMMERCIAL. BUT THERE ARE CASES WHERE THE GENERAL PLAN IS A LITTLE MORE GENERAL, AND THE ZONING CODE MIGHT SPECIFY A MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT THAN WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS IN THIS CASE, GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR BOTH. THEY'RE JUST BOTH GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE THE GENERAL INDUSTRY ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA AROUND THE AIRPORT, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO SHOW THIS ZOOMED OUT VIEW. THERE IS QUITE A PLETHORA OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. G I, H I HEAVY INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRY ALL AROUND. AND THIS BLUE HERE, THE PH. THAT'S ALL THE AIRPORT PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE. SO IT'S, IT'S DEFINITELY SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND. SO AT THIS POINT, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF HONE IN ON KIND OF THE, THE, THE SDD PART, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PART. SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF THE PROJECT PROPER. AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING. SO JUST KIND OF ZOOMED IN. JUST THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ALLOWING THE OUTDOOR CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD. WITH THIS, IT MEETS THE GENERAL PLAN GOAL FOR UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO I, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE IT MAINTAINS A PROACTIVE AND SERVICE MINDED CULTURE TOWARDS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CITY OF REDDING. SO BY ALLOWING THEM TO EXPAND UP HERE, WE'RE MAINTAINING A SERVICE MINDED CULTURE TOWARDS LETTING THIS PROJECT AND LETTING THIS BUSINESS GROW IN PLACE RATHER THAN HAVING TO MOVE AND POTENTIALLY LEAVE, LEAVE. REDDING IF THEY EXPANDED, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL AND GROWING. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GROW IN PLACE. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROJECT DOESN'T DELETE ANY LAND DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT DOES HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. BUT. WHEN YOU'RE SWITCHING FROM, LET'S SAY THIS WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SWITCH AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL TO SOMETHING INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL, THAT'S KIND OF A BIGGER DEAL BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING AWAY HOUSING OPPORTUNITY. THAT'S JUST NOT HAPPENING HERE. SO THERE'S NO NEED TO DEAL WITH ANY KIND OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OR ANYTHING. SO ANOTHER WAY THAT THIS PROJECT ISN'T REALLY THAT COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF CHANGING ITS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, AND ALSO THE, THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE LEAVING STREET FACING GENERAL COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY INTACT. AND. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE STILL HAVE, IF THIS WERE TO BE REZONED, ALL OF THIS GENERAL COMMERCIAL STILL EXISTS, AND YOU'D STILL HAVE LIKE STREET FACING GENERAL COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THERE TO GIVE, GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME SORT OF BUSINESSES THAT SERVE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WANTS TO RUN OUT AND GRAB A COKE BECAUSE THE VENDING MACHINES BUSTED IN THEIR OFFICE OR WHATEVER. MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE CONVENIENCE STORE, OR MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE SANDWICH SHOP WHERE PEOPLE CAN RUN TO LUNCH. IT'S KIND OF THE IDEA IS TO KIND OF HAVE THESE POCKETS OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL THAT CAN KIND OF SERVE THIS AREA A LITTLE BIT.MAYBE EVEN SOMEONE THAT LIVES HERE MIGHT WANT TO JUMP OVER AND GRAB A PACK OF SMOKES OR WHATEVER. SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE IDEA. SO THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT TAKEN AWAY WITH THIS REZONING. THERE'S AMPLE GENERAL COMMERCIAL LEFT THERE. OKAY. SO YEAH, AGAIN, ZOOMING INTO THIS THOUGH, THE THE PROJECT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO RIVER CREEK CORRIDOR REGULATIONS. CLOVER CREEK RUNS RIGHT THROUGH HERE. AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT. THAT THAT. SO ALL THE LAND TO THE WEST OF THIS TOP OF BANK LINE, BASICALLY THIS THIS RED LINE RIGHT HERE, ALL THAT LAND BECAUSE OF BECAUSE OF THE CREEK, ALL THAT LAND WOULD NEED TO BE DEDICATED AS AN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT TO THE CITY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THIS TOP OF BANK LINE RIGHT HERE, THIS KIND OF IT KIND OF BASICALLY ALL THE SHADED AREAS BASICALLY TO THE WEST OF THIS TOP OF BANK LINE. AND THEN EVERYTHING TO THE EAST IS OBVIOUSLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOP OF BANK LINE. AND SO THE, THE, THE ZONING CODE REQUIRES THAT FROM THAT TOP OF BANK LINE, THERE WOULD BE A 50 FOOT SETBACK. AND SO THIS PROJECT WOULD BE OBSERVING THAT. AND THEN EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT SETBACK WOULD HAVE TO BE DEDICATED AS OPEN SPACE. SO THIS THIS PROJECT DOES THAT.
AND IT OBSERVES THAT RIVER CREEK CORRIDOR REGULATION. THERE WOULD BE NO MAJOR TREE REMOVAL WITH THIS PROJECT. MOST OF THE TREES THAT VIRTUALLY ALL THE TREES ARE ACTUALLY IN THAT
[00:10:02]
50 FOOT SETBACK, THAT WOULD BE OPEN SPACE SO THOSE TREES WOULDN'T BE TOUCHED. THERE'S SOME PLANTS AND STUFF OUT HERE, UP HERE, ABOVE AND OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA, BUT THAT'S NOT PROPOSED FOR THE STORAGE YARD. THE ONLY REAL TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE THESE TWO GREEN DOTS HERE. THIS IS A AND I GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN. IT'S AN ARIZONA CYPRESS RIGHT HERE. AND THEN WE HAVE A CHINESE PISTACHE. NEITHER ONE OF THESE TREES ARE QUALIFIED TO BE CANDIDATE TREES UNDER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. THEY'RE NOT NEITHER MEET THE CRITERIA. I MEAN, TO BE HONEST, IN PARTICULAR, THIS CHINESE PISTACHE, I KNOW ITS JOB IS NOT TO BE A BEAUTIFUL TREE, BUT IT'S IT'S A PARTICULARLY NON PRETTY VERSION OF A CHINESE PISTACHE. IT'S GOT LIKE LIKE A 50 HEADED DRAGON. I'VE BEEN ON THE SITE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE TREES ARE PARTICULARLY BEAUTIFUL OR PARTICULARLY SUITED TO BE CANDIDATE TREES. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TREES THAT WOULD NEED TO GO FOR THE TO FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF THIS STORAGE YARD. YEAH.LIKE I SAID, ALL THE OTHER TREES ARE ARE IN THIS OPEN SPACE AREA. AND THERE'S SOME VEGETATION THAT WOULD BE REMOVED HERE, BUT ALL OF IT'S EITHER SAPLINGS THAT DON'T QUALIFY FOR PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 1845 OF OUR CODE, OR THEY'RE JUST SHRUBS. SO NO MAJOR TREE REMOVAL. FLOODPLAIN. SO THIS SHADED AREA REPRESENTS THE FLOODPLAIN. IT KIND OF IS SHOWN AS KIND OF BARELY KIND OF KISSING THE PROPERTY HERE. THE STORAGE YARD IS ALL THIS AREA HERE THAT'S SHADED. THAT'S ALL TO BE GRAVELED AND STORAGE YARD ALL, ALL THAT AREA IS CLEARLY OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THERE'S ESSENTIALLY A 50 FOOT BUFFER FROM THE FLOODPLAIN, BECAUSE THAT TOP OF BANK IS ESSENTIALLY THE TOP OF THE FLOODPLAIN. SO THE PROJECT'S WELL OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. AGAIN, NOT, NOT NOT AN ISSUE SCREENING AND BUFFER YARD. SO NORMALLY A BUFFER YARD. SO A BUFFER YARD IS TYPICALLY SOME SORT OF SETBACK BETWEEN TWO OPPOSING. OPPOSING LAND USES. SO IF THERE'S ONE THAT'S MORE INTENSE, USUALLY THE ONE THAT'S MORE INTENSE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD SOME SORT OF SCREENING FENCE OR WALL VEGETATION BEHIND THAT WALL THAT THAT GOES UP TO KIND OF FURTHER SCREEN THE MORE INTENSE ACTIVITIES ON THE INTENSITY SIDE. AND THEN THERE'S TYPICALLY A SETBACK BEHIND THAT, AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK TO PUT THAT MORE INTENSE USE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LOWER INTENSE USE. IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT THAT CLOVER CREEK CORRIDOR. AND SO WHAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE SAYS IS THAT WHERE THERE IS A CREEK CORRIDOR THAT SEPARATES THE USES, AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT 50FT, IN THIS CASE 50FT, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW BIG A BUFFER YARD IS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND THIS. IF THIS WERE TO CHANGE THE INDUSTRY, EVERYTHING OVER HERE IS RESIDENTIAL. SO YOU'D NEED A 50 FOOT BUFFER BUFFER YARD. IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT THE STREAM CORRIDOR THAT COMES THROUGH HERE THAT NEGATES THE NEED FOR A BUFFER YARD. AND THEN FURTHERMORE, ON TOP OF THAT, WE'VE GOT THIS 50 FOOT TOP OF BANK SETBACK. SO AND ALONG THE WHOLE THING, WHERE, WHERE THE STORAGE YARD, THE BOUNDARY OF THE STORAGE YARD IS WELL OVER 50FT AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST. SO AN OFFICIAL BUFFER YARD ISN'T NEEDED AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT THAT BUFFER. AND AS LONG AS THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT TALL SCREENING WALL OR FENCE ALONG THAT WEST SIDE. AND SO THAT EIGHT FOOT TALL SCREENING FENCE OR WALL IS IS INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. OTHER THAN THAT SCREENING, REGULAR OUTDOOR STORAGE SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES WOULD BE REQUIRED AND ARE REQUIRED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AND THAT'S JUST TO SCREEN THE OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD FROM LOCKHEED HERE AND THIS OTHER STREET TO THE NORTH HERE, MEADOWVIEW DRIVE. SO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MET WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS NOT NECESSARY WITH THESE PROVISIONS WE JUST DISCUSSED. SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY IN A NUTSHELL.
THAT'S THE PROJECT. AND THEN LIKE I SAID, HERE'S THE STORAGE YARD. THEY WOULD ACCESS IT FROM DOWN HERE AT THE AT THE SITE. AND THEN THEY'VE ALREADY GOT ACCESS TO MEADOWVIEW DRIVE UP THERE AND AMPLE STREET ACCESS. SO IN A NUTSHELL, THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE CORE OF THE PROJECT.
MOVING ON TO THE CHANGING OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS HERE. SO. THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, IT'S WITHIN THE AREA OF WHAT'S CALLED A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, OR CLUP. AND THE CLUB COVERS ABOUT TWO MILES OUTSIDE OF EACH OF THE AIRPORTS. AND SO BECAUSE THIS IS WITHIN THAT
[00:15:02]
CLUB AREA, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NEEDS TO GO TO WHAT'S CALLED THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OR ALC, AND THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. IT'S AN ADVISORY BODY, AND THEY'RE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO ENSURE THAT AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AROUND ARE COMPATIBLE. SO THIS WAS TAKEN TO AN A HEARING ON MAY 7TH. THE COUNTY TOOK THIS TO THAT HEARING. AND I WANT TO MENTION HERE, BEFORE I FORGET, I, I TALK ABOUT THE COUNTY STAFF REPORT IN MY STAFF REPORT, AND I'M GOING TO REFERENCE IT HERE. AND I REALIZED WHEN I WAS PUTTING THIS PRESENTATION TOGETHER THAT I. I HAD NOT ATTACHED THAT TO THE STAFF REPORT. SO WE'VE PROVIDED A HARD COPIES OF THE COUNTY STAFF REPORT. JUST KIND OF FOR YOUR REFERENCE, SINCE I'M TALKING ABOUT IT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD THAT. AND I THINK THERE'S COPIES AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC IN THE BACK AS WELL. SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT THAT, THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR PERUSAL. BUT SO THE COMMISSION IS TASKED WITH FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THAT CLUB FOR THE AIRPORT. IN THIS CASE, ON MAY 7TH, A LOOK, THEY VOTED AND FOUND THAT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB. AND I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. SO ALTHOUGH WE FOUND THAT THE PROJECT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB, AS WAS STATED IN THE COUNTY STAFF REPORT, THE ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED IN DETERMINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE CLUB, PER THE CALIFORNIA AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK. THEY INCLUDE ISSUES OF NOISE, OVERFLIGHT, SAFETY AND AIRSPACE PROTECTION. WE FOUND THAT THE PROJECT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB, NOT REALLY BASED ON ANY OF THOSE FOUR THINGS, THEY FOUND IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB BECAUSE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE THE AIRPORT SPECIFIC PLAN IS RETAIL, COMMERCIAL AND NOT GENERAL INDUSTRY. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT THEY FOUND IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB. THEY AGAIN, THEY DIDN'T FIND IT INCONSISTENT BASED ON NOISE OVERFLIGHT SAFETY OR AIRSPACE PROTECTION. AS AS THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK WOULD SUGGEST, THEY WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO HAVE DONE SO. AND SO A LOT, A LOT OF THE CLUB STUFF AND THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. AND SO THE PUC CODE, SECTION 21676 B SAYS THAT LOCAL AGENCIES CAN OVERRULE A LOOK BY A TWO TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE IF THE LOCAL AGENCY CAN MAKE FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF PUC. SECTION 216 70. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. FINDINGS SHOWING THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, PER THE STATED PURPOSE OF PUC, SECTION 216 70 ARE ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. AND AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF ADDRESSING THOSE THOSE ACTUAL ISSUES OF SAFETY AND AIRSPACE PROTECTION. AND I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE INDUSTRIAL USE CLASSIFICATION IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS BEING ONE OF, IF NOT THE BEST USE CLASSIFICATIONS TO HAVE ADJACENT TO AIRPORTS. AND I THINK THAT'S EXEMPLIFIED BY THE CURRENT ABUNDANCE OF, OF GI. THAT WE HAVE AROUND THE AIRPORT.THANK YOU MIKEY. AND THAT'S BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL USES, THEY TYPICALLY ATTRACT LESS PEOPLE.
THEY'RE LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO NOISE. THEY'RE BETTER EQUIPPED TO SUPPORT THE AIRPORT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE THINKING WE'RE THINKING WAREHOUSES. WE'RE THINKING DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.
ALL THESE THINGS ARE USES THAT MAKE SENSE AROUND AIRPORTS AND THAT WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF.
SO THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD SEEMS, IN STAFF'S ESTIMATIONS, TO BE TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING OUT THERE, GOING ON OUT THERE, AND TOTALLY MAKES SENSE WITHOUT WITHOUT HAVING ANY CAUSES WITH NOISE, OVERFLIGHT, SAFETY, OR AIRSPACE PROTECTION. SO TO TOUCH ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL. SO. THE STORAGE YARD ACTUALLY QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION ONE FIVE 300 FOR MINOR ALTERATIONS TO LAND UNDER SEQUA. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF MINOR ALTERATIONS IN THE CONDITIONS OF LAND THAT DON'T INVOLVE THE REMOVAL OF HEALTHY, MATURE SCENIC TREES, AND ALL GRADING WOULD BE ON LAND LESS THAN 10% SLOPE, SO FITS THAT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. AND THEN THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE AND THE REZONING STAFF'S PREPARED ADDENDUMS TO BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN EIR AND TO THE CITY ZONING MAP MITIGATED NEG DECK. AND SO THOSE THOSE ARE ALSO ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT TO TO MAKE
[00:20:01]
SURE WE WOULD COMPLY WITH SEQUA FOR ALL THREE PIECES OF THIS PROJECT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT. SO I SEE THIS AND I HEAR YOU GOT MAIL, BUT IT'S LIKE YOU DON'T GOT MAIL. OOPS. SO IN CONCLUSION, THE PROJECT WOULD ALLOW A BUSINESS TO GROW IN PLACE WHILE KEEPING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND USES.SO STAFF RECOMMENDS FORWARDING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL DOES, YOU KNOW, ONLY THEY CAN APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONINGS. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS BODY FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE THAT THE NECESSARY FINDINGS ARE IN EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM SEQUA, AND THAT THE ADDENDUMS ADEQUATELY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEQUA AND TO APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE, AND THEN THAT WAY IT WOULD OVERRULE ALUK AND ALLOW THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD. PER THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. SO I'M SURE THERE'S SOMETHING MAYBE THAT I DIDN'T TOUCH ON INADVERTENTLY. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU, MR. CASTRO. I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSIONERS IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS QUESTIONS FOR HIM. I DO. OKAY, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I JUST HAVE A FEW, PROBABLY 2 OR 3 QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH.
FIRST OF ALL, WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY. YOU KNOW, MAPPED, WERE THESE PARCELS IN THE BACK HERE, PARCELS ONE AND SEVEN PART OF THAT ORIGINAL MAP OR WERE THEY WAS IT A PARCEL SPLIT LATER. DO WE KNOW WHAT WHAT WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT. WHAT SHEET. SORRY.
JUST THE. YEAH. PAGE 26 AND PACKET. PAGE 26. REFERENCING THE PARCEL NUMBERS OR THE A P N.
THE LAST THREE DIGITS IS 032 AND 038. WHICH ARE THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION, RIGHT? YEAH. WERE THOSE PARCELS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL MAP? THE ORIGINAL MAP I SEE, I WAS THE ONLY REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I ASKED IS I WAS WONDERING IF THERE'S PUBLIC ACCESS TO PARCEL SEVEN IN THE EVENT PARCEL ONE WOULD EVER SELL IN THE FUTURE. I SEE IN THIS CASE.
I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND. I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I KNOW THAT THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, KEVIN BUTLER, IS HERE. HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT MORE.
I DO REMEMBER REVIEWING ACCESS THIS PROJECT, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, THEY CAN TAKE A LONG TIME. SURE. SO I REMEMBER REVIEWING THAT WHEN THE PROJECT FIRST CAME IN. AND I DID KNOW THAT THE OTHER PROPERTIES HAD ACCESS. AND WE HAVE A RECIPROCAL DRIVEWAY EASEMENT THERE FOR IT SAYS, IF YOU CAN LOOK THERE, IT SAYS PARCEL TWO KIND OF FAINTLY. I KNOW THAT THERE'S THERE'S RECIPROCAL ACCESS THROUGH THERE ON THAT PAVED ROADWAY. I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING FOR PARCEL SEVEN, BUT I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY SURE I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. YEAH. BECAUSE I'M PERSONALLY IN FAVOR OF COMPANIES BEING ABLE TO EXPAND AND GROW AND BE ABLE TO, TO UTILIZE THE, THE LAND THAT THEY, THAT THEY HAVE. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO THINK IN THE LONG RUN, ONE DAY THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY OUTGROW EVEN THIS, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED. AND SO EVENTUALLY THEY MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE OR, YOU KNOW, TRANSITION OR SELL THE BUSINESS DOWN THE ROAD. AND AT THAT POINT, SOMEONE COULD SELL THESE SEPARATELY. SO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS, IF THERE ISN'T PUBLIC ACCESS TO EACH OF THESE PARCELS, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO MERGE THEM BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE THIS FLAG ACCESS OFF OF MEADOW VIEW. SO I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS DISCUSSED. WELL, SO, SO TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS SO SO ACCESS TO THE PARCELS. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE PUTTING AN EASEMENT, SOME SORT OF ACCESS AGREEMENT OR EASEMENT OVER THOSE. IF THE PARCELS ARE OWNED BY THE SAME ENTITY, THAT ENTITY CAN'T GRANT AN EASEMENT TO ITSELF. AND SO TYPICALLY THE MECHANISM WOULD BE WITH A MAP.
SO WHEN THIS PARCEL MAP CAME IN, THERE'D BE A CONDITION WITH UPON FIRST CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL ONE OR PARCEL SEVEN, A RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED. THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE WE WOULD DO THAT. AND WHERE I'D SEE THAT. OKAY. SO AGAIN I UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T REMEMBER OFFHAND WHAT THE MAP SAYS, BUT I IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE WHERE THAT THE ENGINEER IS NODDING HIS HEAD. YES. IS THAT RELATED TO WHAT HE JUST SAID? PARCEL ONE PARCEL.
CAN YOU GOT IT? OKAY. OKAY, SO THERE IS AN EASEMENT IN THE PARCEL ONE WOULD EVER SELL.
[00:25:05]
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GRANT THAT EASEMENT. GOT IT. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. THAT MIGHT BE THERE. OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. OKAY. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. JUST FOR CLARITY, IT'S HELPFUL. MY OTHER QUESTION IS BACK ON THE THE COMMISSION, THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. YOU REFERENCED THAT THEY THAT THEIR FINDINGS DIDN'T DIDN'T NO, NO. ANYTHING IN CONFLICT WITH NOISE OVERFLIGHT SAFETY OR AIR OR AIRSPACE PROTECTION. BUT THEY DID REFERENCE THE MASTER PLAN, THE RECENT MASTER PLAN UPDATE, THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. WHEN WOULD A COMMISSION LIKE THAT. IS IT TYPICAL THAT A COMMISSION LIKE THAT WOULD. TRY AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AGAINST A MASTER PLAN IN ADDITION TO THESE TYPES OF ITEMS, OR WAS THAT KIND OF.WAS WOULD WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED? I WANT TO SAY THE SOFTLY OVERREACH FOR THEIR COMMISSION TO DO SO, OR IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR THEM TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL? BECAUSE IT LET'S SAY THEY THEY HAD SOME SORT OF DESIRE THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT THAT THIS DESIRE IS WARRANTED, GRANTED, OR THAT THE MARKET WOULD EVEN WANT IT. BUT LET'S SAY THEY'RE LIKE, WE WANT, YOU KNOW, A FOUR STAR HOTEL OUT THERE. AND, AND IS IT ACTUALLY THEIR JOB TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? YEAH. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CLUB IS SUPPOSED TO KIND OF BE THE OVERARCHING DOCUMENT. SO THAT MASTER PLAN WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB. AND SO IN THIS CASE, ALOK WAS TASKED WITH SEEING IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB. SO THE MASTER PLAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT MASTER PLAN WOULD HAVE TO ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLUB. SO BY BY LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE LENS OF THE CLUB AND THE PROJECT, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CAPTURING, BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT MASTER PLAN. BUT I THINK KIND OF MORE TO THE CORE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING WITH ALOK IS THAT THEY ARE TASKED WITH LOOKING AT THOSE, THOSE FOUR ISSUES NOISE, OVERFLIGHT, AIRSPACE PROTECTION AND SAFETY, AND THE ACTUAL NITTY GRITTY LAND USE DECISIONS AREN'T NECESSARILY THEIR PURVIEW.
THAT'S KIND OF YOUR PURVIEW. SO TAKE THAT FOR FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT KIND OF SPEAKS TO YOUR QUESTION THERE. NO. THAT'S HELPFUL. I'M INTERESTED IN THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THOUGHTS ON IT, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE THANK YOU. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT TO THE CITY. WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE IN THAT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT? IF THE RECIPIENT OF THE EASEMENT IS THE CITY? YEAH.
SO TYPICALLY THAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY JUST NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT, BUT FIRE MAINTENANCE OR ANY KIND OF SAFETY MAINTENANCE, SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, LIKE I CAN ONLY THINK OF FIRE ABATEMENT THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. GOOD. SO AS LONG AS THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT DOES NOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITIES, THEN WE'RE GOLDEN. SO I THINK YOU HEARD YOU SAY I HEARD YOU SAY THAT. SO IF THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS, THE THE CLUP. AS I LOOK AT THIS, MOST LIKELY AT SOME POINT MIRRORED THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN IN SOME SORT OF AN UPDATE. AT THAT TIME, THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN HAD THIS AS RETAIL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CITY THOUGHT. AND NOW. AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THE CLUP SAID THAT. AND NOW THE ELK CHOSE TO BE A VERY LITERAL BODY.
AND TECHNICALLY, UNLESS THEY STEP INTO THEIR ROLE OF UPDATING THAT DESIGNATION, WHICH THEY WILL SOMEDAY, THEN THEY HAVE TO FIND IT INCONSISTENT AND WALK AWAY. AND IF THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHAT HAPPENED, THEN I FEEL VERY, VERY COMFORTABLE. THE RIGHT ANSWER IS TO FORWARD IT TO COUNCIL. WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE MY OPINION UNTIL WE'VE HAD PUBLIC HEARING. EXCUSE ME. SO I WILL STOP AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE I OFFER MY OPINION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER MANUEL, A FEW QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE REALLY IS, JUST FOR MY INFORMATION, YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DIVERGING FLOODPLAIN LINES, MONTGOMERY WATSON AND BOTH FEMA. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THOSE LINES HAD BEEN UPDATED. SINCE THE CLOVER CREEK PRESERVE DETENTION BASIN WENT IN. I DON'T KNOW IF LILY, IF YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE OR NOT. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY. YEAH, I'LL TAKE THAT QUESTION. COMMISSIONER MANUEL. SO BASICALLY, IF WE LOOK AT THE MAP THAT SHOWS THE ORANGE LINE, WHICH IS MONTGOMERY WATSON, THE BLUE LINE, THAT'S FEMA FLOODPLAIN.
OUR CODE SPECIFIES THAT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE MOST LATEST DATA, AND THAT IS THE FEMA
[00:30:01]
FLOODPLAIN. AND THE MONTGOMERY WATSON STUDY WAS DONE IN, I BELIEVE, 1992. AND THE FEMA WAS UPDATED IN WITH THE CLOVER CREEK PRESERVE THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2006. I WANT TO GO BACK. SO CLOVER CREEK DETENTION BASIN ALL KIND OF REMOVED ALL THE DOWNSTREAM.MONTGOMERY WATSON. SO IT'S JUST CLEANUP THAT WE'VE HAD TO DO. SO THE ENGINEERING NOT NOTHING THAT HE DID WRONG, BUT IS SHE'S JUST REFLECTING WHAT HE'S SEEING ON OUR GIS MAP. SO WE DO HAVE TO DO A CLEANUP. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION AND I APPRECIATE WHY STAFF WENT THROUGH THIS, BUT HAD TO DEAL WITH CONDITION NUMBER SEVEN ON PACKET PAGE 15. AND THAT REALLY IS ALERTING THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THERE IS A WITHIN THE AIRPORT AREA, 150 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. AND IT KIND OF SUGGESTS THAT, WELL, ANY STORAGE OUT THERE UP TO 150FT IS OKAY. I DON'T THINK REALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE INTENDING. YOU DO HAVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. YOU HAVE DECIDUOUS TREES WHO EVENTUALLY IN THE WINTER TIMES LOOK OVER TO THIS PROPERTY. AND I WOULD BE INTERESTED FROM THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, REALLY, WHAT KIND OF OF HEIGHT DO THEY REALLY NEED? FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WENT 20FT, THAT'S TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, 25FT IS A LITTLE OVER THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, WHICH SEEMS LOGICAL TO ME. I THINK I'LL PLAY OFF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DO A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, IT RUNS WITH THE LAND AND THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WILL RUN WITH THE LAND. AND IF THERE IS A NEW OWNER SOMEDAY, TEN, 15, 20 YEARS DOWN THE LINE, AND THEY WANT TO MAYBE HAVE A GRAIN SILO STORAGE IN THEIR 100 FOOT TALL, IS THAT REALLY SOMETHING WE WANT TO NOT THINK ABOUT IN ADVANCE? SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU DON'T MIND? I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO SOME OF THAT TOO. SO JUST JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE 150FT THING. SO THE 150 FOOT LIMITATION IS JUST TO MEET AIRSPACE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ZONE THAT IT'S IN FOR THE AIRPORT. SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THE CITY LOVES THE IDEA OF SOMETHING BEING THAT TALL.
THERE'S ACTUALLY NO LIMIT THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE CODE. WE HAVE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS, BUT IN TERMS OF STORAGE, THE CODES KIND OF SILENT ON HOW HOW YOU CAN STORE. AND ALSO JUST FOR THE COMMISSION'S KNOWLEDGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING, STORED MATERIALS CAN GO ABOVE THE FENCE LINE WITHOUT NEEDING TO BE SCREENED. THAT'S NOT THE CASE IN IN COMMERCIAL ZONES OR OTHER ZONES WHERE THE SCREENING MATERIAL THINGS CAN'T POP UP OVER THE SCREENING. AND IN IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, THEY CAN. SO THE 150 FOOT LIMIT IS THERE AGAIN, TO MAKE THOSE FINDINGS THAT FOR AIRPORT SAFETY, IN ORDER TO TO GET THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TWO THIRDS APPROVAL FOR CITY COUNCIL, THAT'S WHAT THE 150 FOOT THING IS THERE FOR. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PUT 100 FOOT GRAIN SILO, THAT WOULD BE A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT, AND THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS OF OF THE DISTRICT FOR ANY BUILDING. SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO A 100 FOOT GRAIN SILO. BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PARTS OF THAT QUESTION THAT YOU WANTED THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK TO, I CAN YOU KNOW, I REALLY THINK THAT THIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE THINKING AHEAD AND REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE HEIGHT LIMIT WITHIN THESE PARCELS FOR STORAGE. THAT'S MY OPINION AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE SHARED BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, WHATEVER THAT IS. THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THAT DISTRICT IS 50FT. THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS AND MAYBE I MISSED IT ON ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THERE'S NOTHING YOU KNOW, I'M JUST I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AHEAD AND THINK ABOUT, OKAY, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE HEIGHT FOR STORAGE? AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD KIND OF DEFER TO DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT. SO THAT'S REALLY HAVE ON THAT. THE NEXT ONE, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO CONDITION FIVE. ALSO ON PAGE 15 OF YOUR PACKET TALKS ABOUT DESIGN OF THE WALL OR FENCE AS PART OF ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. I ASSUME THAT'S BECAUSE THAT EIGHT FOOT WALL WOULD REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT. IT'S OVER SEVEN FEET, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE CODES HAVE CHANGED.
CODES HAVE NOT CHANGED IN THAT REGARD, COMMISSIONER MANUEL. OKAY. ANYTHING OVER SEVEN FEET REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT. OKAY. BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO TRIGGER. OKAY? CORRECT. OKAY. THE LAST IS JUST GENERIC. I KNOW THIS COMMISSION IS NOT BEING ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON THE RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE, THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT AND I KNOW YOU HAVE IT IN FINDINGS, BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO THE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHETHER IT'S WORTH PUTTING REFERENCE TO THE 4/5 VOTE OF CITY COUNCIL THAT'S REQUIRED TO OVERLOOK TO OVERRULE A LOOK WITHIN THAT RESOLUTION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. JUST MY OPINION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARY OR NOT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO NOT BE REFERENCED EXCEPT IN FINDINGS. AND FINDINGS ARE REALLY NOT REQUIRED FOR LEGISLATIVE ACT, AS I RECALL. SO ANYWAY, THAT
[00:35:06]
WOULD BE END OF MY COMMENTS. JUST TO REITERATE. SO I UNDERSTAND, COMMISSIONER MANUEL, SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING FOR CONSIDERATION A CHANGE TO THE DRAFT RESO TO INDICATE THE 4/5 VOTE? WELL, YEAH. IF THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD CONCUR, IT SEEMS LIKE. EXCUSE ME. WOULD YOU LIKE I KNOW WE HAVE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY ON THE LINE. MARY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO HEAR US. OKAY, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK REGARDING COMMISSIONER MANUEL'S THOUGHTS ON THE DRAFT RESO INDICATING THE TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT? I'M SURE. THANKS. AND YES, I CAN HEAR YOU REALLY WELL. THANK YOU. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO TO INCLUDE THE THE COMPLETE STORY, IF YOU WILL, AND AT LEAST THE RECITALS TO THE RESOLUTION. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WE COULD ADD IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE US TO DO THAT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MARY, I APPRECIATE IT. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? I WILL, IF I MAY. I WILL SAY ALONG THE LINE OF COMMISSIONER MANUEL, IN A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION FOR A SIMILAR TYPE PROJECT, WHICH WAS A EQUIPMENT SALES YARD ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.WE DID PUT A HEIGHT LIMIT JUST SO THAT THEY COULDN'T SIT OUT THERE BE BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY WERE SALES. AND SO NATURALLY THEY WERE GOING TO WANT TO LEAVE ALL OF THEIR SCISSOR LIFTS AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE WITH BANNERS ON THEM. THEY WERE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE ALL THEIR, YOU KNOW, OTHER LIFT TRUCKS OR WHATEVER, AS TALL AS POSSIBLE WITH BANNERS ON THEM. NOW, UNDER THIS USE, THAT'S PROBABLY UNLIKELY, BUT IT, IT STILL COULD, STILL COULD HAPPEN. SO AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OFFENSIVE FOR SOME REASON THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF TO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SAME 50FT AS A BUILDING HEIGHT IS A VERY REASONABLE NUMBER. AND IF IT JUST SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT PERIOD, THEN THAT ADDRESSES, YOU KNOW, INHERENTLY ADDRESSES THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, IF THERE'S A SOMETHING WE'RE NOT THINKING OF, I WOULDN'T WANT TO TOUCH IT AND MESS UP WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
RIGHT. AND JUST TO PIGGYBACK, I DID RIGHT ON THAT CONDITION. IT'S ON PAGE 15 OF THE PACKET, MR. CASTRO, FOR THAT 150, I SAID, SEEMS HIGH 50FT TO INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SEEMS MORE WITHIN. AND THEN ALSO COMMISSIONER MANUEL BROUGHT IT UP AS WELL. CONDITION FIVE ON THAT SAME PAGE, THE SIX FOOT AND EIGHT FOOT FENCE, JUST LOOKING THROUGH THEIR PLANS, SOME OF THEIR KEYNOTES MENTIONED CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE AT THE TOP. SO THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE CONDITIONS YOU'RE CALLING OUT FOR. CORRECT. NOT NECESSARILY. SO THE BARBED WIRE, AS LONG AS IT'S OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I WANT TO SAY 25FT COULD BE 25 OR 50, BUT AS LONG AS IT'S A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, YOU CAN HAVE BARBED WIRE. AND THEN IN THIS CASE, IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD SEE CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS AS BEING APPROPRIATE. MAINLY, I'M THINKING IN PARTICULAR. ON THE NORTH AND EASTERN. YEAH. BECAUSE BECAUSE THESE PARCELS AREN'T REALLY ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND THEY'RE SO FAR BACK THAT, I MEAN, IDEALLY, EVENTUALLY THERE'D BE DEVELOPMENT HERE THAT WOULD BE SCREENING THIS ANYWAY. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S LIKE AGAINST THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT WOULD NEED MORE OF A DECORATIVE FENCE. I MEAN, BEING SET BACK THAT FAR AND KIND OF HAVING OTHER PARCELS THAT ARE JUST HAPPEN TO BE VACANT BETWEEN IT, WE'D PROBABLY ENTERTAIN CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS. YEAH. AND AGAIN, IT'S FAR ENOUGH TO WHERE BARBED WIRE MIGHT BE, MIGHT BE ALLOWED THERE. AND WE'VE JUST KIND OF TAKEN THAT SAME APPROACH WITH THE FENCING HERE. I MEAN, I THINK AT THE TIGHTEST POINT, THE STORAGE YARD WOULD BE ABOUT 83FT BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE CLOSEST PROPERTY, JUST FROM WHERE THE SETBACK FALLS. SO I THINK YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE AND PLUS ALL THE SHRUBBERY AND EVERYTHING IN THERE THAT IS IN THE OPEN SPACE, WHERE IS THAT ONE? I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. IT JUST. THE CONDITION CALLS OUT FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL DECORATIVE SOLID WALL OR FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY. YEAH. SO MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MORE DECORATIVE THAN ON THE EIGHT FOOT. WELL, I WAS JUST SAYING THAT THE CHAIN LINK. BUT IF THEY DO SLATS THEN THAT IS CONSIDERED SOLID. YEAH. NO, I WAS JUST SEEING IF THAT KIND OF GETTING CLARIFICATION FROM THOSE SEEM YOU'RE RIGHT, A LITTLE UNCLEAR. EIGHT FOOT WAS A, WAS A, WAS A RECENT AD AS I DISCOVERED THAT DETAIL. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY I
[00:40:02]
DID LEAVE THE WORD DECORATIVE IN THERE. SO PROBABLY AT LEAST VINYL FENCING OR SOMETHING FACING THE THE RESIDENTIAL. YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I DID LEAVE THE DECORATIVE IN THERE FOR THE EIGHT FOOT TALL. SO YOU PROBABLY COULD DO THE, THE SLATS HERE. BUT YEAH, THIS, THIS WESTERN ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DECORATIVE BECAUSE IT FACES THE RESIDENTIAL. YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THAT IS THE INTENT OF THAT CONDITION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I. OKAY. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, PLEASE. JUST JUST FOR PUBLIC RECORD, WHAT WAS THE NOTICE GIVEN AND TO WHOM AND WHAT RADIUS? I IMAGINE ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND GOT THE INFORMATION AND THEN WHAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED THEM. SO WE NOTICE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 300FT. SO THIS THIS HEARING WAS NOTICED WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS MINIMUM. I OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF DOES THE NOTICING, BUT I DO KNOW IT WAS IT WAS NOTICED WITH APPROPRIATE TIME, IT ACTUALLY HAD TO BE NOTICED A LITTLE BIT LONGER BECAUSE IT'S A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. AND I KNOW THE, THE NOTICING AREA WAS A MINIMUM OF 300FT. SO THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN 300FT. SO THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS JENNIFER. NO CARDS.
OKAY. BUT I THINK I SEE THE REPRESENTATIVES. YES. MR. BUTLER COMING UP TO SPEAK. SO.
YES. WE WANT TO KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES. YEAH, WE WANT TO KEEP IT TO THREE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KEVIN BUTLER WITH BUTLER ENGINEERING. ERIC COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
HE'S ON ANOTHER JOB SITE. HE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT SO FAR. WE AGREE WITH EVERYTHING DANNY SAID TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER MANUEL'S QUESTION. AS FAR AS STORAGE HEIGHT, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE BASED ON THE GI ZONING JUST TO THE SOUTH, INCLUDING HIS OWN PARCEL, THAT WE WOULDN'T LIMIT ANY HEIGHT ANY MORE THAN WE DO ON THE CURRENT GI ZONING IN THE AREA. WHATEVER GI ZONING REQUIRED FOR STORAGE HEIGHT, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE IT THE SAME FOR THESE TWO PARCELS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. AS FAR AS THE FENCING GOES, I THINK THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS TO DO CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS IN IT, AND THEN THE ON THE LET ME GET MY BEARING HERE, THE EAST SIDE, THE SOUTH SIDE, AND THEN DO THE DECORATIVE ON THE WEST SIDE. OKAY, OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE I CAN ANSWER FOR THE COMMISSION? NO, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING THAT THERE'S NO OTHER PUBLIC CARDS, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR DISCUSSION. BUT, JEREMY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY? OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST AND REQUEST IN TERMS OF CONDITION FIVE. A TALL DECORATIVE WALL OR SPECIFICALLY A DECORATIVE WALL IS OBVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION LATER ON BY STAFF. SO I'M HEARING CHAIN LINK WITH SLATS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY FENCE OR IF THERE'S GOING TO BE. I'M ASSUMING WE'RE NOT DOING A SOLID BLOCK DECORATIVE WALL, RIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS IF WE CAN GET MORE SPECIFICITY, WE DON'T NEED IT, BUT IT MIGHT HELP US LATER ON IN TERMS OF WHEN THAT BUILDING PERMIT COMES IN FOR REVIEW TO NOT BE, I BELIEVE YOU JUST ANSWERED THAT. MR. BUTLER JUST SAID THAT. I HEARD I HEARD CHAIN LINK AND THEN ON THE BACK ON THE EAST SIDE, EAST SOUTH CHAIN LINK FENCE, WEST SIDE WILL BE A DECORATIVE WALL. WE'D RATHER NOT DO MASONRY BECAUSE OF THE COST OF. SURE. I THINK IT'S FAIRLY WELL HIDDEN FROM THE RESIDENTS ACROSS THE WAY. SO WE AGREE WITH THE SOLID WALL. WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE I DON'T KNOW. YES, BUT NOT MASONRY. SURE, I ASSUMED THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU WELL? ARE YOU WANTING MORE DIRECTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR? BECAUSE I BELIEVE MR. CASTRO SAID LIKE VINYL, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I MEAN, WHEN I HEAR SOLID WALL, THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS TO TO BUILD A SOLID WALL. MASONRY, OF COURSE, IS VERY EXPENSIVE, I GET THAT. SO FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION EVEN WOULD BE HELPFUL. OR IF WE WANT TO GO SO FAR AS TO AMEND THE CONDITION TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, I'D WELCOME THAT TO. PERSONALLY, I'M OKAY WITH SOLID WALL AND LEAVING IT BETWEEN PLANNING AND THE DEVELOPER TO COME WITH SOMETHING MORE COST EFFECTIVE
[00:45:02]
BUT SOLID. WHICH, IF I MAY FOLLOW UP, WOULD PROBABLY MEAN ON CONDITION NUMBER FIVE, YOU'D WANT TO GET RID OF THE. OR FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, CORRECT? RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED. SO JUST FOR CLARITY SO ARE WE SAYING NO SOLID FENCE.SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE. SO IF YOU REMOVE THAT COMMISSIONER MANUEL THAT WOULD TAKE OUT VINYL AS AN OPTION. THAT WOULD. ONLY ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. I THINK I'M I'M INCLINED TO DEFER TO STAFF DISCRETION AND ALLOW THE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THAT IS BUILDING THE WALL TO PRESENT OPTIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO AND ALLOW STAFF TO, TO REVIEW THAT ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS THAT THEY SEE THROUGHOUT THE CITY BETWEEN THESE KIND OF ZONES AND A RESIDENTIAL ZONE THAT'S WITHIN VISION OF, OF THESE PROPERTIES. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD STAND ON IT. I THINK IT'D BE DIFFICULT FOR US RIGHT NOW WITHOUT SEEING A BUNCH OF PRODUCT OPTIONS UP HERE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE ON THAT. I DO TOO, AND I DO AGREE THERE'S A GOOD BARRIER WITH THE CREEK IN THE RESIDENCE. THEY'RE NOT BACKED UP TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE. THERE ARE. SO I'M OKAY LEAVING IT AS IS. YEAH. AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE HEARING JUST YOUR THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK. GIVE STAFF SOME GUIDANCE WHEN WE COME LATER ON TO REVIEW THE PROJECT WHEN IT GOES TO CONSTRUCTION. BUT WALLS AND FENCES ARE QUITE DIFFERENT AS, AS WE ALL KNOW, AND ACTUALLY THERE'S BUILDING CODE DEFINITIONS OF, OF THEM AS WELL. SO IN SOME WAYS, I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH JUST IS JUST A FENCE. SO WE COULD ALMOST JUST SAY A DECORATIVE FENCE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT THE FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL. SO WE HAVE IT IN THE RECORD AND IT'LL HELP US WHEN WE MAKE OUR JUDGMENT CALLS LATER ON. SO THANKS. YEAH. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? GOING BACK TO MR. BUTLER, TALKING ABOUT, I THINK, GOING WITH THE OTHER GI REGULATIONS FOR HEIGHT AND THERE IS NONE. CORRECT. SO THAT DOESN'T SOLVE IN TERMS OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OR STORAGE HEIGHT. IS STORAGE HEIGHT NOT SPECIFICALLY. I THINK WE JUST HAVE THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC FOR STORAGE HEIGHT. SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS SO THAT THAT CLARIFICATION IS NOT SOLVING IT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SPECIFIC NUMBER, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I THINK THAT THE THE ENGINEER BROUGHT UP A FAIR POINT ABOUT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND THE REST OF THE ZONING THAT'S IN THAT SAME AREA. I THINK THAT'S A TO TO SPECIFY SOMETHING DIFFERENT HERE. AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, RELATED TO THE NOTICE 300FT WITH THIS KIND OF BUFFER RIGHT HERE FEELS SHORT. I'M NOT SURE THAT ANYONE REALLY UNDERSTANDS THAT THAT ONE, THAT ONE, YOU KNOW, ITEM FIVE ON, ON PAGE 15 IS PROBABLY THE ONE THING THAT IF I WAS, IF I WAS A RESIDENT BEHIND THERE, I WOULD CARE ABOUT. BUT HOW MUCH CAN YOU WHAT CAN YOU DO? THERE'S OTHER ZONING THAT'S SIMILAR JUST TO THE SOUTH OF IT AND JUST TO THE NORTH AND JUST TO THE EAST OF IT ALL OVER. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING UP TO 150FT HIGH AND THEY WANTED TO STORE A MOUND OF DIRT OUT THERE OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER DEBRIS OF SOME SORT OR I MEAN, TECHNICALLY THEY COULD. AND BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING OUT THERE. I'M NOT SURE THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT. SO YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO THAT WOULDN'T THEN IMPACT PRECEDENT ON THE OTHER PARCELS IN THE SIMILAR ZONE. IF I MAY, CHAIR THE WE ARE MAKING A LAND USE CHANGE. SO IT'S IT'S THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, AND WE ALSO HAVE MY QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE LOOKING TO KIND OF PRESERVE SIMILAR CONDITION FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE THERE AND WELL ESTABLISHED WITH THIS LAND USE CHANGE, WHAT SORT OF STORAGE HEIGHTS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ZONE? THE SAME 150FT? I DON'T THINK SO. AND SO WE'RE CHANGING RIGHT NOW. PEOPLE BOUGHT HOMES WITH COMMERCIAL IN THEIR BACKYARD. I DOUBT THAT THEY MADE THIS CONNECTION, BUT THEY'LL ARGUE IT LATER. RIGHT. AND THEY BOUGHT UNDER THAT CONDITION. WE'RE NOW CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO ALLOW A DIFFERENT KIND OF USE.
IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS SHOULD BE IN THERE RESPECTING THE SAME WAY AS IT IS TODAY UNDER COMMERCIAL, JUST BECAUSE THE STUFF TO THE SOUTH, WHICH WAS, WAS AND HAS
[00:50:04]
BEEN INDUSTRIAL WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE, WELL, THAT'S NOT A CHANGE. BUT YOU'RE CHANGING WHAT'S HAPPENING BEHIND, YOU KNOW, FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING, MY BACKYARD. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK WE'RE IMPOSING AN OUNCE OF RESTRICTION, YOU KNOW, IN PRACTICE, I IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT SOMEONE'S GOING TO BE STORING SOMETHING THAT TALL, BUT BY GOD, IF THEY DID, I'D BE PRETTY TICKED OFF IF I LIVED RIGHT THERE. YEAH, YEAH. FORGIVE US. STAFF'S LOOKING AT THE MUNI CODE OVER HERE, TRYING TO DO SOME QUICK WORK OF IT, BUT THE HEIGHT OF STORED MATERIALS, THE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY. I THINK MR. CASTRO SAID DOESN'T APPLY IN THE G I AND H I, BUT AT THE END IT DOES SAY THE APPROVING BODY, BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES PARTICULAR TO A DEVELOPMENT SITE, MAY FURTHER RESTRICT HEIGHT OF STORED MATERIALS. IF THE STORAGE AREA IS ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC STREET OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SO IN READING THAT CODE, I THINK IT DOES GIVE THIS BODY THE PURVIEW TO CONDITION THIS PARTICULAR PERMIT IN A MANNER THAT YOU SEE FIT FOR STORED MATERIALS PER OUR CODE. SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT IF UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN, IF SOMEONE CAME ALONG AND EXPANDED THE RETAIL OPERATION, THEN YOU MAY OR MAY NOT IMPOSE A CONDITION WITH A HEIGHT RESTRICTION. BUT IF YOU DIDN'T AND WERE SILENT ON IT, THEY COULD STORE UNLIMITED HEIGHT BEHIND THEIR GROCERY STORE. OUR CODE READS IN THE G I AND H I THAT THAT STORED MATERIAL HEIGHT DOES NOT APPLY. SO CORRECT. AND THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. THERE IS NO HEIGHT EXCEPT FOR THE THE AEROSPACE ONE, WHICH IS 150FT. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. WHICH DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T CHANGE.YOU STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW. RIGHT. AND THAT'S THAT'S AS MR. CASTRO MENTIONED, THAT'S WHERE THAT NUMBER ORIGINATES FROM. BUT IT DOES LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT. IT STANDS OUT IN THE CONDITIONS AS 150FT, BUT IT COMES FROM THE AIR SIDE OF THINGS. YEAH. OKAY.
I'M THROUGH, I'M THROUGH PONDERING AND I'M OKAY WITH IT THE WAY IT IS. YEAH. ME TOO.
BUT THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OR COMMISSIONER MANUEL? SURE. I'LL TRY TO KIND OF KEEP IT BRIEF. I DO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. YOU KNOW, THIS THESE PARTICULAR SET OF PARCELS, I THINK WERE PUT TOGETHER BACK IN THE 80S WHEN BILL RYAN HAD THIS PROPERTY, AND WE'RE HOPING FOR A SHOPPING CENTER OF SOME SORT TO SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS AROUND, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE 1990 OR THE 2000 GENERAL PLAN, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. THERE'S ONLY ONE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT THERE NOW. THERE ARE THE TWO ADDITIONAL OR THREE ADDITIONAL VACANT PARCELS THAT COULD ESTABLISH RETAIL WITH FRONTAGE. THESE THESE PARCELS ARE PRETTY HIDDEN. ALSO, IF YOU GO NORTH, THE CITY OWNS TWO FIVE ACRE PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY VACANT AT NIGHT AND ROAD THAT THE CITY SO FELT THE NEED TO SELL FOR SERVICES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHATEVER ELSE, THEY CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT. I THINK I'LL JUST CUT IT. I GOT A LOT MORE TO SAY, BUT THERE'S NO USE SAYING IT ALL. OKAY, ANYBODY? COMMISSIONER MINOR. I AT RISK OF A RISK OF OUTING MYSELF. I DID ASK AI ABOUT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. IS THAT IS THIS A REALLY BAD THING? NO. AND I SAW SOMETHING THAT IN G C. AND I MIGHT BE CRAZY, BUT THERE'S STORED MATERIALS GENERALLY MAY NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT. THIS IS FOR THE READING.
MUNICIPAL CODE MAY NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT. PERIMETER HEIGHT MAY NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PERIMETER FENCE. THEY MAY RISE ONE FOOT ABOVE THE FENCE FOR EVERY TEN HORIZONTAL FEET.
THE PILE IS SET BACK FROM THE FENCE. IS THAT CRAZY? NO, THAT'S. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S THE CODE SECTION. AND THE NEXT SENTENCE AFTER THAT SAYS AND THE H I AND G I IT DOES NOT APPLY. YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH. SO THAT THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY IN OTHER ZONING. SO IT WOULD IT WOULD APPLY IN GC, GC HOW THIS IS CURRENTLY SET. BUT IT WOULD NOT APPLY ONCE IT TRANSITIONED OVER TO. CORRECT. YEAH. GINHI. SO WE ARE TO SAY THAT THEN. WHAT'S THAT. YEAH.
WELL I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT MR. BUSH WAS TRYING TO GET. QUESTION HAD BEEN ANSWERED THE FIRST TIME I ASKED IT. THAT'S IT. WELL THAT'S WHY I THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING UP. THAT'S WHY I REFERENCE IT, BECAUSE I THINK YOUR POINT WAS, IF THE RESIDENT IS EXPECTED TO BE CERTAIN HEIGHTS UNDER GC AND WE'RE SWITCHING IT TO G, I, WE'RE UNCOMFORTABLE. YOU'RE POSSIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH A DIFFERENT HEIGHT RESTRICTION IN THE DIFFERENT ZONING WHERE SOMEBODY BOUGHT NEXT TO AND WAS EXPECTING THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY TO EXACTLY WHAT TO DO WITH IT, BUT I DID WANT TO REFERENCE THAT IN THIS CASE, THAT PARTICULAR METRIC DOESN'T
[00:55:02]
MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME BECAUSE WE'RE SO FAR AWAY FROM THE RESIDENCES. EXACTLY. SO TO SAY THAT IT COULDN'T BE ONE FOOT ABOVE THE FENCE FOR EVERY TEN FEET BACK FROM THE FENCE, I THINK IS TOUGH. BUT WHERE WE'RE, YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW. I'LL I'LL INTRODUCE THE THOUGHT AND THEN LET DISCUSSION ENSUE. SO THEY'RE BASICALLY IN SUMMARIZING, THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON STORED MATERIALS IN GC WHERE THIS PARCEL IS. AS THIS PARCEL IS CURRENTLY ZONED THAT WE WOULD BE MOVING IT OUT OF. YEAH. MY MY APOLOGIES. MY ANSWER WAS CONFUSING. I THINK WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING CODE LANGUAGE, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THE SEGWAY I WAS REFERRING TO JUST IN THE ZONE PROPOSED THE GIHI, BUT ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. AND OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, IT IS THE ONE FOOT ABOVE THE FENCE. WITH THE TEN FOOT SETBACK, YOU GET AN ADDITIONAL FOOT OF HEIGHT. BUT FOR EVERY FOOT, FOR EVERY YEAH, EVERY TEN FEET YOU SET BACK FROM, FROM THE SCREENING, THE SCREENED WALL. SO SO IF I MAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY QUESTION. UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS, I BOUGHT A HOUSE AND THERE'S UNDER CURRENT LAND USE REGULATIONS, THEY'D BE ALLOWED TO STORE THIS HIGH OR MAYBE THIS HIGH IF THEY'RE BACK A LITTLE BIT. AND IF IN FACT, WE CHANGED IT WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION, IT WOULD BE THIS HIGH. AND SO IT AND NOW I AM BACK TO IT SEEMS PRETTY RATIONAL EVEN AT 50FT IS PROBABLY HIGHER THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE REASONABLY EVER HAPPENED UNDER CURRENT ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN OFFERS A.ALMOST NEVER CAN A SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD RESTRICT THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED USE, BUT IT DOES PROTECT. JUST IN CASE SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING REALLY WEIRD, I. NOW I HAVE TO LOOK AT COMMISSIONER MINOR. DO YOU THINK I HAVE IT STRAIGHT IN MY HEAD NOW? NOT WHETHER YOU'RE AGREEING WITH ME. DO I HAVE IT STRAIGHT IN MY HEAD? ANYWAY, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY THAT I.
THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. THANK YOU. BASED ON AI, TAKE TAKES TWO. SO SO ON THE HEIGHT THING, IF YOU DON'T MIND. SO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR BUILDINGS IN THE IN THE G I IS 50FT. THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR BUILDINGS IN WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS 45FT. SO HYPOTHETICALLY, ONE COULD REASONABLY EXPECT THAT IF THERE WAS A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 45FT, THAT THAT WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AND WHAT THE RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED THE WHOLE TIME, WHICH IS FIVE FEET SHORTER THAN WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. BUT IT'S JUST IT'S JUST A LINE OF REASONING THAT WE'VE EXPLORED HERE. SO I THINK JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE FOR YOU, VERY GOOD LINE OF REASONING, BUT 50 IS AN EASY, EASIER NUMBER. ANY OTHER OKAY. COMMISSIONER MINOR. I DID I HAVE ONE ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE FENCE. DO WE. SORRY TO SKIP BACK AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN COMPLETE THESE THOUGHTS. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY DURABLE. I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF PUTTING IN WOOD FENCING, BUT WE HAVE WE ALREADY ARE MOVING AWAY FROM WOOD FENCE FOR LIKE A SOLID FENCE. CORRECT. SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE. I MEAN, GENERALLY, YES. BUT CERTAINLY WHEN IT'S LEFT TO STAFF DISCUSSION, OBVIOUSLY DEVELOPERS AND I GET IT. BUT YOU WANT TO GO WITH MATERIAL THAT'S GOING TO BE LESS LESS EXPENSIVE. SO WE WE GENERALLY TRY TO ENCOURAGE THAT. BUT ABSENT A CONDITION THAT'S FIRM ABOUT IT, IT LEAVES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO DEFEND.
OKAY. SO YES, PHILOSOPHICALLY, YES, BUT NOT ALWAYS IN PRACTICE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE TO ME, THAT WOULD BE THE ONE ASTERISK I WOULD PUT IN. THE CONDITION ABOUT FENCING IS TO HAVE IT BE DURABLE, DURABLE MATERIALS, NOT A WOOD FENCE. IT IS BACK TO A GREEN BELT THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, INTENTIONALLY HAS SHRUBBERY AND GREENERY LEFT THERE. SO TO ME, THAT'S NOT PROBABLY THE RIGHT PLACE FOR A WOOD FENCE. SO IF IT WAS MADE OF DURABLE, NON COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS THAT WOULD, I'D, I'D PUT THAT SINGLE ASTERISK IN AND BE REALLY HAPPY. ON THAT NOTE TOO. I THINK THAT THE CYCLONE FENCING THAT IS PAINTED POWDER COATED, PAINTED WITH SIMILAR COLOR SLATS AS THE POWDER COAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T LOOK THAT BAD. IT CAN HAVE AN ELEVATED LOOK AS OPPOSED TO THE AS, AS OPPOSED TO THE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF YOUR STANDARD CHAIN LINK FENCE, YOU KNOW, LOOK AND FEEL. SO I, I PERSONALLY LIKE IN AN AREA LIKE THIS, IF YOU GOT A BLACK POWDER COATED BLACK SLAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT TERRIBLE. IT LOOKS FINE AND IT'S NONCOMBUSTIBLE.
IT'S SOLID, IT'S SCREENS AND IT'S ELEVATED AND DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A JUNKYARD, YOU KNOW, PER SE. WELL, YOU ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT IT'S A BUSINESS AND THEY'RE STORING, I'M
[01:00:03]
ASSUMING, EQUIPMENT OR SOMETHING ELSE. AND SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING SECURITY. SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE PUTTING UP SOME RICKETY, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO TRYING TO SLIGHT THE FENCE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD IMAGINE ON THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTY, CERTAINLY WE HAD A SHOP THAT BACKED UP TO A CREEK. IT WAS JUST LIKE THIS OFF RADIO LANE. AND WE CONSTANTLY HAD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COMING UP THROUGH THE CREEK STEALING STUFF. SO I WOULD IMAGINE THEY'LL GO WITH SOMETHING THAT'S DURABLE JUST BECAUSE THEY'D LIKE TO KEEP THEIR THEIR STUFF. I'D LIKE IT TO REMAIN THEIRS. REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT. THE END. IS THAT, IS THAT HELPFUL FOR ANY DIRECTION? I MEAN, YOU'RE GETTING VERY THOUGHT VARIOUS THOUGHTS HERE.YEAH. AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR DESIGN CRITERIA GIVES YOU GUYS DISCRETION OVER THIS. AND THAT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE. SO I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK WE'RE OKAY ON THE FENCE WALL ISSUE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION TODAY, MORE SO THAN ON OTHER PROJECTS IN THE PAST. SO THAT GIVES US PLENTY TO WORK WITH. OKAY. ARE WE READY TO MAYBE MAKE A MOTION OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? GO AHEAD. YOU READ THE WHOLE THING. NO, NO. IF I IF I RECALL, THERE'S AN ASTERIX PIECE ON NUMBER FIVE, BUT I THINK STAFF HAS COME COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY GOT THAT. AND MAYBE WE DON'T NEED IT, COMMISSIONER MINER. OR DO YOU WANT THAT ASTERIX? I MEAN, I WOULD PROBABLY PUT IN JUST NOT A WOOD FENCE. OKAY. DURABLE MATERIAL, NOT WOOD, NO WOOD. DURABLE MATERIAL. AND THEN AND THEN ON ITEM SEVEN. AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH 57. I WOULD JUST SIMPLIFY IT. THERE SHOULD BE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 50FT FOR ANYTHING STORED IN THE CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD PERIOD.
NOW THEY MIGHT THEY MAY NEED TO KEEP THAT SPECIFIC. I WONDER IF IT'S AN. AND THEY NEED TO KEEP THE 150 LANGUAGE FOR THE FOR COMPLIANCE REASONS. AND THEN THEY NEED TO ADD IN A 50. OR MAYBE IT'S A 50 WOULD SATISFY BOTH. YEAH, I LIKE YOUR LINE OF THINKING, BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO SAY 150. IT DOESN'T NEED TO 150. IT DOESN'T NEED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE, TO THE FEDERAL AIRSPACE PROTECTION REGULATIONS. AS LONG AS THERE IS THAT HEIGHT LIMIT, THAT'S UNDER 50. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE IT. YES. IT WAS THE DURABLE, NOT WOOD NUMBER FIVE SHORTENING AND A NUMBER CHANGE ON NUMBER SEVEN. AND THEN AS I RECALL, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING IN THE FINDINGS. YES. CAPTURING A THOUGHT IN THE FINDINGS. AND I WONDER IF THAT CAN BE ARTICULATED AGAIN, OR RECITAL OR SOMEWHERE IN OUR IN OUR DRAFT RESOLUTION OR THE, THE RESO EXCUSE ME. SO THERE WAS SOMETHING WHAT WAS THAT SOMETHING? IT WAS A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE FOUR OUT OF FIVE FOR REQUIRED FOR CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. OKAY. SO I'M SORRY, DID I HEAR IT'S TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH IS FOUR, WHICH IS 4/5. OH, WE'RE EXPLAINING THE OBVIOUS BUT WE SHOULD UNDERSTOOD, SIR, WHICH IS THE LAW, WHICH IS, I THINK WHAT I HEARD THE COMMISSION EXPRESSING IS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD A RECITAL TO THE RESOLUTION INDICATING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE TO OVER TURN A DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY BY THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. AND WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT. AND THE THE TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT. SO THAT IS CAPTURED IN MY NOTES AS WHAT THE ATTORNEY SAID. AND THEN BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY AND THE AND OUR CLERK FRIENDS, THEY GET THAT STRAIGHT. SO IS THAT ACCURATE THEN THAT WE'VE GOT THREE, THREE THINGS IN. OKAY.
I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE A MOTION AND. THANK YOU. MR. THE MOTION IS MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THREE MODIFICATIONS. WHAT THE ATTORNEY SAID. NUMBER TWO, WHAT COMMISSIONER MINER SAID ON CONDITION NUMBER FIVE, CLARIFYING THAT THE PRODUCT ON THAT WEST SIDE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF DURABLE PRODUCT THAT IS NOT WOOD. AND THE THIRD CHANGE IS CONDITION NUMBER SEVEN. TO READ, THERE SHALL BE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 50FT FOR ANYTHING STORED IN THE CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD, PERIOD. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, I THINK YOU CAPTURED IT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER. VALKOVIC SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, I ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON AGENDA ITEM GROWTH IN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION. AND WE HAVE NO CARDS. SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. GOING BACK TO
[01:05:02]
SIX COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, MR. MANUEL YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.