Mar 24, 2026 4:00 PM - Redding Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

>>Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and get the meeting started if staff is okay with that. Yeah. Okay, so at 4:02, this meeting will now start. Um, today we have roll call. Let's start with that first. >>[ ROLL CALL ] >>Okay, so let's take some care of some orders of business. If you would like to talk today, there are cards that you can fill out out there, and you can submit them to these ladies up here. Um, and then we just ask that you silence your cell phones for this meeting. And Jeremy's over there. Do you want to introduce your staff for us? >>Sure, I'd be happy to. Sorry, my chair is, I think, broken and will not go up, so I'm just stuck at this height for this afternoon. Um, yeah, we have, um, Elizabeth Steadman and Michelle Yang helping us with clerking. Uh, the usual folks up here: City Attorney Curtis, Josh Anthony, myself, and Planning Manager Lily Toy. Um, Assistant Planner Drew Morgan will be presenting the item later, and those are the staff here for presenting to you this afternoon. >>Thank you. We're going to move on to item 2, approval of minutes. Minutes from the January 13th, 2026 meeting. Do we have approval? >>I'm going to abstain from the January 13th minutes because I was not present. >>Thank you. Then we do not have a quorum, do we? No, you don't. You don't have to be here, but you can subsume. We do have >>You have the remaining 4, I think, that could vote. >>Do we have a motion? >>I'll move for approval. >>Okay, do we have a second? >>Is that, is that a motion for both items? >>Just for the January 13th. >>Oh, just for the 13th. I will second. >>All in favor? >>Aye. >>Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Now we're going to go on to the minutes for the February 10th, 2026 meeting. Do we have an approval for those meeting? >>So moved. >>Michelle. Thanks. Do we have a second? >>I'll second. >>Erin seconds. All in favor? >>Aye. >>Any opposed? Okay, and that one carries as well. So item 3, any announcements? >>Uh, Vice Chair, no announcements, thanks. >>Okay, we're moving on to 4, which is Planning Commission's items, and there are no items on the consent calendar, so we're going to move on to item B, which is the public hearing that we're here for today, the subdivision map application S-2024-00740. Planned development plan application PD-2024-00741 and rezoning application RZ-2024-00795 by JNL Custom Homes to subdivide a 1.65-acre parcel located at 4363 Churn Creek Road into 16 parcels. And I believe we are going to have Drew present to us today. Would you like to come up and present? >>Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you, Chair. Here before us, we have a private application for a tentative subdivision map, a planned development, and a rezone application. The property location is at 4363 Churn Creek Road. It is zoned RM-9. Um, the planned development application and rezone is proposing, um, an RM-9 planned development overlay. And this property has a general plan designation of residential 6 to 10 units per acre. The property is currently vacant and is consisting of annual grasses with oak trees nestled along the perimeter of the property. This here is the tentative map. Um, this tentative map proposes to divide this 1.65-acre property into 16 parcels with a project density of 9.7 units per acre. The average lot size is roughly 2,300 square feet, which is about a 20th of an acre. The rezoning of this property to a planned development overlay is necessary to allow lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet. While the 9.7 units per acre density exceeds the density for the RM-9 zoning designation, properties rezoned to a planned development, or PD, may exceed standard zoning density as long as they are within the general plan density range. Here's a picture of the planned development plan. Um, it's attached single-family homes. Um, the property lines will separate units and yards. Private streets will take place from Churn Creek Road, and there will be landscaping within the subdivision along Churn Creek Road landscaping within the subdivision and along Churn Creek Road. Each property will be under a privately managed homeowners association. The HOA will be utilized to maintain shared amenities for this project, such as the road and sidewalk. Block walls, community area, detention basins, and landscaping within the subdivision. These are the elevations provided in the application. Um, so you have two different home variations, um, each with three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The facades utilize a combination of board and batten and stucco. Uh, roofing materials offer a combination of metal and composite shingles. Um, each unit will have a single-car garage. And here are the amenities that were proposed in the application. Um, these amenities include walking paths with benches, decorative streetlights, an 8-foot-tall decorative sound wall, along Churn Creek Road, interior landscaping, and a community area that includes beanbag toss and an area to hop on rocks. For general plan conformance, the overall density is 9.7 units per acre. Single-family houses are to the north and south of the property, and to the east is single-family zoning. The current property is zoned for residential multifamily. This tentative map proposes attached single-family homes, which is more in character with the surrounding area than your typical apartment buildings would be. The applicant submitted a plan development plan for reduced lot size setbacks and to allow private street. Uh, this proposal provides an efficient utilization of land at 9.7 units per acre while also respecting the existing community by proposing homes which are in character of what you might see in a neighborhood. Um, so one of the issues, if you will, um, this project had to contend with was noise. Um, to the west of the property, you have Turn Creek Road, and then beyond that, you have I-5. Um, so this project would be receiving noise from both of those roads. Um, so we did get a noise analysis for this. In the noise analysis, the conclusion was an 8-foot-tall decorative sound wall is required along Churn Creek Road, and this is to reduce outdoor noise and interior noise. And then as well, homes on lots 1 through 4, these are the I-5 fronting homes, they are conditioned to be reinforced to meet the minimum interior noise standards of 45 decibels. For the environmental, biological resources assessment was submitted with the project. It identified a small wetland feature on the northeast corner of the property. This project is avoiding this area in the wetland plus the 20-foot buffer as well, and it's required to be shown as a private open space easement on the final map. This is just basically a non-buildable area. There were no special status plant species identified on the property. And then tree removals that occur in season for bats and migratory birds and raptors are required to conduct in-season surveys and gain environmental clearance through CDFW. The project shall follow standard subdivision condition number 35. Um, for CEQA, staff finds the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under guidelines Section 15332 for infill development projects. Um, this type of exemption generally applies to projects that are less than 5 acres and surrounded by urban uses, can be served by utilities consistent with the general plan and zoning, and not affected by significant environmental issues. Um, this project is well supported by the general plan and zoning. Um, staff recommendation to the Planning Commission is to find that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA, approve this tentative map application, rezoning and plan development application, and determine if the findings are in evidence and approve this application with the recommended conditions of approval. Thank you. >>Thank you. I'm going to open it up for the commissioners if you have any questions or concerns. Miner. >>Yeah, the one question I had was, uh, the HOA, is that going to manage the yards for the houses or just the public landscaping? >>That's going to manage the public landscaping, not the front yards. >>So front yards, backyards, are managed by homeowners. >>Correct. >>Okay. >>Yeah, I have one question. Where the fire truck turnaround is, I presume that's also set up for your normal garbage pickup. And I know in some cases, in some areas, when they have an area that's like that where there's a lot of turning around with heavy trucks, it creates issues for the pavement and breaks down over time. Is there any additional requirements for that particular area in this plan? >>We're talking about the fire turnaround area at the very end? >>Yes. >>There's no additional requirements, but it would have to be maintained under the HOA, the road. But for this project, there's no additional requirements for that. Fire did review this project originally, actually, when the project first came in, there was a trash enclosure kind of in the middle of the, um, subdivision. And, um, which is okay because it's multifamily, um, but with this being a PD, it allowed them the flexibility to have their own trash cans. So we did remove that portion from or they did remove that portion from the project. Um, but there's no additional, um, um, standards that for the roads other than they need to be maintained under the HOA. >>Thank you. >>Okay, so I'm curious if they don't if they're going to have trash cans. I'm looking at this and I mean, my garbage cans are huge and I have to have like 3 of them. Are they going to have to have each each house is going to have 3 garbage cans and where are they going to put all this? >>Yes, so they, they, it will be tight. So I'm assuming they're just going to go in front of the little section on the lot. So when this originally came in and it switched over to having their own trash, we did review it with Solid Waste just to ensure that this is, there's going to be enough wiggle room here for them to be able to get through. And they did give approval on it. So It's going to be tight, but the original tentative map had the only area they could really fit it was in the middle of the subdivision, which actually isn't really ideal either when you walk out your house and that's the first thing you see. >>No, I get that. >>Yeah. >>Yeah, seems kind of snuggly. And am I the last one to get the memo on the hopping rocks? What does that mean exactly? And why would you do that as opposed to something that might be kind of I mean, like, if I was a kid, is that fun now? I'm old. I guess I'm just, you know, asking for the fun meter here. >>I think I might be beyond that as well. >>Yeah, that just seems like a weird use of space, but it could be fun. Garbage cans and hopping rocks. Sorry, I'm looking at okay. I'll stop. >>For the community area. >>Yeah, right. >>Wouldn't that if you were a kid, wouldn't you rather there's no open there's no space, and the backyards look like they're all gravel. So if you have a kid and you and they want to play, like, where everything is concrete, gravel, or bark, and they're not going to want to play in the bark. Guess they play in the street. We used to play in the street. >>I would. Michelle, guess. >>Stop. >>I looked at hello. Um, so the sound wall would be required for this project if it was a just a not a planned development, but a subdivision? Yes, that would be. >>So I'm curious why it's listed as an amenity, why the sound wall is listed as an amenity when it would be just a standard requirement. >>It's a great question. Um, for a PED, we have the flexibility to make it they can they have to make it more decorative. >>Yeah. >>Michelle, can you turn on your microphone please? That's okay. >>Okay, I'm trying to determine if the, um, enhancements justify the planned development flexibility. Because as Aaron pointed out, the park is very minimal. The sound wall would be required no matter what. So that's just one thought I had there. Um, are all of those the items that are listed in the amenities, all of those would are above standard subdivision requirements? >>They would be above multifamily requirements. >> Above multifamily requirements? >> Yes. So For example, I, I you probably wouldn't have that community area in the middle, uh, potentially. Um, and also with the HOA and the maintenance of the landscaping as well, um, this, that this does exceed your typical application. >> Okay, the HOA is probably maintaining curbs, sidewalks, asphalt, landscaping, street lighting. >> Correct. >> All of that stuff. >> So, okay, um, can you discuss maybe there's an image is the single access off of Churn Creek? I'm just well, how wide is the road inside there? Because it's I think I read somewhere it's not to city standards. >> It's not. >> It is not. Um, that's the reason why the it had to be privately maintained, conditioned to be privately maintained. >> Okay, 20, 24 feet, Michelle. >> How far? >> 24 feet wide. >> Okay, so is I'm just, I'm wondering about queuing, turn movements, just general fire department access, if that is a sufficient width. Especially, is parking going to be allowed along the street? >> There'll be no parking allowed on the street. The project is conditioned to actually have red curb and, uh, let's say Fire lane, no parking along there. >> Any off and I'm sorry, I don't recall looking for this at the time I was reviewing the but is there any turning lanes or anything? Right turn lane, left, there's a going out to the right. >> No, there's not. >> OK. All right. The little wetland, so that's just being treated as something to avoid, not an amenity. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Okay. And who will maintain that? Is that part of the HOA? >> I believe so, yes. >> Okay. >> Was there any thought of integrating that into the design somehow? Um, I just wonder if there's any benefit to that. >> Yeah, yeah. As of right now, I believe it's just got a Kind of like a wall around it, like a fence or a wall. >> Is it going to be enclosed? I guess what I I think it might be a missed opportunity there. >> Yeah. >> It would be helpful if you could pull up that slide where she's talking about where the wetlands is in the back of the property so that the commissioners can see. There you go. >> Mm-hmm. >> Is it being used as a detention basin? >> Um, no, the detention basin is actually right here. >> Okay. >> And then it'll spit out over here in the wetland, and I'm assuming it will just travel over here to Little, uh, Churn Creek channel. >> Okay. Um, so there are one-car garages. And there's 12 I think I counted 12 additional parking spaces provided. I'm just wondering, you know, people tend to use their garage for storage units these days, and I'm just wondering about the adequacy of the overflow parking. >> Yeah, um, so the driveways, they are 20 feet in length. Um, most people park in their driveways because they do use their cars for storage. Um, so with this project, they're just one single-car garage, and then there should be 16 spaces actually, um, on here. So each >> okay, I didn't catch the 3 down there. >> Okay. >> And there's 16 units, so conceivably you could have a guest parking in, right? One car vehicle parking there. Um, would a conforming RM-9 project look significantly different than this? >> It could, yes, you could have an apartment building that has I believe it would have to have 14 or 15 units in it. I think what makes this unique is each person can own their own lot. Um, and I believe this project did their best trying to make it in character with the surrounding neighborhood while also meeting that density of that general plan density of 6 to 10 units per acre. >> Okay. >> And then I do want to concur with Aaron about the play area. It seems very minimal and really not much of a play area at all. And I also want to point out, I'm looking at the developer's packet as you enter the project off of Churn Creek Road. >> Yeah. >> While there's roofline articulation, those are flat walls. There's no articulation on the most visible part of the project. I don't think it's very attractive, and I'm just wondering if we couldn't condition I would like to see a condition for at least on that highly visible entry unit, some type of more articulation. And you basically, it's just a flat wall. >> Yeah, so condition architectural enhancements along those units across >> when the commission discusses this further after the public hearing, I'd like to discuss that. So those are my comments. >> Thank you. And I have a couple things, um, under Findings D. It addresses that there's nothing relating to traffic, but then there's nothing stating in that finding that there's nothing relating to traffic. So this might be for Mr. Anthony, but it addresses everything else noise and the quality of water but it doesn't say anything about traffic other than in the headline that there's nothing relating to it. >> Yeah, for, for traffic for this, for this project, Churn Creek Road as it runs in front of the project is a 5-lane section, meaning there's 2 travel lanes both north and south and there's a center turn lane. Yeah, that center turn lane acts as the buffer, right, to reduce delays of people going in and out of the subdivision. So with that center turn lane, this being only 16 units, minimal amount of trips, there was no adverse effect to the traffic along Churn Creek Road. >> So I grew up on Arizona Street, my parents still live back there, and let me tell you, going left out of Arizona, which is just one street above that is a risk of my life every time, and people cut through the back way to avoid that because it is so bad. Because I the new shopping center of Save Mart has definitely impacted Turn Creek Road, and especially when Enterprise High School gets out of school, I don't let my kids drive over there. Yeah, it's risky. Yeah, so I just was disappointed that in the findings there was no nothing further about traffic. >> Yeah, they didn't, they didn't cross any thresholds as far as delays to trigger some kind of improvement, right? So within our guidelines, right, the city-established guidelines, they had no, no impact. >> And I think what Michelle was trying to get is maybe just more signage and actually labeling of getting out of there would be helpful. But I just wanted to bring that up as well. But I think Jeremy was going to say something, were you? >> Well, I'm just, I'm just trying to follow. So you're, you're talking about baseline level traffic from surrounding uses, then just the area, but not particular to this project, because that's what, that's what Josh was speaking of in terms of threshold for our analysis of this project, right? >> I did look that up. It does not meet the threshold. I just wanted to bring up the point that in the findings, it doesn't mention traffic at all. And I tend to think that there is plenty of traffic with that. Especially how much development's going in South Redding. Turn Creek Road is definitely >> what packet page are you referring to? >> Uh, it's Finding D under the findings, and I'm on page 37. >> Packet page 37? >> I'm sorry, 27. >> Okay, thank you. Yes, just trying to make sure we're talking the same here. >> Um, and then for Drew, I have another question. Was there any site constraints for like grading? Because I know that we always considered that land marshland because of that area is always pretty much underwater. So was there any site constraints that you ran across in getting it through planning? >> Um, so yeah, apart from the wetland that was identified, um, we do route this out to, um, land development. Um, and as far as site constraints for these pads to go in, um, none were identified. >> Okay, thank you. And then I think you said right off the bat that the density is the reason for the rezoning. The density of this project is one of the main reasons for asking us to rezone it. >> Well, it would be the, um, actually these having their own individual lots as well is a reason for the rezoning, um, for this application. Um, that, that's not typical. It would just be if this was just a multi-family development, there would be just one parcel and each individual, um, uh, landowner wouldn't be able to own that land. >> So does it meet the RM-9 density standards then? >> With that, it exceeds it. >> It exceeds it. >> Yeah, it exceeds, it exceeds standard zoning by 0.7 units an acre. >> Okay, so if you look to your staff report on page 1, the last paragraph, the PD is the overlay district that requires the rezoning. And so with this project, they're asking for 5 things. They're asking for the density increase, which is the 1 additional unit, okay? And then reduce lot sizes to 2,300 average lot size versus the 10,000 that's required in RM-9. Reduce building setbacks and then reduce covered parking. They're providing 1-car garage versus 2-car that's typically required, okay? And then, uh, the private street. So all those things fall within nonstandard, so the PD is required, which requires the rezoning. >> Did you have that in your slide? Can you go back to that slide that had that? >> And Lily, and they're getting the density bonus of the 1.75 because they're doing the PD. >> That's correct. And so the question to you, the issue is, have they done enough for the trade, right? So we're giving these things, and do you feel that it's justified by what they're offsetting? >> There you go. It's that you just highlighted the reduced size lot setbacks and allows private street, right? There. >> Yeah. >> So you only had the 3 of the 5. That was okay. Um, I think that's it for me for now. Do we have any other? Okay. So at this time, I am going to thank Drew and open the public. Sorry. >> I do have one more quick question. Yeah, just so, so we may not have to call you up later. Um, I was looking at the landscaping plan on the Churn Creek side and pursuant to the question about those those walls facing Churn Creek. Um, is there do we know what those shrubs are? It looks like, at least on the with this speed the east side of the property, there are some larger trees planned. I don't know if these are small short shrubs. I know we have a 6-foot wall. But wondering if we have anything that's planned to come over that 6-foot that would shield the houses just a little, the side of the house just a little bit. >> Additional height in the landscaping to kind of break up the facade over for the houses. Off the top of my head, I don't know exactly what plants they have proposed on this. Typically, this is kind of a pre-plan that gets hammered out at building plan check. But yeah, so I'm not sure what they are on the top, off the top of my head. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, so it looks like I am going to open the public hearing now, and it looks like we have one card. Again, if you want to speak, they're out there, and you can turn it in to them. We're going to start with Yvonne Pierce. You may go up to the podium, and you'll have a 3-minute clock countdown. It will beep at 30. You're not done, you have 30 seconds left. >> Hi, so I own the property just north of this new development. I had recently just retired a couple months ago, was planning on doing like, uh, entertainment kind of parties at my house, and now that's completely going to be out of the picture. Um, there's going to be no privacy with 16 units looking over into my property, so I have a lot of concerns about noise, about dirt when it's being built, littering, just also with pulling out. Like I think Leslie was saying, it's already bad with the with all of the new, you know, with Save Mart and Costco and all of that has been added in. And then to have 16 more units is going to be even more difficult because I have a big telephone pole that I can it's difficult to see to the left of me. Um, the other things that you were talking about, I was kind of concerned with. You mentioned a sidewalk. Is there going to be an imminent domain? Are we taking some more of my property and making a sidewalk there in front of my property so that these people can walk to and from, like, the stores? And is this going to be low income? Is this going to be HUD? Are people going to be renting these places? Are they going to be buying these places? Because my previous line of work was dealing with low-income criminals, and I have a huge concern for property value as well as safety. So my also my concern, yes, like I was saying, was, was property value, because There's, you know, it's like, okay, am I stuck here then in this property because I've got 16 units coming in and if they're low income, nobody's going to want to buy my property ever. And then the wetlands was another thing. Like, yes, it turns into kind of a pond, but there is no wall or anything on this property that you're going to be developing on that prevents that. So And is there going to be a wall that's going to be happening there? And then it's going to flush more of that water onto my property, which is more of a concern because it already floods quite a bit in my area. And then what else? I was just kind of at the top of my head. And then and I'm on a well, so I don't know how that's going to affect with all of these units. Um, is oh, 30 seconds. Um, let's see really quick. Yeah, so that's mainly kind of what I'm, I'm wanting to know is, is more that information and if there's going to be any assistance with the traffic and with all of that influx of additional people. >> Thank you. I have a question for you. One of the commissioners is trying to so do you come out Arizona as well? >> No, I come right out on the Churn Creek. >> But no, like, what road do you come onto Churn Creek from? Like Denton? >> So I used to live on Denton, and I bought this home. It is right on Churn Creek. >> Okay, that's good. >> There is no off street of anywhere. I have to come right out onto Churn Creek. >> Thank you. Is that good, Aaron? Wait, hang on. >> Are you the parcel directly to the north of the project. Yeah, thank you. >> Oh, to the north. >> To the north. >> 345 or something? >> Yes. >> Yeah, thank you, Yvonne. >> Just trying to figure out. >> Okay, so it looks like I have no more public comment cards, correct, Elizabeth? Yeah. So I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to take it back to commissioner for comments. >> Do we get to ask about the sidewalk and all stuff? >> That's what we're going for. >> Can you guys go through her questions? Because I'm curious about that now, but I didn't write it all down. >> I did. So starting with sidewalk, making a new one, taking part of the property on Churn Creek, how does that look? >> So for her parcel, no, there would be no there's no take involved. That's not part of this project. So anybody walking along Churn Creek in that area, would just be utilizing the existing right-of-way. I don't know what it looks like, per se. It's probably a little goat path on the side of the road, but yes. >> Yeah. >> And then I think I can answer this one. It's not going is it going to be low-income housing? I do know they are going to buy the units, correct? >> No, it won't be. >> In fact, and I'm sorry, I'm going to recommend actually the commission shouldn't be considering that. You're actually statutorily prohibited from looking at or discriminating between market rate housing versus the low income housing. So just to keep a clean record, I would recommend just leaving that off entirely. >> But the point I was going to make, thank you, is also that as a PD overlay, so this commission has brought up a few times, is the trade-off worth it in this commission's view to allow for the decreased setbacks and so on and so forth, the relaxation of standards. So the fact, affordable or not, I mean, these kind of projects will have more marketability and be able to actually be marketable at market rates if we allow for some of these things, right? At the increased density, we relax some of the standards. That's what the PD overlay is for. I asked Planning Manager Toy if it would help this body to I asked her on the side, hey, well, where do we start with this project? What have they done to sort of come to the table with add-ons to sort of deserve the PD overlay and allow of some of those allowances. So if you'd like, the two of them can sort of give you somewhat of the evolution of the project and what's been added to sort of earn that PD overlay district, if you would like to hear that. Because what I'm hearing this body say is that maybe they haven't done enough, and perhaps you're wanting to see more conditioning or other requirements to sort of earn that PD overlay district. So I'd put it back to you all. Would you would it be helpful to know how far we've come? Maybe the applicants could speak to it somewhat. In terms of earning this PD overlay distinction? >> Yes, please. Yeah. >> So I'm kind of putting them on the spot, but I'll give them a minute to gather their thoughts. So they're, they're going to game plan here a little bit. >> Okay. >> Can I keep going through the questions then while they do that? Wetlands. Can we address that a little bit further, if there will be a wall around the wetlands or how that will be protected? What that looks like for this project. As far as I can see, it just looks like it's going to be >> I think this project is just taking an avoidance strategy. Just block it off, leave it alone. If it's not conditioned to physically build a wall, then I wouldn't count on it. But while that is it conditioned to have a wall built around the wetlands or not? To keep people out? It's not conditioned. >> It's just an avoidance. >> It's marked off, development is avoided in that area, but as far as there's no condition to build a physical separation. >> Thank you. And then I don't know if we can address this, but her last question was about her well, if this project would affect well water. >> I couldn't see how it would. I mean, I don't wanna speculate, but from my expertise as an engineer, I don't see any way this development would impact groundwater in and around the area. It's an impervious surface. We're sending it off to the storm drain. Yeah, so without speculating too much, I don't see any clear reason why it would impact her well. >> Thank you. And all utilities will be provided by City of Redding, correct? Yes. Okay. Those were sorry, those are the questions I had written down unless somebody else got something else. No? Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. >> Now, the boundary on the north side of the project, is that is it going to have any fence at all? Is that going to be open, is it? >> Um, so we don't require buffering between residential uses, so it's and this isn't a true multifamily project. This is attached single-family kind of duplex-style housing. So I think, as Commissioner Goetter asked previously, a conforming RM project could be your standard I don't know, whatever would fit on that a fourplex, an eightplex, whatever it might be. So in this regard, we don't require a wall to be built between two residential uses of I'm going to look to my planners. Is that correct? >> That's correct. What I do want to point out is that on the east side of the property, it is single-family zone. So is a required buffer yard there? So what you'll see there is, uh, the property line, and then you'll see a 6-foot masonry wall, which indicates to match the sound wall. And I believe from this exhibit, they're taking that sound wall along the perimeter of that 20-foot non-disturbance area and is walling that off. And the applicant's engineer is here to confirm that if you'd like to. Have him come up to confirm. >> Say the last part again. >> Pardon me? >> Say that last part again. >> Oh, that that wall is extending along that buffer area along the wetland, so it will be walled off according to this plan. >> It's drawn that way, but it's not conditioned that way, right? >> It's not conditioned that way. >> We don't have words to that effect. >> It's >> we would rely on the set of drawings, so We could add a note or add a condition if this commission so chose, because that buffer wall >> it's hard to because that buffer wall is typically at the property line, but in this case they provided it at a buffer setback, which is 15 feet. Is that right? 10 feet. >> 10. Okay, okay. >> Another Commissioner Aaron. >> Okay, so I'm curious, on the, uh, north side, it's got the dashed line all the way down, says record boundary, but what, what is that, like, behind the walking path and all that, that would border on these, these? >> It just indicates a property line. There's no fence or anything. >> There's no fence or anything. So, okay. So if the people who lived I, I drove by here, but it's kind of hard. You can't really loiter because it's like, I'm sure the police were following me. Like, why does this woman keep making U-turns and driving by the same place? But I couldn't figure out, like, on that, on that back side, how, how does that border out? Like, if you have kids playing on the paths and all that kind of stuff, is that right? In their backyard? >> That is, uh, their side well, this property's side yard is what we would call it, along the north property line there. >> Yeah, because it's behind there, right? >> There's no physical separation other than some trees on that property line. >> Okay, so yeah, there's a lot of togetherness. >> Any other discussions? Michelle, do you want to bring up the design? >> Yes, I do. I have a question about the north wall. It says it's, um, 8 feet, and the south wall is also 8 feet, but they >> it >> the north wall on the imaging looks like half the size of the South wall. >> Can you clarify? Do you mean east-west? >> Pardon? >> Do you mean east-west? >> No, I'm looking at the sound wall on Churn Creek. The sound wall on the north, it says it's 8 feet wall, 8 feet linear, and on the south side it says 8 feet also, but it looks twice as large. >> Large. >> So I don't know if that's mislabeled. >> You're not saying height, Michelle, you're saying length of wall. >> Yeah, I'm looking at the length. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And are you on just so we're all reading the same packet page, you're looking at one of the drawings. >> I'm looking at the COVID sheet to Churn Creek Commons. >> Okay. >> Yeah, PDO. >> Make sure we're looking at the same page. >> 48. It does look shorter, and I'm just wondering what not in length, but not in height, but in length, it looks a lot shorter than the south wall. And I'm just curious as to why that would be. >> Well, that callout's a new 8-foot I believe that distinction's the height of the wall. At one point, is it an 8-foot wall or is it still? So it's designated an 8-foot wall, and then graphically it's showing however it scales out to being how long it is. It looks like to the property lines, I'm sure the applicant's here and could speak to it in more detail, but The length isn't designated by those notes. That's the height of the wall, right? >> That's the height. >> Yeah. >> And the length is designated based on what was recommended on the sound study. >> On the sound study. >> Okay. >> All right. Yeah, I would like to discuss the just the architectural elements. I mean, I'm not loving this, and I'm not thinking that if you plant trees there, It'll be a long time before that is not hitting you right in the face as you're driving by on Churn Creek Road. So it seems to me there could be some, some additional architectural elements. >> Yeah, like make it softer. It's very futuristic, which >> are you saying like the, the roofing angle is too jarring? Is it just >> I'm just looking at look at this wall, right? >> I mean, if you look at the design on this page >> I know, but that's on the street. >> You got to drive it, right? >> This is on Churn this is a high-traffic corridor, and it's the most visible part of this development, and it's correct, not very articulated other than the roofline. >> Now, driving down Churn Creek, I have to agree, the design did not melt into what you see on Churn Creek. However, the colors kind of match Save Mart colors that they're starting to do on the front. So that, that I can see. But as far as the design, it didn't mesh with the Churn Creek area. >> So what is this? What are you what are we looking for? I mean, in terms of I would say if you zoom out to a macro level and you look at this project in terms of housing, I will, I will say it's a unique project. It offers a type of housing we don't see a lot of in our town in terms of this attached single-family duplex style. You're going to see it hit the market likely at rates that I'm not talking affordable housing here, I'm talking about rates that are affordable to certain sectors of our population. Just to give you a sneak peek, we're getting preliminary arena numbers from HCD and the housing element's going to be a doozy. We're going to be looking at probably double the amount of housing that we need to find in our town from the last housing cycle. So just at a macro level, I would just urge this body to think about that. I think we, we certainly have the >> Jeremy, I'm not suggesting that we they redesign the whole architecture. >> No, I, I hear you. I'm just saying in terms of a PD and trying to come up with a little bit of a more creative you know, we build a lot of single-family residential in our town. We have plenty of single family, and we'll build more. But this kind of housing, what does this commission need to have to feel comfortable approving a PD overlay that allows for this slightly more dense housing, right? And allows for this >> Would adding some trellis elements along those big, huge bare walls and shutters >> I was going to say shutters. Yeah. >> be a huge onerous burden on the applicant? >> No, but I think where I was going with my line of questioning was we also heard comments, I think, about the park area or the lack thereof, right? Some of the other amenities that I think the commission wasn't super thrilled thrilled about. So maybe let's pause there for a second. Do you guys have sort of the story, or does the applicant have something to say regarding how far have we come? I think that helps frame it up, and then we can start talking about what else to add. Does that work for the Commission, or do you want to jump straight to what else? Because if we're just talking about the frontage and we're talking about lots, what, 1, 2, and 3 and 4? >> 3, sorry, 3, I think 3, 1, 2, and 3. >> The lots fronting Churn Creek on the west wall of those. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, well, let's start there. I mean, we could condition it to have, we could, well, we've done this before, right? We could condition sort of a generic architectural enhancement, leave it to staff to try and muddle through that some and get something a little bit better. We could get all the way down to the specifics of provide change in roof pitch, provide, stucco siding versus board and batten versus fiber cement. We could talk colors, we could talk materials, we could talk wainscots, we could talk stone, we could get really specific, or we could just have a condition that gives us the flexibility to push for a better design on those lots that front Trent Creek. Unless there's something I'm missing, Lily or Drew. >> I think one of the options that I've seen years ago, Michelle, you may recall, is that, uh, final design to be approved by the Planning Commission. That is the ultimate decision, but we could land somewhere in between. So that's an option. Um, but if you give us very specific criteria and none of us, I don't think, in this room are architects but you we need more specific so that you give us guidance, um, so that we could do it more at a director level able. Um, but if you certainly are uncomfortable with that, because this is a rezoning, that you could add a condition that you approve final design. >> Do you want a discussion? Are they going to make a presentation? >> Yeah. And, and I guess in your presentation, I'm, I'm real curious why there is no, um, why that sound wall stops and there is nothing all the way back to the wetland. If this is, you know, slightly over an acre and a half, that is not a long stretch. But it but if it was my house on the other side and my yard and stuff, I don't think I want 16 parking spaces and potentially kids playing and a house and all this stuff. And then just like, hi, it's in my it's in my yard. I have to drive by some more. I got to drive by more now. Looking at that in my head, but why is there no barrier down that, down that north side, right? >> And so it is on the south. Yeah, it's, it's because it's not required. Um, you can condition because this is a discretionary permit, and because, uh, no requirement because it is also RM-9, so there's no wall, or we don't even require fencing. People put up fencing because that, that's just the nature of how people want to, you know, have their private space, right? But this is proposed as a common area, and so the applicant had not proposed anything, but certainly that is within your discretion to require something. >> Real fast, this because Commissioner Ryan did ask the question earlier if there was a fence on the actual property, like does that property owner have a fence to yeah, the neighboring property. Okay, we have Is that the developer? Yeah. So that was a question too for your presentation. And then Commissioner Miner has a question as well. >> I have a field fence up there and I have animals, pigs and goats. >> And so all of the children from those townhouses will come over my fence. Okay, we're going to keep it. Commissioner Miner, do you want to listen to the presentation and have questions? Thank you. Can you state your name for the record, please? >> Yeah, Josh Miller. I'm the applicant's representative as the project planner. >> Could you hold the mic up? Oh yeah, sorry, a little height challenge here. >> Sorry. Josh Miller. I am the project planner for Horrocks Engineers, the engineer for the, for the applicant on the project. So there would be a fence along the north side. In speaking with the owners, a wood fence would be preferred. You know, we wouldn't expect that to be open to the north. It doesn't, you know, from, from an insurance and just a practical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense to have that an open field between the two. But, you know, they're willing to, you know, put a fence there that, that makes sense, you know, both from safety and, you know, visibility. Any other? Yeah. >> Do you want to discuss, have any questions for the developer? Aaron, I thought you were >> aren't you telling are they telling us more about the >> what it took to get to this point? >> Yeah, I, I mean, Lily could explain it probably a little bit more eloquent eloquently than I could, but we, we've definitely worked over the past 2 years to come to a compromise and with the city staff to come up with elements, amenities to the project that are both in favor of the city, in favor of the project, and in favor of, you know, the project, you know, making it cost effective. It's got to it's got to pencil, right? But these are not It's not a low income, it's not high density. We're only asking for one more unit, so it's already RM-9. So I know it may not be ideal, but that's the zoning that they bought, you know, that was existing. We didn't come up with RM-9. But the amenities for the play area, the tot what they call a tot lot is kind of a new term for a little play area where you could have the jumping rocks or, you know, whatever the kids want to play in, bark area, a swing set type of thing. I know the, the owner reached out to a company to find out what currently they would put in a tot lot, and those jumping rocks is what they came up with. So we left it basically to an expert to say this is what would be an amenity for children to play. In a play area for kids. That's what they came up with. If that becomes something in the future when this actually gets built, you know, maybe that changes a little bit. But I think the intent is to provide a play area for kids. There's a lot of open area next to the parking lot the or it's not the parking lot, the parking spaces. There is a lot of area there that's in common way above and beyond a normal multifamily development and a lot more than a typical single-family development, which this is, you know, kind of a hybrid of the two. And to Jeremy's point, I think this is a great opportunity to get a housing development that is in between or something that we that the city doesn't have a lot of this to offer. And I think that's, you know, the cost of construction with those roof lines, the different materials, that is, that is a big cost to the, to the developer. Most single-family developments make it very cookie cutter, very standard, and these are not. So that is one thing that we did was we added a lot of colors, changed the roof lines, and that does add cost to the project. And so that, that's something that I don't think should be overlooked in that cost. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'm going to ask you to stay up here just in case some of the commissioners have questions. Do we have any questions? Michelle, sorry, I'm confused. >> Are we going to get a presentation? >> I think that was the presentation. >> Okay, I could add on to a little bit. Um, so when we're looking at a project, there's always a lot of of, you know, things to consider as far as the parameters of what were brought forth. So in this case, we had wetlands discovered at the northwest east corner, and then the option was presented to the applicant, you can fill in that wetlands, which means then mitigation dollars, right? And so by filling that in, he could push the detention area or some sort of open space area, open up where he has that detention area, more usable space for common area. So what he decided was not to put that money towards mitigation, avoid it, which really squeezed in the developable area. And in this small lot, then it really reduces much more. You've got we talked about providing 2-car garages, which then would drive this thing to 3-story. Which then requires ADA and all those things. So he wanted to keep away from all of those things, you know, budget-wise. He wanted to hit a certain market. So which then brought us down to one-car garages with open parks, you know, spaces, and then reducing this, what we call a common core, as more of an alleyway, right? And you talked about 24 feet. Are we going to be able to squeeze a fire truck in there. They're minimally squeezing 24 with rolled curbs, which allows a fire truck to ride over that sidewalk. So that's how they're meeting the fire access and turnaround, everything. So this project is really, really tight, but what we did try to do was try to pull the amenities that were displeasing, like the common garbage, you know, You walk out and there is this garbage bin. And today those garbage bins, as you see, are getting larger because they have recyclables, they have all these things. So I thought that was a win for us in a lot of sense because it was sitting in the middle of the center of this project. So by doing that, it pulled that out and we were able to get at least some play area. Being that these are smaller units, We saw smaller families. We didn't think that there was gonna be teenagers or anything like that that would require like a small basketball court like you see at, you know, the K2 development out on Old Alturas. So a little bit a type of market hit for this type of unit. And then we had them, you know, they proposed a walking trail, small yet, but still available. So those are kind of the parameters that we were set with, with the small property. Short of buying somebody out, like the neighbor has showed up today, right? And to expand that northerly, I don't think we would have arrived at a better project, maybe better enhanced, but I don't think as far as like lot sizes or anything like that, I think we have done what we could, but at your discretion, we can my suggestion would be to add that buffer yard on the east side back into the project by pushing that buffer yard onto the property line. So then it opens up that backyard area rather than walling that all off. That would be a good suggestion so that you incorporate that wetlands back into as well into the project. It really opens up that back area. So that it can be commonly used as a play area, side yard, something. So that is 10 feet back there that you could gain back by doing that. >> Could you put the, the site plan back up there so we can visualize, move, move, including the buffer yard? >> It's a thing with the trees on it, right? That's what they're talking about down this side. >> Well, Michelle's looking at that. I have a question for Mr. Miller. So the wetlands are part like, the applicant owns the wetlands? That's part of this property, correct? Like, they own it, they're just deciding to ignore it? Yeah, they, they would own it. >> Um, so I want to roll that suggestion back about the, the wall being eliminated. I would still put the wall on the property line, but because CDFW recommended a 20-foot non-disturbance area from the wetlands, I would perhaps doing like a chain-link fence or a wrought iron fence so that it's protected, right? But you have that wall along the back so that it looks and appears open, right? So that is my suggestion there. >> I think that would satisfy, but let's open it up. I like that. >> I mean, I've backed up to open space in a lot of homes we've owned, and like some black chain link, which initially I thought like green would be better, but black actually, you see right through it. It's great. Nobody can get out there, and you get the benefit of the space without the access. I still think you need a Okay, so I don't know that area. I mean, I don't I didn't walk around out there, but if there is as much, if it is as marshy as you say on that side, on that north side, I've just, I've lived in places like this and you put a wood fence there and it doesn't last. They don't last, the wood fences. Where our town is filled with really sad, dilapidated wood fences. Actually. I drive up and down Shasta View all the time, and I'm like, too bad they didn't put the wall all the way down because everything just comes off. I thought, how big a deal is it to put to continue your masonry wall down that side so that the homeowner doesn't have her animals getting on them or bugging them? These guys are going to if you have dogs or whatever, I mean, Is that a big thing? >> Yeah, the masonry wall is very is more expensive than you could imagine. Okay. And so I would say on the north >> I'm assuming that's why we don't do them a lot. That's >> yeah, just guessing. So on the north side, I would caution against conditioning that on the north side. I think it would make sense to, you know, maybe come up with some options, condition that to have screened or solid fence, to be determined whether that's, you know, chain link with slats. But the masonry wall, I think, is, is a lot to ask. >> I mean, this, this commission before has conditioned like a durable fencing kind of material and left it up to staff to figure out the details. You know, fiber cement, chain link and slats, a combination of wrought iron and other durable materials. Material, so we could condition it specifically but with enough vagueness for us to work it out so it's not some kind of material like wood, which in our climate we know doesn't last well. But, you know, to roll it back, the code the reason it's not conditioned right now is the code doesn't require it technically, so we didn't have the authority to really condition it. However, as Lily mentioned, as a as the discretionary body, it can be conditioned by you all on that north side, but the code doesn't require it. >> So let's take that up if we were wanting to condition the fence. >> Well, I'm curious too, if it's a homeowner's if, if you did build a wood fence and the wood fence was falling apart, the homeowners group I mean, whoever is managing this, do they take care of that since it's a private road and that sort of thing? >> That common area with the fence, I think we could probably wrap it into the HOA maintenance. >> Yes, just something so it doesn't, you know, Okay, so do we want to recommend that the fencing be on that north side with the condition up to the city to decide at their discretion what, what should be done? Um, I >> that would be fine with me as far as the fencing is concerned, but it looks like, um, there's been discussion of wrap, including the buffer yard in the common area. Is that something we want to condition? And then at bare minimum, I would like staff to make an effort to improve the Churn Creek. >> Well, let's do one condition at a time. So we'll start with the fencing on the north side, and then we'll move to the common area, and then we'll move to the architecture. >> So yeah, just want to make a A couple of high-level, high-level comments in comparing this to what could have very well been the project that wouldn't have even come in front of us is a 14-unit multifamily structure with none of these requirements. This is, in my mind, this is >> it probably would have had a wall, wouldn't it? >> Not to the north because it's the same zoning. It would have it could have had zero requirements. Absolutely zero. That's what he said. Furthermore, they do have, in this case, there isn't even, there's one house that is neighboring that north property, or yeah, one house that's neighboring the north property. It's not even their back, you know, their backyard faces the street, not so much the north property. And the comparison of what could have been is, could have been 14 units that are lined up all looking back to the north. Um, to me, I think this is leaps and bounds superior and well worth a trade of adding one, I think, the PD. I think not seeing a big multifamily complex there, this is going to attract people that have some pride in homeownership. They're very likely gonna take better care of their property than an apartment complex. It's gonna be much more likely to have a higher, you know, higher income residents. Certainly not why I'm making, why I would make a recommendation, but in this case, I just think this has a lot of, benefits and amenities for a community. So I'm that are over and above what the minimum could be. The most affordable thing would be to put 14 units, apartment units that have no, you know, doesn't need to go to Planning Commission, doesn't need to go to City Council. And that, that would be the least expensive thing to do here. So I'm nervous about adding a lot of things. I'm certainly open to K, open to adding shutters on the west side or saying that they have some fencing material, which they're already amenable to do. Sounds like that's already in the plan, but going above and beyond that, to me, this product is already well above and beyond what they would need to be, um, is my stance. >> Thank you. Great feedback. Greg, did you have something? >> I would just say that my biggest concern is the fencing on the north side. I think there needs some sort of a barrier there, and I think they've agreed to that. And so with that being included, I'm happy with the plan as it is. >> Yeah, I wasn't married to what it was. I just it didn't show here that it was there. And I thought she said she has animals. I thought, oh, yeah, this is all kinds of unpleasantness. >> So, so going back, so you do agree that the fencing on the north side will be part of the project? >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I think the, the, the owner had expected to fence the north side for just something durable. Yeah. Yeah. And, and part of that process is going through the improvement plans and finding out what makes sense and also what makes sense from the fire standpoint and the insurance. Yes. Insurance companies and the fire departments wanna make sure that what is built makes sense for the climate. >> Okay. Michelle. Is it correct though that presently the northern fence is not conditioned? That would be something we would need to add. >> Okay. Correct. Yeah, correct. Yeah, we could, we could do some sort of generic condition like I mentioned, or if this body wants something more specific, we can work on that. I think in the past when this body's conditioned, you know, durable fencing material, etc., that's given us enough at the staff level to end up with a product that we, we feel meets the intent. >> So I think we're okay with leaving it up to the city unless we have any objection. >> Yeah, because I think Luke's comments are really good, and I agree with you. It's true, you know, dropping up like an apartment building in there or something this is way better than that. So I, I totally agree with you. Didn't mean to be a nitpicker, I guess. I, I just said questions. >> Okay, so let's discuss the common area. >> Michelle, I am fine with the way the common area is presented, but there was discussion of adding the buffer yard. So I just was following up on that. >> This, yeah. >> Do you have discussion, Erin? >> Do you have a prep? >> No, no, they were going to put in the, the like chain link or whatever on the buffer thing, right? >> Is that what you're for my benefit, could we clarify, Michelle, what's your understanding of the buffer yard that you're talking about? >> I was just making sure on the east, southeast corner of the property. Is that what we're discussing, calling the buffer yard? >> Yeah, on the eastern parcel, correct? And I believe Lily was mentioning that previously, right? I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah, I'm not sure we are. The buffer yard you were talking about talking about adding a buffer yard on the >> no, there's a buffer yard, but I was suggesting moving the sound wall to the property line, right? And it's been clarified that CDFW says it's a non-disturbance area, which means that you can't do anything with it. Okay, but it doesn't mean that you have to wall it off or fence it off. So you could just take that entire property line there and just make the sound wall along that wet east property line, but you couldn't go to the wetland, correct? >> You'd have to right, you'd have to hold it off the wetland area. >> You'd have to hold it off at the wetlands. >> So the sound wall could go from the south, just a little corner north along that property line until it hits that non-disturbance area. And then we can't go into that area with that sound wall. >> How does that affect the side yard though of the adjacent housing unit? >> Lots of Lot 16. Mm-hmm. >> Yeah, that, that's their standard 5-foot there. >> So, but there's a fence. There would >> right now there's the proposed sound, uh, I mean the, the buffer wall. Currently it's held at the 5-foot setback. >> I'm not sure how that would work. It seems like you would have public encroaching upon that housing unit if you moved the wall, unless they're going to put a fence in their side yard. Follow me? >> Right, it would be almost like a 10-foot for that zone if you put a fence 5 feet either though, there's nothing. >> I mean, it's a >> re-parcelize that to be their parcel, right? >> Right, you could add that in as part of their parcel. >> I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. >> So you can move the property line? Yeah, for the lot 16, it's not okay over to the east property line and just incorporate that side yard so it just becomes Is there >> I'm not that interested in seat assignments, conditions. So if someone else can >> Yeah, you're just talking about moving it over. Yeah, and we're good with that. >> I don't think we're solving a problem. >> Yeah, at the risk of asking a dumb question, I think we can move. >> We can move. I would probably leave it. >> Th