Jun 11, 2024 4:00 PM - Redding Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

>> All right. I have 4 o'clock. Welcome to the City of Redding Planning Commission Meeting for June 11. Can we do a roll call please? >>[ CALLING ROLL ] >> I would like to welcome our two new planning commissioners. Welcome. Nice to have you both. Moving on to number two, we will do an approval of minutes from the April 9 meeting and the April 23 meeting. Is there any discussion on that? >> Mister Chairman, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve the minutes for both of those meetings. >> We have a motion and a second. I'm going to abstain from the April 23 because I was not present for that. >> I'm going to abstain from both meetings. >> Since we were not present, and I will as well. All right, so any further discussion on that? All right, all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right, moving on. Thank you. Number three, announcements. >> Thank you, Chair. I just real briefly want to also welcome our two new commissioners, Commissioner Johnson and Willem. I had a chance to meet with them individually and get to know their background a little bit. Excited to partner with you both on the commission and excited about the background and expertise you bring. So welcome. Other than that, no other announcements? Chair. >> All right, thank you. Moving on to number four, election of officers. This is the time of year where we choose new Chair and Vice Chair. And Vice Chair minor has been serving in that capacity and with precedent. >> I would make a motion to move Vice Chair minor into the Chair spot and then nominate Brandi Green to be Vice Chair for the next year. >> I'll second that motion. >> All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor? You're going to abstain? Okay. All right then. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. With two abstaining. Congratulations. >> I abstained as well. >> Just want to thank you, everyone, for that brief intermission. Non-official, of course. So today we move on to item five. Which is the planning commission items first. Five a. We have nothing on our consent calendar, so we'll move through that. Five b. We have five b. One, which is a use permit application by L and S. Reading development, LLC to allow storm drain improvements to support the previously approved Riverstone subdivision to encroach into the 100 year floodplain of Sacramento river on property located at 290 Wyndham Lane in an RS 3.5 residential single family district. I will turn it over to staff for the presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. And good afternoon. Or evening. I can never tell with the 04:00 hour if it's evening or afternoon. But good day to all of you. And yes, so we will be discussing this Riverstone flow floodplain encroachment application for this use permit. So some brief background. So yes, the Riverstone subdivision. Oh, I'm looking at the wrong slide location. Yes, 29 80 Wyndham Lane. Right there along the river, as you said, zoned RS 3 and a half. And it touches the floodplain. So it gets the RFP for floodplain and it has a general plan designation of three and a half to six units per acre. And that just for your information, that orange line denotes the county line. It doesn't denote anything having to do with the drainage for the project. That was a question that came in from the public. So now getting to a little background here. So last year, December 12, the Riverstone subdivision was approved. And as with any subdivision, there are required improvements that need to be done, such as storm drain, so that the storm water can drain properly from the site. So in this case, the project seeks to construct a storm drain outfall that actually encroaches a little bit into the floodplain, which triggers the requirement for, for a use permit for our municipal code. And so right there, depicted we have the blue is the 100 year floodplain and the highlighted yellow area, which we will be zooming into in subsequent slides here. But that's the area we're talking about where the storm drain improvements kind of cross that line a little bit into the floodplain. So this is just kind of an overview of what was approved. This is what the subdivision is going to look like. The lot layout and I've highlighted areas actually missed a little bit. But you get the idea. This is where most of the storm drain pipe is going to lay within the subdivision. And so the ground is higher to the west and all that water's got to drain through the system eastward so that it outfalls towards going into the Sacramento river. And that's historically where the site has drained to. That's the way the water's always moved. So this isn't changing the direction of the water or anything. It's just making sure that all the water that's now falling on graded lots and improvements is all flowing into that system and leaving the site, as it always has, in the same direction. So for the passive storm drain system to work without needing to pump things, it needs to rely on gravity to push that water. And so as we discussed, it's got to be, it's higher on one side and lower on the other. And so in order to meet all the requirements, not only to function, but there's some other requirements in terms of how much dirt is above the pipe. It's called cover and the angle of the pipes and everything it needs to actually end or outfall at a particular elevation. And in this case, that particular elevation comes up against some of the earth that's in the floodplain. And so what this diagram is showing is if we go back and look at this, imagine you take this piece of paper. If you're looking from my perspective, you're going to flip like this and look at a profile view. So we're going to zoom down and look at it kind of sideways. We're looking through the ground kind of towards the neighbor. So we're looking at the side of the pipe right there and then this. I feel like this was brighter last time I was here. This dotted line right here represents the existing grade. And so this solid line represents what it would be changed to. And you'll see this highlighted part right here is the amount of, it represents the amount of the elevation of all the dirt that needs to be removed from that existing dotted grade so that all the water can come out of this on into this rock line, ditch here and properly leave. So that has to be removed for the system to work properly. In addition to that, as I just alluded to, there's this rock lined ditch. So this is all going to be graded. These lines mean that it's going to slope from the outside here, slope down towards the middle from the sides just ever so slightly. And then in the middle there's this rock lined ditch. And that's so that when the water does exit this pipe coming out of here, it dissipates the energy into rock so it doesn't erode all the soil and start eroding the whole floodplain. So that's also a part of the encroachment into the floodplain. That's roughly, according to my calculations, about 27ft. So not incredibly long. And I also want to point out that this would result in a net removal of material from the floodplain. And that's important because the idea is that we don't want to be filling the floodplain with more material because in the event of water flooding that area, the more mass is in that area from current conditions, the higher that water level is going to be because there's less, there's less volume in the floodplain to suck up water, so to speak. Lily has a great analogy with the bathtub that I'm not even going to attempt to use. But, but we want to make sure that when things are happening in the floodplain, that when that flood water hits, that water level doesn't go up because of construction. And so what this does is going to remove approximately 75 cubic yards of material which will be redistributed outside of the floodplain. So it'll actually mean in the event of the water coming up to that line, there will actually be 75 cubic yards more space for water to fill versus less space for water to fill. So as I alluded to before, we didn't receive any public comments per se. I did receive a question from a neighbor, but no, no formal comments about the project. So with that, staff recommends adopting the. I'm getting all confused here. Looking at the screen, the bigger one is not up there. The small one is up there. Environmental so previously with the Riverstone subdivision, a mitigated negative declaration was adopted. And this use permit is on land that was considered with that environmental document and that was studied with the biological report that came in for that project. And this project would also, it would have no significant effect on any plants or animals, including trees. There's no trees within the area of work and it's not in the river, so it wouldn't be in any bodies of water or anything. So an addendum to that previously adopted mitigated negative declaration has been prepared and is appropriate for the project and that's attached to the staff report. Now in conclusion, no public comments were received and staff recommends adopting the addendum to the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration, determining that the findings are in evidence, and approving this application. And I'm available for questions. >> Thank you Mister Castro, for the presentation. Before we go to the public hearing, are there any questions? Go ahead. Mister Green. >> Mister Castro, can you speak to. I did visit the site, but without traipsing through the neighbors yards, it wasn't readily obvious to me where the flood point either looking, looking at the maps we received, or sort of standing in the neighborhood where the floodplain extends in the property that's directly downstream from this development, the very neighbor, like the storm drain, comes out very, very close to the edge of this property line. What does the floodplain do? Because just looking at the contour, it feels like it goes further close to that house that's directly downstream. And so I was, I'm recognizing that this is an engineered storm drain. This has been thought through. But is there, does the storm, does the floodplain continue closer to that house downstream? And is there any sort of need for like rip rap or any additional protections since we're going to be putting out additional water so close to the edge of the property? And will it affect that property that's directly downstream from it? >> So the actual construction of this outfall, it doesn't cross the property line. So it is all on property. And I pulled that up to show that where it says project boundary, that's actually the property line. So you're right, it's on the side of this property, but it doesn't go onto the neighbor's property at all in terms of any kind of rip wrap or anything. The idea is that this isn't having any kind of, it's not hindering the floodplains ability to hold water. So it's not changing negatively the condition of the neighbor in any case. However the neighbor's property would fare during a flood today won't be negatively affected by this. Does that answer your question? >> Thank you. I was just concerned about whether we'd be causing, scouring or reeling on the neighbor's property by introducing more water directly upstream in a large storm event. >> Right. So the maximum amount of water leaving there would still be the amount of water that would be coming from that site anyway. And there's probably some more engineering specs to this, but there's also the ability for this system to absorb water. So I'm not sure if that's really applicable to the question, but it's not introducing water that wouldn't have existed anyway. So it's not like significantly changing, changing the condition from today with regards to how much flow there would be for the neighbor. >> And so concentrating it in one output is not going to negatively affect the folks directly downstream. >> Correct. >> Okay, thank you. >> Are there any other questions before we open the public comment? Good. >> I'm referring to the draft conditions of approval, and approved subdivision map applications are typically entitled to at least three extensions. And so while I recognize that this project is well underway, I'm curious as to why this condition of approval would only have the possibility of an additional one year extension by the developmental services director. It seems like it should run concurrently. I mean, it's such an important part of the project that it should be extended, have the possibility to be extended as often as the subdivision map application. >> Right. That does make sense. I mean, I guess from being in it and seeing this stuff day in and day out, I know that they have that grading permit. So all this other work is already kind of happening and they're just trying to attach this on. I'm sure if there was a situation where this needed to be extended more, I'm sure there's on the top of my head, I'm not able to convey exactly how it would work, but I'm sure there's a way that we could change, amend this to be able to extend it longer if we needed to. I mean, it's not like this is like set in like hard, hard stone. We could come back before, before this body or maybe a board of administrative review and get some longer extension if we needed to, but that is noted. I mean, that does make sense to keep something like this consistent with the subdivision. >> Having driven by the property today, I was just curious, is there a reason why we didn't know about this when this came for approval back in? I guess it was December. >> So it wasn't shown as a part of the design for the original subdivision. And the consultants who did the plan are actually here, so maybe they could speak to that. I just know that it didn't become clear that this would be required and that this encroachment was required until after the subdivision was approved. And so we're kind of doing this retroactively. Ideally, we would have included this with that initial application package, but this is just kind of how it came out in the wash. >> I would add too, that at the entitlement level, let me turn this up a little bit. At the entitlement level, we did have sort of site plan schematic, but the scale that it was at showed the outfall just at the edge of the floodplain boundary. So it wasn't abundantly clear to staff when we were working through the environmental and the permitting that it was going to actually physically encroach into the floodplain. So when we got to the improvement level part of the project, entitlements were issued and we started looking at the design of the project specifically at tighter scales and with section cuts and engineering done, then it became apparent to us, oh, this is an encroachment in the floodplain. So we had to double back and bring it back to this body for approval. So at the end, that's what we always struggle with at entitlements, is we don't want too much detail because we want to get through entitlements and get to the detail later. But then anyway, it's always a delicate balance. So we probably didn't have quite as much detail as we should have had. At the beginning to deal with it at that time. >> Any other questions? Thank you very much, Mister Castro. I will open the public hearing. We have one speaker, Mister Mike Dormer, who may be able to answer some of those questions. >> Good afternoon. Well, congratulations, Luke. New position. And brandy as well. My name is Mike Dormer. I'm representing the developer for the Redstone subdivision project. We are complete agreement with everything that you've heard so far and the project as a whole. And Jeremy did a very good job in explaining, you know, the difference between a (INAUDIBLE) map and the level of detail that we show on the (INAUDIBLE) map versus what we're have to look at when we get to construction documents. You know, we don't do a 35 sheet set of plans on the tandem map. We do three or four sheets. And so things like this can come up, and we get into the gory detail during design with the construction documents, you know, and things like this can come up. The thing that really drove this part of the improvement is we have parcels on the west side of our project that are actually draining towards the project. And for years and years and years, have just drained over land and worked their way to the Sacramento river. Well, now we build a subdivision, and we kind of build it up a bit. We have to collect and convey that runoff. We can't just trap that water in their backyards. So that pushed our storm drain down and didn't leave a lot of vertical difference from there to the ground at the floodplain. So. And this happens a lot, and it's been worked out really well. We have a solution, and we've abided by the other requirements that the city has for stormwater conveyance, which are good ones. So, anyway, it's worked out well. Would it have been better if we had caught it during the tan of mouth stage? Would have been. I take blame for that. I probably should have pointed that out more clearly, but we're here, and we'll get it done. A couple questions. Really astute question, brandy. In terms of, you know, is this going to cause erosion and sort of things, because, remember, there's already runoff going towards the river from this area, but it is more of a sheet flow. And you're right, we are concentrating it. But in today's day and age, I sound old when I say that the stormwater moves much more slowly today. And we really encourage infiltration. Okay. We're trying to not only convey the runoff, but we're trying to clean it up, because now it's going to be coming off driveways and paved roads. So we really try and move it slowly and encourage infiltration. So by the time this runoff comes out of the pipe, it's not moving very fast. So we're not really concerned about erosion. And then as far as the use permit versus the (INAUDIBLE) map, I think staff just looked at, you know, their code for a use permit says you get this much time and you get this many extensions. A ten map, which is mandated by a combination of the subdivision map act and the city code, has a completely different set of rules. So we're not worried about it. I mean, the storm drain to this point is built as soon as this meeting is over and we get past the ten day appeal period, we're blow through it and we'll be done. So we're not really worried about it. But that's a, that's a good thought. And we would bring that up if it were going to be an issue. And then finally. Oh, so I explained the first one already. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> Any specific questions? >> No. Thank you very much. >> If anybody else would like to speak on this topic, there are blue speaker cards to fill out and back on this topic or any future ones for the rest of the night. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open it. >> Would you like to make a comment? >> Before you make a motion or further discussion with regards to Commissioner question about the expiration at your plea, desire you could change the condition number two, to say something in the realm of the approval. This permit shall automatically expire concurrently with the associated Riverstone subdivision period. I appreciate that consideration, but the applicant's representative has said that it's not an issue, so I'm fine with moving forward as presented by staff. I don't know what the rest of the commission feels at this time. >> Let's open it up for discussion. Would love to hear thoughts, comments, certainly, on that or anything else from the commission. >> I think if it's not a concern to the applicant, then we shouldn't need to concern ourselves with it either. >> Would anyone like to make a motion? >> I'll move we approve the application subject to the conditions of approval >> Any second. >> I would second that. >> Thank you. >> And may I inquire if that includes the CEQA findings and the other actions in the recommended action? >> Does the motion include the recommended CEQA findings and other recommended actions? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And I believe the second does as well. We will do a vote. All in favor? >> Aye. >> None opposed? None opposed. Thank you. Okay, we move on to 5B2, use permit application by UP-2023-01612, Chad and Cori Abel to construct three shop buildings for metal modification business on properties located at 5625 and 5651 Cedars Road in a heavy commercial district. I'll turn it over to staff. Thank you. >> Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. Planning commission. What we have before us is a use permit for metal product manufacturing use. The current location of the site is at 5625 and 5651 Cedars Road. It's 3.68 acres with those two parcels combined. The surrounding roads are Brandstatter Lane, Highway 273, Cedars Road, Concord Lane. Before us we have the zoning map and general plan. The zoning is heavy commercial and the general plan designation is also heavy commercial as well. This is the most recent street view picture we have of Cedars Road. To your left is originally there was a parcel map in 2006 and that parcel maps split the property to your left. It was one parcel and it split it into four. And it also allowed for the frontage improvements and sidewalk as well as the driveway apron here. And we also have the oak trees as well that are going to be remaining for the project along the street frontage as well. This is the current site plan for the project. They will be taking access of Cedars Road and they will be constructing three buildings, 52,000 sq ft, for metal manufacturing. Metal product manufacturing. Basically, they will be taking finished metal and converting it into like fences and stairways and things like that. There's also a covered wash area to the north and that is their detention system to the rear of building C, which is the 7500 square foot building. That is their frontage. They're where all the oak trees are at. And then this is going to be their interior landscaping. They're parking lot landscaping. The building elevations are as you see before you. This is going to be the 32,000 square foot building. It's building a 4000. This is going to be used for office space and 28,000 it is going to be for manufacturing. The exterior of the building features include standing seam metal roofing, a combination of stone stucco with metal sidings, stucco column and awning above the entrance. This is building b, 12,500 square foot for office and manufacturing. The exterior building features include standing seam metal roofing and a combination of stucco with metal sidings, stucco columns and awning above the entrance. And building C, which is located and the rear of the parcel is going to be 7500 sq ft for office and manufacturing use as well. The exterior features include standing seam metal roofing as well in this building and a combination of stucco and metal sidings at the review of the project is consistent with the general plan. And the project complies with the zoning recommendation from staff is that we determine that the project is exempt from CEQA and make the necessary findings and approve the project subject to draft conditions of approval. >> Thank you very much. Are there any questions for staff? >> Not at this time. >> You mentioned under building site design that the roll up doors that were facing visible from cedars roads are to be replaced with decorative features. Are the roll up doors that the applicant is losing because of that condition? Are they being relocated elsewhere in the buildings or are they just losing them all together? >> They will be losing those doors, but there's also plenty of roll up doors in the rear as well, located on the site. >> In regard to the noise matter, is 07:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. typical for heavy commercial locations, or is that a timeframe that was created for the applicant? >> That was a timeframe that was created for the applicant. >> Because 10:00 p.m. seems late to me for potential. I think there's the units across. The vacant parcels across the street are zone RM nine. And are there residential units to. I can't recall. I did pay a site visit, but to the south of the project there are. Yes, there are. So what is a. It seems like for other locations where we have dealt with these kind of noise issues, like at Costco, for instance. I don't know if it went until 10:00 p.m. lily, can you comment on that? It's the 10:00 p.m. is the threshold for a certain noise level. So I can't remember by memory, but let's say it's at, you know, 65 until 10:00 p.m. it drops. Drops to 45 for a residential district. So, you know, you could be in there powder coating or something. And it's not really loud. Right. But if they're banging away at 10:00 p.m. then that's too loud. So it's measured by the decibel? By the decibel, that's correct. So if it exceeded the 65 or the 45. I believe it's 45 after 10:00 p.m. and so is that something that the residents would come to the city about and then you would make an adjustment at that time or. That's correct. We'd have to measure the decibels. So there is like a sort of an appeal process for. Yes. And it's measured at the property line. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> I would point out, too, that I believe that's in condition six of the draft conditions of approval. Lily might be able to speak to that or drew more, but regarding the noise decibel level, if it exceeds the threshold, that there's a process for them to follow with our department to conduct a noise study. So I'm seeing that in condition six. But Lily can correct me if I'm wrong. >> That is correct. It's condition six. >> I don't know if that helps. Commissioner, in terms of packet, page 25, condition six, draft condition six. >> Director Pagan, is there a certain number of complaints that would need to happen before that would need to be done, or how is that initiated? >> I'm not reading that in the draft condition. It doesn't seem to be clear. It says, I'm just going to read it along with you here. If at any time after activation of noise producing equipment, the development service department determines that the noise levels may not meet the city's noise standards. So Lilly might have experience in how that's been implemented in the past. I don't know if this is a condition we've done on other projects, Lilly, or how that's been actually conducted. >> Yes, just take one complaint. Thank you, Jeremy. >> And Lilly, I do have one question, just for education purposes. What is the need for a use permit? If it's consistent with general plan and zoning? What triggered that in this case? >> In this case, it was the size of the building being over 30,000 sq ft. So that requires a use permit. And also the use as well classifies under industry general, which also requires a use permit in the heavy commercial zoning. >> And the cupboard wash area. Was that part of the reason that it was triggered is that use or that need for the detention of that water? Was that some of the need for the use permit as well? >> The covered wash area is just accessory to the business that will be going in there. So it didn't trigger anything for the use permit. >> They don't have to do anything with that water to clean it or pump it out or where's that going? >> They do. We had a condition in there from industrial waste, so we routed it out to industrial waste and condition, and for that they were able to review the project. >> Commissioner Hatch, I believe in 2021, we approved a project that was on the adjacent parcels, I think it was by ally Farms. So it was a cannabis business. Do we know if that's by chance going ahead? >> I would assume not, because this use permit is before us, but I haven't heard any news on that Li pharm. Use permit project. I did reviewing this project. I did go and look into the history, and I saw that use permit, but as far as I know, there's nothing further on that use permit. >> , I haven't seen anything on the building side in terms of building permit applications for that project as well. So at this point, not sure if it's moving forward. >> I think during that hearing, and this was a couple years ago, so my memory might be a little foggy, but some of the neighbors were concerned about storm water drainage. I see here, I think, condition twelve, about a 15 foot wide private storm drain easement. Where does that all. Where does that storm water go? I know there's a canal there nearby, but I wasn't sure where the water would go. >> That's actually a good question. Kind of ties back into our previous discussion on level of detail. We could spend a minute and look, I don't know if, if it's coming to mind, but it would be something we would deal with on grading permit stage or improvement plan stage, when we get construction documents, and they'd be required to comply with all of our MS four standards. Stormwater treatment. We do have frontage and curb and gutter. I don't know if we've got storm drainage infrastructure at the frontage of this property, but we could spend a little time. And I don't know if you have more detail, Drew, or if it's. Suffice it to say it's something we'll definitely work on during grading permit plans and improvement drawings. Or we have the applicant here and their engineer, who could come up and address the question at this time or later. Which would you prefer? Chair? Is that okay? >> Good afternoon. Bill Nagel. Haven't been here in a while. Thought maybe I wouldn't ever have to come back, but I am. So, , I'm happy to answer your questions. If you look over here. This was a challenging site for the drainage because it's so flat out there. And generally, the existing drainage drains from the lower left to the upper right. And so what we did is picked up all that drainage, and we're moving it from the. The left side to the back, and it all goes to the detention basin back there. And from the detention basin, if you look up on the upper right, there's a little outlet right there that ties into an existing storm drain. There's an existing storm drain that was put in as part of the overall project when it was subdivided in. I think you said zero six. There was four parcels created. So there's a storm drain back there that routes out to the front, and it ties in with the Caltrans storm drain that's existing. So as part of this work, some of that pipe has floated up. So we'll have a little work involved when we get to the working drawings to replace some of that pipe and make it all work well. So if you have any other questions while I'm up here, I'm happy to answer. >> We do have the applicant. The applicant also scheduled to. Chad also scheduled to speak during the public hearing, but any other questions for the friend? >> Mister Abel speak for himself. I think he wants to talk about the roll up doors on the west. That was a rather late thing that came up in the process. I think we learned about it Thursday, and so he'll talk to you more about that. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions before we open? We're very close before we open the public hearing. No? Okay. I will open the public hearing and ask for Mister Chad Abel to come up. He's our only speaker right now. >> Hello, everybody. I appreciate you looking at this for me. Can we go back to the elevation view of the buildings? So those are a couple buildings that I'm planning on doing in the near future, but not the main building. But we can address this here. I'd like you to imagine that building right there. The top is the front elevation. Without any of those doors, it's going to look like a giant metal box. So I added those doors. And I want you to understand, too, these aren't just your standard roll up door. I plan on doing an opaque, opaque glass roll up door. You see them on modern homes now, you won't be able to see through them. I don't anticipate them being open very much at all, but I just want a project that looks nice. And I feel like everybody puts up these metal buildings and they're ugly as sin. So I added some details to these. And, I mean, those doors aren't very cheap, and I'm just doing it just for looks. I mean, I could. I could hang a $2,000 metal roll up door, but those are going to be closer to $15,000 to 16,000 apiece, and I want it for looks. So I would ask that you give me a little grace and let me do that just so that our buildings can look as good as they can. If we go back to the original building, the main building, the one that we're going to start first. Obviously, you haven't seen anything like that here in town, and I did that on purpose. I feel it's important that we have an artistic flair to some of these things. I own a metal shop, and, I mean, this here is. We're kind of going above and beyond, and I want to be proud of it. But like I said, those aren't your standard roll up door. They're going to be glass to match the storefront in the center there. And I do plan on having them with an opaque. So, almost like a sandblasted finish that you can't see through. That one. On the front of this building, there's only one. The center is the man door. It has a little canopy over it. That one will be open less than 1% of the time. The entrance to that particular portion of the building is basically storage and very low use. We're not going to be fabricating anything behind that door. It's going to be mostly storage and maybe a little bit of a machine room. So I do ask that you give me some grace on that. And then obviously, the other buildings, if we can go back to those. Thank you. So, , just imagine that little tiny door there in the middle being on the face of that building. It's not going to look very appealing at all. So there are other things I could do, I'd be willing to do. I don't want to squash the project by any means, but I intend on this looking very nice. And I'm just. I just don't want it to look basic. I honestly don't have a use for those doors at the moment. Those are future, so I'm not sure if I will use them or not. But I just feel like they need to be there just to carry the aesthetic of the project. But I can't assure you they're going to be used very little when they are, and I'm happy to make it so you can't see through them. If there's any other questions you guys have for me, I'm happy to answer them. Since I'm up here. >> Are there any questions for that? Good. >> Hey, first of all, I just want to thank you for coming today. I agree. I'm very much, you know, excited to see something, a metal building that actually has some character. Thank you. . I hope that more metal buildings in our town would put that architectural design and thought into it. Can you tell me? So that really nice elevation that has your logo, probably like the company sign on. It's facing the west. >> Correct. >> Is that going to be visible from 273 or where? >> No. >> So this faces west and we are one street west of west side road. Oh, so west side road was. See that? No. Oh, Cedars would see that part. And so the other part where the garage door where you're proposing for those roll up doors would be also facing the same direction. Same direction. >> Everything's facing west. And Cedars is low traffic anyway. And that's why I chose this site. But, and there's, I mean, the lots across the street aren't developed. I'm not sure what their proposal is, what, you know, what they're zoned for, but . And basically that's what it could look like is that bottom elevation there, which would be terrible. Can I have one question for you? Related to sound, just because it came up at 10:00 p.m. do you expect forklifts after 08:00 p.m. what is your intent for going to ten? . So we went to ten just because that's where the line was drawn. But our general operation is wintertime we work seven to 330, summertime we work six to 230. But there are times all of our work, 99.9% of it's been out of town. But there are times the guys come in late and so the 10:00 will help, but all they're doing is dropping their trucks off and headed home. It's not like we're carrying on operations that late. And as far as noise goes, the loudest thing we're going to have would be a hand grinder and maybe the air compressor. The air compressor. Currently we have an insulated cabinet, so I know we can deaden the sound on that. Grinders are minimal. I mean, they're loud when you're up next to them, but we have this surrounded with a nine foot tall fence anyway, so for it to get over or through that and to get anywhere near a residence is going to be nearly impossible. But rarely are they there after 06:00, probably once a week as the trucks roll in, but it's literally drop their company vehicles off and head home. My last question is for Lily. What? Or anyone who would understand the purpose behind the condition for removing those doors in the first place. That would be really helpful to understand that perspective. >> The intent of the condition comes from our municipal code. Zoning code states that loading doors shall not, shall be screened when it's facing a public street, public view. So in this case, may have been caught late, but they can either do several things. The condition was written, number eleven, to swap those out for other building features. So it could be like a storefront glazing that would look similar to that, but it would not be a roll up door. So the purpose is, because when you have a roll up door, the possibility is that they can roll it up and you see everybody working inside. So envision auto repair business. We've got several of those loop places all over town, and you're driving through street and you see them working on draining oil. That's not what we want to see from a public street. So that was the whole intent of why loading doors are not permitted facing a public street. Or if they are, they have to be screened. The most recent project that we did was a U Haul project down over there on La Loudon. We have an entire screen wall that's like 8ft tall along the property line to screen those loading doors. >> Let's continue that discussion after we close the public hearing. Although are there any more questions for the applicant while he is up here? No. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, everybody. >> At this time, I will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion among the commissioners or additional questions to staff. >> Can we vote to allow those roll up doors and make an amendment to this project? Or is that off the table because he's asking us to have some grace, so he sees a need for those roll up doors at some point. I own a business that I need roll up doors at some point, so to take those away, seems like he said, I don't want to squash the projects. So can we allow that in this? Off the cuff of my hand. If you're doing something that is not kosher to our RMC, it has to be a variance. You have to make the findings that there's something special about this project that requires the variance to not meet the code. >> If I may. I believe that the requirement in question is coming from 18.5, and it does have a provision for essentially the variance process through chapter 18.15. The only question I have is really whether that would be properly in front of you at this time, or whether that would need to be part of an additional application and approval at a later time. I might look to miss toy a little bit in terms of what? Whether we may be able to craft language that would essentially say, unless a variance is approved. >> Can I comment on that? Yes, if that's what the owner and land developer is asking for, and it keeps the project going, I think we should look into the variants. I think personally, I think it looks appealing. And 1% of the time for the door to be open, like you said, it's not a heavy trafficked street. So I don't. I think there could be a variance for that, but that's just my opinion. So the process is that, one, we'd have to continue this item and then we would have to take in the application, advertise it, bring it back to you with the proper findings and so forth. Right. And that's going to delay the process that I'm sure they don't want. >> Yes. >> So I think I interpreted the applicant a little differently than you did, Leslie. When he said he didn't want to kill the project. I interpreted that as you didn't want to die on that hill of the roll up doors. Well, we're not going to reopen the public hearing. I'm sure the Chairman doesn't want to do that. But thank you for qualifying that. I like the visual. The elevations look good. And I'm not opposed to continuing this item to add, you know, so we can address this. Glass roll up doors that were opaque would be interesting to me. I'm wondering if there's any other kind of design element that we can add to it to make it look more like a design element. For instance, a overhang, something like that. So it'd break it up even more. So it would just look like big glass windows and there'd be an overhang. I have a feeling there's a workaround about this matter if the applicant would like to continue it. I do want to remind the commission that the property across the street is zone residential. Rm nine. So you could have residential people with a lot of traffic at some point. And it's, you know, if they sold the project and that the new owner decides they're going to leave those roll up doors open all the time. That is an unintended consequence. So having lived right by where they work now, I know their business. I actually am in their subdivision right behind. So I know what kind of business they run. And again, it's just preference, but it doesn't bother me. I don't think that they want to prolong this any longer. So I would also say keep it more moving forward. >> If I could add, I mean, the design element of glass roll up doors then serves as two functions. It's also natural light, so when not used as a door, temporarily can be used as another function for the building. Aesthetically looks really good to me. It looks like the more modern firehouses that we're building that are in residential areas that have the glass roll up doors with the opaque windows facing the street in most of our newer neighborhoods. And it looks very, very nice in this design, design and application. So I wonder how we get around that with a public building as opposed to a commercial one like this. >> Just to add a little point of clarification, too, if you look at condition eleven, it isn't. I think we're talking about two different things here. We're talking about either the use of a roll up door or the architectural features that the roll up door provides to the building. So with respect to the second point, the conditions written that the final building elevations will include features such as windows, pop outs, trellises, variations, et cetera to Commissioner point. So there is some flexibility in leeway when we get the final building elevations to figure out what else will replace these roll up doors from a look standpoint. So I heard the applicant say, I want my building to look nice. I will agree. For a metal building, this does look very good with distinct architecture and other features. So it's not as though we're saying take away the roll up doors and you'll have a big blank wall. The condition actually requires them to replace those roll up doors with something that will be meeting our design criteria from city council. So to that end, there is something in place already with this permit. It's the use of the roll up door that's out of question. So the zoning code does say if you have a loading area, it shall be screened. So if the doors are going to be used in a fashion, have loading or unloading or visibility into their manufacturing process, that's where the screening comes in. So it's sort of part one and part two. So the architectural feature, the aesthetics of the building, will be maintained by some other element through condition eleven. But the functionality of a door won't be there because they're not screened for the zoning code. So hopefully that helps clarify. >> Well, I do have one other question, point of clarification on that. If the zoning code requires that we screen those roll up doors if they're facing a public street or public right away, if they were to come back in later, say, hey, we're going to add this screening or find another way to comply with that, they could put these roll up doors in. This doesn't preclude them from putting roll up doors in on this side entirely. It just says we can't have it in this form of fashion. But if they find a way to meet the zoning code through another way. We're not preconditioning that project all the way through. >> The code doesn't say you can't have roll up doors. If I'm looking at the right code section that the planner showed me, it's actually based on the commercial zoning district. So to commissioner Johnson's point, I mean, Lilly would jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, but a firehouse is in a totally different zoning district to public facilities, so the same standards don't apply to that zoning district as this one. And so that's one piece. And then it doesn't say no roll up doors. It just says to be screened. Admittedly, the project design didn't incorporate screening from the beginning. We didn't catch it until later on. And so that's sort of. We're not hiding that fact. That's just sort of the facts of the matter. And so it wasn't designed per the zoning code, and then we didn't catch it until a little bit later in the game. So to keep it moving, the condition was written such that we have some flexibility. We can still meet the architectural standards, but you do lose the functionality of the door unless it's screened for the zoning code. >> Would it be prudent to add in something to condition eleven that says something like, final building elevation shall include the implemented design features that replace the western roll up doors as shown in the west elevations, unless they can otherwise comply with the zoning code. And that would give them the future flexibility. >> Yes. And I think I alluded to something similar before, is that you could have that sort of catch all so that if they do get another appropriate design or approval, then it may be compliant without having to amend the use permit. >> I would also add that I don't know if this will require a gradient permit or not likely would. So we're a ways off from building permits still. So if the variance process needs to happen in the future, it could be a deferred item that comes back to this body so that at least they're underway with construction, they're proceeding with their civil drawings, they're proceeding down that route, and they could come back with a variance request to add the metal roll up doors at a later time. There might be some coordination and other things required of the applicant or their design team, but it's a possibility to get them started. >> And just to summarize one more time, it didn't sound like there is a metric that at least app felt comfortable with to allow those roll up doors as proposed, without doing another public notice and another without continuing that to another meeting. >> I'll defer over here to city attorney. >> I think that the mechanism that was identified with this particular permit was the possibility of a variance which does require a specific notice process, a specific hearing process, et cetera. That's a little bit different than what you have in front of you now. You could amend the language such that if that approval comes later, then it would be fine and you wouldn't have to revisit the use permit. I don't know if there's any sort of. The screening was also alluded to, so I may defer to on that one. As to whether there's any issue there. >> No issue with that. But I do want to emphasize that four variances, there are five state required findings. And one of them that's always difficult to make is that there is something extraordinary exceptional about this location, this project, that requires this exception. So want to keep that in mind as if you were entertaining that at all. >> Can I just ask about the zoning kind of the definition around loading door? The examples that have been used have kind of painted a picture of a door open continuously throughout the day. Is there further definition on what that means? Because having a door and using a door are different things. A door could serve as, in this case, as a window. Or it could serve as a temporary access to load something, say, for 15 minutes, and then shut again. I just am curious if there's. If it's vague, general, if it's blanket in its definition or is there a way that we can find a way to fit it in? >> We can. I'll just check out the definitions in the zoning code real quick. If you give me a second. I don't know. Or, Willie, if you know. >> She's been here long. >> Well, Jeremy's just thinking roll right if it rolls. But also we also have to think about this May. We're approving the project, not the user. Right. The user can change over. Mister Abel may be, you know, a very compliant individual and may not use those roll up doors as he's indicated. But then let's say in a couple of years, he moves out, somebody comes in, those roll up doors are in there. And then going to get complaints. We're going to say, hey, we hear all this noise coming out of there. What happened? We're going to drive by. All those roll up doors on the west side has opened up. And we've got multiple family units across the street. Now we're stuck with this and we can't go back and say, hey, you got to build a wall to screen it. So I want to make sure that you understand that you're approving the building's design and not this user to use the building. I had a question specific to the shielding requirement because personally, my personal opinion would be that I prefer the look of these glass doors closed to a solid wall. If I were the neighbor across the street, that would be my preference. But given the explanation that we are approving the building plan and not the user, and that down the line you could be talking about open manufacturing inside the store. What, beyond, say, the eight foot wall that was approved for U Haul? What does screening require? Like, what are the options there? Whatever the options are has to comply with our commercial design standards. So if you're going to use chain link fence, that's not going to meet our standards. It's got to be something that's integrated into the design. Has to be, you know, something that's aesthetically pleasing most of the time, a decorative block wall or some sort of landscaping that's built in with some berming something like that. So it's not a hedge or an arborvita wall or anything like that. It's something more substantial. It could be a hedge. I mean, if you're going to use something that's going to be tall growing, something like that. But it's going to take five years to get there. Right? So what do we do in the meantime? We could say, hey, we'll eat it and we'll let them put up, you know, chain link fence with some tennis windscreen up to 8ft. And you've got to plant it with whatever a landscape architect would say would grow into five years. >> Thank you. I think we're all in agreement here that we like the look of the big glass area. We could approve, since the applicant has said that he has no intention of using those doors, at least at this time or initially. We could approve fixed windows at those locations so you get the same look, but they're not going to be a roll up door. >> I think that would be covered already within the condition that exists. >> Commissioners, I did look up a definition. I'll see if this is helpful, but in our zoning code, loading space is defined as an off-street space or berth on the same lot within a building or contiguous to a group of buildings for the temporary parking of a vehicle while loading or unloading merchandise or materials or people in which abuts on a street, service drive, alley, or other appropriate means of access. I don't know, if that. That's what loading space is. The zoning code in commercial districts talks about loading or what's the language? Let me get that real quick. We're in 1833 for the code requirement, right? Commercial districts. He pointed me to 1833 for loading areas and docks. >> I have to look at my stuff over here, and the mic is here, so I get a little bit. So do you want me to reread that definition or was. I'm looking at Miss toy because maybe she doesn't think that's the proper definition, but that's the only definition in the zoning code that says loading. Okay, let me do this. Let me turn this way. Give me a second. And, Lilly, you interrupt me if I'm taking us down a road that's wrong here. So, loading space in the zoning code is defined as an off street space or berth on the same lot within a building or contiguous to a group of buildings for the temporary parking of a vehicle while loading or unloading merchandise or materials or people in which abuts on a street, service drive, alley, or other appropriate means of access. That's the only thing I can find that might be pertinent. If you go into 1833 of the zoning code, that's where the requirement comes from. I can pull up that. >> And if the commission would like, obviously, this is an item that you want to make sure that you've got correct. If you want to give us just 5 minutes for. For a recess, it may be appropriate for us to on the staff side, just to make sure that we're all literally on the same page here. >> Anybody opposed to that? >> No, not opposed. >> Recess granted. [ RECESS ] >> Do we have some staff consensus? And do I need to do anything official to open it back up? >> You just said that. We're back in session. >> We're back in session. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, staff has reviewed and discussed. It does appear that in the code, even though a variance is normally required for this sort of allowance, essentially when a use permit is applied for and as part of the process, this type of variance or this type of adjustment can be allowed as part of the use permit process, and that's essentially to prevent there for being unnecessarily duplicative proceedings. And it does look like the notice requirements would essentially be satisfied in that way. I believe Director Pagan and Miss Toye may have a little bit more. >> So I appreciate our city attorney having the idea of a recess. That was fantastic. Gave us a few minutes to regroup here. So 184095 of the municipal code deals with loading spaces and docks, specifically. And except for industrial districts, which. This is a commercial district. Correct. So since it's a commercial district, the code language reads this way. It says, for applications requiring a use permit, the screening requirement may be modified by the approving authority based on circumstances peculiar to the site. And so what staff is recommending at this point is we would need some findings from this commission to determine what is peculiar about this project. As we kick that around here, some ideas that we have that would be, I think, defensible are the large, starting on the westerly side, you'll see the very large mature oak tree along the right of way provide some natural screening because they're large trees. The applicant's engineer indicated there's, I think, an eight foot tall wrought iron fence along the easterly edge of the sidewalk. There's some good frontage landscaping as well. And also we could add a project condition to the satisfaction of this commission that adds an element of screening landscape along the wrought iron fence to provide some additional screening. And in that way. And lastly, what's peculiar to the site, as has already been mentioned, is the architectural features of these metal buildings are already pretty substantial. And for the type of building and the type of use, they've sort of raised the bar already in terms of their architectural design and what they're doing. So those are some ideas in terms of peculiar aspects to the site to which this body could modify the screening requirements based on the code length which I just put forth. So I don't know, Miss toy or drew anything to add that I missed. So if it's the prerogative of this body to modify our code screening requirements and make some findings like I just mentioned, we can go down that route. >> I would, if I could. I would like to make that motion to the board that we modify the screening conditions as a board. Okay. I would like to be assured that we are indeed going to get these architectural type doors that will be glass and tinted. I think you're proposing that they'll have a tent. I would like to be very specific so that we don't end up with an aluminum roll up door. So I don't know what the best language is for that. If you have any suggestions, I do. >> Agree that would help us. Certainly when we start reviewing building elevations, when the, the building plans come in, that always can be a difficult way to interpret. So, , I don't know how we want to. We can craft that language as such or modify those. Modify condition eleven. >> I believe those are metal and clouded glass doors. If we just stated. The applicant is in agreement. If we stated that. I don't think it's possible to do a really crummy metal and clad a glass door. >> We can reference the elevations as well. I mean, the elevations do. They don't look like a metal roll up door. I don't know if on your drawings, it's spec'd out as a. Is it specified as such? >> I think the only other thing I would add is I appreciate all of the, I guess, special features of this site and this project, except the idea of adding the landscape screening. I think what we all want is to, there is the mature oak trees as well as a fence. What we want is actually to be able to see the building. You know, if it does look like this, I don't feel like in particular it needs it. The building is also somewhat substantially set back from the street with the parking lot and driveway and the landscape area. So that'd be the only other modification that I would make to that thought. Unless it really messed something up. >> No, I think if the commission can make some of those findings regarding the peculiarness to the site, quote unquote, the screening was just a conversation we had with the applicant as sort of a compromise to add some sort of live hedge or screening hedge. But certainly if this body can make the findings of peculiarity, we can waive the screening requirements. This body can waive the screening requirements in their entirety. >> Anyone would like to make a motion or would you like to make a stab at making that motion? >> I would move to approve with the addendum that we would allow for changes to the elevation that included the roll up doors as specified by the applicant, being both metal and glass, opaque. And the elevations. And that we do find that the architecture of the building is significantly different enough from what is expected that there are extenuating circumstances to approve these roll up doors. And the tinted glass, is it tinted opaque? Okay. Unclear glass, non transparent glass. >> Commissioner Green, did you want to include the mature oaks along the frontage and the wrought iron fences findings. >> Sure do. >> Thank you for protecting the mature oaks. We appreciate that. And yes, that they would be included. I'm sorry. Then we should delete condition eleven, which is, with regards to the final elevations, incorporating pop out trellises. Because of those roll out doors. Yes. The amendment would remove condition eleven because we would be allowing the roll up doors and not requiring an elevation change. Right. You could specifically replace it with a condition that says roll up doors o