You turn your mics on so we can get this rolling. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to call this regular meeting of the city plan commission to order. Today is Tuesday, April 18. It is 04:50PM, and we'll we'll start by, taking a roll call.
Megan DeSanto, counsel for the CDC.
And Michael Gadsdaco, chair. We'll go right into the approval of the minutes from the March 21 meeting. You all should have received them in advance, and, hopefully, you had a time to peruse them.
I have. And I'd like to make a motion to approve another issue of excellent minutes. Harry, this was this was on March 21.
Last time. Did it this month.
Oh, I thank last time, and, nevertheless, usually, Troy on to very good.
I I assume you you proved them, Troy on? Yeah. Yeah. Then you you contributed. Alright.
So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Alright. We'll go around, Noel.
Perry. Aye. And I vote aye. Director's report.
Okay. The only thing I have to report today is that we have new counsel. We have Megan DeSanto here from the law department. We're thrilled to have her here. She has you may not know it, but she's represented city, the the zoning board and the city plan commission in front of the in front of the Superior Court and Supreme Court even took the student housing ordinance all the way to the Supreme Court.
A well seasoned attorney. She she knows the work of this body very well. She will be trading off with another attorney from the law department named Sharon Garner, who I think you might see, if not next month, then the month after. They have a they have a schedule where where they'll trade off. So, we're thrilled to have seamless representation, and just wanna welcome Megan.
Well, thank you. With that, we have a busy, busy agenda this evening. So we're going to ask the the applicants and the public's help with speeding this agenda along. So we're gonna jump right into the first matter of this agenda, which is a major land development. It's public hearing for unified development plan review.
It's a withdrawal of the application for case number 23 Dash 007 UDR 740 Plainfield Street. K. I
yeah. The we have a a request for a a withdrawal on this. This had been continued to this month. So we got a written request for it to be withdrawn. You simply have to accept that that withdrawal.
Seconded. K. Go around. Noel? Aye.
Nicole? Aye. Terry? Aye. And I vote aye.
Alright. Moving right along. See, we're being judicious with our time here. Minor Subdivision. This is the second agenda item, case number two three dash zero two four m I at 69 Dapingo Street.
Sure. Thanks, mister chair. And a quick introduction. This is a request to subdivide a lot that measures about thirteen thousand five eighty four square feet into two lots of six thousand four hundred and twelve and seven thousand one hundred and eighty square feet. And this this lot is currently occupied by a two family dwelling and a garage.
The applicant wants to split the lot, which would result in the house on one lot and the garage on the other. And so the applicant will be talking to you about the fact that they would need to get plans in order plans for you to develop the lot to get final plan approval as the garage will be an accessory structure on a separate lot. So as of the applicants here, they can tell us more about the project.
Applicants. If you wouldn't mind go going up to the table right there, and you can present any further information that Choyan hasn't. Just so everybody knows, this is an as of right subdivision, but for this accessory, structure.
So name is Kyle Bell. My name is Kyle Bell. Adrian Delombo. You basically just wanna put a
two family on that block and keep the two family in the garage. Okay. Do, does anyone on the commission have any questions for the applicants? This is a city council referral. Again, if they oh, I'm sorry.
This is a minor subdivision. You're right. A by right. At that. Alright.
No questions for the applicant? Great. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing, so we will see if anyone here in the audience is here to comment on this agenda item. And if you're joining us in the virtual world, please raise your virtual hand or press 9 if you are calling in.
Seeing seeing none. Okay. With that, we will close the public comment portion of this agenda item. Now on to deliberations. Oh, staff report.
Yeah. Trying to speed it along too fast, I guess.
Yeah. And thanks, commissioner. So as we've outlined in the staff report, this project is in performance with the comp plan since it's in an area that the future land use map intends for low density residential development. And as discussed, the the plan conforms to the zoning ordinance given that they will have the required lot width as well as the minimum lot size. However, as the garage is located on a separate lot and it's an accessory structure, In order for you to approve final plan approval, the applicant will need to either demolish the garage or have plans approved for new to family on the lot so that it's not the sole accessory structure on the lot.
And, also, one more thing I would like to point out is if you look at the plan, it shows side yard setback for lot a of about 8.9 feet, and that needs to be 10 feet in order to conform with the ordinance so that can be changed on the final plan. Based on that, we don't foresee a negative environmental impact. This will be a buildable lot, and street access will be provided from the Pinedo app. So based on that, we would recommend that you approve the preliminary plan subject to these conditions that the applicant obtain a building permit for principal dwelling or demolish the garage prior to final plan approval. Final plan shall indicate conformance with the canopy coverage requirement and pervious surface limits.
And also to that, I would add that side yard setback that's depicted should be 10 feet or more. And then the validity of the preliminary plan should be extended to one year for the date of recording the approval letter. And, finally, we ask that final plan approval be delegated to a DVD staff.
Mister chair, just briefly, thank you, Choyan, for pointing that side yard step back out. That's a brand new regulation that that passed late last year where lots of 60 feet or more in width have to have a 10 foot setback in the side yard. They have plenty of room to tweak that line over a little bit and still be within the the minimum lot size, larger than minimum lot size. Great.
Alright. We have the staff report. This one's a a pretty cut and dry. By right, again, they have to come back if if anything changes or if they
don't demolish garage, accessory structure.
That seems pretty cut and dry. This one question because they don't have a driveway on the other side, and the line goes right through their driveway.
Oh, it looks like With their new
Is on the their new lot line, it may actually be close enough. Well, the lot line is through the driveway.
Yeah. I could I could I could make a statement here. So if you'd notice, lot A would have two curb cuts, at least, know, one one and a half perhaps, and Lot Lot B has a overly wide curb cut. As they're developing this for new houses, they'll have to modify those because we only allow for one curb cut for for for a house. So that would have also
have to remove the driveway, the current
Yeah. They're yes. They're they're gonna have to when when they when they develop this, they'll have to come into compliance with with zoning. And when when you talk about the current driveway, which which one are you talking
about? There's a driveway well, photos on the map. There's a driveway right where the law proposed law line is. Correct.
Bear with me just a minute here.
