Alright. We're gonna go. Alright. Good evening. We're gonna call this special meeting of the city planning commission to order.
Today is Tuesday, April 23. It's 04:47PM. We will do a quick roll call. Well, Sherry?
Ready? I'm only here for the application.
You're here for item number one. Yeah.
Shiloh, chair. Charter manager, staff.
Sharon Gardner, legal counsel.
And I'm Michael Gazdako, chair. We will start we'll go and do a director's report. There are no there are no minutes to approve because we had our regular meeting last week.
Right. The only thing I wanna say on the director's report is that you'll you're seeing the next installment of conference plan chapters today. We still have a few more. We were hoping that we would have all of it to you today, but, we just couldn't get it over the finish line. So, look for, more to come.
We'll have to talk about what May is looking like because, we do have a lot of items in the queue. We just got a couple of new land development projects, in the door today. So we'll be sending out some further correspondence about about your meeting in May. Other than that, you'll hear very shortly the comprehensive planning chapters from other planning staff. But first, we just need to, hopefully get through item number one quickly, which, we continue today.
And we had to make sure that we have this particular composition of the city plan commission in order to to continue to move on this.
Okay. Since we do have the correct composition, we have all of the original members who were here when we first heard this application back in what was it? November. November 2023. We've now continued it from the March meeting to last week.
We continue it last week to today. So now we will call the first, item on the agenda, which is a minor subdivision with unified development review, public hearing for case number 23Dash054UDR. It's about an application for 53 Pomona Avenue, and I believe attorney Gary is here to send the when the applicant is here.
Yes. And commissioners, you'll recall that this is a minor subdivision. This lot is slightly smaller than 10,000 square feet. That's why they were asking for zoning relief to subdivide it from one lot into two lots. It's actually within that 15% that makes it eligible for administrative modification.
They applied for that. It was, noticed. As such, there was an objector, and that's why it came to you for, zoning relief. Our recommendation was to approve this zoning relief. However, there was it it it became known that there was a significant tree on the vacant portion of the lot, and, there's a lot of discussion about that at the meeting in November.
We were between city foresters. We now have a new city forester, and he has issued an opinion about this tree. And I'm going to just display this on the screen. What it says here is that he has approved, the removal of of the significant Oak, finding that it would it would not be, that its existence prevents the lot from from being developed. And then he has conditions attached to his approval that, three oak trees that other oak trees have to be preserved and that there be a tree protection zone around these oaks during construction.
No regrading the soil, that no roots from those oaks measuring more than two inches in diameter shall be severed, and that 2,000 square feet of canopy coverage will be planted additionally on the property after building construction, either on-site or through street trees and a couple other notes about about planting. So that is now in hand. That that was what you were you were asking for, some additional information with respect to whether the site can be developed with the tree. I think the forester definitively said that that in his professional opinion, it can't. So that this letter is in hand.
And I think right now, we can just pick up where we left off. You were you were in the process of of deliberating, and that's when, mister Garrity asked for a continuance. So, mister Garrity, you may have more details on this. Should should we
Well, I I I think maybe we'll we'll let attorney Garrity summarize anything that's come to light since then. And then I think since there is no information, if we wanna open to public comment one more time just to kind of an abundance of caution before we can get deliberations again. So that's how I think we should probably proceed. Mister chairman, those are
the commission. John Garrett. I'd happy to be out with you. Thank you very much. We do.
She raised our it summarized everything very well. We went through an extensive process with respect to the forest, and actually three foresters, and and we'll see that opinion after after we we really made an effort to see if the house could
a different location. During the tree, it could not it could be done. So we did provide that letter to us. Just from a matter of summary, we had an expert testified with respect to the standards for the dimensional variance, which is sort of this case that that testimony was part of the record, and transcripts have been provided. So I'd like to just make sure that that testimony was incorporated into the record here.
If it is, it's it's not and continue from day to date as required by law. I'll be happy to answer the question. Mister chairman's been a good time and long call. We'll see that the other 50 minor modifications in the lot side in order to establish a lot new lot development in. As you may know under the new regulations and substandard logical record feature along with the uses permitted do not require invariants.
This is a new lot. It's not a new that's standard, but the theory is more or less the same and encouraging new housing on lot that are generally smaller but consistent with the area. I'd suggest you that this the exact requirement, and that's entirely appropriate for the the.
Then you're gonna carry Gary. Commissioner, do you have anything for the applicant? Again, this is a continued matter. So everything that was submitted, all the testimony that's on record is a part of this case still. This case hasn't been closed.
The application has been open until today when we're back together with this new finding submitted by the city forest or the new city forest. So anything for the applicant before I turn it up to public comment. Okay. Let's, there's nothing else we need for staff report. We already heard the the planning department's recommendation.
So, this is a public hearing. We will open up the public comment portion of this agenda item. Again, it's case number 25Dash054UDR. It's 53 Pomona Avenue. If there's anyone here from the public who wishes to speak on this matter, please raise your hand and come forward.
And if you're joining us from home, please raise your virtual hand at the bottom middle section of your screen, or press 9 if you're calling in.
Nobody in the line. Seeing no
one in the room with us today. We will close the public comment portion of this agenda item this time. Alright, commissioners. We heard the testimony on this, and our biggest sticking point was the fact that the city forester who's on his last day set a letter to the applicant saying that they could not proceed concerned us. Now we have a different opinion.
City force has approved the definition history whether it goes forward. I think that finishes up our concerns here for for this map. So we'd be looking for two votes because we need to vote on the zoning matter, the dimensional variance, and we need to vote on the minor subdivision. So we'd start with the zoning matter.
Mister chair, you could just make sure you go through the country for the zoning variance, please.
testify to that, or we have
to confirm it. Some discussion and conversation on it from the city planning commission. Just
trying to remember what we had on record from the last time, but we didn't we didn't get that fine with the deliberation, I don't think. Alright. So let's let's go through the
Yeah. I'm I'm working on yeah. We'll we'll work through it from there. Thank you, Gary. So we're we're looking for dimensional relief.
It's about, you know, 10% of the 5,000 square foot. It's probably 5% overall. We need to the applicant invade certain findings, and we just have to agree with those findings to take our own that the the dimensional variance meets the standards. So the first one is that the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is to due to the unique characteristics of the subject land and not to the general characters characteristics of the surrounding area. Obviously, this lot is ninety six eighty two square feet, 9,682 square feet.
So then, you know, 300 change of being a 10,000 square foot lot. So I would say that that is it would have been handled administratively if not for the objective. That's why it's in front of us today. The hardship is not resolved from any prior action of the app. The applicant did not create the lot less than 10,000 square feet.
Obviously, it's it's it's not any anything that the applicant did. It's it's a unique character of of the lot. The granting of the variance will not alter the general characteristic of the
term very intended or purpose of
the comprehensive the ordinance or the comprehensive plan. We heard even just today from attorney Gary, the comprehensive plan and the ordinance allow for this to be handled administratively if not for the for the objector next door. And the comprehensive plan specifically is focused on creation of new housing units. So that's definitely that. And it it's also more in-depth in the staff report.
And then as part of the United Development Review, it requires the evidence we have to do with the record that shows the granting of the dimensional variance and hardship that we suffered by the owner of the subject property
