Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to our uh meeting uh of the Bowmont Planning Commission of October 22nd, 2025. I will call this meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Can we have a roll call, please? Yes, sir. Commissioner Kulie, Commissioner Cooblin, Commissioner Qua, present. Vice Chair Smith here. Chairman Sard here. Uh, do we have any requests of any excused absences? Um, Stephen, do did we have any requests for absences this evening that came through? Not that I know. I'll check right now.

I don't think so. I will notate it once we go through email and double check. Thanks. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Um we'll now stand to do the pledge of allegiance. Um Commissioner Quas, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please?

Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Do we have any adjustments to the agenda tonight? Um, we do have one adjustment. We're going to move the zoning code ordinance up to the first item and then followed by the tenative track maps. So, that was item C4. Okay. Do we need to make a motion on that or? No. Okay. Perfect. All right. Do we have any uh conflicts of interest disclosure for tonight? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move to item B, our public comment period for items not on the agenda. Uh this meeting will be open to the public and conducted in a virtual format to be inclusive of all participation preferences. Public comment participation is encouraged by emailing any comments to the city clerk's office or by calling and using the phone number provided on the front of the agenda. Do we have any public comments on items not on the agenda tonight?

Not for this portion of the agenda. Vivian, do we have any callers on the line? No callers. Okay. Thank you. That moves us to item C. Um action items, public hearings and requests. Uh item C1 is approval of the minutes. Can I ask for a motion to approve our minutes? So moved. Second. All right. I have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Qua, yay. Vice Chair Smith, yes. Chairman Suther, yes.

Okay, that item passes. That moves us on to item C2, which is now our introduction of an ordinance amending title 17 zoning of the Bumont Municipal Code. Can we have a staff report, please? Um, so yes. Um so uh in light of the public comment that we received um which should be at the dis for you um we will be moving to continue the item to a date certain to the November 19th meeting. So um that is the staff recommendation for tonight for that item. Okay we can go ahead and uh we need to do a motion to continue the count commission up here. Do we uh have a motion to continue the item?

Is this a public hearing item? Correct. It is a public hearing item. So I the only question I would ask is if there's anybody that's here tonight if we want to open the public hearing and continue that to the next meeting as well. And is that Do we have any speakers for this item? Yes, sir. I do. If you want to open the public hearing then we can hear those two. Perfect. So, we'll go ahead and open the uh public hearing at 6:04 p.m.

Are there any questions to speak? Sorry. Speaker is Luke uh Fannon.

Good evening. Good evening, Planning Commission. U my name is Luke and I've been a resident of Bulmont for the last three years. Um I am here to just, you know, align with staff and just say that they've worked really hard on this um zoning code update. Um and because of how big of a change this is, just I really recommend going through all of the changes that to the previous code and the existing or and the proposed codes and trying to make as many um potential issues go away before it even is adopted. It's harder to amend it in the future than it is to just get everything done right now. Um, and that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you for your comment. Vivian, do we have any callers on the line for item C4? No callers. Okay. Oh, sorry.

Leave open the public hearing. Continue the item to the November 19th uh plan. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? And just for the record, we now have Mr. Kulie and Mr. Coolin here. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Copeland, yes. Commissioner Qua, yay. Vice Chair Smith, yes. Chairman Suther, yes. uh to our next

that moves us to our next item uh which is uh C3. This is our tenative track map 38926 and section 15183 California Environmental Quality Access Exemption for consideration of a proposed subdivision located at Southern Norman Road in east of Orchard Heights in the residential single single family zone. Can we have a staff report, please? Good evening, chairman and commissioners. Jillian Fountain, planning staff. Before you today is a public hearing for consideration of attentive track map number 38926. On June 12th, 2024, staff received an application for a subdivision of 12.58 gross acres into 49 single family residential lots ranging in size from roughly 7,000 to 13,000 square feet and four lettered lots. The project qualifies for section 15183 SQA exemption projects consistent with the community plan and zoning. Um, a public notice was placed in the press enterprise and property owners within 300 ft were notified on October 12th, 2025 of this public hearing. At this time, staff has received one public comment which has been provided to you tonight. The property is located in this residential single family zone and has a general plan land use designation of single family residential. The proposed subdivision aligns with both general plan and zoning code supporting lowdensity detached residential development specifically with policies identified specifically with policies identified in both general plan oh in goal 3.3 to support development of new housing opportunities as defined by the land use plan contained in the general plan element

tenative trackmap TM 202400 0002 is being processed under Bowmont Municipal Code section 16.04.010 requiring all land divisions to conform to the subdivision map act and local regulations. Approval of the tenative track map does not permit construction but allows for legal creation of lots which can be developed in the future subject to the minor plot plan approval and recomdation of the final map. The project is conditioned to ensure that no building permits will be issued until the final track map is recorded. At this time, staff recommends opening the public hearing and forwarding a recommendation of approval to the city council for tenative track map 38926 TM2024-00002 subject to the conditions of approval and direct staff to prepare a notice of exemption for the applicant to file with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder. That concludes my presentation and I'm here if you have any questions.

Perfect. Thank you for your report. Uh, commissioners, do we have any questions for staff at this time?

My question is on this document that I have in in front of me, the handout that was left here at the dis. Um, I'm not seeing that this is landlocked. That this this individual is referencing a his parcel that's going to be landlocked. And I don't see I must be missing something. I think that's for the other um item. I may have written Oh, you you wrote 38926 on this one. Oh, I apologize. That's for 14. Oh, okay. I apologize. There is a other um comment. This one says Norman Road. Yeah. 4685 Norman Road.

I apologize. Let me pull up the map. So, the gentleman that provided that comment, he is right next to where that street is for street B. Um, so his parcel is not landlocked. He has legal access to the north end. No, I guess is north, but Okay. Okay. and we've informed him, right, that we will be giving him a call tomorrow. Okay. Thank you. That's all the question I had.

Uh I've got a a handful of questions. Um some may be for um the applicant when they get up here, but the let's see the the drainage is being intercepted from the existing lots. Uh it's proposed ditch in lot B and lot C. Who is responsible for maintenance of that ditch? That's going to be city or is there going to be an HOA form that's going to be responsible for that? Yeah, we condition the storm drains lot B, C, and D to be uh private maintained by the HOA. Okay. So, there is an HOA. So, with that, I'm assuming they're also maintaining the basin and the alley for street D.

That's correct. So, lot A3 HOA maintained private. Wonderful. Um the the alley width of 24T makes sense. Uh that that's fire is comfortable with that for secondary fire access. Yes, fire reviewed it and has his conditions for it as well. Okay. Uh I did notice on Orchard was it Orchard Heights North it's only 20 ft wide is paved. Um I know fire typically likes 24. Is there a reason why that one's reduced or is that something they were okay with as well? Yeah, they have a condition that there will be no parking along that street. Um so there's still access for the um fire in case there's an emergency. Okay. So fire is comfortable with the 20 foot in that area. Yes.

Okay. Along along Orchard Heights, there's a condition to um require uh half width plus 12, which I think fire requires 24 ft minimum. I think that should get them to 24 ft. Mhm. Okay. So, the condition the condition is greater than what the exhibit shows on the map at this time. Yeah, I think I think there might be a slight discrepancy in what's shown on the map. Okay, got it. Um, it looks like everything drains to lot A. Um, over on the east side of the project between lots 29 and 30, there's an easement. Is that just to collect off-site water? Uh, off-site storm water?

No, that that easement is is sort of a forward thinking easement. if um if there's any development that comes to the open uh the undeveloped land to the east and if that gets annexed into the city. Okay. Um they can tie into sewer and water facilities at some point in the future. Okay, that makes sense.

Um and then on section E, there's a like a 3-ft block wall with a fence on top of that. Uh so we could be looking at a total of like what 9 to 10 foot, I suppose, total. Is that going to be any issue with um any of the zoning requirements for maximum wall heights or maximum fencing height? It's um along street B. The existing property there's like a up to looks like about a 3 and 1/2t retaining wall and then the fence on top of that. I mean it seems reasonable given the conditions that that that we would approve that. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't going to be a problem for

Okay. Okay. Those are uh those are my questions. Yeah, we would we would ensure Erin Aaron Leang, planning planning manager. Uh so um been with the city for three months. Um, prior to this with the city of Bowmont, I worked for county of San Antonio, city of Sanino. Um, but uh, getting back to on focus on the topic um, we would ensure that uh, uh, in terms of topo layout um, and conditions of approval would match that. there wouldn't be any inconsistency

in terms of the height requirements and and other applicable provisions in the code. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Uh seeing none, I will go ahead and open up the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. Are there any requests to speak on this item? I do have an email that was submitted that I can read into the record. Um you also have a copy of it, I believe. um with you on the dis. Um I can read into the record or if you choose to just receive the paper version, I'll defer to you. We can go ahead and read it into the record.

This is from Greg Smith. He says, "I live on a 1acre tractor residential." I think there may be a little bit some typos in here. uh residential at 40685 Norman Road, Cherry Valley. Understand that a development is proposed. See the Mount Vista Homes track map 82 6G. I think it's supposed to be a different number. I'm going to read how it how it reads. I'm sorry. Um, and Tom and Mary 2024 track map 2024002. My property is apparently above and in the midst of the new development that has proposed prior efforts to build on that property have granted me an easement from the west side of the property along south of Norman Road. That is my only access and I have the lower twothirds of my property. It's been that way ever since the property was first built and I am disabled and can't come to the meeting. But I'm very concerned that my property is not landlocked by this new development. Prior developers have granted me and promised easement so that I can have access to my lower property and that would be my request. Um, don't let me be landlocked without access to my lower property. He includes his phone number and would like to know how the item has transpired transpired afterwards.

Thank you for that. Um, any other requests to speak on this item? I have no other written requests. Vivian, do we have any callers on the line? No callers. Okay, I will go ahead and close the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. and we'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Just another couple follow-ups on on this letter then. Um, so if he's claiming that he has an easement that was granted on the property and this probably be for the developer during the title research, was there any evidence that was found of an easement? Sir, can we have you actually come up to the podium if you don't mind and state your name for the record? Brian King. Okay.

He'll have access as far as I can tell. There you go. Brian King with Monav Vista Homes. Uh, as far as I can tell, he'll have access. Jillian let me know about this issue and and we both look to the plan and I think he's going to have access. I'll reach out to him to see if we can even put a drive approach in at some some location that works for him. Okay. That was my next question. if you talk with him about potential driver. I don't think there's hardly any cost to us to even do that to cooperate. So, right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I mean, thank you. No problem. Turn this off.

Any other discussion for commission or does someone want to make a motion for this item? I would. You go back to the recommendation on here or move to approve as recommended. Second. There it is. Right. We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Copelan, yes. Commissioner Qua, yes. Vice Chair Smith, yes. Chairman Suther,

yes. Okay, that item passes unanimously. That takes us to our next item, which I believe now is C4. This is tenative trackmap 38914 uh variance in section 15183 California environmental quality act exemption for consideration of a proposed subdivision located at the northeast block of 11th street and Michigan Avenue in the reside. Can we have a staff report please? Good evening, chairman and commissioners. Jillian found planning staff. Before you today is a public hearing for the consideration of a tenative track map number 38914 and a and a related variance request submitted to the city on February 27th, 2024. The applicant proposes to subdivide 5.72 gross acres into 19 single family residential lots ranging in size from roughly 7,000 to 11,000 square ft with three lettered lots. Concurrently, a variance from Bowmont Municipal Code section 16.12.080C is requested to allow lot depths exceeding 2.5 times the width, which is not permitted under current standards. The project qualifies for SE for a section 15183 SQA exemption project consistent with the community plan and zoning. A public notice was placed in the press enterprise and property owners within 300 ft were notified on October 12th, 2025 of this public hearing. At this time, staff has received one public comment and it's provided for to provided to you tonight and staff has reached out to the commenter. The property is located in a residential single family zone and has a general plan land use designation of single family residential. The proposed subdivision aligns with both general plan and zoning code

supporting lowdensity detached residential development specifically with policies identified in goal 3.3 support to support the development of new housing opportunities as defined in the land use plan contained in the general plan element. Tenative trackmap TM 2024-00001 is being processed under Bowmont Municipal Code section 16.04. 04.010 requiring all land use divisions or requiring all land divisions to conform to the subdivision map act and local requirements. The applicant is requesting relief from the maximum lot depth standard as defined in section 16.12.080.C which restricts depths to 2.5 times the width due to the shape and sight constraints of the parcel and compliance would the compliance of that would render meaningful subdivision impractical. The request is made pursuant to BMC section 17.02.110 and code section 65906 which allow relief due to special circumstances such as lot shape, topography or surroundings. and approval of this variance shall not exempt the applicant from compliance with all other applicable development standards and requirements of the municipal code. Approval of the tenative map does not permit construction but allows for legal construction of lots which may be developed in the future with a minor plot plan approval and recommendation of final map. The project is conditioned to ensure that no building permits will be issued until the final map is recorded. At this time, staff recommends opening the public hearing and forwarding a recommendation of approval to the city council tenative for to the city council for tenative trackmap number 38914 TM2024-00001

subject to the conditions of approval and approve variance 2025-0025 to allow the lot depths to exceed two times two and a half times the width and direct staff to prepare notice of exempt umption to file with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder. This concludes my presentation and I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you for your report. Uh, commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

What is the what is the standard width um on lots? Is the width going to be how close is it to it? This proposed So we currently don't have a standard width in the zoning code. Um so so based on the issue. Thank you.

So my question is in reference to the other letter that I have. So the way I understand it, they have an orchard that's on the east side of the property. Am I correct? Um so just south of L. So they have they're on um they're off of Pennsylvania Avenue and so they are um but up against the parcel that's going to be off of 12 Street.

Okay. So the concern is about their fencing. So what had happened with their lot was they were doing weed abatement um not them but for that parcel there was weed abatement being done and it caught fire and burned their fencing into their yard. So they were just making note that um in hopes with this new development that that fence is going to be replaced once the development is complete which is a requirement of the development is to put fencing around their property. Yeah. So we have that 6 foot proposed around it.

And then um I did read in the conditions of approval that an HOA is going to be set up. They're going to maintain lot B and the proposed drainage easement. Correct. That is correct. And then their access point is lot B and also this one area off the culdesac on the adjacent track map. The access for the HOA. Yes. To get in there to do Yes. So at the end of the culdesac and then off of um 11th Street they'll have access to lobby. Okay. That's all I

I've got. This is This is a weird piece of property. Um, lot C. Um, some questions there. So, I can see that from the the topo that was done that there's some encroachments beyond the property line for the owners that are to the west. Um, but lot C, it's going to be one owner, but it looks like there's multiple encroachments from other properties within it. you know, is there a reason that that's not being considered for subdivision to provide that excess land back to the adjacent homeowners?

There was discussion about u what's currently labeled as or identified as lots. Um originally they were they had labeled as a proposed grant easement. I think they were going to grant it to those to those parcels. Um when we asked for a little bit more clarification, they actually said that they were going to move forward with a lot line adjustment. Okay. Essentially um the impacted parcels would be um APN 415200-027 26 and 25. So those those two those three parcels that um are adjacent to lots. Okay. Um however they could not do that prior to uh planning commission prior to

you have to create the lot in order to make the adjustment on it. Yes. So, in the interim, um, our staff's recommendation is to create this separate lot, okay, that's HOA maintained until, um, they move forward with the lot line adjustment. So, O2O has got a little kind of wedge on it. Um, but you can only do four lots on a lot line adjustment. So, is, you know, there's a remainder piece of lot C, you know, so is there going to be like a separate merger or something like that to to merge that remainder with O2? I guess you could do it that way. I think that's an option that wasn't discussed that the three parcels that were um communicated to us were 25, 26, and 27. They were just going to extend those lines. Yeah.

Is that a condition of approval to perform that Line adjustment? Uh it's not. No.

Okay. Um I would consider making that, you know, a condition prior maybe like final occupancy or something like that. you know, it's going to be, you know, at some point just to make sure that it gets done. They don't end up with this weird Yeah. this this weird remainder lot C that nobody wants. Um Okay. And then the the water quality on this, so the the subdivision on street A drains to a water quality basin and then out through a drainage ditch to 11th Street. Um, you know, is they have they indicated is there the preliminary study show that that land will infiltrate in that area because there doesn't appear to be a drain from the bottom of the basin.

Um, that's that's something that I'm I'm haven't I would need to go back and verify. Yeah, because that would be that would be a concern there is that, you know, I've got some um you know, we we have some some basins that don't infiltrate ends up with just standing water and becomes a becomes an issue. So, just to make sure that there's an alternate if it doesn't infiltrate that we have an alternate to pipe water out of there so it doesn't sit for too too long. Um, and then the the lots that are along Michigan Street. Um, you because the subdivision is more than 19 lots, how is water quality being addressed with those? So, they have those lots are going to have individual okay BMPs um at each lot. So, okay.

Presumably infiltration trenches located in the front yard. Okay. Right. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, uh I will go ahead and open the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. Are there uh any requests to speak on this item? Yes, sir. I have a couple in person and then in email. First person is Daniel Ta. Yes. All right, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record, please.

Good evening, Daniel Tista. I live currently in Michigan. I am 11th and I'm opposed to the construction that new land that they're they're trying to propose there. I have going on six years there. Um reminds Bowmont of what Bowmont is a little tight community. My neighbors are behind me. Uh we bought with the purpose of an unobstructed view of the mountains. It doesn't look like we're all like sardined in like a lot of communities and neighborhoods here in Bulmont. We love the fact that we know everyone on the street. We know everything that happens in that neighborhood. And to bring in it's like buying a beach house property and then another person buying a house right in front of you. and you're not going to be able to see, you know, why we purchased that land for. So I I'm here just opposed to basically having houses right in front of us, making everything look like nowadays everyone's crammed into a spot. If someone wants to buy a new house, there's plenty of homes up on all of wood estates or whatnot. Uh that's the my only two cents and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker is Gabe.

Hi, good evening. My name is Gabe Hamoya. I also live on Michigan ad. I have the same concerns other than also the fact that it seems like kind of a really small lot for so many individual parcels that are going to be put on it. Um, are these parcels going to be sold as individual parcels or is it going to be one complete unit? Um, and also is there going to be an alleyway behind it for access to the back of their property or what what is the major plan for that? Um, other than that, like I said, he too, we have a great view, but I know time goes on, moves on, but my main concern, like I said, is it's a small piece of property. Kind of weird, but that seems like an awful lot of parcels being put on one piece of property. Uh, and also, where are they going to egress? on a Michigan or 11th. Um, you know, what what's the traffic going to be like? Is it going to double it right now or worse? So, now that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Perfect. Thank you for your comment. And then I do have an emailed comment. I'll check with the phone lines first. Vivian, do we have any callers on the line?

No callers. This is from an Ehard Hoffman. It states, "My wife and I have resided in our home here since 1979. We have seen many changes in Bulmont, some good, some not. Regarding tenative track map 38914 and variance B 2022, we are not opposed to the proposals. The field adjacent to our home, which was a beautiful cherry orchard when we moved here, has been an unsightly fire hazard for far too many years. We recently endured a fire at the end of June which destroyed 160 ft of composite fencing and scorched some of our landscaping. I have since rellandscaped and replaced 80 ft of fencing due to the fact that I believe the city of Bmont due to the lacks code enforcement, the developer for allowing property to regress to that state and even an adjacent neighbor for not properly maintaining his lot. I did not want to pursue renumeration. I paid all expenses to repair the property with the exemption exception of dump fees which were handled by the contractor who started the fire who felt bad regarding the situation. I opted not to replace my damaged front fence as I assume a fence or wall would be put in place. In the meantime, the original chain link fence will suffice. So hopefully this project will be completed in a timely manner with minimal disruption to the current residents. respectfully and Patricia Hoffman and they are at 11:70 Massachusetts.

No other comments.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. and we'll bring it back to commission for discussion. So, while the public comments are happening, I did go on Google Maps because you can do quick measurements on there. Uh the proposed width of the lots on these tenative maps are 52 feet. Uh looks huh 52 feet. 52 feet wide. Um it looks like the properties to the north are about 58 ft wide and the properties across the street are right about 60 ft wide. So the the subdivision is consistent with the character of the neighborhood uh that does surround it. um you know so it's not looking at anything that's significantly more dense or different than what both sides of the streets of Michigan are or the the streets surrounding it. Um, yeah. So that I just mentioned that

question. How many lots less lots would you have if you didn't approve that variance? I'm just concerned with Yes, sir. If you would like to make a public comment, you can come up to the podium. We have to open the public hearing back up. Yep. and then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing back up at uh 6:35 p.m. I'd like to know how many less lots if you didn't approve the variance. How many We got 19 lots. Would it drop it down to 16 lots? Would it be not as dense if we didn't approve that variance for width and depth?

I think we would probably want the applicant to answer that question. But I I'm I'm also guessing that based on a lot of the character of these lots that everything in the area is non-compliant with that requirement also. Well, my concern is, and I don't have the history of what happened on the corner of Orange and 12th Street, but there's a uh parcel that's getting developed there that's got four residents, which I think is way too dense for Bulmont. And I'm concerned that this is going to carry over and if we don't stop uh throwing that many dwellings onto a single residential lot, we're going to be in trouble.

So for each of these lots, it'll only be one residence on each lot for this map specifically. Right. But it would be less dense if we stay didn't approve that variance. Yes, it is. might get bring us down to 17 lots. Yes. And for for a definite um answer on how many it would drop it down to, we would need the applicant, which I believe he may be on the line.

Chair, if I may. Um it's a good question, sir, that you're you're brought to this um tonight. Unfortunately, it's not part of the proposal for consideration. what's being presented this evening is um as shown here as proposed. Um and so that would be a different discussion, relay out, redesign, you know, all of that. But uh the the discussion here is for this consideration on this proposal. And I'd like to note that ver vice chair Smith noted earlier and I just wanted to complement that as proposed it is consistent with the zoning um designation the general plan policies uh uh in accordance with the the documents for the city of Bmont and uh and this evening for consideration is as proposed

but the city of Bulmont has to approve the variance to allow the width and depth. It is part of the consideration. So, I'd like to go on record saying I'd uh be against that just to keep if it's only three lives less, it's not as dense. Oh, we appreciate the comment. Thank you, sir. Sir, could I get your name for the record if you don't mind? Uh Ron Norman. Thank you.

Thank you. and we'll go ahead and close the public hearing again at 6:38 p.m. and bring it back to commission. I have a question for staff if you have the information. Um, obviously there's access to the lots from the front of the property. Is there any access from the back or will the only access to the back of the lot be through the lot? The only access would be from the front of the parcel. Okay. And those lots are how deep? Um, let me pull up the map.

Off of Michigan? Let me zoom in. 165. How many? 165 in length.

Thank you, Deb. Sorry. Any other discussion from commission or does anyone want to make a motion? I do uh I do understand the the neighbors concern on there, but you know, I think that the parcels that are all existing and surrounding are also non-conforming with the same 2 and 1/2 uh times the width setback requirement. Um it is consistent with the with the existing homes. The lots are a little bit narrower, but not significantly. And I think you probably, you know, the delta would probably be one lot on that street. So it would be nine homes instead of 10. um you know so I with with all that I think that we find that this can be made consistent with the with the existing neighborhood u and as such I would um I I would move to approve uh if there's any consideration on that for making a motion

I would second so the only thing I would say is that um I would like to add a condition on there to make sure that the lot line adjustments are recorded for lot C um the Oh, question for staff before I do. Um, it does mention that the houses would be developed at a later date. Is there a development plan for this or is this intended to be kind of sold off and developed as single family parcels? There will be a development plan. There's a development plan. Okay. So, yeah. So, I would say, you know, some condition, you know, some milestone condition that we have on there that's that's reasonable for staff as far as completing the lot line adjustment lot merger for lot C.

Understood. We'll get that incorporated. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second with that recommendation. Uh, can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Koba, yes. Commissioner Quba, yay. Vice Chair Smith, yes. Chairman Sed,

yes. Okay, that item passes unanimously. That takes us to item D, staff comments. You have any staff comments tonight? Yes, we do have staff comments. Thank you, chair. Uh you've already met our planning manager, so he was able to introduce himself during the during the item. So, uh I did want to just formally say welcome to Aaron Leing, our new planning manager, helping us get through uh staffing up completely and totally in the planning division, making sure we're getting projects to you guys in timely manner and in professional fashion. So, uh I'll just let Aaron mention the staff comments for tonight. Thank you guys.

Thank you, Mr. Jones. Um, so this is having to do with uh your agenda dating back to October 9th of last year, 2024, concerning item C2, uh, plot plan PP 2022-0618, known as AA fence, quote unquote, located west of Risco Circle and south of West 4th Street, APN 41722009. 9. This is a request to construct a 16,000 ft² warehouse building and a 2700 ft²tory office area on 1 2 acres in the manufacturing zone located on the southwest corner of West 4th Street and RCO circle. Uh the planning commission took uh action on that item and subsequent to your approval uh staff discovered there were uh clerical errors. uh Savit inadvertently copy uh incorrect conditions of approval in the uh uh your your attachments. Uh see conditions of approval and uh we're or reporting back to let you know that that clerical that uh have uh the errors have been resolved. Um and uh this really is to report for transparency purposes. And that's all I have for the staff comments. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments. Um, that takes us to commissioner comments. Any commissioners have any comments tonight?

Commissioner Kulie. Um, I'd just like to to comment that I understand those homeowners who are here who are concerned about their view and that is a particularly sensitive matter. However, views are not guaranteed and unless they're codified um, we don't have any option there to ensure anybody's view is protected. The only way to protect that is to either purchase a a lot where there cannot be anything developed that would obstruct your view or to purchase that lot yourself to stop it. We're very much aware of that concern and I understand your concern, but uh unfortunately we don't have the the legal ability uh to protect your lot, but we do understand and and see where your concern is. Chair, if I may, um, if it's any consolation, staff would offer that in terms of height restrictions and requirements, it would be consistent with the surrounding area. So, it wouldn't go any higher in terms of height. Um, so that won't hinder obstruct your view in any way. uh as noted earlier by uh vice chair um Smith uh it would be compatible and consistent in terms of land use development heightwise um uh elevations uh you know among other things uh in terms of the considerations. So stab will ensure through the minor plot plan that the consistency will be carried out so that there wouldn't be any sort of blockage if you will. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Kley. Open up. No, I was going to say by your comment, you've opened up the door for the recipients of your comment to have questions for you. So, be prepared at some point at some point. Uh we're we're here to answer um we're here to serve you. Just so that you know, uh we're also at the same time, we're here to implement the general plan for the city of uh Vermont here. That's the that's the objectives. Thank you.

Perfect. And I'm sure staff will be happy to address any questions after the meeting here. Um, so we're happy to follow up. Um, I just wanted to say I did have the opportunity to attend the Bowmont State of the City. I believe Commissioner Copeland was there as well. Uh, so a lot of great and exciting news uh was shared. Um, a lot of uh infrastructure projects, uh, new businesses coming. So very exciting to see and just uh, good things are happening here in Bowmont. So very good to see and it's all thanks to a lot of the great work of our planning department here. So, thank you for all your hard work. Um, and that's all I have. So, with that, we'll go ahead and we will adjourn our meeting at 6:46 p.m.