Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, hey, hey. Okay, let's call this Meaning the Hazville pling commission to order. First item of business is a roll call.

Williams Troo here. Coleman here. Asia here. Mortonson here. Rinky here. Bloods here. Like to thank Jared Mortonson for volunteering his time. Welcome back. Thanks. I need to ask for a motion to add an agenda item 3B, the minutes of April 9, 2026. Is there a motion? I'll make that motion. I'll second. A motion second to add an agenda item for the minutes of April 9th, 2026. Question. True. Repeat. I Coleman. I Asia. Yes. Mortonson. Hi. Rinky. Hi. Blood. Hi.

Now that we're on that item. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. Motion and second to approve the minutes. Question. Troop. I. Coleman. Yes, Asia. Yes, Mortonson. Hi, Rinky. Hi, Bud. Hi. Uh, now that should have been 3 A. Yes, that was the minutes of April 23rd.

That was the last meeting. Yeah, I need to abstain from that. Blood as Rinky and Troop are all abstaining, but Jared and Duby, I'm not. Oh, you were there. Yeah, just those three. You three are I and then Rinky, Ager, and True are abstaining. Yes. Any objections to that? No. No. Okay. So, now April 9th. Yes. Is there a motion? Motion to approve April 9th. Second. Have a motion to second to approve the minutes of April 9th. Question. True.

Um, do we need to look if you were there? Yeah, look. I was there. I'm pretty sure I was there. Yeah, I Yeah, I was there that one. I don't know if I was there or not. Okay, we'll put you as abstain. As Mortonson, abstain. Rinky I blood. Hi. Now that the difficult part of the meeting is done. No public forum. None.

Under old business. We have postponed from April 23rd, 2026 in consideration of a home occupation at 414 Peach Tree Lane. So, this is for our applicant, Baba's Barbecue, who's operating a food processing business at 414 North Peach Tree Lane as a home occupation. They need approval from the planning commission because food processing is not a home occupation that's permitted by right. They have to get special permission from you guys in order to operate. Um, all the surrounding properties are developed with single family homes and are zoned single family. There's actually one other home occupation that's about half mile south, so it wouldn't be the only one in the neighborhood. Um, the applicant has currently been operating within their home, but they've only been selling at farmers markets, so they haven't been required to get a business license or register as a business. They plan to expand their business into e-commerce, though, and then also physically expand into an accessory structure in their backyard, plans for which have been submitted to public works already. Um, there's also some special regulations that they'll have to comply with at the state level to operate as a licensed food processor. We haven't received any public comment for this, but a public hearing notice was not required. Um, I examined the findings for I anal I analyzed this case based on the special regulations that we have for all home occupations and there's just a couple I wanted to point out. The first being that no alteration of the principal building or premises can be made that changes the character or appearance. Their accessory structure is going to be completely behind the house. So I don't see this changing the character or appearance at all. The second one is that no equipment can be used which will create undue noise, vibration, electrical interference, smoke or particular matter emission, power demands or odors. So Bubba's barbecue Bubba's Barbecue does um smoke peanuts as part of their business. So they will have a pellet smoker and the

smoker is going to give off a bit of odor and smoke, but do not see a noxious effect or any undue emissions that are excessive. Um the applicant has stated that their neighbors are aware of the business and seem supportive. Um they weren't contacted since this isn't a public hearing, but staff has also spoken to code enforcement and there haven't been any complaints about smoke or smell from this property. And then the final two things I wanted to point out, um, off- streetet parking. Um, none should be necessary and none is required. We don't require off- streetet parking for home occupations. And there's also extra on street parking on Peach Tree Lane. Um, and the last one is deliveries and shipping. Um, the applicant has stated that there's not going to be any excessive traffic for deliveries or shipping that they expect and staff doesn't foresee this generating any more traffic than our other ecommerce based home occupations. So, staff is recommending approval. Attached you'll find a letter from the applicant and then also the list of home occupations that we permit by right. Um, Bubbas Barbecue, Ryan Beer. Yes, Ryan Beer. The applicant is here if you guys have any questions. Any discussion?

Motion. I uh I move we approve the uh request of home occupation at 414 Peach Tree Lane with the recommended provisos and as presented. I'll second a motion second to recommend approved as presented. Question. True. Hi. Coleman. Yes. Asia. Yes. Mortonson. Hi. Rinky. Hi. Blood. Am I allowed or no? Oh yeah, you're good. You don't have a digest.

Uh item B under old business public hearing for a conditional use to request allow self- storage self-service storage warehouse generally located at 7474 South Broadway Avenue. Protect the rights of all parties involved in an order. Create an opportunity for everyone to speak their opinions and present information. The Hazville Planning Commission follows a specific procedure reaching a decision. A copy of this procedure is available by the door. We now formally open the public hearing to consider the proposed conditional use request to allow self service warehouse in the light industrial district. Do any members of the planning commission have a conflict of interest in this case? No. I do.

You do? Too close. you were in the area of notification. Okay. If so, please disqualify yourself from further action in this case and you may choose to speak as a member of the public but may not participate in any commission discussion. Have any members received any written or electronic communication in this matter? Staff receive any written or communication? Only what's in the staff report.

Will you please present? So, our applicant is looking to build a self-service storage warehouse on their property at 7474 South Broadway. It is zoned light industrial and all surrounding properties are zoned light industrial or heavy commercial. So, it's a mixed industrial neighborhood. Um they plan to build this self-service storage warehouse with cargo containers as the storage units. The placement of which is going to require um building permits to ensure that they are properly secured and anchored to the ground. Um right now the applicant plans to bring in 94 cargo containers. Um you'll see that on the site plan that is attached and each cargo container will be about 8 by 20 ft. And he hopes for them all to be brand new cargo containers that are ivory in color. Um the public hearing notice was published on April 2nd and we haven't received any comments. The conditional use is in conformance with our comprehensive plan and of the criteria that we analyze. There's just a couple I want to point out here. One of them being screening and security fencing. The applicant is required to screen the cargo containers from the view of South Broadway. That's part of our cargo container regulations in the appendix. they can't be visible from the primary street on the property. Um, so this would require installing solid screening along the entire front of the property on South Broadway, the entire north property line, and the first 60 ft of the south property line to make sure you can't see it when you're driving up or down South Broadway. The cargo containers are just over 8 feet in height, so the fence would have to be a minimum of 9 ft tall to a maximum of 10 feet tall in the industrial district. Um the applicant is requesting an exception from this requirement though. Um he plans to instead install a chain link fence around the perimeter um and have a security gate for access. Um screening

is not required for self-service storage facilities. It's only required because he wants to use cargo containers. Um the other one is parking. Um no off- streetet parking is required but they'll have to maintain enough space to get in and between each row of cargo containers. Um then we have some other considerations. Landscaping. They'll be required to provide just over 1500 square foot of landscape street yard. Um this will be four shade trees or their equivalent in ornamental trees or shrubbery. Um there's one tree in the fence line that they might be able to be salvageable. Um but we can't require that the applicant spend more than 10% of their total construction on landscaping. So these um calculations may change. um they will have to get a business license to operate the self-s storage facility if the conditional use is approved. And I also wanted to address the other self- storage facilities in the city. We have 12 that are registered, the majority of which are on South Broadway and West Grand. Nearly half were constructed before the early 1980s when self- storage warehouses were becoming popular. Um the others we presume were constructed as a result of the tornadoes that went through town. Um the city made self storage warehouses a conditional use in 1997. Um and a new self- storage facility has not been constructed since 2003. Um for the cargo container aspect for this applicant. There is actually one other storage warehouse that uses cargo containers, but they also have traditionally built units. Based on all of this information, we are recommending approval with two conditions. Um, to achieve a harmonious and organized appearance, the cargo containers must all be the same color or grouped in rows or sections by color. The second is that they will be exempt from the screening requirements prescribed in appendix E or cargo container regulations. The applicants here, if you guys have any questions and I can stand for them as well.

Questions for staff? Nothing here. The applicants are agent present. You wish to speak? Uh, yeah. I uh I guess I'm just Yeah, what you said, everything the shipping containers, I'm bringing in new ones. They're not going to be like some old ratty looking containers out there. They're going to be nice. Everything will be anchored to the ground. Um, I've got engineering blueprints for that. Um, and there'll be a permanent structure out there. Anyone have any questions for me? Uh, questions. Straight forward.

Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, now it's time for any member of the public to speak if there are any that wish to speak. No questions for the public. Hopefully no response from the applicant about the public comments. Public comment is now closed for plan commission as floor is open to commissioners comments. None here. I've got a couple questions. The landscaping requirement would obviously have to take place street side of the fence somewhere and that is dependent on not only our current code but also the overall cost of the site can't exceed 10% of that rate.

That's correct. Hard surface is what I remember from the report that I read but that can be gravel. Is that correct? The there's a hard surface requirement. So, asphalt or concrete for the driveway into the property, but everything else can be gravel and all weather surface.

All weather surface. Okay. Um, and I know that staff suggests that we could have um uniform paint color for the containers themselves as a way of subverting the requirement for screened fence. The I think the issue that I have is because that requirement comes with shipping containers. If your neighbor wants to add one shipping container, we're going to tell them that they need to have screening to cover that. And my argument for you not doing it somehow is that you have 94, which I think is going to make it difficult for us to have that conversation with anybody after you that would like one of these. I think from where I sit, it is additional cost, but I think you can still keep the chain link fence and you can have the slats in the chain link fence to minimize that cost. We're not going to require you to go to a wood fence if you don't want to. But I think that screening is something that's important for the shipping containers because it's part of the code for the shipping containers. I think if you were doing something else to provide storage units that weren't shipping containers, that wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't have this discussion. But from at least from where I sit that it it makes it difficult for us to move forward with that as a requirement for shipping containers if somebody that has a full lot of them doesn't have to meet the same requirements as somebody that has one. So any other questions or discussion?

I uh I I see that point. But on the other side of that, you know, I think about security and having a a fence that you can see through really adds to the security when you can drive down the road and there's anybody messing with those those containers or trying to cut off locks or stuff like that. So, it's a valid point. It might be better not to have the slats so that you can see as long as everything looks uniform. I think if we speak to somebody who just wants to add one, you know, say, well, you know, if it's one, but we're talking about setting up a system where they're all uniform buildings and and that's why he was able to get around that.

Okay. And that that uh requirement for shipping containers does not apply to the other types of uh storage units. It's just shipping containers. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. That requirement is from that code. But and I think we're we're thinking about, you know, old shipping containers. We get them from wherever and they all look a little different and they they They look junky, but if you're getting I mean like the picture here, everything is ivory that looks like it could be constructed that way. Yeah. Um you know, it looks intentional. It looks uniform.

Yeah. I mean, is that is that the problem with it? It's like, okay, they're all corroded and just I think that the reason that that the Yeah. And presumably that's the reason for the secondary requirement that they all be painted to match, right? If it's behind a screen fence, I don't know that I care that they are painted to match. I think that's at some point adding undue burden, right? Because if it's screened, you shouldn't have to worry about the point is not seeing it. So, I I think I either or. Yeah. Well, I think it have to be either or. Yeah.

More discussion. Anything out of that we need to discuss? I answered a question for you if I answered it correctly. I didn't even hear the question. Sorry. You would like to ask again? Yeah, we'll just go with your answer. Okay. What I was asking is does the requirement regarding the fencing for this the um what are they called? The shipping containers.

Shipping containers. Does that only um pertain to shipping containers? It does not pertain to other storage units. We only require this property to have screening because they're using cargo containers. If he was building a regular self- storage facility with normal buildings, they wouldn't have to screen. They don't even have to put up a fence or security gate if they don't want to. Okay. And and I think the majority of them have it open because I I've driven by plenty of them and I can see right now and it does it adds to security to make sure that uh you know nobody's messing around. It shouldn't be. Yeah,

you can add extra lighting for that. Police can drive by in trouble once in a while, but you know, if you observe right by who's going to know other discussion? There's no more discussion. Is there a motion? I'll I'll move to recommend the approval of CO206-003 uh subject to staff's recommended conditions. We'll second that. Have a motion in second and a second to approve with staff recommendations. Question. True. I Coleman. Yes. Aser. No.

Mortonson. Yes. Rinky. Hi. Blood state. Item C, postponed from April 23rd, 2026 public hearing, consider amending and restating the zoning regulations.

Um, Do you you want me to read the memo or just table? Staff is asking that it be tabled. Does anybody have an issue with that? Can I get a motion to that? I'll I'll move we go ahead and table that second. Table it to June 11th. Yeah. Till June 11th. I have a motion second to table this item until June 11th. Question. True. I Coleman. Yes. Asia. Yes. Morrison. Hi. Richie. Hi.

Hi. Next item, postponed for April 23rd, annual review of the bike master plan. Uh, sorry, park master plan. So, the planning commission reviews the park master plan every year, make sure we have good data and information, and consider any proposed changes that the park board has. Um, and the park board did review on March 2nd, and they had a couple of changes to be considered. You have a clean draft and a redline draft. Um, your options are to approve as presented and adopt the proposed changes, approve with changes and adopt or deny the proposed changes and keep the um 2025 version of the master park plan. I've attached an outline of the changes, most of which are just updating the projects that we've completed in the past year. Um, but we did also adopt a tree planting program. That's a responsibility of the tree board. That was a recommendation from one of our councilmen. I can stand for any questions. No questions here.

Anybody else have questions? Is there a motion? I move we approve and adopt the proposed changes to the park plan. A second. Have a motion and second to approve and adopt the park plan with changes. Question. True. Hi Coleman. Yes. Aser. Yes. Mortonson. Yes. Rinky. Yes. Hi. Item E under old business postponed for April 23rd any review of the bike and ped plan.

So the planning commission also reviews the bike and ped plan annually. Um the park board reviewed on April 6th and they don't have any changes but they do recommend that the planning commission switch to reviewing the bike and pedestrian plan bianually or every two years. Um, so you can approve that recommendation, approve the changes or deny park board's recommendation to change how often this is reviewed. I uh I move we uh approve the bike pedestrian plan as I have I have a question. Yeah. What was the reason for the recommendation?

So um the bike and pedestrian plan is a little bit longer term. Um, it lists out the bike projects in there. The map with the bike projects is in the park plan. It's just a more detailed plan is in that one. So, it's usually it's usually two years before something gets changed in there. That's why. Okay. And at this point, we're updating bike paths that get built, which is effectively, we haven't added any new ones that I can think of in a while, but actually we have um which with 63rd up there that got completed and then Broadway that right, but that's stuff that was completed that wasn't that was already in there, not added new bike paths for the future. That is why I was talking about

um I mean we have over there on Meridian that will be um getting added but it won't be complete. So when we update in 2027 um it will be update then sorry 2028. Okay. Wrong year. So when there when there are new developments and stuff like that that go through is that reviewed as far as part of the bike path plan or pedestrian plan within those areas if they're adding bike path plan. I'm sorry. Bike paths potent potentially um if they're connecting within the system for the city. Um some of them I I guess

I was going to say as part of the review process for that individual plat we would ask for connectivity is if they've got a sidewalk associated with it which oftentimes they do but if it's not close to we're not going to require them to take a sidewalk an extra half mile just if it's right there it'll connect in but Okay. Is that what you were asking? Yeah. kind of like I just want to make sure we're being Yeah. not as we not reviewing it in the bike plan doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen as part of the platting process, right? And we're looking at that also. So, you'll have the opportunity to see that. Sorry, I was confused by your question there. I asked it weird. Would you like to amend your motion to include the every two-year review?

Okay. Um, so amended. I would uh I would move that we approve the bike and pedestrian plan as presented uh with the exception that we review it every two years. I'll second. Is there any more discussion? Question. True. I Coleman I. Aser. Yes. Mortonson. Hi. Ricky. Yes. Blood. Hi. No new business. None. correspondence

got a memo. So, we've asked you to table the zoning regulations again because there was a new housing bill signed in early April um SB418. It enacted the buy housing development act which was a landmark housing bill intended to streamline the approval process for certain types of housing, address the statewide housing shortages and promote affordability. Um and because of this bill, we are going to have to change some aspects of the zoning regulations um and amend what we've already proposed to amend. Um some this bill goes in effect July 1st. Um but some of the changes that will happen have to happen to the zoning regulations are that we have to allow certain single family, two family town houses and accessory dwelling units to be constructed by right without additional approval from the planning commission, BZA or city council. um they have to meet certain standards that we can set in the zoning regulations and that are set in the bill that relate to storm water, the number of units, public infrastructure, flood planes, and historic designation. Um we'll have to allow single family, two family, and town houses to be permitted by right in all districts that allow any type of residential use. So that's all of our single family, all of our residential zoning districts and our two proposed mixeduse districts. Um, we'll have to allow a minimum lot size of 3,000 square foot for all single family homes, two family homes, and town houses with a floor area less than 2500 square foot. And that doesn't include garages or basement. Um, and I've attached a map to this memo because I wanted to point out that of our single family and two family homes, 99% of them are less than 2500 square feet. There are only 20 that are bigger than that. Um the fourth change is that we have to include application denial timeline

procedures. So when we get a building permit for a single family home, a two family home or a townhouse or an ADU, we have to deny those within 30 days. If we get a small plat for one of those developments, we have to deny within 60 days. And a large plat for those developments need to be denied within 90 days. If not denied within those time frames, they're per they're just approved. They're deemed approved. Um, and the last change is that we need to clarify that protest petitions don't apply to owner initiated resonings to a single family or two family zoning district. We're still working on putting these changes into the zoning regulations, but I can stand for any questions.

Yeah, I think at this point we'll have plenty of time to discuss it. next meeting. But anybody else have anything urgent they want to or questions. Okay. Thank you. Next meeting day off agenda June 11th 2026. Item nine. I move we journ. Second motion. Second to adjurnn. Question. Drew. I. Coleman. Yes. Aser. Yes. Morrison. Yes. Rinky. Yep. All right. Thank you everybody.