Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

well that's how they reposition good afternoon welcome to the March 24th 20125 meeting of the pagota Planning and Zoning Board have a roll call please Alexander AB Tony gray here Harvey Goldberg here Patrice petrick here Robert cyer here James Wilton here John reinders here Charles Lewis here thank you thank you you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag the United States of America to the rep stand indivisible andice for thank you I have no announcements read next meeting before before you go to the next meeting I do have a couple of announcements as it relates to this agenda please mayor the um attorney of the city of of David and and I'm here in the capacity of um advisor to the board just to record so um item um 3B on your agenda it's it's under the heading of the Quasi judicial hearings but that actually will be a legislative function and and should be moved up to item two on your agenda and and secondly with respect to

se-02 d224 um there was a a request by the applicant to withdraw that petition and possibly um due to no small part of myself some confusion um existed with respect to whether or not that should be on today's agenda um because it was withdrawn and I had forgotten that there was that it already had been previously uh published as a meeting as a hearing before you and so um our code does have a specific provision under the special exception of chapter 26 section 16 16.8 J it does allow an applicant to withdraw the application um request at any time however if the request is made after publication of notice of hearing such withdrawal should only be made with the consent of either the Planning and Zoning Board or the city council whichever body is advertised so in this case it was it's it's your board no new application concerning any or all of the same property shall be filed within 12 months of the consent to withdraw action unless the consent action specifies that the time limitation shall not apply and permits the application to be withdrawn without prejudice normally what when uh so you have the discretion uh which really should not be unreasonably withheld to allow for the withdrawal of the application and whether it be done with or without prejudice I think is subject to your determination as to whether or not the withdrawal was done for uh an improper purpose so what do I what do I mean by that well sometimes I mean I've been doing this for a long time um and uh in the administrative Arena sometimes

uh when the audience is stacked with uh opposition to to your petition uh particularly if it's um um close to the end of the snowbird season you might withdraw the application or continue it to some other time we're talking about dog now and then refile it when there might be less opposition that would be an improper purpose um but but there are plenty of opportunities or reasons why the applicant will withdraw with respect to a a good purpose and one such reason would be that you know following um uh public comment or the staff comments or what have you they felt like there was an opportunity to um refine their application to address the concerns and come back with a a better application so the burden is going to be on the applicant today to demonstrate to you that their request for withdrawal was in good faith and if you find that it was in good faith uh I suggest to you that you go ahead and um allow for the withdraw but without prejudice to be able to refile before the expiration of that 12 month period so I wanted to kind of give you all heads up um I this would not be a real concern except for the fact that um unofficial notice was provided by uh on the website I think it was since website to alert the public in general that this matter was being withdrawn so if there were any people that wanted to come and POS it um they obviously wouldn't or if they read those wouldn't be here today we should probably take that into consideration as well um that uh we don't we may not have the the public here to Res to address it so if you were not going to Grant the um withdrawal at at the very least I

recommend that you would continue it to the next public hearing so that members of the public who might otherwise have been here would then have an opportunity to speak so that's all I have on that thank you thank you thank you um the fact of the matter is that the public hearing is still open since since it was continued from our previous meeting um are there any further comments from the board I guess we need to have the applicant yeah it come up a little later okay the approv of minutes are next on the agenda anyone have any additions changes corrections to the minutes of the meeting of um February 24th I move the minutes second motion and second to approve the minutes of February 24 all in favor say I I all oppos say nay thank you the minutes for Approved unanimously next on the agenda we have a legislative hearing public hearing which um is um se02 d224 um request by the AL yach club for um a special exception good afternoon board members Rachel Barry stoning official for the record um so yes the um the applicant did send us a an email last week requesting to withdraw the application um and so if you have any questions for staff that we might be able to answer or uh

the applicant can come up and and provide their information applicant I think the applicant should show good good faith Jake Ty uh I represent the Isles yach club and I assumed my oath from the last uh uh meeting still applies here you're still swor in okay yes so the reason that we uh first of all we very much uh uh do not agree with the findings of the staff but honestly the findings are difficult for us to to do any more than say no that's not true and uh we need a lot more uh documented information to support what we want to do that's not going to come quickly or easily so rather than waste everybody's time we decided it was prudent for us to withdraw the application and also legitimately look at staff's comments and evaluate do we want to move forward with this if so what do we have to do to um to answer all the questions and satisfy all of the concern concerns and that's um that's not a quick process so that's why we withdrew the uh uh the application any further questions of the applicant yeah you're okay with a Year's moratorium then you agree with that yeah I don't have a problem with the years more we didn't do this to try and get U or in fact if you remember the last meeting there are a lot more people from the alach club here than there were from other so that's not a consideration uh for us this is It's a timing uh issue and it's just uh I think if we're going to do something we should do it right and it's just going to take us time to do that

okay no further questions they have I make a motion we uh consent to the need to close the oh sorry um there no public hearing anyone wish to speak uh on on z02 that's 2024 please approach the podium indicate if you have not been sworn we will swear you in if you have been sworn please indicate that and state your name I'm James Tanner I was spoke last month as well and intervenor in this case and I would agree if they give the oneyear moratorium I think they've had a month to come back with the questions that have not been able to do so I think just say that they can bring back in another two months or three months is unreasonable I think a onee moratorium would be appropriate thank you than you than you thank you Mr next call this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this matter please step forward Final Call cherl entertain a motion to close the public heing some mov second all in favor I'll oppose public hearing is closed so um as a technical matter um the U the what's been referred to as the 12-month moratorium applies to whether it applies with respect to the filing of a um a new application and they more than likely they're going to come back and and I presume simply modify the pending application so I don't know that saying that you're going to impose the new

application the moratorium with respect to this is is technically or legally correct but what you can do though is say that um that the application um would be withdrawn uh without prejudice and if you wanted to suggest that that they not come back with an amendment until 12 months that would kind of be consistent with the intent just want to make it totally legally correct did I did I make myself clear as to what I was I was getting at here um I and maybe the applicant can can can clarify if they because if they withdraw the application as it's presently proposed um then I I suppose technically then they submit a new application another application or or clarify what they're trying to do they might be subject to a new uh filing fee for example so if they intend to file a new application I'm sorry I I don't mean to mess things up here but if they do intend to file a new application then the 12-month moratorium wouldn't be effect I I'm I'm assuming based on what was just suggested that they're going to sort of supplement the existing uh application and if they're simply supplementing the existing application then technically the 12month moror would not apply but because you've asked them would they be willing to wait 12 months to refile and they said yes they would do that I think the record should be be clear that they aren't going to be filing a new application but simply supplementing um the uh the existing application and the withdrawal is being um accepted without prejudice to submit an amended application 12 months from now and that's my understanding as well oh no the only reason I asked that

is because we have this uh 16.8 J which says that after that we have to consent to the withdraw and then after that there they no new new application will be filed for 12 months so I just assumed that we had an automatic 12-month moratorium and I wanted to make sure the applicant wasn't unhappy with that and he knew about it that's all necessarily would be automatic 12 month moratorium but I think what what you what you have in essence asked for what they have in essence agreed basically to um continue the hearing uh for 12 months to give them an opportunity to subm addal their exis application yeah I I wasn't making that up I was just reading that that it looked like they got 12 one saying it won't I don't think it would be a new application okay okay so so technically we have two choices um either continue the current application for period um that we would set within uh exceeding 12 months or um remove that the application we accept the application being drawn without prejudice obviously obiously this doesn't come up very often that's why you know we're dealing with language that we don't deal with all the time and and I'll leave it I'll let the applicant come up and explain better what they're what they want to do but he I mean it's been they requested to withdraw the application and that was in essence to take the jurisdiction away from this body um without the language that we have in our code it's it's frequently possible just to refile a new application um immediately hereafter the code provision really doesn't want to

have the ability to take advantage of the situation with all the application and like I said refile when when the opposition is no longer here um but nevertheless um there's an apparent suggestion and apparent agreement that this matter not come back for 12 months which is somewhat consistent with what the intent of the language of of the code is I just wanted to make sure that you know that the applicant had the option of either submitting a whole new application or simply supplementing the pending application but do so conditioned upon not refiling that supplemental application for 12 months um again it I don't know what I don't know what the filing fee is uh 7 yeah I mean it's 750 um and if they filed a new application then they would have to file new application with 750 and start the process all over again I just wanted the record to be reflect clearly what the intent of the applicant was and then what your intent was as it relates to granting whatever it is that they're asking thank you under those circumstances um I think we should ask the applicant um their intentions uh and if the applicant's going to speak we need to reopen the public hearing no I don't think so no so Jake die again this is getting more complicated than I uh expected to uh to to be at the beginning and I I don't think I can give you a yes or no answer to it right now we don't know what we're going to do how we're going to uh to do it the the interest in the jib crane is clearly um there we know it fits we've got a yach

club with sailboats we got to get the sailboats in and out of the water so we need some way to do that and that looks like the easiest way to do it we're not sure how that is going to work so I can't say whether we are going to uh uh file a whole new um application or or modify the one that we've got we'd be willing to live with the the year to make a decision on an only because I don't see us have making a decision real quick on on what we're doing I especially don't see us gaining the kind of documentation that we need to comfortably move forward and we're not going to move forward if we can't do it comfortably so um knowing what um um you know the restrictions uh the complications of getting good legal advice getting good document ation on traffic study and vibrations and noise and everything else that has been thrown at us um that's going to take us some time and that's also going to tell us a lot about the project that we may not know right now so that's a long answer to say I don't know what we're going to do so what would be what would be your what would be your request um continue this or well from what I from what I heard I think were the cleanest course of action for you to do would be go ahead and consent to the withdrawal with prejudice so that would impose automatically the 12 month time frame before they can refo okay no public hear no the public hear is already closed yeah is there a motion from the floor Mr chairman before the

motion as I mentioned before because of my position as an employee at the Yacht Club I've determined that I'm going to recuse myself from all votes in this matter to remove any future potential for an appearance of a propriety okay thank you for acknowledging that um okay I move that we um consent to the withdrawal with prejudice uh well I should say consent to withdrawal of se-02 d224 uh at 1780 and 1800 West Marion Avenue with prej without prejudice with prejudice with prejudice with prejudice I'll second that he there's a motion in a second to uh consent to the withdrawal of the alot Club application for se02 d224 with with prejudice with prejudice further discussion all in favoring by saying I I I I and the came by saying no the motion is passed unanimously thank you very much thank you for being here and thank you for the for the attorney's advice hopefully now that we've done this if it ever comes up again you won't need me so um and with your permission Mr chairman I'll take my leave thank you thank you thank you okay the next uh agend item is Za 02- 2025 proposed amendment for the Land Development regulations related to Visions Authority and other related amendments presenting Vision good afternoon board again Rachel Barry zoning official for the record um and so just to reiterate um so this was listed under the crossy judicial portion of the agenda but it is going to be a legislative item so just to just to note that so the hearing number assigned to

these proposed amendments is z02 2025 uh these are proposed amendments to the Land Development regulations related to the zoning official authorities and other processes that are related to those proposed amendments uh so a summary of the updates to article three um there and article three is the uh regulating District regulations for the zoning districts many of those districts include special exceptions um that specifically say such other uses as determined appropriate by the zoning official um and so the proposed update is to change that to city council that way it's not a staff decision like oh yeah this seems great let's put that here um so it would actually go before Council to see is this appropriate before they apply for a special exception and so those districts um would include the traditional Porta Waterfront overlay the environmental preserve District General single family General multifam um neighborhood residential neighborhood commercial and The Interchange overlay um does anyone have any questions on these proposed amendments how do you propose um how would you like to proceed do you want to go through each each each Amendment um individually and see if we have any comments or you want to do it by exception um we can do it either way uh we could do it line by line through the proposed ordinance um or pretty much what I have in the presid ation is a summary of each article but it does include each of the items that are in the ordinance what we follow your presentation format okay thank you all right so we'll jump to the next slide and then of course stop me anytime sir who was a zoning official that's me you

were okay yes sir all right thank you all right so continuing uh proposed updates to article three uh so another proposed amendment is to section 3.2 I3 currently the code allows for staff to approve a 10% deviation from the requirements that are listed in the traditional pagora area so that proposed amendment would change it to a variance um that you'll see later on through these amendments um would eventually go to council for a final decision section 3.2 J K and L these amendments are clarifying additional height and density through mitigation and clarifying that it must be confirmed by Council uh so this is going to require that we update a process for our development plans uh to go before Council after a development Review Committee um so once somebody sits their development plans they go before DRC and if they are requesting development mitigation to get additional height or density it would then go before Council for approval can can we stop you when we get to these items absolutely so so you are on article 3 section 3.2 L yes um which is on page 169 on bottom right and it continues on to the next page of 170 right correct what my question is why do you completely strike three and four instead of amending it to say from zoning official to city council I don't understand that and it may be in another section but why wouldn't you leave it in the same section where addresses the other mitigations it's just confusion to have to go two here and then two somewhere else understood uh so that was done after uh discussion went before city council and staff was directed to do that um but any recommendations that the Planning and Zoning commission or planning zoning board has will take back to city council

okay you understand my my objection is we have we have four mitigation we got some mitigation here now you're going to send us to another place for other mitigations doesn't make sense to me so ultimately council is uh their recommendation was to change it so that any type of mitigation requirement goes before Council for approval so it would not be a staff decision so would all of these come out then why why do you leave two in two out that was the direction that staff was given from Council um but we are happy to take any recommendations of the ples the courthouse we'll wait till the end for that but just just say confusing to me and I agree I had the same concerns about um sections three and four as it relates to mitigation for um these are the four mitigations setbacks and additional open space it do wouldn't matter to me if you put in this section or another section but it ought to be all four together not two here and two later on that's that's my point okay all right so the next uh proposed update is to article four this is in section 4.6 B and that section is related to Automotive boat manufactured sales and or service uses uh so this is specifically related to surface material on the ground uh for their outdoor display yards if the developer is proposing anything other than uh being surfaced with brick concrete pavers stamped concrete or stamped asphalt um that would go before Council for approval with a recommendation from public works next up we have article six section 6.9 D these are related to building permit requirements uh so this applies to additional information required by the zoning official um in

order to in other words make sense of the application for it to be crystal clear with their applying for uh so building plans and surveys are already required to be signed and sealed by a licensed professional uh this proposed amendment would remove any exception for any other additional information to be prepared by anyone other than an architect or engineer article 7 section 7.1 C this proposed update would require any modifications to architectural requirements to go before Council for approval through a variance application article 8 uh we have section 8.5 is related to uh fences walls and hedges so the first one subsection B3 C is related to non-residential fences and visibility requirements um if it is determined that they are inadequate or excessive U that would have to go before Council for any type of modification section 8.5 I have a question I'm sorry you switched to now it says building official who is that um that his name is Ron KX and so instead of the zoning official I would be the building official so is he kind of like a boots on the ground kind of guy was he uh yes okay um so how you spell his last name uh c h o w CZ good got buy a b see see okay all right thank you no problem and then the next one is .5 b5a and this is the measurement offenses um and so again you know because the building department the building official and the inspectors

are the boots on the ground so to speak um if someone is trying to modify the grade of the property in order to get additional height um that would be inspected and determined by the building official uh continuing article 8 section 8.16 c a sentence is being added just to clarify that the zoning official does not have authority to approve um any type of transfer of development rights section 819a is for waterfront property sex um so this is related to I believe anything that was manmade dou check that uh on any lot abing any Creek Canal river lake or other body of natural water rep so this is just waterfront property period period um so any type of setback reduction request would be um a variance before Council section 8.26 B is related to Temporary structures that section is being updated uh to reflect the other changes that are being made in article 16 related to the uh approval authority of those specific items article 10 for off street parking and loading uh so we the proposed amendment is to transfer the review of parking lot standards uh drive-through stacking loading areas bike parking Etc to the city engineer so that includes section 10.1 10.3 10.7 10.8 B 10.10 D and 10.13 B article 12 is related to Landscaping standards section 12 point2 is modifying the landscape requirements to be

approved by the planning director instead of the zoning official any type of landscape replacement plans variations from native or non-native species and approval of minor modifications to landscape requirements uh will then go before the development Review Committee so those changes uh for the development Review Committee are reflected in sections 12.14 A2 12.14 B 12.15 12.16 and 12.17 have I'm sorry that's okay I'm trying to catch up okay the development Review Committee is that the one it's down the total Plaza um so the development Review Committee is made up of many staff members uh we have the um a public works the building official myself Fire Department police department utilities um all of the different city departments are represented and a public committee and so it's it's ultimately a public hearing as well so it's a blended committee blend membership thank you you're welcome all right next up we are jumping to Article 15 uh review authorities so section 15.1 a and 15.5 a are related to city council and the Planning and Zoning Board uh so these updates will require that variances and special exceptions go before Planning and Zoning for recommendation and then to council for final approval the proposed amendments to section 15.6 a is the zoning official authorities and so this is updating the responsibilities to reflect making recommendations to the final decision- making Authority instead of making each and every one of these decisions as a

staff decision article 16 has several sections included uh so article 16 is application review and approval requirements the first section 16.1 B uh General requirements completeness and accuracy and so this is just clarifying submittal requirements if a specific item that's listed it has to be submitted with the application if it doesn't apply to their development uh they still have to submit a written statement to that effect that is not applicable to their proposal section 16.3 C is for a certificate of appropriateness um in the 2024 updates it was added um that the structural analys analysis report uh if required by the zoning official um so these are related to Historic structures if someone is requesting to demolish a historic structure um and so that um is being proposed to be removed um that they should submit the structural analysis report if they are requested to demolish a historic structure uh 15 uh I'm sorry 16.5 C3 is related to demolition permits so if someone wants to request an extension to the demolition permit which is typically valid for 6 months if they want an extension uh that request will go before DRC for consideration section 16.6 C development plan so in this section we are correcting some numbering that was a little off uh the code went 1 two 1 2 3 four five so we're we're re uh numbering some of those sections and then uh we are also updating the process when staff is reviewing plans um currently the zoning official can require that they include bikeways and walkways as part of their development plan if we deem it

appropriate and so we are updating that to also include um if it's deemed appropriate by Z official and the Urban Design manager continuing with article 16 section 16.8 F this is for special exceptions so we are removing proposing to remove the allowance to modify submittal requirements so again if something is not applicable to their specific application um a written statement to that effect will be submitted with the application um after reviewing those uh staff noted that we may also need to include uh so this is not going to be in your packets um subsection H and I of section 16.8 excuse me so subsection H um is related to the Planning and Zoning Board um and so that portion currently says following the public hearing the Planning and Zoning Board shall issue its decision in writing with a statement setting forth its reason for such decision within a reasonable time uh so the proposed update there would replace decision with recommendation and then in subsection I currently the code States if a valid appeal is filed in writing within 30 days the zoning official shall set a time and place for a public hearing by city council and so the intent of the proposed updates is for variances and special exceptions to go before Council without an appeal um and so that would need to be included to strike that sentence next up we have so so that that ends our decision making as a final decision it's not doesn't have to be appealed it automatically goes correct it's okay with me and then if it gets approved or denied by Council and someone wants to appeal that then it would go through the cour

process uh next up we have section 16.9 for temporary use permits and so depending on the type of permit um sorry I thought like I was going sneeze different types of temporary use permits would be approved by different um reviewing parties for instance uh um seasonal retail sales like Christmas trees and those types of items uh temporary storage container if someone's doing uh construction or repair um and anything that is needed during a state of emergency those can still be approved um by the zoning official a temporary office for a construction site a temporary sales Center would go before the development Review Committee and then city council would be the approval Authority for um uses not otherwise permitted in that District but they could be made compatible uh limited expansion of any use that's otherwise allowed in the zone but exceeds the intended scope um and any other temporary uses which are similar to the uses listed in the section uh would go before city council section 1610 for a variance uh so this again is removing the administrative variance process and clarifying the final action um that it would go before Council for a final decision and so there would be no um staff reductions uh so any type of modification or request for a variance from the code uh would go before

planning and zoning and then before councel 1611 now this is related to a zoning change application yes sir but the staff would still be able to give a recommendation is that correct correct okay uh section 1611 related to zoning change applications so excuse me yes sir um on the 16 1610 umph F BR half yes page 185 I'm sorry I forgot to include that in my notes but yes I did highlight that here that the same thing is mentioned for a special exception we'll need to update this to strike the word decision and replace it with recommendation that's an third line from the bottom which ISS page page 185 upon acceptance change page 185 thank you all right for the joining change uh the proposed amendment is to remove any allowance to modify the submittal requirements uh so again if something does not apply to the particular application uh submit a written statement um confirming that it does not apply and then we have 17 non-conformities uh So currently staff can approve uh the expansion of a non-conforming nonresidential use within the uh within a structure they can't expand outside of the structure um but that is being proposed to be a decision before Council instead of a staff decision and so that summarizes the proposed amendments uh so I'm happy to answer any questions you may have just like to digest is any question any questions Rachel on on any of these

amendments in that case uh chair will entertain a motion for recommendation uh the city council [Music] on za0 2-22 I just have one question har if it's okay I at what point does this board uh do anything uh so all of the applications would come before you all for review and recommendation to council so that status doesn't change correct okay according to the BS uh the planning and zoning board excuse me is a recomend recommending body to the city council we're not a decision making body got it that's what some of these changes right well I just saw all the changes and none of them were pertaining to the to the council so I was just wondering what what were we doing the council looks to the finding and zoning board for recommendations on designated items and if I may uh if a motion to recommend approval to council is made if we can also include um the addition of the modifications to section 16.8 subsections H and I related to the Planning and Zoning board's recommendation instead of decision and council's final action on the application and the additional change to 16.10 F to change the word decision to recommendation 16.10 F and what was the first one 16.8 H and I H and I is that the one I mentioned

yeah no it's not yeah no that's back on that's this article 3 section 2.2 so those three sections that I mentioned are not showing in your packets um that was stuff that we noted um after the packet gone out um that in order for all of it to tie together and kind of make sense with the proposed amendments um those items would need to be included and then of course any other recommendations that you all have bring those to council as well Mr cyer the comments are related to Article 15 Section 155a 3.2 L I think it's 3.2 3.2 L um it's on page 169 right and 170 16 sections three and four okay we'll make a motion if you want me to drive take a shot at it um I've lost my my notes Here just wrote this now here it is so I would I would make the motion that we approve uh za2 2025 the proposed amendments the land Dev regulations as written with the condition is that how you said condition you'll be recommending approval I'm pressing approval right addition with the condition that we modify six as Rachel has said 16.8 H and

I 16f with the the word recommendation stri 161 1610 f 10 F okay with the recommend word recommendation and the word whatever the other word was decision stricken and and I would also add that we recommend as a condition that they not separate as they have have done here in 3.2 L paragraphs 3 and four um so that all of the mitigation requirements are together one place is there a second to that motion second second we have we have a second to the motion um any further discuss all in favor I saying iOS say nay motion carries unanimously thank you that was a lot to cover I hope you know how to write that and I know you do this is an education I'll make some comments this is an education um for all of us in Reading uh Land Development regulations particularly as they apply to different organizations responsibilities um as an aside I would recommend if if there are questions about who what person what department represents what is that if you have it already uh you should attend the

citizens um Academy for the city where you will meet these people and get a much better understanding about the different functions and responsibilities of the various organizations within the city it's an excellent program highly recommend it anyone serving on a board or committee that's making decisions or recommendations to the city council um should participate in that Academy you can sign up online uh through the city's website Rachel and it is right around the corner if I'm not mistaken it is April October Goa okay okay it's around corner and again if you have as you're reading through documentation like we have here or any future if you have questions about who what where when or why please call Rachel or the city staff I mean that that is perfectly in line with everything we do so allows you the opportunity to understand any questions or get answers to questions that you may have um so that you know you're much more aware of what's going on within the proceedings of this committee board okay are there any final comments that the board would like to board members would like to make yeah I've got one please you I I hope I see Mike sitting back there I hope the city council has brought through how much more problems they're going to have on a

daily basis with all these things coming to them I think that a lot of this was set up so that the city wouldn't have to be making these nitty-gritty decisions and I I'm sure the zoning official likes to get it off their shoulders too so I don't know I just see I see a lot of work for the city council and they already got a loaded agenda that's my comment any further comments from staff Sarah watch the city court I just wanted to add about the Citizens Academy if anyone is interested in attending it who hasn't been there before if you want to reach out to us we can schedule uh a reminder to go to the department that coordinates that to let them know that you are interested in attending thank you it's a you obtain a wealth of applicable information about how the city operates and and who is making those decisions or who to contact for any issues questions you might have that being said there's no no further comments um we stand a journ