Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Do they hear that we've reduced

approve the agenda. Looking for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve and a second. All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. Um minutes from previous meeting. Uh that would be April the 15, 2025. Has everyone had a chance to look over the minutes? Any changes, deletions, additions? Entertain a motion to approve. Motion and a second to approve. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Mr. Code officer report. Uh, nothing for the planning commission this evening, Mr. Chairman. Old business. Any old business to come before commission? Under new business. Number one is a request for you'll have to excuse me. I left my glasses so I I have to hold everything out here where I can see. I hear you. Or environmental variance at 311 Stoke Street. Mr. Cod. Yes, sir. This is a Yeah, this is an environmental variance and it's not from your zoning ordinance, but it is from the code of ordinances and it's from 42274A in the code of ordinances. This is where we have our environmental section for stream buffers. And so, yeah, this is 311 Stoke Street, as you can see the right, it's in your character district three. See the aerial photograph there. And they're asking for a reduction of the uh 25- foot imperous setback. And that setback is actually attached to the 50oot undisturbed stream buffer. So, just to give you a snapshot of that property, there is an existing single family dwelling now with an accessory structure to the left of it. If you're looking at the plan, uh facing Stoke Street. Sorry, I can't make that plan any bigger. Um, but that you get the idea of the details here. So, they're asking to reduce the impervious

setback to build a new residence, replace the old residence with a new one. So, how how is this property impacted by our current standards? Well, that blue is the state waters buffer. If I take the stream moving through the property from the north south, sly through the property and kind of exiting it to the east, that's what encompasses everything because it meanders through the property in pretty much a strange and unusual way, but it encompasses a lot of the property. As you can see, you take our standards and you attach that with our I got our other buffer standard here. That's our 50 foot attached to that. And then you go ahead and apply our impervious setbacks to this. It gets a little bit more restrictive. You can see that extra green there. That's the additional 25 foot setback. You see it starts to really encroach pretty much every buildable parameter of this property. So there's very little left of buildable area on this site. So there the owner is asking for a reduction of that 25 ft impervious. And you can see there's a little bit of orange little square block of orange. That's where they're asking for the area to be allowed to encroach the 25- foot imperous setback. that is to allow the replacement of a new single family dwelling and I believe an additional porch. They are proposing to extend a driveway too also into that area, but they're going to have gravel uh in that particular spot. So, that won't be an issue. So, that is the request. They have been granted um administrative special exception variances that are currently permissible now in the ordinance to push the structures up. So, they've already uh gotten the benefit of getting the structures as far forward as they can instead of being further back by the by what the code would normally require. So, the code is already working for the owner and allowing them to push the structure forward. They just need some relief from our environmental variance standards. And just to give you some idea, there's a little little bitty little tan area there. You can barely see it. That's all that's left is buildable. The they're asking for this variance to reduce that impervious setback. And the recommendation is to

approve the variance as submitted without conditions. Thank you. Is there anyone present to speak for this request? Yes, sir. If you could, if you don't mind, give us your name and Moshe Webster. Uh me and my wife Kristen own the property. Uh we bought that back in 2019 and we've been working toward this for a long time and Brad and Pat have been helping us with it quite a lot. So, uh, we're grateful for that. Um, but yeah, we're just trying to build a house there, and that's that's really all all it comes down to, providing a place for us to live. So, um, the structure that's there is in bad enough shape that it needs to be taken down, um, in that shape when we got it. So, um, there's just not enough left there to save. So, it needs to be removed and replaced. So, that's that's what we're shooting for. Okay. Thank you. Is there are there any questions? What stream is that? It's an unnamed It's an unnamed branch that flows souththeasterly out of downtown. Yeah, I understand. It's a spring that comes from somewhere back on close to downtown. Yeah. Somewhere underground and it comes out. Yeah. I want to say not far from the town green. Just kind of southeast of town green. Somewhere in that block behind those town homes. Somewhere somewhere in that realm is where this town green well I know that drainage from there actually if when it rains heavily that goes to this this stream. So but there is a spring that that hey he has perennial flow on this property hence the requirement that he's being impinched by from our requirements. There's actual flow of water on this property. So there is a spring. It isn't just rain water intermittent. So but when it rains I'm sure there's a lot of water in that um in that stream pad running. There's a lot of water, too.

Any any questions? Are you building first or are you taking the structure down first? Structure has to come down first because it's going in the same. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Uh we'll ask if there was anyone present to speak in opposition to this request. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. And a second. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. Motion passes. Number two, a request for a preliminary plat for Tokyo commercial. Mr. Kodos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a preliminary plat for the Tokyo project out on Highway 138. They are asking for a commercial subdivision of three lots and the existing building that's on the property now. Uh it is developed, you know, with an entrance off of 138 to their parking area around the building. I believe there are two retail units on each side of the current restaurant. Now, there is an existing, I believe, a bakery um type establishment that's on the right side of the existing restaurant, but they're asking to subdivide the property uh into three separate tracks. and they're proposing to uh utilize the existing entrance that they've constructed for the restaurant to access the three properties. Uh they have included at the city's request an easement that would extend through the property and potentially provide some interconnectivity to the property to the west. It's not uh slated that they would build a driveway there at this time. There's just an easement platted just in case there is ever some possible future interconnectivity. That is a requirement of your development regulations that there uh can be interconnectivity required in the future, but we're not mandating that it be done at this time. Just having an easement required is something that we would encourage. And then they're, you know, allocating the

rest of the property for storm water detention. But you can see the existing uh restaurant here on this parcel. Then there's a parcel to the north and then there's the parcel to the rear. And u there are no proposed uses other than just subdividing the property. And it's pretty straightforward. Sorry, I had some graphics to describe those entrances right there, but you get the idea what's going on with the property. I forgot I done those pretty little graphics. I just talked my way through it. Anyway, but the recommendation is approval as submitted without corrections. Thank you. Is there anyone present to speak for this request? uh with Terramark land surveying. We prepared the preliminary plat on behalf of the owner and I believe the owner as well answer question. Are there any any questions? Is is there any idea as to what these other two properties might be used for? Not yet. Okay. Are there any concerns about that traffic right there going down 138 how they're going to turn into there? Like Brad, has there been any like because I I can see that just I mean it's it can be problematic at five o'clock in the morning in that area. So I'm just wondering if there's any thought on that. We're a little bit held hostage to the Department of Transportation on this issue. I mean, we've raised our own concerns with them. I know Logan has uh in dealing with this particular intersection. It is too close to Michael Etcherson to actually put a traffic signal in. Uh does at this time I don't even even if it weren't close

enough, I don't think it'd meet the warrants for it at this time. But um but the proximity to Michael Ederson's traffic signal is what's prohibiting them from putting one. even if they wanted to pay for one and put one in, I don't think that G dot would let them do it based on the speeds. Um, and I'm not Bill maybe able to speak to this better than I could as far as engineering is concerned. But at this time, G do has allowed them to construct the entrance based on engineering standards. So, I mean, they've they're the ones who have allowed the permit and driveway to be there. So, I it's would that's we're not we're not thrilled about it, but that's that's what GD do permits. So, but would that still work for additional businesses going in that one entrance? I think they're it's programmed for that. I mean, I think they're well aware that that site was going to be fully developed, that the full 8 acres was going to be developed. I don't think that was not taken into consideration when when the entrance was permitted. Other questions? Thank you, sir. I would ask if there's anyone present to speak in opposition to this request. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Motion to approve and a second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Quest is passed. Um That's it for today. So I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. All in favor say I. I. We are ajourned.