Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing. Sarah, can we test your microphone? Testing, testing. Sarah, can you hear me? Testing, testing. Testing, testing. Sarah, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Thank you.

I can also hear you now, Marcy.

Thank you. Testing. Testing, testing. Jessica, is there an echo?

Not on my end. Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's call to order the March 24th meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Neal, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge 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.

roll call please here here here here here

Okay, thank you. Staff introductions, please.

Marcy Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson, permit technician.

There it is.

Sarah, can you introduce yourself?

Yes, Sarah Laughlin with Best Best and Krieger State Attorney's Office. Marcy, it's a bit hard to hear staff via Teams.

Okay, we will work on that. Thank you.

Can you hear us okay, Sarah?

I've got you, Warren.

Okay.

We ready? General public comments regarding matters not on the agenda. I think we received one email. Are there any other public comments? Seeing none here, are there any callers?

No callers.

Okay. Agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?

There are none.

Thank you. We'll move on to the first public hearing amendment to the rodeo bars conditional use permit to update the alcohol beverage control license.

Good evening commissioners. I will be presenting a staff presentation for the Rodeo Bar CUP Amendment at 622 12th Street. This is permit record number P260007, Amendment 2601. 622 12th Street is located in the TC1 zoning district in the downtown commercial general plan land use designation. With the exhibit here, you can see it's not directly off the park, but a little off adjacent to 12th Street. Some background on their existing conditional use permit 02-010 was an approval in 2002 for the approval of a bar establishment within an existing building. This was approved with Planning Commission Resolution 02-032 that was approved in May 28th, 2002. One of the site-specific conditions in that CUP was that it only authorized the sale of beer and wine and explicitly stated that the applicant wanted to sell liquor, they'd have to come back and amend their conditional use permit. So the goal of this amendment is to do exactly that, to modify condition number two to update the ABC license type 42 to a type 48 license authorizing the sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirit. There are no other proposed changes to the physical site or kind of nature of the bar Looking a little closer at kind of ABC license type and land use, in our zoning code for bars and cocktail lounges, we do not differentiate between the sales of beer and wine versus added to spills, but we do require that they obtain the appropriate ABC license and in the TC1 zone, a CUP to accompany that. So type 42, as you can see, just authorized the sale of beer and wine. The rodeo bar would be upgrading to a type 48 that authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Both of those definitions share kind of follow-up in terms of the nature of the operation. Minors aren't allowed on the premise. Food service is not required. Responsible beverage service licensing, et cetera. And another thing to note is that a letter of public necessity is not required in this case. Per a conversation with ABC, the concentration of that license type has not yet reached its maximum. It's about six, and I think in the census tract it's allowed 16. Looking at the site plan and floor plan, so as mentioned, there's no changes to the physical site. Fairly small, about 40% footprint of the building itself. Rear parking lot with access on the side, access directly off 12th Street, and then you can see in the aerial imagery just kind of how that site plan's configured in real life. As you may see with the four parking spaces in the back, there was some previous outdoor expansion that staff has been working with the applicant to clean up back there and regain their initially entitled four parking spaces. Those four parking spaces also met the requirement when initially permitted in 2002, as well as today's standards for four parking space per, sorry, one parking space for 400 square feet. with that drive access, that rear parking area. Photos on the left just demonstrate, in terms of the frontage, there have been relatively no changes to the building. And here are some photos the applicant provided the other day, just of the current conditions of the rear. So there was an accessory street structure removed, took out the fencing, there was some additional structures that we were just able to get cleaned up and kind of regain that area's original purpose. So looking specifically at the site-specific conditions of what's going to change, as mentioned, the purpose of this amendment is to go from the sale of beer and wine. Site-specific condition in the amendment 2601 would explicitly outline beer, wine, and distilled spirit for that type 48 license. Another thing to note in order to kind of maintain site compliance, staff also included Down below highlighted in yellow, previously it was just explicitly stated all activities shall occur indoor, no outdoor activities allowed, whereas we added and kind of split it into two different site-specific conditions, temporary or permanent obstruction of the driveway. This was a comment requested at DRC just with noticing a frequent food vendors and pop-up in that driveway to allow customers to have access to that rear lot. However, in discussing with the applicant, they did want to recommend the gate in the rear shall remain open during hours of operation. This would allow them to close it off at nighttime for security purposes, being downtown with their trash enclosure back there. And then the second line added all activities and uses occur indoors. Any outdoor activities will not be allowed. We did, again, in speaking with the applicant, staff decided to add except as approved by a temporary use permit. Therefore, all requirements would still be maintained. Temporary use permit in this zone more frequently would be temporary food permits, and this would require, again, not to be in that drive aisle, could be in the rear if, again, permitted following the regulations, went through the appropriate permit process. Taking a quick look at CEQA, so CUPO2010 did obtain an initial study and a negative declaration. This amendment falls under class one categorical exemption for existing facilities. Again, no changes to the physical land use or surrounding area of the primary use. Based on our zoning code definition, it's remaining a bar. There's no changes to that. It's just the specific license type. So the options for planning commission tonight are here, to approve the project, approve the project with modifications, or refer the project back to DRC or staff for additional analysis. And then, sorry, my formatting got messed up. Option four is deny the project by adopting findings for denial. Staff recommends option number one to approve the project by adopting draft resolution PC26XXX based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you, and any questions, comments, concerns?

Does the applicant have any questions or comments of the commission? Anything to add?

Hello. Thanks for having me. My name is Daniel Carnelli. My business partner is Taryn Carvero. Everything that she went through, thank you for doing all that. That was perfect. I only requested that we were to remove the number five on the list that I have here that you had printed out, which was just the temporary or permanent obstruction of the driveway because if that gate is closed for security purposes, I have vendors that just like to work outside and sell food because they have great visibility for the traffic moving from one side to the other on 12th and on Spring. They've turned out to be very popular and I just would at least like to have any type of recommendation on if we can't remove that, do I just tell them that they can't do that anymore because I don't charge them to be there. I just like to allow business helping other business. It kind of just creates cool momentum for my bar itself. So if I need to do that, I'm happy to follow the rules and regulations that you guys have laid out here for me. But if I don't have to, if there's a way around that, I'd love to continue supporting them. I have a full calendar of five to six different vendors and they circulate their small business and some of them have moved into brick and mortar. So it is kind of a cool way for me to support small businesses that didn't really have a lot of opportunity like I did climbing through the restaurant business through physical brick and mortar spots. So But I do know it is a little bit controversial with the health department and stuff like that. But we do have a full kitchen with hoods. So if I can propose a possible solution, it would be that they're allowed to bring the food out to the guests out there if they're cooking in my kitchen. They just need to have their kind of canopy set up so that the guests can walk up. But like I said, if that's an issue, I can remove it immediately. But it is important to me to at least ask on their behalf. That's it.

Thank you. Staff may have an answer to that.

Yes, so the proposed condition for the second one, all activities and uses must be indoors, that's part of the reason that staff decided to add except as approved by temporary use permit. So again, if those food vendors do coordinate with the business owner, they get the appropriate temporary use permit, it is an option for them. And I do know the Rodeo Bar and confirming with County Health, they do have a dependent food service operator license that allows these vendors to utilize their kitchen and then oftentimes that food is utilized for catering services where they take it off site. Whereas if it were to remain on site,

indoors that's one thing versus outdoors would need that temporary use permit questions from the commissioners to staff any questions or comments Thank You Piper good presentation just to that last point the temporary use permit how long does that usually run for what's an average time frame on a temporary use permit

Up to a year.

Okay.

Commissioner Kobler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the same point, that strip right now, well, if you go back to Exhibit B, it was labeled as landscaping. If you go to your photos that you had, even as of 2025, I think it's the previous slide, there's landscaping there. Now there's no landscaping there. There's picnic tables there. So there's been a site change that's occurred as a part of this, so I don't know how that needs to be considered or not.

So in speaking to the applicant, those were previously in the rear. He's waiting for those to be taken off site. Part of the conditions is that the ABC Type 48 license is not going to be authorized until kind of the CUP is brought up to compliance. So including those picnic benches, those are to be removed.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions commissioner?

So I was on DRC. I'm happy that the applicant cleaned up the backside. Um, that looks really good. My question Piper is that driveway there wouldn't emergency services have an issue with anything there at any point?

They, yes. So that's why it's to remain unobstructed. Um, say a temporary food vendor vendor were to get a permit, we would require them to be in the rear.

Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify. Okay, so even if they go through the process of getting a temporary permit, it still needs to be in the rear.

Yes, that complies with health and safety and fire requirements.

Okay, thank you for that.

No other questions? Public comment? Seeing no one, is there anyone online?

Sorry, just a second.

No callers. Okay, let's close public comment. Any discussion or motions by the commissioners?

Chairperson Roden, I'd like to make a motion, please. I motion that we approve the project by adopting draft resolution PC26XXX on findings and subject to conditions of approval. And I want to make it clear that in order for them to have any vendors, they need to go through the proper channels of getting a temporary permit.

Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you. Mercy? Roll call.

Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Chairperson Roden? Aye. Motion passes 6-0.

Thank you, commissioners.

Okay, moving on to item two, letter light.

in an industrial building staff report please Thank You chairperson pro Tim Roden and Planning Commission Katie Bannister associate planner so as you said this is the utter light industrial buildings project it's located at 2940 American Way property is out near the airport so you can see airport road running north south kind of on the right side of the image and then buena vista drive is there at the bottom the large wine direct warehouse is just a couple properties to the north and then propeller road and the actual airport proper are to the east of airport road The property is part of American Way, which was a parcel map approved by the Planning Commission in 2018. And you can see JWC Welding is immediately to the north, so that's a project that the Planning Commission approved relatively recently and is complete now. Just a quick look at American Way. You can actually see with that updated image at the back, Greg Wyman has a construction yard in the northwest corner, and then JWC Welding in the northeast corner, and then this project is proposed in the southeast corner. Here's a look at the site plans that were approved by Planning Commission for those other two projects. And jumping into the site plan for this project, you can see there's two buildings. The first building has one unit in it, and then there are seven units in the second building. Each of the units has a small office area, generally shown as a yellow area, and then a more of a warehousey area that's shown in the red color. The difference with the blue color, we had discussions about whether or not auto repair uses would be allowed on this site because they do have a higher parking requirement. The parking that is provided would allow for three auto repair or more intensive uses that require more parking and then five kind of contractor type businesses where there's an office and more of a warehouse use. for equipment there is a mistake in the staff report some of the previous site planning that we had showed that the site was or excuse me the buildings were a little bit larger than the final site plan so just want to point out that there is a total of eighteen thousand two hundred and eighty square feet the staff report refers to I think it's either twenty or twenty four thousand square feet so it's a little bit smaller than it was originally designed There is also a request for a modification shown in purple at the bottom right of the screen. There is a seven and a half foot tall screening wall proposed. It would be constructed of board formed concrete and would be closer to the front property line than the building. That was actually something we discussed at DRC. Originally the wall was proposed to be in line with the front plane of the building. The front plane of the building is rather long and so it was discussed that the construction or the storage yard might actually be a little bit proud of the building so that it provided an extra bit of articulation. Here's a perspective look from the corner at American Way and Airport Road. You can see the building there in the front and then the one in the rear. We worked a lot on making sure that this metal building had a lot of articulation. You can see some rhythm in the colors, some high windows, and then the porch features where there's a pedestrian entry that faces the right-of-way. Here's another perspective. Now we're on American Way looking at the second building, that larger building. And you can see there's parking there on American Way. Still on American Way looking more to the east. And then finally, now we're on the site looking to the northeast. This is the rear of the building. There's a roll-up door for each tenant space. So if it's auto repair or some other use where there's storage in the rear, they do have that roll-up door. here is a look at the elevation so this is the front building so at the top is what will be seen from airport road and you can see the board formed concrete fence as i said that's seven and a half feet tall uh the zone the zoning code would want that fence to be six feet tall unless an exception is approved by the planning commission this evening and then out there at the bottom is the north side of that building and the kind of the pedestrian entry Now we're looking at the larger building, which contains units two through eight. So the east, or the front, which is not gonna be highly visible, because it's kind of shielded by the smaller building, is there at the top, and then that longer side is there that will be seen from Airport Road. I'll point out, and not as a point of concern, but just in that clear story, there is a number of windows, and then the dark black squares are actually some louvers for venting, and so those aren't all windows. Another thing to be aware of, the applicant did provide us with an updated elevation. What DRC saw and what was in the agenda materials that you received on Friday showed some smaller signs that would be above each door. This elevation, which is the applicant's preference, includes larger signs. They do still meet the zoning code requirement for the maximum size. but they are set off to the side of each door and a little bit larger than was shown to the DRC. Got a friend up here. And here's the south elevation, so this faces the parking lot again. So metal building, you can see a number of different profiles for the metal siding and different colors, and then the louvers, the concrete, the board-formed concrete fence, and other materials there that are proposed. And here is the west or the rear elevation. jumping into the fence plan there are a number of screening devices on the site so first of all in blue there are double detector valves one that the applicant is having to move out of the public right-of-way that's for another project so the blue squares are going to be there's two double detector valves there their valve will be in front of the building there in blue and will be surrounded by an enclosure with metal siding to match the building and then they'll also be one in the the Parkway for American Way there at the northeast corner We've already talked a bit about the board-form concrete, so the storage yard in the front will have a concrete wall. The applicant, Mr. Utter, does have a concrete company, and so that's his preferred material and has an interesting and industrial look that will match the metal buildings. The project also includes some iron fence, some metal fence along the southern property line. The conditions of approval would require the use of this fence within 200 feet of Airport Road. That matches the conditions of approval that JWC Welding received. They have the metal fence near Airport Road, and then towards the rear, they have chain link with the slats to store to screen equipment and so similarly this project would be allowed 200 feet away from airport road would be allowed to do that chain link with slats for the rear in addition the there is a garbage enclosure at the rear of the lot also made with board form concrete and some metal metal material used for the gates There is a landscape plan proposed, not a whole lot of open space, but all the spaces that exist are, you know, got some nice shade trees. There is a large parkway in the public right-of-way and that will receive landscape treatment as well. This will actually be the first sidewalk on the west side of Airport Road in this stretch. The businesses to the north don't have sidewalk, but we do have the landing project coming online, and it'll have sidewalks, so this will match what the landing is also going to be providing. Master sign program I alluded to the fact that some larger signs are now proposed the signs that DRC Saw and that we're in the agenda packet. We're only 18 inches tall. So this is quite a bit taller but still within the maximum size for For the tenant signage for the width of each of those tenant spaces There's also a directory sign proposed that's at the front of the building between the building and the public right-of-way for Airport Road board form concrete with some white placards for each business a So jumping into the conditions of approval, the most pertinent are number seven is that the parking spaces within American Way, which is a private access easement, do count towards the parking requirements for the project. Typically, we don't count on street parking spaces towards the requirement for a business, but because this is on private property and a private easement, they are in the parking count. The condition of approval number eight is that any activity that needs a conditional use permit will still have to come to the Planning Commission for that conditional use permit. We didn't supply the Planning Commission with any details for a business like an auto repair business And so those would have to come back in the future when there is a tenant wanting to do that use. Condition of approval number nine would require that all of the businesses on the site will cumulatively not have a parking requirement more than 42 spaces. So we saw on the site plan, it is parked so that three spaces could have an auto repair use. There are some other mixes that could happen. Those will be checked at the time of business license application. And so staff would not approve business licenses it kicked the entire project over a need for 42 spaces I've already alluded to the fact that no chain link fences would be allowed within 200 feet of airport road. And then we had a look at the master sign program, but there are some conditions of approval that would allow if the sign, if any future signs come in with building permits and they match the signs that you saw already, staff would be able to approve those just as a building permit. It would not come back to DRC. as these conditions are drafted the DRC would have the ability to amend the master sign program so if someone wanted to do a sign that is different than what was shown in the in the agenda packet they would need to come to the development review committee for that amendment and then if the someone wanted to do a sign that would need a zoning code modification that would have to come back to the Planning Commission. So the DRC still has the ability to approve signs as they normally would, but it does also allow if any future business does the exact sign, they can just go straight to building permits and not have to go to that public meeting. There is an outstanding condition of approval from the parcel map that requires kit fox mitigation, and so that was carried forward in the conditions of approval for this project. I've also mentioned, as I've been giving the slides, this project does have sidewalk, and we'll have to move the double-check valve. So those are conditions of approval that are in the engineering conditions as well. This project is exempt from environmental review as a class 32 exemption for infill development. As I mentioned, the project does have to mitigate for kit fox habitat. As always, the Planning Commission has options. The first would be to approve the project by adopting the draft resolution as it was drafted. The second would be to approve the project with modifications by amending and adopting the draft resolution with an amendment. And you could refer the project back to the DRC or to staff if you don't feel you have enough information, or you could deny the project by making findings of denial. Staff is recommending option two. There are two corrections that are needed due to the applicant providing some new plans this week. So staff recommends you adopt the resolution, but you make two amendments. allow staff to correct references to the size of the buildings, that we would change all the references within the adopting resolution to 18,280 square feet, which is the actual proposed size, and then the second would be to replace sheet eight, which shows the tenant signage at its larger size, and that would then make sure that the master sign program shows exactly the maximum size that's allowed for staff to approve. And that concludes my report.

Thank you, Katie. Well done. Would the applicant like to make any comments?

Larry Gabriel, Gabriel Architects. Been working with Katie on this for a while and talking about refinements. I think she actually knows the project better than I do. She explains it so well. We've got owner-user for the first building, first-time developer. Spent a lot of time with him developing this project that would serve similar needs to his, a warehouse and small office space and some nice circulation for deliveries and those sorts of things. Working with Katie and the staff here, we worked with getting some articulation on the street frontage and not only doing that with some features of the flat roof and the slope roof, but also some different colors and some windows to get some daylight inside. Also, we had Mike Utter's concrete and the desire to use form concrete, which is hard to come by sometimes, and so that was an easy breezy deal to put on there City asked us to develop some of the frontage here, and we kind of tied in. We've got a sidewalk that goes nowhere and it starts from nowhere. But nonetheless, we undulated the sidewalk a little bit to allow us to get a little more landscape against the building and, again, break it up just a little bit. So I think Katie hit all the other high spots on here, so I can answer any questions you might have. We also have the owner here, too, if you have that.

Thank you. Any questions or discussion or comments from the commissioners? Mr. Koviruvius?

Say that three times.

I'll get it.

Another question for you. The directory sign, is it going to be illuminated at all, or how is that going to look?

They're all under a soffit, so there's going to be a soffit light.

Just what type of lighting? A soffit light. Oh, perfect. Okay. All of it's going to be that way?

Yeah.

Perfect. That's really the only question I had. I think the building looks great, by the way. Yeah, well done.

I just want to make a comment. I was on DRC, and it looks really nice. I appreciate the sidewalk in the front, too. I know it goes nowhere, but it does really make the building look good. And you guys did a great job on designing the articulation. I'm excited to see this one built out there. It's pretty spectacular looking for what it is. So thanks for all your hard work on that and staff too.

Anyone else? OK. I'll entertain a public comment. I'm sorry. Anybody with a public comment? Seeing none, anyone online?

No callers.

Let's close public comment. Now I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Commissioner Neill. I move that the planning commission adopt resolution 26XXX, approving development plan 2513 and development plan modification 25-09 based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval with the add of allowing staff to change the square footage to the correct square footage in the conditions of approval, as well as replacing sheet 8 showing the correct master sign program. I'll second that.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Neill? Aye. Commissioner Kobler? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Chairperson Roden?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Move on to item three, Oak at Ardmore Residential Subdivision. And just for the record, I'd like to be known that I had an ex parte discussion with Michael Stolte on not only this project, but the previous two for this particular site. It's on. Thank you, Darcy. Testing.

Thank you. Commissioners, Darcy Delgado will be providing the staff presentation for the project. Just want to note that we do anticipate having the applicant also provide a more detailed presentation, so I'm going to try and hit all the high levels since I know they're going to be providing more detail. So this is the Oak at Ardmore. It's a 154-unit residential subdivision, and there are a number of entitlements, which I will definitely be stating at the very end of my presentation, but you can see them on the screen as well. So this project has been submitted by Covelop Inc. and MD3 Investments. They had previously applied for a project and have entitlements that you may have saw that got a time extension just recently. I think it was last month. for this same location at 2930 Union Road. So it has a little bit of history. This zoning is a commercial light industrial zoning. There are a couple of overlays that I'll dive into. One of them is a plan development. It's essentially just requiring a development plan when projects come forward. There's an overlay district F that has some stipulations when the C3 properties are adjacent to residentially zoned properties that require a few more things. And like I said, I'll dive into that a bit more. you can see that the land use is commercial service. Just the history on this, back in 2024, Covellup had successfully obtained an entitlement for about 240,000 square feet of floor area across six buildings, so essentially an industrial complex. But they had switched gears and have moved forward towards this concept of doing a residential use. So as part of the entitlement process, there are a series of changes that need to be in place in order to move forward. excuse me, in order to move forward with the residential by right, because currently it is just commercial industrial. So I'll go through these. So the first I want to highlight is that the entitlement needs a rezone. So part of the rezone is for a mixed-use overlay to allow those residential uses by right. In addition to that is a request for an allocation of 154 surplus density units. the 154 number, that's exactly what they're proposing with the residential subdivision. Back in November of 2025, we took the high level points of this project to city council for them to consider reserving the units. And it was approved by council. They were very interested in this project. And so we've been moving forward through the development review stages. We've been to DRC. We've gotten to tonight. But essentially the 154 units were earmarked because this project has been progressing nicely and gave them some assurance before they got here tonight. also as part of the rezone is establishing a special plan development overlay that that is going to be overlay k and the reason for that is because this is a townhome development the it requires zero lot line where the where the air gap units are you know at the at the property line and the only way to obtain the approvals is to get special zoning and so a special overlay k will allow that so as you can see it allows for reduced setbacks which includes zero lot line development it's also going to create special zoning unique to just this parcel so that they can kind of override the you can see in the yellow is overlay f that is the overlay that applied to all the c3 zone parcels when they're adjacent to residential properties they have to do a solid masonry wall because when you have a commercial use next to a residential use, it would not make sense to just have chain link or wood, so it was intended to create a buffer. Because this is a residential project, it made sense to request that this project not do a masonry wall on the southern property line adjacent to future development, which would be North Chandler Ranch essentially, which we don't know what that's gonna look like. And then also as part of that overlay, they're creating unique zoning essentially, again, It's going to establish the minimum lot size, the parking requirements, common recreational amenities. So we'll really live into this special zoning overlay just unique to this parcel. And I should say that all of this is really packaged up as a recommendation to city council because the city council is the only review authority who can approve a rezone. So moving forward, that's one aspect of the project. So I'm gonna move on to the development plan and conditional use permit. So those entitlements are really just establishing the 154 unit development itself. I am noting a couple things that just kind of stand out because Planning Commission always like to talk about parking. So they're providing 372 residential parking spaces in addition to 33 guest parking spaces. as well as clubhouse they have a pool a playground and other amenities such as a community picnic area so that entitled though we have a resolution just specific to the development plan and the use permit the use permit is kind of antiquated it's essentially again this was c3 zoning it kind of protected uses if they were against adjacent to residentially zoned properties so there's really not much to it it's kind of just lumped into the development plan Moving on, we also have a request for the vesting tentative tract map. Again, that's to establish the actual individual 154 residential lots. They're also proposing 10 common lots, as well as right of way for the Ardmore Road extension, which you can see on the screen. Ardmore would be cutting through to the east towards Barney Schwartz Park. Eventually, with our circulation element, that would be punching through even further as development progresses in this part of the city. We also have an oak tree removal request, and so part of the project is to remove six valley oak trees. The total is 265 inches, but they are going to replant 34 two-inch diameter mitigation oak trees, which I have an exhibit to show you where they're planning to place those oak trees. Last but not least, the project entitlement is also requesting some modifications from the zoning code development standards. And so I've tried to lay these out as clearly as I can. So one aspect of the modification is, well, three of them are for our objective design standards. So the nature of the residential project triggers what we call objective design standards that lives in our zoning code. because they're proposing such a high number of units, they have to adhere to these articulation materials, roof variation, and when an applicant wants to deviate from that for whatever reason, they're allowed to request these modifications. In this case, the first one is they're requesting that a portion of their project frontage along Ardmore Road, which is actually in this photo, which is facing west, to not have to do a pedestrian-oriented entry along the street frontage. So in the zoning code, essentially all units, anytime you have 11 or more residential units, the entries have to have a pedestrian orientation to the street frontage. What you're seeing on the screen is actually the rear yard of two of the building types out of the 34 total buildings. So they're asking for a modification to not have a front entry, but instead have what would be more like a rear yard courtyard, so it is their backyard. And in this case, what they've demonstrated is that they'll have a lower fence height to kind of create that pedestrian facing appearance, even though it is the backyard. Another objective design standard that they're asking for a deviation from is the Tier 4, which is in our zoning code, to incorporate only one out of the two required design strategies for the roofing. Because these are townhomes, they're attached, they weren't really able to meet all the criteria for the roofing. So again, we're lumping it in. It's a reasonable request. but we need to note it here for the Planning Commission. They're also going to request to deviate from the eave projection standards, which are typically 18 inches, and in this case, the project would have eaves that project between zero and 12 inches beyond the roof line. The last modification that they're requesting is for hillside development standards in regards to retaining wall height. So the project includes retaining walls in five locations throughout the site where the height exceeds the six-foot maximum requirement by more than two feet. So this is something that the Planning Commission can approve, and so they've actually provided some quite good exhibits. I know the applicant will dive into it a little bit more. Again, these are things that are not typical. They're special modifications in addition to a development plan. All right, so here is the overall development site plan. As you can see, there's 154 semi-attached townhouses. There's 34 total buildings. We also have a clubhouse. a centralized oak tree that is protected. They have a playground. And I do want to show you what they intend to do as far as phasing of their map. So they have proposed to do the subdivision in two phases. So phase one would be the northern portion of the site. So you can see Ardmore Road extension would be dividing the two phases. In phase one and in phase two, there are some amenities that are included. So I think what's worth noting is that with phase one, you have the main community building, you have a pool, and then there's a basin B, which is actually more like a functional basin. So people can gather there, they can go play soccer, they can kick a ball. So that's all going to be proposed with phase one. And then in phase two is where you see the playground. So there is a requirement for Multifamily projects, anytime you have more than 11 units, it triggers these extra amenities to be provided for the community, or for the private community, and so their playground is located in phase two. They're providing a minimum of 17 pieces of play structure. They also have a picnic area. So again, just noting that there are gonna be different amenities provided for each phase, but the tot lot playground is not required until the 100th unit is ready to get finaled. So it will be some time before that portion of the project will be available to the rest of the development. I'm not going to spend too much time on the architecture, but essentially this is a modern farmhouse style. You can see that they have provided some lap siding, board and batten siding. They have some accent metal roofing. I will note that when this went to DRC, there was a request for just seeing a little bit more articulation or seeing the differences in the details. When the applicant resubmitted, as we've been gearing up for, this evening they definitely provided what staff was looking for and so we have a condition of approval that the project plans would go to planning staff before any building permits would be issued but essentially they these are air-gapped units so there's going to be a you know small gap between each each individual lot being that Eve's can't cross property lines I think that they have provided sufficient articulation to break up the massing and they've provided a pretty neutral color scheme So moving on to the modifications specifically for that pedestrian-oriented entry along Ardmore Road. So this would be west-facing across the street would be, if you're familiar with Daniel's Woodland Factory, there's another property that he owns that's currently vacant just to the north. So that would be facing that property. Again, here we have, as part of their modification request, they've indicated what they can do is give it the appearance of a front entry, even though it is the rear entry. And then of course I've highlighted the lower level fence. They do have a fencing plan that's included. Basically the entire site has perimeter fencing of the six foot, so in red it's the six foot tall perimeter wood slot fence. So this is primarily the rear fence for these townhome buildings. You can see in the, I don't know if I can highlight it. Where's the pointer? So over here in purple is pointing to that frontage. So this is actually the rear yard, but again, they've proposed that three foot tall slat fence. In blue is where you have the fencing for the basins. Sorry, there are three total basins, but two of the basins will be fenced and non-functional. The third basin is adjacent to the community building. The fencing for the basins that are not functional, it's a six foot tall vinyl coated micro mesh chain link fence in a green color. Pretty attractive for a basin. Of course, I have an animation that I forgot about. All right. Another modification that I talked about with regard to the retaining walls, I'm just going to highlight a couple sections because I know the applicant can dive into this in more detail. There are I want to say, I think it was five locations. Essentially, what the zoning code says is development is limited to a six foot tall retaining wall unless they get approval to do more. And in this case, they're asking for instances where it exceeds the six feet. So they have provided a series of details that are in your staff report and showing where these locations are. Generally, most of the instances are, although they are taller than six feet, the impression as you stand on adjacent properties where there's things between the person standing there and the actual development is it's not gonna seem as tall. There's also some rural native grasses that are blocking views, since on the perimeter you have some underdeveloped sites that maybe have a house, but it's largely rural in that area. So the impression that these are, even though they're taller than six feet from a distance, they're not gonna appear as tall. So it is a reasonable request in this case. Also, I mentioned that there were some oak tree removals with this development, so as you can see on the map on the right, everything noted in red is to be removed. There was tree, let's see, it was tree, so oak tree number three actually has since fallen and is not a part of the requested action tonight, so that is noted in the staff report. Back when the prior commercial industrial project was approved, it was alive not doing well, but it was alive, so it is now not included in the calculations. Tree 13, At the time the prior co-velop project was approved, was originally proposed to be retained. It wasn't doing great, but also the site was able to be developed in a way or designed in a way where there weren't people gathering under it. So that past project had proposed to keep it. But now that we have the introduction of people gathering, you know, families, children, playing, Tree 13 was reevaluated by the arborist and it was determined not to be a viable tree to keep. It's not in good shape. It's not safe. And so in this case, tree number 10 is the only tree that is to be protected. As I said, they are removing a total of 265 inches worth of tree. And so the tree replacement is for 34 two-inch caliper trees. They have integrated the oak tree replacements into the overall site plan. And then you can, of course, see the centralized tree number 10, which is in that lighter green They have really designed around it. We have extensive conditions of approval to make sure that it's well protected during construction and ongoing. We're going to have arborists monitoring throughout constructions. And then, again, the arborists did review this plan to make sure that the replacement trees are provided in locations that the trees will thrive, since there are quite a number of them that are going to be provided. terms of the environmental review back in february of 2024 the city had adopted a mitigated negative declaration for that commercial industrial project which we've called covelop with this new project we have prepared an addendum to the 2024 mnd and it determined that there have been no substantial changes to the project that would require revisions to the previous mnd and so forth. So in short, I'm not gonna read every single thing on this slide, but in short, we evaluated the project under CEQA and determined that the original mitigated NGDEC, we could do an addendum to it, it was the appropriate document. What that means is we're comparing the new project to the old project and making sure that there are no new environmental impacts that we need to analyze and further study. There were three mitigation measures that were included in the past co-velop project that are being carried forward and they are still applicable to this project. So two of them are biological conditions or mitigation measures I should say. The first dealing with nesting bird surveys being required if initial site disturbance begins during nesting bird season. We have another mitigation measure for avoiding direct take of the kit fox during construction. by implementing various mitigation measures, as well as worker education training and den surveys. And then the third mitigation measure is a cultural resources mitigation measure. So in the event that cultural resources, including human remains, are encountered during ground disturbance activity, the project would have to stop within a hundred foot radius of the find. There's a little bit more to that one, but I wanted to just highlight the three are carrying forward. So we're using the old environmental document, kind of dusting it off, making sure it still applies. making findings that this project is consistent and that has been also provided to you in your staff report packet. I wanted to highlight that we have made additional findings specific to the modifications being requested. The first says that the adjustments to the objective design standards enhance the design and functionality of the project, are cosmetic only and do not serve as a fire life safety sorry, do not serve as fire life safety standards under the building code. So these really deal with those ones like EIF projections and, oh gosh, I'm gonna forget the other ones. But essentially that is not creating any fire life safety issues. The second would be that the modification for the street frontage on Ardmore Road across from the Ron Daniels factory results in a superior project since waiving the pedestrian entry requirement for the Ardmore Road-facing units allows for a functional and logical site layout, concentrating pedestrian access within the community while still enhancing the streetscape and achieving the intent of a pedestrian-oriented frontage. And then another finding that I wanted to highlight is The characteristics of the project and the degree of potential for the project to negatively impact neighboring properties justify the modification because the building orientation, roof design, and rear retaining wall heights enable well-planned open spaces, improved pedestrian streetscapes, and greater affordability by supporting a compact, efficient lot layout. These adjustments enhance design and functionality without compromising other architectural elements or community amenities. Again, modifications are not the usual, but in this case we wanted to highlight the findings that the Planning Commission can make if you are supportive of the modifications being requested. As always, you have options tonight, and there are several resolutions. The first option would be to recommend that the City Council approve the project. Draft Resolution A deals with the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration. Draft Resolution B deals with approving an ordinance for the rezone, and that would be for the mixed-use overlay and the special overlay K. Draft Resolution C deals with the allocation of the 154 surplus density units to that parcel. Draft Resolution D deals with the development plan and the conditional use permit as well as the modification and then findings for each. The draft resolution E deals with the map itself, and draft resolution F deals with the oak tree removal. So I know it's a lot of motions tonight. If you want to make any modifications to those resolutions, that would be option two, recommending the city council approve the project by adopting those resolutions but with modifications and with findings as well. Option three is to refer this back to DRC or staff for additional analysis, or option four would be to deny the project by adopting findings of denial. Staff has been working with the applicant for quite some time on this project, and as I said, we took it to city council for the consideration that the council reserve the units for this project, and staff recommends that we do move this forward. It's a great project, much needed housing. The style and the architecture and the area where or putting a mixed use overlay really makes sense in this case. And so I think it would really be a good project for this part of the city. And with that, I will conclude my staff presentation. And I do know that the applicant is prepared to provide a little bit more detail than I did.

Darcy, that was a lot of work. And you did a really great job. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make any comments or have a presentation?

Yeah. Good evening, Chairperson Roden and commissioners. My name's Ian McCarvel. I'm a land use consultant at Kirk Consulting. I'm very excited to be here tonight. As you've seen, there's been a lot of work that has gone into this project over the years. All right, so just to go over some background, the site is located in the commercial light industrial area, but when we're looking at the broader context of surrounding uses, residential development is pretty sparse, and while we do have the Spurs construction and Daniels Woodland to the west, in general, commercial development is generally pretty sparse as well. In terms of project timeline, We did submit the application for the mixed-use industrial commercial project back in 2021. It was ultimately approved in 2024. And during this time we saw interest rates skyrocket and it was really challenging to find any interested tenants. So as those market conditions shifted, the applicant revisited this concept and in late 2024 proposed an age-restricted housing project. This shift was partly influenced due to the Cal Poly student work evaluating the North Chandler Ranch area, as well as the city's residential multifamily opportunity mapping, which ultimately identified this site as having a high potential for residential development. So while that age-restricted proposal wasn't supported by staff, it was kind of our foot in the door to start those discussions, and that's ultimately what led us to the project here today. So in May 2025, we submitted this multifamily project with the vesting tentative parcel map, and ultimately we feel this project does align pretty closely with the city's housing objectives, and it really does make a very efficient use of the site, and it provides a balanced approach to housing that's affordable by design. So here we have that overall site plan and phasing plan. As Darcy noted, we have 154 multifamily residential lots, and those range from about 1,500 to 4,700 square feet. Those are two-story attached townhomes. We also have 10 common lots, and those feature the clubhouse, community gathering areas, and then internal circulation and landscaping. Notably, the site design was centered around the preservation of that large, healthy oak tree in the center. That's going to be the focal point of the community where we derived the name the Oakhead Ardmore. The project is intentionally phased primarily to help record and release smaller groups of infrastructure, or excuse me, smaller groups of lots as infrastructure is completed. And what that does is just helps better manage construction timing, financing, and then home sales as well. The project also includes that request for the mixed use overlay and special plan development overlay. And really both of those are critical in order to have this project move forward. Without the mixed use overlay we would not be able to have the residential use on the site. And then the special plan development overlay really allows that innovative and flexible design that we're proposing. And then lastly we are requesting an oak tree removal permit for one additional oak tree in addition to the six previously approved under the original application. So as I mentioned before, the site is well suited for a higher density residential development as it supports the city's policies and housing goals and benefits from its location within an established urban area. It was also identified as a priority opportunity site in the city's multifamily accelerator program where the mixed use overlay was intended to provide the additional flexibility and help encourage housing production. Based on the current scope, we would expect this project to deliver approximately 75% of the city's housing entitlement goals for 2025 and 2026 combined. And then in addition, as Darcy noted, we were allocated 154 general plan surplus density units by city council in November 2025. And at that time, city council found that the project was consistent with both the general plan and the city's economic and housing objectives. And then lastly, the applicant will contribute an in-lieu fee equivalent to two points of the county's new regional housing incentive program, and that will total about $60,000. And what that contribution will do is it will go towards affordable housing projects, which can be leveraged with state, federal, and tax-exempt financing to significantly amplify nonprofit housing funds. The site was also identified in that Cal Poly study as a strong location for mixed use and higher density development. Those plans recognized this area was appropriate for extending these residential uses north of Chandler Ranch, ultimately serving as a transition area and a key opportunity site, again, for that higher density residential. From a broader context, we're in close proximity to quite a few goods, services, recreational facilities, housing, and employment centers. And just to name a few, we're about 1,000 feet from Barney Schwartz Park, 1,500 feet from Golden Hills Plaza, 2,000 feet from Ravine Water Park, and then very close to the Wisteria and Paso Comp Business Park, and then roughly a mile and a half from the landing. When reviewing the site from a broader regional context and looking at the city's future circulation network, it really makes sense why we're proposing residential uses here. The site's gonna connect to all these uses I just talked about, and ultimately it will also connect, excuse me, it will construct the Ardmore extension, which will connect across the property and provide that future critical connection point for any development to the east. Moving on to site design, I have here the site circulation and parking plan. We do have a continuous system of sidewalks and internal pathways linking all the residential buildings, open spaces, and clubhouses, promoting walkability within the site. From a vehicular standpoint, access is gonna be provided from Ardmore Extension. And then in terms of parking, we are exceeding the parking requirement. We're providing 372 residential spaces, and that includes 90 tandem spaces in the driveways, as well as 33 guest parking spaces with the highest concentration kind of located near that community center. And then there's also going to be tandem, excuse me, parallel parking along Ardmore Extension as well. So within the site, 372 spaces and then the additional parallel parking on Ardmore. Hardmore Extension. 50,000 square feet of open space area, the project is required to provide 15,400, so exceed that requirement by quite a bit. As Darcy noted, we do have kind of this mixed use or flex zone basin, so that's Basin B on the right, and that basin would be able to be used for something like soccer during the drier season and then in the wet season. When it isn't going to be used, it's only about 20,000 square feet, so we still exceed that open space requirement by over 15,000 square feet. So the town homes will be organized into 34 buildings. We're proposing a density of just under 12 acres, excuse me, 12 units per acre. And those buildings will be organized in four and five unit configurations. There are two building types. There's a front-loaded and a rear-loaded unit with the key distinction being garage orientation. So the front-loaded units are going to be located along the perimeter of the site, and those are accessed directly from the private internal streets, whereas the rear-loaded units are located more internally, where garages are accessed from the rear of the building. And what that does is it allows the primary frontage to be more pedestrian-focused and facing. And... Ultimately, architecturally, the project is inspired by kind of an agrarian theme with modern forms, and it maintains a consistent design language across the entire site. And I'll dig into the color material board in just a moment. The buildings also range from three to four bedrooms with approximately 1,400 to 1,700 square feet of living area. Each unit includes a private entry with an attached garage and private open space ranging from 160 to 390 square feet, exceeding the 100 square foot requirement. And then the building heights will range from 28 to 30 feet. i'm just going to briefly talk through some of the floor plans so here we have the four unit front loaded townhome as you can see this is the unit that has the garage in the front each unit will have 200 cubic feet of storage in the garage that is the requirement by the city and we anticipate they could have more what we're proposing is a kind of an elevated mounted rack system in the garage that you would typically see And then here we have an example of the alley-loaded townhome with the access to the garage being in the rear and the front units facing pedestrian walkways and landscape areas. Here we have the clubhouse. The clubhouse is approximately 3,000 square feet. It includes a common room, kitchen, and dining area, and a recreation room for social and community activities. It also has outdoor amenities, including a covered patio pool, pool deck, and ultimately just creates that seamless indoor-outdoor environment. For the colored material board, we did have a shared palette across the site, providing a mix of siding, roofing, and material across all building types with some variation in color and detailing to avoid repetition, but ultimately creating a harmony across all the buildings in the site that provides that continuity. For the modifications, I'll dig into a couple of these in some greater detail. Darcy went over them pretty well, but we're proposing two special plan development and four standard development plan modifications. Again, the key distinction being the special plan development modifications are really intended to give you that flexibility for unique projects like this. So with the townhomes, when we have the zero-foot lot line, we wouldn't be able to achieve that without this modification. These modifications were presented to DRC back in December and we received general support on all of them with some requests to come back with some additional details. So that's kind of what I'll dig in here. So the first modification is that setback modification. So this allows the zero foot setback as well as varying setbacks across the site. This is necessary to achieve the proposed density and that affordable by design component of the site. And this is exactly what that special plan development modification is intended to allow. This was one of the items that during DRC, they asked for a little bit more feedback on. What I'm showing here is the townhomes adjacent to Ardmore Road, which is the only townhomes abutting a public road. There were some questions about the rear and side yard setbacks here. We weren't meeting them at that time. And so what we did is we went back and we made sure all these buildings complied with the rear and side yard setbacks. So that is what I'm showing here today. The second modification is for that decorative wall along the southern border, as Darcy explained, since we're no longer proposing that commercial use, there's no longer a need to buffer it, since we'll be abutting another residential use. The next four modifications all kind of qualified as a planned development modification. This one relates to the building orientation design standards which require the units along Ardmore Road to be pedestrian fronting, or excuse me, to have direct pedestrian access from the street. And in this case, due to the site's industrial context, direct pedestrian access from Ardmore Road would be incompatible and undesirable. So instead, pedestrian access is provided internally within the subdivision with the rest of the units To still meet the intent of this standard, we are incorporating enhanced rear elevations with a strong streetscape presence. We're combining this with dual-sided landscaping on both sides of the fence and courtyard-oriented designs to appear like a frontage. Notably, during DRC, DRC committee members recommended we evaluate looking at a six-foot fence due to privacy concerns from these residents. That is ultimately our preference. We would like to request that the commission deliberate on that tonight. On the top is the six foot fence option and then on the bottom is the three foot option. The third and fourth modifications pertain to the roof and eave standards. We were required to meet two of the roof objective design standards, and instead we met one and then included elements from others to kind of create that architectural interest that was intended by that requirement. And then again with the eaves, because we have these smaller lots, affordable by design, having eaves over 12 inches would encroach past the property line, so that is why we're capped at 12, and then some are zero feet when we have that zero foot lot line. The final modification relates to the hillside development standards for the rear yard retaining walls. so this was another one that drc asked us to revisit we had provided a drawing that needed to get a facelift beautified a little bit so here i have kind of an overall site plan showing where we have walls exceeding six feet um while while we do have a couple instances of this there's only two instances where those walls exceed six visual or six feet of visual height meaning you wouldn't be able to see it either on either side of the property or it wouldn't look more than six feet on either side of the property. And so, what we did was we prepared some section drawings showing how these walls relate in height and actual visibility. So during DRC, the committee was generally supportive of this modification, but again asked that we prepare clearer exhibits. So on the left side, in sections A and G, I'm showing examples of where the total wall height exceeds six feet, but the visible height does not. So in section A, while the retaining wall is approximately eight feet tall, the adjacent concrete bypass channel reduces the visible height to about five feet when viewed from the neighboring property. And then similarly for section G, the wall exceeds eight feet in height. However, the existing topography results in the visible height of less than six feet when viewed about 10 feet away from the property line. In contrast, the only two locations where the visible height does exceed a visual height of six feet are shown in sections B and F. In Section B, the increased height is only visible from within the interior of the site, so that would be the future homeowners. And we would make sure the future homeowners are aware of this. They'd obviously tour the property. It wouldn't be a surprise. And that would be a condition at the time of purchase that they'd be made aware of that. And then in Section F, this retaining wall is located on the north side of Basin C and Lot 17. And really, this is necessary to support that drainage basin and handle our stormwater control. And so this is the only location where the visual height exceeds six feet from off-site. Notably, this wall is adjacent to an agricultural field, and the nearest residence is over 600 feet. We also have variations of topography separating it, so visually we don't feel that would be an impact to off-site neighbors. And that's part of the findings from the staff report as well. And then lastly, as a part of that original project, we did have six oak trees that were identified as poor or very poor condition, and those were all approved for removal. Since then, we did have one oak tree fall, and so that's no longer included in the request. And then with the transition from an industrial and commercial site to a residential site, we took another look at the trees. As Darcy mentioned, tree number 13 is now recommended to be removed. Interestingly, if we were to keep, or excuse me, with number three, tree number three being died and fallen down, our actual mitigation ratio has gone down from what was previously approved, so we're actually mitigating less. But in terms of mitigation, we're required to mitigate for 34 oak trees, and we're actually proposing 37. So we're gonna exceed that requirement regardless. So in conclusion, we feel that this project is gonna bring some really great housing opportunities to the community. We're really excited about it and we feel that it's gonna promote a very efficient use of the land and be a well-designed development. And based on this, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to city council, including all requested modifications and direct staff to develop findings in support of the six-foot fence along Ardmore Road, consistent with the DRC recommendation, and to provide privacy for those future residents. Thank you. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Neal.

Ian, I'm looking at the... The Cutfield map. And it looks like the finish pad of the two units adjacent to Ardmore is 828-61. And then I'm looking at the street elevations and that's 826. So it's essentially two and a half feet above the road. So your three foot fence is actually five foot because of the elevation change, am I reading that correctly? It drops down almost a foot on the next one, the northern one.

Yeah, you know, and I remember we talked about this during DRC. We do have our civil engineer here, Mr. Tom Zender from Wallace Group. Tom, I don't know if you're available to touch on that. Thank you.

And I agree, three feet's a little low for a backyard fence, but

what's driving a lot of this is we're taking the undulating site and basically making it not perfectly level but level enough we get one percent drainage across the site so you have a combination of fencing and walls as you walk around the perimeter of the site so but yes you are correct as far as that height okay so there is a two foot or so grade difference between ardmore and the pad it varies throughout right yeah yeah what i recall too is that it was maybe just in

you know, select locations along it, but it wasn't along the entire frontage, yeah.

And I too would be concerned about letting my kids play in a backyard with a three-foot fence. So I would be interested in another fence. I don't know if I'd go to six-foot with that two-foot difference, but I think a different size fence is a better fence.

So that's it for me at this point.

Any other questions? Commissioner Kogler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was on DRC when this was reviewed, and I know we talk back and forth about this a lot, and to be candid with you, when I see the sketch on the screen, option two looks a lot better, but I know what's across the street. And I think accordingly with the direction of the DRC, it needs to be a taller fence to provide some screening there, not in a stockade kind of format, but some other thing that might work more appropriately for a residential neighborhood that was tongue-in-cheek. So I think perhaps what Commissioner Neal was alluding to, You know, maybe it's five feet, maybe it's six feet, but I think more height there is certainly appropriate. Thank you.

Anyone else? Commissioner Christensen.

I have a couple questions. The Ardmore connection that passes through, and this might be a better question for staff, is that a private, is that going to be a private improvement? And is it connecting to a public? Is it planned? circulation to a public connection the Ardmore extension will be a public road so we'll be public so be dedicated to the city then yes okay is that part of the phased project phasing and would we typically do that for a project of this size

So I believe that the Ardmore extension would be part of phase one, yes, and I might have Dante with engineering come up and answer the other part of your question if it's typical.

Yeah, and there's a piece online as well.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that. Oh, Leslie, you want to go?

Yes, I'm online as well. Good evening, commissioners. Leslie Frazier, city engineer. I can speak to Ardmore Way. Ardmore Way is actually part of our circulation element, and it is proposed as a future collector, so it would be required for them, for the project to construct.

Thank you, Leslie. Would there be a restriction on the size of vehicles on that road that the city would mandate?

No, there would be no restrictions. It would be typical for what we would require for the collector, and we would require a pavement section standard for one of our collector roads.

Okay. And in that mindset then, Leslie, since you're still there, would that also... Would that have been taken into consideration for traffic for the traffic count for example or the type of traffic count for that particular road extension through there so in other words not just the previous traffic count from 2022 but something more up to date

Yeah, from my understanding, this particular project was in line with the previously entitled project as far as traffic counts. It was consistent. And then I would also like to point out on Ardmore that the project is also providing curb bulb-out extensions for traffic calming, if there was any concern with the commission from that standpoint.

Well, I'm sorry, Leslie. What was that second half? It kind of echoes in here, so it's hard.

didn't catch that i just wanted to add i i don't know if the if your concern is more with um with speed of vehicles uh on the roadway and i just wanted to also offer i i believe as part of the project um at the at the intersection of ardmore that curb bulb out extensions will be provided for traffic calming

Did I catch traffic calming in that?

Yeah, she said there'll be curb extensions, ball bouts at the corners to narrow the street, an act of traffic calming.

Okay. So with that being said, I understand that the previous traffic study was done based on the use as C3 and the plan development for that. And you're saying that basically this... this type of change didn't quantify or didn't qualify enough to re-examine the type of use and the amount of traffic or use traffic for that particular area. Did I hear that correctly?

Yes, that is correct. We did send this project over to the city's traffic engineering consultants, and they did conclude that this project was consistent with the previously provided traffic study.

I think it's more of a question than a comment that I have for the next one, but I guess this would be one other question, and this is just out of curiosity. As part of the Bio 1 and 2, especially number 1, is the loss of Oak Tree 13, is that considered taken into account for that at that time?

no the environmental document um the 2024 environmental document separated out oak tree removals as uh to be under the local zoning code which we can you know the city council can approve oak tree removals and then of course we can add in protection for any trees to be retained on the site and so we carried forward that same procedural review of the revised project considering that they had one additional oak tree to be removed which was not in great health but you know with the residential project more of a concern so in this case the biological mitigation measures do not apply to oak trees as a resource because they are covered under the local zoning code as a with different protection measures with title 10 okay great that's that's good to know that's interesting I think

The other topics I have aren't necessarily questions, but I would say that I'll leave my other comments for the next comment.

Anyone else? Commissioner Covarrubias?

I think maybe more for Darcy. So with all of the modifications that are taking place, my understanding is this is an age-restricted, for sale, correct, townhome, no longer age-restricted? No longer. No longer, okay. With all the modifications then, was there any requirement to designate any of the units low income?

So there was not a requirement because we don't have inclusionary zoning in the city of Paso Robles, but there was an interest by the city and presented to city council to include some kind of affordability component. And so there was some back and forth very early on with city staff and the applicant team to figure out what could be done. And so as a result of those discussions, the applicant proposed The point can a similar point system to what the city of San Luis Obispo uses But we have a condition of approval that I worked with Ian on and the ownership team Essentially that they they will be providing the sum of sixty thousand dollars as a credit that can be used by the city for affordable housing uses, but we haven't really we don't have any special program so To where what it would be earmarked for because this is kind of a brand new concept but to answer your question We don't have any requirements, but there was a willingness by the applicant to come up with something that could be a trade-off for this project because they're getting the allocation of units, the mixed-use overlay. What else would be of good benefit for the community? So the $60,000 would be earmarked specifically for some affordability program when it comes to be, essentially.

I can appreciate the intent. It's just Without having it cemented specifically, I agree that we need the housing projects. We need them. I've lived here a long time. I love the growth. Personally, I have no problems with it. The challenge that we continuously have is affordability. Can people afford, locals afford to buy? And that's the challenge I'm seeing even in this project, because I would assume they're going to be market rate for sale. Townhomes, right? So probably nice, higher end. Where does the affordability concept ability come into play, especially for local? That's where I'm challenged a little bit.

Yeah. So as you mentioned, this is a market rate product. And so there was the concern that, you know, where can we get some affordable units? Because sometimes affordable by design doesn't end up being as affordable as we would all hope them to be. So this was something that was reviewed by the city council and blessed when we were considering the reservation of the units back in November of 2025. So what we came up with with this entitlement project was that this condition, which is in italics, this is being modeled after, I'm sorry, it's the county of San Luis Obispo's regional housing incentive program, not the city. So this is the condition that we've written to address the affordability concerns that the city has throughout the city and how this project can contribute to those concerns. So prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any residential unit within the project, the project applicant shall provide an affordable housing in lieu contribution in the one-time payment amount of $60,000 to the city of Paso Robles. The city may deposit the funds into any city-designated affordable housing or housing-related fund to be used to support the development, financing, or leveraging of income-restricted housing within the city. The obligation established by this condition shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the project applicant and also sexers and assigns. Payment of the contribution required by this condition shall satisfy the project's affordable housing contribution associated with this entitlement. That last sentence is really alluding to that this was something that was discussed by City Council and endorsed by City Council at the end of last year.

So I like the language. I do. I like the intent. My question is, where did the $60,000 number come from?

Good evening, Planning Commission. Thank you for having us. Yeah, my name is Michael Stolte. I'm the owner of MD3 Investments, co-owner in the development with CoVelop. I also happen to be the sitting president for the Home Builders Association. So where this came from was when the city requested some kind of affordable requirement, we kind of went to the drawing board with staff. At the time, we had actually, the HBA had just finished over a year's worth of work with the county of San Luis Obispo. The county of San Luis Obispo previously had had an in lieu program, right? So every time you build housing in the county of San Luis Obispo, you're required to set a certain percentage of your project as deed restricted affordable. The problem was, was that that was creating a lot of issues with the building community where projects were actually not able to get off the ground because of the affordability components of the project. So effectively we were trying to create affordable housing and instead we were actually limiting housing stock. And so everybody in the county went back to the drawing board and said how can we create some funds for these affordable home builders to be able to do affordable housing while at the same time not necessarily restricting housing stock being built. And so over a year of public comment and things like that the county had worked on this program. The ultimate result was This project is similar to what would happen in a county in the sense that what we're asking is for commercial property to be able to be made available for housing. In the county's affordable housing program that they approved unanimously on October 21st of this year, any builder in the county would have to essentially purchase two points of that program. The county had set those points at $30,000 each. What we basically did is said, hey, we will, rather than redesign an entire program and go through a full vetting process and the city of Paso Robles having to go through this process, why don't we piggyback off of the fact that the county of San Luis Obispo, who's very pro-affordable housing, just went through this entire process and just match it. Now, I do wanna say there was a lot of thought that went into that housing program. Something that folks don't know is that affordable builders operate very differently than market rate builders. So they have to go and essentially seek funding with the state for their projects. And any time that they can get local funds, it actually makes their process to be able to go get those tax dollars and those tax credit programs a lot more attractive and competitive if there's a local matching program. And so what the point of this is is They oftentimes, and this can be quoted, this was in all the county's research, is that for every dollar that they receive locally, they can actually get almost 9x that, up to 9x that in matching funds from the state and tax credit programs. So really the $60,000 that's given to the city in this case for affordable housing can be given to an affordable builder, and an affordable builder can go lever that with tax credits up to $540,000. So it's a way of using local funds without overburdening a market rate builder, while still providing affordable funds for deed-restricted housing, if that makes sense.

Yeah, that was a great explanation, actually. Simplified, very easy to understand. My question would be, just out of curiosity, so any projects like this, there's a point system

allocated and say it's 30 000 a point so most developments are contributing to that fund on a regular basis so in the county of san luis in the county of san luis's case it's optional right so it's supposed to be a carrot rather than a stick in our case it was requested by the city and so it was a form of us trying to work with the city on this initiative got it okay thank you for that explanation you're welcome appreciate it no other questions

Thank you. Commissioner Lorenz?

Just circling back to Commissioner Kogler's and Commissioner Neal's comment, the three-foot fence just seeming a little too low and lacking some privacy for those houses. So just a comment.

Commissioner Christensen?

Yeah, I did have a follow-up question. And it's just kind of a clarification, Darcy. So by... Without the MU, the project wouldn't be able to move forward as a multifamily is what we're saying.

Correct.

And then that would lead to the other actual overlays that they're asking for.

So really the mixed-use overlay and then the allocation of the surplus units. Those are top of the list the next overlay which is the special plan development overlay K is Creating those unique flexible unique zoning standards for townhomes because zero lot line development is not allowed otherwise without this unique overlay so if you kind of like work your way through the different actions, the mixed use and allocation, is absolutely essential for this to move forward because there otherwise is no residential by right.

Because it's zoned commercial service?

Because it is zoned, yes. It's C3, which is a commercial industrial zoning.

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Neal.

Marcy, I have a question for you. I do like this project, but I have a question regarding... the adjacent uses. And I suspect they're required to do this. But the disclosures for the purchase agreement, what happens if the homeowner is a little grumpy that Dave Spurr starts up his tractors at, I don't know, 5 o'clock to get them warmed up and load them up on a truck to get them to a job site? What is protecting... the existing uses from this new neighborhood?

Sure. That's a really good question. So there's a couple layers to that. So with this project, a noise assessment was prepared, an updated revised noise assessment than what was done with the older commercial industrial project. And because, so the mixed-use overlay and the mixed-use zoning, there is a different threshold than if this was R1 or R2. So there's a different noise threshold. So When the noise assessment was prepared, it was showing that this area, they did some measurements, that the ambient background noise was still within the allotted, what was allowed for, and I'm not gonna remember the number, but whatever it is for, it was meeting the outdoor requirements. And then you have the building code requirements that are gonna be even stricter for the indoor. So the study was showing that the project can meet the thresholds for noise now further we have a noise ordinance that limits activities generally 7 a.m to 7 p.m i think when you get to i want to say like five o'clock it drops a little bit and then at seven from seven o'clock at night it drops a little bit more um but so this this goes right to the heart of my concern we have an existing use that is functioning now with a different

set of hours and then the neighbors move in and now he's not allowed to start his equipment until 7 a.m and really impacting the way that they do their business we've seen it when agriculture or homes move next to agriculture that agriculture has to adjust the way that they're doing their business um My concern is that approving this, I like this project, approving this will impact the neighbors negatively across the street who have been there prior to this approval. So is there something that we can address some sort of disclosure stating that you're moving in next to an industrial complex and noise will happen? Or is it just it moves in and then the neighbors are going to have to adjust their businesses?

that the Planning Commission does have discretion on this issue if you want to require some sort of deed notification to future buyers that they're you know in proximity to an industrial zone I think you could definitely add that if you want if I might on that note Commissioner Neal all right if you're I don't want to interrupt you okay normally the disclosure process on a sale provides a

example the tds has that type of disclosure in there provided by the seller as i'm sure that they probably would but that is just a disclosure and so he's commissioner neil is bringing up one of the concerns that i have with this project is the location of it in regards to what we have approved surrounding this property and what most of that area entails is light industrial, C3, which, in my opinion, we're already running low on space in this town for available use on a smaller to mid-sized level scale for businesses and others. But the concern, back to the point, is that the future use of those spaces from those businesses that are there for expansion, continued use or upgraded permitted use for other aspects of the business or even the surrounding properties. I think disclosing that as one thing there's, as we well experienced, once a residential goes residential, it doesn't go back and residences, you know, people, as they move into homes, they have different expectations two years later. Um, And as to the noise study, one of the things I questioned was I didn't read in the noise study whether or not the safety center was actually considered into that noise study. She was only there for I think it was an hour and a half, maybe two hours. And so I didn't have time to really delve in and ask staff more questions. And I apologize because we just got this on Friday. So there was a lot. going on in that time. And it's a big project. It's a big change. So in my mind, I wish that we could have a little more time to digest some of these requests that are being made. That being said, That would be a question I would have. Is that something that normally a noise study would take into account? I know there were a lot of other explanations and variations on reasoning behind maybe why sound didn't carry. It was kind of foggy and cool and some of those things. But I didn't catch any other aspects outside the scope when it was being compared to the project that was approved in 2022. And there's a lot of change that's occurred and more development that's slated to occur. or in process or that's been approved. So that's a question I have. I know maybe the person for the noise study is not here and I probably wish that they were because I would have those questions.

I was going to see if the applicant can look and see when the updated noise assessment was prepared.

Sure.

With that being said, I will revisit. So on this map, you can see the yellow. This is representing that overlay F. And what it does with all those parcels within the yellow boundary, those are C3, including the subject site.

Correct.

and when any development comes forward it's required to get a development plan because it's got the pd overlay but then also that special overlay f requires a use permit so obviously there are some existing users out there that have a use permit if they wanted to intensify they would have to go in and amend their use permit which will then be compared to now a new res potentially a new residential project And then further to the east, you have some underdeveloped non-conforming sites that are at C3, but yet you have some residential. There's a hotel project slated for that. That'd be like the northern parcel. So as those develop to the east, could somebody come in and request something different other than a hotel? But in either case, they have the use permit to

make sure that it's consistent and compatible with adjacent residential uses and then so I'm sorry just to because you're going down that path I thought maybe Darcy had also mentioned I was here for the Cal Poly presentation and if I remember correctly they had two or three concepts that were proposed, and a good portion of that, if I remember, was the front portion loaded with commercial moving back into a multifamily type of development. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't remember exactly, but I remember vaguely that point. So again, back to the point of the allowed use now.

yeah um and i just wanted to note so the um the date of the updated noise assessment was january 29th of 2025 they were out there between 9 45 a.m and 11 30 a.m um and it does say that um fire station three it was noted northwest of the of the site so i can't remember exactly when they were fully operational and we have the new training center out there um not going to remember exactly what you know if all the equipment was there but um I feel like I may not have answered a question, if you could maybe... No, it's okay, and that's why I'll come back to that.

That's a good point, actually, that when I read the noise study, I know that they addressed that it's there. I know there's a planning commission, and the city has approved the new maintenance yard there, the new maintenance building, which I think is fabulous. The city truly needs that. That's so important. And so that's going to get even, in my opinion... that's expanding on what the proposed use was for the particular area. And I'm glad to see that. But I don't think that that, in my opinion, was taken into account in any way as to what's going to be there. And was there a training session during that time? I've been by there when they're doing some training sessions. It's pretty busy, pretty impacted, a lot of stuff going on. So those are just kind of my roundabout points on the noise study. I don't feel like that was, in my opinion, an adequate amount of time for all the things that happened for the timeframes we're talking about. I'll just end my comment there.

Thank you. Anyone else? I have a couple of questions. Did I understand correctly that you're going to allow parallel parking on Ardmore? And then you talked about it being a thoroughfare or an extension of a lot more use than perhaps is now. Is that going to, number one, infringe on the traffic, having the parallel parking? Is it wide enough to do that? And two, is if your parallel parking there Do I remember correctly, you don't have an entrance into the area from Ardmore. And if you're going to have parking there, where would people come into their homes?

yeah so we did um mimic the road section that was proposed as a part of the commercial and industrial project so the ardmore extension mimics what was previously approved parallel parking is proposed within that road section consistent with the city standards and then you're right we aren't taking any access directly from ardmore road art we are taking access from ardmore extension There wouldn't be any conflicts with turning movements into the subdivision. We do have those bulb outs for traffic calming measures, and then the parallel parking would be parked behind it.

I'm thinking more of pedestrian walking through after you've parked there, but you're not going to have a pedestrian entry on Ardmore?

Well, on Ardmore Extension, we do have pedestrian connections.

Oh, there is a pedestrian. Okay, I misunderstood.

Oh, yeah. We have sidewalks on both sides of the road, and then they both kind of lead to these internal pathways that connect throughout the site.

Okay.

Yeah.

I thought it was pretty well fenced all the way around.

No, no. Okay. Yeah, it'll be open. Exactly. Okay.

And the second I think is what a lot of people have brought up tonight is the fence. I was at the DRC, but I was in my corner chair. So I pulled up the minutes just to refresh my mind. Part of those minutes were more specifically the DRC raised concerns on fence height. and visibility along Ardmore Road and the need for clear fencing plan building orientation and pedestrian access. Why was that not brought back to us as part of everything?

yeah so tonight's presentation staff focused on the shorter fence with the understanding that the applicant was going to revisit their two options that they were their preference staff's position is still to maintain as part of the modification the appearance that this is still creating a pedestrian friendly orientation towards the street frontage which is required in the zoning code So their request to increase the fence height is different. And we didn't make findings to support it. So I think that's where we differ in staff's presentation versus the applicant's presentation.

OK. And when I look at this, this is the back of the house. And there's a small yard back there, which would be utilized by children playing or a dog or whatever. Having a three-foot fence, it not only having a higher buffer would reduce noise, increase safety, and privacy, because people can look right back into that house. Now, having the two feet elevation with a three foot fence doesn't mean that you can't walk up two feet and reach over. That's my concern about a three foot fence on a backyard. There's no, from what I can see there, unless I don't understand, there's no line-of-sight issue with having to have a shorter fence for driving or parking or anything like that. I think it should be a part of a condition of approval is to have a six-foot fence on that is my feeling on it as well. Yeah, I think just security wise and everything else. It just makes sense.

Yeah, I think on this issue, unfortunately, we didn't get this. We probably should have gone back to DRC to really get this wrapped up. Pardon? I think we should have gone back to DRC to resolve this fence issue. Really the concern, you know, this was the original concept that was presented. Staff was fine with that. Obviously, there was a concern raised at DRC about the security, that sort of thing. I think the concern with a six foot wood fence facing a collector street is those never hold up and never look good long term. So I think, you know, if we're going to do the six foot fence, it needs to be a more durable material than a wood fence. I think the idea with a three foot wood fence was it doesn't have that same, you know, appearance to this. to the public way as a six-foot fence. Usually, if we're up to a six-foot fence along a collector and a back wall situation, we switch to a masonry wall, which is more durable, holds up better, that sort of thing. I think if the commission wants the taller fence, we should probably make a recommendation to look at some alternate materials as part of the recommendation to council. I think we can work with the applicant maybe to come up with some different options. A six-foot wood fence along a collector is just never going to be a good look long-term.

And that might be true, but I know this and a few other projects on this site have been long in doing. Does it really have to go back to DRC for this to be a condition of approval tonight? No.

No, I think you recommend it on to council, but you could recommend staff and the applicant present council with some additional options on the six-foot fence material.

Okay. Okay, I have no other questions. I guess we'll move to—pardon? Go ahead, Commissioner.

So I understand the concern. Here's my logic on the fence. If the applicant is submitted at three feet— The buyer sees it at three feet. If the buyer is OK with it, we should be OK with it. If they have children, they're not going to buy that unit. If they're concerned about safety, they're not going to buy that unit. So if it was proposed at three feet and it's a better feel, better look from Ardmore, I mean, I can see both cases. I think we're beating our heads over something that is really a preference of a buyer. If the buyer wants it, the buyer will buy it. If the buyer's not interested in a three-foot fence, they'll go to a different unit. That's just my thought, just real quick. So I get where everybody's going with it. I just think this was addressed, maybe not appropriately. It sounds like we can put some language in there that maybe addresses it a little bit more, but I think my concern is I don't want to handcuff the builder on an issue like this where it If it's in compliance, so to speak, and it's a preference of a buyer, then I think it's in preference of the buyer. That's just my thought.

Well, let's get a clarification. Is it the preference of the buyer? Because when it came up at DRC, I think it was discussed that it was more comfortable as six foot, but I may be making that up.

Right, but I think that's for the developer. I think it's already addressed that. I mean, are you guys proposing a three foot?

So we originally wanted a six-foot fence, but working with staff, they recommended the three-foot. That's what we brought to DRC, and when DRC seemed supportive of six feet, we were excited about that, and that's ultimately what we would want to do.

Got it. So what is staff recommending?

A more durable material than a wood fence if it's six foot tall. So we'd recommend, you recommend to council a six foot fence, but ask staff and the applicant to work on a different material than just a wood fence. Okay. So that's the recommendation of staff.

Got it. Be comfortable with that. Okay. Thank you.

We have another question. Sorry, guys.

I have just another question, Darcy. Follow up. I apologize. There's just so much to this. One of the things I was hoping to get clarification to, it seemed that staffs on the amendment, the CEQA amendment, that the position was that no new MND was required basically because of the guidelines, that the subsequent documents only needed if there's a substantial project changes causing new significant effects. Is that kind of how I read it? I'm not saying verbatim, but...

Yes. Do you want me to elaborate? Mm-hmm.

Well, the reason I'm saying that is I feel like this is a substantial change. It's not just a, hey, we're going to go from a C3 down to a planned and we're going to change and add a little more retail in there. This is a significant change. in my view, so I wanted to get your thoughts on that and your assessment.

There are different categories that we're looking at in the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration and really in terms of the earth moving, the earth movement of grading activities that didn't result in any changes with regard to biological resources or cultural resources because we have those mitigation measures that we're going to carry forward. It didn't matter if you're grading it for a commercial for industrial building or for residential, we're gonna carry those forward. There are other categories that we're looking at the aesthetics of the project site. the mitigated the addendum to the mnd evaluated whether this project was going to result in a less superior project than the commercial industrial project so with the articulation of the buildings the different colors the the architectural style the uh fenestration the arc landscaping all those components um staff was able to conclude that sorry i have a friend up here as well that it does not result in any more substantial enough changes to reevaluate the project under a different environmental document. Although it is a change in use, visually it is probably more attractive than metal buildings for a commercial industrial site. So then there are other categories of course we looked at but I think that I would say that aesthetics would be a main category and then also the actual, once you start working on the site and digging it up for the drainage and the retaining walls and all those components that as we saw with the retaining wall height modifications that they're gonna be visually less not as highly visible. I can't recall exactly what the retaining wall heights that were needed for the prior project, but I'm sure that there was some cut and fill areas where it would have resulted in something similar. So I think all in all, what we're saying is this project is very close to the other in terms of development potential and what's needed to, you know, improvements in the ground and infrastructure, and then visually it's an improvement.

Thanks.

Any other questions? Public comment.

We do have a caller online, if there's no one in the room that wants to speak. Seeing no one is, yeah. Caller, please. Give me just one moment. Caller, go ahead and state your name.

Jeff Carr.

Sorry, one more time, trying to make sure we can hear you well.

Jeff Carr.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, hi. I've been on this line for a little while, and so I wasn't sure what you were going to be asking, and I was happy to hear that some of the questions that you've been asking are kind of where my mind was thinking when I saw this development. I mean, I've lived, I like the development itself. I've lived in places like this, even as a kid. Back in the 60s, even, when they were first being built in Orange County, we got into one. So they're great. Kids love them because you get a high density of children in one place. So you get lots of friends. But the problem I see with this, which has already been kind of touched on, is that if I look down the line 10, 20 years, I wonder, did you just build a residential island here that is going to get butted up against with all kinds of industrial problems? I mean, the area now is somewhat industrial there. And so when you have all the children in this little residential area, that's going to bring bicycles and I guess now e-bikes out into the street and pedestrians out into the street beyond this structure. And then they're going to have conflicts with trucks and traffic. Now, the Ardmore extension looks like it's wider than what's out there, but the Ardmore street itself is narrow. I go down there to the car show over at Woodland, and people try to park on both sides parallel, and then you honestly cannot get two cars can drive by each other. You get a lot of people stopping and letting one go first because it's pretty narrow. So I hope that when you look at this, maybe with your traffic studies or your noise studies, that you try to do a little bit of futuristic planning and see what would happen 10, 20 years from now and how it goes, whether you're going to be all industrial there and you're going to have this one island of residential. It's going to get kind of walled in as all these industrials have to build walls to protect against noise. So I almost hope maybe the planning department would have taken a step back and maybe look overall at the zoning in this area and maybe rethink the whole thing since you've let residential kind of jump in here. um so anyway i mean i appreciate the questions that were brought up already on this subject i think they were all on point um i'm with them on on those questions and um i just wanted to be here and express my concerns as well thank you very much thank you any more callers

No, no more callers.

Thank you. Let's close public comment. Do we have any discussion or comments by the commissioners? Let's start down at the end. Commissioner Coker? Commissioner Neal?

I have a question. If one were to make a... a recommendation, a motion, on the six-foot fence, where would that fit best?

That would be under Resolution D. That's the planned development.

The E?

D. D. As a dog.

Okay. And then if one were to be interested in crafting something about more disclosure or something... I don't know how to even say it, to make sure that the existing neighbors are not impacted significantly by this change in use. I would put that under both D and E. D and E. And then I'll just have to figure out what I want to say there.

Glad it's you. Commissioner Christensen.

Thank you, Chairperson Rudin. Some levity. I'm getting some feedback. Sorry. Okay. Can you hear me okay? I don't want to... So... in the short amount of time that I felt that we got a chance to review this and I'm not nothing on staff. It's just a very big project. It's a very big change in my mind to a well established, uh, C three zoned in light industrial area, which, uh, as I said before, I believe that there are areas in this town that probably would be do better for this type of transition, but we don't have a lot of, you know, I feel that we're very much losing the ability for various C3 locations for businesses to grow and expand. This is a conversion in a sense of employment commercial type use towards a residential use, which isn't bad in itself. I'm not against the residential use at all. In fact, I think I've been pretty pro-residential in most of my thoughts and the way this city has been developing. I think staff's done an amazing job with a lot of projects, which we have a lot of projects that are approved for residential that just aren't being built. at this time, and some of them are on hold for various reasons. The owners just haven't decided to move forward or they're back on the market and attempting to be sold, and I don't know that we're gonna see them come to fruition anytime soon. That being said, doesn't mean that this project wouldn't. I'm just saying, in my mind, I think we're There's a lot of issues for me that I haven't really been able to suss out. And as it sits, I would have a hard time voting for this project to move forward, primarily because I feel that we're doing gymnastic hurdles to make something that is a very good zoning currently to basically fit into this little box of space, which the general plan was originally conceptually designed for commercial and light industrial and c3 and we know that a lot of the development out there currently that's projected to happen uh in that area is commercial hence what was mentioned about the hotel right around the corner and we know that the property in front is zoned commercial as as we speak Now, this going residential, what tends to happen in that case is then it tends to go residential. And to my good Commissioner Neal's point, I get where he's coming from. He'd love to see something that would protect that But in the reality, we may not be here in three years as commissioners, or it may be a totally new commission group. And I don't know how you do that to protect the current usage that are there. For example, the caller mentioned woodland, if they wanted to expand or if they wanted to enhance their production there. Or when the city expands and grows their maintenance yard. Or if the spur property that has the yard next to it, if that needs expansion because our city is growing and those types of businesses provide those types of support and services to our city to grow and develop and build I think, for me, it's not a simple change. The question for us is whether this is an appropriate place to convert this commercially and take a designated employment-oriented site and turn it into housing. Now, I know there may be sites that are probably more attuned to that. we saw the senior housing in the albertson center which was brilliant in my mind i think that was fantastic especially since the walkability was so important to that project they don't have to go anywhere there's no new a lot of trips planned not a lot of cars coming in out that they have to worry about doing they could literally walk to the store and get their goods or across the street and get their goods. In this case, this is an isolated sub-development in the middle of mostly commercial use. And I know that the city has plans for the street going through and the connection process. I applaud that they're working on the circulation for that. But it's not really a walkable neighborhood. You're not going to really walk down the street. I wouldn't send my kid walking down Union Road to that turnout to go to Barney Schwartz Park. Eventually, probably there'd be a great access right through, and if North Chandler comes to fruition, which I really hope that it would, if we ever get to see that, that would be wonderful. I think that... without getting too deep in the woods or in the weeds on it from from what I've been looking at I feel that we're you know to me this is this is a project that I love the concept of it's a beautiful project there are some things that I'm not pleased with I think that three-foot fence is questionable and six-foot fence is questionable. I kind of wrote a note down, well, what about four-foot fencing, right? I mean, that's something you can come together on, or as Warren pointed out, it could be more of a different type of fence. It concerns me, too, that we're bundling so many things together to change these development standards as an exception to make this fit. It's where... And staff's doing a great job. I mean, they're just doing what the applicant's asked, and they're trying to work with the applicant to make it happen. But again, I feel that there's more at play here than just flipping the switch and saying, yeah, let's throw an MU overlay and make this a residential location. I'm not sure that's the right thing or the right plan for that area. And I think that the general concept originally was correct in what they were doing and keeping that consolidated in one area. I do have some issues also which I kind of wanted to suss out a little bit more but I don't want to run too long on some of the final phasing, the late stage phasing that's kind of contemplated that may come up later potentially going to get finished. And I think that all comes into play when we look at the fact that it is phased out. You know, what if they, after the first portion, they go bankrupt and the second one doesn't come to fruition? What are some of those, you know, those phasing issues that we should be looking at? I felt like that, you know, maybe that was discussed on DRC. I apologize. I wasn't part of that DRC. I probably would have asked some other questions on that as well. Not that the commissioners uh... mister on purpose i'm sure that they were looking at this with with open eyes i think i would have a proper i'm just gonna reiterate i have a problem voting for this and supporting this project and it's in its form primarily just because of the location and some other aspects to it i don't feel like some of the david the addendum to the to the the you know secret and This is a totally different project. Some of the reports, they gave it their best, so to speak, but for example, the noise, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that. I was out there today driving, and the traffic and pulling out on Union Road from both ends is hectic. So add another 150 units with probably two cars each, and what kind of new circulation does that throw in the mix? So those are my comments. I appreciate the applicant's effort, but I think that's where I'm at at this point. I'm having a hard time without really getting a chance to digest more. Maybe for me it would be deferring it so that I could sit down with staff more and really get an understanding of some of this, but I do think the highest hurdle that I'm having a difficult time with is the change, and essentially you're changing kind of a zoning. I know they're not calling it that, but they refer to it as a rezone because you need the MU to make this happen. So that's where I'm at, so I appreciate it.

Thank you. Commissioner Kovarubias?

Darcy, can you confirm something for me? If I'm looking at this right, to the, I would assume that would be what, to the east of the property? All the properties in that area are all zoned C3, yes? There appears to be a residential dwelling on the adjacent property?

Yeah, to the east within the yellow bounds is the C3, and then I'm not going to know exactly what that larger piece kind of covered up in the blue is off the top of my head, but then to the south and that portion to the east, that is the Chandler Ranch, the North Chandler Ranch, which is

don't have a specific plan for that at this time we don't have a specific plan okay so i'm just trying to look i'm looking on i just happen to map it again there looks there appears to be some type of residential property yes directly adjacent to this property so you have uh yeah you know what we would call non-conforming uses in a c3 zone we would anticipate that they would build to a higher more intensive use in the future right okay okay I just was looking for clarity. Thank you.

Commissioner Lorenz, do you have any questions? Seeing no more questions or comments, Commissioner Neal?

I would like to attempt six motions, please.

Do we need to take each one of those separately? Yeah. OK.

I'd like to move approval of draft resolution A, recommending The City Council approve an addendum to the 2024 MND.

I'll second.

Roll call.

Commissioner Neal. Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Kobler. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. No. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Chairperson Roden? Aye. Motion passes 5-1.

That's Resolution A. I would like to move Draft Resolution B, recommending the City Council approve an ordinance for RZN 25-03 regarding updates to the zoning code and zoning map.

I'll second that.

Roll call. Roll call.

Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? No. Chairperson Roden? Aye. Motion passes 5-1. That was Resolution B.

I would like to draft Resolution C. I'd like to move approval recommending City Council approve an allocation of 154 surplus density units to parcel 025-362-050. I'll second that. Roll call.

Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Christensen?

No.

Chairperson Roden?

Aye.

Motion passes 5-1. That's Resolution C.

I'd like to move approval of Resolution D, recommending the City Council approve Plan Development 25-14, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Modification of 26-04, including the addition of a condition to work with staff on a taller fence with more durable material, size to be worked out with staff, Applicant as well as working with staff to craft language to minimize impact on existing uses I'll second that roll call Commissioner Neal aye Commissioner Lorenz aye Commissioner Kovarubias aye Commissioner Kogler aye Commissioner Christensen no aye

Commissioner Roden. Aye. Motion passes 5-1.

I'd like to move approval of draft resolution A recommending city council approve vesting tentative map 3255 including language asking the staff to work with the applicant to craft language to minimize impact on existing uses.

Commissioner Neal, just confirmation. I believe you said resolution A.

It should be resolution E. Well, son of a gun.

That was resolution E. I'll second it.

Roll call.

Commissioner Neal. Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Lorenz.

Aye.

Commissioner Kogler. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. No. Commissioner Roden. Aye. Resolution E passes on a five to one vote.

And I'll try to get this one right. I move approval of draft resolution F recommending city council approve oak tree removal 25-09. I'll second that. Roll call.

Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? No. Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Roden? Aye. Motion passed. This is Resolution F, passes 5-1.

That's it for this item, correct?

This concludes this item.

Okay. Discussion items.

Chairperson Roden? Yes. I would like to motion to approve the consent calendar for the January 12th DRC committee meeting minutes, February 9th and February 23rd, along with the March 1st Planning Commission reorganization special meeting minutes.

Do I hear a second?

Chair, I will second that. I think we might have skipped over discussion items, unless I missed that there weren't any.

I took it there were none.

I don't have a problem taking this one right now, so I second the motion.

Keep moving it forward, sir.

I yield to the previous chair. Roll call.

Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Kogler. Aye. Commissioner Neal. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Roden? Aye. Motion passes 6-0.

Under other reports, Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee, is there any report?

No update. I think the Housing Constraints Committee met in February. We're kind of on a quarterly cycle. I wouldn't expect another meeting until probably late spring, early summer. Zoning code update. We are going to be coming back to the Planning Commission, I think, on your next meeting with some updated regulations for food trucks. So the food truck regulations were part of the zoning code update. We did have that workshop with the council and the ad hoc. There was some recommendations on some code cleanup items, so that will be on one of your next agendas.

Thank you. And now we've got the – I went to –

somewhere else here okay the development review committee rotation schedule does anybody have any issues with that so we actually do need someone to cover for Marlowe for the month of April we do have Neil and wrote in on there already so if you know anyone can let me know any of the dates that they can pick up for Marlowe for the month of April please

um do we need answers now or can they get a hold of you and try to work out you can definitely email me later i just want to make sure that's on everyone's radar everybody check their schedules i i can do it okay thank you very much planning commissioners comments anyone commissioner kogler uh madam chair

guess i'll say this it's not the role of a commissioner to dictate how staff conduct itself here or a consultant or anybody else but i would simply ask all of those parties to recognize that the acoustics in here are terrible and when we get a staff report coming in remotely we hear half the words and so if there's any way that there's a staff person present that could answer directly in the First person right before us, that'd be great. Otherwise, we'll struggle to hear. It gets even worse when the meeting goes on and we have athletics going on out of our left ears. So please keep that in mind. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one. Staff comments.

Yeah, thank you. Just a quick follow-up just on Commissioner Marlowe. He missed the meeting tonight. He has notified us he'll miss both meetings in April. So he does intend to be back in May on the Planning Commission. So we'll hopefully have Commissioner Roden available to fill in his chair in April. um just kind of an update on projects like i said we have the food truck item coming up also the general plan annual report is going to be coming up that'll have all our housing production numbers for the last year so i think that'll be of interest to everybody we're also looking at an annexation project as you may know the city owns the landfill the landfill is out by Whitley Gardens. So the landfill proper is already part of the city, even though it's not attached to the city, it's within the city limits. But the city owns 130 acres along the 46 frontage. Those were purchased as basically buffer parcels around the landfill. Those were never annexed to the city. So we're now moving forward with an annexation process. So those would be available for city permitting and development and protection of the landfill. So anyways, that's a kind of a big one, a kind of unique one. You'll be seeing that coming forward fairly soon. The landing project, the boys school project, we're continuing with the developer to try to get to final conditions of approval that everybody is in agreement on. We don't have a date yet in terms of when that's going to be scheduled for hearings. It's probably looking like sometime this summer at this point, but we're actively working on trying to get that on an agenda. So Don't be surprised when all of a sudden it's on the agenda. So remember, that ER is thick. You might want to start thumbing through it. And let's see, what else do we got? I think those are the big ones. So that will conclude staff's report.

Quick question, Warren. Do you have an update on the theater drive, that South Vine access, or what's happening with that?

The South Vine realignment that's part of that Gateway annexation. Right now, Public Works is planning to start construction on the bridge in May. We're still working out the final agreements. There is some public funding that needs to be arranged, which means a lot of stuff has to happen in April to hit that deadline. But that is the official plan right now, is to start in May.

Anything else?

That'll conclude staff's report.

OK. Well, I appreciate the heads up that I'm going to be chairing this for the next month. I need the practice, so.

You did a good job tonight.

I have help on every side, and I truly appreciate it. And I appreciate all of staff's hard work. Most of the time it goes without being said, and it needs to be said more often. Thank you. I will entertain a motion for adjournment.

So moved. I'll second. I'll second.

All right. All in favor?

Aye.

Let's go.