Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

How would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please? To the flag of the United States of America Vaness.

David Collins. Steven Berber. Lori Bennell. Okay, this time is open for public discussion. Uh, this time is provided to the public to address the planning commission on items that are not on the agenda. State law prohibits the commission from taking action on these items. Each person will be limited to no more than five minutes per discussion time and the total time allocated for this discussion shall not exceed 30 minutes. Anyone? Okay. Uh, approval of the minutes from the April meeting. We are having issues. There we go. Got it. Okay, we have three. Okay, this opens up our time for public discussion. The item at hand, the public hearing. is uh the request is an application pro uh to approve a tenative parcel map on the subdivision approximately 19.23 acres located at 1749 North Jacktown Road within a mixeduse zoning district. The purpose of this subdivision is to separate the existing residential farmhouse from the operational Arman Orchard. Following the subdivision, parcel one will contain the existing

single family residence while parcel two will continue to be maintained as an almond. So we will have um initially we'll have um the I will announce the agenda item which there's only one which I just expressed. Uh the staff will provide a project description and a staff report recommendations. Each item will then be open for discussion with the commissioners followed by the chairman will open a public hearing. Those wishing to speak to come up and state their name and address. There will be an applicant testimony, proponent testimony with as well written testimony. uh opponent testimony as well as written testimony and applicant rebuttal at which time we will close the public meeting and the commission will discuss the item and there will be no further public testimony at which point the commission will act upon the item and after each item which is the only one I will inform the results. What's that? Oh, yes. Uh, oh, I got to go with So, you do have a right to a rebuttal. And oh, if I Okay, I'm sorry. Uh, if you agree or if you disagree with the decision of the commission, you have a right to appeal. Only persons who participate in the review process uh by written or oral testimony or by attending the public hearing may appeal. To reserve your appeal rights, be sure to print your name and address in the attendance back in the back of the hall. Make sure your appeal is sent to the planning

commission during regular business hours. Staff will assist you in making your appeal.

Ken, any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um yeah, uh you kind of went through the introduction of the uh project there. So the project site u in question tonight is located it's in the northeast uh portion of the city limits um on North Jacktown Road and it's surrounded by agricultural uses. Uh there's a couple maps um in the in your packet. One's a vicinity map. The other one is the actual tenative parcel map that's being proposed tonight. Um parcel one um is uh 1.74 acres which it contains the uh developed existing single family residence on that site and the partial two of the tenative map would be the 17.49 acres um which is developed as an ammon orchard right now. Uh the subdivision does comply with the u subdivision map act and meets all applicable development standards of our mixeduse zoning. as far as uh parcel sizes and and other standards. Uh given the rural nature or character of the area and the absence of any nearby public utilities or infrastructure on this site, it sits about um not quite a half mile off of Jack Road. Um the applicant will not be required to connect to city services or install any frontage improvements like curb, gutter, sidewalk at this time. Um these improvements will be required upon future development um of the individual parcels at a later date. We did circulate the project uh referral uh to all affected agencies that might have some concerns with the project and uh any comments or or concerns were incorporated into the staff report that's in front of you this evening. Um there's a list of required findings uh that's in the staff report and as well as the uh conditions of approval for the tenative subdivision map. And there is a recommendation staff recommendation um in the staff report as well. So at this time I'll turn it back

over to you, Mr. Chairman, and be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? No um plans for subdividing this. We're just doing a split.

Yeah, it's just splitting. Uh it's I probably mostly you might be able to ask the applicant here tonight. It might be for some estate planning, but they're just trying to split off the original um ranch house that's out there and separate the property at this point. Uh no development of either parcels um at this point. I said it's about a half half mile almost a half mile off of Jack Road. Um kind of set back in. Um, it's probably a ways out for development. Unless we get somebody really excited to start developing out there, we wouldn't see much for a while.

Any other questions?

Okay. Is there an applicant testimony? If you would like to come up and state your name and address, we would love to hear your questions and some questions as well. Jeff Grunigan 1749 North Chapton.

Yeah, Kim kind of alluded to it. We're just uh wanting to to separ separate the uh the dwelling from the um remaining parcel. So, uh believe it or not, we're getting older.

Yeah. and uh you know just for for ease of uh you know estate planning and so forth. So, uh, if you know, like for example, if we wanted to sell it to one of our children, we could sell the the home and not the the and at some point, being totally honest, if we wanted to to move, right, instead of having to sell the whole part, we could just sell the sell the sell the I have a question for you, Jeff. Is it uh based on where it's at, it's fairly close to the uh to the North Point specific plan. Is there any advantage to separating the parcels to become a part of what that plan is?

Honest, I don't even know what those plans are. So Ken hasn't shared those with me, but uh um

Thank you, John. Thanks. Is there any opponent to the testimony or another proponent to the testimony? Yeah, please come up. State your name and your address.

Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Westin. I um live at 23775 South Olive Avenue in Ripen, which is kind of outside the city. We I do have some interest in some property at 1570 North Jackone, which is kind of right close by the truck stops there. Um, thank you guys for taking public comments. Um, thank you for your service as commissioners on this planning commission. I um serve on a public agency also and I I understand that what you know, thank you for your service. I know I know it's a it's sometimes a thankless job, but somebody's got to do it. Um I I just have um just maybe a comment on approving a split like this that you know it's not consistent with what the county if he was out in the county per se out of the city limits. You're not going to get that split done for county zoning laws. They're not going to allow that. Um I I I completely understand why Jeff is doing it. I don't I don't blame him for wanting to do it, but I'm just saying that it's it's not consistent with county um standards. Um I understand the city has different different rules and what the county has to follow and I I I appreciate that. Um just you might be aware that what what you're doing is setting a precedent though. So, if you have some other acreage that is within the city limits that um is being farmed um that could possibly do the same thing. If you're okay with that opening that door to that that type of a situation, then that that's that's where where you're going to but it's where that's where it's headed anyway. So, um, other than that, um, you know, I I'm I'm not opposed to

the project or, you know, or the subdivision split. Um just uh just kind of just kind of want you to be aware that it is it it's something that uh it's not consistent with the other county rules, but uh you know and the county's doing some other approving some projects out in the unincorporated areas maybe on the farther up the road by Jack and Highway 120, which uh I don't agree with that either. It's like people kind of need to stay in your lane as far as what uh you know, we have hodgepodge developments going on. all over the county. It's It's I I don't think as a as a planning commission if you're your job is to kind of to create a a thoughtful process of of of development where you're not hodge podgeing and and jumping here and there. It's like it's there just kind of there's there's a reason for rules and consistency to those rules is probably um maybe wise. So that's that's all I have to say. Um, if there if you guys have any questions, I can I can answer any.

No, I appreciate the comment. Um, okay. The inconsistency is not something I was aware of. So, I appreciate, you know, you bringing that to our attention. I think you're not allowed in the county under 40 acres. you're not a you're you cannot create a non-conforming parcel which would be you know less than you know unless if you have more than 40 acres you can do a split but if it's under 40 acres you're not going to be able to do a you can't create a new parcel that so some and some of that has to do with the Williamson act requirements and some of it so anyway that's quick question so there's uh three parcels that are listed is ranchettes

to the west of of which? Yeah. West of the site and are you able to put that up? The west of the Van Grenigan parcel. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Which probably what would be the acreage of those properties? No idea. Less than two. Okay. I see the and some of it, you know, past history for back in the county there there there was stuff done years ago where they created those parcels which, you know, it's not it's not something that's allowable now. Got it. Thank you, sir. Right.

So, so I I also kind of have a question and kind of a comment to go along with that. So our our job as commissioners is not to at this point to change what the um the master plan or specific plan or special plan for the city is. Our job is to look at the findings and see whether or not this project conforms to the findings that our staff um has presented to us. Right. So, and I can appreciate what you're saying, you know, having been raised in the area and being a farm girl. And I get all that, right?

But we we are not tasked with saying, "Oh, because this doesn't go along with the county, therefore we can't do it." We are tasked with does this go along with what the city says we can do. And so, are the findings there that that allow us to make an approval? I mean, I hope that kind of helps. Yeah. a lot of and since you do serve on a on a commission you probably understand that know sometimes you just have to work within whatever the regulations are and whatever the but on the other side you are you're allowed to take your interpretation you don't always have to take staff's recommendation also yes

it's it's good to do your own homework not rely completely on staff but staff is very good right you're you're right and there and I know there is there was one time that I did not agree with the staff but yes you're right Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks for bringing that up.

Yeah. Thank you, Mike. Any opponents? I guess there's no applicant rebuttal necessary. Okay, we'll close the public meeting and we will further discuss the item commission. And do you see any um any issues with that difference between county and city and what is your perspective there?

Um well, we've done this a couple times. Obviously, there's been some other developments on the uh kind of the outskirts of of our town where it seems a little more rural in nature, but they are in city limits. um as you know, as long as they're complying with the standards of the zone that they're in, um typically we just hold them to the standards of that.

Um it it does it does meet uh minimum size requirements for our mixeduse zoning. Um we've done another one um on the south side of town over here where they split off a ranch house from a piece of property um an orchard and uh just for estate planning as well. and we made sure that that parcel was um going to be um meeting all the regulations of the of the zone

when it does fully develop in the future at some point. Um this is slated for future development. Um I don't know how soon or how fast it's been in city limits probably since I've been planning director and uh really there's nothing else been going on out there in that site. It's going to take a little bit of time and money and effort to get River Road punched uh west of Jack Tone and a lot of money and effort for that. So, right,

I don't I don't see this as kind of a growth inducing um for this area until that t until the time it's ready. And like I said, it does meet all the standards that we have in place. Um I know it's not what the county does. Um I appreciate that. Uh there's quite a few uh parcels that get built out in the county. When they do find these small ones, they they kind of wipe out um a land and start putting houses in in the middle of a land, but this thing already exists, right? It's a it's an old ranch house out there that's been out there for quite a while. So, we're not creating another um building site that's uh a twoacre site. And we obviously have an orchard. It's a different size there, but um yeah, so it does meet our standards in that sense.

Very good. Thank you. Appreciate you weighing in on that. Find it interesting too that there is a um very close to that is some land that the city owns and the um cemetery association owns. Yeah. Cemeter's an investment there. I'm not going to put a cemetery out there.

The cemeteries parlayed a couple properties before they got this one. So, they've they've bought properties and then sold them off for development and then um bought some other ones. So, they do own some property out there for potential future cemetery site at some point. Um and the city does own a good chunk of land for a future storm basin to serve those areas when they do develop. So, that's what the parcels are surrounding there. Um but, uh yeah. One of my thoughts just for the fellow commissioners as as we look at this is that I I do like the idea that we're going to protect um an area of ripen for future rippen growth because I'm very sensitive to what Mantika is doing and how close they're getting. So, it's kind of like, you know, this this is our town. Let's let's protect our town. Well, right. But I mean, just even even within our city limits, too.

So, times change, the seasons change, summer turns into fall. Ripons have been an agriculture community and our farmland has been held in families for a long time, but now we're starting to see the expansion and the growth that's mandated by this by the state. And it is the sphere of influence. How do young people hold on to their historical roots and homes if we don't allow a spread like this? Um, it's possible they may not be farmers, but sometimes being able to hold on to something that is in your history, in your tradition adds value to the family. So, I know it's difficult as we look at times changing, but um I don't see any reason that it's not compliant. Okay,

I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. I move that we approve the tenative parcel map BM25-77 for Jeffrey Van Grunan based on the findings and subject to the conditions of the staff report. Are we working? There we go.

Okay. The motion has been adopted. Uh four to zero. So the 1749 North Jackone roadmap parcel has been adopted and approved. Thank you. Okay. So, there is uh an appeal period for this agenda expires within 10 days from this date of the meeting at 5:00 pm. The appeal fee is $628. Any other questions? Oh, yes. Sorry, I skipped ahead. Any staff reports? Thanks, Ken.

Yeah. Uh so we do have some items that will be on the October agenda. So your um little hiatus is kind of over at this point for now, but um we will have another parcel map that's coming in front of the commission. Uh it's on Miljo Avenue or Miljo Road um over by Spring Creek. There'll be a parcel looking to split over there. Um we are going to be bringing an EV charging station ordinance in front of the commission. uh state law was passed that uh every jurisdiction has to have a uh EV charging station ordinance which streamlines uh charging stations to go on either developed or undeveloped lots in town. Um so we've been working on that ordinance. Uh I think it's kind of in review right now. So we should have that in front of you guys. And um also we'll be doing our annual development agreement review. Um bring that in front of the commission. And then we might have a actual EV charging station project that's going to be in front of the commission as well. We've been uh staff's been working on that. They're not very expedient in getting their drawings into us, but we'll see if that one will make that agenda. So, there'll be about three or four items at the October meeting.

All right. No other questions or comments? Thank you, Ken. This meeting is adjourned.