2026-09-23 - Urban Design Commission Meeting

02:05Wow.

02:07Okay, we're ready.

02:10Welcome to the September 23rd, 2026

02:12meeting of the Urban Design Commission.

02:15My name is Ashley Dixon and I'm the

02:16chair of the commission. When called on,

02:19applicants and speakers will come to the

02:20front podium to speak. Only one person

02:23at a time should come to the podium.

02:25Please do not approach the podium until

02:27it has been vacated by the previous

02:29speaker. Please speak into the

02:30microphone and identify yourself and

02:32provide your address for the record when

02:34you begin speaking. Address your

02:36comments, questions, and testimony to

02:38the commission. Please limit your

02:40comments to three minutes. It is

02:42unnecessary to repeat testimony

02:44previously given by others. Citizens may

02:47address the commission on agenda items

02:49by responding to the chair's call for

02:50speakers during discussion on each item

02:53and signing the speaker's log at the

02:55podium. All comments must be relevant to

02:58the item. The chair or presiding officer

03:00may in his or her discretion prohibit a

03:03person from addressing the committee and

03:05or remove that person from the council

03:07chambers if that person commits any

03:09disorderly or disruptive behavior.

03:12Please see the agenda for more

03:13information about these requirements. If

03:15you parked in the Sheridan Walker

03:17parking garage north of John Rick's

03:18Elementary School or the Arts District

03:21parking garage immediately south of City

03:23Hall, staff can provide a parking

03:25validation ticket for you. The agenda

03:27and documents are located on

03:29okc.primeggov.com.

03:32You would then select the urban design

03:34commission meeting. Then click on an

03:36agenda item and the relevant documents

03:38will come up below the item. Please see

03:40the agenda for additional information

03:42regarding meeting procedures and the

03:44review process. Keithley, please call

03:47role.

03:50>> Present.

03:51>> Howard present.

03:54Appeton

03:55>> present. Black present. Cal

03:59>> present.

04:01Dolly

04:02>> present.

04:03>> Uh Heisel

04:05>> Payne

04:06>> present.

04:07>> Watts

04:08>> present.

04:08>> Thank you. Cor.

04:10>> Thank you. Okay. We officially call this

04:13meeting to order. We're going to start

04:14with item number two, approval of

04:16minutes.

04:18So I have a motion.

04:19>> I move to approve the minutes. Okay.

04:38All right, minutes have been approved.

04:40Uh, item number three, cases withdrawn.

04:43We have none. Item number four,

04:45continuences. We have none. Uh, item

04:48number five, we have one item on our

04:49consent docket.

04:50>> And I'm going to recuse myself.

04:52>> Thank you.

04:56Are there any questions about uh the

04:58consent docket item number five?

05:03>> So for those of you who are new um if

05:06you want to discuss an item on consent

05:08docket, you would pull it for discussion

05:10and then we would treat it just like a

05:12normal item on the agenda. However, if

05:14there is no one that wants to discuss

05:17it, then we would be looking for a

05:20motion to approve the consent docket.

05:24And so, if there is no discuss Thank

05:25you, Laura. If there is no discussion, I

05:28am looking for a motion to approve the

05:29consent docket.

05:32>> Motion to approve the consent docket.

05:35>> Thank you. You have a second.

05:39>> Okay. So, I think Scott made the motion.

05:42Yes.

05:44Okay, gotcha. And the second was

05:48>> Kelsey.

06:00All right, consent docket passes. Okay,

06:03there we go.

06:04All right, item number six, cases for

06:06individual consideration. We have none.

06:09We're going to move right along to item

06:10number seven, other business. Laura,

06:14let me

06:17I lost my monitor, so

06:31Laura Griggs Planning Department. Um,

06:34this item is

06:36uh what I refer to as a straight

06:38resoning. So, it has PC in front of it.

06:41It's not a special resoning. It's going

06:43to just a straight zoning district. And

06:46you all are looking at this to make a

06:48recommendation to the planning

06:49commission. And it just so happens that

06:52meeting is tomorrow. So this is a pretty

06:54fast turnaround. And then from there,

06:56items from the planning commission go to

06:57city council.

06:59Um

07:03so this is the structure um that was

07:05originally built as a duplex and at some

07:08point in history was converted to a

07:10house.

07:12and they're wanting to convert it back

07:14to a duplex.

07:16There's no outward sign on the structure

07:18at all that it's a duplex. If I remember

07:20correctly, and you can correct me if I'm

07:22wrong, you walk in the front door and

07:25that's where you actually have the two

07:26doors that go to the two different

07:27units. Yes. Okay, good. Um, so even with

07:32this resoning, if it's approved, there

07:33will be no outward signs that it is a

07:36duplex.

07:37Um, this is across the street from

07:41Westwood Elementary School if you're

07:42familiar with that that area off

07:44Exchange. Uh, and it's full of single

07:48family homes. Um, there are one and

07:50twotory homes.

07:52This is the structure adjacent

07:56uh to the west. I get turned around

07:58because the street here is at an angle.

08:01Um, and then this is on the other side

08:03of that house. Um,

08:06I can go back.

08:10So in looking at this um I've included

08:12the section um 59-4250.5H

08:18which is what gives this commission the

08:20authority to review um applications for

08:23other bodies and making make a

08:25recommendation.

08:27There were no issues when staff looked

08:29at this. The proposed use is allowed. um

08:32if it if they were going to build a new

08:34duplex, it would have to come for a

08:36certificate of approval. If they were

08:38just going to build a new home, single

08:40family homes are exempt from having to

08:42get a certificate of approval. Um so in

08:45this case all the work they're doing is

08:47on the inside and we had no issues with

08:50this and we are um recommending um that

08:54the resoning is consistent with the

08:55existing and appropriate use of the

08:57property and is compatible with the

08:59existing development in the surrounding

09:00area. It's going to remain in SROD.

09:04Any development redevelopment would be

09:05required to conform with the development

09:07regulations and guidelines of SROD

09:10zoning ordinance. And as I said, they

09:13would have to get a CA if they're going

09:14to do anything on the outside of the

09:15house or the site. And staff is

09:17recommending that you provide a

09:19recommendation of approval. Um, the

09:22applicant is here if you have any

09:23questions for him.

09:25>> Yes. Can we have the applicant come up,

09:27please?

09:28>> And do you have any questions for staff

09:29while he's walking up?

09:32No. Okay. And if you would just put your

09:34name on that on that list there. Thank

09:36you so much. And then identify yourself.

09:54Hello.

09:55>> Okay.

09:55>> Yeah, we can hear you.

09:56>> Hi. Um, sorry if I'm a little nervous.

09:58It's my first time here. Um, so my name

10:01is Jason Herertado. My address is 600

10:04Colulbertton Drive, Oklahoma City,

10:06Oklahoma. Um, I'm here to answer any

10:09questions that you have.

10:11>> Jason, do you live in this area?

10:14>> I used to. I used to live in this home.

10:17>> Okay.

10:19>> Gorgeous. What's the driveway situation

10:23like? So, it's it hasn't been changed

10:25since it was a duplex. Uh, initially the

10:29driveway, nothing has changed with the

10:31parking.

10:32>> No,

10:32>> it looks like Yeah. No, I mean, as you

10:34can see, there's a fence and the

10:35driveway goes to the fence and it's

10:37behind the fence. It's paved. Um,

10:40there's a lot of room for parking.

10:43>> Yeah.

10:43>> Both in front of the outside the fence

10:45and inside the fence.

10:48>> Oh, it's gorgeous. Does anyone have

10:50questions for Jason?

10:53>> Is anyone signed up to speak on this

10:55item?

10:58>> So, I think we can entertain a motion if

11:00someone wants to put forth a motion. I'd

11:02like to move

11:04>> okay

11:04>> provide a re I move to provide a re

11:06recommendation of approval to the

11:08planning commission on the basis that

11:09the project complies with the scenic

11:10river overlay design district zoning

11:12ordinance as referenced in section C of

11:14the staff report.

11:16>> Thank you. Do we have a second?

11:18>> A second.

11:20>> Oh,

11:22okay.

11:24You guys are going to have to be faster

11:26than that. Everybody's wanting to make

11:28motions. That's fabulous.

11:34All right, item carries. Thank you,

11:36Jason.

11:36>> Okay, so this will go uh recommendation

11:38of approval to planning commission for

11:40their meeting tomorrow. Okay, 1:30 in

11:42this room. Okay.

11:44>> Okay. Item number 7B,

11:48Spud 01858,

11:50Miss Laura.

11:53>> Okay, let I'm just gonna

11:57There we go.

11:59So, this is also another item where

12:01you're making a recommendation to the

12:02planning commission um for their meeting

12:05tomorrow afternoon. This is a different

12:07type of zoning. It's a specialized

12:09zoning u it's called a spud, simplified

12:12plan unit development, and it's where it

12:15you customize it. Uses, setbacks,

12:17height, the gambit of things. Um so,

12:22this particular property is um on South

12:25May.

12:27It is um at the corner of Southwest 11th

12:30and South May.

12:34And so there I will I want to talk about

12:37the fence like there is a fence all the

12:39way around it a 10-ft tall metal fence

12:40right now. Um and so this is the south

12:44end of that property.

12:47And then this is the north end. And so

12:49you see the red line, hopefully you can

12:51see the red line I put on there. And

12:52that's approximately the northern extent

12:55of this. North of that is the PUD

13:00that is also operated by this same

13:03property owner but is not part of this

13:05spud application. And I'll be talking

13:07about that PUD as well.

13:11And so I, as I normally do, I look up

13:14and down the roads that are around it.

13:16Um Whoops.

13:18So that's looking north up May and then

13:22that's looking south down 11th Street

13:26and you'll get used to that truck and

13:28when you see that truck you know that's

13:30Laura and she's out there taking

13:31pictures. So but I will tell you that I

13:34actually had a traffic jam with a bunch

13:37of geese when I was out here taking

13:38picture and I didn't I had to like drive

13:42off the pavement into the grass to get

13:44around them. So it's kind of a quaint

13:46area. Um, and then this is the

13:51southwestern corner of the property

13:55that's wrapping around that tree there.

13:58And I'm looking south and where you see

14:02the fence in the background, that is the

14:05the spud.

14:09And so this is adjacent to the west side

14:12of the property on 11th Street. Single

14:14family home. There's actually two of

14:16them that are there side by side.

14:19And this is across the street um across

14:22Southwest 11th.

14:26And then this is across also Southwest

14:2811th on the corner. And it looked to me

14:30to be a vacant building. I don't think

14:32there was a business operating currently

14:34out of it.

14:38And then this is from the opposite

14:40corner, the northern part of the

14:43business that already has the PUD.

14:47And then this is looking to the east

14:49over at Stockyard City, which is an

14:51unincorporated Oklahoma County.

14:56And we'll get back to that one in a

14:57minute.

15:02Um

15:04so

15:06this particular um property is zoned R1

15:09currently

15:11and the applicant um in their

15:15information that they provided has

15:17indicated that they are non-conforming

15:20and have been operating um scrap

15:24operations at this site I believe since

15:261954.

15:29Um,

15:32two of the lots that are included in the

15:34Spud,

15:36uh, I believe used to have a house on

15:37them and they bought it in 2014, which

15:40is the westernmost two lots,

15:43uh, which are got approval for the fence

15:49and the fence itself.

15:52In 2015, there was a storm that damaged

15:55the fence that they had up at the time,

15:58and they came in to replace it.

16:01And their fence does it exceeds the

16:04height, which is 8 feet in a side or a

16:07rear yard. It exceeds the height and

16:10style of a front yard fence because that

16:13maximum is four foot. It has to be an

16:15open type fence.

16:17and it does not meet the

16:20separation from an intersection.

16:23Um, unfortunately in 2015 when they

16:25submitted their board of adjustment

16:27application, it was not forwarded. I was

16:29here at the time. It was not forwarded

16:30to me. So, it did not go to Riverfront

16:32for a recommendation and it got approved

16:34by the board of adjustment and they

16:37constructed what they had been approved

16:38to do, which was a 10-ft tall fence,

16:41which is around the entire site.

16:44Um,

16:45so as you could tell from my pictures, I

16:47don't have any pictures from the inside

16:49of the site. Normally I could give you a

16:52better uh picture of that, but um so you

16:56can you can get a feel for what that

16:58fence does to the site.

17:01Um

17:03their request their request is for scrap

17:06operations and automotive automotive and

17:09equipment storage. Both of those uses

17:12are specifically prohibited in Scenic

17:14River.

17:19In the staff report, I discussed several

17:23items. Their original application

17:25requested that this site be removed from

17:27SROD.

17:29Um, and

17:32I have guidelines and different

17:35information from chapter 59, the

17:38subdivision and zoning rigs. uh

17:41including appropriate use of puts and

17:43spuds.

17:44And in that section, it talks about

17:48allowing flexibility,

17:50but that when a property is in a design

17:52district, you shouldn't use the putter

17:54spud to remove it from the design

17:55district and get out of their

17:56requirements.

17:59We have been discussing uh

18:03removal of some of the properties that

18:05are further away from the river and we

18:08had one

18:10which was on 24th

18:12in Portland 22nd in Portland and that

18:16one was so far away from the river you

18:17couldn't see it and it was at the out

18:19exterior the southern extent and so that

18:21one did get removed but 99% of the time

18:25staff is not supportive of removing

18:28property from SROD.

18:30Um, [clears throat] so we believe that

18:33removal of this parcel from SROD will

18:35have a detrimental impact on the

18:37surrounding area by eroding controls

18:39that are intended to benefit the

18:40aesthetics and stability of this area.

18:43In addition, staff believes that removal

18:45of this parcel from SROD is inconsistent

18:48with the intended use of the spud as I

18:50stated um that is part of the municipal

18:53code. we don't support removing it from

18:56SROD.

18:58Um they are proposing to control the

19:00uses of the district with I3 heavy

19:02industrial uses

19:05and I list u specifically those two uses

19:09that I previously referenced scrap

19:11operations and automotive and equipment

19:12storage as being prohibited. Um actually

19:15most I3 uses are prohibited in SROD.

19:19um you have to go all the way down to I1

19:22where some of those are actually

19:24allowed.

19:26Um and so I have included in the staff

19:28report several guidelines purpose and

19:32intent statements um for SROD

19:37and staff is concerned about the impact

19:39of this request on the existing

19:41established residential development in

19:43the area. Introducing and or expanding

19:46I3 uses specifically CL scrap operations

19:49and autom automotive and equipment

19:51storage could result in negative

19:52impacts. Um, the applicant called me

19:56after they got the staff report,

19:59actually, I'm sorry, sent me an email

20:01and was concerned because of this

20:04statement

20:06uh because they wanted to make sure that

20:09you knew that this operation is already

20:10ongoing.

20:12Um, they consider themselves

20:14non-conforming

20:15and as I said, has it's been ongoing

20:17since 1954.

20:20um

20:21when

20:23my job I don't look at non-conformities.

20:25I'm looking at what does SROD say. And

20:28so that is why I'm basing my comments on

20:30this. Um,

20:32so PUD 519 is um on the north side of

20:37this property and it was approved back

20:41in 1995

20:44and it was resoneed from R1 and I3 to

20:48PUD 519. At that time they were

20:51enlarging

20:53from the I3 portion and they wanted to

20:56go and expand into the R1 portion. Um

21:00they had several uses and I've listed

21:02them in here and I've indicated which

21:04ones are not allowed in SROD.

21:06Um so SROD was established in 2007

21:12and it specifically states any

21:14pre-existing puds

21:16and by default spuds are exempt from the

21:20regulations and guidelines of SROD.

21:23So PUD 519 does not have to conform to

21:26any of SROD's regulations or guidelines.

21:30And there's a lot of older puds and

21:31spuds throughout the seven mile wide

21:35design district that are exempt. Um so

21:39this it's not a unique situation.

21:42The city's been using PUDS for quite a

21:44while um as a reszoning option.

21:50So staff is concerned about the impact

21:52of this request as I said on the

21:53existing established residential

21:55development in the area. Um especially

21:58when I see houses right next door. Um

22:01but the houses are probably glad that

22:03there unfortunately a 10-ft metal fence

22:06next to them. So um

22:09there are there is some confusion I'm

22:11sure in my in my presentation and in my

22:13staff report. You might have questions

22:15for me. Um they are here with

22:20uh so I don't think we've had a YouTube

22:22presentation submitted for one of our

22:24applications. So that's a new one on us.

22:27Um and then they also have some

22:29additional information they submitted

22:31which they have hard copies of too. Um

22:34but do you have questions for me? So the

22:39current site, the site in question is

22:43not currently part of the adjacent spud.

22:47>> The adjacent pud? No,

22:49>> it's not.

22:49>> It's zoned what? The current

22:51>> It's zoned R1.

22:53>> R1. Okay. So in the past from a

22:56precedent standpoint when we've had

22:59existing non-conforming

23:02um sites

23:04we

23:06did not allow that nonconformance

23:09to grow to increase if they wanted to

23:14operate under their current

23:15non-conformance. We we had no issue. We

23:18did not have a um we could not take

23:21exception. we could not make a comment,

23:24but if there was a quest, a request to

23:26grow a nonconformance,

23:28that was always met from a commission

23:32standpoint, not necessarily UDC, but SOD

23:36as denied.

23:39>> And I would have to agree with that. I

23:41did ask some clarification this

23:43afternoon because I wasn't sure.

23:46The whole reason they're doing this is

23:48because they're trying to build a new

23:49building, which is the footprint is

23:51shown on the drawings. And so I ask

23:54subdivision and zoning. When you have a

23:57site that's open to the air and they

24:00have containers and they have shelving

24:01and they have all of this the parts,

24:04is it increasing the nonconformity by

24:07building a building? And the answer is

24:08yes. So they are unable to get a

24:11building permit to build the building

24:14>> unless

24:15>> unless they resone it. within and then

24:17we're increasing the nonconformity.

24:20>> So whenever we had those issues

24:22initially like the really early ones in

24:25SROD whenever people were pulling their

24:29land out of the district there was a

24:32desire to actually codify it. You're

24:34saying that all we did was make

24:36recommendations.

24:37Now, is there language that specifically

24:40says you cannot pull the the um

24:46requirements of the district out

24:50u when you go into a pe you still have

24:52to comply and become before the body? Is

24:54that actually

24:55>> well rule?

24:57>> It is discussion

24:59and it's an option

25:02that people have to try to pursue. It's

25:04also an option staff does not

25:07>> support the majority of the time

25:10>> and in the past

25:13not 100% but in the past generally it

25:17has been met with we do not encourage or

25:23uh make a recommendation ever to pull a

25:27property out of the requirements of the

25:30district. in general terms.

25:33>> I would have to agree with that.

25:35>> Okay. I that answers my question.

25:38Um just to add to that, so the the

25:42section from the municipal code that

25:43addresses this says um

25:48reszoning to a pud or spud within a

25:50special design district or design

25:52overlay district may be appropriate in

25:54cases where a use or a mix of uses

25:56within the design district is prohibited

25:58but may be appropriate to a specific

25:59site. Where reasonzoning is proposed

26:02within a special design district or

26:03design overlay district. The putter spud

26:05should incorporate the development

26:07regulations and guidelines of the design

26:09district and be subject to the design

26:11review process for the design district.

26:14So the section of the municipal code

26:16that lays out the parameters for how and

26:18when and where we use puds and buds

26:21pretty specifically says they should not

26:23be used to remove the design review um

26:27district or process from the property.

26:32>> And that's code.

26:33>> Yes. So, it's not for us to reinterpret

26:37code here. This isn't a gray area. It is

26:40something that if it is code, we should

26:45make a recommendation that aligns with

26:47it.

26:49>> I would say yes or or should identify,

26:52you know, a justification for why you're

26:54you're not um aligning with code. Uh, as

26:58Laura mentioned, we've had a few

26:59properties that are on the edges of the

27:01design district and that are so far away

27:04from the river. Um, we've supported

27:08moving that boundary as those properties

27:10have asked to come out. But when a

27:12property is, you know, within the core

27:14of the district, is in close proximity

27:16to the river, we haven't been supportive

27:18of that.

27:20>> Question. If there's a recommendation

27:21for denial, what's their next step?

27:23>> They, it still goes to planning

27:24commission. Planning Commission can also

27:26recommend denial and it'll still go to

27:28city council and then city council

27:30ultimately makes the decision

27:31>> or planning commission can make a

27:33recommendation of approval.

27:35>> Right.

27:35>> I mean it's it's everybody's

27:39option to vote whatever way they feel is

27:44appropriate.

27:45>> In this case, we are just a recommending

27:47body.

27:48>> Correct.

27:50Laura, you mentioned that, you know,

27:53obviously this this neighborhood that

27:55surrounds this property is in

28:00a certain place in their life cycle, but

28:03you mentioned there's a development

28:04that's happening close to this space.

28:08>> Talk about that. I can't.

28:16Um,

28:20so

28:22most of you won't remember this, but we

28:23had a Spud come in for a glamping site.

28:26Scott's going to remember that one. Um,

28:28and the glamping site was

28:32up here.

28:35Okay. So you can see its proximity to

28:37this subject site which is here. So the

28:40glamping site didn't happen and it got

28:42reszoned within the last few years to

28:45tiny house development which um went

28:49before river. They haven't started on

28:51that one yet. We're very hopeful. Um

28:53it's going to take up about half of that

28:55block. Um this is an older neighborhood.

29:00There's a lot of different reasonzonings

29:01in this neighborhood.

29:04Um there was a particular individual

29:06that was buying up a lot of the

29:07property, but he has since died. And so

29:09now all that property is throughout the

29:12neighborhood is for sale. Um and so I'm

29:15getting a lot of calls from people on,

29:16you know, what they can do in here. So

29:19there are houses with people that have

29:21lived there for a long time. There's

29:23probably a lot of rentous in here. Um we

29:27have a spud down here. Scott probably

29:30remembers where we had that stone yard

29:33with the billboard which is all down

29:36here right next to I44 and that was

29:38several years ago. Um

29:42and

29:44then you as you can see there's also

29:46vacant land, but the tiny home is

29:49probably the most recent one that we've

29:51had come in in that neighborhood

29:53>> and to the east is unincorporated land,

29:56right? Or county level

29:57>> over here. Okay.

29:58>> Yeah. AC across uh May to the east is

30:02unincorporated Oklahoma County which is

30:04Stockyard City.

30:05>> Got it.

30:06>> And so none of this across the street

30:09has to meet any of this any of Oklahoma

30:12City's criteria.

30:16>> Anyone else have questions before we

30:18hear the presentation? Do you want to

30:19play the video or would we like to

30:22>> That's part of their presentation.

30:23>> That's part of the presentation. Okay.

30:24>> Yes. So, let me

30:27>> Sorry, I have one quick question. Oh,

30:28yeah. Yeah. Sorry. So, along May, I'm

30:31looking at this map. It looks like

30:32there's already a lot of I2 I3 zoning

30:36along there. How does that how

30:38>> there is that that all pre-existed there

30:40is a lot of auto salvage uses. If you

30:42drive down there

30:43>> and you keep going south, there's more.

30:48>> And that was taken into consideration

30:49with the staff's recommendation. I guess

30:52that that there's a lot of existing uses

30:55>> there. Well, there's there's a lot of

30:56industrial uses uses that would not be

30:59allowed

30:59>> today

31:00>> today because of Scenic River.

31:02>> Um, so let me get him to where he needs

31:06to.

31:08>> I need to go back to here

31:11>> and hit here. Okay. Do you want to start

31:13with the video or do you want to talk?

31:16>> Okay. And so all you Yeah. Oh. Oh,

31:19that's right. I'm going to hand these

31:20out.

31:21>> And so all you would do when you want to

31:22play it is just click.

31:24>> Yes, ma'am.

31:25>> And if you want to stop it, you can, you

31:28know, hit the thing down here to stop

31:30it.

31:31>> And then to get to the get to these,

31:33>> you just scroll.

31:34>> Roll the thing.

31:35>> Easy enough.

31:36>> Okay.

31:36>> Thank you so much.

31:37>> So identify yourself.

31:38>> Thank you.

31:39>> Hello, commissioners. My name is Ali

31:41Mazrui. I'm a representative today of BP

31:43Real Estate. Uh I'm here to speak to you

31:45about Spud 1858 and give you some

31:47clarification on what we're actually

31:49trying to accomplish here today. Uh

31:52before I speak too much, we've actually

31:54created a video presentation to really

31:56make sure that we uh give you the proper

31:59identity of what we're trying to do

32:01here. So I'm going to begin with that

32:02and I'm happy to answer any and all

32:04questions afterwards.

32:11Hi, I wanted to welcome you to Best

32:14Price Auto Salvage located at

32:24>> We were experimenting, but

32:28>> Hi, I wanted to welcome you to Best

32:30Price Auto Salvage located at 11:09

32:33South May Avenue in Oklahoma City.

32:37I know you've already seen our spud

32:38application, but on paper it only tells

32:41you so much. So, we made this video so

32:44you can hear it directly from us and get

32:46a clearer picture of what we're asking

32:48for.

32:51Here's an explanation of the current

32:53zoning status of this property.

32:56This is one fenced in salvage yard, but

32:59the zoning underneath it is split.

33:03One side of this facility is already a

33:05plan unit development that includes the

33:07salvage use. The proposed Spud lots 41

33:11through 48 are currently zoned R1

33:14residential and have been operating

33:16under a nonconforming salvage use since

33:191954,

33:22long before the scenic river overlay

33:24design district existed.

33:26Same fence, same operation, same

33:30everything. The separation just runs

33:33right through the middle of the yard.

33:35We're asking to make the two halves

33:37match.

33:39And the reason is one building.

33:41This is the fence 10 ft galvanized

33:46approved by the board of adjustments

33:47back in 2015.

33:50It's built and not a part of this

33:52request.

33:54This is how we keep the place clean,

33:57organized, everything in rows. Nothing

34:00is dismantled here. This is storage.

34:04And this right here is where the

34:07building goes. Interior of the yard

34:10inside the fence about 50 ft from May

34:13Avenue and a/4 mile south of the river.

34:17It's the furthest and least visible spot

34:20from the river on the whole property.

34:23And that's why we picked it.

34:27This is the proposed building.

34:30100 ft by 80 ft. Single slope roof,

34:34pre-engineered steel

34:37finished to match the same galvanized

34:39material already on the fence. So,

34:43there's no new color and nothing

34:45sticking out.

34:47No signage on it, no exterior lighting

34:50to draw the eye either.

34:52This building conceals whatever

34:54operation sits behind that fence. And

34:57that's a benefit to the city, no matter

34:59who's running this yard.

35:02We'd like to give you a better

35:03understanding of exactly what we do

35:04here.

35:06We do not dismantle auto bodies. We sell

35:10new parts, damage new parts, and parts

35:14we import in shipping containers.

35:17And this building gives us a place to

35:19stage and unload those containers

35:22instead of leaving them outside.

35:25But we know we won't be the property

35:26owner forever.

35:28Whoever takes this over next could go

35:31back to running a salvage yard or a

35:33metal scrap operation.

35:36What that could mean is dismantling and

35:39crushing vehicles in the open inside the

35:43scenic river overlay design district.

35:46That's environmental exposure to

35:48petroleum and hazardous fluids.

35:51The footprint of a 8,000 square foot

35:54building in the middle of the proposed

35:57spud prevents this.

36:00The proposed spud is not just a benefit

36:02for us. It protects the overall

36:05aesthetic of the area as well as the

36:09public and private investment within the

36:11river district which is exactly what the

36:14SR odd was designed to preserve.

36:18We understand why the overlay exists.

36:22The city put real money into this river

36:24and rules to protect that. We respect

36:28it. We're on this river, too. The rule

36:32to keep salvage yards out of the overlay

36:34is written to stop new salvage yards

36:37from going in along the water.

36:40It wasn't written for a yard that was

36:43already here when the overlay was drawn.

36:46And here's the part we ask you to sit

36:49with. If these lots stay R1, the

36:53existing salvage operation doesn't go

36:55away. It just keeps it outdoors for as

36:59long as this is a salvage yard. Whether

37:02that's us running it or whomever comes

37:05after us.

37:07If the spud is approved, you get the

37:09opposite.

37:11A building of a fixed size and fixed

37:13look. The messy work under a roof.

37:17The salvage yard is here either way. The

37:21only question is whether the work

37:22happens inside a building or outside

37:25one.

37:28This is what the salvage yard looked

37:29like before we purchased it in 2014.

37:35This is the massive cleanup we did

37:37before we ever opened our doors to

37:39customers at this location in 2017.

37:44And this is what it looked like in our

37:47first few years of operating

37:49when we were still dismantling cars.

37:53In 2021, our business model changed.

37:58We stopped dismantling cars, crushed

38:01every remaining car body, and invested

38:04heavily in shelving and storage

38:06infrastructure.

38:09That led us pivot to selling new damaged

38:11parts and sourcing new parts from

38:14overseas.

38:16We still sell salvaged parts, but we

38:20source those from other salvage yards.

38:22Now,

38:24the building in this spud locks in that

38:26pivot for good.

38:29It sits centrally in the remaining open

38:32space on that side

38:34which occupies about onethird of the

38:37lots.

38:39So no future owner could store or

38:41process nearly as many vehicles,

38:45cutting the impact down to size.

38:48You've all seen what an open salvage

38:50yard can turn into. Here are just a few

38:54examples of the current state of other

38:56salvage yards along May Avenue,

38:59including ones within the scenic river

39:02overlay.

39:04We're not here to talk about other

39:06businesses in the area. I'm just showing

39:09you the two directions this ground could

39:11go and asking for the one with a roof on

39:15it.

39:17The intent of the SROD as set forth in

39:20the municipal code is to ensure a high

39:24level of consistency and quality through

39:27a flexible approach to development.

39:31That's exactly what we're working

39:32towards with this proposed spud and

39:35building.

39:38So here's the request.

39:40recommend approval of spud 1858

39:44so that the two halves of this yard

39:46match and so we can put up one enclosed

39:49building in the interior of an existing

39:52fence

39:55as the urban design commission and the

39:58guardians of this district. Ask yourself

40:02which is ultimately better for the river

40:04district, an enclosed operation

40:08or a salvage yard that continues

40:10operating out in the open.

40:13We hope this video has been very

40:15insightful on the reason why we're

40:17requesting this spud resoning as well as

40:20why it is beneficial to the scenic river

40:23overlay design district.

40:26Thank you for your time and

40:27consideration.

40:32Wow.

40:33>> I hope that was informative.

40:34>> Listen, I have some marketing I need to

40:36hire you for. Number one, [laughter]

40:38that's impressive.

40:39>> Um,

40:40>> thank you.

40:41>> Does anyone have any

40:43>> Well, they have more to their present.

40:45>> Oh,

40:45>> yeah. At least have more documents to

40:47quickly go over. Won't take too much

40:48more time. I think the video covers most

40:50of it. Um, in all honesty, so when we

40:52received the packlet, the application

40:55was digested as if you're approving a

40:57salvage yard to exist. The salvage

41:00exists. It's there. It's non-conforming

41:02since 1954. It's not going away. That

41:05does not change depending on this

41:07meeting. We walk away, there is still a

41:08salvage operation in there legally

41:11operating. We're simply here to have

41:14this spud only to build a fixture inside

41:17this building or in this property. Uh

41:19the benefit of having this building is

41:21really a it encloses any future autod

41:26dismantling practices that happens on

41:28that property. B it limits any largecale

41:32metal recycling facilities from ever

41:34taking place. No large cranes will be

41:36ever come in. Large crushers come in. Um

41:39our main goal with this b this building

41:42is literally for storage of shipping

41:44containers and new parts. Uh it has

41:47nothing to do with auto dismantling. We

41:50actually have discontinued auto

41:51dismantling in this location and we do

41:54not actually salvage or process cars at

41:56this location at all. That's why we're

41:58actually needing this building to

42:00continue that pivot to kind of frame

42:03away from being in an auto man autod

42:06dismantling sector. We still process

42:08used parts but we are not doing that on

42:11the property. We are bringing in used

42:13parts from other locations or salvage

42:15yards. As you can see, the stoaging of

42:18those parts happened outside. With the

42:21uh approval of this spud, we're really

42:23just doing this for the building only.

42:26Uh so, you know, to give you a better

42:28idea, also

42:31put 519 is actually fully exempt from

42:34any of this uh uh the commissions or or

42:37should I say SROD's standings. I in all

42:40honesty, if it was warranted, we could

42:42actually place the building that we're

42:44requesting on PUD 519 and not actually

42:47have to fulfill any of the SROD's uh

42:50rules or guidelines since it is exempt

42:53from that. But it is actually more

42:55beneficial for us to have it placed on

42:57the SPUD 1858. It's also more beneficial

43:00for SRO because it's actually further

43:02away from the river. the geography of

43:05where that building will land will

43:07actually be less seen and more concealed

43:12from anybody from the riverside or river

43:14district. Uh the way the evil elevation

43:17is and the closeness if you look at 10th

43:19street 10th street is the side that is

43:21closest to the river and pud 519 is

43:24actually fully exempt. So we could be

43:27show redoing this application to place

43:30the building on 519 and not having to go

43:33through this application process. But we

43:35feel it's beneficial for both parties

43:37that city the SRO DD's grand goal here

43:41and as well as us in our infrastructure

43:43and how we have it designed.

43:46Um

43:48this is the building as seen in the

43:49video. It's just a plain structure.

43:51We're not looking to operate a business

43:53out of it. It is not open to the street.

43:55It is not open to the public. It is not

43:57going to have any fixtures or signs. And

43:59we decided to choose the exact same

44:02style of galvanized metal. So, it blends

44:05in with the property uh current fence

44:07line. So, it's not something to be

44:09eye-catching, is more concealed.

44:13This is a picture of actually our growth

44:15of that property. And this is a picture

44:17of just that square. Um you can actually

44:20see before we took the property over.

44:23Desa image in 2010, 11 and 12 actually

44:26till uh even 13 you could start to see

44:29that that was the property before we

44:30purchased it. Uh 14 is when I believe we

44:33we per made the purchase and we started

44:35to uh level and clear out the property

44:38and you could see the growth and

44:39cleanliness of the property. And then

44:42you can see in 20 19 and 21 all the way

44:45to 23 the introduction of those cars and

44:47now they're completely removed because

44:49this facility actually is no longer

44:52processing vehicles. And that was the

44:54benefit of having this building approved

44:56is because we can continue that pivot to

44:58stay away from that. And as you said, we

45:01know uh the city is is really looking at

45:04foresight. They're going to know that

45:05the owner of today is not the owner of

45:07tomorrow. And so by even improving this

45:11building now, it actually is a benefit

45:13to the city because now you're limiting

45:14the footprint that allows automobiles to

45:17be stored outside to be dismantled

45:20outside and reducing environmental

45:22impacts, especially consuming petroleum

45:24products or hazardous waste being so

45:27close to the river district. The

45:28building is nothing but a benefit in the

45:30environmental aspect of things.

45:34And so we've kind of have our option one

45:38and option two whether how this is

45:40approved or not. Uh if this is approved

45:43obviously this aligns with SRO about the

45:45overall impact of the area. I know it

45:48doesn't fall into the code guidelines

45:50but the main goal is to have a flexible

45:52approach and to do things that are in

45:54the benefit especially in the financial

45:58benefit of the city. It would be a great

46:00benefit to have this building in

46:03operation enclosed under one roof

46:05instead of being fully exposed. As you

46:07can see, having all those cars out there

46:09and we run a very tight ship and a very

46:11clean operation. You can see as the

46:14previous owners, they didn't. You can

46:16also see in our video other yards that

46:18just do not run operations like we do.

46:21By having that building, no matter who

46:22runs that place, it's enclosed. And so

46:25the ugliness uh is not outside. the

46:29impact environmentally is not as a high

46:32risk. Uh and again the salvage yard goes

46:35nowhere. It's still a salvage yard. Um

46:39also the the reason that's very

46:41beneficial is the placement of that

46:43building. Again, if this is denied, in

46:46all honesty, our our our second remedy

46:48is to move the building to PUD 519,

46:52which has has no regards to the uh

46:56design commission is ex is exempt from

46:58it. So, if we weren't wanting to have

47:00this on this side of the property, we

47:02literally can up and move the building

47:04to the other side of the property and be

47:06immediately approved by the city uh

47:09because it doesn't have to meet those

47:10guidelines. Um it's really just more of

47:13a unfortunate situation with the zoning

47:15and how it's listed. Uh that limits us

47:17from immediately putting it on the side

47:19that we're requesting where the spud

47:211858 is. We could put it on 519, you

47:24know, as as far as tomorrow essentially.

47:27Um so there's a lot of benefits to the

47:30SRO to approve this spot. You know,

47:34you're not approving an auto salvage to

47:36exist. It exists. It is not going

47:40anywhere. you're here to approve a

47:42building to help conceal that.

47:45So, I'm happy to take any questions. Uh,

47:48the only other clarity I'd like to bring

47:50up. She had mentioned about a houses

47:52being on that property before the houses

47:54have been gone for quite some time.

47:56There was never houses on that property

47:59of she's speaking of she had noted in

48:01like 2012 homes from my

48:04>> 2014 lots 41 and 42.

48:06>> 14 there was no such homes. We can see

48:08that with the Google.

48:09>> That was just based on an early

48:10conversation.

48:11>> Gotcha. Gotcha. Yeah. So there was no

48:12homes. There was nothing knocked down.

48:15That property has been a salvage yard

48:17since um from my understanding

48:211954. Definitely we know that by using a

48:24crisscross book uh that's available.

48:27>> Google Earth images also

48:28>> Google Earth images also proved that

48:30fact that no homes were there.

48:32>> So let me ask you a question because I

48:34had asked this during the process your

48:36presentation. You're not running a

48:38normal salvage operation anymore. You

48:40don't bring in cars. You're not

48:41scrapping them out. You bring in parts

48:44>> essentially. And so my question, you

48:47might remember this when we had a

48:48conversation was I suggested that you

48:51come in with the new pud for pud 519 and

48:53the spud property and don't have the

48:56scrap operation, don't have the salvage

48:58yard component to it

49:01because that would be definitely more

49:04palatable to something that's in in

49:08Scenic River,

49:08>> which I can respect that as well,

49:10>> but I understand that's not an option.

49:11>> There's there's several issues with

49:12that. Number one, you're reducing the

49:14value of that property immediately. The

49:16reason that property was purchased at

49:17the price it was is because it was

49:19licensed as an auto salvage. As we know,

49:21auto salvages, the yards themselves have

49:24the value for the license and the land

49:25they sit on. So immediately, if we

49:28removed auto salvage from that, we would

49:31immediately lose 50% of the property's

49:33value. Immediately because the reason

49:35why the property was even purchased for

49:37the amount it was was for that reason.

49:39Secondly, to say that we are completely

49:42out of scrap business would become

49:45somewhat of a a tailored misconception.

49:48You know, auto auto parts people, we are

49:51still taking in automotive cores. We are

49:53still disposing of uh such things as

49:57alternators, radiators. We are not auto

50:00dismantling, but we are still in the

50:02business of metal recycling. and that is

50:05required for this specific industry for

50:08me to be able to legally do those things

50:11and still be compliant within that

50:13operation. So it it's kind of a messy

50:16footwork of auto dismantling versus

50:19scrap operation versus metal recycling.

50:22And that's where the salvage component

50:24is still required is because we must

50:27have that title to be able to do those

50:30certain factors even though we're not

50:32essentially dismantling or crushing cars

50:35to that nature.

50:36>> Okay. Thank you.

50:37>> Of course, I'm happy to take any

50:39questions.

50:40>> Thank you again for the presentation. I

50:42know you're going to Would you like to

50:44go

50:45>> first?

50:46>> Okay. Just very quickly, um, how close

50:49are the existing homes to the west of

50:52this property,

50:54the fence line?

50:56>> Um, so to mention a couple things, we

50:58actually own uh the the same company

51:02actually owns all of the land that is

51:04vacant adjacent. They own three of the

51:07homes. Uh, in fact, if we go back, so on

51:1110th Street, uh, there is nothing but

51:13vacant land. We are the property owners

51:16of that entire vacant land on top of two

51:19houses that we have can have recently

51:21salvaged and just purchased. Uh they're

51:23just vacant houses. We also own one

51:27other home that is located adjacent to

51:29Southwest 11th which is actually in the

51:31some of the photos that she had showed

51:33earlier.

51:34>> Okay. The one that's here.

51:35>> Uh no. So that is the only home. We

51:37actually know that the property next to

51:39that. There's a home

51:39>> next to that one. Okay. And I had I had

51:41a picture.

51:41>> So 2921.

51:44Okay.

51:44>> Is actually owned by the same company.

51:47The land that is owned literally uh on

51:51the 10th Street, which is nothing but

51:53vacant land and then two salvaged homes,

51:56also owned by the same company. The only

52:00home that is literally essentially Yeah.

52:02If you actually scroll up, you can see

52:03the two homes on 10th Street. Um so if

52:06you see the vacant land there and then

52:09there's two homes, that is all actually

52:11owned by the same property owner. You're

52:13talking on 10th

52:14>> on tent. Yes. And then uh so at 10th

52:17Street, you see those two homes after

52:18the vacant land. All of that is owned by

52:19the same company. Uh that was purchased

52:22uh I believe approximately 5 years ago.

52:24Um as well as one home uh on 11th Street

52:28was purchased approximately I want to

52:30say three years ago if I'm not mistaken.

52:33Uh so there's only two homes that are

52:36technically a uh I would say south which

52:39is 11th Street. There's only two homes

52:40against that fence line. And there's

52:42actually one house only against the

52:45fence line on the Southwest 10th

52:46operation. Um, and just to funny note,

52:49the gentleman who actually owns the home

52:51on 10th Street behind our fence, he's

52:53actually the gentleman who brought in

52:54all the gravel to the salvage yard, he's

52:56a truck driver. He actually brought in

52:57uh 60 loads of gravel for us. And the

52:59gentleman who's actually on 11th Street

53:01behind our salvage yard, actually spent

53:03a month helping us clear cut all of the

53:05trees that were there. We actually have

53:07a very good relationship with the people

53:09who are there. Apparently the owners who

53:11owned that property before really did

53:14not take care of the property and just

53:16were maybe let's consider them a

53:17nuisance. That is the best probably word

53:19I I could say um to not use colorful

53:21language of the neighbors. And so the

53:24neighbor actually love us because we've

53:25lit up the street. The f that area in

53:28all honesty is not really known for its

53:30security or its peace of mind to walk

53:32around or have a jog. It's kind of a

53:34rough neighborhood. Uh because since

53:36we've moved in and entered the fence,

53:37we've actually lit up the street,

53:40ensuring that you know um you know bad

53:42activities are less likely to happen.

53:44And with the 10-ft fence that's clean,

53:46nice and galvanized, unlike what was

53:48before, that fence was 19 different

53:51colors, 8 foot tall, was held in with

53:53drive shafts. We came in and we

53:55revitalized the area. And so our

53:58intention and goal here is to align with

54:02having clean nice development in the

54:04area and nothing against and nothing

54:07otherwise.

54:10>> Okay. So So but the property immediately

54:12west of where you're trying to build is

54:14owner occupied. Someone still lives

54:16there. Did you all attempt to purchase

54:17that?

54:17>> When we say west, we're talking about

54:1911th Street. Yes. So west. Um so yes. So

54:22west towards 10th Street. That's

54:25actually the gentleman that that is our

54:27very good neighbor. Uh in fact, you can

54:29even see his diesel truck there. He

54:30parks on our easement and he is actually

54:32the gentleman that brings in all the

54:33gravel to that location. In fact, he is

54:36the gentleman that sold us the two

54:38vacant houses across the street on 10th.

54:41>> Yeah, I think she's talking about on

54:4211th.

54:43>> On

54:44>> Oh, 11th on Karen. Okay. Yes. Sorry. So,

54:46that is the gentleman who is a great

54:47neighbor who actually helped us clear

54:49cut the entire property. Uh, in fact,

54:51they're a kind of an elderly couple and

54:52have actually already started speaking

54:54to us about price and value. They're

54:57starting to get up in age and starting

54:58to consider that. We've actually had

55:00that conversation. But yes, that is the

55:02we own the house next to them. So,

55:04they're kind of locked in the center and

55:06so we own the between the fence line and

55:08then that vacant house that we've

55:10purchased. That's the only home that's

55:12anywhere near that uh that's, you know,

55:14affected by, you know, the area per se.

55:18>> Thank you, Laura. I have a question for

55:21you.

55:23If if we were to make a recommendation

55:25here, it the idea is the only way for

55:29them to build this building in the area

55:31they would want to build it really is

55:32that they are allowed to have a spud. Is

55:35that am I accurate? to build the

55:37building on the property where they want

55:39to do it. They have to reszone it

55:41>> because the building would be in it

55:45would be increasing the nonconformity

55:47which is not allowed for them to do.

55:51>> And so we're being asked to make a

55:53recommendation to to allow that

55:55>> correct to the planning department.

55:56>> Right. And what I will say is in your

55:58packet normally you would have only

56:00gotten one

56:01uh MDS. So, I included the original one

56:05that they submitted, which had a lot of

56:06information about what had happened on

56:08the property before, and then I included

56:11the

56:13revised one that subdivision and zoning

56:16had worked out.

56:18And and I they knew this. I was going to

56:21recommend denial. I did not send them a

56:23markup. I did not tell them change this

56:25wording like I normally would to reflect

56:28SROD stuff.

56:31The language about it complying with

56:33SROD was put in by subdivision and

56:36zoning. So that MDS doesn't have the

56:40clear distinct language if it were to be

56:43approved as a spud that says they had to

56:46comply. You know, normally we're real

56:48specific on things, you know,

56:50landscaping per city blah blah blah and

56:53SODD and, you know, architecture per

56:56SROD. So, um, I just wanted to get that

57:00point across. So, what you're being

57:01asked is weigh all the information

57:05and decide

57:09as the commission that overlooks SROD if

57:12it makes sense for them to get this

57:15spud.

57:16>> I also think you mentioned alternatively

57:19that this building can be built on the

57:20PUD 519, but that you feel that it's

57:23closer to the some of the development

57:26that's having happen happening in the

57:27river. I I will also say though that the

57:30challenge with this for the commission

57:32is is the precedent it sets for future

57:35development. And so if it's if it's not

57:38going to impact your business, if you

57:40have an alternative uh uh for this

57:43building and it it allows us to keep uh

57:47uh our our president, personally, I feel

57:50like that's a that's a better deal. But

57:52I want to hear from other commission

57:54members. Now, we had a spud come in.

57:57Scott might remember this one. In um

58:032019, there was a code enforcement case

58:06down on just on Southwest 15th, just a

58:09few blocks south of here, where one had

58:12expanded without any approval, and part

58:14of it expanded into SROD.

58:16And so, the Spud came through because

58:18they tried to get that approved for the

58:21Spud property, which was right on the

58:23edge. and they also tried to pull

58:25themselves out. Well, they didn't get

58:28approval for pulling them out and they

58:29didn't get approval for the auto

58:31salvage. The piece outside SROD did get

58:35approved for auto salvage. Um, and so I

58:40don't know if that's drawing the line in

58:41the sand or or whatever. Um, yes, we

58:44know there's a lot of auto salvage in

58:45that area, but we really were not

58:47wanting necessarily to see them

58:50indefinitely. I would assume that was

58:52someone's thinking when they put all

58:56this in SROD and prohibited that use and

58:59we definitely don't want to see them

59:00expanded.

59:02>> If I may respond to your statement. So

59:05two two things to respond to for the

59:08reason of why it's not on PUD 519.

59:10Number one, we've actually already have

59:12an infrastructure built on that side,

59:14which is shelving system, which would

59:16actually be a huge financial burden to

59:19up and move to the other side. That

59:21would be number one. Number two, as you

59:24guys spoke about the glamping or the

59:26tiny home, you're asking me to move a

59:29building to the side in which will be

59:32more seen, less concealed, and much more

59:34impactful to the investment on the side

59:37of the river. So your though your

59:41statement is, hey, this may not have

59:43impact on me, you're actually dealing a

59:46hand that's hurting yourself. You know,

59:47not to use a strong man argument per se,

59:50but you're essentially telling me, hey,

59:52if it's allowed there, go ahead and do

59:54it, but that's actually more impactful,

59:57less concealed, will do more detriment

1:00:00to future investment in that area. So

1:00:04the where the location is of that

1:00:06building number one the geography of

1:00:09where we have placed that building the

1:00:11fence height the distance from the river

1:00:14how it is seen from the street is much

1:00:17less impactful. It is much more

1:00:20concealed than what it would be on 519.

1:00:23So the denial here today of saying hey

1:00:27we want to base this on hey this doesn't

1:00:29have an impact on you as much let's move

1:00:31it to 519 you'll be fine. This is

1:00:33actually a bad strategy. It does impact

1:00:37the future investment especially if you

1:00:39want to speak of the tiny home and the

1:00:42glamping. I actually remember that I

1:00:43went to the uh committee meeting for the

1:00:45glamping thing and understood and yeah

1:00:47that's I think that's been a decade

1:00:49since they actually approved that to see

1:00:51if it was going anywhere and it has gone

1:00:53nowhere to be honest with you. Uh I

1:00:55actually remember speaking to the

1:00:56community owners. In fact, they actually

1:00:58asked us to rent the land next to them

1:01:01for parking because they can't build the

1:01:03glamping the way they want because they

1:01:06don't have sufficient parking. There is

1:01:08two homes on that side. There's an auto

1:01:10salvage already on that side. And that

1:01:12glamping project, as wonderful as it

1:01:16sound, was not a realistic wasn't

1:01:18realistic. They didn't have the

1:01:19logistics for the land. There was two

1:01:22homes that refused the sale. They were

1:01:24even offered ridiculous money. In fact,

1:01:26one of those homes spent $60,000

1:01:29revitalizing their home recently.

1:01:31They're not going anywhere. The auto

1:01:33salvage that's on the end of the corner

1:01:34of 905 South May, the gentleman will not

1:01:37sell. And the place is dilapidated.

1:01:40We've actually tried to purchase that

1:01:42property over the last seven years. He

1:01:44will not sell. And so when we talk about

1:01:48future investment, when we talk about

1:01:50what is the reason of SROD was existing

1:01:54to tell us that hey it's not impactful

1:01:57for us is a fine statement but it's

1:02:00greatly impactful to the actual duties

1:02:03of the SROD and their future outcome and

1:02:07outlook for the city.

1:02:10>> Thank you Tony. I think you you had some

1:02:12comments.

1:02:14Um, yeah, there's before I start goes

1:02:20without saying you have you run a really

1:02:22neat and clean operation and that is

1:02:25very commendable. Um, it would be

1:02:28wonderful if all other similar

1:02:30businesses took the care and concern uh

1:02:34that you do to operate in the manner

1:02:36that you you have chosen. Um

1:02:40there was a lot in your video that

1:02:44is not here to be able to respond piece

1:02:48by piece. Um

1:02:51so I'd like to you're you're commenting

1:02:55that the purpose of this piece of

1:02:58property that is currently outside of

1:03:01the SP of the PUD and

1:03:04um being designated as SPUD 1858. It is

1:03:09for storage. It is for shelving exterior

1:03:15and shelving interior. No dismantling,

1:03:20no no salvage, no cars up on um racks.

1:03:26It is it is just storage of new parts

1:03:31um existing parts, damaged part, but

1:03:34storage only

1:03:35>> essentially. Yes. Now of course there's

1:03:37still storage of

1:03:39>> for example automotive cores

1:03:42>> sure

1:03:42>> radiators condensers aluminum precious

1:03:46metals of that nature. Thus why is the

1:03:48reason why we're still needing and

1:03:50continuing to require the auto salvage

1:03:53portion because we have considered that

1:03:55we have considered the easy route. Hey

1:03:57let's remove the auto salvage part of

1:03:59this and go the easy route. That would

1:04:01be the easy route. Why is it not

1:04:02designated as a storage function?

1:04:06Because if it's a storage function, what

1:04:09you're what you're saying is we're

1:04:10currently are and we need to do we need

1:04:14to be able to move into operations that

1:04:17require I3,

1:04:20but really the operation that you're

1:04:23talking about in this area, it could be

1:04:26still a building. It could still be able

1:04:29to do the majority if not 100% of what

1:04:32you're proposing, but it would not be

1:04:34required to be I3 if it was a storage of

1:04:41to a legal degree. Yes, you are correct.

1:04:43The problem is is that we are still

1:04:46technically doing metal operations. We

1:04:48are still doing metal recycling

1:04:50operations which must fall under the I3,

1:04:53right? And to be genuine, the zoning for

1:04:56us is not really our main goal. Our main

1:04:58goal is to have a building. If you guys

1:05:00would approve an R1 to have such a

1:05:02building, we'd be happy. Our main goal

1:05:04is not necessarily being an I3. It's

1:05:07really to get the building. And due to

1:05:09the requirements, we're forced to take

1:05:11these practices. I don't know if that's

1:05:13so if there was a path to a building

1:05:17that did not require R3

1:05:20or I3 that's an option that you would

1:05:23entertain if there's

1:05:25>> as long as it still remained that the

1:05:29properties were considered nonconforming

1:05:32auto salvage use

1:05:34>> the

1:05:34>> that is the only caveat

1:05:36>> the property is is R

1:05:40>> there's an auto salvage use that's on

1:05:42it.

1:05:43>> Correct.

1:05:44>> Yeah. That's that's the operation. So

1:05:46the the from the standpoint of what that

1:05:50property is, it's are

1:05:55you it's what what's happening on it is

1:05:59is allowed because of the things that

1:06:02have happened in the past. But if there

1:06:04was a path to a building,

1:06:08it could still be an SPUD.

1:06:11It could still allow the requirements of

1:06:14the overlay. It could still allow you to

1:06:17store, but the the components of the and

1:06:21it would still allow you to I mean,

1:06:25you're not you're not changing you're

1:06:27going from R to SPUD. So the the the

1:06:32value of the property on the PUD519

1:06:36is that's the grandfathered piece.

1:06:38That's the piece that holds value

1:06:41because it's legally able to do things

1:06:45that the current R is not.

1:06:47>> Well, both are actually grandfathered

1:06:48in.

1:06:49>> Well, and I want to clarify something

1:06:51with legal.

1:06:52>> When you reszone something, your

1:06:55non-conforming status goes away. Am I

1:06:57correct? If he comes in and he's if this

1:06:59spud gets approved, there is no

1:07:01non-conforming component to it. Am I

1:07:03right?

1:07:05>> Then you follow the regulations of the

1:07:07new zoning designation. I'm sorry. Can

1:07:10you hear?

1:07:10>> That's okay.

1:07:13>> Correct.

1:07:15>> If you

1:07:17>> just shout,

1:07:19>> if you reszone, you're subject to the

1:07:20new regulations.

1:07:21>> Okay. So, the nonconformity

1:07:24goes away,

1:07:25>> right? And so I think

1:07:29if are you

1:07:30>> what I'm saying is is there a path to a

1:07:32building that can allow storage that can

1:07:35handle the storage function of what

1:07:36you're talking about? The other function

1:07:39remains on the on the on the north

1:07:42property. You don't have to move the

1:07:44building to the north property. You

1:07:45don't have to move your racks. You don't

1:07:47have to do all of the things that you

1:07:49were saying.

1:07:51This is where I there was there was

1:07:53conversation about it's it's such a

1:07:55benefit to the city to not move the

1:07:58building there, but then we started

1:08:00discussing maybe that's an option and

1:08:02then it was it's a big cost burden to

1:08:04you. It's a it's cost burden on both

1:08:07sides. There's pros and cons to both

1:08:09issues, but the pro to us with a

1:08:14building on this site that can be

1:08:17conforming is we can recommend approval.

1:08:20We can recommend approval for I think

1:08:23something that can allow you to continue

1:08:25to operate the way you're operating and

1:08:27not change anything. You would have to

1:08:29have a building that

1:08:32meets the aesthetics requirements and

1:08:35there's some other things. But now we're

1:08:37allowing

1:08:41again I I it's been 15 years since I was

1:08:44on SROD

1:08:46and it was there were buildings that

1:08:49were existing operations and they wanted

1:08:52to grow their business and they were

1:08:55specifically denied the ability to grow

1:08:57their business.

1:08:59You have a grandfa this was this was not

1:09:02a PUB this was just a building on a

1:09:04piece of property that was existing. and

1:09:06they wanted to grow. You have a PUD that

1:09:08that does afford you a certain amount of

1:09:10grandfathering. I don't know if it would

1:09:12afford you the ability to build a

1:09:14building because I think building a

1:09:16building would require a permit and a

1:09:18permit would require this whole con

1:09:20conversation about non-conformity. So, I

1:09:22think that you would get out of that

1:09:25precarious situation if you could find a

1:09:28way that your property you can still do

1:09:31an SPUD. It's fully within the the

1:09:34overlay guidelines. It's within

1:09:36conforming use. Storage is allowed.

1:09:40>> Well, let me just say automotive and

1:09:41equipment storage is prohibited.

1:09:44>> But let me say this.

1:09:46Normally that's outside.

1:09:50So if some and keep in mind we're just

1:09:53talking here, okay? Don't freak out. Um,

1:09:56so automotive and equipment storage and

1:09:58let's say you have a requirement that it

1:10:00be in a building.

1:10:02>> Now we now we're drafting a new PUD

1:10:04document that all of that can be

1:10:06captured in a manner that says, hey, all

1:10:10the SROD guidelines are going to be in

1:10:13effect. And in addition, if that can

1:10:16happen,

1:10:16>> it's the use the use is the issue that

1:10:18we would have to look at because we're

1:10:20very hesitant about supporting uses that

1:10:23are not that are specifically

1:10:24prohibited.

1:10:25>> There have been occasions where we have

1:10:27and those were all unique and there's

1:10:30just like a handful of them. Um, so

1:10:32that's why I just mentioned I mean there

1:10:34is a way to deal with that storage use

1:10:37unit even though it's prohibited. It

1:10:38seems like there's a way to craft

1:10:40language that could allow this to move

1:10:42forward without setting precedent for

1:10:44the next guy to come along and say it

1:10:48was allowed. You're denying me. I'm

1:10:51suing the city because I've been

1:10:53infringed upon because it's already

1:10:55somebody else is already allowed to do

1:10:56it. And that's happened before.

1:11:00And so I I'm I'm curious and I don't

1:11:06know who the individual is that that

1:11:09navigates

1:11:11crafting the language that allows you

1:11:14get everything you want.

1:11:16You go from R to SPUD. So you're the the

1:11:19comment about or the conversation about

1:11:22we're going to lose the value of our you

1:11:23know R to SPUD. I don't think that's

1:11:25going to lose value of land. You you get

1:11:27to keep your operation. you don't have

1:11:29to go through and fight putting a

1:11:31building on PUB19 519 because I

1:11:35I do think that might be

1:11:37>> but I think from what we've been hearing

1:11:39him say is they want to keep the auto

1:11:40salvage use on the spud property. They

1:11:43don't want to use lose that use and so

1:11:47from that perspective

1:11:48>> but if it was but if it was changed to

1:11:50we could allow this to be storage

1:11:53because that's the current function. If

1:11:56it was storage and it was internal, even

1:11:59if I would even be willing to entertain

1:12:02a conversation about some external

1:12:04storage behind and outside of view, but

1:12:08allowing a, you know, because of how we

1:12:11got here because some balls were dropped

1:12:15when the fence was put up and some

1:12:17things occurred that if they came today,

1:12:20they would not. So we I don't feel like

1:12:23you use those things in the past that

1:12:26would maybe be denied today as the

1:12:29starting point for the negotiation about

1:12:31what we want to do next. And I'm curious

1:12:33if there's a way that it wins on both

1:12:36sides. You get everything you're asking

1:12:38for.

1:12:40It's just that you're not

1:12:45your your your your

1:12:47operation is kind of split that the

1:12:49things that are not allowed happen on

1:12:51the the grandfathered property and the

1:12:54things that you're saying happen on

1:12:56this.

1:12:57>> So we are worried about the language

1:13:00that would cause us much more detriment.

1:13:02And to be genuinely honest with you as

1:13:05far as land value, yes, it would do a

1:13:07great detriment to the land value. Now,

1:13:08I know you're not looking at this as a

1:13:10principle for overall land value, but

1:13:13for example, if I wanted to go purchase

1:13:16an auto salvage yard today, like for

1:13:18example, 905 South May, which is

1:13:20literally adjacent to the river next to

1:13:21me, dilapidated as all. If you went to

1:13:24county assessor and had a driveby

1:13:26appraisal, that thing would appraise for

1:13:27maybe 200,000 at best. That gentleman

1:13:31and everybody knows that that property

1:13:32would never sell for less than half a

1:13:35million. And the main reason why is due

1:13:37to the language and licensing for that

1:13:39property, the unique ability of what

1:13:42type of operation you're allowed to

1:13:44have.

1:13:45So the

1:13:48the language is is allowing

1:13:53the ability for somebody else to do

1:13:56something that is more nonconforming

1:14:00than what you're proposing for the site.

1:14:03I wouldn't say non no not more

1:14:05non-conforming like currently it's

1:14:07already non-conforming. So there's not a

1:14:09higher level or an elevated level of

1:14:11nonconformity. It's just you're either

1:14:13conforming or you're not. So it's

1:14:15already currently non-conforming as an

1:14:18auto salvage yard as long as it has

1:14:20been. And so our only concern is to get

1:14:24approval to keep that language

1:14:26specifically for that auto salvage auto

1:14:28dismantling use. In all honesty, as far

1:14:31as what it's zoned for, what the

1:14:33flexible caveats could be, we are very

1:14:36open to that as long as they include

1:14:40language that still ensure auto salvage

1:14:45per se. But that means that all of your

1:14:48presentation about how this is not auto

1:14:51salvage and we are not dismantling cars

1:14:56and we are not um you know and we're

1:15:00clean and we want to put this behind the

1:15:01building. We want this body to allow the

1:15:06language that it could still revert to

1:15:08that.

1:15:09>> So correct. So, but to explain again,

1:15:12the purpose of the building is to put

1:15:14all that in a roof and so that way it's

1:15:17not a future because regardless if we

1:15:21get the building or not, our goal is not

1:15:22to damage the usage of this property. It

1:15:27is to help enclose it and it has helped

1:15:30to conceal it. But we're putting

1:15:32language in place that allows a person

1:15:37to say, "I can buy this property and my

1:15:41highest and best use will be to throw

1:15:44that building away and and do do

1:15:48traditional auto salvage because I'm

1:15:50allowed to."

1:15:51>> Cory's understood. Yeah. We're not we

1:15:53have not applied this application with

1:15:56the intent of removing the salvage use

1:15:58from here. That is not in our intent at

1:16:01all. Our intent is to create a building

1:16:04so large that number one, it creates a

1:16:07footprint that inhibits someone from

1:16:12processing and dismantling cars on the

1:16:14outside.

1:16:18>> Um,

1:16:20may I speak? But I do understand at the

1:16:23end of the day when you do resell your

1:16:25property, you are looking for it to

1:16:27still have the use and be

1:16:28non-conforming. I do understand that for

1:16:31both both because

1:16:33>> yeah we're creating something that is

1:16:35the other thing is

1:16:37>> do you have to pull permits to like if

1:16:39we wanted to bring in

1:16:42a crane

1:16:44onto an our property and set it? Does

1:16:48somebody have to pull a permit to place

1:16:50a crane on the our property? like all of

1:16:54the things that would be associated with

1:16:56really

1:16:56>> what would the purpose be for it to

1:16:58>> No, I'm saying if they if this was to

1:17:00turn into the heavy I3 component that's

1:17:02different than what it is today,

1:17:04>> a permit would have to be pulled to be

1:17:06able to make that happen because right

1:17:08now that does those those functions

1:17:10don't exist to my understanding is not

1:17:14if it's mobile

1:17:17>> and most large cranes are not mobile are

1:17:20mobile. So you don't require so to

1:17:22enclose a fixture a standing like they

1:17:25have a durich bur right down the you on

1:17:28the river where there's a large crane in

1:17:30place into the ground. My understanding

1:17:32is yes you may require a crane per a

1:17:35permit to imp place that permanent

1:17:36structure but not a large mobile fixture

1:17:39which is what most wrecking yards use.

1:17:42They can bring in any type of heavy

1:17:44machinery and start doing that. And

1:17:47that's kind of what our selling point is

1:17:48here to get this exemption or to have

1:17:50this uh caveat to our our specific spot

1:17:55is that by having such a large building

1:17:57placed there, you are stopping that

1:17:59future use from ever coming into play.

1:18:02>> I don't think that it does stop the

1:18:03future use though because metal

1:18:05buildings are really really

1:18:06cost-effective. Dismantled them, put

1:18:08them someplace. What we're doing here is

1:18:11we're changing the language of this

1:18:13piece of property

1:18:16for an op current operation

1:18:19that is probably something that we could

1:18:22get behind. I think that at least I

1:18:24could get behind what your

1:18:27um current proposal is to operate. But

1:18:31what you're basically saying is I I'll

1:18:34only do that if I have language that

1:18:38gives me a financial

1:18:41>> that that that's a financial component

1:18:43to the language that allows me to sell

1:18:44it to go back to something that is, you

1:18:47know, like we're we would this sounds

1:18:50like it is in polar opposite to what

1:18:52this body is supposed to be doing, which

1:18:54is protecting the future. And this

1:18:58language would actually

1:19:01allow a non-conformance to continue

1:19:05only if we allowed a really

1:19:08um something that would be less

1:19:10desirable to be attached to it. That's

1:19:12the part that's the the friction that I

1:19:15have is not with the building. It's not

1:19:16with the operation. It's not with the

1:19:18cleanliness of the site or the way that

1:19:20you currently run. It's the language

1:19:24that allows

1:19:26us to be sitting in a place down the

1:19:30road and say, "How did we get here?" Oh,

1:19:33we got here because something was not,

1:19:36you know, the the fence went up because

1:19:39there were some things that didn't

1:19:40happen. We could be in a position where

1:19:42we're standing here going, I wish we had

1:19:43not allowed this to happen. So, I mean,

1:19:46I'm I'm like I said, I'm all for and I

1:19:48think that everything that you're

1:19:49talking about could be could maybe be

1:19:51accomplished to where 100% of your

1:19:54current operations and the operations

1:19:55that you would probably maintain for as

1:19:57long as you own the property would be

1:19:58able to be achieved. But what I can't

1:20:01get behind is the component

1:20:06that is only for the value of the

1:20:08property and the potential.

1:20:10>> I wouldn't say only for the value of the

1:20:12property. It's a legal reason. I mean

1:20:14doing some of the metal holding and

1:20:16storage is required to have this type of

1:20:20zoning to have this salvage use. I am

1:20:22not allowed to have stacks of radiators

1:20:24ready to recycle or stacks of containers

1:20:27of alternators to be recycled. So you're

1:20:29telling me to say hey shove all that in

1:20:32a corner on this side do nothing on that

1:20:35side?

1:20:35>> I'm not saying that.

1:20:36>> Well no I mean if we take away the

1:20:38language where the spud 1858 is to

1:20:40remove the auto dismantling. So as and

1:20:43in and in all honesty our only goal is

1:20:46to have that building. So as long as

1:20:48whatever language we create is still

1:20:52allowing this kind of nonconforming and

1:20:55I understand that we're saying that

1:20:56we're not and that's where we say hey we

1:20:59understand we're not going to be the

1:21:00owners forever. Okay.

1:21:02>> But this is a benefit even if we're not

1:21:05because now you're you're you're almost

1:21:08capping you're limiting the impact or

1:21:11the ability for another person to come

1:21:13in and start sticking cars everywhere.

1:21:16And I really couldn't agree with

1:21:17somebody knocking down a 100x 80 foot

1:21:20building just to put a crane operation

1:21:22in there. I I just don't foresee that. I

1:21:25don't think it's realistic. That's a

1:21:27$200,000 investment that they would

1:21:29knock down to put in a crusher crane.

1:21:31It's not logical. They would just do

1:21:33that on the opposite side where the 519

1:21:35is. So um you know for us it's really

1:21:38about the language carefully being

1:21:41written and we're [clears throat] happy

1:21:42to be flexible on however that approach

1:21:44needs to be but we cannot kind of

1:21:48disturb that auto salvage presence on

1:21:51that you know on the flood 1858 where

1:21:54we're requesting

1:21:54>> does the current

1:21:55>> and I just want to clarify once it's

1:21:57reszoned there is no conform

1:21:59non-conformity right HUD 519 it's no

1:22:02longer non-conforming it got resoned in

1:22:0495

1:22:06to allow that use. And so whatever gets

1:22:09adopted for this piece,

1:22:11that's what they would be approved to do

1:22:14and the nonconformity would go away,

1:22:16>> right? And then it it's no longer an

1:22:19issue of like if they wanted to put

1:22:22something on the it would truly be grand

1:22:25everything would be grandfathered in. So

1:22:27the current piece of land is R1,

1:22:30>> correct? The current piece of land has

1:22:32an operation that's happening on it

1:22:35behind a fence.

1:22:37>> Correct.

1:22:38>> And

1:22:40that

1:22:42what what is the

1:22:44what is the document that says

1:22:48we have a an existing non-conforming

1:22:50allowed non-conforming use? What's the

1:22:53document that we're talking about that

1:22:54says we want to keep this

1:22:58non-conforming use that we currently by

1:23:01right have what's that document because

1:23:03when we create the new document then

1:23:05there's a piece of paper but what's the

1:23:07current document that says

1:23:09>> there is no current document on this

1:23:12>> it would be the previous zoning from

1:23:141954

1:23:16>> but that's R1 but that's R1

1:23:18>> well when they submitted for their f

1:23:21their board of adjustment case. They

1:23:23submitted a bunch of documents that they

1:23:26were referring to, which was all of the

1:23:28city directories where they traced back

1:23:31the use of the property back to

1:23:34whenever. and that was what they

1:23:36submitted to support their

1:23:39non-conforming

1:23:41um use on this piece of property because

1:23:45I found that when I was researching the

1:23:47reasonzoning

1:23:48>> but

1:23:49>> and so that is what and it it's up to

1:23:52the the property owner to prove the

1:23:54nonconformity and that's how they did it

1:23:57back in 2015.

1:23:59>> So it was it was proven that the

1:24:01nonconformity did exist.

1:24:03>> Yes. So they weren't asked to remove it,

1:24:05but there is no document that says we

1:24:08are allowed

1:24:10this is a nonconformity that we are

1:24:12allowed to have by right. It just is a

1:24:16we have had a nonconformity for years

1:24:20and no one asked for it to be removed.

1:24:24We have a city ordinance that says if a

1:24:26non-conforming use ceases for a period

1:24:29of I think two years, then it lapses and

1:24:32you no longer have a right to operate on

1:24:35that location. But as for like a a

1:24:37document or a certificate of

1:24:39nonconformity, we don't have that.

1:24:41>> So right now, this this piece of

1:24:43property has a has a use that is,

1:24:47you know, there's there's no grounds to

1:24:49remove it because it's been active. city

1:24:52has no basis to go in and take it away,

1:24:54but it is currently non-conforming. The

1:24:58minute that we do this, it's allowed.

1:25:02Everything is allowed.

1:25:04>> Well, it's allowed now.

1:25:05>> Yes, it's

1:25:06>> But so whatever whatever this spud does,

1:25:09whatever uses

1:25:10>> that's a conforming use then.

1:25:12>> Yes. Whatever uses are contained in the

1:25:15spud, that's the uses they're allowed to

1:25:17do and the nonconformity disappears. So,

1:25:20>> so you you were asking him to consider

1:25:22eliminating the salvage use which they

1:25:27are not supporting but if in fact that's

1:25:30they agreed and that's the way it went

1:25:32down the path that's what they would

1:25:35lose the ability to do that use they

1:25:38would lose their nonconformity

1:25:39>> if what happens when say when properties

1:25:42sell

1:25:44>> as long as it stays in the same use then

1:25:47they maintain that nonconformity the

1:25:49property can change hands, but they

1:25:51can't move to a more intense

1:25:54use. They can't expand onto additional

1:25:57property. Um,

1:25:59>> they can't enlarge a building.

1:26:00>> They can't enlarge a building

1:26:02>> within certain non-conforming use. Like

1:26:04if you have if you're zoned for single

1:26:07family residential, but you're uh

1:26:09duplex,

1:26:11>> you can stay a duplex, that duplex can

1:26:13sell over and over and over again, but

1:26:15you can't add on to the dup. can't add

1:26:17another unit to the duplex. That sort of

1:26:19thing.

1:26:20>> But this is R1,

1:26:21>> right?

1:26:22>> And so somebody could buy this property

1:26:25and they could keep it as its current

1:26:28use. Correct.

1:26:31>> From my perspective, from a design

1:26:33perspective, I I think yeah, build the

1:26:35building on this area. It's further away

1:26:37from the river. Makes sense to me. You

1:26:39do your operations [music] there. Uh the

1:26:42building looks clean. the operation was

1:26:45uh it's complicated matter beyond that

1:26:48and I'm a little bit trying to

1:26:50understand what it is we can

1:26:53as UDC recommend

1:26:56uh so so that all operations could

1:26:59continue as they are and this and that

1:27:01there could be a building built here

1:27:03that would be what I would want to

1:27:04happen I'm just not quite sure what the

1:27:06>> you're being asked to take action on the

1:27:10document the MDS this FUD that was

1:27:13submitted

1:27:14>> and that seems a bit too complicated. So

1:27:16I guess we go to denial.

1:27:17>> You can recommend approval. You can also

1:27:20include in your recommendation specific

1:27:23things like you were just saying

1:27:27you were going to recommend approval

1:27:29because and you just you just listed a

1:27:31whole bunch of things that you could put

1:27:34in a motion. Um

1:27:37>> Laura, yes.

1:27:38>> So, one thing that's different about

1:27:39this from your regular cases is the

1:27:41applicant does not have to agree to your

1:27:43motion.

1:27:44>> Um so, uh I I did want to clarify that

1:27:49there is nothing in the spud that

1:27:51requires a building to be built. Um

1:27:54their intent is to build a building, but

1:27:57this spud could get approved and and no

1:27:59one has to ever build that building. Um

1:28:02just as was mentioned before that

1:28:04building could be demolished by the next

1:28:05owner if it is built. Um you all could

1:28:08recommend approval with the condition

1:28:10that uh the spud be modified to limit

1:28:15the the uses to interior you know

1:28:19enclosed space only um to remove the

1:28:23auto set. You can craft it to say and

1:28:26you don't have to craft the language.

1:28:27That's the other thing. planning

1:28:29commission planning department staff

1:28:32will craft specific language. You could

1:28:34simply say

1:28:36that the commission supports continuing

1:28:38the use as it currently exists but not

1:28:41continuing the auto salvage use. Um, so

1:28:46and the only thing I would request is if

1:28:48you're going to recommend approval that

1:28:50you include in your motion that the

1:28:52standard SROD requirements be referenced

1:28:55because they currently aren't as I

1:28:57stated earlier in the MDS. It says it at

1:29:00the very beginning, but normally we have

1:29:02it under all the the landscaping, the

1:29:04the um architecture, the side, I mean

1:29:07every component would also reference

1:29:09SROD.

1:29:12Yeah, I I think I have some of the same

1:29:15concerns. I'm okay with everything as it

1:29:17is. It's more about the future proofing

1:29:20and I would want to see a spot that is a

1:29:24little stronger of like

1:29:27the requirements it has for the next

1:29:29owner because as it is from my

1:29:31understanding it doesn't keep the next

1:29:34owner from de demolishing a metal

1:29:37building doesn't cost a lot. As you

1:29:39already mentioned, auto salvage

1:29:41properties have a premium. So the cost

1:29:43to demolish that building is

1:29:45insignificant. So if the spud is having

1:29:49stronger language, which requires indoor

1:29:51activity, which requires some of these

1:29:53things, I think even if it has

1:29:54established language, but it's it's

1:29:56putting more it's more restrictive on

1:29:59how it looks, what can happen there, how

1:30:02it falls in the overlay district, I

1:30:04would be more inclined to approve it.

1:30:06But I think just having a an open

1:30:11approval that just solidifies it without

1:30:13knowing who's going to own it 10 years

1:30:15from now. That might not be as good of

1:30:18an operator as you. I think that's what

1:30:20gives me

1:30:22>> and I I personally don't support taking

1:30:23away the auto salvage usage. I just want

1:30:26to say that as well. It is what it is at

1:30:29this time. I'm just sort of trying to

1:30:32understand is is it possible for this

1:30:35building to be built here and what what

1:30:38is that pathway? Um

1:30:41>> yeah,

1:30:42>> I guess I guess how do you put the the

1:30:43amazing operations that you said that

1:30:45you're running? How do you put that in

1:30:49these requirements of what can be built

1:30:51in the future and what the property

1:30:53should be in the future so that it

1:30:56doesn't hinder future development in the

1:30:58area? That's that's how I'm looking at

1:31:00it.

1:31:01>> Well, I would think to just make the

1:31:02language more basic. Um, you know, it's

1:31:04already an auto salvage use. It is auto

1:31:07salvage use. So, change I I understand

1:31:10that, you know, the language of what's

1:31:12written in SOD is to say that this kind

1:31:15of business is not compliant, but it

1:31:17exists. It's here. It's not going

1:31:19anywhere. I mean, it's literally not

1:31:21going nothing is going to change. uh

1:31:23like she had mentioned whether the

1:31:25committee makes a suggestion or approval

1:31:28or denial the salvage yard situation

1:31:31will still exist. Um our only intent is

1:31:34to have a building. Now if there is a

1:31:37pathway to get that building without

1:31:40having to change a single thing in all

1:31:42honesty we'd be open to it. If you tell

1:31:44me, "Yeah, you're allowed to build that

1:31:45in R1. Here's your certificate. Keep

1:31:47being non-conforming. Have a nice day

1:31:48here. Have a building." Great. Our real

1:31:51main goal here is to have that building

1:31:53but with one caveat that we are not here

1:31:56to do any detriment or change to how it

1:32:00is operating now. So with the options of

1:32:04hey let's give him this spud but let's

1:32:06take out the language of auto salvage

1:32:08that would be essentially hurting us

1:32:10more than helping us. So our goal is not

1:32:13to change the structure uh of what the

1:32:16business is operating or how it's

1:32:17operating but we are very open to any

1:32:21pathways

1:32:22>> but you could keep the hypothetically

1:32:24you could keep the salvage language in

1:32:26there but in the spud restricts some of

1:32:29those more for lack of a better word

1:32:32egreious egregious activities that a

1:32:34spud that a salvage might do. You're

1:32:35saying there's certain activities you no

1:32:37longer do that are not part of your

1:32:39business. So you could say the spud

1:32:41prohibits cranes for example.

1:32:45There's certain activities that are a

1:32:47step further that

1:32:50might not be as accepted for the future

1:32:53development of the area and that you

1:32:55could I think you could specifically

1:32:56call out so that while it still has

1:32:59salvage language that allows you to

1:33:00continue operations, it keeps it from

1:33:02going that next step forward depending

1:33:04on who the next part owner is.

1:33:06>> I can completely agree with that. The

1:33:08only pro part is it comes into very

1:33:11muddy water with language. What is the

1:33:13def now you're rewriting the complete

1:33:15definition of what is auto dis salvage?

1:33:17What is auto dismantling? And so now

1:33:19you're making a lot of new language and

1:33:21a lot of new definitions. And as Miss

1:33:24Dickerson said, now we're setting

1:33:25precedents that are now going to be set

1:33:27forward. So that approach as much as I

1:33:30respect the idea I feel like would muddy

1:33:33the water worse to try to say okay this

1:33:37is what auto salvage means this is what

1:33:39is allowed this is what is not allowed

1:33:41of course I am not a commissioner I do

1:33:43not work for so I don't know how that

1:33:45language or structure would be affected

1:33:47but that would be my only concern is

1:33:48who's writing that language what is that

1:33:50definition how long is that going to

1:33:52take do we pass the football back and

1:33:55forth with what's acceptable no what's

1:33:57not acceptable

1:33:58And you know that that definition could

1:34:00go down a very long road of what does

1:34:02that truly mean? It it sounds like it

1:34:04would be an easier method to either just

1:34:09approve it as it is. Um you know how

1:34:12we're using the language now of what

1:34:14auto dismantle means, what is metal

1:34:16recycle means just keep the language as

1:34:18it is because I feel like trying to

1:34:20rewrite the book especially on just one

1:34:23simple spud on a property that already

1:34:24exists would be a lot of work for a such

1:34:28a minute project.

1:34:31That's my only concern, which I agree

1:34:34with. I I'm happy if that's available,

1:34:36but I am concerned with how much that

1:34:38language grows. Well, we want to be able

1:34:41to do this, but not that, and do this,

1:34:43but not that. Well, you can't do this

1:34:45without doing that. Well, then how do

1:34:47you do? So there's a lot of terminology

1:34:50that I would worry about with that

1:34:52angle, but it definitely makes sense if

1:34:55there was already written language there

1:34:58that separated that. But I don't think

1:35:00the city has it to say that auto

1:35:02dismantling is this genre and scrap

1:35:06operation is this genre and this is

1:35:08allowed XYZ. I don't think that exists.

1:35:10If it did already, I would definitely be

1:35:14very open to that where it's like, hey,

1:35:16you're allowed to do auto recycling,

1:35:18auto dismantling, but not crushing

1:35:21operations like they do at Standard Iron

1:35:24or just a giant machine crushing cars.

1:35:26But I don't think that language exists.

1:35:28>> Yeah, I think that's why you create the

1:35:30language. I mean, I think you work with

1:35:31the city staff and I think to use autoc

1:35:33crushing as an example, you can put that

1:35:35as a auto crushing. I mean, can you not

1:35:37do that on a spot? So what we do in puds

1:35:40and spuds um every other week at

1:35:43planning commission is craft sightsp

1:35:45specific language restrictions

1:35:48definitions of how a use is allowed to

1:35:50operate on that site based on what it is

1:35:52adjacent to. Whether that's saying there

1:35:55has to be a certain type of screening,

1:35:57whether something has to be limited to

1:35:58interior only, um whether there has to

1:36:01be a certain distance from other

1:36:03surrounding uses. Thi this is work that

1:36:06absolutely municipal counselor's office

1:36:08planning department staff planning

1:36:10commission does on a regular basis. So

1:36:12if if the goal of the commission is to

1:36:17to some degree support continuing the um

1:36:22auto salvage use but with restrictions.

1:36:25That's absolutely a a

1:36:29feasible path for this.

1:36:30>> That's what I would personally support.

1:36:32I'm just sorry.

1:36:34>> So custom language can be written. It's

1:36:37not like it has to be based off because

1:36:39I've looked high and low for definitions

1:36:42and understandings and it's very vague.

1:36:45You know, auto dismantling encompasses

1:36:47this grand scheme of hey yeah you can

1:36:50crush cars, you can do you can

1:36:52autodismantle, you can sell used parts,

1:36:54you can do this there. I haven't found a

1:36:56lot of definition. So if the commission

1:36:59themsself can come up with some you know

1:37:03these are our three big nos you know no

1:37:06giant crusher no ingrained to the

1:37:10foundation cranes you know something of

1:37:14that nature if there's some language on

1:37:16the big no nos uh could at least be

1:37:19presented we'd be happy and open to at

1:37:21least listen to that or understand what

1:37:23those meant what those definitions are

1:37:25but you know of course it still has to

1:37:28make sure that it doesn't, let's say,

1:37:31violate the auto dismantling or auto

1:37:34salvage use in any fashion because

1:37:36that's what I would be worried about is

1:37:38like, hey, we wrote all this language

1:37:39that makes sense. But this one rule that

1:37:42was brought up has to do with petroleum.

1:37:45And guess what? Your engines have oil.

1:37:47You can't do this now. And now we've

1:37:49ruined the true definition of auto

1:37:52salvage due to one rule. So that would

1:37:54be my only concern with custom language

1:37:57and that's why I've looked for already

1:37:59president or current language that

1:38:01exists and it's very vague to be honest

1:38:03with you.

1:38:04>> Laura, I have a question. You mentioned

1:38:08if we were to recommend uh approval

1:38:12uh and add the SOD requirements be

1:38:15referenced, are we simply passing the

1:38:17buck to the next commission?

1:38:22Um,

1:38:25I only brought that up just in case

1:38:26that's the avenue somebody chose and I

1:38:29wanted to make sure you all knew this

1:38:31does not look the way it normally would

1:38:34if I would have gone in and added all of

1:38:36that. Um, as far as passing the buck, I

1:38:40I don't know if that's necessarily it. I

1:38:44think from the standpoint that you are

1:38:47reviewing it from SROD

1:38:50outlook, you have those binoculars on.

1:38:53Um there's been a lot of conversation

1:38:55here

1:38:57um about the current operation.

1:38:59Everybody is impressed with the current

1:39:00operation and they like it to continue

1:39:02that way, but there's no guarantee it's

1:39:04going to be the same person at some

1:39:06point in the future. Um and

1:39:10uh the other thing is they're commenting

1:39:11on how much additional land they're

1:39:13buying.

1:39:14That's also could potentially

1:39:17raise a red flag or concern as okay, do

1:39:20we want to look at expanding some more?

1:39:21I don't know. Or are we just buying it

1:39:23to so that we don't create problems for

1:39:27adjacent neighbors? Okay. Um and I they

1:39:30they yes, they have the property to the

1:39:32north because I have talked to them

1:39:34about some things they wanted to do on

1:39:36that because that is an SROD and we'll

1:39:38have to comply with SR SOD regulation.

1:39:42So, I think this is probably a really

1:39:45difficult spud for you guys to jump in

1:39:48on the first time um dealing with river

1:39:50for the majority of you. Um it's

1:39:53definitely a good learning ground on

1:39:55this one and people have brought up

1:39:57things I didn't even think of.

1:40:00So,

1:40:02we currently are not reviewing a

1:40:05building. We're not talking about a

1:40:07building here.

1:40:07>> You are correct.

1:40:10>> If

1:40:11the full extent in every single

1:40:15paragraph didn't just reference

1:40:18but actually incorporated the scenic

1:40:24information or content.

1:40:27Um

1:40:30and

1:40:33then if if if a building came up,

1:40:40>> you'd have to follow the scenic

1:40:41guidelines

1:40:44set, you know, execut

1:40:49>> I will say metal is allowed as some of

1:40:51you know um our panels with with

1:40:54>> Oh, yeah. you actually have a a profile

1:40:58um you can on the roof on the vertical

1:41:00component those are allowed and we see

1:41:02them a lot and I would anticipate that's

1:41:05what this building is probably going to

1:41:07be

1:41:08>> that image in fact is a perfect

1:41:10>> and so the building they're showing is

1:41:12one that would comply with SROD

1:41:17regulations on material

1:41:20so from that standpoint what you're

1:41:21seeing could be approved in a CA which

1:41:24would be needed did if it stayed in

1:41:26Scenic River.

1:41:31>> I have a question. Why don't you just

1:41:32put it on the other piece of property?

1:41:34>> You're talking about the 519 location.

1:41:36>> I go through all of this rather.

1:41:37>> So, actually for two two really big

1:41:39reasons, honestly. So, number one, we've

1:41:41already dis So, when we first opened our

1:41:43operation, we were auto dismantling

1:41:45only. A whole area here was nothing but

1:41:47car racks and car stands. Cars stacked

1:41:49up high like literally on top of each

1:41:51other. You could actually even see the

1:41:52cars as you drove by the fence sticking

1:41:54out the top. Uh we actually took a

1:41:56pivot. Co changed a lot of our business

1:41:58profile to be honest with you a lot. And

1:42:00so what we actually did is we slowly

1:42:02merged away from auto dismantling

1:42:04because it became almost nonprofitable

1:42:06to be genuinely honest. And so what we

1:42:08did was started with 519. That side

1:42:11actually started we started building

1:42:12custom shelving to store bumpers. So, a

1:42:16big portion of our business actually is

1:42:18we actually get a box truck almost every

1:42:20three days from a large parts distrib.

1:42:23And we actually get all their new

1:42:25damaged goods. And so, we actually kind

1:42:27of pivoted away since we had this new

1:42:30inventory option uh to get in new parts

1:42:34and we actually started building

1:42:35shelving. So, if you if I had a three a

1:42:38Google map, you could literally see

1:42:40nothing but bumper shelving. So is it

1:42:42more affordable to to build this

1:42:44building than move that shielding to the

1:42:45other side?

1:42:46>> Oh no. So like so how it happened. So

1:42:48there was nothing but cars at first,

1:42:50right? On 519 we started crushing

1:42:52everything on 519 and implemented the

1:42:54shelves. Then on where 1858 is, we

1:42:58started slowly crushing there as well.

1:43:00And that's where we are here now. We're

1:43:03like, hey, we no longer just need

1:43:04shelving exterior. This building has

1:43:07gone to the point where we're ready to

1:43:09expand. we're ready to kind of grow out

1:43:11of the auto disk manually portion. So

1:43:13518 5 519 already has a giant

1:43:16infrastructure uh on it.

1:43:18>> So you'd have to [snorts] change that

1:43:19move it over to the other.

1:43:20>> Oh, we're talking about a massive

1:43:22overhaul of moving that infrastructure.

1:43:25But again, it's almost a situation where

1:43:27our arm is twisted where if 1858 is not

1:43:31approved, then that's what we're forced

1:43:32to do. We're now going to be moving that

1:43:34entire infrastructure over to 1858 where

1:43:36we're talking about the R1 and we'll be

1:43:38implementing that building. And

1:43:40genuinely honestly, we already have the

1:43:41building purchased. It's sitting on the

1:43:42property. We're ready to break dirt. Uh

1:43:44we've actually already turned in all of

1:43:45our applications to the city. Everything

1:43:47has basically been approved on the

1:43:49building side. The only part that hasn't

1:43:52been approved is the zoning side.

1:43:54>> Well, and let me just correct something.

1:43:56they would need a CA approved and we

1:43:59don't have that yet but I can't review

1:44:02one until the resoning happens. So

1:44:06building might have finished their

1:44:08review of the building permit but it

1:44:09can't be issued till I sign off on it.

1:44:11>> Can can you put a building on 519?

1:44:14>> Say that again.

1:44:15>> Can you put a building on 519 in its

1:44:17current state?

1:44:20If you if you if you you just go in and

1:44:22drop a a new building

1:44:24>> from what I know about 519, they would

1:44:27still need a building permit. They don't

1:44:28need anything from me

1:44:30>> and a building.

1:44:33Okay. So, because it's out of you and

1:44:37then all it would have to do you you

1:44:39don't have there is no improving the

1:44:41nonconformity.

1:44:42>> There is no non-conformity left on 519

1:44:45because it went away when it got

1:44:46reszoned.

1:44:49two stories or

1:44:55>> is

1:44:56>> I think the base zoning for that one is

1:44:57I3. So it can it can do

1:44:59>> is what is going to go in what is going

1:45:02to go is something that's going to go in

1:45:04this building something that is not

1:45:06allowed to be stored outside.

1:45:08>> No. Like like what's going in the

1:45:11building?

1:45:12>> No. The only thing going in the building

1:45:13if anything is shipping containers,

1:45:15machinery like forklifts or delivery

1:45:17trucks that we have

1:45:18>> batteries and those

1:45:19>> No, not necessarily. No, we we we don't

1:45:21really store that kind of product.

1:45:23Mostly what we store is precious metal.

1:45:26Uh aluminum for radiators, uh co

1:45:28alternators for the copper cores, uh

1:45:31nothing of nothing liquid, nothing oil,

1:45:34nothing of that nature like batteries or

1:45:36acid or lead.

1:45:40>> It's not a you would not allow

1:45:42You would not support language that said

1:45:47there will be no

1:45:50uh storage of

1:45:54things that have liquid

1:45:56like batteries or acid or lead.

1:45:58>> I I would be open to hearing that type

1:46:00of language actually like fuel like I

1:46:02mean we have no purpose for storing

1:46:04fuel. We have no purpose for storing a

1:46:07hazardous waste or whatever that

1:46:08definition may be. Uh this is really

1:46:11more of a precious metal situation.

1:46:13Aluminum wheels, aluminum radiators,

1:46:16copper, uh those kind of things. Uh

1:46:19batteries in all honesty can be stored

1:46:21on 519 legally. So if you change the

1:46:23language on 1858, it would really have

1:46:25no damning effect. We just have to be

1:46:28the careful of the language of the

1:46:29autodismantling side. And then you know

1:46:32to be honest with you though, if you put

1:46:33in that language of auto dismantling,

1:46:36your language immediately gets

1:46:38terminated. You can't autodismantle and

1:46:40not store batteries. It's not really

1:46:42possible. And that's why I brought up

1:46:44earlier that language gets messy if we

1:46:46did write it. Hey, do we ride it for

1:46:48this? Okay, you can't have batteries.

1:46:49Okay, how do you bring in a car and

1:46:52store a car here and then not have that

1:46:54same language or at least not legally do

1:46:56it and or illegally operate in that

1:47:00fashion? And so that's my concern about

1:47:02trying to rewrite language. Well, the

1:47:05language would be that you could do

1:47:06those on 519.

1:47:09You could have that component and what

1:47:12you do on 1858 is restricted,

1:47:15>> right? But again, like so if you're

1:47:17allowing me on 58 1858 to park a car

1:47:21>> but not store a battery.

1:47:23>> No, I'm saying if the language is such

1:47:26that you can still have auto dis the

1:47:28current use. It's just got some

1:47:30restrictions. You're talking about have

1:47:32the current use on 519.

1:47:34>> No, the current use on SP the current

1:47:36current use.

1:47:37>> It's I mean that's done in documents. We

1:47:40can have the current use, but we're

1:47:41going to restrict certain things. So,

1:47:44it's that's why the PUD is crafted so

1:47:46that it can be custom specific to make

1:47:48it to where there's not things that we

1:47:50would not want in the future. I think

1:47:52the recommendation of what we're kind of

1:47:54discussing here is that what you're

1:47:57already doing on SPD1 1858 is sort of

1:48:01what we would be interested in maybe

1:48:03recommending and that language be

1:48:05crafted in the future.

1:48:06>> I see.

1:48:07>> What you said like yeah, really we don't

1:48:09need giant cranes. There's a few things,

1:48:11but I do want to keep it auto salvage.

1:48:13Um, we're kind of on the side of like

1:48:17maybe somebody won't come in and just

1:48:18tear down this $200,000 building. But

1:48:21>> I can actually completely agree with

1:48:22that. Like if there was language for

1:48:24like crane or scrap operations of a

1:48:27large scale such as companies as you see

1:48:30in downtown area like standard iron

1:48:32where they have these giant cranes

1:48:33>> whereas you can do that on

1:48:36>> I legally can do that. Yeah. 19. So even

1:48:38if you did restricted it off 1858,

1:48:41right? You're absolutely right.

1:48:42>> If you're looking to the future and

1:48:43you're looking to what happens next,

1:48:45what's the leg legacy for me to sell,

1:48:48you you could still have really

1:48:50wonderful operation that is auto

1:48:52salvage.

1:48:53>> Correct. Absolutely. If this is

1:48:54something we could get to.

1:48:56>> Yeah. if there's some restrictive

1:48:58language to not inhibit the auto salvage

1:49:02part of things and to just make sure we

1:49:04don't tailor it to a large scrap metal

1:49:07like I understand putting in a pedestal

1:49:10crane, bringing in a certain metal

1:49:12crushing device, things of that nature.

1:49:14That would fully make sense to put in

1:49:16the language in 1858. Uh I because it

1:49:19really wouldn't inhibit any owner from

1:49:21doing it on 519, which is next to them

1:49:23anyway. So they would just be splitting

1:49:24how they operate their system as long as

1:49:27that autodismantling component is there.

1:49:29But that's my only concern is ruining

1:49:32that language. Hey, you're allowed to do

1:49:34this but not that. Well, how do you

1:49:36operate an auto salvage by allowing ABC

1:49:39and not XYZ? And so that's the only part

1:49:42I have. But yeah, for the hazardous

1:49:44materials, you know, fuel or

1:49:48petroleum or oil, in fact, you know,

1:49:51those kinds of languages are fully

1:49:54acceptable and I'm very willing to see

1:49:57what kind of language can be

1:49:58indoctrinated into the spud.

1:50:00>> Well, like you said, the building's

1:50:01already purchased. It's on the site.

1:50:05So I think that we need to find some

1:50:06language that's defensible

1:50:10that does not create a precedent that we

1:50:13would want to unravel if brought before

1:50:16us by somebody who is not operating as

1:50:19efficient at a business

1:50:22um that you are.

1:50:23>> Absolutely.

1:50:24>> That stays within SROD. all the full

1:50:28guidelines are

1:50:30um

1:50:32adhered to. Um

1:50:35that things that are extremely egregious

1:50:38that none of us would want would be

1:50:41excluded. Um

1:50:44but I feel like that's a process with

1:50:46staff and that's not something that's

1:50:48going to be able to be accomplished in

1:50:50between now and and planning commission

1:50:52tomorrow. So in that regard, Laura,

1:50:58what is what are options or is that a in

1:51:01the event that there would be a

1:51:04willingness to continue that the

1:51:06continuence would allow staff and

1:51:09applicant to work together to try and

1:51:13craft language that is

1:51:17>> specialized in

1:51:18>> less costic? Can

1:51:20>> I think the if the applicant's amendable

1:51:23to it, this body could continue the

1:51:27application for a month and we come and

1:51:30we work with us with um planning

1:51:34commission staff with municipal

1:51:36counselor's office to craft language

1:51:37that everyone's comfortable with. It

1:51:39comes back to this body for your

1:51:41recommendation and then goes to planning

1:51:43commission. Um, if you don't want a

1:51:46continuence from us today, we craft a

1:51:50kind of more broad recommendation that

1:51:53goes to planning commission perhaps with

1:51:55the inclusion that planning commission

1:51:56continue the item to develop language

1:52:00restricting um the uses.

1:52:03>> So, what I will say is, you know,

1:52:05normally you hear from me it's going to

1:52:07be tight if it continues for a month

1:52:10because I'd need everything by next

1:52:11Tuesday. However, in this case,

1:52:14I think staff is willing to try to make

1:52:18this work out given the discussion that

1:52:20I've heard from all of you. And so, what

1:52:23that would mean is

1:52:26the day after

1:52:28your next meeting is a planning

1:52:30commission meeting.

1:52:32Um, unless the month got really weird. I

1:52:34didn't look at a calendar.

1:52:35>> I don't know.

1:52:40>> Um, let's let's I'm going to look at

1:52:42that because that could

1:52:45impact. Okay. So, your meeting next

1:52:49month is on the 28th

1:52:55and theirs is

1:52:58the 2nd and 4th. Yes. So, they have a

1:53:00meeting on the 29th, which is the next

1:53:02day.

1:53:03So

1:53:07if they agree and we continue it, then

1:53:10it would just be continued tomorrow at

1:53:13the planning commission meeting for a

1:53:14month. If they don't agree and we put

1:53:18stuff together and it goes to the

1:53:20planning commission and they continue

1:53:22it, we'll probably be at the same time

1:53:25frame that we were hoping that we could

1:53:28get this in. So um if does that make

1:53:32sense? Is that what you were thinking,

1:53:34Katie?

1:53:34>> Yeah.

1:53:34>> Okay.

1:53:36So, whenever a body is considering

1:53:40continuing something, we ask the

1:53:43applicant and we need the applicant to

1:53:45agree with us. Um, and so, do you

1:53:48understand what they're wanting to

1:53:49continue this for?

1:53:52>> To talk about additional exceptions.

1:53:54>> Well, to talk about adding language into

1:53:57your master your MDS.

1:53:59>> Yes.

1:54:00>> That would result in them being able to

1:54:03recommend approval to the planning

1:54:05commission.

1:54:05>> Absolutely.

1:54:06>> So, and then it they want to get it in

1:54:10the form that and it we as staff, legal,

1:54:13you all agree on things

1:54:16and then forward that to the planning

1:54:18commission.

1:54:20So, would you agree to having a one-mon

1:54:24continuence and come back before this

1:54:27commission at their meeting

1:54:29>> to to discuss language between that time

1:54:31frame? Absolutely.

1:54:31>> Right. with staff and and legal.

1:54:33>> Yeah, absolutely.

1:54:34>> Okay. So, what I'm hearing them say is

1:54:36yes, they are agreeable to a one-mon

1:54:39continuence and that would be to your

1:54:41meeting on October the 28th.

1:54:46And so, in the next couple of weeks, we

1:54:48would be working with them, working out

1:54:50language, listening to this meeting.

1:54:52Again, don't forget it's out there on

1:54:53YouTube. You can listen to it again. um

1:54:56so that we don't miss a comment that

1:54:58somebody has made or a suggestion that

1:55:00somebody has made.

1:55:02>> So now we would be entertaining a motion

1:55:05for continuence.

1:55:08>> Okay. Any other language

1:55:10>> of continuence of the spud

1:55:14uh 1858 to the October 28th urban design

1:55:19commission meeting. I believe that is a

1:55:21motion I heard from

1:55:24anyone Ferris. I'm sorry.

1:55:32>> Oh, okay.

1:55:33>> Do you have to order to say yes? You

1:55:35okay?

1:55:36>> I do have one question. The um language

1:55:39that's to be structured is it

1:55:41>> we need them to vote first. No, that's

1:55:43okay. Apologize.

1:55:43>> What was the motion

1:55:45>> to continue it to what what I said the

1:55:48October uh 28th meeting?

1:55:49>> Yeah. move to continue this to the OC

1:55:52October 28th meeting in order for staff

1:55:54and the applicant to meet and discuss

1:55:57potential language that might be able to

1:55:58address the issues that have been

1:55:59discussed today.

1:56:06My computer is

1:56:11>> refresh

1:56:13then.

1:56:19>> Did my motion get heard?

1:56:21>> I heard it. You're

1:56:23>> okay.

1:56:23>> There we go. Okay. But it's not There

1:56:26you go.

1:56:28>> Howard or

1:56:30Amy?

1:56:35Keith, my vote is yes. It kicked me off

1:56:37the

1:56:38>> My vote is yes.

1:56:43>> I think it's tired and it really time

1:56:46out.

1:56:46>> You have to refresh at the top. If you

1:56:48don't refresh, we can take a we can take

1:56:51a

1:56:57>> Yes.

1:57:01Awesome.

1:57:02Okay.

1:57:03>> Motion passes.

1:57:04>> Thank you.

1:57:05>> Thank you.

1:57:05>> Thank you, commission.

1:57:07>> Very robust dialogue. Thank you.

1:57:09>> Okay. I'll reach out to you

1:57:10[clears throat] guys tomorrow. Okay.

1:57:11>> Awesome.

1:57:11>> Thank you for your time today. Thank you

1:57:13very much.

1:57:13>> Thank you all.

1:57:15>> Okay. Moving on to

1:57:18let's see where we item 7 C our urban

1:57:21design commission calendar for 2027. So

1:57:24it's it's the standard calendar and just

1:57:27as a reminder you know you meet on the

1:57:29fourth Wednesdays of the month except

1:57:31November and December and so because of

1:57:34Thanksgiving and Christmas you meet on

1:57:35the third Wednesday of the month and

1:57:38that week is tough and there'll be other

1:57:41committees that are they they shove them

1:57:42in that week and so sometimes you have

1:57:45somebody right before you and we might

1:57:46have to wait. So just kind of keep that

1:57:48in the back of your mind. But we put

1:57:51together the calendar for you to

1:57:52approve.

1:57:53>> Do you all ever I don't think we get

1:57:55calendar invites sent to our emails.

1:57:58That would be super helpful.

1:58:00>> We can talk about that.

1:58:02>> Okay.

1:58:03>> In the past, we haven't done Outlook

1:58:05calendar invites to entire commissions

1:58:08because it kind of opens the door for

1:58:10inadvertent exparte communication

1:58:13amongst all of you. Um,

1:58:15>> but we've had some conversations about

1:58:17that lately. So, um, yeah, we'll we'll

1:58:19look into that.

1:58:20>> There a subscription I calendar we could

1:58:22just subscribe to.

1:58:24>> That's beyond my level of technical

1:58:27expertise, but Keith may

1:58:28>> That's why we have Keith.

1:58:29>> Yeah.

1:58:31>> Okay. So, you guys are going to work on

1:58:33what that would look like, but

1:58:35otherwise, we're just approving the

1:58:36calendar for 2027,

1:58:38right? Is there a motion? Approve our

1:58:412027.

1:58:42>> Motion to approve.

1:58:44Second.

1:58:47>> We needed an easy one after that. Let's

1:58:49see.

1:58:55>> Okay.

1:59:00Nathan is locked out, but he gave it.

1:59:02>> Yes.

1:59:08>> Thank you.

1:59:09>> All right. Thank you. Passes. Item

1:59:11eight, communications. These are just

1:59:13for your review,

1:59:14>> right? And you'll see we've got more new

1:59:16duplexes being built in Stockyard's

1:59:18portion of River, which we're very

1:59:20excited about. This builder is doing an

1:59:22excellent job.

1:59:23>> Are they building those duplexes on the

1:59:27uh on the um outside [snorts]

1:59:30boundary of communities or they're just

1:59:32kind of scattered throughout the

1:59:34neighborhood? Are they in the core?

1:59:36>> These that he's building right now are

1:59:38actually located um west of Penn

1:59:43in in that area, that neighborhood,

1:59:44there's a several block area that goes

1:59:46all the way up to the park and down um

1:59:50there was an individual and I can't

1:59:51remember his name, but anyway, who had

1:59:53died and had a lot of property in that

1:59:55area for sale and people are picking up

1:59:57that property and this builder um he is

2:00:02building uh twotory and one-story

2:00:04duplexes. Um and so, and if you've ever

2:00:07been back in that neighborhood, it is a

2:00:09neighborhood that really needs some

2:00:11help. has a lot of vacant land, has some

2:00:13rundown houses. Yeah. And I think it'll

2:00:15be very beneficial to that neighborhood.

2:00:17>> I wish there was a way that we could pay

2:00:19closer attention to density as it

2:00:22relates to the peripheral of the

2:00:24neighborhood versus the core, right? If

2:00:27we're thinking missing middle, you want

2:00:29to do the single family in the core and

2:00:30then and then more dense on the on the

2:00:32outskirts. And so, just want to be

2:00:34haphazard about how we are building

2:00:36because we need units. But that's just

2:00:37my little platform. So,

2:00:39>> okay. But anyway, I'm glad there's new

2:00:41development. So, um

2:00:43>> and and for um urban design

2:00:46>> for we never have a lack of signs. And

2:00:49so, you will notice that there's always

2:00:50a lot of signs.

2:00:51>> Yep.

2:00:52>> Um and more signs and more signs. So, it

2:00:55looks like the only one that's not a

2:00:56sign in that whole batch is somebody

2:00:59extended their in cottage extend

2:01:01extended their CA. So,

2:01:03>> okay. This doesn't need uh approval,

2:01:06right? We're just

2:01:07>> No, no, no. This is just for your

2:01:09information to let you know which what

2:01:11administrative approvals we've issued

2:01:12since your last meeting.

2:01:14>> Okay. Uh item number eight uh B I think

2:01:18we're at. Do we have any more comments

2:01:20from planning staff?

2:01:21>> I'm trying to remember. I at the moment

2:01:24I can't think if I have anything on the

2:01:25agenda for next month.

2:01:27>> Well, you do now.

2:01:28>> Oh, I'm sorry. We have an item for next

2:01:30month. So, check your calendar. Um

2:01:32you'll be hearing from us.

2:01:34>> Yep. On that. Thank you. And I was just

2:01:36going to say we have a full house today

2:01:37for the first time in a long time. So,

2:01:39thank you everyone for being here um and

2:01:42for your attention um to all these

2:01:43issues today. So,

2:01:45>> appreciate you guys.

2:01:48>> Ditto for item C. Any [laughter]

2:01:52>> any commission members want to say

2:01:53something?

2:01:54>> I just want to thank Jonathan Heisel for

2:01:56my nomination as vice chair. I foresee a

2:02:01chair nomination in about a year from

2:02:03now.

2:02:05paybacks.

2:02:06>> Yeah, we like being voluntto.

2:02:09Okay. All right, guys. It looks like

2:02:11we're at the very end. Our next meeting

2:02:12date is going to be on Wednesday,

2:02:14October 28th. New applicants uh were to

2:02:17have been submitted to staff by 4 p.m.

2:02:20Tuesday, Sep September 22nd. Revisions

2:02:23and information on continued projects

2:02:24are to be submitted by Tuesday,

2:02:26September 29th, 2026. And I believe we

2:02:29are adjourned. Thank you.

2:02:34Sorry guys.