[00:00:12]
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER THE 22ND OR 26TH, EXCUSE ME.
MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? CHAIRMAN AMANDA JACKSON.
DENMARK, VICE CHAIRMAN, CHARLIE WETMORE.
HELLO, COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN DUNCAN.
HOPEFULLY THIS WILL NOT APPLY TESTIMONY, BUT THE PLAINTIFF COMMISSION WILL NOT HEAR NEW ITEMS AT 9:30 PM UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE NINE 30 MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OR AN ADDITIONAL MEETING DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS.
EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'S AGNOSTIC SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN.
AND THEN SPEAKING, AVOID DISRESPECT TO THE COMMISSION STAFF AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE MEETING.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SPEAKING FOR THE RECORD, COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OF THIS EVENING? OKAY.
UM, MAY I HAVE AN OPTION OF THE AGENDA PLEASE? SO MOVED.
ANY FURTHER SESSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OF THOSE? UM, WAIT, I HAVE AN ADOPTION.
I'M NOT SURE THE ADOPTION DOES INTO MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER THE 28TH FURTHER.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL ON PAPER? AYE.
SO WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND WE HAVE NO OLD BUSINESS.
SO WE ARE GONNA GO STRAIGHT TO NEW BUSINESS WITH JORDAN AND IT IS A INDIGO CODES STREET NAMING A REQUEST BY HE FOR EDWARDS FOR APPROVAL OF THE STREET NAMING APPLICATION.
LIKE YOU SAID, THE REQUESTED BY HEAT STAMP AND BOARD EDWARDS ON BEHALF OF PKP GROUP, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A STREET NAMING APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING STREET NAMES TO BE USED FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIGO CODE TOWN HOMES.
YOU CAN SEE THE ROOM NAMES AND ADDITIONAL NAMES UP ON YOUR SCREEN.
THE ROAD NAMES HAVE THAT ARE ALL ACCEPTED, HAVE NO CONFLICTS.
ADDITIONAL NAMES ARE ACCEPTED.
HOWEVER, THEY HAVE SOME PRECURSORS AS FAR AS CANNOT BE DRAWN STRAIGHT AWAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
UH, ON APRIL 27TH, 2022, THE TOWN APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY, WHICH AN A THREE MINUTE TIMES DEVELOPMENT, IT ATAK CURRENT MAKING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED.
THIS SHEET APPLICATION PROVIDES THE POTENTIAL AIMS FOR THE FOUR ROWS TO BE BUILT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS STREET NAMING APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED AT THE OCTOBER 5TH, 2022, MEANING THE DRC WITH 11 OF 12 STREET NAMES APPROVED.
SO YOUR ACTIONS, UH, AS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS GRANTED BY THE POWERS AND DUTY SET FORTH IN SECTION 2 2 65 OF THE UDO, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND SUBMIT, APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
HERE'S THE REVIEW CRITERIA, UM, AND ANALYSIS THAT I CAN GO THROUGH IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
UM, BUT TOWN STAFF FINDS THAT 11 OF THE PROPOSED 12 NEW STREET NAMES ARE ACCEPTABLE.
AND THESE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE THREE OF THE U WAS STATED ABOVE.
AND WE RECOMMEND, UM, THAT PLAN COMMISSION APPROVE THE FOLLOWING.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THEY'RE TOTAL OF FOUR NAMES THAT ARE GONNA BE USED.
JUST IF YOU WANNA REMIND US WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NAMES THAT AREN'T USED.
THEY JUST GO BACK INTO THE BUCKET.
THEY STAY DEDICATED TO THIS PROJECT FOR TWO YEARS.
AFTER TWO YEARS THAT THEY'RE NOT USED, THEY GO BACK INTO NAMES THAT COULD BE USED.
YOU WANNA HAVE A MOTIONS HERE AS, OH, I'M SORRY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ASK
I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE GOOD, BUT DOES ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE STREET NAMES.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
SO THE NEXT ITEM NUMBER TWO IS 41 CALHOUN STREET.
[00:05:01]
A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A REQUEST BY RANDOLPH STEWART ON BEHALF OF WINDSONG INVESTMENTS FOR AN APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A RENOVATION REMODEL IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO CREATE A WALKUP RESTAURANT, A CARRY OUT RESTAURANT RETAIL SPACE WITH A COVERED PATIO COURTYARD AND ASSOCIATED PARKING.
IT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, HISTORIC DISTRICT ZONING, JORDAN.
OKAY, I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER THIS SINCE YOU JUST DID IT PERFECTLY.
THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF LOTTON AND CALHOUN STREET, JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF DUBOIS PARK.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT A BIT MORE HERE.
UM, EXISTING BUILDINGS, PRISE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TWO RETAIL TENANTS THAT FRONT TOWARDS CALHOUN STREET.
UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NONE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PARCEL ARE CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES.
UH, PROJECT CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTING, UM, TWO BUILDING EDITIONS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS BETWEEN THE EXISTING BUILDING TODAY AND CAL STREET.
THE NORTHERN EDITION PROPOSES COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE AS WELL AS ROOFTOP DECK, WHILE THE SOUTHERN EDITION PROPOSES A CARRY OUT RESTAURANT.
BETWEEN THE TWO NEW ADDITIONS, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A COURTYARD WITH COLON EGGS, UM, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT PROVIDE SEATING AND THE GATHERING SPACE.
AND THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO MOVE AND REBUILD AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO SERVE AS ANOTHER CARRY OUT RESTAURANT.
THE, JUST A BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS ONE, THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS ON JANUARY 20TH, 2021.
AT THAT TIME, STAFF DEAN, BUT THE SUBMISSION WAS INCOMPLETE AND LACK SUFFICIENT DETAIL FOR REVIEW.
THE APPLICANT MADE A RESUBMISSION AND PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON APRIL 7TH, 2021.
STAFF COMMENTS ON THAT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN WERE REVIEWED AT THE MAY 5TH, 2021 DRC MEETING.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND UPDATED EXHIBITS TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS PROVIDED AFTER THAT MAY 5TH, 2021.
DRC MEETING THE APPLICANT PROPOSED, UH, NUMEROUS QUESTIONS AND TO TOWN STAFF AND REQUESTED TO RECEIVE A FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
TOWN STAFF PROVIDED A FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSE, UM, WITH UDO INTERPRETATIONS AND CODE SECTIONS ON JUNE 17TH, 2021.
UH, THE APPLICANT RESUBMITTED PLANS WITHOUT A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON JANUARY 4TH, 2022.
AND STAFF COMMENTS WERE REVIEWED AT THE FEBRUARY 2ND DRC MEETING AND ON JULY 25TH, 2022, THE APPLICANT RESUBMITTED PLANS WITHOUT A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.
TOWN STAFF NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WOULD BE ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ONCE THEY PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND A SITE PLAN THAT WAS STAMPED AND SIGNED BY AN ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2022, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.
HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE SITE PLAN.
UM, THE HATCHED OUT AREAS THAT ARE THE FRONTS OF THE BUILDING ARE THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS WITH THE COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE.
THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS BACK HERE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING ON MOVING WITH PARKING AND ACCESS TO THE REAR.
HERE'S THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN, UM, SHOWING MUCH OF THE SAME FEATURES AS WELL.
I CAN GO INTO IN MORE DEPTH, UM, WHERE THE APPLICANT COULD AS WELL.
AS FAR AS REVIEW CRITERIA, THE PLAN COMMISSION HAS TO CONSIDER THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION THREE TEN THREE A OF THE U D O AND ASSESSING AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UH, THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA, UM, ARE GONNA BE FOLLOWED ON THE NEXT SLIDES.
THESE ARE ALLS OF CRITERIA, THE ONES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED, THE ONES I WANT TO GO INTO IN MORE DEPTH AND DETAIL.
UM, NUMBERS TWO THROUGH FOUR HAVE BEEN MET AND SATISFIED BECAUSE THEY'RE MOSTLY NON APPLICABLE.
UH, CRITERIA NUMBER ONE FROM SECTION THREE POINT 10.3.
POINT A 0.1 IS CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS PROVIDING ARTICLE FIVE, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE UDL.
UH, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND STAFF FINDS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS WITHIN ARTICLE FIVE.
POINT FOUR REQUIRES A DRIVEWAY, UM, AISLE WIDTH WITH 90 DEGREE PARKING TO BE A 22 FOOT MINIMUM, 24 FOOT MAXIMUM.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A 20 FOOT DRIVE AISLE NUMBER TWO FROM SECTION FIVE 11.
FOUR A SEVEN REQUIRES A LANDSCAPE ISLAND OF AT LEAST 12 FEET IN WIDTH AT THE ENDS OF EACH PARKING BAY.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AROUND A FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ON THE ENDS OF THOSE PARKING BAYS.
SECTION 5 3 72 REQUIRES BUFFERS TO BE NO LESS THAN HALF OF THE CIDER REAR SETBACK.
AS SHOWN THEY'RE TWO AND A HALF FEET, WHICH IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SCREEN THE PARKING AREAS FROM THE SHINING PROPERTIES.
SECTION 5 3 7 D REQUIRES 75% CANOPY COVERAGE, NOT INCLUDING ROOFTOPS.
THE PLAN SHOWS CALCULATIONS COUNTING CANOPY
[00:10:01]
OVER ROOFTOPS AS WELL AS EXISTING CANOPY THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.THE NEXT SECTION, SECTION 5.6 0.3 REQUIRES THE SITE TO HAVE 20% OPEN SPACE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING LESS THAN 20% OPEN SPACE.
UH, TABLE 5 15 7 C1 REQUIRES SIX FACES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT USES DUE TO THE SUBMITTED NARRATIVES, WHICH SAY THE COURTYARD WILL BE USED IN SEATING IN AN EVENT GATHERING SPACE.
UH, THE TABLES AND SEATING AREAS CLASSIFIED THE CARRY OUT RESTAURANT AS A RESTAURANT WHICH HAS HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH MAKES THE PLAN UNDERPART TABLE 5 15 7 C ONE REQUIRES TWO SPACES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET.
FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ROOFTOP DECK AND HAS NOT TAKEN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, FOR THE AREA INTO ACCOUNT LEADING TO THE PLAN BEING UNDERPOWERED FOR THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL SERVICES AREA.
AND LASTLY, SECTION 5 15 7 E THREE REQUIRES A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE BUILDING WHICH THE PARKING SERVES.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED THIS CONNECTION THE NEXT TWO SECTIONS, UM, FOR THE REVIEW CRITERIA SECTION THREE TEN THREE EIGHTY FIVE.
UM, THE PHASE AND PLAN OF APPLICABLE IS LOGICAL AND IS DESIGNED IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS EACH PHASE TO FULLY FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY REGARDING, UH, SERVICES, UTILITIES, CIRCULATION FACILITIES, AND OPEN SPACE.
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE COMPLETION OF THEIR PROPOSED PHASES, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE TWO PHASES, HOWEVER, NO PHASING PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
UH, IF THE PROJECT IS TO BE TWO PHASES AND NOT A SINGLE PHASE, THE PHASING PLAN NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THE LAST CRITERIA FROM SECTION THREE TEN THREE A SIX IS THAT THE APPLICATION MUST COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPLICATIONS MANUAL.
UH, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY TOWN STAFF AND HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE MATERIAL COMPLETE.
UH, HOWEVER, THE SITE PLAN IS DRAWN OVER SURVEY FROM 2016 AND WAS NOT DRAWN BY AN ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, WHICH IS PART OF THE DEVELOPED PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS.
AS FAR AS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS, TOWN STAFF FINDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHOULD BE MET PRIOR TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
APPROVAL TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION THREE TEN THREE A.
UM, NUMBER ONE IS TO PROVIDE A 22 FOOT MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE, UH, WITH 90 DEGREE PARKING, PROVIDING LANDSCAPE BALANCES OF AT LEAST 12 FEET.
THE END OF PARKING BASE, PROVIDING ADEQUATE BUFFERS TO SCREEN THE PARKING LOT, PROVIDING 75% CAN COVERAGE, PROVIDING 20% OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE, PROVIDING SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE RESTAURANT USE AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE USES, PROVIDING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET WITH PLAN SET WITH ALL PAGES STAMPED AND SIGNED BY REGISTERED ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT DO NOT OVERLAP A SURVEY FROM 2016, UH, PROVIDING A PEDESTRIAN ROUTE FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE ENTRY OF THE BUILDING AND PROVIDING AN ADA ACCESSIBLE SPACE THAT MEETS STATE BUILDING AND CODE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM, UM, OF A SPACE AT LEAST 132 INCHES WIDE WITH AN ACCESS AISLE AT LEAST 60 INCHES WIDE OR A SPACE 96 INCHES WIDE WITH AN ACCESS EYE AT LEAST 96 INCHES WIDE.
ANY QUESTIONS? RIGHT? ANYTHING FROM JORDAN OR WE WANNA TALK TO THE APPLICANT FIRST.
FRANK, WITH THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK.
I HAVE, I HAVE A RESPONSE FOR ALL THE COMMENTS YOU WANT.
HOW WE THEY SUBMIT IT PRIOR TO RIGHT NOW? UM, IS AREN'T SOMETHING ON THE RECORD.
IS SHE SUBMITTING TO THEM TO YOU NOW? I MEAN, SHE CAN DO THAT.
I MEAN, YOU'RE MORE THAN NO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THEY HAVE BEEN DISSEMINATED THROUGH YOU OR IF WE'RE SAYING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME.
WELL YOU CAN, YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT THEM, BUT I'LL LET START WITH THE THUMB.
I WORK WITH OUR STORE DESIGNS AND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT AROUND STORE AND PETER PAULINO.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO EACH 0.1 BY ONE.
UM, ABOUT THE, UM, 22 ROLL, UM, WE PREVIOUS STAFF, THESE, THESE, UM, PROJECT WE SUBMITTED SINCE 2019.
UM, AND WITH PREVIOUS STAFF WE AGREED FROM THE 12, THE, UM, DRIVEWAY TO, TO DO ANYTHING.
WE HAD TO MOVE THE, UH, BUILDING THE SYSTEM IS STRUCTURED THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE, THE SITELINE BECAUSE THIS, UM, ACCESS IS BEEN OVER
[00:15:01]
PROOF, A NON EASEMENT ACCESS WITH WITHOUT SOUND.APRIL YOU CAN SEE IN THE SITELINE AND ITS IN THE
UM, IF WE, UH, SORRY, UH, IF THE MARSHAL APPROVE THIS, UH, AT SINCE, UH, AFTER REMOVING THE ROAD, ANYTHING ELSE? IS THAT, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING DOWN YOUR LIST? SURE, YOU GO AHEAD.
UM, ABOUT THE, OH, ABOUT THE BUFFERS.
UH, I WILL REFER THIS TO MARIA, THE LANDSCAPE.
I'M A LANDSCAPE DESIGNER AND I'M WORKING ON THIS PLAN FOR 41 CALHOUN STREET.
UM, THE ITEM B THAT REQUIRES A LANDSCAPE ISLAND AT LEAST 12 FEET IN WIDTH.
UM, THE ENTRANCE, THAT'S A 12 FOOT LANDSCAPE ISLAND, HE'S SAYING TO SEE THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S NOT MORE THAN EIGHT SPACES THAT ARE CONTINUOUS.
I'M JUST SORT OF REPEATING WHAT I MEAN.
THAT THAT DOESN'T AFFECT ME NECESSARILY.
I'M SORT OF DESIGNING WITHIN THAT, THAT SHAPE.
SO, UM, I'M JUST COMMENTING ON IT AS AN ITEM AND I'M GONNA MOVE ON.
UM, AND SO THEN AGAIN WITH THE ITEM C REQUIRING THE BUFFERS TO BE NO LESS THAN HALF OF THE SIDE OR THE REAR SETBACK, UM, AT THIS POINT THEY'RE 2.5 FEET, UM, WHICH IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SCREENING PARKING AREAS.
OUR COMMENT IS THAT THEY AGREED PREVIOUSLY VERBALLY ON THE LIVING FENCES.
SO, UM, AGAIN, I'VE JUST DONE WHAT I WAS TOLD AND WE WILL ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO MOVING FORWARD.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE, UM, HOW ELSE TO RESPOND EXCEPT JUST SORT OF REITERATE WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE.
UM, THE 75% CANOPY COVERAGE I DID, I DID LOOK AT MY LANDSCAPE PLAN AND I SEE THE DISCREPANCY WHERE I'VE, UM, ERRONEOUSLY KEPT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT TOP PORTION OF THE EXISTING CANOPY.
AND THAT'S ABOUT 645 SQUARE FEET.
AND I NEED TO, UM, I'M IN REMOVING MY, MY NUMBERS GET ME DOWN TO 48 15 OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CANOPY, WHICH IS SHOT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS ABOUT 700 PLUS OR MINUS SHY OF WHAT WE NEED.
SO I AM GOING TO LOOK AT LOTTON STREET DOES HAVE A LAUREL OAK THAT, UM, I DON'T SEE I'VE ACCOUNTED FOR THERE.
AND WITH THAT PINE TREE THAT I THINK IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, I'M JUST GONNA LOOK ON LOTTON STREET TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY MORE EXISTING AND OTHERWISE WE'LL, WE'LL ADD ANOTHER, UM, PROPOSED TREE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT PLUS OR MINUS 700 SQUARE FEET OF, UM, EXISTING TREES THAT IS BASICALLY TAKEN OVER BY THE PROPOSED LIVE OAK.
SO, AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THE LANDSCAPE PORTION.
SO I'LL GO BACK, I'LL TAKE YOU BACK TO TATIANA.
UM, ABOUT THE 20% OPENING SPACE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 29 IN OUR METRICS AND THE SITE PLAN.
OH, BUT IF THE, WE CAN VERIFY AND MEET WITH THE 20% REQUIREMENTS.
UM, ABOUT THE SIX SPACES FOR THE RESTAURANT, THIS IS A CARRY OUT RESTAURANT ONLY THAT REQUIRE TWO PARTNER SPACES AND WE ARE PROVIDING THE TWO PARTNER SPACES, SPACES AND IT WILL NOT BE, UH, INDOOR, SEE IN COLD THERE, UM, ABOUT THE ROOFTOP AND PREVIOUS, IN PREVIOUS MEETING WITH, UM, PREVIOUS STAFF, WE UH, MENTIONED THE IT IS, UH, GONNA BE A ROOFTOP GARDEN.
IT'S GONNA BE GOOD AT CHAIN AND NO ACCESS TO PUBLIC.
IT'S JUST PRIVATE FOR THE HONOR.
BUT IF THE COMMISSION, UH, YOU GUYS DON'T AGREE WITH THIS, WE CAN FOLLOW YOUR ADVICE IN THIS ANSWER.
OH, IT SAYS, UH, YOU CAN SEE IN THE, YOU FINE.
LET ME, I BELIEVE IT'S A TYRO STAIRWAY.
[00:20:01]
YEAH, I, YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHERE ON THE, BUT IT'S FRIDAY, WE HAVE A CHAIN AND IT'S GONNA BE ON NO SIGN.YEAH, WE WOULD BE, UM, JILL'S, UM, UH, PRIVATE, UH, A COURT A YEAH, BUT THIS ALL STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH ROOF OF GARDEN.
UM, THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IS ABOUT THE COLLECTION BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT TO THE COURT YARD.
WE WILL BE MORE HAPPY TO STAND SIDEWALK TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS AND ABOUT THE SITE PLAN, WE, UH, WE WANNA, UH, UPDATE THE, THE SURVEY AND THE SITE PLAN IS WE, IS WILL BE SIGNED FOR AN ARCHITECT OR IN A ENGINEER FOR THE SERVICE OF, UH, THE POINT SECTION THREE POINT 10, 0.3 A FOUR.
WE SUBMIT, UH, SEAL DOCUMENT FROM THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND WE, WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS.
UM, YOU SAID SOMEBODY VERBALLY AGREED TO POINT B ONE AND THREE.
WHO AGREED TO THOSE? OH, HE'S BEEN PREVIOUS, HIS STAFF.
I THINK IT WAS WILL, UM, HOWARD? YES.
I THINK HE WAS SORT OF THE ONE AND I THINK THAT WAS ALSO THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND OF FENCE.
I JUST REMEMBER CONVERSATIONS, IT AFFECTED SOME OF MY STUFF AND I THINK WILL WAS STILL WILL HOWARD, THIS PROJECTS BEEN SINCE 19,010.
BUT THERE'S NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
BUT YOU'VE SUBMITTED IT SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THOUSAND 19.
SO HOW COME IT HASN'T BEEN BECAUSE, UH, WHEN AGREED UPON, SORRY.
UM, EVERY TIME THAT WE IN IS A NEW NARRATIVE, YOU CAN SEE EACH NARRATIVE CHANGE IS WHERE WE UH, KIND OF ANSWER THE ONLY THE QUESTIONS IS IMMEDIATELY NARRATIVE.
BUT IF THERE'S BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS THROUGH STAFF REGARDING THAT DRIVE, HOW COME YOU KEEP REVERTING BACK TO 2019 OF A VERBAL AGREEMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF? LIKE HOW COME IT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED SINCE? LIKE IF YOU KNEW THAT LIKE IN 2020 AND STAFF WAS SAYING, NO, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A 22 FOOT AISLE.
HOW COME YOU GUYS KEEP INSISTING WITHOUT TRYING TO WORK IT OUT IN WRITING? BECAUSE I, I THINK, UM, UM, THE STAFF BEEN CHANGING A LOT.
WE JUST CAN'T GO OFF OF VERBAL.
WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME, I WILL, UM, DISCUSS THIS WITH BRANDON I TO DISCUSS AMONGST OURSELVES.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE CONVERSATION BETWEEN, CAUSE I KNOW YOU NO, I, I MEAN AN ICE CREAM PIE.
I HAVE A, AND I MEAN THIS IS A DISCUSSION FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT, UM, I HAVE A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES WITH THIS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THIS HAS BEEN KINDA HANGING OUT HERE.
JORDAN, WHEN WAS THE INITIAL APPLICATION AGAIN? UM, THERE'S THREE PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION, BUT THE FORMAL ONE WAS JANUARY OF 2021.
AND SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY SINCE 2019 THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH, WITH THIS PROJECT.
AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS, I I PERSONALLY FEEL WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT.
UM, I PERSONALLY AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE MASS AND SCALE OF THIS.
THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE QUESTIONABLE, THE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED WALK UP RESTAURANTS, BUT THERE'S PART OF THE NARRATIVE THAT TALKS ABOUT TABLES AND CHAIRS BEING SET OUT.
BUT THE TABLES AND CHAIRS WON'T BE FOR PEOPLE EATING, BUT THEY'LL JUST BE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A DECK THAT'S THERE.
UM, AND JUST, I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS
[00:25:01]
ABOUT THIS AND I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANY, ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS BETWEEN US.WELL, CHARLIE, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT I, MY MY CONCERN IS A VERY SIMPLE ONE.
I THINK WE OWE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT A DECISION, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IT'S BEEN GOING ON TOO LONG FOR BOTH.
I THINK WE, WE OWE YOU GUYS A DECISION, UM, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S BEEN TAKING A LOT OF YOUR TIME AS WELL AS STAFF'S DONE.
SO THAT I AGREE WITH YOUR POINTS.
I I JUST, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION.
AND I'M, I HAVE THE SAME THOUGHT.
YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE, THE PARKING JUST DOES NOT SEEM SUFFICIENT AT ALL FOR THAT LARGE OF A SPACE.
AND THAT MANY USES, IT JUST, IT'S UNDER PARTED, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SEATING AND RESTAURANT, UM, CLASSIFICATION.
SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
UM, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO RESPECT THE UDO AND, AND FOLLOW WHAT THE UDO IS GUIDING US ON.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO DO IT.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF EXCEPTIONS ON THIS ONE AND WE JUST CAN'T SET THAT PRECEDENT.
IF I MAY, JUST TO ECHO A CONCERN THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED ABOUT PARKING.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS RICHARDSON LE WITH BROOKS AND LA ON HILL HEAD AND SERVING COUNCIL WITH PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, AND LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION, THERE WAS A WRITTEN DETERMINATION BY THE UDO ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT THE TYPE OF USE THAT WOULD APPLY AND WHAT PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY.
UH, THERE IS A PROCESS FOR APPEALING THAT, THAT WOULD'VE EXPIRED BACK IN 2021.
SO IF IT WASN'T APPEALED WITHIN CERTAIN TIMEFRAME, UH, Y'ALL ARE BOUND BY THAT DETERMINATION.
SO, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE TYPE OF USE THAT THIS IS BEING PROPOSED HERE, UH, THAT IS LARGELY OUTSIDE OF Y'ALL'S DISCRETION.
AND, UH, YOU'RE BOUND BY THE UDO ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION, WHICH WAS, WHICH WAS THAT IT WAS A RESTAURANT.
SO WE HAVE TO RULE UPON, WITH THAT DEFINITION, NOT AN EXCEPTION.
I AGREE WITH AMANDA AS WELL TOO IN THE PARKING, BUT ALSO STAFF HAVE SEEMED TO TRY TO WORK THE APPLICANT ON MANY OCCASIONS THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD OF TIME.
AND IT'S LOOKING AT THE LIST OF, YOU KNOW, EXCLUSIONS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE OR AT LEAST MET OR I THINK OVER, YOU KNOW, OVER AND ABOVE.
I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS.
I THINK, UM, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MEET, I'M NOT CONVINCED BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THAT THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN ARE ABLE TO BE ACHIEVED BY DOING A TYPE OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
UM, I THINK THE, THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE WITH THE AMOUNT OF ROOM THAT'S ON THE LOT, THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE WE NEED, THE COVERAGE THAT WE NEED, THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE NEED.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CAN BE RECONCILED, UM, WITH THE EXISTING PLAN.
TO ME, THERE'S JUST TOO MANY OUTSTANDING COMMENTS, EVEN FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR ME TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
UM, I AGREE WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID.
I'VE GOT A LOT OF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T FEEL INCLINED, I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO GO INTO THAT POINT, HONESTLY, WITH THE GENERAL SHARON, DOES ANYONE WANNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION OR HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR ANYTHING ADDITIONAL OR CHAIR? YES, JUST IF I CAN, IF, UH, BASED OFF OF THE TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION, UM, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THE COMMISSION IS INCLINED TO, TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, MAKE SURE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU PROVIDE BINDS TO FACT AND CONCLUSIONS LAW.
I'LL GIVE IT REASON FOR THE DENIAL TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITIES.
DOES ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? I'LL TAKE A STAB.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED.
UM, PRIMARY REASON WOULD BE THE UDO ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION THAT IT IS THE USE OF A RESTAURANT THAT WAS NOT APPEALED WITHIN THE PROPER TIMEFRAME AND THEREFORE IT DOES NOT MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS PER STAFF ARE NOT MET.
IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? THAT'S GREAT.
OH, JUST RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? THE SCREEN? YEAH.
UM, THE DRIVE AISLE IS NOT 22 FEET.
[00:30:01]
THE FIVE FOOT LANDSCAPE THAT NEEDS TO BE 12 FEET, UM, THE LACK OF ADEQUATE BUFFERS.UM, THE LACK OF 75% CANOPY COVERAGE OF TREES AND SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR OTHER SERVICES.
AND THE LACK OF A PLAN STAMPED AND SIGNED BY ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, THE LACK OF A PEDESTRIAN ROUTE FROM THE PARKING LOT AND ADA ACCESSIBLE SPACE WITH, UH, PATHWAYS.
UM, THE COMMENT TO THE EFFECT OF, UM, THAT COMMENT EIGHT WHERE IT SAYS PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT SENT, UM, IT SHOULD BE UTILIZED IN THE 2016, BUT IT IS, AND THEY DID INCLUDE A SURVEYOR STAMP, OR NOT SURVEYOR, THE CIVIL ENGINEERS STAMP ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO I WANT IT TO BE, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO BE ON THE TITLE BLOG OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND STAND, WHICH WAS NOT PROVIDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? I'M SORRY.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER? NOPE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THEN MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVE ONE SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.