[1. Call to Order / Roll Call.]
[00:00:06]
GO. OH. GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 21ST, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING. LET ME TAKE THESE GLASSES OFF. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:46 P.M. PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE MEETING THIS EVENING.
ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION. THOSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION MUST COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM LOCATED ON THE TOWN WEBSITE OR IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IF YOU'RE ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD CHAIR A STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WHEN CALLED UPON, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ITEM TWO THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF YOU'LL PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND
[CONSENT AGENDA]
JUSTICE FOR ALL. ITEM THREE THIS EVENING IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WE HAVE ITEMS THREE A AND THREE B. DID ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY ITEMS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO PULL ITEM THREE B OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND THEN I'LL TAKE IT BACK. IF WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THREE A PLEASE NOTE. PRIOR TO THE MEETING WE RECEIVED SOME REVISED MEETING MINUTES. SO PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THERE'S A MOTION THERE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THREE A. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM THREE A SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED CORRECTED MINUTES THAT WERE SUBMITTED EARLIER TODAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT? AGENDA ITEM THREE A WITH THE REVISED MEETING MINUTES, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THE MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. ZACHARY, I'LL LET YOU KIND OF[3b. Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Site Plan for Automobile Service, Convenience Store with Gas Pumps, Daycare, Drive-Through Restaurant, Office/Restaurant/Retail, Professional Office, and Restaurant/Retail Buildings on Prosper Legacy, Block D, Lots 1-2, Block E, Lots 1-5, and Block F, Lots 1-2, on 22.2± acres, located on the southwest corner of Legacy Drive and Prosper Trail. (DEVAPP24-0083)]
REVIEW ITEM THREE B FOR THE COMMISSION. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM THREE B IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT NINE BUILDINGS TOTALING 58,400FT■!S.AND THE ASSOCIATED PARKING THAT COMES WITH THAT. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, HERE'S THE PLAN. THERE'S BLOCK D HIGHLIGHTED BLOCK E THESE FIVE LOTS AND THEN BLOCK F HERE. SO IT'S THESE NINE LOTS THAT THE PSP IS ADDRESSING. I'LL LET YOU GUYS JUST SEE WHAT'S ON EACH LOT. SO BLOCK D THERE'S A DAYCARE AND A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THE SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR EACH. FOR BLOCK E THERE'S A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT ON LOT ONE, AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION ON LOT TWO, GAS STATION ON LOT THREE, ANOTHER DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT ON LOT FOUR, AND THEN A RESTAURANT SLASH RETAIL BUILDING ON LOT FIVE. AND ON BLOCK F, THAT'S TWO LOTS. LOT ONE IS A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT, AND LOT TWO IS AN OFFICE SLASH RESTAURANT SLASH RETAIL BUILDING. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE PLAN, IT'S ALSO LOCATED ADJACENT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS ENTIRE AREA IS ZONED PD 14, AND THE BASE ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE AREA IS RETAIL.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE. AND SO THE TYPICAL REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL TO ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF THE RETAIL BASED ZONING, BECAUSE WE BASE THOSE REGULATIONS OFF OF BEING A THE REGULATIONS ARE BECAUSE IT'S YOUR ADJACENTLY ZONED. SO THE RETAIL HAS TO BE ADJACENT TO THE ZONING OF RESIDENTIAL AS OPPOSED TO THE USE OF RESIDENTIAL. ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF? YES. THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO WHAT DATE WHEN WAS THE PD APPROVED? THE PD WAS APPROVED IN 2004. SO QUITE A BIT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. WHAT IF THIS WAS COMING BEFORE US? UNDER CURRENT ORDINANCES? WHAT'S WHAT IN HERE WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH CURRENT DAY ORDINANCES? SO IF THIS WAS A BRAND NEW PD, WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE SINGLE FAMILY TO BE A PERMITTED USE IN A RETAIL BASED ZONING DISTRICT.
IT'D HAVE TO BE TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. WE WOULD NOT ALLOW A LOT OF THESE USES BY RIGHT. SPECIFICALLY, THE DRIVE THRUS, GAS STATION, AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION. THOSE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SO JUST REGULATIONS LIKE THIS, IF THAT WAS A BRAND NEW PD, THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE ENFORCED TODAY. AND THEN HOW MANY THE TOTAL PARKING PLACES IN HERE OR HOW MANY? I SAW THAT SOMEWHERE, BUT I DIDN'T. OH IT'S
[00:05:06]
AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SITE. PLAN TO CUT OFF. IS THERE A SPECIFIC LOT THAT YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT THE PARKING? I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE TOTAL BECAUSE I GUESS I'M I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT I MEAN, THIS IS A THAT'S AN EXTREMELY DENSE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M JUST THINKING, I MEAN, HAS THERE BEEN A DO WE ARE WE COMFORTABLE THAT THIS IS THAT WITH THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT THIS WOULD ENGENDER THAT WE'VE GOT A TRAFFIC STUDY OR THE ROADS HANDLE THIS. WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THERE IS NO TRAFFIC STUDY. BUT OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID REVIEW THIS AND IT COMPLIES WITH THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS. AND THEY DEEM THAT A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WASN'T NECESSARY. DO WE HAVE ARE THERE OTHER SIMILAR. AND IT MAY BE JUST THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAT. IT IT LOOKS LIKE IN ORDER TO GET TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, YOU HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH THESE RETAIL PARKING LOTS AND EVERYTHING. I MEAN, IS THAT DO WE HAVE IS THAT IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? ARE THESE IS THIS A DRIVE THROUGH TO GET TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT'S KIND OF HIDDEN BACK BEHIND THIS RETAIL? IT JUST LOOKS ODD TO ME. IT IS AN ODD CONFIGURATION. AND TYPICALLY MOST OF THE AREAS IN OUR TOWN THIS WOULDN'T THIS THIS LAYOUT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. IT'S JUST THAT THIS PD THAT WAS DONE 21 YEARS AGO ALLOWED FOR IT, AND IT MEETS ALL OF THE CURRENT REGULATIONS OF THAT PD. AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, TOWN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S IN BECAUSE IT'S COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE REGULATIONS. CORRECT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME ON THREE B. IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM THREE B. I GUESS I GOT ONE LAST QUESTION. YES, SIR. IS THIS SIMILAR TO PRESTON ROAD BETWEEN FRONTIER PARKWAY AND PROSPER TRAIL WITH THAT KROGER AND HOW THEY HOW THE PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH THE RETAIL TO GET TO THAT COMMUNITY NEXT TO KROGER. I'D HAVE TO SEE IT ON THE MAP. I CAN'T VISUALIZE THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT SPECIFIC AREA. THANK YOU. SO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TODAY IF THEY WERE SEEKING APPROVAL. SO ALL OF THOSE ARE OVERRIDDEN SPECIFICALLY BY THE PD BECAUSE THERE IS A PROVISION WITHIN THE PD THAT SAYS IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE UNLESS IS OTHERWISE MENTIONED HERE. SO THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I GUESS WE DO HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL NOT TO PUT PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT WHAT IS YOUR OPINION HERE BASED ON WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO US? HAVING ALL OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE BEING MET FOR THE SITE PLAN, AND THERE BEING NO ISSUES BEING FOUND, IT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED, AS THE STAFF HAVE SAID, THAT IT BE APPROVED. THANK YOU FOR THAT.APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THIS ABOUT TRYING TO UPDATE THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT MEET THE PD? IS THERE ANYTHING WAS THERE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM ABOUT TRYING TO BRING THEM UP TO A MORE UP TO DATE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT HERE? I MEAN, WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THIS AREA, BUT ULTIMATELY THEY JUST CHOSE TO KEEP THE STANDARDS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. 21 YEAR OLD STANDARDS. OKAY, SO I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON ITEM THREE B AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THREE B. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM THREE B ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THREE B FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CARSON ON ITEM THREE B ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM THREE B SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN THE MOTION. I'VE GOT ONE, TWO THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED AND ONE OPPOSED.
AND PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD WAS IN OPPOSITION AND THREE B IS
[CITIZEN COMMENTS]
APPROVED. SO MOVING TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. CITIZEN COMMENTS. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON ANY TOPIC NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. PLEASE COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM. PRESENT IT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING.I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORMS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. OKAY,
[00:10:04]
SO LET'S MOVE ON. IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE AT THIS POINT, I GUESS NO ONE SUBMITTED[4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request for a Planned Development for an existing Professional Office on Bryant’s First Addition, Block 15, Lot 1R, on 0.6± acre, to accommodate a right-of-way acquisition along First Street, located on the northeast corner of Coleman Street and First Street. (ZONE-24-0026)]
ONE. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR AN EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. ON BRYANT'S FIRST EDITION BLOCK 15, LOT ONE R ON 0.6 ACRE TO ACCOMMODATE A RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION ALONG FIRST STREET, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COLEMAN STREET AND FIRST STREET. THIS IS CASE ZONE DASH 24, DASH 0026. OKAY, CHAIR DANIELS SAID. THIS IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COLEMAN STREET AND FIRST STREET. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. ESSENTIALLY, JUST THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS CASE IS THAT THE PROPERTY'S BEING REZONED TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG FIRST STREET.THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY WOULD RENDER THE CURRENT SITE LEGAL, NONCONFORMING.. AND THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO ADDRESS SUCH STANDARDS AS SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE TO ALLOW THE SITE. AFTER THE ACQUISITION TO REMAIN IN CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN REGULATIONS. SO THIS IS JUST THE ZONING FOR THE AREA. THIS IS JUST A CHART DETAILING THE SURROUNDING ZONING. SO IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED DOWNTOWN OFFICE. THIS IS THE SITE. ONCE THE ACQUISITION HAPPENS. SO THIS IS THIS AREA HERE. AND THERE'S ANOTHER SHOWING THE ACQUISITION.
BUT THIS AREA HERE IN THE HATCHING IS WHAT'S BEING ACQUIRED. SO IF YOU CAN SEE THERE THIS IS COLEMAN. THIS IS FIRST STREET. AND SO THIS STRIP HERE IS WHAT'S BEING ACQUIRED BY THE TOWN. AND SO SOME OF THE REGULATIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE PD. ONE ARE THE SETBACKS. SO ADJACENT TO SECOND STREET AND RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE, THE SETBACKS WILL REMAIN THE SAME. HOWEVER, ADJACENT TO COLEMAN AND FIRST STREET. THE SETBACK THE MINIMUM SETBACKS WILL BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET ON EACH ONE OF THOSE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ACQUISITION. FOR THE LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE. ALONG SECOND STREET AND ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE LANDSCAPING BUFFERS OF 15FT WILL REMAIN THE SAME, BUT ADJACENT TO FIRST STREET AND COLEMAN STREET THEY WILL BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET. FOR THE PARKING TERMINUS LANDSCAPING, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WILL BE REDUCED TO FIVE INSTEAD OF NINE FEET. AND THEN THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT WILL BE REDUCED 1% FROM 7% TO 6% OF THE LOT AREA. CONCLUSION. NOTICES WERE SENT OUT JANUARY 10TH. THAT WAS A FRIDAY. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CITIZEN RESPONSE AND TOWN STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS CASE. I WILL NOW TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE FOR ME. OH, THE APPLICANT ALSO DID WANT TO MENTION THAT WHEN THEY COME UP HERE THEY WILL TALK ABOUT LOT DEPTH AS WELL. I THINK THAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR DOWNTOWN OFFICE IS 120FT, AND THEIR SITE MAY BE A LITTLE NON-COMPLIANT WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC MINIMUM THAT THEY'LL WANT, BUT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE ADDED AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. COULD YOU GO BACK TO WITH THAT ONE IMAGE. THE ONE OTHER ONE. THAT ONE IS ACCESS FROM SECOND STREET ONTO COLEMAN. IS IT BLOCKED IN ANY WAY BY THAT ROUNDABOUT? I CAN'T TELL BY THE DRAWING ON THE TOP LEFT. OR IS SECOND STREET STILL A THROUGH STREET? TO TRAVEL WEST? YEAH. YOU SEE. SO I MEAN, YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO USE THE ROUNDABOUT TO GET THROUGH. SECOND STREET AGAIN BASED ON THAT. LIKE SO IF YOU COME BY THAT RIGHT BY WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS TO, TO THE LEFT OF THERE WHERE I COULDN'T TELL IF THAT WAS LIKE A MEDIAN WHERE YOU COULDN'T GET THROUGH ON SECOND STREET, OR WHETHER THAT'S OPEN. IT LOOKS TO BE A MEDIAN. AND MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE THE ROUNDABOUT TO GET BACK AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE OF SECOND STREET. OKAY. BUT IT'S NOT BLOCKED. NO. YOU WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO GET THERE. OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I WITH RESPECT, I THINK I INTERPRET THAT DIFFERENT. IF YOU'RE GOING WESTBOUND ON SECOND STREET, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN ON COLEMAN. I BELIEVE IT FEELS LIKE. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A GOOD CATCH, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT PERTAINS TO THE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. BUT IT IS KIND OF AN INTERESTING. CHALLENGE. IF YOU. SO WILL YOU HAVE TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN HERE. I WILL ASK THAT. YEAH. OKAY. I GOT YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MATTERS FOR THE CASE, BUT IT'S A GOOD MISTER CHAIR. I THINK MISTER MOORE CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BETTER FOR YOU, BECAUSE HE WORKED WITH THE STAFF FOR QUITE A WHILE TO COME UP WITH THIS CONFIGURATION, AND I'M SURE THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THOSE MEETINGS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE
[00:15:01]
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS MATT MOORE, ABBY COLEMAN, 301 SOUTH COLEMAN. PROPERTY OWNER. TO DAVID'S POINT, I DIDN'T REALLY WORK WITH STAFF. I WAS PRESENTED THIS AS THIS IS WHAT WAS COMING. SO IT WASN'T REALLY A WORK THROUGH. THERE IS A OBVIOUSLY A MEETING THAT CHANNELIZES TRAFFIC THAT WILL BLOCK THE ABILITY TO HEAD WEST. FROM MY SIDE OF THE STREET TO THE WEST SIDE. JUST WITH THE CHANNELIZATION THAT OCCURS WITH ROUNDABOUTS. SO THAT IS ONE STATEMENT. AS STAFF DID NOTE SOMETHING THAT DID OCCUR LATE THIS AFTERNOON IS I'M NOT REAL CLEAR ON HOW LOT DEPTH IS INTERPRETED. GIVEN THAT I HAVE THREE STREET FRONTAGES, I COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT I COULD DO LOT DEPTH OFF OF PROBABLY ALL THREE. OBVIOUSLY, IF I'M DOING LOT DEPTH OFF OF COLEMAN BACK TO MY EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, I'M FINE. DEPENDING ON WHERE WE WOULD DO IT OFF FIRST OR SECOND WITH THE CURVATURE OF THE NEW RIGHT OF WAY ON FIRST STREET.I'M GOING TO BE PROBABLY BELOW THE 120 FOOT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION. I BELIEVE IT'S A 5 TO 7 FOOT PROBABLY REDUCTION. AND AGAIN, IT'S ALL DEPENDENT ON WHERE WE WOULD TAKE THE DIMENSION OF WHERE LOT DEPTH WOULD BE CALCULATED FROM. OTHER THAN THAT, I DO APPRECIATE MR. HOOVER AND MR. HILLS WORKING WITH ME IN THE PAST MONTH AND A HALF AS WE'VE KIND OF WENT DOWN THIS PATH. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. SO WE'RE A LITTLE LATE TO GET STARTED THIS EVENING. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING? NO I DON'T. ANY QUESTIONS OVER HERE. ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS? ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, IS TO BASICALLY MEMORIALIZE THESE SETBACKS SO THAT IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN IN THIS BUILDING, THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK WITH EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE TODAY. SO IT'S THE RECONSTRUCTION. IT'S ABSOLUTELY THAT I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT MY FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN THE TOWN AND BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH WHAT I ORIGINALLY BOUGHT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR I GUESS, IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE AT THIS TIME? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WANT TO SPEAK TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. ANY OTHER MEMBERS? IF NOT, I THINK WE PROBABLY HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH WHAT WAS JUST NOTED. AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS. WHAT DO WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF REGARDING THAT THIS EVENING AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW? SO I WAS JUST CLARIFYING WITH DAVID FOR THE LOT DEPTH THAT REGULATION WOULD BE BASED OFF OF COLEMAN. WE WOULDN'T BASE IT OFF SECOND OR FIRST. SO THEY HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FROM COLEMAN. SO I DON'T THINK THAT STANDARD WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION. WOULD THAT BE WRITTEN SOMEWHERE THAT THE LOT DEPTH IS COMING IN ON COLEMAN? YEAH, WE COULD WRITE THAT IN THE STANDARDS THAT THE LOT DEATH IS COMING FROM COLEMAN. THAT WOULD MAKE EVERYONE MORE COMFORTABLE IF IT'S OFFICIALLY WRITTEN THAT WAY. OKAY. SO LET'S MAKE NOTE OF THAT WHEN WE HAVE A MOTION HERE. WELL, LET'S CLARIFY TO THE APPLICANT OR TO THE APPLICANT'S CONCERN, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU TAKE IT OFF. COLEMAN IT MAY OR MAY NOT COMPLY. IS THERE A WAY TO I THINK I THINK IT'S A VALID CONCERN. I THINK ANYWHERE ON COLEMAN SHOULD BE. YES. ANYWHERE ALONG COLEMAN SHOULD. AS LONG AS WE'RE HEADING TO THE EAST. OKAY, GREAT. AGAIN, I WAS HOPING WITH THE ADDRESS OFF OF COLEMAN, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD TAKE IT FROM. BUT IT WAS NOT CLEAR, SO I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT POINT. I THINK ANYWHERE ALONG COLEMAN, WE SHOULD BE FINE. WITH THAT 120 FOOT. SO I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION BY STAFF. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE THAT YOU WANTED CLARIFIED OR STATED AS WELL, OR ARE YOU. AS LONG AS WE CAN CLARIFY, THE LOT DEPTH WILL BE CALCULATED OFF OF COLEMAN. I THINK THAT PROBABLY ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN. SO THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD. IF NO OTHER COMMENTS AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR A MOTION ON REGULAR AGENDA? ITEM NUMBER FOUR. AND IF THERE'S NOT, I GUESS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO THE EFFECT OF SOME OF THE COMMENTARY WE'VE HAD REGARDING THE LOT DEPTH OFF COLEMAN. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SUBJECT TO THE ADDITION OF THE LOT DEPTH WRITTEN IN THAT IT'S COMING FROM SOUTH COLEMAN STREET OR THE COLEMAN STREET SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HAMILTON TO APPROVE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO HIS MOTION? SECOND. HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CARSON. ALL THOSE
[00:20:04]
IN FAVOR OF APPROVING REGULAR AGENDA? ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SUBJECT TO COMMISSIONER HAMILTON'S MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND I HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN.AND THE MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0 FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. AGENDA ITEM
[5. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.]
NUMBER FIVE REVIEW ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AND POSSIBLY DIRECT TOWN STAFF TO SCHEDULE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE MEETING. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THE PREVIOUS TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 14TH, WE DIDN'T HAVE WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING. ON THE 2ND DECEMBER MEETING FOR PNC. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ITEMS TO TAKE TO TOWN COUNCIL LAST WEEK. FOR THE FUTURE TOWN COUNCIL ITEMS, WHAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE NOTICE OF APPEALS WILL JUST BE THE PSP THAT YOU GUYS SAW TONIGHT. AND WE DID DOUBLE NOTICE THIS CASE. SO THIS CASE WILL ALSO BE ON THE TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. FOR PNC. THE NEXT PNC MEETING BEFORE WE WILL HAVE OUR JOINT WORK SESSION ON FEBRUARY 4TH. THE AGENDA WILL BE THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, THE CONSULTANTS. WE'RE GOING TO BRING A PRESENTATION TO YOU TO PRESENT WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING. AND YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH IT WITH COUNCIL AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORTH IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THEN FOR THE FUTURE PNC ITEMS, I THINK THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BE HAVING A CONSENT AGENDA FOR THAT MEETING. I DON'T THINK ANY REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. SO IT SHOULD BE FAIRLY LIGHT. SO REGARDING THAT JOINT WORK SESSION, WHAT WAS THE START TIME ON THAT? AGAIN I KNOW WE'VE GOT IT IN OUR EMAIL BUT.OKAY. YEAH SORRY. IT'LL START AT FIVE. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO HOURS SET ASIDE FOR IT BECAUSE WE'RE EXPECTING A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND, AND QUESTIONS FROM, FROM. AND THERE'S WILL BE 14 OF YOU. SO YOU KNOW, TWICE AS MANY AS WHAT MIGHT NORMALLY BE THE CASE. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE REGULAR MEETING AT SEVEN. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE MORE LIKE ZONING CASES OR THINGS. WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND MANAGE THAT PROCESS TO JUST HAVE CONSENT SO YOU WON'T BE THERE TOO MUCH LONGER AFTER THE 7:00. BUT. THAT'S THE PLAN. FEBRUARY 4TH. RIGHT? YES, SIR. I WILL NOT BE THERE ON THAT DAY. I'LL BE OUT OF THE COUNTRY. RESCHEDULE ALL 14 OF US. I CAN DIAL IN IF I WANT. OKAY. MAKE THAT 13. WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME NOW. YEAH.
SINCE IT'S 30 MINUTES AT LEAST. JUST CURIOSITY. YOU KNOW, A FEW MONTHS BACK, WE HAD AN APPLICATION OR AN APPLICANT COME IN REGARDING MODIFICATION TO THE GATES. FUTURE PHASES. WHERE IS THAT AT IN THE PROCESS? ACTUALLY, IT'S STILL IN DISCUSSION. THE APPLICANTS HAD GOTTEN A COUPLE OF REVISIONS TO WHAT THE SITE PLAN PROPOSAL WAS, BASED ON SOME COMMENTS THAT HAD BEEN RECEIVED ALONG THE WAY IN VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS, AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE EITHER OF THOSE TWO, SO THEY SENT IT BACK, AND IT'S BEEN REDONE A THIRD TIME NOW. SO I KIND OF THOUGHT WE'D HAVE THEM TOWARDS THE END OF JANUARY, BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE PROBABLY THE END OF FEBRUARY. I PERSONALLY, I THINK THEY'RE GETTING BETTER. I GUESS THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN BY PNC AND COUNCIL. BUT BUT I DO THINK THAT THAT IT'S, IT'S TURNING INTO A MUCH BETTER DEVELOPMENT. NOT THAT IT WAS BAD IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK MOST OF THE TIME THINGS CAN ALWAYS BE MADE BETTER. SO REGARDING THAT JOINT WORK SESSION, ARE WE GOING TO GET ANY MATERIALS AHEAD OF TIME TO REVIEW GOING INTO IT? WE WILL GET SOME THINGS TO YOU. YES, BUT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE CODE. I MEAN, THIS IS A WORK SESSION THAT REALLY IS SCHEDULED TO BE AN EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING SIDE. AND SO YOU'LL SEE PROBABLY OUTLINES AND SORT OF PRELIMINARY INFORMATION. BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A WHOLE CODE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO MAKE COMMENTS ON AT THAT MEETING. SO YOU'LL HAVE SOME. BUT THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO TAKE PROBABLY ANOTHER 90 DAYS. SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE PARTS AS THEY'RE GETTING PUT TOGETHER. IT'S A COMBINATION OF PUTTING ALL OF OUR REGULATIONS TOGETHER.
RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT OUR VARIOUS CODES, AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR MORE TIMES THAN NOT, IT'S VERY HARD TO FIND IT TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. AND THEN SECONDLY, IT'S AN UPDATE OF SOME OF THE OTHERS BESIDES JUST PLANNING AND ZONING RELATED AND SUBDIVISION. IT'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT. POTENTIALLY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM THE
[00:25:01]
BUILDING AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS NOT RELATED TO THEIR SPECIFIC CODES, BUT TO THE ONE SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES MOVING PARTS TO IT, WHICH IS WHY TRYING TO SPREAD IT OUT AND HAVE A COUPLE OF MEETINGS. BUT THIS THIS FIRST ONE IS REALLY PRIMARILY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL ARE KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED AND WHY WE'RE HEADED, THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING, AND THEN SOME, SOME BEGINNING INFORMATION OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE INVOLVED. ALL RIGHT. GOOD DEAL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS ADJOURNED. ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO WE HAVE A. WELL, THANK YOU. MAKING THAT PUBLIC. OKAY. I MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A I WAS GOING TO SAY IT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JACKSON TO ADJOURN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE MULTIPLE SECONDS FROM COMMISSIONER FURAY. COMMISSIONER HARRIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THE MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. WE ARE* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.