Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you for being a to make it out to the city of Aken Planning Commission meeting tonight. And before we get started, there are some guidelines that I would like to go over. As I reminded myself, I wanted to make sure I have my cell phone turned off or placed on silent. The rules that we need to go over for the meeting. Meetings are public forums in which many opinions are expressed and the businesses of the city must be conducted. As such, discipline, honorable and professional quorum is paramount. Courtesy and respectful communication is required during public hearing. All questions and statement for the public shall be directed to the chair. If you wish to speak, raise your hand and I will recognize you. Please approach the podium and state your name and address in order to allow an opportunity for everyone who wishes to address the planning commission. Speakers should be limit their comments to the subject being discussed. Each speaker will be given five minutes to address an issue and may only address an issue once unless questions from the planning commission are posed to the speaker. Our first item on the agenda for the night is approving the minutes.

It's been moved, excuse me, by Commissioner Carman as well as second by Commissioner Connor. Are there any questions? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand. Motion carried. One or two absent.

There are no old business. We'll move right into the new business. Applica, excuse me, application number 2620 and exation requests. Applicant Laura O' Conwell, location 1117 Conger Drive. The current zoning is RC. Proposed city zoning is RS15. Are there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone here that would like to speak against this applicant? Okay, back to the commissioners. Uh, Mr. Chairman, in regards to application uh 26-200020, annexation request current zoning RZ RC proposed zoning RS15. I make a motion that we move to city council for approval.

Second. Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson and second by Commissioner EPS that application number 26 20002 200020 annexation request be sent to city council for approval. Are there any questions? We're ready for the vote. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand. Motion carried. Item B, application number 262021, request by Michael and Judy Reich for annexation of85 acres on 2065 Pine Log Road, tax partial number 089-11-18-003 from residential single family conservation to residential single family RS15. Are there anyone here that want to speak in favor of this application? Anyone who here who oppose this application? Okay, back to the commissions. I move that we forward this to the city council. recommendation of approval for application number 262000221 uh for the property located on at 2065 Pine Log Road.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Carman, second by Commissioner Connor. Application number 26-200021 2065 Pine Law Road be sent to city council for approval. Are there any questions? We're ready for the vote. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand. Motion carried. Unanimous. Next application on the agenda, item C, current zoning, excuse me, RC, residential proposed multif family highdensity application number 26-200 22 location Thorough Thoroughbred Run Powder House Road and Old Powder House Road and tributed Parkway right away in tax partial number 122-11- 03-02 and portions of number 122-11- 08- 010 003 004 005 009 and 011. Once again, proposed city zoning, residential, multif family, high density, and the current zoning is single family conservation. Are there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Come forward and state your name, please.

Hi, I'm Justin Lines. I live at 3010 Old Powder House Road where one of the parcels is adjacent to or technically it's on our property. Well, not our property. It's yours. Um, we have no objection. We have no objection to this. We like it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of this applicant, Mr. Chairman, before we um hear any more public comment, since this is regarding maps and whatnot, can we switch to the corresponding slide? Thank Thank you. Apologize for the interruption. Oh, no problem. Thank you.

Oh, that's better than what we found. Anyone else would like to speak in favor of this applicant? Anyone who would like to speak in opposed to this? Come forward. State your name, please, sir.

Yeah. I'm Dr. Bob Vampeld. I reside at 303 Southbank Drive. I'm president of the Mard Lake Homeowners Association, and I'm speaking for our subdivision. We urge the city to pause this and reconsider the annexation. This doesn't we don't believe it aligns with the Aken comprehensive plan. Okay. As the plan includes prioritizing quality of life but also natural resources and habitats. This area will be a devastating loss of old growth forest wetlands and impact to the lot of wildlife in the area. You have deer, cockaded woodpeckers, fox, you have uh eagles. It's a tremendous area for wildlife and it keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller areas with all the work that's being done over there for phase one. All right. Um and it's just going to add more congestion. This whole phase two is going to add more congestion on whiskey and also on these pylons. So it's not going to serve anything. Let's face that. I've been here 35 years and I've se I can speak to that. And why do you need bicycle pass and a median? No other road in Aken is like this. Okay. No one with common sense is going to ride bicycles on East Pine Log or Whiskey and cut across through here. Just don't do that unless you want to take your life in your hands. One of the city employees told me that for federal money for this project, it requires to have a median and bicycle pass. Now, I I question that and as a city resident, I request to see that and write it. And I'm asking the city to verify this and provide feedback at the next meeting when it goes to city council. Okay. If you look at the bypass that was supposed to help relieve traffic, what do they do? They put this path in there that essentially no one uses when it could have been used to help alleviate traffic. So, that was money wasted. All right. Thanks for your time.

Thank you, sir. You have a question? I have a question. I I your concern is with the the parkway. We're concerned with the with the the devastation also in the wetlands that you're looking to annex. Okay. Because what is in front of us is simply an annexation of the property the city has bought. We're not really approving it. We're not approving the parkway uh itself. And I'm not I must admit I' I've been on this for a few months and I'm not exactly sure what that process is, but I've I thought maybe that's already been decided by the city council at some point. I don't know.

But all we're being asked to do is is an annexation. We're not okay agreeing. The city already owns the property, right? Uh so we're not today voting on yes or no for the parkway itself. Just understood. But I again we're just expressing our concerns. This is a forum. This is on on online here. So we want to express our concerns about that area since we live right there. And that's what my next question is. Could you kind of show me where your subdivision is? So I understand

right here you back up to thorough bread. Okay. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the chair?

Anyone else would like to speak against us? Come forward, sir. So, I just want to share um first of all, Steuart Fowler, 1749 Powder House Road, Southeast, Aken County. Um for context, that location is between Mount Harris Baptist Church and the sanctuary community, that attractive land there. So, my wife and I began building our home in March of 2021. During our building process, we never experienced water runoff onto our property from adjacent properties, nor did water shed from our property onto adjacent properties. our property has held its water. I have an email here from Stuart on city council dated February 5th, 2021 in which Stuart states that he met with county engineer, city engineer Rick Tulle, and JMT regarding the impact of the Whiskey Road storm water project on parcel B. At that time, in the context of the map, parcel B was our property. I quote from the email, none of the storm water project plans impact parcel B per county engineer Terresa Crane, city engineers John P and Mike P, and city count city consulting engineer Rick Tulle. In September to 2024, approximately 7 inches of rainfall occurred with Hurricane Helen. Not one drop of water was released from the 18inch covert from the powderhouse connector property onto 1749 Powder House. Seven inches of rain, not one drop of water. I have a copy of the plat here. Also, we've experienced flooding on May 12th, 2025, which I've met with city council. I've met with the county. I've met with people at the state. The county tells me to talk to the city because I'm the county. The county tells me to talk. It's vice versa. County says go talk to the city. City tells me go talk to the county. At the June 23rd city council meeting held in these chambers, Keith Lawrence spoke on the storm water issue related to the powderhouse connector. He said it was a requirement to release less storm

water once land is developed. He went on to say it was illegal to increase drainage. He then explained that the May 12th flooding event was due to extremely heavy rainfall that occurred with cutting in the retention ponds for the powerhouse connector. So, um, at the time, a local resident spoke about the issue. Keith offered to fly a drone over the area to better explore it, and the city council said they would stay on top of the water runoff and storm water drainage as a result of the overall powerhouse connector. Aken has received little rainfall in the meantime. So, fast forward to February 27th, Aken received three inches of rain over the 36 hours. Now, remember May 12th, my property was flooded for days on end. that 18inch culvert. What happens is all this water comes up and dams against powderhouse. You can't see it if you drive by because of the wood line and the bottom of those woods. It's about six foot deep. My little 18-inch cover will run until all that water is released. So, we had a flooding event May 12th, 2025. February 27th, 2026, we had a 3-in rainfall. Again, a week of flooding through my property. I sent an email with a PowerPoint documenting this. And on Sunday, March 1st, Stuart replied that staff will be out to address the issue on 32. No other updates have been offered since, and we received very little rain. Also, please consider addressing storm water and runoff issues before approving additional annexation and zoning changes request within the overall footprint of the powerhouse connector. And the flooding is significant. I can't use half of my property for days on end. I get equipment stuck down there. Here's the water damned up against the powder house connector. Goes go jump in it. It's about 6 foot deep. And here's the drainage ditch coming off the retention ponds. And my house is on it's a 20ft creek, 20 foot wide creek that flows immediately to the face of my property and

ultimately goes to that drain. So every drop of water that comes off that property flows through my property and then I flood everybody behind me. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Any questions from the commissioner? Anyone else that would like to speak against this application? My name is Todd Stil. I live at 1982 Banksmail Road. Everything that happens to his land ends up on my land. And I guess I start with, you know, you made the remark that you're just here to approve annexation. Well, that's the beginning of part of the problem. Right now it's single. Now it's going to be double or multi. So basically that's just additional water. Where is it going to go? I have been doing this for about three or four years and lived at 1982 Banks Road since 1984. Didn't have this flooding problem. In the past four or five years, at least probably nine to 12 times a year, I have three to five acres of flooded land that I can't use. And I almost had need a lifeguard. Technically speaking, I should have a fence around because it's I could drive a boat across it half the time. And all this water is coming from the city, the state, the county, whoever. It's all the water's coming down to my house based on city council, county council, your engineers, everybody's engineers saying we're using the most stringent, you know, um, numbers to restrict how much water can come off the land. Well, if that's all being done, why am I having three to five acres 10 times a year? If any one of y'all lived in a neighborhood and you're representing people, what you're doing right now, and you had three to

five acres surrounding your house and there was two, three feet of water for four or five days, 10 times a year, your neighbors would be complaining like hell. That's what I'm dealing with. So, for you to annex this from single to multi, you are adding to the problem. It starts with y'all. And I mean, I'm blaming y'all this day forward. And I told the city council, the county council, they're they're at fault. Everybody says, "Well, this is the past." Well, you're sitting here today, so now the onus is on y'all. Any questions? I just have a comment. It sounds like the concern is that this natural land there's no obligation as natural land to control that once it gets touched then the obligation to direct water comes into place. So I I'm a little bit confused by the complaints here because what you're saying is don't change this yet we have all this flooding. Well, okay. Right now there's no water. I'm in the landscape contracting business for the last 48 years. I deal with this every single day. And my clients are responsible for what water runs off their property. And you have so much can one off basically normal runoff. I can deal with that. But the problem is is no one's restricting or containing their water and letting it off at a rate. If it was so well done, then why am I in the past three to five years gone from no flooding to now I have three to five acres on a regular basis of flooded land.

I understand your concern. So this raw land right now as it sits if it's zoned single family, let's just start with that. X amount of houses are going to shed X amount of water. You reszone this more houses, more asphalt, more roofs. Right now, the sanctuary, every single bit of the water from the sanctuary ends up on my property 100%. They even didn't even split that water left and like they should have when it was nothing was on it. I got flooded. Now, every lot has asphalt, sod, and roof shingles. And every bit of that water is flooding the sanctuary retention pond. It's flooding my property on day one.

All right. Let me let me just clarify here. The intention is for this property to be annexed into the city so that it could be a rideway or it's it's not intended to be a development with multiple houses on it. Well, any any type of any any then why is it being why we why are we here today? The reason behind it why we're here today is to change the zoning, but it's not a a no zoning. It's going to be no zoning. It's going to really be the rightway. So it's not gonna have a zoning too.

Even put in a road any any any work that's been done like the gentleman before no water ever came on our property. But ever since they put in the gigantic lakes, the water as soon as it comes in, the water's coming across onto our property. So, whatever happens, whatever moves this forward to allow it to be able to do other things is adding to the property, adding to my property being flooded one way or another. If this doesn't change and it's such a non-issue, why are we changing it? Well, it's the the petition is for it to be annexed in the city so that it could be right away for the the city for the for the extender.

We have to give it a if we're annexing a property, we have to give it a designation. The designation that we've decided on is or that we're overseeing now is RMH. So, we have to give it a designation if it's coming into the city. It's coming into the city for the rideway, which is the adjacent property designation that's already part of the city. Do we have that other map? And and real quick, too, when it comes to when it comes to density, um, right? RH is the is the uh as well.

This is not this what we're doing, this piece of land here is not going to add to any more water coming out of my property. That's that's not what is the question before us. The question is, is this an appropriate annexation for it to be a rideway for Well, okay. If you do not annex this tonight, then then then basically if I do get water, it's not y'all's fault because you didn't annex it. So, I'm saying don't annex it. If that slows the process down, so be it. Sounds like you have a problem. Well, I the problem's not getting any better. It's getting worse.

And there are there is recourse. If in fact property is water is being directed to your property, there's recourse. And you know that as a landscape architecture that's here right now, right?

But I don't feel as though I have to hire a lawyer to sue all these entities. And that's been recommended by a number of people, but I'll be damned if I'm hiring another lawyer to sue the city, the state, the county, whoever. Y'all, it's it's every time we're making accommodations to further this development. I'm all for development, but be responsible for what you're doing. And everybody keeps telling me, everybody's being responsible. I'm doing our job. I'm doing this, but everybody takes their widget and keeps kicking the can or opening doors.

Well, this property more water every time it rains. This property presently is not part of the city. So if this is the problem, the city would not be the appropriate person to bring the claim if it's going through this track. Once it becomes part of the city, then that's who you would blame. If again, water comes off of this and is directed toward I'm just on the record that if you don't approve this, then then that then that just one less thing that I've got to worry about. You approve it, then it's going to move forward and that's going to add to my problem eventually. What you approve tonight eventually is going to be a problem for me because somebody else is going to wiggle it through. Wiggle it through. Wiggle it through. So, you're adding to my problem.

Now, what we approve tonight, we will be a recommending body going to city council. You have a voice again in city council if you do not agree with what we approve tonight. So, your your other option would be to go to city council. And again, the only thing we're trying to prove tonight is because the city we're designating the land as far as a rightaway. Well, then I would appreciate that. So, another part of it is, you know, one of the things we remind each other of is the decorum that we ask everybody to have professionalism. So, if you don't mind, I would just ask you when we're speaking, let's keep the language to something that will be accommodating to every person that is here.

If you don't mind. Um well then then all I ask is that make a point here a side note that needed to be cautious of what they're going to do with and we we're looking at that and we appreciate your comments and I hate to say but your time is up. We have another person. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman, I think one thing that needs to be kind of considered is that this is an annexation request. It's not even required to be annexed for the for the parkway to go forward. So, if we were to deny annexation, that wouldn't have any impact on the Parkway. It wouldn't. It this is it's just this is almost just cleaning up some uh

um it does actually it does need to be annexed because it will become our parkway. Therefore, we need to have it within the city so that we can actually we can work on it. We can construct it. Okay. It has to be within It has to be connected. Okay. Well, I was wrong, Mr. Chairman. Um having this annex then puts the earnest on the city to correct those issues that you are having on your property. Uh like you stated right now you're looking at a problem to where is bouncing back between city and county. If this parcel is annexing to the city now that gives you some leeway to speak directly to the city versus bouncing between all type of entities to do so.

That's right. It becomes very clear who controls that at that point. A quick pause here. I I'm all about dialogue, all about conversation, but public hearing, you know, for hearing from the citizens and might want to get back to that and then we can, you know, discuss amongst ourselves a little bit later. Okay. All right. Butch Robertson, 1842 Banksville Road. Butch, thank you.

Yeah. So, I just want to clarify a couple of things. Um, I'm getting us water, too. But as far as the annexation goes, uh, the pond at Malard Lake, which is owned by the city, Mara, I'm correct on that. Correct. That's where all the water's coming from. So, the city issue, the the drainage that's coming out of the uh pond on in Malard Lake, and we've met with numerous staff members. I've met with Stuart. We have the slides, we have the videos, we have the drone footage. It's coming out of Malard Lake because we're dumping more and more water into Malard Lake and then it's going down Woodward. Now, Maybomb, you may remember, annexed the property, uh the large parcel that's off of Thoroughbred down at the bottom. And to my understanding now after talking about the water and all uh Maybomb is pulled back from doing that development. So I'm not sure other than what I just heard that we have to have it annexed for the city to do work. I thought that this was uh state funding. So but I'm not sure why we have to keep annexing property. We need to pause and get everybody at one table and figure out what we're doing before we put more things into one place. So, that's all I have to say.

Thank you. We do have the city engineer here, Mr. Thomas. We've met with him before and the rest of staff. So, thank you. Yes, ma'am. I think Can you come to the podium, please, ma'am, and state your name? Thank you.

Um, Gail Wilkinson, 1614 Powder House Road, and I just came because I tried to find out some information about because it said Tribute Parkway, part two. And I was like, well, what is part one and we're in a neighborhood and I'm wondering where these I tried to get maps and I don't know how I can access them. and they said go to the city of Aken site and look on the development plan. And that was going down a whole whole long hole this afternoon trying to figure it out. But uh my concern is you know you did say I think um he said that he was concerned about the water and that and one of you commented that that that might not be a problem because not not his not a problem but it might not be a problem whether they annexed or not because it doesn't affect the the um thing between Whiskey Road and Powder House the Powder House connector So is am I understanding if you annex a powder house connector is going to be coming through thoroughbred run oria glenn.

Yes, that's correct. It is. So we're like a neighborhood right through here. If you're interested in the plans, you can you can reach out and in fact I can give you my card to the planning department and uh we can we can get you an actual map. Okay, that would be really helpful because you know I've been told that the woods behind our house are the last remaining unused land and I thought yeah unused for about 150 years we have a lot of things that use it they may not be human but and that so but yeah I think obviously if you you should see the layout of the the parkway itself so you know where it's actually going

because I have seen that previously but it's kind of been like a like a little step and a little step and we're not sure here and we're not sure here and so every all of us in the neighborhood are concerned what they said of course you're going to the meeting and of course I would but thank you very much for I know I said little but I just need to ask some questions how get access just just reach out to the planning department we'll get something okay I will certainly do that thank you very much thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition

my name's is Dale Gunter. I live at 147 Woodwardia Glenn. I've lived in that area since I was 13 years old. I've seen the worst of it. Uh we fought for 30 years and got it under control a little bit. Now we're taking a big step backwards. Folks, I hear you about the annexation. you're just here to decide on that. But let me tell you, if we annex it, that gives the city a blank check of what they can do with it. And we, me and my neighbors, we oppose that. We oppose giving them a blank check. We ask you to please consider not exiting. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Okay, we're back to the planning commissioners. Back to the planning of commissions.

Uh, Mr. Mr. Chairman, in regards to application number 26-200022, um, current annexation request, current zoning RZ, proposed zoning RH, I, uh, make a motion that we move to city council for approval. And, um, to kind of kick off some conversation here, Maria, I know there's been a been a couple of questions about, you know, water runoff, usage, things like that. Can you just give a quick brief about this to, you know, address some of these? I may have to turn to to Thomas to get us a better uh history of what's happening.

I'm just going to make a few comments. I I know I'm not going to address everybody's concerns um behind me, but um and again, I'm Thomas Parrot. I'm the director of engineering utilities. A few things I do want to address. the first gentleman from Maler Lakes, he's he actually spoke to me. Um what I told him was that this project has met all federal requirements. So it had to go through the full permitting process, NEPA and everything related to it. So as far as the wetlands and all that, all that was addressed in that um that it was because of the roadway and everything related to it, it does require having bike facilities and pedestrian facilities. Did not say that it was required to have a median. um that is a a design parameter that came out of the the whole process. Um so just want to set that straight. Um we did have a great conversation um through that whole thing. So I I know again it's nobody's favorite thing and I'm not advocating here for it. I'm just here speaking about it. Um so as far as the flooding issues um and the responsible obviously it will be designed to meet all requirements from our storm water both um local state and federal um and be responsible for making sure that our water meets the those release requirements. Um, as far as the their their their issues that they're having, um, they they are within a blue line stream and that is where the water goes. I we will never stop the water. Water has to go where it has to go and that is the drainage way um through through their properties. So, in that instance, that's really the the main points I wanted to make. If you guys had any other questions about that, does that address what you guys

Well, for the specific parcels of issue, is there any concern that converting this from natural to I mean, there's the proposed roadway as designed that that's going to increase this

again. All that be is addressed in the design. So, it'll be captured in a storm sewer system, routed through ponds, and then released at a a rate that was the same that it was prior. Does that make sense? So, it'll release at the same rate for for design storms for um this is on for 2, 10, 25, 100year um storm events, and it will release at the same rate that it was during during that same time. So no additional u volume will be um put on people that wasn't already going that way. So it's not like we're directing water is already going there.

Well to the extent that's not true there is recourse. I mean absolutely. Yeah. Could could you could you maybe talk about the recourse? We understand, but we we want to keep the order here and most folks have already spoken. So, we going to let the city engineer speak and it's already back to the commissioners. We've already went over the guidelines. So, if we'll govern ourselves accordingly. We very much appreciate it. Well, I think something that would just real quick something that would really help is can you please describe what recourse process there could be if there is runoff that shouldn't be going on? Like what what is the process that people should go through? non-environmental lawyer. Okay.

So, no, I I couldn't speak directly, but there are opportunities. There's no internal process within the city. Um, as far as what exactly you're asking any recourse process for for additional run through their property? Yeah. Yeah. I mean again they would file a complaint and then we would now if if this went through now if if this went through we would be we would have to make sure that for this property no additional water runoff would go. So that would be we can't enforce it for someone else but we can't enforce it for us. That would be the responsibility of the city. Yes. If that's what you're asking to make sure that no additional water is going okay through. We're not having more water leave our site than it was already leaving the site.

Gotcha. my and our concern is this specific parcel. I mean, so for this particular parcel or these parcels that are part of this petition, uh my my question is simply is there anything about the nature of the request made before us that you as an engineer don't believe can be appropriately handled through the required practices associated with storm water treatment? No. No. There's nothing unique about this parcel that makes it extremely challenging or that there's going to be because of the slope of the land or the nature of the the existing cover or whatever that we're going to be dumping. No, I mean significant volumes as if this is converted to roadway,

right? No, there's there's nothing I mean again it goes through a design process to to handle all the storm water to make sure that it's released at the same rate. That's all I could say. Are we changing the conditions? Absolutely. I mean, that's part of development and and that's not for me to decide whether or not this gets developed. So, what uh additional measures are just going in place to uh keep it I guess the water being released at the same rate that it's currently being released like uh you stated that it'll be going in the storm drains. Is there

retention? be captured from the roadways, go through a storm water pond, it'll be be treated for um for that runoff. So, it's got to be retained for a certain amount of time um to make sure that you know everything settles out. Um so, we'll treat the water and then it'll release at the um pre-developed rates. So, is that like an additional basin or what? Yeah, there's there'll be two ponds associated with this. Um one of them is that larger square area. Okay. Um, can you can you can you just give us a brief overview of kind of how this is going to look

and is that on existing city property? Yeah, those are those on city properties and they'll they'll go again to the natural drainage way which is that larger strip that that's the outfall for M Lake and that drainage area for that whole basin. So any drop of water that hits within that red area right now, it all goes to that same area and that's where the water will end up going to maintain the water that the city will be and as undeveloped there is no existing retention. No happening right now. It's not but obviously again I mean I don't really want to get into hydraulics hydraology but we we are changing the landscape which is why we have to put in the ponds to be able to hold it back to the way it was before.

Yes sir. That strip that kind of heads up to the northwest. Is that the natural drainage out of Malard Lake? Yeah, that's already city property and that's our drainage way. We actually have a sewer line in there as well. Again, no development is going to occur on that property per I take it. No, absolutely not. Okay. You heard these concerns about multiple with this zoning at least identified the RH about a lot of different houses coming in here. I mean, is there for this property in question? Is there any intention for the city to actually develop this? Absolutely. Beyond the rideway of the and the roads.

Correct. No. No. It'll as as Mario mentioned, it's kind of administrative aspect right now. It'll come in the city. It has to come in with some type of zoning. I know you guys were talking earlier about no zoning. I don't know if that's an option. That's Mario's purview. Um, but once it's once it's built, then it'll turn into right away. So, it won't actually have a zone. So, Any other questions from the commission? Are you of the opinion that I don't give opinions, but I'll answer. Go ahead.

The proposed design um would potentially address any of the concerns that that have been presented tonight. Will it address the concerns? I I couldn't make that opinion. I I can't give you an opinion on that whether or not it'll address the concerns, but it m but it must it mitigate the flow mitigate the development. Everything anything related to the road development will be mitigated through storm water measures. That's right.

As far as mitigating that, that's a different whole different ball of wax. No. And no, this would not necessarily mitigate it. Could it? and what it it it it should in the long run partly because we will be um holding and retaining water um on our ponds, but I mean that's I can't tell you what what what that would actually do or change.

Well, what you can say is my qu my question is can you say that by developing this in the fashion that you're the city is requesting that They will have an obligation to retain any waters that are that result in runoff from this uh change in use. Yeah. Retain and release right at the previous at the pre-develop rate.

Any other questions from the commissioner? Thank you, sir. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second.

All right. Thank you, sir. We have a motion and it's been made by Commissioner Clarks, second by Commissioner Lyset on application number 26-200022. The current zoning RC proposed city zoning is RH. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Well, I guess I'm a little confused where it's saying residential multif family would be the proposed zoning, but it also says in the memo zoning designations needed for the parkway. So, I'm a little confused about why we're designating,

which ultimately we don't have to. That's what I was saying. It could be no zoning because it's going to all going to be part of the ride of way. Okay. So So I I would we we could just the motion to absolutely re I mean Yeah. What Mr. Clark? Yeah. Absolutely. Make that uh make that amendment. So we're amending it to say no zoning have no zoning understanding that the entire parcel be used is right. Correct. Okay, I'll second the amendment if that's required. Okay, so you want to resubmit proceed

um regard uh Mr. Chairman, regards to application number 26-20002 annexation request. Um current zoning um RC proposed zoning nothing. Um I make a motion that we move to city council for approval and I'll second that motion. Okay, thank you. That's honestly a first for me. No sir. All right. Commissioner, I would just like to say

move that we move on application number 26-200022 and commissioner Lyset that we send this to city council and the zoning is no zoning. All in favor let it be known by raising your hand. Okay. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda is application number 26 6007 request by city of Aken to reszone 111 acres at 346 Columbia Avenue Northwest tax partial 12-13-25-00001 from general business GB to residential s single family. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application?

Anyone here that like to speak against this application? Okay, back to the commissioners. Mr. Chairman, in regards to application 2660 600 07 um parcel number 121325 01. I make a motion to to approve.

I'll second.

Okay. In regards to application number 26-60007 and this is another reszone request from general business to residential single family. It's been moved by commissioner eps second by commissioner lyset. Are we ready for the question? All in favor it be known by raising your hand. Next item on the agenda is item E, application number 26 60008, request by Jeffrey Ellis on behalf of the W the Willcott vacation rentals and this is from excuse me residential current zoning residential multif family low density to proposed zoning downtown business. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application?

You don't have to. No, sir. Anyone here that would like to speak against this application? Okay. Back to the commissioners. Mr. Mr. Chairman, in reference to application 26-6008 1717 Bolton Avenue Southwest, I recommend the residential multif family low density um change to the proposed downtown business DB and I rep recommend that we send this to the council for approval.

Second. Okay, it's been moved and by Commissioner Lyset and second by Commissioner EPS that application number 2660008 current zoning RML proposed zoning DB that we send this to city council. Are we ready for the court? All in favor by raise your hand. Motion carried unanimous. The next application item F, application number 26 600 09. And this is a request coming from the media spar for the reszoning from current zoning limited professional to pro zoning limited business. Are there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone here to speak against this application? Back to the commissioners. I move that we u recommend to the council the approval of application number 266009 reszoning the property uh at 1518 Two Notch Road from limited professional to limited business per the request.

Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Carman, second by Commissioner Eps. Application number 26-60009, current zoning LP, proposed zoning, limited business, location 15182 Road. Are we ready for the the vote? All in favor, let be known by race. Okay. And the next item that we have on the list is the amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding destination categories for properties located within the historical overlay district. Anyone here to speak against it? Anyone here to speak in favor of it? Back to the commissioners. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the uh DRB's request to amend the zoning ordinance regarding historic registry property designation, I would ask that we table this motion uh until the next meeting uh with input and review from the DRB along with our planning commissioner group um before we put this to a vote.

I'll second that. And just in terms of discussion, I'd like to add in our work session, we had some questions um including uh one uh as we know there's a review that's ongoing right now that will hopefully remedy this issue. Um we have a process in place uh that does allow for uh designations through the planning commission to be made. We've seen that happen a few times u in the last year or so. um some with and some without controversy, but there's certainly a process in place that seems to work. Um my question would be what inventory is there of existing properties that don't have a designation? That's one thing I would like to know. Also, in terms of the this u uh final paragraph of the proposed amendment, the ability to pause the process uh seems unilateral on the part of the DRB. And I've got some concerns as to what the right of the petitioner who's seeking the um review has if they disagree and what their recourse is to to to appeal or move the process forward.

Uh you know since there's no explanation of what that pause would look like. So those are some of the questions I would have before approving this. Any other comments from the commissioners? Um, just say that I completely agree with the questions within. Yeah, I would ask the planning director to forward those questions to the DRB for review and then report back to this commission before we would set it to a vote. Okay. Absolutely. Get a second. Second that. You second. Yeah. Yeah.

Commissioner Connor and L. All right. On the last item on the agenda for the amendment to the or the zoning ordinance. It's been moved by excuse me, Commissioner Lasset, second by Commissioner Connor that we tabled this with information going back to the DRBs for his inventory destination as well as the planning department would write up all the questions and we'll come back for review. Is that correct? All right. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand. Okay. Motion carried unanimous. Now we have a motion to dismiss. I make that motion. Second.

It's been moved and probably seconds. Thank you gentlemen's for your time and I appreciate all the comments. Yeah, look.